نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی - پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار حقوق دانشگاه اصفهان

چکیده

آمریکا و متحدانش با تفسیر موسّع از ماده 51 منشور سازمان ملل متّحد، جنگ در افغانستان را به عملیات نظامی علیه عراق، تحت عنوان «دفاع مشروع بازدارنده یا پیش­گیرانه» گسترش دادند. در این راستا از 11 سپتامبر 2001 تاکنون مسأله استفاده از زور و دفاع مشروع از جدی‌ترین موضوعات مورد بحث در میان متخصصان حقوق بین‌الملل بوده است. از نظر این مقاله به لحاظ حقوقی جنگ با عراق مشمول هیچ یک از موارد مشروع کاربرد زور در روابط بین الملل نیست، زیرا نه «حمله­ای» از طرف عراق به آمریکا صورت گرفته بود و نه حتی «خطر قریب الوقوعی» از ناحیه عراق وجود داشت تا دفاع مشروع به صورت «پیش دستانه» را توجیه کند و نه شورای امنیت چنین مجوزی را داده بود تا امنیت بین المللی ضرورت عملیات را ایجاب نماید. بدیهی است تحولات حقوق بین­الملل برخاسته از ضرورت­هاست و در رابطة «حقوق» و «سیاست» بین الملل نمی­توان تأثیر متقابل آنها را انکار کرد. در واقع هیچ کس نمی­تواند به استقرار کامل موازین حقوق بین­الملل در جامعه بین­المللی و وجود مدینة فاضله در چنین جامعه­ای اعتراف کند. از طرف دیگر «قدرت» را نمی­توان تنها عامل تعیین­کننده در روابط بین­الملل دانست و نقش «حقوق» را انکار نمود.
 به نظر می­رسد واقعه 11 سپتامبر نقطة عطف جدیدی در تحول و جهت­گیری حقوق بین­الملل است، زیرا بر اساس مقررات حقوق بین­الملل کلاسیک نمی­توان در مورد مسائل طرح شدة جدید تصمیم قاطع گرفت. امّا واکنش به این تراژدی و حوادث پس از آن در جامعه بین المللی فقط در صورتی می­تواند به تحولات مثبت حقوقی بینجامد که اقدامات و تدابیر اخذ شده منطقی و حتی­المقدور با اجماع بین­المللی بوده و با اصول مورد قبول این جامعه در تعارض نباشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Legitimacy of the Use of Force in Iraq from the Perspective of International Law

نویسنده [English]

  • Mahmoud Jalali

Assistant Professor of Law, University of Isfahan

چکیده [English]

