apartheid; An example of violation of the rule of prohibition of discrimination. Focusing on moral values and looking at the Palestinian issue
Subject Areas : Ethics and Islamic EducationFatemeh Beigi Mirazizi 1 , Sattar Azizi 2 * , Farid Azad Bakht 3 , Mohammad Javad Jafari 4
1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
Keywords: discrimination, apartheid, war crime, Palestine.,
Abstract :
Discrimination is known as an international crime, the prohibition of which is a mandatory rule in international law and is a necessity in order to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms and guarantee his dignity and even in some cases to maintain international peace and security. Therefore, the principle of prohibition of discrimination has a prominent role in the international human rights system. The Geneva Quadrilateral Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 1977 contain provisions that expressly prohibit "adverse discrimination" against persons affected by armed conflict and occupation, and require equal treatment between certain categories of persons, such as the sick, and this is the first step in considering Making apartheid a war crime. After this first step, the human suffering caused by the political ideology of apartheid in South Africa during 1948 to 1994, which drew global condemnation and a variety of diplomatic and legal responses, led to the adoption of the Apartheid Convention in 1973 as a crime against humanity. And also, war crime became the first in Article 85 (4) (c) of the Additional Protocol. These international reactions did not stop even after the end of the apartheid era, and in 1998, apartheid was included as an example of war crime in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Furthermore, paragraph 1 of Article 86 AP I, which obliges parties to suppress serious violations of the Protocol, ensures that apartheid is included as a war crime in the domestic criminal laws of many countries, and the destruction of apartheid in South Africa will not change this. In fact, it is the increasing (but debatable)use of the term apartheid in laws that makes Israel's actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories(OPT)cause or even increase individual criminal prosecution in this context. In other words, although the inclusion of the Apartheid Convention on Israel's actions faces challenges, there are no such restrictions regarding the provisions of API.
Aileen McColgan, (2003), "Principles of Equality and Protection From Discrimination in International Human Rights Law", European Human Rights Issue, vol:2, p. 157
Bakircioglu Onder, (2007), “The Application of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in Freedom of Expression and Public Morality Cases”, German, Law Journal, Vol. 8, No. 7
Benenenisti Eyal, (1999), “Margin of Appreciation, Consensus and Universal Standards”, International Law and Politics, Vol. 31.
Brauch Jeffrey, (2004), “The Margin of Appreciation and the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Threat to the Rule of Law”, Columbia Journal of European Law, Vol. 11.
Brems Eva, (1996), “The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights”, Heidelberg Journal of International Law, Vol. 56.
Buss, Sara; (2008), personal autonomy, in: Stanford Encyclopedia ofPhilosophy. URL= http://plato.stanford.edu/ entries/personal-autonomy
Carola, Lingaas.,(2015).The Crime against Humanity of Apartheid in a Post-Apartheid World, Oslo Law Review Issue 2, pp 86-115.
CERD/ C, Concluding Observations: Morocco, (2003), Para 14, at U.N. Doc. CERD/C/62/Co/5. Visited on: http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/docs.nsf
Cf. MacKinnon C, Feminism Unmodified-Discourses on Life and Law (1987), 32-45.
Cf. Meron T., (1985), 'The Meaning and Reach of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination' 79 AJIL 283. at 286.
Christman, John; (2008), Autonomy in Moral and Political Philosophy,in: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL=http://plato.stanford.edu/ entries/autonomy-moral
Communication No. 172/1984, S. W. M. Broeks v. the Netherlands (Views adopted on 9 April 1987), in UN doc. GAOR, A/42/40, p. 150, para. 13; emphasis added.
Deborah C.Malamud(2015). Discrimination and the Law, International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition), 2015, Pages 530-535.
Delmas- Marty, Mireille;( 2002), Global Crime Calls for Global Justice European Journal of crime Law and Criminal Justice; Vol. 10, Issue 4, pp. 286-293.
Devlin, P; (1965),_The Enforcement of Morals, Oxford, Oxford University press.
Dugard J (2007) Report of the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 (29 January 2007). UN Doc. A/HRC/4/17.
