Journal International Law_N2-09_N1-10.indd
Journal International Law_N2-09_N1-10.indd
Journal International Law_N2-09_N1-10.indd
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
ivane javaxiSvilis sax. Tbilisis saxelmwifo universiteti<br />
iuridiuli fakultetis saerTaSoriso samarTlis instituti<br />
Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University<br />
<strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> Institute, Faculty of <strong>Law</strong><br />
This project is funded by the European Union<br />
A project implemented hy Hulla & Co. Human Dynamics KG<br />
public sector consulting<br />
#2, 20<strong>09</strong>, #1, 2010<br />
saerTaSoriso<br />
samarTlis<br />
Jurnali<br />
JOURNAL OF<br />
INTERNATIONAL<br />
LAW<br />
Tbilisi, Tbilisi,<br />
2010
`saerTaSoriso samarTalis Jurnali~ samecniero xasiaTis orenovani gamocemaa. masSi<br />
wa r modgenilia rogorc saerTaSoriso samarTlisa da saerTaSoriso urTierTobebis problemebi,<br />
aseve saqarTvelos kanonmdeblobis sakiTxebi.<br />
Jurnali gamiznulia saerTaSoriso samarTlis specialistebisa da mkiTxvelTa farTo<br />
wrisaTvis.<br />
es gamocema momzadebulia evrokavSiris daxmarebiT. JurnalSi ganTavsebuli statiebis<br />
Sinaarsi ar asaxavs evrokavSiris mosazrebebs, maTze pasuxismgebelni arian mxolod avtorebi.<br />
This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this<br />
publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and can in no way be taken to refl ect the views of<br />
the European Union.<br />
© Tsu, 2010<br />
ISSN 1512-0368
saredaqcio kolegia<br />
mTavari redaqtori<br />
aleqsiZe levan<br />
iv. javaxiSvilis sax. Tbilisis sax. universiteti<br />
(Tsu)<br />
aRmasrulebeli redaqtori<br />
tuSuri rusudan<br />
(Tsu)<br />
saredaqcio kolegiis wevrebi:<br />
butkeviCi volodimer<br />
adamianis uflebaTa evropuli<br />
sasamarTlo (strasburgi, safrangeTi)<br />
gabriCiZe gaga<br />
(Tsu)<br />
demetraSvili avTandil<br />
(Tsu)<br />
kereseliZe daviT<br />
(Tsu)<br />
korkelia konstantine<br />
(Tsu)<br />
koCariani vigen<br />
erevnis saxelmwifo universiteti<br />
(somxeTi)<br />
mamedovi rusTam<br />
baqos saxelmwifo universiteti<br />
(azerbaijani)<br />
pataraia daviT<br />
(Tsu)<br />
qurdaZe irine<br />
(Tsu)<br />
ugrexeliZe mindia<br />
(strasburgi, safrangeTi)<br />
hanikaineni laur<br />
turkus universiteti (fineTi)<br />
BOARD OF EDITORS<br />
Editor in Chief<br />
ALEXIDZE LEVAN<br />
Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University<br />
(TSU)<br />
Executive Editor<br />
TUSHURI RUSUDAN<br />
(TSU)<br />
Members of the Board:<br />
BUTKEVICH VOLODIMIR<br />
European Court of Human Rights<br />
(Strasbourg, France)<br />
GABRICHIDZE GAGA<br />
(TSU)<br />
HANNIKAINEN LAURI<br />
University of Turku (Finland)<br />
DEMETRASHVILI AVTANDIL<br />
(TSU)<br />
KERESELIDZE DAVID<br />
(TSU)<br />
KOCHARYAN VIGEN<br />
Yerevan State University (Armenia)<br />
MAMEDOV RUSTAM<br />
Baku State University (Azerbaijan)<br />
PATARAIA DAVID<br />
(TSU)<br />
KURDADZE IRINE<br />
(TSU)<br />
UGREKHELIDZE MINDIA<br />
(Strasbourg, France)<br />
KORKELIA KONSTANTINE<br />
(TSU)<br />
3
sarCevi<br />
CONTENTS<br />
I. saerTaSoriso samarTlis ZiriTadi principebi<br />
levan aleqsiZe, saqarTveloSi konfliqtTan dakavSirebuli faqtebis<br />
damdgeni saerTaSoriso damoukidebeli misiis moxsenebis<br />
saerTaSorisosamarTlebrivi aspeqtebi ------------------------------------------------------------- 5<br />
Levan Alexidze, Aspects of <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> of the Report of Independent <strong>International</strong><br />
Fact-Finding Mission on the Confl ict in Georgia ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 15<br />
nino saginaSvili, gaeros wesdebis me-2(7) muxli – Teoria v. praqtika ---------------------------- 24<br />
Nino Saginashvili, Article 2(7) of the UN Charter - Theory and Practices ------------------------------------------ 43<br />
II. adamianis uflebaTa dacva<br />
irine barTaia, adamianis uflebaTa dacvis saerTaSoriso dokumentebis<br />
eqstrateritoriuli gamoyeneba – saerTaSoriso meqanizmebis praqtikis analizi---------- 60<br />
Irine Bartaia, Extraterritorial Application of <strong>International</strong> Human Rights Documents:<br />
An Analysis of the Practice of the <strong>International</strong> Mechanisms ------------------------------------------------------ 76<br />
Sorena nikoleiSvili, 2008 wlis agvistos omis Semdeg adamianis uflebebis<br />
dacvis kuTxiT arsebuli mdgomareoba da ruseTis federaciis mier<br />
saqarTvelos suverenitetis darRveva --------------------------------------------------------------- 89<br />
Shorena Nikoleishvili,Human Rights Situation following the War in August 2008 and<br />
Violation of Georgia’s Sovereignty by the Russian Federation ---------------------------------------------------- 102<br />
III. sazRvao samarTali<br />
eka siraZe, sazRvao Sida wylebi: delimitacia, statusi da iurisdiqcia ------------------------- 113<br />
Eka Siradze, Maritime internal waters: delimitation, legal status and jurisdiction ---------------------------------- 128<br />
sunil kumar agarvali, `Seucdomlis~ incidenti samxreT CineTis zRvaSi –<br />
sazRvao-samecniero kvlevebis mniSvneloba gaeros 1982 wlis<br />
sazRvao samarTlis konvenciis mixedviT ------------------------------------------------------------ 141<br />
Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Impeccable Incident in South China Sea: Implications for the Marine<br />
Scientifi c Research Regime Under the 1982 Unclos ---------------------------------------------------------------- 151<br />
IV. diplomatiuri samarTali<br />
xaTuna ToTlaZe, diplomatiuri urTierTobebis gawyvetis<br />
politikur-samarTlebrivi safuZvlebi da Sedegebi ---------------------------------------------- 159<br />
Khatuna Totladze, Political and Legal Grounds and Outcomes of Severance of Diplomatic Relations ------ 171<br />
V. saerTaSoriso sisxlis samarTali<br />
qeTevan xuciSvili, sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos statutiT<br />
gaTvaliswinebuli danaSaulebis msxverplTa samarTlebrivi da faqtobrivi<br />
mdgomareoba: fiqtiuri Tu realuri meqanizmi --------------------------------------------------- 181<br />
Ketevan Khutsishvili, Legal and Actual Status of Victims of Crimes Envisaged by<br />
the Statute of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court: A fi ctitious or real mechanism ------------------------------- 193<br />
VI. sakonstitucio samarTali<br />
malxaz nakaSiZe, prezidentis zogierTi sakanonmdeblo uflebamosileba<br />
samxreT kavkasiis qveynebSi ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 202<br />
Malkhaz Nakashidze,Some Legislative Powers of the President in South Caucasus Countries ------------- 223<br />
VII. saerTaSoriso kerZo samarTali<br />
levan goTua, ucxo qveynebis sasamarTloebisa da saarbitraJo sasamarTloebis<br />
gadawyvetilebaTa aRsruleba saqarTveloSi ------------------------------------------------------- 241<br />
Levan Gotua, Inforcement of Foreign Court Decisions and Foreign Arbitral Awards in Georgia -------------- 251<br />
4
levan aleqsiZe<br />
saqarTveloSi konfliqtTan dakavSirebuli faqtebis<br />
damdgeni saerTaSoriso damoukidebeli misiis moxsenebis<br />
saerTaSorisosamarTlebrivi aspeqtebi<br />
saqarTvelo-ruseTis 2008 wlis agvistos<br />
omis tragikuli movlenebidan<br />
daaxloebiT ori weli gavida. am xnis<br />
ganmavlobaSi uamravi cvlileba ganxorcielda,<br />
ramac xeli Seuwyo omis gamomwvevi<br />
realuri mizezebis gamovlenas. im-<br />
TaviTve msoflios yuradRebis centrSi<br />
moeqca omis saerTaSorisosamarTlebrivi<br />
aspeqtebi. samwuxarod, pirvel xanebSi<br />
saqarTvelom ver SeZlo, winaaRmdegoba<br />
gaewia ruseTis farTomasStabiani sainformacio<br />
omisTvis. moskovi milionobiT<br />
dolars xarjavda da xarjavs, raTa<br />
miCqmalos saqarTveloSi ruseTis intervenciisa<br />
da okupaciis faqtebi da<br />
omis dawyeba saqarTvelos gadaabralos.<br />
samwuxarod, dasavleTis presa, politikosebi<br />
da zogi saerTaSoriso eqspertic<br />
ki wamoegnen am ankesze. metic, zogierT<br />
dasavlel politikoss awyobda kidec<br />
ruseTis mier SeTavazebuli versia,<br />
radgan momxdarSi lomis wili swored<br />
dasavleT evropis wamyvan qveynebs miuZ-<br />
RviT – natoSi saqarTvelos ufro qmediTi<br />
integraciis procesis Senelebam<br />
xeli Seuwyo ruseTis Cvens qveyanaSi intervencias.<br />
evropis kavSiris ministrTa sabWom<br />
2008 wlis 2 dekembers daavala saqarTveloSi<br />
kargad cnobil Sveicariel dip<br />
lomats, heidi taliavinis, Seeqmna `saqa<br />
rTveloSi konfliqtTan dakavSirebuli<br />
faqtebis damdgeni saerTaSoriso<br />
damoukidebeli misia~ (SemdgomSi – misia).<br />
misias daevala `saqarTveloSi konfliqtis<br />
gamomwvevi mizezebis gamoZieba,<br />
maT Soris, saerTaSoriso samarTlis, humanitaruli<br />
samarTlis, adamianis uflebebis<br />
kuTxiT~.<br />
moxsenebas, romelic taliavinim 20<strong>09</strong><br />
wlis 30 seqtembers warudgina evrokav-<br />
Siris ministrTa sabWos (SemdgomSi –<br />
moxseneba), didi gamoxmaureba mohyva.<br />
zogi mis obieqturobas aqebda, zogi<br />
misias faqtebisa da maTi Sefasebis SeuTavseblobas<br />
abralebda, xolo cnobilma<br />
rusma eqspertma, v. putinis yofilma<br />
mrCevelma, akademikosma a. ilari<br />
onovma moxsenebis ZiriTadi nawili<br />
daaxasiaTa rogorc `skandaluri~, radgan:<br />
`moxseneba mxars uWers agresors, amarTlebs<br />
momxdar intervencias da aris<br />
crusamarTlebrivi dasabuTeba rogorc<br />
mimdinare, aseve momavalSi SesaZlo agresiebisa,<br />
rac, samwuxarod, gamoricxuli<br />
ar aris~. 1<br />
moxsenebis Sefasebis Cveneuli pozicia<br />
ar gamoirCeva amgvari radikalurobiT,<br />
radgan moxsenebis meore tomi,<br />
zo gadad, asaxavs realur movlenebs.<br />
magram, amasTanave, gasaTvaliswinebelia,<br />
rom Cven Tavidanve eWvis TvaliT<br />
vuyurebdiT misiis srul damoukideblobasa<br />
da obieqturobas, radganac mis<br />
SemadgenlobaSi 19 wevridan 7 iyo germaneli,<br />
romelTa Soris iyvnen iseTebic,<br />
romlebic jer kidev 2008 wlis agvisto-<br />
Si, anu sanam misiis wevrebi gaxdebodnen,<br />
adanaSaulebdnen saqarTvelos.<br />
aqve unda aRiniSnos, rom, miuxedavad<br />
yvelafrisa, ruseTis agresiasTan dakav-<br />
SirebiT moZiebuli faqtebis raodenoba<br />
da maTi Semzaravi xasiaTi imdenad<br />
STambeWdavi aRmoCnda, misia iZulebu-<br />
5
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
li gaxda, saaSkaraoze gamoetana isini,<br />
Tumca maTi zogierTi Sefaseba absoluturad<br />
miuRebelia.<br />
moxsenebam saqarTveloSic gamoiwvia<br />
azrTa Sexla-Semoxla. samwuxarod, aseT<br />
viTarebas kargad iyeneben e.w. eqspertebi<br />
da qarTveli xalxis dezorientacias ewevian,<br />
rogorc televiziiT, aseve JurnalgazeTebis<br />
meSveobiT. isini ara marto<br />
uxeSad amaxinjeben faqtebs, aramed arc<br />
ki cdiloben, SeewinaaRmdegon taliavinis<br />
moxsenebaSi arsebul uzustobebsa<br />
da Secdomebs, swored rom saerTaSoriso<br />
samarTlis TvalsazrisiT. metic, es<br />
pirovnebebi cdiloben, TavianTi wvlili<br />
Seitanon agresiaSi saqarTvelos dadanaSaulebaSi,<br />
risTvisac iyeneben misiis<br />
moxsenebas.<br />
daviwyoT zogierTi `komentatoris~<br />
mtkicebiT, TiTqos: `misias da mis moxsenebas<br />
saerTaSoriso samarTlebrivi<br />
da tvirTva hqonda da aqvs (), radgan<br />
misia Sedgeboda evrokavSirSi Semavali<br />
saxelmwifoebis mier oficialurad wardgenili<br />
pirebisagan (), mokled es iyo<br />
evrokavSiris samTavrobaTaSoriso ()<br />
oficialuri () organos moxseneba. amitom,<br />
misiis moxsenebas iuridiuli Zala<br />
aqvs () (xazgasma damatebulia), miuxedavad<br />
imisa, mas romelime mxare daeTanxmeba<br />
Tu – ara~. 2<br />
rogorc xedavT, TiTqmis yovel frazaSi<br />
kiTxvis niSani daisva, radganac<br />
dasaxelebuli pozicia faqtebisa da<br />
arsis uprecedento ucodinrobisa da<br />
damaxinjebis, sicruis nusxaa. aRniSnuli<br />
mizezebis Semdgomi dazustebis mizniT,<br />
gTavazobT zemoxsenebuli, Cveni azriT,<br />
araswori mosazrebebis analizs:<br />
a) nebismierma eqspertma icis, rom<br />
aseTi saxis moxsenebebs aranairi iuridi<br />
uli Zala ar aqvs. misias mxolod faq<br />
tebis moZieba, maTi klasifikacia da<br />
damfuZnebeli organosaTvis wardgena<br />
evaleba. igive a. ilarionovi iSveliebs<br />
taliavinis moxsenebas da wers: `evrokavSiris<br />
komisia gamomZiebelTa, da ara<br />
mosamarTleTa, komisiaa. moxsenebis Sesa<br />
valSi samarTlianad aris aRniSnuli,<br />
rom komisia ar aris tribunali da arc<br />
komisiis nebismieri daskvnaa verdiqti,<br />
magram SeiZleba safuZvlad daedos aseT<br />
verdiqts~. 3 ufro metic, evrokavSiri<br />
gaecno wardgenil moxsenebas, `miesalma<br />
mas~ da `cnobad miiRo misi Sinaarsi~. 4<br />
b) Turme moxsenebas `iuridiuli Zala<br />
aqvs~, radganac es iyo `evrokavSiris<br />
mTavrobaTaSorisi oficialuri organos<br />
moxseneba~. 5<br />
magram TviT h. taliavini sul sxva<br />
ra mes amtkicebs – mas mieca sruli damo<br />
ukidebloba ara marto misiis procedurebisa<br />
da meTodebis SesamuSaveblad,<br />
aramed misi Semadgenlobis SerCevis T visac.<br />
6 `eqspertma~ unda icodes, rom misia<br />
ver iqneboda `samTavrobaTaSoriso~<br />
oficialuri organo, radganac termini<br />
`samTavroboTaSoriso~ sul sxva mniSvnelobisaa.<br />
aseTi organo mTavrobebis<br />
an maT mier Seqmnili saerTaSoriso organizaciis<br />
mier daniSnuli pirebisgan<br />
unda Sedgebodes da ara kerZo pirebisgan,<br />
im SemTxvevaSic ki, Tu masSi yofili<br />
ministrebi da elCebi monawileoben.<br />
ufro metic, moxsenebaSi aRniSnulia<br />
misi sagamoZiebo funqcia da iqve xazgasmulia<br />
is garemoeba, rom, `miuxedavad<br />
mTeli Catarebuli samuSaos, moxsenebas<br />
ar SeiZleba hqondes moZiebuli faq tebis<br />
WeSmaritebis an absoluturad amomwuravobis<br />
pretenzia~. 7 (xazgasma da mate<br />
bulia).<br />
g) kritikosebi, romlebic TiTqos<br />
obieqturad axdenen citirebas `saqarTve<br />
los danaSaulebrivi qmedebebis~ dasamtkiceblad,<br />
cdiloben, moxsenebas amoefaron:<br />
`qarTuli SeiaraRebuli Zalebis<br />
mier 2008 wlis 7-8 agvistos, RamiT, cxinvalisa<br />
da misi mimdebare soflebis<br />
masStabiani da masirebuli dabombviT<br />
daiwyo farTomasStabiani samxedro konfliqti<br />
saqarTveloSi~. 8 magram isini<br />
mkiTxvels umalaven frazas: `Tumca es<br />
iyo mxolod kulminaciuri wertili xangrZlivi<br />
drois ganmavlobaSi mimdinare<br />
mzardi daZabulobis, provokaciebisa da<br />
incidentebisa~. 9 (xazgasma damatebulia).<br />
swored esaa saqme: `moxseneba gviCvenebs,<br />
rom konfliqtis warmoSobis nebismierma<br />
axsnam ar SeiZleba fokusireba<br />
moaxdinos mxolod cxinvalze 7/8 agvistos<br />
RamiT ganxorcielebul saartil-<br />
6
l. aleqsiZe, saqarTveloSi konfliqtTan dakavSirebuli faqtebis damdgeni saerTaSoriso ...<br />
erio Tav dasxmaze, rac Semdgom gadaizarda<br />
saqarTvelos sadavo (xazgasma<br />
damatebulia) SetevaSi samxreT oseTsa da<br />
ruseTis samxedro moqmedebaze. Sefaseba<br />
ag reTve unda moicavdes omisken svlas,<br />
ro melic xdeboda manamde, wlebis ganmavlobaSi,<br />
da mzard daZabulobas, romelic<br />
aRiniSneboda swored SeiaraRebuli<br />
dapirispirebis win~. 10<br />
moxsenebaSi aRniSnulia, rom `ruseTma<br />
Tavisi samxedro moqmedebebi saqarTveloSi<br />
daaxasiaTa rogorc `mSvidobis<br />
iZulebiT aRdgenis operacia~, xolo saqarTvelom<br />
amas `agresia~ uwoda. saerTa-<br />
Soriso sazogadoebam, mTavari moqmedi<br />
pirebis CaTvliT, aseve evrokavSirma,<br />
Ta vi aarida formalur kvalifikacias~. 11<br />
saboloo jamSi, misiam mowinaaRmdege mxareTa<br />
qmedebebis dasaxasiaTeb lad ga moiyena<br />
terminebi: `proporci u li~ da `araproporciuli<br />
pasuxi~. ru se Tis saqarTveloSi<br />
SemoWrasac ki, `Tbilisis dabombvis<br />
CaTvliT~, uwodes `araproporciuli<br />
pasuxi~. rac Seexeba saqarTvelos mxridan<br />
cxinvalisaTvis cecxlis gaxsnas, osebis<br />
mxridan gamudmebuli Tavdasxmebis<br />
gamo (amis damadasturebeli magaliTebi<br />
uxvad aris moyvanili moxsenebaSi),<br />
saqarTvelos sapasuxo reaqcia aRniSnul<br />
qmedebebze aseve kvalificirebulia<br />
rogorc `araproporciuli~.<br />
d) zogierTi qarTveli e.w. eqsperti<br />
amtkicebs, rom: `Zalis gamoyeneba<br />
qarTuli mxaris mier, rac gamoixata cxinvalisa<br />
da mimdebare soflebis mimarT<br />
`gradis~ tipisa da kaseturi bombebis<br />
gamoyenebiT, SeiZleba Sefasdes rogorc<br />
agresia (xazgasma damatebulia), gaeros<br />
(sad gaqra sityvebi: `generaluri asambleis~,<br />
xazgasma damatebulia) 3314-e rezoluciis<br />
me-3(a) muxlis Tanaxmad.~<br />
vnaxoT, ras gvauwyebs es muxli:<br />
`muxli 1: agresia aris saxelmwifos<br />
mier SeiaraRebuli Zalebis gamoyeneba<br />
sxva saxelmwifos suverenitetis, teritoriuli<br />
mTlianobisa da politikuri<br />
damoukideblobis winaaRmdeg, an<br />
nebismieri sxva, gaeros wesdebasTan<br />
SeuTavsebeli qmedeba, rogorc amas gansazRvravs<br />
deklaracia.<br />
. . .<br />
muxli 3(a): [agresia aris] saxelmwifos<br />
SeiaraRebuli Zalebis SeWra an<br />
Tavdasxma sxva saxelmwifos teritoriaze<br />
an nebismieri samxedro okupacia,<br />
rogori droebiTic ar unda iyos is, rac<br />
am SeWris an Tavdasxmis Sedegia, an Zalis<br />
gamoyenebiT sxva saxelmwifos teritoriis<br />
an misi nebismieri nawilis aneqsia~ 12<br />
(araoficialuri Targmani).<br />
komisiis zogierTi wevri cdilobda,<br />
warmoeCina saqarTvelo rogorc `agresori~,<br />
radgan is viTomda Tavs daesxa e.w.<br />
`sxva saxelmwifos~ – `samxreT oseTs~.<br />
am kuTxiT, sagulisxmoa profesor oto<br />
lauterhandtis mcdeloba, ganesazRvra<br />
statusi `stabiluri de facto reJimis<br />
mqone erTeulis[Tvis], romelic ar aris<br />
aRiarebuli saerTaSoriso doneze, rogorc<br />
saxelmwifo, magram romelsac<br />
SeuZlia daakmayofilos saxelmwifoebriobis<br />
ara yvela, magram zogierTi maxasiaTebeli~.<br />
sabednierod, taliavinis<br />
moxseneba ar iziarebs am pozicias. sxva-<br />
Ta Soris, lauterhandti, sanam dainiSneboda<br />
misiis eqspertad, aqtiurad eweoda<br />
aRniSnuli poziciis propagandas ruseTSi,<br />
missave arcTu ise miukerZoebeli<br />
statiis meSveobiT. 13<br />
sabednierod, miuxedavad yovelive<br />
zemoaRniSnulisa, moxseneba samxreT<br />
oseTs moixseniebs rogorc `saxelmwifoebriobas<br />
moklebul erTeuls~. 14<br />
axla vnaxoT, ras wers florenciis<br />
universitetis profesori, yofili iugoslaviis<br />
sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso<br />
tribunalis pirveli prezidenti da<br />
mogvianebiT darfuris sakiTxze gaerTianebuli<br />
erebis organizaciis saerTaSoriso<br />
sagamoZiebo komisiis Ta vmjdomare<br />
antonio kasese Tavis statiaSi - `mgeli,<br />
romelmac SeWama saqarTvelo~:<br />
`ruseTma Camoayaliba ramdenime mizezi,<br />
raTa gaemarTlebina samxedro intervencia<br />
saqarTveloSi, sadac afxazeTisa<br />
da samxreT oseTis separatistuli<br />
regionebi kvlavac saqarTvelos<br />
suverenitetis qveS imyofebian. ruseTi<br />
cdilobs, daasabuTos, rom misi intervencia<br />
miznad isaxavda: 1) SeeCerebina<br />
saqarTvelos agresia samxreTis osebis<br />
winaaRmdeg; 2) aRekveTa saqarTvelos<br />
7
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
mier iq Cadenili eTnikuri wmendis, genocidisa<br />
da omis danaSaulebi; 3) daecva<br />
ruseTis moqalaqeebi; da 4) daecva [samxreT<br />
oseTSi mcxovreb] ... osebs, boris elcinsa<br />
da eduard SevardnaZes Soris 1992<br />
wels dadebuli samSvidobo SeTanxmebis<br />
safuZvelze.<br />
verc erTi aRniSnuli iuridiuli<br />
ar gumenti ver uZlebs kritikas (xazgasma<br />
damatebulia). saqarTvelo Tavisi<br />
jarebis gagzavniT, udavod, politikurad<br />
windauxedavad moqmedebda, magram<br />
mas ar daurRvevia arc erTi saerTa-<br />
Soriso samarTlebrivi norma, rogori<br />
nominaluric ar unda yofiliyo misi<br />
suvereniteti. am SedegebSi arc genocidis,<br />
arc eTnikuri wmendis niSnebi ar ikveTeba<br />
(xazgasma damatebulia); [samxreT<br />
oseTSi mcxovrebi] ... osebis winaaRmdeg<br />
omis danaSaulis Cadenis SemTxvevaSic<br />
ki, SeiaraRebuli SeWra ar aris gamarTlebuli.<br />
ufro metic, [samxreT oseTSi<br />
mcxovrebi] ... osebs aqvT ruseTis moqalaqeoba<br />
mxolod imitom, rom ruseTma<br />
ramdenime xnis win calmxrivad mianiWa<br />
maT Tavisi moqalaqeoba~. 15<br />
londonis sayovelTaod cnobili<br />
ekonomikur da politikur mecnierebaTa<br />
skolis leqtori roi alisoni<br />
wers: `ruseTi dauRalavad imeorebda,<br />
rom `pirveli mas daesxnen Tavs~ da miuTiTebda<br />
agresiis im gansazRvrebaze,<br />
romelsac Seicavs gaeros generaluri<br />
asambleis 1974 wlis 3314-e rezolucia,<br />
magram ruseTis mcdeloba, daadanaSaulos<br />
saqarTvelo `agresiis CadenaSi~, samarTlebrivad<br />
ver amarTlebs ruseTis<br />
Tavdasxmas an jarebis gamoyenebis sxva<br />
formebs saqarTvelos winaaRmdeg, radganac,<br />
uSualod, ruseTis teritoria ar<br />
iyo Tavdasxmis obieqti... etyoba, swored<br />
am `xarvezis~ Sesavsebad v. putinma<br />
2008 wlis 11 seqtembers soWSi, valdais<br />
klubis wevrebTan Sexvedrisas, Riad ganacxada:<br />
`ra gindodaT, rom gagvekeTebina...<br />
rodesac agresori SemoiWra Cvens<br />
teritoriaze, unda gagvertya sila<br />
– agresori unda daisajos (xazgasma<br />
damatebulia)~. 16<br />
aRsaniSnavia, rom qalbaton h. taliavinis<br />
mier moZiebuli faqtebi ar iZleoda<br />
saqarTvelos agresiaSi dadanaSaulebis<br />
safuZvels, amitomac moxsenebis<br />
SesavalSi sityva `agresia~ arc erTi<br />
mxaris mimarT ar aris gamoyenebuli,<br />
Tumca meore tomSi farTod aris ganxiluli,<br />
Tu ramdenad Tavsdeba saqarTvelos<br />
2008 wlis 7 agvistos qmedebebi<br />
agresiis Cadenis gansazRvrebaSi.<br />
misiis moxsenebaSi kargad Cans is<br />
orWofuli pozicia, romelic gamoikveTa<br />
mxareTa qmedebebis Seswavlisa da<br />
Sefasebis dros. ufro konkretulad ki:<br />
saqarTvelos bralad edeba, TiTqos man<br />
samSvidoboebze miitana ieriSi, rasac<br />
msxverpli mohyva. Tu davujerebT moxsenebis<br />
meore tomis me-17 paragrafs: `ruseTi<br />
acxadebs, rom 2008 wlis 8 agvistos,<br />
diliT, cxinvalSi ganlagebul samSvidoboebze<br />
ganxorcielebuli ieriSis<br />
Sedegad moklul iqna ori jariskaci da<br />
xuTi daiWra. 17 saqarTvelom uaryo... [es<br />
braldeba] da amtkicebda, rom cxinvalSi<br />
Sesvlisas saqarTvelos jarebi moeqcnen<br />
samSvidoboebis banakidan gaxsnili cecxlis<br />
qveS, ris gamoc iZulebuli gaxdnen,<br />
gaexsnaT cecxli~. 18<br />
sagulisxmoa misiis komentari: `misias<br />
ar gaaCnia damoukidebeli wyaroebidan<br />
moZiebuli informacia, romelsac<br />
SeuZlia, daadasturos an uaryos orive<br />
mxaris braldebebi. magram, Tu mxedvelobaSi<br />
miviRebT adgilze Seqmnil saxifaTo<br />
situacias, ruseTis samSvidobo<br />
personalis rigebSi momxdari danakargi<br />
ufro savaraudoa~. 19<br />
moxsenebis me-20 paragrafSi ki vkiTxulobT:<br />
`saqarTvelos mier Zalis gamoyeneba<br />
ruseTis samSvidobo Zalebis<br />
winaaRmdeg cxinvalSi... ewinaaRmdegeboda<br />
saerTaSoriso samarTals~. 20<br />
yovelive zemoTqmulidan gamomdinare,<br />
ra SeiZleba iTqvas<br />
rogorc r. alisoni wers: `samSvidoboebs<br />
Soris danakargi, da gacilebiT<br />
ufro mravalricxovani, xSirad momxdara,<br />
magram arc erT `deda saxelmwifos~<br />
ar mouwyvia amis gamo intervencia<br />
aTiaTasobiT jariskacis gamoyenebiT im<br />
saxelmwifos mimarT, romlis teritoriazec<br />
es moxda~. 21 ufro metic, imave meore<br />
tomSi misia aRniSnavs: `SeuZlebelia,<br />
8
l. aleqsiZe, saqarTveloSi konfliqtTan dakavSirebuli faqtebis damdgeni saerTaSoriso ...<br />
misiis mier dadasturebulad CaiTvalos<br />
is faqti, TiTqos saqarTvelo Tavs<br />
daesxa ruseTis samSvidoboebs~. 22 momdevno<br />
paragrafSi ki vkiTxulobT: `ufro<br />
metic, sadavod rCeba sakiTxi, ramdenad<br />
Seefereba simarTles mtkiceba, TiTqos<br />
pirvelad saqarTvelo daesxa Tavs ruse-<br />
Tis samSvidoboebs~. 23<br />
axla ki mivubrundeT sakiTxs, Tu rogor<br />
afasebs moxseneba ruseTis Se moWras<br />
saqarTveloSi:<br />
`ruseTi CarTuli iyo konfliqtSi<br />
ramdenime gziT: pirveli, ruseTis sam-<br />
Svidoboebi, romlebic dislocirebulni<br />
iyvnen samxreT oseTSi, soWis SeTanxmebis<br />
safuZvelze, CaerTnen brZolaSi cxinvalisaTvis;<br />
meore, ruseTis regularuli<br />
jarebi ibrZodnen samxreT oseTSi,<br />
afxazeTsa da ufro Rrmad saqarTvelos<br />
teritoriaze; mesame, Crdilo kavkasiis<br />
araregularulma Zalebma miiRes<br />
monawileoba brZolaSi; da bolos, ruse-<br />
Ti mravali saSualebiT exmareboda afxazeTisa<br />
da samxreT oseTis Zalebs, gansakuTrebiT<br />
maTi wvrTniT, SeiaraRebiT,<br />
aRWurvilobiT, dafinansebiT da sxva<br />
mxardaWeriT... gaeros wesdebis me-2(4)<br />
muxlisa da, paralelurad, CveulebiTi<br />
samarTlis mixedviT, 2008 wlis agvisto-<br />
Si ruseTis armiis samxedro operaciebma<br />
saqarTvelos teritoriaze (maT Soris<br />
samxreT oseTsa da afxazeTSi da sxvagan,<br />
nebismier adgilas saqarTveloSi) daar-<br />
Rvies saerTaSoriso samarTlis fundamenturi<br />
principi Zalis gamoyenebis<br />
akrZalvis Sesaxeb~. 24<br />
moxsenebaSi uaryofilia ruseTis<br />
yvela mcdeloba, samarTlebrivad gae<br />
marTlebina intervencia, inter alia:<br />
`Zalis gamoyeneba Tavdacvis mizniT~, 25<br />
`ruseTis moqmedebebis aucilebloba da<br />
proporciuloba~, 26 `Zalis gamoye neba<br />
samSvidoboebis funqciebis gansaxor cieleblad~,<br />
27 `intervencia samxreT oseTis<br />
TxovniT~, 28 `koleqtiuri Tavdacva~, 29<br />
`hu manitaruli intervencia~ `ruseTis<br />
moqalaqeebisa da osebis mimarT genocidis<br />
aRkveTis mizniT~, 30 `Zalis gamoyeneba<br />
sazRvargareT sakuTar moqalaqeTa<br />
dasacavad~. 31<br />
saerTaSoriso samarTlis nebismie<br />
ri obieqturi eqspertisaTvis zemoT<br />
CamoTvlili `qmedebani~ mTlianad Tavs<br />
deba gaeros wesdebis me-2(4) muxliT<br />
akrZaluli principisa da generaluri<br />
asambleis 3314-e rezoluciis CarCoSi,<br />
e.i., es `qmedebebi~ aSkarad agresiul xasiaTs<br />
atarebda, Tumca misiam Tavi Seikava<br />
msgavsi kvalifikaciisagan.<br />
rac Seexeba saqarTvelos, misia ar<br />
uaryofs osebis mxridan qarTul soflebsa<br />
da samSvidoboebze Tavdasxmebs,<br />
rac msxverpliTac ki mTavrdeboda; arc<br />
imas uaryofs, rom 7 agvistomde samxreT<br />
oseTis teritoriaze ruseTis teritoriidan<br />
rokis gvirabis gavliT gadmosuli<br />
SeiaraRebuli `moxaliseebisa~ da<br />
daqiravebuli pirebis uwyveti nakadi<br />
moedineboda. amave dros, misia cdilobs,<br />
uaryos ruseTis regularuli jarebis<br />
Semosvla imave rokis gvirabiT. Tumca<br />
arsebuli wyaroebis, maT Soris rusuli<br />
wyaroebis, mixedviT, ukve didi xania, dadasturda,<br />
rom `2008 wlis 7 agvistomde<br />
konfliqtur zonaSi dislocirebuli iyo<br />
ruseTis SeiaraRebuli Zalebi, yovelgvari<br />
nebarTvis gareSe... [da atarebda]<br />
regularul wvrTnebs samxreT oseTSi,<br />
maT Soris agvistos omamde uSualod<br />
erTi kviriT adre~. 32<br />
misias saqarTvelos mier gaeros wesdebiT<br />
aRiarebuli Zalis akrZalvis principis<br />
darRvevad miaCnia is, rom samxreT<br />
oseTis mxridan, Tundac intensiuri<br />
srolis sapasuxod, saqarTvelom saraketo<br />
danadgarebidan farTomasStabiani<br />
cecxli gaxsna, ra drosac gamoyenebul<br />
iqna kaseturi iaraRi. niSandoblivia,<br />
saqarTvelom imTaviTve aRiara es faqti,<br />
magram asabuTebda Tavis moqmedebas<br />
imiT, rom cxinvalsa da mimdebare raionebSi<br />
ruseTis regularuli da araregularuli<br />
(e.w. `boevikebi~) jarebis masobrivi<br />
ieriSi iwyeboda. SedarebisTvis<br />
gavixsenoT, rom misiam dagmo ruseTis<br />
mcdeloba, daemala mis mier kaseturi<br />
bombebis gamoyenebis faqti mSvidobiani<br />
mosaxleobis mimarT. 33<br />
rac Seexeba `saqarTvelos mtkicebas<br />
imis Sesaxeb, rom ruseTis jarebi<br />
Semovidnen saqarTvelos teritoriaze<br />
rokis gvirabis gavliT manamde, sanam<br />
sahaero da saxmeleTo ieriSi daiwye-<br />
9
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
boda saqarTvelos mxridan 2008 wlis 7<br />
agvistos, Ramis 11. 35 saaTze, misiam ver<br />
daadastura aRniSnuli faqti~. Tumca<br />
aqve aRniSna: `ar aris gamoricxuli, gamoikveTos<br />
axali mtkicebulebebi, romlebic,<br />
SesaZloa, daadastureben ruse-<br />
Tis jariskacebis yofnas saqarTvelos<br />
teritoriaze xsenebuli droisTvis~. 34<br />
(xazgasma damatebulia).<br />
amgvarad, saqarTvelos teritoriaze<br />
ruseTis regularuli Zalebis Semo<br />
dinebisa da Sturmis dawyebis Sesaxeb<br />
faqtebis uqonloba sakmarisi safuZveli<br />
aRmoCnda misiis mier kvalifikaciis gan<br />
xorcielebisgan Tavis Sekavebis gasamarTleblad.<br />
ruseTis samxedro intervencia saqar<br />
TveloSi da Cveni qveynis mniSvnelovani<br />
nawilis okupacia, afxazeTisa da samxreT<br />
oseTis CaTvliT, dRes diplomatiuri,<br />
politikuri da, rac mTavaria, saerTa-<br />
Soriso samarTlis swori interpretaciisTvis<br />
brZolaSi gadaizarda. rogorc<br />
aRvniSneT, dasavleTisa da TviT ruseTis<br />
eqspertTa umravlesoba ukompromisod<br />
icavs saqarTvelos simarTles da akritikebs<br />
ruseTis federaciis agresiul<br />
politikas.<br />
zogierTi gamoCenili saxelmwifo<br />
mo xele da politikosi gansakuTrebul<br />
yuradRebas aniWebs saqarTvelos dRevan<br />
del mdgomareobas da farTomasStabiani<br />
Setakebis Tavidan acilebis mizniT<br />
dauyovnebeli zomebis miRebis aucileblobas<br />
xedavs. rogorc vaclav havelma,<br />
valdas adamkusma da sxva cnobilma<br />
politikurma Tu sazogado moRvaweebma<br />
ganacxades: `gadamwyveti kiTxva is aris,<br />
Tu romeli qveyana SeiWra meoreSi, vidre<br />
is, Tu romelma jariskacma gaisrola<br />
pirveli tyvia~. 35<br />
amasobaSi saqarTveloSi irazmebian<br />
cru eqspertebi, romlebsac aqcenti gadaaqvT<br />
mxolod moxsenebis sadavo debulebebze.<br />
magram, miuxedavad aRniSnulisa,<br />
mTavaria, rom moxseneba Seicavs<br />
ruseTis mier Cadenili an mis mier mxardaWerili<br />
agresiuli aqtebis grZel<br />
CamonaTvals, romlebic mniSvnelovnad<br />
xelyofen saerTaSoriso humanitarul<br />
samarTals:<br />
• aseT garemoebebSi saqarTvelos Sete<br />
va ruseTis samSvidobo bazaze SeiZ<br />
leba iyos ucxoeTis teritoriaze<br />
ruseTis Cveulebriv bazebze Setevis<br />
tolfasi da amitom specialurad mimarTuli<br />
ruseTis, rogorc saxelmwifos,<br />
winaaRmdeg, magram es ar aris<br />
sakmarisi safuZveli TavdacvisTvis.<br />
ufro metic, rogorc zeviT aris aRniSnuli,<br />
saqarTvelos mier ru s e Tis<br />
samSvidobo bazaze Seteva ga rkveviT<br />
ar dasturdeba misiis mier; 36<br />
• ar arsebobs aranairi eWvi, rom rus<br />
samSvidoboebs, Tu maTze pirdapiri<br />
Seteva ganxorcielda, hqondaT pasuxis<br />
gacemis ufleba. dauyovnebeli<br />
samxedro pasuxi da, am pirobebSi<br />
proporciuli, aucilebeli iyo. da<br />
mainc, dRemde ibadeba eWvebi, pirvel<br />
rigSi, ganxorcielda Tu ara Seteva<br />
rus samSvidoboebze; 37<br />
• ufro rTulia im sakiTxis gadawyveta,<br />
saqarTvelos winaaRmdeg mimarTuli<br />
mTliani samxedro kampania iyo Tu<br />
ara aucilebeli da proporciuli; 38<br />
• amrigad, ruseTis intervencia sa qar<br />
TveloSi ver iqneba gamarTlebu li<br />
ruseTis moqalaqeebis dacvis argumentiT;<br />
39<br />
• am mizezebis gaTvaliswinebiT, saqar<br />
Tvelos policiisa da samxedro<br />
Se naerTebis yofna kodoris xeoba-<br />
Si ar SeiZleba ganixilebodes, rogorc<br />
SeiaraRebuli Tavdasxma af xazeTze;<br />
40<br />
• afxazeTis mier Zalis gamoyeneba<br />
gaumarTlebelia saerTaSoriso samarTlis<br />
mier da, Sesabamisad, aris<br />
ukanono. igive vrceldeba ruseTze,<br />
romelic mxars uWerda afxazeTs<br />
Zalis gamoyenebaSi; 41<br />
• ziani, romelic miadga saavadmyofoebs,<br />
gamowveuli iyo `gradis~ tipis<br />
raketebisa da artileriis arazusti<br />
dabombvis Sedegad, maSin, rodesac<br />
goris saavadmyofo, romelic sargeblobs<br />
humanitaruli dacviT, iyo<br />
winaswarganzraxuli cecxlis obieqti.<br />
es SesaZloa gautoldes omis<br />
danaSauls; 42<br />
• daxocilTa zusti raodenoba ar<br />
aris dadgenili da zogierTi faqti<br />
10
l. aleqsiZe, saqarTveloSi konfliqtTan dakavSirebuli faqtebis damdgeni saerTaSoriso ...<br />
gaurkveveli rCeba, magram, miuxedavad<br />
amisa, misias sjera, rom mosalodnelia<br />
gamoCndes mtkicebulebebi,<br />
romliTac dadasturdeba osuri<br />
Zalebis mier mkvlelobebis Cadena; 43<br />
• misias sjera, rom arsebobs dadasturebuli<br />
SemTxvevebi sastiki mop<br />
yrobisa da wamebisa, romlebic<br />
Cadenilia osuri Zalebis mier; 44<br />
• misias sjera, rom arsebobs dakavebuli<br />
kombatantebisadmi sastiki mopyrobisa<br />
da wamebis dadasturebuli<br />
SemTxvevebi. rogorc Cans, aRniSnuli<br />
qmedebebi ZiriTadad Cadenilia<br />
samxreT oseTis Zalebis mier da aseve,<br />
calkeul SemTxvevebSi, SesaZloa<br />
adgilze myofi rusi jariskacebis<br />
mierac; 45<br />
• Cans, rom mravali SemTxveva iyo moqalaqeTa<br />
dakavebis, TviTneburi dapatimrebis,<br />
motacebisa da mZevlad<br />
wayvanisa, romelTac, ZiriTadad,<br />
sam xreT oseTis Zalebi da sxva SeiaraRebuli<br />
osuri dajgufebebi axorcielebdnen;<br />
46<br />
• konfliqtis ganmavlobaSi da, gansakuTrebiT,<br />
mas Semdeg, rac samxreT<br />
oseTsa da buferul zonebSi xdeboda,<br />
upiratesad, eTnikuri qarTvelebis<br />
saxlebisa da sakuTrebis sistematuri<br />
da farTomasStabiani Zarcva.<br />
osuri Zalebi – araidentificirebadi<br />
SeiaraRebuli osuri formirebebi<br />
da xSirad osi samoqalaqo pirebic ki<br />
– awarmoebdnen aRniSnul kampanias,<br />
rusuli ZalebisTvis SetyobinebiT.<br />
rusma samxedroebma ar moaxdines<br />
aRniSnuli qmedebebis prevencia<br />
da, rac yvelaze mniSvnelovania,<br />
ar SeaCeres Zarcvisa da sakuTrebis<br />
miTvisebis SemTxvevebi saxlebis<br />
gadawvis Semdeg, maSinac ki, rodesac<br />
sakuTari TvaliT xedavdnen aRniSnul<br />
qmedebebs. afxazur Zalebs ar<br />
ganuxorcielebiaT amgvari Zarcva,<br />
TumcaRa Zarcvisa da sakuTrebis<br />
ga nadgurebis iSviaTi SemTxvevebi<br />
mainc dafiqsirda; 47<br />
• ruseTisa da samxreT oseTis xelisuflebebi<br />
uamravjer `CaiWrnen~,<br />
mi e RoT zomebi kanonebisa da wesrigis<br />
SesanarCuneblad, aseve daecvaT<br />
samoqalaqo mosaxleoba saerTaSoriso<br />
humanitaruli samarTlisa<br />
da adamianis uflebebis samarTlis<br />
moT xovnaTa Sesabamisad; 48<br />
• 2008 wlis agvistos konfliqtisa<br />
da mis Semdgom ganviTarebuli movlenebis<br />
konteqstSi ganxorcielda<br />
daaxloebiT 135000 piris iZulebiT<br />
gadaadgileba, rasac uamravi gamomwvevi<br />
mizezi hqonda. garda imisa, rom<br />
SeiaraRebuli qmedebebis safrTxem<br />
da, zogadad, daucvelma garemom<br />
mniSvnelovnad ganapiroba iZulebiT<br />
gadaadgilebis SemTxvevebis didi<br />
nawili, aseve aRiniSna saerTaSoriso<br />
humanitaruli samarTlisa da adamianis<br />
uflebaTa samarTlis darRvevebis<br />
dadasturebuli SemTxvevebi,<br />
romlebic Cadenil iqna samxreT<br />
oseTSi eTnikuri qarTvelebis gadaadgilebis<br />
iZulebis motiviT. am<br />
faqtma ki migviyvana daskvnamde, rom<br />
dairRva TviTneburi da iZulebiTi<br />
gadaadgilebis akrZalva; 49<br />
• mravali elementi amtkicebs daskvnas,<br />
rom eTnikuri wmenda eTnikuri<br />
qarTvelebis mimarT samxreT oseTSi<br />
aRiniSna rogorc 2008 wlis agvistos<br />
konfliqtis ganmavlobaSi, aseve mis<br />
Semdegac; 50<br />
• iZulebiT adgilnacval pirTa sakuTrebis<br />
dacvis sakiTxs didi xnis<br />
istoria aqvs, romelic kvlav rCeba<br />
gadauWreli davis sagnad, jer kidev<br />
1990-ian wlebSi arsebuli konf liqtebidan<br />
moyolebuli. samxreT oseTSi<br />
xelisuflebac da rusuli Zalebic<br />
seriozulad `CaiWrnen~, daecvaT<br />
iZulebiT adgilnacval pirTa<br />
sakuTrebis ufleba 2008 wlis konfliqtis<br />
ganmavlobaSi da, gansakuTrebiT,<br />
mas Semdeg. ufro metic, samxreT<br />
oseTis Zalebi monawileobdnen<br />
saxlebis ZarcvaSi, maT gadawvasa da<br />
ganadgurebaSi, konfliqtis ganmavlobaSi<br />
da mas Semdegac. am mxriv,<br />
yovlismomcveli proeqtebi unda<br />
Se iqmnas da ganxorcieldes, magram<br />
rogorc iZulebiT adgilnacval pirTa<br />
dabrunebis uflebis erTgvari<br />
11
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
damateba, da ara rogorc am uflebis<br />
Canacvleba; 51<br />
• seriozuli damokidebuleba gamoixata<br />
eTnikuri qarTvelebis situaciisadmi<br />
galisa (afxazeTi) da axalgoris<br />
raionebSi maTi uflebebis<br />
efeqtian dacvasTan dakavSirebiT.<br />
afxazeTisa da samxreT oseTis de facto<br />
xelisuflebebma unda uzrunvelyon<br />
maTi dacva. afxazeTisa da samxreT<br />
oseTis statusis sakiTxma araviTar<br />
SemTxvevaSi ar unda gamoiwvios am<br />
pirTa uflebebis diskriminacia da<br />
Selaxva. 52<br />
ukomentarod.<br />
daskvnis saxiT gvsurs movixmoT taliavinis<br />
daskvna da ronald r. asmusis<br />
sayovelTaod cnobili wigni rusuli<br />
agresiisa da saxelmwifoTa saerTaSoriso<br />
Tanamegobrobis qmedebaTa Sesa faseb<br />
lad.<br />
ronald asmusi akeTebs aseT Sefa sebas:<br />
`es omi mimarTuli iyo ara mxolod<br />
saqarTvelos, aramed, zogad konteqstSi,<br />
uf ro dasavleTis winaaRmdeg. fizikurad<br />
saqarTvelo iyo samizne, magram Cvenc<br />
moviazrebiT politikur motivaciaTa<br />
gzajvaredinze. Tbilisi iqca gantevebis<br />
vacad ruseTis sayvedurebisa da ganrisxebis<br />
gamosavlenad, romelic wlebis<br />
ganmavlobaSi grovdeboda SeerTebuli<br />
Statebis, natos da im saxelmwifoebis mimarT,<br />
romlebic, moskovis azriT, exmarebodnen<br />
saqarTvelos. es damokidebuleba<br />
gamovlinda yvelaferSi, Tundac: rogor<br />
gaaSuqa rusulma mediam omi, rogor<br />
Seafases rusma oficrebma sakuTari misia<br />
xanmokle okupaciis periodSi, anda<br />
gamovlinda Tundac `grafitebis~ saxiT,<br />
romlebic ruseTis jarebma datoves. es<br />
gaRizianeba, upirvelesad, mimarTuli<br />
iyo SeerTebuli Statebisa da natos<br />
mimarT, magram amiT ar dasrulebula.<br />
rusma jariskacebma iseTive siamovnebiT<br />
gaanadgures evrokavSiris droSebi, rogoriTac<br />
aSS-isa da natos nebismieri simbolo.<br />
ruseTis propagandis meqanizmma<br />
ara mxolod brali dasdo saqarTvelos<br />
omis dawyebaSi, aramed aseve pirdapir<br />
daadanaSaula SeerTebuli Statebi Care<br />
vaSi, rom am ukanasknelma Seqmna da daaCqara<br />
es konfliqti~. 53<br />
asmusi agrZelebs msjelobas: `dasavleTSi<br />
bevrma scada, ukan daexia, TiTqos<br />
ruseT-saqarTvelos omi mxolod adgilobrivi<br />
konfliqti iyo, romlis monawileebic<br />
isini ar iyvnen. magram mainc<br />
naklebad saeWvoa, rom ruseTisTvis es<br />
omi ar iyo axali politikis dasawyisi,<br />
romelic gulisxmobda dasavleTis zegavlenis<br />
dasustebas da ruseTis saz-<br />
RvrebTan dasavluri institutebis miaxloebis<br />
nebismieri mcdelobis daregulirebas.<br />
moskovi acxadebda, rom ukan<br />
daxevis periodi dasrulda. amgvarad,<br />
is atyobinebda mTlianad dasavleTs,<br />
rom saqarTvelo misi gavlenis fargleb-<br />
Si iyo da Cven Tavi unda Segvekavebina<br />
Carevisgan. es iyo gzavnili, rom ruseTi<br />
namdvilad mzad iyo brZolisTvis, raTa<br />
ar daeSva Tavis sazRvrebTan dasavle-<br />
Tis Semdgomi miaxloeba, gansakuTrebiT<br />
ki natos saxiT. am kuTxiT, es iyo pirveli<br />
civi omis Semdgomi dasavleT-aRmosavleTis<br />
SeiaraRebuli konfliqti~. 54<br />
miuxedavad imisa, rom saxelmwifoTa<br />
saerTaSoriso Tanamegobroba, gansakuTrebiT<br />
evropis sabWo da evrokavSiri,<br />
mudmivad mouwodebs ruseTs, ukan waiRos<br />
saqarTvelos separatistuli regionebis<br />
e.w. `damoukideblobis~ aRiareba, samwuxarod,<br />
es jer ar momxdara. amasTanave,<br />
ruseTis ukanonoba saqarTvelos teritoriuli<br />
mTlianobis mimarT xazgasmulia<br />
moxsenebaSic. amasobaSi, mTliani<br />
omis Semdgomi periodis ganmavlobaSi,<br />
ruseTi agrZelebs samxedro yofnas afxazeTsa<br />
da e.w. samxreT oseTSi, rasac amarTlebs<br />
`damoukidebel saxelmwifoebTan<br />
dadebuli~ e.w. `xelSekrulebebiT~ da,<br />
amasTanave, arcerT saerTaSoriso organizacias<br />
an mis damkvirvebels ar aZlevs<br />
am teritoriebze Sesvlis uflebas.<br />
mTeli msoflio Tvals adevnebs adamianis<br />
uflebebis darRvevis uxeS faqtebs<br />
am teritoriebze, magram ar aqvs saSualeba,<br />
monitoringi gauwios arsebul<br />
situacias adgilze.<br />
kidev ramden xans moiTmens saerTa-<br />
Soriso sazogadoeba am cinikur damokidebulebas<br />
Tanamedrove saerTaSoriso<br />
12
l. aleqsiZe, saqarTveloSi konfliqtTan dakavSirebuli faqtebis damdgeni saerTaSoriso ...<br />
samarTlebrivi wesrigis fundamenturi<br />
cnebebis mimarT! am kuTxiT, Cven veTanxmebiT<br />
moxsenebis daskvnas, rom: `saWiroa,<br />
gadaidgas ufro grZelvadiani da<br />
ufro mizanmimarTuli nabijebi am krizisuli<br />
situaciis dasaregulireblad, da<br />
amgvar situaciebSi ufro safuZvlianad<br />
unda CaerTos saerTaSoriso sazogadoeba<br />
da, gansakuTrebiT, gaeros uSiSroebis<br />
sabWo, aseve mniSvnelovani regionaluri<br />
da araregionaluri figurebi.<br />
agreTve, aRmoCnda, rom arsebuli<br />
situaciis stabilizaciaze mimarTuli<br />
mTeli rigi SeTanxmebebisa da institutebisa,<br />
rogorebicaa: erTiani samSvidobo<br />
Zalebi, erTiani sakontrolo komi<br />
sia da euTos yofna samxreT oseTSi,<br />
aseve damoukidebel saxelmwifoTa Tana<br />
megobrobis samSvidobo Zalebi da gaeros<br />
sadamkvirveblo misia afxazeTis<br />
konfliqtSi, romlebic Seiqmna saerTa-<br />
Soriso Tanamegobrobis daxmarebiT afxazeTsa<br />
da samxreT oseTSi SeiaraRebuli<br />
konfliqtebis Semdgom, 1990-iani wlebis<br />
dasawyisSi (dasaxelebuli SeTanxmebebi<br />
da institutebi), moeqca politikur da<br />
samxedro sferoebSi mimdinare axali da<br />
metad saSiSi cvlilebebis formatSi~. 55<br />
1<br />
А. Илларионов, Первые впечатления: это скандал, Live <strong>Journal</strong>, (9 seqtemberi,<br />
20<strong>09</strong>), , 2010, 19 marti, 2010w.<br />
mdgomareobiT.<br />
2<br />
gazeTi `saqarTvelos respublika~, 19 dekemberi, 20<strong>09</strong>w.<br />
3<br />
А. Илларионов, ix. sqolio 1.<br />
4<br />
EU Council, Presentation of the Report of the Independent <strong>International</strong> Fact-<br />
Finding Mission on the Confl ict in Georgia, Brussels, 20<strong>09</strong>, 13875/<strong>09</strong>.<br />
5<br />
ix. zemoT, sqolio 2.<br />
6<br />
Report of Independent <strong>International</strong> Fact-Finding Mission on the Confl ict in<br />
Georgia, (SemdgomSi _ moxseneba), tomi I, gv. 6, §3. ix. agreTve: 1-li muxlis<br />
§3, da me-3 muxli, EU Council Decision 2008/901/CFSP of 2 December, 2008<br />
concerning an independent international fact-fi nding mission on the confl ict in<br />
Georgia in: Offi cial <strong>Journal</strong> of the European Union, 3.12.2008, EN., 323/66.<br />
7<br />
Ibid., gv. 9, §9.<br />
8<br />
Ibid., gv. 11, §3.<br />
9<br />
Ibid.<br />
10<br />
Ibid., gv. 31, §36.<br />
11<br />
Ibid. gv. 22, §18.<br />
12<br />
UNGA Res. 3314 (XXIX), 29 th Session, (1974), xelmisawvdomia: http://<br />
daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/739/16/IMG/NR073916.<br />
pdfOpenElement.<br />
13<br />
Отто Лухтерхандт, ‘Международно-Правовые Аспекты “Грузинской Войны”,<br />
Российский Бюллетень по Правам Человека, Институт Прав Человека (2008),<br />
, 2010, 19 martis mdgomareobiT.<br />
14<br />
moxseneba, tomi II, gv. 128-129.<br />
15<br />
Antonio Cassese ‘The Wolf that Ate Georgia’, Guardian, 2008, 1 seqtemberi,<br />
< http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/cassese5/English>, 2008, 9 seqtem<br />
bris mdgomareobiT.<br />
16<br />
Ronald Allison, (20<strong>09</strong>) The Russian case for military intervention in Georgia:<br />
international law norms and political calculation, European Security, 18:2, gv.<br />
176-177.<br />
17<br />
sagulisxmoa, rom ,,miukerZoebeli” eqsperti oto luxterhandti asa -<br />
xelebs sxva cifrs – 10 rusi mSvidobismyofeli, romlebic iqnen mok<br />
lulni. ix.: Отто Лухтерхандт, ‘Международно-Правовые Аспекты “Грузинской<br />
Войны”, Российский Бюллетень по Правам Человека, Институт Прав<br />
Чело века (2008), .<br />
18<br />
moxseneba, tomi I, gv. 21, §17.<br />
13
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
19<br />
Ibid.<br />
20<br />
Ibid., gv. 23, §20.<br />
21<br />
Roy Allison, (20<strong>09</strong>) The Russian case for military intervention in Georgia: international<br />
law norms and political calculation, European Security, 18:2, gv. 178.<br />
22<br />
moxseneba, tomi II, gv. 268.<br />
23<br />
Ibid., gv. 270.<br />
24<br />
Ibid., gv. 263-264.<br />
25<br />
Ibid., gv. 264-269.<br />
26<br />
Ibid., gv. 269-275.<br />
27<br />
Ibid., gv. 275-276.<br />
28<br />
Ibid., gv. 276-280.<br />
29<br />
Ibid., gv. 280-283.<br />
30<br />
Ibid., gv. 283-284.<br />
31<br />
bid., gv. 285-289.<br />
32<br />
Ronald Allison, (20<strong>09</strong>) The Russian case for military intervention in Georgia:<br />
international law norms and political calculation, European Security, 18:2, gv. 17,<br />
gv. 176; ix. agreTve: moxseneba, tomi II, gv. 221; ix agreTve ilarionovis<br />
mier mowodebuli detaluri informacia: А. Илларионов, Как готовилась<br />
война, Новая Газета, (20<strong>09</strong>, 24-26 ivnisi).<br />
33<br />
ix.: moxseneba, tomi I, gv. 28, §29.<br />
34<br />
moxseneba, tomi II, gv. 254.<br />
35<br />
Vaclav Havel, Valdas Adamkus, Mart Laar, Vytautas Landsbergis, Otto de<br />
Habsbourg, Daniel Cohn Bendit, Timothy Garton Ash, André Glucksmann, Mark<br />
Leonard, Bernard-Henri Lévy, Adam Michnik, Josep Ramoneda, ‘Europe must<br />
stand up for Georgia’, Guardian, (20<strong>09</strong>, 22 seqtemberi), , , 2010, 19 martis<br />
mdgomareobiT.<br />
36<br />
moxseneba, tomi II, gv. 268.<br />
37<br />
Ibid., gv. 270.<br />
38<br />
Ibid., gv. 271.<br />
39<br />
Ibid., gv. 289.<br />
40<br />
Ibid., gv. 293.<br />
41<br />
Ibid., gv. 294.<br />
42<br />
Ibid., gv. 330.<br />
43<br />
Ibid., gv. 355.<br />
44<br />
Ibid., gv. 359.<br />
45<br />
Ibid., gv. 361.<br />
46<br />
Ibid., gv. 362.<br />
47<br />
Ibid., gv. 365.<br />
48<br />
Ibid., gv. 375.<br />
49<br />
Ibid., gv. 389.<br />
50<br />
Ibid., gv. 394.<br />
51<br />
Ibid., gv. 405.<br />
52<br />
Ibid., gv. 416.<br />
53<br />
R.D. Asmus, A Little War that Shook the World, (2010), (Palgrave Macmillan ed.),<br />
gv. 217-218.<br />
54<br />
Ibid., gv. 218.<br />
55<br />
moxseneba, tomi I, gv. 33-34, §2-3.<br />
14
LEVAN ALEXIDZE<br />
ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE REPORT OF<br />
INDEPENDENT INTERNATIONAL FACT-FINDING<br />
MISSION ON THE CONFLICT IN GEORGIA<br />
Nearly two years have passed since the<br />
tragic events of the Georgian-Russian war in<br />
August, 2008. Since then, numerous new developments<br />
have revealed the real reasons for<br />
this war. From the very beginning, the world<br />
has been focused on the aspects of international<br />
law of the war. Unfortunately, from the<br />
outset Georgia was unable to overcome the<br />
extensive Russian information warfare, as the<br />
Russian Federation has been spending millions<br />
of dollars to conceal the facts behind the<br />
Russian intervention into and occupation of<br />
Georgia, and has accused Georgia of starting<br />
the war.<br />
Unfortunately, the Western press, policymakers,<br />
and even some international experts<br />
have been deceived by the information<br />
on the war waged by the Russian Federation.<br />
The Russian version of the story was convenient<br />
for some Western policymakers, as the<br />
most important role in what had happened<br />
was played by some of the leading Western<br />
European states by impeding Georgia’s active<br />
integration into NATO, which helped the<br />
Russian Federation to interpret this period<br />
as the right moment for intervention into our<br />
country.<br />
On December 2, 2008, the Council of<br />
the European Union entrusted Ambassador<br />
Heidi Tagliavini, a Swiss diplomat well-known<br />
in Georgia, to establish an Independent <strong>International</strong><br />
Fact-Finding Mission on the Confl ict<br />
in Georgia (hereinafter – the Fact-Finding<br />
Mission). The Mission was tasked “to investigate<br />
the origins and the course of the confl ict in<br />
Georgia, including with regard to international<br />
law, humanitarian law and human rights”.<br />
The Report submitted by Ambassador<br />
Heidi Tagliavini to the Council of the European<br />
Union on September 30, 20<strong>09</strong> (hereinafter –<br />
the Report), resulted in active discussio ns on<br />
the evaluation of the confl ict. Some praised<br />
the objectivity of the report; others accused<br />
the Mission of incompatibility of the facts<br />
and analysis. Well-known Russian expert<br />
and former advisor of V. Putin, academic A.<br />
Illarionov, has characterized the basic part of<br />
the report as “scandalous”, since, according to<br />
him, “the report supports aggressor, justifi es<br />
the intervention and represents quasi-judicial<br />
ground, for the conduct of current and possibly<br />
future acts of aggression, what unfortunately<br />
are not excluded”. 1<br />
We do not take such a radical approach<br />
in evaluating the Report as, in general, the<br />
Volume Two of the Report refl ects real events.<br />
At the same time, we shall acknowledge that<br />
the full independence and impartiality of the<br />
Mission was questionable to us from the very<br />
beginning, as among the 19 members of<br />
the Fact-Finding Mission, some still blamed<br />
Georgia in August, 2008, before they became<br />
members of the Fact-Finding Mission.<br />
It should be noted that despite this, the<br />
number of facts investigated on Russian aggression<br />
and their terrifi c character were so<br />
extraordinary that the Fact-Finding Mission<br />
had no other way out but to bring the facts<br />
to light. However, the analysis of some of the<br />
facts is absolutely unacceptable.<br />
The Report has led to controversies in<br />
Georgia as well. Unfortunately, this situation<br />
has been used by politically motivated<br />
so-called experts aimed at disorienting the<br />
15
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
Georgian people via television, journals, and<br />
newspapers. These actors not only grossly<br />
distort the facts, but they do not even try to<br />
question the confusion and mistakes discovered<br />
in the Report with regard to <strong>International</strong><br />
<strong>Law</strong>. On the contrary, these persons try to use<br />
the Report to make their “contribution” in accusing<br />
Georgia of committing alleged aggression.<br />
To begin with, some “commentators”<br />
claim that “the Mission and its Report possessed<br />
and yet still enjoys international law<br />
signifi cance () sic!; that the Mission was composed<br />
of the persons, offi cially designated by<br />
the EU Member States () sic!, in other words<br />
it is the Report of EU offi cial intergovernmental<br />
body () sic!. Hence, [it should be concluded,<br />
that] the Report of the Mission is legally binding<br />
() sic! (emphasis added), despite of the<br />
fact whether it will be accepted by any of the<br />
Parties or not”. 2<br />
As may be noticed, we put a question<br />
mark at the end of almost all of the sentences<br />
in the paragraph above. This is because the<br />
view quoted above in the respective statements<br />
represents the payroll of unprecedented<br />
illiteracy and lie.<br />
For the purpose of clarifying why this so,<br />
we consider each of the above-mentioned,<br />
propositions, which to our minds are incorrect:<br />
a) Any expert of the fi eld would know that<br />
such reports are not legally binding. The Fact-<br />
Finding Mission was only tasked to investigate<br />
the facts, and to classify and present them to<br />
the establishing body. The same Illarionov, referring<br />
to the Report, notes: “EU commission<br />
is a commission of investigators and not of<br />
judges. It is fairly stipulated in the introduction<br />
to the Report that the Mission is not a tribunal.<br />
None of the conclusions in the Report represents<br />
a verdict, but may serve as a basis of<br />
such a verdict”. 3 Moreover, it is worth mentioning<br />
that the EU, having been acquainted with<br />
the presented Report, “welcomes the presentation<br />
of this Report” and only “takes note of<br />
its content”. 4<br />
b) The Report is said to be legally binding,<br />
for the reason of being “the report of EU offi<br />
cial intergovernmental body”. 5<br />
In fact, Ambassador Heidi Tagliavini herself<br />
proves the other thing – that she was given full<br />
independence not only in determining the procedures<br />
and working methods of the Mission,<br />
but also in deciding upon the composition<br />
of the Mission. 6 Any alleged “expert” should<br />
know that the Fact-Finding Mission could not<br />
be an offi cial intergovernmental body, as the<br />
term: “intergovernmental” carries a completely<br />
different meaning. This kind of body should be<br />
composed of persons appointed by governments<br />
or international organizations being established<br />
by the same governments, but not of<br />
private persons, even if such private persons<br />
are ambassadors or ex-ministers. Moreover,<br />
the Report, while highlighting its investigatory<br />
functions, notes that: “In spite of all the work<br />
involved, this Report cannot claim veracity or<br />
completeness in an absolute sense” 7 (emphasis<br />
added).<br />
c) Trying to shelter under the Report for the<br />
purpose of proving “criminal acts of Georgia”,<br />
critics seem to quote quite objectively the following<br />
words: “The shelling of Tskhinvali by<br />
the Georgian armed forces during the night<br />
of 7 to 8 August, 2008 marked the beginning<br />
of the large-scale armed confl ict in Georgia”. 8<br />
However, they stop short from reading the<br />
phrase: “[Y]et it was only the culminating point<br />
of a long period of increasing tensions, provocations<br />
and incidents”. 9 (emphasis added).<br />
The Report underlines that it “shows that<br />
any explanation of the origins of the confl ict<br />
cannot focus solely on the artillery attack on<br />
Tskhinvali in the night of 7/8 August and on<br />
what then developed into the questionable<br />
(emphasis added) Georgian offensive in South<br />
Ossetia and the Russian military action. The<br />
evaluation also has to cover the run-up to the<br />
war during the years before and the mounting<br />
tensions in the months and weeks immediately<br />
preceding the outbreak of hostilities”. 10<br />
The Report states that: “Russia called its<br />
military actions in Georgia a “peace enforcement<br />
operation”, while Georgia called it an<br />
“aggression”. The international community, including<br />
major actors such as the EU, was reluctant<br />
to enter into any formal qualifi cations”. 11<br />
In summary, the Mission used the terms: “proportional”<br />
and “disproportionate response” to<br />
classify the actions of the opposing sides. Even<br />
the intervention of the Russian Federation<br />
into Georgia was labelled a “disproportion-<br />
16
L. ALEXIDZE, ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE REPORT OF INDEPENDENT INTERNATIONAL FACT-FINDING...<br />
ate response”. As for Georgia’s opening fi re<br />
at Tskhinvali in response to repeated attacks<br />
by South Ossetian forces (strong evidence of<br />
such attacks can be found in the Report), this<br />
was also qualifi ed as “disproportional”.<br />
d) The so-called Georgian experts suggest<br />
that: “the use of force by the Georgian Side<br />
expressed in using GRAD rockets and cluster<br />
bombs in Tskhibvali and the surrounding villages,<br />
might be said to amount to aggression (emphasis<br />
added), in accordance with Article 3(a)<br />
of the UN Resolution 3314” Here the words<br />
“General Assembly”, are suspiciously missing.<br />
Let’s see what this Resolution of the United<br />
Nations’ General Assembly provides for:<br />
“Article 1: Aggression is the use of armed<br />
force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial<br />
integrity or political independence of<br />
another State, or in any other manner inconsistent<br />
with the Charter of the United Nations,<br />
as set out in this Defi nition.<br />
…<br />
Article 3(a): The invasion or attack by the<br />
armed forces of a State of the territory of another<br />
State, or any military occupation, however<br />
temporary, resulting from such invasion or<br />
attack, or any annexation by the use of force<br />
of the territory of another State or part thereof,<br />
[qualify as an act of aggression]”. 12<br />
Some members of the Fact-Finding<br />
Mission sought to present Georgia as an<br />
aggressor since it attacked “another state”,<br />
which referred to South Ossetia. To this end,<br />
Professor Otto Luchterhandt created a status<br />
of “a stable de facto regime entities that are<br />
not recognized internationally as states but<br />
which might fulfi l though not all attributes of<br />
statehood”. Luckily, the Report has not shared<br />
this suggestion. In less than impartial article<br />
published in Russia before he was designated<br />
an expert of the Fact-Finding Mission,<br />
Professor Luchterhandt was propagating the<br />
same suggestion. 13<br />
However, fortunately, the Report referred<br />
to South Ossetia as “an entity short of<br />
statehood”. 14<br />
Let us now turn to what Professor Antonio<br />
Cassese, the fi rst President of the <strong>International</strong><br />
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia<br />
(ICTY) and later the Chairman of the United<br />
Nations <strong>International</strong> Commission of Inquiry<br />
on Darfur and a professor at the University of<br />
Florence, wrote in his article: The Wolf that<br />
Ate Georgia:<br />
“Russia has set forth various reasons to<br />
justify its armed intervention in Georgia, where<br />
the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South<br />
Ossetia are nonetheless under Georgian sovereignty.<br />
Russia argues that its invasion was<br />
aimed at 1) stopping Georgia’s aggression<br />
against South Ossetians; 2) ending ethnic<br />
cleansing, genocide, and war crimes committed<br />
by Georgia there; 3) protecting Russian<br />
nationals; and 4) defending South Ossetians<br />
on the basis of the peace-keeping agreement<br />
signed by Boris Yeltsin and Eduard<br />
Shevardnadze in 1992.<br />
None of these legal grounds holds water<br />
(emphasis added). By sending its troops to<br />
South Ossetia, Georgia no doubt was politically<br />
reckless, but it did not breach any international<br />
rule, however nominal its sovereignty<br />
may be. Nor do genocide or ethnic cleansing<br />
seem to have occurred (emphasis added);<br />
if war crimes were perpetrated, they do not<br />
justify a military invasion. Moreover, South<br />
Ossetians have Russian nationality only because<br />
Russia recently bestowed it on them<br />
unilaterally”. 15<br />
Ronald Allison, Reader at the universally<br />
known London School of Economics and<br />
Political Science, writes: “Russia has unyieldingly<br />
kept to this ‘we were attacked fi rst’ claim<br />
and referred to the defi nition of an act of aggression<br />
in UN General Assembly Resolution<br />
3314 of 1974 … However, Russia’s claim of<br />
Georgian ‘aggression’ in general against South<br />
Ossetia offers no longer basis for Russia’s<br />
offensive of other forms of combat against<br />
Georgia, since Russian territory itself was not<br />
under attack. [Hence, for fi lling this ‘gap’, at<br />
the meeting with members of the Valdai Club,<br />
Sochi, V. Putin announced publicly:] ‘What<br />
did you want us to do … when an aggressor<br />
comes into your territory, you need to punch<br />
him in the face – an aggressor needs to be<br />
punished’ (emphasis added)”. 16<br />
It should be mentioned that the facts obtained<br />
by the Fact-Finding Mission do not provide<br />
suffi cient grounds for blaming Georgia in<br />
the aggression. This explains why the term<br />
“aggression” is not used in relation to any of<br />
17
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
the Parties in the Introduction to the Report.<br />
However, Volume Two of the Report does consider<br />
in a great detail to what extent Georgia’s<br />
actions of August 7, 2008 corresponded with<br />
the defi nition of aggression.<br />
While examining and evaluating the actions<br />
of the parties to the confl ict, a number of<br />
controversial issues have arisen in the Report.<br />
In particular: Georgia was accused of allegedly<br />
attacking peacekeepers, reportedly causing<br />
human casualties. If we accept paragraph<br />
17 of Volume One of the Report: “Russia<br />
claimed that in the morning of 8 August, 2008,<br />
two Russian peacekeepers were killed and<br />
fi ve wounded 17 by the Georgian attacks on<br />
the peacekeepers’ premises in Tskhinvali.<br />
Georgia denied … [this accusation], arguing<br />
that the Georgian troops entering Tskhinvali<br />
were fi red at from the Russian peacekeepers`<br />
compounds and that they had to return fi re”. 18<br />
It is important to underline that the<br />
Report provides as follows: “The Mission<br />
does not have independent reports which<br />
could substantiate or deny the allegations<br />
of either side. Albeit, taking into account the<br />
existing dangerous conditions on the ground,<br />
casualties among the Russian PKF personnel<br />
were likely”. 19<br />
According to paragraph 20 of the Report:<br />
“[T]he use of force by Georgia against Russian<br />
peacekeeping forces in Tskhinvali … was contrary<br />
to international law”. 20<br />
Deriving from the above, what shall be<br />
concluded<br />
As Ronald Allison notes: “[M]any groups<br />
of peacekeepers have been killed in complicated<br />
regional confl icts elsewhere, without<br />
this resulting in an immediate intervention by<br />
tens of thousands of troops of their “mother”<br />
country”. 21 Moreover, Volume Two of the<br />
Report notes: “[T]he fact of the Georgian attack<br />
on the Russian peacekeepers’ basis could not<br />
be defi nitely confi rmed by the mission”. 22 The<br />
following is read in the next paragraph: “Still,<br />
doubts remain whether the Russian peacekeepers<br />
were attacked in the fi rst place”. 23<br />
Let us revert now to what the Report<br />
states on the Russian intervention into Georgia:<br />
“Russia was involved in the confl ict in<br />
several ways. First, Russian peacekeepers<br />
who were stationed in South Ossetia on the<br />
basis of the Sochi Agreement were involved<br />
in the fi ghting in Tskhinvali. Second, Russian<br />
regular troops were fi ghting in South Ossetia,<br />
Abkhazia and deeper in Georgian territory.<br />
Third, North Caucasian irregulars took part in<br />
the fi ghting. Finally, Russia supported Abkhaz<br />
and South Ossetian forces in many ways, especially<br />
by training, arming, equipping, fi nancing<br />
and supporting them … Under Art. 2(4)<br />
of the UN Charter and the parallel customary<br />
law, the military operations of the Russian<br />
army … in the territory of Georgia (including<br />
South Ossetia and Abkhazia and elsewhere in<br />
Georgia) in August 2008 constituted a violation<br />
of the fundamental international legal prohibition<br />
of the use of force”. 24<br />
None of the attempts of the Russian<br />
Federation to justify its actions on Georgian<br />
soil in legal terms are supported in the Report.<br />
These actions inter alia include: the use of<br />
force as self-defence 25 , necessity and proportionality<br />
of the Russian actions 26 , use of force<br />
as fulfi lment of the peacekeeping mission 27 ,<br />
intervention on initiative of the South Ossetian<br />
authorities 28 , “collective self-defence” 29 , “humanitarian<br />
intervention” for the purpose of<br />
suppressing Russian citizens and Ossetians’<br />
genocide 30 , use of force as action to rescue<br />
and protect nationals abroad 31 .<br />
Any impartial expert would consider the<br />
above-mentioned “actions” to be in full violation<br />
of the principles promoted by Article 2(4)<br />
of the UN Charter, and the provisions of the<br />
UN General Assembly Resolution 3314. This<br />
means that all these “actions” are of aggressive<br />
character, although the Mission has refrained<br />
from making any such qualifi cation.<br />
As for Georgia, the Report does not deny<br />
the fact that South Ossetian forces shelled<br />
ethnic Georgian villages and peacekeepers,<br />
sometimes resulting even in death; nor does<br />
it deny an infl ux of “volunteer” irregular forces<br />
from the territory of the Russian Federation to<br />
South Ossetia through the Roki tunnel, before<br />
August 7, 2008. Meanwhile, the Mission tries<br />
to deny the wide scale incursion of the Russian<br />
regular forces into the territory of Georgia via<br />
the same Roki tunnel. Albeit, according to a<br />
number of reports and publications, including<br />
those of Russian origin, it is a confi rmed that<br />
“an unauthorized Russian military presence<br />
18
L. ALEXIDZE, ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE REPORT OF INDEPENDENT INTERNATIONAL FACT-FINDING...<br />
was in fact already present in the conflict zone<br />
on 7 August 2008 … [holding] regular exercises<br />
in South Ossetia, including one just a week<br />
before the August war”. 32<br />
The fact that Georgia launched massive<br />
artillery shelling, including the use of cluster<br />
bombs – even in response to intensive attacks<br />
from the South Ossetian Side – was considered<br />
by the Mission a violation of the principle<br />
of prohibition of the use of force, enshrined in<br />
the UN Charter, by Georgia. It should be noted<br />
that Georgia has admitted to those facts, but<br />
claimed to act in response to the attack by the<br />
Russian regular and irregular (the so-called<br />
“Boeviks”) military forces in Tskhinvali and the<br />
surrounding regions. To make a comparison, it<br />
is worth mentioning that the Mission has condemned<br />
Russia’s attempt to deny the use of<br />
cluster munitions, while shelling the civilian<br />
population. 33<br />
As for “the Georgian view that Russian soldiers<br />
had entered Georgian territory through<br />
the Roki tunnel already before the Georgian<br />
air and ground offensive started on 7 August<br />
2008 at 11.35 p.m. could not be verifi ed by the<br />
Mission”. However, the Mission noted: “It is<br />
not excluded that new evidence might show<br />
that Russian soldiers had already entered<br />
Georgian territory at that point in time”. 34 (emphasis<br />
added).<br />
Hence, the absence of facts regarding the<br />
infl ux of Russian regular forces into the territory<br />
of Georgia, and on launching an attack<br />
on Georgia, has turned out to be suffi cient<br />
grounds for the Mission to not make any qualifi<br />
cation thereupon.<br />
The Russian military intervention into<br />
Georgia and the occupation of a signifi cant part<br />
of the territory of Georgia, including Abkhazia<br />
and South Ossetia, have resulted in discussions<br />
on the diplomatic, political, and more importantly,<br />
the international legal interpretation<br />
of the facts. As already mentioned, the majority<br />
of Western, and even some Russian, experts<br />
fully support the position of Georgia and<br />
criticize the aggressive policy of the Russian<br />
Federation.<br />
Several eminent statesmen and politicians<br />
attribute vital importance to the situation facing<br />
Georgia and the necessity to take urgent steps<br />
for the purpose of avoiding widespread attack.<br />
As Vaclav Havel, Valdas Adamkus, and other<br />
well-known political and public fi gures have<br />
announced: “[T]he critical question is to determine<br />
which country invaded the other, rather<br />
than which soldier shot the fi rst bullet”. 35<br />
Meanwhile, in Georgia some of the socalled<br />
experts focus only on the dubious<br />
provisions of the Report. Nevertheless, most<br />
important is that the Report contains a long<br />
list of aggressive acts, fl agrantly violating<br />
<strong>International</strong> Humanitarian <strong>Law</strong>, committed or<br />
supported by the Russian Federation:<br />
• Under these circumstances, the Georgian<br />
attacks against the Russian peacekeepers’<br />
base would equal an attack on an<br />
an ordinary Russian base in foreign territory,<br />
and were therefore specifi cally addressed<br />
against Russia as a state, but<br />
this does not constitute a suffi cient condition<br />
for self-defence. Moreover, as stated<br />
above, the alleged Georgian attack on the<br />
Russian peacekeepers’ base could not be<br />
defi nitely confi rmed by the mission; 36<br />
• There is no doubt that the Russian peacekeepers,<br />
if they had been directly attacked,<br />
had the right to immediate response. An<br />
immediate military response was necessary<br />
and proportionate under that condition.<br />
Still, doubts remain as to whether the<br />
Russian peacekeepers were attacked in<br />
the fi rst place; 37<br />
• It is more diffi cult to decide whether the<br />
entire military campaign against Georgia<br />
was necessary and proportionate; 38<br />
• In conclusion, the Russian intervention<br />
in Georgia cannot be justifi ed as a rescue<br />
operation for Russian nationals in<br />
Georgia; 39<br />
• For these reasons, the presence of<br />
Georgian police or military in the Kodori<br />
Valley cannot be considered an armed attack<br />
on Abkhazia; 40<br />
• The use of force by Abkhazia was not justifi<br />
ed under international law and was thus<br />
illegal. The same applies to the Russian<br />
support for Abkhaz use of force; 41<br />
• While the damage caused to hospitals by<br />
GRAD rockets or artillery shelling resulted<br />
from the use of inaccurate means of warfare,<br />
the helicopter fi re at the hospital in<br />
Gori seems to indicate a deliberate tar-<br />
19
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
geting of this protected object. This may<br />
amount to a war crime; 42<br />
• While the exact number of summary executions<br />
has not been established, and<br />
some facts remain uncertain, the Mission<br />
nevertheless believes that there is credible<br />
evidence of cases of summary executions<br />
carried out by South Ossetian forces; 43<br />
• The Mission believes there are confi rmed<br />
cases of ill-treatment and torture committed<br />
by South Ossetian forces; 44<br />
• The Mission believes there are confi rmed<br />
cases of ill-treatment and torture against<br />
detained combatants. Such acts seem<br />
to have been committed mainly by South<br />
Ossetian forces, in some cases possibly<br />
with Russian soldiers present; 45<br />
• It seems that there have been numerous<br />
cases of illegal detention of civilians, arbitrary<br />
arrests, abduction and taking of<br />
hostages, mostly committed by South<br />
Ossetian forces and other South Ossetian<br />
armed groups; 46<br />
• During and, in particular, after the confl ict,<br />
a systematic and widespread campaign<br />
of looting took place in South Ossetia and<br />
in the buffer zone against mostly ethnic<br />
Georgian houses and properties. Ossetian<br />
forces, unidentifi ed armed Ossetians, and<br />
even Ossetian civilians participated in this<br />
campaign, with reports of Russian forces<br />
also being involved. The Russian forces<br />
failed to prevent these acts and, most<br />
importantly, did not stop the looting and<br />
pillage after the ceasefi re, even in cases<br />
where they witnessed it directly. The<br />
Abkhaz forces did not embark on such pillage.<br />
There are, however, reports of a few<br />
instances of looting and destruction; 47<br />
• The Russian authorities and the South<br />
Ossetian authorities overwhelmingly failed<br />
to take measures to maintain law and order<br />
and ensure the protection of the civilian<br />
population as required under IHL and<br />
HRL; 48<br />
• There were several reasons for the displacement<br />
of approximately 135,000 persons<br />
in the context of the August 2008<br />
confl ict and its aftermath. While the need<br />
to avoid the danger of hostilities and the<br />
general climate of insecurity account<br />
for most of the displacements, numerous<br />
documented cases of violations of<br />
IHL and HRL committed in order to force<br />
the displacement of ethnic Georgians in<br />
South Ossetia lead us to conclude that<br />
the prohibition against arbitrary or forced<br />
displacement has been violated; 49<br />
• Several elements suggest the conclusion<br />
that ethnic cleansing was carried<br />
out against ethnic Georgians in South<br />
Ossetia both during and after the August<br />
2008 confl ict; 50<br />
• The protection of the property rights of<br />
IDPs is a longstanding issue, with still unsettled<br />
disputes over property rights dating<br />
back to the confl icts in the 1990s. In<br />
South Ossetia, there has been a serious<br />
failure on the part of the authorities and<br />
the Russian forces to protect the property<br />
rights of IDPs during–and, especially, after–the<br />
August 2008 confl ict. Furthermore,<br />
South Ossetian forces did participate<br />
in the looting, destruction, and burning<br />
of houses during and after the confl ict.<br />
Comprehensive reparation programmes<br />
should be designed and implemented.<br />
They should be seen as a complement to<br />
the exercise of the right to return of IDPs,<br />
and not a substitute for this right; 51<br />
• Serious concern is expressed about the<br />
situation of ethnic Georgians in the Gali<br />
District (Abkhazia) and the Akhalgori<br />
District and the effective protection of their<br />
rights. The de facto authorities in Abkhazia<br />
and South Ossetia must ensure that the<br />
rights of these persons are protected. The<br />
issue of the status of Abkhazia and South<br />
Ossetia can under no circumstances be<br />
allowed to result in the discrimination or<br />
the infringement of their rights. 52<br />
No comments are needed.<br />
In concluding, we would like to refer to the<br />
Tagliavini Report and the well-known book by<br />
Ronald D. Assmus to make a meaningful assessment<br />
of Russian aggressive “deeds” and<br />
policy pursuit by the <strong>International</strong> Community<br />
of States.<br />
Ronald D. Asmus makes the following assessment:<br />
“This war was also aimed not only<br />
against Georgia but against the West more<br />
generally. Georgia was the physical target, but<br />
20
L. ALEXIDZE, ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE REPORT OF INDEPENDENT INTERNATIONAL FACT-FINDING...<br />
we were in the political crosshairs, too. Tbilisi<br />
became the whipping boy for Russian complaints<br />
and resentments that had been building<br />
for years against the United States, NATO,<br />
and those countries Moscow saw as giving<br />
encouragement to Georgia. That was clear<br />
in everything from how the war was treated<br />
in the Russian media, to the way Russian offi<br />
cers described their mission during the brief<br />
occupation period, to the graffi ti left behind by<br />
departing Russian troops. Those resentments<br />
started with the United States and NATO but<br />
they did not end there. Russian soldiers took<br />
pleasure in destroying EU fl ags as much as<br />
they did any symbol of U.S. or NATO presence.<br />
Russia’s propaganda effort not only<br />
blamed the war on the Georgians but directly<br />
implicated the United States as having fostered<br />
and created this confl ict”. 53<br />
Asmus continues: “Many in the West<br />
have tried to step back and pretend that the<br />
Russian-Georgian war was a local confl ict<br />
that they were not party to. But there is little<br />
doubt that in Russian eyes this war marked<br />
a new Russian policy of rollback and containment<br />
– an effort to roll back Western infl uence<br />
and to contain any future expiation of Western<br />
institutions to Russia’s borders. Moscow was<br />
announcing that the days of what it was as<br />
retreat were over. This was its way of saying<br />
to the West collectively that Georgia was in<br />
its backyard and we should stay out. It was<br />
meant to send a signal that Russia was literally<br />
willing to fi ght back to prevent further<br />
Western encroachment on its borders, above<br />
all through NATO enlargement. In that sense,<br />
this was the fi rst post –Cold War East –West<br />
military confl ict”. 54<br />
Despite the fact that the international<br />
community of states, particularly the Council<br />
of Europe and the European Union, constantly<br />
urge Russia to withdraw the recognition of the<br />
so-called “independence” of the break-away<br />
regions of Georgia, this has not happened.<br />
The illegality of Russia’s attitude towards the<br />
territorial integrity of Georgia is also underlined<br />
by the Report. However, during the entire<br />
post-war period, the Russian Federation<br />
has been strengthening its military presence<br />
in Abkhazia and so-called South Ossetia and<br />
“justifying” this by the so-called “agreements”,<br />
“concluded with independent states”, not allowing<br />
any international organization or its observers<br />
to enter these areas. The entire world<br />
is witnessing grave violations of human rights<br />
in those areas, but is not able to monitor the<br />
situation on the ground.<br />
How long shall the international community<br />
tolerate this cynical attitude to the fundamentals<br />
of the contemporary international legal order<br />
In this context, we agree with the Report’s<br />
conclusion that: “There is a need for more timely<br />
and more determined efforts to control an<br />
emerging crisis situation, and in such situations<br />
a more sustained engagement is needed from<br />
the international community and especially the<br />
UN Security Council, as well as by important<br />
regional and non-regional actors.<br />
It has also emerged that the set of stabilizing<br />
arrangements and institutions, such as the<br />
Joint Peacekeeping Forces (JPKF), the Joint<br />
Control Commission (JCC) and the OSCE<br />
presence in the case of South Ossetia, as well<br />
the Commonwealth of Independent States<br />
Peacekeeping Force (CIS PKF) and UNOMIG<br />
for the Abkhaz confl ict, which had been established<br />
with the assistance of the international<br />
community following the armed confl icts in<br />
Abkhazia and South Ossetia during the early<br />
1990s, were increasingly overtaken by new<br />
and more threatening developments both in<br />
the political and military fi elds”. 55<br />
1<br />
A. Illarionov, ‘The First Impressions: This is A Scandal’, Live <strong>Journal</strong>, (<strong>09</strong> Sep tember,<br />
20<strong>09</strong>), , accessed 19 March, 2010.<br />
2<br />
Newspaper “Republic of Georgia”, December 19, 20<strong>09</strong>.<br />
3<br />
A. Illarionov, see note 1.<br />
4<br />
EU Council, Presentation of the Report of the Independent <strong>International</strong> Fact-<br />
Finding Mission on the Confl ict in Georgia, Brussels, 20<strong>09</strong>, 13875/<strong>09</strong>.<br />
5<br />
See above, fn 2.<br />
21
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
6<br />
Report of Independent <strong>International</strong> Fact-Finding Mission on the Confl ict in<br />
Georgia, [hereinafter - Report], Vol. I, p.6, para. 3. Also see: Article 1, para. 3, and<br />
Article 3, EU Council Decision 2008/901/CFSP of December 2, 2008 concerning<br />
an independent international fact-fi nding mission on the confl ict in Georgia in:<br />
Offi cial <strong>Journal</strong> of the European Union, 3.12.2008, EN., 323/66<br />
7<br />
Ibid., p. 9, para. 9.<br />
8<br />
Ibid., p. 11, para. 3.<br />
9<br />
Ibid.<br />
10<br />
Ibid., p. 31, para. 36.<br />
11<br />
Ibid., p. 22, para. 18.<br />
12<br />
UNGA Res. 3314 (XXIX), 29 th Session, (1974), available at: http://daccess-dds-ny.<br />
un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/739/16/IMG/NR073916.pdfOpenElement.<br />
13<br />
Otto Luchterhandt, ‘<strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> Aspects of “Georgian War”’, Russian<br />
Bulletin of Human Rights, 26, Human Rights Institute (2008). http://www.hrights.<br />
ru/text/b26/bul26.htm.<br />
14<br />
Report, Vol. II, p. 128-129.<br />
15<br />
Antonio Cassese “The Wolf that Ate Georgia”, Guardian, September 1, 2008.<br />
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/cassese5/English; accessed: <strong>09</strong><br />
Sep tember, 2008.<br />
16<br />
Ronald Allison, “The Russian case for military intervention in Georgia: international<br />
law norms and political calculation”, European Security, 18:2, (20<strong>09</strong>) pp.<br />
176-177.<br />
17<br />
It is worth mentioning that “unbiassed” expert Otto Luchtherhandt indicates another<br />
fi gure - 10 Russian peacekeepers who were killed. See: Otto Luchterhandt,<br />
‘<strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> Aspects of “Georgian War”. Russian Bulletin of Human Rights<br />
26, Human Rights Institute (2008), http://www.hrights.ru/text/b26/bul26.htm.<br />
18<br />
Report, Vol. I, p. 21, para 17.<br />
19<br />
Ibid.<br />
20<br />
Ibid., p. 23, para. 20.<br />
21<br />
Roy Allison, “The Russian case for military intervention in Georgia: international<br />
law norms and political calculation”, European Security, 18:2, (20<strong>09</strong>) p.178.<br />
22<br />
Report, Vol. II, p. 268.<br />
23<br />
Ibid., p. 270.<br />
24<br />
Ibid., p. 263-264.<br />
25<br />
Ibid., p. 264-269.<br />
26<br />
Ibid., p. 269-275.<br />
27<br />
Ibid., p. 275-276.<br />
28<br />
Ibid., p. 276-280.<br />
29<br />
Ibid., p. 280-283.<br />
30<br />
See: Ibid., p. 283-284.<br />
31<br />
Ibid., p. 285-289.<br />
32<br />
Ronald Allison, “The Russian case for military intervention in Georgia: international<br />
law norms and political calculation”, European Security, 18:2, (20<strong>09</strong>) p. 17,<br />
p. 176; See also: Report, Vol. II, p. 221; See also: A. Illarionov, ‘How the War was<br />
Prepared’, Новая Газета, (June 24-26, 20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
33<br />
See: Report, Vol. I, p. 28, para. 29.<br />
34<br />
Report, Vol. II, p. 254.<br />
35<br />
Vaclav Havel, Valdas Adamkus, Mart Laar, Vytautas Landsbergis, Otto de<br />
Habsbourg, Daniel Cohn Bendit, Timothy Garton Ash, André Glucksmann, Mark<br />
Leonard, Bernard-Henri Lévy, Adam Michnik, Josep Ramoneda, ‘Europe must<br />
stand up for Georgia’, Guardian, (September 22, 20<strong>09</strong>), http://www.guardian.<br />
co.uk/commentisfree/20<strong>09</strong>/sep/22/europe-georgia-russia.<br />
36<br />
Ibid., p. 268.<br />
37<br />
Ibid., p. 270.<br />
38<br />
Ibid., p. 271.<br />
22
L. ALEXIDZE, ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE REPORT OF INDEPENDENT INTERNATIONAL FACT-FINDING...<br />
39<br />
Ibid., p. 289.<br />
40<br />
Ibid., p. 293.<br />
41<br />
Ibid., p. 294.<br />
42<br />
Ibid., p. 330.<br />
43<br />
Ibid., p. 355.<br />
44<br />
Ibid., p. 359.<br />
45<br />
Ibid., p. 361.<br />
46<br />
Ibid., p. 362.<br />
47<br />
Ibid., p. 365.<br />
48<br />
Ibid., p. 375.<br />
49<br />
Ibid., p. 389.<br />
50<br />
Ibid., p. 394.<br />
51<br />
Ibid., p. 405.<br />
52<br />
Ibid., p. 416.<br />
53<br />
R.D. Asmus, A Little War that Shook the World (Palgrave Macmillan ed. 2010)<br />
217-18.<br />
54<br />
Ibid., p. 218.<br />
55<br />
Report, Vol. I, p. 33-34, para. 2-3.<br />
23
nino saginaSvili<br />
gaeros wesdebis me-2(7) muxli – Teoria v. praqtika<br />
1. Sesavali<br />
Caurevlobis principi yovelTvis<br />
aRiqmeboda rogorc saxelmwifos damoukideblad<br />
arsebobisa da saxelmwifoTa<br />
TanamSromlobis myari safuZveli<br />
Tu winapiroba, anu saerTaSoriso samarTlisa<br />
da urTierTobebis erTgvari<br />
sabaziso koncefcia. Sesabamisad, am koncefciis<br />
aqtualuroba da mniSvneloba<br />
saerTaSoriso Tanamegobrobis gansjis<br />
dRis wesrigidan arc arasodes moxsnila.<br />
amgvari midgoma ki gulisxmobs: xsenebuli<br />
sakiTxis maRali doziT politizebas,<br />
arsebuli realobis samarTlebrivi terminologiiT<br />
gamarTlebas, debulebaTa<br />
interpretacias mowinave saxelmwifoTa<br />
interesebisa da konkretuli garemoebebidan<br />
gamomdinare, zog SemTxvevaSi<br />
ki ukanonobis aSkara legitimacias<br />
(SeiZleba davasaxeloT, Tundac, kosovos<br />
magaliTi). sxvagvarad rom vTqvaT, aq<br />
gasakviri arc araferia, zogadad, saer-<br />
TaSoriso samarTlis ormagi standartebis<br />
fonze; miT umetes, rodesac vsaubrobT<br />
iseT delikatur sakiTxze, rogoric<br />
saxelmwifos saSinao iurisdiqciaSi<br />
Caurevlobis principia.<br />
Caurevlobis principi sakmaod mravlismomcveli<br />
Temaa, magram winamdebare<br />
naSromSi is ganxilulia mxolod<br />
gaerTianebuli erebis organizaciis<br />
wesdebis me-2(7) muxlis farglebSi, anu<br />
– rogorc erTaderTi universaluri<br />
saerTaSoriso organizaciis wesdebis<br />
Semadgeneli nawili. am muxlis unikaluri<br />
xasiaTi erTdroulad vrceldeba<br />
saerTaSoriso da Sidasaxelmwifoebriv<br />
iurisdiqciebze da moicavs samarTlisa<br />
da politikis urTierTkveTis mwvave<br />
precedentebs. 1 gasarkvevia: ras moicavs<br />
saxelmwifos saSinao saqmeebis sfero,<br />
romelSi Carevac sxva saxelmwifos<br />
akrZaluli aqvs; ras gulisxmobda an<br />
axla ras gulisxmobs es akrZalva; ramdenad<br />
cvalebadia dasaxelebul sfero-<br />
Si Semaval sakiTxTa wre; ra kriteriumis<br />
safuZvelze xdeba sakiTxis mikuTvneba<br />
erovnuli Tu saerTaSoriso iurisdiqciisadmi;<br />
ramdenad SeTavsebadia aRniSnul<br />
sferoSi Teoriuli mosazrebebi da<br />
saxelmwifoTa praqtikuli gamocdileba<br />
– es im SekiTxvebis mcire nawilia, romlebic<br />
ibadeba Caurevlobis principze<br />
msjelobisas da rac ganxiluli iqneba<br />
winamdebare naSromSi, misi SezRuduli<br />
formatis farglebSi.<br />
naSromis pirvel TavSi mocemulia<br />
Sesavali debulebebi gaeros wesdebis me-<br />
2(7) muxlSi Camoyalibebuli Caurevlobis<br />
principis Sesaxeb, rac, Tavis mxriv,<br />
ukavSirdeba saerTaSoriso samarTlisa<br />
da politikis, Teoriisa da praqtikis<br />
urTierTmimarTebas da amiT aixsneba<br />
gansakuTrebuli interesi am sakiTxisadmi;<br />
meore TavSi ganxilulia me-2(7)<br />
muxlis formulirebis istoriuli safexurebi<br />
1943-1945 wlebSi, SeerTebuli<br />
Statebis, didi britaneTisa da sabWo-<br />
Ta kavSiris monawileobiT Catarebuli<br />
saerTaSoriso konferenciebis fonze.<br />
amaTgan, saerTaSoriso samarTlebrivi<br />
TanamSromlobis kuTxiT, gansakuTrebul<br />
yuradRebas ipyrobs moskovis (1943),<br />
dumbarton-oqsisa (1944) da san-franciskos<br />
(1945) konferenciebi; naSromis<br />
mesame TavSi ganxilulia me-2(7) muxlis<br />
24
n.saginaSvili, gaeros wesdebis me-2(7) muxli _ Teoria v. praqtika<br />
interpretaciis sakiTxi Teoriisa da<br />
praqtikis urTierTkveTis fonze. am<br />
mxriv, gansakuTrebiT sainteresoa avtointerpretirebis<br />
meqanizmis analizi;<br />
meoTxe TavSi yuradReba gamaxvilebulia<br />
Caurevlobis principis mimarTebaze<br />
sxva principebTan, kerZod: saxelmwifo<br />
suverenitetis koncefciasTan, Zalis<br />
gamoyenebis akrZalvasTan, humanurobis<br />
elementaruli debulebebisa da adamianis<br />
uflebaTa doqtrinasTan mimarTebiT;<br />
mexuTe TavSi, wina Tavebisgan gansxvavebiT,<br />
meti aqcenti keTdeba me-2(7)<br />
muxlis praqtikul gamoyenebaze, ker-<br />
Zod, ganxilulia humanitaruli intervenciis<br />
uflebisa Tu SesaZleblobis arsebobis<br />
sadavo sakiTxi; naSromis bolo,<br />
meeqvse TavSi Sejamebulia Teoriisa da<br />
praqtikis araerTgvarovani midgomebi<br />
gaeros wesdebis me-2(7) muxlSi asaxuli<br />
Caurevlobis principisadmi; ganxilulia<br />
am araerTgvarovnebis gamomwvevi<br />
mizezebi da erT-erT aseT umTavres mizezad<br />
saxeldeba me-2(7) muxlis zogadi<br />
da orazrovani teqsti, romelic aRniSnuli<br />
debulebebis interpretirebisa<br />
da gamoyenebis urTierTgamomricxav<br />
Se saZleblobebs qmnis da erTgvarovani<br />
praqtikis Camoyalibebas SeuZlebels<br />
xdis Caurevlobis principis aqtualurobis<br />
fonze.<br />
2. me-2(7) muxli: istoriuli mimoxilva<br />
da formireba<br />
rodesac vsaubrobT gaeros wesdebis<br />
me-2(7) muxlSi Camoyalibebul<br />
Caurevlobis principze da samarTlian<br />
kritikas gamovTqvamT, erTi mxriv, misi<br />
bundovani da orazrovani teqstis mimarT,<br />
xolo, meore mxriv, praqtikaSi xsenebuli<br />
principis araerTgvarovani interpretirebisa<br />
Tu gamoyenebis mimarT,<br />
am fonze aqtualuri xdeba aRniSnul<br />
debulebaTa formulirebis istoriuli<br />
safexurebis analizi 1943-1945 wlebSi<br />
Catarebuli saerTaSoriso konferenciebis<br />
WrilSi. winamdebare naSromis<br />
miznebisTvis gansakuTrebiT sainteresoa<br />
moskovis, dumbarton-oqsisa da sanfranciskos<br />
konferenciebis ganxilva.<br />
2.1. moskovis konferencia<br />
moskovis konferenciaze (1943 wli<br />
s 19-30 oqtomberi) ar ganxilula<br />
Caurevlobis principis arsi, magram es<br />
isedac igulisxmeboda, rodesac ssrkis,<br />
aSS-isa da didi britaneTis sagareo<br />
saqmeTa ministrebi saubrobdnen saxelmwifoTa<br />
`mSvidobian Tanacxovrebaze,...<br />
farTo TanamSromlobaze~ 2 da `saerTa-<br />
Soriso mSvidobisa da uSiSroebis<br />
SesanarCuneblad, rac SeiZleba mokle<br />
vadaSi, saerTaSoriso organizaciis<br />
daarsebis aucileblobaze, yvela mSvidobismoyvare<br />
saxelmwifos suverenuli<br />
Tanasworobis principze dayrdnobiT~ 3 .<br />
swored aseve Caiwera moskovis konferenciaze<br />
oTxi saxelmwifos – aSS-is,<br />
ssrk-is, didi britaneTisa da CineTis<br />
– erTobliv deklaraciaSi saerTo usafrTxoebis<br />
Sesaxeb. 4 deklaraciidan<br />
gamomdinare, advili misaxvedria am saxelmwifoTa<br />
mcdeloba, saerTaSoriso<br />
Tanamegobrobis TvalSi warmoCeniliyvnen<br />
rogorc WeSmaritad mSvidobismoyvare<br />
da TavianT ganzraxvebSi samarTliani<br />
saxelmwifoebi. arada, aSS-is mier warmodgenili<br />
deklaraciis Tavdapirvel<br />
variantSi 5 sityva `mSvidobismoyvare~<br />
saerTod arc iyo naxsenebi, is mogvianebiT<br />
daemata teqsts. 6 Tumca, suverenuli<br />
Tanasworobis principis fonze, saxelmwifoTa<br />
realuri interesebi ukeT<br />
warmoCnda deklaraciis me-6 punqtSi:<br />
`rom omis damTavrebis Semdeg isini ar gamoiyeneben<br />
TavianT SeiaraRebul Zalebs<br />
sxva saxelmwifoTa teritoriaze, mxolod<br />
erToblivi konsultaciis Semdeg<br />
da am deklaraciiT gaTvaliswinebuli<br />
miznebis safuZvelze.~ 7 saboloo jam-<br />
Si, me-6 punqti ganimarta rogorc didi<br />
saxelmwifoebis mier TviTSezRudvis<br />
aqti, 8 romelic ZalaSi Sedis mxolod da<br />
mxolod hitleruli germaniis damarcxebis<br />
Semdeg. 9 anu II msoflio omis Semdeg<br />
politikaSi aSS, didi britaneTi da ssrk<br />
SeTanxmdnen, rom `ar gamoiyenebdnen<br />
SeiaraRebul zomebs sadavo sakiTxebis<br />
gadawyvetisas, erTmaneTTan konsultaciis<br />
gareSe~ 10 , oRond, zemoxsenebuli<br />
punqtis SezRudvaSi ar igulisxmeboda<br />
sxva saxelmwifos teritoriaze<br />
25
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong>, #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
samxedro-sahaero da samxedro-sazRvao<br />
bazebis ganlageba. 11 didi britaneTis<br />
sagareo saqmeTa ministrma, e. idenma<br />
daakonkreta, rom amisTvis saWiro iyo<br />
Sesabamis saxelmwifosTan konsultaciis<br />
gamarTva da ara masTan SeTanxmeba. 12<br />
amrigad, me-6 punqtis teqstze<br />
dayrdnobiT, aSkaraa, rom moskovis konferenciaze<br />
aRiarebul iqna Caurevlobis<br />
principis aucilebloba, Tumca iqve ganisazRvra<br />
misi darRvevis pirobebi da<br />
erTgvari travaux préparatoires saxiT ganimarta<br />
gamonaklisebi, rac erToblivi<br />
deklaraciis teqstSi ar moxvda (igulisxmeba<br />
samxedro-sahaero da samxedrosazRvao<br />
bazebis sakiTxi).<br />
2.2. dumbarton-oqsis konferencia<br />
dumbarton-oqsis konferenciaze<br />
(1944 wlis 21 agvisto – 28 seqtemberi)<br />
ZiriTadi aqcenti gakeTda saerTaSoriso<br />
organizaciis daarsebaze saerTaSoriso<br />
mSvidobisa da uSiSroebis sferoSi – II<br />
msoflio omis dasrulebamde, xolo aSSis,<br />
ssrk-is, didi britaneTisa da CineTis<br />
warmomadgenelebma waradgines memorandumebi<br />
organizaciis struqturisa da<br />
funqcionirebis zogad formatTan dakavSirebiT.<br />
es iyo ufro azrTa gacvla<br />
araoficialuri formatis farglebSi. 13<br />
sabWoTa kavSiris memorandumi – moculobiT<br />
SedarebiT mcirea da masSi araferia<br />
naTqvami Caurevlobis principze. 14<br />
aSS-is memorandumi – masSic ar aris<br />
naxsenebi Caurevlobis principi, 15 magram<br />
saubaria uSiSroebis sabWos mier<br />
iseTi davis an situaciis dakvalificirebaze,<br />
romelic seriozul safrTxes<br />
uqmnis saerTaSoriso mSvidobasa da<br />
usafrTxoebas, 16 aseTi davis erT-erT<br />
magaliTad ki dasaxelebuli iyo erTi<br />
saxelmwifos mier sxva saxelmwifos<br />
iurisdiqciis farglebSi SeiaraRebuli<br />
Zalebis gamoyeneba, saerTaSoriso organizaciis<br />
nebarTvis gareSe. 17 anu iribad<br />
miniSnebaa gakeTebuli, rom Caurevlobis<br />
principi, miuxedavad misi aucileblobisa,<br />
mainc SeiZleba SeizRudos saerTaSoriso<br />
organizaciis sanqciis saxiT.<br />
gaerTianebuli samefos memorandumi<br />
– masSi pirdapir ar aris ganmartebuli<br />
Caurevlobis principi. 18 ubralod,<br />
am WrilSi teritoriuli Caurevlobisa<br />
da politikuri damoukideblobis garantiebi<br />
ganxilulia uaryofiT konteqst-<br />
Si, rom axalma saerTaSoriso organizaciam<br />
ar unda uzrunvelyos wevri saxelmwifoebis<br />
Caurevlobisa da politikuri<br />
damoukideblobis dacva, 19 radgan:<br />
1. politikuri damoukideblobis<br />
dacva unda ganisazRvros organizaciis<br />
erT-erT principad, anu zogad debulebad<br />
da ara konkretul valdebulebad,<br />
romliTac SeboWilia organizaciac da<br />
misi wevrebic; 20<br />
2. teritoriuli Caurevlobis garantia<br />
iqna gamoyenebuli erTa ligis<br />
sistemaSi da Tavidanve amas didi kritika<br />
mohyva, 21 radgan amgvari garantiebis arsebobas<br />
Tavad ar SeuZlia `aRkveTos sxva<br />
saxelmwifos teritoriaze SeWra da misi<br />
okupacia SeiaraRebuli ZalebiT~. 22<br />
amrigad, didi britaneTi zogadad<br />
ar uaryofda Caurevlobis principis<br />
aucileblobas, magram, amasTanave, sastikad<br />
ewinaaRmdegeboda raime garantiis<br />
gacemas, radgan realurad acnobierebda,<br />
rom amgvari garantiebi ufro<br />
metad boWavdnen saxelmwifoebs, vidre<br />
uzrunvelyofdnen maT daculobas. am<br />
WrilSi agresiis definirebasTan gavlebuli<br />
paraleli ase gamoiyureba: saxelmwifoebi<br />
gansakuTrebuli sifrTxiliT<br />
ekidebian am problemas, radgan ar arian<br />
dazRveulni, rom momavalSi Tavadve<br />
Caidenen agresiis aqtebs da `potenciuri<br />
bumerangis efeqti... arasodes SeiZleba<br />
gamoiricxos~. 23<br />
CineTis memorandumi – masSi araferia<br />
naTqvami Caurevlobis principze, 24<br />
magram agresiad aris dakvalificirebuli,<br />
inter alia: SeiaraRebuli Zalebis SeWra<br />
sxva saxelmwifos teritoriaze; saxmele-<br />
To, sazRvao an sahaero SeiaraRebuli<br />
Zalebis gamoyeneba sxva saxelmwifos<br />
teritoriis dasabombad an sxva saxelmwifos<br />
saxmeleTo, sazRvao an sahaero<br />
SeiaraRebul Zalebze Tavdasasxmelad. 25<br />
dumbarton-oqsis konferenciaze<br />
molaparakebebis Sedegad miRebul iqna<br />
ssrk-is, aSS-isa da gaerTianebuli samefos<br />
erToblivi proeqti uSiSroebis<br />
26
n.saginaSvili, gaeros wesdebis me-2(7) muxli _ Teoria v. praqtika<br />
saerTaSoriso organizaciis SeqmnasTan<br />
dakavSirebiT. 26 am proeqtis mixedviT,<br />
principebis ganyofilebaSi araferia<br />
naTqvami Caurevlobis principze, Tumca<br />
gaeros dRevandeli wesdebis me-2 muxlis<br />
danarCeni eqvsive principi aris<br />
dasaxelebuli. 27 magram CvenTvis sainteresoa<br />
davebis mSvidobiani mogvarebis<br />
ganyofileba, romelic moicavs iseT davebsa<br />
da situaciebs, rac safrTxes uqmnis<br />
saerTaSoriso mSvidobisa da uSiSroebis<br />
SenarCunebas, 28 Tumca ar aris imdenad<br />
seriozuli, rom uSiSroebis sabWom<br />
daa kvalificiros rogorc `nebismieri<br />
safrTxe mSvidobis mimarT, mSvidobis<br />
xelyofa an agresiis aqti~ (VIII Tavi, B<br />
ganyofileba, me-2 punqti). 29 Sesabamisad,<br />
amgvari davebis mimarT sabWos kompetencia<br />
Semoifargleba rekomendaciebis<br />
gacemiT (VIII Tavi, A ganyofileba, me-5<br />
punqti), 30 xolo iuridiuli xasiaTis davebTan<br />
dakavSirebiT – saerTaSoriso sasamarTlosTvis<br />
`iuridiuli SekiTxvebis~<br />
gadacemiT, rCevis miRebis mizniT (me-6<br />
punqti) 31 da ara davis samarTlebrivi<br />
gziT gadasawyvetad. am yovelives fonze<br />
ki me-7 punqtSi gacxadebulia: `A ganyofilebis<br />
1-li-me-6 punqtebis debulebebi<br />
ar unda iqnes gamoyenebuli iseTi davebisa<br />
da situaciebis mimarT, rac, saerTa-<br />
Soriso samarTlis mixedviT, dainteresebuli<br />
saxelmwifos arsebiTad saSinao<br />
iurisdiqciaSi xvdeba.~ 32<br />
amrigad, dumbarton-oqsis konferenciaze<br />
Caurevlobis principi aRiarebul<br />
iqna mxolod umniSvnelo saerTaSoriso<br />
davebisa da situaciebis mimarT.<br />
2.3. san-franciskos konferencia<br />
da me-2(7) muxlisadmi Tanamedrove<br />
midgoma<br />
san-franciskos konferenciaze (1945<br />
wlis 25 aprili – 26 ivnisi) gaiTvaliswines<br />
dumbarton-oqsis konferenciisas miRebuli<br />
uSiSroebis saerTaSoriso organizaciis<br />
wesdebis proeqti, rogorc `sa-<br />
Tanado safuZveli~, 33 magram, amasTanave,<br />
Catarda seriozuli samuSao komisiebsa<br />
da komitetebSi da SemoTavazebul iqna<br />
mTeli rigi cvlilebebisa:<br />
1944 wlis 10 oqtombris ssrk-is, aSSisa<br />
da gaerTianebuli samefos erTobliv<br />
proeqtSi 34 saxelmwifos arsebiTad saSinao<br />
saqmeebSi Caurevlobaze miTiTeba<br />
gakeTebuli iyo ara principebis, aramed<br />
davebis mSvidobiani daregulirebis<br />
ganyofilebaSi. 35 es midgoma gamoaswores<br />
san-franciskos konferenciaze. kerZod,<br />
1945 wlis 5 maiss oTxma saxelmwifom<br />
– ssrk, aSS, didi britaneTi da CineTi –<br />
warmoadgina cvlilebebis paketi, romlis<br />
Tanaxmad, VIII Tavis A ganyofilebis<br />
me-7 punqtma gadmoinacvla II TavSi, me-7<br />
principad, mcire cvlilebebiT: `arsebuli<br />
wesdeba ar Seicavs debulebebs,<br />
romlebic uflebamosilebas aniWebs<br />
or ganizacias, Caerios iseT sakiTxebSi,<br />
rac, Tavisi bunebiT, saxelmwifos sa-<br />
Sinao kompetencias ganekuTvneba, an<br />
daavaldebulos wevri saxelmwifoebi,<br />
warmoadginon amgvari saqmeebi arsebuli<br />
wesdebis mixedviT gadasawyvetad; Tumca<br />
am principma ziani ar unda miayenos VIII<br />
Tavis B ganyofilebis gamoyenebas~ 36 (anu<br />
iZulebiTi zomebis gamoyenebas 37 ).<br />
aRniSnuli cvlileba e.w. `sponsorma<br />
saxelmwifoebma~ ganmartes `rogorc Ziri<br />
Tadi principi da ara rogorc teqnikuri<br />
da samarTlebrivi formula, gankuTvnili<br />
uSiSroebis sabWos mier davebis<br />
gadasawyvetad, rogorc es Caiwera<br />
dumbarton-oqsis Tavdapirvel debu l-<br />
ebebsa da erTa ligis paqtis me-15 mu x-<br />
lSi 38 .~ 39<br />
amrigad, amieridan aRniSnuli debuleba<br />
SeboWavda ara konkretulad uSiSroebis<br />
sabWos VI TaviT gaTvaliswinebul<br />
kompetencias, aramed mTliani organi zaciis<br />
saqmianobas. 40 mogvianebiT am cvlilebis<br />
bolo fraza kvlav Seicvala meti<br />
sicxadis mizniT: `Tumca es principi ar<br />
exeba iZulebiTi zomebis gamoyenebas VII<br />
Tavis safuZvelze.~ 41 igulisxmeba: rodesac<br />
saxelmwifo moqmedebs Tavisi arsebiTad<br />
saSinao kompetenciidan gamomdinare,<br />
safrTxes uqmnis saerTaSoriso<br />
mSvidobasa da usafrTxoebas, 42 Tanac,<br />
iseT seriozul safrTxes, rom saWiro<br />
xdeba ara VI, aramed VII Tavis safuZvelze<br />
iZulebiTi zomebis gamoyeneba.<br />
27
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong>, #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
sxvaTaSoris, es bolo cvlileba wamoayena<br />
avstraliam, 43 rac erTgvari Sua<br />
leduri pozicia, erTgvari kompromisi<br />
iyo uSiSroebis sabWos mier saerTa-<br />
Soriso mSvidobisa da uSiSroebis Senar<br />
Cunebis farTo kompetenciasa da<br />
sa xelmwifos saSinao iurisdiqciaSi<br />
Caurevlobis ZiriTad princips Soris.<br />
erTi mxriv, Caurevlobis principi bo-<br />
Wavs gaeros, rogorc mTliani organizaciis,<br />
maT Soris uSiSroebis sab-<br />
Wos, kompetencias, magram, meore mxriv,<br />
gaiTvaliswines uSiSroebis sabWos upirvelesi<br />
valdebulebis udidesi praqtikuli<br />
mniSvneloba da erTaderTi<br />
gamonaklisi iqna daSvebuli sabWos mier<br />
VII Tavis safuZvelze iZulebiTi zomebis<br />
gamoyenebasTan mimarTebiT. 44 Tanac, im<br />
fonze, rom VII Tavi sxva zomebsac iTvaliswinebs,<br />
kerZod: rekomendaciis gacemas<br />
(39-e muxli), droebiT RonisZiebebs (me-<br />
40 muxli). 45<br />
miuxedavad xsenebuli gamonaklisisa,<br />
uSiSroebis sabWos uflebamosileba<br />
mcirediTac ki ar SezRudula. piriqiT,<br />
ufro metad ganmtkicda. Sedegad miviReT<br />
situacia, sadac:<br />
• Tu dadgindeba, rom gansaxilveli<br />
sakiTxi ar ganekuTvneba konkretuli<br />
saxelmwifos saSinao iurisdiqcias,<br />
gaeros wesdeba Cveulebriv moqmedebs<br />
da am kuTxiT SesaZlebelia<br />
VII Tavis gamoyenebac;<br />
• Tu dadgindeba, rom gansaxilveli<br />
sakiTxi ganekuTvneba konkretuli<br />
saxelmwifos saSinao iurisdiqcias,<br />
maSin, me-2(7) muxlis Tanaxmad, gaeros<br />
wesdeba aRar moqmedebs, magram mainc<br />
SesaZlebelia iZulebiTi zomebis<br />
gamoyeneba. 46<br />
anu orive SemTxvevaSi SesaZlebelia<br />
uSiSroebis sabWos mier iZulebiTi zomebis<br />
gamoyeneba. aSkaraa, rom gaeros wesdeba<br />
`...Zalis gamoyenebis monopolias<br />
aniWebs uSiSroebis sabWos...~ 47 . es sakiTxi<br />
ki umniSvnelovanesia Tavisi politikuri<br />
da samarTlebrivi konteqstiT,<br />
radgan:<br />
• Camoyalibebuli praqtikis Tanaxmad,<br />
VII Tavis safuZvelze miRebuli uSiSroebis<br />
sabWos rezoluciebi aris iuridiulad<br />
savaldebulo, Tu sabWo<br />
ase gadawyvets, 48 da miiReba gaeros<br />
yvela wevri saxelmwifos saxeliT; 49<br />
davebis mSvidobiani mogvarebisa<br />
da Zalis araTu gamoyenebis, aramed<br />
amgvari muqaris akrZalvis 51 fonzec<br />
ki, gaeros wesdeba iTvaliswinebs<br />
mxolod 2 gamonakliss: 52 Tavdacvis<br />
uflebas (51-e muxli) da VII TaviT<br />
gaTvaliswinebul iZulebiT zomebs<br />
(39-e–43-e muxlebi). 53 magram Zalis<br />
gamoyenebis gamonaklisebis amgvari<br />
klasifikacia ar aris srulyofili,<br />
radgan is ar iTvaliswinebs, gaeros<br />
wesdebis 53-e muxlis Tanaxmad, regionaluri<br />
organizaciebis mier<br />
Zalis gamoyenebis SesaZleblobas<br />
uSiSroebis sabWos winaswari nebarTvis<br />
safuZvelze. amitomac<br />
ufro misaRebia vogan loues formulireba:<br />
2 gamonaklisi – Tavdacva<br />
da uSiSroebis sabWos nebarTva 54<br />
(aq moiazreba 42-e da 53-e muxlebi<br />
erTad); an kristian Cinkinis formulireba:<br />
3 gamonaklisi – Tavdacva, VII<br />
TaviT gaTvaliswinebuli iZulebiTi<br />
RonisZiebebi, VIII TaviT gaTvaliswinebuli<br />
regionaluri SeTanxmebebi. 55<br />
•<br />
50<br />
2.4. me-2(7) muxli: Tavdapirveli<br />
ganzraxva<br />
zogadad, Caurevlobis sakiTxi gaeros<br />
daarsebis dRidanve `damqancvel<br />
debatebsa~ da diskusias iwvevs. 56 `albaT,<br />
swori iqneba, Tu vityviT, rom wesdebis<br />
arcerT muxls ar gamouwvevia amdeni<br />
sazrunavi, rogorc amas [me-2(7) muxls].~ 57<br />
Tavad san-franciskos konferenciazec<br />
SeiniSneboda azrTa sxvadasxvaoba da es<br />
gasakviri arc aris, radgan TiToeuli<br />
saxelmwifo sakuTari interesis gatarebas,<br />
dacvas cdilobda. 58 magram es azrTa<br />
sxvadasxvaoba ar ganapirobebs san-franciskos<br />
Canawerebis orazrovnebas an bundovanebas.<br />
piriqiT, konferenciis zogadi<br />
mimarTuleba da wesdebis SemqmnelTa<br />
saerTo ganzraxva am sakiTxTan dakavSirebiT<br />
sakmaod naTeli iyo. 59 saSinao saqmeebSi<br />
Carevis zogadi akrZalva ganimar-<br />
28
n.saginaSvili, gaeros wesdebis me-2(7) muxli _ Teoria v. praqtika<br />
1970 wlis rezolucia 2625 (XXV) –<br />
ta rogorc `prioritetuli principi an _<br />
formulireba.~ 68 aqvs universaluri gamoyeneba.~ 79<br />
SezRudva~ 60 , ufro konkretulad ki wesdebis<br />
me-2(7) muxlSi:<br />
... termini `Careva~ gagebul iqna rogorc<br />
`deklaracia saerTaSoriso samar-<br />
Tlis principebis Sesaxeb, romelic<br />
dakavSirebulia saxelmwifoTa<br />
nebismieri `qmedeba~ [ganxorciele-<br />
Soris megobrul urTierTobebsa<br />
buli] gaeros nebismieri organos mier<br />
konkretuli saxelmwifoebis saSinao iurisdiqciis<br />
sakiTxebTan dakavSirebiT;<br />
da TanamSromlobasTan, gaerTianebuli<br />
erebis organizaciis wesdebis<br />
Sesabamisad.~ 69 am deklaraciam,<br />
e.i. konkretuli saxelmwifos an saxelmwifoTa<br />
ZiriTadad, gaimeora wina rezoluciis<br />
jgufis saSinao saqmeebTan daka-<br />
vSirebuli sakiTxis nebismieri ganxilva<br />
an masze rekomendaciis gacema, gamoZieba<br />
an Seswavla iqneba intervencia. 61<br />
sxvaTaSoris, citirebuli debulebebi<br />
ar aris mxolod politikuri gancxadebebi,<br />
anu legitimurobis problema aq ar<br />
dgas, 62 radgan san-franciskos konferenciaze<br />
dasaxelebuli cvlilebebi waradgina<br />
iuristTa komitetma, 63 xolo konferenciis<br />
formatSi momuSave samarTlis<br />
eqspertTagan umetesoba Semdgom<br />
marTlmsajulebis saerTaSori so sasamarTlos<br />
(mss) mosamarTle gaxda. 64<br />
debuleba Caurevlobaze: 70<br />
`arc erT saxelmwifos an saxelmwifoTa<br />
jgufs ar aqvs ufleba, Caerios<br />
pirdapir Tu arapirdapir, ra mizeziTac<br />
ar unda iyos, sxva saxelmwifos<br />
saSinao da sagareo saqmeebSi.~ 71 magram,<br />
wina deklaraciisgan gansxvavebiT,<br />
am rezoluciaSi gacxadebulia<br />
`saerTaSoriso samarTlis `ZiriTadi<br />
principebi~ 72 da rezoluciis teqsti<br />
Zalis gamoyenebis akrZalvisa da<br />
Caurevlobis principebTan mimarTebiT<br />
aris CveulebiTi saerTaSoriso<br />
samarTlis normebis Semcveli. 73<br />
_ aqve aRsaniSnavia 1974 wlis rezolu-<br />
2.5. me-2(7) muxli: Semdgomi ganvi-<br />
Tareba gaeros sistemis farglebSi<br />
cia 3314 (XXIX) – agresiis ganmarteba,<br />
me-5(1) muxli: `nebismieri saxelmwifos<br />
mier dasaxelebuli safuZveli,<br />
gaeros samarTlis sistemis farglebSi<br />
Caurevlobis principi ar darCeni-<br />
iqneba es politikuri, ekonomikuri,<br />
samxedro Tu sxva, ar SeiZleba iqnes<br />
la me-2(7) muxlis lakoniuri da zogadi<br />
gamoyenebuli agresiis gasamarteqstis<br />
doneze, aramed ufro metad ganivrco<br />
da generaluri asambleis mTeli<br />
Tleblad.~ 74 am midgomiT, humanitaruli<br />
intervenciac SeiZleba agresiis<br />
rigi rezoluciebisa iqna miRebuli am sakiTxze<br />
– im arsebiTi gansxvavebiT, rom:<br />
aqtad dakvalificirdes, 75 Tumca<br />
praqtika aSkarad sxvagvarad ganvi-<br />
• me-2(7) muxli gaeros, rogorc da-<br />
Tarda da viTardeba. 76<br />
moukidebel erTeuls, ukrZalavs nebismieri<br />
saxelmwifos saSinao iuris-<br />
Tundac xsenebul rezoluciebze<br />
dayrdnobiT, Caurevlobis princips aqvs<br />
diqciaSi Carevas; 65<br />
absoluturi xasiaTi da moqmedebis sfero,<br />
aranairi gamonaklisi ar aris gaT-<br />
• generaluri asambleis rezoluciebi<br />
individualur saxelmwifoze an saxelmwifoTa<br />
jgufze aris mimarTu-<br />
‣ saxelSekrulebo doneze: Caurev lovaliswinebuli.<br />
77<br />
li 66 da maT ukrZalavs Carevas.<br />
bis principis konvenciuri safuZvlebis<br />
moZieba ar aris rTuli. piriq-<br />
am WrilSi niSandoblivia:<br />
_ 1965 wlis rezolucia 2131 (XX) –<br />
iT, am mxriv globaluri da regionaluri<br />
`deklaracia saxelmwifoTa saSinao<br />
saqmeebSi Carevis dauSveblobisa da<br />
saerTaSoriso xelSekrule-<br />
bebi sakmarisze metia. 78<br />
maTi damoukideblobisa da suverenitetis<br />
‣ CveulebiTi samarTlis doneze: nikaolod<br />
dacvis Sesaxeb~ 67 – aris `mx-<br />
politikuri ganzraxvis mqone<br />
gancxadeba da ara samarTlis normis<br />
ra guis saqmeze mss-m Caurevlobis<br />
principi aRiara rogorc `Cveulebi<br />
Ti samarTlis principi, romelsac<br />
29
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong>, #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
3. me-2(7) muxli: interpretacia<br />
me-2(7) muxli moicavs sakmaod zogad<br />
frazebs da Sedegad iqmneba `ormagi safrTxe~:<br />
• dRemde ar aris gansazRvruli, Tu ra<br />
ig ulisxmeba saSinao iurisdiqciaSi<br />
da<br />
• dRemde saxelmwifoebi ver SeTanx m-<br />
dnen intervenciis ganmartebaze, rac<br />
misaRebi iqneba yvelasTvis. 80<br />
Seqmnili viTareba gvTavazobs interpretaciis<br />
farTo asparezs, magram<br />
wesdebaSi aranairi miTiTeba ar aris gakeTebuli,<br />
Tu vin unda ganaxorcielos<br />
ganmarteba, rac `aSkarad ganzrax~ gakeTda.<br />
81 isic aSkaraa, rom mtkicebis tvirTi<br />
srulad iqna gadatanili saxelmwifos<br />
`Tanxmobis ZiriTad principze~, rogorc<br />
saerTaSoriso samarTlis umniSvnelovanes<br />
normaze (Svarzenbergeri). 82 am<br />
fonze saxelmwifo suverenitetis koncefcia<br />
moicavs saxelmwifos Tanxmobas<br />
saerTaSoriso samarTlis normis savaldebulod<br />
aRiarebaze da saxelmwifos<br />
mier am normis avtointerpretacias, Tu<br />
Tavad am saxelmwifom am sakiTxTan dakav-<br />
SirebiT ganmartebis uflebamosileba<br />
ar gadasca sxva organos. 83 radgan<br />
gaeros wesdebam ar gaiziara erTa ligis<br />
paqtis me-15(8) muxlis precedenti 84 da<br />
Caurevlobis principis gansxvavebuli,<br />
da isic zogadi, teqsti SemogvTavaza,<br />
zedmeti konkretikis gareSe, Sesabamisad,<br />
me-2(7) muxlis ganmartebis sxvadasxva gza<br />
arsebobs. yvela maTganis ganxilva Sors<br />
wagviyvans, amitom yuradRebas SevaCereb<br />
yvelaze realistur da praqtikaSi far-<br />
Tod aprobirebul midgomaze.<br />
3.1. avtointerpretacia<br />
avtointerpretacia aris erT-erTi<br />
yvelaze pragmatuli, realobasTan axlos<br />
mdgomi da samarTlebrivi idealizmisgan<br />
maqsimalurad daclili meqanizmi<br />
saerTaSoriso arenaze, rac ganapirobebs<br />
kide vac mis farTo gamoyenebas.<br />
oskar Saxteris mier SemoTavazebuli<br />
samdoniani sqemis 85 mixedviT, avtointerpretacia,<br />
rogorc saerTaSorisosamar-<br />
Tlebrivi meqanizmi (II done), mWidro<br />
kavSirSia da myarad efuZneba saxelmwifoTa<br />
qmedebebsa da interesebs (I done),<br />
magram, amasTanave, aqvs zogadsakacobrio<br />
Rirebulebac (III done). kerZod,<br />
saxelmwifo a priori moqmedebs sakuTari<br />
interesebidan da nebidan gamomdinare.<br />
Sesabamisad, saxelmwifos aqvs `moqmedebis<br />
Tavisufleba, rasac yovelTvis<br />
aRiarebda saerTaSoriso samarTali<br />
saSinao iurisdiqciis sakiTxebTan<br />
mimarTebiT...~ 86 amitomac saxelmwifo-<br />
Ta nebaze dafuZnebuli avtointerpretacia<br />
qmnis myar garantias imisas, rom<br />
saSinao iurisdiqcias mikuTvnebuli<br />
sa k iTxebis ganmarteba yovelTvis sa xelmwifos<br />
sasargeblod moxdes. 87 magram,<br />
amasTanave, arsebobs molodini, rom interpretacia<br />
ganxorcieldeba erTiani<br />
Rirebulebebis, miswrafebebisa da idealebis<br />
dacvis farglebSi. swored amgvari<br />
erTiani midgoma uzrunvelyofs<br />
Caurevlobis principis efeqtianobas.<br />
meore mxriv, es midgoma aSkarad qmnis<br />
uxerxulobas saerTaSoriso samar-<br />
Tlis sistemaSi da ewinaaRmdegeba princips:<br />
nemo judex in sua causa 88 (aravis<br />
SeuZlia, mosamarTle iyos Tavis saqme-<br />
Si). marTlac, iqmneba sagangaSo viTareba,<br />
rac imsaxurebs samarTlian kritikas.<br />
magaliTad, alf rosi aRniSnul midgomas<br />
afasebs rogorc `katastrofuls~, 89<br />
hans kelzeni – rogorc `absurduls~. 90<br />
Sesabamisad, am uaryofiT fonze ibadeba<br />
kiTxva: arsebobs ki avtointerpretaciis<br />
alternatiuli gzebi<br />
zogadad, alternativa yovelTvis<br />
ar sebobs da am mxriv gansakuTrebiT sainteresoa<br />
Semdegi mosazrebebi da winadadebebi:<br />
_ san-franciskos konferenciaze saber<br />
ZneTis delegaciis winadadeba iyo,<br />
saSinao iurisdiqcias mikuTvnebul<br />
sakiTxTa ganmarteba marTlmsajulebis<br />
saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos<br />
ganexorcielebina, 91 magram winadadeba<br />
Cavarda, radgan saxelmwifoTa<br />
2/3 ar aRmoCnda mzad, mxari daeWira<br />
sakiTxis samarTlebrivi gziT<br />
mogvarebisTvis. 92 aq gasakviri arc<br />
araferia, radgan Tavad gaeros wesdeba<br />
upiratesobas aniWebs davebis<br />
30
n.saginaSvili, gaeros wesdebis me-2(7) muxli _ Teoria v. praqtika<br />
_<br />
_<br />
_<br />
mSvi dobianad mogvarebas, vidre mssisadmi<br />
mimarTvas. 93 erTi SexedviT,<br />
marTlac paradoqsia, rom saxelmwifoebs<br />
davis politikurad mogvareba<br />
urCevniaT, vidre wminda samarTlebrivad,<br />
magram kontrargumentebi<br />
yovelTvis arsebobs, Tundac drois<br />
faqtori, amitomac saerTaSoriso<br />
samarTlis sistemis maRali doziT<br />
politizebis zogad fonze saberZne-<br />
Tis winadadebis Cavardna logikuric<br />
ki iyo.<br />
san-franciskos konferenciaze belgiis<br />
delegaciis winadadeba iyo, generaluri<br />
asambleisTvis mieniWebinaT<br />
farTo uflebamosileba wesdebis<br />
ganmartebis kuTxiT. 94 magram asec<br />
rom iyos, asambleis gadawyvetilebebs<br />
rekomendaciis saxe aqvs 95 da ar<br />
aris iuridiulad savaldebulo, 96<br />
rac saerTod azrs ukargavs amgvari<br />
interpretaciis saWiroebas. amrigad,<br />
generaluri asamblea, rogorc me-<br />
2(7) muxlis interpretaciis meqanizmi,<br />
gamoricxulia. 97<br />
san-franciskos konferenciaze, er-<br />
Ti mxriv, aRiarebul iqna, rom sagadasaxado<br />
sistema da sabaJo kanonmdebloba<br />
aSkarad saxelmwifos sa-<br />
Sinao kompetencias ganekuTvneba, 98<br />
magram, meore mxriv, ganisazRvra<br />
ekonomikuri da socialuri sabWos<br />
kompetencia, daadginos standartebi<br />
aRniSnul sferoebSi, 99 rac ufro<br />
gasaTvaliswinebeli iqneba saxelmwifoTa<br />
mier, magram ar iqneba iuridiulad<br />
savaldebulo. 100 sxvagvarad rom<br />
vTqvaT: `... [gaeros wesdebis] IX TavSi<br />
araferi unda ganimartos imgvarad,<br />
rom organizacias mieniWos uflebamosileba,<br />
Caerios wevr saxelmwifoTa<br />
saSinao saqmeebSi~, 101 Tundac<br />
interpretaciis gziT.<br />
uSiSroebis sabWo gaeros umTavresi<br />
politikuri organoa – `uprecedento<br />
uflebamosilebiT da SezRuduli<br />
wevrobiT, Tanac [gasaTvaliswinebelia]<br />
xuTi mudmivi wevris ufleba,<br />
veto daados arsebiT sakiTxebs...~ 102<br />
politikuri organos mier ganxorcielebuli<br />
ganmarteba ki legitimurobis<br />
problemas warmoSobs, 103<br />
magram saerTo politizebis fonze<br />
esec logikurad unda miviCnioT.<br />
amasTanave, uSiSroebis sabWos gadawyvetilebebi<br />
iuridiulad savaldebuloa<br />
(25-e muxli), oRond mxolod<br />
VII Tavis safuZvelze miRebuli rezoluciebi.<br />
104 magram:<br />
... me-2(7) muxli gansakuTrebul mi-<br />
TiTebas akeTebs, rom is ar gamoiyeneba VII<br />
Tavis safuZvelze miRebuli iZulebiTi<br />
zomebisas. amrigad, wesdebaSi erTader-<br />
Ti adgili, sadac organizacias aSkarad<br />
aqvs kompetencia, samarTlebrivad gadawyvitos<br />
sakiTxi da reagireba moaxdinos<br />
masze, [es] aris adgili, sadac me-2(7)<br />
muxli ar moqmedebs. organizacia rom<br />
yofiliyo kompetenturi, zogadad, ganemarta<br />
da gamoeyenebina fraza `saSinao<br />
iurisdiqcia~, maSin VII TavisTvis gamonaklisis<br />
daSveba aRar iqneboda saWiro. 105<br />
amrigad, uSiSroebis sabWoc ar<br />
aris uflebamosili, ganmartos saSinao<br />
iurisdiqciis farglebi, VII TaviT gaTvaliswinebuli<br />
iZulebiTi RonisZiebebi<br />
ki ganixileba ara Caurevlobis principis<br />
Tanaarsad, aramed am principis<br />
farglebs gareT xvdeba, rogorc wminda<br />
politikuri xasiaTis gamonaklisi.<br />
saboloo jamSi, Caurevlobis principi<br />
boWavs mTliani organizaciis saqmianobas,<br />
rogorc moqmedebis, ise interpretaciis<br />
kuTxiTac, radgan am<br />
Sem TxvevaSi gaero ganixileba rogorc<br />
`dainteresebuli mxare~ da misi nebismieri<br />
gadawyvetileba aRiqmeba rogorc<br />
principis – nemo judex in sua causa – dar-<br />
Rveva. 106 zemoTqmulidan gamomdinare,<br />
erTaderT gamosavlad avtointerpretacia<br />
rCeba, miuxedavad misi uaryofiTi<br />
maxasiaTeblebisa. amitom saboloo pozicia<br />
SeiZleba amgvarad CamovayaliboT:<br />
marTalia, avtointerpretacia samar<br />
Tlianobis elementaruli garantiebis<br />
uxeS xelyofas efuZneba da sulac ar<br />
aris orientirebuli sakiTxis samarTlebrivi<br />
gadawyvetisken, is mainc rCeba<br />
ganmartebis erT-erT yvelaze efeqtian<br />
meqanizmad saerTaSoriso arenaze, amitom<br />
misi arc absoluturi ukugdebaa<br />
misaRebi da arc sruli mxardaWeraa mi-<br />
31
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong>, #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
zanSewonili. magram is, rasac SeiZleba<br />
Tavisuflad daveyrdnoT da Tanac wminda<br />
samarTlebrivi regulirebis CarCoSi<br />
davrCeT, aris saxelmwifos Tanxmobis<br />
ZiriTadi principi, rogorc `samarTlebrivi<br />
gamoxatuleba suverenitetis<br />
politikuri aqtis gangrZobadobisa~ 107 .<br />
Sedegad, Caurevlobis principis avtointerpretacia,<br />
uaryofiTi maxasiaTeblebis<br />
miuxedavad, mizanSewonili<br />
gamosavalia da `me-2(7) muxlSi ar aris<br />
aranairi bundovaneba avtointerpretaciasTan<br />
mimarTebiT~. 108<br />
4. Caurevlobis principis<br />
urTierTmimarTeba sxva<br />
principebTan<br />
me-2(7) muxlSi asaxuli Caurevlobis<br />
principi ar aris calke mdgomi, ganyenebuli<br />
principi. mas antonio kasese<br />
moixseniebs rogorc `arsebiT da<br />
aucilebel `xids~ tradiciul, suverenitetze<br />
orientirebul saerTaSoriso<br />
sazogadoebis struqturasa da saxelmwifoTa<br />
`axal~ urTierTdamokidebulebas<br />
Soris, romelic efuZneba [saxelmwifoTa]<br />
Tanacxovrebasa... da ufro<br />
mWidro TanamSromlobas.~ 1<strong>09</strong> Sesabamisad,<br />
Caurevlobis principi mWidrod ukav-<br />
Sirdeba mTel rigs principebisas, maT<br />
Soris gansakuTrebiT aRsaniSnavia: teritoriuli<br />
mTlianobisa da sazRvrebis<br />
urRvevobis principebi, 110 saxelmwifo<br />
suverenitetis cneba da suverenul<br />
saxelmwifoTa Tanasworobis principi. 111<br />
4.1. Caurevlobis principi, saxelmwifo<br />
suvereniteti da Zalis gamoyenebis<br />
akrZalva<br />
Tanamedrove saerTaSoriso samar-<br />
T lis sistema ZiriTadad efuZneba sa xel<br />
m wifo suverenitetis doqtrina sa da<br />
saxelmwifos saSinao saqmeebSi Caurevlobis<br />
princips. winaaRmdeg SemTxvevaSi<br />
`saerTaSoriso sazogadoebis ordre public…~<br />
112 , romelsac mravalgzis vakritikebT<br />
decentralizaciis, 113 ormagi standartebisa<br />
114 da maRali doziT politizebis<br />
gamo, 115 esec sanatreli gveqneboda.<br />
• `...Caurevlobis principi... aris ma-<br />
Ti [saxelmwifoTa] suverenuli arsebobis<br />
samarTlebrivi uzrun velyofa.~<br />
116<br />
• `Caurevlobis principi gulisxmobs<br />
TiToeuli suverenuli saxelmwifo<br />
s uflebas, ganaxorcielos Tavisi<br />
saSinao saqmeebi gareSe Carevisgan<br />
damoukideblad ... [xolo]<br />
damoukidebel saxelmwifoebs So ris<br />
teritoriuli suverenitetis pa tiviscema<br />
aris saerTaSoriso ur Ti er-<br />
Tobebis mniSvnelovani safuZ veli~ 117<br />
da saerTaSoriso samarTali aseve<br />
moiTxovs politikuri mTlianobis<br />
pativiscemasac.~ 118<br />
• Caurevlobis principi `asrulebs<br />
aucilebeli faris rols, romlis<br />
ukan saxelmwifoebs SeuZliaT Tavis<br />
Sefareba imis codniT, rom maTi intensiuri<br />
saerTaSoriso urTierTobebi<br />
gavlenas ver moaxdens maT ufro<br />
metad sasicocxlo da delikatur<br />
saSinao interesebze.~ 119<br />
dasaxelebuli mosazrebebis avtoritetulobis<br />
miuxedavad, Cemi azriT,<br />
yvelaze realisturia votsonis<br />
Sefaseba: `...me-2(7) muxli... aris mxolod<br />
suverenitetis simbolo da ara Tavad<br />
suvereniteti.~ 120 am fonze ufro advili<br />
gasagebi xdeba `saxelmwifo suverenitetis<br />
fundamenturi principi[s], romelsac<br />
mTeli saerTaSoriso samarTali<br />
efuZneba..~, 121 mimarT daSvebuli gamonaklisis<br />
arseboba da mizanSewoniloba.<br />
agreTve, niSandoblivia Caurev lobisa<br />
da Zalis gamouyeneblobis principebis<br />
mWidro kavSiri, radgan erTi meores<br />
ara Tu avsebs, 122 aramed anacvlebs 123<br />
kidec. Tanac, orive princips saerTa-<br />
Soriso CveulebiTi samarTlis statusi<br />
mianiWa mss-m. 124<br />
mTlianobaSi, mivdivarT amgvar das<br />
kvnamde: `saxelmwifo suverenitetis<br />
pa tiviscemis principi... mWidrod aris<br />
dakavSirebuli Zalis gamoyenebis akrZalvisa<br />
da Caurevlobis principebTan.~ 125<br />
zemoTqmulTan mimarTebiT, sainteresoa<br />
san-franciskos konferenciaze<br />
bra ziliis delegaciis winadadeba:<br />
organizaciis yvela wevrma Tavi<br />
unda Seikavos saerTaSoriso urTierTobebSi<br />
organizaciis sxva wevris sagareo<br />
32
n.saginaSvili, gaeros wesdebis me-2(7) muxli _ Teoria v. praqtika<br />
an saSinao saqmeebSi Carevisa da Zalis<br />
gamoyenebis an amgvari muqarisgan, Tu es<br />
ar Seesabameba organizaciis meTodebsa<br />
da gadawyvetilebebs. Carevis akrZalva<br />
imgvarad unda iqnes gagebuli, rom is<br />
moicavdes nebismier Carevas, romelic<br />
safrTxes uqmnis organizaciis sxva<br />
wevrebis erovnul uSiSroebas, pirdapir<br />
an arapirdapir safrTxes uqmnis mis<br />
teritoriul mTlianobas, an moicavs<br />
[saxelmwifos mimarT] sagareo zegavlenis<br />
gadaWarbebul gamoyenebas... 126<br />
4.2. Caurevlobis principi da<br />
adamianis uflebebi<br />
winamdebare naSromis meoTxe Tavis<br />
konteqstSi gansakuTrebul yuradRebas<br />
ipyrobs Caurevlobis principisa da<br />
adamianis uflebaTa koncefciis urTierTmimarTeba.<br />
aRniSnuli urTierTmima<br />
rTeba, zogadad, aRiqmeba rogorc gae<br />
ros wesdebis teqstis orazrovnebis<br />
erT-erTi gamoxatuleba: `akrZalva nebis<br />
mieri saxelmwifos arsebiTad saSinao<br />
iu risdiqcias mikuTvnebul sakiTxebSi<br />
Ca revaze (me-2(7) muxli) da, amave dros,<br />
moTxovna [organizaciis] wevrebis mi marT,<br />
ganaxorcielon erToblivi qmedebebi,<br />
[ra Ta] miaRwion adamianis uflebebisa da<br />
Ta isuflebebis universalur gamoyenebas<br />
yvelas mimarT (55-e-56-e muxlebi).~ 127<br />
meti sicxadisTvis am orazrovnebis arsi<br />
Semdegnairad ganimarteba: Tavidanve (igulisxmeba<br />
gaeros Seqmnis dRidan 1990-<br />
ian wlebamde, civi omis dasrulebamde)<br />
`adamianis uflebebis dacva `suverenul<br />
saxelmwifoTa Sidasaxelmwifoebriv saqmed~<br />
iTvleboda.~ 128 amitomac, miuxedavad<br />
gaeros damsaxurebisa, rom man adamianis<br />
uflebebi saerTaSoriso samarTlis<br />
zrunvis sagnad aqcia, Tavad gaeros<br />
wesdebaSi adamianis uflebebi sul oTxgan<br />
aris naxsenebi (preambulaSi, 1-li(3),<br />
55-e, 56-e muxlebi). 129 san-franciskos<br />
konferenciazec naklebi yuradReba<br />
daeTmo aRniSnul sakiTxs. 130 marTalia,<br />
zogierTi saxelmwifo adamianis uflebebisa<br />
da humanitaruli samarTlis dar-<br />
Rvevebs miiCnevda `rogorc SesaZlo safrTxes<br />
mSvidobis mimarT~, 131 saboloo<br />
jamSi, saxelmwifoTa umetesobam, maT<br />
Soris didma saxelmwifoebma, ar gaiziares<br />
adamianis uflebaTa mniSvnelovani<br />
roli gaeros saqmianobaSi 132 da es<br />
sakiTxi ufro generaluri asambleisa da<br />
ekonomikuri da socialuri sabWos kompetencias<br />
miakuTvnes, vidre uSiSroebis<br />
sabWos samoqmedo sferos. 133 Sesabamisad,<br />
me-2(7) muxlma ganamtkica saxelmwifos<br />
saSinao iurisdiqciaSi Caurevlobis<br />
pri n cipi, `adamianis uflebaTa dacvis<br />
sakiTxebi ki swored saSinao saqmeebis<br />
kategoriaSi moiazreboda.~ 134 metic,<br />
`...1960-iani wlebidan 1990-iani wlebis<br />
dasawyisamde, saerTaSoriso urTierTobebSi<br />
arsebulma civma omma ...gamoiwvia<br />
saSinao saqmeebSi Caurevlobis principis<br />
ideiT [saxelmwifoTa] Sepyroba.~ 135<br />
magram rogorc saerTaSoriso marTlmsajulebis<br />
mudmivmoqmedma sasamarTlom<br />
daadgina: `sakiTxi, xvdeba Tu ara esa Tu<br />
is problema gamonaklisad saxelmwifos<br />
iurisdiqciaSi, arsebiTad SedarebiTia;<br />
igi damokidebulia saerTaSoriso urTierTobebis<br />
ganviTarebaze.~ 136 aRniSnulidan<br />
gamomdinare, civi omis Semdgom periodSi<br />
saerTaSoriso TanamSromlobis<br />
ganmtkicebam, 137 uSiSroebis sabWos rolis<br />
gazrdam 138 da adamianis uflebaTa<br />
dacvis doqtrinis ganviTarebam 139 gamoiwvia<br />
is, rom me-2(7) muxlis `Tanamedrove<br />
interpretacia SesaZlebels xdis gaeros<br />
organoebis mier iZulebiTi zomebis<br />
gamoyenebas wevri saxelmwifoebis mimarT<br />
adamianis uflebaTa darRvevebis<br />
SemTxvevaSi,~ 140 `gansakuTrebiT adamianis<br />
uflebebis masStaburi da sistematuri<br />
darRvevebisas, romlebic moicavs<br />
sicocxlis xelyofas (an amgvar safrTxes)<br />
farTo arenaze ... [rac] aRar ganixileba<br />
[saxelmwifos] saSinao saqmed.~ 141<br />
ase ve, niSandoblivia civi omis Semdgomi<br />
praqtikis Sedegad Camoyalibebuli uSiSroebis<br />
sabWos pozicia, rom samoqalaqo<br />
mosaxleobis an sxva daculi pirebis mimarT<br />
ganzraxi, farTomasStabiani adamianis<br />
uflebebisa da humanitaruli samarTlis<br />
darRvevebi SeiaraRebuli konfliqtis<br />
dros ganixileba rogorc saer-<br />
TaSoriso mSvidobisa da uSiSroebisadmi<br />
safrTxis Seqmna. 142 anu uSiSroebis sabWos<br />
VII TaviT gaTvaliswinebuli kompetencia<br />
33
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong>, #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
gafarTovda, me-2(7) muxlis debulebaTa<br />
miuxedavad. Tumca aqve unda dazustdes,<br />
rom uSiSroebis sabWo `ar ereva saxelmwifos<br />
SigniT ... nebismier[i] ... adamianTa<br />
uflebebis darRvevis faqtebSi~, 143<br />
raoden seriozuli da farTomasStabianic<br />
ar unda iyos es darRvevebi, aramed<br />
uSiSroebis sabWos VII TaviT miniWebuli<br />
uflebamosileba SeboWilia `funqciuri<br />
limitiT~ da moqmedebs mxolod saer-<br />
TaSoriso mSvidobisa da uSiSroebis safrTxesTan<br />
dakavSirebiT. 144 magram aqac<br />
moiZebneba gamosavali: pirveli, am zogad<br />
terminTa interpretacia farTod aris<br />
SesaZlebeli da meore, saerTaSoriso<br />
mSvidobisa da usafrTxoebis xelyofas<br />
`umetes SemTxvevebSi adamianis ufleba-<br />
Ta masobrivi darRvevebi gamouwvevia.~ 145<br />
saboloo jamSi miviReT aseTi situacia:<br />
Tu adre warmoudgeneli iyo adamianis<br />
uflebaTa darRvevebisas uSiSroebis<br />
sabWos mier araTu iZulebiTi zomebis<br />
gamoyeneba, aramed nebismieri saxis aqtivoba,<br />
me-2(7) muxlis Tanamedrove ganmartebiT,<br />
Caurevlobis principi aRar<br />
aris absoluturi aRniSnuli sferos<br />
mimarT, 146 adamianis uflebaTa dacvam<br />
saerTaSoriso ganzomilebac moipova. 147<br />
Sesabamisad, am sferoSi Cadenil dar-<br />
Rvevebze ukve moqmedebs gaeros wesdebis<br />
VII Tavi 148 da uSiSroebis sabWos savaldebulo<br />
rezoluciebi. Tavis mxriv, uSiSroebis<br />
sabWom VII Tavis safuZvelze rom<br />
ganaxorcielos RonisZiebebi, saWiroa,<br />
situacia daakvalificiros 39-e muxliT<br />
(`saerTaSoriso mSvidobisa da uSiSroebis<br />
SenarCunebis an aRdgenis mizniT”),<br />
anu saxeze unda iyos saerTaSoriso<br />
konfliqti, Tavad gaeros umTavresi da<br />
upirvelesi mizanic xom saerTaSoriso<br />
mSvidobisa da uSiSroebis SenarCunebaa<br />
(gaeros wesdebis 1-li(1) muxli). e.i.<br />
gaeros sistema Tavidanve gankuTvnili<br />
iyo saerTaSoriso da ara Sida<br />
SeiaraRebuli 149 konfliqtisTvis, magram<br />
praqtika sxvagvarad ganviTarda. 150<br />
da amitomac xSiria SemTxveva, rodesac<br />
uSiSroebis sabWo arasaerTaSoriso<br />
konfliqts akvalificirebs rogorc safrTxes<br />
`mSvidobis mimarT~, `saerTaSoriso<br />
mSvidobis mimarT~, regionaluri<br />
mSvidobis mimarT~ an `regionSi mSvidobis<br />
mimarT~. 151 Sedegad, saxelmwifoSi<br />
arsebuli Zaladoba iwvevs VII TaviT gaTvaliswinebuli<br />
iZulebiTi RonisZiebebis<br />
gamoyenebas 152 da amgvarad izRudeba me-<br />
2(7) muxli.<br />
5. Caurevlobis principis moqmedeba<br />
praqtikaSi<br />
zogadad, Caurevlobis principis<br />
praqtikaSi gamoyenebisa Tu moqmedebis<br />
sfero sakmaod mravlismomcveli Temaa,<br />
amitom winamdebare TavSi aqcenti gakeTdeba<br />
xsenebuli sferos farglebSi samarTlisa<br />
da politikis urTierTkveTis<br />
SedarebiT aqtualur sakiTxebze, ker-<br />
Zod, humanitaruli intervenciis uflebis<br />
arsebobis SesaZleblobebze. ufro<br />
konkretulad ki es erTgvari mcdelobaa,<br />
SevajamoT yovelive zemoTqmuli, oRond<br />
ukve praqtikul sibrtyeSi.<br />
5.1. humanitaruli intervencia<br />
humanitaruli intervencia erT-er-<br />
Ti yvelaze aqtualuri sakiTxia Cau revlobis<br />
principis WrilSi, magram, naSromis<br />
SezRuduli formatis gamo, Tavs<br />
Sevikaveb misi SedarebiT sruli ganxilvisgan;<br />
ubralod, mokled Camovayalibeb<br />
sakuTar pozicias, saerTaSoriso samar-<br />
Tlis avtoritetul mecnierTa mosazrebebze<br />
dayrdnobiT.<br />
humanitaruli intervencia aris Zalis<br />
gamoyeneba (da ara iZulebiTi zoma)<br />
sxva saxelmwifos mimarT, 153 rac, amasTanave,<br />
iwvevs Caurevlobis principis xelyofas.<br />
saerTaSoriso samarTalSi arc konvenciur<br />
da arc CveulebiT doneze ar<br />
arsebobs samarTlis norma, romelic<br />
humanitaruli intervenciis uflebas<br />
aRiarebs. 154 amitom am uflebis samarTlebrivi<br />
bazisisa Tu gamamarTlebeli<br />
argumentebis Ziebis cdebi usafuZvlod<br />
da uazrod mimaCnia. 155 amasTan, saxelmwifoTa<br />
praqtikaze saubrisas arc is unda<br />
dagvaviwydes, rom dRemde ganxorcielebuli<br />
arcerTi intervencia ar yofila<br />
`WeSmaritad humanitaruli~. 156 humanitarizmi<br />
yovelTvis iyo kargi SesaniRbavi<br />
34
n.saginaSvili, gaeros wesdebis me-2(7) muxli _ Teoria v. praqtika<br />
saSualeba da moralurad gamarTlebuli<br />
argumenti Zlieri saxelmwifoebis<br />
xelSi. 157<br />
magram, meore mxriv, praqtikaSi aris<br />
`mZime SemTxvevebi~, rodesac moraluri<br />
da politikuri mosazrebebi gadawonis<br />
samarTlebriv Sefasebas da situaciis<br />
daregulirebis ukanasknel saSualebad<br />
rCeba samarTlis farglebs gareT<br />
moqmedeba; 158 rodesac SeiaraRebuli intervencia<br />
erTaderTi gamosavalia humanitaruli<br />
katastrofis Tavidan asacileblad<br />
an aRsakveTad, 159 bona fi de<br />
humanitaruli saWiroebis sapasuxod; 160<br />
rodesac dauSvebelia saerTaSoriso<br />
Ta namegobroba `pasiuri damkvirveblis~<br />
roliT Semoifarglos. 161 magram es<br />
unda iyos gamonaklisi SemTxveva, yovel<br />
jerze konkretuli garemoebebis gaTvaliswinebiT<br />
ganxorcielebuli ad hoc<br />
erTjeradi qmedeba, romelic ar unda<br />
iqces sayovelTao midgomad. 162<br />
amrigad, humanitaruli intervencia<br />
aris wminda politikuri da moraluri<br />
movlena, 163 romlis gamoyeneba praqtika-<br />
Si unda daregulirdes samarTlebrivi<br />
kriteriumebiT; anu, rogorc erTaderTi<br />
da ukanaskneli meqanizmi, unda moeqces<br />
samarTlebrivi regulirebis sferoSi,<br />
raTa maqsimalurad gakontroldes misi<br />
borotad gamoyenebis nebismieri mcdeloba.<br />
tomas frenki sworad aRniSnavs:<br />
saxelmwifo, romelic humanitarul intervencias<br />
axorcielebs, `aqvs mtkicebis<br />
tvirTi, rom arsebobs namdvili, myisieri<br />
da aRmaSfoTebeli aucilebloba,<br />
romelic samarTlis naklebi xelyofiT<br />
ver daregulirdeba.~ Tanac, es aucilebloba<br />
moiTxovs gaeros wesdebiT gaTvaliswinebuli<br />
sanqciebis amowurvas. 164<br />
yovelive zemoTqmulidan gamomdinare,<br />
Cemi azriT, yvelaze Sualeduri da<br />
zomieri poziciaa humanitaruli intervenciis,<br />
rogorc politikuri movlenis,<br />
moqceva samarTlebrivi regulirebis<br />
sferoSi. Tanac, es midgoma erTdroulad<br />
iTvaliswinebs samarTlebriv, politikur,<br />
praqtikul da moralur kanonzomierebebs.<br />
e.i. Cven vsaubrobT humanitaruli<br />
intervenciis SesaZleblobis,<br />
da ara uflebis, arsebobaze, Tundac<br />
gaeros wesdebis miznebidan gamomdinare.<br />
rogorc Cinkini acxadebs: `...Zalis<br />
gamoyeneba adamianis uflebebis dasacavad<br />
eqstremalur SemTxvevebSi ar<br />
ewinaaRmdegeba gaeros wesdebas, eqceva<br />
misi miznebis kategoriaSi da moralurad<br />
udavod gamarTlebulia.~ 165 isic<br />
marTalia, rom gaeros wesdebis struqtura<br />
saxelmwifo suverenitets aniWebs<br />
upiratesobas, 166 magram `...saerTaSoriso<br />
samarTali ar moiTxovs, rom yvela<br />
SemTxvevaSi suverenitetisa da saxelmwifo<br />
mTlianobisadmi pativiscemas mieces<br />
upiratesoba adamianis uflebebisa da<br />
sicocxlis dacvasTan mimarTebiT...~ 167<br />
Sedegad, Camoyalibda amgvari midgoma:<br />
adamianis uflebaTa uxeS da sistematur<br />
xelyofas eZleva saerTaSoriso ganzomileba,<br />
aRiqmeba, rogorc saerTaSoriso<br />
mSvidobisa da uSiSroebisadmi safrTxe<br />
(anu saxezea 39-e muxliT dakvalificireba)<br />
da SesaZlebeli xdeba Zalis gamoyeneba<br />
uSiSroebis sabWos TanxmobiT. 168<br />
me-2(7) muxlis amgvari interpretirebis<br />
safuZvelze gamarTlebulia humanitaruli<br />
intervencia, rogorc ukanaskneli<br />
politikuri meqanizmi.<br />
6. daskvna<br />
amrigad, winamdebare naSromSi ganxilul<br />
iqna gaeros wesdebis me-2(7) muxlSi<br />
Camoyalibebuli Caurevlobis principi<br />
araerTgvarovani praqtikisa da kidev<br />
ufro araerTgvarovani Teoriis fonze.<br />
am araerTgvarovnebis mizezad ki samar-<br />
Tlianad SeiZleba davasaxeloT Tavad<br />
me-2(7) muxlis bundovani da orazrovani<br />
teqsti, romelic, erTi mxriv, organizacias<br />
ukrZalavs Carevas saxelmwifoTa<br />
saSinao iurisdiqciaSi da, amas-<br />
Tanave, uSiSroebis sabWos uflebas<br />
aZlevs, VII Tavis safuZvelze gamoiyenos<br />
iZulebiTi zomebi saerTaSoriso mSvidobisa<br />
da uSiSroebis dacvis zogadi<br />
da farTod definirebadi kompetenciis<br />
farglebSi. Sesabamisad, iqmneba seriozuli<br />
safrTxe, rom yovel konkretul<br />
SemTxvevaSi, mZlavri politikuri motivaciis<br />
fonze, uproblemod moxdes me-<br />
2(7) muxlis debulebebis morgeba arse-<br />
35
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong>, #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
bul garemoebebze. amgvar safrTxes, ra<br />
Tqma unda, iTvaliswinebdnen gaeros wesdebis<br />
Semqmnelebic, magram mainc mxari<br />
dauWires bundovan teqsts. maT gaakeTes<br />
arCevani or ukiduresobas Soris: erTi<br />
mxriv, zustad gawerili koncefciebi, 169<br />
rac arTulebs Teoriuli debulebebis<br />
morgebas araerTgvarovan praqtikaze,<br />
arada saWiro moTxovnaa sruli<br />
Sesabamisobis dadgena wesdebiT gansazRvrul<br />
kriteriumebTan. amgvari<br />
midgoma aSkarad aviwroebs debulebaTa<br />
gamoyenebis areals; xolo meore mxriv,<br />
bundovani da orazrovani teqsti, rac<br />
debulebaTa farTo gamoyenebisa da ganmartebis<br />
saSualebas iZleva. amasTanave,<br />
amgvari midgoma met Tavisufal adgils<br />
tovebs saxelmwifoTa interesebisa da<br />
politikuri qveteqstebis gasaTvaliswineblad.<br />
`sponsorma saxelmwifoebmac~<br />
swored amgvar midgomaze SeaCeres<br />
arCevani, radgan saerTaSoriso mSvidobisa<br />
da uSiSroebis upirvelesi miznis<br />
misaRwevad zustad gawerili procedura<br />
SeiZleba umoqmedo gamxdariyo konkretuli<br />
konteqstisa da konkretuli<br />
garemoebebis fonze, 170 xolo zogadi da<br />
orazrovani terminologia SesaZlebels<br />
xdida Seqmnili viTarebis gaTvaliswinebiT<br />
lavirebas. ra Tqma unda, meti<br />
Tavisufleba gulisxmobs politizebis<br />
maRal donesac, magram ar unda dagvaviwydes,<br />
rom gaeros wesdebas swored mowinave<br />
saxelmwifoebi qmnidnen sakuTari<br />
interesebisa da mowinave poziciebis<br />
sasargeblod. Caurevlobis principTan<br />
mimarTebiT humanitaruli intervenciis<br />
araTu gamarTlebis, aramed legitimaciis<br />
sakiTxis wamoWrac swored amgvari<br />
midgomis erT-erTi naTeli magaliTia.<br />
yovelive zemoTqmulidan gamomdinare,<br />
erTaderTi logikuri daskvnaa,<br />
rom: `...me-2(7) muxli ufro politikuri<br />
sakiTxia, vidre samarTlebrivi~. 171 amitom<br />
nebismier WrilSi misi ganxilvisas<br />
aucilebelia politikuri faqtorebis a<br />
priori gaTvaliswineba da maTi dabalanseba<br />
samarTlebrivi RirebulebebiT. Cven<br />
unda gvaxsovdes: aravin uaryofs, rom<br />
`samarTali politikis ganxorcielebis<br />
saSualebaa, magram amavdroulad aris<br />
molodini, rom politikac moeqceva samarTlis<br />
farglebSi~. 172<br />
1<br />
Watson, J.S., “Autointerpretation, Competence, and the Continuing Validity of<br />
Article 2(7) of the UN Charter”, in: The American <strong>Journal</strong> of <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>,<br />
Vol.71, 1977, gv. 60.<br />
2<br />
Громыко, А.(ред.), Московская конференция министров иностранных дел<br />
СССР, США и Великобритании (19-30 октября 1943 г.), изд.: Советский Союз<br />
на международных конференциях периода Великой Отечественной войны<br />
1941-1945 гг., т.I, Москва, 1978, gv. 7.<br />
3<br />
Ib., gv. 30, gv. 347.<br />
4<br />
Ib., gv. 346-348.<br />
5<br />
Ib., gv. 51-52; ix. agreTve: Ib., gv. 55.<br />
6<br />
Ib., gv. 126.<br />
7<br />
Ib., gv. 347.<br />
8<br />
Ib., gv. 198, gv. 277-278.<br />
9<br />
Ib., gv. 276, gv. 278.<br />
10<br />
Громыко, А.(ред.), Конференция представителей СССР, США и<br />
Великобритании в Думбартон-Оксе (21 августа-28 сентября 1944 г.), изд.:<br />
Советский Союз на международных конференциях периода Великой<br />
Отечественной войны 1941-1945 гг., т.III, Москва, 1978, gv. 9.<br />
11<br />
Громыко, А., sqolio 2 supra, gv. 198-200.<br />
12<br />
Ib., gv. 199.<br />
13<br />
ix.: Громыко, А., sqolio 10 supra.<br />
14<br />
Ib., gv. 102-106.<br />
15<br />
Ib., gv. 51-68.<br />
36
n.saginaSvili, gaeros wesdebis me-2(7) muxli _ Teoria v. praqtika<br />
16<br />
Ib., gv. 59.<br />
17<br />
Ib., gv. 60.<br />
18<br />
Ib., gv. 73-99.<br />
19<br />
Ib., gv. 84-90.<br />
20<br />
Ib., gv. 85.<br />
21<br />
Ib., gv. 84.<br />
22<br />
Ib., gv. 85.<br />
23<br />
Simma, B., “NATO, the UN and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects”, in: European<br />
<strong>Journal</strong> of <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>, Vol.10, 1999, gv. 22, xelmisawvdomia: http://ejil.<br />
oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/10/1/1. (marTalia, bruno simas aRniSnuli<br />
Sefaseba humanitarul intervenciasTan dakavSirebiT aris gakeTebuli,<br />
magram kargad esadageba agresiis definiciasac.).<br />
24<br />
Громыко, А., sqolio 10 supra, gv. 245-251.<br />
25<br />
Ib., gv. 249.<br />
26<br />
Ib., gv. 228-242.<br />
27<br />
Ib., gv. 229-230.<br />
28<br />
Ib., gv. 235-236.<br />
29<br />
Ib., gv. 236.<br />
30<br />
Ib.<br />
31<br />
Ib.<br />
32<br />
Ib.; UNCIO, Documents, Vol.3, gv. 13, §7, citirebuli: Gilmour, D.R., “The<br />
Meaning of “Intervene” within Article 2 (7) of the United Nations Charter. A Historical<br />
Perspective”, in The <strong>International</strong> and Comparative <strong>Law</strong> Quarterly, Vol.16, No.2,<br />
1967, gv. 335, sqolio 8.<br />
33<br />
Громыко, А.(ред.), Конференция Объединенных Наций в Сан-Франциско (25<br />
апреля-26 июня 1945 г.), изд.: Советский Союз на международных конференциях<br />
периода Великой Отечественной войны 1941-1945 гг., т.V, Москва, 1980,<br />
gv. 131.<br />
34<br />
ix.: sqolio 26 supra, da Sesabamisi teqsti.<br />
35<br />
Громыко, А., sqolio 10 supra, gv. 229, gv. 235-236.<br />
36<br />
Громыко, А., sqolio 33 supra, gv. 4<strong>09</strong>-413; Gilmour, D.R., sqolio 32 supra,<br />
gv. 335.<br />
37<br />
ix.: Громыко, А., sqolio 10 supra, gv. 237.<br />
38<br />
erTa ligis paqtis me-15(8) muxli: ,,Tu mxareTa Soris dava wamoiWreba<br />
im sakiTxTan dakavSirebiT, rac, saerTaSoriso samarTlis mixedviT, mxolod<br />
saxelmwifos saSinao iurisdiqciaSi xvdeba, da Tu amas amtkicebs<br />
erT-erTi mxare da sabWoc amgvarad daadgens, maSin sabWo ... ar gascems<br />
rekomendacias mis gadawyvetaze.~ ix.: Watson, J.S., sqolio 1 supra, gv.<br />
61.<br />
39<br />
Summary Report of the 17 th Meeting of Committee I/1, Doc. 1019, I/1/42, UNCIO,<br />
Vol.6, gv. 507-508, citirebuli: Gilmour, D.R., sqolio 32 supra, gv. 335-336,<br />
sqolio 11.<br />
40<br />
The Charter of the United Nations: Report to the President of the Results of the<br />
San Francisco Conference by the Chairman of the United States Delegation,<br />
the Secretary of State, June 26, 1945 (Department of State Publication 2349,<br />
Conference Series 71. 1945), gv. 57, citirebuli: Gilmour, D.R., sqolio 32<br />
supra, gv. 336, sqolio 12.<br />
41<br />
Громыко, А., sqolio 33 supra, gv. 587.<br />
42<br />
Ib., gv. 20.<br />
43<br />
ix.: Gilmour, D.R., sqolio 32 supra, gv. 346-348.<br />
44<br />
ix.: Ib., gv. 348.<br />
45<br />
Simma, B.(ed.), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, Oxford, 2002,<br />
gv. 705, §11.<br />
46<br />
Watson, J.S., sqolio 1 supra, gv. 79, aRniSnuli debulebebi ganxilulia<br />
1946 wlis espaneTis sakiTxis magaliTze.<br />
37
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong>, #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
47<br />
Brownlie, I. & Apperley, C.J., “Kosovo Crises Inquiry: Memorandum on the<br />
<strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> Aspects”, in: The <strong>International</strong> and Comparative <strong>Law</strong> Quarterly,<br />
Vol.49, 2000, gv. 884, §30.<br />
48<br />
Simma, B., sqolio 45 supra, gv. 705, §11, gv. 727, §28; Bailey, S.D. & Daws, S.,<br />
“The Procedure of the UN Security Council”, Oxford, 1998, Chapter 5; Schachter,<br />
O., “United Nations <strong>Law</strong>”, in: The American <strong>Journal</strong> of <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>, Vol.88,<br />
1994, gv. 1, sqolio 2; Greenwood, C., “Is there a Right of Humanitarian<br />
Intervention”, in: World Today, 1993, gv. 3; Talmon, S., “The Statements by<br />
the President of the Security Council”, in: Chinese <strong>Journal</strong> of <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>,<br />
2003, gv. 450-451; Watson, J.S., sqolio 1 supra, gv. 66; evrogaerTianebis<br />
pirveli instanciis sasamarTlo: Yassin Abdullah Kadi v. Council of the<br />
European Union and Commission of the European Communities, supported by<br />
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (T-315/01), 2005 wlis 21<br />
seqtemberi, §153, §156, §189, xelmisawvdomia: http http://jcb.blogs.com/jcb_<br />
blog/fi les/court_of_fi rst_instance_judgment.pdf.<br />
49<br />
gaeros wesdeba, 25-e muxli, xelmisawvdomia: http://georgia.unic.org/images/<br />
documents/charter.pdf.<br />
50<br />
Ib., me-2(3) muxli.<br />
51<br />
Ib., me-2(4) muxli.<br />
52<br />
McGoldrick, D., Rowe, P. and Donnelly, E., The Permanent <strong>International</strong> Criminal<br />
Court: Legal and Policy Issues, Oxford, 2004, gv. 139-140.<br />
53<br />
Christopher Greenwood’s Lectures, (2005) Public <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>, Use of<br />
Force, Seadare: Greenwood, C., “<strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> and the NATO Intervention<br />
in Kosovo”, in: The <strong>International</strong> and Comparative <strong>Law</strong> Quarterly, Vol.49, 2000,<br />
gv. 927; Charney, J.I., “Anticipatory Humanitarian Intervention in Kosovo”, in: The<br />
American <strong>Journal</strong> of <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>, Vol.93, 1999, gv. 835.<br />
54<br />
Lowe, V., “<strong>International</strong> Legal Issues in the Kosovo Crisis”, in: The <strong>International</strong><br />
and Comparative <strong>Law</strong> Quarterly, Vol.49, 2000, gv. 935.<br />
55<br />
Chinkin, C., “The Legality of NATO’s Action in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia<br />
(FRY) Under <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>”, in: The <strong>International</strong> and Comparative <strong>Law</strong><br />
Quarterly.Vol.49, 2000, gv. 910.<br />
56<br />
Gilmour, D.R., sqolio 32 supra, gv. 332.<br />
57<br />
Ib., gv. 331.<br />
58<br />
Ib., gv. 333.<br />
59<br />
Ib.<br />
60<br />
Summary report of the 10 th meeting of the Executive Committee, Doc. 1108,<br />
EX/28, UNCIO, Vol.5, gv. 535, citirebuli: Gilmour, D.R., sqolio 32 supra,<br />
gv. 343, sqolio 37.<br />
61<br />
Gilmour, D.R., sqolio 32 supra, gv. 333.<br />
62<br />
Ib., gv. 350.<br />
63<br />
Ib., gv. 349.<br />
64<br />
Rajan, (1961) United Nations and Domestic Jurisdiction, gv. 71, citirebuli:<br />
Gilmour, D.R., sqolio 32 supra, gv. 350, sqolio 52.<br />
65<br />
Gilmour, D.R., sqolio 32 supra, gv. 331.<br />
66<br />
Ib.; Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v.<br />
United States of America), Merits, Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 1986, [SemdgomSi -<br />
nikaraguis saqme], §205.<br />
67<br />
xelmisawvdomia: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/<br />
218/94/IMG/NR021894.pdfOpenElement.<br />
68<br />
Offi cial Records of the General Assembly, Twentieth Session, First Committee,<br />
A/C.1/SR.1423, gv. 436, citirebuli: nikaraguis saqme, §203.<br />
69<br />
xelmisawvdomia: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/<br />
348/90/IMG/NR034890.pdfOpenElement.<br />
70<br />
nikaraguis saqme, §203; Kritsiotis, D., “Reappraising Policy Objections to<br />
Humanitarian Intervention”, in: Michigan <strong>Journal</strong> of <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>, Vol.19,<br />
38
n.saginaSvili, gaeros wesdebis me-2(7) muxli _ Teoria v. praqtika<br />
1998, gv. 1010.<br />
71<br />
generaluri asambleis 2625 (XXV) rezoluciis aRniSnuli monakveTis<br />
qarTulenovani TargmanisTvis ix.: aleqsiZe, l.(red.), Tanamedrove<br />
saerTaSoriso samarTali, leqsikoni-cnobari, Tbilisi, 2003, gv. 388-<br />
389.<br />
72<br />
nikaraguis saqme, §203; ix. agreTve: Kritsiotis, D., sqolio 70 supra, gv.<br />
1012.<br />
73<br />
nikaraguis saqme, §264; ix. agreTve: Schachter, O., sqolio 48 supra, gv. 18.<br />
74<br />
xelmisawvdomia: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/<br />
739/16/IMG/NR073916.pdfOpenElement.<br />
75<br />
Kittichaisaree, K., <strong>International</strong> Criminal <strong>Law</strong>, Oxford, 2001, gv. 214.<br />
76<br />
winamdebare naSromSi humanitaruli intervenciis sakiTxi ganxilulia<br />
me-5 TavSi, ix.: gv. 17-18.<br />
77<br />
Kritsiotis, D., sqolio 70 supra, gv. 10<strong>09</strong>-1010.<br />
78<br />
ix.: Ib., gv. 1008, sqolio 5.<br />
79<br />
nikaraguis saqme, §204.<br />
80<br />
Gilmour, D.R., sqolio 32 supra, gv. 331.<br />
81<br />
Watson, J.S., sqolio 1 supra, gv. 62.<br />
82<br />
sqolio gamotovebulia, ix.: Watson, J.S., sqolio 1 supra, gv. 68, sqolio<br />
25.<br />
83<br />
Watson, J.S., sqolio 1 supra, gv. 61.<br />
84<br />
ix.: sqolio 38 supra.<br />
85<br />
Schachter, O., sqolio 48 supra, gv. 22.<br />
86<br />
Gilmour, D.R., sqolio 32 supra, gv. 347.<br />
87<br />
Tumca aq gasaTvaliswinebelia, romeli saxelmwifo axorcielebs ganmartebas.<br />
88<br />
Watson, J.S., sqolio 1 supra, gv. 64.<br />
89<br />
Ross, A. (1950) “The Proviso concerning “Domestic Jurisdiction” in Article 2(7)<br />
of the Charter of the United Nations”, in Osterr. Offen. Recht 2, gv. 562, gv. 570,<br />
citirebuli: Watson, J.S., sqolio 1 supra, gv. 64, sqolio 12.<br />
90<br />
Kelzen, H. (1951) The <strong>Law</strong> of the United Nations, gv. 783-784, citirebuli:<br />
Watson, J.S., sqolio 1 supra, gv. 65, sqolio 20.<br />
91<br />
UNCIO, Documents, gv. 5<strong>09</strong>, citirebuli: Watson, J.S., sqolio 1 supra,<br />
gv. 62, sqolio 5.<br />
92<br />
ix.: Watson, J.S., sqolio 1 supra, gv. 62.<br />
93<br />
Schachter, O., sqolio 48 supra, gv. 14.<br />
94<br />
UNCIO, Documents, gv. 392, citirebuli: Watson, J.S., sqolio 1 supra,<br />
gv. 62, sqolio 6.<br />
95<br />
gaeros wesdeba, me-10 muxli.<br />
96<br />
Bailey, S.D. & Daws, S., “The Procedure of the UN Security Council”, Oxford,<br />
1998, Chapter 1; Watson, J.S., sqolio 1 supra, gv. 66.<br />
97<br />
Gilmour, D.R., sqolio 32 supra, gv. 339; ix. agreTve: Watson, J.S., sqolio 1<br />
supra, gv. 65-66.<br />
98<br />
Gilmour, D.R., sqolio 32 supra, gv. 341.<br />
99<br />
ix.: Ib., gv. 337.<br />
100<br />
ix.: Ib.<br />
101<br />
Report of Rapporteur of Committee II/3, Doc. 861, II/3/55 (1), UNCIO, Vol.10, gv.<br />
271, citirebuli: Gilmour, D.R., sqolio 32 supra, gv. 344, sqolio 40.<br />
102<br />
Bailey, S.D. & Daws, S., “The Procedure of the UN Security Council”, Oxford,<br />
1998, Chapter 1.<br />
103<br />
Watson, J.S., sqolio 1 supra, gv. 65; ix. agreTve: Schachter, O., sqolio 49<br />
supra, gv. 7-8.<br />
104<br />
ix.: sqolio 48 supra.<br />
105<br />
Watson, J.S., sqolio 1 supra, gv. 66.<br />
106<br />
Ib., gv. 64.<br />
39
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong>, #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
107<br />
Ib., gv. 66.<br />
108<br />
Ib., gv. 68.<br />
1<strong>09</strong><br />
Cassese, A. (1986) <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> in A Divided World, gv. 144, citirebuli:<br />
Kritsiotis, D., sqolio 70 supra, gv. 10<strong>09</strong>, sqolio 8.<br />
110<br />
levan aleqsiZe am 2 princips erTad ganixilavs. ix.: levan aleqsiZis<br />
leqciebi, (2008) saerTaSoriso samarTlis roli arasaerTaSoriso konfliqtebis<br />
mogvarebaSi.<br />
111<br />
teritoriuli mTlianoba, politikuri damoukidebloba, saxelmwifo<br />
suvereniteti da saSinao saqmeebSi Caurevloba – es yvelaferi urTierTmimarTebaSi<br />
da erT konteqstSi aris ganxiluli nikaraguis saqmeSi.<br />
metic, Caurevlobis principi mss-m moixsenia rogorc ,,saxelmwifoTa<br />
suverenuli Tanasworobis principis damagvirgvinebeli.~ ix.: nikaraguis<br />
saqme, §202.<br />
112<br />
Gowlland-Debbas, V. (2002) “The Relationship between Political and <strong>International</strong><br />
Organizations: The Role of the Security Council in the New <strong>International</strong> Criminal<br />
Court”, in Boisson de Chazournes, L., Romano, C.P., Machenzie, R.(eds.),<br />
<strong>International</strong> Organizations and <strong>International</strong> Dispute Settlement: Trends and<br />
Prospects, gv. 195, ix. gv. 196, citirebuli: McGoldrick, D., sqolio 52 supra,<br />
gv. 120, sqolio 89.<br />
113<br />
ix.: Watson, J.S., sqolio 1 supra, gv. 68; Blokker, N.M. & Kleiboer, M., “The<br />
<strong>International</strong>ization of Domestic Confl ict: The Role of the UN Security Council”, in:<br />
Leiden <strong>Journal</strong> of <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>, Vol.9, 1996, gv. 11; aleqsiZe, l., sqolio<br />
71 supra, gv. 272; Higgins, R. (1991) Recueil des Cours, Vol.230, gv. 313-316,<br />
citirebuli: Brownlie, I. & Apperley, C.J., sqolio 47 supra, gv. 893 §68; saer-<br />
TaSoriso sisxlis samarTlis tribunali iugoslaviisTvis: Prosecutor v.<br />
Dusco Tadic, 1995 wlis 2 oqtomberi, §11, citirebuli: McGoldrick, D., sqolio<br />
52 supra, gv. 115, sqolio 75.<br />
114<br />
ix.: Aust, A., The Security Council and <strong>International</strong> Criminal <strong>Law</strong> (draft), 2000,<br />
gv. 12.<br />
115<br />
ix.: Levi, W. (1995) Revue De Droit Intt’l, gv. 126, citirebuli: McGoldrick, D.,<br />
sqolio 52 supra, gv. 51, sqolio 20; Watson, J.S., sqolio 1 supra, gv. 61;<br />
Schachter, O., sqolio 48 supra, gv. 17-18.<br />
116<br />
Kritsiotis, D., sqolio 70 supra, gv. 10<strong>09</strong>.<br />
117<br />
Corfu Channel case, Judgement of April 9 th , 1949: I.C.J. Reports, 1949, gv. 35.<br />
118<br />
nikaraguis saqme, §202.<br />
119<br />
Cassese, A. (1986) <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> in A Divided World, gv. 144, citirebuli:<br />
Kritsiotis, D., sqolio 70 supra, gv. 10<strong>09</strong>, sqolio 8.<br />
120<br />
Watson, J.S., sqolio 1 supra, gv. 83.<br />
121<br />
nikaraguis saqme, §263.<br />
122<br />
am WrilSi aRsaniSnavia mss-s gadawyvetileba nikaraguis saqmeze: sxva<br />
saxelmwifos teritoriaze samxedro bandebis daxmareba iaraRiT an<br />
sxvagvarad ar aris SeiaraRebuli Seteva, igi ufro naklebi simZi misaa,<br />
magram mainc saxezea orive principis – Zalis gamouyeneblobisa da<br />
Caurevlobis – xelyofa. ix.: nikaraguis saqme, §205, §247.<br />
123<br />
am WrilSi aRsaniSnavia mss-s gadawyvetileba nikaraguis saqmeze: ,,kontras~<br />
dafinanseba ar aris Zalis gamoyeneba, magram aris Caurevlobis<br />
principis xelyofa. ix.: nikaraguis saqme, §228.<br />
124<br />
nikaraguis saqme, §264.<br />
125<br />
Ib., §212, §251.<br />
126<br />
ix.: Brownlie, I. & Apperley, C.J., sqolio 47 supra, gv. 884-885, §33.<br />
127<br />
Bailey, S.D. & Daws, S., “The Procedure of the UN Security Council”, Oxford,<br />
1998, Chapter 1.<br />
128<br />
ix.: Nowak, M. (2003) Introduction to the <strong>International</strong> Human Rights Regime, gv.<br />
307; Simma, B.(ed.), (2002) The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary,<br />
vol. I, gv. 160; Weschler J. (2004) “Human Rights” in: Malone, D.M.(ed.), The UN<br />
40
n.saginaSvili, gaeros wesdebis me-2(7) muxli _ Teoria v. praqtika<br />
Security Council: From the Cold War to the 21 st Century, gv. 55; De Than, C.&<br />
Shorts, E. (2003) <strong>International</strong> Criminal <strong>Law</strong> and Human Rights, gv. 279; Simma,<br />
B. (1995) “On Human Rights” in: Tomuschat, C.(ed.), The United Nations At Age<br />
Fifty: A Legal Perspective, gv. 266, citirebuli: xuciSvili, q., ,,gaeros<br />
wesebis VII Tavis axleburi gamoyeneba: ramdenad adekvaturi reagireba<br />
moaxdina gaeros uSiSroebis sabWom adamianis uflebaTa masobriv dar-<br />
Rvevebze yofil iugoslaviasa da ruandaSi~, ix.: Tanamedrove saerTa-<br />
Soriso samarTlis Teoria da praqtika. naSromebis krebuli eZRvneba<br />
akademikos levan aleqsiZis dabadebidan 80 wlis iubiles, Tbilisi, 2007,<br />
gv. 330, sqolio 4.<br />
129<br />
konstantine korkelias leqciebi, (2007) adamianis uflebaTa saerTa-<br />
Soriso samarTali.<br />
130<br />
Schachter, O., sqolio 48 supra, gv. 17.<br />
131<br />
Simma, B., sqolio 45 supra, gv. 724, §19.<br />
132<br />
ix.: Schachter, O., sqolio 48 supra, gv. 17.<br />
133<br />
Simma, B., sqolio 46 supra, gv. 724, §19.<br />
134<br />
xuciSvili, q., sqolio 128 supra, gv. 332; ix. agreTve: Schachter, O., sqolio<br />
48 supra, gv. 17.<br />
135<br />
Cassese, A., “On Current Trends towards Criminal Prosecution and Punishment<br />
of Breaches of <strong>International</strong> Humanitarian <strong>Law</strong>”, in: European <strong>Journal</strong> of<br />
<strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>, Vol.9 No.1, 1998, xelmisawvdomia: http://ejil.oxfordjournals.<br />
org/cgi/reprint/9/1/2.<br />
136<br />
saerTaSoriso marTlmsajulebis mudmivmoqmedi sasamarTlos sakonsultacio<br />
daskvna: National Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco (French<br />
Zone), 1921 wlis 8 noemberi, citirebuli: xuciSvili, q., sqolio 129 supra,<br />
gv. 330,sqolio 5.<br />
137<br />
Cassese, A., “On Current Trends towards Criminal Prosecution and Punishment of<br />
Breaches of <strong>International</strong> Humanitarian <strong>Law</strong>”, in: European <strong>Journal</strong> of <strong>International</strong><br />
<strong>Law</strong>, Vol.9 No.1, 1998.<br />
138<br />
Casesse, A., <strong>International</strong> Criminal <strong>Law</strong>, Oxford, 2003, gv. 335.<br />
139<br />
Ibid.<br />
140<br />
malanCuki, p., ,,akeharstis Tanamedrove saerTaSoriso samarTali”,<br />
Tbilisi, 2005, meSvide Sesworebuli gamocema, gv. 239.<br />
141<br />
Greenwood, C., “<strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> and the NATO Intervention in Kosovo”, in: The<br />
<strong>International</strong> and Comparative <strong>Law</strong> Quarterly, Vol.49, 2000, gv. 927.<br />
142<br />
Simma, B., sqolio 45 supra, gv. 724-725, §20; ix. agreTve: Greenwood, C.,<br />
“<strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> and the NATO Intervention in Kosovo”, in The <strong>International</strong> and<br />
Comparative <strong>Law</strong> Quarterly, Vol.49, 2000, gv. 930; Lowe, V., sqolio 54 supra,<br />
gv. 936.<br />
143<br />
xuciSvili, q., sqolio 128 supra, gv. 347.<br />
144<br />
Simma, B., sqolio 45 supra, gv. 725, §21.<br />
145<br />
xuciSvili, q., sqolio 128 supra, gv. 333.<br />
146<br />
ix.: Chinkin, C., sqolio 55 supra, gv. 918.<br />
147<br />
Blokker, N.M. & Kleiboer, M., sqolio 113 supra, gv. 15; Greenwood, C.,<br />
“<strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> and the NATO Intervention in Kosovo”, in The <strong>International</strong><br />
and Comparative <strong>Law</strong> Quarterly, Vol.49, 2000, gv. 927; ix. agreTve: Greenwood,<br />
C., “Is there a Right of Humanitarian Intervention”, in World Today, 1993, gv. 5.<br />
148<br />
Chinkin, C., sqolio 55 supra, gv. 918.<br />
149<br />
,,...VII Tavis safuZvelze moqmedebisas uSiSroebis sabWos funqciebi<br />
SezRudulia SeaiaRebuli konfliqtis cnebiT.~ ix.: Simma, B., sqolio<br />
45 supra, gv. 720, §6.<br />
150<br />
Simma, B., sqolio 45 supra, gv. 724, §18.<br />
151<br />
Ib., gv. 721, §8.<br />
152<br />
Ibid., gv. 723, §18.<br />
41
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong>, #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
153<br />
Greenwood, C., “Is there a Right of Humanitarian Intervention”, in World Today,<br />
1993, gv. 1.<br />
154<br />
Brownlie, I. & Apperley, C.J., sqolio 47 supra, gv. 904, §123(e).<br />
155<br />
es sakiTxi gansakuTrebuli sicxadiT warmoCnda mss-s winaSe iugoslaviis<br />
mier inicirebuli sasamarTlo procedurebisa da uSiSroebis<br />
sabWos 1999 wlis sagangebo sxdomaze gamarTuli debatebisas, roca<br />
kosovoSi humanitaruli intervenciis ganmaxorcielebel natos wevr<br />
saxelmwifoTa argumentebi humanitaruli katastrofisa da moralur<br />
valdebulebebs ufro efuZneboda, vidre samarTlebriv normebs. ix.:<br />
Brownlie, I. & Apperley, C.J., “Kosovo Crises Inquiry: Further Memorandum on the<br />
<strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> Aspects”, in: The <strong>International</strong> and Comparative <strong>Law</strong> Quarterly,<br />
Vol.49, 2000, gv. 908, §16-17.<br />
156<br />
British Foreign Offi ce (Foreign Policy Document No.148): British Yearbook of Int.<br />
<strong>Law</strong>, Vol.57 (1986), gv. 614, ix. gv. 619, citirebuli: Brownlie, I. & Apperley,<br />
C.J., sqolio 47 supra, gv. 888, §52.<br />
157<br />
Ib., gv. 905, §125.<br />
158<br />
Simma, B., sqolio 23 supra, gv. 22.<br />
159<br />
ix.: Evidence, Vol.II, gv. 1, citirebuli: Boyle, A., “Kosovo: House of<br />
Commons Foreign Affairs Committee 4 th Report, June 2000”, in: The <strong>International</strong><br />
and Comparative <strong>Law</strong> Quarterly, Vol.49, 2000, gv. 876; Aust, A. (1992-1993)<br />
Parliamentary Papers, HC, Paper 235-iii, gv. 92, §142, citirebuli: Brownlie,<br />
I. & Apperley, C.J., sqolio 47 supra, gv. 883, §24; Brownlie, I. & Apperley, C.J.,<br />
“Kosovo Crises Inquiry: Further Memorandum on the <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> Aspects”,<br />
in: The <strong>International</strong> and Comparative <strong>Law</strong> Quarterly, Vol.49, 2000, gv. 9<strong>09</strong>, §25;<br />
Chinkin, C., sqolio 55 supra, gv. 924, §3; Greenwood, C., “<strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong><br />
and the NATO Intervention in Kosovo”, in: The <strong>International</strong> and Comparative <strong>Law</strong><br />
Quarterly, Vol.49, 2000, gv. 926, gv. 930-931, gv. 933; Greenwood, C., “Is there a<br />
Right of Humanitarian Intervention”, in: World Today, 1993, gv. 13.<br />
160<br />
Higgins, R. (1991) Recueil des Cours, Vol.230, gv. 313-316, citirebuli:<br />
Brownlie, I. & Apperley, C.J., sqolio 47 supra, gv. 893, §68.<br />
161<br />
Greenwood, C., “Is there a Right of Humanitarian Intervention”, in: World Today,<br />
1993, gv. 1; ix. agreTve: Lowe, V., sqolio 54 supra, gv. 940.<br />
162<br />
Simma, B., sqolio 23 supra, gv. 22.<br />
163<br />
Ib.; Lowe, V., sqolio 54 supra, gv. 938.<br />
164<br />
Franck, T. (1993) Recueil des Cours, Vol.240, gv. 256-257, citirebuli:<br />
Brownlie, I. & Apperley, C.J., sqolio 47 supra, gv. 891, §67.<br />
165<br />
Chinkin, C., sqolio 55 supra, gv. 918.<br />
166<br />
Ib.<br />
167<br />
Greenwood, C., “<strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> and the NATO Intervention in Kosovo”, in: The<br />
<strong>International</strong> and Comparative <strong>Law</strong> Quarterly, Vol.49, 2000, gv. 929.<br />
168<br />
ix.: gv. 15-16 supra.<br />
169<br />
Громыко, А., sqolio 11 supra, gv. 89.<br />
170<br />
Ib., gv. 80.<br />
171<br />
Watson, J.S, sqolio 1 supra, gv. 66.<br />
172<br />
Yasuaki, O., “<strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> in and with <strong>International</strong> Politics: The Functions<br />
of <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> in <strong>International</strong> Society”, in European <strong>Journal</strong> of <strong>International</strong><br />
<strong>Law</strong>, Vol.14, No.1, 2003, gv. 108, xelmisawvdomia: http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/<br />
cgi/reprint/14/1/105.<br />
42
NINO SAGINASHVILI<br />
ARTICLE 2(7) OF THE UN CHARTER - THEORY AND PRACTICES<br />
1. INTRODUCTION<br />
The principle of non-intervention has always<br />
been regarded a solid foundation or a<br />
necessary precondition for the independent<br />
existence of a state and for cooperation between<br />
states. Consequently, this principle fairly<br />
represents the basic concept of international<br />
law and international relations. This approach<br />
explains the signifi cance of the principle of<br />
non-intervention in the international arena.<br />
More precisely, this approach embraces the<br />
following: a high level of politicization of the<br />
issue, attempts to disguise the existing reality<br />
in legal terminology, interpretation of legal<br />
provisions in accordance with the interests<br />
of superpowers and considering the specifi c<br />
circumstances, and sometimes even clear<br />
legitimisation of unlawfulness (such as in the<br />
case of Kosovo). This comes as no surprise,<br />
within the general context of double standards<br />
that exist in international law. These realities<br />
should be taken into account even moreso<br />
when such a delicate issue as the principle of<br />
non-intervention is considered in relation to<br />
domestic jurisdiction of a state.<br />
The principle of non-intervention is a comprehensive<br />
topic; however the present article<br />
will consider it solely within the scope of Article<br />
2(7) of the Charter of the United Nations, i.e.<br />
as part of the sole universal international organization.<br />
The unique nature of this Article<br />
covers both international and domestic jurisdictions<br />
and simultaneously encompasses<br />
the dangerous precedents of the intersection<br />
of law and politics. 1 From the beginning, the<br />
following must be clarifi ed: What issues does<br />
domestic jurisdiction of a state cover, where<br />
other states are prohibited from intervening<br />
What did this prohibition mean or what does it<br />
currently mean How much room is there for<br />
change in the list of issues prohibited What is<br />
the criterion for determining whether a matter<br />
is of national or international jurisdiction How<br />
compatible are the theoretical considerations<br />
and practical experiences of a state in this<br />
fi eld These are just a few examples of questions<br />
that emerge when discussing the principle<br />
of non-intervention, and these questions<br />
will be considered in this article, considering<br />
its narrow format.<br />
Chapter 1 of the present article introduces<br />
some preliminary notions on the principle of<br />
non-intervention as recorded in Article 2(7)<br />
of the UN Charter, and summarizes its general<br />
scope, including concerns such as interdependence<br />
of international law and politics,<br />
as well concerns about theory and practice.<br />
All these notions taken together explain the<br />
special interest towards the principle. Chapter<br />
2 analyses the historical steps that occurred<br />
in the years 1943-1945, in formulating Article<br />
2(7) within the framework of the international<br />
conferences organized by the U.S.A., the UK,<br />
and the USSR. From the standpoint of international<br />
legal cooperation, particular attention<br />
shall be given to conferences in Moscow,<br />
Dumbarton Oaks, and San Francisco, in 1943,<br />
1944, and 1945 respectively. Chapter 3 deals<br />
with the issues of interpretation of Article 2(7),<br />
considering the possibilities of the intersection<br />
of theory and practice. The analysis of<br />
the mechanism of autointerpretation is of signifi<br />
cant value in this case. Chapter 4 considers<br />
the relationship between the principle of nonintervention<br />
and other principles such as the<br />
concept of state sovereignty, the prohibition of<br />
the use of force, and elementary considerations<br />
of humanity and the human rights doctrine.<br />
Unlike the preceding chapters, Chapter<br />
43
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
5emphasizes the practical application of Article<br />
2(7). In particular, this chapter focuses on the<br />
controversial question of whether humanitarian<br />
intervention is a right or simply a possibility.<br />
The fi nal chapter of the article sums up the<br />
contentious approaches to theory and practice,<br />
related to the principle of non-intervention<br />
as provided in Article 2(7) of the UN Charter.<br />
This chapter analyses the root causes of this<br />
controversy, and suggests one such cause is<br />
the general and ambiguous wording of Article<br />
2(7). This is because the general and ambiguous<br />
text provides the possibility of mutually exclusive<br />
interpretations and applications of the<br />
provisions and makes it impossible to form a<br />
uniform practice, thus, undermining the signifi -<br />
cance of the principle of non-intervention.<br />
2. ARTICLE 2(7): HISTORICAL OVERVIEW AND<br />
FORMATION<br />
When discussing the principle of non-intervention<br />
enshrined in Article 2(7) of the UN<br />
Charter, it should be fairly criticized, fi rst for<br />
its obscure and ambiguous text, and second<br />
for the controversy regarding its interpretation<br />
and application. Taking into consideration<br />
these diffi culties, the analysis of the historical<br />
steps of the formulation of Article 2(7) provisions,<br />
within the framework of the international<br />
conferences held in the years 1943–1945, becomes<br />
necessary. This article will pay particular<br />
attention to the discussion of the Moscow,<br />
Dumbarton Oaks, and San Francisco conferences.<br />
2.1. Moscow Conference<br />
The essence of the principle of non-intervention<br />
was not discussed at the Moscow<br />
Conference (October 19-30, 1943). However,<br />
the scope of the principle was outlined when<br />
the Ministers of Foreign Affairs from the U.S.,<br />
the UK, and the USSR discussed the possibility<br />
of “peaceful coexistence... wide cooperation” 2<br />
and “the necessity of establishing at the earliest<br />
practicable date a general international organization,<br />
based on the principle of the sovereign<br />
equality of all peace-loving states, …<br />
for the maintenance of international peace and<br />
security.’’ 3 These were the the words used in<br />
the Joint Four-Nation Declaration, concerning<br />
the issues of joint security, concluded by the<br />
U.S., the UK, the USSR, and China. 4 From this<br />
declaration, it is easy to understand the intentions<br />
of these states - to reveal themselves to<br />
the community of nations as true peace-loving<br />
states, and to have their actions considered<br />
just and fair. However, in the initial draft prepared<br />
by the U.S.A., 5 the term “peace-loving”<br />
was not even mentioned. It was added to the<br />
text at a later stage. 6 Still, within the context<br />
of the principle of sovereign equality, the real<br />
interests of the states were better revealed in<br />
paragraph 6 of the declaration: “That after the<br />
termination of hostilities they will not employ<br />
their military forces within the territories of other<br />
states except for the purposes envisaged in<br />
this declaration and after joint consultation.” 7<br />
Consequently, paragraph 6 was interpreted as<br />
an act of self-limitation by the states, 8 which<br />
would have entered into force only following<br />
the defeat of Hitler’s Regime in Germany. 9<br />
In other words, the U.S.A., the UK, and the<br />
USSR agreed that after the end of World War<br />
II, they “would not use military measures for<br />
settling disputes without prior consultation to<br />
each other” 10 . However, the exceptions set by<br />
paragraph 6 did not include air force or navy<br />
bases located on the territory of other states. 11<br />
The UK Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden,<br />
specifi ed that for the conduction of such actions,<br />
it was necessary to consult the respective<br />
states, but not necessarily to reach an<br />
agreement with them. 12<br />
Therefore, the wording of paragraph 6<br />
clearly demonstrates that the Moscow Conference<br />
recognized the need for the principle of<br />
non-intervention, determined the compliance<br />
conditions thereupon, and interpreted the<br />
exceptions to the rule in the form of travaux<br />
préparatoires, since they were not refl ected in<br />
the text of the Joint Four-Nation Declaration<br />
(i.e., the issue of the location of air force or<br />
navy bases on the territory of other states).<br />
2.2. Dumbarton Oaks Conference<br />
The main emphasis at the Dumbarton<br />
Oaks Conference (August 21–September<br />
28, 1944) was made on the establishment of<br />
an international organization to deal with the<br />
maintenance of international peace and security,<br />
before the end of World War II. The rep-<br />
44
N. SAGINASHVILI, ARTICLE 2(7) OF THE UN CHARTER - THEORY AND PRACTICES<br />
resentatives of the U.S.A., the USSR, the UK,<br />
and China submitted Tentative Proposals on<br />
the general structure and functions of the organization.<br />
More likely, it was an exchange of<br />
views in an unoffi cial format. 13<br />
The Soviet Union Memorandum is of rather<br />
a small volume and it says nothing about<br />
the principle of non-intervention. 14<br />
The US Memorandum does not mention<br />
the principle of non-intervention either.<br />
15 However, it speaks about the Security<br />
Council’s qualifi cation of such a dispute or<br />
situation, which seriously endangers international<br />
peace and security. 16 To illustrate such<br />
a dispute or situation, the document refers to<br />
the instance of the use of armed forces by one<br />
state within the jurisdiction of another state,<br />
without the authorization of an international<br />
organization. 17 Providing such an example is<br />
an indirect but clear indication that, despite its<br />
signifi cance, the principle of non-intervention<br />
may be limited on the basis of the authorization<br />
of an international organization.<br />
The United Kingdom Memorandum does<br />
not precisely defi ne the scope of the principle<br />
of non-intervention. 18 It only argues against<br />
providing any guarantees of territorial integrity<br />
or political independence, within the scope of<br />
the principle. Hence, a new international organization<br />
shall not undertake to respect and<br />
protect territorial integrity and political independence<br />
of all member states. 19 Otherwise:<br />
1. protection of political independence<br />
shall be identifi ed as one of the principles of<br />
the organization. Therefore, it shall be deemed<br />
as a general notion and not a concrete obligation<br />
binding neither the organization, nor its<br />
members; 20<br />
2. guarantees of territorial integrity were<br />
given within the system of the League of<br />
Nations. However, such guarantees had beco<br />
me an object of criticism from the very<br />
beginning, 21 as they themselves could not “stop<br />
intervention in the territory of another state and<br />
its occupation by armed forces” 22 . Hence, their<br />
existence had no suffi cient grounds.<br />
It is clear from the above that the United<br />
Kingdom had not denied the signifi cance of<br />
the principle of non-intervention. However, the<br />
UK did argue against providing any guarantees<br />
to that end, since it fairly regarded them<br />
as setting limits to the actions of states, rather<br />
than ensuring their protection. From this<br />
standpoint, to draw a parallel with the defi nition<br />
of aggression, assessment will include<br />
the following: states attempt to act with special<br />
care regarding such issues of subtlety in the<br />
international arena, as they are not protected<br />
from committing acts of aggression in the future,<br />
and “a potential boomerang effect… can<br />
never be excluded” 23 .<br />
The China Memorandum says nothing<br />
about the principle of non-intervention. 24<br />
However, it qualifi es the following as an act<br />
of aggression, inter alia: intervention of armed<br />
forces in the territory of another state, use of<br />
land, sea, or air forces to shell another state’s<br />
territory or attack other state’s land, sea, or air<br />
forces. 25<br />
As a result of a long process of negotiations<br />
at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, a<br />
draft on the establishment of an international<br />
organization of security, jointly elaborated by<br />
the representatives of the USSR, the U.S.A.,<br />
and United Kingdom was approved. 26 In the<br />
draft, the principle of non-intervention was<br />
not mentioned in the Chapter of Principles,<br />
while all the other six principles in Article 2<br />
of the present day UN Charter were listed. 27<br />
However, it is the Section of Pacifi c Settlement<br />
of Disputes that draws our attention. This section<br />
covers the disputes and situations that<br />
endanger the maintenance of international<br />
peace and security; 28 however, they are not<br />
serious enough to be qualifi ed by the Security<br />
Council as “any threat to the peace, breach<br />
of the peace or act of aggression” (Chapter<br />
VIII, Section B, para. 2). 29 Respectively, the<br />
competence of the Council for settling such<br />
disputes is limited to issuing recommendations<br />
(Chapter VIII, Section A, para. 5). 30 As for<br />
disputes of legal nature, the Security Council<br />
is empowered to refer “legal questions” to an<br />
international court of justice, for advice (para.<br />
6) 31 and not for seeking a legal solution to a<br />
dispute. After discussing these draft provisions,<br />
paragraph 7 of the draft states: “The<br />
provisions of paragraphs 1 to 6 of Section A<br />
should not apply to situations or disputes arising<br />
out of matters which by international law<br />
are solely within the domestic jurisdiction of<br />
the state concerned.” 32<br />
45
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
It turns out that at the Dumbarton Oaks<br />
Conference, the principle of non-intervention<br />
was recognised only in relation to minor disputes<br />
and situations.<br />
2.3. San Francisco Conference and<br />
Current Approach to Article 2(7)<br />
The draft of the charter of an international<br />
organization, elaborated during the Dumbarton<br />
Oaks Conference, was considered at the San-<br />
Francisco Conference (April 25–June 26,<br />
1945) as a “suffi cient basis”. 33 At the same<br />
time, considerable work was undertaken at<br />
commissions and committees, and a number<br />
of amendments were suggested. Among them<br />
were the following:<br />
In the joint draft of October 10, 1944 34 on<br />
the establishment of an international organization<br />
of security, reference to the principle<br />
of non-intervention in domestic jurisdiction<br />
of a state was made in the Section of Pacifi c<br />
Settlement of Disputes, rather than in the<br />
Chapter of Principles. 35 This approach was<br />
amended at the San Francisco Conference.<br />
More precisely, on May 5, 1945, four states–the<br />
USSR, the U.S.A., the United Kingdom, and<br />
China submitted a draft package of amendments.<br />
They suggested moving paragraph 7<br />
of Section A of Chapter VIII to Chapter II, as<br />
the seventh principle, with the following minor<br />
alteration: “Nothing contained in this Charter<br />
shall authorize the Organization to intervene<br />
in matters which are essentially within the domestic<br />
jurisdiction of the state concerned or<br />
shall require the Members to submit such matters<br />
to settlement under this Charter; but this<br />
principle shall not prejudice the application of<br />
Charter VIII, Section B.” 36 (i.e. the application<br />
of enforcement measures 37 ).<br />
The suggested change was interpreted<br />
by the ‘Sponsoring Powers’ “as a basic principle,<br />
and not, as had been the case in the<br />
Dumbarton Oaks proposals and in Article 15<br />
of the Covenant of the League of Nations, 38<br />
as a technical and legalistic formula designed<br />
to deal with the settlement of disputes by the<br />
Security Council.” 39<br />
Hence, this provision was designed to restrict<br />
not only the competence of the Security<br />
Council under Chapter VI, but the entire working<br />
of the organization. 40 Later, the last phrase<br />
of the provision was again amended for further<br />
clarifi cation: “but this principle shall not prejudice<br />
the application of enforcement measures<br />
under Chapter Vll.” 41 In other words, it was clarifi<br />
ed that when a state acts essentially within<br />
its domestic competence and thus endangers<br />
the maintenance of international peace and<br />
security, 42 and when the threat is high and serious,<br />
then it becomes necessary to undertake<br />
enforcement actions under Chapter VII, not<br />
just pacifi c measures pursuant to Chapter VI.<br />
It is worth mentioning that this latter<br />
amendment was suggested by Australia. 43 It<br />
was intended to be a compromise between<br />
the broad competence of the Security Council<br />
to maintain international peace and security,<br />
and the signifi cance of the principle of nonintervention<br />
in domestic jurisdiction of a state.<br />
On one hand, the principle of non-intervention<br />
limits the competence of the United Nations,<br />
hence regulating its entire operation, including<br />
the competence of the Security Council. On<br />
the other hand, the practical importance of the<br />
application of the Security Council’s primary<br />
objective was taken into account and, therefore,<br />
the only exception was allowed in favour<br />
of Chapter VII enforcement measures. 44 More<br />
precisely, only a narrow exception was allowed<br />
despite the fact that Chapter VII foresees<br />
other measures such as recommendations<br />
(Article 39) and provisional measures (Article<br />
40). 45 However, this narrow exception has<br />
not affected the competence of the Security<br />
Council, not even limiting it at a minimum. On<br />
the contrary, the SC competence was further<br />
strengthened on the basis of the amendment.<br />
Consequently:<br />
• if the issue at stake does not belong to<br />
matters that are essentially within the domestic<br />
jurisdiction of the state concerned,<br />
then the operation of the UN Charter, including<br />
Chapter VII provisions, is not restricted<br />
to this case, as a rule;<br />
• if the issue at stake falls under domestic<br />
jurisdiction, then, according to Article<br />
2(7), the UN Charter shall not be applied.<br />
There is still, however, a possibility for the<br />
application of enforcement actions under<br />
Chapter VII. 46<br />
Hence, the Security Council can take enforcement<br />
measures in both cases, and it is<br />
46
N. SAGINASHVILI, ARTICLE 2(7) OF THE UN CHARTER - THEORY AND PRACTICES<br />
evident that the UN Charter “giv[es] a monopoly<br />
of the use of force to the Security Council<br />
…” 47 . This issue turns out to be crucial within<br />
its political and legal context, since:<br />
• according to the established practice, the<br />
Security Council Chapter VII resolutions<br />
are legally binding if the Council decides<br />
so, 48 and they are adopted on behalf of all<br />
UN Member States; 49<br />
• while promoting the peaceful settlement<br />
of disputes 50 and prohibiting not only the<br />
use of force, but even the mere threat of<br />
force, 51 the UN Charter recognizes only<br />
two exceptions: 52 the right of self-defence<br />
(Article 51) and enforcement measures<br />
under Chapter VII (Articles 39-43). 53<br />
However, such a classifi cation of the exceptions<br />
is incomplete. It does not take<br />
into account the possibility of the use of<br />
force by regional organizations on the basis<br />
of the Security Council’s prior authorization,<br />
provided by Article 53 of the UN<br />
Charter. This is why the formulation suggested<br />
by Vogan Lowe: two exceptions:<br />
self-defence and authorization of the<br />
Security Council 54 (Articles 42 and 53 are<br />
considered together here); or the formulation<br />
suggested by Christine Chinkin: three<br />
exceptions: self-defence, enforcement action<br />
under Chapter VII, and enforcement<br />
action by regional arrangements under<br />
Chapter VIII. 55<br />
2.4. Article 2(7): Initial Intention<br />
Generally speaking, the issue of non-intervention<br />
has caused “wearisome debates”<br />
and harsh discussion since the very establishment<br />
of the UN. 56 It is probably true to say<br />
that no article of the Charter has caused more<br />
trouble than this one [Article 2(7)].” 57 However,<br />
the vivid controversy at the San Francisco<br />
Conference regarding this article was not surprising,<br />
since each state was trying to pursue<br />
its own interests. 58 Moreover, this controversy<br />
had not affected the San Francisco records in<br />
a way of making them ambiguous or obscure.<br />
On the contrary, the general trend of the<br />
Conference and the overall intentions of the<br />
drafters of the UN Charter in relation to this issue<br />
were quite clear. 59 A general prohibition of<br />
intervention in domestic affairs was defi ned as<br />
“an overriding principle or limitation” 60 . More<br />
precisely, in Article 2(7) of the UN Charter, the<br />
term “intervene” was understood as:<br />
… any “action” by any organ of the United<br />
Nations concerning a matter which was within<br />
the domestic jurisdiction of particular States;<br />
i.e. any discussions of or recommendation, inquiry<br />
or study concerning the domestic affairs<br />
of one State in particular or a particular group<br />
of States would amount to intervention. 61<br />
Here it should be noted that the cited provisions<br />
are not merely political statements,<br />
they also have a strong legal background, 62<br />
since the draft of those provisions was prepared<br />
at the San Francisco Conference by a<br />
committee of jurists, 63 and the majority of the<br />
legal advisers present at the Conference later<br />
became judges of the <strong>International</strong> Court of<br />
Justice (ICJ). 64<br />
2.5. Article 2(7): Further Development<br />
within the UN System<br />
Within the UN system, the principle of<br />
non-intervention has developed far beyond<br />
the general and “compressed” text of Article<br />
2(7). Its scope was broadened by a number of<br />
General Assembly resolutions adopted on this<br />
matter. However, the following essential difference<br />
should be taken into account:<br />
• Article 2(7) prohibits the United Nations,<br />
as an independent entity, from intervening<br />
in domestic jurisdiction of any state; 65<br />
• General Assembly resolutions are directed<br />
at individual states or a group of states, 66<br />
i.e., individual states or a group of states<br />
is prohibited from intervening.<br />
From this standpoint, we should analyse<br />
the following resolutions:<br />
_ General Assembly resolution 2131 (XX)<br />
of 1965: Declaration on the Inadmissibility<br />
of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs<br />
of States and the Protection of Their<br />
Independence and Sovereignty. 67 This<br />
declaration is considered “only [as] a<br />
statement of political intention and not a<br />
formulation of law”. 68<br />
_ General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV)<br />
of 1970: Declaration on Principles of <strong>International</strong><br />
<strong>Law</strong> concerning Friendly Relations<br />
and Co-operation among States in<br />
accordance with the Charter of the United<br />
47
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
Nations. 69 This declaration has repeated<br />
the essentials of the previous resolution<br />
concerning the issue of non-intervention: 70<br />
“No State or a group of States has the<br />
right to intervene, directly or indirectly,<br />
for any reason whatever, in the internal<br />
or external affairs of any other State.” 71<br />
However, unlike the previous declaration,<br />
this resolution proclaims the “basic principles”<br />
of international law” 72 and the text of<br />
the resolution regarding the principles of<br />
the non-use of force and non-intervention<br />
is of customary content. 73<br />
_ General Assembly resolution 3314<br />
(XXIX) of 1974: Defi nition of Aggression.<br />
According to Article 5(1): “No consideration<br />
of whatever nature, whether political,<br />
economic, military or otherwise, may<br />
serve as a justifi cation for aggression.” 74<br />
On the basis of this wording, humanitarian<br />
intervention may also be qualifi ed as an<br />
act of aggression. 75 However, the practice<br />
has proved to have been developed in a<br />
different direction. 76<br />
It is evident from the above-mentioned<br />
resolutions and the analysis thereupon, that<br />
the principle of non-intervention is absolute in<br />
nature and in scope. There are no exceptions<br />
envisaged. 77<br />
• on the treaty level: it is not diffi cult to identify<br />
conventional grounds for the existence<br />
of the principle of non-intervention. On the<br />
contrary, there is a wide range of global<br />
and regional international treaties. 78<br />
• on the customary law level: in the Nicaragua<br />
case, ICJ recognized the principle of nonintervention<br />
as “a customary principle<br />
which has universal application.” 79<br />
3. ARTICLE 2(7): INTERPRETATION<br />
Article 2(7) encompasses quite general<br />
phrases, and, as a result, a “double threat” appears:<br />
• the scope of domestic jurisdiction is not<br />
yet clearly defi ned, and<br />
• states have not yet agreed on a defi nition<br />
of intervention that is acceptable to all. 80<br />
The existing situation provides a broad<br />
possibility of interpretation. However, in the<br />
Charter there is the complete absence of<br />
any reference to who might be authorized<br />
to make an interpretation; “[y]et this lacuna<br />
was clearly intentional.” 81 It is also evident,<br />
that the burden of proof was fully transferred<br />
onto the state’s “basic principle of consent”,<br />
which is the Grundnorm of international law<br />
(Schwarzenberger). 82 From this standpoint,<br />
the concept of state sovereignty includes consent<br />
of a state on recognizing a norm as legally<br />
binding, and autointerpretation of this norm by<br />
a state, if the state concerned has not transferred<br />
such a competence to another body. 83<br />
As the UN Charter had not accepted the precedent<br />
of Article 15(8) of the Covenant of the<br />
League of Nations 84 , it suggested a different<br />
text, a general one without any clarifi cation, for<br />
the principle of non-intervention. Respectively,<br />
there are different ways of interpreting Article<br />
2(7). Discussion of each of them is not within<br />
the scope of the present article, and, therefore,<br />
we shall only deal with the most realistic and<br />
widely accepted approach of interpretation.<br />
3.1. Autointerpretation<br />
Autointerpretation is one of the most pragmatic<br />
methods of interpretation at the international<br />
plane, and is protected to a maximum<br />
degree from legal idealism. This fact provides<br />
for its wide application. To evaluate autointerpretation<br />
according to the three-level scheme<br />
proposed by Oscar Schachter, 85 the following<br />
will be concluded: autointerpretation is an<br />
international mechanism of a legal character<br />
(Second Level), which it is closely related and<br />
strictly based on the actions and interests of<br />
states (First Level). At the same time, it embraces<br />
the values of the common good (Third<br />
Level). More precisely, this scheme works in<br />
the following way: as a rule, states act in accordance<br />
with their interests and their free will.<br />
Consequently, states possess “[t]he freedom<br />
of action which international law has always<br />
recognized in matters of domestic jurisdiction<br />
…” 86 This is why autointerpretation based on<br />
the will of states provides a solid guarantee<br />
for defi ning matters belonging to domestic<br />
jurisdiction, in a favour of states. 87 However,<br />
there is always an expectation that the shared<br />
values, aspirations and ideals of the international<br />
community shall be taken into consideration.<br />
Such an approach creates the basis<br />
48
N. SAGINASHVILI, ARTICLE 2(7) OF THE UN CHARTER - THEORY AND PRACTICES<br />
for the effi cient functioning of the principle of<br />
non-intervention.<br />
On the other hand, this approach creates<br />
inconvenience in the system of international<br />
law and contradicts the maxim nemo judex in<br />
sua causa 88 (No one can be a judge in his own<br />
case). In fact, an alarming situation is created<br />
and deserves legitimate criticism. Alf Ross assesses<br />
this approach as “catastrophic”. 89 Hans<br />
Kelzen qualifi es this situation as “absurd” 90 .<br />
Accordingly, the following question emerges:<br />
are there, in fact, any alternative methods to<br />
autointerpretation<br />
In general, alternatives are always possible.<br />
The following views and suggestions are<br />
most interesting in this respect:<br />
_ The Delegation of Greece suggested that<br />
the <strong>International</strong> Court of Justice had the<br />
competence to interpret issues belonging<br />
to domestic jurisdiction. 91 However, this<br />
position was not upheld, as the required<br />
two-thirds of states were not ready to support<br />
the legal mechanisms of the regulation<br />
of this issue. 92 This is no surprise. The<br />
Charter of the United Nations gives priority<br />
to peaceful settlement of disputes rather<br />
than to the application to the ICJ. 93 It is<br />
a true paradox, that states prefer political<br />
settlement of a dispute over a purely legal<br />
solution. However, there are always counterarguments,<br />
among other factors, such<br />
as the time factor. Therefore, the failure<br />
of the Greek proposal was actually logical<br />
under the general background of high politicization<br />
of international legal system.<br />
_ At the San Francisco Conference, the<br />
Delegation of Belgium suggested that the<br />
General Assembly be granted the broad<br />
competence for the interpretation of the<br />
UN Charter. 94 Even if that were so, the<br />
outcome would not be much different,<br />
as the Assembly decisions have a character<br />
of recommendations 95 , they are not<br />
legally binding. 96 That makes such an<br />
interpretation senseless. Therefore, the<br />
General Assembly as the mechanism for<br />
the interpretation of Article 2(7) is out of<br />
question. 97<br />
_ The San Francisco Conference on one<br />
hand recognized that the tariff system<br />
and customs laws belong to domestic<br />
jurisdiction of states. 98 At the same time,<br />
the competence of the Economic and<br />
Social Council was also defi ned, to establish<br />
standards in these fi elds 99 . These<br />
standards were supposed to be taken into<br />
consideration by states, and not to be<br />
legally binding upon them. 100 To put this<br />
otherwise, “nothing contained in Chapter<br />
IX [of the UN Charter] can be construed<br />
as giving authority to the Organization to<br />
intervene in the domestic affairs of member<br />
states” 101 , even by means of interpretation.<br />
_ Security Council is the primary political<br />
body of the United Nations “with its unprecedented<br />
powers and limited membership<br />
plus the right of fi ve permanent members<br />
to veto substantive proposals [should<br />
be taken into consideration as well]…”. 102<br />
Although interpretation by a political body<br />
leads to a problem of legitimacy, 103 but<br />
considering the general background of<br />
politicization, this also shall be considered<br />
logical. At the same time, decisions<br />
of the Security Council are legally binding<br />
(Article 25), though this is true only<br />
in relation to the Chapter VII decisions. 104<br />
However:<br />
… Article 2(7) specifi cally states that it<br />
does not apply to Chapter VII enforcement<br />
measures. Thus, the one area in the Chapter<br />
in which the Organization is clearly competent<br />
legally to decide on the nature of an issue and<br />
to respond to it, is the one area to which Article<br />
2(7) does not apply. If the Organization were<br />
competent to interpret and apply the phrase<br />
“domestic jurisdiction” generally, then the exception<br />
for Chapter VII would not have to be<br />
made. 105<br />
Therefore, neither the Security Council is<br />
competent to defi ne the scope of domestic jurisdiction.<br />
As for the Chapter VII enforcement<br />
measures, they are not considered within the<br />
scope of the principle on non-intervention, but<br />
they fall outside the scope the principle, as<br />
purely political exceptions.<br />
In conclusion, the principle of non-intervention<br />
limits the operation of the entire organization,<br />
including its actions, as well as the<br />
interpretation conducted by the organization.<br />
This is because the United Nation is consid-<br />
49
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
ered as an “interested party”, and any of its decisions<br />
is considered as a violation of the maxim<br />
nemo judex in sua causa. 106 Considering<br />
this, the only solution left is autointerpretation,<br />
despite its negative sides. Consequently, the<br />
fi nal position may be formulated as follows:<br />
It is correct that autointerpretation is based<br />
on the gross violation of the basic guarantees<br />
of legality and is not at all oriented towards the<br />
legal solution of an issue. Nevertheless, it remains<br />
one of the most effi cient mechanisms<br />
of interpretation at the international plane.<br />
Therefore, neither its complete rejection nor<br />
its compete support is relevant. However, the<br />
very notion that we can easily rely on and simultaneously<br />
stay within legal regulation is the<br />
basic principle of state consent, as “the legal<br />
expression of the continuing political fact of<br />
sovereignty”. 107 As a result, autointerpretation<br />
of the principle of non-intervention, despite<br />
its negative characteristics, is the correct solution,<br />
and “there is no vagueness as to autointerpretation<br />
in Article 2(7)…” 108 .<br />
4. THE INTERRELATION OF THE PRINCIPLE<br />
OF NON-INTERVENTION AND OTHER<br />
PRINCIPLES<br />
The principle of non-intervention enshrined<br />
in Article 2(7) is not an isolated principle.<br />
Antonio Cassese calls it “a solid and<br />
indispensable ‘bridge’ between the traditional,<br />
sovereignty-oriented structure of the international<br />
community and the ‘new’ attitude of<br />
States based on [their] coexistence… and<br />
closer cooperation.” 1<strong>09</strong> Correspondingly, the<br />
principle of non-intervention closely relates to<br />
a number of principles. The principles of territorial<br />
integrity and the inviolability of frontiers, 110<br />
the state sovereignty and the sovereign equality<br />
of states 111 shall be paid specifi c attention<br />
among these principles.<br />
4.1. The Principle of Non-Intervention,<br />
State Sovereignty, and the Prohibition<br />
of the Use of Force<br />
The system of contemporary international<br />
law is primarily based on the doctrine of state<br />
sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention<br />
in domestic matters of a state. Otherwise,<br />
even the “ordre public of international community”,<br />
112 being widely criticized due to its decentralization,<br />
113 double standards, 114 and high degree<br />
of politicisation 115 would have been impossible<br />
to achieve.<br />
• “… the principle of non-intervention … is<br />
the legal insurance of their [states’] sovereign<br />
existence.” 116<br />
• “The principle of non-intervention involves<br />
the right of every sovereign State<br />
to conduct its affairs without outside interference…<br />
[and] [b]etween independent<br />
States, respect for territorial sovereignty<br />
is an essential foundation of international<br />
relations”, 117 and international law requires<br />
political integrity also be respected.” 118<br />
• The principle of non-intervention “plays the<br />
role of a necessary shield behind which<br />
states can shelter in the knowledge that<br />
their more intense international relations<br />
will not affect their most vital and delicate<br />
domestic interests.” 119<br />
Notwithstanding the high authority of<br />
the above cited views, we suggest that the<br />
most realistic assessment is that of Watson.<br />
According to Watson, “… Article 2(7) … is only<br />
a symbol of sovereignty and not sovereignty<br />
itself.” 120 With this background, it is easier to<br />
understand the essence of the existence of the<br />
exception made from the “fundamental principle<br />
of state sovereignty, on which the whole of<br />
international law rests…” 121 .<br />
The close relation of the principles of nonintervention<br />
and non-use of force should be<br />
highlighted as well. These two principles not<br />
only complement each other, 122 but also substitute<br />
each other. 123 At the same time, the ICJ<br />
has granted the status of customary international<br />
law to both principles. 124<br />
In assessing the information mentioned<br />
above, we reach the following conclusion:<br />
“The effects of the principle of respect of the<br />
territorial sovereignty inevitably overlap with<br />
those of the principles of the prohibition of the<br />
use of force and of non-intervention.” 125<br />
The following proposal made by the<br />
Delegation of Brazil at the San Francisco<br />
Conference is interesting in relation to the interrelation<br />
of the principle of non-intervention,<br />
state sovereignty and the prohibition of the<br />
use of force:<br />
50
N. SAGINASHVILI, ARTICLE 2(7) OF THE UN CHARTER - THEORY AND PRACTICES<br />
All the members of the Organization shall<br />
refrain in their international relations from any<br />
intervention in the foreign or domestic affairs<br />
of any other member of the Organization, and<br />
from resorting to threats or use of force, if they<br />
are not in accord with the methods and decisions<br />
of the Organisation. In the prohibition<br />
against intervention there shall be understood<br />
to be included any interference that threatens<br />
the national security of another member of the<br />
Organisation, directly or indirectly threatens its<br />
territorial integrity, or involves the exercise of<br />
any excessively foreign infl uence… 126<br />
4.2. Principle of Non-Intervention and<br />
Human Rights<br />
The interrelation of the principle of nonintervention<br />
and the concept of human rights<br />
deserves special attention in the context of the<br />
present chapter. Generally saying, this interrelation<br />
is considered as one of the indications<br />
of the ambiguity of the text of the UN Charter:<br />
“the ban on intervening in matters which are<br />
essentially within the domestic jurisdiction<br />
of any State (Article 2(7)) while at the same<br />
time requiring Members to take joint action to<br />
achieve universal observance of human rights<br />
and fundamental freedoms for all (Article s55-<br />
6).” 127 For further clarifi cation the essence of<br />
this ambiguity is explained as follows: from<br />
the very outset (from the establishment of the<br />
United Nations till the 1990’s, the end of the<br />
Cold War) “human rights were considered<br />
as an “internal matter of sovereign states.” 128<br />
Therefore, despite the achievement of the<br />
United Nations of turning the issue of human<br />
rights into a subject of care of international law,<br />
the UN Charter itself mentions human rights<br />
only four times (in the Preamble, Art. 1(3),<br />
and in Art. 55 and Art. 56). 129 A little attention<br />
was given to this issue at the San Francisco<br />
Conference as well. 130 It is true that some of<br />
the states considered the violations of human<br />
rights and humanitarian law “as possible<br />
threats to the peace”. 131 However, the majority<br />
of states, including the major powers, did not<br />
consider the important role of human rights in<br />
the activities of the United Nations. 132 They decided<br />
that the issue fell within the competence<br />
of the General Assembly and the Economic<br />
and Social Council rather than within the scope<br />
of the Security Council. 133 Respectively, Article<br />
2(7) provided for the principle of non-intervention<br />
in domestic jurisdiction of states, and “the<br />
protection of human rights was considered as<br />
a matter falling under the category of domestic<br />
jurisdiction of a state”. 134 Aftermath, “the Cold<br />
War in international relations from the 1960s<br />
until the beginning of the 1990s…triggered an<br />
obsession [of states] with non-interference in<br />
domestic affairs.” 135 However, the Permanent<br />
Court of <strong>International</strong> Justice (hereinafter PCIJ)<br />
declared that, “the question whether a certain<br />
matter is or is not solely within the jurisdiction<br />
of a State is an essentially relative question; it<br />
depends upon the development of international<br />
relations”. 136 Accordingly, the strengthening of<br />
international cooperation in the post-Cold War<br />
period, 137 advancing the role of the Security<br />
Council, 138 and the development of a doctrine<br />
of human rights protection 139 has led to the<br />
situation where the “contemporary interpretation<br />
of [Article 2(7)] makes it possible for the<br />
UN organs to use the enforcement measures<br />
against Member States for the acts of violation<br />
of human rights”, 140 “In particular, widespread<br />
and systematic violations of human rights involving<br />
the loss of life (or the threatened loss of<br />
life) on a large scale…[that] can no longer be<br />
regarded as an internal matter [of a state].” 141<br />
The position of the Security Council based on<br />
the practice of the post-Cold War period is also<br />
remarkable. According to that position, the intended,<br />
widespread violations of human rights<br />
and humanitarian law against civilian population<br />
or other protected persons in situations of<br />
armed confl ict are considered as threat to international<br />
peace and security. 142 This means<br />
that the Security Council competence based<br />
on Chapter VII was broadened, despite the<br />
Article 2(7) provision. However, the Security<br />
Council “does not interfere in…any…act of<br />
violation of human rights…within a state”, 143<br />
despite the seriousness and the scale of such<br />
violations. The Chapter VII competence of the<br />
Security Council is bound by “functional limitation”<br />
and it operates only in relation to issues<br />
that represent a threat to international peace<br />
and security. 144 However, the solution is found<br />
here as well. First, a wide interpretation of<br />
51
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
these general terms is possible and second,<br />
the violation of international peace and security<br />
“in most cases has resulted in massive violations<br />
of human rights.” 145<br />
As a result, the situation is as follows: if<br />
it was impossible in the past to have enforcement<br />
measures undertaken by the Security<br />
Council, or any action taken at all, according<br />
to the contemporary interpretation of Article<br />
2(7), the principle of non-intervention is no<br />
longer absolute in relation to this fi eld. 146 And<br />
the protection of human rights has acquired<br />
an international dimension. 147 Respectively,<br />
the UN Charter Chapter VII and the Security<br />
Council’s binding resolutions already cover<br />
the violations in this fi eld. 148 For the Security<br />
Council to implement the measures based on<br />
Chapter VII, it is necessary to qualify the situation<br />
under Article 39 (“to maintain or restore<br />
international peace and security”), i.e., there<br />
must be an international confl ict, as the primary<br />
purpose of the United Nations is to maintain<br />
international peace and security (Article 1(1)<br />
of the UN Charter). Therefore, from the beginning,<br />
the UN system was designed to cover<br />
inter-national, not domestic armed confl icts 149 ,<br />
but the practice has developed otherwise. 150<br />
Therefore, there are often cases in which the<br />
Security Council determines a non-international<br />
confl ict as a threat to “the peace”, to<br />
“international peace”, to “regional peace”, or<br />
to “peace in the region”. 151 Consequently, “extreme<br />
violence within a State can give rise to<br />
Chapter VII enforcement action” 152 and, therefore,<br />
the scope of Article 2(7) is limited.<br />
5. APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-<br />
INTERVENTION IN PRACTICE<br />
In general, the issues regarding the application<br />
of the principle of non-intervention<br />
are broad and comprehensive. Therefore, the<br />
present chapter shall analyse only relatively<br />
acute issues of the intersection of law and politics<br />
within the mentioned fi eld. In particular,<br />
this refers to the possible existence of the right<br />
of humanitarian intervention. Moreover, in the<br />
present chapter there is an attempt to summarise<br />
all the above-mentioned information, but<br />
this time in a practical dimension.<br />
5.1. Humanitarian Intervention<br />
Humanitarian intervention is one of the<br />
most sensitive issues related to the principle<br />
of non-intervention. However, due to the limited<br />
scope of the present article, there will be<br />
no comparative analysis made herein. There<br />
will be presented only a brief position of an author<br />
regarding the issue, based on the views<br />
of the highly respected scientists of international<br />
law.<br />
Humanitarian intervention is a use of force<br />
(and not an enforcement measure) against<br />
another state, 153 which, at the same time,<br />
amounts to a violation of the principle of nonintervention.<br />
No provision recognises a right of humanitarian<br />
intervention, neither at the conventional,<br />
nor at the customary level. 154 Therefore,<br />
attempts to look for an existing legal basis for<br />
this right or arguments to justify it are considered<br />
by the author as groundless and<br />
senseless. 155 At the same time, regarding the<br />
state practice, one must not forget that none<br />
of the interventions up until the current day<br />
may amount to “genuine cases of humanitarian<br />
intervention”. 156 Humanitarism has always<br />
been a good cover and a morally justifi ed argument<br />
at the disposal of strong powers. 157<br />
On the other hand, in practice there are<br />
some “hard cases”, when the moral and political<br />
considerations outweigh the legal assessment,<br />
and the last resort for the regulation of<br />
the situation is considered to be acting outside<br />
the legal framework. 158 This is especially true<br />
when an armed intervention is the only way to<br />
avoid or stop a humanitarian catastrophe, 159 to<br />
respond to bona fi de humanitarian necessity, 160<br />
when the international community may not<br />
limit itself to the role of “an essentially passive<br />
spectator”. 161 However, this should be an exceptional<br />
case, an ad hoc measure taken on<br />
the basis of the assessment of concrete circumstances,<br />
and it shall not become a generally<br />
recognized approach. 162<br />
Hence, one may characterize humanitarian<br />
intervention as a purely political and moral<br />
notion, 163 the practical application of which<br />
shall be regulated by legal criteria. Therefore,<br />
as the last resort and the only instrument, it<br />
52
N. SAGINASHVILI, ARTICLE 2(7) OF THE UN CHARTER - THEORY AND PRACTICES<br />
should be put under legal regulation, to control<br />
any attempt to abuse it, to the maxim degree<br />
possible. Thomas Frank observed correctly:<br />
a state undertaking humanitarian intervention<br />
“has the onus of demonstrating the existence<br />
of a genuine, immediate and dire emergency<br />
which could not be redressed by means less<br />
violative of the law.” At the same time, this necessity<br />
requires the exhaustion of the sanctions<br />
established by the UN Charter. 164<br />
Therefore, it may be concluded that the<br />
intermediary and moderate position would be<br />
to place humanitarian intervention–as a political<br />
notion–within the domain of legal regulation.<br />
It is also worth noting that this approach<br />
unifi es legal, political, practical, and moral attitudes.<br />
This demonstrates that the possibility<br />
of humanitarian intervention, and not a right to<br />
it, may be discussed, even within the context<br />
of the purposes of the UN Charter. As Chinkin<br />
notes: “… use of force in defence of human<br />
rights in extreme cases is not contrary to the<br />
UN Charter, falls within its purposes and is<br />
certainly morally justifi ed.” 165 It is also true that<br />
the structure of the UN Charter gives priority<br />
to state sovereignty, 166 but “international law<br />
does not require that respect for the sovereignty<br />
and integrity of a State must in all cases<br />
be given priority over the protection of human<br />
rights and human life …” 167 . As a result, the<br />
following approach has emerged: severe and<br />
systematic violations of human rights are taken<br />
into an international dimension. They are<br />
considered as a threat to international peace<br />
and security (i.e. there is a case falling under<br />
Article 39), and the use of force becomes<br />
permissible with the consent of the Security<br />
Council. 168 Based on such an interpretation of<br />
Article 2(7), humanitarian intervention is justifi<br />
ed, as a political mechanism of a last resort.<br />
6. CONCLUSION<br />
The present article has considered the<br />
principle of non-intervention enshrined in<br />
Article 2(7) of the UN Charter, on the basis<br />
of the controversial practice and theory. As a<br />
reason of such controversy, one can correctly<br />
indicate the ambiguous and obscure text of<br />
Article 2(7). More precisely, this Article prohibits<br />
the organization from intervening in domestic<br />
matters of a state, but, at the same time, it<br />
allows the Security Council to use Chapter VII<br />
enforcement measures in relation to the matters<br />
that fall under the domestic jurisdiction of<br />
a state, within the general and broad competence<br />
of the SC to protect international peace<br />
and security. Consequently, the ambiguous<br />
and obscure text of Article 2(7) creates the controversy<br />
and a serious threat emerges based<br />
on strong political motivations, as in each concrete<br />
case there shall be easy to adjust Article<br />
2(7) provision to the existing circumstances.<br />
Such a threat was certainly considered by<br />
the drafters of the UN Charter. Nevertheless,<br />
they supported the vague text. The choice<br />
they made fell between two extremes. On one<br />
hand, the clearly defi ned concepts 169 make<br />
adjustment of theoretical provisions to controversial<br />
practice diffi cult, notwithstanding the<br />
necessary requirement of the establishment of<br />
full compliance with the criteria established by<br />
the Charter. Such an approach certainly limits<br />
the scope of the application of these provisions.<br />
On the other hand, the ambiguous and<br />
obscure text allows broad implementation and<br />
interpretation of the provisions. Furthermore,<br />
such an approach leaves more room for the<br />
consideration of interests and political aspirations<br />
of states. The sponsoring states made<br />
their choice in favour of the latter approach,<br />
as for the achievement of the primary goal of<br />
maintaining international peace and security,<br />
the clearly prescribed procedure might not<br />
have been applicable vis-à-vis any given context<br />
and circumstance. 170 While the general<br />
and ambiguous terminology makes it possible<br />
to act with fl exibility, taking into consideration<br />
the respective circumstances of any given<br />
situation. Certainly, more fl exibility means a<br />
higher degree of politicization. However, we<br />
shall not forget that the UN Charter was drafted<br />
by the super powers primarily for the protection<br />
of their own interests and for the sake<br />
of maintaining their leading positions. And the<br />
attempts to justify humanitarian intervention<br />
and the emerging issue of its legitimation acts<br />
as a clear example of such an approach.<br />
Consequently, the only logical conclusion<br />
is that: “Article 2(7) is more a political than a<br />
legal matter” 171 . Therefore, when considering it<br />
from any standpoint, political factors must be<br />
53
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
taken into consideration a priori, and they shall<br />
be balanced with legal values. Furthermore,<br />
no one denies that, “law is a means of implementation<br />
of politics, however at the same<br />
time there is an expectation that politics shall<br />
also be bound by law” 172 .<br />
1<br />
Watson, J.S., “Autointerpretation, Competence, and the Continuing Validity of<br />
Article 2(7) of the UN Charter”, in: The American <strong>Journal</strong> of <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>,<br />
Vol.71, 1977, p. 60.<br />
2<br />
Громыко, А.(ред.), Московская конференция министров иностранных дел<br />
СССР, США и Великобритании (19-30 октября 1943 г.), изд.: Советский Союз<br />
на международных конференциях периода Великой Отечественной войны<br />
1941-1945 гг., т.I, Москва, 1978, p. 7.<br />
3<br />
Ibid., p. 30, p. 347.<br />
4<br />
Ibid., pp. 346-348.<br />
5<br />
Ibid., pp. 51-52; See also: Ibid., p. 55.<br />
6<br />
Ibid., p. 126.<br />
7<br />
Ibid., p. 347.<br />
8<br />
Ibid., p. 198, pp. 277-278.<br />
9<br />
Ibid., p. 276, p. 278.<br />
10<br />
Громыко, А.(ред.), Конференция представителей СССР, США и Великоб ритании<br />
в Думбартон-Оксе (21 августа-28 сентября 1944 г.), изд.: Советский<br />
Союз на международных конференциях периода Великой Отечественной<br />
войны 1941-1945 гг., т.III, Москва, 1978, p. 9.<br />
11<br />
Громыко, А., fn.2 supra, pp. 198-200.<br />
12<br />
Ibid., p. 199.<br />
13<br />
Громыко, А., fn.10 supra.<br />
14<br />
Ibid., pp. 102-106.<br />
15<br />
Ibid., pp. 51-68.<br />
16<br />
Ibid., p. 59.<br />
17<br />
Ibid., p. 60.<br />
18<br />
Ibid., pp. 73-99.<br />
19<br />
Ibid., pp. 84-90.<br />
20<br />
Ibid., p. 85.<br />
21<br />
Ibid., p. 84.<br />
22<br />
Ibid., p. 85.<br />
23<br />
Simma, B., “NATO, the UN and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects”, in: European<br />
<strong>Journal</strong> of <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>, Vol.10, 1999, p. 22, available at: http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/10/1/1.<br />
(It is true, that Bruno Simma’s assessment is made in<br />
relation to humanitarian intervention, but it corresponds to the defi nition of aggression<br />
as well.).<br />
24<br />
Громыко, А., fn. 10 supra, pp. 245-251.<br />
25<br />
Ibid., p. 249.<br />
26<br />
Ibid., pp. 228-242.<br />
27<br />
Ibid., pp. 229-230.<br />
28<br />
Ibid., pp. 235-236.<br />
29<br />
Ibid., p. 236.<br />
30<br />
Ibid.<br />
31<br />
Ibid.<br />
32<br />
Ibid.; UNCIO, Documents, Vol.3, p. 13, §7, cited from: Gilmour, D.R., “The Meaning<br />
of “Intervene” within Article 2 (7) of the United Nations Charter. A Historical Perspective”,<br />
in The <strong>International</strong> and Comparative <strong>Law</strong> Quarterly, Vol.16, No.2, 1967,<br />
p. 335, fn. 8.<br />
33<br />
Громыко, А.(ред.), Конференция Объединенных Наций в Сан-Франциско (25<br />
апреля-26 июня 1945 г.), изд.: Советский Союз на международных конферен-<br />
54
N. SAGINASHVILI, ARTICLE 2(7) OF THE UN CHARTER - THEORY AND PRACTICES<br />
циях периода Великой Отечественной войны 1941-1945 гг., т.V, Москва, 1980,<br />
p. 131.<br />
34<br />
See: fn. 26 supra, and the corresponding text.<br />
35<br />
Громыко, А., fn. 10 supra, p. 229, pp. 235-236.<br />
36<br />
Громыко, А., fn. 33 supra, pp. 4<strong>09</strong>-413; Gilmour, D.R., fn. 32 supra, p. 335.<br />
37<br />
See: Громыко, А., fn. 10 supra, p. 237.<br />
38<br />
Article 15(8) of the Covenant of the League of Nations: “If the dispute between<br />
the parties is claimed by one of them, and is found by the Council, to arise out of<br />
a matter which by international law is solely within the domestic jurisdiction of that<br />
party, the Council shall so report, and shall make no recommendation as to its<br />
settlement.” In: Watson, J.S., fn. 1 supra, p. 61.<br />
39<br />
Summary Report of the 17 th Meeting of Committee I/1, Doc. 1019, I/1/42, UNCIO,<br />
Vol.6, pp. 507-508, cited from: Gilmour, D.R., fn. 32 supra, pp. 335-336, fn. 11.<br />
40<br />
The Charter of the United Nations: Report to the President of the Results of the<br />
San Francisco Conference by the Chairman of the United States Delegation,<br />
the Secretary of State, June 26, 1945 (Department of State Publication 2349,<br />
Conference Series 71. 1945), p. 57, cited from: Gilmour, D.R., fn. 32 supra, p.<br />
336, fn. 12.<br />
41<br />
Громыко, А., fn. 33 supra, p. 587.<br />
42<br />
Ibid., p. 20.<br />
43<br />
Gilmour, D.R., fn. 32 supra, pp. 346-348.<br />
44<br />
Ibid., p. 348.<br />
45<br />
Simma, B.(ed.), (2002) The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, Oxford,<br />
2002, p. 705, §11.<br />
46<br />
Watson, J.S., fn. 1 supra, p. 79 - the mentioned issues are considered within the<br />
context of the Spanish question of 1946.<br />
47<br />
Brownlie, I. & Apperley, C.J., “Kosovo Crises Inquiry: Memorandum on the<br />
<strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> Aspects”, in: The <strong>International</strong> and Comparative <strong>Law</strong> Quarterly,<br />
Vol.49, 2000, p. 884, §30.<br />
48<br />
Simma, B., fn. 45 supra, p. 705, §11, p. 727, §28; Bailey, S.D. & Daws, S., “The<br />
Procedure of the UN Security Council”, Oxford, 1998, Chapter 5; Schachter, O.,<br />
“United Nations <strong>Law</strong>”, in: The American <strong>Journal</strong> of <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>, Vol.88,<br />
1994, p. 1, fn. 2; Greenwood, C., “Is there a Right of Humanitarian Intervention”,<br />
in: World Today, 1993, p. 3; Talmon, S., “The Statements by the President of<br />
the Security Council”, in: Chinese <strong>Journal</strong> of <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>, 2003, pp. 450-<br />
451; Watson, J.S., fn. 1 supra, p. 66; The European Community First Instance<br />
Court: Yassin Abdullah Kadi v. Council of the European Union and Commission<br />
of the European Communities, supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and<br />
Northern Ireland (T-315/01), 21 September, 2005, §153, §156, §189, available at:<br />
http://jcb.blogs.com/jcb_blog/fi les/court_of_fi rst_instance_judgment.pdf.<br />
49<br />
UN Charter, Article 25, accessible at: http://georgia.unic.org/images/documents/<br />
charter.pdf.<br />
50<br />
Ibid., Article 2(3).<br />
51<br />
Ibid., Article 2(4).<br />
52<br />
McGoldrick, D., Rowe, P. and Donnelly, E., The Permanent <strong>International</strong> Criminal<br />
Court: Legal and Policy Issues, Oxford, 2004, pp. 139-140.<br />
53<br />
Christopher Greenwood’s Lectures, (2005) Public <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>, Use of<br />
Force, compare: Greenwood, C., “<strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> and the NATO Intervention<br />
in Kosovo”, in: The <strong>International</strong> and Comparative <strong>Law</strong> Quarterly, Vol.49, 2000,<br />
p. 927; Charney, J.I., “Anticipatory Humanitarian Intervention in Kosovo”, in: The<br />
American <strong>Journal</strong> of <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>, Vol.93, 1999, p. 835.<br />
54<br />
Lowe, V., “<strong>International</strong> Legal Issues in the Kosovo Crisis”, in: The <strong>International</strong><br />
and Comparative <strong>Law</strong> Quarterly, Vol.49, 2000, p. 935.<br />
55<br />
Chinkin, C., “The Legality of NATO’s Action in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia<br />
(FRY) Under <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>”, in: The <strong>International</strong> and Comparative <strong>Law</strong><br />
Quarterly.Vol.49, 2000, p. 910.<br />
55
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
56<br />
Gilmour, D.R., fn. 32 supra, p. 332.<br />
57<br />
Ibid., p. 331.<br />
58<br />
Ibid., p. 333.<br />
59<br />
Ibid.<br />
60<br />
Summary report of the 10 th meeting of the Executive Committee, Doc. 1108,<br />
EX/28, UNCIO, Vol.5, p. 535, see: Gilmour, D.R., fn. 32 supra, p. 343, fn. 37.<br />
61<br />
Gilmour, D.R., fn. 32 supra, p. 333.<br />
62<br />
Ibid., p. 350.<br />
63<br />
Ibid., p. 349.<br />
64<br />
Rajan, (1961) United Nations and Domestic Jurisdiction, p.71, see: Gilmour, D.R.,<br />
fn. 32 supra, p. 350, fn. 52.<br />
65<br />
Gilmour, D.R., fn. 32 supra, p. 331.<br />
66<br />
Ibid.; Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v.<br />
United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, [Hereinafter -<br />
Nicaragua Case], §205.<br />
67<br />
Available at: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/218/94/<br />
IMG/NR021894.pdfOpenElement.<br />
68<br />
Offi cial Records of the General Assembly, Twentieth Session, First Committee,<br />
A/C.1/SR.1423, p. 436, cited from: Nicaragua Case, §203.<br />
69<br />
Available at: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/348/90/<br />
IMG/NR034890.pdfOpenElement.<br />
70<br />
Nicaragua Case, §203; Kritsiotis, D., “Reappraising Policy Objections to Humani<br />
tarian Intervention”, in: Michigan <strong>Journal</strong> of <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>, Vol.19, 1998,<br />
p. 1010.<br />
71<br />
For Georgian translation of the above-mentioned episode of General Assembly<br />
resolution 2625 (XXV), see: Alexidze, L.(ed.), Contemporary <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>,<br />
Dictionary-Manual, Tbilisi, 2003, pp. 388-389.<br />
72<br />
Nicaragua Case, §203; See also: Kritsiotis, D., fn. 70 supra, p. 1012.<br />
73<br />
Nicaragua Case, §264; See also: Schachter, O., fn. 48 supra, p. 18.<br />
74<br />
Available at: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/739/16/<br />
IMG/NR073916.pdfOpenElement.<br />
75<br />
Kittichaisaree, K., <strong>International</strong> Criminal <strong>Law</strong>, Oxford, 2001, p. 214.<br />
76<br />
The issue of humanitarian intervention is considered in Chapter 5 of this article.<br />
See below.<br />
77<br />
Kritsiotis, D., fn. 70 supra, pp. 10<strong>09</strong>-1010.<br />
78<br />
Ibid., p. 1008, fn. 5.<br />
79<br />
Nicaragua Case, §204.<br />
80<br />
Gilmour, D.R., fn. 32 supra, p. 331.<br />
81<br />
Watson, J.S., fn. 1 supra, p. 62.<br />
82<br />
fn. missing. See: Watson, J.S., fn. 1 supra, p. 68, fn. 25.<br />
83<br />
Watson, J.S., fn. 1 supra, p. 61.<br />
84<br />
See: fn. 38 supra.<br />
85<br />
Schachter, O., fn. 48 supra, p. 22.<br />
86<br />
Gilmour, D.R., fn. 32 supra, p. 347.<br />
87<br />
However, it should be taken into account as to which state makes the interpretation.<br />
88<br />
Watson, J.S., fn. 1 supra, p. 64.<br />
89<br />
Ross, A. (1950) “The Proviso concerning “Domestic Jurisdiction” in Article 2(7) of<br />
the Charter of the United Nations”, in Osterr. Offen. Recht 2, p. 562, p. 570, see:<br />
Watson, J.S., fn. 1 supra, p. 64, fn. 12.<br />
90<br />
Kelzen, H. (1951) The <strong>Law</strong> of the United Nations, pp. 783-784, see: Watson, J.S.,<br />
fn. 1 supra, p. 65, fn. 20.<br />
91<br />
UNCIO, Documents, p. 5<strong>09</strong>, see: Watson, J.S., fn. 1 supra, p. 62, fn. 5.<br />
92<br />
Watson, J.S., fn. 1 supra, p. 62.<br />
93<br />
Schachter, O., fn. 48 supra, p. 14.<br />
56
N. SAGINASHVILI, ARTICLE 2(7) OF THE UN CHARTER - THEORY AND PRACTICES<br />
94<br />
UNCIO, Documents, p. 392, see: Watson, J.S., fn. 1 supra, p. 62, fn. 6.<br />
95<br />
UN Charter, Article 10.<br />
96<br />
Bailey, S.D. & Daws, S., “The Procedure of the UN Security Council”, Oxford,<br />
1998, Chapter 1; Watson, J.S., fn. 1 supra, p. 66.<br />
97<br />
Gilmour, D.R., fn. 32 supra, p. 339; See also: Watson, J.S., fn. 1 supra, pp. 65-66.<br />
98<br />
Gilmour, D.R., fn. 32 supra, p. 341.<br />
99<br />
Ibid., p. 337.<br />
100<br />
Ibid.<br />
101<br />
Report of Rapporteur of Committee II/3, Doc. 861, II/3/55 (1), UNCIO, Vol.10, p.<br />
271, see: Gilmour, D.R., fn. 32 supra, p. 344, fn. 40.<br />
102<br />
Bailey, S.D. & Daws, S., “The Procedure of the UN Security Council”, Oxford,<br />
1998, Chapter 1.<br />
103<br />
Watson, J.S., fn. 1 supra, p. 65; See also: Schachter, O., fn. 48 supra, pp. 7-8.<br />
104<br />
fn. 48 supra.<br />
105<br />
Watson, J.S., fn. 1 supra, p. 66.<br />
106<br />
Ibid., p. 64.<br />
107<br />
Ibid., p. 66.<br />
108<br />
Ibid., p. 68.<br />
1<strong>09</strong><br />
Cassese, A. (1986) <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> in A Divided World, p. 144, see: Kritsiotis,<br />
D., fn. 70 supra, p. 10<strong>09</strong>, fn. 8.<br />
110<br />
Levan Alexidze considers these two principles together. See: Lectures by Levan<br />
Alexidze, (2008) The Role of <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> in Settlement of Non-<strong>International</strong><br />
Confl icts.<br />
111<br />
Territorial integrity, political independence, state sovereignty and non-intervention<br />
in domestic jurisdiction - all these concepts are considered together in the<br />
Nicaragua Case, in interrelation and in one context. Moreover, ICJ has regarded<br />
the principle of non-intervention as “a corollary of the principle of sovereign equality<br />
of States.” See: Nicaragua Case, §202.<br />
112<br />
Gowlland-Debbas, V. (2002) “The Relationship between Political and <strong>International</strong><br />
Organizations: The Role of the Security Council in the New <strong>International</strong> Criminal<br />
Court”, in Boisson de Chazournes, L., Romano, C.P., Machenzie, R.(eds.), <strong>International</strong><br />
Organizations and <strong>International</strong> Dispute Settlement: Trends and Prospects,<br />
p. 195, see: p. 196, cited from: McGoldrick, D., fn. 52 supra, p. 120, fn. 89.<br />
113<br />
See: Watson, J.S., fn. 1 supra, p. 68; Blokker, N.M. & Kleiboer, M., “The <strong>International</strong>ization<br />
of Domestic Confl ict: The Role of the UN Security Council”, in:<br />
Leiden <strong>Journal</strong> of <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>, Vol.9, 1996, p. 11; Alexidze, L., fn. 71 supra,<br />
p. 272; Higgins, R. (1991) Recueil des Cours, Vol.230, pp. 313-316, cited<br />
from: Brownlie, I. & Apperley, C.J., fn. 47 supra, p. 893 §68; <strong>International</strong> Criminal<br />
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: Prosecutor v. Dusco Tadic, 2 October, 1995,<br />
§11, cited from: McGoldrick, D., fn. 52 supra, p. 115, fn. 75.<br />
114<br />
See: Aust, A., The Security Council and <strong>International</strong> Criminal <strong>Law</strong> (draft), 2000,<br />
p. 12.<br />
115<br />
See: Levi, W. (1995) Revue De Droit Intt’l, p. 126, cited from: McGoldrick, D.,<br />
fn. 52 supra, p. 51, fn. 20; Watson, J.S., fn. 1 supra, p. 61; Schachter, O., fn. 48<br />
supra, pp. 17-18.<br />
116<br />
Kritsiotis, D., fn. 70 supra, p. 10<strong>09</strong>.<br />
117<br />
Corfu Channel case, Judgment of April 9 th , 1949: I.C.J. Reports, 1949, p. 35.<br />
118<br />
Nicaragua Case, §202.<br />
119<br />
Cassese, A. (1986) <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> in A Divided World, p. 144, cited from:<br />
Kritsiotis, D., fn. 70 supra, p. 10<strong>09</strong>, fn. 8.<br />
120<br />
Watson, J.S., fn. 1 supra, p. 83.<br />
121<br />
Nicaragua Case, §263.<br />
122<br />
In this regard, the judgment of the ICJ on the Nicaragua Case is worth mentioning.<br />
According to the judgment: supply of arms or other support to armed bands<br />
into the territory of another state does not constitute an armed attack, such ac-<br />
57
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
tions are of lesser gravity. Nevertheless, they may still amount to the violation<br />
of two principles - non-use of force and non-intervention. See: Nicaragua Case,<br />
§205, §247.<br />
123<br />
In this regard, the judgment of the ICJ on the Nicaragua Case is worth mentioning.<br />
According to the judgment: supply of funds to the contras does not amount to<br />
a use of force, however such activities do violate the principle of non-intervention.<br />
See: Nicaragua Case, §228.<br />
124<br />
Nicaragua Case, §264.<br />
125<br />
Ibid., §212, §251.<br />
126<br />
Brownlie, I. & Apperley, C.J., fn. 47 supra, pp. 884-885, §33.<br />
127<br />
Bailey, S.D. & Daws, S., “The Procedure of the UN Security Council”, Oxford,<br />
1998, Chapter 1.<br />
128<br />
Nowak, M. (2003) Introduction to the <strong>International</strong> Human Rights Regime, p. 307;<br />
Simma, B.(ed.), (2002) The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, vol. I, p.<br />
160; Weschler J. (2004) “Human Rights” in: Malone, D.M.(ed.), The UN Security<br />
Council: From the Cold War to the 21 st Century, p. 55; De Than, C.& Shorts, E.<br />
(2003) <strong>International</strong> Criminal <strong>Law</strong> and Human Rights, p. 279; Simma, B. (1995)<br />
“On Human Rights” in: Tomuschat, C.(ed.), The United Nations At Age Fifty: A<br />
Legal Perspective, p. 266, cited from: Khutsishvili, K., “New Uses of Chapter VII<br />
of the United Nations Charter: Did the Security Council Properly React to the<br />
Human Rights Violations in the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda” In: The Theory<br />
and Practice of the Contemporary <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>. The Compilation of Articles<br />
devoted to Academician Levan Alexidze’s 80 Birthday Anniversary, Tbilisi, 2007,<br />
p. 330, fn. 4.<br />
129<br />
Konstantine Korkelia’s Lectures, (2007) <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> of Human Rights.<br />
130<br />
Schachter, O., fn. 48 supra, p. 17.<br />
131<br />
Simma, B., fn. 45 supra, p. 724, §19.<br />
132<br />
Schachter, O., fn. 48 supra, p. 17.<br />
133<br />
Simma, B., fn. 45 supra, p. 724, §19.<br />
134<br />
Khutsishvili, K., fn. 128 supra, p. 332; See also: Schachter, O., fn. 48 supra, p. 17.<br />
135<br />
Cassese, A., “On Current Trends towards Criminal Prosecution and Punishment of<br />
Breaches of <strong>International</strong> Humanitarian <strong>Law</strong>”, in: European <strong>Journal</strong> of <strong>International</strong><br />
<strong>Law</strong>, Vol.9 No.1, 1998, available at: http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/9/1/2.<br />
136<br />
Permanent Court of <strong>International</strong> Justice, Advisory Opinion on Nationality Decrees<br />
Issued in Tunis and Morocco (French Zone) on November 8 th , 1921, cited from:<br />
Khutsishvili, K., fn. 128 supra, p. 330, fn. 5.<br />
137<br />
Cassese, A., “On Current Trends towards Criminal Prosecution and Punishment of<br />
Breaches of <strong>International</strong> Humanitarian <strong>Law</strong>”, in: European <strong>Journal</strong> of <strong>International</strong><br />
<strong>Law</strong>, Vol.9 No.1, 1998.<br />
138<br />
Casesse, A., <strong>International</strong> Criminal <strong>Law</strong>, Oxford, 2003, p. 335.<br />
139<br />
Ibid.<br />
140<br />
Malanczuk, P., (2005) Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>, Tbilisi,<br />
2005, Seventh Revised Edition, p. 239.<br />
141<br />
Greenwood, C., “<strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> and the NATO Intervention in Kosovo”, in: The<br />
<strong>International</strong> and Comparative <strong>Law</strong> Quarterly, Vol.49, 2000, p. 927.<br />
142<br />
Simma, B., fn. 45 supra, pp. 724-725, §20; See also: Greenwood, C., “Interna tional<br />
<strong>Law</strong> and the NATO Intervention in Kosovo”, in: The <strong>International</strong> and Comparative<br />
<strong>Law</strong> Quarterly, Vol.49, 2000, p. 930; Lowe, V., fn. 54 supra, p. 936.<br />
143<br />
Khutsishvili, K., fn. 128 supra, p. 347.<br />
144<br />
Simma, B., fn. 45 supra, p. 725, §21.<br />
145<br />
Khutsishvili, K., fn. 128 supra, p. 333.<br />
146<br />
Chinkin, C., fn. 55 supra, p. 918.<br />
147<br />
Blokker, N.M. & Kleiboer, M., fn. 113 supra, p. 15; Greenwood, C., “<strong>International</strong><br />
<strong>Law</strong> and the NATO Intervention in Kosovo”, in The <strong>International</strong> and Comparative<br />
<strong>Law</strong> Quarterly, Vol.49, 2000, p. 927; See also: Greenwood, C., “Is there a Right of<br />
Humanitarian Intervention”, in World Today, 1993, p. 5.<br />
58
N. SAGINASHVILI, ARTICLE 2(7) OF THE UN CHARTER - THEORY AND PRACTICES<br />
148<br />
Chinkin, C., fn. 55 supra, p. 918.<br />
149<br />
,,…[T]he SC’s function under Chapter VII is limited to military confl icts.” See:<br />
Simma, B., fn. 45 supra, p. 720, §6.<br />
150<br />
Simma, B., fn. 45 supra, p. 724, §18.<br />
151<br />
Ibid., p. 721, §8.<br />
152<br />
Ibid., p. 723, §18.<br />
153<br />
Greenwood, C., “Is there a Right of Humanitarian Intervention”, in World Today,<br />
1993, p. 1.<br />
154<br />
Brownlie, I. & Apperley, C.J., fn. 47 supra, p. 904, §123(e).<br />
155<br />
This problematic issue clearly emerged before the ICJ when Yugoslavia initiated<br />
judicial proceedings before it, and during the debates at the Security Council<br />
emergency session of 1999, when the NATO Members States, having exercised<br />
humanitarian intervention in Kosovo, made references to a humanitarian catastrophe<br />
and moral obligations rather than to legal provisions. See: Brownlie, I. &<br />
Apperley, C.J., “Kosovo Crises Inquiry: Further Memorandum on the <strong>International</strong><br />
<strong>Law</strong> Aspects”, in: The <strong>International</strong> and Comparative <strong>Law</strong> Quarterly, Vol.49, 2000,<br />
p. 908, §16-17.<br />
156<br />
British Foreign Offi ce (Foreign Policy Document No.148): British Yearbook of Int.<br />
<strong>Law</strong>, Vol.57 (1986), p. 614, see: p. 619, cited from: Brownlie, I. & Apperley, C.J.,<br />
fn. 47 supra, p. 888, §52.<br />
157<br />
Ibid., p. 905, §125.<br />
158<br />
Simma, B., fn. 23 supra, p. 22.<br />
159<br />
See: Evidence, Vol.II, p. 1, cited from: Boyle, A., “Kosovo: House of Commons<br />
Foreign Affairs Committee 4 th Report, June 2000”, in: The <strong>International</strong> and<br />
Comparative <strong>Law</strong> Quarterly, Vol.49, 2000, p. 876; Aust, A. (1992-1993)<br />
Parliamentary Papers, HC, Paper 235-iii, p. 92, §142, cited from: Brownlie, I. &<br />
Apperley, C.J., fn. 47 supra, p. 883, §24; Brownlie, I. & Apperley, C.J., “Kosovo<br />
Crises Inquiry: Further Memorandum on the <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> Aspects”, in: The<br />
<strong>International</strong> and Comparative <strong>Law</strong> Quarterly, Vol.49, 2000, p. 9<strong>09</strong>, §25; Chinkin,<br />
C., fn. 55 supra, p. 924, §3; Greenwood, C., “<strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> and the NATO<br />
Intervention in Kosovo”, in: The <strong>International</strong> and Comparative <strong>Law</strong> Quarterly,<br />
Vol.49, 2000, p. 926, pp. 930-931, p. 933; Greenwood, C., “Is there a Right of<br />
Humanitarian Intervention”, in: World Today, 1993, p. 13.<br />
160<br />
Higgins, R. (1991) Recueil des Cours, Vol.230, p. 313-316, cited from: Brownlie,<br />
I. & Apperley, C.J., fn. 47 supra, p. 893, §68.<br />
161<br />
Greenwood, C., “Is there a Right of Humanitarian Intervention”, in: World Today,<br />
1993, p. 1; See also: Lowe, V., fn. 54 supra, p. 940.<br />
162<br />
Simma, B., fn. 23 supra, p. 22.<br />
163<br />
Ibid.; Lowe, V., fn. 54 supra, p. 938.<br />
164<br />
Franck, T. (1993) Recueil des Cours, Vol.240, pp. 256-257, cited from: Brownlie,<br />
I. & Apperley, C.J., fn. 47 supra, p. 891, §67.<br />
165<br />
Chinkin, C., fn. 55 supra, p. 918.<br />
166<br />
Ibid.<br />
167<br />
Greenwood, C., “<strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> and the NATO Intervention in Kosovo”, in: The<br />
<strong>International</strong> and Comparative <strong>Law</strong> Quarterly, Vol.49, 2000, p. 929.<br />
168<br />
See above.<br />
169<br />
Громыко, А., fn. 10 supra, p. 89.<br />
170<br />
Ibid., p. 80.<br />
171<br />
Watson, J.S, fn. 1 supra, p. 66.<br />
172<br />
Yasuaki, O., “<strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> in and with <strong>International</strong> Politics: The Functions<br />
of <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> in <strong>International</strong> Society”, in European <strong>Journal</strong> of <strong>International</strong><br />
<strong>Law</strong>, Vol.14, No.1, 2003, p. 108, available at: http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/<br />
reprint/14/1/105.<br />
59
irine barTaia<br />
adamianis uflebaTa dacvis saerTaSoriso dokumentebis<br />
eqstrateritoriuli gamoyeneba – saerTaSoriso<br />
meqanizmebis praqtikis analizi<br />
Sesavali<br />
adamianis uflebaTa dacvis saerTa-<br />
Soriso dokumentebis moqmedeba ar aris<br />
SezRuduli mxolod maTi xelSemkvreli<br />
mxareebis teritoriebiT. saerTaSoriso<br />
meqanizmebis mier sakmaod progresulad<br />
da ganvrcobiT ganimarta adamianis<br />
uflebaTa dacvis aqtebis eqstrateritoriuli<br />
gamoyenebis farglebi.<br />
aRniSnulis dasturia mTeli rigi gadawyvetilebebisa,<br />
komentarebisa Tu mosazrebebisa,<br />
romlebic mimoxilulia winamdebare<br />
naSromSi. Sesabamisad, dResdReobiT,<br />
umetes SemTxvevaSi, SeuZlebelia,<br />
saxelmwifom aicilos pasuxismgebloba<br />
mis mier eqstrateritoriuli qmedebebis<br />
konteqstSi ganxorcielebuli adamianis<br />
uflebaTa darRvevebisaTvis.<br />
statiaSi mimoxiluli iqneba saerTa-<br />
Soriso da regionaluri meqanizmebis gadawyvetilebebi<br />
am mimarTulebiT. ker-<br />
Zod, naSromis pirvel nawilSi mocemulia<br />
adamianis uflebaTa saerTaSoriso<br />
aqtebis eqstrateritoriul gamoyenebasTan<br />
dakavSirebiT adamianis uflebaTa<br />
komitetisa da marTlmsajulebis<br />
s aerTaSoriso sasamarTlos praqtikis<br />
analizi.<br />
meore Tavi eTmoba saerTaSoriso regionalur<br />
sistemebs. mis pirvel nawilSi<br />
mimoxilulia adamianis uflebaTa evropuli<br />
konvenciis teritoriuli gamoyenebis<br />
farglebi da am kuTxiT arsebuli<br />
adamianis uflebaTa komitetisa da adamianis<br />
uflebaTa evropuli sasamarTlos<br />
ZiriTadi precedentebi; amave Tavis meore<br />
nawili exeba adamianis uflebaTa panamerikuli<br />
komisiis praqtikas adamianis<br />
uflebebisa da valdebulebebis Sesaxeb<br />
amerikis deklaraciis eqstrateritoriul<br />
moqmedebasTan dakavSirebiT.<br />
naSromis bolo nawilSi warmodgenilia<br />
masSi ganxiluli praqtikis analizis<br />
Sedegad Camoyalibebuli daskvnebi.<br />
1. saerTaSoriso meqanizmebi<br />
1.1. adamianis uflebaTa komiteti<br />
1966 wels miRebul iqna samoqalaqo<br />
da politikuri uflebebis Sesaxeb saer-<br />
TaSoriso paqti (SemdgomSi – `samoqalaqo<br />
da politikuri paqti~), romelic<br />
ZalaSi Sevida 1976 wels. 1 paqtis me-2<br />
muxlis Tanaxmad, xelSemkvreli mxareebi<br />
valdebulebas iReben, daicvan masSi ganmtkicebuli<br />
uflebebi TavianT teritoriaze<br />
da iurisdiqciis sferoSi myofi<br />
yvela piris mimarT:<br />
`am paqtis monawile TiToeuli saxel<br />
mwifo kisrulobs valdebulebas, pativi<br />
sces da misi teritoriis farglebsa<br />
da mis iurisdiqciaSi myofi yvela pirisaTvis<br />
uzrunvelyos am paqtiT aRiarebuli<br />
uflebebi [...].~ 2<br />
am muxlis sityvasityviT wakiTxvas<br />
mivyavarT im daskvnamde, rom saxelmwifos<br />
ekisreba valdebuleba, daicvas adamianis<br />
uflebebi mxolod im SemTxvevaSi,<br />
roca piri mis teritoriazea da amavdroulad<br />
misi iurisdiqciis qveS imyofeba.<br />
3 Tu gadavxedavT samoqalaqo da<br />
politikuri paqtis SemuSavebis dros<br />
qveynebis mier dafiqsirebul poziciebs,<br />
naTeli gaxdeba, rom aRniSnuli muxlis<br />
60
i. barTaia, adamianis uflebaTa dacvis saerTaSoriso dokumentebis eqstrateritoriuli gamoyeneba...<br />
amgvari formulireba ganpirobebuli<br />
iyo im mizniT, rom xelSemkvrel mxareebs<br />
aecilebinaT okupirebul teritoriebze<br />
adamianis uflebaTa dacvis valdebuleba.<br />
4 Tumca SemdgomSi adamianis<br />
uflebaTa komitetma, romelic daarsda,<br />
amave dokumentis 28-e muxlis Tanaxmad,<br />
masSi ganmtkicebuli uflebebis dacvis<br />
uzrunvelyofis mizniT, es formulireba<br />
ufro farTod ganmarta. adamianis<br />
uflebaTa komitetma araerTxel daadastura,<br />
rom saxelmwifoTa pasuxismgebloba<br />
ar Semoifargleba mxolod maTi<br />
teritoriebiT da igi vrceldeba maT<br />
farglebs miRma myof pirTa mimarTac,<br />
roca es ukanasknelni maTi iurisdiqciis<br />
qveS eqcevian. kerZod, adamianis uflebaTa<br />
komitetis 31-e zogad komentarSi<br />
mocemulia, rom, me-2 muxlis pirveli<br />
nawilis Sesabamisad, xelSemkvreli mxareebi<br />
valdebulni arian, pativi scen<br />
da daicvan paqtSi gaTvaliswinebuli<br />
uflebebi yvela im piris mimarT, romlebic<br />
SeiZleba iyvnen maT teritoriaze<br />
da yvela im piris mimarT, romlebic<br />
maTi iurisdiqciis qveS imyofebian. adamianis<br />
uflebaTa komitetis komentaris<br />
Tanaxmad, es gulisxmobs xelSemkvreli<br />
mxaris valdebulebas, daicvas samoqalaqo<br />
da politikur paqtSi mocemuli<br />
uflebebi nebismieri piris mimarT,<br />
romelic misi Zalauflebis an efeqtiani<br />
kontrolis qveS eqceva, Tundac es adamiani<br />
fizikurad ar imyofebodes mis<br />
teritoriaze. komentarSi aseve miTiTebulia,<br />
rom samoqalaqo da politikur<br />
paqtSi gaTvaliswinebuli uflebebiT<br />
sargebloba ar aris SezRuduli mxolod<br />
xelSemkvrel mxareTa moqalaqeebis mimarT,<br />
aramed es uflebebi vrceldeba<br />
yvela pirze, iqneba es mesame qveynis moqalaqe<br />
Tu moqalaqeobis armqone piri,<br />
romlebic aRmoCndebian xelSemkvreli<br />
mxaris teritoriaze an misi iurisdiqciis<br />
qveS. Sesabamisad, es principi aseve gamoiyeneba<br />
im pirTa mimarT, romlebic imyofebian<br />
xelSemkvreli mxaris teritoriis<br />
farglebs miRma am qveynis Zalebis<br />
Zalauflebis an efeqtiani kontrolis<br />
qveS, miuxedavad imisa, Tu ra pirobebSi<br />
iqna es kontroli mopovebuli. aseTi<br />
SemTxvevebi SeiZleba iyos, magaliTad,<br />
xelSemkvreli mxaris erovnuli kontingentis<br />
Semadgeneli Zalebi, romlebic<br />
monawileoben saerTaSoriso samSvidobo<br />
operaciebSi, – aRniSnulia zogad komentarSi.<br />
5<br />
rogorc zemoT moyvanili komentari<br />
cxadyofs, samoqalaqo da politikuri<br />
paqtis monawile saxelmwifoebs ekisrebaT<br />
valdebuleba, daicvan ara mxolod<br />
TavianT teritoriaze myofi nebismieri<br />
adamianis uflebebi, aramed im pirTa<br />
uflebebic, romlebic, marTalia, maTi<br />
teritoriis sazRvrebs miRma imyofebian,<br />
Tumca eqcevian am qveynis Zalauflebis<br />
an efeqtiani kontrolis qveS.<br />
aRniSnuli midgoma araerTxel dadasturda<br />
adamianis uflebaTa komitetis<br />
gadawyvetilebebSi. am mxriv, interess<br />
moklebuli ar iqneba zogierTi maTganis<br />
mimoxilva.<br />
saqme lopes burgosi urugvais winaaRmdeg<br />
exeboda urugvais samsaxurebis<br />
ukanono qmedebebs rogorc argentinaSi,<br />
ise urugvaiSi. 6 kerZod, lopes burgosi<br />
ukanonod iqna dakavebuli urugvais<br />
uSiSroebisa da dazvervis samsaxurebis<br />
mier buenos-airesSi da Semdgom gadayvanil<br />
iqna urugvaiSi. dakavebulis mimarT<br />
ganxorcielda paqtiT gaTvaliswinebuli<br />
uflebebis darRveva orive qveyanaSi. 7<br />
adamianis uflebaTa komitetma ganixila<br />
es saqme da aRniSna, rom mas ufleba<br />
hqonda, ganexila ganacxadi urugvais winaaRmdeg<br />
argentinis teritoriaze ganxorcielebuli<br />
darRvevebis konteqstSi. 8<br />
adamianis uflebaTa komitetis Tanaxmad,<br />
samoqalaqo da politikuri paqti da misi<br />
damatebiTi oqmi ise ar unda iqnes gagebuli,<br />
rom igi ar akisrebs saxelmwifos<br />
pasuxismgeblobas im qmedebebis mimarT,<br />
romlebic misi teritoriis farglebs<br />
gareT moxdeba. 9 mTavari, rasac adamianis<br />
uflebaTa komiteti aniWebs mniSvnelobas,<br />
aris ara darRvevis adgili,<br />
aramed kavSiri pirsa da saxelmwifos<br />
Soris. 10 dauSvebeli iqneboda paqtis me-2<br />
muxlidan gamomdinare pasuxismgeblobis<br />
imgvarad ganmarteba, romelic uflebas<br />
miscemda xelSemkvrel mxares, Caedina<br />
paqtiT akrZaluli qmedebebi sxva qveya-<br />
61
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
naSi, romlis Cadenac mas ar SeuZlia sakuTar<br />
teritoriaze, – aRniSna adamianis<br />
uflebaTa komitetma. 11 aRniSnulis<br />
gaTvaliswinebiT, dadginda urugvais<br />
mxridan samoqalaqo da politikuri paqtis<br />
darRvevebi lopes burgosis mimarT,<br />
rogorc argentinaSi, ise urugvaiSi ganxorcielebuli<br />
wamebisa da araadamianuri<br />
mopyrobis gamo. adamianis uflebaTa<br />
komitetma, samoqalaqo da politikuri<br />
paqtis sxva darRvevebTan erTad, aseve<br />
daadgina urugvais pasuxismgebloba<br />
lopes burgosis argentinaSi motacebisa<br />
da misi urugvaiSi gadayvanisaTvis. ker-<br />
Zod, man miuTiTa, rom es iyo TviTneburi<br />
dapatimreba da dakaveba. 12<br />
analogiurad, saqmeze – seliberti<br />
urugvais winaaRmdeg – adamianis uflebaTa<br />
komitetma daadgina urugvais pasuxismgebloba<br />
misi warmomadgenlebis<br />
mier braziliis teritoriaze ganmcxadeblis<br />
dakavebis gamo. 13<br />
adamianis uflebaTa komitetma<br />
araerTxel aRniSna, rom xelSemkvrel<br />
qveyanas ekisreba valdebuleba, daicvas<br />
adamianis uflebebi im teritoriebze,<br />
sadac igi axorcielebs efeqtian kontrols.<br />
14 am mxriv aRsaniSnavia daskvni-<br />
Ti mosazrebebi israelTan mimarTebiT.<br />
kerZod, adamianis uflebaTa komitetma<br />
SeSfoTeba gamoTqva israelis uaryofiT<br />
poziciasTan dakavSirebiT, rom samoqalaqo<br />
da politikuri paqti srulad<br />
gamoyenebuliyo mis mier okupirebul<br />
teritoriebTan mimarTebiT da aRniSna,<br />
rom am dokumentis moqmedeba unda gavrcelebuliyo<br />
ara marto okupirebul,<br />
aramed im teritoriebis mimarTac, sadac<br />
israeli axorcielebda efeqtian kontrols.<br />
15 aRniSnulis gaTvaliswinebiT,<br />
israels eTxova, am teritoriebze samoqalaqo<br />
da politikuri paqtiT gaTvaliswinebuli<br />
uflebebis dacvis mizniT<br />
ganxorcielebuli RonisZiebebis Sesaxeb<br />
informacia warmoedgina. 16<br />
zemoaRniSnulis msgavsad, adamianis<br />
uflebaTa komitetma sTxova amerikis<br />
SeerTebuli Statebis mTavrobas, ganexorcielebina<br />
efeqtiani da miukerZoebeli<br />
gamoZieba Tavisi teritoriis farglebs<br />
miRma, maT Soris guantanamos yure-<br />
Si, avRaneTsa da eraySi arsebul dakavebis<br />
adgilebSi sicocxlis xelyofis,<br />
wamebisa da araadamianuri mopyrobis savaraudo<br />
faqtebTan dakavSirebiT. 17<br />
20<strong>09</strong> wlis daskvniT mosazrebaSi adamianis<br />
uflebaTa komitetma SeSfoTeba<br />
gamoxata 2008 wlis agvistoSi ruseTis<br />
mier samxreT oseTSi ganxorcielebuli<br />
samxedro operaciebis Sedegad mSvidobiani<br />
mosaxleobis daRupvisa da maTi<br />
arasaTanado mopyrobis gamo. gamomdinare<br />
iqidan, rom samxreT oseTi imyofeboda<br />
ruseTis de faqto kontrolis qveS,<br />
adamianis uflebaTa komitetis Tanaxmad,<br />
igi pasuxismgebeli iyo iq momxdari<br />
adamianis uflebaTa darRvevebisaTvis,<br />
romlebic Caidines ara marto misma samxedroebma,<br />
aramed misi kontrolis qveS<br />
myofma sxva SeiaraRebulma jgufebma.<br />
Sesabamisad, ruseTis federacias eTxova<br />
damoukidebeli da miukerZoebeli<br />
gamoZiebis warmoeba, aseve darRvevis<br />
msxverplTaTvis Sesabamisi kompensaciebis<br />
gacema. 18<br />
saxelmwifos pasuxismgebloba paqtiT<br />
gaTvaliswinebuli valdebulebebis<br />
darRvevisaTvis SeiZleba dadges ara mxolod<br />
eqstrateritoriuli qmedebisaTvis,<br />
aramed qmedebis eqstrateritoriuli<br />
SedegisaTvis, rac SeiZleba warmoiSvas<br />
piris eqstradiciis, deportaciis<br />
da sxva qveyanaSi gadacemis SemTxvevaSi.<br />
adamianis uflebaTa komitetma daadgina,<br />
rom Tu samoqalaqo da politikuri paqtis<br />
xelSemkvreli qveyana moaxdens piris<br />
eqstradicias meore qveyanaSi, rasac Tan<br />
axlavs riski, rom eqstradirebuli piris<br />
mimarT dairRveva am paqtiT daculi<br />
uflebebi sxva iurisdiqciaSi, SeiZleba<br />
dadges gadamcemi qveynis pasuxismgeblobis<br />
sakiTxi. 19 Sesabamisad, saqmeSi<br />
– Citati kanadis winaaRmdeg – aRiniSna,<br />
rom ganmcxadeblis eqstradicia amerikis<br />
SeerTebul StatebSi, romlis mimarT,<br />
sikvdilis dasjis SemTxvevaSi, gamoyenebuli<br />
iqneboda gaziT gagudvis meTodi,<br />
gamoiwvevda kanadis mier samoqalaqo<br />
da politikuri paqtiT nakisri valdebulebebis<br />
darRvevas. adamianis ufleba-<br />
Ta komitetma daadgina, rom sikvdiliT<br />
dasjis amgvari forma, dakavSirebuli<br />
62
i. barTaia, adamianis uflebaTa dacvis saerTaSoriso dokumentebis eqstrateritoriuli gamoyeneba...<br />
xangrZliv tanjvasTan, SeuTavsebeli<br />
iyo aRniSnuli dokumentis me-7 muxlis<br />
moTxovnebTan, romelic krZalavs wamebasa<br />
da araadamianur mopyrobas. 20<br />
adamianis uflebaTa komitetis zemo<br />
x se nebuli praqtika cxadyofs, rom saxelmwifos<br />
valdebuleba, daicvas sa moqalaqo<br />
da politikuri paqtiT gaTvaliswinebuli<br />
adamianis uflebebi, Semo i-<br />
far gleba ara mxolod misi teritoriiT,<br />
aramed sxvadasxva SemTxvevaSi aseTi<br />
va l debuleba scildeba mis erovnul<br />
saz Rvrebs, roca dadgindeba am qveynis<br />
mier eqstrateritoriuli iurisdiqciis<br />
ganxorcielebis faqti.<br />
1.2. marTlmsajulebis saerTaSoriso<br />
sasamarTlo<br />
adamianis uflebaTa dacvis saerTa-<br />
Soriso konvenciebis eqstrateritoriuli<br />
gamoyenebis kuTxiT sainteresoa<br />
marTlmsajulebis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos<br />
praqtika (SemdgomSi – `saerTa-<br />
Soriso sasamarTlo~).<br />
saerTaSoriso sasamarTlom Tavis<br />
mier ganxilul saqmeebSi daafiqsira sakuTari<br />
pozicia, rom adamianis uflebaTa<br />
saerTaSoriso dokumentebis moqmedeba<br />
ar izRudeba mocemuli qveynis teritoriiT<br />
da calkeul SemTxvevaSi vrceldeba<br />
mis farglebs miRmac.<br />
am kuTxiT sainteresoa saerTaSoriso<br />
sasamarTlos mosazreba saqmeze –<br />
palestinis okupirebul teritoriebze<br />
kedlis agebis samarTlebrivi Sedegebi. 21<br />
aRniSnul saqmesTan dakavSirebiT saer<br />
Ta Soriso sasamarTlom ganixila sakiTxi,<br />
vrceldeboda Tu ara palestinis<br />
okupirebul teritoriaze adamianis<br />
uflebaTa is saerTaSoriso konvenciebi,<br />
romelTa monawile israeli iyo. 22<br />
israeli amtkicebda, rom adamianis<br />
uflebaTa konvenciebi ar SeiZleboda<br />
gavrcelebuliyo mis mier okupirebul<br />
teritoriebze, vinaidan es konvenciebi<br />
miznad isaxavda mSvidobian periodSi am<br />
qveynis moqalaqeebis dacvas sakuTari<br />
xelisuflebisagan. israelis Tanaxmad,<br />
mxolod humanitaruli samarTali SeiZle<br />
boda gamoyenebuliyo konfliqtur<br />
situaciebSi. 23<br />
saerTaSoriso sasamarTlom uaryo<br />
israelis mosazreba, rom adamianis uflebaTa<br />
konvenciebi wyvetda moqmedebas<br />
saomar viTarebaSi da, pirvel rigSi,<br />
ganixila samoqalaqo da politikuri<br />
paqtis moqmedebis farglebi. 24<br />
saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos azriT,<br />
am paqtis me-2 muxlis pirveli punqti,<br />
romelic gansazRvravs misi moqmedebis<br />
farglebs, SeiZleba ganimartos mravalgvarad.<br />
kerZod, es SeiZleba gulisxmobdes,<br />
rom dokumenti vrceldeba mxolod<br />
im pirTa mimarT, romlebic erTdroulad<br />
arian qveynis teritoriaze da misi<br />
iurisdiqciis farglebSi; am muxlis<br />
gageba SeiZleba isec, rom samoqalaqo da<br />
politikuri paqti vrceldeba im pirTa<br />
mimarT, romlebic ara marto mocemuli<br />
qveynis teritoriaze imyofebian, aramed<br />
im pirTa mimarTac, romlebic, Tumca<br />
saxelmwifos sazRvrebs miRma arian, magram<br />
eqcevian am ukanasknelis iurisdiqciis<br />
qveS. imisaTvis, rom pasuxi gaeca,<br />
Tu romeli ganmarteba iqneboda swori,<br />
saerTaSoriso sasamarTlo Seudga aRniSnuli<br />
sakiTxis detalur ganxilvas. 25<br />
saerTaSoriso sasamarTlom imTa vi-<br />
T ve miuTiTa, rom, Tumca qveynis iur i-<br />
s diqcia ZiriTadad teritoriulia, calkeul<br />
SemTxvevaSi igi SeiZleba gascdes<br />
erovnuli teritoriis sazRvrebs. saer-<br />
TaSoriso sasamarTlom miiCnia, rom<br />
amgvari midgoma swored paqtis miznebisa<br />
da amocanebis Sesabamisi iqneboda. 26<br />
Tavisi mosazrebebis dasturad saerTa-<br />
Soriso sasamarTlom miuTiTa adamianis<br />
uflebaTa komitetis praqtikaze, sadac<br />
araerTxel dadginda qveynis mier samoqalaqo<br />
da politikuri paqtiT nakisri<br />
valdebulebebis dacvis sakiTxi misi<br />
teritoriis farglebs gareT, sadac igi<br />
iurisdiqcias axorcielebda. 27<br />
aRniSnulis gaTvaliswinebiT, saer-<br />
TaSoriso sasamarTlom daadgina, rom<br />
samoqalaqo da politikuri paqti vrcel<br />
deba im qmedebebTan mimarTebiT, romlebic<br />
dakavSirebulia saxelmwifos teritoriis<br />
farglebs miRma misi iurisdiqciis<br />
ganxorcielebasTan. 28<br />
amis Semdgom saerTaSoriso sasamarTlo<br />
Seudga ekonomikuri, social-<br />
63
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
uri da kulturuli uflebebis Sesaxeb<br />
1966 wlis saerTaSoriso paqtis eqstrateritoriuli<br />
gamoyenebis sakiTxis<br />
ganxilvas. gansxvavebiT samoqalaqo da<br />
politikuri paqtisagan, ekonomikuri,<br />
socialuri da kulturuli uflebebis<br />
Sesaxeb paqti ar Seicavs msgavs debulebas<br />
misi gamoyenebis farglebTan<br />
dakavSirebiT, rac saerTaSoriso sasamarTlom<br />
imiT axsna, rom es ukanaskneli<br />
moicavs iseT uflebebs, romlebic arsebiTad<br />
teritoriuli xasiaTisaa. amis<br />
miuxedavad, saerTaSoriso sasamarTlom<br />
daadgina: ar SeiZleba gamoiricxos, rom<br />
ekonomikuri, socialuri da kulturuli<br />
uflebebis Sesaxeb paqti moqmedebs<br />
ara marto qveynis teritoriaze, sadac<br />
misi suvereniteti vrceldeba, aramed im<br />
teritoriebzec, sadac es qveyana axorcielebs<br />
teritoriul iurisdiqcias. 29<br />
aRniSnulis dasturad saerTaSoriso<br />
sasamarTlom, erTi mxriv, miuTiTa<br />
paqtis gardamaval me-14 muxlze, romlis<br />
Sesabamisadac misi monawile qveynebi<br />
iReben valdebulebas, ori wlis ganmavlobaSi<br />
uzrunveleyoT savaldebulo<br />
ufaso sayovelTao ganaTleba Tavisi<br />
metropoliis teritoriasa da mis iurisdiqciaSi<br />
myof sxva teritoriebze; meore<br />
mxriv, ki miuTiTa ekonomikur, socialur<br />
da kulturul uflebaTa komitetis<br />
praqtikaze, romlis Tanaxmadac israeli<br />
valdebuli iyo, es paqti gamoeyenebina<br />
Tavisi efeqtiani kontrolis qveS arsebuli<br />
yvela teritoriisa da mosaxleobis<br />
mimarT. 30<br />
Sesabamisad, saerTaSoriso sasamarTlom<br />
daadgina, rom israeli valdebuli<br />
iyo, daecva ekonomikur, socialur da<br />
kulturul uflebaTa Sesaxeb paqtiT<br />
gaTvaliswinebuli valdebulebebi okupirebul<br />
teritoriebze, romlebic misi<br />
iurisdiqciis qveS imyofeboda 37 wlis<br />
ganmavlobaSi. 31<br />
yovelgvari damatebiTi msjelobis<br />
gareSe saerTaSoriso sasamarTlom<br />
daadgina, rom 1989 wlis konvencia bavSvTa<br />
uflebebis Sesaxeb gamoiyeneboda<br />
palestinis okupirebul teritoriaze.<br />
kerZod, man miuTiTa konvenciis me-2 muxlze,<br />
romlis Tanaxmad, yvela xelSemkvreli<br />
mxare valdebulia daicvas konvenciiT<br />
daculi uflebebi yvela bavSvis<br />
mimarT, romlebic misi iurisdiqciis<br />
qveS imyofebian. 32<br />
vinaidan zemoaRniSnuli konvenciebi<br />
vrceldeboda palestinis okupirebul<br />
teritoriaze, saerTaSoriso sasamarTlom<br />
daadgina, rom kedlis mSenebloba<br />
am teritoriebze zRudavda samoqalaqo<br />
da ekonomikuri paqtiT daculi gadaadgilebis<br />
Tavisuflebas okupirebul<br />
teritoriebze mcxovrebTaTvis (garda<br />
israelis moqalaqeebisa da maTTan<br />
asi milirebuli pirebisa). aRniSnuli<br />
qmedebiT aseve izRudeboda Sromis, janmrTelobis,<br />
ganaTlebisa da adekvaturi<br />
cxovrebis pirobebis uflebebi, rasac<br />
iTvaliswinebs ekonomikuri, socialuri<br />
da kulturuli uflebebis Sesaxeb<br />
saerTaSoriso paqti da gaeros bavSvTa<br />
uflebebis dacvis konvencia. 33<br />
gamomdinare iqidan, rom xSirad<br />
iurisdiqcia da saxelmwifos pasuxismgebloba<br />
erTmaneTTan gaigivebul kategoriebad<br />
aRiqmeba, risi erT-erTi maga -<br />
liTic aris adamianis uflebaTa evropuli<br />
sasamarTlos praqtika, aranakleb<br />
sainteresoa saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos<br />
is saqmeebi, romlebSic ganxilulia,<br />
Tu romeli qmedebebi SeiZleba<br />
miekuTvnos saxelmwifos, misi pasuxismgeblobis<br />
dadgenis mizniT. aRsaniSnavia,<br />
rom Tanaxmad adamianis uflebaTa<br />
evropuli sasamarTlos mravali gadawyvetilebisa,<br />
romlebic detalurad<br />
aris mimoxiluli me-2 TavSi, Tu qmedeba<br />
miekuTvneba qveyanas, maSin, iTvleba, am<br />
konkretul SemTxvevaSi igi axorcielebs<br />
eqstrateritoriul iurisdiqcias.<br />
Sesabamisad, imis gaTvaliswinebiT,<br />
rom xSirad saxelmwifos valdebuleba,<br />
adamianis uflebaTa dokumentebidan<br />
gamomdinare, damokidebulia qmedebis am<br />
saxelmwifosaTvis mikuTvnebaze, interesmoklebuli<br />
ar iqneba am mimarTulebiT<br />
saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos praqtikis<br />
mimoxilva. saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos<br />
pozicia am sakiTxTan dakavSirebiT warmodgenilia<br />
saqmeebSi: nikaragua amerikis<br />
SeerTebuli Statebis winaaRmdeg 34<br />
da bosnia serbiis winaaRmdeg 35 .<br />
64
i. barTaia, adamianis uflebaTa dacvis saerTaSoriso dokumentebis eqstrateritoriuli gamoyeneba...<br />
saqmeSi – nikaragua amerikis SeerTebu<br />
li Statebis winaaRmdeg – saerTaSoriso<br />
sasamarTlom ganixila nikaraguis<br />
mTavrobis winaaRmdeg mebrZolTa jgufis<br />
– `kontras~ – mier ganxorcielebuli<br />
qmedebebis amerikis SeerTebuli<br />
StatebisaTvis mikuTvnebis sakiTxi. 36 am<br />
saqmesTan dakavSirebiT nikaraguis mTavroba<br />
amtkicebda amerikis SeerTebuli<br />
Statebis mTavrobis pasuxismgeblobas<br />
`kontras~ mier ganxorcielebuli qmedebebisaTvis,<br />
vinaidan es jgufi daqiravebuli,<br />
organizebuli, dafinansebuli<br />
da marTuli iyo amerikis SeerTebuli<br />
Statebis mier da, Sesabamisad, imyofeboda<br />
am ukanasknelis efeqtiani kontrolis<br />
qveS. 37<br />
amrigad, aRniSnul saqmesTan dakav-<br />
SirebiT daisva saxelmwifos pasuxismgeblobis<br />
sakiTxi im piris an pirTa<br />
jgufis qmedebebisaTvis, romelsac<br />
ar gaaCnia saxelmwifo organos statusi.<br />
saerTaSoriso sasamarTlom ar<br />
gamoricxa saxelmwifos pasuxismgeblobis<br />
SesaZleblobis sakiTxi amgvar<br />
SemTxvevebSi. Tavdapirvelad man ganixila,<br />
rogori urTierTkavSiri iyo `kontrasa~<br />
da amerikis SeerTebuli Statebis<br />
mTavrobas Soris, kerZod: iyo Tu ara<br />
saxeze imgvari kontrolisa da damokidebulebis<br />
xarisxi, rac, samarTlebrivi<br />
miznebisaTvis, gaaTanabrebda `kontras~<br />
amerikis SeerTebuli Statebis xelisuflebis<br />
organosTan an xelisuflebis<br />
saxeliT moqmed jgufTan. 38 sasamarTlos<br />
Tanaxmad, saxelmwifos miekuTvneba pir-<br />
Ta jgufis qmedebebi, Tu es ukanaskneli<br />
mocemuli qveynis srul daqvemdebarebaSi<br />
imyofeba. 39<br />
Tumca saerTaSoriso sasamarTlom<br />
ar amowura saxelmwifos pasuxismgeblobis<br />
sakiTxi mxolod im piris an pirTa<br />
jgufis qmedebebisaTvis, romelic mis<br />
srul daqvemdebarebaSi imyofeba. man<br />
aRniSna, rom pasuxismgeblobis sakiTxi<br />
SeiZleba dadges iseT SemTxvevaSic,<br />
roca saxeze ar aris sruli damokidebuleba.<br />
40 saerTaSoriso sasamarTlom<br />
daadgina, rom piris an pirTa jgufis<br />
mier Cadenili darRvevebi miekuTvneba<br />
saxelmwifos im SemTxvevaSic, Tu dadasturda,<br />
rom es qveyana axorcielebda<br />
efeqtian kontrols im samxedro operaciebze,<br />
romelTa drosac aRniSnuli<br />
darRvevebi ganxorcielda. 41<br />
saerTaSoriso sasamarTlom ganixila<br />
amerikis SeerTebuli Statebis mier<br />
`kontras~ mimarT ganxorcielebuli kontrolis<br />
xarisxi da daadgina, rom samxedro,<br />
finansuri, logistikuri da sxva<br />
saxis daxmarebis gaweva, aseve am jgufis<br />
operaciebis dagegmva da samxedro samizneebis<br />
SerCeva ar iyo sakmarisi, raTa<br />
am pirTa qmedebebi mihkuTvneboda amerikis<br />
SeerTebuli Statebis mTavrobas.<br />
Sesabamisad, sasamarTlom daadgina, rom<br />
amerikis SeerTebuli Statebis mTavroba<br />
ar iyo pasuxismgebeli `kontras~ mier<br />
Cadenili adamianis uflebebisa da humanitaruli<br />
samarTlis darRvevebisaTvis,<br />
vinaidan ar dakmayofilda efeqtiani<br />
kontrolis testi. 42<br />
aRsaniSnavia, rom saerTaSoriso sisxlis<br />
samarTlis tribunalma yofili iugoslaviisaTvis<br />
(SemdgomSi – `tribunali~)<br />
1999 wels gaakritika saerTaSoriso<br />
sasamarTlos mier dadgenili efeqtiani<br />
kontrolis testi. kerZod, tadiCis 43<br />
saqmeSi tribunalma aRniSna, rom saer-<br />
TaSoriso sasamarTlos mier dadgenili<br />
standarti damajereblobas iyo moklebuli<br />
da ar Seesabameboda arc saerTa-<br />
Soriso samarTlis logikas, arc sasamarTlo<br />
da saxelmwifoTa praqtikas. 44<br />
Sesabamisad, tribunalis mier uaryofil<br />
iqna efeqtiani kontrolis testi da mis<br />
nacvlad SemuSavda zogadi kontrolis<br />
standarti, riTac mniSvnelovnad gafar-<br />
Tovda saxelmwifos pasuxismgeblobis<br />
farglebi. 45<br />
tribunalma ganasxvava kerZo piris<br />
qmedeba SeiaraRebuli jgufis qmedebisagan<br />
da maTi qmedebebis saxelmwifosadmi<br />
mikuTvnebis mizniT dadgenil iqna sxvadasxva<br />
standarti. raTa ganisazRvros,<br />
moqmedebda Tu ara kerZo piri rogorc<br />
saxelmwifos de faqto organo, saWiroa<br />
dadgindes, rom man miiRo konkretuli instruqcia<br />
konkretuli qmedebis ganxorcielebis<br />
mizniT, an ukve ganxorcielebuli<br />
qmedeba SemdgomSi mxardaWeril<br />
iqna saxelmwifos mier. 46 SeiaraRebul<br />
65
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
jgufTan mimarTebiT tribunalma gansxvavebuli<br />
midgoma SeimuSava. kerZod,<br />
SeiaraRebuli formirebis mimarT sakmarisia,<br />
saxelmwifo axorcielebdes<br />
zogad kontrols (am SemTxvevaSi mxolod<br />
finansuri daxmareba an samxedro<br />
aRWurva Tu treningi sakmarisi ar aris<br />
zogadi kontrolis dasadgenad). Tumca<br />
es ar moiTxovs, saxeze iyos saxelmwifos<br />
mier gacemuli konkretuli brZanebebi<br />
an yoveli individualuri RonisZieba imarTebodes<br />
am qveynis mier. 47<br />
tribunalma CaTvala, rom, saerTa-<br />
Soriso samarTlis Tanaxmad, ar aris<br />
saWiro, yvela operacia igegmebodes im<br />
saxelmwifos mier, romelic axorcielebs<br />
kontrols am jgufze. saerTaSoriso<br />
samarTlis Tanaxmad, kontroli sa xe ze<br />
iqneba, Tu saxelmwifo, am SeiaraRebuli<br />
formirebis dafinansebis, treningis,<br />
aRWurvisa da sxva operaciuli daxmarebebis<br />
gawevis garda, monawileobs am<br />
jgufis samxedro moqmedebebis organizebaSi,<br />
koordinaciasa da dagegmvaSi. 48<br />
Sesabamisad, tribunali miiCnevs, rom<br />
aseTi jgufis mier ganxorcielebuli<br />
qmedebebi miekuTvneba saxelmwifos, miuxedavad<br />
imisa, arsebobda Tu ara konkretuli<br />
instruqcia am saxelmwifos<br />
mxridan konkretuli qmedebis ganxorcielebasTan<br />
dakavSirebiT. 49<br />
garda zemoaRniSnulisa, tribunalma<br />
SeimuSava mesame testi im situaciebTan<br />
mimarTebiT, roca kerZo pirebi TavianTi<br />
saqcielis gamo uTanabrdebian saxelmwifo<br />
xelisuflebis organoebs. 50<br />
aRsaniSnavia, rom tadiCis saqme ar<br />
darCenila kritikis gareSe ara mxolod<br />
gansxvavebuli standartis gamo, rac<br />
man SemoiRo, aramed imisTvisac, rom mas<br />
saerTod ar unda ganexila es sakiTxi. 51<br />
mogvianebiT saqmeSi – nikaragua amerikis<br />
SeerTebuli Statebis winaaRmdeg –<br />
dadgenili testi dadasturda saerTa-<br />
Soriso sasamarTlos mier.<br />
efeqtiani kontrolis sakiTxi kvlav<br />
ganixila sasamarTlom 2007 wels saqmeze<br />
- bosnia serbiis winaaRmdeg. 52 am saqmis<br />
ganxilvisas gaeros saerTaSoriso sasamarTlom<br />
uaryo tribunalis mier dadgenili<br />
standarti da daadastura is pozicia,<br />
romelic adre saqmeze – nikaragua<br />
amerikis SeerTebuli Statebis winaaRmdeg<br />
– gamoixata. kerZod, saerTaSoriso<br />
sasamarTlos Tanaxmad, zogadi kontrolis<br />
testis gamoyeneba SesaZlebeli iyo<br />
imis dasadgenad, konfliqti saerTa-<br />
Soriso iyo Tu arasaerTaSoriso. Tumca<br />
am testis gamoyeneba saxelmwifo pasuxismgeblobis<br />
sakiTxebis dasadgenad<br />
aramizanSewonilad miiCnia, vinaidan igi<br />
ewinaaRmdegeboda saxelmwifo pasuxismgeblobis<br />
Sesaxeb saerTaSoriso samarTals.<br />
53<br />
saqmeze – bosnia serbiis winaaRmdeg –<br />
gadawyvetileba gulisxmobs, rom gaeros<br />
saerTaSoriso sasamarTlo momavalSi<br />
saxelmwifos pasuxismgeblobis sakiTxebis<br />
dadgenisas gaagrZelebs efeqtiani<br />
kontrolis testis gamoyenebas. 54<br />
zemoaRniSnuli gansxvavebuli midgomebis<br />
gaTvaliswinebiT, ibadeba kiTxva,<br />
Tu romeli sasamarTlos pozicias unda<br />
mieniWos upiratesoba. goldstounisa<br />
da hamiltonis azriT, am SemTxvevaSi<br />
saerTaSoriso sasamarTlo unda miviCnioT<br />
ufro kompetenturad, vinaidan<br />
swored mas eniWeba zogadi iurisdiqcia<br />
im sakiTxebTan dakavSirebiT, rac<br />
saerTaSoriso sajaro samarTlis sferos<br />
ganekuTvneba; 55 kaseses Tanaxmad,<br />
Tanamedrove realobisa da tendenciebis<br />
gaTvaliswinebiT, tribunalis midgoma<br />
ufro gonivruli da Sesaferisia. 56<br />
igi Tvlis, rom efeqtiani kontrolis<br />
tests ori mniSvnelovani nakli axasiaTebs:<br />
pirveli, igi ar efuZneba raime<br />
precedents an saxelmwifos praqtikas<br />
da, meore, igi ar Seesabameba saxelmwifo<br />
pasuxismgeblobis samarTlis arsebiT<br />
principebs, romelTa ZiriTadi mizania,<br />
saxelmwifom ver SeZlos ukanono qmedebisaTvis<br />
pasuxismgeblobis Tavidan<br />
arideba, rasac igi Caidens kerZo pirTa<br />
jgufis meSveobiT. 57<br />
sakmarisi safuZveli arsebobs mtkicebulebisaTvis,<br />
rom saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos<br />
midgoma moZvelebulia da ar<br />
exmianeba Tanamedrove realobas. saer-<br />
TaSoriso da regionaluri institutebis<br />
umravlesobis poziciis gaTvaliswinebiT,<br />
rac qvemoT aris mimoxiluli,<br />
66
i. barTaia, adamianis uflebaTa dacvis saerTaSoriso dokumentebis eqstrateritoriuli gamoyeneba...<br />
sasamarTlos mier im standartTan dabruneba,<br />
romelic man 1986 wels SeimuSava,<br />
aramizaSewo nilia da moklebulia logikur<br />
dasa buTebas.<br />
2. adamianis uflebaTa dacvis<br />
regionaluri sistemebi<br />
2.1. adamianis uflebaTa evropuli<br />
sasamarTlo<br />
1950 wels xeli moewera adamianis<br />
uflebaTa da ZiriTad TavisuflebaTa<br />
dacvis evropul konvencias (SemdgomSi –<br />
`evropuli konvencia~), romelic ZalaSi<br />
Sevida 1953 wels. 58<br />
evropuli konvenciis pirveli muxlis<br />
Tanaxmad, `maRali xelSemkvreli<br />
mxareebi TavianTi iurisdiqciis farglebSi<br />
yvelasaTvis uzrunvelyofen am<br />
konvenciis I TavSi gansazRvrul uflebebsa<br />
da Tavisuflebebs.~ 59 rogorc es<br />
muxli naTelyofs, evropuli konvenciis<br />
monawile wevri qveynebi valdebulebas<br />
iReben, daicvan adamianis uflebebi<br />
TavianTi iurisdiqciis farglebSi.<br />
Tu ras moicavs qveynis iurisdiqcia,<br />
amaze araerTi gadawyvetileba iqna miRebuli<br />
yofili adamianis uflebaTa evropuli<br />
komisiisa da adamianis uflebaTa<br />
evropuli sasamarTlos (SemdgomSi –<br />
`evropuli sasamarTlo~) mier. rogorc<br />
es qvemomoyvanil gadawyvetilebebSi detaluradaa<br />
ganxiluli, evropuli konvenciis<br />
moqmedeba ar izRudeba mxolod<br />
xelSemkvreli mxaris teritoriiT da<br />
calkeul SemTxvevaSi vrceldeba mis<br />
farglebs gareT. am TavSi ganxiluli<br />
iqneba evropuli konvenciis eqstrateritoriul<br />
gamoyenebasTan dakavSirebuli<br />
precedentebi.<br />
jer kidev saqmis – iqsi germaniis<br />
federaciuli respublikis winaaRmdeg<br />
– 1965 wlis gadawyvetilebaSi adamianis<br />
uflebaTa evropuli komisiis mier<br />
aRniSnuli iyo, rom evropuli konvenciis<br />
wevri saxelmwifos moqalaqeebi eqcevian<br />
am qveynis iurisdiqciaSi maSinac ki,<br />
rodesac isini cxovroben sazRvargareT.<br />
Sesabamisad, am pirTa mimarT saelCoebis<br />
an sakonsuloebis mier ganxorcielebulma<br />
qmedebam SeiZleba gamoiwvios<br />
aRniSnuli qveynis pasuxismgebloba, evropuli<br />
konvenciidan gamomdinare. 60<br />
saqme hesi gaerTianebuli samefos winaaRmdeg<br />
exeboda gaerTianebuli samefos<br />
mxridan evropuli konvenciis darRvevis<br />
sakiTxebs berlinSi mdebare mokavSireTa<br />
samxedro cixeSi dapatimrebuli piris<br />
mimarT, romelic gasamarTlebul iqna<br />
niurnbergis sasamarTlos mier mSvidobis<br />
winaaRmdeg Cadenili danaSaulisaTvis.<br />
es sapatimro mdebareobda berlinis<br />
britanul seqtorSi. miuxedavad imisa,<br />
rom ganacxadi exeboda berlinis cixeSi<br />
myofi piris patimrobis pirobebs, adamianis<br />
uflebaTa evropulma komisiam ar<br />
gamoricxa gaerTianebuli samefos pasuxismgebloba<br />
misi teritoriis miRma<br />
ganxorcielebuli qmedebebis mimarT.<br />
kerZod, man miuTiTa, rom principSi ar<br />
arsebobda raime samarTlebrivi mizezi,<br />
Tu ratom ar unda gamoewvia britaneTis<br />
xelisuflebis qmedebebs berlinSi britaneTis<br />
mTavrobis pasuxismgebloba. 61<br />
1992 wels daniis winaaRmdeg miRebuli<br />
saqme exeboda misi diplomatiuri<br />
warmomadgenlobis qmedebebs germaniis<br />
demokratiuli respublikis teritoriaze.<br />
62 am saqmeze, germaniis federaciis<br />
respublikaSi moxvedris mizniT, ganmcxadebeli,<br />
sxva moqalaqeebTan erTad,<br />
Sevida daniis saelCos teritoriaze.<br />
aRniSnulTan dakavSirebiT, daniis el-<br />
Cma daxmarebisaTvis adgilobriv policias<br />
mimarTa, samarTaldamcavi uwyebis<br />
warmomadgenlebma ki es pirebi daakaves.<br />
adamianis uflebaTa evropulma<br />
komisiam aRniSna, rom saxelmwifos ufle<br />
bamosili warmomadgenlebis, maT Soris<br />
diplomatebisa da sakonsulos Tanam<br />
Sromlebis, qmedebebi meore qveynis<br />
teritoriaze gamoiwvevs am saxelmwifos<br />
iurisdiqciis gavrcelebas im pirebze,<br />
romelTa mimarTac ganxorcielda aRniSnuli<br />
qmedebebi. Sesabamisad, am saqmeze<br />
dadginda, rom daniis elCis moqmedebis<br />
Sedegad xsenebuli piri moxvda daniis<br />
saxelmwifos iurisdiqciis qveS. 63<br />
soeringis saqmeSi evropulma sasamarTlom<br />
aRniSna, rom damnaSavis eqstradiciam<br />
SeiZleba warmoSvas gadamcemi<br />
saxelmwifos mier konvenciiT na-<br />
67
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
kisri valdebulebebis darRveva, roca<br />
arsebobs dasabuTebuli eWvi, es piri<br />
daeqvemdebareba wamebas an araadamianur<br />
mopyrobas meore qveyanaSi. evropuli<br />
sasamarTlos Tanaxmad, damnaSavis gadamcemi<br />
saxelmwifos pasuxismgeblobis<br />
safuZveli aris gadacemis faqti, vinaidan<br />
swored es qmedeba ayenebs pirs arasa-<br />
Tanadod mopyrobis riskis winaSe meore<br />
qveyanaSi. 64 `es aris is pasuxismgebloba,<br />
romelic monawile saxelmwifos SeiZleba<br />
daekisros mis mier iseTi qmedebis ganxorcielebis<br />
gamo, risi uSualo Sedegic<br />
iqneba piris daucvelad datoveba akrZaluli<br />
ukanono mopyrobis winaSe,~ 65 –<br />
aRniSna evropulma sasamarTlom.<br />
gansakuTrebiT sainteresoa loizidus<br />
saqme, romelic Seexeboda eqstrateritoriuli<br />
iurisdiqciis sakiTxs meore<br />
qveynis teritoriis efeqtiani kontrolis<br />
SemTxvevaSi. 66<br />
es saqme Seexeboda TurqeTis mier<br />
1974 wels CrdiloeT kviprosis okupaciis<br />
Sedegad ganmcxadeblis evropuli<br />
konvenciiT gaTvaliswinebuli sxvadasxva<br />
uflebis darRvevas. 67 TurqeTis<br />
mier ganxorcielebuli samxedro operaciebis<br />
Sedegad 1983 wels Camoyalibda<br />
`CrdiloeT kviprosis Turquli respublika~,<br />
romelic ar iqna aRiarebuli<br />
saerTaSoriso sazogadoebis mier. 68<br />
ganacxadi wardgenil iqna TurqeTis winaaRmdeg,<br />
vinaidan TurqeTis samxedroebis<br />
qmedebebis Sedegad ganmcxadebeli<br />
ver sargeblobda okupirebul teritoriaze<br />
arsebuli sakuTrebis mSvidobiani<br />
sargeblobis uflebiT. 69<br />
miuxedavad imisa, rom TurqeTis<br />
mTavroba amtkicebda, ganacxadi dauSveblad<br />
gamocxadebuliyo, vinaidan igi<br />
scildeboda misi iurisdiqciis sferos,<br />
evropulma sasamarTlom daadgina, rom<br />
ganacxadSi dasmuli sakiTxebi ganekuTvneboda<br />
TurqeTis iurisdiqcias. ker-<br />
Zod, evropulma sasamarTlom aRniSna,<br />
rom evropuli konvenciis miznebisa da<br />
amocanebis Sesabamisad, saxelmwifos pasuxismgebloba<br />
SeiZleba wamoiWras, roca<br />
samxedro moqmedebebis Sedegad, miuxedavad<br />
am samxedro qmedebebis kanonieri<br />
xasiaTisa, igi axorcielebs efeqtian<br />
kontrols Tavisi teritoriis farglebs<br />
gareT mdebare teritoriaze. swored am<br />
teritoriis kontrolis faqti aris evropuli<br />
konvenciiT gaTvaliswinebuli<br />
uflebebis dacvis valdebulebis safuZveli,<br />
miuxedavad imisa, es kontroli am<br />
qveynis SeiaraRebuli Zalebis mier xorcieldeba<br />
pirdapir, Tu daqvemdebarebuli<br />
