سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

حجار, محمود, زمانی, سید قاسم. (1404). جایگاه حقوق بین الملل عرفی در تفسیر معاهدات. , 28(2), 35-54. doi: 10.48308/jlr.2024.233293.2600
محمود حجار; سید قاسم زمانی. "جایگاه حقوق بین الملل عرفی در تفسیر معاهدات". , 28, 2, 1404, 35-54. doi: 10.48308/jlr.2024.233293.2600
حجار, محمود, زمانی, سید قاسم. (1404). 'جایگاه حقوق بین الملل عرفی در تفسیر معاهدات', , 28(2), pp. 35-54. doi: 10.48308/jlr.2024.233293.2600
حجار, محمود, زمانی, سید قاسم. جایگاه حقوق بین الملل عرفی در تفسیر معاهدات. , 1404; 28(2): 35-54. doi: 10.48308/jlr.2024.233293.2600

جایگاه حقوق بین الملل عرفی در تفسیر معاهدات

فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی
مقاله 3، دوره 28، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 110، 1404، صفحه 35-54    اصل مقاله (756.99 K)
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.48308/jlr.2024.233293.2600
نویسندگان
محمود حجار* 1؛ سید قاسم زمانی2
1گروه حقوق بین الملل عمومی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران.
2استاد دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
حقوق بین‌الملل عرفی و معاهدات از مهم‌ترین منابع حقوق بین‌الملل محسوب می‌شوند و مناسبات میان آنها از اهمیت ویژه‌ای برخوردار است. در این زمینه، حقوق بین‌الملل عرفی از جنبه‌های مختلف بر معاهدات تأثیر می‌گذارد؛ یکی از این جنبه‌های مهم، تأثیر آن بر تفسیر معاهدات است. طبق جزء ج بند 3 ماده 31 کنوانسیون وین، در تفسیر یک معاهده، همراه با سیاق، هر قاعده ذی‌ربط حقوق بین‌الملل قابل‌اجرا در روابط میان طرفین نیز باید در نظر گرفته شود. پرسش اصلی مقاله این است که جایگاه قواعد حقوق بین‌الملل عرفی در تفسیر معاهدات چیست؟ به نظر می‌رسد که در نظر گرفتن قواعد حقوق بین‌الملل عرفی در فرایند تفسیر معاهده به جلوگیری از تفسیر و اجرای یک معاهده به‌عنوان یک رژیم مستقل کمک می‌کند. بنابراین، چندپارگی حقوق بین‌الملل را کاهش می‌دهد و یکپارچگی سیستمیک در نظام حقوقی بین‌المللی را ارتقا می‌دهد. در این مقاله با بهره‌گیری از منابع کتابخانه‌ای، اسناد بین‌المللی و آرای قضائی بین‌المللی و با استفاده از روش توصیفی–تحلیلی، جایگاه قواعد حقوق بین‌الملل عرفی در تفسیر معاهدات مورد بررسی و مداقه قرار می‌گیرد
کلیدواژه‌ها
حقوق بین‌الملل عرفی؛ تفسیر معاهدات؛ قواعد ذیربط حقوق بین‌الملل؛ جزء ج بند 3 ماده 31 کنوانسیون حقوق معاهدات؛ یکپارچگی سیستمیک
عنوان مقاله [English]
The Position of Customary International Law in the Interpretation of Treaties
نویسندگان [English]
Mahmoud Hajjar1؛ seyed ghasem zamani2
1Department of Public International Law, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran.
2Professor, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]
Abstract
Undoubtedly, international treaties are one of the most important sources of international law and have a special place in international law due to their stability, clarity, and precision in proving and explaining the obligations of the parties. However, it can be said that despite the great care and attention taken by negotiators when drafting treaty provisions, there is no treaty that does not raise some issues regarding treaty interpretation, especially as each state tries to interpret the treaty in accordance with its national interests. According to Article 31(1) of the Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty must be interpreted in accordance with the ordinary meaning given to the terms of the treaty in their context and having regard to the subject matter and purpose of the treaty.Therefore, in many cases, it is sufficient to consider the ordinary meaning of treaty terms in their context and with regard to the subject matter and purpose for interpreting treaty provisions and terms .However, in some cases, the text of the treaty may not be sufficient to interpret the terms of the treaty, and the interpreter needs to refer to other rules outside the text of the treaty being interpreted (including customary international law) in order to properly carry out the interpretation process. The relationship between the treaty and other relevant rules of international law, including customary international law, is of particular importance. In this context, the relevant rules of international law can affect the treaty in various aspects; one of these important aspects is its effect on the interpretation of the treaty. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to explain the role of customary international law in the interpretation of treaties. In this paper, by using library sources, international documents, and international judicial decisions and through a descriptive-analytical method, the position of the rules of customary international law in the interpretation of treaties will be studied. Article 31(3)(c) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that in the interpretation of a treaty, together with the context, “any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties” shall be taken into account. Therefore, in interpreting a treaty, in addition to its text and context and other elements of the general rule of interpretation contained in Article 31 of the Convention on the Law of Treaties, the rules of customary international law must also be taken into account. It seems that the importance of Article 31(3)(c) of the Convention on the Law of Treaties stems from the fact that it refers to the relationship between the provisions of the treaty and other relevant rules of international law. Therefore, Article 31(3)(c) is related to the issue of “systemic integration” in the international legal system. The principle of systemic integration means that treaties must be interpreted and implemented within the framework of international law and that the spirit of the rules of international law must always govern them. It is worth noting that, according to the general rule of interpretation provided for in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention, the text of the treaty is the starting point of the interpretation process. However, relevant rules of international law, including customary international law, must be considered in context. Hence, the rules of customary international law play an auxiliary or secondary role in the interpretation of treaties. In other words, the treaty being interpreted retains the primary role in the interpretation process. On the other hand, it seems that in the process of interpreting a treaty, the interpreter must consider the customary rule applicable in the relations between the parties. This means that an interpretative authority does not have the right to exercise discretion but must consider customary law. According to Article 31(3)(c) of the Convention on the Law of Treaties, in order to take into account, the rules of customary international law in the process of interpreting a treaty, the customary rules must both be relevant to the treaty under interpretation and applicable in the relations between the parties to the treaty under interpretation. Therefore, it can be said that customary rules can include general, regional, or local custom. The use of customary international law rules in the process of interpreting treaties is of particular importance because it can clarify the ambiguous meaning of treaty terms or determine the scope of treaty provisions. Furthermore, taking into account the rules of customary international law in the treaty interpretation process helps to prevent the interpretation and application of a treaty as an independent regime. Therefore, it reduces the fragmentation of international law and promotes systemic integration in the international legal system. International jurisprudence has played an important role in explaining the position of customary international law rules in the interpretation of treaties. International judicial authorities have referred to the rules of customary international law applicable to the relations between the parties, especially when the terms used in the treaty are ambiguous or have a well-known meaning in customary international law, or to take into account the principle of systemic integration.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Customary International Law, Interpretation of Treaties, Relevant Rules of International Law, Article 31(3)(C) of the Convention of the Law of Treaties, Systemic Integration
مراجع
 

