پیوندهای مفید
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 30 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 467 |
| تعداد مقالات | 4,522 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 7,145,243 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 5,334,946 |
رویکرد دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر به توسل به زور توسط مأموران دولتی (انتظامی و نظامی)؛ در مغایرت یا موافقت با حق حیات | ||
| پژوهشنامه حقوق تطبیقی | ||
| مقاله 1، دوره 8، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 16، دی 1403 | ||
| نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22080/lps.2024.27037.1623 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| فروغ اسدی1؛ هادی صالحی2؛ عقیل محمدی* 3 | ||
| 1کارشناس ارشد حقوق بین الملل، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران. | ||
| 2استادیار گروه حقوق عمومی و بین الملل، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران. | ||
| 3استادیار گروه حقوق عمومی و بین الملل، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 10 اردیبهشت 1403، تاریخ بازنگری: 07 مرداد 1403، تاریخ پذیرش: 09 مهر 1403 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| ماده‌ی 2 (1) کنوانسیون اروپایی حقوق بشر، ضمن به رسمیت شناختن حق حیات، محروم کردن عمدی افراد از این حق را منع کرده است. با این حال، بند 2 این ماده، توسل به زور (قوه‌ی قهریه) توسط نیروها و مأموران دولتیِ نظامی و انتظامی به هنگام دفاع از اشخاص در برابر خشونت غیرقانونی، بازداشت قانونی یا جلوگیری از فرار شخصی که قانوناً در بازداشت است، و اقدام قانونی برای سرکوب اغتشاش یا شورش که منجر به مرگ ناخواسته‌ی فرد یا افرادی شود را مغایر حق حیات ندانسته است. دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر نیز ضمن تأیید این سه حالت، در پرتو بند 2 ماده‌ی 15 کنوانسیون، مرگ‌های ناشی از اعمال قانونی در زمان جنگ را نیز دیگر استثناء حق حیات اعلام کرده است. این مقاله مبتنی بر روش توصیفی – تحلیلی، ضمن بررسی این 4 وضعیت، به این سؤال پاسخ می‌دهد که عدول از حق حیات در این موارد، تحت چه شرایطی امکان‌پذیر است؟ این مقاله نتیجه می‌گیرد که در پرتو تفسیر کنوانسیون و رویه‌ی دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر، عدول از حق حیات در وضعیت‌های چهارگانه، مطلق نخواهد بود و ضمن اینکه اعمال زور در این موارد باید کاملاً ضروری و اجتناب‌ناپذیر باشد، شرایط متعددی نیز باید در مراحل پیش، حین و پس از اعمال زور رعایت شود. چنن امری اساساً نشان‌دهنده رویکرد دیوان مبنی بر تضمین حداکثری حق حیات و محدود کردن عدول از آن به موارد بسیار استثناء می‌باشد که طبیعتاً با مفاد کنوانسیون و روح حاکم بر آن انطباق دارد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| حق حیات؛ توسل به زور؛ مأموران انتظامی و نظامی؛ عدول؛ دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر؛ کنوانسیون اروپایی حقوق بشر | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| The approach of the European Court of Human Rights to the Use of Force by State Agents (Law Enforcement and Military); In Contradiction or Agreement with the Right to Life | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Foroogh Asadi1؛ Hadi Salehi2؛ Aghil Mohammadi3 | ||
| 1Master of International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. | ||
| 2Assistant Professor of Public Law. Department of Public and International Law. School of Law and Political Sciences. Shiraz University. Shiraz, Iran. | ||
| 3Assistant Professor of International Law. Department of Public and International Law. School of Law and Political Sciences. Shiraz University. Shiraz. Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Article 2 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, while recognizing the right to life, prohibits deliberately depriving people of this right. However, paragraph 2 of this article refers to the use of force by law enforcement and military agents of state in defence of any person from unlawful violence, in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained and in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection that leads to the unwanted death of a person or persons is not against the right to life. The European Court of Human Rights, while confirming these three cases, in the light of paragraph 2 of Article 15 of the Convention, has also declared deaths resulting from lawful acts of war, as an exception to the right to life. This article, based on the descriptive-analytical method, while examining these 4 situations, answers the question, under what conditions is it possible to derogate the right to life in these cases? This article concludes that in the light of the interpretation of the convention and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the violation of the right to life in the four situations will not be absolute, and while the use of force in these cases must be absolutely necessary and unavoidable. Several conditions must be met in the stages before, during and after the use of force. Such a matter basically shows the approach of the court to guarantee the maximum right to life and limit the deviation from it to very exceptional cases, which naturally conforms to the provisions of the convention and its governing spirit. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Right to Life, Use of Force, Law Enforcement and Military Agents, Derogation, European Court of Human Rights, European Convention on Human Rights | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abresch, W. (2005), A Human Rights Law of Internal Armed Conflict: The European Court of Human Rights in Chechnya, The European Journal of International Law, 16(4), 741-767. dio. 10.1093/ejil/chi139.
Azizi, S (2012), Invitation from external interference assessment legitimacy in mkhạṣmạt internal: Emphasis " Military activities in Primorsky cheongsam " vote Holder in case the international tribunal, Public Law Research, 13(33), 169-202. [In Persian]
E.C.H.R, Guide on Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Right to Life,31 August 2023.
