سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

زمانی, سید قاسم, حسینی آزاد, ُسید علی, زحمتکش, مجید. (1402). تأثیر آراء دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر بر نظام‌های حقوقی داخلی دولت‌های عضو. , 26(102), 35-60. doi: 10.48308/jlr.2021.183991.1387
سید قاسم زمانی; ُسید علی حسینی آزاد; مجید زحمتکش. "تأثیر آراء دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر بر نظام‌های حقوقی داخلی دولت‌های عضو". , 26, 102, 1402, 35-60. doi: 10.48308/jlr.2021.183991.1387
زمانی, سید قاسم, حسینی آزاد, ُسید علی, زحمتکش, مجید. (1402). 'تأثیر آراء دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر بر نظام‌های حقوقی داخلی دولت‌های عضو', , 26(102), pp. 35-60. doi: 10.48308/jlr.2021.183991.1387
زمانی, سید قاسم, حسینی آزاد, ُسید علی, زحمتکش, مجید. تأثیر آراء دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر بر نظام‌های حقوقی داخلی دولت‌های عضو. , 1402; 26(102): 35-60. doi: 10.48308/jlr.2021.183991.1387

تأثیر آراء دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر بر نظام‌های حقوقی داخلی دولت‌های عضو

فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی
مقاله 2، دوره 26، شماره 102، 1402، صفحه 35-60    اصل مقاله (363.03 K)
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.48308/jlr.2021.183991.1387
نویسندگان
سید قاسم زمانی1؛ ُسید علی حسینی آزاد* 2؛ مجید زحمتکش3
1استاد،دانشکده حقوقو علوم سیاسی دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی
2دانشجوی دکتری حقوق بین الملل دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.(نویسنده مسئول).
3دانش آموخته دکتری حقوق بین الملل دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد نجف آباد، نجف آباد ،ایران.
چکیده
دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر که بر اساس کنوانسیون اروپایی حقوق بشر پای به عرصه‌ی وجود نهاد، مرجع نظارتی بر حقوقی است که در کنوانسیون اروپایی حقوق بشر برای اتباع دول عضو کنوانسیون به رسمیت شناخته شده است. دعاوی مطروحه نزد دیوان در طول حیات پنجاه و اندی ساله‌اش، بیشتر در شکل دعاوی افراد علیه دولت‌ها بوده است و این امر باعث شده است که دولت‌ها مواجه با یک سری تصمیمات حقوق بشری شوند که همسویی با آن‌ها برای دولت‌های مزبور الزامی بوده است. از اینرو دیده می-شود که دیوان قادر است نظر به جایگاه و اختیاراتی که دارد موجب اثرگذاری بر نظام‌های داخلی کشورهای عضو شود. دیوان مزبور تأثیراتی را از حیث ساختاری، نهادی، قانون‌گذاری، اجرایی و قضایی بر نظام‌ حقوق بشر داخلی کشورهای عضو شورای اروپا نهاده است. هرچند میزان اثرگذاری کیفی دیوان بر ارتقا نظام حقوق بشر داخلی قابل انتقاد به نظر می‌رسد، اما از حیث هنجاری، دیوان تأثیرات شگرفی را بر کارایی مقررات کنوانسیون در نظام‌های داخلی داشته و از این جهت موجبات پویایی و کارآمدی هرچه بیشتر سند مزبور را فراهم آورده است.
کلیدواژه‌ها
دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر؛ کنوانسیون اروپایی حقوق بشر؛ شورای اروپا؛ مراجع منطقه‌ای حقوق بشری
عنوان مقاله [English]
Impacts of European Court of Human Rights’ Judgments on the Member States’ National Legal systems
نویسندگان [English]
S. Ghasem Zamani1؛ A. Ali Hosseiniazad2؛ Majid Zahmatkesh3
1Professor of Law . , Allameh Tabatabai University
2Ph.DCandidateof International law, Allameh Tabatabai University
3Ph.D in International Law, Islamic Azad University,Najafabad.iran.
چکیده [English]
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which has been created under The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) is a supervising organ for rights enshrined in the convention that belongs to the member states’ nationals. The court for more than a half century has received various claims often from individuals. This claims eventually faced states with a series of decisions that their compliance was compulsory. Thus, it is evident that court due to its position and authority always has been abled to affect member states domestic legal systems. The court has had various structural, organizational, legislative, executive and judicial effects on the internal human rights regimes of member states of the Council of Europe. However, there are some critiques regarding court’s qualitative impact on promotion of human rights in domestic level, the court has normatively been tremendously effective on the efficiency of convention rules in domestic level and has made the convention more dynamic.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
European Court of Human Rights, European Convention of Human Rights, Council of Europe, Regional Human Rights Bodies
مراجع
منابع و مآخذ

