سامانه پشتیبانی خدمات اطلاعات

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات156
تعداد شماره‌ها5,990
تعداد مقالات65,566
تعداد مشاهده مقاله108,076,438
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله84,487,479
سادات میدانی, سید حسین, محمدی, محمدرضا. (1402). جنگ حقوقی ایالات متحدۀ آمریکا علیه ایران از منظر حقوق بین‌الملل. , (), 1-28. doi: 10.22059/jplsq.2021.329970.2879
سید حسین سادات میدانی; محمدرضا محمدی. "جنگ حقوقی ایالات متحدۀ آمریکا علیه ایران از منظر حقوق بین‌الملل". , , , 1402, 1-28. doi: 10.22059/jplsq.2021.329970.2879
سادات میدانی, سید حسین, محمدی, محمدرضا. (1402). 'جنگ حقوقی ایالات متحدۀ آمریکا علیه ایران از منظر حقوق بین‌الملل', , (), pp. 1-28. doi: 10.22059/jplsq.2021.329970.2879
سادات میدانی, سید حسین, محمدی, محمدرضا. جنگ حقوقی ایالات متحدۀ آمریکا علیه ایران از منظر حقوق بین‌الملل. , 1402; (): 1-28. doi: 10.22059/jplsq.2021.329970.2879

جنگ حقوقی ایالات متحدۀ آمریکا علیه ایران از منظر حقوق بین‌الملل

فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق عمومی دانشگاه تهران
مقالات آماده انتشار، پذیرفته شده، انتشار آنلاین از تاریخ 01 فروردین 1402    اصل مقاله (769.61 K)
نوع مقاله: علمی-پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jplsq.2021.329970.2879
نویسندگان
سید حسین سادات میدانی* 1؛ محمدرضا محمدی2
1استادیار، دانشکدۀ روابط بین‌الملل وزارت امور خارجه، تهران، ایران
2دانش‌آموختۀ کارشناسی ارشد دیپلماسی و سازمان‌های بین‌المللی، دانشکدۀ روابط بین‌الملل وزارت امور خارجه، تهران، ایران
چکیده
جنگ حقوقی بیانگر راهبردی در استفادۀ ابزاری از حقوق برای رسیدن به منافع ملی و امنیتی است که اهداف یک مخاصمۀ مسلحانه را بدون توسل به زور پیگیری می‌کند. کنشگر جنگ حقوقی، از خلأهای موجود حقوق بین‌الملل سوءاستفاده می‌کند تا بیشترین آسیب را به طرف مقابل وارد کند. این در حالی است که نظام حقوقی خاصی برای مواجهه در برابر این اقدام‌ها وجود ندارد. در جنگ حقوقی حاکمیت قانون مخدوش است. پیچیدگی‌های جنگ حقوقی موجب شده است که ابتکار عمل در اختیار دولت‌های قدرتمندی باشد که از زیرساخت‌های حقوقی مناسبی بهره‌مندند. ایالات متحدۀ آمریکا توانسته است از این طریق بیشترین بهره را برای تحت فشار قرار دادن ایران داشته باشد و به‌دنبال اهداف خصمانه‌اش باشد. مطالعۀ رویکرد و رویۀ آمریکا نسبت به جنگ حقوقی در تقابل با ایران موضوع نوشتار حاضر را تشکیل می‌دهد. شناخت عملکرد آمریکا در این خصوص نشان می‌دهد دولت ایران هدف سخت‌ترین جنگ حقوقی بوده که از طریق نهادهای بین‌المللی و همچنین در سطح داخلی آمریکا با استفاده از راهبردها و ابتکارات متنوع پیگیری شده است.
کلیدواژه‌ها
ایالات متحدۀ آمریکا؛ ایران؛ تحریم‌های مالی؛ جنگ حقوقی؛ حاکمیت قانون
عنوان مقاله [English]
United States’ Lawfare agiant Iran from the perspective of International law
نویسندگان [English]
Seyed Hossein Sadat Meidani1؛ Mohammadreza Mohammadi2
1Assistant Prof. in International Law, School of International Relations Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tehran, Iran
2MA. in Diplomacy and International Organizations, School of International Relations Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]
Lawfare is a strategy of misusing law as a tool to achieve national and security interests which pursues the goals of an armed conflict without resorting to force. The lawfare actor misuses the existing gaps in international law to inflict the most damage to the targeted party, while there is no specific legal system to confront these actions. In lawfare, the rule of law is distorted. The complexities of lawfare have given the initiative to strong states that have appropriate legal infrastructures. In this way, the United States has been able to misuse this tool to put pressure on Iran and reach its hostile goals. The study of the US approach and practice towards the lawfare against Iran is the subject of this article. Recognizing the US practice in this regard shows that Iran has been the target of the most difficult lawfare that has been pursued through international institutions and also using domestic various strategies and initiatives.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
USA, Iran, financial sanctions, lawfare, rule of law
مراجع
  1. فارسی
الف) کتاب‌ها

