پیوندهای مفید
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 31 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 479 |
| تعداد مقالات | 4,665 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 7,304,120 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 5,466,305 |
دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر و مساله توسل به زور توسط مأموران دولتی: ارزیابی از منظر حق حیات | ||
| پژوهشنامه حقوق تطبیقی | ||
| مقاله 1، دوره 8، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 16، دی 1403، صفحه 7-31 اصل مقاله (515.26 K) | ||
| 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 را از این حق منع کرده است. بااین‌حال، بند 2 این ماده توسل به زور (قوه‌ی قهریه) توسط نیروها و مأموران دولتیِ نظامی و انتظامی 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 را، که منجر به مرگ ناخواسته‌ی فرد یا افرادی شود، مغایر حق حیات ندانسته است. دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر نیز ضمن تأیید این سه حالت، در پرتو بند دوم ماده‌ی 15 کنوانسیون، مرگ‌های ناشی از اعمال قانونی در زمان جنگ را نیز دیگر استثنای حق حیات اعلام کرده است. این مقاله مبتنی‌بر روش توصیفی– تحلیلی، ضمن بررسی این چهار 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 نشان‌دهنده‌ی رویکرد دیوان مبنی‌بر تضمین حداکثری حق حیات و محدود کردن عدول از آن به موارد بسیار استثنا است 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] | ||
| European Court of Human Rights and the Use of Force by Military Forces: An Evaluation in Light of 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 recognizes the right to life and prohibits the deliberate deprivation of this right. However, paragraph 2 of this article addresses the use of force by law enforcement and military agents of the state in defense of individuals against unlawful violence, to effect a lawful arrest, or to prevent the escape of a lawfully detained person. Additionally, actions taken to quell a riot or insurrection that may result in the unintended death of one or more individuals are not considered violations of the right to life. The European Court of Human Rights has affirmed these three scenarios, in light of paragraph 2 of Article 15 of the Convention, and has also classified deaths resulting from lawful acts of war as exceptions to the right to life. This article employs a descriptive-analytical method to examine four specific situations and addresses the question: under what conditions is it permissible to derogate the right to life in these cases? The article concludes that, based on the interpretation of the convention and the precedents set by the European Court of Human Rights, violations of the right to life in these four situations are not absolute. Furthermore, the use of force in these cases must be both necessary and unavoidable. Several conditions must be satisfied in the stages before, during, and after the use of force. This matter reflects the court's approach to safeguarding the right to life and restricting deviations from it to very exceptional circumstances, which aligns with the provisions and underlying principles of the convention. | ||
| 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: 250 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 120 |
||