E.C.H.R, Finogenov & others v. Russia, Judgment, Application Nos.18299/03 and 27311/03, 20 December 2012.
E.C.H.R, Information sheet (right to life), Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights, 2012. E.C.H.R, European convention of human rights,1950.
E.C.H.R, Andreou v. Turkey, Application no. 45653/99, 27 October 2009.
E.C.H.R, Evrim Öktem v. Turkey, Judgment, Application No.9207/03, 4 November 2011.
E.C.H.R, Ergi v. Turkey, Judgment, Application No.23818/94, 28 June 1998.
E.C.H.R, Ahmet Ozakan & others v. Turkey, Application No. 21689/93, 6 April 2004. E.C.H.R, Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus, Judgment, Application No. 25052/94, 9 October 1997.
E.C.H.R, Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, Judgment, Application No.50196/99, 17 March 2005.
E.C.H.R, Giuliani & Gaggio v. Italy, Judgement, Application No.23458/02, 24 March 2011.
E.C.H.R, Buldan v. Turkey, Judgment, Application No.28298/95, 20 April 2004.
E.C.H.R, Isayeva v. Russia, Application no. 57950/00, 24 February 2005 E.C.H.R, Kakoulli v. Turkey, Judgement, Application No.38595/97, 22 November 2005.
E.C.H.R, Kaya v. Turkey, Judgment, Application No.22729/93, 19 February 1998.
E.C.H.R, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, Judgement, Application No.18984/91, 27 September 1995.
E.C.H.R, Nachova & Others v. Bulgaria, Judgement, application Nos.43577/98 and 43579/98, 6 July 2005.
E.C.H.R, Mojsiejew v. Poland, Judgment, Application No.11818/02, 24 March 2009.
E.C.H.R, Sašo Gorgiev v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Judgment, Application No.49382/06, 19 April 2012.
E.C.H.R, Wasilewska and Kałucka v. Poland, Judgement, Application Nos.28975/04 and 33406/04, 23 February 2010.
Chamber judgment Perisan and Others v. Turkey, Press Release - Chamber Judgments, Published On 20/05/2010.
Chamber judgment Andreou v. Turkey 27.10.2009, Press Release - Chamber Judgments
Fiala, J. Lewis, O. (2008), Human rights aspects of deaths of institutionalized people with disabilities in Europe, in: Disabled People and the Right to Life, edited by: Luke Clements, Janet Read, Routledge
Gerards, J. (2013), How to improve the necessity test of the European Court of Human Rights, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 11(2), 466-490.
Ghobadi, M. Ghari Seyyed Fatemi, S. M. (2018), The Relationship between Terrorism and the Right to Life in Light of the International Judicial Precedent, Journal of Political and International Research Quarterly, 10(36), 51- 75. [In Persian]
Hajimollah, H., & Mohammadi, A. (2021). Evaluating the ratio of the Principle of Necessity and the Principle of Proportionality in the Realm of Limitation and Suspension of Human Rights. Journal of Legal Studies. 13(39), 29-54 [In Persian]. dio.10.22099/JLS.2020.38517.4077
Hasani, MH. & Alizadeh, H. Salman Nejati, Q. (2021), Comparative study of the principles and conditions of legitimate defense in the criminal law of Iran and Scotland, Comparative Law Quarterly, 5(1), 67-87.dio. 10.22080/LPS.2021.19848.1195 [In Persian]
Irwin, K. E. (1998), Prospects for Justice: The Procedural Aspect of the Right to Life Under the European Convention on Human Rights and Its Applications to Investigations of Northern Ireland’s Bloody Sunday, Fordham International Law Journal, 22(4),1821-1859.
ICRC, Basic Principles of international law, at: https://blogs.icrc.org/ir/ohl/339-2/
Jayawickrama, N. (2002), The judicial application of human right law: National, Regional and International Jurisprudence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jason, G. J. (1987), The Nature of the Argumentum ad baculum, 17(4), 491-499. dio. :10.1007/BF02381067
Korff, D. (2006), The right to life: A guide to the implementation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, In: The Human rights handbooks, No.8.
Nowak, M. (2005), Article 6: The Right to Life, Survival and Development, A Commentary on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff .
Pūraitė, A., & Mikalauskaitė – Šostakienė, K. (2010), implementation issues of article 2 (the right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of public safety protection, Public Security and Public Order, 3, 36-50.
Reisoğlu, S. (1998), Right to life, Journal of International Affairs 3(4),1-5.
Skinner, S. (2019), Lethal force, the right to life and the ECHR: Narratives of Death and Democracy, Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Teodorescu, C. C. (2010), The right to life guaranteed by the European convention on human rights and its exception, Masaryk University,1-14.
York, J. (2010), The Right to Life and the Value of Life: Orientations in Law, Politics and Ethics, New York: Routledge.
Watts, J. C. (2010), Effective Investigations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Securing the Right to Life or an Onerous Burden on a State?, The European Journal of International Law, 21(3), 701-721.dio. 10.1093/ejil/chq045
Woods. J. (1998), Argumentum ad baculum, Argumentation, 12(4), 493-504.
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 134 |
||