  1. جوینر، دانیل (1396)، برنامۀ هسته‌ای ایران و حقوق بین‌الملل از تقابل تا توافق، ترجمۀ سید حسین سادات میدانی، یاسر سالاریان و مهدی خلیلی طرقبه، تهران: مرکز مطالعات سیاسی و بین‌المللی.
  2. سادات میدانی، سید حسین؛ خلیلی طرقبه، مهدی (1397)، بایسته‌های حقوقی نظام تحریم‌های ایران، تهران: شهر دانش.
ب) مقالات

  1. برزگر، عبدالرضا؛ رحمانی، تهمینه (1394)، «رسیدگی به دعاوی ناشی از قراردادهای تدارکات عمومی در دوران تحریم براساس قانون صلاحیت دادگستری جمهوری اسلامی ایران»، دیدگاه‌های حقوق قضایی، ش 72، ص 64-25.
  2. زمانی، سید قاسم؛ سادات میدانی، سید حسین (1385)، «عملکرد شورای امنیت در پرونده هسته‌ای ایران: از ارجاع تا تحریم»، مجلۀ پژوهش‌های حقوقی، دورۀ 5، ش 10، ص 54-15.
  3. سادات میدانی، سید حسین (1382)، «مشروعیت توسل به زور علیه عراق از دیدگاه قطعنامه‌های شورای امنیت»، مجلۀ سیاست دفاعی، دورۀ 11، ش 43، ص 20-1.
  4. ------------------- (1383)، «ارزیابی عملکرد محاکم داخلی آمریکا در انتساب اعمال گروه‌های لبنانی و فلسطینی به جمهوری اسلامی ایران»، پژوهش حقوقی، ش 4، ص 17-13.
  5. -------------------- (1385)، «شورای امنیت و پروندۀ هسته‌ای ایران: تقابل حاکمیت حقوق بین‌الملل با صلح بین‌المللی»، فصلنامۀ سیاست خارجی، سال بیستم، ش 1، ص 31-1.
  6. ------------------- (1395)، «اختلاف آژانس بین‌المللی انرژی اتمی با ایران در پروندۀ هسته‌ای از دیدگاه حقوق بین‌الملل»، مجلۀ حقوقی بین‌المللی، ش 54، ص 256-219.
  7. فضائلی، مصطفی؛ کوثری، وحید (1400)، «نظریۀ جنگ حقوقی و آیندۀ حقوق بین‌الملل: حقوق ابزار صلح یا جنگ؟»، فصلنامۀ تحقیقات حقوقی، دورۀ 24، ش 93، ص 214-193.
  8. کرم‌زاده، سیامک؛ عابدینی، عبدالله (1398)، «حاشیۀ صلاحدیدی در اجرای قطعنامه‌های تحریمی شورای امنیت: بررسی موردی ایران»، فصلنامۀ مطالعات حقوق عمومی، دورۀ 49، ش 3، ص 857-837.
 

ج) سایر

  1. سادات میدانی، سید حسین (1398)، جزوۀ درس سمینار مسائل روز، دانشکدۀ روابط بین‌الملل وزارت امور خارجه.
  2. قانون صلاحیت دادگستری جمهوری اسلامی ایران برای رسیدگی به دعاوی مدنی علیه دولت‌های خارجی، مجلس شورای اسلامی، 19 اردیبهشت 1391.
 