 

منابع فارسی

  1. داشاب، مهریار، دستور موقت و ضمانت اجرای آن در رویه قضایی دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر، فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق عمومی، سال بیست و یکم، شماره 46 ، 1389، صص. 297 ـ 273.
  2. زمانی، سید قاسم، سیدعلی حسینی­آزاد، تأملی در برخورد دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر با ماده 9 کنوانسیون اروپایی حقوق بشر بر پایۀ پروندۀ لیلا شاهین، مطالعات حقوق بشر اسلامی، شماره 6، 1393، صص. 60 ـ 35.
  3. سادات اخوی، سیدعلی، نفیسه پارسانیا، قواعد تفسیر کنوانسیون اروپایی حقوق بشر در پرتو رویۀ قضایی دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر، مجله حقوقی بین­المللی، شماره 49، 1392، صص. 144 ـ 127.
  4. محبی، محسن، اسماعیل سماوی، نقش رویه دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر در تفسیر پویای معاهدات حقوق بشری، مجله حقوقی بین­المللی، شمارۀ 58، 1397، صص. 30 ـ 7.
 

منابع انگلیسی

  1. Books
  2. Duxbury, A., The Participation of States in International Organisations: The Role of Human Rights and Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011
  3. Abdelgawad, E., The execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing (Human rights files, No. 19), 2008.
  4. Goldsmith, JL. and Posner EA, The Limits of International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005
  5. Renucci, J., Introduction to the European Convention on Human Rights; The rights guaranteed and the protection mechanism, Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, 2005.

 

  1. Articles
  2. Allee, and Paul K. Huth, “Legitimizing dispute settlement: International legal rulings as domestic political cover”, American Political Science Review 100(2), 2006
  3. Chlebny, J., “How a National Judge Implements Judgments of the Strasbourg Court”, in: Anja Seibert-Fohr and Mark E. Villiger (eds), Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights – Effects and Implementation, Germany: Max Planck Institute, 2014.
  4. Druscilla, S., and Tracy Slagter, “Supranational Human Rights Adjudication and National Legislative Politics”, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association Annual Conference "Global Governance: Political Authority in Transition", Le Centre Sheraton Montreal Hotel, MONTREAL, QUEBEC, CANADA, Mar 16, 2011 <Not Available>. 2014-11-26 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p499024_index.html>
  5. Fearon, J., “Bargaining, enforcement and international cooperation”, International Organization 52(2), 1998
  6. Finnemore, M. and Toope, SJ, “Alternative views to ‘legalization’: Richer views of law and politics”, International Organization 55(3), 2001
  7. Finnemore, M., “Norms, culture, and world politics: Insights from sociology’s institutionalism”, International Organization 50(2), 1996
  8. Gerards, Janneke, “Advisory Opinions, Preliminary Rulings, and the New Protocol No. 16 to the European Convention of Human Rights, a Comparative and Critical Appraisal”, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, vol. 21, issue 4, 2014
  9. Griffith, , “The open conspiracy - How the government is politicizing the judiciary”, TLS-TIMES L 5116, 2001.
  10. Hillebrecht, C., “Implementing International Human Rights Law at Home: Domestic Politics and the European Court of Human Rights”, Hum Rights Rev 13, 2012
  11. Hillebrecht, C., “The power of human rights tribunals: Compliance with the European Court of Human Rights and domestic policy change”, European Journal of International Relations 20 (4), 2014
  12. Hunt, M., “State obligations following from a Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights”, In: Christou T, Raymond JP (eds) European Court of Human Rights: remedies and execution of judgments, London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2005
  13. Jackson, J.D., “The Effect of Human Rights on Criminal Evidentiary Processes: Towards Convergence, Divergence or Realignment?”, Modern Law Review 68/5, 2005.
  14. Keller, H. and Sweet, A. Stone, “Assessing the Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems”, Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 88, 2008
  15. Paulus, A., “From Implementation to Translation: Applying the ECtHR Judgments in the Domestic Legal Orders”, in: Anja Seibert-Fohr and Mark E. Villiger (eds.), Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights – Effects and Implementation, Germany: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2014
  16. Powell, EJ and Staton JK, “Domestic judicial institutions and human rights treaty violation”, International Studies Quarterly 53(1), 2009
  17. Villiger, M., “Binding Effect and Declaratory Nature of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: An Overview”, in: Anja Seibert-Fohr and Mark E. Villiger (eds.), Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights – Effects and Implementation, Germany: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2014

 