adgilobrivi administraciis mier. 70<br />
CrdiloeT kviprosis okupirebul<br />
teritoriaze TurqeTis iurisdiqciis<br />
dadgenis Semdgom evropuli sasamarTlo<br />
Seudga ganacxadSi wamoWrili savaraudo<br />
darRvevebis TurqeTisadmi mikuTvnebis<br />
sakiTxis garkvevas. 71 evropulma sasamarTlom<br />
ar gaiziara TurqeTis mTavrobis<br />
argumenti, rom igi ver iqneboda<br />
pasuxismgebeli ganacxadSi miTiTebul<br />
faqtebze, vinaidan misi SeiaraRebuli<br />
Zalebi moqmedebdnen `CrdiloeT kvipro<br />
sis Turquli respublikis~ administraciis<br />
saxeliT. 72 am sakiTxis gadasawyvetad<br />
evropulma sasamarTlom ar miiCnia<br />
saWirod imis dadgena, axorcielebda<br />
Tu ara TurqeTis mTavroba detalur<br />
kontrols `CrdiloeT kviprosis<br />
Turquli respublikis~ xelisuflebis<br />
qmedebebze. 73 mopasuxe saxelmwifos pasuxismgeblobis<br />
sakiTxebis gadawyvetisas<br />
evropulma sasamarTlom sakmarisad<br />
miiCnia zogadi kontroli, romelsac<br />
igi axorcielebda am teritoriaze.<br />
Sesabamisad, dadginda TurqeTis mTavrobis<br />
pasuxismgebloba evropuli konvenciiT<br />
nakisr valdebulebaTa mTeli<br />
rigis SeusruleblobisaTvis. 74<br />
sainteresoa aqve aRiniSnos, rom<br />
zo gadi kontrolis standarti, rac evropulma<br />
sasamarTlom gamoiyena pasuxismgeblobis<br />
sakiTxebis gadawyvetisas,<br />
gacilebiT farToa, vidre is standarti,<br />
romelic saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos<br />
mier iqna gamoyenebuli zemoxsenebul<br />
nikaraguisa da bosniis saqmeebze. 75 unda<br />
aRiniSnos, rom evropuli sasamarTlos<br />
midgoma sakmaod logikuri, racionaluri<br />
da efeqturia, Tu mxedvelobaSi<br />
miviRebT samxedro okupaciis Sedegad<br />
wamoWril problemebs. winamdebare<br />
statiis avtori miiCnevs, rom evropuli<br />
sasamarTlos mier saerTaSoriso sasa-<br />
68
i. barTaia, adamianis uflebaTa dacvis saerTaSoriso dokumentebis eqstrateritoriuli gamoyeneba...<br />
marTlos msgavsad SezRuduli standartis<br />
miReba Zalian Znels gaxdida<br />
TurqeTis pasuxismgeblobis dadgenas<br />
darRvevaTa mTeli rigisaTvis, ris<br />
Sedegadac CrdiloeT kviprosis mosaxleoba<br />
ver SeZlebda evropuli konvenciiT<br />
daculi uflebebiT srulad sargeblobas.<br />
analogiuri gadawyvetileba iqna mi-<br />
Rebuli evropuli sasamarTlos mier<br />
saqmeSi – kviprosi TurqeTis winaaRmdeg<br />
saxelmwifoTaSoris ganacxadze. 76 am<br />
saqmeze evropulma sasamarTlom kidev<br />
erTxel daadastura loizidus gadawyvetilebaSi<br />
miRebuli daskvnebi da<br />
aRniSna, rom TurqeTi pasuxismgebeli<br />
iyo ara mxolod Tavisi samxedro Zalebis,<br />
aramed adgilobrivi administraciis<br />
qme debebze, rac arsebobda TurqeTis<br />
samxedro da sxva saxis daxmarebiT. 77<br />
sakmaod sadavo gadawyvetileba miiRo<br />
evropulma sasamarTlom bankoviCis<br />
saqmeze. 78 ganacxadis safuZveli<br />
natos Zalebis mier iugoslaviis federalur<br />
respublikaze ganxorcielebuli<br />
sahaero Tavdasxma iyo. samxedro<br />
operaciis Sedegad ramdenime adamiani<br />
gardaicvala. aRniSnul faqtTan dakav-<br />
SirebiT, gardacvlilebis naTesavebma,<br />
Tavisi da gardacvlilTa uflebebis<br />
dacvis mizniT, mimarTes evropul<br />
sasamarTlos evropuli konvenciis im<br />
xelSemkvreli qveynebis winaaRmdeg,<br />
romlebic iyvnen natos wevrebi. 79 Tumca<br />
ganacxadi dauSveblad gamocxadda. evropulma<br />
sasamarTlom miiCnia, rom ar<br />
arsebobda saWiro iurisdiqciuli kav-<br />
Siri dazaralebulebsa da mopasuxe<br />
saxelmwifos Soris. Sesabamisad, isini<br />
ver moeqcnen am qveynebis iurisdiqciis<br />
qveS. evropulma sasamarTlom miuTiTa,<br />
rom evropuli konvencia iyo evropuli<br />
sajaro wesrigis instrumenti da igi moqmedebda<br />
mxolod xelSemkvrel mxareTa<br />
samarTlebriv sivrceSi. Sesabamisad,<br />
iugoslaviis federaciuli respublika,<br />
vinaidan igi ar iyo evropuli konvenciis<br />
wevri qveyana, ver xvdeboda am samarTlebriv<br />
sivrceSi. 80<br />
bankoviCis saqmis gadawyvetileba<br />
dausabuTebeli da araTanmimdevrulia,<br />
Tu gaviTvaliswinebT evropuli sasamarTlos<br />
manamde arsebul praqtikasa da<br />
mis Semdgom miRebul gadawyvetilebebs.<br />
aRsaniSnavia, rom bankoviCis saqmes mohyva<br />
mTeli rigi saqmeebisa, romlebSic<br />
kidev ufro gafarTovda eqstrateritoriuli<br />
iurisdiqciebis gavrcelebis<br />
SemTxvevebi. es saqmeebi qvemoT iqneba mimoxiluli.<br />
am mxriv gansakuTrebuli aRniSvnis<br />
Rirsia ilaSkus saqme. 81 ganacxadi exe boda<br />
adamianis uflebaTa darRvevis faqtebs<br />
moldovis dnestrispireTis teritoriaze.<br />
ganacxadi wardgenil iqna ori<br />
qveynis winaaRmdeg: moldovis winaaRmdeg,<br />
vinaidan dnestrispireTi moldovis<br />
ganuyofeli nawilia da, amave dros,<br />
ruseTis federaciis winaaRmdeg, radgan<br />
igi axorcielebda de faqto iurisdiqcias<br />
am teritoriaze.<br />
gadawyvetileba ilaSkus saqmeze Zalian<br />
mniSvnelovania, vinaidan evropulma<br />
sasamarTlom kidev ufro gaafarTova<br />
iurisdiqciis cneba. SeiZleba iTqvas,<br />
rom es gadawyvetileba saxelmZRvanelo<br />
dokumentia evropuli konvenciis<br />
pirvel muxlSi mocemuli iurisdiqciis<br />
cnebis gansazRvris kuTxiT. 82 gansxvavebiT<br />
CrdiloeT kviprosisagan, romelic<br />
TurqeTis mier iyo okupirebuli, moldovis<br />
dnestrispireTis teritoriis okupacia<br />
ar momxdara ruseTis mier. Tumca<br />
dnestrispireTSi ruseTis iurisdiqciis<br />
dadgenisas evropulma sasamarTlom gadamwyveti<br />
mniSvneloba mianiWa sxva garemoebebs:<br />
moldovis TviTgamocxadebuli<br />
dnestrispireTis respublika daarsda<br />
ruseTis federaciis mier gaweuli daxmarebis<br />
Sedegad da daarsebis Semdgom<br />
ruseTi sistematur samxedro, ekonomikur,<br />
finansur da politikur daxmarebas<br />
uwevda am reJims. aRniSnuli faqtorebis<br />
gaTvaliswinebiT, evropulma sasamarTlom<br />
daadgina, rom ruseTis federaciis<br />
iurisdiqcia vrceldeboda moldovis<br />
dnestrispireTis teritoriaze. 83 ker-<br />
Zod, evropulma sasamarTlom aRniSna,<br />
rom TviTgamocxadebeli dnestrispireTis<br />
respublika Seiqmna ruseTis<br />
federaciis daxmarebiT da imyofeba misi<br />
efeqtiani xelisuflebis an, sul mcire,<br />
69
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
gadamwyveti gavlenis qveS da nebismier<br />
SemTxvevaSi arsebobs ruseTis federaciis<br />
mier gaweuli samxedro, ekonomikuri<br />
da politikuri mxardaWeriT. 84<br />
Sesabamisad, evropulma sasamarTlom<br />
daadgina, rom ganmcxadeblebi imyofebodnen<br />
ruseTis federaciis iurisdiqciis<br />
qveS da igi pasuxismgebeli iyo<br />
ganacxadSi moyvanil faqtebTan dakav-<br />
SirebiT. 85<br />
ilaSkus Semdgom evropulma sasamar-<br />
Tlom miiRo gadawyvetileba isas saqme<br />
ze, 86 romelic exeboda erayis teritoriaze<br />
TurqeTis samxedroebis mier<br />
mecxvareebis savaraudo mkvlelobas.<br />
miuxedavad imisa, rom ganacxadi exeboda<br />
TurqeTis iurisdiqciis sakiTxebs erayis<br />
teritoriaze ganxorcielebuli<br />
qmedebebisaTvis, rac aSkarad evropuli<br />
konvenciis samarTlebrivi sivrcis miRma<br />
mdebareobs, evropuli sasamarTlo mzad<br />
iyo, daedgina TurqeTis pasuxismgebloba<br />
misi samxedroebis moqmedebaTa Sedegad<br />
evropuli konvenciiT nakisri valdebulebebis<br />
darRvevisaTvis. Tumca ganacxadi<br />
dauSveblad gamocxadda, vinaidan<br />
dadginda, rom TurqeTis SeiaraRebul<br />
Zalebs ar ganuxorcielebiaT samxedro<br />
operaciebi im konkretul adgilas, sadac<br />
konvenciis savaraudo darRvevas<br />
hqonda adgili da Sesabamisad, ganmcxadeblebi<br />
ver moxvdnen TurqeTis iurisdiqciis<br />
qveS. 87<br />
aRsaniSnavia, rom ojalanis saqmeze<br />
evropulma sasamarTlom daadgina Turqe<br />
Tis iurisdiqcia keniaSi ganxorcielebuli<br />
eqstrateritoriuli qmedebis<br />
gamo. 88 kerZod, ganmcxadebeli dakavebul<br />
iqna TurqeTis uSiSroebis samsaxurebis<br />
mier TurqeTSi registrirebul<br />
TviTmfrinavSi keniis saerTaSoriso<br />
aeroportis tranzitul zonaSi. miuxedavad<br />
qmedebis eqstrateritoriuli xasiaTisa,<br />
evropulma sasamarTlom miuTi-<br />
Ta, rom dakavebis momentidanve ganmcxadebeli<br />
moeqca TurqeTis xelisuflebis<br />
da, Sesabamisad, misi iurisdiqciis qveS. 89<br />
evropulma sasamarTlom ganasxvava es<br />
saqme zemoxsenebuli bankoviCis saqmisagan<br />
imiT, rom ganmcxadebeli TurqeTis<br />
uSiSroebis samsaxurebma fizikurad aiZ -<br />
u les, dabrunebuliyo TurqeTSi da dakavebis<br />
momentidanve igi am ukanas knelTa<br />
xelisuflebis qveS imyofeboda. 90<br />
evropuli konvenciis samarTlebrivi<br />
sivrcis kuTxiT sainteresoa 2008 wels<br />
miRebuli gadawyvetileba saqmeze – pedi<br />
da sxvebi TurqeTis winaaRmdeg. ganacxadis<br />
safuZveli TurqeTis samxedroebis<br />
qmedebebis Sedegad Svidi iranelis<br />
sikvdili iyo. evropuli sasamarTlos winaSe<br />
ganmcxadeblebi amtkicebdnen, rom<br />
es pirebi TurqeTis samxedroebma jer<br />
daakaves iranis teritoriaze da Semdgom<br />
gadaiyvanes TurqeTis sazRvarze, sadac<br />
ganxorcielda maTi fizikuri likvidacia.<br />
91 TurqeTis mTavroba uaryofda<br />
raime eqstrateritoriul qmedebebs,<br />
Tumca aRiara, rom es pirebi daiRupnen<br />
TurqeTis sazRvarze gadmosuli teroristebis<br />
gaqcevis aRsakveTad uSiSroebis<br />
samsaxurebis mier warmoebuli<br />
operaciisas Sveulmfrenidan ganxorcielebuli<br />
gasrolebis Sedegad. 92 evropulma<br />
sasamarTlom ar CaTvala saWirod<br />
imis garkveva, Tu romeli qveynis teritoriaze<br />
ganxorcielda es qmedebebi da<br />
sakmarisad miiCnia TurqeTis mTavrobis<br />
aRiareba, rom ganmcxadebelTa naTesavebi<br />
daiRupnen Sveulmfrenidan gaxsnili<br />
cecxlis Sedegad. am faqtis gaTvaliswinebiT,<br />
evropulma sasamarTlom<br />
daadgina, rom TurqeTis iurisdiqcia vrceldeboda<br />
maTze. 93 aRsaniSnavia, rom am<br />
daskvnis miRebamde evropulma sasamarTlom<br />
mimoixila is saqmeebi, sadac dadgenili<br />
iyo eqstrateritoriuli iurisdiqciis<br />
ganxorcielebis SemTxvevebi, maT<br />
Soris saqme isa TurqeTis winaaRmdeg. 94<br />
is faqti, rom evropulma sasamarTlom<br />
saWirod ar CaTvala, gaerkvia, romeli<br />
qveynis teritoriaze moxda es qmedebebi,<br />
– TurqeTisa Tu iranis, – kidev erTxel<br />
imis dasturad gamodgeba, rom evropuli<br />
konvenciis moqmedeba ar izRudeba mxolod<br />
misi samarTlebrivi sivrcis farglebiT,<br />
rogorc es bankoviCis saqmesTan<br />
dakavSirebiT iyo miTiTebuli, aramed<br />
vrceldeba mis farglebs miRmac.<br />
saqme dauSveblad gamocxadda, vinaidan<br />
CaiTvala, rom ganmcxadeblebs ar<br />
amouwuravT Sidasaxelmwifoebrivi sa-<br />
70
i. barTaia, adamianis uflebaTa dacvis saerTaSoriso dokumentebis eqstrateritoriuli gamoyeneba...<br />
Sualebebi, rogorc amas evropuli konvencia<br />
moiTxovs. 95<br />
evropuli sasamarTlos gadawyvetileba<br />
saqmeze – isaaki TurqeTis winaaRmdeg<br />
– Zalian sainteresoa, vinaidan igi<br />
Seexeba TurqeTis iurisdiqciis gavrcelebas<br />
CrdiloeT kviprosis sazRvarTan<br />
arsebul gaeros neitralur buferul<br />
zonaSi. 96 ganacxads safuZvlad<br />
da edo berZeni warmoSobis kviproseli<br />
anastasios isaakis sikvdili TurqeTis<br />
mier CrdiloeT kviprosis okupaciis<br />
winaaRmdeg warmoebuli demonstraciis<br />
msvlelobisas. protestis gamoxatvis<br />
mizniT, berZeni warmoSobis Seu i-<br />
araRebeli kviproseli demonstrantebi<br />
Sevidnen gaeros buferul zonaSi.<br />
amasTan, TurqeTis Zalebma cecxlis<br />
Se w yvetis zolidan buferul zonaSi<br />
SeuSves xelketebiTa da rkinis naWrebiT<br />
SeiaraRebuli Turqi warmoSobis<br />
kviproselebi da, aseve, CrdiloeT kviprosis<br />
policiis warmomadgenlebi. anas<br />
tasios isaaki daiRupa fizikuri dazianebebis<br />
Sedegad, romelic mas miayenes<br />
neitralur zonaSi. mis cemaSi, Turquli<br />
warmoSobis kviproseli demonstrantebis<br />
garda, monawileobdnen CrdiloeT<br />
kvi prosis policiis warmomadgenlebi<br />
da Turqi an Turquli warmoSobis kviproseli<br />
samxedro/policiis muSakebi. 97<br />
miuxedavad imisa, rom ganacxadSi<br />
moyvanili faqtebi gaeros neitralur<br />
buferul zinaSi moxda, evropulma<br />
sasamarTlom daadgina, rom ganmcxadebeli<br />
iyo TurqeTis xelisuflebis da/<br />
an misi efeqtiani kontrolis qveS da, Sesabamisad,<br />
igi eqceoda am ukanasknelis<br />
iurisdiqciis sferoSi. 98<br />
bankoviCis saqme ar unda iqnes miCneuli<br />
wamyvan gadawyvetilebad evropuli<br />
konvenciis eqstrateritoriuli<br />
gamoyenebis sakiTxebis ganmartebasTan<br />
dakavSirebiT. udavod alogikuri iqneba<br />
daskvna, rom mxolod dakavebis<br />
Sem TxvevaSi SeiZleba piri moeqces saxe<br />
lmwifos iurisdiqciis qveS, magram<br />
ara gasrolis momentSi. bankoviCis gadawyvetileba<br />
SeiZleba imgvarad iqnes<br />
gagebuli, rom piris dakavebis nacvlad<br />
umjobesia, moxdes misi fizikuri<br />
likvidacia, vinaidan aseT SemTxvevaSi<br />
saxelmwifo SeZlebs pasuxismgeblobisagan<br />
Tavis aridebas. 99 ra Tqma unda, amgvari<br />
daskvnebi araTu aragonivruli da<br />
miuRebelia, aramed absoluturad Seusabamo<br />
evropuli konvenciiT dadgenil<br />
standartebTan.<br />
2.2. adamianis uflebaTa<br />
panamerikuli komisia<br />
1948 wels miRebul iqna adamianis<br />
uflebebisa da valdebulebebis Sesaxeb<br />
amerikis deklaracia. 100 samoqalaqo da<br />
politikuri paqtisa da evropuli konvenciisagan<br />
gansxvavebiT, deklaracia<br />
teritoriul gamoyenebasTan dakav-<br />
SirebiT ar Seicavs msgavs debulebebs. 101<br />
Tumca adamianis uflebaTa panamerikulma<br />
komisiam (SemdgomSi – `panamerikuli<br />
komisia~), adamianis uflebaTa komisiisa<br />
da evropuli sasamarTlos msgavsad,<br />
ar SezRuda deklaraciis moqmedeba saxel<br />
mwifos teritoriuli sazRvrebiT.<br />
am mxriv aRsaniSnavia saqme koardi da<br />
sxvebi amerikis SeerTebuli Statebis<br />
winaaRmdeg, 102 romelic Seexeboda amerikis<br />
SeerTebuli Statebis samxedroTa<br />
mier ganxorcielebul darRvevebs grenadaSi.<br />
am saqmesTan dakavSirebiT panamerikulma<br />
komisiam aRniSna, rom yoveli<br />
amerikuli saxelmwifo valdebuli iyo,<br />
daecva adamianis uflebebi Tavisi iurisdiqciis<br />
farglebSi. panamerikuli komisiis<br />
azriT, marTalia, iurisdiqcia zogadad<br />
xorcieldeba konkretuli qveynis<br />
teritoriaze myof pirTa mimarT, magram,<br />
garkveul SemTxvevebSi, igi vrceldeboda<br />
saxelmwifos eqstrateritoriul<br />
qmedebebze, roca ucxo qveyanaSi myofi<br />
piri eqceva meore qveynis kontrolis<br />
qveS, xSirad am ukanasknelis warmomadgenlebis<br />
mier sazRvargareT ganxorcielebuli<br />
qmedebebis Sedegad. 103<br />
msgavsi pozicia gamoxata panamerikulma<br />
komisiam amerikis SeerTebuli<br />
Statebis mier panamaSi 1989 wels ganxorcielebul<br />
samxedro operaciebTan dakav-<br />
SirebiT. kerZod, miuxedavad amerikis<br />
SeerTebuli Statebis qmedebaTa eqstrateritoriuli<br />
xasiaTisa, samxedro operaciebis<br />
Sedegad dazaralebul im mo-<br />
71
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
qalaqeTa ganacxadi, romlebsac miadgaT<br />
fizikuri da qonebrivi ziani da romlebmac<br />
iwvnies ojaxis wevrebis daRupva,<br />
dasaSvebad gamocxadda. 104<br />
jer kidev 1999 wels, bankoviCis saqmeze<br />
evropuli sasamarTlos mier miRebuli<br />
daskvnebis sapirispirod, panamerikulma<br />
komisiam daadgina kubis respublikis<br />
pasuxismgebloba misi warmomadgenlebis<br />
mier saerTaSoriso sahaero<br />
sivrceSi msubuqi sahaero xomaldis<br />
CamogdebisaTvis, rasac Sedegad mohyva<br />
samoqalaqo mfrinavebis daRupva. ker-<br />
Zod, panamerikulma komisiam aRniSna,<br />
rom, miuxedavad eqstrateritoriuli<br />
qmedebisa, dazaralebulebi moeqcnen<br />
kubis respublikis xelisuflebis qveS.<br />
Sesabamisad, dadginda am ukanasknelis<br />
mier adamianis uflebebisa da valdebulebebis<br />
Sesaxeb amerikis deklaraciiT<br />
nakisri valdebulebebis darRveva. 105<br />
2002 wels panamerikulma komisiam<br />
amerikis SeerTebul Statebs sTxova,<br />
mokle droSi uzrunveleyo guantanamoSi<br />
dakavebulTa statusis gansazRvra,<br />
raTa maT esargeblaT samarTlebrivi<br />
dacvis garantiebiT. 106<br />
zemoxsenebuli saqmeebi adasturebs,<br />
rom adamianis uflebebisa da valdebulebebis<br />
Sesaxeb amerikis deklaraciis<br />
gamoyeneba ar aris SezRuduli mxolod<br />
mopasuxe qveynis erovnuli teritoriiT<br />
da igi vrceldeba aseve saxelmwifos<br />
eqstrateritoriul qmedebebze.<br />
daskvna<br />
rogorc zemoaRniSnuli praqtikis<br />
analizma cxadyo, adamianis uflebaTa<br />
dacvis saerTaSoriso dokumentebis moq<br />
medeba ar Semoifargleba qveynis erov<br />
nuli teritoriiT da xSirad maTi moqmedeba<br />
vrceldeba mis farglebs gare-<br />
Tac.<br />
adamianis uflebaTa eqstrateritoriuli<br />
dacvis valdebuleba warmoiSoba,<br />
rodesac erTi qveyana axorcielebs<br />
efeqtian kontrols meore qveyanaSi an<br />
misi teritoriis nawilze, magaliTad,<br />
okupaciis SemTxvevaSi. rogorc es zemoaRniSnuli<br />
loizidusa da kviprosis<br />
saqmeTa gadawyvetilebebiT dadginda,<br />
saxelmwifos pasuxismgebloba warmoiSoba<br />
ara mxolod misi samxedro Zalebis,<br />
aramed adgilobrivi administraciis an<br />
kerZo pirTa qmedebebTan dakavSirebiT.<br />
Tumca saxelmwifos valdebuleba<br />
– dai cvas adamianis uflebebi, ar aris<br />
SezRuduli mxolod efeqtiani kontrolis<br />
pirobebSi, rogorc es zemoT iqna<br />
mimoxiluli, ilaSkus gadawyvetilebiT<br />
mniSvnelovnad gafarTovda saxelmwifos<br />
eqstrateritoriuli pasuxismgebloba.<br />
kerZod, im SemTxvevaSic ki, rodesac<br />
saxeze ar aris efeqtiani kontroli,<br />
SesaZlebelia warmoiSvas saxelmwifos<br />
valdebuleba adamianis uflebaTa<br />
dacvis kuTxiT, Tu dadgindeba, rom erTi<br />
qveynis teritoriis nawili imyofeba<br />
meore qveynis efeqtiani xelisuflebis<br />
an gadamwyveti gavlenis qveS. amis klasikuri<br />
magaliTia moldovis dnestrispireTis<br />
TviTgamocxadebuli respublika,<br />
romelic daarsda da SemdgomSi arsebobda<br />
ruseTis federaciis samxedro,<br />
ekonomikuri da politikuri mxardaWeriT.<br />
rogorc zeviT iqna mimoxiluli,<br />
am saqmeze dadginda ruseTis efeqtiani<br />
xelisufleba dnestrispireTis teritoriaze<br />
da, Sesabamisad, mas daekisra pasuxismgebloba<br />
adamianis uflebaTa dar-<br />
RvevebisaTvis.<br />
saxelmwifos pasuxismgeblobis sakiT<br />
xi adamianis uflebaTa darRvevisaTvis<br />
SeiZleba aseve daisvas eqstrateritoriuli<br />
qmedebis dros, roca daza ralebuli<br />
moeqceva meore saxelmwifos<br />
xelisuflebis qveS. es swored iseTi<br />
SemTxvevebia, roca saxelmwifos pasuxismgebloba<br />
dgeba ara meore qveynis teritoriaze<br />
efeqtiani kontrolis an efeqtiani<br />
xelisuflebis ganxorcielebis safuZvelze,<br />
aramed im eqstrateritoriuli<br />
qmedebebis gamo, romelTa Sedegad<br />
dairRva piris uflebebi. amis magaliTi<br />
SeiZleba iyos: ucxo qveynis teritoriaze<br />
piris dakaveba, sazRvargareT mcxovrebi<br />
moqalaqisaTvis amave qveynis<br />
teritoriaze pasportis gacemaze uaris<br />
Tqma, eqstrateritoriuli qmedebis<br />
Sedegad adamianis gardacvaleba da a.S.<br />
marTalia, am ukanasknelTan dakavSire-<br />
72
i. barTaia, adamianis uflebaTa dacvis saerTaSoriso dokumentebis eqstrateritoriuli gamoyeneba...<br />
biT evropulma sasamarTlom bankoviCis<br />
saqmeze sapirispiro daskvnebi miiRo,<br />
Tumca, rogorc es zemoT iqna mimoxiluli,<br />
aRniSnuli saqme ar SeiZleba miCneul<br />
iqnes wamyvan gadawyvetilebad iurisdiqciis<br />
sakiTxebis gansazRvrisas.<br />
adamianis uflebaTa dacvis sakiTxi<br />
wamoiWreba ara marto eqstrateritoriuli<br />
qmedebebis SemTxvevaSi, aramed<br />
iseT SemTxvevaSic, roca erTi qveynis<br />
mier Tavis iurisdiqciaSi ganxorcielebuli<br />
qmedeba safuZvlad daedeba meore<br />
iurisdiqciaSi am piris uflebebis dar-<br />
Rvevas. aseTi SemTxveva SeiZleba moxdes,<br />
magaliTad, piris eqstradiciisas, roca<br />
arsebobs safuZvliani eWvi, rom mimReb<br />
saxelmwifoSi misi uflebebi Seilaxeba.<br />
adamianis uflebaTa saerTaSoriso<br />
dokumentebis eqstrateritoriuli gavr<br />
celeba absoluturad logikuri da<br />
aucilebelic aris. dauSvebelia, saxelmwifom<br />
pasuxismgebloba aicilos akrZaluli<br />
qmedebisaTvis im safuZvliT, rom<br />
es qmedeba misi teritoriis sazRvrebs<br />
miRma moxda. Sesabamisad, SeuZlebelia ar<br />
daveTanxmoT saerTaSoriso meqanizmebis<br />
praqtikas, sadac progresulad da far-<br />
Tod iqna ganmartebuli adamianis uflebaTa<br />
dacvis dokumentebis moqmedebis<br />
farglebi.<br />
1<br />
saerTaSoriso paqti samoqalaqo da politikuri uflebebis Sesaxeb,<br />
1966 weli, saqarTveloSi ZalaSia 1994 wlis 3 agvistodan.<br />
2<br />
Id. me-2 muxli.<br />
3<br />
Michael J. Dennis, Application of Human Rights Treaties Extraterritorially in Times<br />
of Armed Confl ict and Military Occupations, 99 (1) A.J.I.L. (2005), 122.<br />
4<br />
Id. gv. 123-124.<br />
5<br />
General Comment No. 31, Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on<br />
States Parties to the Covenant, 26/05/2004, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, (General<br />
Comments), §10, (29.05.20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
6<br />
Lopez Burgos v. Uruguay, Communication No.52/1979, 29/07/81, CPR/C/13/<br />
D/52/1979, HRC, (Jurisprudence), (29.05.20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
7<br />
Id. §§ 2.2. – 2.4.<br />
8<br />
Id. § 12.1.<br />
9<br />
Id. § 12.3.<br />
10<br />
Id. § 12.2.<br />
11<br />
Id. § 12.3.<br />
12<br />
Id. § 13.<br />
13<br />
Celiberti v. Uruguay, Communication No.56/1979, 29/07/81, CCPR/C/13/<br />
D/56/1979, HRC, (Jurisprudence), (29.05.20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
14<br />
Sarah Joseph, Jenny Schultz and Melissa Castan, the <strong>International</strong> Covenant<br />
on Civil and Political Rights: Cases, Materials and Commentary, 2 nd ed. Oxford:<br />
Oxford University Press, 2005, 87.<br />
15<br />
HRC, Israel, 18/08/98, CCPR/C/79/Add.93, (Concluding Observations/Comments),<br />
§ 10, (29.05.20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
16<br />
HRC, Israel, 21/08/2003, CCPR/CO/78/ISR, (Concluding Observations/<br />
Comments), § 11, (29.05.20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
17<br />
HRC, United States of America, 15.<strong>09</strong>.06, CCPR/C/USA/CO/3, § 14. (29.05.20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
18<br />
HRC, The Russian Federation, 24/11/20<strong>09</strong>, CCPR/C/RUS/CO/6, (Concluding<br />
Observations/Comments), § 13, (28.01.2010).<br />
19<br />
Charles Chitat Ng. v Canada, Communication No.469/1991, 7/01/1994, CCPR/<br />
C/49/D/469/1991, HRC, § 14.2, (29.05.20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
20<br />
Id. § 16.4. – 17.<br />
21<br />
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian<br />
Territory, Advisory Opinion, I. C. J. Reports 2004, p. 136.<br />
22<br />
Id. § 102.<br />
23<br />
Id.<br />
24<br />
Id. §§ 105 - 108.<br />
25<br />
Id. § 108.<br />
73
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
26<br />
Id. § 1<strong>09</strong>.<br />
27<br />
Id.<br />
28<br />
Id. § 111.<br />
29<br />
Id. § 112.<br />
30<br />
Id.<br />
31<br />
Id.<br />
32<br />
Id. § 113.<br />
33<br />
Id. § 134.<br />
34<br />
Military and Paramilitary Activities in und against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v.<br />
United States of America). Merits, Judgment. I.C.J. Reports 1986, [SemdgomSi -<br />
“Nicaragua case”].<br />
35<br />
Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and<br />
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and<br />
Montenegro), I.C.J., Judgment of 26 February 2007, [SemdgomSi – “Genocide<br />
case”].<br />
36<br />
Nicaragua case, supra sqolio, 34, § 20.<br />
37<br />
Id. § 1, § 20 & §114.<br />
38<br />
Id. §1<strong>09</strong>.<br />
39<br />
Id. §110.<br />
40<br />
Id. §§1<strong>09</strong> -115.<br />
41<br />
Id. §115.<br />
42<br />
Id.<br />
43<br />
ICTY, Appeals Chamber, Tadić , 15 July 1999 (Case no. IT-94-1-A).<br />
44<br />
Id. § 116 and § 124.<br />
45<br />
Id. § 137.<br />
46<br />
Id.<br />
47<br />
Id.<br />
48<br />
Id.<br />
49<br />
Id.<br />
50<br />
Id. §141.<br />
51<br />
Richard J. Goldstone & Rebecca J. Hamilton, Bosnia v. Serbia: Lessons from<br />
the Encounter of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia,<br />
21 Leiden <strong>Journal</strong> of <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> (2008), 101 [SemdgomSi – “Goldstone &<br />
Hamilton”].<br />
52<br />
Genocide case, supra sqolio, 35.<br />
53<br />
Id. §§ 396 – 407.<br />
54<br />
Goldstone & Hamilton, supra sqolio, 51, gv. 102.<br />
55<br />
Id. gv. 97.<br />
56<br />
Antonio Cassese, The Nicaragua and Tadic tests revisited in light of the ICJ judgment<br />
on genocide in Bosnia, 18(4) E.J.I.L. (2007), 665.<br />
57<br />
Id. gv. 654.<br />
58<br />
adamianis uflebaTa da ZiriTad TavisuflebaTa dacvis 1950 wlis 4 noembris<br />
evropuli konvencia, saqarTveloSi ZalaSia 1999 wlis 20 maisidan.<br />
59<br />
Id.<br />
60<br />
X v. the Federal Republic of Germany, Application no.1611/6225, 25 September<br />
1965, Yearbook, vol. 8, p. 158.<br />
61<br />
Hess v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 6231/73, 28 May 1975, DR 2, p. 72.<br />
62<br />
W.M.v. Denmark, Application no. 17392/90, Commission Decision of 14 October<br />
1992, DR 73, p. 193.<br />
63<br />
Id. § 1.<br />
64<br />
Soering v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 14038/88, 7 July 1989, Series A<br />
no. 161, § 91.<br />
65<br />
mamatkulovi da askarovi TurqeTis winaaRmdeg, 2005 wlis 4 Tebervlis<br />
gadawyvetileba, § 67, ix. adamianis uflebaTa evropuli sasamarTlos<br />
ganaCenTa krebuli, wigni III, evropis sabWo, 2006, 307.<br />
66<br />
Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), Application no.15318/89, Judgment<br />
of 23 March 1995, Series A no. 310 [SemdgomSi – “Loizidou case, (preliminary<br />
objections)”].<br />
67<br />
Id. §11.<br />
74
i. barTaia, adamianis uflebaTa dacvis saerTaSoriso dokumentebis eqstrateritoriuli gamoyeneba...<br />
68<br />
Cyprus v. Turkey, [GC], no. 25781/94, § 14 ECHR 2001-IV [SemdgomSi – “Cyprus<br />
case”].<br />
69<br />
Loizidou case, (preliminary objections), supra sqolio 66, §11.<br />
70<br />
Id. § 62.<br />
71<br />
Id. § 64.<br />
72<br />
Loizidou v. Turkey, Application no. 15318/89, Judgment of 18 December 1996<br />
(merits), Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, § 54.<br />
73<br />
Id. § 56.<br />
74<br />
Id.<br />
75<br />
ix. 1-li Tavi.<br />
76<br />
Cyprus case, supra sqolio, 68.<br />
77<br />
Id. § 77.<br />
78<br />
Banković and Others v. Belgium and 16 Other Contracting States (dec.) [GC],<br />
no. 52207/99, ECHR 2001-XII.<br />
79<br />
Id. §§ 1-11.<br />
80<br />
Id. §§ 79-80.<br />
81<br />
Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia, [GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004-VII<br />
[SemdgomSi – “Ilaşcu case”].<br />
82<br />
Clare Ovey & Robin White, Jacobs & White, the European Convention on Human<br />
Rights, 4 th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, 24.<br />
83<br />
Ilaşcu case, supra sqolio, 81, § 392.<br />
84<br />
Id.<br />
85<br />
Id. § 394.<br />
86<br />
Issa and Others v. Turkey, Application no. 31821/96, Admissibility Decision of 16<br />
November 2004, (21.05.20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
87<br />
Id. §§ 81- 82.<br />
88<br />
Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, ECHR 2005-IV.<br />
89<br />
Id. § 91.<br />
90<br />
Öcalan v. Turkey, Application no. 46221/99, Judgment of 12 March 2003, § 93,<br />
(15.05.20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
91<br />
Mansur Pad and others v. Turkey, Application no. 60167/00, Admissibility Decision<br />
of 28 June 2007, §§ 5 – 8, (15.05.20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
92<br />
Id. §§ 21 – 26.<br />
93<br />
Id. §§ 54 – 55.<br />
94<br />
Id. §§ 52 – 53.<br />
95<br />
Id. §§ 71 – 72.<br />
96<br />
Maria Issak and Others v. Turkey, Application no. 44587/98, Admissibility Decision<br />
of 28 September 2006, (18.05.20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
97<br />
Id.<br />
98<br />
Id.<br />
99<br />
D. McGoldrick, Extraterritorial Application of the <strong>International</strong> Covenant on<br />
Civil and Political Rights in F. Coomans and M. Kamminga, eds, Extraterritorial<br />
Application of Human Rights Treaties (Intersentia, 2004), 41 et seq. cited in Loukis<br />
G. Loucaides, Determining the extra-territorial effect of the European Convention:<br />
facts, jurisprudence and the Bankovic case, E.H.R.L.R., (2006), 406.<br />
100<br />
American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, 1966, I. Brownlie and<br />
G. S. Goodwin-Gill (eds), Basic Documents on Human Rights, Oxford: Oxford<br />
University Press, 2006, 927.<br />
101<br />
Marko Milanovic, From Compromise to Principle: Clarifying the Concept of State<br />
Jurisdiction in Human Rights Treaties, 8 Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 432.<br />
102<br />
Coard et at v. United States, case no.10.951, Report no. 1<strong>09</strong>/99, (30.05.20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
103<br />
Id. § 37.<br />
104<br />
Case no. 10.573, Report no. 31/93, (30.05.20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
105<br />
Armando Alejandre Jr., Carlos Alberto Costa, Mario de la Peña, and Pablo<br />
Morales v. Cuba, case no.11.589, Report no. 86/99, <br />
(24.05.20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
106<br />
Precautionary Measures in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Inter-American Commission<br />
on Human Rights, 13.03. 2002, (15.08.2008).<br />
75
IRINE BARTAIA<br />
EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN<br />
RIGHTS DOCUMENTS: AN ANALYSIS OF THE PRACTICE<br />
OF THE INTERNATIONAL MECHANISMS<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
The application of international human<br />
rights documents is not limited to the territories<br />
of the contracting parties. The scope of<br />
the extraterritorial application of international<br />
human rights instruments has been interpreted<br />
in an extensive and progressive manner by<br />
international mechanisms. A number of views,<br />
decisions, or judgments have been adopted<br />
by these institutions in this respect, and these<br />
are discussed in the present paper. In many<br />
circumstances, a state cannot avoid liability<br />
for human rights violations that occur in the<br />
context of its extraterritorial actions.<br />
The present paper analyses the decisions<br />
of international and regional mechanisms in<br />
this respect. The fi rst part examines the practises<br />
of the Human Rights Committee and the<br />
<strong>International</strong> Court of Justice in relation to issues<br />
of extraterritorial exercise of international<br />
human rights instruments.<br />
Second part is devoted to regional human<br />
rights protection mechanisms. This part<br />
examines the judgments and decisions of the<br />
European Commission of Human Rights and<br />
the European Court of Human Rights concerning<br />
the territorial scope of the European<br />
Convention on Human Rights. This part also<br />
examines the practice of the Inter-American<br />
Commission on Human Rights with respect to<br />
the extraterritorial application of the American<br />
Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man.<br />
The fi nal part contains conclusions reached<br />
as a result of analysis of the practice discussed<br />
in the paper.<br />
1. INTERNATIONAL MECHANISMS<br />
1.1.The Human Rights Committee<br />
In 1966, the <strong>International</strong> Covenant on<br />
Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter the<br />
ICCPR) was adopted by the United Nations<br />
General Assembly and came into force in<br />
1976. 1 According to Article 2 of the ICCPR,<br />
contracting parties are must ensure the rights<br />
guaranteed in the covenant for all individuals<br />
within the territories subject to their jurisdiction:<br />
Each State Party to the present Covenant<br />
undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals<br />
within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction<br />
the rights recognized in the present<br />
Covenant […]. 2<br />
Literal reading of this text leads to the<br />
conclusion that a state is under obligation to<br />
protect human rights only when the individual<br />
is within the state’s territory, and, at the same<br />
time, is subject to its jurisdiction. 3 The study<br />
of state positions expressed in the course of<br />
elaboration of the ICCPR demonstrates that<br />
such a formulation was chosen in order for the<br />
contracting states to avoid responsibility for<br />
human rights protection in the occupied territories.<br />
4 However, the Human Rights Committee<br />
(hereinafter the HRC), later established under<br />
Article 28 of the ICCPR for the purpose of<br />
supervising the performance by the states of<br />
their obligations under the ICCPR, interpreted<br />
the above article in a quite extensive way. The<br />
HRC has repeatedly confi rmed that the responsibility<br />
of the state is not limited to its territory,<br />
but extends to individuals who are outside<br />
that territory and are under the jurisdiction<br />
76
I. BARTAIA, EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DOCUMENTS: AN ANALYSIS ...<br />
of the state concerned. According to General<br />
Comment No.31, the HRC indicated that:<br />
States Parties are required by article 2,<br />
paragraph 1, to respect and to ensure the<br />
Covenant rights to all persons who may be<br />
within their territory and to all persons subject<br />
to their jurisdiction. This means that a State<br />
party must respect and ensure the rights laid<br />
down in the Covenant to anyone within the<br />
power or effective control of that State Party,<br />
even if not situated within the territory of the<br />
State Party. [...] the enjoyment of Covenant<br />
rights is not limited to citizens of States Parties<br />
but must also be available to all individuals, regardless<br />
of nationality or statelessness, such<br />
as asylum seekers, refugees, migrant workers<br />
and other persons, who may fi nd themselves<br />
in the territory or subject to the jurisdiction of<br />
the State Party. This principle also applies to<br />
those within the power or effective control of<br />
the forces of a State Party acting outside its<br />
territory, regardless of the circumstances in<br />
which such power or effective control was obtained,<br />
such as forces constituting a national<br />
contingent of a State Party assigned to an international<br />
peace-keeping or peace-enforcement<br />
operation. 5<br />
As the above comment demonstrates,<br />
parties of the ICCPR are under obligation to<br />
protect human rights of all individuals not only<br />
within their territories, but also outside their<br />
national territories, when the individuals are<br />
under their power or effective control.<br />
This approach has been confi rmed by the<br />
views adopted by the HRC. Therefore, it is of<br />
interest to outline of some of them.<br />
The case of Lopez Burgos v. Uruguay involved<br />
illegal actions of the Uruguayan authorities<br />
both in Uruguay and Argentina. 6 Specifi cally<br />
, Lopez Burgos was illegally detained by Uruguayan<br />
security and intelligence agencies in<br />
Buenos Aires and later transferred to Uruguay.<br />
The rights set forth in the ICCPR were violated<br />
in relation to the detainee in both countries. 7<br />
The HRC decided that it had jurisdiction<br />
to consider the application submitted against<br />
Uruguay in the context of violations committed<br />
in the territory of Argentina. 8 According to<br />
the HRC, the ICCPR should not be construed<br />
as not requiring responsibility of a state for its<br />
actions committed upon the territory of another<br />
state. 9 What is important for the HRC is<br />
the link between the individual and the state<br />
concerned, rather than the location of an infringement.<br />
10 According to the HRC, states<br />
are prohibited under the covenant from perpetrating<br />
violations outside their territory which<br />
they are not permitted to perpetrate within<br />
their territory. 11 Accordingly, the HRC held the<br />
Uruguayan authorities responsible under the<br />
ICCPR for torture and ill-treatment committed<br />
against Lopez Burgos, both in Argentina and<br />
in Uruguay. In addition to fi nding a number of<br />
violations of the provisions of the ICCPR, the<br />
HRC held that Uruguay was responsible for<br />
the abduction of Lopez Burgos in Argentina<br />
and his transfer to Uruguay. Namely, the HRC<br />
indicated that this constituted arbitrary arrest<br />
and detention. 12<br />
Similarly, in the case of Celiberti de Casariego<br />
v. Uruguay, the HRC held Uruguay responsible<br />
for the detention of the applicant in<br />
the territory of Brazil. 13<br />
The HRC has repeatedly confirmed that<br />
contracting parties are under duty to ensure the<br />
protection of human rights not only within their<br />
territories, but also within the territories which<br />
are under their effective control. 14 Concluding<br />
Observations with respect to Israel are noteworthy<br />
in this respect. Specifically, the HRC<br />
has expressed deep concern with respect to<br />
Israel’s denial of its responsibility to make the<br />
ICCPR fully applicable in the occupied territories.<br />
The HRC noted that the ICCPR is applicable<br />
not only to the population of the territories<br />
occupied by Israel, but also to the population of<br />
territories under its effective control. 15 Accordingly,<br />
Israel was requested to submit information<br />
to the HRC with respect to measures undertaken<br />
in these territories for the protection<br />
of rights as provided for by the ICCPR. 16<br />
In its Concluding Observations in 2006,<br />
the HRC requested that the United States of<br />
American carry out effective and impartial investigations<br />
with respect to the alleged deaths,<br />
torture, and other forms of ill-treatment in its<br />
detention areas outside its territory, including<br />
Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan, and Iraq. 17<br />
In its Concluding Observations adopted<br />
in 20<strong>09</strong>, with respect to Russia, the HRC expressed<br />
concern regarding the abuses and<br />
killings of civilians in South Ossetia as a result<br />
77
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
of the military operations by Russian forces in<br />
August, 2008. Recalling the fact that South Ossetia<br />
was under de facto control of Russia, the<br />
HRC held that Russia was responsible for the<br />
actions not only of its armed forces, but also<br />
of other armed groups under its control. Accordingly,<br />
Russia was requested to carry out<br />
exhaustive and independent investigations, as<br />
well as to provide appropriate compensation<br />
to the victims of the violations. 18<br />
State responsibility for the ICCPR violations<br />
can be engaged not only for extraterritorial<br />
actions, but also for extraterritorial effects<br />
of an action. These situations may arise in<br />
cases of extradition, deportation, or expulsion<br />
of an individual in another state. The HRC<br />
held that the responsibility of a state party to<br />
the ICCPR to extradite an individual in another<br />
state might arise when there is a risk that this<br />
person will be subjected to treatment contrary<br />
to the ICCPR provisions in another jurisdiction.<br />
19 Accordingly, the HRC, in the case of<br />
Chitat Ng v. Canada, held that extradition of<br />
the applicant to the United States, if the applicant<br />
was sentenced to death, and, thereby,<br />
executed by gas asphyxiation, constituted a<br />
violation by Canada of its obligations under<br />
the ICCPR. The HRC held that execution by<br />
gas asphyxiation involves prolonged suffering<br />
and is incompatible with the requirements of<br />
Article 7 of the ICCPR, which prohibits cruel<br />
and inhuman treatment. 20<br />
As has been demonstrated above, the<br />
practice of the HRC confi rms that the obligation<br />
to ensure the rights provided for by the IC-<br />
CPR is not limited to the territory of a contracting<br />
party, but may extend beyond the boundaries<br />
of its national territory in a number of circumstances<br />
when extraterritorial exercise of a<br />
jurisdiction of the state has been established.<br />
1.2. The <strong>International</strong> Court of Justice<br />
The practice of the <strong>International</strong> Court of<br />
Justice (hereinafter the ICJ) is of particular interest<br />
for the purposes of extraterritorial application<br />
of international human rights treaties.<br />
The ICJ has confi rmed that the application<br />
of international human rights protection<br />
documents is not confi ned to the territories of<br />
a state, and it may extend to foreign soil in a<br />
number of circumstances.<br />
The question of the jurisdiction of a state<br />
over the territory of another state was dealt by<br />
the ICJ in the case of Legal Consequences<br />
of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied<br />
Palestinian Territory. 21 In this case, the ICJ<br />
considered whether the human rights treaties<br />
to which Israel was party, applied within the<br />
occupied Palestinian territory. 22<br />
Israel argued that international human<br />
rights treaties were not applicable to the territories<br />
it occupied, because the aim of these<br />
treaties was to protect citizens from their own<br />
government during peacetime. According to<br />
Israel, only humanitarian law was applicable<br />
with respect to confl ict situations. 23<br />
The ICJ rejected the Israeli argument that<br />
the protection offered by international human<br />
rights treaties ceased during times of armed<br />
confl icts due to the scope of the application of<br />
the ICCPR. 24<br />
According to the ICJ, Article 2 of the IC-<br />
CPR, which determines the scope of the application<br />
of the covenant, can be interpreted<br />
in different ways. Namely, it may be taken to<br />
mean that as the ICCPR is only applicable to<br />
individuals who are both present within the territory<br />
of a contracting party and subject to its<br />
jurisdiction. Alternatively, this provision can be<br />
construed to mean the ICCPR is applicable<br />
not only to individuals who are present within<br />
a state territory, but also to individuals who are<br />
located outside that territory under the jurisdiction<br />
of the state concerned. To determine the<br />
meaning to taken from the text, the ICJ embarked<br />
on a detailed analysis of this issue. 25<br />
At the outset, the ICJ noted that while jurisdiction<br />
of a state is primarily territorial, in exceptional<br />
circumstances, jurisdiction extends<br />
outside its national territory. The ICJ held that<br />
only such an approach is in line with the aims<br />
and objects of the ICCPR. 26 In support of its<br />
conclusions, the ICJ referred to the practice of<br />
the HRC, which held on many occasions that<br />
the ICCPR is applicable in foreign territories<br />
where the state exercises jurisdiction. 27<br />
In view of the above, the ICJ held that<br />
the ICCPR is applicable in respect to the acts<br />
committed by contracting parties in the exercise<br />
of their jurisdiction outside their national<br />
territories. 28<br />
78
I. BARTAIA, EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DOCUMENTS: AN ANALYSIS ...<br />
The ICJ determined the extraterritorial<br />
applicability of the <strong>International</strong> Covenant on<br />
Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights of 1966<br />
(hereinafter the ICESCR). Unlike the ICCPR,<br />
the ICESCR does not contain provisions on its<br />
scope of application. This was explained by<br />
the ICJ by the fact that the ICESCR contains<br />
rights which are essentially territorial. However,<br />
the ICJ held that “it is not to be excluded that<br />
it applies both to territories over which a State<br />
party has sovereignty and to those over which<br />
that State exercises territorial jurisdiction.” 29<br />
In support of its conclusion, the ICJ cited<br />
on the one hand, the transitional Article 14<br />
of the ICESCR, according to which contracting<br />
parties undertook the obligation to secure,<br />
within two years, compulsorily primary education,<br />
free of charge, in their metropolitan territories<br />
or other territories under their jurisdiction,<br />
and, on the other hand, the practice of the<br />
Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural<br />
Rights, according to which Israel is under duty<br />
to make the ICESCR applicable to all territories<br />
and populations under its effective control. 30<br />
Therefore, the ICJ concluded that Israel is<br />
under duty to secure the rights provided by the<br />
ICESCR in the occupied territories under its<br />
territorial jurisdiction for over 37 years. 31<br />
Without additional considerations, the ICJ<br />
concluded that the Convention on the Rights<br />
of the Child of 1989 is applicable within occupied<br />
Palestinian territory. The ICJ referred to<br />
Article 2 of the Convention according to which<br />
contracting states undertook the obligation to<br />
respect and ensure the rights guaranteed in<br />
the Convention for each child within their jurisdiction.<br />
32<br />
In so far as these treaties were applicable<br />
within occupied Palestinian territory, the<br />
ICJ concluded that the construction of the wall<br />
in these territories hampered the freedom of<br />
movement of the population of the occupied<br />
Palestinian territory (except for Israeli citizens<br />
and those assimilated thereto) as proclaimed<br />
in the ICCPR. It also impeded the right to<br />
work, to health, to education, and to an adequate<br />
standard of living provided for by the<br />
ICESCR and the United Nations Convention<br />
on the Rights of the Child. 33<br />
Jurisdiction and state responsibility have<br />
been understood in a number of cases as the<br />
same categories, and this is also evidenced<br />
by the practice of the European Court of Human<br />
Rights. Therefore, it is useful to overview<br />
those cases dealt with by the ICJ where the<br />
issue of immutability of acts to a state was<br />
considered for the purposes of its liability.<br />
It should be noted that according to many<br />
judgments of the European Court of Human<br />
Rights, discussed in detail in section 2 below,<br />
if an act is found attributable to a state, in this<br />
circumstances it is considered that the state is<br />
exercising jurisdiction. Accordingly, in view of<br />
the fact that in most cases, state responsibility<br />
under human rights documents is dependent<br />
on the attribution of an action to a state,<br />
it is of interest to analyse the practice of the<br />
ICJ in this respect. The position of the ICJ in<br />
this respect has been illustrated in the cases,<br />
Nicaragua v. United States of America 34 and<br />
Bosnia v. Serbia. 35<br />
In the case of Nicaragua v. United States of<br />
America, the ICJ has thoroughly analyzed the<br />
question of attribution of responsibility of the<br />
United States for the wrongful acts committed<br />
by contra rebels fighting against the Nicaraguan<br />
government. 36 In connection with this case, the<br />
Nicaraguan Government alleged the responsibility<br />
of the United States of America for the<br />
actions committed by contras, which, as contended<br />
by the Nicaraguan Government, were<br />
recruited, organized, paid, and commanded<br />
by the Government of the United States, and,<br />
therefore, was under its effective control. 37<br />
Thus, the issue that was raised before the<br />
ICJ was the responsibility of states for acts perpetrated<br />
by persons or a group of persons not<br />
having the status of state organs. The ICJ did<br />
not reject such a possibility. It fi rst considered<br />
whether the relationship of the United States<br />
and contras were characterized with such a<br />
degree of control and dependence that would<br />
made it possible to equate the contras “with<br />
an organ of the United States Government,<br />
or as acting on behalf of that Government.” 38<br />
According to the ICJ, the acts individuals or a<br />
group of individuals would have been attributable<br />
to a state if “complete dependence” of<br />
these individuals or group of individuals on the<br />
state was found. 39<br />
Having rejected that the contras may be<br />
equated with the U.S. government, the next<br />
79
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
question the ICJ considered was whether an<br />
act may be attributed to a state even if complete<br />
dependence is not found. 40 This question<br />
was answered by the ICJ affi rmatively,<br />
and was concluded that for acts of person or a<br />
group of persons to be attributed to a state, it<br />
is necessary to prove that “that the state had<br />
effective control of the military or paramilitary<br />
operations in the course of which the alleged<br />
violations were committed.” 41<br />
The ICJ considered the degree of control<br />
exercised by the United States over contras<br />
and concluded that the provision of military, fi -<br />
nancial, logistical, or other support to contras,<br />
as well as planning their operations and selecting<br />
military targets was not suffi cient for attribution<br />
of acts of contras to the U.S. Despite<br />
the fact that the U.S. exercised a high degree<br />
of control over these forces, this dependency<br />
itself did not lead the ICJ to conclude that the<br />
U.S. was responsible for the violation of human<br />
rights and humanitarian law committed<br />
by contras, as the effective control test was<br />
not met. 42<br />
The effective control test employed by the<br />
ICJ in the Nicaragua case was not without controversy<br />
and in 1999, the <strong>International</strong> Criminal<br />
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (hereinafter<br />
the ICTY), in the Tadić case, 43 found<br />
the effective control test unconvincing as it did<br />
not seem consistent with the logic of the international<br />
law on judicial and state practices, 44<br />
elaborated “overall control”, broadening the<br />
scope of state responsibility. 45<br />
The ICTY distinguished between acts of<br />
single private individual and armed groups,<br />
and held that different tests, based on the degree<br />
of control, were to be applied when attributing<br />
their acts to a state. To ascertain whether<br />
a single private individual acted as a de facto<br />
organ of a state, it was necessary to determine<br />
that either a specifi c instruction was given by a<br />
state to that individual to perform particular act<br />
or that the act was later endorsed by a state. 46<br />
The ICTY established different tests with respect<br />
to armed groups. Specifi cally, control by<br />
a state over subordinate armed forces or militias,<br />
or paramilitary units may be of an overall<br />
character (and must comprise more than the<br />
mere provision of fi nancial assistance or military<br />
equipment or training). This requirement,<br />
however, does not go so far as to include specifi<br />
c orders by the state, or the state’s direction<br />
of individual operations. 47<br />
For the ICTY, international law does not<br />
require that all operations must be planned by<br />
the controlling state. What is required by international<br />
law is that a state “has a role in organising,<br />
coordinating, or planning the military actions<br />
of the military group, in addition to fi nancing,<br />
training and equipping or providing operational<br />
support to that group.” 48 Accordingly, the<br />
ICTY concluded that acts performed by such<br />
groups were to be attributable to a state regardless<br />
of specifi c instructions issued to them<br />
by the state concerned. 49<br />
The ICTY further elaborated the third test<br />
with respect to situations when individuals approximate<br />
to the state authorities by reason of<br />
their behaviour. 50<br />
The Tadić case was not without critique,<br />
not only from the point of view of the ICTY’s<br />
approach towards an effective control test, but<br />
also because the ICTY should not have dealt<br />
with the test at all. 51 Later, the ICJ confi rmed<br />
the Nicaragua test in the case of Bosnia v.<br />
Serbia discussed below.<br />
The effective control test was further addressed<br />
by the ICJ in 2007, in the case of Bosnia<br />
and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro.<br />
52 The ICJ rejected the overall control test<br />
developed by the ICTY and confi rmed the ICJ<br />
effective control test developed in the Nicaragua<br />
case. The ICJ deemed that as long as<br />
the overall control test was used by the ICTY<br />
to determine the character of the confl ict and<br />
whether it was national or international, the<br />
application of the test was appropriate. But<br />
it rejected its application with respect to matters<br />
involving state responsibility, as the ICTY<br />
was widening the scope of state responsibility<br />
to such an extent that it was going against<br />
the basic principles of the international law on<br />
state responsibility. 53<br />
The ICJ judgment on the Bosnia v. Serbia<br />
case implies that the ICJ will continue to apply<br />
effective control tests in future cases brought<br />
before it that are related to the issues of attribution<br />
and state responsibility. 54<br />
Taking into consideration these different<br />
approaches, a question arises to which judicial<br />
institution shall be given more weight on<br />
80
I. BARTAIA, EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DOCUMENTS: AN ANALYSIS ...<br />
the above matter. Goldstone and Hamilton argue<br />
that the ICJ should be considered more<br />
competent in issues of state responsibility as it<br />
was given general jurisdiction on matters falling<br />
within the domain of public international<br />
law, unlike the ICTY, for which jurisdiction is<br />
limited to individual criminal responsibility. 55<br />
For Cassese, the test developed by the ICTY<br />
is more helpful and suitable as it takes into<br />
consideration current trends and realities. 56<br />
He believes the effective control test has two<br />
main fl aws. First, the test is not based on any<br />
precedent or state practice, and second, it is<br />
incompatible with the fundamental principle<br />
of the law on state responsibility, the aim of<br />
which is to ensure that states cannot escape<br />
responsibility for the unlawful acts they commit<br />
by using a group of individuals. 57<br />
In the opinion of the author of the present<br />
paper, the approach of the ICJ seems obsolete<br />
and does not correspond to present-day<br />
realities. In the view of the prevailing approach<br />
taken by other international or regional institutions<br />
discussed below, returning to the test<br />
developed by the ICJ in 1986 is unreasonable<br />
and lacks any legal justifi cation.<br />
2. REGIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION<br />
MECHANISMS<br />
2.1. The European Court of Human<br />
Rights<br />
In 1950, the European Convention for the<br />
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental<br />
Freedoms (hereinafter the European Convention)<br />
was signed, which entered into force in<br />
1953. 58<br />
Under Article 1 of the European Convention,<br />
“the High Contracting Parties shall secure<br />
to everyone within their jurisdiction the<br />
rights and freedoms defi ned in Section I of this<br />
Convention.” 59 As this article demonstrates,<br />
state parties to the European Convention<br />
agree to ensure the protection of human rights<br />
for everyone within their jurisdiction.<br />
The European Commission of Human<br />
Rights and the European Court of Human<br />
Rights (hereinafter the ECHR) has adopted a<br />
considerable number of judgments and decisions<br />
regarding the scope of state jurisdiction.<br />
As will be shown in the cases discussed below,<br />
the application of the European Convention is<br />
not confi ned to the territory of a state and in<br />
certain circumstances, it extends outside national<br />
territories. The section below examines<br />
the case law relating to the extraterritorial application<br />
of the European Convention.<br />
As early as 1965, in the case of X v. the<br />
Federal Republic of Germany, the European<br />
Commission of Human Rights indicated that<br />
nationals of the contracting party of the European<br />
Conventions were within jurisdiction of<br />
that state even when residing abroad. Accordingly,<br />
the actions of the diplomatic and consular<br />
representatives may engage the responsibility<br />
of that country under the European Convention.<br />
60<br />
The case of Hess v. the United Kingdom<br />
concerned alleged violations by the United<br />
Kingdom of the European Convention obligations<br />
in respect of a person, who after being<br />
tried by the Nuremberg tribunal for crimes<br />
against humanity, was imprisoned in the allied<br />
military prison located in the British sector of<br />
Berlin. Notwithstanding the fact that the application<br />
was related to the conditions of detention<br />
of a person detained in the prison in<br />
Berlin, the European Commission of Human<br />
Rights did not rule out the liability of the United<br />
Kingdom for the act committed outside its national<br />
territory. The European Commission of<br />
Human Rights indicated that there was, from<br />
a legal point of view, no reason why acts of the<br />
British authorities in Berlin should not have entailed<br />
the responsibility of the United Kingdom<br />
Government. 61<br />
The application against Denmark in 1992<br />
related to the actions of its diplomatic representatives<br />
in the territory of the Federal<br />
Republic of Germany. 62 In this case, the applicant,<br />
together with other persons, entered<br />
the premise of the Danish Embassy for the<br />
purpose of moving into the Federal Republic<br />
of Germany. In connection with this, the Danish<br />
Ambassador requested assistance from<br />
local police authorities. These persons were<br />
detained by the police offi cers.<br />
The European Commission of Human<br />
Rights noted that actions of authorized state<br />
representatives, including diplomatic and consular<br />
agents, bring other persons within the<br />
jurisdiction of that state to the extent that they<br />
81
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
exercise authority over these persons. Accordingly,<br />
it was established in this case that by the<br />
acts of the Danish Ambassador, the persons<br />
concerned came under Danish jurisdiction. 63<br />
In the Soering case, the ECHR noted that<br />
the extradition of a person may be a violation<br />
of the European Convention obligations by the<br />
extraditing state, when there is reason to to<br />
believe the individual will be subjected to torture<br />
or inhuman treatment in another country.<br />
According to the ECHR, the extraditing state<br />
is carries responsibility if, by the reason of this<br />
act, the person extradited faces a risk of illtreatment.<br />
64 The ECHR noted that “It is liability<br />
incurred by the extraditing Contracting State<br />
by reason of its having taken action which has<br />
as a direct consequence the exposure of an<br />
individual to proscribed ill-treatment”. 65<br />
Of particular interest is the case of Loizidou<br />
v. Turkey, which relates to the extraterritorial<br />
exercise of jurisdiction in the case of<br />
effective control of the foreign territory. 66<br />
The case of Loizidou concerned violations<br />
of the applicant’s convention rights as a result<br />
of the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus<br />
in 1974. 67 Following the Turkish military occupation,<br />
the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus<br />
(hereinafter the TRNC) was established<br />
in 1983, but it was never recognized by the<br />
international community. 68 The case against<br />
Turkey was brought to the ECHR, as the applicant<br />
was continuously prevented by Turkish<br />
military forces from the peaceful enjoyment of<br />
her possessions in the territory occupied by<br />
Turkey. 69<br />
Despite the fact that the Government of<br />
Turkey maintained that the ECHR lacked the<br />
competence to hear the case since the acts<br />
did not fall within its jurisdiction, the ECHR held<br />
that the issues raised in the application came<br />
within the jurisdiction of Turkey, because it exercised<br />
effective control in northern Cyprus. In<br />
particular, the ECHR concluded that:<br />
Bearing in mind the object and purpose<br />
of the Convention, the responsibility of a Contracting<br />
Party may also arise when as a consequence<br />
of military action–whether lawful or<br />
unlawful–it exercises effective control of an<br />
area outside its national territory. The obligation<br />
to secure, in such an area, the rights and<br />
freedoms set out in the Convention derives<br />
from the fact of such control whether it be exercised<br />
directly, through its armed forces, or<br />
through a subordinate local administration. 70<br />
Following the determination that Turkey<br />
exercised jurisdiction in the TRNC, the ECHR<br />
determined the immutability of alleged violations<br />
to Turkey. 71 The ECHR rejected the argument<br />
by the Turkish government that it was not<br />
responsible for the issues raised in the application<br />
as its military forces were acting on behalf<br />
of the TRNC administration. 72 The ECHR<br />
did not fi nd it important to determine whether<br />
the Turkish government exercised detailed<br />
control over the actions of TRNC authorities. 73<br />
The overall control exercised by Turkey on that<br />
territory was suffi cient for the ECHR to fi nd the<br />
Turkish Government responsible. Accordingly,<br />
Turkey was found to be in breach of a number<br />
of the European Convention obligations. 74<br />
At this point it is important to note that the<br />
overall control test employed by the ECHR for<br />
immutability is wider than that developed by<br />
the ICJ in the Nicaragua and Bosnia cases. 75<br />
The approach taken by the ECHR is logical,<br />
rational, and effective in dealing with various<br />
problems resulting from military occupation. In<br />
the author’s opinion, had the ECHR adopted<br />
such a restrictive approach as was done by the<br />
ICJ, it would have been diffi cult to fi nd Turkey<br />
responsible, and, therefore, the whole population<br />
of northern Cyprus would have been deprived<br />
of the benefi t of the protection afforded<br />
by the European Convention.<br />
The same approach was taken by the<br />
ECHR in the case of Cyprus v. Turkey. 76 The<br />
ECHR, having reiterated its fi ndings in the<br />
Loizidou case, held that in the view of the effective<br />
control exercised by Turkey in northern<br />
Cyprus, its responsibility was engaged not<br />
only for the actions of its military forces, but<br />
also for “the acts of the local administration<br />
which survives by virtue of Turkish military and<br />
other support.” 77<br />
A somewhat controversial decision was<br />
reached by the ECHR on the case of Banković<br />
v. Belgium. 78 The application originated as a<br />
result of the bombing of the Federal Republic<br />
of Yugoslavia (FRY) by the forces of the North<br />
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). During<br />
these air strikes, several people died. The applicants<br />
who where close relatives of four of<br />
82
I. BARTAIA, EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DOCUMENTS: AN ANALYSIS ...<br />
the deceased brought the application before<br />
the ECHR on their own behalf, as well as on<br />
the behalf of their deceased relatives, claiming<br />
that they were victims of a violation of the<br />
European Convention rights by state parties<br />
to the European Convention that were also<br />
members of NATO. 79 The application was declared<br />
inadmissible. The ECHR found that the<br />
necessary jurisdictional link between victims of<br />
alleged violations and respondent states was<br />
missing. Accordingly, they were not within the<br />
jurisdiction of those states. Furthermore, the<br />
ECHR stated that the European Convention<br />
was designed to operate “in the legal space<br />
(espace juridique) of the Contracting States”<br />
and not all over the world, and clearly the FRY<br />
was not within the legal space of the contracting<br />
parties. 80<br />
The decision on the Banković case lacks<br />
substantiation and is not in accordance with<br />
the pre-existing case law or with the later<br />
practice of the ECHR. It is noteworthy that the<br />
Banković case was followed by other cases in<br />
which the ECHR expanded the circumstances<br />
of extraterritorial exercise jurisdiction. These<br />
cases will be discussed below.<br />
The case of Ilaşcu and others v. Moldova<br />
and Russia 81 is very interesting in this respect.<br />
The application originated as a result of human<br />
rights violations in the Transdniestrian territory<br />
of Moldova. The application was submitted<br />
against two states: Moldova, because Transdniestria<br />
was an integral part of Moldova, and<br />
the Russian Federation, because it was exercising<br />
de facto jurisdiction in this territory.<br />
The judgment in the case of Ilaşcu is very<br />
important, as the ECHR expanded the notion<br />
of jurisdiction of a state in the cases of<br />
armed confl ict. The judgment on this case<br />
is considered “the leading authority on the<br />
meaning of the term ‘jurisdiction’”. 82 Unlike in<br />
northern Cyprus, which was occupied by Turkey,<br />
the Transdniestrian are of Moldova was<br />
not occupied by Russia and has never been<br />
placed under its effective control. However,<br />
the ECHR paid particular attention to the fact<br />
that the self-proclaimed Moldavian Republic<br />
of Transdniestria (MRT) was established<br />
with the support of Russia, and to the fact that<br />
MRT received systematic military, economic,<br />
fi nancial, and political assistance from Russia<br />
and held that Russia had jurisdiction in the<br />
Moldovan part of Transdniestria. 83 Namely, the<br />
ECHR concluded that:<br />
“MRT”, set up in 1991-92 with the support<br />
of the Russian Federation, vested with<br />
organs of power and its own administration,<br />
remains under the effective authority, or at the<br />
very least under the decisive infl uence, of the<br />
Russian Federation, and in any event that it<br />
survives by virtue of the military, economic, fi -<br />
nancial and political support given to it by the<br />
Russian Federation. 84<br />
Accordingly, Russia was found responsible<br />
for the breach of the European Convention<br />
obligations in the Moldovan territory of Transdniestria.<br />
85<br />
Following the Ilaşcu case, the ECHR<br />
adopted a decision on the case of Issa and<br />
others v. Turkey. 86 The case originated as a<br />
result of the deaths of shepherds in the territory<br />
of Iraq by Turkish military forces. In this<br />
case, the ECHR was ready to fi nd a violation<br />
by Turkey of its convention obligations for the<br />
actions of its troop in the territory of Iraq–a<br />
territory clearly outside the legal space of the<br />
contracting states of the European Convention.<br />
However, it found that Turkish armed<br />
forces did not conduct operations in the area<br />
where the alleged human rights violations had<br />
occurred and, therefore, the applicants were<br />
not considered to be within the jurisdiction of<br />
Turkey. 87<br />
It is noteworthy that in the case of Öcalan,<br />
the ECHR established jurisdiction of Turkey<br />
for the extraterritorial actions in Kenya. 88<br />
The applicant was detained by Turkish security<br />
services inside an aircraft registered in Turkey,<br />
in the international zone of the Nairobi Airport.<br />
Notwithstanding the extraterritorial nature of<br />
the action, the ECHR indicated that from the<br />
moment of arrest, the applicant came under<br />
the authority of Turkey, and, therefore, its jurisdiction.<br />
89 The ECHR distinguished the circumstances<br />
of the present case from those in<br />
the above mentioned Banković case in that the<br />
former was physically forced by security agencies<br />
to return to Turkey and was under its effective<br />
authority from the moment of his arrest. 90<br />
The decision in the case of Pad and others<br />
v. Turkey is extremely interesting from the<br />
point of view of applicability of the European<br />
83
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
Convention outside espace juridique. The<br />
case originated as a result of the deaths of<br />
seven Iranians by Turkish forces. The applicants<br />
argued that the victims were fi rst captured<br />
by Turkish soldiers on the territory of the<br />
Islamic Republic of Iran, and then transferred<br />
to the territory of Turkey and killed there. 91<br />
The government claimed the victims had illegally<br />
entered Turkish territory where they<br />
died as a result of open fi re from helicopters<br />
in the course of an anti-terrorist operation being<br />
carried out by security forces. 92 As it was<br />
not disputed by the government that the fi re<br />
discharged from the helicopters had caused<br />
the deaths of the victims, the ECHR did not<br />
consider it necessary to determine the exact<br />
location of the acts and found the jurisdiction<br />
of Turkey over the victims. 93 It is of interest to<br />
note that before reaching this decision, the<br />
ECHR reviewed those cases related to extraterritorial<br />
exercise of jurisdiction, including<br />
Issa v. Turkey. 94 That the ECHR did not consider<br />
it relevant to determine whether the acts<br />
where committed in the territory of Turkey or<br />
Iran, is further evidence for the argument that<br />
the application of the European Convention is<br />
not limited to the legal space of the contracting<br />
parties, as indicated in the case of Banković,<br />
but extends outside its limits.<br />
The application was declared inadmissible<br />
as the applicants failed to exhaust domestic<br />
remedies, as required by the European<br />
Convention. 95<br />
The ECHR delivered a very important decision<br />
in the case of Issak and others v. Turkey,<br />
as in this case the ECHR found jurisdiction<br />
of Turkey in the neutral UN buffer zone. 96<br />
The application originated as a result of the<br />
death of Anastassios Isaak in the course of<br />
a demonstration organized to protest against<br />
the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus.<br />
On the day of the demonstration, unarmed<br />
Greek-Cypriots violated the ceasefi re line and<br />
entered the buffer zone. On the other side of<br />
the ceasefi re line, the Turkish forces allowed<br />
Turkish-Cypriot demonstrators armed with<br />
batons and iron bars and police offi cers from<br />
the Turkish republic of Northern Cyprus to<br />
cross a restricted military area and enter a UN<br />
neutral buffer zone. The clashes occurred in<br />
the buffer zone between demonstrators, and<br />
Anastassios Isaak died as a result of a beating<br />
in which Tukrish-Cypriot policemen took<br />
an active part. 97<br />
Notwithstanding the fact that the act took<br />
place in a UN buffer zone, the ECHR found<br />
the jurisdiction of Turkish Governments over<br />
the victim, because he was under the authority<br />
and/or effective control of the Turkish Government.<br />
98<br />
The Banković case should not be construed<br />
as a leading case in the interpretation<br />
of extraterritorial application of the European<br />
Convention. It would be illogical to conclude<br />
that a person comes under a state jurisdiction<br />
only in the moment of the arrest, and not in the<br />
moment of the shooting. The Banković decision<br />
can be understood to create incentive to shoot<br />
individuals instead arresting them, because in<br />
such circumstances, the state can avoid liability<br />
under the European Convention. 99 It is without<br />
doubt that such conclusions are not only unsound<br />
and unacceptable, but also completely<br />
incompatible with the standards established by<br />
the European Convention.<br />
2.2. The Inter-American Commission<br />
on Human Rights<br />
In 1948, The American Declaration on the<br />
Rights and Duties of Man was adopted. 100 The<br />
American Declaration on the Rights and Duties<br />
of Man does not contain a jurisdictional<br />
clause similar to those contained in the ICCPR<br />
or the European Convention. 101 Nevertheless,<br />
the Inter-American Commission on Human<br />
Rights (hereinafter the IACHR), like the HRC<br />
and the ECHR, has not restricted application<br />
of the Declaration only within the territorial<br />
boundaries of a state. In the case of Coard et<br />
al v. United States, 102 in which the petitioners<br />
complained of the violation of series of rights<br />
by U.S. military forces during their intervention<br />
in Grenada, the IACHR stated that:<br />
[...] each American State is obliged to uphold<br />
the protected rights of any person subject<br />
to its jurisdiction. While this most commonly<br />
refers to persons within a state’s territory, it<br />
may, under given circumstances, refer to conduct<br />
with an extraterritorial locus where the<br />
person concerned is present in the territory of<br />
one state, but subject to the control of another<br />
84
I. BARTAIA, EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DOCUMENTS: AN ANALYSIS ...<br />
state – usually through the acts of the latter’s<br />
agents abroad. 103<br />
A similar approach was adopted by the<br />
IACHR with respect to human rights violations<br />
resulting from U.S. military operations in<br />
Panama in 1989, and notwithstanding the extraterritorial<br />
nature of the actions of the U.S.,<br />
the petition of civilians who suffered personal<br />
injury, destruction of property, and death of<br />
close relatives as a result of the U.S. military<br />
operation was declared admissible. 104<br />
It is noteworthy that in 1999, contrary to<br />
the conclusions reached by the ECHR in the<br />
Banković case, the IACHR found the Republic<br />
of Cuba responsible for downing unarmed civilian<br />
light airplanes in international airspace,<br />
which resulted in deaths of civil pilots. Namely,<br />
the IACHR has held that notwithstanding the<br />
extraterritorial nature of these actions, the victims<br />
came under the authority of the Republic<br />
of Cuba. Accordingly, the IACHR established<br />
that Cuba violated its obligations under the<br />
American Declaration on the Rights and Duties<br />
of Man. 105<br />
In March, 2002, the IACHR requested the<br />
speedy determination by a competent tribunal<br />
of the status of detainees in Guantanamo so<br />
that they were granted legal protection. 106<br />
The cases discussed above, once again<br />
confi rm that the application of the American<br />
Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man<br />
is not limited to the territories of respondent<br />
states and extends to the extraterritorial actions<br />
of these states.<br />
CONCLUSION<br />
The practices of different international<br />
and regional institutions demonstrate that jurisdiction<br />
of a state is not necessarily limited to<br />
its territory, and in certain exceptional circumstances<br />
may extend well beyond its national<br />
borders.<br />
Extraterrestrial responsibility for human<br />
rights violations arises in situations when one<br />
state, as a result of military operations, exercises<br />
effective control over the territory or part<br />
of the territory of another state, for example, in<br />
cases of occupation. As it has been confi rmed<br />
by the judgements of the ECHR adopted with<br />
respect to the Loizidou and Cyprus cases, in<br />
such situations state responsibility is engaged<br />
not only for the actions of its military forces,<br />
but also for the acts of the local administration<br />
which survives by virtue of military and other<br />
support of that state.<br />
Furthermore, state responsibility for extraterritorial<br />
human rights violations is not limited<br />
to situations of effective control resulting from<br />
military operations. As has been discussed<br />
above in the Ilaşcu case, the ECHR has significantly<br />
broadened the scope of extraterritorial<br />
responsibility. In particular, state responsibility<br />
for human rights protection might arise in the<br />
situations of a lesser degree of control when<br />
the state is found to have exercised effective<br />
authority or decisive infl uence over a particular<br />
area. One of the important examples in<br />
this respect is the self-proclaimed Moldovan<br />
Republic of Transdniestria, which was established<br />
with the support of the Russian Federation<br />
and survived by virtue of the military,<br />
economic, fi nancial, and political assistance<br />
provided to it by Russia. As was mentioned<br />
above, in this case the effective authority of<br />
Russia was established with respect to the territory<br />
of Transdniestria and, accordingly, it was<br />
held responsible for violations of human rights<br />
in this area.<br />
The liability of a state can also be engaged<br />
for extraterritorial actions when the victim<br />
is found to have come within the authority<br />
of the state. These are the circumstances,<br />
when state responsibility is engaged not on<br />
the basis of exercise of effective control or effective<br />
authority, but on the basis of extraterritorial<br />
action which entails human rights violations.<br />
For example, detention of a person on<br />
a foreign soil, refusal to issue a passport to<br />
an individual in a foreign country where she/<br />
he is residing, death of a person as a result of<br />
extraterritorial actions, etc. It is true that with<br />
respect to the latter example, different conclusions<br />
were reached by the ECHR on the<br />
case of Banković. However, as was discussed<br />
above, this decision should not be considered<br />
a leading authority for the determination of a<br />
state jurisdiction.<br />
Responsibility for human rights protection<br />
arises not only in the context of extraterritorial<br />
actions, but also in situations when an action<br />
undertaken by a state within its territory leads<br />
85
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
to human rights violations in another jurisdiction.<br />
This situation may arise in cases of the<br />
extradition of an individual, were there are<br />
substantial grounds for believing that the extradited<br />
person might face violations of his/her<br />
rights in the receiving state.<br />
The extraterritorial application of human<br />
rights documents is logical and necessary. It<br />
is not permissible for a state to avoid liability<br />
for its actions for the sole reason that the action<br />
was undertaken outside its national territory.<br />
Therefore, it is impossible not to agree<br />
with the practice of international mechanisms,<br />
which broadly and progressive interpreted the<br />
scope of application of international human<br />
rights documents.<br />
1<br />
<strong>International</strong> Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, effective for Georgia as<br />
of August 3, 1994.<br />
2<br />
Id. Article 2.<br />
3<br />
Michael J. Dennis, Application of Human Rights Treaties Extraterritorially in Times<br />
of Armed Confl ict and Military Occupations, 99 (1) A.J.I.L. (2005), 122.<br />
4<br />
Id. at 123-124.<br />
5<br />
General Comment No. 31, Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on<br />
States Parties to the Covenant, 26/05/2004, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, (General<br />
Comments), §10, (29.05.20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
6<br />
Lopez Burgos v. Uruguay, Communication No.52/1979, 29/07/81, CPR/C/13/<br />
D/52/1979, HRC, (Jurisprudence), (29.05.20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
7<br />
Id. §§ 2.2. – 2.4.<br />
8<br />
Id. § 12.1.<br />
9<br />
Id. § 12.3.<br />
10<br />
Id. § 12.2.<br />
11<br />
Id. § 12.3.<br />
12<br />
Id. § 13.<br />
13<br />
Celiberti v. Uruguay, Communication No.56/1979, 29/07/81, CCPR/C/13/<br />
D/56/1979, HRC, (Jurisprudence), (29.05.20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
14<br />
SARAH JOSEPH, JENNY SCHULTZ AND MELISSA CASTAN, THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT<br />
ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS: CASES, MATERIALS AND COMMENTARY, 2 ND ED. OXFORD:<br />
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2005, 87.<br />
15<br />
HRC, Israel, 18/08/98, CCPR/C/79/Add.93, (Concluding Observations/Co m-<br />
ments), § 10, (29.05.20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
16<br />
HRC, Israel, 21/08/2003, CCPR/CO/78/ISR, (Concluding Observations/Co m-<br />
ments), § 11, (29.05.20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
17<br />
HRC, United States of America, 15.<strong>09</strong>.06, CCPR/C/USA/CO/3, § 14. (29.05.20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
18<br />
HRC, The Russian Federation, 24/11/20<strong>09</strong>, CCPR/C/RUS/CO/6, (Concluding<br />
Observations/Comments), § 13, (28.01.2010).<br />
19<br />
Charles Chitat Ng. v Canada, Communication No.469/1991, 7/01/1994, CCPR/<br />
C/49/D/469/1991, HRC, § 14.2, (29.05.20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
20<br />
Id. § 16.4 – 17.<br />
21<br />
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian<br />
Territory, Advisory Opinion, I. C. J. Reports 2004, p. 136.<br />
22<br />
Id. § 102.<br />
23<br />
Id.<br />
24<br />
Id. §§ 105 - 108.<br />
25<br />
Id. § 108.<br />
26<br />
Id. § 1<strong>09</strong>.<br />
27<br />
Id.<br />
28<br />
Id. § 111.<br />
29<br />
Id. § 112.<br />
30<br />
Id.<br />
86
I. BARTAIA, EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DOCUMENTS: AN ANALYSIS ...<br />
31<br />
Id.<br />
32<br />
Id. § 113.<br />
33<br />
Id. § 134.<br />
34<br />
Military and Paramilitary Activities in und against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United<br />
States of America). Merits, Judgment. I.C.J. Reports 1986, [Hereinafter Nicaragua<br />
case].<br />
35<br />
Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment<br />
of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro),<br />
I.C.J., Judgment of 26 February 2007, [Hereinafter Genocide case].<br />
36<br />
Nicaragua case, supra note, 34, § 20.<br />
37<br />
Id. § 1, § 20 & §114.<br />
38<br />
Id. §1<strong>09</strong>.<br />
39<br />
Id. §110.<br />
40<br />
Id. §§1<strong>09</strong> -115.<br />
41<br />
Id. §115.<br />
42<br />
Id.<br />
43<br />
ICTY, Appeals Chamber, Tadić , 15 July 1999 (Case no. IT-94-1-A).<br />
44<br />
Id. § 116 and § 124.<br />
45<br />
Id.§ 137.<br />
46<br />
Id.<br />
47<br />
Id.<br />
48<br />
Id.<br />
49<br />
Id.<br />
50<br />
Id. §141.<br />
51<br />
Richard J. Goldstone & Rebecca J. Hamilton, Bosnia v. Serbia: Lessons from the<br />
Encounter of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, 21 Leiden<br />
<strong>Journal</strong> of <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> (2008), 101 [hereinafter Goldstone & Hamilton].<br />
52<br />
Genocide case, supra note, 35.<br />
53<br />
Id. §§ 396 – 407.<br />
54<br />
Goldstone & Hamilton, supra note 51, at 102.<br />
55<br />
Id. at 97.<br />
56<br />
Antonio Cassese, The Nicaragua and Tadic tests revisited in light of the ICJ judgment<br />
on genocide in Bosnia, 18(4) E.J.I.L. (2007), 665.<br />
57<br />
Id. 654.<br />
58<br />
The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental<br />
Freedoms of 4 November 1950, effective for Georgia as of 20 May 1999.<br />
59<br />
Id.<br />
60<br />
X v. the Federal Republic of Germany, Application no.1611/6225, 25 September<br />
1965, Yearbook, vol. 8, p. 158.<br />
61<br />
Hess v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 6231/73, 28 May 1975, DR 2, p. 72.<br />
62<br />
W.M.v. Denmark, Application no. 17392/90, Commission Decision of 14 October<br />
1992, DR 73, p. 193.<br />
63<br />
Id. § 1.<br />
64<br />
Soering v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 14038/88, 7 July 1989, Series A<br />
no. 161, § 91.<br />
65<br />
Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey, Applications nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99,<br />
Judgment of 4 February 2005, § 67, .<br />
66<br />
Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), judgment of 23 March 1995, Series A<br />
no. 310 [hereinafter Loizidou case, (preliminary objections)].<br />
67<br />
Id. §11.<br />
68<br />
Cyprus v. Turkey, [GC], no. 25781/94, § 14 ECHR 2001-IV [hereinafter Cyprus<br />
case].<br />
69<br />
Loizidou case, (preliminary objections), supra note 66, §11.<br />
70<br />
Id. § 62.<br />
71<br />
Id. § 64.<br />
87
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
72<br />
Loizidou v. Turkey, judgment of 18 December 1996 (merits), Reports of Judgments<br />
and Decisions 1996-VI § 54.<br />
73<br />
Id. § 56.<br />
74<br />
Id.<br />
75<br />
See, Section 1 above.<br />
76<br />
Cyprus case, supra note 68.<br />
77<br />
Id. § 77.<br />
78<br />
Banković and Others v. Belgium and Others (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, ECHR<br />
2001-XII.<br />
79<br />
Id. §§ 1 - 11.<br />
80<br />
Id.§§ 79 - 80.<br />
81<br />
Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia, [GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004-VII<br />
[Hereinafter Ilaşcu case].<br />
82<br />
Clare Ovey & Robin White, Jacobs & White, the European Convention on Human<br />
Rights, 4 th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, 24.<br />
83<br />
Ilaşcu case, supra note 81, § 392.<br />
84<br />
Id.<br />
85<br />
Id. § 394.<br />
86<br />
Issa and Others v. Turkey, Application no. 31821/96, Admissibility Decision of 16<br />
November 2004, (21.05.20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
87<br />
Id. §§ 81- 82.<br />
88<br />
Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, ECHR 2005-IV.<br />
89<br />
Id. § 91.<br />
90<br />
Öcalan v. Turkey, Application no. 46221/99, Judgment of 12 March 2003, § 93,<br />
(15.05.20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
91<br />
Mansur Pad and others v. Turkey, Application no. 60167/00, Admissibility Decision<br />
of 28 June 2007, §§ 5 – 8, (15.05.20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
92<br />
Id. §§ 21 – 26.<br />
93<br />
Id. §§ 54 – 55.<br />
94<br />
Id. §§ 52 – 53.<br />
95<br />
Id. §§ 71 – 72.<br />
96<br />
Maria Issak and Others v. Turkey, Application no. 44587/98, Admissibility Decision<br />
of 28 September 2006, (18.05.20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
97<br />
Id.<br />
98<br />
Id.<br />
99<br />
D. McGoldrick, Extraterritorial Application of the <strong>International</strong> Covenant on<br />
Civil and Political Rights in F. Coomans and M. Kamminga, eds, Extraterritorial<br />
Application of Human Rights Treaties (Intersentia, 2004), 41 et seq. cited in Loukis<br />
G. Loucaides, Determining the extra-territorial effect of the European Convention:<br />
facts, jurisprudence and the Bankovic case, E.H.R.L.R., (2006), 406.<br />
100<br />
American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, 1966, I. Brownlie and<br />
G. S. Goodwin-Gill (eds), Basic Documents on Human Rights, Oxford: Oxford<br />
University Press, 2006, 927.<br />
101<br />
Marko Milanovic, From Compromise to Principle: Clarifying the Concept of State<br />
Jurisdiction in Human Rights Treaties, 8 Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 432.<br />
102<br />
Coard et at v. United States, case no.10.951, Report no. 1<strong>09</strong>/99, (30.05.20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
103<br />
Id. § 37.<br />
104<br />
Case no. 10.573, Report no. 31/93, (30.05.20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
105<br />
Armando Alejandre Jr., Carlos Alberto Costa, Mario de la Peña, and Pablo Mo ra les v.<br />
Cuba, case no.11.589, Report no. 86/99, (24.05.20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
106<br />
Precautionary Measures in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Inter-American<br />
Commission on Human Rights, 13.03. 2002, <br />
(15.08.2008).<br />
88
Sorena nikoleiSvili<br />
2008 wlis agvistos omis Semdeg adamianis uflebebis dacvis<br />
kuTxiT arsebuli mdgomareoba da ruseTis federaciis<br />
mier saqarTvelos suverenitetis darRveva<br />
1. Sesavali<br />
sabWoTa kavSiris daSlis Semdeg saqarTvelos<br />
urTulesi socialuri, ekonomikuri<br />
da politikuri probleme bi<br />
Se eqmna. saqarTvelos teritori uli<br />
mTli anobis problema umniSvne lo vane<br />
sia. es ki, gansakuTrebiT, xazgasasmelia<br />
saqarTvelos saerTaSorisod aRiarebul<br />
sazRvrebSi ori mougvarebeli<br />
konfliqtis (afxazeTsa da samxreT oseTSi)<br />
arsebobis pirobebSi. afxazeTisa<br />
da samxreT oseTis teritoriebze arsebuli<br />
rTuli mdgomareobis miuxedavad,<br />
iuridiulad, rogorc afxazeTi,<br />
ise oseTi saqarTvelos ganuyofeli nawilebia.<br />
unda aRiniSnos, rom saqarTvelos<br />
xelisufleba mxolod de jure axorcielebs<br />
afxazeTisa da samxreT oseTis<br />
teritoriebis kontrols. afxazeTisa da<br />
samxreT oseTis legitimuri xelisuflebebi<br />
Tbilisidan moqmedeben da ver axorcieleben<br />
saqarTvelos konstituciiT<br />
dakisrebul valdebulebebs.<br />
2008 wlis 7 agvistos saqarTvelos<br />
xelisuflebis warmomadgenlebma ganacxades,<br />
rom Tbilisi gadadioda Setevaze<br />
aSkara rusuli agresiisagan Tavis dasacavad.<br />
saqarTvelom samxedro operacia<br />
cxinvalis regionis – samxreT oseTis<br />
regionuli centrisa da separatistuli<br />
regionis sxva nawilebis winaaRmdeg wamoiwyo.<br />
saqarTvelos samTavrobo Zalebma<br />
waiwies mxolod intensiuri dabombvidan<br />
ramdenime dRis Semdeg, ramac saqarTvelos<br />
xelisuflebis kontrolis qveS<br />
myof soflebSi samoqalaqo mosaxleobis<br />
msxverpli gamoiwvia. es waweva mas Semdeg<br />
ganxorcielda, rac dadasturda, rom<br />
seriozuli rusuli saxmeleTo jarebi<br />
SemoiWrnen saqarTveloSi, rokis gvirabis<br />
meSveobiT 1 . mdgomareoba kidev ufro<br />
garTulda mas Semdeg, rac ruseTis<br />
SeiaraRebulma Zalebma `araproporciuli<br />
Zalis gamoyenebiT~ ganaxorcieles<br />
samxedro Seteva qveynis saerTaSorisod<br />
aRiarebuli sazRvrebis farglebSi 2 .<br />
ruseTisa da samxreT oseTis SeiaraRebulma<br />
Zalebma moaxdines samxreT<br />
oseTisa da kidev erTi separatistuli<br />
regionis – afxazeTis administraciul<br />
sazRvrebis miRma soflebis okupireba. 3<br />
afxazeTisa da cxinvalis regionebSi konfliqtebi<br />
mougvarebeli darCa da 7-12<br />
agvistos ganmavlobaSi igi saqarTveloruseTs<br />
Soris SeiaraRebul konfliqtSi<br />
gadaizarda. 4 saqarTvelos dasavleT<br />
nawilidan ganxorcielebuli calke warmoebuli<br />
operaciis farglebSi, romelic<br />
afxazeTis gavliT ganviTarda, rusulma<br />
SeiaraRebulma Zalebma daikaves<br />
strategiulad mniSvnelovani qalaqebi<br />
dasavleT saqarTveloSi – foTi, zugdidi<br />
da senaki. am qalaqebSi rusulma<br />
SeiaraRebulma Zalebma daayenes sakontrolo<br />
gamSvebi punqtebi da gadaxerges<br />
gzebi. 5<br />
ruseTis mier saqarTvelos winaaRmdeg<br />
ganxorcielebulma agresiam gamoaaSkarava<br />
arsebuli situacia da mas<br />
realuri saxeli daarqva – `saqarTvelos<br />
teritoriis mniSvnelovani nawilis<br />
okupacia da qveynis ekonomikur da<br />
strategiul infrastruqturaze Tav-<br />
89
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
dasxma, romelTagan TiToeuli saqarTvelos<br />
suverenitetze ganxorcielebul<br />
pirdapir Setevad SeiZleba CaiTvalos.~ 6<br />
2008 wlis agvistoSi ganviTarebuli<br />
movlenebi _ ruseTis federaciis mier<br />
saqarTvelos garkveuli teritoriebis<br />
okupacia da mis mierve afxazeTisa<br />
da samxreT oseTis damoukidebel<br />
saxelmwifoebad aRiareba – Sedegad<br />
moh yva kosovos magaliTis gamoyenebas,<br />
Tumca saerTaSoriso Tanamegobroba mxars<br />
uWers saqarTvelos teritoriul<br />
mTlianobas mis saerTaSorisod aRiarebul<br />
sazRvrebSi, afxazeTisa da samxreT<br />
oseTis regionebis CaTvliT. ruseTis<br />
federaciis mier samxreT oseTisa da<br />
afxazeTis damoukideblobis aRiareba<br />
ki saerTaSoriso samarTlis principebis<br />
darRvevaa. 7<br />
2. adamianis uflebaTa dacvis<br />
mdgomareoba 2008 wlis<br />
konfliqtis Semdeg<br />
situacia cxinvalis regionsa da afxazeTSi<br />
Zalian mZimea samoqalaqo mosaxleobisTvis.<br />
isini izolirebulni arian<br />
saqarTvelos danarCeni teritoriisgan,<br />
darCenilni arian saerTaSoriso<br />
humanitaruli daxmarebisa da adamianis<br />
uflebebis mdgomareobis monitoringis<br />
gareSe an amgvar daxmarebasa da monitoringis<br />
SesaZleblobas Zalian mcire<br />
doziT iReben. maT didi problemebi eqmnebaT<br />
zamTris TveebSi, gansakuTrebiT<br />
sakvebi da sxva produqtebis naklebobisa<br />
da eleqtroenergiiTa da gaziT momaragebasTan<br />
dakavSirebuli problemebis<br />
gamo. 8<br />
2.1. mkvlelobebi, Zarcva da<br />
adamianis uflebaTa sxva darRvevebi<br />
xSirad hyvebian, rom ruseTis sao kupa<br />
cio Zalebi axorcieleben Zarcvas, rac<br />
gamowveulia ruseTis SeiaraRebul ZalebSi<br />
sakvebiT momaragebis defi ci tiT.<br />
faqtobrivad, ruseTis SeiaraRebuli<br />
Zalebis kvebiT uzrunvelyofa xdeba<br />
mcire jgufebis mier, romlebic iara-<br />
Ris muqariT sastikad uswordebian da<br />
Zarcvaven galis raionSi mcxovreb mSvidobian<br />
mosaxleobas da sakveb produqtebs<br />
amgvarad moipoveben. 9<br />
ruseTis SeiaraRebuli Zalebi da<br />
separatistTa dajgufebebi okupirebul<br />
teritoriaze darCenil qarTul mosaxleobas<br />
Seuracxyofas ayeneben. isini<br />
eTnikurad qarTvelTa sacxovrebel sax<br />
lebs Zarcvaven da Tavs esxmian. mSvidobiani<br />
mosaxleobis fizikuri Seu racxyofis<br />
mravali da ramdenime mkvlelobis<br />
SemTxvevaa aRricxuli. 10<br />
okupirebul teritoriaTa momijnave<br />
teritoriebze gzebis danaRmvisa da qar-<br />
Tul sapatrulo policiasa da policiis<br />
postebze SeiaraRebuli Tavdasxmis<br />
mravali SemTxvevaa aRricxuli. Sedegad,<br />
ramdenime qarTveli policieli daiRupa<br />
da mravali mZimed daiWra. qarTul so f-<br />
lebze mudmivi Tavdasxmebi xdeba, xorcieldeba<br />
srolebi okupirebuli teritoriebis<br />
mxridan 11 . SeniSnulia srolis<br />
incidentebi da gangrZobadi provokaciebi<br />
separatistuli regionebis administraciuli<br />
gamyofi xazebis gaswvriv,<br />
ramac SesaZloa ganaxlebuli<br />
SeiaraRebuli dapirispireba gamoiwvios.<br />
gansakuTrebiT samwuxaroa 16 qarTveli<br />
policielisaTvis srola da samxreT<br />
oseTsa da afxazeTTan axlos evrokav-<br />
Siris mier movlinebul monitorebze<br />
Tavdasxmebi. 12<br />
aseve SeiZleba aRiniSnos, rom samxreT<br />
oseTis buferul zonebSi aralegaluri<br />
miliciisa da bandituri dajgufebebis<br />
mier Cadenili eTnikuri wmendis<br />
aqtebi xSirad xorcieldeboda cecxlis<br />
Sewyvetis Sesaxeb 2008 wlis 12 agvistos<br />
dadebuli xelSekrulebis Semdegac da<br />
dResac grZeldeba. 13<br />
2.2. gadaadgilebis Tavisufleba<br />
daaxloebiT 42000 eTnikuri qarTveli,<br />
romlebic afxazeTisa da galis raionSi<br />
cxovroben, ruseTis federaciis<br />
kontrols daqvemdebarebuli eTniku rad<br />
homogenuri teritoriis Seqmnis bolo<br />
xelSemSleli faqtoria. saqarTveloruseTs<br />
Soris omis Semdeg ruseTis federaciis<br />
SeiaraRebulma Zalebma separatistebTan<br />
erTad galsa da saqarTvelos<br />
danarCen nawils Soris yvela SesaZlo<br />
90
S. nikoleiSvili, 2008 wlis agvistos omis Semdeg adamianis uflebebis dacvis kuTxiT arsebuli...<br />
damakavSirebeli gza Caketes da qarTvel-<br />
Ta winaaRmdeg mimarTuli sadamsjelo<br />
RonisZiebebi gaaZlieres. gadaadgilebis<br />
Tavisufleba ukiduresad SezRudulia.<br />
eTnikur qarTvelebs ekrZalebaT de facto<br />
sazRvris gadakveTa. Setyobinebebi e.w.<br />
sasazRvro-gamSveb punqtebze fulis<br />
gamoZalvisa da adamianTa Seuracxyofis<br />
Sesaxeb xSiria. sxva gzebis gamoyenebiT<br />
gadaadgilebis Tavisuflebis absolut<br />
u rad SezRudvis mizniT ruseTis fede<br />
raciis SeiaraRebulma Zalebma da<br />
se paratistebma gaanadgures mdinare<br />
engurze arsebuli yvela xidi, romelnic<br />
galis raions saqarTvelos danarCen<br />
nawilebTan akavSirebda. SeiaraRebuli<br />
Zalebi xidebis dawvasa da ganadgurebas<br />
agrZeleben da naRmaven administraciul<br />
sazRvars. usafrTxoebis dacvis qveteqstiT<br />
mkvlelobebis, gamosasyidis miRebis<br />
mizniT gatacebebis, ukanono dakavebebis,<br />
Zarcvis SemTxveva, ise rogorc sxvadasxva<br />
sadamsjelo reidi, xSiria. 14<br />
2.3. saqarTvelos pasportebTan daka-<br />
SirebiT warmoSobili problemebi<br />
afxazma separatistebma kidev ufro<br />
gaamZafres eTnikur qarTvelebze zewolis<br />
ganxorcielebis politika maT mier<br />
saqarTvelos moqalaqeobis daTmobi sa<br />
da ruseTis pasportebis miRebis mizniT.<br />
Sedegad, dRes galis raionSi mcxovreb<br />
daaxloebiT 1500 adamians afxa ze-<br />
Tis moqalaqeoba aqvs. amasTan erTad,<br />
qarTvelTa iZulebiTi gawveva afxazur<br />
SeiaraRebul ZalebSi Zalze mwvave sakiTxad<br />
rCeba. 15<br />
2.3.1. rusuli pasportebis darigeba<br />
1990-iani wlebis miwuruls ruseTis<br />
mTavrobam afxazeTis mcxovrebTaTvis<br />
ruseTis moqalaqeobis SeTavazeba aqtiurad<br />
daiwyo – saerTaSoriso mgzavrobisTvis<br />
rusuli pasportebis dari<br />
gebis gziT. 2000 wels ruseTis mier<br />
saqarTvelosTvis savizo reJimis Tavs<br />
moxveva afxazebs rusuli pasportebiT<br />
ruseTSi Tavisuflad Sesvlis Se saZleblobas<br />
aZlevda. 16 es iyo afxazeTSi<br />
mcxovrebi araruseTis moqalaqeebisTvis<br />
rusuli pasportebis darigebis das<br />
turi 17 , radgan afxazeTis regionSi<br />
sa qarTvelos moqalaqeebi cxovrobdnen<br />
da, amasTan erTad, saerTaSoriso<br />
Tanamegobroba afxazeTs acxadebs saqar-<br />
Tvelos ganuyofel nawilad. afxazTa<br />
Soris ruseTis pasportebis darigebas<br />
afxazeTis regionis danarCeni saqarTvelodan<br />
izolaciis Sors mimavali mizani<br />
hqonda.<br />
afxazeTis kanonmdebloba cnobs or -<br />
mag rusul-afxazur moqalaqeobas, qar-<br />
Tul-afxazur ormag moqalaqeoba s ki ar<br />
aRiarebs. blekis iuridiuli leqsikoni<br />
Semdegnairad ganmartavs pasports:<br />
`adamianis pirovnebisa da moqalaqeobis<br />
damadasturebeli oficialuri dokumenti,<br />
romelic adamians ucxo qveyanasa<br />
da ucxo qveynidan mgzavrobis Sesa<br />
Zleblobas aZlevs~. 18 maSin, rodesac<br />
avTenturi pasporti `mxolod varauds<br />
iwvevs, rom misi mflobeli misi gamcemi<br />
qveynis moqalaqea, am varaudis uaryofa<br />
advili ar aris.~ 19 zogierTi mecnieri<br />
amtkicebs, rom pasporti sinamdvileSi<br />
moqalaqeobis damadasturebeli dokumentia.<br />
20 pasporti mis mflobels sazRvargareT<br />
misi gamcemi qveynis diplomatiuri<br />
da sakonsulo warmomadgenlobebis<br />
dacviT sargeblobis uflebas<br />
aZ levs. ruseTis dumis wevrebi xSirad<br />
akeTeben gancxadebebs, sadac xazs usvamen,<br />
rom eTnikuri afxazebi, romlebic<br />
rusul pasportebs floben, ruseTis<br />
moqalaqeebi arian; ruseTis dumis deputatebisave<br />
gancxadebebis Tanaxmad,<br />
rogorc ruseTis moqalaqeebs, am adamianebs<br />
ruseTis saxelmwifos dacviT<br />
sargeblobis ufleba aqvT, rogorc es<br />
ruseTis federaciis konstitutciiT<br />
aris garantirebuli. 21 avTenturi pasportebis<br />
gacemis paralelurad gayalbebuli<br />
pasportebis Zalian didi bazaria.<br />
22 ruseTis pasportis mflobelebs<br />
TveSi daaxloebiT 50 dolaris Sesabamisi<br />
rusuli pensiis 23 miRebisa da socialuri<br />
dacvis sxva saSualebebiT sargeblobis<br />
ufleba aqvT – orive maTgani saqarTvelos<br />
pensiebsa da socialur garantiebze<br />
mniSvnelovnad maRalia. 24 amasTan, mravali<br />
afxazi mciremasStabian kontraban-<br />
91
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
daSia CarTuli da ruseTis pasporti<br />
maTi biznesisTvis saWiroa. afxazeTSi<br />
mcxovrebma eTnikurma qarTvelebma saz-<br />
RvargareT samgzavrod, arCevnebSi monawileobis<br />
misaRebad an politikur procesebSi<br />
CasarTvelad ruseTis pasportebi<br />
unda aiRon. saqarTvelos pasportis<br />
mqone adamianebs ar miecemaT ruseTis<br />
vizebi da ruseTis pasportis armqoneTa<br />
umetesobam, romlebsac saqarTvelodan<br />
ruseTSi gamgzavreba undaT, mesame<br />
saxelmwifos gavliT unda imgzavros. 25<br />
`moqalaqeobis Sesaxeb~ kanonis meSveobiT,<br />
romelmac eTnikur qarTvelebs<br />
saqarTvelos moqalaqeobis uaryofa ai-<br />
Zula adgilobriv arCevnebSi monawileobis<br />
misaRebad, de facto xelisuflebam<br />
afxazeTSi moqalaqeTa xmis micemisa da<br />
politikur procesebSi monawileobis<br />
uflebis SezRudva ganagrZo. 26<br />
afxazeTis moqalaqeebis mier ruseTis<br />
moqalaqeobis miRebisTvis makvali<br />
ficirebeli politika, ramac ruse-<br />
Tis mTavrobis oficialuri mxardaWera<br />
moipova, erTi strategiis nawilia.<br />
es ki efuZneba im varauds, rom afxazeTis<br />
moqalaqeTa ormagi moqalaqeoba<br />
saqarTvelosTan axali konfliqtis Sem-<br />
T xvevaSi ruseTis federaciis xelisuflebis<br />
mier maT dacvas gaaumjobesebs.<br />
saqarTvelos xelisufleba afxazeTis<br />
moTxovnas ruseTTan kavSirisa da ormagi<br />
moqalaqeobis politikis Taobaze<br />
teritoriuli mTlianobis principTan<br />
Seusabamod miiCnevs. saqarTvelos xeli<br />
sufleba miiCnevs, rom afxazeTis –<br />
ruseTis mTavrobis mier Tanxmobis Se m-<br />
TxvevaSi – ruseTis federaciasTan Tavisuflad<br />
dakavSirebul saxelmwifod<br />
qceva pirdapiri aneqsia, saerTaSoriso<br />
samarTlis aSkara darRvevaa. 27<br />
2.4. gavlena savaWro-ekonomikuri<br />
da satransporto urTierTobebis<br />
aRdgenis meSveobiT<br />
1996 wlis 19 ianvars damoukidebel<br />
saxelmwifoTa Tanamegobrobis fargleb-<br />
Si daido xelSekruleba, romlis Zali-<br />
Tac wevrma saxelmwifoebma aRiares, rom<br />
,,afxazeTi saqarTvelos ganuyofeli nawilia<br />
da ikisres valdebuleba, saqarTvelos<br />
nebarTvis gareSe ar daamyareben<br />
savaWro-ekonomikur, finansur, satransporto<br />
Tu sxva saxis urTierTobebs<br />
afxazuri mxaris xelisuflebasTan.~ 28<br />
zemoT aRniSnulis miuxedavad, ruseTis<br />
federaciis mTavrobam afxazur mxaresTan<br />
savaWro, ekonomikur da sxva saxis<br />
TanamSromlobaze ramdenime xelSekruleba<br />
dado. 29<br />
sxvadasxva rusuli kompaniisa da samogzauro<br />
saagentos filialebi warmatebiT<br />
moqmedeben afxazeTis teritoriaze<br />
30 da rusul-afxazuri urTierTobebisa<br />
da TanamSromlobis kidev ufro<br />
gaRrmavebas uwyoben xels da, amave dros,<br />
separatistuli reJimis Semdgom funqcionirebas<br />
uzrunvelyofen.<br />
ekonomikuri urTierTobebis aRdgenam<br />
ruseTis federaciasa da afxazeTs<br />
Soris satransporto mimosvla gazarda:<br />
soWsa da soxums Soris sarkinigzo mimosvla<br />
ganaxlda 2002 wels 31 , xolo 2004<br />
wels ganaxlda marSrutebi: soxumi – rostovi<br />
da soWi – axali aTonic; 32 2003 wels<br />
ruseTi ruseTis federaciasa da afxazeTs<br />
Soris sazRvao mimosvlis aRdgenis<br />
iniciatorad gamovida. 33 unda aRiniSnos,<br />
rom ruseTis federaciasa da afxazeTs<br />
Soris ekonomikuri da satransporto<br />
kavSirebis aRdgena saqarTvelos mxaris<br />
Tanxmobis gareSe moxda.<br />
2.5. ganaTlebis ufleba<br />
mSobliur enaze ganaTlebis miRebis<br />
ufleba galis raionSi aseve SezRudulia,<br />
mSobliuri ena skolebSi rogorc ubralo<br />
saswavlo sagani, ise iswavleba. maswavleblebs<br />
aiZuleben, CaerTon politikur<br />
saqmianobaSi. 34<br />
qarTvel bavSvebs ar aqvT SesaZ lebloba,<br />
iswavlon mSobliur enaze da maT<br />
qarTul skolebSi siarulis aranairi<br />
SesaZlebloba ar aqvT, maT Soris arc<br />
mosazRvre zugdidisa da walenjixis<br />
raionebSi. 2008 wlis 21 oqtombers ruseTis<br />
SeiaraRebulma Zalebma daketes<br />
sofel saberiodan (galis raioni) walenjixisken<br />
mimavali gza da adgilobriv<br />
bavSvebs walenjixis raionis sofel<br />
wyouSis qarTul skolaSi siaruli aukr-<br />
Zales. Sedegad, daaxloebiT 60 bavS-<br />
92
S. nikoleiSvili, 2008 wlis agvistos omis Semdeg adamianis uflebebis dacvis kuTxiT arsebuli...<br />
vs qarTul enaze ganaTlebis miRebis<br />
SesaZlebloba ar aqvs. 35<br />
2.6. dabrunebis ufleba<br />
saqarTvelos iusticiis saministros<br />
samoqalaqo reestris erovnuli saagentos<br />
mier mowodebuli informaciis<br />
Tanaxmad, samxreT oseTisa da misi mimdebare<br />
teritoriidan iZulebiT gadaadgilebuli<br />
pirebis raodenoba 2008 wlis<br />
omis Semdeg 131 310-s Seadgens, maTgan 107<br />
381-ma adamianma sakuTar sacxovrebel<br />
adgilas dabruneba moaxerxa da 23 929 adamiani<br />
xangrZlivad darCenil iZulebiT<br />
gadaadgilebul pirad aris miCneuli.<br />
Tumca am raodenobas wina konfliqtis<br />
(1992) Sedegad iZulebiT gadaadgilebuli<br />
pirebi unda mivumatoT, rac 12 493-s<br />
Seadgens (mTlianobaSi 36422 adamiani). 36<br />
rac Seexeba afxazeTs (1992 wlidan)<br />
iZulebiT gadaadgilebul pirTa raodenoba<br />
270 141-s Seadgens, maTgan 1 989 adamiani<br />
2008 wlis agvistos Semdeg gaxda<br />
iZulebuli, daetovebina sakuTari sacxovrebeli.<br />
aseve unda aRiniSnos, rom 350<br />
000 adamiani afxazeTidan ltolvilia. 37<br />
axalgoris raionSi darCenili mosaxleobis<br />
Taobaze seriozuli wuxilis<br />
ga moxatva xdeba. daaxloebiT 5 100-ma<br />
ada mianma ukve datova es regioni da ivaraudeba,<br />
rom usafrTxoebis zomebis<br />
ararsebobis, mkacri zamTris, sakvebi da<br />
sxva produqtebis, gazis, gaTbobis, finansuri<br />
daxmarebisa da Semosavlis ararsebobis<br />
gamo, regions kidev ufro meti<br />
adamiani datovebs. 38<br />
galis regionSi dabrunebuli qarTve<br />
lebis mdgomareoba aramyari rCeba.<br />
danarCeni saqarTvelosgan gamyofi de<br />
facto sazRvris daxurvam regionis mo saxleobaze<br />
didi gavlena moaxdina. mo saxleobisTvis<br />
ojaxuri kavSirebis Senar-<br />
Cu neba, sakuTari mosavlis gayidva, jandacvis<br />
uzrunvelyofiT sargebloba<br />
an finansuri daxmarebis miReba de facto<br />
sazRvris meore mxares sul ufro rTuli<br />
xdeba. 39<br />
gadaadgilebul pirebs, religiis,<br />
eTnikuri kuTvnilebisa Tu moqalaqeobis<br />
miuxedavad, sakuTar saxlebSi dab<br />
runebis ufleba aqvT. Tumca adamianis<br />
uflebebis dacvis saerTaSoriso<br />
samar Tali aqcents sxva qveynidan dabrunebis<br />
uflebaze ufro akeTebs. sakmarisi<br />
safuZvelia imis dasadgenad, rom<br />
Sesabamis saxelmwifoebs ekisrebaT valdebuleba,<br />
gaakeTon yvelaferi, raTa<br />
qveynis SigniTac moxdes gadaadgilebuli<br />
pirebisTvis saxlSi dabrunebis<br />
uflebis uzrunvelyofa. 40<br />
es ufleba efeqturi da SenarCuneba<br />
di samSvidobo SeTanxmebis misaRwe vad<br />
srulad da efeqturad unda iyos daculi.<br />
dabrunebis ufleba unda moicavdes<br />
konfliqtis srul teritorias, ara<br />
mxolod e.w. `buferul zonas~, aramed<br />
Tavad samxreT oseTsac. 41<br />
2.6.1. buferuli zona<br />
yofil `buferul zonaSi~ mdgomareoba<br />
rTuli rCeba, adamianebis snaiperis<br />
tyviiT, danaRmvis Sedegad, aufeTqebeli<br />
saartilerio iaraRisa Tu matyuara<br />
naRmebis Sedegad gaxSirebuli daRupvis<br />
gamo. amasTan, evropis kavSiris sadamkvirveblo<br />
misiis swrafad mowvevam mraval<br />
adamians yofil e.w. `buferul zonaSi~<br />
42 sakuTar saxlebSi dabrunebis SesaZ<br />
lebloba misca.<br />
saqarTvelos, maT Soris yofili e.w.<br />
`buferuli zonis~, skolebSi swavleba<br />
ganaxlda da bavSvebs saswavlo aRWurviloba<br />
daurigdaT. 43<br />
2.7. konfliqtis dros ruseTis<br />
mSvidobismyofelTa mier adamianis<br />
uflebebis darRvevebi<br />
mSvidobismyofelebs konfliqtis ro -<br />
me lime mxarisTvis samxedro, finansu ri<br />
an saorganizacio daxmarebis ufleba<br />
ar aqvT 44 . maT ekrZalebaT konfliqtis<br />
mxaris winaaRmdeg samxedro moqmedebebis<br />
ganxorcielebac. 45 ufro metic,<br />
Si da konfliqtis romelime mxarisTvis<br />
wrTvni sa da samxedro mxardaWeris<br />
uzrun velyofa, gansakuTrebiT, Tu es<br />
mxardaWera qveynis SigniT ganTavsebuli<br />
mSvidobismyofelebisgan modis 46 , saer-<br />
TaSoriso samarTlis normebis darRvevaa.<br />
saqmeSi – nikaragua aSS-is winaaRmdeg<br />
– marTlmsajulebis saerTaSoriso<br />
sasamarTlom naTlad aCvena, rom inter-<br />
93
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
venciis akrZalvis principi saxelmwifos<br />
`pirdapir an arapirdapir, SeiaraRebuli<br />
ZalebiT an maT gareSe, sxva saxelmwifos<br />
Sida dapirispirebaSi Carevas~ ukrZalavs.<br />
47 saqmeSi – kongo ugandis winaaRmdeg<br />
– marTlmsajulebis saerTaSoriso<br />
sasamarTlom aRniSna, rom qmedebebi,<br />
romlebic arRveven Caurevlobis princips,<br />
`Tu isini pirdapir an arapirdapir<br />
gadaizrdebian Zalis gamoyenebaSi, aseve<br />
Seadgens saerTaSoriso urTierTobebSi<br />
Zalis gamouyeneblobis principis<br />
darRvevas.~ 48 `es normebi CveulebiTi saerTaSoriso<br />
samarTlis normebis deklarirebas<br />
axdenen.~ 49<br />
damoukidebel saxelmwifoTa Tanamegobrobis,<br />
ruseTis federaciis moqalaqeebisgan<br />
Semdgari mSvidobismyofel-<br />
Ta Zalebi afxazeTSi 1994 wlidan aris<br />
Sesuli. damoukidebel saxelmwifoTa<br />
Tanamegobrobis Zalebi adamianis uflebebis<br />
dacvaze arian pasuxismgebelni. 50<br />
un da vaRiaroT, rom konfliqtis teritoriaze<br />
adamianis ZiriTad uflebaTa<br />
da TavisuflebaTa dacvis nacvlad ruseTis<br />
samxedro mosamsaxureebi afxazebis<br />
mier Cadenili darRvevebisa da dana-<br />
Saulebis uamrav faqtze Tvals xuWaven<br />
da xSirad Tavadac monawileoben amgvar<br />
operaciebSi. 51<br />
2008 wlis 10 agvistos samSvidobo misiebis<br />
mimarTulebiT gaeros generaluri<br />
mdivnis TanaSemwe edmond mulem gaeros<br />
uSiSroebis sabWos moaxsena, rom<br />
gaeros sadamkvirveblo misiam saqarTveloSi<br />
(romelic 100-amde damkvirvebels<br />
moicavda) wina dRes `zemo kodoris<br />
qarTuli soflebis mimdinare sahaero<br />
dabombvebi~ SeniSna. maT aseve `kodoris<br />
xeobis mimarTulebiT afxazuri mxaris<br />
mier mZime SeiaraRebisa da samxedro personalis<br />
mniSvnelovani raodenobis gadaadgileba~<br />
SeniSnes. 52<br />
mulem aseve aRniSna, rom afxazeTis<br />
separatisti lideri sergei baRafSi<br />
imu qreboda, rom qarTul SeiaraRebul<br />
Zalebs kodoris velidan gaaZevebda. sakuTari<br />
mandatis darRveviT rusi `mSvidobismyofelebi~<br />
afxazeTis ajanyebul-<br />
Ta SeiaraRebis `amgvari organizebis Se-<br />
Ce rebas ar Seecadnen~. 53<br />
kodoris velidan gaeros sadamkvirveblo<br />
misiis TxuTmeti damkvirvebeli<br />
iqna gamoyvanili, radgan afxazma ajanyebulebma<br />
ganacxades, rom maTi usafrTxoeba<br />
uzrunvelyofili ver iqneboda.<br />
ruseTis mSvidobismyofelebma afxazur<br />
Zalebs galis raionSic da afxazeTisa<br />
da danarCeni saqarTvelos momijnave<br />
mdinare enguris gaswvriv organizebis<br />
uflebac misces. amis Semdgom ruseTisa<br />
da afxazeTis SeiaraRebuli Zalebi mdinaris<br />
gavliT zugdidis raionSi, afxazeTis<br />
samxreT-dasavleTiTa da saqarTvelos<br />
udavo teritoriaze Sevidnen. 54<br />
ruseTis mSvidobismyofelebi pirdapir<br />
iyvnen CarTulni afxazeTisa da samxreT<br />
oseTis teritoriebze adamianis uflebaTa<br />
yvela darRvevaSi.<br />
3. ruseTis federaciis mier<br />
saqarTvelos suverenitetis darRveva<br />
ruseTis federaciis Zalebi saqarTveloSi,<br />
afxazeTis teritoriaze, rac de<br />
jure saqarTvelos nawilia, saqarTvelos<br />
Tanxmobis an masTan SeTanxmebis gareSe<br />
Semovidnen. 55 ruseTis federaciis Zalebi<br />
(okupanti Zala) saqarTvelos mTavrobis<br />
Tanxmobis an masTan SeTanxmebis gareSe<br />
saqarTvelos teritoriis, maT Soris afxazeTis<br />
efeqtur kontrols axorcielebda.<br />
2008 wlis 10 oqtombramde ruseTma<br />
aseve aiRo Tavze okupanti Zalis uflebamosileba<br />
qarelisa da goris raionebSi,<br />
teritoriebze, romelTa saqarTvelos<br />
iurisdiqciis qveS yofna davas ar<br />
iwvevs. ruseTis Zalebis am regionebSi<br />
yofna saqarTvelos xelisuflebis mier<br />
suverenitetis srul da Tavisufal ganxorcielebas<br />
xels uSlida. 56<br />
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Sesa bamisad,<br />
saxelmwifos `sakuTar teritoriaze<br />
suvereniteti aqvs~. yvela suvereni<br />
Tanabaruflebiania da sakuTar teritoriaze<br />
axorcielebs iurisdiqcias. 57 gaeros<br />
wesdeba aRiarebs suverenuli saxelmwifos<br />
uflebas, `marTos sakuTari<br />
teritoria da moqalaqeebi~. 58 marTalia,<br />
qveynis suvereniteti SeuzRudavi cneba<br />
ar aris, igi saerTaSoriso samarTalSi<br />
udidesi mniSvnelobisaa. 59 saqmeSi kongo<br />
94
S. nikoleiSvili, 2008 wlis agvistos omis Semdeg adamianis uflebebis dacvis kuTxiT arsebuli...<br />
ugandis winaaRmdeg marTlmsajulebis<br />
saerTaSoriso sasamarTlom daadgi na:<br />
`Tu saxelmwifo saerTaSoriso xel SekrulebiT<br />
sxva xelSemkvreli mxareebis<br />
suverenitetisa da teritoriuli<br />
mTli anobis dacvis valdebulebas ... da<br />
amgvari valdebulebis Sesasruleblad<br />
TanamSromlobis valdebulebas itvir-<br />
Tebs, es aSkara samarTlebrivad sa valdebulo<br />
xasiaTis danapirebia, rom ar<br />
moxdeba marTlsawinaaRmdego romelime<br />
qmedebis ganmeoreba.~ 60<br />
gaeros uSiSroebis sabWo aRiarebs<br />
saqarTvelos teritoriul mTlianobas.<br />
ruseTis federacia gaeros uSiSroebis<br />
sabWos mudmivi wevria. gaeros uSiSroebis<br />
sabWos rezolucias savaldebulo iuridiuli<br />
Zala aqvs gaeros wevri qveynebisaTvis,<br />
Tu is miRebulia qartiis VII<br />
Tavze dayrdnobiT. Sesabamisad, ruseTi<br />
samarTlebrivad valdebulia, saqarTvelos<br />
teritoriul mTlianobas pativi<br />
sces. uSiSroebis sabWos mier miRebuli<br />
amgvari rezoluciis ruseTis federaciis<br />
mier pativiscemis argamoxatva situacias<br />
mxolod arTulebs. 61<br />
afxazeTis aRiarebiT ruseTis federaciam<br />
saqarTveloSi SemoWris Semdeg<br />
kidev erTxel daarRvia suverenitetisa<br />
da teritoriuli mTlianobis dacvis<br />
principebi. 62<br />
kiTxvac ki ar unda daisvas imis Se saxeb,<br />
moxdeba Tu ara evrokavSiris wevri<br />
saxelmwifoebis mier saqarTvelos am<br />
ori teritoriidan erT-erTis aRiareba.<br />
evrokavSiris mxridan ruseTis federaciaze<br />
zewolis ganxorcielebis gagr<br />
Zeleba mniSvnelovania, raTa man am<br />
sakiTxebTan dakavSirebiT aRebuli sakuTari<br />
saerTaSoriso valdebulebebis<br />
pativiscema moaxdinos. 63<br />
`human raiTs voCic~ akritikebda ruseTs<br />
mis mier afxazeTis aRiarebiT suverenitetisa<br />
da teritoriuli mTlianobis<br />
principebis darRvevisTvis. 64<br />
es mosazrebebi diametrulad ewinaaRmdegeba<br />
ruseTis federaciis pozicias,<br />
romlis Tanaxmad, rogorc afxazeTma,<br />
ise samxreT oseTma gamoacxades<br />
sakuTari damoukidebloba da ruseTis<br />
mier damoukidebel saxelmwifoebad iqnnen<br />
aRiarebulni. ruseTis xelisuflebis<br />
interpretaciis Sesabamisad, afxazeTi<br />
da samxreT oseTi okupirebuli teritoriebi<br />
ar aris, eseni damoukidebeli saxelmwifoebia.<br />
Sesabamisad, saqarTvelos<br />
ar SeuZlia am teritoriebze gamosayenebeli<br />
aranairi kanonis miReba. 65<br />
SegviZlia davaskvnaT, rom ruseTis<br />
federaciam moaxdina saqarTvelos teritoriebis<br />
(afxazeTisa da samxreT ose-<br />
Tis) okupacia, rac saqarTvelos suverenitetisa<br />
da teritoriuli mTlianobis<br />
darRvevaa.<br />
4. cecxlis Sewyvetis<br />
Taobaze saqarTvelosa da<br />
ruseTis federacias Soris<br />
gaformebuli SeTanxmeba<br />
2008 wlis agvistoSi, rodesac ruse-<br />
Tis SeiaraRebulma Zalebma saqarTvelos<br />
teritoriis garkveuli nawilebi<br />
daikaves, ruseTis federaciam saqarTveloSi<br />
viTarebis eskalacia moaxdina.<br />
safrangeTis prezidentma nikola<br />
sarkozim, evropis kavSiris Tavmjdomare<br />
qveynis – safrangeTis – liderma, mSvidobis<br />
dasamyareblad Suamavloba iTava,<br />
raTa momxdariyo konfliqtis mSvidobiani<br />
gadawyveta. man cecxlis Sewyvetis<br />
Taobaze saqarTvelosa da ruseTis federacias<br />
Soris eqvspunqtiani SeTanxmebis<br />
miRweva SeZlo, romlis mizani 2008 wlis<br />
6 agvistos mdgomareobis aRdgena iyo<br />
(mdgomareobisa, romelic konfliqtis<br />
axal eskalaciamde arsebobda).<br />
2008 wlis 16 agvistosTvis prezidentma<br />
mixeil saakaSvilma da misma rusma<br />
kolegam, prezidentma dimitri medvedevma,<br />
safrangeTis prezident niko<br />
la sarkozis, rogorc evropis ka v -<br />
Si ris Tavmjdomare qveynis lide ris,<br />
SuamavlobiT Sedgenil cecxlis Sew<br />
yvetis Sesaxeb eqvspunqtian SeTan x-<br />
mebas xeli moaweres. cecxlis Sewyvetis<br />
Sesaxeb xelSekruleba mxareebs sabrZolo<br />
moqmedebebis Sewyvetisa da maTi yvela<br />
SeiaraRebuli Zalis 6-agvistomdeli<br />
mdgomareobiT gayvanisken mouwodebda, 66<br />
gansakuTrebiT im adgilebSi, sadac es<br />
jer ar iyo momxdari, rac sxvebTan er-<br />
95
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
Tad moicavda axalgors, samxreT oseTSi<br />
da zemo kodoris xeobas, romelic<br />
esazRvreba afxazeTs, magram warsulSi<br />
saqarTvelos xelisuflebis mier imarTeboda.<br />
67 meore sakiTxi gaxldaT is,<br />
rom saqarTvelos teritoriis anklaveb-<br />
Si ruseTis federaciis SeiaraRebuli<br />
Zalebi winandelze gacilebiT ufro<br />
didi raodenobiT iyvnen koncentrirebulni.<br />
or regionSi mTlianad 7 500 samxedro<br />
mosamsaxure iyo, maSin rodesac<br />
manamde, SesaZloa, 3 000-ze naklebi iyo.<br />
erT-erTi mTavari sakiTxi gaxldaT is,<br />
rom evrokavSiris monitoringis misiebi<br />
problemebs awydebodnen samxreT ose-<br />
Tis teritoriis gadakveTisas. 68 ruseTi<br />
cecxlis Sewyvetis Sesaxeb prezident<br />
sarkozisa da prezident medvedevs Soris<br />
miRweul SeTanxmebas srulad ar daemorCila.<br />
amasTan erTad, 2008 wlis 17 seqtembers<br />
ruseTis federaciis xelisuflebam<br />
de facto xelisuflebebTan am teritoriebze<br />
ruseTis samxedro Zalebis yofnis<br />
nebadamrTveli debulebebis Semcvel<br />
SeTanxmebebs moawera xeli. 2008 wlis<br />
27 agvistos saqarTvelos premier-minis<br />
trma saqarTveloSi ruseTis mSvidobismyofelTa<br />
misiis oficialuri dasrulebis<br />
Sesaxeb brZanebas xeli moawera.<br />
manamde damoukidebel saxelmwifoTa<br />
Tanamegobrobis mSvidobismyofelTa misias<br />
SeTanxmebis safuZvelze hqonda afxazeTisa<br />
da samxreT oseTis teritoriebze<br />
yofnis ufleba. 2008 wlis 28 agvistos<br />
qveynis parlamentma miiRo dadgenileba,<br />
romliTac afxazeTi da samxreT<br />
oseTi ruseTis mier okupirebul teritoriebad<br />
gamoacxada. 69 26 agvistos<br />
ruseTma afxazeTisa da samxreT oseTis<br />
damoukidebloba oficialurad aRiara,<br />
rasac Sedegad saqarTvelos mier ruseT-<br />
Tan diplomatiuri urTierTobis gawyveta<br />
mohyva. 70<br />
2008 wlis 10 oqtombrisTvis ruse-<br />
Tis SeiaraRebuli Zalebi, ZiriTadad,<br />
gavidnen afxazeTis gare teritoriidan,<br />
maT qarTvelebisa da saerTaSoriso organizaciebisTvis<br />
afxazeTSi misasvlelis<br />
blokireba moaxdines, ramac adgilobriv<br />
mcxovreblebs safrTxe Seuqmna<br />
da regionSi adamianis uflebebis dacvisa<br />
da humanitaruli samarTlis dacvis<br />
monitoringi rTuli gaxada. cecxlis<br />
Sewyvetis SeTanxmebis Tanaxmad, saer-<br />
TaSoriso damkvirveblebs afxazeTsa<br />
da samxreT oseTSi, ise rogorc saqarTvelos<br />
danarCen nawilSi, monitoringi<br />
unda CaetarebinaT. evrokavSiris damkvirveblebma<br />
patrulireba 2008 wlis 1<br />
oqtombers daiwyes, Tumca wlis bolos-<br />
Tvis ver moxerxda maTi afxazeTis teritoriaze<br />
SeSveba. gaeros monitoringis<br />
misia afxazeTis teritoriaze funqcionirebas<br />
ganagrZobda, Tumca afxazurma da<br />
rusulma Zalebma maTi moqmedebis areali<br />
qarTvelebiT dasaxlebuli kodoriT<br />
Semofargles. 71<br />
evropis sakiTxTa britaneTis saxelmwifo<br />
ministris, parlamentis wevr karolin<br />
flintis, gancxadebiT, saqarTvelo-<br />
Si usafrTxoebis TvalsazrisiT, situacia<br />
jer kidev rTuli rCeba. misive mtkicebiT,<br />
afxazeTSi eTnikuri qarTvelebis<br />
mdgomareoba gansakuTrebiT problemuri<br />
iyo. adamianis, da kerZod umciresobaTa,<br />
uflebebis darRvevebis Sesaxeb<br />
cnobebi ori separatistuli regionidan<br />
da ruseTis mier okupirebuli saqarTvelos<br />
danarCeni teritoriebidan kvlavac<br />
grZeldeba. mxolod gaeros sadamkvirveblo<br />
misias hqonda afxazeTSi<br />
Sesvlis gonivruli SesaZlebloba, Tumca<br />
misi mandati Tebervlis Sua ricxveb-<br />
Si amoiwura. xelisufleba mouwodebda<br />
ruseTs, evrokavSiris sadamkvirveblo<br />
misias, afxazeTSi Sesvlis ufleba dauyovnebliv<br />
miscemoda. 72<br />
5. saqarTvelos kanoni okupirebuli<br />
teritoriebis Sesaxeb<br />
afxazeTi da samxreT oseTi saqarTvelos<br />
ganuyofeli nawilebia da saerTa-<br />
Soriso Tanamegobroba saqarTvelos<br />
saerTaSorisod aRiarebuli sazRvrebis<br />
farglebSi saqarTvelos teritoriul<br />
mTlianobas aRiarebs da mxars uWers.<br />
saqarTvelos suvereniteti, afxazeTis<br />
avtonomiuri respublikis mis SemadgenlobaSi<br />
yofnis CaTvliT, 1991 wlis 21<br />
dekembris alma-atis xelSekrulebiT<br />
aRi arebuli iyo. saqarTvelos konsti-<br />
96
S. nikoleiSvili, 2008 wlis agvistos omis Semdeg adamianis uflebebis dacvis kuTxiT arsebuli...<br />
tu cia, kerZod ki misi pirveli da meo re<br />
muxlebi saqarTvelos saxelmwifo saz-<br />
Rvrebs gansazRvravs afxazeTis, aWarisa<br />
da samxreT oseTis avtonomiuri respublikebis<br />
CaTvliT. 1990-iani wlebidan<br />
mimdinare separatistuli omis Sedegad<br />
afxazeTis araRiarebulma mTavrobam<br />
damoukidebloba gamoacxada, Tumca saerTaSoriso<br />
Tanamegobrobam afxazeTis<br />
damoukideblobis aRiarebaze uari ganacxada.<br />
axali konfliqtis eskalaciis<br />
Semdeg mxolod ruseTma, nikaraguam da<br />
hamasma aRiares afxazeTi da samxreT oseTi,<br />
rogorc damoukidebeli saxelmwifoebi.<br />
afxazeTi da samxreT oseTi de jure<br />
saqarTvelos kontrolis qveS rCebian.<br />
2008 wlis agvistoSi ruseTis mier<br />
okupirebul teritoriebze kidev ufro<br />
garTulda mdgomareoba evropuli konvenciiT<br />
gaTvaliswinebuli adamianis ZiriTad<br />
uflebaTa da TavisuflebaTa dacvis<br />
TvalsazrisiT. saqarTvelos kanoni<br />
`okupirebuli teritoriebis Sesaxeb~<br />
emyareba im princips, rom saqarTvelos<br />
ori separatistuli regioni – afxazeTi<br />
da samxreT oseTi – saqarTvelos ganuyofeli<br />
nawilebia, romelTa okupireba<br />
ruseTis federaciis mier aramarTlzomierad<br />
moxda. es Teza aSkarad aris<br />
gamoxatuli kanonis preambulaSi saqar-<br />
T velos suverenitetis, erTianobisa<br />
da ganuyoflobis xazgasmiTa da sxva<br />
sa xelmwifos SeiaraRebuli Zalebis am<br />
teritoriaze yofnisTvis `suverenuli<br />
saxelmwifos teritoriis ukanono samxedro<br />
okupaciis~ wodebiT. kanonis pirveli<br />
muxli kanonis miznad asaxelebs `im<br />
teritoriebis statusis gansazRvras,<br />
romlebic okupirebulia ruseTis federaciis<br />
samxedro agresiis Sedegad~. 73<br />
`okupirebuli teritoriebis Sesaxeb~<br />
saqarTvelos kanonis me-7 muxli<br />
xazgasmiT adgens ruseTis federaciis<br />
pasuxismgeblobas afxazeTis (saqarTvelo)<br />
da samxreT oseTis (saqarTvelo)<br />
teritoriebze adamianis uflebebis dar-<br />
RvevisTvis. moraluri da materialuri<br />
zianisa da kulturuli memkvidreobis<br />
dacvis pasuxismgebloba ekisreba ruse-<br />
Tis federacias. rogorc wesi, saer-<br />
TaSoriso pasuxismgeblobis sakiTxebi<br />
erovnuli kanonmdeblobiT ar regulirdeba.<br />
maTi gadawyveta saerTaSoriso samarTlis<br />
gamoyenebiT xdeba. 74<br />
adamianis uflebebis darRvevebTan<br />
dakavSirebiT, adamianis uflebebisa da<br />
Tavisuflebebis dacvis evropuli sasamarTlos<br />
praqtikis Tanaxmad, evropuli<br />
konvenciis eqstrateritoriuli<br />
iurisdiqciis gamoyeneba SesaZlebelia,<br />
Tu saxelmwifo garkveuli teritoriis<br />
`efeqtur saerTo kontrols~ axorcielebs.<br />
75 swored es situaciaa ruseTis<br />
federaciasTan mimarTebiT rogorc afxazeTis<br />
(saqarTvelo), ise samxreT oseTis<br />
(saqarTvelo) SemTxvevaSi. Tumca unda<br />
moxdes imis gaanalizebac, rom okupanti<br />
Zalis pasuxismgebloba eqstrateritoriuli<br />
principis safuZvelze meore<br />
saxelmwifos nebismieri pasuxismgeblobisgan<br />
srulad ar aTavisuflebs. 76 unda<br />
aRiniSnos, rom kanoni aris saqarTvelos<br />
saerTo wuxilis gamoxatva aRniSnul<br />
teritoriasTan mimarTebiT, da evropuli<br />
sasamarTlos precedentuli samar-<br />
Tlis mxedvelobaSi miRebiT 77 saxelmwifos<br />
neba, daareguliros okupirebul<br />
teritoriaze samarTlebrivi urTier-<br />
Tobebi, SesaZloa, am teritoriis mimarT<br />
saqarTvelos pasuxismgeblobis maCveneblad<br />
CaiTvalos. 78<br />
Sesabamisad, SegviZlia davaskvnaT,<br />
rom ruseTis federacias afxazeTis<br />
teritoriaze aqvs iurisdiqcia da, rogorc<br />
zemoTac iqna aRniSnuli, ro gorc<br />
teritoriis makontrolebels, masve<br />
eki sreba pasuxismgebloba am teritoriaze<br />
adamianis ZiriTad uflebaTa da TavisuflebaTa<br />
dacvisTvis.<br />
6. daskvna<br />
absoluturad naTelia, rom oku pirebul<br />
teritoriasa da mimdebare teritoriaze<br />
mcxovrebi eTnikuri qarTve<br />
lebis usafrTxoeba, ise rogorc<br />
ad a mianis uflebebisa da ZiriTadi Tavi<br />
suflebebis dacvis evropuli konvenciiT<br />
uzrunvelyofili TiTqmis nebismieri<br />
adamianis uflebis, rogorebicaa:<br />
sicocxlis ufleba, wamebis akrZalva,<br />
Tavisuflebisa da usafrTxoebis ufle-<br />
97
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
ba, samarTliani sasamarTlos ufleba,<br />
kanonis gareSe dasjis akrZalva, da sxv.,<br />
iseve rogorc damatebiTi oqmebiT daculi<br />
uflebebi, rogorebicaa, magaliTad:<br />
sakuTrebis dacvis ufleba, ganaTlebis<br />
ufleba (damatebiTi oqmi, parizi, 20<br />
marti, 1952), moqalaqeTa gaZevebis akrZalva)<br />
Tavisufali gadaadgilebis ufleba<br />
(me-4 oqmi) da dacva seriozuli safrTxis<br />
qveS aris da TiTqmis ar aris daculi.<br />
ruseTs mis de facto kontrols daqvemdebarebul<br />
teritoriebze adamianis uflebebisa<br />
da humanitaruli samarTlis dar<br />
RvevisTvis sruli pasuxismgebloba<br />
ekisreba. amasTan erTad, ruseTis federacia<br />
marTavs politikur procesebs<br />
afxazeTsa da samxreT oseTSi. afxazeT-<br />
Si gamarTuli saprezidento arCevnebi<br />
ruseTis mier separatistuli regionis<br />
politikur procesebSi Carevis mkafio<br />
magaliTad SeiZleba iyos gamoyenebuli.<br />
ruseTis maRali rangis oficialuri<br />
pirebi, prezidentis CaTvliT, Riad<br />
uWerdnen mxars erT-erT saprezidento<br />
kandidats da warmarTes misi saprezidento<br />
saarCevno kampania.<br />
ruseTis maRali rangis oficialuri<br />
pirebis regularuli vizitebi afxazeT-<br />
Si, Sexvedrebi afxazebTan, afxazeTis<br />
politikuri procesebis marTvaSi ruse-<br />
Tis CarTulobas adasturebs.<br />
euTos umaRlesma komisarma erovnuli<br />
umciresobebis sakiTxebSi knut valebekma<br />
Rrma mwuxareba gamoxata regionSi<br />
arsebul humanitarul mdgomareobasTan<br />
dakavSirebiT. 20<strong>09</strong> wlis 14 aprils haagaSi<br />
man gaakeTa mowodeba, rom Sewydes<br />
afxazeTis qarTul mosaxleobaze ganxorcielebuli<br />
zewola. man ganacxada<br />
Sem degi: `Zalze vwuxvar afxazeTis galis<br />
regionSi ganviTarebul movlenebTan<br />
dakavSirebiT, ramac usafrTxoebis<br />
TvalsazrisiT gaauaresa mdgomareoba.<br />
Cemi konfliqtis Tavidan acilebis mandatis<br />
Sesabamisad, movuwodeb de facto<br />
xelisuflebas, Sewydes galis raionis<br />
qarTul mosaxleobaze ganxorcielebuli<br />
zewola, rac gamokveTilia maTi<br />
ganaTlebis uflebis SelaxviT, savaldebulo<br />
`pasportizaciiT~, afxazur samxedro<br />
ZalebSi iZulebiTi gawveviTa da<br />
maTi Tavisufali gadaadgilebis uflebis<br />
SezRudviT~.<br />
1<br />
ix.: saqarTveloSi ruseTis agresiis amsaxveli ganrigi, saqarTvelos<br />
mTavrobis dokumenti; 2008 wlis 21 seqtemberi, Tbilisi, http://www.iamgeorgian.org/2008/11/22/timeline-of-russian-aggression-in-georgia/.<br />
2<br />
demokratiis, adamianis uflebebisa da Sromis biuro, adamianis uflebebis<br />
angariSi. saqarTvelo, 2008: angariSi qveyanaSi adamianis uflebebis<br />
dacvis praqtikis Sesaxeb, 25 Tebervali, 20<strong>09</strong>, http://www.state.gov/g/<br />
drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/eur/119080.htm<br />
3<br />
Ibid.<br />
4<br />
Ibid.<br />
5<br />
Human Rights Watch-is angariSi: `alSi gaxveuli: samxreT oseTSi ganvi-<br />
Tarebuli konfliqtis samoqalaqo msxverplni da humanitaruli samar-<br />
Tlis darRvevebi~, 20<strong>09</strong> wlis ianvari, 1-56432-427-3.<br />
6<br />
evropis sabWos saparlamento asambleis rezolucia 1633 (2008). saqar-<br />
Tvelosa da ruseTs Soris omis Sedegebi, http://assembly.coe.int/Main.<br />
asplink=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta08/ERES1633.htm.<br />
7<br />
Ibid<br />
8<br />
Ibid.<br />
9<br />
ix.: saqarTvelos mTavrobis angariSi ruseTis federaciis mier saqar T-<br />
velos winaaRmdeg ganxorcielebuli agresiis Sesaxeb, 20<strong>09</strong> wlis agvisto,<br />
http://www.report.smr.gov.ge/<br />
10<br />
Ibid.<br />
11<br />
Ibid<br />
98
S. nikoleiSvili, 2008 wlis agvistos omis Semdeg adamianis uflebebis dacvis kuTxiT arsebuli...<br />
12<br />
ix.: saqarTvelo-evrokavSiris saparlamento TanamSromlobis komitetis<br />
me-11 Sexvedra, 20<strong>09</strong> wlis 16-17 Tebervali, 20<strong>09</strong>, http://www.parliament.<br />
ge/index.phplang–id=GEO&sec–id=491&info–id=22854<br />
13<br />
ix.: evropis sabWos saparlamento asambleis rezolucia 1633 (2008). saqar<br />
Tvelosa da ruseTs Soris omis Sedegebi, http://assembly.coe.int/Main.<br />
asplink=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta08/ERES1633.htm<br />
14<br />
ix.: saqarTvelos mTavrobis angariSi ruseTis federaciis mier saqar T-<br />
velos winaaRmdeg ganxorcielebuli agresiis Sesaxeb, 20<strong>09</strong> wlis agvisto,<br />
http://www.report.smr.gov.ge/<br />
15<br />
Ibid.<br />
16<br />
ix.: ruseTis pasportis floba saerTaSoriso mgzavrobisTvis moqalaqeobisa<br />
da arCevnebSi monawileobis uflebas uzrunvelyofs. Tumca es<br />
avtomaturad ar aniWebs iseT privilegiebs, rogorebicaa: dabadebisa<br />
da qorwinebis registracia, cxovrebis ufleba da sxva SeRavaTebi, romlebic<br />
Sida pasportis qonas moiTxoven.<br />
17<br />
ix.: evropis kavSiris komiteti, me-3 sesiis angariSi; saqarTvelos Semdeg<br />
evrokavSirisa da ruseTis 2008-20<strong>09</strong> wlebis Tanmimdevruli angariSi,<br />
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld2008<strong>09</strong>/ldselect/ldeucom/26/2602.htm.<br />
18<br />
ix.: antoni osti, saerTaSoriso samarTlis saxelmZRvanelo, 181,<br />
Cambridge University Press, 2005 wlis 25 aprili, xelmisawvdomia Semdeg<br />
eleqtronul misamarTze: http://books.google.com/bookshl=en&lr=&id=E<br />
qO9rKIcoQMC&oi=fnd&pg=PR19&dq=ANTHONY+AUST,+HANDBOOK+OF+<br />
INTERNATIONAL+LAW+&ots=r3dPmZJiYp&sig=Z0wWa0Zb4NluOgGDb3hQ-<br />
D06FV4#PPR17,M1.<br />
19<br />
Ibid.<br />
20<br />
ix.: burdik h. britini, saerTaSoriso samarTali sazRvao ofisisTvis,<br />
183 (me-4 red., 1981).<br />
21<br />
ix.: Konstitutsiia Rossiiskoi Federastii, art. 61, Targmnili da xelmisawvdomia<br />
Semdeg eleqtronul misamarTze: http://www.constitution.m/en/10003000-0l.<br />
htm; (`ruseTis federaciam sakuTari moqalaqeebis dacva da maTze mzrun<br />
veloba sazRvargareT unda uzrunvelyos~).<br />
22<br />
ix.: demokratiis, adamianis uflebebisa da Sromis biuro, aSS-is saxelmwifo<br />
departamenti, adamianis uflebebis angariSi: saqarTvelo, 2006<br />
wlis 8 marti, angariSi qveyanaSi adamianis uflebebis dacvis praqtikis<br />
Sesaxeb, 25 Tebervali, http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rIs/hiTpt/2(K)5/61649.htm.<br />
23<br />
ix.: daan van der Srieki, samxreT oseTi ultimatums iRebs, saqarTvelos<br />
daxmarebas uaryofs. EURASIANET. 2004 wlis 23 ivnisi. xelmisawdomia<br />
Semdeg eleqtronul misamarTze: http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eavO623O4.shlml;<br />
24<br />
ix.: ahto lobiakasi, saqarTvelo dasavleTisken bewvis xidiT miiwevs, radio<br />
`Tavisufali evropa~/radio `Tavisufleba~, 2006 wlis 24 noemberi,<br />
http://rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/n/e7<strong>09</strong>c840-fcb4-4d7i-a69e-5233Ie23683a.html.<br />
25<br />
demokratiis biuro, saerTaSoriso krizisis jgufi, afxazeTi dRes, evropis<br />
angariSi N’M 76, 135-e supra noti, 2006 wlis 15 seqtemberi, http://<br />
www.crisisgroup.org/libraiy/documents/europe/caucasus/176abkhazia–today.pdf.<br />
26<br />
demokratiis, adamianis uflebebisa da Sromis biuro, adamianis uflebebis<br />
angariSi. saqarTvelo, 2008: angariSi qveyanaSi adamianis uflebebis<br />
dacvis praqtikis Sesaxeb, 25 Tebervali, 20<strong>09</strong>, http://www.state.gov/g/<br />
drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/eur/119080.htm<br />
27<br />
liz fuleri, `rogor warmoudgenia afxazeTs Tavisi Semdgomi urTier-<br />
Toba ruseTTan~ kavkasiis angariSi, tomi 4, 36 (2001). xelmisawdomia<br />
Semdeg eleqtronul misamarTze: www.rferl.org/Caucasus-report/2001/10/36-<br />
291001.html.<br />
28<br />
ix.: l. Cxenkeli, `Zliers Wkua ar sWirdeba/ruseTis politika saqarTvelosTan<br />
mimarTebiT~, Tbilisi, 2003, gv. 257-3<strong>09</strong>.<br />
99
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
100<br />
29<br />
Ibid.<br />
30<br />
Ibid.<br />
31<br />
ix.: saqarTvelos sagareo saqmeTa saministros mier ruseTis federaciisTvis<br />
gagzavnili SeniSvnebi, 11-08/1565, 26.12.2002; 7-25/2162, 21.07.99.<br />
– gamouqveynebeli masala.<br />
32<br />
ix.: saqarTvelos sagareo saqmeTa saministros mier ruseTis federaciisTvis<br />
gagzavnili SeniSvnebi, 11-06/1197 – gamouqveynebeli masala.<br />
33<br />
ix.: saqarTvelos sagareo saqmeTa saministros mier ruseTis federaciisTvis<br />
gagzavnili SeniSvnebi, 11-06/1419 – gamouqveynebeli masala.<br />
34<br />
ix.: saqarTvelos mTavrobis angariSi ruseTis federaciis mier saqar-<br />
Tvelos winaaRmdeg ganxorcielebuli agresiis Sesaxeb, 20<strong>09</strong> wlis<br />
agvisto. xelmisawvdomia Semdeg eleqtronul misamarTze: http://www.<br />
report.smr.gov.ge/<br />
35<br />
Ibid.<br />
36<br />
Ibid.<br />
37<br />
Ibid.<br />
38<br />
ix.: evropis sabWos saparlamento asambleis rezolucia 1648 (20<strong>09</strong>),<br />
saqarTvelosa da ruseTs Soris omis humanitaruli Sedegebi. xelmisawvdomia<br />
Semdeg eleqtronul misamarTze: http://assembly.coe.int/Main.<br />
asplink=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta<strong>09</strong>/ERES1648.htm.<br />
39<br />
Ibid.<br />
40<br />
adamianis uflebebi samxreT oseTis konfliqtis zegavlenis qveS myof<br />
teritoriebze. evropis sabWos adamianis ufelbaTa komisris, Tomas<br />
hamarbergis specialuri misia saqarTvelosa da ruseTis federaciaSi<br />
(vladikavkazi, cxinvali, gori, Tbilisi da moskovi, 22-29 agvisto, 2008.<br />
xelmisawvdomia Semdeg eleqtronul misamarTze: https://wcd.coe.int/<br />
ViewDoc.jspid=1338365&Site=CommDH).<br />
41<br />
Ibid.<br />
42<br />
ix.: evropis sabWos saparlamento asambleis rezolucia 1648 (20<strong>09</strong>),<br />
saqarTvelosa da ruseTs Soris omis humanitaruli Sedegebi. xelmisawvdomia<br />
Semdeg eleqtronul misamarTze: http://assembly.coe.int/Main.<br />
asplink=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta<strong>09</strong>/ERES1648.htm.<br />
43<br />
Ibid.<br />
44<br />
ix.: samxedro moqmedebebi kongos teritoriaze (kongos demokratiuli<br />
respublika ugandis winaaRmdeg), 2005 I.C.J. 116, 10 (19 dekemberi), http://<br />
www.icjcij.<br />
45<br />
ix.: ioram dinStaini, omi, agresia da Tavdacva gv. 307-308 (kembrijis universtetis<br />
me-4 gamocema, 2005).<br />
46<br />
ix.: noel m. San ahan qutisi, mtrebi karibWis miRma: ruseTis mier saer-<br />
TaSoriso samarTliT aRiarebuli principebis darRveva. saqarTvelo<br />
(CASE W. RES. J. INT’L L.) tomi 40:281.<br />
47<br />
ix.: Nicaragua. v. U.S., 1986 marTlmsajulebis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlo,<br />
14,108 (1986 wlis 27 ivnisi).<br />
48<br />
ix.: sqolio 47.<br />
49<br />
Ibid.<br />
50<br />
ix.: damoukidebel saxelmwifoTa Tanamegobrobis sabWos gadawyvetileba<br />
saqarTvelo-afxazeTis konfliqtis zonaSi mSvidobismyofelTa gamo<br />
gzavnis Sesaxeb, 1994 wlis 12 oqtomberi.<br />
51<br />
ix.: e. astemirova, ruseTis mSvidobismyofelTa mier afxazeTSi Cadenili<br />
danaSaulebi, Tbilisi, 1998.<br />
52<br />
ix.: saqarTvelos krizisi, saerTaSoriso debatebi, 2008 wlis seqtemberi.<br />
tomi 6, me-6 nawili. gv. p1-25, 25p, 342<strong>09</strong>293.<br />
53<br />
Ibid.<br />
54<br />
Ibid.<br />
55<br />
ix.: Human Rights Watch report-is angariSi `alSi gaxveuli: samxreT oseTSi<br />
ganviTarebuli konfliqtis samoqalaqo msxverplni da humanitaruli<br />
samarTlis darRvevebi~, 20<strong>09</strong> wlis ianvari, 1-56432-427-3.