کتاب‌

  1. ضیائی بیگدلی، محمدرضا، حقوق معاهدات بین‌المللی، تهران: گنج دانش، چاپ نهم، 1400.
  2. فلسفی، هدایت‌الله، حقوق بین‌الملل معاهدات، تهران: فرهنگ نشر نو، 1395.
  3. فلسفی، هدایت‌الله، سیر عقل در منظومه حقوق بین‌الملل، تهران: فرهنگ نشر نو، چاپ دوم، 1399.
مقاله

  1. حبیبی، همایون و صالحه رمضانی، «حقوق بین‌الملل عرفی: منبع قواعد ماهوی در چهارچوب دیوان کیفری بین‌المللی»، مجله پژوهش‌های حقوق جزا و جرم‌شناسی، دوره 10، شماره 19، 1401، صص 36-7.
  2. زرنشان، شهرام، «مناسبات میان معاهدات و عرف در حقوق بین‌الملل با تکیه‌بر نقش معاهدات در فرایند شکل‌گیری قواعد عرفی»، در: زمانی، سید قاسم (به کوشش)، جامعه بین‌المللی و حقوق بین‌الملل در قرن 21: مجموعه مقالات اهدایی به استاد دکتر محمدرضا ضیائی بیگدلی، تهران: شهر دانش، 1395، صص 142-160.
  3. سالاری، اسماء و ساسان صیرفی، «نقش قواعد حقوق بین‌الملل در تفسیر موافقتنامه‌های سازمان تجارت جهانی»، دوفصلنامه دانشنامه حقوق اقتصادی، دوره 29، شماره 22، 1401، صص 289-319.
  4. عابدینی، عبداله و مسعود علیزاده، «رویکرد ایران در شکل‌گیری قواعد بین‌المللی عرفی در پرتو اقدامات کمیسیون حقوق بین‌الملل سازمان ملل متحد»، دوفصلنامه ایرانی مطالعات سازمان ملل متحد، دوره 4، شماره 1، 1401، صص 101-135.
  5. نژندی منش، هیبت‌الله و هاجر راعی دهقی، «رابطه میان عرف مؤخر و معاهده، در چارچوب ماده 10 اساسنامه دیوان کیفری بین‌المللی»، فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق عمومی، دوره 19، شماره 58، 1397، صص 137-163.
  6. نوری، مهرداد، سید باقر میرعباسی و عبدالنعیم شهریاری، «نقش معاهدات در توسعه حقوق عرفی»، ماهنامه جامعه­شناسی سیاسی ایران، دوره 5، شماره 4، 1401، صص 422-443.
References

Books

 

  1. Falsafi, Hedayatollah, Circuit of Wisdom in International Law System, Tehran: New Publishing Culture, Second Edition, 2020. (in Persian)
  2. Falsafi, Hedayatollah, International Law of Treaties, Tehran: New Publishing Culture, 2016. (in Persian)
  3. Gardiner R. k. Treaty Interpretation, United States: Oxford University Press, Second Edition, 2015.
  4. Jennings, S. R. and Sir Arthur Watts. Oppenheim’s International Law, London and New York: Longman, Ninth Edition, 1996.
  5. Orakhelashivili, A. The Interpretation of Acts and Rules in Public International Law, United States: Oxford University Press, First Edition, 2008.
  6. Villager, M. E. Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, First Edition, 2009.
  7. Zia’ei Bigdeli, Mohammad Reza, Law of International Treaties, Tehran: Ganj-e-Danesh, Ninth Edition, 2021. (in Persian)
    • Articles

    1. Abedini, Abdollah and Masoud Alizadeh, “Iran’s Approach in the Formation of Customary International Rules in the Light of the Actions of the United Nations International Law Commission”, Bi-Quarterly Journal of Iranian Review for UN Studies, Volume 4, Issue 1, 2023, PP 101-135. (in Persian)
    2. Bhat, S. S. “A Study of the Issue of ‘Relevant Rules’ of International Law for the Purposes of Interpretation of Treaties under Article 31(3) (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties”, International Community Law Review, Volume 21, Issue 2, 2019, PP 190-219.
    3. Dirk, P. “Lex Specialis Derogate Legi Generali/Genralia Specialibus Non Derogant”, In: Klingler, Joseph, Yuri Parkhomenko and Constantionos Salonidis (eds.), Between the Lines of the Vienna Convention? United Kingdom: Wolters Kluwer, First Edition, 2019, PP 161-196.
