ممنوعیت توسل به زور، روابط بین المللی، روابط بین الملل

نوامبر 16, 2019 By vZbR33JZrQ

[۱۴۱]- See R.A. Morgan, pp. 307-308; N. Ronzitti, ‘Problemi Francioni & F. Pocar (eds.), Il Regime Internazional Spazio (Milano, Dott. A. Giuffer Editore, 1993), pp. 79-87; E. S. Waldrop, ‘Weaponization of Outer Space: US National Policy’,Vol. XXIX A.A.S.L. 2004, pp.18-21;L. Haeck, ‘Aspects Juridiques de Certaines Militaires de l’ Espace’, Vol. XXI A.A.S.L. 1996, pp. 92-97. for early recognition of this right in outer space, see J. cobb cooper, ‘self-Defense in Outer Space and the United Nations’, in I.A. Vlasic (ed.), Explorations in Aerospace Law: Selected Essays by John Cobb cooper 1946-1966 (Montreal, McGill University Press, 1968), pp. 412-422 and I. Brownlie, supra note the space age, see M. Chandrasekharan, ‘the space Treaty’, vol. 7 Indian JLL 1967, who denies the application of the right of self-defense to outer space.


[142]- See Definition of Aggression Article 3 sub d, annexed to UNGA Res. 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974. A. V. Lowe, ‘Self-Defense at Sea’, in W.E. Butler (ed.), The Non- Use of Force in International Law (Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff publishers, 1989), p. 188 asserts that “the extension of  the right of self defense to cover warships is arguably necessary for the practical survival of the right to defend the State itself”. This reasoning applies undoubtedly to military space assets too.
[143]- Definition of Aggression, Article 3 sub d.
[144]- H.H Almond, ‘Demilitarization and Arms Control: Antarctica’, Vol. 17 case Western J.I.L. 1985, p. 250.
[145]-علمای حقوق بین الملل و دیپلمات ها همواره میان حق بر جنگ (jus ad bellum)یعنی پذیرش دفاع مشروع و ممنوعیت تجاوز از یک سو،با حق در جنگ (jus in bello)به معنی رعایت قوانین بشر دوستانه حین جنگ از سوی دیگر،تفکیک و تمایز قایل شده اند.هنجار های اولیه حق بر جنگ تاپایان قرن نوزده منجر به تأسیس قاعده ممنوعیت توسل به زور در روابط بین المللی نشد. اما در حقوق بین الملل نوین قاعده حق بر جنگ تکامل یافته و به قواعد حقوق جنگ (jus contra bellum)تبدیل شده است که مفهومی کلی است مشتمل بر “ممنوعیت تجاوز و پذیرش دفاع مشروع در چارچوب نظام بین المللی مبتنی بر منشور سازمان ملل متحد “است.
منبع:
Ove bring,”betha von Suttner and international law:ius contra bellum”,symposium on bertha von Suttner-  

First woman to be awarded with the nobel peace prize in 1905,hague,april 2005.
[146]- Antarctic Treaty, preamble (emphasis added).
[147]-  To illustrate this point with State practice, one can refer to the care taken by the UK during the Falklands War to avoid military operations in the Antarctic region. See D.R. Rothwell, The polar Region and the Development of International Law (Cambridge University press, 1996), p. 72.
[148]- Cf. Antarctic Treaty, Article 1.
[149]- M. Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars (New York, Basic Books, 3th ed., 2000), p. 129. The just in bello is also called international humanitarian law, the law of war or the law of armed conflict (LOAC). The latter term will be used throughout this article.
[150]- See for instance the Nicaragua case, § ۲۱۸ and the Nuclear Weapons case, §§ ۷۵-۸۴.
[۱۵۱]- R.A. Ramey, ‘Armed Conflict on the Final Frontier: The Law of War in Space’, Vol. 84 A.F.L. Rev. 2000, pp. 124-125.
[152]- It is submitted that the OST as the magna Charta of law continues to apply in armed conflict between two or more belligerents. Firstly, States are under the obligation to allow non-belligerent States access in space. See J.I. Gabrynowicz, ‘The Outer Space treaty and Enhancing Space Security’, in UNIDIR, Building the Architecture for Sustainable Space Security- Conference Report, 30-31March 2006 (Geneva. UNIDIR publications, 2006), pp. 113-123.secondly, the OST provisions, especially Article IV, are overriding norms in the sense that by their nature they are spacifically designed to apply during armed conflict as they serve to minimize the risk of and damage in armed conflict. See R.J. Mathews &T.L.H. McCormack. “The Influence  of humanitarain Principles in the Negotiation of Arms Control Treaties”, vol. 81 I.R.R.C. 1999, pp. 334-335. Besides, the OST embodies, application. See R.J. Lee.
[153] – W.L. Rodgers, ‘Laws of War Concerning Aviation and Radio’, vol. 17 A.J.I.L. 1923, p. 635 restating the view of the “Commission of Jurists”, established during the 1921 Washington Conferece on the Limitation of Armament to consider amendment of the laws of war. The Commission’s work contributed to the formation of the 1923 Hague Rulers of Air Warfare.
[154]- ICRC Commentary, http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO?Open View (last accessed on 24 February 2011), Article 35, § ۱۴۵۰.see also P.J. Richards & M.N. Schmitt, ‘Mars Meets Mother Nature: Protecting the Environment during Armed Conflict’, vol. 28 Staston L. Rev 1999, p. 1049.


[155]-the First Protocol Additional(A P I)to the 1949 Geneva Convention.
[156]- In favour , see M. Bourbonniere, ‘Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) and the Neutralistation of satellite of Ius in Bello Satellitis’, Vol. 9J.C.S.L. 2004, pp. 43-69 and J.M. Henkaerts & L. Doswald- Beek, ICRC Study on Customary. Rules of International Humanitrain Law (Cambridge, Cambridge Nniversity Press, 2005) (CIHLS), Rules 44-45. Againsts : Y. Dinstein , The Conduct of  Hostilities Under The Law Of International Armed Conflict (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 185, who cites the authority of the ICJ in the Nunclear Weapons case to argue that these provisions “have not yet crystallized as customary international law”.
[157]- See Y. Dinstein, p. 184.