S. nikoleiSvili, 2008 wlis agvistos omis Semdeg adamianis uflebebis dacvis kuTxiT arsebuli...<br />
56<br />
Ibid.<br />
57<br />
ix.: sqolio 47.<br />
58<br />
ix.: sqolio 47.<br />
59<br />
ix.: samxedro moqmedebebi kongos teritoriaze (kongos demokratiuli<br />
respublika ugandis winaaRmdeg), 2005 I.C.J. 116, 10 (19 dekemberi), http://<br />
www.icjcij.<br />
60<br />
ix.: sqolio 47.<br />
61<br />
Ibid.<br />
62<br />
ix.: sqolio 17, zemoT.<br />
63<br />
ix.: sqolio 47.<br />
64<br />
ix.: Human Rights Watch report-is angariSi `alSi gaxveuli: samxreT oseTSi<br />
ganviTarebuli konfliqtis samoqalaqo msxverplni da humanitaruli<br />
samarTlis darRvevebi~, 20<strong>09</strong> wlis ianvari, 1-56432-427-3.<br />
65<br />
ix.: evropuli komisia `kanoni demokratiisTvis~ meSveobiT (veneciis<br />
komisia), daskvna okupirebuli teritoriebis Sesaxeb saqarTvelos<br />
kanonis Taobaze, 38-e paragrafi. miRebulia veneciis komisiis mier, 78-e<br />
plenarul sxdomaze (venecia, 13-14 marti, 20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
66<br />
ix.: `saqarTvelo: eqvspuntqiani gegma,~ safrangeTis respublikis sael-<br />
Co vaSingtonSi, 14 agvisto, 2008. xelmisawvdomia Semdeg eleqtronul<br />
misamarTze: http://ambafranceus.org/spip.phparticle1101 (nanaxia: 12 noemberi,<br />
2008).<br />
67<br />
ix.: sqolio 17.<br />
68<br />
Ibid<br />
69<br />
demokratiis, adamianis uflebebisa da Sromis biuro, adamianis uflebebis<br />
angariSi. saqarTvelo:, 2008: angariSi qveyanaSi adamianis uflebebis<br />
dacvis praqtikis Sesaxeb, 25 Tebervali, 20<strong>09</strong>, http://www.state.gov/g/<br />
drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/eur/119080.htm.<br />
70<br />
Ibid.<br />
71<br />
Ibid.<br />
72<br />
ix.: sqolio 17.<br />
73<br />
saqarTvelos kanoni okupirebuli teritoriebis Sesaxeb, 23 oqtomberi,<br />
2008 431-II, www.parliament.ge<br />
74<br />
ix.: evropuli komisia `kanoni demokratiisTvis~ meSveobiT (veneciis<br />
komisia), daskvna okupirebuli teritoriebis Sesaxeb saqarTvelos<br />
kanonis Taobaze, 38-e paragrafi. miRebulia veneciis komisiis mier, 78-e<br />
plenarul sxdomaze (venecia, 13-14 marti, 20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
75<br />
ix.: adamianis uflebebis evropuli sasamarTlo, 1995 wlis 23 marti, gadawyvetileba<br />
saqmeze: loizidu TurqeTis winaaRmdeg, 62-e paragrafi;<br />
2004 wlis 8 ivlisi, gadawyvetileba saqmeze – ilaSku da sxvebi ruse-<br />
Tis federaciisa da moldovis respublikis winaaRmdeg, 382-385-e paragrafebi.<br />
ix., aseve: veneciis komisiis 2008 wlis angariSi SeiaraRebuli<br />
Zalebis demokratiuli kontrolis Taobaze (CDL-AD (2008)004, 305-306-e<br />
da 314-e paragrafebi).<br />
76<br />
ganmartebebi gadawyvetilebaSi saqmeze – ilaSku da sxvebi ruseTis<br />
federaciisa da moldovis respublikis winaaRmdeg, 322-e paragrafi et<br />
seq. moldovis pasuxismgeblobis Sesaxeb.<br />
77<br />
gansakuTrebiT: adamianis uflebebis evropuli sasamarTlo, gadawyvetileba<br />
saqmeze – ilaSku da sxvebi ruseTis federaciisa da moldovis<br />
respublikis winaaRmdeg..<br />
78<br />
ix.: evropuli komisia `kanoni demokratiisTvis~ meSveobiT (veneciis<br />
komisia), daskvna okupirebuli teritoriebis Sesaxeb saqarTvelos<br />
kanonis Taobaze, 38-e paragrafi. miRebulia veneciis komisiis mier, 78-e<br />
plenarul sxdomaze (venecia, 13-14 marti, 20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
101
SHORENA NIKOLEISHVILI<br />
HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION FOLLOWING THE WAR<br />
IN AUGUST 2008 AND VIOLATION OF GEORGIA’S<br />
SOVEREIGNTY BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION<br />
1. INTRODUCTION<br />
Georgia has encountered vast social,<br />
economic, and political problems since the collapse<br />
of the Soviet Union. The problem related<br />
to the territorial integrity of Georgia is of utmost<br />
signifi cance, especially when two unresolved<br />
confl icts (in Abkhazia and South Ossetia) exist<br />
within the internationallly recognized borders<br />
of Georgia. Despite the escalated situation in<br />
the territories of Abkhazia, Georgia and South<br />
Ossetia, these territories juridically are still<br />
considered integral parts of Georgia. It should<br />
be mentioned noted that the government of<br />
Georgia exercises only de jure control over<br />
the territories of Abkhazia, Georgia and South<br />
Ossetia. Legitimate governments of Abkhazia<br />
and South Ossetia are situated in Tbilisi and<br />
fail to fulfi l obligations and liabilities imposed<br />
by the Constitution of Georgia.<br />
On August 7, 2008, Georgian government<br />
officials reported that Tbilisi was launching<br />
an attack to defend against what it reported<br />
as a Russian invasion. Georgia launched a<br />
military operation in Tskhinvali, the local capital<br />
of Georgia’s South Ossetian region, and<br />
other areas of the separatist region. Georgian<br />
Government forces advanced only after days<br />
of intensive shelling that caused civilian deaths<br />
in villages under Georgian control and after<br />
confirmation that a massive Russian land force<br />
had invaded Georgia through the Roki Tunnel. 1<br />
The situation deteriorated further after Russia<br />
launched a military invasion using disproportionate<br />
force across the country’s internationally<br />
recognized borders 2 . Russian and South<br />
Ossetian forces occupied villages outside the<br />
administrative borders of South Ossetia and<br />
Abkhaziathe other separatist region in Georgia. 3<br />
The conflicts in the regions of Abkhazia,and<br />
Tskhinvali Region remained unresolved and<br />
were exacerbated during the August 7-12<br />
armed conflict between Georgia and Russia. 4<br />
In a separate operation from the west, moving<br />
through Abkhazia, Russian forces occupied the<br />
strategically important cities of Poti, Zugdidi,<br />
and Senaki in western Georgia, establishing<br />
checkpoints and roadblocks there. 5<br />
This Russian aggression against Georgia<br />
led to the occupation of a signifi cant part of<br />
the territory of Georgia, as well as to attacks<br />
on the economic and strategic infrastructure<br />
of the country, which can be deemed a direct<br />
attack on the sovereignty of Georgia. 6<br />
From the escalation of the August, 2008<br />
developments that led to the occupation by<br />
the Russian Federation of certain territories<br />
of Georgia, and from the declaration by the<br />
Russian Federation, of Abkhazia and South<br />
Ossetia as independent states, it is clear that<br />
this recognition was aimed to attain recognition<br />
of the aforementioned regions as sovereign<br />
and independent states on the example<br />
of Kosovo. However, the international community<br />
supports the territorial integrity of Georgia<br />
within internationally recognized borders, including<br />
the two regions of Abkhazia and South<br />
Ossetia. The recognition by Russia of the independence<br />
of South Ossetia and Abkhazia is<br />
a violation of international law principles. 7<br />
2. HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION AFTER<br />
THE 2008 CONFLICT<br />
The situation in Tskhinvali Region and<br />
Abkhazia, Georgia remains extremely complicated<br />
for the civilian population. They are<br />
cut off from the rest of Georgia, with little or<br />
102
SH. NIKOLEISHVILI, HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION FOLLOWING THE WAR IN AUGUST 2008 AND VIOLATION OF GEORGIA’S...<br />
no access to international humanitarian aid<br />
and human rights monitoring. They face great<br />
hardship during the winter months, due in particular<br />
to shortages of food and non-food items<br />
such as electricity and gas. 8<br />
2.1. Killing, Robbery, and other<br />
Human Rights Violations<br />
A number of incidents of robbery by<br />
Russian occupying forces have been reported,<br />
as there is a catastrophic defi cit of food<br />
supplies in the Russian Army. In fact, to obtain<br />
food supplies, the army uses small groups,<br />
who, by means of fi rearms, brutally punish<br />
and rob the peaceful population residing in the<br />
Gali District. 9<br />
Russian troops and separatist gangs assault<br />
the Georgian population that remains in<br />
occupied territories. They rob and harass ethnically<br />
Georgian homes. There are numerous<br />
cases of beating peaceful citizens, and there<br />
are some cases of killings. 10<br />
In the territories adjacent to the occupied<br />
territories, there have been numerous cases of<br />
mine attacks on roads and blasting Georgian<br />
police patrols, as well as fi ring at Georgian police<br />
checkpoints. As a result, some Georgian<br />
police offi cers have died and many more have<br />
been seriously wounded. Georgian villages<br />
near the occupied territories have been constantly<br />
attacked 11 . There have been several<br />
shooting incidents and continued provocations<br />
along the administrative lines of the breakaway<br />
regions, which could lead to renewed<br />
hostilities. In particular, sixteen Georgian police<br />
offi cers have been shot, and there have<br />
been recent attacks on EU monitors near<br />
South Ossetia and Abkhazia. 12<br />
Also it should be mentioned that, in» buffer<br />
zone”, South Ossetia credible reports of<br />
acts of ethnic cleansing committed by irregular<br />
militia and gangs were frequently reported after<br />
the signing of the ceasefi re agreement on<br />
12 August 2008, and continue today. 13<br />
2.2. Freedom of Movement<br />
Some 42,000 ethnic Georgians in the Gali<br />
District of Abkhaziaconstitute the last impediment<br />
to the creation of an ethnically homogenous<br />
territory under Russian control. Since<br />
the Georgian-Russian war, the Russian forces,<br />
together with separatists, have closed all<br />
possible connections between Gali and the<br />
rest of Georgia, and have intensifi ed oppressive<br />
measures against Georgians. The freedom<br />
of movement is highly restricted. Ethnic<br />
Georgians are prohibited from crossing the de<br />
facto border. Money extortion and frequent occurrences<br />
of harassment of civilians have also<br />
been reported at the so-called checkpoints. To<br />
render the freedom of movement from other<br />
routes completely impossible, the Russian<br />
military and separatist forces have destroyed<br />
all bridges on the Enguri River that once connected<br />
Gali District with the rest of Georgia.<br />
Military forces keep burning down and destroying<br />
bridges, as well as attacking the administrative<br />
border. There have been a number of<br />
cases of killings, kidnappings for ransom, arbitrary<br />
detention, robbery, and frequent punitive<br />
raids under the pretext of security. 14<br />
2.3. Problem Arising with Regards the<br />
Georgian Passports<br />
Abkhaz separatists have further intensifi<br />
ed the policy of forcing ethnic Georgians to<br />
give up their Georgian citizenship and acquire<br />
Russian passports, as failing to do so leads<br />
to unconditional exile. As a result, nearly 1,<br />
500 persons residing in Gali region now have<br />
Abkhaz citizenship. Additionally, the forceful<br />
recruitment and enlisting of Georgians to<br />
Abkhaz military forces remains an extremely<br />
pressing issue 15 .<br />
2.3.1. Provisions of Russian Passports<br />
In the late 1990s, the Russian government<br />
began to proactively offer residents of<br />
Abkhazia Russian citizenship and to facilitate<br />
their acquisition of Russian passports for foreign<br />
travel. As Russia imposed a visa regime<br />
with Georgia in 2000, Russian passports allowed<br />
Abkhazians to cross freely into Russia. 16<br />
It was evidence of the distribution of Russian<br />
passports to non-Russian citizens residing<br />
in Abkhazia, 17 as the population who lived in<br />
the region of Abkhazia had Georgian citizenship,<br />
and the international community considered<br />
Abkhazia an undividable part of Georgia.<br />
The distribution of Russian passports among<br />
Abkhazians had a far-reaching goal intended<br />
to isolate Abkhazia from Georgia.<br />
103
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
Abkhaz law allows dual Russian-Abkhaz<br />
citizenship, but not dual Georgian-Abkhaz<br />
citizenship. Black’s <strong>Law</strong> Dictionary describes<br />
a passport as “a formal document certifying<br />
a person’s identity and citizenship so that<br />
the person may travel to and from a foreign<br />
country.” 18 While the issue of an authentic<br />
passport “raises no more than a presumption<br />
that the holder is a national of the state of issue,<br />
the presumption is not easily rebutted”. 19<br />
Some scholars posit that a passport is, in fact,<br />
evidence of nationality. 20 A passport entitles<br />
the holder to the protection and assistance of<br />
the holder’s diplomatic and consular offi cers<br />
abroad. Members of the Russian Duma make<br />
frequent statements emphasizing that ethnic<br />
Abkhazians with Russian passports are their<br />
citizens. As Russian citizens, they are entitled<br />
to Russia’s protection as stipulated in the<br />
Russian Federation Constitution. 21 While there<br />
is the issue of an authentic passport, there is<br />
also a large market for counterfeit. 22 Russian<br />
passport holders are entitled to a Russian pension<br />
of about fi fty dollars a month 23 and social<br />
security payments-both considerably higher<br />
than those in Georgia”. 24 In addition, many<br />
Abkhazians engage in small-scale smuggling<br />
to Russia and fi nd a Russian passport necessary<br />
for their business. Ethnic Georgians living<br />
in Abkhazia, Georgia must obtain Russian<br />
passports if they wish to travel abroad, vote,<br />
or participate in the political process. Georgian<br />
passport holders are denied Russian visas,<br />
and most travellers wishing to enter Russia<br />
from Georgia without a Russian passport must<br />
do so via a third country. 25<br />
The de facto authorities in Abkhazia,<br />
Georgia have continued to restrict the rights of<br />
citizens to vote and to participate in the political<br />
process through a ‘citizenship’ law that forced<br />
ethnic Georgians to give up their Georgian citizenship<br />
in order to vote in local elections. 26<br />
The policies designed to make the citizens<br />
of Abkhazia, Georgia eligible for Russian<br />
citizenship, which received offi cial support<br />
from the Russian government, formed part of<br />
the same strategy. These policies are based<br />
on the assumption that dual citizenship for<br />
Abkhaz citizens would increase the protection<br />
they receive from the Russian authorities<br />
in the event of a new confl ict with Georgia.<br />
The Georgian leadership deems the Abkhaz<br />
demands for association with Russia and dual<br />
citizenship policies to be incompatible with the<br />
principle of territorial integrity. According to the<br />
Georgian Government, the transformation of<br />
Abkhazia, to a state freely associated with the<br />
Russian federation-if agreed by the Russian<br />
government-would amount to direct annexation,<br />
in clear breach of international law. 27<br />
2.4. Influence via Restoration of Trade-<br />
Economic and Transportation Relations<br />
The Commonwealth of Independent States<br />
(CIS) member states concluded an agreement<br />
on January 19, 1996 and recognized<br />
that “Abkhazia, Georgia is an inalienable part<br />
of Georgia and takes responsibility that without<br />
the consent of the Georgian side they shall<br />
not enter into trade, economic, fi nancial, or<br />
transportation relations with the government<br />
of Abkhazia, Georgia” 28 . Notwithstanding the<br />
above-mentioned fact, the government of the<br />
Russian Federation has concluded several<br />
agreements with the Abkhazian side on trade,<br />
economic, and other types of cooperation. 29<br />
Branch offi ces of various Russian companies<br />
and travel agencies successfully operate<br />
on the territory of Abkhazia 30 and encourage<br />
further enhancement of Russia-Abkhazia cooperation,<br />
and, at the same time, ensure further<br />
functioning of the separatist regime.<br />
The restoration of economic relations<br />
has increased the pace of transport communication<br />
between the Russian Federation and<br />
Abkhazia. Railway communication between<br />
Sochi and Sokhumi was renewed in 2002 31 ,<br />
the bus routes, Sokhumi-Rostov and Sochi-<br />
Axali Atoni were re-established in 2004 32 .<br />
In 2003, Russia initiated the restoration of<br />
naval communication between the Russian<br />
Federation and Abkhazia. 33 It’s worthy to note<br />
that the re-establishment of conomic and<br />
transport ties between the Russian Federation<br />
and Abkhazia, Georgia has been carried out<br />
without the consent of the Georgian side.<br />
2.5. Right of Education<br />
The right to Education in one’s native language<br />
is also restricted in the Gali District. The<br />
native language is taught at schools merely as<br />
104
SH. NIKOLEISHVILI, HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION FOLLOWING THE WAR IN AUGUST 2008 AND VIOLATION OF GEORGIA’S...<br />
a discipline. The teachers are forced to engage<br />
in political activities, and they are required to<br />
join Baghafsh’s political party 34 .<br />
Georgian children are deprived of the<br />
opportunity to study in their native language<br />
and have no possibility whatsoever of going<br />
to Georgian schools, even those in the adjacent<br />
Zugdidi and Tsalenjikha districts. On<br />
October 21 2008 Russian forces closed the<br />
road from the village of Saberio (Gali District)<br />
to Tsalendjikha and prohibited local children<br />
from going to the Georgian school in Chkoushi<br />
Village (Tsalenjikda District). As a result, some<br />
60 children are now deprived of the possibility<br />
of studying in Georgian language. 35<br />
2.6. Right to Return<br />
Based on information from the National<br />
Agency of Civil Registry of the Ministry of<br />
Justice of Georgia, the number of persons<br />
forcefully displaced from South Ossetia and its<br />
adjacent areas after the war in 2008 amounts<br />
to 131,310, of which 107,381 persons returned<br />
and 23,929 are considered long-term<br />
displaced. However, to this number one<br />
should add the number of Internally Displaced<br />
Persons (IDPs) from the previous confl ict of<br />
1992, which amounts to 12,493 persons, (totalling<br />
36,422 persons). 36<br />
As for Abkhazia since 1992, the total<br />
number of IDPs is 270,141, from which 1,989<br />
displacements occurred after August, 2008.<br />
It is worth mentioning here, that 350,000 are<br />
refugees from Abkhazia, Georgia. 37<br />
There are grave concerns for those remaining<br />
in Akhalgori District. Approximately<br />
5,100 persons have already fl ed this region,<br />
and there are fears that even more people will<br />
leave due to the lack of security combined,<br />
with the harsh winter conditions and the lack of<br />
food and non-food items including gas, heating,<br />
and fi nancial assistance and income. 38<br />
The situation remains precarious for<br />
those Georgians who have returned to the<br />
Gali region. The closing of the de facto border,<br />
which has separated the area from the rest of<br />
Georgia, has had a great impact on the population<br />
in this region. It has become increasingly<br />
diffi cult for the population to maintain family<br />
contacts, sell their produce, have access to<br />
health care, or pick up fi nancial entitlements<br />
on the other side of the de facto border. 39<br />
Displaced persons have a right to return<br />
to their homes, irrespective of their religion,<br />
ethnicity, or nationality. Though international<br />
human rights law has focused more on the<br />
right of return from another country, there is<br />
suffi cient basis for a conclusion that it is an<br />
obligation of the concerned governments to do<br />
everything possible in order to protect the right<br />
to return also inside countries. The dispute<br />
about the future status of South Ossetia is no<br />
justifi cation for denying any one of those displaced<br />
persons their right to return home. 40<br />
This right must be fully and effectively respected<br />
in any attempt to broker a sustainable<br />
peace agreement. The right to return should<br />
encompass the whole area of confl ict, not only<br />
in the “buffer zone”, but also in South Ossetia<br />
itself. 41<br />
2.6.1. Buffer Zone<br />
The situation in the former “buffer zone”<br />
remains tense, with continued incidents of<br />
people being killed by sniper fi re, mines, unexploded<br />
artillery, and booby traps. Meanwhile,<br />
the rapid deployment of the European Union<br />
Monitoring Mission (EUMM) has allowed many<br />
persons to return to their homes in the former<br />
“buffer zone” 42<br />
Schools in Georgia, including those in the<br />
former “buffer zone”, have been re-opened<br />
and are functioning, and school supplies have<br />
been distributed to the children. 43<br />
2.7. Human Rights Violations by Russian<br />
Peacekeepers during the Conflict<br />
Peacekeepers are not authorized to provide<br />
military, fi nancial, or logistical support to<br />
one side in a confl ict, 44 or to take military action<br />
against a party to the confl ict. 45 Furthermore,<br />
it is a violation of international law to provide<br />
training and military support to one side of an<br />
internal confl ict, especially when that support<br />
comes from a peacekeeping force within the<br />
country. 46 In Nicaragua v. the United States<br />
of America, the <strong>International</strong> Court of Justice<br />
(ICJ) made it clear that the principle of nonintervention<br />
prohibits a state “to intervene, directly<br />
or indirectly, with or without armed force,<br />
105
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
in support of an internal opposition in another<br />
State.” 47 In Congo v. Uganda, the ICJ noted<br />
that acts which breach the principle of non-intervention<br />
“will also, if they directly or indirectly<br />
involve the use of force, constitute a breach of<br />
the principle of non-use of force in international<br />
relations.” 48 “These provisions are declaratory<br />
of customary international law.” 49<br />
CIS Peacekeeping Forces made up of the<br />
citizens of the Russian Federation have been<br />
deployed in Abkhazia, Georgia since 1994. The<br />
CIS Peacekeeping Forces are responsible for<br />
the protection of human rights. 50 It should be<br />
admitted that the Russian militaries, instead of<br />
protecting fundamental rights and freedoms in<br />
the territory of confl ict, turn a blind eye to the<br />
numerous violations and crimes committed by<br />
the Abkhazians and even frequently participate<br />
in such operations. 51<br />
On August 10, 2008 the UN Assistant<br />
Secretary-General for Peacekeeping, Edmond<br />
Mulet, reported to the UN Security Council<br />
that the UN Observer Mission in Georgia<br />
(UNOMIG), about 100 observers in all, witnessed<br />
“ongoing aerial bombardments of<br />
Georgian villages in the Upper Kodori Valley”<br />
the previous day. They also observed “the<br />
movement by the Abkhaz side of substantial<br />
numbers of heavy weapons and military personnel<br />
towards the Kodori Valley.” 52<br />
Mulet also warned that Abkhaz separatist<br />
leader Sergei Bagapsh had threatened<br />
to push the Georgian armed forces out of the<br />
Upper Kodori Valley. In violation of their mandate,<br />
the Russian ‘peacekeepers’ “did not attempt<br />
to stop such deployments” of Abkhaz<br />
rebel weaponry. 53<br />
Fifteen UNOMIG observers were withdrawn<br />
from the Kodori Valley because the<br />
Abkhaz rebels announced that their safety<br />
could not be guaranteed. Russian peacekeepers<br />
also permitted Abkhaz forces to deploy<br />
in the Gali region and along the Inguri River<br />
bordering Abkhazia, Georgia and the rest of<br />
Georgia. Russian military and Abkhaz military<br />
forces then moved across the river into Zugdidi<br />
District, southwest of Abkhazia, Georgia,<br />
which is indisputably Georgian territory. 54<br />
Russian peacekeepers were directly involved<br />
in all Human Rights violations in the territory of<br />
Abkhazia, Georgia and South Ossetia.<br />
3. THE VIOLATION OF GEORGIA’S<br />
SOVEREIGNTY BY THE RUSSIAN<br />
FEDERATION<br />
When Russian forces entered Georgia, including<br />
the territory of Abkhazia, which is a de<br />
jure area of Georgia, they did so without the<br />
consent or agreement of Georgia. 55 Russian<br />
forces (the occupying power) exercised effective<br />
control over an area of Georgian territory,<br />
including in Abkhazia without the consent<br />
or agreement of the Georgian government.<br />
Russia also assumed the role of an occupying<br />
power in the Kareli and Gori districts of undisputed<br />
Georgian territory, until the Russian<br />
withdrawal from these areas on October 10,<br />
2008, because Russian presence prevented<br />
the Georgian authorities’ full and free exercise<br />
of sovereignty in these regions. 56<br />
According to international law, a state has<br />
“sovereignty over its territory.” All sovereigns<br />
are equal and exercise power within their own<br />
territory.’’ 57 The U.N. Charter recognizes a<br />
sovereign state’s right “to regulate its territory<br />
and nationals.” 58 While a nation’s right to sovereignty<br />
is not without its limits, sovereignty is<br />
of paramount concern in international law. 59 In<br />
Congo v. Uganda, the ICJ held, “If a State assumes<br />
an obligation in an international agreement<br />
to respect the sovereignty and territorial<br />
integrity of the other States parties to that<br />
agreement... and a commitment to co-operate<br />
with them in order to fulfi ll such obligation, this<br />
expresses a clear legally binding undertaking<br />
that it will not repeat any wrongful acts.” 60<br />
The UN Security Council respects the<br />
territorial integrity of Georgia. Russian Federation<br />
is a permanent member of the UN<br />
Security Council. The United Nations Security<br />
Council Resolutions are legally binding on<br />
U.N. Member States if they are made under<br />
Chapter VII (Action with Respect to Threats to<br />
the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts<br />
of Aggression) of the Charter. Accordingly,<br />
Russia is legally obligated to respect the territorial<br />
integrity of Georgia. Russia’s disrespect<br />
for the territorial integrity of Georgia subsequent<br />
to such Security Council resolutions<br />
only exacerbates the situation. 61<br />
In recognizing Abkhazia, Georgia, the<br />
Russian Federation has further breached the<br />
106
SH. NIKOLEISHVILI, HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION FOLLOWING THE WAR IN AUGUST 2008 AND VIOLATION OF GEORGIA’S...<br />
principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity<br />
following its intervention in Georgia. 62<br />
In recognizing Abkhazia Russian Federation<br />
has further breached the principles of<br />
sovereignty and territorial integrity, following<br />
its intervention in Georgia. There should be no<br />
question of the EU Member States recognizing<br />
either of these entities. It will be important for<br />
the EU to maintain pressure on the Russian<br />
Federation to respect the international commitments<br />
it has made on these subjects. 63<br />
Human Rights Watch (HRW) was also critical<br />
of Russia for breaching the principles of sovereignty<br />
and territorial integrity through its recognition<br />
of Abkhazia, Georgia. 64<br />
This assumption is diametrically opposed<br />
to the point of view of the Russian Federation,<br />
which claims that Abkhazia, Georgia and South<br />
Ossetia have proclaimed their independence<br />
and have been recognized by Russia as independent<br />
states. According to the Russian government’s<br />
interpretation, Abkhazia, Georgia<br />
and South Ossetia are not occupied territories,<br />
but independent states. Consequently,<br />
the Russian government believes Georgia can<br />
not pass any law in those territories. 65<br />
To summarize, the Russian Federation<br />
occupied territories of Georgia (Abkhazia,<br />
Georgia and South Ossetia), and violated<br />
Georgia’s Sovereignty and Territorial integrity.<br />
4. CEASEFIRE AGREEMENT BETWEEN<br />
GEORGIA AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION<br />
The Russian Federation caused an escalation<br />
of the situation in Georgia in August, 2008, when<br />
Russian troops occupied Georgian territory. The<br />
President of France, Nikolas Sarkozy, in his capacity<br />
as leading the French European Union<br />
Presidency, acted as a peace broker to settle the<br />
conflict peacefully and managed to mediate s<br />
six-point ceasefire agreement between Georgia<br />
and the Russian Federation, aimed at the restoration<br />
of the August 6, 2008 state (the state that<br />
existed before the new escalation of conflict).<br />
By August 16, 2008 President Saakashvili<br />
and his Russian counterpart President Dmitry<br />
Medvedev had signed a six-point ceasefire<br />
agreement brokered by French President Nikolas<br />
Sarkozy in his capacity as leading the French<br />
European Union presidency. The ceasefire<br />
agree ment called for the cessation of hostilities<br />
and the withdrawal of all forces to their pre-August<br />
6 positions. 66 In particular areas this had<br />
not yet occurred, including in Akhalgori, South<br />
Ossetia; in the village of Perevi outside South<br />
Ossetia; and in the upper Kodori Valley, which<br />
borders with Abkhazia but had previously been<br />
administered and run by the Georgians. 67 A<br />
second point was that Russian troops were<br />
in the enclaves in much larger numbers than<br />
before. There were a total of 7,500 troops in<br />
the two enclaves, whereas previously there<br />
had been probably fewer than 3,000. A fi nal<br />
point was that some EU monitors had encountered<br />
diffi culties crossing into South Ossetia 68 .<br />
Russia has not fully complied with the ceasefi<br />
re agreement reached between President<br />
Sarkozy and President Medvedev.<br />
At the same time, on September 17, 2008<br />
the Russian government signed agreements<br />
with the de facto authorities that included provisions<br />
to allow Russian military presence in<br />
the territories. On August 27, the Georgian<br />
prime minister signed a decree formally terminating<br />
Russian peacekeeping operations<br />
in Georgia. Formerly, agreements permitted<br />
Commonwealth of Independent States’<br />
peacekeeping forces in Abkhazia, Georgia<br />
and South Ossetia. On August 28, the country’s<br />
Parliament passed a resolution declaring<br />
Abkhazia, Georgia and South Ossetia<br />
Russian-occupied territories. 69 On August 26,<br />
Russia offi cially recognized the independence<br />
of Abkhazia resulting in Georgia cutting diplomatic<br />
ties with Russia. 70<br />
By October 10, 2008, Russian forces<br />
had mostly withdrawn from the region outside<br />
Abkhazia. They blocked access to the region<br />
for Georgians and international organizations,<br />
making it dangerous for residents, and making<br />
it diffi cult to monitor conditions with respect to<br />
human rights and compliance with humanitarian<br />
law. Under the ceasefi re agreement, international<br />
observers were to monitor Abkhazia<br />
and South Ossetia, and the remaining territory<br />
in Georgia. European Union observers<br />
began patrols October 1, 2008, but had not<br />
yet been permitted into Abkhazia, Georgia by<br />
year’s end. UNOMIG monitors continued to<br />
access Abkhazia, Georgia, although Abkhaz<br />
and Russian forces limited their access to the<br />
ethnic Georgian areas of Kodori. 71<br />
107
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
Minister of State for Europe, Caroline Flint,<br />
reported that the security situation in Georgia<br />
remained fragile, particularly the position of<br />
ethnic Georgians in Abkhazia, Georgia. Human<br />
and minority rights violations continued to be reported<br />
from the two breakaway regions and the<br />
Russian-occupied areas of the rest of Georgia.<br />
Only the UNOMIG had reasonable access to<br />
Abkhazia, Georgia, though its mandate was to<br />
expire in mid-February. The government was<br />
calling on Russia to give the EUMM immediate<br />
access to Abkhazia, Georgia 72 .<br />
5. THE “LAW ON OCCUPIED<br />
TERRITORIES OF GEORGIA”<br />
Abkhazia, Georgia and South Ossetia are<br />
undividable parts of the territory of Georgia,<br />
and international community has declared support<br />
for the territorial integrity of Georgia within<br />
internationally recognized borders. The sovereignty<br />
of Georgia, including the Autonomous<br />
Republic of Abkhazia, was recognized on the<br />
basis of the Alma-Ata agreement concluded<br />
on December 21, 1991. Articles 1 and 2 of the<br />
Constitution of Georgia define the state borders<br />
of Georgia and the autonomous republics of<br />
Abkhazia, Adjara, and South Ossetia within its<br />
composition. As a result of the separatist war,<br />
ongoing since the 1990s, the unrecognized<br />
government of Abkhazia, Georgia declared independence,<br />
but the international community<br />
refused to recognize this. Following the escalation<br />
of a new conflict, only Russia, Nicaragua,<br />
and Hamas recognized Abkhazia and South<br />
Ossetia as independent states, and, respectively.<br />
Abkhazia, Georgia and South Ossetia<br />
are still in de jure control of Georgia.<br />
The situation in the occupied territories<br />
has become further complicated from the<br />
viewpoint of the protection of fundamental<br />
rights and freedoms foreseen by the European<br />
Court of Human Rights (ECHR) after August,<br />
2008, when the Russian Federation occupied<br />
certain territories of Georgia. The “<strong>Law</strong> on<br />
Occupied Territories of Georgia” is based on<br />
the premise that the two breakaway regions<br />
of the Republic of Georgia, Abkhazia, Georgia<br />
and South Ossetia, are part of the Republic<br />
of Georgia, but are illegally occupied by the<br />
Russian Federation. This understanding is<br />
clearly expressed by the reference to the sovereignty<br />
and integrity of Georgia in the preamble<br />
to the law and the qualifi cation of the<br />
presence of military forces of other states as<br />
“illegal military occupation of the territory of a<br />
sovereign country”. Article 1 of the law indicates<br />
the purpose of the law as “to defi ne the<br />
status of territories occupied as a result of military<br />
aggression of the Russian Federation”. 73<br />
Article 7 of the “<strong>Law</strong> on the Occupied<br />
Territories of Georgia” explicitly fi xes the responsibility<br />
of the Russian Federation for<br />
human rights violations, moral and material<br />
damages, and the destruction of cultural heritage<br />
in Abkhazia (Georgia) and South Ossetia<br />
(Georgia). As a rule, questions of international<br />
responsibility cannot be regulated on the basis<br />
of national law, but are solved on the basis of<br />
international law. 74<br />
Concerning human rights violations, according<br />
to the jurisprudence of the ECHR, an<br />
extraterritorial application of the ECHR is possible<br />
if the state exerts “effective overall control”<br />
over a certain territory. 75 This seems to<br />
be the case for the Russian Federation, both<br />
in Abkhazia, Georgia and in South Ossetia<br />
(Georgia). But it must also be realized that the<br />
responsibility of the occupying power, based<br />
on the extraterritorial application of human<br />
rights conventions, does not completely exonerate<br />
the other state from responsibility. 76<br />
It may be noted for example, that the whole<br />
<strong>Law</strong> is an indication of Georgia’s concern for<br />
the said territory, and taking into account the<br />
case-law of the ECHR 77 the intention of the<br />
state to regulate legal relations within the occupied<br />
territory may represent an indication of<br />
its responsibility for the respective territory. 78<br />
Consequently, we can claim that the Russian<br />
Federation has jurisdiction over the territory of<br />
Abkhazia, Georgia and Russian Federation, as<br />
the controller of the above-mentioned territory<br />
is responsible for the protection of the fundamental<br />
rights and freedoms.<br />
6. CONCLUSION<br />
It is obvious that the security of ethnic<br />
Georgians living in the occupied territories and<br />
adjacent areas of Georgia are under serious<br />
threat. Nearly all the human rights guaranteed<br />
by the ECHR such as right to life, prohibition of<br />
torture, right to liberty and security, fair trial,<br />
108
SH. NIKOLEISHVILI, HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION FOLLOWING THE WAR IN AUGUST 2008 AND VIOLATION OF GEORGIA’S...<br />
no punishment without law, etc., as well as the<br />
rights stipulated by the additional protocols<br />
such as protection of ownership, right to education,<br />
(Additional protocol, Paris, March, 20,<br />
1952), prohibition of eviction of citizens, right<br />
of free movement, (Protocol N. 4) are not being<br />
protected. Russia bears full responsibility for violations<br />
of human rights and humanitarian law<br />
in the areas under its de facto control. Besides<br />
this, the Russian Federation governs the political<br />
processes in Abkhazia, Georgia and South<br />
Ossetia. Presidential elections held in Abkhazia,<br />
Georgia can be used as an example of Russia’s<br />
involvement in the political processes in the<br />
separatist region. High-level Russian officials,<br />
including the president, openly supported one<br />
of the presidential candidates and directed his<br />
presidential election campaign.<br />
Regular visits of high level Russian officials to<br />
Abkhazia, Georgia for meetings with Abkhazians<br />
prove Russia’s involvement in the governance of<br />
the political processes in Abkhazia, Georgia.<br />
The Organization for Security and Cooperation<br />
in Europe (OSCE) High Commissioner<br />
on national Minorities, Knut Vollebaek, is deeply<br />
concerned about the current humanitarian situation<br />
in the region, in Hague ( April 14, 20<strong>09</strong>),<br />
he called for an end to pressure put on the<br />
Georgian population in Abkhazia. He stated: “I<br />
am deeply concerned about recent developments<br />
in the Gali District of Abkhazia, Georgia,<br />
which have led to a deteriorating security situation<br />
in the region. In line with my conflict prevention<br />
mandate, I urge the de facto authorities<br />
to put an end to the pressure being exercised<br />
on the Georgian population in the Gali District<br />
through the limitation of their education rights,<br />
compulsory ‘passportization’, forced conscription<br />
into the Abkhaz military forces, and restrictions<br />
on their freedom of movement”.<br />
1<br />
Government of Georgia, Timeline of Russian Aggression in Georgia, 21 Sep tember,<br />
2008, http://www.iamgeorgian.org/2008/11/22/timeline-of-russian-aggressionin-georgia/.<br />
2<br />
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Human Rights Report, Georgia,<br />
2008: Country Report on Human Rights Practices, February 25, 20<strong>09</strong>, http://www.<br />
state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/eur/119080.htm.<br />
3<br />
Ibid.<br />
4<br />
Ibid.<br />
5<br />
Human Rights Watch Report Up In Flames: Humanitarian <strong>Law</strong> Violations and<br />
Civilian Victims in the Confl ict over South Ossetia, January, 20<strong>09</strong>, 1-56432,<br />
427-3.<br />
6<br />
Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe-Resolution 1633, The Consequences<br />
of the War between Georgia and Russia, 2008, http://assembly.coe.int/Main.<br />
asplink=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta08/ERES1633.htm.<br />
7<br />
Ibid.<br />
8<br />
Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe-Resolution 1648, The Humanitarian<br />
Consequences of the War between Georgia and Russia, 20<strong>09</strong>, http://assembly.<br />
coe.int/Main.asplink=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta<strong>09</strong>/ERES1648.htm.<br />
9<br />
Government of Georgia, The Aggression by the Russian Federation against Georgia,<br />
August, 20<strong>09</strong>, http://www.report.smr.gov.ge/.<br />
10<br />
Ibid.<br />
11<br />
Ibid.<br />
12<br />
EU–Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee Eleventh Meeting, February,<br />
20<strong>09</strong>, 16-17, http://www.parliament.ge/index.phplang_id=GEO&sec_id=491&info<br />
_id=22854.<br />
13<br />
Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe-Resolution 1633, The Consequences<br />
of the War between Georgia and Russia, 2008, http://assembly.coe.int/Main.<br />
asplink=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta08/ERES1633.htm.<br />
14<br />
Government of Georgia, The Aggression by the Russian Federation against Georgia,<br />
August 20<strong>09</strong>,: http://www.report.smr.gov.ge/<br />
1<strong>09</strong>
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
15<br />
Ibid.<br />
16<br />
Possession of a Russian passport for foreign travel confers citizenship and voting<br />
rights, but does not automatically confer such privileges as registering births and<br />
marriages, the right to residence, and other benefi ts, which require possession of<br />
an internal passport.<br />
17<br />
European Union Committee, 3 rd Report of Session, After Georgia: The EU and<br />
Russia: Follow-Up Report, 2008-<strong>09</strong>, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/<br />
ld2008<strong>09</strong>/ldselect/ldeucom/26/2602.htm.<br />
18<br />
Anthony Aust. Handbook of <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>, Cambridge University Press,<br />
2008, 181.<br />
19<br />
Ibid.<br />
20<br />
Burdick H. Brittin. <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> for Seagoing Offi ce (4 th ed.), 1981, 183.<br />
21<br />
Konstitutsiia Rossiiskoi Federastii, Art. 61, The Russian Federation shall<br />
Guarantee to its Citizens Protection and Patronage Abroad.<br />
22<br />
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Country Report on Human<br />
Rights Practice in Georgia, U.S. DEP’T OF STATE, March 8, 2006, http://www.<br />
state.gov/g/drl/rIs/hiTpt/2(K)5/61649.htm.<br />
23<br />
Daan van der Schriek. Eurasianet, South Ossetia Gets Ultimatum, Rejects Georgian<br />
Aid, 2004, http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eavO623O4.shlml.<br />
24<br />
Ahto Lobjakas. Georgia Walking a Tightrope toward the West, Radio Free Europe/<br />
Radio Liberty, Nov. 24, 2006, http://rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/n/e7<strong>09</strong>c840-<br />
fcb4-4d7i-a69e-5233 Ie23683a.html.<br />
25<br />
Bureau of Democracy, Europe Report N’M 76, Int’l Crisis Group, Abkhazia Today,<br />
135, Sept. 15, 2006.<br />
26<br />
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Human Rights Report: Georgia,<br />
2008 Country Report on Human Rights Practices, February 25, 20<strong>09</strong>, http://www.<br />
state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/eur/119080.htm.<br />
27<br />
Fuller Liz. “How Does Abkhazia Envisage Its Future Relationship with Russia”,<br />
Caucasus Report, Vol. 4, No. 36, http://www.rferl.org/caucasus-report/2001/10/36-<br />
291001.html.<br />
28<br />
Chkhenkeli, L. Who is strong, Needs no Brains: Russia’s Policy towards Georgia,<br />
Tbilisi 257-3<strong>09</strong>.<br />
29<br />
Ibid.<br />
30<br />
Ibid.<br />
31<br />
Note to the Russian Federation by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia #.11-<br />
08/1565, 26.12.2002–unpublished material<br />
32<br />
Note sent to the Russian Federation by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia<br />
# 11-06/1197–unpublished material.<br />
33<br />
Note sent to the Russian Federation by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia<br />
#11-06/1419–unpublished material.<br />
34<br />
Government of Georgia, The aggression by the Russian Federation against Georgia,<br />
August 20<strong>09</strong>,: http://www.report.smr.gov.ge/.<br />
35<br />
Ibid.<br />
36<br />
Ibid.<br />
37<br />
Ibid.<br />
38<br />
Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe- Resolution 1648,The Humanitarian<br />
Consequences of the War between Georgia and Russia, 20<strong>09</strong>, http://assembly.<br />
coe.int/Main.asplink=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta<strong>09</strong>/ERES1648.htm<br />
39<br />
Ibid.<br />
40<br />
Thomas Hammarberg, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (Vla dikavkaz,<br />
Tskhinvali, Gori, Tbilisi and Moscow), Special Mission to Georgia and Russian<br />
Federation, Human Rights in Areas Affected by the South Ossetia Conflict, 22-29<br />
August 2008, https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jspid=1338365&Site=CommDH.<br />
41<br />
Ibid.<br />
110
SH. NIKOLEISHVILI, HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION FOLLOWING THE WAR IN AUGUST 2008 AND VIOLATION OF GEORGIA’S...<br />
42<br />
Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe-Resolution 1648, The Humanitarian<br />
Consequences of the War between Georgia and Russia, http://assembly.coe.int/<br />
Main.asplink=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta<strong>09</strong>/ERES1648.htm.<br />
43<br />
Ibid.<br />
44<br />
Dem. Rep. Congo v. Uganda, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo,<br />
I.C.J., 116, 10, 2005 (19 December, 2005, http://www.icjcij.<br />
45<br />
Yoram Dtnstetn. War, Aggression and Self-Defence, 4 th ed. (2005), 307-08.<br />
46<br />
Noëlle M., Shanahan Cutís. “Enemies through the Gates: Russian Violations of<br />
<strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> in the Georgia/Abkhazu Confl ict, Case W. Res.” J. Int’l L. 2008,<br />
Vol. 40:281.<br />
47<br />
Nicaragua. v. U.S., Military and Paramilitary Activities, I.C.J., 14:108 (27 June,<br />
1986).<br />
48<br />
Noëlle M., Shanahan Cutís. “Enemies through the Gates: Russian Violations of<br />
<strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> in the Georgia/Abkhazu Confl ict, Case W. Res.” J. Int’l L. 2008,<br />
Vol. 40:281.<br />
49<br />
Ibid.<br />
50<br />
CIS Council on Deployment of Peacekeepers in Georgian-Abkhazian Confl ict<br />
Zone, (12 October, 1994).<br />
51<br />
Astemirova, E., Criminal Offences Committed by Representatives of the Russian<br />
Peacekeeping Forces in Abkhazia, Tbilisi, 1998.<br />
52<br />
<strong>International</strong> Debates. September, 2008, Vol. 6 Issue 6, p1-25, 25p, No.<br />
342<strong>09</strong>293.<br />
53<br />
Ibid.<br />
54<br />
Ibid.<br />
55<br />
Human Rights Watch Report: “Up in Flames: Humanitarian <strong>Law</strong> Violations and<br />
Civilian Victims in the Confl ict over South Ossetia”, January 20<strong>09</strong>, 1-56432-<br />
427-3.<br />
56<br />
Ibid.<br />
57<br />
Noëlle M., Shanahan Cutís. “Enemies through the Gates: Russian Violations of<br />
<strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> in the Georgia/Abkhazu Confl ict, Case W. Res.” J. Int’l L. 2008,<br />
Vol. 40:281.<br />
58<br />
Ibid.<br />
59<br />
Dem. Rep. Congo v. Uganda, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo,<br />
I.C.J., 116, 10, 2005 (19 December, 2005), http://www.icjcij.<br />
60<br />
Noëlle M., Shanahan Cutís. “Enemies through the Gates: Russian Violations of<br />
<strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> in the Georgia/Abkhazu Confl ict, Case W. Res.” J. Int’l L. 2008,<br />
Vol. 40:281<br />
61<br />
Ibid.<br />
62<br />
European Union Committee, 3 rd Report of Session, After Georgia: The EU and<br />
Russia: Follow-Up Report, 2008-<strong>09</strong>, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/<br />
ld2008<strong>09</strong>/ldselect/ldeucom/26/2602.htm.<br />
63<br />
Ibid.<br />
64<br />
Human Rights Watch Report: “Up in Flames: Humanitarian <strong>Law</strong> Violations and<br />
Civilian Victims in the Confl ict over South Ossetia”, January 20<strong>09</strong>, 1-56432-<br />
427-3.<br />
65<br />
European Commission for Democracy through <strong>Law</strong>, Venice Commission at its<br />
78th Plenary Session, Opinion on the <strong>Law</strong> on Occupied Territories of Georgia,<br />
(Venice, 13-14 March, 20<strong>09</strong>), para.6.<br />
66<br />
Embassy of France in Washington, “Georgia: the 6 Points Plan,” 14 August, 2008,<br />
http://ambafranceus.org/spip.phparticle1101 (accessed November 12, 2008)<br />
67<br />
European Union Committee, 3 rd Report of Session, After Georgia: The EU and<br />
Russia: Follow-Up Report, 2008-<strong>09</strong>, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/<br />
ld2008<strong>09</strong>/ldselect/ldeucom/26/2602.htm.<br />
68<br />
Ibid.<br />
111
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
69<br />
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Human Rights Report: Georgia,<br />
2008: Country Report on Human Rights Practices, 25 February, 20<strong>09</strong>.<br />
70<br />
Ibid.<br />
71<br />
Ibid.<br />
72<br />
European Union Committee, 3 rd Report of Session, After Georgia: The EU and<br />
Russia: Follow-Up Report, 2008-<strong>09</strong>, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/<br />
ld2008<strong>09</strong>/ldselect/ldeucom/26/2602.htm.<br />
73<br />
<strong>Law</strong> on Occupied Territories of Georgia, 23 October 2008, No. 431-II, www.parliament.ge.<br />
74<br />
European Commission for Democracy through <strong>Law</strong>, Venice Commission at its<br />
78th Plenary Session, Opinion on the <strong>Law</strong> on Occupied Territories of Georgia,<br />
(Venice, March 13-14, 20<strong>09</strong>), para.37;<br />
75<br />
ECHR, Loizidou v. Turkey judgment of 23.03.1995, § 62; Ilascu and others v.<br />
Russian Federation and the Republic of Moldova judgment of 8 July 2004, para.<br />
382-385; 2008 Venice Commission Report on the Democratic Control of the<br />
Armed Forces (CDL-AD (2008) 004, para. 305-306; 314).<br />
76<br />
Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia judgment, op.cit., para. 322 et seq. on<br />
the responsibility of Moldova.<br />
77<br />
Especially - Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia judgment of ECHR.<br />
78<br />
European Commission for Democracy through <strong>Law</strong>, Venice Commission at its<br />
78th Plenary Session, Opinion on the <strong>Law</strong> on Occupied Territories of Georgia,<br />
(Venice, March 13-14, 20<strong>09</strong>), para.38.<br />
112
eka siraZe<br />
sazRvao Sida wylebi: delimitacia,<br />
statusi da iurisdiqcia<br />
Sesavali<br />
winamdebare naSromis mizania sazRvao<br />
Sida wylebisa da portebis samarTlebrivi<br />
reJimis ganxilva, rac moicavs<br />
maTi statusis, am sazRvao sivrceSi<br />
ucxo saxelmwifos droSis qveS mcuravi<br />
gemebis Sesvlis wesisa da maTze ganxorcielebuli<br />
sisxlissamarTlebrivi<br />
iuri sdiqciis moculobis gansazRvras.<br />
kvleva Catarebulia sazRvao samar-<br />
Tlis Sesaxeb gaeros 1982 wlis konvenciis<br />
(SemdgomSi – `gaeros konvencia~), sxva<br />
mravalmxrivi konvenciebis, regiona luri<br />
da ormxrivi SeTanxmebebisa da saxelmwifoTa<br />
da saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos<br />
praqtikisa da, ra Tqma unda, am sferoSi<br />
moRvawe cnobili mecnierebis naSromebis<br />
Seswavlis safuZvelze.<br />
upirveles yovlisa, naSromSi, for<br />
matis moculobidan gamomdinare, SeZle<br />
bisdagvarad mokled ganimarteba ZiriTadi<br />
samarTlebrivi cnebebi.<br />
sawyisi xazebi<br />
ramdenadac winamdebare statiis mizania<br />
sanapiro saxelmwifos iurisdiqciis<br />
aspeqtebis gansazRvra Tavis Sida wylebsa<br />
da portebSi, saWirod CaiTvala, mokled<br />
ganxiluliyo, zogadad, saxelmwifos<br />
sazRvao Sida wylebis raoba da maTi<br />
delimitaciis sakiTxi. iqidan gamomdinare,<br />
rom saxelmwifos iurisdiqcia Tavis<br />
Sida wylebSi mniSvnelovnad gansxvavdeba<br />
teritoriul zRvaze ganxorcielebuli<br />
iurisdiqciisagan, 1 sasicocxlod mniSvnelovania<br />
am ori zonis erTmaneTisagan<br />
gamijvna. swored am gammijnav funqcias<br />
axorcielebs sawyisi xazebi. ufro metic,<br />
sawyisi xazebi ara marto Sida wylebsa<br />
da teritoriul zRvas Soris sazRvris<br />
funqcias asrulebs, aramed igi gamoiyeneba<br />
teritoriuli zRvis 2 , mimdebare 3 da<br />
gansakuTrebuli ekonomikuri zonebisa 4<br />
da kontinenturi Selfis 5 sifarTovis<br />
asaTvleladac.<br />
tradiciulad, avtorebis mierac<br />
da saerTaSoriso konvenciebSic sawyis<br />
xazebTan dakavSirebuli wesebi ganixileboda<br />
rogorc teritoriuli zRvis<br />
samarTlis Semadgeneli nawili. 6 amis<br />
gamarTleba SeiZleboda maSin, rodesac<br />
teritoriuli zRva saxelmwifos iurisdiqciis<br />
qveS myofi erTaderTi sazRvao<br />
zona iyo, magram dReisaTvis sazRvao samarTalsa<br />
da, saerTod, msoflio okeanis<br />
danawilebaSi momxdari cvlilebebis<br />
gamo, sawyisi xazebis roli mkveTrad<br />
gaizarda da igi ukve calke sakiTxad<br />
ganixileba mecnierebis mier, 7 Tumca<br />
gaeros konvenciaSi sawyis xazebze muxlebi<br />
teritoriuli zRvis me-2 nawilis<br />
me-2 ganyofilebaSia mocemuli, romelic<br />
teritoriuli zRvis sifarToves exeba.<br />
sawyisi xazebis sakiTxi pirvelad<br />
ganixiles haagis 1930 wlis konferenciaze.<br />
marTalia, konferencias erTiani<br />
dokumentis miReba ar mohyolia, iq ganxiluli<br />
normebi SemdgomSi mainc aisaxa<br />
teritoriuli zRvisa da mimdebare zonis<br />
Sesaxeb Jenevis 1958 wlis konvenciaSi<br />
(SemdgomSi – `Jenevis konvencia~). 8<br />
sawyisi xazebis gavleba istoriulad<br />
miqceva-moqcevaze iyo damokidebuli.<br />
saxelmwifoebis sanapiro rom SedarebiT<br />
swori yofiliyo, sawyisi xazebis<br />
aT vlis sakiTxi arc gamoiwvevda raime<br />
113
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
si rTules da SedarebiT iolad mowesrigdeboda,<br />
anu saxelmwifoebs mouwevdaT<br />
mxolod moqcevisa da miqcevis ukiduresi<br />
wertilebis gamoTvla. magram<br />
realoba iseTia, rom saxelmwifoTa umetesobis<br />
sanapiro xazi dawaxnagebulia,<br />
Semofarglulia kunZulebiT, yureebiT,<br />
mdinaris SesarTavebiT da a.S. swored<br />
amitom gaeros konvenciaSi Semdegi geografiul<br />
Taviseburebebi iqna gaTvaliswinebuli:<br />
Rrmad dawaxnagebuli an<br />
kunZulebiT garSemortymuli sanapiro, 9<br />
yureebi, 10 mdinaris SesarTavi, 11 portebi<br />
da saporto nagebobebi, 12 miqcevis<br />
dros gamoCenili xmeleTis nawili, 13<br />
kunZulebi, 14 rifebi. 15<br />
swored sazRvao sanapiroebis rTuli<br />
topografiis gamo arsebobs sawyisi<br />
xazebis ori saxe: Cveulebrivi da swori.<br />
Cveulebrivi sawyisi xazebi<br />
`teritoriuli zRvisa da mimdebare<br />
zonis Sesaxeb~ 1958 wlis konvenciis me-3<br />
muxlisa da sazRvao samarTlis Sesaxeb<br />
gaeros konvenciis me-5 muxlis Tanaxmad:<br />
`teritoriuli zRvis siganis asaTvlelad<br />
gamoyenebuli sawyisi xazebi aris<br />
sanapiros garSemo ukiduresi miqcevis<br />
xazi, rogorc aRniSnulia sanapiro<br />
saxelmwifos oficialurad aRiarebul<br />
msxvilmasStabian rukebze.~ 16<br />
ukiduresi miqcevis wertilis aTvlis<br />
saTaved aRiareba gamow veulia saxel<br />
mwifoTa surviliT, rac SeiZleba<br />
win waswion teritoriuli zRvisa da sxva<br />
zonebis sazRvari, gansakuTrebiT iseT<br />
sanapiroebze, romelTac intensiuri<br />
miqceva-moqceva axasia TebT. 17<br />
swori sawyisi xazebi<br />
swori sawyisi xazebis koncefcia<br />
XIX saukunis meore naxevarSi SeimuSava<br />
norvegiam, rac gamowveuli iyo misi sanapiros<br />
reliefis sirTuliT. norvegiis<br />
sanapiro xazi Zalian dawaxnagebulia yureebiT,<br />
kunZulebiT, portebiT, kldeebiT,<br />
meCeCebiT da a.S. teritoriuli<br />
zRvis Sida sazRvris dasadgenad norvegiam<br />
gamoiyena ramdenime swori xazi,<br />
rogorc sawyisi xazebi. es swori xazebi<br />
gavlebuli iyo skaergaardis 18 ukiduresi<br />
moqcevis wertilebze. 1930-iani wlebidan<br />
inglisma daiwyo norvegiis mier<br />
gamoyenebuli meTodis gaprotesteba da<br />
1949 wels saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos<br />
mimarTa kidec. gaerTianebuli samefos<br />
poziciis mixedviT, swori xazebis gavlebis<br />
aseTi wesi ewinaaRmdegeboda saer-<br />
TaSoriso samarTlis normebs. 19 saerTa-<br />
Soriso sasamarTlom am saqmeze Tavis<br />
gadawyvetilebaSi aRiara, rom norvegiis<br />
mier gamoyenebuli meTodi ar ewinaaRmdegeboda<br />
saerTaSoriso samarTlis normebs.<br />
20<br />
sasamarTlos SexedulebiT, swori<br />
xazebis gamoyeneba xdeboda sxva qveynebis<br />
mierac 21 da protesti mis winaaRmdeg<br />
aravis ganucxadebia, TviT did britaneTsac<br />
ki – 1869 wlidan (rodesac norvegiam<br />
pirvelad daiwyo maTi gamoyeneba)<br />
1933 wlamde (rodesac didma britaneTma<br />
pirvelad uaryo am meTodis<br />
gamoyeneba). 22<br />
marTalia, sasamarTlom aRiara swori<br />
sawyisi xazebi, rogorc erT-erTi me-<br />
Todi, magram, amave dros, man daadgina<br />
aseTi xazebis gavlebis wesi, romlis<br />
dacvac savaldebulo iyo saxelmwifoebisaTvis.<br />
am wesebis kodificireba moxda<br />
jer Jenevis, 23 Semdeg ki gaeros konvenciaSi.<br />
24 amrigad, sawyisi xazebi ise unda<br />
iyos gavlebuli, rom (1) ar ewinaaRmdegebodes<br />
sanapiros saerTo mimarTulebas; 25<br />
(2) am xazebs miRma moqceuli zRvis raioni<br />
mWidrod unda iyos dakavSirebuli<br />
xmeleTTan, raTa moxvdes Sida wylebSi; 26<br />
(3) mxedvelobaSi unda iyos miRebuli regionisaTvis<br />
damaxasiaTebeli ekonomikuri<br />
interesebi, romelTa realoba da<br />
mniSvneloba naTlad aris dasabuTebuli<br />
xangrZlivi gamoyenebiT; 27 (4) miqcevis<br />
dros gamSral warmonaqmnebze ar Sei-<br />
Zleba sawyisi xazebis gavleba, Tu maTze<br />
ar aris agebuli Suqura an sxva msgavsi<br />
nageboba, romelic mudmivad wylis zemoT<br />
rCeba, an Tu aseT warmonaqmnebze<br />
swori sawyisi xazebis gavlebam saerTa-<br />
Soriso aRiareba ar moipova; 28 (5) saxelmwifos<br />
mier swori sawyisi xazebi imgvarad<br />
ar unda iqnes gamoyenebuli, rom gza<br />
114
e. siraZe, sazRvao Sida wylebi: delimitacia, statusi da iurisdiqcia<br />
mouWras sxva saxelmwifos teritoriul<br />
zRvas Ria zRvisken an gansakuTrebuli<br />
ekonomikuri zonisken. 29<br />
amasTan dakavSirebiT aRsaniSnavia,<br />
rom gaeros konvencia ar adgens imperatiul<br />
normas saxelmwifosaTvis, gamoiyenos<br />
swori sawyisi xazebi. miuxedavad<br />
imisa, arsebobs Tu ara yvela piroba,<br />
saxelmwifom gamoiyenos swori sawyisi<br />
xazebi, igi Tavisufalia arCevanSi (mag.,<br />
aSS-ma ar gamoiyena swori sawyisi xazebi<br />
aliaskis napirze, Tumca am ukanasknelis<br />
napiris rTuli reliefi iZleoda amis<br />
saSualebas 30 ).<br />
samwuxarod, qveynebi, romlebic Sida<br />
wylebis delimitaciisaTvis iyeneben<br />
swor sawyis xazebs, yovelTvis ar icaven<br />
konvenciis moTxovnebs da xazebi gadaaqvT<br />
napiridan didi manZiliT daSorebul<br />
wertilebze. magaliTad, ekvadorma<br />
sawyisi xazebi gaavlo napiridan 131 saz-<br />
Rvao milis 31 moSorebiT, analogiurad<br />
moiqca vietnami, romelmac napiridan<br />
74 sm-iTa da 161 sm-iT daSorebuli kun-<br />
Zulebi gamoiyena sawyisi xazebis aTvlis<br />
wertilad, 32 aseve am regionis sxva<br />
qveynebi: pakistani, maldivis respublika,<br />
bangladeSi, kamboja, CineTi, CrdiloeT<br />
korea da koreis respublika,<br />
iaponia, ssrk; 33 meore mxriv, italiam, espaneTma,<br />
kubam da albaneTma gamoiyenes<br />
swori sawyisi xazebi, miuxedavad imisa,<br />
rom maTi sanapiro xazi ar akmayofilebda<br />
konvenciis moTxovnebs 34 . mainmarma<br />
(birma) da ekvadorma swori sawyisi xazebi<br />
gaavles ise, rom napiris saerTo mimarTulebas<br />
ascda 60°-iT (norvegiasTan<br />
mimarTebiT igi ar aRemateba 15°-s). 35 ker-<br />
Zod, birmam gaavlo 222 sm sigrZis swori<br />
sawyisi xazi martabanis yureze da Sida<br />
wylebSi moaqcia 14300 kv.mili farTobis<br />
wylis sivrce, rac uTanabrdeba daniis<br />
mTel teritorias. 36<br />
Tumca, rogorc roaCi da smiti miiCneven,<br />
Tu saxelmwifo dadgenili normebis<br />
Sesabamisad gaavlebs swor sawyis<br />
xazebs, maSin es aranairad ar gamoiwvevs<br />
teritoriuli zRvis siganis mniSvnelovan<br />
gazrdas, imasTan SedarebiT, rac<br />
SeiZleba mieRoT Cveulebrivi sawyisi<br />
xazebis gamoyenebisas. 37 Tumca profesorebi<br />
– raismani da vestermani afrTxilebdnen,<br />
rom: `swori sawyisi xazebis<br />
gamoyenebis mTavari praqtikuli efeqti<br />
aris saxelmwifos kontrolis fargleb-<br />
Si Sida wylebisa da teritoriuli zRvis<br />
moculobis gazrda. rodesac individualuri<br />
sawyisi xazebis segmentebi Zalian<br />
grZelia, am SemTxvevaSi saxelmwifo<br />
iZens kontinenturi Selfisa da gansakuTrebuli<br />
ekonomikuri zonis mniSvnelovan<br />
raionebs~, 38 rac dadasturda<br />
kidec zemoxsenebuli magaliTebiT.<br />
sanapiro saxelmwifos ufleba aqvs,<br />
kombinireba gaukeTos Cveulebrivi da<br />
swori sawyisi xazebis meTodebs. 39<br />
Sida wylebi<br />
gaeros konvenciis me-8 muxlis Tanaxmad,<br />
Sida anu erovnul wylebs miekuTvneba<br />
is wylebi, romlebic ganlagebulia<br />
xmeleTsa da teritoriuli zRvis sawyis<br />
xazebs Soris. zogadad, Sida wylebSi<br />
Sedis mdinareebi, tbebi, wyalsacavebi,<br />
arxebi, yureebi, mdinaris SesarTavebi,<br />
portebi da a.S., 40 Tumca, am statiis miznebidan<br />
gamomdinare, `Sida wylebSi~ igulisxmeba<br />
mxolod sazRvao Sida wylebi.<br />
Sida wylebisagan gansxvavebuli statusi<br />
aqvs arqipelaguri saxelmwifos<br />
uk i dures kunZulebze gavlebul sawyis<br />
xazebs Soris moqceul wlis sivrces<br />
– arqipelagur wylebs, 41 Tumca aq ar<br />
SevudgebiT am wylebis samarTlebrivi<br />
statusis gansazRvras. miuxedavad amisa,<br />
aRsaniSnavia, rom arqipelagis calkeul<br />
kunZulebs SeiZleba hqondeT sakuTari<br />
Sida wylebi, romlebic Cveulebrivi wesiT<br />
gavlebuli sawyisi xazebiT aris ga r-<br />
Semortymuli. maT SeiZleba mivakuTvnoT<br />
TiToeuli kunZulis kuTvnili yure,<br />
mdi naris SesarTavi, porti da a.S.<br />
gaeros konvenciis me-2 muxli imeorebs<br />
da ganamtkicebs sazogadod aRiarebul<br />
normas, rom saxelmwifos saxmeleTo<br />
teritoriaze arsebuli suvereniteti vrceldeba<br />
Sida wylebzec. Sida wylebSi ar<br />
vrceldeba mSvidobiani gavlis ufleba,<br />
rogorc es xdeba teritoriul zRvaSi. 42<br />
radgan aRiarebulia, rom Sida wylebi<br />
Tavisi statusiT gaTanabrebulia sax-<br />
115
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
meleTo teritoriasTan, naTelia, misi<br />
statusis gansazRvra ar SeiZleba iyos<br />
romelime saerTaSoriso konvenciis sagani.<br />
Tumca isic aris gasaTvaliswinebeli,<br />
rom suvereniteti ar aris absoluturi<br />
principi, anu misi ganxorcieleba<br />
SezRudulia saerTaSoriso samarTliT.<br />
suverenitetTan dakavSirebiT arsebobs<br />
ori ZiriTadi sadavo sakiTxi, romlebic<br />
Seexeba portebSi Sesvlis wes sa<br />
da ucxoeTis gemebze iurisdiqciis sakiTxs.<br />
saerTo normaa, rom ucxoeTis gemebs<br />
ar aqvT Sida wylebSi naosnobis ufleba. 43<br />
ufro sadavoa sakiTxi portebSi Sesvlis<br />
Sesaxeb.<br />
swored am sakiTxze iqneba ufro detalurad<br />
SeCerebuli yuradReba qvemo T.<br />
portebi<br />
portebi sazRvao da saxmeleTo teritoriebs<br />
Soris umniSvnelovanesi damakavSirebeli<br />
wertilia. isini, rogorc<br />
aucilebelni saokeano komerciisTvis<br />
da saxelmwifos Sida teritoriaze<br />
pirdapiri SeRwevis saSualeba, sanapiro<br />
saxelmwifos ganuyofeli nawilebia da<br />
sanapiro saxelmwifos absoluturi suverenitetis<br />
qveS imyofebian. 44 amdenad,<br />
portis saxelmwifos uflebamosileba,<br />
miiRos da aRasrulos kanonebi ucxoeTis<br />
gemebis winaaRmdeg, Zalian farToa<br />
da mniSvnelovanwilad efuZneba saerTa-<br />
Soriso samarTlis zogad principebs. 45<br />
zemoxsenebuli iurisdiqcia yvelaze<br />
ufro kargad Cans portis saxelmwifos<br />
uflebamosilebaSi: (1) daxuros portebi<br />
saerTaSoriso naosnobisTvis da (2)<br />
daadginos masSi Sesvlis wesebi 46 . saxelmwifo<br />
ara marto adgens Tavis portebSi<br />
Sesvlis wesebs, aramed imasac, Tu napiridan<br />
ra manZilis daSorebiT SeuZlia<br />
mosTxovos man gems am pirobebis dakmayofileba.<br />
47<br />
ramdenadac porti sanapiro saxelmwifos<br />
ganuyofeli nawilia da iq es ukanaskneli<br />
Tavis srul iurisdiqicias axorcielebs,<br />
portis saxelmwifos aqvs<br />
absoluturi ufleba, srulad daxuros<br />
Tavisi port(eb)i ucxo saxelmwifoebis<br />
gemebis SesvlisTvis. 48 radgan saxelmwifos<br />
ufleba, daxuros naosnobisTvis<br />
porti, mWidrod aris dakavSirebuli<br />
misi sasicocxlo interesebis dacvasTan,<br />
– magaliTad, sanapiro saxelmwifos usafrTxoebisa<br />
da sazogadoebrivi wesrigis<br />
dacva an garemos dabinZurebis Tavidan<br />
acileba, – Zalian Zneli samtkicebelia,<br />
rom aseTi gadawyvetileba gaumarTlebeli<br />
da usafuZvloa. 49<br />
naosnobisaTvis daxuruli portebis<br />
sakiTxis ganxilvisas SeuZlebelia, ar<br />
wamoiWras kiTxva gansacdelSi myofi gemebis<br />
Sesaxeb. avtorebis mtkicebiT, arsebobs<br />
principi, `iseve Zveli, rogorc Tavad<br />
sazRvao samarTali~, romelic adgens,<br />
rom portebi unda gaixsnas dauZleveli<br />
Zalis garemoebebis dros. 50 es wesi gamoiyeneba<br />
maSin, rodesac arsebobs gemis, an<br />
misi ekipaJis, an misi tvirTis dakargvis<br />
realuri safrTxe. Tumca, Tu gemi gansacdelSi<br />
Cavarda gaumarTavobis gamo,<br />
es ukve nakleb savaraudoa, dauZleveli<br />
Zalis garemoebad CaiTvalos. 51 gasaTvaliswinebelia,<br />
rom zogierTi avtoris<br />
mtkicebas, gansakuTrebul SemTxveveb-<br />
Si gansacdelSi myof gems unda mieces<br />
portSi Sesvlis ufleba, upirispirdeba<br />
portis saxelmwifos interesebi, daicvas<br />
da SeinarCunos portSi janmrTeloba,<br />
usafrTxoeba da marTlwesrigi. 52 Tu<br />
cnobilia, rom gems saSiSi nivTierebebi<br />
gadaaqvs, maSin, rogorc wesi, saxelmwifoebi<br />
Tavs ikaveben misTvis uflebis<br />
micemisagan, moiTxovos TavSesafari<br />
dauZleveli Zalis garemoebebis gamo,<br />
raTa Tavidan aicilon SesaZlo ekologiuri<br />
safrTxeebi. Tumca aseTma midgomam<br />
realurad SeiZleba ufro seriozuli<br />
zarali gamoiwvios. 53<br />
rac Seexeba Cveulebriv pirobeb-<br />
Si naosnobisaTvis Ria portebSi ucxo<br />
qveynis gemebis daSvebis sakiTxs, unda<br />
aRiniSnos, rom, rogorc Aramco-s 1958<br />
wlis saarbitraJo gadawyvetilebaSia<br />
aRniSnuli, `saerTaSoriso samarTlis<br />
Tanaxmad, yoveli qveynis portebi unda<br />
iyos Ria sxva saxelmwifos gemebisaTvis<br />
da maTi daxurva SeiZleba mxolod maSin,<br />
rodesac amas moiTxovs portis saxelmwifos<br />
sasicocxlo interesebi.~ 54<br />
116
e. siraZe, sazRvao Sida wylebi: delimitacia, statusi da iurisdiqcia<br />
miuxedavad zemoxsenebulisa da aseve<br />
imis gaTvaliswinebiT, rom igulisxmeba,<br />
saxelmwifoTa saerTaSoriso portebi<br />
Ria unda iyos gemebis saerTaSoriso moZraobisaTvis,<br />
am wess mainc ar moupovebia<br />
CveulebiTi samarTlis normis statusi.<br />
rasac bevri mecnieric iziarebs. 55<br />
Sesabamisad, sanapiro saxelmwifos<br />
aqvs ufleba, gaxsnas an daxuros saku-<br />
Tari portebi, rodesac saxelmwifos<br />
sasicocxlo interesebi, rogorebicaa:<br />
mSvidoba, usafrTxoeba, marTlwesrigi<br />
da sazogadoebrivi jandacva, dgeba<br />
dRis wesrigSi. es midgoma mxardaWerilia<br />
saxelmwifoTa praqtikiT, romelzec<br />
qvemoT iqneba saubari, aseve Jenevis 1923<br />
wlis statutSi sazRvao portebis saer-<br />
TaSoriso reJimis Sesaxeb. es statuti<br />
miRebuli iyo sanaosno industriis liberalizaciisa<br />
da saerTaSoriso vaWrobis<br />
xelSesawyobad. Tumca dReisaTvis<br />
mxolod 40 saxelmwifoa masSi gawevrianebuli<br />
da iseTi didi droSis saxelmwifoebi,<br />
rogorebicaa: liberia, bahama,<br />
samxreT korea, CineTi, signapuri, kanada<br />
da aSS, misi reJimis miRmaa darCenili.<br />
56 miuxedavad amisa, statutma mainc<br />
Seasrula Tavisi roli saxelmwifoTa<br />
praqtikis CamoyalibebaSi, ramdenadac<br />
igi adgens portebis xelmisawvdomobisa<br />
da portebs SigniT Tanabari mopyrobis<br />
wess, nacvalgebis safuZvelze. 57 statutma,<br />
ra Tqma unda, qvakuTxedis roli<br />
Seasrula saerTaSoriso sanaosno operaciebis<br />
liberalizaciaSi da xeli Seuwyo<br />
portebis xelmisawvdomobis uflebaSi<br />
diskriminaciis aRmofxvras, magram<br />
man ver SeZlo Camoeyalibebina portebis<br />
xelmisawvdomobis Tavisufleba verc<br />
CveulebiTi samarTlis normad, da verc<br />
xelmomweri mxareebisaTvis savaldebulo<br />
normad. 58 rogorc zemoT aris aRniSnuli,<br />
saxelmwifoebs araTu aqvT ufleba,<br />
daadginon portebSi Sesvlis wesebi,<br />
aramed SeuZliaT, saerTod daxuron<br />
portebi saerTaSoriso naosnobisTvis.<br />
saerTaSoriso sasamarTlom Nicaragua-s<br />
saqmeSi kidev erTxel daadastura,<br />
rom Sida wylebi moqceulia sanapiro<br />
saxelmwifos suverenitetis qveS da, Sesabamisad,<br />
es ukanaskneli uflebamosilia,<br />
am suverenitetis ZaliT moawesrigos<br />
Tavis portebSi Sesvlis wesi. 59<br />
portebis xelmisawvdomoba aseve SeiZleba<br />
gamomdinareobdes ormxrivi xel -<br />
Sekrulebebidan, sadac mxareebi nacvalgebis<br />
safuZvelze aZleven erTmaneTis<br />
gemebs sakuTar portebSi Sesvlis uflebas.<br />
saqarTvelos amdagvari ormxrivi<br />
xelSekruleba gaformebuli aqvs aTze<br />
met saxelmwifosTan. 60 magaliTad, CineTgermaniis<br />
1995 wlis SeTanxmeba sazRvao<br />
transportze adgens, rom:<br />
`TiToeuli mxaris gems ufleba aqvs,<br />
awarmoos naosnoba orive mxaris saerTa-<br />
Soriso vaWrobisaTvis Ria portebs Soris,<br />
gadazidon tvirTi da gadaiyvanon<br />
mgzavrebi or mxares an erT-erT mxaresa<br />
da mesame saxelmwifoebs Soris.~ 61 analogiurad,<br />
gaerTianebul samefosa da<br />
iaponias Soris 1962 wlis xelSekruleba<br />
vaWrobaze, sawarmoebsa da naosnobaze<br />
adgens, rom mxareebs aqvT erTmaneTis<br />
saerTaSoriso vaWrobisaTvis Ria yvela<br />
portSi Sesvlis Tavisufleba. 62 aRsaniSnavia,<br />
rom aseTi ormxrivi xelSekrulebebi<br />
mxolod portebiT ar Semoifargleba<br />
da aseve faravs saerTaSoriso vaWrobisaTvis<br />
Ria wylebsa da adgilebs. 63<br />
rac Seexeba gaeros konvencias, rogorc<br />
senatisadmi SeerTebuli Statebis<br />
prezidentis mimarTvaSia aRniSnuli,<br />
konvencia ar zRudavs sanapiro saxelmwifos<br />
uflebas, gaamkacros an SezRudos<br />
Tavis portebSi Sesvla, Sida wylebSi Sesvla<br />
an tranziti. Tu ucxo qveynis droSis<br />
qveS mcuravi gemi aRmoCenil iqneba sanapiro<br />
saxelmwifos Sida wylebSi, am ukanasknelis<br />
nebarTvis gareSe, konvenciiT<br />
daSvebulia aseTi gemebis winaaRmdeg<br />
gonivruli aRmkveTi RonisZiebebis ganxorcieleba.<br />
64 erTaderTi valdebuleba,<br />
romelic am dros sanapiro saxelmwifos<br />
ekisreba, aris is, rom saTanado wesiT<br />
gamoaqveynos mis mier miRebuli moTxovnebi<br />
portebSi Sesvlis Taobaze. 65<br />
gaeros konvencia aseve adgens zRvaze<br />
gasasvlelis armqone saxelmwifoebisaTvis<br />
zRvis xelmisawvdomobis uflebas<br />
da tranzitis Tavisuflebas. 66 am<br />
debulebaSi igulisxmeba, rom maT aqvT<br />
sxva saxelmwifoebis portebis xelmi-<br />
117
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
sawvdomobis ufleba, radgan sxvagvarad<br />
Zneli warmosadgenia, Tu rogor<br />
unda ganaxorcielon maT zRavze gasvla<br />
da tranzitis Tavisufleba. magram es<br />
moTxovna exeba ara yvela ports, aramed<br />
mxolod satranzito da zRvaze gasasvlelis<br />
armqone saxelmwifoebs Soris<br />
gamosayeneblad SeTanxmebul portebs. 67<br />
marTalia, portebis xelmisawvdomobis<br />
sakiTxi nacvalgebis safuZvelze dgeba,<br />
am konkretul SemTxvevaSi, gasagebi mizezebis<br />
gamo, es principi ar moqmedebs.<br />
rac Seexeba saxelmwifoTa praqtikas<br />
portebis xelmisawvdomobis Sesaxeb,<br />
SeiZleba calsaxad iTqvas, rom uamrav<br />
saxelmwifos SemuSavebuli aqvs saku-<br />
Tari wesebi, Tu rogor SeuSvan ucxo<br />
qveynis gemebi sakuTar portebSi. magali-<br />
Tad, germaniaSi, hamburgis portSi, gemis<br />
Sesvla damokidebulia kompetenturi<br />
organoebis Tanxmobaze, Tu: gems emuqreba<br />
CaZirvis safrTxe, gemi an misi tvirTi<br />
cecxlis alSia gaxveuli, an amgvari safrTxis<br />
winaSea, gemidan iRvreba navTi, an<br />
gemi eqvemdebareba dasjas zRavSi Cadenili<br />
samarTaldarRvevis gamo. 68<br />
alaskis sanapirosTan 1989 wels,<br />
tanker “Exxon Valdez”-is CaZirvis Semdeg,<br />
SeerTebulma Statebma 1990 wels<br />
gamosca navTobis dabinZurebis aqti<br />
(OPA 1990), romlis Tanaxmad, erTmagfskerian<br />
tankerebs aekrZalaT SeerTebuli<br />
Statebis romelime portSi Sesvla. 69<br />
es moTxovna gemebidan zRvis dabinZurebis<br />
Sesaxeb 1973/78 konvenciaze (MARPOL<br />
73/78) ufro mkacr reJims adgenda.<br />
yofila SemTxvevebi, rodesac sanaosno<br />
mrewveloba politikuri TamaSebis<br />
msxverpli gamxdara. magaliTad, 1986<br />
wels siriam gaerTianebuli samefos mier<br />
diplomatiuri urTierTobebis calmxrivad<br />
Sewyvetis sapasuxod britanul<br />
gems aukrZala mis portebSi Sesvla. 70<br />
Tumca Camoyalibebuli praqtikaa,<br />
rom saxelmwifo Tavis portSi Sesul gemebs<br />
eqceva yovelgvari diskriminaciis<br />
gareSe. 71 es moicavs rogorc diskriminacias<br />
droSis mixedviT, ise sazRvaoa<br />
saxelmwifo Tu zRavze gasasvlelis<br />
ar mqone. Tumca sanapiro saxelmwifos<br />
yovelTvis SeuZlia, ganacxados uari<br />
atomuri gemis an iseTi gemis miRebaze,<br />
romelsac gadaaqvs gansakuTrebiT saSi-<br />
Si nivTierebebi. 72<br />
Tumca, droSis mixedviT, portebSi<br />
moqmedebs erovnuli da gansakuTrebuli,<br />
xelsayreli reJimi, iseve rogorc am<br />
ori reJimis kombinacia. 73<br />
saqarTvelos portebSi gemebis<br />
Se s vlis wesi<br />
saxelmwifo sazRvris Se sa xeb saqar<br />
Tvelos kanonis Tanaxmad, savaW ro,<br />
sa mxedro da arasamxedro gemebi Sedian<br />
im portebSi, romlebic Riaa na o-<br />
s nobisaTvis, 74 Sesabamisad dadgenili<br />
wesis Tanaxmad (prezidntis brZanebulebiT).<br />
saqarTvelos kanonmdebloba 75<br />
erTmaneTisagan ganasxvavebs, erTi mxriv,<br />
arasamxedro komerciul gemebs da, meore<br />
mxriv: samxedro gemebs, specialuri<br />
daniSnulebis gemebs, romlebic asruleben<br />
saxelmwifos davalebas, 76 da atomur<br />
gemebs.<br />
ucxo saxelmwifos specialuri daniSnulebis<br />
gemi, romelic saxelmwifo<br />
davalebas asrulebs saqarTvelos portebsa<br />
da Sida wylebSi Semosvlis nebar-<br />
Tvis misaRebad, diplomatiuri arxebiT<br />
Suamdgomlobas aRZravs saqarTvelos<br />
Sinagan saqmeTa saministros sistemaSi<br />
Semavali uflebamosili organos winaSe<br />
Semosvlamde araugvianes 14 dRisa. gadawyvetilebas<br />
gemis Semosvlis Sesaxeb<br />
uflebamosili organo gemTmflobels<br />
acnobebs Semosvlamde araugvianes 7<br />
dRisa. es moTxovna ar vrceldeba, Tu<br />
gemi asrulebs samaSvelo an zRvis dabin-<br />
Zurebis salikvidacio samuSaoebs. 77<br />
samxedro da atomuri gemebis saqarTvelos<br />
portebSi Sesvlis ganzraxvis Sesaxeb<br />
diplomatiuri arxebiT 1 TviT adre<br />
unda aRiZras Suamdgomloba saqarTvelos<br />
prezidentis winaSe. uSiSroebis<br />
sabWo 1 kviris vadaSi ixilavs winadadebas<br />
da aZlevs rekomendaciebs prezidents,<br />
romelic 2 kviris vadaSi iRebs<br />
gadawyvetilebas. 78<br />
rac Seexeba komerciuli da sxva arasamxedro<br />
gemebis Sesvlis wess saqarTvelos<br />
portebSi, yvela Semosuli gemi<br />
118
e. siraZe, sazRvao Sida wylebi: delimitacia, statusi da iurisdiqcia<br />
unda imyofebodes droSis saxelmwifos<br />
mier aRiarebuli saklasifikacio sazogadoebis<br />
teqnikuri zedamxedvelobis<br />
qveS. 79 sxva raime konkretul moTxovnas,<br />
romelic gansxvavebuli iqneboda<br />
saerTaSoriso konvenciebisagan, saqarTvelos<br />
kanonmdebloba ar adgens.<br />
iurisdiqcia<br />
iurisdiqcia ukavSir deba saxelmwifoTa<br />
zogadi samarTleb rivi kompetenciis<br />
konkretul aspeq tebs. iurisdiq cia<br />
mWidrod ukavSirdeba suverenitets, 80<br />
sasamarTlo, sakanonmdeblo da administraciul<br />
kompetencias. erTmaneTisagan<br />
ganasxvaveben sakanonmdeblo iurisdiqciasa<br />
(legislative or prescriptive jurisdiction –<br />
wesebisa da normebis dadgenis uflebamosileba)<br />
da aRmasrulebel anu iZulebiT<br />
iurisdiqcias (enforcement or prerogative<br />
jurisdiction – am wesebisa da normebis aRmasrulebeli<br />
qmedebebis ganxorcielebis<br />
uflebamosileba). 81<br />
miuxedavad imisa, rom zogadi wesiT<br />
arsebobs iurisdiqciis ori principi<br />
– teritoriuli da moqalaqeobrivi, 82<br />
dReisaTvis saxelmwifoTa praqtika warmoaCens<br />
iurisdiqciis sxva principebsac,<br />
romelTagan ramdenimes SevexebiT.<br />
teritoriuli principi –<br />
iurisdiqcia sakuTar teritoriaze<br />
saxelmwifo axorcielebs iurisdiqcias<br />
Tavisi teritoriis farglebSi,<br />
miuxedavad imisa, vis mier aris Cadenili<br />
qmedeba. swored teritoriuli principis<br />
safuZvelze axorcielebs saxelmwifo<br />
iurisdiqcias Tavis portSi Semosul<br />
ucxo qveynis gemebze.<br />
moqalaqeobrivi principi –<br />
iurisdiqcia sakuTar moqalaqeebze<br />
sazRvargareT<br />
es principi zogadad aRiarebulia<br />
rogorc iurisidiqciis safuZveli<br />
eqstrateritoriul aqtebze.<br />
imis gamo, rom SeiZleba warmoiSvas<br />
ormagi iurisdiqciis ganxorcielebis<br />
safrTxe teritoriuli da moqalaqeobrivi<br />
principebis gamoyenebisas, aseve<br />
ormagi moqalaqeobis SemTxvevaSi, bevri<br />
qveyana adgens SezRudvebs moqalaqeobrivi<br />
principis gamoyenebaze.<br />
moqalaqeobrivi principi sazRvao<br />
samarTalSi SeiZleba gamoyenebul iqnes<br />
droSis saxelmwifos iurisdiqciis analogad.<br />
Tumca, rogorc mecnierebi samarTlianad<br />
miiCneven, es ori iurisdiqcia<br />
ar aris identuri – droSis saxelmwifos<br />
iurisdiqcia Tavisi bunebiT ufro<br />
sui generis aris. 83<br />
droSis saxelmwifos iurisdiqcia<br />
yvelgan vrceldeba gemze, romel zona-<br />
Sic ar unda imyofebodes igi. ufro metic,<br />
aris sakiTxebi, romlebzec mxolod<br />
droSis saxelmwifos iurisdiqcia vrceldeba.<br />
84<br />
Tumca droSis saxelmwifos iurisdiqciis<br />
mTavari problema aRsrulebasTanaa<br />
dakavSirebuli. xelsayreli<br />
dro Sebis SemoRebasTan 85 da maT sul<br />
ufro mzard popularobasTan erTad,<br />
rodesac mcire zomis, arcTu ise didi<br />
sazRvao tradiciebis mqone, saxelmwifoebi<br />
86 , TavianTi droSis qveS aer-<br />
Tianeben msoflio savaWro flotis umetes<br />
nawils, Zalian Znelia raime saxis<br />
iZulebasa da aRsrulebaze saubari. es,<br />
erTi mxriv, SeuZlebelia teqnikurad<br />
da, meore mxriv, gamkacrebulma wesebma<br />
SeiZleba Seamciros aseTi droSebis<br />
popularoba gemTmflobelebs Soris,<br />
rasac pirdapiri ekonomikuri Sedegebi<br />
SeiZleba mohyves am saxelmwifoebisTvis.<br />
amdenad, teritoriuli principi, anu<br />
portis saxelmwifos iurisdiqcia, kidev<br />
ufro did mniSvnelobas iZens.<br />
TavdacviTi an usafrTxoebis<br />
principi<br />
saxelmwifoebi iTvaliswineben iuris<br />
diqcias ucxoelebze sazRvargareT<br />
Cadenil aqtebze, romlebic xelyofen<br />
maT uSiSroebas. es koncefcia moicavs<br />
politikuri danaSaulebis si m ravles, magram<br />
ar Semoifargleba mxo lod amiT. mas<br />
miekuTvneba savaluto, saemigracio da<br />
ekonomikuri danaSa u le bi. sanam es principi<br />
gamoiyeneba ko n kretuli interesebis<br />
dasacavad, is ga marTlebulia, magram<br />
119
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
arsebobs imis safrTxec, rom Tavdacvis<br />
principis fa rTo ganmartebam, rac dafuZnebulia<br />
saxelmwifos `usafrTxoebis~<br />
interesebze, romelic TavisTavad<br />
Zalian farTo da mgrZnobiare sakiTxia,<br />
uflebis borotad gamoyenebisTvis datovos<br />
adgili.<br />
universalurobis principi<br />
es principi aZlevs uflebas saxelmwifos,<br />
ganaxorcielos iurisdiqcia<br />
ucxoelebze, rodesac Cadenili qmedeba<br />
xelyofs saerTaSoriso wesrigs. aseTi<br />
danaSaulebis ricxvs miekuTvna mekobreoba<br />
87 , narkotikebis ukanono brunva 88 ,<br />
monebiT vaWroba 89 da aseve, msoflioSi<br />
mimdinare ukanaskneli movlenebis fonze<br />
– terorizmi. 90<br />
aRmasrulebeli iurisdiqciis eqstrateritoriuli<br />
ganxorcielebis dros<br />
ZiriTadi principia is, rom ar SeiZleba<br />
sxva saxelmwifos teritoriaze raime<br />
qmedebis ganxorcieleba misi pirdapiri<br />
Tanxmobis gareSe. Tumca ekonomikur danaSaulebTan<br />
dakavSirebiT saxelmwifo-<br />
Ta praqtika ufro winaaRmdegobrivia. 91<br />
aseve unda arsebobdes seriozuli<br />
da bona fi de kavSiri momxdar movlenasa<br />
da iurisdiqciis wyaros Soris.<br />
iurisdiqcia gemebze<br />
rodesac saxelmwifos suverenitetsa<br />
da iurisdiqciaze vsaubrobT Sida wylebSi<br />
gemebis mimarT, aucilebelia imis<br />
gansazRvra, Tu romel gemze xorcieldeba<br />
es iurisdiqcia. anu, sxvagvarad rom<br />
vTqvaT, rodis ar vrceldeba gemze arcerTi<br />
sxva saxelmwifos iurisdiqcia,<br />
garda misi droSis saxelmwifosi, romel<br />
sazRvao zonaSic ar unda imyofebodes<br />
igi. 92 gaeros konvenciis Tanaxmad, samxedro<br />
da sxva samTavrobo gemebi, romlebic<br />
gamoiyenebian arakomerciuli<br />
miznebisaTvis, sargebloben sruli imunitetiT<br />
sanapiro da portis saxelmwifos<br />
iurisdiqciisagan. 93 Tumca es ar ni-<br />
Snavs, rom aseTma gemebma pativi ar unda<br />
scen portis saxelmwifos kanonebsa da<br />
wesebs da ar unda Seasrulon isini. 94 aseT<br />
SemTxvevaSi sanapiro saxelmwifo uflebamosilia<br />
da Semoifargleba imiT, rom<br />
mosTxovos damrRvev gems, dauyovnebliv<br />
datovos misi wylebi, 95 xolo Sesabamisi<br />
gemis droSis saxelmwifo pasuxismgebelia<br />
miyenebul zianze. 96<br />
samxedro da sxva samTavrobo gemebis<br />
imunitetis sakiTxi erTmniSvnelovani<br />
ar yofila da misi samarTlis kristalizebuli<br />
normis saxiT Camoyalibebas<br />
garkveuli dro dasWirda. Tu samxedro<br />
gemebTan dakavSirebiT sakiTxi yovelTvis<br />
met-naklebad gansazRvruli iyo<br />
da kiTxvis niSnebs iSviaTad aCenda, sxva<br />
samTavrobo gemebis mimarT problema<br />
iyo imis dadgena, yvela aseT gems hqonda<br />
imuniteti, Tu mxolod arakomerciuli<br />
miznebiT gamoyenebul gemebs<br />
1873 wlis saqmeze gem Charkiech-is<br />
Sesaxeb, romelic ekuTvnoda egviptis<br />
suverens, iyo egviptis naxevradsuverenuli<br />
saxelmwifo gemi da dacuravda<br />
osmalTa imperiis samxedro droSis qveS,<br />
sasamarTlom miiRo gadawyvetileba, rom<br />
in rem procesi gemis mesakuTris winaaRmdeg<br />
SeiZleba ganxorcielebuliyo saer-<br />
TaSoriso samarTlis normebis dacviT,<br />
imis miuxedavad, rom qonebis mesakuTre<br />
ucxo saxelmwifos suverenia da aseTi<br />
sarCeli SeiZleba dakmayofildes kidec<br />
jus corone qonebidan. radgan, Tu suvereni<br />
acnobierebs vaWrobis xasiaTs da<br />
agzavnis Tavis kuTvnil gems sxva qveyanaSi<br />
savaWrod, man unda gaiTvaliswinos,<br />
rom amgvari qmedebiT uars ambobs nebismier<br />
privilegiasa da imunitetze, rac<br />
sxvagvarad SeiZleba hqonodes am gems,<br />
rogorc suverenis sakuTrebas. mosamar-<br />
Tle ser robert filimorma ganacxada,<br />
rom aravis uaruyvia da verc uaryofda,<br />
rom gemi gamoiyeneboda vaWrobis miznebisaTvis<br />
da, Sesabamisad, igi miekuTvneboda<br />
savaWro flots. 97<br />
sasamarTlos zemoxsenebuli gadawyvetileba<br />
kodificirebul iqna ukve 1926<br />
wels, rodesac miiRes briuselis konvencia<br />
`saxelmwifo sakuTrebaSi arsebuli<br />
gemebis imunitetTan dakavSirebuli<br />
wesebis unificirebis Sesaxeb.~ am konvenciam<br />
daadastura, rom mxolod saxelmwifo<br />
sakuTrebaSi myofi arakomerciuli<br />
120
e. siraZe, sazRvao Sida wylebi: delimitacia, statusi da iurisdiqcia<br />
miznebiT gamoyenebuli gemi SeiZleba<br />
iyos imunitetis matarebeli. 98<br />
rac Seexeba savaWro flots, maT mimarT<br />
sanapiro saxelmwifo axorcielebs<br />
iurisdiqcias, romelic aris saerTa-<br />
Soriso xelSekrulebebis sagani. saerTa-<br />
Soriso konvenciebi aRiarebs, rom gemis<br />
usafrTxo naosnobasTan dakavSirebuli<br />
sakiTxebis gadawyveta (gemis Semowmeba<br />
dizainis, aRWurvilobisa da sxv.<br />
miznebiT) aris sanapiro saxelmwifos<br />
gansakuTrebuli iurisdiqciis sagani<br />
Sida wylebSi, 99 sisxlissamarTlebrivi<br />
iurisdiqciis ganxorcieleba ki iwyeba<br />
saxelmwifos mier konkretuli pirobebis<br />
dadgomis Semdeg, razec qvemoT ufro<br />
detalurad iqneba saubari.<br />
Sesabamisad, winamdebare naSromSi<br />
termini `gemi~, Tu sawinaaRmdego pirdapir<br />
ar iqna miTiTebuli, niSnavs mxolod<br />
komerciuli miznebisaTvis gamoyenebul<br />
mcurav saSualebas.<br />
sisxlissamarTlebrivi iurisdiqcia<br />
Sida wylebSi<br />
rogorc zemoT aRvniSneT, Sida wylebi<br />
saxelmwifos teritoriis nawilia da<br />
portebSi Semosul gemebsa da maT ekipa-<br />
Jebze, romlebic nebayoflobiT imyofeba<br />
Sesabamis zonaSi, vrceldeba sanapiro<br />
saxelmwifos sruli iurisdiqcia, 100 Tu<br />
sxvagvarad ar aris gadawyvetili portisa<br />
da droSis saxelmwifoebs Soris saer-<br />
TaSoriso SeTanxmebiT.<br />
amdenad, sanapiro saxelmwifos ara<br />
marto SeuZlia, miiRos kanonebi da wesebi<br />
Tavisi iurisdiqciis qveS myofi gemebisaTvis,<br />
aramed moiTxovos maTi Sesruleba<br />
da uzrunvelyos kidec es.<br />
amasTan, rogorc zemoT ukve aRiniSna,<br />
gemze yovelTvis vrceldeba dro-<br />
Sis saxelmwifos iurisdiqciac, rac<br />
garkveul normaTa kolizias (an iurisdiqciaTa<br />
konfliqts) iwvevs.<br />
Tumca sanapiro saxelmwifos yovelTvis<br />
SeuZlia, SezRudos Tavisi<br />
iurisdiqiciis gamoyeneba konkretuli<br />
sakiTxebiT da dautovos nawili droSis<br />
saxelmwifos. 101<br />
rogorc saxelmwifoTa praqtika<br />
aCvenebs, isini ucxo qveynis gemze iurisdiqcias<br />
mxolod im SemTxvevaSi axorcieleben,<br />
Tu qmedeba safrTxes uqmnis<br />
maT sasicocxlo interesebs, magaliTad:<br />
mSvidobas, marTlwesrigs, portebSi<br />
simSvides da a.S., Tumca yovel saxelmwifos<br />
aqvs individualuri midgoma – ra<br />
iTvleba misTvis sasicocxlo interesebad,<br />
da es midgoma arsebobs ori saxiT:<br />
franguli da angloamerikuli; 102<br />
angloamerikuli midgoma Camoyalibda<br />
gaerTianebuli samefos pasuxebSi<br />
haagis 1929 wlis `kiTxvarze~ da amerikul<br />
precedentebSi, magaliTad, saqmeSi<br />
– Cunard S.S.Co v. Mellon (1923), romelTa<br />
mixedviT, Sesabamisi xelSekrulebis ararsebobis<br />
SemTxvevaSi, yoveli saxelmwifo<br />
Tavis iurisdiqcias axorcielebs<br />
sakuTar Sida wylebSi. inglisuri sasamarTloebi<br />
srul iurisdiqcias acxadeben<br />
ucxo saxelmwifos gemebis ekipaJebze<br />
didi britaneTis Sida wylebSi.<br />
saqmis – Regina v. Cunningham – mixedviT,<br />
sami amerikeli mezRvauri daisaja gemis<br />
bortze sxva mezRvaurze TavdasxmisaTvis.<br />
radgan gemi Ruzaze idga inglisis<br />
sanapiroebTan, danaSauli miCneul iqna<br />
inglisis teritoriaze Cadenilad. 103<br />
analogiurad, Sesabamisi xelSekru<br />
lebis ararsebobisas aSS-ic sruli<br />
iurisdiqciis princips emxroba Sida wylebSi<br />
Cadenil danaSaulebze. es midgoma<br />
dafiqsirda Wildenhus-is saqmeze (1887),<br />
roca belgiuri gemis ekipaJis erTma<br />
wevrma mokla meore wevri aSS-is erT-erT<br />
portSi dgomis dros. 104 xolo meqsikam<br />
igive wesi aamoqmeda saqmeSi – Public Minister<br />
v. Jensen (1894), miuxedavad imisa, rom<br />
gemis CaZirvas, romelic gamowveuli iyo<br />
kapitnis windauxedavobiT, ar mohyolia<br />
portSi simSvidis darRveva. 105<br />
franguli midgoma ki Camoyalibda or<br />
amerikul gemTan – “Sally”-sa da “Newton”-<br />
Tan mimarTebiT. ekipaJis wevrebs Soris<br />
gemze momxdar Cxubis faqtze safrange-<br />
Tis sasamarTlom daadgina, rom portSi<br />
gemis bortze danaSaulis Cadenis SemTxvevaSi,<br />
roca is mxolod gemis Sida ganawess<br />
arRvevs da exeba gemsa da ekipaJs,<br />
adgilobrivi xelisufleba ar unda Caerios,<br />
Tu es pirdapir gavlenas ar axdens<br />
portSi wesrigsa da usafrTxoebaze da<br />
121
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
Tu gemidan ar miiReben daxmarebis Txovnas.<br />
106 am wesSi garkveuli Sesworeba Sevida<br />
amerikis gem “Tempset”-Tan dakavSirebiT,<br />
rodesac kapitnis TanaSemwem havris<br />
portSi mokla ekipaJis erTi wevri da<br />
erTic daWra. am SemTxvevaSi sasamarTlom<br />
ganaxorciela iurisdiqcia, radgan<br />
momxdarma napirze simSvide daarRvia. 107<br />
rogorc zemoxsenebuli magaliTebidan<br />
Cans, Tu erT SemTxvevaSi sasamarTlo<br />
gemze momxdar mkvlelobas am ukanasknelis<br />
Sida saqmed miiCnevs, sxva SemTxveva-<br />
Si ase ar Tvlis. xolo 1970-iani wlebidan<br />
dawyebuli, rodesac gansakuTrebiT<br />
didi yuradReba daeTmo da yoveldRiurad<br />
mkacrdeba garemos dacvasTan, 108<br />
usafrTxo naosnobasa 1<strong>09</strong> da mezRvaurTa<br />
socialur standartebTan 110 dakavSirebuli<br />
moTxovnebi, sul ufro da ufro naklebia<br />
SemTxvevebi, rac gemis Sida saqmed<br />
SeiZleba CaiTvalos da, Sesabamisad,<br />
izrdeba portis saxelmwifos sisxlissamarTlebrivi<br />
iurisdiqciis ganxorcielebis<br />
farglebi da moculoba. gansakuTrebiT,<br />
es exeba garemos dabinZurebis<br />
111 , ukanono TevzWeris 112 , ukanono<br />
migraciis, kontrabandis, jaSuSobisa da<br />
terorizmis SemTxvevebs. 113<br />
saqarTvelos kanonmdeblobiT<br />
saqarTvelos teritoriaze (maT Soris<br />
Sida wylebSi) Cadenil danaSaulze vrceldeba<br />
saqarTvelos sisxlissamarTlebrivi<br />
iurisdiqcia. 114 Tumca sazRvao<br />
naosnobis Sesaxeb zemoxsenebul<br />
ormxriv xelSekrulebebSi aRniSnulia,<br />
rom saqarTvelos sisxlissamarTlebrivi<br />
iurisdiqcia ucxo qveynis gemebze<br />
saqarTvelos portebSi vrceldeba im<br />
SemTxvevaSi: (1) Tu danaSaulis Sedegebi<br />
vrceldeba saqarTvelos teritoriaze;<br />
(2) safrTxes uqmnis qveynis uSiSroebas;<br />
(3) Cadenilia saqarTvelos moqalaqis<br />
mier an mis winaaRmdeg; (4) dakavSirebulia<br />
narkotikuli nivTierebebis ukanono<br />
brunvasTan. 115 iurisdiqciis ganxorcielebis<br />
mizniT Catarebuli procesualuri<br />
normebi srulad unda Seesabamebodes<br />
kanonis moTxovnebs, gemis<br />
droSis saxelmwifos diplomatiuri an<br />
sakonsulo agentis informirebiT da/an<br />
uSualo monawileobiT.<br />
daskvna<br />
sabolood, daskvnis saxiT SeiZleba<br />
iTqvas, rom Sida wylebi, da maT Soris<br />
portebi, aris sanapiro saxelmwifos<br />
sruli iurisdiqciis qveS, rac arcerTi<br />
saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebiT an saer-<br />
TaSoriso sasamarTlos romelime gadawyvetilebiT<br />
saTuo ar gamxdara. sanapiro<br />
saxelmwifo ara marto axorcielebs<br />
iurisdiqcias, aramed adgens kidec<br />
am iurisdiqciis gavrcelebis farglebs,<br />
roca sakuTari Sida wylebis sadelimitaciod<br />
sawyisi xazebis sistemas iyenebs.<br />
es iurisdiqcia moicavs srul da<br />
SeuzRudav sakanonmdeblo iurisdiqcias.<br />
rac Sexeba aRmasrulebel iurisdiqcias,<br />
misi ganxorcieleba sanapiro<br />
saxelmwifos praqtikasa da saerTaSoriso<br />
xelSekrulebebiT aRebul valdebulebebzea<br />
damokidebuli.<br />
miuxedavad mcdelobebisa, porteb-<br />
Si Tavisufali Sesvlis wesi ver Camoya<br />
libda verc CveulebiTi da verc saxelSekrulebo<br />
samarTlis normad. es<br />
lo gikuricaa, zemoTqmulidan gamomdinare.<br />
amdenad, mxolod sanapiro saxelmwifos<br />
nebazea damokidebuli, gansazRvros,<br />
dauSvebs Tu ara sakuTar portebSi<br />
saerTaSoriso naosnobas, da Tu dauSvebs,<br />
ra pirobebiT. mas sruli uflebamosileba<br />
aqvs, aRkveTos gemis moZraoba<br />
Tavis portsa da Sida wylebSi, Tuki es<br />
ukanaskneli ver pasuxobs dadgenil<br />
moTxovnebs.<br />
me-20 saukunis 70-iani wlebidan dawyebuli<br />
da 21-e saukuneSi kidev ufro<br />
mzardi safrTxeebis gaTvaliswinebiT,<br />
magaliTad, rogorebicaa: ekologiuri<br />
usafrTxoeba, narkotikebis ukanono<br />
brunva, saerTaSoriso terorizmi, mosaxleobis<br />
jandacva, sul ufro izrdeba<br />
sakiTxebi da sferoebi, romlebic portis<br />
saxelmwifos iurisdiqciis sagani xdeba<br />
da sul ufro mcirdeba gemis e.w. `Sida<br />
saqmeebi~, romlebic droSis saxelmwifos<br />
kanonmdeblobiT unda mowesrigdes,<br />
maT Soris ucxoeTis portebSi yofnisas.<br />
122
e. siraZe, sazRvao Sida wylebi: delimitacia, statusi da iurisdiqcia<br />
1<br />
Lindy S. Johnson, Coastal State Regulation of <strong>International</strong> Shipping, Ocean<br />
Publications Inc., 2004, gv. 31.<br />
2<br />
United Nations Convention on the <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea, Montego Bay, 10 December<br />
1982 (UNCLOS), me-3 muxli.<br />
3<br />
UNCLOS, 33.3 muxli.<br />
4<br />
UNCLOS 57-e muxli.<br />
5<br />
UNCLOS, 76.1 muxli.<br />
6<br />
ix. R.R. Churchill & A. V. Lowe ‘The law of the sea’3 rd edition, 1999, gv. 31 da<br />
Semdgom.<br />
7<br />
W. Michael Reisman & Gayl S. Westerman, Straight Baselines in <strong>International</strong><br />
Maritime Boundary Delimitation 105 (1992); Straight Baselines: The Need for a<br />
Universally Applied Norm, J. Ashley Roach, Robert W. Smith, US Department of<br />
State, Washington, DC, USA, Ocean Developments & <strong>International</strong> law, 2000,<br />
Taylor & Francis; O’Connell & Shearer, <strong>International</strong> law of the Sea, Vol. II, Oxford<br />
University Press, USA, 1983; Haijiang Yang, Jurisdiction of the Coastal State<br />
over Foreign Merchant Ships in Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea, Hamburg<br />
Studies on Maritime Affairs, 2004; E.D. Brown, The <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea,<br />
Documents, Cases and Tables, Vol. I, Darthmous Publishing Company Limited,<br />
1994; R.R. Churchill & A. V. Lowe ‘The law of the sea’3 rd edition, 1999.<br />
8<br />
iqve.<br />
9<br />
UNCLOS, me-7 muxli.<br />
10<br />
iqve, me-10 muxli.<br />
11<br />
iqve, me-9 muxli.<br />
12<br />
iqve, me-11 da me-12 muxlebi.<br />
13<br />
iqve, me-13 muxli.<br />
14<br />
iqve, me-7 muxli.<br />
15<br />
iqve, me-6 muxli.<br />
16<br />
Targmani Sesrulebulia avtoris mier.<br />
17<br />
R.R. Churchill&A.V.Lowe ‘The law of the sea’3 rd edition gv. 33.<br />
18<br />
norvegiulad sityva “skjaergaard” kldovan kedels niSnavs.<br />
19<br />
Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case, 1951, ICJ Reports, gv. 128.<br />
20<br />
iqve, gv. 129.<br />
21<br />
marTalia, sasamarTlos ar CamouTvlia aseTi qveynebi, magram maT ricxvs<br />
miekuTvneboda: ekvadori, egvipte, irani, saudis arabeTi da iugoslavia.<br />
ix. Whiteman, tomi IV, gv. 148, citirebuli R.R. Churchill & A. V.<br />
Lowe ‘The law of the sea’3 rd edition, 1999, gv. 34.<br />
22<br />
ICJ Reports, gv. 131.<br />
23<br />
Convention on the territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, Geneva 1958, muxli 4.<br />
ix. E.D. Brown, The <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea, Documents, Cases and Tables,<br />
Vol. II,. Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited, 1994.<br />
24<br />
UNCLOS, me-7 muxli, iqve.<br />
25<br />
UNCLOS, me-7(3) muxli.<br />
26<br />
UNCLOS, me-7(3) muxli.<br />
27<br />
UNCLOS, me-7(5) muxli.<br />
28<br />
UNCLOS, me-7(4) muxli.<br />
29<br />
UNCLOS, me-7(6) muxli.<br />
30<br />
ix. R.R. Churchill & A. V. Lowe ‘The law of the sea’3 rd edition, 1999, gv. 35.<br />
31<br />
SemdgomSi – `sm~. 1 sazRvao mili daaxloebiT 1857 metrs udris.<br />
32<br />
R.R. Churchill & A. V. Lowe ‘The law of the sea’3 rd edition, 1999, gv. 39.<br />
33<br />
ix.: Offi ce of Ocean Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Limits in the Sea, Nos. 14<br />
(Burma), 33 (Philippines), 107. (USSR), 117 (China), 120 (Japan), 121 (South<br />
Korea).<br />
34<br />
R.R. Churchill & A. V. Lowe ‘The law of the sea’3 rd edition, 1999, gv. 39.<br />
35<br />
iqve.<br />
36<br />
Straight Baselines: The Need for a Universally Applied Norm, J. Ashley Roach,<br />
Robert W. Smith, US Department of State, Washington, DC, USA, Ocean<br />
Developments & <strong>International</strong> law, 2000, Taylor & Francis, gv. 48.<br />
123
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
37<br />
iqve, gv. 49.<br />
38<br />
W. Michael Reisman & Gayl S. Westerman, Straight Baselines in <strong>International</strong><br />
Maritime Boundary Delimitation 105 (1992).<br />
39<br />
UNCLOS, me-14 muxli.<br />
40<br />
Legal Division of the Oceans and Airspace, gv. 1-4.<br />
41<br />
UNCLOS, 47- e muxli.<br />
42<br />
aq arsebobs erTi gamonaklisi, rodesac swori sawyisi xazebis gavlebis<br />
Semdeg sazRvao sivrcis is nawili aRmoCndeba Sida wylebis farglebSi,<br />
romelic manamde mas ar ekuTvnoda, gemebs adrindeburad unarCundebaT<br />
am monakveTze mSvidobiani gavlis ufleba (UNCLOS, me-8.2 muxli).<br />
43<br />
UNCLOS, me-8 muxli, romelic adgens, rom Sida wylebSi SeiZleba moqmedebdes<br />
mSvidobiani gavlis ufleba da isic mxolod gamonaklis<br />
SemTxvevaSi.<br />
44<br />
Lindy S. Johnson, Coastal State Regulation of <strong>International</strong> Shipping, Ocean<br />
Publications Inc., 2004, gv. 35.<br />
45<br />
A.V. Low, The Rights of Entry into Maritime Ports in <strong>International</strong> law, 14 San<br />
Diego <strong>Law</strong> Review 597, 1977, gv. 606-10.<br />
46<br />
amasTan, es ukanaskneli ara marto portSi Sesvlis, aramed iqidan gamosvlis<br />
wesebsac gulisxmobs. magaliTad, ix. gaeros konvenciis 27-e(2) da 28-<br />
e(3) muxlebi, romlebic sanapiro saxelmwifos aniWebs moqmedebis uflebas<br />
mas Semdeg, rac gemi datovebs ports. saqarTvelos sazRvao kodeqsis<br />
82-e muxlis Tanaxmad: `yoveli gemi, ganurCevlad droSis saxelmwifosi<br />
da kuTvnilebis formisa, valdebulia, sazRvao navsadguridan gemis<br />
gasvlamde sazRvao navsadguris saxelmwifo kontrolis samsaxurisagan<br />
miiRos gasvlis werilobiTi Tanxmoba.~ saqarTvelos portebSi gemebis<br />
Sesvlisa da gasvlis wesebi detalurad gansazRvrulia saqarTvelos<br />
regionaluri ganviTarebisa da infrastruqturis saministros<br />
erTiani satransporto administraciis ufrosis 20<strong>09</strong> wlis 15 ivnisis 75<br />
brZanebiT damtkicebuli teqnikuri reglamentiT: `navsadguris wesebi~.<br />
magaliTad, am reglamentis me-4 muxlis me-9 punqtis Tanaxmad, sarew<br />
gems, romelsac ar gaaCnia TevzWeris licenzia, zRvaSi gasvlis werilobiTi<br />
Tanxmoba eZleva mxolod im SemTxvevaSi, Tu gemze arsebuli sarewi<br />
iaraRi ar aris TevzWerisTvis mza mdgomareobaSi.<br />
47<br />
Lindy S. Johnson, Coastal State Regulation of <strong>International</strong> Shipping, Ocean<br />
Publications Inc., 2004, gv. 36. aseve magaliTad, ix. Federal <strong>Law</strong> No. 19 of<br />
1993 of the delimitation of the maritime zones of the United Arab Emirates, 17<br />
October 1993. me-3 muxli adgens, rom `saxelmwifom unda daadginos<br />
Tavis Sida wylebSi Sesvlis pirobebi da unda aRasrulos es pirobebi<br />
nebismieri gemis mimarT, romelsac ganzraxuli aqvs Sesvla~. Targmani<br />
Sesrulebulia avtoris mier. National Legislation – DOALOS/OLA-United<br />
Nations.<br />
48<br />
magaliTad, saqarTvelom es ufleba gamoiyena soxumis portis mimarT.<br />
ix. saqarTvelos prezidentis 1996 wlis 31 ianvris 140 brZanebuleba<br />
`afxazeTis (saqarTvelo) teritoriis farglebSi ruseT-saqarTvelos<br />
saxelmwifo sazRvris monakveTze, soxumis sazRvao navsadgurSi portpunqtebsa<br />
da sazRvao akvatoriaSi sasazRvro da sabaJo reJimis Sesaxeb~<br />
da saqarTvelos prezidentis 2004 wlis 3 agvistos 313 brZanebuleba<br />
`saqarTvelos sazRvao sivrcis afxazeTis sazRvao raionSi saqarTvelos<br />
uflebebis, teritoriuli mTlianobis, suverenitetisa da uSiSroebis<br />
dacvis Sesaxeb~, romelTa Tanaxmadac, saqarTvelos teritoriuli<br />
zRvisa da Sida wylebis afxazeTis monakveTsa da soxumis portSi<br />
naosnoba akrZalulia. soxumis porti daxurulia nebismieri gemisTvis,<br />
garda humanitaruli tvirTebis Semomatani gemebisa.<br />
49<br />
R.R. Churchill & A. V. Lowe ‘The law of the sea’3 rd edition, 1999, gv. 62.<br />
50<br />
O’Connell & Shearer, <strong>International</strong> law of the Sea, Oxford University Press, USA,<br />
1983, II tomi, gv. 853 da Semdgom, The Eleanor case (18<strong>09</strong>), Edwards 135. am<br />
saqmeSi lord stovelma daadgina, rom `realuri da Tavidan aucilebeli<br />
gansacdeli unda iyos nebismier dros sakmarisi pasporti adamianebisTvis<br />
humanuri kanonebis nebismieri aseTi gamoyenebisas~. citirebulia:<br />
124
e. siraZe, sazRvao Sida wylebi: delimitacia, statusi da iurisdiqcia<br />
Colombos, The <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea (1967), gv. 177. , Haijiang Yang,<br />
Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships in Internal Waters<br />
and the Territorial Sea, Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs, 2004, gv. 64.<br />
51<br />
D.J.Devine, Ships in Distress – a judicial contribution from the South Atlantic, 20<br />
marine Policy 229, 234 (1996), citirebuli: Lindy S. Johnson, Coastal State<br />
Regulation of <strong>International</strong> Shipping, Ocean Publications Inc., 2004, gv. 37.<br />
52<br />
Kari Hapakaa, marine Pollution in <strong>International</strong> law 163 (1981).<br />
53<br />
2002 wlis 13 noembers espaneTis xelisuflebam uari ganucxada portSi<br />
SeSvebaze bahamis droSis qveS mcurav tanker “Prestige”-s, rasac, sabolood,<br />
espaneTis sanapirodan 133 sm-is daSorebiT am tankeris CaZirva<br />
da saSineli ekologiuri da ekonomikuri Sedegebi mohyva. gadarCenis<br />
samuSaoebi erT-erTi yvelaze masStaburi iyo. galiciis sanapirodan<br />
555 km-is radiusiT didi xnis ganmavlobaSi TevzWera aikrZala. Oil tanker<br />
sinks off Spanish coast, guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 19 November 2002 18.39 GMT;<br />
IMO Maritime Knowladge Centre, Information Resources on the “Prestige” (last<br />
update: 28 January 2010), at http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/<br />
data_id%3D27510/Prestige_28January2010_.pdf. ukanaskneli viziti 2010<br />
wlis 26 Tebervals.<br />
54<br />
Saudi Arabia v. Aramco, Arbitral Tribunal, 23 August 1958 [1963] 27 ILR 212,<br />
citirebuli: R.R. Churchill & A. V. Lowe ‘The law of the sea’3 rd edition, 1999,<br />
gv. 61. Targmani Sesrulebulia avtoris mier.<br />
55<br />
O’Connell & Shearer, <strong>International</strong> law of the Sea, Oxford University Press, USA,<br />
1983, tomi II, gv. 848; R.R. R.R. Churchill & A. V. Lowe ‘The law of the sea’3 rd<br />
edition, 1999, gv. 61 da Semdgom.<br />
56<br />
Haijiang Yang, Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships in<br />
Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea, Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs,<br />
2004, gv. 53.<br />
57<br />
1923 Geneva Statute on the <strong>International</strong> Regime of Maritime Ports, muxli 2,<br />
ix. E.D. Brown, The <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea, Documents, Cases and Tables,<br />
Vol. II, Darthmous Publishing Company Limited, 1994<br />
58<br />
Haijiang Yang, Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships in<br />
Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea, Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs,<br />
2004, gv. 56.<br />
59<br />
ICJ Reports [1986], gv. 111. es midgoma sasamarTlom gaimeora Land, Island<br />
and maritime Frontier Dispute 1992, ICJ Reports [1992], 351-e punqti.<br />
60<br />
mag.: 1997 wlis 10 aprilis SeTanxmeba saqarTvelos mTavrobasa da saber-<br />
ZneTis respublikis mTavrobas Soris savaWro naosnobis Sesaxeb; 1996<br />
wlis 26 martis SeTanxmeba saqarTvelos mTavrobasa da rumineTis mTavrobas<br />
Soris savaWro naosnobis Sesaxeb; 1996 wlis 19 martis saqarTvelos<br />
mTavrobasa da ruseTis federaciis mTavrobas Soris savaWro naosnobis<br />
Sesaxeb; 1996 wlis 8 martis saqarTvelos mTavrobasa da azerbaijanis respublikis<br />
mTavrobas Soris savaWro naosnobis Sesaxeb; 1993 wlis 25 ivnisis<br />
saqarTvelos mTavrobasa da germaniis federaciuli respublikis<br />
mTavrobas Soris savaWro naosnobis Sesaxeb; 1993 wlis 3 ivnisis saqarTvelos<br />
mTavrobasa da CineTis saxalxo respublikis mTavrobas Soris<br />
savaWro naosnobis Sesaxeb; 1993 wlis 13 aprilis SeTanxmeba saqarTvelosa<br />
da ukrainis mTavrobebs Soris savaWro naosnobis Sesaxeb da sxv.<br />
61<br />
SeTanxmebis me-2 muxli, citirebuli Haijiang Yang, Jurisdiction of the<br />
Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships in Internal Waters and the Territorial<br />
Sea, Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs, 2004, gv. 56. Targmani inglisuridan<br />
Sesrulebulia avtoris mier.<br />
62<br />
me-20(1) muxli, citirebuli: E.D. Brown, The <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea,<br />
Documents, Cases and Tables, Vol. I, gv. 39. Dartmouth Publishing Company<br />
Limited, 1994.<br />
63<br />
ix. 58-e-me-60 miTiTebebi.<br />
64<br />
Message from The President of the United States transmitting United Nation<br />
Convention on the law of the Sea, with Annexes, Done at Montego Bay, December<br />
10, 1982 (The “Convention”) and the Agreement Relating to The Implementation of<br />
Part XI of The United Nations Convention of The <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea of 10 December,<br />
125
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
1982, With Annexes, Adopted at New York, July 28, 1994 (The “Agreement”),<br />
and signed by the United States, Subject to ratifi cation, on July 29, 1994; 103 D<br />
Congress 2d Session, October 7, 1994, Treaty Doc. 103-39, U.S. Government<br />
Printing Offi ce, Washington: 1994, gv. 14.<br />
65<br />
UNCLOS, 211-e (3) muxli,<br />
66<br />
UNCLOS, X nawili.<br />
67<br />
UNCLOS, 125-e (2) muxli.<br />
68<br />
Haijiang Yang, Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships in<br />
Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea, Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs,<br />
2004, gv. 61.<br />
69<br />
Lindy S. Johnson, Coastal State Regulation of <strong>International</strong> Shipping, Ocean<br />
Publications Inc., 2004, gv. 54.<br />
70<br />
Haijiang Yang, Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships in<br />
Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea, Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs,<br />
2004, gv. 63.<br />
71<br />
O’Connell & Shearer, <strong>International</strong> law of the Sea, Oxford University Press, USA,<br />
1983, II tomi, gv. 849.<br />
72<br />
Haijiang Yang, Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships in<br />
Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea, Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs,<br />
2004, gv. 86.<br />
73<br />
Haijiang Yang, Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships in<br />
Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea, Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs,<br />
2004, gv. 98.<br />
74<br />
saqarTveloSi naosnobisTvis Ria portebis nusxas amtkicebs saqarTvelos<br />
prezidenti, saqarTvelos saxelmwifos sazRvris Seasxeb kanonis<br />
me-18(2) muxlis Tanaxmad. aseTi dReisaTvis aris: foTi, baTumi, sufsa,<br />
yulevi. saqarTvelos perzidentis 1999 wlis 31 maisis 344 brZanebuleba<br />
sufsis sazRvao navsadguris Seqmnisa da saqarTveloSi ucxoeTis gemebisTvis<br />
Ria navsadgurebis nusxis damtkicebis Sesaxeb (kodificirebuli).<br />
75<br />
sazRvao sivrcis Sesaxeb kanoni da saxelmwifo sazRvris Sesaxeb kanoni.<br />
76<br />
aRsaniSnavia, rom saxelmwifo sazRvris dacvis Sesaxeb kanonis me-2 muxlis<br />
(o) punqtSi es ukanaskneli ganmartebulia rogorc: `nebismieri<br />
sanaosno saSualeba, romelic gamoiyeneba samecniero-kvleviTi an sxva<br />
arasamewarmeo saqmianobisTvis.~ savaraudod, kanonmdebeli gulisxmobs<br />
gemebs, romlebic, gaeros konvenciiT (31-e da 32-e muxlebi) moxseniebulia<br />
rogorc `sxva samaTavrobo gemebi, gamoyenebuli arakomerciuli<br />
miznebisaTvis~ (inglisurad: other government ships operated for noncommercial<br />
purposes), miuxedavad imisa, rom kanonSi mocemuli termini<br />
ar aris inglisuri Sesatyvisis identuri da ar iZleva aseTi tipis gemebis<br />
amomwurav daxasiaTebas. sazRvris dacvis Sesaxeb kanonSi analogiuri<br />
gemebi moxseniebulia `saxelmwifo an specialuri daniSnulebis<br />
gemebad, romlebic gamoiyenebian arakomerciuli mizniT~, rac ufro axlos<br />
aris Sinaarsobrivad gaeros konvenciaSi gamoyenebul terminTan.<br />
Tumca aRniSnuli problemis detaluri ganxilva winamdebare naSromis<br />
sagani ar aris.<br />
77<br />
saxelmwifo sazRvris dacvis Sesaxeb kanonis me-18(3) muxli.<br />
78<br />
iqve, me-18(4) da me-18(5) muxlebi. Tumca unda aRiniSnos, rom sazRvao<br />
sivrcis Sesaxeb kanonis me-11 muxlis me-3 punqtis Tanaxmad, winaswari<br />
nebarTva ar aris saWiro, Tu gemze aseTi oficialuri vizitis dros imyofeba<br />
saxelmwifos meTauri, mxolod 5 dRiT adre xdeba Setyobineba<br />
da Tu gemi gansacdelSi imyofeba.<br />
79<br />
saqarTvelos sazRvao kodeqsis me-10 muxli.<br />
80<br />
l. aleqsiZe, Tanamedrove saerTaSoriso samarTali, Tb., 2006, gv. 285 da<br />
Semdgom.<br />
81<br />
Haijiang Yang, Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships in<br />
Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea, Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs,<br />
2004, gv. 61 da Semdgom.<br />
82<br />
ix. evropuli sasamarTlos moxseneba Woodpulp Cases (xe-tyis (celulozis)<br />
saqmeebze), sadac naTqvamia, rom `saerTaSoriso samarTalSi ar-<br />
126
e. siraZe, sazRvao Sida wylebi: delimitacia, statusi da iurisdiqcia<br />
sebobs iurisdiqciis mxolod ori principi – moqalaqeobrivi da teritoriuli.~<br />
Alison Jones, Brenda Sufrin, EC Competition <strong>Law</strong>: Text, Cases and<br />
Materials gv. 1374 http://books.google.com/books<br />
83<br />
Haijiang Yang, Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships in<br />
Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea, Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs,<br />
2004, gv. 61 da Semdgom.<br />
84<br />
magaliTad, gemis Sidaganawesi, disciplinuri wesebi da a.S.<br />
85<br />
e.w. FOC – Flag of Convenience – es termini gamoiyeneba Ria registris<br />
droSebis aRsaniSnavad.<br />
86<br />
panama da liberia liderebi arian tonaJis mixedviT, aseve Zalian popularulia<br />
marSalis kunZulebi, bahamis, seiSelis droSebi. Lloyds’ Report<br />
2002.<br />
87<br />
UNCLOS, me-100 muxli.<br />
88<br />
UNCLOS 108-e muxli.<br />
89<br />
UNCLOS 99-e muxli.<br />
90<br />
Haijiang Yang, Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships in<br />
Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea, Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs,<br />
2004, gv. 34.<br />
91<br />
mag., aSS-is sazRvao kodeqsis boneris damateba.<br />
92<br />
mag., ix. saqarTvelos sazRvao kodeqsis me-3 muxli, romelic pirdapir<br />
acxadebs, rom kodeqsis moqmedeba ar vrceldeba samxedro gemebze.<br />
93<br />
UNCLOS, 32-e da 96-e muxlebi.<br />
94<br />
iqve, 30-e muxli.<br />
95<br />
iqve.<br />
96<br />
iqve, 31-e muxli.<br />
97<br />
ix.: Simmonds, the cases on the law of the sea, tomi II, gv. 56 da Semdgom.<br />
98<br />
<strong>International</strong> Convention for the Unifi cation of Certain Rules Concerning The<br />
Immunity of State-Owned Ships, Brussels, Aprils 10 th , 1926. me-3.1 muxli. www.<br />
imli.org/legal_docs/docs/A13.DOC. ukanaskneli viziti ganxorcielda 2010<br />
wlis 27 Tebervals.<br />
99<br />
UNCLOS, MARPOL, etc.<br />
100<br />
R.R. Churchill & A. V. Lowe ‘The law of the sea’3 rd edition, 1999, gv. 65.<br />
101<br />
Haijiang Yang, Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships in<br />
Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea, Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs,<br />
2004, gv. 85.<br />
102<br />
R.R. Churchill & A. V. Lowe ‘The law of the sea’3 rd edition, 1999, gv. 66 da<br />
Semdgom.<br />
103<br />
iqve.<br />
104<br />
iqve.<br />
105<br />
iqve.<br />
106<br />
R.-J. Dupuy, D. Vignes, A Handbook on the New law of the Sea (Dordecht, Nijhoff),<br />
1991, gv. 247 da Semdgom.<br />
107<br />
iqve.<br />
108<br />
MARPOL, 73/78.<br />
1<strong>09</strong><br />
SOLAS, OPA, 1990 da a.S.<br />
110<br />
SOLAS, STCW, 1978, ILO 147.<br />
111<br />
aris qveynebi, sadac garemos dabinZureba sisxlis samarTlis kodeqsiT<br />
danaSauladaa gamocxadebuli. mag.: germaniis federaciuli respublika<br />
(sisxlis samarTlis kodeqsis 29-e muxli), CineTis saxalxo rspublika<br />
(sisxlis samarTlis kodeqsis 338-e muxli), saqarTvelo (sisxlis samar-<br />
Tlis kodeqsis 293-e muxli).<br />
112<br />
saqarTvelos sisxlis samarTlis kodeqsis me-300 muxli.<br />
113<br />
Haijiang Yang, Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships in<br />
Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea, Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs,<br />
2004, gv. 95.<br />
114<br />
saqarTvelos sisxlis samrTlis kodeqsis me-4 muxli.<br />
115<br />
mag.: saberZneTTan savaWro nasonobis Sesaxeb SeTanxmebis me-16 muxli,<br />
aze rbaijansa da rumineTTan savaWro naosnobis Sesaxeb SeTanxmebebis<br />
me-11 muxli, CineTTan savaWro naosnobis Sesaxeb SeTanxmebis me-14 muxli.<br />
127
EKA SIRADZE<br />
MARITIME INTERNAL WATERS:<br />
DELIMITATION, LEGAL STATUS AND JURISDICTION<br />
I. INTRODUCTION<br />
The aim of this research is to give an overview<br />
of the legal regime of internal waters and<br />
ports; namely their status, rules, and regulations<br />
concerning the entry of ships fl ying the<br />
fl ags of other states therein, and the jurisdiction<br />
of criminal law exercised by the coastal<br />
states over such vessels.<br />
The research is based upon the 1982<br />
United Nation’s Convention on the <strong>Law</strong> of the<br />
Sea (herein referred to as the UN Convention),<br />
other multilateral conventions, regional and bilateral<br />
agreements, practice of states and the<br />
ICJ, and, of course, the works of highly qualifi<br />
ed publicists.<br />
First, the defi nitions of the basic legal<br />
terms are discussed briefl y.<br />
II. DEFINITIONS OF BASIC LEGAL TERMS<br />
A. BASELINES<br />
As this article aims to discuss coastal state<br />
jurisdiction over its internal waters and ports,<br />
it is necessary to review the status of internal<br />
waters and their delimitation. Whereas the<br />
coastal states jurisdiction over internal waters<br />
and territorial sea differs signifi cantly, 1 it is vital<br />
to indicate a clear boundary between these<br />
maritime zones. Baselines separate internal<br />
waters from the territorial sea; furthermore,<br />
baselines are used to measure the breadth<br />
of the territorial sea, 2 the internal contiguous<br />
zone, 3 the Exclusive Economic Zone 4 and the<br />
continental shelf. 5<br />
Traditionally, the status of baselines was<br />
regarded as the foundation for forming the legal<br />
status of a territorial sea. 6 This approach was<br />
reasonable when a territorial sea was the only<br />
maritime zone subject to the coastal state’s jurisdiction.<br />
With the changes to the law of the<br />
sea and re-distribution of the world’s oceans,<br />
the importance of baselines increased, and<br />
scientists now deal with its legal status independently.<br />
7 However, baselines are referred to<br />
in Section 2 of Part II dealing with the breadth<br />
of a territorial sea.<br />
Baselines were fi rst discussed at the 1930<br />
Hague Conference. Notwithstanding the failure<br />
to adopt a unifi ed legal document during<br />
the Conference, the norms developed therein<br />
were refl ected in the 1958 Geneva Convention<br />
on Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone (herein<br />
referred to as the Geneva Convention). 8<br />
Historically, baselines were highly dependent<br />
upon the sea tide. If a state’s coastline<br />
were always smooth, drawing baselines would<br />
not have been so diffi cult and would have been<br />
more easily regulated: that is, states would<br />
have measured the most extreme points of<br />
high and low water marks. However, the reality<br />
is different and, in the majority of cases,<br />
coastlines are curved, or surrounded by islands,<br />
bays, or water mouths. This reality was<br />
taken into account very precisely while drafting<br />
the UN Convention which refers to geographical<br />
peculiarities such as deeply indented and<br />
cut into coastlines, fringes of islands along the<br />
coast in its immediate vicinity, 9 bays, 10 mouths<br />
of rivers, 11 ports and roadsteads, 12 low tide<br />
elevations, 13 islands, 14 and reefs. 15<br />
The diffi cult topography of coastlines was<br />
the reason for establishing two types of baselines:<br />
straight and normal.<br />
Normal Baselines<br />
Under Article 3 of 1958 Geneva Convention<br />
on Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone,<br />
and under Article 5 of the <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea Con-<br />
128
E. SIRADZE, MARITIME INTERNAL WATERS: DELIMITATION, LEGAL STATUS AND JURISDICTION<br />
vention, the normal baseline for measuring the<br />
breadth of the territorial sea is the low-water<br />
line along the coast as marked on large-scale<br />
charts offi cially recognized by the coastal<br />
state.<br />
The states that are willing to subject as<br />
much water space as possible to their jurisdiction<br />
decided to chose low tide elevations as<br />
the starting point for measuring the breadth<br />
of a territorial sea and other maritime zones;<br />
this approach is especially effective in cases<br />
of states with intensive tides. 16<br />
Straight Baselines<br />
Norway, having very diffi cult coastline relief,<br />
developed the concept of straight baselines<br />
in the second half of the 19th century.<br />
Norway’s coastline is very irregular and is<br />
carved by bays, islands, ports, reefs, and<br />
rocks. Norway used several straight lines to<br />
delimit the territorial sea. These straight lines<br />
were drawn on the low tide elevations of<br />
skjaergaard. 17 Since the 1930s, England had<br />
been protesting this method used by Norway,<br />
and submitted the case to the <strong>International</strong><br />
Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1949. The United<br />
Kingdom claimed that drawing straight baselines<br />
confl icted with international law. 18 In its<br />
decision, the ICJ stated that the method used<br />
by Norway for drawing straight baselines does<br />
not confl ict with international law standards. 19<br />
The ICJ stated that other states also employed<br />
straight lines 20 and no states, including<br />
the UK, protested against this method; the<br />
method was used for the fi rst time in 1869 by<br />
Norway, and only in 1933 did the UK raise its<br />
protest against the method. 21<br />
Having recognized the straight baselines<br />
as permitted under international law, the ICJ<br />
also established rules, obligatory for states, for<br />
drawing straight baselines. These rules were<br />
codifi ed initially in the Geneva Convention 22<br />
and later in the UN Convention. 23 They indicate<br />
that straight baselines have to be drawn<br />
in accordance with following rules: (1) straight<br />
baselines must not depart to any appreciable<br />
extent from the general direction of the coast: 24<br />
(2) sea areas lying within the lines must be<br />
suffi ciently closely linked to the land domain; 25<br />
(3) account may be taken of economic interests<br />
peculiar to the region concerned, the reality<br />
and the importance of which are clearly<br />
evidenced by long usage; 26 (4) straight baselines<br />
shall not be drawn to and from low-tide<br />
elevations, unless lighthouses or similar installations<br />
which are permanently above sea<br />
level have been built on them, or except in instances<br />
where the drawing of baselines to and<br />
from such elevations has received general international<br />
recognition; 27 and (5) the system<br />
of straight baselines may not be applied by a<br />
state in such a manner as to cut off the territorial<br />
sea of another state from the high seas or<br />
an Exclusive Economic Zone. 28<br />
The provisions of the UN Convention on<br />
straight baselines do not create an obligation<br />
for states to employ straight baselines. Despite<br />
the existence of all geographical requirements<br />
for drawing straight baselines, the coastal<br />
state has discretion to choose which method<br />
to employ (for example, the U.S. did not use<br />
straight baselines along the Alaskan coastline,<br />
though relief of the coast there would have<br />
justifi ed using this method 29 ).<br />
Unfortunately, states that employ the<br />
method of straight baselines do not always observe<br />
the conventional requirements, and draw<br />
the lines on points that are far away from their<br />
coasts. For example, Ecuador drew straight<br />
baselines 131 nautical miles away from the<br />
coast, 30 Vietnam drew straight baselines on islands<br />
located 74 and 161 nautical miles away<br />
from the coast, 31 and other states in the same<br />
region have done something similar, including<br />
Pakistan, the Maldives, the Republic of Korea,<br />
Japan, and the USSR. 32 There is the second<br />
group of states such as Italy, Spain, Cuba and<br />
Albania, that use straight baselines despite<br />
the fact that their coastline does not correspond<br />
with conventional requirements. 33 The<br />
straight baselines of Myanmar (Burma) and<br />
Ecuador deviate from the general direction of<br />
the coast by 60° (the deviation of Norwegian<br />
straight baselines is 15°). 34 Specifi cally, Burma<br />
drew straight baselines with a total length<br />
of 222 nautical miles, enclosing water space<br />
with total area of 14,300 square nautical miles<br />
into internal waters that in total is equal to the<br />
territory of Denmark. 35<br />
Roach and Smith admit that if states interpret<br />
the rules on straight baselines in good<br />
faith, the employment of this method shall<br />
129
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
never result in increasing the breadth of internal<br />
waters in comparison to cases when<br />
normal baselines are used. 36 On the contrary,<br />
professors Reisman and Westerman advised<br />
that “the main practical impact of the application<br />
of straight baselines is an increase of the<br />
area of internal waters and the territorial sea<br />
under the state control. When the segment of<br />
the individual straight baselines is too long,<br />
the coastal state gains signifi cant areas of the<br />
EEZ and the continental shelf.” 37 Their fears<br />
turned out to be well founded.<br />
The coastal state is entitled to combine<br />
both methods for drawing baselines. 38<br />
B. INTERNAL WATERS<br />
As defi ned by Article 8 of the UN Convention,<br />
internal, or national, waters are waters on<br />
the landward side of the baseline of the territorial<br />
sea and form part of the internal waters<br />
of the State. 39 Internal waters include rivers,<br />
estuaries, lakes, channels, and ports. For the<br />
purposes of this article, we refer to only sea<br />
internal waters.<br />
The legal status of archipelagic waters<br />
(waters enclosed by lines connecting the farthest<br />
points of archipelagic islands) differs<br />
from that of internal waters. 40 However, the<br />
defi nition of archipelagic waters goes beyond<br />
the scope of this research. For our purposes,<br />
it is more important that specifi c islands of archipelagos<br />
might have internal waters that are<br />
enclosed by closing lines, drawn in accordance<br />
with well-established rules, on the bays<br />
of an island, estuary, or port.<br />
Article 2 of the UN Convention reiterates<br />
and enshrines the well-established rule that<br />
the sovereignty exercised over a land territory<br />
also spreads over internal waters. The right of<br />
innocent passage cannot be exercised in internal<br />
waters. 41<br />
Having recognized the equal sovereignty<br />
of a state over internal waters and land domains,<br />
international law cannot subject the legal<br />
status of internal waters to the regulations<br />
of any convention. It should be remembered<br />
that this sovereignty is not an absolute principle,<br />
and it can be limited by international law.<br />
The sovereignty over internal waters is often<br />
questioned by the right of ships to access<br />
ports and jurisdiction over foreign vessels.<br />
The general rule is that foreign vessels<br />
do not enjoy the right to navigate in internal<br />
waters. 42 The issue of access to ports is more<br />
controversial and is discussed in more detail<br />
below.<br />
C. PORTS<br />
Ports are extremely important connecting<br />
points for maritime and land territories. They<br />
are also extremely important for ocean commerce;<br />
ports are an integral part of a coastal<br />
state’s territory, and the only possible ways<br />
to access the coastal country from the sea,<br />
obviously, are the ports, which are under absolute<br />
jurisdiction of such states. 43 Therefore,<br />
the port state jurisdiction to adopt and execute<br />
laws against foreign vessels is broad, and is<br />
based on principles of international law. 44<br />
Port state jurisdiction includes the following<br />
abilities: (1) to close ports for international<br />
navigation; and (2) to establish rules for access<br />
to ports. 45 A port state is entitled to establish<br />
not only the rules governing access to<br />
ports, but also governing the distance from<br />
the port at which vessels are bound by those<br />
rules. 46<br />
A port state enjoys the absolute right to<br />
close its port(s) to vessels of other states 47 by<br />
virtue of the fact that ports are an integral part<br />
of state territory and are under the jurisdiction<br />
of the coastal state. Such a right is inevitably<br />
linked with the vital interests of states, such as<br />
the protection of security and good order of a<br />
coastal state or the prevention of marine pollution,<br />
and accordingly, it is extremely diffi cult<br />
to demonstrate that the decision to close ports<br />
is unjustifi ed and groundless. 48<br />
Ships in distress should be also mentioned<br />
while discussing ports closed to navigation.<br />
Many authors state that there is a principle as<br />