    4. Habibi, Homayoun and Saleheh Ramezani, “Customary International Law: A Source of Substantive Rules in the Framework of the International Criminal Court,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Research, Volume 10, Issue 19, 2022, PP 36-7. (in Persian)
    5. Jia, B. B. “The Relations between Treaties and Custom”, Chinese Journal of International Law, Volume 9, Issue 1, 2010, PP 81-109.
    6. Linderfalk, U. “Who Are ‘The Parties’? Article 31, Paragraph 3 (C) OF The 1969 Vienna Convention and the ‘Principle of Systemic Integration, Revisited”, Netherlands International Law Review, Volume 55, Issue 3, 2008, PP 343-364.
    7. McLachlan, C. “The Principle of Systemic Integration and Article 31(3) (c) of the Vienna Convention”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Volume 54, 2005, PP 279-320.
    8. Najandi Manesh, Heybatollah and Hajar Ra’ei Dehghhi, “The Relationship between Subsequently Custom and Treaty within the Framework of Article 10 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court”, The Quarterly Journal of Public Law Research, Volume 19, Issue 58, 2018, PP 137-163. (in Persian)
    9. Nouri, Mehrdad, Sayyed Bagher Mir Abbasi and Abdolna’eim Shahriari, “The Role of Treaties in the Development of Customary Law”, Journal of Iranian Political Sociology, Volume 5, Issue 4, 2022, PP 422-443. (in Persian)
    10. Pellet, A. “Canons of Interpretation under the Vienna Convention”, In: Between the Lines of the Vienna Convention? Klingler, Joseph, Yuri Parkhomenko and Constantionos Salonidis (eds.), United Kingdom: Wolters Kluwer, First Edition, 2019, PP 1-12.
    11. Salari, Asma and Sasan Seyrafi, “The Role of International Law Rules in Interpretation of the WTO Agreements”, Journal of Encyclopedia of Economic Law, Vol. 22, Issue 29, 2022, PP 289-319. (in Persian)
    12. Samson, M. “High Hopes, Scant Resources: A Word of Skepticism about the Anti-Fragmentation Function of Article 31 (3) (C) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties”, Leiden Journal of International Law, Volume 24, Issue 3, 2011, PP 701-714.
    13. Sands, P. “Treaty, Custom and the Cross-fertilization of International Law”, Yale Human Rights & Development Law Journal, Volume 1, 1998, PP 85-105.
    14. Virzo, R. “The General Rule of Interpretation in the International Jurisprudence Relating to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”, In: Del Vecchio, Angela and Roberto Virzo, (eds.), Interpretations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea by International Courts and Tribunals, Switzerland: Springer, 2019, PP 15-40.
    15. Zar-Neshan, Shahram, “Relationships between Treaties and Custom in International Law based on the Role of Treaties in the Process of Formation of Customary Law” In: Zamani, Sayyed Ghasem (ed.), International Community and International Law in the 21th Century: Collected Essays in Honor of Professor Mohammad Reza Zia’ei Bigdeli, Tehran: The SD Institute of Law Research & Study, 2016, PP 131-141. (in Persian)
    Documents