  1. انگلیسی
  2. A) Books
  3. ElBaradei, Mohammad (2011), The Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times, New York, Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt & Company.
  4. Hufbauer, Gary Clyde & Schott, Jeffrey J. & Elliott, Kimberly Ann & Oegg, Barbara (2007), Economic Sanctions Reconsidered, Washington DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.
  5. Kittrie, Orde F. (2016), Lawfare: Law as a Weapon of War, New York, Oxford University Press.
  6. Nephew, Richard (2018), The Art of Sanctions: A View from the Field, New York, Columbia University Press.
  7. Sands, Philippe, (2005), Lawless World: America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules, New York, Viking Adult.
  8. Simma, Bruno; Khan, Daniel-Erasmus; Nolte, Georg; Paulus, Andreas &Wessendorf, Nikolai (2012), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, Vol. I, (3rd Edition), Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  9. Tamanaha, Brian Z. (2006), Law as a Means to an End: Threat to the Rule of Law, New York: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Zarate, Juan C. (2013), Treasury's War: The Unleashing of a New Era of Financial Warfare, New York, Public Affairs.
 

  1. B) Articles
  2. Bechky, Perry S. (2010), "The Politics of Divestment", The Politics of International Economic Law, Seattle University School of Law Research Paper No. 10-27, pp. 1-28.
  3. Dunlap, Jr., Charles J. (2001), "Law and Military Interventions: Preserving Humanitarian Values in 21th Century Conflicts", Humanitarian Challenges in Military Intervention Conference, Harvard University, pp. 1-27.
  4. Dunlap, Jr., Charles J. (2008), "Lawfare Today: A Perspective", Yale Journal of International Affairs, pp. 146-154.
  5. Dunlap, Jr., Charles J. (2010),"Does Lawfare Need an Apologia?", Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law. Vol. 43, Issue. 1, pp. 121-143.
  6. Goldenziel, Jill I. (2020), "Law as a Battlefield: The U.S., China, and Global Escalation of Lawfare", Cornell Law Review, Vol. 106, pp. 101-189.
  7. Jacobson, Michael (2008), "Sanctions against Iran: A Promising Struggle", The Washington Quarterly, pp.69-88.
  8. Kittrie, Orde F. (2007A), "Averting Catastrpphe: Why the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is Losing its Deterrence Capacity and How to Restore it", Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol. 28, Issue. 2, pp. 337-430.
  9. Kittrie, Orde F. (2007B), "Emboldened by Impunity: The History and Consequences of Failureto Enforce Iranian Violations of International Law", Syracuse Law Review, Vol. 57, p. 519-549
  10. Kittrie, Orde F. (2010), "Lawfare and U.S. National Security", Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, Vol. 43. Issue. 1, pp. 393-421.
  11. Leverett, Flynt & Leverett, Hillary (2014), "American Hegemony (and Hubris), the Iranian Nuclear Issue, and the Future of Sino-Iranian Relations", The Emerging Middle East-East Asia Nexus, Penn State Law Research Paper No. 39, pp. 1-26.
  12. Novosad, Paul and Werker, Eric (2019), "Who Runs the International System? Nationality and Leadership in the UN Secretariant", The Review of International Organizations, 14, pp. 1-33.
  13. Scharf, Michael P. & Andersen, Elizabeth (2010), "Is Lawfare Worth Defining - Report of the Cleveland Experts Meeting – September 11, 2010", Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law. vol. 43, Issue 1. pp. 11-27.
  14. Scharf, Michael P. & Pagano, Shannon (2010), "Foreward: Lawfare!", Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, Vol. 43, Issue. 1, pp. 1-10.
  15. Stroup, Sarah S. (2019), "NGOs’ interactions with states", In: Davies, Thomas, Routledge Handbook of NGOs and International Relations, Routledge, pp. 32-45.
  16. Tamanaha, Brian Z. (2007), "How an Instrumental View of Law Corrodes the Rule of Law", DePaul Law Review. Vol. 56. Issue. 2. pp. 1-52.
  17. Tortajada, Cecilia (2016), "Nongovernmental Organizations and Influence on Global Public Policy", Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 266–274.
  18. Wiarda, Howard J. (2015), "Think Tanks and Foreign Policy in a Globalized World: New Ideas, New "Tanks," New Directions", International Journal, Vol. 70, No. 4, pp. 517-525.
  19. WTO, Economic Research & Statistics Division (2012), "Use of Currencies in International Trade: Any Changes in the Picture?", Staff Working Paper ERSD, pp. 1-21.
 

