CHP 4

‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‬
‫‪ -٣٨‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﳊﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﳋﻤﺴﲔ )ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ،(١٩٩٩‬ﻋﻴّﻨـﺖ‬ ‫ﺃﻟﻒ‪ -‬ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﻓﺮ ﺟﻮﻥ ﺭﻭﺑﺮﺕ ﺩﻭﻏﺎﺭﺩ ﻣﻘـﺮﺭﹰﺍ ﺧﺎﺻـﹰﺎ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺿﻮﻉ)‪ ،(١٣‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻧﺘُﺨﺐ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺑﻨﻮﻧـﻪ ﻗﺎﺿـﻴﹰﺎ ﰲ‬ ‫‪ -٣٤‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﺭﺑﻌﲔ )ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ،(١٩٩٥‬ﺃﻗـﺮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻴﻮﻏﻮﺳﻼﻓﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﺗﻮﺻﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﳌﻌﲏ ﺑﱪﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﺍﻟﻌﻤـﻞ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﻳـﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺟﻞ ﺍﳌﺆﻳﺪﺓ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻭﻗﺮﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﺭﻫﻨﺎﹰ ﲟﻮﺍﻓﻘـﺔ ﺍﳉﻤﻌﻴـﺔ‬
‫‪ -٣٩‬ﻭﻗﺪﻡ ﺍﳌﻘﺮﺭ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﲬﺴﺔ ﺗﻘﺎﺭﻳﺮ)‪ (١٤‬ﺧـﻼﻝ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﺩﺭﺍﺝ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﰲ ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﳍﺎ)‪ .(٨‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟـﺪﻭﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳋﻤﺴﲔ )ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ (٢٠٠٠‬ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟـﺪﻭﺭﺓ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻨﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﺭﺑﻌﲔ )ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ،(١٩٩٦‬ﺍﻋﺘﱪﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨـﺔ ﻣﻮﺿـﻮﻉ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺳﺔ ﻭﺍﳋﻤﺴﲔ )ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ (٢٠٠٤‬ﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺳﺔ‬ ‫"ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ" ﺃﺣﺪ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻣﻮﺍﺿﻴﻊ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﺘـﺪﻭﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳋﻤﺴﲔ )ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ،(٢٠٠٤‬ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺪﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨـﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘـﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺭﳚﻲ)‪ .(٩‬ﰒ ﺩﻋﺖ ﺍﳉﻤﻌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻗﺮﺍﺭﻫـﺎ‬
‫ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ‪ ١٩‬ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‬ ‫‪ ١٦٠/٥١‬ﺍﳌﺆﺭﺥ ‪ ١٦‬ﻛﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪/‬ﺩﻳﺴﻤﱪ ‪ ،١٩٩٦‬ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻘﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ)‪ .(١٥‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭﺓ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻗﺮﺭﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻘﹰﺎ‬ ‫ﺇﱃ ﻣﻮﺍﺻﻠﺔ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻭﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﻧﻄﺎﻗﻪ ﻭﻣﻀﻤﻮﻧﻪ ﰲ ﺿﻮﺀ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﺎﺩﺗﲔ ‪ ١٦‬ﻭ‪ ٢١‬ﻣﻦ ﻧﻈﺎﻣﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﲢﻴـﻞ ﻣـﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻘﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﳌﻼﺣﻈﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﹸﺑﺪﻳﺖ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺎﺵ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ‪ ،‬ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻷﻣﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻜﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﻹﺑﺪﺍﺀ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻘﺎﻬﺗـﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺳﺔ ﻭﺃﻱ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻘﺎﺕ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻮﺩ ﺍﳊﻜﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﺗﻘﺪﳝﻬﺎ)‪.(١٠‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻼﺣﻈﺎﻬﺗﺎ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻘـﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﳌﻼﺣﻈـﺎﺕ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻣﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﲝﻠﻮﻝ ‪ ١‬ﻛﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪/‬ﻳﻨﺎﻳﺮ ‪.(١٦)٢٠٠٦‬‬ ‫‪ -٣٥‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﳉﻠﺴﺔ ‪ ٢٥١٠‬ﺍﳌﻌﻘﻮﺩﺓ ﰲ ‪ ١١‬ﲤﻮﺯ‪/‬ﻳﻮﻟﻴﻪ ‪،١٩٩٧‬‬
‫ﻋﻴﻨﺖ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﳏﻤﺪ ﺑﻨﻮﻧﻪ ﻣﻘﺮﺭﹰﺍ ﺧﺎﺻﹰﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺿﻮﻉ)‪.(١١‬‬
‫__________‬ ‫‪ -٣٦‬ﻭﻭﺍﻓﻘﺖ ﺍﳉﻤﻌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻗﺮﺍﺭﻫﺎ ‪ ١٥٦/٥٢‬ﺍﳌﺆﺭﺥ ‪١٥‬‬
‫)‪ (١٣‬ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،١٩٩٩‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ(‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘـﺔ ‪،A/54/10‬‬ ‫ﻛﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪/‬ﺩﻳﺴﻤﱪ ‪ ،١٩٩٧‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﺝ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ‬
‫ﺹ ‪ ،٨‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.١٩‬‬ ‫"ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ" ﰲ ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﳍﺎ‪.‬‬
‫)‪ (١٤‬ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،٢٠٠٠‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜـﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉـﺰﺀ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ(‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ ‪ A/CN.4/506‬ﻭ‪) Add.1‬ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ‪ ١‬ﺇﱃ ‪(٩‬؛ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺜـﺎﱐ‪:‬‬
‫‪ -٣٧‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻌﺮﻭﺿﹰﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺩﻭﺭﻬﺗﺎ ﺍﳋﻤﺴﲔ )ﻋـﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،٢٠٠١‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ(‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ ‪) A/CN.4/514‬ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ‬ ‫‪ ،(١٩٩٨‬ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻷﻭﱄ ﻟﻠﻤﻘﺮﺭ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ)‪.(١٢‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ‪ ١٠‬ﺇﱃ ‪(١٣‬؛ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،٢٠٠٢‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉـﺰﺀ‬ ‫__________‬
‫ﺍﻷﻭﻝ(‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ ‪ A/CN.4/523‬ﻭ‪) Add.1‬ﻣـﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌـﻮﺍﺩ ‪ ١٤‬ﺇﱃ ‪(١٦‬؛‬
‫)‪ (٨‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،١٩٩٥‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٢١٣‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪ :‬ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،٢٠٠٣‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜـﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉـﺰﺀ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ(‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘـﺔ‬ ‫‪ .٥٠١‬ﻭﺃﺣﺎﻃﺖ ﺍﳉﻤﻌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻤﹰﺎ ﰲ ﻗﺮﺍﺭﻫﺎ ‪ ٤٥/٥٠‬ﺍﳌﺆﺭﺥ ‪ ١١‬ﻛـﺎﻧﻮﻥ‬
‫‪ A/CN.4/530‬ﻭ‪) Add.1‬ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ‪ ١٧‬ﺇﱃ ‪(٢٢‬؛ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳـﺮ ﺍﳋـﺎﻣﺲ‪:‬‬ ‫ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪/‬ﺩﻳﺴﻤﱪ ‪ ١٩٩٥‬ﺑﺎﻗﺘﺮﺍﺡ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﺝ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﰲ ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﳍﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،٢٠٠٤‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ(‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ ‪) A/CN.4/538‬ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ‬ ‫)‪ (٩‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،١٩٩٦‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉـﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜـﺎﱐ(‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ‪ ٢٣‬ﺇﱃ ‪ .(٢٧‬ﻭﺧﻼﻝ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺃﺟﺮﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻣـﺸﺎﻭﺭﺍﺕ‬ ‫‪ ،A/51/10‬ﺹ ‪ ،٢٠٦‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ،٢٤٨‬ﻭﺍﳌﺮﻓﻖ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﺍﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ‪ ،١‬ﺹ ‪.٢٩٤‬‬
‫ﻏﲑ ﺭﲰﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ‪ ١‬ﻭ‪ ٣‬ﻭ‪) ٦‬ﰲ ﺩﻭﺭﻬﺗﺎ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳋﻤﺴﲔ ﻋﺎﻡ‬ ‫ﻼ ﺑﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳉﻤﻌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‬‫)‪ (١٠‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ ‪ A/51/358‬ﻭ‪ .Add.1‬ﻭﻋﻤ ﹰ‬
‫‪) (٢٠٠٠‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،٢٠٠٠‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪،١٤٢-١٤٠‬‬ ‫ﻼ ﻳُﻌﲎ ﻬﺑﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﰲ ﺩﻭﺭﻬﺗﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺳﻌﺔ‬‫‪ ،١٦٠/٥١‬ﺃﻧﺸﺄﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﻓﺮﻳﻘﹰﺎ ﻋﺎﻣ ﹰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ،(٤٩٥‬ﻭﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪) ٩‬ﰲ ﺩﻭﺭﻬﺗﺎ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺜﺔ ﻭﺍﳋﻤﺴﲔ ﻋـﺎﻡ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻷﺭﺑﻌﲔ )ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،١٩٩٧‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،١١٤‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘـﺮﺓ‬
‫‪) (٢٠٠١‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،٢٠٠١‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜـﺎﱐ( ﻭﺍﻟﺘـﺼﻮﻳﺐ‪،‬‬ ‫‪ .(١٦٩‬ﻭﻗﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭﺓ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺮﹰﺍ ﺃﻳﺪﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ )ﺍﳌﺮﺟـﻊ‬
‫ﺹ ‪ ،٢٥١‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ،(١٦٦‬ﻭﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻴﺔ ﻟﻸﻃﻘـﻢ‬ ‫ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ .(١٧١‬ﻭﺍﻗﺘﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﳐﻄﻄﹰﺎ ﻟﻠﻨﻈـﺮ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺿـﻮﻉ‬
‫ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻟﻠﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﻭﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ )ﰲ ﺩﻭﺭﻬﺗﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻌـﺔ ﻭﺍﳋﻤـﺴﲔ ﻋـﺎﻡ‬ ‫ﺃﻭﺻﺖ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻣﻪ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﹰﺎ ﻳﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺍﳌﻘﺮﺭ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﻟﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺃﻭﱄ‬
‫‪) (٢٠٠٢‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،٢٠٠٢‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٥٦‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ‬ ‫)ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،١٢٠-١١٧‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺗﺎﻥ ‪.(١٩٠-١٨٩‬‬
‫‪ .(١١٣‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧﺸﺄﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﰲ ﺩﻭﺭﻬﺗﺎ ﺍﳋﺎﻣﺴﺔ ﻭﺍﳋﻤﺴﲔ‪ ،‬ﻋـﺎﻡ ‪،٢٠٠٣‬‬ ‫)‪ (١١‬ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،١٩٩٧‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜـﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉـﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜـﺎﱐ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪،١٢٠‬‬
‫ﻓﺮﻳﻘﹰﺎ ﻋﺎﻣ ﹰﻼ ﻟﻠﻨﻈﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )‪ (٢‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌـﺎﺩﺓ ‪) ١٧‬ﺍﻧﻈـﺮ ﺣﻮﻟﻴـﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.١٩٠‬‬
‫‪ ،٢٠٠٣‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٣٢‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺍﺕ ‪.(٩٢-٩٠‬‬ ‫ـﺔ‬
‫ـﺰﺀ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ(‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘـ‬ ‫ـﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉـ‬ ‫ـﺔ ‪ ،١٩٩٨‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠـ‬
‫ـﺪ ﺍﻟﺜـ‬ ‫)‪ (١٢‬ﺣﻮﻟﻴـ‬
‫ﻼ‬
‫‪ ،A/CN.4/484‬ﺹ ‪ .٣٨٥‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭﺓ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻧﺸﺄﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﻓﺮﻳﻘﹰﺎ ﻋـﺎﻣ ﹰ‬
‫)‪ (١٥‬ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،٢٠٠٤‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉـﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜـﺎﱐ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪،٥٤-٢٢‬‬
‫ﻣﻔﺘﻮﺡ ﺍﻟﻌﻀﻮﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﻈﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﻼﺻﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺗﺎﻥ ‪.٦٠-٥٩‬‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﻨﻬﺞ ﻣﻌﺎﳉﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ )ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣـﻞ‪،‬‬
‫)‪ (١٦‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٢١‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٥٧‬‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،١٠٠‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.(١٠٨‬‬
‫‪26‬‬
‫‪27‬‬ ‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺩﺍﻝ‪ -‬ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺩﺓ ﺑﺎﳌﻘﺮﺭ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ‬ ‫‪ -٤٠‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﳋﻤﺴﲔ )ﻋـﺎﻡ ‪ (٢٠٠٥‬ﻛـﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺮﻭﺿﹰﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺱ ﻟﻠﻤﻘﺮﺭ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺒـﺪﺃ‬
‫‪ -٤٧‬ﰲ ﺍﳉﻠﺴﺔ ‪ ٢٩٠٩‬ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺪﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻋﺘﻤـﺎﺩ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﻳﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﻴﻔﺔ)‪.(١٧‬‬
‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﺑـﺪﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺖ‪:‬‬ ‫ﺑﺎﺀ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﳉﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‪،‬‬ ‫‪ -٤١‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻌﺮﻭﺿﹰﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻘـﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺪﺕ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻭﺍﳌﻼﺣﻈﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺭﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻜﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻟـﱵ‬
‫ـﺎﻡ ‪A/CN.4/561) ٢٠٠٤‬‬ ‫ـﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﰲ ﻋـ‬ ‫ـﺪﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘـ‬ ‫ﺍﻋﺘُﻤـ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺮﺏ ﻟﻠﻤﻘﺮﺭ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﻓﺮ ﺟﻮﻥ ﺭﻭﺑﺮﺕ ﺩﻭﻏﺎﺭﺩ‪ ،‬ﻋﻦ‬ ‫ﻭ‪ ،(١٨)(Add.1-2‬ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳـﺮ ﺍﻟـﺴﺎﺑﻊ ﻟﻠﻤﻘـﺮﺭ ﺍﳋـﺎﺹ‬
‫ﺗﻘﺪﻳﺮﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻟﻎ ﻭﻬﺗﺎﻧﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﳊﺎﺭﺓ ﳌﺎ ﻗﺪﻣﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺴﺎﳘﺔ ﺑﺎﺭﺯﺓ ﰲ ﺇﻋـﺪﺍﺩ ﻣـﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ‬ ‫)‪ (A/CN.4/567‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﻣﻘﺘﺮﺣﺎﺕ ﻟﻠﻨﻈﺮ ﰲ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌـﻮﺍﺩ ‪١‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻣﺎ ﺑﺬﻟﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﻮﺩ ﻻ ﺗﻜﻞ ﻭﻣﺎ ﺃﺑﺪﺍﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻔﺎ ٍﻥ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﳌﺎ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ‪ ١٩‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻘﺘﺮﺣﹰﺎ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ﺇﺿﺎﻓﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﰎ ﲢﻘﻴﻘﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﰲ ﻭﺿﻊ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺿﻮﺀ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻘﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﳌﻼﺣﻈﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺭﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻜﻮﻣﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﻧﻈﺮﺕ‬
‫‪ -٤٨‬ﻭﺃﻋﺮﺑﺖ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻎ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﺮﻫﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﻘﺮﺭ ﺍﳋـﺎﺹ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﰲ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﳌﻘﺮﺭ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﰲ ﺟﻠﺴﺎﻬﺗﺎ ‪ ٢٨٦٧‬ﺇﱃ ‪،٢٨٧١‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﳏﻤﺪ ﺑﻨﻮﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﳌﺴﺎﳘﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﱢﻤﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘـﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻌﻘﻮﺩﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ‪ ١‬ﺇﱃ ‪ ٥‬ﺃﻳﺎﺭ‪/‬ﻣﺎﻳﻮ ‪.٢٠٠٦‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ -٤٢‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﳉﻠﺴﺔ ‪ ٢٨٧١‬ﺃﻭﻋﺰﺕ ﳉﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺇﱃ ﳉﻨﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﳌﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺁﺧﺬﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫـﺎ‬
‫ﻫﺎﺀ‪ -‬ﻧﺺ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﳊﻜﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﻭﻣﻘﺘﺮﺣﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻘﺮﺭ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﻭﺍﳌﻨﺎﻗـﺸﺔ ﺍﻟـﱵ‬
‫‪ -١‬ﻧﺺ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ‬ ‫ﺩﺍﺭﺕ ﰲ ﺍﳉﻠﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻊ ﻟﻠﻤﻘﺮﺭ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ‪.‬‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺮﺭﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲢﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ ﳉﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﺍﻗﺘﺮﺍﺡ ﺍﳌﻘﺮﺭ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ‬
‫‪ -٤٩‬ﻳﺮﺩ ﺃﺩﻧﺎﻩ ﻧﺺ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺍﻋﺘﻤـﺪﻬﺗﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨـﺔ ﰲ‬ ‫ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻹﺿﺎﻓﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺩﻭﺭﻬﺗﺎ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻨﺔ ﻭﺍﳋﻤﺴﲔ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -٤٣‬ﻭﻧﻈﺮﺕ ﳉﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﰲ ﺗﻘﺮﻳـﺮ ﳉﻨـﺔ ﺍﻟـﺼﻴﺎﻏﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‬ ‫)‪ A/CN.4/L.684‬ﻭ‪ (Corr.1-2‬ﰲ ﺟﻠﺴﺘﻬﺎ ‪ ،٢٨٨١‬ﺍﳌﻌﻘﻮﺩﺓ ﰲ ‪٣٠‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﺎﺭ‪/‬ﻣﺎﻳﻮ ‪ ،٢٠٠٦‬ﻭﺍﻋﺘﻤﺪﺕ ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﳌـﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌـﻮﺍﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﳉﻠﺴﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ‬ ‫‪ -٤٤‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﳉﻠﺴﺎﺕ ‪ ٢٩٠٦‬ﺇﱃ ‪ ،٢٩٠٩‬ﺍﳌﻌﻘـﻮﺩﺓ ﰲ ‪ ٤‬ﻭ‪٧‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -١‬ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻄﺎﻕ‬ ‫ﻭ‪ ٨‬ﺁﺏ‪/‬ﺃﻏﺴﻄﺲ ‪ ،٢٠٠٦‬ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺪﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻘـﺎﺕ ﻋﻠـﻰ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻵﻧﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻛﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﻷﻏﺮﺍﺽ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﲏ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻗﻴـﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺩﻭﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﱪ ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﺩﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻲ ﺃﻭ ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻣـﻦ ﻭﺳـﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﻟﺘـﺴﻮﻳﺔ‬ ‫‪ -٤٥‬ﻭﺃﺣﺎﻟﺖ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻘﹰﺎ ﻟﻨﻈﺎﻣﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻄﺮﺡ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻋﻦ ﺿﺮﺭ ﻧﺎﺷﺊ ﻋﻦ ﻓﻌـﻞ ﻏـﲑ‬ ‫ﺇﱃ ﺍﳉﻤﻌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺻﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺒﻴﻨﺔ ﺃﺩﻧﺎﻩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺺ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ‪،‬‬‫ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ ﹶﻟﺤِﻖ ﺑﺸﺨ ﹴ‬
‫ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﻐﻴﺔ ﺇﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺟﻴﻢ‪ -‬ﺗﻮﺻﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -٢‬ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‬ ‫‪ -٤٦‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﳉﻠﺴﺔ ‪ ٢٩٠٩‬ﻗﺮﺭﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻘﹰﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٢٣‬ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﳛﻖ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﻓﻘﹰﺎ ﳌﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﻫﺬﻩ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻧﻈﺎﻣﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺗﻮﺻﻲ ﺍﳉﻤﻌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﺼﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‬ ‫ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫__________‬
‫ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‬ ‫ـﺔ‬
‫ـﺰﺀ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ(‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘـ‬ ‫ـﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉـ‬ ‫ـﺔ ‪ ،٢٠٠٥‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠـ‬
‫ـﺪ ﺍﻟﺜـ‬ ‫)‪ (١٧‬ﺣﻮﻟﻴـ‬
‫‪ .A/CN.4/546‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻧﻈﺮﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﰲ ﻋﺪﺓ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺗﺘﺼﻞ ﲟـﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺍﻋﺘُﻤﺪﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﰲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪) ٢٠٠٤‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠـﺪ‬
‫ﻣﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ(‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺍﺕ ‪.(٢٤١-٢٣٧‬‬
‫)‪ (١٨‬ﻗﺪﻣﺖ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻳﺖ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻘـﺎﺕ ﻭﻣﻼﺣﻈـﺎﺕ ﰲ ‪١‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -٣‬ﺗﻮﻓﲑ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻗِﺒﻞ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺁﺏ‪/‬ﺃﻏﺴﻄﺲ ‪ .٢٠٠٦‬ﻭﱂ ﺗﺘﺢ ﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﻓﺮﺻﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻈـﺮ ﰲ ﻫـﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻘـﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳛﻖ ﳍﺎ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻴﺔ ﻫـﻲ‬ ‫‪-١‬‬ ‫ﻭﺍﳌﻼﺣﻈﺎﺕ ﻷﻬﻧﺎ ﻭﺭﺩﺕ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﺮﺩ‬
‫ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻘﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﳌﻼﺣﻈﺎﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ ‪.A/CN.4/575‬‬
‫ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﳉﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳉﻤﻌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺩﻭﺭﻬﺗﺎ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻨﺔ ﻭﺍﳋﻤﺴﲔ‬ ‫‪28‬‬
‫‪ -٢‬ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ‬ ‫‪ -٢‬ﺭﻏﻢ ﻣﺎ ﺟﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ،١‬ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺸﺨﺺ ﺗﻌﺘﺮﻑ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻛﻼﺟﺊ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻘﹰﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺎﻳﲑ ﺍﳌﻘﺒﻮﻟﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺼﻞ ﺑﻐﲑ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﻭﻓﻘﹰﺎ ﳌﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪.٨‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﻭﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‬
‫ﺭﲰﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻴﻢ ﺑﺼﻔﺔ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻋﺘﻴﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -٣‬ﻻ ﺗﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٢‬ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻀﺮﺭ ﻧﺎﺟﻢ ﻋﻦ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻏﲑ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ ﺍﺭﺗﻜﺒﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳛﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻼﺟﺊ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -٤‬ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‬ ‫ﻷﻏﺮﺍﺽ ﺗﻮﻓﲑ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌـﲏ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﻮﻥ‬ ‫ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻗﺪ ﺍﻛﺘﺴﺐ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻘـﹰﺎ‬
‫ﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﲝﻜﻢ ﺍﳌﻮﻟﺪ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﻨﺲ ﺃﻭ ﺧﻼﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -٩‬ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‬ ‫ﺃﻭ ﺑﺄﻳﺔ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻻ ﺗﺘﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‪.‬‬
‫ﻷﻏﺮﺍﺽ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﲏ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨـﺴﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -٥‬ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻧﺸﺌﺖ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻬﻧﺎ‪ .‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﻴﻄﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺃﻭ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻭﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻟﻠـﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺃﻧـﺸﻄﺔ‬ ‫‪ -١‬ﳛﻖ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤـﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠـﻖ‬
‫ﲡﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﻛﺒﲑﺓ ﰲ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻣﻘﺮ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻗﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﳌﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﺸﺨﺺ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﺴﺘﻤﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﻗـﻮﻉ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻛﻼﳘﺎ ﰲ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺗﻌﺘﱪ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺇﱃ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﹰﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﻔﺘﺮﺽ ﲢﻘﻖ ﺍﻻﺳـﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭﻳﺔ ﺇﺫﺍ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﰲ ﻛﻼ ﻫﺬﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﲔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -١٠‬ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫‪ -٢‬ﻣﻊ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻹﺧﻼﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ،١‬ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲤـﺎﺭﺱ‬
‫‪ -١‬ﳛﻖ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠـﻖ‬ ‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺸﺨﺺ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫـﺎ ﰲ ﺗـﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬
‫ﺑﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻒ ﳍـﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑـﺼﻮﺭﺓ‬ ‫ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﹰﺎ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺣﺪﻭﺙ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﻤﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺇﱃ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﹰﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﻔﺘﺮﺽ‬ ‫ﺷﺮﻳﻄﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺳﻠﻒ ﺃﻭ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻓﻘـﺪ‬
‫ﲢﻘﻖ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭﻳﺔ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﰲ ﻛﻼ ﻫﺬﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﲔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﻛﺘﺴﺐ‪ ،‬ﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﻻ ﻳﺘﺼﻞ ﺑﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒـﺔ‪ ،‬ﺟﻨـﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫‪ -٢‬ﻳﻨﻘﻀﻲ ﺣﻖ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻻ ﺗﺘﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺗﻜﺘﺴﺐ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﹸﻘـﺪﱠﻡ‬ ‫‪ -٣‬ﻻ ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﻴـﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲤـﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬
‫ﺿﺪﻫﺎ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﳜﺺ ﺷﺨﺼﹰﺎ ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﺿﺪ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺳـﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻟـﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫‪ -٣‬ﺭﻏﻢ ﻣﺎ ﺟﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ،١‬ﻳﻈﻞ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻀﺮﺭ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺣﺪﺙ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟـﺸﺨﺺ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺗـﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻭﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﱂ ﺗﻌﺪ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﻭﻓﻘـﹰﺎ ﻟﻘـﺎﻧﻮﻥ‬ ‫‪ -٤‬ﻳﻨﻘﻀﻲ ﺣﻖ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﹸﻧﺸﺌﺖ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺸﺨﺺ ﻳﻜﺘﺴﺐ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺟﻨـﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -١١‬ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﹸﻘﺪﱠﻡ ﺿﺪﻫﺎ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻻ ﳛﻖ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -٦‬ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺿﺪ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺛﺎﻟﺜﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﳜﺼﻬﻢ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻠﺤﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺿﺮﺭ ﺇﻻ‪:‬‬ ‫‪ -١‬ﳚﻮﺯ ﻷﻱ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﺷـﺨﺺ ﻣـﺰﺩﻭﺝ‬
‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﱂ ﻳﻌﺪ ﻟﻠﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﻓﻘﹰﺎ ﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟـﺔ ﺍﻟـﱵ‬ ‫) ﺃ(‬ ‫ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤـﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠـﻖ‬
‫ﺃﹸﺳﺴﺖ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﻻ ﺻﻠﺔ ﻟﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺮﺭ؛‬ ‫ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺿﺪ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ‪.‬‬
‫)ﺏ( ﺃﻭ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺣﺎﻣﻠـ ﹰﺔ‬ ‫‪ -٢‬ﳚﻮﺯ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺸﺘﺮﻙ ﺩﻭﻟﺘﺎﻥ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺍﳉﻨـﺴﻴﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳُﺪﻋّﻰ ﺃﻬﻧﺎ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺇﳊﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ‬ ‫ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺼﻞ ﺑﺸﺨﺺ ﻣـﺰﺩﻭﺝ ﺍﳉﻨـﺴﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺗﻔﺮﺽ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺆﺳﱠﺲ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻛﺸﺮﻁ ﻣـﺴﺒﻖ ﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳـﺔ‬ ‫ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -٧‬ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺿﺪ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -١٢‬ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻠﺤﻖ ﲝﻤﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ‬ ‫ﻻ ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ‬
‫ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﺎ ﻳُﻠﺤﻖ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ ﺿﺮﺭﹰﺍ ﻣﺒﺎﺷـﺮﹰﺍ‬ ‫ﺑﺸﺨﺺ ﻣﺎ ﺿﺪ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﻣﺎ ﱂ ﺗﻜـﻦ‬
‫ﲝﻘﻮﻕ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﺑﺼﻔﺘﻬﻢ ﻫﺬﻩ‪ ،‬ﲤﻴﻴﺰﹰﺍ ﳍﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ‬
‫ﳛﻖ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻷﻱ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﳑﺎﺭﺳـﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬ ‫ﻭﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﹰﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -٨‬ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﻋﺪﳝﻮ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﺟﺌﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -١٣‬ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﻮﻥ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻭﻥ‬ ‫‪ -١‬ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤـﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠـﻖ‬
‫ﺗﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺭﺩﺓ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻻﻗﺘـﻀﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠـﻰ‬ ‫ﺑﺸﺨﺺ ﻋﺪﱘ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﻭﰲ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻸﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ ﺧﻼﻑ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻴﻢ ﺑﺼﻔﺔ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻋﺘﻴﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -١٨‬ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﺃﻃﻘﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‬

