Journal International Law_N2-10.indd

ivane javaxiSvilis sax. Tbilisis saxelmwifo universitetiiuridiuli fakultetis saerTaSoriso samarTlis institutiIv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State UniversityInternational Law Institute, Faculty of LawThis project is funded by the European UnionA project implemented hy Hulla & Co. Human Dynamics KGpublic sector consulting#2, 2010saerTaSorisosamarTlisJurnaliJOURNAL OFINTERNATIONALLAWTbilisi, Tbilisi,2010

saredaqcio kolegiamTavari redaqtorilevan aleqsiZeiv. javaxiSvilis sax. Tbilisis saxelmwifo universiteti(Tsu)aRmasrulebeli redaqtorirusudan tuSuri(Tsu)saredaqcio kolegiis wevrebi:irakli burduli(Tsu)volodimer butkeviCiadamianis uflebaTa evropulisasamarTlo (strasburgi, safrangeTi)gaga gabriCiZe(Tsu)avTandil demetraSvili(Tsu)konstantine korkelia(Tsu)vigen koCarianierevnis saxelmwifo universiteti(somxeTi)rusTam mamedovibaqos saxelmwifo universiteti(azerbaijani)daviT pataraia(Tsu)irine qurdaZe(Tsu)mindia ugrexeliZe(strasburgi, safrangeTi)laur hanikaineniturkus universiteti (fineTi)BOARD OF EDITORSEditor in ChiefALEXIDZE LEVANIv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University(TSU)Executive EditorTUSHURI RUSUDAN(TSU)Members of the Board:BURDULI IRAKLI(TSU)BUTKEVICH VOLODIMIREuropean Court of Human Rights(Strasbourg, France)GABRICHIDZE GAGA(TSU)HANNIKAINEN LAURIUniversity of Turku (Finland)DEMETRASHVILI AVTANDIL(TSU)KOCHARYAN VIGENYerevan State University (Armenia)MAMEDOV RUSTAMBaku State University (Azerbaijan)PATARAIA DAVID(TSU)KURDADZE IRINE(TSU)UGREKHELIDZE MINDIA(Strasbourg, France)KORKELIA KONSTANTINE(TSU)3

Zalis gamoyenebis samarTlebriviaspeqtebi saerTaSoriso samarTalSixaTuna burkaZeSesavaliZalis gamoyenebis samarTlebrivi aspeqtebisaerTaSoriso samarTlis erTerTiproblemuri da mniSvnelovaniTemaa. saerTaSoriso samarTlebrivi sistemisTvisdRemde aqtualuria SemdegikiTxva: rodis aris Zalis gamoyeneba kanonieri?Zalis gamoyenebis Sesaxeb gadawyvetilebasiRebs mxolod gaero, magramuSiSroebis sabWos nebarTviT Zalis gamoyenebisufleba SesaZlebelia, regionalursaerTaSoriso organizaciebsacmieniWoT.Zalis gamoyenebis Tema saerTaSorisosamarTalSi gansakuTrebiT aqtualuria2008 wlis agvistos omis Semdeg,rodesac ruseTma saqarTvelosTan mimarTebiT daarRvia saerTaSoriso samar-Tlis ZiriTadi principebi da ganaxorcielaagresia suverenuli saxelmwifoswinaaRmdeg.saerTaSoriso samarTlebrivi sistemaar aRmoCnda efeqturi saxelmwifoebsSoris Zalis gamoyenebis Tavidan acilebisTvalsazrisiT, radgan am sistemasar aqvs qmediTi iZulebiTi meqanizmebisaerTaSoriso normebis dasacavad daSesasruleblad.amdenad, statiis mizania, gaaanalizosZalis gamoyenebis saerTaSorisosamarTlebrivi aspeqtebi; aCvenos, rogoriagaeros uSiSroebis sabWos roli,generaluri asambleis funqciebi saer-TaSoriso mSvidobis SenarCunebis procesSi,ramdenad aferxebs gaeros uSiSroebissabWoSi mudmivi wevrebis miervetos uflebis gamoyeneba mniSvnelovanigadawyvetilebebis droulad miRebas;ra gansxvavebaa mSvidobisaTvis safr-Txis Seqmnasa da SeiaraRebul TavdasxmasSoris, SeiZleba Tu ara Zalis gamoyenebasafrTxis arsebobis dros; rogoriaTavdacvis uflebis kriteriumebi, rasgulisxmobs Zalis gamoyenebis aucileblobada proporciuloba; arasaxelmwifoebrivierTeulis mier ganxorcielebuliSeiaraRebuli Tavdasxma SeiZlebaTu ara gaxdes Tavdacvis uflebis gamoyenebissafuZveli; ras niSnavs saerTaSorisosamarTlis mixedviT agresiis aqti.zemoaRniSnuli sakiTxebis ganxilvaki uzrunvelyofs im xarvezebis naTladwarmoCenas, romlebic arsebobs saerTa-Soriso sistemaSi saerTaSoriso mSvidobisdacvisa da usafrTxoebis ganmtkicebisprocesSi da xels Seuwyobs am mimar-TulebiT gamosavlis povnas.statiis pirvel TavSi ganxiluliaZalis gamoyenebis samarTlebrivi safuZvlebida Zalis gamoyenebis Taobazegadawyvetilebis miRebis meqanizmi; meoreTavi exeba Tavdacvis uflebis gamoyenebiskriteriumebs, SeiaraRebuliTavdasxmis saxeebs; mesame Tavi eTmobakoleqtiuri Tavdacvis mniSvnelobas,koleqtiuri Tavdacvis ormxriv da mravalmxrivxelSekrulebebsa da samxedroaliansebs; Zalis gamoyenebis samarT lebriviaspeqtebisa da kriteriumebis SeswavlissafuZvelze meoTxe TavSi avtorisamarTlebrivad ganixilavs ruseTis federaciismier saqarTvelos winaaRmdegganxorcielebul agresiis aqts.5

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 20101. Zalis gamoyenebis saerTaSorisosamarTlebrivi safuZvlebiamdenad, termin `Zalis gamoyenebis~upiratesoba aris is, rom igi moicavs nebismierZalismier formas. Sesabamisad,1.1. Zalis gamoyenebis cnebaZalis gamoyenebis akrZalva ar aris damokidebuliZalis gamoyenebis zusti regulirebamiznad isaxavs mSvidobian, ormxrivTanamSromlobas qveynebs Soris. saxelmwifosSida samarTlebrivma sistemam TandaTanobiT uari Tqva Zalis gamoyenebismonopolizaciaze da, ZiriTadad, Zalisimaze, saxelmwifo Tu rasaxels daarqmevs samxedro konfliqts.meore mxriv, gaeros wesdebis me-2muxlis me-4 punqti gaeros wevrebs mouwodebs,Tavi Seikavon ZaliT damuqrebisan misi gamoyenebisagan nebismierigamoyenebis SesaZlebloba Tav dacvis saxelmwifos teritoriuli mTlianobismizniT dauSva.an politikuri damoukideblobisTanamedrove saerTaSoriso samar- wi naaRmdeg, an ganaxorcielon iseTiTali Zalis gamoyenebis Sesaxeb efuZnebagaeros wesdebas. gaeros wesdebis avtorebssurdaT Zalis nebismieri saxiTgamoyenebis akrZalva, Tumca, imavdroulad,gaiTvaliswines calkeuli gamonaklisebi,romlebic regulirdeba gaeroswesdebis Sesabamisad.qmedeba, romelic ewinaaRmdegeba gaerosmiznebs. aqve ismis kiTxva – Zalis gamoyenebisakrZalva xom ar aris pirobiTida ramdenad dasaSvebia misi gamoyenebafarTo gagebiT im SemTxvevaSi, Tu igiar aris mimarTuli romelime qveynisteritoriuli mTlianobis an politikurigaeros Seqmnis erT-erTi ZiriTadidamoukideblobis winaaRmdeg?mizani me-20 saukuneSi saerTaSorisosa marTlis modernizeba gaxldaT. liderebmagadawyvites: `SeeqmnaT piro bebisamarTlianobis dasacavad da xel-Se k rulebebidan da saerTaSoriso samarTlissxva wyaroebidan gamomdinarevaldebulebebis pativsacemad, aseve TaobebisgadasarCenad omisgan, romelmacorjer warmoudgeneli ubedureba moutanakacobriobas~. 1gaeros wesdebis me-2 muxlis me-4punqtis Tanaxmad, gaerTianebuli erebisorganizaciis yvela wevri Tavs ikavebssaerTaSoriso urTierTobebSi ZaliTramdenad SesaZlebelia humanitaruliintervenciisa da Zalis gamoyenebis `altruistuli~SemTxvevebis gamarTleba?udavod SeiZleba iTqvas, rom am normisdadgenis mTavari mizani iyo patara saxelmwifoebisaTvismyari garantiebisSeqmna da ara nebismieri formiT Zalisgamoyenebis akrZalva. 4gaeros wesdeba uSvebs saerTaSorisosamarTalSi Zalis gamoyenebas SemdegSemTxvevebSi: individualuri an koleqtiuriTavdacvis uflebis ganxorci e-lebisas; gaeros uSiSroebis sabWos miersanqcirebul an kontrolirebad sa-muqarisa an misi gamoyenebisagan, m xedro operaciebSi monawileobisas;ro gorc nebismieri saxelmwifos teritoriulixelSeuxeblobisa da politikuridamoukideblobis winaaRmdeg, asevegaerTianebuli erebis miznebTan SeuTavsebeliraime sxva saxiT. 2me-2 muxlis me-4 punqti miTiTebaaZalis gamoyenebaze da ara omis warmoebaze.termini `omi~ miuTiTebs viwro dameore qveynis Txovnis safuZvelze amuka nasknelis teritoriaze Zalis gamoyenebisas.amdenad, Zalis gamoyeneba gulisxmobsnebismier Zalismier formas, xolomisi gamoyenebis kanoniereba ganisazRvrebagaeros wesdebiT dadgeniligamonaklisi SemTxvevebis farglebSi.konkretul samarTlebriv mdgomareobaze,romelic iwyeba omis gamocxadebiTda mTavrdeba zaviT. magaliTad, iaponiamuari Tqva, gamoecxadebina omi CineTTan1.2. Zalis gamoyenebissamarTlebrivi safuZvlebigaeros wesdebis mixedviTda `omis~ nacvald gamoiyena saxelwodeba`samxedro operaci manjuriaSi~ (1932-6gaeros wesdebis me-7 Tavis Tanaxmad,mSvidobisadmi safrTxis Seqmnis, mSvidobisxelyofis an agresiis aqtis Sem-

x. burkaZe, Zalis gamoyenebis samarTlebrivi aspeqtebi saerTaSoriso samarTalSiTxvevebSi uSiSroebis sabWo uflebamosiliagadawyvitos, Tu ra iZulebiTzomebs gamoiyenebs. es zomebi SeiZlebamoicavdes ekonomikur urTierTobaTa,sarkinigzo, sazRvao, sahaero, safosto,satelegrafo, radio Tu komunikaciissxva saSualebaTa srul an nawilobrivSewyvetas, agreTve diplomatiuri urTierTobebisgawyvetas.Tu uSiSroebis sabWo miiCnevs, romzemoaRniSnuli zomebi arasakmarisia,igi uflebamosilia, sahaero, sazRvaoTu saxmeleTo ZalebiT iseTi moqmedebaganaxorcielos, romelic aucilebeliasaerTaSoriso mSvidobis dasacavad daaRsadgenad.organizaciis yvela wevri imisaTvis,rom Tavisi wvlili Seitanos saer-TaSoriso mSvidobisa da usafrTxoebisdacvaSi, valdebulebas kisrulobs,uSiSroebis sabWos gankargulebaSi, misimoTxovniT da sagangebo SeTanxmebisa TuSeTanxmebaTa Sesabamisad, gadasces saer-TaSoriso mSvidobisa da usafrTxoebisdasacavad aucilebeli SeiaraRebuliZalebi, daxmareba da momsaxurebis sa-Tanado saSualebebi maT teritoriazegavlis uflebis CaTvliT.rac Seexeba Zalis gamoyenebas Tavdacvis mizniT, yovel konkretul SemTxvevaSiunda iyos daculi garkveuliZiriTadi pirobebi: Tavdacvis miz niTgamoyenebuli Zala ar unda iyos sadam sjelo xasiaTis; Zalis gamoyenebaunda iyos ukiduresad aucilebeli;Ta v dacvisaTvis Zalis gamoyenebis mizaniunda iyos Tavdasxmis SeCereba anmogerieba; 5 ar unda arsebobdes raimesxva praqtikuli alternativa, romlisTanaxmadac Zalis gamoyeneba aucileblobaskargavs.rogorc gaeros marTlmsajulebissaerTaSoriso sasamarTlom navTobisplatformis saqmeze daadgina: saerTa-So riso samarTlis moTxovna, rom TavdacvismizniT ganxorcielebuli Ronis-Ziebebi unda iyos aucilebeli am miznebisaTvis,aris Seuvali da obieqturida ar tovebs saSualebas diskreciuliRonisZiebebisaTvis. 6zemoaRniSnulidan gamomdinare, Tuar arsebobs Zalis gamoyenebis SesabamisisamarTlebrivi safuZveli an es qmedebasanqcirebuli araa uSiSroebis sabWosmier gaeros wesdebis me-7 Tavis Tanaxmad,Zalis gamoyeneba kanongareSed miiCneva.1.3. gadawyvetilebis miRebismeqanizmi1.3.1. uSiSroebis sabWosuflebamosilebagaeros wesdebis me-7 Tavis Tanaxmad,uSiSroebis sabWo gansazRvravs mSvidobisaTvisnebismieri safrTxis, mSvidobisama Tu im xelyofis an agresiis aqtisarsebobas da SeimuSavebs rekomendaciebsan wyvets, Tu ra zomebi unda miiRonsaerTaSoriso mSvidobisa da uSiSroebisdasacavad an aRsadgenad.mSvidobisaTvis safrTxis Seqmna undaganimartos ufro farTo mniSvnelobiT,vidre SeiaraRebuli Tavdasxma. 7 isinierTmaneTisagan gansxvavdebian SedegiT.nebismier saxelmwifos an saxelmwifoTajgufs SeuZlia gamoiyenos individualurian koleqtiuri Tavdacvis uflebaSeiaraRebuli Tavdasxmis winaaRmdeg,xolo mSvidobisaTvis safrTxisSeqmnisas mxolod uSiSroebis sabWoauflebamosili, miiRos koleqtiuri usafrTxoebiszomebi. 8uSiSroebis sabWos 1540 rezoluciaadasturebs, rom birTvuli, qimiuri anbiologiuri iaraRis gavrceleba safr-Txea saerTaSoriso mSvidobisa da usafrTxoebisaTvis.9amasTanave, uSiSroebis sabWom SeiZlebaadamianis uflebebis xelyofa Zalisgamoyenebis gareSec CaTvalossafr Txed mSvidobisTvis. 10 garda amisa,swo red uSiSroebis sabWoa uflebamosili,daadginos agresiis faqti. Tumca,amavdroulad, igi aris politikuri daara sasamarTlo organo. amdenad, misigadawyvetilebebi politikur safu Z-vlebs eyrdnoba. xuTi mudmivi saxelmwifos(amerikis SeerTebuli Statebi,ga erTianebuli samefo, safrangeTi, CineTida ruseTis federacia) erToblivixmebis gareSe uSiSroebis sabWoSi mniSv-7

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010nelovani gadawyvetilebebi ver miiRe ba,rac vrceldeba am Tu im qmedebis agresiisaqtad aRiarebazec. Sesabamisad, Turomelime mudmivi wevri saxelmwi fospolitikur interesSi ar Sedis ga dawyvetilebis miReba, mas SeuZlia Se aferxos/dablokosprocesi da uSiSro ebissabWo aRmoCndes uunaro saerTaSorisomSvidobisa da usafrTxoebis uzrunvelyofisas.uSiSroebis sabWos mier saerTaSo risomSvidobisa da usafrTxoebis Senar-CunebisaTvis miRebuli gadawyvetilebebisavaldebuloa. 11 gaeros wesdebis48-e muxlis Tanaxmad, maTi SesrulebaSeiZleba daevalos ramdenime wevrqveyanas, Tu sabWo miiCnevs, rom isiniufro ukeT ganaxorcieleben SesabamisRonisZiebas, an yvelas. garda amisa, esmuxli nebas rTavs wevrebs, ganaxorcielonsabWos gadawyvetilebebi regionaluriorganizaciebis meSveobiT. 121.3.2. generaluri asamblea1950 wels generalurma asambleammi iRo cnobili rezolucia `erTobamSv i dobisTvis~, romelSic aRiniSna,rom uSiSroebis sabWoSi mudmivi wevrebiserTsulovnebis nakleboba aferxebssabWos ZiriTadi pasuxismgeblobisSesrulebas mSvidobisa da usafrTxoebisuzrunvelyofis saqmeSi. generalur ma asambleam SesaZlebelia miiRosSesabamisi rekomendaciebi koleqtiuriRonisZiebebis Sesaxeb mSvidobis xelyofisan agresiis dros. Tu am periodSigeneraluri asambleis sesia ar mimdinareobs,riggareSe specialuri sesiamoiwveva 24 saaTSi, uSiSroebis sabWos 7wevris an organizaciis wevrTa umravlesobismoTxovniT, an umravlesobisaganTanxmobis miRebis safuZvelze. 13 miuxedavadamisa, zemoaRniSnul rezoluciasar SeuZlia cvlilebebi Seitanos gaeroswesdebaSi. 14 amasTanave, generaluriasambleis mier miRebul rekomendaciebsar aqvs savaldebulo xasiaTi da maTiSesruleba wevri qveynebisTvis aris mxolodnebayoflobiTi. 151962 wels marTlmsajulebis saer-TaSoriso sasamarTlom sarekomendaciodaskvnaSi gaeros calkeuli xarjebisSesaxeb miuTiTa, rom mxolod uSiSroebissabWo aris uflebamosili, daakisroswevr qveyanas gaeros wesdebis me-7Tavidan gamomdinare valdebulebebi. 16`civi omis~ periodSi generaluriasamblea cdilobda, aeRo uSiSroebissabWos ZiriTadi pasuxismgebloba saer-TaSoriso mSvidobisa da usafrTxoebisuzrunvelyofis saqmeSi, Tumca `civiomis~ Semdgom periodSi es tendenciaTandaTan Seicvala. 17saboloo jamSi, uSiSroebis sabWosmier Tavisi mandatis SeusruleblobisSemTxvevaSi, gaeroSi arc erT sxva organosar SeuZlia misi Canacvleba.2. Tavdacvis ufleba2.1. Tavdacvis uflebiskriteriumebi1996 wels marTlmsajulebis saerTa-Soriso sasamarTlom erT-erT sarekomendaciodaskvnaSi miuTiTa, rom sa samarTloyovelTvis iTvaliswinebs nebismierisaxelmwifos uflebas, gamoiyenosgaerTianebuli erebis organizaciiismier misTvis 51-e muxliT miniWebuliTavdacvis ufleba. 18miuxedavad amisa, marTlmsajulebissaerTaSoriso sasamarTlo, imavdrouladaRniSnavs, rom TiToeulma saxelmwifomTavdacvis ufleba unda gamoiyenosmxolod gansakuTrebul SemTxvevebSi. 19gaeros wesdebis 51-e muxli adgens,rom `es wesdeba ar exeba individualurian koleqtiuri Tavdacvis xelSeuvaluflebas, Tu organizaciis wevrebze SeiaraRebuliTavdasxma moxda manam, sanamuSiSroebis sabWo ar miiRebs mSvidobisada usafrTxoebis dasacavad sxvazomebs...~.amdenad, 51-e muxli moicavs rogorc individualur, ise koleqtiurTav dacvas da gulisxmobs zemoaRniSnulixelSeuvali uflebis gamoyenebasSeiaraRebuli Tavdasxmis SemTxvevaSi.garda amisa, arsebobs gansazRvrulikriteriumebi, romlebic unda daicvanTavdacvis uflebis gamoyenebisas.8

x. burkaZe, Zalis gamoyenebis samarTlebrivi aspeqtebi saerTaSoriso samarTalSimarTlmsajulebis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlomnikaraguis saqmis ganxilvisasmiuTiTa, rom 51-e muxli ar Seicavsraime specialur wess imis Sesaxeb, Tusaxelmwifom rogor unda ganaxorcieloskonkretuli iZulebiTi zoma. TumcasaerTaSoriso CveulebiTi samarTaligansazRvravs, rom pasuxi SeiaraRebulTavdasxmaze unda iyos proporciuli daaucilebeli. 20marTlmsajulebis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlomproporciulobisa da aucileblobiskriteriumebis dacva xelaxladaadastura 2003 wels navTobis platformissaqmesTan dakavSirebiT miRebulgadawyvetilebaSi. 21faqtobrivad, proporciulobisa daaucileblobis kriteriumebs Tan axlavsmesame kriteriumic, rac gulisxmobs dauyovneblivireagirebis aucileblobas.istoriulad zemoaRniSnuli samivekriteriumi `karolinas~ saqmidan momdinareobs.22saxeldobr, 1837 wlis ajanyebam koloniurkanadaSi pova aqtiuri mxardaWeraamerikel moxaliseebsa da kerZomimwodeblebSi, romlebic moqmedebdnenregionis sazRvarTan, SeerTebul StatebSi.britanelebma CaTvales, rom gem`karolinas~ meSveobiT meamboxeebs amaragebdnenssxvadasxva masaliT. britaneTisZalebma kanadis mxridan gadmokve-Tes SeerTebuli Statebis sazRvari gemisdasaufleblad. SeerTebuli Statebisori moqalaqe Setakebis dros gemzedaiRupa, xolo erTi britaneli oficeridaakaves mkvlelobisTvis. 23SeerTebulma Statebma dagmo britaneTis mTavrobis qmedeba da miiCnia, romgaerTianebulma samefom daarRvia Statebissuvereniteti. SeerTebuli St a -tebis saxelmwifo mdivanma daniel vebstermabritaneTis mTavrobisgan mo i-Txova Tavdacvis uflebis gamoyene biskanonierebis dasabuTeba, aucileblobis,proporciulobisa da droulobiskriteriumebTan Sesabamisobis Tval sa z-risiT. 24birTvuli iaraRis saqmeze gaerosmarTlmsajulebis saerTaSoriso sasa -mar Tlom sarekomendacio daskvnaSi daadgina,rom aucileblobisa da proporciulobiskriteriumebi Zalis gamoyenebisnebismieri SemTxvevis mimarT moqmedebs, maT Soris, gaeros wesdebis 51-emuxlis Sesabamisad Tavdacvis mizniT Zalisgamoyenebisas. 25 garda amisa, saqmeze– nikaragua amerikis SeerTebuli StatebiswinaaRmdeg – gaeros marTl msa julebissaerTaSoriso sasamarT lom daadgina, rom Tavdacvis uflebis mi z niTSe i araRebuli Tavdasxmis proporci u lida mis mosagerieblad aucilebeli RonisZiebebisganxorcieleba saerTaSorisoCveulebiT samarTalSi aRiarebulinormaa. 26aucileblobis kriteriumi efuZnebaSemdeg garemoebebs: a) saxelmwifo iyenebsTavdacvis uflebas, rodesac Tavdasxmadawyebulia konkretuli qveynis mier; b)Zala gamoiyeneba mxolod SeiaraRebuliTavdasxmis winaaRmdeg da ara incidentisan sxva msgavsi SemTxvevis dros; g)amoiwura yvela misaRebi alternatiulisaSualeba. Sesabamisad, Tu diplomatiuri,ekonomikuri, sainformacio, samarTlebrivian sxva gzebiT SesaZlebeliasafrTxis Sekaveba, TavdacviTi mizniTZalis gamoyeneba miiCneva gaeros wesdebisme-2 muxlis me-4 punqtis darRvevad. 27sxva sityvebiT, Zalis gamoyeneba aucilebeliar aris manam, sanam Sedegi miiRwevamSvidobiani RonisZiebebiT. 28proporciuloba aris Zalis gamoyenebissamarTlis fundamenturi komponenti.29 istoriulad igi samarTlianiomis Teoriis nawilia. 30 proporciulobisprincipi zRudavs TavdacviT qmedebasim farglebSi, rac aucilebeliaTa vdasxmis mosagerieblad. 31 amdenad,proporciuli Zala gulisxmobs Zalisim odenobiT gamoyenebas, romelic sa-Tanadoa Setevis Sesakaveblad. mesamekriteriumi vebsteris formulidan momdinareobs da niSnavs dauyovnebliv,yo velgvari fiqrisa da yoymanis gareSeTavdasxmis SeCerebis mizniT, aqtiur moqmedebazegadasvlas. 32Tavdacvis uflebis kriteriumebisdacva gamoyenebul Zalas kanonierad ver9

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010aqcevs, Tu igi, sxva safuZvlidan gamomdinare,ukanonoa. amdenad, Tu qmedebakanongareSea, Zalis gamoyenebis an proporciulobisSeswavlis saWiroeba arar sebobs.2.2. SeiaraRebuli Tavdasxmisdefinicia51-e muxli miuTiTebs, rom Tavdacvisufleba gamoiyeneba SeiaraRebuli Ta v-dasxmis arsebobisas. Sesabamisad, zu s-tad unda ganisazRvros termini `Seia ra-Rebuli Tavdasxma~.rogorc gaeros marTlmsajulebissaerTaSoriso sasamarTlom nikaraguissaqmis Sesaxeb gadawyvetilebaSi aRni-Sna, `saerTaSoriso sazRvris meore mxaressamxedro SenaerTebis qmedeba arisSeiaraRebuli Tavdasxmis forma, Tuufro didi masStabisaa, vidre ubralosasazRvro incidenti~. 33sxvadasxva inglisurenovani leqsikoniganmartavs, rom Tavdasxma aris realuriqmedeba da ara safrTxe. garda amisa,mxedvelobaSia misaRebi gaeros wesdebisme-2 muxlis me-4 punqti. is krZalavsrogorc Zalis gamoyenebas, aseve aseTisafrTxis Seqmnas. Sesabamisad, rTuliaimis warmodgena, rom gaeros wesdebisavtorebs 51-e muxlSi gamorCaT fraza`an safrTxis arsebobisas~. 34 miT ufro,rodesac 51-e muxlidan zemoaRniSnulifrazis gamoricxva Seesabameba gaerosmTavar mizans, Seakavos Zalis calmxrivigamoyeneba. amdenad, mkvlevarTa umravlesobaSeiaraRebul Tavdasxmad miiCnevsaqtiur Tavdasxmas, romelic moxdada ara Tavdasxmis safrTxes. 352001 wlis 11 seqtembris Semdeg daiwyomsjeloba imaze, moicavs Tu ara 51-emuxliT gaTvaliswinebuli SeiaraRebuliTavdasxma teroristul Tavdasxmas. 51-emuxli ar miuTiTebs, rom SeiaraRebuliTavdasxma momdinareobs saxelmwifosgan,Tumca es piroba SeiZleba iyos bundovani.Tavdacvis ufleba aris gamonaklisiZalis gamoyenebis zogadi akr-Zalvidan da me-2 muxlis me-4 punqtigamoxatavs akrZalvas saxelmwifoebTanmimarTebaSi.miuxedavad amisa, Tu sxva qveyniste ritoriaze momzadda Tavdasxma arasaxelmwifoebrivi erTeulis mier, mi iCneva,rom man SeiZleba gamoiwvios igiveSedegi, rasac gamoiwvevs saxelmwifosmier ga n xorcielebuli Tavdasxma. amasTanave, argumentad SesaZlebelia gamoiyenon gaeros generaluri asam bleisrezolucia `agresiis definiciis~ Sesaxeb, romelic gansazRvravs, rom Se i-araRebuli bandebis, jgufebis, aralegalurida daqiravebuli Zalebis mi erganxorcielebuli Tavdasxma sa xelmwifos winaaRmdeg aris imave simZimis,rogorc regularuli an sxva mudmivsawyisebze myofi Zalebis Tavdasxma. 36marTlmsajulebis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlomganmarta es debuleba, rogorcCveulebiTi saerTaSoriso samarTlisnorma. Tumca generaluri asambleis rezoluciaTavisTavad ar iwvevs samarT lebrivi valdebulebis warmoSobas. 37 aseTviTarebas, samarTlebrivad, SesaZloa,uwodon konstruqciuli SeiaraRebuliTavdasxma an SeiaraRebuli Tavdasxmisekvivalenturi situacia. 38 amdenad, arasaxelmwifoebriviSeiaraRebuli Ta v-dasxma SeiZleba gaxdes Tavdacvis uflebisgamoyenebis safuZveli, Tu aseTiTavdasxma sakmarisi simZimisaa da momdinareobsucxo qveynis teritoriidan.konstruqciuli Tavdasxma sruladrodia moklebuli saerTaSoriso samarTlebriv safuZvels. igi Tavdacvisuf lebis farTo koncefciaze mianiSnebsda aCvenebs, rom SeiaraRebuli TavdasxmisTvis ar aris aucilebeli, esqmedeba saxelmwifosgan momdinareobdes.dRevandeli realobis gaTvaliswinebiT,amgvar safrTxes, romelic wamosuliaarasaxelmwifoebrivi erTe -ulisagan, albaT, teroristi unda vuwodoT.3911 seqtembris movlenebze saerTa Sorisoreaqcia adasturebs, rom Sei a ra-Rebuli Tavdasxmis koncefcia ar arisSezRuduli saxelmwifos qmedebebiT.uSiSroebis sabWom cno Tavdacvis uflebaTavis or rezoluciaSi, romlebicdauyovnebliv miiRes teroristuli TavdasxmisSemdeg. 4010

x. burkaZe, Zalis gamoyenebis samarTlebrivi aspeqtebi saerTaSoriso samarTalSirezoluciebi zustad ar gansazRvravs,rom teroristuli aqti TanabariaSeiaraRebuli Tavdasxmisa, magram Tavdacvisuflebis aRiarebisas uSiSroebissabWos mouwia gaeTvaliswinebina,rom es iyo teroristuli Tavdasxma,rogorc Se iaraRebuli Tavdasxma 51-emuxlis miznidan gamomdinare. miT ufro,rodesac im droisTvis ukve cnobiliiyo, rom igi gaxldaT teroristuliorganizaciis mier ganxorcielebuli.uSiSroebis sabWos msgavsi poziciahqondaT sxva saerTaSoriso organizaciebs.maga liTad, CrdiloatlantikursabWoSi Se Tanxmdnen: Tavdasxma pirdapirmomdi nareobda sazRvargareTidanSeerTebu li Statebis winaaRmdeg, racmiiCnies qmedebad, romelzec vrceldebavaSingtonis xelSekrulebis me-5 muxli,romelic acxadebs: SeiaraRebuliTavdasxma aliansis erT an met wevrzeevropasa da CrdiloeT amerikaSi ganixilebaTavdasxmad yvelas winaaRmdeg. 41zemoaRniSnulidan gamomdinare, Se i-araRebuli Tavdasxma SeiZleba ganaxorcielosrogorc saxelmwifom, ise arasaxelmwifoebrivmaerTeulma ucxo qveynisteritoriidan. 423. koleqtiuri Tavdacva3.1. koleqtiuri TavdacvismniSvnelobagaeros wesdebis 51-e muxlSi gamoyenebulifraza `individualuri an koleqtiuriTavdacva~ martivi gasagebi rodia.praqtikaSi ganasxvaveben Tavdacvis oTxkategorias, esenia: a) individualuriTa vdacva, ganxorcielebuli individualurad;b) individualuri Tavdacva,ganxorcielebuli koleqtiurad; g)koleqtiuriTavdacva, ganxorcielebuliindividualurad; d)koleqtiuriTa vdacva, ganxorcielebuli koleqtiurad.pirveli kategoria gulisxmobsTavdacvis uflebis uSualod gamoyenebas.Tu erTi saxelmwifo Tavs esxmis meores,Tavdasxmis obieqti saxelmwifoTavad reagirebs Setevaze. meore kategoriisSemTxvevaSi, agresori axorcielebsTavdasxmas ramdenime saxelmwifozeerTdroulad an Tanmimdevrulad,Tavdasxmis obieqti qveynebi ki uflebamosilniarian, mimarTon TavdacviTRonisZiebebs. mesame kategoriis drosTavdasxmas individulurad SeiZlebaupa suxos im saxelmwifom, romelzecar ganxorcielebula Seteva, magram isTavdasxmis Sekavebis mizniT exmarebadazaralebul qveyanas. gaeros wesdebisTanaxmad, nebismier wevr qveyanasSeuZlia, daexmaros meore saxelmwifos,Tu igi Tavdasxmis msxverplia. 43 meoTxekategoriis SemTxvevaSi koleqtiuriTav dacva xorcieldeba koleqtiuradanu ori an meti saxelmwifo erTobli vadexmareba dazaralebul qveyanas.marTlmsajulebis saerTaSorisosa samarTlo nikaraguis saqmeSi miuTi-Tebs, rom saxelmwifoebs koleqtiuriTavdacvis ufleba aqvT ara marto gaeroswesdebis 51-e muxlidan gamomdinare,aramed aRiarebulia saerTaSorisoCveulebiTi samarTlis mixedviT. 443.2. koleqtiuri TavdacvisxelSekrulebebigaeros wesdebis 52-e muxlis Tana xmad,dasaSvebia regionalur SeTanxmebaTa anorganoTa arseboba saerTaSoriso mSvidobisada uSiSroebis dacvasTan dakavSirebuliiseTi sakiTxebis gadasawyvetad,romlebic Sesaferisia regionalurimoqmedebisaTvis, im pirobiT, romaseTi SeTanxmebebi an organoebi da maTisaqmianoba Seesabameba organizaciis miznebsada amocanebs. organizaciis wevrebma,romlebmac aseTi SeTanxmebebi dadesan aseTi organoebi Seqmnes, yoveli Roneunda ixmaron adgilobrivi davis mSvidobianigadawyvetis misaRwevad aseTregionalur SeTanxmebaTa an aseTi regionaluriorganoebis daxmarebiT, vidrees dava gaeros uSiSroebis sabWosgadaecema. uSiSroebis sabWom dainteresebulsaxelmwifoTa iniciativiT anTavad unda waaxalisos aseT regionalurSeTanxmebaTa an aseTi regionaluri organoebisdaxmarebiT adgilobrivi davismSvidobiani gadawyveta. 45 52-e muxlSi11

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010gamoyenebuli sityva `regioni~ qveynebismxolod geografiuli siaxlovis gaTvaliswinebiTar unda ganimartos. igi,upirveles yovlisa, gulisxmobs saxelmwifoTagaerTianebas maTi interesebidanda kavSirebidan gamomdinare. 46 er-Tnairi faseulobebis mqone saxelmwifoebisTiToeul jgufs aqvs saerTointeresebi da erToblivad uzrunvelyofensaerTaSoriso mSvidobisa da usafrTxoebisSenarCunebas. 47 regionaluriSeTanxmebebi or an met qveyanas exeba. 48koleqtiuri Tavdacvis xelSekrulebaaris instrumenti, romlis safuZvelzexelSemkvreli mxareebi acxadeben, romSeiaraRebuli Tavdasxma TiToeul maTganzeganixileba Tavdasxmad yvela maTganzeda am SemTxvevaSi TiToeuli mxareiRebs pasuxismgeblobas, daexmaros danarCenebs.zemoaRniSnuli daxmarebis xelSekrulebebi SeiZleba iyos ormxrivi damra valmxrivi. magaliTad, amerikis SeerTebulStatebsa da samxreT koreasSoris 1953 wels dadebuli SeTanxmebaormxrivi xelSekrulebis magaliTia. 49mravalmxrivi xelSekruleba ki idebaorze met saxelmwifos Soris da warmoadgenskoleqtiuri Tavdacvis koleqtiurmovaleobas. 50 koleqtiuri Tavdacvisxel Sekrulebebs SeuZliaT Seakavon potenciurimowinaaRmdegeebi da xeli SeuwyonxelSemkvrel mxareebs Soris ormxrivipolitikuri interesebis ganvi-Tarebasa da samxedro mxardaWeris ga-Zlierebas.3.3. samxedro aliansebisamxedro aliansebi iqmneba saxelmwifoTaintegraciis safuZvelze da miznadisaxavs wevr qveynebs Soris mWidro TanamSromlobasrogorc samxedro, ise politikursakiTxebze. igi xels uwyobssolidaruli pasuxismgeblobis warmo-Sobas gaerTianebis wevrebs Soris. aliansisSeTanxmebas, daexmaros wevr qveyanas,romelic Tavdasxmis obieqtia,asrulebs TiToeuli mokavSire qveynismTavroba. 51 rogorc wesi, samxedro aliansebissaqmianobis ZiriTadi principiamisi TiToeuli wevri saxelmwifosusafrTxoebis dacva. magaliTad, CrdiloatlantikurixelSekrulebis organizaciis (dafuZnebuli 1949 wlis 4 aprils)umTavresi mizania, misi wevrebisTavisuflebisa da usafrTxoebis uzrunvelyofapolitikuri da samxedro saSualebebiTgaeros wesdebis principebisSesabamisad. aliansis SigniT solidarobada erTianoba yoveldRiuri TanamSromlobismeSveobiT xels uwyobs er-Toblivi ZalebiT usafrTxoebis Ziri-Tadi gamowvevebis daZlevas. samxedroaliansi SeiZleba Tanabrad eyrdnobodesrogorc Zlier, ise patara saxelmwifoebs,rogorc es arsebobs CrdiloatlantikurixelSekrulebis organizaciisSemTxvevaSi. natoSi yvela wevri saxelmwifo,ganurCevlad teritoriulisididisa, mosaxleobis raodenobisa,eko nomikuri ganviTarebis maCveneblebisa,politikuri da samxedro Zlierebisa,Tanabrad monawileobs gadawyvetilebismiRebis procesSi. magaliTad, patara damcirericxovan luqsemburgs aliansSizustad iseve SeuZlia daayenos an dablokossakiTxi, rogorc did da Zlier SeerTebulStatebs. 52 samxedro aliansebisfarglebSi wevr saxelmwifoebs SeuZliaTgamarTon konsultaciebi, Tu romelimemaTganis teritoriul mTlianobas,politikur damoukideblobasa da usafrTxoebassafrTxe daemuqra. amasTa nave,mxareebi cal-calke da erToblivad ur-TierTTanadgomis gziT aviTareben TavianTindividualur da koleqtiur SesaZleblobebs.4. ruseTis federaciis miersaqarTvelos winaaRmdegganxorcielebuli agresiissamarTlebrivi analizi4.1. faqtobrivi garemoebebi – samSvidoboformatis krizisi da saqarTvelosteritoriebis okupaciasaqarTvelos mier damoukideblobisaRdgenisa da sabWoTa kavSiris daSlisSemdeg sabWoTa imperiis samarTalmemkvidrem– ruseTis federaciam ganagrZoSeiaraRebuli konfliqtebis inspiri-12

x. burkaZe, Zalis gamoyenebis samarTlebrivi aspeqtebi saerTaSoriso samarTalSire ba saqarTvelos teritoriaze, saxeldobr,afxazeTis avtonomiuri respub li kisa da yofili samxreT oseTisav tonomiuri olqis teritoriebze.ru seTis xelisufleba sistematuradaiaraRebda separatistebs, uwevda maTsamxedro, finansur da politikur mxardaWeras.XX saukunis 90-ian wlebSi ruseTmaregularuli jarisa da daqiravebu lipirebis meSveobiT ganaxorciela qar-Tvelebis eTnikuri wmenda, rac dadasturebuliaeuTos budapeStis 1994 wlis5-6 dekembris, lisabonis 1996 wlis 2-3dekembrisa da stambulis 1999 wlis 18-19noembris samitebis daskvniTi aqtebiT 53da gaeros generaluri asambleis mier2008 wlis 15 maiss miRebuli 62/249 rezoluciiT54 . ruseTis federacia sistematuradawyobda provokaciebs da amwvavebdakonfliqtebs sakuTari survilisSesabamisad e.w. samSvidobo Zalebis meSveobiT.2007-2008 wlebSi saqarTvelos xelisuflebisa da saerTaSoriso Tanamegobrobis mier gadadgmul nabijebs,romlebic miznad isaxavda e.w. gayinulikonfliqtebis mogvarebaSi monawileobisada samSvidobo procesis internacionalizaciisaTvisrealuri pirobebisSeqmnas, rac dasturdeba gaerosuSiSroebis sabWos 2007 wlis 1781 da 1752rezoluciebiT 55 , ruseTis federaciamsamxedro agresiiT upasuxa.miuxedavad saqarTvelos samSvidobomcdelobebisa, 2008 wlis 7 agvistosruseTis federacia Riad Caeba konfliqtSi yofili samxreT oseTis avtonomiuriolqis teritoriaze da ganaxorcielamasobrivi samxedro intervenciasaqarTvelos teritoriaze. ruse-Tis regularulma samxedro nawilebmaieriSi miitanes ara mxolod saqarTvelosSeiaraRebul Zalebze, aramed asevesamoqalaqo obieqtebsa da mSvidobianmosaxleobaze, ris Sedegadac praqtikuladsrulad iqna ganadgurebulikonfliqtis zonaSi arsebuli dasaxlebulipunqtebi. 56 paralelurad, ruse-Tis samxedro nawilebma ganaxorcielesTavdasxma zemo afxazeTis teritoriazeda gaeros uSiSroebis sabWos rezoluciebisada saerTaSoriso SeTanxmebebisdarRveviT daikaves igi. amasTanave, dabombvebisaqarTvelos mTel teritoriazemimdinareobda. 57 amJamad, saqarTvelosteritoriebis 20% okupirebulia.evrosabWos 1633 (2008) rezoluciaSiaRiniSna, rom 2008 wlis agvistoSi moxdaruseTis federaciis mier saqarTvelosteritoriis mniSvnelovani nawilis okupireba,xolo 2009 wlis 4 marts veneciiskomisiam daadastura, rom: `nebismierisaxelmwifos SeiaraRebuli Zalebis yofna saqarTvelos teritoriaze, sa qar-Tvelos saxelmwifos mkafio da nebayoflobiTiTanxmobis gareSe, miiCneva suverenulisaxelmwifos teritoriis okupaciad~. 58faqtia, rom ruseTi aris mxare, racdadasturebulia evrosabWos, evrokav-Sirisa da natos farglebSi miRebuli dokumentebiT,romlebic moiTxoven, uariiTqvas saqarTvelos regionebis ukanonoaRiarebaze. 59 Sesabamisad, Seuqcevadigaxda ruseTis rolis transformaciadeklarirebuli konfliqtis momrigeblidankonfliqtis mxared.4.2. samarTlebrivi Sefaseba –saqarTvelos winaaRmdeg ruseTisfederaciis mier Zalis gamoyeneba,rogorc agresiis aqtiTanamedrove saerTaSoriso samar-TalSi samxedro Zalis gamoyenebis samar-Tlebrivi regulireba xdeba gaeros wesdebiTada mis bazaze CamoyalibebuliCveulebiTi samarTliT. ruseTis federaciasZalis gamoyenebis uflebamosileba gaeros uSiSroebis sabWos mierminiWebuli ar hqonda da aRniSnuli qmedebaar iTvleba kanonieri Tavdacvisuflebis gamoyenebad. amdenad, ruseTmaganaxorciela SeiaraRebuli TavdasxmasaqarTveloze da misi okupacia yovelgvarisaerTaSoriso samarTlebrivi safuZvlisugulebelyofiT.saqarTvelos winaaRmdeg ganxorcielebulsrulmasStabian saomar moqmedebasruseTma e.w. ucxo qveyanaSi `saku-Tar moqalaqeTa~ dacvis uflebiT `hu-13

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010manitaruli intervencia~ uwoda, magramsinamdvileSi, saerTaSoriso samarTlisTanaxmad, realurad tipuri agresiu liqmedeba iyo. amasTanave, calke samarTlebrivSefasebas eqvemdebareba af xazeTisada cxinvalis regionis mkvi d-rTaTvis ruseTis moqalaqeTa pasportebisiZulebiT masobrivi darigeba imfonze, rodesac konfliqtur regioneb-Si ruseTi formalurad `samSvidobo misiasasrulebda~ da am gziT saqarTvelosmoqalaqeebis ruseTis moqalaqeebad`ga dawera~. garda amisa, Teoriuladacrom dauSvaT aseTi sakiTxis realuroba,ruseTs mainc ar hqonda iuridiuliufleba, saqarTvelos saSinao saqmeebSiCareuliyo samxedro Zalis gamoyenebiT.gaeros generaluri asambleis 1970 wlis24 oqtombris deklaraciaSi saerTaSorisosamarTlis principebis SesaxebaRniSnulia: `arc erT saxelmwifos, ansaxelmwifoTa jgufs ara aqvs ufleba,pirdapir Tu iribad, ra mizeziTac arunda iyos, Caerios meore saxelmwifossaSinao da sagareo saqmeebSi~. 60 nebismierimizeziT sxva qveynis saSinao dasagareo saqmeebSi Careva niSnavs saerTa-Soriso samarTlis darRvevas.Tanamedrove saerTaSoriso sa mar-T lis Teoriasa da praqtikaSi Semu Savebulia mTeli rigi winapirobebisa dakriteriumebisa, romlebsac unda akmayofilebdesintervenciuli aqti, raTamas mieces humanitaruli intervenciiskvalifikacia (humanitaruli intervencia– adamianis uflebaTa uxeSi damasobrivi darRvevebis Camdeni saxelmwifoswinaaRmdeg saerTaSoriso organizaciis(organizaciebis) mier samxedro,ekonomikuri Tu sxva saxis moqmedebiTZalis gamoyeneba). 61 saerTaSorisoTanamegobrobam erTmniSvnelovnaddaafiqsira, rom ruseTis samxedroqme debebi ar akmayofilebs arc erT imwinapirobasa da kriteriums, romlebicunda iyos gamokveTili, raTa samxedroqmedebas humanitaruli intervenciiskva lifikacia mieces. saerTaSoriso samarTlisprofesoris, akademikos levanaleqsiZis mosazrebiT, ruseTis miersaqarTveloSi ganxorcielebuli samxedrointervencia aSkarad gamokveTil`revanSistul~ xasiaTs atarebda. 62 akademikosialeqsiZe xazs usvams im faqts,rom ruseTis politika, sabWoTa kav-Siris daSlis periodidan moyolebuli,mimarTulia iqiTken, rom nebismierigziT SeinarCunos Tavisi gavlena postsabWoTasivrceSi da, Sesabamisad, ar dauSvasaxalSeqmnili saxelmwifoebis integraciaevropul sivrcesa da struqturebSi.63 ruseTis umTavresi mizaniara `maTi moqalaqeebis dacva~, aramedsaqarTvelos teritoriaze farTomas-Stabiani samxedro operaciis Catarebada saqarTvelos suverenitetis xelyofaiyo.garda amisa, ruseTs ar SeuZlia daeyrdnoscxinvalis regionSi/samxreToseTSi ganlagebuli mSvidobismyofelebisdacvis safuZvels, radgan ar arsebobsZalis gamoyenebis zogadi uflebaerovnuli samSvidobo kontingentis dasacavad an dasaxmareblad. mSvidobismyofelTastatusi da dacva, rac maTgarantirebuli aqvT saerTaSoriso samarTliT,amave samarTlis Tanaxmad, moqmedebs manam, sanam mSvidobismyofelebineitralurebi rCebian; sabrZoloqmedebebSi CarTvis SemTxvevaSi isiniavtomaturad kargaven statuss da dacvas.mSvidobismyofelTa dacvis mizniTZalis gamoyenebis arguments asustebsis faqti, rom saqarTvelom TavdacviTioperacia daiwyo ruseTis mier samxedroTavdasxmis ganxorcielebidan ramdenimesaaTis Semdeg, manamde ki saqarTvelosSeiaraRebul Zalebsa da samSvidobo ZalebsSoris raime Setakeba ar mom xdara.piriqiT, ruseTis farTomasStabiansam xedro Tavdasxmamde, 7 agvistom de,erTi kviris ganmavlobaSi, grZeldebodaTavdasxma cxinvalis regionSi/samxreToseTSi samoqalaqo mosaxleobasa daqarTul samSvidobo Zalebze. 64rac Seexeba agresiis ganmartebas,gaeros generaluri asambleis 1974 wlis14 dekembris `agresiis definiciis Sesaxeb~rezoluciis mesame muxlis Tanax mad,agresia aris `erTi qveynis SeiaraRebuliZalebis mier meore qveynis teritoriazeSeWra, an Tavdasxma, an samxedro14

x. burkaZe, Zalis gamoyenebis samarTlebrivi aspeqtebi saerTaSoriso samarTalSiope racia, Tundac droebiT, romelic amSeWris an Tavdasxmis Sedegia... erTi saxelmwifosSeiaraRebuli Zalebis miermeore saxelmwifos teritoriis dabombva,an nebismieri iaraRis gamoyeneba meoresaxelmwifos teritoriis winaaRmdeg;sazRvao portebisa da sanapiroebisblokada sxva saxelmwifos SeiaraRebuliZalebis mier~. amave rezoluciis me-5muxli miuTiTebs, rom `aranairi nebismierixasiaTis mosazreba, iqneba es politikuri, ekonomikuri, samxedro Tusxva xasiaTis, ar amarTlebs agresias;agresiuli omi aris saerTaSoriso mSvidobiswinaaRmdeg mimarTuli danaSauli,rac iwvevs saerTaSoriso samarTlebrivpasuxismgeblobas~. 65 zemoaRniSnulidangamomdinare, ruseTis qmedeba pasuxobsyvela im niSans, rac damaxasiaTebeliaagresiuli moqmedebisaTvis. ruseTma xelyosaqarTvelos suvereniteti, teritoriulimTlianoba, dabomba saqarTvelosqalaqebi, sxva dasaxlebulipun qtebi da saqarTvelos teritoriaaq cia `okupaciis obieqtad~. garda amisa,gaeros generaluri asambleis 1974wlis 14 dekembris `agresiis definiciisSesaxeb~ rezoluciis me-5 muxlis mixedviTTu vimsjelebT, agresiis gamarTlebagamoricxulia. amdenad, oficialurimoskovis gancxadeba, rom saqarTveloSisamxedro ZaliT SeWra, qarTuli qalaqebisada dasaxlebuli punqtebis dabombvaiZulebiTi RonisZieba iyo da miznad mxolodosi xalxis `gadarCenas~ isaxavda,aranair saerTaSoriso samarTlebrivnormebs ar efuZneba. amasTanave, ruse-Tis samxedro qmedeba ar SeesabamebodaZalis gamoyenebis aucileblobisa daproporciulobis kriteriumebs. ruseTsarc ucdia samxedro Zalis gamoyenebisnacvlad sxva alternatiuli saSualebebisaTvismiemarTa, piriqiT, is xels uSlidanebismieri samSvidobo iniciativisganxorcielebas, garda amisa, mis miergamoyenebuli Zala iyo araTanazomieri,araproporciuli, rac dadasturebuliasaerTaSoriso Tanamegobrobis mier. 66ruseTma Tavdasxmis samizned gaxadasamoqalaqo Tu samxedro daniSnulebispraqtikulad yvela sakvanZo obieqti,xelovnurad gaafarTova sabrZolo moqmedebebisareali da moicva teritoriebi,romlebsac araviTari Sexeba konfliqtiszonasTan ar hqonia. amdenad,`sakuTari moqalaqeebis dacvis~ sababiTdawyebuli ruseTis samxedro moqmedebebisadamsjelo operaciad iqca, romelicmiznad isaxavda saqarTvelos mTeliteritoriis okupacias.2010 wlis 1 ivniss litvis respublikisseimma miiRo rezolucia `saqarTveloSiSeqmnili viTarebis Sesaxeb~,romlis Tanaxmad, litvis parlamentiruseTis SeiaraRebuli Zalebis yofnassaqarTvelos teritoriaze da marionetulireJimebis qmedebebs afxazeTsada samxreT oseTSi afasebs saqarTvelosteritoriebis nawilebis ukanono okupaciadda saerTaSoriso samarTlisnormebis uxeS darRvevad. 67 litvis seimipirveli erovnuli parlamentia, romelmacsaqarTvelos okupacia, rogorctermini, daakanona. metic, seimma litvisrespublikis prezidentsa da mTavrobasmouwoda, ixelmZRvanelon am rezoluciisprincipebiT sagareo politikissakiTxebis mogvarebisa da ganxorcielebisas.daskvnaZalis gamoyenebis samarTlebrivmaregulirebam uzarmazari transformaciaganicada. dawyebuli `samarT lianiomis~ doqtrinis Teoriidan, gagrZe lebuliZalis gamoyenebis sruli Tavi suflebiTme-17 saukunidan me-20 saukunemdeda damTavrebuli gaeros wesdebaSiZalis gamoyenebis zogadi akrZalviT.Tumca am ukanasknelma dauSva Zalis gamoyenebaindividualuri da koleqtiuriTavdacvis dros, aseve uSiSroebis sab-Wos mianiWa prerogativa, miiRos gadawyvetilebaiZulebiTi zomebis miRebisSesaxeb.rac Seexeba Tavdacvis uflebis ganmartebas,pirvel rigSi, unda aRiniSnos,rom yvela saxelmwifos aqvs Tavdacvis ufleba realuri qmedebis – SeiaraRebuli Tavdasxmis arsebobis Sem-TxvevaSi. meore, qveyanas ar aqvs preven-15

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010ciuli Tavdacvis ufleba im safrTxiswinaaRmdeg, romelic jer kidev gaurkveveliada, savaraudod, mosalodneliamomavalSi. uSiSroebis sabWos pasuxismgeblobaa,ganixilos saerTaSoriso mSvidobisada usafrTxoebisaTvis safrTxisSemqmneli SemTxvevebi da saxelmwifosar aqvs ufleba, Tavad ganaxorcielosmsgav si funqcia damatebiT an paralelurad.mesame, 51-e muxli zogadad saubrobsSeiaraRebul Tavdasxmaze da ar miuTi-Tebs Tavdasxmis subieqtze, Sesabamisad,gaCnda kiTxva: aqvs Tu ara saxelmwifosTavdacvis gamoyenebis ufleba imSemTxvevaSi, Tu is uSualod sxva saxelmwifosganar momdinareobs? saerTaSorisoreaqcia 11 seqtembris Semdeg adasturebs,rom SeiaraRebuli Tavdasxmiskoncefcia ar aris SezRuduli saxelmwifosqmedebebiT. Tavdacvis uflebaseqvemdebareba iseTi Tavdasxmac, romelicwarmoiSva arasaxelmwifoebrivi er-Teulis mier. Tumca Tavdacvis uflebiszusti regulirebisTvis umjobesia ammuxlis Semdegnairad Camoyalibeba: `eswesdeba ar exeba individualuri an koleqtiuriTavdacvis xelSeuval uflebas,Tu organizaciis wevrze SeiaraRebuliTavdasxma ganxorcielda saxelmwifosan arasaxelmwifoebrivi warmonaqmnismi er im SemTxvevaSi, rodesac Tavdasxmamomzadebulia ucxo qveynis teritoriaze.....~miuxedavad imisa, rom aucileblobada proporciuloba Zalis gamoyenebisnebismieri SemTxvevis mimarT moqmedebs,gaeros wesdebis 51-e muxlSi aRniSnulikriteriumebi miTiTebuli ar aris da essakiTxi saerTaSoriso CveulebiTi samarTliTregulirdeba. garda amisa, arsebobsmesame kriteriumic – drouloba,romelic vebsteris formulidan momdinareobsda gulisxmobs, yovelgvarifiqrisa da yoymanis gareSe, TavdasxmisSeCerebis mizniT aqtiur moqmedebazegadasvlas.uSiSroebis sabWos uunaroba, uzrunvelyossaerTaSoriso mSvidobisa dausafrTxoebis dacva, zrdis koleqtiuriTavdacviTi xelSekrulebebis mniSvnelobas.ormxrivi da mravalmxriviTavdacviTi daxmarebis xelSekrulebebiaris instrumenti, romlis safuZvelzemxareebs SeuZliaT SeTanxmdnen, romSeiaraRebuli Tavdasxma TiToeul maTganzeganixileba Tavdasxmad yvela maTganzeda am SemTxvevaSi isini daxmare basuweven safrTxeSi myof mxares an mxa reebs.gaeros wesdebis 51-e muxlis Tanaxmad,individualuri Tavdacvis uflebismsgavsad, koleqtiuri Tavdacvis uflebawarmoiSoba TavdasxmisTanave dagrZe l deba manam, sanam uSiSroebis sabWoar miiRebs Sesabamis zomebs.dabolos, saerTaSoriso samarTlisnormebis Tanaxmad, saerTaSoriso valdebulebebismZime darRvevebis SemTxvevebSi,rogorc es 2008 wlis agvistoSi ruseTismier saqarTvelos okupaciisas moxdada dRemde grZeldeba, saxelmwifoebivaldebulni arian, iTanamSromlon,raTa kanonieri saSualebebiT aRkveTonmZime darRvevebi, ar cnon kanonierad amdarRvevis Sedegad Seqmnili viTareba daxeli Seuwyon, gansakuTrebiT patara saxelmwifoebismimarT, saerTaSoriso samarTlisada samarTlianobis principebTanSeuTavsebeli Zaladobisa da zewolispolitikis gamoyenebasTan dakavSirebiTerTiani da principuli poziciisCamoyalibebas.1Charter of the United Nations, http://wwwupdate.un.org/en/documents/charter/intro.shtml,(gadmotvirTulia: 20.02.2010).2iqve.3René Värk, The Use of Force in the Modern World: Recent Developments andLegal Regulation of the Use of Force, Baltic Defense Review No.10, tomi 2,2003, gv. 29-30.4Ian Brownlie, International Law and the Use of Force by States, Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1963, gv. 268.16

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 201018of International Law, July, 1993, gv. 1.30samarTliani omis Teoriis Seswavlis mizniT ix. Roger Bainton, ChristianAttitudes Toward war and Peace (1960); James Turner Johnson, Ideology, Reasonand the Limitation of War (1975); Frederick H. Russel, The Just War in the MiddleAges (1975).31ix. sqolio 22, gv. 56.32Michael N. Schmitt, International Law and the Use of Force: The Jus Ad Bellum,tomi II, seqtemberi 2003, gv. 93.33ix. sqolio 20. ixileT, agreTve, gaeros generaluri asambleis 1974 wlis14 dekembris `agresiis definiciis Sesaxeb~ rezoluciis mesame muxlis`a~ qvepunqti (Resolutiion on the Defi nition of Agrression, 3314, adoptedby General Assembly on 14 December 1974, http://www.un.org/ga/about/background.shtml,(gadmotvirTulia: 25.02.2010).34Michael Bothe, Terrorism and the Legality of Pre-emptive Force, European Journalof International Law, tomi 14, 2003, gv. 229.35ix. sqolio 19, gv. 165-169.36Resolutiion on the Defi nition of Agrression, 3314, adopted by General Assemblyon 14 December 1974, http://www.un.org/ga/about/background.shtml, (gadmotvirTulia:25.02.2010).37ix. sqolio 20.38Michael Bothe, Terrorism and the Legality of Pre-emptive Force, European Journalof International Law, tomi 14, 2003, gv.230.39Christopher Greenwood, International Law and the Pre-emptive Use of Force:Afghanistan, Al-Qaida, and Iraq, San Diego International Law Journal, tomi 4,2003, gv.17.40Security Council Resolutions about Threats to International Peace and Securitycaused by terrorist acts (N1368, N1373, adopted on September 12 and September28, 2001), http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2001/sc2001.htm, (gadmotvirTulia:10.02.2010).41North Atlantic Treaty, Washington D.C. , April 4, 1949, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/offi cial_texts_17120.htm?selectedLocale=en, (gadmotvirTulia:10.01.2010).42ix. sqolio 19, gv. 187.43H. Kelsen, “Collective Security and Collective Self- defense under the Charter ofthe United States”, American Journal of International Law, N42, 1948, gv. 783- 792,(gadmotvirTulia Lexis Nexis-is monacemTa bazidan 2010 wlis maisSi).44ix. sqolio 20.45ix. sqolio 1.46Ann Van Wynen Thomas and A. J. Thomas, Non-Intervention: The Law andIts Import in the Americas, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1956,gv.178.47H. Kelsen, The Law of the United Nations: A Critical Analysis of Its FundamentalProblems, 1951, gv. 920.48M. Akehurst, Enforcement Action by Regional Agencies, with Special Reference tothe Organization of American States, British Year Book of International Law N42,1967, gv. 175-177.49United States–Republic of Korea, Washington Treaty, American Journal ofInternational Law (AJIL), N48, 1953, Supplement , AJIL, N147, 1954, (gadmotvirTuliaLexis Nexis-is monacemTa bazidan 2010 wlis aprilSi).50J. N. Moore, The Secret War in Central America and the Future of World Order,American Journal of International Law N43, 1986, pp. 104–5, (gadmotvirTuliaLexis Nexis-is monacemTa bazidan 2010 wlis maisSi).51W. E. Beckett, The North Atlantic Treaty, the Brussels Treaty and the Charter ofthe United Nations, 1950, (gadmotvirTulia Lexis Nexis-is monacemTa bazidan2010 wlis TebervalSi).52xaTuna burkaZe, anatoli korepanovi, es natoa, Tbilisi, 2008 weli, gv. 8.53ix. Budapest Summit Document 1994, 5-6 December, Conference for Securityand Co-operation in Europe; Lisabon Summit Document 1996, 2-3 December,Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe; Istanbul Summit Document

x. burkaZe, Zalis gamoyenebis samarTlebrivi aspeqtebi saerTaSoriso samarTalSi1999, 17-19 November, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe,www.osce.org, (gadmotvirTulia: 25.04.2010).54ix. Resolution of General Assembly, N62/249, May 15, 2008, www.un.org, (gadmotvirTulia:27.03.2010).55ix. Resolution of Security Council N1781, October 15, 2007, Resolution of SecurityCouncil N1752, April 13, 2007, www.un.org, (gadmotvirTulia 27.03.2010).56saqarTvelos parlamentis dadgenileba `ruseTis federaciis miersaqarTvelos teritoriebis okupaciis Sesaxeb~, 2008 wlis 29 agvisto,www.parliament.ge, (gadmotvirTulia 27.03.2010).57ix. saqarTvelos parlamentis mimarTva saerTaSoriso Tanamegob robisadmi, 2008 wlis 14 agvisto, www.parliament.ge, (gadmotvirTulia25.03.2010).58saqarTvelos mTavrobis angariSi ruseTis federaciis mier saqarTveloswinaaRmdeg ganxorcielebul srulmasStabian agresiasTan dakav-SirebiT, Tbilisi, 2009 weli, gv. 62-63.59Levan Alexidze, The Failure of the UN Security Council in Settlment of the Confl ictin Abkhazia, Georgia, Undermines the Fundamentals of the International LegalOrder, Journal of International Law, N1, 2009, gv. 117.60Resolutiion of General Assembly N2625, UN, 24 October, 1970, www.un.org,(gadmotvirTulia: 25.04.2010).61ix. Tanamedrove saerTaSoriso samarTali, leqsikoni-cnobari, pasuxismgebeliredaqtori levan aleqsiZe, Tbilisis universitetis gamomcemloba,2003 weli, gv. 415.62Л. Алексидзе, И Снова Агрессия, Интервенция и Оккупация Грузии с ЦельюЛиквидации Суверенитета и Территориальной Целостности Страны, saerTa-Soriso samarTlis Jurnali, N2, 2008, gv.185.63iqve.64ix. saqarTvelos mTavrobis angariSi ruseTis federaciis mier saqarTveloswinaaRmdeg ganxorcielebul srulmasStabian agresiasTan dakav-SirebiT, Tbilisi, 2009 weli, gv.105.65Resolutiion on the Defi nition of Agrression, 3314, adopted by General Assemblyon 14 December 1974, http://www.un.org/ga/about/background.shtml, (gadmotvirTulia25.02.2010).66ix. Statement of North Atlantic Council at the Level of Foreign Ministers, August19, 2008, www.nato.int, saqarTvelos mTavrobis angariSi ruseTis federaciismier saqarTvelos winaaRmdeg ganxorcielebul srulmasStabianagresiasTan dakavSirebiT, Tbilisi, 2009 weli.67ix. litvis respublikis seimis rezolucia `saqarTveloSi Seqmnili vi-Tarebis Sesaxeb~, 2010 wlis 1 ivnisi, www.mfa.gov.ge (gadmotvirTulia02.06.2010).19

KHATUNA BURKADZELEGAL ASPECTS OF THE USE OF FORCE IN THE INTERNATIONAL LAWINTRODUCTIONAmong the most problematic and criticalissues of international law is the Legal aspectsof the use of force. In the International legalsystem, It remains imperative to ask – “Whenis it lawful to use force?”.The decision on the use of force is madeonly by the United Nations. In some cases,however, the UN Security Council may giveauthority to international regional organizationsto use force.The issue of the use of force became evenmore crucial after the war in August of 2008,when Russia conducted an act of aggressionagainst the sovereign state of Georgia, in violationof fundamental principles of the internationallaw.The international legal system was incapableof preventing the states to use forceagainst each other, due to the lack of an effectivemeans to protect and enforce internationallegal norms.The following article is aimed at: analyzingthe international legal aspects of theuse of force; adduce the role and functionsof the UN Security Council and the GeneralAssembly in preserving international peace; illustratehow the permanent members of theUN Security Council right of veto impedethe decision making process in the SecurityCouncil; demonstrate the difference betweenthreat to peace and armed attack, whetherthe use of force is justifi ed in cases of threatsto peace; what the criteria are for the right ofdefense; defi ne the criteria of necessity andproportionality of use of force; whether armedattack from a Non-State Actor could serve asgrounds for exercising a right of self-defense;defi ne the act of aggression within the scopeof international law.An examination of these issues will outlinediscrepancies that persist in the processof preserving international peace by the internationalsystem and will facilitate a properresolution.The fi rst chapter of the article describesthe legal grounds of use of force and the decision-makingprocess on use of force; the secondchapter is about the criteria for the right ofdefense and different forms of armed attack;the third chapter is dedicated to the importanceof collective defense, bilateral and multilateraltreaties on collective defense and militaryalliances; based on the legal aspects ofthe use of force and criteria for it, in the fourthchapter author explores the legal aspects ofthe Russian aggression against Georgia.1. INTERNATIONAL LEGAL BASIS ON THEUSE OF FORCE1.1. Definition of the use of forceThe exact defi nition of the use of forcesupports development of peaceful bilateralrelations between states. The internal legalsystem of the state gradually derailed frommonopolizing the use of force and permits theuse of force only in cases of self-defense.Contemporary international law on use offorce is based on the United Nations Charter.The authors of the Charter wished to ban anyuse of force but at the same time envisagedfew exclusions which are regulated by theCharter.One of the reasons of creation of the UNwas to modernize international law in the 20 th20

KH. BURKADZE, LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE USE OF FORCE IN THE INTERNATIONAL LAWcentury. Leaders decided: “To establish conditionsunder which justice and respect forthe obligations arising from treaties and othersources of international law can be maintained,and to save succeeding generations from thescourge of war, which twice in our lifetime hasbrought untold sorrow to mankind”. 1In accordance with article 2, paragraph 4,of the UN Charter, – “all Members shall refrainin their international relations from the threator use of force against the territorial integrity orpolitical independence of any state, or in anyother manner inconsistent with the purposesof the United Nations”. 2Article 2, paragraph 4 is well drafted in sofar as it mentions the threat or use of force, butnot war. The term “war” refers to a narrow andtechnical legal situation, which begins witha declaration of war and ends with a peacetreaty. War was generally prohibited beforethe Second World War, but states found a wayto avoid such prohibition. For example, Japanrefused to declare war on China and called itsmilitary operations in Manchuria (1932-1941)– “an incident” in order to avoid violating theprohibition of waging war. In light of such experiences,the term “use of force” was preferredbecause it covers all forms of hostilities,both nominal wars and incidents falling shortof an offi cial state of war, which ranges fromminor border clashes to extensive military operations.Therefore, the prohibition of the useof force is not dependent on how the involvedstates prefer to defi ne their military confl ict. 3The provision stipulates that the membersof the United Nations should refrain from thethreat or use of force against the territorial integrityor political independence of any state,or in any other manner inconsistent with thepurposes of the United Nations. Does thistruly mean that the prohibition is conditional,and force can be used for a wide variety ofpurposes because it is not aimed against theterritorial integrity or political independenceof any state? Could this line of reasoning beused to justify humanitarian interventions aswell as other “altruistic” uses of force? Theseclauses were never intended to restrict thescope of prohibition on the use of force, but,on the contrary, they purposed to give morespecifi c guarantees to small states. Therefore,they cannot be interpreted to have a qualifyingeffect. 4Exceptions to the general prohibition ofthe use of force exist under the United NationsCharter: individual and collective self-defense;Security Council enforcement actions; use offorce on the territory of another state upon requestof the latter.Thus, use of force means the use of forcein any form. The legality of the use of force isdetermined by the exceptions in provisions ofthe United Nations Charter.1.2. Legal basis of the use of forcein accordance with the UnitedNations CharterWhen dealing with Threats to the Peace,Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggressionthe UN Security Council acts under ChapterVII, the Security Council shall determine whatmeasures shall be taken to maintain or restoreinternational peace and security. Thesemay include complete or partial interruption ofeconomic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal,telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication,and the severance of diplomaticrelations.Should the Security Council consider theaforementioned measures are inadequate, itmay take such action by air, sea, or land forcesas may be necessary to maintain or restoreinternational peace and security.In order to contribute to the maintenanceof international peace and security all membersof the United Nations, make their armedforces, assistance, and facilities, includingrights of passage available to the SecurityCouncil, on its call and in accordance with aspecial agreement or agreements, necessaryfor the purpose of maintaining internationalpeace and security.As far as it concerns the use of force forself-defense, in every concrete case fundamentalcriteria has to be met: the use of forcefor self-defense should not be arbitrary; use offorce should be an absolute necessity; the aimof such a defensive force should be to halt orrepel an attack; 5 and no other practical alter-21

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010native should be visible when the use of forcedeems necessary.In its decision concerning the Oil Platformscase, the International Court of Justice concludedthat international law requires measurestaken in self-defense to be necessary toreach the goal; are objective and impregnableand do not leave any option for discretionalactions. 6Taking into consideration the aforesaid,use of force is illegal and contradicts internationallaw if there are no appropriate legalgrounds for the use of force or these actionsare not sanctioned by the United NationsSecurity Council in accordance with chapter 7of the UN Charter.1.3. Decision-making mechanism1.3.1. Responsibilities of the UnitedNations Security CouncilAccording to the chapter 7 of the UnitedNations Charter the Security Council shalldetermine the existence of any threat to thepeace, breach of the peace, or act of aggressionand shall make recommendations, or decidewhat measures shall be taken to maintainor restore international peace and security.Threat to the peace is a much broaderconcept than an armed attack. 7 The differencebetween the two categories relates tothe consequences ensuing thereof. Whereasany State or group of States can forcibly respondto an armed attack by invoking the rightof individual or collective self-defence, onlythe Security Council can put in motion measuresof collective security that (in the Council’sjudgement) are called for in the face of a threatto the peace. 8The UN Security Council resolution N1540affi rms that proliferation of nuclear, chemicaland biological weapons and their meansof delivery represent a threat to internationalpeace and security. 9 In addition, the UNSecurity Council could perceive the violationof human rights even without the use of forceas a threat to peace. 10 The Security Council isresponsible to determine whether threat to thepeace is viable.The UN Security Council is a political body,not a legal one, and its decisions are based onpolitical views rather than on purely legal ones.No important decision can be made withoutsupport of the fi ve permanent members (theUnited States of America, the United Kingdom,France, China, and Russian Federation) of theCouncil, including issues concerning threatsto the peace. Consequentially, if one of thepermanent members of the council is againstreaching an agreement, it could hamper orblock the process and make the Council incapableof acting on maintaining peace andsecurity.Security Council resolutions have a legallybinding effect on the members of theUnited Nations, and they are obliged to followthese resolutions. 11 According to the article 48of the UN Charter the action required to carryout Security Council decisions for the maintenanceof international peace and security shallbe taken by all the Members of the UnitedNations or by some of them, as the SecurityCouncil may determine. Such decisions shallbe carried out directly by the Members of theUnited Nations and the actions of the appropriateinternational agencies of which they aremembers. 121.3.2. The General AssemblyIn 1950 the General Assembly adopted alandmark resolution called “Uniting for Peace”.Pursuant to this resolution, the Assembly maytake action if the Security Council fails to act,owing to the negative vote of a permanentmember, in a case where there appears to bea threat to the peace, breach of the peace oract of aggression. The Assembly can considerthe matter immediately with the aim of makingrecommendations to Members for collectivemeasures to maintain or restore internationalpeace and security.If the General Assembly is not in session,an “emergency special session” can be convenedwithin 24 hours, if requested by the voteof any seven members of the Security Councilon the, or by request or consent of the majorityof its members. 13 This resolution does notamend the UN Charter. 14 It should be notedthat the Assembly adopts resolutions that arenon-binding in nature and are perceived asrecommendations to States. 1522

KH. BURKADZE, LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE USE OF FORCE IN THE INTERNATIONAL LAWIn its advisory opinion of 20th July, 1962,concerning “Certain expenses of the UnitedNations”, the International Court of Justiceconcluded that the Security Council is exclusivelyauthorized to obligate states with responsibilitiesderiving from the chapter 7, ofthe United Nations Charter. 16During the “Cold War” era, the GeneralAssembly tried to “usurp the primary responsibilityof the Security Council on quite a numberof occasions”; although in recent years it appearsto have largely reconciled itself to taking“a secondary or silent role”. 17Ultimately it could be concluded that if theUN Security Council fails to fulfi ll its mandate,no other UN body can substitute it.2. RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE2.1. Criteria for the right of self-defenseIn an advisory opinion of 1996, theInternational Court of Justice indicated that, inrespect to any state, the Court always takesinto account the right of self-defense envisagedby article 51 of the United NationsCharter. 18In addition, the International Court ofJustice clarifi ed that the right of self-defenseshould be exercised in extreme circumstances.19 Article 51 of the UN Charter states “Nothingin the present Charter shall impair the inherentright of individual or collective self-defense ifan armed attack occurs against a Member ofthe United Nations, until the Security Councilhas taken measures necessary to maintain internationalpeace and security...”.Therefore, article 51 of the UN Charterenvisages individual as well as collective selfdefenseand the unimpaired use of this rightin case of armed attack. In addition, there aredefi ned criteria that should be abided by whenexercising right of self-defense.In its argument on a case concerningNicaragua, the International Court of Justiceindicated that no particularity is provided for inusing the right of self-defense in article 51 of theUN Charter. But according to the InternationalCustomary Law, response to armed attackshould be proportional and necessary. 20The international Court of Justice reaffirmed the need to abide by principles of proportionalityand necessity while responding toarmed attack in its decision in 2003, in a caseconcerning Oil Platforms. 21In fact, criteria of proportionality and necessityare supplemented by the third criteriaof need for imminence of response.These requirements derive historicallyfrom the Caroline case. 22A rebellion in colonial Canada in 1837found active support from American volunteersand private suppliers operating out of theborder region in the United States. The steamshipCaroline was involved in supplying materialsto rebel-occupied Navy Island. Britishforces from the Canadian side crossed theborder into the United States and seized theCaroline. During the assault, two citizens ofthe United States were shot dead aboard theCaroline and one British offi cer was arrestedfor murder. 23The United States protested the attack onthe basis that the British had violated its sovereignty.When the Foreign Offi ce replied thatthe action had been an appropriate exerciseof self-defense, Secretary of State, DanielWebster, argued that for the self-defense to belegitimate, the British had to demonstrate “anecessity of self-defense, instant, overwhelming,leaving no choice of means, and no momentfor deliberation” and the acts could notbe “unreasonable or excessive”. 24The International Court of Justice, in itsadvisory opinion on a case concerning nuclearweapons, concluded that criteria of proportionalityand necessity remains a requirementfor any case of the use of force, including theuse of force for self-defense, envisaged by article51 of the UN Charter. 25 In addition, theInternational Court of Justice, in its decisionon Nicaragua v. USA, concluded that, for themeans of self-defense, the use of proportionalforce to repel attack could be established as arule of the International Customary Law. 26The principle of necessity is based on thefollowing circumstances: a) state exercisesright of self-defense when attack is initiated byan identifi ed state; b) force is used in response23

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010to attack and not in response to any incidentor any other action of this nature; c) all othernon-forceful options are exhausted.Thus, if diplomatic, economic, informational,judicial, or other courses of action mightdeter the threatened action, defensive use offorce by the target of the threat would violatearticle 2(4). 27 In other words, “force should notbe considered necessary until peaceful measureshave been found wanting or when theyclearly would be futile”. 28Proportionality is the fundamental componentof the Law on the Use of Force. 29Historically, it is part of the Just War Theory. 30The principle of proportionality limits any defensiveaction to that necessary to defeat anongoing attack or to deter or pre-empt a futureattack. 31The third requirement, drawn from Webster’s“instant” and “leaving no moment fordeliberation” language, is imminence, a criterionrelevant only in the case of attacks not yetlaunched. 32Abidance of the criteria of self-defensedoes not legitimize the use of force, if the useof force is unlawful by other cause. Thereforeif armed attack is illegitimate, there is no needto study clauses of proportionality and the necessityof the use of force.2.2. Definition of armed attackArticle 51 of the UN Charter states that“Nothing in the present charter shall impair theinherent right of individual or collective self-defenseif an armed attack occurs…”. This raisesthe need to precisely defi ne “armed attack”.As it is stated in the conclusion of theInternational Court of Justice concerning thecase of Nicaragua “activities of military unitson the other side of the international border”are perceived as an armed attack if they gobeyond the scope of a border incident. 33Various English dictionaries suggest thatan attack is an actual action, not merely athreat. Furthermore, we should take into considerationother parts of the United NationsCharter, namely Article 2, paragraph 4. Thisprohibits both the actual use of force as well asthe threat of force, and it is diffi cult to conceivethat the drafter of the United Nations Charter,due to an oversight, simply forgot to add thewords “or threatens” to Article 51. 34 Whereasexclusion of the word “threat” in article 51 is incompliance with the fundamental principles ofthe UN – to prevent unilateral use of force. Themajority of scholars agree that armed attackis an active attack which already took place,rather than threat of such attack. 35The events of September 11, 2001 triggereddiscussions whether the armed attackreferred to in article 51 of the UN Charter includedterrorist attacks. Article 51 by itself,does not clarify that armed attack should beexecuted by the state, though this provisionremains vague, while paragraph 4, of article 2of the same Charter allows the use of force inself-defense as an exception, when a state isattacked by another state.Nevertheless, if an attack was organizedby a Non-State Actor on the territory of anotherstate, it is assumed that it carries asgrave danger as an armed attack. The UNGeneral Assembly argues in favor of this, inits resolution on the “Defi nition of Aggression”.According to the defi nition, acts of armed forceagainst another state carried out by armedbands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries areof the same gravity as armed attacks carriedout by regular or any other permanent armedforce. 36 The international Court of Justice defined this provision as a norm of InternationalCustomary Law. However, the UN GeneralAssembly resolutions are not obligatory in theirnature. 37 Such a situation can, in legal reasoning,be called a constructive armed attackor a situation equivalent to an armed attack . 38Therefore, armed attack by a Non-State Actorcould serve as a basis for self-defense if it is ofsuffi cient gravity and originated from abroad.The concept of constructive armed attackor a situation equivalent to an armed attack,is not foreign to international legal reasoning.It directs to a rather broader concept of selfdefenseand indicates that in the current environment,an armed attack could derive notonly from states but from Non-State Actors.In that situation the threat came from a non-24

KH. BURKADZE, LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE USE OF FORCE IN THE INTERNATIONAL LAWstate group of the kind most would probablycall “terrorist” today. 39The reaction of the international communityto the events of 11 th of September 2001,explicitly illustrated the concept that armedattack is not limited to state actors. After theattacks, the UN Security Council, recognizedthe right for the self-defense and immediatelyenshrined it in its two resolutions. 40UN Security Council resolutions did notclearly identify that terrorist acts are equivalentto armed attacks, but while recognisingthe right for self-defence it had to recognisethat these acts have served for enacting article51 of the UN Charter. The same attitude wasshared by other international organisations.The North Atlantic Council agreed that thisattack was directed from abroad against theUnited States and should be regarded as anaction covered by Article 5 of the WashingtonTreaty, which states that an armed attackagainst one or more of the Allies in Europe orNorth America shall be considered an attackagainst them all. 41Based on the aforementioned, it could beconcluded that an armed attack can be conductedby another state or Non-State Actorfrom within a foreign state. 423. COLLECTIVE SELF-DEFENSE3.1. Definition of collective self-defenseIt is rather diffi cult to defi ne the exactmeaning of the phrase “collective self-defense”used in article 51 of the UN Charter. Inpractice there are four types of self-defense:a) individual defense conducted individually;b) individual self-defense conducted collectively;c) collective self-defense conductedindividually and d) collective self-defense conductedcollectively. The fi rst category envisagesindividual response from a state when itis attacked by another. The second categorydescribes a situation when the aggressor attacksmultiple states simultaneously or successively,and attacked states exercise theirright of self-defense. The third category is thesituation when in response to aggression, theright of self-defense is exercised by anotherstate individually which was not attacked, insupport of an attacked state in order to repelthe attack. According to the UN Charter anystate could support another, if the latter is thevictim of aggression. 43 In the fourth category,collective self-defense is exercised collectivelywhen two or more states are supporting theattacked state.In its judgment on Nicaragua, the Inter nationalCourt of Justice stated that the right ofcollective self-defense derives not only fromarticle 51 of the UN Charter, but it is a recognizednorm of the International CustomaryLaw. 443.2. Collective self-defense treatiesAccording to article 52 of the UN Charternothing in the Charter precludes the existenceof regional arrangements or agencies for addressingsuch matters relating to the maintenanceof international peace and security, asis appropriate for regional action, providedthat such arrangements or agencies and theiractivities are consistent with the purposesand principles of the United Nations. TheMembers of the United Nations entering intosuch arrangements or constituting such agenciesshall make every effort to achieve pacifi csettlement of local disputes through such regionalarrangements, or by such regionalagencies, before referring them to the SecurityCouncil. The Security Council shall encouragethe development of pacifi c settlement of localdisputes through such regional arrangements,or by such regional agencies, either on the initiativeof the states concerned, or by referencefrom the Security Council. 45The word “regional” referred to in article52 of the Charter, does not only refer to geographiccloseness of the states. First and foremostthe word “regional” refers to the countriesthat are united and allied in terms of theirjoint interests and relationships. 46 Each groupof states that are in value-based unions pursuejoint interests and work together for themaintenance of peace and security. 47 Regionalagreements are agreements between two ormore states. 48 Agreements on collective defenseis an instrument where state parties to25

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010the agreement declare that attack on one ofthem is an attack against all of them, and allmembers take the responsibility to supporteach other.Collective self-defense treaties may be bilateralor multilateral. One example of such abilateral treaty is the agreement between theUSA and South Korea, which was concludedin 1953. 49 Multilateral treaties are concludedby more than two states and carry collectiveresponsibility on collective self-defence. 50 Agreements on collective defence serve as adeterrent to potential threat and support developmentof political relations and military cooperationbetween the signatories.3.3. Military alliancesMilitary alliances are established basedon integration between states; members strivefor close cooperation on military and politicalissues. Alliances support development ofshared responsibilities between members. Asusual, a cornerstone for military alliances is responsibilityto insure the security of each other.The responsibility to support an allied partnerif it falls victim to aggression is fulfi lled by allmembers of the alliance. 51 The main purposeof the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (establishedon April 4, 1949) is to safeguard thefreedom and security of its members throughpolitical and military means in accordancewith the United Nations Charter. Solidarity andunity in day-to-day work within the alliance enhancescooperation in dealing with core securitychallenges. As in NATO, military alliancemay equally rely on its large and small memberstates. All members of NATO, regardlessof their size, population and economic,political and military development, are equalin the decision-making process. In NATO, littleLuxemburg can foster or block any issuewith equal success as the large and mightythe United States. 52 The members of militaryalliance will consult together whenever, in theopinion of any of them, the territorial integrity,political independence or security of any of theparties is threatened. Members of the alliance,separately and jointly, will maintain and developtheir individual and collective capacities bymutual aid.4. LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE RUSSIANAGGRESSION AGAINST GEORGIA4.1. Factual circumstances – crisisof peace formats and occupation ofGeorgian territoriesAfter restoration of the independenceof Georgia and dissolution of the SovietUnion, the successor of the Soviet empire –the Russian Federation – continued to incitearmed confl icts on the territories of Georgia,namely, in the Autonomous Republic ofAbkhazia and the Former Autonomous Districtof South Ossetia. Russian authorities constantlysupplied the separatists with arms andprovided them with fi nancial, military and politicalsupport.Russia, in 1990s, using regular militaryforces and volunteers committed ethnic cleansingof the Georgian population that was recognizedby the fi nal acts of the OSCE summitsin Budapest on 5-6 December 1994, inLisbon on 2-3 December 1996 and in Istanbulon 18-19 November 1999, 53 as well as by theUN General Assembly Resolution (62/249)of 15 May 2008. 54 Since then, the RussianFederation has constantly used every possiblemeans to provoke intensifi cation of the conflicts through so-called peacekeeping forces.In 2007-2008, Georgian authorities andthe International Community made stepsaimed at settling the so-called frozen confl ictsand providing a genuine environment for internationalizationof the peace process as approvedin Resolutions N1781 and N 1752 ofUN Security Council. 55 Russia responded withmilitary aggression.Despite the peace initiatives of the Georgianauthorities on 7 August 2008 Russia manifestlyengaged itself into confl ict on the territoryof Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia and carriedout a wide military intervention in the territoryof Georgia. Russian regular troops attackednot only Georgian military units but also civilianinfrastructure and the peaceful population,resulting in the entire destruction of settlementsin the confl ict zone. 56 In parallel, theRussian armed forces, including its air force,attacked the territory of Upper Abkhazia andoccupied it in violation of international agreementsand UN Security Council resolutions.26

KH. BURKADZE, LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE USE OF FORCE IN THE INTERNATIONAL LAWBombardments occurred throughout the entireterritory of Georgia. 57 Presently, 20% ofGeorgian territory is occupied.The Council of Europe clearly noted in itsResolution N1633 (2008) that in August 2008“the Russian Federation occupied signifi cantparts of Georgian territory. In addition, onMarch 4, 2009, the “European Commissionfor Democracy through Law” (also known asthe Venice Commission) confi rmed that: “thepresence of military forces of any other stateon the territory of Georgia, without an explicitand voluntary consent expressed by the stateof Georgia, shall be deemed illegal militaryoccupation of the Territory of a sovereigncountry”. 58It is a fact, that Russia is the party to theconfl ict, and this has been refl ected in documentsof the Council of Europe, EuropeanUnion and the NATO, all of these documentsrequest to refuse illegitimate recognition ofGeorgian regions. 59 Consequently, the processof turning Russia from a proclaimed mediatorinto party to the confl ict is irreversible.4.2. Legal assessment – the use offorce by the Russian Federation againstGeorgia as an act of aggressionIn contemporary international law legalregulations on the use of force derive from theUN Charter and norms of international customarylaw. Russia’s use of force was not authorizedby the United Nations Security Counciland cannot qualify as a lawful exercise onthe right of self-defense. It is self-evident thatRussian Federation forces invaded and occupiedGeorgian territory in violation of numerousinternational legal norms.Russia invaded and occupied Georgia inthe absence of an international legal justifi -cation of the action. Nor is the Russian invasionjustifi ed under the terms of the so-calledhumanitarian intervention and use of forceabroad to protect nationals; in reality, accordingto international law, this was a typical actof aggression. On the other hand, while talkingabout protection of nationals abroad, one hasto give a legal assessment to the illegal processof the distribution of Russian passports.While acting in the capacity of a peacekeeper,Russia forced inhabitants of the confl ict zoneto change their citizenship into Russian. Evenin theory, Russia did not have the right to interferein the internal affairs of Georgia and usemilitary force the UN General Assembly resolutionon the principles of International Law declares:“states or group of states have a dutynot to intervene in matters within the internalor foreign affairs of any state”. 60 Interference inthe internal or foreign affairs of any country isconsidered a violation of international law.In practice and theory of contemporaryinternational law, in order for military interventionto fall under the description of humanitarianintervention, exact preconditions andcriteria must be met (humanitarian intervention– military, economic or other enforcementactions used by international organization(s)against a state committing massive and grossviolations of human rights). 61 The internationalcommunity univocally confi rmed that Russianaggression does not satisfy any preconditionsand criteria in order to be qualifi ed as humanitarianintervention. In the opinion of LevanAlexidze, Professor of International Law, Russia’smilitary intervention against Georgiawas markedly “revanchist”. 62Professor Alexidze reiterates that sincethe dissolution of the Soviet Union Russianforeign policy is aimed at maintaining infl uenceover former Soviet republics and preventingtheir integration into European structures. 63Russia’s main goal was not the “protection ofown nationals abroad”, it intended to conducta large scale military operation on the territoryof Georgia and infringe on the sovereignty ofGeorgia.Additionally, Russia can not appeal tothe right of protecting its peacekeepers intheTskhinvali region/South Ossetia, there is nogeneral right to use force in support of or forthe protection of national peacekeeping contingents.The status and protection accordedto peacekeepers under international law arevalid under international law, as long as thepeacekeepers remain neutral; this status isremoved and protection is lifted automaticallywhen they participate in the hostilities. Theargument in support of the use of force forthe protection of peacekeepers is weakenedby the fact that Georgia’s defense operation27

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010started hours after the Russian invasion andno military clash between Georgian forces andpeacekeepers had occurred before this. Onthe contrary, before the large scale Russianinvasion, the civilian population and Georgianpeacekeepers deployed in Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia, and their checkpoints hadbeen attacked throughout the week beforeAugust 7. 64In the authoritative defi nition of Aggression,Resolution 3314 (1974) where the GeneralAssembly enumerated acts that constituteacts of aggression,which include: “The invasionor attack by the armed forces of a stateof the territory of another state, or any militaryoccupation, however temporary, resultingfrom such invasion or attack… bombardmentby the armed forces of a state against the territoryof another state or the use of any weaponsby a state against the territory of anotherstate; the blockade of the ports or coasts of astate by the armed forces of another state”.The same resolution in article 5 indicates: “Noconsideration of whatever nature, whetherpolitical, economic, military or otherwise, mayserve as a justifi cation for aggression; a warof aggression is a crime against internationalpeace. Aggression gives rise to internationalresponsibility.” 65 The Russian invasion ofGeorgia in August 2008 falls squarely withinthis defi nition and therefore meets the requirementsof the crime. Russia violated the sovereigntyof Georgia, infringed on its territorial integrity,bombarded Georgian cities and turnedGeorgia into a “target of occupation”. As inarticle 5 of the General Assembly Resolutionon the Defi nition of Aggression, nothing mayserve as justifi cation for aggression.Irrefutably, the offi cial declaration ofRussia, that military intervention into Georgiaand bombardment of Georgian cities was imminentand necessary to “rescue” Ossetians,is defi cient of any legal base. At same time,Russian actions do not subscribe to the criteriaof proportionality and necessity. As it’s constitutedby the international community, Russianever tried to use means other than militaryforce. In fact, Russia hampered all politicalnegotiations and the force it used was disproportionateand inconsistent. 66 Russia targetedall key military and civilian sites, artifi cially widenedthe military front and involved territoriesthat had nothing to do with the confl ict zones.Russian military actions that started as an operationfor protecting nationals abroad turnedinto a punishment campaign aimed at occupyingthe entire territory of Georgia.On June 1, 2010, the Seimas of the Republicof Lithuania passed a resolution on theSituation in Georgia. According to this resolutionthe Parliament of Lithuania assessesthe presence of Russian troops on Georgianterritory and the actions of the proxy regimesof Abkhazia and South Ossetia as an illegaloccupation of parts of Georgian territoryand a gross violation of the norms of internationallaw. 67 The Seimas of the Republic ofLithuania is the fi rst national parliament whichlegally used the term occupation in respect tothe confl ict regions of Georgia. In addition, theresolution calls on the Lithuanian Presidentand the Government to be guided by the resolutionprinciples in the process of carrying outforeign policy.5. CONCLUSIONOver the years, legal regulation of the useof force has transformed dramatically, startingfrom the doctrine of “Just War” continuing withthe full freedom of the use of force in the XVII-XX centuries, and concluding with the generalprohibition of the use of force in the UnitedNations Charter. However, the UN Charterhas accepted the use of force in individual orcollective self-defense and has authorized theUN Security Council to make decisions on enforcementactions.As far as, the defi nition of self-defense isconcerned a few points must be considered.First – any state has the right of self-defensein case of actual attack from another state.Secondly, a state cannot use the right of preventiveself-defense to deal with threat that isstill probable and likely to occur in the future.The Security Council is to “determine the existenceof any threat to the peace, breach of thepeace, or act of aggression” and states do nothave the right to do the same individually or inparallel. Thirdly, article 51 of the UN Charter28

KH. BURKADZE, LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE USE OF FORCE IN THE INTERNATIONAL LAWincludes a general provision on armed attackand ignores the subject of an attack, thusprompting to question whether a state canexercise the right of self-defense if threat derivesnot from another state? The internationalreaction to the events of September 11 2001,confi rms that the concept of armed attack isnot limited to state actions. The right of selfdefensecan be exercised when threat derivesfrom a Non-State Actor too. But in order to beclear on the defi nition of self-defense, perhapsthis provision should go as follows: “Nothingin the present Charter shall impair the inherentright of individual or collective self-defenseif an armed attack occurs by another state orNon-State Actor from within a foreign state …”Despite the fact that the criteria of necessityand proportionality is valid for any case of theuse of force, it is not indicated in article 51 ofthe UN Charter and it is the part of the internationalcustomary law. The third criteria for theuse of force in self-defense from Webster’sformula connotes response to actions thatare instant, overwhelming, leave no choice ofmeans, and no moment for deliberation.The inability of the UN Security Councilto insure effective protection of internationalpeace and security increases the importanceof the collective self-defense agreements.Bilateral and multilateral treaties on collectivedefense is an instrument where state partiesto the agreement declare that attack on oneof them is an attack against all of them, andall members take the responsibility to supporteach other. As in article 51 of the charter tothe right of collective self-defense, as in theindividual one, materializes in the case of actualarmed attack, and lasts till the SecurityCouncil takes appropriate measures.In conclusion, in cases of gross violationsof international law, as in the case of Russianaggression against Georgia in August 2008 upuntil now, states are obliged to cooperate inorder to prevent violations in a lawful manner,do not legitimize realities created due to thoseviolations and facilitate the creation of a commonprincipal position on the unacceptabilityof forceful actions against states, in particularagainst small states, that are in breach of internationallaw and principals of justice.1Charter of the United Nations, http://wwwupdate.un.org/en/documents/charter/intro.shtml,(accessed: 20.02.2010).2Ibid.3René Värk, the Use of Force in the Modern World: Recent Developments andLegal Regulation of the Use of Force, Baltic Defense Review No. 10, Volume 2,2003, p. 29-30.4Ian Brownlie, International Law and the Use of Force by States, Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1963, p. 268.5Christine Gray, International Law and the Use of force, second edition, OxfordUniversity Press, 2004, pp. 98-101.6Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. the United Statesof America), ICJ, 2003, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php, (accessed on:25.02.2010).7C. Greenwood, “International Law and the War against Terrorism”, Journal ofInternational Affairs N78, 2002 (downloaded from Hein Online data base), (accessedon: 27.01.2010).8Yoram Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self-Defence, Fourth edition, CambridgeUniversity Press, 2005, p. 286.9Security Council Resolution N1540 on Non-proliferation of Weapons of MassDestruction (adopted by the Security Council on 28 April 2004), http://daccessdds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/,(accessed on: 30.01.2010).10T. D. Gill, Legal and Some Political Limitations on the Power of the UN SecurityCouncil to Exercise Its Enforcement Powers under Chapter VII of the Charter,Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, 1995, (downloaded from Hein Onlinedata base, February, 2010).29