old as the law of the sea itself that ports have<br />
to be opened in a case of force majeure. 49<br />
This rule also covers cases where there is a<br />
real threat of losing the vessel, its crew, or its<br />
cargo. However, if the vessel was put in distress<br />
due to un-seaworthiness, the situation<br />
shall not be treated as force-majeure. 50 Those<br />
claiming that the vessel in distress should be<br />
given access to ports in special cases must<br />
not forget that the interest of the vessel is op-<br />
130
E. SIRADZE, MARITIME INTERNAL WATERS: DELIMITATION, LEGAL STATUS AND JURISDICTION<br />
posed by the coastal state’s interest to protect<br />
and maintain health, security, and good order<br />
in the port. 51 If it is known that the ship carries<br />
hazardous substances, the coastal state,<br />
in trying to avoid a potential ecological threat,<br />
could refrain from giving the vessel access requested<br />
due to force majeure. However, such<br />
an approach may lead to greater damage to<br />
the environment. 52<br />
In relation to the right of access to ports by<br />
foreign vessels for navigation, the Aramco case<br />
was important: in the 1958 arbitration agreement<br />
and award, it was stated that “according<br />
to a great principle of public international law,<br />
the ports of every state must be open to foreign<br />
vessels and can only be closed when the<br />
vital interests of the state so require.” 53<br />
Notwithstanding the aforementioned,<br />
and bearing in mind that international ports<br />
of states are deemed open to international<br />
navigation of vessels, still this rule has never<br />
passed into customary law, as supported by<br />
many scholars. 54<br />
Accordingly, a coastal state is free to open<br />
or close its ports if its vital interests – peaces,<br />
security, good order and public health – are<br />
threatened. The practice of states greatly supports<br />
such an approach, as discussed below<br />
and in 1923 Geneva Statute on the <strong>International</strong><br />
Regime of Maritime Ports. The authors of the<br />
Statute aimed to liberalize the maritime industry<br />
and facilitate international commerce. Only<br />
40 states are party to the Statute, and big maritime<br />
powers such as Liberia, Bahamas, South<br />
Korea, China, Singapore, China, Canada and<br />
the USA have never adhered to it. 55 Even so,<br />
the Statute established access to ports and the<br />
principle of equal treatment in ports as a reciprocity<br />
right, which has greatly influenced the<br />
states’ practices. 56 It is obvious that the Statute<br />
is a milestone in the process of liberalization of<br />
international navigation and elimination of discrimination<br />
in the right to access ports, however<br />
it could neither pass this principle into customary<br />
international law, nor make the rule binding<br />
for state-parties. 57 As mentioned above, states<br />
are entitled to prescribe the rules for access to<br />
ports and can even close the ports to international<br />
navigation.<br />
In the Nicaragua Case, the ICJ reiterated<br />
that internal waters are within the coastal<br />
state’s sovereignty, and accordingly the latter,<br />
by virtue of this sovereignty, regulates the right<br />
to access to ports. 58<br />
Bilateral treaties may also provide for access<br />
to ports on the principle of reciprocity.<br />
Georgia has entered such treaties with more<br />
than 10 states. 59 For example, the Treaty between<br />
Germany and China provides the following<br />
access:<br />
“The ships of each Party are entitled to<br />
navigate between the ports of both Parties,<br />
which are open to international trade, and to<br />
transport goods or passengers between the<br />
two Parties or between one Party and third<br />
States”. 60<br />
Sharing the same approach, the 1962<br />
Treaty between the UK and Japan on Commerce,<br />
Entrepreneurs and Navigation states<br />
that contracting parties have the right to freely<br />
access each other’s ports open to international<br />
navigation. 61 It should be noted that these<br />
treaties also deal with waters and places open<br />
to international commerce. 62<br />
As mentioned in the message of the U.S.<br />
President to the Senate, the UN Convention<br />
does not restrict a coastal state’s right to complicate<br />
or limit access to its ports, or entry into<br />
or transit through its internal waters. Under<br />
the UN Convention, the coastal state has the<br />
right to adopt reasonable restrictive measures<br />
against a ship that lies within its internal waters<br />
without proper consent. 63 The only obligation<br />
imposed upon the coastal state is to give<br />
due publicity to its rules on entry into ports. 64<br />
The UN Convention also establishes the<br />
right of landlocked states to access the sea<br />
and their right to freedom of transit. 65 This right<br />
implies that landlocked states are entitled to<br />
access ports of other states because other interpretation<br />
would make it impossible for them<br />
to access the sea and exercise their freedom<br />
of transit. However, this right does not cover<br />
all ports, only those agreed upon by the landlocked<br />
and transit states. 66 The principle of<br />
reciprocity for the purposes of port access, of<br />
course, is not valid in these cases.<br />
If we look at states’ practices of access<br />
to ports, we will see that the majority of states<br />
have adopted their own rules to defi ne the entry<br />
of foreign vessels into their ports. For example,<br />
a foreign vessel can enter Hamburg<br />
131
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
port only with the permission of competent<br />
authorities if: the vessel is at risk of shipwreck;<br />
the vessel or its cargo is on fi re; oil is leaking<br />
from the vessel; or the vessel may be sanctioned<br />
due to a crime committed at sea. 67<br />
After the tanker Exxon Valdez sank near<br />
the coast of Alaska in 1989, the U.S. adopted<br />
an Oil Pollution Act in 1990 (OPA 1990) that<br />
prohibited single-hulled tank vessels from<br />
entering any U.S. port. 68 The OPA 1990 introduced<br />
even stricter rules than the 1973/1978<br />
<strong>International</strong> Convention for the Prevention of<br />
Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78).<br />
History also shows cases when navigation<br />
was the victim of political speculation. For<br />
example, in 1986 Syria prohibited British ships<br />
from entering its ports as a result of the unilateral<br />
severance of diplomatic relations by the<br />
British. 69<br />
The well established practices show that<br />
a state will treat ships in its ports without discrimination<br />
70 based on a fl ag, whether the fl ag<br />
is of a coastal or landlocked state. However,<br />
a coastal state can always refuse the right of<br />
access to nuclear-powered ships or vessels<br />
carrying dangerous substances. 71<br />
It should be noted that the national practice<br />
or the nation’s most favoured treatment,<br />
or a combination of both practices, might be<br />
applied to a ship depending on its fl ag. 72<br />
Rules governing entry of ships into the<br />
ports of Georgia<br />
As provided for in the <strong>Law</strong> of Georgia on<br />
State Border, merchant, military or non-military<br />
ships may enter ports open for navigation 73 in<br />
accordance with rules prescribed by the Decree<br />
of the President. The Georgian legislation 74 distinguishes<br />
non-military commercial ships from<br />
warships, specialized vessels performing government<br />
tasks, 75 and nuclear vessels.<br />
Foreign specialized vessels performing<br />
governmental orders have to submit an application<br />
via diplomatic channels to the authority<br />
within the Ministry of Internal Affairs system no<br />
later than 14 days prior to entry. The Authority<br />
will inform the ship’s owner of its decision<br />
no later than 7 days before entry into the port.<br />
This requirement is not obligatory if a ship performs<br />
salvage or marine pollution liquidation<br />
works. 76<br />
Warships and nuclear vessels shall submit<br />
an application to the President of Georgia<br />
a month prior to the intended entry. The Security<br />
Council considers the request within one<br />
week of receiving it and gives a recommendation<br />
to the President, who will make a decision<br />
within two weeks. 77<br />
As for other commercial and non-military<br />
ships, they can enter the ports of Georgia provided<br />
that they are under supervision of a classifi<br />
ed society recognized by the fl ag state. 78<br />
The Georgian legislation does not introduce<br />
any other requirements that differ from the UN<br />
Convention.<br />
D. JURISDICTION<br />
Jurisdiction deals with specifi c aspects of<br />
a state’s legal competencies. Jurisdiction is<br />
closely linked with sovereignty. 79 Jurisdiction<br />
has judicial, legislative, and administrative<br />
competencies. Distinction is made between<br />
legislative or prescriptive jurisdiction and enforcement<br />
or prerogative jurisdiction. 80<br />
General rules on jurisdiction recognize<br />
two principles of jurisdiction: territorial and<br />
nationality, 81 however the practices of states<br />
also reveal also other principles, as discussed<br />
below.<br />
The Territorial Principle<br />
This principle addresses the jurisdiction<br />
over a state’s own territory. A state exercises<br />
jurisdiction over its territory notwithstanding<br />
the nationality of the person who committed<br />
an action. A coastal state exercises jurisdiction<br />
over ships laying its ports based on this<br />
territoriality principle.<br />
The Nationality Principle<br />
This principle addresses jurisdiction over<br />
nationals abroad. This principle is a legal basis<br />
for jurisdiction over exterritorial acts.<br />
To avoid confl icting jurisdiction while applying<br />
territorial and nationality jurisdictions,<br />
as well rules of double citizenship, many<br />
states limit the application of the nationality<br />
principle.<br />
For the purposes of the law of the sea,<br />
the nationality principle is analogous to fl ag<br />
132
E. SIRADZE, MARITIME INTERNAL WATERS: DELIMITATION, LEGAL STATUS AND JURISDICTION<br />
state jurisdiction. However, as scholars admit,<br />
these two forms of jurisdiction are not identical,<br />
and the nature of fl ag state jurisdiction is<br />
sui generis. 82<br />
Flag state jurisdiction spreads over a ship<br />
notwithstanding its location. Moreover, there is<br />
a range of issues subject exclusively to fl ag<br />
state jurisdiction. 83<br />
The main problem of fl ag jurisdiction is<br />
related to its enforcement. With the increasing<br />
popularity of fl ags of convenience, 84 when<br />
small states without well-established maritime<br />
traditions 85 register a signifi cant majority of the<br />
world’s merchant fl eet, it is diffi cult to expect<br />
effective enforcement from the fl ag state; fi rst<br />
of all, it would be impossible from a technical<br />
perspective, and secondly, it would be commercially<br />
unjustifi ed for such states because<br />
strict enforcement measures would decrease<br />
the popularity of the given fl ag of convenience.<br />
Accordingly, we may conclude that the territoriality<br />
principle, that is port state jurisdiction, is<br />
of a vital importance.<br />
The Protective or Security Principle<br />
Some states recognize jurisdiction over<br />
acts committed by aliens abroad that infringe<br />
upon the state’s security. This concept<br />
mainly deals with, though is not limited to, political<br />
crimes. Fiscal, migration, and economic<br />
crimes are also covered by this principle of jurisdiction.<br />
As long as the principle is applied to<br />
protect specifi c interests, it is justifi ed, however,<br />
having been based upon state security, the<br />
term is extremely broad and sensitive, therefore<br />
the probability of its abuse is high.<br />
The Universal Principle<br />
This principle entitles states to exercise<br />
jurisdiction over aliens whose actions encroach<br />
upon international order. Among these<br />
crimes are piracy, 86 illicit traffi c of narcotic<br />
substances, 87 trade in slaves, 88 and terrorism,<br />
as the latest developments prove. 89<br />
The main restriction for exercising exterritorial<br />
executive jurisdiction is to refrain from<br />
any action unless explicitly approved by the<br />
territorial state. However, the practice of states<br />
in relation to economic crimes is more controversial.<br />
90<br />
There should be a serious and bona fi de<br />
connection between the event and the source<br />
of jurisdiction.<br />
II. JURISDICTION OVER SHIPS<br />
When discussing sovereignty and jurisdiction<br />
over ships positioned in internal waters, it<br />
is necessary to defi ne which vessels may be<br />
subject to such a jurisdiction, and what are the<br />
cases where only the fl ag state may exercise<br />
jurisdiction over ships, notwithstanding the<br />
ship’s relative location to the maritime zone. 91<br />
Under the UN Convention, warships and<br />
state-owned ships used for non-commercial<br />
purposes are immune from coastal state and<br />
port state jurisdiction. 92 However this does not<br />
imply that such ships shall not respect and observe<br />
laws and regulations of a port state. 93<br />
The coastal state can only request warships<br />
or state-owned ships used for non-commercial<br />
purposes to leave its waters immediately, 94<br />
and the fl ag state shall bear the responsibility<br />
for any damage. 95<br />
The immunity of warships and stateowned<br />
vessels has not always been straightforward<br />
and the development of this immunity<br />
took a long time. As the immunity of warships<br />
became more defi ned and was questioned<br />
less, on the contrary the issue of state-owned<br />
vessels became more controversial, because<br />
there was no unifi ed approach to whether all<br />
such ships enjoyed immunity or only those<br />
that were used for non-commercial purposes.<br />
In 1873, in a case related to the semisovereign<br />
ship Charkiech owned by the sovereign<br />
state of Egypt and fl ying the fl ag of the<br />
Ottoman Empire, the court made a decision<br />
that action in rem was admissible against the<br />
owner, notwithstanding the fact it was a sovereign<br />
vessel in accordance with international<br />
law, and the claim would have been satisfi ed<br />
from jus corona property. If the sovereign state<br />
had knowledge of commerce performed and<br />
still sent its ships into another state to this end,<br />
the state had to understand clearly that any<br />
privilege and immunity enjoyed by such a ship,<br />
by virtue of its sovereign ownership, would be<br />
deprived. Judge Sir Robert Philimore stated<br />
that nobody did or could reject that the ship<br />
was used for commercial purposes, and accordingly<br />
it was a part of a merchant fl eet. 96<br />
133
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
The aforementioned judicial was codifi ed<br />
in 1926 at the <strong>International</strong> Convention for the<br />
Unifi cation of Certain Rules concerning the<br />
Immunity of State-Owned Ships. The convention<br />
declared that only state-owned ships used<br />
for non-commercial purposes may enjoy immunity.<br />
97<br />
A coastal state shall exercise jurisdiction<br />
over a merchant fl eet that is not subject to international<br />
treaties. <strong>International</strong> conventions<br />
admit that issues related to safety of navigation<br />
(checking the design and equipment of a<br />
vessel) are under the coastal state’s exclusive<br />
jurisdiction in internal waters. 98 As for criminal<br />
jurisdiction, it shall be exercised only after<br />
certain requirements are met, as discussed in<br />
detail below.<br />
Accordingly, for the purposes of this research,<br />
the term “ship” refers to any fl oating<br />
object used for commercial purposes unless<br />
otherwise defi ned.<br />
III. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN INTERNAL<br />
WATERS<br />
As already mentioned above, internal waters<br />
are part of state territory and accordingly,<br />
ships and their crews laying therein voluntarily<br />
are subject to the coastal state’s jurisdiction, 99<br />
unless otherwise agreed upon by the fl ag and<br />
port states.<br />
A coastal state may adopt rules and regulations<br />
for ships under its jurisdiction, and enforce<br />
and ensure their execution.<br />
At the same time, a vessel is always subjected<br />
to fl ag state jurisdiction, resulting in<br />
a collision of norms (or a confl ict of jurisdictions).<br />
However, the coastal state may, at any<br />
time, limit the scope of its jurisdiction; accordingly,<br />
all issues beyond that scope shall fall<br />
under fl ag state jurisdiction. 100<br />
State practice proves that a state would<br />
exercise jurisdiction over a foreign vessel only<br />
if action threatens its vital interests (peace,<br />
good order, peace in ports).. Obviously every<br />
state is free to decide upon the meaning of “vital<br />
interest”. There are two main approaches<br />
to this: French and Anglo-American. 101<br />
The Anglo-American approach, developed<br />
in the answers submitted to the 1929<br />
Hague questionnaire of the United Kingdom<br />
and American precedents Cunard S.S.Co v.<br />
Mellon (1923), implies that every state shall<br />
exercise jurisdiction over its internal waters<br />
unless it is agreed otherwise in an international<br />
treaty. English courts would subject to<br />
its absolute jurisdiction the crews of foreign<br />
vessels in its internal waters. In the case Regina<br />
v. Cunningham, three American seafarers<br />
were adjudicated for attacking a third seaman<br />
on board of the ship, while it was anchored in<br />
the internal waters of England, so the crime<br />
was committed in the territory of England. 102<br />
The U.S. also supports absolute jurisdiction<br />
over crimes committed in its internal waters<br />
unless otherwise provided in an international<br />
treaty. This approach was employed in<br />
the Wildenhus (1887) case, when one crew<br />
member killed another on board a Belgian<br />
ship anchored in a U.S. port. 103 Mexico also<br />
exercised jurisdiction in the Public Minister v.<br />
Jensen (1894) case, despite the fact that the<br />
shipwreck, caused by the master’s negligence,<br />
did not disturb the peace in port. 104<br />
The French approach developed in relation<br />
to two American vessels, “Sally” and “Newton”,<br />
where a quarrel between crew members<br />
took place on board. The French court stated<br />
that local authorities should not interfere in a<br />
crime committed on board, if it only violates<br />
the internal regulations of the ship and concerns<br />
only the ship and/or crew, unless the<br />
crime directly infl uences the security and good<br />
order in port, or unless requested to do so by<br />
the ship. 105 This rule was signifi cantly altered<br />
in relation to the American ship Tempest,<br />
when the master’s assistant killed one crew<br />
member and wounded another in the port of<br />
Havre. The court exercised jurisdiction since<br />
the crime disturbed peace on the coast. 106<br />
As clearly shown from the aforementioned<br />
examples, sometimes states deem homicide<br />
committed on board to be an internal affair of<br />
the ship, while in other cases they may consider<br />
that it is subject to state jurisdiction. Since<br />
the 1970s, the scope of port state criminal jurisdiction<br />
has been increased and broadened<br />
as a consequence of increased attention 107 to<br />
and introduction of strict rules on environmental<br />
issues, 108 illegal fi shing, 1<strong>09</strong> illegal migration,<br />
smuggling, spying, and terrorism. 110<br />
134
E. SIRADZE, MARITIME INTERNAL WATERS: DELIMITATION, LEGAL STATUS AND JURISDICTION<br />
Georgian legislation provides that crimes<br />
committed in the territory of Georgia (including<br />
internal waters) fall within Georgian criminal<br />
jurisdiction. 111 The aforementioned treaties on<br />
navigation mention that Georgia shall exercise<br />
criminal jurisdiction over vessels in Georgian<br />
ports if (1) the outcomes of crime spread over<br />
the territory of Georgia; (2) crime was committed<br />
by or against a Georgian national; (3) crime<br />
threatens state security; or (4) crime is related<br />
to illegal traffi cking of narcotic substances. 112<br />
Enforcement of this jurisdiction shall accurately<br />
observe the requirements of the law, and<br />
due notifi cation shall be sent to a fl ag state’s<br />
diplomatic or consular representation.<br />
IV. CONCLUSION<br />
We may conclude that internal waters and<br />
ports are under the full jurisdiction of a coastal<br />
state that has never been questioned by any<br />
international treaty or judicial decision. Being<br />
entitled to delimit internal waters via baselines,<br />
a coastal state not only exercises its jurisdiction,<br />
but also defi nes the area of its application.<br />
A coastal state’s jurisdiction also includes<br />
enforcement of this jurisdiction that is applied<br />
in accordance with a state’s practice and is<br />
undertaken in accordance with international<br />
obligations.<br />
Despite any attempts otherwise, the rule<br />
of free entry into ports may become neither<br />
customary internationally, nor a treaty rule<br />
subject to the aforementioned jurisdiction.<br />
Thus, only the coastal state is entitled to<br />
decide whether it wants to give access to its<br />
ports, and prescribes rules for its ports. It has<br />
full authority to stop navigation of ships within<br />
its ports and internal waters provided the ship<br />
does not observe applicable law and regulations.<br />
Since the 1970s, increasing threats to the<br />
international community have arisen, and are<br />
becoming even more dangerous in the 21st<br />
century. These threats include those to ecology,<br />
illicit traffi cking in narcotic substances,<br />
international terrorism, and threats to public<br />
health, and have led to the broadening of<br />
coastal state jurisdiction, including legislative<br />
jurisdiction, and to the limitation of the scope<br />
of a ship’s “internal economy”, which should<br />
be settled only by the fl ag state’s legislation,<br />
even within alien ports.<br />
1<br />
Lindy S. Johnson, Coastal State Regulation of <strong>International</strong> Shipping, (Ocean<br />
Publications Inc., 2004), p. 31.<br />
2<br />
United Nations Convention on the <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea, Montego Bay, 10 December,<br />
1982 (UNCLOS), Art.3.<br />
3<br />
UNCLOS, Art. 33.3.<br />
4<br />
UNCLOS, Art.57.<br />
5<br />
UNCLOS, Art.76.1.<br />
6<br />
R.R. Churchill & A. V. Lowe The law of the sea, 3 rd Edition, (1999). p. 31 and further.<br />
7<br />
W. Michael Reisman & Gayl S. Westerman, Straight Baselines in <strong>International</strong><br />
Maritime Boundary Delimitation 105 (1992): J. Ashley Roach, Robert W. Smith,<br />
Straight Baselines: The Need for a Universally Applied Norm, US Department of<br />
State, Washington, DC, USA, Ocean Developments & <strong>International</strong> law, (Taylor &<br />
Francis, 2000); O’Connell & Shearer, <strong>International</strong> law of the Sea, Vol. II, (Oxford<br />
University Press, USA, 1983); Haijiang Yang, Jurisdiction of the Coastal State<br />
over Foreign Merchant Ships in Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea, Hamburg<br />
Studies on Maritime Affairs, (2004); E.D. Brown, The <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea,<br />
Documents, Cases and Tables, Vol. I, (Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited,<br />
1994);R.R. Churchill & A. V. Lowe The law of the sea, 3 rd Edition, (1999).<br />
8<br />
ibid.<br />
9<br />
UNCLOS Art. 7.<br />
10<br />
Ibid., Art. 10.<br />
11<br />
Ibid., Art. 9.<br />
135
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
12<br />
Ibid., Art. 11 and 12.<br />
13<br />
Ibid., Art. 13.<br />
14<br />
Ibid., Art 7.<br />
15<br />
Ibid., Art 6.<br />
16<br />
R.R. Churchill & A.V.Lowe, The law of the sea, 3rd Edition (1999). p. 33.<br />
17<br />
The Norwegian word ‘skjaergaard’ means rock rampart.<br />
18<br />
Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case, (1951), ICJ Reports, p. 128.<br />
19<br />
Ibid., p. 129.<br />
20<br />
The Court has not listed such states, though among them were Ecuador, Egypt,<br />
Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Yugoslavia. See Whiteman, Volume IV, (1963) p. 148,<br />
cited R.R. Churchill & A. V. Lowe, The law of the sea, 3 rd Edition, (1999), p. 34.<br />
21<br />
ICJ Reports, p. 131.<br />
22<br />
Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, (Geneva 1958), Art.<br />
4. See. E.D. Brown, The <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea, Documents, Cases and<br />
Tables, Vol. II, (Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited, 1994).<br />
23<br />
UNCLOS, Art. 7. ibid.<br />
24<br />
UNCLOS Art. 7(3).<br />
25<br />
UNCLOS Art. 7(3).<br />
26<br />
UNCLOS Art. 7(5).<br />
27<br />
UNCLOS Art. 7(4).<br />
28<br />
UNCLOS Art. 7(6).<br />
29<br />
R.R. Churchill & A. V. Lowe, The law of the sea, 3 rd Edition, (1999), p. 35.<br />
30<br />
One nautical mile totals approx. 1857 meters.<br />
31<br />
R.R. Churchill & A. V. Lowe, The law of the sea, 3 rd Edition, (1999), p. 39.<br />
32<br />
Offi ce of Ocean Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Limits in the Sea, Nos. 14<br />
(Burma), 33 (Philippines), 107 (USSR), 117 (China), 120 (Japan), 121 (South<br />
Korea).<br />
33<br />
R.R. Churchill & A. V. Lowe ‘The law of the sea’3 rd edition, 1999, p. 39<br />
34<br />
Ibid.<br />
35<br />
J. Ashley Roach, Robert W. Smith, Straight Baselines: The Need for a Universally<br />
Applied Norm, US Department of State, Washington, DC, USA, Ocean Developments<br />
& <strong>International</strong> law, (Taylor & Francis, 2000), p. 48.<br />
36<br />
Ibid., p. 49<br />
37<br />
W. Michael Reisman & Gayl S. Westerman, Straight Baselines in <strong>International</strong><br />
Maritime Boundary Delimitation 105 (1992).<br />
38<br />
UNCLOS Art. 14.<br />
39<br />
Legal Division of the Oceans and Airspace, p. 1-4.<br />
40<br />
UNCLOS Art. 47<br />
41<br />
There is one exception where the establishment of a straight baseline in accordance<br />
with the method set forth in Article 7 has the effect of enclosing areas of internal<br />
waters that had not previously been considered as such, and a right of innocent<br />
passage as provided in this Convention shall exist in those waters, UNCLOS<br />
Art. 8(2).<br />
42<br />
UNCLOS Art. 8 provides that the right of innocent passage may be exercised in<br />
internal waters in exceptional cases.<br />
43<br />
Lindy S. Johnson, Coastal State Regulation of <strong>International</strong> Shipping, (Ocean<br />
Publications Inc., 2004), p. 35.<br />
44<br />
A.V. Low, The Rights of Entry into Maritime Ports in <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>, 14 D, San<br />
Diego <strong>Law</strong> Review 597, (1977), p. 606-10.<br />
45<br />
The abilities mentioned include both access to ports and leaving of ports. For<br />
example, see Articles 27(2) and 28(3) of the UN Convention that entitle a coastal<br />
state to carry out actions against a vessel after it leaves the port. In accordance<br />
with Art. 82 of the Maritime Code of Georgia, “All ships, regardless to their nationality<br />
or title over it, are obliged to get consent on leaving from state control service<br />
at the port, before they leave the port.” The Order of Transport Administration No.<br />
136
E. SIRADZE, MARITIME INTERNAL WATERS: DELIMITATION, LEGAL STATUS AND JURISDICTION<br />
75, dated June 15, 20<strong>09</strong>, on Ports Regulations defi nes in detail entry and leaving<br />
Georgian ports. For example, Article 4.9 of these Regulations provides that a<br />
fi shing vessel that does not have fi shing license shall be given written consent on<br />
leaving the port provided its fi shing gear is stored in a manner not to be usable.<br />
46<br />
Lindy S. Johnson, Coastal State Regulation of <strong>International</strong> Shipping, (Ocean<br />
Publications Inc., 2004), p. 36. See also Federal <strong>Law</strong> No. 19 of 1993 of the delimitation<br />
of the maritime zones of the United Arab Emirates, (17 October 1993).<br />
Article 3 provides that the state shall determine the conditions for entry into its<br />
internal waters and shall enforce these conditions against any ship wishing to<br />
enter. United Nations National Legislation – DOALOS/OLA.<br />
47<br />
For example, Georgia used this right in relation to Sokhumi Port. See Ordinance<br />
No. 140 of the President of Georgia, dated January 31, 1996, “on Border and<br />
Customs regime within Abkhazia (Georgia) territory, along Georgian-Russian<br />
border, Sokhumi Port points and area of water,” and Ordinance No. 313 of the<br />
President of Georgia, dated August 3, 2004, on “Protection of Rights of Georgia<br />
in maritime space in Abkhazia region, territorial integrity, sovereignty and security”,<br />
prohibiting navigation in internal waters and the territorial sea across the<br />
Abkhazian coast and in Sokhumi port. The latter is closed for all types of vessels<br />
except humanitarian ones.<br />
48<br />
R.R. Churchill & A. V. Lowe, The law of the sea, 3 rd Edition, (1999), p. 62<br />
49<br />
O’Connell & Shearer, <strong>International</strong> law of the Sea, Vol. II, (Oxford University Press,<br />
USA, 1983), p. 853 and further reading: The Eleanor case (18<strong>09</strong>), Edwards 135.<br />
In this case, Lord Stowell stated that, “…real and irresistible distress must be at<br />
all times a suffi cient passport for human beings under any such application of<br />
human laws…,”; cited Colombos, The <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea (1967), p.<br />
177: Haijiang Yang, Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships<br />
in Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea, Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs,<br />
(2004), p. 64.<br />
50<br />
D.J.Devine, Ships in Distress – a judicial contribution from the South Atlantic,<br />
Marine Policy 20 (1996): 229, 234, cited Lindy S. Johnson, Coastal State<br />
Regulation of <strong>International</strong> Shipping, (Ocean Publications Inc., 2004), p. 37.<br />
51<br />
Kari Hapakaa, Marine Pollution in <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>, (1981), p.163.<br />
52<br />
On November 13, 2002 the authorities of Spain refused to give access to the<br />
tanker Prestige flying the Bahamas Flag that later sank 133 nautical miles from the<br />
Spanish coast, causing grave ecological and economical damage. The salvage<br />
efforts were among the most intensive. Fishing was prohibited for a long time near<br />
the area, within a 555-kilometre radius adjacent to Galicia. Oil tanker sinks off<br />
Spanish coast, guardian.co.uk, Tuesday, 19 November, 2002, 18.39 GMT: IMO<br />
Maritime Knowledge Centre, Information Resources on the “Prestige” (last updated<br />
28 January 2010), at http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_<br />
id%3D27510/Prestige_28January2010_.pdf. Last visited on February 26, 2010.<br />
53<br />
Saudi Arabia v. Aramco, Arbitral Tribunal, 23 August, 1958 [1963] 27 ILR 212,<br />
cited R.R. Churchill & A. V. Lowe, The law of the sea, 3 rd Edition, (1999), p. 61.<br />
54<br />
O’Connell & Shearer, <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea, Oxford University Press, USA,<br />
1983, Volume II, p. 848; R.R. R.R. Churchill & A. V. Lowe, The law of the sea, 3 rd<br />
Edition, (1999), p. 61 and further.<br />
55<br />
Haijiang Yang, Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships in<br />
Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea, Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs,<br />
(2004), p. 53.<br />
56<br />
1923 Geneva Statute on the <strong>International</strong> Regime of Maritime Ports, Art. 2: E.D.<br />
Brown, The <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea, Documents, Cases and Tables, Vol. II,<br />
(Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited, 1994).<br />
57<br />
Haijiang Yang, Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships in<br />
Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea, Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs,<br />
(2004), p. 56.<br />
137
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
58<br />
ICJ Reports (1986), p. 111. This approach was reiterated in Island and Maritime<br />
Frontier Dispute 1992, ICJ Reports (1992), para. 351.<br />
59<br />
Examples: The Agreement between the Government of Georgia and the<br />
Government of the Republic of Greece on Commercial Navigation dated April 10,<br />
1997; the Agreement between the Government of Georgia and the Government<br />
of Romania on Commercial Navigation dated March 26, 1996; the agreement<br />
between the Government of Georgia and the Government of the Federal Republic<br />
of Russia on Commercial Navigation dated March 19, 1996; the Agreement<br />
between the Government of Georgia and the Government of the Republic of<br />
Azerbaijan on Commercial Navigation dated March 8, 1996; the Agreement between<br />
the Government of Georgia and the Government of the Federal Republic<br />
of Germany on Commercial Navigation dated June 25, 1993; the Agreement between<br />
the Government of Georgia and the Government of the People’s Republic<br />
of China on Commercial Navigation dated June 3, 1993; the Agreement between<br />
the Government of Georgia and the Government of Ukraine on Commercial<br />
Navigation dated April 13, 1993.<br />
60<br />
Art. 2 of the Agreement, cited Haijiang Yang, Jurisdiction of the Coastal State<br />
over Foreign Merchant Ships in Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea, Hamburg<br />
Studies on Maritime Affairs, 2004, p. 56.<br />
61<br />
Art. 20(1), cited: E.D. Brown, The <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea, Documents, Cases<br />
and Tables, Vol. I, p. 39. Darthmous Publishing Company Limited, 1994<br />
62<br />
See UN, 1923 Geneva Statute on the <strong>International</strong> Regime of Maritime Ports,<br />
Art. 2: E.D. Brown, The <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea, Documents, Cases and<br />
Tables, Vol. II, (Darthmouth Publishing Company Limited, 1994): Haijiang Yang,<br />
Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships in Internal Waters<br />
and the Territorial Sea, Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs, (2004), p. 56: ICJ<br />
Reports (1986), p. 111. This approach was reiterated in Island and Maritime<br />
Frontier Dispute 1992, ICJ Reports (1992), para. 351.<br />
Ixiii See: footnotes. 57-59.<br />
63<br />
Message from The President of the United States transmitted to the United<br />
Nations Convention on the <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea, with Annexes, adopted in Montego<br />
Bay, December 10, 1982 (The UN Convention), and the Agreement Relating to<br />
The Implementation of Part XI of The United Nations Convention of The <strong>Law</strong> of<br />
the Sea of 10 December, 1982, With Annexes, Adopted in New York, July 28,<br />
1994 (The Agreement), and signed by the United States, subject to ratifi cation<br />
on July 29, 1994; U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 103 D Congress 2d Session,<br />
October 7, 1994, Treaty Doc. 103-39, (Washington: 1994), p. 14.<br />
64<br />
UNCLOS, Art. 211(3).<br />
65<br />
UNCLOS, Part X.<br />
66<br />
UNCLOS, Art. 125(2).<br />
67<br />
Haijiang Yang, Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships in<br />
Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea, Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs,<br />
(2004), p. 61.<br />
68<br />
Lindy S. Johnson, Coastal State Regulation of <strong>International</strong> Shipping, (Ocean<br />
Publications Inc., 2004), p. 54.<br />
69<br />
Haijiang Yang, Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships in<br />
Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea, Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs,<br />
(2004), p. 63.<br />
70<br />
O’Connell & Shearer, <strong>International</strong> law of the Sea Volume II, (Oxford University<br />
Press, USA, 1983), p. 849.<br />
71<br />
Haijiang Yang, Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships in<br />
Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea, Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs,<br />
(2004), p. 86.<br />
72<br />
Haijiang Yang, Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships in<br />
Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea, Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs,<br />
(2004), p. 98.<br />
138
E. SIRADZE, MARITIME INTERNAL WATERS: DELIMITATION, LEGAL STATUS AND JURISDICTION<br />
73<br />
The President of Georgia approves the list of ports open for navigation, in accordance<br />
with Art. 18.2 of the <strong>Law</strong> of Georgia on State Borders. Open ports are:<br />
Poti, Batumi, Supsa, Kulevi. Ordinance of the President of Georgia No. 244 on<br />
Establishment of Supsa Maritime Port and Approval of Open Ports List (codifi<br />
ed).<br />
74<br />
<strong>Law</strong> of Georgia on Maritime Space and <strong>Law</strong> of Georgia on State Border.<br />
75<br />
Article 2(n) of the <strong>Law</strong> of Georgia on State Border defi nes these as follows: any<br />
navigational facility used for scientifi c research or other non-commercial activity.<br />
Most probably the legislator meant “other government ships operated for noncommercial<br />
purposes”, as defi ned in the UN Convention (Articles 31 and 32),<br />
though Georgian does not literally correspond to the conventional defi nition, nor<br />
does it exhaustively defi ne such ships. The <strong>Law</strong> on State Border also refers to<br />
“state and specialized ships used for non-commercial purposes;” this defi nition is<br />
closer to the conventional one.<br />
76<br />
<strong>Law</strong> of Georgia on State Border, Art. 18(3).<br />
77<br />
<strong>Law</strong> of Georgia on State Border, Art. 18(4) and 18(5). Article 11.3 of the <strong>Law</strong> of<br />
Georgia on Maritime Space provides that preliminary consent shall not be necessary<br />
if the head of state, who is on an offi cial visit, is on board. In this case, fi veday<br />
notice should be given. Written consent shall not be necessary if the ship is<br />
in distress.<br />
78<br />
Maritime Code of Georgia, Art. 10.<br />
79<br />
l. aleqsiZe, Tanamedrove saerTaSoriso samarTali, (Tbilisi, 2006), p. 285 and further.<br />
80<br />
Haijiang Yang, Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships in<br />
Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea, Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs,<br />
(2004), p. 61 and further.<br />
81<br />
See Report of ECJ Woodpulp Cases stating that international law recognizes<br />
two principles of jurisdiction – nationality and territorial. Alison Jones and Brenda<br />
Sufrin, EC Competition <strong>Law</strong>: Text, Cases and Materials, p. 1374.<br />
82<br />
Haijiang Yang, Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships in<br />
Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea, Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs,<br />
(2004), p. 61 and further.<br />
83<br />
For example, a ship’s internal regulations or disciplinary rules.<br />
84<br />
So called, FOC – Flag of Convenience – this term is used for open registry fl ags.<br />
85<br />
Panama and Liberia have the largest tonnage, other popular open registry states<br />
are the Marshall Islands, Bahamas, and Seashell Islands. See Lloyds’ <strong>Law</strong> Report<br />
(2002).<br />
86<br />
UNCLOS, Art. 100.<br />
87<br />
UNCLOS Art. 108.<br />
88<br />
UNCLOS Art. 99.<br />
89<br />
Haijiang Yang, Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships in<br />
Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea, Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs,<br />
(2004), p. 34.<br />
90<br />
For example, Boner Amendment to Maritime Code of the USA.<br />
91<br />
For example, see Article 3 of Maritime Code of Georgia excluding warships from<br />
its scope of application.<br />
92<br />
UNCLOS, Art. 32 and Art. 96.<br />
93<br />
Ibid., Art. 30.<br />
94<br />
Ibid.<br />
95<br />
Ibid., Art. 31.<br />
96<br />
See Simmonds, Cases on the <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea, Volume II, p. 56 and further.<br />
97<br />
<strong>International</strong> Convention for the Unifi cation of Certain Rules Concerning The<br />
Immunity of State-Owned Ships, (Brussels, April 10, 1926). Art. 3.1. www.imli.org/<br />
legal_docs/docs/A13.DOC. Last visited on February 27, 2010.<br />
98<br />
See UNCLOS, MARPOL, etc.<br />
139
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
99<br />
R.R. Churchill & A. V. Lowe, The law of the sea, 3 rd Edition, (1999), p. 65.<br />
100<br />
Haijiang Yang, Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships in<br />
Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea, Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs,<br />
(2004), p. 85.<br />
101<br />
R.R. Churchill & A. V. Lowe, The law of the sea, 3 rd Edition, (1999), p. 66 and<br />
further.<br />
102<br />
Ibid.<br />
103<br />
Ibid.<br />
104<br />
Ibid.<br />
105<br />
R.J. Dupuy and D. Vignes, A Handbook on the New <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea, (Dordecht,<br />
Nijhoff, 1991), p. 247 and further.<br />
106<br />
Ibid.<br />
107<br />
SOLAS, STCW (1978), ILO 147.<br />
108<br />
Some states consider pollution a crime. For example, the Federal Republic of<br />
Germany (Art. 29 of the Criminal Code), the Peoples Republic of China (Art. 338<br />
of the Criminal Code), and Georgia (Art. 293 of Criminal Code).<br />
1<strong>09</strong><br />
Art. 30 of the Criminal Code of Georgia.<br />
110<br />
Haijiang Yang, Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships in<br />
Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea, Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs,<br />
(2004), p. 95.<br />
111<br />
Art. 4 of the Criminal Code of Georgia.<br />
112<br />
For example, Art. 16 of the Agreement on Commerce Navigation with Greece,<br />
Art.11 of Agreement with Azerbaijan, Art. 14 of the Agreement with China.<br />
140
sunil kumar agarvali*<br />
`Seucdomlis~ incidenti samxreT CineTis zRvaSi –<br />
sazRvao-samecniero kvlevebis mniSvneloba gaeros 1982<br />
wlis sazRvao samarTlis konvenciis mixedviT<br />
amonaridi<br />
ukanasknel periodSi `Seucdomlis~<br />
incidentma diskusia da mniSvnelovani<br />
akademiuri debatebi gamoiwvia gansakuTrebul<br />
ekonomikur zonaSi sazRvaosamecniero<br />
kvlevebis daregulirebisaTvis<br />
uSualod sanapiro saxelmwifos<br />
iurisdiqciis Taobaze. es dokumenti<br />
samarTlebriv CarCoebs ganixilavs saz-<br />
Rvao-samecniero kvlevebisaTvis, rac<br />
asaxulia gaeros sazRvao samarTlis<br />
ko nvenciaSi (UNCLOS) da ganmartavs<br />
gaeros sazRvao samarTlis konvenciis<br />
mimdinare incidentisaTvis Sesabamis<br />
debulebebs, venis saxelSekrulebo samarTlis<br />
konvenciis safuZvelze. arsebobs<br />
mosazreba, rom `Seucdomlis~ incidents<br />
SeuZlia araswori precedentis<br />
Seqmna, raTa analogiur SemTxvevebSi<br />
moxdes interpretireba nebismieri sxva<br />
saerTaSoriso SeTanxmebebisa, romelTa<br />
mniSvneloba saziano iqneba saerTaSoriso<br />
sazogadoebisaTvis, radgan dainteresebul<br />
qveynebs Soris urTierTobebi<br />
daiZabeba iseT sakiTxebze, romelTac<br />
SeuZliaT saerTaSoriso problemebis<br />
gaRviveba. Sesabamisad, iyo SemoTavazeba,<br />
sakiTxi wamoiwios rogorc gaeros sazRvao<br />
samarTlis konvenciis wevr saxelmwifoTa<br />
Sexvedris (romelsac, Cveulebriv,<br />
iwveven yovelwliurad, april-maisSi)<br />
dRis wesrigis punqti, ra Ta moxdes sazRvao<br />
kvlevebTan dakavSirebuli aspeqtebis<br />
naTelyofa da konsensusis miRweva.<br />
1. Sesavali<br />
20<strong>09</strong> wlis 8 marts, aSS-is samxedrosazRvao<br />
Zalebis xomald `Seucdomlis~<br />
gavlas, romelic axorcielebda hidrolokatoris<br />
wyalqveSa pasiur ope raciebs<br />
da agrovebda akustikur monacemebs<br />
sam xreT CineTis zRvaSi, xeli SeuSales<br />
Cinurma gemebma. arsebobs mosazreba,<br />
rom Cinuri traulerebi xomaldTan axlos<br />
manevrirebdnen, uaxlovdebodnen<br />
daaxloebiT 25 futis manZilze, riTac<br />
xels uSlidnen mis moZraobas. roca `Seucdomeli~<br />
ecada, gascloda maT, ori<br />
Cinuri trauleri gaCerda uSualod xomaldis<br />
win da amgvarad aiZules is, gaCerebuliyo,<br />
raTa Tavidan aecilebina Sejaxeba.<br />
1<br />
es incidenti, romelic moxda hainanis<br />
kunZulis 2 samxreTiT 75 milSi, rogorc<br />
amboben, kulminaciaa im inci dentTa<br />
Tanmimdevrobisa, romelTa monawi<br />
leebi iyvnen `Seucdomeli~ da Cinuri<br />
xomaldebi wina oTxi dRis ganmavlobaSi.<br />
manamde Cinurma fregatma gadakveTa<br />
misi rkali, mas Tan mohyveboda Cinuri<br />
Y-12 AEW (Soreuli Ziebis, saborto)<br />
TviTmfrinavi, romelmac 11-jer gadakveTa<br />
sahaero sivrce xomaldis Tavze.<br />
TiToeuli mxaris mier incidentis calmxrivma<br />
interpretaciam kidev erTxel<br />
wamowia win gaeros sazRvao samarTlis<br />
konvenciaSi xorcSesxmuli sazRvao-samecniero<br />
kvlevebis gadauwyveteli problema.<br />
saerTo jamSi, gamoTqma `sazRvao-same<br />
cniero kvleva~ yvelaze xSirad gamo-<br />
141
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
i yeneba im procesebisa da moqmedebebis<br />
aRsawerad, romlebic xorcieldeba saz-<br />
Rvao garemos samecniero codnis gasaRrmaveblad<br />
da moicavs, inter alia, okeanografias,<br />
sazRvao biologias, sazRvao<br />
qimias, okeanis samecniero mizniთ<br />
burRvasa da amoWras, geologiur da<br />
geofizikur daTvalierebas. 3 sazRvaosamecniero<br />
kvlevebis CatarebisTvis<br />
samarTlebrivi safuZveli aris gaeros<br />
1982 wlis konvencia sazRvao samarT lis<br />
Sesaxeb (SemdgomSi NCLOS), rome l Sic<br />
Camo yalibebulia yovelmxriv samar-<br />
Tleb ri vi reJimi okeaneebisa da zRvebisaTvis,<br />
formulirebulia okeaneTa<br />
zonebSi sa xel mwifoTa uflebebi da movaleobebi.<br />
igi moicavs okeanesTan dakav-<br />
Sirebul yvela moqmedebas, maT Soris<br />
sazRvao-samecniero kvlevebs, 4 aseve<br />
uz ru n vel yofs sanapiro saxelmwifosa-<br />
Tvis sazR vao-samecniero kvlevebze<br />
iuri s diqciis samarTlebriv safuZvels, 5<br />
Tumca auci lebelia sazRvao-samecniero<br />
kvlevebis reguli rebis yovlismomcveli<br />
struqturis Se Tanxmeba, raTa<br />
amoqmeddes saz Rvao-samecniero kvlevebis<br />
reJimi.<br />
incidentma aseve wina planze wamowia<br />
daZabuloba, rasac safuZvlad edo saz-<br />
Rvao teritoriaze sanapiro saxelmwifoTa<br />
mimarT sxva sazRvao saxelmwifoTa<br />
uflebebis gansxvavebuli ganmartebebi.<br />
garda amisa, es faqti CineTsa da aSS-s<br />
Soris ormxriv sazRvao urTierTobebSi<br />
mzardi daZabulobis gamoaSkaravebas<br />
axdens. ra Tqma unda, orive mxare Seecada,<br />
sakuTari moqmedebebi gaemarTlebina<br />
UNCLOS-is debule bebiT. maSasadame,<br />
UNCLOS-i xelsayreli instrumentia imisaTvis,<br />
raTa `Seuc do mlis~ incidentis<br />
Seswavla saerTaSo ri so samarTlis perspeqtividan<br />
moxdes.<br />
am konteqstSi aucilebelia saz R-<br />
vao-samecniero kvlevebis masStabebi sa<br />
da xarisxis gamokvleva UNCLOS-is Tanaxmad,<br />
imisaTvis, rom yuradReba mieqces<br />
sazRvao da sanapiro qveynebis problemebs<br />
gansakuTrebul ekonomikur zonaSi<br />
samxedro moqmedebebisa da sazRvaosamecniero<br />
kvlevebis warmoebis mxriv.<br />
es naSromi uzrunvelyofs sazRvao-samecniero<br />
kvlevebis samarTlebrivi aspeqtis<br />
mokle mimoxilvasa da analizs,<br />
raTa xeli Seuwyos mimdinare debatebs<br />
sazRvao-samecniero kvlevebis reJimis<br />
amoqmedebis problemaTa identificirebaSi.<br />
igi Sedgeba 5 nawilisagan: pirveli<br />
nawili warmogvidgens im problemebs,<br />
romlebic warmoiSva `Seucdomlis` incidentis<br />
gamo; meore nawili ikvlevs<br />
sazRvao-samecniero kvlevebis samarTlebriv<br />
CarCoebs, romlebic uzrunvelyofen<br />
ZiriTad samarTlebriv bazas, rac<br />
ase aucilebelia `Seucdomlis~ incidentis<br />
gasaanalizeblad; mesame nawilSi warmodgenilia<br />
`Seucdomlis~ incidentis<br />
sxvadasxva xedva; UNCLOS-is orazrovani<br />
debulebebis niadagze warmoSobil<br />
sadavo meoTxe nawilSi ki aris mcdeloba,<br />
warmoadginos `Seucdomlis~ incidentis<br />
iuridiuli interpretacia UNCLOS-is<br />
im debulebebis gaTvaliswinebiT, romlebic<br />
exeba sazRvao-samecniero kvlevebs;<br />
mexuTe nawili asrulebs naSroms.<br />
II. sazRvao-samecniero kvlevis<br />
samarTlebrivi CarCo<br />
a. UNCLOS, 1982<br />
gaeros 1982 wlis konvencia sazRvao<br />
samarTlis Sesaxeb UNCLOS ayalibebs<br />
mravalmxriv samarTlebriv reJims<br />
msoflios okeaneebisa da zRvebisaTvis,<br />
axdens sxvadasxva qveynis uflebebisa<br />
da movaleobebis formulirebas sxvadasxva<br />
sazRvao zonaSi 6 , aseve Ria zRvaSi<br />
(romelic Riaa yvela saxelmwifosaTvis)<br />
da faravs okeanesTan dakavSirebul yvela<br />
moqmedebas. 7<br />
sazRvao zonebi<br />
konvenciis mixedviT, sanapiro sa xel<br />
mwifos aqvs sruli ufleba teritoriul<br />
zRvaze, mimdebare zonaze, gansakuTrebul<br />
ekonomikur zonasa da kontinentur<br />
Selfze, romlebzec specifikuri<br />
uflebebi da iurisdiqcia aqvs. es<br />
konvencia aseve gansazRvravs sanapiro<br />
saxelmwifos garkveul movaleobebsa da<br />
valdebulebebs TiToeul am zonaSi, sxva<br />
saxelmwifoebisaTvis SezRuduli uflebebis<br />
miniWebis pirobiT. aqedan gamomdinare,<br />
naTelia, rom saxelmwifoTa mier<br />
okeaneebsa da garkveul zonebTan<br />
142
sunil kumar agarvali, `Seucdomlis~ incidenti samxreT CineTis zRvaSi – sazRvao-samecniero...<br />
da kavSirebuli uflebebis moTxovna da<br />
ganxorcieleba unda moxdes UNCLOS-is<br />
Tanaxmad 8 da es aseve unda aisaxebodes<br />
maT Sida kanonmdeblobaSi.<br />
garkveuli gamonaklisebiT, rac navigaciasTanaa<br />
dakavSirebuli, sanapiro<br />
saxelmwifo axorcielebs suverenitets<br />
Tavis teritoriul zRvaze, maT Soris iq<br />
arsebul cocxal, aracocxal resursebze.<br />
sanapiro saxelmwifoebma SeiZleba<br />
gansazRvron mimdebare zona, romelic<br />
ar unda iyos 24 sazRvao milze meti im<br />
sawyisi zolidan, saidanac teritoriuli<br />
zRva izomeba. 9<br />
teritoriuli zRvis miRma saxelmwifoebs<br />
SeuZliaT gansazRvron gansakuTrebuli<br />
ekonomikuri zona, 10 romelic<br />
ar unda aRematebodes 200 sazRvao<br />
mils im sawyisi xazidan, saidanac iTvleba<br />
teritoriuli zRvis sigane. 11 gansakuTrebuli<br />
ekonomikuri zona eqvemdebareba<br />
garkveul samarTlebriv reJims,<br />
romlis mixedviTac sanapiro saxelmwifos<br />
aqvs suverenuli uflebebi, gamoikvlios<br />
da moaxdinos eqspluatacia,<br />
daicvas da marTos am wylebis qveS moqceuli<br />
bunebrivi resursebi (cocxali<br />
da aracocxali), aseve zRvis fskeri da<br />
wiaRiseuli. amas garda, sanapiro saxelmwifos<br />
aqvs xelovnuri kunZulebis, nagebobebisa<br />
da struqturebis Seqmnisa da<br />
gamoyenebis, aseve sazRvao-samecniero<br />
kvlevebisa da sazRvao garemos dacvisa<br />
da SenarCunebis iurisdiqcia. 12<br />
b. sazRvao-samecniero kvleva<br />
UNCLOS-i aseve uzrunvelyofs saz<br />
Rvao-samecniero kvlevebis sa marTle<br />
briv safuZvels, maT Soris sa napiro<br />
saxelmwifos iurisdiqcias saz Rvao-samecniero<br />
kvlevebis daregu li rebaze.<br />
UNCLOS-is me-13 nawili mo icavs debulebebs<br />
(238-e muxlidan 265-amde), romlebic<br />
exeba sazRvao-samecniero kvlevebs<br />
da Sedgenilia saerTaSoriso<br />
TanamSromlobis xelSewyobis mizniT.<br />
debulebebi informaciis mSvidobiani<br />
miznebisaTvis Segrovebisa da interpretaciis<br />
gaumjobesebis mniSvnelovani<br />
mcdelobaa. Tumca dava am debulebebis<br />
ganmartebis Taobaze seriozulad aferxebs<br />
sazRvao-samecniero kvlevebTan<br />
mi marTebiT sazRvao samarTlis sayovelTaod<br />
aRiarebas. `Seucdomlis~ incidenti<br />
xazs usvams im problemebs, romlebmac<br />
xeli SeuSales UNCLOS-is mier<br />
Camoyalibebuli sazRvao-samecniero<br />
kvlevebis reJimis danergvas da aseve<br />
saxelmwifoTa Soris konsensusis naklebobas<br />
sazRvao-samecniero kvlevebis<br />
Taobaze. am konteqstSi es ganyofileba<br />
ikvlevs sazRvao-samecniero kvlevebis<br />
samarTlebriv CarCoebs, rogorc gansaz-<br />
Rvrulia UNCLOS-Si.<br />
sazRvao-samecniero kvlevebis<br />
ganmarteba<br />
sazRvao-samecniero kvlevebis arsi,<br />
misi Cveulebrivi, bunebrivi mniSvnelobiT<br />
SeiZleba ganimartos rogorc samecniero<br />
kvlevebis nebismieri forma, fundamenturi<br />
an gamoyenebiTi, rac exeba<br />
sazRvao garemos. Tumca UNCLOS-i, faqtobrivad,<br />
ar iZleva terminis `sazRvaosamecniero<br />
kvlevebis~ gansazRvrebas.<br />
ase Ti gansazRvreba aucileblad moicavda<br />
Tavis TavSi resursebis sazRvao kvlevasa<br />
da eqspluatacias, rac xorcieldeba<br />
sazRvao garemos SenarCunebis miz<br />
niT. okeaneebis usafrTxo da ekonomikuri<br />
gamoyeneba da misi resursebis<br />
SenarCuneba damokidebulia samecniero<br />
kvlevebis zust, Sesabamis da sa-<br />
Tanado samecniero kvlevebze. okeanidan<br />
miRebul codnas didi mniSvneloba<br />
aqvs mecnierebisa da medicinisaTvis,<br />
agreTve gamoyenebiTi mecnierebisa da<br />
teqnologiebisaTvis. sazRvao-samecni e-<br />
ro kvle vebis mniSvneloba ar unda dar-<br />
Ces Seufasebeli. maszea damokidebuli,<br />
upirveles yovlisa, gamokvlevebi da<br />
maragsa da mineralur resursebze kontroli<br />
da, Sesabamisad, igi zemoqmedebas<br />
axdens qveynebis ekonomikur ganviTarebaze.<br />
Tumca Cans, rom axlo warsulSi<br />
sazRvao-samecniero kvlevebs iyenebdnen<br />
rogorc mizezs okeaneebSi samxedro<br />
dakvirvebebis Casatareblad. sazRvaosamecniero<br />
kvlevebis arsi arc ise Soreul<br />
warsulSi borotad iqna gamoyenebuli,<br />
rogorc niRabi sanapiro saxelmwifos<br />
gansakuTrebul ekonomikur zonaSi<br />
samxedro moqmedebebis gansaxorcieleblad.<br />
`Seucdomlis~ incidenti xazs<br />
143
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
usvams qveynebis sadavo moTxovnebs saz -<br />
Rvao-samecniero kvlevebis diapazonis<br />
Taobaze. aRsaniSnavia, rom orive mxare,<br />
aSS-ic da CineTic, cdilobdnen, am incidentis<br />
dros TavianTi moqmedebebi gaemarTlebinaT<br />
UNCLOS-is debulebebis<br />
citirebiT. 13 anomaliebi sadavo moTxovnebSi<br />
asaxaven sazRvao kvlevebTan dakav-<br />
Sirebul debulebaTa interpretaciebis<br />
simravles, rac gamowveulia zusti gansazRvrebis<br />
ararsebobiT. Sesabamisad,<br />
ar se bobs yovlismomcveli meqanizmis<br />
mwva ve saWiroeba sazRvao-samecniero<br />
kvle vebis dasaregulireblad, yvela mxare<br />
qveynis moTxovnaTa dasakmayofileblad.<br />
sazRvao-samecniero kvlevebis debulebaTa<br />
danergva mTavari problemis<br />
gadawyvetis gasaRebia.<br />
mSvidobiani miznebi<br />
mSvidobiani miznebis arsi 1982 wlis<br />
UNCLOS-is, kerZod ki sazRvao-samecniero<br />
kvlevebis, qvakuTxedia. miuxedavad<br />
amisa, es sakvanZo principi srulad<br />
arasodes gansazRvrula. wesiT, es<br />
Camoyalibebuli unda iyos 240-e da 246-<br />
e(3) muxlebSi, magram yovelmxrivi formula<br />
ver Camoyalibda sazRvao qveynebis<br />
mxridan survilis ararsebobis gamo.<br />
cneba SemoiRes sazRvao-samecniero<br />
kvlevebTan mimarTebiT, raTa sanapiro<br />
saxelmwifoebTan momxdariyo garigeba<br />
da mimarTulia gansakuTrebul ekonomikur<br />
zonaSi samxedro manevrebis gasakontroleblad.<br />
Tumca misi farglebi<br />
arasodes gansazRvrula sxvadasxva sazRvao<br />
qveynis Sexedulebis gamo, romlebic<br />
amtkicebdnen, rom mSvidobiani samxedro<br />
moqmedebebi saerTaSoriso samarTliT<br />
ar ikrZaleboda. UNCLOS-Si `nebismieri<br />
mSvidobiani miznis~ interpretaciam<br />
migviyvana misi ganmartebebis srul<br />
SeuTanxmeblobamde. Semdgom samxedro<br />
moqmedebebis diapazonma gamoiwvia mniSvnelovani<br />
debatebi 58-e muxlis interpretaciis<br />
gamo da urTierTgansxvavebuli<br />
Sexedulebebi, romlebic exeboda<br />
saxelmwifo praqtikis ganviTarebas gansakuTrebul<br />
ekonomikur zonaSi ganumartav<br />
(darCenil) uflebebTan dakavSirebiT.<br />
gansakuTrebiT sadavo aRmoCnda moqmedebebi,<br />
rogorebicaa: samxedro TvalTvali<br />
da samxedro varjiSebi. aris mosazreba,<br />
rom sanapiro saxelmwifoebs ar gaaCniaT<br />
aranairi iurisdiqcia, SezRudon raime<br />
saxis samxedro moqmedebebi, Tuki isini,<br />
gaeros qartiis me-2(4) muxlis Tanaxmad,<br />
ar miekuTvnebian iseT qmedebebs, rogoricaa:<br />
`safrTxe an Zalis gamoyeneba~.<br />
mas Semdeg, rac gavecaniT UNCLOS-<br />
Si Camoyalibebuli sazRvao-samecniero<br />
kvlevis Sesaxeb debulebebiT dawesebul<br />
farglebsa da SezRudvebs, Semdgomi<br />
nawili uzrunvelyofs `Seucdomlis~ incidentis<br />
mokle mimoxilvasa da sxvadasxva<br />
interpretacias, romlebmac wina planze<br />
wamowia am debulebebis orazrovneba.<br />
III. `Seucdomlis~ incidenti:<br />
Sexedulebebi sazRvao-samecniero<br />
kvlevaze<br />
a. CineTis Sexeduleba<br />
UNCLOS-is Cinuri interpretacia<br />
CineTis pozicia UNCLOS-is mixedviT<br />
sazRvao-samecniero kvlevebis reJimis<br />
Taobaze Semdegia, rom, misi Tanxmobis<br />
gareSe, gansakuTrebuli ekonomikuri<br />
zonis gamoyeneba arasamSvidobo miznebisaTvis<br />
aris arakanonieri. es moicavs<br />
gansakuTrebul ekonomikur zonaSi sagareo<br />
samxedro da eleqtronuli sadazvervo<br />
informaciis mogrovebas, aseve<br />
sazRvao-samecniero kvlevebs arasamSvidobo<br />
mizniT. CineTi amtkicebs, rom ucxo<br />
qveynis mier sanapiro qveynis uflebebis<br />
`saTanado pativiscemis~ valdebuleba<br />
upiratesia, vidre sanapiro saxelmwifos<br />
mier ucxo saxelmwifos uflebebis<br />
pativiscema. igive principi gamoiyeneba,<br />
roca vxvdebiT situaciur Sejaxebebs<br />
samamulo da ucxour safren aparatebsa<br />
da xomaldebs Soris gansakuTrebul<br />
ekonomikur zonaSi, Tumca CineTi namdvilad<br />
aRiarebs, rom ar arsebobs aseTi<br />
urTierTqmedebebis raime erTgvarovani<br />
regulireba. iqidan gamomdinare, rom<br />
am problemas ar gaaCnia gamartivebuli<br />
an ukve mza mogvarebis gzebi, saerTa-<br />
Soriso samarTlis gansxvavebuli interpretaciebisa<br />
da sxva sirTuleebis gamo,<br />
aucilebelia, Camoyalibdes erTgvarovani<br />
wesi gansakuTrebuli ekonomikuri<br />
zonis samarTavad, raTa Tavidan iqnes<br />
acilebuli situaciebi, romlebsac SeuZ-<br />
144
sunil kumar agarvali, `Seucdomlis~ incidenti samxreT CineTis zRvaSi – sazRvao-samecniero...<br />
liaT konfliqtis gaRviveba.<br />
CineTis samarTali<br />
CineTi 1992 wels `teritoriuli<br />
zRve bisa da mimdebare zonis Sesaxeb~ kanonis<br />
miRebiT ecada, moexdina UNCLOSisa<br />
da misi debulebebis Taviseburi interpretacia,<br />
raTa gaefarToebina saz-<br />
Rvao kontrolis rai o ni. es kanoni isea<br />
formulirebuli, rom uzrunvelyos samarTlebrivi<br />
bazisi CineTisaTvis Tavis<br />
teritoriul wylebze suverenitetisa<br />
da momijnave zonebze iurisdiqciis gansaxorcieleblad<br />
da Tavisi sazRvao interesebisa<br />
da uflebebis dasacavad. 14<br />
Semdgom CineTma miiRo `gansakuTrebuli<br />
ekonomikuri zonisa da kontinenturi<br />
Selfis aqti, 1998~ gansakuTrebul<br />
ekonomikur zonaSi da kontinentur<br />
Selfze Tavisi suverenuli uf lebebisa<br />
da iurisdiqciis da sacavad da CineTis<br />
sazRvao uf lebebisa da interesebis dasacavad.<br />
15<br />
CineTis pretenziebi (moTxovnebi) sam<br />
xreT CineTis zRvaSi – bolo movlenebi<br />
samxreT CineTis zRvis xangrZlivi,<br />
gadauwyveteli davebi sazRvao usafr T-<br />
xoebis sakiTxs sakmaod asustebs. yvela<br />
qveyana, romelic esazRvreba am zRvas,<br />
anu: CineTi, filipinebi, taivani, vietnami,<br />
malaizia da brunei iTxovdnen spartlis<br />
yvela an zogierT patara kunZuls<br />
da mTel an nawil sazRvao sivrcesa da<br />
resursebs. zogierTi zemoaRniSnuli<br />
qve yana ase ve pretenzias acxadeb da paraselis<br />
kunZulebzec. CineTi yvelaze<br />
didi Zala da mTavari moTamaSea raionSi<br />
da, aqedan gamomdinare, cdilobs, ipovos<br />
gamosavali, romelic yvelaze metad misaRebi<br />
iqneba misTvis.<br />
aRsaniSnavia, rom filipi nebis kongresma<br />
miiRo 20<strong>09</strong> wlis sawyisi (sabaziso)<br />
xazebis kanonproeqti, `Seucdomlis~<br />
in cidentamde ramdenime dRiT adre. es<br />
kanonproeqti afarToebda arqipelagis<br />
teritorias da moicavda Huangyan-is<br />
kunZulsa da Nansha-s (spartlis jgufidan)<br />
kunZulis na wils da mis mixedviT,<br />
fili pi nebi am raions miakuTvnebda sakuTar<br />
gansakuTrebul ekonomikur zonas.<br />
CineTis sagareo saqmeTa ministrma<br />
dauyovnebliv gamoTqva mkacri protesti<br />
da filipinebis pretenzias uwoda<br />
`arakanonieri da gauqmebuli~. imisaTvis,<br />
rom gaemyarebina Tavisi suverenuli<br />
moTxovna, 20<strong>09</strong> wlis aprilSi CineTis<br />
erT-erTi yvelaze didi sapatrulo gemi<br />
“Yuzheng 311” gaigzavna sadavo paraselis<br />
kunZulebis garSemo patrulirebisaTvis.<br />
CineTma aseve SemoiRo saerTo<br />
saTevzao akrZalva samxreT CineTis zRvaSi,<br />
romelic ZalaSi Sevida 20<strong>09</strong> wlis<br />
16 aprils. mis miznad ganisazRvra sazRvao<br />
garemos dacva im raionSi da 8 sapatrulo<br />
xomaldi gaigzavna, raTa moexdinaT<br />
samxreT CineTis zRvis 128000 km²-is<br />
monitoringi. 16 am nabijis mniSvnelovani<br />
niuansi iyo samxreT CineTis kunZulebze<br />
misi udavo suverenitetis gaZliereba,<br />
maT Soris Xisha-sa (paraselis) da<br />
Nansha-s (spartlis) kunZulebsa da maT<br />
momijnave wylebze, rogorc mis sakuTar<br />
teritoriul wylebze. 17<br />
CineTis mTavrobam, romelsac Ses-<br />
Ta vazes, saerTaSorisod ganexila es<br />
sa kiTxi, 20<strong>09</strong> wlis 7 maiss gaeros ge neraluri<br />
mdivanisadmi gagzavnil SetyobinebaSi<br />
18 araorazrovnad, oficialurad<br />
kidev erTxel daadastura Tavisi udavo<br />
suvereniteti samxreT CineTis zRvasa da<br />
momijnave wylebSi arsebul kunZulebze.<br />
SetyobinebaSi Camoyalibebuli iyo, rom<br />
Indicates the<br />
limits of Chinese<br />
145
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
`CineTi flobda suverenul uflebebsa<br />
da iurisdiqcias samxreT CineTis zRvasa<br />
da mis momijnave wylebSi, iseve, rogorc<br />
zRvis fskersa da mis niadagqveS~. CineTis<br />
mTavrobam Setyobinebas rukac 19 daurTo,<br />
raTa daemtkicebina Tavisi moTxovna. am<br />
rukis asli warmodgenilia.<br />
is faqti, rom 20<strong>09</strong> wlis 8 marts moxda<br />
`Seucdomlis~ incidenti, mxolod<br />
fonia im daZabuli urTierTobebisa, rac<br />
Sedegad mosdevda axlo warsulSi mimdinare<br />
brZolebs samxreT CineTis zRvaSi<br />
iurisdiqciis moTxovnis Taobaze da rac<br />
sabolood gadaizarda CineTsa da aSS-s<br />
Soris seriozul SejaxebaSi CineTis hainanisa<br />
da paraselis kunZulebs Sua teritoriaze.<br />
a. aSS-is Sexeduleba<br />
`Seucdomlis~ incidentis Sedegad<br />
mTel msoflioSi mecnierebma da mkvlevrebma<br />
sadavo interpretaciebi wamoayenes.<br />
am incidentis zogierT mimoxilvaSi<br />
iyo mcdeloba, aSS-is moqmedeba gaemar-<br />
Tlebina da, amave dros, Ziri gamoeTxara<br />
CineTis mtkicebulebebisaTvis. arsebobda<br />
mtkiceba, romlis mixedviT CineTis<br />
moqmedebaTa mniSvneloba gansazRvruli<br />
iyo im did pretenziaSi, rom saerTaSoriso<br />
samarTali Tavs aridebs mSvidobian,<br />
mastabilizebel samxedro moqmedebebs,<br />
romlebsac `Seucdomeli~ axorcielebda<br />
Se sabamisad. isini sakiTxs ayeneben Semde<br />
g nairad: saerTaSoriso samarTali unda<br />
ganimartos rogorc nebarTva mSvidobiani<br />
miznebisaTvis zRvis samxedro<br />
gamoyenebis Taobaze, Tu piriqiT, samar-<br />
Tali garkveulwilad xels uSlis xelmisawvdomobas,<br />
anu erov nul usafrTxoebaze<br />
orientirebuli interpretacia,<br />
romlis SemoRebis mcdelobac hqonda<br />
CineTs. 20<br />
amerikuli mxaris Sexeduleba amtki<br />
cebs, rom sadazvervo informaciis mo -<br />
poveba da sxva samxedro moqmedebebi<br />
sruliad kanonieria amJamindeli sazRvao<br />
samarTlis mixedviT. rogorc UNCLOS-i<br />
gansazRvravs, sanapiro saxelmwifos<br />
iurisdiqcia moicavs sazRvao-samecniero<br />
kvlevebs, magram zRudavs am iurisdiqcias,<br />
radgan ar ganmartavs te rminebs:<br />
`sazRvao-samecniero kvleva~ da `hidrografiuli<br />
kvleva~. maTi mtk i cebiT, imis<br />
gamo, rom saerTaSoriso sa marTali fundamenturad<br />
uaryofiT moqmedebs, aqedan<br />
gamomdinare, radga nac saerTaSoriso samarTlis<br />
uflebamosileba (Zalaufleba)<br />
ar uaryofs am mo qmedebas, Sesabamisad,<br />
igi nebadarTulia. 21<br />
amerikelebi davoben, rom daTvaliereba<br />
(gamokvleva) Ria zRvis erT-er-<br />
Ti Tavisuflebaa da xomaldebs saSualebas<br />
aZlevs, Seiswavlon sazRvao garemo.<br />
iqidan gamomdinare, rom konvencia icavs<br />
yvela qveynis uflebas, Tavis Tavze<br />
aiRon sxva Ria zRvebis Tavisuflebebi,<br />
rolebic specifikurad mikuTvnebuli<br />
ar aris romelime sanapiro saxelmwifosaTvis,<br />
hidrografiuli kvlevebi (daTvaliereba)<br />
ver iqneba sanapiro saxelmwifos<br />
kanonebiT daregulirebuli. garda<br />
amisa, sadazvervo informaciis mopoveba<br />
meore qveynis gansakuTrebul ekonomikur<br />
zonaSi aris manamde arsebuli Ria<br />
zRvebis erT-erTi Tavisufleba. 22<br />
is argumenti, rom sadazvervo informaciis<br />
mopoveba arRvevs UNCLOSis<br />
muxls `samSvidobo miznebis~ Sesaxeb,<br />
uaryofilia kontrargumentiT, rom am<br />
muxliT arasodes ar yofila ganzraxuli,<br />
dawesebuliyo ufro maRali moTxovnebi<br />
saxelmwifoebis qcevaze, vidre es<br />
Camoyalibebulia gaeros qartiaSi.<br />
iqmneba STabeWdileba, rom sazRvaosamecniero<br />
kvlevebis mimarT aSS-is midgomis<br />
miRma faru li gegma aris iseTi pirobebis<br />
Seqmna, ro mlis drosac mis sazRvao<br />
Zalebs Se eZ lebaT zRvaSi, TavianTi interesis<br />
raionSi imoqmedon Tavisuflad,<br />
ise, rom xeli ar SeeSaloT menevrirebis<br />
Ta vi suflebasa da misawvdomobaSi. am mizniT<br />
amerikuli strategia iTvaliswinebs<br />
SesaZleblobebis ganviTarebas, raTa moaxdinos<br />
zRvis saTanado kontroli, an<br />
calmxrivad an megobar qvey nebTan er-<br />
Tad. 23<br />
UNCLOS-is mimarT aSS-is midgomis<br />
arsi gamagrebulia misi `sazRvao strategiuli<br />
koncefciiT~, romelic cdilobs,<br />
ganuwyvetlad ganalagos mniSvnelovani<br />
sabrZolo Zala dasavleT wynar okeane-<br />
Si, raTa moaxdinos mowinaaRmdegeebisa<br />
da konkurentebis SeCereba da maTi azris<br />
Secvla. 24 didi warmosaxvis unari<br />
146
sunil kumar agarvali, `Seucdomlis~ incidenti samxreT CineTis zRvaSi – sazRvao-samecniero...<br />
araa saWiro imis gamosacnobad, rom aSS<br />
CineTs ganixilavs rogorc mowinaaRmdegesa<br />
da konkurents.<br />
kidev erTi Tvalsazrisi aseve fokusirebulia<br />
CineTis araswor poziciaze<br />
UNCLOS-is mimarT, romlis mixedviTac<br />
`UNCLOS-i sanapiro saxelmwifosaTvis<br />
suverenitetis magier mxolod ekonomikur<br />
suverenul uflebebs adasturebs~.<br />
amgvarad, sanapiro saxelmwifo ver ereva<br />
sxva erebis xomaldebis araekonomikur<br />
saqmianobaSi, radgan, UNCLOS-is Ta naxmad,<br />
gansakuTrebuli ekonomikuri zona<br />
unda ganixilebodes, rogorc Ria zRva<br />
yvela qveynis xomaldebisaTvis, maT Soris<br />
araekonomikuri saqmianobis dros.<br />
ami tom, CineTis aqcentireba UNCLOS-is<br />
mimarT, aSS-is xomaldis dadanaSa u lebiT,<br />
ar iyo xomaldebis moqmedebebisaTvis<br />
xelis SeSlis dakanonebis Sesabamisi<br />
gza, miuxedavad im debulebebisa, rac<br />
Camoyalibebulia CineTis Sida kanonmdeblobaSi.<br />
25<br />
`Seucdomlis~ incidentis kidev er-<br />
Ti interpretacia cdilobs, mxari dauWiros<br />
amerikis moqmedebebs, insinuaciiT,<br />
rom gansakuTrebul ekonomikur<br />
zonaSi sxvadasxva mxaris uflebebisa<br />
da movaleobebis gansxvavebuli aRqma<br />
yvelafris sawyisi mizezia, radgan gansakuTrebuli<br />
ekonomikuri zona axali<br />
cnebaa, im faqtis gaTvaliswinebiT, rom<br />
UNCLOS-i miRebul iqna mxolod 1982<br />
wels. meore argumenti, wamoweuli amerikuli<br />
gemis moqmedebebis mxardasaWerad,<br />
aris is, rom es iyo Ria zRvis navigaciis<br />
Tavisuflebis specialurad gafarToebuli<br />
nawili gansakuTrebul ekonomikur<br />
zonamde da moqmedebebi ar unda yofiliyo<br />
aRqmuli rogorc `sazRvao-samecniero<br />
kvlevebi~ UNCLOS-is Tanaxmad. 26<br />
Tumca argumentTa es tipebi UNCLOSis<br />
gadametebul interpretacias utoldeba.<br />
garda amisa, am argumentebs safuZvlad<br />
udevs mcdeloba, UNCLOS-is samarTlebriv<br />
enas mieces iseTi forma, rom<br />
moergos konkretul xedvas, magram ver<br />
moaxerxes CamoeyalibebinaT gansazRvruli<br />
interpretacia. aucilebe lia aRiniSnos,<br />
saerTaSoriso SeTan xmebaTa debulebebi<br />
ar kargaven Zalas mxolod im<br />
mizeziT, rom isini axali konvenciis<br />
na wilebia. ufro metic, saerTaSoriso<br />
SeTanxmebebi miiReba suverenul saxelmwifoebs<br />
Soris wlobiT molaparakebebis<br />
Semdeg da xelmZRvaneloben principiT:<br />
`xelSekrulebebi unda sruldebodes~. 27<br />
IV. `Seucdomlis~ incidentis<br />
interpretacia<br />
a. interpretaciis<br />
daregulirebuli principi<br />
UNCLOS-is XIII nawilis mixedviT,<br />
yve la qveyanas aqvs ufleba, ganaxorcielos<br />
sazRvao-samecniero kvlevebi, romlebic<br />
emorCileba sxva qveynebis uflebebsa<br />
da movaleobebs. 28 es aris statutis<br />
interpretaciis myari principi –<br />
wakiTxul iqnes rogorc erTi mTliani. 29<br />
amitom sazRvao-samecniero kvlevebTan<br />
dakavSirebuli debulebebi, rogorc Camoyalibebulia<br />
UNCLOS-Si, wakiTxul<br />
da gamoyenebul unda iqnes mTlianad.<br />
saxelmwifoebs ar unda SeewyoT xeli,<br />
aarCion UNCLOS-is debulebaTa garkveuli<br />
sferoebi da nawilebi, romlebic maT-<br />
Tvis misaRebia sazRvao garemos sadavo<br />
moTxovnebis dasakmayofileblad.<br />
aRsaniSnavia, rom UNCLOS-is mo nawile<br />
saxelmwifoebs Soris davebi, romlebic<br />
exeba UNCLOS-is interpretaciebs,<br />
unda regulirdebodes mSvidobiani<br />
gzebiT im procedurebis Tanaxmad,<br />
romlebsac Sedegad ar mohyveba savaldebulo<br />
gadawyvetilebebi 30 da mesame<br />
mxaris mogvarebis procedurebi, romlebsac<br />
savaldebulo gadawyvetilebebi<br />
axlavs Tan. 31<br />
b. `Seucdomlis~ incidentis<br />
unikaluroba<br />
`Seucdomlis~ incidentis unikaluroba<br />
aris is, rom CineTi UNCLOS-is we v-<br />
ria, aSS ki ara. es niSnavs, rom dava aSS-sa da<br />
CineTs Soris, romelic sazRvao-samecniero<br />
kvlevebis farglebis interpretacias<br />
exeba, ver gadawydeba 1982 wlis UNCLOSis<br />
mier warmodgenili davebis mogvarebis<br />
meqanizmiT. amgvarad, am incidentis<br />
unikaluroba Zirs iTxris UNCLOS-is<br />
locus standi, rogorc samarTlebrivi reJimisa,<br />
raTa yovelmxriv ga umklavdes, erTi<br />
mxriv, aSS-sa da, meore mxriv, im sanapiro<br />
147
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
saxelmwifos Soris sazRvao-samecniero<br />
kvlevebis Sesaxeb Se Tanxmebis dar-<br />
Rvevebs, romlebic UNCLOS-is mxareebi<br />
(xelmomwerebi) arian.<br />
g. `Seucdomlis~ unikaluri<br />
reJimis saWiroeba<br />
naTelia, rom UNCLOS-Si Camoyalibebuli<br />
sazRvao-samecniero kvlevebis<br />
reJimis farglebis Sesaxeb gansxvavebuli<br />
warmodgenebidan gamomdinare, `ganxeTqilebis<br />
vaSli~ aris sazRvao-samecniero<br />
kvlevebis ganmarteba. aRsaniSnavia,<br />
rom sadavo sakiTxis ganmarteba myari<br />
sawyisi wertilia mis farglebze debatebis<br />
dasawyebad. UNCLOS-i ar azustebs<br />
`sazRvao-samecniero kvlevebis~ mniSvnelobas.<br />
es situacia, Tavis mxriv, uzrunvelyofs<br />
farTo SesaZleblobebs modave<br />
saxelmwifoebisaTvis, anu CineTisa da<br />
aSS-isaTvis am konkretul SemTxvevaSi,<br />
raTa maT gamoTqvan sakuTari Sexeduleba<br />
UNCLOS-is monawile qveynebis<br />
uf lebebsa da movaleobebze, rac maTive<br />
interesebiTaa gamyarebuli. Semdeg<br />
ikveTeba tendencia imisa, rom moxdes am<br />
samarTlebrivi sakiTxis aSS-sa da CineTs<br />
Soris politikur problemaSi gadazrda.<br />
es SeiZleba aseve gadaiqces UNCLOSis<br />
monawile qveynebis mier misi, rogorc<br />
okeaneTa marTvis yovelmxrivi reJimis<br />
avtoritetis, eWvqveS dayenebis precedentad.<br />
`Seucdomlis incidenti~, amgvarad,<br />
xazs usvams sazRvao-samecniero<br />
kvlevebis unikaluri reJimis Sesaxeb molaparakebebis<br />
aucileblobas sanapiro<br />
saxelmwifos gansakuTrebul ekonomiku r<br />
zonaSi UNCLOS-Tan SeTanxmebiT sa me c-<br />
niero kvlevebis daregulirebisaTvis.<br />
V. daskvna<br />
`Seucdomlis~ incidentis arsebu l<br />
analizs wina planze gamoaqvs aSS-Cine Tis<br />
interesTa konfliqti samxreT Ci ne Tis<br />
zRvaSi 1982 wlis UNCLOS-is mier warmo-<br />
Sobili orazrovnebebis gamo. UNCLOS-i<br />
ayalibebs sayovelTao samarTlebriv<br />
reJims msoflios okeaneebisa da zRvebisaTvis<br />
sxvadasxva saokeano zonaSi<br />
myofi saxelmwifoebis uflebebisa da<br />
movaleobebis gansaxierebiT da moicavs<br />
okeaneebTan dakavSirebul yvela moqmedebas,<br />
maT Soris sazRvao-samecniero<br />
kvlevebs, axdens saxelmwifoTa sazRvao<br />
meTodebis kodifikaciis ilustrirebas.<br />
am samarTlebrivi reJimis arsi isaa, rom<br />
saxelmwifoTa mier uflebebis moTxovna<br />
unda eqvemdebarebodes Tanmxlebi valdebulebebis<br />
Sesrulebas, rogorc es<br />
UNCLOS-Sia gaTvaliswinebuli. igi axorcielebs<br />
sazRvao sivrceze saxelmwifoTa<br />
uflebebsa da movaleobebs.<br />
UNCLOS-i, inter alia, sazRvao-samecniero<br />
kvlevebisaTvis saxelmwifoTaTvis<br />
ayalibebs iurisdiqcias, uflebebsa<br />
da movaleobebs. aSkaraa, rom sazRvaosamecniero<br />
kvlevebis reJimi, rogorc es<br />
ganxorcielebulia UNCLOS-Si, mgrZnobiarea<br />
saxelmwifoTaTvis, TavianTi interesebisa<br />
da problemebis Sesabamisad,<br />
sxvadasxva interpretaciis mimarT. saz<br />
Rvao-samecniero kvlevebis konkretul<br />
sakvanZo sakiTxebze orazrovneba,<br />
anu sazRvao-samecniero kvlevebisa da<br />
sanapiro saxelmwifos gansakuTrebuli<br />
ekonomikuri zonis gansazRvreba da farglebi,<br />
uzrunvelyofs Semwynareblur<br />
damokidebulebas qveynebis mimarT, ra-<br />
Ta maT isargeblon darRvevebiT da aRmoCndnen<br />
omis zRvarze, rogorc amis<br />
TviTmxilvelebi gavxdiT `Seucdomlis~<br />
incidentis dros.<br />
`Seucdomlis~ incidents SeuZlia daarRvios<br />
sanapiro da sxva sazRvao saxelmwifoTa<br />
UNCLOS-Si Camoyali bebuli<br />
uflebebisa da movaleobebis aramyari<br />
wo nasworoba. ufro metic, mas ufro<br />
Sorsmimavali qveteqstebic aqvs saxelmwifoTa<br />
Soris TanamSromlobisaTvis,<br />
sa erTaSoriso yuradRebis sxva sfero e-<br />
bisadmi mimarTvisaTvis, maT Soris saz-<br />
Rvao-samecniero kvlevebis sferosa dmi.<br />
amgvarad, aSkaraa, rom arsebobs sa zRvaosamecniero<br />
kvlevebis reJimis xelaxali<br />
gadaxedvis aucilebloba sazRvao kvlevebSi<br />
momxdari bolo mo v lenebis gamo.<br />
sazRvao-samecniero kvlevebSi maRali<br />
teqnologiebis gamovlena da gamoyeneba,<br />
rac UNCLOS-is ZalaSi Sesvlisas ar iyo<br />
gaTvaliswinebuli, didi gamowvevebis<br />
winaSe ayenebs yovelmxrivi maregulirebeli<br />
reJimis SemoRebas, rac SeiZleba misaRebi<br />
iyos mimdinare dros. im dros, roca<br />
148
sunil kumar agarvali, `Seucdomlis~ incidenti samxreT CineTis zRvaSi – sazRvao-samecniero...<br />
mecniereba da teqnologiebi viTardeba<br />
Zalian swrafi tempebiT, samarTlebriv<br />
reJimebs aqvT saxelmwifoTaSoris im molaparakebebis<br />
dros warmoSobili sirTuleebis<br />
gamo ukan CamorCenis tendencia,<br />
romlebic problemaze SeTanxmebas<br />
saWiroeben. es xarvezi gansakuTrebiT<br />
aSkaraa `sanapiro saxelmwifos gansakuTrebul<br />
ekonomikur zonaSi sazRvaosamecniero<br />
kvlevebis~ dros.<br />
da bolos, SeiZleba mivideT das k-<br />
vnamde, rom `Seucdomlis~ incidenti<br />
xazs usvams im problemebs, romlebsac<br />
awydebian sazRvao-samecniero kvlevebis<br />
Sesrulebis dros, rac dadgenilia<br />
UNCLOS-is mier, da aseve praqtikaSi<br />
saxelmwifoTa Soris sazRvao-samecniero<br />
reJimis Taobaze konsensusis naklebobas.<br />
marTlac, es yvelaferi sazRvao<br />
sferoSi saerTaSoriso urTierTobebis<br />
axali gamRizianeblis rols asrulebs.<br />
aqedan gamomdinare, arsebobs sazRvaosamecniero<br />
kvlevebis samarTlebrivi<br />
reJimis orazrovnebis ganmartebis saWiroeba,<br />
raTa momavalSi Tavidan iqnes acilebuli<br />
`Seucdomlis~ incidentis msga<br />
vsi SemTxvevebi. Sesabamisad, arsebobs<br />
SemoTavazeba, rom gaeros Ria araformalurma<br />
saTaTbiro procesma okeaneebisa<br />
da sazRvao samarTlis Sesaxeb (saTaTbiro<br />
procesi) ganmartos sadavo problemebi,<br />
rac dakavSirebulia sazRvao-samecniero<br />
gamokvlevebTan. agreTve, es sakiTxi unda<br />
wamoiwios UNCLOS-is mxareTa Sexvedris<br />
dros, raTa miRweul iqnes konsensusi<br />
sazRvao-samecniero kvl evebis damaregulirebeli<br />
reJimis Sesaxeb.<br />
* Associate Fellow, National Maritime Foundation, New Delhi, India and Visiting<br />
Faculty, Indian Society of <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>, New Delhi. Currently, Nippon Fellow,<br />
<strong>International</strong> Tribunal for the <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea, Hamburg, Germany. He can be<br />
reached at agarwalnet@gmail.com.<br />
1<br />
`Seucdomlis~ incidentis mimoxilvisaTvis ix. Kamlesh Kumar Agnihotri,<br />
Chinese Snort in ‘The Year Of The Ox’ – Is Us Worried, 20<strong>09</strong> wlis 23 aprili, gv.<br />
1, 6. SegiZliaT ixiloT vebgverdze: www.maritimeindia.org –commentaries.<br />
2<br />
incidentis zusti adgilis Sesaxeb arsebobs orazrovneba, radgan, mcdelobis<br />
miuxedavad, gemis koordinatebi ver dadginda. magram garkveulia,<br />
rom es ar iyo Ria zRvaSi, radgan moxda CineTis teritoriad miCneuli<br />
hainanidan mxolod 75 sazRvao milis manZilze.<br />
3<br />
ix. J.A. Roach, “Marine Scientifi c Research and the New <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea,” Ocean<br />
Development and <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>, tomi. 27, 1996, gv. 59–72, gv. 60.<br />
4<br />
ix. UN, United Nations Convention on the <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea, United Nations Treaty<br />
Series (UNTS), tomi 1833, gv. 3; miRebuli montego beiSi 1982 wlis 10 dekembers;<br />
ZalaSi Sevida 1994 wlis 16 noembers; statusi: 158 monawile qveyana.<br />
5<br />
imis gamo, rom konvencia ver uzrunvelyofs zRvebisa da okeaneebis<br />
yvela tradiculi da momavali problemebis gadawyvetis gzebs, man<br />
Camoayaliba gaeros Ria araformaluri saTaTbiro procesi okeaneebisa<br />
da sazRvao samarTlis Sesaxeb am procesis mxardasaWerad.<br />
6<br />
es zonebi unda aiTvalos sawyisi xazebidan, romlebic, Cveulebriv, sanapiro<br />
zolia zRvis maqsimaluri ukuqcevis dros, an arqipelaguri sawyisi<br />
xazebia, romlebic ganisazRvreba wertilTa geografiuli koordinatebis<br />
CamonaTvalis Tanaxmad.<br />
7<br />
ix. UN, United Nations Convention on the <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea, United Nations<br />
Treaty Series (UNTS), tomi 1833, gv. 3; miRebuli montego beiSi 1982<br />
wlis 10 dekembers; ZalaSi Sevida 1994 wlis 16 noembers; statusi: 158<br />
monawile qveyana. imis gamo, rom konvencia ver uzrunvelyofs zRvebisa<br />
da okeaneebis yvela tradiculi da momavali problemebis gadawyvetis<br />
gzebs, man Camoayaliba gaeros Ria araformaluri saTaTbiro procesi<br />
okeaneebisa da sazRvao samarTlis Sesaxeb am procesis mxardasaWerad.<br />
8<br />
Tumca UNCLOS-i aniWebs uflebebsa da movaleobebs im qveynebs, romlebic<br />
am konvenciis mxareebi arian. saerTaSoriso samarTlis mixedviT,<br />
149
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
saxelmwifo xdeba konvenciis wevri misi rati fikaciisTanave.<br />
9<br />
sanapiro saxelmwifos momijnave wylebSi ufleba aqvs, aRkveTos saba-<br />
Jo, finansuri, imigraciuli, sanitariuli darRveva; daawesos sasjeli<br />
zemoaRniSnuli wesebis darRvevisaTvis. ix. konvenciis 33-e muxli.<br />
10<br />
mokled rom aRiniSnos, UNCLOS-is Tanaxmad, yvela sanapiro saxelmwifos<br />
eZleva gansakuTrebuli ekonomikuri zona, romlis sigane ar<br />
unda aRematebodes 200 sazRvao mils. misi gamoTvla iwyeba imave xazebidan,<br />
romlebic gamoiyeneba teritoriuli wylebis mimarT, garda<br />
im SemTxvevisa, rodesac am siganis zona arRvevs sxva qveynis gansakuTrebul<br />
ekonomikur zonas. 76-e muxli gansazRvravs:<br />
• rogor unda gaamyaros sanapiro saxelmwifom Tavisi moTxovna gansakuTrebuli<br />
ekonomikuri zonis miRma;<br />
• rogor daawesos zeda zRvari, sadamde SeiZleba es moTxovna gavrceldes;<br />
• ayalibebs komisias kontinenturi Selfis limitebis Taobaze, raTa<br />
gadaixedos sanapiro saxelmwifos mier momzadebuli moTxovnebi.<br />
11<br />
konvenciis 56-e muxli.<br />
12<br />
ix. konvenciis 56-e muxli.<br />
13<br />
miuxedavad imisa, rom CineTma 1982 wels moaxdina UNCLOS-is ratificireba.<br />
aSS, marTalia, ar aris misi wevri. miuxedavad amisa, aSS-is prezidentma<br />
gamosca `okeaneebis marTvis biuleteni~, romelSic sajarod<br />
ganacxada, rom `aSS pativs scems sxva qveynebis uflebebs maT napirebidan<br />
moSorebiT wylebSi~ da rom `aSS ganaxorcielebs da daicavs mis navigaciisa<br />
da frenis uflebebs msoflioSi miRebuli principis mixedviT,<br />
garkveulwilad, rac Seesabameba konvenciaSi asaxul interesTa balanss~.<br />
ix. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, tomi 19, 10, gv. 383-<br />
385, 1983 wlis marti; Rene-Jean Dupuy da Daniel Vignes, eds, Handbook on<br />
the New <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea ( Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991), gv. 244.<br />
14<br />
ix. teritoriuli zRvis kanoni, preambula.<br />
15<br />
ix. aqti gansakuTrebuli ekonomikuri zonis Sesaxeb, 1-li muxli.<br />
16<br />
ix. China Daily, ‘South China Sea fi shing ban ‘indisputable’, 20<strong>09</strong> wlis 9 ivnisi,<br />
aseve SegiZliaT ixiloT vebgverdze: http://www. chinadaily.com.cn/<br />
china/20<strong>09</strong>-06/<strong>09</strong>/content_8263930.htm (Last accessed on 03 July, 20<strong>09</strong>).<br />
17<br />
iqve.<br />
18<br />
CineTis Setyobineba pasuxi iyo vietnamis 20<strong>09</strong> wlis 7 maisis gancxadebaze<br />
gaeros kontinenturi Selfis sazRvrebis Taobaze komisiis mimarT.<br />
ix. http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_fi les/vnm37_<strong>09</strong>/<br />
chn_20<strong>09</strong>re_vnm.pdf (accessed on June 19, 20<strong>09</strong>)<br />
19<br />
iqve .<br />
20<br />
Peter Dutton & John Garofano, “China undermines Maritime <strong>Law</strong>s”, Far Eastern<br />
Economic Review, tomi 172, 3, 20<strong>09</strong> wlis aprili, gv. 44-47.<br />
21<br />
iqve.<br />
22<br />
iqve.<br />
23<br />
ix. U.S. Navy, A Cooperative Strategy for 21 st Century Seapower, 2007, gv.11, §3.<br />
24<br />
ix. U.S. Navy, A Cooperative Strategy for 21 st Century Seapower, 2007, gv. 6-10.<br />
25<br />
ix. Chengkun Ma, PLA News Analysis, 17, 20<strong>09</strong> wlis marti.<br />
26<br />
ix. Sam Bateman, Clashes at Sea: When Chinese Vessels Harass US Ships,<br />
RSIS Commentaries, 27, 20<strong>09</strong> wlis 13 marti.<br />
27<br />
is niSnavs, rom saerTaSoriso SeTanxmebebi unda sruldebodes keTili<br />
nebiT. ix. venis konvencia saxelSekrulebo samarTlis Sesaxeb, United<br />
Nations Treaty Series (UNTS), tomi . 1155, 1969, gv. 331. miRebuli 1969<br />
wlis 23 maiss; ZalaSi Sesvlis TariRi: 1989 wlis 27 ianvari; statusi 1<strong>09</strong><br />
wevri qveyana.<br />
28<br />
ix. UNCLOS, 238-e muxli.<br />
29<br />
ix. UN, “Vienna Convention on the <strong>Law</strong> of Treaties,” United Nations Treaty Series,<br />
tomi. 1155, 1969, gv. 331 (miRebuli 1969 wlis 23 maiss, ZalaSi Sevida 1989<br />
wlis 27 inavars), 31-e muxli, interpretaciis saerTo wesi.<br />
30<br />
ix. UNCLOS, iqve, nawili XV, danarTi V.<br />
31<br />
ix. UNCLOS, iqve, nawili XV, danarTi VI, VII, VIII.<br />
150
SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL*<br />
IMPECCABLE INCIDENT IN SOUTH CHINA SEA: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE<br />
MARINE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH REGIME UNDER THE 1982 UNCLOS<br />
Abstract<br />
Recently, the Impeccable incident has<br />
provoked controversy and considerable academic<br />
debate over the jurisdiction of the proximate<br />
coastal state to regulate Marine Scientifi c<br />
Research (MSR) in its Exclusive Economic<br />
Zone (EEZ). This paper examines the legal<br />
framework for MSR as embodied in the United<br />
Nation’s Convention on the <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea<br />
(UNCLOS) and interprets the provisions of<br />
UNCLOS applicable in the aforementioned<br />
incident, based on the Vienna Convention<br />
on the <strong>Law</strong> of Treaties. It is argued that the<br />
Impeccable incident may set the wrong precedent<br />
for interpreting similar international<br />
treaties, the implications of which may be detrimental<br />
to international cooperation, by escalating<br />
tensions among concerned countries on<br />
issues which can fuel international concerns.<br />
Hence it is suggested that the matter be taken<br />
up as an agenda item at the next ‘Meeting of<br />
State Parties of UNCLOS (which generally<br />
convenes in April/May every year, the next<br />
one being due in April/May, 2010) to clarify the<br />
aspects related to maritime research and build<br />
a consensus on the issue.<br />
I. INTRODUCTION<br />
On March 8, 20<strong>09</strong>, the U.S. Navy surveillance<br />
ship, Impeccable, which was conducting<br />
undersea passive sonar operations and<br />
gathering acoustic data in the South China<br />
Sea, was impeded by some Chinese vessels.<br />
It has been alleged that the Chinese trawlers<br />
manoeuvred close to the Impeccable, closing<br />
in to about 25 feet, and, thereby, impeding<br />
the surveillance ship’s movement. When<br />
the Impeccable tried to move away, the two<br />
Chinese trawlers stopped directly in front of<br />
the ship, forcing it to resort to an emergency<br />
stop to avoid a collision. 1<br />
This incident, which occurred about 75<br />
miles south of Hainan Island, 2 is said to be the<br />
result of a culmination of a string of incidents<br />
involving the Impeccable and Chinese vessels<br />
over the four days prior to the incident.<br />
Earlier, a Chinese frigate had crossed the<br />
Impeccable’s bow, which was followed by a<br />
Chinese Y-12 AEW aircraft conducting 11 air<br />
passes over the ship. Once again, the unilateral<br />
interpretation of the incident put forth by<br />
each party brought to fore the unsettled issue<br />
of MSR as embodied in UNCLOS.<br />
In general terms, the expression Marine<br />
Scientifi c Research (MSR) is most often used<br />
to describe activities to expand scientifi c<br />
knowledge of the marine environment and its<br />
processes and includes, among other things,<br />
oceanography, marine biology, marine chemistry,<br />
scientifi c ocean drilling and coring, and<br />
geological and geophysical surveying. 3 The<br />
legal basis for conducting MSR is the 1982<br />
United Nation’s Convention on the <strong>Law</strong> of the<br />
Sea (UNCLOS). It establishes a comprehensive<br />
legal order for the world’s oceans and<br />
seas, setting forth the rights and duties of<br />
states in various ocean zones and covering all<br />
ocean-related activities including MSR. 4 It also<br />
provides the legal basis for the jurisdiction of<br />
the coastal states over MSR. 5 However, a<br />
comprehensive regulatory framework for MSR<br />
is yet to be agreed to, for the operationalization<br />
of the MSR regime.<br />
The incident also brought to fore the tension<br />
arising out of different interpretations on<br />
the rights of the maritime states vis-à-vis the<br />
151
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
coastal state in the maritime domain. It further<br />
reveals the growing unease between China<br />
and the U.S., in their bilateral maritime relations.<br />
Shrewdly, both countries tried to justify<br />
their actions in the garb of UNCLOS provisions.<br />
Hence, UNCLOS is a useful instrument<br />
to scrutinize the Impeccable incident from an<br />
international law perspective.<br />
In this context, it is imperative to examine<br />
the scope and extent of MSR under UNCLOS<br />
to address the concerns of maritime and<br />
coastal states over the conduct of military<br />
activities and the practice of MSR in an EEZ.<br />
This paper provides an overview and analysis<br />
of the legal aspects of MSR in order to contribute<br />
to the ongoing debate and to identify<br />
issues in the operationalization of the MSR<br />
regime that need to be addressed. This paper<br />
is structured in fi ve parts. Part I introduces the<br />
issues arising from the Impeccable incident.<br />
Part II examines the legal framework for MSR,<br />
which will provide the basic legal foundation,<br />
and is, therefore, necessary for analysing the<br />
Impeccable incident. Part III provides different<br />
perspectives of the Impeccable incident<br />
and contentious interpretations on the basis<br />
of the ambiguous provisions of UNCLOS. Part<br />
IV seeks to provide legal interpretation of the<br />
Impeccable incident in light of the provisions<br />
pertaining to MSR as embodied in UNCLOS.<br />
Part V concludes the paper.<br />
II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR MARINE<br />
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH<br />
A. United Nation’s Convention on the<br />
<strong>Law</strong> of the Sea, 1982<br />
The 1982 UNCLOS establishes a comprehensive<br />
legal order for the world’s oceans<br />
and seas, setting forth the rights and duties of<br />
states in various ocean zones 6 as well as the<br />
establishment of the high seas beyond (open<br />
to all states) and covering all ocean-related<br />
activities. 7<br />
Ocean Zones<br />
Under the Convention, a coastal state is<br />
entitled to a territorial sea, a contiguous zone,<br />
an Exclusive Economic Zone, and a continental<br />
shelf, over which it has specifi c rights and<br />
jurisdiction. The Convention also specifi es<br />
certain duties and obligations of the coastal<br />
state in each of these zones, subject to the<br />
certain limited rights of other states. It is obvious,<br />
therefore, that claims and the exercise of<br />
rights by states, pertaining to oceans and the<br />
specifi ed zones, must be in accordance with<br />
UNCLOS, 8 and this should be refl ected in their<br />
national legislation as well.<br />
With certain exceptions related to navigation,<br />
a coastal state exercises sovereignty<br />
over its territorial sea, including the resources<br />
contained therein, both living and non-living.<br />
Coastal states may establish a contiguous<br />
zone not extending beyond 24 nautical miles<br />
from the baselines from which the territorial<br />
sea is measured. 9<br />
Beyond the territorial seas, states may establish<br />
an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 10<br />
extending not more than 200 nautical miles<br />
from the baselines from which the breadth of<br />
the territorial sea is measured. 11 The EZZ is<br />
subject to a specific legal regime according to<br />
which the coastal state has sovereign rights for<br />
the purpose of exploring and exploiting, and<br />
conserving and managing the natural resources<br />
(whether living or non-living) of the superjacent<br />
waters, as well as of the seabed and subsoil.<br />
In addition, the coastal state has jurisdiction<br />
with regard to the establishment and use<br />
of artificial islands, installations and structures,<br />
marine scientific research, and protection and<br />
preservation of the marine environment. 12<br />
B. Marine Scientific Research<br />
The 1982 UNCLOS also provides the legal<br />
basis for MSR including jurisdiction of the<br />
coastal states, to regulate MSR in their EEZs.<br />
Part XIII of UNCLOS contains provisions<br />
(Articles 238 to 265) pertaining to MSR and is<br />
designed with a view to promote international<br />
cooperation. The provisions represent a significant<br />
attempt to advance the gathering and<br />
interpretation of information for peaceful purposes.<br />
However, controversies in interpreting<br />
these provisions cause a severe hindrance in<br />
the universal acceptance of the law of the sea<br />
in relation to MSR. The Impeccable incident<br />
underscores the problems encountered in the<br />
implementation of the MSR regime established<br />
by UNCLOS, as well as the lack of consensus<br />
among states over the MSR regime in practice.<br />
In this context, this section examines the legal<br />
framework for MSR as embodied in UNCLOS.<br />
152
SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL, IMPECCABLE INCIDENT IN SOUTH CHINA SEA: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE MARINE SCIENTIFIC...<br />
The Definition of Marine Scientific<br />
Research<br />
The concept of Marine Scientific Research<br />
(MSR) in its ordinary natural meaning can be<br />
interpreted as any form of scientific investigation,<br />
fundamental or applied, concerned with<br />
the marine environment. However, UNCLOS<br />
does not actually define the term ‘Marine<br />
Scientific Research’. Such a definition would<br />
seem necessarily to encompass marine resource<br />
exploration or exploitation undertaken<br />
for the purpose of preservation of the marine<br />
environment. The safe and economic use of<br />
the oceans and the preservation of its stocks<br />
and resources are dependent on accurate,<br />
appropriate, and sufficient scientific research.<br />
Knowledge gained from the oceans has implications<br />
for science and medicine as well as for<br />
applied sciences and technology. The importance<br />
of MSR should not be underestimated.<br />
It is relied on primarily for exploration and control<br />
over stocks and mineral resources and so<br />
affects the economic development of states.<br />
However, it appears that in recent times, MSR<br />
is being used as a pretext to conduct military<br />
surveys in the oceans. The concept of MSR<br />
has in the recent past been the subject of<br />
abuse, as a guise to justify the military survey<br />
activities in the EEZ of a coastal state. The<br />
recent Impeccable incident underscores the<br />
contentious claims of the states concerning the<br />
scope of MSR. It is to be noted that both, the<br />
U.S. and China chose to justify their respective<br />
behaviour in the Impeccable incident, by citing<br />
the provisions of UNCLOS. 13 The anomalies in<br />
contentious claims reflect the scope for numerous<br />
interpretations of the provisions pertaining<br />
to MSR, due to its lack of definition. Hence,<br />
there is an acute necessity for a comprehensive<br />
mechanism to regulate the provisions of<br />
MSR to the satisfaction of all state parties.<br />
The implementation of MSR provisions on the<br />
ground is, therefore, an issue of key concern.<br />
Peaceful Purposes<br />
The concept of peaceful purposes is a<br />
cornerstone of the 1982 UNCLOS in general,<br />
and MSR in particular. Nonetheless, this key<br />
principle has never been comprehensively defi<br />
ned. It is found in Articles 240 and 246(3), but<br />
a comprehensive formula was never settled<br />
upon due to the reluctance of maritime countries.<br />
The concept was introduced in relation<br />
to MSR, to bargain with the coastal states, and<br />
is aimed at controlling military manoeuvres in<br />
EEZs. Its scope was, however, never determined,<br />
due to the view of various maritime<br />
countries, which insisted that peaceful military<br />
activities are not prohibited under international<br />
law. The lack of defi nition in UNCLOS of the<br />
phrase ‘any peaceful purposes’ has led to<br />
inconsistencies in its interpretation. Further,<br />
the scope of military activities has generated<br />
considerable debate, due to interpretation of<br />
Article 58 and the differing views pertaining to<br />
the development of state practice with respect<br />
to residual rights in an EEZ. Activities such as<br />
military surveys and military exercises have<br />
proved particularly contentious. Some argue<br />
that the coastal states have no jurisdiction<br />
to restrict any military activity that does not<br />
amount to a ‘threat or use of force’ in accordance<br />
with the UN charter under Article 2(4).<br />
Having gained a legal perspective with regards<br />
to the scope and limitations of MSR provisions<br />
as embodied in UNCLOS, the section<br />
below provides an overview of the Impeccable<br />
incident and various interpretations which<br />
highlight the ambiguities inherent in the these<br />
provisions.<br />
III. THE IMPECCABLE INCIDENT:<br />
PERSPECTIVES ON MSR<br />
A. The Chinese Perspective<br />
Chinese Interpretation of UNCLOS<br />
China’s position on the MSR regime under<br />
UNCLOS is that the use of an EEZ for<br />
non-peaceful purposes without its consent is<br />
illegal. This includes foreign military and electronic<br />
intelligence gathering activities in an<br />
EEZ, as well as MSR for non-peaceful purposes.<br />
China maintains that the foreign state’s<br />
obligation of ‘due regard’ for the coastal state’s<br />
rights is superior to that of the coastal state for<br />
the foreign state’s rights. The same principle<br />
applies when there are encounters between<br />
foreign and domestic aircrafts and vessels in<br />
an EEZ. However, China does recognize that<br />
there are no uniform regulations for such interactions.<br />
Though the issue does not have a<br />
simplistic or ready solution, due to differences<br />
in interpretation of international law and other<br />
153
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
complexities, a uniform rule for governing an<br />
EEZ must be established to avoid situations<br />
which may lead to confl ict.<br />
Chinese <strong>Law</strong><br />
China has sought to interpret UNCLOS<br />
and its provisions to stretch its maritime control<br />
area by adopting its own 1992 <strong>Law</strong> on the<br />
Territorial Seas and Contiguous Zones’. This<br />
law was formulated to provide a legal basis for<br />
China to exercise sovereignty over its territorial<br />
seas and jurisdiction over the adjacent zones,<br />
and to safeguard its marine rights and interests.<br />
14 China also passed the 1998 ‘Exclusive<br />
Economic Zone and Continental Shelf Act’,<br />
with an objective to safeguard its sovereign<br />
rights and jurisdiction over its EEZ and the<br />
continental shelf, and to protect China’s maritime<br />
rights and interests. 15<br />
Chinese Claims in South China Sea:<br />
Recent Events<br />
The long-standing South China Sea disputes<br />
continue to keep the maritime security situation<br />
quite fragile. All the countries bordering<br />
directly on this Sea, i.e. China, the Philippines,<br />
Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei have<br />
claimed some or all of the tiny Spratly Islets<br />
Indicates the<br />
limits of Chinese<br />
and some or all of the maritime space and its<br />
resources. Some of the countries listed also<br />
lay claim to the Paracel Islands. China is a<br />
major power and a key player in the area, and<br />
thus seeks to arrive at a solution, on terms that<br />
would be most favourable to its own interests.<br />
It may be noted that the Philippines<br />
Congress passed the 20<strong>09</strong> baseline bill, just<br />
few days before the Impeccable incident. The<br />
Bill extended the Archipelago territory to include<br />
Huangyan Island and part of Nansha (Spratly<br />
group) Islands in the South China Sea, wherein<br />
the Philippines claimed the area as belonging<br />
to its Exclusive Economic Zone. The Chinese<br />
Foreign Ministry immediately lodged a stern<br />
protest, denouncing the Philippines’ claim as<br />
‘illegal and invalid’. In order to reinforce its sovereign<br />
claim, one of China’s largest fisheries<br />
patrol ships, Yuzheng 311, was dispatched<br />
to patrol the disputed Paracel Islands in April,<br />
20<strong>09</strong>. China also imposed a general fishing<br />
ban in the South China Sea from May 16, 20<strong>09</strong>,<br />
with a stated aim of protecting the sustainability<br />
of marine life in that area, and sent eight patrol<br />
ships to monitor some 128,000 square kilometres<br />
of the South China Sea. 16 The obvious<br />
connotation behind this move is to reinforce its<br />
indisputable sovereignty over the South China<br />
Sea Islands, including Xisha (Paracel) and<br />
Nansha (Spratly) islands and their adjacent<br />
waters as its own territorial waters. 17<br />
The Chinese Government, in a bid to<br />
publicize the issue internationally, offi cially reiterated<br />
its indisputable sovereignty over the<br />
islands in the South China Sea and the adjacent<br />
water in no uncertain terms, in a communication<br />
to the Secretary-General of the<br />
United Nations on May 7, 20<strong>09</strong>. 18 The communication<br />
stated that China “enjoyed sovereign<br />
fi ghts and jurisdiction over the islands in the<br />
South China Sea and the adjacent waters, as<br />
well as the seabed and sub-soil thereof”. The<br />
Chinese Government also attached a map 19<br />
to substantiate its claim, an unaltered copy of<br />
which is shown below.<br />
It is in the backdrop of underlying tensions<br />
resulting from ongoing tussles in the recent<br />
past over confl icting claims of maritime<br />
jurisdiction in the South China Sea, that the<br />
Impeccable incident of March 8, 20<strong>09</strong> occurred.<br />
The incident culminated with a faceoff<br />
of sorts between China and the U.S., at a<br />
154
SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL, IMPECCABLE INCIDENT IN SOUTH CHINA SEA: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE MARINE SCIENTIFIC...<br />
location approximately halfway between the<br />
Chinese Hainan Island and the Paracels.<br />
B. The U.S. Perspective<br />
The Impeccable incident has resulted in<br />
the advancement of contentious interpretation<br />
by researchers and legal scholars all over<br />
the world. Some reviews of the Impeccable<br />
incident have tried to justify the U.S. action<br />
and undermine the Chinese contention. The<br />
U.S. has argued that the signifi cance of the<br />
Chinese action lies in its grand claim that international<br />
law precludes the kind of peaceful,<br />
stabilizing military activities that Impeccable<br />
was pursuing. Consequently, the U.S. places<br />
importance on the premise of whether international<br />
law is interpreted in such a way as<br />
to promote peaceful military use of the seas,<br />
or, by contrast, whether the law becomes a<br />
means to promote the kind of anti-access,<br />
national-security focussed interpretation that<br />
China was attempting to impose. 20<br />
The American viewpoint asserts that intelligence<br />
gathering and other military activities<br />
are clearly lawful under the current international<br />
law of the sea, as UNCLOS specifi es that<br />
the jurisdictional authorities of coastal states<br />
include MSR, but limits this jurisdiction, since<br />
it does not defi ne the terms ‘Marine Scientifi c<br />
Research’ and ‘hydrographic surveys’. They<br />
claim that since international law works fundamentally<br />
by negation, then as long as an international<br />
law authority does not specifi cally<br />
prohibit an act, it is allowed. 21<br />
The Americans contend that surveys are<br />
one of the traditional high seas freedoms,<br />
and allow vessels to study the maritime environment.<br />
As the Convention protects the<br />
right of all states to undertake other high seas<br />
freedoms that have not been specifi cally allocated<br />
to the coastal state, the hydrographic<br />
surveys may not be regulated by the laws of<br />
the coastal state. Further, intelligence gathering<br />
in the EEZ of another state is one of the<br />
pre-existing high seas freedoms. 22<br />
The argument that intelligence gathering<br />
violates the ‘peaceful purposes’ clause of<br />
UNCLOS is refuted by a counter-argument<br />
that this clause was never intended to impose<br />
higher requirements for state behaviour than<br />
that specifi ed in the U.N. Charter.<br />
It seems the hidden agenda behind the<br />
U.S. approach to MSR is its desire to ensure<br />
the creation of conditions under which its maritime<br />
forces can operate freely at sea within<br />
their areas of interest, without being impeded<br />
and with freedom of manoeuvre and access.<br />
Towards this end, the U.S. strategy foresees<br />
the development of capabilities for exercising<br />
effective sea control, either unilaterally or jointly<br />
with other friendly countries. 23 The essence of<br />
the U.S. approach to UNCLOS is underpinned<br />
by its ‘maritime strategic concept’, which seeks<br />
to continuously posture credible combat power<br />
in the western pacific with a view to deter and<br />
dissuade potential adversaries and peer competitors.<br />
24 It does not require a great sense of<br />
imagination to guess that the U.S. refers to<br />
China as the adversary and peer competitor.<br />
Another viewpoint focuses on the inappro<br />
p riate stand taken by China, vis-à-vis<br />
UNCLOS, stating, “UNCLOS only authorizes<br />
economic sovereign rights instead of<br />
so ve reignty to the coastal state”. Thus, the<br />
U.S. claims the coastal state cannot interfere<br />
with the non-economic activities of other nations’<br />
ships, since according to UNCLOS, an<br />
Exclusive Economic Zone is to be considered<br />
high sea for all ships indulging in non-economic<br />
activities. Therefore, the U.S. deems China’s<br />
emphasis on UNCLOS in accusing the U.S.<br />
ship an inappropriate way to justify blocking<br />
the U.S. vessel, regardless of the provisions<br />
laid down in China’s domestic regulations. 25<br />
Yet another interpretation of the Impe c-<br />
cable incident tries to support American actions<br />
by insinuating that a difference in perception<br />
about the rights and duties of various<br />
parties in the EEZ is the root cause, as EEZ<br />
is a relatively new concept, UNCLOS having<br />
been adopted only in 1982. A second argument<br />
in support of the U.S. ship’s activities is<br />
that it was a part of the high seas freedom of<br />
navigation specifi cally extended to an EEZ,<br />
and the activity was not to be considered MSR<br />
under UNCLOS. 26<br />
However, these types of arguments<br />
amount to a highly overreaching interpretation<br />
of UNCLOS. Further, they intend to mould the<br />
legal language of UNCLOS to suit a particular<br />
view, but fail to qualify as a considered interpretation.<br />
It is pertinent to mention that provisions<br />
of international agreements do not lose their<br />
155
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
validity simply on the grounds of being part of a<br />
new convention. Moreover, international agreements<br />
are adopted after years of negotiations<br />
between sovereign states and draw their validity<br />
from the principle of pacta sunt servanda. 27<br />
IV. INTERPRETING THE IMPECCABLE INCIDENT<br />
A. Settled Principle of Interpretation<br />
Under Part XIII of UNCLOS, all states have<br />
the right to conduct Marine Scientific Research<br />
(MSR) subject to the rights and duties of other<br />
states. 28 It is a settled principle of interpretation<br />
of statutes that a statute must be read as a<br />
whole. 29 Therefore, the provisions pertaining to<br />
MSR, as embodied in the 1982 UNCLOS, must<br />
be read as a whole and applied in their entirety.<br />
States should not be encouraged to pick and<br />
choose sections of the provisions of UNCLOS<br />
which they find convenient, to justify their contentious<br />
claims in the maritime domain.<br />
It is important to mention that the disputes<br />
between the state parties to UNCLOS<br />
concerning interpretation of UNCLOS are to<br />
be settled by peaceful means under the procedures<br />
entailing non-binding decisions 30 and<br />
third-party settlement procedures entailing<br />
binding decisions. 31<br />
B. Uniqueness of the Impeccable Incident<br />
What makes the Impeccable incident<br />
unique is that China is a party to UNCLOS, but<br />
the U.S. is not. This implies that the dispute<br />
between China and the U.S. concerning the interpretation<br />
of the scope of MSR cannot be resolved<br />
under the dispute-settlement mechanism<br />
provided in UNCLOS. This uniqueness thus undermines<br />
the very locus standi of UNCLOS as<br />
a legal regime to comprehensively deal with the<br />
infringement of MSR stipulations between the<br />
U.S. on one hand, and coastal states that are<br />
participants of UNCLOS, on the other.<br />
C. Need for a Sui Generis MSR Regime<br />
It is apparent from the divergent views<br />
about the scope of the MSR regime as embodied<br />
in UNCLOS, that the cause of disagreement<br />
is the ‘defi nition’ of MSR. It is to be<br />
noted that the defi nition of a contentious issue<br />
is the fi rm starting point for initiating a debate<br />
on its scope. UNCLOS does not elaborate on<br />
the defi nition of MSR. This provides many opportunities<br />
for the disputant states, China and<br />
the U.S. in this case, to put forth their own perspective<br />
on the rights and obligations of the<br />
state parties to UNCLOS, underpinned with<br />
their own interests. Further, it encourages the<br />
transformation of a legal matter into a political<br />
issue, as in the case between China and<br />
the U.S. This may set a trend and become a<br />
precedent for other nation states to undermine<br />
the authority of UNCLOS as a comprehensive<br />
regime to deal with all issues pertaining to<br />
ocean governance. The Impeccable incident,<br />
thus, underscores the need to negotiate a sui<br />
generis MSR regime in consonance with the<br />
spirit of UNCLOS, to regulate scientifi c research<br />
in the EEZ of a coastal state.<br />
V. CONCLUSION<br />
The present analysis of the Impeccable<br />
incident highlights the extent of the U.S.-<br />
China confl ict of interest in the South China<br />
Sea, due to the ambiguities inherent in the<br />
1982 UNCLOS. UNCLOS establishes a comprehensive<br />
legal order for the world’s oceans<br />
and seas, embodying the rights and duties of<br />
states in various ocean zones and covering<br />
all ocean-related activities including Marine<br />
Scientifi c Research (MSR). It exemplifi es<br />
the codifi cation the maritime practices of the<br />
states. The essence of this legal order is that<br />
all rights claimed by the states must be subject<br />
to the fulfi lment of their concomitant obligations<br />
as provided in UNCLOS. It embodies<br />
the rights and obligations of states over the<br />
maritime domain.<br />
UNCLOS establishes jurisdiction, rights,<br />
and obligations of states with respect to MSR.<br />
It is apparent that the MSR regime as embodied<br />
in UNCLOS is susceptible to various<br />
interpretations by states to suit their interests<br />
and concerns. The ambiguities in certain key<br />
areas of MSR, that is to say, the defi nition and<br />
scope of MSR in the EEZ of a coastal state,<br />
provide ample latitude for states to indulge in<br />
infringement and brinkmanship, as evidenced<br />
in the recent Impeccable incident.<br />
The Impeccable incident has the potential<br />
to disturb the delicate balance of rights and obligations<br />
of coastal states and maritime states<br />
embedded in UNCLOS. Moreover, it has farreaching<br />
implications for inter-state coopera-<br />
156
SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL, IMPECCABLE INCIDENT IN SOUTH CHINA SEA: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE MARINE SCIENTIFIC...<br />
tion for addressing various international concerns<br />
in other areas as well, including MSR. It<br />
is, thus, apparent that there is a need to review<br />
the MSR regime in light of new developments<br />
in MSR. The advent and use of high technology<br />
in MSR, which was not foreseen when<br />
UNCLOS was brought into effect, presents a<br />
challenge in designing a comprehensive regulatory<br />
regime that would be relevant and acceptable<br />
in the current day and age. While science<br />
and technology evolve very quickly, legal<br />
regimes tend to lag behind due to complexities<br />
inherent in inter-governmental negotiation<br />
processes, which require building a consensus<br />
on the issue. This gap is particularly evident in<br />
MSR in the EEZ of a coastal state.<br />
Finally, it may be concluded that the<br />
Impeccable incident underscores the problems<br />
encountered in the implementation of the<br />
MSR regime established by UNCLOS, as well<br />
as the lack of consensus among states over<br />
the MSR regime in practice. Indeed, it creates<br />
an opportunity for growth of a new irritant in<br />
international relations of the maritime domain.<br />
Therefore, there is a need to clarify the ambiguities<br />
in the legal regime for MSR, with the<br />
view to avoid situations like the Impeccable<br />
incident in future. Hence, it is suggested that<br />
the United Nations Open-ended Informal<br />
Consultative Process on Oceans and the <strong>Law</strong><br />
of the Sea (the Consultative Process) should<br />
clarify the contentious issues related to Marine<br />
Scientifi c Research. It is also suggested that<br />
the matter be considered by the Meeting of<br />
Parties to UNCLOS, to build a consensus on a<br />
comprehensive regulatory regime for MSR.<br />
* Associate Fellow, National Maritime Foundation, New Delhi, India and Visiting<br />
Faculty, Indian Society of <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>, New Delhi. Currently, Nippon Fellow,<br />
<strong>International</strong> Tribunal for the <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea, Hamburg, Germany. E-mail: agarwalnet@gmail.com.<br />
1<br />
For an overview of the Impeccable incident, see Kamlesh Kumar Agnihotri,<br />
Chinese Snort in ‘The Year Of The Ox’ - Is U.S. Worried, 23 April, 20<strong>09</strong>, pp. 1, 6, www.<br />
maritimeindia.org–commentaries.<br />
2<br />
There is considerable ambiguity about the exact position of the incident, as the<br />
co-ordinates of the ship could not be ascertained despite best efforts. However,<br />
it was definitely not at the high seas, being only 75 nautical miles from the recognized<br />
Chinese territory of Hainan.<br />
3<br />
See J.A. Roach, “Marine Scientifi c Research and the New <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea”, Ocean<br />
Development and <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>, Vol. 27 (1996): 60.<br />
4<br />
See UN, United Nations Convention on the <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea, United Nations Treaty<br />
Series (UNTS), vol. 1833, p. 3; adopted in Montego Bay, 10 December 1982;<br />
Entry into force: 16 November, 1994; Status: 158 state parties.<br />
5<br />
Since the Convention does not offer solutions to all traditional and future problems<br />
of the seas and oceans, it established United Nations Open-ended Informal<br />
Consultative Process on Oceans and the <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea (UNICPOLOS) to support<br />
this process.<br />
6<br />
These zones have to be measured from baselines, which are normally the lowtide<br />
water mark along the coast (normal baselines) or archipelagic baselines defi<br />
ned by reference to lists of geographical coordinates of points. Waters on the<br />
landward side of the baseline are internal waters of the state or, in the case of<br />
archipelagic baselines, archipelagic waters.<br />
7<br />
See UN, United Nations Convention on the <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea, United Nations Treaty<br />
Series (UNTS), vol. 1833, p. 3; adopted in Montego Bay, 10 December 1982; Entry<br />
into force: 16 November, 1994; Status: 158 state parties. Since the Convention<br />
does not offer solutions to all traditional and future problems of the seas and<br />
oceans, it established United Nations Open-ended Informal Consultative Process<br />
on Oceans and the <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea (UNICPOLOS) to support this process.<br />
8<br />
UNCLOS, however, confers rights and obligations on the states which are parties<br />
to the Convention. Under international law, a state becomes a party to the<br />
Convention on its ratifi cation. See, UN Convention on <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea.<br />
157
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
9<br />
The rights of a coastal state over the contiguous zone extend to (a) prevention<br />
of infringement of customs, fi scal, immigration, or sanitary laws and regulations<br />
within its territory or territorial sea and (b) punishment of infringement of the above<br />
laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea. See Article 33<br />
of the Convention.<br />
10<br />
Briefl y, under UNCLOS, all coastal states are given an Exclusive Economic Zone<br />
of 200 nautical miles from baselines along the shore, except where a zone of that<br />
width would infringe on the EEZ of another State. Article 76 outlines:<br />
• how a coastal state may stake claim beyond the EEZ;<br />
• puts upper limits on how far a claim can extend;<br />
• establishes the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) to<br />
review claims prepared by a coastal state.<br />
11<br />
Article 56 of the Convention.<br />
12<br />
See Article 56 of the Convention.<br />
13<br />
Though China has ratifi ed the 1982 UNCLOS, the U.S., interestingly, is not a party<br />
to it. Notwithstanding this, the President of the United States issued an “Oceans<br />
Policy Statement” in which he declared that “the United States will recognize the<br />
rights of other States in waters off their coasts, as refl ected in the Convention”<br />
and that “the United States will exercise and assert its navigation and over-fl ight<br />
rights and freedoms on a world-wide basis in a manner that is consistent with<br />
the balance of interest refl ected in the Convention”. See Weekly Compilation<br />
of Presidential Documents, Vol. 19, No. 10, pp. 383-385, 4 March, 1983; Rene-<br />
Jean Dupuy and Daniel Vignes, eds, Handbook on the New <strong>Law</strong> of the Sea (<br />
Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991), p. 244.<br />
14<br />
See <strong>Law</strong> on Territorial Sea, the preamble.<br />
15<br />
See the EEZ Act, article 1.<br />
16<br />
See China Daily, ‘South China Sea fi shing ban ‘indisputable’, 9 June 20<strong>09</strong>, http://<br />
www. chinadaily.com.cn/china/20<strong>09</strong>-06/<strong>09</strong>/content_8263930.htm (Last accessed<br />
on 03 July, 20<strong>09</strong>)<br />
17<br />
Ibid.<br />
18<br />
The Chinese communication (CML/18/20<strong>09</strong> of 7 May, 20<strong>09</strong>) was in response<br />
to Vietnamese submission dated 7 May, 20<strong>09</strong> to the ‘UN Commission on the<br />
Limits of the Continental Shelf’, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_fi<br />
les/vnm37_<strong>09</strong>/chn_20<strong>09</strong>re_vnm.pdf. (accessed on June 19, 20<strong>09</strong>)<br />
19<br />
ibid.<br />
20<br />
Peter Dutton & John Garofano, “China undermines Maritime <strong>Law</strong>s”, Far Eastern<br />
Economic Review, Vol. 172, No. 3, Apr 20<strong>09</strong>, pp. 44-47.<br />
21<br />
ibid<br />
22<br />
ibid<br />
23<br />
See U.S. Navy, A Cooperative Strategy for 21 st Century Seapower, 2007, p.11,<br />
para. 3.<br />
24<br />
See U.S. Navy, A Cooperative Strategy for 21 st Century Seapower, 2007, p. 6-10.<br />
25<br />
See Chengkun Ma, PLA News Analysis, No. 17, March 20<strong>09</strong>.<br />
26<br />
See Sam Bateman, Clashes at Sea: When Chinese Vessels Harass US Ships,<br />
RSIS Commentaries, No. 27, March 13, 20<strong>09</strong>.<br />
27<br />
It implies that international agreements are to be followed in good-faith. See<br />
Vienna Convention on the <strong>Law</strong> of Treaties, United Nations Treaty Series (UNTS),<br />
vol. 1155, 1969, p. 331. Adopted on May 23, 1969;<br />
Entry into force: 27 January, 1980; Status: 1<strong>09</strong> Country parties.<br />
28<br />
See the UNCLOS, article 238.<br />
29<br />
See the UN, “Vienna Convention on the <strong>Law</strong> of Treaties,” United Nations Treaty<br />
Series, Vol. 1155, 1969, p. 331 (Adopted on 23 May 1969, Entered into force on<br />
27 January 1980), article 31, General rule of interpretation.<br />
30<br />
See the UNCLOS, ibid., Part XV, annex V.<br />
31<br />
See the UNCLOS, ibid., Part XV, annex VI, VII, VIII.<br />
158
xaTuna ToTlaZe<br />
diplomatiuri urTierTobebis gawyvetis politikursamarTlebrivi<br />
safuZvlebi da Sedegebi<br />
Sesavali<br />
saerTaSoriso samarTali efu Z neba<br />
saxelmwifoTa mSvidobi an Ta na c xov<br />
rebasa da TanamSrom lo bas. sa xelm -<br />
wifoTa erTmaneTTan Ta na m Srom lobis<br />
mo va leoba saerTaSoriso samarTlis<br />
erT-erTi ZiriTadi principia 1 da asaxulia<br />
gaeros 1970 wlis deklaraciaSi<br />
`saerTaSoriso samarTlis principebze,<br />
romlebic Seexeba saxelmwifoTa<br />
Soris megobrul urTierTobebsa da TanamSromlobas,<br />
gaerTianebuli erebis<br />
organizaciis wesdebis Sesabamisad~ (generaluri<br />
asambleis rezolucia 2625), 2<br />
agreTve, 1975 wlis helsinkis daskvniT<br />
aqtSi. 3 (sxvaTa Soris, orive samarTle b-<br />
rivi aqti marTlmsajulebis saerTaSoriso<br />
sasamarTlom nikaraguis saqmeze aRiara<br />
rogorc saerTaSoriso Cve ulebiTi<br />
samarTlis debulebaTa amsaxveli aqtebi.<br />
4 ). am principis Tanaxmad, saxelmwifoebi<br />
valdebulni arian, miuxedavad<br />
maTi politikuri, ekonomikuri da socialuri<br />
sistemebis gansxvavebulobisa,<br />
iTanamSromlon erTmaneTTan saerTa-<br />
Soriso urTierTobaTa sxvadasxva dar<br />
gSi da sxvadasxva problemis gadasaWrelad,<br />
saxelmwifoTa suverenuli Tanasworobisa<br />
da Caurevlobis principebis<br />
Sesabamisad. 5<br />
saxelmwifoTa Soris diplomatiuri<br />
urTierTobebis damyareba samarTlebrivi<br />
winapirobaa sxvadasxva sferoSi<br />
Semdgomi urTierTobebis gaRrmavebisa<br />
da TanamSromlobisa, igi xels uwyobs megobruli<br />
urTierTobebis ganviTarebas,<br />
mSvidobisa da usafrTxoebis mxardaWeras.<br />
mSvidobiani Tanacxovrebisa da<br />
farTo TanamSromlobis principebi gansakuTrebul<br />
mniSvnelobas iZens diplomatiuri<br />
samarTlis WrilSi, radgan saer-<br />
TaSoriso samarTlis es sfero swored<br />
saxelmwifoTa Soris keTilganwyobili<br />
da mSvidobaze orientirebuli urTierTobebis<br />
ganviTarebas emsaxu re ba.<br />
„diplomatiuri urTierTobebi s Sesaxeb<br />
venis 1961 wlis konvenciis~ (SemdgomSi<br />
– konvencia) me-2 muxlis Tanaxmad, di p-<br />
lomatiuri urTierTobebis damyareba<br />
da mudmivi diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobebis<br />
dafuZneba xorcieldeba saxelmwifoTa<br />
ur TierTSeTanxmebis safuZvelze,<br />
rasac, rogorc wesi, win uZRvis erTi<br />
saxelmwifos mier meore saxelmwifos de<br />
facto an de iure cnoba.<br />
diplomatiuri urTierTobebis<br />
gawyvetis zogadsamarTlebrivi<br />
safuZvlebi<br />
sagulisxmoa, rom gansxvavebiT di -<br />
p lomatiuri urTierTobebis damya r e-<br />
bisagan, rac sakmaod detalurad aris<br />
gawerili venis konvenciaSi, es ukanaskneli<br />
gansazRvravs im sama r T lebriv/politikur<br />
safuZvlebs, ro mlebze<br />
dayrdnobiTac saxelmwifoebs Se -<br />
eZ lebodaT ama Tu im saxelmwifosTan<br />
diplomatiuri urTierTobis gawyveta.<br />
ar arsebobs legaluri zRvari saxelmwifos<br />
mier diplomatiuri urTierTobis<br />
gawyvetisa, magram es, ZiriTadad, politikuri<br />
safuZvlebiT aris ganpirobebuli.<br />
6 albaT, swored am faqtma gamoiwvia<br />
is, rom Tavidanve konvenciaSi ar Caiwera<br />
diplomatiuri urTierTobebis gawyvetis<br />
safuZvlebi.<br />
159
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
konvenciis me-2 muxlSi naxsenebi saxelmwifoTa<br />
„ormxrivi Tanxmoba~ diplomatiuri<br />
urTierTobebis damyarebis ZiriTadi<br />
safuZvelia. Sesabamisad, Tu romelime<br />
saxelmwifos mxridan xdeba am metad<br />
mniSvnelovani komponentis ugulebelyofa,<br />
di p lomatiuri urTierToba wydeba.<br />
diplomatiuri urTierTobebis gawyveta<br />
– es aris oficialuri politikuri<br />
urTierTobebis gawyveta saxelmwifoebs<br />
Soris ama Tu im sakiTxSi dapirispirebis<br />
gamo. 7 es qmedeba ar niSnavs cnobaze<br />
uaris Tqmas da avtomaturad ar iwvevs<br />
sakonsulo 8 da savaWro urTierTobebis<br />
Sewyvetas.<br />
miuxedavad imisa, rom venis 1961 wlis<br />
konvencia ar gansazRvravs diplomatiuri<br />
urTierTobebis gawyvetis samarTlebriv/politikur<br />
safuZvlebs, Se saZle<br />
belia, SevecadoT politikuri gadawyvetileba<br />
– gawydes diplomatiuri<br />
urTierToba, movaqcioT samarTlebriv<br />
CarCoebSi.<br />
diplomatiuri urTierToba saxe l-<br />
mwifoebs Soris myardeba urTier TSe-<br />
Tan xmebis safuZvelze, rac formdeba saxelmwifoTaSorisi<br />
saerTaSoriso xel -<br />
SekrulebiT (oqmi, komunike). sagulisxmoa,<br />
rom am kategoriis saerTaSoriso<br />
xelSekrulebebSi fiqsirdeba mxolod<br />
saxelmwifoTa neba, daamyaron diplomatiuri<br />
urTierTobebi da am urTierToba-<br />
Ta farglebSi imoqmedon venis 1961 wlis<br />
konvenciis debulebaTa Sesabamisad. rac<br />
Seexeba xelSekrulebis formas, SeiZleba<br />
iTqvas, rom aseTi xelSekrulebebi,<br />
marTalia, saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebis<br />
klasikuri magaliTi ar aris, 9 Tumca<br />
regulirdeba saerTaSoriso samarTliT<br />