The US and its allies by a broad interpretation of Article 51 of the UN Charter extended the military operation in Afghanistan to one of so-called ‘Axis of Evil’ countries. Consequently, since 9/11 use of force and self-defence have been among the serious issues debated by the international lawyers. It is evident that any discussion on the use of force must be inevitably started from the UN Charter. This is because the Charter specifies instances of lawful resort to force. The UN Charter allows resort to force for two causes; self-defence against an armed attack (Art. 51) and prevention of aggression or threat against international peace and security (Arts. 24, 39). According to the findings of this work, the war in Iraq does not fall within any of the two categories mentioned. For there had been occurred no attack by Iraq against the US to justify the US operation. Nor had there been any permission by the Security Council as to the use of force to maintain international peace and security. No doubt, developments in international law results from ‘necessities’ and no one can deny the mutual relations between international law and politics. In fact no one can claim that international law is observed in all cases in the international community. Nor can one make confession as to the utopian status for international law. However, power is not the only criterion for determination of international relations. Law plays a major role too. It seems that the 9/11 is a turning point in the developments and new directions in international law. The traditional international law is no longer able to give concrete response to the modern problems in the world. However, the reaction to the tragedy of 9/11 and the events have been happening thereafter can have positive impacts on the international legal order if only reactions to the events and the decisions as to the issues concerned are taken in a wise and logical manner, with the world consensus and in harmony with international standards.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • International Law
  • Use of Force
  • self-defence
  • Iraq
  • 11 September 2001
منابع
1- احمدی، کوروش، شورای امنیت سازمان ملل و مسئله خلع سلاح عراق، دفتر مطالعات سیاسی و بین­المللی، تهران، 1384.
2- اکنل ماری الن, «مشروعیت توسل به زور علیه عراق: بررسی نظریه پیش دستی در دفاع از خود», ترجمه سید حسین سادات میدانی, فصلنامه سیاست خارجی, سال هفدهم, شماره 1, بهار 1382.
3- بنی سنبلی، احمد، «بررسی و ارزیابی استراتژی سلطه سریع در تهاجم اخیر آمریکا به عراق»، مجله نگاه، شماره 34، اردیبهشت 1382.
4- کاسسه، آنتونیو، «حمله به مرکز تجارت جهانی و فروپاشی برخی از بنیادهای اساسی حقوق بین­الملل»، ترجمه محمد جواد میر فخرایی، مجله حقوقی دفتر خدمات حقوقی بین­المللی ج. ا. ا.، ش 26 و 27،1380 - 1381.
5- ماگنوس، رالف. اچ. و ادن نبی، افغانستان: روحانی، مارکس، مجاهد، ترجمه قاسم ملکی، مرکز چاپ و انتشارات وزارت امورخارجه، 1380.
6- مظفری، پریوش، «نقش آمریکا و سازمان ملل در عراق»، در کتاب: عراق پس از سقوط بغداد، تهران، انتشارات دفتر مطالعات سیاسی و بین­المللی وزارت خارجه، 1384.
7- واگان، لوو، «بحران عراق: اکنون چه باید کرد؟»، ترجمه محسن محبی، مجلة حقوقی دفتر خدمات حقوقی بین­المللی ج. ا. ا.، ش 31، 1383.
8- British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, “Responsibility for the Terrorist Atrocities in the United States in 11 September”, http://www.fco.gov.uk/news/, viewed on 10 January 2007.
9- BrownlieI., International Law and the Use of Force by States, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1960.
10- Carla A. R. & Jeanne C., New Doctrine: How Bush Decided that Iraq’s Hussein Must Be Ousted, Chilling Warnings in October Sparked Internal Debate on Preemptive Strategy, A “Dirty Bomb” Scare in D.C., Wall Street Journal, June 14, 2002, at A1.
11- Caroline case in Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, edited by Hunter Miller, Volume 4, Documents 80-121: 1836-1846, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1934.
12- Cassese A., “The International Community’s Legal Response to Terrorism”, (1989) 38 Int. & Comp. Law Quarterly; International Law, Oxford, 2001 and “The Attack on the World Trade Center: Legal Responses (Terrorism is also Disrupting some Crucial Legal Categories of International Law)”, European Journal of Int. Law (EJIL), http://www.ejil.org/forum_WTC/ny-cassese.pdf.
 