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 201011Supra note 1.12Ibid.13Resolution – “Uniting for Peace” (adopted by General Assembly on November3, 1950), N377, http://www.un.org/ga/about/background.shtml, (accessed on:25.02.2010).14J. Andrassy, “Uniting for Peace”, American Journal of International Law, volume50, 1956, pp. 563, 572.15J. Stone, Legal Controls of International Confl ict: A Treatise on the Dynamics ofDisputes and War – Law, 1954, p. 274.16Advisory Opinion on Certain Expenses of the United Nations, ICJ, 1962, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php, (accessed on: 25.02.2010).17N. D. White, Keeping the Peace: The United Nations and the Maintenance of InternationalPeace and Security, Second edition, 1997, p. 143.18Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, ICJ,1996, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/fi les/95/7495.pdf, (accessed on: 25.01. 2010).19Supra note 8, p. 175.20Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua(Nicaragua v. the United States of America), 1986, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php, (accessed on: 20.01.2010).21Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. the United States ofAmerica), ICJ, 2003, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/fi les/90/9745.pdf, (accessed on:05.05.2010).22Michael N. Schmitt, Preemptive Strategies in International Law, Michigan Journalof International Law, 2003, p. 55, (downloaded from: Lexis-Nexis data base,February 2010).23Warner Meng, “The Caroline” in Rudolf Bernnhardt, Encyclopaedia of PublicInternational Law, Volume I, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1992, pp. 537-538.24Letter from Daniel Webster, Secretary of State of the United States, to HenryS. Fox, Esq., Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Her BritannicMajesty (Apr. 24, 1841), reprinted in 29 Brit. & Foreign St. Papers 1129, 1138(1857), (downloaded from: Lexis-Nexis data base, February 2010).25Legality of the Threat or Use of Force of Nuclear Weapons, ICJ, Advisory Opinion,1997, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php, (accessed on: 10.01.2010).26Supra note 20.27Supra note 22.28O. Schachter, the Right of States to Use Armed Force, Michigan Law Review,1984, (downloaded from: Lexis-Nexis database, February 2010).29Judith Gail Gardam, Proportionality and Force in International Law, AmericanJournal of International Law, July, 1993, p. 1.30Roger Bainton, Christian Attitudes Toward war and Peace (1960); James TurnerJohnson, Ideology, Reason and the Limitation of War (1975); Frederick H. Russel,The Just War in the Middle Ages (1975).31Supra note 22.32Michael N. Schmitt, International Law and the Use of Force: The Jus Ad Bellum,Vol.II, September 2003, p. 93.33Supra note 20. See also: Resolution on the Defi nition of Aggression, N3314,adopted by General Assembly on 14 December 1974, http://www.un.org/ga/about/background.shtml, (accessed on: 25.02.2010).34Michael Bothe, Terrorism and the Legality of Pre-emptive Force, European Journalof International Law, Vol. 14, 2003, p. 229.35Supra note 19, pp. 165-169.36Resolution on the Defi nition of Aggression, N3314, adopted by General Assemblyon 14 December 1974, http://www.un.org/ga/about/background.shtml, (accessedon: 25.02.2010).37Supra note 20.30

KH. BURKADZE, LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE USE OF FORCE IN THE INTERNATIONAL LAW38Michael Bothe, Terrorism and the Legality of Pre-emptive Force, European Journalof International Law, Vol. 14, 2003, p. 230.39Christopher Greenwood, International Law and the Pre-emptive Use of Force:Afghanistan, Al-Qaida, and Iraq, San Diego International Law Journal, Vol. 4,2003, p. 17.40Security Council Resolutions about Threats to International Peace and Securitycaused by terrorist acts (N1368, N1373, adopted on September 12 and September28, 2001), http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2001/sc2001.htm, (accessed on:10.02.2010).41North Atlantic Treaty, Washington D.C. , April 4, 1949, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm?selectedLocale=en, (accessed on: 10.01.2010).42Supra note 19, p. 187.43Hans Kelsen, “Collective Security and Collective Self-defense under the Charterof the United States”, American Journal of International Law, N42, 1948, pp. 783-792, (downloaded from: Lexis-Nexis database, May 2010).44Supra note 20.45Supra note 1.46Ann Van Wynen Thomas and A. J. Thomas, Non-Intervention: The Law and Its Importin the Americas, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1956, p. 178.47H. Kelsen, the Law of the United Nations: A Critical Analysis of Its FundamentalProblems, 1951, p. 920.48M. Akehurst, Enforcement Action by Regional Agencies, with Special Reference tothe Organization of American States, British Year Book of International Law, N42,1967, pp. 175-177.49United States-Republic of Korea, Washington Treaty, American Journal ofInternational Law (AJIL), N48, 1953, Supplement , AJIL, N147, 1954, (downloadedfrom: Lexis-Nexis database, April 2010).50J. N. Moore, The Secret War in Central America and the Future of World Order,American Journal of International Law N43, 1986, pp. 104–5, (downloaded from:Lexis-Nexis database, May 2010).51W. E. Beckett, The North Atlantic Treaty, the Brussels Treaty and the Charter of theUnited Nations, 1950, (downloaded from: Lexis-Nexis database, February 2010).52Khatuna Burkadze, Anatoli Korepanov, “This is NATO”, Tbilisi, 2008, p. 8.53Budapest Summit Document 1994, 5-6 December, Conference for Security and Cooperationin Europe; Lisbon Summit Document 1996, 2-3 December, Organizationfor Security and Co-operation in Europe; Istanbul Summit Document 1999, 17-19November, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, www.osce.org,(accessed on: 25.04.2010).54Resolution of the UN General Assembly, N62/249, May 15, 2008, www.un.org,(accessed on: 27.03.2010).55Resolution of Security Council N1781, October 15, 2007, Resolution of SecurityCouncil N1752, April 13, 2007, www.un.org, (accessed on: 27.03.2010).56Resolution of the Parliament of Georgia on the Occupation of the Georgian territoriesby Russian Federation August 29, 2008, www.parliament.ge, (accessedon: 27.03.2010).57Address of the Parliament of Georgia to the International Community August 14,2008, www.parliament.ge, (accessed on: 25.03.2010).58Report by the Government of Georgia on the aggression by the Russian Federationagainst Georgia, Tbilisi, 2009, pp. 62-63.59Levan Alexidze, The Failure of the UN Security Council in Settlement of the Confl ictin Abkhazia, Georgia, Undermines the Fundamentals of the International LegalOrder, Journal of International Law, N1, 2009, p. 117.60Resolution of General Assembly N2625, UN, 24 October, 1970, www.un.org, (accessedon: 25.04.2010).61Contemporary International Law, Reference – Dictionary, Editor Levan Alexidze,Tbilisi University Publishing, 2003, p. 415.31

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 201062Levan Alexidze, And again: aggression, intervention and occupation of Georgiaaimed at razing the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Country, InternationalLaw Journal, N2, 2008, p. 185.63Ibid.64Report by the Government of Georgia on the aggression by the Russian Federationagainst Georgia, Tbilisi, 2009, p. 105.65Resolution on the Defi nition of Aggression, N3314, adopted by the UN GeneralAssembly on 14 December 1974, http://www.un.org/ga/about/background.shtml,(accessed on: 25.02.2010).66Statement of North Atlantic Council at the Level of Foreign Ministers, August 19,2008, www.nato.int; Report by the Government of Georgia on the aggression bythe Russian Federation against Georgia, Tbilisi, 2009.67Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution on the Situation in Georgia, 1June, 2010, www.mfa.gov.ge, (accessed on: 02.06.2010).32

zurab sanikiZeTavdacvis, rogorc Zalis gamoyenebis kanonieri uflebis,ganmartebis problemebi„dRes bevri gvesmis progressa da civilizaciaze, magram,samwuxarod, jer kidev ar ZalgviZs, Tavidan aviciloT omebi. kacobriobissaxeliTa da civilizaciis WeSmariti suliskveTebiTdaJinebiT unda vecadoT, Tavidan aviciloT an SevamsubuqoTmainc omis saSinelebani?~anri diunaniSesavalisaerTaSoriso mSvidobisa da usafrTxoebis SenarCuneba Tanamedroveobisyve laze aqtualuri da, amavdroulad,problemuri da mtkivneuli sakiTxia,romlis gadawyvetac damokidebuliasaerTaSoriso sazogadoebis mondomebaze,saerTo azrisa da erTiani midgomisSemuSavebaze. saxelmwifoTa mier Zalisgamoyenebis sakiTxi Tanamedrove saer-TaSorisosamarTlebrivi wesrigis erTerTiyvelaze seriozuli gamowvevaa,vinaidan am sakiTxis irgvliv da maszedayrdnobiT xdeba saxelmwifoTa qmedebebisSefaseba. saxelmwifoTa qmedebeb-Si ori mniSvnelovani urTierTsapirispiroaspeqti wamoiWreba: erTi mxriv, amsaxelmwifoTa samarTlebrivi Tu politikurimotivebi da interesebi, da, meoremxriv, adamianis sicocxlis uflebisdacvis problema da gaerTianebuli erebisorganizaciis (SemdgomSi – gaero)iseTi fundamenturi principebis dacva,rogoriebcaa: saxelmwifoTa suverenuliTanasworobis, teritoriuli mTlianobisurRvevobis, Zalis gamoyenebis anZaliT damuqrebis akrZalvisa da saSinaosaqmeebSi Caurevlobis principebi.saqarTveloSi ukanasknel periodSiganviTarebulma movlenebma wina planzewamowia saerTaSoriso samarTalSi konfliqtiscneba da misi arsi, gaerTianebulierebis organizaciis mier Zalisgamoyenebis daregulirebis sakiTxi.winamdebare statiis mizania Tana medrovesaerTaSoriso samarTalSi Tav dacvis, rogorc Zalis gamoyenebis kanonieriuflebis, ganmartebis, misi samarTlebrivistatusis garkveva. TanamedrovesaerTaSoriso samarTalSi arsebobs Tavdacvisuflebis, romelic mocemuliaga erTianebuli erebis organizaciis wesdebis51–e muxlSi, ganmartebis ori tipi– e.w. farTo da SezRuduli interpretacia.pirvel maTgans mimarTaven „Zlieri“saxelmwifoebi, raTa maT TavianTi miznebisSesabamisad ganxorcielebulisamxe dro qmedebebi gaamarTlon; meoreki mxar daWerilia gaerTianebuli erebisorganizaciis mier, rasac cxadyofsgaeros wesdebis Sedgenis istoria dawesdebis saerTo miznebi. winamdebarestatia daeTmoba am problemebis ganxilvasda maTi gadaWris Ziebis gzebs,romlis gareSec saerTaSoriso sazogadoebaSimSvidobisa da usafrTxoebisSenarCuneba warmoudgenelia.saerTaSoriso konfliqtTan dakav-SirebiT arsebobs normebi, romlebicgan sazRvraven Zalis gamoyenebasa da33

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010ag resias (jus ad bellum) da normebi, romlebicgansazRvraven saomari moqmedebebiswarmoebas (saerTaSoriso humanitarulisamarTali, anu jus in bello). winamdebarestatiaSi ganxiluli iqneba jus adbellum, romelic moicavs saxelmwifoTamier Zalis gamoyenebis SesaZleblobebisganmsazRvrel saerTaSoriso samar-Tlis yvela wess. statia daeTmoba Zalisgamoyenebis im wess, romelic gansaz-Rvrulia gaeros wesdebis 51-e muxliT– es aris saxelmwifoTa individualurida koleqtiuri Tavdacvis ufleba.winamdebare statiis pirveli nawiliSeexeba samarTals Zalis gamoyenebis Sesaxeb.aq mokled ganxiluli iqneba Zalisgamoyenebis istoria gaerTianebuliere bis organizaciis Seqmnamde da misiSeqmnis Semdeg.momdevno TavSi ganixileba Zalis gamoyenebisakrZalva da ZiriTadi yurad-Reba daeTmoba Temis mTavar arss – saxelmwifoTa „xelSeuvali uflebis“, Ta v-dacvis, ganmartebis sakiTxebs.statiis bolo nawilSi ki yuradRebadaeTmoba gaeros wesdebis 51-e muxliTgaTvaliswinebuli saxelmwifoTa „xel-Seuvali uflebis“ SezRudvis kriteriumebsada SesaZleblobebs da saxelmwifosada gaeros uSiSroebis sabWos ur-TierTdamokidebulebas am muxlTan mimarTebiT.saerTaSoriso samarTlis wesebi, romlebic aregulireben Zalis gamoyenebas(jus ad bellum), moiazrebian or jgufad: 1pirveli, es aris wesebi, romlebic aregulireben Zalis gamoyenebas erTi saxelmwifosan saxelmwifoTa jgufismier. isini moqmedeben sakuTari iniciativiT.amas xSirad uwodeben „calmxrivad“Zalis gamoyenebas; meore, aq moiazrebawesebi, romlebic aweseben, Tu rodisSeiZleba iyos Zala gamoyenebulikompetenturi saerTaSoriso organizaciebismxridan, rogoricaa, magaliTad,gaerTianebuli erebis organizacia. esukanaskneli miCneulia rogorc „koleqtiurad“Zalis gamoyeneba, radganacigi saTanado uflebamosili organoebiskoleqtiuri gadawyvetilebidan gamomdinareobs.Cveulebriv, am saxis SeiaraRebuliqmedeba moicavs mTel rigssaxelmwifoebisas, magram mTavaria, romZala gamoyenebulia yvela saxelmwifossaxeliT da sazogadoebis saerTo miznebisTvis.ase rom, gansxvaveba Zalis„calmxriv“ da „koleqtiur“ gamoyenebasSoris aris ara mxolod saxelmwifoTaraodenobaSi, aramed uflebamosilebasada mizanSi. miuxedavad Zalis gamoyeneba-Si saxelmwifoTa CarTulobis raodenobisa,pirveli aris erTpirovnuli gadawyvetilebisSedegi da gamiznulia erTisaxelmwifos interesebis miRwevisTvis,maSin roca meore jgufi aris kompetenturisaerTaSoriso organizaciebis gadawyvetilebebisSedegi da aris mTlianadsazogadoebis interesebis SesabamisadmiRebuli. 2Zalis gamoyenebis akrZalvis istoriaa) gaeros wesdebis SeqmnamdesaerTaSoriso samarTlis wesebi, romlebic gansazRvraven Zalis gamoyenebisuflebas (jus ad bellum), ar aris mxolodgaeros wesdebis Sedegi. 1945 wlamde arsebobdaCveulebiTi samarTlis sistema,romelic aregulirebda saxelmwifoTamier Zalis calmxrivad gamoyenebas. 3 gaeroswesdebis Seqmnamde saxelmwifoTamier Zalis gamoyeneba regulirdebodaCveulebiTi da saxelSekrulebo normebiserTobliobiT. 1899 da 1907 wlebishaagis samSvidobo konferenciebma saTavedaudes omis dawyebis TavisuflebisSezRudvis mcdelobebs. pirvelma msoflioomma dasabami misca omis SezRudvisufro farTo mcdelobas erTa ligisfarglebSi. 1924 wels erTa ligis asambleismexuTe sxdomaze seriozulimcde loba iyo koleqtiuri usafrTxoebissistemis Seqmnis mimarTulebiT;wevrma saxelmwifoebma miiRes „saerTa-Soriso davebis mSvidobiani gadaWrisoqmi“ (e.w. „Jenevis oqmi“), romelic ganmartavda,rom „agresiuli omi „saerTa-Soriso Tanamegobrobis wevrTa solidarobis“darRvevaa da saerTaSorisodanaSaulia“, magram es oqmi ZalaSi arSesula. 434

z. sanikiZe, Tavdacvis, rogorc Zalis gamoyenebis kanonieri uflebis, ganmartebis problemebiCveulebiT samarTalSi, rogorc ase-Ti, Zalis gamoyenebis akrZalva ar iyo,Tumca 1928 wlis braian-kelogis paqtma(SemdgomSi – 1928 wlis paqti), romelicaseve cnobilia parizis paqtis saxeliT,daawesa akrZalva omis gamocxadebaze. 5uf ro metic, 1945 wlidan Tavdacva Cnde barogorc gamonaklisi nebismieri akrZalvidanda CveulebiTma samarTalma ukveCamoayaliba pirobebi misi samarTlianiaRsrulebisTvis. agreTve, iseTi zomebi,rogorebicaa represaliebi, moqalaqeebisgadarCena da humanitaruli intervencia,miCneuli iyo rogorc legitimurigamonaklisi saerTo akrZalvidan. erTaligam da 1928 wlis paqtma, romelTachqondaT mcdeloba, aekrZalaT omi daagresia saerTaSoriso urTierTobebSi,ver moaxerxes msoflio omebis SeCereba.miuxedavad mowodebebisa da mcdelobisa,safrTxe ar SeeqmnaT saerTaSorisomSvidobisa da usafrTxoebisTvis, saxezeiyo faqti, rom saxelmwifoebi TavianTisaWiroebis SemTxvevaSi dauyovnebliv mimarTavdnenZalas. swored amitom gaeroswesdeba, romelic meore msoflio omisSemdeg Seiqmna, aris SedarebiT mkacri daam wesdebis Semdgenlebma daaweses ufromkacri SezRudvebi. gaeros wesdebisTanaxmad, Zalis gamoyeneba nebadarTuliamxolod Tavdacvis mizniT an gaerosuSiSroebis sabWos nebarTviT.b) gaeros wesdebis Seqmnis Semdgomrac Seexeba gaeros wesdebis SeqmnisSemdgom periods, mniSvnelovania wesdebisme–2 muxlis me-4 punqti, romel-Sic naTqvamia: „gaerTianebuli erebisorganizaciis yvela wevri Tavis saer-TaSoriso urTierTobebSi Tavs ikavebsZalis, muqaris an misi gamoyenebisganrogorc nebismieri saxelmwifos teritoriulixelSeuxeblobis an politikuridamoukideblobis winaaRmdeg, isegaerTianebuli erebis miznebisaTvisSeuferebeli sxva nebismieri saxiT”. 6ganmmarteblebi zogadad Tanx m debian,rom akrZalva aris ara mxolod saerTaSorisosaxelSekrulebo da CveulebiTi samarTlis, aramed jus cogens-is(saerTaSoriso samarTlis imperatiulinorma) norma. 7saerTaSoriso samarTalSi gavrcelebulia am muxlis ganmartebis ori tipi:e.w. farTo da SezRuduli interpretacia.8farTo interpretacis Tanaxmad, TuZalis gamoyenebis Sedegi ar aris teritoriis mudmivi okupacia, Tu is arlaxavs „samizne“ saxelmwifos gadawyvetilebebisdamoukideblad miRebisSesaZleblobebs da Tu is ar aris gaerosmiznebis sawinaaRmdego, maSin is ariskanonieri. maSasadame, praqtikaSi, Zalisgamoyeneba swrafi, operatiuli dartymismeSveobiT, gamiznuli moqalaqeebisgadarCenisTvis, rogoric iyo israelis„entebes“ aeroportSi 1976 wels (EntebbeRescue Operation), ar aris ukanono. am ganmartebisTanaxmad, amerikis SeerTebuliStatebis intervencia panamaSi 1989 welsda „arademokrat“ da „kriminal“ generalnoriegas motaceba ar iyo SezRuduli. esqmedeba ar iyo gamiznuli da argumentirebuladar laxavda „msxverpli“ saxelmwifos„teritoriul xelSeuxeblobas“an „politikur damoukideblobas”. 9Zalis gamoyenebis SezRuduli interpretaciisTanaxmad, me-2 muxlisme-4 punqtis Sedegi aris saxelmwifosmier Zalis gamoyenebis uflebis saerToakrZalva manam, sanam zogi gamonaklisi ariqneba TviT wesdebis mier daSvebuli. amganmartebis Tanaxmad, wesdebis 51-e muxliTganpirobebuli Tavdacvis uflebaaris dasaSvebi gamonaklisi me-2 muxlisme-4 punqtis saerTo akrZalvidan. me-2muxlis me-4 punqtis sakamaTo sityvebTan(teritoriuli xelSeuxebloba da a.S.)dakavSirebiT, dasabuTebulia, rom isiniZalis argamoyenebis valdebulebas ki arisaxavdnen miznad, aramed saerTaSorisosamarTalSi saxelmwifos teritoriuliarsebobis aRweras. 10konsensusi saerTaSoriso sazogadoebaSi,rasac cxadyofs Zalis gamoyenebismagaliTebis ganxilva, aris is, romme-2 muxlis me-4 punqti ar unda ganimartosise, rogorc amas moiTxoven farToSexedulebis damcvelebi. amas cxadyofs35

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010wesdebis Sedgenis istoria, wesdebissaerTo miznebi da im saxelmwifoTa argumentebisanalizi, romlebic mimar-Taven Zalis gamoyenebas.rac Seexeba avtoris azrs, is savsebiTeTanxmeba SezRudul interpretacias,radganac sxvagvarad ucnauri iqneboda,Tu wesdeba, me-2 muxlis me-4 punqtis xelovnurinterpretaciaze dayrdnobiT,erTa ligis SeTanxmebisa da braian-kelogispaqtis „Secdomebs“ gaimeorebda.avtoris azriT, saxelmwifos mier Zalisgamoyenebis Sansi da samarTlebrivi safuZveliminimumamde unda iqnes dayvanili.avtors Rrmad swams, rom wesdebissaerTo mizania uSiSroebis, usafrTxoebisSenarCuneba da omebis Tavidan acileba.11TavdacvaSeiaraRebuli Zala SeiZleba gamoyenebuliqnes, Tu is aris nabrZanebi annebadarTuli gaerTianebuli erebisorganizaciis uSiSroebis sabWos mier.Tumca gamonaklisi am akrZalvidan arissaxelmwifoTa individualuri da koleqtiuriTavdacvis ufleba. rogorcsaxelSekrulebo, aseve CveulebiTi samarTaliaRiarebs saxelmwifos ufle bas,miiRos Sesabamisi zomebi, Zalis ga moyenebisCaTvliT, raTa win aRudges safr-Txes, romelic emuqreba mis arsebobasda misi moqalaqeebis usafrTxoebas. 12Tavdacvis ufleba aris sa xelmwifosufleba da ara movaleoba. Tu is meoresaxelmwifos mxridan aris agresiismsxverpli, mas SeuZlia, Tavi daicvas.Tavdacvis uflebis Zi riTadi arsi arisTviTdaxmareba, anu saxelmwifos sa pasuxo qmedeba meore saxelmwifos mierga nxorcielebul SeiaraRebul Ta v da s-xmaze. 13es ufleba mocemulia gaeros wesdebis51-e muxlSi. am muxlis Ta naxmad,„winamdebare wesdeba araviTarSemTxvevaSi ar exeba individualurian koleqtiuri Tavdacvis xelSeuvaluf lebas, Tuki moxdeba SeiaraRebuliTavdasxma organizaciis wevrze, iqamde,sanam uSiSroebis sabWo ar miiRebs saer-TaSoriso mSvidobisa da uSiSroebismxa rdasaWerad aucilebel zomebs. organizaciiswevrebis mier Tavdacvis amuflebis ganxorcielebisas miRebulizomebis Sesaxeb dauyovnebliv unda ecnobosuSiSroebis sabWos da isini araviTarSemTxvevaSi ar unda xelyofdnenuSiSroebis sabWos winamdebare wesdebisSesabamis uflebamosilebasa da pasuxismgeblobas– nebismier dros ganaxorcieloniseTi qmedebani, rogorsac igimiiCnevs saWirod saerTaSoriso mSvidobisada uSiSroebis mxardasaWerad anaRsadgenad”. 14Tavdacvis uflebis asamoqmedeblad aucilebelia, rom safrTxe iyosre aluri, aqtiuri, unda warmoiSvasTa v dacvis saWiroeba. individualuriTavdacvis uflebis ganmartebis oritipi arsebobs: erTi aris ganmartebise.w. farTo midgoma, 15 roca prevenciuliTavdacva da sakuTari mosaxleobisTavdacva aris kanonieri; meore tipiaSezRuduli ganmarteba. 16farTo midgomis saukeTso magaliTiaris „karolinis“ saqme. „karolinis doqtrina“ganmartavs saxelmwifos uflebasZalis gamoyenebis Sesaxeb rogorckanoniers, Tu is gamoyenebulia aSkara dagardauvali safrTxisgan Tavdacvis mizniT,romlis acileba ar SeiZleboda sxvaalternatiuli zomebiT, da, Tu safrTxisganTavdacvisTvis gamoyenebuli Zalaiyo mosalodneli safrTxis proporciuli.17 „karolinis“ klasikuri formulismixedviT, sapasuxo TavdacviTi qmedebaunda gamomdinareobdes aucileblobidanda am aucileblobis damtkiceba undaSeeZlos qveyanas, romelic acxadebspretenzias Tavdacvis uflebis gamoyenebaze.amerikis SeerTebuli Statebissaxelmwifo mdivanma deniel vebstermaSemoitana standarti, romelic TiTqmisuniversaluri gaxda. vebsteris Tana x-mad, unda arsebobdes Tavdacvis aucilebloba,is unda iyos gadaudebeli, ukiduresi,ar unda tovebdes arCevans sxvasaSualebebisTvis da arc dros fiqris-36

z. sanikiZe, Tavdacvis, rogorc Zalis gamoyenebis kanonieri uflebis, ganmartebis problemebiTvis, xolo Tavdacvis aqti ar unda iyosgauazrebeli an gadametebuli. 18rac Seexeba moqalaqeebis dacvas,adreuli CveulebiTi samarTlis Tanaxmad,Zalis gamoyeneba am mizniT kanonieria,Tu oTxi piroba aris Ses rulebuli:pirveli, im saxelmwifos, romlis teritoriazecimyofebian moqalaqeebi, arunda surdes an ar unda SeeZlos maTidacva; meore, unda arsebobdes moqalaqe-Ta xelyofis gardauvali safrTxe; mesame,Zala unda iyos bolo saSualebisiaraRi; meoTxe, saxelmwifom unda gamoiyenosmxolod iseTi Zala, romlisgamoyenebac gonivrulad aucilebeliamoqalaqeTa dasacavad da saxelmwifomunda datovos meore saxelmwifos teritoriaise swrafad, rogorc es gansaxorcielebladiqneba SesaZlebeli. 19Tavdacvis gamoyenebis SezRuduliganmartebis Tanaxmad, dasabuTebulia,rom farTo midgoma aRar aris gamosadegi.20 gaeros wesdebis 51-e muxlisTanaxmad, saxelmwifos SeuZlia mimarTosTavdacvas, „Tuki moxdeba SeiaraRebuliTavdasxma“, magram ara sxvagvarad. amissaukeTeso magaliTia saqme nikaraguaamerikis SeerTebuli Statebis winaaRmdeg.21 kerZod, Zalis gamoyeneba aRararis SesaZlebeli Setevis ganWvretisdros, an roca muqara aris araZaladobrivixasiaTis an nebismieri sxva ramisdasacavad, garda saxelmwifos teritoriisa.sazRvargareT myofi sakuTarimo qalaqeebis dacvasTan dakavSirebiTki SezRuduli midgoma ambobs, rom moqalaqeebisdacvis mizniT intervenciaSeiZleba gaeros miznebTan mimarTebiTsaeWvo Rirebulebad CaiTvalos, radganis SeiZleba gaxdes intervenciis sababida Sedegad gamoiwvios ufro meti ziani,vidre Tavidan aicilos. 22konsensusi saerTaSoriso sazogadoebaSiaris is, rom SezRuduli midgomaunda iqnes mxardaWerili. maSasadame,dRe s dReobiT, wesdebis Tanaxmad, es midgomaaris ZalaSi myofi. 23yovelive aqedan gamomdinare, (1) agresiismsxverplma saxelmwifom undagamoiyenos Tavdasxmis mosageriebladaucilebeli da agresoris mier gamoyenebuliZalis proporciuli Zala; (2) masSeuZlia Tavdasxma ganaxorcielos mxolod„kanonier samxedro samizneebze“da saerTaSoriso humanitaruli samarTlisprincipebisa da wesebis Sesabamisad;agreTve aucilebeli gamafrTxilebelizomebi unda iqnes miRebuli, raTa moxdessamoqalaqo mosaxleobis SemTxveviTi dazianebisminimumamde dayvana; (3) saxelmwifom,romelic iyo `SeiaraRebuliTa vdasxmis“ samizne, ar unda daikavosagresori saxelmwifos teritoria, Tues ar aris agresori saxelmwifos mieragresiis gagrZelebis aRkveTis aucileblobiTgamowveuli; garda amisa, (4)Tavdacva unda Sewydes maSinve, rogorcki uSiSroebis sabWo Caereva da miiRebssaWiro zomebs saerTaSoriso mSvidobisada usafrTxoebis dasacavad; (5) TuuSi Sroebis sabWo ver moaxerxebs moqmedebas,Tavdacva unda Sewydes, rogorc kidasruldeba misi mizani – SeiaraRebuliTavdasxmis mogeriebis miRwevisTanave.sxva sityvebiT rom vTqvaT, 51-e muxli dasayovelTao saerTaSoriso samar TlissaTanado normebi nebas ar rTavs nebismiersamxedro qmedebas, gadaabijosarsebul winaaRmdegobas da agresiismosagerieblad saWiro aucileblobas.kerZod, isini krZalaven agresori saxelmwifosteritoriis gaxangrZlivebulokupacias da aneqsias. 24naTelia, rom gaeros wesdeba Tavdacvis uflebas saxelmwifos ganus x visebeluflebad aRiarebs da igi Se iZlebagamoyenebul iqnes rogorc individualurad,ise koleqtiurad. 25avtori emxroba am muxlis viwro(Se zRudul) interpretacias, radganmi aCnia, rom politikuri argumenti,ro melic mxars uWers farTo midgomas,sxvas araferia, Tu ara „Zlieri saxelmwifoebis“survili, SeinarCunonmaTi moqmedebis Tavisufleba. avtorisazriT, Tavdacva unda iyos dasaSvebimxo lod im SemTxvevaSi, Tu SeiaraRebuliTavdasxma ganxorcieldeba saxelmwifoswinaaRmdeg. moqalaqeebis sazRvargareTdacvasTan dakavSirebiT, avtoris37

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010Tva lsazrisiT, amgvari xasiaTis „gadarCenismisiebi“ SeiZleba advilad iqnesufro farTo ganzraxviT SeWris sababadgamoyenebuli.a) SeiaraRebuli Tavdasxmasaxelmwifom kanonierad rom gamoiyenosTavdacvis ufleba, aucilebelia,saxeze iyos SeiaraRebuli Tavdasxma.saqme swored rom esaa, ra SeiZleba moiazrebodesda ganixilebodes rogorcSeiaraRebuli Tavdasxma? ra qmedebebs,ra kriteriumebs unda moicavdes sxvasaxelmwifos qmedeba, rom es Sefasebuliqnes SeiaraRebul Tavdasxmad?wesdebis 51-e muxlSi aRniSnulia,rom Tavdacva dasaSvebia mxolod SeiaraRebuli Tavdasxmis sapasuxod. SeiaraRebuliTavdasxmis yvelaze tipurivariantia erTi saxelmwifos regularulijaris mier meore saxelmwifossa xmeleTo, sazRvao an sahaero teritoriazeganxorcielebuli Tavdasxma.SeiaraRebuli Tavdasxma scildeba regularuliSeiaraRebuli Zalebis cnebas;is agreTve moicavs SeiaraRebulbandebs, araregularul da daqiravebulrazmebs. SeiaraRebuli Tavdacviscneba amosavali iyo saerTaSoriso sasamarTlosgadawyvetilebaSi nikaraguissaqmeze koleqtiuri Tavdacvis Sesaxeb. 26saerTaSoriso sasamarTlom agresiisdefiniciis ganmartebis daxmarebiT ganmartaSeiraRebuli Tavdasxma saerTaSorisoCveulebiT samarTalSi. nikaraguissaqmesTan dakavSirebiT sasamarTlomdaadgina, rom SeiaraRebuli Tavdasxmaunda iqnes gagebuli rogorc „saxelmwifosmier an misi saxeliT meore saxelmwifosteritoriaze SeiaraRebuli bandebis,araregularuli an daqiravebulirazmebis gagzavnac, Tu aseTi operacia,Tavisi masStabidan da efeqtidan gamomdinare,inter alia, CaiTvleba regularuliSeiaraRebuli Zalebis mier ganxorcielebulSeiaraRebul Tavdasxmad.~ 27magram sasamarTlom agreTve dasZina,rom ajanyebulTa mxardaWera, iqneba esiaraRis miwodebiT Tu raime sxva saxiT,ar aris SeiaraRebuli Tavdasxma. 28 dRessaxelmwifoebi aRar ewinaaRmdegebianim azrs, rom araregularuli Zalebismier Cadenili qmedebebi SeiZleba Cai-T va los SeiaraRebul Tavdasxmad. winaaRmdegobrioba koncentrirebulia saxelmwifosCarevis doneze, rac saWiroaimisTvis, rom konkretul SemTxvevaSiSesaZlebeli iyos qmedebis saxelmwifosTandakavSireba da Tavdacvis gamar-Tleba. SeiaraRebuli Tavdasxmis koncefcia, romelic SeiaraRebuli bandebis Semadgenlobasac moicavs, saxelmwifos CarTulobis mniSvnelovanxarisxs saWiroebs, magram 2001 wlis 11seqtembers msoflio savaWro cen trsada pentagonze ganxorcielebulma teroristulmaSetevebma sakamaTod gaafarTova SeiaraRebuli Tavdasxmiscne ba da moicva teroristuli organizaciebis mier ganxorcielebuli Tavdasxmebic. uSiSroebis sabWom teroris tuli Tavdasxmebi daaxasiaTa araro gorc „SeiaraRebuli Tavdasxmebi“,aramed rogorc „mSvidobisaTvis saSiSi“,magram amavdroulad 1358 da 1373 rezoluciebispreambulebSi uSiSroebis sab-Wom Tavdacvis ufleba daadastura. 29 esimas niSnavs, rom moxda nagulisxmevaddaTanxmeba faqtze, romlis mixedviT,amerikis SeerTebul Statebze ganxorcielebuliteroristuli Setevebi iyoSeiaraRebuli Tavdasxmebi, magram gaurkvevelirCeba al-qaidas teroristulsaqmianobaSi avRaneTis monawileobiszusti arsi da xasiaTi. 30b) aucilebloba da proporciulobaSeiaraRebuli Tavdasxmebis dawyebisSemTxvevaSi, dazaralebul saxelmwifosSeuZlia, Zalis gamoyenebiTve upasuxosTavdacvis mizniT, magram saerTaSorisoCveulebiTi samarTali garkveul moTxovnebsadgens Tavdacvis SemTxvevaSi– rogorc individualuri, aseve koleqtiuriTavdacvis dros. karolinis doqtrinisstandartidan ganviTarda moTxovnebi,rom Tavdacva unda iyos aucilebelida proporciuli. aucileblobada proporciuloba Tavdacvis uflebisgamoyenebis amosavali wertilebia.38

z. sanikiZe, Tavdacvis, rogorc Zalis gamoyenebis kanonieri uflebis, ganmartebis problemebiyuradReba unda mieqces sapasuxo zomebisaucileblobas da proporciulobas,ar unda moxdes udanaSaulo samoqalaqomosaxleobis uflebaTa Selaxva erTisaxelmwifos mier Tavdacvis uflebisprincipze dayrdnobiT. saerTaSorisosasamarTlom daadastura maTi arsebobanikaraguis saqmeSi, 31 navTobis platformebissaqmeSi 32 da sakonsultaciodaskvnaSi birTvuli iaraRebis Sesaxeb. 33aucilebloba niSnavs, rom ar arsebobsZalis gamoyenebis alternativa –magaliTad diplomatiuri saSualebebiamowurulia an ekonomikuri zomebismiReba amaoa. 34proporciulobad, Cveulebriv, iTvlebaurTierTdamokidebuleba ara mxolodSeiaraRebul Tavdasxmasa da TavdacvismizniT Zalis gamoyenebas Soris,aramed Tavdacvis mizniT Zalis gamoyenebasada mis mizans Soris. 35es moTxovnebi ar aris mocemuligaeros wesdebaSi, magram saerTaSori soCveulebiTi samarTlis nawilia. aucileblobada proporciuloba niSnavs,rom Tavdacva ar unda iyos samagierosmimzRveli da sadamsjelo; misi mizaniunda iyos Setevis SeCereba da mtrisieriSebis mogerieba. Zalis Carevas undamohyves situaciis gaumjobeseba da arapiriqiT, gauareseba. calsaxaa, rom Zalisgamoyenebam ar unda gamoiwvios imazeufro mZime Sedegi, vidre misi gamou ye neblobis SemTxvevaSi dadgebo da.aucileblobisa da proporciulobissa kiTxebi saxelmwifoebs exmareba ukanonorepresaliebis kanonieri Tav dacvisagan garCevaSi. aucilebloba daproporciuloba mTavari faqtoria, agreTve,Tavdacvis saxeliT moqmedi saxelmwifoebismier teritoriebis xangrZlividrois ganmavlobaSi okupaciisuaryofisaTvis. Zalis gamoyeneba ar undagascdes im farglebs, rac iyo miznis misaRwevadaucilebeli da proporciuli.CveulebiTi samarTlis es moT xovnebidaadastura sasamarTlom nikaraguissaq meSi, 36 navTobis platformebis saqme-Si 37 da sakonsultacio daskvnaSi birTvuliiaraRebis Sesaxeb. 38yovelive zemoTqmulis gaTvalis winebiTSevecdebiT ganvixiloT 2008 wlisagvistoSi ruseTis mier saqarTveloswinaaRmdeg ganxorcielebuli agresia.2008 wlis 8 agvistos ruseTis federaciismxridan SeiaraRebuli Tavdasxma ganxorcieldasaqarTveloze. daibomba e.w.samxreT oseTis (cxinvalis regioni) mimdebareteritoriebi, kerZod, qalaqebi:gori da qareli, agreTve axlomdebaresoflebi. Cven SevecdebiT, kidev erTxeldavamtkicoT, rom ruseTis federaciiszemoxsenebuli qmedebebi arRvevsgaeros wesdebis me-2 muxlis me-4 punqtiTgaTvaliswinebul Zalis gamoyenebisakr Zalvas. ufro metic, am moqmedebebisgamarTleba ar SeiZleba Tavdacvisuflebis sababiT, saerTaSoriso sama r-Tlis arc saxelSekrulebo da arc CveulebiTisamarTlis wesebis CarCoebSi.rogorc zemoT ukve aRiniSna, 51-e muxliTgaTvaliswinebuli Tavdacvis uflebavrce ldeba im SemTxvevebze, rodesacsa xezea erTi saxelmwifos miermeore saxelmwifoze ganxorcielebuli„SeiaraRebuli Tavdasxma“, xolo incidentebie.w. samxreT oseTis regionSi,romelic saqarTvelos ganuyofeli nawiliada aseTad aRiarebulia saerTa-Soriso Tanamegobrobis mier, ar iyosaqarTvelos mxridan ruseTis federaciazeganxorcielebuli „SeiaraRebuliTavdasxma”. agreTve unda aRiniSnosisic, rom ruseTis federaciis samxedroqmedeba ar akmayofilebs aucileblobisada proporciulobis moTxovnebs– sakiTxis gadasaWrelad arsebobdasxva diplomatiuri saSualebebic; samxedromoqmedebebma daaziana mTlianadsaqarTvelos teritoria, maT Soris,samoqalaqo pirebi da samoqalaqo daniSnulebisobieqtebic. samoqalaqo pirebsada samoqalaqo daniSnulebis obieqtebzeTavdasxma ki saerTaSoriso humanitarulisamarTlis darRvevaa, kerZod,fundamenturi principis – gansxvavebisprincipis – darRveva. 39 saqarTvelosmxridan Zalis gamoyenebasTan dakavSirebiTki sapirispirod SeiZleba iTqvas: issavsebiT akmayofilebda aucileblobisa39

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010da proporciulobis standartebs. racSeexeba ruseTis federaciis arguments,rom qarTulma Zalebma ganaxorcielesrus samSvidoboebze Tavdasxma, riTacaiZules ruseTis federacia, gamoeyenebinaTavdacvis ufleba, samarTlebrivsafuZvels moklebulia Semdegi 2faq toris gamo: 1) realurad araviTaripirdapiri Tavdasxma ar ganxorcielebulasamSvidoboebze; da 2) rus samSvidoboebsromc misdgomodaT arapirdapiriTanmdevi ziani qarTuli Zalebismier separatistebis SeiaraRebuli bandformirebebiswinaaRmdeg operaciebisCatarebisas, saerTaSoriso samarTlisTanaxmad, aseT situaciaSi mxolod sam-Svidoboebs SeiZleba mieniWoT, da isicmxolod piradi, Tavdacvis ufleba.imaves miuTiTebs damoukidebelisa erTaSoriso faqtebis momZiebeli komisiisdaskvnac (taliavinis komisiisdaskvna), sadac naTqvamia, rom ruseTisfederaciis mier ganxorcielebuli SetevebiaSkarad scdeba da arRvevs aucileblobisada proporciulobis principebs.40Tu gavcdebiT Tavdacvis uflebisTemas da wavalT kidev ufro Sors, ruse-Tis qmedebebTan dakavSirebiT agreTveunda aRiniSnos: ruseTis federaciisargumenti, rom is moqmedebda humanitaruliintervenciis farglebSi, arisyovlad miuRebeli martivi mizezisgamo – Tanamedrove saerTaSoriso samarTalSihumanitaruli intervencia araris aRiarebuli samxedro Zalis gamoyenebiskanonier safuZvlad. Tumca, aqveunda iTqvas, saerTaSoriso samarTlisTeoriasa da praqtikaSi SemuSavebuliamTeli rigi winapirobebisa da kriteriumebisa,romlebsac unda akmayofilebdesintervenciuli aqti, raTa miecesmas humanitaruli intervenciis klasifikacia.humanitaruli intervenciisyvelaze gavrcelebuli winapirobebia: a)adamianis uflebebis masobrivi da uxeSidarRvevis arseboba; b) saerTaSoriso samarTliTdavis mogvarebis yvela dasaSvebisaSualebis amowurva. kriteriumebi,romlebsac unda akmayofilebdeshumanitaruli intervencia, Semdegia:a) intervencia unda xorcieldebodesmxolod humanitaruli miznebisTvis; b)intervencia unda iyos mravalmxrivi dag) intervencia unda iyos proporciuli.41 naTelia, rom 2008 wlis agvistoSisaqarTvelos winaaRmdeg ruseTis federaciismier ganxorcielebuli samxedromoqmedebebis dros zemoxsenebuliwinapirobebi da kriteriumebi ar iyodaculi.Sesabamisad, ruseTis mier saqarTveloSiganxorcielebuli samxedro Tavdasxma sxva araferia, Tu ara agresiisaqti. ruseTis es qmedebebi savsebiTemTxveva gaeros generaluri asambleis„agresiis definiciis Sesaxeb“ 3314 (1974)rezoluciaSi mocemul ganmartebas. aRniSnulrezoluciaSi generalurma asambleamgansazRvra agresiis aqtad wodebuliqmedebebi. am qmedebaTagan erT-er-Tia: „erTi qveynis SeiaraRebuli Zalebismier meore qveynis teritoriaze SeWraan Tavdasxma, an samxedro okupacia,Tundac droebiTi, romelic am SeWris anTavdasxmis Sedegia”. 42yovelive zemoxsenebulidan gamomdinare,SeiZleba davaskvnaT, rom ruse-Tis federaciam daarRvia saerTaSorisosamarTlis iseTi fundamenturi principebi,rogorebicaa: saxelmwifoTa suverenuliTanasworobis, teritoriulimTlianobis urRvevobis, Zalis gamoyenebisan ZaliT damuqrebis akrZalvisa dasaSinao saqmeebSi Caurevlobis principebi.prevenciuli TavdacvamTavari winaaRmdegoba TavdacvasTandakavSirebiT exeba „prevenciuli“ Tavdacvisuflebas. 43 es niSnavs, Tavdacvisufleba saxelmwifos uCndeba mxolodmas Semdeg, rac, wesdebis 51-e muxlisTanaxmad, SeiaraRebuli Tavdasxma daiwyeba,Tu saxelmwifoebs aqvT ufrofarTo ufleba, winaswar ganWvritonmosalodneli SeiaraRebuli Tavdasxmada miiRon prevenciuli zomebi? problema,romelic wamoiWra sxvadasxva Sem-40

z. sanikiZe, Tavdacvis, rogorc Zalis gamoyenebis kanonieri uflebis, ganmartebis problemebiTxvevebis gamo da romelic Tana medroveurTierTobebSi didi mniSvnelobisaa,aris Semdegi – wesdebis 51-e muxli uSvebsTu ara winaswari Tavdacvis SesaZleblobas,rac gulisxmobs prevenciuladdartymis ganxorcielebas, rocasaxelmwifo darwmunebulia an sjera (sanammis teritorias an ucxoeTSi mis samxedroSenaerTebs Seuteven), rom meoresaxelmwifo apirebs masze SeiaraRebuliTavdasxmis ganxorcielebas. 44upirveles yovlisa, unda veZeboT51-e muxlis `keTilsindisierad~ ganmartebisSesaZlebloba 1969 wlis `saer-TaSoriso xelSekrulebaTa samarTlisSesaxeb“ venis konvenciis 31-e muxlis(ganmartebis saerTo wesebi) safuZvelze.ar moipoveba mtkicebuleba imis Sesaxeb,rom saxelmwifoebs hqonodaT ganzraxva,51-e muxlis formulirebaSi prevenciuliTavdacvis ufleba moecvaT.isini, vinc emxrobian winaswari Tavdacvisuflebis midgomas, amtkiceben,rom ararealuria, saxelmwifo iyos valdebuli,daelodos, sanam mis winaaRmdegganxorcieldeba SeiaraRebuli Tavdasxma;45 mowinaaRmdegeebi ki amtkiceben,rom winaswari Tavdacva eskalaciisdid risks moicavs, radgan saxelmwifoSeiZleba Secdes meore saxelmwifos ganzraxvisgamocnobaSi, an reagireba araproporciuladmoaxdinos. 46 imdenad,ramdenadac SeiaraRebuli TavdasxmisfarTo cneba Tanamedrove iaraRebis SesaZleblobebzedayrdnobiT aris miRebuli,vakuumi am or pozicias SorisSeiZleba Semcirdes.avtoris azriT, dauSvebelia, rom winaswariTavdacva iqnes aRiarebuli da nebadarTuli,radgan, rogorc ki TundacerTi saxelmwifo moiTxovs prevenciulimoqmedebis gamoyenebas, rasakvirvelia,sxva saxelmwifoebic imaves moimoqmedeben.am ukanasknel SemTxvevaSi ki imis albaTobadidia, rom erTma saxelmwifomver gamoicnos meore saxelmwifos ganzraxvada ganaxorcielos Tavdasxma, racTavisTavad konfliqtisa da omis sawindarigaxdeba.sazRvargareT myofi sakuTarimoqalaqeebis dacvasaxelmwifos movaleoba – daicvassakuTari mosaxleoba, udavod misi up i -r velesi valdebulebaa, Tundac es moxdessxva saerTaSoriso subieqtTan misiurTierTobis xarjze, 47 Tumca precedentulisamarTali miuTiTebs, rom aseTiqmedeba ar aris Tavdacvis zoma. 48arsebobs dasabuTebuli mosazreba,rom saerTaSoriso samarTali ar aRiarebsZalis gamoyenebis kanonierebas„sazRvargareT mcxovrebi“ sakuTari moqalaqeebisdasacavad, xolo arsebulipraqtika aCvenebs, rom saxelmwifoebi„sazRvargareT mcxovrebi“ sakuTari moqalaqeebisdacvis uflebas Tavdacvisuflebis konteqstSi ganixilaven. 49sazRvargareT sakuTari moqalaqeebisdasacavad Zalis gamoyeneba im saxelmwifosTanxmobis gareSe, romlisteritoriazec imyofebian es moqalaqeebi,iSviaTia, da meore msoflio omisSemdeg mxolod ramdenime saxelmwifosTu ganuxorcielebia. 50 CveulebiTi samarTlis praqtikidan ga momdinare,saz RvargareT sakuTari moqalaqeebisda cvisTvis Zalis gamoyeneba rom ka no -nierad CaiTvalos, Semdegi kriteriumebi unda iqnes dakmayofilebuli:1) im saxelmwifos, romlis teritoriazecimyofebian moqalaqeebi, ar undasurdes, an ar unda SeeZlos maTi dacva;2) unda arsebobdes moqalaqeTa daSavebisgardauvali safrTxe; 3) maTi gadar-Cenis sxva aranairi mSvidobiani saSualebaar unda arsebobdes, radganac yvelamaTgani ukve amowuruli an maTi gamoyenebasruliad ararealuri unda iyos– anu Zala unda iyos bolo saSualeba;4) Zalis gamoyeneba unda moxdes mxolodda mxolod gansakuTrebuli miznisTvis,raTa moxdes moqalaqeebis gadarCena;5) gamoyenebuli Zala unda iyos safrTxisada muqaris proporciuli; 6) saxelmwifomunda gamoiyenos mxolod iseTiZala, romlis gamoyenebac gonivruladaucilebelia moqalaqeTa dasacavad daunda datovos meore saxelmwifos teri-41

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010toria ise swrafad, rogorc es gansaxorcielebadSesaZlebelia; 7) saxelmwifom,romelmac sazRvargareT gamoiyena Zala,dauyovnebliv unda acnobos gaeros uSiSroebissabWos; kerZod ki detaluradunda ganumartos is mizezebi da safuZvlebi,romlebze dayrdnobiTac is Zalisgamoyenebas am konkretul SemTxvevaSiaucileblad miiCnevs. 51es Tema umTavresad istoriuli mniSvnelobisaa.ukanaskneli aTi wlis ganmavlobaSisazRvargareT moqalaqeebis gadarCenismizniT Zalis gamoyenebis mniSvnelovanimagaliTebi ar yofila. am mxrivsainteresoa ruseTis federaciis konstituciis61-e muxlis me-2 punqti, romlisTanaxmadac, „ruseTis federacia missazRvrebs gareTac uzrunvelyofs saku-Tari moqalaqeebis dacvas“; 52 Tumca undaaRiniSnos, rom ruseTs ara aqvs ufleba,aRniSnuli Canaweri moiyvanos 2008 wlisagvistoSi saqarTvelos winaaRmdeg ganxorcielebuliSeiaraRebuli qmedebebisgamarTlebis safuZvlad (zemoT moyvanilimsjelobidan gamomdinare). avtorimiiCnevs, sagulisxmoa is garemoeba, romsazRvargareT moqalaqeebis gadarCenaan intervencia SeiZleba advilad iqnesufro farTo ganzraxviT SeWris sababadgamoyenebuli. ZiriTadi kiTxva, sazRvargareTmoqalaqeebze ganxorcielebuliTavdasxma iTvleba Tu ara saxelmwifozeganxorcielebul Tavdasxmad, rCebamniSvnelovani „teroris winaaRmdegomis“ konteqstSi. avtoris azriT, miuxedavadsakuTari moqalaqeebis dacvisdidi mniSvnelobisa, saxelmwifoebma maTgadasarCenad zomebis miRebisas undagaaanalizon mosalodneli safrTxis sa-SiSroeba da TiToeuli qmedeba zemoxsenebulikriteriumebis gaTvaliswinebiTada sruli dacviT moimoqmedon.Tavdacva terorizmis winaaRmdeg2001 wlis 11 seqtembers msofliosa vaWro centrsa da pentagonze ganxorcielebuliteroristuli Tavdasxmebissapasuxod amerikis SeerTebulma Statebmaim mizniT, rom Seewyvita avRane-Tis teroristul bazad gamoyeneba,2001 wlis 7 oqtombers avRaneTSi samxedrooperacia (Operation Enduring Freedom)daiwyo. amerikis SeerTebuli StatebiavRaneTis winaaRmdeg Zalis gamoyenebisasdaeyrdno Tavdacvis uflebas; uSiSroebissabWos amerikis SeerTebulmaStatebma amcno, rom is moqmedebda gaeroswesdebis 51-e muxlze dayrdnobiT.gaerTianebulma samefom, romelicpirvelive dRidan CarTuli iyo avRane-Tis winaaRmdeg mimarTul saraketoTavdasxmebSi, ganacxada, rom moqmedebdaindividualuri da koleqtiuri TavdacvisSesabamisad. im kiTxvis fonze,dasaSvebia Tu ara, rom Tavdacvis uflebamadre ganxorcielebuli teroristuliTavdasxmebis sapasuxod ganxorcielebuliTavdasxma moicvas, amerikisada gaerTianebuli samefos gancxadebebiSeiZleba sakamaTo Candes, magram am samxedrooperaciam masobrivi mxardaWeramoipova da qmedeba Tavdacvad TiTqmissayovelTaod iqna miCneuli. amerikisSeerTebul Statebze ganxorcielebuliSetevebis sapasuxod, Crdilo atlantikisxelSekrulebis organizaciam (nato),romlis wevri saxelmwifoc aris amerikisSeerTebuli Statebi, moixmo wesdebisme-5 muxli, romlis Tanaxmadac, erTwevr saxelmwifoze ganxorcielebuliTavdasxma ganixileba Tavdasxmad yvelawevrze. 53 sxva saerTaSoriso organizaciebmacgaiziares mosazreba, rom es iyokoleqtiuri Tavdacvis mizniT ganxorcielebuliTavdasxma. evrokavSirma,CineTma, ruseTma, iaponiam da pakistanmamxari dauWires aseT midgomas. 54 mravalmasaxelmwifom mxardamWeris roli SeasrulaSeiaraRebul kampaniaSi. mxo lodiranma da erayma Seitanes eWvi am operaciiskanonierebaSi. 2001 wlis 12 seqtembrisrezoluciaSi uSiSro ebis sab-Wom aRiara Tavdacvis ufleba. Sedegad,2001 wlis 14 noembers miRebul iqna 1373rezolucia teroristuli aqtebiT saerTaSorisomSvidobisa da usafrTxoebisaTvisgamowveuli safrTxeebis Sesaxeb. es rezolucia miuTiTebda agreTve individualur da koleqtiur42

z. sanikiZe, Tavdacvis, rogorc Zalis gamoyenebis kanonieri uflebis, ganmartebis problemebiTavdacvaze. es iyo pirveli SemTxveva,roca uSiSroebis sabWom aRiara terorizmiswinaaRmdeg Zalis gamoyenebisasTavdacvis uflebis arseboba. 55Zalis amgvari gamoyeneba xSiradsci ldeba Zalis gamoyenebis tradiciulimidgomis models. ise Cans, TiTqosamerikis SeerTebuli Statebis mierTavdacvis uflebis gamoyenebis SesaxebmoTxovnis saxelmwifoTa masobriv mxardaWerasSeeZlo Camoeyalibebina mimdinaresaerTaSoriso CveulebiTi samarTalida gaeros wesdebis xelaxaliinterpretacia moexdina. pirveli, essagrZnoblad afarToebs warmodgenasSeiaraRebuli Tavdasxmis Sesaxeb. 51-emuxli Tavdapirvelad iTvaliswinebdaTavdacvis uflebas sxva saxelmwifosmier ganxorcielebuli SeiaraRebuliTavdasxmis sapasuxod da amis Sedegiiyo saxelmwifos pasuxismgeblobis sakiTxi.axla ki sakamaToa is faqti, romim pirebis mier, romlebic ar moqmedebensaxelmwifos saxeliT, meore saxelmwifoswinaaRmdeg ganxorcielebuliteroristuli Tavdasxma SeiZlebaCaiTvalos SeiaraRebul Tavdasxmad,ro melic, Tavis mxriv, gaamarTlebs maT-Tvis daxmarebis gamwevi saxelmwifoswinaaRmdeg mimarTul sapasuxo qmedebas;gaurkvevloba mainc aris darCeniliimasTan dakavSirebiT, Tu saxelmwifosra xarisxis CarTulobaa aucilebeli amSemTxvevaSi. 56kiTxvebi wamoiWreba agreTve aucileblobasada saWiroebasTan mimarTebiT.al-qaidasa da Talibanis reJimis dabombvaramdenime Tves grZeldeboda. amerikisSeerTebulma Statebma samxedro operaciis(Operation Enduring Freedom) dawyebisTanavegaakeTa winaswari Setyobineba,rom terorizmis winaaRmdeg omi SeiZlebodaramdenime weliwads gagrZelebuliyo.ibadeba kiTxva: sad unda gaivloszRvari, raTa Tavdacvis uflebam argadaabijos aucileblobisa da proporciulobiskriteriumebs? dResdReobiTnaTlad Cans am zRvris, mkafio gamyofixazis, ararseboba. momavali teroristuliTavdasxmebis prevenciis mizniTdawyebul kampaniaSi rTulia ganisa z-Rvros qmedebis savaraudo dasasruli,magram faqtia, rac ufro metxans grZeldebais da rac ufro meti ngreva mohyvebamas Sedegad, miT ufro Znelia imismtkiceba, rom qmedeba proporciulia.Tu Zalis gamoyeneba aCvenebs, rom teroristuliTavdasxmebis Tavidan asacilebladigi gamousadegaria, rTuliaagreTve imis damtkiceba, rom qmedebebiaris aucilebeli. 57koleqtiuri Tavdacvakoleqtiuri Tavdacva, iseve rogorcindividualuri, ganmtkicebulia gaeroswesdebis 51-e muxlis Tanaxmad da is iqnebakanonieri imave garemoebebis arsebobisas,rogoric aris individualuriTavdacvis dros – e.i., Tu is ganxorcielebuliaSeiaraRebuli Tavdasxmis sa -pasuxod. koleqtiuri Tavdacvis ga n-marteba iseTi samxedro aliansebis amosavaliwertilia, rogoricaa na to, romliswesdebis mexuTe muxlis Ta na x madac,aliansis erT an ramdenime wevr saxelmwifozeTavdasxma ganixileba rogorcTavdasxma aliansis wevr yvela saxelmwifozeda Zala iqneba yvela wevri saxelmwifosmier gamoyenebuli. 58 zustad esazri iqna gatarebuli nikaraguis saqme-Si mosamarTleTa umravlesobis mier,Tumca maTive ganmartebiT, im saxelmwifom,romlis winaaRmdegac ganxorcieldaSeiaraRebuli Tavdasxma, sakuTariTavi unda gamoacxados „SeiaraRebuliTavdasxmis msxverpl saxelmwifod“ dameore saxelmwifos sTxovos daxma reba.59 saerTaSoriso CveulebiT samar-TalSi ar arsebobs wesi, romelic saxelmwifossituaciis Tavisi survi lisamebrSefasebis Sedegad koleqtiuriTavdacvis uflebis gamoyenebis nebasdarTavda. 60 maSasadame, koleqtiuri Tavdacvaar niSnavs individualuri uflebiserTad gamoyenebas, aramed es ariserTi saxelmwifos mier ganxorcielebuliSeiaraRebuli Tavdasxmis sapasuxodganxorcielebuli koleqtiuri qmedeba,im damatebiTi kriteriumiT, rom „msxve-43

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010rplma saxelmwifom“ uflebamosili warmomadgenlebismeSveobiT oficialuradunda moiTxovos daxmareba.uSiSroebis sabWos roliSeiZleba iTqvas, rom individualurda koleqtiur TavdacvasTan mimarTebiTuSiSroebis sabWos ukavia centraluriroli: saxelmwifoebis mier Tavdacvisam uflebis ganxorcielebisas miRebulizomebis Sesaxeb dauyovnebliv unda ecnobosuSiSroebis sabWos da saxelmwifoebisufleba – gamoiyenon Tavdacvisufleba, aris droebiTi iqamde, sanamuSiSroebis sabWo ar miiRebs saerTaSorisomSvidobisa da uSiSroebis mxardasaWeradaucilebel zomebs.gaeros wesdebis mizania, ara mxolodSezRudos saxelmwifoebis mier Zalisgamoyenebis ufleba, aramed moaxdinosam uflebis gaeros garSemo centralizacia.naTelia, ganzraxva iyo, romuSiSroebis sabWos hqonoda ufleba,ga moeyenebina iseTi zomebi, romlebicSewyvetdnen Tavdacvis uflebas. magramTavdacvis uflebis arsebobis an misigagrZelebis Sesaxeb uSiSroebis sabWosmier gamoxatuli gansazRvrebis ararsebobisgamo, warsulSi bevri dava wamoWrila.61 praqtikaSi uSiSroebis sabWo arakeTebs gancxadebebs Tavdacvis uflebismoTxovnis kanonierebis Sesaxeb. iranerayis(1980–1988) da eTiopia-eriTreas(1998–2000) konfliqtebTan dakavSirebiTuSiSroebis sabWos ar wamouWriakonfliqtis dawyebisTvis saxelmwifospasuxismgeblobis sakiTxi da amdenad argadauwyvetia, Tu vis hqonda Tavdacvisufleba. Tumca, sapirispirod, rocaerayi SeiWra quveiTSi 1990 wels, uSiSroebissabWom daadastura quveiTisTavdacvis uflebis arseboba. 62uSiSroebis sabWos qmedeba SeiZlebaiyos sxvadasxvagvari. inter alia, uSiSroebissabWos SeuZlia: 1) daadasturosTavdacvis uflebis arseboba; 2) saxelmwifoebsmosTxovos cecxlis Sewyveta; 3)saxelmwifoebs mosTxovos SeiaraRebuliZalebis gamoyvana meore saxelmwifodan;4) Tavdacvis ganmaxorcielebel saxelmwifosganmoiTxovos calmxrivi qmedebebisSewyveta da aRniSnulis Secvla koleqtiuriusafrTxoebis RonisZiebebiT; 5)miiRos gadawyvetileba, rom TavdacvisuflebiT moqmedi saxelmwifo realuradaris agresori. am qmedebebidan uSiSroebissabWo romelsac miiRebs, is iqnebasavaldebulo Zalis mqone gaeros wevrisaxelmwifoebisTvis. 63daskvnastatiaSi ganxiluli iyo Zalis gamoyenebisSesaxeb normebis ganviTarebagaeros wesdebis Seqmnamde da misiSeqmnis Semdeg. mTavari yuradReba daTmobilihqonda gaeros wesdebis 51-e muxls.ganxiluli iyo Tavdacvis uflebisganmartebisa da interpretaciis meTodebi.moyvanili iyo individualuri dakoleqtiuri Tavdacvis magaliTebi daam uflebis gamoyenebisTvis aucilebelimoTxovnebi. xazgasmuli iyo gaerosuSiSroebis sabWos roli zemoaRniSnuliSemTxvevebis dros.winamdebare naSromiT avtoris mizaniiyo, naTeli moefina im sakiTxebisTvis,Tu ra problemebi ikveTeba Tavdacvisuflebis ganmartebasTan mimarTebiT.aSkaraa, rom Tavdacvis uflebisa daZalis gamoyenebis interpretaciasTandakavSirebiT saxezea sirTuleebi. saxelmwifoebsar aqvT SemuSavebuli er-Tiani midgoma, rasac Sedegad problema-Ta mTel rigTan mivyavarT. arsebobswinaaRmdegobrivi momentebi, romelTaTavidan acilebisa da gadaWrisTvis dasaerTaSoriso asparezze ganukiTxaobisTavidan asacileblad, avtoris azriT,sazogadoebam maqsimalurad efeqturadunda imoqmedos, raTa saxelmwifoebmaar moaxdinon gaeros wesdebiTminiWebuli uflebamosilebis borotadgamoyeneba, ar gaifarToon uflebebiTavianT sasargeblod sxva saxelmwifo-Ta uflebebis xelyofis xarjze. xoloim SemTxvevaSi, Tu saxelmwifoebi maincecdebian aRniSnuli qmedebebis ganxorcielebas,Sesabamisi unda iyos saerTa-44

z. sanikiZe, Tavdacvis, rogorc Zalis gamoyenebis kanonieri uflebis, ganmartebis problemebiSoriso sazogadoebis pasuxi: gaerom,im mizniT, rom SemdgomSi sxva saxelmwifoebismxridan prevenciul niadagzeveTavidan iqnes acilebuli msgavsiSinaarsis qmedebebi da omis saSiSroeba,unda gaaZlieros zewola am saxelmwifoebzeda gamoiyenos mkacri xasiaTissanqciebi, risi uflebamosilebac maswesdebis 41-e muxlis safuZvelze aqvsminiWebuli.saxelmwifoebis piradi samarTlebriviTu politikuri miznebi da interesebida am motivebiT nakarnaxevi qmedebebiar unda prevalirebdes saerTaSorisosamarTliT aRiarebul principebsada wesebze; es ukanaskneli ki amosavaliwertili unda iyos samarTlianobis ganxorcielebisada damkvidrebis dros.aSkaraa, rom gvaqvs fiqris sagani:ra aris saWiro, raTa ar moxdes Zalisgadameteba da, amasTanave, mizanic miRweuliqnes. mizani ki erTaderTi da Seucvlelia– sazogadoebisa da sruliadsamyaros dacva konfliqtebisgan. saer-TaSoriso mSvidobis da usafrTxoebisdacva xom gaeros umniSvnelovanesi mizania.yovelive zemoaRniSnulidan gamomdinare,daskvnis saxiT SeiZleba iTqvas,rom saxelmwifoebis mier maT qmedebebSiyovel calkeul SemTxvevebSi gaTvaliswinebuliunda iqnes gaerTianebulierebis organizaciis principebi da mizani;saxelmwifoebis mier miRebuli nebismierizoma ar unda uqmnides safrTxessaerTaSoriso mSvidobasa da uSiSroebas.1Martin Dixon, Textbook on International Law, mesame gamocema, gv. 277.2iqve, gv. 278.3iqve, gv. 279.4Antonio Cassese, International Law, oqsfordis universitetis gamomcemloba,meore gamocema, gv. 37.5Francois Bugnion “ Just wars, wars of aggression and international humanitarianlaw”, International Review of the Red Cross , September 2002, No 847, tomi 84,gv. 523-546.6gaeros wesdeba, me-2 muxli, paragrafi 4.7sakiTxi nikaraguaSi da mis winaaRmdeg samxedro da naxevradsamxedromoqmedebebis Sesaxeb (konkretuli garemoebebi), marTlmsajulebissaerTaSoriso sasamarTlos angariSebi (1986), 14, paragrafi 14.8ix. sqolio 1, gv. 281.9iqve, gv. 282.10iqve, gv. 283.11ix. sqolio 6, 1.1. muxli.12Momir Milojevic, Prohibition of the Use of Force and Threats in InternationalRelations, Law and Politics tomi 1, 5, gv. 594.13Yoram Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self-defence, kembrijis universitetisgamomcemloba, meoTxe gamocema, gv. 175.14ix. sqolio 6, 51-e muxli.15ix. sqolio 1, gv. 284.16iqve, gv. 285.17The Caroline Case, 29 BFSP 1137-1138; 30 BFSP 195-196.18deniel vebsteris werili lord eSbartonisadmi (5 agvisto, 1842), 29britanuli da ucxouri saxelmwifo dokumenti 1129, 1138 (1840.1).19ix. sqolio 1, gv. 286.20Brownlie, I., ‘Humanitarian Intervention’ in Moore. J.N., Law and Civil War in theModern World, USA: jon hopkinsis universitetis gamomcemloba, 1974, gv.176.21ix. sqolio 7, paragrafi 202-209.45

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 201022iqve.23Greig, “Self-defence and the Security Council” What Does Article 51 Require?”,1991, 40 ICLQ 366.24ix. sqolio 4, gv. 355.25S. A. Alexandrov, Self-defence Against the Use of Force in International Law,Kluwer Law International, 1996, 77.26ix. sqolio 7, paragrafi 202-209.27Christine Gray, International Law and the Use of Force, oqsfordis universitetisgamomcemloba, mesame gamocema, gv. 130.28ix. sqolio 7, paragrafi 195.29ix. Security Council Resolution 1358 (2001) and Resolution 1272 (2001) at http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2001/sc2001.htm.30Christine Gray, The Use of Force and International Legal Order, in Malcolm D.Evans (ed.), International Law, oqsfordis universitetis gamomcemloba,meore gamocema, gv. 600.31ix. sqolio 7, paragrafi 202-209.32birTvuli iaraRis gamoyenebis muqaris an gamoyenebis kanonierebisSesaxeb (sakonsultacio daskvna), saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos angariSebi,1996, gv 226, paragrafi141.33navTobis platformebis saqme (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States ofAmerica), saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos angariSebi, 2003, gv. 161.34ix. sqolio 13, gv. 199.35Michael N. Schmitt, Counter-Terrorism and the Use of Force in International Law,jorj marSalis saxelobis usafrTxoebis kvlevebis evropuli centri,naSromi #5, gv. 17.36ix. sqolio 7, paragrafi 202-209.37ix. sqolio 33, gv. 161.38ix. sqolio 32, gv 226, paragrafi141.39Jenevis konvenciebis pirveli damatebiTi oqmi, 48-e muxli.40damoukidebeli saerTaSoriso faqtebis momZiebeli komisiis (taliaviniskomisiis) daskvna, paragrafi 25.41ix. sqolio 4, gv. 370.42gaeros generaluri asambleis 1974 wlis 14 dekembris 3314 (XXIX) rezolucia„agresiis definiciis Sesaxeb“ , muxli 3 (a), http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/739/16/IMG/NR073916.pdf?OpenElement.43prevenciuli Tavdacvis uflebis mxardamWerebi arian, magaliTad, amerikisSeerTebuli Statebi, gaerTianebuli samefo. isini amtkiceben, romsaxelmwifos unda hqondes prevenciuli Tavdacvis ganxorcielebisufleba, e.i. maT unda hqondeT ufleba, winaswar ganWvriton mosalodneliSeiaraRebuli Tavdasxma da miiRon prevenciuli zomebi.44ix. sqolio 30, gv. 605.45iqve, gv. 606.46iqve, gv. 607.47John M Rothgeb Jr. Defi ning Power - Infl uence and Force in the ContemporaryInternational System (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1993) gv. 62.48Rosalyn Higgins, “Intervention and International Law”, in Hedley Bull (ed.),Intervention in World Politics (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1984 ) gv. 38.49M. Shaw, International Law, kembrijis universitetis gamomcemloba, mexuTegamocema, gv. 132-133.50magaliTad, israelis argumenti entebes aeroportSi Zalis gamoyenebasTandakavSirebiT; amerikis SeerTebuli Statebis qmedeba panamaSi1983 wels, grenadaSi 1989 wels da eraySi 1993 wels; gaerTianebuli samefosintervencia suecSi 1956 wels.51ix. sqolio 4, gv. 368.46

z. sanikiZe, Tavdacvis, rogorc Zalis gamoyenebis kanonieri uflebis, ganmartebis problemebi52ruseTis federaciis konstitucia, 61-e muxli, araoficialuri Targmani.53natos wesdeba, me-5 muxli.54Edited by Malcolm D. Evans, International Law, oqsfordis universitetisgamomcemloba, meore gamocema, gv. 601.55iqve, gv. 602.56iqve, gv. 603.57iqve, gv. 604.58ix. sqolio 53, me-5 muxli.59ix. sqolio 54, gv. 605.60ix. sqolio 27, gv. 169.61Higgins, The Development of International Law through the Political Organs of theUN (1963), gv. 198, 206.62ix. sqolio 30, gv. 605.63ix. sqolio 13, gv. 214.47

ZURAB SANIKIDZEPROBLEMS WITH THE DEFINITION OF SELF-DEFENCEAS A LAWFUL USE OF FORCE“We hear so much these days of progress and civilization, butunfortunately we still cannot avoid wars, should we urgently try, ina genuine spirit of humanity and civilization, to prevent, or at leastto alleviate, the horrors of war?”Henry DunantINTRODUCTIONThe maintenance of international peaceand security is a genuinely problematicand sensitive issue in the modern worldand greatly depends upon the endeavour,common opinion and unifi ed approach of theinternational community to achieve this. Theuse of force by states is one of the most criticalchallenges to the modern international legalorder as state behaviour is usually evaluatedon the principles of use of force.Two controversial aspects of state behaviourarise: legal and political motivesand interests of states on the one hand, andthe problem of protecting human lives andfundamental principles of the United Nations(UN) on the other; specifi cally: the sovereignequality of states, territorial integrity andprohibition of use of force or threat to use force,and non-interference into internal affairs.The latest developments in Georgiarendered the actual defi nition and meaningof confl ict under international law, as well asregulation of the use of force by the UN.The purpose of this article is to fi nd thedefi nition of self-defence and its legal statusunder international law. The right to selfdefencein international law, as enshrinedin article 51 of the UN Charter, is generallyinterpreted in two ways, known as broad andrestricted interpretations. The broad interpretation is usually employed by “strong”states to justify their actions while pursuingtheir interests. The restricted interpretation issupported by the UN and is clearly manifestedby the history of the UN Charter and overallobjectives of this instrument. This articleshall discuss this problem and seek ways ofproblem resolution, as it seems impossibleto preserve international peace and securitywithout identifying clear boundaries for theuse of force.Some norms of international law regulatethe use of force and aggression (jus ad bellum)and others such as the conduct of militaryactions (international humanitarian law or jusin bello). This article shall mainly deal withjus ad bellum that covers all rules regulatinguse of force by states in international law. Thisarticle shall specifi cally deal with use of forceunder article 51 of the UN Charter – individualand collective self-defence.The law on use force is discussed in thefi rst part of this article. The author deals withthe pre and post UN Charter periods.The following chapter deals with the prohibitionof use of force and the “inherent” right toself-defence of states and its defi nition, whichis the main subject matter of this article–.The fi nal chapter of the article discussesthe restriction criteria and opportunity toexercise the “inherent” right of states and the48

Z. SANIKIDZE, PROBLEMS WITH THE DEFINITION OF SELF-DEFENCE AS A LAWFUL USE OF FORCErelevance of article 51 for states and the UNSecurity Council.The rules of international law that regulateuse of force (jus ad bellum) are divided intotwo groups 1 : the fi rst group consists of normsregulating use of force by one or a group ofstates acting with their own initiative, oftenreferred to as “unilateral” use of force. Therules of the second group deal with the issuewhen competent international organizations,specifi cally the UN, are entitled to the use offorce, which is referred to as “collective” useof force, since it derives from a collectivedecision of such organizations. Usually, manystates are involved in such a use of force;however the milestone idea is that the use offorce is implemented on behalf of all states forthe common purpose of society. Accordingly,the main difference between “unilateral” and“collective” use of force is not only the numberof states involved, but rather in competencesand purposes. Despite the number of statesparticipating in the use of force, “unilateral”action is the result of a one-sided decisionand is aimed at the satisfaction of one state’spurpose, while “collective” use of force is basedon the decisions of competent internationalorganizations adopted for the sake of theinterests of society in general. 2THE HISTORY OF PROHIBITIONOF USE OF FORCEa) Before the UN CharterThe rules of international law on the right touse force (jus ad bellum) are not exclusively theoutcome of the UN Charter. Before 1945, thesystem of customary international law existeddealing with the unilateral use of force by states. 3Before the creation of the UN Charter the useof force by states was regulated by a set ofconventional and customary norms. The 1899and 1907 Hague Peace Conferences were thefi rst attempts to restrict warfare. World War Itriggered imposition of even more restrictionson warfare within the League of Nations. In1924, at the fi fth session of the League ofNations Assembly, an attempt to establish acollective security system was initiated; themember states adopted the Protocol for thePacifi c Settlement of International Disputes(“Geneva Protocol”), in which war of aggressionconstitutes a violation of the solidarity amongmembers of the international community and isan international crime. However, this Protocolhas never been put into effect 4 .There was no rule of customary internationallaw prohibiting use of force until the1920s. It was in 1928 when the Kellogg–Briand Pact (1928 Pact), also referred to asthe Paris Covenant, introduced a prohibitionon the declaration of war 5 . Furthermore, since1945, self-defence has been regarded as theexception from any prohibition of use of force,and customary international law developedpreconditions for its fair implementation. Atthe same time, reprisals and operations tosave nationals and humanitarian interventionsare considered as legitimate exceptions fromgeneral prohibition. Nevertheless, the Leagueof Nations and the 1928 Pact, whichprohibited war and aggression in internationalrelations, could not prevent world war. Despitethe urges and attempts to not threaten internationalpeace and security, it was obviousthat states would have resorted to the useof force if their interests necessitated suchan action. Consequently, the UN Charterthat was developed after World War II hasstricter language and establishes much moreuncompromising restrictions. The UN Charterentitles the use of force only for the purposesof self-defence and with the authorisation ofthe UN Security Council (further referred to asthe SC).b) In accordance with the UN CharterThe period after the UN Charter hasbeen greatly infl uenced by article 2(4) whichstates: “All Members shall refrain in theirinternational relations from the threat or use offorce against the territorial integrity or politicalindependence of any state, or in any othermanner inconsistent with the Purposes of theUnited Nations”. 6Those wishing to interpret this articleunanimously consider that prohibition is notonly a conventional or customary rule, butrepresents a jus cogens (peremptory norm ofinternational law) norm. 749

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010There are two different interpretations ofthis article: broad and restricted. 8According to the broad interpretation, ifthe use of force does not result in permanentoccupation of a territory, does not menace theattacked state’s authority to make independentdecisions and is not against the objectives andgoals of the UN, then such a use of force islawful. Accordingly, rapid attacks aimed atsaving nationals, such as the Entebbe RescueOperation in1976, should not be consideredunlawful. According to this interpretation,the US intervention in Panama in 1989 andkidnapping of the “undemocratic” and “criminal”General Noriega was not restricted,as this action did not threaten the “territorialintegrity” and “political independence” of theattacked state. 9The restricted interpretation of article 2(4)suggests that it completely prohibits use offorce by states with some exceptions providedby the UN Charter itself. According to thisinterpretation, the right to self-defence underarticle 51 of the UN Charter is an exceptionto the general prohibition enshrined in article2(4). Concerning controversial wordings ofarticle 2(4) (specifi cally, territorial integrity,etc), it has been established that authors ofthis paragraph did not intend to introduceobligation of the prohibition of use of force,but their goal was to describe the territorialexistence of a state under international law. 10The international community came to aconsensus, which is also manifested in states’practice, that article 2(4) should not beinterpreted in a way suggested by those supportingbroad interpretation. This approach isalso supported by the travaux preparatoiresof the UN Charter, its overall objectives andanalysis of states’ arguments resorting to theuse of force.We completely agree with the restrictedinterpretation, as it seems unreasonable toread article 2(4) of the UN Charter in a way torepeat the “mistakes” of the League of Nations’agreements and the Brian-Kellogg Pact. Weview that the possibilities and legal basis thatentitle states to the use of force should beminimal and strongly believe that the overallgoal of the UN Charter is to preserve peaceand security and avoid new wars. 11SELF-DEFENCEA state may use force provided it is orderedor authorized by the UNSC. Howeverindividual and collective self-defence enjoyedby states is an exception from this generalrule. Both conventional and customary lawsrecognize the right of states to implementrelevant measures, including use of force,to pre-empt any threat that endangers theexistence of the state itself or the security ofits nationals. 12The right to self-defence is a right and notan obligation to a state. If a state is subjectedto aggression by another state, it is entitledto self-defence. The core of the right to selfdefenceis self-assistance in response tomilitary attack of another state. 13This right is enshrined in article 51 ofthe UN Charter that specifi es: “Nothing inthe present Charter shall impair the inherentright of individual or collective self-defence ifan armed attack occurs against a Member ofthe United Nations, until the Security Councilhas taken measures necessary to maintaininternational peace and security. Measurestaken by Members in the exercise of this rightof self-defence shall be immediately reportedto the Security Council and shall not in anyway affect the authority and responsibility ofthe Security Council under the present Charterto take at any time such action as it deemsnecessary in order to maintain or restoreinternational peace and security”. 14To create preconditions for the applicationof the right to self-defence, it is necessary tomanifest that threat is real, active and causethe need to self-defence. Individual self-defenceis usually interpreted in two ways: oneis the broad approach, 15 which stipulates thatpreventive self-defence and protection of ownnationals are lawful; the other is the restrictedinterpretation. 16The Carolina case is the best exampleof the broad approach. The Carolina doctrinedefi nes the right to self defence-of states aslawful if it is used against a real and immediate50

Z. SANIKIDZE, PROBLEMS WITH THE DEFINITION OF SELF-DEFENCE AS A LAWFUL USE OF FORCEthreat that could not have been avoided viaalternative measures, provided the used forcewas proportional to the existing threat. 17 TheCarolina doctrine provides that the right toself-defence should emanate from necessityand the burden of proof is on the state claimingthe right to self-defence. US Secretary ofState, Daniel Webster, introduced a standard,which has lately appeared to be universallyrecognized. According to Webster, “theremust be a necessity of self-defense, instant,overwhelming, leaving no choice of means,and no moment for deliberation and thedefensive acts must not be unreasonable orexcessive”. 18As for the protection of nationals, earliercustomary law required four preconditions:(i) failure or inability on the part of a territorialsovereign to protect them; (ii) eminent threat ofinjury to nationals; (iii) use of force should bethe last resort; (iv) a state shall use force thatis reasonably necessary to protect its citizensand shall leave the territory of another state assoon as possible. 19The restricted interpretation of self-defence affi rms that the broad approach is nolonger applicable. 20 Under article 51 of the UNCharter, a state may only resort to self-defence“if armed attack occurs”. The best example ofsuch an approach is the case of Nicaraguavs. the USA. 21 Specifi cally, the right to use offorce is not applicable in the anticipation ofan attack, or when the threat is non-violent orto protect anything other than state territory.Concerning the protection of nationals abroad,the restrictive approach states that interventionto protect nationals can be of equivocal valuein furthering the purposes of the United Nationsas it may be a pretext for interventionand cause more harm than it prevents. 22There is a consensus of the internationalcommunity that restricted interpretation shouldbe supported. Therefore, in accordance withthe Charter, this approach is valid. 23Based on the aforementioned (1) thestate subjected to aggression shall use forcenecessary to prevent attack and proportionalto the force used by the aggressor; (2) she[state] may attack only “lawful military targets”and in accordance with principles and rulesof international humanitarian law; preventivemeasures have to be adopted to minimizecasualties among and injures of civilians; (3)state that was a victim of “armed attack” shallnot occupy the territory of the attacking statesunless it is necessary to eliminate aggression;(4) self-defence has to be terminated as soonas the UNSC interfere and adopts rele vantmeasures to preserve international peaceand security; (5) If the UNSC cannot interfere,self-defence has to be terminated assoon as its purpose is achieved – that is, theattack is prevented. In other words, article51 and general international law do notallow any military actions to pre-empt attackand go beyond the necessarily pre-emptivemeasures against aggression. They do prohibitoccupation and annexation of the territory ofthe aggressor state. 24Obviously the UN Charter recognisesthat self-defence is an inherent right of statesand it may be applied both individually andcollectively. 25We support the restricted (narrow) interpretationas we deem the political argument,upheld by those supporting broadinter pretation, to be the will of “strong states”to preserve freedom in their actions. Wecon sider that self-defence is allowed only incases when there is a military attack against astate. As for the operations to save nationalsabroad, we think that such operations cancover the intentions to occupy the territory ofother state.a) Armed AttackIn order for a state to resort to self-defencelawfully, there must be a real armed attack.Therefore, the defi nition of “armed attack” isvital for the application of self-defence underinternational law. The question must be asked:what are the criteria for state action to qualifyas armed attack?Article 51 stipulates that self-defence isallowed only against armed attack. The mostwidespread form of armed attack is the attackof a regular army of one state against another’sland, maritime and aerial territory. However,the defi nition of armed attack goes beyondattacks by regular armies and also comprises51

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010of attacks carried out by bands, irregularsand mercenaries. Collective self-defencewas the milestone for the International Courtof Justice (the ICJ) Judgement on Militaryand Paramilitary Activities in and againstNica ragua (Nicaragua v. United States ofAmerica. 26 The ICJ defi ned armed attackunder international law via determining theessence of aggression. In this case, the ICJdefi ned that armed attack is the “sending by astate of armed bands, mercenaries or irregularforces, to the territory of another state, ifsuch an operation, because of its scale andeffects, inter alia will have been classifi ed asan armed attack carried out by regular armedforces”. 27 The ICJ also stated that support ofrebels, including supply of weapons or anyother aid, shall not constitute armed attack. 28Controversies arise on the level of states’involvement necessary to link action with a statein the given situation and justify self-defence.The concept of armed attack covering attacksby armed groups requires a high level of stateinvolvement; however, the attack on the WorldTrade Centre and Pentagon on September 11,2001, controversially broadened the notion ofarmed attack by inclusion therein of attacks byterrorist groups. While referring to arracks byterrorist organizations The UNSC employed“dangerous to peace” rather than “armedattack”. Meanwhile, the preambles of UNSC 1358 and 1373 Resolutions affi rmed theright to self-defence. 29 So, it was implied thatterrorist attacks against the USA constitutedarmed attacks, however, the precise role andcharacter of the Afghanistan Government’sparticipation in the Al-Qaeda activities is stillvaguely incomprehensible. 30b) Necessity and ProportionalityA state may enjoy the right to self-defence using force in cases when armedattack occurs against it. However, this right– whether individual or collective self-defence– is limited under international law bycer tain requirements. The Carolina Doctrineestablished the groundwork for developingthe requirement that self-defence shouldbe necessary and proportional. Necessityand proportionality is core for the right toself-defence. Attention should be paid tothe proportionality and necessity of countermeasures, the rights of civilians are jeopardisedon behalf the right to self-defence. The ICJconfi rmed their existence in the Nicaraguacase, 31 Oil Platforms case 32 and in an advisoryopinion on the Legality of the Threat or Useof Nuclear Weapons. 33 Necessity means thatalternative measures cannot be implemented,for example, diplomatic means have alreadybeen exhausted or economic sanctions are nolonger effective. 34Proportionality would mean not only interlinksbetween armed attack and use of forcefor the purposes of self-defence, but betweenthe latter and the goal of self-defence. 35Notwithstanding, these requirements arenot enshrined in the UN Charter; they are partof customary international law. Necessity andproportionality imply that self-defence shouldbe retaliatory and punitive; its objective shouldbe to prevent attacks of an enemy. Use of forceshould result in improvement of the tensionsrather than aggravation. It is not contested thatuse of force should not cause outcomes worsethan the results would have been without useof force. Necessity and proportionality are thetests for states to draw a clear line betweenunlawful reprisals and lawful self-defence.Necessity and proportionality are also corefactors for denial of territorial occupationby states acting under the right to selfdefence.Use of force should not go beyondthe necessary and proportional boundariesfor achieving well-established goals. Theserequirements of customary international lawwere reaffi rmed in the Nicaragua Case by theICJ, 36 the Oil Platform case 37 and in an advisoryopinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use ofNuclear Weapons. 38Bearing in mind the foregoing conclusionsand suggestions now we shall try to make alegal analysis of the aggression of the RussianFederation against Georgia in August 2008.On August 8, 2008 the Russian Federationcarried out an armed attack against theterritory of Georgia. They shelled the area ofso-called South Ossetia; specifi cally: Gori,Kareli and the nearby countryside. Based onthe following arguments, we consider these52

Z. SANIKIDZE, PROBLEMS WITH THE DEFINITION OF SELF-DEFENCE AS A LAWFUL USE OF FORCEactions by the Russian Federation violatedarticle 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibiting use offorce. Furthermore, the rights to self-defencecannot justify these actions, either underconventional or customary international law.As already previously mentioned, article 51of the UN Charter is applicable only in caseswhen one state carries out an armed attackagainst another; while the incidents in socalledSouth Ossetia, constituting an integralpart of the state of Georgia and recognized bythe international community as such, cannotbe considered to be an “armed attack” underthe meaning of article 51. At the same time,the actions by the Russian Federation are notin line with the requirements of proportionalityand necessity – the problem could have beenresolved by alternative diplomatic means.The military actions caused damages onthe entire territory of Georgia, including civilobjects. It goes without saying that the attackon civilians is a violation of humanitarian law,more specifi cally, a fundamental principle ofhumanitarian law – the principle of distinction. 39On the other hand, the use force by Georgiawas completely in line with the requirementsof proportionality and necessity. The RussianFederation argued that the Georgian troopsattacked Russian peacekeepers and forcedthem to resort to self-defence. However, thisargument is groundless due to the followingfactors: 1) there was no real and directattack on peacekeepers; and 2) even if theRussian peacekeepers had been subjectedto damage accompanying the armed attack ofGeorgian troops against Ossetian separatists’armed groups, then only the peacekeepersthemselves would have been entitled to theright of individual self-defence.International fact-fi nding commission (theConclusion of Tagliavini Commission) alsoshares the opinion that attacks by the RussianFederation go beyond the boundaries of andviolates requirements of proportionality andnecessity. 40If we go further than the right to selfdefencein regards to the actions carried outby Russian Federation, we should mentionedthat we cannot agree with the Russian Federation argument that Russia had the right tohumanitarian intervention as contemporaryinternational law does not recognise humanitarianintervention as a lawful basis for theuse of force. However, theory and practicehas elaborated a set of requirements andpreconditions for the act of intervention to beclassifi ed as humanitarian intervention. Themost common preconditions for humanitarianintervention are the following: a) mass andgrave violations of human rights; b) all formsof dispute settlement under international laware exhausted; c) intervention is proportional. 41Obviously, the foregoing preconditions didnot exist during the military operation of theRussian Federation in August 2008.Accordingly, we consider actions of theRussian Federation against Georgia to bethe acts of aggression as defi ned in the UNGeneral Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX)on Defi nition of Aggression. The Resolutiondefi nes that an act of aggression, inter alia,shall constitute the following: “The invasionor attack by the armed forces of a State ofthe territory of another State, or any militaryoccupation, however temporary, resulting fromsuch invasion or attack, or any annexation bythe use of force of the territory of another Stateor part thereof”. 42Base on the aforementioned, we mayconclude that the Russian Federation violatedfundamental principles of international law,specifi cally: sovereign equality of states,territorial integrity of states, prohibition of useof force or threat to use force, the duty notto intervene in matters within the domesticjurisdiction of any state.PREVENTIVE SELF-DEFENCEThe most controversial issue concerningthe defi nition of self-defence would be“preventive” self-defence. 43 The question hereis whether states are entitled to the right ofself-defence only after armed attack “occurs,”under article 51 of the UN Charter, or this rightis broader and may be exercised for preventivepurposes when a state envisages possiblearmed attack. The answer to this questionis controversial and has caused problems indefi ning article 51 of the UN Charter – whether53

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010this article provides for the right of pre-emptiveself-defence or preventive arrack if a state isconvinced or believes (before attacked bymilitary forces of other state) that another stateis prepared to carry out armed attack againstit. 44First of all we should seek the “good faith”interpretation of article 51 in accordance with1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties(article 31). There is no evidence that statesintended to include preventive self-defence inthe meaning of article 51.Those supporting the right to pre-emptiveself-defence argue it is unrealistic that statesare obliged to wait until armed attack occursagainst it; 45 the counterargument would bethat a state may be mistaken in its judgmentson the intentions of another state or adoptnon-proportional measures. 46 As the defi nitionof armed attack develops on the immensepotential of modern arms, the vacuum betweenthese two positions should be brought to aminimum.The author of this article considers itinadmissible to recognise and allow the rightto preventive self-defence, as it can apply tomany states and has great potential of abuse.In addition, there is always a great risk thatthe intention of other states is not understoodproperly and existence to such a right maylead us to the waging of new wars.PROTECTION OF NATIONALS ABROADThe State duty – to protect its nationals,notwithstanding the interest of other states –is a primary obligation; 47 however such an actshall not be considered as self-defence undercustomary law. 48Some argue that international law doesnot recognise the right of states to protect itsnationals abroad, while the practice showsthat some states evaluate the protectionof nationals abroad in the context of selfdefence.49The protection of nationals without theconsent of the state sovereign is very rare afterWorld War II and only few states adopted suchpractice. 50 Modern customary internationallaw established a set of criteria for the lawfulprotection of nationals abroad: (1) failure orinability on the part of the territorial sovereignto protect them; (2) eminent threat of injuryto nationals; (3) no other peaceful means fortheir rescue exists, all of them are exhaustedor they cannot be employed - use of forceshould be the last resort; (4) use of forcehas only one goal – protection of nationals;(5) use of force is proportional to the threatand danger; 6) a state shall use force that isreasonably necessary to protect its citizensand shall leave the territory of another state assoon as possible; (7) a state that used forceabroad shall immediately notify the UNSC andexplain in detail the reasons and argumentsfor the use of force. 51The protection of nationals abroad seemsto be an outdated concept as no cases can betraced back for 10 years. Yet, article 61 of theConstitution of the Russian Federation states:“The Russian Federation shall guaranteeprotection of its nationals abroad”; 52 however,the Russian Federation cannot justify itsattacks against Georgia by this statement(bearing in mind the previous considerations).We consider that protection of nationalsabroad or intervention is likely to be abused bystates and be employed to justify other goalsof big powers.Despite the importance and signifi canceof the protection of nationals abroad, thestates have to be cautious and scrutinize andevaluate threats emanating from their actionsand strictly observe the criteria established bythe customary and conventional internationallaw.SELF-DEFENCE AGAINST TERRORISMIn response to the terrorist attacks ofSeptember 11, 2001 on the World TradeCentre and Pentagon, on October 7, 2001,the USA launched the military operation,“Operation Enduring Freedom” in Afghanistan.The US offi cials claimed the legal basis forthis operation was the right to self-defenceand notifi ed the UNSC that its actions werewithin article 51 of the UN Charter. Involved inthis military operation from its early stage, theUnited Kingdom also argued that they acted in54

Z. SANIKIDZE, PROBLEMS WITH THE DEFINITION OF SELF-DEFENCE AS A LAWFUL USE OF FORCEline with individual and collective self-defence.The arguments of the USA and the UKseemed controversial as there was no answerto the question whether states were entitled toexercise the right to self-defence in responseto terrorist acts previously ensued; yet thismilitary operation gained huge support andwas considered almost universally to be selfdefence.In response of the attacks carried outagainst the United States, The North AtlanticTreaty Organization (NATO), a member ofwhich is the United States, referred to article 5of the NATO Charter: “…that an armed attackagainst one or more of them in Europe orNorth America shall be considered an attackagainst them all…” 53 . Other internationalorganizations also agreed that the attack waslaunched as a collective self-defence. TheEU, China, Russia, Japan and Pakistan alsomaintained such an approach, 54 as even morestates actively supported the operation. OnlyIraq and Iran challenged the lawfulness ofthis military operation. The UNSC Resolution1368 dated September 12, 2001 recognized“the inherent right of individual or collectiveself-defence in accordance with the Charter”.Two months later the UNSC adopted anotherresolution concerning terrorist acts (Resolution1373 on Threats to international peace andsecurity caused by terrorist acts) – that alsoreaffi rmed an inherent right to collective andindividual self-defence. It was the fi rst instancewhen the UNSC recognized that use of forceagainst terrorist acts was an exercise of selfdefence.55Use of force in response of terrorist actsusually differs from the classic use of force. Itseems that the huge support of states to theUS claims concerning self-defence created anew rule of customary international law andestablished a new interpretation of the UNCharter. If this were true, it would signifi cantlybroaden the justifi cations for use of force.Initially, article 51 was drafted to allow useof force in response to armed attack by onestate against another and resulted in stateresponsibility. Now it seems controversialwhether terrorist acts committed by individuals,acting in their own capacity, could be consideredas an “armed attack” under article51 that would justify military actions againsta state supporting the terrorists; however,it is still unclear what is the extent of stateinvolvement justifying military action. 56Obviously, necessity and need are stillimportant in this context. The bombing of AlQaeda and the Taliban regime continued forseveral months. At the very initial stage ofOperation Enduring Freedom, the US issueda statement in which the war against terrorismcould last for several years. Again the questionarises: where is the line between necessityand proportionality of self-defence and abuseof this right? Unfortunately, such a margin isnot clearly identifi ed. If the campaign aimed atpreventing future terrorist acts is launched, it isdiffi cult to predict when it will come to an end;however the longer such a campaign lastsand the more destruction is brought about, themore diffi cult it is to argue that the campaignis proportional. If use of force appears to beineffective in preventing terrorist attacks, it isalso hard to claim its necessity. 57COLLECTIVE SELF-DEFENCECollective self-defence, together with individualself-defence, is enshrined in the UNCharter that provides the same legal basis forthem both; that collective, as well as individualself-defence may be exercised when armedattack occurs against a state. The right ofcollective self-defence is a milestone defi nitionfor military alliances such as NATO and itsCharter which states “that an armed attackagainst one or more of …[member state] …shall be considered an attack against themall and consequently they agree that, if suchan armed attack occurs, each of them, inexercise of the right of individual or collectiveself-defence recognised by Article 51 of theCharter of the United Nations, will assist theParty or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith,individually and in concert with the otherParties, such action as it deems necessary,including the use of armed force, to restoreand maintain the security of the North Atlanticarea”. 58 The same approach was reaffi rmed in55