da, Sesabamisad, xvdeba „saxelSekrulebo<br />
samarTlis Sesaxeb venis 1969 wlis<br />
konvenciiT~ gansazRvrul xelSekrulebaTa<br />
kategoriaSi. 1969 wlis venis konvencia<br />
detalurad gansazRvravs saer-<br />
TaSoriso xelSekrulebis Sewyvetisa da<br />
misi moqmedebis SeCerebis samarTlebriv<br />
safuZvlebs 10 , mag.: konvenciis 54-e muxlis<br />
Tanaxmad, xelSekruleba, romelic<br />
ar Seicavs debulebebs misi Sewyvetis<br />
Sesaxeb, SesaZlebelia Sewydes mxolod<br />
im SemTxvevebSi, Tu: a) dadgenilia, rom<br />
monawileebs ganzraxuli hqondaT daeSvaT<br />
xelSekrulebis denonsacia an misgan<br />
gasvla, an b) xelSekrulebis denonsaciis<br />
an misgan gasvlis ufleba igulisxmeba<br />
TviT xelSekrulebis bunebidan gamomdinare.<br />
„diplomatiuri urTierTobebis<br />
damyarebis Sesaxeb~ xelSekrulebaTa<br />
bunebidan gamomdinare, SesaZlebelia,<br />
vivaraudoT, rom mxareebs xelSekrulebis<br />
dadebis momentisaTvis ganzraxuli<br />
hqondaT, daeSvaT xelSekrulebis denonsacia.<br />
rogorc ukve aRvniSneT, diplomatiuri<br />
urTierTobebis damyareba efu Z-<br />
neba mxareTa urTierTSeTanxmebas, ormxriv<br />
Tanxmobas, xolo amave urTierTobis<br />
gawyvetis Sesaxeb gadawyvetilebis miReba<br />
saxelmwifos suverenuli uflebaa da,<br />
rogorc wesi, gamoixateba calmxrivi<br />
aqtiT.<br />
diplomatiuri urTierTobebis gawyvetis<br />
samarTlebrivi safuZvlebis Ziebis<br />
procesSi mizania ara wminda samar-<br />
Tlebrivi mizezebis kvleva, aramed politikuri<br />
gadawyvetilebebis samarTleb<br />
rivi dasabuTebis mcdeloba.<br />
sagulisxmoa, rom „saxelSekrulebo<br />
samarTlis Sesaxeb~ venis 1969 wlis konvenciis<br />
me-60 muxlis Tanaxmad, „ormxrivi<br />
xelSekrulebis erT-erTi monawilis mier<br />
arsebiTi darRveva uflebas aZlevs<br />
sxva monawiles, miuTiTos am darRvevaze,<br />
rogorc xelSekrulebis mTlianad an<br />
nawilobriv Sewyvetis an SeCerebis safuZ<br />
velze~, amave konvenciis 61-e muxli<br />
ki iTvaliswinebs xelSekrulebis mTlianad<br />
an nawilobriv Sewyvetis SesaZleblobas<br />
xelSekrulebis Semdgomi Sesrulebis<br />
SeuZleblobis SemTxvevaSi, Tu<br />
es SeuZlebloba gamowveulia im obieqtis<br />
samudamo gaqrobis an mospobis Sedegad,<br />
romelic aucilebelia xelSekrulebi<br />
s Sesasruleblad. da bolos, 1969<br />
wlis konvenciis 62-e muxlis Tanaxmad,<br />
xelSekrulebis Sewyvetis safuZveli<br />
Se saZlebelia gaxdes iseT garemoebaTa<br />
Zireuli cvlileba, romelTa arseboba<br />
arsebiT safuZvels uqmnida mxareTa<br />
Tanxmobas maTTvis xelSekrulebis Sesrulebis<br />
savaldebuloobaze. 11<br />
zemoaRniSnulidan gamomdinare, Tu<br />
diplomatiuri urTierTobebis damya-<br />
160
x. ToTlaZe, diplomatiuri urTierTobebis gawyvetis politikur-samarTlebrivi safuZvlebi da Sedegebi<br />
re bis samarTlebrivi safuZveli mxa re-<br />
Ta Soris dadebuli saerTaSoriso xel<br />
Sekrulebaa, da Tu xelSekrulebiT<br />
nakisri valdebulebebis darRveva, xel<br />
Sekrulebis Semdgomi Sesrulebis SeuZ<br />
lebloba an garemoebaTa Zireuli<br />
Secvla SeiZleba gaxdes „saerTaSoriso<br />
xelSekrulebis~ mTlianad an nawilobriv<br />
moqmedebis Sewyvetis an SeCerebis<br />
safuZveli, diplomatiuri urTierTobis<br />
gawyvetis Sesaxeb miRebuli garkveuli<br />
politikuri gadawyvetilebebi SesaZloa<br />
gavamyaroT CamoTvlili samarTlebrivi<br />
argumentebiT.<br />
diplomatiuri urTierTobebis<br />
gawyvetis mizezebi:<br />
saxelmwifos saSinao saqmeebSi<br />
Ca reva<br />
rogorc SesavalSi aRvniSneT, di p-<br />
lomatiuri samarTali, Tavisi bunebiT,<br />
saxelmwifoTa Soris keTilganwyobili<br />
da mSvidobaze orientirebuli urTierTobebis<br />
ganviTarebas emsaxureba.<br />
Sesabamisad, es midgoma aisaxa venis 1961<br />
wlis konvenciaSi „diplomatiuri urTierTobis<br />
Sesaxeb~, kerZod, konvenciis<br />
41-e muxlis 1-l punqtSi vkiTxulobT:<br />
„TavianTi privilegiebisa da imunitetebis<br />
Seulaxavad, yvela piri, vinc aseTi<br />
privilegiebiTa da imunitetebiT sargeblobs,<br />
valdebulia, pativi sces adgilsamyofeli<br />
saxelmwifos kanonebsa da<br />
wesebs. isini agreTve valdebulni arian,<br />
ar ereodnen am saxelmwifos saSinao<br />
saqmeebSi~. rom gavarkvioT, Tu ra<br />
iTvleba saxelmwifos saSinao urTier-<br />
TobebSi Carevad, rac xSirad diplomatiuri<br />
urTierTobebis gawyvetis mizezi<br />
xdeba, sainteresoa, Tvali gadavavloT<br />
41-e muxlis 1-li punqtis Camoyalibebis<br />
winaistorias:<br />
41-e muxlis 1-li punqtis teqstis<br />
Tavda pirvel wyarod asaxeleben 1928<br />
wlis ha vanis konvencias. konvenciis me-12<br />
mux lis Tanaxmad: `ucxo qveynis diplomatiur<br />
moxeleebs ar SeuZliaT Caerion<br />
im saxelmwifos saSinao an sagareo politikaSi,<br />
sadac isini TavianT funqciebs<br />
axorcieleben~. 12 mogvianebiT, 1957 wels<br />
saerTaSoriso samarTlis komisiam am<br />
sa kiTxis ganxilvisas gaiTvaliswina havanis<br />
konvenciis me-12 muxlis teqsti,<br />
Tumca kanonproeqtSi mxolod adgilsamyofeli<br />
saxelmwifos Sida saqmeebSi<br />
Carevaze gaakeTa aqcenti, radgan miiCnia,<br />
rom sagareo urTierTobebi isedac<br />
moiazreboda diplomatis samoqmedo<br />
sfe rod da, zogadad, diplomatiuri<br />
fun qciebis ganxorcielebis arenad. 13<br />
sa gulisxmoa, rom nebismieri saxelmwifos,<br />
Tundac saerTaSoriso arenaze yovlad<br />
miuRebeli da arademokratiuli<br />
saxelmwifos, 14 saSinao da sagareo politika<br />
aris am saxelmwifos eqskluziuri<br />
sfero da masTan pirdapir kavSirSia<br />
saxelmwifo suverenitetis fundamenturi<br />
principi. Sesabamisad, komisiis<br />
mier gakeTebuli saboloo formulireba<br />
sulac ar gamoricxavs sagareo saqmeebs<br />
saxelmwifos iurisdiqciidan. „...saxelmwifos<br />
Sida politika misi eqskluziuri<br />
Sida kompetenciaa, 15 ...saxelmwifos<br />
suvereniteti vrceldeba mis sagareo<br />
politikazec~. 16<br />
interess iwvevs saerTaSoriso samarTlis<br />
komisiis daskvna, rom saxelmwifos<br />
valdebuleba, ar Caerios adgilsamyofeli<br />
saxelmwifos Sida iurisdiqciaSi<br />
da diplomatis valdebuleba,<br />
ar Caerios adgilsamyofeli saxelmwifos<br />
Sida saqmeebSi kerZo qmedebebis<br />
ganxorcielebisas, ori sxvadasxva<br />
va l debulebaa da rom saxelmwifoTa<br />
Caurevlobis principi ar unda asaxuliyo<br />
venis konvenciaSi. 17 aqedan gamomdinare,<br />
rTulia, visaubroT Sida saqmeebSi<br />
Carevaze, rogorc diplomatiuri urTierTobebis<br />
gawyvetis erT-erT mizezze,<br />
vinaidan erTi diplomatis „kerZo qmedebebi,<br />
romelTac is ar axorcielebs instruqciebis<br />
Sesabamisad~, 18 ar SeiZleba<br />
ganixilebodes saxelmwifoTa Soris seriozuli<br />
dapirispirebis gamomxatvel<br />
moqmedebad.<br />
aRniSnuli debulebis amgvari interpretacia<br />
SesaZlebelia atarebdes wminda<br />
Teoriul xasiaTs, vinaidan saxelmwifoTa<br />
praqtika absoluturad sxva<br />
fa q tebze metyvelebs. marTalia, 41-e<br />
muxlis 1-l punqtSi saubaria diploma-<br />
161
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
tiuri imunitetebiTa da privilegiebiT<br />
mosargeble pirebze, Tumca gasaTvaliswinebelia,<br />
rom isini warmoadgenen<br />
TavianT saxelmwifos da moqmedeben<br />
misi saxeliT. Sesabamisad, saxelmwifos<br />
Caurevlobis valdebuleba iribad, magram<br />
mainc unda moviazroT. rac Seexeba<br />
konvenciaSi mkafio Canaweris ararsebobas,<br />
es metwilad ganpirobebulia im garemoebiT,<br />
rom saxelmwifos Sida saqmeebSi<br />
Caurevlobis valdebuleba saerTaSoriso<br />
CveulebiTi samarTlis nawilia da,<br />
Sesabamisad, isedac igulisxmeba.<br />
diplomatiuri urTierTobis gawyvetis<br />
mizezi xSirad meore saxelmwifos<br />
mier gakeTebuli gancxadebebi an diplomatiuri<br />
warmomadgenlobebis Tanam-<br />
SromelTa adgilsamyofeli qveynebis<br />
saSinao saqmeebSi Careva xdeba. magali-<br />
Tad, 1981 wels aSS-ma sTxova libias,<br />
daexura Tavisi saelCo vaSingtonSi da<br />
gaewvia warmomadgenlobis yvela wevri<br />
5 dRis ganmavlobaSi 19 , imis sapasuxod,<br />
rom libiam mxari dauWira saerTaSoriso<br />
terorizms. paralelurad, aseve daixura<br />
aSS-is saelCo tripolSi.<br />
2008 wlis 23 dekembers fijis respublikam<br />
ganacxada axal zelandiasTan<br />
diplomatiuri urTierTobis gawyvetis<br />
Sesaxeb. fijis Tavdacvis ministrma<br />
vorenve mbainimaramam sajarod ganacxada,<br />
rom axali zelandiis diplomatiuri<br />
warmomadgenlobis meTauris movaleobis<br />
Semsrulebeli kerolain makdonaldi<br />
opoziciis organizaciaTa wevrebTan<br />
TanamSromlobda. fijis generaluri<br />
pro kuroris movaleobis droebiTi Semsruleblis<br />
gancxadebiT, gadawyvetileba<br />
diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobis<br />
gaZevebis Sesaxeb ganapiroba misma<br />
qmedebebma, romlebic saerTaSoriso samarTlis<br />
sayovelTaod aRiarebul diplomatiuri<br />
qcevis wesebs ewinaaRmdegeboda.<br />
misive gancxadebiT, axali zelandiis<br />
diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobis<br />
personalis wevrebi aqtiur mxardaWeras<br />
uwevdnen maT, vinc xelisuflebis<br />
winaaRmdeg gamodioda da amiT adgilobriv<br />
mosaxleobaSi mRelvarebas aRviveb<br />
dnen. 20 aRniSnuli faqtis gaTvaliswi<br />
nebiT, diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobis,<br />
nebismieri rangis diplomatiuri<br />
Tanamdebobis piris mxridan msgavsi<br />
qmedeba SesaZloa aRqmul da Sefasebul<br />
iqnes saxelmwifos saSinao saqmeebSi<br />
Carevis mcdelobad, rac, Carevis simZimis<br />
gaTvaliswinebiT, SesaZloa, gaxdes<br />
urTierTobebis gawyvetis mizezi.<br />
sagulisxmoa, rom diplomatiur war<br />
momadgenlobas adgilsamyofel sa xel<br />
m wifoSi araTu ar ekrZaleba opoziciur<br />
partiebTan da organizaciebTan<br />
TanamSromloba, aramed is garkveulwilad<br />
valdebulic aris, maTTan iqonios<br />
perioduli kavSiri, raTa srulad<br />
iyos informirebuli qveyanaSi mimdinare<br />
politikuri procesebis Sesaxeb da<br />
srulfasovnad SeZlos konvenciiT nakisri<br />
funqciebis ganxorcieleba. bunebrivia,<br />
informaciis mopoveba unda xdebodes<br />
mxolod kanonieri saSualebebis gamoyenebiT<br />
da unda emsaxurebodes saxelmwifos<br />
interesebs. 1961 wlis konvenciis<br />
me-3 muxlSi CamoTvlilia diplomatiuri<br />
warmomadgenlobis ZiriTadi funqciebi,<br />
maT Soris sainteresoa 1-li punqtis d)<br />
qvepunqti, sadac saubaria imaze, rom<br />
adgilsamyofel saxelmwifoSi pirobebisa<br />
da ambebis gamorkveva da maakreditebeli<br />
saxelmwifos mTavrobisaTvis maTi<br />
Setyobineba unda xdebodes yovelgvari<br />
kanonieri saSualebebiT. am konteqstSi<br />
unda aRiniSnos marTlmsajulebis saer-<br />
TaSoriso sasamarTlos gadawyvetileba<br />
mZevlebis saqmeze: im diplomatiuri fun<br />
qciis ganxorcieleba, romelic asaxulia<br />
me-3.1(d) muxlSi, kerZod `adgilsamyofel<br />
saxelmwifoSi pirobebisa da ambebis<br />
gamorkveva~, `SeiZleba miviCnioT, rom<br />
moicavs iseT qmedebebs, rogoriebcaa:<br />
`jaSuSoba~ an `Sida saqmeebSi Careva~. 21<br />
mesame saxelmwifoebi<br />
Tanamedrove saerTaSoriso samar-<br />
TalSi diplomatiuri urTierTobebis<br />
gawyvetis mizezi xSirad mesame saxelmwifo<br />
xdeba. amis magaliTia iransa da<br />
egviptes Soris 1979 wels gawyvetili<br />
diplomatiuri urTierToba. revoluciamde<br />
iranisa da egviptis urTierToba<br />
megobrul xasiaTs atarebda. omis dros<br />
iranma sahaero derefani gauxsna sab-<br />
162
x. ToTlaZe, diplomatiuri urTierTobebis gawyvetis politikur-samarTlebrivi safuZvlebi da Sedegebi<br />
WoTa TviTmfrinavebs, romlebsac egvipteSi<br />
iaraRi da sabrZolo aRWurviloba<br />
gadahqondaT, amasTan, rodesac arabulma<br />
saxelmwifoebma israels embargo dauweses<br />
da navTobs aRar awvdidnen, irani<br />
erTaderTi muslimanuri saxelmwifo<br />
aRmoCnda, romelmac es wesi daarRvia.<br />
irani keTilganwyobili iyo egviptis mimarT,<br />
romelic arabuli saxelmwifoebis<br />
mier lideradaa aRiarebuli. 1979 wlis<br />
revoluciis Sedegad iranis xelisuflebaSi<br />
Siiti sasuliero pirebi movidnen,<br />
lider aiaTola homeinis meTaurobiT.<br />
maTma ideologiurma koncefciam islamuri<br />
revoluciis eqsportis Sesaxeb<br />
arabul saxelmwifoebSi seriozuli gangaSi<br />
gamoiwvia.<br />
Siiti sasuliero pirebi, romlebic<br />
monarqistul reJims ewinaaRmdegebodnen,<br />
upirispirdebodnen Sahis xelisuflebis<br />
kavSirs israelTan. sionizmis<br />
ideologiur mtrad Tavis gamocxadebis<br />
Semdeg iranis xelisufleba aqtiurad<br />
daupirispirda arabeT-israelis samSvidobo<br />
process. iransa da egviptes Soris<br />
urTierToba mas Semdeg gauaresda,<br />
rac egviptem iranis Sahs politikuri<br />
TavSesafari misca. 1979 wels iransa da<br />
israels Soris dadebulma samSvidobo<br />
xelSekrulebam, daZabul politikur<br />
fonze, gamoiwvia iransa da egviptes<br />
Soris diplomatiuri urTierTobis<br />
gawyveta. homeinis gancxadebiT, am or<br />
saxelmwifos Soris diplomatiuri urTierTobis<br />
aRdgena mxolod egviptesa da<br />
israels Soris diplomatiuri urTier-<br />
Tobis gawyvetiT iqneboda SesaZlebeli.<br />
saxelmwifosTan diplomatiuri<br />
urTierTobis damyareba Sesabamisi<br />
saxelmwifos mier meore saxelmwifos de<br />
jure aRiarebas gulisxmobs, Sesabamisad,<br />
xSirad isec xdeba, rom saxelmwifoebi<br />
gaurbian iseT saxelmwifoebTan diplomatiuri<br />
urTierTobebis damyarebas,<br />
romlebsac did saxelmwifoebTan aqvT<br />
daZabuli politikuri urTierToba da<br />
am mizeziT ukve damyarebul diplomatiur<br />
urTierTobebsac wyveten. amis magaliTia<br />
CineTisa da taivanis SemTxveva.<br />
mravali saxelmwifo ar amyarebs taivan-<br />
Tan diplomatiur urTierTobas, swored<br />
CineTis mier SerCeuli politikis gamo<br />
eridebian CineTis saxalxo respublikasTan<br />
diplomatiuri urTierTobebis<br />
gawyvetas, taivans ki mxolod ramdenime<br />
saxelmwifo aRiarebs, miuxedavad imisa,<br />
rom is yvela kriteriums akmayofilebs<br />
imisaTvis, raTa rogorc damoukidebeli<br />
saxelmwifo mogvevlinos saerTaSoriso<br />
asparezze. 22 magaliTad, CineTTan<br />
urTierTobis aRsadgenad kosta rikam<br />
TiTqmis 60-wliani urTierToba gawyvita<br />
taivanTan. mxolod patara da Rarib<br />
qveynebs aqvT taivanTan diplomatiuri<br />
urTierToba damyarebuli, Tumca mas,<br />
kosta rikas msgavsad, centraluri amerikis<br />
sxva qveynebTanac emuqreba diplomatiuri<br />
urTierTobebis gawyveta. 23<br />
CineTis saxalxo respublikis amgvari<br />
diplomatia halStainis doqtrinas<br />
ukavSirdeba. halStainis doqtrinis<br />
Tanaxmad, mesame saxelmwifoebis mier<br />
diplomatiuri urTierTobebis damyareba<br />
da SenarCuneba germaniis demokratiul<br />
respublikasTan germaniis federaciuli<br />
respublikis mier aramegobrul<br />
aqtad aRiqmeboda (acte peu amical)<br />
da, rogorc wesi, aseT saxelmwifosTan<br />
germaniis federaciuli respublika<br />
diplomatiur urTierTobas wyvetda an<br />
saerTod ar amyarebda. Tavdapirvelad<br />
gamonaklisi sabWoTa kavSiri iyo. 24<br />
sanqciebi<br />
saxelmwifos ufleba, gawyvitos diplomatiuri<br />
urTierToba meore saxelmwifosTan,<br />
marTlmsajulebis saerTa-<br />
Soriso sasamarTlom mZevlebis saqmeSi<br />
daadgina rogorc sanqcia, sapasuxo reaqcia<br />
diplomatis mier Tavisi privilegiebisa<br />
da imunitetebis borotad gamoyenebaze.<br />
25 sasamarTlom daadgina:<br />
pirvel rigSi, gasaTvaliswinebelia:<br />
diplomatiuri samarTali – es aris<br />
Tvi Tmaregulirebeli samarTlebrivi<br />
reJimi, rac imas niSnavs, rom Tavadve<br />
gansazRvravs sanqciebs diplomatiuri<br />
samarTlis normebis darRvevebisas. 26<br />
konvencia, erTi mxriv, adgens adgilsamyofeli<br />
saxelmwifos valdebulebebs<br />
diplomatiur privilegiebsa da imunitetebTan<br />
mimarTebiT; meore mxriv, iT-<br />
163
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
valiswinebs diplomatiuri misiis wevr-<br />
Ta mier privilegiebisa da imunitetebis<br />
borotad gamoyenebis SesaZleblobas da<br />
adgens `qmediT RonisZiebebs~, raTa adgilsamyofelma<br />
saxelmwifom SeZlos misi<br />
Tavidan acileba. 27<br />
saqmis faqtobrivi garemoebebidan<br />
gamomdinare, iranma aSS daadanaSaula<br />
mis Sida saqmeebSi `pirdapir~ 28 da 25-<br />
wli an CarevaSi, 29 riTac Seecada gaemarTlebina<br />
TeiranSi aSS-is saelCos<br />
darbevis, saelCos personalisa da stumrebis<br />
mZevlad ayvanis faqtebi. sasamarTlom<br />
ar gaiTvaliswina iranis argumentebi,<br />
`radgan diplomatiuri samar-<br />
Tali Tavad adgens dacvis saSualebebs<br />
da sanqciebs diplomatiuri an sakonsulo<br />
misiebis wevrTa ukanono qmedebebis<br />
sawinaaRmdegod~. 30 amgvar sanqciebad<br />
sasamarTlom daasaxela:<br />
konvenciis me-9 muxli – diplomatiuri<br />
warmomadgenlobis personalis<br />
wevris persona non grata-d an miuRebel<br />
pirad gamocxadeba `nebismier dros...<br />
gadawyvetilebis dausabuTeblad~. 31<br />
maakreditebel saxelmwifosTan diplo<br />
matiuri urTierTobebis gawyveta – rogorc<br />
`ufro radikaluri sanqcia, Tu misiis<br />
wevrTa mier maTi funqciebis darRvevis<br />
SemTxvevebi miaRwevs seriozul<br />
kon diciebs~. 32<br />
samwuxarod, iranis mTavrobam ar<br />
gamoiyena Tavis xelT arsebuli samarTlebrivi<br />
SesaZleblobebi – sanqciebi –<br />
da mimarTa iZulebiT zomebs aSS-is sael-<br />
Cos personalis winaaRmdeg. Sesabamisad,<br />
sasamarTlom irani saerTaSoriso konvenciebisa<br />
da zogadi saerTaSoriso samarTlis<br />
normebis xelyofaSi daadana-<br />
Saula. 33<br />
sanqciebis konteqstSi sainteresoa<br />
gaeros wesdebis 41-e muxli, romelic iTvaliswinebs<br />
diplomatiuri urTierTobebis<br />
gawyvetis SesaZleblobas, rogorc<br />
uSiSroebis sabWos gadawyvetilebis Seus<br />
ruleblobis erT-erT sanqcias, Tum<br />
ca am kuTxiT unda aRiniSnos, rom 41-e<br />
muxlis es nawili wminda Teoriul xasiaTs<br />
atarebs da jerac ar yofila implementirebuli<br />
romelime saxelmwifos<br />
mier.<br />
diplomatiuri urTierTobebis<br />
droebiTi gawyveta<br />
diplomatiuri urTierTobebis gawyveta<br />
or saxelmwifos Soris arsebuli<br />
daZabuli, SeiZleba iTqvas, mtruli urTierTobebis<br />
gamomxatveli erT-erTi yvelaze<br />
radikaluri formaa. Sesabamisad,<br />
diplomatiuri urTierTobebis sabolood<br />
gawyvetas da diplomatiuri war<br />
momadgenlobis samudamod gawvevas<br />
sa xelmwifoebi xSirad diplomatiuri<br />
warmomadgenlobis droebiT gawvevas amjobineben.<br />
diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobis<br />
dr oebiTi gawveva ufro martivi forma<br />
da proceduraa, vidre urTierTobis<br />
sa boloo gawyveta. warmomadgenlobebis<br />
droebiTi gawveva gulisxmobs, rom<br />
or saxelmwifos Soris urTierToba sagrZnoblad<br />
`gacivda~, magram, amave dros,<br />
arc erT mxares ar surs urTierTobis<br />
sabolood gawyveta da imedovneben, rom<br />
Seqmnil viTarebas eqneba droebiTi xasiaTi.<br />
magaliTad, 1987 wels did britaneTsa<br />
da irans Soris daiZaba urTierToba,<br />
rac iranis sakonsulo TanamSromlis<br />
manCesterSi dakavebiT daiwyo. mas bralad<br />
edeboda maRaziis ga qurdva. viTareba<br />
maSin gamwvavda, ro desac didi britaneTis<br />
diplomati Te iranSi daakaves,<br />
rasac Sedegad am or saxelmwifos Soris<br />
diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobis personalis<br />
ramdenime wevris gawveva mohyva.<br />
didma britaneTma 1980 wlidan 1988<br />
wlamde gaiwvia Tavisi saelCo sruli<br />
SemadgenlobiT da mis interesebs iranSi<br />
SvedeTis saelCoSi arsebuli britane-<br />
Tis interesebis ganyofileba icavda,<br />
magram, miuxedavad amisa, didi britaneTi<br />
mainc miiCnevda, rom mas hqonda<br />
sruli diplomatiuri urTierTobebi<br />
iranTan, 34 rac, Tavis mxriv, sxvadasxva<br />
sferoSi TanamSromlobisa da dialogis<br />
SesaZleblobas mainc gulisxmobs.<br />
rogorc wesi, diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobis<br />
gamowveva xdeba im saxelmwifodan,<br />
sadac xdeba SeiaraRebuli<br />
konfliqti an samoqalaqo dapirispireba.<br />
aseT viTarebaSi SeuZlebeli xdeba<br />
diplomatiuri funqciebis efeqturi da<br />
usafrTxo ganxorcieleba, rogorc es<br />
164
x. ToTlaZe, diplomatiuri urTierTobebis gawyvetis politikur-samarTlebrivi safuZvlebi da Sedegebi<br />
1992 wels moxda, rodesac safrangeTis,<br />
italiisa da bulgareTis diplomatebi,<br />
romlebic darCnen qabulSi samoqalaqo<br />
omis dros, gaiwvies, radgan intensiuri<br />
srolebi mimdinareobda xelisuflebis<br />
warmomadgenlebsa da amboxebul xalxs<br />
Soris. 35<br />
amerikis SeerTebulma Statebma, iseve<br />
rogorc libiis SemTxvevaSi, 1991 wels<br />
moiTxova somalis saelCos daxurva da<br />
saelCos TanamSromlebis gawveva, xolo<br />
1994 wels ruandis saelCos igive moTxovna<br />
wauyena. imdroindelma prezidentma<br />
klintonma ruandasTan dakavSirebiT<br />
ganacxada, rom aSS-s ar SeuZlia dauSvas<br />
im reJimis warmomadgenlebis darCena<br />
Tavis teritoriaze, romlebic genocids<br />
uWeren mxars. 36<br />
erT-erT uCveulo situacia Seiqmna<br />
1975 wels. mas Semdeg, rac samxreT vietnamis<br />
mTavroba gadaayenes, did britaneTSi<br />
vietnamis elCi saelCos personalTan<br />
erTad gadadga manam, sanam didi<br />
britaneTi cnobda axal mTavrobas, da<br />
didi britaneTis mTavrobas warmomadgenlobis<br />
kar-midamo, sakuTreba da arqivebi<br />
dasacavad gadasca. miuxedavad<br />
imisa, rom realurad warmomadgenloba<br />
ar iyo gamowveuli, didma britaneTma,<br />
`diplomatiuri urTierTobebis Sesaxeb~<br />
konvenciis 45-e muxlis Tanaxmad, Tavi<br />
valdebulad CaTvala, samxreT vietnamis<br />
dacva Tavis Tavze aeRo. 37<br />
rac Seexeba ukve gawveuli diplomatiuri<br />
warmomadgenlobis kar-midamos<br />
dacvas, venis konvenciis Sesabamisad,<br />
adgilsamyofeli saxelmwifo valdebulia,<br />
pativi sces da daicvas ukve gawveuli<br />
diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobis<br />
kar-midamo. 38 kar-midamos xelSeuxebloba<br />
da termini ~pativi sces da daicvas~ ar<br />
moiazreba ise, TiTqos adgilsamyofeli<br />
saxelmwifos organoebs ar aqvT kar-midamoSi<br />
Sesvlis ufleba. 1984 wels, did<br />
britaneTSi momxdari SemTxvevis Semdeg,<br />
didma britaneTma miiRo normatiuli<br />
aqti `diplomatiuri da sakonsulo warmomadgenlobis<br />
kar-midamos Sesaxeb~,<br />
romelic gansazRvravs warmomadgenlobis<br />
kar-midamos statusis gauqmebas<br />
(1987 wlis aqti). es statusi, erovnuli<br />
kanonmdeblobis miznebis Sesabamisad,<br />
damokidebulia sagareo saqmeTa saministros<br />
Tanxmobaze. 39 1984 wlis 17 aprils<br />
londonSi, libiis saxalxo biuros win,<br />
garkveuli jgufi libiis xelisuflebis<br />
winaaRmdeg marTavda demonstracias,<br />
risi mizezic libiaSi politikuri<br />
areulobis dawyeba iyo. demonstraciis<br />
dros saxalxo biurodan cecxli gaxsnes,<br />
rasac erTi demonstrantis daWra da britaneli<br />
policielis daRupva mo hyva. britaneTis<br />
policiam moiTxova, gaeCxrika<br />
saxalxo biuro, romelic venis konvenciis<br />
Sesabamisad ganixileboda rogorc<br />
diplomatiuri warmomadgenloba. britanulma<br />
policiam aseTi nebarTva ver miiRo,<br />
radgan `diplomatiuri urTierTobebis<br />
Sesaxeb~ konvenciis Tanaxmad, diplomatiuri<br />
warmomadgenlobis kar-midamo<br />
xelSeuxebelia. warmomadgenlobis karmidamo<br />
xelSeuxeblad gamocxadda manam,<br />
sanam warmomadgenlobis yvela wevri<br />
qveynidan ar gaemgzavreboda. mxolod<br />
maT mier teritoriis datovebis Semdeg<br />
SeeZlo policias Cxrekis Catareba mkvlelobis<br />
gamosaZieblad.amitom britanuli<br />
policia, rogorc danaSaulze reagirebis<br />
erTaderT saSualebas, daeyrdno<br />
`diplomatiuri urTierTobebis Sesaxeb~<br />
konvenciis 41-e da me-9 muxlebs da saxalxo<br />
biuros TanamSromlebi persona non<br />
grata-d gamoacxada. 40<br />
saqarTvelo-ruseTis diplomatiuri<br />
urTierTobebi<br />
saqarTvelosa da ruseTis federacias<br />
Soris diplomatiuri urTierTobebi<br />
1992 wlis 1 ivliss damyarda.<br />
ruseTis mier 2008 wlis agvistoSi<br />
saqarTvelos winaaRmdeg ganxorcielebuli<br />
samxedro agresiis, qveynis teritoriis<br />
nawilis okupaciis, e.w. „afxa ze-<br />
Tisa da samxreT oseTis respublikebis~<br />
ukanono aRiarebisa da am regionebSi<br />
eT nikuri wmendis Catarebis Semdeg saqarTvelom<br />
ruseTTan diplomatiuri<br />
urTierTobebis gawyvetis Sesaxeb gadawyvetileba<br />
miiRo, ris Sesaxebac 2008<br />
wlis 3 seqtembers saTanado notiT acnoba<br />
ruseTis mxares.<br />
165
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
sagulisxmoa, rom saqarTvelo-ru -<br />
seTs Soris 1992 wlidan 2008 wlis CaTv<br />
liT dadebulia asze meti ormxrivi<br />
saerTaSoriso xelSekruleba sxvadasxva<br />
sferoSi, 41 amave dros saqarTvelo da<br />
ru seTi, rogorc saerTaSoriso samar<br />
Tlis sruluflebiani wevrebi, arian<br />
asobiT mravalmxrivi saerTaSoriso<br />
xe lSekrulebis wevri saxelmwifoebi,<br />
rac, Tavis mxriv, badebs mniSvnelovan<br />
saerTaSorisosamarTlebriv valdebule<br />
bebs. „saxelSekrulebo samarTlis Sesa<br />
xeb~ venis 1969 wlis konvenciis 63-e<br />
muxlis Tanaxmad: „saxelmwifoTa Soris<br />
diplomatiuri an sakonsulo urTier-<br />
Tobebis gawyveta gavlenas ar axdens<br />
maT Soris xelSekrulebis safuZvelze<br />
Camoyalibebul samarTlebriv urTier-<br />
Tobebze, garda im SemTxvevebisa, rodesac<br />
diplomatiuri da sakonsulo urTierTobebis<br />
arseboba xelSekrulebis Se s-<br />
rulebis aucilebeli winapirobaa~. aqe dan<br />
gamomdinare, ruseTisa da sa qar T velos<br />
urTierTobebSi dRis wesrigSi dadga<br />
„diplomatiuri urTierTobebis Sesaxeb~<br />
venis 1961 wlis konvenciix 45-e da 46-e<br />
muxlebis amoqmedebis aucilebloba.<br />
venis konvenciis 45-e muxli aris samarTlebrivi<br />
CarCo maakreditebeli saxe<br />
l mwifos interesebis dasacavad, ma-<br />
Sin, rodesac diplomatiuri urTier-<br />
Toba wydeba, xolo maakreditebeli da<br />
adgilsamyofeli saxelmwifoebi arsebobas<br />
ganagrZoben rogorc suverenuli<br />
saxelmwifoebi, da suverenitets orive<br />
mxare aRiarebs. 42<br />
`diplomatiuri urTierTobebis Sesa<br />
xeb~ konvenciis 45-e muxli adgens im<br />
minimalur standarts, rac maakreditebel<br />
saxelmwifos aZlevs saSualebas,<br />
Tavisi warmomadgenlobis kar-midamos,<br />
qonebisa da arqivebis dacva mesame saxelmwifos<br />
andos, aseve amave muxlze<br />
dayrdnobiT, maakreditebel saxelmwifos<br />
eZleva SesaZlebloba, Tavisi da<br />
Tavis moqalaqeTa interesebis dacva<br />
miandos mesame saxelmwifos, romelic<br />
adgilsamyofeli saxelmwifosaTvis misaRebi<br />
iqneba. 43<br />
is faqti, rom `venis diplomatiuri<br />
urTierTobebis Sesaxeb~ konvenciis 45-e<br />
muxlis b da c punqtebSi Caiwera termini<br />
`misaRebi~, SemTxveviTi ar yofila.<br />
termini saerTaSoriso samarTlis<br />
komisiam ganzrax SearCia. amiT man xazi<br />
ga usva im garemoebas, rom adgilsamyofel<br />
saxelmwifos ar eZleoda winaswari<br />
Tanxmobis ufleba. gawyvetili di p lomatiuri<br />
urTierTobebis Semdeg ma akre<br />
ditebeli saxelmwifos interese bis<br />
dasacavad venis konvenciaSi Caiwera<br />
de buleba, romlis Tanaxmadac mesame<br />
saxelmwifo icavs maakreditebeli sa xel<br />
mwifos interesebs. gansxvavebiT `dip<br />
lomatiuri urTierTobebis Sesaxeb~<br />
konvenciis 46-e muxlisagan, romlis<br />
mixedviTac, saWiroa adgilobrivi saxelmwifos<br />
winaswari Tanxmoba, raTa<br />
maakreditebeli saxelmwifos diplomatiurma<br />
warmomadgenlobam daicvas mesame<br />
saxelmwifos interesebi, 45-e muxlis b<br />
da c punqtebis mixedviT ar aris adgilobrivi<br />
saxelmwifos Tanxmoba saWiro manam,<br />
sanam maakreditebeli saxelmwifo interesebis<br />
dacvas adgilsamyofel saxelmwifoSi<br />
ar miandobs mesame saxelmwifos.<br />
konvencia ar uSvebs imis SesaZ leblobas,<br />
rom diplomatiuri urTierTobebis<br />
gawyvetis SemTxvevaSi, adgilsamyofelma<br />
saxelmwifom ganacxados uari –<br />
maakreditebeli saxelmwifos interesebi<br />
daicvas sxva, mesame saxelmwifom. aseTi<br />
ram moxda 1961 wels, rodesac indoneziam<br />
holandiasTan diplomatiuri urTier-<br />
Tobis gawyvetis Semdeg ar darTo neba<br />
holandias, rom misi interesebi daecva<br />
did britaneTs an sxva saxelmwifos. es<br />
gadawyvetileba maSindeli msofliosa-<br />
Tvis aRmaSfoTebeli aRmoCnda, indoneziis<br />
nabiji gaakritikes, xolo konkretuli<br />
faqti Sefasda rogorc uprecedento,<br />
saerTaSoriso praqtikisagan gansxvavebuli<br />
da miuRebeli qmedeba. 44<br />
konvenciis 46-e muxlze dayrdnobiT,<br />
20<strong>09</strong> wlis martSi gaixsna saqarTveloSi<br />
Sveicariis saelCos ruseTis federaciis<br />
interesebis seqcia, imave dRes gaixsna<br />
ruseTis federaciaSi Sveicariis sael-<br />
Cos saqarTvelos interesebis seqcia.<br />
Sveicariis konfederacia SemTxveviT<br />
ar yofila SerCeuli e.w. `mfarveli~ saxelmwifos<br />
rolSi. Sveicarias, aseve<br />
166
x. ToTlaZe, diplomatiuri urTierTobebis gawyvetis politikur-samarTlebrivi safuZvlebi da Sedegebi<br />
SvedeTs, rogorc neitralur saxelmwifoebs,<br />
sakmaod kargi gamocdileba aqvT<br />
am mimarTulebiT 45 da, TavianTi statusidan<br />
gamomdinare, imsaxureben orive<br />
mxaris ndobas. saqarTvelos mxridan<br />
aRniSnuli gadawyvetileba ganpirobebuli<br />
iyo ZiriTadad ruseTis federacia-<br />
Si mcxovrebi saqarTvelos moqalaqeebis<br />
interesebis dacvis aucileblobiT. mar-<br />
Talia, rogorc zemoT aRiniSna, `sakonsulo<br />
urTierTobebis Sesaxeb venis 1963<br />
wlis konvenciis~ me-2 muxlis Tanaxmad,<br />
diplomatiuri urTierTobebis gawyveta<br />
ar gulisxmobs ipso facto sakonsulo<br />
urTierTobebis gawyvetas, Tumca ruseTsa<br />
da saqarTvelos Soris daZabuli<br />
politikuri viTarebis fonze arcerT<br />
mxares ar gamouTqvams calke sakonsulo<br />
urTierTobebis SenarCunebis survili.<br />
Sesabamisad, saqarTvelos 2008 wlis 3 seqtembris<br />
calmxrivi aqtiT (nota) mxare-<br />
Ta Soris gawyda rogorc diplomatiuri,<br />
ise sakonsulo urTierTobebi.<br />
daskvna<br />
ra politikur-samarTlebrivi safu-<br />
Z vlebiTac ar unda iyos argumentirebuli<br />
saxelmwifoebs Soris diplomatiuri<br />
urTierTobebis gawyvetis Sesaxeb gadawyvetileba,<br />
rogorc praqtika gvaCvenebs,<br />
ramdenadac martivia aRniSnuli urTierTobebis<br />
gawyvetis procedura, imis<br />
gaTvaliswinebiT, rom amisaTvis sakmarisia<br />
erTi romelime saxelmwifos neba,<br />
imdenad rTuli da xangrZlivi procesia<br />
gawyvetili urTierTobebis aRdgena.<br />
Sedegobrivi TvalsazrisiT, mniSvnelovania<br />
imis gaazreba, rom politikuri dialogis<br />
ararsebobis pirobebSi praqtikulad<br />
SeuZlebelia raime saxis urTier-<br />
Tobebis gagrZeleba da, miT ufro, ganvi-<br />
Tareba. ruseT-saqarTvelos magaliTze<br />
SeiZleba Tamamad iTqvas, rom paralizebulia<br />
urTierTobebi yvela sxva sferoSi,<br />
radgan nebismieri ormxrivi saerTaSoriso<br />
xelSekrulebis keTilsindisierad<br />
Sesrulebis survilis SemTxvevaSic ki<br />
mxareTa Soris komunikacia absoluturad<br />
gayinulia. 46<br />
`diplomatiuri urTierTobebis Se saxeb~<br />
venis 1961 wlis konvenciis Tanaxmad,<br />
warmomadgenlobis ZiriTadi funqciebSi<br />
Sedis: moqalaqeTa interesebis dacva,<br />
adgilsamyofeli saxelmwifos mTavrobasTan<br />
dialogi, maakreditebel da adgilsamyofel<br />
saxelmwifos Soris megob<br />
ruli urTierTobebis waxaliseba, ekonomikis,<br />
kulturis, mecnierebisa da sxva<br />
dargebSi maTi urTierTobis ganviTareba<br />
da sxv. 47 am metad mniSvnelovani urTier-<br />
Tobis ararsebobis pirobebSi saqarTvelo-ruseTs<br />
Soris SeCerebulia sahaero<br />
mimosvla, investiciebis ganxorcieleba,<br />
vaWroba, kulturuli kavSirebis ganviTareba,<br />
turizmi, jandacvis sferoSi<br />
TanamSromloba da kidev mravali sxva,<br />
rac xSirad konkretul moqalaqeTa sasicocxlo<br />
interess exeba.<br />
marTalia, saqarTvelom pirvelma gadadga<br />
nabiji mezobel saxelmwifosTan<br />
diplomatiuri urTierTobebis gawyvetisaken,<br />
rac, kidev erTxel unda aRiniSnos,<br />
mxareTa Soris daZabuli politikuri<br />
viTarebis, SeiaraRebuli konfliqtis<br />
Sedegi gaxda, Tumca aqve unda iTqvas isic,<br />
rom diplomatiis mTavari roli, misi<br />
ZiriTadi daniSnuleba ikveTeba swored<br />
konfliqtis dros. `mSvidobiani kompromisi~,<br />
`norma uwyveti dialogis Sesaxeb~<br />
diplomatiis ZiriTadi principebia.<br />
diplomatiuri urTierTobis gawyveta,<br />
rogorc araerTxel aRiniSna, poli<br />
tikuri urTierTobebis gawyvetas<br />
niS navs da, Sesabamisad, praqtikulad SeuZlebelia<br />
am gadawyvetilebis samarTlebrivi<br />
safuZvlebis moZebna, anu gadawyvetileba<br />
politikuri xasiaTisaa. mar-<br />
Tlac, aravin uaryofs, rom `samarTali<br />
politikis ganxorcielebis saSualebaa,<br />
magram amavdroulad aris molodini,<br />
rom politikac moeqceva samarTlis farglebSi~.<br />
48<br />
167
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
1<br />
marTlmsajulebis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlo: Military and Paramilitary<br />
Activities In and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. U.S.A.), 1986 wlis 27 ivnisi<br />
(SemdgomSi – nikaraguis saqme), §203, gv. 107; Tanamedrove saerTaSoriso<br />
samarTali, leqsikoni-cnobari, Tb., 2003, gv. 335.<br />
2<br />
nikaraguis saqme, §264, gv. 133; ix., agreTve: Tanamedrove saerTaSoriso<br />
samarTali, leqsikoni-cnobari, Tb., 2003, gv. 335.<br />
3<br />
Ib. ix. agreTve Anne Peters. <strong>International</strong> Dispute settlement: A Network of<br />
Cooperational Duties. European <strong>Journal</strong> of <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>. 2003. Vol.14<br />
No.1, p. 2.<br />
4<br />
nikaraguis saqme, §264 gv. 133.<br />
5<br />
Tanamedrove saerTaSoriso samarTali, leqsikoni-cnobari, Tb., 2003,<br />
gv. 335-336.<br />
6<br />
Elieen Denza, Diplomatic <strong>Law</strong> Commentary on the Vienna Convention on<br />
Diplomatic Relations.<br />
7<br />
Tanamedrove saerTaSoriso samarTali, leqsikoni-cnobari, Tb., 2003,<br />
gv. 97.<br />
8<br />
venis 1963 wlis konvencia `sakonsulo urTierTobebis Sesaxeb~, me-2<br />
muxli.<br />
9<br />
`diplomatiuri urTierTobebis damyarebis Sesaxeb~ SeTanxmebebi ar<br />
Seicavs debulebebs misi moqmedebis Sewyvetis Taobaze.<br />
10<br />
`saxelSekrulebo samarTlis Sesaxeb~ venis 1969 wlis konvencia. III<br />
Tavi.<br />
11<br />
`saxelSekrulebo samarTlis Sesaxeb~ venis 1969 wlis konvencia, me-60-<br />
62-e muxlebi.<br />
12<br />
Ib., gv. 376.<br />
13<br />
ILC Yearbook 1957 Vol. I pp.143-5. citirebuli: Denza, Eileen. Diplomatic<br />
<strong>Law</strong>, A Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (2 nd ed.).<br />
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998, gv. 376.<br />
14<br />
nikaraguis saqme, §263 gv. 133.<br />
15<br />
Ib., §258 gv. 131.<br />
16<br />
Ib., §265 gv. 133.<br />
17<br />
ILC Yearbook 1957 Vol. I pp.143-50. citirebuli: Denza, Eileen. Diplomatic<br />
<strong>Law</strong>, A Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (2 nd ed.).<br />
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998, gv. 375-376.<br />
18<br />
Denza, Eileen. Diplomatic <strong>Law</strong>, A Commentary on the Vienna Convention on<br />
Diplomatic Relations (2 nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998, gv. 376.<br />
19<br />
Elieen Denza, Diplomatic <strong>Law</strong> Commentary on the Vienna Convention on<br />
Diplomatic Relations.<br />
20<br />
Pacifi c Islands News Association, offi cial web-page. aqve unda aRiniSnos, rom<br />
daZabuli urTierTobebis mesame wlis Tavze (imave wyaroze dayrdnobiT),<br />
2010 wlis TebervalSi, fijisa da axali zelandiis xelisuflebis<br />
maRalma Tanamdebobis pirebma (sagareo saqmeTa ministrebma) ganacxades<br />
diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobebis kvlav wargzavnis mzaobis Sesaxeb,<br />
rasac logikurad urTierTobebis daTboba da aRdgena mohyveba.<br />
21<br />
mZevlebis saqme, §85, gv. 39.<br />
22<br />
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallstein-Doktrin<br />
23<br />
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,487215,00.html<br />
24<br />
halStainis doqtrina konrad adenaueris moskovSi vizitisa da sab-<br />
WoTa kavSirTan diplomatiuri urTierTobis damyarebis Semdeg, 1955<br />
wels iqna formulirebuli da amave wlis elCebis konferenciaze,<br />
168
x. ToTlaZe, diplomatiuri urTierTobebis gawyvetis politikur-samarTlebrivi safuZvlebi da Sedegebi<br />
qalaq bonSi, sajarod gacxadda. am doqtrinas, rogorc varaudobdnen,<br />
SeeZlo, germaniis federaciuli respublika srul izolaciamde mieyvana.<br />
Tumca doqtrinis gamoyeneba yovelTvis da yvelasTan mimarTebiT<br />
ar xdeboda. magaliTad, 1957 wels, rodesac germaniis demokratiulma<br />
respublikam kairoSi gaxsna biuro, romelic mTel arabul samyarosTan<br />
diplomatiuri urTierTobisaTvis iyo gamiznuli, germaniis federaciulma<br />
respublikam halStainis doqtrina ar gamoiyena. realurad<br />
igi mxolod orjer gamoiyenes: Tavdapirvelad yofili iugoslaviis<br />
mimarT 1957 wels, da 1963 wels kubis mimarT. germaniis federaciulma<br />
respublikam diplomatiuri urTierToba gawyvita kubasTan im mizeziT,<br />
rom kubam germaniis demokratiuli respublika aRiara. rodesac afrikulma<br />
qveyanam, gvineam, 1958 wels damoukidebloba moipova, orive<br />
germanulma saxelmwifom moindoma gvineaSi saelCos gaxsna. germaniis<br />
demokratiulma respublikam gvineaSi savaWro warmomadgenloba daafuZna,<br />
cota xnis Semdeg germaniis federaciulma respublikam gvineaSi<br />
saelCo gaxsna. 1960 wels damoukideblobamopovebulma saxelmwifom<br />
germaniis demokratiul respublikaSi diplomatebi gagzavna, germaniis<br />
federaciulma respublikam ki sapasuxod diplomatiuri warmomadgenloba<br />
gaiwvia.gvineam uaryo aRmosavleT berlinSi diplomatebis gagzavnis<br />
faqti.am gancxadebis Semdeg gvineasa da germaniis federaciul<br />
respublikas Soris urTierToba aRdga, germaniis demokratiulma respublikam<br />
ki sagareo politikaSi marcxi ganicada.<br />
25<br />
mZevlebis saqme, §84, gv. 38.<br />
26<br />
Bruno Simma and Dirk Pulkowski. Of planets and the Universe: Self-Contained<br />
Regimes in <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>. European <strong>Journal</strong> of <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>. 2006.<br />
Vol.17 No.3 p.485.<br />
27<br />
mZevlebis saqme, §86, gv. 40.<br />
28<br />
Ib., §35, gv. 19.<br />
29<br />
Ib., §81, gv. 37.<br />
30<br />
mZevlebis saqme, §83, gv. 38.<br />
31<br />
mZevlebis saqme, §85, gv. 39. ix. agreTve Denza, Eileen. Diplomatic <strong>Law</strong>, A<br />
Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (2 nd ed.). Oxford:<br />
Clarendon Press, 1998, gv. 63.<br />
32<br />
mZevlebis saqme, §85, gv. 40.<br />
33<br />
Ib., §95 gv. 44.<br />
34<br />
Elieen Denza, Diplomatic <strong>Law</strong> Commentary on the Vienna Convention on<br />
Diplomatic Relations.<br />
35<br />
Elieen Denza, Diplomatic <strong>Law</strong> Commentary on the Vienna Convention on<br />
Diplomatic Relations.<br />
36<br />
Elieen Denza, Diplomatic <strong>Law</strong> Commentary on the Vienna Convention on<br />
Diplomatic Relations.<br />
37<br />
Elieen Denza, Diplomatic <strong>Law</strong> Commentary on the Vienna Convention on<br />
Diplomatic Relations.<br />
38<br />
venis konvencia `diplomatiuri urTierTobebis Sesaxeb,~ 45-e muxli.<br />
39<br />
Elieen Denza, Diplomatic <strong>Law</strong> Commentary on the Vienna Convention on<br />
Diplomatic Relations.<br />
40<br />
http://www.apidya.com/nur/cases/case-libyscher-botschaftsfall.html<br />
41<br />
saqarTvelos sagareo saqmeTa saministros saarqivo dokumentacia da<br />
oficialuri monacemebi vebgverdze: www.mfa.gov.ge<br />
42<br />
Elieen Denza, Diplomatic <strong>Law</strong> Commentary on the Vienna Convention on<br />
Diplomatic Relations .<br />
43<br />
venis 1961 wils konvencia `diplomatiuri urTierTobebis Sesaxeb~, 45-e<br />
muxlis a,b punqtebi.<br />
169
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
44<br />
Elieen Denza, Diplomatic <strong>Law</strong> Commentary on the Vienna Convention on<br />
Diplomatic Relations.<br />
45<br />
amerikis SeerTebuli Statebis interesebs icavs Sveicariis saelCo<br />
TeiranSi.<br />
46<br />
Sveicariis konfederaciis saelCos meSveobiT, ZiriTadad, xorcieldeba<br />
sakonsulo urTierTobebi, rac, Tavis mxriv, ufro funqciuri xasiaTisaa,<br />
xolo diplomatiuri anu politikuri urTierTobebis WrilSi<br />
Sveicariis saelCo praqtikulad mxolod `saqarTvelos okupirebul<br />
teritoriebze~ ruseTis federaciis araTanmimdevruli qmedebebis<br />
Sedegad saqarTvelos mxaris saprotesto notebis adresatisaTvis gadacemas<br />
axdens.<br />
47<br />
`diplomatiuri urTierTobebis Sesaxeb~ venis 1961 wlis konvencia, me-3<br />
muxli.<br />
48<br />
Onuma Yasuaki. <strong>International</strong> law in and with <strong>International</strong> politics: The functions<br />
of <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> in <strong>International</strong> Society. European <strong>Journal</strong> of <strong>International</strong><br />
<strong>Law</strong>. 2003. Vol.14 No.1, p. 108 .<br />
170
KHATUNA TOTLADZE<br />
POLITICAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS AND OUTCOMES<br />
OF SEVERANCE OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
<strong>International</strong> law is based on the peaceful<br />
coexistence and broad cooperation of<br />
states. The obligation of states to cooperate<br />
with each other is one of the main principles<br />
of international law 1 and is refl ected in the<br />
UN “Declaration on Principles of <strong>International</strong><br />
<strong>Law</strong> concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation<br />
among States based on the Charter<br />
of the United Nations” of 1970 (Resolution of<br />
General Assembly 2625), 2 as well as in the<br />
Helsinki Final Act of 1975 3 . (It is worth mentioning<br />
that both legal acts were recognized by the<br />
<strong>International</strong> Court of Justice in the Nicaragua<br />
case as acts refl ecting the provisions of international<br />
customary law 4 ). According to this<br />
principle, and despite the differences of their<br />
political, economic and social systems, states<br />
are obliged to cooperate with each other in different<br />
areas of international relations, in order<br />
to resolve different problems in line with the<br />
principles of sovereign equality and non-interference.<br />
5<br />
The establishment of diplomatic relations<br />
between states is a legal precondition to further<br />
intensifying relations and cooperation in<br />
different areas. It encourages the development<br />
of friendly relations and promotes peace<br />
and security. Principles of coexistence and<br />
broad cooperation are of major importance<br />
in view of diplomatic law, as far as this fi eld<br />
of international law serves to develop favourable<br />
and peace-oriented relations among the<br />
states. According to Article 2 of the Vienna<br />
Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961,<br />
the establishment of diplomatic relations between<br />
states, and of permanent diplomatic<br />
missions, takes place by mutual consent<br />
which is generally preceded by de facto or de<br />
jure recognition of one state by the other.<br />
GENERAL LEGAL GROUNDS FOR THE<br />
SEVERANCE OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS<br />
Unlike the establishment of diplomatic relations,<br />
which is described in Vienna Convention<br />
in detail, the legal or political grounds based<br />
on which a state could break off diplomatic relations<br />
with any other state is not determined<br />
by the Vienna Convention. There is no legal<br />
ground to break off diplomatic relations by a<br />
State; generally such a break is caused by political<br />
reasons. 6 Perhaps due to this fact, the<br />
grounds for the severance of diplomatic relations<br />
were not included in the Convention.<br />
The “mutual consent” of states mentioned<br />
in Article 2 of the Convention is the main basis<br />
for the establishment of diplomatic relations.<br />
Consequently, if any state rejects this very important<br />
component, the diplomatic relations<br />
break off.<br />
Severance of diplomatic relations is also<br />
severance of offi cial political relations between<br />
the states due to their disagreement on<br />
a certain issue. 7 This action does not mean<br />
the refusal of recognition, and does not automatically<br />
involve severance of consular 8 and<br />
trade relations.<br />
Despite the fact that the Vienna Convention<br />
of 1961 does not determine the legal or political<br />
grounds for the severance of diplomatic<br />
relations, it could still be possible to make a<br />
political decision to break off diplomatic relations<br />
within legal frames.<br />
171
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
Diplomatic relations between the states<br />
are established by mutual consent, which is<br />
formed by interstate international agreements<br />
(protocol, communiqué). It is important to note<br />
that in such international treaties, only the<br />
will of the states to establish diplomatic relations,<br />
and act in these relations pursuant to<br />
provisions of Vienna Convention of 1961, are<br />
mentioned. Regarding the shape of a treaty,<br />
although such treaties are not classical samples<br />
9 of international treaties, they are regulated<br />
under international law and consequently<br />
fall within the category of treaties determined<br />
by the Vienna Convention on the <strong>Law</strong> of<br />
Treaties of 1969. The Vienna Convention of<br />
1969 provides a detailed description of the legal<br />
grounds for termination and suspension of<br />
the operation of a treaty 10 . For example, Under<br />
Article 54 of the Convention, a treaty which<br />
contains no provision regarding its termination<br />
may be terminated only if: (a) it is established<br />
that the parties intended to admit the possibility<br />
of denunciation or withdrawal; or (b) a right<br />
of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied<br />
by the nature of the treaty. From the nature<br />
of the treaties on the establishment of diplomatic<br />
relations, it can be assumed that the<br />
parties, while concluding a treaty, intended to<br />
acknowledge the denunciation of a treaty. As<br />
it is already mentioned above, establishment<br />
of diplomatic relations is based on the mutual<br />
consent of the parties – bilateral consent – but<br />
making a decision on severance of the same<br />
relation is a sovereign right of a state and is<br />
generally expressed through a single act.<br />
The aim of researching the legal grounds<br />
for severance of diplomatic relations is not to<br />
study genuine legal reasons; it is an attempt to<br />
put forward legal arguments for political decisions.<br />
In accordance with Article 60 of the Vienna<br />
Convention on the <strong>Law</strong> of Treaties of 1969, “a<br />
material breach of a bilateral treaty by one<br />
of the parties entitles the other to invoke the<br />
breach as grounds for terminating the treaty<br />
or suspending its operation in whole or in<br />
part.” But Article 61 of the Convention of 1969<br />
provides for the possibility of termination of a<br />
treaty in whole or in part in case of an impossibility<br />
of adhering to a treaty, if the impossibility<br />
results from the permanent disappearance<br />
or destruction of an object indispensable for<br />
the execution of the treaty. Lastly, pursuant to<br />
Article 62 of the Convention of 1969, a fundamental<br />
change of circumstances, that has<br />
constituted an essential basis for the consent<br />
of the parties to be bound by the treaty, may<br />
become grounds for terminating a treaty. 11<br />
Considering the Articles mentioned above,<br />
if legal grounds for establishment of diplomatic<br />
relations is an international treaty concluded<br />
between the parties, and if a violation of obligations<br />
under the treaty, or an impossibility<br />
of further performance of a treaty or a fundamental<br />
change of circumstances may become<br />
grounds for terminating or suspending the operation<br />
of the treaty in whole or in part, certain<br />
political decisions on the severance of diplomatic<br />
relations may be strengthened by the<br />
aforementioned legal arguments.<br />
REASONS FOR THE SEVERANCE OF<br />
DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS<br />
A. Interference in the Internal Affairs of<br />
a State<br />
As mentioned in the introduction above,<br />
the nature of diplomatic law serves to develop<br />
favourable and peace-oriented relations<br />
among states. Consequently, such an approach<br />
was refl ected in the Vienna Convention<br />
on Diplomatic Relations of 1961. In particular,<br />
paragraph 1 of Article 41 states: “Without<br />
prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it<br />
is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges<br />
and immunities to respect the laws and<br />
regulations of the receiving state. They also<br />
have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs<br />
of that state.” In order to determine what<br />
is considered interference in the internal affairs<br />
of a state, which often becomes the grounds<br />
for severance of diplomatic relations, it is important<br />
to recall the history of the formation of<br />
paragraph 1 of Article 41:<br />
The Havana Convention of 1928 is referred<br />
to as an initial source of the text of<br />
Article 41.1. According to Article 12, “...foreign<br />
diplomatic offi cers may not participate in<br />
the domestic or foreign politics of the state in<br />
which they exercise their functions.” 12 In 1957,<br />
172
KH. TOTLADZE, POLITICAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS AND OUTCOMES OF SEVERANCE OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS<br />
the <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> Commission, while discussing<br />
this issue, took into consideration the<br />
texts of Article 12 of the Havana Convention.<br />
However, it gave emphasis only to the domestic<br />
affairs of a state, as it deemed that foreign<br />
relations themselves were considered to be<br />
a fi eld of activity for diplomats, and also gave<br />
emphasis generally as grounds for performing<br />
diplomatic functions. 13<br />
It is worth mentioning that the domestic<br />
and foreign policy of any state, even of the<br />
most questionable and non-democratic 14 in<br />
an international fi eld, is an exclusive sphere<br />
of that state and the fundamental principle<br />
of state sovereignty directly applies to it. Accordingly,<br />
the fi nal wording of the Commission<br />
does not exclude foreign affairs from state jurisdiction<br />
at all. “...A State’s domestic policy<br />
falls within its exclusive jurisdiction 15 ...state<br />
sovereignty extends to the area of its foreign<br />
policy.” 16<br />
It is important to note that during the discussions,<br />
the <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> Commission<br />
came to a conclusion that the obligation of<br />
a state not to interfere in the domestic jurisdiction<br />
of a receiving state, and the duty of a<br />
diplomat not to interfere in the internal affairs<br />
of receiving state while performing private actions,<br />
are two different obligations, and that<br />
the principle of non-interference should not be<br />
refl ected in the Vienna Convention. 17 Therefore,<br />
it is diffi cult to examine non-interference<br />
in internal affairs, as one of the reasons for the<br />
severance of diplomatic relations, as far as the<br />
individual actions of one diplomat that are not<br />
performed by him under state instructions, 18<br />
shall not be considered an activity causing serious<br />
confrontation between the states.<br />
Such interpretation of the mentioned provision<br />
may have a clear theoretical character,<br />
as far as state practice reveals absolutely different<br />
facts. Although Paragraph 1 of Article<br />
41 refers to persons enjoying diplomatic immunities<br />
and privileges, it should be taken into<br />
consideration that they represent their state<br />
and act on behalf of it. Therefore, the obligation<br />
of a state of non-interference should be<br />
considered indirectly. Non-existence of a clear<br />
provision in the Convention is rationalized by<br />
the fact that obligation of non-interference in<br />
the internal affairs of a state is the part of international<br />
customary law and is nevertheless<br />
implied.<br />
The reasons for severance of diplomatic<br />
relations are frequently the statements made<br />
by the other state, or interference in the internal<br />
affairs of the receiving state by offi cials of<br />
diplomatic representations. For example, in<br />
1981 the U.S.A requested that Libya close its<br />
embassy in Washington and recall all members<br />
of the representation within 5 days, 19 in<br />
response to Libya’s support for international<br />
terrorism.<br />
On 23 December, 2008, the Republic of<br />
the Fiji Islands declared severance of diplomatic<br />
relations with New Zealand. The Defence<br />
Minister of Fiji, Mr. Voreqe Bainimarama,<br />
publicly declared that the chargé d’affaires of<br />
diplomatic representations of New Zealand,<br />
Karolain MacDonald, was cooperating with<br />
representatives of the opposition. The interim<br />
acting General Prosecutor of Fiji stated that<br />
the decision to expel New Zealand’s diplomatic<br />
representation was justifi ed by the fact that<br />
its actions were in contrast with the diplomatic<br />
code of conducts universally recognized by<br />
international law. He also declared that members<br />
of New Zealand’s diplomatic staff were<br />
actively supporting the opposition of the Fijian<br />
authority and therefore were encouraging disturbances<br />
among the local population. 20 Taking<br />
this fact into consideration, any similar action<br />
of diplomatic representation or an offi cial<br />
of any diplomatic rank may be considered an<br />
attempt at interference in the internal affairs of<br />
a state, which, depending on its gravity, may<br />
become grounds for breaking off diplomatic<br />
relations.<br />
It is not forbidden for diplomatic representation<br />
to cooperate with oppositional political<br />
parties and organizations, and representatives<br />
are even somehow obliged to have periodic relations<br />
with them in order to be fully informed<br />
about ongoing political events in the country,<br />
and could still fully perform their functions as<br />
prescribed under the Convention. Naturally,<br />
information should be obtained only by lawful<br />
means and should serve state interests. Article<br />
3 of the Convention of 1969 provides for the<br />
173
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
main functions of diplomatic representation.<br />
Among them, paragraph 1(d) should be underlined,<br />
which stipulates that ascertaining conditions<br />
and developments in the receiving state,<br />
and reporting thereon to the Government of<br />
the sending state, should be completed solely<br />
by lawful means. In this respect, the case of<br />
the decision of the <strong>International</strong> Court of Justice<br />
on Hostages should be highlighted. The<br />
exercising of diplomatic functions, reflected in<br />
Article 3 (1) (d), in particular, “…ascertaining by<br />
all lawful means conditions and developments<br />
in the receiving state…,” may be considered to<br />
involve such acts as “espionage” or “interference<br />
in internal affairs”. 21<br />
Third States<br />
In contemporary international law, the<br />
reason for severance of diplomatic relations<br />
is often a third state. One example is the diplomatic<br />
relationship between Iran and Egypt,<br />
which was broken off in 1979. Before the revolution,<br />
Iran and Egypt had friendly relations.<br />
During the war, Iran opened an air corridor to<br />
Soviet airplanes transporting arms and ammunition<br />
to Egypt. Also, when several Arab States<br />
imposed an embargo on Israel and were not<br />
supplying oil, Iran appeared to be the only<br />
Muslim state which violated that rule. Iran’s<br />
position towards Egypt, which is recognized<br />
as a leader by Arab States, was favorable. In<br />
1979, as a result of the revolution, Shiite clerics<br />
led by Ayatollah Khomeini came to power.<br />
Their ideological conception on the export of<br />
an Islamic revolution caused serious anxiety<br />
in Arab States.<br />
Shiite clerics resisting a monarchist regime<br />
were opposing the relations of Shah’s<br />
authorities with Israel. After declaring Zionism<br />
an ideological enemy, the authorities of<br />
Iran actively confronted the Arab-Israel peace<br />
process. Relations between Iran and Israel<br />
deteriorated after Egypt gave political asylum<br />
to Iran’s Shah. A peace agreement was concluded<br />
between Iran and Israel in 1979, on a<br />
tense political background, and caused severance<br />
of diplomatic relations between Iran and<br />
Egypt. According to a statement by Khomeini,<br />
the restoration of diplomatic relations between<br />
these two states would be possible only if diplomatic<br />
relations between Egypt and Israel<br />
were broken off.<br />
Establishment of diplomatic relations with<br />
a state implies de jure recognition of that state.<br />
Therefore, many states will avoid establishing<br />
diplomatic relations with other states that have<br />
a tense political relationship with larger states,<br />
and a state may even break off established<br />
diplomatic relations because of such tension.<br />
This has occurred, for example, in the case<br />
of China and Taiwan. Many states do not establish<br />
diplomatic relations with Taiwan due to<br />
the China’s policy of refusing to maintain diplomatic<br />
relations with any country that recognizes<br />
Taiwan as a country. By not establishing<br />
relations with Taiwan, these states are trying<br />
to avoid the severance of diplomatic relations<br />
with the People’s Republic of China. Taiwan<br />
is recognized by few states, despite the fact<br />
that it meets all criteria to emerge as an independent<br />
state on an international level. 22 For<br />
example, in order to restore diplomatic relations<br />
with China, Costa Rica has broken off a<br />
relationship of almost 60 years with Taiwan.<br />
Many states that have established a diplomatic<br />
relationship with Taiwan are small and<br />
poor. However, as demonstrated by the case<br />
of Costa Rica, Taiwan may face the threat of<br />
other Central American countries severing<br />
diplomatic relations as well. 23<br />
Such diplomacy by the People’s Republic<br />
of China is linked to the Hallstein Doctrine.<br />
According to the Hallstein Doctrine, the establishment<br />
and maintenance of diplomatic<br />
relations between the Democratic Republic of<br />
Germany and third-party states was considered<br />
an unfriendly act by the Federal Republic<br />
of Germany (acte peu amical), and in general<br />
the Federal Republic of Germany was breaking<br />
off diplomatic relations with such states, or<br />
was not establishing relations at all. Initially,<br />
the USSR was an exception. 24<br />
Sanctions<br />
In the Hostages case, the <strong>International</strong><br />
Court of Justice established the right of a state<br />
to break off diplomatic relations with another<br />
state as a sanction in response to abuse of<br />
174
KH. TOTLADZE, POLITICAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS AND OUTCOMES OF SEVERANCE OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS<br />
privileges and immunities by a diplomat. 25 The<br />
court established the following:<br />
First of all, we should take into consideration<br />
that diplomatic law is a self-contained<br />
regime, which means that from the beginning<br />
it determines sanctions for the infringement<br />
of rules of diplomatic law. 26 On the one hand<br />
the Convention lays down the receiving state’s<br />
obligations regarding the facilities, privileges,<br />
and immunities to be accorded to diplomatic<br />
missions and, on the other, foresees their possible<br />
abuse by members of the mission and<br />
specifi es the means at the disposa1 of the receiving<br />
state to counter any such abuse. 27<br />
Based on the merits of the case, Iran accused<br />
the U.S. of “direct” 28 interference, and<br />
25 years of continual interference, 29 in its internal<br />
affairs, attempting to justify the attack<br />
of the United States Embassy and seizure of<br />
personnel and guests of the Embassy as hostages.<br />
The court did not agree with the arguments<br />
of Iran “…because diplomatic law itself<br />
provides the necessary means of defense<br />
against, and sanction for, illicit activities by<br />
members of diplomatic or consular missions…<br />
.” 30 The following have been named by the<br />
court as such sanctions:<br />
Article 9 – declaration of the member of<br />
the diplomatic staff of the mission as persona<br />
non grata or as not acceptable “at any time…<br />
without having to explain its decision.” 31<br />
Severance of diplomatic relations with a<br />
sending state<br />
“…A more radical remedy if abuses of<br />
their functions by members of a mission reach<br />
serious proportions….” 32<br />
Unfortunately, the government of Iran did<br />
not use the legal remedies available - sanctions<br />
- and applied forcible measures against<br />
the personnel of the U.S. Embassy. Consequently,<br />
the court charged Iran for violating<br />
international conventions and rules of general<br />
international law. 33<br />
With respect to sanctions, Article 41 of<br />
the UN Charter should be emphasized, which<br />
provides for the possibility of severance of diplomatic<br />
relations as one of the sanctions for<br />
non-performance of the decision of the Security<br />
Council. However, this part of Article 41<br />
bears theoretical character and has not yet<br />
been implemented by any state.<br />
Temporary severance of diplomatic<br />
relations<br />
The severance of diplomatic relations<br />
is one of the most radical forms of tense or<br />
hostile relations existing between two states.<br />
Therefore, states often prefer to recall diplomatic<br />
representation temporarily, rather than<br />
to break off diplomatic relations and permanently<br />
recall diplomatic representation.<br />
A temporary recall of diplomatic representation<br />
is a much easier form and procedure<br />
than the complete severance of diplomatic<br />
relations. A temporary recall of representation<br />
means that the relationship between two<br />
states has become signifi cantly “cold”, but at<br />
the same time, neither party is willing to completely<br />
break off the relationship; both suppose<br />
that the existing situation will be temporary. For<br />
example, in 1987, the relationship between the<br />
UK and Iran deteriorated when an Iranian consular<br />
offi cial was detained in Manchester after<br />
he was accused of shoplifting. The situation<br />
worsened when a UK diplomat was detained<br />
in Tehran, which was followed by the recall of<br />
several representatives of both states. The UK<br />
recalled the entire staff of its Embassy from<br />
1980 to 1988, and the UK’s request of the Embassy<br />
of Sweden was protecting its interests<br />
in Iran, however, the UK still believed that it<br />
had full diplomatic relations with Iran, 34 which<br />
itself implies, at least, cooperation in some<br />
fi elds and a possibility of dialogue.<br />
Generally, diplomatic representation is<br />
recalled from a state where armed confl ict or<br />
civil disturbances are occurring. In such cases<br />
where the safe and effective implementation<br />
of diplomatic functions becomes impossible,<br />
as it did 1992 when French, Italian, and Bulgarian<br />
diplomats were recalled from Kabul, Afghanistan<br />
due to intensive shootings between<br />
the government representatives and opposing<br />
groups. 35<br />
As they had done with Libya in 1980,<br />
The U.S. closed their Embassy in Somalia<br />
and recalled Embassy staff in 1991. In 1994,<br />
175
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
the U.S. demanded closure of the Embassy<br />
of Rwanda. President Clinton stated that the<br />
U.S. could not allow representatives of the<br />
regime supporting the Rwandan genocide to<br />
stay in U.S. territory. 36<br />
One unusual event took place in 1975.<br />
In the aftermath of the removal of South Vietnam’s<br />
government, the Vietnamese Ambassador<br />
to the UK, along with Embassy personnel,<br />
resigned before the UK recognized the new<br />
government, and entrusted the custody of the<br />
premises, property, and archives of the South<br />
Vietnamese representation to the UK Government.<br />
Despite the fact that South Vietnamese<br />
representation was not recalled, the UK bound<br />
itself to take custody of South Vietnam pursuant<br />
to Article 45 of the Convention on Diplomatic<br />
Relations. 37<br />
As regards the custody of the premises of<br />
recalled diplomatic representation, in accordance<br />
with the Vienna Convention, a receiving<br />
state must respect and protect the premises<br />
of diplomatic representation that has already<br />
been recalled. 38 The inviolability of premises<br />
and the term “respect and protect” do not imply<br />
that authorities of the receiving state are not<br />
entitled to enter the premises. After the events<br />
of 1984 that took place in the UK, the latter has<br />
adopted a normative act for treatment of the<br />
premises of diplomatic and consular representations,<br />
which determines the abolition of the<br />
status of the foreign representation’s premises<br />
(Act of 1987). Based on the aims of national<br />
legislation, this status depends on the consent<br />
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 39 On 17 April,<br />
1984, in front of the public Bureau of Libya in<br />
London, a group was demonstrating against<br />
the Government of Libya, in response to political<br />
disturbances in Libya. During the demonstration,<br />
someone opened fire from within the<br />
public bureau of Libya, and one demonstrator<br />
was wounded and a British police officer was<br />
killed. The British police requested a search<br />
of the public bureau, which, under the Vienna<br />
Convention, was considered to be Libya’s diplomatic<br />
representation. Such permission was<br />
not granted to British police because, under<br />
the Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the<br />
premises of diplomatic representations are<br />
inviolable. The premises of the Libyan representation<br />
were declared inviolable unless all its<br />
members had left the country. For the investigation<br />
of the murder, the police could only conduct<br />
a search once Libyan diplomats left UK<br />
territory. Therefore, British police relied on Articles<br />
41 and 9 of the Convention on Diplomatic<br />
Relations as the only possible response to the<br />
crime, and declared the staff members of the<br />
Libyan public bureau as persona non grata. 40<br />
IV. USSR-GEORGIA DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS:<br />
Diplomatic relations between the USSR<br />
and Georgia were established on 1 July, 1992.<br />
In 2008, after commencement of military<br />
aggression of the USSR against Georgia, occupation<br />
of part of the country, illicit recognition<br />
of the so-called Republics of Abkhazia<br />
and South Ossetia, and ethnic cleansing conducted<br />
in these regions, Georgia decided to<br />
sever diplomatic relations with the USSR, notice<br />
of which was given in a verbal note to the<br />
USSR on 3 September, 2008.<br />
From 1992 to 2008, more then 100 treaties<br />
have been signed between the USSR and<br />
Georgia in different areas. 41 At the same time,<br />
Georgia and the USSR, as full members of international<br />
law, are both party to hundreds of<br />
multilateral treaties, and this itself gives rise<br />
to significant international legal obligations.<br />
In accordance with Article 63 of the Vienna<br />
Convention on the <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> of the<br />
Treaties of 1969, “…the severance of diplomatic<br />
or consular relations between parties to<br />
a treaty does not affect the legal relations established<br />
between them by the treaty except<br />
insofar as the existence of diplomatic or consular<br />
relations is indispensable for the application<br />
of the treaty.” Therefore, in USSR-Georgia<br />
relations, it became necessary to bring into<br />
operation Articles 45 and 46 of the Vienna<br />
Convention of Diplomatic Relations of 1961.<br />
Article 45 of the Convention on Diplomatic<br />
Relations forms a legal framework for the protection<br />
of interests of the sending state, in the<br />
event that diplomatic relations break off, but<br />
the sending and receiving states continue their<br />
existence as sovereign states and each party<br />
recognizes the sovereignty of the other. 42<br />
176
KH. TOTLADZE, POLITICAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS AND OUTCOMES OF SEVERANCE OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS<br />
Article 45 of the Convention on Diplomatic<br />
Relations establishes minimal standards,<br />
which gives the sending state the opportunity<br />
to entrust the custody of the premises of<br />
the mission, together with its property and archives,<br />
to a third state. Also, under the same<br />
Article, the sending state may entrust the protection<br />
of its interests and those of its nationals<br />
to a third state acceptable to the receiving<br />
state. 43<br />
The term “acceptable” was not accidentally<br />
included in paragraphs b and c of Article<br />
45 of the Convention. The term was selected<br />
by the <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> Commission on purpose,<br />
to emphasize that the receiving state<br />
was not given the right of prior consent.<br />
In order to protect the interests of a<br />
sending state after the severance of diplomatic<br />
relations, the provision was included in<br />
the Vienna Convention pursuant to which a<br />
third state protects the interests of a sending<br />
state. Unlike Article 46 of the Convention on<br />
Diplomatic Relations, according to which the<br />
prior consent of a receiving state is needed<br />
for the diplomatic representation of sending<br />
state in order to undertake the protection of<br />
the interests by a third state, Article 45 (b, c)<br />
does not require the consent of the receiving<br />
state unless the sending state entrusts the<br />
third state to protect its interests in the receiving<br />
state.<br />
The Convention on Diplomatic Relations<br />
does not provide the opportunity for the receiving<br />
state to refuse the protection of the sending<br />
state’s interests by a third state in case of<br />
severance of diplomatic relations. Such an<br />
event took place in 1961, when Indonesia, after<br />
severance of diplomatic relations with the<br />
Netherlands, did not allow the Netherlands to<br />
entrust protection of its interests to the UK or<br />
any other state. This decision was upsetting for<br />
the world at that time. Indonesia’s action was<br />
criticised and the fact was assessed as unprecedented,<br />
different from common international<br />
practice, and an unacceptable action. 44<br />
Relying on Article 46 of the Convention<br />
of Diplomatic Relations, the USSR opened<br />
a section of their interests in the Embassy of<br />
Switzerland to Georgia in March 20<strong>09</strong>. On the<br />
same day, a section of Georgian interests was<br />
opened in the Embassy of Switzerland to the<br />
USSR. The Confederation of Switzerland was<br />
not selected by chance as so called “protector”<br />
state. Switzerland, like Sweden, has signifi<br />
cant experience as a neutral state, 45 and,<br />
due to its status, deserves the confi dence of<br />
both sides. This decision from Georgian side<br />
was mainly conditioned by the necessity to<br />
protect the interests of the citizens of Georgia<br />
residing in the USSR. As mentioned above,<br />
in accordance with Article 2 of the Vienna<br />
Convention on Consular Relations of 1963,<br />
the severance of diplomatic relations shall not<br />
ipso facto involve the severance of consular<br />
relations; however, due to the tense political<br />
situation between the USSR and Georgia, neither<br />
party expressed their desire to maintain<br />
consular relations. Consequently, on the basis<br />
of a single act (the verbal note) by Georgia on<br />
3 September, 2008, diplomatic and consular<br />
relations between the parties were broken off.<br />
V. CONCLUSIONS<br />
Whatever political or legal grounds are<br />
applied to the argumentation for a decision on<br />
the severance of diplomatic relations between<br />
states, practice reveals that, as simple as it is<br />
to break off these relations if either state wills<br />
it, the process of restoring relations is just as<br />
complex and lengthy. It is important to realize<br />
that it is practically impossible to have any<br />
relationship, and to develop such a relationship,<br />
without political dialogue. In the USSR-<br />
Georgian example, it can easily be concluded<br />
that relations in all other areas are paralyzed,<br />
because, even if both parties are willing to<br />
perform obligations under any bilateral international<br />
treaty in a good faith, communication<br />
between the parties is absolutely frozen. 46<br />
Pursuant to the Vienna Convention on<br />
Diplomatic Relations of 1961, the main functions<br />
of a diplomatic mission consist of: protection<br />
of the interests of nationals, negotiating<br />
with the government of the receiving state,<br />
promoting friendly relations between the sending<br />
and receiving states, and developing their<br />
economic, cultural and scientifi c relations. 47<br />
177
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
Due to the absence of such important relations<br />
between the USSR and Georgia, there is<br />
no air communication, investment, trade, development<br />
of cultural relations, tourism, or cooperation<br />
in the fi eld of health care and many<br />
others between the two states, which is often<br />
the vital interest of certain nationals.<br />
Although the fi rst step in breaking off diplomatic<br />
relations with its neighbouring state<br />
was made by Georgia, which, as mentioned<br />
above, was the result of both the tense political<br />
situation between the parties and the<br />
armed confl ict, it should be emphasized that<br />
the main role of diplomacy and its basic designation<br />
is revealed precisely during the confl<br />
ict. “Peaceful compromise” and “the norm on<br />
continuous dialogue” are the main principles<br />
of diplomacy.<br />
As mentioned above, the severance of<br />
diplomatic relations means severance of political<br />
relations, and it is practically impossible<br />
to fi nd legal grounds for this decision. In other<br />
words, the decision was political in nature.<br />
Indeed, nobody rejects that the law is a way to<br />
implement policy, but at the same time, there<br />
is an expectation that the policy will fall within<br />
the scope of the law. 48<br />
1<br />
<strong>International</strong> Court of Justice, Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against<br />
Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. U.S.A.), 27 June, 1986, [herein referred to as the<br />
Nicaragua case], §203, p. 107: Contemporary <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>. Dictionaryreference<br />
book. Tbilisi: (Publishing house of Tbilisi University, 2003), p. 335.<br />
2<br />
Nicaragua case, §264, p. 133; see also Contemporary <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>,<br />
(Publishing house of Tbilisi University, 2003), p. 335.<br />
3<br />
Nicaragua case, §264, p. 133 see also Contemporary <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>,<br />
(Publishing house of Tbilisi University, 2003), p. 335.<br />
See also Anne Peters, “<strong>International</strong> Dispute Settlement: A Network of<br />
Cooperational Duties,” European <strong>Journal</strong> of <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> 14(1) (2003), p.2.<br />
4<br />
Nicaragua case, §264, p. 133.<br />
5<br />
Contemporary <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>, (Publishing house of Tbilisi University, 2003), p.<br />
335-336.<br />
6<br />
Elieen Denza, Diplomatic <strong>Law</strong> Commentary on the Vienna Convention on<br />
Diplomatic Relations, 2 nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998).<br />
7<br />
Contemporary <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>. (Publishing house of Tbilisi University, 2003), p. 97.<br />
8<br />
UN, Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963, Article 2.<br />
9<br />
Treaties on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations do not involve provisions<br />
on termination of its operation.<br />
10<br />
UN, Vienna Convention on the <strong>Law</strong> of Treaties of 1969, Chapter III.<br />
11<br />
UN, Vienna Convention on the <strong>Law</strong> of Treaties of 1969, Articles 60-62.<br />
12<br />
UN, Vienna Convention on the <strong>Law</strong> of Treaties of 1969, p. 376<br />
13<br />
ILC Yearbook (1957) Vol. I pp.143-5, cited Denza, Diplomatic <strong>Law</strong> Commentary<br />
on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations , pp. 376.<br />
14<br />
Nicaragua case, §263, p. 133.<br />
15<br />
Nicaragua case, §258, p.131 .<br />
16<br />
Nicaragua case, §265, p. 133.<br />
17<br />
ILC Yearbook (1957) Vol. I pp.143-50, cited Denza, Diplomatic <strong>Law</strong> Commentary<br />
on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. pp. 376.<br />
18<br />
Denza, Diplomatic <strong>Law</strong> Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic<br />
Relations, p.376.<br />
19<br />
Denza, Diplomatic <strong>Law</strong>, A Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic<br />
Relations.<br />
20<br />
Pacifi c Islands News Association, offi cial web-page at http://www.pina.com.fj/.<br />
It should be mentioned that, on the third anniversary of tense relations (relying<br />
178
KH. TOTLADZE, POLITICAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS AND OUTCOMES OF SEVERANCE OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS<br />
on the same source), in February 2010, high offi cials of Fiji and New Zealand<br />
(Ministers of Foreign Affairs) declared their readiness for re-establishing diplomatic<br />
missions, which was followed by a warming and restoration of a diplomatic<br />
relationship.<br />
21<br />
Hostages case, §85, p. 39<br />
22<br />
The Hallstein Doctrine. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallstein-Doktrin<br />
23<br />
Spiegel Online: Politik. http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,487215,00.<br />
html.<br />
24<br />
The Hallstein Doctrine was founded in 1955 after the visit of Konrad Adenauer to<br />
Moscow and the establishment of diplomatic relations with the USSR, and was<br />
publicly declared at the Conference of Ambassadors in Bonn in the same year.<br />
It was assumed this doctrine could bring the Federal Republic of Germany to<br />
absolute isolation. However, the doctrine was not always applied, and not against<br />
every state. For example, in 1957 when the Democratic Republic of Germany<br />
opened a bureau in Cairo, which was designed for diplomatic relations with the<br />
Arab world, the Federal Republic of Germany did not use the Hallstein Doctrine.<br />
The doctrine, in fact, was applied only twice: initially it was applied towards former<br />
Yugoslavia in 1957, and then towards Cuba in 1963. The Federal Republic of<br />
Germany broke off diplomatic relations with Cuba because Cuba recognized the<br />
Democratic Republic of Germany. When Guinea gained its independence in 1958,<br />
both German States decided to open an embassy in Guinea. The Democratic<br />
Republic of Germany established trade representation in Guinea, and later the<br />
Federal Republic of Germany also opened an embassy in Guinea. In 1969, the<br />
independent state sent diplomats to the Democratic Republic of Germany. In response<br />
to this, the Federal Republic of Germany recalled its diplomatic representation.<br />
Guinea denied having sent diplomats to Berlin. As a result of this statement,<br />
the relationship between Guinea and the Federal Republic of Germany was<br />
restored, but the Democratic Republic of Germany experienced failure in foreign<br />
policy.<br />
25<br />
Hostages case, §84, p. 38.<br />
26<br />
Bruno Simma and Dirk Pulkowski, ″Of Planets and the Universe: Self-Contained<br />
Regimes in <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>″, European <strong>Journal</strong> of <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> 17(3)<br />
(2006), p.485.<br />
27<br />
Hostages case, §86, p. 40.<br />
28<br />
Hostages case, §35, p. 19.<br />
29<br />
Hostages case,. §81, p. 37.<br />
30<br />
Hostages case, §83, p. 38.<br />
31<br />
Hostages case, §85, p. 39. See also Denza, Diplomatic <strong>Law</strong> Commentary on the<br />
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, p.63.<br />
32<br />
Hostages case, §85, p. 40.<br />
33<br />
Hostages case, §95, p. 44.<br />
34<br />
Denza, Diplomatic <strong>Law</strong> Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic<br />
Relations.<br />
35<br />
Denza, Diplomatic <strong>Law</strong> Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic<br />
Relations.<br />
36<br />
Denza, Diplomatic <strong>Law</strong> Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic<br />
Relations.<br />
37<br />
Denza, Diplomatic <strong>Law</strong> Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic<br />
Relations.<br />
38<br />
UN, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Article 45.<br />
39<br />
Denza, Diplomatic <strong>Law</strong> Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic<br />
Relations.<br />
40<br />
http://www.apidya.com/nur/cases/case-libyscher-botschaftsfall.html<br />
41<br />
Archived documentation and offi cial data of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of<br />
Georgia on a web page: www.mfa.gov.ge.<br />
179
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
42<br />
Denza, Diplomatic <strong>Law</strong> Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic<br />
Relations.<br />
43<br />
UN, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, Article 45, paragraphs:<br />
a, b.<br />
44<br />
Denza, Diplomatic <strong>Law</strong> Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic<br />
Relations.<br />
45<br />
The Embassy of Switzerland in Tehran protects the interests of the United States<br />
of America.<br />
46<br />
The Embassy of the Switzerland performs mainly consular functions, which itself<br />
has a functional character, but with respect to diplomatic (i.e. political) relations,<br />
the Embassy of Switzerland does very little beyond delivering notes of protest by<br />
the Georgian side regarding inappropriate actions of the USSR on “the occupied<br />
territories of Georgia” to the addressee.<br />
47<br />
UN, Vienna Convention on Di <strong>Law</strong> in and with <strong>International</strong> politics: The functions<br />
of <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong> in <strong>International</strong> Society.” European <strong>Journal</strong> of <strong>International</strong><br />
<strong>Law</strong> 14(1) (2003), p. 108.<br />
180
qeTevan xuciSvili<br />
sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos<br />
statutiT gaTvaliswinebuli danaSaulebis msxverplTa<br />
samarTlebrivi da faqtobrivi mdgomareoba:<br />
fiqtiuri Tu realuri meqanizmi<br />
`arasdros unda dagvaviwydes, rom dRes Cven am gansasjelebis<br />
gasamarTlebis aRweriT vqmniT Canawers, romlis mixedviT xval<br />
istoria gangvsjis. aseTi braldebulisTvis TasiT sawamlavis<br />
miwodeba sakuTar pirTan misi mitanis tolfasia. Cveni amocanis<br />
gadasaWrelad imgvari miukerZoeblobisa da inteleqtualuri patiosnebis<br />
mobilizeba unda movaxdinoT, rom am sasamarTlo procesma<br />
SeZlos STamomavlebis winaSe Tavis mowoneba da, ro gorc kacobriobis<br />
mowodebis Semsrulebelma, aRasrulos marTlmsajuleba~.<br />
amerikis SeerTebuli Statebis mier daniSnuli mTavari prokurori<br />
niurnbergis tribunalze, mosamarTle robert h. jeqsoni 1<br />
I. Sesavali<br />
niurnbergis tribunalze aSS-is mTa<br />
vari prokuroris, robert h. jeqsonis,<br />
zemoT citirebuli gamonaTqvamis<br />
WrilSi sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso<br />
sasamarTlos wesdebis – romis<br />
statutis 2 – debulebebi samarTlianobis<br />
aRdgenisa da simarTlis dadgenis<br />
kvaldakval sisxlis samarTlis ad hoc<br />
tribunalebisTvis ucnob da axal wess<br />
amkvidrebs. es axali wesi marTlmsajulebis<br />
aRsrulebis saxeliT sisxlis samarTlis<br />
saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos<br />
(winamdebare naSromSi aseve – `sasamarTlo~)<br />
iurisdiqcias daqvemdebarebuli<br />
danaSaulebis msxverplTa sasamarTlos<br />
mier saqmiswarmoebis procesSi farTo<br />
monawileobas gulisxmobs.<br />
me-20 saukunis ganmavlobaSi saerTa-<br />
Soriso samarTlis, kerZod ki saerTa-<br />
Soriso sisxlis samarTlis, ganviTarebis<br />
istoriam ganapiroba is, rom romis<br />
statutSi, da mis preambulaSi, 3 msxverplTa,<br />
maT Soris mamakacebis, moxsenieba<br />
xazgasmiT gvxvdeba.<br />
romis konferenciaze sasamarTlos<br />
statutis proeqtis saboloo versiis<br />
debulebebis mniSvnelovani modificireba<br />
moxda. espaneTis winadadebiT,<br />
1998 wlis 25 ivniss statutis preambulis<br />
gafarToeba iyo SemoTavazebuli 4 .<br />
preambulis arsebuli sami debulebis<br />
nacvlad, espaneTis winadadeba rva normas<br />
iTvaliswinebda, imgvari aspeqtebis<br />
xazgasmiT, rogorebicaa msxverplTa<br />
tanjvis gaxseneba (xazgasma avtorisa)<br />
...aseve: `es statuti ar unda iyos interpretirebuli<br />
imgvarad, rom raime<br />
formiT gaeros organoebis funqciebisa<br />
da uflebamosilebis Sesaxeb [gaeros]<br />
wesdebis debulebebis sferoze gavlena<br />
iyos SesaZlebeli~.<br />
msxverplis statusis gamyareba romis<br />
statutSi emyareba aRdgeniTi mar-<br />
Tlmsajulebis koncefciasac, romelic<br />
`moicavs msxverpls, damnaSavesa da<br />
sazogadoebas, aRdgenis, Serigebisa da<br />
xelaxali darwmunebis ZiebaSi~. 5<br />
sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso<br />
sa samarTlos statutSi gansazRvruli<br />
181
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
msxverplis definicia gacilebiT far-<br />
Toa, vidre gaeros uSiSroebis sabWos<br />
mier Seqmnili yofili iugoslaviisa<br />
da ruandis sisxlis samarTlis tribunalebis<br />
wesdebebiT gaTvaliswinebuli<br />
`msxverplis~ cnebebi.<br />
am konteqstSi upriania imis mokled<br />
aRniSvna, rom sisxlis samarTlis procesis<br />
warmoebis efeqturoba da samar-<br />
Tlianoba izomeba rogorc danaSaulis<br />
CadenaSi eWvmitanilisa Tu braldebulis,<br />
ise danaSaulis CadeniT dazaralebulis<br />
uflebebis dacvisa da sisxlis samarTlis<br />
procesSi Tanabari uflebebiT<br />
monawileobis uzrunvelyofiT. Tumca<br />
mniSvnelovania imis analizi, Tu rogor<br />
unda iqnes SenarCunebuli balansi am<br />
ori sikeTis dacvisas ramdenad realuria<br />
yvela msxverplis sasamarTlos mier<br />
saqmiswarmoebis yvela etapze 6 farTo<br />
monawileoba Tanabrad, rodesac saer-<br />
TaSoriso sasamarTlos saqmianobasTan<br />
gvaqvs saqme<br />
sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso<br />
sasamarTlos winaSe mdgari gamowvevebis<br />
siaSi erT-erTi principuli sakiTxi gaxlavT<br />
is, Tu rogor moaxerxebs sasamarTlo<br />
romis statutiT gaTvaliswinebuli<br />
danaSaulis msxverplebTan/dazaralebulebTan<br />
urTierTobas, maTi saqmiswarmoebaSi<br />
farTod CarTvis kuTxiT.<br />
Tumca amavdroulad kidev erTi ki-<br />
Txva ibadeba: marTlmsajulebis efeqturi<br />
ganxorcielebisTvis ramdenad xelsayrelia<br />
msxverplTa sisxlis samarTlis<br />
procesSi CarTulobis maqsimaluri<br />
gafarToeba, imis gaTvaliswinebiT, Tu<br />
ra ganapirobebs samarTliani, droSi<br />
efeqturad warmoebuli sisxlis samarTlis<br />
procesis warmarTvas, romelic<br />
amavdroulad SejibrebiTobis principsac<br />
ar unda gamoricxavdes mniSvnelovania<br />
imis garkvevac, ramdenad dasaSvebia<br />
romis statutis safuZvelze msxverplis<br />
monawileobis farTo SesaZlebloba,<br />
am uflebis meore mxriv dabalansebis<br />
gareSe, samarTliani, efeqturi da samoqalaqo<br />
da politikuri uflebebis saerTaSoriso<br />
paqtis Sesabamisad marT l-<br />
msajulebis ganxorcielebis SesaZ leblobad<br />
CaiTvalos<br />
romis statutSi msxverplTaTvis<br />
fa rTo uflebebis miniWebis analizisas<br />
mniSvnelovani roli eniWeba misi<br />
wi namorbedi tribunalebis – yofili<br />
iugoslaviisa da ruandisTvis gaeros<br />
uSiSroebis sabWos mier Seqmnili sasamarTlo<br />
organoebis wesdebebiTa da<br />
Se sabamisi praqtikiT ganviTarebuli<br />
meqanizmebis ganxilvas. es sainteresoa<br />
imis gaTvaliswinebiTac, rom gaeros<br />
uSiSroebis sabWos mier tribunalebis<br />
Seqmna iyo erTjeradi reaqcia im mometebul<br />
safrTxeebze, romlebic gaeros<br />
politikuri organos – uSiSroebis sab-<br />
Wos – mier CaiTvala `saerTaSoriso mSvidobisa<br />
da usafrTxoebisTvis~ safrTxis<br />
Semqmnel 7 mdgomareobad. 8<br />
Sesabamisad, winamdebare naSromis<br />
mi zania imis gamokvleva, sisxlis sama r-<br />
Tlis procesSi monawileobis kuTxiT,<br />
ramdenad efeqturi da samarTliani<br />
sasamarTlos principis Sesabamisia sisxlis<br />
samarTlis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos<br />
statutiT gaTvaliswinebuli<br />
danaSaulis msxverplTa samarTlebrivi<br />
da faqtobrivi mdgomareoba; ramdenad<br />
Tanaziaria es meqanizmi mudmivmoqmedi<br />
sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos<br />
winamorbedi sisxlis samarTlis<br />
ad hoc tribunalebis wesdebebiTa<br />
da praqtikiT ganmtkicebul mdgomareobasTan<br />
da ramdenad realuria sisxlis<br />
samarTlis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos<br />
mier misi wesdebiT gaTvaliswinebuli<br />
msxverplTa sisxlis samarTlis proces-<br />
Si farTo CarTulobis uzrunvelyofa.<br />
am sakiTxze SedarebiTi msjeloba<br />
kidev ufro mniSvnelovania, radgan sisxlis<br />
samarTlis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos<br />
Seqmnisas kolumbiis delegaciam<br />
sakmaod mkafiod SeniSna, rom sasamarTlos<br />
Seqmnamde `msxverpli ... daupati-<br />
Jebeli stumari da mxolod mayurebeli<br />
iyo, romelmac gaamwvava konfliqti~. 9<br />
Sesabamisad, statiis momdevno Taveb<br />
Si ganixileba romis statutiT dafuZnebuli<br />
sasamarTloseuli regulire<br />
ba msxverplTa dacvisa da maTTvis<br />
sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos<br />
saqmiswarmoebaSi monawileobis<br />
miRebisa; ganxilul iqneba yofili<br />
182
q. xuciSvili, sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos statutiT gaTvaliswinebuli ...<br />
iugoslaviisa da ruandisTvis gaeros<br />
uSiSroebis sabWos mier Seqmnili sisxlis<br />
samarTlis tribunalebis midgoma<br />
msxverplTa monawileobis sakiTxisadmi;<br />
ganxilul iqneba is, Tu sisxlis samarTlis<br />
saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos administraciaSi<br />
ra meqanizmebis gamoyenebiT<br />
xdeba msxverplTa dacva da maTi sisxlis<br />
samarTlis procesSi CarTvis uzrunvelyofis<br />
ra garantiebi muSaobs.<br />
daskvnis saxiT moxdeba imis ganxilva,<br />
Tu ramdenad efeqturi da realuria<br />
sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos<br />
mier dadgenili msxverplTa<br />
sisxlis samarTlis procesSi monawileobis<br />
meqanizmebi.<br />
II. sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso<br />
sasamarTlos saqmiswarmoebaSi<br />
msxverplTa monawileobis<br />
regulireba<br />
msxverplTa dacvisa da maTi sisxlis<br />
samarTlis procesSi monawileobis<br />
uzrunvelyofis suliskveTeba romis<br />
statutis sxvadasxva nawilSi gabneuli<br />
teqstidan ikveTeba. 10 es ki ganpirobebuli<br />
unda iyos imiT, rom sisxlis samarTlis<br />
saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos samar-<br />
TalwarmoebaSi msxverplTa monawile o ba<br />
samarTliani sasamarTlos uflebis maT-<br />
Tvis gansaxorcieleblad mniSvnelovani<br />
postulatia.<br />
sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso<br />
sasamarTlos winaSe, pirvelad saerTa-<br />
Soriso sisxlis samarTlis marTlmsajulebis<br />
istoriaSi, danaSaulis Sedegad<br />
dazaralebul adamianebs aqvT saqmeSi Car<br />
Tvis SesaZlebloba sasamarTlos mier<br />
saqmiswarmoebis nebismier etapze. es ki<br />
novaciaa im warsuli realobis fonze,<br />
rodesac danaSaulis msxverpli saku-<br />
Tari poziciis dafiqsirebas romis statutis<br />
safuZvelze Seqmnili sasamarTlos<br />
winamorbedi saerTaSoriso sisx lis<br />
samarTlis organoebis winaSe mxolod<br />
mowmeebis saxiT axerxebda.<br />
amasTan, farTo monawileobis ganxilvisas<br />
arc is unda gamogvrCes mxedvelobidan,<br />
rom prokurors SeuZlia<br />
msxv e rplisgan informaciis miReba. morten<br />
bergsmosa da elena pejiCis mosazrebiT,<br />
`es, savaraudod, prokurorisTvis<br />
mniSvnelovani masala unda iyos informaciis<br />
pirveladi damuSavebis etapzec,<br />
manam, sanam Tavad gamoZieba daiwyeba,<br />
romelic, Cveulebriv, mowmeTa Cvenebebs<br />
aqtiurad daeyrdnoba~. 11<br />
erTi mxriv, es SesaZloa, da udavoa,<br />
dadebiT momentad ganvixiloT. dadebiTi<br />
faqtori aq calsaxad vlindeba<br />
adamianis uflebaTa darRvevebis msxver<br />
plTa da maTi interesebis farTo warmomadgenlobis<br />
sisxlis samarTlis saqmis<br />
warmoebis yvela etapze maTi CarTvis<br />
SesaZleblobis arsebobiT.<br />
sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso<br />
sasamarTlos wesdeba, miuxedavad imisa,<br />
rom msxverplebs sxvadasxva muxlSi moixseniebs,<br />
msxverplTa samarTalwarmoebis<br />
procesSi monawileobas sami ZiriTadi<br />
normiT uzrunvelyofs. maTTan urTier-<br />
Tobis sakiTxebis konkretuli aspeqtebi<br />
daregulirebulia `sasamarTlos procedurebisa<br />
da mtkicebulebebis ganxilvis<br />
wesebSic~ (SemdegSi – `procedurebisa da<br />
mtkicebulebebis wesebi~) 12 .<br />
romis statutiT gaTvaliswinebuli<br />
msxverplTa sisxlis samarTlis proces-<br />
Si monawileobis meqanizmebis ganxilvisas<br />
gansakuTrebuli mniSvneloba eni-<br />
Weba 68-e muxlis me-3 nawils 13 , romelic,<br />
rogorc zogadi norma, aregulirebs<br />
am sakiTxs. statutis am muxlTan unda<br />
ganvixiloT procedurebisa da mtkicebulebebis<br />
wesebis 85-e wesi, romelic<br />
ganmartavs msxverplis cnebas.<br />
romis statutSi mocemul specialur<br />
normaTagan erT-erTi, me-15(3) muxli,<br />
adgens, rom sasamarTlo palatis winaSe<br />
msxverpls wardgenis ufleba aqvs, rodesac<br />
prokurori gadawyvets, awarmoos<br />
gamoZieba. aq upriania mokled imis xsenebac,<br />
rom romis statutis me-15(1) muxlis<br />
Tanaxmad, msxverpls SeuZlia, prokurors<br />
miawodos informacia am ukanasknelis<br />
mier gamoZiebis dasawyebad proprio<br />
motu, ra SemTxvevaSic prokuroris mier<br />
sisxlissamarTlebriv devnaze uarisas,<br />
romis statutis me-15(6) muxlis<br />
Tanaxmad, msxverpls unda ecnobos.<br />
meore specialuri normis – romis<br />
statutis me-19(3) muxlis Sesabamisad ki,<br />
183
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
msxverplebi, `romlebmac ukve awarmoes<br />
komunikacia sasamarTlosTan saqmesTan<br />
dakavSirebiT, an maTi kanonieri warmomadgenlebi~,<br />
uflebamosilni arian, warmoadginon<br />
sakuTari pozicia sasamarTlos<br />
iurisdiqciasTan dakavSirebul, an<br />
saqmis dasaSvebobis, sakiTxebze.<br />
sainteresoa imis gaanalizeba, Tu<br />
rogor iyenebs sisxlis samarTlis saer-<br />
TaSoriso sasamarTlo praqtikaSi misi<br />
wesdebis 68-e(3) muxliTa da `procedurebisa<br />
da mtkicebulebebis wesebis~<br />
85-e wesiT dadgenil proceduras, imis<br />
gaTvaliswinebiT, rom es procedura da<br />
Sesabamisi Sefasebis kriteriumebi aRniSnul<br />
dokumentebSi amomwuravad ar<br />
aris mocemuli.<br />
85-e(a) wesi mxolod acxadebs, rom<br />
`msxverpli~ aris fizikuri piri, romelmac<br />
~ganicada ziani sasamarTlos iurisdiqciaSi<br />
Semavali nebismieri danaSaulis<br />
Sedegad~. 85-e(b) wesi Seexeba iuridiul<br />
pirebs, romlebic dazaraldnen maT<br />
mier mniSvnelovani socialuri funqciis<br />
ganxorcielebisas, rogoricaa skolebSi<br />
an saavadmyofoebSi muSaoba.<br />
romis statutis 68-e muxlis me-3<br />
na wilis Sesabamisad, sisxlis samarTlis<br />
procesSi monawileobis misaRebad,<br />
sasamarTlos procedurebisa da wesebis<br />
mixedviT, savaraudo `msxverplma~<br />
we rilobiT unda mimarTos sasamarTlos<br />
registrators 14 , romelic ganacxads<br />
Sesabamis palatas gadaugzavnis.<br />
sasamarTlos palatam unda moaxdinos<br />
`85-e(a) wesiT dadgenili kriteriumebis<br />
araamomwuravi da aragadamwyveti<br />
Sefaseba~. 15 am procesSi dacvisa da braldebis<br />
mxareebs SesaZlebloba aqvT, am g-<br />
var ganacxads upasuxon 16 . am konteqstSi<br />
isic unda aRiniSnos, rom werilobiT<br />
komunikacia ar aris erTaderTi forma,<br />
romliTac savaraudo msxverpls sasamarTlosTan<br />
urTierToba SeuZlia. zemoT<br />
naxsenebi romis statutis me-19 muxlis<br />
me-3 nawilis konteqstSi Sesabamis<br />
palatas aqvs diskrecia, msxverplT<br />
ufleba misces, sasamarTlosTan zepiri<br />
komunikacia awarmoon, radgan `procedurebisa<br />
da mtkicebulebebis wesebis~<br />
58-e wesis me-2 nawilis Tanaxmad, sasamarTlos<br />
palatas SeuZlia, Tavad gadawyvitos,<br />
rogor (zepirad Tu werilobiT,<br />
a.S.) awarmoos procedura da rogor<br />
uzrunvelyos is, rom es procedura<br />
yvelaze ufro xelsayreli iyos. marTalia,<br />
am debulebis motivacia is gaxldaT,<br />
rom msxverplTa sasamarTlo warmo eba Si<br />
monawileobas xeli ar SeSloda, Canaweris<br />
mixedviT, komunikaciis es Tavisufali<br />
forma ara mxolod msxverplT, aramed<br />
romis statutis wevr saxelmwifoebsa<br />
da Tavad gaeros uSiSroebis sabWosac<br />
ki aZlevs imis Tavisuflebas, rom maT<br />
mier sasamarTlosTvis gadacemul situaciasTan<br />
dakavSirebiT romis statutis<br />
me-19 muxlis WrilSi zepiri komunikacia<br />
awarmoon, Tu amaze sasamarTlos<br />
Sesaba misi palata daTanxmdeba. es ki,<br />
Ta vis mxriv, msxverplTa mimarT keTili<br />
ganzraxvis sasamarTlosTvis damatebi-<br />
Ti saqmis Semqmnel movlenadac ki Sei-<br />
Zleba iqces.<br />
msxverplis CarTuloba sisxlis samarTlis<br />
procesSi ar Semoifargleba<br />
mxo lod viwro monawileobiT sasamar-<br />
Tlo ganxilvaSi. msxverplis roli sasa<br />
marTlos iurisdiqciis an saqmis dasa<br />
S vebobis sakiTxis ganxilvisas maT<br />
Tanasworadaa ganxiluli, vinc, romis<br />
statutis me-13 muxlis Tanaxmad, uflebamosilia,<br />
saqme sasamarTlos gadasces<br />
gansaxilvelad, rac, Tavis mxriv, moiazrebs<br />
romis statutis monawile saxelmwifos,<br />
gaeros uSiSroebis sabWosa da<br />
Tavad sasamarTlos prokurors.<br />
amasTan erTad, mxedvelobaSi misaRebia<br />
is faqti, rom, marTalia, procedurebisa<br />
da wesebis 85-e wesis gamoyeneba unda<br />
xdebodes romis statutis 68-e(3) muxliT<br />
dadgenili monawileobis regulirebisas,<br />
sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso<br />
sasamarTlos praqtika gviCvenebs, rom<br />
85-e wesiT gaTvaliswinebuli kriteriumebis<br />
dacva monawileobis avtomaturi<br />
da zogadi uflebis gamoyenebas ganapirobebs.<br />
es ki msxverplis piradi interesebisa<br />
da monawileobis mizanSewonilobis<br />
sakiTxis ganxilvas gverdze tovebs,<br />
da maTi ganxilva mxolod im SemTxvevaSi<br />
unda moxdes, rodesac ixileba monawileobis<br />
konkretuli formebi. 17<br />
msxverplTa usafrTxoebis, fizi kurad<br />
da fsiqologiurad kargad yofnis,<br />
184
q. xuciSvili, sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos statutiT gaTvaliswinebuli ...<br />
Rirsebisa da piradi cxovrebis dacvis 18<br />
paralelurad romis statuti adgens,<br />
rom msxverplTa `mosazrebebi~ da `wuxilebi~<br />
unda iqnes sasamarTlosTvis ward<br />
genili, Tu msxverplTa pirad interesebze<br />
aris gavlena moxdenili. 19<br />
sasamarTlos pirvel gadawyvetilebaSi<br />
msxverplTa monawileobis Taobaze<br />
`[sasamarTlos] palatam miiCnia, rom<br />
msxverplTa piradi interesebi ganxilvis<br />
sagania zogadad gamoZiebis etapze<br />
[xazgasma avtorisa], radgan msxverplTa<br />
monawileobam am etapze SesaZloa,<br />
uzrunvelyos faqtebis ganmarteba,<br />
damnaSaveTa dasja da miyenebuli zianis<br />
anazRaurebis moTxovna~. 20<br />
msxverplTa monawileobis Taobaze<br />
SuamdgomlobaTa Sefasebis sasamarTlos<br />
mier ganviTarebuli praqtika 21 imis<br />
maCvenebelia, rom gamoZiebis etapze<br />
msxverplTa monawileobis uzrunvelyofa<br />
drois wamRebi, ormagi procesia.<br />
msxverplebma pirvel etapze, manam, sanam<br />
eWvmitanilis an braldebulis identificirebac<br />
ki moxdeba, unda aCvenon<br />
saqmiswarmoebaSi zogadi interesi. am<br />
etapze sasamarTlosTvis arc aris saWiro<br />
`msxverplisTvis miyenebuli zianis<br />
absoluturi gansazRvra, radgan amis<br />
dadgena, saqmis viTarebidan gamomdinare,<br />
sasamarTlos palatis mier momdevno<br />
etapze moxdeba, saWiroebis mixedviT~. 22<br />
sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso<br />
sa samarTlos praqtika gviCvenebs, rom<br />
msxverplTa ganxilva xdeba ro gorc `TanasworTa<br />
Soris ufro Tanas wo rebisa~,<br />
ris Sedegadac sisxlis sa mar Tlis procesis<br />
droSi ganvrco ba SesaZloa, saWiroze<br />
ufro metad xdebodes. `TanasworTa<br />
Soris ufro Tanasworebad~ miCnevis<br />
TvalnaTeli maCvenebelia sisxlis sama<br />
rTlis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos I<br />
pa latis mosazreba msxverplTa `pira di<br />
interesebis~ Taobaze 23 , romlis farTod<br />
interpretirebuli gagebis Tanaxmad,<br />
msxverplTa erT-erTi `piradi interesi~<br />
gamoZiebis etapze imis danaxvaa, rom maT<br />
winaaRmdeg danaSaulis Camdenni braldebulebad<br />
ixilon. 24<br />
marTalia, `...msxverplTa uflebebis<br />
pativiscema da sruli realizacia sisxlis<br />
samarTlis marTlmsajulebis meSveobiT,<br />
rogorc es uzrunvelyofilia<br />
sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos<br />
mier, saerTaSoriso samarTal-<br />
Si msxverplTa uflebebis Semdgomi kodificirebis<br />
unikaluri SesaZleblobaa~, 25<br />
ar unda moxdes am interesis saxeliT<br />
Tanabari saWiroebisa da samarTlebrivi<br />
Rirebulebis – samoqalaqo da politikuri<br />
uflebebis Sesaxeb saerTaSoriso<br />
paqtiT 26 dadgenili braldebulTa<br />
samarTliani sasamarTlosa da miuker-<br />
Zoebeli, swrafi da efeqturi marTlmsajulebis<br />
ganxorcielebis uflebis<br />
SezRudva. balansis dacva delikaturi,<br />
SesaZloa, samarTlis politikisa da,<br />
zo gadad, politikuri TvalsazrisiT, 27<br />
arcTu ise popularuli, magram samarTlianobis<br />
gancdis dasamkvidreblad<br />
umniSvnelovanesia.<br />
III. yofili iugoslaviisa da<br />
ruandisTvis gaeros uSiSroebis<br />
sabWos mier Seqmnili sisxlis<br />
samarTlis tribunalebis midgoma<br />
msxverplTa monawileobis<br />
sakiTxisadmi<br />
miuxedavad imisa, rom danaSaulis<br />
msxverplTa dacva da maTi gadmosaxedidan<br />
samarTlianobis aRdgena unda<br />
mo iazrebodes saerTaSoriso sisxlis<br />
sa marTlis sistemis erT-erT umniSvnelovanes<br />
qvakuTxedad, mecnierTa<br />
mosazrebebSi gansxvavebuli midgomebic<br />
figurirebs, rac SesaZloa, praqtikis<br />
ganzogadebidan gamomdinareobs, an, saer<br />
Tod, amgvari praqtikis Seqmnas Tavad<br />
uwyobs xels. kraieris, frimanisa da sxvaTa<br />
avtorobiT momzadebuli naSromi<br />
saerTaSoriso sisxlis samarTlis mar-<br />
Tlmsajulebis miznebs Soris CamoTvlis<br />
Semdegs: samagieros migeba, danaSaulis<br />
momavalSi Cadenis Tavidan arideba (Tavis<br />
Sekaveba) da a.S. `samarTlianoba msxverplTaTvis~<br />
ar aris moxvedrili im siaSi,<br />
romelic cal-calke CamoTvlis saer-<br />
TaSoriso sisxlis samarTlis marTlmsajulebis<br />
miznebs. msxverplTa xseneba<br />
xdeba mxolod damatebiTi miznebis CamonaTvalSi,<br />
rac gaerTianebulia erT<br />
185
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
TavSi: `ufro farTo miznebi~. es ukanaskneli<br />
ki, marTalia, msxverplT pirvel<br />
rigSi axsenebs, magram aseve aerTianebs<br />
imgvar miznebs, rogorebicaa: istoriis<br />
furcelze dafiqsireba, Serigeba konfliqtis<br />
dasrulebis Semdgom da a.S. 28<br />
aRniSnuli midgoma sainteresoa rogorc<br />
Teoriuli safuZveli sisxlis sa -<br />
marTlis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos<br />
pra qtikis ganviTarebisa da es imis ga-<br />
T valiswinebiTac, rom rogorc yofili<br />
iugoslaviisTvis Seqmnili, ise ruandis<br />
Tvis, ad hoc sisxlis samarTlis sa er-<br />
TaSoriso tribunalebis samarTlebrivi<br />
safuZvliTa da praqtikiT nayofieri<br />
niadagis momzadeba moxda imisTvis, rom<br />
romis statutis 68-e muxlis pirvel,<br />
me-2, me-4 da me-5 nawilebSi msxverplTa<br />
dacvasTan dakavSirebiT daxvewili,<br />
ganviTarebuli normebis Setana gaxda<br />
SesaZlebeli 29 . amasTan, romis statutis<br />
68-e muxlis me-3 nawili specifikurad<br />
mieZRvna msxverplTa [sisxlis samarTlis<br />
procesis warmoebaSi farTo] monawileobas.<br />
aRniSnulis fonze mniSvnelovania<br />
yofili iugoslaviisa da ruandisTvis<br />
Seqmnili tribunalebis samarTlebrivi<br />
regulirebisa da praqtikis, statiis<br />
SezRuduli formatidan gamomdinare,<br />
Zalze mokle mimoxilva romis statutis<br />
68-e muxlis me-3 nawiliT gaTvaliswinebuli<br />
debulebebisa da sasamarTlos Sesabamisi<br />
praqtikis analizisTvis.<br />
yofili iugoslaviisa da ruandis-<br />
Tvis Seqmnili tribunalebis wesdebebSi<br />
termini `msxverpli~ viwrod iyo ganmartebuli:<br />
msxverpli aris `piri, romlis<br />
winaaRmdeg is danaSauli iqna, savaraudod,<br />
Cadenili, romelzec tribunalis<br />
iurisdiqcia vrceldeba~. 30<br />
nikoliCis saqmeSi yofili iugoslaviisTvis<br />
Seqmnilma sisxlis samarTlis<br />
tribunalma aRniSna, rom `dasjam<br />
Sesabamisad unda asaxos samarTlianobisken<br />
mowodeba, rogorc im pirebisgan,<br />
romlebic pirdapir gaxdnen danaSaulis<br />
msxverplni, ise danaSaulis arapirdapir<br />
msxverplTagan~. 31<br />
sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso<br />
sasamarTlos wesdebis safuZvelze we v-<br />
rma saxelmwifoebma procedurebisa da<br />
mtkicebulebis wesebis miRebisas msxverplis<br />
ganmartebis miRebisas aqcenti<br />
msxverplad gaxdomaze – viqtimizaciaze<br />
– gaakeTes 32 da ara im SemzRudav kav-<br />
Sirze, rac yofili iugoslaviis tribunalisTvis<br />
Seqmnili tribunalis me-2<br />
wesSi iyo asaxuli.<br />
yofili iugoslaviisa da ruandis-<br />
Tvis gaeros uSiSroebis sabWos mier<br />
sisxlis samarTlis ad hoc tribunalebis<br />
Seqmnisas ki, saerTaSoriso doneze<br />
msxverplTa monawileoba SeuZleblad<br />
iqna miCneuli, rac ganpirobebuli iyo<br />
imiT, rom `aTobiT aTasi~ msxverpli aRmoCnda<br />
im danaSaulebis samizne, romlebic<br />
am tribunalTa kompetenciaSi<br />
xvde boda. Sesabamisad, yvela msxverplisTvis<br />
xmis micemis SesaZlebloba<br />
tri bunalebis efeqturobisa da samarTlianad<br />
moqmedebis xelisSemSlel<br />
faqtorad ganixileboda.<br />
Tumca Tavad yofili iugoslaviisa-<br />
Tvis Seqmnili sisxlis samarTlis sa er-<br />
TaSoriso tribunalis motivacia, 33 tribunalis<br />
pirveli yovelwliuri angari-<br />
Sis mixedviT, aseTi iyo: `tribunalma<br />
moraluri pasuxismgebloba igrZno, sasamarTlo<br />
saqmiswarmoeba daewyo SeZ lebis<br />
dagvarad swrafad, rom yvela mxares,<br />
rogorc msxverpls, ise damnaSaves, adgilobriv<br />
monawileebsa Tu distanciidan<br />
damkvirveblebs, SesaZlebloba miscemodaT,<br />
daenaxaT, rom adamianis uflebebis<br />
TavzexelaRebuli darRvevebi dausjelad<br />
ar darCeboda~. 34<br />
romis statutiT Seqmnili sasamarTlos<br />
samarTlebrivi bazisa da Sesabamisi<br />
praqtikis analizisas bunebrivi interesi<br />
Cndeba, es ukanaskneli gaeros mier<br />
Seqmnili ad hoc tribunalebis paralelurad<br />
iyos gaanalizebuli. es Tundac<br />
im praqtikiT aris ganpirobebuli, romlis<br />
Tanaxmad, ruandisTvis Seqmnili ad<br />
hoc sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso<br />
tribunalTan dakavSirebiT, ruandaSi<br />
ganxorcielebuli genocidis Semdeg,<br />
`ruandis sazogadoebrivi azri xSirad ar<br />
aRiqvamda marTlmsajulebis aRsrulebas,<br />
radgan ar Canda, rom es ase iyo. es ki<br />
ruandis sisxlis samarTlis tribunalis<br />
umTavresi problema gaxldaT~. 35<br />
186
q. xuciSvili, sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos statutiT gaTvaliswinebuli ...<br />
erT-erTi mniSvnelovani mizezi imisa,<br />
rom ruandaSi tribunalis mier `mar-<br />
Tlmsajulebis aRsrulebis~ danaxva Zalian<br />
gaZnelda, SesaZloa, swored dana-<br />
Saulis msxverplTa pasiuri roli da<br />
mis saqmiswarmoebaSi maTi SezRuduli<br />
CarTulobis SesaZleblobac iyo. axla<br />
ukve, wlebis gasvlis Semdeg, saerTaSoriso<br />
samarTlis mravali cnobili komentatori<br />
naTlad miuTiTebs imas, rom<br />
msxverplTa monawileoba yofili iugoslaviisa<br />
da ruandis saerTaSoriso sisxlis<br />
samarTlis tribunalebis saqmianobaSi,<br />
gansxvavebiT sisxlis samarTlis<br />
saerTaSoriso sasamarTlosgan, Zalze<br />
SezRudulia. profesor kaseses analizis<br />
Tanaxmad, `...maSin, rodesac yofili<br />
iugoslaviisa da ruandis saerTaSoriso<br />
sisxlis samarTlis tribunalebis samar-<br />
TalwarmoebaSi msxverplebs aranairi<br />
avtonomiuri roli ar aqvT, ramdenadac<br />
isini sasamarTlos winaSe mxolod<br />
mowmeebad SeiZleba warsdgnen, isic ma-<br />
Sin, Tu maTi gamoZaxeba sisxlis samarTlis<br />
saqmiswarmoebis romelime mxaris<br />
(Cveulebriv, prokuroris) an Tavad sasamarTlos<br />
mier moxdeba, sisxlis samarTlis<br />
saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos statutiT<br />
maT ramdenime roli mieniWaT..~. 36<br />
romis statutis me-15(3) muxlisa<br />
da misi Sesabamisi `procedurebisa da<br />
mtkicebulebebis wesebis~ 50-e muxlis<br />
Sesabamisad, prokurorisTvis an msxverplTa<br />
da mowmeTa samsaxurisTvis cnobili<br />
msxverplni informirebulni iqne<br />
bi an, rom SeZlon wina sasamarTlo<br />
ga nxi lvis palatis winaSe gamocxadeba.<br />
gamoZiebis interesebisa da calkeuli<br />
pirovnebebis usafrTxoebis gaTvaliswinebiT,<br />
msxverplTa jgufebsac miewodebaT<br />
zogadi Setyobineba.<br />
msxverplTa da mowmeTa dacvis ganyofileba<br />
aseve Seatyobinebs im msxverplebs,<br />
`romlebsac ukve hqondaT komunikacia<br />
sasamarTlosTan~, rom gamoxaton<br />
sakuTari pozicia sasamarTlos<br />
iurisdiqciisa an saqmis dasaSvebobis<br />
sakiTxebTan dakavSirebiT 38 .<br />
sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso<br />
sasamarTlos praqtika aCvenebs, rom<br />
msxve rplTa iseve, rogorc mowmeTa dacva<br />
praqtikaSi sakmaod farTod aris<br />
gamoyenebuli. aseTive warmatebiT aris<br />
amis gancxadeba SesaZlebeli yofili<br />
iugoslaviisa da ruandis tribunaleb-<br />
Tan mimarTebiTac, miuxedavad tribunalebsa<br />
da sasamarTloSi msxverplTan<br />
gansxvavebuli midgomebisa. 39<br />
IV. sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso<br />
sasamarTlos administraciaSi<br />
msxverplTa sisxlis samarTlis<br />
procesSi CarTvis uzrunvelyofa<br />
romis statutis xelmosawerad gaxsnisas<br />
gaeros maSindelma generalurma<br />
mdivanma kofi ananma ganacxada, rom `um-<br />
Tavresi interesi msxverplTa da saerTa-<br />
Soriso Tanamegobrobis, rogorc mTlianis,<br />
[dacva ...] unda iyos. ... [sasamarTlo],<br />
samarTlianobis instrumenti unda iyos,<br />
da ara gamorCenis~. 37<br />
romis statutis 68-e(4) muxli specialurad<br />
adgens gasaTvaliswinebeli<br />
dacvis RonisZiebebis, usafrTxoebis<br />
meqanizmebis, rCevis micemisa da daxmarebis<br />
gawevis SesaZleblobas, rac msxverplTa<br />
da mowmeTa ganyofilebis mier<br />
prokurorsa da sasamarTlos SeiZleba<br />
miewodos.<br />
V. daskvna. ramdenad efeqturi<br />
da realuria sisxlis samarTlis<br />
saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos mier<br />
dadgenili msxverplTa sisxlis<br />
samarTlis procesSi monawileobis<br />
meqanizmebi<br />
msxverplis roli mniSvnelovnad<br />
aris gaZlierebuli sisxlis samarTlis<br />
saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos wesdebaSi.<br />
romis statutis mixedviT, msxverplTa<br />
interesebis Sesabamisad, maT sisxlis<br />
samarTlis procesSi monawileobis ufleba<br />
aqvT. amavdroulad, romis statutis<br />
68-e muxli ar unda iyos gagebuli<br />
viwrod, TiTqos misi moqmedeba mxolod<br />
sisxlis samarTlis procesis warmoebas<br />
exeba sasamarTloSi. es norma sasamarTlos<br />
mier `saqmiswarmoebas~ Seexeba, misi<br />
farTo gagebiT, da ara mxolod sasamarTlo<br />
ganxilvas 40 .<br />
187
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
amas sasamarTlos Seqmnis wina istoriac<br />
ganapirobebs: erTiani, mudmivmoqmedi,<br />
SeZlebisdagvarad universaluri<br />
sasamarTlos Seqmnis idea iyo saerTa-<br />
Soriso, yvelaze ufro sastik dana-<br />
Saulebze swrafi reagirebis mudmivi<br />
SesaZleblobis Seqmna. mizani mxolod<br />
damSinebeli meqanizmis mudmiv arsebobas<br />
ar gulisxmobda. ideis sabaziso elementi<br />
aseve iyo msxverplTa mimarT samarTlianobis<br />
swrafad aRdgenis didi<br />
idea.<br />
romis statutis safuZvelze, sasamarTlo<br />
palatas farTo uflebamosileba<br />
aqvs, samarTliani da miukerZoebeli<br />
sasamarTlo procesis Casatareblad mi-<br />
TiTebebi gasces. 41<br />
romis statutiT Seqmnili sasamar-<br />
Tlos sawyisi etapis praqtika imis maCvenebelia,<br />
rom msxverplis monawileoba<br />
sasamarTlos saqmiswarmoebis procesSi,<br />
romelSic msxverplis piradi interesebi<br />
SeimCneva, umniSvnelovanesia 42 .<br />
Tu sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso<br />
sasamarTlo praqtikaSi SesaZlo msxverplTa<br />
srul SemadgenlobasTan imuSavebs,<br />
rac sasamarTlos iurisdiqcias daqvemdebarebuli<br />
danaSaulebis mxedvelobaSi<br />
miRebiT, milionobiT adamiani SesaZloa,<br />
iyos, mniSvnelovania im meqanizmebis<br />
zusti gansazRvra, rac sasamarTlos gadatvirTulobas<br />
ar gamoiwvevs droisa<br />
da finansuri SesaZleblobebis gaTvaliswinebiT.<br />
amavdroulad, is faqtoric unda<br />
iyos aucileblad gaTvaliswinebuli,<br />
rom mowmeTa warmomadgenlobis uzrunvelyofis<br />
xarjze ar unda moxdes sisxlis<br />
samarTlis procesSi eWvmitanili da<br />
braldebuli adamianebis uflebaTa dar-<br />
Rveva.<br />
miuxedavad imisa, rom sisxlis samarTlis<br />
saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos samarTlebrivi<br />
baza da praqtika mimarTuli<br />
unda iyos adamianTa – da, bunebrivia,<br />
sasamarTlos iurisdiqcias daqvemdebarebuli<br />
danaSaulebis msxverplTa<br />
– dacvisken, ar unda moxdes am aRmatebuli<br />
ideis saxeliT Tavad am principis<br />
diskreditireba. erT-erTi safrTxe ki am<br />
mimarTulebiT SesaZloa isic iyos, rom<br />
msxverpls sisxlis samarTlis proces-<br />
Si CarTvis SesaZlebloba aqvs manamdec<br />
ki, sanam moxdeba konkretuli marTlsawinaaRmdego<br />
qmedebis CadenaSi eWvmitanili<br />
piris dadgena. es ki, SesaZloa,<br />
samoqalaqo da politikuri uflebebis<br />
saerTaSoriso paqtiT garantirebuli<br />
mniSvnelovani uflebebis darRvevis<br />
winapirobad iqces.<br />
arc imis ugulebelyofa unda moxdes,<br />
rom dazaralebulis uflebebis dacvis<br />
saxeliT ar SeiZleba, sisxlis samarTlis<br />
procesSi SejibrebiTobis principis ugulebelyofa<br />
moxdes, (romis statuti,<br />
68-e(4) muxli).<br />
or etapad dayofili msxverplis<br />
identificirebis procedura 43 ufro<br />
me tad welavs sasamarTlo process da,<br />
savaraudod, arRvevs im msxverplis uflebebs,<br />
romlis dasacavadac Se muSavda<br />
dacvis meqanizmebi sasamarTlos mier.<br />
Tumca am uaryofiT SefasebasTan erTad<br />
mxedvelobaSi misaRebia is garemoeba,<br />
rom komentatorebis mier prokuroris<br />
arCeuli gza, raTa moxdes msxverplTa<br />
identificirebis ori etapis SemoReba,<br />
gakritikebulia. devid donat-katani<br />
mkafiod acxadebs, rom sisxlis samar T-<br />
lis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos `prokuroris<br />
ganyofileba mcadr gzas daadga,<br />
rodesac Sesabamisi [msxverplis indetificirebis]<br />
procedura `oretapian<br />
procesad~ daaxasiaTa, romlis drosac<br />
msxverplis, rogorc aseTis, aRiareba<br />
SeiZleba moxdes pirvel etapze, rac<br />
saWiroebs meore sasamarTlo gadawyvetilebas<br />
imis Taobaze, Seilaxa Tu ara<br />
misi piradi interesebi~. 44<br />
isic unda iyos mxedvelobaSi miRebuli,<br />
rom romis statutis 68-e muxlis<br />
pirveli nawili mTavrdeba debulebiT,<br />
romlis Tanaxmad `[mowmis dacvisa da<br />
daxmarebis] RonisZiebebi zians ar unda<br />
ayenebdnen an ar unda ewinaaRmdegebodnen<br />
braldebulis uflebebis dacvas da<br />
samarTlian da miukerZoebel sasa mar-<br />
Tlos~. 45<br />
gasaTvaliswinebelia isic, rom sasamarTlos<br />
evaleba imis dadgenac, romis<br />
statutis 68-e(3) muxlis Sesabamisad<br />
xom ar moxdeba eWvmitanilis an bralde-<br />
188
q. xuciSvili, sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos statutiT gaTvaliswinebuli ...<br />
bulis uflebebis Selaxva, msxverplis<br />
procesSi CarTvis uzrunvelyofiT.<br />
profesori kasese SeniSnavs, rom,<br />
miuxedavad sisxlis samarTlis proces-<br />
Si msxverplis farTo CarTulobis uzrunvelyofisa,<br />
da es gansakuTrebiT<br />
TvalSisacemia gaeros uSiSroebis sab-<br />
Wos mier yofili iugoslaviisa da ruandisTvis<br />
Seqmnili sisxlis samarTlis<br />
saerTaSoriso tribunalebis fonze,<br />
verc sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso<br />
sasamarTlom moaxerxa samoqalaqo samarTlis<br />
sistemis qveynebisTvis tipuri<br />
sistemis srulad SemoReba, rac samoqalaqo<br />
mosarCelis saxiT sisxlis samarTlis<br />
procesSi CarTvis uflebas<br />
iTvaliswinebs. 46<br />
es ki, savaraudod, Tu sisxlis samarTlis<br />
saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos<br />
saqmiswarmoebis droSi gawelil process<br />
warmovidgenT, SesaZloa, ufro dadebiT<br />
momentadac iqnes gaTvaliswinebuli,<br />
vidre sasamarTlos regulaciebis naklad,<br />
radgan saboloo mizani sisxlis samarTlis<br />
saerTaSoriso organosi unda<br />
iyos: `marTlmsajulebis dadgena, momavali<br />
danaSaulebis Tavidan arideba da<br />
mSvidobis aRdgenisa da SenarCunebisTvis<br />
xelisSewyoba~. 47<br />
isic mxedvelobaSia misaRebi, rom<br />
msxverplis monawileoba sisxlis samarTlis<br />
saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos mier<br />
warmoebul sisxlis samarTlis proces-<br />
Si, samarTliani, miukerZoebeli sasamarTlosa<br />
da SejibrebiTobis principebis<br />
dacvis TvalsazrisiT, ar unda iyos<br />
SesaZlebeli gamoZiebis etapze, sanam<br />
braldebulis identificireba moxdeba.<br />
es ar unda xdebodes Tundac imitom, rom<br />
prokuroris damoukidebloba kiTxvis<br />
niSnis qveS ar dadges 48 , an braldebulis<br />
saproceso uflebebi ar dairRves, anda<br />
sisxlis samarTlis warmoeba zedmetad<br />
ar gaxangrZlivdes.<br />
1<br />
ix.: “Second Day, Wednesday, 11/21/1945, Part 04”, in Trial of the Major War<br />
Criminals before the <strong>International</strong> Military Tribunal. Volume II. Proceedings:<br />
11/14/1945-11/30/1945. [Offi cial text in the English language.] Nuremberg: IMT,<br />
1947, gv. 98-102. Justice Jackson’s Opening Statement for the Prosecution,<br />
www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/11-21-45.htm, nanaxia: 12/03/20<strong>09</strong>.<br />
2<br />
1998 wlis ivnis-ivlisSi sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos<br />
wesdebis xelmosawerad gasaxsnelad konferenciis romSi gamarTvis<br />
gamo sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos wesdebas aseve<br />
moixsenieben, rogorc `romis statuts~. winamdebare naSromSic `romis<br />
statuti~ aseve iqneba gamoyenebuli sasamarTlos wesdebis aRmniSvnelad.<br />
3<br />
`yuradRebiT iRebs ra mxedvelobaSi, rom am saukunis manZilze milionobiT<br />
bavSvi, qali da mamakaci gaxda kacobriobis sindisis Rrmad<br />
SemaZrwunebeli warmoudgeneli sisastikis msxverpli~... (xazgasma avtorisa)<br />
ix.: romis statuti, preambula, meore abzaci.<br />
4<br />
ix. Triffterer, O. (2008) “Preamble” in Triffterer, O. (ed.), “Commentary on the<br />
Rome Statute of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court - Observers’ Notes, Article by<br />
Article”, gv. 3.<br />
5<br />
ix. Zehr, H. (1990) Changing Lenses: A New Focus For Crime And Justice 181<br />
Herald Press.<br />
6<br />
sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos SemTxvevaSi es ufleba<br />
moicavs ara mxolod sasamarTlo ganxilvis etaps, aramed e.w. `situaciis~<br />
damuSavebis etapsac, rodesac konkretuli eWvmitanili an braldebuli<br />
arc ki aris identificirebuli.<br />
7<br />
ix. gaeros uSiSroebis sabWos rezoluciebi: 827(1993) da 955(1994).<br />
8<br />
`saerTaSoriso mSvidobisa da usafrTxoebisTvis safrTxis Seqmna~, koncefciasTan<br />
dakavSirebiT, zogadad, ix.: Simma, B. (ed.), (2002) The Charter<br />
of the United Nations: A Commentary, t. I, gv. 717-729.<br />
189
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
9<br />
kolumbiis winadadeba: komentarebi sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso<br />
sasamarTlos msxverplTaTvis xelmisawvdomobasTan dakavSirebuli<br />
saerTaSoriso seminaris angariSze, PNCICC/1999/WGRPE/DP.37, 10<br />
agvisto, 1999.<br />
10<br />
ix. sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos statuti: preambula,<br />
meore abzaci, me-15(3), me-19(3), 43(6)-e, 53(1,g)-e, 53(2,g)-e, 54(1,b)-e, 54(3,b),<br />
57(3,g)-e, 57(3,d)-e, 64(2)-e, 64(2,e)-e, 65(4)-e, 68(1)-e, 68(2)-e, 68(3)-e, 68(4)-e,<br />
75(1)-e, 75(2)-e, 75(3)-e, 75(6)-e, 79(1)-e, 82(4)-e, 87(4)-e, 90(6,b)-e, 93(1,k)-e, 110<br />
(4,b)-e muxlebi.<br />
11<br />
ix. Bergsmo, M., Pejić, J. (2008), “Article 15: Prosecutor” in Triffterer, O. (ed.),<br />
“Commentary on the Rome Statute of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court - Observers’<br />
Notes, Article by Article” gv. 590.<br />
12<br />
ix. Bitti, G., Friman H. (2001) “Participation of Victims in the Proceedings” in Lee<br />
R.S., et al (ed.) “The <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court: Elements of Crimes and Rules<br />
of Procedure and Evidence” gv. 456-491.<br />
13<br />
SedarebisTvis ix. Art. 6(b) of the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for<br />
Victims of Crimes and Abuse of Power annexed to the UN General Assembly<br />
Resolution 40/34, 29 December, 1985; aseve: ECOSOC Resolution 1996/14.<br />
14<br />
procedurebisa da mtkicebulebis wesebi, wesi 89-e (1).<br />
15<br />
ix., mag., situacia kongos demokratiul respublikaSi, procesSi<br />
monawileobis Sesaxeb ganacxadebze gadawyvetileba: VPRS 1, VPRS 2,<br />
VPRS 3,VPRS 4, VPRS 5 da VPRS 6, 17 ianvari, 2006, ICC-01/04-101, para.100.<br />
16<br />
ix., mag., situacia kongos demokratiul respublikaSi, prokurori tomas<br />
lubanga diilos winaaRmdeg, vadis gagrZelebis Suamdgomloba, 2<br />
oqtomberi, 2007w., ICC-01/04-01/06-523, para.10.<br />
17<br />
ix., mag., situacia kongos demokratiul respublikaSi, gadawyvetileba<br />
OPCD-s Suamdgomlobaze Sesabamisi dokumentaciis warmodgenis<br />
Taobaze, sasamarTlos wesebis 86-e(2)(e) muxlis Tanaxmad, prokuroris<br />
mier gamamarTlebeli masalis gamoqveynebasTan dakavSirebiT, 7 dekemberi,<br />
2007, ICC-01/04-417, para.9. [Situation in the Democratic Republic of the<br />
Congo, Decision on the Requests of the OPCD on the Production of Relevant<br />
Supporting Documentation Pursuant to Art. 86(2)(e) of the Regulations of the<br />
Court on the Disclosure of Exculpatory Materials by the Prosecutor, 7 Dec., 2007,<br />
ICC-01/04-417, at 9].<br />
18<br />
romis statuti, 68-e(1) muxli.<br />
19<br />
romis statuti, 68-e(3)muxli.<br />
20<br />
ix. situacia kongos demokratiul respublikaSi, procesSi monawileobis<br />
Sesaxeb ganacxadebze gadawyvetileba: VPRS 1, VPRS 2, VPRS 3,VPRS<br />
4, VPRS 5 da VPRS 6, 17 ianvari, 2006, ICC-01/04-101, para.63.<br />
21<br />
ix. mag., CrdiloeT ugandis Lord’s Resistance Army saqme: ICC-02-04-01-05-<br />
134, kongos demokratiuli respublikis situacia: ICC-01-04-101, ICC-<br />
01-04-01-06-228, lubangas saqme: ICC-01-04-06-228, ICC-01-04-06-601.<br />
22<br />
mag., situacia kongos demokratiul respublikaSi, procesSi monawileobis<br />
Sesaxeb ganacxadebze gadawyvetileba: VPRS 1, VPRS 2, VPRS 3,VPRS<br />
4, VPRS 5 da VPRS 6, 17 ianvari, 2006, ICC-01/04-101, para. 82.<br />
23<br />
romis statuti, 68-e(3) muxli.<br />
24<br />
situacia kongos demokratiul respublikaSi, procesSi monawileobis<br />
Sesaxeb ganacxadebze gadawyvetileba: VPRS 1, VPRS 2, VPRS 3,VPRS 4,<br />
VPRS 5 da VPRS 6, 17 ianvari, 2006, ICC-01/04-101, para. 72.<br />
25<br />
David Donat-Cattin (2008), “Article 68: Protection of the victims and witnesses<br />
and their participation in the proceedings” in Triffterer, O. (ed.), “Commentary on<br />
the Rome Statute of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court - Observers’ Notes, Article<br />
by Article” gv. 1278.<br />
26<br />
samoqalaqo da politikuri uflebebis Sesaxeb saerTaSoriso paqti.<br />
190
q. xuciSvili, sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos statutiT gaTvaliswinebuli ...<br />
27<br />
zogadi politikuri mosazrebebi, marTalia, scildeba samarTlis sferos<br />
viwro gagebiT, Tumca, samwuxarod, mainc mniSvnelovanwilad ganapirobebs<br />
saerTaSoriso samarTlis, zogadad, da, bunebrivia, saerTa-<br />
Soriso sisxlis samarTlis, ganviTarebas.<br />
28<br />
ix. Cryer, R., et al (2008), An Introduction to <strong>International</strong> Criminal <strong>Law</strong> and<br />
Procedure, gv.18-26.<br />
29<br />
David Donat-Cattin, (2008), “Article 68: Protection of the victims and witnesses<br />
and their participation in the proceedings” in Triffterer, O. (ed.), “Commentary on<br />
the Rome Statute of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court - Observers’ Notes, Article<br />
by Article”, gv. 1277.<br />
30<br />
wesi 2a, 1991 wlidan yofili iugoslaviis teritoriaze saerTaSoriso<br />
humanitaruli samarTlis seriozuli darRvevebisTvis pasuxismgebeli<br />
pirebis sisxlissamarTlebrivi devnisTvis Seqmnili saerTaSoriso<br />
tribunali, `procedurebisa da mtkicebulebebis wesebi~, miRebuli<br />
1994 wlis 11 Tebervals, 1993 wlis 25 maiss gaeros uSiSroebis sabWos<br />
827 rezoluciiT yofili iugoslaviisTvis Seqmnili saerTaSoriso<br />
sisxlis samarTlis tribunalis wesdebis me-15 muxlis safuZvelze;<br />
wesi 2a, ruandis saerTaSoriso tribunali, `procedurebisa da mtkicebulebebis<br />
wesebi~, miRebulia 1995 wlis 29 ivniss, gaeros uSiSroebis<br />
sabWos 955-e rezoluciis (1994 wlis 8 noembris) ruandis saerTaSoriso<br />
sisxlis samarTlis tribunalis wesdebis me-14 muxlis safuZvelze.<br />
31<br />
