احتیاط در حقوق بین الملل: اصل عرفی یا اصل کلی حقوق؟

الف-1) فارسی

 

الف)کتاب

- مرادی، حسن، (1392)، حقوق بین­الملل محیط­زیست، تهران: نشرمیزان.

ب)مقاله‌ها

- رمضانی قوام­آبادی، محمدحسین، (1392)، «بررسی تطبیقی اجرای اصل احتیاط زیست­محیطی در پرتو آراء و تصمیمات مراجع بین­المللی»، فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق عمومی، دورة پانزدهم، شماره 40.

- فلسفی، هدایت اله، (1389)، «ماجرای تفسیر در دیوان بین­المللی دادگستری» در: نقش دیوان بین­المللی دادگستری در تداوم و توسعة حقوق بین­الملل، انجمن ایرانی مطالعات سازمان ملل متحد، تهران، چاپ اول

- موسوی، سید فضل الله، آرش­پور، علیرضا، (1394)، «جایگاه اصل احتیاطی در حقوق بین­الملل محیط­زیست»، فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق عمومی، دورة چهل و پنجم، شمارة 2.

- موسوی، سید فضل­الله، حسینی، سید حسین، موسوی­فر، سید حسین، (1394) «اصول حقوق بین­الملل محیط­زیست در پرتو آراء مراجع حقوقی بین­المللی»، فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق عمومی، دورة هفدهم، شمارة 48.

 

ج- پایان نامه

-- زرنشان، شهرام، (1390)،1390)   نقش، نقش رویة قضایی بین‌المللی در شناسایی قواعد عرفی، پایان‌نامه دکتری، دانشکدة حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران.

 

 

ب- انگلیسی

2) English

A) Books

- Brownlie, Ian, (2003), Principles of Public International Law, Oxford University Press, 6^th ed., New York,

-De Sadeleer, Nicolas, (2002), Environmental Principles: From Political Slogans to Legal Rules, Oxford University Press, NewYork.

 

- Dworkin, Ronald, (1978), Taking Rights Seriously, Harvard University Press.

 

- Klabbers, Jan, (2013), International Law, Cambridg University Press, Cambridge.

 

- Sands, Philippe, Peel, Jacqueline, (2012), Principles of International Environmental Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

 

- Zander, Joakim, (2010), The Application of the Precautionary Principle in Practice,

Cambridge, University Press Cambridge.

 

B) Articles

- Akelaitis, Letcher, (2014), “The Supreme Court of Canada Applies The Precautionary Principle”, Retrieved from: http:// www. laal.ca/ wpcontent/ uploads/ 2014/02/ ScanPage_ 20140206095840_ 00000001_20140206_ 09585569 47_20140206_0958579094.pdf, Accessed: 6/10/2017.

- Bassiouni, Cherif, (1990), “A Functional Approach to General Principles of International Law”, Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol. 11.

- Bodansky, Daniel, (2004), “Deconstructing the Precautionary Principle” in Caron, David D., Scheiber, Harry N. (eds.), Bringing New Law to Ocean Waters, Leiden,Martinus Nijhoff Publications.

 

- De Sadeleer, Nicolas, (2000), “The Enforcement of the Precautionary Principle by German, French and Belgian Courts”, Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, Vol. 9, No.2.

 

- Feintuck, Mike, (2005), “Precautionary Maybe, but What's the Principle? The Precautionary Principle, The Regulation of Risk, and the Public Domain”, Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 32, No. 3.

 

- Hollo, Erkki, (2007), “Finland” in De Sadeleer, Nicolas (ed.), Implementing the Precautionary Principle Approaches from the Nordic Countries, EU and USA, London, Earth Scan.

 

- Kavi Kumar, K.s., (2007), “Precautionary Principle, Center of Excellence in Environmental Economics, Dissemination Paper”, Retrieved from: http:// coe.mse.ac.in/dp/Precaution-Kavi.pdf,Accessed: 8/10/ 2015.

 

- McIntyre, Owen, Mosedale, Thomas, (1997), “The Precautionary Principle as a Norm of Customary International Law”, Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 9, No.2.

 

- Michanek, Gabriel, (2007), “Sweden” inDe Sadeleer, Nicolas (ed.) Implementing the Precautionary Principle Approaches from the Nordic Countries, EU and USA, London, Earth Scan.

 

- Pellet, Alain, (2006), “Art. 38” in Zimmermann, Andreas, et al. (eds.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, New York.