‫ﻻ ﻳﺘﺄﺛﺮ ﺣﻖ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺃﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﻃﺎﻗﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﺼﺎﳊﻬﻢ ﲝﻖ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺎﺱ ﺍﳉﱪ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻴﺎﺑﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺃﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻗﻢ‪ ،‬ﺑﻐﺾ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺼﻴﺒﻬﻢ ﺿﺮﺭ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -١٤‬ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺼﻞ ﺑﻀﺮﺭ ﺃﺻﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ ﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -١‬ﻻ ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻀﺮﺭ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -١٩‬ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺻﻰ ﻬﺑﺎ‬ ‫ﳊﻖ ﺑﺄﺣﺪ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺸﺨﺺ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺷـﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﳌـﺸﺎﺭ ﺇﻟـﻴﻬﻢ ﰲ‬
‫ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳛﻖ ﳍﺎ ﺃﻥ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﻓﻘـﹰﺎ‬ ‫ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٨‬ﻗﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻗﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺪ ﲨﻴـﻊ ﺳـﺒﻞ‬
‫ﳌﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﻫﺬﻩ‪:‬‬ ‫ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺭﻫﻨﹰﺎ ﲟﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪.١٥‬‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺗﻮﱄ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺟﺐ ﻹﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴـﺔ ﳑﺎﺭﺳـﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬ ‫) ﺃ(‬ ‫‪ -٢‬ﺗﻌﲏ "ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ" ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺳﻴﻤﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺿﺮﺭ ﺫﻱ ﺷﺄﻥ؛‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺘﺎﺣﺔ ﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻣﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﶈﺎﻛﻢ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳍﻴﺌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﻳـﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻋﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺃﻡ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ُﻳﺪّﻋﻰ ﺃﻬﻧـﺎ ﻣـﺴﺆﻭﻟﺔ ﻋـﻦ‬
‫)ﺏ( ﻭﺃﻥ ﺗﻀﻊ ﰲ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﻠﻤﺎ ﺃﻣﻜﻦ‪ ،‬ﺁﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﻷﺷـﺨﺎﺹ‬ ‫ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭﻳﻦ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﺠﻮﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳉﱪ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻮﺏ؛‬
‫‪ -٣‬ﺗُﺴﺘﻨﻔﺪ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒـﺔ‬
‫)ﺝ( ﻭﺃﻥ ﲢﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﺃﻱ ﺗﻌـﻮﻳﺾ ﻋـﻦ‬ ‫ﺩﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻃﻠﺐ ﺇﺻﺪﺍﺭ ﺣﻜﻢ ﺗﻔﺴﲑﻱ ﻣﺘﺼﻞ ﺑﺎﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻳﺴﺘﻨﺪﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺗﻘﺪﻣﻪ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﺔ ﺭﻫﻨﹰﺎ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺍﻗﺘﻄﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻟﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺿﺮﺭ ﳊﻖ ﺑﺄﺣﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺸﺨﺺ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻴﻬﻢ ﰲ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪.٨‬‬
‫‪ -٢‬ﻧﺺ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻘﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -١٥‬ﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﺳـﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ‬
‫‪ -٥٠‬ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﻠﻲ ﻧﺺ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻘﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻴﻬـﺎ ﺍﻟـﱵ‬
‫ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺪﻬﺗﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﰲ ﺩﻭﺭﻬﺗﺎ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻨﺔ ﻭﺍﳋﻤﺴﲔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻻ ﺣﺎﺟﺔ ﻻﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﺣﻴﺚ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻻ ﺗﺘﻮﻓﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻝ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﳏﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺤﺼﻮﻝ‬ ‫) ﺃ(‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﱪ ﻓﻌّﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻻ ﺗﺘﻴﺢ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴـﺔ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴـﺔ ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻟـﺔ‬
‫)‪ (١‬ﺍﻋﺘُﱪﺕ ﺻﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﻣﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺻـﻞ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺤﺼﻮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳉﱪ؛‬
‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﹰﺎ ﻳﻨﺪﺭﺝ ﰲ ﻧﻄﺎﻕ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ‪ .‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗـﻊ‬
‫ﺃﺩﺭﺝ ﺍﳌﻘﺮﺭ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﺍﳌﻌﲏ ﲟﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟـﺴﻴﺪ ﻑ‪.‬‬ ‫)ﺏ( ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺗﺄﺧﲑ ﻻ ﻣﺴﻮﻍ ﻟـﻪ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﻳﻌﺰﻯ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳُﺪﻋﻰ ﺃﻬﻧﺎ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﺔ؛‬
‫ﻑ‪ .‬ﻏﺎﺭﺳﻴﺎ ﺃﻣﺎﺩﻭﺭ‪ ،‬ﻋﺪﺩﹰﺍ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌـﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘـﺔ ﻬﺑـﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﰲ ﺗﻘﺎﺭﻳﺮﻩ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗـﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﺘـﺮﺓ ﻣـﻦ ‪ ١٩٥٦‬ﺇﱃ‬ ‫)ﺝ( ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺻﻠﺔ ﻭﺟﻴﻬﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫‪ .(١٩)١٩٦١‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﺪﻭﻳﻦ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺟﺮﺕ ﺑﻌـﺪ‬ ‫ﻳﺪﱠﻋﻰ ﺃﻬﻧﺎ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﺔ ﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ؛‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﻠﻢ ﺗﻮﻝ ﺇﻻ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﻴﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺒﺎﻩ ﻟﻠﺤﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻨﺺ‬ ‫)ﺩ( ﳝﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﻣﻨﻌﹰﺎ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﹰﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﺠـﻮﺀ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﻬﺑﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺻﺮﺍﺣﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﺎﳉﺔ‬ ‫ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ؛‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﻣﻌﺎﳉﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻠﺔ ﻭﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺇﺳﻬﺎﺑﹰﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﲔ ﺍﻟﻠﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﻌﺘﱪﺍﻥ‬ ‫)ﻫ( ﺗﺘﻨﺎﺯﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ُﻳﺪﱠﻋﻰ ﺃﻬﻧﺎ ﻣـﺴﺆﻭﻟﺔ ﻋـﻦ ﺷـﺮﻁ‬
‫ﰲ ﺻﻠﺐ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﳘﺎ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﺳـﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ‬ ‫ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ)‪ .(٢٠‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺻﻠﺔ ﻭﺛﻴﻘﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌـﻮﺍﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‬
‫__________‬
‫ﺃﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﻣﺘﻨﻮﻋﺔ‬
‫)‪ (١٩‬ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻷﻭﱄ‪ :‬ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،١٩٥٦‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜـﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉـﺰﺀ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ(‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ ‪ ،A/CN.4/96‬ﺹ ‪٢٣١-١٧٣‬؛ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،١٩٥٧‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -١٦‬ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺍﺑﲑ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺧﻼﻑ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ(‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘـﺔ ‪ ،A/CN.4/106‬ﺹ ‪١٣٠-١٠٤‬؛ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳـﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،١٩٥٨‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ(‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘـﺔ ‪،A/CN.4/111‬‬ ‫ﻻ ﲤﺲ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺣﻘـﻮﻕ ﺍﻟـﺪﻭﻝ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻷﺷـﺨﺎﺹ‬
‫ﺹ ‪٧٣-٤٧‬؛ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪ :‬ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،١٩٥٩‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉـﺰﺀ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ(‪،‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﲔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ ﺃﻭ ﻏﲑﻫﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﺠـﻮﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ ‪ ،A/CN.4/119‬ﺹ ‪٣٦-١‬؛ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﳋﺎﻣﺲ‪ :‬ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،١٩٦٠‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ‬ ‫ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺇﱃ ﺗـﺪﺍﺑﲑ ﺃﻭ ﺇﺟـﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺧـﻼﻑ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻔﺎﻟﺔ ﺟﱪ ﺿﺮﺭ ﳒﻢ ﻋﻦ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ(‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ ‪ ،A/CN.4/125‬ﺹ ‪٦٨-٤١‬؛ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺱ‪:‬‬
‫ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،١٩٦١‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ(‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ ‪ A/CN.4/134‬ﻭ‪،Add.1‬‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -١٧‬ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‬
‫ﺹ ‪.٥٤-١‬‬
‫ﻻ ﺗﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺣﻴﺜﻤﺎ ﻭﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﻣـﺎ ﻻ ﺗﺘﻔـﻖ ﻣـﻊ‬
‫)‪ (٢٠‬ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،٢٠٠١‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉـﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜـﺎﱐ( ﻭﺍﻟﺘـﺼﻮﻳﺐ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻷﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﻟـﻮﺍﺭﺩﺓ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻫـﺪﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺹ ‪) ١٥٧‬ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ،٤٤‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺘﺎﻥ ‪ ٦٨٣‬ﻭ‪.(٦٨٧‬‬ ‫ﻭﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﲝﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﻌﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻞ ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻠﺤﻖ ﲟﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﻫﻮ ﺿـﺮﺭ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﲟﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻋﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ ﻭﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ‬
‫ﻳﻠﺤﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺫﺍﻬﺗﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﻫﺬﻩ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺭﺩﺓ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﲟﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺁﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﻛﻔﺎﺀﺓ ﺃﺩﺍﺀ ﺍﳌﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺑﺘﺄﻣﲔ ﺍﻻﺣﺘﺮﺍﻡ ﳌﻮﻇﻔﻴﻬـﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌـﺸﺮﻭﻋﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴـﹰﺎ ﺗﺘـﺼﻞ ﺑﺎﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻘﻼﳍﻢ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﲪﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔـﻮﺍﺭﻕ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨـﺔ ﻋﻠـﻰ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻜﺮﺭ ﺫﻛﺮﻫﺎ ﰲ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﻫـﺬﻩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺃﻥ ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﻭﻛﻴﻞ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻜﺎﻬﻧـﺎ‬ ‫ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﲞﺎﺻﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﺎﰿ ﺍﻵﺛﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﻌﻞ‬
‫ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺃﻣـﺎ‬ ‫ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺇﳊﺎﻕ ﺿﺮﺭ ﲟـﻮﺍﻃﻦ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺃﺟﻨﱯ ﻣﻠﺰﻣﺔ ﺑﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻮﻙ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﻭﲜﱪ ﺍﻟـﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﻟـﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻼ ﳌﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺭﺩﺕ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‬‫ﳌﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻨﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻭﻛﻴ ﹰ‬ ‫ﻼ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻳﺘﺨﺬ ﻫﺬﺍ‬ ‫ﺃﺳﻔﺮ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ ﺟﱪﹰﺍ ﻛﺎﻣ ﹰ‬
‫ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺟﱪ ﺍﻷﺿﺮﺍﺭ‪" :‬ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺎﻟـﺔ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺍﳉﱪ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺩ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻮﻳﺾ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿـﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻫـﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺷـﻜﺎﻝ‬
‫ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﺗﻌﻄﻲ ﺃﻭﻟﻮﻳﺔ ﻹﺣﺪﺍﳘﺎ ﺃﻭ ﲡﱪ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻭ‬ ‫ﳎﺘﻤﻌﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﻌﺎﰿ ﲨﻴﻊ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘـﺔ ﲟـﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻣﺘﻨﺎﻉ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﺗﺮﻯ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻋﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ)‪.(٢١‬‬
‫ﺳﺒﺒﹰﺎ ﳛﻮﻝ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺗﻮﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻓﲔ ﺍﳌﻌﻨﻴﲔ ﺇﱃ ﺣﻠﻮﻝ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠـﻰ‬
‫ﺣﺴﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻴﻢ")‪.(٢٣‬‬ ‫)‪ (٢‬ﻭﺗﻨﺪﺭﺝ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ "ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻠـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺟﺎﻧﺐ"‪ .‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻻ ﲢﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﺮﻕ ﻟﻠﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟـﱵ ﲢﻜـﻢ ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻠـﺔ‬
‫ﺷﺨﺺ ﺍﻷﺟﻨﱯ ﻭﳑﺘﻠﻜﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺮﺗﺐ ﺍﻧﺘﻬﺎﻛﻬﺎ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺇﺯﺍﺀ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺃﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ‬ ‫ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﺪ ﹰﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺗﻘﺘﺼﺮ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -١‬ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻄﺎﻕ‬ ‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﺼﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﻓﺎﺀ ﻬﺑﺎ ﻟﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺑﺎﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻌـﲏ‬
‫ﻷﻏﺮﺍﺽ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﲏ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﻮﺟﻪ ﻋﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻜﻢ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒـﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﻗـﺪ ﻧـﺼﺖ‬
‫ﻗﻴﺎﻡ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﱪ ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﺩﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻲ ﺃﻭ ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺳـﺎﺋﻞ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٤٤‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﲟﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻓﻌـﺎﻝ ﻏـﲑ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺴﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻄﺮﺡ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻋﻦ ﺿﺮﺭ ﻧﺎﺷﺊ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻋﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻠﻲ‪:‬‬
‫ﺺ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻋﺘﺒـﺎﺭﻱ‬ ‫ﻋﻦ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ ﹶﻟﺤِﻖ ﺑﺸﺨ ﹴ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﻐﻴﺔ ﺇﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻻ ﳚﻮﺯ ﺍﻻﺣﺘﺠﺎﺝ ﲟﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﱂ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻄﻠﺐ ﻭﻓﻘﹰﺎ ﻟﻠﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺟﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﻓﻴﻤـﺎ‬ ‫)ﺃ(‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ‬ ‫ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﲜﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﻠﺒﺎﺕ؛‬
‫)‪ (١‬ﻻ ﻳﺴﻌﻰ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١‬ﺇﱃ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺗﻌﺮﻳـﻒ ﻛﺎﻣـﻞ‬ ‫)ﺏ( ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻄﻠﺐ ﳜﻀﻊ ﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘـﺼﺎﻑ‬
‫ﻭﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﻟﻠﺤﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﺪ ﹰﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﺗـﺼﻒ ﺍﳌـﺎﺩﺓ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﱂ ﺗﺴﺘﻨﻔﺪ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻴـﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺎﺣـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳋﺼﺎﺋﺺ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭﺯﺓ ﻟﻠﺤﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﳌﻘﺼﻮﺩ ﺑﺎﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻌّﺎﻟﺔ)‪.(٢٢‬‬
‫ﰲ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﻫﺬﻩ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻭﺗﻌﻄﻲ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻣﻀﻤﻮﻧﹰﺎ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ ﺑـﺈﻳﺮﺍﺩ‬
‫)‪ (٢‬ﲟﻘﺘﻀﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‪ ،‬ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺿﺮﺭ‬ ‫ﺗﻔﺎﺻﻴﻞ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﳌﺘﺼﻠﺔ ﲜﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ‬
‫ﳊﻖ ﺑﺄﺟﻨﱯ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻘﺼﲑ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺻﺪﺭ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻠﻚ‬ ‫ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻠﺠﺄ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‬ ‫)‪ (٣‬ﻭﻻ ﺗﻌﺎﰿ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﻫﺬﻩ ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻮﻛﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﳛﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﻟﺘـﺄﻣﲔ ﲪﺎﻳـﺔ ﺫﻟـﻚ‬ ‫ﳍﺎ ﲪﺎﻳ ﹰﺔ ﺗﻮﺻﻒ ﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺑﺄﻬﻧﺎ "ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﻭﻇﻴﻔﻴﺔ"‪ .‬ﻭﺭﻏﻢ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺃﻭﺟﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻭﺍﳊﺼﻮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﱪ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺩﻭﻟﻴـﹰﺎ‬ ‫ﺗﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺃﻳـﻀﹰﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﳊﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺨﺺ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﺗﻌﺎﰿ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺳﻮﻯ‬ ‫ﻓﻮﺍﺭﻕ ﻫﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺗﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﹰﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺁﻟﻴﺔ ﻫﺪﻓﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳚﻮﺯ ﻓﻴﻬـﺎ ﳑﺎﺭﺳـﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬ ‫ﺿﻤﺎﻥ ﺟﱪ ﺍﻷﺿﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻠﺤﻖ ﲟﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻣﺴﺘﻨﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺣﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺟﺐ ﺍﺳﺘﻴﻔﺎﺅﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺗﻠﻚ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻻ ﲢﺎﻭﻝ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺃﻭ ﻭﺻﻒ ﺍﻷﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻋﺔ‬ ‫__________‬
‫ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲡﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺿﺮﺭ ﳊﻖ ﺑﺄﺟﻨﱯ‪ .‬ﻭﻫـﻲ‪،‬‬ ‫)‪ (٢١‬ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ‪ ٢٨‬ﻭ‪ ٣٠‬ﻭ‪ ٣١‬ﻭ‪) ٣٧-٣٤‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪١٢١-١١٢‬‬
‫ﺷﺄﻬﻧﺎ ﺷﺄﻥ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﲟﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﻏﲑ‬ ‫ﻭ‪ .(١٣٩-١٢٣‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺧُﺼﺺ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﻛﺒﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴـﻖ ﻋﻠـﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻌـﻮﻳﺾ‬
‫__________‬
‫)ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ (٣٦‬ﻟﻠﻨﻈﺮ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘـﺼﻠﺔ ﺑﺎﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫)‪Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the (٢٣‬‬
‫‪United Nations, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 174 at pp.‬‬ ‫)‪ (٢٢‬ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،٢٠٠١‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ( ﻭﺍﻟﺘـﺼﻮﻳﺐ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪،٣٦‬‬
‫‪.185–186‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٧٦‬‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺪ ﺳﻮﺍﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻮﻓﺮ ﻟـﻪ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﰲ ﻭﻃﻨﻪ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻋﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ ﺗُﺒﻘﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﻴﺰ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋـﺪ‬
‫ﰲ ﻣﻮﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﺣﻜﻮﻣﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻣﻮﺍﺟﻬـﺔ ﺍﳊﻜﻮﻣـﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻮﻳﺔ ﻭﻻ ﺗﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﺳﻮﻯ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ)‪.(٢٤‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺍﻋﺘﺮﻓﺖ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴـﱵ‬
‫ﻻﻏﺮﺍﻧﺪ)‪ (٢٨‬ﻭﺃﻓﻴﻨﺎ)‪ .(٢٩‬ﻭﻻ ﺗﻘﺘﺼﺮ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳊﻘـﻮﻕ‬ ‫)‪ (٣‬ﺍﻋﺘُﱪﺕ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺗﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺎﹰ ﺣﻘـﺎﹰ ﺧﺎﺻـﺎﹰ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﲟﻌﲎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﲝﻜﻢ ﺣﻘﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﻌﺎﻫﺪﺍﺕ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺜﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﲤـﻨﺢ ﺍﻷﺷـﺨﺎﺹ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﲔ ﺣﻘﻮﻗﺎﹰ ﻭﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﲝﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﳌﻠﻜﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺬﺍﰐ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻠﺤﻖ ﲟﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﻳُﻌﺘﱪ ﺿـﺮﺭﺍﹰ ﻳﻠﺤـﻖ‬
‫ﻓﻠﻠﻔﺮﺩ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﻟﻜﻦ ﻭﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺫﺍﻬﺗﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞ ﺗﺄﺻﻞ ﺃﻭﻻﹰ ﰲ ﺇﻋـﻼﻥ ﺍﻟﻘـﺎﻧﻮﱐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻮﻳﺴﺮﻱ ﺇﳝﲑﻳﺶ ﺩﻭ ﻓﺎﺗِﻞ ﰲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ١٧٥٨‬ﺃﻥ "ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺳﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﺎﺣﺔ ﻟـﻪ ﳏﺪﻭﺩﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﻈﻞ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻬﺑـﺎ‬
‫ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﻫﺎﻣـﺔ‬ ‫ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﻳﻀﺮ ﺿﺮﺭﺍﹰ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺘﻌﲔ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺍﻧﺘُﻬﻜﺖ ﺣﻘﻮﻗﻬﻢ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ‪.‬‬ ‫ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻃﻦ")‪ ،(٢٥‬ﻭﺛﺎﻧﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺭﺃﻱ ﺃﻋﻠﻨﺘﻪ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﻤﺔ ﰲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ١٩٢٤‬ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﻣﺎﻓﺮﻭﻣﺎﺗﻴﺲ ﻭﻫﻮ "ﺇﻥ‬
‫)‪ (٥‬ﻭﺻﻴﻎ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ ﻳﺘﺮﻙ ﺍﺠﻤﻟﺎﻝ ﻣﻔﺘﻮﺣـﹰﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺘﺒﻨﻴﻬﺎ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﻭﺑﻠﺠﻮﺋﻬـﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺇﺟـﺮﺍﺀ‬
‫ﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺗﻔﻌﻞ‬ ‫ﺩﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﻗﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻟـﺼﺎﳊﻪ‪ ،‬ﺗﻘـﻮﻡ‪ ،‬ﰲ‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ ﲝﻜﻢ ﺣﻘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﰐ ﺃﻭ ﺣﻖ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻨﻬﺎ ‪ -‬ﺃﻭ ﻛﻠﻴﻬﻤﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﻬـﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺘﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﺣﻘﻬﺎ ﻫـﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺣﻘﻬـﺎ ﰲ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻔـﻞ‪ ،‬ﰲ‬
‫ﺗﻨﻈﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻭﺗﺸﺪﺩ‬ ‫ﺷﺨﺺ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﺣﺘﺮﺍﻡ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ")‪ .(٢٦‬ﻭﻣـﻦ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻬﻧﺎ ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﻟﺘﺄﻣﲔ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻠﺤـﻖ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺿﺢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻠﺤﻖ ﲟﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﻫﻮ ﺿـﺮﺭ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻳﻠﺤﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻓﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﳏﺾ ﻭﻣﺒﺎﻟﻐﺔ)‪ .(٢٧‬ﻓﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺗﻔﻨﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﻓﺘﺮﺍﺽ‪ ،‬ﻭﲞﺎﺻﺔ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ‬
‫)‪ (٦‬ﻭﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١‬ﻋﻤﺪﹰﺍ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺃﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﺍﳌـﻮﺍﺩ‬ ‫ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﻀﻲ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺗﺜﺒﺖ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻨـﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﲟﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻋﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ)‪ .(٣٠‬ﻭﻫﻮ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﻇﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﺣﱴ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬
‫ﻳﺼﻒ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺑﺄﻬﻧﺎ ﺍﺣﺘﺠﺎﺝ ﲟﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﺭﺗﻜﺒﺖ‬ ‫ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ "ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ" ‪ -‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺪ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ‬
‫ﻼ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺄﺣﺪ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﲏ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧـﺮﻯ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻓﻌ ﹰ‬ ‫ﻣﺎﻓﺮﻭﻣﺎﺗﻴﺲ ‪ -‬ﺑﺘﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﺣﻘﻬﺎ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﻓﺤﺴﺐ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻲ ﺗﺆﻛﺪ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻃﻦ‪ ،‬ﺑﻐﻴﺔ ﺇﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﻜـﻮﻥ‬ ‫"ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ" ﺣﻖ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﺃﻳﻀﺎﹰ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﺪﱠﻡ ﰲ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺴﻔﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﻟﻠﺤﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﱵ‬ ‫)‪ (٤‬ﰲ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﻔﺮﺩ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﻭﻻ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﻬﺑﺎ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‪.‬‬ ‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ‬
‫ﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﻣﺘﻀﺮﺭ ﰲ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻮﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻓﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﳏﺾ‪،‬‬
‫)‪ (٧‬ﻭﻧﻈﺮﹰﺍ ﻷﻥ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١‬ﺑﻄﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ ﳜﺪﻡ ﻏﺮﺿﹰﺎ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻔﻴﹰﺎ‬ ‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻠﺤﻖ ﲟﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﻫﻮ ﺿﺮﺭ ﻳﻠﺤﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻭﻟـﺔ‬
‫ﻓﻬﻮ ﻻ ﻳﺸﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀﺍﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻻ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ‬ ‫ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﻓﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺳﻮﻯ ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴـﻖ‬
‫ﻋﺪﳝﻲ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﺟﺌﲔ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﺭ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﻢ ﰲ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٨‬ﻣـﻦ‬ ‫ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﻗـﺪ ﺗﻐـﲑ ﺍﳊـﺎﻝ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ‪ .‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٣‬ﻳﻮﺿﺢ ﺃﻧﻪ ﳚـﻮﺯ ﳑﺎﺭﺳـﺔ‬ ‫ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻳﺎﹰ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻫﻦ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻛـﺒﲑ ﻣـﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﻬﺑﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‪ ،‬ﲟﻘﺘﻀﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﻑ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﺎﻫـﺪﺍﺕ‬
‫__________‬
‫)‪ (٨‬ﻭﳚﺐ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﻟـﺸﺮﻋﻴﺔ‬ ‫)‪ (٢٤‬ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،٢٠٠١‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉـﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜـﺎﱐ( ﻭﺍﻟﺘـﺼﻮﻳﺐ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻠﻤﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﳝﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺑـﲔ "ﺍﻹﺟـﺮﺍﺀ‬ ‫ﺹ ‪ ،٣٨-٣٧‬ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺍﺕ )‪.(٣)-(١‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻲ" ﻭ"ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ" ﻟﺪﻯ ﻭﺻﻒ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬ ‫)‪E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations or the Principles of (٢٥‬‬
‫‪Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and‬‬
‫__________‬ ‫‪of Sovereigns (1758), English translation by C. G. Fenwick,‬‬
‫)‪LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), (٢٨‬‬ ‫‪Washington D.C., Carnegie Institution, 1916, vol. III, book II, chap. VI,‬‬
‫‪.Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2001, p. 466, at pp. 493–494, paras. 76–77‬‬ ‫‪.p. 136‬‬
‫)‪Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United (٢٩‬‬ ‫‪Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Judgment No. 2, 1924,‬‬ ‫)‪(٢٦‬‬
‫‪States of America), Judgment of 31 March 2004, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p.‬‬ ‫‪ .PCIJ, Series A, No. 2, p. 12‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻛﺮﺭﺕ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﻤﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫‪.12, at pp. 35–36, para. 40‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺮﺃﻱ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺑـﺎﻧﻴﻔﻴﺰﻳﺲ ‪ -‬ﺳﺎﻟﺪﻭﺗﻴـﺴﻜﻴﺲ‪Panevezyś -Saldutiskis :‬‬
‫)‪ (٣٠‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﺍﳌﻌﻨـﻮﻥ "ﺍﻻﺣﺘﺠـﺎﺝ‬ ‫‪.Railway, Judgment, 1939, PCIJ, Series A/B, No. 76, p. 4, at p. 16‬‬
‫ﲟﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ" )ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﻣﻦ ‪ ٤٢‬ﺇﱃ ‪ ،(٤٨‬ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،٢٠٠١‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠـﺪ ﺍﻟﺜـﺎﱐ‬ ‫)‪ (٢٧‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪J. L. Brierly, The Law of Nations: An Introduction to‬‬
‫)ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ( ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺼﻮﻳﺐ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ .١٦٦-١٥٠‬ﻭﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻧﻔـﺴﻪ‬ ‫‪the International Law of Peace, 6th edition edited by Sir Humphrey‬‬
‫ﻫﻮ "ﺇﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ"‪.‬‬ ‫‪.Waldock, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1963, at pp. 276–277‬‬
‫)‪ (١١‬ﻭﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﳛﺎﻭﻝ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺮﻗـﺔ‬ ‫ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻠﺠﺄ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ)‪.(٣١‬‬
‫ﺑﲔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﺴﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﻨﺼﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﻨﺺ ﻣـﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ‬ ‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﺃﺑﻘﻲ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﻴﺰ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﺫﻫـﺐ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺮﻭﻁ ﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻻ ﺗﺴﺮﻱ ﻋﻠـﻰ‬ ‫ﺃﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺇﺫ ﺃﺩﺭﺝ ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺿﻤﻦ "ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﻨﺼﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﻌﲏ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﰲ ﻇﺮﻭﻑ ﻛـﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﻭﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻤﻴﺔ"‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺸﻤﻞ "ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻲ"‬
‫ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻨﻄﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﺩﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺃﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﲨﻴﻊ ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻠﺠﺄ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻹﺑﻼﻍ ﺩﻭﻟـﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻗﻨﺼﻠﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺑﻮﺟﻬﺎﺕ ﻧﻈﺮﻫﺎ ﻭﺷﻮﺍﻏﻠﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﲟﺎ ﰲ ﺫﻟـﻚ ﺍﻻﺣﺘﺠـﺎﺝ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻃﻠﺐ ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﲢﻘﻴﻖ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻔﺎﻭﺿﺎﺕ ﻬﺑﺪﻑ ﺗـﺴﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱰﺍﻋـﺎﺕ‪.‬‬
‫)‪ (١٢‬ﻭﻳﻮﺿﺢ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١‬ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺳﺒﻖ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺛﲑﺕ ﰲ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺸﻤﻞ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ "ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻤﻴﺔ" ﲨﻴﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ)‪ ،(٣٢‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺗﺘﻨـﺎﻭﻝ ﳑﺎﺭﺳـﺔ‬ ‫ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻋﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﱰﺍﻋﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﺀﹰﺍ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻔﺎﻭﺽ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺳـﺎﻃﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻮﻓﺮﻫﺎ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﻓﻴﻖ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻧﺘﻬﺎﺀ ﺑﺘﺴﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱰﺍﻉ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﻘـﻀﺎﺀ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻮﻛﻼﺋﻬﺎ)‪.(٣٣‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲢﻈﺮﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٤‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٢‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﻴﺜﺎﻕ‬
‫)‪ (١٣‬ﻭﺗﺸﻤﻞ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﹰﺎ ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟـﺬﻳﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﻣﻢ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﳉﺎﺋﺰﺓ ﻹﻧﻔﺎﺫ ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﻘﻮﻣﻮﻥ ﺑﺄﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻬﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﳌـﺴﺆﻭﻟﻮﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﺗﺸﻤﻞ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻌـﺎﻣﻼﺕ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﲢﻤﻴﻬﻢ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﻭﺻﻜﻮﻙ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻴﻨـﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﺗﻨﻄﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﺣﺘﺠﺎﺝ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻌﺎﻡ ‪ ١٩٦١‬ﻭﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻴﻨﺎ ﻟﻠﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﻨﺼﻠﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻄﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﺮﲰﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﲣﺎﺫ‬
‫ﻟﻌﺎﻡ ‪ .١٩٦٣‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻧﻪ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺼﺎﺏ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺩﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﻮﻥ ﺃﻭ‬ ‫ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺗﺼﺤﻴﺤﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻗﻨﺎﺻﻞ ﺑﺄﺿﺮﺍﺭ ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺄﻧﺸﻄﺔ ﲣﺮﺝ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻄﺎﻕ ﻭﻇﺎﺋﻔﻬﻢ ﺗـﺴﺮﻱ‬
‫)‪ (٩‬ﻭﳚﻮﺯ ﳑﺎﺭﺳـﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻴﺔ ﺑـﺎﻟﻠﺠﻮﺀ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﲔ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﻟﻠﺘﺴﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟـﺴﻠﻤﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻝ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻧﺰﻉ ﻣﻠﻜﻴـﺔ ﳑﺘﻠﻜـﺎﺕ ﺧﺎﺻـﺔ‬ ‫ﻭﻫﻲ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﻨﺼﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺇﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻬﺑﺎ ﻫﻢ‬
‫ﲟﺴﺆﻭﻝ ﺩﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺍﻋﺘُﻤﺪ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺩﻓﻊ ﺗﻌﻮﻳﺾ ﻟﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﳑﺜﻠﻮ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﺘﺨﺬﻭﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﲟﻮﺟـﺐ‬
‫)‪ (١٤‬ﻭﺻﻠﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟـﱵ‬ ‫ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻮﱃ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﻨـﺼﻠﻴﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺗﺆﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻣﻌﻈﻢ ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ‬ ‫ﻣﻌﻈﻢ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻨﺼﻠﻴﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﳝﺜﻠﻮﻥ ﻣﺼﺎﱀ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﻳﺘﻨﺎﻭﳍﺎ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻋﺎ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺗﲔ ‪ ٤‬ﻭ‪ .٩‬ﻭﻳﺸﻤﻞ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ "ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ" ﰲ‬ ‫ﻭﻳﻔﻌﻠﻮﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻴﻨﺎ ﻟﻠﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﻨﺼﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١‬ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﲔ ﻭﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻮﺍﺀ‪ .‬ﻭﳚﺮﻱ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﹰﺎ ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﻋﻼﺟﻲ ﻭﻬﺗﺪﻑ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻌﺎﳉﺔ ﻓﻌـﻞ‬
‫ﰲ ﻣﻮﺿﻊ ﻻﺣﻖ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﻴﺰ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ‬ ‫ﻏﲑ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ ﺍﺭﺗﻜﺐ ﻓﻌﻼﹰ؛ ﰲ ﺣﲔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﻨﺼﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﲔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻫﻲ ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﻭﻗﺎﺋﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺣﺪ ﺑﻌﻴﺪ ﻭﻳﻬﺪﻑ ﺑﺼﻔﺔ ﺭﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻭﻗﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻳُﻌﺎﰿ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻣﲔ ﻣﻌﺎﳉﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﻀﺎﺀ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺮﺽ ﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -٢‬ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‬ ‫)‪ (١٠‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻧﻪ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﺴﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﻨﺼﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺔ ﺻﻌﺒﺔ‬
‫ﳛﻖ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﻓﻘﹰﺎ ﳌـﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﺘﺠﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼﻌﻮﺑﺔ ﰲ ﺷـﺮﻁ ﺍﺳـﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﻫﺬﻩ‬ ‫ﻭﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺿﺢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﻨـﺼﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ‬ ‫ﻻ ﺗﺴﺘﻠﺰﻡ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﻭﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﻧﻈﺮﹰﺍ ﳊﺪﻭﺙ ﻫـﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﺭﺗﻜﺎﺏ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﲟﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬
‫)‪ (١‬ﻳﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٢‬ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻞ ﺑـﺄﻥ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻨﺸﺄ ﺇﻻ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﺭﺗﻜﺎﺏ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺩﻭﻟﻴـﺎﹰ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺗﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﺍﺣﺘﺠﺎﺝ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ‪ -‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺑﲔ‬ ‫ﺗﺒﺪﻭ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﳌﻨﻄـﻖ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺍﺳـﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﻭﺳـﺎﺋﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ‪ -‬ﲟﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻋﻦ ﺿﺮﺭ ﺳﺒﱠﺒﻪ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ‬ ‫ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺭﻫﻨﹰﺎ ﺑﺎﻻﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀﺍﺕ ﺍﻟـﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﻭﺻـﻔﻬﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ ﺻﺎﺩﺭ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ ﻷﺣﺪ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟـﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪.١٥‬‬
‫ﻭﺗﺴﻠﱢﻢ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﻭﳝﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻬﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﻠﻚ ﺣﻖ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﳜﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ﲟـﺴﺄﻟﺔ‬
‫ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﺍﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺴﻌﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪﻫﺎ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴـﺔ‬ ‫__________‬
‫__________‬ ‫)‪) Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (٣١‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷـﻴﺔ ‪٢٦‬‬
‫ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(؛ ﻭ‪) Panevezyś-Saldutiskis Railway‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ(؛ ﻭ ‪Nottebohm‬‬
‫)‪ (٣٢‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )‪.(٣‬‬ ‫‪(Liechtenstein v. Guatemala), Second Phase, Judgment of 6 April 1955,‬‬
‫)‪) Reparation for Injuries (٣٣‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٢٣‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪.‬‬ ‫‪.I.C.J. Reports 1955, p. 4, at p. 24‬‬
‫)‪ (٤‬ﻭﻳﻌﺎﰿ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٢‬ﺣﻖ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﲝﻜﻢ ﺣﻘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﰐ ﺃﻡ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺎﺩﹰﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﳛﺎﻭﻝ ﻭﺻﻒ ﺍﻻﻟﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﻊ ﻋﻠـﻰ‬ ‫ﺇﱃ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﺘﺼﺮﻑ ﻧﻴﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻨﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻲ‪ ،‬ﺷﺄﻬﻧﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﱠﻋﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻻﻟﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﰲ ﲤﺴﻚ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﲟﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ‬ ‫ﺷﺄﻥ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ،(٣٤)١‬ﳏﺎﻳﺪﺓ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﻬﺑﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ‪ .‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻳﻨﺒﻐـﻲ ﺃﻥ‬
‫)‪ (٢‬ﻭﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﺃﺣﺪ‬
‫ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﹰﺎ ﺿﻤﻨﹰﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻱ ﻭﺍﺟﺐ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻴﺎﻡ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ‪ .‬ﻭﳝﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‬ ‫ﺃﻥ ﻳُﻠﺰﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮ ﹸﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟ ﹶﺔ ﺑﺘﻮﻓﲑ ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﺩﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻷﺣـﺪ‬
‫ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﻻ ﻳﻔﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﺘﺰﺍﻣﹰﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﻞ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﺃﺑﺪﺕ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﻗﻒ ﺑﻮﺿﻮﺡ ﰲ ﻗـﻀﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‬ ‫ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺮﺷﻠﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺮ‪:‬‬
‫ﻣﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ‬ ‫ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﺿﻤﻦ ﺍﳊﺪﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻨﺺ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﻭﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﻠﺬﻳﻦ ﺗﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺃﻬﻧﻤﺎ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟـﻚ ﻷﻥ ﻣـﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -٣‬ﺗﻮﻓﲑ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ِﻗﺒﻞ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺗﺆﻛﺪﻩ ﻫﻮ ﺣﻘﻬﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻧﻔـﺴﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﺭﺃﻯ ﺍﻟـﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌـﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟـﺸﺨﺺ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﺘﺨﺬ ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﻟﺼﺎﳊﻪ ﺃﻥ ﺣﻘﻮﻗـﻪ ﻏـﲑ ﳏﻤﻴـﺔ ﺑـﺼﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫‪ -١‬ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳛﻖ ﳍﺎ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻛﺎﻓﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﻓﻌﻠﻪ ﻫـﻮ‬
‫ﻫﻲ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻮﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﶈﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﺗﻮﺍﻓﺮﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻬﺑﺪﻑ ﺩﻋـﻢ ﻗـﻀﻴﺘﻪ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺼﻮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﻧﺼﺎﻑ‪ [...] .‬ﻭﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳُﻨﻈﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻬﻧﺎ ﺍﳊﹶﻜﻢ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ‬
‫‪ -٢‬ﺭﻏﻢ ﻣﺎ ﺟﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ،١‬ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﺮﺭ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺳﺘُﻤﻨﺢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺪﻯ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﱴ ﺗﺘﻮﻗـﻒ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺼﻞ ﺑﻐﲑ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﻭﻓﻘـﹰﺎ ﳌـﺸﺮﻭﻉ‬ ‫ﻭﲢﺘﻔﻆ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺄﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﺴﻠﻄﺔ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﺮﻳﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺘﻮﻗـﻒ ﳑﺎﺭﺳـﺘﻬﺎ ﻋﻠـﻰ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪.٨‬‬ ‫ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺫﺍﺕ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻻ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﳍﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﶈﺪﺩﺓ)‪.(٣٥‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ‬ ‫)‪ (٣‬ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺣﺎﻟﻴﹰﺎ ﺳﻨﺪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺮﻳﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﶈﻠﻴـﺔ)‪ (٣٦‬ﻭﺍﻷﺣﻜـﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ)‪ (٣٧‬ﻟﻠﺮﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺬﻫﺐ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻗﺪﺭﹰﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﻟﺘـﺰﺍﻡ‪،‬‬
‫)‪ (١‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٢‬ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺣﻖ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺮﻱ ﰲ‬ ‫ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳏﺪﻭﺩﺍﹰ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﲏ ﺃﻭ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‬
‫ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٣‬ﻳﺆﻛـﺪ ﺍﳌﺒـﺪﺃ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﲝﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ ﻋﻨـﺪ ﺗﻌﺮﺿـﻬﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻞ ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳛﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟـﱵ‬ ‫ﻻﻧﺘﻬﺎﻛﺎﺕ ﺟﺴﻴﻤﺔ ﳊﻘﻮﻗﻬﻢ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ‬
‫ﳛﻖ ﳍﺎ ﺃﻥ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﻫـﺬﺍ ﺍﻟـﺸﺨﺺ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١٩‬ﻳﻨﺺ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ "ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ* ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳛﻖ ﳍﺎ ﺃﻥ ﲤـﺎﺭﺱ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻠﺰﻣﺔ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﰲ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻨﺼَﺐ‬ ‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ]‪ [...‬ﺃﻥ ﺗﻮﱄ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺟﺐ ﻹﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﺑﺎﻁ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺮﺑﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﻨﺢ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺳﻴﻤﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺿـﺮﺭ ﺫﻱ ﺷـﺄﻥ"‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺮﺑﺎﻁ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﺑﲔ ﺣﺎﻟﱵ‬ ‫ﻭﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﺴﱠﺮ ﺣﻖ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﺎﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﲔ ﻭﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺧُﺼﺺ ﻓﺼﻞ‬ ‫ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺮﻳﺔ ﻣﻘﺘﺮﻧﹰﺎ ﲟﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١٩‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻮﺻﻲ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻞ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻋﲔ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻔﲔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﲟﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ‪.‬‬
‫)‪ (٢‬ﻭﺗﺸﲑ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٢‬ﺇﱃ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﰲ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪٨‬‬ ‫__________‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﺺ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﻋﺪﳝﻲ‬ ‫)‪ (٣٤‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺍﺕ )‪.(٥)-(٣‬‬
‫ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﺟﺌﲔ‪.‬‬ ‫)‪Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, (٣٥‬‬
‫‪.Second Phase, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1970, p. 3, at p. 44‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‬
‫)‪ (٣٦‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻟﻠﻤﻘﺮﺭ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،٢٠٠٠‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ(‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ ‪ A/CN.4/506‬ﻭ‪،Add.1‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﻮﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺍﺕ ‪.٨٧-٨٠‬‬
‫)‪Rudolf Hess case, ILR, vol. 90 (1992), p. 387; Abbasi and (٣٧‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -٤‬ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻲ‬ ‫‪Juma v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and‬‬
‫ﻷﻏﺮﺍﺽ ﺗﻮﻓﲑ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻲ‪،‬‬ ‫‪Secretary of State for the Home Department, Decision of the Supreme‬‬
‫‪Court of Judicature – Court of Appeal (Civil Division) of 6 November‬‬
‫ﺗﻌﲏ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻗﺪ ﺍﻛﺘـﺴﺐ‬ ‫‪2002, ILM, vol. 42 (2003), p. 358; Kaunda and Others v. President of‬‬
‫ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻘﹰﺎ ﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﲝﻜﻢ ﺍﳌﻮﻟﺪ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﺃﻭ‬ ‫‪the Republic of South Africa and Others, Constitutional Court Decision‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﻨﺲ ﺃﻭ ﺧﻼﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺄﻳﺔ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻻ ﺗﺘﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﻣﻊ‬ ‫‪of 19 and 20 July 2004 and 4 August 2004, The South African Law‬‬
‫‪Reports 2005, p. 235 (judgement reproduced in ILM, vol. 44 (January‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‪.‬‬ ‫)‪.2005), p. 173‬‬
‫)‪ (٤‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻻﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺟﺔ ﰲ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٤‬ﻫـﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﺃﻏﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻹﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﰲ ﺑﻌﺾ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺪﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻔﺘﻘﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺳﺠﻼﺕ ﻭﻻﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﻳﺼﻌﺐ ﺇﺛﺒﺎﺕ‬ ‫)‪ (١‬ﻳﻌﺮّﻑ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٤‬ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻷﻏﺮﺍﺽ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﰲ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ‪ ،‬ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻮﻓﺮ ﺍﻹﻗﺎﻣـﺔ ﺇﺛﺒﺎﺗـﹰﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻸﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﲔ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺮﻳـﻒ ﻋﻠـﻰ‬
‫ﻣﺒﺪﺃﻳﻦ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻴﲔ‪ :‬ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲢـﺪﺩ‪،‬‬
‫ﻟﻠﺠﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﹰﺎ ﻟﻠﺠﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﻴﺪ ﺃﻧﻪ ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲤﻨﺢ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﳌﺜﻞ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﻋـﻦ‬ ‫ﻃﺒﻘﹰﺎ ﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻬﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﳌﺆﻫﻞ ﻻﻛﺘﺴﺎﺏ ﺟﻨـﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ؛‬
‫ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﻨﺲ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺣﺪﻭﺩﹰﺍ ﻳﻔﺮﺿﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣـﻨﺢ‬
‫ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٤‬ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻏﲑ ﺷﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﺑﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ‬
‫)‪ (٥‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﺸﺘﺮﻁ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٤‬ﺃﻥ ﺗﺜﺒﺖ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻭﺟـﻮﺩ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺮﺑﻂ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﺓ ﺃﺳـﺒﺎﺑﹰﺎ ﻭﺟﻴﻬـﺔ‬
‫ﺻﻠﺔ ﻓﻌﻠﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﻭﺑﲔ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﳌﻨﺢ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﻧﻮﺗّﻴﺒﻮﻡ)‪ ،(٤١‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻛﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺇﺿـﺎﰲ ﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳـﺔ‬
‫)‪ (٢‬ﻭﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻞ ﺇﻧﻪ ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻣﺮ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﻣـﻦ ﺗﻌﺘـﱪﻫﻢ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﺣﺎﻣﻼﹰ ﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ .‬ﻓﺮﻏﻢ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺍﻵﺭﺍﺀ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺭﺃﺕ‬ ‫ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﻭﻓﻘﹰﺎ ﻟﻘﻮﺍﻧﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺒـﺪﺃ ﺗﺪﻋﻤـﻪ ﺍﻟﻘـﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘـﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﺗﻘﺼُﺮ ﺍﳌﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﳌﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﰲ ﻗـﻀﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﳌﻌﺎﻫﺪﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻮﺍﺀ‪ .‬ﻓﻔﻲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ،١٩٢٣‬ﺫﻛﺮﺕ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ‬
‫ﻧﻮﺗّﻴﺒﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺎﺋﻊ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ ﻬﺑﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﲞﺎﺻﺔ ﻛﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺍﺑﻂ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﻣﺮﺍﺳﻴﻢ ﺍﳉﻨـﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟـﺼﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﰲ ﺗـﻮﻧﺲ‬
‫ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﻧﻮﺗّﻴﺒﻮﻡ ﻭﻟﻴﺨﺘﻨﺸﺘﺎﻳﻦ )ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻴﺔ( ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂﹶ "ﻭﺍﻫﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺃﻧﻪ‪" :‬ﰲ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻫﻨﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‪ ،‬ﺗﻨـﺪﺭﺝ ﻣـﺴﺎﺋﻞ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻐﺎﻳﺔ")‪ ،(٤٢‬ﺑﺎﳌﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺑﻴﻨـﻪ ﻭﺑـﲔ‬ ‫ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ‪ [...] ،‬ﺿـﻤﻦ ﻫـﺬﺍ ﺍﺠﻤﻟـﺎﻝ ﺍﶈﻔـﻮﻅ‬
‫]ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ[")‪ .(٣٨‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺃﻛﺪﺕ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘـﺔ ﺑـﺒﻌﺾ‬
‫ﻏﻮﺍﺗﻴﻤﺎﻻ )ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ( ﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﺗﺰﻳﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ‪ ٣٤‬ﻋﺎﻣﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﳑﺎ‬
‫ﺣﺪﺍ ﲟﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﻣﺮﺍﺭﺍﹰ ﺃﻥ ﻟﻴﺨﺘﻨﺸﺘﺎﻳﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﳌﺘﺼﻠﺔ ﺑﺘﻨﺎﺯﻉ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ‪" :‬ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺩﻭﻟـﺔ‬
‫"ﻻ ﳛﻖ ﳍﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻮﻓﺮ ﲪﺎﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﻟﻨﻮﺗّﻴﺒﻮﻡ ﺇﺯﺍﺀ ﻏﻮﺍﺗﻴﻤﺎﻻ")‪ .(٤٣‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ‬ ‫ﺃﻣﺮ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻌﺘﱪﻫﻢ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻬﻧﺎ ﻫـﻲ"‪ .‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻵﻭﻧـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ ﺃﻳﺪﺕ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺑﻴﺔ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻌﺎﻡ ‪ ١٩٩٧‬ﻫـﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻳﻮﺣﻲ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﱂ ﺗﻘﺼﺪ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ)‪ (٤٤‬ﺗﺴﺮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﲨﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻧﺴﺒﻴﺔ ﻳُﺸﺘﺮﻁ ﲟﻮﺟﺒﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ )ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪.(٣‬‬
‫ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﰲ ﻭﺿﻊ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻭﺿﻊ ﻟﻴﺨﺘﻨﺸﺘﺎﻳﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺜﺒﺖ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺻـﻠﺔ‬ ‫)‪ (٣‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻻﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺆﻫﻞ ﳌﻨﺢ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺗـﺮﺩ‬
‫ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﻭﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﻧﻮﺗّﻴﺒﻮﻡ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺴﻤﺢ ﳍﺎ ﺑﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‬ ‫ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻬﺑﺎ ﰲ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٤‬ﻫﻲ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺗﻮﺿـﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﻭﻟﻴـﺴﺖ‬
‫ﻟﺼﺎﳊﻪ ﺿﺪ ﻏﻮﺍﺗﻴﻤﺎﻻ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺮﺑﻄﻪ ﻬﺑﺎ ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﻭﺛﻴﻘﺔ ﻟﻠﻐﺎﻳﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺷﺎﻣﻠﺔ‪ .‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻬﻧﺎ ﺗﺸﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﺃﻏﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﳌﻨﺢ‬
‫ﻭﻋﻼﻭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﳚﺐ ﺃﻻ ﻳﻐﻴﺐ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺫﻫﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺷـﺄﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ‪ :‬ﺍﳌﻮﻟﺪ )ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻣﺴﻘﻂ ﺍﻟﺮﺃﺱ( )‪ ،(jus soli‬ﻭﺍﻷﺻﻞ‬
‫ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﺍﺷﺘﺮﺍﻁ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺔ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻘﺘﺮﺡ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﻧﻮﺗّﻴﺒﻮﻡ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻘﺎﹰ‬ ‫)ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ( )‪ ،(jus sanguinis‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺠﻨﺲ‪ .‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﺪﺭﺝ ﰲ ﻫـﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺻﺎﺭﻣﺎﹰ ﺃﻥ ﳛﺮﻡ ﻣﻼﻳﲔ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺍﺝ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻦ‪ ،‬ﻧﻈﺮﹰﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺍﺝ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺣﺪ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻻ‬
‫__________‬ ‫ﻳﻜﻔﻲ ﰲ ﻣﻌﻈﻢ ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ ﳌﻨﺢ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﺇﺫ ﻳﺸﺘﺮﻁ ﳌﻨﺤﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﺿﺎﻓﺔ‬
‫)‪ (٤١‬ﺃﻋﻠﻨﺖ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﻧﻮﺗّﻴﺒﻮﻡ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻠﻲ‪" :‬ﻭﻓﻘﺎﹰ‬ ‫ﺇﱃ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺇﻗﺎﻣﺔ ﲤﻨﺢ ﺑﻌﺪﻫﺎ ﺍﳉﻨـﺴﻴﺔ ﺑـﺎﻟﺘﺠﻨﺲ‪.‬‬
‫ﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻴﻤﻴـﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﺣﻜـﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘـﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻭﺁﺭﺍﺀ‬ ‫ﻭﺣﻴﺜﻤﺎ ﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺍﺝ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻦﹴ‪ ،‬ﺗﻠﻘﺎﺋﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺍﻛﺘﺴﺎﺏ ﺃﺣـﺪ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺆﻟﻔﲔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﺘﱪ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺭﺑﺎﻃﺎﹰ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺎﹰ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺭﺍﺑﻄﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺟﲔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺝ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﺗﻨﺸﺄ ﻣﺸﺎﻛﻞ ﻓﻴﻤـﺎ ﻳﺘـﺼﻞ‬
‫ﻓﻌﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﳌﺼﺎﱀ ﻭﺍﳌﺸﺎﻋﺮ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﻭﺟـﻮﺩ ﺣﻘـﻮﻕ‬ ‫ﺑﺘﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺍﻛﺘﺴﺎﺏ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟـﺪﻭﱄ)‪ .(٣٩‬ﻭﳚـﻮﺯ‬
‫ﻭﻭﺍﺟﺒﺎﺕ ﻣﺘﺒﺎﺩﻟﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺇﻬﻧﺎ ﲤﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻋﻦ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻛﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻛﺘﺴﺎﺏ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﳋﻼﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ)‪.(٤٠‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﻨﺤﺖ ﻟـﻪ‪ ،‬ﺇﻣﺎ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﲝﻜﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺃﻭ ﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﻋﻠـﻰ ﻓﻌـﻞ‬
‫ﺻﺎﺩﺭ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭﺛﻖ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻃﺎﹰ ﺑﺴﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺎﳓﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻣﻨـﻪ‬ ‫__________‬
‫ﺑﺴﻜﺎﻥ ﺃﻱ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﲤﻨﺤﻬﺎ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﲣﻮﻝ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫)‪Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco (French (٣٨‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺇﻻ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﺗﺮﲨﺔ‬ ‫‪Zone), Advisory Opinion, P.C.I.J. Reports, Series B, No. 4, 1923, p. 6,‬‬
‫ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻻﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺟﻌﻠﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻨﻴﻬﺎ" )ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷـﻴﺔ ‪٣١‬‬ ‫‪.at p. 24‬‬
‫ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.٢٣‬‬ ‫)‪ (٣٩‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ١‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٩‬ﻣـﻦ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴـﺔ‬
‫)‪ (٤٢‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.٢٥‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﻴﺰ ﺿﺪ ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺟﻨـﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫)‪ (٤٣‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.٢٦‬‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ﺍﳌﺘﺰﻭﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻈﺮ ﺍﻛﺘﺴﺎﺏ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻧﻈـﺮ‬
‫)‪ (٤٤‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﻧﻮﺗّﻴﺒﻮﻡ ﻗﺪﻣﺘﻪ ﳉﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻓﻴﻖ ﺍﳌـﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ ﺑـﲔ‬ ‫ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )‪ (٦‬ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﺃﺩﻧﺎﻩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻳﻄﺎﻟﻴﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﻓﻠﻴﻐﻨﻬﺎﳝﺮ‪Flegenheimer case, Decision :‬‬ ‫)‪ (٤٠‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﲜﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺷـﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌـﻴﲔ ﰲ‬
‫‪No. 182 of 20 September 1958, UNRIAA, vol. XIV (Sales No. 65.V.4), p.‬‬ ‫ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺧﻼﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،١٩٩٩‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜـﺎﱐ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪،١٥‬‬
‫‪.327, at p. 376; or ILR (1958-I), vol. 25 (1963) , p. 91, at p. 148‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٤٧‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺰﺩﻭﺝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻋﺐﺀ ﺇﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻛﺘﺴﺎﺏ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﳐﺎﻟﻔـﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﰲ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ‪ ،‬ﻋـﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﳌـﺔ ﺍﻻﻗﺘـﺼﺎﺩﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﻳﻘﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻄﻌﻦ ﰲ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟـﺸﺨﺺ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﳍﺠﺮﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻣﻼﻳﲔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺭﺣﻠﻮﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﻋﺐﺀ ﺍﻹﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟـﱵ ﺗﻄﻌـﻦ ﰲ‬ ‫ﳛﻤﻠﻮﻥ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﺗﻮﺍﻓﺮﺕ ﳍﻢ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﺶ ﰲ ﺩﻭﻝ ﱂ ﻳﻜﺘﺴﺒﻮﺍ‬
‫ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﻮﺟﻮﺏ ﺇﻋﻄﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟـﱵ ﲤـﻨﺢ‬ ‫ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﻗﻂ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻛﺘﺴﺒﻮﺍ‪ ،‬ﲝﻜﻢ ﺍﳌﻮﻟﺪ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ‪ ،‬ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺩﻭﻝ‬
‫ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ "ﻫﺎﻣﺶ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﺮ" ﻟﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﺒﺖ ﰲ ﻣـﻨﺢ ﺍﳉﻨـﺴﻴﺔ)‪ (٤٨‬ﻭﺇﱃ‬ ‫ﻳﺮﺑﻄﻬﻢ ﻬﺑﺎ ﺭﺑﺎﻁ ﻭﺍﻩٍ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻗﺮﻳﻨﺔ ﺗﺆﻳﺪ ﺻﺤﺔ ﻣﻨﺢ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﻨﺴﻴﺔ)‪.(٤٩‬‬
‫)‪ (٦‬ﻭﺗﺸﺪﺩ ﺍﳉﻤﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٤‬ﻋﻠـﻰ ﺃﻥ‬
‫)‪ (٨‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻜﺘﺴﺐ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻻ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﻳﹰﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﻛﺘﺴﺎﺏ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻻ ﻳﺘﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‪ .‬ﻓﻌﻠـﻰ‬
‫ﺑﺄﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﻳﺘﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻛﺘـﺴﺎﺏ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻘﺮﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻌﺘﱪﻫﻢ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ﺗﻠﻘﺎﺋﻴﹰﺎ ﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺯﻭﺟﻬﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺍﺝ‪ ،‬ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﺎﺡ ﻟـﺬﻟﻚ‬ ‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺎﳊﻖ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻖ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺃﻛﺪﺕ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١‬ﻣـﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ‪ ،‬ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﳌﺘﺼﻠﺔ ﺑﺘﻨﺎﺯﻉ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ)‪ .(٥٠‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺃﺩﻯ ﺍﻛﺘﺴﺎﺏ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ‬ ‫ﺇﺫ ﺃﺧﻀﻌﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻞ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ "ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻣﺮ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺇﱃ ﻓﻘﺪﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﳉﻨﺴﻴﺘﻪ ﺍﻟـﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓـﺈﻥ ﺍﻋﺘﺒـﺎﺭﺍﺕ‬ ‫ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻌﺘﱪﻫﻢ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻬﻧﺎ ﻫـﻲ" ﻟـﺸﺮﻁ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺼﺎﻑ ﺗﻘﺘﻀﻲ ﻣﻨﺢ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﺣﻖ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫"ﺗﻌﺘﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﻬﺑﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻤﺎﺷـﻰ ﻣـﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺘﻔﻖ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﻊ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﳏﻜﻤـﺔ ﺍﻟﻌـﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴـﺔ ﰲ‬ ‫ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﻋﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﻣﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﻌﺘﺮﻑ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﺻﺪﺭﻬﺗﺎ ﻋﺎ َﻡ ‪ ١٩٧١‬ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻧﺎﻣﻴﺒﻴﺎ)‪ (٥١‬ﻭﻣﻔﺎﺩﻫـﺎ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫ﻬﺑﺎ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻋﺎﻡ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ")‪ .(٤٥‬ﻭﺍﻟﻴـﻮﻡ‪ ،‬ﺗـﺸﺘﺮﻁ‬
‫ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﻻ ﺗﺘﺄﺛﺮ ﺑﻔﻌﻞ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﺭﺗﻜﺒﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟـﺔ ﺍﻟـﱵ‬ ‫ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﲞﺎﺻﺔ ﰲ ﻣﻴﺪﺍﻥ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧـﺴﺎﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﻬﺑﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻻﻣﺘﺜﺎﻝ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺎﻳﲑ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﺪﻯ ﻣﻨﺢ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ)‪ .(٤٦‬ﻓﻌﻠﻰ ﺳـﺒﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺗﻨﺺ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ١‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٩‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﲨﻴﻊ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -٥‬ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻲ‬ ‫ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﻴﺰ ﺿﺪ ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ‪:‬‬
‫‪ -١‬ﳛﻖ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤـﺎ‬ ‫ﲤﻨﺢ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻷﻃﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ﺣﻘﹰﺎ ﻣﺴﺎﻭﻳﹰﺎ ﳊﻖ ﺍﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻛﺘﺴﺎﺏ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺸﺨﺺ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﺴﺘﻤﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻻﺣﺘﻔﺎﻅ ﻬﺑﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻐﻴﲑﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﻀﻤﻦ ﺑﻮﺟﻪ ﺧﺎﺹ ﺃﻻ ﻳﺘﺮﺗﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺍﺝ ﻣـﻦ‬
‫ﺃﺟﻨﱯ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻐﻴﲑ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺝ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺍﺝ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﻐﲑ ﺗﻠﻘﺎﺋﻴﹰﺎ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺟﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺇﱃ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﹰﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﻔﺘـﺮﺽ‬ ‫ﺃﻭ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﺑﻼ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻔﺮﺽ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺝ)‪.(٤٧‬‬
‫ﲢﻘﻖ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭﻳﺔ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﰲ ﻛﻼ ﻫﺬﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﲔ‪.‬‬ ‫)‪ (٧‬ﻭﻳﺴﻠﹼﻢ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ،٤‬ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ‪ ،‬ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﳛﻖ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟـﱵ‬
‫‪ -٢‬ﻣﻊ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻹﺧﻼﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ،١‬ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﺿﺪﻫﺎ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﺃﺟﻨﱯ ﻣﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻄﻌـﻦ ﰲ‬
‫ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺸﺨﺺ ﻳﻜـﻮﻥ ﻣـﻦ‬ ‫ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺍﻛﺘﺴﺐ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓـﻮ ﳜـﺎﻟﻒ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺸﺘﺮﻁ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٤‬ﺃﻥ ﳛﺪﺙ ﺍﻛﺘـﺴﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﹰﺎ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ‬
‫ﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺣﺪﻭﺙ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺷﺮﻳﻄﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ "ﻻ ﺗﺘﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ"‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺸﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﻲ‬
‫ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺳﻠﻒ ﺃﻭ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﻛﺘﺴﺐ‪،‬‬ ‫__________‬
‫ﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﻻ ﻳﺘﺼﻞ ﺑﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ‬ ‫)‪ (٤٥‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٢‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٣‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺑﻴﺔ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ‬
‫ﻻ ﺗﺘﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫)‪ (٤٦‬ﺃﻛﺪﺕ ﺫﻟﻚ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺪﺍﻥ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ ﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ ﻓﺘﻮﺍﻫﺎ‬
‫__________‬ ‫ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﺍﳌﻘﺘﺮﺡ ﺇﺩﺧﺎﳍﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺠﻨﺲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﺳـﺘﻮﺭ‬
‫)‪ (٤٨‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﻓﺘﻮﻯ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺪﺍﻥ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ ﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑـﺸﺄﻥ‬
‫‪Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟـﺴﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﻟﻜﻮﺳـﺘﺎﺭﻳﻜﺎ )‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﺍﳌﻘﺘﺮﺡ ﺇﺩﺧﺎﳍﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑـﺎﻟﺘﺠﻨﺲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﺳـﺘﻮﺭ‬ ‫‪ (Provisions of the Political Constitution of Costa Rica‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻛﺪﺕ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﻟﻜﻮﺳﺘﺎﺭﻳﻜﺎ )ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٤٦‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺗﺎﻥ ‪.٦٣-٦٢‬‬ ‫"ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻓﻴﻖ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻞ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻣﻨﺢ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻳﻘﻊ ﺿـﻤﻦ ﻧﻄـﺎﻕ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺼﺎﺹ ﺍﶈﻠﻲ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ]‪ [...‬ﻭﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻞ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﻳﻔﺮﺽ‬
‫‪Oppenheim’s International Law, 9th edition, vol. I,‬‬ ‫)‪ (٤٩‬ﺍﻧﻈـﺮ‬
‫ﺣﺪﻭﺩﹰﺍ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﻠﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻘﺘﻀﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻔﺮﺿﻬﺎ‬
‫‪Peace, R. Y. Jennings and A. D. Watts (eds.), Harlow, Longman, 1992,‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧـﺴﺎﻥ" ) ‪advisory opinion OC-4/84 of 19‬‬
‫‪.p. 856‬‬
‫‪.(January 1984, Series A, No. 4, para. 38‬‬
‫)‪ (٥٠‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٢‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ﺍﳌﺘﺰﻭﺟﺔ‪.‬‬
‫)‪ (٤٧‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٢٠‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ ﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧـﺴﺎﻥ‪:‬‬
‫)‪Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence (٥١‬‬
‫‪of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding‬‬
‫"ﻣﻴﺜﺎﻕ ﺳﺎﻥ ﺧﻮﺳﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻮﺳﺘﺎﺭﻳﻜﺎ"؛ ﻭﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪)٥‬ﺩ(‘‪ ‘٣‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴـﺔ‬
‫‪Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J.‬‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺼﺮﻱ؛ ﻭﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺟﻨـﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫‪.Reports 1971, p. 16, at p. 56, para. 125‬‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ﺍﳌﺘﺰﻭﺟﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﰲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ١٩٦٥‬ﲝﺴﻢ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛـﺎﻥ‬ ‫‪ -٣‬ﻻ ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﲔ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻳﹰﺎ)‪ .(٥٦‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣـﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﳜﺺ ﺷﺨﺼﹰﺎ ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﺿﺪ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺳـﺎﺑﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻼﺋﻢ ﺍﺷﺘﺮﺍﻁ ﺇﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﺗﻮﻓﺮ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻣـﻦ ﺗـﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬ ‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻀﺮﺭ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺣﺪﺙ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺣﺪﻭﺙ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﻭﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﹰﺎ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺍﺷﺘﺮﺍﻁ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ‬ ‫ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻭﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻣـﻦ‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﲔ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﰒ ﻓﻔﻲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺭﳚﻲ‬ ‫ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻠﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺻﻴﻐﺖ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﲝﻴﺚ ﻳﺸﺘﺮﻁ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﻛﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ‬
‫‪ -٤‬ﻳﻨﻘﻀﻲ ﺣـﻖ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟـﺔ ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳـﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺣﺪﻭﺙ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺇﱃ ﺗـﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺸﺨﺺ ﻳﻜﺘﺴﺐ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻘـﺪﱘ‬
‫ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﹰﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻧﻈﺮﹰﺍ ﻟﺼﻌﻮﺑﺔ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺃﺩﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﹸﻘﺪﱠﻡ ﺿﺪﻫﺎ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻳُﻔﺘﺮﺽ ﲢﻘﻘﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﰲ ﻛﻼ ﻫﺬﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﲔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻳﻨﺔ ﺑﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﻏﲑ ﻗﺎﻃﻌﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ‬
‫)‪ (٣‬ﻭﺍﻻﺷﺘﺮﺍﻁ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳊﻖ ﺑـﻪ‬ ‫)‪ (١‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﺳـﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳉﻨـﺴﻴﺔ ﺭﺍﺳـﺨﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻭﻗﺖ ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﺸﺘﺮﻁ‬ ‫ﲤﺎﻣﹰﺎ)‪ ،(٥٢‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﺗﻌﺮﺿﺖ ﻟﻘﺪﺭ ﻛﺒﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﻘﺎﺩ)‪ (٥٣‬ﲝﺠﺔ ﺃﻬﻧﺎ ﻗﺪ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﹰﺎ ﳏﺪﺩﹰﺍ ﺑﻞ ﻗﺪ ﳝﺘﺪ ﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﺯﻣﻨﻴـﺔ ﺇﺫﺍ‬ ‫ﺗﺴﺒﺐ ﺇﺟﺤﺎﻓﹰﺎ ﻛﺒﲑﹰﺍ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻐﲑ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﺟﻨـﺴﻴﺘﻪ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﻳﺘﺄﻟﻒ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺪﺓ ﺃﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻣﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﻳﺮﺗﻜـﺐ‬ ‫ﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﻻ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﳍﺎ ﺑﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺩﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻗـﺪ ﺭُﻓـﻀﺖ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺪﻯ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺯﻣﻨﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺮﺍﺣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻋﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﻠﻲ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺧﺸﻴﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﻠﻲ‬
‫ـﺮﺽ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳــﺔ‬ ‫ـﺴﻴﺔ" ﻟﻐـ‬ ‫ـﺴﻮّﻕ ﺍﳉﻨـ‬‫ـﺎﻭﺯﺍﺕ ﻭﺇﱃ "ﺗـ‬ ‫ﺇﱃ ﲡـ‬
‫)‪ (٤‬ﻭﺍﻻﺷﺘﺮﺍﻁ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﲏ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ١‬ﻫﻮ ﺗـﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬ ‫)‪(٥٤‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ‪ .‬ﻭﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﻳُﺒﻘﻲ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٥‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ‬
‫ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﹰﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﳋﻼﻑ ﰲ ﺍﻵﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﻘـﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻳﺴﻤﺢ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀﺍﺕ ﳌﺮﺍﻋﺎﺓ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟـﱵ‬
‫ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳُﺸﺘﺮﻁ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺕ ﻟﻐﺎﻳﺘﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﳛﺪﺙ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺇﺟﺤﺎﻑ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀﺍﺕ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻴﻘﲔ ﻫﺬﺍ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻟﺪﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﺗﻨﺸﺊ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻄﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﻨﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﻗﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﺖ ﺗﻌـﺎﺑﲑ‬ ‫)‪ (٢‬ﻭﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ١‬ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻞ ﺇﻧﻪ ﳛﻖ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ)‪ .(٥٧‬ﻭﺗﻌﺒﲑ "ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ" ﻫﻮ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ‬ ‫ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺼﻞ ﺑﺸﺨﺺ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﺑﲑ ﺷﻴﻮﻋﹰﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻫﺪﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻘﻪ ﻟﻺﺷﺎﺭﺓ‬ ‫ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺣﺪﻭﺙ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﻭﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴـﹰﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﺍﻷﺧـﲑ )‪ (dies ad quem‬ﺍﳌﻄﻠـﻮﺏ‬ ‫ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺿﺢ ﻣﻦ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﻪ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳚﺐ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺍﻋﺎﺗﻪ ﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺃﹸﺿﻴﻔﺖ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ "ﺭﲰﻴﹰﺎ"‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﺃﻥ ﳛﺘﻔﻆ ﲜﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟِﺒﺔ ﺑﲔ ﻫﺬﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﲔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﻟﻠﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘـﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬ ‫ﻷﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﻗﻠﻤﺎ ﺗﻨﺸﺄ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﹰﺎ)‪ .(٥٥‬ﻭﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﱂ ﻳﻘـﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﻟﻠﺤﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺑﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﺃﻭﻝ‬ ‫__________‬
‫ﻃﻠﺐ ﺭﲰﻲ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺍﻻﺗﺼﺎﻻﺕ ﻭﺍﻻﺳﺘﻔﺴﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‬ ‫)‪ (٥٢‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﳉﻨﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﺮﲰﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲡﺮﻱ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ‪ ١٩٥٤-١٩٥١‬ﰲ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻛﺮﻳﻦ‪Kren claim, ILR (1953), vol. :‬‬
‫‪.20 (1957), pp. 233 et seq., at p. 234‬‬
‫)‪ (٥‬ﻭﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﺍﳌﻄﻠـﻮﺏ ﻣﺮﺍﻋﺎﺗـﻪ ﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳـﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬ ‫)‪ (٥٣‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﲑ ﺟﲑﺍﻟﺪ ﻓﻴﺘـﺴﻤﻮﺭﻳﺲ ) ‪Sir Gerald‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﹰﺎ‪ .‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺗﺄﻳﻴـﺪﹰﺍ‬ ‫‪ (Fitzmaurice‬ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺮﺷﻠﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺮ‪Barcelona Traction case, :‬‬
‫ﻟﻠﺮﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﺘﱪ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻏﻴّﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﻣﺎ ﺑﲔ ﻫﺬﺍ‬ ‫‪) Second Phase, Judgment, at pp. 101–102‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٣٥‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(؛ ﻭﺍﻧﻈـﺮ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ‪E. Wyler, La règle dite de la continuité de la nationalité dans le :‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺻﺪﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻓﺈﻧـﻪ ﻻ‬
‫‪.contentieux international, Paris, Presses universitaires de France, 1990‬‬
‫ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻨﹰﺎ ﻷﻏﺮﺍﺽ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ)‪ .(٥٨‬ﻭﰲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪،٢٠٠٣‬‬
‫)‪ (٥٤‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺩﱃ ﺑﻪ ﺍﶈﻜﻢ ﺑـﺎﺭﻛﺮ )‪ (Parker‬ﰲ ﻗـﻀﻴﺔ‬
‫__________‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﻱ ﺭﻗﻢ ‪" :(Administrative Decision No. V) ٥‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻥ ﺃﻱ‬
‫‪Warsaw session,‬‬ ‫)‪ (٥٦‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﳌﻌﻘـﻮﺩﺓ ﰲ ﻭﺍﺭﺳـﻮ‪:‬‬ ‫ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻔﺘﺢ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺼﺮﺍﻋﻴﻪ ﻟﻠﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﺴﻔﺮ ﻋـﻦ‬
‫‪September 1965, Annuaire de l’Institut de droit international, vol. 51‬‬ ‫ﲢﻮﻝ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻗﻮﻳﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻭﻛﺎﻟﺔ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﻧﻴﺎﺑﺔ ﻋـﻦ ﺃﻭﻟﺌـﻚ ﺍﻟـﺬﻳﻦ ﳛﻴﻠـﻮﻥ‬
‫‪.(1965), tome II, pp. 260–262‬‬ ‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﻬﺗﻢ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻠﺤﻖ ﻬﺑﻢ ﺃﺿﺮﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﺃﻭ ﻳـﺴﺘﻐﻠﻮﻥ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﻴﻨـﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺠﻨﺲ ﻟﻐﺮﺽ ﺿﻤﺎﻥ ﺗﺒﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﻬﺗﻢ" ) ‪United States–Germany‬‬
‫)‪ (٥٧‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺩﱃ ﺑﻪ ﺍﶈﻜﻢ ﺑـﺎﺭﻛﺮ )‪ (Parker‬ﰲ ﻗـﻀﻴﺔ‬ ‫‪Mixed Claims Commission, Decision of 31 October 1924, UNRIAA,‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﻱ ﺭﻗﻢ ‪) ٥‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٥٤‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.١٤٣‬‬ ‫‪.(vol. VII (Sales No. 1956.V.5), p. 119, at p. 141‬‬
‫)‪ (٥٨‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪) Oppenheim’s International Law‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٤٩‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪،‬‬ ‫‪H. W. Briggs, “La‬‬ ‫ـﺮ ‪protection diplomatique des‬‬ ‫)‪ (٥٥‬ﺍﻧﻈـ‬
‫ﺹ ‪ .٥١٢‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺃﻳـﻀﹰﺎ‪Minnie Stevens Eschauzier (Great Britain) v. :‬‬ ‫‪individus en droit international: la nationalité des réclamations”,‬‬
‫‪United Mexican States, Decision of 24 June 1931, UNRIAA, vol. V‬‬ ‫‪Annuaire de l’Institut de droit international, vol. 51 (1965), tome I, pp.‬‬
‫‪.(Sales No. 1952.V.3), p. 207‬‬ ‫‪.5 et seq., at pp. 72–73‬‬
‫ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﻭﻗﺖ ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺷﺮﻳﻄﺔ ﺗﻮﺍﻓﺮ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﺷـﺮﻭﻁ ﻫـﻲ‪:‬‬ ‫ﺭﺃﺕ ﻫﻴﺌﺔ ﲢﻜﻴﻢ ﺗﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟـﺪﻭﱄ ﻟﺘـﺴﻮﻳﺔ ﻣﻨﺎﺯﻋـﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺃﻭﻻﹰ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻠﺘﻤﺲ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻗـﺪ‬ ‫ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﻟﹸﻮﻭﹺﻥ ﺃﻧﻪ "ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻫﻮﻳﺔ ﻭﻃﻨﻴﺔ‬
‫ﲪﻞ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺳﻠﻒ ﺃﻭ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻪ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ؛ ﻭﺛﺎﻧﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ‬ ‫ﻣﺴﺘﻤﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻷﺣﺪﺍﺙ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﺩﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻗﺪ ﺍﻛﺘﺴﺐ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﻻ ﻋﻼﻗـﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳُﻄﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ )‪ ،(dies a quo‬ﺣﱴ ﺗـﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬
‫ﻟـﻪ ﺑﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ؛ ﻭﺛﺎﻟﺜﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻛﺘﺴﺎﺏ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻗﺪ‬ ‫ﺗﺴﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳُﻄﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ‬
‫ﺣﺪﺙ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻻ ﺗﺘﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‪.‬‬ ‫)‪ .(٥٩)"(dies ad quem‬ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﻟﹸﻮﻭﹺﻥ ﻛﺎﻧـﺖ ﺗﺘﻌﻠـﻖ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻐﲑ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻮﺏ ﲪﺎﻳﺘﻪ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ‬
‫)‪ (٨‬ﻭﺗﻌﺎﰿ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٢‬ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻴﻬـﺎ ﺍﻟـﺸﺨﺺ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﱠﻋﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﻻ ﳚﻮﺯ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﻗﺪ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻻ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﻳـﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺴﻚ ﲟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﺤﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻨﺺ ﻋﻠﻴـﻪ‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺧﻼﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺭﲟﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﲏ ﻭﺍﻟﺰﻭﺍﺝ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺗﻐﻴﲑ‬ ‫ﺑﻮﺿﻮﺡ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٤‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ .٥‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺇﻟﺰﺍﻣﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺗُﻔﻘﺪ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺑـﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻻ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﻳـﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﰲ ﺣﺎﻟـﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﻌﺪﺓ ﻷﻥ ﲢﺬﻭ ﺣﺬﻭ ﻫﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻴﻢ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﻟﹸﻮﻭﹺﻥ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﻤـﺎﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﻟﻠﺠﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺍﻹﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﺿـﺤﹰﺎ‬ ‫ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺷﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﺗﻘﻀﻲ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻳُﺤﺘﻔﹶﻆ ﺑﺎﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺣﱴ ﺗـﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗـﺴﻮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﲤﺎﻣﹰﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺗﺸﺘﺮﻁ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٢‬ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜـﻮﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ)‪ .(٦٠‬ﻓﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺼﺎﱀ ﺍﻟﻔـﺮﺩ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﻘﺪﺍﻥ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻻ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﻳﹰﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮﹰﺍ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ ﲤﺮ ﺳﻨﻮﺍﺕ ﻋﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﺑﲔ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒـﺔ ﻭﺗـﺴﻮﻳﺘﻬﺎ‬
‫)‪ (٩‬ﻭﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺧﻼﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﺗﻘﺘﺼﺮ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ‬ ‫ﺗﺴﻮﻳﺔ ﻬﻧﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻭﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺠﻤﻟﺤﻒ ﻣﻌﺎﻗﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﻟﺘﻐﻴﲑﻩ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻷﻏﺮﺍﺽ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﲢﺎﻭﻝ ﺗﻨﻈﻴﻢ‬ ‫ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺍﺝ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﻨﺲ‪ ،‬ﺧﻼﻝ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺘـﺮﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﻔـﻀﱠﻞ‬
‫ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳋﻼﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻳﻐﻄﻴﻪ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌـﻮﺍﺩ‬ ‫ﺑﺪ ﹰﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﹰﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻭﺿﻌﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﲔ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ‬ ‫)‪ .(dies ad quem‬ﻭﺗﺮﺟﻊ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺧﻼﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ)‪.(٦٢‬‬ ‫ﺗُﻈﻬﺮ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺔ ﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻼ ﻋـﻦ‬ ‫ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺗﻈﻞ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺆﻛﺪﺓ ﺣﱴ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ‪ .‬ﻭﻓﻀ ﹰ‬
‫)‪ (١٠‬ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﺫﹸﻛﺮ ﺃﻋﻼﻩ)‪ ،(٦٣‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﳋـﻮﻑ ﻣـﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻌﻤـﺪ‬ ‫ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﻬﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳚﺐ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺒﺖ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻣﻘﺒﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒـﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺗﻐﻴﲑ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻪ ﻻﻛﺘﺴﺎﺏ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺍﺳـﺘﻌﺪﺍﺩﹰﺍ‬ ‫ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺗﺮﻙ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻟﻠﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻼﺣﻖ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﺘﻢ ﻓﻴـﻪ‬
‫ﻭﻗﺪﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻡ ﲟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺩﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﺼﺎﳊﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬ ‫ﺗﺴﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺇﺻﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮﻁ ﺍﻟﺜـﺎﱐ ﺍﻟـﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٢‬ﻳﺘﺼﺪﻯ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻏﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺺ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻟـﺬﻱ‬ ‫ﻼ ﻣﻦ‬‫)‪ (٦‬ﻭﺗﺸﻤﻞ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ "ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ" ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺍﺕ ‪ ١‬ﻭ‪ ٢‬ﻭ‪ ٤‬ﻛ ﹰ‬
‫ﺗُﻤﺎﺭﺱ ﻟﺼﺎﳊﻪ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺍﻛﺘﺴﺐ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻋﱪ ﺍﻟﻘﻨﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻫﻴﺌﺔ‬
‫ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻪ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﻻ ﻳﺘﺼﻞ ﺑﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ‬ ‫ﻗﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﳚﻮﺯ ﺃﻥ ﲢﺪﺩ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻮﻙ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﺒﻐـﻲ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻁ ﻫﻮ ﺣﺼﺮ ﺍﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀﺍﺕ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻻﺕ‬ ‫ﺗﺘﺒﻌﻪ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﺔ ﻟﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﻏـﲑ ﺍﳌـﺸﺮﻭﻉ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛـﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺗﺸﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺽ ﺍﻹﻟﺰﺍﻣﻲ ﻟﻠﺠﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‬ ‫ﻣﺴﺘﻤﺮﺍﹰ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺨﺬﻩ ﺍﳉﱪ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌـﺴﺄﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻗﺪ ﺍﻛﺘﺴﺐ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻛﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻳﺔ ﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣـﻞ‬ ‫ﺗﺘﻨﺎﻭﳍﺎ ﲟﺰﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺼﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٤٣‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠـﻖ‬
‫ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺍﺝ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﲏ ﺃﻭ ﺧﻼﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﻳـﺴﺮﻱ ﺍﻻﺳـﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ‬ ‫ﲟﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻋﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ ﻟﻌـﺎﻡ ‪٢٠٠١‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٢‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻗـﺪ‬ ‫ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ)‪.(٦١‬‬
‫ﺍﻛﺘﺴﺐ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻷﻏﺮﺍﺽ ﲡﺎﺭﻳﻪ ﻣﺘﺼﻠﺔ ﺑﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪.‬‬
‫)‪ (٧‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﻗﺮﺭﺕ ﻭﺟﻮﺏ ﺍﻹﺑﻘﺎﺀ ﻋﻠـﻰ‬
‫)‪ (١١‬ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮﻁ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺟﺐ ﺍﺳﺘﻴﻔﺎﺅﻩ ﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﻗﺎﻋـﺪﺓ‬ ‫ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﻭﺍﻓﻘﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻫﻨـﺎﻙ ﺣﺎﺟـﺔ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻗـﺪ ﺍﻛﺘـﺴﺒﺖ‬ ‫ﻭﺿﻊ ﺍﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀﺍﺕ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺗﻨﺺ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٢‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧـﻪ‬
‫ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻻ ﺗﺘﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‪ .‬ﻭﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘـﺮﺃ ﻫـﺬﺍ‬ ‫ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺼﻞ ﺑـﺸﺨﺺ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻁ ﺑﺎﻻﻗﺘﺮﺍﻥ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪.٤‬‬ ‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﹰﺎ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﱂ ﻳﻜـﻦ ﻣـﻦ‬
‫__________‬
‫)‪ (١٢‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٣‬ﻓﺘﻀﻴﻒ ﺿﻤﺎﻧﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺿﺪ ﺇﺳﺎﺀﺓ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ‬ ‫)‪The Loewen Group, Inc. and Raymond L. Loewen v. United (٥٩‬‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﺒﻌﺎﺩ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻼ ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ‬ ‫‪States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/3, Award of 26 June‬‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺿﺪ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻟﻠﺸﺨﺺ‬ ‫‪.2003, ICSID Reports, vol. 7 (2005), pp. 442 et seq., at p. 485, para. 225‬‬
‫)‪ (٦٠‬ﻟﻼﻃﻼﻉ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻘـﺪ ﺍﳌﻮﺟـﻪ ﺑﺸـﺄﻥ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ‪ ،Loewen‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ‬
‫__________‬ ‫‪J. Paulsson, Denial of Justice in International Law, New York,‬‬
‫)‪ (٦٢‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٤٠‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪.‬‬ ‫‪.Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 183–184‬‬
‫)‪ (٦٣‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )‪ (١‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﻫﺬﺍ‪.‬‬ ‫)‪ (٦١‬ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،٢٠٠١‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ( ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺼﻮﻳﺐ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.١٥٥‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺪّﻋﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻻ ﳚﻮﺯ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ)‪ .(٦٧‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺑﻌﺾ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺼﻞ ﺑﻀﺮﺭ ﻭﻗﻊ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻣـﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻳﻴﺪ ﻟﻠﺮﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺬﻫﺐ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺗﻮﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﻗﺒﻞ‬ ‫ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﳚﻮﺯ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻧﻈﺮﹰﺍ ﻻﻛﺘﺴﺎﻬﺑﺎ‬
‫ﻃﺎﺑﻌﹰﺎ ﻭﻃﻨﻴﹰﺎ)‪ .(٦٨‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻹﻧﺼﺎﻑ ﻗـﺪ‬ ‫)‪ (١٣‬ﻭﺗﻨﺺ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٤‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻣﺎ ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﺷﺨﺺ ﻗﹸـﺪﻣﺖ‬
‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺑﺸﺄﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﱠﻋﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺗﺒﺪﻭ ﻣﺆﻳﺪﺓ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﻗﻒ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻧُﺒﺬ ﰲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ)‪ .(٦٩‬ﻭﻧﻈـﺮﹰﺍ‬
‫ﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﺗﺒﲏ ﺍﻷﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﳌﻮﻗﻒ ﺣﺎﺳﻢ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻜﻤـﺔ‬ ‫ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﱢﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺗﻔﻘﺪ ﺣﻘﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻗﺘﺮﺍﺡ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻧﻈﺮﹰﺍ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺳﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻨﺪﺋﺬ ﻣﻠﺰَﻣﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗـﻊ‬
‫ﺑﺪﻓﻊ ﺗﻌﻮﻳﺾ ﻟﻠﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -٦‬ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺿﺪ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺛﺎﻟﺜﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﻟﹸﻮﻭﹺﻥ ﻭﰲ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ)‪ (٦٤‬ﺣﻴـﺚ‬
‫ﺗَﻘﺮﱠﺭ ﺃﻥ ﺣﺪﻭﺙ ﺗﻐﻴﲑ ﰲ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﻘـﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒـﺔ ﳝﻨـﻊ‬
‫‪ -١‬ﳚﻮﺯ ﻷﻱ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫـﺎ ﺷـﺨﺺ‬ ‫ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺳـﺘﻘﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟـﺔ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﱢﻣـﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺰﺩﻭﺝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺘﻌـﺪﺩ ﺍﳉﻨـﺴﻴﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲤـﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻤﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻣﻌﻈﻢ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ‪ ،‬ﺑﺴﺤﺐ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺿﺪ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻻ ﻳﻜـﻮﻥ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻘﹰﺎ ﻟﻼﻓﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﺍﳌﻌﻠﹶﻦ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﻣﺎﻓﺮﻭﻣﺎﺗﻴﺲ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺽ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻃﻠﺐ ﺍﳉﱪ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻀﺮﺭ‬
‫‪ -٢‬ﳚﻮﺯ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺸﺘﺮﻙ ﺩﻭﻟﺘﺎﻥ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻛﺜـﺮ ﻣـﻦ ﺩﻭﻝ‬ ‫ﳊﻘﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺷﺨﺺ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻨﻬﺎ)‪ .(٦٥‬ﻭﺑﺎﳌﺜﻞ‪ ،‬ﳚـﻮﺯ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺼﻞ ﺑـﺸﺨﺺ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻘﺮﺭ ﺳﺤﺐ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺘﻬﺎ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ‬
‫ﻣﺰﺩﻭﺝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻨﹰﺎ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺛﺎﻟﺜﺔ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻣـﺎ ﻋﻤـﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﺑﺴﻮﺀ ﻧﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻻﺣﺘﻔﺎﻅ ﲜﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﻣﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻤﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺣﱴ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﻭﺍﻛﺘﺴﺐ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺩﻭﻟـﺔ‬
‫ﺛﺎﻟﺜﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺼﺎﻑ ﻳﻘﺘﻀﻲ ﺇﻬﻧﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﻋﺐﺀ ﺍﻹﺛﺒـﺎﺕ‬
‫)‪ (١‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﺯﺩﻭﺍﺝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻌﺪﺩﻫﺎ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻘﺎﺋﻖ ﺍﳊﻴـﺎﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻴﻤﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﻔﺮﺩ ﺍﻛﺘﺴﺎﺏ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ‬ ‫ﺳﻴﻘﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﻮﺍﺯﻱ ﳌﺒﺪﺃﻱ ﺣﻖ ﻣﺴﻘﻂ ﺍﻟﺮﺃﺱ ﻭﺣﻖ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻣـﻨﺢ‬ ‫)‪ (١٤‬ﻻ ﳛﺴﻢ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٥‬ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳉـﺎﺋﺰ‬
‫ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﻨﺲ ﺃﻭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻱ ﳓﻮ ﺁﺧﺮ ﳑـﺎ ﻳﺘﻮﺧـﺎﻩ‬ ‫ﺃﻥ ﳛﺼﻞ ﻭﺭﺛﺔ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﻣﻀﺮﻭﺭ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﰲ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻟﻠﻀﺮﺭ ﺃﻭ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ،٤‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻻ ﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﻠﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟـﺪﻭﻝ ﻻ ﺗـﺴﻤﺢ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﳛﻤﻠﻮﻥ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻷﺣﻜﺎﻡ‬
‫ﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻧﻮﺍ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﻘـﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟـﺪﻭﱄ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﻬﺑﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻓﺈﻬﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻏﲑ ﺣﺎﲰﺔ ﻧﻈﺮﹰﺍ‬
‫ﻻ ﳛﻈﺮ ﺍﺯﺩﻭﺍﺝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻌﺪﺩﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﻘﺪ ﺃﻗﺮﺕ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٣‬ﻣـﻦ‬ ‫ﻷﻥ ﻣﻌﻈﻤﻬﺎ ﻳﺘﺼﻞ ﺑﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﻣﻌﺎﻫﺪﺍﺕ ﺑﻌﻴﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﲤﻴـﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺩﻋـﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﳌﺘﺼﻠﺔ ﺑﺘﻨﺎﺯﻉ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻬﺑﺬﺍ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺬﻫﺐ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻻ ﳚﻮﺯ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﻘﺪﻡ ﺩﻭﻟـﺔ ﺟﻨـﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺯﺩﻭﺍﺝ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﺩ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﻧﺼﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ "ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﻤـﻞ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﳌﺘﻮﰱ ﲟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺭﻳﺚ ﳛﻤﻞ ﺟﻨـﺴﻴﺔ ﺩﻭﻟـﺔ‬
‫ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﲔ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻌﺘﱪﻩ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻟـﱵ ﳛﻤـﻞ‬ ‫ﺛﺎﻟﺜﺔ)‪ .(٦٦‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺿﺢ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺭﻳﺚ ﳛﻤﻞ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ"‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﻱ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ‪ ،‬ﺗﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﻣـﺴﺄﻟﺔ‬ ‫__________‬
‫ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺤﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺼﻞ ﲟـﻮﺍﻃﻦ‬ ‫)‪Ebenezer Barstow case, G. H. Hackworth, Digest of (٦٤‬‬
‫ﳛﻤﻞ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻣﺰﺩﻭﺟﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﻘﺘﺼﺮ ﻣﻮﺿـﻮﻉ‬ ‫‪International Law, vol. V, Washington D.C., United States Government‬‬
‫ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٦‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺎﻧـﺐ‬ ‫‪Printing Office, 1943, p. 805; Executors of F. Lederer (deceased) v.‬‬
‫‪German Government case, Recueil des Décisions des Tribunaux‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺃﻭ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﳌـﻀﺮﻭﺭ‬ ‫‪Arbitraux Mixtes, tome III, p. 762; Hawaiian Claims case, F. K.‬‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﺿﺪ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻣـﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫـﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫‪Nielsen, American and British Claims Arbitration, Washington D.C.,‬‬
‫__________‬ ‫‪Government Printing Office, 1926, p. 30; Chopin, French and‬‬
‫;‪American Claims Commission, 1880–1884, vol. 60, Records of Claims‬‬
‫‪Stevenson case, UNRIAA, vol. IX (Sales No. 1959.V.5), p.‬‬ ‫)‪(٦٧‬‬ ‫‪Gribble, Papers relating to the Treaty of Washington, vol. V (Report of‬‬
‫‪494‬؛ ﻭ‪Bogovic claim, ILR, vol. 21, p. 156‬؛ ﻭﻗـﻀﻴﺔ ‪Executors of F.‬‬ ‫‪Robert S. Hale, Esq.), Washington D.C., Government Printing Office,‬‬
‫‪) Lederer‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٦٤‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪.‬‬ ‫‪.1874, p. 14.‬‬
‫)‪ (٦٨‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪E. M. Borchard, The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens‬‬ ‫)‪ (٦٥‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )‪.(٣‬‬
‫‪Abroad or the Law of International Claims, New York, The Banks Law‬‬ ‫)‪) Eschauzier claim (٦٦‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٥٨‬ﺃﻋـﻼﻩ(؛ ﻭ‪Kren claim‬‬
‫‪Publishing Co., 1922, p. 628‬؛ ﻭﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ‪) Straub claim‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷـﻴﺔ ‪٦٦‬‬ ‫)ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٥٢‬ﺃﻋـﻼﻩ(؛ ﻭ ‪Captain W. H. Gleadell (Great Britain v.‬‬
‫ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪.‬‬ ‫‪United Mexican States), Decision of 19 November 1929, UNRIAA, vol.‬‬
‫)‪) Eschauzier claim (٦٩‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٥٨‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.٢٠٩‬‬ ‫‪V, p. 44‬؛ ﻭﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﺑﻞ‪.Straub claim, ILR, vol. 20, p. 228 :‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻳﺪﻬﺗﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻵﻭﻧﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﺑﲔ ﺇﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ)‪ .(٧٤‬ﻭﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﺷﺘﺮﺍﻁ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺻﻠﺔ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻴـﺔ ﺃﻭ‬ ‫ﺿﺪ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﺘﻨﺎﻭﳍﺎ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪.٧‬‬
‫ﻓﻌﻠﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ ﻫﻮ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﺘﻔﻖ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ‪ .‬ﻓﺒﺨﻼﻑ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺇﺣﺪﻯ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺿﺪ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‬ ‫)‪ (٢‬ﻭﺗﺘﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ١‬ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨـﺴﻴﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲤـﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺼﻞ ﲟﻮﺍﻃﻨﻬﺎ ﺣﱴ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺼﻞ ﲟﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﳛﻤﻞ ﺟﻨـﺴﻴﺔ ﻣﺰﺩﻭﺟـﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺗﻨﺎﺯﻉ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻠﺘﻤﺲ ﺇﺣﺪﻯ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜـﻞ ﻣـﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌـﺎﺩﺓ ‪،٤‬‬
‫ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﳛﻤﻞ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻣﺰﺩﻭﺟﺔ ﺇﺯﺍﺀ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺛﺎﻟﺜﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻻ ﺗﻘﺘﻀﻲ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺻﻠﺔ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻓﻌﻠﻴﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌـﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﻟﻠﺤﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫)‪ (٤‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺳﺒﺐ ﳝﻨﻊ ﺩﻭﻟﱵ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﲤﺎﺭﺳﺎ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﻣﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ ﺣﻘﹰﺎ ﺗﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﺩﻭﻟـﺔ ﻣـﻦ ﺩﻭﻝ‬ ‫)‪ (٣‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺆﻳﺪ ﺍﺷﺘﺮﺍﻁ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺻﻠﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺬﺍ ﺗﻘﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ،٢‬ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﳚﻮﺯ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺸﺘﺮﻙ ﺩﻭﻟﺘﺎﻥ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ‬ ‫ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻓﻌﻠﻴﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﻤﻞ ﺟﻨـﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺰﺩﻭﺟﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤـﺎ ﻳﺘـﺼﻞ‬
‫ﺑﺸﺨﺺ ﻣﺰﺩﻭﺝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺿﺪ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻻ ﻳﻜـﻮﻥ‬ ‫ﺿﺪ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺃﻏﻠـﺐ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻻ ﳛﻖ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫ﻗﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻴﻢ)‪ (٧٠‬ﻭﺍﺟﺘﻬﺎﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﻭﻳﻦ)‪ (٧١‬ﻻ ﺗﻘﺘﻀﻲ ﺗـﻮﺍﻓﺮ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻁ‪ .‬ﻓﻔﻲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺳﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﺭﺃﺕ ﻫﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻴﻢ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻻ ﳚـﻮﺯ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺘﺮﺽ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺩﻭﻟﺘﲔ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ‬
‫ﺗﺘﺼﺮﻓﺎﻥ ﰲ ﺁﻥ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﻔﺎﻫﻢ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻬﻧﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺜﲑ ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺍﺿﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﳌﺼﺮ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺜﲑ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﳛﻤﻞ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻓﺎﺭﺳـﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟِﺒﺔ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﻣﻨﻔﺼﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻣﺎ ﺇﱃ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﳍﻴﺌﺔ‬ ‫ﻓﻌﻠﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻭﺟﻪ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﳛﻤﻞ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺫﻛـﺮﺕ ﺃﻥ "ﻗﺎﻋـﺪﺓ‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﺇﱃ ﻫﻴﺌﺎﺕ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﺇﺣﺪﻯ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺣﺼﻠﺖ ﻋﻠـﻰ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ]ﻫﻲ[ ﺃﻧﻪ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﺯﺩﻭﺍﺝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﳛﻖ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺗﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺼﻞ ﺑﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﻨﺸﺄ ﻣﺸﺎﻛﻞ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ‬ ‫ﺛﺎﻟﺜﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻨﺎﺯﻉ ﰲ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺇﺣﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺘﲔ ﺍﻟﻠﺘﲔ ﳛﻤﻞ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﺍﳌﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺗﺘﻨﺎﺯﻝ ﺇﺣﺪﻯ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺣﻖ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‬ ‫)‪(٧٣‬‬
‫ﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﺗﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺘﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺼﻌﺐ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ")‪ .(٧٢‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺍﺗﺒﻌﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﺃﺧـﺮﻯ‬
‫__________‬
‫ﺗﺪﻭﻳﻦ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﲢﻜﻢ ﺃﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻓﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﻨﺒﻐـﻲ‬ ‫)‪ (٧٠‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻫﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻴﻢ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻏﻮﺳﻼﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﳍﻨﻐﺎﺭﻳـﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎﳉﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﻭﻓﻘﹰﺎ ﳌﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﺘﺮﻑ ﻬﺑـﺎ‬ ‫‪De Born case, case No. 205 of 12 July 1926, Annual‬‬‫ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺩﻱ ﺑﻮﺭﻥ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﶈﺎﻛﻢ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﲢﻜﻢ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫‪Digest of Public International Law Cases, Years 1925 and 1926, A. D.‬‬
‫‪McNair and H. Lauterpacht (eds.), London, Longmans, Green and Co.,‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -٧‬ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒـﺔ‬ ‫‪.1929, pp. 277–278‬‬
‫ﺿﺪ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‬ ‫)‪ (٧١‬ﺍﻧﻈـﺮ ﺍﳌـﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٥‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﳌﺘـﺼﻠﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺘﻨﺎﺯﻉ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ؛ ﻭﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪)٤‬ﺏ( ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠـﻖ ﺑ "ﺍﻟﻄﺎﺑﻊ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﲏ‬
‫ﻻ ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺗﻘﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﺎ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺿﺮﺭ ﺗﻜﺒﺪﻩ ﺃﺣـﺪ ﺍﻷﻓـﺮﺍﺩ" ﺍﻟـﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺸﺨﺺ ﻣﺎ ﺿﺪ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟـﺸﺨﺺ ﻣـﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺪﻩ ﻣﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﰲ ﺩﻭﺭﺗﻪ ﺍﳌﻌﻘﻮﺩﺓ ﰲ ﻭﺍﺭﺳﻮ ﻋـﺎﻡ ‪:١٩٦٥‬‬
‫ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﻣﺎ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﻫـﻲ ﺍﳉﻨـﺴﻴﺔ‬ ‫‪Tableau des résolutions adoptées (1957–1991), Paris, Pedone, 1992,‬‬
‫‪) p. 56, at p. 58‬ﻣﺴﺘﻨﺴﺦ ﰲ ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،١٩٦٩‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠـﺪ ﺍﻟﺜـﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪(١٤٢‬؛‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﻗـﻮﻉ ﺍﻟـﻀﺮﺭ ﻭﺗـﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻘـﺪﱘ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ‪ ٣‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٢٣‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﻫﺎﺭﻓﺮﺩ ﻟﻌـﺎﻡ ‪ ١٩٦٠‬ﺑـﺸﺄﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﹰﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺿﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻠﺤﻖ ﺑﺎﻷﺟﺎﻧﺐ )ﻣﺴﺘﻨﺴﺦ ﰲ‪L. :‬‬
‫‪B. Sohn and R. R. Baxter, “Responsibility of States for injuries to the‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ‬ ‫‪(economic interests of aliens”, AJIL, vol. 55, No. 3 (July 1961), p. 548‬؛‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٤‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٢١‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﳌـﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴـﺔ‬
‫)‪ (١‬ﻳﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٧‬ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺍﳉﻨـﺴﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺿﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻠﺤﻖ ﺑﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻷﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺃﻭ ﳑﺘﻠﻜﺎﻬﺗﻢ ﰲ ﺃﺭﺍﺿـﻴﻬﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺿﺪ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﰲ ﺣﲔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻋﺪﻩ ﺍﳌﻘــﺮﺭ ﺍﳋـﺎﺹ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ،٦‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺼﻞ‬ ‫ﻏﺎﺭﺳﻴﺎ ﺃﻣﺎﺩﻭﺭ‪ ،‬ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،١٩٥٨‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ ‪ ،A/CN.4/111‬ﺹ ‪.٦١‬‬
‫ﺑﺸﺨﺺ ﻣﺘﻀﺮﺭ ﳛﻤﻞ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻣﺰﺩﻭﺟﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ ﺿﺪ‬ ‫)‪Salem (Egypt/United States of America), Award of 8 June (٧٢‬‬
‫‪.1932, UNRIAA, vol. II (Sales No. 1949.V.1), p. 1165, at p. 1188‬‬
‫ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﺸﺘﺮﻁ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺻﻠﺔ‬
‫)‪ (٧٣‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﻗﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﳉﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻓﻴﻖ ﺍﳌﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺇﻳﻄﺎﻟﻴـﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳـﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻓﻌﻠﻴﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟِﺒﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺍﻃﻦ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٧‬ﻳﺸﺘﺮﻁ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﻠﻲ‪the Mergé claim, 10 June 1955, UNRIAA, vol. XIV :‬‬
‫‪(Sales No. 65.V.4), p. 236, or ILR (1955), vol. 22 (1958), p. 443, at p.‬‬
‫__________‬
‫‪456; the Vereano claim, 17 May 1957, UNRIAA, vol. XIV, p. 321, or‬‬
‫‪Dallal v. Iran (1983), Iran–United States Claims‬‬ ‫)‪ (٧٤‬ﺍﻧﻈـﺮ‬ ‫‪ILR (1957), vol. 24 (1961), pp. 464–465; and the Stankovic claim, 29‬‬
‫‪.Tribunal Reports, vol. 3, Cambridge, Grotius, 1984, p. 23‬‬ ‫‪.July 1963, ILR, vol. 40 (1970), p. 153, at p. 155‬‬
‫ﺩﻭﻝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ)‪ .(٧٩‬ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻨﺪﺕ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴـﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻫـﺬﻩ‬ ‫ﺃﻥ ﺗﺜﺒﺖ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟِﺒﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﰲ ﻛﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻮﺍﺑﻖ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺳﻴﺎﻕ ﺁﺧﺮ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﻧﻮﺗّﻴﺒﻮﻡ)‪ ،(٨٠‬ﻭﺃﻗﺮﻬﺗـﺎ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﻭﻗﺖ ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﻭﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﹰﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﻮﺿﻮﺡ ﳉﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻓﻴﻖ ﺍﳌﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺇﻳﻄﺎﻟﻴﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﰲ‬
‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻣﺮﺟﻴﻪ ﰲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ،١٩٥٥‬ﻓﺬﻛﺮﺕ ﺃﻥ‪:‬‬ ‫)‪ (٢‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺗﺄﻳﻴﺪ ﻗﻮﻱ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺎﺿـﻲ ﻟﻘﺎﻋـﺪﺓ ﻋـﺪﻡ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﻀﻲ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﻻ ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺍﳉﻨـﺴﻴﺔ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﻭﺍﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﻨﻊ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺼﻞ ﲟﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﳛﻤﻞ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻣﺰﺩﻭﺟﺔ ﺿﺪ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ‬
‫ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﺯﺩﻭﺍﺝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻠﲔ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻴﺔ ﺣﻴﺜﻤﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٤‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﳌـﺴﺎﺋﻞ‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟِﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻻ ﻳﻠﲔ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻋـﺪﻡ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺘﺼﻠﺔ ﺑﺘﻨﺎﺯﻉ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺗﻨﺺ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ "ﻻ ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺛﺒﻮﺕ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻐﻠﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﻣﺴﻠﱠﻢ ﺑﻪ ﺑﻮﺟﻪ ﻋـﺎﻡ ﻭﳝﻜـﻦ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫ﺗﻮﻓﺮ ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﺩﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻷﺣﺪ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﺿﺪ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﳛﻤـﻞ ﻫــﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﹰﺍ ﻟﻠﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻲ ﻹﺯﺍﻟﺔ ﺃﻱ ﻏﻤﻮﺽ ﳑﻜﻦ)‪.(٨١‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺸـﺨﺺ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ")‪ .(٧٥‬ﻭﺍﻋﺘﻤﺪﺕ ﻣﻘﺘﺮﺣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﻭﻳﻦ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺭﺃﺕ ﳉﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻓﻴﻖ ﺃﻥ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﻣﻔﻬـﻮﻡ ﺍﳉﻨـﺴﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻼ)‪ ،(٧٦‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﺗﺄﻳﻴﺪ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﻗـﻒ‬ ‫ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ‪ ،‬ﻬﻧﺠﹰﺎ ﳑﺎﺛ ﹰ‬
‫)‪(٧٧‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺋﺪﺓ ﳘﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﺒﺴﺎﻃﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺟﻬﺎﻥ ﻟﻌﻤﻠﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﻃﺒﱠﻘـﺖ ﳉﻨـﺔ‬ ‫ﰲ ﻗﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻴﻢ ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻭﺻﻔﺖ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻓﻴﻖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﰲ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﲬﺴﲔ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﻻﺣﻘـﺔ ﺗﺘﻌﻠـﻖ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﺻﺪﺭﻬﺗﺎ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ١٩٤٩‬ﰲ ﻗـﻀﻴﺔ ﺟـﱪ ﺍﻷﺿـﺮﺍﺭ‪،‬‬
‫ﳑﺎﺭﺳـﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﳌﺘﻤﺜﻠـﺔ ﰲ ﻋﺪﻡ ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﺿـﺪ ﺩﻭﻟـﺔ‬
‫__________‬ ‫ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺑﺄﻬﻧﺎ "ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻳﺔ")‪.(٧٨‬‬
‫‪Drummond case, 2 Knapp, Privy Council I, p. 295, The‬‬ ‫)‪(٧٩‬‬ ‫)‪ (٣‬ﺑﻴﺪ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳُﻼﺣﻆ ﰲ ﻗﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻗﺒـﻞ ﻋـﺎﻡ‬
‫‪ ،١٩٣٠‬ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺗﺄﻳﻴﺪ ﳌﻮﻗﻒ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻧﻪ ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨـﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫‪English Reports, vol. 12, Edinburgh/London, William Green and‬‬
‫–‪Sons/Stevens and Sons, 1901, p. 492; the Mathison, Stevenson (British‬‬
‫‪Venezuelan Mixed Claims Commission), Brignone and Miliani‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺋﺪﺓ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻴﺔ ﺭﻓﻊ ﺩﻋﻮﻯ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﺿﺪ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ‬
‫‪(Italian–Venezuelan Mixed Claims Commission) cases, UNRIAA, vol.‬‬
‫‪IX (Sales No. 59.V.5), pp. 485 and 494, and vol. X (Sales No. 60.V.4),‬‬ ‫__________‬
‫‪pp. 542 and 584 respectively, or Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1903, J. H.‬‬
‫)‪ (٧٥‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪)١٦‬ﺃ( ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﻫـﺎﺭﻓﺮﺩ ﻟﻌـﺎﻡ‬
‫‪Ralston (ed.), Washington D.C., United States Government Printing‬‬
‫‪ ١٩٢٩‬ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺿﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻠﺤﻖ ﰲ ﺃﺭﺍﺿﻴﻬﺎ ﺑﺸﺨﺺ‬
‫‪Office, 1904, pp. 429–438, 438–455, 710–720 and 754–762‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺃﻭ ﲟﻤﺘﻠﻜﺎﻬﺗﻢ‪Supplement to the AJIL, vol. 23, special number :‬‬
‫‪respectively; the Canevaro case (Italy v. Peru) (Permanent Court of‬‬
‫‪Arbitration), Decision of 3 May 1912, UNRIAA, vol. XI (Sales No.‬‬
‫‪) (vol. 2) (April 1929), p. 133, at p. 200‬ﻳﺮﺩ ﰲ ﺣﻮﻟﻴـﺔ ‪ ،١٩٥٦‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠـﺪ‬
‫‪61.V.4), p. 397, or The Hague Court Reports, J. B. Scott (ed.), New‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ ‪ ،A/CN.4/96‬ﺍﳌﺮﻓﻖ ‪ ،٩‬ﺑﺪﺀﹰﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺹ ‪ ،٢٢٩‬ﰲ ﺹ ‪.(٢٣٠‬‬
‫‪York, Oxford University Press, 1916, p. 284; the Hein case, case No.‬‬ ‫)‪ (٧٦‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٥‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٢٣‬ﻣﻦ ﻣـﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴـﺔ ﻫـﺎﺭﻓﺮﺩ‬
‫‪148 (1922) (Anglo–German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal), Annual Digest of‬‬ ‫ﻟﻌﺎﻡ ‪ ١٩٦٠‬ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺿـﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟـﱵ ﺗﻠﺤـﻖ‬
‫‪Public International Law Cases 1919 to 1922, J. F. Williams and H.‬‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻷﺟﺎﻧﺐ )ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٧١‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(؛ ﻭﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ‪)٤‬ﺃ( ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠـﻖ ﺑ "ﺍﻟﻄـﺎﺑﻊ‬
‫;‪Lauterpacht (eds.), London, Longmans, Green and Co., 1932, p. 216‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻮﻃﲏ ﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺗﻘﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﺎ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺿﺮﺭ ﺗﻜﺒﺪﻩ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﻷﻓﺮﺍﺩ" ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫‪the Blumenthal case (1923) (French–German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal),‬‬ ‫ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺪﻩ ﻣﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﰲ ﺩﻭﺭﺗﻪ ﺍﳌﻌﻘﻮﺩﺓ ﰲ ﻭﺍﺭﺳـﻮ ﻋـﺎﻡ ‪١٩٦٥‬‬
‫‪Recueil des décisions des tribunaux arbitraux mixtes institués par les‬‬
‫)ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ(‪.‬‬
‫‪traités de paix, tome 3, Paris, Sirey, 1924, p. 616; the de Montfort case,‬‬
‫)‪ (٧٧‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪the Executors of R.S.C.A. Alexander v. :‬‬
‫‪case No. 206 (1926) (French–German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal),‬‬
‫‪) Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases 1925 to 1926‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ‬ ‫‪United States case (1898) (United States–British Claims Commission),‬‬
‫ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٧٠‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪٢٧٩‬؛ ‪the Pinson cases, cases No. 194 and 195‬‬ ‫‪J. B. Moore, History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to‬‬
‫–‪(1928) (French–Mexican Mixed Claims Commission), ibid. (1927‬‬ ‫‪Which the United States Has Been a Party, vol. III, Washington D.C.,‬‬
‫;‪1928), pp. 297–301, or UNRIAA, vol. V (Sales No. 1952.V.3), p. 327‬‬ ‫‪United States Government Printing Office, 1898, p. 2529; the‬‬
‫‪and the Tellech case (1928) (United States–Austria–Hungary Tripartite‬‬ ‫‪Oldenbourg case (British–Mexican Claims Commission), Decision No.‬‬
‫‪Claims Commission), UNRIAA, vol. VI (Sales No. 1955.V.3),‬‬ ‫‪11 of 19 December 1929, UNRIAA, vol. V (Sales No. 1952.V.3), p. 74,‬‬
‫‪.pp. 248–250‬‬ ‫‪or Decisions and Opinions of the Commissioners, October 5, 1929 to‬‬
‫)‪) Nottebohm (٨٠‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٣١‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ .٢٣-٢٢‬ﻭﱂ ﺗﻜـﻦ‬ ‫‪February 15, 1930, London, HM Stationery Office, 1931, p. 97; the‬‬
‫ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﻧﻮﺗّﻴﺒﻮﻡ ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﺯﺩﻭﺍﺝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﻭﺟـﺪﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘـﻀﺎﻳﺎ‬ ‫‪Honey case (British–Mexican Claims Commission), Decision No. 23 of‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﺼﻠﺔ ﺑﺎﺯﺩﻭﺍﺝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺳﻨﺪﹰﺍ ﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭﻫﺎ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺻﻠﺔ ﻓﻌﻠﻴﺔ ﺑـﲔ‬ ‫‪26 March 1931, UNRIAA, vol. V, p. 133, or Further Decisions and‬‬
‫ﻧﻮﺗّﻴﺒﻮﻡ ﻭﻟﻴﺨﺘﻨﺸﺘﺎﻳﻦ‪ .‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﺍﻷﺣﻜـﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘـﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺍﳌـﺸﺎﺭ ﺇﻟﻴﻬـﺎ ﰲ‬ ‫‪Opinions of the Commissioners, Subsequent to February 15, 1930,‬‬
‫ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٧٩‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪.‬‬ ‫‪London, HM Stationery Office, 1933, p. 13; and the Adams and‬‬
‫)‪) Mergé, UNRIAA (٨١‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٧٣‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ .٢٤٧‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ‬ ‫‪Blackmore case (British–Mexican Claims Commission), Decision No.‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ‪de Leon case, case Nos. 218 and 227 of 15 May 1962 and 8 April :‬‬ ‫‪.69 of 3 July 1931, UNRIAA, vol. V, p. 216‬‬
‫‪.1963, UNRIAA, vol. XVI (Sales No. E/F.69.V.1), p. 239, at p. 247‬‬ ‫)‪) Reparation for Injuries (٧٨‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٢٣‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.١٨٦‬‬
‫"ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟﺒﺔ"‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻘﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﺒﱢﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﺮﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﳛﻤﻠﻮﻥ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻣﺰﺩﻭﺟﺔ)‪ .(٨٢‬ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻨﺎﺩﹰﺍ ﺇﱃ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﻳﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﺗﻌﺒﲑﹰﺍ ﺃﺩﻕ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ "ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻴﺔ" ﺃﻭ "ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺋﺪﺓ"‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻮ‪ ،‬ﻋﻼﻭﺓ ﻋﻠـﻰ‬ ‫ﻃﺒﱠﻘﺖ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﺑﲔ ﺇﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤـﺪﺓ ﻣﺒـﺪﺃ‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﺘﻪ ﳉﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻓﻴﻖ ﺍﳌﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺇﻳﻄﺎﻟﻴﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺋﺪﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﻳﺎ)‪ .(٨٣‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺃﻳـﺪﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﰲ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻣﺮﺟﻴﻪ)‪ ،(٨٦‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫـﺎ‬ ‫ﻣﻘﺘﺮﺣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﻭﻳﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞ‪ .‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﺭﺃﻯ ﺍﳌﻘﺮﺭ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﻏﺎﺭﺳـﻴﺎ‬
‫ﻧﻘﻄﺔ ﺍﻻﻧﻄﻼﻕ ﻟﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻫﻨﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺃﻣﺎﺩﻭﺭ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺮﻩ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﻡ ﺇﱃ ﳉﻨـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺃﻧﻪ "ﰲ ﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﺯﺩﻭﺍﺝ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﳚﻮﺯ‬
‫)‪ (٥‬ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﻟﻮﺻﻒ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺟﺐ ﺃﺧـﺬﻫﺎ‬ ‫ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﺇﻻ ﻣﻦ ﻗِﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻋﻨﺪ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﺸﲑ ﺍﳌﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﺟﻨﱯ ﺃﻗﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴـﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟـﺮﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﺍﻷﺧـﺮﻯ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺗﺸﻤﻞ ﺍﻹﻗﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻴﺎﺩﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﻘـﺎﺀ ﰲ‬ ‫ﻼ ﰲ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺮﻩ‬‫ﻭﺃﻛﺜﺮﻫﺎ ﺃﺻﺎﻟﺔ")‪ .(٨٤‬ﻭﺃﺑﺪﻯ ﺃﻭﺭﻳﻐﻮ ﻓﻴﻜﻮﻧﻴﺎ ﺭﺃﻳﹰﺎ ﳑﺎﺛ ﹰ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﺑﻠﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻠﺪﺍﻥ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﻨﺲ )ﺃﻱ ﻃﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ‬ ‫ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﺆﲤﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺳﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺘﲔ ﻟﺮﺍﺑﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ)‪.(٨٥‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻣﻀﺎﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻛﻤﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﻓﺮﺓ ﻟﻠﺤﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﻗﺒـﻞ‬
‫ﻧﺸﻮﺀ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ(؛ ﻭﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻭﻣﻨﺎﻫﺠـﻪ ﻭﻟﻐﺘـﻪ؛ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤـﻞ‬ ‫)‪ (٤‬ﻭﺭﻏﻢ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻣﲔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﺍﳌﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴـﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﺼﺎﱀ ﺍﳌﺎﻟﻴﺔ؛ ﻭﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺋﻠﻴﺔ؛ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺋﻠﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻛﻞ‬ ‫ﺗﻌﺒﲑ "ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻴﺔ" )‪ (effective‬ﺃﻭ "ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺋﺪﺓ" )‪ (dominant‬ﺩﻭﳕﺎ ﲤﻴﻴـﺰ‬
‫ﺑﻠﺪ؛ ﻭﺍﳌﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ؛ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ؛‬ ‫ﻟﻮﺻﻒ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻮﺏ ﺗﻮﺍﻓﺮﻫﺎ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟِﺒﺔ ﻭﻣﻮﺍﻃﻨﻬﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ﻭﺩﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺍﺋﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳊﺴﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺼﺮﻓﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻀﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ؛‬ ‫ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺿﺪ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺰﻳﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ؛ ﻭﺣﻴﺎﺯﺓ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﺟﻮﺍﺯ‬ ‫ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٧‬ﺃﻳﹰﺎ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺳﻔﺮ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ؛ ﻭﺍﳋﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺴﻜﺮﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﻳُﻌﺘﱪ ﺃﻱ ﻣـﻦ‬ ‫ﻫﺎﺗﲔ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺘﲔ ﻟﻮﺻﻒ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑـﻞ ﻳـﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﺗﻌـﺒﲑ‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﻋﺎﻣﻼﹰ ﺣﺎﲰﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻭﺳﻴﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﺯﻥ ﺍﳌﻤﻨﻮﺡ ﻟﻜـﻞ‬ ‫"ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟﺒﺔ" )‪ (predominant‬ﻷﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﻳﻌﻜﺲ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﻨـﺴﺒﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺗﺒﻌﺎﹰ ﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ ﻛﻞ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻭﻳﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﻭﺇﺣﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺃﻗﻮﻯ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺑﻴﻨﻪ ﻭﺑﲔ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﳌﻄﻠﻮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟـﱵ‬
‫)‪ (٦‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺻﻴﻎ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٧‬ﺑﺼﻴﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻔـﻲ‪" :‬ﻻ ﳚـﻮﺯ‬ ‫ﺗﻨﻈﺮ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺰﻥ ﻗﻮﻯ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﻨﺎﻓﺴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻌـﺒﲑ‬
‫ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ]‪ [...‬ﻣﺎ ﱂ" ﺗﻜﻦ‬
‫__________‬
‫ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪ ﻣـﻦ ﺫﻟـﻚ ﺑﻴـﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٧‬ﳚﺐ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻇﺮﻭﻓﺎﹰ‬ ‫‪the Spaulding case (1956), UNRIAA,‬‬ ‫)‪ (٨٢‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻝ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﻮﺿﺢ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼﻴﻐﺔ ﺃﻳﻀﺎﹰ ﺃﻥ ﻋﺐﺀ ﺍﻹﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﻳﻘﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫‪vol. XIV (Sales No. 65.V.4), p. 292, or ILR (1957), vol. 24 (1961), p.‬‬
‫‪452; the Zangrilli case (1956), UNRIAA, vol. XIV, p. 294, or ILR, vol.‬‬
‫ﻋﺎﺗﻖ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟِﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺜﺒﺖ ﺃﻥ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﻫـﻲ‬ ‫‪24, p. 454; the Cestra case (1957), UNRIAA, vol. XIV, p. 307, or ILR,‬‬
‫ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫‪vol. 24, p. 454; the Salvoni case (1957), UNRIAA, vol. XIV, p. 311, or‬‬
‫‪ILR, vol. 24, p. 455; the Ruspoli–Droutzkoy case (1957), UNRIAA,‬‬
‫)‪ (٧‬ﻭﺍﻻﻋﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺇﺣـﺪﻯ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺍﳉﻨـﺴﻴﺔ‬ ‫‪vol. XIV, p. 314, or ILR, vol. 24, p. 457; the Puccini case (1957),‬‬
‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺿﺪ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻗـﺪ‬ ‫‪UNRIAA, vol. XIV, p. 323, or ILR, vol. 24, p. 454; the Turri case‬‬
‫ﻳﺘﻴﺢ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺍﻛﺘﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺿﺮﺭ ﺃﳊﻘﺘﻪ‬ ‫‪(1960), ILR, vol. 30 (1966), p. 371; the Graniero case (1959),‬‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺿﺪ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟـﺔ‬ ‫‪UNRIAA, vol. XIV, p. 393, or ILR, vol. 30, p. 351; the Ganapini case‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﻳﻨﺘﻔﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﺘﺮﺍﻁ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‬ ‫‪(1959), UNRIAA, vol. XIV, p. 400, or ILR, vol. 30, p. 366; and the Di‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟِﺒﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻏﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻭﻗﺖ ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﻭﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ‬ ‫‪.Cicio case (1962), ILR, vol. 40 (1970), p. 148‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﹰﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺷﺘﺮﺍﻁ ﻳﻜﺮﺭ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬ ‫)‪ (٨٣‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟـﻪ ﺍﳋـﺼﻮﺹ‪Esphahanian v. Bank Tejarat :‬‬
‫ﺃﻛﺪﺕ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ١‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌـﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٥‬ﺑـﺸﺄﻥ ﻣﻮﺿـﻮﻉ‬ ‫‪(1983), Iran–United States Claims Tribunal Reports, vol. 2, Cambridge,‬‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺇﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺑـﲔ ﻫـﺬﻳﻦ‬