Dworkin, Gerald,(2010), Paternalism, in: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL= http://plato.stanford.edu/ entries/paternalism
Eser, Albien(1966), The Principale of Harm in the Concept of Crime: A Comparative Analysis of Criminally Protected Interests; Duquesne U. L. Rev., Vol. 4, pp. 345, 413.
Eur. Court HR, Case “relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium” (Merits), judgment of 23 July 1968, Series A, No. 6, p. 33, para. 9.
Falk R (2010) Report of the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 (30 August 2010). UN Doc. A/65/331.
Feinberg Joel, (1985), Offence to others, New York, Oxford University.
Feinberg, Joel, (1994),The moral limits of The criminal law, volume one : Harmtothers, Newyork: oxford university press.
Fitzmaurice G (1957) The law and procedure of the International Court of Justice 1951–1954: treaty interpretation and other treaty points. Br Yearb Int Law 33:203–293.
Geoff Gilbert, (2002),"The Burgeoning Minority Rights Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights", Hunnan Rights Quarterly, Vol:24.p. 738
Gert, Bernard; (2008), The Difinition of Morality, in: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL= http://plato.stanford.edu/
Hill Jr, Thomas E;(2001), Autonomy of moral agent, in: Encyclopedia of Ethics, edited by Lawrence C.Becker and Charlotte B.Becker, New York and London, Routledge.
Janneke Gerards(2013),The Discrimination Grounds of Article14 of the European Conventionon Human Rights, Human Rights Law Review 13(1):99-124
Kratochvيl Jan, (2011), “The Inflation of the Margin of Appreciation by the European Court of Human Rights”, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights,
Letsas, George, (2007), A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention of Human Rights, New York, Oxford University Press
MacDonald Ronald, (1987), The Margin of Appreciation in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, in: International Law at the Time of its Codification: Essays in Honor of Roberto Ago, London, Oxford University Pres.
Martínez-Torron Javier, (2005), “Limitations on Religious Freedom in the Case Law the European Court of Human Rights”, Emory International Law Review, Vol. 19.
Mitchel, Basil,( 1970), “Law, morality and Religion in secular Society”,London:oxford university press.
Moon, supra, n. 6, at 696. Cf. Majury D., (1991),'Strategizing in Equality' in Fineman M, and Thomadsen N. (eds.), At the Boundaries of Law-Feminism and legal Theory, 320, at 323-4.
O'Donnell Thomas, (1982), “The Margin ofAppreciation Doctrine: Standards in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights”, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 4.
Partsch K., (1957), 'Fundamental Principles of Human Rights: Self-Determination, Equality and Non-Discrimination' in Laurd E., The International Protection of Human Rights, at 69.
Pre-trial Chamber 1, (2006), "Situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo in the case of the prosecutor versus Thomas Lubanga Dayilo", available at: www. icc-cpi.int
Radacic Ivana, (2008), “Critical Review of Jurisprudence: An Occasional Series Gender Equality Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 19, No. 4.
Reserves to the Genocide Convention, Advisory Opinion, (1980),C.1,J. Reports 1951, p. 23.3. United States Diplomatic and Consuler Staff Case, Judgment, C…, Reports, para 91.
Stanton, John, (2006), The Limits of Law, in: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL= http://plato.stanford.edu/ entries/law-limits
Steven, Greer, (2000), The Margin of Appreciation: Interpretation andDiscretion under the European Convention on Human Rights, Strasbourg, Council of Europe Publishing.
The Rand Daily Mail) 2009(, “Premier Lashes Israel” (23 November 1961), as quoted in Clarno, p. 66.
Tomuschat C (2005) Universal criminal jurisdiction with respect to the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit Internationa 71:213–388
Tufyal Choudhury, (2003), Interpreting the Rights to Equality under Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights", European Human Rights Law Review Issue 1,p.25
Van Dijk and others,(1998), Theory and practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, The Hague, Kluwer law International, p. 719
Vandenhole W., (2005), Non-Discrimination and Equality in the View of the UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies, Antwerp-Oxford: Intersentia-Hart.
Wotrtew Vandenhole, (2005),Non-Discrimination and Equality in the view of the UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies, Oxford, intersection, p. 33.
