نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 خیابان ایثارگران- کوچه بوستان یک
2 دانشیار حقوق بینالملل دانشکده حقوق دانشگاه قم، قم، جمهوری اسلامی ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
This article examines the conceptual relationship between "Coercion" and "Shared Responsibility" within the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). While traditional frameworks of state responsibility struggle to address the attribution of liability for indivisible harms involving multiple states, the Draft Articles on State Responsibility (2020) highlight coercion as a distinct factor in establishing shared responsibility. Employing a qualitative methodology, this study analyzes key ECtHR judgments, including Ilascu v. Moldova and Russia, Al-Skeini v. United Kingdom, and El-Masri v. Macedonia, to argue that, although the Court rarely explicitly invokes the term "coercion," it employs analogous concepts such as "decisive influence," "effective control," and "positive obligations" to allocate responsibility in scenarios involving coercion. The findings suggest that the ECtHR's approach, which posits that coercion does not negate but redistributes responsibility, aligns with the Draft Articles. However, the absence of a coherent doctrine distinguishing coercion from related concepts, such as complicity, results in ambiguity in the application of shared responsibility. The article concludes that a more explicit recognition of coercion as a basis for shared responsibility could enhance the coherence of judicial practice and mitigate accountability gaps in the international legal order.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)