‫‪Grotius, 1984, p. 157, at p. 166; Case No. A/18 (1984), ibid., vol. 5, 1985,‬‬
‫‪p. 251; and Ataollah Golpira v. Government of the Islamic Republic of‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﲔ ﻏﲑ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻱ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺷُﺮﺣﺖ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺗﺎ "ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬ ‫‪.Iran (1983), ibid., vol. 2, 1984, p. 174, or ILR, vol. 72, p. 493‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ" ﻭ"ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﹰﺎ" ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴـﻖ ﻋﻠـﻰ‬ ‫)‪ (٨٤‬ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺿﺮﺍﺭ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ .٥‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺭﺩ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻠﺤﻖ ﺑﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻷﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺃﻭ ﳑﺘﻠﻜﺎﻬﺗﻢ ﰲ ﺃﺭﺍﺿﻴﻬﺎ )ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷـﻴﺔ ‪٧١‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٢‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٥‬ﻓﻼ ﻳﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﻫﻨـﺎ ﻧﻈـﺮﹰﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ،٢١‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٤‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﺍﳌﻘﺼﻮﺩ ﰲ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٧‬ﻟﻦ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻓﻘﺪ‬ ‫)‪“The changing law of nationality of claims”, interim report, (٨٥‬‬
‫ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻪ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‪.‬‬ ‫‪International Law Association, Report of the Sixty-ninth Conference,‬‬
‫‪London, 2000, p. 646, para. 11‬؛ ﻭﻗﺪ ﰎ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪﻩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻲ ﺍﻟـﺬﻱ‬
‫__________‬ ‫ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺪ ﰲ ﻣﺆﲤﺮ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺍﳌﻌﻘـﻮﺩ ﰲ ﺗﻮﺭﻧﺘـﻮ ﻋـﺎ َﻡ ‪٢٠٠٦‬‬
‫)‪ (٨٦‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٧٣‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪.‬‬ ‫)‪.(Report of the Seventy-second Conference, London, 2006‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻜﻢ ﺍﻧﻌﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﺠﻮﺀ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻻ ﳛﺎﻭﻝ ﺇﺑﺪﺍﺀ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -٨‬ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﻋﺪﳝﻮ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﺟﺌﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻫﺘﻤﺎﻣﻪ ﻳﻘﺘﺼﺮ ﻋﻠـﻰ‬
‫ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﳌﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ -١‬ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺸﺨﺺ ﻋﺪﱘ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ‪ ،‬ﰲ‬
‫)‪ (٣‬ﻭﺗﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ١‬ﺗﻮﻓﲑ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻸﺷـﺨﺎﺹ‬ ‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﻭﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻴﻢ ﺑﺼﻔﺔ‬
‫ﻋﺪﳝﻲ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻻ ﺗﻘـﺪﻡ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻔـﹰﺎ ﻟﻸﺷـﺨﺎﺹ ﻋـﺪﳝﻲ‬ ‫ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻋﺘﻴﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴـﺔ‪ .‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺜﻮﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١‬ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﻮﺿﻊ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﻋﺪﳝﻲ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌـﺮﱢﻑ‬ ‫‪ -٢‬ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺸﺨﺺ ﺗﻌﺘﺮﻑ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻛﻼﺟـﺊ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻘـﹰﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻋﺪﱘ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ "ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﺗﻌﺘﱪﻩ ﺃﻳﺔ ﺩﻭﻟـﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻨﹰﺎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﲟﻘﺘﻀﻰ ﺗﺸﺮﻳﻌﻬﺎ"‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﺭﻳﺐ ﰲ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺎﻳﲑ ﺍﳌﻘﺒﻮﻟﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟـﺸﺨﺺ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺗـﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬
‫ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﻗﺪ ﺍﻛﺘﺴﺐ ﻃﺎﺑﻊ ﺍﻟﻌُﺮﻑ‪ .‬ﻓﻴﺠﻮﺯ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﻭﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘـﻴﻢ ﺑـﺼﻔﺔ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻋﺘﻴﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺼﻞ ﺑﺸﺨﺺ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﺑﺼﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﻬﺑﺎ ﻋﺪﱘ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺷﺮﻳﻄﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫‪ -٣‬ﻻ ﺗﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٢‬ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻀﺮﺭ ﻧﺎﺟﻢ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﻭﻗﺖ ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﻭﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻣﻘﻴﻤـﹰﺎ ﺑـﺼﻔﺔ‬ ‫ﻓﻌﻞ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ ﺍﺭﺗﻜﺒﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳛﻤـﻞ ﺍﻟﻼﺟـﺊ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻋﺘﻴﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﳌﻘﺼﻮﺩ ﺑﺎﻹﻗﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻴﺎﺩﻳـﺔ ﰲ‬ ‫ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﻕ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺍﻹﻗﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻤﺮﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ‬
‫)‪ (٤‬ﻭﻳﻔﺮﺽ ﺍﺷﺘﺮﺍﻁ ﲢﻘﻖ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻗﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﻗﺎﻣﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻴﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻋﺘﺒﺔ ﻋﺎﻟﻴﺔ)‪ .(٨٩‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺘﺒﺔ ﻋﺎﻟﻴـﺔ‬ ‫)‪ (١‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻻ ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻬﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺆﺩﻱ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻓﺘﻘﺎﺭ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻷﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﺍﳌﻌﻨﻴﲔ ﺇﱃ ﲪﺎﻳـﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺇﻻ ﳌﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ .‬ﻓﻔﻲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ،١٩٣١‬ﺭﺃﺕ‬
‫ﻓﻌﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﳉﻤﻊ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻹﻗﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﻗﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻴﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻟــﻪ‬ ‫ﳉﻨﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﻜﺴﻴﻚ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﻳﱪﺭﻩ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺋﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺑﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﻨﺸﻮﺩ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺩﻳﻜﺴﻮﻥ ﻟﻌﺠﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻻ ﳚﻮﺯ ﺗﻮﻓﲑ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻸﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﻋﺪﳝﻲ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺫﻛﺮﺕ‬
‫)‪ (٥‬ﻭﺗﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ١‬ﺍﻻﺷﺘﺮﺍﻃﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺘﻘـﺪﱘ‬ ‫ﺃﻥ "ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ]‪ [...‬ﻻ ﺗﺮﺗﻜﺐ ﳐﺎﻟﻔﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺇﳊﺎﻗﻬﺎ ﺿـﺮﺭﺍﹰ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻓﻴﺠﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻋﺪﱘ ﺍﳉﻨـﺴﻴﺔ ﻣﻘﻴﻤـﹰﺎ‬ ‫ﺑﻔﺮﺩ ﻻ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻷﻱ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺳﻠﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻋﺘﻴﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟِﺒﺔ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻣـﻦ ﻭﻗـﺖ‬ ‫ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺷﻜﻮﻯ ﳌﺼﻠﺤﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺃﻡ ﺑﻌﺪﻩ")‪.(٨٧‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﻭﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﹰﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺮﺃﻱ ﱂ ﻳﻌﺪ ﻳﻌﱪ ﺑﺪﻗﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ‬
‫)‪ (٦‬ﻭﺗﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٢‬ﺗﻮﻓﲑ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻼﺟﺌﲔ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺪﳝﻲ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﺟﺌﲔ‪ .‬ﻭﻳُﺒﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﻘـﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟـﺪﻭﱄ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻣﺎﹰ ﺑﻮﺿﻊ ﻫﺎﺗﲔ ﺍﻟﻔﺌﺘﲔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺷـﺨﺎﺹ ﻋﻠـﻰ‬
‫ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻘﻴﻤﻮﻥ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﻮﻓﲑ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﻗﺎﻣﺔ ﻳﺘﺴﻢ ﺑﺄﳘﻴﺔ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﺟﺌﲔ ﻧﻈـﺮﹰﺍ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺴﻮﺍﺀ‪ .‬ﻭﳑﺎ ﻳﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻡ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺃﻬﻧﻢ "ﻻ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻌﻮﻥ ﺃﻭ ﻻ ﻳﺮﻳﺪﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﺘﻈﻠﻮﺍ ﲝﻤﺎﻳﺔ ]ﺩﻭﻟﺔ‬ ‫ﺧﻔﺾ ﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻧﻌﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻌﺎﻡ ‪ ١٩٦١‬ﻭﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﺻـﺔ‬
‫ﺑﻮﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﻼﺟﺌﲔ ﻟﻌﺎﻡ ‪.١٩٥١‬‬
‫ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ[")‪ (٩٠‬ﻭﺇﱃ ﺃﻬﻧﻢ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﻓﻌﻠﻮﺍ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﻳﻔﻘـﺪﻭﻥ ﻣﺮﻛـﺰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻼﺟﺊ ﰲ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﻗﺎﻣﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﻜﺮﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٢‬ﺍﻟﺼﻴﻐﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﰲ‬ ‫)‪ (٢‬ﻭﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ،٨‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﺪ ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﰲ ﳎﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻄـﻮﻳﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ .١‬ﻭﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻓﻮﺍﺭﻕ ﻫﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﻋﺪﳝﻲ ﺍﳉﻨـﺴﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺭﳚﻲ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ)‪ ،(٨٨‬ﻳﻨﺤﺮﻑ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻠﺔ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻼﺟﺌﲔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺒﲔ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ،٣‬ﻳﻔﺴﺮ ﲣﺼﻴﺺ ﻓﻘﺮﺓ‬ ‫ﻻ ﳚﻮﺯ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺇﻻ ﳌﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺘـﻴﺢ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻠﺔ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻓﺌﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺼﻞ ﺑﺸﺨﺺ ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺇﻣﺎ ﻋﺪﱘ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻻﺟﺌﹰﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫__________‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٨‬ﺿـﻤﻦ ﺇﻃـﺎﺭ‬
‫)‪ (٨٩‬ﻳﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺤﻲ "ﺍﻹﻗﺎﻣـﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴـﺔ" ﻭ"ﺍﻹﻗﺎﻣـﺔ‬ ‫__________‬
‫ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻴﺎﺩﻳﺔ" ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪)٤‬ﺯ( ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٦‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺑﻴـﺔ ﺑـﺸﺄﻥ‬ ‫)‪Dickson Car Wheel Company (U.S.A.) v. United Mexican (٨٧‬‬
‫ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺎﻥ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻛﺘﺴﺎﺏ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﻛـﺬﻟﻚ‬ ‫‪States, Decision of July 1931, UNRIAA, vol. IV (Sales No. 1951.V.1),‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪)٣‬ﺝ( ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٢١‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﻫﺎﺭﻓﺮﺩ ﺑـﺸﺄﻥ ﺍﳌـﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ‬ ‫‪.p. 669, at p. 678‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺿﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻠﺤﻖ ﺑﺎﻷﺟﺎﻧﺐ )ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٧١‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ( ﺍﻟـﱵ‬ ‫‪Al Rawi & Others, R (on the‬‬ ‫)‪ (٨٨‬ﺭﺃﺕ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺇﻧﻜﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺗﺸﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﻟﻐﺮﺽ ﺗﻮﻓﲑ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ‪" ،‬ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻋﺪﱘ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‬ ‫‪Application of) v. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs & Another,‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﻴﻢ ﺑﺼﻔﺔ ﺍﻋﺘﻴﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ"‪.‬‬ ‫)‪ [2006] EWHC 972 (Admin‬ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌـﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٨‬ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧـﹰﺎ‬
‫)‪ (٩٠‬ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪-١‬ﺃﻟﻒ‪ (٢)-‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﻮﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﻼﺟﺌﲔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺩﹰﺍ ﻭ"ﻟﻴﺲ ﺟﺰﺀﹰﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺑﻌﺪ" )ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.(٦٣‬‬
‫ﺍﺠﻤﻟﺎﻝ ﻟﺘﻮﻓﲑ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻷﻱ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺗﻌﺘـﱪﻩ ﻻﺟﺌـﹰﺎ‬ ‫)‪ (٧‬ﻭﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻹﻗﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﻗﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻴﺎﺩﻳـﺔ ﺷـﺮﻃﲔ‬
‫ﻭﺗﻌﺎﻣﻠﻪ ﻛﻼﺟﺊ)‪ .(٩٨‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺮﺍﻑ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﺇﱃ‬ ‫ﻣﺴﺒﻘﲔ ﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻴﺔ ﳌـﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﺟـﺌﲔ‬
‫"ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻳﲑ ﺍﳌﻘﺒﻮﻟﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ" ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﻻﻋﺘﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﺎﻟﻼﺟﺌﲔ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﻋﺪﳝﻲ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ)‪ ،(٩١‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٢٨‬ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻳﲑ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺮﺩ ﻭﺻـﻔﻬﺎ ﰲ ﳐﺘﻠـﻒ‬ ‫ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﻮﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﻼﺟﺌﲔ ﲢﺪﺩ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﻗﺪﺓ ﻋﺘﺒﺔ ﺃﺩﱏ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻜﻮﻙ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻭﻫﻲ "ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ")‪ ،(٩٢‬ﻋﻨﺪ ﺇﺻﺪﺍﺭ ﻭﺛـﺎﺋﻖ ﺍﻟـﺴﻔﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺭﺩﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﻮﺿـﻊ ﺍﻟﻼﺟـﺌﲔ ﻟﻌـﺎﻡ ‪١٩٥١‬‬ ‫ﻟﻼﺟﺌﲔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﻗﻒ ﻳﻔﺴﺮﻩ ﻋﺎﻣﻼﻥ‪ :‬ﺃﻭﻻﹰ‪ ،‬ﻛﻮﻥ ﺇﺻﺪﺍﺭ ﻭﺛﺎﺋﻖ‬
‫ﻭﺑﺮﻭﺗﻮﻛﻮﳍﺎ ﻟﻌﺎﻡ ‪.١٩٦٧‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺴﻔﺮ‪ ،‬ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﺆﻫﻞ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺣﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻮﺍﻝ‬
‫ﺣﺎﻣﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻮﺛﺎﺋﻖ ﻟﻠﺤﺼﻮﻝ ﻋﻠـﻰ ﲪﺎﻳـﺔ ﺩﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻴﺔ)‪(٩٣‬؛‬
‫)‪ (٩‬ﻭﺗﺘﻜﺮﺭ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٢‬ﺍﻻﺷﺘﺮﺍﻃﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺘﻘﺪﱘ‬ ‫ﻭﺛﺎﻧﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻭﺿﻊ ﻋﺘﺒﺔ ﻋﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﺤﺪﺍﺙ ﺍﺳـﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ ﻣـﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻓﻴﺠﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻼﺟﺊ ﻣﻘﻴﻤـﹰﺎ ﺑـﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴـﺔ‬ ‫ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺗﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺳﻦ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺩ)‪.(٩٤‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻋﺘﻴﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟِﺒﺔ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻭﻗﺖ ﻭﻗـﻮﻉ ﺍﻟـﻀﺮﺭ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﹰﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫)‪ (٨‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﻘﺘﺼﺮ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ "ﺍﻟﻼﺟﺊ" ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٢‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻼﺟـﺌﲔ‬
‫ﻭﻓﻘﹰﺎ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﰲ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﻮﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﻼﺟـﺌﲔ ﻟﻌـﺎﻡ‬
‫)‪ (١٠‬ﻭﺗﻨﺺ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٣‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻻ ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻮﺀ ﺃﻥ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ‬ ‫‪ ١٩٥١‬ﻭﺑﺮﻭﺗﻮﻛﻮﳍﺎ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﺑﻮﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﻼﺟﺌﲔ ﻟﻌﺎﻡ ‪ ،١٩٦٧‬ﻭﺇﳕـﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺼﻞ ﺑﻼﺟﺊ ﺿﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳛﻤﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺸﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﺇﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻻ ﻳﻨﻄﺒﻖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻼﺟﺊ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﺴﻤﺎﺡ ﳍﺎ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﺘﻨﺎﻗﺾ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺑﺪﻗﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻧﻈﺮﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﰲ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺗﻌـﺒﲑ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﰲ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﻫﺬﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻫـﻲ ﺍﻟﺮﻛﻴـﺰﺓ‬ ‫"ﺍﻟﻼﺟﺌﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﻌﺘﺮﻑ ﻬﺑﻢ"‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪)٤‬ﺯ( ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٦‬ﻣـﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻘـﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺑﻴﺔ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺑﺎﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻌﺎﻡ ‪ ،١٩٩٧‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣـﻦ‬
‫ﻣﺴﻮﻏﺔ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻤﻌﻈﻢ ﺍﻟﻼﺟﺌﲔ ﻳﺸﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ‬ ‫ﺷﺄﻧﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻮﺳﱢﻊ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻟﻴﺸﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻼﺟﺌﲔ ﺍﻟـﺬﻳﻦ ﺗﻌﺘـﺮﻑ ﻬﺑـﻢ‬
‫ﺟﺪﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻟﻘﻮﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟـﱵ ﳛﻤﻠـﻮﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺼﻜﻮﻙ ﺍﻹﻗﻠﻴﻤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻷﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴـﺔ ﺍﻟـﱵ‬
‫ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﺮﺑﻮﺍ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺗﻔﺎﺩﻳﹰﺎ ﻟﻼﺿﻄﻬﺎﺩ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺡ‬
‫ﲢﻜﻢ ﺍﳌﻈﺎﻫﺮ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ ﲟﺸﻜﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﻼﺟﺌﲔ ﰲ ﺃﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺎ)‪ ،(٩٥‬ﻭﻫـﻲ‬
‫ﲟﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﺘﺢ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺏ‬ ‫ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺗُﻌﺘﱪ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻄﺎﻕ ﻭﺍﺳﻊ‪ ،‬ﳕﻮﺫﺟـﹰﺎ ﻟﻠﺤﻤﺎﻳـﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴـﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺼﺮﺍﻋﻴﻪ ﻟﻠﱰﺍﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻋﻼﻭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳋﻮﻑ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻴﺎﻡ‬ ‫ﻟﻼﺟﺌﲔ)‪ ،(٩٦‬ﻭﺇﻋﻼﻥ ﻛﺮﺗﺎﺧﻴﻨﺎ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﻼﺟﺌﲔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟـﺬﻱ ﺃﻗﺮﺗـﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻼﺟﺌﲔ ﺑﺎﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺑﺎﲣﺎﺫ ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﻞ ﻗﺪ ﻳﺜﲏ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ‬
‫ﺍﳉﻤﻌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﳌﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ .(٩٧)١٩٨٥‬ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻼﺟﺌﲔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﻓﻀﱠﻠﺖ ﺃﻻ ﺗﻀﻊ ﺣﺪﹰﺍ ﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ "ﺍﻟﻼﺟﺊ" ﻛﻲ ﺗﺘﻴﺢ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ‬
‫)‪ (١١‬ﻭﻳﻨﺺ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺗﲔ ‪ ١‬ﻭ‪ ٢‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ "ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫__________‬
‫ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ"‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺮﻳﺔ‬ ‫)‪ (٩١‬ﺗﻌﲏ ﺍﻹﻗﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻴﺎﺩﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺿﻤﻨﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﻕ ﺍﻹﻗﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻤﺮﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻠﺤﻖ‪ .‬ﻓﻠﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺳﻠﻄﺔ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﺮﻳﺔ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺃﻭ‬ ‫)‪ (٩٢‬ﺗﻮﺿﺢ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻀﲑﻳﺔ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺃﻥ "ﺍﻟﺒﻘـﺎﺀ" ﻳﻌـﲏ‬
‫ﻋﺪﻡ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺼﻞ ﺑﺄﺣﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳـﺎ)‪.(٩٩‬‬ ‫ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻗﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻴﺎﺩﻳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﺑﺎﻷﻭﱃ ﺑﺴﻠﻄﺔ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﺮﻳﺔ ﻟﺘﻮﻓﲑ ﺃﻭ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺗـﻮﻓﲑ ﻫـﺬﻩ‬ ‫)‪ (٩٣‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ١٦‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺮﻓﻖ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﺸﺨﺺ ﻋﺪﱘ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻟﻼﺟﺊ‪.‬‬ ‫)‪ (٩٤‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )‪ (٤‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﻫﺬﺍ‪.‬‬
‫)‪ (٩٥‬ﺗﻮﺳﱢﻊ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺍﻟﻼﺟﺊ ﻟﻴﺸﻤﻞ "ﻛـﻞ ﺷـﺨﺺ‬
‫)‪ (١٢‬ﻭﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٨‬ﻟـﻴﺲ ﻣﻌﻨﻴـﹰﺎ ﺇﻻ ﺑﺘـﻮﻓﲑ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬ ‫ﻳﻀﻄﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻋﺪﻭﺍﻥ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﺣﺘﻼﻝ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺳﻴﻄﺮﺓ ﺃﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺃﺣﺪﺍﺙ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻸﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﻋﺪﳝﻲ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﻟﻼﺟﺌﲔ‪ .‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻌﲏ‬ ‫ﺗﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﺿﻄﺮﺍﺑﹰﺎ ﺧﻄﲑﹰﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﰲ ﺟﺰﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻠﺪﻩ ﺍﻷﺻـﻠﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺑﻠـﺪ‬
‫ﲟﻨﺢ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﳌﺜﻞ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﳚﻮﺯ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ‬ ‫ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻪ ﺃﻭ ﰲ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺪ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﻣﻐﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺇﻗﺎﻣﺘﻪ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻴﺎﺩﻳـﺔ ﻣـﻦ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺼﻞ ﺑﺸﺨﺺ ﻋﺪﱘ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻮﺀ ﰲ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺁﺧﺮ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺑﻠﺪﻩ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺑﻠﺪ ﺟﻨـﺴﻴﺘﻪ"‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﺑﻼﺟﺊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻬﻧﺎ ﺗﺆﺩﻱ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻮﻗﻊ ﻣـﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﳌـﻨﺢ ﺍﳉﻨـﺴﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫)ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ‪.(٢-‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٢٨‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﻮﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﻼﺟﺌﲔ ﺗﻮﺿﺢ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨـﺪﻣﺎ‬ ‫)‪ (٩٦‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳌﺬﻛﺮﺓ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺪﻣﺘﻬﺎ ﻣﻔﻮﺿﺔ ﺍﻷﻣـﻢ‬
‫ﺗُﻘﺮﺃ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ١٥‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺮﻓﻖ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﻣﻨﺢ ﻭﺛﻴﻘـﺔ ﺳـﻔﺮ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻣﻴﺔ ﻟﺸﺆﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻼﺟﺌﲔ )‪ ،(A/AC.96/830‬ﺹ ‪ ،١٥‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٣٥‬‬
‫ﻟﻼﺟﺊ ﻻ ﻳﺆﺛﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺣﺎﻣﻠﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺑﺎﺏ ﺃﻭﱃ ﻓﺈﻥ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ‬ ‫)‪ (٩٧‬ﰎ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩﻩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﺪﻭﺓ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻼﺟﺌﲔ ﰲ ﺃﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻰ ﻭﺍﳌﻜﺴﻴﻚ ﻭﺑﻨﻤﺎ‪ :‬ﺍﳌﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟـﱵ ﺍﻧﻌﻘـﺪﺕ ﰲ‬
‫__________‬
‫ﻛﺎﺭﺗﺎﺧﻴﻨﺎ ﺩﻱ ﺁﻧﺪﻳﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻛﻮﻟﻮﻣﺒﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ‪ ١٩‬ﺇﱃ ‪ ٢٢‬ﺗﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪/‬‬
‫)‪ (٩٨‬ﳚﻮﺯ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻼﹰ‪ ،‬ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻴﺔ ﻟـﺼﺎﱀ‬ ‫ﻧﻮﻓﻤﱪ ‪ .١٩٨٤‬ﻭﻳﺮﺩ ﻧﺺ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻀﻤﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﻋـﻼﻥ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘـﺔ‬
‫ﺷﺨﺺ ﻣﻨﺤﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻮﺀ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﻭﻓﻘﹰﺎ ﻷﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﺻـﺔ ﺑـﺎﻟﻠﺠﻮﺀ‬ ‫‪ ،OEA/Ser.L/V/II.66 doc.10 rev.1‬ﺍﳉﻤﻌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﳌﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴـﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻹﻗﻠﻴﻤﻲ ﻟﻌﺎﻡ ‪.١٩٥٤‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﻣﺴﺔ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ )‪ ،(١٩٨٥‬ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻭﺍﻓﻘﺖ ﻋﻠﻴـﻪ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨـﺔ‬
‫)‪ (٩٩‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻋﻲ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺗﲔ ‪ ٢‬ﻭ‪ ١٩‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻤﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﻌﻘﺪﺓ ﰲ ﺩﻭﺭﻬﺗﺎ ﺍﳋﺎﻣﺴﺔ ﰲ ‪ ٧‬ﻛﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪/‬ﺩﻳﺴﻤﱪ ‪.١٩٨٥‬‬
‫ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﻻ ﻳﺸﻤﻞ ﻗﻮﺍﻋـﺪ ﺧﺎﺻـﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺼﻞ ﺑﻼﺟﺊ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺸﺨﺺ ﻋﺪﱘ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺈﻧﺸﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﻭﺇﺩﺍﺭﻬﺗﺎ ﻭﺣﻠﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ ﲝﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﳘﲔ ﻭﻋﻼﻗﺘﻬﻢ‬ ‫ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻻ ﻳُﻔﻬﻢ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺣﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻮﺍﻝ ﺃﻬﻧﺎ ﲤـﺲ ﺟﻨـﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻧﻪ ﳚﺐ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﺍﻟﺮﺟﻮﻉ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻲ ﻃﻠﺒـﹰﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗُﻮﻓﱠﺮ ﻟﻪ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻠﺘﻮﺟﻴﻪ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺄﻥ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻌﲏ ﺑﺘﺤﺪﻳـﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳚﻮﺯ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﺼﺎﱀ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‬
‫ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﳘﲔ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻋﺎﳉﺖ ﳏﻜﻤـﺔ ﺍﻟﻌـﺪﻝ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺮﺷﻠﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺮ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺫﻛﺮﺕ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ "ﻳﺴﻨﺪ ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﺗﻮﻓﲑ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -٩‬ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺄﺳﺴﺖ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﰲ ﺇﻗﻠﻴﻤﻬﺎ ﻣﻜﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﳌـﺴﺠﻞ")‪ .(١٠٢‬ﻭﺣـﺪﺩﺕ‬ ‫ﻷﻏﺮﺍﺽ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﲏ ﺩﻭﻟـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﺷﺮﻃﲔ ﳊﺼﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﻨـﺴﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻧﺸﺌﺖ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻬﻧﺎ‪ .‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻧـﻪ‬
‫ﻷﻏﺮﺍﺽ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﳘﺎ‪ :‬ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻭﻭﺟـﻮﺩ‬ ‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﻴﻄﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺃﻭ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‬
‫ﻣﻜﺘﺒﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﺴﺠﻞ ﰲ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ‪ .‬ﻭﻧﻈﺮﹰﺍ ﻷﻥ ﻗـﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﻣﻌﻈـﻢ‬ ‫ﻭﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻟﻠﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺃﻧﺸﻄﺔ ﲡﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﻛﺒﲑﺓ ﰲ ﺩﻭﻟـﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳـﻴﺲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺗﻘﻀﻲ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻟﻠﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺄﺳﺴﺖ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﻴﻨﻬﺎ‬ ‫ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻣﻘﺮ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻗﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﳌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻛﻼﳘـﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ﻣﻜﺘﺐ ﻣﺴﺠﻞ ﰲ ﺇﻗﻠﻴﻤﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻭﳘﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ‬ ‫ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺗﻌﺘﱪ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻫﻢ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭ ﻷﻏﺮﺍﺽ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥ ﺍﶈﻜﻤـﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ‬
‫ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺮﺷﻠﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺮ ﱂ ﺗﻘﺘﻨﻊ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﻛﻤﻌﻴﺎﺭ ﻭﺣﻴـﺪ‬
‫ﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻋـﺪﻡ ﺗﻜﺮﺍﺭﻫـﺎ‬ ‫)‪ (١‬ﻳﺴﻠﻢ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٩‬ﲜﻮﺍﺯ ﺗﻮﻓﲑ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻴﺔ‬
‫)‪(١٠٣‬‬
‫ﻻﺷﺘﺮﺍﻁ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ "ﺻﻠﺔ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ" ﺍﳌﻄﺒﻖ ﰲ ﻗـﻀﻴﺔ ﻧﻮﺗّﻴﺒـﻮﻡ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺼﻴﻐﺔ ﺍﳌـﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻋﺘﺮﺍﻓﻬﺎ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ "ﰲ ﺍﳌﻴﺪﺍﻥ ﺍﶈﺪﺩ ﻟﻠﺤﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻜﻴﺎﻧـﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﰲ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٤‬ﰲ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻸﺷـﺨﺎﺹ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﻋﺎﻡ ﻷﻱ ﻣﻌﻴـﺎﺭ ﻣﻄﻠـﻖ ﻟ ‘ﺍﻟـﺼﻠﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﲔ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺒﲔ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻫﻠﻴﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻷﻏـﺮﺍﺽ ﺗـﻮﻓﲑ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ‘")‪ ،(١٠٤‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﺭﺃﺕ ﺃﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﻭﻭﺟـﻮﺩ‬ ‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺗﺴﺘﻮﺟﺐ ﻭﻓـﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟـﺔ ﺑـﺒﻌﺾ‬
‫ﻣﻜﺘﺐ ﻣﺴﺠﻞ‪ ،‬ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﻮﺍﻓﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺣﺪ ﻣﺎ "ﺻﻠﺔ ﻭﺛﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺩﺍﺋﻤﺔ"‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻭﻁ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻸﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﲔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟـﺸﺮﻛﺔ)‪ .(١٠٥‬ﻭﰲ‬ ‫)‪ (٢‬ﻭﺗﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳـﺘﻬﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺣـﺪ ﺑﻌﻴـﺪ ﺑﺎﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺟﺪﺕ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺔ ﰲ ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﰲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﳌﺆﺳﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺴﺘﻬﺪﻑ ﺍﻟﺮﺑﺢ ﻭﺗﻘﻮﻡ‬
‫ﻛﻨﺪﺍ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﲬﺴﲔ ﻋﺎﻣﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺣﺘﻔﺎﻇﻬﺎ ﲟﻜﺘﺒﻬﺎ ﺍﳌـﺴﺠﻞ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﶈﺪﻭﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﺭﺃﺱ ﻣﺎﳍﺎ ﻋﻤﻮﻣـﹰﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ﻭﺑﺴﺠﻞ ﺍﳊﺴﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻘﺪ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋـﺎﺕ ﳎﻠـﺲ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﰲ ﺃﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ ﺁﺧﺮﻳﻦ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻔﺴﺮ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻋﺪﺓ ﺳﻨﻮﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﻴﺪﻫﺎ ﰲ ﺳﺠﻼﺕ ﺳـﻠﻄﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﻼﺣﻘﺔ ﳍﺎ ﺑﺎﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻴﺔ ﻟﻠـﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺍﺋﺐ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻋﺘﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﺑﺎﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺪﻳـﺔ‬ ‫ﻭﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺧُﺼﺺ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪١٣‬‬
‫ﻟﻠﺸﺮﻛﺔ)‪ .(١٠٦‬ﻭﺫﻛﺮﺕ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ "ﺻـﻼﺕ‬ ‫ﳌﻌﺎﳉﺔ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ ﺧﻼﻑ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ‪.‬‬
‫ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺮﺷﻠﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺮ ﺑﻜﻨﺪﺍ ﻣﺘﺸﻌﺒﺔ")‪ .(١٠٧‬ﻭﱂ ﺗﻮﺍﺟﻪ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺮﺷﻠﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺮ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺗﺄﺳﺴﺖ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﰲ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﺎ‬ ‫)‪ (٣‬ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﲔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﻣﻨﺢ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺗﺮﺑﻄﻬﺎ "ﺻﻠﺔ ﻭﺛﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺩﺍﺋﻤﺔ" ﺑﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﺴﻊ ﺍﳌﺮﺀ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ "ﺿﻤﻦ ﺍﺠﻤﻟﺎﻝ ﺍﶈﻔﻮﻅ" ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ)‪ .(١٠٠‬ﻭﻗـﺪ ﺫﻛـﺮﺕ‬
‫ﺳﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﻤﲔ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻘﺮﺭﻩ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﰲ ﻫـﺬﻩ‬ ‫ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺮﺷﻠﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺮ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻠﻲ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ‪ .‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٩‬ﻳﻌﺎﰿ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﺘﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺑﻜﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻛﻤﺆﺳﺴﺔ ﺗﻨﺸﺌﻬﺎ ﺍﻟـﺪﻭﻝ ﰲ‬
‫__________‬ ‫ﳎﺎﻝ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﹰﺎ ﰲ ﻧﻄﺎﻕ ﻭﻻﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺑﺪﻭﺭﻩ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻧﻪ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ‬
‫)‪ (١٠٢‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٤٢‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٧٠‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﺸﺄ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﲝﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﰲ ﳎﺎﻝ ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻨﺺ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺧﺎﺻـﺔ ﻬﺑـﺬﻩ‬
‫)‪ (١٠٣‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ .‬ﻟﻼﻃﻼﻉ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ‪ ،Nottebohm‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ‬
‫‪ ٣١‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳊﻘﻮﻕ‪ ،‬ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺍﻻﺣﺘﻜﺎﻡ ﺇﱃ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻲ ﺍﳌﺘﺼﻠﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ)‪.(١٠١‬‬
‫)‪) Barcelona Traction, Second Phase, Judgment (١٠٤‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ‬ ‫__________‬
‫‪ ٣٥‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٤٢‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٧٠‬‬ ‫‪Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and‬‬ ‫)‪ (١٠٠‬ﺍﻧﻈـﺮ ﻗـﻀﻴﺔ‬
‫)‪ (١٠٥‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٧١‬‬ ‫‪) Morocco‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٣٨‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪.‬‬
‫)‪ (١٠٦‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٤٤-٤٢‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٧٦-٧١‬‬ ‫)‪) Barcelona Traction, Second Phase, Judgment (١٠١‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ‬
‫)‪ (١٠٧‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٤٢‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٧١‬‬ ‫‪ ٣٥‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٣٤-٣٣‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٣٨‬‬
‫ﳍﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﺴﺘﻤﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺇﱃ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ‬ ‫)‪ (٤‬ﻭﻳﻘﺮ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٩‬ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻟﻘـﻀﻴﺔ ﺷـﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﹰﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﻔﺘﺮﺽ ﲢﻘﻖ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭﻳﺔ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧـﺖ ﺗﻠـﻚ‬ ‫ﺑﺮﺷﻠﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺮ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﻨﺢ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﰲ ﻛﻼ ﻫﺬﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﲔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻷﻏﺮﺍﺽ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﻨﺺ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺑﻌﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺻﻠﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺁﺧﺮ ﺑـﲔ ﺩﻭﻟـﺔ‬
‫‪ -٢‬ﻳﻨﻘﻀﻲ ﺣـﻖ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟـﺔ ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳـﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺻﻼﺕ ﻫﺎﻣـﺔ ﻣـﻊ ﺩﻭﻟـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺗﻜﺘﺴﺐ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒـﺔ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻫﺎ ﺗُﻌﺘﱪ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟ ﹸﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﺩﻭﻟ ﹶﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻷﻏﺮﺍﺽ‬
‫ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﹸﻘﺪﱠﻡ ﺿﺪﻫﺎ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﻞ ﺗﻔﺮﺿﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﻧـﺼﺎﻑ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -٣‬ﺭﻏﻢ ﻣﺎ ﺟﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ،١‬ﻳﻈﻞ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ‬ ‫ﻓﻤﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺄ ﻣﻨﺢ ﺍﳊﻖ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺌﺜﺎﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳـﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬
‫ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﲢﻤـﻞ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻻ ﺗﺮﺑﻄﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺳﻮﻯ ﺻﻠﺔ ﺿﻌﻴﻔﺔ ﻟﻠﻐﺎﻳﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﱂ ﺗﻌﺪ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﺟﺮﺍﺀ‬ ‫ﺇﺫ ﻧﺎﺩﺭﹰﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴـﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳـﺘﻌﺪﺍﺩ‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﻭﻓﻘﹰﺎ ﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﹸﻧﺸﺌﺖ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ‬ ‫)‪ (٥‬ﻭﻳﻨﺺ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٩‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺄﺳﺴﺖ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺑﺎﺩﺉ ﺫﻱ ﺑﺪﺀ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳛﻖ ﳍـﺎ ﳑﺎﺭﺳـﺔ‬
‫)‪ (١‬ﺗﺮﺩ ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺼﻠﺔ ﺑﺸﺮﻁ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺗﻮﺍﻓﺮ ﻇﺮﻭﻑ ﺗﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ .٥‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻨﺸﺄ ﻣـﺸﺎﻛﻞ‬ ‫ﻱ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻬﺑـﺎ ﻣﻘـﺮ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻃﹰﺎ ﺃﻭﺛﻖ ﺑﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﺃ ْ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﲟﻌﺪﻝ ﺃﻗﻞ ﳑـﺎ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟـﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻗﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﳌﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗُﻌﺘﱪ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟ ﹸﺔ ﺩﻭﻟ ﹶﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳛﻖ ﳍﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﲔ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻳﻐﲑ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﻮﻥ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﻢ‬ ‫ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺣﺪﻭﺙ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻳﺘﻮﻗﻒ ﻋﻠـﻰ‬
‫ﺑﺴﻬﻮﻟﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﻨﺲ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺍﺝ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﲏ ﻭﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺧﻼﻓﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻭﻁ‪ .‬ﻓﺄﻭﻻﹰ‪ ،‬ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻄﺮﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺗﻐﲑ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﺇﻻ ﺑﺈﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺇﻧـﺸﺎﺋﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ‬ ‫ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ .‬ﻭﺛﺎﻧﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﳚﺐ ﺃﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻟﻠﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺃﻧﺸﻄﺔ ﲡﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﻛﺒﲑﺓ‬
‫ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺴﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺗﻜﺘـﺴﺐ ﺍﻟـﺸﺮﻛﺔ‬ ‫ﰲ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ‪ .‬ﻭﺛﺎﻟﺜﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻘﺮ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻗﺎﺑـﺔ‬
‫ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻨﻘﻄﻊ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ)‪.(١٠٩‬‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻛﻼﳘﺎ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﻳﻦ ﰲ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ .‬ﻭﲢﻘﻖ ﻫـﺬﻩ‬
‫ﻭﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺷﻴﻮﻋﹰﺎ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻐﲑ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻭﻁ ﳎﺘﻤﻌﺔ ﻫﻮ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺆﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻬﺑﺎ ﻣﻘﺮ‬
‫ﺩﻭﻥ ﺗﻐﻴﲑ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺧﻼﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻭﺭﻗﺎﺑﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻷﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻷﻏـﺮﺍﺽ‬
‫)‪ (٢‬ﻭﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ١‬ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﻖ ﲟﻮﺟﺒﻪ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﰲ ﻛﻞ‬ ‫)‪ (٦‬ﻭﺣﺬﺭﺕ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺮﺷﻠﻮﻧﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻭﻗﺖ ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﻭﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﹰﺎ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻬﻧـﺎ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺠﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻣﻨﺢ ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟـﺪﻭﻝ ﺟﻨـﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺗﺸﺘﺮﻁ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﻭﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ‬ ‫ﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻌـﺪﺩ ﻣـﺎ ﻳُﺘﺨـﺬ ﻣـﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﹰﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻭﻁ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺴﺮﻱ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ‬ ‫ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ "ﻗﺪ ﳜﻠﻖ ﻣﻨﺎﺧﹰﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﻟﺘﺒﺎﺱ ﻭﻏﻴﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﲔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺮﺩ ﲝﺜﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ .٥‬ﻭﻳﻔـﻀﻞ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﻣﻦ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ")‪ .(١٠٨‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻳﻨﺸﺄ ﺍﻻﻟﺘﺒﺎﺱ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺭﲰﻴﹰﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺻﺪﻭﺭ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﻟﻸﺳـﺒﺎﺏ‬ ‫ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﳌﻨﺢ ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻌﺪﺓ ﺩﻭﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﻭﺭﺩ ﺷﺮﺣﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌـﺎﺩﺓ ‪ .٥‬ﻏـﲑ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﻭﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺻﻠﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﺴﻤﺢ ﻣـﺸﺮﻭﻉ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٢‬ﺗﻨﺺ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ ﻟﺘﻐﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻜﺘﺴﺐ ﻓﻴﻬـﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٩‬ﺑﺘﻌﺪﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﻫﺬﻩ‪ .‬ﻓﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳛﻖ ﳍـﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺇﻣﺎ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﺃﻭ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟـﺔ‬
‫__________‬ ‫ﺗﻮﺍﻓﺮ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻭﻁ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻬﺑﺎ ﻣﻘﺮ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻗﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﳌﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫–‪Orinoco Steamship Company Case, American‬‬ ‫)‪ (١٠٩‬ﺍﻧﻈــﺮ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺸﺮﻛﺔ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺍﺧﺘﻠﻔﺖ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻬﺑﺎ ﻣﻘﺮ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﻋـﻦ‬
‫‪Venezuelan Mixed Claims Commission, constituted under the Protocol of‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﳌﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﺗﻈـﻞ‬
‫‪ .17 February 1903, UNRIAA, vol. IX, p. 180‬ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘـﻀﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﻮّﻟـﺖ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳛﻖ ﳍﺎ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﻣﺆﺳﺴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻤﻠﻜﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺘﻬﺎ ﺿﺪ ﺣﻜﻮﻣـﺔ ﻓﻨــﺰﻭﻳﻼ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺧﻠﻒ ﻣﺆﺳﺴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﺳُﻤﺢ ﺑﺘﻘـﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒـﺔ ﻷﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -١٠‬ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎﻫﺪﺓ ﺇﻧﺸﺎﺀ ﳉﻨﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻄﺔ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﱰﻭﻳﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﺴﻤﺢ ﻟﻠﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺑﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺑﺎﺳﻢ ﺣﺎﻣﻞ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ‪ .‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥ ﺍﶈﻜﱢﻢ‬ ‫‪ -١‬ﳛﻖ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺭﺝ )‪ (Barge‬ﺃﻭﺿﺢ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻟﻮﻻ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻫﺪﺓ ﳌﺎ ﺳُﻤﺢ ﺑﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒـﺔ )ﺍﳌﺮﺟـﻊ‬ ‫ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻒ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ .(١٩٢‬ﻭﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ‪) Loewen‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷـﻴﺔ ‪ ٥٩‬ﺃﻋـﻼﻩ(‪،‬‬ ‫__________‬
‫ﺹ ‪ ،٤٨٥-٤٨٤‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٢٢٠‬‬ ‫)‪ (١٠٨‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٤٩‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٩٦‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻴﻢ)‪ (١١٥‬ﻭﻓﻘﻬﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ)‪ .(١١٦‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٣‬ﻓﺘﻌﺘﻤـﺪ ﻬﻧﺠـﹰﺎ‬ ‫)‪ (٣‬ﻭﻳﺒﻘﻰ ﺷﺮﻁ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻣﺘﺤﻘﻘﹰﺎ ﻋﻨـﺪﻣﺎ ﲣـﻀﻊ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﹰﺎ ﻭﲡﻴﺰ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻟﺘﻐﻴﲑ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﳋﻼﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ)‪ .(١١٠‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﺸﻜﻞ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻀﺮﺭ ﳊﻖ ﺑﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﲢﻤـﻞ ﺟﻨـﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﰒ‬ ‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫـﺬﻩ ﺍﳌـﺴﺄﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺘﻬﻰ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻫﺎ ﻭﻣﻌﻪ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﻛـﻲ ﺗﺘﺄﻫـﻞ‬ ‫ﺗﻐﻄﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﱃ "ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻒ" ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.١‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟِﺒﺔ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﳍﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺜﺒﺖ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻧﺘﻬﺎﺀ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟـﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟـﱵ‬
‫ﻗﹸﺪﻣﺖ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺑﺎﲰﻬﺎ ﺳﺒﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳊﻘﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﺑﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻗـﺮﺍﺀﺓ‬ ‫)‪ (٤‬ﻭﺗﺸﻤﻞ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ "ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ" ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺭﺩﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ١‬ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٣‬ﺑﺎﻻﻗﺘﺮﺍﻥ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )ﺃ( ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١١‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺒﻴّﻦ‬ ‫ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﻋﱪ ﺍﻟﻘﻨﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘـﺪﻡ ﺇﱃ ﻫﻴﺌـﺔ‬
‫ﻗﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﳚﻮﺯ ﺃﻥ ﲢﺪﺩ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﻻ ﳛﻖ ﳍﺎ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻀﺮﺭ ﳊﻖ ﺑﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻭﺃﺩﻯ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻧﺘﻬﺎﺀ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻫﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻡ ﺑﻪ ﻟﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣـﺴﺘﻤﺮﺍﹰ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺨﺬﻩ ﺍﳉﱪ)‪.(١١١‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -١١‬ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ‬ ‫)‪ (٥‬ﻭﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ،٢‬ﻻ ﳛﻖ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲤـﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬
‫ﻻ ﳛﻖ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳـﻬﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻟـﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﲢﺼﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻰ‬
‫ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﳜﺼﻬﻢ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻠﺤﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺃﹸﺩﺭﺟﺖ ﻫـﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻘـﺮﺓ ﳌﻌﺎﳉـﺔ‬
‫)‪(١١٢‬‬
‫ﺿﺮﺭ ﺇﻻ‪:‬‬ ‫ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﺸﺄ ﰲ ﻗـﻀﻴﺔ ﻟـﻮﻭﹺﻥ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﱂ ﻳﻌﺪ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻟﻠﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺑـﺪﺃﺕ ﻓﻴﻬـﺎ‬
‫)ﺃ( ﺇﺫﺍ ﱂ ﻳﻌﺪ ﻟﻠﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﻓﻘﹰﺎ ﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟـﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ )ﻛﻨﺪﺍ( ﻭﺃﻋﻴﺪ ﺗﻜﻮﻳﻨﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ )ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﹸﺳﺴﺖ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﻻ ﺻﻠﺔ ﻟـﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺮﺭ؛‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ(‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺮﺩ ﲝﺚ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻔﺎﺿﺔ ﺃﻛﱪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫)ﺏ( ﺃﻭ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ‬ ‫ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪.(١١٣)٥‬‬
‫ﺣﺎﻣﻠ ﹰﺔ ﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ُﻳﺪّﻋﻰ ﺃﻬﻧﺎ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺇﳊﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ‬ ‫)‪ (٦‬ﻭﺗﻨﺸﺄ ﺍﻟﺼﻌﻮﺑﺎﺕ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﲟﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺗﻔﺮﺽ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺆﺳﱠﺲ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﱂ ﻳﻌﺪ ﳍﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﻓﻘﹰﺎ ﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟـﱵ‬
‫ﻛﺸﺮﻁ ﻣﺴﺒﻖ ﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺗﺄﺳﺴﺖ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﺃﹸﺧﺬ ﺑـﺎﳌﻮﻗﻒ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻞ ﺇﻧﻪ ﻻ ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒـﺔ‬
‫ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﱂ ﺗﻌﺪ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓـﻼ ﳚـﻮﺯ‬
‫)‪ (١‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﻷﻫـﻢ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﻨﺪﺋﺬ ﻷﻱ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺗﻌﺮﺽ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻞ ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺗُﺤﻤَﻰ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒـﻞ ﺩﻭﻟـﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻟﻀﺮﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﺟﻨـﺴﻴﺔ ﲪﻠـﺔ‬
‫ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﲪﻠـﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻛﻬﺬﻩ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻟﻦ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﺈﻣﻜﺎﻬﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺟﺪﺩﺕ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺗﺄﻛﻴـﺪ‬ ‫ﺗﺜﺒﺖ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﳍﺎ ﻣﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﻛﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻭﻗﺖ ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳊﻖ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪﹰﺍ ﺷﺪﻳﺪﹰﺍ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺮﺷﻠﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺮ‪ .‬ﻓﻔـﻲ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺃﺛﺎﺭﺕ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﻗﻠﻖ ﻋﺪﺓ ﻗﻀﺎﺓ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﺃﻛﺪﺕ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺃﻬﻧﺎ ﻻ ﺗﻌﻨﻴﻬﺎ ﺇﻻ ﻣـﺴﺄﻟﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﺮﺷﻠﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺮ)‪ ،(١١٤‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻗﻠﻘـﺖ ﺑﻌـﺾ ﺍﶈـﺎﻛﻢ ﻭﻫﻴﺌـﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﳊﻤﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﰲ "ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﳏﺪﻭﺩﺓ ﺍﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ‬ ‫__________‬
‫__________‬ ‫‪Panevezys-‬‬ ‫)‪ (١١٠‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﻬﺑـﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺿـﻮﻉ ﻗـﻀﻴﺔ‬
‫)‪ (١١٥‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ‪) Kunhardt & Co.‬ﺁﺭﺍﺀ ﳉﻨﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻄﺔ ﺑﲔ‬ ‫‪) Saldutiskis Railway‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٢٦‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ .١٨‬ﻭﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳـﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﻭﻓﻨـﺰﻭﻳﻼ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻨﺸﺄﺓ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﻮﻛـﻮﻝ ﺍﳌـﺆﺭﺥ ‪١٧‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ﻟﻠﻤﻘﺮﺭ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﻓﺎﻛﻼﻑ ﻣﻴﻜﻮﻟﻜﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺧﻼﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ‪،‬‬
‫ﺷﺒﺎﻁ‪/‬ﻓﱪﺍﻳﺮ ‪ ،UNRIAA, vol. IX, p. 171 ،(١٩٠٣‬ﻭﺑـﺎﻷﺧﺺ ﺍﻟـﺮﺃﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﱪﺯ ﺍﻟﺼﻌﻮﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻴﻂ ﲟﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺨﺎﻟﻒ ﻟﻌﻀﻮ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﱰﻭﻳﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺑـﻮﻝ )‪ ،(Paúl‬ﺹ ‪ .١٨٠‬ﺍﻧﻈـﺮ‬ ‫ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺧﻼﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،١٩٩٨‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉـﺰﺀ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ(‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘـﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻳـﻀﹰﺎ‪F. W. Flack, on behalf of the Estate of the Late D. L. Flack :‬‬ ‫‪ ،A/CN.4/489‬ﺹ ‪.٣٧٣‬‬
‫‪(Great Britain) v. United Mexican States, Decision No. 10 of 6‬‬ ‫)‪ (١١١‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٤٣‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘـﺔ ﲟـﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫‪.December 1929, ibid., vol. V, p. 61, at p. 63‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻋﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،٢٠٠١‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ‬
‫)‪ (١١٦‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪L. Caflisch, La protection des sociétés commerciales‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ( ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺼﻮﻳﺐ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.١٥٦-١٥٥‬‬
‫‪et des intérêts indirects en droit international public, The Hague,‬‬ ‫)‪) Loewen (١١٢‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٥٩‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٢٢٠‬‬
‫‪Martinus Nijhoff , 1969, pp. 206–207; W. E. Beckett, “Diplomatic‬‬
‫‪claims in respect of injuries to companies”, in Transactions of the‬‬
‫)‪ (١١٣‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺗﺎﻥ )‪ (٥‬ﻭ)‪.(١٣‬‬
‫‪Grotus Society, vol. 17, London, Sweet and Maxwell, 1932, pp. 175 et‬‬ ‫)‪ (١١٤‬ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺓ ﺟﻴﺴﻮﺏ )‪) (Jessup‬ﺍﻧﻈـﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷـﻴﺔ ‪ ٣٥‬ﺃﻋـﻼﻩ(‪،‬‬
‫‪seq., at p. 191; and E. Wyler, La règle dite de la continuité de la‬‬ ‫ﺹ ‪١٩٣‬؛ ﻭﻏﺮﻭﺱ )‪) (Gross‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪٢٧٧‬؛ ﻭﻓﻴﺘـﺴﻤﻮﺭﻳﺲ‬
‫‪nationalité‬‬ ‫‪dans‬‬ ‫‪le‬‬ ‫‪contentieux‬‬ ‫‪international,‬‬ ‫‪Paris,‬‬ ‫‪Presses‬‬ ‫)‪) (Fitzmaurice‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪١٠٢-١٠١‬؛ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺎﺿـﻲ ﺍﳌﺨـﺼﺺ‬
‫‪.universitaires de France, 1990, pp. 197–202‬‬ ‫ﺭﻳﻔﺎﺟﻦ )‪) (Riphagen‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.٣٤٥‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﰲ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺴﻬﺎ)‪ ،(١٢٦‬ﻭﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳊـﺎﻝ‬ ‫ﲤﺜﻞ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﺭﺃﲰﺎﳍﺎ")‪ .(١١٧‬ﻭﺗﺘﺴﻢ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﺑﺘﻤﻴﻴﺰ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ‬
‫ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺮﺷﻠﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺮ؛ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‬ ‫ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻭﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ)‪ .(١١٨‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﺄﺛﺮ ﻓﻴﻬـﺎ‬
‫ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺇﳊﺎﻕ ﺿﺮﺭ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻭﺗﻜـﻮﻥ‬ ‫ﻣﺼﺎﱀ ﺃﺣﺪ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﺑﻀﺮﺭ ﻳﺼﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪﺓ ﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﺍﻷﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻌﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‬ ‫ﻫﻲ ﺍﳉﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﺘﻈﺮ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﲣﺎﺫ ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺀ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻧـﻪ "ﻭﺇﻥ‬
‫ﻫﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ )ﺩﻭﻝ( ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ)‪ ،(١٢٧‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ‬ ‫ﻳﻜﻦ ﲦﺔ ﻛﻴﺎﻧﺎﻥ ﻣﻨﻔﺼﻼﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻋﺎﻧﻴﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﻓﺈﻥ ﻛﻴﺎﻧـﹰﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﺤﻮ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍﻥ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﺬﺍﻥ ﱂ ﺗﻨﻈﺮ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﺣﺪﹰﺍ ﻓﺤﺴﺐ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻭﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﻌـﺪﻱ ﻋﻠـﻰ ﺣﻘﻮﻗـﻪ")‪.(١١٩‬‬
‫ﻓﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﺑﺪﻗﺔ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﻻﻧﻌﺪﺍﻡ ﺻﻠﺘﻬﻤﺎ ﻬﺑـﺎ ﺍﻋﺘـﺮﻑ ﻬﺑﻤـﺎ‬ ‫ﻭﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﳊﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﺍﳊﻖ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻘﻞ ﰲ ﺍﲣﺎﺫ ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺀ)‪ (١٢٠‬ﺇﻻ ﰲ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١١‬ﰲ ﻓﻘﺮﺗﻴﻪ )ﺃ( ﻭ)ﺏ(‪ .‬ﻓﻨﻈﺮﹰﺍ ﻷﻥ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺃﺳـﻬﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﳌﺸﺘﻜﻰ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻣﻮﺟﻬـﹰﺎ ﺑـﺼﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻧﻮﺍ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺩﻭﻝ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﺗﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﻋﺪﺓ ﺩﻭﻝ‬ ‫ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﻈﻢ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻴﺔ ﲟﻮﺟـﺐ ﻫـﺬﻳﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﻴﺰ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻭﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺫﻛﺮﺕ ﺍﶈﻜﻤـﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀﻳﻦ‪ .‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻧﻪ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺳﺘﻘﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﶈﻠﻲ ﻻ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ)‪.(١٢١‬‬
‫ﺗﻘﻮﻡ‪ ،‬ﺑﺘﻨﺴﻴﻖ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﻬﺗﺎ ﻭﺿﻤﺎﻥ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳛﻤﻞ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻌﻈﻢ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﰲ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ‪.‬‬ ‫)‪ (٢‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﰲ ﺣﻜﻤﻬﺎ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺮﺷﻠﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺮ‬
‫ﺑﺄﻥ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ )ﺩﻭﻝ( ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﰲ‬
‫)‪ (٤‬ﻭﻳﻘﺘﺼﺮ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١١‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺼﺎﱀ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﰲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻴﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﻧﻈﺮﹰﺍ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻷﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺼﻠﺔ ﻬﺑﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ‪ ،‬ﲟﺎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‬ ‫ﺣﺎﻝ ﳊﺎﻕ ﺿﺮﺭ ﺑﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺷﺪﺕ ﺑﻌﺪﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻋﺘﺒـﺎﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺮﺷﻠﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺮ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﻋﺎﳉﺖ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﺄﻭﻻﹰ‪ ،‬ﺣﲔ ﻳﺴﺘﺜﻤﺮ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﰲ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺗﺰﺍﻭﻝ‬
‫ﺭﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺃﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﻗﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﺿـﺤﺔ‬ ‫ﻧﺸﺎﻃﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ ﻓﺈﻬﻧﻢ ﻳﺘﺤﻤﻠﻮﻥ ﳐﺎﻃﺮ‪ ،‬ﺗﺸﻤﻞ ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻝ ﺭﻓـﺾ‬
‫ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺣﻖ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﰲ ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﺜﻤﺮﻳﻦ ﺁﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﻏﲑ ﲪﻠـﺔ‬ ‫ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﺮﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺪﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﻣﻨﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻛﻼﺀ‪ .‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻧـﻪ ﻣـﻦ‬ ‫ﻟﺼﺎﳊﻬﻢ)‪ ،(١٢٢‬ﻭﺛﺎﻧﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﲰﺢ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨـﺴﻴﺔ ﲪﻠـﺔ ﺍﻷﺳـﻬﻢ‬
‫ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺃﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺳﺒﺒﹰﺎ ﻭﺟﻴﻬﹰﺎ ﳝﻨﻊ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﲟﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﺈﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻔﻀﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ‬
‫ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ)‪.(١٢٨‬‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻝ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﻧﻈﺮﹰﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑﺓ ﺗـﻀﻢ ﰲ‬
‫ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻥ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺃﺳﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺎﺕ ﻋﺪﻳـﺪﺓ)‪ .(١٢٣‬ﻭﰲ ﻫـﺬﺍ‬
‫)‪ (٥‬ﻭﺗﺸﺘﺮﻁ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )ﺃ( ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌـﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١١‬ﺃﻻ ﻳﻌـﻮﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺩ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭﺿﺤﺖ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ُﻣﻜﱢﻨﺖ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨـﺴﻴﺔ ﺣﺎﻣـﻞ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ ﳛﻖ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺘـﺪﺧﻞ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﲣﺎﺫ ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﻟﺼﺎﳊﻪ ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻟﻦ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﲦﺔ ﺳﺒﺐ ﳝﻨﻊ ﲤﺘﻊ‬
‫ﺑﺎﲰﻬﻢ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺒﻞ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺮﺷﻠﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﲡـﺎﻩ ﺍﳌﺮﺍﺟـﻊ‬ ‫ﻛﻞ ﺣﺎﻣﻞ ﺃﺳﻬﻢ ﲟﻔﺮﺩﻩ ﻬﺑﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﻖ)‪ .(١٢٤‬ﻭﺛﺎﻟﺜﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺃﺣﺠﻤﺖ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺃﻏﻠﺒﻬﺎ ﳛﺒﺬ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﹰﺍ ﺃﻗﻞ ﺻﺮﺍﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳـﺴﻤﺢ ﺑﺎﻟﺘـﺪﺧﻞ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻄﺒﻖ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﺯﺩﻭﺍﺝ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ "ﻣﻨﺘﻬﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺣﻴـﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﻭﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﺗﺴﻤﺢ ﻟـﺪﻭﻝ ﺟﻨـﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ")‪ .(١٢٩‬ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﺣﺪﺩﺕ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺮﺷـﻠﻮﻧﺔ‬ ‫ﻛﻠﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﲟﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ)‪.(١٢٥‬‬
‫ﻟﻠﺠﺮ ﻋﺘﺒﺔ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺯﻭﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻋُﺘـﱪ "ﺍﻟـﺸﻠﻞ" ﺃﻭ‬
‫"ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺪﺍﻋﻴﺔ" ﻟﻠﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻏﲑ ﻛﺎﻓﻴﲔ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻐـﺮﺽ)‪.(١٣٠‬‬ ‫)‪ (٣‬ﻭﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺮﺷﻠﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻓﻘﺖ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ‬
‫ﻭﺭُﻓﺾ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭ "ﻣﻨﺘﻬﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ" ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ "ﻳﻔﺘﻘﺮ‬ ‫ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ )ﺩﻭﻝ( ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﲪﻠـﺔ ﺍﻷﺳـﻬﻢ ﳑﺎﺭﺳـﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬
‫__________‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﺼﺎﳊﻬﻢ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺘﲔ‪ :‬ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﱂ ﺗﻌﺪ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫)‪ (١٢٦‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٤١-٤٠‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺍﺕ ‪.٦٨-٦٥‬‬ ‫__________‬
‫)‪ (١٢٧‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٤٨‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٩٢‬‬ ‫)‪) Barcelona Traction, Second Phase, Judgment (١١٧‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ‬
‫)‪ (١٢٨‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺪﺗﻪ ﺍﳌﻤﻠﻜﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ‪ .‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻘﺎﺕ‬ ‫‪ ٣٥‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٣٤‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٤٠‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﻼﺣﻈﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺭﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻜﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻟـﱵ ﺍﻋﺘﻤـﺪﻬﺗﺎ‬ ‫)‪ (١١٨‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٤١‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ‪ ،‬ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،٢٠٠٦‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ(‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ‬ ‫)‪ (١١٩‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٣٥‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٤٤‬‬
‫‪ A/CN.4/561‬ﻭ‪ ،Add.1-2‬ﺍﳌﺮﻓﻖ )ﺍﳌﻤﻠﻜﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﻟﱪﻳﻄﺎﻧﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻤﻰ ﻭﺃﻳﺮﻟﻨﺪﺍ‬
‫)‪ (١٢٠‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٣٦‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٤٧‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ(‪.‬‬
‫)‪Delagoa Bay Railway Co. case, J. B. Moore, Digest of (١٢٩‬‬
‫)‪ (١٢١‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٣٧‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٥٠‬‬
‫‪International Law, vol. VI, Washington D.C., United States‬‬ ‫)‪ (١٢٢‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ، ٣٥‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٤٣‬؛ ﻭﺹ ‪ ، ٤٦‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺗﺎﻥ‬
‫‪Government Printing Office, 1906, p. 648; El Triunfo claim, ibid., p.‬‬ ‫‪ ٨٧ -٨٦‬؛ ﻭﺹ ‪ ، ٥٠‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪. ٩٩‬‬
‫‪649; Baasch & Römer case, UNRIAA, vol. X (Sales No. 1960.V.4), p.‬‬
‫‪.713, at p. 723‬‬ ‫)‪ (١٢٣‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٤٩-٤٨‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺍﺕ ‪.٩٦-٩٤‬‬
‫)‪ (١٣٠‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪) Barcelona Traction, Second Phase, Judgment‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ‬ ‫)‪ (١٢٤‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٤٩-٤٨‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺗﺎﻥ ‪.٩٥-٩٤‬‬
‫‪ ٣٥‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٤١-٤٠‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺗﺎﻥ ‪.٦٦-٦٥‬‬ ‫)‪ (١٢٥‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٣٨‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪٥٣‬؛ ﻭﺹ ‪ ،٥٠‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٩٨‬‬
‫ﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﺃﺿﺮﺍﺭ ﺃﺻﺎﺑﺖ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻭﻻ ﺻﻠﺔ ﳍﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺭﲟﺎ ﺃﺩﻯ‬ ‫ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺪﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ")‪ .(١٣١‬ﻭﺍﻋﺘُﱪ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭ "ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ"‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺯﻭﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺮﺽ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳـﺪ ﻫـﻮ ﺣـﺼﺮ‬ ‫ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﹰﺍ ﻣﻼﺋﻤﹰﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺫﻛﺮﺕ ﺍﶈﻜﻤـﺔ ﺃﻥ "ﲪﻠـﺔ ﺍﻷﺳـﻬﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳚﻮﺯ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳـﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺘـﺪﺧﻞ‬ ‫ﻻ ﻳُﺤﺮﻣﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﻣﺘﺎﺣـﺔ ﻋـﻦ‬
‫ﺑﺎﲰﻬﻢ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻀﺮﺭ ﻳﻠﺤﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺇﻻ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺯﻭﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴـﺔ؛‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﻳﻨﺸﺄ ﳍﻢ ﻭﳊﻜﻮﻣﺎﻬﺗﻢ ﺣﻖ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻞ ﰲ ﺍﲣـﺎﺫ ﺇﺟـﺮﺍﺀ ﺇﻻ ﺇﺫﺍ‬
‫)‪ (٨‬ﻭﺗﻨﺺ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )ﺏ( ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١١‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﻧﻔـﺎﺫ‬
‫ﺣﺮﻣﻮﺍ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻹﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ")‪ .(١٣٢‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺃﻳﺪﺕ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺑﻴـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻴﺢ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳـﻬﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻟـﺸﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫ﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻻﺣﻘﹰﺎ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻌﻴﺎﺭ)‪.(١٣٣‬‬
‫ﳑﺎﺭﺳ ﹶﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﲰﻬﻢ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳـﻴﺲ‬
‫ﻫﻲ ﺫﺍﻬﺗﺎ ﺍﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺇﻧﺰﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‪ .‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻻﺳـﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ‬ ‫)‪ (٦‬ﻭﱂ ﺗﺬﻛﺮ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﺻﺮﺍﺣﺔ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺮﺷﻠﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺮ‬
‫ﻳﻘﺘﺼﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﻣﻄﻠﻮﺑﹰﺎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒـﻞ‬ ‫ﻭﺟﻮﺏ ﺍﻧﺘﻬﺎﺀ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﰲ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﻛﺸﺮﻁ ﻣﺴﺒﻖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﱰﻝ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻛﺸﺮﻁ ﻣﺴﺒﻖ ﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ‬ ‫ﻟﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺿﺢ ﰲ ﻇـﺮﻭﻑ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﻋﻮﻯ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻭﺿﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﻗﺼﺪﺕ ﺍﻧﺘﻬﺎﺀ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫)‪ (٩‬ﻭﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺳﻨﺪ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ‬ ‫ﰲ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻭﻗﻊ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳊﻖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﻟﻠﺘﺴﻠﻴﻢ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﱂ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻴﻢ)‪ ،(١٣٦‬ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻘﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﳑﺎ ﲡﺪﺭ ﻣﻼﺣﻈﺘﻪ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻗﻮﻯ ﺩﻋﻢ ﻟﺘﺪﺧﻞ‬
‫ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﻳﺄﰐ ﻣﻦ ﺛـﻼﺙ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒـﺎﺕ ﻛﺎﻧـﺖ‬ ‫ﻳﻌﺪ ﳍﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﰲ ﺇﺳﺒﺎﻧﻴﺎ)‪ ،(١٣٤‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻛﺪﺕ ﺃﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻻ ﳝﻨـﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﳎﱪ ﹰﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟـﺔ ﺍﳌـﺴﺒﺒﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻫﺎ ﰲ ﻛﻨﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳـﻴﺲ‪" :‬ﰲ ﻫـﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﲣﻀﻊ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺮﺷﻠﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺮ ﻟﻠﺤﺮﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺑﻠـﺪ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻀﺮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺴﻜﺔ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺪﻳـﺔ ﳋﻠـﻴﺞ ﺩﻳﻼﻏـﻮﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻨـﺴﺮ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻜﺴﻴﻜﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭ"ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻔﺎﺩﻭﺭﻳﺔ" ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ )"ﺷﺮﻛﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻻ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺯﻭﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﺎﻥ ﺃﻭ ﺣﻘﻮﻗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑـﻞ‬
‫ﺇﻝ ﺗﺮﻳﻮﻧﻔﻮ"(‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﺖ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ‬ ‫ﻳﺒﲔ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﳏﻔﻮﻇﺔ ﻣﺎ ﺩﺍﻣﺖ ﺍﻟﺘـﺼﻔﻴﺔ ﱂ ﲢـﺪﺙ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﲢﺖ ﺍﳊﺮﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻓﻬﻲ ﻣﺎ ﺯﺍﻟﺖ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﻻ ﺗﻮﺣﻲ ﺑﻮﺟﻮﺏ ﺣﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺛﻠﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﻬﻨﺎﻙ ﺑﻼ ﺷﻚ ﺣﺎﺟﺔ ﻣﺎﺳﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﰲ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ")‪ .(١٣٥‬ﻓﺎﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ "ﺗﻮﻟﺪ" ﰲ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗُﻨـﺸﺄ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﺭﺩﺕ ﺣﻜﻮﻣﺔ ﺍﳌﻤﻠﻜﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺠﺔ ﺍﳌﻜﺴﻴﻚ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺗﺆﺳﺲ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻌﻜﺲ ﻓﺈﻬﻧﺎ "ﲤﻮﺕ" ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗُﺼﻔﻲ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﳍـﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻋﻄﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟـﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺮ ﺍﳌﻜﺴﻴﻜﻲ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﻻ ﳚﻮﺯ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﳘﲔ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺎﻣﻠﲔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘَﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﻣﻜﺴﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﱄ‪:‬‬ ‫ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﻣﺎ ﱂ ﺗﻌﺪ‬