- Peterson, Deborah C., (2006), “Precaution: Principles and Practice in Australian Environmental and Natural Resource Management”, 50^th Annual Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society Conference, Manly.

 

- Ruessmann, Laurent A, (2002), “Putting the Precautionary Principle in its place: Parameter for the Proper Application of a Precautionary Approach and the Implications for Developing Countries in Light of the Doha WTO Ministerial”, American University International Law Review, Vol. 17.

 

- Sache, Noah M., (2011), “Rescuing the Strong Precautionary Principle from Its Critics”, University of Illinois Law Review, Vol.4.

 

- Sandin, Per, et al., (2002), “Five Charges against the Precautionary Principle, Journal of Risk Research”, Vol. 5, No. 4.

 

- Sirinskiene, Agne, (2009), “The Status of Precautionary Principle: Moving Towards a Rule of Customary Law”, Jurisprudence, Vol. 4.

 

- Trouwborst, Arie, (2009), “Prevention, Precaution, Logic and Law: The Relationship between the Precautionary Principle and the Preventative Principle in International Law and Associated Questions.” Erasmus Law Review, Vol. 2, No.2.

 

- Voight, Christina, (2008), “The Role of General Principles in International Law and their Relationship to Treaty Law”, Retfaerd Nordic Journal of Law and Justice, Vol. 31.

 

- VanderZwaag, David, (2013), “The ICJ, ITLOS and the Precautionary Approach: Paltry Progressions, Jurisprudential Jousting”, University of Hawai'i Law Review, Vol. 35, No. 2.

 

C) Cases

 

ICJ Cases:

-Case concerning North Sea Continental Shelf, Germany v. Denmark& Netherlands, 1969.

-Case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, Nicaragua v. US, 1986.

-Case concerning Nuclear Tests Case, Australia & New Zealand v. France, 1995.

-Case Concerning Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project, Hungary v. Slovakia, 1997.

-Case concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay, Argentina v. Uruguay, 2010.

 

ITLOS Cases:

-Southern Bluefin Tuna case, New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan, 1999

-Mox Plant case, Ireland v. United Kingdom, 2001

-Land Reclamation by Singapore in and around the Straits of Johor, Malaysia v. Singapore, 2003

-Advisory Opinion on Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area, 1 Feb. 2011.

 

EU Cases:

-Case 53/80, 1981 E. C. R. (Nisin Case;Koninklijke Kaasfabriek Eyssen BV).

-Case 174/82, 1983 E. C. R. (Sandoz Case).

-Case C-435/93, 1994, E.C.R. I-67 (wild bird Case; Association Pour la Protection des Animaux Sauvages et prefet de maine et loire de Prefet de la laire-Atlantique).

-Case C-180/96, UK. v. Commission, 99 E.C.R. I-8105 (mad cow Case).

-Case T-13/ 99 (Pfizer Case).

-Case T- 70/99, 2002 E. C. R. II- 3495 (Alpharma Case).

-Case T-74/00 (Artegodan Case).

-Case C-236/01, 2003 E.C.R. I-8150 (Monsanto Case).

-Case C-127/02, 2005, E.C.R. I 6515 (Wadenzee Case).

-Case C-14/06 and Case C-295/06 2007, E.C.R. I-7441 (Electrical and electronic equipment Case).

-Case T-229/04 Sweden v Commission, 2007 E.C.R. I-2437 (Paraquat Case).

-Case C-77/09 (Gowan Case).

-Case T‑333/10 (Animal Trading Company Case).

-Case C‑269/13 P (Acino Case).

-Joined Cases C-358/14, C-477/14 and C-547/14(Electronic Cigarettes Cases).

 

Other  CasesOther Cases

-Supreme Court of Canada, Castonguay Blasting Ltd. v. Ontario (Environment), 2013, Retrieved from: https://www.elaw.org/system/files/castonguay_en_0.pdf, Accessed: 7/10/2017.

-Supreme Court of India, Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Others, 2000, Retrieved from:http://www.narmadaandolan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/SC-18.10.2000-2000-10-SCC-664.pdf, Accessed: 8/10/2017.

-Supreme Court of India, Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Others, 1996, Retrieved from: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1934103/, Accessed: 8/10/2017.

 

D) Documents

 

-Court of justice of European Union, (2016), CJEU press release No. 48/16. Luxembourg.

     -Summary of the Communication from the EU Commission on the precautionary principle, 2001.