  1. C) Online Articles
  2. Bidwell, Christopher A., "US courts say Iran owes terrorism victims billions. That’s an obstacle to a new Iran nuclear deal.", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 3 August 2021, https://thebulletin.org/2021/08/us-courts-say-iran-owes-terrorism-victims-billions-thats-an-obstacle-to-a-new-iran-nuclear-deal
  3. Center for Security Policy, "DivestTerror.org launched with stunning report on public pension fund investments in terrorist-sponsoring nations", 12 August 2004, https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2004/08/12/divestterror-org-launched-with-stunning-report-on-public-pension-fund-investments-in-terrorist-sponsoring-nations-2/
  4. Drye, Kelley and LLP, Warren ‘Recent OFAC Settlement Highlights Due Diligence Expectations When Selling to Intermediaries’, 22 March 2021, https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/recent-ofac-settlement-highlights-due-9744612/
  5. Grossman, Elaine M., "Proliferation Watchdogs Eye Litigation to Combat Illicit Trafficking", Nuclear Threat Initiative. 30 October 2009. https://www.nti.org/gsn/article/proliferation-watchdogs-eye-litigation-to-combat-illicit-trafficking/
  6. Hirsh, Michael, "Obama Prepares to Get Tough on Iran", Newsweek, 12 December 2009, https://www.newsweek.com/obama-prepares-get-tough-iran-75581
  7. Ignatius, David, "Buying Time with Iran", Real Clear Politics, 9 January 2011, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/01/09/buying_time_with_iran_108479.html
  8. Keitner, Chimene, "World Court Ruels on Iran Challenge to US Suits for Acts of Terrorism: An Explainer", Just Security, 19 February 2019, https://www.justsecurity.org/62604/unpacking-icj-judgment-certain-iranian-assets
  9. Kittrie, Orde F., "How to Put the Squeeze on Iran", The Wall Street Journal, 13 November 2008, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122654026060023113
  10. Kirchner, Stephen, "The ‘Reserve Currency’ Myth: The Us Dollar’s Current and Future Role in the World Economy", United States Studies Center. 11 November 2019. https://www.ussc.edu.au/analysis/the-reserve-currency-myth-the-us-dollars-current-and-future-role-in-the-world-economy
  11. Phillips, James, "The 1983 Marine Barracks Bombing: Connecting the Dots", The Heritage Foundation, 23 October 2009. https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/the-1983-marine-barracks-bombing-connecting-the-dots
  12. Radia, Kirit and Sauer, Maddy, "Pan Am 103 Families Finally Compensated", abc News. 1 November 2008. https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6158491&page=1
  13. Sanger, David E., "U.S. Weighs Iran Sanctions if Talks Are Rejected", The New York Times, 2 August 2009, https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/world/middleeast/03nuke.html
  14. Shamseddine, Reem and Pachymuthu, Luke, "Iran fuel imports dive in Sept on sanctions-trade", Reuters, 24 September 2010, https://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE68N0ZF20100924
  15. Thornton, Sean M., "Iran, Non-U.S. Banks and Secondary Sanctions: Understanding the Trends", Skadden, 24 October 2012, https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2012/10/iran-nonus-banks-and-secondary-sanctions-understan
  16. Weisman, Steven R., "The Ripples of Punishing One Bank", The New York Times, 3 July 2007, https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/03/business/worldbusiness/03bank.html
  17. Wright, Robin, "Stuart Levey’s War", The New York Times Magazine, 31 October 2008, https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/02/magazine/02IRAN-t.html
 

  1. D) Documents
  2. California Public Employee' Retirement System, Assembly Bill: 221, Chapter 671, 14 October 2007. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0201-0250/ab_221_bill_20071014_chaptered.html
  3. California Public Contract, Assembly Bill No: 1650, Chapter 573, 30 September 2010.http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=200920100AB1650
  4. California Insurance, Assembly Bill No: 2160, Chapter 479, 23 September 2012. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB2160
  5. Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA), Pub. L. No. 111-195, 124 Stat. 1313.
  6. Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 2010, Pub. L. No: 111.
  7. FATF Guidance: The Implementation of Financial Provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolutions to Counter the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. June 2013.
  8. FATF Public Statement, 27 February 2015.
  9. FATF Statement on Iran, 11 October 2007.
  10. FATF Statement, 16 October 2008.
  11. FATF, High-Risk Jurisdictions Subject to a Call for Action, 21 February 2019.
  12. Hook, Brian, Balancing Interests and Values, Note for the Secretary, Washington, D.C. 20520, 17 May 2017, https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000160-6c37-da3c-a371-ec3f13380001
  13. Implementing Tougher Sanction on Iran: A Progress Report. Hearing, 1 December 2010, Serial No. 111–136. p. 14. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg62665/pdf/CHRG-111hhrg62665.pdf
  14. Law on the Jurisdiction of the Judiciary of the Islamic Republic of Iran for the Proceedings of Civil Cases against Foreign Governments, Islamic Parliament of Iran, 8 May 2012. (in Persian)
  15. Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 264 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2003).
  16. Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007, Public Law 110-174.
  17. US Government Accountability Office, "U.S. and International Sanctions Have Adversely Affected the Iranian Economy", Report to the Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate. (February 2013).
  18. UNSCR 1737, 27 December 2006, S/RES/1737.
  19. UNSCR 1803, 3 March 2008, S/RES/1803.
  20. UNSCR1929, 9 June 2010, S/RES/1929.
  21. USA, Plaintiff v. Funds in the amount of 73,293,750 AED (approximately $20 million) in the Possession and Control of Ras al Khaimah Investment Authority (RAKIA) and All Claims Filed and Asserted by VI2 Partners Gmbh against) Ras al Khaimah Investment Authority Georgia LLC in case no. 2b/4319-17 pending before the Tbilisi Court of Appeals, Republic of Georgia and Proceeds thereof, US District Court for the District of Alaska, Civil No. 3:20-cv-00126-JMK, 3 June 2020.
 