‫ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﺗﻌﺪ ﻗﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻛﻜﻴﺎﻥ ﺷـﺮﻛﺔ‪ ،‬ﳚـﺐ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﻗﹸﺒﻞ ﺑﺎﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺿﻲ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺣﻜﻮﻣﺔ ﻣﺎ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﺍﻳـﺔﹰ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﲡﻌـﻞ‬ ‫ﻳﻘﺮﺭﻫﺎ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﹸﺳﺴﺖ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﳌﺼﺎﱀ ﺍﻷﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺃﺭﺍﺿﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﺘﻮﻗﻔﹰﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺴﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻘـﺎﻧﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﶈﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﰒ ﺗﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﺇﱃ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﻛﻤﱪﺭ ﻟـﺮﻓﺾ ﺍﻟﺘـﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻲ‬ ‫)‪ (٧‬ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ "ﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﻻ ﺻﻠﺔ ﻟـﻪ ﺑﺎﻟـﻀﺮﺭ" ﻫـﻮ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺟﻨﱯ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺿﺢ ﺃﻬﻧﺎ ﻟﻦ ﺗﻌﺪﻡ ﺃﺑﺪﹰﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲤ ﱢﻜﻨـﻬﺎ ﻣـﻦ ﻣﻨـﻊ‬ ‫ﺿﻤﺎﻥ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺡ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﺑﺮﻓﻊ ﺩﻋﻮﻯ ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻜﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺣﻘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﺑﺖ ﲟﻘﺘﻀﻰ ﺍﻟﻘـﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟـﺪﻭﱄ ﰲ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳊﻖ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺳﺒﺐ ﺯﻭﺍﳍﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﻫـﻮ ﺍﳊـﻖ‬
‫ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﺼﺎﱀ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ)‪.(١٣٧‬‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‪ ،‬ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﻣـﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌـﺎﺩﺓ ‪.١٠‬‬
‫__________‬ ‫ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﻟﻦ ﺗﺘﻤﻜﻦ ﻣـﻦ ﳑﺎﺭﺳـﺔ‬
‫)‪ (١٣٦‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪) Delagoa Bay Railway Company‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٢٩‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(؛‬ ‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺇﻻ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﲝﻤﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻋﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻣﻦ‬
‫‪Mexican Eagle (El Aguila), M. M. Whiteman, Digest of International‬‬ ‫ﻭ‬
‫‪Romano-Americano, G. H.‬‬ ‫‪Law, vol. 8 (1967), pp. 1272–1274‬؛ ﻭ‬ ‫__________‬
‫‪ ،Hackworth‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﳌﺬﻛﻮﺭ )ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٦٤‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑـﻊ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪٨٤١‬؛‬ ‫)‪ (١٣١‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٤١‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٦٦‬‬
‫ﻭ ‪"Salvador Commercial Company" et al. ("El Triunfo Company"), Award‬‬ ‫)‪ (١٣٢‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ؛ ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺃﻳﲔ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻘﻠﲔ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﺿﻴﲔ ﺑﺎﺩﻳﺎ ﻧﲑﻓﻮ‬
‫‪of 8 May 1902, UNRIAA, vol. XV (Sales No. 1966.V.3), p. 455, at p.‬‬
‫)‪) (Padilla Nervo‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ (٢٥٦‬ﻭﻋﻤﻮﻥ )‪) (Ammoun‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ‬
‫‪467‬؛ ﻭ ‪The Deutsche Amerikanische Petroleum Gesellschaft Oil Tankers,‬‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.(٣٢٠-٣١٩‬‬
‫‪Award of 5 August 1926, ibid., vol. II (Sales. No. 1949.V.1), p. 777, at p.‬‬
‫)‪ (١٣٣‬ﺍﻧﻈـﺮ ‪Agrotexim and others v. Greece, Decision of 24‬‬
‫‪ .790‬ﻭﻟﻼﻃﻼﻉ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺷﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪) Caflisch‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ‬
‫ﺍﳌـﺬﻛﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷـﻴﺔ ‪ ١١٦‬ﺃﻋـﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﻭ ‪J. M. Jones, “Claims on behalf of‬‬
‫‪October 1995, European Court of Human Rights, Series A, No. 330-A,‬‬
‫‪.p. 25, para. 68‬‬
‫‪nationals who are shareholders in foreign companies”, BYBIL, vol. 26‬‬
‫‪E. Jiménez de Aréchaga, “International‬‬ ‫‪ .(1949), p. 225‬ﻭﺍﻧﻈـﺮ ﺃﻳـﻀﹰﺎ‪:‬‬ ‫)‪ (١٣٤‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪) Barcelona Traction, Second Phase, Judgment‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ‬
‫‪responsibility”, in Max Sørensen (ed.), Manual of Public International‬‬ ‫‪ ٣٥‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٤٠‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ .٦٥‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺃﻳﲔ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻘﻠﲔ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﺿـﻴﲔ‬
‫‪.Law, London, Macmillan, 1968, pp. 531 et seq., at pp. 580–581‬‬ ‫ﻓﻴﺘﺴﻤﻮﺭﻳﺲ )‪) (Firzmaurice‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ (٧٥‬ﻭﺟﻴﺴﻮﺏ )‪(Jessup‬‬
‫)‪ ،Whiteman (١٣٧‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﳌﺬﻛﻮﺭ )ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٣٦‬ﺃﻋـﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪-١٢٧٣‬‬ ‫)ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪.(١٩٤ ،‬‬
‫‪.١٢٧٤‬‬ ‫)‪ (١٣٥‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٤١‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٦٧‬‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺇﳊﺎﻕ ﺿﺮﺭ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ)‪ .(١٤٨‬ﻭﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺇﻟﺴﻲ)‪ (١٤٩‬ﲰﺤـﺖ‬ ‫)‪ (١٠‬ﻭﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺮﺷﻠﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺮ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﺇﺳﺒﺎﻧﻴﺎ ﻭﻫـﻲ‬
‫ﺇﺣﺪﻯ ﺩﻭﺍﺋﺮ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤـﺪﺓ ﺑﺘﻘـﺪﱘ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨـﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟـﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﳌـﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺿﺪ ﺇﻳﻄﺎﻟﻴﺎ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻷﺿﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳊﻘـﺖ ﺑـﺸﺮﻛﺔ‬ ‫ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ ﻗﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ ﻣﻌﺮﻭﺿﹰﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻊ‬
‫ﺇﻳﻄﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﲤﻠﻚ ﺃﺳﻬﻤﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﺷﺮﻛﺘﺎﻥ ﺃﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺘـﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﻔـﺎﺩﺕ‬ ‫ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﺷﺎﺭﺕ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﺎﺑﺮﺓ ﺇﱃ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﺇﺑﺪﺍﺀ ﺭﺃﻱ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻣﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺑﲔ ﺣﻜﻤﻬـﺎ ﻭﺍﳊﻜـﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺮﺷﻠﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺮ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﻘﺘﺮﺡ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﲤﺎﻣﹰﺎ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺭُﺋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻹﻧـﺼﺎﻑ‪ ،‬ﺃﻧـﻪ‬
‫ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻄﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﳊـﺎﻻﺕ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘـﻮﱃ ﲪﺎﻳـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﱂ ﻳﺒﺖ ﻓﻴﻪ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺮﺷﻠﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣـﻦ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﰲ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﻭﻗﻌﺖ ﺿﺤﻴﺔ ﺍﻧﺘﻬﺎﻙ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟـﺪﻭﱄ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻳﻄﺎﻟﻴﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺿﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟـﱵ ﻳـﺪﻋﻰ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻧﺸﺄﺕ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﲤﻨﺢ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﺣﻖ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺣﻘﻮﻗﻬﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺍﻧﺘﻬﻜﺖ ﺗﺄﺳﺴﺖ ﰲ ﺇﻳﻄﺎﻟﻴﺎ ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤـﺪﺓ‬ ‫ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳُﺤﺘﺞ ﲟﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﻳﹰﺎ ﻛﺎﻧـﺖ‬
‫ﺗﺴﻌﻰ ﺇﱃ ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ)‪ .(١٥٠‬ﻭﳝﻜـﻦ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﻦ ﺍﳌﺆﻛﺪ ﺃﻬﻧﺎ ﻻ ﺗﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺇﺳﺒﺎﻧﻴﺎ‬
‫ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺼﻤﺖ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺩﺍﺋﺮﺓ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﻣﻌﻨﻴﺔ ﺑﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‬ ‫ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺮﺷﻠﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺮ)‪.(١٣٨‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰲ ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﻌﻨﻴﺔ ﺑﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﻣﻌﺎﻫﺪﺓ ﺛﻨﺎﺋﻴـﺔ ﻟﻠـﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ‬ ‫)‪(١٤١‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﻼﺣﺔ)‪ (١٥١‬ﺗﻨﺺ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻮﻓﲑ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﳊﻤﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﺃﻋﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺓ ﻓﻴﺘﺴﻤﻮﺭﻳﺲ)‪ (١٣٩‬ﻭﺗﻨﺎﻛﺎ)‪ (١٤٠‬ﻭﺟﻴﺴﻮﺏ‬
‫ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﰲ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﰲ ﺁﺭﺍﺋﻬﻢ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻘﻠﺔ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺮﺷﻠﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺗﺄﻳﻴـﺪﻫﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺿﺢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﻘﺘﺮﺡ ﻣﻌﺮﻭﺽ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﺮﺓ)‪ .(١٥٢‬ﻭﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﳊﻖ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗُﻠﺤﻖ‬
‫ﻳﺴﺘﻨﺘﺞ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﻋﻢ ﻟﻼﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﺆﻳﺪ ﳊﻖ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ‬ ‫ـﺴﻠﻴﻢ‬ ‫ـﻊ ﺗـ‬‫ـﺸﺮﻛﺔ)‪ .(١٤٢‬ﻭﻣـ‬ ‫ـﺮﺭﹰﺍ ﺑﺎﻟـ‬
‫ـﻴﺲ ﺿـ‬ ‫ـﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳـ‬‫ﺩﻭﻟـ‬
‫)‪(١٤٤‬‬ ‫)‪(١٤٣‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﺿﺪ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ‬ ‫ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﳊﺎﺟﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻗﺎﻋﺪ ﻛﻬـﺬﻩ‬ ‫ﻭﺟﻴﺴﻮﺏ‬ ‫ﻓﻴﺘﺴﻤﻮﺭﻳﺲ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺇﳊﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ)‪.(١٥٣‬‬ ‫ﻫﻲ ﺣﺎﺟﺔ ﻗﻮﻳﺔ ﺟﺪﹰﺍ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﺷﺮﻃﹰﺎ ﻣﺴﺒﻘﹰﺎ ﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺃﻳﹰﺎ ﻣﻨـﻬﻤﺎ ﱂ ﻳﻜـﻦ‬
‫)‪ (١٢‬ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺗﺄﻳﻴﺪ ﻟﻼﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﻘﺘﺮﺡ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ‬ ‫ﻣﺴﺘﻌﺪﹰﺍ ﳉﻌﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻣﻘﺘﺼﺮﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻈـﺮﻭﻑ‪ .‬ﻭﰲ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺷﻠﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺮ ﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻵﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﻧﻘﺴﻤﺖ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ‬ ‫)‪(١٤٦‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻘﺎﺑﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﻘـﻀﺎﺓ ﺑﺎﺩﻳـﺎ ﻧﲑﻓـﻮ)‪ (١٤٥‬ﻭﻣـﻮﺭﻟﻠﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻭﻗﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻴﻢ ﺗﻌﺘﺮﻑ ﺑﻪ ﺃﻭ ﺑـﺸﺄﻥ ﻣـﺪﻯ ﻫـﺬﺍ‬ ‫ﻭﻋﻤﻮﻥ)‪ (١٤٧‬ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺍﺿﹰﺎ ﺷﺪﻳﺪﹰﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺮﺍﻑ ﺇﻥ ﻭُﺟﺪ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻗﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻴﻢ ﺃﻛﺪﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﰲ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻬﻧﺎ ﻛﺜﲑﹰﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﺎﺕ‬ ‫)‪ (١١‬ﻭﰲ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺮﺷﻠﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺮ ﺣـﺪﺛﺖ‬
‫ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﲤﻨﺢ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻌﻮﻳﺾ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﻻﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﻘﺘﺮﺡ ﰲ ﺳﻴﺎﻕ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻫﺪﺍﺕ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﺭﺟﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻣﻦ ﰒ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﺗﻨ ّﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﻭﱃ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﺸﲑ ﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺇﱃ ﺗﺄﻳﻴﺪ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺟﻮﺍﺯ ﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﺣﺎﻣﻠﻲ‬
‫__________‬
‫ﺃﺳﻬﻢ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﻣﺎ ﺿﺪ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﺔ‬
‫‪SEDCO Inc. v. National Iranian Oil Company and the‬‬ ‫)‪ (١٤٨‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ‬
‫‪Islamic Republic of Iran, Case No. 129 of 24 October 1985, ILR, vol.‬‬
‫‪) 84 (1991), pp. 484 and 496‬ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )‪ (٢‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟـﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﻣـﻦ‬ ‫__________‬
‫ﺇﻋﻼﻥ ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ ﺑـﺸﺄﻥ ﺗـﺴﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒـﺎﺕ(؛ ﻭ ‪Liberian Eastern Timber‬‬ ‫)‪) Barcelona Traction, Second Phase, Judgment (١٣٨‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪٣٥‬‬
‫‪Corporation (LETCO) v. The Government of the Republic of Liberia,‬‬ ‫ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٤٨‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٩٢‬‬
‫‪) ILM, vol. 26 (1987), pp. 647 and 652–654‬ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٢٥‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ‬ ‫)‪ (١٣٩‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.٧٥-٧٢‬‬
‫ﺗﺴﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﺯﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺷﺌﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻭﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ(‪.‬‬ ‫)‪ (١٤٠‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.١٣٤‬‬
‫)‪Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports (١٤٩‬‬ ‫)‪ (١٤١‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.١٩٣-١٩١‬‬
‫‪.1989, p. 15‬‬
‫)‪ (١٤٢‬ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺃﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺿﻲ ﻭﻟﻨﻐﺘﻮﻥ ﻛـﻮ )‪ (Wellington Koo‬ﻫـﺬﺍ‬
‫)‪ (١٥٠‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٦٤‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ،١٠٦‬ﻭﺹ ‪ ،٧٩‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.١٣٢‬‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻮﻗﻒ ﰲ ﻗـﻀﻴﺔ ‪Case concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and‬‬
‫)‪ (١٥١‬ﻭُﻗﻌﺖ ﰲ ﺭﻭﻣﺎ ﰲ ‪ ٢‬ﺷﺒﺎﻁ‪/‬ﻓﱪﺍﻳﺮ ‪United Nations, ) ١٩٤٨‬‬ ‫‪Power Company Limited, Preliminary Objections, I.C.J. Reports 1964,‬‬
‫‪.(Treaty Series, vol. 79, No. 1040, p. 171‬‬ ‫‪.p. 6, at p. 58, para. 20‬‬
‫)‪ (١٥٢‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺒﺎﺩﻝ ﺍﻵﺭﺍﺀ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ‪) ELSI‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪١٤٩‬‬ ‫)‪) Barcelona Traction, Second Phase, Judgment (١٤٣‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪٣٥‬‬
‫ﺃﻋﻼﻩ( ﺑـﲔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺿـﻲ ﺃﻭﺩﺍ )‪) (Oda‬ﺹ ‪ (٨٨-٨٧‬ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺎﺿـﻲ ﺷـﻮﻳﺒﻞ‬ ‫ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٧٣‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺗﺎﻥ ‪.١٦-١٥‬‬
‫)‪) (Schwebel‬ﺹ ‪ (٩٤‬ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ‪.‬‬ ‫)‪ (١٤٤‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.١٩٢-١٩١‬‬
‫)‪ (١٥٣‬ﺃﻋﺮﺏ ﻋﻦ ﻫـﺬﺍ ﺍﻟـﺮﺃﻱ ‪ Yoram Dinstein‬ﰲ‪“Diplomatic :‬‬
‫)‪ (١٤٥‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.٢٥٩-٢٥٧‬‬
‫‪protection of companies under international law”, in K. Wellens (ed.),‬‬
‫‪International Law: Theory and Practice – Essays in Honour of Eric‬‬
‫)‪ (١٤٦‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.٢٤١-٢٤٠‬‬
‫‪.Suy, The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1998, pp. 505 et seq., at p. 512‬‬ ‫)‪ (١٤٧‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.٣١٨‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻮﺟﻪ ﺿﺪ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻭﺣﺪﻫﺎ ﻭﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻧﺘﻬﺎﻛﹰﺎ ﻟﺘﻠـﻚ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰲ)‪ .(١٥٤‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺆﻛﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻣﻼﺣﻈﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘـﻀﺎﺓ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﻻ ﺗﺘﺮﺗﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﲡﺎﻩ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﺣـﱴ ﻭﻟـﻮ ﺗـﺄﺛﺮﺕ‬ ‫ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺮﺷـﻠﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺠـﺮ ﻭﺍﻵﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﳌـﺴﺘﻘﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﻘـﻀﺎﺓ‬
‫ﻣﺼﻠﺤﺘﻬﻢ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ‪ [...] .‬ﻭﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﳌﺸﺘﻜﻰ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻣﻮﺟﻬﹰﺎ‬ ‫ﻓﻴﺘﺴﻤﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﻭﺟﻴﺴﻮﺏ ﻭﺗﺎﻧﺎﻛﺎ ﺩﻋﻤﺖ ﺣﺠﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻭﻑ ﺟﻴﺪﹰﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻟﻚ ﺣﻘﻮﻗﹰﺎ ﳝﻨﺤﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺆﻳﺪﺓ ﻟﻼﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﻛﺪﺕ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﲡﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻼﺣﻘـﺔ ﻭﺇﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﶈﻠﻲ ﳊﻤﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﳌﻤﻨﻮﺣﺔ ﻟﻠﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻭﺗﺸﻤﻞ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﺣﺼﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺭﺑﺎﺡ ﺍﳌﻌﻠﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﻖ ﺣـﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋـﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣـﺔ‬ ‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﺪ ﺟﺮﺕ ﰲ ﺳﻴﺎﻕ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻫـﺪﺍﺕ)‪ .(١٥٥‬ﻭﰲ ﻫـﺬﻩ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺼﻮﻳﺖ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﻧﺼﻴﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺻﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﺘﺒﻘﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺼﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﺒﲏ ﺍﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ ﻋـﺎﻡ ﺍﺳـﺘﻨﺎﺩﹰﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻵﺭﺍﺀ‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺣﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻟﻪ ﺣﻖ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )ﺏ( ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١١‬ﻻ ﺗﺬﻫﺐ ﺑﻌﻴﺪﹰﺍ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻞ ﰲ ﺍﲣﺎﺫ ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ)‪.(١٥٧‬‬ ‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﺪ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﺪ ﹰﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﲢﺼﺮ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻭﺻـﻒ ﺑﺄﻧـﻪ‬
‫"ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﻛﺎﻟﻔﻮ"‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﻳﺮﻣﻲ ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻠﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊـﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧﻪ ﱂ ﻳُﻄﻠﺐ ﺇﱃ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﳌﻀﻲ ﻗﺪﻣﹰﺎ ﰲ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﻧﻈﺮﹰﺍ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟ "ﺷﺮﻁ ﻛﺎﻟﻔﻮ")‪ ،(١٥٦‬ﺇﱃ ﲪﺎﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﻘـﺎﻧﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻷﻥ ﺑﻠﺠﻴﻜﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻭﺿﺤﺖ ﺃﻬﻧﺎ ﻻ ﺗﺆﺳﺲ ﺩﻋﻮﺍﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻌ ٍﺪ ﻋﻠـﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﲢﺼﺮ ﺍﻻﺳـﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﳊﻤﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﲢﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻭﻗﺖ ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺍﻟـﻀﺮﺭ‬
‫)‪ (٢‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﳊﻤﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﻗﺪ‬ ‫)ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﲰﺔ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﺪﻳﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ(‪ ،‬ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟـﱵ ﻳـﺪﻋﻰ ﺃﻬﻧـﺎ‬
‫ﻋُﺮﺿﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﺍﺋﺮﺓ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺇﻟﺴﻲ)‪ ،(١٥٨‬ﺇﻻ‬ ‫ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﺒﺐ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻧﻪ ﰲ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﺣـﻖ‬ ‫ﻣﻄﻠﻮﺑﹰﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺘﻬﺎ ﻛﺸﺮﻁ ﻣﺴﺒﻖ ﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﰲ ﺗﻨﻈﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻭﻣﺮﺍﻗﺒﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﺇﺩﺍﺭﻬﺗﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣـﺬﻛﻮﺭﺓ ﰲ‬ ‫ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﻱ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﺺ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟـﻮﺏ‬
‫ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﻼﺣﺔ)‪ (١٥٩‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻃﹸﻠﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟـﺪﺍﺋﺮﺓ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ‪ .‬ﻓﻬﻨﺎﻙ ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻟﺰﺍﻡ ﻗﺪ "ﺗﻔﺮﺽ" ﻋﻠـﻰ‬
‫ﺗﻔﺴﲑﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﺗﻔﺴﺮ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﺮﺓ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺑـﺸﺄﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﺄﺳﺲ ﰲ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ‪ .‬ﻭﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺃﻏﺮﻭﺗﻜﺴﻴﻢ)‪ (١٦٠‬ﺍﻋﺘﺮﻓﺖ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺑﻴﺔ‬
‫ﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﺜﻠﻤﺎ ﻓﻌﻠﺖ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴـﺔ ﰲ ﻗـﻀﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -١٢‬ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻠﺤﻖ ﲝﻤﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ‬
‫ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺮﺷﻠﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺮ ﲝﻖ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠـﻖ‬ ‫ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﺎ ﻳُﻠﺤﻖ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ ﺿـﺮﺭﹰﺍ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻻﻧﺘﻬﺎﻙ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﳊﻘﻮﻗﻬﻢ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺣﻜﻤﺖ ﺑﻌﺪﻡ ﺣﺪﻭﺙ ﻫـﺬﺍ‬ ‫ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﹰﺍ ﲝﻘﻮﻕ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﺑﺼﻔﺘﻬﻢ ﻫﺬﻩ‪ ،‬ﲤﻴﻴﺰﹰﺍ ﳍﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻧﺘﻬﺎﻙ ﰲ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ)‪.(١٦١‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﳛﻖ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻷﻱ ﻭﺍﺣـﺪ ﻣـﻦ ﲪﻠـﺔ‬
‫)‪ (٣‬ﻭﻻ ﳛﺎﻭﻝ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١٢‬ﺇﻳﺮﺍﺩ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺷﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﲝﻘﻮﻕ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﲤﻴﻴﺰﹰﺍ ﳍﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺫﻛـﺮﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ‬
‫ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺮﺷﻠﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺠـﺮ ﺃﻭﺿـ َﺢ‬
‫ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺣﺎﻣﻠﻲ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ )ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﻧﺼﻴﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺭﺑـﺎﺡ ﺍﳌﻌﻠﻨـﺔ‪،‬‬ ‫)‪ (١‬ﺳﻠﹼﻤﺖ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺮﺷﻠﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺮ ﺑﺄﻫﻠﻴﺔ ﲪﻠﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺼﻮﻳﺖ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﻟﻠﺤﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﺘﺄﺛﺮ ﻣﺼﺎﳊﻬﻢ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﰲ ﻗﻮﳍﺎ‪:‬‬
‫ﻧﺼﻴﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺻﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﺘﺒﻘﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺼﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ( ﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻭﺿﺤﺖ‬ ‫__________‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺷﺎﻣﻠﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﻌﲏ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳُﺘﺮﻙ ﻟﻠﻤﺤﺎﻛﻢ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫)‪ (١٥٤‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﺎ ﺃﻋﺮﺑﺖ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺩ ﺑـﺸﺄﻥ‬
‫ﲢﺪﺩ ﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﻗﺎﺋﻊ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻳﺔ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻘـﻮﻕ‪ .‬ﺇﻻ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻴﺔ )ﺏ( ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١١‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻘـﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﳌﻼﺣﻈـﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﻳﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﻓﺎﺻﻠﺔ ﻭﺍﺿـﺤﺔ ﺑـﲔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺭﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻜﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺪﻬﺗﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ‬
‫ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﻭﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺳﻴﻤﺎ ﻓﻴﻤـﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠـﻖ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﻭﱃ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ ‪ A/CN.4/561‬ﻭ‪) Add.1-2‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٢٨‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﳊﻖ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﰲ ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﻭﺟﻮﺏ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ‬ ‫)‪ (١٥٥‬ﺗﻨﺺ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ١٩٨٥‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻄﺒﻘﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﻤﻠﻜـﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺤـﺪﺓ ﻋﻠـﻰ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١٢‬ﺗﻔﺴﲑﹰﺍ ﺿﻴﻘﹰﺎ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺗﺆﻛﺪﻩ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺗﺎ "ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ "ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻷﺣﺪ ]ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﳌﻤﻠﻜﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ[ ﻣﺼﻠﺤﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﺤﺎﻣﻞ ﺃﺳﻬﻢ ﺃﻭ ﻏﲑ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺃﹸﺳﺴﺖ ﰲ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻭﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺑـﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺑﺼﻔﺘﻬﻢ ﻫﺬﻩ" ﻭ"ﲤﻴﻴﺰﹰﺍ ﳍﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ"‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗُﻠﺤﻖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺿﺮﺭﹰﺍ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‪ ،‬ﳚـﻮﺯ ]ﳊﻜﻮﻣـﺔ ﺻـﺎﺣﺒﺔ‬
‫__________‬ ‫ﺍﳉﻼﻟﺔ[ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﻣﺼﺎﱀ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ]ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﻴﺘﻬﺎ[" )ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺳﺔ(‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﹸﻋﻴﺪﺕ ﻃﺒﺎﻋـﺔ ﻫـﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋـﺪ ﰲ‪International and Comparative Law :‬‬
‫)‪) Barcelona Traction, Second Phase, Judgment (١٥٧‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪٣٥‬‬
‫ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٣٦‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺗﺎﻥ ‪.٤٧-٤٦‬‬ ‫‪ ،Quarterly, vol. 37 (1988), p. 1007‬ﻭﻫـﻲ ﺗـﺮﺩ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺮﻓـﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻘـﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﻼﺣﻈﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺭﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻜﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺪﻬﺗﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﰲ‬
‫)‪ (١٥٨‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٤٩‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ ‪ A/CN.4/561‬ﻭ‪) Add.1-2‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٢٨‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪.‬‬
‫)‪ (١٥٩‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٥١‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪.‬‬ ‫)‪ُ (١٥٦‬ﺳﻤﱢﻲ ﺑﺎﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﺍﻷﺭﺟﻨﺘﻴﲏ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭﺯ ﻛﺎﺭﻟﻮﺱ ﻛـﺎﻟﻔﻮ‬
‫)‪) Agrotexim and others v. Greece (١٦٠‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٣٣‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪.‬‬ ‫)‪ .(١٩٠٦-١٨٢٤‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،١٩٥٦‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ ‪،A/CN.4/96‬‬
‫)‪ (١٦١‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٢٣‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٦٢‬‬ ‫ﺹ ‪.٢٠٨-٢٠٦‬‬
‫ﺍﻣﺘﻴﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﺘﱪﻫـﺎ‬ ‫)‪ (٤‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﻮﺿﺢ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١٢‬ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳚﺐ‬
‫ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﺍﻓﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﺷﺨﺼﹰﺎ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻴﹰﺎ‪ ،‬ﺭﻫﻨﹰﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻴﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻔﺮﺿﻬﺎ‬ ‫ﺃﻥ ﳛﺪﺩ ﺍﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﺣﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﲤﻴﻴﺰﹰﺍ ﻟــﻪ ﻋـﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻧﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﺗﺬﻫﺐ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳـﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﻴـﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﳛﺪﺩﻫﺎ ﰲ ﻣﻌﻈﻢ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﶈﻠﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻱ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﻭﻻ ﻳﺘﻮﻗﻒ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﺈﺫﺍ‬ ‫ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ‪ .‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻣﺆﺳﺴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺗﺼﺮﻑ ﺃﻱ ﺍﲢﺎﺩ ﺃﻭ ﻫﻴﺌﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻪ ﻛﻴﺎﻧـﹰﺎ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳـﹰﺎ‬ ‫ﻣﺮﺗﻜﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻉ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﳚﻮﺯ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺴﻚ ﺑﺎﳌﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣـﺔ‬
‫ﻼ‪ ،‬ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺷﺨﺼﹰﺎ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﹰﺎ‪ ،‬ﲜﻤﻴﻊ ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺼﻪ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭﻥ ﺣﺎﺟﺔ ﺇﱃ‬ ‫ﻣﺴﺘﻘ ﹰ‬ ‫ﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﺑﻐﻴﺔ ﺿﻤﺎﻥ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺗﻌﺮﺽ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﲤﻨﺤﻪ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﺰﺍﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳـﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﳌﻌﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﲤﻴﻴﺰﻳﺔ)‪.(١٦٢‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺿﺢ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻱ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﳍﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﲢﺼﻞ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﻘـﺎﻧﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -١٣‬ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﻮﻥ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺍﻑ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻧﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﺷﺪﺩﺕ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‬ ‫ﺗﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺭﺩﺓ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﻀﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺑﻴﺔ)‪ (١٦٣‬ﻭﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ)‪.(١٦٤‬‬ ‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻸﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ ﺧﻼﻑ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ‪.‬‬
‫)‪ (٤‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ ﻫﻢ ﺃﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ‬
‫ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﶈﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻭﺍﺳﻌﺔ ﻣـﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ ﲞﺼﺎﺋﺺ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﲟﺎ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ‪،‬‬ ‫)‪ (١‬ﺭﻛﺰﺕ ﺃﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺣﱴ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻮﻉ ﳏﺪﺩ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣـﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌـﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌـﺪﺍﺭﺱ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﺆﺳـﺴﺎﺕ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺃﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟـﺬﻟﻚ ﺗﻔـﺴﲑﺍﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻨﺎﺋﺲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻠﺪﻳﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻻﲢﺎﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﻬﺗـﺪﻑ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟـﺮﺑﺢ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻓﺄﻭﻻﹰ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﻟﻠﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺣﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﺧﻼﻓـﹰﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳊﻜﻮﻣﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﱴ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﺍﻛﺎﺕ )ﰲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺪﺍﻥ(‪.‬‬ ‫ﻟﻐﲑﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ‪ :‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﻬﺗﺪﻑ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺮﺑﺢ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺇﳚﺎﺩ ﻣﻼﻣﺢ ﻣﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ ﻣﻮﺣﺪﺓ ﺑـﲔ ﲨﻴـﻊ ﻫـﺆﻻﺀ‬ ‫ﻭﻳﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﺭﺃﲰﺎﳍﺎ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﹰﺎ ﰲ ﺃﺳﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﲤﻴﻴﺰ ﺻﺎﺭﻡ ﺑـﲔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ ﺗﻮﻓﺮ ﺗﻔﺴﲑﹰﺍ ﻟﻜﻮﻥ ﻣَﻦ ﻳﻜﺘﺒﻮﻥ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻜﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻘﻞ ﻟﻠﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻭﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﺘﺤﻤﻠﻮﻥ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﺘﺼﺮﻭﻥ ﺇﱃ ﺣﺪ ﻛـﺒﲑ ﻋﻠـﻰ‬ ‫ﳏﺪﻭﺩﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﺛﺎﻧﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺸﺎﺭﻙ ﰲ ﺃﻏﻠﺐ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﰲ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺘﻬﻢ ﻟﻸﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ ﰲ ﺳﻴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻷﺟﻨﱯ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻧﺸﻄﺘﻬﺎ ﻻ ﲢﺮﻙ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‪ .‬ﻭﺭﻏﻢ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻳﻨﺒﻐـﻲ ﺍﻻﻫﺘﻤـﺎﻡ ﰲ ﺳـﻴﺎﻕ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﺤﺴﺐ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﺁﻟﻴﺔ ﺗـﺴﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﺯﻋـﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ ﺧﻼﻑ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﻮﺿﺢ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺎﺕ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻮﺍﺑﻖ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﻤﺔ ﺃﻧﻪ ﳚﻮﺯ ﺍﻋﺘﺒـﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻠﺪﻳﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﺆﺳﺴﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻏﲑﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒـﺎﺭﻳﲔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﹸﻤﻴﻮﻥ)‪) (١٦٥‬ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺪﻳﺔ( ﺃﻭ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ)‪ (١٦٦‬ﰲ ﻇﺮﻭﻑ ﻣﻌﻴﻨـﺔ ﻣـﻦ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﺑﺼﻔﺔ‬
‫__________‬ ‫ﺭﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻷﺟﻨﱯ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻮﺿﺢ ﺳﺒﺐ ﺍﺣـﺘﻼﻝ‬
‫)‪The Queen v. H. M. Treasury and Commissioners of Inland (١٦٣‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻛﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻱ ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﺭﺓ ﰲ ﳎـﺎﻝ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬
‫‪Revenue, ex parte Daily Mail and General Trust plc, Case 81/87,‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﺳﺒﺐ ﻭﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫‪Judgment of the Court of 27 September 1988, European Court of‬‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺣﺪ ﻛﺒﲑ ﻬﺑﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫‪.Justice, European Court Reports 1988, p. 5483, at para. 19‬‬
‫)‪) Barcelona Traction, Second Phase, Judgment (١٦٤‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪٣٥‬‬ ‫)‪ (٢‬ﻭﺗﺸﲑ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ "ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ"‪ ،‬ﲟﻌﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٣٤-٣٣‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٣٨‬‬ ‫ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ "ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ"‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﲏ ﺃﻱ ﻛﺎﺋﻦ ﺃﻭ ﺷﻲﺀ‬
‫)‪ (١٦٥‬ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﳌﺼﺎﱀ ﺍﻷﳌﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺳﻴﻠﻴﺰﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﺔ ﺭﺃﺕ‬ ‫ﺃﻭ ﺍﲢﺎﺩ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺆﺳﺴﺔ ﳝﻨﺤﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺃﻫﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻛﺘﺴﺎﺏ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﻭﲢﻤﻞ‬
‫ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﻤﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻛﹸﻤﻴﻮﻥ "ﺭﺍﺗﻴﺒﻮﺭ" ﻳﻨﺪﺭﺝ ﰲ ﻓﺌﺔ "ﺍﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳـﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻷﳌﺎﻥ" ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﰲ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﳌﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﺔ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺳـﻴﻠﻴﺰﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻴـﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺟﺒﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﳚﻮﺯ ﻷﻱ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﺃﻥ ﳝﻨﺢ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﺔ‬
‫) ‪Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, Merits, Judgment‬‬ ‫ﳌﺎ ﻳﺸﺎﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺃﻭ ﺍﲢﺎﺩﺍﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺃﻱ ﺍﺗﺴﺎﻕ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻮﺣﻴﺪ‬
‫‪.(No. 7, 1926, P.C.I.J. Reports, Series A, No. 7, p. 19, at pp. 73–75‬‬ ‫ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻣﻨﺢ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻗـﺪ ﻭُﻗﻌﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴـﺔ ﰲ ﺟﻨﻴـﻒ ﰲ ‪ ١٥‬ﺃﻳﺎﺭ‪/‬ﻣﺎﻳﻮ ‪) ١٩٢٢‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ‬
‫‪G. Kaeckenbeeck, The International Experiment of Upper Silesia,‬‬ ‫)‪ (٣‬ﻭﲦﺔ ﺟﺪﻝ ﻓﻘﻬﻲ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﺑﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻟﻠﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﺔ‪،‬‬
‫‪.(London, Oxford University Press, 1942, p. 572‬‬ ‫ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ ﺧﺎﺹ‪ ،‬ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﺸﺄ ﻬﺑﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫)‪ (١٦٦‬ﺫﻫﺒﺖ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﻤﺔ ﰲ ﺑﻴـﺎﻥ ﳍـﺎ ﰲ ﻗـﻀﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻭﺗﺬﻫﺐ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻻﻓﺘﺮﺍﺿﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻨـﺸﺄ ﺍﻟﺸﺨـﺼﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﺌﻨﺎﻑ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﻋﻦ ﻫﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻴﻜﻮﺳﻠﻮﻓﺎﻛﻴﺔ ‪ -‬ﺍﳍﻨﻐﺎﺭﻳـﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺇﻻ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺴﻲ ﺭﲰﻲ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫـﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻄﺔ )ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺑﻴﺘﺮ ﺑﺎﺯﻣﺎﱐ( ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺑﻴﺘﺮ ﺑﺎﺯﻣﺎﱐ ﻫﻲ ﻣـﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳـﺎ‬ ‫ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻱ ﻫﻴﺌﺔ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﳝﻜـﻦ ﺃﻥ ﲢـﺼﻞ ﻋﻠـﻰ‬
‫ﻫﻨﻐﺎﺭﻳﺎ ﲟﻘﺘﻀﻰ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٢٥٠‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﻌﺎﻫﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻯ ﺍﳊﻠﻴﻔﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﻜﺔ‬ ‫__________‬
‫ﻭﻫﻨﻐﺎﺭﻳﺎ )ﻣﻌﺎﻫﺪﺓ ﺗﺮﻳﺎﻧﻮﻥ(‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﳍﺎ ﺍﳊﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﰲ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺩﺍﺩ ﺍﳌﻤﺘﻠﻜﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﺗﻌﻮﺩ ﺇﻟﻴﻬـﺎ ) ‪Appeal from a Judgment of the Hungaro/Czechoslovak‬‬ ‫)‪ (١٦٢‬ﺗﻜﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺿﻲ ﺃﻭﺩﺍ )‪ (Oda‬ﰲ ﺭﺃﻳﻪ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻘﻞ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ‪ ELSI‬ﻋﻦ‬
‫‪Mixed Arbitral Tribunal (The Peter Pázmány University), Judgment,‬‬ ‫"ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ" ﰲ ﺳﻴﺎﻕ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳـﻬﻢ‬
‫‪.(1933, P.C.I.J. Reports, Series A/B, No. 61, p. 208, at pp. 227–232‬‬ ‫)ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٤٩‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.٨٨-٨٧‬‬
‫ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻋﻲ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺗﲔ ‪ ٩‬ﻭ‪ .١٠‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟـﺸﺨﺺ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻱ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺃﺳﻬﻢ ﻓﻴﺠﻮﺯ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﺮﻱ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻋﺎ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺗﲔ ‪١١‬‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﺳﺒﺐ ﳛﻮﻝ ﺩﻭﻥ ﻛﻮﻥ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ ﻣﺆﻫﻠﲔ‬
‫ﻭ‪ ١٢‬ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ)‪.(١٦٩‬‬ ‫ﻁ ﺃﻥ‬‫ﻟﻠﺤﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻣﺎ ﳊﻖ ﻬﺑﻢ ﺿﺮﺭ ﰲ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ‪ ،‬ﺷﺮ ﹶ‬
‫ﻳﻜﻮﻧﻮﺍ ﻛﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻠﺔ ﻻ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﺟﺰﺀﹰﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻬﺰﺓ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟـﱵ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‬ ‫ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ)‪ .(١٦٧‬ﻭﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﳌﺆﺳﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﺗﺴﺘﻬﺪﻑ ﺍﻟﺮﺑﺢ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﺪﻳﻬﺎ ﺃﺻﻮﻝ ﺧﺼﺼﺘﻬﺎ ﺟﻬﺔ ﻣﺎﳓﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﻭﺻﻴﺔ ﻟﻐـﺮﺽ‬
‫ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺧﲑﻱ‪ ،‬ﺃﺷﺨﺎﺻﹰﺎ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺃﻋـﻀﺎﺀ‪ .‬ﺇﺫ ﺗﻘـﻮﻡ ﺣﺎﻟﻴـﹰﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -١٤‬ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻣﺆﺳﺴﺎﺕ ﻋﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﺑﺘﻤﻮﻳﻞ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﰲ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ ﻟﺘﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﺍﻟـﺼﺤﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻓﺎﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻴﺌـﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﻠـﺪﺍﻥ‬
‫‪ -١‬ﻻ ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴـﺔ ﻓﻴﻤـﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻌﺮﱠﺽ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﻮﻥ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻤـﻞ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻀﺮﺭ ﳊﻖ ﺑﺄﺣﺪ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫـﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺑـﺸﺨﺺ ﺁﺧـﺮ ﻣـﻦ‬ ‫ﻏﲑ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻀﻴﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﳛﺘﻤﻞ ﺃﻥ ﲤﻨﺤﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﺭ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﻢ ﰲ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٨‬ﻗﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻧﺸﺌﺖ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﲪﺎﻳـﺔ ﺩﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺒـﺪﻭ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻗﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺪ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘـﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴـﺔ‪ ،‬ﺭﻫﻨـﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳊﻜﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﳋﺪﻣﺔ ﻗﻀﺎﻳﺎ ﻧﺒﻴﻠﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ‬
‫ﲟﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪.١٥‬‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺪﺭﺝ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻔﺌﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺆﺳﺴﺎﺕ)‪.(١٦٨‬‬
‫‪ -٢‬ﺗﻌﲏ "ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ" ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ‬ ‫)‪ (٥‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﺗﻨﻮﻉ ﺍﻷﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﻭﺍﻟﺒُﲎ ﻟﺪﻯ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺎﺣﺔ ﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻣﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﶈـﺎﻛﻢ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳍﻴﺌـﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺧﻼﻑ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﳚﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ ﺻﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﺃﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﻣـﺴﺘﻘﻠﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻋﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺃﻡ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟـﺔ‬ ‫ﻭﻣﺘﻤﺎﻳﺰﺓ ﺗﻐﻄﻲ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﳌﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺃﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ُﻳﺪّﻋﻰ ﺃﻬﻧﺎ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻌﻞ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﻲ ﻭﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﺣﻜﻤﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺻـﻴﺎﻏﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﻧﺺ ﳚﻌﻞ ﻣﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺘﻤـﺪﺓ‬
‫‪ -٣‬ﺗُﺴﺘﻨﻔﺪ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺗﻘـﺪﱘ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﺗﺸﻤﻞ ﻏﲑﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ‪ ،‬ﺷـﺮﻳﻄﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻃﻠﺐ ﺇﺻﺪﺍﺭ ﺣﻜﻢ ﺗﻔﺴﲑﻱ ﻣﺘﺼﻞ ﺑﺎﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒـﺔ‬ ‫ﺇﺩﺧﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻼﺯﻣﺔ ﻟﻮﺿﻊ ﳐﺘﻠﻒ ﲰﺎﺕ ﻛـﻞ ﺷـﺨﺺ‬
‫ﻳﺴﺘﻨﺪﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻡ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺿﺮﺭ ﳊﻖ ﺑﺄﺣـﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳـﺎ ﺃﻭ‬ ‫ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻱ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺴﺒﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺺ ﺍﳌﻘﺘﺮﺡ ﻳﺴﻌﻰ ﺇﱃ ﲢﻘﻴﻖ ﺫﻟـﻚ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺸﺨﺺ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﺭ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﻢ ﰲ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪.٨‬‬ ‫ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻜﻢ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﻭﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ‬ ‫ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺭﺩﺓ‬
‫ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ‪ ،‬ﺗﻨﻄﺒﻖ "ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻻﻗﺘـﻀﺎﺀ" ﻋﻠـﻰ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬
‫)‪ (١‬ﻳﺴﻌﻰ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١٤‬ﺇﱃ ﺗﺪﻭﻳﻦ ﻗﺎﻋـﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻘـﺎﻧﻮﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻸﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ ﺧﻼﻑ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﻫـﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﻀﻲ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻪ‬ ‫ﺳﻴﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﺼﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﶈﺎﻛﻢ ﰲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻭﻭﻇﺎﺋﻒ‬
‫ﺷﺮﻃﹰﺎ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻴﹰﺎ ﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺳﻠﹼﻤﺖ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻱ ﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛـﺎﻥ ﻫﻨـﺎﻙ "ﺍﻗﺘـﻀﺎﺀ"‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻬﺑﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺇﻧﺘﺮﻫﺎﻧﺪﻝ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ "ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ‬ ‫ﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻧﻈـﺮﺍﹰ ﻷﻥ ﻣﻌﻈـﻢ‬
‫ﺭﺍﺳﺨﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰲ")‪ (١٧٠‬ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺇﺣـﺪﻯ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﻻ ﻳﺸﻤﻠﻮﻥ ﲪﻠﺔ ﺃﺳـﻬﻢ‬
‫ﺩﻭﺍﺋﺮ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺇﻟﺴﻲ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻬﺎ "ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﻫﺎﻣﹰﺎ‬ ‫ﻓﻼ ﳛﺘﻤﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﺣﺴﺐ ﻣﻘﺘﻀﻰ ﺍﳊـﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺳـﻮﻯ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻣﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰲ")‪ .(١٧١‬ﻭﻳﻀﻤﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳـﺒﻞ‬
‫__________‬
‫ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ "ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﺎﺡ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺣﺪﺙ ﻓﻴﻬـﺎ ﺍﻻﻧﺘـﻬﺎﻙ‬
‫)‪ (١٦٧‬ﳌﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺗﻘﺘﺼﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﺷـﺨﺎﺹ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺻﺔ ﳉﱪﻩ ﺑﻮﺳﺎﺋﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ ﻧﻈﺎﻣﻬﺎ ﺍﶈﻠﻲ")‪ .(١٧٢‬ﻭﻗﺪ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﲔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻻ ﻳﺸﻜﻠﻮﻥ ﺟﺰﺀﹰﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻳﺘﺮﺗـﺐ‬
‫ﺳﺒﻖ ﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻈﺮﺕ ﰲ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﰲ ﻣﻌﻈﻢ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺃﻻ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺆﻫﻠـﺔ ﻟﻠﺤﻤﺎﻳـﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺳﻴﺎﻕ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﳍﺎ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻭﺧﻠﺼﺖ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻧﻪ‬ ‫ﻻ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻓﺮﻋﹰﺎ ﳏﻠﻴﹰﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻓﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳊﻜﻮﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗُﻤﻮﻝ‬
‫ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺸﺘﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﻗِﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻭﲣﻀﻊ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻬﻧﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻑ‪ ،‬ﻟﺴﻴﻄﺮﻬﺗﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﺈﻬﻧﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ‬
‫__________‬ ‫ﲢﻈﻰ ﺑﺎﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺗﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﺃﺟﻬـﺰﺓ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟـﺔ‪ .‬ﻏـﲑ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ ﻣﺆﻫﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﺤﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺜﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﺪﺍﺭﺱ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ‬
‫)‪ (١٦٩‬ﺳﻴﺴﺮﻱ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﶈﺪﻭﺩﺓ ﺍﳌـﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻭﻓـﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﲤﺘﻌﺖ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﶈﻠﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﻠﺪﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﺪﱐ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺧﻠﻴﻂ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮﺍﻛﺔ‪.‬‬
‫)‪ (١٦٨‬ﺍﻧﻈـﺮ ﻛـﺬﻟﻚ‪K. Doehring, “Diplomatic protection of :‬‬
‫)‪Interhandel, Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. (١٧٠‬‬
‫‪.Reports 1959, p. 6, at p. 27‬‬ ‫‪non-governmental organizations”, in M. Rama-Montaldo (ed.), El‬‬
‫‪derecho internacional en un mundo en transformación: liber amicorum‬‬
‫)‪) ELSI (١٧١‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٤٩‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٤٢‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٥٠‬‬ ‫‪en homenaje al professor Eduardo Jiménez de Aréchaga, Montevideo,‬‬
‫)‪) Interhandel (١٧٢‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٧٠‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.٢٧‬‬ ‫‪.Fundación Cultura Universitaria, 1994, pp. 571–580‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ ﲟﺎ ﺃﻥ "ﺍﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﲰﺔ ﻻ ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺎﺑﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻱ ﺃﻭ‬ ‫ﺗﺆﻳﺪﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﳑﺎﺭﺳـﺔ ﺍﻟـﺪﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻌﺎﻫـﺪﺍﺕ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺋﻲ ﻟﺴﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﲟﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻴﻞ‬ ‫ﻭﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﻓﻘﻬﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ)‪.(١٧٣‬‬
‫ﻳﺘﻴﺢ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﺼﻮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﱪ ﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﻭﻛﺎﻑ")‪.(١٧٦‬‬
‫)‪ (٢‬ﻭﻳﺘﻌﲔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﲔ ﻭﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ‬
‫)‪ (٥‬ﻭﳚﺐ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻏـﲑ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻮﺍﺀ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳـﺘﻌﲔ ﻋﻠـﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺟﻨﱯ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴـﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻷﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻤﻮﻟﺔ ﺟﺰﺋﻴﹰﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺃﺳﺎﺳـﻲ ﻣـﻦ ﺭﺅﻭﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻔﻀﻲ ﺇﱃ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﻠﺰﻡ‪ .‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﹰﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻤـﺎﺱ‬ ‫ﺃﻣﻮﺍﻝ ﺣﻜﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺘﻌﲔ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺼﺎﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ ﳑﺎﺭﺳـﺘﻬﺎ ﻟـﺴﻠﻄﺎﻬﺗﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﲏ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﹺﺳﺔ ﻟﻠﺤﻤﺎﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﻖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺮﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﺗﺸﻤﻞ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﱵ‬ ‫ﳍﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﺑﺎﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﺼﻮﺹ‬
‫)‪(١٧٧‬‬
‫"ﻳﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﻏﺮﺿﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺼﻮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻴﺰﺓ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺇﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﺣـﻖ"‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ،٨‬ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﺗﺸﻤﻞ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﳌﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻔﻮ)‪ (١٧٨‬ﻣﺎ ﱂ ﻳـﺸﻜﻞ‬
‫ﺷﺮﻃﹰﺎ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻴﹰﺎ ﻟﻘﺒﻮﻝ ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﻗﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻻﺣﻘﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﻨﺪﺭﺝ ﲢﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ‬ ‫)‪ (٣‬ﻭﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ "ﲨﻴﻊ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ" ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗُﻔﻬﻢ ﺭﻫﻨﹰﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺌﺔ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﹰﺎ ﻃﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺃﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﺠﻮﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻣﲔ ﺍﳌﻈﺎﱂ)‪.(١٧٩‬‬ ‫ﲟﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١٥‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺼﻒ ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺽ ﻋﻠﻰ‬‫)‪ (٦‬ﻭﺳﻌﻴﹰﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺇﺭﺳﺎﺀ ﺃﺳﺲ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺮ ﹴ‬
‫ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺃﻥ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺍﺳﺘُﻨﻔﺪﺕ‪ ،‬ﻳـﺘﻌﲔ ﻋﻠـﻰ‬ ‫)‪ (٤‬ﻭﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﳌﺘﺎﺣﺔ ﻟﻸﺟﻨﱯ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﳚﺐ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩﻫﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﻘﺎﺿﻲ ﺍﻷﺟﻨﱯ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺪﻓﻊ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻋﻮﻯ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﳊﺠﺞ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﺣﺘﻤﹰﺎ ﻣـﻦ ﺩﻭﻟـﺔ ﻷﺧـﺮﻯ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻨﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﺪﻓﻊ ﻬﺑﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻌﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺫﻛـﺮﺕ ﺩﺍﺋـﺮﺓ‬ ‫ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻷﻱ ﺗﺪﻭﻳﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﺠﺢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﺔ‬
‫ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺇﻟﺴﻲ ﺃﻧﻪ‪" :‬ﻳﻜﻔﻲ ﻟﻜﻲ ﺗﻜـﻮﻥ‬ ‫ﺗﻨﻈﻢ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﲢﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٢‬ﻭﺻﻒ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻲ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻣﻘﺒﻮﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻗﺪ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻋﻠـﻰ‬ ‫ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﺑﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩﻫﺎ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﻌﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﶈﺎﻛﻢ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﺼﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺘﺎﺑﻌﺘﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺕ ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺴﻤﺢ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻣﺔ)‪ .(١٧٤‬ﻓﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺿﺢ ﺃﻭ ﹰﻻ ﺃﻧﻪ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﺍﻷﺟـﻨﱯ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﻭﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﲢﻘﻖ ﳒﺎﺣﹰﺎ")‪ .(١٨٠‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ‬ ‫ﻳﺴﺘﻨﻔﺪ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﺼﻮﺹ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﻴﺎﺭ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻌﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﺻﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﳌﺬﻛﻮﺭ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻴﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﶈﻠﻲ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﶈﻠﻲ ﺍﳌﻌﲏ ﳚﻴـﺰ‬
‫ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻨﻠﻨﺪﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﺆﺩﺍﻩ ﺃﻧﻪ‪" :‬ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺎﺋﻊ‬ ‫ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺌﻨﺎﻑ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻴﺎ ﰲ ﻇﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﳚﺐ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺪّﻋﻰ ﻬﺑﺎ ﻭﺍﳊﺠﺞ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻜﻮﻣﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ]‪[...‬‬ ‫ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺌﻨﺎﻑ ﻟﻀﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﳊﺼﻮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﻜﻢ ﻬﻧﺎﺋﻲ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ‪ .‬ﻭﺣﱴ‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﺗﻨﺎﻭﻟﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﶈﺎﻛﻢ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﻭﻓﺼﻠﺖ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ")‪.(١٨١‬‬ ‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺌﻨﺎﻑ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺘﺎﺣﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜـﻦ‬
‫ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲤﻨﺢ ﻭﻓﻘﹰﺎ ﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺮﻫﺎ ﺍﻹﺫﻥ ﺑﺎﻻﺳـﺘﺌﻨﺎﻑ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤـﻦ‬
‫__________‬ ‫ﻭﺍﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻷﺟﻨﱯ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻄﻠﺐ ﺍﻹﺫﻥ ﺑﺎﻻﺳﺘﺌﻨﺎﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻠـﻚ‬
‫)‪B. Schouw Nielsen v. Denmark, Application No. 343/57, (١٧٦‬‬ ‫ﻼ ﻣـﻦ ﺍﶈـﺎﻛﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ)‪ .(١٧٥‬ﻭﺗﺸﻤﻞ ﺍﶈﺎﻛﻢ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺩ ﻛ ﹰ‬
‫‪Decision of 2 September 1959, European Commission and European‬‬
‫‪Court of Human Rights, Yearbook of the European Convention on‬‬ ‫__________‬
‫‪ ،Human Rights 1958–1959, p. 348‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻭﺭﺩﺕ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﱃ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻌﻬـﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﻗﻲ ﻗـﺮﺍﺭﻩ ﺍﻟـﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﻋـﺎﻡ ‪Annuaire de ) ١٩٥٤‬‬ ‫)‪ (١٧٣‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٢٢‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﲟﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫‪ .(l’Institut de droit international, vol. 46 (1956), p. 364‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺃﻳـﻀﹰﺎ‪:‬‬ ‫ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺪﻬﺗﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﺑﺼﻔﺔ ﻣﺆﻗﺘﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ‪ ،‬ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،١٩٩٦‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‬
‫‪Lawless v. Ireland, Application No. 332/57, Decision of 30 August‬‬ ‫)ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ(‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻉ ﺩﺍﻝ‪) ١-‬ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺪﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﻣـﺸﺮﻭﻉ‬
‫‪1958, European Commission and European Court of Human Rights,‬‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٢٢‬ﰲ ﺩﻭﺭﻬﺗﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺳﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺮﺩ ﻧﺺ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬـﺎ ﰲ‬
‫‪Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights 1958–1959,‬‬
‫ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،١٩٧٧‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ(‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜـﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔـﺮﻉ ﺑـﺎﺀ‪،‬‬
‫‪.pp. 308 et seq., at pp. 318–322‬‬
‫ﺹ ‪(٥٠-٣٠‬؛ ﻭﺍﳌﺎﺩ ﹶﺓ ‪ ٤٤‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﲟﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻋـﻦ‬
‫)‪De Becker v. Belgium, Application No. 214/56, Decision of (١٧٧‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻋﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺍﻋﺘﻤـﺪﻬﺗﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨـﺔ ﰲ ﺩﻭﺭﻬﺗـﺎ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺜـﺔ‬
‫‪9 June 1958, European Commission and European Court of Human‬‬
‫–‪Rights, Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights 1958‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﳋﻤﺴﲔ‪ ،‬ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،٢٠٠١‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜـﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉـﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜـﺎﱐ( ﻭﺍﻟﺘـﺼﻮﻳﺐ‪،‬‬
‫‪.1959, p. 238‬‬ ‫ﺹ ‪ .١٥٦‬ﻭﻳﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺤﺘﲔ ‪.١٥٧-١٥٦‬‬
‫)‪ (١٧٨‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪Claim of Finnish shipowners against Great Britain in‬‬ ‫)‪ (١٧٤‬ﰲ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺃﻣﺒـﺎﺗﻴﻴﻠﻮﺱ )‪ ،(Ambatielos Claim‬ﺃﻋﻠﻨـﺖ ﻫﻴﺌـﺔ‬
‫‪respect of the use of certain Finnish vessels during the war (“Finnish‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻴﻢ ﺃﻥ "ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻛﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻨﺺ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﲏ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ‬
‫‪Ships Arbitration”), Award of 9 May 1934, UNRIAA, vol. III (Sales No.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻻ ﺑﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻮﺿﻊ ﻣﻮﺿﻊ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ" ) ‪Judgment of 6 March 1956,‬‬
‫‪.1949.V.2), p. 1479‬‬ ‫‪ .(UNRIAA, vol. XII (Sales No. 63.V.3), p. 120‬ﻭﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺑﺼﺪﺩ ﻫـﺬﺍ‬
‫)‪ (١٧٩‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪) Avena‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٢٩‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٦٦-٦٣‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘـﺮﺍﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ‪C. F. Amerasinghe, Local Remedies in International Law, 2nd :‬‬
‫‪.١٤٣-١٣٥‬‬ ‫‪.ed., Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 182–192‬‬
‫)‪) ELSI (١٨٠‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٤٩‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٤٦‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٥٩‬‬ ‫)‪ (١٧٥‬ﻭﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻃﺎﺭ ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﲢﻮﻳﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻋﻮﻯ ﺇﱃ ﺍﶈﻜﻤـﺔ‬
‫)‪) Finnish Ships Arbitration (١٨١‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٧٨‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.١٥٠٢‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻴﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ‪.‬‬
‫)‪ (١٠‬ﻭﻳﺼﻌﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒـﺔ‬ ‫)‪ (٧‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻻ ﺑﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟ ﹸﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻴـﺔ ﻟﺘﺄﻳﻴـﺪ ﺟـﻮﻫﺮ‬
‫"ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ" ﺃﻭ "ﻏﲑ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ" ﰲ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ "ﻣﺰﳚﹰﺎ" ﺑﲔ‬ ‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺘﻬﺎ ﲨﻴ َﻊ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺎﺣﺔ ﻟﺪﻳﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺇﻃـﺎﺭ ﺍﺳـﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳـﺒﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺛﻨﲔ‪ ،‬ﲟﻌﲎ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮﻫﺎ ﺗﺸﺘﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺿﺮﺍﺭ ﳊﻘـﺖ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻭﻟـﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ)‪ .(١٨٢‬ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺳـﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘـﺼﺎﻑ‬
‫ﻭﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﳊﻘﺖ ﺑﺮﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﲤﻴﺰﺕ ﻣﻨﺎﺯﻋﺎﺕ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ ﻋﺮﺿﺖ ﻋﻠـﻰ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻮﻓﺮﻩ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﺪﺍﺭﻙ ﻗﹸﺼﻮﺭ ﺣﺪﺙ ﰲ‬
‫ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺑﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻄـﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻔـﻲ ﻗـﻀﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺇﻋﺪﺍﺩ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﶈﻠﻲ)‪.(١٨٣‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﻇﻔﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻨﺼﻠﻴﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺑﻌﻮﻥ ﻟﻠﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﰲ‬
‫ﻃﻬﺮﺍﻥ)‪ ،(١٩٠‬ﺃﺧﻠﺖ ﲨﻬﻮﺭﻳﺔ ﺇﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻣﻴﺔ ﺇﺧـﻼ ﹰﻻ ﻣﺒﺎﺷـﺮﹰﺍ‬ ‫)‪ (٨‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﻮﱄ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١٤‬ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﹰﺍ ﻟ "ﺷﺮﻁ ﻛﺎﻟﻔﻮ")‪،(١٨٤‬‬
‫ﺑﻮﺍﺟﺒﻬﺎ ﲡﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﰲ ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﻣﻮﻇﻔﻴﻬﺎ‬ ‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﺘﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺃﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎ ﺍﻟﻼﺗﻴﻨﻴـﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﲔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻨﺼﻠﻴﲔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺃﳊﻘﺖ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺫﺍﺗـﻪ ﺿـﺮﺭﹰﺍ‬ ‫ﺃﻭﺍﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺳﻊ ﻋﺸﺮ ﻭﺃﻭﺍﺋﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﺪ ﺍﻷﺟـﻨﱯ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳﺎ )ﺍﳌﻮﻇﻔﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻨﺼﻠﻴﻮﻥ( ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺍﺣﺘﺠـﺰﻭﺍ‬ ‫ﺑﺴﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﺑﺈﻟﺰﺍﻣﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺨﻠﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﺠـﻮﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺳـﺒﻞ‬
‫ﻛﺮﻫﺎﺋﻦ؛ ﻭﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺇﻧﺘﺮﻫﺎﻧﺪﻝ)‪ (١٩١‬ﻗﺪﻣﺖ ﺳﻮﻳـﺴﺮﺍ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒـﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﳌﻨﺎﺯﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺷﺌﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻘﺪ ﺃﹸﺑﺮﻡ ﻣﻊ‬
‫ﺗﺘﺼﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺻﺎﻬﺑﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺟـﺮﺍﺀ ﺍﻧﺘـﻬﺎﻙ ﺃﺣﻜـﺎﻡ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻀﻴﻔﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻃﻌﻨﺖ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭﺓ ﻟﺮﺃﺱ ﺍﳌﺎﻝ ﺑﻘـﻮﺓ ﰲ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎﻫﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺟﻢ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺫﻯ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳊﻖ ﺑﺸﺮﻛﺔ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻁ)‪ (١٨٥‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻻ ﳛﻖ ﻟﻸﺟﻨﱯ‪ ،‬ﲟﻮﺟـﺐ‬
‫ﻭﻃﻨﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﻇﻔﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻨﺼﻠﻴﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺘـﺎﺑﻌﻮﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﻣﺎﻓﺮﻭﻣﺎﺗﻴﺲ)‪ ،(١٨٦‬ﺍﻟﺘﺨﻠﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺣﻖ ﲤﻠﻜﻪ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﰲ ﻃﻬﺮﺍﻥ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﺖ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒـﺔ ﺑﻮﺻـﻔﻬﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺃﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﺭﻋﻴﺘﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﺍﻋﺘُﱪ "ﺷﺮﻁ ﻛﺎﻟﻔﻮ" ﻋﺮﻓﹰﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺘﻬﺎﻛﹰﺎ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﹰﺍ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ؛ ﻭﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺇﻧﺘﺮﻫﺎﻧـﺪﻝ ﺧﻠـﺼﺖ‬ ‫ﺇﻗﻠﻴﻤﻴًﹶﺎ ﰲ ﺃﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎ ﺍﻟﻼﺗﻴﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﺷﻜﻞ ﺟﺰﺀﹰﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳍﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ ﻟﻌـﺪﺓ‬
‫ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻳﻐﻠﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﺑﻊ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷـﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫ﺩﻭﻝ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺼﻌﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻓﻴﻖ ﺑﲔ "ﺷﺮﻁ ﻛﺎﻟﻔﻮ" ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺇﻧﺘﺮﻫﺎﻧﺪﻝ ﱂ ﺗﺴﺘﻨﻔﺪ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﰲ ﻗـﻀﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻓﹸﺴﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﲣ ﹴﻞ ﺗﺎﻡ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻮﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠـﻖ‬
‫ﺃﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻗﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﰲ ‪ ١١‬ﻧﻴﺴﺎﻥ‪/‬ﺃﺑﺮﻳﻞ ‪ ،٢٠٠٠‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ‬ ‫ﻼ ﻏﲑ ﻣـﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺩﻭﻟﻴـﹰﺎ‬ ‫ﺑﺈﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﺗﺘﺨﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻀﻴﻔﺔ ﻭﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﻓﻌ ﹰ‬
‫ﺿﺮﺭ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﺃﺻﺎﺏ ﲨﻬﻮﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻧﻐﻮ ﺍﻟﺪﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ ﻭﻣﻮﺍﻃﻨﻬﺎ )ﻭﺯﻳﺮ‬ ‫)ﻛﺎﳊﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ( ﺃﻭ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺼﻴﺐ ﺍﻷﺟـﻨﱯ‬
‫ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ( ﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﻗﺮﺭﺕ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻋﻮﻯ ﱂ ﺗُﺮﻓﻊ ﰲ ﺳﻴﺎﻕ ﲪﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﳜﺺ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻪ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮ)‪ .(١٨٧‬ﻭﺍﻻﻋﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻـﺤﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﻭﺃﻧﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻳﻠﺰﻡ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺴﺘﻨﻔﺪ ﲨﻬﻮﺭﻳـﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻧﻐـﻮ‬ ‫"ﺷﺮﻁ ﻛﺎﻟﻔﻮ" ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﻫﻮ ﺣﺘﻤﹰﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ)‪ .(١٩٢‬ﻭﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺃﻓﻴﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺳـﻌﺖ‬ ‫ﺃﻗﻞ ﺇﻗﻨﺎﻋﹰﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻣﺎ ُﺳﻠﹼﻢ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﶈﻤﻴـﺔ ﰲ ﺇﻃـﺎﺭ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻜﺴﻴﻚ ﺇﱃ ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﺍﶈﻜﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ ﺑﺎﻹﻋﺪﺍﻡ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﺍﶈﻤﻲ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﻣﻴﺔ)‪.(١٨٨‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺎﺩﹰﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻴﻨﺎ ﻟﻠﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﻨﺼﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺣﺘﺠـﺖ‬ ‫)‪ (٩‬ﻭﺗﻨﺺ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٣‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ‬
‫ﺑﺄﻬﻧﺎ "ﻫﻲ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻀﺮﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﻭﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳـﻖ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫـﺎ"‬
‫ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﻻ ﺗﺴﺮﻱ ﺇﻻ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻠﺤﻖ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟِﺒﺔ‬
‫ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﲰﺎﺡ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﳍﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺑﺎﳊﺼﻮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺿﺮﺭ "ﻏﲑ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮ"‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺿﺮﺭ ﻳﻠﺤﻖ ﺑﺄﺣﺪ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﺗـﺴﺮﻱ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﻨﺼﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﻓﻘﹰﺎ ﻷﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ١‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌـﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٣٦‬ﻣـﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻠﺤﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟِﺒﺔ ﺿﺮﺭ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻌـﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﻳﺪﺕ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺠﺔ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ "ﺗـﺮﺍﺑﻂ ﺣﻘـﻮﻕ‬
‫ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺍﺭﺗﻜﺒﺘﻪ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻫـﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻭﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻷﻓﺮﺍﺩ")‪.(١٩٣‬‬
‫ﻼ ﺧﺎﺻﹰﺎ ﻬﺑﺎ ﻟﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﺔ)‪.(١٨٩‬‬
‫ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﺳﺒﺒﹰﺎ ﻣﻨﻔﺼ ﹰ‬
‫)‪ (١١‬ﻭﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻄﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﻣﻠﺰﻣﺔ ﺑﺒﺤـﺚ‬ ‫__________‬
‫ﳐﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺖ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟـﺐ ﻫـﻮ‬ ‫)‪ (١٨٢‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪) Ambatielos Claim‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٧٤‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺼﺮ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﺃﻡ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮ‪ .‬ﻭﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺇﻟﺴﻲ ﺭﻓﻀﺖ ﺩﺍﺋـﺮﺓ ﰲ‬ ‫)‪ (١٨٣‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪D. P. O’Connell, International Law, vol. 2, 2nd ed.,‬‬
‫ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺣﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺟﺰﺀﹰﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻋﻮﺍﻫﺎ‬ ‫‪.London, Stevens, 1970, p. 1059‬‬
‫ﻳﻨﺒﲏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻧﺘﻬﺎﻙ ﺇﺣﺪﻯ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻫﺪﺍﺕ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻼﺯﻡ‬ ‫)‪ (١٨٤‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٥٦‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻗﺎﺋﻠﺔ ﺇﻥ‪" :‬ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﺮﺓ ﻻ ﺗﺸﻚ ﰲ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫)‪ (١٨٥‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﻋﻤﻮﻣَﹰﺎ‪D. R. Shea, The Calvo Clause: A Problem of :‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺼﺒﻎ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤـﺪﺓ ﻛﻜـﻞ ﺑـﺼﺒﻐﺘﻬﺎ‬ ‫‪Inter-American and International Law and Diplomacy, Minneapolis,‬‬
‫__________‬ ‫‪.University of Minnesota Press, 1955‬‬

‫)‪United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, (١٩٠‬‬ ‫)‪ (١٨٦‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٢٦‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪.‬‬
‫‪.Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1980, p. 3‬‬ ‫)‪North American Dredging Company of Texas (U.S.A.) v. (١٨٧‬‬
‫)‪ (١٩١‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٧٠‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪.‬‬ ‫‪.United Mexican States, UNRIAA, vol. IV, p. 26‬‬
‫)‪Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of (١٩٢‬‬
‫)‪ (١٨٨‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )‪ (٥‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪.‬‬
‫‪Congo v. Belgium), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2002, p. 3, at pp. 17– 18,‬‬ ‫)‪ (١٨٩‬ﲞﺼﻮﺹ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻧﻈﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﻮﺟﻪ ﻋﺎﻡ‪C. F. Amerasinghe, :‬‬
‫‪.para. 40‬‬ ‫‪) Local Remedies in International Law‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷــﻴﺔ ‪ ١٧٤‬ﺃﻋــﻼﻩ(‪،‬‬
‫)‪) Avena (١٩٣‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٢٩‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٣٦-٣٥‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٤٠‬‬ ‫ﺹ ‪.١٦٨-١٤٥‬‬
‫ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﻃﹸﻠﺐ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘـﺼﺎﻑ‬ ‫ﻭﺗﺴﻮﺩﻫﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳُﺪﻋﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺃﺻﺎﺏ ﺷـﺮﻛﱵ ﺭﺍﻳﺜـﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻃﻠﺒﺖ ﺣﻜﻤﹰﺎ ﺗﻔﺴﲑﻳﹰﺎ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﻭﺗﻄﺒﻴـﻖ‬ ‫ﻭﻣﺎﺗﺸﻠِﺖ ]ﻭﳘﺎ ﺷﺮﻛﺘﺎﻥ ﺃﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺘﺎﻥ[")‪ .(١٩٤‬ﻭﺍﳌﻌﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎﻫﺪﺓ ﻳُﺰﻋﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺍﻧﺘﻬﻜﺘﻬﺎ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻠﺘﻬﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻃﹰﺎ ﻭﺛﻴﻘﹰﺎ ﲟﻌﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟﺐ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻁ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﺑـﺪ‬
‫ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻋﺔ ﻷﺣﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺃﻭ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﳍﺎ)‪.(١٩٩‬‬ ‫ﻣﻨﻪ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭ "ﻟﻮﻻ"‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﻄﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﺎﺅﻝ ﻋﻤﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛـﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺸﻤﻞ ﻋﻨﺼﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﻭﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﺳﻴﺘﻢ‬
‫)‪ (١٤‬ﻭﻳﻘﻀﻲ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١٤‬ﺑﺄﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ‬ ‫ﻟﻮ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﲦﺔ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺗُﻘﺪّﻡ ﻧﻴﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻛـﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺪ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫـﺬﺍ ﻻ ﻳﻨﻔـﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺮﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻔﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻏـﲑ ﻣﺒﺎﺷـﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﻗﻴﺎﻡ‬ ‫ﻭﻳﺘﻌﲔ ﺣﻴﻨﺌ ٍﺬ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺷﺨﺺ ﺁﺧﺮ ﺑﻌﺮﺽ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻋﻠـﻰ ﳏﻜﻤـﺔ ﰲ‬ ‫ﻣﺎ ﳝﻴﺰ ﻛﺜﲑﹰﺍ ﺑﲔ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟﺐ ﻭﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭ "ﻟﻮﻻ"‪ .‬ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ)‪.(٢٠٠‬‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﰲ ﺃﻏﻠﺒﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺻﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻃﻦ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻟﺘﻘﺪﻡ ﻟﻮﻻ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺻـﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -١٥‬ﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ ﻣـﻦ ﻗﺎﻋـﺪﺓ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻃﻦ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺗﻨﺺ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٣‬ﺇﻻ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟﺐ‪.‬‬
‫ﻻ ﺣﺎﺟﺔ ﻻﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﺣﻴﺚ‪:‬‬
‫)‪ (١٢‬ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ "ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻳﲑ" ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳُﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ‬
‫)ﺃ( ﻻ ﺗﺘﻮﻓﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻝ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﳏﻠﻴـﺔ‬ ‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﺃﻭ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﻣﻌﺎﻳﲑ ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺤﺼﻮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﱪ ﻓﻌّﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻻ ﺗﺘﻴﺢ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴـﺔ‬ ‫ﳚﺐ ﺃﺧﺬﻫﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﺖ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟﺐ‬
‫ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﻟﻠﺤﺼﻮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳉﱪ؛‬ ‫ﰲ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﹰﺍ ﺃﻭ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒـﺔ‬
‫ِﻟﺘُﻘﺪﻡ ﻟﻮﻻ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺻﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻃﻦ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫)ﺏ( ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺗـﺄﺧﲑ ﻻ ﻣـﺴﻮﻍ ﻟــﻪ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴـﺔ‬ ‫ﳚﺐ ﺃﺧﺬﻫﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻨــﺰﺍﻉ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﻳﻌﺰﻯ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳُﺪﻋﻰ ﺃﻬﻧﺎ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﺔ؛‬ ‫ﻭﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﹶﺐ ﺑﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫)ﺝ( ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺻﻠﺔ ﻭﺟﻴﻬﺔ ﺑـﲔ ﺍﻟﻔـﺮﺩ ﺍﳌـﻀﺮﻭﺭ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﱰﺍﻉ ﻣﻮﻇﻔﹰﺎ ﺣﻜﻮﻣﻴﹰﺎ)‪ (١٩٥‬ﺃﻭ ﻣﻮﻇﻔﹰﺎ ﺩﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﹰﺎ)‪ (١٩٦‬ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺪﱠﻋﻰ ﺃﻬﻧﺎ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﺔ ﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ؛‬ ‫ﳑﺘﻠﻜﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ)‪ (١٩٧‬ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻄﻠﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺗﻌﻮﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﻧﻘﺪﻳﹰﺎ ﻧﻴﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﺑﺼﻔﺘﻪ ﻓﺮﺩﹰﺍ ﺗﻜـﻮﻥ‬
‫)ﺩ( ﳝﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﻣﻨﻌﹰﺎ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﹰﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻮﺀ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ؛‬
‫)‪ (١٣‬ﻭﺗﻮﺿﺢ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٣‬ﺃﻥ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﳚـﺐ ﺃﻥ‬
‫)ﻫ( ﺗﺘﻨﺎﺯﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ُﻳﺪﱠﻋﻰ ﺃﻬﻧﺎ ﻣـﺴﺆﻭﻟﺔ ﻋـﻦ‬ ‫ﺗُﺴﺘﻨﻔﺪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺼﻞ ﲟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺼﻞ‬
‫ﺷﺮﻁ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺑﻄﻠﺐ ﺇﺻﺪﺍﺭ ﺣﻜﻢ ﺗﻔﺴﲑﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﻟﻼﺣﻖ ﺑﺄﺣـﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻡ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺗﺄﻳﻴﺪ ﻟﻠﺮﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻞ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ‬ ‫ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻟﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﺗﻌﻮﻳﻀﺎﺕ ﳌﻮﺍﻃﻦ‬
‫)‪ (١‬ﻳﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١٥‬ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀﺍﺕ ﻣـﻦ ﻗﺎﻋـﺪﺓ‬ ‫ﻣﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻨﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻜﺘﻔﻲ ﺑﻄﻠﺐ ﺣﻜﻢ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﻭﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺗﺎﻥ )ﺃ( ﻭ)ﺏ(‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻠﺘـﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﻣﻌﺎﻫﺪﺓ ﻻ ﻳﺸﺘﺮﻁ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ)‪ ،(١٩٨‬ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺃﻧـﻪ‬
‫__________‬
‫ﺗﺸﻤﻼﻥ ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﺗﻮﻓﺮ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﶈﺎﻛﻢ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﺃﻣﻼﹰ ﰲ ﺍﳉﱪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺗﺎﻥ )ﺝ( ﻭ)ﺩ( ﺍﻟﻠﺘﺎﻥ ﺗﺘﻨﺎﻭﻻﻥ ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲡﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ‬ ‫)‪) ELSI (١٩٤‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٤٩‬ﺃﻋـﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٤٣‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘـﺮﺓ ‪.٥٢‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ‪) Interhandel‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٧٠‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.٢٨‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻨﺼﻒ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﻌﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﻳُﻠﺰﻡ ﺍﻷﺟﻨﱯ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳـﺒﻞ‬
‫)‪ (١٩٥‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000, I.C.J. Reports 2000‬‬
‫ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﻛﺸﺮﻁ ﻣﺴﺒﻖ ﻟﻠﺘﻘﺪﻡ ﲟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﺍﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀﺍﺕ‬ ‫)ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٩٢‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٤٠‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻘـﺮﺓ‬ ‫)‪ (١٩٦‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ‪United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in‬‬
‫)ﻫ( ﻓﺘﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﻭﺿﻌﺎﹰ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﺸﺄ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ‬ ‫‪) Tehran‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٩٠‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻨﺎﺯﻟﺖ ﻋﻦ ﺷﺮﻁ ﺍﻻﻣﺘﺜـﺎﻝ ﻟﻘﺎﻋـﺪﺓ‬ ‫)‪The Corfu Channel case, Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports (١٩٧‬‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫‪.1949, p. 4‬‬
‫)‪ (١٩٨‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪Air Service Agreement of 27 March 1946 between the‬‬
‫__________‬ ‫‪United States of America and France, Decision of 9 December 1978,‬‬
‫)‪ (١٩٩‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪) Interhandel‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷـﻴﺔ ‪ ١٧٠‬ﺃﻋـﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪٢٩-٢٨‬؛‬ ‫‪UNRIAA, vol. XVIII (Sales No. E/F.80.V.7), p. 417; Applicability of‬‬
‫‪the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations‬‬
‫ﻭ‪) ELSI‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٤٩‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.٤٣‬‬ ‫‪Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J.‬‬
‫)‪ (٢٠٠‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ‪) ELSI‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٤٩‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٤٦‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٥٩‬‬ ‫‪.Reports 1988, p. 12, at p. 29, para. 41‬‬
‫ﻓﻘﻬﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ)‪ .(٢٠٤‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻌﻴﺎﺭ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺗـﻮﺍﻓﺮ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )ﺃ(‬
‫ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻳﺪﺗﻪ ﳉﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺍﺩﻫﺎ‬
‫)‪(٢٠٥‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﲟﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻋﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴـﹰﺎ‬ ‫)‪ (٢‬ﺗﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )ﺃ( ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﺳـﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳـﺒﻞ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻌُﺪﻩ ﺍﶈﺎﻛﻢ)‪ (٢٠٦‬ﻭﺍﳌﺆﻟﻔﻮﻥ)‪ (٢٠٧‬ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﹰﺎ ﻋﻨﺼﺮﹰﺍ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ‬ ‫ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻮُﺻﻒ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﺳـﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ‬
‫"ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﳉﺪﻭﻯ" ﺃﻭ "ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ"‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻨـﺎﻙ ﺛﻼﺛـﺔ ﺧﻴـﺎﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ‪ُ ،‬ﻭﺳﱢﻊ ﻧﻄﺎﻕ ﺍﳌﻌﻴﺎﺭ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻘـﺮﺓ )ﺃ(‬
‫ﻟﻴﺸﺘﺮﻁ ﺃﻥ "ﻻ ﺗﺘﻮﻓﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻝ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻧﺘـﺼﺎﻑ ﳏﻠﻴـﺔ"‬ ‫ﺗﺴﺘﻮﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻟﺼﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺗﺼﻒ ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺤﺼﻮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﱪ ﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻻ ﺗﺘﻴﺢ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘـﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴـﺔ‬ ‫ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴـﺔ ﺑـﺴﺒﺐ ﺃﻭﺟـﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺼﻮﺭ ﰲ ﺇﻗﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳋﻴﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻫﻲ‪:‬‬
‫ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﻟﻠﺤﺼﻮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳉﱪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻌﻴﺎﺭ ﺑﺸﻜﻠﻪ ﻫـﺬﺍ‬
‫ﳛﻈﻰ ﺑﺘﺄﻳﻴﺪ ﺍﻷﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﻀﺖ ﺑﺄﻧـﻪ ﻻ ﺣﺎﺟـﺔ ﺇﱃ‬ ‫ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﻋﺪﳝﺔ ﺍﳉـﺪﻭﻯ‬ ‫'‪'١‬‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻻ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﶈﻜﻤـﺔ ﺍﶈﻠﻴـﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ؛‬
‫ﳐﺘﺼﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨـﺰﺍﻉ ﺍﳌﻌﲏ)‪(٢٠٨‬؛ ﺃﻭ ﺣﻴﺜﻤﺎ ﻻ ﲤﻠﻚ ﺍﶈﺎﻛﻢ‬
‫ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺮﻳﻊ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﲏ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﱪﺭ ﺍﻷﻓﻌـﺎﻝ ﺍﻟـﱵ‬ ‫ﺃﻻ ﺗﻮﻓﺮ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﺮﺹ ﳒﺎﺡ ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻟﺔ؛‬ ‫'‪'٢‬‬
‫ﻳﺸﺘﻜﻲ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﺟﻨﱯ)‪(٢٠٩‬؛ ﺃﻭ ﺣﲔ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣـﻦ ﺍﳌﻌـﺮﻭﻑ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺃﻻ ﺗﻮﻓﺮ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻟـﺔ‬ ‫'‪'٣‬‬
‫ﺍﶈﺎﻛﻢ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﻔﺘﻘﺮ ﻟﻼﺳﺘﻘﻼﻟﻴﺔ)‪(٢١٠‬؛ ﺃﻭ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻭُﺟـﺪﺕ ﺳﻠـﺴﻠﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺤﺼﻮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﱪ ﻓﻌﺎﻝ‪.‬‬
‫__________‬
‫)‪ (٢٠٤‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪G. Fitzmaurice, “Hersch Lauterpacht – the scholar as‬‬ ‫ﻭﻳﺘﻀﺢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳋﻴﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ ﻣﺆﻳﺪﻳﻪ‪.‬‬
‫‪judge”, BYBIL, vol. 37 (1961), pp. 1 et seq., at pp. 60–61; and M.‬‬
‫‪Herdegen, “Diplomatischer Schutz und die Erschöpfung von‬‬ ‫)‪ (٣‬ﳛﺪﺩ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭ "ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﳉﺪﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺿﺢ"‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻳﺪﻩ ﺍﶈﻜﹼـﻢ‬
‫‪Rechtsbehelfen”, in G. Ress and T. Stein (eds.), Der diplomatische‬‬
‫‪Schutz im Völker- und Europarecht: Aktuelle Probleme und‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﺟﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻴﻢ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﺴﻔﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻨﻠﻨﺪﻳﺔ)‪ ،(٢٠١‬ﻋﺘﺒـﺔ ﻋﺎﻟﻴـﺔ‬
‫‪.Entwicklungstendenzen (1966), pp. 63 et seq., at p. 70‬‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻐﺎﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭ "ﻋﺪﻡ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻓﺮﺹ ﳒـﺎﺡ‬
‫)‪ (٢٠٥‬ﺗﺸﺘﺮﻁ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٤٤‬ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴـﺔ "ﻣﺘﺎﺣـﺔ‬ ‫ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻟﺔ" ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺒﻠﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺑﻴﺔ ﳊﻘـﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧـﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ‬
‫ﻭﻓﻌﺎﻟﺔ" )ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،٢٠٠١‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ( ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺼﻮﻳﺐ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.١٥٦‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ)‪ (٢٠٢‬ﻣﻔﺮﻁ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﺎﻫﻞ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺒﻘﻰ‬
‫)‪ (٢٠٦‬ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ‪) Loewen‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٥٩‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ( ﺫﻛﺮﺕ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﳋﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻯ ﺍﻟﻠﻬﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﺭﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺭﺩﺓ ﰲ ﻋﺒـﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﻠـﺰﻡ ﺍﳌـﻀﺮﻭﺭ "ﺑﺎﺳـﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳـﺒﻞ‬ ‫ﻼ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻲ ﺇﺫ‬
‫"ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﳉﺪﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺿﺢ" ﻏﲑ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﻔﺮﺽ ﻋﺒﺌﹰﺎ ﺛﻘﻴ ﹰ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﺎﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺍﻓﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﺘﺎﺣﺔ ﻟﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻝ" )ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.(١٦٨‬‬ ‫ﻳﻄﺎﻟﺒﻪ ﺑﺈﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻇﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣـﻊ ﻣﺮﺍﻋـﺎﺓ‬
‫)‪ (٢٠٧‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪C. F. Amerasinghe, Local Remedies in International‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﻟﻠﺤـﺼﻮﻝ‬
‫‪) Law‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٧٤‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،١٨٢-١٨١‬ﻭ‪.٢٠٤-٢٠٣‬‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﱪ ﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﺃﺻـﻞ‬
‫)‪ (٢٠٨‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪) Panevezys-Saldutiskis Railway‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٢٦‬ﺃﻋـﻼﻩ(‪،‬‬ ‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻌﻴﺎﺭ ﺇﱃ ﺭﺃﻱ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻞ ﺃﺑﺪﺍﻩ ﺍﻟﺴﲑ ﻫـﲑﺵ ﻟﹶﻮﺗﺮﺑﺎﺧـﺖ ﰲ‬
‫ﺹ ‪١٨‬؛ ﻭ ‪Arbitration under Article 181 of the Treaty of Neuilly, AJIL,‬‬
‫ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻭﺽ ﺍﻟﻨﺮﻭﳚﻴﺔ)‪ (٢٠٣‬ﻭﺃﻳﺪﺗﻪ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﻣـﻦ‬
‫‪vol. 28 (1934), p. 760, at p. 789‬؛ ﻭ ‪Claim of Rosa Gelbtrunk, Award of‬‬
‫‪ ،2 May 1902‬ﻭ”‪) “El Triunfo Company‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷــﻴﺔ ‪ ١٣٦‬ﺃﻋــﻼﻩ(‪،‬‬
‫ﺹ ‪ ٤٦٦-٤٦٣‬ﻭ‪ ٤٧٩-٤٦٧‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﱄ؛ ﻭ ‪The Lottie May Incident‬‬
‫‪(arbitration between Honduras and the United Kingdom), Arbitral‬‬
‫‪Award of 18 April 1899, UNRIAA, vol. XV, p. 23, at p. 31‬؛ ﻭﺍﻟـﺮﺃﻱ‬ ‫__________‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻘﻞ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﺿﻲ ﻟﹶﻮﺗﺮﺑﺎﺧﺖ )‪ (Lauterpacht‬ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ‪Certain Norwegian‬‬ ‫‪) Finnish‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷـﻴﺔ ‪ ١٧٨‬ﺃﻋـﻼﻩ(‪،‬‬ ‫‪Ships Arbitration‬‬ ‫)‪(٢٠١‬‬
‫‪) Loans‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٢٠٣‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪٤٠-٣٩‬؛ ﻭ‪Finnish Ships Arbitration‬‬ ‫ﺹ ‪.١٥٠٤‬‬
‫)ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٧٨‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.١٥٣٥‬‬ ‫‪Retimag S.A. v. Federal Republic of Germany,‬‬ ‫)‪ (٢٠٢‬ﺍﻧﻈــﺮ‬
‫)‪ (٢٠٩‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪Arbitration under Article 181 of the Treaty of Neuilly‬‬ ‫‪Application No. 712/60, Decision of 16 December 1961, European‬‬
‫)ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٢٠٨‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ .‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ‪Affaire des Forêts du Rhodope central‬‬ ‫‪Commission and European Court of Human Rights, Yearbook of the‬‬
‫‪(fond), Decision of 29 March 1933, UNRIAA, vol. III (Sales No.‬‬ ‫‪European Convention on Human Rights 1961, pp. 385 et seq., at p. 400; X,‬‬
‫‪1949.V.2), p. 1405‬؛ ﻭ‪) Ambatielos Claim‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷــﻴﺔ ‪ ١٧٤‬ﺃﻋــﻼﻩ(‪،‬‬ ‫‪Y and Z v. the United Kingdom, Application Nos. 8022/77 and 8027/77,‬‬
‫ﺹ ‪١١٩‬؛ ﻭﻗﻀﻴﺔ ‪) Interhandel‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٧٠‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.٢٨‬‬ ‫‪Decision of 8 December 1979, European Commission of Human Rights,‬‬
‫)‪ (٢١٠‬ﺍﻧﻈـﺮ ‪Robert E. Brown (United States) v. Great Britain,‬‬ ‫‪ .Decisions and Reports, vol. 18, pp. 66 et seq., at p. 74‬ﻭﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ‬
‫‪Arbitral Award of 23 November 1923, UNRIAA, vol. VI (Sales No.‬‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٢٢‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﲟﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺪﻬﺗﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﰲ‬
‫‪1955.V.3), p. 120; and Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Judgement of‬‬ ‫ﺩﻭﺭﻬﺗﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺳﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﻳﻦ )ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٧٣‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٥٠‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )‪.(٦٠‬‬
‫‪29 July 1988, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series C, No. 4‬‬ ‫)‪Certain Norwegian Loans, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1957, (٢٠٣‬‬
‫)ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ‪.(ILM, vol. 28 (1989), pp. 291 et seq., at pp. 304–309 :‬‬ ‫‪.p. 9, at p. 39‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )ﺏ(‬ ‫ﻣﺘﺴﻘﺔ ﻭﺭﺍﺳﺨﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻮﺍﺑﻖ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻟﻴﺴـﺖ ﰲ ﺻﺎﱀ ﺍﻷﺟﻨﱯ)‪(٢١١‬؛‬