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010the Nicaragua case by the majority of judgeswho stated that a state shall declare itself “as avictim of armed attack” and request help fromother state. 59 There is no rule of internationallaw entitling a state to resort to collective selfdefencebased on its own evaluation of facts. 60Accordingly, collective self-defence is not ajoint use of individual rights, but it is a collectiveaction in response to armed attack by onestate, provided the “victim state” requested forassistance via an authorised representative.THE UN SC ROLEThe UN SC holds a central role in exercisingcollective and individual self-defence. TheUNSC should be immediately informed on themeasures under collective or individual selfdefenceas states may exercise the right toself-defence temporarily or up to the momentwhen the UNSC adopts measures necessaryto maintain international peace and security.The goal of the UN Charter was to limit theuse of force by states as well as to centralisethe use of force under the UN. It is clear theUNSC has the power to adopt measuresnecessary to suspend the exercise of selfdefence.However, many disputes have arisendue to an absence of an explicit defi nition ofself-defence by the UN SC. 61 In practice, theUN SC does not make statements on thelegality of claims on self-defence. During theIran-Iraq (1980-1988) and Ethiopia-Eritrea(1998-2000) confl icts, the UN SC did notdiscuss state responsibility for starting theconfl ict and accordingly did not decide on whohad the right to self-defence. Yet, in 1990, whenIraq invaded in Kuwait, the UN SC confi rmedKuwait’s right to self-defence. 62The UNSC may choose one of the followingactions: 1) confi rm the right to self-defence;2) demand a state to cease-fi re; 3) demand astate to withdraw its forces from the territory ofanother state; 4) demand a state to terminateself-defence actions and their replacement bythe measures of collective security; 5) make adecision that the state acting under the right toself-defence is an aggressor. Whatever actionis chosen by the UN SC, the decision thereonshall be binding for UN Member States. 63CONCLUSIONThe article briefl y reviewed the creationof international legal regulations for the useof force before and after the adoption of theUN Charter. The main issue of the article wasa discussion of article 51 of the UN Charter.We also discussed the defi nitions of individualand collective self-defence together withexamples and prerequisites for the exercise ofthe mentioned rights and the core role of theUN SC.The author attempted to clarify the questionsconcerning the defi nition of the rightto self-defence. It is obvious there are manyuncertainties related to interpretations of theuse of force and self-defence. States do nothave a unifi ed approach, which results inproblems in practice. The existing uncertaintiesshould be regulated to avoid internationalcrises; the author considers that the bestsolution is UN effective action, which is vitalin avoiding abuse and unilateral broadening ofrights enshrined in the Charter by the statesaffecting others. If cases of abuse arise, theresponse of the international communityshould be correspondingly strict; the mainissue in such cases is to prevent other statesfrom repeating the same abusive actions. Tothis end the UN should impose strict sanctionsunder article 41 of the UN Charter upon thestate(s) violating the Charter.Political and legal goals of states andcorresponding actions should not prevailover principles and rules of international law.That shall be a milestone for enacting andestablishing justice.There exists an explicit issue for contemplation:What actions are to prevent abuse ofthe use of force? And again the goal shall bethe same – the protection of the communityand the earth in general from wars or anyconfl icts, which is one of the main goals of theUnited Nations - the protection of internationalpeace and security.As a conclusion we state that states shallalways act in line with UN charter principlesand goals and abstain from any actionendangering international peace and security.56

Z. SANIKIDZE, PROBLEMS WITH THE DEFINITION OF SELF-DEFENCE AS A LAWFUL USE OF FORCE1Martin Dixon, Textbook on International Law, third addition, p. 277.2Ibid, p.278.3Ibid, p. 279.4Antonio Cassese, International Law, Oxford University Publication, second edition,p. 37.5Francois Bugnion Just wars, wars of aggression and international humanitarianlaw, International Review of the Red Cross , September 2002, No 847, volume 84,p. 523-546.6The UN Charter, Article 2, para. 4.7Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. UnitedStates of America, (merits - ICJ Reports (1986) 14, para. 14.8Supra note 1, p. 281.9ibid, p. 282.10Ibid, p. 283.11Supra note 6, art. 1.1.12Momir Milojevic, Prohibition of the Use of Force and Threats in InternationalRelations, Law and Politics, volume 1, 5, p. 594.13Yoram Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self-defence, Cambridge UniversityPublications, fourth edition, p. 175.14Supra note 6, art. 51.15Supra note 1, p. 284.16Ibid, p. 285.17The Caroline Case 29 BFSP 1137-1138; 30 BFSP 195-196.18Letter of Daniel Webster to Lord Eshbarton (August 5, 1842), 29 British andForeign Documents 1129, 1138 (1840.1).19Supra note 1, p. 286.20Brownlie, I., Humanitarian Intervention’ in Moore. J.N., Law and Civil War in theModern World, John Hopkins University Publication, 1974, p. 176.21Supra note 7, paras. 202-209.22Ibid.23Greig, “Self-defence and the Security Council” What Does Article 51 Require?”,1991, 40 ICLQ 366.24Supra note 4, p. 355.25S. A. Alexandrov, Self-defence Against the Use of Force in International Law,Kluwer Law International, 1996, 77.26Supra note 7, paras. 202-209.27Christine Gray, International Law and the Use of Force, Oxford UniversityPublications, third addition, p. 130.28Supra note 7, para. 195.29See Security Council Resolution 1358 (2001) and Resolution 1272 (2001) at http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2001/sc2001.htm.30Christine Gray, The Use of Force and International Legal Order, in Malcolm D.Evans (ed.), International Law, Oxford University Publication, second edition, p600.31Supra note 7, paras. 202-209.32Oil Platforms case (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America) ICJReports 2003, p. 161.33Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (advisory opinion) ICJ reports1996, p. 226.34Supra note 13, p. 199.35Michael N. Schmitt, Counter-Terrorism and the Use of Force in International Law,George C. Marshal European Centre for Security Studies, Paper No 5, p. 17.36Supra note 7, paras 202-209.37Supra note 33, p. 161.38Supra note 32, p 226, paras. 14157

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 201039Additional Protocol I to Geneva Conventions, art. 48.40International fact-fi nding commission (the Conclusion of Tagliavini Commission),para. 25.41Supra note 4, p. 370.42UN GA Resolution 3314(XXIX) 1974 on Defi nition of Aggression, art. 3(a) at http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/739/16/IMG/NR073916.pdf?OpenElement)43The supporters of preventive self-defence are for example, the US, UK. Theyclaimed that a state must have the right to preventive self-defence, e.i. the rightto anticipate the possible attack and for preventive purposes exercise the right toself-defence.44Supra note 30, p.605.45Ibid, p. 606.46Ibid p. 607.47John M Rothgeb Jr. Defi ning Power - Infl uence and Force in the ContemporaryInternational System (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1993) p. 62.48Rosalyn Higgins, Intervention and International Law, in Hedley Bull (ed.),Intervention in World Politics (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1984) p. 38.49M. Shaw, International Law, Cambridge University Publications, fi fth edition, p.132-133.50For example, Israel claim of justifi cation for the use of force at Entebbe airport; theUS action in Grenada in 1983, in Panama in 1989 and against Iraq in 1993; theintervention of UK in Suez in 1956.51Supra note 4, p. 368.52The Constitution of the Russian Federation, art. 61, unoffi cial translation.53The NATO Charter, art. 5.54Edited by Malcolm D. Evans, International Law, Oxford University Publication,second edition, p. 601.55Ibid, p. 602.56Ibid, p. 603.57Ibid, p. 604.58Supra note 53, art. 5.59Supra note 54, p. 605.60Supra note 27, p. 169.61Higgins, The Development of International Law through the Political Organs of theUN (1963), p. 198, 206.62Supra note 30, p. 605.63Supra note 13, p. 214.58

ivane abaSiZeltolvilTa dacva erTiani evropuli TavSesafrissistemis pirobebSi. Sesabamisoba ltolvilTasaerTaSoriso da adamianis uflebaTa samarTalTan1. Sesavali1999 wlis 1 maiss, amsterdamis Se-Tanxmebis ZalaSi Sesvlis Semdeg, samar-TalSemoqmedeba evropul saimigraciosamarTalSi sruliad axali gamowvevebiswinaSe dadga. sxva problemaTa SorisTavSesafris sakiTxi yvelaze didi simwvaviTdaisva. Semdgom wlebSi wevrisaxelmwifoebis TanamSromlobam samTavrobaTaSorisodoneze, evrokavSirissadamfuZneblo SeTanxmebis 1 IV nawilisSesabamisad, `vizebze, TavSesafarze,imi graciasa da sxva pirTa TavisufalgadaadgilebasTan dakavSirebul sakiTxebze~Camoayaliba is ZiriTadi safuZvlebi,romlebic samarTlebrivad zRudavsda adgens minimalur standartebszogierT TavSesafarTan dakavSirebulsakiTxze.TavSesafris sakiTxebze evro ka v -Siris midgomebis gadatana Sida sa xelmwifoebriv samarTalSi ar aris, ubralod, keTili Jesti wevri saxelmwifoebismxridan. aRniSnuli faqti ayalibebssamarTlebriv bunebas sakiTxTamTel rigze, maTi ganmartebis erTianisistemis CaTvliT, im unikaluri samarTlebrivisistemis CarCoebSi, romelsacevrokavSiris samarTali ewodeba. amasaqvs gansakuTrebuli mniSvneloba individebisaTvis,radgan aseTi midgoma maTiuflebebis dacvis mniSvnelovani garantiaa,maTi aRsrulebis CaTvliT. 2amsterdamis SeTanxmebis ZalaSi Sesvlis Semdeg TavSesafris sakiTxi ganxilul iqna 15-16 oqtombers tampe reSi,evrokomisiis Sexvedraze. saxelmwifo-Ta meTaurebi SeTanxmdnen politiku risaxelmZRvanelo principebis mi Re bisTaobaze, raTa SesaZlebeli yofi liyosamuSaoTa warmarTva evropis ga er TianebisdamfuZnebeli SeTanxmebis (SemdgomSi– TEC) IV nawilze samarTlebrividRis wesrigis SesamuSaveblad.ev rokavSiri, Tavis mxriv, mivida gadawyvetilebamde,Seqmniliyo erTiani evropuliTavSesafris sistema CommonEuropean Asylum System (SemdgomSi –CEAS), romelic daefuZna gaeros 1949wlis Jenevis ltolvilTa konvenciissrul da yovlismomcvel ganmartebas,rom `aravin SeiZleba dabrunebuliqnes dasasjelad~. 3 aRsaniSnavia, rom esstrategia miemarTeba mesame saxelmwifoebsac,romlebic moisurveben aRniSnuliRonisZiebebis gatarebas. 4ramdenime Tvis Semdeg, 2000 wlisivnisSi, portugaliis prezidentobisas,evrokavSirma da evropis komisiamerToblivad moawyves lisabonis konferenciaTavSesafris sakiTxebze, – `er-Tiani evropuli TavSesafris sistemisperspeqtivebi~, – sadac komisiam, wevrmasaxelmwifoebma, gaeros ltolvilTaumaR lesma komisariatma (SemdgomSi –UNHCR) da arasamTavrobo organizaciebmaimsjeles TavSesafris erTianiev ropuli sistemis mniSvnelovan sakiTxebze,konkretulad ki, erTian procedurulisistemaze TavSesafarTandakavSirebiT da im pirTa samarTlebriv59

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010statusze, romlebic saWiroeben saerTa-Soriso dacvas. Sexvedraze miRebul iqnagadawyvetileba, dawyebuliyo TEC-is IVTavSi gawerili sakanonmdeblo uflebamosilebaTaganxorcieleba sistemis samarTlebrivistruqturis gansaviTareblad,`tamperes daskvnebis~ mixedviT,rac gamoixata evrokomisiis komunikeSi:`evropis kavSirSi moqmedi ZiriTadisakiTxebi TavSesafris erTiani evropulisistemis proceduruli da samarTlebrivistatusis Sesaxeb, TavSesafrismaZieblebTan mimarTebiT~. 5 miuxedavadimisa, rom es problema arcTu ise xSiradganixileba, igi Seicavs winaaRmdegobrivsakiTxebs, romlebmac ramdenime wlisSemdeg iCines Tavi, magaliTad, iseTisakiTxi, rogoricaa TavSesafris moTxovniseqstrateritoriuli moqmedebaevrokavSiris farglebs gareT. 6sadamfuZneblo dokumentze dayrdno biT, tamperes daskvnebi da lisaboniskonferenciis Sedegebi aisaxaevrokomisiis 2000 wlis noembris komunikeSi,romliTac evrokavSiri, Tavismxriv, iwyebda CEAS-is ganviTarebas, evrokomisiissamarTlebrivi saqmianobisfarglebSi.mniSvnelovania imis analizi, ramdenadracionaluria CEAS-is ganviTareba.evropuli integraciis procesi Tav-Sesafris sakiTxebze calsaxad ukav-Sirdeba erTiani bazris dafuZnebas saz-Rvrebis gareSe. erTiani ekonomikurisivrce moiTxovs Sida sazRvrebis waSlasmis wevr saxelmwifoebs Soris, raTaSesaZlebeli gaxdes pirebis, kapitalisada saqonlis Tavisufali gadaadgileba.aRniSnulis dafuZnebasTan erTad mniSvnelovanixdeba ara ukve Sida sazRvrebis,aramed evrokavSiris gare sazRvrebiskontroli, raTa SeCerebul iqnesgarkveuli kategoriis pirebis moZraoba(maTi CaTvliT, vinc arRvevs sasazRvroreJims), agreTve kapitalisa (romelicmoicavs kriminaluri saqmianobisSedegad mopovebul qonebriv sikeTes)da saqonlisa. anu saerTo bazris SeqmnasazRvrebis gareSe warmoSobs problemassasazRvro kontrolSi, kerZod,unda SemuSavdes pirobebi, romliTacsxva qveynis moqalaqeebs gadaadgilebaSeeZlebaT sazRvris miRma dacvis garantiebismisaRebad, miuxedavad imisa, isiniakrZalul pirTa kategoriaSi xvdebianTu ara. 7evrokavSiris damokidebuleba Tav-Sesafris sakiTxebTan mimarTebiT gamoixatebaerTiani meqanizmis SeqmnaSi. esdamokidebuleba nakarnaxevia ara pirTasaerTaSoriso dacvis motiviT, aramedayalibebs erTian sistemas im pirTa mimarT(ltolvilia is Tu ara), romlebicSedian erTian ekonomikur evrozonaSi.aRniSnuli racionalizmi gaakritikesara mxolod UNHCR-ma da arasamTavroboorganizaciebma, ara med evropelma kanonmdeblebmac.evropis saparlamento asambleamgamoxata ukiduresad uaryofiTidamokidebuleba evrokavSiris xedvaze,Tu rogor unda gakontrolebuliyo misisazRvrebi da daculiyo misi ekonomikuriinteresebi: `sasazRvro kontrolida qmedebebi aralegaluri migraciisgandasacavad unda iyos mxolod erTerTinawili midgomisa ara evrokavSirismoqalaqeTa mimarT da ara ZiriTadistrategia ... [da] ... evrokavSirma misisaimigracio politika ar unda ganixilosmxolod ekonomikuri interesebisWrilSi, magram mxedvelobaSi unda iqnesmiRebuli mizezebi, romlebic zRudavenmigrantebs emigraciisas~. 8sazRvrebis kontrolis politikis,rogorc `procesis~, misi zedmiwevniTbunebriobidan gamomdinare, kanonmdeblobisenaze `Targmna~ da kanonmdeblobaSiasaxva arRvevs da araTanabarmdgomareobaSi ayenebs im saxelmwifoebs,romlebTanac wlebis ganmavlobaSi yalibdebodaormxrivi Tu mravalmxriviurTierToba. saerTo mdgomareobis ase-Ti saxiT cvlileba iwvevs mxolod erTSedegs – sazRvrebis gauqmebasa da maTsaRar gakontrolebas. ararealuria saz-Rvrebis `Caketva~ mxolod evropuliqveynebis sasargeblod, radgan pirebi,romlebic toveben TavianTi warmoSobisqveyanas (romelTanac moqmedebs savizoreJimi, an evrokavSiris mxridan60

i. abaSiZe, ltolvilTa dacva erTiani evropuli TavSesafris sistemis pirobebSi. Sesabamisoba...sanqciebi), gadadian evrokavSirSi da,Sesabamisad, usafrTxo mesame qveyanaSi.xolo Tuki es ar xerxdeba, mxolod evrokavSirisis sasazRvro wevri saxelmwifoiqneba pasuxismgebeli TavSesafrismicemaze, romelmac ver SeZlo evrokav-Siris gare sazRvris gakontroleba. 9winamdebare kvleva fokusirebas moaxdenssamarTlebriv sakiTxebze, romlebicSeexeba Sidaevropuli Tav Sesafrissistemis dafuZnebas. CEAS-isganviTarebis pirvelma stadiam dagvanaxva,rom saerTaSorisosamarTlebrivadTavSesafris micemaze pasuxismgebeliaara evrokavSiri, aramed wevrisaxelmwifo. kompetenciebis gadasvla(maT Soris, suverenitetisac) wevrisaxelmwifos mxridan (romelic saerTa-Soriso samarTlis subieqtia da saer-TaSorisosamarTlebrivad mxolod misiqmedebani fasdeba adamianis uflebaTadacvis sferoSi) saerTaSoriso organizaciaze(evrokavSiri), romelic araris wevri arcerTi adamianis uflebaTadamcavi saerTaSorisosamarTlebriviin s titutisa, warmoSva problema – wevrisa xelmwifo SezRudulia evrokavSiriskanonmdeblobis SesrulebiT, magramagreTve pasuxs agebs misi saerTaSorisodaRebuli valdebulebisTvisac.warmodgenili kvlevis mizania, gaaanalizosSida evropuli sivrce, sadacSeTanxmebebiT gaTvaliswinebuliltolvilTa kategoriebisaTvis gar -kv e uli pirobebis arsebobisas Sida sazRvrebi transformirebulia kvazier-Tpirovnul iurisdiqciaSi. amave dros,wevri saxelmwifo axorcielebs erTpirovnuliurisdiqcias saerTaSorisosamarTlebrivad,ramdenadac individualuradagebs pasuxs saerTaSorisoltolvilTa da adamianis uflebaTasamarTlis mixedviT. problema ori ku-TxiT SeiZleba davayenoT: pirveli, SesaZloa,sadavo iyos sakiTxi imis Taobaze,rom, rodesac wevrma saxelmwifommoaxdina evrokomisiis TavSesafrisSesaxeb kanonmdeblobis implementacia,mas aqvs valdebuleba da pasuxismgebloba,ltolvilTa saerTaSoriso samarTlismixedviT; meore, wevri saxelmwifoebismxridan evrokavSirisaTvisiurisdiqciis gadacema maTi valdebulebebisdarRvevaa, rogorc ltolvilTaSidasaxelmwifoebrivi samarTlis kuTxiT,aseve ltolvilTa saerTaSorisosamarTlis mixedviT da, garkveulSemTxvevebSi, adamianis uflebaTa saer-TaSoriso samarTliTac.qvemoT ganxiluli iqneba kompromisi,romelic SesaZloa miRweul iqnesCEAS-is implementaciisas, raTa ardairRves wevri saxelmwifoebis saerTa-SorisosamarTlebrivi valdebulebani.Semdgom ganvixilavT wevri saxelmwifoebisvaldebulebaTa SezRudvas evrokavSirissamarTalTan mimarTebiT,raTa CEAS-is implementacia Sesabamisiiyos saerTaSorisosamarTlebrivad aRebulivaldebulebebisa. samarTlebriviTvalsazrisiT analizis safuZvelzeganvixilavT `minimaluri standartebis~garantirebas TavSesafris sakiTxebTanmimarTebiT; Semdgom ganvixilavTltolvilTa sakiTxebze wevri saxelmwifoebisiurisdiqciis evrokavSirze gadasvlas;daskvnaSi ki SevajamebT ganxilulproblematikas.2. TavSesafris erTiani evropulisistema – CEASTavSesafris erTiani evropuli sistemisdafuZneba aris pirTa Tavi sufaligadaadgilebis garanti kavSiris SigniT.am konteqstSi umniSvnelovanesi mizaniaTEC-is IV Tavis miznebis ganxorcieleba,kerZod: `Camoyalibdes Tavisuflebis,usafrTxoebisa da samarTlis progresuliareali~ (61-e muxli).TavSesafris sakiTxebi mowesrigebuliaTEC-is 63-e muxlSi:`komisia, moqmedi 67-e muxlSi gaweriliprocedurebis Sesa ba misad, 5 wlisganmavlobaSi amsterdamis SeTanxmebisZalaSi Sesvlis Semdgom, ganaxorcielebs:1. RonisZiebebs Tav Sesa far Tan da kav-Si rebiT, Jenevis 1951 wlis 28 ivlisislto lvilTa statusis Sesaxeb kon-61

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010venciis, 1967 wlis 31 ianvris damatebiTioqmisa da sxva mniSvnelovaniSeTanxmebebis Sesabamisad, Semdeg sakiTxebze:(a) im kriteriumebisa da meqanizmebisgansasazRvravad, Tu romeliwevri saxelmwifoa pasuxismgebeli,ganacxadis ganxilvaze, romelicganxorcielebul iqna mesameqveynis moqalaqis mier erT-erTwevr saxelmwifoSi,(b) minimaluri standartebi Tav SesafrismaZiebelTa misaRebad wevrsaxelmwifoebSi,(c) minimaluri standartebi mesameqveynis moqalaqeTa ltolvilebadmisaCnevad,(d) minimaluri standartebis procedurebzewevr saxelmwifoTaTvisltolvilis statusis misaniWebladan mosaxsnelad~.rogorc zemoT moyvanili muxlidanCans, amsterdamis xelSekrulebaadasturebs im miznebs, romlebic ukveganviTarebulia saxelmwifoTa praqtikiT,raTa ganisazRvros ltolvilissta tusi da TavSesafari. es institutiTavidanve orientirebulia im pirTadacvaze, romlebic CamoTvlilia `1951wlis Jenevis konvenciaSi ltolvilTastatusis Sesaxeb” 10 (SemdgomSi – `Jeneviskonvencia~), 1A muxlSi da ara im pirebisdasacavad, romlebic ver xvdebian amkonvenciiT dacul pirTa kategoriaSi,Tumca xvdebian adamianis uflebaTa damcavsxva saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebeb-Si. 63-e muxlis II punqti adgens kategoriaTagamijvnas:`RonisZiebebi ltolvilebisa dagadaadgilebul pirTa mimarT:(a) minimaluri standartebi droebiTidacvis misaniWeblad mesame qveynidangadaadgilebul pirebze, romelTacar SeuZliaT da b runeba maTi warmo-Sobis qveyanaSi da im pirebis mimarT,romlebic sxva garemoebaTa gamosaWiroeben saerTaSoriso dacvas~.muxlSi gaJRerebuli ormagi dacvismizani asaxulia direqtivaSi: `pirebi,romlebic saWiroeben saerTaSorisodacvas~. 11 aRniSnuli gansazRvravs pir-Ta or kategorias, romlebic saWiroebensaerTaSoriso dacvas: pirveli,Jenevis konvenciiT gansazRvruli pirebida, meore, romlebic, Tumca ar arianltolvilebi Jenevis konvenciis mixedviT,SeuZliaT moiTxovon saerTaSorisodacva sxva safuZvlebiTac, adamianisuflebaTa saerTaSoriso samarTlis mixedviT.direqtiva aris Semxvedri SesaZ lebloba,raTa erTi niSnis qveS gaerTiandnenJenevis konvenciiT daculi pirebida, agreTve, pirebi, romlebic amavekonvenciis mixedviT ar eqvemdebarebianltolvilis statuss. es direqtiva saer-TaSoriso samarTlis erT-erTi mniSvnelovanimonapovaria, vinaidan erTianistatusis SeqmniT gafarTovda daculpirTa wre saerTaSoriso samarTalSi.aseTi xedva ar aris ucxo ganviTarebulisaxelmwifoebisaTvis. amerikisSeerTebuli Statebi da kanada mihyvebianam praqtikas da, agreTve, zogierTievropuli saxelmwifoc, maT Soris espaneTi1994 wlis reformebis Semdeg. 12xsenebul direqtivasTan mimarTebiT,damatebiT SegviZlia vTqvaT, rompirveli samarTlebrivad mboWavi instrumentiTavSesafris uflebasa damigraciis sakiTxebze aris logikurisaTave CEAS-ze SeTanxmebis ganxorcielebasTandakavSirebuli 1999–2004wlebSi gamocemuli Semdegi direqtivebisa:`droebiTi dacvis Sesaxeb masobrivigadaadgilebisas~; 13 `miRebis kriteriumebiTavSesafris maZiebelTaTvis~; 14`procedura ltolvilis statusis misaniWebladda mosaxsnelad~, 15 agreTve,e.w. `dublinis regulacia~, romelicmoicavs wevr saxelmwifoTa pasuxismgeblobasTavSesafris maZieblebTan dakav-SirebiT. 16CEAS-is pirveli fazis dasrulebisas,evrokomisiis Sexvedraze 2004 wlisnoemberSi miRebul iqna `haagis programa~,romelic ayalibebs saxelmZRvaneloprincipebs CEAS-is II fazis gansaviTareblad:62

i. abaSiZe, ltolvilTa dacva erTiani evropuli TavSesafris sistemis pirobebSi. Sesabamisoba...`CEAS-is miznebi misi ganxor cielebismeore fazaSi iqneba erTianipro ceduruli sistemis Ca mo yalibebaTavSesafris sakiTxebTan mimarTebiTda samarTlebrivi statusis dadgena impirTaTvis, romlebic saWiroeben Tav-Sesafars an subsidiur dacvasac. es daefuZnebasrul da yovlismomcvel JenevisltolvilTa statusis Sesaxeb ko -nvenciasa da sxva saerTaSori so samarTlebrivadmniSvnelovan xelSekrulebebs,da Seiqmneba pirvel fazaSi SemuSavebulsamarTlebriv institutebze dayrd nobiT~.17mandati srulad dafuZnebulia tamperesdaskvnebze, lisabonis konferenciazeda 2000 wlis noembris komunikeze.Sesabamisad, evropis komisia uflebamosilia,daiwyos meore faza, `raTaSeiqmnas instrumentebi da gatardesRonisZiebebi 2010 wlis bolomde, amisSemdeg ki sabolood mas daamtkicebsevroparlamenti~. 18agreTve, TEC-is IV nawilis miznebisaRsasruleblad aucilebelia CEAS-isamsterdamis SeTanxmebis sistemaze dafuZnebac.Tumca instrumentebis samarTlebrivibuneba, romlebic miRebuliqna rogorc evrokomisiis meoradikanonmdebloba, jer ar ganxilula. urTierTqmedebisaTvisdafuZnebul iqna adhoc sistema, romelic samTavrobaTaSorisodoneze muSaobis Sedegia da arisgaranti im maRali kontrolis meqanizmebisa,romlebic aqvT wevr saxelmwifoebssakanonmdeblo procesze. CEAS-is meorefaza ukve miCneulia rogorc evrokomisiisCveulebrivi sakanonmdebloSemoqmedeba. 19 gadawyvetilebis miRebisprocesi, romelic gamoiyeneboda pirvelfazaze, aris mniSvnelovani Sedegi imSeTanxmebebisa, romlebic miRweul iqnasaxelmwifoebs Soris da aRniSnulia zemoT.TEC-is 67-e muxlis 1-li punqti adgens,rom komisias ar aqvs iniciativiswamoyenebis eqskluziuri ufleba, magramaRniSnuls axorcielebs wevrisaxelmwifoebis meSveobiT. iniciativismisaRebad saWiroa wevr saxelmwifoTaerTsulovani mxardaWera. aRniSnulifaqti wevr saxelmwifos aZlevs vetosdadebis efeqtian uflebas. evroparlamentisroli SezRudulia konsultaciebiT,Tumca praqtikaSi am ukanasknelsaciSviaTad mimarTaven. evropis kavSirisevropuli sasamarTlos (SemdgomSi –`evropuli sasamarTlo~) iurisdiqciaagreTve Sez Rudulia, Tumca sabWo organizebasukeTebda yvela im instrumentismiRebas, romlebic gansazRvruliqna sadamfuZneblo SeTanxmebis 5-wlianvadaSi.daZabuloba evrokavSiris institutebsSoris naTlad gamoCnda parlamentis gadawyvetilebaSi sabWosa dakomisiis 20 winaaRmdeg e.w. Family Reu nification Directive 21 -Si adamianis uflebebzedayrdnobiT da direqtivaSi `Tav-Sesafris procedurebis Sesaxeb~, 22 sadacparlamenti calsaxad miuTiTebs,inter alia, darRvevaze keTilsindisieriTanamSromlobis Taobaze. 23mniSvnelovania daskvna, romelicyovelive zemoTqmulidan gamomdinareobs,rom dava kompetenciebis gamijvnazewarmoSobilia proceduruliTvalsazrisiT da ara Sinaarsobriv sakiTxebze,Tumca kanonSemoqmedebis procesSievropuli parlamentis amoRebaqmediTi institutebidan da misi mxolodkonsultirebis doneze dayvana saerTodeWvs badebs misi arsebobis Taobaze.2.1. evrokavSiris xedvis sagareo moqmedeba– dacvis eqsportirogorc zemoT aRiniSna, tamperessabWom gadawyvita, rom ganviTarebuliyoSida evropuli TavSesafris sistema,romelic daicavda mesame qveynebis interesebsac.idea ar iyo axali – evrokavSirisadrindeli gancxadebebi migraciis mizezebzemoicavda mSvidobis dacvas dasaomari konfliqtebis dasrulebas, adamianisuflebaTa pativiscemas, demokratiulisazogadoebis mSeneblobas daliberaluri savaWro politikis warmoebas.2463

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010samarTlisa da saSinao saqmeebis(SemdgomSi – JHA Extrenal Dimension) saz-RvargareT gavrceleba mxardaWeriliqna 1999 wlis tamperes daskvnebiT.TavSesafrisa da migraciis komponentiJHA External Dimension-Si miznad isaxavsevrokavSiris TavSesafris politikisproeqtirebas da migraciuli xedvis sxvaqveynebTan urTierTobaSi implementacias.25 aRniSnuli midgoma aRiarebuliqna evropis ministrTa sabWos Sekrebazesanta-maria de feirasa (2000) da sevilia-Si (2002). es politikuri saxelmZRvaneloprincipebi aisaxa 2004 wlis konstituciurSeTanxmebaSi, romelic moicavssamarTlebriv danawesebs momavalSiTav Sesafrisa da migraciuli samarTlismiReba-daxvewaze mesame qveynebTanTanamSromlobis gziT. 26male naTeli gaxda, rom es mondomebamoiTxovda instituciur koordinaciasda, Sesabamisad, 2002 wels ministrTasabWos ministerialma cvlilebaSeitana `umaRlesi donis samuSao jgufisTavSesafrisa da migraciis sakiTxebze~(HLWG) muSaobis wesSi, romelicTavdapirvelad Seiqmna 1998 wels, raTaSeedginaT samoqmedo gegma im qveynebTanan regionebTan TanamSromlobis gziT,saidanac warmoSobiT an moqalaqeobiTiyvnen TavSesafris maZieblebi da migrantebi.ad hoc miznis miRwevis SemdegHLWG aRiWurva mandatiT, raTa ewarmoebinaevrokavSiris sagareo TavSesafrisada migraciuli politikis ganxilvaspecialurad SerCeul regionebTan daqveynebTan im geografiuli limitisSeuzRudavad, romelsac warmoadgenda,magaliTad, TavSesafris maZiebelTa satranzitoqveyana. 27zemoxsenebul konteqstSi 2002wlis dekemberSi evrokomisiam warmoadginakomunike `migraciuli sakiTxebisgaerTianebis Sesaxeb mesame qveynebTanmimarTebiT~, 28 sadac aRiniSna mimarTebamigraciul da TavSesafris politikasTandakavSirebiT. komunikeSi xazgasmiTiTqva, rom finansuri resursebimaqsimalurad efeqturad unda iqnesgamoyenebuli aseTi pirebis repatriaciisaTvis(moiazrebian rogorc imigrantebi,aseve uarnaTqvami TavSesafris maZieblebi),agreTve komunikeSi xazi gaesvasazRvrebis marTvas da TavSesafrisa damigraciul proeqtebs mesame qveynebSi(agreTve ixileT mogvianebiT gamocemuliAeneas Regulation 29 ).saTanamSromlod Semdegi qveynebiganisazRvra: norvegia, islandia, Sveicaria,aSS, kanada, bulgareTi, rumineTi,TurqeTi, dasavleT balkaneTis saxelmwifoebi,ruseTi, ukraina, yazaxeTi,yir gizeTi, tajikeTi, TurqmeneTi, uzbekeTi,somxeTi, azerbaijani, saqarTvelo,maroko, alJiri, tunisi, iordania,israeli, egvipte, CineTi, irani, samxreTkorea, indonezia, laTinuri amerikisqveynebi, afrika, karibis zRvisa da wynariokeanis auzis qveynebi, romlebicdaukavSirdnen evrokavSirs saimigracioda TavSesafris sakiTxebze saTanamSromlod.30mesame saxelmwifoebTan SeTanxmebebimoicavs samomavlo winaaRmdegobebispre vencias TavSesafris moTxovnisas,raTa, `haagis programis~ sityvebiT,`konsultaciebiT iyos urTierTqmedeba gaeros ltolvilTa umaRles komisariatTan~.31miuxedavad aRniSnuli SeTanxmebebisukiduresad dadebiTi xasiaTisa, samecnierowreebSi mainc arsebobs mosazreba,rom samTvarobaTaSoriso ZalisxmevisSedegad ganviTarebul midgomebSi samomavlodsxva qveynebis CarTva eWvis qveSdadgeba. 323. saerTaSoriso ltolvilTa daadamianis uflebaTa samarTliTgaTvaliswinebuli valdebulebebievrokomisiis TavSesafriskanonmdeblobis implementaciisaswina nawilSi naTlad gamoCnda kompleqsurikavSiri evrokavSirsa da mesamesaxelmwifoebs Soris TavSesafrissakiTxebze. rodesac evrokavSiris wevrisaxelmwifo arRvevs valdebulebas saer-64

i. abaSiZe, ltolvilTa dacva erTiani evropuli TavSesafris sistemis pirobebSi. Sesabamisoba...TaSoriso ltolvilTa samarTalTanmimarTebiT, problema dgeba, – romelikanonmdeblobiT unda mivudgeT mas,Sida sakanonmdeblo TvalsazrisiT TuevrokavSiris kanonmdeblobiT, – vinaidanfaqtia, saerTaSoriso samarTali daevropis samarTali, sxva yvelafers romTavi gavaneboT, geografiuli niSniTgansxvavdebian.evropis samarTlis upiratesi mdgomareobisgamo 33 wevr saxelmwifoTa SidasamarTalTan mimarTebiT da agreTveevrokavSiris im moTxovnidan gamomdinare,rom yvela wevri saxelmwifovaldebulia, mTlianad SesabamisobaSihqondes mTeli Sida kanonmdebloba evrokavSiriskanonmdeblobasTan (saer-TaSoriso xelSekrulebaTa denonsaciisCaTvliTac, Tuki isini ar Seesabamebianevropis samarTals), problemuria isdamokidebuleba, romelic ltolvilTasaerTaSoriso samarTals, adamianisuflebaTa saerTaSoriso samarTalsa daam institutebs Soris iqmneba.gansxvaveba adamianis uflebaTa saerTaSoriso samarTlis valdebulebebsa(saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebidanwarmoSobili) da evropis samarTlisZiriTad principebs Soris relevanturixdeba, rodesac es ukanaskneli determinirebasaxdens uflebis miznisas,agreTve, awesebs limits da amcirebs mas,Sesabamisad, evropis samarTalze dayrdnobiT.343.1. adamianis uflebebi,rogorc ZiriTadi principievropul samarTalSiukve didi xania, evrokavSirSi moqmedebsprincipi, romlis mixedviTacwevri saxelmwifoebis Sida samarTaliunda iyos srul SesabamisobaSi evropissamarTlis adamianis uflebaTa sayovelTaodaRiarebul principebTan. evropiskavSiris SeTanxmebis 35 me-6 (2) muxliadgens:`kavSirma unda sces pativi adamianisfundamentur uflebebs, rogorcis garantirebulia 1950 wlis 4 noembersromSi miRebuli adamianis uflebaTa daZiriTad Ta visuflebTa dacvis evropulikonvenciiT da agreTve wevr saxelmwifo-Ta konstituciuri tradiciiT, romelicsaerToa yvela wevrisaTvis, rogorc kav-Siris ZiriTadi principi~.es xedva dadasturebulia evropismarTlmsajulebis sasamarTlos (SemdgomSi– ECJ) precedentuli samarTli-Tac. xsenebuli ZiriTadi principi, romelicsaerToa yvela wevrisaTvis, konstituciuritradiciis Sesabamisad, arismboWavi principi evropis samarTalSi dagarantoria, raTa srul SesabamisobaSiiyos wevri saxelmwifoebis Sida samar-Tali kavSiris samarTalTan, adamianissaerTaSoriso fundamentur uflebebzedayrdnobiT. 36jer ZalaSi arSesuli `evropis kav-Siris ZiriTad uflebaTa qartia~ 37(SemdgomSi – `qartia~) aris yvelaze mniSvnelovaniinstrumenti, ramdenadac igiaRiarebs uflebebs, rogorc Sedegs, wevrsaxelmwifoTa sakonstitucio praqtikisada saerTaSoriso valdebulebebisas,romlebic saerToa yvela wevri saxelmwifosaTvis.38 qartia inkorporirebuliqna evrokavSiris konstituciis proeqtisteqstSi. 39 aRniSnuli proeqtis me-18da me-19 muxlebi moicaven refoulement-Tan dakavSirebul regulaciebs, romel-Tanac yvela wevris Sida kanonmdeblobisSesabamisobac savaldebuloa. miuxedavadimisa, rom sakonstitucio SeTanxmebareferendumze uaryves safrangeTma daholandiam, es ar warmoadgens am nawilismoqmedebis Semaferxebel garemoebas.miuxedavad aseTi samarTlebrivinak lis arsebobisa, konstituciis mboWaviZalis naklTan mimarTebiT, adamianisuflebaTa Tavi migviTiTebs adamianisuflebaTa sferoSi arsebul evrokav-Siris institutebze. 40 qartiis erT-erTnaklad SegviZlia miviCnioT agreTve isfaqtic, rom TavSesafarTan dakavSirebiTwevri saxelmwifos nebismieri sakanonmdebloiniciativa aucilebladunda Seesabamebodes mas.65

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 20103.2. evropis samarTlisa da adamianisuflebaTa saerTaSoriso samarTlisurTierTmimarTeba. xelSekrulebebi,romlebic dadebulia wevrisaxelmwifoebis mierufro meti analizisaTvis movixmoTevropis kavSiris kanonmdeblobaTavSesafarTan dakavSirebiT da saerTa-Soriso ltolvilTa da adamianis uflebaTasamarTali, romlebSic monawileobenwevri saxelmwifoebi. es momentiZalze mniSvnelovani da aucilebelia,radgan TEC da TEU orive anawilebs pasuxismgeblobasda ambobs, rom ar arismboWavi Zalis EC/EU-Tvis, iseve, rogorcEC/EU-s moqmedebebi maTTan mimarTebiT.41TEC-is 307-e muxli aregulirebs ur-TierTobebs evrokavSiris samarTalsa dasaerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebs Soris.307-e muxlis pirveli punqti adgens, romufleba da valdebuleba warmoiSoba mxolodim SemTxvevaSi, Tuki saerTaSorisoxelSekruleba srul TanxvedraSiaTEC-is debulebebTan.burgoas saqmeze sasamarTlom daadgina:307-e muxlis 1-li punqti `arisZiriTadi mizani da igi Seexeba yvelasaerTaSoriso xelSekrulebas, miuxedavadda vis arsisa~; sasamarTlom agreTvega n sazRvra, rom es debuleba ar cvlisam SeTanxmebebis bunebas da `ar aye nebsim pirebs araxelsayrel mdgomareoba-Si, romelTac ufleba warmoeSvaT amxelSekrulebis safuZvelze~. 42 rodesacvaldebulebaTa konfliqti warmoiSoba,erTi mxriv, evropis kavSiris kanonmdeblobasada meore mxriv, adamianis uflebaTamanamde arsebul xelSekrulebebsSoris, wevrma saxelmwifom upiratesobaunda mianiWos manamde arsebulxelSekrulebas. Tumca TEC-is debulebebisZalaSi Sesvlis Semdeg dadebulxelSekrulebebTan koliziisas wevrisa xelmwifo ver gadauxvevs 307-e muxlismoqmedebas da upiratesoba evrokavSiriskanonmdeblobas unda mianiWos.ufro metic, miuxedavad manamdear sebuli xelSekrulebebis arsebobisa,307-e muxlis meore punqti ad gens,rom wevri saxelmwifo valdebu lia,aseTi konfliqtis SemTxvevaSi srulSe sa bamisobaSi moiyvanos sakuTari kanonmdebloba evropis kavSiris ka nonmdeblobasTan. zemoaRniSnulTan dakavSirebiT, ECJ-is pirveli gadawyveti lebebi gamotanil iqna 2000 wlisiv lisSi. sasamarTlom ganmarta 307-emuxlis me-2 punqtis miznebi. man aRiara,rom wevr saxelmwifoebs aqvT arCevani,SearCion Sesabamisi nabijebi, raTaaRmofxv ril iqnes Seusabamoba, magramsasamar T lom damatebiT aRniSna: `Tukiwevri saxelmwifo ganicdis siZneleebsSe Ta nxmebis SesrulebiT, denonsaciaam xelSekrulebisa ar unda iyos erTaderTigamosavali~, 43 ramdenadac cnobilmamecnierma klabersma miuTiTa, rompraqtikaSi daTqmis an denonsaciisaTvises arCevani SesaZloa saerTod ar iyosim xelSekrulebebTan mimarTebiT, romlebicmoqmedebdnen sadamfuZnebloSe Tanxmebis ZalaSi Sesvlamde. 44 ECJ-mmoaxdina am ganmartebis implementaciabolodroindel gadawyvetilebaSi, sadacsasamarTlom miuTiTa, rom avstriasar daurRvevia 307-e muxlis me-2 punqtismoTxovnebi, rodesac man ar gaukeTa denonsaciaSeTanxmebas, radgan ar hqondaSesaZlebloba, ase moqceuliyo. 45problema agreTve warmoiSoba SemdegsakiTxze: ramdenad SeuZlia wevrsaxelmwifos, denonsacia moaxdinos saerTaSorisoltolvilTa da adamianisuflebaTa sakiTxebze miRebuli konvenciisa,Tuki igi ar Seesabameba 307-e muxlismoTxovnebs.TEC 63-e (1) muxli adgens Semdegs:`sabWo ... miiRebs ... zomebs Tav SesafrissakiTxebTan mimarTebiT, Sesabamisad, Jenevis 1951 wlis 28 ivlisisltolvilTa statusis konvenciisa da1967 wlis 31 ianvris damatebiTi oqmisada sxva dakavSirebuli SeTanxmebebisa~.TEC agreTve udgens valdebulebaswevr saxelmwifoebs, raTa maTi Sidakanonmdebloba TavSesafarTan da kav-66

i. abaSiZe, ltolvilTa dacva erTiani evropuli TavSesafris sistemis pirobebSi. Sesabamisoba...Si rebul sakiTxebze iyos srul Se sabamisobaSi Jenevis konvenciasa da misdamatebiT oqmTan, 46 da, udavod, sxva adamianisuflebadamcav xelSekrulebeb-Tanac, romlebSic, SesaZloa, moviazroTevropis adamianis uflebaTa konvencia, 47samoqalaqo da politikuri uflebebisSesaxeb paqti 48 da konvencia wamebis winaaRmdeg.49SesaZloa, agreTve, sakamaTo iyossakiTxi, rom 63-e muxli lex specialis Seexeba307-e muxls. Tu evrokavSiris kanonmdeblobiTdadgenili valdebu lebisSesruleba TavSesafarTan dakavSirebulsakiTxebze ewinaaRmdegeba saerTa-Soriso xelSekrulebas an SeTanxmebasadamianis uflebaTa sferoSi, aSkaraa,rom igi Zalas dakargavs. xsenebuli interpretaciaaris agreTve garanti,moxdes wevr saxelmwifoebs Soris evrokavSiriskanonmdeblobis erTiani interpretacia.ltolvilTa saerTaSoriso da adamianis uflebaTa samarTaliupiratesi Zalis mqonea 63-e muxlis 1-lipunqtiT gansazRvrul SemTxvevebSi.am konteqstSi gansakuTrebiT mniSvnelovaniaormagi damokidebulebissakiTxi im pirebTan mimarTebiT, romlebicltolvilebi arian da agreTveim pirebTanac, romlebic saWiroebensaerTaSoriso dacvas. unda vTqvaT, rom63-e muxlis 1-li punqtis gareT undamoviazroT am pirTa samarTlebrivi statusisproblemac, vinaidan igi zRudavsuflebis gavrcelebis saSualebebs. amitomam sakiTxebTan dakavSirebuli wevrisaxelmwifoebis Sida kanonmdeblobaaucileblad saerTaSoriso dokumen -tebs unda Seesabamebodes. ironia iqnebodagveTqva, rom am pirTa dacva mxolodsaerTaSoriso xasiaTis dokumentebSiunda veZioT. ar aris rTuli imSemTxvevebis gansazRvrac, rodesacwevri saxelmwi fo dadgeba saWiroebiswinaSe, Tavisi kanonmdebloba SeusabamosevrokavSiris kanonmdeblobasa da adamianisuflebaTa saerTaSoriso samarTals.gansxvavebuli interpretacia ECJ-isprecedentul samarTalSi ar moiZebna.4. minimaluri standartebida Sesabamisoba ltolvilTasaerTaSoriso da adamianisuflebaTa samarTalTanTEC-is 63-e muxli evrokavSirs ani-Webs Zalas, daadginos minimaluri standartebi.davas iwvevs Semdegi mdgomareoba:Tuki wevrma saxelmwifom daadginaimaze dabali standarti, vidre amasadgens saerTaSoriso ltolvilTa daadamianis uflebaTa samarTali, TumcaSeesabameba TEC-is 63-e muxlis moTxovnebs,vin iqneba pasuxismgebeli – evrokavSirisrulad Tu Tavad saxelmwifo.ECJ-s jer ar ganumartavs `minimaluristandartebis~ cneba.2004 wels evroparlamentma sabWosada komisiis sawinaaRmdegod Caagdo direqtivaojaxis gaerTianebis Sesaxeb(Family Reunifi cation Directive). 50 parlamentmaeWvi Seitana qmedebis instrumentebisSesabamisobaSi adamianis uflebaTasaerTaSoriso standartebTan. eWvimTavarma iuridiulma mrCevelma kokotmacgamoTqva. man direqtiva me-8 muxlTandakavSirebiT gaakritika da Tqva, romigi ar iZleoda dacvis iseT maRal garantiebs,romlebic efeqturad daicavdaadamianis uflebebs da agreTve axsena,rom es muxli winaaRmdegobaSi modiodaevrokavSiris samarTalTan. 51ECJ-m am sakiTxTan dakavSirebiTgamoxata sxvagvari xedva. sasamarTlomdaadgina, rom sadavo norma ar ar-Rvevs ojaxis pativiscemas da piradicxovre bis xelSeuxeblobis aRiarebas,romle bic gaTvaliswinebulia adamianisuflebaTa evropuli konvenciis 52 me-8muxliT. agreTve sasamarTlom miuTiTayoveli faqtobrivi garemoebis ganxilvisaucileblobaze. aRniSnuli direqtivis5(5) da me-17 muxlebi iTvaliswinebenbavSvTa upirates interesebs, adamianisbunebasa da solidarobas ojaxuriurTierTobebisadmi, wevr saxelmwifoSipiris cxovrebis xangrZlivobas da misiwarmoSobis qveynis mdgomareobas. 53gacxarebul kamaTs iwvevda diskreciissazRvrebi, romlebic mieniWaT67

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010wevr saxelmwifoebs minimaluri standartebisdadgenisas, erTiani evropuliTavSesafris sistemis konteqstSi. e.w.kvalifikaciis direqtivis (Qualifi cationDirective) miRebis dros ministrTa sab-Wos iuridiulma samsaxurma scada ganesazRvrada iuridiuli mniSvnelobamieniWebina `minimaluri standartebisaTvis~da gadawyda, rom standartebisganviTarebis sakiTxi wevri saxelmwifosaTvisdaeTmoT. iuridiuli samsaxuridaeyrdno Semdeg mosazrebas, romwevri saxelmwifoebi uflebamosilniarian, moaxdinon im sakiTxebis unifikacia,romlebic ar xvdebian direqtiviTgansazRvrul sakiTxebs Soris, TumcaTEC-is me-10 muxlis winapirobaTa gaTvaliswinebiT,romelic zRudavs wevrsaxelmwifoebs iseTi kanonmdeblobisSeqmnaSi, romelic ewinaaRmdegeba Se-Tanxmebis suliskveTebasa da mizans.iuridiuli samsaxuris mosazrebis Sesabamisad,wevrma saxelmwifoebma Taviunda Seikavon iseTi kanonebis miRebisgan,romlebic direqtivis miznebs calsaxadscildeba. Tumca terminma `minimaluristandartebi~ mainc moipova farTo interpretacia.xsenebulma samsaxurmamiuTiTa, rom harmonizaciis procesSiSesaZloa, gaTvaliswinebul iqnes ufrometi dacvis standartebi, Tumca aranaklebi.agreTve gamoiTqva mosazreba, romnebismieri Sidasakanonmdeblo gadaxvevakvalifikaciis direqtivasTan mimarTebiT,misi sawinaaRmdego ganviTareba, aRqmuliiqneboda rogorc harmonizaciis,unifikaciis procesis sawinaaRmdegoqmedeba. 54 am interpretaciis mTavariazri iyo is, rom arasavaldebulo gamonaklisiim pirTa dasacavad, romlebicimyofebodnen riskjgufSi, iyo kanonierida samarTliani.direqtivis samizne jgufSi ar moiazrebianis pirebi, romlebic vis-à-vis xvdebiandacul pirTa wreSi, wevri saxelmwifoebissaerTaSoriso valdebulebidangamomdinare. problemuria sakiTxiagreTve Semdeg SemTxvevaSi, aris Tuara evrokavSiris kanonmdeblobis dar-Rveva wevri saxelmwifos gadawyvetileba,mianiWos pirs statusi an miscesTavSesafari, saerTaSorisod aRebulivaldebulebidan gamomdinare.ECJ, albaT, momavalSi gamoxatavssakuTar mosazrebas am sakiTxzec, Tumcamanamde unda daveyrdnoT mis sxva ganmartebasda logikuri daskvna gavake-ToT, rom saerTo interesidan gamomdinareufleba yovelTvis ar aris absoluturiprerogativa da igi SeiZlebaSeizRudos swored saerTo interesebisgamo, magram es SezRudva ar unda gavrceldesaraproporciulad da mizan-Seuwonlad. 55 rogorc zemoT vaxseneT,63-e muxlis 1-l punqtSi moxseniebulsaerTaSoriso xasiaTis dokumentebzedayrdnobiT unda moxdes TavSesafrismaZiebeli piris subsidiuri dacva samive– evrokavSiris, wevri saxelmwifos Sidakanonmdeblobisa da saerTaSoriso valdebulebaTa– Sesabamisad.valdebulebaTa konfliqtis Sem-Txve vaSi, wevri saxelmwifo izRudebaTa visi saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebiTTu SeTanxmebiT evrokavSiris kanonmdeblobisimplementaciisas. rogorcadamianis uflebaTa evropulma sasamarTlomganmarta saqmeze – T.I. v theUnited Kingdom: `iqidan gamomdinare, romsaxelmwifoebma daaarses saerTaSorisoorganizaciebi, an mutatis mutandis gawevriandnensaerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebSi,qmedebaTa erTianoba aucilebeliaadamianis uflebaTa dacvis miznebisaTvis.Seusabamoba konvenciis mizansada obieqts Soris saxelmwifos aTavisuflebspasuxismgeblobisagan im qmedebebTanmimarTebiT, romlebic unda gatardesuflebis dasacavad~. 56rogorc zemoaRniSnulidan Cans,qmedebis ganuxorcielebloba wevrisaxelmwifos mxridan, an dayrdnoba evrokavSiriskanonmdeblobaze, an sxvasakiTxTan dakavSirebul SeTanxmebasaTu xelSekrulebaze ar SeiZleba ganxiluliqnes evrokavSiris kanonmdeblobisgamoyenebis SezRudvis saSualebad.68

i. abaSiZe, ltolvilTa dacva erTiani evropuli TavSesafris sistemis pirobebSi. Sesabamisoba...5. erTiani evropuli TavSesafrissistemis Seqmna – wevrisaxelmwifoebis SesaZlebloba,Seusabamon valdebulebebiltolvilTa saerTaSoriso daadamianis uflebaTa samarTals?rogorc zemoT aRvniSneT, evrokav-Siri ayalibebs Tavis Sida TavSesafriserTian sistemas, sadac evrokavSirisSida sazRvrebi transformirebuliakvaziiurisdiqciad. anu mopyro baltolvilebisadmi sxvadasxva SemTx vevaSierTdroulad iwvevs wevri saxelmwifoebisindividualur pasuxismgeblobasmaTi saerTaSoriso valdebulebebisaTvis,ltolvilTa da adamianis uflebaTasaerTaSoriso samarTlis mixedviT.saukeTeso magaliTi am SemTxvevaSiiqneboda e.w. dublinis II regulacia. esinstrumenti pasuxismgeblobis gasanawilebladayalibebs meqanizms wevrsaxelmwifoTaTvis TavSesafarze gake-Tebuli ganacxadis Taobaze. aRniSnulisistema novaciaa evrokavSiris kanonmdeblobaSi.is, rom mxolod erTi saxelmwifoiyos pasuxismgebeli yvela ganacxadismiRebaze, pirvelad aisaxa `SengenisSeTanxmebaSi~ 57 da Semdeg inkorporirebuliqna `Sengenis konvenciaSi;~ 58 SemdgomSi msgavsi debuleba gadataniliq na dublinis konvenciaSi, 59 sadac igiTavisTavad gadmotanil iqna dublinisregulaciidan. 60 sistemis nakli ga mo -ixateba imiT, rom wevri saxelmwifoebiarasworad ganmartaven Jenevis ko n-vencias. 1999 wels evrokomisiam Tav SekavebuladmiuTiTa: `fundamenturadgansxvavebulia mizani regulaciisa.sis tema unda isaxavdes miznad, wevrisaxelmwifo ar iyos pasuxismgebeli pirisyofnaze kavSiris teritoriaze,xolo Semdgom misi TavSesafris moTxovnisgancxadebaze~. 61 komisia ufro Sorsacwavida da ganmarta, rom pasuxismgeblobaim saxelmwifoSi dadgeboda, romelSicpirvelad ganxorcieldebodaTavSesafarze ganacxadi. 62sistemis uunarobidan gamomdinare,ganaxorcielos dasaxuli miznebi, sadavoxdeba agreTve wevri saxelmwifoebisprezumfcia, rom isini arian usafrTxoqveynebi ltolvilebisaTvis. pasuxismgeblobisgadanawilebis Tvalsazri siT,TavSesafarze ganxorcielebul ganacxadebTandakavSirebiT, Sidaevropulisistema dafuZnebulia xedvaze, romyvela evropuli saxelmwifo aris usafrTxoltolvilebisaTvis da es mimarTebacalsaxad iwvevs statusis mqone piriskanonier gadaadgilebas mTeli evrokav-Siris teritoriaze, TavSesafris miRebismoTxovnis gareSe.ra awesebs `usafrTxoebas~, pasuxismgeblobisgadanawilebis Tvalsa z-risiT, ltolvilebTan mimarTebiT, jerjerobiTar aris gansazRvruli. usafrTxoebaxSirad ganixileba rogorc nonrefoulement-is principidan gamomdinaresakiTxi daniSnulebis saxelmwifosTanmimarTebiT, rac ukavSirdeba dublinisregulacias, romelic, Tavis mxriv,acxadebs: `wevri saxelmwifoebi, yvelamaTgani, pativs scems non refoulementisprincips. isini mowodebulni arian,iyvnen usafrTxo qveynebi mesame qveynismcxovrebTaTvis~. 63 am SexedulebiT,regulacia gamoirCeva imiT, rom nacionalur64 da adamianis uflebaTa evropulsasamarTlos 65 araorazrovani ganmartebebiaqvT gakeTebuli, sadac ltolvilTasakiTxebze pasuxismgeblobis gadacemismomentSi dasaxelebuli SemTxvevis winarerekvizitad gaTvaliswinebulia faqtiskanonTan Sesabamisoba.dublinis sistemis implementaciakonkludenturad aRiarebs wevr saxelmwifoTa gadawyvetilebebs uarisTqmis Sesaxeb (Tumca faqtia, sistemisTvalsazrisiT, gaTvaliswinebulia Tav-Se safris Sesaxeb evrokavSiris teritoriazemxolod erTxel gancxadebisSesaZlebloba), romelic ar aris e.w.`sarkis efeqtis~ mqone konkludenturiaRiareba. Sida evropuli TavSesafrissistema isea mowyobili, rom TavSesafrissakiTxebze pasuxismgebeli xdeba mxoloderTi wevri qveyana, magram Tuki69

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010piri aRiarebul iqna ltolvilad, amstatusis namdviloba aseTad aRiarebisSemTxvevaSi ar unda gavrceldessxva wevr saxelmwifoebze. erTia problema,rodesac piri mTeli evrokavSirismasStabiT gadaadgildeba rogorc evrokavSirisegidiT ltolvilad aRiarebuli(radgan masze vrceldeba gadaadgilebisTavisufleba), magramme orea, rodesac evropis `dapatimrebisgarantiebis~ 66 Sesaxeb SeTanxmebismi xedviT, aseTi piri unda daapatimronda gadascen TavSesafris mimniWebelwevr saxelmwifos sisxlissamarTlebrividevnisaTvis. am xarvezis mTavariSinaarsi isaa, rom kavSiris teritoriazeadamians, romelsac mieniWa ltolvilisstatusi erTi saxelmwifos mier,sxva saxelmwifoSi gadaadgilebisas igidaeqvemdebareba im Sidasakanonmdebloregulaciebs, romlebic wevri saxelmwifoebismier dadgenilia ucxoelTaTvis.agreTve wevr saxelmwifoebSi sisxlissamarTlebrividasja danaSaulisaTvisxSirad moicavs sasjelis moxdis Semdegpiris gaZevebas. problemuri aq isaa,rom am pirisTvis ltolvilis statusismoxsna-gaZeveba `mZime danaSaulis~ cnebiserTiani definiciis arqonis gamosxvadasxva wevr saxelmwifoSi SesaZloaarasamarTlianic ki aRmoCndes da dair-Rves piris ufleba.TavSesafris maZiebelTa da ltolvilTamoZraobis kompleqsuroba wevrsaxelmwifoebs Soris sruliad harmonizebulierTiani sistemis pirobebSigviCvenebs sxvadasxva samarTlebrivvaldebulebas. Non-refoulement-is principiaris erTaderTi moTxovna, romelsacsaxelmwifoebi upirobod unda asrulebdnen,ltolvilTa saerTaSorisosamarTlis mixedviT. Sesabamisad, winaswarunda iyos dadgenili, daniSnulebisqveyana zogadi praqtikiT aRiarebs Tuara xsenebul princips. aRniSnul valdebulebasSesaZloa hqondes saerTaSorisoan regionaluri xasiaTi yvela tipisTavSesafris maZiebelTa mimarT.5.1 wevr saxelmwifoTa kompetenciebisgansazRvra ltolvilTamimarT – `usafrTxo qveynis~ cnebaSidaevropuli TavSesafris sistemaSirogorc zemoT aRvniSneT, TavSe safriserTiani evropuli sistema efuZnebayvela wevri saxelmwifos `usafrTxoebis~princips. am principis sxvadasxvavariaciaSi `usafrTxo qveyana~ efuZnebada fokusirebulia specifikur moTxovnebze,romlebic unda iyos srulSesabamisobaSi, raTa qveyana ganvixiloTrogorc ~usafrTxo~.mravalwliani praqtikis miuxedavad,saxelmwifoTa urTierTobebSi esko ncefcia ufro metad sofisturimsje lobebis sagania. politikuri dasamarTlebrivi landSaftis SecvlaSi,romelSic igi unda ganvixiloT, evrokav-Siris minimaluri standartebis cneba, 67udavod, jdeba da saxelmwifoTa protestsswored Tavisi `minimaluri xasiaTis~gamo ar iwvevs.aucilebelia konceptualuri Sez-Rudva da es Seexeba koncefciis procedurulxasiaTs, rogorc saxelmwifoTasaSualebas, uaryon ltolvilis statusisdadgena im safuZvelze, romelzecsxva saxelmwifo SeiZleba an aucileblad(Tuki SeTanxmebaa or qveyanas Soris) pasuxismgebelia,ganixilos gancxadeba,da koncefciis, rogorc standartis,mixedviT ganisazRvros ganmcxadeblismiReba an dabruneba misi warmoSobisqveyanaSi. pirvel SemTxvevaSi, saxelmwifoebiuaryofen pasuxismgeblobas, raTadaakmayofilon dacvis moTxovna, maSinrodesac meore SemTxvevaSi saxelmwifoebiaRiareben maT pasuxismgeblobasam ukanasknelis gansasazRvravad. Tumcaorive SemTxvevaSi mivdivarT iqamde, romsaxelmwifos ver daavaldebuleb, ganaxorcielosesa Tu is qmedeba sakuTarteritoriaze. rogorc didi britaneTisyofilma premier-ministrma toni blermaganacxada: `1951 wlis ltolvilTakon venciiT ar aris dawesebuli aranairivaldebuleba, raTa gancxadebis qveyana-Si ganxilul iqnes TavSesafris micemissaqme~. 6870

i. abaSiZe, ltolvilTa dacva erTiani evropuli TavSesafris sistemis pirobebSi. Sesabamisoba...saqveynod cnobili iuridiuli aqsiomaa,rom nebismier uflebas Tan axlavssapasuxo movaleoba. mcdelobaimisa, rom moxdes saxelmwifoTa valdebulebebisidentificireba ltolvilebissakiTxSi, moiTxovs pirvelad imisgamokveTas, ltolvilis romeli uflebebiSeiZleba gacxaddes vis-à-vis saxelmwifoSi.agreTve sadavoa sakiTxi, romltolvilis statusi, saerTaSorisosamarTlis mixedviT, ganimarteba aramxolod ltolvilTa saerTaSoriso samarTlismixedviT, aramed sxvadasxva samarTlebrivsistemaSi, regionaluri TusaerTaSoriso praqtikis kuTxiTac.miuxedavad mravali gancxadebisa,rom ltolvilTa uflebebi – esaa adamianisuflebebi, xolo ltolvilTasamarTali adamianis uflebaTa saerTa-Soriso samarTlis nawili, ltolvilTasamarTlis specialistebSi am mosazrebasmciredi nawili Tu uWers mxars.Tumca faqtia, rom dResdReobiT adamianisuflebaTa saerTaSoriso samarTalsufro ZaluZs saxelmwifoTa qmedebebiserTian CarCoSi moqceva, vidre TavadltolvilTa samarTals, am ukanasknelisnaklebi ganviTarebis gamo.1993 wels gaeros ltolvilTa umaRlesikomisris specialurma warmomadgenelmadid britaneTSi antonio fortinmadawera moxseneba `usafrTxo mesameqveynis~ cnebaze, sadac miuTiTebda,rom: `pirma, romelic gaiqca devnis gamo,pirvelive SesaZleblobisas unda mimarTosusafrTxo qveyanas ltolvilisstatusis misaniWeblad an TavSesafrismisaRebad~. fortini Seecada aexsna, romltolvili – esaa piri, romelic saer-TaSorisodaa daculi, amas miuTiTebsara mxolod Jenevis konvencia, aramedsxva saerTaSorisosamarTlebrivi institutebic.ltolvilis statusis deklaraciulibunebidan gamomdinare, statusisaRiareba `aris faqtis aRiareba~.imis gancxadeba, rom saxelmwifoebi ararian valdebulni, konvenciidan gamomdinaremaTi iurisdiqciis qveS gadawyvitonltolvilis statusis miniWeba,calsaxad daarRvevda konvenciis suliskveTebasada miznebs. ufro metic,saxelmwifoebi pasuxismgebelni arianltolvilebze (miuxedavad maTi aseTadaRiarebis faqtisa). 69 fortini miuTiTebs,rom piri sargeblobs am uflebiT, raTaeZios dacva ltolvilis statusis meSveobiTim iurisdiqciis qveS, sadac igimoxvdeba. 70ufro metic, saxelmwifoTa valdebulebaindividualur SemTxvevebze, adamianisuflebaTa saerTaSoriso samarTlismixedviT, aris rogorc pozitiuri,aseve negatiuri bunebisa. saxelmwifoebivaldebulni arian, ara mxolod pativiscen, aramed aRasrulon kidec adamianisuflebebi.Tuki ltolvili sargeblobs uflebiT,moipovos Tavisi statusis aRiarebavis-à-vis nebismier Jenevis konvenciismonawile saxelmwifoSi (da esTavisTavad moicavs evrokavSiris yvelawevr saxelmwifos), da Tuki yvela individi(maT Soris ltolvilebi) sargeblobsuflebiT, xelisSeSlis gareSemoiTxovos saxelmwifos pozitiuriqmedeba, mivdivarT im daskvnamde, romsaxelmwifoebs aqvT valdebuleba, pativiscen non-refoulement-is princips. amxedviT, pasuxismgeblobis gadasvlis momentierTi wevri saxelmwifodan meorewevr saxelmwifoze pirvel saxelmwifosakisrebs valdebulebas, Seasrulosyvela qmedeba adamianis uflebaTa daltolvilTa saerTaSoriso samarTlismixedviT da pasuxs agebs gadacemis momentamdeganxorcielebul qmedebebze.zemoT ganxiluli momentebidan naTladgamoikveTa saxelmwifoTa valdebulebebi(iseve rogorc maTi pasuxismgebloba),rodesac isini moqmedeben calcalkeTu erTad (evrokavSiri) – ekisrebaTpasuxismgebloba maTi iurisdiqciisqveS moxvedril ltolvilebze.6. daskvnawarmodgenili naSromiT SevecadeT,warmogveCina is problematuri sakiTxebi,romlebic ukavSirdeba TavSesafriserTiani evropuli sistemis Seqmnas da71

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010kvaziiurisdiqciis problemebs evrokav-Siris Sida sazRvrebze. ltolvilTasamarTlis mniSvnelovani institutebisganxilvis gziT mivediT im urTierTgamomricxav,zogjer ki aSkaradpasuxismgeblobisgan Tavis aridebismcdelobebamde, romlebic Tavad evrogaerTianebismeSveobiT iqna aRkveTili,parlamentis, komisiis Tu ministerialismeSveobiT. Tumca faqtia, saxelmwifoTamxridan sxvadasxva ganmartebamainc iqneba, vinaidan, miuxedavad er-Tiani sistemis Seqmnisa, Tavad is faqti,rom mxolod erTi saxelmwifo ganixilavsganacxadebs TavSesafris Taobaze,saxelmwifoebs ar aacilebs maT teritoriazeltolvilis ganacxadis gakeTebas.am ukanasknelis arganxilva ki,CveulebiTi samarTlidan gamomdinare,adamianis uflebaTa SesaZlo darRvevamdemigviyvans. Tumca faqtia, yvelasaxelmwifo ltolvilis statuss zedmetadformalizebulad ganixilavs daignorirebas ukeTebs ltolvilis uflebebisukve Cveulebad Camoyalibebulfaqts.1[2002] Offi cial Journal C/325/33.2evropuli TavSesafris sistemis istoriuli ganviTarebis mimoxilvaZalze mniSvnelovnia, radgan iuridiuli problemebi swored am droisganmavlobaSi Camoyalibda. im faqtze, rom problematika drom da qmedebamwarmoaCina, wers uamravi avtori, maT Soris: E. Guild, “The developingimmigration and asylum policies of the European Union: adopted conventions,resolutions, recommendations, decisions and conclusions. Compilation and commentary(The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 1996);” H. Labayle, ‘Un espacede liberté, de sécurité et de justice’ 33(4) Revue Trimestrielle de droit européen105-172; S. Peers, EU Justice and Home Affairs Law (Harlow, Longman, 2000)and S Peers EU Justice and Home Affairs Law 2nd ed. (Oxford, Oxford UniversityPress, 2006).3Conclusion 13, Tampere European Council, Document Press Nr: 200/1/99.4Conclusions 11-12, iqve.5COM(2000) 755 fi nal, 22 November 2000.6ix. J. STRAW, ‘Towards a Common Asylum Procedure’, in Towards a CommonEuropean Asylum System. European Conference on Asylum (Lisbon: Serviço deEstrangeiros e Fronteiras, 2000) 133-139; COM(2000) 755 fi nal, 22 November2000, section 2.3.2. See also the proposal presented by the United Kingdomin March 2003 for ‘New International Approaches to Asylum Processing andProtection’. Letter from the UK Government to the Greek Presidency of the EU,ixileT Semdeg bmulze: .aRniSnuli xedva gakritikebulia: G. Noll, ‘Visions of the Exceptional:Legal and Theoretical Issues Raised by Transit Processing Centres andProtection Zones’, (2003) 5 EJML 303-341 and Amnesty International, UK/EU/UNHCR Unlawful and Unworkable – Amnesty International’s views on proposalsfor extraterritorial processing of asylum claims, IOR 61/004/2003. (24.10.2009).7aRniSnul sakiTxTan dakavSirebiT ixileT Semdegi moxseneba: “The internaltension in the EU’s own dynamics of border control becomes apparent when onecompares the attempts to seal EU borders with the permeability of the same bordersin relation to arms exports (a strong economic interest for the EU’s MemberStates) that fuel confl ict worldwide, which constitutes one of the main reasons offorced displacement. A report released in June 2005 by Amnesty International,Iansa, and Oxfam illustrates how the G8 countries (which include the UK, France,Germany and Italy) are among the world’s leading arms suppliers, including tocountries subject to an EU’s arms embargo, such as Myanmar (Burma), Chinaand Sudan. The report highlights the failure to enforce controls on the transferof equipment that can be used for torture, ill-treatment and other human rightsviolations and the cost that arms exports have in human lives, lost livelihoods,socio-economic development, democracy, and opportunities to escape poverty.”- Amnesty International, Iansa, Oxfam. The G8: global arms exporters. Failing toprevent irresponsible arms transfers. June 2005, 5.72

i. abaSiZe, ltolvilTa dacva erTiani evropuli TavSesafris sistemis pirobebSi. Sesabamisoba...8European Parliament Resolution on the links between legal and illegal migrationand integration of migrants (2004/2131 (INI)), Doc. A6-0136/2005, 9 June 2005,punqti 17.9M-T. Gil-Bazo, ‘La protección de los refugiados en la Unión Europea tras la entradaen vigor del Tratado de Amsterdam a la luz del Derecho internacional de losderechos humanos’, in F.M. Mariño Menéndez and C. Fernández Liesa (dirs.), Laprotección de las personas y grupos vulnerables en el Derecho Europeo (Madrid:Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales,2001) 147-186.10189 UN Treaty Series 2545, done 28 July 1951, entered into force 22 April 1954.11Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees oras persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of theprotection granted; [2004] OJ L 304/12.12MT Gil-Bazo, ‘The Role of Spain as a Gateway to the Schengen Area: Changes inthe Asylum Law and their Implications for Human Rights’ (1998) 10 InternationalJournal of Refugee Law 214-229.13Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for givingtemporary protection in the event of a mass infl ux of displaced persons and onmeasures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receivingsuch persons and bearing the consequences thereof; [2001] OJ L 212/12.14Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standardsfor the reception of asylum seekers; [2003] OJ L31/18.15Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on proceduresin Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status; [2005] OJL 326/13.16Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteriaand mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examiningan asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national;[2003] OJ L 50/1.17Council Document 14292/1/04 REV 1, 8 December 2004, nawili 1.3.18iqve.19Council Decision of 22 December 2004 providing for certain areas covered byTitle IV of Part Three of the Treaty establishing the European Community to begoverned by the procedure laid down in Article 251 of that Treaty (2004/927/EC)([2004] OJ L/396/45).20Case C-540/03 Parliament v Council and Commission ([2004] OJ C/47/21).21Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family reunifi cation ([2003] OJ L/251/12).22Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on proceduresin Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status; [2005] OJL 326/13.23Case C-133/06 Parliament v Council, Action brought on 8 March 2006.24Declaration on Principles of Governing External Aspects of Migration Policy, annexedto the Conclusions of the Edinburgh European Council, 11-12 December1992. Document SN 456/92, Annex 5 to Part A, punqti ix.25Tampere European Council, 15-16 October 1999, conclusion 11.26‘[…] European laws or framework laws shall lay down measures for a commonEuropean asylum system comprising […] partnership and cooperation with thirdcountries for the purpose of managing infl ows of people applying for asylum orsubsidiary or temporary protection.’ III-266(2)(g). [2004] OJ C310/1. The legal basisfor external action in the fi eld of asylum and migration, however, already existsin the Treaties. See J. Monar, ‘The EU as an International Actor in the Domain ofJustice and Home Affairs’, 9 European Foreign Affairs Review 395-415 at 396-9.27Modifi cation of the terms of reference of the High Level Working Group on Asylumand Migration (HLWG), Council Document 9433/02 of 30 May 2002, 2. Despitethe apparent lack of subsequent activity, the JHA Council confi rmed this role at itsinformal meeting of 27-29 January 2005.28COM(2002) 703 fi nal, of 3 December 2002.29Regulation (EC) No 491/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of10 March 2004 establishing a programme for fi nancial and technical assistance tothird countries in the areas of migration and asylum (AENEAS). [2004] OJ L80/1.73

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 201030ix. JHA External Relations Multi-Presidency Programme. Council Document5001/05 JAI 1 RELEX 1, of 3 January 2005 and JHA External Relations Multi-Presidency Work Programme. Council Document 10728/05 JAI 244 RELEX 355,of 1 July 2005.31Council Document 14292/1/04 REV 1, 8 December 2004, section 1.3.32MT Gil-Bazo ‘The Practice of Mediterranean States in the context of the EuropeanUnion’s Justice and Home Affairs External Dimension. The Safe Third CountryConcept Revisited’. (2006) 18 International Journal of Refugee Law 571-600. ixileTSemdeg bmulze: www.ssrn.com (23.10.2009).33The Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ) established the primacyof Community law over the law of the Member States in the Case 6/64 Costa vEnel [1964] ECR-585.34detalurad ix. S Peers, ‘Human Rights, Asylum and European CommunityLaw’ (2004) 24(2) Refugee Survey Quarterly 24-38.35[2002] OJ C/325/5.36Case 29/69 Stauder [1969] ECR 419, para 7. detalizebuli komentari ixileT:Columbia Journal of European Law 169-181; K Lenaerts, ‘FundamentalRights in the European Union’ (2000) European Law Review 575-600. For discussionson recent developments in the protection of human rights by the EuropeanUnion, following adoption of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, see PAlston and O de Schutter (eds), Monitoring Fundamental Rights in the EU:Thecontribution of the Fundamental Rights Agency (Oxford, Hart, 2005). ixileTSemdeg bmulze: www.lexisnexis.com, www.heinonline.com (22.10.2009).37[2000] OJ C/364/1.38iqve, preambula.39aRniSnuli samarTlebrivad savaldebuloa mTlianad konstituciisZalaSi Sesvlamdec.40S Peers, ‘Immigration, Asylum and the European Union Charter of FundamentalRights’ (2001) 3 European Journal of Migration and Law 141-169. ixileT Semdegbmulze: www.heinonline.com (25.12.2009).41And in the current state of EC law, there is no legal basis for the EC/EU to accedeto human rights treaties (Opinion 2/94 Accession by the Communities tothe European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and FundamentalFreedoms [1996] ECR I-1759). The Constitutional Treaty partly provides for thatlegal basis in Article 7(2), which contains an obligation for the Union to seek accessionto the European Convention of Human Rights.42Case 812/79, Attorney-General v Burgoa [1980] ECR 2787, paras 6 and 10 respectively.43Case C-62/98 Commission v Portugal [2000] ECR I-5171, para 49, and C-84/98Commission v Portugal [2000] ECR I-5215, para 58.44J Klabbers, ‘Moribund on the Fourth of July? The Court of Justice on PriorAgreements of the Member States’ (2001) 26 European Law Review 196.45C-203/03, Commission v Austria, judgment of the Court 1 February 2005, punqtebi61-64.46Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (adopted 31 January 1967, enteredinto force 4 October 1967) 606 UNTS 267. For an analysis of the relationship betweenthe Directive and the Geneva Convention, ix. H Lambert, ‘The EU AsylumQualifi cation Directive, Its Impact on the Jurisprudence of the United Kingdom andInternational Law’ (2006) 55 International and comparative Law Quarterly 184-190.47European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (adopted1950, entered into force) 213 UNTS 221.48International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966,entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171.49Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment orPunishment (adopted 10 December 1984, entered into force 26 June 1987) 1465UNTS 85.50Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family reunifi cation ([2003] OJ L/251/12).51Advocate-General Opinion in Case C-540/03 Parliament v Council andCommission, delivered on 8 September 2005, para 105.52European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (adopted1950, entered into force) 213 UNTS 221.74

i. abaSiZe, ltolvilTa dacva erTiani evropuli TavSesafris sistemis pirobebSi. Sesabamisoba...53Case C-540/03 Parliament v Council and Commission, judgment of 27 June 2006,paras 62-64, not yet reported.54Doc. 14348/02 JUR 449 ASILE 67, 15 November 2002, paras 5 and 7. Offi cialaccess to this document has been refused by the Council (with the vote againstby Sweden). See Letter from the General Secretariat of the Council of 23 May2005, refusing full access to Documents 10560/02 and 14348/02, Doc. 9727/05INF 111 API 85 JUR 240, of 3 June 2005. However, the document is available at:http://www.statewatch.org/newx/2002/dec/14348.02.doc. diskusia aRniSnulsakiTxze ix.: MT Gil-Bazo ‘Refugee status, subsidiary protection, and the rightto be granted asylum under EC law’ New Issues in Refugee Research, ResearchPaper No. 136 (Geneva, UNHCR, November 2006) 14-20.55ix. for instance, Case C-280/93 Germany v Council [1993] ECR I-4973 and CaseC-122/95 Germany v Council [1995] ECR I-973.56T.I. v the United Kingdom, decision of 7 March 2000, 15, Reports of Judgmentsand Decisions 2000-III.57Schengen Agreement Between the Governments of the States of the BeneluxEconomic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic onthe Gradual Abolition of Checks at the Common Frontiers, published at (1991) 30International Legal Materials 73.58Convention Applying the Schengen Agreement of 14 Jun 1985 Between theGovernments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republicof Germany and the French Republic on the Gradual Abolition of Checks at theCommon Frontiers, published at (1991) 30 International Legal Materials 84.59Convention determining the State responsible for examining applications for asylumlodged in one of the Member States of the European Communities - DublinConvention. [1997] OJ C254/1.60Article 24 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishingthe criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsiblefor examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by athird-country national. [2003] OJ L50/1.61Commission staff working paper, ‘Revisiting the Dublin Convention: developingCommunity legislation for determining which Member State is responsible for consideringan application for asylum submitted in one of the Member States’ SEC(2000) 522, punqti 55.62iqve, punqti 59.63Recital 2 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishingthe criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsiblefor examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by athird-country national [2003] Offi cial Journal L50/1.64ix. the House of Lords decision in the case of Regina v. Secretary of State forthe Home Department, Ex Parte Adan Regina v. Secretary of State for the HomeDepartment, Ex Parte Aitseguer (Conjoined Appeals), judgment of 19 December2000. The House of Lords ruled against the removal of the two applicants toFrance and Germany in application of the Dublin Convention on the grounds thatthe interpretation of the Geneva Convention made by those countries did not guaranteethe protection of the applicants.65T.I. v the United Kingdom, decision of 7 March 2000, 15, Reports of Judgmentsand Decisions 2000-III.66Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrantand the surrender procedures between Member States (2002/584/JHA); [2002]OJ L190/1.67muxlebi 23(4)(c)(ii), 25(2)(c), 27, da 36., Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States forgranting and withdrawing refugee status [2005] OJ L326/13.68Letter from the UK Government, ix. sqolio 6.69C. Phuong, ‘Identifying states’ responsibilities towards refugees and asylum seekers’.Paper presented at the ESIL Research Forum on International Law, May2005. ixileT Semdeg bmulze: www.ssrn.com (25.11.2009).70A. Fortín, The ‘Safe Third Country’ Policy in the light of the international obligationsof countries vis-à-vis refugees and asylum seekers (London, 1993), paras. 1.1-1.2and 2.2-2-3. ixileT Semdeg bmulze: www.ssrn.com (25.11.2009).75

IVANE ABASHIDZEPROTECTION OF REFUGEES IN TERMS OF A COMMONEUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM. COMPLIANCE WITHINTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND REFUGEE LAW1. INTRODUCTIONOn May 1 1999, after the Treaty ofAmsterdam was sanctioned, European immigrationlaw faced completely new challenges.The issue of asylum was one of the most hotlydebated topics. Member states cooperatedon an intergovernmental level and in severalyears, established Title IV of the TreatyEstablishing the European Community 1 : “Visas,asylum, immigration and other policiesrel ated to free movement of persons” whichhas formulated the main bases which legallylimit and establish the minimum standards oncertain matters concerning asylum.Transfer of EU approaches concerningthe asylum to the national law is not just a kindgesture from the member states. They formulatethe legal nature on a number of issues,including a joint system of their interpretationwithin those unique legal frames known asEU law. It has special signifi cance to individualsbecause such an approach represents animportant guarantee for the protection of theirrights, including their enforcement. 2After the entry into force of the Treaty ofAmsterdam, the issue of Asylum was reviewedat an EC meeting in Tampere on October15-16. Heads of the states agreed on theadoption of political management principlesin order to ensure the direction of works forprocessing a legal agenda on Title IV of theTreaty Establishing the European Community(TEEC). The EU formed the CommonEuropean Asylum System (CEAS), which wasbased on a complete and comprehensive interpretationof the UN Geneva Convention of1949, relating to refugees, in that “nobody issent back to persecution”. 3 It should be notedthat this strategy applies to third states as well,should they wish to take such measures. 4Several months later, in June 2000, duringthe presidency of Portugal, the EU andEC jointly organized the Lisbon conferenceon asylum issues: – “Prospects of CommonEuropean Asylum System”. The commission,member states, United Nations HighCommissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) andvarious NGOs discussed signifi cant issuesrelated to the Common European AsylumSystem, namely, a common procedural systemfor asylum seekers and the legal statusof the persons in need of international protection.A decision to start the implementationof legislative authorities specifi ed under TitleIV of TEC for the devealopment of the legalstructure of the system in accordance with the“Tampere Conclusions” was also addressedat the meeting (expressed in the EC communiqué“Main Issues on Procedural andLegal Status of Common European AsylumSystem Applicable in the EU in Relation ofAsylum Seekers” 5 ), Although this problemis not quite frequently discussed, it containssome contradictory issues that arose severalyears later (e.g. the issue of extraterritorial actionof asylum request beyond the EU 6 ).Based on the founding document, theTampere Conclusions and results of theLisbon Conference were released in the ECCommuniqué of November 2000 while the EUwas beginning to develop the CEAS System inframes of EC legal activities.76

I. ABASHIDZE, PROTECTION OF REFUGEES IN TERMS OF A COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM. COMPLIANCE...It is important to analyze how rational thedevelopment of CEAS has been. The processof European integration on asylum issues isunilaterally related to the establishment of aunifi ed market without borders. An integratedeconomic area requires deleting internal bordersamong member states in order to makethe movement of persons, capital and goodspossible. As this reality becomes more established,the external borders of the EU becomemore important to control to stop the movementof certain people (including those whoviolate the border regime), as well as capital(including the profi t yielded from criminal activity)and goods. The formation of a commonmarket without boundaries increases problemsat border crossings. Citizens of othercountries should be able to move beyond bordersfor with a guarantee of protection regardlessof whether they are Specially DesignatedNationals or not. 7The EU approach to asylum issues is expressedin the creation of a joint mechanism.This approach is not dictated by the motivationof an international protection of persons, butforms a joint system towards those persons(whether he/she is a refugee or not) who areadmitted into the integrated economic eurozone.This rationalism was criticized not onlyby UNHCR and NGOs, but by European legislatorsas well. The European ParliamentaryAssembly expressed a highly negative attitudetowards the EU vision on how its bordersshould be checked and how its economicinterests should be protected: “border checksand action to combat illegal immigration canbe only one aspect of the EU’s policy towardsnon-EU Citizens, and not a main strategy…[and]… the EU cannot analyze its immigrationpolicy solely from the point of view ofits economic interest but must also take intoaccount the reasons which force migrants toemigrate”. 8As a “process”, due to its highly naturalness,the policy of border checks and their“translation” into a legislative language, or reflection in the legislation, violates those countriesby putting them in an unequal positionwith bilateral or multilateral relations, whichhave been formulated over many years. Sucha change in the general condition achievesonly one result – the abolishment of bordersand their checking. Border “Closing” is unrealonly for the benefi t of European countries asthe persons who leave their home countries oftheir origin (with which a visa regime or sanctionsfrom EU is applicable) move to the EUand a secure third country respectively, and ifit is not possible, only that member state of theEU will be responsible for granting an asylumwhich failed to ensure the EU external borderregime. 9This research focuses on legal issuesthat refer to the establishment of an internalEuropean Asylum System. The fi rst stage ofCEAS development has revealed that underinternational law, the responsibility of grantingasylum lies not with the EU, but with a memberstate. Acting beyond the competences(including the sovereignty) on the side of amember state (which is a subject of internationallaw and under the international law onlyits activities are appraised in the sphere of humanrights protection) on the international organization(EU) which is not a member of anyinternational legal institution for human rightsprotection, has caused a problem – memberstate is limited by the implementation of EUlaws and is at the same time responsible forobligations undertaken at the internationallevel.The purpose of this research is to analyzethe internal European area where internal bordersare transformed into a quasi-individualjurisdiction in cases where certain conditionsexist for the categories of refuges provided forby the treaties. At the same time, the memberstate implements individual jurisdiction underinternational legislation, providing it carries individualresponsibility under the internationalhuman rights and refugee law. Problems mayarise from these points. First, if a member stateimplements legislation on EC asylum, the obligationand responsibility it holds under theinternational refugee law might be disputable.Second, transfer of jurisdiction from memberstates to the EU represents a violation of theirobligations in view of its national refugee law,the international refugee law, and in certaincases the international human rights law.77

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010A compromise between implementation ofCEAS and member states to not violate theinternational legal obligations will be reviewedbelow. We will also consider the limitation ofobligations of member states in relation to theEU law, to ensure the conformity to the CEASimplementation and the obligations undertakenaccording to the international law. From alegal point of view, we’ll review securing the“minimum standards” in relation to asylum,based on the analyses. Furthermore, we‘ll reviewthe transfer of member states jurisdictionon the issues of refugees to the EU. As for theconclusion, we will summarize the reviewedproblems.2. COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEMCEASCEAS warrants the free movement of peoplewithin the EU. In this context, implementationof the objectives under Title IV, TEC is themost important purpose, namely: “to establishprogressively an area of freedom, security andjustice” (Article 61).Issues related to asylum are specifi ed underArticle 63:“The Council, acting in accordance withthe procedure referred to in Article 67, shall,within a period of fi ve years after the entry intoforce of the Treaty of Amsterdam, adopt:1. measures on asylum, in accordance withthe Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relatingto the status of refugees and other relevanttreaties, within the following areas:(a) criteria and mechanisms for determiningwhich Member State is responsible forconsidering an application for asylum submittedby a national of a third country inone of the Member States,(b) minimum standards on the reception ofasylum seekers in Member States,(c) minimum standards with respect to thequalifi cation of nationals of third countriesas refugees,(d) minimum standards on procedures inMember States for granting or withdrawingrefugee status”.Therefore, the Treaty of Amsterdam certifies the purposes that have already been developedby the practice of countries to determinethe status and asylum of a refugee. Thisinstitution was originally oriented to protectthose people who are listed in Article 1A, “theGeneva Convention of 1951 relating to the statusof refugees” 10 (“The Geneva Convention”)and not for the protection of the people whoare not included in the category protected bythis convention, although they are included inother international treaties protecting humanrights. Article 63, II specifi ed the categoriesmore exactly:“measures on refugees and disp la cedpersons within the following areas:(a) minimum standards for giving temporaryprotection to displaced persons from thirdcountries who cannot return to their countryof origin and for persons who otherwiseneed international protection.The purpose of double protection specifi edunder the article is refl ected in the directive:“persons, who need international protection”. 11This specifi es two categories of persons whoneed international protection: Those peopleprovided for by Geneva Convention and thosepeople, that are not refugees according to theGeneva Convention, but who may request internationalprotection based on other groundspursuant to the International Law of HumanRights.The directive is a counter-possibility toconsolidate the people protected by the GenevaConvention and the people who under thissame convention are not subject to refugeestatus under one auspice. This directive representsone of the most signifi cant achievementsof international law, as the circle of protectedpersons has expanded by creating a unitedstatus in international law. This approach isnot strange for developed countries. The USA,Canada and several European countries, includingSpain (since reforms of 1994) 12 followthis practice.In relation to this directive, we can alsostate that the fi rst legally binding instrument onthe right of asylum and issues of migration isa logical beginning of the following directivesissued in 1999-2004 on the implementation of78

I. ABASHIDZE, PROTECTION OF REFUGEES IN TERMS OF A COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM. COMPLIANCE...the CEAS treaty: “on temporary protection inthe event of a mass infl ux”; 13 “reception criteriafor asylum seekers”; 14 “procedure for grantingand withdrawing refugee status” 15 as well asthe “Dublin Regulation”, which contains theliability of member states in relation to asylumseekers. 16By the end of the fi rst phase of the CEAS,at a November, 2004 EC meeting the “HagueProgram” formulated management principlesfor the development of phase II of CEAS:“The aims of the Common EuropeanAsylum System in its second phase will bethe establishment of a common asylum procedureand a uniform status for those who aregranted asylum or subsidiary protection. It willbe based on the full and inclusive applicationof the Geneva Convention on Refugees andother relevant Treaties, and be built on a thoroughand complete evaluation of the legal instrumentsthat have been adopted in the fi rstphase”. 17The mandate is based entirely on the TampereConclusions, Lisbon Conference, and theCommuniqué of 2000. Accordingly, the EuropeanCommission is authorized to start thesecond phase: “to conclude the instrumentsand to submit measures to the European Parliamentwith a view to their adoption before theend of 2010”. 18For the attainment of purposes under TitleIV, TEC it is necessary to base the CEASon the system of the Treaty of Amsterdam aswell. Although the legal nature of the instrumentsthat were adopted as a secondary EClegislation have not been discussed yet. Forinteraction an ad hoc system has been established,which is the result of work on theintergovernmental level and guarantees highcontrol mechanisms that member states havein the legislative process. The second phaseof CEAS is already considered as an ordinarylaw making. 19 The decision making processused in the fi rst phase is an important result ofthe treaties concluded between the countriesand specifi ed earlier.Article 67(1) of TEC states that the commissiondoes not have the exclusive right totake initiative, as this is conducted by memberstates. To accept an initiative, unanimoussupport from Member States is required. Thisgrants a member state the direct right to veto.The role of European parliament is limited toconsulting, although in practice this is rarelyused. The jurisdiction of the European Courtof the EU is limited as well.The Council ensured the receipt of allthose instruments determined within a term of5 (fi ve) years of the founding treaty.Tension between EU institutions becameclear in the resolution of Parliament againstthe Council and Commission 20 , in the FamilyReunifi cation Directive, 21 which was basedon human rights, and in the directive “AsylumProcedures,” 22 where the Parliament indicatedan inter alia violation on conscientious cooperation.23Thus, a dispute on the division of competencesresulted from a procedural point ofview, not from content issues. It is important,however, that removing the European Parliamentfrom effective institutions in the processof law making and keeping it only in a consultationrole generally casts doubt on its existence.A. External Action of the EU Policy:Protection ExportAs previously mentioned, the Tamperecouncil decided to develop an internal Europeanasylum system that would protect thirdcountry interests as well.The idea was not new, previous EU statementson migration reasons contained keepingpeace and completion of military confl icts,respecting human rights, development of ademocratic society and conducting a liberaltrade policy. 24External promulgation of justice and internalaffairs was supported by the 1999 TampereConclusions. An asylum and migration componentin the JHA External Dimension aimsat projecting the EU asylum policy and implementationof a migration approach in relationto other countries. 25 This approach was recognizedat the meeting of the council of Europeanministers in Santa Maria da Feira (2000) andin Seville (2002). These political managementprinciples were collected in the ConstitutionalTreaty of 2004, and were comprised of legal79

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010norms on the adoption / improvement of asylumand migration law in the future, throughthe cooperation of third countries. 26Soon it became evident that this desirerequired institutional coordination, therefore,in 2002, the council of ministers amendedthe working order of the “High Level WorkingGroup on Asylum and Migration – HLWG”,which was originally formulated in 1998 in orderto draw up a working plan through cooperationwith those countries and regions whereasylum seekers and migrants came from. Afterattaining ad hoc purpose, HLWG was providedwith a mandate to conduct discussions on theEU external asylum and migration policy withspecially selected regions and countries, withoutrestrictions on the geographic limit, representedby asylum seekers’ transit country. 27In this context, in December 2002, the ECpresented a communiqué “On consolidatingmigration issues in relation to third countries”, 28where the attitude towards migration and asylumpolicy was noted. It was emphasized inthe communiqué that fi nancial resourcesshould be applied maximally for the effi cientrepatriation of such persons (it implies immigrantsas well as refused asylum seekers). Inthe communiqué, border control, asylum andmigration projects in third countries were alsoemphasized (see also Aeneas Regulation 29 issuedlater).The following countries acceded for cooperationon EU immigration and asylummatters: Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, USA,Canada, Bulgaria, Rumania, Turkey, WestBalkan States, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan,Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan,Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Morocco,Algeria, Tunis, Jordan, Israel, Egypt, China,Iran, South Korea, Indonesia, as well as countriesof Latin America, Africa, the Caribbeanand the Pacifi c Ocean Basin. 30Treaties with third countries contain preventionof future resistance while requestingasylum. We may characterize this with wordsof the “Hague Program”: “to be conducted inclose consultation with the UNHCR”. 31Notwithstanding the highly positive natureof these treaties, there still exists an opinion inscientifi c circles that the methods developedby intergovernmental involvement in othercountries will be questionable in the future. 323. OBLIGATIONS ENVISAGED BYINTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTSAND REFUGEE LAW DURING THEIMPLEMENTATION OF THE EC ASYLUMLEGISLATIONThe complex union on asylum issues betweenthe EU and third countries was clearlyshown in the previous chapter. A problememerges when a EU member state violates anobligation in relation to the International RefugeeLaw. Which legislation should be appliedin such a case – secondary legislation or theEU legislation? International law and Europeanlaw differ from each other geographically,notwithstanding any other factor.Considering the privileged condition ofEuropean law 33 in relation to the internal lawof member states, as well as those based onthe EU requirement that all member states areobliged to have an entire secondary legislationin compliance with EU legislation (includingdenunciation of international treaties, ifthey do not correspond with European law),the problem is the attitude which is formed betweeninternational refugee law, internationalhuman rights law and these institutions.The difference between the obligationsunder international human rights law (derivedfrom international treaties) and the generalprinciples of European law manifests whenthe latter determines the purpose of the rightand sets a limit and decreases it, based on theEuropean law accordingly. 343.1. Human Rights as a GeneralPrinciple in European LawThe principle according which the internallaw of member states must be in full conformitywith the generally accepted principles ofthe European human rights law has been applicablein the EU for a long time already. Article6(2) of the EU Treaty 35 states:“The Union shall respect fundamentalrights, as guaranteed by the European Con-80

I. ABASHIDZE, PROTECTION OF REFUGEES IN TERMS OF A COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM. COMPLIANCE...vention for the Protection of Human Rightsand Fundamental Freedoms signed in Romeon 4 November 1950 and as they result fromthe constitutional traditions common to theMember States, as general principles of Communitylaw”.The ECJ Case Law confi rms this approachwhere the general principle given is commonfor all members under constitutional tradition,and it is a binding principle in European lawand a guarantee to ensure the absolute conformityof internal laws of member states withEU laws based on international fundamentalhuman rights. 36The “Charter of Fundamental Rights ofthe European Union” 37 (The Charter) has notcome into force yet; however, it is the most importantinstrument is so far as it recognizes therights as a result of constitutional practice andinternational obligations of member states,which is common for all member states. 38 TheCharter was incorporated in the draft text ofthe Constitution of the European Union. 39 Article18 and 19 of this draft contains regulationsconcerning refoulement the correspondence,which is compulsory for the secondary legislationsof all members. Although the constitutionaltreaty was rejected by France and theNetherlands in the referendum, this does nothinder the applicability of this part.Notwithstanding the existence of such alegal defect with respect to the defect of thebinding nature of the constitution, the humanrights chapter specifi es that EU institutions arein the human rights sphere. 40 One of the defectsof the Charter may also be consideredthe fact that any legislative initiative of memberstates concerning asylum should compulsorilycorrespond to it.3.2. Interrelation of European Lawand International Human Rights Law.Treaties Signed by Member StatesFor deeper analyses, let’s apply the EUlegislation on Asylum and the International HumanRights and Refugee Law, in which memberstates are involved. This moment is highlysignifi cant and necessary as TEC and TEUboth distribute the responsibility and state thatit is not binding for EC/EU as well as EC/EUactions towards them. 41In Article 307, TEC governs the relationsbetween the EU law and international treaties.The fi rst Paragraph of Article 307 specifi esthat rights and obligations arise only if an internationaltreaty fully corresponds with TECprovisions.In the Burgoa case, the Court observedthat Article 307(1): “is of general scope and itapplies to any international agreement, irrespectiveof the subject matter”, it also clarifi edthat the provision does not alter the nature ofsuch agreements, and therefore, “it does notadversely affect the rights which individualsmay derive from them”. 42 When confl icts of obligationsarise between those derived from EUlegislation and those derived from pre-existinginternational human rights treaties, MemberStates must give priority to those pre-existinghuman rights treaties. Yet if there is confl ictwith treaties concluded after the TEC entryinto force, Member States cannot contradictArticle 307 and the EU legislation would takepriority over those treaties.Furthermore, despite the primacy of preexistingtreaties, paragraph 2 of Article 307imposes an obligation on Member States totake all appropriate steps to eliminate the incompatibilitiesbetween them and the EU legislation.In relation to the aforementioned, theECJ’s fi rst judgments were delivered in July2000. The Court explained the purposes ofArticle 307(2). The Court acknowledged thatMember States had a choice as to the appropriatesteps to be taken to terminate incompatibilities,but further stated that ‘if a MemberState encounters diffi culties which makeadjustment of an agreement impossible, anobligation to denounce that agreement cannottherefore be excluded’. 43 However, as thewell-known scientist Klabbers has pointed out– in practice, this choice may be restricted toamending or denouncing the pre-existing treaties.44 The ECJ performed the implementationof this interpretation into a recent judgmentwhere the court noted that Austria had not violatedArticle 307(2) when it did not denouncethe treaty, given that it had not had the opportunityof doing so. 4581

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010The question therefore arises as to whetherMember States could be under an obligationto denounce international human rightsand refugee law instruments incompatible withArticle 307.Article 63(1) TEC establishes that:“the Council … shall … adopt … measureson asylum, in accordance with the GenevaConvention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocolof 31 January 1967 relating to the status ofrefugees and other relevant treaties.’The TEC establishes an obligation forMember States’ secondary legislation on asylumto comply with the Geneva Conventionand its Protocol, 46 and arguably with other humanrights treaties, which would include theEuropean Convention on Human Rights, 47the International Covenant on Civil and PoliticalRights 48 and the Convention Against Torture.49It could therefore be argued that Article 63is lex specialis to Article 307. If EU asylum lawrequired Member States to violate their obligationsunder international refugee and humanrights laws, it would be invalid. This interpretationwould also guarantee a uniform interpretationof EU legislation among Member States.In cases specifi ed under Article 63(1) the prioritywill be given to the International HumanRights and Refugee Law.In this context, the issue of a double approachtowards those persons who are refugeesand the persons who are in need of internationalprotection is of special importance. Itshould be noted that beyond Article 63(1) theproblem of the legal status of such personsmay also be implied, as it limits the means ofextending the right. Therefore, the secondarylegislation of Member States on these issuesshould by all means correspond with internationaldocuments. It would be ironic to declarethat protection of such persons shouldbe sought only in the documents of an internationalnature. It is not diffi cult to determinecases when it becomes necessary for MemberStates to reconcile its legislation with theEU legislation and international human rightslaw. No other interpretation was found in ECJCase Law.4. MINIMUM STANDARDS AND COMPLIANCEWITH INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS ANDREFUGEE LAWArticle 63, TEC grants power to the EUto establish minimum standards. The questionarises in the following situation – if a memberstate has established minimum standards tothose established by international refugeeand human rights law, but also corresponds toArticle 63 TEC, who is responsible party, theEU exclusively or the state itself? ECJ has notclarifi ed the concept of “minimum standards”yet.In 2004, the European Parliament introduceda “Family Reunifi cation Directive” 50 versusthe council and commission. Parliamentdoubted the action instruments correspondedwith international human rights standards.The Advocate General Juliane Kokott also expressedsuch doubt. She criticized the directivein regard to Article 8 and declared that itdid not provide suffi cient guarantees that wouldeffi ciently protect human rights and noted thatthis article contradicts the EU Law. 51The ECJ expressed a different attitudetowards this issue. The court stated that thedisputable norm did not violate respect for thefamily and recognition of the inviolability ofprivate life envisaged by Article 8, EuropeanConvention on Human Rights. 52 The Courtalso noted the necessity of discussing everyactual circumstance. Articles of 5(5) and 17 ofthis Directive provide for the best interests ofminor children, nature and solidity of the person’sfamily relationships and the duration ofhis/her residence in the Member State and ofthe existence of family, cultural and social tieswith his/her country of origin. 53Heated discussion ensued about the discretionlimits, which were granted to MemberStates while setting minimum standards in thecontext of CEAS. While adopting the Qualifi -cation Directive, the legal department of theCouncil of Ministers attempted to determineand grant legal signifi cance to “MinimumStandards” and it was specifi ed to assign thematter of development of the standards to theMember States. The legal department statedthat Member States are authorized to unify82

I. ABASHIDZE, PROTECTION OF REFUGEES IN TERMS OF A COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM. COMPLIANCE...issues not included in those determined bythe Directive; however, in consideration of thepreconditions under Article 10, TEC restrictsMember States from creating legislation that iscontradictory to the aspiration and purpose ofthe treaty. It is the legal department’s opinionthat Member States should refrain from adoptingsuch laws that do not correspond with theaims of the Directive. Although the term “MinimumStandards” was still widely interpreted,the legal department also noted that within theprocess of harmonization, more, not less standardsof protection might be taken into consideration.The opposite development of anyinternal legislative variation in relation to theQualifi cation Directive would be considered asan action against the process of harmonizationand unifi cation. 54 The main conception ofthis interpretation was that a non-compulsoryexception for the protection of those personswho were included in the risk group was legaland just.The Directive target group is not the peoplethat are vis-à-vis included in a sphere ofprotected persons (based on the internationalobligation of Member States). Whether or nota Member State’s decision to grant status orasylum to a person based on the obligationundertaken on an international basis is a violationof the EU legislation is also a problematicissue.The ECJ is also supposed to express itsopinion on this issue, but until then, we mustmake a logical conclusion according to otherevidence, which proceeds from a common interest,that a right is not always an absoluteprerogative and it may be limited and based onvery common interests. This limitation, however,should not be applied unproportionallyand unreasonably. 55 As we have noted, Article63(1) stipulates the subsidiary protection of anasylum seeker should be conducted accordingto EU legislation, secondary legislation ofMember States, and international obligations.In cases of confl ict between obligations,Member States are restricted by their internationaltreaty or agreement while implementationof the EU legislation. As the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights has specifi ed in thecase T.I. v the United Kingdom: “Where Statesestablish international organizations, or mutatismutandis international agreements, to pursueco-operation in certain fi elds of activities,there may be implications for the protection offundamental rights. It would be incompatiblewith the purpose and object of the Conventionif Contracting States were thereby absolvedfrom their responsibility under the Conventionin relation to the fi eld of activity covered bysuch attribution”. 56Therefore, failure to implement an actionby a Member State, or basing any agreementor treaty concerning any other issue upon EUlegislation may not be considered as a meansof limiting the application of EU legislation.5. CREATING A COMMON EUROPEANASYLUM SYSTEM: CAN MEMBER STATESCOMPLY WITH THEIR INTERNATIONALREFUGEE AND HUMAN RIGHTSOBLIGATIONS?As it has been indicated, the EU is developingan intra-EU asylum space where internalborders are transformed to give way to aquasi jurisdiction for the treatment of refugeesin certain circumstances, while at the sametime Member States remain individually responsibleunder international refugee and humanrights law.The case in question is best exemplifi edin the so-called Dublin II Regulation. This instrumentestablishes a mechanism for the allocationof responsibility for processing asylumclaims among EU Member States. The systemis far from being a novelty. The decisionthat only one Member State would be responsiblefor the examination of asylum claimslodged in any of the Member States was fi rstagreed within the framework of the “ShengenAgreement” 57 and was later incorporated inthe “Shengen Convention”. 58 However, theseprovisions were later replaced by the DublinConvention, 59 which in turn has been replacedby the Dublin Regulation. 60The defi ciencies in the system, notablythe divergent interpretations of the GenevaConvention by Member States, have longbeen identifi ed. The European Commission83

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010suggested in 1999 a change of approach:“A fundamentally different approach wouldimply a system which was not based on theprinciple that the Member State responsiblefor a person’s presence on the territory of theUnion should be responsible for consideringany subsequent asylum application”. 61 TheCommission went further to suggest that “responsibilitybe allocated according to wherethe fi rst asylum claim was lodged”. 62Beyond the inability of the system to meetits stated goals, the question also arises as tothe presumption that all EU Member Statesare ‘safe’ for any given refugee. In fact, thisintra-EU system for sharing responsibility toprocess asylum applications is based on thepremise that all EU Member States are safefor refugees and that consequently, they maylawfully remove individuals to other MemberStates without considering their protectionclaims.What constitutes “safety” for the purposesof transfer of responsibility of refugees amongMember States has yet to be defi ned. Often,safety seems to be understood as the mererespect for the principle of non-refoulementin the destination state. This is the approachtaken by the Dublin Regulation itself: “MemberStates, all respecting the principle of non-refoulement,are considered as safe countriesfor third-country nationals”. 63 In this regard,the Regulation seems not to have taken intoconsideration that the matter had alreadybeen considered in national courts 64 and in theEuropean Court of Human Rights, 65 resultingin an unequivocal pronouncement by the variousinstances on the need to consider eachcase on its merits as a prerequisite of lawfulnessof the transfer of responsibility for therefugee in question.The implementation of the Dublin systemamounts to a mutual recognition of rejectiondecisions among EU Member States (giventhat the asylum claim can only be consideredonce in the EU) which is not mirrored by themutual recognition of decisions recognizingrefugee status and other protection needs.Therefore, an intra-EU system has been designedwhereby the responsibility to determinerefugee status is allocated to one MemberState only, but if an individual is recognizedas a refugee, the validity of that status so recognizeddoes not extend to the other MemberStates. This is most relevant in so far recognizedrefugees may eventually travel to otherMember States (if a right to freedom of movementis eventually recognized to them) or mostimportantly, if they are forcibly transferred toanother Member State within the context ofthe European Arrest Warrant 66 to face trial orserve a sentence in criminal proceedings. Theconsequences of this lack of mutual recognitionof refugee status decisions are obvious ifrefugees are transferred from a State in whichthey have been recognized to another one inwhich they are not and where they may eventuallybe brought within the domain of the generallegislation on aliens.Given that in many states the penalty fora criminal conviction often includes expulsionupon serving a sentence, it goes without sayingthat the international obligations of theMember State who recognized the refugeewould be engaged if another Member Statewere to proceed to the expulsion of that individualwithout consideration of his refugee statusrecognized elsewhere in the Union.The complexities of the transfer of asylumseekersand refugees among Member Statesin absence of a fully harmonized asylum systemreveal a number of legal obligations applyin these cases. In the following pages, I wouldlike to challenge the understanding that theprinciple of non-refoulement is the only legalrequirement that states need to meet in internationalrefugee and human rights law for thepurposes of being designated as the MemberState responsible to examine an asylum application.While this may be the case in someinstances, it cannot be automatically assumedthat states’ only obligation towards asylumseekers are to ensure that the country of destinationrespects the principle of non-refoulement.The concrete set of obligations will bedetermined by the body of international refugeeand human rights law, of universal and regionalscope, applicable to any given asylumseeker in any given circumstances.84

I. ABASHIDZE, PROTECTION OF REFUGEES IN TERMS OF A COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM. COMPLIANCE...5.1 Determining the Scope of MemberStates Obligations towards Refugees:the ‘Safe Country’ Concept in an Intra-European Asylum SpaceAs was previously noted, the CEAS isfounded on the presumption of safety of allMember States. In fact, in its different variations,the “safe country” concept is groundedand focuses on the specifi c requirements thatare to be met for a State to be considered a“safe country”.The question as to its lawfulness timelyand pertinent, despite the long-standing practiceof states in relation to this concept, includingthe increasing sophistication in its practice,the changing legal and political landscapes inwhich it is applied, and more important to ouranalysis, its becoming a minimum standardof EU Law 67 by way of its incorporation in theDirective on minimum standards on proceduresin Member States for granting and withdrawingrefugee status.A conceptual distinction (that often getsblurred in the current state of debate) must bemade between the concept as a proceduraltool for States to refuse responsibility to determinethe refugee status of a claimant onthe grounds that another State should or is (ifagreements exist between the two countries)responsible to examine the claim, and the conceptas a standard to determine whether sufficient protection exists in a particular countryin order for States to remove/retain individualsfor the purposes of examining their claims. Inthe fi rst case, States refuse to take responsibilityto examine a protection claim, while inthe second case, States accept their responsibilityto undertake refugee status determination,but argue that no obligation exists to doso within their own territories. As Tony Blair,former Prime Minister of Great Britain declared:“There is no obligation under the 1951Refugee Convention to process claims forasylum in the country of application” 68 .It is a generally known legal axiom thatto every right there is a corresponding duty.An attempt to identify the obligations of Statestowards refugees requires fi rst clarifi cation asto which rights a refugee can claim vis-à-vis aState. It is also argued that the status of refugeesunder international law is defi ned notsolely by international refugee law, but ratherin various legal systems both of universal andregional scope.Despite the numerous statements thatrefugee rights are human rights and that internationalrefugee law is part of internationalhuman rights law, is scarcely supported by refugeescholars. Yet, only a holistic approach tohuman rights can offer a more comprehensivepicture, albeit more complex, of what Statesare obliged to do (and therefore, what theymay be free to do) in relation to refugees, as aresult of less development of the latter.Writing in 1993, Antonio Fortín DeputyRepresentative of UNHCR in the UK, at thattime, wrote a legal opinion on the “safe thirdcountry” concept, where he explained “a personwho has left his country in order to escapepersecution must apply for recognition of refugeestatus and/or for asylum in the fi rst safecountry he has been able to reach’. He furthercontinues explaining that refugees are internationallyprotected persons that are entitledto treatment in accordance to internationallyprescribed standards enshrined not only inthe Geneva Convention, but also in other internationalinstruments. Given the declaratorynature of refugee status and considering thatrecognition of such status “is a recognition ofhis refugee status’. The suggestion that Statesare under no obligation to consider requests forrecognition of status made within their jurisdictionappears to be incompatible with the purposeof the Convention. Furthermore, statesare responsible for refugees (notwithstandingthe fact of recognition as such). 69 Fortín arguesthat the person can exercise this right to seekrecognition of refugee status within whose jurisdictionhe may fi nd himself. 70Furthermore, the obligations of Statestowards individual circumstances under internationalhuman rights law are both negativeand positive in nature. States are therefore notonly obliged to respect, but also to fulfi l and toprotect all human rights.If refugees have a right to seek recognitionof their refugee status vis-à-vis any State partyto the Geneva Convention (and this includes85

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010all EU Member States), and if all individuals(including refugees) are holders of rights thatgo beyond the lack of interference by requiringpositive state action, it follows that states areunder obligations to refugees that may go wellbeyond the mere respect of the principle ofnon-refoulement. From this perspective, thetransfer of responsibility from a Member Stateto another Member State, raises issues relatingto the responsibility of the fi rst MemberState to fulfi l all the obligations towards refugeesunder international refugee and humanrights law that were already engaged at themoment of the transfer.What is argued here is that the obligationsof States under international law (as well astheir international responsibility for violationsof those obligations), when acting individuallyor collectively (within the context of the EU),are engaged when a refugee is under their jurisdiction.6. CONCLUSIONThis paper has highlighted some of thecomplex issues that arise from the establishmentof a Common European Asylum Systemand quasi-single jurisdiction within internalborders of the EU. While discussing the importantinstitutions of the Refugee Law, wehave discerned a mutually exclusive attemptto sometimes avoid responsibility, acts whichwere suppressed by the EC itself, throughParliament, the Commission or the Ministerial.Although, there are bound to still be some explanationsfrom States despite the fact thata common system has been established inwhich only one State reviews applications forasylum. This will not prevent States from lodgingrefugee applications on their territories.Failure to review the latter based on CommonLaw may result in a violation of human rights.However, every State considers the status ofa refugee with excessive formalization and ignoresthe already established fact of the rightsof refugees.1[2002] Offi cial Journal C/325/33.2It is of great importance to review the historical development of the EuropeanAsylum System because legal problems were formed during this very period. Anumber of authors identify problems that have been revealed by time and activity, including: E Guild “The developing immigration and asylum policies of theEuropean Union: adopted conventions, resolutions, recommendations, decisionsand conclusions. Compilation and commentary (The Hague, Kluwer LawInternational, 1996);” H Labayle ‘Un espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice’33(4) Revue Trimestrielle de droit européen 105-172; S Peers EU Justice andHome Affairs Law (Harlow, Longman, 2000) and S Peers EU Justice and HomeAffairs Law 2nd ed. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006).3Conclusion 13, Tampere European Council, Document Press Nr: 200/1/99.4Ibid, Conclusions 11-12.5COM(2000) 755 fi nal, 22 November 2000.6J. STRAW, ‘Towards a Common Asylum Procedure’, in Towards a CommonEuropean Asylum System. European Conference on Asylum (Lisbon: Serviço deEstrangeiros e Fronteiras, 2000) 133-139; COM(2000) 755 fi nal, 22 November2000, section 2.3.2. See also the proposal presented by the United Kingdomin March 2003 for ‘New International Approaches to Asylum Processing andProtection’. Letter from the UK Government to the Greek Presidency of the EU,see the below link: . This opinion is criticized: G. Noll, ‘Visions of the Exceptional: Legal andTheoretical Issues Raised by Transit Processing Centers and Protection Zones’,(2003) 5 EJML 303-341 and Amnesty International, UK/EU/UNHCR Unlawful andUnworkable – Amnesty International’s views on proposals for extraterritorial processingof asylum claims, IOR 61/004/2003. (24.10.2009)86

I. ABASHIDZE, PROTECTION OF REFUGEES IN TERMS OF A COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM. COMPLIANCE...7See the report below concerning this issue: “The internal tension in the EU’s owndynamics of border control becomes apparent when one compares the attemptsto seal EU borders with the permeability of the same borders in relation to armsexports (a strong economic interest for the EU’s Member States) that fuel confl ictworldwide, which constitutes one of the main reasons for forced displacement. Areport released in June 2005 by Amnesty International, Iansa, and Oxfam illustrateshow the G8 countries (which include the UK, France, Germany and Italy)are among the world’s leading arms suppliers, including to countries subject toan EU arms embargo, such as Myanmar (Burma), China and Sudan. The reporthighlights the failure to enforce controls on the transfer of equipment that canbe used for torture, ill-treatment and other human rights violations and the costthat arms exports have in human lives, lost livelihoods, socio-economic development,democracy, and opportunities to escape poverty.” - Amnesty International,Iansa, Oxfam. The G8: global arms exporters. Failing to prevent irresponsiblearms transfers. June 2005, 5.8European Parliament Resolution on the links between legal and illegal migrationand integration of migrants (2004/2131 (INI)), Doc. A6-0136/2005, 9 June 2005,para. 17.9M-T. Gil-Bazo, ‘La protección de los refugiados en la Unión Europea tras la entradaen vigor del Tratado de Amsterdam a la luz del Derecho internacional de losderechos humanos’, in F.M. Mariño Menéndez and C. Fernández Liesa (dirs.), Laprotección de las personas y grupos vulnerables en el Derecho Europeo (Madrid:Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales,2001) 147-186.10189 UN Treaty Series 2545, done 28 July 1951, entered into force 22 April 195411Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for thequalifi cation and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugeesor as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of theprotection granted; [2004] OJ L 304/12.12MT Gil-Bazo, ‘The Role of Spain as a Gateway to the Schengen Area: Changes inthe Asylum Law and their Implications for Human Rights’ (1998) 10 InternationalJournal of Refugee Law 214-229.13Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for givingtemporary protection in the event of a mass infl ux of displaced persons and onmeasures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receivingsuch persons and bearing the consequences thereof; [2001] OJ L 212/12.14Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standardsfor the reception of asylum seekers; [2003] OJ L31/1815Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards onprocedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status; [2005]OJ L 326/13.16Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteriaand mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examiningan asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-countrynational; [2003] OJ L 50/1.17Council Document 14292/1/04 REV 1, 8 December 2004, section 1.3.18Ibid.19Council Decision of 22 December 2004 providing for certain areas covered byTitle IV of Part Three of the Treaty establishing the European Community to begoverned by the procedure laid down in Article 251 of that Treaty (2004/927/EC)([2004] OJ L/396/45).20Case C-540/03 Parliament v Council and Commission ([2004] OJ C/47/21).21Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family reunifi cation ([2003] OJ L/251/12).22Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards onprocedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status; [2005]OJ L 326/13.23Case C-133/06 Parliament v Council, Action brought on 8 March 2006.87

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 201024Declaration on Principles of Governing External Aspects of Migration Policy, annexedto the Conclusions of the Edinburgh European Council, 11-12 December1992. Document SN 456/92, Annex 5 to Part A, para. ix.25Tampere European Council, 15-16 October 1999, conclusion 11.26‘[…] European laws or framework laws shall lay down measures for a commonEuropean asylum system comprising […] partnership and cooperation with thirdcountries for the purpose of managing infl ows of people applying for asylum orsubsidiary or temporary protection.’ III-266(2)(g). [2004] OJ C310/1. The legal basisfor external action in the fi eld of asylum and migration, however, already existsin the Treaties. See J. Monar, ‘The EU as an International Actor in the Domain ofJustice and Home Affairs’, 9 European Foreign Affairs Review 395-415 at 396-9.27Modifi cation of the terms of reference of the High Level Working Group on Asylumand Migration (HLWG), Council Document 9433/02 of 30 May 2002, 2. Despitethe apparent lack of subsequent activity, the JHA Council confi rmed this role at itsinformal meeting of 27-29 January 2005.28COM(2002) 703 fi nal, of 3 December 2002.29Regulation (EC) No 491/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Councilof 10 March 2004 establishing a program for fi nancial and technical assistanceto third countries in the areas of migration and asylum (AENEAS). [2004] OJL80/1.30ix. JHA External Relations Multi-Presidency Programme. Council Document5001/05 JAI 1 RELEX 1, of 3 January 2005 and JHA External Relations Multi-Presidency Work Programme. Council Document 10728/05 JAI 244 RELEX 355,of 1 July 2005.31Council Document 14292/1/04 REV 1, 8 December 2004, section 1.3.32MT Gil-Bazo ‘The Practice of Mediterranean States in the context of the EuropeanUnion’s Justice and Home Affairs External Dimension. The Safe Third CountryConcept Revisited’. (2006) 18 International Journal of Refugee Law 571-600.www.ssrn.com (23.10.2009)33The Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ) established the primacyof Community law over the law of the Member States in the Case 6/64 Costa vEnel [1964] ECR-585.34See more details. S Peers, ‘Human Rights, Asylum and European CommunityLaw’ (2004) 24(2) Refugee Survey Quarterly 24-38.35[2002] OJ C/325/5.36Case 29/69 Stauder [1969] ECR 419, para 7. See the detalised comment:Columbia Journal of European Law 169-181; K Lenaerts, ‘Fundamental Rights inthe European Union’ (2000) European Law Review 575-600. For discussions onrecent developments in the protection of human rights by the European Union,following adoption of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, see P Alstonand O de Schutter (eds), Monitoring Fundamental Rights in the EU:The contributionof the Fundamental Rights Agency (Oxford, Hart, 2005). See on the belowlink: www.lexisnexis.com, www.heinonline.com (22.10.2009)37[2000] OJ C/364/1.38Ibid, Preamble.39This is legally compulsory until the full entry of the constitution into force.40S Peers, ‘Immigration, Asylum and the European Union Charter of FundamentalRights’ (2001) 3 European Journal of Migration and Law 141-169. see below link:www.heinonline.com (25.12.2009)41And in the current state of EC law, there is no legal basis for the EC/EU to accedeto human rights treaties (Opinion 2/94 Accession by the Communities tothe European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and FundamentalFreedoms [1996] ECR I-1759). The Constitutional Treaty partly provides for thatlegal basis in Article 7(2), which contains an obligation for the Union to seek accessionto the European Convention of Human Rights.88

I. ABASHIDZE, PROTECTION OF REFUGEES IN TERMS OF A COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM. COMPLIANCE...42Case 812/79, Attorney-General v Burgoa [1980] ECR 2787, paras 6 and 10 respectively43Case C-62/98 Commission v Portugal [2000] ECR I-5171, para 49, and C-84/98Commission v Portugal [2000] ECR I-5215, para 58.44J Klabbers, ‘Moribund on the Fourth of July? The Court of Justice on PriorAgreements of the Member States’ (2001) 26 European Law Review 196.45C-203/03, Commission v Austria, judgment of the Court 1 February 2005, paras61-64.46Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (adopted 31 January 1967, enteredinto force 4 October 1967) 606 UNTS 267. For an analysis of the relationship betweenthe Directive and the Geneva Convention, ix. H Lambert, ‘The EU AsylumQualifi cation Directive, Its Impact on the Jurisprudence of the United Kingdomand International Law’ (2006) 55 International and comparative Law Quarterly184-190.47European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (adopted1950, entered into force) 213 UNTS 221.48International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966,entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171.49Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment orPunishment (adopted 10 December 1984, entered into force 26 June 1987) 1465UNTS 85.50Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family reunifi cation ([2003] OJ L/251/12).51Advocate-General Opinion in Case C-540/03 Parliament v Council andCommission, delivered on 8 September 2005, para 105.52European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (adopted1950, entered into force) 213 UNTS 221.53Case C-540/03 Parliament v Council and Commission, judgment of 27 June 2006,paras 62-64, not yet reported.54Doc. 14348/02 JUR 449 ASILE 67, 15 November 2002, paras 5 and 7. Offi cialaccess to this document has been refused by the Council (with the vote againstby Sweden). See Letter from the General Secretariat of the Council of 23 May2005, refusing full access to Documents 10560/02 and 14348/02, Doc. 9727/05INF 111 API 85 JUR 240, of 3 June 2005. However, the document is availableat: http://www.statewatch.org/newx/2002/dec/14348.02.doc. See discussion onthis issue.: MT Gil-Bazo ‘Refugee status, subsidiary protection, and the right tobe granted asylum under EC law’ New Issues in Refugee Research, ResearchPaper No. 136 (Geneva, UNHCR, November 2006) 14-20.55See. for instance, Case C-280/93 Germany v Council [1993] ECR I-4973 andCase C-122/95 Germany v Council [1995] ECR I-973.56T.I. v the United Kingdom, decision of 7 March 2000, 15, Reports of Judgmentsand Decisions 2000-III.57Schengen Agreement Between the Governments of the States of the BeneluxEconomic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic onthe Gradual Abolition of Checks at the Common Frontiers, published at (1991) 30International Legal Materials 73.58Convention Applying the Schengen Agreement of 14 Jun 1985 Between theGovernments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republicof Germany and the French Republic on the Gradual Abolition of Checks at theCommon Frontiers, published at (1991) 30 International Legal Materials 8459Convention determining the State responsible for examining applications for asylumlodged in one of the Member States of the European Communities - DublinConvention. [1997] OJ C254/1.60Article 24 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishingthe criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsiblefor examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States bya third-country national. [2003] OJ L50/1.89

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 201061Commission staff working paper, ‘Revisiting the Dublin Convention: developingCommunity legislation for determining which Member State is responsible forconsidering an application for asylum submitted in one of the Member States’SEC (2000) 522, para 55.62Ibid, para 59.63Recital 2 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishingthe criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsiblefor examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States bya third-country national [2003] Offi cial Journal L50/1.64See. the House of Lords decision in the case of Regina v. Secretary of State forthe Home Department, Ex Parte Adan Regina v. Secretary of State for the HomeDepartment, Ex Parte Aitseguer (Conjoined Appeals), judgment of 19 December2000. The House of Lords ruled against the removal of the two applicants toFrance and Germany in application of the Dublin Convention on the grounds thatthe interpretation of the Geneva Convention made by those countries did notguarantee the protection of the applicants.65T.I. v the United Kingdom, decision of 7 March 2000, 15, Reports of Judgmentsand Decisions 2000-III.66Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant andthe surrender procedures between Member States (2002/584/JHA); [2002] OJL190/1.67Articles 23(4)(c)(ii), 25(2)(c), 27, and 36., Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States forgranting and withdrawing refugee status [2005] OJ L326/13.68Letter from the UK Government, See note 6.69C. Phuong, ‘Identifying states’ responsibilities towards refugees and asylum seekers’.Paper presented at the ESIL Research Forum on International Law, May2005. See link: www.ssrn.com (25.11.2009)70A. Fortín, The ‘Safe Third Country’ Policy in the light of the international obligationsof countries vis-à-vis refugees and asylum seekers (London, 1993), paras.1.1-1.2 and 2.2-2-3. See link: www.ssrn.com (25.11.2009)90

nino abramiSviliarasaxelmwifoebrivi erTeulebisvaldebulebebi adamianis uflebebTandakavSirebiT – pasuxismgeblobis tvirTis gadatanasaxelmwifoebidan arasaxelmwifoebriv erTeulebze`adamianis uflebebi aris kvintesenciuri Ri rebule bebi, romelTa saSualebiTac Cven vadasturebT,rom varT adamianTa erTiani sazogadoeba.~butros butros galiA. Sesavalitradiciulad saxelmwifoebi saer-TaSoriso doneze erTaderTi moTama-Seni iyvnen. Tumca amJamad udavoa, romarasaxelmwifoebrivi erTeulebi monawileobensaerTaSoriso urTierTobebisyvela sferoSi. ufro da ufrometi avtori miiCnevs, rom tradiciulimidgoma moZvelebulia da arasaxelmwifoebrivierTeulebis pasuxismgeblobaxelaxla unda iqnes Seswavlili, globaluricvlilebebis gaTvaliswinebiT,romelTa Sedegia arasaxelmwifoebrivierTeulebis uflebamosilebis gazrdada saxelmwifoTa uflebamosilebis Sez-Rudva. 1arasaxelmwifoebrivi erTeulis cne -bis ganmartebisas, rogorc wesi, gu lisxmobennebismier erTeuls, romelic,faqtobrivad, saxelmwifo ar aris damas iyeneben SeiaraRebul dajgufebebze,teroristebze, samoqalaqo sazogadoebaze,religiur jgufebze an korporaciebzemiTiTebisas. 2 zogadi wesisTanaxmad, arasaxelmwifoebrivi erTeulebiar arian adamianis uflebebisSesaxeb saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebiswevrebi da arc aseTi xelSekrulebebi(an am sferoSi moqmedi CveulebiTi samarTali)iTvaliswinebs valdebulebebsmaTTvis. 3istoriulad adamianis uflebebimi eniWaT individebs saxelmwifoebisaganmaT dasacavad; saxelmwifoTa zogierTifunqcia gadanawilda sxva warmonaqmnebze(erTeulebze), romelTacSesaZloa daarRvion aRniSnuli uflebebi;Sesabamisad, Cven SegviZlia vamtkicoT,rom aseT erTeulebs unda movuwodoT,pativi scen adamianis uflebebsindividebTan mimarTebiT. 4Cveni azriT, yovelgvar eWvgareSea,rom arasaxelmwifoebriv erTeulebsaqvT SesaZlebloba, daarRvion adamianisuflebebi, romlebic ar unda darCesdausjeli da, Sesabamisad, saerTaSorisoTanamegobrobam yvela Rone undaixmaros, raTa maT pasuxismgebloba daakisrosadamianis uflebaTa samarTlisdarRvevisaTvis.winamdebare naSromis pirvel nawil-Si ganxilulia arasaxelmwifoebrivier Teulebis valdebulebebi adamianisuflebebTan mimarTebiT SeiaraRebulikonfliqtis dros da aseve gansaz R v-rulia is moTamaSeni, romelTac Se i-Z leba daekisroT valdebuleba, pati-91

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010vi scen adamianis uflebebis Sesaxebnormebs. garda amisa, winamdebare naSromiaseve Seexeba arasaxelmwifoebrivierTeule bis valdebulebebs adamianisuflebebTan mimarTebiT mSvidobiandros, romlebic, ZiriTadad, gamomdinareobensaerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebidanda konvenciebidan.statiis bolo nawilSi yuradRebagamaxvilebulia arasaxelmwifoebrivier Teulebis mier Cadenil adamianis uflebaTadarRvevebisaTvis pasuxismgeblobissakiTxebze. marTalia, bevri sa-Su aleba arsebobs, saxelmwifoebs daekisroTpasuxismgebloba arasaxelmwifoebrivierTeulebis mier Cadenilada mianis uflebaTa darRvevebisaTvis,winamdebare statiaSi ganixileba saxelmwifoTamier valdebulebebis ke-Til sindisie rad Sesrulebis movaleobis(due diligence oblihation) darRvevisa dauSualod arasaxelmwifoebrivi erTeulebisaTvispasuxismgeblobis dakisrebissakiTxebi. SeiZleba miviCnioT,rom samarTaldamrRvevis dapatimrebasamarTliani dakmayo filebaa, Tumcaes ase ar aris: rogorc qvemoT vnaxavT,ara saxelmwifoebrivi erTeulebisaTvisadamianis uflebebis darRvevebis gamopasuxismgeblobis dakisrebas uamraviupiratesoba aqvs da, amasTan, adamianisuflebebis sayovelTao dacvis erTaderTisaSualebaa.B. arasaxelmwifoebrivierTeulebis pasuxismgeblobaadamianis uflebebTanmimarTebiT konfliqtis drospirveli kiTxva, romelic SeiZlebaadamians gauCndes, rodesac saub robsSeiaraRebul arasaxelmwifoebriv er-Teulebze, aris is, ramdenad Se sa Z lebeliamaTTvis pasuxismgeblobis dakisrebakonfliqtis areSi Cadenil adamianisuflebaTa darRvevisaTvis, Tuisini ar arian kombatantis reJimis maregulirebeliarc erTi xelSekrulebiswevrebi. 5am kiTxvaze pasuxis gasacemad aucilebeliaimis gansazRvra, Tu romel arasaxelmwifoebriverTeuls SeiZlebahqo ndes valdebuleba konfliqtis dros.I. SeiaraRebul konfliqtSiarasaxelmwifoebrivierTeulebis ganmartebaarasaxelmwifoebrivi erTeuli Ca i-T vleba organizebul SeiaraRebul jgufad,romelsac aqvs uflebebi da movaleobebiSeiaraRebul konfliqtSi, Tuigi akmayofilebs ramdenime kriteriums.Akayesu-s saqmeze ruandis sisxlissamarTlis tribunalma daadgina, romSeiaraRebul jgufebs unda hyavdeT organizebulisamxedro Zala, maT qmedebazepasuxismgebeli xelisufali, undamoqmedebdes gansazRvruli teritoriisfarglebSi da hqondeT saSualeba, pativiscen konvencias an uzrunvelyon misi pativiscema.6pasuxismgebeli xelmZRvanelobis arsebobamet-naklebad gulisxmobs ajanyebuliSeiaraRebuli jgufis an disidentiSeiaraRebuli Zalebis organizebulobas,Tumca yovelTvis ar niSnavs, romarsebobs ierarqiuli sistema, romelicflobs regularul SeiaraRebulZalebs. 7 SeiaraRebuli jgufis an disidentiZalebis organizacia imgvari undaiyos, rom maT SeeZloT SeTanxmebulisamxedro operaciebis dagegmva da ganxorcielebada de facto xelisuflebissaxeliT wesrigis damyareba. 8II damatebiTi oqmis 1-li muxliaseve iTvaliswinebs, rom mowinaaRmdegeSeiaraRebul jgufebsac unda SeeZloTmaRali xelSemkvreli saxelmwifos teritoriaze`iseTi~ kontrolis ganxorcieleba,rom saSualeba hqondeT ganaxorcielonuwyveti da SeTanxmebulisaomari moqmedebani da gamoiyenon esoqmi. 9 sityva `iseTi~ (“such”) aris ganmartebisgasaRebi. kontroli sakmarisiunda iyos imisTvis, rom ganxorcieldesxangrZlivi da SeTanxmebuli samxedrooperacia da maSin SesaZlebeli iqnebaoqmis gamoyeneba. 10 Sesabamisad, rodesacsaxezea zemoaRniSnuli kriteriumebi,Cven miviCnevT, rom organizebuliSeiaraRebuli jgufebis mimarT gamoiy-92

n. abramiSvili, arasaxelmwifoebrivi erTeulebis valdebulebebi adamianis uflebebTan dakavSirebiT ...eneba SeiaraRebul konfliqtebSi adamianisuflebebis maregulirebeli wesebi.II. rogor SeiZleba daekisroTarasaxelmwifoebriv erTeulebsadamianis uflebebis dacvakonfliqtur situaciebSi1980-ian da 90-ian wlebSi mniSvnelovani cvlilebebi ganicades adamianisuflebebis saerTaSoriso standartebma,rodesac am sferoSi moqmedmamniSvnelovanma organizaciebma – `saer-TaSoriso amnistiam~ da `Human RightsWatch~-ma Secvales adamianis uflebebisdarRvevis ganmarteba da mas daamatesdarRvevebi arasaxelmwifoebrivierTeulebis mier. am periodis Semdegmomzadebuli oficialuri gancxadebebida angariSebi asaxavda aseT midgomasda Camoyalibda globaluri (sayovelTao)praqtika, raTa `Searcxvinonda daasaxelon~ SeiaraRebuli jgufebi,romlebic pasuxismgebelni arian adamianisuflebebis darRvevaze. 11kolumbiaSi adamianis uflebebismdgomareobis Sesaxeb meore angariSSi(1993 weli) interamerikulma komisiamganacxada, rom SeiaraRebuli jgufebisqmedebani `savalaloa yvelaze mni-S vnelovani adamianis uflebebis ganxorcielebisaTvis~.12 gaeros adamianisuflebebis komisiis specialurmamo mxseneblebma da samuSao jgufebisTavmjdomareebmac aRniSnes `adamianisuflebebiT sargeblobasTan mimarTebiTuaryofiTi Sedegebi, romlebic SeiZlebagamoiwvios SeiaraRebuli jgufebis qmedebebma.13generaluri mdivnis moxsenebaSi minimalurihumanitaruli standartebisSesaxeb, romelic wardgenil iqna adamianisuflebaTa komisiis ormocdame-ToTxmete sxdomaze, ganxiluli iyoada mianis uflebebis darRvevebisaTvisarasaxelmwifoebrivi erTeulebis pasuxismgeblobissakiTxi, kerZod: `eWvgareSea,SeiaraRebuli jgufis miersa moqalaqo piris mokvla, adamianebisgamosaxleba sakuTari saxlebidan,an sxvagvarad daSinebisa da aradiskriminiciuliZaladobis aqtebis ganxorcielebapotenciurad saerTaSorisomniSvnelobis sakiTxia. [...]gaeroserT-erTi umniSvnelovanesi miRwevaaadamianis uflebebis saerTaSoriso samarTlisganviTareba, romelic iTvaliswinebssaxelmwifoTa pasuxismgeblobas,rogorc zogad standarts. gamowvevaisaa, rom SevinarCunoT es miRweva da,amave dros, uzrunvelvyoT adamianisuflebebis koncefciis Cven garSemomsofliosTan relevanturoba.” 14arasaxelmwifoebrivi erTeulebispasuxismgeblobasTan dakavSirebiT asevemniSvnelovani da sasargebloa gaerosuSiSroebis sabWos praqtika, romelicxazs usvams adamianis uflebebis savaldebulomoqmedebas aseTi erTeulebismimarT. gvinea-bisaus Taobaze miRebuli1216-e rezoluciiT gaeros uSiSroebissabWo mouwodebda:`yvelas, mTavrobisa da TviT ga mocxadebulisamxedro xuntis CaT vliT,zustad daicvan saerTaSoriso samarTlisSesabamisi de bulebebi humanitarulida ada mianis uflebebis samarTlisCaT vliT, da uzrunvelyon saerTaSorisohumanitaruli organizaciebis usafrTxoda Seuferxebeli urTierToba impirebTan, romelTac esaWiroebaT daxmarebakonfliqtis Sedegad.~ 15aseve, 2003 wlis 1509-e rezoluciiTliberiaSi konfliqtis Sesaxeb uSiSroebissabWom moiTxova:`rom yvela mxarem Sewyvitos adamianisuflebebis darRveva da sastikimopyroba liberiis mosaxleobis winaaRmdegda xazs usvams damnaSaveTa pasuxisgebaSimicemis aucileblobas.~ 16SeiaraRebul konfliqtSi bavSvebisSesaxeb damatebiTi oqmis, romelichumanitaruli samarTlisa da adamianis uflebebis samarTlis nazavia,4(1) muxli iTvaliswinebs, rom Sei ara-Rebulma jgufebma `ar unda [...] daiqiravonan gamoiyenon~ bavSvebi SeiaraRebulkonfliqtSi. oqmis preambulaSiaRiarebulia arasaxelmwifoebriviSeiaraRebuli jgufebis `pasuxismgebloba~da `udidesi SeSfoTebiT~ dag-93

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010mobilia aseTi jgufebis mier bavSvebis`daqiraveba, momzadeba da gamoyeneba. 17mniSvnelovania SeiaraRebuli konfliqtebisdros an Semdeg saxelmwifoebsada arasaxelmwifoebriv erTeulebsSoris gaformebuli werilobiTi SeTanxmebebisaRniSvnac, romelTa analiziaCvenebs, rom Tavad mxareebi aRiarebdnenadamianis uflebebis samarTlis savaldebuloZalas arasaxelmwifoebriverTeulebTan mimarTebiT. magaliTad,el-salvadorsa da farabundo martierovnul-ganmaTavisuflebel fronts(Frente Farabundo Martı´ para la Liberacio´nNacional – FMLN) Soris gaformebulisan-xoses adamianis uflebebis SesaxebSeTanxmebis preambula Seicavs Semdegpunqts: `imis gaTvaliswinebiT, romFrente Farabundo Martı´ para la Liberacio´nNacional-s aqvs SesaZlebloba, survili daaRiarebs valdebulebas, pativi miagosadamianis ganuyofel atributebs.~ 18 amSeTanxmebis Taobaze Cepmenma ganacxada:`es magaliTi aaSkaravebs, Tu ramdenadSors wavida SeiaRarebul konfliqtSiajanyebulebis aRiareba adamianis uflebebisdacvis miznebisaTvis. aseT situaciebSiarasaxelmwifoebrivi erTeulismovaleoba scdeba SeiaraRebuli konfliqtisxangrZlivobas da SeiaraRebulikonfliqtis kanonebs,~ 19gamoCenil iuristTa umravlesobaTanxmdeba imaze, rom adamianis uflebebisdacva savaldebuloa ara martosaxelmwifoebisaTvis, aramed arasaxelmwifoebrivierTeulebisaTvisac. rogorcSri-lankis Sesaxeb angariSSi profesormaalstonma aRniSna: `rogorcara saxelmwifoebriv erTeuls, tamilealamis ganmaTavisuflebel lomebs(LTTE), ar aqvs samoqalaqo da politikuriuflebebis paqtidan gamomdinare iuridiulivaldebuleba, Tumca saerTaSorisoTanamegobroba misgan moTxovs, racpirvelad gacxadda adamianis uflebebissayovelTao deklaraciaSi, rom sazogadoebisyvela organom pativi sces daxeli Seuwyos adamianis uflebebs.~ 20dieter fleki miiCnevs: `Tu arasaxelmwifoebriv erTeulebs aqvT adamianisuflebebi, logikuria, rom maThqondeT valdebulebebi, romlebic arunda gansxvavdebodes saerTaSoriso humanitarulisamarTliT meamboxeTaTvisgaTvaliswinebulidan. aSkaraa, arsebobstendencia, rom arasaxelmwifoebrivierTeulebi daeqvemdebaron adamianisuflebebis samarTals.~ 21da bolos, zemoaRniSnuli magali-Tebis ganxilvis Semdeg mivdivarT daskvnamde,rom arasaxelmwifoebrivi er-Teulebi valdebulni arian, pativiscen adamianis uflebebis garkveulka tegorias, Tumca mxedvelobidan arun da gamogvrCes, Tu ramdenad aqvTmaT SesaZlebloba, daicvan yvela normaadamianis uflebebis Sesaxeb. TviTsaxelSekrulebo adamianis uflebebissamarTali iTvaliswinebs, rom saxelmwifom gadadgas `mis xelT arsebuli~yvela nabiji, raTa Seasrulos aRebulivaldebulebebi adamianis uflebebisdac vasTan dakavSirebiT. 22C. arasaxelmwifoebrivi erTeulebisvaldebulebebi adamianisuflebebTan dakavSirebiTSeiaraRebuli konfliqtis gareTmarTalia, saxelmwifoebs ekisrebaTpasuxismgebloba adamianis uflebebisdacvaze arasaxelmwifoebrivi er-Teulebis qmedebebTan dakavSirebiT,mainc es ukanasknelni pasuxismgebelniarian sakuTar qmedebebze. sayovelTaodaRiarebuli adamianis uflebebisa daZiriTadi Tavisuflebebis xelSewyobisada dacvisaTvis individebis, jgufebisada sazogadoebrivi organizaciebisuflebisa da pasuxismgeblobis Sesaxebdeklaraciis Sesabamisad:`aravin unda miiRos monawileobaqmedebiT an umoqmedobiT adamianis uflebebisada ZiriTad TavisuflebaTadarRvevaSi... (me-10 muxli). 23miuxedavad imisa, rom adamianisuf lebebis dacvis valdebulebis mTavariadresatebi saxelmwifoebi arian,adamianis uflebebis Sesaxeb ZiriTadidokumentebis teqstebi imgvaradaa Ca-94

n. abramiSvili, arasaxelmwifoebrivi erTeulebis valdebulebebi adamianis uflebebTan dakavSirebiT ...moyalibebuli, rom maTi moqmedebissfero ar aris mkacrad SezRudulisaxelmwifoebiT. 24 adamianis uflebaTasayovelTao deklaracia akisrebs arasaxelmwifoebriverTeulebs valdebulebebsadamianis uflebebTan mimarTebiT;kerZod, 29-e muxlis Tanaxmad: `yoveladamians aqvs movaleobani sazogadoebiswinaSe~. iqve ganmartebulia jgufebisada individebis movaleoba, `ar miayenosziani~, rac moicavs arasaxelmwifoebriverTeulebsac. msgavsi debuleba gvxvdebasamoqalaqo da politikuri uflebebissaerTaSoriso paqtSi, rasobrivi diskriminaciisyvela formis aRmofxvrisSesaxeb 1966 wlis konvenciaSi, 1966 wlisekonomikuri, socialuri da kulturuliuflebebis saerTaSoriso paqtsa dabavSvTa uflebaTa dacvis Sesaxeb konvenciaSi,aseve adamianis uflebebis Sesaxebregionul xelSekrulebebSi. yvela amdokumentis ganmarteba SesaZlebeliaimgvarad, rom isini valdebulebas akisrebenarasaxelmwifoebriv erTeulebs. 25adamianis uflebaTa da ZiriTadTavisuflebaTa dacvis evropuli konvenciisme-13 muxlis Tanaxmad: `yvelas,visac daerRva konvenciiT gaTvaliswinebuliuflebebi da Tavisuflebebi,eqneba efeqturi zomis miRebis uflebaerovnuli xelisuflebis winaSe, Tundaces darRveva Cadenil iqnes im pirebismier, romlebic moqmedebdnen oficialuriuflebamosilebiT.~ SesaZlebelia,am muxlis ganmartebisas vigulisxmoT,rom ara mxolod oficialuri uflebamosilebiTmoqmedma pirebma SeiZlebadaarRvion adamianis uflebebi, aramedarasaxelmwifoebrivma warmonaqmnebmac. 26genocidis danaSaulis prevenciisada dasjis Sesaxeb konvenciis debulebebiaseve iTvaliswinebs individebis pasuxismgeblobassaerTaSoriso doneze,vinaidan igi gamoiyeneba `konstituciuradpasuxismgebeli mmarTvelebis,sajaro moxeleebisa da kerZo pirebis~mimarT; 27 aparteidis Sesaxeb konvenciacakisrebs saerTaSoriso pasuxismgeblobasindividebs adamianis uflebebis dar-RvevisaTvis. 28ar migvaCnia keTilgonivrulad, romtradiciuli midgoma, romlis Tanaxmadacadamianis uflebebis Sesaxeb nor mebisavaldebuloa mxolod saxelmwifoebisaTvis,unda darCes erTaderT mosazrebad,vinaidan samarTlis dRevandeliganviTareba iTvaliswinebs gazrdildacvas da arsebul realobas.faqtia, rom bevri adamiani itanjebaZlevamosili an, SeiZleba, susti arasaxelmwifoebrivierTeulebis mier adamianisuflebebis darRvevis Sedegad. 29Tu uarvyofT, rom adamianis uflebebissamarTali gamoiyeneba arasaxelmwifoebrivierTeulebis mimarT, maSin uarvyofTadamianis uflebebis darRvevisTaobaze wardgenil saCivrebsac. 30D. arasaxelmwifoebrivierTeulebis mier adamianisuflebebis darRvevazepasuxismgebloba – saxelmwifoebi Tuarasaxelmwifoebrivi warmonaqmnebi?sanam uSualod adamianis uflebebisdarRvevaze pasuxismgeblobis sakiTxsganvixilavdeT, unda gavakeToT erTizogadi xasiaTis SeniSvna: marTalia,klefhemma aRniSna adamianis uflebaTada ZiriTad TavisuflebaTa dacvis konvenciasTanmimarTebiT, rom saxelmwifoTapasuxismgeblobis Sesaxeb saerTa-Soriso samarTali ar gamoiyeneba adamianisuflebaTa konteqstSi, rogorcpraqtikam aCvena, adamianis uflebaTaorganoebi iyeneben saxelmwifoTa pasuxismgeblobiszogad principebs. 31I. saxelmwifoTa pasuxismgebloba`valdebulebis keTilsindisieradSesrulebis~ movaleobis darRvevisaTviszogadad, saxelmwifos ar ekisrebapasuxismgebloba, Tu kerZo piri CaidensdanaSauls sxva saxelmwifos an arasaxelmwifoebrivierTeulis winaaRmdeg.32 Tumca korfus arxis saqmeze mar-Tlmsajulebis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlomdaadgina: `arc erTma saxelmwifomar SeiZleba Segnebulad misces Se saZ-95

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010lebloba vinmes, rom misi teritoriagamoyenebul iqnes sxva saxelmwifosin teresebis sawinaaRmdegod~ 33 . zianisprevenciis zogadi principi aseve gamoyenebuliaadamianis uflebebis saerTaSorisosamarTalSi. Tu saxelmwifo ver gaatarebsSesabamis RonisZiebebs da konkretulipirebi, miuxedavad amisa, gamoiwvevenzians, es qmedebebi ar Seeracxebasaxelmwifos, Tumca mas daekisrebapa suxismgebloba am qmedebebis prevenciisRonisZiebebis ganuxorcieleblobisgamo. am statiis nawili ganixilavsCveulebiTi samarTals, raTa ganisazRvrosvaldebulebebis keTilsindisieradSesrulebis movaleobis aspeqtebida keTilgonierebis farglebSi daculiqnes adamianis uflebebi arasaxelmwifoebriverTeulTa qmedebebisagan.valdebulebis keTilsindisieradSesrulebis (due diligence) standartiCamoyalibda saerTaSoriso samarTalSi,rac niSnavs saxelmwifos valdebulebas,Tavidan aicilos, gamoiZios, dasajosda uzrunvelyos dacvis saSualebebiZaladobis aqtebTan mimarTebiT, miuxedavadimisa, isini Caidina kerZo Tu sajaropirma. 34 saerTaSoriso samarTlis aRniSnuliprincipi, romelic aseve ganamtkicaTeiranis mZevalTa saqmeze gadawyvetilebam,iTvaliswinebs: Tu saerTaSorisosamarTlis norma akisrebs valdebulebiskeTilsindisierad Sesrulebismovaleobas, individTa qmedeba aZlierebssaxelmwifos pasuxismgeblobas, rodesacxelisuflebis organoebs (a) hqondaTinformacia maTi mxridan qmedebisaucileblobis Taobaze, (b) am movaleobisSesrulebis saSualeba hqondaT da(g) ar gamoiyenes TavianT xelT arsebulisaSualebebi. 35genocidis saqmeze marTlmsajulebissaerTaSoriso sasamarTlom daadginaSemdegi:`raTa davadginoT, rom saxelmwifomdaarRvia prevenciis valdebu leba,ar aris aucilebeli, davadgi noT,rom saxelmwifos hqonda Za la ufleba,Tavidan aecilebina genocidi; sakmarisiaimis dadgena, rom mas hqonda saSualeba,ase moqceuliyo, Tumca aSkaradTavi Seikava maTi gamoyenebisagan~. 36sainvesticio davebis saerTaSorisocentrma (SemdgomSi – ICSID) asevega nixila saxelmwifoTa mier valdebulebiskeTilsindisierad SesrulebissakiTxi da Sps aziis sasoflo-sameurneopro duqtebis Sri-lankis respublikiswinaaRmdeg saqmeze ganacxada Semdegi:`maspinZeli saxelmwifos mier sa Tanadodacvis uzrunvelyofa aris upirvelesimovaleoba, romlis Se usruleblobaiwvevs saerTaSoriso pasuxismgeblobas.ufro metic, arsebobs saxelmwifoTaeqstensiuri da Tanamimdevruli praqtika,romelic iTvaliswinebs valdebulebiske Ti l sindisierad Sesrulebismova le obas~. 37eriTrea-eTiopiis pretenziebis komisiampirvel gadawyvetilebaSi ganacxada:`marTalia, komisias ar gaaCnia mtkicebuleba,rom eTiopia axali seb da Tavisjariskacebs, abuCad aeg doT samxedrotyveebi, gardauvlad migvaCnia davaskvnaT:eTiopiam ver ganaxorciela saer-TaSoriso samarTliT gaTvaliswinebuliefeqtiani Ronis Ziebebi, raTa Tavidanaeci lebina aseTi mopyroba. Sesabamisad,eTiopia pasuxismgebelia aseTi umoqmedobisgamo~. 38adamianis uflebebis samarTliTgaTvaliswinebuli dacvis, xelSewyobisada Sesrulebis pozitiuri valdebulebaaseve iTvaliswinebs keTilsindisieriqcevis movaleobas; Tumca valdebulebebiskeTilsindisierad Sesrulebis movaleobasTandakavSirebuli diskusiebiufro farTo speqtrs moicavs, vidresaxelmwifoTa mier saerTaSoriso samarTalTanmxolod srul Sesabamisobas;aseTia, magaliTad, arasaxelmwifoebrivierTeulebis qmedebebze pasuxismgebloba.39 adamianis uflebebTan dakav-SirebiT valdebulebaTa keTilsindisieradSesrulebis movaleobis sakiTxiaseve ganixila adamianis uflebebis interamerikulmasasamarTlom velaskesrodrigesis saqmeSi:96

n. abramiSvili, arasaxelmwifoebrivi erTeulebis valdebulebebi adamianis uflebebTan dakavSirebiT ...`ukanono qmedebam, romelic ar-Rvevs adamianis uflebebs da uSualodar SeiZleba Seeracxos saxelmwifos,SeiZleba, gamoiwvios saxelmwifos saer-TaSoriso valdebuleba ara Tavad qmedebisgamo, aramed imitom, rom valdebuleba,Tavidan aecilebina an reagirebamoexdina darRvevaze, ar SesruldakeTilsindisierad, rogorc amas iTvaliswinebskonvencia.~ 40adamianis uflebaTa evropulma sasamarTlomgamoiyena valdebulebis ke-Tilsindisierad Sesrulebis movaleobisgansxvavebuli standarti saqmezeosmani gaerTianebuli samefos winaaRmdeg(1998) da am sasamarTlos precedentulisamarTali arasaxelmwifoebrivierTeulebis mier adamianis uflebaTadarRvevebze, saxelmwifoTa valdebulebebTandakavSirebiT, swored am mimarTulebiT ganviTarda. 41rogorc yovelive zemoaRniSnulinaTlad adasturebs, arsebobs valdebulebaTakeTilsindisierad Sesrulebispo zi tiuri movaleoba, rac gulisxmobs,rom saxelmwifoebma unda ganaxorcielonyvela aucilebeli RonisZieba,raTa Ta vidan aicilon arasaxelmwifoebrivierTeulebis mier adamianis uflebebisdarRveva da uzrunvelyon sa-Tanado kompensacia am darRvevebismsxverplTaTvis. Tumca Cven miviCnevT,rom adamianis uflebebis samarTlis efeq tiani gamoyenebisaTvis aucilebelia,ara saxelmwifoebriv erTeulebs uSualoddekisoT pasuxismgebloba darRvevisaTvis.II. SeiZleba arasaxelmwifoebriverTeulebs pirdapir daekisroTpasuxismgebloba adamianisuflebebis darRvevisaTvis?miuxedavad imisa, rom valdebuleba-Ta keTilsindisierad Sesrulebis movaleobazog SemTxvevaSi Zalian sasargebloa,arsebobs situaciebi, rodesacigi uaryofiT gavlenas axdens da samar-TaldamrRvevTa pasuxismgeblobisagangaTavisuflebasac ki iwvevs. Sesabamisad,dRevandeli politikuri realobis gaTvaliswinebiT,aucilebelia, saerTaSorisosamarTalma uSualod daakisrospasuxismgebloba arasaxelmwifoebriverTeulebs. 42jer kidev niurnbergis saerTaSorisotribunalis wesdeba udebs saTavesmosazrebas, rom arasaxelmwifoebrivierTeulebi pasuxismgebelni unda iyvnenadamianis uflebaTa darRvevebze,kerZod: `nebismieri adamiani, romelicCaidens saerTaSoriso samarTlis dana-Sauls, pasuxismgebelia am qmedebaze daeqvemdebareba dasjas.~ 43pirveli samarTlebrivi dokumenti,romelSic saubari iyo arasaxelmwifoebrivierTeulebis saerTaSorisosamarTlebrivpasuxismgeblobaze, iyo adamianisuflebaTa sayovelTao deklaracia,romlis preambula iTvaliswinebs, rom`sazogadoebis yvela organo~ movalea,daemorCilos adamianis uflebaTa materialurdebulebebs. 44miuxedavad imisa, rom mxolod saxelmwifoebiarian adamianis uflebebisSesaxeb saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebismxareebi da, Sesabamisad, uSualod arianangariSvaldebulni maT Sesrulebaze,sazogadoebis yvela wevrs, ajanyebulSeiaraRebul jgufebSi gaerTianebuliadamianebis CaTvliT, ekisreba pasuxismgeblobaadamianis uflebebis ganxorcielebasTanmimarTebiT. Sesabamisad,maT unda agon pasuxi adamianis uflebebisdarRvevis gamoc. 451999 wlis angariSSi `adamianurobisZiriTadi standartebi~ gaeros generalurmamdivanma aRniSna: `zogierTiamtkicebs, rom arasaxelmwifoebriver Teulebsac unda daekisroT pasuxismgeblobaadamianis uflebaTa saer-TaSoriso samarTlis Sesabamisad, gansakuTrebiTim SemTxvevebSi, rodesacar arsebobs saxelmwifo struqturebian saxelmwifo uunaroa, an ar surs gansazRvrosarasaxelmwifoebrivi erTeulebismier Cadenili danaSaulebi.~ 46siera-leones zavisa da morigebiskomisiam `daadgina, rom revoluciurigaerTianebuli fronti pasuxismgebeliiyo konfliqtis dros Cadenil adamianis97

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010uflebaTa darRvevebis did nawilze.~ 47erovnul doneze ganxilul saqme-Tagan aRsaniSnavia sarei rio tintoswinaaRmdeg (Sarei v Rio Tinto Plc) 48 da sudanispresviterianuli eklesia talismanenerji inkorporeiSenis winaaRmdeg(Presbyterian Church of Sudan v TalismanEnergy Inc.) 49 , romlebmac wamoWres, saer-TaSoriso samarTlis Sesabamisad, kerZoseqtorSi dasaqmebuli pirebis pasuxismgeblobissakiTxi; aseve, kerZo seqtorSidasaqmebuli pirebis TanamonawileobissakiTxi im qmedebebisaTvis, romlebicganaxorciela saxelmwifom im teritoriaze,sadac isini saqmianoben. saqmeze– Rio Tinto – aSS-is saapelacio sasamarTlomsrulad gaiTvaliswina mosarCelismier wamoyenebuli faqtebi:`mopasuxe `rio tintom~, wiaRiseulismompovebelma saerTaSori so kompaniam,papua-axali gvineis mTavrobis xelSewyobiTaSkarad ganaxorciela jus cogens-isada saerTaSoriso CveulebiTi samarTlisnormebis sxvadasxva saxis darRveva, maTSoris: rasobrivi diskriminacia, garemosaTvisseriozuli zianis miyeneba,omis danaSaulebi da danaSaulebi adamianurobiswinaaRmdeg, ramac seriozuladdaazarala papua-axali gvineis mravalimoqalaqe~ 50Sesabamisad, axal sinamdvileSi arasaxelmwifoebrivierTeulebi arian daunda iyvnen kidec pasuxismgebelni adamianisuflebebis darRvevebze. adamianisuflebebze pasuxismgeblobis gavrcelebaarasaxelmwifoebriv erTeulebze ga a-umjobesebs im individebis dacvas, romlebicarian sxvadasxva gaerTianebispotenciuri msxverplni, vinaidan `mTavrobebiar arian erTaderTi Zalauflebismatarebelni, romelTac SeuZliaT daar-Rvion adamianis uflebebi. 51E. daskvnawinamdebare statiaSi ganvixileTadamianis uflebaTa samarTlis savaldebuloZala SeiaraRebuli konfliqtebisada mSvidobis dros da SevecadeT,warmogveCina saerTaSoriso samarTlisaxali tendencia, romlis Tanaxmadacarasaxelmwifoebriv erTeulebs undadaekisroT pasuxismgebloba maT mier Cadeniladamianis uflebaTa darRvevebze.Tumca, saboloo jamSi, Tavad arasaxelmwifoebrivmaerTeulebma undagadawyviton, Seasruleben Tu ara adamianisuflebaTa samarTlis normebs.ufro daxvewili jgufebi metad icavenqcevis standartebsa da kodeqsebs,xolo jgufebi, romelTac aqvT ufrobundovani miznebi, naklebi mondomebiTganixilaven standartebs, romlebicmaTi Sexedulebebisagan gansxvavdeba.zog jgufs naTlad dasaxuli politikurimiznebi aqvs (mag.: kolumbiis revoluciuriSeiaraRebuli Zalebi da erovnulganmaTavisuflebeliarmia kolumbiaSi),xolo sxvani avseben dezintegrirebulisaxelmwifos mier Seqmnil politikurvakuums (mag.: somali, avRaneTi). 52zogierTi (ramdenime) avtori miiCnevs:`arasaxelmwifoebrivi erTeulebiZalian sust mdgomareobaSi arian. maTyvelaze metad aRiareba sWirdebaT. aravinapirebs maT saxelmwifod aRiarebas,miT umetes, rTuli iqneba, gaeros uSiSroebissabWo daarwmuno maT aRiarebaSi,Tumca SesaZloa garkveuli SeTanxmebismiRweva, magaliTad, am jgufebis Sez RuduliaRiareba kombatantebad garkveuliqmedebebis ganxorcielebis sanacvlod.53vinaidan aRiarebas yvelaze didimniSvneloba eniWeba (gansakuTrebiT zogierTiarasaxelmwifoebrivi erTeulisaTvis),aseTi dajgufebebi xSirad iyenebenadamianis uflebebis principebsmaTi organizaciis dakanonebisa (legitimizaciis)da saerTaSoriso donezeaRiarebis mizniT. Tu isini moiqceviansaerTaSoriso samarTlis principebisSesabamisad, maSin saxelmwifoebmaSeiZleba aseTi qmedebebi miiCnion rogorcnamdvili subieqtebis mier ganxorcielebulad.54 am mizeziT ufro daufro meti arasaxelmwifoebrivi er-Teuli aRiarebs adamianis uflebebis samarTlissavaldebuloobas.98

n. abramiSvili, arasaxelmwifoebrivi erTeulebis valdebulebebi adamianis uflebebTan dakavSirebiT ...saerTaSoriso samarTlis ukanas k-neli miRwevebi da saerTaSoriso Tanamegobrobismcdeloba, arasaxelmwifoebriverTeulebs daekisroT iuridiulivaldebuleba, aris pirveli nabijebi imisdasamtkiceblad, rom adamianis uflebebiaris ara mxolod ideali, aramedrealoba. adamianis uflebebis saerTa-Soriso valdebulebebi SeiZleba daekisrossaxelmwifoebs, individebs da arasaxelmwifoebriverTeulebs. sxvadasxvaiurisdiqciis farglebSi SesaZlebeliaver xerxdebodes am valdebulebebis aRsrulebisuzrunvelyofa, Tumca valdebulebebimainc arsebobs. vinaidan ufroda ufro meti saxelmwifo ganixilavsadamianis uflebaTa saerTaSoriso samarTals,rogorc Tavis erovnul samar-Tals, mosalodnelia, adamianis ufleba-Ta samarTals ufro xSirad gamoiyenebenarasaxelmwifoebrivi erTeulebis qmedebaTagansasjelad. 55arasaxelmwifoebrivi erTeulebi romvaiZuloT, Seasrulon adamianis uf lebaTanormebi, unda Camoyalibdes maTipirdapiri valdebulebebi da implementaciissaTanado meTodebi, aseve davebismogvarebis procedurebi.1T. Obokata, Smuggling of Human Beings from a Human Rights Perspective:Obligations of Non-State and State Actors underInternational Human RIghts Law,xelmisawvdomia: http://ijrl.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/17/2/394, gadmotvir-Tulia 2010 wlis 6 ivniss.2A. Clapham, Non State Actors, xelmisawvdomia: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1339810 , gv. 1.3The Redress Trust, Not Only the State: Torture by Non-State Actors, TowardsEnhanced Protection, Accountability and Effective Remedies, May 2006, gv. 35.4S. Danailov, The Accountability of Non-State Actors for Human Rights Violations:the Special Case of Transnational Corporations, gv. 6.5J. Ulimwengu, The Role of Non-State Actors, gv. 9.6Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Judgement, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, TrialChamber, 2 September 1998, $619.7Commentaries on Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Confl icts(AP II), 8 June 1977, paragrafi 4463.8ix. sqolio 6, p. 626.9Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relatingto the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Confl icts, 8 June 1977,1-li(1)muxli10ix. sqolio 7, p. 4466.11Caroline Holmqvist, Engaging Armed Non-State Actors in Post-Confl ict Settings,xelmisawvdomia: http://www.dcaf.ch/_docs/Yearbook2005/Chapter3.pdf , boloviziti ganxorcielda 2010 wlis 11 ivniss, gv. 48.12Inter-American Commission Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights inColombia, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.84, p 213 (1993).13UN Commission on Human Rights, E/CN/4/1997/3, para 44: Report of the Meetingof Special Rapporteurs/Representatives Experts and Chairpersons of WorkingGroups of the Special Procedures of the Commission on Human Rights and theAdvisory Services Programme, 30 September 1996. citirebulia: zegveld-Si, gv. 38-9.14generaluri mdivnis angariSi minimaluri humanitaruli standartebisSesaxeb, romelic wardgenil iqna gaeros adamianis uflebebis komisiis53-e sesiaze ( E / CN.4 / 1998 / 87).15United Nations, Security Council, Resolution 1216, 21 December 1998, me-5 punqti.xelmisawvdomia: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/UNSCRsn/1998/71.pdf ,bolo viziti ganxorcielda 2010 wlis 11 ivniss.99

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 201016United Nations, Security Council, Resolution 1509, 19 September 2003, me-10 punqti. xelmisawvdomia: http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/Liberia%20SRes1509.pdf , bolo viziti ganxorcielda 2010 wlis 11 ivniss.17J. A. Hessbruegge, Human Rights Violations Arising From Conduct of Non-StateActors, 11 Buff. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 21, 2005, gv. 5.18san-xoses SeTanxmeba el-salvadorsa da farabundo marti erovnulganmaTavisuflebelfronts (Frente Farabundo Martı´ para la Liberacio´nNacional (FMLN) Soris, xeli moewera 1990 wlis 26 ivliss. UN Doc.A/44/971-S/21541 of 16 August 1990, Annex.19A. Clapham, Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors in Confl ict Situations,International Review of the Red Cross, t. 88 863, seqtemberi, 2006, gv. 493.20iqve, gv. 505.21iqve, gv. 505.22iqve, gv. 502.23Human Rights Obligations of Governments, The Right to Work: Human RightsObligations of Governments and Non-State Actors, xelmisawvdomia: http://www.cesr.org/downloads/Right%20to%20Work.pdf , bolo viziti ganxorcielda2010 wlis 8 ivniss.24A. Reinisch, The Changing International Legal Framework for dealing with Non-State Actors, edited by Ph. Alston, Non-State Actors and Human Rights, OxfordUniversity Press, gv. 76.25R. Dhliwayo, Understanding the Obligations of Non-State Actors in the Realisationof Children’s Rights, IDASA – Economic Governance Programme– Children’sBudget Unit, March 2007, gv. 9.26Hessbruegge, ix. sqolio 17, gv. 6.27Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Adopted9 Dec. 1948, ZalaSi Sevida 1951 wlis 12 ianvars, 78 UNTS 277.28International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime ofApartheid, GA. Res. 3068 (XXVIII), Adopted 30.12.1973, ZalaSi Sevida 1976wlis 18 ivliss.29N. C. Santarelli, Non-State Actors’ Human Rights Obligations and Responsibilityunder International Law, gv. 8.30Clapham, ix. sqolio 19, gv. 53.31Fokwa, Tsafack Jean. B, In Search for Direct Corporate Responsibility for HumanRights Violations in Africa: Which Way Forward?, A Dissertation Submitted to theCentre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Pretoria, South Africa, 30October 2004, gv. 21.32R. P. Barnidge, Jr, States’ Due Diligence Obligations with regard to InternationalNon-State Terrorist Organisations Post-11 September 2001: the Heavy Burdenthat States must bear, xelmisawvdomia: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/results.cfm?RequestTimeout=50000000 , bolo viziti ganxorcielda 2010 wlis 8ivniss.33Corfu Channel case, (UK v. Albania), merits, 1949, gv. 22.34Special Rapporteur’s report to the 62nd session of the Commission on HumanRights, The Due Diligence Standard as a Tool for the Elimination of Violenceagainst Women, E/CN.4/2006/61, January 20, 2006 .35L. Condorelli, The Imputability to States of Acts of International Terrorism, IsraelYbk on Human Rights, 1989, gv. 241.36Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime ofGenocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia), ICJ, Merits, 2007, 437-e punqti.37Asian Agricultural Products LTD (AAPL) v. Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID, 1991,76-e punqti.38Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Partial Award – Prisoners of War, Eritrea’sClaim 17, 63-e punqti.39S. Liu, Due Diligence: The Duty of State to Address Violence Against Women,Amnesty International Hong Kong, March 18, 2006, gv. 3 da 13.100

n. abramiSvili, arasaxelmwifoebrivi erTeulebis valdebulebebi adamianis uflebebTan dakavSirebiT ...40Velasquez Rodrigues Case, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Decisionsand Judgments (ser.c) No. 4, 1988, 172-e punqti.41Z and Others v. the United Kingdom 29392/95, 2001, European Commission onHuman Rights, 10 May 2001; E and Others v. the United Kingdom, 33218/96,2002, ECHR, 26 November 2002, cited in Report of the Special Rapporteur onViolence Against Women, Its Causes and Consequences, Yakin Ertürk, The DueDiligence Standard as a Tool for the Elimination of Violence Against Women,Commission on Human Rights, Sixty-second session, gv. 7.42M. H. Lucas, When Women’s Human Rights Defenders Face Political Non-StateActors, xelmisawvdomia: http://www.human-rights-for-all.org/spip.php?article51,bolo viziti ganxorcielda 2010 wlis 9 ivniss.43Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunaland in the Judgment of the Tribunal. 1950, Principle I.44Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), (10 Dec. 1948).45M. Ssenyonjo, Accountability of Non-State Actors in Uganda for War Crimes andHuman Rights Violations: Between Amnesty and the International Criminal Court,Journal of Confl ict and Security Law, Originally published online on September 20,2005, xelmisawvdomia: http://jcsl.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/10/3/405,bo lo viziti ganxorcielda 2010 wlis 13 ivniss.46Report of the Secretary-General on Fundamental Standards of Humanity,Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/1999/92 (para 13), 18 December 1998.Quoted in Zegveld, 47.47A. Clapham, Supra Note 19, gv. 504.48Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC, No. 02-56256EB, Case Panel: Fisher, Bybee, Mahan.49Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., No. 07-0016.50Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC, ix. sqolio 49.51Santarelli, ix. sqolio 30, gv. 9.52C. Bruderlein, The Role of Non-State Actors in Building Human Security, TheCase Of Armed Groups In Intra-State Wars, Centre For Humanitarian Dialogue,Geneva, May 2000, gv. 11.53Panel Discussion: Ways to bind Non-State Actors to International HumanitarianLaw, Chaired by Mr Roy Gutman and with the participation of Dr. L. Zegveld,Prof. M. Veuthey, Prof. M. Sassoli, Dr J.-M. Henckaerts, Collegium, No.27, Spring2003, gv. 171.54N. Higgins, The Regulation of Armed Non-State Actors: Promoting the Applicationof the Laws of War to Confl icts Involving National Liberation Movements, gv. 13.55ix. sqolio 19, gv. 58.101

NINO ABRAMISHVILIHUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS OF NON-STATE ACTORS – SHIFTINGRESPONSIBILITY FROM STATES TO NON-STATE ENTITIES“Human rights are the quintessential values through which weaffi rm together that we are a single human community”.Boutros Boutros-GhaliA. INTRODUCTIONTraditionally, states were the only actorson the international stage, however, it is noteven contested that non-state entities participatein all areas of international relations today.It has increasingly been maintained that thetraditional view is outdated and that accountabilityof Non-State Actors (NSA) should be reexamined,in line with those global changesthat have facilitated the growth of powers onthe part of NSAs and the consequent limits imposedupon the powers of the states. 1The concept of NSAs is generally understoodas including any entity that is not actuallya state, often used to refer to armed groups,terrorists, civil society, religious groups, or corporations.2 As a general rule, NSAs are neitherparty to international human rights treaties nordo such treaties (or customary internationallaw for that matter) stipulate obligations forthem. 3If human rights were historically grantedto individuals to shield them against a state’sabusive actions, and some states’ functionsare taken over by other entities susceptibleto violate those rights, we can then argue thatthese entities should be called upon to respecthuman rights obligations towards the individuals.4This article suggests that it is beyondany doubt that NSAs are capable of committinghuman rights violations that should not beleft unpunished and the international communityshould make every effort to hold them accountablefor violations of these laws.The fi rst part of the paper will address theissue of NSAs’ human rights obligations inconfl ict situations and will defi ne those actorswho might be bound to respect human rightsnorms. Furthermore, the article will move on tothe human rights obligations of non-state entitiesduring peacetime, which mostly arise afterthe signing of treaties and conventions.The last part of the article will focus onthe question of who should be held responsiblefor human rights violations carried out byNSAs. While there may be a number of waysin which states can be held responsible forhuman rights violations carried out by NSAs,this article will address the issues of state responsibilityfor violation of their due diligenceobligations and will also suggest that NSAsshould be directly held accountable. We mayconsider that imprisoning an offender is donemerely for vindication, but that is not the case.As we will see below, holding NSAs accountablefor the violation of human rights has manyadvantages and is the only way to truly protecthuman rights in a universal way.B. HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS OF NON-STATE ACTORS DURING ARMED CONFLICTSA question that comes to mind when dealingwith armed NSAs is whether they can be102

N. ABRAMISHVILI, HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS OF NON-STATE ACTORS – SHIFTING RESPONSIBILITY FROM STATES...held accountable for human rights violations inthe areas they conduct operations, consideringthat they are not signatories to any treatiesrelating to the conduct of combatants. 5In order to address this issue, fi rst of all, itis important to defi ne which NSAs might havehuman rights obligations in confl ict situations.I. Defining NSAs inConflict SituationsFor an NSA to qualify as an organizedarmed group capable of having rights and dutiesin confl ict situations it should satisfy certaincriteria. In the Akayesu case, the ICTRheld that armed groups consists of an organizedmilitary force, an authority responsible forits acts, should act within a determinate territoryand have the means of respecting andensuring the respect for the Convention. 6The existence of a responsible commandimplies some degree of organization of theinsurgent armed group or dissident armedforces, but this does not necessarily meanthat there is a hierarchical system of militaryorganization similar to that of regular armedforces. 7 This degree of organization should besuch so as to enable the armed group or dissidentforces to plan and carry out concertedmilitary operations, and to impose discipline inthe name of a de facto authority. 8Article 1 of the Protocol Additional to theGeneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, andrelating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Confl icts (AP II) alsostipulates that armed groups of an oppositionmust be able to “exercise such control over apart of the High Contracting Party’s territoryas to enable them to carry out sustained andconcerted military operations and to implementthis Protocol”. 9 The word “such” providesthe key to the interpretation. The control mustbe suffi cient to allow sustained and concertedmilitary operations to be carried out and forthe Protocol to be applied. 10 Therefore, wheneverthe above criteria are satisfi ed, the nextpart of the paper argues that organized armedgroups are deemed to be bound by the rulesof human rights laws applicable during armedconfl icts.II. How NSAs Can be Bound by HumanRights in Conflict SituationsA signifi cant shift in international humanrights norms took place in the 1980s and1990s when leading human rights organisationssuch as Amnesty International andHuman Rights Watch altered their defi nitionsof human rights abuse to include acts committedby NSAs. Subsequent issuing of publicstatements and reports to refl ect this hasproduced a global practice of ‘naming andshaming’ armed groups that perpetrate humanrights abuses. 11The Inter-American Commission, in itsSecond Report on the Situation of HumanRights in Colombia (1993), stated that theactivities of armed groups “are detrimentalto the exercise of the most important humanrights”. 12 The special rapporteurs and workinggroup chairpersons of the UN Commission onHuman Rights once noted “the adverse effectsthe actions of armed groups might have on theenjoyment of human rights”. 13In the UN Secretary-General’s report onMinimum Humanitarian Standards submittedat the Fifty-fourth session of the Commissionon Human Rights, the issue of the accountabilityof NSAs for human rights violationswas raised: “…it seems beyond a doubt thatwhen an armed group kills civilians, arbitrarilyexpels people from their homes, or otherwiseengages in acts of terror or indiscriminateviolence, it raises an issue of potentialinternational concern.[…] The developmentof international human rights law as a meansof holding Governments accountable to acommon standard has been one of the majorachievements of the United Nations. Thechallenge is to sustain that achievement andat the same time ensure that our conceptionof human rights remains relevant to the worldaround us”. 14The UN Security Council also stressesthe binding character of human rights uponNSAs.. In its resolution 1216, concerningGuinea-Bissau, the UN SC called upon:“All concerned, including the Govern mentand the Self-Proclaimed Military Junta, to re-103

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010spect strictly relevant provisions of internationallaw, including humanitarian and humanrights law, and to ensure safe and unimpededaccess by international humanitarian organizationsto persons in need of assistance as aresult of the confl ict”. 15In the context of the confl ict in Liberia theUN SC demanded in the Sept. 2003 resolution1509:“That all parties cease all human rightsviolations and atrocities against the Liberiapopulation, and stresses the need to bring tojustice those responsible”. 16Article 4(1) of the Optional Protocol onChildren in Armed Confl ict, which constitutessomewhat of a hybrid between a humanitarianand human rights law norm, states that armedgroups “should not [...] recruit or use” childrenin armed conflict. The Protocol’s preamble“recognizes the responsibilities” of armed nonstategroups and condemns “with the gravestconcern the recruitment, training and use” ofchildren by such groups. 17It is worthwhile to mention that writtenagreements between states and NSAs havebeen reached during and after armed conflicts. Therefore, we can conclude that evenstates and NSAs themselves recognizethe binding nature of human rights law overNSAs. For example, the preamble to the SanJose´ Agreement on Human Rights, betweenEl Salvador and the Frente Farabundo Martı´para la Liberacio´n Nacional (FMLN), includedthe following paragraph: “Bearing in mind thatthe Frente Farabundo Martı´ para la Liberacio´n Nacional has the capacity and the will andassumes the commitment to respect the inherentattributes of the human person.” 18 AsClapham commented on this agreement: “Thisexample shows how international law hasmoved beyond recognition of insurgency duringarmed confl ict to a new type of recognitionfor human rights purposes. The obligations ofthe non-state actor in such situations stretchbeyond both the duration of armed confl ict andthe laws of armed confl ict”. 19Most qualifi ed publicists also agree thathuman rights law binds not only the States butNSAs as well. As Ph. Alston stated in his reporton Sri Lanka: “As a non-state actor, theLTTE (The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam)does not have legal obligations under ICCPR,but it remains subject to the demand of the internationalcommunity, fi rst expressed in theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights, thatevery organ of society respect and promotehuman rights”. 20According to Dieter Fleck: “If non-stateactors have human rights, it appears logicalthat they also must have responsibilities, nodifferent from the obligations insurgents haveunder international humanitarian law. There isa clear trend to subject non-state actors to humanrights law”. 21Finally, it should be noted that all theabovementioned examples lead us to theclear-cut conclusion that NSAs are bound torespect certain human rights during armedconfl icts, however, it should be taken into accountto what extent they have the capacityto adhere to all the norms. Even conventionalhuman rights law demands that a state takesteps “to the maximum of its available resources”to progressively fulfi l its human rightsobligations. 22C. HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS OF NSASOUTSIDE THE CONFLICT SITUATIONSWhile governments maintain the primaryobligations for human rights relating to theconduct of NSAs , those actors do carry someresponsibilities themselves. The Declarationon the Right and Responsibility of Individuals,Groups and Organs of Society to Promote andProtect Universally recognized Human Rightsand Fundamental Freedoms states that:“No one shall participate, by act or by failureto act where required, in violating humanrights and fundamental freedoms... ”(Article10). 23It remains a fact that while states areclearly the primary addressees of humanrights obligations, the language of core humanrights instruments does not narrowly restrictitself to states. 24 The Uiversal Declaration onHuman Rights (UDHR) imposes human rightson NSAs by affi rming that “everyone has du-104

N. ABRAMISHVILI, HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS OF NON-STATE ACTORS – SHIFTING RESPONSIBILITY FROM STATES...ties to the community” (Article 29, UHDR). Itfurther clarifi es the obligations of groups aswell as individuals to “do no harm” and thisspecifi cally includes NSAs. This provisionis also echoed in the International Covenanton Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), International Convention on the Elimination ofall Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD),the International Covenant on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and theConvention on the Rights of the Child (CRC),as well as many regional human rights treaties.All these provisions can be interpreted asconferring direct obligations on NSAs. 25Article 13 of the European Conventionfor the Protection of Human Rights andFundamental Freedoms (hereinafter ECHR)states: “Everyone whose rights and freedomsas set forth in this Convention are violated shallhave an effective remedy before a national authoritynotwithstanding that the violation hasbeen committed by persons acting in an offi -cial capacity”. The passage can be interpretedas logically implying that not only persons actingin an offi cial capacity, but NSAs can alsoviolate human rights. 26Provisions of the Convention on thePrevention and Punishment of Genocide alsoenshrines the responsibility of individuals onthe international level since it applies to “constitutionallyresponsible rules, public offi cialsor private individuals” 27 , while the Conventionon Apartheid also addresses the internationalresponsibility of individuals for human rightsviolations. 28Hence, it is foolish and stubborn to claimthat a particular approach to human rights heldyears or centuries ago in which only states arebound by human rights norms, must remain asthe only valid and legitimate approach, sinceit ignores the fact that law tends to evolveand increase the protection it offers by takingnew realities into account. Currently, asis plainly seen, many individuals suffer fromabuses committed by powerful – or not sopowerful NSAs. 29 To deny the applicability ofhuman rights law to NSAs, is to deny the empowermentwhich accompanies human rightsclaims. 30D. RESPONSIBILITY FOR HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS BY NON-STATE ACTORS –STATES OR NSAS?Before addressing the issue of responsibilityfor human rights violations, it should benoted that although Clapham, in reference tothe ECHR context, argued that internationallaw on state responsibility is not appropriatein the context of human rights law, experiencehas shown that the international human rightsbodies apply the general principles of state responsibility.31I. Responsibility of States for Violatingtheir Due Diligence ObligationsIn principle, a state bears no responsibilitywhen a private actor commits an offenceagainst another state or against a NSA. 32However, the ICJ ruled in the Corfu Channelcase that “No State may knowingly allow itsterritory to be used for acts contrary to therights of other States”. 33 This general principlefi nds its manifestations in InternationalHuman Rights law as well. If a state fails totake appropriate measures when individualsdo cause harm, these acts are not attributedto the State, but the State’s failure to preventthese acts may be attributed to the State. 34This part of the paper will examine the caselaw to determine the aspects of a state’s duediligence obligations in reasonably protectinghuman rights from violations arising out of theconduct of NSAs.The due diligence standard has established,under international law, the obligationof the State to prevent, investigate, punish andprovide remedies for acts of violence regardlessof whether these are committed by privateor State Actors. 35 According to this classic elementof general international law, which wasalso up held in the Tehran Hostages case, ifa rule of international law imposes a duty ofdue diligence, the acts of individuals catalyzethe State’s responsibility when the State authorities:(a) were aware of the need for actionon their part, (b) had the means at theirdisposal to perform their obligations” and (c)‘failed to use the means which were at theirdisposal”. 36105

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010In the Genocide case the ICJ stated thefollowing:“For a State to be held responsible forbreaching its obligation of prevention, it doesnot need to be proven that the State concerneddefi nitely had the power to prevent genocide; itis suffi cient that it had the means to do so andthat it manifestly refrained from using them”. 37The International Centre for the Settlementof Investment Disputes (ICSID) also dealt withthe issue of a state’s due diligence obligationand held the following in the Asian AgriculturalProducts LTD (AAPL) v. Republic of Sri Lankacase:“Adequate protection afforded by the hostState authorities constitutes a primary obligation,the failure to comply with which createsinternational responsibility. Furthermore,there is an extensive and consistent statepractice supporting the duty to exercise duediligence”. 38In its fi rst decision, the Eritrea-EthiopiaClaims Commission stated that:“Although the Commission has no evidencethat Ethiopia encouraged its soldiersto abuse POWs at capture, the conclusionis unavoidable that, at a minimum, Ethiopiafailed to take effective measures, as requiredby international law, to prevent such abuse.Consequently, Ethiopia is liable for thatfailure”. 39Affi rmative obligations contained in thehuman rights treaty law to protect, promoteand fulfi l also include obligations to act withdue diligence, however, the discussion onthe boundaries of due diligence is expandingto a level beyond demanding the full complianceof States with international law, includingthe obligation to be responsible for violationsby NSAs. 40 The due diligence obligationof States in cases of human rights violationswas addressed by the Inter-American Court ofHuman Rights in its landmark decision in theVelasquez Rodriguez case:“An illegal act which violates human rightsand which is initially not directly imputable toa State can lead to international responsibilityof the State, not because of the act itself, butbecause of the lack of due diligence to preventthe violation or to respond to it as required bythe Convention”. 41The European Court of Human Rightsused a variant of the due diligence standard inthe Osman v. United Kingdom (1998) case andhas since developed its case law in relation tothe obligations of states to provide protectionagainst human rights violations by NSAs. 42Therefore, there exists an unequivocaldue diligence obligation of states to take allthe necessary measures to prevent humanrights violations and to guarantee adequatecompensation for victims of human rights violationscommitted by NSAs. However, this papersuggests that for the effective applicationof human rights laws, NSAs should be directlyheld accountable for the human rights abusesthey commit.II. Can NSAs be Directly Responsible forHuman Rights Violations?While due diligence is still very useful insome cases, in others it is counter productiveand leads to the exoneration of perpetratorsfrom their responsibilities to crimes and violations;therefore in today’s political realities, theresponsibility of NSAs must be addressed directly,not through due diligence, which wouldamount to reverting to state accountability. 43The position that NSAs can be directlyresponsible for violating human rights fi ndsits support starting from the InternationalNuremberg Tribunal and its Charter that declares,“any person who commits an act whichconstitutes a crime under international law is responsiblethereof and liable to punishment”. 44Among human rights instruments, thestarting point for the liability of NSAs under internationallaw is the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights (UDHR), in which the preamblestates that “every organ of society” is boundto abide by its substantive human rights provisions.45While only states are parties to the internationalhuman rights treaties and thus ultimatelyaccountable for compliance with such treaties,all members of society – including individuals106

N. ABRAMISHVILI, HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS OF NON-STATE ACTORS – SHIFTING RESPONSIBILITY FROM STATES...in armed rebel movements – have responsibilitiesregarding the realisation of human rights.Consequently, they must be accountable forhuman rights violations. 46In his 1999 report on Fundamental Standardsof Humanity, the UN Secretary-General,noted that, “some argue that Non-State Actorsshould also be held accountable under internationalhuman rights law, especially in situationswhere the State structures no longerexist or where states are unable or unwilling tomete out punishment for crimes committed byNon-State Actors”. 47The Truth and Reconciliation Commissionof Sierra Leone “found the RUF (RevolutionaryUnited Front) to have been responsible for thelargest number of human rights violations inthe confl ict”. 48On the national level, the cases Sarei vRio Tinto Plc 49 and Presbyterian Church ofSudan v Talisman Energy Inc. 50 present questionsconcerning the responsibility (“liability”)of private sector actors, under internationallaw, for acts of their own; and concerning thecomplicity of private sector actors in acts doneby the State on the territory in which they operate.In the Rio Tinto, case the US Court ofAppeals set out the facts as alleged by theplaintiffs:“The defendant Rio Tinto, an internationalmining company, with the assistanceof the PNG Government, committed variousegregious violations of jus cogens norms andcustomary international law including racialdiscrimination, environmental devastation,war crimes and crimes against humanity, withsevere repercussions for many citizens ofPNG”. 51Hence, the new reality is that NSAs canand should be held responsible for humanrights violations. The extension of humanrights liability and responsibility to actors otherthan states improve the protection granted tohuman beings, who are potential victims ofthreats from different entities since “governmentsare not the sole centres of power capableof violating human rights. 52E. CONCLUSIONThis article dealt with issues of a bindingcharacter within human rights laws both duringarmed confl icts and peacetime, and attemptedto demonstrate a new trend that NSAs shouldbe responsible for human rights violations theycommit.However, at the end of the day, it is upto the will of the NSAs to comply or not withhuman rights laws. More sophisticated groupstend to be more inclined to abide by standardsand codes of conduct, whereas groups withvaguer political objectives tend to be morereluctant to discuss standards they fi nd counterintuitive.Some groups have clear politicalobjectives (e.g. FARC or ELN in Colombia),whereas others are fi lling a political vacuumleft by disintegrated states (e.g. Somalia,Afghanistan). 53As was suggested by several publicists:”Non-State Actors are in a very weak position.More than anything else they need recognition.No one is going to recognize them as a state,and in particular it would be diffi cult to get theUnited Nations Security Council to recognizethem, but perhaps some kind of deal can bemade such as giving these groups some kindof limited recognition as combatants in exchangefor doing certain things”. 54Since recognition is of utmost importance(especially for some NSAs), they often seek toapply human rights law principles to legitimizetheir organizations and causes on the internationalstage. If they are seen to act in accordancewith international legal principles, statesmay view these movements as genuine andvalid actors. 55 For this reason more and moreNSAs tend to accept the binding nature of humanrights laws.The recent developments of internationallaw and efforts of the international communityto impose legal responsibility on NSAs is regardedto be the fi rst step to ensure that humanrights are not just ideals but also a reality.International human rights obligations can fallon states, individuals and NSAs. Different jurisdictionsmay or may not be able to enforcethese obligations, but the obligations exist just107

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010the same. With more and more national jurisdictionsapplying international human rightslaw as the law of the land, we can expect tosee an increasing acknowledgement of therelevance of human rights norms for judgingthe conduct of NSAs. 56In order to force NSAs to abide by humanrights norms, direct responsibility would haveto be created for NSAs, in addition to establishingdispute settlement and suitable methodsof implementation.1T. Obokata, Smuggling of Human Beings from a Human Rights Perspective:Obligations of Non-State and State Actors under International Human RIghtsLaw, available at: http://ijrl.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/17/2/394 , last visited 6June 2010.2A. Clapham, Non State Actors, Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1339810 , p.1.3The Redress Trust, Not Only the State: Torture by Non-State Actors, TowardsEnhanced Protection, Accountability and Effective Remedies, May 2006, p. 35.4S. Danailov, The Accountability of Non-State Actors for Human Rights Violations:the Special Case of Transnational Corporations, p. 6.5J. Ulimwengu, The Role of Non-State Actors, p. 9.6Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Judgement, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, TrialChamber, 2 September 1998, para 619.7Commentaries on Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Confl icts(AP II), 8 June 1977, para 4463.8Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Supra note 6, para 626.9Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relatingto the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Confl icts, 8 June 1977,Article 1(1).10Commentaries on AP II, Supra Note 7, para 4466.11Caroline Holmqvist, Engaging Armed Non-State Actors in Post-Confl ict Settings,available at: http://www.dcaf.ch/_docs/Yearbook2005/Chapter3.pdf , last visited11 June 2010, p. 48.12Inter-American Commission Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights inColombia, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.84, p 213 (1993).13UN Commission on Human Rights, E/CN/4/1997/3, para 44: Report of the Meetingof Special Rapporteurs/Representatives Experts and Chairpersons of WorkingGroups of the Special Procedures of the Commission on Human Rights and theAdvisory Services Programme, 30 September 1996. Quoted in Zegveld, 38-9.14Secretary-General report on minimum humanitarian standards presented at the53th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights ( E / CN.4 / 1998 / 87).15United Nations, Security Council, Resolution 1216, 21 December 1998, para 5.available at: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/UNSCRsn/1998/71.pdf , last visited11 June 2010.16United Nations, Security Council, Resolution 1509, 19 September 2003, para 10.available at: http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/Liberia%20SRes1509.pdf , last visited 11June 2010.17J. A. Hessbruegge, Human Rights Violations Arising From Conduct of Non-StateActors, 11 Buff. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 21, 2005, p. 5.18San Jose´ agreement between El Salvador and the Frente Farabundo Martı´ parala Liberacio´n Nacional (FMLN) signed by both sides on 26 July 1990. UN Doc.A/44/971-S/21541 of 16 August 1990, Annex.19A. Clapham, Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors in Confl ict Situations,International Review of the Red Cross, Volume 88 Number 863 September 2006,p. 493.108

N. ABRAMISHVILI, HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS OF NON-STATE ACTORS – SHIFTING RESPONSIBILITY FROM STATES...20Ibid , p. 505.21Ibid , p. 505.22Ibid, p. 502.23Human Rights Obligations of Governments, The Right to Work: Human RightsObligations of Governments and Non-State Actors, available at: http://www.cesr.org/downloads/Right%20to%20Work.pdf , last visited on 8 June, 2010.24A. Reinisch, The Changing International Legal Framework for dealing with Non-State Actors, edited by Ph. Alston, Non-State Actors and Human Rights, OxfordUniversity Press, p. 76.25R. Dhliwayo, Understanding the Obligations of Non-State Actors in the Realisationof Children’s Rights, IDASA – Economic Governance Programme– Children’sBudget Unit, March 2007, p. 9.26Hessbruegge, Supra Note 17, p. 6.27Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Adopted9 Dec. 1948, entered into force 12 Jan. 1951, 78 UNTS 277.28International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime ofApartheid, GA. Res. 3068 (XXVIII), Adopted 30.12.1973, Entered into Force18.7.1976.29N. C. Santarelli, Non-State Actors’ Human Rights Obligations and Responsibilityunder International Law, p. 8.30Clapham, Supra Note 19, p. 53.31Fokwa, Tsafack Jean. B, In Search for Direct Corporate Responsibility for HumanRights Violations in Africa: Which Way Forward?, A Dissertation Submitted to theCentre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Pretoria, South Africa, 30October 2004, p. 21.32R. P. Barnidge, Jr, States’ Due Diligence Obligations with regard to InternationalNon-State Terrorist Organisations Post-11 September 2001: the HeavyBurden that States must bear, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/results.cfm?RequestTimeout=50000000 , last visited 8 June 2010.33Corfu Channel case, (UK v. Albania), merits, 1949, p. 22.34P. Allott, State Responsibility and the Unmaking of International Law, Harv. Int’l. L.J. 1, Vol. 29, N 1, Winter 1988.35Special Rapporteur’s report to the 62nd session of the Commission on HumanRights, The Due Diligence Standard as a Tool for the Elimination of Violenceagainst Women, E/CN.4/2006/61, January 20, 2006 .36L. Condorelli, The Imputability to States of Acts of International Terrorism, IsraelYbk on Human Rights, 1989, p. 241.37Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime ofGenocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia), ICJ, Merits, 2007, para 437.38Asian Agricultural Products LTD (AAPL) v. Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID, 1991,para 76.39Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Partial Award – Prisoners of War, Eritrea’sClaim 17, para 63.40S. Liu, Due Diligence: The Duty of State to Address Violence Against Women,Amnesty International Hong Kong, March 18, 2006, p.3, p. 13.41Velasquez Rodrigues Case, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Decisionsand Judgments (ser.c) No. 4, 1988, para 172.42Z and Others v. the United Kingdom 29392/95, 2001, European Commission onHuman Rights, 10 May 2001; E and Others v. the United Kingdom, 33218/96,2002, ECHR, 26 November 2002, cited in Report of the Special Rapporteur onViolence Against Women, Its Causes and Consequences, Yakin Ertürk, The DueDiligence Standard as a Tool for the Elimination of Violence Against Women,Commission on Human Rights, Sixty-second session, p. 7.43M. H. Lucas, When Women’s Human Rights Defenders Face Political Non-StateActors, available at: http://www.human-rights-for-all.org/spip.php?article51 , lastvisited 9 June, 2010.109

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 201044Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the NürembergTribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal. 1950, Principle I.45Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), (10 Dec. 1948).46M. Ssenyonjo, Accountability of Non-State Actors in Uganda for War Crimes andHuman Rights Violations: Between Amnesty and the International Criminal Court,Journal of Confl ict and Security Law, Originally published online on September20, 2005, available at: http://jcsl.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/10/3/405, lastvisited 13 June 2010.47Report of the Secretary-General on Fundamental Standards of Humanity,Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/1999/92 (para 13), 18 December 1998.Quoted in Zegveld, 47.48A. Clapham, Supra Note 19 , p. 504.49Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC, No. 02-56256EB, Case Panel: Fisher, Bybee, Mahan.50Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., No. 07-0016.51Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC, Supra Note 49.52Santarelli, Supra Note 30, p. 9.53C. Bruderlein, The Role of Non-State Actors in Building Human Security, TheCase Of Armed Groups In Intra-State Wars, Centre For Humanitarian Dialogue,Geneva, May 2000, p. 11.54Panel Discussion: Ways to bind Non-State Actors to International HumanitarianLaw, Chaired by Mr Roy Gutman and with the participation of Dr. L. Zegveld,Prof. M. Veuthey, Prof. M. Sassoli, Dr J.-M. Henckaerts, Collegium, No.27, Spring2003, p. 171.55N. Higgins, The Regulation of Armed Non-State Actors: Promoting the Applicationof the Laws of War to Confl icts Involving National Liberation Movements, p. 13.56A. Clapham, Supra Note 19, p. 58.110

TinaTin goleTianigadaxvevis meqanizmi ekonomikur, socialur da kulturuluflebaTa saerTaSoriso paqtis mixedviTSesavaliukanaskneli 40 wlis ganmavlobaSiadamianis uflebaTa samarTali saerTa-Soriso samarTlis erT-erTi yvelazeswrafad ganviTarebadi dargia. universalurda regionalur doneze miRebuliinstrumentebis odenoba Zalze didia. esinstrumentebi exeba rogorc adamianiscalkeul uflebebsa da Tavisuflebebs,aseve am uflebaTa krebulebia. mniSvnelovaniiyo 1966 wels adamianis uflebaTadacvis sferoSi ori paqtis mi-Reba msoflio masStabiT adamianis uflebaTasistemis ganviTarebisaTvis.Tavdapirvelad, pro eqtze momuSave komitetigegmavda er Ti dokumentis SemuSavebas,romelic moicavda rogorcsamoqalaqo da politikur, aseve ekonomikur,socialur da kulturul uflebaTakrebuls, magram 1952 wels miRebuliqna gadawyvetileba ori gancalkevebuliinstrumentis SemuSavebis Taobaze. 1winamdebare naSromi exeba ekonomikur,socialur da kulturul uflebaTasaerTaSoriso paqts (SemdgomSi– paqti), kerZod ki mis farglebSi arsebulgadaxvevis, sakiTxs. zogadad, gadaxvevisuflebis arseboba xelSemkvrelsaxelmwifoebs aZlevs SesaZleblobas,SeaCeron dokumentSi mocemul ufleba-Ta da TavisuflebaTa dacva gamonaklisda sagangebo SemTxvevebSi (Sei araRebulikonfliqtebi da stiqiuri ubedurebebi).sxva adamianis ufleba Ta dacvisxelSekrulebebisagan ga n s xvavebiT, zemoaRniSnulpaqtSi es uf leba gaTvaliswinebuliar aris. Sesabamisad, naSromSigaanalizebulia, Tu rogor arisSesaZlebeli saxelmwifo interesebisuzrunvelyofa, sazogadoebrivi wesrigisSenarCuneba da saxelmwifo interesebisdacva paqtis farglebSi.amisaTvis, pirvel rigSi, unda ganvixiloTgadaxvevis cneba, Tu rogorregulirdeba igi adamianis uflebaTasamarTalSi, ra viTarebaSi SeiZleba misigamoyeneba, ra kriteriumebi unda dakmayofildesda ra safrTxeebi axlavs Tanmis gamoyenebas; statiis meore Tavi eZ-Rvneba paqtis meoTxe muxls (SemzRudveldebulebas): ra viTarebaSi SeiZleba misigamoyeneba [amoqmedeba] da rogori reagirebahqonda ekonomikur, socialur dakulturul uflebaTa Sesaxeb komitetsaseT SemTxvevebze. aseve, ganxiluliasaerTaSoriso sajaro samarTlis erTerTizogadi principi fors maJori damisi gamoyenebis SesaZlebloba adamianisuflebaTa xelSekrulebebis mimarT;mesame Tavi ganixilavs gansxvavebulmosazrebebs or paqtSi mocemuli uflebebisgansxvavebul bunebasTan dakav-SirebiT. wamoWrilia sakiTxi, Tu rogoraisaxeba paqtSi gadaxvevis meqanizmisararseboba am uflebaTa dacvaze; xolobolo TavSi ganxilulia ekonomikur,socialur da kulturul uflebaTa sferoSiarsebuli siaxleebi, kerZod kipaqtis damatebiTi oqmis miReba. dasmuliasakiTxi, Tu rogor SeiZleba gadaxvevisdebulebis ararsebobam imoqmedosqveynebis nebaze, SeuerTdnen mas.111

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 20101. gadaxvevis cneba da misi adgiliadamianis uflebaTa samarTalSi1948 wels adamianis uflebaTa universalurideklaraciis miRebis SemdgomSeuqcevadi gaxda individis [adamianis],rogorc saerTaSoriso samarTlis subieqtis,samarTlebrivi mdgomareobis cvlileba.mniSvne lov nad gaumjobesda individismdgoma reoba saerTaSoriso samarTalsada adamianis uflebaTa samar-TalSi. cnobilia, rom tradiciuli midgomaindividis mimarT da misi uflebebiserovnebasTan mibma arcTu ise dadebiTadmoqmedebs pirovnebis mdgomareobaze. 2mogvianebiT, sxvadasxva samarTlebrivsistemaSi miRebul iqna mTeli rigi saer-TaSoriso xelSekrulebebisa adamianisuflebaTa dacvis sferoSi 3 , ramac adamianisuflebaTa samarTali gaxada erT-er-Ti umniSvnelovanesi, Zlieri da swrafadganviTarebadi sa erTaSoriso samarTlisdargi. am Se Tanxmebebis xelmoweriTa daratifi cirebiT saxelmwifoebi valdebulebasiReben, pativi scen, Seasrulon,daicvan da uzrunvelyon xelSekrulebebiTgaTvaliswinebuli uflebebi daTavisuflebebi. 4saerTaSoriso samarTlisa da ad a -mianis uflebaTa Sesaxeb saerTaSo risoxelSekrulebebis mixedviT, mo na wilesa xelmwifoebs ufleba aqvT, garkveulSemTxvevebSi Tavi aaridon xelSekrulebebiTnakisr zogierT va l debulebas. 5amgvari qmedeba aRmasrulebeli xelisuflebisuflebaa, mas SeuZlia, SezRudosan garkveuli droiT SeaCeros zogierTiuflebis moqmedeba omis an stiqiuri ubedurebebisdros. 6 es aris saxelmwifoebissuverenuli ufleba, uzrunvelyonmSvidoba da wesrigi sagangebo viTarebisdros da aseve daicvan individis uflebebisaxelmwifos Carevisagan. 7 profesorinovaki saxelmwifos sagangebo mdgomareobisgamocxadebis konstituciuruflebas adarebs sisxlis samarTalSiarsebul piris Tavdacvis uflebas. 8adamianis uflebebis samarTlis Teoriada praqtika icnobs ramdenime me-Tods, romelTa meSveobiTac saxelmwifoebsSeuZliaT Seasrulon adamianisuflebaTa Sesaxeb xelSekrulebebiT nakisrivaldebulebebi, amasTan, momzadebulniSexvdnen qveyanaSi sagangebo dagarTulebul viTarebas. esenia: xel-Sekrulebis denonsacia, daTqmebi da ganmartebiTideklaraciebi, e.w. „clawback”-debulebebi 9 da gadaxveva. 10 winamdebarenaSromi, ZiriTadad, Seexeba gadaxvevisarssa da mis rols adamianis uflebaTadacvis instrumentebis, gansakuTrebiTki ekonomikuri, socialuri da kulturuliuflebebis saerTaSoriso paqtis(ICESCR) mixedviT.unda aRiniSnos, rom gadaxvevis meqanizmisgamoyeneba iwvevs dapi ri s pi -rebas ara saxelmwifosa da piris uflebebsada Tavisuflebebs, aramed pirovnebasada mTeli sazogadoebis interesebsSoris. 11 aRniSnulis Se fasebasaxdens saxelmwifo, vinaidan gansakuTrebulSemTxvevebSi, ro g o rebicaa omida sagangebo mdgoma re oba, saxelmwifoebsar ZaluZT, sru lad SeasrulonsaerTaSoriso xe l SekrulebebiT nakisrivaldebule bebi. Sesabamisad, gadaxvevisdebulebebi gansakuTrebul Sem-TxvevebSi zogi er Ti valdebulebis Se-Cerebis an darRvevis saSualebas iZleva,maSin, rodesac sxva SemTxvevaSisa xelmwifo pasuxismgebeli iqnebodaam gvar qmedebebze 12 . amiT saxelmwifoebseZlevaT SesaZlebloba, SeinarCunonbalansi adamianis uflebebis dacvasada saerTo sikeTisaTvis sakuTari sazogadofunqciebis Sesrulebas Soris. 13gadaxvevis ufleba uzrunvelyofiliaadamianis uflebaTa xelSekrulebebisumravlesobiT, maT Soris samoqalaqoda politikur uflebaTa saerTaSorisopaqtiT, 14 adamianis uflebaTa amerikulikonvenciiT 15 da adamianis uflebaTa daZiriTad TavisuflebaTa dacvis evropulikonvenciiT. 16gadaxvevis uflebis gamoyenebas TandakavSirebuli yvelaze mniSvne lovaniproblemaa misi araswori ga moyeneba. arsebobsSemTxvevebi, rodesac saxelmwifoebisagangebo an sxvagvar mdgomareobasiyeneben sakuTari interesebisaTvis112

T. goleTiani, gadaxvevis meqanizmi ekonomikur, socialur da kulturul uflebaTa saerTaSoriso ...maTi Cveuli sajaro uflebamosilebisganxorcielebis dros. 17 profesor novakisazriT, amgvari SemTxvevebis Tavidanasacileblad aucilebelia adamianisuflebaTa xelSekrulebebSi gadaxvevismuxlebis gamoyenebis zedmiwevniTikontroli da amgvari SemTxvevebis minimumamdedayvana. 18 amisaTvis saWiroasagangebo viTarebis definiciis arseboba,masTan dakavSirebuli teqnikurimoTxovnebis gansazRvra, rogoricaa,magaliTad, sagangebo mdgomareobis sajarodgamocxadebis forma; amasTan,aucilebelia ganisazRvros im uflebaTaCa monaTvali, romlebidanac gadaxvevaakrZalulia sagangebo mdgomareobisdrosac ki. 19adamianis uflebaTa sxvadasxva xelSekrulebiTgaTvaliswinebuli gadaxvevisdebulebebis analizi gviCvenebs,rom, uamravi msgavsebis miuxedavad,TiToeuli gamoirCeva TaviseburebiT.magaliTad, samoqalaqo da politikuruflebaTa saerTaSoriso paqtis mixedviT,saxelmwifos SeuZlia gadaxvevismeqanizmis gamoyeneba mxolod iseTisagangebo mdgomareobis dros, rodesacsafrTxe eqmneba eris arsebobas. amSemTxvevaSi miRebuli zomebi aucilebladunda akmayofilebdnen Semdeg kriteriumebs:1. isini ganpirobebulni undaiyvnen ukiduresi aucileblobiT; 2. arunda ewinaaRmdegebodnen saxelmwifosmier nakisr sxva saerTaSoriso valdebulebebs;3. ar unda axdendnen diskriminaciasrasis, kanis feris, sqesis, religiis,enis an socialuri warmomavlobisniadagze 20 . muxli aseve moiTxovs, romgaeros generalur mdivans dauyovneblivecnobos, romeli uflebebis mimarT iqnagamoyenebuli gadaxveva, rasac Tan undaaxldes mizezis detaluri ganmarteba.generalur mdivans unda ecnobos gadaxvevisxangrZlivoba. 21 muxli aseve Seicavsim uflebebis CamonaTvals, romlebidangadaxvevac aris dauSvebeli. 22adamianis uflebaTa da ZiriTad Ta -visuflebaTa dacvis evropuli ko n ve n-ciis me-15 muxlis Tanaxmad, sa xelmwifosmier konvenciiT nakisri valdebulebebidangadaxveva daiSveba mxolod omisan sxva sazogadoebrivi sagangebo mdgomareobisdros, rodesac safrTxe eqmnebaeris arsebobas. 23 saxelmwifos mier miRebulizomebi unda iyos mkacrad proporciulida ar unda ewinaaRmdegebodessaxelmwifos mier nakisr sxva saerTa-Soriso valdebulebebs. samoqalaqo dapolitikur uflebaTa saerTaSorisopaqtis msgavsad, adamianis uflebaTa daZiriTad TavisuflebaTa dacvis evropulikonvencia aseve awesebs gadaxvevisSemTxvevebisa da maTi gamomwvevi mizezebisSesaxeb evropis sabWos generalurimdivnis informirebis valdebulebas. 24evropul konvenciaSi aseve arsebobs imuflebaTa CamonaTvali, romelTagangadaxveva aris dauSvebeli 25 . Tumca, rogorczogierTi mkvlevari acxadebs, evropulikonvenciis am ZiriTad uflebaTaCamonaTvali aris ufro mkacri daSemzRudavi xasiaTisa. 26zemoT naxsenebi moTxovnebi ganmartamosamarTle higinsma. is acxadebs,rom adamianis uflebebidan gadaxvevadasaSvebia mxolod maSin, Tu, viTarebidangamomdinare, arsebobs amis aucileblobada daculia proporciulobisprincipi. saerTaSoriso sazogadoebasunda mieces maTi detalurad SeswavlisSesaZlebloba, raTa moxdes arsebulipraqtikis gaanalizeba. 27adamianis uflebaTa samarTalSi gadaxvevismTavar maxasiaTebleb ze msjelobisasmniSvnelovania imis ga r kveva,rodis da ra SemTxvevebSi SeiZleba maTigamoyeneba. rogorc ukve aRiniSna, adamianisuflebebis dacvidan gadaxvevaSesaZlebelia mxolod omisa 28 da sazogadoebrivisagangebo mdgomareobisdros, rodesac safrTxe eqmneba erisarsebobas. rogorc profesori novakiaRniSnavs, samoqalaqo da politikuruflebaTa saerTaSoriso paqtis me-4muxliT gaTvaliswinebuli gadaxvevismeqanizmis gamoyenebisas, praqtikuladyvela SemTxvevaSi, saxelmwifoebi am moqmedebasamarTleben Sida areulobiT. 29aseve aRsaniSnavia, mxolod omi daSida SeiaraRebuli dapirispireba ar113

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010q mnis sagangebo mdgomareobas. Sida areulobebida dapirispireba SeiZleba asevegaxdes gadaxvevis uflebis gamoyenebissafuZveli. 30 rogorc samoqalaqoda politikur uflebaTa saerTaSorisopaqtis proeqtis SemuSavebis dros aRiniSna:`mTavari problema iyo imis gansaz-Rvra, Tu ra saxis sagangebo viTareba-Si hqondaT saxelmwifoebs konvenciismuxlebis mimarT gadaxvevis meqanizmisgamoyenebis ufleba, Tanac ise, rom armomxdariyo aRniSnuli uflebiT borotadsargebloba... formulireba efuZnebamosazrebas, romlis mixedviTac sagangeboviTareba unda iyos iseTi simwvavisa,rom safrTxes uqmnides mTelieris arsebobas~. 31am sakiTxis ganxilvisas mniSvnelovaniagaviTvaliswinoT adamianis uflebaTaevropuli sasamarTlos precedentulisamarTali. gadaxvevis sa kiTxixSirad xdeba sasamarTlos ganxilvissagani. is gansazRvravs kriteriumebs dagvexmareba gavigoT cnebis arsi. 32erT-erT mis ganaCenSi, romelicsasamarTlom gamoitana lolesis saqmeze,sagangebo mdgomareoba ganimartarogorc `eris arsebobisaTvis safrTxisSemcveli mdgomareoba~ da `gansakuTrebulikrizisi da sagangebo viTareba,romelic safrTxes uqmnis mTlian mosaxleobasada sazogadoebis organizebulcxovrebas~. 33saberZneTis saqmeSi adamianis uflebaTaevropulma komisiam Sei muSavakriteriumebi sagangebo mdgomareobisaTvis, romelic safrTxes uqmnis erisarsebobas. komisiam ganmarta, rom ase-Ti viTareba unda iyos: 1. gardauvali;2. ze ga vlenas unda axdendes mTel erze;3. un da irRveodes sazogadoebis cxovrebisCveuli ritmi; 4. safrTxis an krizisismasStabi unda iyos iseTi simwvavisa,rom konvenciiT daSvebuli Cveulebrivizomebi da SezRudvebi gamoiyenebodesabsoluturad araadekvaturad. 34saqmeSi irlandia gaerTianebuli samefos winaaRmdeg britaneTis mier ga daxvevis uflebis gamoyeneba adamianis uflebaTaevropuli konvenciis mi marT gamarTlebuliqna rogorc sa samarT los,aseve komisiis mier. sa samarTlom aRniSna,rom sagangebo viTareba SesaZlebeliaexebodes ara mTel saxelmwifos, aramedmis nawils, konkretul provincias, kantonsda a.S. 35 Sesabamisad, am gadawyvetilebiTsasamarTlom gansazRvra, romsagangebo viTareba SesaZlebelia, geografiulad SezRudul teritoriazecarsebobdes.rogorc mosamarTle burgentaliaR niSnavs, es ganmarteba da midgoma SesaZlebeliagamoyenebul iqnes samoqalaqoda politikur uflebaTa saerTa-Soriso paqtis me-4 muxlis mimar Tac. 36amavdroulad, gadaxvevis uflebisgamoyeneba, romelsac safuZvlad udevsSida areulobebi, partizanuli omebi dasxva, yvelaze didi safrTxea adamianisuflebaTa dacvis SeTanxmebebis myarimoqmedebisaTvis. 37adamianis uflebaTa damcveli organoebiaseve ganixilaven am problemassaxelmwifoTa mxridan gadaxvevisgamoyenebis Sesaxeb Setyobinebebze da -yrdnobiT. adamianis uflebaTa ko mitetma(HRC) safuZvliani eWvi ga moTqvaCiles mTavrobis mier gamocxadebulisagangebo mdgomareobis xan g rZlivobismarTlzomierebasTan da ka vSirebiT qveynis mier wardgenili meore perioduliangariSis ganxilvis dros. 38 komitetiSeecada imis garkvevas, kvlavacZalaSi iyo Tu ara 1976 wlis blokadisdros miRebuli zomebi, an, iqneb, miRebulizomebi, romlebic, Tavisi arsiT,SezRuduli iyo droiTa da adgiliT,gadaizarda instituciur SezRudvaSi,romelic ZalaSi darCa mTeli qveynisteritoriaze gansazRvruli droiT.amgvarad, komitetma moiTxova `damajerebelimtkicebuleba imisa, rom arsebobdarealuri safrTxe, romlis daZlevacsaxelmwifos mxridan SeuZlebeliiyo sxva saSualebis gamoyenebiT~. 39es SemTxveva waagavs adamianis uflebaTakomisiis mier saberZneTis saqmeSiCatarebul gamokvlevas, rodesac komisiamkiTxvis niSnis qveS daayena iseTi sa-114

T. goleTiani, gadaxvevis meqanizmi ekonomikur, socialur da kulturul uflebaTa saerTaSoriso ...frTxis arseboba, romelic emuqrebodaberZeni eris arsebobas. 40saqmeSi landineli silva urugvaiswinaaRmdeg adamianis uflebaTa komitetma imsjela saxelmwifoebisaTvismi ni We bul Sefasebis zRvarze da dagmouru gvais mier me-4 muxlis gamoyeneba.komitetma aRniSna, rom `wevri saxelmwifoebivaldebulni arian, warmoadginonsaTanado faqtebis sakmarisaddetaluri angariSi, romelic safuZvladudevs maT mier me-4(1) muxlis moxmobas~da, rom swored komitetia uflebamosili,`Seafasos, ramdenad asrulebssaxelmwifo paqtiT nakisr Tavisvaldebulebebs~. 41adamianis uflebaTa dacvis sazedamxedveloorganoebi yovelTvis rodigmoben saxelmwifoebis mier me-4 muxlisgamoyenebas Sida areulobebisdros. magaliTad, 2007 wlis noemberSisaqarTvelom evropis sabWosa da gaerosgaugzavna diplomatiuri Setyobinebaori saerTaSoriso xe l Sekrulebis mimarTgadaxvevis uflebis gamoyenebisSesaxeb gadawyvetilebasTan dakavSirebiT.saxelmwifo gadawyvetilebis miRebisdros daeyrdno arsebul viTarebas,romelic safrTxes uqmnida erisarsebobas. man ganacxada, rom farTomasStabianidemonstraciebi TandaTaniRebda ajanyebis saxes, romlis mizaniciyo mTavrobis arakonstituciuri gziTSecvla. amave dros, aucilebeli iyo qveyanaSimosalodneli Semdgomi areulobisTavidan acileba, kanonis uzenaesobisaRdgena da samTavrobo institutebisefeqturi funqcionirebis uzrunvelyofa.42 ga e ros generalurma mdivanma, iseve,ro gorc evropis sabWom, aRniSna, romsaxelmwifoebs aqvT Sefasebis farTozRvari gadaxvevis gamoyenebasTan dakav-SirebiT, Tumca aRniSnuli diskreciaeqvemdebareba mkacr monitorings saer-TaSoriso sazogadoebis mxri dan. 43ori msoflio omis Semdeg saerTa-Soriso sazogadoebam gaacnobie ra, romadamianis uflebebis dacva saxelmwifoserT-erTi yvelaze mniSvnelovanivaldebulebaa. evropis, ame rikisa daafrikis samarTlebriv sistemebSi adamianisuflebaTa sferoSi xelSekrulebebismTeli rigis miRebam, iseve, rogorcsaerTaSoriso doneze ori paqtisSemuSavebis procesma, gaaZliera adamianisuflebaTa dacvis meqanizmi, romelicTa v dapirvelad gaJRerda ada mianisuf le baTa sayovelTao dekla raciaSi.am xelSekrulebebis xelmoweriT, ratifikaciiTada erovnul ka nonmdeblobebSiimplementaciiT sa xelmwifoebi avlenenxelSekrulebebiT gaTvaliswinebuliRirebulebebis dacvis ganzraxvas.Tumca saxelmwifoebis praqtika miu-TiTebs garkveul viTarebaze, rogoricaasagangebo mdgomareoba, romlisdrosac saxelmwifo uZluria uzrunvelyosadamianis uflebaTa dacva. amgvariviTarebis sapasuxod adamianis ufleba-Ta dacvis xelSekrulebebi Seicavs gadaxvevismeqanizms, romlis gamoyenebisdrosac saxelmwifoebi sa erTaSorisosazogadoebas acnobeben, rom, garkveulimizezebis gamo, isini ver SeZleben uzrunvelyonadamianis zogierTi uflebada Tavisufleba Se z Ruduli drois ganmavlobaSi,razec maT sxva dros SeiZlebadaekisroT Sesabamisi pasuxismgebloba.is faqti, rom gadaxvevis meqanizmi aisaxaadamianis uflebaTa dacvis instrumentebSi,gamowveuli iyo obieqturi realobiT,romlis Tanaxmadac, SeuZlebeliayvela ufleba da Tavisufleba erTnairadiyos daculi nebismier drosa daviTarebaSi. rogorc wesi, am dokumentebSiyovelTvis aris miTiTeba im uflebebze,romelTagan gadaxveva dauSvebeliagansakuTrebuli viTarebis drosacki, maSin rodesac aseT viTarebaSi sxvazogierTi ufleba ar aris daculi.amave dros, saerTaSoriso sazogadoebamsaxelmwifoebis amgvar qmedebebzeSeimuSava zedamxedvelobis sis tema,romlis mixedviTac adamianis uflebaTadacvis ZiriTadi organoebi zedmiwevniTamowmeben gadaxvevis mizezebs, marTlzomierebas,xangrZlivobas da zogadviTarebas. rogorc praqtika gviCvenebs,es organoebi sakmaod mkacrad afaseben115

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010saxelmwifoebis diskrecias gadaxvevismeqanizmis gamoyenebasTan dakavSirebiT.44samoqalaqo da politikur uflebaTasaerTaSoriso paqtis, adamianis ufleba-Ta amerikuli da evropuli konvenciebisagangansxvavebiT, ekonomikur, socialurda kulturul uflebaTa saerTaSorisopaqti Seicavs ara gadaxvevis, aramedSezRudvis debulebas. naSromis SemdegiTavebi aanalizebs paqtSi gadaxvevis debulebisararsebobis mizezebs. aseve ganxiluliapaqtis me-4 muxlis gamoyenebisarsebuli realoba.2. gadaxvevis sakompromiso meqanizmiekonomikur, socialur da kulturuluflebaTa saerTaSoriso paqtismixedviT: paqtis me-4 muxlis analizia. paqtis SemzRudavi debulebaekonomikur, socialur da kulturuluflebaTa saerTaSoriso paqtisme-4 muxlSi vkiTxulobT:`am paqtis wevri saxelmwifoebi acxadeben,rom saxelmwifos paqtiT uzrunvelyofiliuflebebis SezRudva SeuZliamxolod im doziT, rac gaTvaliswinebuliakanoniT, Seesabameba am uflebebisarssa da aucilebelia demokratiul sazogadoebaSikeTildReobis ganviTarebisTvis~.muxlis amgvari formulireba cxadyofs,rom igi ar uSvebs gadaxvevis SesaZleblobas da saxelmwifoebis SesaZlogadaxvevis praqtikas amarTlebsSezRudvebis gamoyenebiT, 45 romelicunda iyos: 1. kanoniT gaTvaliswinebuli;2. konkretuli ufleba Tavad undauSvebdes SezRudvis SesaZleblobas; 3.mTavari mizani unda iyos sazogadoebiskeTildReobis uzrunvelyofa.kanoniT gaTvaliswinebuli aRniSnulikriteriumi gulisxmobs, rom kanoniunda iyos zogadi gamoyenebis; unda iyosnaTeli, zusti da xelmisawvdomi; igi,misi ukanono da aramarTlzomieri gamoyenebiswinaaRmdeg, unda iTvaliswinebdesadekvaturi dacvis SesaZleblobas; 46ufro metic, misi gamoyeneba ar undaiyos TviTneburi, aramarTlzomieri,ara proporciuli da diskriminaciuli,ra moTxovnebic, zogadad, arsebobs adamianisuflebaTa samarTalSi. 47rac Seexeba meore moTxovnas, rogorce.w. limburgis principebi naTladmiuTiTebs, SezRudva ar unda iqnesgamoyenebuli imgvarad, rom aman xelyosuflebis arsi. 48 aRniSnulis mixedviT,saxelmwifos SezRudvis ga moyenebisdros ekisreba mtkicebis tvirTi, rommisi qmedebebi Seesabameba SezRuduliuflebis bunebas. 49limburgis principebi aseve ganmartavssazogadoebrivi keTildReobis uzrunvelyofiskriteriums da miuTiTebs,rom SezRudva unda emsaxurebodes mxolodsazogado keTildReobas. 50 zogierTimkvlevari aRniSnul kriteriumsganmartavs imgvarad, rom saxelmwifoebsar aqvT ufleba, moixmon SezRudvisdawesebis ufleba `erovnuli usafrTxoebis~an `sajaro wesrigis~ dacvis mizniT,radgan es ori koncefcia pirdapirar ukavSirdeba sazogadoebisa da misiindividualuri wevrebis keTildReobisSenarCunebas. 51 imave arguments eyrdnobakomiteti saxelmwifoTa angariSebisganxilvis dros da aRniSnavs, rom wevrisaxelmwifoebi kvlavac rCebian valdebulni,daicvan paqtiT gaTvaliswinebulidebulebebi SeiaraRebuli konfliqtebis,Sida areulobebisa Tu ajanyebebisdros.magaliTad, erayis angariSis gan -xi l visas komitetma aRniSna, rom paqtiZalaSi iyo iranis islamur respublikasTanomamde da omis dros, iseve,rogorc erayis mier quveiTis okupaciisSemdeg. komiteti ufro Sors wavida dadaakonkreta, rom embargos SemTxvevaSicki erayi valdebuli iyo, srulad daecvakonvencia, Tumca amis Sesruleba didsiZneleebTan iyo dakavSirebuli. 52gvatemalaSi mimdinare Sida kon -fli q tTan dakavSirebiT, komitetma da -ad gina, rom ocwlianma Sida dapi rispirebam,bunebrivia, xeli SeuSala paqtisimplementacias, Tumca, am Sem TxvevaSicki, saxelmwifo ver gaamarTlebs paqti-116

T. goleTiani, gadaxvevis meqanizmi ekonomikur, socialur da kulturul uflebaTa saerTaSoriso ...dan gamomdinare valdebulebebis Seusruleblobasgadaxvevis uflebis gamoyenebiT.53 komitetma zogadad ganmarta,rom, marTalia, SeiaraRebuli konfliqtixels uSlis adamianis uflebaTa dacvisuzrunvelyofas, wevri saxelmwifoebivaldebulni arian, gamoiCinon keTilineba da xeli Seuwyon paqtis implementacias.54 ufro metic, vinaidan daucvelijgufebi kidev ufro didi riskis qveSarian aseT dros, saxelmwifoebma yvelaferiunda iRonon, raTa uzrunvelyonmaTi paqtiT gaTvaliswinebuli privilegiebi.55meoTxe muxlis arsis srulad gasagebadumjobesi iqneba ekonomikur,socialur da kulturul uflebaTakomitetis mier SemuSavebuli zogadikomentarebis naxva, rogorc muxlis avtoritetuliganmartebis wya rosi. mar-Talia, komitets jer ar Se umuSavebiakonkretulad meoTxe muxlis ganmartebiTizogadi komentari, Tumca komitetispoziciis garkveva SesaZlebelia sxvamuxlebis komentarebidan. magaliTad,komitetma ganaT lebisa da jandacvisuflebis Sesaxeb Tavis zogad komentar-Si xazi gausva imas, rom SezRudva emsaxurebaadamianis uflebebis dacvas daara saxelmwifos mxridan SezRudvebisgamoyenebis uflebas. 56komitetis tradiciuli midgomisTanaxmad, mTavrobis mier gamoyenebulinebismieri saxis SezRudva ar unda ganxorcieldespaqtisgan izolirebulad.SezRudvebis ZiriTadi arsi unda iyosadamianis uflebaTa ukeTesi dacva saer-To keTildReobis uzrunvelyofis gziT;SezRudva unda iyos droebiTi da sruladunda akmayofilebdes paqtiT gaTvaliswinebulkriteriu mebs. komitetsar gamouqveynebia zo gadi komentari paqtisme-4 muxlTan dakavSirebiT, romelicnaTels mo hfenda muxlis samarTlebrivibunebis Sinaarss, Tumca komitetma mogvcamuxlis sakmaod efeqturi ganmartebasxva zogad komentarebSi, aseve saxelmwifoTaangariSebis Sefasebis dros.b. fors-maJori, rogorc gadaxvevisuflebis gamoyenebis safuZveliekonomikur, socialur da kulturuluflebaTa saerTaSoriso paqti arSeicavs pirdapir miTiTebas imis Sesaxeb,rom saxelmwifoebs aqvT paqtis valdebulebebidangadaxvevis ufleba, iqneba esSeiaraRebuli konfliqtis Tu bunebrivikatastrofebis dros. 57 msgavsi midgomaganaviTara komitetma wevri saxelmwifoebismier wardgenili perioduli angariSebisSefasebis dros.saerTaSoriso samarTalSi arsebobssaxelmwifos qmedebis marTlwinaaRmdegobisgamomricxavi garemoebebi. 58 forsmaJori,ukve didi xania, ganixileba erTerTaseT garemoebad. 59 es aris viTareba,rodesac saxelmwifo iZulebulia, ganaxorcielosiseTi qmedeba, romelic ewinaaRmdegebamis mier nakisr saerTaSorisovaldebulebebs. 60 kerZod, venis saer-TaSoriso xelSekrulebebis Sesaxeb konvenciisTanaxmad, `mxares SeuZlia moixmosmis mier xelSekrulebis Se s rulebisSeuZlebloba xelSek ru le bis Sewyvetisan misgan gamosv lis mizniT... Tu valdebulebisSes ru l e bis SeuZlebloba droebiTia,es Se saZlebelia gaxdes mxolodxel Se k rulebis SeCerebis safuZveli~. 61ga r da amisa, saxelmwifoTa pasuxismgeblobisSesaxeb muxlebi iTvaliswinebssaxelmwifos gaTavisuflebas misi saerTaSorisovaldebulebisagan, `Tu moqmedebagamowveulia... dauZleveli angauTvaliswinebeli ZaliT, romelic areqvemdebareba saxelmwifo kontrols daarsebuli garemoebebi fizikurad aferxebsqveynis mier nakisri valdebulebebisSesrulebas~. 62rogorc profesori kroufordiaR niSnavs, fors-maJoris koncefcia Sesulia saerTaSoriso samarTlis sxvadasxvasferos maregulirebel xe l -SekrulebebSi, 63 rac miuTiTebs saerTa-Soriso samarTlis zogadi principisarsebobaze. 64 jer kidev 1929 wels saer-TaSoriso samarTlis mudmivmoqmedmasasamarTlom serbiuli valis saqmeSize moaRniSnul koncefcias mianiWa saer-117

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010TaSoriso samarTlis zogadi principisstatusi. 65yovelive zemoaRniSnulidan gamomdinare,miuxedavad imisa, rom ekonomikur,socialur da kulturul ufleba-Ta saerTaSoriso paqti ar Seicavs gadaxvevisdebulebas da pirdapir ar exebaomisa Tu sxva sagangebo mdgomareobisSemTxvevebs, saerTaSoriso samarTalisaxelmwifoebs aZlevs SesaZleblobas,krizisis eqstremalur viTarebaSi gamoiyenonfors-maJori xelSekrulebidangamomdinare valdebulebebis darRvevisgasamarTleblad 66 . Tumca imisaTvis,rom fors-maJoris gamoyeneba iyos gamarTlebuli,saxelmwifoebma unda daakmayofilongarkveuli kriteriumebi. 67profesor Sous ganmartebiT, saxelmwifoebismier fors-maJoris gamoyenebasTandakavSirebiT arsebobs sakmaodmaRali moTxovnebi. 68 aRniSnuli midgomaCans saxelmwifoTa pasuxismgeblobisSesaxeb muxlebis proeqtis komentareb-Si, romelic gvTavazobs fors-maJorisSemdeg kriteriumebs:• gansaxilveli qmedeba ganpirobebuliadauZleveli Zalis arsebobiT;• viTareba ar eqvemdebareba saxelmwifoskontrols;• Seqmnili viTareba SeuZlebels xdissaxelmwifos mier nakisri valdebulebisSesrulebas. 69saerTaSoriso samarTlis komisiis(ILC) ganmartebiT, Sesrulebis SeuZ leblobaSeiZleba gamowveuli iyos fizikurian bunebrivi movleniT, adamianTaintervenciiT, romelic aseve moicavsSeiaraRebul konfliqts, an am oris nebismierikombinaciiT. 70 Tumca aRniSnulicnebis qvakuTxedi aris is, rom `vi-Tareba unda iyos dauZleveli, iseTi,rom konkretul saxelmwifos ar hqondesmisi gavlenis Tavidan acilebis realuriSesaZlebloba~. 71 garda amisa, fors-ma-Jori ar moicavs iseT SemTxvevebs, romlebicgamowveulia saxelmwifos daudevrobiTan braliT, politikuri Tuekonomikuri krizisiT, 72 an rodesac valdebulebis Sesruleba aris, ubralod,garTulebuli. 73 saqmis – Rainbow WarriorArbitration – mixedviT, am doqtrinis gamoyenebis erT-erTi piroba aris `absoluturida arsebiTi SeuZlebloba~, xoloviTareba, romelic valdebulebisSesrulebas ufro rTulsa da mZimesxdis, ar CaiTvleba forsmaJorul situaciad.74amgvarad, cxadi xdeba, rom fors-ma-Joris mimarT dadgenili kriteriumebi,kerZod, valdebulebis Sesrulebis absoluturiSeuZlebloba, ufro mkacria,vidre adamianis uflebaTa dacvisxelSekrulebebiT gaTvaliswinebuliga daxvevis debulebebi, romlebic uTi-Te ben sagangebo mdgomareobaze. 75 imuflebebis ganxilvis mizniT, romlebicsagangebo mdgomareobis da sxva gansakuTrebuliSemTxvevebis drosac kiar eqvemdebareba gadaxvevas, SeikribaeqspertTa specialuri jgufi, romlismier SemuSavebul angariSSi naTqvamia:`gadaxvevis debulebebi, SeuZleblobiskoncefciisgan gansxvavebiT, awesebenufro dabal zRvars saxelmwifoTamier xelSekrulebidan gamomdinareva ldebulebis Seusruleblobis gasasamarTleblad~. 76 svenson maqkartisga nmartebiT, rodesac erTmaneTs vadarebTadamianis uflebaTa dacvis xelSekrulebebiTgaTvaliswinebul gadaxvevisdebulebebs da saerTaSorisosamarTalSi arsebul fors-maJors, vxedavT,rom saerTaSoriso valdebulebebisSeusrulebloba dasaSvebia mxolodmaSin, rodesac arsebobs dauZleveliZala, romelic saxelmwifos ar utovebssxva arCevans, maSin rodesac adamianisuflebaTa dacvis xelSekrulebebiT gaTvaliswinebulisagangebo mdgomareobisdros Seqmnili krizisuli viTareba umravlesSemTxvevaSi, Tumca ara yovelTvis,pasuxismgebel mmarTvel organosutovebs viTarebis gamosworebis sxvaefeqtur saSualebebsac. sxva sityvebiTrom vTqvaT, adamianis uflebaTa koncefciaufro metad aris damokidebuliganzraxvis subieqtur elementze, vidresaerTaSoriso samarTalSi arsebulifors-maJori. 77118

T. goleTiani, gadaxvevis meqanizmi ekonomikur, socialur da kulturul uflebaTa saerTaSoriso ...paqtTan mimarTebiT fors-maJorisprincipis gamoyenebis SesaZleblobisanalizis dros profesori sepulvedaacxadebs, rom paqtis konteqstSi, forsmaJorisaTvismimarTviT saxelmwifoebsSeuZliaT aicilon pasuxismgebloba valdebulebebisSeusruleblobaze, rodesacomis an sxva bunebrivi katastrofisSemTxvevaSi an, Tundac, moulodneliekonomikuri krizisis fonze, saxelmwifosar SeuZlia Seasrulos nakisrivaldebuleba. 78 Tumca is aseve aRniSnavs,rom fors-maJoris principis gamoyenebisasTavad saxelmwifos qmedeba arunda iyos valdebulebebis SesrulebisSeuZleblobis mizezi da maSinac ki,rodesac am princips mimarTavs, saxelmwifomunda imoqmedos keTilsindisieradda gaiTvaliswinos sazogadoebiszogadi keTildReoba. 79maSasadame, unda aRiniSnos, romfors-maJori aris marTlac eqstraordinaruliviTareba da misi ganmartebaunda moxdes mkacrad, paqtiT daculisagnisa da miznis WrilSi, 80 radganacsaerTaSoriso saxelSekrulebo samar-Tlis zogierTi norma yovelTvis arSeesabameba adamianis uflebaTa dacvisxelSekrulebebis gamoyenebas. 81amgvarad, Sejamebis saxiT SegviZliavTqvaT, rom, Tu saerTaSoriso samarTaliuSvebs paqtidan gadaxvevis uflebas,amgvari gadaxveva unda akmayofilebdesfors-maJoris moTxovnebs, romlebicaris ufro mkacri, vidre `sazogadoebrivisagangebo mdgomareobis dros~adamianis uflebaTa dacvis saerTaSorisoxelSekrulebebiT gaTvaliswinebuligadaxvevis meqanizmi. ufro meti, amSemTxvevaSic ki saxelmwifos qmedebebimimarTuli unda iyos saerTo sazogadoebrivikeTildReobis uzrunvelyofisaken.amave dros, gadaxveva unda akmayofilebdesdiskriminaciis akrZalvisada proporciulobis principebs. 82miuxedavad amisa, zogierTi mkvlevariaRniSnavs, rom ekonomikur, socialurda kulturul uflebaTa saerTaSorisopaqtis me-2(1)-is moqniloba,me-4 muxliT gaTvaliswinebuliSezRudvebis SesaZlebloba da daTqmebisakmarisi instrumentebia, romlebsacminimumamde dayavs iseTi SemTxvevebi,rodesac saxelmwifoebs sWirdebaTfors-maJoris moxmoba. 83ufro metic, Tu Cven gavakeTebTko mitetis zogadi komentarebis detaluranalizs, gadavxedavT paqtis sxvaganmartebiT dokumentebs, SegviZliavTqvaT, rom, miuxedavad komitetis SemajamebeldaskvnebSi gakeTebuli mwvaveSefasebebisa, paqti ar krZalavs gadaxvevasomis an sazogadoebrivi sagangebomdgomareobis dros.komitetma Tavis zogad komentarebSiganaviTara `ZiriTadi valdebulebebis~koncefcia, romelic moicavs im uflebebs,romelTagan gadaxveva an romelTaSezRudva aris dauSvebeli. 84 magali-Tad, komitetma aRniSna, rom saxelmwifos`arcerT SemTxvevaSi ar SeuZliagaamarTlos ZiriTadi valdebulebebisSeusrulebloba, romlebic ar eqvemdebarebagadaxvevas~ da, rom aRniSnulivaldebulebebis Sesruleba aris paqtisraison d’être, misi arsebiTi nawili. 85janmrTelobis uflebis ganxilvisaskomitetma Camoayaliba Semdegi ZiriTadivaldebulebebi:`(a) diskriminaciis akrZalva jan d a -c vis dawesebulebebis, sa qo ne l-sa da momsaxurebaze xel mi saw v do -mobis uzrunvelyofis mi marT, gansakuTrebiTdaucveli da gari yu lijgufebisTvis;(b) minimalur aucilebel sak ve b ze xelmisawvdomobis uzrun ve l yo fa,ro melic Seicavs sak vebi Rire bu -le bis adekvatur odenobas da arisuvnebeli; saxelmwifom unda uzrunvelyos,rom arcerTi adamiani ariyos mSieri;(g) ZiriTad TavSesafarze, sac xo vrebelsada sanitariul pi ro bebzexel misawvdomobis uz ru nvelyofa;uvnebeli da sasmelad vargisi wyliTsaTanado moma rageba;(d) miwodeba im ZiriTadi medika mentebisa, romlebic drodadro ga -ni sazRvreba jandacvis ms o flio119

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010organizaciis Zi ri T a di medi ka mentebisSesa xeb sa mo q me do pro g ramismeS ve o biT;(e) jandacvis saSualebebis, sa q onlisada momsaxurebebis sa m a r Tliani ganawilebisuz ru n velyofa;(v) jandacvis erovnuli strategiisa dasamoqmedo gegmis miReba da ganxorcielebaepidemiologiuri monacemebissafuZvelze, mTeli mosaxleobisjandacvis problemebis gaTvaliswinebiT;unda SemuSavdes strategiada samoqmedo gegma da moxdesmaTi perioduli gadasinjva, mo nawileobiTida gamWvirvale procesissafuZvelze; isini unda moicavdneniseT meTodebs, ro gorebicaa,magaliTad: janmrTelobis uflebisindikatorebi da dasaxuli Sedegebi,romelTa meSveobiTac SeiZlebamdgo mareobis monitoringi, sadacgansakuTrebuli yuradReba mieqcevadaucvel da gariyul jgufebs.44. komiteti adasturebs, rom garkveuliprioritetis mqone valdebulebebsmiekuTvneba aseve Semdegi moTxovnebi:(a) reproduqciis, dedaTa (mSobiarobamdeda mSobiarobisSemdgomi) dabavSvTa jandacvis uzrunvelyofa;(b) acrebis Catareba ZiriTadi infeqciuridaavadebebis winaaRmdeg, romlebicwarmoiSoba sazogadoebaSi;(g) epidemiuri da endemuri daavadebebisprevenciuli, samkurnalo dasakontrolo RonisZiebebis ganxorcieleba;(d) jandacvis ZiriTadi proble mebisSesaxeb mosaxleobaSi ga naTlebasada informaciaze xelmisawvdomobisuzrunvelyofa, prevenciisa da kontrolismeqanizmebis CaTvliT;(e) jandacvis muSakebisTvis saTa nadotreningis Catareba janmrTelobisada adamianis uflebaTa sferoSiganaTlebis micemis CaTvliT~. 86yovelive zemoTqmulis gaTvaliswinebiT,maastrixtis saxelmZRvanelomiTiTebebi ekonomikur, socialur dakulturul uflebaTa darRvevebis SesaxeberTmaneTisgan asxvavebs moqmedebasada umoqmedobas, romlebic erTnairadarRveven paqts. igi miuTiTebs imgansxvavebebze, romlebic arsebobs, erTSemTxvevaSi, maSin, rodesac saxelmwifosar SeuZlia Seasrulos paqtiT nakisrivaldebuleba da, meore SemTxvevaSimaSin, rodesac saxelmwifos ar sursvaldebulebis Sesruleba. 87 garda amisa,rogorc saxelmZRvanelo miTiTebebSiaRniSnulia, `saxelmwifos, romelic acxadebs,rom ara aqvs unari, Seasrulosvaldebuleba misgan damoukidebeli mizezebisgamo, ekisreba valdebuleba,daamtkicos aseTi viTarebis arseboba~.amgvari uunarobis magaliTad moyvaniliasaganmanaTleblo dawesebulebisdaxurva miwisZvris Semdeg. 88 amasTan,me-14 principi dawvrilebiT gansaz-Rvravs, rom akrZalulia paqtiT gaTvaliswinebuliuflebis progresulirealizebisTvis xelisSeSla an procesisSewyveta, garda im SemTxvevebisa, rodesacsaxelmwifo moqmedebs paqtiT daSvebuliSezRudvebis farglebSi, an igiamas akeTebs resursebis uqonlobisaTu forsmaJoruli viTarebis gamo. 89Tumca paqti ar Seicavs gadaxvevismeqanizms, komiteti Tavis daskvnebSiZalian naTlad aRniSnavs, rom dauSvebeliapaqtidan gadaxveva SeiaraRebulikonfliqtis an sxva sagangebo mdgomareobisdrosac ki. amave dros, isic cxadia,rom komitetma da iuristebma, romlebmacSeimuSaves maastrixtis saxelmZRvaneloprincipebi, pirdapir aRiaressaxelmwifos ufleba, miTiTeba gaake-Tos fors-maJorze, rogorc qmedebismarTlwinaaRmdegobis gamomricxvel garemoebaze.es aris ufleba, romelic am-Jamad saerTaSoriso samarTlis zogadiprincipia.amasTanave, zogierT mkvlevars sadavodmiaCnia daTqmebis mkafio uflebisararseboba rogorc ekonomikuri, socialurida kulturuli, ise samoqalaqoda politikuri uflebebis Sesaxeb saer-TaSoriso paqtebSi. maTi gancxadebiT,120

T. goleTiani, gadaxvevis meqanizmi ekonomikur, socialur da kulturul uflebaTa saerTaSoriso ...`debulebis ararseboba [daTqmebis Sesaxeb]niSnavs ara imas, rom dauSvebeliadaTqmebis gakeTeba, aramed imas, rom essakiTxi regulirdeba saerTaSoriso samarTliszogadi normebiT~. 90 rogorcCans, daTqmebis gakeTeba dasaSvebia mxolodmaSin, Tu isini Seesabamebian paqtissagansa da mizans, xolo saxelmwifoebmaTavad unda gadawyviton, rodisakmayofileben aRniSnul tests. 91 igivewesi, analogiis gziT, SegviZlia gamoviyenoTgadaxvevebis uflebasTan dakav-SirebiT da mis mimarT gamoviyenoT saer-TaSoriso saxelSekrulebo samarTlidanaRebuli fors-maJoris koncefcia.3. paqtSi gadaxvevis meqanizmisararsebobis mizezebisagangebo viTarebaSi paqtis gamoyenebissakiTxze msjelobisas zogierTimkvlevari acxadebs, rom gadaxvevis muxlispecialurad ar Caido paqtSi da, rompaqti, Cveulebriv, agrZelebs moqmedebasomisa Tu bunebrivi katastrofebisdros. 92 Tumca sxva avtorebi aRniSnulsukavSireben Tavad ekonomikuri, socialurida kulturuli uflebebis saerTa-Soriso paqtiT gaTvaliswinebuli uflebebisspecifikur bunebas da aRniSnaven,rom gadaxvevis saWiroeba saerTod ar arsebobs,vinaidan paqtiT gaTvaliswinebuliuflebebi ar Seicavs tipur samarTlebrivvaldebulebebs; isini, ubralod,programuli xasiaTisaa da mTavrobasekisreba maTi Tanmimdevrulad ganxorcielebisvaldebuleba. 93 am TavSi ganvixilavTam Sexedulebebsa da azrebs.erT-erTi mizezi, ris gamoc 1952wels proeqtis SemmuSavebel komitetssTxoves ori gancalkevebuli dokumentiswarmodgena, iyo is, rom saxelmwifoTadelegaciebi kiTxvis niSnis qveSayenebdnen ekonomikuri, socialuri dakulturuli uflebebis saerTaSorisopaqtidan warmoSobili valdebulebebissamarTlebriv bunebas. 94 rodesacganvixilavT saxelmwifoTa poziciebs,unda gvaxsovdes, rom adamianis uflebaTadacvis xelSekrulebebs aqvT gansakuTrebuliadgili da mizani saerTaSorisosamarTalSi. isini gansxvavdebian sxvasaerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebisagan, romlebicsaxelmwifoebs, rogorc saerTa-Soriso samarTlis Tanabaruflebiansubieqtebs, 95 Soris warmoSoben samarTlebrivuflebebsa da valdebulebebs, ma-Sin, rodesac adamianis uflebaTa dacvisxelSekrulebebi saxelmwifos akisrebenvaldebulebas, daicvan da uzrunvelyonmaTs teritoriaze mcxovreb adamianTauflebebi da Tavisuflebebi. aRniSnulicxadyofs, Tu ratom iCenen saxelmwifoebigansakuTrebul sifrTxiles saku-Tari valdebulebebis gansazRvrasTandakavSirebiT adamianis uflebaTa dacvissxvadasxva instrumentis proeqtisSemuSavebis procesSi. amisi naTelimagaliTi iyo paqtis me-2 muxlis (romelicgansazRvravs samarTlebrivi valdebulebebismoculobas) SemuSavebisprocesi. gadawyda, rom, vinaidan es oridokumenti uzrunvelyofda sxvadasxvasaxis uflebebs, maTi implementaciis me-Todic gansxvavebuli unda yofiliyo. 96am azrs eTanxmeba zogierTi mecnieri.rogorc skoti aRniSnavs, samoqalaqoda politikur uflebaTa saerTaSorisopaqti moicavs saxelmwifoTa negatiurvaldebulebebs, sadac valdebuleba arkveTs uflebis ganxorcielebas, maSin,rodesac ekonomikur, socialur da kulturuluflebaTa saerTaSoriso paqtiiTvaliswinebs pozitiur valdebulebas,romlis Tanaxmadac saxelmwifoebsakisriaT valdebuleba, aRiaron da uzrunvelyonpaqtiT gaTvaliswinebuliuflebebi individebis mimarT 97 . rogorcalstoni aRniSnavs, am uflebaTa ganxorcielebasTandakavSirebiT dabrkolebasqmnis is faqti, rom es uflebebi arissakmaod bundovani xasiaTisa da maTi samarTlebrivibuneba aris gaurkveveli.swored amitom komitetis prerogativasganekuTvneba am sakiTxze adekvaturireagirebis ganxorcieleba. 98 alstoniaRniSnul garemoebas xsnis imiT, rom,rodesac mimdinareobda paqtebis proeq-121

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010tis SemuSaveba, samoqalaqo da politikuruflebaTa saerTaSoriso paqtisSemTxvevaSi debulebebis formulirebaxdeboda saxelmwifoTa ZiriTad erovnulkanonmdeblobebze dayrdnobiT,maSin, rodesac proeqtis SemmuSavebeliko miteti iZulebuli gaxda ekonomikur,socialur da kulturul uflebebTandakavSirebiT debulebebis SemuSavebadaewyo nulidan, radgan ar arsebobda,an Zalian cota iyo, am uflebebTandakavSirebuli precedenti. 99 amgvarad,paqtiT gaTvaliswinebuli valdebulebebiufro metad momTxovni da mkacriCanda, vidre amas zogierTi mTavrobiswarmomadgeneli eloda. 100eide aseve ganmartavs ekonomikur,socialur da kulturul uflebaTasaerTaSoriso paqtis bunebis sxva kritikulaspeqts: maSin, roca namdviladarsebobs da aRiarebulia ekonomikuri,socialuri da kulturuli uflebebi,imaves ver vityviT Semxvedr valdebulebebze.101 qraveni ufro Rrmad ganixilavsvaldebulebis sakiTxs da aRniSnavs,rom `valdebulebebis konteqst-Si... arsebobda gadametebis an, piriqiT,dakninebis tendenciebi, rac realuradxels uSlida zusti da calsaxa suraTisCamoyalibebas~. 102rogorc aRvniSneT, arsebobs sxvadasxvakriteriumi imisa, Tu rogor daratom gansxvavdebian ekonomikuri, socialurida kulturuli uflebebi samoqalaqoda politikuri uflebebisgan,rac avtorebma gamoiyenes paqtebis calkedokumentebad Camoyalibebis mizniT.profesori sepulveda aanalizebs aRniSnulargumentebs da ambobs, rom am orgvariuflebis identificirebisaTvissxva mecnierebis mier SemoTavazebuliTiTqmis yvela argumenti aris swori. amuflebebs axasiaTebT orbunebovneba,isini arian: 1. pozitiuri/negatiuri;2. droSi gawelili/pirdapiri moqmedebis;3. ZviradRirebuli/ufaso; 4. bundovani/zusti.103pozitiuri/negatiuri: es iyo erTerTimTavari argumenti im delegatebisada mkvlevrebisaTvis, romlebiccdilobdnen epovaT gansxvavebebi orpaqts Soris; isini aRniSnavdnen, rom mxolodnegatiuri valdebulebebi atarebdnensamarTlebriv xasiaTs. 104 rogorcsepulveda aRniSnavs, es midgomagansakuTrebiT damaxasiaTebeli iyo 1970wlebis naSromebisaTvis. 105 Tumca TviTonkomiteti SeewinaaRmdega am midgomas,rodesac daafiqsira, rom orive konvenciaSeicavs rogorc pozitiuri, asevenegatiuri valdebulebebis kompleqts. 106ufro metic, xazi gaesva imas, rom pozitiurida negatiuri valdebulebebi axasiaTebsorive tipis uflebebs da maTiase ubralod pozitiur an negatiuradvaldebulebebad dayofa aris `xelovnuri,mSrali da Zalian gamartivebuli~. 107am argumentis magaliTad SeiZleba iTqvas,rom kvebis ufleba moicavs aseveyvelas uflebas, awarmoos Tavisi sakvebismaragebi Carevis gareSe; an kidev,sacxovreblis ufleba aseve moicavsiZulebiT gamosaxlebis dauSveblobisuflebas. 108ufaso/ZviradRirebuli valdebulebebi:dRemde davoben imis Sesaxeb, romsamoqalaqo da politikuri uflebebiaris ufaso, maSin rodesac ekonomikuri,socialuri da kulturuli uflebebiZviradRirebulia. 109 aRsaniSnavia, romes argumenti ar aris damoukidebeli;mas mWidro kavSiri aqvs pozitiuri/negatiurivaldebulebebis argumentTan.mas Semdeg, rac komitetma sxvadasxvaSemTxvevasTan dakavSirebiT ganmarta,rom ekonomikur, socialur da kulturuluflebaTa saerTaSoriso paqtiSeicavs uflebebis orive kompleqts,zemoaRniSnuli argumenti kargavs siswores.Tumca yovelTvis unda gaviTvaliswinoT,rom paqtSi Semavali uflebebissruli ganxorcielebisaTvis saWiroasakmarisi finansuri saxsrebi, Tumca essakiTxi ar unda iyos uflebis samarTlebrivibunebis ganmsazRvreli faqtori,radgan paqti aseve Seicavs uflebebs,romelTa uzrunvelyofa sruliadufasoa.122

T. goleTiani, gadaxvevis meqanizmi ekonomikur, socialur da kulturul uflebaTa saerTaSoriso ...droSi gawelili/pirdapiri moqmedebisvaldebulebebi: proeqtis Semu-Sa ve bis dros delegaciebma gamoTqvesmosazreba: is faqti, rom paqtis implementirebaunda momxdariyo Tan da-TanobiT, gavlenas axdenda valdebulebisbunebaze, rac arTulebda saxelmwifosmier nakisri samarTlebrivi valdebulebismoculobis gagebas. 110 komitetisganmartebiT, TandaTanobiTi realizaciagulisxmobs ekonomikuri, socialurida kulturuli uflebebis srulrealizacias, rac SeuZlebelia ganxorcieldesdrois mokle monakveTSi. 111amasTan, komiteti miuTiTebs im ZiriTadvaldebulebebze, romlebic moiTxovssaxelmwifoTa mxridan dauyovneblivSesrulebas. 112 garda amisa, rogorc adamianisuflebaTa interamerikulma komisiamaRniSna: ekonomikuri, socialuri dakulturuli uflebebis TandaTanobiTrealizacia `ar gulisxmobs imas, romsaxelmwifoebs ar gaaCniaT am ufleba-Ta sruli realizaciis uzrunvelsayofadZalisxmevis gawevis valdebuleba,romelic warmoiSoba dauyovnebliv~. 113amgvarad, is argumenti, rom paqtiTda cul uflebebs ar gaaCniaT samarTlebrivibuneba iqidan gamomdinare,rom maTi uzrunvelyofa unda moxdesTandaTanobiT, ewinaaRmdegeba Tavadpaqtis sagansa da mizans. es instrumentiaseve iTvaliswinebs im siZneleebsa dabarierebs, rac xvdebaT saxelmwifoebspaqtis implementaciis dros. swored amitomSemoaqvs mas valdebulebebis realisturixedva, amave dros ki, zustad miu-TiTebs im `ZiriTad valdebulebebze~,romlebic aucileblad unda Sesruldesnebismier viTarebaSi.bundovani/zusti valdebulebebi: amsaxis gansxvavebebis mxardamWerTa argumentebimWidrod aris dakavSirebulipozitiuri/negatiuri valdebulebebissxvaobasTan. isini aRniSnaven, rom ekonomikuri,socialuri da kulturuliuflebebi saxelmwifoTa qmedebis erTgvarigzamkvlevebia da warmoSobenzogad, miTiTebiT da pozitiur valdebulebebs.maTi amgvari bunebis gamo, esuflebebi paqtSi Camoyalibebulia zogaditerminebiT. 114 Tumca komiteti aseveuaryofs am arguments Tavis zogad komentarebSi,sadac aRniSnavs, rom paqtidangamomdinare saxelmwifoTa valdebulebebismoculoba da buneba detaluradaris gansazRvruli; igi gvaZlevsim minimaluri ZiriTadi valdebulebebisCamonaTvals, romelTagan gadaxvevaaris dauSvebeli da, romlebic moiTxovensrul implementacias yvela wevrisaxelmwifos mxridan.mogvianebiT supelvedam aRniSna: cxadia,rom paqtebis Semqmnelebi cdebodnen,rodesac erTmaneTisagan mijnavdnenuflebebis am or jgufs da maTganwarmoSobil valdebulebebs. marTalia,imdroindel politikur, ideologiurTu ekonomikur mdgomareobaze mi-TiTebiT SesaZlebelia gavamarTloTadamianis uflebebis dacvis kuTxiTCamoyalibebuli aseTi SezRuduli xedva,Tumca dRes ukve aucilebelia, gavifarTooTTvalTaxedva aRniSnuli sakiTxismimarT. 115paqtis kritikis kidev erTi safuZvelidelegaciebisa da mkvlevarTa mxridangadaxvevis meqanizmis ararsebo basada SezRudvis debulebis Zalian limitirebulformulirebasTan dakavSirebiTiyo is, rom aRniSnuli warmoadgendaganzrax qmedebas. miuxedavad imisa, romigi SeimuSaves rogorc Sesasrulebladsa valdebulo dokumenti, paqtiTdacu li uflebebi iyo ara samarTlebrivi,aramed politikuri xasiaTisa. igiSeicavda e.w programul miznebs, romelTaTan daTanobiTi ganxorcielebaekisreboda saxelmwifos. aRniSnuli mo -sazrebis Tanaxmad, SeuZlebelia am uflebaTasasamarTlo gziT dacva erovnulTu saerTaSoriso doneze. amgvarad,isini, samoqalaqo da politikuri uflebebisgangansxvavebiT, ar arian sasamarTlosgziT dacvadi uflebebi. 116 detalebSirom aRar ganvixiloT, delegaciebseq nebodaT zemoaRniSnuli argumentidokumentis SemuSavebis dros an paqtis123

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010implementaciis adreul etapze. TumcadResdReobiT aRniSnulTan dakavSirebiTrealoba Seicvala.adamianis uflebaTa samarTali, ekonomikuri,socialuri da kulturuliuflebebis CaTvliT, ar aris statikuri,igi viTardeba periodulad da ergebaaxal realobebs. 117 ekonomikuri, socialurida kulturuli uflebebissaerTaSoriso paqtis miRebis SemdegsaerTaSoriso Tu regionalur donezeSeiqmna ramdenime mniSvnelovani instrumentida meqanizmi am uflebaTa dacvissferoSi, rac, Tavis mxriv, aZlierebs amuflebebTan dakavSirebiT warmoSobilivaldebulebebis samarTlebriv bunebasda uzrunvelyofs, rom moxdes maTi sruliimplementacia da sasamarTlos gziTdacva.1999 wels miRebul iqna qalTa diskriminaciisakrZalvis konvenciis(CEDAW) fakultatiuri oqmi. masSimo cemulia individualuri saCivrebisganxilvis sistema, aseve gamoZiebisprocedurebi. 118 es instrumenti iZlevakonvenciiT gaTvaliswinebuli ekonomikur,socialur da kulturul uflebaTadarRvevis faqtebis gasaCivrebisSesaZleblobas. 119 winsvla SeiniSnebaregionalur donezec. 1998 wlis seqtemberSiamoqmedda evropis socialuriqartiis mesame damatebiTi oqmi, romelicmasSi asaxul socialur uflebebTandakavSirebiT iZleva koleqtiuri sa-Civris wardgenis SesaZleblobas. gardaamisa, 1988 wels miRebul iqna amerikulikonvenciis san-salvadoris oqmiekonomikuri, socialuri da kulturuliuflebebis Sesaxeb. 120 es dokumentiaseve uzrunvelyofs individualurisaCivrebis wardgenis SesaZleblobasganaTlebisa da profesiuli kavSirebisSeqmnis uflebebis darRvevasTan dakav-SirebiT. 121amavdroulad, adamianisa da xalxTauflebebis afrikuli qartia 122 Seicavsamerikuli da evropuli modelebis msgavsekonomikur, socialur da kulturuluflebaTa mTel jgufs. gardaamisa, qartiis Tanaxmad, afrikuli komisiauflebamosilia miiRos saCivrebi amuflebebis darRvevebTan dakavSirebiTkerZo pirebisagan da arasamTavroboorganizaciebisagan. im saCivrebis mcireodenobidan, romlebic ganixila komisiam,ramdenime exeba socialur da ekonomikuruflebebs. magaliTad, zairis winaaRmdegkomisiam sakuTar gancxadebaSidaafiqsira Semdegi: `saxelmwifos uunaroba,uzrunvelyos ZiriTadi momsaxurebis,sasmeli wylis, eleqtroenergiis,samedicino saSualebebis, miwodeba~,aris afrikuli qartiis me-16 muxlis,janmrTelobis uflebis, darRveva. 123adamianis uflebaTa evropuli sasamarTlosukanaskneli gadawyvetilebebixasiaTdeba e.w. `integrirebuli midgomiT~, rac gulisxmobs ekonomikurida socialuri uflebebis mimarTsamoqalaqo da politikuri uflebebisdacvis meqanizmis gamoyenebas. 124 sasamarTlomaRniSna: `miuxedavad imisa, romkonvencia gansazRvravs ZiriTad samoqalaqoda politikur uflebebs, maTiumravlesoba ekonomikuri da socialurixasiaTisaa... amgvarad, konvenciaSesaZlebelia ganimartos ise, rom moicvasekonomikuri da socialuri uflebebissfero; am uflebaTa xasiaTi ki arunda gaxdes amgvari interpretaciisdamabrkolebeli faqtori. ar arsebobswyalgamyofi socialur uflebebsa dakonvenciiT dacul uflebebis sferosSoris~. 125amave dros, gasaTvaliswinebeliaerovnuli sasamarTloebis midgoma ekonomikuri,socialuri da kulturuliuflebebis sasamarTlo gziT dacvasTandakavSirebiT. ekonomikuri, socialurida kulturuli uflebebis dacvisSesaxeb saerTaSoriso paqtis miRebisdRidan iyo ramdenime SemTxveva, rodesacerovnulma sasamarTloebma ganixilessaxelmwifos valdebulebis arsipaqtisa da komitetis zogadi komentarebidangamomdinare. magaliTad, 1985wels indoeTis uzenaesma sasamarTlomdaaskvna, rom cxovrebis ufleba moicav-124

T. goleTiani, gadaxvevis meqanizmi ekonomikur, socialur da kulturul uflebaTa saerTaSoriso ...da sacxovrebeli pirobebis qonis uflebasac,iZulebiTi gamosaxlebis dros kimosarCeleebis mimarT darRveuli iyoswored es ukanaskneli ufleba. 126 gruTbumis(Grootboom) saqmeSi samxreT afrikissakonstitucio sasamarTlom ganixilaadekvaturi sacxovrebeli adgilisqonis ufleba da aRniSna, rom, marTalia,saxelmwifosTvis Zalian rTulia, yvelauzrunvelyos adekvaturi sacxovrebeligaremoTi, magram `es aris adamianisufleba da konstitucia avaldebulebssaxelmwifos, uzrunvelyos misi dacva.es aris Sesasruleblad savaldebulomoTxovna~ 127yovelive zemoaRniSnulidan gamomdinare,naTelia, rom adamianis uflebaTasamarTlis ganviTarebasTan erTad,ekonomikuri, socialuri da kulturuliuflebebis arsi gaxda ufro zusti dakonkretuli. komitetis zogadi komentarebis,maastrixtis saxelmZRvanelomiTiTebebisa da limburgis principebisanalizidan gamomdinare, gamoikveTavaldebulebis samarTlebrivi bunebisarsi da ganisazRvra am valdebulebebisSesaZlo darRvevebic. garda amisa,ekonomikuri, socialuri da kulturuliuflebebis asaxvam sxvadasxva erovnul,regionalur da saerTaSoriso kanonmdeblobaSigarkveulwilad SeasustaTeoria imis Sesaxeb, rom es uflebebiar aris sasamarTlos gziT dacvadi uflebebi, Tumca saerTaSoriso arenazeZnelad moipoveba sazedamxedvelo meqanizmi,romelic ganmartavs, aris Tu araaRniSnuli uflebebi sasamarTlos gziTdacvadi. swored amitomac ar arsebobsgadaxvevis debulebis arsebobis aucilebloba.rogorc profesori higinsi aRniSnavs,ekonomikuri, socialuri dakulturis uflebebis Sesaxeb saerTa-Soriso paqtSi gadaxvevis debulebisararseboba iribad adasturebs im midgomas,rom amgvari debuleba saWiro iqnebodamxolod im SemTxvevaSi, paqti rommoiTxovdes mkacr implementacias. 128amgvarad, naSromis Semdegi Tavi Seexebaekonomikuri, socialuri da kulturisuflebebis Sesaxeb saerTaSoriso paqtisfakultatiur oqms da imas, ra gavlenaSeiZleba iqonios masSi gadaxvevismeqanizmis ararsebobam saxelmwifoTagadawyvetilebaze, gaxdnen am protokoliswevrebi.4. ekonomikuri, socialurida kulturuli uflebebissaerTaSoriso paqtis fakultatiurioqmi: rogor moqmedebs gadaxvevismuxlis ararseboba saxelmwifoTagadawyvetilebaze, miuerTdnen oqms2008 wlis 18 noembers, mas Semdeg, racadamianis uflebaTa sabWom miiRo, xolomesame komitetma (socialuri, kulturulida humanitaruli sakiTxebis Sesaxeb)daamtkica rezoluciis proeqti, gaerosgeneralur asambleas komitetma miscarekomendacia, mieRo ekonomikuri, socialurida kulturuli uflebebissaerTaSoriso paqtis fakultatiurioqmi. 129 oqmis Tanaxmad, kerZo pirebsada jgufebs aqvT ufleba, waradginonsaCivari saxelmwifos mier paqtiT nakisrivaldebulebebis SeusruleblobisSesaxeb. 130 fakultatiuri oqmi ZalaSiSedis me-10 saratifikacio sigelis depozitarTandeponirebis Semdeg. 131 2010wlis ivlisisTvis oqms xeli moawera 33-ma saxelmwifom, xolo misi ratifikaciamoaxdina mxolod orma. 132fakultatiuri oqmi oficialuradxelmosawerad gaixsna 2009 wlismartSi. 133 paqtis SesaZlo darRvevebisSemTxvevaSi komunikaciis (saCivris) gagzavnisuflebasTan erTad oqmi moicavsSemdeg debulebebs:− e.w. `Sualeduri zomebis~ miRebisSesaZleblobas. komitets SeuZliamonawile saxelmwifos gaugzavnosmoTxovna saswrafo ganxilvis Sesaxeb.am gziT monawile saxelmwifosSeuZlia miiRos iseTi Sualedurizoma, romelic dazaralebuls Tavidanaacilebs savaraudo darRvevebisagangamowveul gamousworebelzians.125

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010− oqmi aseve afuZnebs mokvlevis proceduras,romlis Tanaxmadac, Tukikomiteti miiRebs sando informaciaspaqtis mZime an sistematuridarRvevebis Sesaxeb, komiteti informaciisgadamowmebis procesSiTanamSromlobisTvis iwvevs am monawilesaxelmwifos da bolos waradgensdaskvnebs miRebuli informaciissafuZvelze. mokvleva SeiZlebaaseve moicavdes vizits am monawilesaxelmwifoSi.− oqmi saxelmwifoebisgan moiTxovsyvela saTanado zomis miRebas, ra-Ta misi iurisdiqciis qveS myofiadamianebis mimarT ar ganxorcieldesarasaTanado mopyroba an da-Sineba maT mier, oqmis Sesabamisad,komitetisaTvis gagzavnili saCivrisgamo.oqmi komitets aZlevs uflebas,mxa reebs SesTavazos Tavisi samsaxurisaqmis mSvidobianad gadawyvetis mizniTpaqtiT uzrunvelyofili uflebebis pativiscemissafuZvelze.fakultatiuri oqmis miReba da misixelmowerisTvis gaxsna iyo didi wingadadgmulinabiji saerTaSoriso donezeekonomikuri, socialuri da kulturuliuflebebisTvis aRsrulebadi xasiaTisminiWebis kuTxiT. Seiqmna organo,romelsac aqvs eqskluziuri uflebamosileba,ganixilos es sakiTxi. luisarbori xazs usvams oqmis mniSvnelobasda aRniSnavs, rom `oqmi qmnis mniSvnelovanplatformas im darRvevaTa gamovlenisaTvis,romlebic xSirad dakav-Sirebulia siRaribesTan, diskriminaciasada uyuradRebobasTan da, romlebsacdazaralebulebi xSirad usityvod dauimedod itanen. igi saSualebas aZlevspirebs, romlebic sxva SemTxvevaSi SeiZlebaizolirebulni da uZlurni yofiliyvnen,saerTaSoriso sazogadoebriobasacnobon maTi mdgomareobisSesaxeb. 1966 wels, ori ZiriTadi saerTa-Soriso paqtis miRebis Semdeg, ekonomikuri,socialuri da kulturuli uflebebisdarRvevis SemTxvevaSi saCivriswardgenis proceduris ararseboba iyoerTgvari Cavardna adamianis uflebaTadacvis saerTaSoriso sistemaSi. 134dokumenti xelmosawerad gaixsnaavtorebis mier misi pirveli proeqtisSemuSavebidan aTi wlis Semdeg – es faqtimiuTiTebs, rom saxelmwifoebs fakultatiurioqmis miRebis politikuri neba argamoumJRavnebiaT. zemoaRniSnuls isicadasturebs, rom 2008 wels misi miRebisdRidan mxolod orma saxelmwifom moaxdinadokumentis ratificireba.sainteresoa, mas Semdeg, rac oqmiZalaSi Seva, rogor moiqcevian saxelmwifoebi,romlebmac xeli moaweres damoaxdines oqmis ratificireba paqtidangadaxvevisa da SezRudvis meqanizmebTanmimarTebiT da ra pozicias daikavebskomiteti amgvar qmedebebTan dakavSirebiT.Tu komiteti paqtis me-4 muxlismimarT gamoiyenebs mkacr da teqstissityvasityviTi ganmartebis meTods dadaadgens, rom paqtidan gadaxveva dauSvebeliaomis, Sida daZabulobis, ajanyebebisda bunebrivi katastrofebisdros, maSin arsebobs safrTxe imisa, romsaxelmwifoebs ar gauCndeT politikurineba, gaxdnen oqmis monawile mxarean, SesaZloa, maT srulad ar Seasrulonkomitetis rekomendaciebi. Tumca ametapze rTulia iTqvas, ra pozicias daikavebensxva komitetebi da saxelmwifoebi.daskvnamiuxedavad Tavdapirveli winaaRmdegobebisa,ukanaskneli 20 wlis ganmavlobaSiekonomikurma, socialurmada kulturulma uflebebma sakuTariadgili daimkvidres adamianis uflebaTasamarTalSi, rac aqtiuri CarevisSedegia sxvadasxva saerTaSoriso subieqtis,gaeros saxelSekrulebo organoebis,gaeros adamianis uflebaTakomisiis, qvekomisiisa da misi specializebulisaagentoebis, mxridan. aranaklebmniSvnelovania evropis, afrikisada amerikis am sam ZiriTad regionalursistemaSi samarTlebrivi regulirebisSemdgomi ganviTareba, iseve, rogorc126

T. goleTiani, gadaxvevis meqanizmi ekonomikur, socialur da kulturul uflebaTa saerTaSoriso ...sazedamxedvelo organoebis mier gaweuliuzarmazari Zalisxmeva mniSvnelovaniprecedentuli samarTlis damkvidrebiskuTxiT, araferi rom aRar vTqvaT saer-TaSoriso da erovnuli arasamTavroboorganizaciebis mier gamoCenil yuradRebaze.Tavdapirvelad es uflebebiar gamoirCeodnen mkacri samarTlebrivibunebiT (stricto sensu), aramed iyvnenprogramuli xasiaTis politikuri miznebi,standartebi, romelTa miRwevaunda momxdariyo TandaTanobiT, mTelisaerTaSoriso sazogadoebis urTierT-TanamSromlobis gziT. 1966 wels, paqtismiRebis Semdeg ki, am uflebebmagarkveulwilad moipoves aRsrulebadida sasamarTlos gziT dacvadi uflebebisstatusi. paqtis fakultatiuri oqmisSemuSavebam, romelic uzrunvelyofsindividualuri saCivrebis wardgenismeqanizms, da 2009 wlis martSi misma xelmosaweradwardgenam kidev erTxeldaamtkica usafuZvloba im mosazrebebisa,romelTa mixedviTac SeuZlebeli iyoam uflebaTa sasamarTlo gziT uzrunvelyofada dacva.miuxedavad miRwevebisa, gansakuTrebulimniSvneloba eniWeba oqmis xelmowerasada ratifikacias, radganaces uflebas miscems kerZo pirebsa dajgufebs, waradginon saCivrebi saxelmwifoswinaaRmdeg paqtidan gamomdinarevaldebulebebis SesaZlo darRvevebTandakavSirebiT. garda amisa, igi aniWebskomitets uflebamosilebas, gamoiyenospaqtis realur cxovrebaSi ganxorcielebisSesabamisi meqanizmi, TundacsaxelmwifoebisaTvis micemuli rekomendaciebisgziT.erT-erTi mTavari gamowveva, romelzec komitetsa da saerTaSorisoTa namegobrobas mouwevs pasuxis gacema,aris is, Tu rogor SeZlebs komisia,SeinarCunos paqtis mkacri interpretacia(zogadi komentarebis msgavsad), dauzrunvelyos saxelmwifoebis mxridanmisi rekomendaciebis Sesruleba da gaTvaliswineba.mniSvnelovani sakiTxia saxelmwifoTainteresebis gaTvaliswineba SeiaraRebulikonfliqtebis, sagangebomdgomareobisa da bunebrivi katastrofebisdros. komitetma Tavi ar undaaaridos aRniSnuli sakiTxis ganxilvasda garkveulwilad neba unda darTossaxelmwifoebs, gamoiyenon saerTaSorisosamarTlis zogadi principi – forsmaJori,maSin, rodesac aucilebeli xdebanegatiuri nabijebis gadadgma bunebrivikatastrofebisa da Sida SeiaraRebulikonfliqtebis dros. amasTan, komitetmaunda uzrunvelyos, rom saxelmwifoebma,yvela viTarebaSi, aRiaron da daicvanpaqtiT gaTvaliswinebuli ZiriTadivaldebulebebi. rogorc ignasio saizmaaRniSna, ekonomikuri da socialuriuflebebis ganviTarebis progresi, sasamarTlogziT uzrunvelyofis kuTxiT,dResdReobiT CamorCeba sajaro politikisganviTarebas. 135 amgvarad, aRniSnuliproblemis daZleva saxelmwifoebisada komitetis mxridan moiTxovsZalisxmevas, sadac fakultatiur oqmseqneba gansakuTrebuli misia.1Marc Bossuyt “Guide to the ‘travaux preparatoires’ of the International Covenanton Civil and Political Rights”, Martinus Nijhoff Publisher, Dordrecht, (1987) gv.82.2Rosalyn Higgins “Derogations under Human Rights Treaties”, 1978 BRIT. Y.B.INT’L L. 281, gv. 181.3adamianis uflebaTa sayovelTao deklaraciis miRebis Semdeg masSiSemaval uflebaTa da TavisuflebaTa Sesaxeb miRebul iqna mTeli rigisaerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebisa, maT Soris: 1950 wlis adamianis uflebaTada ZiriTad TavisuflebaTa dacvis evropuli konvencia da misioqmebi, 1966 wlis samoqalaqo da politikur uflebaTa saerTaSorisopaqti, amave wlis ekonomikur, socialur da kulturul uflebaTa saer-127

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010TaSoriso paqti, 1969 wlis adamianis uflebaTa amerikuli konvencia da1981 wlis adamianisa da xalxTa uflebebis afrikuli qartia..4Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969); See alsoMagdalena Sepulveda, “The Nature of the Obligations under the InternationalCovenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”, Intersentia, Antweren –Oxford – New York, 2003, gv. 6.5Thomas Buergenhtal, “To Respect and to Ensure: State Obligations andPermissible Derogations”, in The International Bill of Rights, (1981), gv. 78.6Manfred Nowak “U.N. Convention on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary”N.P. Engel. Publisher 1993, gv. 73.7ix. sqolio 4, Sepulveda “The Nature of the Obligation”, gv. 295.8ix. sqolio 6, Nowak “CCPR Commentary”, gv.73.9“Clawback” aris iseTi debuleba, romelic nebas rTavs xelSemkvrel saxelmwifos,daarRvios valdebuleba specifikuri sajaro interesisgamo. Higgins, “Derogations”, gv. 281.10ix. sqolio 2, Higgins, “Derogations”, gv. 281.11Mcdougal, Lasswell and Cheng “The Aggregate Interests in Shared Respect andHuman Rights: Harmonization of Public Order and Civic Order” Yale Law Journal,cited in Higgins “Derogations” gv.282.12ix. sqolio 2, Higgins, “Derogations”, gv. 281.13Myres McDoug “Human Rights and Public Order: Principles of Content andProcedure for clarifying General Community Policies”, Virginia Journal ofInternational Law , 14 (1974), p. 386 at p. 390 cited in Higgins, “Derogations”, gv.281.14samoqalaqo da politikur uflebaTa saerTaSoriso paqti, muxlis 4.15adamianis uflebaTa amerikuli konvencia, muxli 27.16adamianis uflebaTa da ZiriTad TavisuflebaTa dacvis evropuli konvencia,muxli 15.17See James O’Donnell, “States of Exception”, In The Review of InternationalCommission of Jurists, vol. gv. 52 (1978).18ix. sqolio 6, Nowak “CCPR Commentary” gv.74.19iqve.20samoqalaqo da politikur uflebaTa saerTaSoriso paqti, muxli 4.21iqve.22samoqalaqo da politikur uflebaTa saerTaSoriso paqtis Tanaxmad,Semdegi uflebebi ar eqvemdebareba gadaxvevas: sicocxlis ufleba(muxlis 6), wamebis akrZalva (muxli 7), monobis akrZalva (muxli 8), valisgamo Tavisuflebis aRkveTis akrZalva (muxli 11), ukuZalis akrZalvasisxlis samarTalSi (muxli 15), piris samarTalsubieqtad cnoba (muxli16), azrovnebis, religiis, sindisisa da rwmenis Tavisufleba (muxli18).23Article 15(1) ECHR. adamianis uflebebisa da ZiriTadi Tavisuflebebiskonvencia, me-15 muxlis 1-li punqti24iqve, me-15 muxlis me-3 punqti.25evropuli konvenciis Semdegi uflebebi ar eqvemdebareba gadaxvevas:sicocxlis ufleba, garda im SemTxvevebisa, rodesac sicocxlis xelyofaaris samarTliani omis Sedegi (muxli 2), wamebis akrZalva (muxli3), monobisa da iZulebiTi Sromis akrZalva (muxli 4.1), kanonis gareSedasjis dauSvebloba (muxli 7).26ix. sqolio 6, Nowak “CCPR Commentary”, gv. 74.27ix. sqolio 2, Higgins, “Derogations”, gv. 282-283.281952 wels adamianis uflebaTa komisiam samoqalaqo da politikuruflebaTa saerTaSoriso paqtis proeqtidan amoiRo sityva `omi~, raTa128

T. goleTiani, gadaxvevis meqanizmi ekonomikur, socialur da kulturul uflebaTa saerTaSoriso ...Tavidan aecilebina gaugebroba imasTan dakavSirebiT, rom gaero ardaeTanxmeboda omis koncefcias.291993 wlisaTvis 16 qveyanaze metma, romlebmac gamoiyenes samoqalaqo dapolitikur uflebaTa saerTaSoriso paqtidan gadaxvevis ufleba, mi-TiTeba gaakeTa iseT safuZvlebze, rogorebicaa: socialuri areuloba,ngrevebi, vandalizmi, partizanTa omebi, eTnikuri konfliqtebi,terorizmi da a.S. ix. CCPR/C/2/Rev.3. reproduced in the Appendix in Nowak“CCPR Commentary” gv. 780.30ix. sqolio 4, Sepulveda “The Nature of the Obligation”, gv. 297.3110 GAOR Annexes, UN Doc, A/2929, part II,/ch.5, para.39 (1955).32ix. sqolio 5, Buergenthal “State Obligations”, gv. 78.33Case of Lawless v. Ireland, Application n o 332/57 3 Pub. Eur. Ct. Human RightsSer. A, para. 28 (1961).34Greek case Y.B. Eur. Conv. Human Rights para. 153 (1969).35Case of Ireland v. United Kingdom, Application n o 5319/71. ECtHR, Judgment 18January 1978 para. 248.36ix. sqolio 5, Buergenthal “State Obligations”, gv.80.37ix. Study prepared by the International Commission of Jurists, “State of Emergency:Their Impact on Human Rights,1983, gv. 414.38ix. sqolio 6, Nowak “CCPR Commentary” gv. 79.39ix. UN Doc. CCPR/C/SR/ 128 (1979) cited in Joan Fitzpatrick “Human Rights inCrises: International System For Protecting Rights During States of Emergency”,University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994 gv. 87-88.40ix. sqolio, Nowak “CCPR Commentary” gv. 79.41Landinelli Silva v Uruguay (1981) HRC Comm No 34/1978, [8.3].42Diplomatic Communications to H.E. Ban Ki-moon and H.E. Terry Davis, Achievesof Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia, International Law Department November2007.43saqarTvelos sagareo saqmeTa saministros pres-relizi, 23 noemberi,2007. xelmisawvdomia Semdeg misamarTze: www.mfa.gov.ge44ix. sqolio 2, Higgins, “Derogations”, gv. 187.45ix. sqolio 2, Higgins, “Derogations”, gv. 187.46Limburg Principles on the Implementation of the International Covenant onEconomic, Social and Cultural Rights No 48, 50 and 51.47iqve, No 49.48iqve, No 56.49ix. sqolio 4, Sepulveda “The Nature of the Obligation”, gv. 280.50ix. sqolio 46, Limburg Principles, 52; See also General Comment No 13 Rightto Food, of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, para. 42 andGeneral Comment No14, Highest Attainable Standard of Health of the Committeeon Economic, Social and Cultural Rights para. 28.51Philip Alston & Gerard Quinn, “The Nature and Scope of State Parties’ Obligationsunder the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”,Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 2 (1987), gv. 202.52erayis Semajamebeli angariSi, E/1998/22 paras 253, 254 and 269.53gvatemalis Semajamebeli angariSi, E/1997/22 para. 123.54Sri-lankis Semajamebeli angariSi, E/1998/22 paras 69-74.55perus Semajamebeli angariSi, E/1998/22 para. 141.56ix. sqolio 53, General Comment No 13 para. 42 and General Comment No14para. 28.57ix. sqolio 4, Sepulveda “The Nature of the Obligation”, p. 285; ix. aseve sqolio2, Higgins “Derogations” gv. 287.58Malcolm N. Shaw, “International Law” Fifth Edition, Cambridge University Press,2003, gv. 707.129

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 201059The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction,Text and Commentaries / [compiled by] James Crawford, Cambridge; New York,Cambridge University Press, 2002, gv. 183.60Draft Articles on the Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts, withCommentaries, Report of International Law Commission on the Work of its 53 rdSession. United Nations, 2008 gv. 76.61Article 61 (Supervening impossibility of performance) of the Vienna Conventionon the Law of Treaties, 1969.62iqve, Article 23 (1) (Procedure regarding Reservation).63Article 14 (3) of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone;Article 18 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982; Article7 of the Convention on the Transit Trade of Land Locked States.64ix. sqolio 60 “Draft Articles” gv. 77.65Case concerning the Payment of Various Serbian Loans in France (France v.Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) Judgment No 14, 1929,PCIJ Series ANo 20 gv. 39-40.66ix. sqolio 4, Sepulveda “The Nature of the Obligation”, gv. 298.67ix. sqolio 60, “Draft Articles”, gv. 78.68ix. sqolio 58, Shaw “International Law”, gv. 710.69ix. sqolio 59, Crawford “Draft Articles”, gv. 185.70ix. sqolio 60, “Draft Articles”, gv. 76.71iqve.72iqve, gv.77.73iqve, gv. 76.74Rainbow Warrior Arbitration concerning the Treatment of the French AgentsMafart and Prieur 1982, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.40, No. 2 (Apr., 1991), gv. 451.75ix. sqolio 4, Sepulveda “The Nature of the Obligation”, gv. 298.76Eighth Annual Report of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and States ofEmergency, of 26 June 1995 (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1995/20 and Corr.1), annex I (Reportof the Meeting of Experts on Rights not subject to Derogation during States ofEmergency and Exceptional Circumstances).77Anna-Lena Svensson – McCarthy, “The International Law of Human Rights andStates of Exception with Special Reference to the Travaux Preparatoires andCase-law of the International Monitoring Organs”, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,The Hague, 1998 gv. 148.78ix. sqolio 4, Sepulveda “The Nature of the Obligation”, gv. 298.79iqve, See also Libyan Arab Foreign Invest Company v. Republic of Burundi, 1996,ILR gv. 279, 318/S.80iqve.81D., Premont, C., Stenersen, and I., Oseredczuk (eds.), “Non-derogable Rightsand States if Emergency”, Association of International Consultants of HumanRights, (CID), Brussels, 1996, para 28.82Joan Hartman, “Working Paper for the Committee of Experts on the Article 4Derogation Provision”, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 7, No1, 1985, gv. 89-131.83ix. sqolio 4, Sepulveda “The Nature of the Obligation”, gv. 302.84ix. sqolio 51, General Comment No 14 para 47.85General Comment No 3 on the Nature of State Parties’ Obligations (Article 2(1))of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, para. 9.86ix. sqolio 51, General Comment No 14 paras, 43-45.87The Maastricht Guidelines on Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,In The Maastricht Guidelines on Violation of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.Boven, Theo C., van Flinterman, Cees & Westendorp, Ingrid (eds.), SIM SpecialNo. 20 Utrecht (1998), gv. 1-12.130