  1. E) Websites
  2. Election Center 2008, "Transcript: Second McCain, Obama Debate", CNN Politics, 7 October 2008, https://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/presidential.debate.transcript/
  3. The US Department of Justice, ING Bank N.V. Agrees to Forfeit $619 Million for Illegal Transactions with Cuban and Iranian Entities. 12 June 2012. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/ing-bank-nv-agrees-forfeit-619-million-illegal-transactions-cuban-and-iranian-entities-0
  4. US Department of Justice, HSBC Holdings Plc. and HSBC Bank USA N.A. Admit to Anti-Money Laundering and Sanctions Violations, Forfeit $1.256 Billion in Deferred Prosecution Agreement. 11 December 2012. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/hsbc-holdings-plc-and-hsbc-bank-usa-na-admit-anti-money-laundering-and-sanctions-violations
  5. U.S. Department of Justice, Justice Department Seeks Forfeiture of More than $20 Million in Assets Relating to Unlawful Use of U.S. Financial System to Evade and Violate Iranian Sanctions, 3 June 2020, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-seeks-forfeiture-more-20-million-assets-relating-unlawful-use-us-financial
  6. U.S. Department of Justice, “Standard Chartered Bank Admits to Illegally Processing Transactions in Violation of Iranian Sanctions and Agrees to Pay More Than $1 Billion”, 9 April 2019, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/standard-chartered-bank-admits-illegally-processing-transactions-violation-iranian-sanctions
  7. U.S. Department of State, Companies Reducing Energy-related Business with Iran, 30 September 2010. https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/09/148458.htm
  8. U.S. Department of State, State Sponsors of Terrorism, Bureau of Counterterrorism. https://www.state.gov/state-sponsors-of-terrorism/
  9. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Remarks by Treasury Secretary Paulson on Targeted Financial Measures to Protect Our National Security, 14 June 2007, https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/hp457.aspx
  10. U.S. Department of the Treasury, “Treasury Revokes Iran’s U-Turn License”, 6 November 2008, https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/hp1257.aspx
  11. U.S. Department of the Treasury, “Treasury Sanctions Iran’s Central Bank and National Development Fund”, 20 September 2019, https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm780
  12. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Under Secretary Levey Remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 20 September 2010. https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg862.aspx
  13. U.S. Department of the Treasury, U.S. Treasury Department Announces Joint $536 Million Settlement with Credit Suisse AG. 16 December 2009. https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg452.aspx
  14. "U.S. froze $2 billion held for Iran in Citibank: report", Reuters, 12 December 2009, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-citigroup/u-s-froze-2-billion-held-for-iran-in-citibank-report-idUSTRE5BB0ID20091212
  15. "U.S. judge orders Iran pay $2.6 billion for 1983 attack", Reuters, 8 September 2008, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-judgment/u-s-judge-orders-iran-pay-2-6-billion-for-1983-attack-idUSN0824551020070908
  16. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/010715/worlds-top-10-law-firms.asp
  17. https://iranstatesanctions.org/
  18. https://www.vault.com/best-companies-to-work-for/law/top-100-law-firms-rankings
  19. https://watson.brown.edu/research/projects/iransanctions
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 2,219
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,894


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب