نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 استادیار گروه حقوق عمومی دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران
2 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق بینالملل عمومی دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
In the post-United Nations era, significant doctrinal developments in international law led to the recognition of unilateral acts of states as autonomous legal instruments, particularly where the intent to create legal obligations in international relations was manifest. This progressive evolution culminated in the 1970s with the Nuclear Tests Case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), affording the Court a seminal opportunity to delineate the legal principles and criteria governing unilateral acts. In its judgment, the ICJ endeavored to mitigate legal uncertainties surrounding such acts and to establish a framework for determining their binding nature. However, a critical examination of the ruling underscores that the Court’s enunciated criteria are not only fraught with doctrinal deficiencies and substantive critiques but also fail to construct a coherent and operational legal framework for the identification and assessment of unilateral acts. In subsequent decisions, the ICJ adopted a more objective and doctrinally structured approach, making the legal effects of unilateral acts contingent upon factors such as the precision of the declarations, their normative context, and the reactions of third states. This shift reflects the Court’s attempt to remedy the deficiencies of the 1974 judgment and to consolidate the normative framework governing unilateral acts. This study examines the ICJ’s evolving jurisprudence on unilateral acts, assessing its doctrinal challenges and interpretive ambiguities.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)