‫ﺃﻭ ﺣﻴﺜﻤﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﶈﺎﻛﻢ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺆﻫﻠﺔ ﻟِﺘﻮﻓﺮ ﻟﻸﺟﻨﱯ ﺍﻧﺘـﺼﺎﻓﹰﺎ‬
‫)‪ (٥‬ﺇﻥ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻐﻨﺎﺀ ﻋﻦ ﺷﺮﻁ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ‬ ‫ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﹰﺎ ﻭﻭﺍﻓﻴﹰﺎ)‪(٢١٢‬؛ ﺃﻭ ﺣﻴﺜﻤﺎ ﺗﻔﺘﻘﺮ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺇﱃ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻣـﺴﺆﻭﻟﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺤﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻳﻔﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻐﺮﺽ)‪.(٢١٣‬‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺗﺄﺧﲑ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻝ ﰲ ﺇﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﺃﻣﺮ‬
‫ﺗﺆﻛﺪﻩ ﳏﺎﻭﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﻭﻳﻦ)‪ ،(٢١٥‬ﻭﺻـﻜﻮﻙ ﺣﻘـﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧـﺴﺎﻥ‬ ‫)‪ (٤‬ﻭﻟﻠﻮﻓﺎﺀ ﺑﺎﺷﺘﺮﺍﻃﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻘـﺮﺓ )ﺃ( ﻻ ﻳﻜﻔـﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺜﺒـﺖ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﻬﺑﺎ)‪ (٢١٦‬ﻭﺍﻟﻘـﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘـﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ)‪ (٢١٧‬ﻭﺁﺭﺍﺀ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﺃﻥ ﻓﺮﺹ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺎﺡ ﺿﺌﻴﻠﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻥ ﻣﻮﺍﺻﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﻌﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺨﺘﺼﲔ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻌﺐ ﺇﻋﻄﺎﺀ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ "ﺗﺄﺧﲑ ﻻ ﻣﺴﻮﻍ ﻟــﻪ"‬ ‫ﺃﻣﺮ ﺻﻌﺐ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻜﻠﻒ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﳌﻌﻴﺎﺭ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻓﺮﺹ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺎﺡ‬
‫ﻣﻀﻤﻮﻧﹰﺎ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻬﻠﺔ ﺯﻣﻨﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﻴﻨـﺔ‬ ‫ﺭﺍﺟﺤﺔ ﺃﻭ ﳑﻜﻨﺔ ﺑﻞ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﶈﻠﻲ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺗﻨﻔﺬ ﰲ ﺇﻃﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﺑﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﰲ ﻛﻞ‬ ‫ﻗﺎﺩﺭﹰﺍ ﺑﺼﻔﺔ ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻮﻓﲑ ﺟﱪ ﻓﻌﺎﻝ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺗُﺤﺴﻢ ﰲ‬
‫ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺑﺎﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎﺩ ﺇﱃ ﻭﻗﺎﺋﻌﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﺫﻛـﺮﺕ‬ ‫ﺳﻴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﶈﻠﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺋﺪﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺗﺒﺖ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﳉﻨﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱪﻳﻄﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ -‬ﺍﳌﻜﺴﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺇﻝ ﺃﻭﺭﻭ‬ ‫ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﺼﺔ ﺍﳌﻜﻠﻔﺔ ﲟﻬﻤﺔ ﲝﺚ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﺳـﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺘﻌﺪﻳﻦ ﻓﺈﻥ‪" :‬ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﻟﻦ ﲢﺎﻭﻝ ﺃﻥ ﲢﺪﺩ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺩﻗﻴـﻖ ﺍﻟﻔﺘـﺮﺓ‬ ‫ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﺑﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺖ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎﺩ ﺇﱃ ﻓﺮﺿﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳُﺘﻮﻗﻊ ﺧﻼﳍﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﺇﺻﺪﺍﺭ ﺣﻜﻢ‪ .‬ﻭﺳـﻴﺘﻮﻗﻒ‬ ‫ﻛﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺗﺴﺘﺤﻖ ﺃﻥ ﻳُﻨﻈﺮ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ)‪.(٢١٤‬‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺪﺓ ﻇﺮﻭﻑ ﺃﺑﺮﺯﻫﺎ ﺣﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻄﻠﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﺤﺺ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻗﻴﻖ ﻟﻠﻘﻀﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺑﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺠﻢ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ")‪.(٢١٨‬‬
‫)‪ (٦‬ﻭﺗﻮﺿﺢ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )ﺏ( ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺧﲑ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﻧﺘـﺼﺎﻑ‬ ‫__________‬
‫ﻳُﻨﺴﺐ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺰﻋﻮﻡ ﺃﻬﻧﺎ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﺔ ﻋـﻦ ﺍﻟـﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﻟﻼﺣـﻖ‬ ‫)‪ (٢١١‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ‪) Panevezys-Saldutiskis Railway‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪٢٦‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﻷﺟﻨﱯ‪ .‬ﻭﺗُﻔﻀّﻞ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ "ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ" ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ "ﺳـﺒﻞ‬ ‫ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(؛ ﻭ ‪S.S. “Lisman”, Award of 5 October 1937, UNRIAA, vol. III,‬‬
‫ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ"‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﻬﺑﺎ ﺗﻐﻄﻴﺔ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟـﱵ‬ ‫‪p. 1767, at p. 1773‬؛ ﻭ ‪S.S. "Seguranca”, Award of 27 September 1939,‬‬
‫ﻳﺘﻢ ﰲ ﺇﻃﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻮﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴـﺔ ﻭﺇﻧﻔﺎﺫﻫـﺎ‪،‬‬ ‫‪ibid., p. 1861, at p. 1868‬؛ ﻭ‪) Finnish Ships Arbitration‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷـﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻨﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗُﻔﻌﱠﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﳍﺎ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻞ‪.‬‬ ‫ـﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪١٤٩٥‬؛ ﻭ ‪X. v. Federal Republic of Germany,‬‬ ‫‪ ١٧٨‬ﺃﻋـ‬
‫__________‬ ‫‪Application No. 27/55, Decision of 31 May 1956, European‬‬
‫)‪ (٢١٥‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ ﺍﳌﻘﺮﺭ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ‪ ،‬ﻑ‪ .‬ﻑ‪ .‬ﻏﺎﺭﺳﻴﺎ ﺃﻣﺎﺩﻭﺭ‪ ،‬ﶈﺎﻭﻻﺕ‬ ‫–‪Commission of Human Rights, Documents and Decisions, 1955–1956‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺪﻭﻳﻦ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﰲ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺮﻩ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،١٩٥٦‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ‬ ‫‪1957, p. 138; X v. Federal Republic of Germany, Application No.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ ‪ ،A/CN.4/96‬ﺹ ‪ ،٢٣١-١٧٣‬ﻭﲢﺪﻳـﺪﹰﺍ ﺹ ‪٢٢٥-٢٢٣‬؛‬ ‫‪352/58, Decision of 4 September 1958, European Commission and‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٢‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١٩‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﻫﺎﺭﻓﺮﺩ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴـﺔ‬ ‫‪European Court of Human Rights, Yearbook of the European‬‬
‫ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺿﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻠﺤﻖ ﺑﺎﻷﺟﺎﻧﺐ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻋﺪﺗﻪ ﰲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ١٩٦٠‬ﻛﻠﻴـﺔ‬ ‫‪Convention on Human Rights, 1958–1959, p. 342, at p. 344; and X. v.‬‬
‫ﺍﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﲜﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻫﺎﺭﻓﺮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﺩ ﰲ ‪ ،Sohn and Baxter‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﳌـﺬﻛﻮﺭ‬ ‫‪Austria, Application No. 514/59, Decision of 5 January 1960, Yearbook‬‬
‫)ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٧١‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.٥٧٧‬‬ ‫‪.of the European Convention on Human Rights,1960, p. 196, at p. 202‬‬
‫)‪ (٢١٦‬ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﺑﺎﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﳌﺪﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟـﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ )ﺍﳌـﺎﺩﺓ ‪،٤١‬‬ ‫)‪ (٢١٢‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪) Finnish Ships Arbitration‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷـﻴﺔ ‪ ١٧٨‬ﺃﻋـﻼﻩ(‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪)١‬ﺝ((؛ ﻭﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ ﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪" :‬ﻣﻴﺜﺎﻕ ﺳﺎﻥ ﺧﻮﺳـﻴﻪ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺹ ‪١٤٩٧-١٤٩٦‬؛ ﻭ‪) Velásquez Rodríguez‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷـﻴﺔ ‪ ٢١٠‬ﺃﻋـﻼﻩ(؛‬
‫ﻭ ‪Yağci and Sargin v. Turkey, Judgment of 8 June 1995, European‬‬
‫ﻛﻮﺳـﺘﺎﺭﻳﻜﺎ" )ﺍﳌـﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ،٤٦‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘـﺮﺓ ‪)٢‬ﺝ((؛ ﻭ ‪Weinberger v. Uruguay,‬‬
‫‪Court of Human Rights, Series A: Judgments and Decisions, vol. 319,‬‬
‫‪Communication No. 28/1978, Human Rights Committee, Selected‬‬
‫‪p. 3, at p. 17, para. 42; and Hornsby v. Greece, Judgment of 19 March‬‬
‫)‪Decisions under the Optional Protocol (second to sixteenth sessions‬‬
‫‪1997, ibid., Reports of Judgments and Decisions, 1997-II, No. 33,‬‬
‫;‪(United Nations publication, Sales No. E.84.XIV.2), vol. 1, p. 57, at p. 59‬‬
‫‪Las Palmeras, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 4 February 2000,‬‬
‫‪.p. 495, at p. 509, para. 37‬‬
‫‪Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series C: Decisions and‬‬ ‫)‪ (٢١٣‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪Mushikiwabo and Others v. Barayagwiza, Decision of‬‬
‫‪Judgments, No. 67, p. 64, para. 38; and Erdoğan v. Turkey, Application‬‬ ‫‪ .9 April 1996, ILR, vol. 107 (1997), pp. 457 et seq., at p. 460‬ﻭﺃﺛﻨـﺎﺀ‬
‫‪No. 19807/92, Decision of 16 January 1996, European Commission of‬‬ ‫ﺣﻜﻢ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻜﺘﺎﺗﻮﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺴﻜﺮﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺷﻴﻠﻲ ﻗﻀﺖ ﳉﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺪﺍﻥ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ ﳊﻘﻮﻕ‬
‫‪.Human Rights, Decisions and Reports, vol. 84–A, pp. 5 et seq., at p. 15‬‬ ‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﺨﺎﻟﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺄﺻﻠﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻇـﻞ ﺍﻟﻘـﻀﺎﺀ‬
‫)‪ (٢١٧‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪El Oro Mining and Railway Company (Litd.) (Great‬‬
‫‪resolution‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﺴﻜﺮﻱ ﺃﺯﺍﻟﺖ ﻭﺍﺟﺐ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ )ﺍﻧﻈﺮ‬
‫‪Britain) v. United Mexican States, Decision No. 55 of 18 June 1931,‬‬ ‫‪No. 01a/88 of 12 September 1988, case 9755: Chile, Annual Report of‬‬
‫‪UNRIAA, vol. V (Sales No. 1952.V.3), p. 191, at p. 198; and the Case‬‬ ‫‪the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 1987–1988,‬‬
‫‪concerning the Administration of the Prince von Pless, Order of 4‬‬ ‫‪.(OEA/Ser.L/V/II.74, document 10 rev.1, p. 136‬‬
‫‪.February 1933, P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 52, p. 11, at p. 16‬‬ ‫)‪ (٢١٤‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪) Finnish Ships Arbitration‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷـﻴﺔ ‪ ١٧٨‬ﺃﻋـﻼﻩ(‪،‬‬
‫)‪ (٢١٨‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٢١٧‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺹ ‪١٥٠٤‬؛ ﻭ‪) Ambatielos Claim‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٧٤‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.١٢٠-١١٩‬‬
‫ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﳋﻄﺄ ﳎﺎﳍﺎ ﺍﳉﻮﻱ()‪ .(٢٢٠‬ﻭﺍﻷﺳﺎﺱ ﳌﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗـﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )ﺝ(‬
‫ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺔ ﺍﻹﻗﻠﻴﻤﻴﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻓﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﺍﺠﻤﻟﺎﺯﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺟﻨﱯ ﰲ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻷﺟﻨﱯ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳُﺨﻀﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‬ ‫)‪ (٧‬ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴـﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻃﻮﻋﹰﺎ ﻟﻠﻮﻻﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳُﻔﺘﺮﺽ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )ﺃ( ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ،١٥‬ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻞ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺳـﺒﻞ‬
‫ﻳﺴﺘﻨﻔِﺪ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﻻ ﺣﺎﺟﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩﻫﺎ ﺣﻴﺜﻤﺎ ﻻ ﺗﺘﻮﻓﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ‬
‫ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻭ ﻻ ﺗﻮﻓﺮ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﻓﻌـﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﻐﻄـﻲ‬
‫ﻱ ﻣﻨـﻬﻤﺎ‬‫)‪ (٩‬ﻭﺍﻷﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻭﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻻ ﻳﻮﻓﺮ ﺃ ٌ‬ ‫ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﻣﺘﺎﺣﺔ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﻮﻓﺮ ﺍﻹﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻬﹰﺎ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﹰﺎ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ ﻣـﻦ ﻗﺎﻋـﺪﺓ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻌﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﻟﻼﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩﻫﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﰲ ﺣﲔ ﺗﻮﺟـﺪ ﺁﺭﺍﺀ ﻋـﺎﺑﺮﺓ‬ ‫ﺃﻭ ﻗﺪ ﻳﺴﺒﺐ ﺻﻌﻮﺑﺎﺕ ﻛﺒﲑﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻸﺟﻨﱯ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻠـﻰ‬
‫ﻭﻣﺒﺪﺋﻴﺔ ﻣﺆﻳﺪﺓ ﻟﻮﺟـﻮﺩ ﻣﺜـﻞ ﻫـﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺳـﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ ﰲ ﻗـﻀﻴﱵ‬ ‫ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻝ ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﺣﱴ ﺣﻴﺜﻤﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﳏﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﺔ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫)‪(٢٢٣‬‬
‫ﺇﻧﺘﺮﻫﺎﻧﺪﻝ)‪ (٢٢١‬ﻭﺳﺎﱂ)‪ ،(٢٢٢‬ﺃﻗﺮﺕ ﺍﶈﺎﻛﻢ ﰲ ﻗﻀﺎﻳﺎ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﻌﻘﻮﻝ ﻭﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﻨﺼﻒ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺷﺨﺺ ﻣﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻧﻄﺒﺎﻕ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ‬ ‫ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﺣﻴﺜﻤﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﳑﺘﻠﻜﺎﺗﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺻﻴﺒﺖ ﺑﻀﺮﺭ ﺑﻴﺌﻲ‬
‫ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﺟﻨﱯ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﰲ‬ ‫ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﻠﻮﺙ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺴﻘﺎﻃﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺸﻌﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺳﻘﻮﻁ ﺟﺴﻢ ﻓﻀﺎﺋﻲ ﳑـﺎ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻭﺽ ﺍﻟﻨﺮﻭﳚﻴﺔ)‪ (٢٢٤‬ﻭﻗـﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﳊـﺎﺩﺙ‬ ‫ﻣﺼﺪﺭﻩ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻘﻊ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﳑﺘﻠﻜﺎﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺣﻴﺜﻤﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﱳ ﻃﺎﺋﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﳉﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻭﻗﻊ ﰲ ‪ ٢٧‬ﲤﻮﺯ‪/‬ﻳﻮﻟﻴﻪ ‪ ،(٢٢٥)١٩٥٥‬ﹸﻗﺪّﻣﺖ ﺑﻘـﻮﺓ‬ ‫ﺗﺴﻘﻄﻬﺎ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﲢﻠﻴﻘﻬﺎ ﻓﻮﻕ ﺇﻗﻠﻴﻢ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ .‬ﻭﰲ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺣﺠﺞ ﻣﺆﻳﺪﺓ ﻟﺸﺮﻁ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﳏﻜﻤـﺔ ﺍﻟﻌـﺪﻝ‬ ‫ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺃﹸﺷﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﻻ ﺣﺎﺟﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﱂ ﺗﺒﺖ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﰲ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺘﲔ‪ .‬ﻭﰲ ﻗـﻀﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻧﻈﺮﹰﺍ ﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻃﻮﻋﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺻﻠﺔ ﺇﻗﻠﻴﻤﻴﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ‬
‫ﻣﺼﻬﺮ ﺗﺮﻳﻞ)‪ (٢٢٦‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺘﻠﻮﺙ ﻋﺎﺑﺮ ﻟﻠﺤﺪﻭﺩ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻴﻪ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺻﻠﺔ ﺇﻗﻠﻴﻤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺇﺻـﺮﺍﺭ ﻣـﻦ‬ ‫)‪ (٨‬ﻭﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻛﺘﺐ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺗﺄﻳﻴﺪ ﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺃﻧﻪ ﰲ ﲨﻴﻊ‬
‫ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﻛﻨﺪﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻃﹸﻠﺐ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﻛﺎﻧـﺖ‬
‫ﻭﻏﲑﻫﺎ)‪ ،(٢٢٧‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﰎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻐﻨﺎﺀ ﻋﻦ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴـﺔ‬ ‫ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺻﻠﺔ ﻣﺎ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬـﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜـﻞ‬
‫ﺣﻴﺚ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﰎ ﺗﻔﺴﲑﻫﺎ ﺑﺄﻬﻧﺎ ﺗﺆﻳـﺪ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻹﻗﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﻠﻜﻴـﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻋﻼﻗـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﺷﺘﺮﺍﻁ ﺍﳋﻀﻮﻉ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻱ ﻟﻼﺧﺘﺼﺎﺹ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺋﻲ ﻛﺸﺮﻁ ﻣﺴﺒﻖ‬ ‫ﺗﻌﺎﻗﺪﻳﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ)‪ .(٢١٩‬ﻭﻳﺸﺪّﺩ ﻣﺆﻳﺪﻭ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺮﺃﻱ‬
‫ﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻹﺻﺮﺍﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﻳﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺗﻔﺴﲑﻩ‬ ‫ﺷﻬﺪﺕ ﺗﻐﲑﺍﺕ ﻛﺒﲑﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻵﻭﻧﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ‪ .‬ﻓﺒﻴﻨﻤـﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺒـﺪﺍﻳﺎﺕ‬
‫__________‬ ‫ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﻟﻠﺤﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﲤﺜﻠﺖ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﺗﻀﺮﺭ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻃﻦ‬
‫)‪Case Concerning the Aerial Incident of 27 July 1955 (٢٢٠‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﺟﻨﱯ ﺍﳌﻘﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﺎﺭﺱ ﻧﺸﺎﻃﹰﺎ ﰲ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻓﻌـﻞ‬
‫ﺍﲣﺬﺗﻪ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻭﻣﻦ ﰒ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺘﻮﻗﻊ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﺘﻨﻔﺪ ﺳﺒﻞ‬
‫‪(Israel v. Bulgaria), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 26 May 1959,‬‬
‫‪.I.C.J. Reports 1959, p. 127‬‬
‫)‪ (٢٢١‬ﺫﻛﺮﺕ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﺃﻧﻪ "ﺭُﺋﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﻓﻘﹰﺎ ﻟﻠﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻠﺔ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﻳﺘﻌﲔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌـﻮﺍﻃﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺣﺪﺙ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﻬﺎﻙ* ﻓﺮﺻـﺔ ﻟﺘـﺼﺤﻴﺤﻪ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻘﻴﻢ ﰲ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻘﺒﻞ ﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ‪ ،‬ﲟـﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ﺑﻮﺳﺎﺋﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ" )ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٧٠‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.٢٧‬‬ ‫ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﳌﺘﺎﺣﺔ ﳉﱪ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ‪ ،‬ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻀﺮﺭ ﺷﺨﺺ ﻣـﺎ‬
‫)‪ (٢٢٢‬ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ‪ Salem‬ﻗﺮﺭﺕ ﻫﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻴﻢ ﺃﻧﻪ "ﻛﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻳﻨﺒﻐـﻲ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺗﺼﺮﻑ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺇﻗﻠﻴﻤﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺗﺼﺮﻑ‬
‫ﻳُﻘﺮ ﺍﻷﺟﻨﱯ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻝ ﺑﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺍﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺍﻹﻗﺎﻣﺔ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ‬ ‫ﻣﺎ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺇﻗﻠﻴﻤﻬﺎ ﰲ ﻇﺮﻭﻑ ﻻ ﺗﺮﺑﻄﻪ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺻﻠﺔ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻹﻗﻠـﻴﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﻗﻀﺎﺋﻲ ﻳﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ" )ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٧٢‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.١٢٠٢‬‬ ‫ﻭﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺃﻣﺜﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺌﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺑﺮ ﻟﻠﺤﺪﻭﺩ )ﻋﻠـﻰ‬
‫)‪) Finnish Ships Arbitration (٢٢٣‬ﺍﻧﻈـﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷـﻴﺔ ‪ ١٧٨‬ﺃﻋـﻼﻩ(‬ ‫ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻝ ﺍﻧﻔﺠﺎﺭ ﳏﻄﺔ ﺗﺸﲑﻧﻮﺑﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻭﻳﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻴﻴﻒ ﰲ‬
‫ﻭ‪) Ambatielos Claim‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٧٤‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪.‬‬ ‫ﺃﻭﻛﺮﺍﻧﻴﺎ ﰲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ١٩٨٦‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺍﻣﺘﺪﺕ ﺁﺛﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﻹﺷﻌﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺣـﱴ‬
‫)‪Case of Certain Norwegian Loans (France v. Norway), (٢٢٤‬‬
‫‪.Oral Pleadings of France, I.C.J. Pleadings 1957, vol. I, p. 408‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻴﺎﺑﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻻﺳﻜﻨﺪﻧﺎﻓﻴﺔ(‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﺳﻘﺎﻁ ﺇﺣﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﺋﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟـﱵ‬
‫)‪Case concerning the Aerial Incident of 27 July 1955 (Israel (٢٢٥‬‬
‫ﺩﺧﻠﺖ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﳋﻄﺄ ﺍﺠﻤﻟﺎﻝ ﺍﳉﻮﻱ ﻹﺣﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ )ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺒﲔ‬
‫‪v. Bulgaria), Preliminary Objections, Oral Pleadings of Israel, I.C.J.‬‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﺩﺙ ﺍﳉﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻭﻗﻊ ﰲ ‪ ٢٧‬ﲤﻮﺯ‪/‬ﻳﻮﻟﻴـﻪ ‪١٩٥٥‬‬
‫‪.Pleadings 1959, pp. 531–532‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺳﻘﻄﺖ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺑﻠﻐﺎﺭﻳﺎ ﻃﺎﺋﺮﺓ ﺗﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻌـﺎﻝ ﺩﺧﻠـﺖ‬
‫‪Trail Smelter, UNRIAA, vol. III (Sales No. 1949.V.2),‬‬ ‫)‪(٢٢٦‬‬ ‫__________‬
‫‪.p. 1905‬‬
‫)‪ (٢١٩‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ‬
‫)‪(٢٢٧‬‬
‫‪C. F. Amerasinghe, Local Remedies in International‬‬
‫‪Case of the "Virginius" , reported in J. B. Moore, A Digest‬‬
‫ﻭ ‪T. Meron, “The incidence of‬‬ ‫‪) Law‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٧٤‬ﺃﻋـﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪١٦٩‬؛‬
‫‪of International Law, vol. 2, Washington D.C., United States‬‬
‫‪Government Printing Office, 1906, p. 895, at p. 903; and the Jessie‬‬ ‫‪the rule of exhaustion of local remedies”, BYBIL, 1959, vol. 35, pp. 83‬‬
‫‪.case, reported in AJIL, vol. 16 (1922), pp. 114–116‬‬ ‫‪.et seq., at p. 94‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )ﻫ(‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻬﻧﺎ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﺃﻣﺜﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﺣﺎﺟـﺔ ﻓﻴـﻪ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻴﻢ‬
‫)‪ (١٢‬ﳚﻮﺯ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻣﺴﺘﻌﺪﺓ ﻟﻠﺘﻨﺎﺯﻝ ﻋـﻦ ﺷـﺮﻁ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻌﲏ ﱂ ﻳﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﲟﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳍﺪﻑ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﻣﺼﺎﱀ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻬﻤﺔ ﺑﺈﺳﺎﺀﺓ ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﻷﺟﺎﻧـﺐ‪،‬‬ ‫)‪ (١٠‬ﻭﻻ ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )ﺝ( ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ "ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻳـﺔ"‬
‫ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺫﺍﻬﺗﺎ ﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﻨﺎﺯﻝ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻗﺮﺭﺕ‬ ‫ﻟﻮﺻﻒ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴـﺔ ﻟﻠﻔـﺮﺩ‬
‫ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺪﺍﻥ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ ﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻠﻲ‪:‬‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﻋﻮﺿﹰﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺪﻳﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺻﻠﺔ ﳝﻜﻦ ﲢﺪﻳﺪﻫﺎ‬
‫ﰲ ﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﳌﺴﻠﱠﻢ ﻬﺑﺎ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﹰﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻲ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻀﻴﻔﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻌﺐ ﺇﺛﺒﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﻭﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺿﻌﺖ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﺷﺘﺮﺍﻁ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺍﳌﺴﺒﻖ‬ ‫ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻌﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﰐ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﰒ ﺍﺷﺘﺮﻃﺖ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ‬
‫ﻟﺴﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﺧﺪﻣﺔ ﳌﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺗﺴﻌﻰ ﺇﱃ‬ ‫)ﺝ( ﻭﺟﻮﺩ "ﺻﻠﺔ ﻭﺟﻴﻬﺔ" ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﺟﻨﱯ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌـﻀﻴﻔﺔ‬
‫ﺇﻋﻔﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻬﺗﻢ ﺑﺎﺭﺗﻜﺎﺏ ﺃﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﻧُﺴﺒﺖ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻣـﺎﻡ‬ ‫ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺔ ﻻ ﺑﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ "ﻭﺟﻴﻬﺔ" ﲟﻌﲎ‬
‫ﻫﻴﺌﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺇﻋﻄﺎﺋﻬﺎ ﻓﺮﺻﺔ ﺇﻧﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﳌﺘﻀﺮﺭ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺳـﺎﺋﻞ‬ ‫ﺃﻧﻪ ﻻ ﺑﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﳍﺎ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺄﺧﺮﻯ ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﳌـﺸﻜﻮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳُﻌﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻁ ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﺪﻓﺎﻉ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻟﻠﺘﻨﺎﺯﻝ‬ ‫ﻣﻨﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺸﺘﺮﻁ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻨﻈﺮ ﳏﻜﻤ ﹲﺔ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﰲ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛـﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻋﻨﻪ ﺑﻄﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻮ ﺿﻤﻨﻴﹰﺎ)‪.(٢٢٩‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﺣﺎﺿﺮﹰﺍ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻘﻴﻤﹰﺎ ﺃﻭ ﻳﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﺃﻋﻤﺎ ﹰﻻ ﲡﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺇﻗﻠـﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻀﻴﻔﺔ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﺑـﺴﻠﻮﻛﻪ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻈـﺮﻭﻑ‬
‫)‪ (١٣‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻳﺘﺨﺬ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﺯﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴـﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﲢﻤّﻞ ﳐﺎﻃﺮ ﹶﺓ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺗﻌﺮﺽ ﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﻓﺴﻮﻑ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺃﺷﻜﺎ ﹰﻻ ﻋﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﺗﻨﺺ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻣﻌﺎﻫﺪﺓ ﺛﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺘﻌـﺪﺩﺓ‬ ‫ﺽ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻀﻴﻔﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﺭﺗﺌﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ "ﻭﺟﻴﻬﺔ" ﺗﺴﻤﺢ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﺿﻊ ﺗﻘﺎ ﹴ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻃﺮﺍﻑ ﺩﺧﻠﺖ ﺣﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺎﺫ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻧﺸﻮﺀ ﺍﻟﻨـﺰﺍﻉ ﺃﻭ ﺑﻌﺪﻩ؛ ﻭﻗـﺪ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﻭﺟﻪ ﻟﻠﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻜﻢ‬
‫ﻳﻨﺺ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻋﻘﺪ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﺟﻨﱯ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ؛ ﻭﻗﺪ ﻳﻜـﻮﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﺟﻨﱯ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻀﻴﻔﺔ ﰲ ﺳﻴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺑﻐﻴ ﹶﺔ‬
‫ﺻﺮﳛﹰﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺿﻤﻨﻴﺎﹰ؛ ﺃﻭ ﻗﺪ ﻳُﻔﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻠﻮﻙ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﰲ‬ ‫ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﲦﺔ ﲢﻤﱡﻞ ﳌﺨﺎﻃﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻷﺟﻨﱯ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ‪.‬‬
‫ﻇﺮﻭﻑ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﰲ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ ﺳﻘﻮﻁ ﺍﳊﻖ ﺣﻜﻤﹰﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺳﻘﻮﻃﻪ ﺧﻄﹰﺄ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻭﳚﺐ ﺃﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ "ﺻﻠﺔ ﻭﺟﻴﻬﺔ" ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻰ‬
‫)‪ (١٤‬ﻭﳚﻮﺯ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﺝ ﺗﻨﺎﺯﻝ ﺻﺮﻳﺢ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻕ ﲢﻜﻴﻤﻲ ﳐﺼﺺ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ‪.‬‬
‫ﻼ ﺃﻭ ﺿﻤﻦ ﻣﻌﺎﻫﺪﺓ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﺗـﻨﺺ‬ ‫ﻳﱪﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺣﻞ ﻧﺰﺍﻉ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﻓﻌ ﹰ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )ﺩ(‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺴﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﺯﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﺸﺄ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺤﻜﻴﻢ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ‬
‫ﺁﺧﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺗﺴﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﺯﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﳚﻮﺯ ﺃﻳـﻀﹰﺎ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﺝ‬ ‫)‪ (١١‬ﺍﳌﺮﺍﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )ﺩ( ﻣﻨﺢ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﺻﻼﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﻋﻔﺎﺀ ﻣـﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﺯﻝ ﺿﻤﻦ ﻋﻘﺪ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﺟﻨﱯ‪ .‬ﻭﲦﺔ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻕ ﻋﺎﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫ﺷﺮﻁ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺗﺒﲔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺟﻠﻴـﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ‬
‫ﻇﻞ ﻇﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﲨﻴﻌﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﻌﻘﻮﻝ ﺗﻮﻗـﻊ ﺍﻻﻣﺘﺜـﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﺯﻝ ﺍﻟﺼﺮﻳﺢ ﻋﻦ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﺟﺎﺋﺰ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻠﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗُﻌﺪ ﳑﺎﺭﺳ ﹰﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺭﳚﻲ‪ ،‬ﳚـﺐ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﺯﻻﺕ ﲰﺔ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﲤﻴﺰ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣـﻦ‬
‫ﺗﻔﺴﲑﻫﺎ ﺗﻔﺴﲑﹰﺍ ﺿﻴﻘﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻭﲢﻤﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﻋﺐﺀ ﺇﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﺃﻧﻪ‬
‫ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻴﻢ ﺗﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﺷﺮﻭﻃﹰﺎ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﺯﻝ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻌﻞ ﺃﻓـﻀﻞ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻋﻮﺍﺋﻖ ﻭﺻﻌﻮﺑﺎﺕ ﺟﺪﻳﺔ ﺗﻌﺘﺮﺽ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘـﺼﺎﻑ‬
‫ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٢٦‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺗـﺴﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﺯﻋـﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﻼ ﻋﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻗﺪ ﻣُﻨﻊ ﻣﻨﻌـﹰﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻓﺤﺴﺐ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻓﻀ ﹰ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺷﺌﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻭﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﺺ‬ ‫"ﻭﺍﺿﺤﹰﺎ" ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻮﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻞ‪ .‬ﻭﱂ ﺗُﺒﺬﻝ ﳏﺎﻭﻟـﺔ ﻟﺘﻘـﺪﱘ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻠﻲ‪:‬‬ ‫ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺷﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﱪﺭ ﺳﺮﻳﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺳـﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻌﺪ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻘﺔ ﺍﻷﻃﺮﺍﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻴﻢ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻘﺔ‬ ‫ﻭﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺸﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺪ ﲤﻨﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻴﻢ ﻣﻊ ﺍﺳﺘﺒﻌﺎﺩ ﺃﻱ ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻟﻼﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﱂ ﻳُـﻨﺺ‬ ‫ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﻨﻌﹰﺎ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﹰﺎ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲤﻨﻊ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟـﺔ ﺍﳌـﺪﻋﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬـﺎ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﻼﻑ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ .‬ﻭﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﺘﻌﺎﻗﺪﺓ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺸﺘﺮﻁ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺩﺧﻮﻝ ﺃﺭﺍﺿﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﻣﺎ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧـﹰﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺘﻬﺪﻳـﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﳌﻮﺍﻓﻘﺘﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻴﻢ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺳﻼﻣﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺘﺤﺮﻣﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻓﺮﺻﺔ ﺇﻗﺎﻣﺔ ﺩﻋـﻮﻯ ﰲ ﺍﶈـﺎﻛﻢ‬
‫ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲤﻨﻊ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍﻣﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻰ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻣﻦ ﺇﻗﺎﻣﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﻋﻮﻯ‪ .‬ﻭﺭﻏﻢ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳُﺘﻮﻗﻊ‬
‫__________‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺤﻤﻞ ﺗﻜﺎﻟﻴﻒ ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ‬
‫‪Viviana Gallardo et al., Decision of 13 November 1981, No.‬‬ ‫)‪(٢٢٩‬‬ ‫ﳏﺎﻛﻢ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺗﻨﺸﺄ ﻇﺮﻭﻑ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻴﻬـﺎ ﻫـﺬﻩ‬
‫‪G 101/81, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series A: Judgments‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻜﺎﻟﻴﻒ ﺑﺎﻫﻈﺔ ﻻ ﺗُﺤﺘﻤﻞ ﻭﲤﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ "ﻣﻨﻌﹰﺎ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﹰﺎ"‬
‫‪) and Opinions, para. 26‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ‪ .(ILR, vol. 67 (1984), p. 587‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ‬
‫‪) ELSI‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٤٩‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٤٢‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪٥٠‬؛ ﻭ ‪De Wilde, Ooms and‬‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﻣﺘﺜﺎﻝ ﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ)‪.(٢٢٨‬‬
‫‪Versyp cases (“Vagrancy Cases”), Judgment of 18 June 1971, European‬‬ ‫__________‬
‫‪) Court of Human Rights, Series A: Judgments and Decisions, p. 12‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ‬ ‫)‪ (٢٢٨‬ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﳜﺺ ﻣﻘﺘﻀﻴﺎﺕ ﺗﻜﺎﻟﻴﻒ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ‪.(ILR, vol. 56 (1980), p. 337, at p. 370, para. 55‬‬ ‫ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪) Loewen‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٥٩‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.١٦٦‬‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻔﻬﻢ ﺿـﻤﻨﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺑـﺴﻬﻮﻟﺔ‬ ‫ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺘﻔﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﹰﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﺯﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﺼﺮﳛﺔ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﻭﺭﺩﺕ ﰲ‬
‫ﺃﻛﱪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻕ ﲢﻜﻴﻢ ﻳُﱪﻡ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻧﺸﻮﺀ ﺍﻟﱰﺍﻉ ﺍﳌﻌﲏ‪ .‬ﻭﰲ ﻣﺜـﻞ‬ ‫ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻕ ﺑﲔ ﺩﻭﻟﺘﲔ ﺃﻭ ﰲ ﻋﻘﺪ ﺑﲔ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻭﺃﺟﻨﱯ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﺗﻨـﺎﺯﻻﺕ‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﳚﻮﺯ ﺍﻻﺣﺘﺠﺎﺝ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺗﻨﺎﺯ ﹰﻻ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴـﻞ ﳝﻜـﻦ‬ ‫ﻻ ﺭﺟﻌﺔ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻀﻴﻔﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻘـﺎﻧﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺟﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺃﺑﺮﻣﺖ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻕ ﲢﻜﻴﻢ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻇﻢ ﻟﻠﻌﻘﺪ)‪.(٢٣٠‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻴﺔ ﻳﺸﻤﻞ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﺯﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﲟﻌﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻃﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻨـﺰﺍﻉ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺗﻔـﺎﻕ ﺍﻟـﺼﻤﺖ ﲞـﺼﻮﺹ‬ ‫)‪ (١٥‬ﻭﻻ ﳚﺐ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﺯﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘـﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺣﺘﻔﺎﻅ ﺑﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺑﺴﻬﻮﻟﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻔﻲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺇﻟﺴﻲ ﺫﻛﺮﺕ ﺇﺣﺪﻯ ﺩﻭﺍﺋﺮ ﳏﻜﻤـﺔ ﺍﻟﻌـﺪﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺩ "ﺃﻬﻧﺎ ﻻ ﺗﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻮﻝ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺃﻥ ﻣﺒﺪﹰﺃ ﻫﺎﻣﹰﺎ‬
‫)‪ (١٧‬ﻭﺭﻏﻢ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺗﺄﻳﻴﺪ ﻟﻠﺮﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻞ ﺇﻥ ﺳﻠﻮﻙ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻰ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﻣﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰲ ﻗﺪ ﺟﺮﻯ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﻠﻲ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺿﻤﻨﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﰲ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﺮﺍﻓﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﺇﱃ ﺣﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﺗﻠـﻚ‬ ‫ﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﺃﻳﺔ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺗﺒﲔ ﺑﻮﺿﻮﺡ ﻧﻴ ﹰﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﻴﺎﻡ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ")‪.(٢٣١‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺑﺎﺏ ﺍﻹﻏﻼﻕ ﺍﳊﻜﻤﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳـﺒﻞ‬
‫)‪ (١٦‬ﺑﻴﺪ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺍﺗﻀﺤﺖ ﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻓﲔ ﺍﻟﺘﻨـﺎﺯ ﹶﻝ ﻋـﻦ ﺳـﺒﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ)‪ ،(٢٣٦‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )ﻫ( ﻻ ﺗـﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﻏـﻼﻕ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻜﻤﻲ ﰲ ﺻﻴﺎﻏﺘﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻇﻤﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻨﺎﺯﻝ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﻚ ﺍﶈﻴﻂ‬ ‫ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻬﺑﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﺆﻳﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺝ‬
‫ﻬﺑﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‪ .‬ﻭﺭﺃﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳊﻜﻤﺔ ﺗﻘﺘـﻀﻲ‬ ‫ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ)‪ (٢٣٢‬ﻭﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﻓﻘﻬﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻘـﺎﻧﻮﻥ)‪.(٢٣٣‬‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻭﺿﻊ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳚﻮﺯ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺡ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻳُﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺗﻨﺎﺯﻝ ﺿﻤﲏ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻮ ُﻙ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺴﺘﺪﻝ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﺯﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﺯﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻜﻞ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﳚﺐ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﲢﺪﺩ ﰲ ﺿﻮﺀ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺣُﺮﺭ ﻬﺑﺎ ﺍﻟﺼﻚ ﻭﰲ ﻇﻞ ﺍﻟﻈـﺮﻭﻑ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‬ ‫ﺍﶈﻴﻄﺔ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩﻩ‪ .‬ﻭﺣﻴﺜﻤﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻭﺍﻓﻘﺖ‬
‫ﺽ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻨﺸﺄ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﺎﺯﻋﺎﺕ ﻣـﻊ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟـﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺮ ﹺ‬
‫ﺃﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﻣﺘﻨﻮﻋﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺗﺄﻳﻴﺪ ﻟﻠﺮﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻞ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -١٦‬ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺍﺑﲑ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺧﻼﻑ‬ ‫ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻕ "ﻻ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻭﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺑﺎﺳـﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﲨﻴـﻊ ﺳـﺒﻞ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﺒﲎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﻃﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﻗـﺪﺓ‬
‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒ ﹶﺔ ﺷﺨﺺ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ")‪ .(٢٣٤‬ﻭﻭﺟـﻮﺩ ﺍﺳـﺘﺪﻻﻝ ﻗـﻮﻱ‬
‫ﻻ ﲤﺲ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌـﻮﺍﺩ ﻫـﺬﻩ ﺣﻘـﻮﻕ ﺍﻟـﺪﻭﻝ ﺃﻭ‬ ‫ﻣﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﻟﻠﺘﻨﺎﺯﻝ ﺍﻟﻀﻤﲏ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺼﺮﻳﺢ ﰲ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺃﻛﺪﺗـﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﲔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ ﺃﻭ ﻏﲑﻫﻢ ﻣـﻦ‬ ‫ﺇﺣﺪﻯ ﺩﻭﺍﺋﺮ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺇﻟﺴﻲ)‪ .(٢٣٥‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﺯﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻮﺀ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟـﺪﻭﱄ ﺇﱃ ﺗـﺪﺍﺑﲑ ﺃﻭ‬ ‫__________‬
‫ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺧﻼﻑ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻔﺎﻟﺔ ﺟﱪ ﺿﺮﺭ ﳒـﻢ‬ ‫)‪ (٢٣٠‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪) Viviana Gallardo et al.‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷـﻴﺔ ‪ ٢٢٩‬ﺃﻋــﻼﻩ(‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻭ)”‪) De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp cases (“Vagrancy Cases‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ(‪.‬‬
‫)‪) ELSI (٢٣١‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٤٩‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٤٢‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٥٠‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ‬ ‫)‪ (٢٣٢‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﺜـﺎﻝ‪Steiner and Gross v. Polish State, :‬‬
‫)‪ (١‬ﺇﻥ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟـﺪﻭﱄ ﺍﻟﻌـﺮﰲ ﺑـﺸﺄﻥ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬ ‫‪Case No. 322 (30 March 1928), Annual Digest of Public International‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﻈﻢ ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻳﻜﻤـﻞ‬

‫‪Law Cases: Years 1927 and 1928, A. D. McNair and H. Lauterpacht‬‬
‫‪(eds.), London, Longmans, Green and Co., 1931, p. 472; and American‬‬
‫ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﻀﹰﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﳌﻘﺼﻮﺩ ﻬﺑﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺇﻧﻜـﺎﺭ ﺃﻭ‬ ‫‪International Group, Inc. v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No.‬‬
‫ﲡﺎﻭﺯ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﲟﺎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ‬ ‫‪93-2-3 of 19 December 1983, Iran–United States Claims Tribunal‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﺧﻼﻑ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﺇﻣـﺎ‬ ‫‪.Reports, vol. 4, Cambridge, Grotius, 1985, p. 96‬‬
‫ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰲ ﺃﻭ ﲟﻮﺟـﺐ ﻣﻌﺎﻫـﺪﺓ ﻣﺘﻌـﺪﺩﺓ‬ ‫)‪ (٢٣٣‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳـﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﺜـﺎﻝ‪S. M. Schwebel, International :‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﻃﺮﺍﻑ ﺃﻭ ﺛﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﻣﻌﺎﻫﺪﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪.‬‬ ‫‪Arbitration: Three Salient Problems, Cambridge, Grotius Publishers,‬‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﻬﺑﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻟﻸﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﲔ ﻭﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ ﺃﻭ‬ ‫‪.1987, pp. 117–121‬‬
‫ﻏﲑﻫﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠﲔ ﰲ ﳎﺎﻝ ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧـﺴﺎﻥ‪،‬‬ ‫)‪F. A. Mann, “State contracts and international arbitration”, (٢٣٤‬‬
‫__________‬ ‫‪.BYBIL, 1967, vol. 42, p. 32‬‬
‫)‪ (٢٣٦‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ‪) ELSI‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ١٤٩‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٤٤‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪٥٤‬؛‬ ‫)‪ (٢٣٥‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷـﻴﺔ ‪ ١٤٩‬ﺃﻋـﻼﻩ‪ .‬ﻭﻓــﻲ ﻗـﻀﻴﺔ ‪Panevezys-‬‬
‫‪United States–United Kingdom Arbitration concerning Heathrow‬‬ ‫ﻭ‬ ‫‪) Saldutiskis Railway‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٢٦‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ( ﺭﺃﺕ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‬
‫‪Airport User Charges, Award of 30 November 1992, ILR, vol. 102‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﻤﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺪ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻨﺺ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٢‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌـﺎﺩﺓ ‪٣٦‬‬
‫‪(1996), pp. 216 et seq., at p. 285, para. 6.33; and the Foti and Others‬‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﻻ ﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﺗﻨـﺎﺯ ﹰﻻ ﺿـﻤﻨﻴﹰﺎ ﻋـﻦ ﻗﺎﻋـﺪﺓ‬
‫‪Case, Merits, Judgement of 10 December 1982, ibid., vol. 71 (1986),‬‬ ‫ﺝ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺿـﻲ ﻓـﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ )ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺣﺎ ّ‬
‫‪.pp. 366 et seq., at p. 380, para. 46‬‬ ‫ﺇﻳﺴﻴﻨﻐﺎ )‪ (van Eysinga‬ﰲ ﺭﺃﻳﻪ ﺍﳌﺨﺎﻟﻒ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.(٣٦-٣٥‬‬
‫)‪ (٣‬ﻭﻟﻠﻔﺮﺩ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﻭﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺗﺘﺎﺡ ﻟﻪ ﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻮﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺗﺪﺍﺑﲑ ﺃﻭ ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﻘـﺎﻧﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﺃﻭ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺧﻼﻑ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺑﻐﻴﺔ ﺿﻤﺎﻥ ﺟـﱪ ﺍﻟـﻀﺮﺭ‬
‫ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺘﻜﺒﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺮّﺍﺀ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﳚﺮﻱ ﺫﻟﻚ ﰲ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻪ‬
‫)‪ (٢‬ﻭﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲢﻤﻲ ﺷﺨﺼﹰﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﺿـﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺎﺱ ﺇﱃ ﻫﻴﺌﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﺮﺻﺪ ﺇﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ)‪.(٢٤١‬‬
‫ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻓﺮﺩ ﻣﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﺃﻭ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺛﺎﻟﺜﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻋﺎﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫)‪ (٤‬ﻭﳚﻮﺯ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻨﺸﺄ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﻔـﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤـﺔ ﲟﻮﺟـﺐ‬ ‫ﺗﻘﺎﻡ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﺑﺎﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﳌﺪﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﻻﻏﺮﺍﻧﺪ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ )ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ،(٤١‬ﻭﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﲨﻴـﻊ‬
‫ﺭﺃﺕ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٣٦‬ﻣـﻦ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴـﺔ ﻓﻴﻴﻨـﺎ‬ ‫ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺼﺮﻱ )ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ،(١١‬ﻭﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﻣﻨﺎﻫﻀﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺬﻳﺐ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﻨﺼﻠﻴﺔ "ﺗﻨﺸﺊ ﺣﻘﻮﻗﹰﺎ ﻓﺮﺩﻳﺔ ﳝﻜﻦ‪ ،‬ﻃﺒﻘﹰﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ‬ ‫ﻭﻏﲑﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺿﺮﻭﺏ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻼﺇﻧـﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﻮﻛﻮﻝ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻻﺣﺘﺠﺎﺝ ﻬﺑﺎ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﻣـﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻬﻴﻨﺔ )ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ،(٢١‬ﻭﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺑﻴـﺔ ﳊﻘـﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧـﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻗﺒﻞ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﶈﺘﺠﺰ")‪ ،(٢٤٢‬ﻭﻓـﻲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺃﻓﻴﻨـﺎ‪،‬‬ ‫)ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ،(٢٤‬ﻭﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ ﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪" :‬ﻣﻴﺜﺎﻕ ﺳﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻻﺣﻈﺖ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ "ﺃﻥ ﺍﻧﺘﻬﺎﻛﺎﺕ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤـﺔ‬ ‫ﺧﻮﺳﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻮﺳﺘﺎﺭﻳﻜﺎ" )ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ،(٤٥‬ﻭﺍﳌﻴﺜﺎﻕ ﺍﻷﻓﺮﻳﻘﻲ ﳊﻘـﻮﻕ‬
‫ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٣٦‬ﻗﺪ ﺗﺴﺘﺘﺒﻊ ﺍﻧﺘﻬﺎﻛﹰﺎ ﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺮﺳِﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺏ )ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ‪ .(٥٤-٤٧‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺎﺕ ﻧﻔـﺴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺘﻬﺎﻛﺎﺕ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺗـﺴﺘﺘﺒﻊ ﺍﻧﺘـﻬﺎﻛﹰﺎ ﳊﻘـﻮﻕ‬ ‫ﺗﺘﻴﺢ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻋﺎﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﺎﻡ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ")‪ .(٢٤٣‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺃﹸﺩﺭﺝ ﺷﺮﻁ ﲢﻮﻃﻲ ﰲ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠـﻖ‬ ‫ﻼ ﻋﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰲ ﻳﺘﻴﺢ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻝ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ‪ .‬ﻭﻓﻀ ﹰ‬
‫ﲟﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻋﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ ‪ -‬ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪- ٣٣‬‬ ‫ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻨﻴﻬﺎ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻻﺣﺘﺠﺎﺝ‬
‫ﳌﺮﺍﻋﺎﺓ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ)‪.(٢٤٤‬‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻭﺽ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻣﺎ ﲰﺢ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺻـﻚ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﻻﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﺭﺃﻱ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﰲ‬
‫)‪ (٥‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺪﺍﺑﲑ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﺭ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﰲ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪١٦‬‬ ‫ﻗﻀﺎﻳﺎ ﺟﻨﻮﺏ ﻏﺮﺏ ﺃﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺎ ﻟﻌﺎﻡ ‪ (٢٣٧)١٩٦٦‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺃﻧـﻪ ﻻ‬
‫ﺗﺸﻤﻞ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﺘﺎﺣﺔ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﻣﻌﺎﻫﺪﺍﺕ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﳌﻴـﺔ‬
‫ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﺨﺬ ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺃﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﻗﻠﻴﻤﻴﺔ ﻭﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻌﺎﻫﺪﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺻـﻠﺔ‪ .‬ﻏـﲑ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫ﻏﲑ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻨﻴﻬﺎ ﺭﺃﻱ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳُﻘﻴﱠﺪ ﰲ ﺿﻮﺀ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﲟﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١٦‬ﻻ ﻳﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻋﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ)‪ .(٢٣٨‬ﻭﺗـﺴﻤﺢ ﺍﻟﻔﻘـﺮﺓ‬
‫)‪ (٦‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻮﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺧﻼﻑ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬ ‫‪)١‬ﺏ( ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٤٨‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﲟﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻓﻌﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻜﻔﺎﻟﺔ ﺟﱪ ﺿﺮﺭ ﳒﻢ ﻋﻦ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺩﻭﻟﻴـﹰﺎ‬ ‫ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻋﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺧﻼﻑ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺑﺎﻻﺣﺘﺠـﺎﺝ‬
‫ﺣﻖ ﻳُﺨﻮّﻝ ﻋﺎﺩ ﹰﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺷﺨﺺ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ‬ ‫ﲟﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻻﻟﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﰎ ﺍﻹﺧﻼﻝ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﺰﺍﻣﹰﺎ‬
‫ﻳﺸﻤﻞ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ "ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻱ" ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﺷـﺨﺎﺹ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﺟﺒﹰﺎ ﲡﺎﻩ ﺍﺠﻤﻟﺘﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﻛﻜﻞ)‪ ،(٢٣٩‬ﺩﻭﻥ ﺍﻻﻣﺘﺜـﺎﻝ ﳌﺘﻄﻠﺒـﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﳌﻘﺼﻮﺩﻳﻦ ﲟﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ .١٣‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻗـﺪ‬ ‫ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ)‪.(٢٤٠‬‬
‫ﺗﻮﺟﺪ "ﻛﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ" ﻻ ﺗﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴـﺔ‬
‫ﻭﳍﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻌﻮﻳﺾ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺿﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳌﺘﻜﺒـﺪﺓ‬ ‫__________‬
‫ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﺜﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ "ﺍﻟﻜﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ‬ ‫‪South West Africa, Second Phase, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports‬‬ ‫)‪(٢٣٧‬‬
‫ﻼ ﻓـﻀﻔﺎﺿﹰﺎ ﻭﺍﻟـﱵ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ" ﺭﺍﺑﻄﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻀﺤﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﳌﺸﻜﱠﻠﺔ ﺗﺸﻜﻴ ﹰ‬ ‫‪.1966, p. 6‬‬
‫)‪ (٢٣٨‬ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،٢٠٠١‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ( ﻭﺍﻟﺘـﺼﻮﻳﺐ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪١٦٤‬‬
‫__________‬
‫)ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ،٤٨‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪.(٧٢٥‬‬
‫)‪ (٢٤١‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﻮﻛﻮﻝ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻱ ﺍﳌﻠﺤﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻬـﺪ‬ ‫)‪ (٢٣٩‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺃﻱ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻘﻞ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﺿﻲ ﺳﻴﻤﺎ )‪ (Simma‬ﰲ ﻗـﻀﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﺑﺎﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﳌﺪﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ؛ ﻭﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١٤‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﻧﺸﻄﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻠﺤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺭﺍﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻧﻐﻮ‪Armed Activities on the Territory :‬‬
‫ﻟﻠﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺼﺮﻱ؛ ﻭﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٢٢‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﻣﻨﺎﻫﻀﺔ‬ ‫‪of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Uganda), Judgment,‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺬﻳﺐ ﻭﻏﲑﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺿﺮﻭﺏ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺳـﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻼﺇﻧـﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ‬ ‫‪.I.C.J. Reports 2005, p. 168, at pp. 347–350, paras. 35–41‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻬﻴﻨﺔ؛ ﻭﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﻮﻛﻮﻝ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻱ ﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﻴﺰ‬
‫ﺿﺪ ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ‪.‬‬ ‫)‪ (٢٤٠‬ﻻ ﲣﻀﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪)١‬ﺏ( ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٤٨‬ﻟﻠﻤﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٤٤‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﲟﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻋﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﺘـﻀﻲ‬
‫)‪) LaGrand (٢٤٢‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٢٨‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٤٩٤‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٧٧‬‬
‫ﺍﻣﺘﺜﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﺘﺞ ﲟﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻟﻠﻘﻮﺍﻋـﺪ ﺍﳌﺘـﺼﻠﺔ ﲜﻨـﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫)‪) Avena (٢٤٣‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٢٩‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٣٦‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٤٠‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻄﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﻭﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﲣﻀﻊ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻔﻘـﺮﺓ‬
‫)‪ (٢٤٤‬ﺗﻨﺺ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٢‬ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻠﻲ‪" :‬ﻻ ﳜﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺏ‬ ‫ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﳌﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﻴﺔ )ﻗﺎﺭﻥ‪E. Milano, “Diplomatic protection :‬‬
‫ﺑﺄﻱ ﺣﻖ ﻳﻨﺸﺄ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻭﻗﺪ ﻳﺘﺮﺗـﺐ ﻣﺒﺎﺷـﺮ ﹰﺓ ﻷﻱ‬ ‫‪and human rights before the International Court of Justice: re-‬‬
‫ﺷﺨﺺ ﺃﻭ ﻛﻴﺎﻥ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ" )ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،٢٠٠١‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜـﺎﱐ )ﺍﳉـﺰﺀ‬ ‫‪fashioning tradition?”, Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, vol.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ( ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺼﻮﻳﺐ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.(٧٦‬‬ ‫‪.(35 (2004), pp. 85 et seq., at pp. 103–108‬‬
‫)ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺣﺎﻣﻞ ﺃﺳﻬﻢ( ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻀﻴﻔﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺘﻔـﺴﲑ ﺃﻭ‬ ‫ُﺧﻮﱢﻟﺖ ﰲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ ﺻﻼﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺜﻮﻝ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﻫﻴﺌـﺎﺕ ﺩﻭﻟﻴـﺔ‬
‫ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ ﺫﻱ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻫﺪﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺗﺴﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﺯﻋﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﻣﻜﻠﻔﺔ ﺑﺈﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﻠﻬﻴﺌﺎﺕ ﺍﳊﻜﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﺺ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻌﺎﻫﺪﺍﺕ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺜﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴـﺔ ﺗـﺴﻮﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﰲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ ﺃﻥ ﺗُﺪﺭﺝ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺌﺔ؛ ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻨﺎﺯﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺷﺌﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻭﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﳊﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﲏ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻮﻓﺮ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺘﺜﻤﺮ ﺍﻷﺟﻨﱯ ﻣﺰﺍﻳﺎ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﳑﺎ ﻳﻮﻓﺮﻩ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰲ ﻟﻠﺤﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻬﻧﺎ ﺗﺘﻴﺢ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺘﺜﻤﺮ ﻓﺮﺻﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻮﺀ‬ ‫)‪ (٧‬ﻭﻳﺒﻴﱢﻦ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١٦‬ﺃﻥ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻻ ﲤﺲ‬
‫ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﻭﲡﻨﱢﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﻐﻤﻮﺽ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻦ ﰲ‬ ‫ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻟﻠﺤﻜﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﺃﻭ ﻟﻸﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﲔ ﻭﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﲔ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﻟﻀﻤﺎﻥ ﺟﱪ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﻊ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺮﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﺤﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﺗُﺤﻠﱡﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﺪ ﺑﺸﺮﻭﻁ‬
‫ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ)‪.(٢٤٦‬‬ ‫ﺟﺮّﺍﺀ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺧﻼﻑ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻋﻨـﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻠﺠـﺄ ﺩﻭﻟـﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻫـﺬﻩ‬
‫)‪ (٣‬ﻭﻳﻮﺿﺢ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١٧‬ﺃﻥ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌـﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﻴـﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﻻ ﺗﺘﺨﻠﻰ ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺣﻘﻬﺎ ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬
‫ﻻ ﺗﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺜﻤﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﻷﺟﺎﻧﺐ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻨﺼﻮﺹ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﰲ ﻣﻌﺎﻫـﺪﺍﺕ ﺍﻻﺳـﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺜﻨﺎﺋﻴـﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﺘﻌـﺪﺩﺓ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﺭ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﻢ ﰲ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪.٨‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﻃﺮﺍﻑ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺻﻴﻎ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ ﺻﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﲡﻌـﻞ ﻣـﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌـﻮﺍﺩ‬
‫ﻻ ﺗﻨﻄﺒﻖ "ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﺎ" ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻨﺴﺠﻤﺔ ﻭﻧﺼﻮﺹ ﻣﻌﺎﻫﺪﺓ ﻣـﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -١٧‬ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎﻫﺪﺍﺕ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺜﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣـﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌـﻮﺍﺩ‬ ‫ﻻ ﺗﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺣﻴﺜﻤﺎ ﻭﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﺎ ﻻ ﺗﺘﻔﻖ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺴﺠﻤﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻫﺪﺓ ﺍﳌﻌﻨﻴﺔ ﻓﺈﻬﻧﺎ ﺗﻈﻞ ﻣﻨﻄﺒﻘﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻷﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﻟـﻮﺍﺭﺩﺓ ﰲ‬
‫)‪ (٤‬ﻭﻳﺸﲑ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١٧‬ﺇﱃ "ﺍﻷﺣﻜـﺎﻡ ﺍﻟـﻮﺍﺭﺩﺓ ﰲ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻫﺪﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﲝﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻫﺪﺍﺕ" ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺇﱃ "ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻫﺪﺍﺕ"‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻫﺪﺍﺕ ﺧﻼﻑ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻫﺪﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﺔ ﺧﺼﻴﺼﹰﺎ ﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻨﻈﻢ‬
‫ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﻣﻌﺎﻫﺪﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﻼﺣﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫)‪ (١‬ﺗﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻫﺪﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺳﻴﻤﺎ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻫﺪﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘـﺔ‬
‫ﲝﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻷﺟﻨﱯ‪ ،‬ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺗﺴﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﺯﻋﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -١٨‬ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﺃﻃﻘﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻦ‬ ‫ﺗﺴﺘﺒﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻇﻤﺔ ﻟﻠﺤﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﲢﻴﺪ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻛﺜﲑﹰﺍ‪.‬‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﺘﺄﺛﺮ ﺣﻖ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺃﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﻃﺎﻗﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ‬ ‫ﻭﺗﺘﺨﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻫﺪﺍﺕ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻭﻁ ﺍﳌﺘﺼﻠﺔ ﲟﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﲣﻔﻒ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺳﻴﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﳌﺘﺼﻠﺔ ﲜﻨـﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﺼﺎﳊﻬﻢ ﲝﻖ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟـﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺎﺱ ﺍﳉﱪ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻴﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻗﻢ‪ ،‬ﺑﻐﺾ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﻋﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺎﺩ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﶈﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺍﻷﻣﺜﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺼﻴﺒﻬﻢ ﺿﺮﺭ ﻳﺘﺼﻞ ﺑﻀﺮﺭ ﺃﺻﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ‬ ‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻫﺪﺍﺕ ﻣﻌﺎﻫﺪﺍﺕ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺜﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴـﺔ ﺗـﺴﻮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻨﺎﺯﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺷﺌﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻭﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‪،‬‬
‫ﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ ﺍﻷﻃﺮﺍﻑ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ‬
‫)‪ (٢‬ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻷﺟﻨﱯ ﰲ ﻣﻌﻈﻤﻪ ﻳُـﻨﻈﱠﻢ ﻭﻳُﺤﻤـﻰ ﺍﻟﻴـﻮﻡ‬
‫)‪ (١‬ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺽ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١٨‬ﻫﻮ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﺣﻖ ﺩﻭﻟـﺔ ﺃﻭ‬ ‫ﲟﻌﺎﻫﺪﺍﺕ ﺍﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺛﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ)‪ .(٢٤٥‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺯﺍﺩ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻫـﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻫـﺪﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺩﻭﻝ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺃﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﻃﺎﻗﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺯﻳﺎﺩﺓ ﻛﺒﲑﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﺧـﲑﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻮﺟـﺪ ﺍﻟﻴـﻮﻡ ﲝـﺴﺐ‬
‫ﳍﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺴﻠﻴﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ ﺃﻳـﻀﹰﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺮﺍﺕ ﳓﻮ ﺃﻟﻔﻲ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻕ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﺣـﺪﻯ ﺍﻟـﺴﻤﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺎﺱ ﺟﱪ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺑﻐﺾ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﻢ ﻋﻨـﺪﻣﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺔ ﳌﻌﺎﻫﺪﺓ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺜﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍ ُﺀ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺗﺴﻮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻳﺼﻴﺒﻬﻢ ﺿﺮ ٌﺭ ﰲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﻧﺰﻭﻝ ﺿﺮﺭ ﺑﺎﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺮّﺍﺀ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻏـﲑ‬ ‫ﻣﻨﺎﺯﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﻨﺺ ﺑﻌﺾ ﻣﻌﺎﻫﺪﺍﺕ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺜﻨﺎﺋﻴـﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﻱ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﺣـﻖ ﺩﻭﻟـﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﻟﱰﺍﻉ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌـﺴﺘﺜﻤﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻷﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﻃﺎﻗﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ ﻣﻨﻌﹰﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻀﻴﻔﺔ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺇﻣﺎ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﳐﺼﺼﺔ ﺃﻭ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﻳﻨﺸﺌﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‬
‫__________‬ ‫ﻟﺘﺴﻮﻳﺔ ﻣﻨﺎﺯﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﰲ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺗﺴﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﺯﻋـﺎﺕ‬
‫)‪ (٢٤٦‬ﺗﻨﺺ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ١‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٢٧‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺗـﺴﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﺯﻋـﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺷﺌﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻭﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‪ .‬ﻭﺗـﻨﺺ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺷﺌﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻭﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻠﻲ‪" :‬ﻻ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ‬ ‫ﻣﻌﺎﻫﺪﺍﺕ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻌﺎﻫﺪﺍﺕ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺜﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗـﺴﻮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﺘﻌﺎﻗﺪﺓ ﺑﺘﻮﻓﲑ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻧﺰﺍﻉ‬ ‫ﻣﻨﺎﺯﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻴﻢ ﺑﲔ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺜﻤﺮ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻓﻖ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﻭﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﺘﻌﺎﻗﺪﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻋﻠﻰ َﻋ ْﺮﺿِﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻋﺮﺿﺎﻩ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌـﻞ‪،‬‬ ‫__________‬
‫ﻟﻠﺘﺤﻜﻴﻢ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﱂ ﺗﻘﺼُﺮ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﻗﺪﺓ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‬ ‫‪Barcelona Traction,‬‬‫)‪ (٢٤٥‬ﺳﻠﹼﻤﺖ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﰲ‪:‬‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺍﻻﻟﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨـﺰﺍﻉ ﻭﻋﻦ ﺍﻻﻣﺘﺜﺎﻝ ﻟﻪ"‪.‬‬ ‫‪) Second Phase, Judgment‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٣٥‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٤٧‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٩٠‬‬
‫ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟ َﻌﻠﹶﻢ ﺍﻟـﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻤﻠـﻮﻥ ﲢﺘـﻪ")‪ .(٢٥٢‬ﻭﰲ ﻗـﻀﻴﺔ "ﺃﻧـﺎ‬ ‫ﻷﻱ ﺇﳛﺎﺀ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻗﺪ ﺣﻞ ﳏﻠﻪ ﺣﻖ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﲟﻔﺮﺩﻱ")‪ ،(٢٥٣‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻧﺸﺄﺕ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻟﻘﻴﺎﻡ ﺳﻔﻴﻨﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻔﻦ ﺣـﺮﺱ‬ ‫ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﻠﻴﻢ ﲝﻖ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻮﺍﺣﻞ ﺗﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺑﺈﻏﺮﺍﻕ ﺳﻔﻴﻨﺔ ﻛﻨﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻃﺎﻟﺒﺖ‬ ‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺎﺱ ﺍﳉﱪ ﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﺃﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﻃﺎﻗﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺭﻏﻢ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻻ ﳝﻜـﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻜﻮﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺪﻳﺔ ﺑﻨﺠﺎﺡ ﺑﺘﻌﻮﻳﺾ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻴﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻣـﻦ ﺃﻓـﺮﺍﺩ‬ ‫ﻭﺻﻒ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﺼﻔﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﺭﺍﺑﻂ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻗﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻃﻨﲔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺆﻛﺪﺓ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗُﻘﺪﻡ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻴﺎﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﲔ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ ﻭﺃﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﻃﺎﻗﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺗـﺸﺎﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺳﻔﻴﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺃﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻗﻢ ﻳﻌﺘﱪﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﻷﻏﺮﺍﺽ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﻧﻔﺲ‬ ‫ﺷﺪﻳﺪ ﺑﲔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﻮﻯ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻮﻳﻀﺎﺕ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺿـﺮﺍﺭ‪،‬‬
‫)‪ (٢‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳚﻴﺰ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ )ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ(‬
‫ﻭﺍﻓﻖ ﻗﺎﺿﻴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺭﺃﻳﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻘﻠﲔ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﻖ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﺃﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﺍﻗﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺟﺎﻧﺐ)‪.(٢٥٤‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺎﺱ ﺍﳉﱪ ﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﺃﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﻃﺎﻗﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻻ ﳛﻤﻠﻮﻥ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻳﻠﻘﻰ ﺗﺄﻳﻴﺪﹰﺍ ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻘـﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘـﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻭﰲ‬
‫)‪ (٥‬ﻭﰲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ،١٩٩٩‬ﺃﺻﺪﺭﺕ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﻓﻘﻬﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ)‪ .(٢٤٧‬ﻭﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﺍﻋﺘﺒـﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﰲ‬
‫ﺣﻜﻤﻬﺎ ﻓـﻲ ﻗﻀﻴـﺔ "ﺳﺎﻳﻐﺎ")‪ (٢٥٥‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻳّﺪ ﺣﻖ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠـﻢ‬ ‫ﳎﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﲢﺒﺬ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞ‪.‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺎﺱ ﺍﳉﱪ ﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﺃﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻗﻢ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺘﻤﺘﻌﲔ ﲜﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ‬ ‫)‪ (٣‬ﻭﲤﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳌﺒﻜﺮﺓ ﻟﻠﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﺑﻮﺟﻪ ﺧﺎﺹ‪،‬‬
‫ﻧﺸﺄ ﺍﻟﻨـﺰﺍﻉ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻗﻴﺎﻡ ﻏﻴﻨﻴﺎ ﺑﺘﻮﻗﻴﻒ ﻭﺍﺣﺘﺠﺎﺯ‬ ‫ﺇﱃ ﺗﺄﻳﻴﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌُﺮﻑ‪ .‬ﻓﺒﻤﻮﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻲ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ "ﺳﺎﻳﻐﺎ"‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺰﻭﺩ ﺳﻔﻦ ﺻﻴﺪ ﺍﻷﲰﺎﻙ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﻗﻮﺩ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﻳﺘﻤﺘﻌﻮﻥ ﺗﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﹰﺎ ﺑﺎﳊﻖ ﰲ ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﳍـﻢ‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺳﺎﺣﻞ ﻏﻴﻨﻴﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ "ﺳﺎﻳﻐﺎ" ﻣﺴﺠﻠﺔ ﰲ ﺳﺎﻧﺖ ﻓﻨﺴﻨﺖ‬ ‫ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﺧﺪﻣﺘﻬﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻭﻓﻘﹰﺎ ﻟﻠﺮﺃﻱ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜـﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺟﺰﺭ ﻏﺮﻳﻨﺎﺩﻳﻦ )"ﺳﺎﻧﺖ ﻓﻨﺴﻨﺖ"( ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺭﺑﱠﺎﻬﻧﺎ ﻭﻃﺎﻗﻤﻬﺎ ﻣـﻦ‬ ‫ﻣﱴ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻖ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺎﺭ ﺑﺎﳋﺪﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪﺓ‬
‫ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺃﻭﻛﺮﺍﻧﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺳﻨﻐﺎﻟﻴﲔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺘﻨﻬﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻨﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ)‪ .(٢٤٨‬ﻭﻫـﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﺿـﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻳـﺪ‬
‫ﻭﻗﺖ ﺗﻮﻗﻴﻔﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻗﻴﻒ‪ ،‬ﺍﺣﺘﺠﺰﺕ ﻏﻴﻨﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ ﻭﻃﺎﻗﻤﻬﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻟﻸﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠﲔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ ﺃﻋﻴﺪ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪﻩ ﺗﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﹰﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﺳﲑ ﺍﻟﺪﻋﻮﻯ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻘـﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺤـﺎﺭ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺮﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻮﺍﺋﺢ ﺍﻟﻘﻨﺼﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤـﺪﺓ)‪.(٢٤٩‬‬
‫ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺿﺖ ﻏﻴﻨﻴﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺳﺎﻧﺖ ﻓﻨﺴﻨﺖ ﻣﺴﺘﻨﺪﺓ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ‬ ‫ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥ ﺷﻜﻮﻛﹰﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺑﺪﻳﺖ‪ ،‬ﲟﺎ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺷﻜﻮﻙ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳـﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺃﺳﺲ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻗﻢ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭﻳﻦ ﻟﻴﺴﻮﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺳﺎﻧﺖ‬ ‫ﻼ ﻋﻠﻰ‬‫ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ)‪ ،(٢٥٠‬ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﺩﻟﻴ ﹰ‬
‫ﻓﻨﺴﻨﺖ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺭﻓﻀﺖ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‬ ‫ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻋﺮﻓﻴﺔ)‪.(٢٥١‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻋﺘﱪﺕ ﺃﻥ ﻏﻴﻨﻴﺎ ﺍﻧﺘﻬﻜﺖ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺳﺎﻧﺖ ﻓﻨـﺴﻨﺖ ﺑﺘﻮﻗﻴـﻒ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺣﺘﺠﺎﺯ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ ﻭﻃﺎﻗﻤﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﻣﺮﺕ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﻏﻴﻨﻴﺎ ﺑﺪﻓﻊ ﺗﻌﻮﻳﺾ‬ ‫)‪ (٤‬ﻭﻗﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻏﲑ ﺣﺎﲰﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﲝـﻖ‬
‫ﻟﺴﺎﻧﺖ ﻓﻨﺴﻨﺖ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺿﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳊﻘﺖ ﺑﺎﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ ﺳﺎﻳﻐﺎ ﻭﺍﻷﺿﺮﺍﺭ‬ ‫ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﺎ ﰲ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺒﺤّﺎﺭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﻣـﻮﺍﻃﲏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﳊﻘﺖ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺎﻗﻢ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﲤﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺗﺄﻳﻴﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻻ ﺇﱃ ﺭﻓﻀﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﰲ‬
‫ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﻣﺎﻛﺮﻳﺪﻱ ﻗﻀﻰ ﺍﶈﻜﱢﻢ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺴﲑ ﺇﺩﻭﺍﺭﺩ ﺛﻮﺭﻧﺘﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﺄﻧﻪ "ﳛﻖ‬
‫)‪ (٦‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻋﺘﱪﺕ ﺍﻟﻨـﺰﺍﻉ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺳـﺎﺱ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺒﺤﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﻌﻤﻠﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﻔﻦ ﺍﻷﺳﻄﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮﻱ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﻱ‬
‫ﻧﺰﺍﻋﹰﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺈﳊﺎﻕ ﺿﺮﺭ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﺑﺴﺎﻧﺖ ﻓﻨـﺴﻨﺖ)‪ ،(٢٥٦‬ﺗـﺸﲑ‬ ‫ﲢﺖ َﻋﻠﹶﻢ ﻏﲑ ﻋﻠﻤﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﳛﺼﻠﻮﺍ ﻃﻮﺍﻝ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺧﺪﻣﺘﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠـﻰ‬
‫ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻼﺕ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻬﻧﺎ ﺍﻋﺘﱪﺕ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﲝﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬ ‫__________‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻗﻢ ﲪﺎﻳ ﹰﺔ ﺷﺒﻴﻬﺔ ﺑﺎﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻦ‬ ‫‪H. Myers, The Nationality of Ships, The Hague,‬‬ ‫)‪ (٢٤٧‬ﺍﻧﻈـﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺿﺢ ﺃﻥ ﻏﻴﻨﻴﺎ ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺿﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻘﺒﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻓﻴﻤـﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠـﻖ‬ ‫‪Martinus Nijhoff, 1967, pp. 90–107; R. Dolzer, “Diplomatic protection‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺎﻗﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺃﻬﻧﺎ ﺗﺸﻜﱢﻞ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺑﺎﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻴﺔ‬ ‫‪of foreign nationals”, in R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public‬‬
‫‪International Law, vol. 1, Amsterdam, Elsevier, 1992, p. 1067; and I.‬‬
‫__________‬ ‫‪Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 6th ed., Oxford‬‬
‫)‪McCready (U.S. v. Mexico), J. B. Moore, International (٢٥٢‬‬