Wright, Jane, Minority Groups, Autonomy, and Self-Determination, University of Essex, (1999),Department of Law and Human Rights Centre, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 19, p. 605,. Last visited on 28/07/2010 on: http;//www.ojls.oxfordjournals.org
Yutaka, Arai-Takahashi, (2002), The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality inthe Jurisprudence of the ECHR, Intersentia,Antwerp/ Oxford/ New York..
27 |
نوع مقاله: پژوهشی
صفحات 46 – 27
آپارتاید؛ مصداق نقض قاعده منع تبعیض. با محوریت توجه به ارزش های اخلاقی و نگاه به مسأله فلسطین
فاطمه بیگی میرعزیزی1
ستار عزیزی 2
فرید آزاد بخت 3
محمدجواد جعفری4
چکیده
تبعیض به عنوان جنایتی بینالمللی شناخته شده است که منع آن به عنوان یک قاعده آمره در حقوق بین الملل یک ضرورت به منظور حمایت ازحقوق و آزادیهای اساسی انسان و تضمین کرامت وی و حتی در مواردی حفظ صلح و امنیت بین المللی میباشد. بنابراین اصل منع تبعیض از شأن و نقش برجستهای در نظام بین المللی حقوق بشر برخوردار است. کنوانسیونهای چهارگانه ژنو 1949 و پروتکلهای الحاقی 1977 شامل مقرراتی است که صراحتاً «تمایز نامطلوب» را علیه افراد متأثر از مخاصمات مسلحانه و اشغال را ممنوع میکند و رفتار برابر بین دستههای خاصی از افراد، مانند بیماران، را ایجاب مینماید و این گام نخست در تلقی نمودن آپارتاید بهعنوان جنایت جنگی است. پس از این گام نخست، درد و رنج انسانی ناشی از ایدئولوژی سیاسی آپارتاید در آفریقای جنوبی در طی سالهای 1948 تا 1994، که محکومیت جهانی و انواع واکنشهای دیپلماتیک و حقوقی را در بر داشت منجر به تصویب کنوانسیون آپارتاید در سال 1973 بهعنوان جنایت علیه بشریت و همچنین جنایت جنگی در ماده 85 (4) (ج) پروتکل الحاقی اول شد.این واکنشهای بینالمللی حتی با پایان یافتن دوران آپارتاید نیز متوقف نشد و در سال 1998 آپارتاید بهعنوان مصداق جنایت جنگی در اساسنامه دادگاه کیفری بینالمللی (ICC) گنجانده شد. علاوهبراین، بند 1 ماده 86 AP I، که طرفین را ملزم به سرکوب نقض شدید پروتکل میکند، تضمین مینماید که آپارتاید بهعنوان جنایت جنگی در قوانین کیفری داخلی بسیاری از کشورها گنجانده شود و نابودی آپارتاید در آفریقای جنوبی باعث تغییر در این مسأله نخواهد شد. در حقیقت، همین کاربرد روز افزون (اما موردبحث) واژه آپارتاید در قوانین است که عملکرد اسرائیل در سرزمینهای اشغالی فلسطین (OPT) را باعث تعقیب کیفری فردی در این زمینه مینماید و یا حتی آنرا افزایش میدهد. بهعبارت دیگر، اگرچه شمول کنوانسیون آپارتاید بر اقدامات اسرائیل با چالشهایی مواجه است اما درخصوص مقررات AP I چنین محدودیتهایی دیده نمیشود.
واژگان کلیدی
[1] . دانشجویدکتریحقوق بینالملل عمومی، دانشکده حقوق،واحد کرمانشاه، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، کرمانشاه، ایران.
[2] . استاد حقوق بین الملل، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، همدان، ایران. (نویسنده مسئول)
Email: s.azizi@basu.ac.ir
[3] . استادیار، دانشکده حقوق، واحد کرمانشاه، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، کرمانشاه، ایران.
[4] . استادیار، دانشکده حقوق، واحد کرمانشاه، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، کرمانشاه، ایران.
تاریخ دریافت: 24/1/1402 پذیرش نهایی: 27/4/1402