Природно-правові основи становлення заборони расової дискримінації як норми jus cogens
Анотація
В статье исследуется становление императивного запрета расовой дискриминации в контексте эволюции понятий "равенство" и "справедливость" как составляющих доктрины о разграничении международного права на jus cogens и jus despositivum. Рассматривается теория jus naturales как составляющая доклассической формы международного права и ее влияние на трансформацию института прав человека в классическом международном праве. Исследуется становление национального и международно-правового запрета расовой дискриминации как явления, противоречащего давним философским идеям о приоритете общей справедливости и равенства перед позитивным правом. Анализируется юридический процесс общемирового признания императивного статуса запрета расовой дискриминации в современном международном праве.
Посилання
Todd S. C. A Glossary of Athenian Legal Terms. Selections by
Michael de Brauw. Edition of March 16, 2003. – P. 31.
Aequitas (aequum). Related to justice but distinguished from the positive
law, jus. One of the fundamental principles which direct or should
direct the development of law; it is the corrective and creative element
in such development. A law which is guided by aiquitas is jus
aequum, its antonym is jus iniquum. In the legal sphere aequitas may
be realized either by interpreting the existing law or by supplementing
it where an exact legal provision is missing. Aequitas, as the word itself
indicates, implies the element of equality. Transferred into the province
of law it postulates equal treatment of all according to the conceptions
nurtured in the social (common) conscience of the people which change,
of course, when social and economic conditions undergo a change
(Berger А. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law. – Philadelphia:
The American Philosophical Society (1953). – P. 354).
Ziolkowski Т. The mirror of justice: literary refl ections of legal
crises. – Princeton University Press, 2003. – P. 163.
Hamburger М. Morals and law: the growth of Aristotle's legal
theory. – Biblo & Tannen Publishers, 1965. – P. 110.
Bassiouni M. Ch. International Criminal Law: Multilateral and
bilateral enforcement mechanisms. – BRILL, 2008. – P. 170.
Linda A. Malone. International Law. – Aspen Publishers Online,
– P. 1.
Svarverud R. International law as world order in Late Imperial China:
translation, reception and discourse, 1847-1911. – BRILL, 2007. – Р. 34.
May L. War crimes and just war. – Cambridge University Press,
– Р. 50.
Bull H., t Kingsbury B., Roberts А. Hugo Grotjus and International
Relations. – Oxford University Press, 1992. – Р. 253.
Див. позицію Підкомісії з попередження дискримінації та захисту
меншин Комісії з міжнародного права ООН / Yearbook of the
International Law Commission. E/CN. 4/873, para. 29. – Vol. II – 1966.
Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery (1926). – League
of Nations Treaty Series. – Vol. 60, P. 254.
Mats R. Berdal, Spyros Economides. United Nations Interventionism
– 2004. – Cambridge University Press, 2007. – p. 6.
See: Alfred Verdross. Jus Dispositivum and Jus Cogens in
International Law. – The American Journal of International Law
Vol. 60, №. 1 (Jan., 1966), p. 55-63; Alfred Verdross. Forbidden
Treaties in International Law. – The American Journal of
International Law, №. 31, (1937), p. 571-577.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969). – United Nations,
Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331. – Art. 53, 64.
United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 660, p. 240-266.
See.: Malcolm N. Shaw. International Law. 5th edition. – Cambridge
University Press, 2003: "The concept of jus cogens is based upon
an acceptance of fundamental and superior values", "It also refl ects
the infl uence of Natural Law thinking". – P. 117.
Boczek В. А. International Law: a Dictionary. – Scarecrow Press,
– P. 20.
Шевчук С. Судовий захист прав людини: Практика Європейського
Суду з прав людини у контексті західної правової традиції. –
Вид. 2-е, випр., доп. – К.: Реферат, 2007. – 848с. – С. 660.
Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising From
the Diversification and Expansion of International Law. Report of the
Study Group of the International Law Commission, Chaired by Martti
Koskenniemi, Report of the International Law Commission on the
work of its 58th session, 1 May – 9 June and 3 July – 11 August 2006.
The report consists of two parts. The bulk of the report is contained in
document. – A/CN. 4/L. 682, A/CN. 4/L. 702.
Boleslaw В. А. International Law: a Dictionary. – Scarecrow Press,
– P. 19.
Charlesworth H. Concept of Equality in International Law. – Grant
Huscroft & Paul Rishworth (ed) Litigating Rights, 2002. – P. 143.
See: Brownlie I. Principles of Public International Law. 5th Edition. –
Oxford University Press, 2002.
Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium
v. Spain) (1962-1970), Second Phase, Judgment, I. C. J Reports 1970. –
P. 32, paras. 33-34.
Barselona Traction, para. 91; South West Africa (Ethiopia v. South
Africa; Liberia v. South Africa) (1960-1966), ICJ Reports 1962/1966;
Nicaragua v. United States of America, ICJ Reports 1986; East Timor
case (Portugal v. Australia), ICJ Reports, 1995; Northern Cameroon's,
South West Africa, Nuclear Tests, Hostages and Border and
Transborder (Nicaragua v. Honduras).
