نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانش آموخته دکتری حقوق بینالملل، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی
2 استادیار حقوق بین الملل، گروه حقوق عمومی و بین الملل، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه شیراز
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Necessity and proportionality are among the most widely used principles in international human rights law, their relationship is not very clear, the present article after explaining the concept and position of the mentioned principles in the scope of international human rights Rules, it measures the ratio of each of them to each other in a four-way relationship. based on the approach of the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” and the “European Convention on Human Rights”, the principles in the field of limitation and suspension of human rights are compared. the question is when a human right is restricted or suspended, In order to preserve the nature and essence of that right, which of these two principles should be given priority? despite the lack of consensus among the regulatory bodies of the two documents, it appears in time of public emergency and the suspension of the right by the state, the principle of necessity should be used as a criterion in the concept of "less intrusive means". since the basis of the principle of proportionality and the interpretation of the principle of necessity in its shadow, increases the discretion of the state in suspending rights and intensifies the risk of slipping into the trap of utilitarianism, applying the principle of necessity can prevent this damage to a great extent.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)