  1. International documents
  2. ECtHR, Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, restructuring the control machinery established thereby, European Treaty Series - No. 155, Strasbourg, 11.V.1994
  3. ECtHR, Guidelines on the implementation of the advisory-opinion procedure introduced by Protocol No. 16 to the Convention, approved by the Plenary Court on 18 September 2017 and has been updated on 18/10/2021
  4. Protocol No. 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, restructuring the control machinery established thereby, Strasbourg, 11/05/1994, entry into force: 01/11/1998
  5. Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Council of Europe Treaty Series - No. 214
  6. Recommendation No. R (2000) 2 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the re-examination or reopening of certain cases at domestic level following judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 January 2000 at the 694thmeeting of the Ministers' Deputies. Available at: http://sutyajnik.ru/rus/cases/law/Recommendation_No_R_2000_2_eng.htm
  7. The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR)

 

  1. National Documents
  2. German Federal Constitutional Court, Case Nos. 1 BvL 20/99 & 1 BvR 933/01, Decision of 29 January 2003, 107 BVerfGE 150, 178 et seq.
  3. Home Secretary (2011) Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism, Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial) Order 2011
  4. Responding to Human Rights Judgment, Government Response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ Thirty-first Report of Session 2007-08, presented by Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, January 2009. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.justice.gov.uk/docs/responding-human-rights-judgments.pdf
  5. Sicherungsverwahrung, German Federal Constitutional Court, Case No. 2 BvR 2029/01, Decision of 5 February 2004, 109 BVerfGE 133.
  6. the (British) Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). The full text is available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents
  7. the Austrian Parliament’s 2005 amendment to the Media Act: CM/ResDH (2007) 76 of 20 June 2007

 

  1. Official Reports
  2. Overview:1959-2016, ECHR, European Court of Human Rights, March 2017. Available at: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Overview_19592016_ENG.pdf
  3. The Court in brief, a brochure published on ifficial webcite of ECHR. Available at: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Court_in_brief_ENG.pdf
  4. Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (2011) Supervision of the Execution of Judgments and Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: Annual Report 2011. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
  5. Ministers’ Deputies (2004) 897 DH Meeting, 28–29 September 2004: Responses in the Event of Slow or Negligent Execution of Non-Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
  6. 13th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers, supervision of the execution of judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights 2019, Council of Europe, 2020
  7. Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, The implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, Doc. 15123, 15 July 2020
  8. ECtHR, Reflection Paper on the Proposal to Extend the Court’s Advisory Jurisdiction, N.D.

 

  1. Case Law
  2. Case of A. and Others v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 3455/05, ECtHR, 19 February 2009
  3. Case of A.T. v. Austria, Application no. 32636/96, ECtHR, 21 March 2002
  4. Case of Annoni di Gussola and Others v. France, Applications nos. 31819/96and 33293/96, ECtHR, 14 November 2000
  5. Case of Aziz v. Cyprus, Application no. 69949/01, ECtHR, 22 June 2004.
  6. Case of Buvač v. Croatia (47685/13) Judgment final on 06/09/2018
  7. Case of Chevrol v. France, Application no. 49636/99, ECtHR, 13 February 2003
  8. Case of De Cubber v. Belgium, Application no. 9186/80, ECtHR, 26 October 1984.
  9. Case of Gencel v. Turkey, Application No. 53431/99, ECtHR, 23 October 2003.
  10. Case of Hirst v. United Kingdom, Application 74025/01, ECtHR, 6 October 2005.
  11. Case of Ireland v. United-Kingdom, (5310/71) and (5451/72), 01.10.1972
  12. Case of Kalda v. Estonia (17429/10) Judgment final on 06/06/2016
  13. Case of Klauz v. Croatia and 1 other case (38458/15) Judgment final on 09/12/2013
  14. Case of M. v. Germany, Application No. 19359/04, ECtHR, 17 December 2009.
  15. Case of McLeod v. the United Kingdom, Application No(s). 24755/94, ECtHR, 23/09/1998.
  16. Case of N.K.M. v. Hungary and 32 other cases (66529/11) Judgment final on 04/11/2013
  17. Case of Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, Application No. 21722/11, ECtHR, 9 January 2013.
  18. Case of Putintseva v. Russian Federation (33498/04) Judgment final on 10/08/2012
  19. Case of Soyler v. Turkey and 1 other case (29411/07) Judgment final on 20/01/2014
  20. Case of Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, Application No(s). 7151/75, ECtHR, 23/09/1982
  21. Case of Tan v. Turkey, Application no. 9460/03, ECtHR, 3 July 2007
  22. Case of United Communist Party of Turkey and others v. Turkey, Application no. 19392/92 ECtHR, 30 January 1998.
  23. Case of Van Mechelen and others v. the Netherlands, No(s). 21363/93, 21364/93, 21427/93 & 22056/93, ECtHR, 23 April 1997.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,818
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,446