T. goleTiani, gadaxvevis meqanizmi ekonomikur, socialur da kulturul uflebaTa saerTaSoriso ...88iqve, Article 13 “Inability to comply”.89iqve, Article 14 “Violations through acts of Commission”.90Egon Schwelb “The International Covenants on Human Rights” cited in supranote 2, Higgins, “Derogations” gv. 318.91ix. sqolio 2, Higgins, “Derogations” Higgins gv. 318.92ix. sqolio 4, Sepulveda “The Nature of the Obligation”, p. 284.93See generally Marc Bossuyt “International Human Rights Systems: Strengths andweaknesses” Human Rights in the 21 st Century: A Global Challenge Mahoney K.,& Mahoney P., (eds.), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, (1993), gv.47-55.94See generally Marc Bossuyt “Guide to the ‘travaux preparatoires,” p. 82-83.95ix. sqolio 58, Shaw “International Law” ,gv. 713.96ix. sqolio 4, Sepulveda “The Nature of the Obligation”, gv. 285.97Craig Scott “The Interdependence and Permeability of Human Rights Norms:Towards a Partial Fusion of the International Covenants on Human Rights”,Osgoode Hall Law Journal, Vo. 27, Ottawa, Canada, (1989), gv. 770.98Philip Alston “International Law and Human Right to Food” In The Right to Food P.Alston & K. Tomasevski (eds.), Martinus Nikhoff Publishers, Utrecht, 1984 p. 54.99Philip Alston “The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights” In TheUnited Nations and Human Rights: a Critical Appraisal, P. Alston, (ed.), ClaredonPress, Oxford, 1992, gv. 490.100ix. sqolio 4, Sepulveda “The Nature of the Obligation”, gv. 8.101iqve, gv. 3.102Mathew Craven, “The Domestic Application of International Covenant onEconomic, Social and Cultural Rights”, Netherlands International Law Review,Vol. XL, 1993 gv. 369.103ix. sqolio 4, Sepulveda “The Nature of the Obligation”, gv. 122-123.104Craig Scott & Patrick Maclem “Constitutional Ropes of Sand or Justifi ableGuarantee? Social Rights in New South African Constitution”, University ofPennsylvania Law Review, vol. 141, No 1, gv. 24.105ix. sqolio 4, Sepulveda “The Nature of the Obligation”, gv. 125.106ix. sqolio 85, General Comment No 3 para 3.107Henry Shue “The Interdependence of Duties” In The Right to Food P. Alston & K.Tomasevski (eds.), Martinus Nikhoff Publishers, Utrecht, 1984 gv. 84.108Report of Sub-Commission Special Repporteur, Mr. R. Sachar E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/15 paras 66-68.109See generally Marc Bossuyt “Guide to the ‘travaux preparatoires’” gv. 82-84.110iqve.111ix. sqolio 85, General Comment No 3 para. p. 9.112ix. sqolio 51, General Comment No 14. p. 43.113adamianis uflebaTa interamerikuli komisia, yovelwliuri angariSi,1993, OEA/Ser.L/V/ii.85.114ix. sqolio 4, Sepulveda “The Nature of the Obligation”, gv. 131 (footnotes omitted).115iqve, gv. 115-116.116See for instance Aryen Neier “Social and Economic Rights: A Critique” 13/2Human Rights Brief (2006).117ix. sqolio 4, Sepulveda “The Nature of the Obligation”, gv. 9.118qalTa diskriminaciis akrZalvis konvenciis fakultatiuri oqmi miRebuliqna generaluri asambleis 44/25 rezoluciiT, 20 noemberi, 1989.igi ZalaSi Sevida 2000 wels.119igi xelmosawerad gaixsna 1995 wlis 9 noembers da ZalaSi Sevida 1999wlis 1 seqtembers.. ETS No 163.120oqmi miRebul iqna 1988 wlis 17 noembers da ZalaSi Sevida 1999 wlis 16noembers.131

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010121adamianis uflebaTa amerikuli konvenciis me-13 da me-8 muxlebi.122African Charter on Human and People’s Rights was adopted on June 26, 1981,and entered into force on October 21, 1986. OAU doc CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21I.L.M. 58, (1982).123Case against Zaire (Communications Nos 25/89; 47/90; 56/91 and 100.93) inIHRR vol. 4 No.1 (1997)pp. 89 et. seq.124ix. sqolio 96, Scott “The Interdependence and Permeability”, gv. 771.125Airey v. Ireland, ECHR, Application No 6289/73, Judgment 9 October 1979, para.26.126Olga Tellis v. Mumbai Municipal Corporation, Supreme Court of India, 1985, AIR1986, Supreme Court 18, para 37.127Government of South Africa v. Grootboom, Constitutional Court of South Africa,Case CCT 11/00, 4 October 2000, para. 94128ix. sqolio 2 Higgins “Derogations”, gv. 186.129Un Department of Public Information, “Third Committee Recommends GeneralAssembly Adoption of Optional Protocol” available at http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gashc3938.doc.htm130ekonomikuri, socialuri da kulturuli uflebebis saerTaSoriso paqtisfakultatiuri oqmis me-2 muxli. A/C.3/63/L.47.131fakultatiuri oqmis me-18 muxli.132detaluri informaciisaTvis ewvieT vebgverds: http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-3-a&chapter=4&lang=en133UN Doc. A/C.3/63/L.47. p. 2.134http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/fi nance/twninfofi nance20080606.htm135Ignazio Saiz “Rights in Recession? Challenges for Economic and Social RightsEnforcement in Times of Crisis”, Journal of Human Rights Practice, 2009, 1(2),gv. 277-293.132

TINATIN GOLETIANIDEROGATION CLAUSE AND THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ONECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTSIntroductionOver the past 40 years, human rights lawbecame established as one of the fastest developingfi elds of international law. The numberof instruments adopted on universal andregional levels is beyond imagination. Theseinstruments deal with separate rights andfreedoms and also represent a compilation ofthese rights. The adoption of two human rightscovenants in 1966 represented a benchmarkachievement for the development of the humanrights system worldwide. Initially the decisionof the Drafting Committee had been to adoptone document that would have dealt both withcivil and political, as well as economic, socialand cultural rights, however, in 1952 it was determinedto draft two separate instruments. 1The present paper deals with InternationalCovenant on Economic, Social and CulturalRights (hereinafter ICESCR / Covenant), particularlywith the issue that unlike other humanrights treaties, the instrument does not embodya derogation clause, which state partiescan invoke in exceptional and emergency situations,such as armed confl icts and natural disasters.Hence, the paper analyzes how stateinterest to provide public security or to defendits national interests can be accommodated inthe Covenant.For this reason, we must fi rst explorewhat the concept of derogation is, how it is understoodand used in human rights law, whatthe situations in which it may be invoked are,which criteria it should satisfy, and what thepossible threats of its use are. The secondchapter is dedicated to the actual analyses ofArticle 4 (limitation clauses) of the Covenant;under which circumstances it may be appealedto and how the Committee has dealt with suchcases. Additionally, the public international lawnotion of force majeure is scrutinized and contendedthat it may be applied to human rightstreaties since it represents one of the generalprinciples of international law.The third chapter concerns the debate regardingthe difference in the nature of rightsinthe two human rights Covenants and theirinfl uence on the absence of the derogationclause in the instrument. The last chapterdeals with new developments in the area ofeconomic, social and cultural rights; in particular,the adoption of the Optional Protocol to theCovenant and how the absence of a derogationclause may affect the political will of statesto become part of it.1. THE CONCEPT OF DEROGATIONS ANDTHEIR PLACE IN HUMAN RIGHTS LAWSince the adoption of the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights (UDIHR) in1948, the standing of individuals as subjectsof international law has irreversibly alteredand the position of the individual in internationallaw and human rights law has particularlystarted to improve. It is understood thatthe traditional views of the individual and theiridentifi cation to nationality is not in favor of theperson. 2 Followed by the consequent adoptionof a series of human rights treaties in differentlegal systems, 3 human rights law hasbecome established as one of the most important,powerful and fastest growing branchesof international law. By signing and ratifying133

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010these instruments, states are obligated to fullyimplement, respect, fulfi ll, protect and providethe rights and freedoms embodied in them. 4Under both general international law andhuman rights treaties, States Parties to internationaltreaties have the right in certaincircumstances to omit certain obligationsemanating from instruments. 5 Such actionsare understood to be the right of executive torestrict or suspend basic rights during timesof war or other catastrophic situations. 6 Thisis done in order to accommodate the sovereignright of a government to maintain peaceand order during public emergencies, and theprotection of the individual’s rights from abusefrom the state. 7 At the same time, Prof. Nowakcompares this constitutional right of state ofemergency to the individual’s right of selfdefenceunder criminal law 8In theory and practice of human rights law,there are several methods for governmentsto accommodate their obligations underhuman rights documents and the need toaddress possible deteriorating and dangeroussituations in the country, including denunciatinga treaty, making reservations and interpretativedeclarations, along with “clawback” clauses 9and derogations. 10 The present paper will focusmainly on the notion of derogations and theirplace in human rights documents, particularlyin the ICESCR.It should be noted, that derogation as atechnique of accommodating needs sought inthese cases is not between the state and theindividual; rather, it is between the individual’srights and freedoms and the rights and freedomsof the community at large. 11 This latitudeis given to states since it is understood thatin certain cases, such as war or other typesof public emergencies, they will not be able tofully adhere to their obligations stipulated in thedocuments; therefore, the provisions of a derogationclause allow a suspension or breachof certain obligations in circumstances of waror public emergency, which would otherwisebe imputable to states. 12 This possibility is providedfor states in order to strike a fair balancebetween improving protection of human rights,on one hand, and the reasonable needs of thestate to perform its public duties for the commongood, on the other. 13 This right of derogation isprovided for by the majority of human rightstreaties, such as, the International Covenanton Civil and Political Rights 14 (ICCPR), theAmerican Convention on Human Rights, 15 andthe European Convention on Human Rightsand Fundamental Freedoms 16 (ECHR).One of the main setbacks and points ofcontention for using derogations is that in severalinstances, a tendency to misuse this toolhas been observed, when states of emergencyand other methods of accommodating states’needs have become a “normal” form of exercisingstate authority. 17 Prof. Nowak suggeststhat in order to avoid this tendency, derogationclauses in human rights treaties should walkhand in hand with supervision and should belimited to certain conditions. 18 These conditionsinclude the defi nition of emergency, certaintechnical requirements, such as publicproclamation of the state of emergency, andthe identifi cation of those non-derogable rightsfrom which no derogation can be made evenin emergency situations. 19Analyzes of derogation clauses of varioushuman rights instruments reveal that whilethey are generally quite similar, they also differ.For example, under ICCPR, a state canuse derogation only in time of a public emergency,which threatens the life of the nation.Measures taken to exercise the right of derogationshould comply with the following criteria:1. They should be strictly required by theexigencies of the situation; 2. They should notconfl ict with the state’s other obligations underinternational law; 3. They should not involvediscrimination based solely on race, color, sex,religion, language or social origin. 20 In addition,the article provides for the UN SecretaryGeneral immediately notifi ed of which rightswere derogated from, with detailed explanationsof the cause. The Secretary Generalshould also be informed about the date ofterminating the derogation. 21 The article alsoenumerates non-derogable norms. 22Article 15 of the ECHR prescribes thatState parties can derogate from their obligationunder the Convention in time of war134

T. GOLETIANI, DEROGATION CLAUSE AND THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTSor other public emergencies that threatensthe life of a nation. The measures taken bystates should be strictly proportional and theyshould not contravene the State’s other obligationsunder international law. 23 Like ICCPR,the ECHR also requests states to inform theSecretary-General of the Council of Europe ofcases of derogating and the reasons thereof. 24Moreover, similarly to ICCPR, the ECHR alsohas a non-derogable rights listing, 25 however,as noted by some scholars, this is a more restrictivecatalogue of non-derogable essentialrights. 26The aforementioned requirements arevery well summarized by Judge Higgins, whoemphasized that derogations to human rightsobligations should be acceptable only if eventsmake them necessary and if they are proportionateto the dangers that those events represent.They should also be scrutinized by theinternational community to analyze the practice.27The essential feature in understanding theimportance of derogations in human rights lawis when and in what circumstances they canbe invoked. As previously mentioned, it is generallypermitted to derogate from obligationsin cases of war 28 and public emergencies thatthreaten the life of a nation. As noted by Prof.Nowak, nearly every state that made derogationsunder Art. 4 of the ICCPR, justifi ed theiraction by claiming domestic emergency. 29At the same time, wars and internal disturbancesof armed character are not the onlypublic emergencies. Natural disasters internaldisturbances and dissension, to some extent,can also serve as a basis to invoke the derogationclause, 30 as noted in the process of thedrafting of the ICCPR:“The main concern was to provide for aqualifi cation of the kind of public emergency inwhich a State would be entitled to make derogationsfrom the rights concerned in the covenantwhich would not be open to abuse, The… wording is based on the view that the publicemergency should be of such a magnitude asto threaten the life of a nation as a whole.” 31In analyzing this issue, it is important toreview case-law of the European Court ofHuman Rights (ECtHR), as the derogationsprovision has been extensively dealt with bythe Court, which sets criteria and assists in understandingthe meaning of the provision. 32In one of its earlier case-law dealing withthis issue, the Court in Lawless, defi ned publicemergency as “threatening the life of the nation”as an “exceptional situation of crises oremergency, which affects the whole populationand constitutes a threat to the organizedlife of the community of which the state iscomposed.” 33In the Greek case, European Commissionof Human Rights further elaborated criteriafor public emergency as that which would endangerthe life of the nation. The Commissionobserved that such a situation: 1. should actuallybe imminent; 2. its effects must cover thewhole nation; 3. continuance of the organizedlife of the community must be threatened; 4.the danger or crisis should be of such magnitudethat normal measures or restrictionpermitted by the convention are plainly inadequate.34In Ireland v. United Kingdom, the Britishderogation from the ECHR was approved byboth the Commission and the Court. The Courtalso underlined that public emergency couldpresumably exist if the emergency appears tobe confi ned to one part of the country, such asparticular provinces, cantons etc. 35 Thus, theCourt emphasized that a geographically limitedemergency may exist.As noted by Judge Buergenthal, thesedefi nitions and tests can be applied with equaljustifi cation to the identical language in Art. 4of the ICCPR. 36At the same time, invocation of derogationson the grounds of emergencies resultingfrom domestic unrest, guerilla war etc.,currently represent the biggest threat to thesustainable application of human rights documents.37Human rights bodies also tackle this problemin their process of evaluating states’ notifications concerning derogations. The HumanRights Committee (HRC) expressed justifi eddoubts about the prolonged state of emergencydeclared by the Chilean government,135

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010while reviewing the country’s second periodicreport. 38 HRC enquired whether all the measurestaken under the state of siege declaredin 1976, were still being applied, or whethermeasures “intended to be limited in spaceand in time … had been transformed into institutionalrestrictions in force throughout thecountry for an indefi nite period” and required“convincing proof of the existence of a dangerwhich could not be overcome in any otherway” from the state . 39 The latter questioningthe validity is similar to the inquiry done by theCommission of Human Rights in the Greekcase, when the Commission also doubted theexistence of the emergency that threatenedthe life of the nation in Greece. 40In Landinelli Silva v. Uruguay, HRC questionedthe margin or appreciation enjoyed bystates and denounced Uruguay’s invocation ofArt.4, when it found that “the State Party is duty-boundto give a suffi ciently detailed accountof the relevant facts when it invokes Article4(1)’ and that it is the Committee’s function‘to see to it that States parties live up to theircommitments under the Covenant” 41 .Human rights monitoring bodies do notalways denounce the invocation of Art. 4 incases of domestic tension. For example, inNovember 2007, Georgia submitted its diplomaticcommunication to both the Councilof Europe and the UN, concerning its decisionto derogate from the rights of two instruments.The State based its decision on theexistence of a situation threatening the life ofthe nation, claiming massive demonstrationswere transforming into an uprising directedtowards changing the government by unconstitutionalmeans, as well as the necessity toavoid further disturbances in the country andensure restoration of the rule of law and effectivefunctioning of government institutions. 42Both the Secretary General of the UN and theCouncil of Europe underlined that in the caseof derogations, the state enjoys a wide marginof appreciation, however, this discretion wasclosely monitored by the international community.43 To the international community, the aftermathof two World Wars acknowledged thatthe protection of individuals is one of the mostsacred obligations of the states. The adoptionof a number of human rights instrumentsin European, American and African legal systems,as well as the negotiation of two covenantson the universal level, enhanced theprotection of human rights, which was initiatedby the UDHR. By signing, ratifying and implementingthe provisions of these documentsinto national legislation, states reaffi rm theirintention to adhere to these instruments. Statepractice crystallizes certain situations, however,when due to emergency circumstances,states are not able to safeguard these rightsto individuals. Therefore, in order to accommodatethese type of situations, human rightstreaties include derogation clauses, by invocationof which, states inform the internationalcommunity that due to specifi c reasons andduring a limited time, they will not be able tosafeguard certain rights and freedoms of individualsfor which states would have beenresponsible otherwise. The inclusion of thisprovision in the body of human rights instrumentswas motivated by an objective reality,as not all rights and freedoms can be guaranteedall the time. Usually, documents includeso-called non-derogable rights and freedomsthat are exempt from derogation even in extraordinarycircumstances when other rightsare not protected.At the same time, the international communityestablished supervision over such actionsof states when the relevant human rightsorgans carefully scrutinize the reasons, rights,timeframe and the general circumstances ofthe invocation. As relevant practice has verified, these organs are very strict and limitedin giving states discretion for the application ofderogation clauses 44Unlike the ICCPR, IACHR and ECHR, theInternational Covenant on Economic Socialand Cultural Rights does not include the derogationclause, it is only restricted to limitations.Further chapters of this paper will analyze thereasons for such exclusion, as well as themodern day realities of the application of Art. 4of the Covenant.136

T. GOLETIANI, DEROGATION CLAUSE AND THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS2. ACCOMMODATION METHOD FORDEROGATIONS UNDER ICESCR: ANALYSESOF ARTICLE 4 OF THE COVENANTa. Limitation Clause of the CovenantArticle 4 of the ICESCR prescribes that:The States Parties to the presentCovenant recognize that, in the enjoyment ofthose rights provided by the State in conformitywith the present Covenant, the State maysubject such rights only to such limitations asare determined by law only in so far as thismay be compatible with the nature of theserights and solely for the purpose of promotingthe general welfare in a democratic society.The wording of the article makes it clearthat it does not allow derogations and it accommodatespossible cases of diverging statepractice through limitations 45 which should be:1. Prescribed by law; 2. If the rights subject tolimitation provide for it; 3. With an overall aimto enhance the general wellbeing and benefi tin the society.Prescribed by law: Under this criterion it isunderstood that the law should be of a generalapplication; it should be clear, precise and accessibleand it should provide adequate safeguardsand effective remedies against illegalor abusive imposition. 46 Moreover, any discriminationshould not be arbitrary, unreasonable,non-proportionate and discriminatory, asin human rights law in general. 47As to the second requirement, LimburgPrinciples explicitly indicate that a limitationshould not be used so as to jeopardize the essenceof the rights concerned. 48 This meansthat while applying limitations, states have aburden of proof that their actions are compatiblewith the nature of limited rights. 49The requirement of promoting the welfareof society is also refl ected in LimburgPrinciples, where it is interpreted that impositionof limitations by states should serve thegeneral well-being of the people. 50 Severalcommentators understand this criteria barsstates from invoking such concepts as “nationalsecurity” or “public order” as the legalbasis for limitations, since they are not directlylinked to the welfare of society and its individualmembers. 51 The same argument is effectivelyput forward by the Committee whenexamining state reports, emphasizing that incases of armed confl icts, internal disturbancesor riots, member states still have an obligationto comply with the provisions of Covenant.For example, while analyzing the report ofIraq, the Committee noted that the Covenantwas applicable before and during the armedconfl ict with Islamic Republic of Iran; and evenafter Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait. It went furtherwhen emphasizing that Iraq was underthe obligation to act in full compliance with theinstrument, even in the instance of embargo,though the Committee expressed its understandingover the diffi culties arisen with thisrespect. 52In the case of internal armed confl ict inGuatemala, the Committee noted that theexistence of more than 20 years of confl ictprecluded effective implementation of theCovenant, however, even in this case it emphasizedthat a state cannot justify its noncompliancewith its obligations by derogatingfrom them. 53 It was generally underlined by theCommittee that armed confl icts hamper theprotection and fulfi llment of human rights, yetdespite this, member states should act in goodfaith and implement the Covenant. 54 Moreover,the Committee also noted that because vulnerablegroups are especially at risk during suchemergency situations, states should take allappropriate measures to provide the benefi tsof the instrument to them. 55To fully understand of the scope of Art.4 it would have been useful to have an authoritativeinterpretation of the article by theCommittee on Economic Social and CulturalRights by issuing general comments. So far,the Committee has not drafted a GeneralComment concerning determination and interpretationof the legal nature of Art. 4 provisions.However, the Committee did try to shedthe light on this issue while dealing with otherarticles. For example, when dealing with rightto education and right to health, the Committeeemphasized that the limitation clause is primarilyintended to protect the rights of individuals,rather than permit imposition of limitations bystates. 56137

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010Hence, it has traditionally been the Committee’sposition that any type of limitation tothe rights of individuals exercised by governmentsshould not be done isolated from theCovenant, but should be made with the ideaof promoting the well-being of the nation asa whole and these limitations should be ofa temporary character only and should fullycomply with the criteria established therewith.The Committee has not yet elaborated on theGeneral Comment for Art. 4 in order to clarifyand interpret its legal nature, however, it effectivelydeals with it to some extent, in othergeneral comments and examinations of statereports.b. Principle of Force Majeure as a rightto derogateICESCER does not embody explicit authorizationfor states to derogate from their obligationsunder the instrument, even in such emergencysituations as armed confl ict or naturaldisaster. 57 The same approach is taken by theCommittee while assessing periodic reports ofthe State Parties under the Covenant.Under international law, circumstancesexist that preclude wrongfulness of an act ofa state. 58 Force majeure has long been acceptedas such a measure. 59 It involves a situationwhere a state is in effect compelled toact in a manner that contravenes its internationalobligations. 60 In particular, the ViennaConvention on the Law of Treaties prescribesthat “[a] party may invoke the impossibility ofperforming a treaty as a ground for terminatingor withdrawing from it …. If the impossibility istemporary, it may be invoked only as a groundfor suspending the operation of the treaty”.61Moreover, Articles on the Responsibility ofStates provide for the exemption of a statefrom its international responsibility “if the act isdue to … occurrence of an irresistible force orof an unforeseen event, beyond the control ofthe State making it materially impossible in thecircumstances to perform the obligation.” 62As noted by Professor Crawford, the conceptof force majeure is embodied in a numberof international treaties governing differentaspects of international law, 63 which helpsconfi rm the existence of a general principleof international law. 64 The Permanent Courtof International Justice in the Serbian Loansjudgment already considered the concept ageneral principle of international law as earlyas 1929. 65It can be understood from the aforementionedthat even though the ICESCR does notembody the derogation provision and makesno direct provision for the case of war or otherpublic emergencies, international law providesstates in extreme crisis situations with the possibilityto refer to the notion of force majeurein order to justify their non-compliance withthe Covenant obligations. 66 However, in orderto justify force majeure, states should complywith certain criteria. 67Professor Shaw asserts that there is aneed for states to satisfy a high threshold forthe invocation of this concept. 68 Commentariesto the Draft Articles on State Responsibility proposesthe following criteria for this approach:a. The act in question should be brought byirresistible force;b. That is beyond the control of the Government;c. Which makes it materially impossible in thecircumstances to perform an obligation. 69As indicated by the International LawCommission, material impossibility may arisedue to a natural or physical event, human interventionincluding armed confl ict, or somecombination of the two. 70 However, the cornerstoneof this notion is that “the situation mustbe irresistible, so that the State concerned hasno real possibility of escaping its effects”. 71Moreover, even in these cases, force majeuredoes not extend to situations brought about bythe neglect or default of the State; 72 or due topolitical or economic decrees or crises, whereperformance of an obligation becomes morediffi cult. 73 According to the Rainbow WarriorArbitration, the test of applicability of thisdoctrine is one of “absolute and material impossibility”and circumstances that renderedperformance of an obligation more diffi cult orburdensome did not constitute a case of forcemajeure. 74Thus, it is evident that the criteria establishedfor force majeure – namely, absolute im-138

T. GOLETIANI, DEROGATION CLAUSE AND THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTSpossibility of performing obligation - is stricterthan derogation clauses in human rights treatiesthat provide for emergency. 75 As indicatedby the report composed by a meeting of expertson rights not subject to derogation duringstates of emergency and exceptional circumstances,“derogations set a lower thresholdfor absolving a State of responsibility for noncompliancewith treaty than impossibility”. 76Additionally, while drawing a difference betweenpublic emergency under human rightstreaties and force majeure in internationallaw, Svensson – McCarthy underline that nonperformanceof international legal obligationsmust be due to irresistible force that leaves nochoice of action to states, while the crisis situationscovered by the concept of public emergencyin international human rights law do inmost cases, though not always, present theresponsible authority with a variety of meansof how to manage the situation concerned.In other words, the human rights notion is ofa more intentional voluntary nature that thegeneral international law concept of force majeure.77While analyzing the issue of the possibilityof applying force majeure to the Covenant,Professor Sepulveda indicates that in the contextof the Covenant, this impossibility rule offorce majeure means that in cases of war orother natural disasters, or even unforeseeneconomic crisis of great magnitude that makeit impossible for states to comply with theirobligations, states may preclude the wrongfulnessof actions by referring to the notion offorce majeure. 78 However, she also notes thatin circumstances of force majeure, state actionshould not be the reason of the impossibilityto perform, and while invoking this notion, thestate should still act in good faith, taking intoconsideration the general welfare of society. 79Therefore, it is generally underscored thatforce majeure is indeed a very extraordinarycircumstances and it must be interpreted restrictively,in light of the object and purposeof the Covenant, 80 since some provisions ofthe international law of treaties are not alwayswell-suited to the application of human rightstreaties. 81Hence, it can generally be summarizedthat if derogation from the Covenant is to bepermitted and made under the rules of generalinternational law, such derogation should complywith the criteria of force majeure, which isstricter than the derogation criteria of “publicemergency” in international human rights instruments;moreover in these cases, state actionsshould be directed towards promotingthe general welfare of society. Such derogations,however, should generally comply withthe principles of non-discrimination and proportionality.82Nevertheless, some commentators arguethat due to the fl exibility of Art. 2(1), the limitationclause of Art.4, ICESCR and the reservationsto the instrument, there are very fewcases in which states will genuinely need toinvoke force majeure. 83Moreover, if we subject make a detai ledanalyses of General Comments of the Committee,as well as other interpretative textsto the Covenant, it may be argued that theCovenant, notwithstanding harsh assessmentshowed by the Committee in its concludingobservations, does not prohibit derogationsfrom the instrument in cases of war or publicemergency.In its general comments, the Committeeelaborated the concept of “core obligation”which is the minimum core content of rightsthat cannot be derogated from or limited. Forexample, the Committee underlined that thestate “cannot, under any circumstances whatsoever,justify its non-compliance with the coreobligations that are non-derogable”, 84 and thatensuring these obligations is the raison d’êtreof the Covenant. 85 Moreover, while dealingwith right to health the Committee enumeratedthese core obligations:“(a) To ensure the right of access to healthfacilities, goods and services on a nondiscriminatorybasis, especially for vulnerableor marginalized groups;(b) To ensure access to the minimum essentialfood which is nutritionally adequateand safe, to ensure freedom from hungerto everyone;(c) To ensure access to basic shelter, housingand sanitation, and an adequate supply ofsafe and potable water;139

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010(d) To provide essential drugs, as from time totime defi ned under the WHO Action Programmeon Essential Drugs;(e) To ensure equitable distribution of all healthfacilities, goods and services;(f) To adopt and implement a national publichealth strategy and plan of action, on thebasis of epidemiological evidence, addressingthe health concerns of the wholepopulation; the strategy and plan of actionshall be devised, and periodically reviewed,on the basis of a participatory andtransparent process; they shall includemethods, such as right to health indicatorsand benchmarks, by which progresscan be closely monitored; the process bywhich the strategy and plan of action aredevised, as well as their content, shallgive particular attention to all vulnerableor marginalized groups.44. The Committee also confi rms that thefollowing are obligations of comparable priority:(a) To ensure reproductive, maternal (pre-natalas well as post-natal) and child healthcare;(b) To provide immunization against the majorinfectious diseases occurring in the community;(c) To take measures to prevent, treat andcontrol epidemic and endemic diseases;(d) To provide education and access to informationconcerning the main health problemsin the community, including methodsof preventing and controlling them;(e) To provide appropriate training for healthpersonnel, including education on healthand human rights. ” 86Bearing in mind the aforementioned,the Maastricht Guidelines on Violations ofEconomic, Social and Cultural Rights tend todistinguish actions and omissions that amountto a violation of Covenant rights, the importanceof differentiation of inability to complywith the obligations under the Covenant, andunwillingness of states to act in accordancewith these obligations. 87 Furthermore, theguidelines note that “[a] State claiming that itis unable to carry out its obligation for reasonsbeyond its control has the burden of provingthat this is the case”; and as an example ofsuch inability, the need to close an educationalinstitution after an earthquake was indicated. 88Moreover, Principle 14 identifi es preciselythat calculated obstruction or termination ofthe progressive realization of a right protectedby the Covenant is prohibited, unless theState acts within a limitation permitted by theCovenant, or it does so due to a lack of availableresources or force majeure.” 89Hence, it can be understood that althoughthe text of the Covenant does not includeany derogations clauses, the Committee inits observations is very clear to indicate thatstates cannot derogate from the instrumenteven in cases of armed confl ict and otherpublic emergencies. Nevertheless, it is obviousthat the Committee and jurists that draftedthe Maastricht Guidelines, clearly recognizethe right of states to invoke the force majeureclause as circumstances precluding wrongfulness;a right that currently represents the generalprinciple of international law.Moreover, some commentators challengea similar lack of explicit authorization of reservationsunder the both ICESCR and ICCPRby arguing that “the absence of a provision [onreservations] does not mean that reservationto the Covenants are not admissible, but thatthe question is governed by the general rulesof international law.” 90 Therefore, the positionseems to be that reservations are allowed tothe extent that they are compatible with theobject and purpose of the Covenants and itis up to the states to decide when they meetthe test. 91 The same rule can be applied to thederogation issue by borrowing the conceptof force majeure from the international law oftreaties.3. REASONS BEHIND THE ABSENCE OFTHE DEROGATION CLAUSE FROM THECOVENANTWhile analyzing the issue of the applicabilityof the Covenant to emergency situations,some commentators specifi cally note that theabsence of the derogation clause is an intentionalomission and the Covenant’s protectionalso covers such situations as war or natural140

T. GOLETIANI, DEROGATION CLAUSE AND THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTSdisasters. 92 However, other authors argue thatdue to the specifi city of the nature of rights underthe ICESCR, there is no need for derogation,since the obligations in the Covenantare not legal obligations in strict sense, butare merely programmatic goals that should beachieved by the governments progressively. 93In this chapter, these reasons and understandingswill be discussed.One of the main reasons the DraftingCommittee was asked to draft two separatedocuments in 1952, was that state delegationsquestioned the legal nature of their obligationsunder the ICESCR. 94 While analyzing the positionof the states, it should be kept in mind thathuman rights treaties essentially have a differentplace and aim in international law, sinceunlike other international treaties that createlegal rights and obligations among states -the equal actors in international law 95 , humanrights instruments tend to obligate states toprotect and provide rights and freedoms toindividuals residing on their territories. Thismakes it very clear that in the drafting process;states usually act especially careful when defining their obligations under various humanrights instruments. This was the precisely thecase when drafting Art. 2 (defi ning the scopeof legal obligation) under the Covenant. It wasconsidered that since two documents provideddifferent rights in nature, they required differentmethods of implementation. 96 This idea wasactively shared by different commentators.Scott notes that ICCPR provides for negativeobligations to states, where obligations do notinterfere with the enjoyment of rights; while theICESCR embodies positive obligations; i.e. itobliges states to create these rights and to ensurethem to individuals. 97 At the same time,Alston emphasizes that one of the main obstaclesof acceptability of these rights is that theyare vague and their legal nature is not precise,therefore, according to him, it is the job of theCommittee to adequately respond to this issue.98 He continues to explain this reason bynoting that when the Covenants were drafted,in ICCPR’s case, they were based on the substantialnational jurisprudence available instates, while in the cases of economic, socialand cultural rights, the drafting Committee hadto start from the scratch due to the absence of,or very limited character of such case-laws. 99Thus, in many cases, obligations imposed bythe Covenant seemed more demanding andsubstantial to states than certain governmentrepresentatives expected. 100At the same time, Eide defi ned yet anothercritical aspect of the nature of ICESCR; henoted that while economic, social and culturalrights exist and are broadly recognized, thecorresponding obligations are not. 101 Moreover,Craven further elaborates the question of obligationsand notes that “in the context of obligations… there has been a tendency to eitherexaggerate or underplay the precise situationwith the effect of preventing a clear and uncontroversialpicture from developing.” 102As noted, there are different criteria as tohow and why economic, social and culturalrights differ from the civil and political ones thatwere used by the authors in order to separatethe two Covenants. Professor Sepulveda analyzesthese arguments and proposes that thedichotomy of these two types of rights encompassnearly every argument put forward byother commentators. According to the dichotomy,the nature of rights is: 1. Positive/negative;2. Progressive/immediate; 3. Expensive/cost-free; and 4. Vague/precise. 103Positive/negative: This has been one ofthe main arguments for delegations and commentatorswho tried to distinguish betweenthe two Covenants; recognizing that onlynegative obligations are to be understood aslegal in nature. 104 As noted by Sepulveda, thisapproach was especially evident in writings of1970s. 105 However, the Committee itself rebuttedthis approach, when noting that both covenantsinclude sets of positive and negative obligations.106 Furthermore, it was stressed thatpositive and negative duties are part of therequirement of both sets of rights and dividingthem simply into positive or negative is an “artificial, simplistic and arid exercise.” 107 As anexample of this argument, it can be said thatthe right to food includes the right for everyoneto procure their own food supply without interference,or the right to housing also includesthe right not to be forcibly evicted. 108141

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010Cost-free/expensive obligations: It hasbeen continuously argued that civil and politicalrights are cost-free, while economic, socialand cultural rights are expensive. 109 However,this argument is not independent and is closelyrelated to the positive/negative obligations argument.And since the Committee has statedin numerous occasions that the ICESCR embodiesboth sets of rights, this argument losesits acuteness. Nonetheless, it should alwaysbe kept in mind that for the full implantationof rights in the instrument, suffi cient fi nancialresources are needed. However this issueshould not be the determining factor of the legalnature of the right, since ICESCR also embodiesrights that are absolutely cost-free.Progressive/immediate obligations:During the drafting process, delegations arguedthat the fact that the Covenant has tobe implemented in a progressive manner, thenature of obligation is affected as it makesit diffi cult to fi nd the scope and extent of astate’s legal obligations. 110 According to theCommittee, progressive realization means thefull realization of economic, social and culturalrights will not be achievable in a short periodof time. 111 Yet, the Committee also elaborateson the core minimum obligations of states thathave immediate effect. 112 Moreover, as notedby the Inter-American Commission on HumanRights, progressive realization of economic,social and cultural rights “does not mean thatgovernments do not have the immediate obligationsto make efforts to attain the full realizationof these rights”. 113 Therefore, the argumentthat the Covenant the rights shouldnot be considered legal because of their progressivenature misses the point of the objectand purpose of the Covenant. The instrumentunderstands the diffi culties and barriers thatstates have implementing its provisions, whichis why it enters a realistic vision of the obligations,while at the same time it enumeratesquite precisely “core obligations” that statesshould comply with in all circumstances.Vague/precise obligations: Argumentsby supporters of this type of distinction arealso very closely connected to the distinctionof positive/negative obligations and theypropose the idea that economic, social andcultural rights are some type of guidelines foractions of state and require only general, progressiveand positive obligations, therefore,by their very nature they are drafted in generalterms. 114 However, the Committee also refutedthis argument in its general comments, wherethe scope and nature of state obligations underthe Covenant are interpreted in detail andprovide minimum core obligations that cannotbe derogated from and are subject to implementationby all member states.Subsequently, as underlined by Sepulvedain retrospect, we can see that the majority ofthe Covenants’ drafters were mistaken in theirbelief that the two clusters of rights and obligationsthey imposed were different in nature.While political, ideological and economic circumstancesmight be invoked to justify theirlimited view of the nature of human rights andduties, in the present level of the developmentof human rights law as a part of internationallaw, it has been necessary to adopt a widerperspective and vision. 115Yet another criticism of the Covenant thatleads delegations and scholars to argue overthe absence of a derogation clause and a verynarrow limitation formula, was an intentionalmeasure. Although it was drafted as a legallybinding document, the rights involved are notlegal rights but are more of a political nature;so-called programmatic goals that statesshould have a progressive obligation to implement.These are not enforceable national andinternational judicial/quasi-judicial organs andthus they are non-justiciable rights, unlike therights in the ICCPR. 116 Without getting intomuch detail, this may have been the argumentwhen the document was drafted or during itsearly period of implementation, however, realityin this regard has somehow changed today.Human rights law, including the fi eld ofeconomic, social and cultural rights, is notstatic, as it evolves over time and adapts tonew realities. 117 Several important instrumentsand mechanisms, both on the universal as wellas regional levels, have been developed in thesphere of economic, social and cultural rightssince the adoption of ICESCR that strengthenthe legal nature of obligations and ensure that142

T. GOLETIANI, DEROGATION CLAUSE AND THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTSthese rights are fully implementable and justiciable.In 1999, the Optional Protocol to theConvention against Discrimination againstWomen (CEDAW) was adopted. This providedfor a system of individual complaintsas well as a procedure of enquiry. This instrumentenables complaints to be fi led on violationsof economic, social and cultural rightssafeguarded by the CEDAW. 118 On a regionallevel there have been several improvements.In September 1998, the Third AdditionalProtocol 119 to the European Social Charter wasactualized and provides a collective complaintsystem for the social rights embodied therein.Moreover, in 1988 the San Salvador Protocolon Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to theAmerican Convention was adopted. 120 This instrumentalso establishes a system of individualcomplaints for the right to education andright to organize trade unions. 121Simultaneously, the African Charter onHuman and People’s Rights 122 contains a fullrange of economic, social and cultural rightssimilar to the European and American model.Moreover, under the Charter, the AfricanCommission is empowered to receive complaintsfrom individuals and non-governmentalactors concerning alleged violations of rights.Among the limited cases the Commission reviewedand dealt with were, violations of socialand economic rights. For example, in astatement against Zaire, the Commission establishedthat “the failure of the government toprovide basic services such as drinking waterand electricity and shortage of medicine” constituteda violation to the right to health, Art 16of African Charter. 123Recent jurisprudence of the EuropeanCourt of Human rights has been characterizedwith using a so-called “integrated approach,”defi ned as the protection afforded by civil andpolitical rights instruments to economic andsocial rights. 124 In this regard, the Court providedthat “[w]hilst the Convention sets forth whatare essentially civil and political rights, manyof them have implications of an economic orsocial nature, …. [therefore] the mere fact thatthe interpretation of the Convention may extendinto the sphere of economic and socialrights should not be a decisive factor againstsuch an interpretation; there is no water-tightdivision separating that sphere from the fi eldcovered by the Convention”. 125At the same time, the attention directedby national judiciary organs to the justiciabilityof economic, social and cultural rights shouldalso be kept in mind. From the moment theICESCR was adopted, there were a number ofcases where national courts analyzed state obligationsfrom the perspective of the Covenantand the General Comments on Committee.For instance, in 1985 the Supreme Court ofIndia concluded that the right to live includesthe right to livelihood, so in the case of [forced]eviction, petitioners will be deprived of latter. 126In the Grootboom case, the ConstitutionalCourt of South Africa dealt with the right to adequatehousing and although it noted that providingadequate housing to all those in need isan extremely diffi cult task for the state, it nonethelessdeclared that “these are rights and theConstitution obliges the state to provide them.This is an obligation that can and … [it] mustenforce.” 127According to all the aforementioned, it isobvious that with the development of the humanrights law, the scope of social, economicand cultural rights has become more preciseand specifi c. Through the Committee’sGeneral Comments, Maastricht Guidelines,and Limburg Principles, the legal nature of theobligation has been specifi ed and alleged violationshave been defi ned. Moreover, throughthe application of economic, social and culturalrights by different national, regional and internationalbodies, the theory that these rights donot represent justifi able ones have been refuted,at least to a certain extent. However, thereis still an evident lack of supervisory mechanismson the international level that provide abasis to argue whether those rights are justiciableor not; therefore, no additional derogationclause is needed. As noted by ProfessorHiggins, the absence of a derogation clausein ICESCR implicitly confi rms the view thatsuch a clause should only be deemed necessarywhere there are strong implementationprovisions. 128 Thus, the next chapter coversthe future of the Optional Protocol to the143

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010International Covenant on Economic, Socialand Cultural Rights and what consequencethe lack of a derogation clause can have for astates’ decision to become party to it.4. OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO ICESCR:HOW THE ABSENCE OF THE DEROGATIONCLAUSE MAY AFFECT THE DECISION OFSTATES TO JOIN ITOn November 18, 2008, after being adoptedby the Human Rights Council, the ThirdCommittee (on social, cultural and humanitarianissues) approved a draft resolution andrecommended the General Assembly of theUnited Nations to adopt the Optional Protocolto the International Covenant on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights. 129 Under theOptional Protocol, individuals and groupsare granted the right to submit communications(complaints) concerning non-complianceof states with the Covenant. 130 The OptionalProtocol will enter into effect upon depositingthe 10 th instrument of ratifi cation to the depositary.131 As of July 2010, the instrument wassigned by 33 and ratifi ed only by 2 states. 132The Optional Protocol was formallyopened for signature in March 2009. 133 Apartfrom receiving communications concerning allegedviolations of the Covenant, the Protocol,provides for the following:− The possibility of so-called “interim measures.”The Committee may transmit requeststo the State Party for urgent consideration.In this way, the State Party cantake such interim measures to avoid possibleirreparable damage to the victims ofalleged violations.− The Protocol also creates an inquiry procedure,stating that if the Committee receivesreliable information indicating graveor systematic violations of the Covenant,the Committee shall invite that State Partyto cooperate in the examination of the informationand to this end, submit observationswith regard to the information concerned.The inquiry may include a visit tothe territory of the State Party concerned.− The Protocol requires that States takeall appropriate measures to ensure thatindividuals under its jurisdiction are notsubjected to any form of ill-treatment orintimidation as a consequence of communicatingwith the Committee pursuant tothe Protocol.It also enables the Committee to offerits offi ces so that concerned parties may attemptto reach a friendly settlement on thebasis of respect of the rights provided in theCovenant.Adoption and opening for signature of theOptional Protocol was a big step forward inmaking economic, social and cultural rightsenforceable on an international level, beforethe body intended to deal exclusively withthem. The importance of the Protocol is verywell summarized by Luise Arbour, when shenoted that “[t]he Protocol will provide an importantplatform to expose abuses that are oftenlinked to poverty, discrimination and neglect,and that victims frequently endure in silenceand helplessness. It will provide a way for individuals,who may otherwise be isolated andpowerless, to make the international communityaware of their situation. Since the adoptionof the two core international human rightscovenants in 1966, the lack of a complaint procedurefor economic, social and cultural rightshas been a missing piece in the internationalhuman rights protection system.” 134The fact that the instrument opened forsignature 10 years after the authors elaboratedits fi rst draft, indicates that states hadnot demonstrated the political will to adopt anoptional protocol. The above is also proven bythe fact that since its adoption in 2008 only 2States ratifi ed it.It is of particular interest, once the Protocolenters into force, how states that signedand ratifi ed it deal with situations that will requirederogations and limitations from theCovenant, and how the Committee assessessuch actions. If the Committee proceeds witha strict, literal interpretation of Article 4 provisionsand argues that even in situations of war,internal tensions, riots and natural disastersstates may not derogate from their obligations,it fi rst risks that states may become politicallyunwilling to become parties to the Protocol orthat they may not comply fully with its recom-144

T. GOLETIANI, DEROGATION CLAUSE AND THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTSmendations. However, at this early stage, it isdiffi cult to assess what attitude other Committeesand States will have.CONCLUSIONDespite the initial reluctance, economic,social and cultural rights have attained quitea unique standing in human rights law in thepast 20 years, due to the active engagementof international actors such as UN treaty bodies,the UN Commission on Human Rights,Sub-Commission and its specialized agencies.No less important is the further enhancementof the legal framework in all three mainregional systems of Europe, the Americas andAfrica, as well as the enormous effort monitoringbodies have taken by elaborating on comprehensivecase-law, not to mention the tremendousdedication international and nationalnon-governmental organizations have shown.Initially not quite understood to be stricto sensulegal rights, they merely represented programmatic– political goals; standards that had tobe achieved progressively and in cooperationwith the international community as a whole.However, after the adoption of the Covenantin 1966, these rights have come long way toestablish themselves as the enforceable andjusticiable rights, at least to certain extent. Theelaboration and opening to signature of theOptional Protocol to the Covenant in March2009, in which the individual complaint systemhas fi nally been put forward, once againproved that those who never believed in thejusticiability of these rights were wrong.Notwithstanding the achievementsreached, the signing and ratifi cation procedureof the Optional Protocol is of paramountimportance, since it allows individuals andgroups to submit communications concerningalleged violations of the Covenant on behalfof states. Moreover, it provides the Committeewith an appropriate tool to enforce the provisionsof Covenant in real life, even by providingrecommendations to States. This was thelast piece of jigsaw that was lacking as severalcommentators noted.One of the main challenges, however,that the Committee and international communityface will be how the Committee managesto maintain its strict interpretation of the Covenant(as has been the case with its GeneralComments), and ensure that its recommendationsunder the new instrument are indeed takeninto account and implemented by States.Accommodating the needs of stateswhich arise from cases of armed confl icts,public emergencies and natural disastersrepresents a signifi cant issue and the Committeemust unavoidably deal with these situations,and to some extent, should allow theuse of the principle of force majeure underthe general principles of international law incases when it is necessary to take deliberateretrogressive actions, that arise from naturaldisasters or internal armed confl icts. At thesame time, the Committee should ensure thatstates recognize and adhere to the “core obligations”under the Covenant notwithstandingany circumstances. Taking into considerationall above-mention it could be concluded thatas was noted by Ignazio Saiz the progressmade in advancing the legal justiciability ofeconomic and social rights, as for today, hasnot been matched in the arena of politics andpublic policy. 135 Therefore, overcoming thisgap is the crucial point to which both Statesand the Committee can substantially contributeand where the Optional Protocol can be amajor instrument.1Marc Bossuyt “Guide to the ‘travaux preparatoires’ of the International Covenanton Civil and Political Rights”, Martinus Nijhoff Publisher, Dordrecht, (1987) p. 82.2Rosalyn Higgins “Derogations under Human Rights Treaties”, 1978 BRIT. Y.B.INT’L L. 281, p. 181.3After the adoption of the UDHR number of international instruments envisagingthe whole specter of the rights and freedoms provided for in the Declaration wereadopted, among others, the European Convention on the Protection on Human145

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its protocols in 1950; the InternationalCovenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights, both in 1966; the American Convention on HumanRights in1969 and the African Charter on Human Rights and Peoples’ Rights in1981.4Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969); See alsoMagdalena Sepulveda, “The Nature of the Obligations under the InternationalCovenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”, Intersentia, Antweren –Oxford – New York, 2003, p. 6.5Thomas Buergenhtal, “To Respect and to Ensure: State Obligations andPermissible Derogations”, in The International Bill of Rights, (1981), p. 78.6Manfred Nowak “U.N. Convention on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary”N.P. Engel. Publisher 1993, p. 73.7Supra note 4, Sepulveda “The Nature of the Obligation”, p. 295.8Supra note 6, Nowak “CCPR Commentary” p.73.9“Clawback” clauses are understood to mean provisions that permit, in normalcircumstances, a breach of an obligation for specifi ed public reasons. As defi nedin Higgins, “Derogations”, p. 28110Supra note 2, Higgins, “Derogations”, p. 28111Mcdougal, Lasswell and Cheng “The Aggregate Interests in Shared Respect andHuman Rights: Harmonization of Public Order and Civic Order” Yale Law Journal,cited in Higgins “Derogations” at p.28212Supra note 2, Higgins, “Derogations”, p. 28113Myres McDoug “Human Rights and Public Order: Principles of Content andProcedure for clarifying General Community Policies”, Virginia Journal ofInternational Law , 14 (1974), p. 386 at p. 390 cited in Higgins, “Derogations”, p.281.14Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.15Article 27 of the American Convention on Human Rights Article.16Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights and FundamentalFreedoms.17See James O’Donnell, “States of Exception”, In The Review of InternationalCommission of Jurists, vol. p. 52 (1978)18Supra note 6, Nowak “CCPR Commentary” p.7419Id.20Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.21Id.22Under the ICCPR non-derogable norms represent: right to life (Art. 6), prohibitionof torture (Art.7), prohibition of slavery (Art. 8), prohibition of the detention for debt(Art. 11), prohibition of retroactive criminal laws (Art. 15), recognition of legal personality(Art. 16) and freedom of thought, religion, continence and belief (Art 18).23Article 15(1) ECHR24Id. Article 15(3)25Non-derogable rights under ECHR are: right to life, except in respect of deathsresulting from lawful acts of wars (Art. 2), prohibition of torture (Art. 3), prohibitionof slavery and forced labor (Art. 4 (1)) and no punishment without a law (Art. 7).26Supra note 6, Nowak “CCPR Commentary” p74.27Supra note2, Higgins, “Derogations”, pp. 282-283.28In 1952, the word “war” was deleted from the draft of the ICCPR by the HRCommission, to avoid any possible misunderstandings that the UN acceptedwar.29By 1993 more than 16 countries that derogated from their rights under the ICCPRused such grounds as social unrest, subversive activities, vandalism, guerilla war,146

T. GOLETIANI, DEROGATION CLAUSE AND THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTSethnic confl icts, terrorism etc. See CCPR/C/2/Rev.3. reproduced in the Appendixin Nowak “CCPR Commentary” p780.30Supra note 4, Sepulveda “The Nature of the Obligation”, p. 297.3110 GAOR Annexes, UN Doc, A/2929, part II,/ch.5, para.39 (1955).32Supra note 5, Buergenthal “State Obligations”, p. 7833Case of Lawless v. Ireland, Application n o 332/57 3 Pub. Eur. Ct. Human RightsSer. A, para 28 (1961).34Greek case Y.B. Eur. Conv. Human Rights para. 153 (1969).35Case of Ireland v. United Kingdom, Application n o 5319/71. ECtHR, Judgment 18January 1978 para 248.36Supra note 5, Buergenthal “State Obligations”, p.80.37See Study prepared by the International Commission of Jurists, “State ofEmergency: Their Impact on Human Rights”.1983, p. 414.38Supra note 6, Nowak “CCPR Commentary” p79.39See UN Doc. CCPR/C/SR/ 128 (1979) cited in Joan Fitzpatrick “Human Rights inCrises: International System For Protecting Rights During States of Emergency”,University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994 pp. 87-88.40Supra note, Nowak “CCPR Commentary” p79.41Landinelli Silva v Uruguay (1981) HRC Comm No 34/1978, [8.3].42Diplomatic Communications to H.E. Ban Ki-moon and H.E. Terry Davis, Achievesof Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia, International Law Department November2007.43The press realize of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia November 23, 2007available at www.mfa.gov.ge44Supra note 2 Higgins, “Derogations”, p. 187.45Supra note 2 Higgins, “Derogations”, p. 187.46Limburg Principles on the Implementation of the International Covenant onEconomic, Social and Cultural Rights No 48, 50 and 5147Id No 49.48Id. No 5649Supra note 4, Sepulveda “The Nature of the Obligation”, p. 280.50Supra note 46, Limburg Principles, 52; See also General Comment No 13 Rightto Food, of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, para. 42 andGeneral Comment No14, Highest Attainable Standard of Health of the Committeeon Economic, Social and Cultural Rights para. 28.51Philip Alston & Gerard Quinn, “The Nature and Scope of State Parties’ Obligationsunder the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”,Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 2 (1987), p. 202.52Concluding Observations Iraq E/1998/22 paras 253, 254 and 269.53Concluding Observations Guatemala E/1997/22 para. 12354Concluding Observations Sri Lanka E/1998/22 paras 69-74.55Concluding Observations Peru E/1998/22 para. 141.56See supra note 53, General Comment No 13 para. 42 and General CommentNo14 para. 28.57Supra note 4, Sepulveda “The Nature of the Obligation”, p. 285; See also, supranote 2, Higgins “Derogations” p. 287.58Malcolm N. Shaw, “International Law” Fifth Edition, Cambridge University Press,2003, p. 707.59The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction,Text and Commentaries / [compiled by] James Crawford, Cambridge; New York,Cambridge University Press, 2002 p. 183.60Draft Articles on the Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts, withCommentaries, Report of International Law Commission on the Work of its 53 rdSession. United Nations, 2008 p. 76.147

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 201061Article 61 (Supervening impossibility of performance) of the Vienna Conventionon the Law of Treaties, 1969.62Id. Article 23 (1) (Procedure regarding Reservation)/63Article 14 (3) of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone;Article 18 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982; Article7 of the Convention on the Transit Trade of Land Locked States.64Supra note 60 “Draft Articles” p. 7765Case concerning the Payment of Various Serbian Loans in France (France v.Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) Judgment No 14, 1929,PCIJ Series ANo 20 pp. 39-4066Supra note 4, Sepulveda “The Nature of the Obligation”, p. 29867Supra note 60 “Draft Articles” p. 7868Supra note 58 Shaw “International Law” p. 710.69Supra note 59 Crawford “Draft Articles” p. 185;70Supra note 60 “Draft Articles” p. 7671Id.72Id. p.77.73Id. p. 76.74Rainbow Warrior Arbitration concerning the Treatment of the French AgentsMafart and Prieur 1982, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.40, No. 2 (Apr., 1991), pp. 451.75Supra note 4, Sepulveda “The Nature of the Obligation”, p. 298.76Eighth Annual Report of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and States ofEmergency, of 26 June 1995 (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1995/20 and Corr.1), annex I (Reportof the Meeting of Experts on Rights not subject to Derogation during States ofEmergency and Exceptional Circumstances).77Anna-Lena Svensson – McCarthy, “The International Law of Human Rights andStates of Exception with Special Reference to the Travaux Preparatoires andCase-law of the International Monitoring Organs”, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,The Hague, 1998 p. 148.78Supra note 4, Sepulveda “The Nature of the Obligation”, p. 298.79Id.; See also Libyan Arab Foreign Invest Company v. Republic of Burundi, 1996,ILR pp. 279, 318/S80Id.81D., Premont, C., Stenersen, and I., Oseredczuk (eds.), “Non-derogable Rightsand States if Emergency”, Association of International Consultants of HumanRights, (CID), Brussels, 1996, para 28.82Joan Hartman, “Working Paper for the Committee of Experts on the Article 4Derogation Provision”, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 7, No1, 1985, pp. 89-131.83Supra note 4, Sepulveda “The Nature of the Obligation”, p. 302.84See supra note 51, General Comment No 14 para 47.85General Comment No 3 on the Nature of State Parties’ Obligations (Article 2(1))of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, para. 9.86See supra note 51, General Comment No 14 paras, 43-45.87The Maastricht Guidelines on Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,In The Maastricht Guidelines on Violation of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.Boven, Theo C., van Flinterman, Cees & Westendorp, Ingrid (eds.), SIM SpecialNo. 20 Utrecht (1998), pp. 1-12.88Id. Article 13 “”Inability to comply”89Id.Article 14 “Violations through acts of Commission”90Egon Schwelb “The International Covenants on Human Rights” cited in supranote 2, Higgins, “Derogations” p. 318.91Supra note 2, Higgins, “Derogations” Higgins p. 318148

T. GOLETIANI, DEROGATION CLAUSE AND THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS92Supra note 4, Sepulveda “The Nature of the Obligation”, p. 284.93See generally Marc Bossuyt “International Human Rights Systems: Strengths andweaknesses” Human Rights in the 21 st Century: A Global Challenge Mahoney K.,& Mahoney P., (eds.), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, (1993), pp.47-5594See generally Marc Bossuyt “Guide to the ‘travaux preparatoires’” pp. 82-83.95Supra note 58 Shaw “International Law” p. 713.96Supra note 4, Sepulveda “The Nature of the Obligation”, p. 285.97Craig Scott “The Interdependence and Permeability of Human Rights Norms:Towards a Partial Fusion of the International Covenants on Human Rights”,Osgoode Hall Law Journal, Vo. 27, Ottawa, Canada, (1989). P. 770.98Philip Alston “International Law and Human Right to Food” In The Right to Food P.Alston & K. Tomasevski (eds.), Martinus Nikhoff Publishers, Utrecht, 1984 p. 5499Philip Alston “The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights” In TheUnited Nations and Human Rights: a Critical Appraisal, P. Alston, (ed.), ClaredonPress, Oxford, 1992, p. 490100Supra note 4, Sepulveda “The Nature of the Obligation”, p. 8.101Id. p. 3.102Mathew Craven, “The Domestic Application of International Covenant onEconomic, Social and Cultural Rights”, Netherlands International Law Review,Vol. XL, 1993 p. 369103Supra note 4, Sepulveda “The Nature of the Obligation”, pp. 122-123;104Craig Scott & Patrick Maclem “Constitutional Ropes of Sand or Justifi ableGuarantee? Social Rights in New South African Constitution”, University ofPennsylvania Law Review, vol. 141, No 1, p. 24.105Supra note 4, Sepulveda “The Nature of the Obligation”, p. 125.106Supra note 85, General Comment No 3 para 3.107Henry Shue “The Interdependence of Duties” In The Right to Food P. Alston & K.Tomasevski (eds.), Martinus Nikhoff Publishers, Utrecht, 1984 p 84.108Report of Sub-Commission Special Repporteur, Mr. R. Sachar E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/15 paras 66-68.109See generally Marc Bossuyt “Guide to the ‘travaux preparatoires’” pp. 82-84.110Id.111Supra note 85, General Comment No 3 para. 9.112Supra note 51, General Comment No 14 para 43.113Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Annual Report 1993, OEA/Ser.L/V/ii.85.114Supra note 4, Sepulveda “The Nature of the Obligation”, p. 131 (footnotes omitted).115Id. p. 115-116.116See for instance Aryen Neier “Social and Economic Rights: A Critique” 13/2Human Rights Brief (2006).117Supra note 4, Sepulveda “The Nature of the Obligation”, p. 9.118The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Discrimination against Womenwas adopted by the GA. Res. 44/25, November 20, 1989, and entered into forcein 2000.119It was opened to signature on November 9, 1995 and entered into force onSeptember 1, 1999. ETS No 163.120The Protocol was adopted on November 17, 1988 and entered into force onNovember 16, 1999.121Art. 13 and Art. 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights122African Charter on Human and People’s Rights was adopted on June 26, 1981,and entered into force on October 21, 1986. OAU doc CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21I.L.M. 58, (1982).149

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010123Case against Zaire (Communications Nos 25/89; 47/90; 56/91 and 100.93) inIHRR vol. 4 No.1 (1997)pp. 89 et. seq.124Supra note 96, Scott “The Interdependence and Permeability” p. 771.125Airey v. Ireland, ECHR, Application No 6289/73, Judgment 9 October 1979,para. 26.126Olga Tellis v. Mumbai Municipal Corporation, Supreme Court of India, 1985, AIR1986, Supreme Court 18, para 37.127Government of South Africa v. Grootboom, Constitutional Court of South Africa,Case CCT 11/00, 4 October 2000, para. 94128Supra note 2 Higgins “Derogations” p. 186.129Un Department of Public Information, “Third Committee Recommends GeneralAssembly Adoption of Optional Protocol” available at http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gashc3938.doc.htm130Article 2 of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights. A/C.3/63/L.47131Article 18 of the Optional Protocol132For detailed information, visit http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-3-a&chapter=4&lang=en133UN Doc. A/C.3/63/L.47 para. 2.134http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/fi nance/twninfofi nance20080606.htm135Ignazio Saiz “Rights in Recession? Challenges for Economic and Social RightsEnforcement in Times of Crisis”, Journal of Human Rights Practice, 2009, 1(2),pp. 277-293150

abuca pataraiarasizmisa da Seuwynareblobis winaaRmdegbrZolis evropuli komisiis mier SefasebuliqarTuli tolerantobaSesavali2010 wlis 15 ivniss rasizmisa daSeuwynareblobis winaaRmdeg brZolisevropulma komisiam (SemdgomSi – `komisia~)gamoaqveyna mesame perioduli moxsenebasaqarTvelos Sesaxeb, romeliceyrdnoba komisiis 2009 wlis oqtombrisvizits saqarTveloSi. am statiis mizaniaganixilos komisiis mier momzadebulisamive moxseneba saqarTvelos Sesaxeb,raTa gamoavlinos komisiis TvaliT danaxuliis miRwevebi da xarvezebi, romlebicikveTeba saqarTvelos rasizmisada Seuwynareblobis winaaRmdeg brZolisgzaze.saqarTvelosa da rasizmisa da SeuwynareblobiswinaaRmdeg brZo lis evropulikomisiis Ta na m S romloba yovelTvisnayofieri iyo. evropuli komisiaiyo erT-erTi pirveli im saerTaSorisoorganizaciebidan, romelmac mouwodaruseTis federacias, Seewyvita qarTveliwarmoSobis mqone pirebis devna2006 wels. evropulma komisiam 2006 wlis18 dekembers Tavis specialur gancxadebaSidagmo ruseTis mier saqarTvelosmoqalaqeebisa da eTnikuri qarTvelebiswinaaRmdeg ganxorcielebuli masobrividakavebebi da deportaciebi, rac iwvevdaam adamianebis uflebebis Selaxvas,Seviwroebasa da, zogierT SemTxvevaSi,sikvdilsac ki. 12002 da 2007 wlebSi komisiam geg murivizitebi ganaxorciela sa qarTveloSi dagamoaqveyna Sesa ba misi perioduli moxsenebebi.morigi viziti dagegmili iyooTxwliani periodis gasvlis Semdeg, 2011wels, Tumca evropuli komisiis mesa meviziti saqarTveloSi dagegmilze adreganxorcielda. es viziti Cveulebrivi aryofila im gagebiT, rom komisia saqarTveloSispecialuri misiiT Camovida. 2008wlis ruseT-saqarTvelos omis Semdegkomisiam maleve gamoTqva survili, CamosuliyosaqarTveloSi da SeeswavlaeTnikuri umciresobebis mdgomareoba,gansakuTrebiT ki ainteresebda osebis,afxazebisa da rusebis mdgomareoba.komisias hqonda logikuri eWvi, romomis Semdgom periodSi SeiZleboda dawyebuliyo zemoxsenebuli umciresobebisdevna da maTi uflebebis masobriviSelaxva.saqarTvelom omisSemdgomi k rizisisfonze rasizmisa da Seuw yna reblobiswinaaRmdeg brZolis evropuli komisiissaqarTveloSi miReba 2009 wlis oqtomberSiSeZlo. komisiis wevrebs saSualebamiecaT, Sexvedrodnen saqarTvelos xelisuflebisumaRles warmomadgenlebsda uSualod maTgan mieRoT informaciaganxorcielebuli reformebisa da momavaligegmebis Sesaxeb. komisiam konfidencialuriSexvedrebi gamarTa saqarTvelossaxalxo damcvelTan, saxalxodamcvelTan arsebul religiuri daeTnikuri umciresobebis sabWoebTan daarasamTavrobo organizaciebTan. amas-Tan, komisiam moinaxula iZulebiT gadaadgilebulpirTa sacxovreblebi dapirispir gaesaubra devnilebs. yovelive151

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010zemoTqmulidan gamomdinare, ikveTeba,rom rasizmisa da Seuwynareblobis winaaRmdegbrZolis evropul komisiassrulyofili suraTi hqonda saqarTveloSiarsebul mdgomareobaze.15 ivnisiT daTariRebul pres-reliz-Si evropis sabWo acxadebs, rom 2008 wlisagvistos movlenebs SesaZloa gamoewviaseriozu li eTnikuri daZabuloba, magram,`rogorc Cans, sazogadoebas Se uZ liaganasxvavos politikuri mma r Tvelobada saqarTveloSi mcxo vrebi calkeuliindividebi.~ 2 aR niSnuli cxadyofs, romkomisia sa qarTveloSi Camovida konkretulimizniT, Seemowmebina aq mcxovrebieTnikuri umciresobebis omisSemdgomimdgomareoba, darRvevebis aRmoCenisSemTxvevaSi, saerTaSoriso TanamegobrobisyuradReba miepyro am dar-Rvevebze da Sesabamisi rekomendaciebigaewia saqarTvelos xelisuflebisaTvis.zemoT xsenebuli specifikuri dar-Rvevebis arqonis gamo komisiis moxsenebaordinaruli gamovida, ufro meti, pozitiuricki, Tu gaviTvaliswinebT komisiisaTvisdamaxasiaTebel kritikulobas.rasizmisa da Seuwynareblobis winaaRmdegbrZolis evropuli ko misiissaqarTvelos Sesaxeb gamoqveynebuli periodulimoxsenebebis SedarebiTi analizisaSualebas mogvcems, gamovarkvioTkavSiri xelisuflebis mier ganxorcielebulantirasistul politikasa daqveyanaSi arsebul tolerantobis maRalxarisxs Soris, ramac Tavidan agvacilaomis Tanmxlebi eTnikuri daZabuloba.perioduli moxsene bebis SedarebiTianalizisas detalurad iqneba ganxilulicvli lebebi Semdegi mimarTulebiT:ka nonmdeb loba, specializebuli organoebi,cnobierebis amaRleba da ganaTleba.rasizmisa da SeuwynareblobiswinaaRmdeg brZolisevropuli komisia1993 wels evropis sabWos wevri saxelmwifos meTaurebi pirvelad Seikribnenvenis samitze. yofil iugoslaviaSiganviTarebuli movlenebis fonze,sabWoTa kavSiris daSlis Semdeg, evropissabWosaTvis gansakuTrebulad prioritetuligaxda erovnul umciresobaTadacva. venis samitze xazi gaesva axali,konsolidirebuli evropis Seqmnas, sadacevropis sabWom miiwvia axalwarmoqmnilievropuli saxelmwifoebi da daxmarebaaRuTqva demokratiuli gardaqmnebisgzaze. 3venis deklaraciis mesame danar-Ti moicavs diskriminaciasTan brZo lissamoqmedo gegmas, romelic erT-erTkomponentad iTvaliswinebs eqs per t-Ta komitetis Seq mnas. komiteti Se iswavliswevri saxelmwifoebis kanonmdeblobas,politikas da yvela im RonisZiebis efeqturobas, romelTac sa -xelmwifo axorcielebs rasizmsa daSeuwynareblobasTan brZolaSi. 4 aR niSnulidokumenti daedo safuZvlad rasizmisada Seuwynareblobis winaaRmdegbrZolis evropuli komisiis Seqmnas.rasizmisa da Seuwynareblobis winaaRmdegbrZolis evropuli ko misiismandati da muSaobis Zi riTadi principebiganisazRvreba 2002 wlis evropissabWos ministrTa komitetis (2002)8 rezoluciiT.5 aRniSnuli dokumentis me-11 muxli gansazRvravs komisiis monitoringissagans – rasizmis, rasistulidiskriminaciis, qsenofobiis, antisemitizmisada Seuwynareblobis fenomens. 6amave muxlis mixedviT, komisiam wevrisaxelmwifos Sesaxeb moxsenebis momzadebisas,faqtobrivad, unda gaaanalizosarsebuli problemebi da warmoadginosrekomendaciebi maT gadasaWrelad.rasizmisa da SeuwynareblobiswinaaRmdeg brZolis evropulikomisiis saqarTvelos Sesaxebgamoqveynebuli periodulimoxsenebebis SedarebiTi analizikomisia, sxva qveynebis msgav sad,saqar Tvelos SemTxvevaSic ramdenimeZiriTad aspeqtze amaxvilebs yuradRebas.esenia: kanonmdebloba, specializebuliorganoebi, samarTaldamcavTa152

. pataraia, rasizmisa da Seuwynareblobis winaaRmdeg brZolis evropuli komisiis mier Sefasebuli ...qceva, informirebulobis amaRleba,ga naTleba da saxelmwifo enis codna.am sakiTxebs evropuli komisia yvelaperioduli angariSis momzadebisas mimoixilavda.maTi SedarebiTi analizisaSualebas mogvcems, Tvali gavadevnoTprogress da aRmovaCinoT xarvezebi.kanonmdeblobapirveli vizitis Semdeg komisiamsaqarTvelos warudgina saerTaSorisoxelSekrulebebis sia da mouwoda,SeerTeboda am instrumentebs 7 da maTiimplementaciis gziT uzrunveleyo adamianisuflebaTa ukeTesi dacva rogorcqveynis SigniT, agreTve, saerTaSorisoTanamegobrobis winaSe. re komendaciaiTvaliswinebda iseT mniSvnelovankon venciasTan Se er Tebas, rogoricaa`erov nul um ciresobaTa dacvis~ CarCokonven cia, Sesworebuli `evropis socialuriqartiis~ ratificireba da a.S.saqarTvelom gaiTvaliswina ko misiisrekomendacia da SeuerTda rigs saerTa-Soriso dokumentebisas, maT Soris: `adamianisuflebaTa dacvis evropuli konvenciis~meTormete oqms, `adgilobriviTviTmmarTvelobis erovnul qartias~,`erovnul umciresobaTa dac vis~ CarCokonvencias da sxva. 8 dReisaTvis saqarTvelosjer kidev ar aqvs savaldebulodaRiarebuli ramdenime mniSvnelovanisaerTaSoriso instrumenti, maT Soris`evropuli qartia regionalur da umciresobaTaenebis Sesaxeb~. 9rac Seexeba qveynis Sida kanonmdeblobas,pirvel moxsenebaSi ko misiamara sakmarisad miiCnia diskri mi -naciis akrZalva saqarTvelos sis x lissamarTlis kanonmdeblobis mi xed viT,romelic dasjadad acxadebs Ta na s-woruflebianobis da rRvevas, `ra mac arsebiTadxelyo adamianis uf leba~ 10 . komisiamaR niSna, rom Tanaswo r uflebianobisdarRvevis dadgenisaTvis aucilebeliar unda iyos adamianis uflebisarsebiTi xelyofa da saqarTvelos mouwoda,SeemuSavebina rasobrivi SuRlisgaRvivebis amkrZalavi norma. 112003 wels, komisiis rekomenda ciisgaTvaliswinebiT, saqarTve los parlamentmaSeitana axali muxli sisxlissamarTlis kodeqsSi, romlis mixedvi-Tac dasjadi gaxada `qmedeba, Cadenilierovnuli an rasobrivi mtrobis an ganxeTqilebisCamogdebis, erovnuli pativisada Rirsebis damcirebis mizniT,agreTve rasis, kanis feris, socialurikuTvnilebis, erovnuli an eTnikuri warmomavlobisniSniT adamianis uflebebispirdapi ri an arapirdapiri SezRudva,anda imave niSniT adamianisTvis upiratesobisminiWeba.~ 12 muxli zogadi xasiaTisaada praqtikulad nebis mi er rasistuldanaSauls miesadage ba, radgankrZalavs yvela moqmede bas an umoqmedobas,romelic Cadenilia diskriminaciulimotiviT, pirdapiri an arapirdapirisaxiT da darRvevis dasadgenad ar arissaWiro raime saziano Sedegis dadgoma.142-e 1 muxlis damatebiT saqarTvelosxe lisufleba miiCnevs, rom Seavso arsebulixarvezebi da ar apirebs kanonmdeblobisufro metad daxvewas; komisia kikvlav moiTxovs iseTi calkeuli muxlebisCamatebas, romlebic akrZalavs rasistulSeuracxyofas, rasistuli gancxadebebisgavrcelebas, rasistuli organizaciisxelmZRvanelobas da, zogadad,rasizmis motivaciis da mamZimebel garemoebadgansaz Rv ras yvela danaSaulisaTvis.13specializebuli organoebikomisia saqarTvelos Sesaxeb pi rvelmoxsenebaSi gamoyofs ramdenime specializebulorganos, esenia: 14• saxalxo damcveli.• adamianis uflebaTa da erov nebaT-Soris urTierTobaTa saparlamentokomiteti.• prezidentis TanaSemwis samsaxurierovnebaTSorisi urTierTobebissakiTxebSi, romlis SemadgenlobaSicSedian sazogadoebrivi organizaciebiswarmomadgenlebi, Seiqmna 1998wels.153

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010• erovnuli uSiSroebis sabWos mdivnismoadgilis posti adamianis uflebaTadacvis sakiTxebSi, romelicSeiqmna 1997 wels.meore periodul moxsenebaSi komisiamiesalmeba axali specializebuli organoebiswarmoSobas saqarTveloSi, ker-Zod esenia: 15• saxalxo damcvelTan 2005 wels Seqmnilitolerantobis centri. tolerantobiscentri or sabWos moicavs:religiuri umciresobebisa daeTnikuri umciresobebisas.• samoqalaqo integraciis sakiTxebSisaxelmwifo ministris posti,romelic Seiqmna 2004 wels.• prezidentTan arsebuli sa mo qalaqointegraciisa da Semwy nareblobissabWo. Seiqmna 2005 wels.mesame periodul angariSSic Cans axalispecializebuli or ga noebi: 16• reintegraciis sakiTxebSi sa xel mwifoministris posti, ro melic Seiqmna2008 wels.• prezidentis mrCevlis posti samoqalaqointegraciis sakiTxebSi, romelicSeiqmna 2008 wels.miuxedavad am mravalferovani specializebuliorganoebisa, romlebicsxvadasxva dros sxvadasxva funqciisSesasruleblad Seiqmna da romlebsacaerTianebT adamianis uflebaTa da eTnoreligiuriumciresobebis dacvismizani, evropis sabWo kvlav daJinebiTmoiTxovs specializebuli damoukidebeliorganos daarsebas, komisiis me-2rezoluciis Sesabamisad. 17 am rezoluciismixedviT, damoukidebeli organosZiriTadi funqciebia: rekomendaciebismomzadeba, maT Soris sakanonmdeblocvlilebebTan dakavSirebiT, saCivrebismiReba, mtkicebulebebis moZieba,msxverplTa daxmareba, cnobierebisamaRlebis xelSewyoba da a.S. 18 imave dokumentSiaRniSnulia, rom msgavsi organoSesaZlebelia warmodgenili iyosrogorc ombudsmeni eTnikur sakiTxeb-Si, rasobrivi Tanasworobis erovnulikomiteti, an rasizmTan brZolis centri.19ismis kiTxva, ramdenad praqti kuliiqneba kidev erTi axali specializebuliorganos Seqmna? komisias samivevizitisas saqarTvelo axvedrebda axalan saxecvlil specializebul organos.axali instituciis Seqmna TavisTavad araris garantia adamianis uflebaTa ukeTdacvisa, gansakuTrebiT maSin, rocafunqciurad msgavsi institutebi ukvearseboben.im fonze, sadac mravali specializebuliorgano Cndeboda, ic vlebodada qreboda qarTul realobaSi, individualurisaCivrebis ganxilvis kuTxiTflagmani saxalxo damcveli iyo;politikis gansazRvris kuTxiT ki ramdenimeorgano paralelur reJimSimuSaobda. 2003 wels prezidentis brZanebulebiTdamtkicda `saqarTvelos mosaxleobissxvadasxva jgufis uflebebisada Tavisuflebebis da cvis ganmtkicebis2003-2005 wle bis samoqmedogegma~, romlis Sesrulebis monitoringida reportingi daevalaT prezidentisTanaSemwes ero vnebaTSorisi urTerTobebissakiTxebSi da erovnuli uSiSroebissabWos mdivnis moadgiles. 20 Tumcavardebis revoluciis Semdeg qveyanaSibevri instituciuri cvlileba ganxorcielda.zemoxsenebuli organoebidanpirveli saerTod gauqmda, meores kifunqciebi Seecvala. 2003-2005 wlebissamoqmedo gegmis Sesrulebis angariSiar dawerila.2005 wels Seiqmna samoqalaqo integraciisada Semwynareblobis sabWo,romelsac daevala Semwyna reblobisada samoqalaqo integ raciis Sesaxeberovnuli koncef ciisa da samoqmedogegmis Semu Saveba. 21 2008 wels sabWossaTaveSi Caudga prezidentis mrCevelisa moqalaqo integraciis sakiTxebSi.amjerad sabWom SeimuSava koncefcia daxuTwliani samoqmedo gegma, romelicmTavrobis dadgenilebiT damtkicda2009 wels. 22 am dadgenilebiT reintegraciissakiTxebSi saxelmwifo minis-154

. pataraia, rasizmisa da Seuwynareblobis winaaRmdeg brZolis evropuli komisiis mier Sefasebuli ...tris aparati koordinacias gauwevsgegmis Sesrulebas da yovelwliuradangariSiT warsdgeba saqarTvelos mTavrobisada samoqalaqo integraciisa daSemwynareblobis sabWos winaSe.aRsaniSnavia is faqti, rom 2009 wlidanreintegraciis sakiTxebSi saxelmwifoministrTan funqcionireba daiwyouwyebaTaSorisma komisiam, romelicSedgeba saxelmwifo organoebis warmomadgenlebisaganda monawileobas iRebsyovelwliuri samoqmedo gegmebisa daangariSebis SemuSavebaSi. 23 reintegraciissakiTxebSi saxelmwifo ministrisaparatma samoqmedo gegmis SesrulebisangariSi erTxel ukve warmoadgina 2009wlis maisi-dekembris mdgomareobiT. 24yovelive zemoaRniSnulidan gamomdinare,Cans, rom koncefciisa dasamoqmedo gegmis implementaciis makoordinebeliorganos roli reintegraciisministris aparatma warmatebiTSeiTavsa. saqarTvelos specializebuliorganoebis isto riulma mimoxilvam cxadyo,rom instituciis saboloo saxiTCamoyalibebasa da amuSavebas dro dagamocda sWirdeba. bevri idea ver ganxorcielda,magram sabolood erovnuldoneze moqmedi wamyvani specializebuliorganoebi mainc gamoikveTa. umciresobaTauflebebis ukeTesi dacvisaTvissruliad axali organos Seqmnazemetad efeqturi SesaZloa arsebuli instituciebisgaZliereba aRmoCndes.ganaTlebaeTnikur umciresobaTa ganaTlebas,kerZod ki qarTuli enis codnis dabaldones, rasizmisa da SeuwynareblobiswinaaRmdeg evropuli komisia erT-erTyvelaze mwvave problemad miiCnevs. 25 Tukomisiis meore perioduli moxse nebaaRniSnavda, rom erTianma erovnulmagamocdebma xeli SeuSala umciresobaTawarmomadgenlebis umaRles saswavleblebSimoxvedras, gamoiwvia gonebriviZalis gadineba da, amasTan, qarTulisswavlebis arsebul gegmebs metad ambiciuradafasebda, 26 mesame moxsenebaSiganaTlebaSi miRweul progress`sanaqebos~ 27 uwodebs.qarTulma ganaTlebis sistemam sruliadgaiziara evropuli komisiis rekomendaciebiganaTlebis sfe roSi da orweliwadSi SemoiRo: kvotireba umaRlessaswavleblebSi eTnikur umciresobaTasasargeblod, abiturientebs SesTavazaqarTuli enis mosamzadebeli kur sebi,zogadi unarebis Cabarebis SesaZleblobamSobliur enaze da a.S. reformebi pozitiuradaisaxa umciresobaTa warmomadgenlebisraodenobis zrdaze umaRlessaswavleblebSi.rac Seexeba saSualo ganaTlebas,unda aRiniSnos, rom orenovani swavlebisproeqti 2009 wlidan inicirebulia40 saSualo skolaSi; xorcieldebaqarTuli enis pedagogebis mudmivigadamzadeba. amasTan, muSaoba mimdinareobssaxelmZRvaneloebis daxvewaze.aSkaraa, rom ganaTlebis sferoSi dasaxuligegmebi nabij-nabij xorcieldeba.imisaTvis, rom saqarTveloSi mcxovrebumciresobaTaTvis qarTuli enis codnaproblema aRar iyos, reformireba amavetempebiT unda gagrZeldes. aRniSnulireformebis Sedegi ki sruli masStabiTmaSin gamoCndeba, roca orenovanskoladamTavrebulimoswavleebi konkurenciasgauweven qarTulskoladamaTavrebulabiturientebs misaReb gamocdebze.evropuli komisia xazgasmiT aRniSnavsprofesionalebisaTvis qa rTulienis Seswavlis mniSvne lo bas da SualeduriSemowmebis rekomendaciissaxiT 28 xelisuflebas mouwodebs, gaaumjobesoszurab Jvanias saxelobis administrirebis skolis 29 kurikulumi.sko la droebiT daxuruli iyo evropiskomisiis vizitisaTvis. 2010 wlis 12ivniss administrirebis skola xelaxlagaixsna. 30 skola gafarTovda da garemontda,eqvsi specialuri programaSemuSavda, romlebic mokle da grZelvadiankursebs sTavazobs sajaro moxeleebs.ganaxlebulma skolam pirveletapze 15 azerbaijaneli da 15 somexierovnebis sajaro moxele miiRo.155

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010samarTaldamcavi organoebi dainformirebulobis amaRlebaevropulma komisiam rasizmisa daSeuwynareblobis winaaRmdeg pirvelmoxsenebaSi saqarTve los Sinagan saqme-Ta saministros muSaoba, policielTaganaTlebis sistema da, zogadad, sazogadoebisinformirebulobis done saqarTveloSiumciresobebis uflebebTanmimarTebiT Zalze kritikulad Seafasa. 31meore moxsenebaSi komisia kvlav aradamakmayofilebladafasebs, zogadad,samarTaldamcvelTa qcevas, gansakuTrebiTgadametebuli Zalis gamoyenebisada arasaTanado mopyrobis kuTxiT. 32mesame moxseneba ufro poziti uria.komisia xelisuflebas mouwodebs, ganagrZossamarTaldamc velTa treningi,miesalmeba eTni kuri umciresobebisdasaqmebas da wina moxsenebebis msgavsad,aqac aRniSnavs, rom eTnikuri umciresobebis mimarT gamokveTili ara sa-Tanado an Seuracxmyofeli saq cieliqarTuli samarTaldamcavi or ganoebisTanamSromlebs, marTalia, ar axasia-TebT, magram zogadi suraTis aradamakmayofileblobisgamo, rac gamoixatebapolicielebis mxridan arasaTanadomopyrobis SemTxvevebis arsebobaSi, umciresobebigansakuTrebiT mowyvladmdgomareobaSi imyofebian. 33evropuli komisiis mxridan ufrodadebiTi Sefasebis misaRebad aucilebeliaarasaTanado mo p yrobis faqtebisefeqturi ga moZieba, samarTliani sasamarTlosganaCeni da msxverplTaTviskompensaciis gadaxda. msgavsi precedentebisarseboba iqneba myari argumentisaqarTvelos warmatebuli brZolisaarasaTanado mopyrobisa da dausjelobiswinaaRmdeg.daskvnasaqarTvelo istoriulad gamoir-Ceoda SemwynareblobiT. tolerantobaarc komunizms da arc demokratiasSemoutania am qveyanaSi, magramSemwynareblobas, an rogorc amas evropulmakomisiam uwoda mesame periodulmoxsenebaSi, politikuri movlenebisada calkeuli individebis gansxvavebisunars, 34 xelSewyoba da dacva sWirdeba.sazogadoebrivi cnobiereba manipulirebadia,gansakuTrebiT maSin, Tugavlena arsebobs masobrivi informaciissaSualebebze da Sesaferisi dro daTematikaa SerCeuli. omisSemdgom periodSisazogadoeba gansakuTrebuladda u cvelad grZnobs Tavs da mowy vladiagare zemoqmedebebis mimarT. 35 imedgacruebisada danakargis SegrZneba adviladgardaiqmneba risxvad, 36 romelicSeiZleba mimarTul iqnes im erovnuliumciresobebis warmomadgenlebis winaaRmdeg,romelTa erebi da xelmZRvanelobauSualod iyo CarTuli saomarmoqmedebebSi. sazogadoeba msgavs arCevansTavad akeTebs, Tumca xelisuflebasSeuZlia am procesis nawilobrivimar Tva. yvela demokratiuli saxelmwifosvalia, xeli SeuSalos rasobrivi/eTnikuri SuRlis gaRvivebas.saqarTvelos axlo warsulSi gamZafrebulmanacionalizmma xeli SeuwyoeTnikur niadagze dapirispirebebis eskalacias.rogorc Cans, saqarTvelossazogadoebam sakmarisi gamocdilebamiiRo da 2008 wlis ruseT-saqarTvelosomis Semdeg eTnikuri umciresobebis mimarTgawonasworebuli da TavSekavebulidamokidebuleba gamoavlina.rasizmisa da Seuwynareblobis winaaRmdegbrZolis evropuli komisiissaqarTvelos Sesaxeb sami perioduli angariSisSedarebis safuZvelze gamovlenilixarvezebis miuxedavad, calsaxaa,rom saqarTvelos saxelmwifo ebrZvisrasizmsa da Seuwynareblobas. uamravicvlileba, romelic ganxorcieldaevropuli komisiis rekomendaciebisSesabamisad, arasaTanadod warmarTuliinformirebulobis amaRlebis kampaniisfonzec ki met-naklebad cnobiliasaqarTveloSi mcxovrebi umravlesobisada umciresobisaTvis. es ki, Tavis mxriv,uzrunvelyofs saxelmwifos mxridan sazogadoebisaTvisantirasistuli da antidiskriminaciulimesijis miwodebas.156

. pataraia, rasizmisa da Seuwynareblobis winaaRmdeg brZolis evropuli komisiis mier Sefasebuli ...dasasruls SesaZlebloba gvaqvs davaskvnaT,rom saxelmwifos mi er ganxorcielebulieTniku ri di skriminaciiswinaaRmdeg mima r Tuli RonisZiebebi gavlenasaxdens saqarTvelos sazogadoebisSemwynareblobaze da pozitiurad aisaxebamasze.1rasizmisa da Seuwynareblobis winaaRmdeg brZolis evropuli komisiisgancxadeba bolo dros ganviTarebul movlenebze, romelic exeba ruse-Tis federaciaSi myofi qarTveli warmoSobis pirebs, miRebulia 2006wlis 15 dekembers komisiis 41-e plenarul sxdomaze, ix.: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Library/PressReleases/45-18_12_2006_en.asp2ix.: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Library/PressReleases/68-15_06_2010_Georgia_en.asp3ix.: http://www.norskfi nsk.no/Dokumenter/Committee%20of%20Ministers%20-%20Vienna%20Declaration%20-%209%20October%201993.pdf4iqve.5damtkicda evropis sabWos ministrTa komitetis 799-e sxdomaze, 13ivnisi, 2002; ix.: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/about/ECRI_statute_en.asp6rasizmisa da Seuwynareblobis winaaRmdeg evropuli komisiis 7 zogadirekomendaciis Tanaxmad, `rasizmi gagebul unda iqnes rogorc erTipirovnebis an jgufis upativcemuloba, an upiratesad miCneva, rasis,kanis feris, enis, religiis, moqalaqeobis, erovnebis an warmomavlobisgamo.~ ix.: http://hudoc.ecri.coe.int/ecri/document.asp?item=77evropuli komisia rasizmisa da Seuwynareblobis winaaRmdeg, moxsenebasaqarTvelos Sesaxeb, miRebuli 2001 wlis 22 ivniss, CRI(2002) 2, paragrafebi1-6. ix.: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country-by-country/Georgia/GEO-CbC-II-2002-002-GEO.pdf8evropuli komisia rasizmisa da Seuwynareblobis winaaRmdeg, meoremoxseneba saqarTvelos Sesaxeb, miRebuli 2006 wlis 30 ivniss, CRI(2007)2, paragrafi 2. ix.: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country-bycountry/Georgia/GEO-CbC-III-2007-2-GEO.pdf9evropuli komisia rasizmisa da Seuwynareblobis winaaRmdeg, mesamemoxseneba saqarTvelos Sesaxeb, miRebuli 2010 wlis 28 aprils,CRI(2010) 17, paragrafebi 4-6. ix.: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country-by-country/Georgia/GEO-CbC-IV-2010-017-GEO.pdf10saqarTvelos sisxlis samarTlis kodeqsi, 1999, 142-e (1) muxli.11ix. sqolio 6, paragrafebi 12, 15.12saqarTvelos sisxlis samarTlis kodeqsi, 1999, 142-e 1 (1) muxli.13ix. sqolio, paragrafebi 8, 11.14ix. sqolio 6, paragrafebi19-20, 22-23.15ix. sqolio 7, paragrafi 31-32.16ix. sqolio 8, paragrafi 24.17ix. sqolio 6, paragrafi 24; sqolio 7, paragrafi 30; sqolio 8, paragrafi27.18rasizmisa da Seuwynareblobis winaaRmdeg evropuli komisiis me-2 zogadirekomendaciis danarTi, me-3 principi, ix.: http://hudoc.ecri.coe.int/ecri/document.asp?item=219iqve, me-2 principi.20saqarTvelos prezidentis brZanebuleba 68, 4 marti, 2003.21saqarTvelos prezidentis gankarguleba 639, 8 agvisto, 2005.22saqarTvelos mTavrobis gankarguleba 348, 8 maisi, 2009.23reintegraciis sakiTxebSi saxelmwifo ministris brZaneba 14, 3 ivlisi,2009. informacia komisiis Semadgenlobis Sesaxeb ix.: http://www.smr.gov.ge/uploads/fi le/100510/TCI_AP_6.pdf24ix.: http://www.smr.gov.ge/uploads/fi le/shemtsknareblobis_angraishi_ge.pdf25ix. sqolio 7, paragrafi 105.157

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 201026ix. sqolio 7, paragrafi 127.27ix. sqolio 8, paragrafi 29.28ix. sqolio 8, gv. 51.29saqarTvelos ganaTlebisa da mecnierebis ministris 411 brZaneba sajarosamarTlis iuridiuli piris – zurab Jvanias saxelobis saxelmwifoadministrirebis skolis wesdebis damtkicebis Sesaxeb, 18 agvisto,2005.30ix.: http://mes.gov.ge/content.php?id=951&lang=geo31ix. sqolio 6, paragrafebi 41-44.32ix. sqolio 7, paragrafi 82.33ix. sqolio 8, paragrafi 94-97.34ix. sqolio 2.35Nino Makhashvili, Lela Tsiskarishvili & Boris Drožđek, Door to the unknown: onlarge-scale public mental health interventions in post-conflict zones – experiences fromGeorgia, Journal Traumatology, in press.36Vamik Volkan, Bloodlines: from Ethnic Pride to Ethnic Terrorism, chapter II: from victimto victimizer, (1997) gv. 168-181.158

BABUTSA PATARAIAGEORGIAN TOLERANCE – ASSESSED BY THE EUROPEANCOMMISSION AGAINST RACISM AND INTOLERANCEINTRODUCTIONAfter its visit to Tbilisi in October 2009, theEuropean Commission against Racism andIntolerance (hereinafter ECRI) released itsthird periodic report on Georgia on June 15 th2010. This article aims to assess all three periodicreports on Georgia in order to identifyECRI’s vision of Georgia’s progress and errorsin combating racism and intolerance.Traditionally, cooperation between Georgiaand ECRI is productive. The Commission wasone of the fi rst entities that called upon Russiato stop the discrimination of ethnic Georgiansin 2006. The Commission issued a specialstatement on December 18, 2006, that condemnedthe mass arrests and deportationsresulting in deaths of Georgians in Russia. 1In 2002 and 2007, the ECRI visited Georgiato produce periodic reports. Another visitwas scheduled four years later in 2011, buttook place earlier than planned. This last visitdiffered from others due to the exceptionalcircumstances resulting from the Georgian-Russian war in 2008, in which ECRI expressedits desire to study the situation of Georgia’sAbkhaz, Ossetian and Russian minorities.The Commission had a legitimate suspicionthat those minorities would be victims of discriminationand human rights violations subsequentto the war.Despite the crisis following the war, Georgiahosted ECRI in October 2009. Georgiangovernment offi cials discussed the administration’sreforms and future plans with the membersof the Commission. ECRI also had confidential meetings with the Public Defender ofGeorgia, religious and ethnic minority councilsand other non-governmental organizations.The Commission additionally visited placesof residence of internally displaced personsand talked personally with them. Thus, theCommission had a full picture on the situationin Georgia.ECRI June 15 th press release states “…although the August 2008 armed confl ict couldhave resulted in signifi cant ethnic tension, thepublic in general still seems to be able to distinguishbetween the political leadership andindividual persons living in Georgia.” 2 It isevident that ECRI’s task was to assess thesituation of minorities in the post war period.If violations were identifi ed, the Commissionwould bring them to the attention of the internationalcommunity and provide the Georgiangovernment with corresponding recommendations.However, keeping in mind critical natureof the Commission, the report turned out to bematter-of-course and rather positive.A comparative analysis of the ECRI periodicreports on Georgia will help identify theconnection between anti-racial policies of thegovernment and the high level of tolerance inthe country, which prevented ethnic confrontationscharacteristic to war. The comparativeanalysis will look in detail at changes in thefollowing areas: legislation, specialized agencies,raising awareness and education.EUROPEAN COMMISSION AGAINST RACISMAND INTOLERANCEThe Heads of Council of Europe MemberStates met for the fi rst time in Vienna in 1993.159

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010After events in Yugoslavia and the dissolutionof the Soviet Union, protecting the rightsof minorities became a priority for the Councilof Europe. The Vienna declaration underlinedthe need for the creation of a new, consolidatedEurope and the Council of Europe invitednewly established European countries to joinand offered them support in their democraticreforms. 3Appendix 3 of the Vienna Declarationsenvisages plan of action to combat racism,xenophobia, anti-semitism and intolerance.The plan of action includes the establishmentof a committee of governmental experts witha mandate to: review member States’ legislation,policies and other measures to combatracism, xenophobia, anti-semitism and intolerance,and their effectiveness. 4 This documentserved as basis for the creation of theEuropean Commission against Racism andIntolerance.The mandate and basic principles of theEuropean Commission against Racism andIntolerance were established by Resolution8 (2002) of the Committee of Ministers of theCouncil of Europe. 5 Article 11 of this documentidentifi es the subject of monitoring the “phenomenaof racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia,antisemitism and intolerance”. 6 Thesame article states that the Commission shalldraw up reports containing a factual analysis,as well as suggestions and proposals as tohow each country might deal with any problemsidentifi ed.COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE EUROPEANCOMMISSION AGAINST RACISM ANDINTOLERANCE REPORTS ON GEORGIAAs in other cases with ECRI reports onGeorgia, the Commission focuses attentionon the following: legislation, specializedagencies, law enforcement behavior, raisingawareness, education and knowledge of thestate language. Each of these aspects was addressedin every periodic report on Georgia. Acomparative analysis of these issues will helpus to explicitly reveal progress achieved andindentify shortcomings.LEGISLATIONAfter its fi rst visit, the Commission presentedGeorgian authorities with a list of internationallegal instruments for signature. 7Implementing these recommendations wouldbetter protect human rights in the country.Among the important international agreementsrecommended for ratifi cation were theFramework Convention for the Protection ofNational Minorities and Revised EuropeanSocial Charter, among others. Georgia consideredthese recommendations and signeda number of international agreements includingAdditional Protocol #12 to the EuropeanCharter on Human Rights, the EuropeanCharter of Local Self-Government and theFramework Convention for the Protection ofNational Minorities. 8 Some important internationalinstruments still remain non-obligatoryfor Georgia, such as the European Charter forRegional and Minority Languages. 9In regards to internal legislation, theCommission stated in its fi rst report that a provisionin the Criminal Code of Georgia is noteffi cient in combating discrimination, in whichaction against equality “which substantiallyviolated human right” is punishable. 10 TheCommission noted that the law should providefor effective, proportionate and dissuasivesanctions for discrimination cases and calledupon Georgia for a new provision prohibitingracial discrimination. 11In 2003, the Government of Georgia consideredECRI recommendation and amendedarticle 142 of the Criminal Code by includingthe following provision: “racial discriminationis an act committed for the purpose of incitingnational or racial hatred or confl ict, humiliatingnational dignity or directly or indirectly restrictinghuman rights or granting advantages ongrounds of race, color, social status or nationalor ethnic origin”. 12 This article is general in itsnature and practically addresses all possibleracial crimes by prohibiting any action or omissionbased on discrimination motives, committeddirectly or indirectly, and in order to fi ndviolation damage is not necessary.By amending article #142 1 into the criminalcode of Georgia, the Georgia government160