ix. Momir Nikolić, ICTY Trial Chamber I, 2.12.2.003, para.86.<br />
32<br />
ix. 85-e wesi, procedurebisa da mtkicebulebebis wesebi.<br />
33<br />
iseve, rogorc mis precedentze dayrdnobiT Seqmnili ruandis tribunalisa.<br />
34<br />
ix. Report of the <strong>International</strong> Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible<br />
for Serious Violations of <strong>International</strong> Humanitarian <strong>Law</strong> Committedd in the<br />
Territor of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, U.N. GAOR, 49 th Session, U.N.<br />
Doc.A/49/342, S/1994/1007 (29 agvisto, 1994).<br />
35<br />
ix. David Donat-Cattin, (2008), “Article 68: Protection of the victims and witnesses<br />
and their participation in the proceedings” in Triffterer, O. (ed.), “Commentary on<br />
the Rome Statute of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court - Observers’ Notes, Article<br />
by Article” gv. 1277.<br />
36<br />
ix. Cassese, A. (2003) <strong>International</strong> Criminal <strong>Law</strong>, gv.387.<br />
37<br />
United Nations Press Release, UN Secretary General Declares Overriding Interest<br />
of <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court Conference must be that of Victims and World<br />
Community as a Whole, 15 June 1998, http://www.un.org/icc/pressrel/1rom6ri.<br />
htm, nanaxia: 14/02/2010.<br />
38<br />
romis statuti, me-19(3) muxli, procedurebisa da mtkicebulebebis<br />
wesebi.<br />
39<br />
ix. Cryer, R., et al (2008), An Introduction to <strong>International</strong> Criminal <strong>Law</strong> and<br />
Procedure, gv.362.<br />
40<br />
ix. David Donat-Cattin, (2008), “Article 68: Protection of the victims and witnesses<br />
and their participation in the proceedings” in Triffterer, O. (ed.), “Commentary on<br />
the Rome Statute of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court - Observers’ Notes, Article<br />
by Article” gv. 1280, para. 9.<br />
41<br />
ix. Ratner, Steven, R., et al. Accountability for Human Rights Atrocities in<br />
<strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>: Beyond the Nuremberg Legacy, Third Edition, Oxford University<br />
Press, 20<strong>09</strong>, gv. 239.<br />
42<br />
ix. mag., tomas lubangas saqme.<br />
43<br />
sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos prokuroris mier<br />
dadgenili praqtikis mixedviT: `braldebis mxaris mosazrebiT, [romis]<br />
statutis 68-e (3) muxli da 85-e wesi, Tu maTi ganxilva erTad moxdeba,<br />
[sasamarTlos] palatisTvis adgens oretapian proceduras imis dasadgenad,<br />
kvalificirdeba Tu ara piri msxverplad sisxlis samarTlis<br />
191
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
procesSi monawileobis miRebis uflebiT. upirveles yovlisa, ganmcxadebelma<br />
unda daakmayofilos 85-e muxliT dadgenili kriteriumi. amis<br />
Semdgom [sasamarTlos] palata unda darwmundes, rom is sasamarTlo<br />
procesi, romelSic monawileobisTvis igi [sasamarTlos] mimarTavs,<br />
msxverplis pirad interesebze pirdapir gavlenas axdens~. prokuroris<br />
25 agvistos pozicia – a/0047/06 – a/0052/06 – ganmcxadebelTa monawileobis<br />
Taobaze ganacxadTan dakavSirebiT, 6 seqtemberi, 2006, ICC-01-04-<br />
01-06-390, para.10.<br />
44<br />
ix. David Donat-Cattin, (2008), “Article 68: Protection of the victims and witnesses<br />
and their participation in the proceedings” in Triffterer, O. (ed.), “Commentary on<br />
the Rome Statute of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court - Observers’ Notes, Article<br />
by Article” gv. 1287.<br />
45<br />
romis statuti, 68-e (1) muxli.<br />
46<br />
ix. Cassese, A. (2003) <strong>International</strong> Criminal <strong>Law</strong>, gv.387.<br />
47<br />
ix. Report of the <strong>International</strong> Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible<br />
for Serious Violations of <strong>International</strong> Humanitarian <strong>Law</strong> Committedd in the<br />
Territor of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, U.N. GAOR, 49 th Session, U.N.<br />
Doc.A/49/342, S/1994/1007(29 agvisto, 1994).<br />
48<br />
ix. Schabas, W.A. (2007), An Introduction to the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court,<br />
gv.55.<br />
192
KETEVAN KHUTSISHVILI<br />
LEGAL AND ACTUAL STATUS OF VICTIMS OF CRIMES<br />
ENVISAGED BY THE STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL<br />
CRIMINAL COURT: A FICTITIOUS OR REAL MECHANISM<br />
“We must never forget that the record on which we judge these<br />
defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow.<br />
To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips<br />
as well. We must summon such detachment and intellectual integrity<br />
to our task that this Trial will commend itself to posterity as fulfi lling<br />
humanity’s aspirations to do justice”.<br />
Chief United States Prosecutor at the Nuremberg<br />
Tribunal Justice Robert H. Jackson 1<br />
I. INTRODUCTION<br />
In the lights of the above cited quote of the<br />
Chief Prosecutor of the USA to the Nuremberg<br />
Trial Justice Robert Jackson the provisions of<br />
the Statute of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court<br />
– the Rome Statute 2 following the path of restoration<br />
of justice and establishing the truth do<br />
establish the new rules strange to the ad hoc<br />
tribunals. This new rule envisages broad participation<br />
of the victims of crimes subjected to the<br />
jurisdiction of <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court (hereinafter<br />
also – “the Court”) in the proceedings.<br />
The history of the development of international<br />
law, and in particular of the international<br />
criminal law throughout the 20 th century<br />
did determine the specifi c mention of victims<br />
in the Rome Statute and in its preamble 3 , especially<br />
of men.<br />
The provisions of the fi nal draft of the<br />
Court’s Statute were substantially revised<br />
at the Rome Conference. On 25 June, 1998<br />
Spain suggested to broaden the Preamble of<br />
the Statute. 4 Instead of the three provisions<br />
been drafted by then, Spanish proposal envisaged<br />
eight provisions, highlighting such<br />
aspects as reminder (highlighted by the author)<br />
of the suffering of victims, …, as well as<br />
emphasizing, fi rstly, that “this Statute should<br />
not be interpreted as affecting in any way the<br />
scope of the provisions of the Cjarter relating<br />
to the functions and the powers of the organs<br />
of the United Nations”.<br />
The strengthening of the stutus of a victim<br />
in the Rome Statute is based on the concept<br />
of restorative justice as well, which “involves<br />
the victim, the offender, and the community<br />
in a search for solution which promote repair,<br />
reconciliation, and reassurance”. 5<br />
The defi nition of a victim envisaged in the<br />
Statute of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court is<br />
fairly broader that the same notions envisaged<br />
by the statutes of the international criminal<br />
tribunals established by the United Nations<br />
Security Council.<br />
It shall be briefl y mentioned in this context<br />
that the effi ciency of the criminal procedures<br />
and their fairness is measured as based on<br />
the protection of rights of a suspect or an accused<br />
as well as victims of committed crimes<br />
and their equal participation in the criminal proceedings.<br />
However, it is important to analyse<br />
how to keep the balance in protecting these<br />
two values How real is it to ensure equal participation<br />
of all victims at any stage of court<br />
proceedings 6 when the court at issue is an international<br />
criminal judicial body<br />
193
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
One of the core challenges facing the <strong>International</strong><br />
Criminal Court is how shall it ensure<br />
the relation with the victims in terms of their<br />
broad involvement into criminal proceedings.<br />
However, at the same time, one more<br />
question emerges: how prudent is the maximum<br />
broadening of invovement of vicimts into<br />
criminal procedure, taking into account the preconditions<br />
of fair, effeciently conducted criminal<br />
proceedings that at the same time shall not exclude<br />
the adversarial principle. It is also importat<br />
to identify how permittable is it to provide for<br />
broad participation of a victims based on the<br />
Rome Statute without on the other hand balancing<br />
this right, be considered as a possibility<br />
of exercising justice in a fair, efficient manner,<br />
and consistent with the <strong>International</strong> Covenant<br />
on Civil and Political Rights<br />
When analysing the granting broad rights to<br />
victims by the Rome Statute the important role<br />
shall be given to the discussion of the mechanisms<br />
developed by the practice of the tribunals<br />
preceeding it – the international criminal tribunals<br />
established by the UN Security Council for<br />
the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. This is<br />
also important taking into account that the creation<br />
of the tribunals by the Security Council was<br />
one-off ad hoc reaction at the higher risks that<br />
the political body of the United Nations – the<br />
Security Council – considered 7 as a “threat to<br />
international peace and security” 8 .<br />
Therefore, the article shall establish how<br />
consistent is the legal and factual status as<br />
considered by the Statute of the <strong>International</strong><br />
Criminal Court with respect of the provision of<br />
effi cient and fair proceedings; how realistically<br />
does this principle correspond with the situation<br />
established by the statutes and practice<br />
esbalished by the ad hoc tribunals and how<br />
realistic is the provision of wide participation<br />
of victims in the criminal proceedings as envisaged<br />
by the Statute of the <strong>International</strong><br />
Criminal Court.<br />
The comparative analysis of the issue is<br />
even more important, as when establishing<br />
the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court the Delegation<br />
of Columbia did note quite clearly that before<br />
the establishement of the Court “The victim …<br />
was an uninvited guest, a spectator, which exacerbated<br />
the confl ict”. 9<br />
Consequently, the succeeding chapters<br />
shall consider the regulation provided by<br />
the Court established based on the Rome<br />
Statute for the protection of victims and<br />
their participation in the proceedings of the<br />
<strong>International</strong> Criminal Court; the approach<br />
of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Tribunals established<br />
by the UN Security Council for the<br />
former Yugoslavia and Rwanda with regard<br />
to the partcipation of victims; it shall be considered<br />
what mechanisms are used within the<br />
administration of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal<br />
Court and what guarantees are in place for<br />
their involvement in the criminal proceedings.<br />
As a conclusion it shall be considered,<br />
how effi cient and real are the procedures established<br />
for the participation of the victims in<br />
the criminal proceedings.<br />
II. REGULATION OF THE PARTICIPATION<br />
OF VICTIMS IN INTERNATIONAL<br />
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS<br />
The motivation of protection of victims<br />
and the provision of their participation in the<br />
criminal proceedings is vivid from the text dispersed<br />
in various parts of the Rome Statute. 10<br />
This must be provisioned by the fact that the<br />
participation of vicitms in criminal proceedings<br />
is an essential concept for guaranteeing fair<br />
trial rights to them.<br />
It is the first time ever in the history of the itnernational<br />
criminal justice that victims of crime<br />
have a possibility of invovlement into the proceedings<br />
at any stage before the <strong>International</strong><br />
Criminal Court. This is certainly the novelty<br />
against the background of the past reality,<br />
when victims of crime could only provide their<br />
position to international tribunals preceeding<br />
the Court established on the basis of the Rome<br />
Statute in the capacity of witnesses.<br />
At the same time, when discussing the<br />
broad participation, neither shall it be skipped<br />
from our attention that the prosecutor of the<br />
Court may receive informaiton from a victim.<br />
According to Morten Bergsmo and Jelena<br />
Pejić, “[t]his is likely to be an important source<br />
for the Prosecutor also at the stage of preliminary<br />
examination, prior to the actual investigation,<br />
which will normally reply heavily on witness<br />
testimony”. 11<br />
At the one hand, this is provbably and is<br />
not contested, shall be considered as a positive<br />
momentum. The positive side is certainly<br />
194
K. KHUTSISHVILI, LEGAL AND ACTUAL STATUS OF VICTIMS OF CRIMES ENVISAGED BY THE STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL...<br />
viewed in sence of wide representation of victims<br />
of human rights violations via the possibility<br />
of involving them at each stage of criminal<br />
proceedings.<br />
The Statute of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal<br />
Court, despite the fact, that refers to victims in<br />
various articles, provides the participation of<br />
victims in the criminal proceedigns via three<br />
general norms. The concrete issues of relations<br />
with them is regulated also by the “Rule<br />
of Procedure and Evidence” 12 .<br />
When discussing the mechanisms of victims’<br />
participation in the criminal proceedings<br />
as envisaged by the Rome Statute the particular<br />
attention shall be given to para. 3 of<br />
Article 68 13 , which, being a general provision,<br />
regulates this issue. The Rule 85 of the Rules<br />
of Procedure and Evidence. providign for the<br />
defi nition of the concept of a victim, shall be<br />
considered together with this Article.<br />
One of the special norms contained in the<br />
Rome Statute, para. 3 of Article 15 stipulates,<br />
that the victims may make representations to<br />
the Pre-trial Chamber, once the prosecutor<br />
concludes that there is a reasonbale basis to<br />
proceed with an investigation. It is apt to briefly<br />
also mention here that according to para.<br />
1 of Article 15 of the Rome Statute a victim<br />
may provide an information to the Prosecutor<br />
of the Court for the initiation of an investigation<br />
proprio motu, in which case, if the Prosecutor<br />
concludes that the inforamtion provided does<br />
not constitute a reasobable basis for an investigation,<br />
he or she shall inform a victim, as provided<br />
b para. 6 of Article 15 of the Statute.<br />
According to the second special norm –<br />
para. 3 of Article 19 of the Rome Statute victims<br />
“who have communicated with the Court<br />
or their legal representatives” are authorised<br />
to present their position in relation with the issues<br />
on jurisdiction of the Court or admissibility<br />
of the case.<br />
It shall be interesting to analyse how does<br />
the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court use in practice<br />
the procedure envisaged by the para. 3<br />
of Article 68 of the Statute and Rule 85 of the<br />
“Rules of Procedure and Evidence”. This is interesting<br />
taking into consideration that the procedure<br />
and the respective assesment criteria<br />
are not listed in the documents in an exhaustive<br />
manner.<br />
Rule 85(e) only stipulates that a “victim” is<br />
a natural person, who “ha[s] suffered harm as<br />
a result of the commission of any crime within<br />
the jurisdiction of the Court”. The Rule 85(b)<br />
refers to legal entities, that have sustained<br />
harm during the undertaking of an important<br />
social function, such as performing as and in<br />
schools or hospitals.<br />
According to para. 3 of Article 68 of the<br />
Rome Statute, in order to participate in the<br />
criminal proceedings, in line with the Rules of<br />
Procedure and Evidence, alleged “victim” shall<br />
apply to the Registrar of the Court in writing 14 ,<br />
who shall transmit the appeal to the respective<br />
Chamber. The Chamber shall make “nonexhaustive<br />
and non-decisive assessment of<br />
the criteria as established by the Rule 85(a)”. 15<br />
Defence and prosecution have a possibility to<br />
respond to such an application. 16 It is also apt<br />
to mention in this context that written communication<br />
is not the only form of communication<br />
of an alleged victim with the Court. In the<br />
light of the para. 3 of Article 19, as mentioned<br />
above, the respective Chamber has discretion<br />
to grant a victim a right to oral communication<br />
with the Court. This is due to the fact that Rule<br />
58(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence<br />
provides that a Chamber shall decide on the<br />
procedure (oral or written, etc.) to be followed<br />
and how to ensure that the procedure selected<br />
be the best possible one. It is true that the motivation<br />
behind this provision was to not disrupt<br />
the participation of victims in court proceedings,<br />
according to the provision, the free<br />
manner of communication does cover not only<br />
victims, but it does also grant liberty to States<br />
Parties to the Rome Statute and even to the<br />
UN Security Council, in the light of Article 19 of<br />
the Statute, to have oral communication with<br />
the Court within the scope of the situation referred<br />
by them to the Court, provided that the<br />
respective Chamber agrees to this. This on its<br />
turn apart from having a kind intention with regard<br />
to victims’ participation, may result into<br />
additional work for the Court.<br />
Participation of a victim in criminal proceedings<br />
is not only restricted only to the narrow participation<br />
in the court hearing. The role of a victim<br />
in the consideration of the jurisdiction of the<br />
Court or the admissibility of a case is provided<br />
on the equal footing with those authorised to re-<br />
195
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
fer a case to the Court in line with Article 13 of the<br />
Rome Statute. This on its turn includes States<br />
Parties to the Rome Statute, the UN Security<br />
Council and the Prosecutor of the Court.<br />
At the same time, we shall also keep in<br />
mind that despite the fact that the application<br />
of the Rule 85 of the Rules of Procedure and<br />
Evidence shall be undertaken when regulating<br />
the participation in accordance with the para. 3<br />
of Article 68 of the Rome Statute, the practice<br />
of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court does prove<br />
that criteria of Rule 85 provide for automatic<br />
and general right to participation. This on its<br />
turn puts away the expediency of participation<br />
and the personal interests of a victim and they<br />
shall only be considered when concrete forms<br />
of participation are discussed. 17<br />
In parallel to the protection of safety,<br />
physical and psychological well-being, dignity<br />
and privacy of victims, 18 the Rome Statute provides<br />
for submitting the “views” and “concerns”<br />
of victims to the Court, where the personal interests<br />
of victims are concerned. 19<br />
In the fi rst decision regarding the participation<br />
of victims, “[t]he Chamber consider[ed] that<br />
the personal interests of victims are affected in<br />
general at the investigation stage (highlight by<br />
the author), since the participation of victims at<br />
this stage can serve to clarify the facts, to punish<br />
the perpetrators of crimes and to request<br />
reparations for the harm suffered”. 20<br />
The practice as developed during the assessment<br />
of the application for participation of<br />
victims in the proceedings 21 indicates that provision<br />
of participation of victims at the stage of<br />
investigation is time consuming, double process.<br />
At the fi rst stage, before even a suspect<br />
or accused are identifi ed, they shall indicate<br />
the interest in the proceedings. At that stage<br />
the Court does not even need to defi ne “the<br />
absolute harm to the victim, as the identifi cation<br />
of this, based on the case circumstances,<br />
shall be undertaken by the Chamber at a later<br />
stage, according to the needs”. 22<br />
The practice of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal<br />
Court does show that victims are considered<br />
as “more equals than others”. The result of this<br />
may be the prolongation of the criminal proceedings<br />
more than needed. The clear indication<br />
of considering victims as “more equals<br />
than others” is the opinion of the Chamber I<br />
of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court about the<br />
“personal interests” of victims 23 , the broad interpretation<br />
of which provides that one of the<br />
“personal interest” at the stage of investigation<br />
is to see people committing the crimes against<br />
them accused. 24<br />
Even though “respect and full realisation<br />
of victims’ rights through criminal justice found<br />
in the I[nternational] C[riminal] C[ourt] process<br />
a unique opportunity to advocate the further<br />
codifi cation of victims’ rights in international<br />
law”, 25 in the name of this interest a right of an<br />
accused to a fair trial and impartial, quick and<br />
effi cient justice, as provided for by the equally<br />
needed and having the similar legal value<br />
-<strong>International</strong> Covenant on Civil and Political<br />
Rights 26 shall not be limited. Keeping this balance<br />
is a delicate, possibly, not that popular<br />
issue from the view point of legal policy and in<br />
general, from the political perspective, 27 however<br />
it is absolutely important from the point of<br />
view of introducing the sense of justice.<br />
III. THE APPROACH OF THE INTERNATIONAL<br />
CRIMINAL TRIBUNALS FOR THE FORMER<br />
YUGOSLAVIA AND RWANDA WITH REGARD<br />
TO THE PARTICIPATION OF VICTIMS<br />
Despite the fact that protection of victims<br />
and restoration of justice from the view<br />
point shall be one of the cornerstones of the<br />
system of international criminal law, different<br />
approaches are also found in the positions of<br />
scientists. This may be a result of generalisation<br />
of practice, or it may in principle support<br />
establishment of such a practice.<br />
A book by Cryer, Freeman, et al does list<br />
the following among the aims of international<br />
criminal justice: retribution, restraining from<br />
committing a crime in the future, etc. “Justice<br />
for victims” does not fall under this list, which<br />
provides for the aims of the international criminal<br />
justice in details. Victims are fi rst mentioned<br />
only in the additional list, which is unifi<br />
ed under the Chapter “Broader Aims”. The<br />
latter, even though fi rst of all mentions victims,<br />
it also unites such aims as: fi xing history on a<br />
paper, post-confl ict reconciliation, etc. 28<br />
The approach is interesting as a theoretical<br />
basis for the development of the practice<br />
of <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court, also taking into<br />
account that law and practice of both ad hoc<br />
<strong>International</strong> Criminal Tribunals for the former<br />
196
K. KHUTSISHVILI, LEGAL AND ACTUAL STATUS OF VICTIMS OF CRIMES ENVISAGED BY THE STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL...<br />
Yugoslavia and Rwanda have prepared a fertile<br />
terrain for the insertion of advanced provisions<br />
on victims’ participation in article 68 paras.<br />
1, 2, 4 and 5 of the Rome Statute. 29 At the<br />
same time, para. 3 of Article 68 of the Rome<br />
Statute is specifi cally devoted to [broad] participation<br />
of victims [in criminal proceedings].<br />
In this respect and for the analysis of provisions<br />
envisaged by para. 3 of Article 68 of the<br />
Rome Statute and the respective Court practice,<br />
due to a limited format of the article, a very<br />
brief overview of the legal basis and the practice<br />
of ad hoc tribunals created for the former<br />
Yugoslavia and Rwanda is apt herewith.<br />
A term “victim” was narrowly defi ned in the<br />
statutes of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals<br />
for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.<br />
According to these documents: “a victim is a<br />
person against whom a crime over which the<br />
Tribunal has jurisdiction has allegedly been<br />
committed”. 30<br />
In the Nikolić case the international criminal<br />
tribunal for the former Yugoslavia did note,<br />
that “punishment shall respectively refl ect call<br />
for justice, both – from those who had directly<br />
fallen victims to a crime, as well as from indirect<br />
victims of a crime”. 31<br />
While adopting the Rules of Procedure<br />
and Evidence based on the Statute of the<br />
<strong>International</strong> Criminal Court the states parties<br />
agreeing on the defi nition of a victim did make<br />
a special emphasis on victimisation 32 , and not<br />
on the limiting linkage refl ected in Rule 2 of the<br />
tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.<br />
During the establishment of the ad hoc<br />
international criminal tribunals for the former<br />
Yugoslavia and Rwanda participation of victims<br />
at international plane was considered impossible.<br />
This was due to the fact that “tens<br />
of thousands” of victims were targets of the<br />
crimes falling within the scope of the tribunals.<br />
Therefore, granting a voice to each of the victims<br />
was considered to be an obstacle to effi<br />
cient and fair functioning of the tribunals.<br />
However, the motivation of the <strong>International</strong><br />
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, 33<br />
as evidenced by the fi rst annual report, was as<br />
follows: “The Tribunal did feel the moral obligation<br />
to commence the court proceedings as<br />
quickly as possible, to allow all the parties – a<br />
victim, as well as a perpetrator, local participants<br />
or observers from distance, to see that<br />
outrageous violations of human rights would<br />
not have been allowed to go unpunished”. 34<br />
Analysing the legal basis and the respective<br />
practice of the Court created by the Rome<br />
Statute the natural interest emerges to analyse<br />
the latter in parrallel with the ad hoc tribunals<br />
established by the United Nations. This is<br />
at least preconditioned by the practice, which<br />
did in relation with the ad hoc international<br />
criminal tribunal for Rwanda, following the<br />
genocide in Rwanda, “Rwandan public opinion<br />
has not often understood that justice was<br />
done, because it was not seen to be done, has<br />
been a major problem form the I[nternational]<br />
C[riminal] T[ribunal for] R[wanda]”. 35<br />
One of the important reasons for making it<br />
difficult to see the “exercise of justice” was probably<br />
the very passive role of victims and the limited<br />
possibility of their participation in the criminal<br />
proceedings. Now, having years passed, many<br />
well-know ninternational law commentators<br />
do clearly indicate that participation of victims<br />
in the activities of the international criminal tribunals<br />
for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda,<br />
unlike the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court, is very<br />
limited. According to the analysis by Professor<br />
Cassesse, “while in proceedings before the<br />
I[nternational] C[riminal] T[ribunal for the former]<br />
Y[ugoslavia] and the I[nternatioanl] C[riminal]<br />
C[ourt for] R[wanda] victims do not play any autonomous<br />
role, as they may only appear in court<br />
as witnesses if called by one of the partues (noramlly<br />
the prosecutor) or the Court itself, in the<br />
Statute of the I[nternational] C[riminal] C[ourt]<br />
they have been given several roles…” 36<br />
IV. PROVISION OF INCLUSION OF VICTIMS<br />
INTO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS BY THE<br />
ADMINISTRATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL<br />
CRIMINAL COURT<br />
When opening the Rome Statute for signature<br />
then Secretary General of the United<br />
Nations Kofi Annan stated that, “the overriding<br />
interest must be that of the victims, and of the<br />
international community as a whole. … [the<br />
Court], must be an instrument of justice, not<br />
expediency”. 37<br />
Article 68(4) does specifi cally provide for<br />
the protective measures, security arrangements<br />
to be taken into account, possibility of<br />
counselling and assistance that may be sub-<br />
197
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
mitted to the prosecutor and the court by the<br />
Victim and Witness Unit.<br />
According to the Article 15(3) of the Rome<br />
Statute and the corresponding Rule 50 of the<br />
“Rules of Procedure and Evidence” victims<br />
known to the Prosecutor or to the Victims and<br />
Witnesses Unit will be informed to make representations<br />
to the Pre-Trial Chamber. Taking<br />
into account the interests of investigation and<br />
the security of separate individuals, the groups<br />
of victims will also be provided with the general<br />
information.<br />
The Victim and Witness Protection Unit<br />
will also notify the victims, “who had already<br />
have communicated with the Court”, in order to<br />
express their position regarding the jurisdiction<br />
of the Court or the admissibility of the Case 38 .<br />
The practice of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal<br />
Court does show that protection of victims,<br />
as well as of witnesses is quite broadly used<br />
in practice. The same is correct with regard<br />
to the ad hoc international criminal tribunals<br />
established for the former Yugoslavia and<br />
Rwanda, despite the different approach to victims<br />
in Tribunals and the Court. 39<br />
V. CONCLUSION. HOW EFFICIENT AND REAL<br />
IS THE MECHANISMS ESTABLISHED BY THE<br />
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT FOR THE<br />
PARTICIPATION OF VICTIMS IN THE CRIMINAL<br />
PROCEEDINGS<br />
The role of a victim is signifi cantly strengthened<br />
in the Statute of the <strong>International</strong><br />
Criminal Court. According to the Rome Statute,<br />
the victims are authorised to participate in the<br />
criminal proceedings in accordance with their<br />
interests. At the same time, Article 68 shall not<br />
be understood in a narrow manner, as if it only<br />
refers to the court criminal proceedings. This<br />
provision refers to “proceedings”, in its broadest<br />
possible sense, and not only to the court<br />
proceedings. 40<br />
This is also determined by the history preceding<br />
the establishment of the Court: the idea<br />
of creating unified, permanent, to the extent<br />
possible universal court was to have established<br />
a permanent possibility of quick reaction<br />
to the most heinous crimes. The aim was not to<br />
only permanently have the scaring mechanism.<br />
The basic element of the idea was also the<br />
great idea of restoring justice for the victims.<br />
Based on the Rome Statute, the Trial<br />
Chamber has broad authority to issue directions<br />
necessary for the fair and impartial conduct<br />
of the trial. 41<br />
The initial practice of the Court established<br />
by the Rome Statute does indicate that participation<br />
of victims in the court proceedings, in<br />
which the interests of a victim are identifi ed, is<br />
essential. 42<br />
If the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court will<br />
work with the full circle of possible victims in<br />
practice, which, taking into account the crimes<br />
subjected to the jurisdiction of the Court, may<br />
be millions of people, exact determination of<br />
mechanisms is important not to cause the<br />
overburdening of the Court taking into account<br />
the time and fi nancial resources.<br />
At the same time, it is also necessary to<br />
take into account that rights of suspects and<br />
accused shall not be violated on the expense<br />
of representation of witnesses.<br />
Despite the fact, that the legal basis and<br />
the practice of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court<br />
shall be directed at the protection of human<br />
beings – and naturally – of the persons having<br />
fallen victims to crimes subjected to the<br />
jurisdiction of the Court, the discrediting of<br />
this principle shall be avoided in the name of<br />
this very humane idea. One of the main risks<br />
in this regard may also be that the possibility<br />
of involving a victim in the criminal proceedings<br />
exists even before the concrete accused<br />
in committing the violation of law is identifi ed.<br />
This, on its turn, may turn to be the precondition<br />
to violation of the important rights guaranteed<br />
by the <strong>International</strong> Covenant on Civil<br />
and Political Rights.<br />
Neither it shall be rejected that it shall not<br />
be permitted in the name of protecting the<br />
rights of a victim the principle of adversarial<br />
criminal proceedings be neglected.<br />
The two staged procedure of identification<br />
of a victim 43 does prolong the court proceedings<br />
and supposedly, does violate the rights of<br />
a victim, for the protection of whose rights the<br />
protective mechanisms were elaborated by the<br />
Court. However, along with this negative assessment<br />
it shall also be taken into account that<br />
commentators do criticise the approach taken<br />
by the Prosecutor of the Court in relation with<br />
the introduction of the two stages of identifica-<br />
198
K. KHUTSISHVILI, LEGAL AND ACTUAL STATUS OF VICTIMS OF CRIMES ENVISAGED BY THE STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL...<br />
tion of victims. David Donat-Cattin does clearly<br />
indicate that the “the Office of the Prosecutor<br />
[of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court] was wrong<br />
when it characterised the relevant procedure<br />
[of identification of a victim] as a “two-stage<br />
process” in which a victim may be recognised<br />
as such in the first place, with the necessity of<br />
a second judicial decision concerning whether<br />
her or his personal interests are affected”. 44<br />
It shall also be taken into account that<br />
para. 1 of Article 68 of the Rome Statute does<br />
end with the provision, according to which “…<br />
measures [of protection and support to a victim]<br />
shall not be prejudicial to or inconsistent<br />
with the rights of the accused and a fair and<br />
impartial trial”. 45<br />
It shall also be taken into account that the<br />
Court is also obliged to determine, whether<br />
there was a violation of rights of a suspect or<br />
an accused by permitting the participation of a<br />
victim in the proceedings, according to para. 3<br />
of Article 68 of the Rome Statute.<br />
Professor Cassese notes that despite<br />
the provision of broad participation of a victim<br />
in criminal proceedings, which is particularly<br />
striking as compared to the ad hoc<br />
<strong>International</strong> Criminal Tribunals established<br />
for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, neither<br />
the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court has managed<br />
to fully upheld the legal institution of civil<br />
law countries, namely the application to join<br />
criminal proceedings as a civil petitioner. 46<br />
This shall probably be considered rather<br />
as a positive move, than a negative factor in<br />
relation with the regulations of the <strong>International</strong><br />
Criminal Court, if we consider the international<br />
criminal proceedings prolonged in time. This is<br />
due to the fact that the ultimate aim of an international<br />
judicial body shall be: “exercise of justice,<br />
deterrence of future crimes and supporting<br />
the restoration and keeping the peace”. 47<br />
It shall also be taken into account that the<br />
participation of a victim in the criminal proceedings<br />
of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court from<br />
the view point of fair, impartial, adversarial proceedings<br />
shall not be possible at the stage of<br />
investigation, before an accused is identifi ed.<br />
This shall not be happening at least due to the<br />
fact to avoid questioning the independence of<br />
a Prosecutor, 48 or to avoid the violation of procedural<br />
rights of an accused, or not to unnecessarily<br />
prolong the criminal proceedings.<br />
1<br />
“Second Day, Wednesday, 11/21/1945, Part 04”, in Trial of the Major War Criminals<br />
before the <strong>International</strong> Military Tribunal. Volume II. Proceedings: 11/14/1945-11<br />
/30/1945. [Offi cial text in the English language.] Nuremberg: IMT, 1947, pp. 98-<br />
102. Justice Jackson’s Opening Statement for the Prosecution, www.yale.edu/<br />
lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/11-21-45.htm, Accessed: 12/03/20<strong>09</strong>.<br />
2<br />
As the Conference for opening for signature the Statute of the <strong>International</strong><br />
Criminal Court was held in Rome in June-July, 2008, the Statute of the <strong>International</strong><br />
Criminal Court is also referred to as the “Rome Statute”. The term “Rome Statute”<br />
shall also be used in the current article to refer to the Statute of the Court.<br />
3<br />
“Mindful that during this century millions of children, women and men have been<br />
victims of unimaginable atrocities that deeply shock the conscience of humanity”<br />
(underline by the author), Rome Statute, the Preamble, Para. 2.<br />
4<br />
Triffterer, O. (2008) “Preamble” in Triffterer, O. (ed.), “Commentary on the Rome Sta -<br />
tute of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court - Observers’ Notes, Article by Article”, p. 3.<br />
5<br />
Zehr, H. (1990) Changing Lenses: A New Focus For Crime And Justice 181<br />
Herald Press.<br />
6<br />
In relation with the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court this right encompasses not only<br />
the stage of court proceedings, but also the stage of work on the so called “situation”,<br />
when the concrete suspect or accused is not even identifi ed.<br />
7<br />
UN Security Council Resolutions: 827(1993) and 955(1994).<br />
8<br />
For the concept “threat to international peace and security” in general see: Simma, B.<br />
(ed.), (2002) The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, Vol. I, pp.717-729.<br />
9<br />
Proposal by Columbia: Comments on the Report on the <strong>International</strong> Seminar<br />
on Victims’ access to the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court, PNCICC/1999/WGRPE/<br />
DP.37, 10 August, 1999.<br />
199
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
10<br />
Statute of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court, Articles: Preamble, para. 2, 15(3),<br />
19(3), 43(6), 53(1,c), 53(2,c), 54(1,b), 54(3,b), 57(3,c), 57(3,d), 64(2), 64(2,e),<br />
65(4), 68(1), 68(2), 68(3), 68(4), 75(1), 75(2), 75(3), 75(6), 79(1), 82(4), 87(4),<br />
90(6,b), 93(1,j), 110 (4,b).<br />
11<br />
Bergsmo, M., Pejić, J. (2008), “Article 15: Prosecutor” in Triffterer, O. (ed.), “Comme<br />
ntary on the Rome Statute of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court - Observers’<br />
Notes, Article by Article” p. 590.<br />
12<br />
Bitti, G., Friman H. (2001) “Participation of Victims in the Proceedings” in Lee<br />
R.S., et al (ed.) “The <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court: Elements of Crimes and Rules<br />
of Procedure and Evidence” pp. 456-491.<br />
13<br />
To compare see: Art. 6(b) of the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for<br />
Victims of Crimes and Abuse of Power annexed to the UN General Assembly<br />
Resolution 40/34, 29 December, 1985; also: ECOSOC Resolution 1996/14.<br />
14<br />
Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Rule 89(1).<br />
15<br />
Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Decision on the Applications<br />
for Participation in the Proceedings VPRS 1, VPRS 2, VPRS 3,VPRS 4, VPRS 5<br />
and VPRS 6, 17 January, 2006, ICC-01/04-101, para.100.<br />
16<br />
Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga<br />
Dyilo, Application for Extension of Time Limit, 2October, 2007, ICC-01/04-01/06-<br />
523, para.10.<br />
17<br />
Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Decision on the Requests of<br />
the OPCD on the Production of Relevant Supporting Documentation Pursuant<br />
to Art. 86(2)(e) of the Regulations of the Court on the Disclosure of Exculpatory<br />
Materials by the Prosecutor, 7 Dec., 2007, ICC-01/04-417, at 9.<br />
18<br />
Rome Statute, para. 1 Article 68.<br />
19<br />
Rome Statute, para. 3 Article 68.<br />
20<br />
Para. 63, Pre-Trial Chamber Decision on the Application for Participation in the<br />
Proceedings, Situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo: VPRS 1, VPRS 2, VPRS<br />
3,VPRS 4, VPRS 5 and VPRS 6, 17 January, 2006, ICC-01/04-101, para.63.<br />
21<br />
See: e.g. Case of Lord’s Resistance Army of the Northern Uganda: ICC-02-04-<br />
01-05-134, Situation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo: ICC-01-04-101,<br />
ICC-01-04-01-06-228, Lubanga Case: ICC-01-04-06-228, ICC-01-04-06-601.<br />
22<br />
E.g. Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Decision on the Applications<br />
for Participation in the Proceedings VPRS 1, VPRS 2, VPRS 3,VPRS 4, VPRS 5<br />
and VPRS 6, 17 January, 2006, ICC-01/04-101, para. 82.<br />
23<br />
Rome Statute, para.3, Article 68.<br />
24<br />
Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Decision on the Applications<br />
for Participation in the Proceeding VPRS 1, VPRS 2, VPRS 3,VPRS 4, VPRS 5<br />
and VPRS 6, 17 January, 2006, ICC-01/04-101, para. 72.<br />
25<br />
David Donat-Cattin (2008), “Article 68: Protection of the victims and witnesses<br />
and their participation in the proceedings” in Triffterer, O. (ed.), “Commentary on<br />
the Rome Statute of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court - Observers’ Notes, Article<br />
by Article” p. 1278.<br />
26<br />
<strong>International</strong> Covenant for Civil and Political Rights.<br />
27<br />
Even though the general political considerations go beyond the sphere of law in<br />
a narrow sense, unfortunately, they still do considerably determine the development<br />
of international law in general and of international criminal law in particular.<br />
28<br />
Cryer, R., et al (2008), An Introduction to <strong>International</strong> Criminal <strong>Law</strong> and Procedure,<br />
pp.18-26.<br />
29<br />
David Donat-Cattin, (2008), “Article 68: Protection of the victims and witnesses<br />
and their participation in the proceedings” in Triffterer, O. (ed.), “Commentary on<br />
the Rome Statute of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court - Observers’ Notes, Article<br />
by Article”, p. 1277.<br />
30<br />
Rule 2A, <strong>International</strong> Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for<br />
Serious Violations of <strong>International</strong> Humanitarian <strong>Law</strong> Committed in the Territory<br />
200
K. KHUTSISHVILI, LEGAL AND ACTUAL STATUS OF VICTIMS OF CRIMES ENVISAGED BY THE STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL...<br />
of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, “Rules of Procedure and Evidence”, of 11<br />
February, 1994, pursuant to Article 15 of the Statute of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal<br />
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, adopted by the Security Council Resolution<br />
827 on 25 May, 1993;<br />
Rule 2A, <strong>International</strong> Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, “Rules of Procedure and<br />
Evidence,” adopted on 29 June, 1995, pursuant to Article 14 of the Statute of<br />
the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, adopted by the Security Council<br />
Resolution 955 on 8 November, 1994.<br />
31<br />
Momir Nikolić, ICTY Trial Chamber I, 2.12.2.003, para.86.<br />
32<br />
Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Rule 85.<br />
33<br />
As well as of the Tribunal for Rwanda, established based on this precedent.<br />
34<br />
Report of the <strong>International</strong> Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for<br />
Serious Violations of <strong>International</strong> Humanitarian <strong>Law</strong> Committed in the Territory of<br />
the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, U.N. GAOR, 49 th Session, U.N. Doc.A/49/342,<br />
S/1994/1007(29 August, 1994).<br />
35<br />
David Donat-Cattin, (2008), “Article 68: Protection of the victims and witnesses<br />
and their participation in the proceedings” in Triffterer, O. (ed.), “Commentary on<br />
the Rome Statute of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court - Observers’ Notes, Article<br />
by Article” p. 1277.<br />
36<br />
Cassese, A. (2003) <strong>International</strong> Criminal <strong>Law</strong>, p.387.<br />
37<br />
United Nations Press Release, UN Secretary General Declares Overriding Interest<br />
of <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court Conference must be that of Victims and World<br />
Community as a Whole, 15 June 1998, http://www.un.org/icc/pressrel/1rom6ri.<br />
htm, accessed: 14/02/2010.<br />
38<br />
Rome Statute, para. 3 Article 19, Rules of Procedure and Evidence.<br />
39<br />
Cryer, R., et al (2008), An Introduction to <strong>International</strong> Criminal <strong>Law</strong> and Procedure,<br />
p.362.<br />
40<br />
David Donat-Cattin, (2008), “Article 68: Protection of the victims and witnesses<br />
and their participation in the proceedings” in Triffterer, O. (ed.), “Commentary on<br />
the Rome Statute of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court - Observers’ Notes, Article<br />
by Article” p. 1280, para. 9.<br />
41<br />
Ratner, Steven, R., et al. Accountability for Human Rights Atrocities in <strong>International</strong><br />
<strong>Law</strong>: Beyond the Nuremberg Legacy, Third Edition, Oxford University Press,<br />
20<strong>09</strong>, p. 239.<br />
42<br />
e.g. Case of Tomas Lubanga.<br />
43<br />
According to the practice established by the Prosecutor of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal<br />
Court, “[t]he prosecution submits that Article 68(3) of the [Rome] Statute and Rule<br />
85, viewed together, establish a two-stage process for the Chamber to determine<br />
if an individual qualifi es as a victim with standing to participate in proceedings:<br />
fi rst, the applicant must fulfi l the criteria set out in Rule 85, then the Chamber<br />
must be satisfi ed that the personal interests of the victim are directly affected by<br />
the proceedings in which he or she is applying to participate”. Prosecutor’s 25<br />
August observations on the Application for Participation of Applicants a/0047/06 -<br />
a/0052/06, 6 September, 2006, ICC-01-04-01-06-390, para.10.<br />
44<br />
David Donat-Cattin, (2008), “Article 68: Protection of the victims and witnesses<br />
and their participation in the proceedings” in Triffterer, O. (ed.), “Commentary on<br />
the Rome Statute of the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court - Observers’ Notes, Article<br />
by Article” p. 1287.<br />
45<br />
Rome Statute, para. 1 Article 68.<br />
46<br />
Cassese, A. (2003) <strong>International</strong> Criminal <strong>Law</strong>, p.387.<br />
47<br />
Report of the <strong>International</strong> Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for<br />
Serious Violations of <strong>International</strong> Humanitarian <strong>Law</strong> Committed in the Territory of<br />
the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, U.N. GAOR, 49 th Session, U.N. Doc.A/49/342,<br />
S/1994/1007(29 August, 1994).<br />
48<br />
Schabas, W.A. (2007), An Introduction to the <strong>International</strong> Criminal Court, p.55.<br />
201
xelisuflebis institutebs Soris<br />
urTierTobebi da, saerTod, mmarTvelobis<br />
forma erT-erTi yvelaze aqtualuri<br />
sakiTxia postsabWouri sivrcis, e.w. axali<br />
demokratiis, TiTqmis yvela qveyanaSi.<br />
rogorc mTlianad yofil sabWoTa<br />
sivrceSi, samxreT kavkasiis regionis<br />
saxelmwifoebSic demokratiis xari sxi<br />
pirdapir ukavSirdeba xelisuflebis<br />
organoTa funqcionirebas. am qveynebSi<br />
sul ufro metad SeiniSneba, sxva institutebTan<br />
SedarebiT, prezidentis mzardi<br />
Zalauflebis kritika. Cveni azriT, es<br />
kritika bolomde safuZvels moklebuli<br />
ar unda iyos. demokratiis ganviTareba<br />
mxolod konstituciurad organizebul,<br />
gawonasworebul xelisuflebas<br />
SeuZlia. winamdebare kvleva sakanonmdeblo<br />
sferoSi prezidentis uflebamosilebebis<br />
Seswavlas isaxavs miznad. naSromi<br />
aqtualuria ara mxolod Teoriuli,<br />
aramed praqtikuli TvalsazrisiTac,<br />
vinaidan am qveynebSi mudmivad mimdinareobs<br />
msjeloba xelisuflebis sistemis<br />
cvlilebebis Sesaxeb. 4 winamdebare kvleva<br />
saSualebas iZleva, saTanado daskvnebi<br />
gavakeToT ganvlili praqtikidan,<br />
zustad gaviazroT konstituciuri procesis<br />
rogorc dadebiTi, ise uaryofiTi<br />
mxareebi da vimsjeloT momavali ganvi-<br />
Tarebis perspeqtivebze.<br />
winamdebare naSromSi ganxorcielebuli<br />
kvlevis mizania samxreT kavkasiis<br />
regionis saxelmwifoebSi (azerbaijani,<br />
saqarTvelo, somxeTi) parlamentisa da<br />
prezidentis institutis funqcioniremalxaz<br />
nakaSiZe *<br />
prezidentis zogierTi sakanonmdeblo<br />
uflebamosileba samxreT kavkasiis qveynebSi<br />
(azerbaijani, saqarTvelo, somxeTi)<br />
Sesavali<br />
eqspertebisa da saerTaSoriso organizaciebis<br />
SefasebiT, samxreT kavkasiis<br />
regionis samive saxelmwifoSi (azerbaijani,<br />
saqarTvelo somxeTi) demokratias<br />
seriozuli problemebi aqvs. Freedom<br />
House-s 2010 wlis SefasebiT, somxe-<br />
Ti (politikuri uflebebis kuTxiT – 6<br />
qula, samoqalaqo Tavisuflebis kuTxiT<br />
– 4 qula) da saqarTvelo (politikuri<br />
uflebebis kuTxiT – 4 qula, samoqalaqo<br />
Tavisuflebis kuTxiT – 4 qula) nawilobriv<br />
Tavisufal, xolo azerbaijani (politikuri<br />
uflebebis kuTxiT – 6 qula,<br />
samoqalaqo Tavisuflebis kuTxiT – 5<br />
qula) araTavisufal qveynebs miekuTvneba.<br />
1 amis paralelurad, magaliTad, evropis<br />
demokratiuli qveynebis – safrangeTisa<br />
da germaniis – Sefaseba rogorc<br />
politikuri uflebebis, ise samoqalaqo<br />
Tavisuflebis kuTxiT 1 qulas Seadgens, 2<br />
xolo yofil sabWoTa sivrceSi yvelaze<br />
Tavisufal da demokratiul saxelmwifod<br />
miCneulia litva, romelsac aseve<br />
politikuri uflebebisa da samoqalaqo<br />
Tavisuflebis kuTxiT 1 qula aqvs miniWebuli.<br />
3 am monacemebis erTmaneTTan<br />
Sedareba samxreT kavkasiis qveynebis demokratiis<br />
dabal xarisxze metyvelebs.<br />
es daskvnebi, sxva faqtorebTan erTad,<br />
demokratiuli institutebis kvlevas<br />
eyrdnoba da samxreT kavkasiis qveynebis<br />
demokratiis aseTi dabali maCvenebeli,<br />
ZiriTadad, saxelmwifo xelisuflebis<br />
Stoebis funqcionirebidan gamomdinareobs.<br />
202
m. nakaSiZe, prezidentis zogierTi sakanonmdeblo uflebamosileba samxreT kavkasiis qveynebSi<br />
bis, sakanonmdeblo sferoSi maT Soris<br />
arsebuli urTierTobebis ZiriTadi<br />
aspeqtebis gamokveTa. ufro konkretulad,<br />
kvlevis mizania ganisazRvros:<br />
parlamentis kompetenciebi da realuri<br />
roli samxreT kavkasiis qveynebSi,<br />
prezidentis konstituciuri statusi,<br />
prezidentis sakanonmdeblo uflebamosilebebi,<br />
romlebic gavlenas axdenen da<br />
zRudaven parlamentis sakanonmdeblo<br />
xelisuflebas, faqtorebi, romelTa ga-<br />
Tvaliswinebac aucilebelia parlamentsa<br />
da prezidents Soris dabalansebuli<br />
urTierTobebisaTvis.<br />
am mizniT Cven unda ganvixiloT prezidentis<br />
iseTi sakanonmdeblo uflebamosilebebi,<br />
rogorebicaa: sakanonmdeblo<br />
iniciativis, vetos, kanonis Zalis<br />
mqone aqtebis gamocemis ufleba da prezidentis<br />
kompetenciebi biujetis miRebis<br />
procesSi.<br />
I. parlamentis uflebamosilebebi<br />
praqtika adasturebs, rom postsab-<br />
Wour sivrceSi jer kidev didia miswrafeba<br />
prezidentis institutis gaZlierebisaken,<br />
rac, ra Tqma unda, garkveulad<br />
cvlis xelisuflebis danawilebis tradiciul<br />
sistemas, Tumca, amave dros, xelisuflebis<br />
Stoebs Soris urTierTkontrolisa<br />
Tu urTierTTanamSromlobis<br />
axali meqanizmebic Cndeba. samive qveyanaSi<br />
prezidentis pirdapiri wesiT arCeva<br />
da mniSvnelovani sakanonmdeblo uflebamosilebebi<br />
erTgvarad Tanabari legitimaciis<br />
xarisxs aniWebs prezidentsa da<br />
parlaments. amitom es faqtori stimuls<br />
aZlevs saxelmwifos meTaurs, parlamentis<br />
Tanabar statusSi igrZnos Tavi,<br />
rac xSirad bevr sferoSi parlamentis<br />
funqciebis nivelirebas iwvevs. samxreT<br />
kavkasiis qveynebSi prezidentis Zlieri<br />
Zalauflebis paralelurad sustia parlamenti,<br />
magram amis mizezi, rogorc<br />
am qveynebSi xSirad aRniSnaven, ar aris<br />
mxolod parlamentis mwiri formaluri<br />
uflebamosilebebi. parlamentis sisuste<br />
ganpirobebulia prezidentisaTvis<br />
sakanonmdeblo sferoSi myari formaluri<br />
funqciebis miniWebiT. ras niSnavs<br />
prezidentis myari uflebamosilebebi<br />
sakanonmdeblo sferoSi am sakiTxis asaxsnelad,<br />
pirvel rigSi, saWiroa ganvsazRvroT<br />
parlamentis sisustis mizezi.<br />
sakanonmdeblo xelisuflebis realuri<br />
rolis Sesafaseblad samecniero<br />
literaturaSi sxvadasxva meTodi gamoiyeneba.<br />
maT Soris Cveni kvlevisaTvis<br />
gvinda gamoviyenoT kaliforniis universitetis<br />
profesoris, stiven fiSis,<br />
mier SemoTavazebuli Sefasebis forma,<br />
romelic dRes sakmaod gavrcelebulia<br />
samecniero literaturaSi. fiSma erovnuli<br />
sakanonmdeblo organoebis uflebamosilebaTa<br />
Sesafaseblad saparlamento<br />
uflebamosilebebis indeqsi Seqmna,<br />
romelic 32 punqtzea damyarebuli<br />
(cxrili #1) da parlamentis mier prezidentisa<br />
da biurokratiis kontrolis,<br />
prezidentis kontrolisagan parlamentis<br />
Tavisuflebis, specifikur sferoebSi<br />
parlamentis maRali avtoritetis<br />
SesaZleblobas iTvaliswinebs. 5<br />
fiSis formulis mixedviT, parlamentis<br />
Zalauflebis Sefasebis Sedegebi<br />
martivi meTodiT miiReba. cxrilSi mocemul<br />
32 kiTxvaze unda gaeces pasuxi<br />
– `diax“ an `ara“ da dadebiTi pasuxebis<br />
raodenoba unda gaiyos SekiTxvaTa saer-<br />
To raodenobaze. miRebuli cifri iqneba<br />
parlamentis Zalauflebis Sefasebis indeqsi.<br />
fiSi aRniSnavs, rom: `susti sakanonmdeblo<br />
organo xels uSlis demokratizacias<br />
politikuri partiebis ganvi-<br />
Tarebis Seferxebis gziT. susti parlamentis<br />
pirobebSi politikuri partiebi<br />
ver viTardebian. politikuri partiebi<br />
politikuri konkurenciis ganviTarebis,<br />
xalxisa da maT mier arCeuli pirebis<br />
SekavSirebis mTavari meqanizmebia~. 6 fiSi<br />
koenTan erTad gvTavazobs parlamentebis<br />
Zalauflebis yvelaze bolo (20<strong>09</strong>)<br />
Sefasebas (cxrili #2), sadac warmodgenilia<br />
rogorc yofili sabWoTa respublikebis,<br />
ise yofili socialisturi banakisa<br />
da evropis ganviTarebuli saxelmwifoebis<br />
parlamentTa Sefasebebi. Cven<br />
am Sefasebebidan amoviReT mxolod yofili<br />
sabWoTa respublikebisa da yofili<br />
socialisturi banakis, aseve evropis<br />
ganviTarebuli demokratiuli qveynebis<br />
203
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
parlamentTa Sefasebebi, raTa garkveuli<br />
Sedarebis saSualeba gvqonoda.<br />
am Sefasebebidan kargad Cans, rom samxreT<br />
kavkasiis saxelmwifoTa parlamentebis<br />
Zalaufleba CamorCeba baltiispireTis<br />
qveynebis indeqss da uswrebs Sua<br />
aziis qveynebisa da belorusiis maCvenebels,<br />
romelic Zalian dabalia. aqve na-<br />
Cvenebia yofili socialisturi banakisa<br />
da evropis ganviTarebuli qveynebis<br />
parlamentTa Zalauflebis Sefasebebi.<br />
aRniSnuli cxrili naTlad gviCvenebs,<br />
Tu rogor maRal Sefasebas imsaxurebs<br />
evropis yofili socialisturi banakis<br />
qveynebi, romlebic sabWoTa wyobilebisagan<br />
samxreT kavkasiis saxelmwifoebTan<br />
erTad ganTavisufldnen. magaliTad,<br />
CexeTis, makedoniis, xorvatiis,<br />
bulgareTis, poloneTis, sloveniis, rumineTis,<br />
fineTis, slovakeTis, serbiisa<br />
da bosnia-hercegovinis parlament-<br />
Ta Sefasebebi 0.63-0.81 indeqss Soris<br />
meryeobs, maSin rodesac azerbaijanis,<br />
saqarTvelosa da somxeTis maCvenebeli<br />
Sesabamisad, 0.44, 0.56 da 0.59-s Seadgens.<br />
es mianiSnebs imaze, rom samxreT kavkasiis<br />
saxelmwifoebSi saTanadod ver ganviTarda<br />
parlamentarizmis idea da ver<br />
Camoyalibda Zlieri sakanonmdeblo organoebi.<br />
kidev erTi momenti, romelzec<br />
unda gamaxvildes yuradReba, Seexeba am<br />
cxrilSi mocemuli qveynebis mmarTvelobis<br />
formebs. yvelaze maRali Sefaseba<br />
aqvs germaniisa da CexeTis parlamentebs,<br />
romlebic saparlamento mmarTvelobis<br />
sistemebs miekuTvneba, xolo naxevradsaprezidento<br />
safrangeTis parlamentis<br />
Sefaseba yvelaze dabalia – 0.56, rac<br />
TiTqmis saqarTvelos Sefasebaze naklebi,<br />
somxeTis indeqsis Tanabari da azerbaijanis<br />
Sefasebaze metia.<br />
parlamentis Zalauflebisa da, saerTod,<br />
demokratiis ganviTarebis<br />
Sefasebas yovelwliurad axdens saer-<br />
TaSoriso avtoritetuli organizacia<br />
Freedom House. am organizaciis 2008 wlis<br />
angariSSi aRniSnulia, rom: `marTalia,<br />
samxreT kavkasiis qveynebSi sakanonmdeblo<br />
sistema mmarTvelobis gaumjobesebisaTvis<br />
Zlierdeba, magram 2007 wlisa-<br />
Tvis konkretuli nabijebi ufro metad<br />
angariSvaldebuli da gawonasworebuli<br />
politikuri sistemis Camoyalibebisaken<br />
naklebad gadaidga“. amitomac, organizaciis<br />
SefasebiT, somxeTma 5.25 qula<br />
miiRo. angariSSi aseve miTiTebulia, rom<br />
saqarTveloSi arsebul xelisuflebis<br />
sistemas gauwonasworebeli xasiaTi aqvs,<br />
sadac aRmasrulebeli xelisufleba dominirebs<br />
sxva saxelmwifo institutebze<br />
susti opoziciis pirobebSi. saqarTvelos<br />
Sefasebam 5.50-idan 5.75 qulamde<br />
daiwia. Freedom House-s SefasebiT, azerbaijanSic<br />
darRveulia balansi prezidentsa<br />
da parlaments Soris prezidentis<br />
sasargeblod. amitomac azerbaijanma<br />
miiRo Sefaseba – 6.00 qula. 7<br />
fiSis azriT, qveynebSi, sadac konstituciis<br />
miRebisas Tavidanve hqondaT<br />
SedarebiT Ria politika, namdvilad<br />
uf ro metad Zlieri sakanonmdeblo organo<br />
Camoyalibda. 8 iq, sadac avtoritaruli<br />
reJimebi daemxo da maTi adgili<br />
axalma reJimma daikava, Zalauflebis<br />
aRmasrulebel xelisuflebaSi koncentraciis<br />
maRali miswrafebaa, xalxi xSirad<br />
moiTxovs Zalauflebis koncentracias<br />
ufro efeqtur xelisuflebaSi da<br />
es, Cveulebriv, prezidentia. 9 rogorc<br />
aRvniSneT, samxreT kavkasiis saxelmwifoebSi<br />
sakmaod sustia parlamentis Zalaufleba,<br />
rac, sxva faqtorebTan erTad,<br />
prezidentis sakanonmdeblo uflebamosilebebis<br />
gafarToebiTaa gamowveuli.<br />
am mizniT mniSvnelovania sakanonmdeb lo<br />
saqmianobis sferoSi samxreT kavkasiis<br />
qveynebis prezidentTa uflebamosilebebis<br />
Sefaseba.<br />
II. sakanonmdeblo iniciativis ufleba<br />
sakanonmdeblo iniciativis ufleba<br />
erT-erTi mniSvnelovani kompetenciaa<br />
sakanonmdeblo procesSi CarTuli subieqtebisaTvis.<br />
specialistebi miuTi-<br />
Teben, rom: `sakanonmdeblo iniciativis<br />
ufleba ufro mniSvnelovania, vidre<br />
aRmasrulebeli xelisuflebis Tanamdebobebis<br />
kontroli, ramdenadac amas Seu-<br />
Zlia gansazRvros axali politikis Sinaarsi<br />
da mimarTuleba. saerTod, parlamenti<br />
nebismier demokratiul qveyanaSi<br />
204
m. nakaSiZe, prezidentis zogierTi sakanonmdeblo uflebamosileba samxreT kavkasiis qveynebSi<br />
umaRlesi sakanonmdeblo xelisuflebis<br />
Stoa, Tumca praqtikaSi yovelTvis es ar<br />
aris instituti, romelsac aqvs de faqto<br />
sakanonmdeblo xelisufleba. naxevradsaprezidento<br />
sistemis farglebSi<br />
sakanonmdeblo xelisufleba SeiZleba<br />
ganxorcielebul iqnes prezidentis an<br />
parlamentis mier, an kidev SesaZloa,<br />
am sakiTxSi prezidenti da parlamenti<br />
konkurencias uwevdnen erTmaneTs~. 10<br />
klasikuri saprezidento da Sereuli<br />
mmarTvelobis koncefciis mixedviT, rogorc<br />
wesi, saxelmwifos meTauri uSualod<br />
sakanonmdeblo procesSi ar erTveba.<br />
tradiciulad prezidents (magali-<br />
Tad safrangeTSi) ar gaaCnda sakanonmdeblo<br />
iniciativis ufleba, is mxolod<br />
miRebuli kanonebis xelmoweras axdenda,<br />
magram postsabWour azerbaijanSi,<br />
saqarTvelosa da somxeTSi am sakiTxze<br />
sxvadasxva midgoma iqna SemuSavebuli.<br />
azerbaijanis konstituciis mixedviT,<br />
saxelmwifos prezidenti aRWurvilia<br />
sakanonmdeblo iniciativis uflebiT, 11<br />
somxeTis prezidents ki sakanonmdeblo<br />
iniciativis ufleba konstituciis mixedviT<br />
ar gaaCnia. 12 rac Seexeba saqar-<br />
Tvelos, aq jer kidev 1995 wlidan, roca<br />
saqarTvelo saprezidento respublika<br />
iyo, prezidents hqonda sakanonmdeblo<br />
iniciativis ufleba, xolo 2004<br />
wlidan, rodesac mmarTvelobis saprezidento<br />
forma naxevradsaprezidento<br />
sistemiT Seicvala, konstituciis<br />
67-e muxlis pirveli punqtis mixedviT,<br />
sakanonmdeblo iniciativis ufleba saqarTvelos<br />
prezidents mxolod gansakuTrebul<br />
SemTxvevaSi aqvs. 13 Tumca<br />
unda iTqvas, rom arc konstitucia da<br />
arc parlamentis reglamenti ar ganmartavs,<br />
Tu ras niSnavs `gansakuTrebuli<br />
SemTxveva“. Cveni azriT, konstituciuri<br />
SesworebiT TiTqos SeizRuda prezidentis<br />
sakanonmdeblo iniciativis ufleba,<br />
Tumca realurad ar Secvlila mdgomareoba,<br />
vinaidan prezidents SeuZlia,<br />
nebismieri sakanonmdeblo iniciativa<br />
`gansakuTrebul SemTxvevad“ CaTvalos<br />
da parlaments sakanonmdeblo iniciativiT<br />
mimarTos. magaliTad, aseTi iniciativis<br />
yvelaze naTeli magaliTia<br />
kon stituciuri cvlilebebi. 2004 wlis<br />
6 Tebervlis Semdeg, rodesac konstituciaSi<br />
Setanil iqna prezidentis sakanonmdeblo<br />
iniciativis `gansakuTrebuli<br />
SemTxveva“, konstituciaSi cvlilebebisa<br />
da damatebebis Setanis Taobaze<br />
miRebul iqna 13 konstituciuri kanoni.<br />
TiTqmis yvela SemTxvevaSi es cvlilebebi<br />
prezidentis sakanonmdeblo iniciativiT<br />
ganxorcielda, Tumca konstituciuri<br />
cvlilebebis garda, prezidentis<br />
iniciativiT ganxilul iqna aseve sxva<br />
kanonproeqtebi. magaliTad, saqarTvelos<br />
parlamentma 2007 wlis 13 aprils<br />
prezidentis sakanonmdeblo iniciativiT<br />
miiRo saqarTvelos kanoni `yofili<br />
samxreT oseTis avtonomiur olqSi konfliqtis<br />
mSvidobiani mogvarebisaTvis<br />
saTanado pirobebis Seqmnis Sesaxeb~. 14<br />
parlamentma 2005 wlis 23 dekembers ganixila<br />
aseve saqarTvelos prezidentis<br />
mier wardgenili kanonproeqti `qalaq<br />
Tbilisis sazRvrebSi da mimdebare teritoriaze<br />
arsebuli mwvane nargavebisa da<br />
saxelmwifo tyis fondis gansakuTrebuli<br />
dacvis Sesaxeb~ saqarTvelos kanonSi<br />
cvlilebis Setanis Taobaze“ da misgan<br />
gamomdinare: `saxelmwifo sakuTrebaSi<br />
arsebuli sasoflo-sameurneo daniSnulebis<br />
miwis privatizebis Sesaxeb“ saqarTvelos<br />
kanonSi damatebis Setanis<br />
Taobaze~. 15 2008 wlis 13 marts parlamentma<br />
ganixila saqarTvelos prezidentis<br />
mier sakanonmdeblo iniciativis<br />
wesiT wardgenili kanonproeqtebi: `ukanono<br />
Semosavlis legalizaciis aRkve-<br />
Tis xelSewyobis Sesaxeb“ saqarTvelos<br />
kanonSi cvlilebebisa da damatebebis<br />
Setanis Taobaze“, `saqarTvelos sisxlis<br />
samarTlis kodeqsSi cvlilebebisa da<br />
damatebebis Setanis Taobaze“ da `saqar-<br />
Tvelos erovnuli bankis Sesaxeb“ saqar-<br />
Tvelos organul kanonSi cvlilebebisa<br />
da damatebebis Setanis Taobaze~. 16 garda<br />
aRniSnulisa, sxva araerTi SemTxveva<br />
arsebobs, romlebic adasturebs, rom<br />
saqarTvelos prezidenti Zalian xSirad<br />
axorcielebs Tavis sakanonmdeblo iniciativis<br />
uflebas.<br />
unda aRiniSnos, rom sxvadasxva qveynis<br />
prezidentebi martivad axerxeben<br />
205
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
sakanonmdeblo iniciativis uflebis<br />
ganxorcielebas, miuxedavad imisa, aqvT<br />
Tu ara uSualod maT konstituciiT miniWebuli<br />
sakanonmdeblo iniciativis<br />
ufleba. magaliTad, Tu somxeTSi prezidents<br />
ar gaaCnia sakanonmdeblo iniciativis<br />
ufleba, es ufleba aqvs respublikis<br />
mTavrobas. specialistebi miu-<br />
TiTeben, rom somxeTis konstituciis<br />
Semdgenlebs amiT surdaT, xazi gaesvaT<br />
saprezidento xelisuflebis sakanonmdeblo<br />
xelisuflebisagan distancirebisa<br />
da erovnul krebasa da mTavrobas<br />
Soris sruliad gansazRvruli kavSirisaTvis.<br />
aseTi midgomisas araa rTuli,<br />
davinaxoT logika, e.i. swored mTavrobisagan<br />
SeiZleba moiTxovos parlamentma<br />
qveynisaTvis saWiro kanonebis momzadeba<br />
da aRsruleba, rac ar SeiZleba gaakeTos<br />
prezidentTan mimarTebiT. 17 Tumca isic<br />
aRsaniSnavia, rom mTavrobas, faqtobrivad,<br />
prezidenti ayalibebs. sakanonmdeblo<br />
iniciativis ufleba somxeTSi aseve<br />
aqvT parlamentis deputatebs, parlamentSi<br />
ki prezidents yovelTvis hyavs<br />
Tavisi myari saparlamento umravlesoba,<br />
romlis meSveobiTac xSirad xorcieldeba<br />
sakanonmdeblo iniciativebi.<br />
saparlamento umravlesobis gareSec<br />
prezidents Tavisi politikuri partiis<br />
erTi romelime deputatis meSveobiTac<br />
SeuZlia iniciativebi ganaxorcielos,<br />
magram samxreT kavkasiis samive saxelmwifoSi<br />
prezidents sakanonmdeblo iniciativis<br />
sferoSi garkveuli privilegirebuli<br />
mdgomareoba uWiravs. saqar-<br />
TveloSi, magaliTad, prezidentis mier<br />
wardgenil kanonproeqtebs parlamenti<br />
riggareSe ganixilavs. amis Sesaxeb saqar-<br />
Tvelos konstituciis 67-e muxlis me-2<br />
punqtSi pirdapiraa miTiTebuli: `saqar-<br />
Tvelos prezidentis an mTavrobis mier<br />
wardgenil kanonproeqts maTive moTxovniT<br />
parlamenti ganixilavs riggareSe~. 18<br />
faqtobrivad, prezidentis iniciativebis<br />
prioritetulobis maCvenebelia<br />
azerbaijanis konstituciis 96-e muxlis<br />
me-5 nawilis normac, romlis mixedviT:<br />
`azerbaijanis prezidentis... mier kanonproeqtebis<br />
an dadgenilebaTa proeqtebis<br />
saswrafod gamocxadebis SemTxvevaSi<br />
kenWisyraze es proeqtebi unda daisvas,<br />
dadgenili 2-Tviani vadisagan gansxvavebiT,<br />
20 dRis vadaSi~. xolo aseTi saswrafo<br />
kanonebi konstituciis 97-e muxlis<br />
me-2 nawilis Tanaxmad, prezidents xelmosawerad<br />
egzavneba misi miRebidan 24<br />
saaTis ganmavlobaSi~. 19 marTalia, somxe-<br />
Tis konstituciaSi pirdapir ar aris<br />
aseTi miTiTeba, magram praqtikulad,<br />
prezidentis rolidan gamomdinare, SesaZlebelia,<br />
amgvari upiratesoba prezidentma<br />
moipovos parlamentSi sakuTari<br />
partiis umravlesobis meSveobiT, romelic,<br />
faqtobrivad, yvela bolo mowvevis<br />
parlamentSi hqondaT somxeTis prezidentebs.<br />
amitomac saqarTvelosa da<br />
azerbaijanis prezidentTa sakanonmdeblo<br />
iniciativis ufleba maTTvis sakanonmdeblo<br />
procesSi Carevis uflebis<br />
miniWebis maCvenebelia, rac yovelTvis<br />
kritikis sagani xdeba specialistTa<br />
Soris. es, Cveulebriv, prezidentisaTvis<br />
gadametebuli uflebamosilebis miniWebad<br />
da saxelisuflebo balansis darRvevad<br />
miiCneva. 20 amasTan, unda aRiniSnos,<br />
rom sakanonmdeblo iniciativis uflebis<br />
mqone subieqtTa wris gafarToeba,<br />
erTi mxriv, warmomadgenlobiTi dawesebulebebis<br />
sakanonmdeblo saqmianobis<br />
demokratiuli sawyisebis gafarToebaze<br />
miuTiTebs, xolo meore mxriv, es samar-<br />
TalSemoqmedebis procesis garTulebas<br />
iwvevs, vinaidan Cndeba kanonproeqtebis<br />
SemmuSavebeli bevri centri, romelTa<br />
Soris ar aris SeTanxmebuloba. sakanonmdeblo<br />
iniciativis uflebiT mxolod<br />
parlamentis wevrebis aRWurva sulac ar<br />
niSnavs warmomadgenlobiTi organoebis<br />
mier sakanonmdeblo saqmianobis uzurpaciasa<br />
da kanonebis SemuSavebisgan aRmasrulebeli<br />
xelisuflebis CamoSorebas.<br />
aSS-Si formalurad, marTalia, aRmasrulebeli<br />
xelisufleba ar sargeblobs<br />
sakanonmdeblo iniciativiT, Tumca sakanonmdeblo<br />
saqmianobis programa warmodgenilia<br />
prezidentis yovelwliur<br />
mimarTvebSi. 21<br />
samxreT kavkasiis saxelmwifoebSi<br />
pre zidentis yovelwliuri mimarTvebi<br />
mxolod formalur xasiaTs atarebs da<br />
prezidentis sakanonmdeblo iniciative-<br />
206
m. nakaSiZe, prezidentis zogierTi sakanonmdeblo uflebamosileba samxreT kavkasiis qveynebSi<br />
bi am formiT sulac ar xorcieldeba. magaliTad,<br />
saqarTvelos parlamentis reglamentis<br />
mixedviT, prezidentis mimar-<br />
Tvebis dros parlamentSi ar imarTeba<br />
aranairi debatebi, parlamentis wevrebs<br />
prezidentisaTvis SekiTxvebis dasmis<br />
uflebac ki ar gaaCniaT. 22 es imiTacaa gamowveuli,<br />
rom samxreT kavkasiis qveynebis<br />
prezidentebs konstituciurad aqvT<br />
sakanonmdeblo iniciativis ufleba da,<br />
ufro metic, prezidentebi vetos uflebiTac<br />
arian aRWurvilni. sakanonmdeblo<br />
iniciativisa da SeyovnebiTi vetos uflebis<br />
erTdrouli arseboba ucxoa, rogorc<br />
tradiciuli (klasikuri) saprezidento,<br />
ise saparlamento da naxevradsaprezidento<br />
sistemebisaTvis. erT xelSi<br />
moqceuli orive ufleba aZlierebs parlamentze<br />
zemoqmedebis SesaZleblobas<br />
da, Sesabamisad, asustebs parlamentis<br />
diskreciul uflebamosilebas sakanonmdeblo<br />
politikis ganxorcielebis<br />
sferoSi. 23 tradiciuli franguli mmar-<br />
Tvelobis modelis mixedviT prezidentisaTvis<br />
aRniSnuli uflebamosilebebis<br />
formaluri ararseboba ar niSnavs, rom<br />
misi poziciebi sustia sakanonmdeblo<br />
procesSi. naxevradsaprezidento sistemaSi<br />
rodesac prezidenti xelmZRvanelobs<br />
rogorc mTavrobas, ise saparlamento<br />
umravlesobas, mas faqtobrivad<br />
aqvs sakanonmdeblo iniciativis ufleba.<br />
prezidents aqvs upiratesi ufleba, gansazRvros<br />
politika parlamentSi Tavisi<br />
partiuli umravlesobis meSveobiT. 24<br />
Tumca azerbaijanisa da saqarTvelos<br />
konstituciaTa Semqmnelebma prezidentisaTvis<br />
sakanonmdeblo iniciativis<br />
farTo uflebamosilebebis konstituciiT<br />
miniWeba gadawyvites. Cveni azriT,<br />
amis mizezi isic iyo, rom am qveynebSi<br />
sustadaa ganviTarebuli partiuli sistema,<br />
ris gamoc prezidentis poziciebis<br />
simyare mxolod saarCevno procesze damokidebuli<br />
ver iqneboda.<br />
prezidents naxevradsaprezidento<br />
respublikebSi ar unda hqondes sakanonm<br />
deblo iniciativis ufleba – es niSnavs,<br />
rom sakanonmdeblo process saxelmwifoSi<br />
parlamenti unda warmarTavdes.<br />
parlamentisaTvis sakanonmdeblo iniciativis<br />
uflebis kontroli ar niSnavs<br />
mxolod imas, rom mas SeuZlia, mxolod<br />
cvlilebebi Seitanos an veto daados<br />
mTavrobidan miRebul kanons, is aseve gulisxmobs<br />
imas, rom parlaments SeuZlia<br />
gansazRvros politikis Sinaarsi da mimarTuleba.<br />
am SemTxvevaSi, maSinac ki,<br />
rodesac prezidenti flobs aRmasrulebel<br />
xelisuflebas, daniSnos premieri<br />
da Camoayalibos kabineti, misi politikuri<br />
Zalaufleba sustdeba imis<br />
gamo, rom parlamenti aris dominirebul<br />
mdgomareobaSi. am dros prezidents ar<br />
SeuZlia gaakontrolos sakanonmdeblo<br />
dRis wesrigi. 25 amdenad, samxreT kavkasiis<br />
qveynebis prezidentebi sakanonmdeblo<br />
iniciativis uflebiT sargebloben<br />
ara politikis gansazRvrul sferoebSi,<br />
aramed es ufleba marTlac prezidentebis<br />
SeuzRudavi uflebaa, riTac maT<br />
sakanonmdeblo procesis warmarTvis<br />
SesaZlebloba eZlevaT, rac prezidentis<br />
Zalauflebis gaZlierebisa da sakanonmdeblo<br />
xelisuflebis Sesustebis ma C-<br />
venebelia. amitomac miuTiTeben Su ga rti<br />
da keri, rom didi ZalauflebiT aRWurvili<br />
prezidenti Zalian prob le maturia. 26<br />
reJimi prezidentis didi sakanonmdeblo<br />
xelisuflebiT iseve pro blemuria, rogorc<br />
kabinetTan dakavSirebuli uflebamosilebis<br />
asambleasa da prezidents<br />
Soris gayofa. 27 prezidentis sakanonmdeblo<br />
iniciativis ufleba ar Seesabameba<br />
Zalauflebis dayofis princips da, amdenad,<br />
unda SeizRudos, an (sasurvelia)<br />
mTlianad gauqmdes. rac Seexeba prezidentis<br />
uflebas, veto daados parlamentis<br />
mier miRebul kanonebs, arsebobs<br />
misi SenarCunebis garkveuli logika;<br />
saWiroa garkveuli damcavi meqanizmi im<br />
SemTxvevisaTvis, Tu parlamenti miiRebs<br />
naCqarev an cudad gaazrebul kanons~. 28<br />
III. prezidentis vetos ufleba<br />
da misi daZleva<br />
mecnierebi prezidentis sakanonmdeblo<br />
uflebamosilebebSi pirvel rigSi<br />
gamoyofen prezidentis vetos uflebas,<br />
romelic mas SeuZlia ganaxorcielos<br />
mTel kanonproeqtze. amave dros, yura-<br />
207
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
dReba gamaxvilebulia parlamentis mier<br />
vetos daZlevis sakiTxze. azerbaijanis<br />
konstituciis 110-e muxlis Tanaxmad:<br />
`azerbaijanis respublikis prezidents<br />
misTvis kanonis xelmosawerad wardgenidan<br />
56 dRis vadaSi ufleba aqvs, igi Tavisi<br />
SeniSvnebiT daubrunos mili-mejliss<br />
xelaxla gansaxilvelad~. 29 somxeTis<br />
konstituciis 55-e muxlis me-2 punqtis<br />
mixedviT: `somxeTis prezidents ufleba<br />
aqvs, kanonis xelmosawerad wardgenidan<br />
21 dRis vadaSi Tavisi SeniSvnebiT daubrunos<br />
kanoni mili-mejliss xelaxla<br />
gansaxilvelad~. 30 saqarTvelos konstituciis<br />
68-e muxlis Tanaxmad ki: `prezidenti<br />
xelmosawerad gadacemul kanons<br />
10 dRis vadaSi xels awers da aqveynebs,<br />
an motivirebuli SeniSvnebiT ubrunebs<br />
parlaments~. 31 amdenad, samive respublikaSi<br />
prezidenti flobs vetos uflebas<br />
ara mxolod nawilobriv, aramed vetos<br />
uflebas mTel kanonproeqtebTan mimar-<br />
TebiT, rac, faqtobrivad, mas sakanonmdeblo<br />
procesis erT-erT seriozul<br />
makontroleblad aqcevs. specialistebi<br />
miuTiTeben kidec, rom: `bolo wlebSi<br />
moulodnelad warmoiSva absoluturi<br />
(SeuzRudavi) veto azerbaijanis respublikaSi<br />
konstituciur kanonebTan<br />
mimarTebiT, rac parlamentisaTvis dau-<br />
Zlevelia, saerTod, aratipuria ganvi-<br />
Tarebuli demokratiuli saxelmwifoebisaTvis<br />
da samarTlebriv anaqronizmad<br />
miiCneva~. 32 aq mxedvelobaSi aqvT azerbaijanis<br />
konstituciis 110-e muxlis<br />
me-2 punqtis pirveli winadadeba: `Tu<br />
azerbaijanis prezidentis mier ar iqneba<br />
xelmowerili konstituciuri kanonebi,<br />
maSin isini ZalaSi ar Seva~. 33 am muxlis<br />
ZaliT azerbaijanis prezidents sruli<br />
ufleba aqvs, aranairi ganmartebis gare-<br />
Se ar moaweros kanons xeli. unda iTqvas,<br />
rom msgavsi ufleba parlaments ar utovebs<br />
sxva gamosavals, is prezidentis gadawyvetilebas<br />
unda daemorCilos, rac<br />
sakanonmdeblo organos uflebamosilebebSi<br />
uxeSi Carevaa. aseT dros saqarTvelos<br />
konstitucia iTvaliswinebs kanonis<br />
xelmoweras parlamentis Tavmjdomaris<br />
mier, romelic konstituciiT meore uma-<br />
R lesi Tanamdebobis piria saxelmwifo-<br />
Si. msgavsi norma sakanonmdeblo xelisuflebis<br />
avtoritetisa da statusis dacvis<br />
mniSvnelovan garantiad migvaCnia.<br />
miRebuli praqtikis Tanaxmad, prezidentis<br />
vetos damabalansebeli saSualebaa<br />
parlamentis mier misi daZleva,<br />
anu saprezidento veto, rogorc wesi, ar<br />
atarebs absolutur xasiaTs. ar SeiZleba<br />
imis uaryofa, rom saxelmwifos meTauris<br />
uflebamosilebebSi vetos ufleba<br />
marTlac aucilebelia, Tundac iqidan<br />
gamomdinare, rom prezidenti aris saxelmwifos<br />
normaluri funqcionirebis<br />
konstituciuri garanti da igi am miznis<br />
misaRwevad parlamentis mxridan arasasurveli<br />
kanonis miRebis Semakavebel<br />
meqanizms unda flobdes. vetos uflebis<br />
sapirwone ki sakanonmdeblo xelisuflebis<br />
uflebamosilebebSi misi daZlevis<br />
uflebis arsebobaa. sakanonmdeblo<br />
procesSi prezidentisa da parlamentis<br />
urTierTobebSi am orma saSualebam unda<br />
uzrunvelyos Zalauflebis dabalanseba,<br />
magram Tu es meqanizmebi romelime<br />
mxares upirates mdgomareobaSi ayenebs,<br />
maSin xelisuflebis danawilebis principis<br />
darRvevasTan SeiZleba gvqondes<br />
saqme. am mxriv, Cveni azriT, samxreT kavkasiis<br />
saxelmwifoebSi ar aris idealuri<br />
mdgomareoba.<br />
konstituciis mixedviT, azerbaijanis<br />
prezidenti, erTi mxriv, aris sasamarTlo<br />
xelisuflebis garanti, magram sakonstitucio<br />
kanonebze absoluturi vetos<br />
uflebiT is, meore mxriv, arsebiTad zRudavs<br />
sakonstitucio sasamarTlos uflebamosilebebs.<br />
xelisuflebaTa aseTi disbalansi<br />
aSkaraa da arcTu warmatebuli<br />
erovnuli elementia Tanamedrove konstituciur<br />
sistemaSi. SeiZleba aRiniSnos,<br />
rom aq ufro metad mniSvnelovania<br />
politikuri mizanSewonilobis sakiTxi,<br />
romelic saxelmwifos meTaurTa mier<br />
konstituciuri kanonebisa da sakonstitucio<br />
sasamarTlos gadawyvetilebebis<br />
Sefasebisas wina planze wamoiweva. konstituciur<br />
kanonebze vetos ufleba `gadawonis“<br />
parlamentis sa kanonmdeblo<br />
prerogativebs, xolo ur TierTSekavebisa<br />
da wonasworobis si s tema am nawilSi faqtobrivad<br />
ar muSaobs. 34<br />
208
m. nakaSiZe, prezidentis zogierTi sakanonmdeblo uflebamosileba samxreT kavkasiis qveynebSi<br />
parlamentis mniSvnelovani uflebamosilebaa<br />
saprezidento vetos daZleva,<br />
Tumca, arsebuli praqtikis Tanaxmad,<br />
prezidentis vetos daZlevis SemTxvevebi<br />
ufro naklebia, vidre warmodgenili<br />
SeniSvnebis gaTvaliswinebisa da kanonis<br />
xelaxla miRebis SemTxveva. samxreT<br />
kavkasiis saxelmwifoTa konstituciebi<br />
parlaments aniWebs saprezidento vetos<br />
daZlevis sxvadasxva saSualebas. azerbaijanis<br />
konstituciis 110-e muxlis<br />
me-2 nawilis Tanaxmad, saprezidento<br />
vetos daZlevisaTvis gaTvaliswinebulia<br />
ganmeorebiTi kenWisyra, risTvisac<br />
dadgenilia pirveli kenWisyris dros<br />
saWiro xmebis raodenobaze maRali xma-<br />
Ta umravlesoba. kerZod, veto daZleulad<br />
CaiTvleba im SemTxvevaSi, Tu adre<br />
83 xmiT miRebul kanons parlamenti meore<br />
ganxilvisas miiRebs 95 xmiT, xolo<br />
63 xmiT miRebul kanons miiRebs 83 xmiT: 35<br />
somxeTis konstituciis 72-e muxlis mixedviT,<br />
saprezidento veto daZleulad<br />
CaiTvleba, Tu axali kenWisyris dros<br />
Tavdapirvel variants mxars dauWers<br />
parlamentis wevrTa saerTo raodenobis<br />
umravlesoba. 36 saqarTveloSi ki saprezidento<br />
veto daZleulad CaiTvleba,<br />
Tu kanonis Tavdapirvel variants mxars<br />
dauWers parlamentis wevrTa siiTi<br />
Semadgenlobis sami mexuTedi, xolo konstituciur<br />
kanons sruli Semadgenlobis<br />
ori mesamedi. 37 specialistebi aRniSnaven,<br />
rom somxeTis respublikaSi dadgenili<br />
vetos daZlevis procedura naklebad<br />
warmatebulia. maTi azriT, saWiro iyo<br />
realobis gaTvaliswineba, raTa aRniSnul<br />
normas emuSava da ara yofiliyo fiqtiuri,<br />
prezidentis vetos dasaZlevad<br />
saWiroa gaTvaliswinebul iqnes erovnuli<br />
krebis damswre wevrTa kvalificiuri<br />
umravlesoba da ara erovnuli krebis<br />
saerTo raodenobis umravlesoba. saer-<br />
Tod saWiroa SevqmnaT meqanizmi, romelic<br />
prezidents ar miscems saSualebas,<br />
borotad gamoiyenos vetos ufleba, da<br />
aiZulebs mas, Tavis uflebas ufro metad<br />
dasabuTebulad moekidos. 38<br />
rogorc vxedavT, saprezidento<br />
vetos winaaRmdeg samive qveyanaSi parlaments<br />
naklebi meqanizmebi aqvs, Tu<br />
imasac gaviTvaliswinebT, rom bolo ramdenime<br />
mowvevis parlamentSi prezidentebi<br />
yovelTvis floben saparlamento<br />
umravlesobas. miuxedavad amisa, azerbaijanis<br />
konstituciiT sakanonmdeblo<br />
iniciativisa da, faqtobrivad, absoluturi<br />
vetos paralelurad dadgenilia<br />
saprezidento vetos daZlevis Zalze<br />
garTulebuli wesi, romlis mixedviTac<br />
pirvandeli kenWisyrisagan gansxvavebiT,<br />
realurad, yvela sakiTxze 20-iT meti<br />
xmaa saWiro vetos dasaZlevad, konstituciis<br />
94-e muxlis me-2 nawili gansazRvravs,<br />
rom 83 xmiT miiReba kanoni prezidentis<br />
arCevnebis, parlamentis arCevnebisa<br />
da deputatis statusTan, referendumTan<br />
dakavSirebiT. vetos dasaZlevad<br />
ki saWiroa 95 xma, rac 12 xmiT metia 39 .<br />
kerZod, konstituciis 94-e muxlis me-2<br />
nawili gansazRvravs, rom prezidentis<br />
arCevnebis, parlamentis arCevnebisa da<br />
deputatis statusTan, referendumTan<br />
dakavSirebuli sakiTxebis garda, parlamentis<br />
kompetenciaSi arsebul yvela<br />
sakiTxze kanoni miiReba 63 xmiT, vetos<br />
dasaZlevad ki saWiroa 95 xma, rac 20 xmiT<br />
metia. 40<br />
praqtika adasturebs, rom aseTi far-<br />
To sakanonmdeblo xelisuflebis uflebamosilebebis<br />
pirobebSi prezidents,<br />
saerTod, arc sWirdeba vetos uflebis<br />
gamoyeneba, is martivad axerxebs Tavisi<br />
kanonproeqtebis gatanas morCil parlamentSi,<br />
Tumca iyo SemTxvevebi, rodesac<br />
vetos gamoyeneba sulac ar iyo dakavSirebuli<br />
parlamentTan metoqeobasTan.<br />
kerZod, azerbaijanis prezidentma veto<br />
daado kanons `sazogadoebrivi televiziis<br />
Sesaxeb“, mxolod mas Semdeg, rodesac<br />
mili-mejlisma miiRo es kanoni,<br />
magram evropis sabWos eqspertebma seriozulad<br />
gaakritikes igi. prezidentma<br />
ilham alievma xeli ar moawera kanons,<br />
daabruna igi mili-mejlisSi. warmoiSva<br />
paradoqsuli situacia – prezidentma<br />
veto daado kanons, romelic, pirobiTad<br />
rom vTqvaT, TviTon (Tavisma administraciam)<br />
moamzada. 41 amdenad, azerbaijanSi<br />
sakanonmdeblo procesSi monawile or<br />
subieqts – prezidentsa da parlaments<br />
– Soris uflebamosilebebi aSkarad pre-<br />
2<strong>09</strong>
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
zidentis sasargeblod aris gansazRvruli,<br />
rac kidev ufro zrdis prezidentis<br />
isedac SeuzRudav Zalauflebas. es<br />
ki xelisuflebis danawilebis principis<br />
darRvevaa.<br />
vetos uflebas iyenebda saqarTvelos<br />
prezidenti eduard SevardnaZe,<br />
miuxedavad imisa, rom igi mTeli Tavisi<br />
prezidentobis periodSi, ZiriTadad,<br />
flobda saparlamento umravlesobas<br />
parlamentSi. prezidentma SevardnaZem<br />
rvajer gamoiyena Tavisi ufleba da veto<br />
daado misTvis xelmosawerad gagzavnil<br />
kanonproeqtebs. kerZod, 2003 wels veto<br />
daado 6 kanons: `saerTo sasamarTloebis<br />
Sesaxeb“ saqarTvelos organul kanonSi<br />
damatebebisa da cvlilebebis Setanis<br />
Taobaze saqarTvelos organuli kanonis<br />
3 proeqts, `mosamarTleTa socialuri<br />
da samarTlebrivi dacvis garantiebis<br />
Sesaxeb“ saqarTvelos kanonSi cvlilebebis<br />
Setanis Sesaxeb“ saqarTvelos kanonis<br />
proeqts, `saqarTvelos Sromis<br />
kanonTa kodeqsSi cvlilebebis Setanis<br />
Sesaxeb“ saqarTvelos kanonis proeqts<br />
da `saqarTvelos sagadasaxado kodeqs-<br />
Si cvlilebebisa da damatebebis Setanis<br />
Sesaxeb“ saqarTvelos kanonis proeqts;<br />
2002 wels veto daado `sabiujeto sistemisa<br />
da sabiujeto uflebamosilebaTa<br />
Sesaxeb“ saqarTvelos kanonSi damatebebisa<br />
da cvlilebebis Setanis Taobaze“<br />
saqarTvelos kanonis proeqts da `damoukidebeli<br />
maregulirebeli organoebis<br />
Sesaxeb“ saqarTvelos kanonis proeqts.<br />
42<br />
vetos ufleba prezidentis mxridan<br />
erTgvari kontrolis funqciasac iZens.<br />
saxelmwifos meTauris mxridan vetos<br />
gamoyenebis mizezi sxvadasxva SeiZleba<br />
iyos: konstituciasa da kanonmdeblobasTan<br />
Seusabamoba, parlamentis mier<br />
konstituciuri uflebamosilebebis<br />
darRveva, adamianis uflebaTa darRveva,<br />
sakanonmdeblo teqnikis sakiTxebis<br />
daucveloba, sasamarTlo xelisuflebis<br />
damoukideblobis SezRudva da a.S.<br />
prezidenti ki, rogorc konstituciuri<br />
wyobilebis dacvis garanti, romelime<br />
safuZvliT uflebamosilia, ar moaweros<br />
xeli kanons da Tavisi SeniSvnebiT<br />
daubrunos igi parlaments.<br />
unda aRiniSnos saqarTvelos praqtikaSi<br />
dafiqsirebuli saintereso<br />
SemTxvevis Sesaxeb, rodesac saqarTvelos<br />
prezidentma `saerTo sasamarTloebis<br />
Sesaxeb“ saqarTvelos organul kanonSi<br />
damatebebis Setanis Taobaze saqar-<br />
Tvelos organuli kanonis proeqts veto<br />
daado im motiviT, rom es kanonproeqti<br />
ar iTvaliswinebda saqarTvelos sakonstitucio<br />
sasamarTlos gadawyvetilebas.<br />
kanonproeqti iTvaliswinebda afxazeTis<br />
avtonomiuri respublikis raionuli (saqalaqo)<br />
sasamarTloebis im mosamarTle-<br />
TaTvis uflebamosilebis vadis gagrZelebas,<br />
romelTac konkursis wesiT mosamarTlis<br />
SerCevamde dakisrebuli hqondaT<br />
am uflebamosilebis ganxorcieleba.<br />
sakonstitucio sasamarTlom 2003 wlis<br />
26 Tebervals saqarTvelos konstituciis<br />
29-e muxlis pirvel punqtTan mimar-<br />
TebiT arakonstituciurad cno `saerTo<br />
sasamarTloebis Sesaxeb“ saqarTvelos<br />
organuli kanonis 85-e 2 muxlis pirveli<br />
punqti, romelic samosamarTleo uflebamosilebis<br />
ganxorcielebis dakisrebas<br />
iTvaliswinebda. prezidentma miuTiTa,<br />
rom: `...warmodgenili kanonis proeqtiT<br />
faqtobrivad xdeba arakonstituciurad<br />
cnobili normisa da cnebis ganmeorebiT<br />
SemoReba da amoRebuli punqtis adgilas<br />
kvlav imave punqtis aRdgena, rac<br />
winaaRmdegobaSi modis saqarTvelos<br />
konstituciis 89-e muxlis me-2 punqtis,<br />
`saqarTvelos sakonstitucio sasamar-<br />
Tlos Sesaxeb“ saqarTvelos organuli<br />
kanonis 25-e muxlis me-4 punqtis, agre-<br />
Tve `normatiuli aqtebis Sesaxeb“ saqar-<br />
Tvelos kanonis 32-e muxlis me-3 punqtis<br />
moTxovnebTan~. 43<br />
xelisuflebis danawilebis principis<br />
dacvis mizniT, mniSvnelovania prezidentis<br />
es uflebamosileba, magram mas<br />
efeqti aqvs da gamarTlebulia mxolod<br />
im SemTxvevaSi, Tu xelisuflebis meore<br />
subieqts – parlaments konstitucia vetos<br />
daZlevis SesaZlo meqanizmebs aZlevs.<br />
winaaRmdeg SemTxvevaSi aseTi vetos<br />
ufleba yovelTvis mxolod prezidentis<br />
Zalauflebis TviTnebur gazrdas<br />
gamoiwvevs. amasTan, unda aRvniSnoT,<br />
210
m. nakaSiZe, prezidentis zogierTi sakanonmdeblo uflebamosileba samxreT kavkasiis qveynebSi<br />
rom samxreT kavkasiis saxelmwifoebSi<br />
prezidentisaTvis erTdroulad sakanonmdeblo<br />
iniciativisa da suspensiuri<br />
(azerbaijanSi, faqtobrivad, absoluturi)<br />
vetos uflebis miniWeba akninebs da<br />
asustebs sakanonmdeblo xelisuflebis<br />
funqcias saxelisuflebo sistemaSi.<br />
IV. kanonis Zalis mqone normatiuli<br />
aqtebis gamocema<br />
prezidentis mier kanonis Zalis mqone<br />
aqtebis gamocemis ufleba erT-erTi<br />
strategiuli sakiTxia prezidentsa da<br />
parlaments Soris urTierTobaSi. bolo<br />
periodSi, gansakuTrebiT postsabWour<br />
qveynebSi, Zalian Sors wavida prezidentis<br />
normaTSemoqmedebis praqtika. samecniero<br />
literaturaSi Semovida sxvadasxva<br />
cneba prezidentis dasaxelebuli<br />
uflebamosilebebis aRsaniSnavad. magaliTad,<br />
iseTi, rogoricaa `delegirebuli<br />
kanonmdebloba“. doneli amtkicebda,<br />
rom zogierTi demokratiuli saxelmwifos<br />
prezidentebisaTvis aris aRmasrulebeli<br />
xelisuflebis sakanonmdeblo<br />
da sasamarTlo organoebis xarjze gazrdis<br />
tendencia da is aseT sistemebs delegirebul<br />
demokratiul saxelmwifos<br />
uwodebs. 44 mecnierebi aseve xSirad iyeneben<br />
cnebas – `dekretebis Zalaufleba~. 45<br />
rusi avtori luCini miuTiTebs, rom `br-<br />
ZanebulebiT samarTalSi“ gadmocemuli<br />
saxelmwifos meTauris specifiku ri<br />
normaTSemoqmedeba, rogorc wesi, xorcieldeba<br />
parlamentis uflebamosilebebis<br />
sakiTxebis Sesabamisad da, Tavisi<br />
iuridiuli Zalis mixedviT, aseTi aqtebi<br />
kanonebs ar Camouvardebian. 46 sxva avtorebi<br />
emxrobian sxva midgomas da miiCneven,<br />
rom aRmasrulebeli xelisuflebis<br />
ganxiluli aqtebi, iuridi uli Zalis<br />
mixedviT, kanonis Zalis mqonea, Tumca,<br />
formis mixedviT, aseve aris kanonqvemdebare.<br />
47 n.a. saxarovi miuTiTebs laTinoamerikeli,<br />
aziisa da afrikis saxelmwifo-<br />
Ta prezidentebis mier sakanonmdeblo<br />
uflebamosilebebis ganxorcielebis<br />
pra qtikis arsebobaze da miiCnevs, rom es<br />
ewi naaRmdegeba konstitucionalizmis<br />
principebs da xelisuflebis uzurpaciis<br />
Tanamedrove formaa. 48 a. Saio miu-<br />
TiTebs, rom: `delegirebis amkrZalavi<br />
normis ararseboba saxelisuflebo ganStoebaTa<br />
urTierTSekavebisa da urTier-<br />
Tgawonasworebis sistemaSi ufro saxifa-<br />
Toa. am normis ararsebobis SemTxvevaSi,<br />
sakanonmdeblo organom Tavisi konstituciuri<br />
amocanis Sesrulebas SeiZleba<br />
Tavic aaridos, xolo aRmasrulebelma<br />
xelisuflebam parlamentis funqcia<br />
Tavis gadawyvetilebaze pasuxismgeblobis<br />
gareSec miiRos, ris Sedegadac samarTali<br />
SeiZleba veRarc ganWvrito“. 49<br />
unda iTqvas, rom prezidentis es<br />
uflebamosileba ar aris ucxo samxreT<br />
kavkasiis saxelmwifoebisaTvis. parlamentis<br />
mier miRebuli sakanonmdeblo<br />
aqtebis safuZvelze prezidenti uflebamosilia,<br />
gamosces kanonqvemdebare<br />
normatiuli aqtebi, xolo konstituciiT<br />
gaTvaliswinebul SemTxvevaSi –<br />
sakanonmdeblo aqtebic. parlamentTan<br />
mimarTebiT prezidentis normaTSemoqmedebiTi<br />
saqmianobis dros mniSvnelovania,<br />
rom prezidenti ar SeiWres sakanonmdeblo<br />
organos uflebamosilebebSi.<br />
amis garantia aris konstituciis<br />
principi, romlis Tanaxmad, saxelmwifos<br />
meTaurs ufleba aqvs, Tavisi samar-<br />
Tlebrivi aqtiT daadginos urTierTobebis<br />
maregulirebeli normebi mxolod<br />
sakanonmdeblo organos mier dadgenili<br />
normebis safuZvelze. prezidents damoukideblad<br />
sxvadasxva urTierTobis<br />
regulirebis uflebamosileba ar gaaCnia<br />
da yoveli aseTi SemTxveva konstituciis<br />
darRvevad aRiqmeba. Tumca unda<br />
aRiniSnos, rom Tanamedrove pirobebSi,<br />
gansakuTrebiT naxevradsaprezidento<br />
mmarTvelobis respublikebSi, prezidentis<br />
xelisuflebis zrdis fonze, sul<br />
ufro SeimCneva prezidentis damoukidebeli<br />
normaTSemoqmedebis praqtika. specialistebi<br />
miuTiTeben kidec, rom Tu<br />
arsebiT sakiTxebze gadawyvetilebebi<br />
aRmasrulebeli xelisuflebis gankargulebebisa<br />
da sxva normatiuli aqtebis<br />
doneze miiReba, es konstituciuri kanonierebis<br />
darRvevis tolfasia, radgan<br />
parlaments erTmeva sakanonmdeblo funqcia,<br />
rac misi konstituciuri amocanaa,<br />
211
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
da saxelmwifo amocanebis gansazRvrac<br />
da aRsrulebac Tavs iyris xelisuflebis<br />
erTaderT ganStoebaSi. 51 parlamentsa<br />
da prezidents Soris urTierTobebis<br />
konstituciuri CarCoebis SenarCuneba<br />
da xelisuflebis balansis dacva mxolod<br />
saprezidento da saparlamento samarTalSemoqmedebis<br />
mkveTri gamijvnis<br />
SemTxvevaSia SesaZlebeli.<br />
samxreT kavkasiis saxelmwifoTa<br />
konstituciebi gansazRvraven SemTxvevebs,<br />
rodesac prezidenti, parlamentis<br />
msgavsad, sakanonmdeblo aqtebsac<br />
iRebs. magaliTad, saqarTvelos konstituciis<br />
73-e muxlis pirveli punqtis<br />
`r“ qvepunqtis mixedviT, prezidenti:<br />
`parlamentis daTxovnidan axlad ar-<br />
Ceuli parlamentis pirvel Sekrebamde,<br />
gansakuTrebul SemTxvevebSi, uflebamosilia,<br />
sagadasaxado da sabiujeto<br />
sakiTxebze gamosces kanonis Zalis mqone<br />
aqti – dekreti, romelic Zalas kargavs,<br />
Tu axlad arCeuli parlamenti pirveli<br />
Sekrebidan erTi Tvis ganmavlobaSi<br />
ar daamtkicebs mas~. konstituciis 93-e<br />
muxlis me-3 punqtis mixedviT: parlamentis<br />
daTxovnisas `...parlamentis mier<br />
konstituciiT dadgenil vadaSi saxelmwifo<br />
biujetis daumtkiceblobisas saxelmwifo<br />
biujets dekretiT amtkicebs<br />
prezidenti~. 93-e muxlis me-7 punqtis<br />
mixedviT ki, saxelmwifo biujetis daumtkiceblobis<br />
SemTxvevaSi parlamentis<br />
daTxovnisas prezidenti dekretiT<br />
daamtkicebs saxelmwifo biujets da<br />
axlad arCeuli parlamentis uflebamosilebis<br />
cnobidan erT TveSi warudgens<br />
mas dasamtkiceblad. prezidentisaTvis<br />
sagadasaxado da sabiujeto sakiTxebze<br />
kanonis Zalis mqone dekretebis gamocemasTan<br />
dakavSirebiT specialistebi miu-<br />
TiTeben, rom es aris parlamentis sakanonmdeblo<br />
uflebamosilebebis gadacema<br />
prezidentisaTvis, konstituciiT<br />
dadgenili xelisuflebis danawilebis<br />
principis koncefciuri uaryofa xelisuflebis<br />
sakanonmdeblo ganStoebis<br />
mimarT. am uflebis miniWebiT sagadasaxado<br />
da sabiujeto sferoSi sakanonmdeblo<br />
politikis ganmsazRvreli, nacvlad<br />
parlamentisa, droebiT (Tumca es dro<br />
arc ise mcirea – daaxloebiT 4 Tve) xdeba<br />
prezidenti. specialistebi aseve samar-<br />
Tlianad SeniSnaven, rom parlamentis<br />
Seqmnis Tavdapirveli umTavresi mizezi<br />
sagadasaxado politikis gansazRvra<br />
iyo. 51 konstituciis 73-e muxlis pirveli<br />
punqtis `T“ qvepunqtis mixedviT, saqar-<br />
Tvelos prezidenti sagangebo mdgomareobis<br />
dros gamoscems kanonis Zalis<br />
mqone dekretebs, romlebic moqmedebs<br />
sagangebo mdgomareobis damTavrebamde...<br />
dekretebi waredgineba parlaments,<br />
roca igi Seikribeba... 52 `normatiuli<br />
aqtebis Sesaxeb“ saqarTvelos kanonis<br />
me-5 muxlis pirveli punqtis mixedviT,<br />
saqarTvelos prezidentis dekreti saqarTvelos<br />
konstituciisa da kanonis<br />
msgavsad sakanonmdeblo aqtia. 53 prezidents<br />
amgvari normebis safuZvelze sakanonmdeblo<br />
uflebamosilebis ganxorcielebis<br />
uflebamosileba eniWeba, rac<br />
warmomadgenlobiTi organos funqciaa.<br />
msoflio praqtikis Tanaxmad, gadasaxadebis<br />
dadgena an biujetis damtkiceba<br />
yovelTvis warmomadgenlobiTi organos<br />
funqciaa. amitom prezidents ar SeiZleba<br />
gaaCndes aseTi saxis aqtebis gamocemis<br />
ufleba, rac sakanonmdeblo xelisuflebis<br />
Sesustebas iwvevs. sxva sakiTxia<br />
dekretis gamocemis ufleba sagangebo<br />
an saomari mdgomareobis dros, radgan<br />
am SemTxvevaSi saqme gvaqvs specifikur<br />
reJimTan, rodesac qveynis warmomadgenlobiTi<br />
organo moklebulia konstituciuri<br />
uflebamosilebebis normalurad<br />
ganxorcielebis SesaZleblobas, Tumca<br />
es dekretebi mainc waredgineba parlaments<br />
dasamtkiceblad.<br />
somxeTis respublikis konstitucia<br />
pirdapir ar iTvaliswinebs prezidentis<br />
mier kanonis Zalis mqone aqtebis<br />
gamocemis uflebas. konstituciis 56-e<br />
muxlSi mxolod aRniSnulia, rom respublikis<br />
prezidenti gamoscems brZanebulebebsa<br />
da gankargulebebs, romlebic<br />
ar unda ewinaaRmdegebodes somxeTis<br />
respublikis konstituciasa da kanonebs<br />
da eqvemdebareba Sesrulebas qveynis<br />
mTel teritoriaze. 54 azerbaijanis konstituciac<br />
pirdapir ar adgens, rom prezidenti<br />
gamoscems kanonis Zalis mqone<br />
212
m. nakaSiZe, prezidentis zogierTi sakanonmdeblo uflebamosileba samxreT kavkasiis qveynebSi<br />
aqtebs, Tumca konstitucia miuTiTebs,<br />
rom prezidenti gamoscems mniSvnelovan<br />
normatiul aqtebs. konstituciis 1<strong>09</strong>-e<br />
muxlis 32-e punqti adgens, rom: `azerbaijanis<br />
respublikis prezidenti aRmasrulebeli<br />
wesiT gadawyvetilebas iRebs<br />
yvela sxva sakiTxze, romelic winamdebare<br />
konstituciiT ar miekuTvneba azerbaijanis<br />
respublikis mili-mejlisis an<br />
sasamarTlo organoTa kompetencias~. 55<br />
konstituciis 113-e muxlis Tanaxmad<br />
ki, azerbaijanis prezidenti saerTo<br />
moqmedebis wesebis dadgenisas gamoscems<br />
brZanebulebebs, xolo danarCen<br />
SemTxvevebSi gankargulebebs. 56 konstituciis<br />
aRniSnuli normebis safuZvelze<br />
SeiZleba davaskvnaT, rom azerbaijanSi<br />
prezidents SeuZlia gamosces kanonis<br />
Zalis mqone aqtebi nebismier im saki-<br />
Txze, rac mili-mejlisisa da sasamar-<br />
Tlo xelisuflebis kompetencias ara<br />
aqvs mikuTvnebuli konstituciiT, es ki<br />
seriozul Zalauflebas aniWebs prezidents.<br />
amas adasturebs erTi SemTxvevac,<br />
rodesac azerbaijanis konstituciis mixedviT,<br />
ministrTa kabinetis saqmianobis<br />
wesi respublikis prezidentis mier<br />
ganisazRvreba, 57 maSin rodesac, magali-<br />
Tad, saqarTvelos mTavrobis saqmianobis<br />
wesi saqarTvelos parlamentis mier<br />
dgindeba kanoniT. 58 aseve somxeTis respublikis<br />
konstituciis Tanaxmad, mTavrobis<br />
struqtura da saqmianobis wesi<br />
kanoniT ganisazRvreba. 59 unda aRiniSnos,<br />
rom saqarTvelos prezidents ufleba<br />
aqvs, gaauqmos saqarTvelos mTavrobisa<br />
da saministroebis normatiuli aqtebi,<br />
Tu isini ewinaaRmdegebian saqarTvelos<br />
konstitucias. 60 amiT ki igi, faqtobrivad,<br />
sakonstitucio sasamarTlos funqciebSi<br />
iWreba. azerbaijanis konstitucia<br />
kidev ufro Sors wavida da prezidents<br />
SeuZlia gaauqmos ara marto mTavrobis,<br />
aramed aseve naxiCevanis avtonomiuri<br />
respublikis ministrTa kabinetisa da<br />
adgilobrivi aRmasrulebeli organoebis<br />
aqtebi. 61 aq unda daveTanxmoT Saios<br />
mosazrebas: `miuxedavad imisa, rom formalurad<br />
konstituciaTa umetesobaSi<br />
kanonmdebloba parlamentis movaleobadaa<br />
miCneuli, kanonebis Sinaarsis gansazRvra<br />
gadasulia aRmasrulebel xelisuflebaSi<br />
myofi biurokratiis xelSi.<br />
aman SeiZleba `teqnikur doneze“ daarRvios<br />
sakanonmdeblo funqciis damoukidebloba<br />
da, Sesabamisad, saxelisuflebo<br />
ganStoebebs Soris wonasworoba. 62<br />
unda iTqvas, rom, marTalia, rogorc<br />
wesi, samxreT kavkasiis saxelmwifoTa kanonmdeblobiT<br />
prezidentis aqtebi sakanonmdeblo<br />
aqtebad ar aris miCneuli 63<br />
(sagangebo viTarebaSi gamocemuli aqtebis<br />
garda), Tumca, rogorc konstitucia-<br />
Ta aRniSnuli normebi da am qveynebSi arsebuli<br />
praqtika adasturebs, prezidentis<br />
brZanebulebebi, xSir SemTxvevaSi,<br />
swored kanonis Zalis matarebelia. im<br />
dros, rodesac konstituciiT ar aris<br />
dadgenili, Tu ra sakiTxebze SeuZlia<br />
prezidents gamosces brZanebulebebi,<br />
prezidents, faqtobrivad, SeuzRudavi<br />
SesaZlebloba eZleva, Tavad aiRos xel-<br />
Si didi moculobiT sakanonmdeblo saqmianoba.<br />
amis dasturia azerbaijanis,<br />
saqarTvelosa da somxeTis prezidentebis<br />
brZanebulebebi, romlebic xSirad<br />
iseT sakiTxebze gamoicema, rac ar regulirdeba<br />
kanonmdeblobiT. magaliTad,<br />
2001 wels gamoica prezidentis brZanebuleba<br />
`saqarTvelos Sinagan saqmeTa<br />
saministros specialuri Semosavlebis<br />
gamoyenebis droebiTi wesis Sesaxeb“, 64<br />
riTac prezidentma daadgina gadasaxadebis<br />
ganawilebis wesi, rac parlamentis<br />
funqcia iyo. saqarTveloSi prezidentis<br />
brZanebulebiT aris gansazRvruli Savi<br />
da feradi liTonebis jarTis, Savi da<br />
feradi liTonebis narCenebis Sesyidvis<br />
wesi, 65 romelic mxolod `normatiuli<br />
aqtebis Sesaxeb“ saqarTvelos kanonis<br />
safuZvelzea gamocemuli. es sakiTxi ki,<br />
Cveni azriT, samoqalaqo kodeqsiTa da<br />
`mewarmeTa Sesaxeb“ kanoniT unda regulirdebodes.<br />
prezidentis mier, faqtobrivad, kanonis<br />
Zalis mqone aqtebis gamocemis ma-<br />
Cvenebelia am qveynebSi gavrcelebuli<br />
praqtika, rodesac prezidentebi gamoscemen<br />
brZanebulebebs sxvadasxva kanonis<br />
safuZvelze, ise, rom aseTi ufleba maT<br />
213
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
konstituciiT gansazRvruli ara aqvT.<br />
konstituciebi gansazRvraven, rom, konstituciaSi<br />
CamoTvlili SemTxvevebis<br />
garda, prezidentebi axorcieleben sxva<br />
uflebamosilebebs kanoniT dadgenili<br />
wesiT. am kanonebis safuZvelze ki<br />
Zalian xSirad prezidentebs eZlevaT<br />
ufleba, gamoscen brZanebulebebi. praqtikaSi<br />
vxvdebiT uamrav kanons, sadac<br />
miTiTebulia prezidentis brZanebulebiT<br />
sakiTxebis daregulirebis Sesaxeb.<br />
SeiZleba vifiqroT, rom xSirad kanonmdebeli<br />
Tavs aridebs ama Tu im sakiTxis<br />
srul sakanonmdeblo reglamentacias<br />
da saboloo sityvas prezidents utovebs.<br />
magaliTad, azerbaijanis prezidentis<br />
brZanebulebiT aris gansazRvruli<br />
socialurad naklebad uzrunvelyofili<br />
moqalaqeebisaTvis socialuri daxmarebis<br />
TanxaTa odenobebi, 66 rac saSualebas<br />
aZlevs prezidents, parlamentis<br />
gverdis avliT gazardos an Seamciros<br />
socialuri daxmarebis Tanxebis odenoba.<br />
aseT SemTxvevaSi gamocemuli aqtebi<br />
ki, iuridiuli Zalis mixedviT, arafriT<br />
Camouvardeba parlamentis mier miRebul<br />
kanonebs.<br />
prezidentis mier kanonis Zalis mqone<br />
aqtebis gamocemis uflebas xSirad<br />
safrangeTis naxevradsaprezidento models<br />
ukavSireben, rac TiTqos samxreT<br />
kavkasiis saxelmwifoTa mmarTvelobis<br />
modelis safuZveli gaxda, Tumca, safrangeTis<br />
konstituciis me-19 muxlis<br />
Tanaxmad, respublikis prezidentis aqtebi,<br />
garda zogierTi gamonaklisi Sem-<br />
T xvevisa (magaliTad, premier-ministris<br />
daniSvna, referendumis Catareba<br />
erovnuli krebis daTxovnis, sagangebo<br />
mdgomareobis Sesaxeb) eqvemdebareba<br />
kontrasignacias premier-ministris an,<br />
aucileblobis SemTxvevaSi, pasuxismgebeli<br />
ministrebis mier. 67 samxreT kavkasiis<br />
saxelmwifoebSi ki kontrasignaciis<br />
aranairi meqanizmi gaTvaliswinebuli ar<br />
aris. prezidenti damoukideblad iRebs<br />
aseT gadawyvetilebebs da uSualod aris<br />
pasuxismgebeli aseT aqtebSi gadmocemul<br />
normebze. ufro metic, prezidents<br />
am qveynebSi ufleba aqvs, gaauqmos mTavrobisa<br />
da sxva aRmasrulebeli xelisuflebis<br />
organoTa aqtebi.<br />
prezidentis aseTi farTo sakanonmdeblo<br />
funqciis gamo xSirad Zalian mkacrad<br />
fasdeba misi statusi. sindi skaCis<br />
azriT, demokratiis perspeqtivebisa-<br />
Tvis problemuria is, rom prezidenti,<br />
romelic iRebs konstitucializebul<br />
avtonomias xangrZlivi periodiT, naxevradsaprezidento<br />
demokratiis qveynebs<br />
aqcevs konstituciur diqtaturad. 68<br />
konstituciuri diqtatura aris situacia,<br />
rodesac aRmasrulebeli xelisufleba<br />
iyenebs sagangebo da sadekreto<br />
xelisuflebas, rTul viTarebaSi gamosces<br />
sakanonmdeblo aqtebi. am uflebamosilebebis<br />
gafarToebuli gamoyeneba<br />
gankuTvnilia imisaTvis, rom daicvas<br />
eri, rodesac igi aSkara, uSualo da arsebiTi<br />
saSiSroebis winaSea. aseTi koniunqtura<br />
arRvevs demokratiuli mmar-<br />
Tvelobis yvelaze fundamentur moTxovnebs:<br />
xalxis monawileobas xelisuflebis<br />
ganxorcielebaSi da xalxis winaSe<br />
xelisuflebis pasuxismgeblobas. moqalaqeebi<br />
sakanonmdeblo organos irCeven<br />
xangrZlivi periodiT da sakanonmdeblo<br />
aqtebis dekretebisa da sagangebo uflebamosilebebis<br />
farglebSi gamocemiT<br />
aR masrulebeli xelisufleba Tavisi<br />
kon stituciuri diqtaturis meSveobiT<br />
koncentrirebas ukeTebs gadawyvetilebebis<br />
miRebas adamianTa viwro jgufis,<br />
an prezidentis administraciis wevrebis<br />
xelSi, romlebsac prezidenti niSnavs.<br />
es jgufi xSirad prezidentis sruli<br />
kontrolis qveS imyofeba, imis nacvlad,<br />
rom sakanonmdeblo organos winaSe iyos<br />
pasuxismgebeli~. 69<br />
Tu sakanonmdeblo organos xelmZRvanelobs<br />
disciplinirebuli partiuli<br />
umravlesoba an koalicia, es prezidentis<br />
dekretebis uflebas uinteresos<br />
xdis: prezidentis dekretebi yovelTvis<br />
icvleba an uaryofs mas parlamenti. prezidenti<br />
dekretebis gamocemiT veranair<br />
Sedegs ver aRwevs. Tumca, Tu sakanonmdeblo<br />
organo cudad aris koordinebuli<br />
susti partiebis gamo, prezidentma<br />
SeiZleba upiratesi mdgomareoba da mis-<br />
Tvis sasurveli Sedegebi moipovos. 70<br />
214
m. nakaSiZe, prezidentis zogierTi sakanonmdeblo uflebamosileba samxreT kavkasiis qveynebSi<br />
V. uflebamosilebebi biujetis<br />
miRebis procesSi<br />
biujetis miReba erT-erTi aqtualuri<br />
sakiTxia aRmasrulebel da sakanonmdeblo<br />
xelisuflebas Soris urTier-<br />
TobebSi. naxevradsaprezidento respublikisaTvis<br />
damaxasiaTebelia, rom<br />
biujets mTavroba adgens, romelic aseve<br />
waradgens mas sakanonmdeblo xelisuflebis<br />
winaSe, Tumca samxreT kavkasiis<br />
saxelmwifoebSi es procesi prezidentis<br />
seriozuli kontrolis qveSaa. miuxedavad<br />
imisa, rom am qveynebSi saxelmwifo<br />
biujetis momzadeba da Sesruleba mTavrobis<br />
prerogativaa, es procesi mainc<br />
prezidentis monawileobis gareSe ar<br />
xorcieldeba. azerbaijanis konstituciis<br />
1<strong>09</strong>-e muxlis me-2 punqtis Tanaxmad,<br />
mili-mejliss azerbaijanis respublikis<br />
saxelmwifo biujets dasamtkiceblad<br />
warudgens respublikis prezidenti. 71<br />
konstituciis 119-e muxlis Tanaxmad ki,<br />
prezidents saxelmwifo biujets warudgens<br />
ministrTa kabineti; 72 somxeTSi prezidenti<br />
biujetis kanonis parlamentSi<br />
wardgenaSi ar monawileobs. konstituciis<br />
89-e muxlis me-2 punqtis Tanaxmad,<br />
saxelmwifo biujetis proeqts erovnul<br />
krebas dasamtkiceblad warudgens respublikis<br />
mTavroba; 73 saqarTvelos konstituciis<br />
93-e muxlis mixedviT, parlaments<br />
biujets warudgens saqarTvelos<br />
mTavroba parlamentis komitetebTan<br />
ZiriTadi monacemebisa da mimarTulebebis<br />
SeTanxmebis Semdeg, saqarTvelos<br />
prezidentis TanxmobiT. Tu parlamentma<br />
ver moaxerxa ...wardgenili biujetis<br />
miReba sami Tvis ganmavlobaSi, saqarTvelos<br />
prezidenti uflebamosilia, gadaayenos<br />
mTavroba an daiTxovos parlamenti<br />
da daniSnos riggareSe arCevnebi.<br />
saxelmwifo biujetis daumtkiceblobis<br />
SemTxvevaSi, parlamentis daTxovnisas<br />
prezidenti dekretiT daamtkicebs saxelmwifo<br />
biujets da axlad arCeuli<br />
parlamentis uflebamosilebis cnobidan<br />
erT TveSi warudgens mas dasamtkiceblad.<br />
74<br />
rogorc vxedavT, samive respublikaSi<br />
biujetis kanonis miRebis procesSi<br />
gansakuTrebulia prezidentis roli:<br />
Tu somxeTSi konstitucia pirdapir ar<br />
gansazRvravs prezidentis mier biujetis<br />
kanonis erovnul krebaSi wardgenas,<br />
azerbaijanSi pirdapiraa gansazRvruli<br />
mili-mejlisSi biujetis kanonis<br />
mxolod prezidentis mier wardgena.<br />
sa qarTveloSi, marTalia, prezidenti<br />
konstituciis mixedviT ar waradgens<br />
parlamentSi biujetis kanons, Tumca<br />
masTan SeTanxmebis gareSe es procedura<br />
ver ganxorcieldeba, es ki, Cveni azriT,<br />
faqtobrivad, igivea, rac biujetis war<br />
dgenis ufleba, vinaidan mTavroba<br />
SezRudulia prezidentis uflebamosilebebiT<br />
am sferoSi. am uflebamosilebebs<br />
saqarTveloSi isic amyarebs, rom<br />
prezidents SeuZlia, biujeti daamtkicos<br />
Tavisi kanonis Zalis mqone aqtiT.<br />
daskvna<br />
samxreT kavkasiis regionis samive<br />
saxelmwifos konstituciuri praqtika<br />
adasturebs erT saerTo tendencias<br />
– konstituciebis miRebisTanave gamoikveTa<br />
prezidentis gansakuTrebuli<br />
statusi. sami qveynidan, formaluri<br />
TvalsazrisiT, mxolod somxeTis prezidentisa<br />
da parlamentis statusi pasuxobs<br />
met-naklebad naxevradsaprezidento<br />
sistemis ZiriTad principebs; saqar-<br />
TveloSi saerTod darRveulia balansi<br />
parlamentsa da prezidents Soris am<br />
ukanasknelis sasargeblod, xolo azerbaijanis<br />
sistema saerTod ar Seesabameba<br />
aranair praqtikas da is SeiZleba supersaprezidento<br />
modeladac ki ganvixiloT.<br />
aRniSnuli principidan gadaxvevam<br />
xelisuflebis sxva Stoebis xarjze prezidents<br />
iseTi damatebiTi kompetenciebi<br />
SesZina, romlebic ar aris damaxasiaTebeli<br />
arc saprezidento da arc<br />
naxevradsaprezidento sistemisaTvis.<br />
pirvel rigSi, am qveynebSi prezidentis<br />
Zlier Zalauflebas konstituciur<br />
doneze prezidentebis mniSvnelovani<br />
sakanonmdeblo uflebamosilebebiT aR-<br />
Wurva adasturebs. azerbaijansa da saqarTveloSi<br />
prezidenti, faqtobrivad,<br />
215
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
SeuzRudavi sakanonmdeblo iniciativis<br />
uflebis ZaliT sakanonmdeblo organos<br />
dRis wesrigis gansazRvris xelmZRvanelad<br />
gvevlineba, rac ewinaaRmdegeba<br />
rogorc xelisuflebis danawilebis<br />
princips, ise parlamentis institutis<br />
konstituciur bunebas. amitomac unda<br />
gauqmdes azerbaijansa da saqarTveloSi<br />
prezidentis sakanonmdeblo iniciativis<br />
ufleba.<br />
prezidentis Zalauflebas kidev ufro<br />
aZlierebs sakanonmdeblo (azerbaijanSi,<br />
faqtobrivad, e.w. absoluturi<br />
veto) vetos uflebis arseboba. vetos<br />
ufleba saerTod cnobilia rogorc saprezidento,<br />
ise saparlamento da naxevradsaprezidento<br />
sistemebSi, Tumca<br />
saxifaToa misi arseboba sakanonmdeblo<br />
iniciativis uflebis paralelurad.<br />
pre zidentis vetos ufleba garkveul<br />
gamawonasworebel meqanizmad miiCneva<br />
parlamentTan mimarTebiT, rodesac<br />
prezidents ar gaaCnia sakanonmdeblo<br />
iniciativis ufleba. am dros prezidents<br />
SeuZlia dablokos saparlamento<br />
umravlesobis an premier-ministris<br />
sakanonmdeblo iniciativebi, magram,<br />
rodesac prezidents erTdroulad ar<br />
gaaCnia sakanonmdeblo iniciativisa da<br />
vetos ufleba, es imas niSnavs, rom parlaments<br />
ara aqvs Tavisufali moqmedebis<br />
saSualeba, radgan man icis, rom prezidents<br />
ekuTvnis gadamwyveti sityvis<br />
ufleba sakanonmdeblo procesis rogorc<br />
sawyis stadiaze, ise mis dasasruls<br />
kanonebis xelmowerisas. prezidentis<br />
Zalauflebas aZlierebs aseve saprezidento<br />
vetos daZlevis Zalian garTulebuli<br />
procedura. azerbaijanSi vetos<br />
daZlevisaTvis ganmeorebiTi kenWisyris<br />
dros saWiroa 12 da 20-iT meti xma, vidre<br />
Tavdapirvelad kanonis miRebisas.<br />
saqarTveloSi ki vetos dasaZlevad parlamentis<br />
wevrTa sruli Semadgenlobis<br />
ori mesamedia saWiro. mxolod somxeTis<br />
konstitucia iTvaliswinebs vetos daZlevas<br />
parlamentis wevrTa saerTo raodenobis<br />
umravlesobis mxardaWeriT. Tu<br />
azerbaijansa da somxeTSi parlament-<br />
Si politikuri Zalebis fragmentacia<br />
prezidents vetos uflebis gamoyenebis<br />
aucileblobis winaSe daayenebs, faqtobrivad,<br />
SeuZlebeli iqneba misi daZleva<br />
parlamentis mxridan, arsebuli konstituciuri<br />
normebis gamo. Cveni azriT,<br />
aucilebelia, somxeTSi vetos dasaZlevad,<br />
erovnuli krebis saerTo raodenobis<br />
umravlesobis nacvlad, parlamentis<br />
sxdomis damswreTa umravlesobiT<br />
gadawyvetilebis miRebis dadgena, aseve<br />
mizanSewonilad migvaCnia azerbaijanSi<br />
vetos daZlevis garTulebuli proceduris<br />
gamartiveba imgvarad, rom vetos<br />
daZlevas igive xmaTa raodenoba sWirdebodes,<br />
rac misi Tavdapirveli miRebisa-<br />
Tvisaa dadgenili.<br />
prezidentis xelSi sakanonmdeblo<br />
uflebamosilebebis seriozul koncentracias<br />
xels uwyobs mis mier kanonis<br />
Zalis mqone aqtebis gamocemis ufleba.<br />
rogorc wesi, kanonis Zalis mqone aqtebis<br />
gamocemis ufleba prezidentebs,<br />
ZiriTadad, sagangebo an saomari viTarebis<br />
dros aqvT, da mxolod imitom, rom<br />
aseTi specifikuri viTarebisas sakanonmdeblo<br />
organo moklebulia sakanonmdeblo<br />
xelisuflebis ganxorcielebis<br />
SesaZleblobas. aseT drosac prezidentis<br />
es aqtebi SemdgomSi parlamentis mier<br />
damtkicebas saWiroebs. aseTi praqtikis<br />
paralelurad postsabWour qveynebsa<br />
da, maT Soris, samxreT kavkasiis saxelmwifoebSic<br />
damkvidrda prezidentebis<br />
mier sakanonmdeblo funqciis sakuTar<br />
Tavze aRebis normebi. xelisuflebis<br />
danawilebis princips ewinaaRmdegeba da<br />
prezidentis Zalauflebas aZlierebs saqarTvelos<br />
prezidentis mier parlamentis<br />
daTxovnis SemTxvevaSi sagadasaxado<br />
da sabiujeto sakiTxebze kanonis Zalis<br />
aqtebis gamocemis ufleba, aseve dekretiT<br />
biujetis damtkiceba. somxeTis<br />
konstitucia pirdapir aseT uflebas ar<br />
adgens. gansakuTrebiT SemaSfoTebelia<br />
azerbaijanis konstituciuri normebi,<br />
romlebic prezidents yvela im sakiTxze<br />
gadawyvetilebis miRebis uflebas aniWebs,<br />
rac ar aris azerbaijanis parlamentisa<br />
da mTavrobis kompetencia. Tu gaviTvaliswinebT,<br />
rom azerbaijanis konstitucia<br />
mTavrobis kompetencias sul<br />
ramdenime punqtiT CamoTvlis, xolo<br />
216
m. nakaSiZe, prezidentis zogierTi sakanonmdeblo uflebamosileba samxreT kavkasiis qveynebSi<br />
parlamenti Tavis uflebamosilebis<br />
90%-s mxolod prezidentis wardginebiT<br />
axorcielebs, prezidentis sakanonmdeblo<br />
uflebamosilebebi SeuzRudavia.<br />
vfiqrobT, aucilebelia Seikvecos saqarTvelosa<br />
da somxeTSi prezidentis<br />
mier kanonis Zalis mqone aqtebis gamocemis<br />
ufleba da prezidents es ufleba<br />
SeiZleba hqondes mxolod sagangebo an<br />
saomari mdgomareobis dros da mxolod<br />
parlamentis TanxmobiT.<br />
unda iTqvas, rom samxreT kavkasiis<br />
qveynebSi parlamentebi Tavisufalni ar<br />
arian aseve parlamentisaTvis iseTi tradiciuli<br />
da bunebrivi uflebamosilebis<br />
ganxorcielebaSic ki, rogoricaa qveynis<br />
biujetis miReba. Tu gaviTvaliswinebT,<br />
rom am qveynebs mecnierebi naxevradsaprezidento<br />
sistemebs miakuTvneben,<br />
unda iTqvas, rom aseTi mmarTvelobis<br />
dros biujetis miReba mTavrobisa da<br />
parlamentis prerogativaa, prezidentis<br />
uflebamosileba mxolod kanonis<br />
xelis mowerasa da, Tundac, vetos uflebis<br />
gamoyenebiT SeiZleba gamoixatos. es<br />
uflebebi samxreT kavkasiis respublikebis<br />
prezidentebs isedac aqvT, magram<br />
amas emateba is, rom biujetis proeqts<br />
azerbaijanSi parlaments prezidenti<br />
warudgens, saqarTveloSi ki mTavrobas<br />
biujetis proeqtis parlamentSi wardgena<br />
mxolod prezidentis TanxmobiT<br />
SeuZlia. gamonaklisi am wesidan mxolod<br />
somxeTia, sadac biujetis proeqts<br />
parlamentSi mTavroba waradgens. yovelive<br />
es imas niSnavs, rom prezidents<br />
mniSvnelovani berketebi aqvs xelisuflebis<br />
sxva institutebze finansuri<br />
TvalsazrisiT zemoqmedebisaTvis, rac<br />
am institutebs prezidentze mniSvnelovnad<br />
damokidebuls xdis. Cveni azriT,<br />
aucilebelia, saqarTvelosa da azerbaijanSi<br />
prezidentebi CamoSordnen biujetis<br />
momzadeba-wardgenis process da<br />
es ufleba mTlianad mTavrobas daekisros;<br />
azerbaijanSi unda gauqmdes prezidentis<br />
ufleba biujetis wardgenaze,<br />
saqarTveloSi ki biujetis wardgenaze<br />
mTavrobisaTvis Tanxmobis micemis wesi.<br />
biujetis momzadeba eqskluziurad mTavrobis<br />
funqcia unda iyos. Tu prezidents<br />
surs, gaakontrolos sabiujeto<br />
procesi, mas isedac aqvs garkveuli gamawonasworebeli<br />
meqanizmi – SeuZlia,<br />
veto daados biujetis kanons, rogorc<br />
sxva sakanonmdeblo aqtebs.<br />
kvlevam aCvena, rom samxreT kavkasiis<br />
qveynebSi prezidentis Zlieri Zalauflebis<br />
paralelurad sustia parlamenti,<br />
magram amis mizezi, rogorc<br />
am qveynebSi xSirad aRniSnaven, ar aris<br />
mxolod parlamentis mwiri formaluri<br />
uflebamosilebebi. erTi mxriv, parlamentis<br />
sisuste ganpirobebulia prezidentisaTvis<br />
sakanonmdeblo sferoSi<br />
zemoT aRniSnuli formaluri funqciebis<br />
miniWebiT da, meore mxriv, saparlamento<br />
umravlesobisa da prezidentis<br />
urTierTobebiT. marTalia, Cveni<br />
kvlevis mizani ar yofila prezidentsa<br />
da parlaments Soris urTierTobebze<br />
politikuri procesebis gavlenis<br />
Sefaseba, magram daskvnis saxiT mokled<br />
unda aRvniSnoT am faqtoris Sesaxebac.<br />
konstituciebis Tanaxmad, prezidenti<br />
iTavsebs partiul Tanamdebobas, aris<br />
politikuri gaerTianebis lideri, rac<br />
mas saSualebas aZlevs, saparlamento<br />
arCevnebis Sedegad misi partiis mier<br />
deputatTa mandatebis umravlesobis<br />
mopovebis SemTxvevaSi, parlamentis faqtobrivi<br />
Tavmjdomare gaxdes. amitomac<br />
aseT SemTxvevaSi irRveva yovelgvari<br />
balansi prezidentsa da sakanonmdeblo<br />
organos Soris, radgan xSirad parlamenti<br />
xelisuflebis damoukidebel Sto dan<br />
prezidentis politikur saTaTbirod<br />
iqceva. es faqtori kidev ufro aZlierebs<br />
prezidentis formalur uflebamosilebebs,<br />
xolo parlamentisas piriqiT,<br />
asustebs. demokratiis ganviTareba, romelic<br />
sabWoTa sistemis rRvevis Semdeg<br />
postkomunisturi azerbaijanis, saqar-<br />
Tvelosa da somxeTisaTvis umTavresi<br />
amocanaa, saTanado uflebamosilebebiT<br />
aRWurvili xelisuflebis Stoebis damabalansebeli<br />
warmomadgenlobiTi organos<br />
Camoyalibebas moiTxovs. amitomac<br />
parlamentis gaZlierebisaTvis mizan-<br />
Sewonilad migvaCnia Tanamdebobaze ar-<br />
Cevis Semdeg prezidentisaTvis partiuli<br />
Tanamdebobis dakavebis akrZalva da<br />
217
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
formaluri sakanonmdeblo funqciebis<br />
Sekveca.<br />
samxreT kavkasiis saxelmwifoebSi<br />
iseve, rogorc axali demokratiis sxva<br />
qveynebSi, prezidentis institutisa<br />
da sakanonmdeblo organos urTierTobebis<br />
praqtikasTan dakavSirebiT unda<br />
gaviziaroT mecnierTa daskvnebi, romlebic<br />
miuTiTeben, rom: `Tu konstituciis<br />
Semqmnelebs surT miiRon naxevradsaprezidento<br />
sistema, an Tu maT politikurad<br />
ara aqvT araviTari arCevani<br />
naxevradsaprezidento sistemis miRebis<br />
garda, maT naTlad unda vurCioT: Tu naxevradsaprezidento<br />
sistemis arCevanis<br />
winaSe dgaxarT, maSin SearCieT iseTi naxevradsaprezidento<br />
sistema, sadac prezidents<br />
Zalian cota uflebamosilebebi<br />
aqvs~. 75<br />
cxrili #1<br />
sakanonmdeblo xelisuflebis kompetenciebis Sefasebis<br />
stiven fiSis mier SemuSavebuli indeqsi<br />
1. sakanonmdeblo organos damoukideblad, sxva romelime subieqtis monawileobis<br />
gareSe, SeuZlia, impiCmenti mouwyos prezidents an gadaayenos premier-ministri;<br />
2. ministrebi imavdroulad SeiZleba iyvnen parlamentis wevrebi;<br />
3. parlaments ufleba aqvs, gamoiZaxos da mousminos aRmasrulebeli xelisuflebis<br />
Tanamdebobis pirebs, rogorc parlamentis sxdomebze, ise mis mudmiv komitetebSi;<br />
4. parlaments SeuZlia Caataros damoukidebeli gamoZieba aRmasrulebeli xelisuflebis<br />
Tanamdebobis pirebis mimarT;<br />
5. parlaments aqvs Zalovan struqturebze (SeiaraRebuli Zalebi, samarTaldamcavi<br />
or ga noebi, dazvervis samsaxurebi, saidumlo policia da sxva) kontrolis efeqturi<br />
saSualeba;<br />
6. parlamenti niSnavs premier-ministrs;<br />
7. aucilebelia sakanonmdeblo organos mier TiToeuli ministris daniSvnis damtkiceba<br />
an ministrebs niSnavs TviT parlamenti;<br />
8. qveyanaSi saerTod ar aris prezidentis Tanamdeboba an prezidents irCevs parlamenti;<br />
9. parlaments SeuZlia ar daumtkicos arcerTi sakiTxi mTavrobas misi daTxovnis<br />
muqaris gareSe;<br />
10. parlaments aqvs imuniteti aRmasrulebeli xelisuflebis mier daTxovnisgan;<br />
11. aRmasrulebeli xelisuflebis nebismieri iniciativa sakanonmdeblo sferoSi<br />
saWiroebs parlamentis damtkicebas, anu sustia e.w. dekretuli Zalaufleba;<br />
12. parlamentis sakanonmdeblo iniciativebis mimarT SesaZlebelia gamoyenebul iqnes<br />
vetos ufleba. vetos ufleba ara aqvs aRmasrulebel xelisuflebas, an vetos daZleva<br />
SesaZlebelia ubralo umravlesobiT;<br />
13. parlamentis kanonebi uzenaesia da ar eqvemdebareba sasamarTlo ganxilvas;<br />
14. parlaments aqvs sakanonmdeblo iniciativis ufleba politikis nebismier sferoSi.<br />
aRmasrulebel xelisuflebas ara aqvs erTaderTi Zalaufleba am sferoSi;<br />
15. biujetis xarjva parlamentis kontrols eqvemdebareba da aRmasrulebeli xelisufleba<br />
ar aris uflebamosili, Seamciros biujeti, romelic parlamentma daamtkica;<br />
16. parlamenti Tavad gankargavs Tavisi Sida organizaciisa da Tanamdebobrivi<br />
uflebamosilebebis ganxorcielebisaTvis saWiro finansur saxsrebs;<br />
17. parlamentis wevrebs aqvT imuniteti dakavebisa da sisxlissamarTlebrivi devnisagan;<br />
18. parlamentis yvela wevri arCeulia. aRmasrulebel xelisuflebas aqvs parlamentis<br />
zogierTi wevris daniSvnis ufleba;<br />
19. parlaments damoukideblad, sxva romelime subieqtis monawileobis gareSe, SeuZlia<br />
Secvalos konstitucia;<br />
20. omis gamocxadebisaTvis aucilebelia parlamentis Tanxmoba;<br />
21. aucilebelia parlamentis Tanxmoba ucxo qveynebTan xelSekrulebebis dadebaze;<br />
22. parlaments aqvs amnistiis gamocxadebis ufleba;<br />
218
m. nakaSiZe, prezidentis zogierTi sakanonmdeblo uflebamosileba samxreT kavkasiis qveynebSi<br />
23. parlaments aqvs Sewyalebis ufleba;<br />
24. sakanonmdeblo organos aqvs sasamarTlo xelisuflebis CamoyalibebisaTvis<br />
daniSvnebis uaryofis ufleba, an Tavad niSnavs sasamarTlo xelisuflebis wevrebs;<br />
25. centraluri bankis Tavmjdomare iniSneba parlamentis mier;<br />
26. parlaments ekuTvnis gadamwyveti sityva saxelmwifo televiziis marTvaSi;<br />
27. sakanonmdeblo organo regularulad sesiebze imyofeba;<br />
28. TiToeul parlamentis wevrs aqvs sakuTari samdivno;<br />
29. TiToeul parlamentis wevrs hyavs, samdivnos TanamSromlis garda, TanamSromeli<br />
politikis eqspertizis sferoSi;<br />
30. parlamentis wevrebs ufleba aqvT, xelaxla airCion yovelgvari SezRudvis gareSe;<br />
31. adgilebi parlamentSi sakmaod mimzidveli poziciaa, riTac parlamentis wevrebi<br />
didad interesdebian da cdiloben, xelaxla iqnnen arCeulni;<br />
32. Cveulebriv, damaxasiaTebelia saTanado gamocdilebis mqone parlamentis wevrebis<br />
xelaxla arCeva da parlamentSi aris didi gamocdilebis mqone bevri parlamentari.<br />
wyaro: M. Steven Fish, Stronger Legislatures, Stronger Democracies, <strong>Journal</strong> of Democracy, Volume 17,<br />
Number 1 January 2006, 7.<br />
parlamentebis Zalauflebis indeqsi<br />
stiven fiSisa da maTeus koenis mixedviT<br />
cxrili # 2<br />
# yofili sabWoTa qveynebi indeqsi<br />
1 latviis parlamenti 0.78<br />
2 litvis parlamenti 0.78<br />
3 estoneTis parlamenti 0.75<br />
4 moldovis parlamenti 0.75<br />
5 saqarTvelos parlamenti 0.59<br />
6 ukrainis umaRlesi sabWo 0.59<br />
7 somxeTis erovnuli kreba 0.56<br />
8 ruseTis federaluri saTaTbiro 0.44<br />
9 azerbaijanis parlamenti 0.44<br />
10 tajikeTis umaRlesi sabWo 0.31<br />
11 uzbekeTis umaRlesi sabWo 0.28<br />
12 belorusis erovnuli kreba 0.25<br />
13 TurqmeneTis saxalxo sabWo 0.06<br />
evropis qveynebis parlamentebi<br />
1 germaniis parlamenti 0.84<br />
2 CexeTis respublikis parlamenti 0.81<br />
3 makedoniis respublikis parlamenti 0.81<br />
4 xorvatiis parlamenti 0.78<br />
5 bulgareTis erovnuli kreba 0.78<br />
6 poloneTis parlamenti 0.75<br />
7 sloveniis parlamenti 0.75<br />
8 rumineTis parlamenti 0.72<br />
9 fineTis parlamenti 0.72<br />
10 slovakeTis respublikis erovnuli sabWo 0.72<br />
11 serbiis erovnuli kreba 0.69<br />
12 bosniisa da hercegovinis saparlamento asamblea 0.63<br />
13 safrangeTis parlamenti 0.56<br />
wyaro: M. Steven Fish and Matthew Kroenig, The Handbook of National Legislatures: A Global Survey<br />
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 20<strong>09</strong>)<br />
219
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
220<br />
∗<br />
ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universitetis iuridiuli<br />
fakultetis doqtoranti, SoTa rusTavelis saxelmwifo universitetis<br />
asistent-profesori. m.nakashidze@bsu.edu.ge<br />
1<br />
Freedom in the World 2010: Table of Independent Countries, the document is<br />
available on the Website: [http://www.freedomhouse.org].<br />
2<br />
Fredom Hause-s Sefasebis sistemis mixedviT, qveynebis demokratiulobis<br />
qulebis aTvla 1-idan iwyeba, xolo yvelaze araTavisufali qveynis<br />
Sefaseba 7-s udris.<br />
3<br />
Freedom in the World 2010: Table of Independent Countries, miTiTebuli wyaro,<br />
gv. 23-24.<br />
4<br />
magaliTad, saqarTveloSi dReisaTvis aqtiurad mimdinareobs msjeloba<br />
mmarTvelobis moqmedi modelis Secvlis aucileblobis Sesaxeb:<br />
politikuri jgufebis nawili saqarTvelos saparlamento respublikad<br />
Camoyalibebas iTxovs, aseve nawili saprezidento an Sereul<br />
mmarTvelobas emxroba. kidev ufro sainteresoa, rom 2008 wels ara mxolod<br />
politikur wreebSi, aramed sazogadoebis mniSvnelovan nawilSic<br />
saqarTvelos konstituciur monarqiad Camoyalibebis moTxovna gaCnda.<br />
2010 wlis 11 maiss ki saqarTvelos saxelmwifo sakonstitucio komisiam<br />
miiRo konstituciuri cvlilebebis sabaziso varianti, romelic mmarTvelobis<br />
naxevradsaprezidento sistemis elementebs iTvaliswinebs.<br />
aseve aRsaniSnavia, rom 20<strong>09</strong> wlis 18 marts azerbaijanSi Catarda referendumi,<br />
romelzec damtkicda 40-amde konstituciuri Sesworeba, maT<br />
Soris konstituciis 101-e muxlis me-5 punqtis axali redaqcia, romli-<br />
Tac gauqmda prezidentis orze meti vadiT arCevis akrZalva.<br />
5<br />
M. Steven Fish, Stronger Legislatures, Stronger Democracies, <strong>Journal</strong> of<br />
Democracy, Volume 17, 1, January, 2006, p. 7;<br />
6<br />
M. Steven Fish, miTiTebuli wyaro, gv. 13.<br />
7<br />
Nations in Transit, Country Reports – Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Freedom<br />
House, 2008., the documents are available on the Website: [http://www.freedomhouse.org].<br />
8<br />
M. Steven Fish, miTiTebuli wyaro, gv. 10.<br />
9<br />
iqve, gv. 12.<br />
10<br />
Jung-Hsiang Tsai, Sub-types of Semi-presidentialism and Political Deadlock,<br />
French Politics, 2008, 6, p. 68.<br />
11<br />
azerbaijanis respublikis konstitucia, sazRvargareTis qveynebis<br />
konstituciebi, nawili II, pasuxismgebeli redaqtori vasil gonaSvili,<br />
Tb., 2008, gv. 234.<br />
12<br />
somxeTis konstitucia, sazRvargareTis qveynebis konstituciebi, nawili<br />
I, pasuxismgebeli redaqtori vasil gonaSvili, Tb., 2008, gv. 463-478.<br />
13<br />
saqarTvelos konstitucia, Tb., 2008, gv. 24.<br />
14<br />
saqarTvelos parlamentis regonuli politikis, TviTmmarTvelobisa<br />
da maRalmTiani regionebis iuridiul sakiTxTa komitetis erToblivi<br />
sxdomis oqmi 75, 2007 wlis 4 aprili, oqmi 77, 2007 wlis 11 aprili. oqmebi<br />
xelmisawvdomia internetgverdze: [http://www.parliament.ge].<br />
15<br />
saqarTvelos parlamentis dargobrivi ekonomikisa da ekonomikuri politikis<br />
komitetis sxdomis oqmi 44, 23 dekemberi, 2005 weli. oqmi xelmisawvdomia<br />
internetgverdze: [http://www.parliament.ge].<br />
16<br />
saqarTvelos parlamentis safinanso-sabiujeto komitetis sxdomis<br />
oqmi 7, 13 marti, 2008 weli, xelmisawvdomia internetgverdze: [http://<br />
www.parliament.ge].<br />
17<br />
Арутюнян Армен, Конституционно-правовой статус Президента Республики<br />
Армения, Диссертация на соискание ученой степени доктора юридических<br />
наук, Москва, 1997 г., с. 310.<br />
18<br />
saqarTvelos konstitucia,Tb., 2008, gv. 24.<br />
19<br />
sazRvargareTis qveynebis konstituciebi, miTiTebuli wyaro, nawili II,<br />
gv. 235.