13- Champion S., “Anticipatory (Pre-emptive) Self-defence: The Need for a Modern Approach”, http://www.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE05/Champion05.  html,2005,viwed on 7 January 2007.
14- Crimes of War, “Iraq and the Bush Doctrine of Pre-emptive Self-Defence”, http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/bush-intro.html, 20 August 2002, viewed on 7 January 2007.
15- Dupuy P. M., “The Attack on the World Trade Center: Legal Responses: The Law after the Destruction of the Towers”, EJIL, http://www.ejil.org/forum_WTC/ny-dupuy.html, viewed on 10 January 2007.
16- GA Resolution, 338, 23 Sep. 2003.
17- Giorgio G., “The Attack on the World Trade Center: Legal Responsesin What Sense was There an "Armed Attack"?”, EJIL, http://www.ejil.org/forum_WTC/ny-gaja.html, viewed on 2 January 2007.
18- Gray C., International Law and the Use of Force, OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford, 2001 and “From Unity to Polarization: International Law and the Use of Force against Iraq”, (2002) 13 EJIL 1.
19- Hofman, Rainer, “International Law and the Use of Military Force against Iraq”, (2002) 45 German Yearbook of International Law 10.
20- Holzgrefe J. L. et al., Humanitarian Intervention: Principles, Institutions and Change, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2002.
21- Jennings R. & Watts A.(ed.), Oppenheim’s International Law, Ninth Edition, 9th edn. London, Longman. 1992.
22- McMahon R., “UN: Legality, Legitimacy of Using Force against Iraq under Scrutiny”, in http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/03/14032003153113.asp, viewed on 19 Feb. 2004.
23- Miller H., (Ed.), Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, Volume 4, Documents 80-121: 1836-1846, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1934.
24- Nicaragua Case, ICJ Rep., 1986.
25- O’Connell M. E., “The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense”, The American Society of International Law Task Force on Terrorism, August 2002, and “Re-Leashing the Dogs of War, Review Essay of Christine Gray, International Law and the Use of Force”, (2000) 97 AJIL 446 (2003).
26- Official Records of the General Assembly, 56th Session, Supp. No. 10, Chap. IV E. 2.
27- “President’s Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly”, 12 Sep. 2003, White House Text.
28- Report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization, General Assembly Official Records, Fifty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 1 (A/58/1), 28 August 2003.
29- SC Resolutions 487, 19 June 1981; 573, 4 Oct. 1985; 660, 2 August 1990; 661, 6 August 1990; 678, 29 Nov. 1990; 687, 3 April 1991; 987, 19 April 1995; 1154, 3 March 1998; 1441, 8 Nov. 2002; 1472, 28 March 2003; 1476, 24 April 2003; 1483, 22 May 2003; 1490, 3 July 2003; 1500, 14 August 2003; 1502, 26 August 2003; 1511, 16 Octobr 2003; 1518, 24 Nov. 2003; and 1538, 21 April 2004.
30- Simma B.(ed.) The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, OxfordUniversity Press, 1994.
31- Social Science Research Council, “The Bush Doctrine: the Responsibilities of Sovereignty or a Revolutionary Challenge to the Principles of International Order”, http://www.ssrc.org/programs/gsc/gsc_activities/wheeler.page, 2004, viewed on 7 January 2007.
 
32- Sorel J. M., “L’ONU Et L’Irak: Le Vil Plomb Ne s’Est Pas Transforme en Or Pur”, (2004), Revue General de Droit International Public, 845- 861.
33- Stephen Zunes, “Seven Fallacies of U.S. Plans to Invade Iraq”, and Published in: Foreign Policy in Focus, August 2002, http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0820-04.htm, viewed on 20 May 2004.
34- US Government, “Iraq Attack: Aggression or Self-Defence? Does Hussein’s threat Justify Anticipatory Self-Defence?” http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa091011a.htm, viewed on 7 January 2007.
35- Vikram Dodd, Nicholas Watt and Richard Norton Taylor, The Guardian,         “45-minute Claim on Iraq was Hearsay”, Saturday August 16, 2003, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1020033,00.html, viewed on 9 January 2007.
36- www.bbc.co.uk, 30 October 2006, “Lancet Author Answers your Questions”, viewed on 17 December 2006.
37- www.firstworldwar.com/source/leagueofnations.htm, viewed on 2 January 2004.
38-www.iraqwatch.org/un/unscresolutions/PVRs-debates/un-scmeetings-032703.htm.
39- www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/hague.html, viewed on 3 January 2004.
40- www.un.org/aboutun/charter/, viewed on 2 Jan. 2004.
41- www.templetonthorp.com/en/news273 viewed 30 April 2004.
42- www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/kbpact.htm, viewed on 2 Jan. 2004.
43- www.zanan.co.ir/social/000114.html, viewed on 17 December 2006.
44- www.commondreams.org/views02/0820-04.htm, 2004.
45-www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icases/iunan/iunanframe.htm.
46- www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0305-01.htm, viewed on 10 January 2007.
 
CAPTCHA Image