B. PATARAIA, GEORGIAN TOLERANCE – ASSESSED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AGAINST RACISM AND INTOLERANCEbelieves it fi lled the gap and does not intendto amend the code any further in this respect,although ECRI continues to recommend to includea provision prohibiting racial insults, disseminationof racial statements, leading racialorganizations and in general requires racialmotives to be aggravating circumstances forall crimes. 13SPECIALIZED AGENCIESIn its fi rst report on Georgia the Commissionidentifi es several specialized agencies: 14• Public Defender;• Parliamentary Committee on HumanRights and Ethnic Relations;• Offi ce of the Assistant to the President onInterethnic Relations, which is comprisedfrom representatives of different public organizationscreated in1998;• Post of Special Deputy Secretary of theNational Security Council on HumanRights issues, created in 1997;In the second report, the Commission welcomesthe creation of new specialized agenciesin Georgia, in particular: 15• The creation of a Tolerance Center atPublic Defenders Offi ce in 2005. The centerencompasses two councils -the Councilfor Ethnic Minorities and the Council forReligious Minorities;• The establishment of the post of StateMinister for Civil Integration in 2004.• A Council for Civil Integration comprisingof government and civil society representativeswas set up in 2005 under the authorityof the President.The third periodic report also notes newspecialized agencies: 16• State Minister for Reintegration Issues,created in 2008;• Special Adviser to the President on issuesof civil integration, created in 2008;Despite the existence of many specializedagencies, created in different periods to pursuevarious purposes, but all of them aiming to protecthuman rights and the rights of the ethnoreligiousminorities, ECRI continues to encourageGeorgia to set up an independent specializedbody in accordance with Commission’sGeneral Policy Recommendation #2. 17 Accordingto this recommendation, specialized bodiesshould possess the following functions andresponsibilities: monitor the content and effectof legislation and executive acts, make proposals,if necessary, for possible modifi cationsto such legislation; provide aid and assistanceto victims; hear and consider complaints andpetitions concerning specifi c cases; promotethe awareness of the general public and etc. 18The same recommendation states that therole and functions set out should be fulfi lledby bodies which may take the form of, for example,national commissions for racial equality,ombudsmen against ethnic discrimination,centers/offi ces for combating racism and promotingequal opportunities, or other forms,including bodies with wider objectives in thefi eld of human rights generally. 19The issue as to whether the establishmentof the new agency will be more effectiveremains in question. At each ECRI visit,Georgian authorities introduced them to eithera new or a newly modifi ed institution. Creatinga new agency is not a guarantee for better humanrights protection, especially when bodieswith similar functions already exist.While many specialized agencies werecreated, modifi ed and abolished, the PublicDefender’s offi ce remained as the leading recipientof complaints; as for policy planning,few agencies worked in unison. In 2003, theunder presidential decree, the “2003-2005Action Plan on reinforcing the protection of thehuman rights of minorities living permanentlyin Georgia” was adopted. Implementing,monitoring and reporting of this action planwere the responsibility of the Assistant to thePresident on Interethnic Relations and theDeputy Secretary of the National SecurityCouncil. 20 After the “Rose Revolution,” manychanges took place in the executive governmentof Georgia. The post of Assistant to thePresident on Interethnic Relations was abolishedand the duties of the Deputy Secretaryof the National Security Council were changed.So monitoring and reporting of this action planwas never fulfi lled.In 2005, the Council for Civil Integrationwas created and was tasked to develop a na-161

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010tional concept and action plan on toleranceand civil integration. 21 Since 2008, the councilwas headed by a special adviser to the presidenton issues of civil integration. The councilcame up with a fi ve-year action plan and wasadopted by the government in 2009. 22 TheOffi ce of the State Minister on ReintegrationIssues coordinates the implementation of thisaction plan and produces an annual report thatis presented to the Government of Georgiaand the Council for Civil Integration.It is noteworthy that an Interagency Councilbegan working in 2009 under authority of theoffi ce of the State Minister on ReintegrationIssues. It comprises of representatives fromdifferent governmental agencies and works onelaborating an annual report on the implementationof the action plan. 23 The State Ministeron Reintegration Issues has already producedone annual report refl ecting the period for May– December 2009. 24This demonstrates that the offi ce of theState Minister for Reintegration Issues hasbeen actively engaged in coordination for conceptdevelopment and implementation of theaction plan. An examination of the history ofspecialized agencies in Georgia reveals that itrequires time and experience for an agency tobe functionary and well-structured. Many initialideas have not been implemented, althoughleading specialized agencies are identifi ed atnational level. To protect rights of the nationalminorities it might be better to strengthen theexisting specialized agency rather than creatingnew ones.EDUCATIONECRI notes that education of ethnic minorities;particularly the low level of Georgianlanguage knowledge is one of the most fundamentalproblems in Georgia. 25 In its secondreport on Georgia, the Commission stated thatUnifi ed National Exams have caused braindrain and signifi cantly decreased the numberof ethnic minority students from actually acquiringplacement in higher education institutions,and that Georgian language study programsare too ambitious. 26 However, the thirdperiodic report notes “commendable” progressin this respect. 27The educational system of Georgia hasengaged ECRI recommendations and intwo years has introduced certain measuresin favor of ethnic minorities, such as quotasin higher education institutions, preparatoryclasses in Georgian-language, ability tests inthe mother tongue and a system of fi nancialaid to encourage pupils whose mother tongueis not Georgian to study at Georgian universities.Such reforms have increased the numberof ethnic minority students in higher educationinstitutions.In regards to education, two languageteachingprograms have been introduced to40 schools in 2009; Georgian language teachersundergo permanent retraining. Work is underwayto improve textbooks. It is clear thatreforms in educational system are progressingstep-by-step. In order to eliminate problemsfor ethnic minorities in the education system,reforms should continue at the same pace.Results will become evident when graduatesof the two language schools will able to competeon equal footing for places in Georgianhigher education intuitions.ECRI affi rmed the need for Georgianlanguagetraining for professionals 28 in its interimrecommendation and called upon the governmentto enhance the curriculum of the ZurabZhvania School of Public Administration. 29 Theschool for Public Administration was closedduring the ECRI visit to Georgia and was reopenedafter renovation and expansion onJune 12 th 2010. 30 Six special programs weredeveloped which offer short and long termcourses to public servants. The renovatedschool has recently accepted 15 Armenianand 15 Azeri students.LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ANDRAISING PUBLIC AWARENESSIn its fi rst periodic report, ECRI was criticalof the Ministry of Internal Affairs, particularly ofthe work in the educational system for policemenand general public awareness in respectto minority’s rights in Georgia. 31 In the secondreport, the Commission remained unsatisfi ed162

B. PATARAIA, GEORGIAN TOLERANCE – ASSESSED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AGAINST RACISM AND INTOLERANCEwith the behavior of law enforcement agenciesspecial concern was excessive use of forceand inhuman or degrading treatment. 32The third report is comparably positive inthis respect. ECRI calls upon the Governmentto continue training law enforcement offi cersand welcomes the employment of ethnic minoritiesin law enforcement agencies. As inprevious reports, ECRI reiterated that althoughminority groups are not particularly targetedby illegal behavior of law-enforcementoffi cials, minority groups remain particularlyvulnerable to police mistreatment, due to thealleged ill-treatment on the part of law enforcementagencies. 33To obtain positive assessment from ECRIit is necessary to conduct effective investigationsof the cases of ill-treatment, along withfair trials and provision of compensation tothe victims of such crimes. Existing of suchprecedents would serve as strong argumentfor Georgia in its aspiration to combat ill-treatmentand impunity.CONCLUSIONHistorically, Georgia has always been atolerant country long before communism ordemocracy arrived. However, tolerance, whichaccording to the Commission’s third report isthe ability “to differentiate political events andseparate individuals,” 34 needs support andprotection. Public consciousness can easilybe manipulated by media, especially if appropriatetheme and timing is chosen. Afterwar, society feels undefended and particularlyvulnerable to external infl uence. 35 The disappointmentand sense of loss can be easilyturned into anger, 36 and be directed at representativesof those minorities whose nationsand governments participated in war. Thesechoices are made by society itself but governmentscan have infl uence on this process.Democratic states have an obligation to preventincitement of racial/ethnic confrontation.Not long ago, aggravated nationalism provokedethnic-based confrontation in Georgia.It appears that Georgian society has gainedexperience since then and following theRussian-Georgian war of 2008, it was self-restrainedand acted in a well-balanced mannerin respect to ethnic minorities.The comparative analysis of the three periodicreports revealed defects indentifi ed byECRI, despite that, it is apparent that Georgiais engaged in combat against racism and intolerance.Although public awareness campaignscould be much better, society and ethnic minoritygroups are aware of many changes thathave taken place in accordance to ECRI recommendations.This ensures that strong antiracialand anti-discrimination message is deliveredto public from Georgian authorities.In the end we can conclude that measurestaken by the government against ethnic discriminationhave a positive effect on toleranceof Georgian society.1Statement of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance onrecent events affecting persons of Georgian origin in the Russian Federation,adopted on 15 December 2006 at ECRI’s 41 st plenary meeting: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Library/PressReleases/45-18_12_2006_en.asp2http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Library/PressReleases/68-15_06_2010_Georgia_en.asp3See: http://www.norskfi nsk.no/Dokumenter/Committee%20of%20Ministers%20-%20Vienna%20Declaration%20-%209%20October%201993.pdf4Ibid.5Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 13 June 2002 at the 799th meetingof the Ministers’ Deputies http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/about/ECRI_statute_en.asp6ECRI General Policy Recommendation N°7 states “racism” shall mean the beliefthat a ground such as racial, color, language, religion, nationality or national or163

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010ethnic origin justifi es contempt for a person or a group of persons, or the notionof superiority of a person or a group of persons. http://hudoc.ecri.coe.int/ecri/document.asp?item=77European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, Report on Georgia,22 June 2001 CRI(2002) 2, par. 1-6.: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country-by-country/Georgia/GEO-CbC-II-2002-002-GEO.pdf8European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, Second Report onGeorgia, 30 June 2006 CRI(2007) 2, par. 2: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country-by-country/Georgia/GEO-CbC-III-2007-2-GEO.pdf9European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, Third Report onGeorgia, 28 April 2010 CRI(2010) 17, par. 4-6: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country-by-country/Georgia/GEO-CbC-IV-2010-017-ENG.pdf10Criminal Code of Georgia, 1999, article 142 (1).11supra 6, par. 12. 15.12Criminal Code of Georgia, 1999, article 142 1 (1).13supra 8. par. 8. 11.14supra 6. par. 19-20. 22-23.15supra 7. par. 31-32.16supra 8. par. 24.17supra 6. par. 24; supra 7. par. 30; supra 8. par. 27.18Appendix 3 to ECRI general policy recommendation #2: http://hudoc.ecri.coe.int/ecri/document.asp?item=219Id. principle 2.20Order of President of Georgia # 68, March 4 2003.21Order of President of Georgia # 639, August 8 2005.22Act of Government of Georgia # 348, May 8 2009.23Order of State Minister for Reintegration Issues # 14, July 3 2009. informationon members of the commission see at: http://www.smr.gov.ge/uploads/fi le/100510/TCI_AP_6.pdf24See: http://www.smr.gov.ge/uploads/fi le/shemtsknareblobis_angraishi_ge.pdf25supra 7. par. 105.26supra 7. par. 127.27supra 8. par. 29.28supra 8. page 51.29Order of the Minister of Education and Science # 411 “On approving statute ofthe – Zurab Zhvania school of public administration” legal entity of public law.August 18, 200530See: http://mes.gov.ge/content.php?id=951&lang=geo31supra 6. par. 41-44.32supra 7. par. 82.33supra 8. par. 94-97.34supra 2.35Nino Makhashvili, Lela Tsiskarishvili & Boris Drožđek, Door to the unknown: onlarge-scale public mental health interventions in post-confl ict zones – experiencesfrom Georgia, Journal Traumatology, in press.36Vamik Volkan, Bloodlines: from Ethnic Pride to Ethnic Terrorism, chapter II: fromvictim to victimizer, (1997) pp. 168-181.164

nino farsadaniSvilitrefikingis prevencia – saxelmwifoTa praqtika dasaqarTveloSesavaliTeTr monobad wodebuli trefikingisdanaSauli saerTaSoriso TanamegobrobiswinaSe mdgari metad seriozuliproblemaa, rac moiTxovs qmediTiRonisZiebebis gatarebas imisaTvis, ra-Ta aRmoifxvras trefikingis danaSaulisCamdenTa xelisSemwyobi mizezebi.swored amitom udidesi mniSvneloba eni-Weba trefikingis prevencias, romelsacukve mniSvnelovani adgili aqvs daTmobilisaerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebsada saxelmwifoTa Sida kanonmdeblobaSi.aRsaniSnavia, rom konvenciebi adgenenim standartebs, romelTa farglebSicunda imoqmedon monawile saxelmwifoebma,Tumca amasTan dakavSirebiT ibadebakiTxvebi: asruleben Tu ara qveynebisaerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebiT nakisrvaldebulebebs? an ramdenad efeqtianiatrefikingis prevenciisaTvis saerTaSorisoxelSekrulebebSi Camoyalibebulielementebis zedmiwevniT gaTvaliswineba?am da sxva msgavs kiTxvebze pasuxebimocemulia winamdebare naSromSi.naSromi Sedgeba Sesavlis, sami Tavisada daskvnisagan: pirveli Tavi mimoixilavstrefikingis prevenciasTan dakav-Sirebul saerTaSorisosamarTlebrivCar Cos, meore Tavi exeba trefikingisTavidan acilebis elementebs da mesameTavi eTmoba saxelmwifoTa Sida kanonmdeblobastrefikingis Tavidan acilebismiznebTan mimarTebiT. aRsaniSnavia,rom SeirCa trefikingTan brZolismixedviT pirvel kategoriaSi moqceulisaxelmwifoebi, radgan saqarTveloTavad aris am kategoriis qveyana da mas-Tan axlos mdgomi saxelmwifoebis kanonmdeblobisganxilva metad sainteresoa.daskvnaSi mocemulia naSromSi asaxuliinformaciis analizi.1. saerTaSorisosamarTlebrivi CarCotrefikingis prevencia ar aris mxoloderTi romelime saxelmwifos SidakanonmdeblobiT dasaregulirebeli sakiTxi,am danaSaulis winaaRmdeg efeqtianiRonisZiebebis gasatareblad aucilebeliamisi globalur doneze mowesrigeba.swored amis gamovlinebaa winamdebareTavSi mimoxiluli ori umniSvnelovanesisaerTaSoriso xelSekruleba. isinisrulad ayalibeben im RonisZiebaTa CamonaTvals,romelTa ganxorcielebacaucilebelia monawile saxelmwifoebisaTvissaerTo miznis misaRwevad. amxelSekrulebebs miekuTvneba: gaerosorganizebuli danaSaulis Sesaxeb konvenciisoqmi adamianebiT, gansakuTrebiTqalebiTa da bavSvebiT, vaWrobis prevenciis,aRkveTisa da dasjis Sesaxeb daevropis sabWos konvencia adamianebiTvaWrobis winaaRmdeg brZolis Sesaxeb.1.1. palermos oqmigaeros organizebuli danaSaulisSesaxeb konvenciis oqmi adamianebiT,gansakuTrebiT qalebiTa da bavSvebiT,vaWrobis prevenciis, aRkveTisa da dasjis Sesaxeb, sayovelTaod cnobili165

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010rogorc palermos oqmi, metad mniSv nelovanidokumentia trefikingis winaaRmdegsabrZolvelad da prevenciismiznebis gansaxorcieleblad saxelmwifoTamier. kerZod, oqmis me-9 muxlisSesabamisad, monawile saxelmwifoebmaunda Camoayalibon yovlismomcveli politika,programebi da mimarTon sxvazomebs trefikingis prevenciisaTvis daebrZolon am danaSauls. saxelmwifoebmaunda miiRon zomebi, raTa uzrunvelyonkvlevebis warmoeba, sainformacio damediakampaniebis organizeba, socia lu rida ekonomikuri mdgomareobis ga mosworeba trefikingis prevenciisa da mis wina -aRmdeg sabrZolvelad. gansakuTrebulyu rad Rebas ipyrobs is garemoeba, rompalermos oqmi aqcents akeTebs sa xelmwifouwyebebis, qveyanaSi moqmedi arasamTavroboorganizaciebisa da samoqalaqosazogadoebis TanamSromlobaze,trefikingis Tavidan acilebis mizniT.aseve monawile saxelmwifoebs evalebaTim garemoebaTa aRmofxvra, ris gamocadamianebi advilad ebmebian trefikingismaxeSi, raSic igulisxmeba siRaribe,Tanabar SesaZleblobaTa uqonlobada sxva. 1 aseve gasaTvaliswinebelia, romsaxelmwifoTa valdebulebaa organizebamTeli rigi treningebisa sasazRvrogamSvebi punqtebisa da sxva uwyebaTaTanamSromelTaTvis, raTa ukeT moxdesprevenciis miznebis Sesruleba. 21.2. evropis konvenciakidev erTi mniSvnelovani saerTa-Soriso xelSekruleba trefikingisTavidan asacileblad aris evropis sab-Wos konvencia adamianebiT vaWrobis winaaRmdegbrZolis Sesaxeb. aRsaniSnavia,rom evropis sabWos me-3 samitze wevrsaxelmwifoTa delegatebma mkacraddagmes trefikingi, rogorc adamianisfundamenturi uflebebis winaaRmdegmimarTuli safrTxe, rasac Sedegadmohyva is, rom msxverplTa warmoSobis,tranzitisa da daniSnulebis qveynebmagadawyvites, gamoeyenebinaT samarTlebrivadsavaldebulo dokumenti,raTa SeemuSavebinaT trefikingis sawinaaRmdegosaerTo politika. 3samitze evropis sabWos generalurmamdivanma, batonma jaglandma, yuradRebagaamaxvila evropis sabWos miermiRebul konvenciaze trefikingis winaaRmdegbrZolis Sesaxeb da aRniSna,rom es konvencia moicavs trefikingisyvela formas, iqneba igi nacionaluriTu transnacionaluri, organizebuldanaSaulTan dakavSirebuli Tu ara,qalebis, kacebisa da bavSvebis winaaRmdegmimarTuli, iseve, rogorc ara aqvsmniSvneloba eqsploataciis saxes. yvelazemniSvnelovani ki aris is, rom, konvenciisSesabamisad, trefikingis msxverpliswinaaRmdeg ar iwyeba sisxlissamarTlebrividevna. generaluri mdivnissurvilis Sesabamisad, evropuli gaer-Tianeba unda gaxdes am konvenciis partniori,radgan msxverplze orientirebulimidgoma aris erTaderTi efeqturigza am sakiTxTan sabrZolvelad. 4konvencia trefikingis prevenciismimarTulebiT avaldebulebs monawilesaxelmwifoebs, uzrunvelyon trefikingissakiTxebze momuSave yvela uwyebisSeTanxmebuli TanamSromloba, asevesazogadoebis informirebulobis donisamaRleba, im meTodebis danergva,romlebic orientirebulia adamianis uflebebis dacvasa da genderuliTa nasworobis uzrunvelyofaze. 5 saxelmwifoebmaunda miiRon sakanonmdebloda sxva Sesabamisi zomebi, raTa armoxdes komerciuli, satransporto gadamzidavikompaniebis mxridan trefikingisdanaSaulis CadenaSi monawileoba,aseve unda gauuqmdeT vizebi da qveyanaSiSesvlis ufleba CamoerTvaT pirebs,romlebic monawileoben trefikingisdanaSaulis CadenaSi. 6rogorc ukve aRiniSna, saerTaSorisosaxelSekrulebo CarCos kvaldakvalmniSvnelovania, aseve, im elementebismimoxilvac, romelTac arsebiTi mniSvnelobaeniWebaT trefikingis prevenciissaerTo miznis miRwevaSi. swored amaseTmoba winamdebare naSromis momdevnoTavi.166

n. farsadaniSvili, trefikingis prevencia – saxelmwifoTa praqtika da saqarTvelo2. trefikingis prevenciasaxelmwifom efeqtiani RonisZi ebebisgatareba rom SeZlos trefikingisprevenciis miznebis ukeT misaRwevad, isunda moqmedebdes garkveuli strategiisCarCoebSi, amisaTvis ki saukeTesogamosavalia zemoT ganxiluli orive konvenciiT dadgenili standartebis gaTvaliswineba,romlis mixedviTac Semdegelementebs unda mieqces jerovani yuradReba:7• potenciur msxverplTa daucvelobisSemcireba socialuri da ekonomikuriganviTarebis uzrunvelyofisgziT;• moTxovnis moxsna trefikirebulpirTa momsaxurebaze;• genderuli faqtoris upirobo gaTvaliswineba;• sazogadoebis ganaTleba/informirebulobis amaRleba;• sazRvris kontroli;• sajaro moxeleTa Soris korufciisTavidan acileba.winamdebare naSromSi ganxiluliamxolod ori maTgani, esenia: socialurekonomikurifonis gaumjobeseba dasazogadoebis informirebulobis amaRleba,radgan umTavresi roli trefikingisTavidan acilebis miznis miRwevaSiswored am or elements eniWeba.2.1 socialur-ekonomikuri fonisgaumjobesebaaravisTvis ar aris siaxle is faqti,rom trefikingi damaxasiaTebeliaekonomikuri krizisis kerebisaTvis.samxreT kavkasiis, centraluri da aRmosavleTevropis, postsabWouri siv rcis,samxreT-aRmosavleT aziis, CrdiloeTafrikisa da karibis zRvis auzis qveynebismoqalaqeebi bedis saZieblad ufromdidar saxelmwifoebSi miemgzavrebian. 8mniSvnelovania is garemoeba, rom evropuliTanamegobrobis Seqmnis SesaxebxelSekrulebis 63-e muxlis Tanaxmad, evrokavSirissabWos daevala, amsterdamisxelSekrulebis ZalaSi Sesvlidan xuTiwlis vadaSi miiRos imigraciis politikasTandakavSirebuli zomebi, romle -bic Seexeba: Semosvlisa da binadrobispirobebs, procedurul standartebswe vri qveynebis mier grZelvadiani vizebisada binadrobis nebarTvebis gacemasTandakavSirebiT, maT Soris, ojaxebisgaerTianebis mizniT da aralegalurimigraciasa da aralegalur binadrobas,aralegaluri rezidentebis repatriaciisCaTvliT. 92001 wels evropis komisiam miiRowinadadeba erT-erTi direqtivis Sesaxeb,romelic `anazRaurebadi dasaqmebisa daTviTdasaqmebis ekonomikuri saqmianobismizniT mesame qveynebis moqalaqeTaSemosvlisa da binadrobis pirobebsadgens~. 10rogorc zemoT aRiniSna, zogadi midgomisSesabamisad, mniSvnelovania moxdessaimigracio kanonmdeblobis liberalizacia,raTa Tavidan iqnes acilebulitrefikingis potenciur msxverplTaCa rTva am danaSaulebriv qselSi. Tumca,Tu odnav mainc gavaanalizebT, maSin gamova,rom kanonmdeblobis liberalizaciaerTi ukiduresobidan meoreSi gadagviyvans,kerZod: mxedvelobaSia misaRebitrefikingis msxverplTa umTavresi mimwodebelisaxelmwifoebisa da mosaxleobisraodenoba. dasawyisisaTvis aRebuliacentraluri da aRmosavleT evropa,sadac 20 saxelmwifoa Tavmoyrili sakmaoddidi raodenobis mosaxleobiT. TumxedvelobaSi iqneba miRebuli is faqti,rom am saxelmwifoebidan isedac gadadiansxva saxelmwifoebSi samuSaos saZebneladmoqalaqeebi da xdebian trefikingismsxverplni, maSin saimigracio kanonmdeblobisufro metad liberalizaciamSesaZloa mTlad Seuqcevadi procesebigamoiwvios da kidev ufro meti adamianiaRmoCndes dainteresebuli sxva qveyana-Si samuSaos saZebrad wasvliT. magaliTisaTvisaviRoT saberZneTi, sadac, miuxedavadimisa, rom evrokavSiris arawevrisaxelmwifoebis mosaxleobisaTvis sakmaodmkacri wesebi moqmedebs da samuSaoda binadrobis mowmobis gareSe saber-ZneTSi muSaoba ukanonod iTvleba, rac,Tavis mxriv, zrdis trefikingSi pirTa167

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010CaTrevis SesaZleblobas, mainc saqarTvelosmTliani samigracio mosaxleobisricxvi gaormagda 1998-2007 wlebSi,vidre iyo aqamde. 11 gasaTvaliswinebelia,rom Tu mosaxleobis amxela nawiliar uSindeba im safrTxeebs, rac ukav-Sirdeba sazRvargareT gamgzavrebas damuSaobas, maSin, mimosvlis gamartivebisSemTxvevaSi, nakadi kidev ufro moculobiTigaxdeba, Sedegi ki, marTlac,samwuxaro iqneba, radgan daniSnulebisqveyanaSi aRar darCeba Tavisufali samuSaoadgilebi migrantebisTvis, rac,Tavis mxriv, gamoiwvevs trefikingisqselis axali gziT ganviTarebas, ker-Zod, trefikiorebi ecdebian xalxisdarwmunebas, rom maT hyavT nacnobebi,romlebic inaxaven adgilebs dasaqmebismsurvelTaTvis da Sesabamisi sazRaurisgadaxdis Semdeg isini legalur samsaxurebSidaiwyeben muSaobas. yovelive eski ar aRmofxvris trefikings, aramedganviTarebis axal fazaSi gadaiyvans mas,swored amitom aris upriani ufro metiZalisxmevis mimarTva trefikingis msxverplTaZiriTad momwodebel saxelmwifoTaSigniT meti samuSao adgilebisSeqmnaze da infrastruqturis ganvi-Tarebaze. rac Seexeba sazogadoebisinformirebasTan dakavSirebul politikas,saxelmwifoTa kanonmdeblobisSesabamisad, is momdevno TavSi iqnebaganxiluli.3. saxelmwifoTa Sida kanonmdeblobatrefikingis prevencia metad mniSvnelovanamocanad rCeba msoflio TanamegobrobiswinaSe da TiTqmis yvelaqveyana cdilobs, gaataros garkveuliRonisZiebebi am danaSaulis aRmosafxvrelad.amdenad, sakmaod Znelia trefikingisprevenciasTan dakavSirebuliyvela qveynis Sida sakanonmdeblo normaTamimoxilva da radganac msoflioSiqveynebi iyofian trefikingis winaaRmdegbrZolis mixedviT pirvel, meore damesame kategoriis qveynebad, 12 uprianiiqneba, Tu yuradReba gamaxvildeba imsaxelmwifoebze, romlebic saqarTvelosmsgavsad arian pirveli kategoriisqveynebis ricxvSi. es sainteresoa immxrivac, rom moxdes maTi gamocdilebisgaTvaliswineba da CvenTan arsebulinormebis srulyofa.3.1 CexeTis respublikapirveli saxelmwifo, romelzec Se-Cerd a arCevani, aris CexeTis respublika,radganac trefikingis prevenciisstrategiis ganviTarebis amosavali wertili am qveyanaSi aris mravalmxriviTeoriuli da praqtikuli codnis erTianoba,trefikingis miznebsa da ukve kargadCamoyalibebuli gegmebis gaTvaliswinebasTanerTad. swored amitom ipyrobsyuradRebas CexeTis respublikisstrategia.CexeTis respublikis trefikingiswinaaRmdeg brZolis 2008-2011 wle bis,erovnuli gegmis mixedviT, prevenciisaTvisgansaxorcielebel Ronis Zi e-bebSi Sedis: 13• im garemoebaTa aRmofxvra, rac iwvevspirTa Cabmas trefikingSi (diskriminacia,socialuri foni);• institutebis, organizaciebis, pir-Ta jgufebis momzadebulobis donisamaRleba trefikingTan dakavSirebuliproblemebis gadasaWrelad.• reviqtimizaciis Tavidan acileba;• sasazRvro kontrolis efeqtiani ganxorcieleba,raTa adreul etapzemoxdes trefikingis msxverplTa anpotenciur msxverplTa identificireba;• trefikingTan dakavSirebuli yvelariskis Sesaxeb cnobebis gavrceleba.aRniSnuli gegmis mixedviT, trefikingisprevencia aRiarebulia umTavresprioritetad. radganac samoqmedo gegmasaqvs garkveuli msgavsebebi saqarTvelossamoqmedo gegmasTan trefikingiswinaaRmdeg sabrZolvelad, yuradRebagamaxvilebuli iqneba ZiriTadad gansxvavebebsada im midgomaze, rac sasurvelia,rom, CexeTis respublikis msgavsad,saqarTveloSic damkvidrdes. kerZod,CexeTis respublikis samoqmedo gegmis168

n. farsadaniSvili, trefikingis prevencia – saxelmwifoTa praqtika da saqarTvelomixedviT, dadgenilia TanamSromlobada prevenciasTan dakavSirebul saki -Txebze erToblivi muSaoba wyaro sa xelmwifoebTan,iseve rogorc adgilobrivimmarTvelobis organoebi undaaqcevdnen jerovan yuradRebas bavSvebismier Tavisufali drois xarjvas. 14 mniSvnelovaniais garemoeba, rom CexeTisrespublika zrunavs agreTve iseTi bavSvebisada axalgazrdebis informirebulobazetrefikingis Sesaxeb, romelTacar gaaCniaT sakmarisi pirobebi, mii-Ron ganaTleba, raTa, magaliTad, quCisbavSvebis, mitovebuli bavSvebis trefikingSiCaTreva Tavidan iqnes acilebuli.es ki miiRweva saTanado filmebisCvenebiT da regionaluri proeqtebisorganizebiT. 15 kidev erTi faqtori, risgamoc sainteresoa CexeTis respublikissamoqmedo gegma, aris klientebis mieriZulebiT prostituciaSi Cabmuli adamianebisganmomsaxurebis miRebaze uarisTqma da cxeli xazis meSveobiT trefikingisarsebobaze eWvis SemTxvevaSiinformaciis miwodeba anonimurobisdacviT. 16 garda imisa, rom CexeTis respublikaSidamqiraveblebi kargad ari aninformirebulebi daqiravebulTa samuSaouflebebis Sesaxeb, raTa maqsimaluradSemcirdes adamianis uflebaTadarRvevebi, saxelmwifo mainc zrunavse.w. `uxilavi eqspluataciis~ gamovlenaze,samuSao bazarze mudmivi dakvirvebiTada administraciuli gamoZiebebisganxorcielebiT. 17yovelive zemoTqmulidan gamomdinare,sasurvelia, saqarTveloSic gaewioskontroli imas, Tu rogor atarebenbavSvebi Tavisufal dros, radgan cudwreSi moxvedrili bavSvi garkveulisaf rTxis Semqmnelia sazogadoebisa da,Sesabamisad, saxelmwifosaTvis. sworedamitom kontroli metad mniSvnelovania,radgan is, Tavis mxriv, moaxdens potenciurdamnaSaveTa Camoyalibebis prevencias,aseve mniSvnelovania samuSao adgilebzemudmivi dakvirveba, raTa ukeTganxorcieldes trefikingis prevenciisadmimimarTuli politikis efeqtianiganxorcieleba, radgan es xels SeuwyobsSesaZlo safrTxeebis droul gamovlenas.3.2 Sveicariamorigi qveyana, romelic trefikingisprevenciis mxriv ipyrobs yuradRebaspirvel kategoriaSi moxvedril saxelmwifoTagan,aris Sveicaria. aRsaniSnavia,rom am qveyanas sxvebisagan er-Ti friad saintereso ram gamoarCevs,kerZod, Sveicaria zrunavs ara martosakuTari teritoriis farglebSi trefikingisprevenciis RonisZiebebis ganxorcielebaze,aramed aqtiurad exmarebatrefikingis msxverplTa warmo Sobisqveynebs sazogadoebis metad informirebulobisada msxverplad gaxdomis prevenciisuzrunvelsayofad. SesabamisiRonisZiebebis gatarebaze angariSvaldebuliafederaluri policiis samsaxurismier 2003 wels dafuZnebuliSveicariis adamianTa trefikingisa damigrantTa kontrabandis sakoordinacioganyofileba da sagareo saqmeTa federaluridepartamenti. 18 2003 wlidanmoyolebuli, departamenti cdilobs,daexmaros ufro met saxelmwifos trefikingisprevenciis sakiTxebSi da yovelwliurad2-3 milioni Sveicariulifranki ixarjeba sxva saxelmwifoTadasaxmareblad. departamenti daexmaraSemdeg saxelmwifoebs: 19ruseTis federacia (prevencia damsxverplTa dacva) – Sveicariis ganvi-Tarebisa da TanmSromlobis saagentomxars uWers sxvadasxva proeqts, maTSorisaa: prevenciis RonisZiebebi vizasTandakavSirebiT Sveicariis sakonsuloSi,migraciis saerTaSoriso organizaciisreabilitaciis centri moskovSidabrunebul msxverplTaTvis, ufasocxeli xazi Sveicariasa da ruseTSi rusuladmolaparake mosaxleobisTvis,romelsac daxmareba sWirdeba.brazilia – proeqti iTvaliswinebserovnuli strategiis ganviTarebas trefikingisada migrantTa kontrabandiswinaaRmdeg sabrZolvelad da msxverplTareintegraciis xelSewyobas.169

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010dominikis respublika – Sveicariamxars uWers prevenciisa da msxverplTareintegraciis proeqtebs, romlebicorientirebulia qalebze da romelebicxorcieldeba saxelmwifo da arasamTavroboseqtorebis mier.nigeria – erovnuli sakoordinaciobiuros daxmareba trefikingis winaaRmdegsabrZolvelad, aseve erovnuli samoqmedogegmis SemuSaveba da sxvadasxvaRonisZiebis dafinanseba.gansakuTrebul yuradRebas ipyrobsSveicariaSi kabares mocekvaveebzezrunva, maT garSemo ganviTarebulimo v lenebis mudmivi monitoringi da informirebulobisdonis amaRleba. trefikingisprevenciidan gamomdinare, kabaresmocekvaveebs sTxoven binadrobisuflebis damadasturebeli dokumentiswardgenas. 20SveicariaSi darwmunebulebi arian,rom trefikingis prevencia ufro efeqtianiiqneba im SemTxvevaSi, Tu ZalisxmevawarimarTeba warmoSobis qveynebis daxmarebiskenda saxelmwifo politikisprioritetad asaxeleben trefikingisprevenciisadmi mimarTul RonisZiebebsqveynis SigniT da, gansakuTrebiT, sazRvargareT.213.3. saqarTvelosaqarTvelos prezidentis 2009 wlis20 ianvris 46(e) gankargulebiT damtkicebulisaxelmwifo gegma trefikingiswinaaRmdeg brZolis Sesaxeb agebulia,ZiriTadad, sami mimarTulebiT: 22a) trefikingis prevencia, b) trefikingismsxverplTa dacva, g) trefikingis dana-Saulis CamdenTa winaaRmdeg sisxlissamarTlebrividevnis dawyeba.vinaidan winamdebare naSromi agebuliatrefikingis danaSaulis prevenciaze,danarCeni ori sakiTxi ar iqnebaganxiluli.satelevizio sivrce2009-2010 wlebSi, samoqmedo gegmisSesabamisad, prioritetia sazogadoebisinformirebulobis donis amaRleba da ammizniT sainformacio kampaniis dawyeba,raSic Sedis videoklipebisa da Tematuriradio- Tu satelevizio programebismomzadeba. am yvelafris ganxorcielebazepasuxismgebelia sakoordinaciosa bWo da saqarTvelos sazogadoebrivimauwyebeli. imis dasturi, rom saxelmwifomgaatara garkveuli RonisZiebebitrefikingis Sesaxeb informirebulobisdonis asamaRleblad, aris sareklamoklipis gaSveba sazogadoebrivima uwyeblis eTerSi da specialuri gadacemismomzadeba trefikingis yvelaaspeqtis Sesaxeb sasaubrod; ganaTlebisada mecnierebis saministrom, skolismoswavleebis monawileobiT, moamzadavideoklipi saxelwodebiT; `ar gacvaloTavisufleba monobaze~; migraciissaerTaSoriso organizaciam trefikingismsxverplTa dacvisa da daxmarebisfondTan erTad moamzada sateleviziodanamati trefikingis prevenciisa damasTan brZolis Sesaxeb; gazafxulzesazogadoebrivi mauwyeblis eTerSi yovelkvireuliprogramis – `cxovrebamSve nieria~ – meSveobiT gavida gadacematrefikingis Sesaxeb.magram unda aRiniSnos, rom mxolodreklamis ramdenjerme gaSveba eTerSi daerTjeradi gadacemis momzadeba maincdamaincefeqtiani ver iqneba, im ubralomizezis gamo, rom trefikingis danaSaulisTavidan acilebisadmi miZRvniliRonisZiebebi unda atarebdes sistematurxasiaTs, unda moxdes im informaciissajarod gavrceleba, rom trefikingisdanaSaulis CadenaSi damnaSave piridaisaja, raTa Tavidan iqnes acilebulisazogadoebaSi dausjelobis sindromisgavrceleba da trefikingis msxverplTgauCndeT imis gancda, rom, Tu iTanam-Sromleben saxelmwifos Sesabamis struqturebTan,ukeT iqnebian daculni dadamnaSaveTa winaaRmdeg ganxorcieldebamTeli rigi RonisZiebebisa. saxelmwifomunda daareguliros aseve sxvadasxvasatelevizio arxze trefikingis prevenciisadmimiZRvnili reklamebis gaSvebissakiTxebi, kerZod, rogorc migraciissaerTaSoriso organizaciidan miRe-170

n. farsadaniSvili, trefikingis prevencia – saxelmwifoTa praqtika da saqarTvelobuli monacemebiT irkveva, 48-wamianireklamis gaSveba samauwyeblo kompania`rusTavi 2~-is eTerSi erTi Tvis ganmavlobaSijdeba 3018,70 aSS-is dolari,xolo `imedis~ arxze ori Tvis ganmavlobaSi– 3106,30 aSS-is dolari da, esecimitom, rom am arxebma 40%-iani SeRavaTigaswies. 23 rogorc irkveva, reklamis gan-Tavseba sxvadasxva arxze sakmaod Zvirisiamovnebaa, arada, Tu trefikingis prevenciasaxelmwifos politikis prioritetulmimarTulebad iTvleba, am sakiTxsmeti yuradReba unda daeTmos.rac Seexeba sainformacio beWdviTimasalis momzadebasa da gavrcelebas saqarTvelossaxelmwifo sazRvarsa datrefikingis sxva potenciuri riskismqone regionebSi, unda aRiniSnos, romam mimarTulebiT sakmaod sainteresoram gakeTda saqarTveloSi moqmedi arasamTavroboorganizaciebis mier, ker-Zod, momzadda specialuri konvertebi,romlebzec miTiTebuli iyo informaciasaqarTveloSi trefikingis winaaRmdegbrZolis kampaniaSi CarTuli Sesabamisistruqturebis Sesaxeb. es konvertebida urigdaT turistul saagentoebs, ra-Ta sazRvargareT wasvlis msurvelTaTvisswored am konvertebSi CaedoT bileTebi.24 esec mniSvnelovnad uwyobsxels sazogadoebis informirebulobisdonis amaRlebas. Tumca unda aRiniSnos,rom umjobesi iqneba, aseT konvertebzedatanili iyos aseve informacia im uwyebebisSesaxeb, romlebic axorcielebenmsgavs saqmianobas im qveynebSi, sadacmiemgzavreba esa Tu is piri. samwuxaroa,rom yvela turistul saagentos ar aqvsmsgavsi konvertebi miwodebuli.saqarTvelos 2009-2010 wlebis samoqmedogegmis Sesabamisad, aseve gaTvaliswinebuliaSemdegi RonisZiebebis gatareba:• umaRlesi da profesiuli ganaTlebisdawesebulebebSi sajaro diskusiebisgamarTva trefikingis Temaze.• cxeli xazis popularizacia trefikingisprevenciisa da masTan br-ZolisaTvis.• Sesabamis uwyebaTa vebgverdebze gan-Tavsebuli informaciis ganaxleba.• saqarTvelos ganaTlebisa da mecnierebissaministros saganmanaTlebloprogramebis ganviTareba dasrulyofa: arsebuli saganmanaTleblostandartebis daxvewa, samodelosaCvenebeli gakveTilebis Catareba,saganmanaTleblo programebis momzadeba-danergvamzrunvelobas moklebulda obol bavSvTa saxlebsa daTavSesafrebSi.CamoTvlil RonisZiebaTa kval dakvalunda moxdes trefikingis Tavidanacilebisaken mimarTuli muSaobis ufroaqtiur fazaSi gadasvla, rac gulisxmobstrefikingisadmi miZRvnili konferenciebisada konkursebis organizebas,raTa moswavleebma miiRon ara martoTeoriuli codna, aramed CamouyalibdeTpraqtikuli unar-Cvevebi, raTa samomavlodukeT SeZlon realobis gaanalizebada trefikingis msxverplad gaxdomisSemTxvevebis Tavidan acileba.amasTan dakavSirebiT, unda aRiniSnos,rom saqarTvelos axalgazrda iuristTaasociaciis TaosnobiT, 2004-2009 wlebSiganxorcielda proeqti `ara – trefikings~,romlis farglebSic skolis moswavleTaTvisCatarda trefikingisadmimiZRvnili konferencia, sadac saprizoadgilebze gasuli bavSvebi fasianisaCuqrebiT dajildovdnen. 25 sayurad-Reboa da mniSvnelovania, rom aseTisaxis konkursebma sistematuri xasiaTimiiRon, gansakuTrebiT iseT pirobebSi,rodesac skolis moswavleTa umravlesobasar aqvs informacia trefikingisSesaxeb. am mxriv sainteresoa is faqti,rom, Sveicariis dafinansebiT, migraciissaerTaSoriso organizaciam, ganaTlebissaministrosTan erTad, daamuSavada dasabeWdad moamzada bukleti trefikingTandakavSirebiT saxelwodebiT:`cnobari mSobelTaTvis~, romelicdaurigdebaT skolis moswavleebs.garda imisa, rom gaviareT konsultaciebiam sferoSi moRvawe sxvadasxvaspecialistTan, CavatareT kvl-171

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010eva, romelic gaTvlili iyo trefikingispotenciur msxverplTa sxvadasxvaasakobriv jgufze, maT Soris skolismoswavleebzec. gamoyenebul iqna kiTxvari,Tumca sainteresoa is faqti, romgamokiTxulTa umravlesobam imedismomcemipasuxi gasca kiTxvarSi mocemulkiTxvebs, kerZod miuTiTes, rom TavsSeikavebdnen ucxo pirisaTvis saidentifikaciodokumentaciis gadacemisagan,ucxo enaze Sesrulebul kontraqtzexelis mowerisagan, im SemTxvevaSic ki,Tu kontraqtis yvela piroba iqnebodawinaswar SeTanxmebuli. magram es imedismomcemiSedegebi gabaTilda, rodesacigive kiTxvebi daesvaT pirebs im adamianebismxridan, visac isini endobodnenda, samwuxarod, absoluturma umravlesobammiuTiTa, rom, ra Tqma unda, da-Tanxmdebodnen usityvod, radgan axlobeliadamiani sTavazobdaT dasaqmebas ansazRvarze gadayvanas. rac yvelaze mniSvnelovaniaam SemTxvevaSi, aris is, romgamokiTxulTa umravlesobas an saerTodar aqvs informacia trefikingis Sesaxeb,an aqvs, magram arasakmarisi da gamoTqvamssurvils, meti gaigos trefikingisSesaxeb. cxadia, winamdebare naSromi arisaxavs miznad undoblobis propagandas,magram mniSvnelovania imis xazgasma, romumjobesia, sazogadoebam gaacnobieros,rom zomiereba saWiroa yvelaferSi damaT Soris ndobaSic. miT umetes, gasaTvaliswinebeliais faqti, rom mcirericxovanimosaxleobiT gamorCeulisaqarTvelosTvis Zalian bevrs niSnavsTundac erTi moqalaqis gadarCena damisi daxsna trefikingis borkilebisagan.amdenad, umjobesi iqneba, Tu moxdebasxva saxelmwifoTa gamocdilebis ga-T valiswineba da arsebuli standartebisdaxvewa; mniSvnelovania aseve, romsaxelmwifom Tavad izrunos moqalaqeTagarkveuli nawilis dasaqmebaze mainc.am mxriv kargi iqneba, Tu moxdeba `worldvision”-is praqtikis gaTvaliswineba. amorganizaciis daxmarebiT moxda yvelazemoTxovnadi profesiebis Seswavla datrefikingis potenciur msxverplTaTvisSesabamisi saswavlo programebis Se-Tavazeba, aseve Seqmnili produqciis realizeba.es ki, Tavis mxriv, xels uwyobsqveyanaSi socialur-ekonomikuri fonisgaumjobesebas da ufro meti moqalaqismier sakuTari adgilis povnas TavissaveqveyanaSi, sazRvargareT wasvlis nacvlad.(naSromSi ganxiluli informaciissqematuri garCeva ix. danarTSi).daskvnarogorc naSromSi iqna ganxiluli,trefikingis prevenciis mizniT gansaxorcielebeliRonisZiebebi saerTaSorisosamarTliTa da saxelmwifoTa SidakanonmdeblobiT zustad aris gawerili,magram garkveul problemebTan arisdakavSirebuli maTi praqticireba, ker-Zod: Sesabamisi Tanxebis ararsebobisada kanonmdeblobiT mowesrigebulobisnaklebobis gamo ver xerxdeba sakmarisiraodenobis sareklamo klipebisdamzadeba da eTerSi ganTavseba, xolorac Seexeba skolebSi konkretuligakveTilebis Catarebas trefikingisdanaSaulis winaaRmdeg sabrZolvelad,rogorc zemoTac iqna aRniSnuli, araris sakmarisi da sasurvelia moxdesSejibrebebis popularizacia imisaTvis,raTa sazogadoeba metad gaerkvestrefikingTan dakavSirebul aucilebelinformaciaSi. aseve arsebiTi mniSvnelobaaqvs sxva saxelmwifoTa praqtikisgaTvaliswinebas, gansakuTrebiTki Sveicariis midgomisas trefikingisprevenciasTan dakavSirebiT, radganmas, Tumca sxva saxelmwifoTa daxmarebiskuTxiT, sakmaod kargi sistema aqvsSemuSavebuli, CexeTis respublikis msgavsad,Tavis Sida kanonmdeblobasacmoqnilad iyenebs trefikingis prevenciisuzrunvelsayofad. gansakuTrebuliaRniSvnis Rirsia misi Sesabamisi uwyebebiswarmomadgenelTa mier ganxorcielebulimudmivi monitoringi imsamsaxurebsa Tu dasaqmebul pirebze,romlebic, savaraudod, Cabmulni ariantrefikingSi an potenciur msxverpladiTvlebian, rac, Tavis mxriv, yvelazeukeT emsaxureba trefikingis prevenciis172

n. farsadaniSvili, trefikingis prevencia – saxelmwifoTa praqtika da saqarTvelomiznebs, rameTu safrTxis dasawyisSiveaRmoCena seriozuli darRvevebisa dadanaSaulebis Cadenis Tavidan acilebissaukeTeso saSualebaa.1Protocol to prevent, suppress and punish traffi cking in persons, especially womenand children, supplementing the united nations convention against transnationalorganized crime, me-9 muxli.2iqve, me-10 muxli.3saxelmZRvanelo parlamentarebisaTvis, `evropis sabWos konvencia adamianebiTvaWrobis winaaRmdeg brZolis Sesaxeb”, gv. 15-16, xelmisawvdomia:.4EU Ministerial Conference Towards Global EU Action against Traffi cking in HumanBeings The Third EU Anti Traffi cking Day 19 – 20 October 2009, ConferenceReport, Thorbjørn JAGLAND, Secretary-General, Council of Europe, gv. 8-9.5evropis sabWos konvencia adamianebiT vaWrobis winaaRmdeg brZolisSesaxeb, me-5 muxli.6iqve, me-7 muxli.7saswavlo masala mosamarTleTa da prokurorTaTvis trefikingTanbrZo lis Sesaxeb, ICMPD, 2006, (SemdgomSi – saswavlo masala), gv. 92-93.8genderul terminTa mokle leqsikoni = Краткий словарь гендерныхтерминов / merkvilaZe ia; [red.: naira popiaSvili; Targmani hamlet zukakiSvilisa],kavkas. saxli, Tb., 2003, gv. 112.9saswavlo masala, gv. 93, ix. me-7 sqolio.10iqve, gv. 92-93.11samigracio informaciuli saxelmZRvanelo – saberZneTi, gamocemuliaevrokavSiris finansuri mxardaWeriT, ICMPD, ILO, OSCE, gv., 7.12aRsaniSnavia, rom pirvel kalaTaSi xvdebian qveynebi, romelTamTa v robebi srulad asruleben trefikingis msxverplTa dacvisaqts, meoreSi – saxelmwifoebi, romelTa mTavrobebi srulad veraxorcieleben standartebs, magram mniSnelovan nabijebs dgamen amisuzrunvelsayofad da mesameSi – qveynebi, romelTa mTavrobebi arcasruleben standartebs da arc cdiloben gaataron RonisZiebebi maTSesasruleblad. damatebiTi informaciisTvis ixileT: Tier Placements,OFFICE TO MONITOR AND COMBAT TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS.Traffi cking in Persons Report 2009, Offi ce to Monitor and Combat Traffi cking inPersons, xelmisawvdomia: .13Czech Republic, National Strategy to Combat Traffi cking in Human Beings (2008-2011), Prevention Objectives, xelmisawvdomia: < http://aplikace.mvcr.cz>.14iqve, The priority for the upcoming period.15iqve.16iqve.17iqve.18Human Traffi cking – A Modern Form of Slavery, A Fact Sheet by the SwissCoordination Unit against the Traffi cking in Persons and Smuggling of Migrants(KSMM) November 2007, gv. 3, xelmisawvdomia: < http://www.childtraffi cking.com>.19Combating Human Traffi cking in Switzerland Progress, Situation, Future Priorities,Report by the KSMM Secretariat, gv. 18-19, xelmisawvdomia: < http://www.ksmm.admin.ch> 2010 wlis 20 Tebervlis mdgomareobiT.20iqve, gv. 19.21iqve, gv. 40.22adamianiT vaWrobis (trefikingis) winaaRmdeg brZolis 2009-2010 wlebissamoqmedo gegma, damtkicebulia saqarTvelos prezident mixeil saakaSvilis2009 wlis 20 ianvris 46 gankargulebiT.23migraciis saerTaSoriso organizaciis Tbilisis ofisidan miRebuliinformacia.24interviu xaTuna WiTanavasTan, proeqtis koordinatori, saqarTvelosaxalgazrda iuristTa asociacia.25iqve.173

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010danarTimowesrigebasaerTaSoriso samarTaliSida kanonmdeblobapalermos oqmievropis sabWos konvenciasamoqmedo gegmakanoni trefikingiswinaaRmdeg brZolis Sesaxebprevenciis elementebisocialur-ekonomikurifonis gaumjobesebamoTxovnis moxsnatrefikirebul pirTamomsaxurebazegenderuli faqtorisupirobo gaTvaliswinebasazogadoebis ganaTleba,informirebasazRvris kontrolikorufciis Tavidan acilebasaqarTvelosamTavrobo seqtoriganaTlebis saministromgamouSva broSura, IOM-Tan erTad, SveicariisdafinansebiTtrefikingis msxverplTa,dazaralebulTa dacvisada daxmarebis saxelmwifofondi (8 msxvepli, 1=2000)sareklamo klipi `ar gacvaloTavisufleba monobaze~3,018.70, 3, 106. 30 – aSSgadacema `cxovrebamSvenieria~igegmeba skolebSigakveTilebis Catareba174

n. farsadaniSvili, trefikingis prevencia – saxelmwifoTa praqtika da saqarTvelosaqarTveloarasamTavrobo seqtorisaias TaosnobiT Catardakonferencia bavSvebisaTvistrefikingTan dakavSirebiTdaibeWda bukletebida broSurebi, Catardakoncertebi da darigdasxvadasxva aqsesuarituristul saagentoebsdaurigdaT konvertebisasurvelia mieTiTosim qveyanaSi Sesabamisisamsaxurebis sakontaqtoinformacia, sadacmiemgzavreba piri`world vision~-is daxmarebiT moxdayvelaze moTxovnadi profesiebisSeswavla da trefikingis potenciurmsxverplTaTvis Sesabamisi saswavloprogramebis SeTavazeba, aseveSeqmnili produqciis realizebakvlevandobaze damyarebuligadawyvetilebainformirebulobisnaklebobasaqarTvelosasurvelia gakeTdeswamaxalisebelikonferenciebisareklamo bazrisxelmisawvdomoba yvela arxzesasamarTlo procesebzeinformaciis eTerSi gaSvebaim qveynis Sesabamisisamsaxurebis sakontaqtoinformacia, sadacmiemgzavreba piriSveicariis praqtika, samuSaoadgilebis monitoringi, uxilavisafrTxeebis gamovlenis mizanibavSvebis mierTavisufali droisxarjvaze monitoringi,CexeTis magaliTi175

NINO PARSADANISHVILITRAFFICKING PREVENTION – THE WORLD PRACTICE AND GEORGIAINTRODUCTIONTraffi cking, widely known as white slavery,is a very serious challenge for the internationalcommunity. Effective measures areneeded to eradicate the causes of this kindof crime and should be aimed at discouragingpotential offenders and trapping as manypeople as possible. Traffi cking prevention is ahighly signifi cant issue embedded in many internationalinstruments and domestic legislations.It is noteworthy that conventions establishthe standards that should be observed bythe states party to the conventions, however,it is important to discern whether the statesfulfi ll their obligations to each particular convention.Additionally, elements established ininternational mechanisms must be scrutinizedfor their effectiveness in preventing traffi cking.This paper aims to examine these conditions.The fi rst chapter of this paper examinesthe international legal framework for traffi ckingprevention; the second chapter is about variouselements for traffi cking prevention; and thethird chapter observes domestic legislation ofdifferent nations with regard to traffi cking prevention.It should be mentioned that the statesin the fi rst basket regarding anti-traffi cking activityhave been selected. As Georgia is oneof those states, it will be interesting to considerthe national legislations of states in similar positions..The conclusion provides analysis ofthe information presented in this paper.1. INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORKTraffi cking prevention is not an issue thatshould be regulated only by the legislation ofa single state. In order to execute effectivemeasures against this offense, the issue mustbe regulated at the global level. Two importantinternational treaties considered in this chapterprovide a complete list of actions necessary tobe implemented by the states for the sake ofa common goal. These treaties are: the protocolto prevent, suppress and punish traffi ckingin persons, especially women and children,supplementing the United Nations conventionagainst transnational organized crime; andthe Council of Europe Convention on Actionagainst Traffi cking in Human Beings.1.1. Palermo ProtocolThe protocol to prevent, suppress andpunish traffi cking in persons, especially womenand children, supplementing the UnitedNations convention against transnational organizedcrime, is widely known as the PalermoProtocol, which is a very important anti-trafficking document which advances preventionobjectives that should be implemented by thestates. Namely, according to article 19, Stateparties shall establish comprehensive policies,programmes and other measures to preventand combat traffi cking in persons. Stateparties shall endeavor to undertake measuressuch as research, information and mass mediacampaigns, in addition to social and economicinitiatives, to prevent and combat the trafficking of persons. Special attention shouldbe given to the emphasis on the importanceof cooperation between the state agencies,non-governmental organizations and civil societyin the fi eld of traffi cking prevention inthe Palermo Protocol. The State parties arealso obliged to alleviate the factors that makepersons vulnerable to traffi cking, such as pov-176

N. PARSADANISHVILI,TRAFFICKING PREVENTION – THE WORLD PRACTICE AND GEORGIAerty, lack of equal opportunities etc. 1 It is alsonoteworthy that states are obliged to organizevarious trainings for border offi cers at crossingpoints and other relevant offi cials for thepurposes of better prevention of traffi cking inpersons. 21.2. European ConventionThe Council of Europe Convention onAction against Traffi cking in Human Beingsis another important international instrumentin combating the traffi cking of persons. It isremarkable that at the 3 rd Summit of memberstates, delegates strictly condemned the trafficking in human beings, as a threat to fundamentalhuman rights. A result of the summitwas that states of origin, transit and destinationof traffi cking victims decided to use thelegally binding document to elaborate a commonpolicy against traffi cking. 3In his speech at the Conference, SecretaryGeneral of the Council of Europe, ThorbjornJagland, placed special emphasis on theConvention adopted by the Council of Europeon Action against Traffi cking in Human Beings,and mentioned that the Convention coveredall forms of traffi cking, against women, menand children, both national and transnational,connected to organized crime or not, as wellas all forms of exploitation. The most importantissue, however, is the fact that the trafficking victim shall not be subjected to criminalprosecution. At the request of the SecretaryGeneral, the European community shall becomea partner to this Convention, as the victim-orientedapproach is the only effective wayto fi ght traffi cking. 4According to the Convention, the Stateparties are obliged to establish cooperationbetween the various bodies responsible fortraffi cking issues. They must also raise publicawareness, promote a Human Rights-basedapproach and secure gender equality. 5 Thestates shall adopt legislative and other measuresto prevent commercial carriers frombeing used as a means for traffi cking. Thelegislation shall also permit the denial of entryor revocation of visas of persons implicated inthe commission of traffi cking offences. 6As previously mentioned, in addition to theinternational treaty framework, the elementssignifi cant in achieving a common goal of trafficking prevention should also be reviewed.The following chapter elaborates on these elements.2. TRAFFICKING PREVENTIONIn order to take effective measures againsttraffi cking the state shall act within a certainstrategy framework; and the best outcome canbe achieved through observing the standardsestablished under the two conventions aforementioned.According to those Conventions,the following elements should be taken intoaccount 7 :• Reduction of vulnerability of potential victimsthrough social and economic development;• Discouraging the demand of the serviceof persons subjected to traffi cking;• Unconditional observance of gender mainstreaming;• Raising public education/awareness;• Border control;• Prevention of corruption among civil servants.This paper examines two elements: theimprovement of the social-economic backgroundand raising public awareness, as thesetwo elements play major roles in traffi ckingprevention.2.1. Improvement of the social-economicbackgroundIt is widely acknowledged that traffi ckingis a phenomenon that occurs mostly inplaces suffering economic crisis. Residents ofthe Post-Soviet sphere, the South Caucasus,Central and Eastern Europe, , South-EastAsia, North Africa and the Caribbean, leavetheir countries for richer ones to seek a betterfortune. 8Article 63 of the founding Treaty of theEuropean Community imposed the obligationto the Council of the European Union to adoptmeasures on the immigration policy within5 years after enactment of the Amsterdam177

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010Treaty. These measures imply the conditionsof entry and residence, procedural standardson issuing visas and residence permits by themember states, including family reintegration,and issues relating to illegal immigration andillegal residency, including repatriation of illegalresidents. 9In 2001, the European Commission adopteda proposal on one of the directiveswhich “establishes the conditions of entry andresidence of citizens of third countries for thepurpose of economic activity through paid employmentor self-employment”. 10As it was previously mentioned, accordingto the general approach, there is a need forliberalization of the immigration law in order toprevent potential victims of traffi cking to beinvolved with this criminal network. However,if we even make a superfi cial analysis, it willbecome evident that liberalization of legislationwill take us from one extreme to another;namely, the number of major donor countries oftraffi cking victims should be taken into accountwith the number of the population. Initially,consideration has been given to the centraland eastern European countries, which possessa considerable number of inhabitants. Wemust remember that citizens from these statesleave to other countries for labour purposesand become victims of traffi cking. Therefore,liberalizing immigration laws more may lay theground to an irreversible process where moreand more people may become labour-seekersin foreign countries. For example, in Greecethere are rather strict rules for non-residentsof EU countries. Working without a labor andresidence permit in Greece is illegal (which isan encouraging factor for people involved intraffi cking). Nevertheless, the total number ofimmigrants from Georgia to Greece doubled in1998-2007. 11 Therefore, if such a considerableamount of people have no fear to travel abroadand work there, the number of immigrants willdefi nitely increase if movement becomes simplified; however, the result will be rather sad,as there will be a lack of job vacancies in thecountries of destination. The aforementionedfact will cause the development of a traffi ckingnetwork in other ways; namely, traffi ckerswill try to convince people they have friendsreserving job placements. All the client hasto do is pay a sum of money , which will presumablyguarantee legal labor abroad. Sucha development may not eradicate traffi cking,but may have an opposite effect.. Therefore,efforts should be made to create more workingpossibilities and develop the infrastructure inthe donor countries. The issue of state policyregarding raising awareness in accordance tothe legislation will be analyzed in the fl owingchapter.3. THE DOMESTIC LEGISLATION OF THESTATESTraffi cking prevention remains a very importanttask for the world community and almostevery country implements certain measuresto eliminate this offence. Consequently,it’s rather diffi cult to address the national legalnorms on traffi cking prevention of every country.Countries are divided into three anti-trafficking activity categories – three baskets. 12Because states worldwide are divided intothree parts – states of the fi rst, second andthird baskets, it would be reasonable to focusattention on those states in the fi rst basket category, like Georgia to learn from their experiencesand help develop domestic norms.3.1. The Czech RepublicThe Czech Republic is the fi rst state selectedfor its multifaceted theoretical andpractical knowledge in the fi eld of traffi ckingprevention. Its well-developed plans make theCzech Republic’s strategy interesting for others.According to the national action plan for2008-2011 of the Czech Republic, the followingmeasures should be implemented for trafficking prevention: 13• Elimination of circumstances encouraginginvolvement of persons in traffi cking (discrimination,social background);• Improvement of the level of readiness ofinstitutions, organizations and the groupsof people for solving problems relating tothe traffi cking.178

N. PARSADANISHVILI,TRAFFICKING PREVENTION – THE WORLD PRACTICE AND GEORGIA• Prevention from revictimization;• Implementation of effective border controlto secure early identifi cation of traffi ckingvictims or possible victims;• Dissemination of information regarding allrisks connected with traffi cking.According to this plan, traffi cking preventionis recognized as one of the main priorities.Since the action plan has certain similaritiesto the Georgian plan, focus will be placed onthe major differences and the approachesthat are desirable for introduction in Georgia.Specifi cally, the Czech Republic’s action planrecognizes the importance of cooperation andjoint work on prevention issues with the sourcecountries. At the same time, local governancebodies shall pay proper attention to how childrenspend their free time. 14 As a matter offact, the Czech Republic provides a means ofraising the awareness of those marginalizedchildren and young people without suffi cientconditions to get an education, for instance,street children, abandoned children and others.By showing special fi lms and organizingregional projects, the Czech Republic helpsprevent the children from getting involved intraffi cking. 15 Addtionally, the Czech Republic’saction plan provides a service to people involvedin prostitution and has establishedtraffi cking information hot-line with protectionof anonymity. 16 Although employers in theCzech Republic are well informed about laborrights, the state still tries to reveal “invisibleexploitation” that occurs by permanent monitoringof the labor market and administrativeinvestigations, 17 which is necessary to minimizecases of human rights violations.Based on this example, it would be desirableto perform child monitoring in Georgia,as children from an unfavorable environmentmay pose a certain threat to society and tothe state, accordingly. Therefore, monitoringand control represent an important toolin preventing the development of a potentialoffender. Permanent monitoring of the workplace is another important tool for effectiveimplementation of anti-traffi cking measures,since monitoring may provide an early warningof threats.3.2. SwitzerlandSwitzerland is another interesting countryamong fi rst basket states. It is highly commendablethat Switzerland exercises antitrafficking measures not only on its territory,but also provides signifi cant assistance tothe states of victim’s origins by raising publicawareness in such countries aimed at securingprevention of victimization.The Swiss international unit on human trafficking and migrant smuggling was establishedin 2003. The federal police service and theFederal Department of Foreign Affairs are thebodies responsible for implementing the relevantmeasures. 18 Since 2003, the Departmenthas been trying to help more and more countrieswith traffi cking prevention issues and tothis end, Switzerland spends 2-3 million SwissFranks annually. The Department has providedassistance to the following states: 19The Russian Federation (preventionand victims’ protection): The Swiss Agencyof Development and Cooperation providesassistance to various projects, including: preventivemeasures regarding visas at the consulatedepartment of Switzerland; rehabilitationcenter of the International Organizationfor Migration for returned victims in Moscow;free hot-line for those who need assistanceamong the Russian speaking population inSwitzerland, and also in Russia.Brazil: The project is aimed at developingthe national strategy against traffi cking andmigrant smuggling and encouraging victim reintegration.The Dominican Republic: Switzerlandsupports prevention and victim reintegrationprojects that focus on women and are implementedby the non-governmental sector.Nigeria: Assistance to the NationalCoordinating Bureau against traffi cking, andelaborating the national action plan and fi -nancing several measures.Switzerland pays special attention tocabaret dancers by monitoring developmentsaround them and working for raising awareness.For the purpose of traffi cking prevention,cabaret dancers should provide a residencepermit. 20179

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010The Swiss government believes that trafficking prevention will be more effective if theassistance effort is directed at the countries oforigin. In Switzerland, preventive measuresare recognized as a priority of the state policyat the domestic level, especially abroad. 213.3. GeorgiaThe national plan on combating traffi ckingapproved by the President of Georgia underDecree #46 of 20 January 2009 is built onthree dimensions: 22 a) traffi cking prevention;b) protection of the victims of traffi cking; c)criminal prosecution of persons committingthe traffi cking offense.This paper is focused on prevention oftraffi cking offenses; the other two issues willnot be discussed.Television SpaceAccording to the 2009-2010 Action Plan, the priority issues are raising public awarenessby launching an information campaign,including the creation of video clips andTV and radio programs on the topic. TheCoordinating Council and Public Broadcasterare responsible for implementing these measures.Examples of the state’s activity againsttraffi cking include an advertising clip aired onthe Public Broadcasting Station and a specialshow discussing all aspects of traffi cking.The Ministry of Education prepared, with theparticipation of schoolchildren, the video-clip“Do not exchange freedom with slavery.” TheInternational Organization for Migration, incooperation with the Fund of Protection andAssistance to the Victims of Traffi cking, developeda prevention and combat traffi ckingsupplement for TV. Last spring, the PublicBroadcaster presented a program about trafficking within the TV show “Life is Wonderful”.However, a few advertisements broadcastedon TV and a single TV program maynot be considered very effective.. Antitrafficking measures should be regular in nature.Information on the punishment of offendersshould be disseminated in order to eliminatethe syndrome of impunity in society andvictims of traffi cking should become confi dentthat if they cooperate with the relevant stateagencies, they will be better protected andnew measures will be implemented against offenders.The state should also regulate the broadcastingof advertising clips on traffi cking preventionby different TV channels. Data providedby the International Organization for Migrationshows that a 48-second advertisement for onemonth on TV Rustavi-2 costs 3,018.00 USD,and a 2-month advertising block on Imedi TVcosts 3,106.30 USD, even after a 40% discountprovided by the administration of bothchannels. 23 Obviously, advertising on differentTV channels is a rather expensive indulgence,but if traffi cking prevention is a state priority,advertising should be more exploited.Regarding the development and disseminationof printed material at border regionsand other areas of high risk, a quite interestingmeasure has been implemented by NGOsoperating in Georgia. Special envelopes weredesigned with information regarding those entitiesinvolved in the anti-traffi cking campaignin Georgia. These envelopes were then distributedamong travel companies, for puttingtravelers’ tickets in them. 24 This is one uniqueway of raising public awareness. However,including information on the same envelopeof agencies that perform similar functions inthe destination country would be more effective.Unfortunately not all the travel agenciesreceived these envelopes.In addition, the following measures arebeing considered in regards to the Georgianaction plan for 2009-2010:• Public discussion on traffi cking issues atinstitutions of higher and vocational education;• Popularization of a hot-line for the purposesof preventing and combating trafficking;• Updating information at the websites ofthe relevant agencies;• Development of the Ministry of Educationand Science of Georgia educational programs: deliberation of existing educationalnorms, introduction of model lectures,elaboration and introduction of educa-180

N. PARSADANISHVILI,TRAFFICKING PREVENTION – THE WORLD PRACTICE AND GEORGIAtional programs for children residing inorphanages and shelters.In addition to these aforementioned measures,conferences and competitions on trafficking issues could be organized which areaimed at providing school-children with notonly theoretical knowledge, but should alsodevelop their practical skills as well. Withsuch a background they will be able to analyzereality better and prevent cases of traffi cking.In this regard, the Georgian Young LawyersAssociation implemented the project “No toTraffi cking” in 2004-2009. Within this project, aconference was organized for school childrenand the most successful participants receivedspecial gifts. 25 This is a remarkable idea andsuch competitions should have a regular nature,especially in circumstances where mostschool children have no information about trafficking. With fi nancial support from Switzerland,the International Organization for Migration,along with the Ministry of Education, developedand prepared “For Parents,” a bookletabout traffi cking, which was distributed amongschool children.In addition to the consultations with severalspecialists working in this fi eld, we alsoconducted a questionnaire-based survey ofpotential victims for different age groups, includingschool children. . Most respondentsstated that they would refrain from handingover identifi cation documents to strangers andsigning a contract written in a foreign language,even if all contractual conditions were agreedon beforehand. However, when asked if theywould do the same with someone they knew,the vast majority agreed readily.. The majorityof respondents had either no informationabout traffi cking, or not enough. At the sametime, they were ready to learn more about trafficking. While this paper in no way aims topropagate mistrust, it must be stressed thatit’s better for society to realize that a moderateattitude is necessary in every relation, includingconfi dence. Because Georgia has sucha small population, preventing even a singlecitizen from being a traffi cking victim is veryimportant. Therefore, it is in the country’s bestinterest to consider the experience of otherstates and deliberate on the existing norms. Itis also important for the state to create job opportunitiesfor at least some of its citizens. Inthis regard, the NGO World Vision provides agood example. Through the assistance of thisorganization, all professions in great demandhave been investigated and relevant trainingprograms were proposed to potential trafficking victims . Assistance in manufacturingcertain goods is also in place. This measureis an encouraging factor for improving the social-economicbackground of the country andhas also created an opportunity for citizens tofi nd their own place in their country, instead oftraveling abroad. (See annex for schemes ofdiscussed information).CONCLUSIONAs stated in the paper, measures againsttraffi cking are strictly regulated by internationaland national legislations, but practicalimplementation of binding regulations is ratherproblematic. Due to the lack of relevant fi -nancial resources and poor legal regulations,there are not enough advertising clips preparedand aired, while there are not enoughlessons in schools on combating traffi cking . Itis necessary to organize popular competitionsto deliver traffi cking information to a wider portionof society, as well. The practice of otherstates should also be taken into consideration,especially the Swiss approach to traffi ckingprevention, as it has a well-developed systemof assisting other states. Switzerland, like theCzech Republic, has the good practice of afl exible application of its national law in antitrafficking activities. Special reference shouldalso be made to the permanent monitoringof offi ces or employees that are allegedly involvedin traffi cking or represent potential victims.Such monitoring is performed by representativesof relevant agencies and providesthe most appropriate tool for the purpose oftraffi cking prevention, since early warning ofthreats is the best mechanism for preventingserious misconduct and committing thecrime.181

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 20101Protocol to prevent, suppress and punish traffi cking in persons, especially womenand children, supplementing the united nations convention against transnationalorganized crime, article 9.2Ibid, article 10.3Guidelines for parliamentarians “Council of Europe Convention on Action againstTraffi cking in Human Beings”, p 15-16; see at .4EU Ministerial Conference Towards Global EU Action against Traffi cking in HumanBeings The Third EU Anti Traffi cking Day 19 – 20 October 2009, ConferenceReport, Thorbjørn JAGLAND, Secretary-General, Council of Europe, p 8-9.5Council of Europe Convention on Actions against Traffi cking in Human Beings,article 5.6Ibid, article 7.7Training material for judges and prosecutors on combating traffi cking, ICMPD,2006 [hereinafter Training Material], p 92-93.8Brief vocabulary of Gender Terminology / Ia Merkviladze [ed. Naira Popiashvili;translated by Hamlet Zukakishvili]; Kavkasiis Saxli, Tb., 2003, p 112.9Training Material, p 93, footnote 7.10Ibid, p 92-93.11Immigration guidbook – Greece, piblished by the EU fi nancial support ICMPD,ILO, OSCE, p 7.12It should be mentioned that the fi rst basket consists of states where the governmentsfully comply with the Act on protection of the victims of traffi cking; the secondbasket consists of the states where the governments do not comprehensivelyfulfi ll the standards but make signifi cant steps towards it; countries of the thirdbasket do not fulfi ll the standards, nor are willing to implement anti-traffi ckingmeasures. For additional information see: Tier Placements, Traffi cking in PersonsReport 2009, Offi ce to Monitor and Combat Traffi cking in Persons, see at:.13Czech Republic, National Strategy to Combat Traffi cking in Human Beings (2008-2011), Prevention Objectives, xelmisawvdomia: < http://aplikace.mvcr.cz>.14Ibid, The priority for the upcoming period.15Ibid.16Ibid.17Ibid.18Human Traffi cking – A Modern Form of Slavery, A Fact Sheet by the SwissCoordination Unit against the Traffi cking in Persons and Smuggling of Migrants(KSMM) November 2007, p 3, see at: < http://www.childtraffi cking.com>.19Combating Human Trafficking in Switzerland Progress,+ Situation, Future Prio ri ti es,Report by the KSMM Secretariat, p 18-19, see at: < http://www.ksmm.admin.ch>as of 20 February 2010.20ibid, p 19.21ibid, p. 40.22Action plan for 2009-2010 on Measures against Traffi cking in Persons, approvedby the President of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili under the Decree 46 of 20January 2009.23Information received from Tbilisi Offcie of the IOM.24Interview with Khatuna Chitanava, Project Coordinator, GYLA.25Ibid182

N. PARSADANISHVILI,TRAFFICKING PREVENTION – THE WORLD PRACTICE AND GEORGIAANNEXRegulationInternational lawNational lawPalermo ProtocoloE ConventionAction planAnti-trafficking lawElements of preventionmprovement ofsocial-economic backgroundElimination of the demandon the service of personssubjected to traffickingUnconditional observanceof gender mainstreamingPublic education, awarenessBorder controlCorruption preventionGeorgiaGovernmental sectorMinsitry of Education publishedbrochure together with the IOM,financed by SwitzerlandThe state fund for asístanse andprotection of victims of trafficking(8 victims 1=2000)Advertising clip “Do not exchangefreedom for slavery” 3,018.70, 3, 106.30 USATV Show “Life isWonderful”School lessons planned183

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010GeorgiaNGO SectorGYLA organized conference ontrafficking issues for childrenEnvelopes were distributedamong travel agenciesBooklets and brochures werepublished; concerts organizedand paraphanalia ditributedContact information about thesimilar services in the countries ofdestination should be indicatedThrough the assistance of the World Vision,investigation of professions in great demandhas been carried out proposing relevanteducational programs to potential victimsof trafficking ; assistance in realization ofproduction provided.StudyConfidence-based decisionsLack of awarenessGeorgiaDesirable to accomplishEncouragingconferencesAccess to the advertising market atevery TV channelBroadcasting information aboutcourt trialsSwiss practice, monitoring workplaces to reveal invisible threatsContact information about therelevant agencies in destinationcountriesMonitoring the applicationof children’s free time asexemplified by the Czechrepublic184

Tamar sadraZeevTanaziis zneobrivi da samarTlebrivi problemebiSesavaliadamianis sicocxlis xelSeuxeblobapirvelad 1215 wels inglisis mefis mierxelmoweril Tavisuflebis diad qartia-Si dafiqsirda.sicocxlis ufleba, am sityvis pirdapirimniSvnelobiT, TiTqos unda niSnavdessaxelmwifos movaleobas, aCuqosTavis moqalaqeebs ukvdaveba, magram esecrom moaxerxos, TviTmkvlelobas xom veraukrZalavs?!sicocxlis ufleba ar niSnavs maradiuladamqveyniuri cxovrebis uflebas.es unda gavigoT ise, rom aravis araaqvs sxvisi sicocxlis arabuneb ri vadSewyvetis ufleba, Tu saxeze araa ma r-TlwinaaRmdegobis gamomricxveli ga remoeba.sinamdvileSi sicocxlis uflebisamgvari gageba imas gulisxmobs, rom saxelmwifovaldebulia, daexmaros TavisTiToeul moqalaqes sicocxlisSenarCunebaSi. 1 gamodis, rom sicocxlesworedac rom adamianis ufleba yofila.Tavisuflebebi, romelTac negatiuruflebebsac uwodeben, saxelmwifospasiurobas gulisxmobs. sicocxlis uflebisamgvari gageba niSnavs, rom adamianissicocxle TviTon adamianis xelSiada misi warTmevis ufleba aravis aqvs,sxva danarCeni ki pirovnebis sazrunavia.evTanazia 2 erT-erTi umniSvnelovanesisakiTxia Tanamedrove msoflio sazogadoebisTvis.3 igi gulisxmobs terminalurstadiaze myofi, ukurnebeliseniT daavadebuli avadmyofebisTvissicocxlis mospobas, misi fizikuri tanjvisagangaTavisuflebis mizniT. 4sisxlis samarTlis mecnierebasa dapraqtikaSi sakiTxi msxverplis TxovniTsicocxlis mospobis Sesaxeb iyo dadResac gansakuTrebiT sakamaToa. uamravikiTxva ismis evTanaziis garSemo. arsebobssxvadasxva mosazreba imis Taobaze,SeuZlia Tu ara adamians, gankargosTavisi sicocxle ise, rogorc surs. ararsebobs pasuxi kiTxvebze – evTanaziadanaSaulia, Tu mowyaleba, igi sayovel-Taod dasjadad unda gamocxaddes, Tuhumanur aqtad.evTanaziis sakiTxi aqtualuria rogorcTeoriuli, ise praqtikuli TvalsazrisiT.evTanaziis samedicino, samarTlebrivi,filosofiuri, aqsiologiuri,eTikuri aspeqtebis Sesaxeb sakmaoraodenobis Sefasebebisa da daskvnebismiuxedavad, mraval arsebiT sakiTxze ararsebobs erTiani mosazreba. jerjerobiTpasuxgaucemelia kiTxva, valdebuliaTu ara adamiani, sxva adamianis (ZiriTadad,axlo naTesavis) xangrZliv daagoniur tanjvas uyuros da araferi moimoqmedosmisi tanjvisgan gasaTavisufleblad?!valdebulia Tu ara eqimi, bolomdeibrZolos adamianis sicocxlisSenarCunebisTvis da, amasTan, gaaxangrZlivosmisi tanjva, Tu mas ufleba aqvs,gaaTavisuflos adamiani tanjvisagan damas `tkbili sikvdili“ aCuqos?! amiT eqimiadamianis uflebis ganxorcielebasemsaxureba, Tu borotebis aqts? am kiTxvebzeyvela qveyana individualuradscems pasuxs, imis mixedviT, Tu rogoria185

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010maTi samarTlebrivi, sazogadoebrivi dareligiuri azrovneba.1. evTanaziis problemis zogadidaxasiaTebazemoT dasmul kiTxvebze pasuxis gacemisasunda aRiniSnos, rom RvTisganboZebuli sicocxlea da ara sikvdilsicocxlisarCevani, rogorc es xSiradhgoniaT. magaliTad, TviTmkvlelobami utevebeli codvaa, magram samarTlebrivadar isjeba. adamians (avadmyofs,pacients) ufleba aqvs, uari Tqvas aramxolod romelime samkurnalo proceduraze(magaliTad, sisxlis gadasxmaze),aramed mTlianad mkurnalobaze. esmisi gadasawyvetia da nebismieri iZulebadaarRvevs misi fizikuri xelSeuxeblobisuflebas da ganixileba rogorcZaladoba.zog qveyanaSi evTanaziis samive saxe5 mTlianad akrZalulia, magaliTad:safrangeTi, ruseTi; 6 zogan danaSaulisSemamasubuqebel garemoebadaa miCneuli,magaliTad: germania, avstria, portugalia, saqarTvelo; 7 zogan ki igi ne badarTulia,8 magaliTad: holandia, belgia,peru, avstralia, argentina, kolumbia,iaponia. 9pirveli qveyana, romelmac evTanaziadaakanona, holandia iyo. holandiaSi ev-Tanazia araformalurad, faqtobrivad,1993 wlidan iyo daSvebuli, 2001 welski parlamentma miiRo kanoni, romelicevTanazias kanonierad acxadebda. evTanaziadasaSvebia im SemTxvevaSi, Tu avadmyofiganukurnebeli seniT aris avadda ganicdis autanel fizikur tkivils.komisiis mier wardgenil dokumentTaSoris aucileblad unda iyos pacientisgacnobierebuli werilobiTi gancxadeba,aseve saWiroa ganmeorebiTi samedicinodaskvna. dadebiTi gadawyvetilebismiRebis SemTxvevaSi, avadmyofs eZlevaevTanaziis aqtis ganxorcielebis ufleba.10yoveli ocdamexuTe ukurnebeli seniTdaavadebuli holandieli, romelicsaxlSi xvdeba sikvdils, samedicino daxmarebisam ukidures formas mimarTavs.saavadmyofoebSi ki ase iqceva yoveli samocdameTxuTmete.11did britaneTSi 1936-1950 wlebSievTanaziis momxreebma evTanaziis dakanonebisTaobaze lordTa palataSi winadadebaSeitanes. am winadadebam marcxiganicada da igi ar miiRes, magram 1969wels, xangrZlivi diskusiebis Semdeg,lordTa palataSi 60 xmis winaaRmdegukve 40 xma iyo momxre, mieRoT kanoni ev-Tanaziis dakanonebis Sesaxeb. 12did britaneTSi 2000 wels gamocemuliqna jandacvis saministros mkacriwesebi, romlis Tanaxmadac, eqims uflebaaqvs, ar aamuSaos pacientis guli an araRadginos sunTqva, raTa ganukurnebelipacienti aRar Seawuxos gausaZlisma fizikurmatkivilebma. eqims SeuZlia iyosumoqmedod, Tu pacientis neba dadasturebuliadokumentiT, Tu pacientsaranairi SesaZlebloba ar aqvs reanimaciiswarmatebaze da Tu pacientis sicocxlereanimaciis Semdeg wameba iqneba.e.i. evTanazia did britaneTSi akrZalulia,Tumca daSvebulia gamonaklisi, racgulisxmobs, rom qveyana garkveulwiladcnobs pasiur evTanazias. 132002 wlidan pasiuri evTanazia daSvebuliaSveicariaSi, Tumca misi ganxorcielebisTvisdaculi unda iyos kanoniTdaTqmuli formalobebi.2002 wels evTanazia belgiis kanonmdeblobiTdakanonda. evTanaziaze uflebaaqvs belgiis moqalaqes 18 wlisasa kidan. belgiis universitetis xelmZ-Rvanelobis gadawyvetilebiT, evTanaziasaswavlo kursis saxiTac ki iswavlebasamedicino fakultetis studentebisTvis,raTa maT SeZlon, normaluradda minimaluri riskis farglebSi ganaxorcielonevTanazia. momakvdavebsSveicariaSic `exmarebian“. aq `tkbilisikvdili“ afTiaqSic ki iyideba, TumcareceptiT da mxolod Sveicariis moqalaqeebze.14ruseTis kanonmdeblobiT, mkvlelobamsxverplis TxovniT ganixileba ro-186

T. sadraZe, evTanaziis zneobrivi da samarTlebrivi problemebigorc Cveulebrivi ganzraxi mkvleloba,yovelgvari Semamsubuqebeli garemoebebisgareSe. ruseTis kanonSi `moqalaqeTajanmrTelobis dacvis Sesaxeb“ xazgasmulia,rom evTanazia yovelmxriv dau-Svebelia. samedicino personals ekrZalebaevTanaziis ganxorcieleba, Tundacavadmyofis gamudmebuli da daJinebuliTxovniT. 15safrangeTis kanonmdebloba evTanazias,Cveulebriv, ganzrax mkvlelobadganixilavs, Tumca am ramdenime wlis winsafrangeTSi miRebul iqna kanoni, romelicpasiur evTanazias exeba. am kanoniT,ganukurnebeli seniT daavadebul avadmyofsufleba mieca, uari Tqvas mkurnalobaze,amisTvis aucilebelia arsebobdespacientis werilobiTi gancxadebada mtkicebuleba imisa, rom es gadawyvetilebanebayoflobiT da gacnobierebuladaris miRebuli. 16germaniis kanonmdebloba dasjadadacxadebs evTanazias. danaSaulad iTvleba,Tuki momakvdavis TxovniT, eqimi aqtiuriCareviT aTavisuflebs mas tanjvisagan.amis erT-erTi mizezi nacionalizmiswlebis gamocdilebaa. maSin aTiaTasobiTgermaneli, romelTac Tandayoliligonebrivi da fizikuri nakli aReniSnebodaT,saxelmwifo programis – `erisgenofondis gajanmrTeleba“ – msxverpligaxda. mas Semdeg `mowyalebis gaRebismizniT“ mkvleloba mWidrod daukavSirdaTeTrxalaTiani nacistebisTviTnebobas, romlebsac miaCndaT, romTavad hqondaT imis gadawyvetis ufleba,Tu vis unda ecocxla da vis ara.germaniaSi pacients exmarebian tkivilisgayuCebaSi, Tumca evTanazia akrZalulia.germaniis sisxlis samarTlis kodeqsis216-e muxli, mkvleloba msxverplisTxovniT, gansazRvravs: `vinc klavspirs misive kategoriuli da daJinebuliTxovnis safuZvelze, gamoasalmos sicocxles,isjeba Tavisuflebis aRkve-TiT 6 Tvidan 5 wlamde“. normidan Cans,rom evTanazia naklebad mZime danaSauladaaaRiarebuli. 17 miuxedavad kanonisam moTxovnisa, 2008 wlis 12 dekembers30 wlis moqalaqe stefan dufori sasamarTlomudanaSaulod cno Tavisi biZismimarT ganxorcielebul evTanaziaSi.sasamarTlo procesze duforma ganacxada,rom misi qmedeba biZis daJinebuliTxovniT iyo provocirebuli, radgan manver gauZlo ramdenime Tvis ganmavloba-Si biZis daJinebul mudaras, daxmarebodamas TviTmkvlelobaSi. 18 aRniSnulimetyvelebs, rom germaniaSi evTanaziismimarT TandaTan loialuri damokidebulebayalibdeba da sasamarTloc dasazogadoebac qmedebis Camdenis gamarTlebissafuZvels eZebs.kaTolikur italiaSi sityva `evTanazia“popularuli ar aris, Tumca diskusiebiam Temaze aqtiurad mimdinareobsrogorc samedicino, ise samarTlebriviTvalsazrisiT. 19 ramdenime wlis win turinSiCatarebuli evTanaziis problemebisadmimiZRvnili simpoziumis monawileiuristebma SeimuSaves sakamaTod sainteresodokumentis proeqti `biologiurianderZi“, romlis mixedviTac, misi xelmoweraSeeZloT ganukurnebeli seniTdaavadebul pacientebs. is aTavisuflebdaiuridiuli pasuxismgeblobisganim medpersonals, romelic avadmyofebs`tkbil sikvdilSi“ daexmareboda. simpoziumismonawileni xazs usvamdnen,rom evTanazia unda ganixilon rogorcadamianis fundamenturi ufleba. 20 amideam italiaSi mxardaWera ver pova,risi mizezic is Seurigebeli poziciaa,romelic evTanaziis sakiTxebSi kaTolikureklesias uWiravs. romis papmaioane-pavle meorem misTvis uCveulodmwvave formiT mosTxova xelisuflebas,mieRo zomebi ojaxis dasacavad, abortebisada evTanaziis asakrZalavad. papmamouwoda eklesiis msaxurebs, yvelasaSualebiT ibrZolon evTanaziisa daTviTmkvlelobaSi daxmarebis winaaRmdeg.`vinc pativs ar scems sicocxles,gansakuTrebiT ki mis sisusteebs, undaSegaxsenoT, rom is RvTis boZebulia damisi dacva yvelas movaleobaa“, – Tqvapapma da xazi gausva, rom es valdebulebagansakuTrebiT exeba samedicino sferos187

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010muSakebs, romelTac hipokrates ficiaqvT dadebuli. 21eTikuri TvalsazrisiT ismeba kiTxva– xom ar aris evTanaziis nebismierigamovlineba mkvlelobis kanoniT nebadarTuliforma?! zogi adamiani, romlisTvalwin axlobeli nel-nela iRupebada mis autanel fizikur tanjvas boloar uCans, Tvlis, rom, roca momakvdaviTviTon iTxovs misi tanjvisaTvis bolosmoRebas, moralze laparaki zedmetia.Tuki am adamianis sicocxle mSvenieriiyo, aseTive unda iyos misi sikvdilic –amboben evTanaziis momxreebi. 22holandiaSi sazogadoebrivi azrisyovelwliuri gamokiTxvebi aCvenebs,rom evTanazia ar ganixileba rogorcadamianis sicocxlis xelyofa. gamokiTxulTa80-90% swored ase fiqrobs. rodesacromis papma, ioane-pavle meoremsajarod dagmo evTanazia, evTanaziismomxre holandielTa ricxvi 5%-iT gaizarda.23 evTanaziis SemTxvevaTa ricxviholandiaSi dRiTidRe matulobs da, albaT,asec gagrZeldeba momavalSi, vinaidanmosaxleoba mieCvia im azrs, rom damoukidebladSeuZlia sakuTari bedisgansazRvra.dRes samedicino teqnika da intensiuriTerapiis meTodebi imdenad ganviTarda,rom aparatebs, romlebic organizmisyvela sasicocxlod mniSvnelovanfunqcias asruleben, praqtikuladSeuzRudavad SeuZliaT, gadaswionsikvdilis dadgomis momenti. gaCndaproblema, romelic pasiur evTanaziasukavSirdeba da is sakanonmdeblo gziTunda mogvarebuliyo, amitom germania-Si Sewyvites im pacientTa intensiuriTerapia, romlebic didi xnis ganmavlobaSiimyofebodnen komis mdgomareobaSi,gamojanmrTelebis realuri Sansebis gareSe.am SemTxvevebSi eqimebi eyrdnobodnenim mosazrebas, rom Tavad pacienticar iqneboda eqimis am gadawyvetilebiswinaaRmdegi, sakuTari azris gamoTqmarom SeZleboda.unda aRiniSnos, rom pasiur evTanaziasmsoflios umravlesi qveyana cnobs,maT Soris saqarTveloc. 242. evTanazia saqarTveloskanonmdeblobis mixedviTevTanaziis mimarT qarTul sazogadoebrivcnobierebaSi damkvidrebulia,ZiriTadad, uaryofiTi damokidebuleba,rac ganpirobebulia saqarTvelosmarTlmadidebeli eklesiis poziciiT,ZirZveli erovnuli tradiciebiT dawes-CveulebebiT, romelTa Tanaxmadac,evTanazia aSkara mkvleloba da TviTmkvlelobaa,e.i. didi codvaa.saqarTvelos kanonmdebloba evTanazias ganixilavs rogorc ganzrax mkvlelobas,Cadenils Semamsubuqebel garemoebebSida sasjelic Sesabamisadmsu buqia, vidre Cveulebrivi ganzraximkvlelobisTvis. farTo mniSvnelobiT,evTanazia fsiqikurad an fizikurad`aras rulfasovani sicocxlis“ mospobaakeTilSobiluri mosazrebiT. sworedamitom, kanonma sasamarTlos uflebamisca, mxedvelobaSi miiRos sibralulismotivi, rogorc pasuxismgeblobisSemamsubuqebeli garemoeba.saqarTvelos sisxlis samarTlis kanonmdeblobaaqtiur evTanazias absoluturadmiuReblad miiCnevs, radganeqimma arc erT SemTxvevaSi ar unda mouswrafossicocxle adamians da Tanac safrTxear unda Seuqmnas medikosis profesiiszneobriv safuZvels. 25saqarTvelos ssk-is 110-e muxlis Tanaxmad,mkvlelobad miiCneva, roca sicocxlismospoba xdeba rogorc dazaralebulisnebis sawinaaRmdegod, ise misiTxovniTa da TanxmobiT. dazaralebulisTanxmoba an Tundac daJinebuli Txovnaar aTavisuflebs pirs pasuxismgeblobisgan.kanonmdebeli dispoziciaSi sammni S vnelovan komponents usvams xazs:1. braldebulis STagonebas dazaralebulismier, 2. momakvdavis daJinebulTxovnas, 3. dazaralebulis nebisSesabamisobas. CamoTvlili sami komponentiaris ganmsazRvreli damnaSavissubieqturi mxarisa, ramac ganapirobaam ganzrax mkvlelobis Semamsubuqebeli188

T. sadraZe, evTanaziis zneobrivi da samarTlebrivi problemebixasiaTi. damnaSave ganzrax klavs avadmyofs,magram es ganzraxva, survilidazaralebulisagan aris STagonebulida aRZruli, mkvlelobis mizani ki momakvdavisZlieri fizikuri tkivilisagangaTavisuflebaa.msxverplis daJinebuli Txovna, misinamdvili nebis Sesabamisad, gvevlinebaiseT faqtorad, rac STagonebis aRmocenebissafuZvelia. es ukanaskneli gulisxmobspirovnebaze iseT zemoqmedebas,rodesac mas sakuTari survilisa daganzraxvis gareSe, zogjer ki mis sapirispirod,eqmneba garkveuli grZnoba ansurvili raime moqmedebis Sesrulebisa,rac ar gamomdinareobs misi moqmedebisaRiarebuli principebidan. momakvdavisdaJinebuli Txovna, rom mouspon tanjuli,gawamebuli sicocxle, sibralulsiwvevs subieqtSi, garkveul zemoqmedebasaxdens masze da am ukanasknels uCndebasurvili, gaaTavisuflos momakvdavi autaneli,araadamianuri wamebisgan, miscesSesaZlebloba mSvidi sikvdilisa. 26 miuxedavadyovelive amisa, saxezea sazogadoebrivadsaSiSi qmedeba – sxva adamianissicocxlis mospoba da igi ver ganixilebamarTlwinaaRmdegobis gamomricxvelgaremoebad, vinaidan amiT irRveva konstituciuriprincipi: `sicocxle adamianisxelSeuxebeli uflebaa da mas icavskanoni“. am SemTxvevaSi konstitucia dasazogadoebrivi azri marTlmadideblurireligiis Sexedulebebis mixedviT moqmedebs,romelsac Seurigebeli poziciauWiravs evTanaziasTan mimarTebiT.saqarTvelos sisxlis samarTlisko deqsma mkvleloba msxverplis Txo v -niT (evTanazia) privilegirebul SemadgenlobaTajgufs miakuTvna, vinaidansakiTxi exeba ara marto mkvlelobasdazaralebulis TanxmobiT, aramed momakvdaviadamianis daJinebul Txovnasmisi fizikuri tanjvisagan gaTavisuflebisSesaxeb. es Txovna unda gamoxatavdesmomakvdavis namdvil nebas. igi undaiyos iseT mdgomareobaSi, rom sruladSeeZlos, kontroli gauwios da uxelmZ-Rvanelos Tavis moqmedebas; Tu msxverplsamis SesaZlebloba ara aqvs, misTvissicocxlis mospoba ukve Cveulebrivimkvlelobaa, cxadia, Tu ar arsebobs sxvadamamZimebeli garemoeba. 27saqarTvelos kanonSi `pacientis uflebebisSesaxeb“ xazgasmiT aris aRniSnuli,rom evTanazia samedicino personalsekrZaleba da yovelmxriv dauSvebelia,Tumca, amave dros, kanonis 24-emuxli gvamcnobs: `saqarTvelos moqalaqesufleba aqvs, winaswar werilobiTgamoxatos neba (Tanxmoba an uari) ugonomdgomareobaSi aRmoCenisas an gacnobierebuligadawyvetilebis miRebis unarisdakargvisas misTvis sareanimacio,sicocxlis SemanarCunebeli an palaturimkurnalobis Catarebis Sesaxeb, TumiTiTebuli garemoebebi gamowveulia:a) ukurnebeli daavadebiT terminalurstadiaze, b) daavadebiT, romelic aucilebladgamoiwvevs mZime invalidobas“,e.i. pacients eZleva gadawyvetilebismiRebis SesaZlebloba, Caitaros Tu aramkurnaloba da gaixangrZlivos Tu arasicocxle. amave sakiTxs exeba saqarTveloskanoni `janmrTelobis dacvisSesaxeb“. 28pacients aqvs SesaZlebloba, TavadTqvas uari da aRar gaagrZelos mkurnaloba,magram arc eqims da arc sxvaromelime pirs (naTesavs, megobars daa.S.) ar aqvs ufleba, daexmaros pacientssikvdilSi.amdenad, saqarTveloSi akrZaluliaaqtiuri evTanazia, magram daSvebuliapasiuri evTanazia, rac mkvlelobis privilegirebulsaxed ganixileba (110-emuxli).3. evTanaziis momxreTa damowinaaRmdegeTa dapirispirebaevTanazias uamravi momxre Tu mowinaaRmdegehyavs. maT TavianTi mosazrebissisworis dasabuTebisaTvisyuradsaRebi argumentebi aqvT. zogadikriteriumis SerCevis sakiTxs amZimebsTiToeuli pirovnebis, avadmyofis unikaluroba,misi individualuroba, midrekilebebi,survilebi, religiuroba,189