m. nakaSiZe, prezidentis zogierTi sakanonmdeblo uflebamosileba samxreT kavkasiis qveynebSi<br />
20<br />
konstituciuri samarTali, saxelmZRvanelo, avtorTa koleqtivis<br />
xelmZRvaneli da pasuxismgebeli redaqtori avTandil demetraSvili,<br />
Tb., 2005, gv. 298.<br />
21<br />
Сравнительное Конституционное право, Отв. ред. В. Е. Чиркин, М.: «международные<br />
отношения», 2002 г., с. 336.<br />
22<br />
saqarTvelos parlamentis reglamenti, 2004 wlis 17 Tebervali, dokumenti<br />
xelmisawvdomia internet-gverdze: [http://www.parliament.ge].<br />
23<br />
vaxtang xmalaZe, avTandil demetraSvili, aleqsandre nalbandovi, levan<br />
ramiSvili, daviT usufaSvili, zurab jibRaSvili, saqarTvelos saxelmwifo<br />
xelisufleba centralur doneze: balansi mis ganStoebaTa<br />
Soris, sakonstitucio-politikuri reformis procesi saqarTveloSi:<br />
politikuri elita da xalxis xmebi, IDEA, CIPDD, Tb., 2005, gv. 23.<br />
24<br />
iqve, gv. 9.<br />
25<br />
Jung-Hsiang Tsai, miTiTebuli wyaro, gv. 71.<br />
26<br />
Shugart M.S. and Carey J.M. Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design<br />
and Electoral Dynamics. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 156.<br />
27<br />
iqve, gv. 165.<br />
28<br />
jonaTan uiTli, saqarTvelos saxelmwifo xelisufleba centralur<br />
doneze: balansi mis ganStoebaTa Soris, saxelmwifos konstituciuri<br />
organizacia, saerTaSoriso samecniero-praqtikuli konferenciis masalebi<br />
(Tbilisi, 18-19 maisi) Tb., 2004, gv. 35.<br />
29<br />
sazRvargareTis qveynebis konstituciebi, miTiTebuli wyaro, nawili II,<br />
gv. 240-241.<br />
30<br />
sazRvargareTis qveynebis konstituciebi, miTiTebuli wyaro, nawili I,<br />
gv. 465.<br />
31<br />
saqarTvelos konstitucia, Tb., 2008, gv. 24-25.<br />
32<br />
Окуньков Л. А., В. А. Рощин, Вето Президента, научно-практическое пособие,<br />
«городец-формула права», М., 1999 г., с. 10-11.<br />
33<br />
sazRvargareTis qveynebis konstituciebi, miTiTebuli wyaro, nawili II,<br />
gv. 240-241.<br />
34<br />
Окуньков Л. А., В. А. Рощин, miTiTebuli wyaro, gv. 11.<br />
35<br />
sazRvargareTis qveynebis konstituciebi, miTiTebuli wyaro, nawili II,<br />
gv. 241.<br />
36<br />
sazRvargareTis qveynebis konstituciebi, miTiTebuli wyaro, nawili I,<br />
gv. 472.<br />
37<br />
saqarTvelos konstitucia, miTiTebuli wyaro, gv. 25.<br />
38<br />
Арутюнян Армен, Конституционно-правовой статус Президента Республики<br />
Армения, Диссертация на соискание ученой степени доктора юридических<br />
наук, Москва, 1997 г., c. 314-315;<br />
39<br />
sazRvargareTis qveynebis konstituciebi, miTiTebuli wyaro, nawili II,<br />
gv. 223.<br />
40<br />
iqve, gv. 223.<br />
41<br />
Бадалов Рахман, Мехти Ниязи, Политические институты А зербайджана:<br />
Дихотомия текста и реальности, с. 12, данная работа доступна на веб-сайте:<br />
[http://www.idea.int].<br />
42<br />
monacemebi moyvanilia saqarTvelos parlamentis iuridiul sakiTxTa<br />
komitetidan miRebul oficialur dokumentebze dayrdnobiT.<br />
43<br />
monacemebi moyvanilia saqarTvelos parlamentis iuridiul sakiTxTa<br />
komitetidan miRebul oficialur dokumentebze dayrdnobiT.<br />
44<br />
O’Donnell, Guillermo, Delegative Democracy, <strong>Journal</strong> of Democracy, 1994, 5 (1),<br />
p. 55-69.<br />
45<br />
Cindy Skach, Constitutional Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, Constitutional<br />
Political Economy, Volume 16, #4 (December 2005), p. 5. George Tsebelis, Tatiana<br />
P. Rizova, Presidential Conditional Agenda Setting in the Former Com munist<br />
Countries, Comparative Political Studies, Volume 40, #10, October 2007, p. 1164.<br />
46<br />
Лучин В.О., Мазуров А.В. Указы Президента РФ: основные социальные и<br />
пра вовые характеристики, М.: ЮНИТИ-ДАНА, Закон и право, 2000., с. 58-59,<br />
62–63, 65–67.<br />
221
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
47<br />
Хабриева Т.Я., Чиркин В.Е. Теория современной конституции. М.: Норма,<br />
2005, с. 282-283.<br />
48<br />
Сахаров Н.А. Институт президентства в современном мире. М. : Юрид. лит.<br />
1994, с. 118.<br />
49<br />
andraS Saio, xelisuflebis TviTSezRudva, konstitucionalizmis Sesavali,<br />
IRIS - saqarTvelo, Tb., 2003, gv. 205.<br />
50<br />
andraS Saio, miTiTebuli wyaro, gv. 198.<br />
51<br />
vaxtang xmalaZe, avTandil demetraSvili, aleqsandre nalbandovi, levan<br />
ramiSvili, daviT usufaSvili, zurab jibRaSvili, miTiTebuli wyaro,<br />
gv. 22-23.<br />
52<br />
saqarTvelos konstitucia, miTiTebuli wyaro, gv. 28.<br />
53<br />
ix. saqarTvelos kanoni `normatiuli aqtebis Sesaxeb“, saqarTvelos<br />
parlamentis uwyebani, 1996 wlis 19 noemberi.<br />
54<br />
sazRvargareTis qveynebis konstituciebi, miTiTebuli wyaro, nawili I,<br />
gv. 468.<br />
55<br />
sazRvargareTis qveynebis konstituciebi, miTiTebuli wyaro, nawili II,<br />
gv. 240.<br />
56<br />
iqve, gv. 241.<br />
57<br />
iqve, gv. 242.<br />
58<br />
saqarTvelos konstitucia, miTiTebuli wyaro, gv. 31.<br />
59<br />
sazRvargareTi qveynebis konstituciebi, miTiTebuli wyaro, nawili I,<br />
gv. 479.<br />
60<br />
saqarTvelos konstitucia, miTiTebuli wyaro, gv. 29.<br />
61<br />
sazRvargareTis qveynebis konstituciebi, miTiTebuli wyaro, nawili II,<br />
gv. 239.<br />
62<br />
andraS Saio, miTiTebuli wyaro, gv. 196.<br />
63<br />
gamonaklisia saqarTveloSi sagangebo an saomari mdgomareobis dros<br />
prezidentis mier gamocemuli dekretebi.<br />
64<br />
ix. saqarTvelos prezidentis 2001 wlis 6 Tebervlis 42 brZanebuleba<br />
`saqarTvelos Sinagan saqmeTa saministros specialuri Semosavlebis<br />
gamoyenebis droebiTi wesis Sesaxeb.“<br />
65<br />
ix. saqarTvelos prezidentis 2007 wlis 2 Tebervlis 85 brZanebuleba<br />
`Savi da feradi liTonebis jarTis, Savi da feradi liTonebis narCenebis<br />
Sesyidvis wesis damtkicebis Sesaxeb.“<br />
66<br />
Указ Президента Азербайджанской Республики «о повышении социальных<br />
пособий», 27 августа 2008 года, данная работа доступна на веб-сайте: [http://<br />
www. president.az].<br />
67<br />
sazRvargareTis qveynebis konstituciebi, miTiTebuli wyaro, nawili II,<br />
gv. 581.<br />
68<br />
Cindy Skach, The ,,newest“ separation of powers: Semi-presidentialism, I•CON,<br />
Volume 5, #1, 2007, p. 98.<br />
69<br />
Cindy Skach, The ,,newest“ separation of powers: Semi-presidentialism,p. 99.<br />
70<br />
Matthew Soberg Shugart, ,,Politicians, Parties, and Presidents: An Exploration of<br />
Post-Authoritarian Institutional Design“, In: Liberalization and Leninist Legacies:<br />
Comparative Perspectives on Democratic Transitions, edited by Beverly Crawford<br />
and Arend Lijphart. University of California Press/University of California<br />
<strong>International</strong> and Area Studies Digital Collection, Edited Volume 96, 1997, p. 62,<br />
is available on the Website: [http://repositories.cdlib.org].<br />
71<br />
sazRvargareTis qveynebis konstituciebi, miTiTebuli wyaro, nawili II,<br />
gv. 239.<br />
72<br />
iqve, gv. 243.<br />
73<br />
sazRvargareTis qveynebis konstituciebi, miTiTebuli wyaro, nawili I,<br />
gv. 480.<br />
74<br />
saqarTvelos konstitucia, miTiTebuli wyaro, gv. 40.<br />
75<br />
Robert Elgie and McMenamin, Iain, Semi-presidentialism and democratic performance,<br />
Japanese <strong>Journal</strong> of Political Science, 2008, 9 (3). p. 22.<br />
222
MALKHAZ NAKASHIDZE *<br />
SOME LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT<br />
IN SOUTH CAUCASUS COUNTRIES<br />
(Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia)<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
According to the evaluation of various experts<br />
and international organizations, democracy<br />
in all three contemporary countries in the<br />
South Caucasus region (Armenia, Azerbaijan,<br />
and Georgia) has serious problems. In the<br />
Freedom House assessment 20<strong>09</strong>, Armenia<br />
(with Political Rights degree 6, Civil Liberty<br />
degree 4) and Georgia (PR–4, CL–4) are estimated<br />
as partly free states, and Azerbaijan<br />
(PR–6, CL–5) belongs to the not-free status<br />
counties. 1 Concurrently, the rating for the<br />
European democratic countries France and<br />
Germany is 1 (the most free) both for political<br />
rights and civil liberties. 2 Within the post-Soviet<br />
area, the most free and democratic state is<br />
considered Lithuania, which also has a rating<br />
of 1 for both political rights and civil liberties 3 .<br />
This comparison indicates a low level of democracy<br />
in South Caucasus counties. These<br />
conclusions together are based on surveys by<br />
democratic institutions. The low rating of democracy<br />
in South Caucasus countries refl ects<br />
mainly the functioning of state government<br />
branches.<br />
Interrelation of government institutions<br />
and the government systems is one of the most<br />
tangible issues in each of the so-called new<br />
democratic states in the post-Soviet space. As<br />
in the entire post-Soviet area, democracy in<br />
the countries of the South Caucasus region,<br />
is directly related to the functioning of government<br />
bodies. In these countries, criticism regarding<br />
the increasing power of the president,<br />
in comparison with the other institutions, becomes<br />
more evident. To the author’s opinion,<br />
such criticism is not unfounded. Only the balanced<br />
and constitutionally organized authority<br />
is empowered to develop democracy. The<br />
signifi cance of the given research is large, as<br />
it aims to evaluate the authority of the parliament<br />
and the president. The work is of importance<br />
not only from a theoretical point of view,<br />
but also because of its practical importance,<br />
as in these countries the issue of changing the<br />
government system is continually discussed 4 .<br />
The aim of the research conducted is<br />
to emphasize the fundamental aspects of<br />
the functioning of two institutions: the president<br />
and the parliament of South Caucasian<br />
countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia)<br />
and their correlation in the legislative sphere.<br />
More precisely, the purpose of the work is to<br />
defi ne: the competence of the parliament and<br />
its real role in South Caucasus countries; the<br />
Constitutional status of the president; the legislative<br />
power of the president which infl uences<br />
and restricts the legislative authority of the<br />
parliament; conditions that must be considered<br />
for balanced relations between the parliament<br />
and the president.<br />
For this goal we must to consider the<br />
president’s legislative authority including the<br />
right to legislative initiative, the right of veto,<br />
the right to issue decrees with the force of law<br />
and competences of the president in the budget-adoption<br />
process.<br />
1. THE AUTHORITY OF THE PARLIAMENT<br />
In the post-Soviet area, there are still considerable<br />
attempts to strengthen the presidential<br />
institute, which ultimately will change the<br />
traditional system of separation of powers.<br />
223
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
Though, at the same time, there appear new<br />
mechanisms for mutual control and cooperation<br />
between the government branches. In all<br />
three countries, election of the president by direct<br />
vote and significant legislative authorities<br />
certainly gives an equal degree of legitimacy to<br />
the president and the parliament. This is why<br />
the head of the state tends to feel equal in status<br />
to the parliament which often causes grading<br />
of the functions of the parliament. In parallel<br />
to the strong power presidents in South<br />
Caucasus counties, the parliament is weak, but<br />
the reason for this, as is frequently noticed in<br />
these countries, is not just the formal authority<br />
of the parliament. Weakness of the parliament<br />
is also the result of granting the president solid<br />
formal functions in the legislative sphere. What<br />
does solid formal functions of the president<br />
mean To elucidate, we must first determine<br />
the weaknesses of the parliament.<br />
Various methods are used in scientifi c<br />
literature to estimate the true role of a legislative<br />
authority. Among them is an evaluation<br />
form proposed by Professor Steven Fish<br />
of the University of California, a method that<br />
spread widely in scientifi c literature. Fish created<br />
the Parliamentary Power Index, which is<br />
based on 32 items (table 1) and predicts the<br />
parliamentary control of the president and the<br />
bureaucracy, the freedom of parliament from<br />
presidential control, and the high authority of<br />
the parliament in specifi c spheres. 5<br />
Following Fish’s simple formula, parliamentary<br />
powers can be estimated. All 32 questions<br />
given in the table must be answered with<br />
“yes” or “no”. and the total number of positive<br />
answers is divided by the number of the questions.<br />
The resulting number is the parliamentary<br />
powers assessment index. Fish stated that<br />
weak legislative bodies hinder democratization<br />
by means of hampering the development<br />
of political parties. With a weak parliament,<br />
political parties cannot develop, and political<br />
parties represent the major mechanisms of<br />
development of political competition and uniting<br />
the people and the elected fi gures. 6 Fish<br />
and Kroenig give the latest assessment of<br />
parliamentary powers (20<strong>09</strong>) in table 2, which<br />
represents the assessment of parliaments of<br />
former Soviet republics, of former Socialist<br />
groups, and of the developed states. For the<br />
purposes of the current paper, the focus is on<br />
the assessment of parliaments of the former<br />
Soviet republics and that of a former Socialist<br />
group (camp), as well as on the developed<br />
democratic countries for comparison.<br />
From these assessments it is apparent that<br />
parliamentary powers of the South Caucasus<br />
states are behind the Baltic States index,<br />
but they exceed the Middle Asia states and<br />
Belarus indicators, which are very low. Here,<br />
an assessment of parliamentary powers of the<br />
former Socialist camp and developed European<br />
countries is also provided. Table 2 provides a<br />
clear picture of the assessment mark given to<br />
the European former socialist group states,<br />
which were released from the Soviet order<br />
together with the South Caucasus countries.<br />
For example, the assessments of the parliaments<br />
of Czech Republic, Macedonia, Croatia,<br />
Bulgaria, Poland, Slovenia, Romania, Finland,<br />
Slovakia, Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina<br />
vary from a 0.63 to a 0.81 index, while those<br />
of Azerbaijani, Georgia, and Armenia are 0.44,<br />
0.56, and 0.59. This indicates that the idea of<br />
parliamentarianism has not been developed<br />
properly in the South Caucasus states, and<br />
consequently, strong legislative bodies could<br />
not have been established. Anothercondition<br />
that should be considered relates to the forms<br />
of government of the given countries. The<br />
parliaments of Germany and Czech Republic<br />
which have a parliamentary government system,<br />
have the highest indexes, and the semipresidential<br />
French parliament is the lowest, at<br />
0.56, which is less than that of Georgia, equal<br />
to Armenia, and more than Azerbaijan.<br />
Evaluation of the parliament authority and<br />
democracy development is conducted annually<br />
by the international authoritative organization<br />
the Freedom House. The 2008 Annual<br />
report stated that though the legislative system<br />
in South Caucasus countries have been<br />
strengthened, there were few concrete steps<br />
made in 2007 that aimed to establish an accountable<br />
and balanced political system.<br />
Accordingly, Armenia’s rating was 5.25. The<br />
report also indicated that the existing Georgian<br />
government system has an unbalanced character,<br />
where the executive power dominates<br />
the other state institutions that have a weak<br />
opposition. Georgia’s rating was reduced from<br />
224
M. NAKASHIDZE * , SOME LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT IN SOUTH CAUCASUS COUNTRIES<br />
5.50 to 5.75. According to the Freedom House<br />
assessment, the balance between the president<br />
and the parliament is also breached in<br />
Azerbaijan, in favour of the president. For this<br />
reason, Azerbaijan’s rating was 6.00. 7<br />
In Fish’s opinion, those countries that<br />
have had comparatively open politics since<br />
the adoption of the constitutionindeed have<br />
stronger legislative bodies. 8 He deems that<br />
where the authoritarian regimes had been<br />
overthrown and a new regime has replaced<br />
them, the power is more concentrated in executive<br />
authority, as people usually require a<br />
concentratation of authority in a more effective<br />
government, and a president usually appears<br />
to be such a structure. 9 As mentioned, parliamentary<br />
powers in South Caucasus states are<br />
rather weak and are conditioned by the widening<br />
legislative power of the president. For our<br />
goal it, is important to estimate the authority of<br />
the presidents of South Caucasus countries in<br />
the legislative sphere.<br />
II. RIGHT TO LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE<br />
We shall start the discussion of presidents’<br />
legislative authority by studying the legislative<br />
initiative. The right to legislative initiative important<br />
for those subjects that are involved in<br />
the legislative process. Specialists indicate<br />
that “the right to legislative initiative is more<br />
important than the control of executive authority<br />
offi cials, while this can defi ne a new policy<br />
content and direction. Generally, the parliament<br />
is the supreme representative body of<br />
legislative power in any democratic countries,<br />
though in practice this is not always the institution<br />
which exercises de facto legislative power.<br />
Within the frames of the semi-presidential system<br />
the legislative authority can be exercised<br />
either by the president, or the parliament, or<br />
even those two institutions might compete<br />
with one another in this sphere”. 10<br />
According to the concept of the classic<br />
presidential and mixed government, as a<br />
rule, a head of the state does not interfere in<br />
the legislative process directly. Traditionally,<br />
the president (as in France) did not had the<br />
right to legislative initiative, but only signed<br />
the adopted laws; however, in post-Soviet<br />
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, various approaches<br />
have been developed. According to<br />
the Constitution of Azerbaijan, the president is<br />
empowered with the right to legislative initiative.<br />
11 As for the president of Armenia, he has<br />
no legislative initiative authority determined<br />
by the Constitution. 12 As for Georgia, from<br />
1995, when it was the Presidential Republic<br />
of Georgia, the president possessed the right<br />
to legislative initiative, and from 2004, when<br />
Georgia’s government changed to a semipresidential<br />
system following to the fi rst paragraph<br />
of article 67 of the Constitution, the<br />
president of Georgia has the right to legislative<br />
initiative only in exclusive cases, 13 though it<br />
should be noted that neither the Constitution,<br />
nor parliament regulation determines what “an<br />
exclusive case” means. In the author’s opinion,<br />
the constitutional amendment somehow<br />
reduced the president’s right to legislative<br />
initiative, though the situation has not actually<br />
been changed, because the president can<br />
reckon any legislative initiative as an exclusive<br />
case and address the parliament. The best<br />
examples of this initiative are Constitutional<br />
changes. Since February 6, 2004, when the<br />
“exclusive case” of legislative initiative of the<br />
president was included to the Constitution,<br />
13 Constitutional <strong>Law</strong>s have been adopted<br />
regarding changes and amendments to the<br />
Constitution. In nearly every case, these<br />
changes were made by the legislative initiative<br />
of the president. In addition to Constitutional<br />
changes, other bills have been discussed by<br />
the initiative of the president. For instance,<br />
on April 13, 2007 the Parliament of Georgia<br />
adopted the <strong>Law</strong> of Georgia “On Creation of<br />
the Appropriate Conditions for the Peaceful<br />
Arrangement of the Confl ict in Former South<br />
Ossetia Autonomous Region”. 14 On December<br />
25, 2005 the parliament also considered<br />
the bill “On Changes to the <strong>Law</strong> on Special<br />
Protection of State Forest Fund and Planting<br />
in Tbilisi and Outskirts” proposed by the president,<br />
and the bill “On Amendment to the <strong>Law</strong><br />
on Privatization of the Agricultural Lands under<br />
State Possession”. 15 On March 13, 2008<br />
the parliament discussed the bills “On changes<br />
and additions to the <strong>Law</strong> on Support to the<br />
Prohibition of Illegal Income Legalization”, “On<br />
changes and Additions to the Criminal Code<br />
of Georgia”, and “On changes and Additions<br />
225
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
to the Organic <strong>Law</strong> of the National Bank of<br />
Georgia”, all of which were initiated by the<br />
president. 16 There are many other cases that<br />
ascertain that the President of Georgia often<br />
exercises his right to legislative initiative.<br />
It must be noted that despite whether<br />
presidents possess this right or not, they realize<br />
their rights to legislative initiative are very<br />
easily granted by their constitutions. For example,<br />
if the president in Armenia is not empowered<br />
with the legislative initiative, this right<br />
is given to the Government of the Republic.<br />
Specialists indicate that the authors of the<br />
Armenian Constitution thus wanted to emphasize<br />
the distance between the legislative powers<br />
of the president and legislative initiative,<br />
and to accurately defi ned the union between<br />
the National Assembly and the government.<br />
From this it is clear that the parliament can<br />
demand to draft and to implement bills of importance<br />
to the state that cannot be drafted<br />
by the president. 17 However, it should be also<br />
mentioned that the government is actually<br />
formed by the president. The right to legislative<br />
initiative in Armenia could be exercised<br />
by members of parliament as well, while the<br />
president has his solid parliamentary majority<br />
in the parliament, with the help of which<br />
the legislative initiatives are often realized.<br />
Even without the parliamentary majority, the<br />
president can exercise proper initiatives even<br />
through a single-party delegate, but in all three<br />
South Caucasus states, the presidents have<br />
a certain privileged standing in the sphere of<br />
legislative initiatives. For instance, in Georgia,<br />
bills proposed by the president are considered<br />
by the parliament immediately. Paragraph 2 of<br />
Article 67 of the Georgian Constitution directly<br />
indicates that “at the request of the President<br />
of Georgia or the Government, the Parliament<br />
shall give the priority to the discussion of a<br />
draft law submitted by the former”. 18 Priority<br />
of initiatives of the president are indicated by<br />
Article 96, paragraph 5 of the Constitution of<br />
the Azerbaijan Republic, which states that “If<br />
draft of the law or decree has been declared<br />
by the President of the Azerbaijan Republic…,<br />
then the specifi ed term (two months) shall<br />
constitute 20 days. Such urgent draft-laws,<br />
according to Article 97, paragraph 2 of the<br />
Constitution “are submitted to the President of<br />
the Azerbaijan Republic for signing within 24<br />
hours from the moment of its acceptance”. 19<br />
However, there are no such direct indications<br />
in the Constitution of Armenia. Based on the<br />
role of the president, such priority could be given<br />
to the president through his party majority.<br />
The presidents of Armenia have always had<br />
such majority, in every convocation of the parliament.<br />
Therefore, the right to legislative initiative<br />
of the president of Georgia and Azerbaijan<br />
is an indicator of their right to be involved in<br />
the legislative process, which shall become a<br />
subject of criticism. This is usually considered<br />
exceeding the president’s authority and causing<br />
government imbalance. 20 It should also be<br />
mentioned that broadening of the circle of subjects<br />
having the right to legislative initiative, on<br />
the one hand, indicates the broadening of the<br />
democratic basis of legislative activities of the<br />
representative bodies; but, on the other hand,<br />
this causes certain complications in the lawmaking<br />
process as there appear many centres<br />
for elaborating draft laws, among which there<br />
is no compliance. Authorizing only members<br />
of the parliament with the right to legislative<br />
initiative does not mean the takeover of the<br />
legislative activities of representative bodies<br />
and the withdrawal of executive branches<br />
from law-making activities. In the USA, though<br />
the executive authority is not offi cially authorized<br />
with legislative initiative, the law-making<br />
program is represented in the annual address<br />
of the president. 21<br />
The annual addresses of the presidents in<br />
South Caucasus states have only a character,<br />
and their rights to legislative initiatives are not<br />
exercised in such a form at all. For instance,<br />
according to the Rules of Procedure of the<br />
Parliament of Georgia during the hearing of the<br />
annual reports of the president, there are no<br />
debates, and even the MPs are deprived of the<br />
right to put a question to the president. 22 This<br />
was reasoned by the fact that South Caucasian<br />
nation presidents are constitutionally empowered<br />
with the right to legislative initiative, and<br />
that the presidents have veto power. A simultaneous<br />
existence of the right to legislative initiative<br />
and the delaying veto are not usual among<br />
traditional presidencies, and the parliamentary<br />
and semi-presidential systems. Having both<br />
rights concentrated in one hand increases the<br />
226
M. NAKASHIDZE * , SOME LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT IN SOUTH CAUCASUS COUNTRIES<br />
possibility of having an influence on the parliament,<br />
and consequently reduces a discretional<br />
authority of the parliament in the legislative<br />
policy sphere. 23 According to the traditional<br />
French government model, a formal lack of<br />
these presidential powers does not mean the<br />
president’s position in the legislative process is<br />
weak. In a semi-presidential system, when the<br />
president rules as the government through a<br />
parliamentary majority, the president possesses<br />
the right to legislative initiative as well. The<br />
president has a primary right to determine a<br />
policy in the parliament with the help of his party<br />
majority. 24 However, the authors of the constitutions<br />
of Azerbaijan and Georgia decided to<br />
grant wide authority of legislative initiative to<br />
their presidents by the constitution. In the author’s<br />
opinion, the reason for this is the fact that<br />
the party system is weakly developed in these<br />
countries, based on the fact that the strength of<br />
presidential position cannot depend merely on<br />
the election system. The fact that the president<br />
in semi-presidential republics must not have<br />
the right to legislative initiative shows that the<br />
legislative process in the state should be led by<br />
the parliament. For parliament, controlling the<br />
power to pass legislation not only means that<br />
it can amend or veto proposals from the government,<br />
it also indicates that the parliament<br />
can decide the direction and content of policies.<br />
In this case, even when the president has<br />
executive authority to nominate the premier or<br />
to form the cabinet, his or her political authority<br />
is still decreased by the fact that the parliament<br />
is dominant. The president cannot control the<br />
legislative agenda. 25 Thus, the presidents of<br />
the South Caucasian states possess the right<br />
to legislative initiative not in the determined<br />
spheres of politics, but in an unlimited sphere<br />
of the president, which empowers the president<br />
to lead the legislative process. This is an<br />
indicator of the increase in presidential power<br />
and the weakening of legislative authority. For<br />
this reason, Shugart and Carey emphasized<br />
that a president with broad authority is a very<br />
problematic. 26<br />
A regime with a broad legislative authority<br />
of the president is as problematic as the issue<br />
of division of powers between the Assembly<br />
and the President. 27 The right of the president<br />
to legislative initiative does not conform to the<br />
separation of power principle, and, therefore, it<br />
should be either limited or abolished completely.<br />
As for the right of the president to impose a<br />
veto on the draft law adopted by the parliament,<br />
there exists certain logic for its maintenance. A<br />
certain protective mechanism is necessary for<br />
such occasions if the parliament adopts either<br />
a hastily or poorly considered law. 28<br />
III. THE RIGHT OF A PRESIDENT TO VETO<br />
AND VETO OVERRIDE<br />
The aforementioned scholars all fi gured<br />
out the right of a president to veto amongst<br />
his legislative authorities, a right which he<br />
can impose on an entire draft law. In addition,<br />
certain attention is paid to the issue of veto<br />
override by the parliament. Article 110 of the<br />
Constitution of Azerbaijan states that “The<br />
President of the Azerbaijan Republic signs the<br />
laws within 56 days after their presentation. If<br />
the President of the Azerbaijan Republic has<br />
objections against a law he may return it to<br />
Milli Majlis of the Azerbaijan Republic within<br />
[the] specifi ed term without signing, together<br />
with his comments”. 29 According to Article 55,<br />
paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Armenia:<br />
“The President of the Republic shall sign and<br />
promulgate within twenty one days of receipt,<br />
laws passed by the National Assembly; during<br />
this period, the President may remand a law<br />
to the National Assembly with objections and<br />
recommendations requesting new deliberations.<br />
The President shall sign and publish the<br />
law within fi ve days of the second passing of<br />
such law by the National Assembly”. 30<br />
Following Article 68 of the Constitution<br />
of Georgia: “The President shall sign and<br />
promulgate the law within a term of ten days<br />
or return it to the Parliament with reasoned<br />
remarks”. 31 Thus, the president in all three<br />
Republics possesses veto power, not justpartially,<br />
but towards the entire draft of a law,<br />
which makes this institution a serious controller<br />
of the legislative process. Hence, the specialists<br />
indicate that “lately in the Azerbaijan<br />
Republic there has been originated an absolute<br />
(unlimited) veto towards the constitutional<br />
laws that is the superior power for the parliament;<br />
generally this is atypical to the developed<br />
democratic states and is regarded as<br />
227
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
the legal anachronism”. 32 Here they consider<br />
the fi rst sentence of Article 110, paragraph<br />
2 of the Constitution of Azerbaijan, which<br />
states: “Should the President of the Azerbaijan<br />
Republic fail to sign Constitutional laws they<br />
will not come into force”. 33 This article empowers<br />
the president of Azerbaijan with the right<br />
to refrain from signing the law without explanation.<br />
It must be said that this right leaves<br />
no alternative for the parliament but to obey<br />
the decision of the president, which represents<br />
a rough interference in the legislative<br />
body competences. In this case, the Georgian<br />
Constitution stated the rule of signing the law<br />
by a president of the parliament, the second<br />
highest offi cial in the state. We regard the<br />
similar norm as an important guarantee of the<br />
legislative authority and status protection.<br />
According to the existing practice, a balancing<br />
measure of the presidential veto is its<br />
override by the parliament, i.e. the presidential<br />
veto, as a rule, does not bear absolute character.<br />
It is impossible to disregard the necessity<br />
of the right to veto among the powers of a head<br />
of the state, while the president is a constitutional<br />
guarantee for the normal functioning of<br />
the state and he or she must possess certain<br />
delaying mechanisms for the adoption of an<br />
unfavorable law by the parliament. Balance<br />
to veto power is the absence of the right of<br />
legislative authorities to override it. These two<br />
means must ensure the balance of powers in<br />
relation to the president and the parliament<br />
within the legislative process. But, if these<br />
two mechanisms put any of these sides in the<br />
privileged condition, then there might be a violation<br />
of the principle of separation of powers.<br />
From this point of view, the situation in South<br />
Caucasus states is not perfect.<br />
According to the Constitution, the president<br />
of Azerbaijan is a guarantee of judicial<br />
power on the one hand; but, on the other<br />
hand, the president has absolute veto power<br />
on constitutional law. This restricts the constitutional<br />
courts’ authority. Such an imbalance<br />
of powers is obvious and does not serve as<br />
the most successful national element in a contemporary<br />
constitutional system.<br />
More important is the issue of political expediency<br />
that arrises during the evaluation of<br />
the constitutional laws and Constitutional Court<br />
decisions by the head of the state. The veto<br />
power on the constitutional laws “will overweigh”<br />
the legislative prerogatives of the parliament,<br />
but the system of reciprocal delay and<br />
balance in this part does not workrealistically. 34<br />
An important authority of the parliament is<br />
to override the presidential veto, though due<br />
to the existing practice, cases of overriding<br />
the presidential veto are lesser than the occasions<br />
of considering remarks and re-adoptions<br />
of the law. The South Caucasus states constitutions<br />
empower the parliament with different<br />
mechanisms to override the presidential veto.<br />
According to Article 110, paragraph 2 of the<br />
Constitution of Azerbaijan, a repeated voting<br />
is more likely to override the presidential veto<br />
with a large majority of votes than the fi rst voting.<br />
Namely, the veto is considered overridden<br />
if the parliament accepts by a majority of 95<br />
votes, laws that have been accepted previously<br />
by a majority of 83 votes By a majority<br />
of 83 votes, the laws that have been accepted<br />
previously by a majority of 63 votes, come into<br />
force after repeated voting. 35 As is stated in<br />
Article 72 of the Constitution of Armenia, the<br />
presidential veto is considered overridden if<br />
the remanded law is voted with a majority of<br />
the number of deputies. 36 But in Georgia, the<br />
presidential veto is deemed overridden if the<br />
initial redaction of the draft law is supported<br />
by not less than three fi fths of the number<br />
of members of the parliament on the current<br />
nominal list, and two thirds of the total number<br />
of members of the parliament for the constitutional<br />
law. 37 The specialist mentioned that<br />
the veto override procedure in the Republic of<br />
Armenia is less successful. In hi opinion, for<br />
this norm to work properly, it must be based<br />
on real life, and not just remain on paper. The<br />
presidential veto should be overridden by the<br />
qualifying majority of the attending number of<br />
National Assembly deputies, and by not the<br />
majority of the total number of deputies of the<br />
National Assembly. On the whole, a mechanism<br />
should be created that would prevent<br />
the president from misusing his power of veto,<br />
and would oblige him to treat his power more<br />
seriously. 38<br />
As we can see, in all three countries the<br />
parliament has fewer mechanisms against<br />
pre sidential veto, while considering herein<br />
228
M. NAKASHIDZE * , SOME LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT IN SOUTH CAUCASUS COUNTRIES<br />
that the presidents always had the parliamentary<br />
majority in the parliaments of late convocations.<br />
Notwithstanding, the Constitution of<br />
Azerbaijan states a rather complicated rule of<br />
the presidential veto to override in parallel to<br />
the legislative initiative and the practically absolute<br />
veto. According to this rule, in contrast<br />
to primary voting, nearly 20 more votes are<br />
needed for veto override. The second paragraph<br />
of Article 94 determines that the law on<br />
elections of the president, parliament, status<br />
of the deputy, and related referendums are approved<br />
by a majority of 83 votes. To override a<br />
veto, 95 votes are needed, which is 12 votes<br />
more. 39 More precisely, Article 94, par. 2 of the<br />
Constitution states that excluding issues regarding<br />
elections of the president, parliament,<br />
deputy status, and referendums, questions under<br />
the parliament competence are approved<br />
by a majority of 63 votes. 40<br />
Practice has proved that in conditions of<br />
such a wide legislative authority, the president<br />
does not need to exercise the right of veto at<br />
all. He can easily pass his draft laws to his<br />
obedient parliament, though there have been<br />
cases when the use of veto power was not related<br />
to the competition with the parliament.<br />
For example, the president of Azerbaijan vetoed<br />
the law on “Public Television” just after<br />
its adoption by Milli Majlis, but the European<br />
Council experts seriously criticized it. President<br />
Ilham Aliyev did not sign the law, and returned<br />
it to Milli Majlis. There occurred a paradoxical<br />
situation–the president set a veto on the law<br />
that, to say it provisionally, was drafted by himself<br />
(his Administration). 41 Therefore, powers<br />
of the two subjects participating in the legislative<br />
process in Azerbaijan–as are the president<br />
and parliament are distinctly determined<br />
in favor of the president–extends the unlimited<br />
authority of the president. This represents a<br />
violation of the power division principle.<br />
The President of Georgia, Eduard<br />
Shevardnadze, applied the right to veto notwithstanding<br />
that during the entire period of his<br />
presidency he had the parliamentary majority<br />
in the Parliament. President Shevardnadze<br />
referred to this right and vetoed the bills that<br />
had been sent to him for his signature. The<br />
President vetoed six draft laws in 2003, three<br />
drafts of the Organic <strong>Law</strong> on changes and<br />
additions to the Organic <strong>Law</strong> of Georgia “On<br />
General Courts”, a draft law on changes to the<br />
Georgian <strong>Law</strong> “On Social and Legal Protection<br />
Guarantees of the Judges”, a draft law of<br />
Georgia on making changes to the “Labor<br />
Code of Georgia”, and a draft of the <strong>Law</strong> of<br />
Georgia on changes and additions to the “Tax<br />
Code of Georgia”. In 2002, the president vetoed<br />
a draft law on changes and additions to<br />
the <strong>Law</strong> of Georgia “On Budgetary System<br />
and Budgetary Authorities” and the draft law<br />
of Georgia “On the Independent Regulatory<br />
Bodies”. 42<br />
The power to veto has obtained a certain<br />
controlling function from the president as well.<br />
From the position of a head of the state, the<br />
reasons for use of veto vary and may include<br />
incompliance of legislation with the constitution,<br />
violation of the constitutional authorities<br />
of the parliament, violation of human rights,<br />
lack of protection of legislative technique, restriction<br />
of juridical branch independence, etc.<br />
The president, who is a guarantee of the constitutional<br />
order defense, is authorized to not<br />
sign the law for on grounds, and to return it to<br />
the parliament with his remarks.<br />
There was an interesting occasion in<br />
Georgian practice when the president of<br />
Georgia set a veto on the draft of the Organic<br />
<strong>Law</strong> on changes and additions to the Organic<br />
<strong>Law</strong> of Georgia “On Courts of General<br />
Jurisdiction”, reasoning that this draft did not<br />
envisage a judgment of the Constitution Court<br />
of Georgia. The draft foresaw the prolongation<br />
of the terms of offi ce for those judges of<br />
the Abkhazian Autonomous Republic regional<br />
(city) courts which have had this authority<br />
before the judges’ selection procedures by<br />
the competition. On February 26, 2006, the<br />
Constitutional Court of Georgia recognized<br />
Article 85, 2 paragraph 1 of the Organic <strong>Law</strong><br />
“On Courts of General Jurisdiction” as unconstitutional<br />
in conformity with the fi rst paragraph<br />
of Article 29 of the Georgian Constitution,<br />
which anticipated the rule of imposing judicial<br />
authority. The President stated that “…under<br />
the present draft law there will be repeatedly<br />
adopted the norm and term, which were recognized<br />
unconstitutional, and thus we will add<br />
the paragraph, which had been deleted previously;<br />
all this comes in confl ict with the second<br />
229
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
paragraph of article 89 of the Constitution of<br />
Georgia, the paragraph 4 of the article 25 of the<br />
Organic <strong>Law</strong> of Georgia “On the Constitutional<br />
Court of Georgia”, also with the requirements<br />
of paragraph 3 of the article 32 of the <strong>Law</strong> of<br />
Georgia “On Normative Acts”. 43<br />
The aforementioned authority of the<br />
president is important from the point of view<br />
of protection the power separation principle,<br />
but it is ineffective and can be justifi ed only<br />
if the second subject of the government–the<br />
parliament–will be empowered with the proper<br />
mechanism of override veto by the constitution.<br />
Otherwise such a right to veto would<br />
serve for the willful growth of presidential<br />
power. It should be noted here that granting<br />
a president in the South Caucasus states with<br />
the right of legislative initiative, and, concurrently,<br />
suspensive veto power (which is practically<br />
absolute in Azerbaijan) reduces and<br />
weakens the function of legislative authority in<br />
the government system.<br />
IV. ISSUE OF NORMATIVE ACTS HAVING THE<br />
SAME LEGAL FORCE AS THAT OF A LAW<br />
The presidential power to issue a normative<br />
act having force of law is one of the strategic<br />
issues of the relation between a president<br />
and a parliament. Lately, especially in<br />
post-Soviet countries, a lawmaking practice<br />
of the president has been developed. Various<br />
terms have been stated in scientifi c literature<br />
to imply the above mentioned powers of the<br />
president, such as the term “delegated legislation”.<br />
O’Donnell asserted that there is a tendency<br />
to increase the executive authority of<br />
the president of particular democratic states,<br />
at the expense of the legislative and juridical<br />
bodies.O’Donnell indicated such systems the<br />
delegated democratic states. 44 Scholars often<br />
use the term “Decree authority”. 45 Russian<br />
author Luchin indicated that “a peculiar lawmaking<br />
power of a head of the state described<br />
in “decree law” is usually exercised in accordance<br />
with the issues of parliament authorities<br />
and by their legal force such acts are equal to<br />
the laws”. 46 Other authors have taken a different<br />
attitude and feel the acts examined by the<br />
executive authority have the same legal force<br />
as that of the law, though by their form, they<br />
are also sub-legislative normative acts. 47 N. A.<br />
Sakharov made reference to the existing practice<br />
of exercising the legislative authorities by<br />
the Latino American, Asian, and African state<br />
presidents and considered that this confronts<br />
constitutionalism principles and represents a<br />
modern form of power usurpation. 48 A. Shaio<br />
wrote that “an absence of a norm prohibiting<br />
the authority delegation is more dangerous in<br />
the system of reciprocal delay and inter-balance<br />
of the authority branches. In the event of<br />
lacking such norm, the legislative body might<br />
even avoid executing its constitutional task,<br />
but the executive authority may obtain a function<br />
of the parliament without its responsibility<br />
on its own decision, that would fi nally unable<br />
you to foresee law”. 49<br />
It must be said that this authority of the president<br />
is not unknown to the South Caucasus<br />
states. Based on the legislative acts adopted<br />
by the parliament, the president is authorized<br />
to issue sub-legislative normative acts, as well<br />
as legislative acts on occasions determined<br />
by the constitution. With regards to the parliament,<br />
it is important that the president does<br />
not infringe upon the legislative body authorities<br />
during his lawmaking activity. The constitutional<br />
principle guarantees it. According to<br />
this principle, a head of the state has a right<br />
to determine the relations regulating norms<br />
with his legal acts, and only on the basis of<br />
norms that are stated by the legislative body.<br />
A president does not have the power to regulate<br />
various relations independently, and any<br />
such case would be seen as a violation of the<br />
constitution. However, it should be mentioned<br />
that in contemporary conditions, especially in<br />
the semi-presidential republics, considering<br />
the growth of the presidential authority, the<br />
president’s independent lawmaking practice<br />
has become more evident. Specialists have<br />
noted that if the decisions on basic issues are<br />
taken at the level of executive authority orders<br />
and other normative acts, the process is equal<br />
to a violation of constitutional legality. Thus,<br />
the parliament is prevented from exercising its<br />
legislative function which is its constitutional<br />
objective, but the determination and execution<br />
of the state objectives are gathered under<br />
the competence of a single branch of authority.<br />
50 To maintain the constitutional frames<br />
230
M. NAKASHIDZE * , SOME LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT IN SOUTH CAUCASUS COUNTRIES<br />
of relations between the parliament and the<br />
president and to keep a balance of authority<br />
would be possible only if the presidential and<br />
parliamentary lawmaking activities are sharply<br />
distinguished.<br />
The constitutions of the South Caucasus<br />
states foresee such cases as when the president<br />
shall adopt legislative acts similar to the<br />
parliament. For instance, according to Article<br />
73, paragraph 1, point “q”, “the President, from<br />
the dissolution of the Parliament to the first<br />
convocation of the newly elected Parliament,<br />
in the exclusive cases, be entitled to issue<br />
a decree having the force of law on tax and<br />
budgetary issues, which shall be invalid in<br />
case it is not approved by the newly elected<br />
Parliament within a month from the first convocation”.<br />
Following to the 3rd paragraph of<br />
the article 93: “The President shall approve the<br />
State Budget by a decree if it is not approved<br />
by the Parliament within a term established by<br />
the Constitution”. And due to paragraph 7 of<br />
the same article, in case of dissolution of the<br />
parliament due to an unapproved state budget,<br />
the president shall approve the state budget by<br />
a decree and submit to the Parliament within<br />
a month of the recognition of the authority of<br />
the newly elected Parliament. Regarding a<br />
president’s issuance of decrees having the<br />
force of law on tax and budgetary issues specialists<br />
have indicated that this is the delegation<br />
of legislative authorities of the parliament<br />
to the president and the conceptual negation<br />
of the power separation principle stated by<br />
the constitution towards legislative authority.<br />
By granting this right in the tax and budgetary<br />
sphere, the president, instead of the parliament,<br />
becomes a legislative policy determiner<br />
(for a period of about four months). Specialists<br />
also fairly remark that the major reason for establishing<br />
the parliament was to determine tax<br />
policy. 51 As stated by Article 73, par. 1, point “h”<br />
of the Constitution, “the President of Georgia,<br />
in the case of a state of emergency shall issue<br />
the decrees having the force of law, which<br />
shall remain in force until the end of the state<br />
of emergency… The decrees shall be submitted<br />
to the Parliament when it is assembled…<br />
”. 52 According to the first paragraph of Article<br />
5 of the <strong>Law</strong> of Georgia “On Normative Acts”,<br />
decrees of the president of Georgia shall be<br />
the legislative acts of Georgia similar to the<br />
Constitution of Georgia and laws. 53 On the basis<br />
of such norms, the president is authorized<br />
with legislative power that is a function of the<br />
representative body. The world practice shows<br />
that imposing taxes and approving the budget<br />
has always been the function of the representative<br />
body. Therefore, the president might not<br />
have the right to issue such acts that causes of<br />
a reduction of legislative power. Another issue<br />
is the right of issuing decrees in case of a state<br />
of emergency or martial law, as in such cases<br />
there exists a specific regime, when the representative<br />
body of the state is deprived of the<br />
possibility to exercise its constitutional authorities<br />
properly, though these decrees still are to<br />
be submitted to the parliament for approval.<br />
The Constitution of the Republic of<br />
Armenia does not directly emphasize the right<br />
of the president to issue acts having the force<br />
of law. Article 56 of the constitution only states<br />
that the president of the republic may issue orders<br />
and decrees which shall not contravene<br />
the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia and<br />
the laws; these acts shall be executed throughout<br />
the Republic. 54 Also, the Constitution of<br />
Azerbaijan does not directly emphasize that<br />
the president shall issue the acts with the force<br />
of law, though the Constitution indicates that<br />
the president shall issue the important normative<br />
acts. According to Article 1<strong>09</strong>, paragraph<br />
32 of the Constitution, the president of the<br />
Azerbaijan Republic settles other questions<br />
which, under the present Constitution, do not<br />
pertain to the competence of Milli Majlis of the<br />
Azerbaijan Republic and the legal courts of<br />
the Azerbaijan Republic”. 55 Furthermore, due<br />
to Article 113 of the Constitution, in establishing<br />
general procedures the president of the<br />
Azerbaijan Republic issues decrees, as per<br />
all other questions–he issues orders 56 . Based<br />
on the above mentioned norms of the constitution,<br />
we can conclude that the president of<br />
Azerbaijan has the right to issue acts having<br />
the force of law regarding any issue that, under<br />
the Constitution, do not belong to the competence<br />
of Milli Majlis and the judicial branch.<br />
This gives the president serious authority.<br />
This is proved under the Constitution of the<br />
Azerbaijan Republic as the rule of activity of<br />
the Cabinet of Ministers is defi ned by the presi-<br />
231
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
dent of the Republic, 57 For example, the rule of<br />
activity of the Government of Georgia is determined<br />
by the law that should be submitted to<br />
the parliament. 58 Also by the Constitution of the<br />
Republic of Armenia, the structure and activity<br />
of the government are determined by the constitution<br />
and by laws. 59 It should be noted that<br />
the president of Georgia is authorized to suspend<br />
or abrogate acts of the government and<br />
the bodies of the executive power (ministries),<br />
if they are in contradiction with the Constitution<br />
of Georgia. 60 With this right, the president<br />
can invade the functions of the Constitutional<br />
Court. The Constitution of Azerbaijan went<br />
further and stated that the president has a<br />
power to cancel not only decrees and orders<br />
of the Government (the Cabinet of Ministers)<br />
of the Azerbaijan Republic, but also the acts<br />
of the Cabinet of Ministers of Nakhichevan<br />
Autonomous Republic and the local executive<br />
bodies. 61 In Shaio’s opinion, “notwithstanding<br />
that legislation activity is admitted as a duty<br />
of the parliament in majority of the constitutions,<br />
the determination of the content of laws<br />
is still rendered to the executive government<br />
bureaucracy. This may violate the independence<br />
of legislative function and accordingly,<br />
the balance of the separation of powers on<br />
‘technical level’”. 62<br />
It should be said that although by legislation<br />
of the South Caucasus states, presidential<br />
acts are not deemed legislative acts 63 (except<br />
those acts issued in a state of emergency), the<br />
aforementioned norms of constitutions and the<br />
existing practice of these countries prove that<br />
the orders of the president often have the force<br />
of law. Meanwhile, where is not anticipated by<br />
the constitution on what issues the president<br />
can issue orders, the president will have unlimited<br />
opportunity to undertake a broad range<br />
of legislative activity. This could be ascertained<br />
by the presidents of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and<br />
Georgia, who often issue orders on issues that<br />
are not regulated by legislation. For example,<br />
in 2001 there was issued an order of the president<br />
of Georgia “Regarding Temporary Rule<br />
on the Use of Special Incomes of the Ministry<br />
of Internal Affairs of Georgia”, 64 under which<br />
the president set a rule of tax division that<br />
was a function of the parliament.In addition ,<br />
the rule of purchase of the remaining ferrous<br />
and nonferrous metals is determined by the<br />
Presidential Order, 65 which was issued only on<br />
the base of the <strong>Law</strong> of Georgia “On Normative<br />
Acts”. It is our opinion that this issue should<br />
be regulated by the Civil Code and the <strong>Law</strong> on<br />
Entrepreneurs.<br />
One of the indicators of issuance of presidential<br />
decrees having the force of law is the<br />
practice that is widespread in these countries,<br />
as these presidents issue orders on the basis<br />
of various laws so that such a right is not<br />
determined by their country constitutions. The<br />
constitutions defi ne that except those cases<br />
envisaged by the constitution, the presidents<br />
exercise other authorities as stated by law.<br />
Based on these laws, the presidents are often<br />
empowered to issue orders. In practice,<br />
there are met many laws which state the rule<br />
of regulation of various issues by presidential<br />
orders. It could be said that the legislators often<br />
avoid total legislative regulation of issues<br />
and leave it to the last word from the president.<br />
For instance, the order of the president<br />
of Azerbaijan defi ned the amount of allowances<br />
for socially unprotected citizens, 66 which<br />
enabled the president to increase or reduce<br />
the amount of social assistance allowances<br />
without submission to the parliament. The acts<br />
issued in such case have the same legal force<br />
as of the laws adopted by the parliament.<br />
A president’s right to issue acts having the<br />
force of law is often connected to the semipresidential<br />
model of France, which became<br />
the base of the government model of the<br />
South Caucasus states. However, according<br />
to Article 19 of the Constitution of France, offi<br />
cial decisions of the president of the Republic<br />
other than exceptional cases (such as appointment<br />
of the prime minister, holding a referendum,<br />
dissolution of National Assembly,<br />
state of emergency) shall be countersigned by<br />
the prime minister and, where applicable, by<br />
the responsible ministers. 67 Hence, there are<br />
no mechanisms envisaged of countersigning<br />
in the South Caucasus states. The president<br />
makes such decisions independently and is<br />
directly responsible for the norms anticipated<br />
in such acts. Moreover, the president in these<br />
countries has a right to cancel the acts of the<br />
government and other executive authority<br />
bodies.<br />
232
M. NAKASHIDZE * , SOME LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT IN SOUTH CAUCASUS COUNTRIES<br />
Because the president has such a wide<br />
legislative function his status is often evaluated<br />
very strictly. In Cindy Skach’s opinion, a<br />
problematic aspect of democracy is the fact<br />
that the president borrows constitutionalized<br />
autonomy for a long period, which turns semipresidential<br />
democratic countries into constitutional<br />
dictatorships. 68 A constitutional dictatorship<br />
describes a situation in which executives<br />
make extended use of emergency and<br />
decree powers to legislate in hard times. This<br />
extended use differs from any brief, conservative<br />
use of such tools intended to protect the<br />
nation when under threat from an immediate,<br />
clear and present danger. This situation, typically<br />
extended in both time and scope, was<br />
fi rst described by Clinton Rossiter. Such a<br />
state of affairs violates the most basic, fundamental<br />
requirements of democratic governance:<br />
public inclusion in, and the possibility<br />
of public contestation of government. In bypassing<br />
the citizens’ elected representatives<br />
for an extended period and legislating exclusively<br />
through decree or emergency powers,<br />
executives–through their constitutional<br />
dictatorships–concentrate decision making to<br />
a small group of individuals whom the president<br />
appoints as members of the presidential<br />
administration. This group is often under the<br />
complete control of the president, rather than<br />
being responsible to the legislature. 69<br />
If the legislative body is led by a disciplined<br />
party majority or the coalition, this will<br />
make the presidential decree authority uninteresting:<br />
the presidential decrees are always<br />
changing or they are rejected by the parliament.<br />
The president shall not achieve any results<br />
by issuing decrees. However, if the legislative<br />
body is coordinated badly because of<br />
the feeble parties, the president may acquire<br />
the advantaged position with his favourable<br />
results. 70<br />
V. AUTHORITIES IN THE BUDGET ADOPTION<br />
PROCESS<br />
Adoption of the budget is an important issue<br />
in relations of the executive and legislative<br />
authorities. Drafting of the budget by the government<br />
is characteristic to a semi-residential<br />
republic, while the document is also submitted<br />
to the legislative authority. In South Caucasus<br />
states, this process is under the serious control<br />
of the president, despite the fact that the drafting<br />
and adoption of the state budget is the prerogative<br />
of the government, the process could<br />
not be carried out without participation of the<br />
president. According to the second paragraph<br />
of Article 1<strong>09</strong> of Constitution of the Azerbaijan<br />
Republic, the president of the republic submits<br />
the state budget for the Azerbaijan Republic for<br />
approval by Milli Majlis. 71 But due to Article 119<br />
of the Constitution, the Cabinet of Ministers<br />
submits the state budget to the president of<br />
the Azerbaijan Republic. 72 In Armenia, the<br />
president does not participate in submission<br />
of the state budget to the parliament. As stated<br />
in Article 89, paragraph 2 of the Constitution<br />
of Armenia, the government shall submit the<br />
draft state budget to the National Assembly<br />
for approval. 73 Following Article 93 of the<br />
Constitution of Georgia, the Government of<br />
Georgia, following the agreement with the<br />
committees of the parliament on the basic<br />
data and directions, shall be authorized to<br />
submit the draft budget to the parliament by<br />
the consent of the president of Georgia. If the<br />
parliament shall not approve the submitted<br />
budgetwithin three months, the president of<br />
Georgia is authorized to dissolve the parliament<br />
and schedule extraordinary elections.<br />
In case of dissolution of the parliament due to<br />
unapproved state budget, the president shall<br />
approve the state budget by a decree and<br />
submit to the parliament within a month from<br />
the recognition of the authority of the newly<br />
elected Parliament. 74<br />
As we can see, the role of the president is<br />
special in the budgetary law adoption process<br />
in all three republics. While the Constitution<br />
in Armenia does not directly state the budget<br />
submission to the National Assembly by the<br />
president, in Azerbaijan it is directly indicated<br />
that submission of the law on budget to Milli<br />
Majlis is only by the president. However, the<br />
president in Georgia shall not submit the law<br />
on the state budget to the parliament according<br />
to the constitution, but without his consent<br />
this procedure shall not be carried out. In our<br />
opinion, thisequals budget submission power,<br />
for the government is limited by the presidential<br />
authorities in this sphere. These authori-<br />
233
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
ties are more strengthened in Georgia by the<br />
fact that the president has a right to approve<br />
the budget by his normative acts having the<br />
force of law.<br />
CONCLUSION<br />
Constitutional practice of all three states<br />
of the South Caucasus region emphasizes<br />
one common tendency–a particular status of<br />
the president has become clear, along with<br />
the adoption of Constitutions. From a practical<br />
point of view, only the status of the president<br />
and parliament of Armenia (out of three<br />
countries) less corresponds the basic principle<br />
of a semi-presidential system. In Georgia,<br />
the balance between the parliament and the<br />
president is completely violated in favour of<br />
the latter, but the Azerbaijani system does not<br />
correspond to any practice at all, and it could<br />
be discussed as a super-presidential model.<br />
Deviation from this principle at the expense<br />
of other branches of power added additional<br />
competences of the president that are<br />
not characteristic of the presidential or the<br />
semi-presidential system. First of all, in these<br />
countries, the strong power of the president<br />
on the constitutional level could be asserted<br />
by the granted considerable legislative authorities.<br />
In Azerbaijan and Georgia, the president<br />
is actually empowered with the unlimited<br />
power to legislative initiative while defi ning an<br />
agenda of the legislative body. All this contradicts<br />
the principle of separation of powers,<br />
and, thereby, the constitutional nature of the<br />
institute of parliament. This is why the right to<br />
legislative initiative of the president of Georgia<br />
should be cancelled.<br />
Presidential power is further strengthened<br />
by the right to legislative veto (in Azerbaijan,<br />
this is an absolute veto). Veto power is generally<br />
known as presidential in parliamentary<br />
and semi-presidential systems, although its<br />
coexistence with the president’s right to legislative<br />
initiative is rather risky. Veto power<br />
of the president is considered a balancing<br />
mechanism with regard to the parliament if the<br />
president does not have the right to legislative<br />
initiative. In such a case, the president is<br />
authorized to block legislative initiatives of the<br />
parliamentary majority or a prime minister. But<br />
when the president simultaneously possesses<br />
legislative initiative and veto powers, it means<br />
the parliament is restricted and cannot act<br />
freely, and the president has the fi nal word at<br />
both the initial stage of the legislative process<br />
andat the end when signing the draft law.<br />
Presidential power is also strengthened<br />
by a complicated procedure to override veto.<br />
In Azerbaijan, repeated voting with 12 and 20<br />
additional votes are needed for veto override,<br />
but in Georgia, less than two thirds of the total<br />
number of the members of parliament are necessary.<br />
It is only the Constitution of Armenia<br />
that foresees veto override by a majority of<br />
the total number of parliament members. In<br />
Azerbaijan and Armenia, if fragmentation of<br />
political forces in the parliament compels a<br />
president to use his right to veto, it would be<br />
practically impossible to override it from the<br />
parliament, because of the existing constitutional<br />
norms. In our opinion to override veto<br />
in Armenia, the majority of the members of<br />
the parliament present rather than the majority<br />
of the total number of the members of<br />
the National Assembly. We feel it isadvisable<br />
to simplify the complicated procedure of<br />
veto override in Azerbaijan, so that the same<br />
number of votes would be necessary as stated<br />
for its primary voting.<br />
The serious concentration of legislative<br />
powers in the hands of the president is supported<br />
by the right to issue decrees having<br />
the force of laws. As a rule, the right to issue<br />
decrees having the force of law is given to<br />
the presidents during a state of emergency<br />
or martial law, and only because in such a<br />
specifi c situation the legislative body has less<br />
possibility to exercise its legislative authority.<br />
Even in such cases, presidential acts require<br />
the approval of parliament. In parallel to such<br />
practice in post-Soviet countries, including the<br />
South Caucasus states, such norms or practices<br />
have been established as undertaking<br />
legislative function by the president.<br />
The right of the president to issue decrees<br />
having the force of law on tax and budgetary<br />
issues in case of the dissolution of the parliament,<br />
and the approval of the budget contradicts<br />
the principle of separation of powers and<br />
increases presidential power. The constitution<br />
of Armenia does not directly determine such a<br />
234
M. NAKASHIDZE * , SOME LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT IN SOUTH CAUCASUS COUNTRIES<br />
right. Especially troubling are those norms in<br />
the Constitution of Azerbaijan, which empower<br />
the president with the right to make decisions<br />
on any issues that are beyond the competence<br />
of the parliament and the Government<br />
of the Azerbaijan Republic. Considering the<br />
Constitution of Azerbaijan lists the government<br />
competences in just a few points, and<br />
the parliament shall exercise 90% of its authorities<br />
under the president’s submission, the<br />
legislative authorities of the president are unlimited.<br />
We think, it is necessary to reduce the<br />
right of the president in Georgia and Armenia,<br />
to issue decrees having the force of law, as<br />
the president shall have this right only in the<br />
state of emergency or martial law and under<br />
consent of the parliament.<br />
In the South Caucasus states, the parliaments<br />
are not free in the fulfi llment even of<br />
such traditional and natural parliamentary authorities<br />
as the adoption of the state budget. If<br />
we see that the scholars regard these countries<br />
as semi-presidential systems, it should be said<br />
that in such a ruling system, the adoption of<br />
the budget is a prerogative of the government<br />
and parliament. The president’s authority is<br />
only to sign the law, or it might be expressed in<br />
using the right to veto. Presidents of the South<br />
Caucasus republics possess these rights anyway,<br />
but there is also the president’s authority<br />
to submit a draft budget to the parliament in<br />
Azerbaijan.In Georgia, the draft budget could<br />
be submitted by the government, but under<br />
consent of the president. An exception to this<br />
rule is Armenia, where a draft of the budget<br />
is submitted to the parliament by the government.<br />
This means thatpresidents in Georgia<br />
and Azerbaijan have signifi cant mechanisms to<br />
infl uence other governmental institutions from<br />
the fi nancial point of view, which makes these<br />
institutions highly dependent on the president.<br />
In our opinion, it is necessary that presidents<br />
in Georgia and Azerbaijan be removed from<br />
the budget drafting-submission process, and<br />
this right be rendered to the government. The<br />
right of the president in Azerbaijan to submit<br />
the budget should be cancelled, and in<br />
Georgia, the president’s right to give consent<br />
to the government to submit the budget should<br />
be cancelled. Drafting of the budget should be<br />
an exclusive function of the government. If a<br />
president wants to control the budget process,<br />
he already has a certain balancing mechanism–to<br />
veto the law on budget, similar to<br />
other legislative acts.<br />
The research has shown that transpose<br />
to the strong power of presidents in South<br />
Caucasus counties, the parliament is weak,<br />
but the reason for it, as is frequently noticed<br />
in these countries, is not just the formal authorities<br />
of the parliament. On the one hand,<br />
the weakness of the parliament is caused by<br />
granting the president the above-mentioned<br />
formal functions in the legislative sphere, and,<br />
on the other hand, by the relation of the parliamentary<br />
majority and the president. Though<br />
the goal of our research was not the evaluation<br />
of the infl uence of political processes on<br />
the relations between the president and parliament,<br />
in conclusion we should mention this<br />
factor as well. According to the constitutions,<br />
a president can also hold a party position. He<br />
is a political union leader, which enables him<br />
to become a chairman of the parliament if his<br />
party delegates win the majority of mandates<br />
in parliamentary elections. On such an occasion<br />
any balance between the president and<br />
the legislative body is often violated, as the<br />
parliament often turns from an independent<br />
government branch into a political council of<br />
the president. This circumstance strengthens<br />
the formal authority of the president, and, on<br />
the contrary, weakens that of the parliament.<br />
Development of democracy, which became a<br />
major goal for post-Soviet Armenia, Azerbaijan,<br />
and Georgia following to the dissolution of the<br />
Soviet system, requires the establishment of<br />
a properly empowered representative body<br />
that would balance the government branches.<br />
For this reason, we believe it is advisable that<br />
to strengthen the parliament, the right of the<br />
president to hold a party position should be<br />
restricted, and his formal legislative functions<br />
should be reduced.<br />
in regard to the existing relations of the<br />
president’s institute and the legislative body,<br />
in the South Caucasus states as well as in<br />
new democratic countries, we should share<br />
the conclusions of scholars, which anticipate<br />
that “if the authors of the constitutions desire<br />
to receive a semi-presidential system or if they<br />
have not political choice besides adoption of<br />
235
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
the semi-presidential system, then an advise<br />
to them would be evident – if you intend to<br />
elect a semi-presidential system, you should<br />
choose the semi-presidential system where<br />
the president has very few authorities”. 75<br />
table 1<br />
The Fish-Kroenig Legislative Powers Survey<br />
1. The legislature alone, without the involvement of any other agencies, can impeach the<br />
president or replace the prime minister.<br />
2. Ministers may serve simultaneously as members of the legislature.<br />
3. The legislature has powers of summons over executive branch offi cials and hearings with<br />
executive branch offi cials testifying before the legislature or its committees are regularly held.<br />
4. The legislature can conduct independent investigations of the chief executive and the<br />
agencies of the executive.<br />
5. The legislature has effective powers of oversight over the agencies of coercion (the military,<br />
organs of law enforcement, intelligence services, and the secret police).<br />
6. The legislature appoints the prime minister.<br />
7. The legislature’s approval is required to confi rm the appointment of individual ministers; or the<br />
legislature itself appoints ministers.<br />
8. The country lacks a presidency entirely; or there is a presidency, but the president is elected<br />
by the legislature.<br />
9. The legislature can vote no confi dence in the government without jeopardizing its own term<br />
(that is, without, the threat of dissolution).<br />
10. The legislature is immune from dissolution by the executive.<br />
11. Any executive initiative on legislation requires ratifi cation or approval by the legislature<br />
before it takes effect; that is, the executive lacks decree power.<br />
12. <strong>Law</strong>s passed by the legislature are veto-proof or essentially veto-proof; that is, the executive<br />
lacks veto power, or has veto power but the veto can be overridden by a simple majority in the<br />
legislature.<br />
13. The legislature’s laws are supreme and not subject to judicial review.<br />
14. The legislature has the right to initiate bills in all policy jurisdictions; the executive lacks<br />
gatekeeping authority.<br />
15. Expenditure of funds appropriated by the legislature is mandatory; the executive lacks the<br />
power to impound funds appropriated by the legislature.<br />
16. The legislature controls the resources that fi nance its own internal operation and provide for<br />
the perquisites of its own members.<br />
17. Members of the legislature are immune from arrest and/or criminal prosecution.<br />
18. All members of the legislature are elected; the executive lacks the power to appoint any<br />
members of the legislature.<br />
19. The legislature alone, without the involvement of any other agencies, can change the<br />
constitution.<br />
20. The legislature’s approval is necessary for the declaration of war.<br />
21. The legislature’s approval is necessary to ratify treaties with foreign countries.<br />
22. The legislature has the power to grant amnesty.<br />
23. The legislature has the power of pardon.<br />
24. The legislature reviews and has the right to reject appointments to the judiciary; or the<br />
legislature itself appoints members of the judiciary.<br />
25. The chairman of the central bank is appointed by the legislature.<br />
236
M. NAKASHIDZE * , SOME LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT IN SOUTH CAUCASUS COUNTRIES<br />
26. The legislature has a substantial voice in the operation of the state-owned media.<br />
27. The legislature is regularly in session.<br />
28. Each legislator has a personal secretary.<br />
29. Each legislator has at least one nonsecretarial staff member with policy expertise.<br />
30. Legislators are eligible for reelection without any restriction.<br />
31. A seat in the legislature is an attractive enough position that legislators are generally<br />
interested in and seek reelection.<br />
32. The reelection of incumbent legislators is common enough that at any given time the<br />
legislature contains a signifi cant number of highly experienced members.<br />
* M. Steven Fish, “Stronger Legislatures, Stronger Democracies”, <strong>Journal</strong> of Democracy, Vol. 17,<br />
January 1, 2006.<br />
table 2<br />
Parliamentary Powers Index Scores by Country, in Alphabetical Order<br />
by M. Steven Fish and Matthew Kroenig<br />
N Country PPI<br />
Post-soviet Countries<br />
1 Parliament of Latvia 0.78<br />
2 Parliament of Lithuania 0.78<br />
3 Parliament of Estonia 0.75<br />
4 Parliament of Moldova 0.75<br />
5 Parliament of Georgia 0.59<br />
6 Supreme Council of Ukraine 0.59<br />
7 Armenian National Assembly 0.56<br />
8 Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation 0.44<br />
9 Parliament of Azerbaijan 0.44<br />
10 Supreme Assembly of Tajikistan 0.31<br />
11 Supreme Assembly of Uzbekistan 0.28<br />
12 National Assembly of Belarus 0.25<br />
13 People’s Council of Turkmenistan 0.06<br />
The Europian Countries<br />
1 Parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany 0.84<br />
2 Parliament of the Czech Republic 0.81<br />
3 Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia 0.81<br />
4 Parliament of Croatia 0.78<br />
5 National Assembly of Bulgaria 0.78<br />
6 Parliament of Poland 0.75<br />
7 Parliament of Slovenia 0.75<br />
8 Parliament of Romania 0.72<br />
9 Parliament of Finland 0.72<br />
10 National Council of the Slovak Republic 0.72<br />
11 National Assembly of Serbia 0.69<br />
12 Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.63<br />
13 Parliament of France 0.56<br />
* M. Steven Fish and Matthew Kroenig, The Handbook of National Legislatures: A Global Survey (New<br />
York: Cambridge University Press, 20<strong>09</strong>)<br />
237
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
238<br />
*<br />
Doctor’s degree at Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Email:<br />
mnakashidze@mail.ru<br />
1<br />
Freedom in the World 2010: Table of Independent Countries. http://www.<br />
freedomhouse.org.<br />
2<br />
According to the Freedom House assessment system, rating of country democracy<br />
starts from level 1 and the least-free rating is 7.<br />
3<br />
Freedom in the World 2010: Table of Independent Countries, the mentioned<br />
source, p.23-24.<br />
4<br />
An Example - Presently in Georgia, the need to change the acting model of<br />
governance is actively discussed. Some political groups insist on the establishment<br />
of the Parliamentary Republic in Georgia, andothers support the presidential or<br />
mixed form of government. More interesting is the fact that in 2008, not only<br />
political circles, but also an important members of society demanded the formation<br />
of a Constitutional Monarchy. On May 11, 2010, the State Constitutional Commission<br />
of Georgia adopted a set of recommendations for constitutional<br />
amendments, wich contains elements of semi-presidential system. It should<br />
be also mentioned that in Azerbaijan on March 18, 20<strong>09</strong> there a Referendum was<br />
heldafter which the 40 th Constitutional amendment was ratifi ed, and a new version<br />
of article 101, paragraph 5 of the Constitution was drafted, which abolished the<br />
prohibition of electing a president for more that two terms.<br />
5<br />
M. Steven Fish, “Stronger Legislatures, Stronger Democracies”, <strong>Journal</strong> of Democ<br />
racy, Vol. 17, 1, (January) 2006, p. 7.<br />
6<br />
Ibid, p. 13.<br />
7<br />
Nations in Transit, Country Reports – Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Freedom<br />
House, 2008. http://www.freedomhouse.org.<br />
8<br />
M. Steven Fish, Stronger Legislatures, Stronger Democracies, (publisher, 2006),<br />
p. 10.<br />
9<br />
Ibid., p. 12.<br />
10<br />
Jung-Hsiang Tsai, Sub-types of Semi-presidentialism and Political Deadlock,<br />
French Politics, 2008, Vol. 6, p. 68.<br />
11<br />
The Constitution of the Republic Armenia, Constitutions of the Foreign Countries,<br />
part I, resp. Editor Vasil Gonashvili, Tbilisi, 2008, p. 234.<br />
12<br />
The Constitution of Azerbaijani Republic, Constitutions of the Foreign Countries,<br />
part II, resp. Editor Vasil Gonashvili, Tbilisi, 2008, pp. 463-478.<br />
13<br />
The Constitution of Georgia, Tbilisi, 2008, p. 24.<br />
14<br />
Joint protocols N75, April 4 2007, N77 of April 11, 2007 of the Plenary Sitting of the<br />
Regional Policy, Self-government and Mountainous Regions Committee and the<br />
Legal Issues Committee of the Parliament of Georgia. http://www.parliament.ge.<br />
15<br />
Protocol N44 of the Sector Economy and Economic Policy Committee sitting,<br />
December 23, 2005. http://www.parliament.ge.<br />
16<br />
Protocol N7 of the Budget and Finance Committee sitting, March 13 2008. http://<br />
www.parliament.ge.<br />
17<br />
Arutynian Armen, The Constitutional-Legal Status of the President of the Republic<br />
Armenia. Thesis for a Doctor’s degree, Moscow, 1997, 3-370, p. 310.<br />
18<br />
The Constitution of Georgia, p. 24.<br />
19<br />
Constitutions of the Foreign Countries, part II, p. 235.<br />
20<br />
Constitutional <strong>Law</strong>, Manual, Group of authors, Chief Editor Avtandil Demetrashvili,<br />
Inovatsia (Innovation), Tbilisi, 2005, p. 298.<br />
21<br />
The Comparative Constitutional <strong>Law</strong>, Resp. Editor V.E.Chirkin, M., <strong>International</strong><br />
Relations, 2002, p. 336.<br />
22<br />
Regulations of the Parliament of Georgia, February 17, 2004. http://www.<br />
parliament.ge.<br />
23<br />
Vakhtang Khmaladze, Avtandil Demetrashvili, Alexander Nalbandov, Levan Ramishvili,Davit<br />
Usupashvili, Zurab Jibgashvili, Government of Georgia on the Central
M. NAKASHIDZE * , SOME LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT IN SOUTH CAUCASUS COUNTRIES<br />
Level: The Balance between its Branches; The Process of the Constitutional-<br />
Political Reform in Georgia: Political Elite and Voice of People, IDEA, CIPDD,<br />
Tbilisi, 2005, p. 23.<br />
24<br />
Ibid, p. 9.<br />
25<br />
Jung-Hsiang Tsai, Sub-types of Semi-presidentialism and Political Deadlock,<br />
(Publisher, year) p. 71.<br />
26<br />
Shugart M.S. and Carey J.M. Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design<br />
and Electoral Dynamics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 156.<br />
27<br />
Ibid, p. 165.<br />
28<br />
Jonathan Wheatley, Government of Georgia at the Central Level: The Balance<br />
among its Branches Materials of the <strong>International</strong> Scientifi c-Practical Conference<br />
(Tbilisi, May18-19), “Meridiani”, Tbilisi, 2004, p. 35.<br />
29<br />
Constitutions of the Foreign Countries, part II, p. 240-241.<br />
30<br />
Constitutions of the Foreign Countries, part I, p. 465.<br />
31<br />
The Constitution of Georgia, p. 24-25.<br />
32<br />
Okunkov L.A. Roshchin V.A. Veto of the President, scientifi c-practical manual,<br />
Gorodets. Formula of <strong>Law</strong>, M. 1999, pp. 10-11.<br />
33<br />
Constitutions of the Foreign Countries, part II, p. 240-241.<br />
34<br />
Okunkov L.A. Roshchin V.A. Veto of the President, scientific-practical manual, p. 11.<br />
35<br />
Constitutions of the Foreign Countries, part II, p. 241.<br />
36<br />
Ibid., part I, p. 472.<br />
37<br />
The Constitution of Georgia, p. 25.<br />
38<br />
Arutynian Armen, The Constitutional-Legal Status of the President of the Republic<br />
Armenia. Thesis for a Doctor’s degree, Moscow, 1997, p. 314-315.<br />
39<br />
Constitutions of the Foreign Countries, part II, p. 223.<br />
40<br />
Ibidl., part II, p. 223.<br />
41<br />
Badalov Rahman, Mehdi Niyazi, The Political Institutions of Azerbaijan: A<br />
Dichotomy between Text and Reality, http://www.idea.int.{cannot open link}<br />
42<br />
References are made from the offi cial documentation obtained from the Legal<br />
Issues Committee of the Parliament of Georgia.<br />
43<br />
References are made from the offi cial documentation obtained from the Legal<br />
Issues Committee of the Parliament of Georgia.<br />
44<br />
O’Donnell, Guillermo, Delegative Democracy, <strong>Journal</strong> of Democracy, 1994, Vol. 5<br />
(1), pp. 55-69<br />
45<br />
Cindy Skach, “Constitutional Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy”,<br />
Constitutional Political Economy, Volume 16, Vol. 4 (December 2005), p. 5.;<br />
George Tsebelis, Tatiana P. Rizova, “Presidential Conditional Agenda Setting in<br />
the Former Communist Countries”, Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 40, 10,<br />
October 2007, p. 1164.<br />
46<br />
Luchin V.O. Mazurov A.V. Decrees of the President of RF: Basic Social and Legal<br />
Characteristics, M. UNITI-DANA, <strong>Law</strong> and Right, 2000, pp. 58-59, 62–63, 65–67.<br />
47<br />
Khabrieva T.Y. Chirkin V.E. Theory of the Modern Constitution, M. Norma (Norm),<br />
2005, pp. 282-283.<br />
48<br />
Sakharov N.A. “Presidential Institution in Contemporary World”, M. <strong>Law</strong> Literature,<br />
1994, p. 118.<br />
49<br />
Andras Sajio, Limiting Government, An Introduction to Constitutionalism, Tbilisi,<br />
2003, p. 205.<br />
50<br />
Andras Sajio, Limiting Government, An Introduction to Constitutionalism,(Budapest:<br />
Central European University Press, 1999) p. 198.<br />
51<br />
Vakhtang Khmaladze, Avtandil Demetrashvili, Alexander Nalbandov, Levan<br />
Ramishvili,Davit Usupashvili, Zurab Jibgashvili, Government of Georgia on<br />
the Central Level: The Balance between its Branches; The Process of the<br />
Constitutional-Political Reform in Georgia, (Publisher, year) pp. 22-23.<br />
52<br />
The Constitution of Georgia, p. 28.<br />
53<br />
<strong>Law</strong> of Georgia ,“On Normative Acts”, Offi cial gazette of the Parliament of Georgia<br />
“Utskebani”, November 19, 1996.<br />
239
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
54<br />
Constitutions of the Foreign Countries, part I, p. 468.<br />
55<br />
Constitutions of the Foreign Countries, part II, p. 240.<br />
56<br />
Constitutions of the Foreign Countries, part II, p. 241.<br />
57<br />
Ibid, p. 242.<br />
58<br />
The Constitution of Georgia, p. 31.<br />
59<br />
Constitutions of the Foreign Countries, part I, p. 479.<br />
60<br />
The Constitution of Georgia, p. 29.<br />
61<br />
Constitutions of the Foreign Countries, part II, p. 239.<br />
62<br />
Andras Sajio, Limiting Government, An Introduction to Constitutionalism, (Tbilisi:<br />
Publisher), 2003, p. 196. {not Bhudapest}<br />
63<br />
The exceptions are decrees issued by the president during a state of emergency<br />
or martial law in Georgia.<br />
64<br />
See Order of the President of Georgia ,“Regarding Temporary Rule on the Use of<br />
Special Incomes of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia”, Vol. 42, February<br />
6, 2001.<br />
65<br />
See Order of the President of Georgia “Regarding the Rule of Purchase of the<br />
Remaining of Ferrous and Nonferrous metals”, Vol. 85, February 2, 2007.<br />
66<br />
Decree of the President of Azerbaijan Republic “Regarding Increase of Social<br />
Allowances”, August 27, 2008. http://www.president.az<br />
67<br />
Constitutions of the Foreign Countries, part II, p. 581.<br />
68<br />
Cindy Skach, The “newest” separation of powers: Semi-presidentialism, I•CON,<br />
Volume 5, 1, 2007, p. 98.<br />
69<br />
Ibid., p. 99.<br />
70<br />
Matthew Soberg Shugart, ,,Politicians, Parties, and Presidents: An Exploration of<br />
Post-Authoritarian Institutional Design“, In: Liberalization and Leninist Legacies:<br />
Comparative Perspectives on Democratic Transitions, edited by Beverly Crawford<br />
and Arend Lijphart. University of California Press/University of California<br />
<strong>International</strong> and Area Studies Digital Collection, Edited Volume 96, 1997, p. 62,<br />
is available on the Website: [http://repositories.cdlib.org].<br />
71<br />
Constitutions of the Foreign Countries, part II, p. 239.<br />
72<br />
Ibid., p. 243.<br />
73<br />
Constitutions of the Foreign Countries, part I, p. 480.<br />
74<br />
The Constitution of Georgia, p. 40.<br />
75<br />
Robert Elgie and McMenamin, Iain, “Semi-Presidentialism and Democratic<br />
Performance”, Japanese <strong>Journal</strong> of Political Science, 2008, Vol. 9 (3). p. 22.<br />
240
venciaSi ucxouri saarbitraJo sasamarTloebis<br />
gadawyvetilebaTa cnobisa<br />
da aRsrulebis Sesaxeb. ucxo qveynis<br />
sa samarTloebis gadawyvetilebaTa aRsrulebasTan<br />
mimarTebiT ki, samwuxarod,<br />
saqarTvelo arc erT mniSvnelovan<br />
mravalmxriv xelSekrulebaSi ar mo nawileobs.<br />
damoukidebel saxelmwifoTa<br />
Tanamegobrobis farglebSi dadebulma<br />
minskis konvenciam saqarTvelos dsTidan<br />
gamosvlis Sedegad dakarga aqtualoba,<br />
Tumca didia albaToba, rom minskis<br />
konvenciis mravali norma safuZvlad<br />
daedos saqarTvelosa da dsT-Si amJamad<br />
Semaval saxelmwifoebs Soris dadebul<br />
Sesabamis ormxriv xelSekrulebebs.<br />
ucxo qveynis sasamarTloebisa da<br />
ucxouri saarbitraJo sasamarTloebis<br />
gadawyvetilebaTa aRsruleba saerTa-<br />
Soriso aRsrulebis saxeliT cnobili<br />
cnebis 1 erT-erT Semadgeneli nawilia.<br />
saerTaSoriso aRsrulebis pirveli etapi<br />
aris sasamarTlos mier ganxorcielebuli<br />
`aRsasruleblad miqceva~ anu igive<br />
aRsrulebadad gamocxadeba (germanuli<br />
terminis – Vollstreckbarerklaerung-is –<br />
mixedviT). qarTul iuridiul literaturaSi<br />
termini `aRsruleba~ arasworad<br />
gamoiyeneba sasamarTlos moqmedebasTan<br />
dakavSirebiT. saerTaSoriso aRsruleba<br />
ufro farTo cnebaa da moicavs aseve<br />
saerTaSoriso iZulebiT saaRsrulebo<br />
warmoebas, romelic Tanamedrove iuridiul<br />
literaturaSi saerTaSoriso<br />
kerZo samarTlis procesis calke elementad<br />
moiazreba. 2<br />
1998 wlis 29 aprilis kanoni `saer-<br />
TaSoriso kerZo samarTlis Sesaxeb~ Silevan<br />
goTua<br />
ucxo qveynebis sasamarTloebisa da saarbitraJo<br />
sasamarTloebis gadawyvetilebaTa<br />
aRsruleba saqarTveloSi<br />
1. aRsrulebis, aRsrulebadad<br />
gamocxadebisa da cnobis arsi<br />
ucxo qveynis sasamarTloebisa da<br />
ucxouri saarbitraJo sasamarTloebis<br />
gadawyvetilebaTa aRsrulebam gansakuTrebiT<br />
didi praqtikuli mniSvneloba<br />
meoce saukunis meore naxevarSi SeiZina.<br />
es gamowveulia globaluri procesebiT,<br />
romelTa Sorisacaa: sxvadasxva qveynis<br />
kapitalis bazrebis integracia, saer-<br />
TaSoriso savaWro urTierTobaTa intensivobis<br />
permanentuli zrda da a.S.,<br />
anu is zogadsakacobrio mniSvnelobis<br />
movlena, romelic yoveli CvenganisTvis<br />
globalizaciis saxeliT aris cnobili.<br />
Sesabamisad, gaizarda saxelmwifo-<br />
TaSorisi samarTlebrivi brunva da sasamarTlo<br />
gadawyvetilebaTa mimoqcevis<br />
saerTaSoriso doneze reglamentirebisa<br />
da harmonizebis saWiroeba.<br />
ucxo saxelmwifoebis sasamarTloebis<br />
gadawyvetilebaTa cnobisa da aRsrulebis<br />
samarTlebrivi regulireba,<br />
rogorc wesi, xorcieldeba sxva normatiuli<br />
aqtebis, da ara ucxouri saarbitraJo<br />
sasamarTloebis gadawyvetilebebis<br />
meSveobiT, vinaidan erT SemTxvevaSi<br />
saqme gvaqvs sxva qveynis sasamarTlo<br />
xelisuflebis mier gamotanil gadawyvetilebebTan,<br />
xolo meore SemTxvevaSi,<br />
kerZo xasiaTis sasamarTloebis aqtebTan.<br />
ucxouri saarbitraJo sasamarTloebis<br />
gadawyvetilebaTa aRsrulebas-<br />
Tan dakavSirebiT Cveni saxelmwifoc<br />
monawileobs am sferoSi yvelaze mniSvnelovan<br />
saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebaSi<br />
– gaeros niu-iorkis 1958 wlis kon-<br />
241
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
naarsobrivad calsaxad moiazrebs ucxo<br />
qveynis gadawyvetilebis aRsrulebadad<br />
gamocxadebas, Tumca iyenebs termin<br />
„aRsrulebas~, ucxo qveynis gadawy<br />
vetilebebis iZulebiT aRsruleba<br />
ki regulirdeba 1999 wlis 16 aprilis<br />
kanoniT `saaRsrulebo warmoebaTa Sesa<br />
xeb~. Sesabamisad, iZulebiT aRsrul<br />
e bis ganmaxorcielebli subieqtia<br />
ara sasamarTlo, aramed uflebamosili<br />
sa aRsrulebo organo. vinaidan kanon<br />
Si `saerTaSoriso kerZo samarTlis<br />
Sesaxeb~ Sinaarsobrivad saubaria<br />
swored aRsrulebadad gamocxadebaze,<br />
rogorc sasamarTlos moqmedebaze,<br />
uri go ar iqneboda, TviT am normatiul<br />
aqtSi Sesuliyo Sesabamisi terminologiuri<br />
cvlileba. Tumca es normatiuli<br />
aqti sxva xarvezebsac Seicavs, ris gamoc<br />
didi xania, dRis wesrigSi dgas saerTa-<br />
Soriso kerZo samarTlis Sesaxeb sruliad<br />
axali kanonis miRebis an moqmedSi<br />
cvlileba-damatebaTa mniSvnelovani paketis<br />
Setanis sakiTxi.<br />
droTa viTarebaSi evropeli samar-<br />
Talmcodneebi mividnen im daskvnamde,<br />
rom ucxo qveynis gadawyvetilebebis<br />
martooden aRsrulebadad gamocxadeba<br />
ar iyo sakmarisi qveynis SigniT maTi iuridiuli<br />
Zalis gansazRvrisaTvis. amis<br />
mizezad, pirvel rigSi, is saxeldeba,<br />
rom ucxouri sasamarTlo aqtis meore<br />
qveynis teritoriaze moqmedebis daSveba<br />
ar aris mizanSewonili misi safuZvliani<br />
gadamowmebis gareSe. am xarvezis aRmosafxvrelad<br />
aRmocenda aRiarebis, anu<br />
cnobis, instituti, 3 romelic, rogorc<br />
wesi, xorcieldeba avtomaturad, anu<br />
sakuTriv cnobis proceduris gareSe,<br />
im mosamarTlis mier, romelic uflebamosilia,<br />
davis sagani ganixilos. es<br />
niSnavs, rom ucxouri sasamarTlo aqtidan<br />
gamomdinare, is saproceso Sedegebi,<br />
romlebsac iTvaliswinebs aRsrulebadad<br />
gamocxadebis ganmaxorcielebeli<br />
saxelmwifos samarTalic, da romlebic,<br />
Sesabamisad, cnobas eqvemdebareba, ipso<br />
iure, praqtikulad avtomaturad vrceldeba<br />
am e.w. „meorad qveyanaze 4 ~ (saerTa-<br />
Soriso terminologiaze dayrdnobiT,<br />
saxelmwifos, sadac cnoba da aRsruleba<br />
xorcieldeba, meoradi saxelmwifo, xolo<br />
pirveladi gadawyvetilebis ga momtans,<br />
pirveladi saxelmwifo ewodeba).<br />
ucxo qveyanaSi sasamarTlo da saarbitraJo<br />
gadawyvetilebis aRsrulebadobis<br />
faqti, yvela samarTlis mixedviT,<br />
aris swored iseTi saproceso Sedegi,<br />
romelic meorad saxelmwifoSi cnobas<br />
ar eqvemdebareba. 5<br />
rogorc wesi, cnoba xdeba ucxo qveynis<br />
gadawyvetilebis aRsrulebadad<br />
ga mocxadebasTan erTad. ucxo qveynis<br />
sasamarTlo gadawyvetilebis an ucxouri<br />
saarbitraJo sasamarTlos gadawyvetilebis<br />
cnobisas saqme gvaqvs meore<br />
qveynis teritoriaze ucxouri aqtis<br />
moqmedebis gafarToebasTan, magram mxolod<br />
im SemTxvevaSi, Tu ar arsebobs mis<br />
cnobaze uaris Tqmis safuZvlebi. cnobis<br />
aseTi damabrkolebeli garemoebebi<br />
CamoTvlilia `saerTaSoriso kerZo<br />
samarTlis Sesaxeb~ saqarTvelos kanonis<br />
68-e muxlSi da parlamentis mier<br />
20<strong>09</strong> wlis 19 ivniss miRebuli `arbitra-<br />
Jis Sesaxeb~ axali kanonis 45-e muxlSi. 6<br />
amgvarad, cnobiT xdeba ucxouri aqtis<br />
Seyvana, daqvemdebareba meore qveynis samarTlebriv<br />
sistemaSi. 7<br />
ucxouri aqtis aRsrulebadad gamocxadeba<br />
misTvis moqmedebis uflebis<br />
miniWebaa, vinaidan deklaratoruli xasiaTis<br />
cnobas movalisTvis naklebad<br />
moaqvs uSualo samarTlebrivi Sedegebi.<br />
aRsrulebadad gamocxadebas ki, piriqiT,<br />
esaWiroeba sakuTari, e.w. saaRsrulebo<br />
(eqsekutoruli), procesi (franguli<br />
termini exequatur aRsrulebas niSnavs da<br />
igi xSirad gamoiyeneba arafrangulenovan<br />
iuridiul literaturaSic), romlis<br />
uSualo samarTlebrivi Sedegicaa is,<br />
rom kreditoris interesebis dasakmayofileblad<br />
SesaZlebeli xdeba movalis<br />
qonebidan iZulebiTi aRsrulebis ganxorcieleba.<br />
amgvarad, ucxo qveynis sasamarTlos<br />
gadawyvetilebisa da ucxouri saarbitraJo<br />
sasamarTlos gadawyvetilebis<br />
cnoba, am aqtebis moqmedebis farglebis<br />
gafarToebis saxiT, aris xsenebuli<br />
gadawyvetilebebisTvis moqmedebis<br />
uflebis miniWebis uSualo winapiroba,<br />
242
l. goTua, ucxo qveynebis sasamarTloebisa da saarbitraJo sasamarTloebis gadawyvetilebaTa ...<br />
rac, Tavis mxriv, maTi aRsrulebadad<br />
gamocxadebiT gamoixateba. 8<br />
2. aRsrulebadad gamocxadebisa<br />
da cnobis Sesaxeb saerTaSoriso<br />
gamocdilebis zogierTi aspeqti<br />
ucxo qveynis sasamarTlosa da ucxouri<br />
saarbitraJo gadawyvetilebebis<br />
mimarT moqmedebs e.w. „gaTa na b rebis<br />
Teoria~, romlis mixedvi T, ucxouri<br />
aqti aRqmul unda iqnes da iuridiulad<br />
gauTanabrdes Sidasaxelmwifoebriv<br />
sa samarTlo gadawyvetilebas. maSasada<br />
me, am saxis sasamarTlo gadawyvetilebebis<br />
saproceso Sedegebic Sida saxelmwifoebrivi<br />
samarTlis mixedviT<br />
unda gadawydes. 9 es koncefcia `nostrifikaciis~<br />
saxeliT aris cnobili. 10 igi emyareba<br />
yvela saxelmwifos samarTlebrivi<br />
sistemebis Tanasworuflebianobis<br />
principul mosazrebas. 11<br />
ucxouri sasamarTlo aqtis moqme debis<br />
teritoriis gafarToeba ar aris usaz-<br />
Rvro. 12 meorad qveyanaSi mxolod is ucxouri<br />
saproceso Sedegebi unda iqnes cnobili,<br />
romlebsac icnobs cnobis ganmaxorcielebeli<br />
saxelmwifos samarTali. 13<br />
ucxo qveynis sasamarTlo gadawyvetilebebisa<br />
da ucxouri saarbitraJo<br />
gadawyvetilebebis cnoba da aRsrulebadad<br />
gamocxadeba SegviZlia davaxasiaToT<br />
rogorc qveynis sazRvrebs gareT<br />
miRebuli sasamarTlo aqtis nacionalur<br />
samarTalSi gadmotanis procesualursamarTlebrivi<br />
instituti. Sesabamisad,<br />
mxolod cnobisa da aRsrulebadad<br />
gamocxadebis Semdeg myardeba samarTlebrivi<br />
kavSiri nacionalur samarTalsa<br />
da ucxour sasamarTlo aqts Soris. 14<br />
saqarTvelos kanonmdebloba ar awes<br />
rigebs, Tu ra saxis ucxouri gadawyvetilebebi<br />
SeiZleba gamocxaddes saqarTveloSi<br />
aRsrulebadad. kontinentur-evropuli<br />
samarTlis koncefciis<br />
mixedviT, aRsrulebadad cxaddeba, rogorc<br />
wesi, mxolod gadawyvetilebebi,<br />
romlebic Sinaarsobrivad moqmedebis<br />
Sesrulebas Seicaven, maT aseve „mikuTvnebiTi~<br />
gadawyvetilebebic SegviZlia<br />
vuwodoT. ucxouri sasamarTlo gadawyvetileba<br />
aucileblad mis gamomtan saxelmwifoSic<br />
aRsrulebadi unda iyos.<br />
aqedan gamomdinare, niSandoblivia, rom<br />
meorad saxelmwifoSi, ucxo qveynis gadawyvetilebis<br />
`aRsasruleblad miqcevas~<br />
aqvs ara mtkicebulebiTi funqcia,<br />
romelic ucxouri aRsrulebadobis<br />
qveynis SigniT ganvrcobas daadasturebda,<br />
aramed saproceso cvlilebis<br />
dadasturebis funqcia. 15 amis gamo ucxouri<br />
gadawyvetilebebi, romelTac damadasturebeli<br />
da procesualuri cvlilebebis<br />
damamtkicebeli funqciebi<br />
aqvT, martivad rom vTqvaT, aRiarebi-<br />
Ti sasamarTlo aqtebi, 16 araaRsrulebadni<br />
arian, vinaidan maT aRsrulebadi<br />
Sinaarsi ar gaaCniaT.<br />
msoflio praqtikaSi arsebobs franguli<br />
gamoTqmis saxiT cnobili kidev<br />
erTi mniSvnelovani SezRudva aRsrulebadi<br />
gadawyvetilebebisa – exequatur sur<br />
exequatur ne vaut, anu ar xdeba ucxouri<br />
gadawyvetilebebis aRsruleba, Tu isini,<br />
Tavis mxriv, sxva saxelmwifos gadawyvetilebebis<br />
aRsrulebas exeba. amgvarad,<br />
saerTaSoriso praqtika uaryofs ormag<br />
aRsrulebas. am, rogorc wesi, dauwereli<br />
debulebis mizezi isaa, rom yovelma<br />
saxelmwifom Tavad gadawyvitos, Tu romel<br />
ucxour gadawyvetilebebs cnobs da<br />
amiT gamoricxos ucxoeTidan raime mi-<br />
TiTebebis Sesruleba. 17<br />
aseTi saxis SezRudva rom ar arsebobdes,<br />
briuselis konvenciis 18 (romelic<br />
partniori qveynebis gadawyvetilebaTa<br />
cnobisa da aRsrulebis gamartivebul<br />
proceduras adgens) wevr saxelmwifos<br />
SeeZleboda, Tavisi aqtiT, romliTac<br />
igi sxva saxelmwifos gadawyvetilebas<br />
cnobs, amavdroulad daevaldebulebina<br />
konvenciis yvela danarCeni monawilec,<br />
eRiarebinaT es gadawyvetileba. 19<br />
amitom, vinaidan ormagi aRsrulebis<br />
SemTxvevaSi ucxouri saaRsrulebo<br />
gadawyvetileba adgens mis aRsrulebadobas<br />
mxolod aqtis gamomcemi ucxo saxelmwifos<br />
teritoriaze, es gadawyvetileba<br />
TavisTavad ver asrulebs ucxouri<br />
aqtis cnobisTvis saWiro winapirobebs. 20<br />
saerTaSoriso praqtika uSvebs aseve<br />
Sesabamisi ucxouri saxelmwifo aqtebis<br />
243
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
saaRsrulebo danarTebis, 21 ucxouri notariusebis<br />
saaRsrulebo dokumentebisa<br />
da aRsrulebadi saproceso morigebebis<br />
aRsrulebadad gamocxadebas. ucxouri<br />
yadaRebisa da sxva saxis sarCelis uzrunvelyofis<br />
RonisZiebaTa aRsrulebadad<br />
gamocxadeba TavisTavad dasaSvebi<br />
ar aris, 22 magram amas SeiZleba iTvaliswinebdnen<br />
saxelmwifoTaSorisi xelSekrulebebi.<br />
amgvarad, aRsrulebadad gamocxadebis<br />
samarTalwarmoebis davis sagani<br />
aris ara ucxouri gadawyvetile bis<br />
sa fu Z veli, anu materialur-samarTl<br />
e b rivi dava, aramed kreditorisagan<br />
uc xouri gadawyvetilebisTvis Sidasaxelmwifoebrivi<br />
aRsrulebadobis mini-<br />
Webis moTxovna. 23 es sakmaod axali midgomaa,<br />
radgan, magaliTad, germaniis samoqalaqo<br />
saproceso kodeqsis pirveli<br />
gamocema iTvaliswinebda e.w. actio iudicati-is<br />
princips, anu procesis davis sagani<br />
iyo ucxo qveynis gadawyvetilebaSi<br />
dadge nili movalis Sesrulebis valdebuleba.<br />
es koncefcia dResac moqmedebs bevr<br />
qveyanaSi. magaliTad, inglisSi action upon<br />
judgement-is dros, 24 roca ucxo qveynis<br />
sasamarTlo gadawyvetilebis cnoba da<br />
aRsrulebadad gamocxadeba xdeba sarCelis<br />
safuZvelze. ucxo qveynis sasamarTlo<br />
gadawyvetileba miiCneva rogorc<br />
movalis „samarTlebrivi valdebuleba~<br />
(„legal obligation~), romelic kreditoris<br />
mier unda iyos aRsrulebuli inglisSi<br />
„davalianebis gadaxdis sarCelis~ („action<br />
of debt~) safuZvelze. 25<br />
germaniis, ruseTisa da sxva qveynebis<br />
samarTlebrivi terminologiiT,<br />
„gadawyvetilebaSi~ moiazreba erTgvari<br />
krebiTi sityva, romelic sasamarTlo<br />
ganxilvis ramdenime produqts moicavs.<br />
amis sapirispirod, rogorc saqarTvelos<br />
samoqalaqo saproceso kodeqsis<br />
243-e muxli adgens, gadawyvetileba aris<br />
pirveli instanciis sasamarTlos dadgenilebis<br />
forma. aqedan gamomdinareobs,<br />
rom dadgenileba yvela saxis sasamarTlo<br />
aqtebis krebiTi cnebaa; igive gamomdinareobs<br />
ganCinebis legaluri definiciidanac,<br />
romelic mocemulia amave<br />
kodeqsis 284-e muxlSi. maS, rogor unda<br />
moviazroT gadawyvetileba ucxour sasamarTlo<br />
aqtebTan mimarTebiT gana<br />
mxolod gadawyvetilebebi (maTi qarTuli<br />
ganmartebiT) eqvemdebareba aRsrulebas<br />
saqarTvelosa da azerbaijanis<br />
respublikas Soris samoqalaqo, saojaxo<br />
da sisxlis samarTlis saqmeebze samarTlebrivi<br />
daxmarebisa da samarTlebriv<br />
urTierTobaTa Sesaxeb 1996 wlis xel-<br />
Sekrulebis 42-e muxlis mixedviT, cnobasa<br />
da aRsrulebas eqvemdebareba „sasamarTlo<br />
gadawyvetilebebi~, romlebSic<br />
sasamarTlos mier gamotanil aqtebTan<br />
erTad moiazreba aseve saalimento valdebulebisa<br />
da mamobis dadgenis Sesaxeb<br />
dokumentebi, saaRsrulebo warweris<br />
mqone dokumentebi da sxv.<br />
faqtia, rom am SemTxvevaSi saqarTvelos<br />
samoqalaqo saproceso kodeqsis<br />
mier mocemuli gadawyvetilebis cneba<br />
ar emTxveva saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebiT<br />
gaTvaliswinebul analogs.<br />
magram rogori mniSvnelobiT unda<br />
iqnes gagebuli ucxouri sasamarTlo gadawyvetileba<br />
saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebis<br />
ararsebobis pirobebSi qarTul<br />
samarTalmcodneobasa da sasamarTlo<br />
praqtikaSi ar moipoveba ucxo qveynis sasamarTlo<br />
gadawyvetilebis ganmarteba.<br />
germaniis samoqalaqo saproceso<br />
kodeqsi adgens, rom: „iZulebiTi aRsrulebis<br />
warmoeba SesaZlebelia saboloo<br />
gadawyvetilebebis mixedviT, romlebic<br />
kanonier ZalaSia Sesuli an droebiT<br />
aRsrulebadia~. sasamarTlo praqtika ki<br />
akonkretebs: „gadawyvetileba, ucxouri<br />
sasamarTlo aqtebis SemTxvevaSi, aris<br />
nebismieri sasamarTlo gadawyvetileba,<br />
romelic kanonier ZalaSi aris Sesuli<br />
da romelmac mxareebs Soris dava gadawyvita<br />
ise, rom procesis msvlelobisas<br />
daculi iyo sasamarTlo mosmenis<br />
(rechtliches Gehoer) principi. 26 ~ rogorc<br />
wesi, doqtrina ucxour sasamarTlo gadawyvetilebad<br />
miiCnevs iseT aqts, romlis<br />
saxelSekrulebo regulirebaSic<br />
konkretul saxelmwifos monawileoba<br />
ara aqvs miRebuli. 27<br />
aseve aRsaniSnavia, rom cnobisas savaldebuloa<br />
saboloo, saqmis arsebiTi<br />
244
l. goTua, ucxo qveynebis sasamarTloebisa da saarbitraJo sasamarTloebis gadawyvetilebaTa ...<br />
gadawyvetilebis Semcveli 28 aqtis arseboba,<br />
miuxedavad misi dasaxelebisa. 29 aqedan<br />
gamomdinare, ucxouri winaswari anu<br />
Sualeduri gadawyvetilebebi ar eqvemdebareba<br />
cnobas. kidev erTi niSan-Tviseba,<br />
romelic aucilebelia cnobisTvis,<br />
aris gadawyvetilebis gasaCivrebisTvis<br />
dawesebuli vadis gasvla pirvelad qveyanaSi.<br />
evrokavSiris sabWos dadgenileba<br />
44/2001 30 iZleva ucxouri gadawyvetilebis<br />
definicias: „gadawyvetileba, am konvenciis<br />
gagebiT, aris nebismieri wevri<br />
saxelmwifos sasamarTlos mier gamocemuli<br />
aqti, miuxedavad misi dasaxelebisa,<br />
iqneba es ganCineba, dadgenileba, gadaxdis<br />
brZaneba Tu saaRsrulebo furceli,<br />
sasamarTlos muSakis Rirebulebis<br />
Sefasebis gadawyvetilebis CaTvliT~.<br />
ucxo qveynis gadawyvetilebis briuselis<br />
konvenciiT an zemoT dasaxelebuli<br />
evrokavSiris sabWos dadgenilebis<br />
mixedviT cnobasTan mimarTebiT<br />
aucilebelia samoqalaqo an samewarmeo<br />
saqmis arsebobac, rac niSnavs, rom registraciasTan<br />
dakavSirebul konkretul<br />
saqmeebze, romlebic administraciuli<br />
samarTlis sferos SeiZleba mivakuTvnoT,<br />
saWiroa gansakuTrebuli normebis<br />
gamoyeneba. 31<br />
vinaidan sxvadasxva saxelmwifoSi<br />
termini `sasamarTlo~ sxvadasxvanairad<br />
SeiZleba iqnes gagebuli, ucxoeli samarTalmcodneebi<br />
ganmartaven sasamarTlos,<br />
rogorc damoukidebel organos,<br />
romelic aravis miTiTebebs ar asrulebs<br />
da samarTalwarmoebas sasamarTlo mosmenis<br />
principis dacviT axorcielebs. 32<br />
3. saarbitraJo gadawyvetilebis<br />
saxelmwifo kuTvnileba<br />
mravali wlis ganmavlobaSi ar arsebobda<br />
nacionaluri da ucxouri saarbitraJo<br />
gadawyvetilebebis erTmane-<br />
Tisgan gamijvnis kriteriumi. evropis<br />
ramdenime saxelmwifoSi xangrZlivi<br />
drois ganmavlobaSi gabatonebuli iyo<br />
e.w. saproceso Teoria, romlis ZaliTac<br />
saxelmwifosadmi saarbitraJo gadawyvetilebis<br />
mikuTvneba xdeba saarbitra-<br />
Jo ganxilvaSi gamoyenebuli samarTlis<br />
mixedviT. 33 magaliTad, Tu saqarTveloSi<br />
qarTveli arbitrebi saqmes ganixilaven<br />
inglisuri samarTlis mixedviT, maSin am<br />
procesis Sedegad miRebuli saarbitra-<br />
Jo gadawyvetileba saqarTveloSi unda<br />
CaiTvalos inglisur anu ucxour aqtad.<br />
e.w. adgilmdebareobis Teoriis Tana<br />
x mad ki, saarbitraJo gadawyvetilebis<br />
saxelmwifoebrivi kuTvnileba ganisazRvreba<br />
saarbitraJo sasamarTlos<br />
geografiuli mdebareobiT, anu procesis<br />
Catarebis adgiliT. xangrZlivi periodis<br />
ganmavlobaSi adgilmdebareobis<br />
Teoriis mimdevar saxelmwifoebs<br />
Sorisac arsebobda azrTa sxvadasxvaoba<br />
im sakiTxTan dakavSirebiT, Tu rogor<br />
unda dadgindes saarbitraJo sasamarTlos<br />
adgilmdebareoba. 34 SveicariaSi amis<br />
dadgena xdeboda mxareTa nebiT formalurad<br />
daTqmuli adgilis mixedviT,<br />
xolo safrangeTSi gadamwyvetia adgili,<br />
sadac saarbitraJo procesis ZiriTadi<br />
saproceso moqmedebebi Catarda. 35<br />
adgilmdebareobis Teoria, praqtikuli<br />
TvalsazrisiT, ufro xelsayreli<br />
gamodga da nel-nela damkvidrda<br />
msoflioSi. germaniis federaciulma<br />
respublikamac, romelic didi xnis ganmavlobaSi<br />
iyo saproceso Teoriis mimdevari,<br />
1996 wlis saarbitraJo samarTlis<br />
reformiT Secvala Tavisi midgoma da adgilmdebareobis<br />
koncefcia daamkvidra.<br />
amis mizezi, upirvelesad, saerTaSoriso<br />
savaWro arbitraJis Sesaxeb gaeros samodelo<br />
kanonia, romelic calsaxad adgilmdebareobis<br />
Teorias emyareba. bunebrivia,<br />
rom gaeros samodelo kanonze<br />
dafuZnebuli saqarTvelos axali kanoni<br />
arbitraJis Sesaxeb, romelic ZalaSi<br />
Sevida 2010 wlidan, aseve adgilmdebareobis<br />
Teorias emxroba.<br />
4. aRsrulebadad gamocxadebaze<br />
uflebamosili organoebi<br />
ucxouri saxelmwifo sasamarTloebis<br />
gadawyvetilebaTa cnobas da aRsrulebadad<br />
gamocxadebas axorcielebs<br />
saqarTvelos uzenaesi sasamarTlo, ker-<br />
Zod misi samoqalaqo, samewarmeo da ga-<br />
245
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
kotrebis saqmeTa palata. es pirdapiraa<br />
gansazRvruli saqarTvelos 1998 wlis<br />
kanonSi `saerTaSoriso kerZo samarTlis<br />
Sesaxeb~, kerZod, misi 68-e muxlis<br />
me-5 punqtSi.<br />
is faqti, rom uzenaesi sasamarTlo<br />
aris umaRlesi sasamarTlo instancia,<br />
gamoricxavs ucxouri gadawyvetilebis<br />
cnobisa da aRsrulebis Sesaxeb gadawyvetilebebis<br />
gasaCivrebas zemdgom organoSi.<br />
rogorc sazRvargareTis ganviTarebuli<br />
qveynebis gamocdilebam daamtkica,<br />
ucxouri sasamarTlo gadawyvetilebebis<br />
aRsrulebadad gamocxadebisas<br />
gadamwyveti roli eniWeba am procesis<br />
siswrafesa da simartives. amgvarad, gasa-<br />
Civrebis saSualebis ararseboba Tumca,<br />
erTi SexedviT, problemuria, praqtikis<br />
moTxovnilebaTa gaTvaliswinebiT, savsebiT<br />
misaRebia.<br />
ucxouri sasamarTlo gadawyvetilebebis<br />
msgavsad, saqarTvelos farglebs<br />
gareT gamotanili saarbitraJo gadawyvetilebebis<br />
cnoba da aRsrulebac<br />
saqarTvelos uzenaesi sasamarTlos samoqalaqo,<br />
samewarmeo da gakotrebis saqmeTa<br />
palatas ekisreba. es ki, Tavis mxriv,<br />
imas niSnavs, rom ucxoeTidan Semosuli<br />
nebismieri gadawyvetileba erTi da imave<br />
sasamarTlo organos gansjadobis sferoSi<br />
Seva.<br />
5. ORDRE PUBLIC-is daTqma da REVISION<br />
AU FOND<br />
„saerTaSoriso kerZo samarTlis Sesa<br />
xeb~ kanonis 68-e muxli adgens cnobisa<br />
da, Sesabamisad, aRsrulebis damabrko<br />
lebeli garemoebebis CamonaTvals.<br />
gansakuTrebiT mniSvnelovania „z~ qvepunqtiT<br />
gaTvaliswinebuli Sinaarsi:<br />
`gadawyvetilebis cnoba ar xdeba... Tu<br />
is ewinaaRmdegeba saqarTvelos ZiriTad<br />
samarTlebriv principebs~. ordre publicis<br />
daTqmis saxeliT cnobili am principis<br />
gamoyeneba praqtikaSi xSiri araa,<br />
Tumca igi ukve ra xania, gacxovelebul<br />
diskusiebs iwvevs msoflio samarTalmcodneobaSi.<br />
Tavad SezRudvis teqstobrivi<br />
mxare gviCvenebs, Tu raoden far-<br />
To SeiZleba iyos mosamarTlisTvis am<br />
normis axsna-ganmartebis asparezi.<br />
aRiarebulia, rom mosamarTlis mier<br />
am moTxovnasTan ucxouri sasamarTlo<br />
gadawyvetilebis Sesabamisobis ganxilva<br />
savaldebuloa da amitom mxaris<br />
Suamdgomlobisgan damoukideblad xorcieldeba.<br />
amgvarad, norma, masSi Cadebuli<br />
sajaro interesis gamo, mxareTa<br />
dispoziciuri ar aris. 36<br />
vinaidan germaniis federaciuli res<br />
publikis samoqalaqo saproceso kodeqsSi<br />
uSualodaa gaTvaliswinebuli<br />
ucxouri sasamarTlo gadawyvetilebis<br />
Sinaarsobrivi gadamowmebis dauSveblobis<br />
principi, sajaro wesrigis Sesaxeb<br />
daTqma miiCneva erTgvar koliziad, dapirispirebad<br />
am punqtiT dadgenili<br />
sasamarTlo gadamowmebis movaleobasa<br />
da revision au fond-is akrZalvas Soris. 37<br />
revision au fond-is arsi isaa, ucxouri<br />
gadawyvetilebis aRsrulebadad gamocxadeba<br />
misi kanonierebis Semowmebis gareSe<br />
ganxorcieldes. am principis mizania nebismieri<br />
ucxouri sasamarTlo gadawyvetilebis<br />
aRsrulebadad gamocxadeba,<br />
maSinac ki, Tu igi gamoyenebuli samarTlis<br />
darRveviT an araswori gamoyenebiT iqna<br />
gamotanili, garda im SemTxvevebisa, rodesac<br />
gadawyvetileba sxva zemoT dasaxelebul<br />
SezRudvebs ewinaaRmdegeba. 38<br />
amgvarad, dasavleTSi kanonmdebeli<br />
erTgvar Sualdeur pozicias aniWebs<br />
mosamarTles – Tumca am ukanasknels<br />
ucxo qveynis sasamarTlo gadawyvetilebaze<br />
kontrolis funqcia aqvs, magram<br />
praqtikulad is metad SezRudulia.<br />
si t yva `ZiriTadic~ xom imas migvaniSnebs,<br />
rom kanonmdebeli normaSi aqsovs<br />
Tavis survils, sajaro wesrigis Sesaxeb<br />
daTqmis sababiT ucxo qveynis sasamarTlo<br />
gadawyvetilebis cnobaze uari mxolod<br />
gamonaklis SemTxvevaSi gamoacxados.<br />
39<br />
saqarTvelos kanoni `saerTaSoriso<br />
kerZo samarTlis Sesaxeb~, kerZod misi<br />
me-5 muxli, garkveulwilad akonkretebs<br />
sajaro wesrigis cnebis Sinaarss da miu-<br />
TiTebs, rom saqarTveloSi ar gamoiyeneba<br />
ucxo qveynis normebi, 40 Tu es ewinaaRmdegeba<br />
saqarTvelos ZiriTad samarTlebriv<br />
principebs. 41 amitom gadau-<br />
Warbeblad SeiZleba iTqvas, rom „sajaro<br />
246
l. goTua, ucxo qveynebis sasamarTloebisa da saarbitraJo sasamarTloebis gadawyvetilebaTa ...<br />
wesrigi~ gaigivebulia „saqarTvelos<br />
ZiriTad samarTlebriv principebTan~.<br />
SesaZlebelia warmoiSvas iseTi situacia,<br />
rodesac esa Tu is cneba erTi qveynis<br />
samarTlis mixedviT miekuTvneba materialur<br />
samarTals, xolo meore saxelmwifos<br />
kanonmdeblobis Tanaxmad, igive<br />
instituti saproceso xasiaTs atarebs.<br />
ruseTSi, magaliTad, iTvleba, rom ucxouri<br />
normatiuli aqti, rogorc wesi,<br />
ar unda iqnes gamoyenebuli rusul sasamarTloSi<br />
im sakiTxebze, romlebic am<br />
qveynis kanonmdeblobiT procesualursamarTlebriv<br />
kategoriebad iTvleba. 42<br />
da piriqiT, is garemoeba, rom mocemuli<br />
norma sxva qveyanaSi procesualur<br />
xasiaTs atarebs, ar ewinaaRmdegeba mis<br />
gamoyenebas rusuli sasamarTlos mier,<br />
Tu Cvens mezobel saxelmwifoSi igi ganixileba<br />
rogorc materialur-samarTlebrivi<br />
qcevis wesi. amis upirvelesi<br />
magaliTia inglisuri xandazmulobis<br />
vadebis gamoyeneba inglisur samarTalze<br />
miTiTebis arsebobisas, Tumca saerTo<br />
samarTlis mixedviT, mTeli es instituti<br />
aris saproceso samarTali, garda ucxouri<br />
xandazmulobis vadebis gamoyenebisa.<br />
43<br />
swored materialur-samarTlebriv<br />
sajaro wesrigTan gvaqvs saqme `saerTa-<br />
Soriso kerZo samarTlis Sesaxeb~ saqarTvelos<br />
kanonis me-5 muxlSi, romlis<br />
ZaliTac ucxo qveynis samarTlis normebi<br />
ar gamoiyeneba, Tu es ewinaaRmdegeba<br />
saqarTvelos ZiriTad samarTlebriv<br />
principebs. ucxouri sasamarTlo gadawyvetilebebis<br />
cnobisa da aRsrulebis<br />
Sesaxeb debulebebSi ki saubaria samoqalaqo<br />
procesualur-samarTlebriv ordre<br />
public-ze. 44 am SemTxvevaSi, rogorc wesi,<br />
uaris Tqma xdeba ara sajaro wesrigis<br />
damrRvev ucxour samarTlis normaze,<br />
aramed miuRebel ucxour sasamarTlo<br />
gadawyvetilebaze. 45<br />
arc erT qveyanaSi praqtikulad ar<br />
arsebobs zusti CamonaTvali an raime<br />
wesebi, romlebic adgenen, Tu ra saxis<br />
ucxouri sasamarTlo gadawyvetilebebi<br />
ewinaaRmdegeba sajaro wesrigis moTxovnebs.<br />
46 es logikuricaa, vinaidan ase-<br />
Ti norma romc arsebobdes, igi azrs moklebuli<br />
iqneboda, 47 radgan ordre pubicis<br />
daTqmis mizani swored isaa, mosamar-<br />
Tles garkveuli Tavisufleba mianiWos,<br />
raTa am ukanasknelma gadawyvitos, Tu<br />
romeli konkretuli ucxouri sasamarTlo<br />
gadawyvetileba ar akmayofilebs sajaro<br />
wesrigis moTxovnebs.<br />
maSasadame, kontinetur-evropuli<br />
sa marTlis sistemis qveynebSi saqme gvaqvs<br />
ara zust CamonaTvalTan, aramed sasamarTlo<br />
praqtikasa da Teoriul iuridiul<br />
mecnierebaze damyarebul doqtrinasTan,<br />
romelic sajaro wesrigis<br />
daaxloebiT sazRvrebs adgens. saerTod,<br />
ordre public-is Sesaxeb daTqma calsaxad<br />
miiCneva gamonaklis SemTxvevaSi gamoyenebad<br />
normad, misi samarTlebrivi interpretacia<br />
xdeba viwrod da, Sesabamisad,<br />
ucxouri sasamarTlo gadawyvetilebis<br />
aRsrulebadad gamocxadebasTan mimar-<br />
TebiT aseT precedentebs metad iSvia-<br />
Tad vawydebiT.<br />
aRsaniSnavia, rom `saerTaSoriso<br />
kerZo samarTlis Sesaxeb~ saqarTvelos<br />
kanoni ar akonkretebs, Tu rogor unda<br />
moaxdinos mosamarTlem ucxour sasamarTlo<br />
gadawyvetilebaze uaris Tqmis<br />
safuZvlis gadamowmeba – sakuTari iniciativiT<br />
anu samsaxureobrivi movaleobis<br />
farglebSi (ex offi cio), Tu dispoziciurobis<br />
principidan gamomdinare, mxolod<br />
mxareTa Suamdgomlobis Sedegad.<br />
aRiarebulia, rom sajaro wesrigTan<br />
gadawyvetilebis Sesabamisobis sakiTxi<br />
yvela SemTxvevaSi unda Seamowmos mosamarTlem.<br />
amgvarad, es misi samsaxurebrivi<br />
movaleobaa. magram gana es niSnavs, rom<br />
sxva safuZvlebi mxaris SuamdgomlobiT<br />
unda iqnes ganxiluli aq yvelaferi 68-e<br />
muxlis me-2 punqtis pirveli winadadebis<br />
axsna-ganmartebazea damokidebuli.<br />
savaraudod, frazas – „gadawyvetilebis<br />
cnoba ar xdeba, Tu..~. – SesamCnevad<br />
imperatiuli datvirTva aqvs. saqarTvelos<br />
uzenaesi sasamarTlos mier ucxouri<br />
gadawyvetilebebis cnobasa da aRsrulebaze<br />
miRebuli ganCinebebidanac<br />
Cans, rom mosamarTleebi metwilad Tavs<br />
valdebulad Tvlian, Seamowmon 68-e<br />
muxlSi CamoTvlil garemoebaTa arsebobis<br />
sakiTxi. Tumca naTelia, rom TviT<br />
247
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
normatiuli aqtis teqstSi am sakiTxis<br />
Taobaze mcire miniSnebis gakeTeba sruliad<br />
gamarTlebuli iqneboda.<br />
ucxouri saarbitraJo gadawyvetilebebis<br />
aRsrulebis sakiTxi 2010 wlamde<br />
moqmed qarTul samarTalSi, faqto b-<br />
rivad, samarTlebrivi regulirebis miRma<br />
rCeboda. ufro metic, saqme gvqonda<br />
sakmaod qaosur situaciasTan, Tumca saqarTveloSi<br />
mainc arsebobda aseTi aqtebis<br />
cnobisa da aRsrulebis precedentebi.<br />
magaliTad, arsebobs SemTxveva, roca<br />
cnoba da aRsrulebadad gamocxadeba<br />
ucxo qveynis sasamarTlos samarTlebrivi<br />
daxmarebis Sesaxeb Suamdgomlobis<br />
analogiiT ganxorcielda, rac absoluturad<br />
sxva samarTlebrivi instrumentia.<br />
48<br />
parlamentis mier 20<strong>09</strong> wlis 19 ivniss<br />
miRebuli `arbitraJis Sesaxeb~ axali kanonis<br />
45-e muxli adgens saarbitraJo gadawyvetilebis<br />
cnobasa da aRsrulebaze<br />
uaris Tqmis garemoebebs. es CamonaTvali<br />
efuZneba niu-iorkis konvenciis debulebebs<br />
da misasalmebelia, rom kanoni<br />
mkveTrad mijnavs mxareTa dispoziciur<br />
pirobebs garemoebebisgan, romelTa arsebobis<br />
sakiTxis gadamowmeba sasamarTlos<br />
valdebulebaa.<br />
bibliografia<br />
1. saqarTvelos kanoni saerTaSoriso kerZo samarTlis Sesaxeb, 1998 (20<strong>09</strong> wlis noembris mdgomareobiT);<br />
2. saqarTvelos kanoni saaRsrulebo warmoebaTa Sesaxeb, 1999 (20<strong>09</strong> wlis noembris mdgomareobiT);<br />
3. saqarTvelos kanoni kerZo arbitraJis Sesaxeb, 1997 (20<strong>09</strong> wlis noembris mdgomareobiT);<br />
4. saqarTvelo kanoni arbitraJis Sesaxeb, 20<strong>09</strong>;<br />
5. xelSekruleba saqarTvelosa da azerbaijanis respublikas Soris samoqalaqo, saojaxo da<br />
sisxlis samarTlis saqmeebze samarTlebrivi daxmarebisa da samarTlebriv urTierToba-<br />
Ta Sesaxeb, 1996;<br />
6. z. gabisonia, qarTuli saerTaSoriso kerZo samarTali, Tb., 2006;<br />
7. T. liluaSvili, saerTaSoriso kerZo samarTali, Tb., 2000;<br />
8. www.supremecourt.ge, sasamarTlo gadawyvetilebani, ganCineba 3a-102, 4 ivlisi, 2003;<br />
9. М.М.Богуславский, Международное частное право, Москва, 2002;<br />
10. E. Bucher, die internationale Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit in der Schweiz, Bd. 1/II, Zuerich, 1988;<br />
11. A.v. Falck, Implementierung offener auslaendischer Vollstreckungstitel, Bielefeld, 1998;<br />
12. Geimer, <strong>International</strong>es Zivilprozessrecht, 4. Aufl age, Koeln, 2001;<br />
13. Geimer, Anerkennung auslaendischer Entscheidungen, Koeln, 1996;<br />
14. U. Haas, die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer und internationaler Schiedssprüche,<br />
Muenchen, 1991;<br />
15. Kegel, Exequatur sur exequatur ne vaut, Muenchen, 1986;<br />
16. Kropholler, <strong>International</strong>es Privatrecht, Hamburg, 4. Aufl age;<br />
17. Martiny, <strong>International</strong>es Zivilverfahrensrecht, Muenchen, 1984;<br />
18. Nagel/Gottwald, <strong>International</strong>es Zivilprozessrecht, 5. Auf., Koeln, 2002;<br />
19. H. Schack, <strong>International</strong>es Zivilverfahrensrecht, Muenchen, 1996;<br />
20. H.-J. Schramm, GTZ Schriften, die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung auslaendischer Gerichtsurteile in<br />
der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Bremen 2002;<br />
21. Schlosser, Recht der internationalen privaten Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Muenchen 1989;<br />
22. OLGZ 1917, 323 (Entscheidungen der Oberlandesgerichte in Zivilsachen – federaluri miwebis<br />
umaRlesi sasamarTloebis gadawyvetilebebi samoqalaqo saqmeebze;<br />
23. OLG Stuttgart IPRspr. 1982/175 OLG – Oberlandesgericht – miwis umaRlesi sasamarTlo, IPRspr.<br />
- Die deutsche Rechtsprechung auf dem Gebiete des <strong>International</strong>en Privatrechts – saerTaSoriso<br />
kerZo samarTlis sferoSi arsebuli sasamarTlo praqtikis krebuli;<br />
24. BGHZ 20, S. 239 - Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofs in Zivilsachen – federaluri uzenaesi<br />
sasamarTlos gadawyvetilebebi samoqalaqo saqmeebze.<br />
248
l. goTua, ucxo qveynebis sasamarTloebisa da saarbitraJo sasamarTloebis gadawyvetilebaTa ...<br />
1<br />
Nagel/Gottwald, <strong>International</strong>es Zivilprozessrecht, 5. Auf., 2002, S. 863.<br />
2<br />
Sdr: H. Schack, <strong>International</strong>es Zivilverfahrensrecht, Muenchen, 1996, S. 368.<br />
3<br />
Sdr.: H.-J. Schramm, II, 1 GTZ Schriften, die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung<br />
auslaendischer Gerichtsurteile in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 2002.<br />
4<br />
U. Haas, die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer und internationaler<br />
Schiedssprüche, 1991, S. 129.<br />
5<br />
U. Haas, die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer und internationaler<br />
Schiedssprüche, 1991, S. 129.<br />
6<br />
arbitraJis Sesaxeb kanonmdeblobaSi arsebiTi cvlilebebis Setanis<br />
aucileblobaze karga xania saubaria qarTul iurisprudenciaSi,<br />
Tumca mxolod 20<strong>09</strong> wels moxerxda Sesabamisi normatiuli aqtis miReba<br />
(avtoris SeniSvna).<br />
7<br />
U. Haas, die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer und internationaler<br />
Schiedssprüche, 1991, S. 128.<br />
8<br />
Sdr.: Geimer, <strong>International</strong>es Zivilprozessrecht, 4. Aufl age, Koeln, 2001.<br />
9<br />
U. Haas, die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer und internationaler<br />
Schiedssprüche, 1991, S. 129.<br />
10<br />
Schlosser, Recht der internationalen privaten Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, 2. Auf1.,<br />
1989, Rz. 904<br />
11<br />
Martiny, <strong>International</strong>es Zivilverfahrensrecht, Muenchen, 1984, Rz. 367.<br />
12<br />
U. Haas, die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer und internationaler<br />
Schiedssprüche, 1991, S. 129.<br />
13<br />
Martiny, <strong>International</strong>es Zivilverfahrensrecht, Muenchen, 1984, Rz. 367.<br />
14<br />
U. Haas, die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer und internationaler<br />
Schiedssprüche, 1991, S. 130.<br />
15<br />
Geimer, IZPR, 4. Auf., Rz 3100.<br />
16<br />
aseTi aRiarebiTi gadawyvetilebis, ufro sworad, misi iuridiuli safuZvlis,<br />
sarCelis, legaluri definicia gaTvaliswinebulia saqarTvelos<br />
samoqalaqo saproceso kodeqsis 180-e muxlSi: „sarCeli SeiZleba<br />
aRiZras uflebisa Tu samarTlebrivi urTierTobis arseboba-ararsebobis<br />
dadgenis, dokumentis namdvilobis aRiarebis an dokumentebis<br />
siyalbis dadgenis Sesaxeb, Tu mosarCeles aqvs imis iuridiuli interesi,<br />
rom aseTi aRiareba sasamarTlos gadawyvetilebiT moxdes“ (avtoris<br />
SeniSvna).<br />
17<br />
Kegel, Exequatur sur exequatur ne vaut, Muenchen, 1986, S. 383.<br />
18<br />
1968 wels briuselSi daido evropuli konvencia sasamarTlo gans jadobisa<br />
da samoqalaqo da savaWro saqmeebze gadawyvetilebebis aRsru<br />
lebis Sesaxeb. es xelSekruleba sanimuSo gaxda aRsrulebasTan<br />
dakavSirebuli Semdgomi evropuli konvenciebisTvis (avtoris Se niSvna).<br />
19<br />
Kegel, Exequatur sur exequatur ne vaut, Muenchen, 1986, S. 391.<br />
20<br />
Martiny, <strong>International</strong>es Zivilverfahrensrecht, 1984, III, 1.<br />
21<br />
OLGZ 1917, 323.<br />
22<br />
OLG Stuttgart IPRspr. 1982/175.<br />
23<br />
Geimer, IZPR, 4. Auf., Rz 3105.<br />
24<br />
Martiny, <strong>International</strong>es Zivilverfahrensrecht, 1984, Rz 1582.<br />
25<br />
z. gabisonia, qarTuli saerTaSoriso kerZo samarTali, Tb., 2006. gv. 435.<br />
26<br />
BGHZ 20, S. 239.<br />
27<br />
Sdr.: Nagel/Gottwald, <strong>International</strong>es Zivilprozessrecht, 5. Auf., Koeln, S. 608.<br />
28<br />
Geimer, Anerkennung auslaendischer Entscheidungen, Koeln, 1996, S. 97.<br />
29<br />
Kropholler, <strong>International</strong>es Privatrecht, 4. Aufl age, S. 618.<br />
30<br />
2000 wels briuselis konvencia modificirebul iqna rogorc evrokav-<br />
Siris sabWos sasamarTlo gansjadobisa da samoqalaqo da savaWro saqmeebze<br />
gadawyvetilebebis cnobisa da aRsrulebis Sesaxeb dadgenileba<br />
44/2001. briuselis konvencia Cveulebrivi saerTaSoriso xelSekrule-<br />
249
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
baa, romelSic nebismieri cvlilebis Setana moiTxovs misi TiToeuli<br />
monawile qveynis mier Sesabamis uzenaes warmomadgenlobiT organoSi<br />
ratificirebis aucilebel proceduras. amis sapirispirod, dadgenileba<br />
44/2001 ar aris tipuri saerTaSoriso xelSekruleba, vinaidan<br />
igi evrokavSiris organos mier gamocemuli aqtia, romelsac mavaldebulebeli<br />
Zala aqvs yvela wevri saxelmwifosTvis, moqmedebs pirdapir,<br />
uSualod da masSi Setanili cvlilebebi ZalaSi Sedis erTdroulad<br />
mTeli evrokavSiris teritoriaze. am aqtSi srulad iqna gamoyenebuli<br />
evropuli samarTlis, rogorc samarTlis damoukidebeli wyaros, upiratesoba<br />
(avtoris SeniSvna).<br />
31<br />
H.-J. Schramm, GTZ Schriften, die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung auslaendischer<br />
Gerichtsurteile in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 2002, III, Pkt. 2.<br />
32<br />
Sdr.: Nagel/Gottwald, <strong>International</strong>es Zivilprozessrecht, 5. Auf., Koeln, S. 6<strong>09</strong>.<br />
33<br />
Sdr.: Nagel/Gottwald, <strong>International</strong>es Zivilprozessrecht, 5. Auf., 2002, S. 901.<br />
34<br />
U. Haas, die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer und internationaler<br />
Schiedssprüche, 1991, S. 131.<br />
35<br />
E. Bucher, die internationale Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit in der Schweiz, Bd. 1/II,<br />
1988, S. 122.<br />
36<br />
A.v. Falck, Implementierung offener auslaendischer Vollstreckungstitel, Bielefeld,<br />
1998, S. 55.<br />
37<br />
Sdr: A.v. Falck, Implementierung offener auslaendischer Vollstreckungstitel,<br />
Bielefeld, 1998S. 55.<br />
38<br />
Sdr.: A.v. Falck, Implementierung offener auslaendischer Vollstreckungstitel,<br />
Bielefeld, 1998S. 55.<br />
39<br />
Sdr.: H.-J. Schramm, GTZ Schriften, die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung auslaendischer<br />
Gerichtsurteile in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 2002, III, P. 6.<br />
40<br />
an gadawyvetilebebi, romlebic aseT normebzea dafuZnebuli (avtoris<br />
SeniSvna).<br />
41<br />
Sdr.: T. liluaSvili, saerTaSoriso kerZo samarTali, 2000, 42.<br />
42<br />
М.М.Богуславский, Международное частное право, 2002, Москва, ст. 400.<br />
43<br />
М.М.Богуславский, Международное частное право, 2002, Москва, ст. 400.<br />
44<br />
Ser.: A.v. Falck, Implementierung offener auslaendischer Vollstreckungstitel,<br />
Bielefeld, 1998 S. 55.<br />
45<br />
Martiny, <strong>International</strong>es Zivilverfahrensrecht III/1, Rz. 1016.<br />
46<br />
Sdr.: z. gabisonia, qarTuli saerTaSoriso kerZo samarTali, Tbilisi,<br />
2006. gv. 112.<br />
47<br />
Sdr.: H.-J. Schramm, GTZ Schriften, die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung<br />
auslaendischer Gerichtsurteile in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 2002 III, P. 6.<br />
48<br />
Sdr. www.supremecourt.ge, sasamarTlo gadawyvetilebani, ganCineba 3a-<br />
102 4 ivlisi, 2003.<br />
250
LEVAN GOTUA<br />
ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN COURT DECISIONS AND FOREIGN<br />
ARBITRAL AWARDS IN GEORGIA<br />
1. ESSENCE OF ENFORCEMENT,<br />
DECLARATION AS ENFORCEABLE AND<br />
RECOGNITION<br />
Enforcement of foreign court decisions<br />
and foreign arbitral awards has acquired a significant<br />
amount of practical importance in the<br />
second half of the 20th century. This growth in<br />
significance is caused by a whole series of global<br />
processes, including an integration of capital<br />
markets between various countries and a<br />
permanence in the growing intensity of international<br />
trade relationships. In brief, this phenomenon<br />
is an event of worldwide significance, and<br />
is commonly known as “globalization”.<br />
The aforementioned processes necessitated<br />
the regulation and harmonization of legal<br />
interaction among states, and consequently,<br />
the circulation of court decisions at the international<br />
level.<br />
Recognition and enforcement of the foreign<br />
court decisions are, as a rule, regulated<br />
by other normative acts which are different<br />
from those used for foreign arbitral awards,<br />
because in one case we deal with decisions<br />
made by the judiciary of one country, and in<br />
another case, with the judgments of the courts<br />
of private nature. In regards to the enforcement<br />
of foreign arbitral awards, Georgia participates<br />
in the most important international treaty in<br />
this fi eld: the United Nations Convention on<br />
the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign<br />
Arbitral Awards (New York, June 10, 1958).<br />
However, in regards to the enforcement of foreign<br />
court decisions, Georgia, unfortunately, is<br />
not a party of any of the signifi cant multilateral<br />
treaties. The Minsk Convention, created within<br />
the frameworks of the Commonwealth of<br />
Independent States (CIS), has lost its current<br />
signifi cance due to the fact that Georgia withdrew<br />
its membership. Although it is highly probable<br />
that criteria from the Minsk Convention<br />
will provide a basis for the respective bilateral<br />
treaties between Georgia and states which<br />
are currently CIS member states.<br />
Enforcement of foreign court decisions<br />
and foreign arbitral awards represents one<br />
of the constituting parts of the concept 1<br />
known as international enforcement. The<br />
fi rst stage of international enforcement is the<br />
reference of the decision for enforcement,<br />
or declaration as enforceable (in German,<br />
Vollstreckbarerklaerung). In the Georgian legal<br />
literature the term “enforcement” is used<br />
incorrectly in connection with the action of<br />
the court. “<strong>International</strong> enforcement” has a<br />
broader meaning, and also implies a coercive<br />
international enforcement, which is regarded<br />
as a separate element 2 of the process of international<br />
private law in contemporary legal<br />
literature.<br />
The law of <strong>International</strong> Private <strong>Law</strong>,<br />
adopted on April 29, 1998, clearly discusses<br />
the declaration of the decision of foreign state<br />
as enforceable, even though the term “enforcement”<br />
is used. In contrast, the coercive<br />
enforcement of foreign state decisions is regulated<br />
in the law of Enforcement Proceedings<br />
adopted on April 16, 1999. Consequently, the<br />
subject performing the coercive enforcement it<br />
is not the court, but a duly authorized enforcement<br />
body. As far as <strong>International</strong> Private <strong>Law</strong><br />
deems the declaration as enforceable, as a<br />
court action, it would be appropriate to change<br />
the terminology in this normative act as well.<br />
However, the said normative act also contains<br />
other imperfections due to the adoption of a<br />
new law within international private law, or for<br />
251
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
reasons such as making signifi cant amendments<br />
and additions to existing one has been<br />
on the agenda for a long time.<br />
European lawyers have come to the conclusion<br />
that a declaration of foreign decisions<br />
as only enforceable was not suffi cient for determining<br />
their legal effect in the country. Their<br />
reasoning is that fi rst, it is not reasonable to allow<br />
a foreign court the freedom to judge within<br />
the territory of another country without fundamental<br />
verifi cation. For eliminating this gap, the<br />
institute of acknowledgment or recognition has<br />
emerged, 3 which as a rule, is done automatically,<br />
i.e. without the recognition procedure by<br />
ajudge who is authorized to consider the subject<br />
of the dispute. This means that, based on<br />
the judgment of a foreign court, the results of<br />
the proceedings, which are envisaged by the<br />
legislation of the state that recognizes them as<br />
enforceable, and which, are correspondingly<br />
subject to recognition, ipso iure, in practice<br />
automatically cover the so-called “secondary<br />
state.” 4 (This is based on international terminology,<br />
“the state”, where a secondary state<br />
is responsible for the recognition and enforcement,<br />
and where the state rendering a primary<br />
decision is called the primary state). The fact<br />
of enforceability of the court decision and arbitral<br />
award in a foreign country, according to<br />
all the laws, represents a result of proceedings<br />
which is not a subject to recognition in the secondary<br />
state 5 .<br />
As a rule, recognition takes place simultaneously<br />
with the declaration of the foreign<br />
decision as enforceable. While recognizing<br />
the foreign court decision, or the foreign arbitral<br />
award, we deal with the broadened effect<br />
of the foreign judgment in the territory of the<br />
other country, but only in cases where there<br />
exist no grounds for refusing recognition. The<br />
circumstances that impede recognition are<br />
listed in Article 68 of the <strong>Law</strong> of Georgia on<br />
<strong>International</strong> Private <strong>Law</strong> and in Article 45<br />
of the new law “on Arbitration”, adopted by<br />
Parliament on June 19, 20<strong>09</strong>, which will come<br />
into effect in 2010. 6 Therefore, a foreign judgment<br />
is introduced and subordinated in the<br />
legal system of another country through recognition.<br />
7<br />
Declaration of a respective foreign judgment<br />
as enforceable represents assigning the<br />
action to it, because recognition, which is of a<br />
declaratory nature, does not necessarily result<br />
in a direct legal outcome for the debtor. The<br />
opposite occurs in cases where the declaration<br />
is enforceable, and thus requires its own<br />
process, a so-called enforcement (executory)<br />
process (or exequatur, a French term which<br />
means “enforcement,” and is often used in<br />
non-French legal literature). This enforcement<br />
process brings legal results; however it is possible<br />
to carry out coercive enforcement from<br />
the property of a debtor in order to meet the<br />
interests of a creditor.<br />
Consequently, recognition of a foreign<br />
court decision and that of the foreign arbitral<br />
award, in the form of extending the action<br />
frameworks for these judgments, is an immediate<br />
precondition for granting the action right to<br />
these decisions, which, from its standpoint, is<br />
expressed in their declaration as enforceable. 8<br />
2. SOME ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL<br />
EXPERIENCE ON DECLARATION AND<br />
RECOGNITION AS ENFORCEABLE<br />
There is an effective theory in regards to<br />
the foreign courts’ decisions and foreign arbitral<br />
awards, which can be translated in Georgian<br />
as “equalization theory”. According to this theory,<br />
a foreign judgment should be perceived<br />
and legally equalized to the court decision<br />
rendered internally within the state. Therefore,<br />
the results of proceedings of court decisions<br />
of this type should be resolved according to<br />
the internal state law as well. 9 This concept is<br />
known as “nostrifi cation” 10 . It is based on the<br />
principle of recognizing the equality of legal<br />
systems of all the states. 11<br />
Expanding the territory of the effects of<br />
a foreign legal judgment is not unlimited. 12 In<br />
the secondary state, only those results of proceedings<br />
which are familiar to the law of the<br />
recognizing state should be recognized. 13<br />
We can characterize the recognition of<br />
foreign court decisions and foreign arbitral<br />
awards, and their declaration as enforceable,<br />
as a procedural-legal institution of bringing<br />
court judgment, rendered outside the country’s<br />
borders, into itsnational law. Correspondingly,<br />
only after recognizing and declaring as enforceable<br />
is the legal linkage established be-<br />
252
L. GOTUA, ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN COURT DECISIONS AND FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS IN GEORGIA<br />
tween the national law and the foreign court’s<br />
judgment. 14<br />
Georgian legislation does not regulate<br />
which types of foreign decisions can be declared<br />
as enforceable in Georgia. Pursuant to<br />
continental European legal concepts, as a rule<br />
only decisions which include performance of<br />
action in their contents, are declared enforceable,<br />
and can also be deemed “reference decisions”.<br />
Foreign court decisions should be<br />
enforceable in the state where such a decision<br />
is rendered. Consequently, it is important to<br />
note that in the secondary state–in this case,<br />
in Georgia–referring to a foreign decision as<br />
“to be enforced” does not have an affi rmative<br />
function that confi rms the extension of foreign<br />
enforceability within the state, but instead, it<br />
has functions to confi rm the procedural changes.<br />
15 For this reason, foreign decisions, which<br />
have both an affi rmative function as well as a<br />
function of confi rming procedural changes, or,<br />
simply speaking, the acknowledgment of court<br />
judgments 16 , are unenforceable, as far as they<br />
do not contain the enforceable contents.<br />
In addition, there is another important<br />
limitation for enforceable decisions, known in<br />
French as exequatur sur exequatur ne vaut,<br />
or “foreign decisions are not enforced if from<br />
their side they deal with the enforcement of<br />
the decisions of another state”. Thus, the international<br />
practice rejects double enforcement.<br />
The reason of this widespread, but, as<br />
a rule, unwritten provision, is that all states<br />
should come to their own conclusions regarding<br />
which foreign decisions they recognize,<br />
and, consequently, eliminate fulfi llment of any<br />
indication from abroad. 17<br />
If there were no such restriction, a member<br />
state of the Brussels Convention 18 (which<br />
sets the simplifi ed procedure for recognition<br />
and enforcement of the decisions of partner<br />
states), with its judgment that recognizes the<br />
decision of another state, would obligate all<br />
the other parties of the convention to recognize<br />
this decision. 19<br />
Therefore, in cases of double enforcement,<br />
the foreign enforceable decision states<br />
its enforceability only on the territory of the<br />
foreign country rendering such judgment, then<br />
this decision itself cannot meet the preconditions<br />
that are necessary for recognizing the<br />
foreign judgment. 20<br />
The international practice admits declaration<br />
of enforcement annexes of the judgments<br />
of the respective foreign state, 21 enforceable<br />
documents of foreign notaries and enforceable<br />
settlements in the course of proceedings<br />
as enforceable. As such, it is not admissible<br />
to recognize as enforceable the foreign judgments<br />
on attachments and other activities for<br />
securing the claim; 22 however, the interstate<br />
treaties may envisage such a possibility.<br />
If, as we have already pointed out, declaration<br />
as enforceable, means assigning a legal<br />
force to a foreign decision within the state,<br />
we can determine the subject of the dispute on<br />
proceedings regarding the declaration as enforceable.<br />
This is a creditor’s request to grant<br />
enforcement within a state to a foreign decision,<br />
and not the grounds of a foreign decision<br />
or a material-legal dispute. 23 This is still<br />
quite a new approach in the matter of determining<br />
the subject of the dispute of our topic,<br />
regard8hg, for example, the fi rst publication of<br />
the Civil Procedures Code of Germany, which<br />
envisaged the so-called action iudicati principle,<br />
where the subject of the dispute was the<br />
performance obligation of the debtor as determined<br />
in the decision of a foreign country.<br />
It should be noted that this concept is still<br />
effective in some countries; for example, this<br />
happens in England at the time of “action upon<br />
judgment,” 24 when recognition and enforcement<br />
of foreign judgement takes place on<br />
the basis of a claim. The decision of a foreign<br />
court is considered a “legal obligation” of the<br />
debtor in England, and will be enforced by the<br />
creditor on the basis of an “action of debt.” 25<br />
In the legal terminology of German,<br />
Russian, and other languages, some kind of a<br />
collective knowledge is meant under the “decision,”<br />
which includes several products of court<br />
proceedings. Contrary to that, Article 243 of the<br />
Civil Procedures Code of Georgia determines<br />
that the decision is a form of resolution of the<br />
court at fi rst instance. Consequently, the resolution<br />
represents a collective concept for all<br />
types of court judgments. The same is derived<br />
from the legal defi nition of the ruling, which<br />
is stipulated in Article 284 of the same Code.<br />
However, it differs when we consider the decision<br />
in regards to foreign court judgments. Are<br />
these “decisions” (with their Georgian defi ni-<br />
253
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
tions) the only ones that should be enforced<br />
According to Article 42 of the Agreement,<br />
signed in 1996 between Georgia and Republic<br />
of Azerbaijan, on legal assistance and legal<br />
relations over civil, family, and criminal cases<br />
directly emphasizes that “court decisions,”<br />
whereby not only acts of the court, but also<br />
documents such as those regarding alimony<br />
obligations and affi liation, and enforcement inscription,<br />
are meant.<br />
In this case, the concept of the decisions<br />
provided by the Civil Procedures Code of<br />
Georgia does not coincide with the analogous<br />
decision envisaged in the aforementioned international<br />
agreement. However, in what context<br />
should foreign court decisions be understood<br />
in the absence of any particular international<br />
agreement There is no defi nition of<br />
foreign court decisions in the Georgian law.<br />
The Civil Procedures Code of Germany<br />
determines that “coercive enforcement can<br />
take place based on the fi nal judgments,<br />
which have entered into legal force or are enforceable<br />
temporarily”. Neither is the German<br />
legislation familiar with the statutory concept<br />
of the foreign court decision. This is why the<br />
specifi cation is provided by the court practice:<br />
“in case of foreign court judgments, the decision<br />
is any court decision, which has entered<br />
into legal force and which has resolved the<br />
dispute between the parties so that the principle<br />
of court hearing (rechtliches Gehoer) was<br />
observed during litigations.” 26 The German<br />
judiciary practice clearly places emphasis on<br />
the validity and legal force of foreign court<br />
decisions. Parallel to this, there is a concept<br />
which considers foreign court decisions as<br />
judgment, within the contractual regulation of<br />
which a particular state (in this case, Georgia)<br />
has not participated. 27<br />
It should be pointed out that for recognition,<br />
the existence of a fi nal judgment,<br />
which includes the judgment on merits of the<br />
case, 28 is necessary regardless its name. 29<br />
Consequently, the preliminary or interim foreign<br />
decisions are not the subject of recognition.<br />
As we have seen, for recognizing a foreign<br />
court decision, this decision should be<br />
entered into legal force in accordance with the<br />
legislation of the state that rendered judgment.<br />
Consequently, we can identify one more feature<br />
that is necessary for recognition. This is<br />
expiry of the term for appealing the decision in<br />
the primary state.<br />
In summarizing these facts, we can conclude<br />
that it is also possible to recognize the<br />
judgment, such as the ruling on payment offoreign<br />
debt.<br />
EU Council Regulation No. 44/2001 30 provides<br />
the following defi nition of a foreign court’s<br />
decision: “for the purposes of this Regulation,<br />
“judgment” means any judgment given by a<br />
court or tribunal of a Member State, whatever<br />
the judgment may be called, including a decree,<br />
order, decision or writ of execution, as<br />
well as the determination of costs or expenses<br />
by an offi cer of the court.”<br />
In regards to the recognition of foreign<br />
decision in accordance with the Brussels<br />
Convention or the above mentioned EU<br />
Council Regulation, there should also be a<br />
civil or commercial case, which means that<br />
special norms should apply to particular cases<br />
related to registration, which may be allocated<br />
to the fi eld of administrative law. 31<br />
As the term “court” may have different<br />
meanings in different countries, foreign law<br />
scholars defi ne “the court” as an independent<br />
body which does not fulfi ll anyone’s indications<br />
and administers justice by observing the<br />
principles of court hearings. 32<br />
3. GRANTING AN ARBITRAL AWARD TO THE<br />
STATE<br />
For many years, there has been no unifi<br />
ed idea, regarding what features should be<br />
characteristic to a foreign arbitral award or<br />
what the criterion is for distinguishing it from<br />
the national arbitral award, in the science of<br />
foreign law;. For a long period of time, a socalled<br />
“Procedures Theory” dominated in<br />
several European states, whereby an arbitral<br />
award was assigned to a state according to the<br />
law used in arbitral consideration. 33 According<br />
to this theory, an arbitral award developed as<br />
the result of a trial in which Georgian arbitral<br />
judges hear a case in accordance with British<br />
law should be considered as a foreign act in<br />
Georgia.<br />
Contrary to this, the aforementioned issue<br />
has been addressed in majority of states<br />
254
L. GOTUA, ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN COURT DECISIONS AND FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS IN GEORGIA<br />
throughout the world, according to the socalled<br />
Location Theory. As it may appear from<br />
its name, according to this concept, the state<br />
ownership of an arbitral award is determined<br />
by the geographic location of the court of arbitration,<br />
i.e. the location of the proceedings.<br />
However, different ideas, in regards to the issue<br />
of how the location of the court of arbitration<br />
should be determined have endured for a<br />
long period of time among the states that followed<br />
the Location Theory. 34 For example, in<br />
Switzerland, this location was determined according<br />
to the place formally identifi ed by the<br />
will of the parties, while in France, the place<br />
where the main proceedings of the arbitration<br />
litigations were held. 35<br />
The Location Theory, from a practical<br />
point of view, turned out to be advantageous,<br />
and gradually became established throughout<br />
the world. Even the Federal Republic<br />
of Germany, which has been following the<br />
Procedures Theory for many years, changed<br />
its approach by reforming the arbitration law in<br />
1996, and establishingd the location concept.<br />
The change was primarily the result of the<br />
UN Model <strong>Law</strong> on <strong>International</strong> Commercial<br />
Arbitration, which is clearly founded on the<br />
Location Theory.<br />
Naturally, the new law of Georgia on<br />
Arbitration, which is based on the UN Model<br />
<strong>Law</strong>, and which will is effective from 2010, also<br />
supports the Location Theory.<br />
4. BODIES AUTHORIZED FOR DECLARING<br />
THE JUDGMENTS AS ENFORCEABLE<br />
Foreign court decisions are recognized<br />
and declared as enforceable by the Supreme<br />
Court of Georgia. This is directly stipulated<br />
in the law of Georgia on <strong>International</strong> Private<br />
law passed in 1998, namely, in paragraph 5 of<br />
Article 68. In this case, the Chamber for Civil,<br />
Entrepreneurial, and Bankruptcy Cases is<br />
meant under the Supreme Court.<br />
The fact that the Supreme Court is the<br />
highest judiciaryexample eliminates the appeal<br />
of the resolutions on recognizing and<br />
enforcing the foreign court decisions at the<br />
upper body. The experiences of developed<br />
foreign countries has proved that while declaring<br />
foreign court decisions as enforceable,<br />
the speed and simplicity of this process play<br />
a decisive role. Thus, the Georgian provision<br />
is quite acceptable considering the practical<br />
aspects, even despite the fact that there is no<br />
possibility of appellation.<br />
Like foreign court decisions, recognition<br />
and enforcement of arbitral awards rendered<br />
outside of Georgia will be the responsibility<br />
of the Chamber for Civil, Entrepreneurial and<br />
Bankruptcy Cases of the Supreme Court of<br />
Georgia. As a result, any decision coming from<br />
abroad will be the subject of jurisprudence of<br />
one and the same judiciary body.<br />
5. RESERVATION OF “ORDRE PUBLIC”<br />
AND”REVISION AU FOND”<br />
Article 68 of the <strong>Law</strong> on <strong>International</strong><br />
Private <strong>Law</strong> establishes the list of circumstances<br />
hindering recognition and enforcement.<br />
Especially important is the substance<br />
of subparagraph ‘g’: “the decision is not recognized,<br />
if… it is in confl ict with the basic legal<br />
principles of Georgia.”. It is not possible to<br />
say that use of this principle, known under the<br />
name ordre public reservation is frequent in<br />
practice; however, it still causes intensive discussions<br />
in world legal science. The text of the<br />
restriction itself shows how broad the space<br />
can be for a judge to clarify this norm.<br />
It is recognized as mandatory for the<br />
judge to consider the relevance of a foreign<br />
court’s decision with this requirement, and this<br />
is done independently of the party’s motion.<br />
Thus, this norm does not fall within the disposition<br />
of parties due to the public interest embedded<br />
therein. 36<br />
As far as the Civil Procedures Code of the<br />
Federal Republic of Germany directly envisages<br />
the principle of inadmissibility of verifying<br />
the contents of foreign court decisions, the<br />
reservation regarding the public order is considered<br />
a certain kind of collision, a confrontation<br />
between the obligation of verifi cation by<br />
the court as determined in this clause, and the<br />
prohibition of revision au fond. 37<br />
The essence of revision au fond is that<br />
the foreign decision should be declared as enforceable<br />
without verifying its legality. The reasoning<br />
behind this principle is the declaration<br />
of any foreign court decision as enforceable<br />
255
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
even if the decision was rendered through violation<br />
or incorrect application of the effective<br />
law, except cases in which the decision contradicts<br />
other aforementioned restrictions. 38<br />
The law, therefore, assigns a certain medium<br />
position to a judge located in the West.<br />
However, the latter has the function to control<br />
the foreign court judgment, but, in reality, it is<br />
very restricted. Restriction of the controlling<br />
functions of a judge derives from the explanation<br />
of the term “basic legal principles.” The word<br />
“basic” in this situation indicates that the lawmaker<br />
includes his/her own desire to express<br />
dissent towards recognition of foreign court<br />
decisions with the reason of the reservation on<br />
public order only in exceptional cases. 39<br />
The law of Georgia on <strong>International</strong> Private<br />
<strong>Law</strong>, namely Article 5, to some extent<br />
specifi es the meaning of the concept of public<br />
order and indicates that the norms of a foreign<br />
state are not used in Georgia 40 if it is in confl ict<br />
with the basic legal principles of Georgia. 41 For<br />
this reason, it is possible to say without exaggeration<br />
that “public order” is identifi ed with<br />
the “basic legal principles of Georgia.”<br />
There can be a situation when a particular<br />
concept pertains to material law according<br />
to the law of one country, and according to<br />
the legislation of the second state, the same<br />
institute is of procedural nature. In Russia,<br />
for example, it is believed that a foreign normative<br />
act, as a rule, should not be used at<br />
Russian courts for issues that are considered<br />
procedural-legal categories under the legislation<br />
of this country. 42 On the contrary, a circumstance,<br />
where the norm is of a procedural<br />
nature in another country, does not confl ict<br />
with its application by the Russian court if it is<br />
considered a rule of material-legal conduct in<br />
the neighbouring country. A primary example<br />
is the use of the British statute of limitations<br />
if there is reference to British law. However,<br />
according to the law, the entire institute represents<br />
a procedural law, except the application<br />
of foreign statute of limitations. 43<br />
The material-legal public order is the<br />
very very thing that is dealt with in the Article<br />
5 of the <strong>Law</strong> of Georgia on <strong>International</strong> <strong>Law</strong>,<br />
which refers to the collision of norms. This<br />
provision determines that the norms of foreign<br />
law are not employed if they are in confl ict with<br />
the basic legal principles of Georgia. As far as<br />
the meaning of this article implies rendering of<br />
court decisions in Georgia through the foreign<br />
law, we deal with the inadmissibility of using<br />
those material-legal norms which contradict<br />
the basic principles of Georgian material law.<br />
In contrast, it is considered abroad that the<br />
provision on recognition and enforcement of<br />
foreign court decisions discusses the civil procedural-legal<br />
ordre public. 44 In this case, as a<br />
rule, the unacceptable foreign court decision,<br />
and not the foreign legal norm, is rejected, and<br />
this violates the public order. 45<br />
Realistically, there is no exact list of rules<br />
in any of these countries that would determine<br />
which kinds of foreign court decisions<br />
contradict the requirements of public order. 46<br />
This is logical, as even if there were any such<br />
norms, it would not be reasonable, 47 due to<br />
the purpose of ordre public reservation, which<br />
is to grant certain freedoms to a judge to enable<br />
decision-making where particular foreign<br />
court decisions do not meet the requirements<br />
of public order.<br />
Therefore, in developed European countries<br />
(here, we primarily mean countries which<br />
make up the continental-European legal system),<br />
we do not deal with an exact list, but instead<br />
with a doctrine that is based on judiciary<br />
practice and theoretical legal science, and<br />
sets approximate boundaries for public order.<br />
In general, the reservation on ordre public is<br />
clearly regarded as a norm that can be used<br />
in exceptional cases; its legal interpretation is<br />
completed within the framework of a narrow<br />
defi nition and, correspondingly, we rarely see<br />
such precedents in regards to declaration of<br />
foreign court decisions as enforceable.<br />
It is worth nothing that the <strong>Law</strong> of Georgia<br />
on <strong>International</strong> Private <strong>Law</strong> does not specify<br />
how a judge should verify the grounds of rejecting<br />
a foreign court’s decision, with its initiative,<br />
i.e. within the frameworks of its obligations,<br />
or based on a disposition principle, only<br />
as the result of the motion of parties.<br />
It is recognized that the relevance of the<br />
decision with the public order should be verifi<br />
ed by ajudge in all cases. Thus, it represents<br />
its obligation as a judge. However, does this<br />
mean that other grounds should be considered<br />
by the motion of the party There is no<br />
256
L. GOTUA, ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN COURT DECISIONS AND FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS IN GEORGIA<br />
common idea in reference to other conditions.<br />
Here, everything depends on explanation-interpretation<br />
of the fi rst sentence in the 2 nd paragraph<br />
of Article 69. Presumably, the phrase<br />
“the decision is not recognized, if…” has considerable<br />
imperative meaning. It is seen from<br />
the rulings rendered by the Supreme Court<br />
of Georgia in regards to the recognition and<br />
enforcement of foreign court decisions that<br />
judges mostly consider themselves obliged to<br />
verify the conditions mentioned in Article 68.<br />
Despite this, the author belives it would be<br />
justifi ed to make a small indication about this<br />
issue in the text of the normative act.<br />
Unfortunately, the issue of enforcing the<br />
foreign arbitral award was, in fact, been left<br />
beyond the legal regulation in the Georgian<br />
legislation that was effective until 2010.<br />
Moreover, the situation is quite chaotic, when<br />
despite this there are still precedents of recognition<br />
and enforcements of such judgments in<br />
Georgia. For instance, this took place with the<br />
analogy of motion on legal assistance of the<br />
courts of foreign countries, which represents a<br />
completely different legal instrument. 48<br />
Article 45 of the new law on Arbitration<br />
passed by Parliament on June 19, 20<strong>09</strong> stipulates<br />
the circumstances for refusing to recognize<br />
and enforce arbitral awards. This list is<br />
based on the provisions of the New York convention,<br />
and shall be deemed as positive that<br />
the law clearly merges the conditions which<br />
are in disposition of the parties from the circumstances<br />
existence of which shall be verifi<br />
ed by the court.<br />
References<br />
1. <strong>Law</strong> of Georgia on <strong>International</strong> Private <strong>Law</strong>, 1998. (as of November, 20<strong>09</strong>)<br />
2. <strong>Law</strong> of Georgia on Enforcement Proceedings, 1999. (as of November 20<strong>09</strong>)<br />
3. <strong>Law</strong> of Georgia on Private Arbitration, 1997. (as of November 20<strong>09</strong>)<br />
4. <strong>Law</strong> of Georgia on Arbitration, 20<strong>09</strong>.<br />
5. Agreement between Georgia and Republic of Azerbaijan on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations over<br />
Civil, Family and Criminal Cases, 1996<br />
6. Z. Gabisonia, Georgian <strong>International</strong> Private <strong>Law</strong>, Tbilisi, 2006. (in Georgian)<br />
7. T. Liluashvili, <strong>International</strong> Private <strong>Law</strong>, Tbilisi, 2000. (in Georgian)<br />
8. www.supremecourt.ge, court judgment, ruling N3a-102, July 4, 2003.<br />
9. M.M. Boguslavski, <strong>International</strong> Private <strong>Law</strong>, Moscow, 2002. (in Russian)<br />
10. E. Bucher, die internationale Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit in der Schweiz, Bd. 1/II, Zuerich, 1988<br />
11. A.v. Falck, Implementierung offener auslaendischer Vollstreckungstitel, Bielefeld, 1998.<br />
12. Geimer, <strong>International</strong>es Zivilprozessrecht, 4. Aufl age, Koeln, 2001.<br />
13. Geimer, Anerkennung auslaendischer Entscheidungen, Koeln, 1996.<br />
14. U. Haas, die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer und internationaler Schiedssprüche,<br />
Muenchen, 1991.<br />
15. Kegel, Exequatur sur exequatur ne vaut, Muenchen, 1986.<br />
16. Kropholler, <strong>International</strong>es Privatrecht, Hamburg, 4. Aufl age.<br />
17. Martiny, <strong>International</strong>es Zivilverfahrensrecht, Muenchen, 1984.<br />
18. Nagel/Gottwald, <strong>International</strong>es Zivilprozessrecht, 5. Auf., Koeln, 2002.<br />
19. H. Schack, <strong>International</strong>es Zivilverfahrensrecht, Muenchen, 1996.<br />
20. H.-J. Schramm, GTZ Schriften, die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung auslaendischer Gerichtsurteile in<br />
der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Bremen 2002.<br />
21. Schlosser, Recht der internationalen privaten Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Muenchen 1989.<br />
22. OLGZ 1917, 323 (Entscheidungen der Oberlandesgerichte in Zivilsachen – Judgments of Higher<br />
Courts of Federal Lands on Civil Cases.<br />
23. OLG Stuttgart IPRspr. 1982/175 OLG – Oberlandesgericht – Higher Court of Land, IPRspr. - Die deutsche<br />
Rechtsprechung auf dem Gebiete des <strong>International</strong>en Privatrechts – Compilation of the Judiciary<br />
Practice in the fi eld of <strong>International</strong> Private <strong>Law</strong>.<br />
24. BGHZ 20, S. 239 - Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofs in Zivilsachen – Judgments of the Federal<br />
Supreme Court on civil cases.<br />
257
saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 20<strong>09</strong> , #1, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, <strong>N2</strong>, 20<strong>09</strong>, <strong>N1</strong>, 2010<br />
1<br />
Nagel/Gottwald, <strong>International</strong>es Zivilprozessrecht, 5. Auf., 2002, S. 863<br />
2<br />
Compare: H. Schack, <strong>International</strong>es Zivilverfahrensrecht, Muenchen, 1996, S. 368<br />
3<br />
Compare: H.-J. Schramm, II, 1 GTZ Schriften, die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung<br />
auslaendischer Gerichtsurteile in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 2002<br />
4<br />
U. Haas, die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer und internationaler<br />
Schiedssprüche, 1991, S. 129<br />
5<br />
U. Haas, die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer und internationaler<br />
Schiedssprüche, 1991, S. 129<br />
6<br />
There have been talks in Georgian legal science for making substantial amendments<br />
to the law on arbitration for a long time, though it was possible to adopt a<br />
respective normative act only in 20<strong>09</strong>. (author’s note)<br />
7<br />
U. Haas, die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer und internationaler<br />
Schiedssprüche, 1991, S. 128.<br />
8<br />
Compare: Geimer, <strong>International</strong>es Zivilprozessrecht, 4. Aufl age, Koeln, 2001.<br />
9<br />
U. Haas, die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer und internationaler<br />
Schiedssprüche, 1991, S. 129.<br />
10<br />
Schlosser, Recht der internationalen privaten Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, 2. Auf1.,<br />
1989, Rz. 904<br />
11<br />
Martiny, <strong>International</strong>es Zivilverfahrensrecht, Muenchen, 1984, Rz. 367.<br />
12<br />
U. Haas, die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer und internationaler<br />
Schiedssprüche, 1991, S. 129.<br />
13<br />
Martiny, <strong>International</strong>es Zivilverfahrensrecht, Muenchen, 1984, Rz. 367.<br />
14<br />
U. Haas, die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer und internationaler<br />
Schiedssprüche, 1991, S. 130<br />
15<br />
Geimer, IZPR, 4. Auf., Rz 3100.<br />
16<br />
The legal defi nition of such a disclosing decision, more exactly, of its legal grounds,<br />
the claim, has been envisaged in Article 180 of the Civil Procedures Code of<br />
Georgia: “the claim can be fi led for determining the existence-absence of the right<br />
or legal relations, recognition of the authenticity of document or determination that<br />
the documents were forfeited, if the plaintiff has the legal interest to have such a<br />
disclosure thought the court decision.”(author’s note)<br />
17<br />
Kegel, Exequatur sur exequatur ne vaut, (Muenchen: 1986), S. 383.<br />
18<br />
A European convention was made in Brussels in 1968 on the Jurisdiction and<br />
the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. This treaty has<br />
become exemplary for further European conventions related to enforcement. (author’s<br />
note)<br />
19<br />
Kegel, Exequatur sur exequatur ne vaut, Muenchen, 1986, S. 391<br />
20<br />
Martiny, <strong>International</strong>es Zivilverfahrensrecht, 1984, III, 1<br />
21<br />
OLGZ 1917, 323<br />
22<br />
OLG Stuttgart IPRspr. 1982/175<br />
23<br />
Geimer, IZPR, 4. Auf., Rz 3105<br />
24<br />
Martiny, <strong>International</strong>es Zivilverfahrensrecht, 1984, Rz 1582<br />
25<br />
Z. Gabisonia, Georgian <strong>International</strong> Private <strong>Law</strong>, Tbilisi, 2006;<br />
26<br />
BGHZ 20, S. 239.<br />
27<br />
Compare: Nagel/Gottwald, <strong>International</strong>es Zivilprozessrecht, 5. Auf., Koeln, S. 608.<br />
28<br />
Geimer, Anerkennung auslaendischer Entscheidungen, Koeln, 1996, S. 97.<br />
29<br />
Kropholler, <strong>International</strong>es Privatrecht, 4. Aufl age, S. 618.<br />
30<br />
The Brussels Convention was modifi ed in 2002 as a Council Regulation (EC) No<br />
44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments on civil<br />
and commercial matters. The Brussels convention represents an ordinary international<br />
treaty, and if any of its contracting states make any amendments to it, this<br />
requires mandatory procedures for its ratifi cation by each of the member states<br />
at the respective highest representation body. Contrary to this, the Regulation<br />
44/2001 does not represent a typical international treaty, because it is an Act<br />
258
L. GOTUA, ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN COURT DECISIONS AND FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS IN GEORGIA<br />
issued by the EU body, which is binding for all the member states, acts directly,<br />
and the amendments made therein enter into force simultaneously on the whole<br />
territory of the European Union. The advantage of the European law, as an independent<br />
source of the law, has been fully employed in this Act. (author’s note)<br />
31<br />
H.-J. Schramm, GTZ Schriften, die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung auslaendischer<br />
Gerichtsurteile in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 2002, III, Pkt. 2.<br />
32<br />
Compare: Nagel/Gottwald, <strong>International</strong>es Zivilprozessrecht, 5. Auf., Koeln, S. 6<strong>09</strong>.<br />
33<br />
Compare: Nagel/Gottwald, <strong>International</strong>es Zivilprozessrecht, 5. Auf., 2002, S. 901.<br />
34<br />
U. Haas, die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer und internationaler<br />
Schiedssprüche, 1991, S. 131.<br />
35<br />
E. Bucher, die <strong>International</strong>e Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit in der Schweiz, Bd. 1/II,<br />
1988, S. 122.<br />
36<br />
A.v. Falck, Implementierung offener auslaendischer Vollstreckungstitel, Bielefeld,<br />
1998, S. 55.<br />
37<br />
Compare: A.v. Falck, Implementierung offener auslaendischer Vollstreckungstitel,<br />
Bielefeld, 1998S. 55.<br />
38<br />
Compare: A.v. Falck, Implementierung offener auslaendischer Vollstreckungstitel,<br />
Bielefeld, 1998S. 55.<br />
39<br />
Compare: H.-J. Schramm, GTZ Schriften, die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung<br />
auslaendischer Gerichtsurteile in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 2002, III, P. 6.<br />
40<br />
Or the decisions that are based on such norms ( author’s note)<br />
41<br />
Compare: T. Liluashvili, <strong>International</strong> Private <strong>Law</strong>, 2000, 42.<br />
42<br />
М.М.Богуславский, Международное частное право, 2002, Москва, ст. 400<br />
43<br />
М.М.Богуславский, Международное частное право, 2002, Москва, ст. 400<br />
44<br />
To compare: A.v. Falck, Implementierung offener auslaendischer Vollstreckungstitel,<br />
Bielefeld, 1998 S. 55<br />
45<br />
Martiny, <strong>International</strong>es Zivilverfahrensrecht III/1, Rz. 1016<br />
46<br />
Compare: Gabisonia, Georgian <strong>International</strong> Private <strong>Law</strong>, Tbilisi, 2006, p. 112;<br />
47<br />
Compare: H.-J. Schramm, GTZ Schriften, die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung<br />
auslaendischer Gerichtsurteile in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 2002 III, p. 6.<br />
48<br />
Compare: www.supremecourt.ge, court judgment, ruling N3a-102, July 4, 2003,<br />
259
mTargmneli<br />
inglisuri teqstis redaqtori-koreqtori<br />
qarTuli teqstis redaqtori-koreqtori<br />
komp. uzrunvelyofa<br />
diana JRenti<br />
fei heili<br />
Tamar gabelaia<br />
lali kurdRelaSvili<br />
Translators<br />
English Proof-reader<br />
Georgian Proof-reader<br />
IT Support<br />
Diana Zhgenti<br />
Faye Healey<br />
Tamar Gabelaia<br />
Lali Kurdgelashvili
Change language