پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 161 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,532 |
| تعداد مقالات | 70,504 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 124,122,289 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 97,230,073 |
مسئولیت بین‌المللی دولت‌ها ناشی از مدارا و مماشات با گروه‌های دهشت‌افکن؛ با تأکید بر قضیۀ افغانستان | ||
| فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق عمومی دانشگاه تهران | ||
| مقاله 4، دوره 46، شماره 2، تیر 1395، صفحه 247-271 اصل مقاله (341.03 K) | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jplsq.2016.58196 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| سیدباقر میرعباسی* 1؛ امیر فامیل زوار جلالی2 | ||
| 1استاد دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران | ||
| 2کارشناس‌ارشد حقوق بین‌الملل، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| به لحاظ سنتی و تاریخی، اقدامات بازیگران غیردولتی تنها در صورتی به دولت منتسب می‌شود که به‌طور رسمی یا عملی ارگان آن دولت محسوب شوند، یا نمایندۀ آن دولت باشند و تحت کنترل و هدایت دولت عمل کنند یا اینکه دولت اقدامات آنان را به‌صراحت تأیید کند و به‌عنوان عمل خود بپذیرد. بعد از واقعۀ 11 سپتامبر 2001، قاعدۀ سنتی مزبور تا حدوی تغییر یافت، به‌گونه‌ای که منطقۀ خاکستری به‌وجود آمد مبنی بر اینکه آیا دولت‌ها از بابت پناه دادن به دهشت‌افکن‌ها و مدارا و مماشات با آنها نیز مسئولیت دارند؟ به‌عبارت دیگر در حالت مذکور نیز اعمال بازیگران غیردولتی به دولت پناه‌دهنده و مسامحه‌گر منتسب خواهد شد. مطالعه و تحقیق در این زمینه حاکی از این است که در حال حاضر در رویۀ قضایی، قطعنامه‌های شورای امنیت و قواعد مسئولیت بین‌المللی، آستانۀ انتساب به این حد نزول نیافته، تا بتوان قائل به این نتیجه شد که در حالت اخیر، اعمال گروه‌های دهشت‌افکن به دولت منتسب شود. اما می‌توان دولت‌های مزبور را از بابت کوتاهی و قصور در انجام تعهدات خود در مبارزه با دهشت‌افکنی مسئول دانست. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| انتساب؛ قضیۀ افغانستان؛ گروه‌های دهشت‌افکنی؛ مدارا و مماشات؛ مسئولیت بین‌المللی دولت‌ها | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Emerging international responsibility of states due to compromise and tolerance towards terrorist groups with an emphasis on Afghanistan | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Seyed Bagher Mirabasi1؛ Amir Famil Zavar Jalali2 | ||
| 1Professor, Public and International Law Department, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2MSc, in International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Traditionally and historically, if considered as an official or a practical component of a given State or its representative or under the control and leadership of that State, non-state actors and their actions are attributed to the State in question. The same outcome is expected when a government chooses to overtly accept acts of a non-state actor and receive them as its own. Since 9/11, there have been adjustments to principles mentioned above which in turn has resulted in creation of a grey area in the subject. The question at hand is whether or not acts of a non-state actor regarded as a State's, if the State is considered to be in tolerance with those actors. i.e. has given them refuge. Based on precedent, the Security Council's resolutions and international rules of responsibility, Study suggests that although in this case attribution is out of reach, it's possible for the State to be held responsible for its failure to fulfill the obligation to fight against terrorism. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Afghanistan, attribution, compromising and tolerance, responsibility of the state, Terrorist groups | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
الف) فارسی
ب) انگلیسی - Book
1- BECKER,TAL, (2006), Terrorism And The State: Rethinking The Rulse Of State Resposibility , Oxford: Hart Publishing
2- Brownlie, (1983), I. System of the Law of Nations: State Responsibility. Oxford: Clarendon Press
3- Crawford, J, (2002), The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text andCommentaries
4- Draft articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, with commentaries, 2001
5- Draft articles on Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, adopted by the International Law Commission at its fifty-third session ,2001
6- Duffy,Helen, (2005), The war on Terror and the Framework of International Law, New York, Cambridge university press
7- G. CAHIN, (2010), “The Responsibility of other Entities: Armed Bands and Criminal Groups” in J. CRAWFORD, A. PELLET, S. OLLESON (eds.), The Law of International Responsibility, Oxford, Oxford University Press
8- Higgins, Rosalyn, (2003), "The general international law of Terrorism", in “Terrorism and international law”, Rosalyn Higgins and Maurice Flory, published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library
9- ILA Study Group on Due Diligence in International Law, First Report, Duncan French (Chair) and Tim Stephens (Rapporteur) ,7 March 2014
10- Kiss, Alexandre & Dinah Shelton,(2004), International Environmental Law, 3ded
11- Peytchev, Alexandre, (2012-2013), Perspective on the Fight against International Terrorism, Faculty of Law Ghent University
12- Stephens, Tim, (2009), International Courts and Environmental Protection, Cambridge University Press
13- Wolfrum, Rüdiger, (2008), "STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PRIVATE ACTORS: AN OLD PROBLEM OF RENEWED RELEVANCE", In: International Responsibility Today Essays in Memory of Oscar Schachter
- Article
1- Brown, D, (2004), "Use of Force against Terrorism after September 11: State Responsibility, self-defence and Other Response"s- Cardozo, Journal of International and Comparative Law
2- Nielsen, Elizabethe, (2011), "State Responsibility For Terrorist Groups", Davis Journal International law, Vol. 17, No 1
3- paust, Jordan, (2002), Use of Force against Terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq and Beyond, Cornell International Law Journal, Vol. 35, No. 3
4- Riccardo Pisillo-Mazzechi, (1992), The Due Diligence Rule and the Nature of the International Responsibility of States, 35 German Y.B. Int'l L. 9
5- Vark, Rene, (2006), "State Responsibility for private Armed Groups in The Context of Trrorism", Jurdival International 11
6- Vark, René, (2011), “Terrorism, State Responsibility and The Use Of Armed Force", ENDC Proceedings, Volume 14
- Case
1- Application of the concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the crime of Genocide (Bosina & Heregovina v. Serbia & Montenegro), Merits, I.C.J. reports 2007
2- Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v. Albania), Merits, ICJ Reports (1949) 4
3- German Settlers in Poland, Advisory Opinion, PCIJ Series B, No 6 (1923) 6
4- Prosecutor v. Tadic, I.C.T.Y, 15 Julay 1999.
5- The Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo Case (Democratic Republic of Congo V. Uganda), ICJ, 2005
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,669 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,616 |
||