    1. Charter of the United Nation, 26 June, 1945, Entry into Force: 24 October 1945.
    2. ILC, First Report on Formation and Evidence of Customary International Law, by Sir Michael Wood, Special Rapporteur, A/CN.4/663, 17 May 2013.
    3. ILC, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, Report of the Study Group of The ILC Finalized by Martti Koskenniemi, A/CN.4/L.682, 13 April 2006.
    4. ILC, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, Report of the Study Group of the ILC, A/Cn.4/L.702, 18 July 2006.
    5. ILC, Second Report on Identification of Customary International Law, by Sir Michael Wood, Special Rapporteur, A/CN.4/672, 22 May 2014.
    6. ILC, Third Report on Identification of Customary International Law, by Sir Michael Wood, Special Rapporteur, A/CN.4/682, 27 March 2015.
    7. Report of the ILC, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, A/61/10, 1 May-9 June and 3 July-11 August 2006.
    8. Report of the ILC, No. 10 (A/60/10), 5 August 2005.
    9. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, Adopted 23 May 1969, Entered Into Force 27 January 1980.
    Cases

    1. Amoco International Finance Corporation v. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, National Iranian Oil Company, National Petrochemical Company and Kharg Chemical Company Limited, Iran-United States Claims Tribunal Case No 56, Partial Awards (Award No. 310-56-3) 14 July 1987.
    2. Brita ECJ (CJ), C-386/08, ECLI: EUC:2010:91, [2010] ECR I-1289.
    3. Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, (Djibouti/France), Judgment, C.J Reports 2008.
    4. Council v Front Polisario, ECJ (Grand Chamber), C-104/16 P, ECLI: EU:C:2016:973.
    5. ECtHR Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom (GC) AppNo35763/97, ECHR2001-XI.
    6. ECtHR, Sabeh El Leil v France (GC) App No 34869/05, 29 June 2011.
    7. ICTR, “The Prosecuter v. Jean-Paul Akayesu”, Trial Chamber, Judgement, Case No. (ICTR-96-4-T), 2Septemper1998.
    8. ICTR, “The Prosecutor v. Clement Kayshema and Obed Ruzindana”, Trial Chamber, Judgement, Case No. (ICTR-95-1-T).
    9. ICTR, “The Prosecutor v. Laurent Semanza”, Trial Chamber, Judgment, Case No. (ICTR-97-20T), 15 May 2003.
    10. Oil Platforms Case (Iran v. United States of America) (Merits) International Court of Justice, I.C.J. Reports 2003, para. 18 (b).
    11. Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. Chad), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1994.
    12. United States – Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China, Appellate Body Report, 11 March 2011 (WT/DS379/AB/R).
     

  •  
    • آمار
    تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 2,887
    تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 471