| تعداد نشریات | 56 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 2,166 |
| تعداد مقالات | 22,586 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 117,980,410 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 52,011,728 |
نقش قواعد حقوق بینالملل در تفسیر مواد موافقتنامههای سازمان جهانی تجارت | ||
| دانشنامه حقوق اقتصادی | ||
| دوره 29، شماره 22، بهمن 1401، صفحه 319-289 اصل مقاله (908.2 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22067/economlaw.2023.78102.1204 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| اسماء سالاری* 1؛ ساسان صیرفی2 | ||
| 1عضو هیات علمی | ||
| 2گروه حقوق عمومی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| اجرا و اِعمال یک قاعده حقوقی مستلزم تفسیر آن است. طبق اسناد سازمان جهانی تجارت، این امر باید بر اساس قواعد عرفی تفسیر در حقوق بینالملل صورت گیرد. از جمله مؤلفههای مؤثر در تفسیر موافقتنامههای سازمان، سایر قواعد حقوق بینالملل است مشروط بر آنکه مرتبط و قابل اعمال بر روابط اعضای معاهدة تحت تفسیر باشند. اجزای این مؤلفه با بررسی آراء هیئتهای رسیدگی رکن حل اختلاف سازمان و نظرات اندیشمندان حقوقی واکاوی میشود تا به این سؤال مهم پاسخ داده شود که آیا سایر قواعد حقوق بینالملل با شرایط ذکرشده، عملاً در تفسیر اسناد سازمان اِعمال میگردند. منابع این پژوهش، کتابخانهای و مشتمل بر تقریرات حقوقدانان، آراء مراجع بینالمللی و اسناد حقوق بینالملل میباشد و روش پژوهش نیز توصیفی- تحلیلی است. نتایج این بررسی نشان میدهد هیئتهای رسیدگیِ سازمان، عمدتاً با تکیة افراطی به متن و واژگان قاعده تحت تفسیر و همچنین برداشت مضیق از واژه «اعضا» نسبت به اثرگذاری سایر قواعد حقوق بینالملل مرتبط و قابل اعمال میان اعضا مقاومت دارند. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| بند ج قسمت سوم ماده 31 کنوانسیون معاهدات؛ پنلها و رکن استیناف؛ تفسیر؛ سازمان جهانی تجارت | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Books & Articles [1] Cook, G. (2015), A digest of WTO jurisprudence on public international law concepts and principles, Cambridge University Press [2] Dörr, O., & Schmalenbach, K. (2018), Vienna convention on the law of treaties, Springer [3] Franken, L., & Burchardi, J. E., (2007), Assessing the WTO Panel Report in EC-Biotech, Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, Vol. 4, No. 1 [4] Gruszczynski, L., (2012), Customary Rules of Interpretation in the Practice of WTO Dispute Settlement Bodies in Nollkaemper, A., Fauchald, O. K. (eds.),The Practice of International and National Courts and (De) Fragmentation of International Law, Hart Publishing, Oxford [5] Henckels, C., (2006), GMOs in the WTO: A Critique of the Panel’s Legal Reasoning in EC- Biotech, Melbourne Journal of International Law, Vol. 7 [6] Linderfalk, U., (2007), On the Interpretation of Treaties, Springer, Dordrecht, [7] McGrady, B., (2008), Fragmentation of International Law or Systemic Integration of Treaty Regimes: EC Biotech Products and the Proper Interpretation of Article 31 (3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Journal of World Trade, Vol. 42 [8] Quereshi, Ah., (2015), Interpreting WTO Agreement: Problems and Perspective, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge [9] Van den Bossche, P. & Werner zdouc, W., (2022), The law and policy of the World Trade Organization: text, cases and materials. 5th ed, Cambridge University Press [10] Villiger, M. E. (2009), Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Brill [11] Young, M. A., (2007), The WTO's Use of Relevant Rules of International Law: An Analysis of the Biotech Case , International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 4 [12]Ansari, A., Hajian, M., (2017), Principles of Law and Interpretation of WTO Regulations, Private Law Research, Vol. 14 (in Persian) [13]Falsafi, H., (2011), International Law of Treaties, Tehran, Farhang Nashr No Pub, 3rd Edition.(in Persian) [14]Karimi, S., (2019), The Comparative Study of the of the Bona Fide Application in the Process of Interpretation of Agreements before Dispute Resolution Bodies of WTO, Quarterly of Legal Encyclopedia, Vol. 7 (in Persian) [15]Shamsaee, M., (2012), Word Trade Organization and International Legal Order, Public Law Research, No. 37 (in Persian) Cases & Instruments [1] Agreement on Sustainable and Countervailing Measures (SCM), 1994 [2] Antigua and Barbuda v. US, WT/DS285/AB/R, 7 April 2005 [3] Argentina v. Chile, WT/DS207/R, 3 May 2002 [4] Argentina v. Uruguay, ICJ, judgment of 20 April 2010 [5] Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, ICJ, judgment of 26 February 2007 [6] Botswana v. Namibia, , ICJ, judgment of 13 December 1999 [7] Brazil v. EC, WT/DS269/AB/R, 12 September 2005 [8] Brazil v. EC, WT/DS69/AB/R, 13 July 1998 [9] China v. US, WT/DS379/AB/R, 11 March 2011 [10] China v. US, WT/DS379/R, 22 October 2010 [11] Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 1993 [12] Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, 1979 [13] Costa Rica v. Nicaragua, ICJ, Judgment of 13 July 2009 [14] EC & others v. US, WT/DS316/AB/R, 18 May 2011 [15] EC & others v. US, WT/DS316/R, 30 June 2010 [16] EC v. Japan, WT/DS8/AB/R, 4 October 1996 [17] EC v. US, WT/DS160/R, 15 June 2000 [18] Germany v. US, ICJ, judgment of 27 June 2001 [19] Guatemala v. Peru, WT/DS457/AB/R, 20 July 2015 [20] Guinea-Bissau v Senegal, ICJ, Judgment of 12 November of 1991 [21] Hassan v. UK, ECtHR, App No 29750/09, ECHR, Judgment of 16 September 2014 [22]ILC Report on Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and [23]Expansion of International Law, 2006 [24] India& others v. US, WT/DS58/AB/R, 12 October 1998 [25] Korea v. EC, WT/DS301/R, 22 April 2005 [26] Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa, ICJ, Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971 [27] Libya v Chad, ICJ, judgment of 3 February 1994 [28] Mexico v. US, ICJ, judgment of 31 March 2004 [29] Mexico v. US, WT/DS344/AB/R, 30 April 2008 [30] Nicaragua and Colombia ICJ, Preliminary Objections of 17 March 2016 [31] Peru v Chile, ICJ, Judgment of 27 January 2014 [32] Somalia v Kenya, ICJ, Preliminary Objections of, 2 February 2017 [33] The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Work, 1886 [34] The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2000 [35] Understanding on Rules and Procedure Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) [36] US v. China, WT/DS363/AB/R, 21 December 2009 [37] US v. China, WT/DS394/R, 5 July 2011 [38] US v. China, WT/DS431/R, 26 March 2014 [39] US v. EC, WT/DS26/AB/R, 16 January 1998 [40] US v. EC, WT/DS291/R, 29 September 2006 [41] US v. India, WT/DS50/AB/R, 19 December 1997 [42] US v. Mexico, WT/DS308/R, 7 October 2005 [43] Venezuela & Bolivarian v. US, WT/DS2/AB/R, 29 April 1996 [44] Venezuela & Bolivarian v. US, WT/DS2/AB/R, 29 April 1996 | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,981 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,345 |
||