Inter-State Communication under ICERD: From ad hoc Conciliation to Collective Enforcement?
Inter-State Communication under ICERD: From ad hoc Conciliation to Collective Enforcement?
复制标题
《消除一切形式种族歧视国际公约》下的国家间沟通：从临时调解到集体执法？
DOI：
10.1093/jnlids/idab018
复制
发表时间：
2021
影响因子：
0.8
通讯作者：
Tamada Dai
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
深町晋也;玉田大;深町晋也（黄士軒訳）;Tamada Dai
《消除一切形式种族歧视国际公约》载有国家间来文程序，消除种族歧视委员会在2018年收到了以下三份来文：卡塔尔诉沙特阿拉伯、卡塔尔诉阿拉伯联合酋长国和巴勒斯坦诉以色列。在这些案件中，消除种族歧视委员会将这一程序描述为与集体执行有关，类似于欧洲人权法院命令/制度内的国家间申请程序。然而，与《欧洲人权公约》不同的是，《消除一切形式种族歧视国际公约》并不是指“集体强制执行”，而是仅仅包含临时调解，这是达成共同商定的争端解决办法的一种双边手段。这一条相当苛刻地评估是否以及在多大程度上有理由将消除种族歧视委员会的临时调解程序视为集体执行的一种手段。
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) contains the inter-State communication procedure within which the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) received the following three communications in 2018:Qatar v Saudi Arabia,Qatar v the United Arab Emirates, andPalestine v Israel. In these cases, CERD characterized this procedure as relating to collective enforcement, analogous to the inter-State application procedure within the order/regime of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). However, unlike the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), ICERD does not refer to ‘collective enforcement’, but merely contains ad hoc conciliation, that is a bilateral means for reaching a mutually agreed solution to a dispute. This article aims, rather critically, to assess whether, and to which extent, it is justified to view the CERD ad hoc conciliation procedure as a means of collective enforcement.