‫‪.University Press, 2003, p. 460‬‬
‫‪.Arbitrations, vol. 3, p. 2536‬‬ ‫)‪ (٢٤٨‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪The Ross case, United States Reports, vol. 140 (1911),‬‬
‫‪S. S. “I’m Alone” (Canada v. United States), UNRIAA,‬‬ ‫)‪(٢٥٣‬‬ ‫‪.p. 453‬‬
‫‪.vol. III, p. 1609‬‬ ‫)‪ (٢٤٩‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪ ،Hackworth‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﳌﺬﻛﻮﺭ )ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٦٤‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ‬
‫)‪) Reparation for Injuries (٢٥٤‬ﺍﻧﻈــﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷــﻴﺔ ‪ ٢٣‬ﺃﻋــﻼﻩ(‪،‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٤١٨‬ﻭﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.٨٨٤-٨٨٣‬‬
‫ﺹ ‪) ٢٠٣-٢٠٢‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺿــﻲ ﻫــﺎﻛﻮﺭﺙ )‪ ((Hackworth‬ﻭﺹ ‪٢٠٧-٢٠٦‬‬ ‫)‪ (٢٥٠‬ﺭﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﻣﺆﺭﺧﺔ ‪ ٢٠‬ﺃﻳﺎﺭ‪/‬ﻣﺎﻳﻮ ‪ ٢٠٠٣‬ﻣﻮﺟﻬﺔ ﺇﱃ ﳉﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‬
‫)ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺿﻲ ﺑﺪﻭﻱ ﺑﺎﺷﺎ )‪.((Badawi Pasha‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ )ﳏﻔﻮﻇﺔ ﻟﺪﻯ ﺷﻌﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﻭﻳﻦ ﰲ ﻣﻜﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﺆﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴـﺔ ﺑـﺎﻷﻣﻢ‬
‫)‪The M/V “Saiga” (No. 2) case (Saint Vincent and the (٢٥٥‬‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ(‪.‬‬
‫‪.Grenadines v. Guinea), Judgment, ITLOS Reports 1999, vol. 3, p. 10‬‬ ‫)‪ (٢٥١‬ﺍﻧﻈــﺮ ‪A. Watts, “The protection of alien seamen”,‬‬
‫)‪ (٢٥٦‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٤٦-٤٥‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٩٨‬‬ ‫‪.International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 7 (1958), p. 691‬‬
‫ﺃﺻﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺩﻭﻟﻴـﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻧﺘﻴﺠـ ﹰﺔ‬ ‫ﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﻟﻴﺴﻮﺍ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﲏ ﺳﺎﻧﺖ ﻓﻨـﺴﻨﺖ)‪ .(٢٥٧‬ﻭﺃﺻـﺮﺕ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺻﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻳﻨﺸﺄ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊـﻖ ﻋﻨـﺪﻣﺎ‬ ‫ﺳﺎﻧﺖ ﻓﻨﺴﻨﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻮﺡ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻘﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻌﺮﺽ ﺃﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﻃﺎﻗﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻮﻗﻴﻒ ﻭﺍﻻﺣﺘﺠﺎﺯ ﺑﺼﻔﺔ ﻏﲑ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﻃﺎﻗﻢ ﺳﻔﻴﻨﺔ ﺗﺮﻓﻊ ﻋﻠﻤﻬﺎ "ﺑﻐﺾ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﻢ")‪.(٢٥٨‬‬
‫ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻗﻴﻒ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻟﻠﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ ﺫﺍﻬﺗﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻭﰲ ﺭﻓﻀﻬﺎ ﻻﻋﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﻏﻴﻨﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﺫﻛﺮﺕ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻣـﻢ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺎﺭ ﻻ ﲤﻴﺰ ﰲ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺣﻜﺎﻣﻬﺎ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -١٩‬ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺻﻰ ﻬﺑﺎ‬ ‫ﲟﺎ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ،٢٩٢‬ﺑﲔ ﻣـﻮﺍﻃﲏ ﺩﻭﻟـﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠـﻢ ﻭﻏـﲑ‬
‫ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳛﻖ ﳍﺎ ﺃﻥ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻨﻴﻬﺎ)‪ .(٢٥٩‬ﻭﺷﺪﺩﺕ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ "ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛـﻞ ﻣـﺎ‬
‫ﻭﻓﻘﹰﺎ ﳌﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﻫﺬﻩ‪:‬‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻞ ﺷﺨﺺ ﻣﻨﺨﺮﻁ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﻬﺗﺎ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻌﲏ ﻬﺑﺎ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌـﺎﻣﻠﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻛﻜﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺎﺕ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ‪ ،‬ﻓﺄﻣﺮ‬
‫)ﺃ( ﺃﻥ ﺗﻮﱄ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺟﺐ ﻹﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﻻ ﻳُﻌﺘﺪ ﺑﻪ")‪.(٢٦٠‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺳﻴﻤﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺿﺮﺭ ﺫﻱ ﺷﺄﻥ؛‬
‫)‪ (٧‬ﻭﲦﺔ ﺃﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﻣﻘﻨﻌﺔ ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺗﺪﻋﻮ ﻟﻠﺴﻤﺎﺡ‬
‫)ﺏ( ﻭﺃﻥ ﺗﻀﻊ ﰲ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﻠﻤـﺎ ﺃﻣﻜـﻦ‪ ،‬ﺁﺭﺍﺀ‬ ‫ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻤﺎﺱ ﺍﳉﱪ ﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﺃﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﻃﺎﻗﻢ ﺍﻟـﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻗـﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭﻳﻦ ﻓﻴﻤـﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠـﻖ ﺑـﺎﻟﻠﺠﻮﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬ ‫ﺳﻠﻤﺖ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺎﺭ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ "ﺳـﺎﻳﻐﺎ"‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳉﱪ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻮﺏ؛‬ ‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻭﺟﻬﺖ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺒﺎﻩ ﺇﱃ "ﺍﻟﻄﺎﺑﻊ ﺍﳌﺆﻗﺖ ﻟﺘﺸﻜﻴﻞ ﺃﻃﻘﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻦ‬
‫)ﺝ( ﻭﺃﻥ ﲢﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﺃﻱ ﺗﻌـﻮﻳﺾ‬ ‫ﻼ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻌﺪﺩ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺎﺕ ﺃﻓﺮﺍﺩﻫﺎ"‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻛﺮﺕ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑﺓ‬ ‫ﻓﻀ ﹰ‬
‫"ﻗﺪ ﺗﻀﻢ ﻃﺎﻗﻤﹰﺎ ﻳﺘﺄﻟﻒ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺫﻭﻱ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ‪ .‬ﻓﺈﻥ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺗﻘﺪﻣﻪ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﺔ ﺭﻫﻨﹰﺎ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺍﻗﺘﻄﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻟﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﺿﻄﹸﺮ ﻛﻞ ﺷﺨﺺ ﳊﻖ ﺑﻪ ﺿﺮﺭ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻠﺘﻤﺲ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ ﻣـﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳛﻤﻞ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺴﺘﺘﺮﺗﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﺸﻘﺔ ﻻ ﻣﺴﻮﻍ‬
‫ﳍﺎ")‪ .(٢٦١‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺇﻏﻔﺎﻝ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺼﻠﺔ ﺑﺘﻘـﺪﱘ‬
‫)‪ (١‬ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﰲ ﻣﻴﺪﺍﻥ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﳑﺎﺭﺳـﺎﺕ ﻣﻌﻴّﻨـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻓﻤﻦ ﺍﻷﻳﺴﺮ ﻭﺍﻷﻛﻔﺄ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻠﺘﻤﺲ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﺎ ﺍﳉ َﱪ ﻟﺼﺎﱀ‬
‫ﻕ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺇﱃ ﻣـﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋـﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﻓﻴـﺔ‬ ‫ﺗﺼﺪﺭ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﱂ ﺗﺮ َ‬ ‫ﲨﻴﻊ ﺃﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻗﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳُﻄﻠﺐ ﺇﱃ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﲨﻴـﻊ ﺃﻓـﺮﺍﺩ‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﺗﺼﻠﺢ ﻟﺘﺤﻮﻳﻠﻬﺎ ﺇﱃ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺭﳚﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻗﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻠﺔ ﻧﻴﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻨﻴﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻠﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‪ .‬ﺑﻴﺪ ﺃﻬﻧﺎ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺎﺕ ﻣﺴﺘﺼﻮَﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺸﻜﱢﻞ ﲰﺎﺕ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﲰﺎﺕ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺰﱢﺯ ﹰﺓ ﺇﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫)‪ (٨‬ﺇﻥ ﺩﻋﻢ ﺣﻖ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﹶﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺎﺱ ﺍﳉﱪ ﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﺃﻓـﺮﺍﺩ‬
‫ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﻮﺻَﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻈﺮ‬ ‫ﻃﺎﻗﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺩﻋﻢ ﻛﺒﲑ ﻭﻟﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻳﱪﺭﻩ‪ .‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺎﺕ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﺠـﻮﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻴﺔ‪،‬‬ ‫ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻻ ﻳﻨﺒﻐـﻲ‬
‫ﺇﺫ ﻳﻮﺻِﻲ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١٩‬ﺑﺄﻧﻪ "ﻳﻨﺒﻐـﻲ" ﻟﻠـﺪﻭﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﺒـﻊ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﳛ ﹼﻞ ﳏﻞ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﻨﺒﻐـﻲ‬
‫ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺎﺕ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺻﻴﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺻﻴﺔ ﻻ ﺻﻴﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟـﻮﺏ‬ ‫ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻮﻓﺮﻫﺎ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻴﺲ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﹰﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻫﺪﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻭﺻﻔﻪ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﲰﺔ‬ ‫ﻭﺣﻖ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺎﺱ ﺍﳉﱪ ﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﺃﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻗﻢ ﺩﻭﻥ ﻣـﻨﺢ‬
‫ﺷﺎﺋﻌﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻫﺪﺍﺕ)‪.(٢٦٢‬‬ ‫ﺃﻭﻟﻮﻳﺔ ﻷﻱ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺎﺗﲔ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻴﻠﺘﲔ‪ .‬ﻓﺄﻃﻘﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻦ ﻳﺘﻌﺮﺿـﻮﻥ ﰲ‬
‫ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻥ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ ﻟﺼﻌﻮﺑﺎﺕ ﻧﺎﺷﺌﺔ ﰲ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﹶﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﰲ ﺷـﻜﻞ‬
‫)‪ (٢‬ﻭﺗﻮﺻﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )ﺃ( ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺗﻮﱄ ﺍﻟﻨﻈـﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺟـﺐ‬ ‫ﻇﺮﻭﻑ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺳﻴﺌﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﰲ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺛﺎﻟﺜﺔ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺗﻮﻗﻴﻒ ﺍﻟـﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻹﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﻳﻠﺤﻘﻪ ﺿﺮﺭ‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻠﻘﻮﺍ ﺃﻗﺼﻰ ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻮﻓﺮﻫﺎ‬
‫ﺫﻭ ﺷﺄﻥ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﺃﺣﺪ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‪.‬‬
‫__________‬
‫)‪ (٢٦٢‬ﺗﻨﺺ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٣‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٣٦‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﻴﺜﺎﻕ ﺍﻷﻣﻢ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻣـﺜﻼﹰ‪،‬‬ ‫)‪ (٩‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﻘﺘﺼﺮ ﺣﻖ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﹶﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺎﺱ ﺍﳉﱪ ﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﺃﻓﺮﺍﺩ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺻﻴﺔ ﺑﺈﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﻣﻼﺋﻤﺔ ﻟﺘﺴﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﺯﻋﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻠﻲ‪]" :‬ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﻟ *[‬ ‫ﻃﺎﻗﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﱪ ﺍﻷﺿﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻠﺤﻘﻬﻢ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺿـﺮﺭ‬
‫ﳎﻠﺲ ﺍﻷﻣﻦ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺗﻮﺻﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﻭﻓﻘﹰﺎ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﳌـﺎﺩﺓ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺮﺍﻋـﻲ ﺃﻳـﻀﹰﺎ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻳﺸﻤﻞ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﺍﻷﺿﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳌﺘﻜﺒﺪﺓ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠـﻖ ﺑـﻀﺮﺭ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻨﺎﺯﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ]ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﻟ *[ ﺃﻃﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟـﱰﺍﻉ ‪ -‬ﺑـﺼﻔﺔ ﻋﺎﻣـﺔ ‪ -‬ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﻌﺮﺿﻮﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﻓﻘﹰﺎ ﻷﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳـﻲ ﳍـﺬﻩ‬ ‫__________‬
‫ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ"‪ .‬ﻭﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺎﺕ ﺟﻨﻴﻒ ﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺎﺭ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﺻﻴﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺻـﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٤٧‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.١٠٣‬‬ ‫)‪(٢٥٧‬‬
‫ﻻ ﺻﻴﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻓﺘﻨﺺ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٣‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺟﻨﻴﻒ ﻷﻋﺎﱄ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺎﺭ ﻟﻌـﺎﻡ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.١٠٤‬‬ ‫)‪(٢٥٨‬‬
‫‪ ١٩٥٨‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ "ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ* ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻟﻴﺲ ﳍﺎ ﺳﺎﺣﻞ ﲝﺮﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﲝﺮﻳـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٤٨-٤٧‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.١٠٥‬‬ ‫)‪(٢٥٩‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﲝﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺎﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﺪﻡ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﻭﺍﺓ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺣﻠﻴﺔ"‪ .‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ‪ ٢٧‬ﻭ‪ ٢٨‬ﻭ‪ ٤٣‬ﻭ‪ ١٢٣‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴـﺔ ﺍﻷﻣـﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٤٨‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.١٠٦‬‬ ‫)‪(٢٦٠‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺎﺭ ﻟﻌﺎﻡ ‪.١٩٨٢‬‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.١٠٧‬‬ ‫)‪(٢٦١‬‬
‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ)‪ .(٢٦٧‬ﻭﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﻛﺎﻭﻧﺪﺍ ﺫﻛـﺮﺕ ﺍﶈﻜﻤـﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﺃﹸﻋﻴﺪ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺳﺘﻮﺭﻳﺔ ﳉﻨﻮﺏ ﺃﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻠﻲ‪:‬‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ ‪ ١/٦٠‬ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﻣﺆﲤﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﳌﻲ ﻟﻌﺎﻡ ‪ ٢٠٠٥‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺪﺗﻪ ﺍﳉﻤﻌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﰲ ‪ ١٦‬ﺃﻳﻠـﻮﻝ‪/‬ﺳـﺒﺘﻤﱪ ‪.(٢٦٣)٢٠٠٥‬‬
‫ﺐ ﻳﺘﻔﻖ ﻣـﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﺰﺍﻣﺎﻬﺗـﺎ‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﻳﻘﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺎﺗﻖ ﺍﳊﻜﻮﻣﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﻭﺍﺟ ٌ‬
‫ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺑﺎﲣﺎﺫ ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺃﺣﺪ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻨﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺧـﻼﻝ‬ ‫ﻭﳝﻜﻦ ﲢﻘﻴﻖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺑﻮﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﻋﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻨﺼﻠﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺟﺴﻴﻢ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﺎﻳﲑ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻤﺎﺱ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻜﻮﻣﺔ ﰲ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﻠﺠﻮﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺁﻟﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻫﺪﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻼﺣﻘﺔ‬
‫ﻇﺮﻭﻑ ﻛﻬﺬﻩ ﺗﺘﻮﺍﻓﺮ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﺩﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺔ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻳﺼﻌﺐ ﺭﻓﻀﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻗﺪ ﻳﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ‬ ‫ﺃﻭ ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺍﳉﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻬﺑﺎ ﳎﻠﺲ ﺍﻷﻣﻦ ﺃﻭ ﻏـﲑﻩ ﻣـﻦ‬
‫ﺭﻓﻀﻪ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﻮﻯ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺒﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺮﻓﺾ ﺣﻜﻮﻣﺔ ﻃﻠﺒﹰﺎ ﻛﻬـﺬﺍ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻼ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻹﺟـﺮﺍﺀ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺍﳍﻴﺌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻀ ﹰ‬
‫ﻼ ﻟﻠﻤﺮﺍﺟﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻭﺳـﺘﺄﻣﺮ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺣﺪﺙ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺎﺑ ﹰ‬ ‫ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳُﺮﺟﱠﺢ ﺃﻥ ﳛﻘﻖ ﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﺎﻟـﺔ‬
‫)‪(٢٦٨‬‬
‫ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﳊﻜﻮﻣﺔ ﺑﺎﲣﺎﺫ ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻓﻴﺘﻮﻗﻒ ﺑﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻇﺮﻭﻑ ﻛﻞ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻌﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﲜﺪﻳﺔ ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﻳﻌﺘـﺮﻑ‬ ‫ﲝﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻷﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ‬
‫ﺣﻘﹰﺎ ﺑﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﻟﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﰲ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﺿﺤﹰﺎ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻮﻟﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻧﻈﺮﹰﺍ ﺟﺪﻳﹰﺎ‪ .‬ﺫﻟـﻚ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻨﻴﻬﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﳊﻘﻪ ﺿﺮﺭ ﺫﻭ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺃﻗﺪﻡ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺛﺒﺘﺖ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﻴﺘﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺷﺄﻥ ﰲ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰲ ﱂ ﻳﺒﻠﻎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻫﺬﻩ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )ﺃ( ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١٩‬ﻫﻲ ﲟﺜﺎﺑـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )ﺃ( ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌـﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١٩‬ﳚـﺐ‬ ‫ﺗﺬﻛﲑ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻝ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻨﻈﺮ ﰲ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻮﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺳـﺒﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻣﻨﺪﺭﺟ ﹰﺔ ﰲ ﺳﻴﺎﻕ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺭﳚﻲ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺼﺎﻑ ﻫﺬﺍ‪.‬‬
‫)‪ (٤‬ﻭﺗﻨﺺ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )ﺏ( ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ "ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ"‪ ،‬ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ‬ ‫)‪ (٣‬ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﻠﺰَﻣﺔ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﲟﻤﺎﺭﺳـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪" ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺗﻀﻊ ﰲ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﻠﻤﺎ ﺃﻣﻜـﻦ‪ ،‬ﺁﺭﺍﺀ‬ ‫ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻨﻴﻬﺎ ﹶﻟﺤِﻘﻪ ﺿﺮﺭ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭﻳﻦ ﻓﻴﻤـﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠـﻖ ﺑـﺎﻟﻠﺠﻮﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬ ‫ﻓﻌﻞ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺩﻭﻟﻴﹰﺎ ﻣﻨﺴﻮﺏ ﺇﱃ ﺩﻭﻟـﺔ ﺃﺧـﺮﻯ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺆﻛـﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳉﱪ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻮﺏ"‪ .‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮﺍﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ‬ ‫ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٢‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﺑﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺮﻱ ِﻟﺤَﻖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺍﳌﻌﻨﻮﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻟﻠـﻀﺮﺭ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺃﻛﺪﺗـﻪ ﺃﻳـﻀﹰﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻌﺮﱠﺽ ﻟـﻪ ﺃﺟﻨﱯ ﻟﺪﻯ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻮﻳﺾ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﺘﺘﻢ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‬ ‫ﳏﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ)‪ (٢٦٤‬ﻭﺍﶈﺎﻛﻢ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ)‪ ،(٢٦٥‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺘـﺒﲔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺑﻪ)‪ .(٢٦٩‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺿﺢ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻻ ﺑﺪ‪ ،‬ﻟﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻡ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺎﻭﺭ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ .٢‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺗﺄﻳﻴـﺪ ﻣﺘﺰﺍﻳـﺪ‬
‫ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻟﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﺒﺖ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛـﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺮﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻞ ﺑﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﻟﺘﺰﺍﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻨﻘﻮﺻﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘـﻊ‬
‫ﺳﻴﺘﻢ ﻃﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺮﺩ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻮﻳﺾ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﳉﱪ‪ .‬ﻭﻗـﺪ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﺇﻣﺎ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻘـﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟـﻮﻃﲏ‪،‬‬
‫َﺣﻤَﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﻬﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﺩﻋﺎﺀ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺬﻛﲑ ﺍﻟـﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﰲ‬ ‫ﲝﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻨﻴﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺗﻌﺮﺿﺖ ﺣﻘـﻮﻗﻬﻢ ﺍﻹﻧـﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻼ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻮﺍﻋـﺪ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )ﺏ( ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١٩‬ﻫﻮ ﺃﺻ ﹰ‬ ‫ﻻﻧﺘﻬﺎﻛﺎﺕ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺷﺄﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﻌﺘﺮﻑ ﺩﺳﺎﺗﲑ ﺩﻭﻝ ﻋﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﲝﻖ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰲ)‪ .(٢٧٠‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﺠـﺐ‬ ‫ﰲ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺿﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗَﻠﺤَﻘﻪ ﰲ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ)‪،(٢٦٦‬‬
‫__________‬ ‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻣﺮ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺘﺮﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻭﺍﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻼﺯﹺﻡ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻭﻫـﻮ‬
‫‪) Rudolf‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٣٧‬ﺃﻋـﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ٣٩٢‬ﻭ‪٣٩٦‬؛‬ ‫‪Hess‬‬ ‫)‪(٢٦٧‬‬ ‫ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻋﺪﺩﹰﺍ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﶈﺎﻛﻢ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ‬
‫‪Abbasi and Juma v. Secretary of State for Foreign and‬‬ ‫ﻭ‬ ‫ﻳﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺳﻠﻄﺔ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﺮﻳﺔ ﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻋﺪﻡ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺘﻬﺎ ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻳﻘﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘـﺰﺍﻡ‪،‬‬
‫‪Commonwealth Affairs and Secretary of State for the Home‬‬
‫‪) Department‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔـﺴﻪ(‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘـﺮﺍﺕ ‪ ،٦٩‬ﻭ‪ ،٨٠-٧٩‬ﻭ‪،٨٣-٨٢‬‬
‫ﻭ‪ .١٠٨-١٠٧‬ﻭﺍﻧﻈﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﻮﺟـﻪ ﻋـﺎﻡ‪A. Vermeer-Künzli, “Restricting :‬‬ ‫ﺧﺎﺿﻊ ﻟﻠﻤﺮﺍﺟﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺄﻥ ﺗﻔﻌﻞ ﺷﻴﺌﹰﺎ ﳌﺴﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫـﺎ‪،‬‬
‫‪discretion: judicial review of diplomatic protection”, Nordic Journal of‬‬ ‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻳﺸﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺰﺍﻣﹰﺎ ﺑﺈﻳﻼﺀ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺟﺐ ﻹﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ‬
‫‪.International Law, vol. 75 (2006), p. 279‬‬
‫)‪Kaunda and Others v. President of the Republic of South (٢٦٨‬‬ ‫__________‬
‫‪) Africa and Others‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٣٧‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.٦٩‬‬ ‫)‪ (٢٦٣‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺍﺕ ‪ ،١٢٠-١١٩‬ﻭ‪.١٤٠-١٣٨‬‬
‫)‪Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzów, Merits, (٢٦٩‬‬
‫)‪) Barcelona Traction, Second Phase, Judgment (٢٦٤‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪٣٥‬‬
‫‪Judgment No. 13 of 13 September 1928, PCIJ, Series A, No. 17, at p.‬‬
‫ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.٤٤‬‬
‫‪Barcelona‬‬ ‫‪28‬؛ ﻭﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺃﻱ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻘﻞ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﺿﻲ ﻣُﻮ ﹺﺭﻟﹼﻲ )‪ (Morelli‬ﰲ‪:‬‬
‫)‪ (٢٦٥‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﺜـﺎﻝ‪Abbasi and Juma v. Secretary of :‬‬
‫‪) Traction, Second Phase, Judgment‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٣٥‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.٢٢٣‬‬
‫‪State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Secretary of State for‬‬
‫)‪ (٢٧٠‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪B. Bollecker-Stern, Le préjudice dans la théorie de la‬‬
‫‪Kaunda and Others v.‬‬ ‫‪) the Home Department‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٣٧‬ﺃﻋـﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﻭ‬
‫‪responsabilité internationale, Paris, Pedone, 1973, at p. 98; and L.‬‬
‫‪) President of the Republic of South Africa and Others‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ(‪.‬‬
‫‪Dubouis, “La distinction entre le droit de l’État réclamant et le droit au‬‬
‫‪ressortissant dans la protection diplomatique”, Revue critique de droit‬‬ ‫)‪ (٢٦٦‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻟﻠﻤﻘﺮﺭ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳـﻴﺔ‬
‫‪.international privé (October–December 1978), pp. 615 et seq., at p. 624‬‬ ‫)ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٣٦‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺑﻴﺎﻧـﺎﺕ ﳑﺎﺛﻠـﺔ ﰲ ﻋـﺪﺩ ﻣـﻦ ﺍﻟﻘـﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘـﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﺃﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )ﺏ( ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ١٩‬ﻋﻠـﻰ ﺃﻬﻧـﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﻜﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ)‪ (٢٧٦‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺮﺍﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺗﻌـﺒﲑﹰﺍ ﺩﻗﻴﻘـﹰﺎ ﻋـﻦ ﺍﻟﻘـﺎﻧﻮﻥ‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺪﺭﺝ ﰲ ﺳﻴﺎﻕ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺭﳚﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ)‪.(٢٧٧‬‬
‫)‪ (٥‬ﻭﺗﻨﺺ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )ﺝ( ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﲢـﻮﱢﻝ ﺇﱃ‬
‫)‪ (٦‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﹰﺎ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺗﺘﻔﻖ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺮﺃﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ ﺃﻱ ﺗﻌﻮﻳﺾ ﺗﺘﻠﻘﺎﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌـﺴﺆﻭﻟﺔ ﻋـﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺬﻛﻮﺭ ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪ .‬ﻓﻤﻦ ﻧﺎﺣﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺴﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺒـﺎﻟﻎ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳊﻖ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻃﻦ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﳌﻘﺼﻮﺩ ﻬﺑﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺻﻴﺔ ﺗـﺸﺠﻴﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻹﲨﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﻣـﺮ ﺍﻟـﺬﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺮﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺳﻊ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻝ ﺳﻠﻄﺔ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﺮﻳﺔ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﺔ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﹰﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻠﻘﻲ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻳﺔ ﻣﺒﺎﻟﻎ ﺃﻗﻞ ﻛﺜﲑﹰﺍ ﳑﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﻭﺃﻬﻧﺎ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻠﺰﻣﺔ ﺑﺘﺤﻮﻳﻞ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﳌﺘﻠﻘﺎﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻄﻠﻮﺑﹰﺎ)‪ .(٢٧٨‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻧﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﺳﻨﺖ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺗﺸﺮﻳﻌﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﳍـﺬﺍ ﺍﻟـﺮﺃﻱ‬
‫ﻟﻀﻤﺎﻥ ﺗﻮﺯﻳﻊ ﻣﺒﺎﻟﻎ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻮﻳﺾ ﺗﻮﺯﻳﻌﹰﺎ ﻋﺎﺩ ﹰﻻ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﲔ ﺍﻷﻓﺮﺍﺩ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺟﺬﻭﺭﻩ ﰲ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻣﺎﻓﺮﻭﻣﺎﺗﻴﺲ ﻭﻋﺪﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻜـﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘـﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺃﺩﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺗﺪﻓﻊ‬ ‫ﻭﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﺮﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﻣﺎﻓﺮﻭﻣﺎﺗﻴﺲ ﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺣﻘﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺎﻟﻎ ﺍﳌﺘﻠﻘﺎﺓ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭﻳﻦ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ‬ ‫ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﺗﺼﺒﺢ "ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴـﺪ")‪.(٢٧١‬‬
‫ﺫﻛﺮ ﺍﶈﻜﱢﻢ ﺑﺎﺭﻛﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﻱ ﺭﻗﻢ ‪:٥‬‬ ‫ﻭﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﺇﻧﻪ ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻳﺔ ﻗﻴﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﰲ‬
‫ﺻﺎﱀ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺗﺴﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺩﻓﻊ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺘﻠﻘﺎﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻌﻮﻳﺾ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺑﻴﺪ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺣﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻳُﻘﺪﻡ ﻃﻠﺐ ﻧﻴﺎﺑ ﹰﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﺑﻌﻴﻨﻪ ﻭﻳُـﺪﻓﻊ ﻣﺒﻠـﻎ‬ ‫ﺃﻥ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ "ﺣﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘـﺼﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻠـﺔ" ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳـﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬
‫ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﺣﻜﻢ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻄﻠﺐ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﻌﺘﱪ ﺍﳌﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺪﻓﻮﻉ ﻬﺑﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻣﺎ ﹰﻻ‬
‫ﻭﻃﻨﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﲟﻌﲎ ﻣﻨﺢ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﺼﻞ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﺮﻑ ﲟﻄﻠﻖ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﺄﻣﺮ ﺗﺆﻛﺪﻩ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺮﺷﻠﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺮ)‪ .(٢٧٢‬ﻭﺭﻏﻢ‬
‫ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﺔ ﲡﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟـﺬﻱ ﻗﹸـﺪﻣﺖ‬ ‫ﺃﻥ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﻣﺎﻓﺮﻭﻣﺎﺗﻴﺲ ﺗﻘﻮﺿﻪ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺣﺴﺎﺏ ﻣﺒﻠﻎ ﺍﻟﺘﻌـﻮﻳﺾ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻭﺩُﻓﻊ ﺍﳌﺎﻝ ﻧﻴﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﺘﱪ ﺍﳌﺎﻟﻚ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﺎﻝ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﻮﺟﺪ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺎﺩﹰﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻜﺒﺪﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ)‪ ،(٢٧٣‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣـﺎ‬
‫ﺑﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﻣﻌﻤﱠﻤﺔ ﻭﻣﻀﻠﱢﻠﺔ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﻮ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﺣﻜﻢ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‬ ‫ﻳُﺪﻋﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰲ)‪ ،(٢٧٤‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺃﻱ‬
‫ﺑﺄﻥ ﺗُﺪﻓﻊ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟِﺒﺔ ﻣﺒﺎﻟﻎ ﺇﲨﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺗﻐﻄﻲ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﻋﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﺗﻘﺪﻣﺖ ﻬﺑﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟﺐ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺳﻠﻄﺔ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﺮﻳﺔ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﺮﻑ ﲟﺒﻠـﻎ‬
‫ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﺗﻘﻢ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﺻﺪﺭﺕ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﺑﺈﺻﺪﺍﺭ ﺃﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﻣﻨﻔﺼﻠﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻮﻳﺾ ﺍﳌﺘﻠﻘﱠﻰ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺸﻬﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺭﺃﻱ ﺍﶈﻜﱢﻢ ﺑﺎﺭﻛﺮ ﰲ ﳉﻨﺔ‬
‫ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺘﺨﺼﻴﺺ ﻣﺒﻠﻎ ﳏﺪﺩ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺃﻳﺔ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻄﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﻭﺃﳌﺎﻧﻴﺎ ﰲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ‬
‫ﺑﻌﻴﻨﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﻳُﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺃﻥ ﲦﺔ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺸﻬﺎﺩ ﻬﺑﺎ ﻣﻨﺤﺖ ﻓﻴﻬـﺎ ﳏﻜﻤـﺔ‬
‫ﺩﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺗﻌﻮﻳﻀﹰﺎ ﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﺘﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﲟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻴﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﻣﻌﲔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﻱ ﺭﻗﻢ ‪:٥‬‬
‫ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻠﻘﻴﺔ ﳌﺒﻠﻎ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻮﻳﺾ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺮﺩﺩﺕ ﰲ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺴﻠﱢﻢ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﺍﳌﻌﲏ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺗﻌﺘﱪ ]ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ[ ﳏﻜﻮﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺘﻬﺎ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻄﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﲟﺎ‬
‫ﻼ ﻋﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻣ ﹶﻞ ﻣﺒﻠﻎ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻮﻳﺾ ﺍﳌﺘﻠﻘﻰ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﰲ‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﺇﱃ ﻣَﻦ ﺗﻘﺪﱠﻡ ﺑﺎﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺑﺪﻳ ﹰ‬ ‫ﻉ ﻣﻌﲔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﲟﺎ ﲤﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﳌﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﺍﻷﻛـﱪ ﻟـﺸﻌﺐ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟـﺔ‬ ‫ﲤﻠﻴﻪ ﻣﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﻣﺪ ﹴ‬
‫ﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﺧﻄﺄ ﻣﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺍﺣﺘﻴﺎﻝ‪ .‬ﻭﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺣﱴ ﺍﻵﻥ‬ ‫ﺑﺄﻛﻤﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﺳﻠﻄﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﻗﻴﺪ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ‬
‫__________‬ ‫ﺑﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺳﺘُﻘﺪﻡ ﻬﺑﺎ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺃﻭ ﲡﺮﻱ ﻬﺑﺎ ﻣﺘﺎﺑﻌﺘﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ ﻳـﺘﻢ ﻬﺑـﺎ‬
‫)‪Civilian War Claimants Association v. R., United (٢٧٦‬‬
‫ﺳﺤﺒﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺻﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺣﻞ ﻭﺳﻂ ﺑﺸﺄﻬﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﱴ ﻳﻜـﻮﻥ ﺫﻟـﻚ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻜـﻮﻥ‬
‫‪Kingdom, House of Lords, The Law Reports of the Incorporated‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﳌﺎﻟﻚ ﻣﻠﺰﻣﹰﺎ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﻳُﺘﺨﺬ‪ .‬ﻭﺣﱴ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺣﺼﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻋﻴـﺔ‬
‫‪Council of Law Reporting 1932, p. 14; Lonrho Exports Ltd. v. Export‬‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺒﻠﻎ ﻣﺪﻓﻮﻉ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻮﻳﺾ ﻓﺈﻬﻧﺎ ﲤﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺎﻝ‬
‫‪Credits Guarantee Department, The All England Law Reports 1996,‬‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺪﻓﻮﻉ ﻬﺑﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﰲ ﺣﻴﺎﺯﻬﺗﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﳚﻮﺯ ﳍـﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﻌـﹰﺎ ﻟﻠﻐـﺶ ﺃﻭ‬
‫‪.vol. 4, p. 673, at p. 687‬‬ ‫ﺗﺼﺤﻴﺤﹰﺎ ﳋﻄﺄ ﺃﻭ ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﻟﺸﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﻦ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺗﻌﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺎﻝ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺩﻓﻌﺘﻪ‪،‬‬
‫‪Restatement of the Law Third, Restatement of the Law, The‬‬ ‫)‪(٢٧٧‬‬ ‫ﺃﻭ ﺗﺘﺼﺮﻑ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺑﺄﻱ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ*)‪.(٢٧٥‬‬
‫‪Foreign Relations Law of the United States, vol. 2, St. Paul‬‬
‫‪(Minnesota), American Law Institute Publishers, 1987, pp. 348–349‬؛‬
‫ﻭ ‪Distribution of the Aslop Award by the Secretary of State (1912),‬‬
‫‪) Opinion of J. Reuben Clark, Department of State‬ﻳـﺮﺩ ﰲ ‪G. H.‬‬
‫__________‬
‫‪(Hackworth, Digest of International Law, vol. 5, p. 766‬؛ ﻭ‪Bollecker-‬‬
‫‪ ،Stern‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﳌﺬﻛﻮﺭ )ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٢٧٠‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.١٠٨‬‬ ‫‪) Mavrommatis‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٢٦‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪،‬‬ ‫‪Palestine Concessions‬‬ ‫)‪(٢٧١‬‬
‫ﺹ ‪.١٢‬‬
‫)‪ (٢٧٨‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪W. K. Geck, “Diplomatic protection”, in R. Bernhardt‬‬
‫)‪ ،(ed.‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﳌـﺬﻛﻮﺭ )ﺍﳊﺎﺷـﻴﺔ ‪ ٢٤٧‬ﺃﻋـﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪١٠٥٨‬؛ ﻭ ‪D. J.‬‬ ‫)‪) Barcelona Traction, Second Phase, Judgment (٢٧٢‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪٣٥‬‬
‫‪Bederman, “Interim report on ‘Lump sum agreements and diplomatic‬‬ ‫ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ ،٤٤‬ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪.٧٩‬‬
‫‪protection’”, International Law Association, Report of the Seventieth‬‬ ‫)‪ (٢٧٣‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪) Chorzów Factory‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٢٦٩‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.٢٨‬‬
‫‪Conference, New Delhi, 2–6 April 2002, London, 2002, p. 230; R. B.‬‬
‫)‪ (٢٧٤‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪ ،Bollecker-Stern‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﳌﺬﻛﻮﺭ )ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٢٧٠‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪،‬‬
‫‪Lillich, “The United States–Hungarian Claims Agreement of 1973”,‬‬
‫‪AJIL, vol. 69 (1975), p. 534; and R. B Lillich and B. H. Weston,‬‬
‫ﻭ‪ ،Dubouis‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﳌﺬﻛﻮﺭ )ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ(‪.‬‬
‫‪International Claims: Their Settlement by Lump Sum Agreements,‬‬ ‫)‪Administrative Decision No. V, Decision of 31 October (٢٧٥‬‬
‫‪.Charlottesville, University Press of Virginia, 1975‬‬ ‫‪.1924, UNRIAA, vol. VII (Sales No. 1956.V.5), p. 119, at p. 152‬‬
‫ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻮﻳﺾ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﺸﺄ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺣﻖ ﻭﺍﺟﺐ ﺍﻹﻧﻔﺎﺫ ﻟﻸﺷﺨﺎﺹ‬ ‫ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻧﻐﺮﺱ ﻳﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﳌﺪﻓﻮﻋﺔ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﺳﺘﻴﻔﺎﺀً ﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﳏﺪﺩﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭﻳﻦ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺼﻮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻮﻳﺾ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺃﻬﻧﺎ ﳏﻔﻮﻇﺔ "ﻛﻮﺩﻳﻌﺔ ﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﲏ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺃﻭ ﺁﺧﺮﻳﻦ")‪.(٢٧٩‬‬
‫)‪ (٧‬ﻭﺗﺴﻠﹼﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )ﺝ( ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻌﻤﺪ‬ ‫ﻭﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﻬﺎﺀ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻫﻲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ)‪ .(٢٨٠‬ﻭﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺜـﻮﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻗﺘﻄﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻟـﺔ ﻣـﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻮﻳـﻀﺎﺕ ﺍﶈﻮّﻟـﺔ ﺇﱃ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺩﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺮﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻝ ﰲ ﻗﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭﻳﻦ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻌﻞ ﺃﻭﺿﺢ ﻣـﺎ ﻳـﱪﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﻴـﺎﻡ ﻬﺑـﺬﻩ‬ ‫ﻫﻴﺌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺼﻒ ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻮﻳﺾ)‪ .(٢٨١‬ﻛﻤـﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻗﺘﻄﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﻫﻮ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺩﺍﺩ ﺗﻜﺎﻟﻴﻒ ﺍﳉﻬﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺒـﺬﳍﺎ ﺍﻟـﺪﻭﻝ‬ ‫ﻗﺮﺭﺕ ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺑﻴﺔ ﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ ﻋـﺎﻡ ‪ ،١٩٩٤‬ﰲ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺤﺼﻮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻌﻮﻳﻀﺎﺕ ﳌﻮﺍﻃﻨﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺩﺍﺩ ﺗﻜﺎﻟﻴﻒ ﺍﻟـﺴﻠﻊ‬ ‫ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺑﻮﻣﺎﺭﺗﺎﻥ)‪ ،(٢٨٢‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﺃﺣﻜﺎﻣـﹰﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﺍﳋﺪﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﳍﻢ‪.‬‬
‫)‪ (٨‬ﻭﺭﻏﻢ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻳﻴﺪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺮﻳﻊ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﲏ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ‬ ‫__________‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻘﻪ ﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺺ ﺣﻖ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻖ ﰲ ﺍﻹﻣﺴﺎﻙ ﻋﻦ ﺩﻓﻊ‬ ‫)‪) Administrative Decision No. V (٢٧٩‬ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٢٧٥‬ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻮﻳﺾ ﺍﳌﺘﻠﻘﹶﻰ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﺍﳌﻀﺮﻭﺭ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻻ ﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﻋﻠـﻰ‬ ‫)‪ ،Geck (٢٨٠‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﳌﺬﻛﻮﺭ )ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ‪ ٢٧٨‬ﺃﻋـﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪١٠٥٧‬؛‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺟﺢ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮﺓ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻟﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺃﻱ ﺷـﻌﻮﺭ‬ ‫‪F. V. García-Amador, L. B. Sohn and R. R. Baxter, Recent‬‬ ‫ﻭ‬
‫ﺑﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﳊﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺮﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﺮﻑ ﲟﺒﺎﻟﻎ ﺍﻟﺘﻌـﻮﻳﺾ‪ .‬ﻭﻣـﻦ‬ ‫‪Codification of the Law of State Responsibility for Injuries to Aliens,‬‬
‫ﻧﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﺗﺆﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻭﻣﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻹﻧﺼﺎﻑ ﻭﺍﺣﺘـﺮﺍﻡ‬ ‫‪.Dobbs Ferry (New York), Oceana Publications, 1974, p. 151‬‬
‫ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺗﻘﻠﻴﺺ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺮﻳﺔ ﻟﻠـﺪﻭﻝ ﰲ ﺻـﺮﻑ‬ ‫)‪ (٢٨١‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪ ،B. Bollecker-Stern‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﳌـﺬﻛﻮﺭ )ﺍﳊﺎﺷـﻴﺔ ‪٢٧٠‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻮﻳﻀﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻨﺎﺩﹰﺍ ﺇﱃ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳋﻠﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻋﺘُﻤﺪﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )ﺝ( ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺃﻋﻼﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.١٠٩‬‬
‫)‪Beaumartin v. France, Case No. 15287/89, Judgement of (٢٨٢‬‬
‫ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ .١٩‬ﻭﰲ ﺣﲔ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ﺗﻨﺪﺭﺝ ﰲ ﺳـﻴﺎﻕ‬ ‫‪24 November 1994, European Court of Human Rights, Series A:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺭﳚﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻭﻣﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻹﻧﺼﺎﻑ ﺗﺆﻳﺪﻫﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫‪.Judgments and Decisions, vol. 296-B‬‬

CHP 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHP 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‬

‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -١٨‬ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﺃﻃﻘﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‬

‫)‪ (٤‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻻﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺟﺔ ﰲ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ٤‬ﻫـﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ‬

‫ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺇﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺑـﲔ ﻫـﺬﻳﻦ‬

‫__________‬ ‫‪.University of Minnesota Press, 1955‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ )ﺏ(‬ ‫ﻣﺘﺴﻘﺔ ﻭﺭﺍﺳﺨﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻮﺍﺑﻖ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻟﻴﺴـﺖ ﰲ ﺻﺎﱀ ﺍﻷﺟﻨﱯ)‪(٢١١‬؛‬

‫ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﻈﻢ ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻳﻜﻤـﻞ‬

‫)‪McCready (U.S. v. Mexico), J. B. Moore, International (٢٥٢‬‬

You might also like