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010eTnofsiqologiuri saxe, tradiciebi,wes-Cveulebebi da a.S.dRes bevri iziarebs im azrs, rom ev-Tanazia aris ara `mkvleloba“, aramedadamianis `ufleba sikvdilze“. inglisissisxlis samarTlis erT-erTi saxelmZRvanelosavtorebis aRniSvniT, `miuxedavadakrZalvisa, samedicino praqtika-Si arcTu iSviaTia msgavsi SemTxveva;rac Seexeba sazogadoebriv azrs, mas,ZiriTadad, avadmyofis axlo naTesavebida/an megobrebi gamoxataven da isiniamaSi verafers amoralurs ver xedaven,piriqiT, Tvlian, rom es ukanaskneliorive mxarisTvis fizikuri da moraluriSvebis momtania, miuxedavad imisa,rom yvela udides pativs scems adamianissicocxles.“ 29cxovrebaSi gvxvdeba mZime SemT xvevebi,rodesac axloblebs uxdebaT jerkidev saRi azrovnebis mqone sayvareliadamianis wamebis yureba. es saSinelimdgomareoba zogjer Tveebi da wlebigrZeldeba. ratom unda daamTavros adamianmasicocxle da wavides am qveynidansicocxlis siZulviliT?! Tuki masaqvs sicocxlis ufleba, ratom ar undahqondes sikvdilis ufleba?! sad arissazRvari humanurobasa da mkvlelobasSoris, ra ufro humanuria – agoniuriavadmyofisTvis sicocxlis ganusazRvrelivadiT xelovnurad SenarCuneba, TuevTanziis ganxorcieleba?! am kiTxvebzepasuxi scildeba samedicino eTikisfarglebs da moiTxovs samarTlebrivSefasebas. 30sicocxlis uzenaes Rirebulebad mi-C neva TiToeuli sicocxlis ganumeoreblobasemyareba da amis gamo, igi, uwinaresad,im individisTvisaa yvelaze didiRirebuleba, visac ekuTvnis. swored amitomsicocxlis gankargvis ufleba mxolodmis mflobels aqvs da aravis sxvas.kanonmdeblobiT evTanaziis srulyofilad gawerili sistemiT ganxorcielebisSemTxvevaSic ki SeuZlebeliaimis mtkiceba, rom evTanaziis aqti Seucdomladda yovelgvari riskis gareSeCatardeba. sicocxlesTan mimarTebiTdaSvebuli nebismieri Secdoma fataluria,radgan xelyofili sicocxlis aRdgenaSeuZlebelia.samarTlebrivad `sicocxlis ufleba“ar gulisxmobs `sikvdilis uflebasac“,Sesabamisad, kanonmdebels ar SeuZlia, sikvdilis uflebis erTpirovnuladaRiareba. adamiani sakuTar sicocxlesTavad ganagebs da mas uflebaaqvs, nebismier dros Sewyvitos igiTviTmkvlelobis aqtiT, Tumca es ar niSnavssxva adamianis uflebas an movaleobas,daexmaros mas am miznis miRwevaSi.TviTmkvlelobis ufleba aRiarebuliasamarTalSi, magram ewinaaRmdegeba religias.evTanaziis aRiarebis SemTxvevaSi,misi gamoyeneba iqneba eqimis ara martoufleba, aramed profesiuli movaleoba.msgavsi movaleobis SesrulebiswinaaRmdegi ki uamravi (gansakuTrebiTmorwmune) eqimi iqneba, amasTan, aRniSnulipirdapir ewinaaRmdegeba hipokratesfics da, zogadad, eqimis profesiis daniSnulebas.evTanazia gaumarTlebelia iuridiuli TvalsazrisiT, radgan im Sem T-xvevaSi, rodesac eqimi kiboTi daavadebuluimedo avadmyofs momakvdinebelnemss ukeTebs, obieqturad sikvdilsiwvevs ara TviT avadmyofoba, aramedavadmyofisTvis eqimis mier gakeTebulinemsi.evTanaziis dakanonebis kidev erTi samarTlebriviproblema misi ugono mdgomareobaSimyofi avadmyofis mimarT ganxorcielebaa,romelsac SesaZleblobaar aqvs, Tavisi neba daafiqsiros. eqimivaldebuli iqneba, sibralulis motiviT,daaCqaros sikvdili, rodesac arsebobsavadmyofis moTxovna an Tanxmoba evTanaziisganxorcielebaze, anda rodesacaseTi Tanxmobis miReba SeuZlebeli iqneba,avadmyofis ugono mdgomareobaSiyofnis gamo. e.i. dakanonebuli evTanaziisxelyofis obieqti iqneba im avadmyofissicocxlec, romelic, savaraudod,uars ityoda am sicocxleze, Tumcavaraudi damtkicebul faqts ar niSnavsda kanonmdebeli varaudze dayrdnobiTver gaamarTlebs sicocxlis mospobisdakanonebas.190

T. sadraZe, evTanaziis zneobrivi da samarTlebrivi problemebievTanaziis dros SecdomiT mospobiliTundac erTi sicocxle sakmarisia,raTa kanonmdebelma uari ganacxadosevTanaziaze. amerikis SeerTebulStatebSi evTanaziis momxreebs saTave-Si edga eqimi jek kevorkiani, romelsacmogvianebiT `sikvdilis eqimi“ uwodes.man evTanazia daaxloebiT 100 adamiansCautara. kevorkians bevri ukanasknelimedad da erTaderT mxsnelad miiCnevda,Tumca mogvianebiT igi gaasamarTlesda daumtkices, rom mis mier gakeTebulievTanaziis msxverplTagan 75% ar iyosasikvdilod avad, xolo 5%-s saerTodaraferi sWirda. 31ruseTSic iyo evTanaziis sakmaodcnobili faqti, rodesac eqimma evTanaziaganaxorciela 12 piris mimarT, romelTaganac2 qals araferi sWirda. 32aqedan keTdeba daskvna, rom evTanaziisCamdeni eqimebi imdenad Sevidnen eSx-Si, rom veRar mozomes TavianTi qmedebada Cveulebriv mkvlelebad gadaiqcnen,rasac gamousworebeli Sedegebi mohyva.gasaTvaliswinebelia, rom avadmyofTaumravlesobis nebayoflobiTisikvdilis ZiriTadi motivacia autanelitkivilia, e.i. es Txovna gamowveuliaiZulebiT da ara obieqturi mdgomareobiT.medicinis istoria savsea omis pirobebSidaWrilTa da dasaxiCrebulTamier amputaciis kategoriuli uarisvedrebis, momakvdinebeli saSualebebismicemis moTxovnis magaliTebiT, magramcnobilia faqtebi, rogor SeunarCundasicocxle, fexi, xeli, Tvali da a.S. aTia-TasobiT adamians. 33socialuri gamokiTxvebi, romlebicbevr qveyanaSi Catarda, adasturebs, romevTanaziis legalizacias eqimebi da samedicinopersonali ufro negatiuradafasebs, vidre mTlianad mosaxleoba.evTanaziis momxreni orgvari xasiaTisargumentebs mimarTaven da imismixedviT, Tu rogoria maTi argumentebi,evTanaziis cneba sxvadasxva SinaarssiZens. avtorTa erTi nawili evTanaziisdasabuTebisas mxedvelobaSi iRebsavadmyofis interesebs. maTi azriT, arSeiZleba, adamians, romelic metismetaditanjeba, wavarTvaT ufleba, gaakeTosarCevani wamebul sicocxlesa daam wamebisagan mxsnel sikvdils Soris dais eqimi an sxva adamiani, vinc daexmarebaaseT avadmyofs, gadadgas nabiji yofnidanaryofnisaken, ar SeiZleba gavasamarTloTrogorc mkvleli. vinaidan amsaxis evTanazias ufro xSirad agoniismdgomareobaSi myofi piris mimarT gvTavazoben,mas zogjer agoniur evTanaziasuwodeben. 34 evTanaziis yvelaze ufrodramatiuli magaliTebic swored agoniurevTanazias miekuTvneba.agoniuri evTanaziis magaliTebs gansakuTrebiTim qveynebSi vxvdebiT, sadackanonmdebloba ar iTvaliswinebs dazaralebulisTanxmobas, rogorc bralisSemamsubuqebel garemoebas da amitomevTanaziis SemTxvevebs ganixilavs rogorcCveulebriv ganzrax mkvlelobas,romelic metad mZime sasjels iwvevs.ufro demonstarciul SemTxvevebSi, rodesacadamianis sindisi ver urigdebaim adamianTa sastik dasjas, romelTacmxolod da mxolod sibralulis motiviamoZravebdaT, sasamarTloebi iZulebuliarian, aseTi „sibraluliT mkvlelebis“gasamarTleblad metad xelovnuriuridiul argumentacias mimarTon; asemagaliTad, 21 wlis studentma tyviisgasroliT mokla ukurnebeli seniT (kiboTi)daavadebuli mama, romelic didtanjvas ganicdida. sasamarTlom studentipasuxismgeblobisagan gaaTavi -sufla im motiviT, rom mamis siyvarulmada sibralulma mas mkvleloba demen ci isada depresiis mdgomareobaSi Caade nina. 35analogiuria SemTxveva, sadac mkvlelisrolSi ukve eqimi gamovida. eqimma sasikvdilodozis ineqcia gaukeTa Tavisi kolegiscols, romelic kiboTi daavadebisukanasknel stadiaSi araadamianurtanjvas ganicdida. sasamarTlom eqimigaamarTla, magram mis gasamarTlebladis motivi moiyvana, rom tkivilebiT gawamebuliavadmyofi, faqtobrivad, ukvemkvdari iyo da eqimma ar SeiZleba pasuxiagos mkvlelobisaTvis, radgan gvamismokvla SeuZlebelia. 36191

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010evTanazia SeiZleba gamowveuli iyossibralulis grZnobiT ara marto ma-Sin, rodesac sibralulis obieqti momakvdavia,aramed maSinac, rodesac misiobieqtia fsiqikurad daavadebuli anfizikurad maxinji adamiani, magaliTad:dedas maxinji bavSvi eyola da rva dRisaxalSobils dedam sawamlavi misca, romelicmas ojaxis eqimma moutana. 37 amSemTxvevaSi bavSvis mokvlis motivinamdvilad sibraluli iyo, swored amiTaixsneba gamamarTlebeli ganaCeni, romelicsasamarTlom am saqmeze gamoitana,Tumca gansjis sagania, aris ki msgavsiqmedeba evTanazia?! saxeze xom ar yofilaagoniuri avadmyofis daJinebuliTxovna, ixsnan igi mtanjveli sicocxlisgan?!.rogorc vxedavT, sasamarTlomdedis qmedebis gamarTlebisTvis `gamosavali“evTanaziaSi ipova, e.i. dedisqmedebas, romelmac sazogadoeba kideverTi potenciurad arasrulfasovaniadamianisgan gaaTavisufla, erTgvarigamarTleba moeZebna.evTanaziis momxreTa argumentebiudidesi filosofosi platoni ev-Tanazias savsebiT dasaSvebad Tvlida.misi azriT, sasamarTloc da eqimic undazrunavdnen moqalaqeebze, romlebicsrulyofilni arian suliTac da xorci-Tac, xolo vinc aseTi ar aris, vinc suliTacmankieria da xorciTac ukurnebeli– is unda mokvdes. 38adamianis, misi movaleobis, sikvdilissazrisis sakiTxi Tavis naSromebSiwarmoaCina ingliselma filosofosmafrensis bekonma. Sebralebis sababiT`uSfoTveli, tkbili sikvdilis“ Tema manbunebrivad CaTvala. eseSi `sikvdilisTaobaze“ igi wers: `sikvdili momxibvleliatanjulTaTvis, visac autaneltvirTad daswolia urva da borkilebi,da enatreba aRsasruli glaxak qristians– bedis Carxi rom ukuRma dautrialdada amitomac suli misi amboxebulia.aseTTaTvis sikvdili xsnaa, xolo samare– sanatreli sareceli gansasveneblad.“ 39bekonma aucilebel eTikur moTxovnadwamoayena momakvdavisaTvis daxmareba.evTanaziis momxreebi mas `TanagrZnobisaqtad“ ganixilaven da amitom sruliadacar miaCniaT, rom igi qristianulmorals ewinaaRmdegeba. garda amisa, maTiazriT, evTanaziis akrZalva ewinaaRmdegebaadamianis Tavisuflebas, mis avtonomiurobasada Rirsebas, arRvevs eqimisada pacientis pirad urTierTobas.isini miiCneven, rom adamianis dabadebada gardacvaleba piradi, personalurimovlenaa da ara sajaro (sazogadoebrivi)da sikvdilis ufleba ar ewinaaRmdegebasazogadoebriv interesebs. isinievTanaziis problemas ganixilaven individualurida sazogadoebrivi interesebisdapirispirebis WrilSi da miaCniaT,rom sakiTxi individis realuriinteresebis mixedviT unda gadawydes. 40isini evTanazias ganukurnebeli seniTdaavadebuli adamianis mimarT ganxorcielebul`sikeTis aqtad“ miiCneven.evTanaziis momxreTa mosazrebiT,adamianisaTvis sicocxle, romelsaces sicocxle tanjavs, xolo sikvdiliam tanjvisagan aTavisuflebs, `sicocxlisufleba” ki ara, `sicocxlis movaleoba~gamodis. isini amtkiceben, romim SemTxvevaSi, rodesac pacients arSeuZlia Tavisi nebis gamoxatva, Ta namedrovesamedicino teqnika ki mas mxolodxelovnurad ugrZelebs sicocxlesda ar moaqvs arc Sveba da arc gamojanmrTeleba,mas aqvs sikvdilis ufleba.maTi mtkicebiT, arc erT eqims ar aqvsufleba, usasrulod gaaxangrZlivosavad myofis tanjva mxolod imis safuZvelze,rom es teqnikurad SesaZlebelia.yovel adamians aqvs ara marto Rirseulisicocxlis ufleba, aramed sikvdilisdros sakuTari Rirsebis SenarCunebisuflebac. 41evTanaziis momxreebi acxadeben, romevTanazia daSvebuli unda iyos, radganumowyaloba da araadamianoba aris arais, rom davexmaroT momakvdavs, mokvdes,aramed is, rom, ubralod, vuyuroT, Turogor itanjeba avadmyofi da araferigavakeToT imisTvis, raTa rogormeSevumsubuqoT mas ukanaskneli tanjva. 42192

T. sadraZe, evTanaziis zneobrivi da samarTlebrivi problemebiTuki adamians aqvs ufleba sicocxleze,maSin ratom ar unda hqondes masufleba Rirseul sikvdilze?! kanonmdeblobaTaumravlesoba adamians sikvdilisuflebas ar aZlevs, rac ganuyofeliasicocxlis uflebisgan. adamiani Tavadunda iyos sakuTari sicocxlis mflobelida ganmkargavi. ganukurnebeli seniTdaavadebul avadmyofs, romelsac sulcota xnis sicocxleRa darCenia da itanjebaautaneli tkiviliT, unda mivceT`bednieri“ sikvdilis ufleba. arCevaniman unda gaakeTos. ufro didi codvaaadamianis dausrulebeli tanjvis yureba,vidre misi am tanjvisgan gaTavisufleba,Tundac amas adamianis sicocxlismospoba erqvas. evTanazia ki amisTvissaukeTeso gzaa. 43 ase asabuTeben TavianTpozicias evTanaziis dekriminalizaciismxardamWerebi.miuxedavad amisa, gasaTvaliswinebelia,rom TviT saxelganTqmul holandiaSi,e.w. `evTanaziis qveyanaSi~, sadacmosaxleobis 90%-ze meti evTanaziismomxrea, iyo mowinaaRmdegeTa gamosvlebiim periodSi, rodesac evTanaziisSesaxeb kanons iRebdnen. 444. evTanaziis mowinaaRmdegeTaargumentebievTanaziis mowinaaRmdgeTa erTsulovanazrs saTaveSi qristianuli eklesiaudgas. mRvdelmsaxurTa poziciacalsaxaa, igi kategoriulad uaryofsevTanazias. evTanaziis oponentebis azriT,mcneba `ara kac kla“ da „giyvardesTavi Seni“ – is umTavresi zneobrivi postulatebia,razec qristianuli moraliaagebuli, es ki sakmarisi safuZveliaimisaTvis, raTa evTanazia amoralur daukanono aqtad iqnes miCneuli. evTanaziismowinaaRmdegeTa azriT, avadmyofismier evTanaziis moTxovna nakarnaxeviasurviliT, Tavisi ojaxi da sazogadoebagaaTavisuflos finansuri damoraluri tvirTisagan. miuTiTeben, romeqimis mier evTanaziis ganxorcielebaewinaaRmdegeba hipokrates fics da ZirsuTxris eqimis profesiisadmi xalxisndobas, sazogadod. 45 rac SeexebaT eqimebs,iuristebs, pedagogebs, fsiqologebs,filosofosebsa da a.S., maTi azriicvleba cxovrebis realuri pirobebisgaTvaliswinebiT. magaliTad, RrmadmoxucebulTa gamokiTxvam uCvena, rommaTi mniSvnelovani nawili dasaSvebadmiiCnevs da mxars uWers evTanazias. zogierTieqimi Tavis praqtikul saqmianobaSiiyenebs evTanazias da miiCnevs, romes aris marTlzomieri moqmedeba. 46marTlmadidebluri da kaTolikurieklesia sastikad ewinaaRmdegeba ev-Tanazias. marTlmadidebluri eklesiisazri aseTia: dauSvebelia evTanaziisorive saxe – rogorc pasiuri, ise aqtiuri.47 es ukanaskneli, faqtobrivad,TviTmkvlelobaa, ufro sworad, misTvisxelis Sewyoba, TviTmkvleloba ki yvelazedidi codvaa. adamians aqvs uflebasicocxleze, xolo TviT sicocxle damisi warTmevis ufleba mas ar ekuTvnis.mxolod ufals aqvs ufleba, rogorcmianiWos, ise waarTvas sicocxle, xoloevTanaziis meSveobiT adamiani erevauflis saqmeSi, es ki aris adamianis gauazrebeli,qvecnobieri ocneba – gau-Tanabrdes RmerTs, rac yovlad dauSvebelia.evTanaziiT adamiani sxva adamianssicocxles arTmevs.marTlmadidebluri eklesia miiCnevs,rom evTanazia aris satanis msaxureba,romelic sabolood uspobsavadmyofs sinanulisa da cxonebisSesaZleblobas. maTi azriT, aranairi gamarTlebaar aqvs evTanazias, ramdenadacadamianis ukvdavi suli SeudarebladmaRla dgas yovelTvis miwier faseulobasada Sexedulebaze. maTi mtkicebiT,evTanazia eTikuri TvalsazrisiTacdauSvebelia. gadawyvetileba evTanaziaze,ubralod, avadmyofis sasowarkveTilebisSedegia. evTanaziis dakanoneba,sabolood, dascems adamianTa isedacSeryeul zneobas. 48ar SeiZleba samarTali moswydesreligias da Tanac iseT saxelmwifoSi,rogoricaa saqarTvelo, sadac marTlmadideblurieklesiis gansakuTrebuliroli qveynis istoriul ganviTarebaSi193

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010aRiarebulia konstituciis me-9 muxliT.adamianis uflebaTa evropulma sasamarTlomase dasva sakiTxi – SeiZlebodaTu ara, sicocxlis ufleba ganmartebuliyoimgvarad, rom masSi nagulisxmebiyofiliyo sicocxleze uaris Tqmis uflebac.gakeTda daskvna, rom sicocxlisufleba ar SeiZleba interpretirebuliiyos rogorc sikvdilis uflebac. radgan`sicocxlis uflebisgan“ diametruladgansxvavdeba `sikvdilis ufleba“,amitom sicocxlis ufleba ar niSnavs pirissikvdilis uflebas. 49ibadeba kiTxva – xom ar SeiZleba, esiyos pacientis nebis sawinaaRmdegodmisi mkvleloba? amis saSiSroeba ki namdviladarsebobs, rac gamoiwvevs imas,rom evTanaziiT SeiniRbeba Cveulebrivimkvleloba. amasTan, SeiZleba, droTaganmavlobaSi Semsubuqdes kanoniT dadgenilimoTxovnebi, amas ki mohyveba nebissawinaaRmdego qmedebis saSiSroebisgazrda.evTanaziis mowinaaRmdegeebs TavianTipoziciis sisworis dasasabuTebladseriozuli argumentebi mohyavT:1. evTanazia dauSvebelia iuridiuliTvalsazrisiT, radgan im SemTxveva-Si, rodesac eqimi kiboTi daavadebuluimedo avadmyofs momakvdinebelnemss ukeTebs, obieqturad sikvdilsiwvevs ara TviT avadmyofobiTgamowveuli paTologiuri cvlilebebi,aramed tkivilis gamo miRebuligadawyvetileba;2. evTanaziis dakanoneba miuRebeliazneobrivi TvalsazrisiT. adamianissicocxlis unikalurobis gamo,eqimi valdebulia, bolo wuTebamdeyvela saSualebiT ibrZolos misSesanarCuneblad. Tanamedrove samedicinosaSualebebi avadmyofs, eqimisgamamxnevebel saubarTan erTad,imeds usaxavs, imedi ki naxevrad gamojanmrTelebaa;3. gamoricxuli araa Secdoma diagnoz-Si. is, rac dRes ganukurnebel senadiTvleba, xval SeiZleba gankurnebadigaxdes;4.medicinisaTvis cnobilia SemTx vevebi,roca ganukurneblad miCneuliavadmyofebi gamojanmrTeldnen. gamoricxuliaraa eqimis xelmrudoba.evTanazia SeuTavsebelia eqimis profesiulda sazogadoebriv funqciasTan,ndobis atmosferosTan, romelicunda sufevdes eqimsa da pacientsSoris da sxv. 505. evTanaziis problema eqimisa dapacientis urTierTobaSiukanasknel wlebSi aqtualuri xdebasaeqimo gadawyvetilebis procesSi pacientismonawileobis sakiTxi. pacientisada eqimis urTierTobaTa principebidangamomdinare, erTni moiTxoven saeqimogadawyvetilebis miRebaSi pacientis uflebebisgazrdas. meore jgufi sakiTxisamgvarad dasmas arasworad miiCnevs,radgan, rogorc wesi, gadasawyvetia sakmaod rTuli da, upirveles yovlisa,specifikuri (saeqimo) problemebi. maTimsjelobis Tanaxmad, arCevanis uflebamxolod eqimebs unda mieceT, pacientismovaleoba ki is aris, rom daemorCiloseqimis mier miRebul gadawyvetilebas.eqimis movaleobaa, pacients misidaavadebis, Catarebuli saeqimo manipulaciebis,riskisa da Cvevebis SedegebisSesaxeb rac SeiZleba srulyofili informaciamiawodos. monacemebis gacnobisada eqimis rCevebis Semdeg pacientiirCevs mkurnalobis meTods da iRebssaboloo gadawyvetilebas. gasagebi mizezebisgamo, am SemTxvevaSi, pacientismier miRebuli gadawyvetileba yovelTvisver iqneba obieqturi da safuZvliani,radgan misi arCevanis kriteriumi araprofesiulia.amitom eqimis movaleobaaSeqmnili situaciis axsna da avadmyofobisaTvisswori gadawyvetilebis miReba-Si daxmarebis gaweva. saWiroa, eqimma icodesadamianis fsiqologiis safuZvlebi,raTa uzrunvelyos avadmyofis mier aramarto swori gageba, aramed miaRwios pacientisndobas eqimis gadawyvetilebismimarT. eqimma ar unda ugulebelyos pacientismoTxovnebi. pacientma TviTon194

T. sadraZe, evTanaziis zneobrivi da samarTlebrivi problemebiunda miiRos gadawyvetileba imis Sesaxeb,Tu rogori mkurnalobaa misTvismisa Rebi.eqimis amocanaa, daexmaros mas sworarCevanSi. pacientebs ufleba aqvT, miiRonamomwuravi informacia sakuTarijanmrTelobis mdgomareobis Sesaxeb,konkretuli samedicino monacemebisCaTvliT, ganzraxuli samedicinoCarevebis, TiToeuli procedurisSesaZlo riskisa da mosalodneli efeqtisSesaxeb, diagnozis, prognozisa dasamkurnalo procesebis mimdinareobisSesaxeb. am urTierTobaSi gaTvaliswinebuliaisic, rom gamonaklisis saxiTpacients SeiZleba ar miewodos informacia,Tu arsebobs dasabuTebuli eWvi,rom es informacia mas seriozul ziansmiayenebs da aSkara dadebiTi Sedegi mosalodneliar aris.eqimi am modelSi gvevlineba rogorcmrCeveli, pacientis aucilebeli informaciiTmommaragebeli, amxsneli imisa,rom mis mdgomareobas Seesabameba mkurnalobises saSualeba da ara romelimesxva. 51aRniSnul mdgomareobaSi eqimi moqmedebsrogorc pacientis megobari damaswavlebeli, moTminebiT uxsnis mas saqmisviTarebas, acnobs gadawyvetilebisSesaZlo variantebs, iTvaliswinebs pacientiscodnis dones, mis profesias da saboloodrekomendacias uwevs mas, miiRosyvelaze ukeTesi da sasargeblo gadawyvetileba.pacients aqvs SesaZlebloba,airCios eqimis mier daxasiaTebeli yvelaalternatiuli variantidan saukeTeso,gansazRvros misi optimaluroba. mniSvnelovania,rom nebismier konkretulSemTxvevaSi SeirCes yvelaze misaRebi dasasargeblo modeli. 52daskvnaevTanaziis ufleba dRes msofliodiskusiis sagania, vinaidan is erT-erTisakamaTo samedicino, religiuri, iuridiuliTu eTikuri xasiaTis sakiTxia.evTanazia dakavSirebulia principulixasiaTis konfliqtebTan. am dros warmoiSobakonfliqti ZiriTad uflebebsSoris – erTi mxriv, sicocxles, rogorcfaseulobasa da meore mxriv, TiToeuliadamianis uflebas Soris, damoukidebladmiiRos gadawyvetileba sakuTarisicocxlis Sesaxeb. erTiani sazogadoebriviazri evTanaziaze arasdros arsebobda,mas momxrec bevri hyavs da mowinaaRmdegec.cnobilia, rom platonimxars uWerda mas, magram qristianobamigi uaryo.evTanaziis yoveli SemTxveva eTikisada samarTlis poziciidan unda Sefasdes.kanoni imdenadaa progresuli, ramdenadaczneobrivia.gasarkvevia, Tu ramdenad marTlzomieriauimedo avadmyofis mxridan ev-Tanaziis moTxovnis ufleba, ra samarTlebrividasayrdeni aqvs `sikvdilis uflebas“`sicocxlis uflebaSi“ da rogorunda gadawydes RirebulebaTa konfliqti,amitom igi kompleqsur xedvas moi-Txovs da mxolod imis mixedviT ar undagadawydes, Tu romeli uflebaa, sazogadod,ufro mniSvnelovani. 53erT-erTi mTavari orientiri imissworad Sefasebaa, aris Tu ara evTanaziismoTxovna bunebrivi, adamianis miermarTlzomierad nagulvebi ufleba. 541946 wels amerikaSi Seiqmna evTanaziissazogadoeba, romelmac sakanonmdebloorganoebs warudgina 1500 eqimisada 54 pastoris mier xelmowerilikanonproeqti. masSi naTqvami iyo, rom 21wlidan yoveli asakis pirs, romelic daavadebuliaukurnebeli seniT, uflebaaqvs moiTxovos mSvidi sikvdili, xoloeqimebisa da iuristebisagan Semdgarmakomisiam unda gamoikvlios, SeiZleba Tuara am moTxovnis dakmayofileba. 55 ase-Tive sazogadoebebi Seiqmna inglisSi daisinic moiTxovdnen, rom jansaRi gonebismqone srulwlovan adamians, romelicmetismetad itanjeba, neba daerTos, ar-Cevani gaakeTos advil da mZime sikvdilsSoris da am arCevanis dros gamoiyenossamedicino saSualeba. 56 erT-erT peticiaSi,romelic evTanaziis momxreebmaniu-iorkis Statis xelisufalT miarTves,ewera: „rodesac adamiani ukurne-195

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010beli daavadebis Sedegad intensiur daxangrZliv tanjvas ganicdis, sicocxlemisTvisac da misi axloblebisTvisacyovelgvar fass kargavs. Cveni azriT, sazogadoebamesoden gawamebul adamiansunda misces sikvdilis ufleba. amiT Cvenadamianis mimarT iseTsave TanagrZnobasgamoviCenT, rogorsac viCenT cxovelebismimarT.“ 57amgvari xasiaTis mosazrebaTa safuZvelzeSeqmnili evTanaziis sazogadoebebi,agreTve kerZo pirebi, romelTacsjeraT evTanaziis marTlzomiereba, adgenenevTanaziis dausjelobis sxvadasxvagegmas. yvela am gegmaSi evTanaziis aRsasrulebladSemdegi mTavari moTxovnebiawamoyenebuli:1. ganukurnebeli seni da misi ukanasknelistadia;2. avadmyofobis survili – mokvdes;3. `sasikvdilo ganaCenis“ aRsrulebaeqimis mier mas Semdeg, roca avadmyofismdgomareobas Seamowmebs sxva eqimi (aneqimebi).unda iTqvas, rom eqimis diagnoziganukurnebel senze SeiZleba arasworiaRmoCndes. gamoricxuli ar aris, romeqimebi Secdnen da is, rac agoniad moeCvenaT,sinamdvileSi krizisi iyo. amavedros, dResac, rodesac adamianis reanimaciasaxerxeben, rodesac sazRvarisikvdil-sicocxles Soris TiTqmis waSlilia,sikvdilis piras myofi avadmyoficki SeiZleba sikvdils gadaurCes.mravali seni, romelic ganukurnebladiTvleboda, daZleulia.SesaZlebelia, piris evTanaziis safuZvlismimcemi senic evTanaziis ganxorcielebisSemdeg gankurnebadi gaxdes.ratom unda igrZnon sindisis qenjnaeqimma da avadmyofis axloblebma, romlebmacevTanazias mimarTes?!. amas isicunda davumatoT, rom Cvens droSi tkivilisgamayuCebeli da sxvagvari wvalebisSemamsubuqebeli imdeni saSualeba arsebobs,rom jobs, am saSualebebs mimar-Tos eqimma da maT srulyofaze izrunosmedicinam.aseve arafris damamtkicebelia meorepiroba – avadmyofis Tanxmoba. rogordavadginoT momakvdavis namdvili survili,rom igi eloda sikvdils, rogorcxsnas? SeiZleba avadmyofze zegavlenamoaxdines axloblebma, romlebsacmobezrdaT misi movla, an SeiZleba masTavad ar surs Seawuxos es adamianebi.amasTan, tkivilebiT gamwarebul adamiansbevrjer SeiZleba wamocdes mudara,rom moklan da amiT bolo mouRon mistanjvas, magram gana es misi namdvili nebisdadasturebaa?!davuSvaT erTi wuTiT, rom eqims oficialuradmieces ufleba agoniaSi myofi,ganukurnebeli seniT daavadebuliavadmyofis mokvlisa, Tundac misi da-Jinebuli TxovniT da mudariT. ra ndobaeqneboda xalxis TvalSi aseT eqims, romelmac„hipokrates fics“ uRalata daavadmyofis mdgomareobis Semsubuqebisnacvlad sicocxlis isedac daTvliliwuTebi Seumokla pacients?! avadmyofsSeeSindeboda aseTi eqimis xelSi moxvedra.mxedvelobaSi misaRebia isic, rom,marTalia, evTanaziis momxreni moralurimotivebiT xelmZRvaneloben, maTmxolod surT, eqimma gauadvilos sulTmobrZavs,romelic sikvdilis mijnazeamisuli, am mijnis umtkivneulod gavla,magram maT aviwydebaT, rom, roca adamiansmomakvdinebel iaraRs aZlev xelSi,amiT yovelTvis SeiZleba isargeblosarakeTilsindisierma pirma da evTanaziaborotad gamoiyenos.bolos, mTavari argumenti is aris,rom adamianis sicocxle absoluturiRirebulebaa. igi daculia im momentidan,rodesac adamiani dedis saSodan ibadeba,im dromde, vidre igi mokvdeba; daculiaimis miuxedavad, Tu rogor afasebs sazogadoebaam pirovnebas, imis miuxedavad,srulfasovania igi, janmrTeli Tuavadmyofi, an maxinji. Tu ra SedegebamdeSeiZleba miiyvanos kacobrioba adamianissicocxlis gaufasurebam, es kargadwarmoaCina faSizmma.196

T. sadraZe, evTanaziis zneobrivi da samarTlebrivi problemebi1ix. f. sayvareliZe, evTanazia – mowyaleba Tu mkvleloba, Jurnali `Tavisufleba~,Tb., 2003, gv. 31.2evTanazia warmoSobiT berZnuli sityvaa da pirdapiri mniSvnelobiTgulisxmobs tkbil, msubuq, uSfoTvel, bednier sikvdils. igi Sedgebaori nawilisgan: `eu“ – kargi da `Tanatos“ – sikvdili.3termini `evTanazia“ pirvelad cnobilma ingliselma filosofosmafrensis bekonma gamoiyena 1605 wels mSvidi, uSfoTveli, advili da umtkivneulosikvdilis aRsaniSnavad. evTanaziis cneba jer kidev antikurixanis romaelebsa da berZnebs hqondaT gaazrebuli, rac umeteswilad`arasrulfasovani sicocxlis“ Tvalsazriss ukavSirdeboda.4ix. avtorTa koleqtivi, sisxlis samarTlis kerZo nawili, wigni I, Tb.,2006, gv. 52.5erTmaneTisgan ganasxvaveben evTanaziis sam saxes: aqtiur evTanazias,pasiur evTanazias, TviTmkvlelobas eqimis daxmarebiT. aqtiuri evTanaziagulisxmobs ukurnebeli daavadebis terminalur stadiaze myofiavadmyofis mimarT iseTi preparatis gamoyenebas, romelic aCqarebssikvdils (e.w. `Sevsebuli Spricis meTodi“). aqtiuri evTanaziis drossikvdilis daCqareba xorcieldeba movlenebis bunebrivad ganviTarebaSiaqtiuri CareviT, mag: avadmyofisTvis wamlis Warbi dozis micemiTan sxvagvarad.pasiuri evTanazia gulisxmobs ukurnebeli seniT daavadebuli pacientisTvisdamxmare Terapiis Sewyvetas (e.w. `gadadebuli Spricis me-Todi“), ra drosac xdeba bunebrivi sikvdilis dadgoma avadmyofisaTvissamedicino daxmarebis Sewyvetis gziT. aseT dros `Careva“ mxolodmkurnalobis gagrZelebis SewyvetiT amoiwureba, rac avadmyofs saSualebasaZlevs, bunebrivad daasrulos Tavisi sicocxle.TviTmkvleloba eqimis daxmarebiT gulisxmobs, avadmyofisveTxovniT, misTvis sicocxlis momswrafebeli preparatebis (rasac Tavadavadmyofi iyenebs damoukideblad), an maT Sesaxeb informaciis gadacemas.6am qveynebis kanonmdeblobiT, mkvleli, romelic moqmedebs msxverplisdaJinebuli TxovniT, misi tanjvisagan gaTavisuflebis gulmowyalemizniT, iTvleba Cveulebriv mkvlelad.7am qveynebis sisxlis samarTlis kodeqsis Tanaxmad, vTanaziis CadenisTvisSemamsubuqebeli sasjelebia gaTvaliswinebuli.8am qveynebis kanonmdeblobiT evTanazia ar isjeba.9ix. J. pradeli, SedarebiTi sisxlis samarTali, mokle kursi, Tb., 1999,gv. 128.10ix. e. gociriZe, sicocxlis dasawyisi da dasasruli: fetusisa da evTanaziisuflebrivi sakiTxebi strasburgis iurisprudenciis mixedviT,statiaTa krebuli, adamianis uflebaTa dacvis evropuli da erovnulisistemebi, 2007, gv. 52-53.11ix. f. sayvareliZe, evTanazia – mowyaleba Tu mkvleloba, Jurnali `Tavisufleba~,Tb., 2003, gv. 33.12ix. e. qardava, evTanaziis problema sisxlis samarTalSi, Jurnali `samarTali~,mecniereba, publicistika, praqtika, Tb., 2001, gv. 61.13ix. e. gociriZe, sicocxlis dasawyisi da dasasruli: fetusisa da evTanaziisuflebrivi sakiTxebi strasburgis iurisprudenciis mixedviT,statiaTa krebuli, adamianis uflebaTa dacvis evropuli da erovnulisistemebi, 2007, gv. 51-52.14ix. J. pradeli, SedarebiTi sisxlis samarTali, mokle kursi, 1999,gv. 128-129.15ix. Росийское угаловное право, Особенная частъ, М., 1997, с. 131-132.197

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 201016ix. J. pradeli, SedarebiTi sisxlis samarTali, mokle kursi, 1999,gv. 138.17ix. Уголовное право зарубежних стран, обшая частъ, М ., 2003, с. 262.18ix. www.alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2008/12/stephan-dufour-found-not-guilty-in-alma.html19ix. С. Бородин, престурление против жизни, М., 2000, с. 23.20ix. f. sayvareliZe, evTanazia – mowyaleba Tu mkvleloba, Jurnali `Tavisufleba~,Tb., 2003, gv. 35.21ix. iqve.22www. euthanasia.com/ arguments against euthanasia .html23f. sayvareliZe, evTanazia – mowyaleba Tu mkvleloba, Jurnali `Tavisufleba~, Tb., 2003, gv. 35.24ix. saqarTvelos kanoni `janmrTelobis dacvis Sesaxeb“, 148-e muxli.25ix. z. wulaia, danaSauli adamianis winaaRmdeg, Tb., 2000, gv. 50.26www. euthanasia.com/ arguments against euthanasia.html27ix. avtorTa koleqtivi, sisxlis samarTlis kerZo nawili, wigni I, Tb.,2006, gv. 50.28ix. saqarTvelos kanoni `janmrTelobis dacvis Sesaxeb“, 148-e muxli.29ix. С. Бородин, престурление против жизни, М., 2000, с. 29.30www. euthanasia.com/ assisted suicide, living wills and mercy killing/html31www. euthanasia.com/ euthanasia essues in Netherlands, Belgium, Canada,Great Britain,U.S,Columbi, Israel. html32www. euthanasia.com/suicide mercy-killing right-to-die physician assisted.html.33T. wereTeli, evTanazia, rogorc zneobrivi da samarTlebrivi problema,Jurnali `sabWoTa samarTali~, 6, Tb., 1976, gv. 52.34ix. www.pregnantpause.org/euth/liberty.htm, Euthanasia: a case of individual liberty?,by Jay Johansen, posted September 6, 2000.35t. xorvati, evTanazia, rogorc samedicino da sisxlis samarTlis mecnierebisproblema, berlini, 2001.36www.pregnantpause.org/euth/tipes.htm, tipes of euthanasia , posted November20, 2004.37ix. Jurnali `samarTali~, 6, 1976, gv. 39.38ix. Платон, Сочинения, М., 1971, с. 195-196.39ix. f. bekoni, sikvdilis Taobaze axali Targmenebi, Tb., 1992, gv. 72.40ix. e. gociriZe, sicocxlis dasawyisi da dasasruli: fetusisa da evTanaziisuflebrivi sakiTxebi strasburgis iurisprudenciis mixedviT,statiaTa krebuli, adamianis uflebaTa dacvis evropuli da erovnulisistemebi, Tb., 2007, gv. 51.41ix. f. sayvareliZe, evTanazia – mowyaleba Tu mkvleloba, Jurnali `Tavisufleba~,gv. 36-37.42www. euthanasia.com/suicide mercy-killing right-to-die physician assisted/html43www. euthanasia.com/ assisted suicide, living wills and mercy killing/html44www. euthanasia.com/ arguments against euthanasia/html45ix. e. gociriZe, sicocxlis dasawyisi da dasasruli: fetusisa da evTanaziisuflebrivi sakiTxebi strasburgis iurispudenciis mixedviT,statiaTa krebuli, adamianis uflebaTa dacvis evropuli da erovnulisistemebi, Tb., 2007, gv. 50.46ix. z. wulaia, sisxlis samarTali, kerZo nawili, tomi I, Tb., 2000, gv. 82.47www.orthodoxy.ge/skhva/evtanazia.htm, interviu dekanoz arCil mindi aSvilTan.48www.orthodoxy.ge/skhva/evtanazia.htm, interviu dekanoz arCil mindiaSvilTan.49ix. f. sayvareliZe, evTanazia – mowyaleba Tu mkvleloba, Jurnali `Tavisufleba~,gv. 53-54.198

T. sadraZe, evTanaziis zneobrivi da samarTlebrivi problemebi50ix. avtorTa koleqtivi, sisxlis samarTlis kerZo nawili, wigni I, Tb.,2006, gv. 49-5051ix. d. gegeSiZe, evTanazia – mowyaleba Tu danaSauli?!, Tb., 2003, gv. 32-34.52iqve, gv. 37.53ix. e. gociriZe, sicocxlis dasawyisi da dasasruli: fetusisa da evTanaziisuflebrivi sakiTxebi strasburgis iurisprudenciis mixedviT,statiaTa krebuli, adamianis uflebaTa dacvis evropuli da erovnulisistemebi, Tb., 2007, gv. 56.54iqve, gv. 57-58.55www. euthanasia.com/ euthanasia essues in Netherlands, Belgium, Canada,Great Britain,Uunited States, ColumbiaIsrael, .html56www. euthanasia.com/ euthanasia essues in Netherlands, Belgium, Canada,Great Britain,Uunited States, ColumbiaIsrael, .html57www. euthanasia.com/ euthanasia essues in Netherlands, Belgium, Canada,Great Britain,Uunited States, ColumbiaIsrael, .html199

TAMAR SADRADZEETHICAL AND LEGAL PROBLEMS OF EUTHANASIAINTRODUCTIONInaccessibility of a person’s life was fi rstrecorded in 1215 under the Great Charter ofFreedoms signed by the King of England.In the exact meaning of the term, the“Right to Life,” implies that the state has a dutyto grant its citizens immortality. If this werepossible, would it mean the state, would haveto forbid citizens to commit suicide as well?The Right to Life does not mean the rightto live in this world forever. Moreover, it shouldbe interpreted in a way that means nobody isallowed to terminate another’s life artifi cially.Actually, such an understanding of the right tolife implies that the state is obliged to renderits assistance to each of its citizens in order tosustain life. 1 Therefore, life turns out to be theright of a person.Freedoms known as negative rights reflect an inactive state. Such an understandingof the right to life means a person is responsiblefor his own life, and nobody may take itaway. The person must take care of himself.Euthanasia 2 has become one of modern society’smost important issues in the world today.3 It implies ending the life of an individualsuffering from an incurable illness in the terminalstage to eliminate any physical agony. 4In the science and practice of criminal law,the matter of ending the life of an indi vidualupon their request has long been highly controversial.Euthanasia continues to be a hotlydebated topic. There are various opinionswhether a person may terminate his life at hisdiscretion. Is euthanasia a crime or a charity?Should it be generally punishable or considereda humane act? There is no answer.The issue of euthanasia exists in both atheoretical and practical point of view. Notwithstandinga number of assessments andconclusions regarding the medical, legal, philosophical,axiological, and ethical aspects ofeuthanasia, there is no universal opinion onmany material issues. While there is no answerto the question, one must consider whetheran individual is obliged to watch the long andagonizing suffering of another individual (usuallya close relative) and take no measures toend such suffering. Or whether a physician isobliged to sustain a person’s life till the endand extend their suffering, or perhaps he hasthe right to end this suffering and administera ,,sweet death”?! Does a physician serve asthe executioner of a person’s will or performan act of evil? All countries have individualapproaches to these questions, according totheir legal, social and religious backgrounds.1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEMOF EUTHANASIAIt must be noted that God grants us life,not an option between life and death, as manybelieve. For example, a suicide is an unpardonablesin, but it is not legally punished. Anindividual may refuse treatment procedures(e.g. blood transfusion), as well as entire treatments.It is his choice and any coercion willviolate his right of physical inaccessibility andwill be considered an act of violence.In some countries, all the three types ofeuthanasia 5 are completely forbidden, (e.g.France, Russia, 6 ) in some countries it is consideredto be a condition of crime facilitation,(e.g. Germany, Austria, Portugal, Georgia, 7 )200

T. SADRADZE, ETHICAL AND LEGAL PROBLEMS OF EUTHANASIAwhile in other countries it is permitted, 8 (e.g.Holland, Belgium, Australia, Argentina, Columbia,Japan). 9The fi rst country to legalize euthanasiawas Holland, where. t has actually been unofficially permitted since 1993. In 2001 the DutchParliament adopted a law legalizing euthanasia.Euthanasia is permitted if a patient is sufferingfrom an incurable illness and faces unbearablephysical pain. Among the documentspresented by the commission there must, byall means, be a written declaration by the patientand a recent medical report. In the rulingof a positive decision, the patient is grantedthe right to implement an act of euthanasia. 10Every twenty-fi fth Dutch person sufferingfrom an incurable illness at home appliesthis extreme form of medical assistance, whileevery seventy-fi fth person does so at hospitals.11 Between 1936-1950, in Great Britain, supportersof euthanasia fi led an application to theHouse of Lords concerning the legalization ofeuthanasia. This proposal to adopt a law onthe legalization of euthanasia was rejected in1969 and defeated by a vote of the order of 60to 40 in the House of Lords. 12In 2000, the UK Ministry of Healthcare issuedstrict rules in which a physician has theright not to restore a patient’s heart or breathingso that the incurable patient may avoidacute physical suffering. . Physicians may bepassive if the patient’s will is certifi ed documentarily,if the patient has no chance for successfulresuscitation and if the patient’s life willbe agonizing after reanimation( i.e. euthanasiais prohibited in Great Britain, however, there isan exception where the country partly recognizespassive euthanasia). 13Since 2002, passive euthanasia has beenpermitted in Switzerland although some formalitiesspecifi ed by law should be permittedin its implementation.Euthanasia was legalized by Belgian legislationin 2002. Citizens of Belgium over 18have the right to euthanasia. By decision ofthe administration of the University of Belgium,euthanasia is even taught in the curriculum ofthe medical faculty so that students may performeuthanasia properly and with minimumrisk. People are “assisted” in Switzerland aswell, where the “Sweat Death” is available indrug stores, only with a prescription and onlyto citizens of Switzerland. 14Under Russian law, killing a victim at hisrequest is considered intentional murder withoutany facilitating circumstances. Under theRussian law on the “Healthcare of Citizens”, itis emphasized that euthanasia is not allowedin any way. Medical personnel are forbidden toimplement euthanasia even if it is an insistedrequest of a patient. 15French law considers euthanasia intentionalmurder; however, some years ago a lawon passive euthanasia was adopted. In thislaw, individuals suffering from incurable illnesseswere granted the right to refuse treatment,if there is a written declaration by thepatient and certifi cation that this decision ismade voluntarily and in a realized manner. 16Under German law, euthanasia is a crimeand is subject to punishment, if a physician activelyparticipates in releasing a patient fromsuffering upon their request. . This law can beattributed to the detrimental years of socialnationalism when thousands of Germans withcongenital mental and physical defects becamevictims of the state program, “Recoveryof the Nation’s Gene Pool,” in which murder“for charitable purposes” was closely relatedto the willful act of Nazis’ in white smocks whothought that they had the right to decide whoshould live and who should not.Article 216 of the Criminal Code ofGermany states: “If a person is induced tokill by the express and earnest request of thevictim the penalty shall be imprisonment fromsix months to fi ve years”. It is evident that euthanasiais recognized as a less grave crimethan murder. 17 Notwithstanding this stipulationof the law, on December 12, 2008, Germancourt acquitted a 30 year-old citizen, StephanDufor, in the case of euthanasia carried out onhis uncle. At the court proceeding, Dufor declaredthat his act was induced by the insistedrequest of his uncle, because he could no longerendure his uncle’s insistent begging to assisthim in suicide, which persisted for several201

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010months. 18 This reveals the attitude to the issueof euthanasia is gradually getting more liberalin Germany and both the court and society areseeking a basis to justify the act.In Catholic Italy, “Euthanasia” is not apopular term, although vigorous discussionson this topic are debated from a medical aswell as a legal point of view. 19 Several yearsago, lawyers participating in a symposium tothe issue of euthanasia in Turin worked out adraft document for discussion, titled “BiologicalWill”, which incurable patients were allowedto sign. It released medical personnel assistinginfi rmed people in mercy killing from legalresponsibility. Participants of the symposiumemphasized that euthanasia should be considereda fundamental human right. 20 Thisidea was not supported in Italy due to the irreconcilableposition of the Catholic Churchin matters of euthanasia. Pope John Paul IIdemanded the government (in a strict manneruncharacteristic of him) to take measuresto protect family by prohibiting abortions andeuthanasia. The Pope appealed to the clergyto struggle against euthanasia and assistedsuicide by every means. “One who does notrespect life, especially its weaknesses, I mustremind you, that life is a gift of God and it iseverybody’s duty to protect it”, the Pope declared.He underlined that this duty especiallyrefers to medical personnel, who have takenthe Hippocratic Oath. 21From the ethical point of view, there arisesa question. Isn’t every incident of euthanasiaa form of murder according to law?! Somepeople that are close to a person slowly dyingand in unbearable physical pain, believe thereis no sense to speak about morality when anindividual is begging for an end his torturedexistence. Supporters of euthanasia think thatif the life of this person was perfect, deathshould also be pleasant. 22Annual public opinion surveys in Hollandreveal that euthanasia is not viewed as aninfringement on human life. 80-90% of thosequestioned believe this. When Pope John PaulII publicly condemned euthanasia, the numberof Dutch euthanasia supporters increased by5%. 23 In Holland, the number of euthanasiacases is gradually growing and will presumablycontinue to in the future, as the populationbecomes accustomed to the opinion thata person can manage his fate by himself.Today, medical techniques and methodsof intensive care are so developed that equipmentcan perform all the vital functions of anorganism and practically extend life indefi nitely.However, there is a problem with passiveeuthanasia not addressed in legislation, wheredoctors can terminate the life of a personin a coma for a long period, with no chancesof survival. In such cases, the physicians assumethat the patient himself would not beagainst the physician’s decision incases whenthe patient cannot express his own opinion.It should be noted that most countriesaround the world recognize passive euthanasia,including Georgia. 242. EUTHANASIA ACCORDING TO THELAWS OF GEORGIAThe attitude of Georgian society towardseuthanasia is generally negative, due to theposition of the Georgian Orthodox Church, ancientnational traditions and customs, in whicheuthanasia is unmistakably considered murderand suicide - a mortal sin.Euthanasia is considered by Georgianlegislation as intentional murder committedunder facilitating circumstances, and punishmentis respectively lighter than general intentionalmurder. In a wide sense, euthanasiameans ending a mentally and physically defi -cient life with a noble idea. Therefore, underthe law, the court has been granted an authorityto take compassion into consideration as acircumstance facilitating the responsibility.In the Criminal Code of Georgia, activeeuthanasia is forbidden because a physicianshould by no means take part in a prematuredeath and jeopardize the moral ground of thephysician’s profession. 25Based on Article 110 of the Criminal Codeof Georgia, terminating a life, whether at thevictim’s insistence and genuine will or againsthis will, is considered murder. The victim’sconsent and insistence do not release an individualfrom the responsibility.202

T. SADRADZE, ETHICAL AND LEGAL PROBLEMS OF EUTHANASIAThe legislation emphasizes three materialcomponents in the disposition: 1. Inspiration ofan accused person by the victim, 2. Insistenceof a person, 3. Fulfi llment of the victim’s will.These three components determine the subjectiveposition of an offender that facilitatedan intentional killing. An offender intentionallykills a sick person, however, this intention isinspired by and originated from the victim inorder to free the dying person from intensephysical suffering.The insistence of a victim, according tohis genuine will, is a factor that provokes inspiration.This implies that a person is infl uencedwhen a certain feeling to do something appears,sometimes against his will and contraryto accepted principles of behavior. When a dyingperson insists to end his tortured life, it canproduce a pitiful affect on a subject, where thedesire to free the dying person from unbearable,inhuman torture appears, which can berelieved by giving him a chance to die peacefully.26 Notwithstanding the aforementioned,we face an act of public danger; terminatinga person’s life. This cannot be considered acircumstance that absolves the guilty, as itviolates a constitutional principle. “Life is aninaccessible human right and it is protected bylaw”. In this case, the Constitution and publicopinion correspond to the opinions of theOrthodox Church, which has an irreconcilableposition regarding euthanasia.According to the Criminal Code of Georgia,killing at the victim’s request (euthanasia) isincluded in the group of privileged compositions,as the matter refers not only to killingwith the victim’s consent, but an insisted requestof an individual concerning his releasefrom physical agony. This request should expressthe actual will of the dying person. Heshould be in a condition to completely controland manage his facilities but if the victim is notin such a condition, taking his life is intentionalmurder, unless of course, there is no otherburdensome circumstance. 27Under the Law of Georgia on the Patient’sRights, it is highlighted that euthanasia isforbidden to medical personnel and is notpermitted in any way. However, at the sametime, according to Article 24 “Every citizen ofGeorgia has the right to express in advancehis/her wish (consent or refusal) in writtenform concerning the provision of resuscitation,life-saving treatment or palliative care, whenthe patient becomes incompetent or losesdecision-making capacity, only if such a conditionis caused by:a) Terminal stage of incurable disease;b) Disease, which inevitably will cause seriousdisability”. i.e. the patient is given anopportunity to make a decision whetherto undergo a course of treatment to extendhis life or not. The Law of Georgia onHealthcare refers to the same issue. 28The patient may refuse and stop treatment,but neither a physician nor any otherperson (relative, friend, etc.) may render assistanceto the dying patient.Thus, active euthanasia is forbidden andpassive euthanasia is permitted in Georgia.Passive euthanasia is considered a privilegedtype of killing. (Article 110).3. CONFLICT BETWEEN THE SUPPORTERSAND OPPONENTS OF EUTHANASIAEuthanasia has a number of supportersand opponents. They have serious argumentssubstantiating the correctness of their opinion.The matter of selecting a general criterion iscomplicated by the uniqueness, individuality,inclinations, desires, religion, ethno-psychologicalnature, traditions, habits, etc. of eachindividual and infi rmed person.Currently, many people realize that euthanasiais not “murder” and that it is the “right ofa person on their deathbed”. As the authors ofone manual of the Criminal Code of Englandnote, “notwithstanding the prohibition, thereare still a lot of similar cases in medical practice,as for the opinion of society, it is mainlyexpressed by close relatives and/or friends ofthe patient and they see nothing immoral in it,on the contrary, they consider that the latter isphysically and morally facilitating for both parties,although all of them greatly respect humanlife“. 29Sometimes we encounter intense situationsin life when people must watch the agony203

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010of a loved one who is cognizant. Such a terriblecondition sometimes lasts for months oryears. Why should a person end his life hatinglife? If an individual has the right to life, whyshouldn’t he have the right to death? Whereis the border between humanity and murder?Which is more humane – retaining life artifi -cially to a sick person in agony for an indefi niteperiod, or euthanasia?! The answer to thesequestions lies beyond medical ethics and requirea legal evaluation. 30Considering life as the greatest value isbased on the unrepeated nature of each life.Therefore, life is the greatest value for an individualthat possesses it. That is why the rightto terminate life belongs only to him and noone else.According to laws, even in cases wheneuthanasia is implemented by a complete andordered system, it is impossible to assert thatan act of euthanasia can be performed withoutmistakes and risks. Any mistake made in relationto euthanasia is fatal, because terminatedlife can never be restored.From a legal point of view, the “right tolive” does not imply the “right to die” as well.Legislators may not recognize the right ofdeath unilaterally. A person disposes of hislife independently and has the right to end itat any time in an act of suicide. This does notmean another person has the right and duty toassist him in attaining this purpose. The rightof suicide is recognized by law but it contradictsmost religions. By recognizing euthanasia,its application will not only be the right ofthe person but a professional duty, althoughmany doctors (especially believers) will beagainst fulfi lling such an obligation. In addition,this directly contradicts the HippocraticOath and generally, the purpose of a doctor’sprofession.Euthanasia is not justifi ed in the legalsense, when a physician administers a lifetakinginjection to a hopeless patient sufferingfrom cancer. Objective death is not caused bythe disease itself but by the injection administeredby the doctor.One more legal problem with euthanasiais the implementation to a patient in an unconsciousstate, who cannot express his will.A physician may be obliged to expedite deathdue to pity, when patient requests or consentsto the implementation of euthanasia, and/orwhen acknowledgment of such consent willbe impossible due to the unconsciousness ofthe patient, i.e. the object of encroachmentof legalized euthanasia will be the life of thepatient who supposedly would have objectedto such a life, however supposition does notmean a certifi ed fact and a legislator cannotjustify the legalization of ending life based ona supposition.With euthanasia, if even one life is mistakenlyended, it is a suffi cient enough reason fora legislator to refuse. In the USA, the supportersof euthanasia were headed by physicianJack Kevorkian, who was known as “DoctorDeath.” He administered euthanasia to about100 people. Kevorkian was considered by anumber of people as the fi nal hope and solesavior; however, he was later indicted andfound guilty. Among his victims of euthanasia75% were not terminally ill, and 5% were absolutelyhealthy. 31Additionally, in Russia a physician administeredeuthanasia to 12 persons, two of whomwere healthy women. 32So, we can conclude that these physiciansperforming euthanasia went so far theycouldn’t properly evaluate their actions andbecame ordinary killers. .It should be taken into account that thegeneral motivation of the voluntary death of amajority of patients is unbearable pain, i.e. therequest is motivated by imposition and not byan objective state. The history of medicine isrich with insistent requests by those woundedin war to amputate a limb or to help them die. .There are also known facts about how, hands,legs, eyes, lives, etc. were restored to thousandsof people. 33Social surveys in many countries assertthat legalization of euthanasia is evaluatednegatively more frequently by physicians andmedical personnel than the general population.Supporters of euthanasia apply to twotypes of arguments. One side takes the pa-204

T. SADRADZE, ETHICAL AND LEGAL PROBLEMS OF EUTHANASIAtient’s interest into consideration. In their opinion,we cannot deprive a person who suffersunbearable pain of his right to make a choicebetween a tortured life and death. To preventsuch torture, the physician or another personwho assists the patient to accomplish his wishmay not be indicted for murder. . As this kind ofeuthanasia is more frequently applied to agonizedpeople, it is sometimes called “agonisticeuthanasia.” 34 The most dramatic examples ofeuthanasia are agonistic.We witness examples of agonistic euthanasiamostly in countries where legislationdoes not provide for an informed person’sconsent; therefore cases of euthanasia areconsidered intentional murders which typicallyresult in severe punishments. In moredemonstrative cases, when conscience’s cannotbear severely punishing people who actedout of pity, courts apply to quite artifi cial legalarguments to justify such “killers acted on thebasis of pity.” For example, a 21 year-old studentkilled his father who suffered from severepain and an incurable disease (cancer). Thecourt released the student from liability basedon the fact that his love and pity towards hisfather made him commit a murder in the conditionof dementia and depression. 35 Anotherexample of this type of case is when a doctoradministered a lethal injection to his colleague’swife in the fi nal stage of cancer andsuffering from extreme pain. The court acquittedthe doctor, stating that the patient, havingsevere pains, was actually dead and the doctormay not be made answer for murder, sinceit is impossible to kill a dead body. 36Euthanasia may be caused by a sense ofpity not only when the object of pity is dying,but when the object is mentally ill or physicallyugly, such as when a mother gave birth to anugly child and poisoned it 8 days later.. 37 In thiscase, pity was the reason an infant was killed,according tithe court’s judgment. However,the question remains whether this behavioris actually euthanasia. There was no insistedrequest by an infi rmed person to release himfrom his misery. As we see, the court found away to justify the act of a mother (i.e. a motherwas justifi ed from providing society with oneless potentially defective person.4. ARGUMENTS OF EUTHANASIASUPPORTERSThe philosopher Plato considered euthanasiaa quite acceptable act. In his opinion,citizens should be taken care of by both thecourt and a doctor, which are perfect in allrespects and those with a defective soul orphysical defi ciency, should die. 38The English philosopher Francis Baconconsidered “a calm, sweet death” caused bypity as natural. In his Essay of Death, he wrote“Death is attractive for the ones who suffer.For those, life becomes an unbearable tortureand fetters, and a poor Christian is thirsty fordeath – whose fate turned its back and that’sthe reason his soul is revolted. For these deathis deliverance and the grave – a desired bedfor peace”. 39 Bacon raised the issue to help adying person as a necessary ethic demand.Supporters of euthanasia review it asan act of compassion and do not think thatit contradicts with Christian morals at all.Furthermore, in their opinion, prohibition ofeuthanasia confl icts with the freedom of a humanbeing - his autonomy and dignity - andinfringes on the personal relation between adoctor and a patient. They think that the birthand death of an individual is a personal phenomenonand not a public (societal) one andthe right to die does not contradict the interestsof society. They consider the problemof euthanasia as a confl ict between the individualand social interests and think that thematter should be solved according to the realinterests of an individual. 40 They consider euthanasiato be an “act of kindness” to a personsuffering from an incurable illness.In the opinion of supporters of euthanasia,when a person’s life is agonizing and deathis a deliverance from such torture, euthanasiaturns out to be a “duty to life” and not a “right tolife.” They ascertain that when a patient cannotexpress his will and his life is artifi ciallyextended by modern medical techniques andhe is not recovering, he has the right to die.In their opinion, no doctor may prolong theagony of a sick person for an indefi nite periodonly because it is technically possible to do so.Each person should have a right to not only205

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010live with dignity but to maintain that dignity untilhis death. 41Supporters of euthanasia declare thateuthanasia should be permitted because it isinhuman to simply watch how one is sufferingand be inactive, unable to relieve the pain andto nothelp a dying person die. 42If a person has a right to live then whyshouldn’t he have a right to die with dignity?Most legislation does not provide a personwith the right to die, which is an integral part ofthe right to life. A person should be an ownerand manager of himself. An individual sufferingfrom an incurable illness with little time leftto live and is suffering from unbearable painshould be given the right to a “sweet death”.The choice is up to him. It is a bigger sin towatch a person’s endless torture than to freehim from it, even it means ending that person’slife, and euthanasia is the best method to thatend. 43 This is how supporters of euthanasiadecriminalization substantiate their position.However, even in Holland, the so-called“Country of Euthanasia”, where more than90% of population support euthanasia, oppositionto euthanasia took place when the Lawon Euthanasia was being adopted. 445. ARGUMENTS OF THE OPPONENTSOF EUTHANASIAThe Christian Church is the leading opponentto euthanasia . The clergy’s positionis unanimous in, it categorically objects to euthanasia.,The main moral postulates of thecommandments ‘Thou shall not murder’ and“Love thyself”, on which Christian morality isformed, is suffi cient basis to consider euthanasiaan immoral and illegal act. In the opinionof euthanasia opponents, a sick person askingfor euthanasia originated from the desireto free his family and society from a fi nancialand moral burden. They indicate that executionof euthanasia by a physician contradictsthe Hippocratic Oath and undermines the trustof people to the doctor’s profession in general. 45 As for doctors, lawyers, teachers, psychologists,philosophers, etc., their opinion variesdepending on the actual conditions of life. Forexample, a survey of elderly has shown that asignifi cant number consider it permissible andthey support euthanasia. Some doctors deemthis action reasonable while executing euthanasiain practice. 46Orthodox and Catholic Churches are categoricallyagainst euthanasia. In the opinionof the Orthodox Church, both types of euthanasia,passive and active, are inadmissible, 47as this is actually suicide; more precisely, assistedsuicide, and this is the greatest sin. Aperson has the right to life, but life itself andthe right to terminate it is not granted to him.Only God may give and take life away, andeuthanasia means an individual is getting involvedin God’s business. This is an unrealized,subconscious dream – to become equalto God, which is absolutely inadmissible. Witheuthanasia, the life of one person is terminatedby another person.The Orthodox Church considers Euthanasiameans serving Satan, which ultimatelydeprives a sick person of regret and the possibilityof salvation. They believe there is nojustifi cation for euthanasia as the immortal humansoul always stands far above earthly valuesand views. According to their assertions,euthanasia is not tolerated byan ethical pointof view. The euthanasia decision is simply theresult of a sick person’s despair. Legalizingeuthanasia will further destabilize people’s alreadyweakened ethical state.. 48The law should not lose touch with religionespecially, in such a state as Georgia,where the Orthodox Church has played sucha signifi cant role in the historic development ofthe country, it is recognized in Article 9 of theConstitution.The European Court of Human Rights putthe question in the following way: “Could theright to life be interpreted as to imply the refusalto life as well?”In my conclusion, the right tolife may not be interpreted to include the rightto death, because the “right to death” differsfrom the ”right to life” diametrically, therefore,the right to life does not mean a person’s rightto die. 49A question arises: Could there be a caseof murder against a patient’s will? Such adanger is quite real, where a murder can bedisguised by euthanasia. Additionally, require-206

T. SADRADZE, ETHICAL AND LEGAL PROBLEMS OF EUTHANASIAments specifi ed under the law may be facilitatedlater on, which may be followed by anincrease of actions done against a patient’swill.Opponents of euthanasia provide seriousarguments to substantiate the correctness oftheir position:1. Euthanasia is not allowable in the legalpoint of view, because when a physicianadministers a fatal injection to an incurablepatient suffering from cancer, thedeath is caused subjectively, not from thepathologic changes due to the diseasebut based on a decision made out of pity.2. Legalization of euthanasia is unacceptablefrom an ethical point of view. Due tothe unique nature of a human’s life, thephysician is obliged to struggle with all hisstrength to sustain life up to the final moment.Modern medical treatment includesmotivating consultations with a doctor togive hope to a patient, and hope alreadymeans a partial recovery.3. A mistake in the diagnosis is not excluded.A disease which is considered incurabletoday may become curable tomorrow.4. There are well-known cases in medicinewhen patients deemed incurable have recovered.A physician may also be dishonorable.Euthanasia is incompatible withthe professional and societal function ofa physician as well as the atmosphere oftrust, which should exist between a physicianand a patient, etc. 506. PROBLEM OF EUTHANASIA IN RELATIONSBETWEEN A PHYSICIAN AND A PATIENTIn recent years, patients participating inthe decision making process have becomemore widespread. Based on the principles ofthe relationship between a patient and a doctor,a portion of society supports increasingthe rights of a patient in the process of medicaldecision-making. The second group considersthis inappropriate, because as a rule,quite complex and specifi c (medical) problemsmust be resolved. According to their discussions,the right of choice should be grantedonly to physicians, and the patient should besubject to the physician’s decision.The duty of a physician is to provide thepatient with the maximum amount of comprehensiveinformation about his disease,including medical manipulations, risks andoutcomes. After reviewing the data and consideringa physician’s recommendations, thepatient should select a method of treatmentand make a fi nal decision. For clear reasonsin this case, a decision made by the patientcannot be always objective and well-groundedbecause the criterion of choice is not professional.This is why it is the physician’s duty toexplain the situation and help make the bestdecision for treatment. The physician shouldknow the patient’s psychology enough to ensurethey properly understand the situation ,and so deserve the patient’s trust in decisionmaking.A physician should not neglect the requirementsof the patient. The patient shouldmake his own decision as to what kind of treatmentis acceptable to himThe physician’s objective is to help thepatient make the proper choice. Patients havethe right to receive comprehensive informationabout their health condition, including specifi cmedical data, intended medical procedures,projected risk and effect of each procedure,diagnosis, forecast and progress of the treatmentprocess. This relation also envisages thatas an exception, information may be withheldto a patient if there is a substantiated doubtthat this information could incur serious injuryto him and no positive result is evident.In this model, a physician acts as a consultant,supplying a patient with necessary information,explaining that a particular meansof treatment corresponds with his conditionand no other. 51 In such a situation, a physicianacts as a patient’s friend and teacher, explainsthe condition to him, introduces possible outcomesof the decision, takes the level of thepatient’s knowledge into account, and giveshim fi nal recommendations, to help him makethe best and most useful decision. The patientmay choose the best version among the alternateoutcomes characterized by the physicianand determine its optimality. It is important to207

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010choose the most acceptable and useful modelin any specifi c case. 52CONCLUSIONToday, the right of euthanasia is a subjectof heated debate around the world, as the issueis of a medical, religious, legal and ethicnature. Euthanasia is related to the confl ictsof principal character. It gives rise to a confl ictbetween the fundamental rights ofthe valueofl ife on the one hand, and the right of eachperson to make a decision about their life, onthe other hand. Mutual opinion in society oneuthanasia has never existed; it has a largenumber of supporters as well as opponents. Itis known that Plato was a supporter, and thatChristianity rejected it.Every case of euthanasia should be assessedin consideration of ethic and legal positions.Law is as progressive as it is ethical.It should be clarifi ed as to how reasonablean incurable patient’s right to request euthanasiais. What is the legal ground for the “right todeath” within the “right to life” and how shouldthe confl ict of values be decided? This is whyit requires a progressive approach and shouldnot be resolved according to which right isgenerally more important. 53One of the main reference points is aproper evaluation on whether euthanasia is anatural, reasonable human right. 54In 1946 a society of euthanasia was organizedin the USA, which submitted a draftlaw to legislative authorities signed by 1500physicians and 54 pastors, under which it wasspecifi ed that every 21 year-old person sufferingfrom an incurable disease shall have theright to request a peaceful death, and a commissionof physicians and lawyers should investigatewhether this request may be satisfi edor not. 55 Similar kinds of organizations werecreated in England identifying an individual offull age and sound mind suffering from greatpains the right to make a choice between aneasy and terrible death and the use of medicalmeans to make such a choice. 56 In one of thepetitions which was submitted by supportersof euthanasia to New-York authorities, wasstated: “When a person after developing a fatalillness suffers from intensive and long termpains, life loses all the value to him and thosepeople close to him. We think that societyshould give such a person the right to die. Inthis action, we will have the same compassionto the person as we do towards animals“. 57Euthanasia societies formed, based onsuch opinions as well as individuals who believedin the lawfulness of euthanasia, and hadideas on the impunity of euthanasia. Under allsuch plans the main requirements for executionof euthanasia are:1. Incurable disease and its terminal stage;2. Will of a sick person – to die;3. Execution of “a death verdict” by a physicianafter the condition of a patient isexamined by other physician (or physicians).It should be noted that the diagnosis ofa doctor concerning a fatal disease might befound incorrect. Physicians may be mistakenand what is considered to be agony may justbe crisis, in reality. At the same time, evenpresently, when it is possible to reanimate aperson, when the margin between life anddeath is deleted, a person may actually survive.Many diseases once considered to be incurableare now curable. . A disease that provokesthe will of euthanasia may become subjectto treatment during the execution of euthanasia.Moreover, there are so many meansto treat pain and agony today that it is betterif a doctor applies these methods and let themedicine do its job.As to the second condition, consent doesnot assert anything. How can we establish thereal will of a person and whether he is waitingfor death as deliverance or not? The patientmay be infl uenced by relatives who are tiredof taking care of him, or he might himself wishto stop disturbing his family. Or, a person sufferingfrom strong pains may frequently ask tobe killed to stop the agony, but it this may notbe an affi rmation of his actual will.Let’s think for a second that a physician isoffi cially granted the right to kill a patient in agony,suffering from an incurable disease, evenupon the patient’s insistence to kill him. Whattrust may such a physician have in society,208

T. SADRADZE, ETHICAL AND LEGAL PROBLEMS OF EUTHANASIAwho violated the Hippocratic Oath and shortenedthe minutes left in a patient’s life insteadof facilitating the condition of the patient? Ofcourse, a patient will be terrifi ed to discoverhimself in the hands of such a physician.It should also be taken into considerationthat the supporters of euthanasia only usemoral examples. They only wish an individualon the edge of death to be assisted to thatend by a physician, but they forget that whena person is given a license to kill it can alwaysbe misused by an person who may apply euthanasiafor malicious purposes.And fi nally, the main argument is that thelife of a person is an absolute value. It is protectedfrom the moment a child is born until hisdeath; it is protected in spite of the appraisalof this person by society, whether he is fullbodied,healthy, sick or ugly. The depreciationof human life may lead mankind to outcomeswhich were best executed by fascism.1See P. Sakvarelidze, Euthanasia _ Charity or Assassination, Magazine “Tavisupleba“,Tbilisi, 2003, p. 31.2Euthanasia is a Greek word which literally means of sweet, light, untroubled,mercy killing, It consists of two parts – “eu“ which means “good“ and thanatos –meaning “death“.3The term “ Euthanasia“ was fi rst used by English philosopher Francis Bacon in1605 to describe calm, untroubled, easy and painless death. the concept of euthanasiawas comprehended by the ancient Greeks and Romans and was mostlyrelated to the viewpoint of “incomplete life“.4See group of authors, Private law of, Private part of Criminal Law, Volume I, Tbilisi,2006, p. 525There are three types of euthanasia: Active Euthanasia, Passive Euthanasia andPhysician Assisted Suicide.Active euthanasia means application of such a medicine to an individual sufferingfrom an incurable illness in the terminal stage, which speeds up death(so called “Method of Filled Syringe“). In active euthanasia death is sped up byactive participation in the natural development of events, e.g. by giving excessiveamount of medicine to a patient.Passive euthanasia means withdrawing supportive medical treatment to a patientsuffering from an incurable illness (so called “Method of Delayed Syringe“)during which the patient dies a natural death by withdrawing medical treatmentto a patient. In this case, “involvment“ implies only the termination of treatmentwhich gives the patient the opportunity to end his life naturally.Physician Assisted Suicide implies the voluntary termination of one’s own lifeby administration of a lethal substance (which are applied by the patient himself)or providing information about such substances.6Under the laws of such countries, a homicide which occurs according to an insistedrequest of a victim with the merciful purpose of ending their suffering iscosidered to be an ordinary homicide.7Under the Criminal Codes of these countries, light punishments are administeredfor committing euthanasia.8Under the laws of such countries euthanasia is not subject to punishment.9See J. Pradel, Comparative Criminal Law, Short Course, Tbilisi 1999, p. 128.10See E. Gotsiridze, Beginning and End of Life: Legal Matters of Fetus andEuthanasia According to Strasbourg Jurisprudence, Collection of Articles,European and National Systems of Human Rights Protection, 2007p. 52-53.11See P. Sakvarelidze, Euthanasia - Charity or Assassination, Magazine“Tavisupleba“, Tbilisi, 2003, p.33.209

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 201012See E. Kardava, Problem of Euthanasia in Criminal Law, Magazine „Law, Science,journalism, Practice“, Tbilisi, 2001, p. 61.13See E. Gotsiridze, Beginning and End of Life: Legal Matters of Fetus andEuthanasia According to Strasbourg Jurisprudence, Collection of Articles,European and National Systems of Human Rights Protection, 2007, p. 51-52.14See J. Pradel, Comparative Criminal Law, Short Course, 1999, p. 128-129.15See Criminal Code of Russia, Special Part, М., 1997, p. 131-132.16See J. Pradel, Comparative Criminal Law, Short Course, Tbilisi 1999, p. 138.17See Criminal Law of Foreign Countries, General Part, 2003, p. 262.18Se. www.alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2008/12/stephan-dufour-found-notguilty-in-alma.html.19See S. Borodin, Crime against Life, М. 2000, p. 23.20See P. Sakvarelidze – Charity or Assassination, Magazine “Tavisupleba“, Tbilisi,2003, p. 35.21See P. Sakvarelidze – Charity or Assassination, Magazine “Tavisupleba“, Tbilisi,2003, p. 35.22www. euthanasia.com/ arguments against euthanasia .html.23See P. Sakvarelidze – Charity or Assassination, Magazine “Tavisupleba“, Tbilisi,2003, p. 35.24See Law of Georgia on Healthcare (Article 148).25See Z. Tsulaia Crime against a Person, Tbilisi, 2000, p. 50.26www. euthanasia.com/ arguments against euthanasia.html.27See group of authors, Private law of, Pivate Part of Criminal Law, Volume I, Tbilisi,2006, p. 50.28See Law of Georgia on Healthcare (Article 148).29See S. Borodin, Crime against Life, М. 2000, p. 29.30www. euthanasia.com/ assisted suicide, living wills and mercy killing/html.31www. euthanasia.com/ euthanasia essues in Netherlands, Belgium, Canada,Great Britain,U.S,Columbi, Israel. html.32www. euthanasia.com/suicide mercy-killing right-to-die physician assisted.html.33T. Tsereteli, Euthanasia, as a Moral and Legal Problem, Soviet Law, No.6, Tbilisi,1976, p. 52.34ix. www.pregnantpause.org/euth/liberty.htm, Euthanasia: a case of individual liberty?,by Jay Johansen, posted September 6, 2000.35T. Khorvati, Euthanasia as a Problem of Medical and Criminal Law Science,Berlin, 2001.36www.pregnantpause.org/euth/tipes.htm, types of euthanasia , posted November20, 2004.37See Magazine “Samartali”, 1976, No.6, p. 39.38See Plato, Works, 1971, с. 195-196.39See Bacon, new translations on Death, Tbilisi, 1992, gv. 72.40See E. Gotsiridze, Beginning and End of Life: Legal Matters of Fetus andEuthanasia According to Strasbourg Jurisprudence, Collection of Articles,European and National Systems of Human Rights Protection, 2007p. 51.41See P. Sakvarelidze, Euthanasia – Charity or Assassination, Magazine “Tavisupleba“,p. 36-37.42www. euthanasia.com/suicide mercy-killing right-to-die physician assisted/html.43www. euthanasia.com/ assisted suicide, living wills and mercy killing/html.44www. euthanasia.com/ arguments against euthanasia/html.45See E. Gotsiridze, Beginning and End of Life: Legal Matters of Fetus and EuthanasiaAccording to Strasbourg Jurisprudence, Collection of Articles, Europeanand National Systems of Human Rights Protection, Tbilisi, 2007, p. 50.46See Z. Tsulaia, Criminal Code, Private Pat, Volume I, Tbilisi, 2000, p. 82.47www.orthodoxy.ge/skhva/evtanazia.htm, Interview with archpriest Archil Mindiashvili.210

T. SADRADZE, ETHICAL AND LEGAL PROBLEMS OF EUTHANASIA48www.orthodoxy.ge/skhva/evtanazia.htm, Interview with archpriest ArchilMindiashvili.49See P. Sakvarelidze, Euthanasia – Charity or Assassination, Magazine “Tavisupleba“,p. 53-54.50See group of authors, Private law of, Private part of Criminal Law, Volume I, Tbilisi,2006, p. 49-50.51See D. Gegeshidze, Euthanasia – Charity or Crime?! Tbilisi, 2003. p. 32-34.52See D. Gegeshidze, Euthanasia – Charity or Crime?! Tbilisi, 2003. p. 37.53See E. Gotsiridze, Beginning and End of Life: Legal Matters of Fetus andEuthanasia According to Strasbourg Jurisprudence, Collection of Articles,European and National Systems of Human Rights Protection, 2007p. 56.54See E. Gotsiridze, Beginning and End of Life: Legal Matters of Fetus andEuthanasia According to Strasbourg Jurisprudence, Collection of Articles,European and National Systems of Human Rights Protection, 2007p. 57-58.55www. euthanasia.com/ euthanasia essues in Netherlands, Belgium, Canada,Great Britain,Uunited States, ColumbiaIsrael, .html.56www. euthanasia.com/ euthanasia essues in Netherlands, Belgium, Canada,Great Britain,Uunited States, ColumbiaIsrael, .html.57www. euthanasia.com/ euthanasia essues in Netherlands, Belgium, Canada,Great Britain,Uunited States, ColumbiaIsrael, .html.211

paata cincaZesaerTaSoriso samarTlis normebi da konfliqtebisaqarTveloSi kosovos magaliTze2008 wlis 17 Tebervlidan moyolebuli,rodesac adgilobrivma albanelebmasakuTari damoukidebloba gamoacxades,dava serbeTis separatistuli provinciislegitimurobis Taobaze kidev ufrogamZafrda. miuxedavad msoflios wamyvansaxelmwifoTa (pirvel rigSi aSS-isada evrokavSiris wevrTa) mxridan priStinisdamoukideblobis cnobisa, ruseTi,serbeTi da rigi sxva saxelmwifoebisa,saerTaSoriso samarTlis normebis uxeSdarRvevad Tvlian suverenuli saxelmwifosteritoriuli mTlianobis xelyofas,Tanac samxedro Zalis gamoyenebiT.am mxriv viTareba kardinalurad vercgaeros saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos 22 ivlisisgadawyvetilebam Secvala. rogorcCans, kidev did xans gastans mecnieruliTu politikuri vnebaTaRelvebi evropiscentrSi, bev ris azriT, xelovnuradSeqmnili kvazisaxelmwifos samarTlebrivisafuZvlis Taobaze. situacias dramatizmsmatebs Sedegobrivi faqtoric;mTeli rigi eqspertebisa miiCnevs, romhaagis sasamarTlos gadawyvetilebauar yofiTad imoqmedebs, pirvel rigSi,postsabWour sivrceSi arsebul konfliqtebze.ramdenadaa realuri ase-Ti safrTxe, amas momavali gviCvenebs,Tumca civilizebuli dasavleTis roliukve iwvevs araerTgvarovan komentarebsada Sefasebebs; rogor da ratom moxda,rom meore msoflio omis Semdgomimsoflios mTavari `arbitris~ – gaer-Tianebuli erebis organizaciisa da misiuSiSroebis sabWos – evroatlantikurmamama-damaarselebma ase iolad da operatiuladgadaabijes maTive `pirm-Sos~ specialur rezolucias? saqme kiis aris, rom gaeros uSiSroebis sabWos1999 wlis 10 ivnisis 1244-e rezoluciaarc gauqmebula da arc axleburad aryofila koreqtirebuli. rezoluciaSipirdapir aris naTqvami, rom kosovosmomaval statusTan dakavSirebuli politikuriprocesis mizania `droebi-Ti politikuri CarCo xelSekruleba~,romelic unda iTvaliswinebdes `TviTmmarTvelobismniSvnelovan dones kosovosaTvis,rambuies SeTanxmebisa, daiugoslaviis samokavSireo respublikis,regionis sxva qveynebis suverenitetisada teritoriuli mTlianobas, kga-s (`kosovosganTavisuflebis armia~ – p.c.) demilitarizaciisprincipTa sruli gaTvaliswinebiT~.1kosovos krizisis dasaregulirebladgasatarebel gadaudebel Ro nis-ZiebaTa konkretuli CamonaT valia xsenebulirezoluciis meore danarTi,romlis meSvide da merve punqtebi aseaformulirebuli:`7. ltolvilTa sakiTxebSi gaer-Tianebuli erebis organizaciis umaRlesikomisris sammarTvelos meTvalyureobiT,yvela ltolvilisa da gadaadgilebulpirTa usafrTxo da Tavisufalidabruneba...~ 2me-8 punqti sityvasityviT imeorebszemoT moyvanil formulas rambuiesSeTanxmebasa da regionis yvela saxelmwifossuverenitetisa da teritoriulimTlianobis principTa dacvaze. aseve212

p. cincaZe, saerTaSoriso samarTlis normebi da konfliqtebi saqarTveloSi kosovos magaliTzekosovos ganTavisuflebis armiis demilitarizaciaze.sainteresoa, rom uSiSroebis sabWosrezoluciaSi ramdenjerme aris damowmebulirambuies SeTanxmeba, sadac mar-Tlac iqna SemuSavebuli konfliqtis daregulirebismet-naklebad optimalurisqema da separatistuli mxaris momavalikonstituciis detaluri proeqtic kiwarudgina 1999 wlis 4 ivniss gaeros generalurmdivans organizaciaSi safrange-Tis elCma. 60-gverdiani teqsti kosovosaTvisTiTqmis uprecedentod farToTviTmmarTvelobas iTvaliswinebda, sakuTarisakanonmdeblo da saaRmsrulebloorganizaciebiT, policiiTa da far-To saerTaSoriso kavSirebiT. erT-erTipunqti, romelic Tavidanve miuRebeliiyo albaneli separatistebisaTvis, esiyo principuli daTqma iugoslaviis siverenitetsada teritoriul mTlianobaze.3 cota mogvianebiT qveynis (iugoslaviis)suvereniteti da teritoriulimTlianoba iqca uSiSroebis sabWos rezoluciismzid konstruqciad da erTdrouladganxeTqilebis vaSlad.cnobili faqtia, rom dasavlelpolitikosebs ar uyvarT konfliqturirealobis istoriul fesvebSi qeqva da`istoriuli samarTlianobis~ cnebaciSviaTad Tu figurirebs maT politikurleqsikonSi. meore mxriv, arc istoriulifaqtoris sruli ignorirebaSeiZleba iyos imave eTnoteritoriulikonfliqtebis daregulirebis procesSisrulad gamarTlebuli da produqtuli.igive serbebi Znelad Tu daiviwyeben sakuTaristorias da im istoriul faqts,rom maTi winaprebi jer kidev meSvidesaukuneSi cxovrobdnen kosovoSi daswored es teritoria iqca maTi saxelmwifosformirebis centrad. 1389 wliskosovos brZolis Semdeg, rodesac serbebisastikad damarcxdnen TurqebTanomSi, aq ukve albanelebi momravldnen,xolo me-19 saukunis damlevs kosovoiqca albanuri separatizmis centrad.serbebis centrma belgradSi gadainacvla.rac Seexeba kosovos, mxare italiismier iqna okupirebuli meore msoflioomis wlebSi (marionetuli `didi albane-Tis~ nawilic ki iyo), omis Semdgom ki iugoslaviasdaubrunda. Tumca, rogorcpolitikaSi, aseve mec nierebaSic, paralelebiTapelireba did sifrTxilesa daiuvelirul sizustes saWiroebs. imavekosovos epopeaSi erTi momentia TvalSisacemi: esaa gare Zalebis, an gare Zalisroli separatizmis waqezebasa da RiaTu farul mxardaWeraSi. iseve rogorcdnestrispireli, afxazi da osi separatistebimudam sargeblobdnen ruseTismxardaWeriT (TviT samxedro ZaliTacki), aseve kosovarebsac (ase uwodebenaq mcxovreb albanelebs) ar akldaT tiranismxridan TanagrZnoba da mxarda-Wera. 1981 wels garedan daxmarebis momlodinekosovarebma armiasTan Setakebisprovocireba moaxdines lozungiT: `kosovo– respublika~. gasuli saukunis 80-ian wlebSi kosovo Tumca formaluradavtonomiuri mxaris statuss inarCunebda,magram respublikis atributebiT –parlamenti, mTavroba, qveynis umaRlesorganoebSi sakuTari warmomadgenlobebiT– imoseboda. mxaris istoriaSi axalietapi 1987 wels daiwyo, rodesac milo-SeviCis epoqa dadga. momdevno mTeliaTi wlis ganmavlobaSi serbebi kosovos`dabrunebas~ uTvlidnen mTavar damsaxurebadmiloSeviCs. rac Seexeba kosovoSialbanelTa umravlesobas, rogorcsecesiis arguments da kosovos albaneT-Tan mierTebas (`ori oseTis~ analogi?),amaze serbebs sakuTari kontrargumentihqondaT; `ras moimoqmedebda vaSingtoni,kaliforniel meqsikelebs, romelniciq eTnikur umravlesobas Seadgenen,meqsikasTan gaerTianeba rom moesurvebinaT?~nebismier SemTxvevaSi, dRes,rodesac TiTqmis 20-wliani gadasaxedidanvcdilobT `albanur-kosovouriCamosxmis~ separatizmis qronikebis gaanalizebas,pirvel rigSi, unda vaRiaroTseparatistTa brZolis strategiisa dataqtikis maRali margi qmedebis koeficienti;Tu gasuli saukunis 90-ian wleb-Si separatistTa imdroindelma erTpirovnulmaliderma, mweralma da profesormaibrahim rugovam, pasiuri wi-213

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010naaRmdegobis taqtika airCia (ris gamoc,im dros mas `kosovos gandsac~ uwodebdnen),2000 wlis dasawyisidan sul ufroda ufro Zlierdeba e.w. `kosovos gan-Tavisuflebis armia~, romlis meTaurixaSim taCi (metsaxelad `gveli~) dRes kosovosmTavrobis meTauria. Tavis drozepasiuri winaaRmdegobis taqtikam gaamarTla– kosovoSi Cakvda saqmiani cxovrebada yovelgvari administraciulifunqcionireba, Tumca swored im wlebSimTel evropaSi rekordul maCveneblebsmiaRwia Sobadobam kosovoSi – ori procentiweliwadSi (!). paralelurad separatistTamTavar sazrunavad iqca saer-TaSoriso mxardaWera, miT umetes, rommiloSeviCis mouqneli da uazrod xistipolitika separatizmTan brZolaSi kargSanss aZlevda kosovarebs. praqtikuladmiloSeviCis sabediswero Secdomebzeiyo gaTvlili separatistebis mTavariimedi – ucxoeTis samxedro intervencia.Tumca movlenaTa aseT ganviTarebasZnelad Tu vinme ivaraudebda. 1992wlis agvistos nomerSi, Cveulebriv, kargadinformirebuli rusuli Jurnali`novoe vremia~ 4 imasac ki werda, rom kosovosmovlenebSi gareSe Zalis samxedroCarevas igive Sedegi mohyveboda, rac1979 wels avRaneTSi `gmirul desants~mohyvao, magram saboloo jamSi movlenebiswored separatistTa scenariT ganviTarda.bunebrivia, kosovos kazusi (Tuprecedenti?) Tavisebur lakmusis qa-Raldad iqca msoflios yvela im saxelmwifosaTvis,romelnic ukve aRmoCndnen,an male SeiZleba aRmoCndnen separatizmissafrTxis winaSe: meore mxriv, imfaqtma, rom kosovos damoukideblobispolitikuri, finansuri da samxedro (!)sponsor-iniciatorebi iyvnen vaSingtonida misi evropeli mokavSireebi, separatistTamaSveli samxedro operacia ki natosZalebiT ganxorcielda, delikaturpolitikur-diplomatiur mdgomareobaSiCaayena sakuTar separatistebTandapirispirebuli is saxelmwifoebi, evropasada vaSingtonTan karg urTier-Tobas rom ufrTxildebian. albaT, amitomiyo, rom, Tundac saqarTveloSi, asekantikuntad gamoexmaurnen (obieqturianalizis TvalsazrisiT) kosovos separatistultriumfs. qarTul politikurpublicistikaSi am TvalsazrisiT sulramdenime naSromi moipoveba, romelTaSoris obieqturobiT gamoirCeva b-n simonkilaZis ori werili 5 . rTulia imismtkiceba, rom imave qarTul politikurelitas gacnobierebuli ar hqonda kosovosmagaliTSi Camaluli safrTxe, miTumetes, rodesac evropidan da ame rikisSeerTebuli Statebidan uw yvet nakadadmoedineboda damaime debeli da damamSvidebeligancxadebebi: `kosovo erTaderTida ganumeorebeli SemTxvevaa.qarTul sinamdvilesTan mas araferi aqvssaerToo~. wminda samarTlebrivi xasiaTiTes sru li WeSmaritebaa; istoriulda sxva faqtebze rom aRaraferi vTqvaT,belgradisgan gansxvavebiT, Tbilissaranairi eTnowmenda ar Cautarebia afxazeTsada cxinvalis regionSi, pi riqiT,300 aTasamde qarTveli iqca eTnikuriwmendis msxverplad, rac ramdenjermedadasturda saerTaSoriso doneze. yvelaferies faqtia, magram moskovisaTviskosovo imTaviTve iqca politikur precedentad,sarezervo koziris kartad,romelsac adre Tu gvian aucilebladgaaTamaSebda postsabWour sivrceSi.manamde ki prezident v. putiniT dawyebulida politikis eqspertebiTdamTavrebuli, ruseTSi `aRSfoTebasa~da `wuxils~ ar malavdnen `dasavleTismier saerTaSoriso samarTlis abuCadagdebisa da fexqveS gaTelvis gamo~.mTlianobaSi ki erT mxareze aRmoCndaserbeTi da misi erTaderTi (Tanac ukanaskneli)mokavSire ruseTi, xolo meoremxares aSS da evrokavSiri, Tumca, racSeexeba saerTaSoriso urTierTobebsada sa er TaSoriso samarTlis dasavlelspecialistebs, arc maT banakSi aRiniSnebaupirobo erTsulovneba; zogi erTicnobili dasavleli eqsperti Seecada,obieqturad daezustebina rogorc mxarisdamoukideblobis aRiarebis sasargeblo,aseve sawinaaRmdego argumentebi.magaliTad bi-bi-sis mimomxil-214

p. cincaZe, saerTaSoriso samarTlis normebi da konfliqtebi saqarTveloSi kosovos magaliTzevelma, pol reinoldsma Semdegnairaddaaxarisxa argumentebi 6 : separatistTasasargeblod metyvelebs is faqti (britanelieqspertis azriT), rom gaerosuSiSroebis sabWos 1999 wlis 10 ianvris1244 rezolucia ki mouwodebda kosovoskrizisis politikuri gziT daregulirebas,magram arafers ambobda TviTondaregulirebis xasiaTze. imis gamo ki,rom uSiSroebis sabWos SemdgomSi aRarmiuRia rezolucia kosovos statusTandakavSirebiT, TiTqos aman dasavleTsmisca sababi, emtkicebina, rom uSiSroebissabWos zemoT xsenebuli rezoluciaim saerTo principebisaken mibrunebasiTvaliswinebs, didi rvianis sagareosaqmeTa ministrebi rom ganixilavdnenimave 10 ivnisis rezoluciis uSualowina periodSi. aqedan gamomdinare ki,ukanaskneli SeiZleba safuZvlad dasdebodakosovos damoukideblobis aRiarebas.aRiarebis momxreebi xsenebul zogadprincipadac miiCnevdnen uSiSroebissabWos rezoluciis im muxls, sadacsaubari iyo kosovos mniSvnelovani donisTviTmmarTvelobis ganmsazRvrel`droebiT politikur CarCo xelSekrulebaze~.sainteresoa evrokavSiris dokumentiserTi pasaJi: `mTlianobaSi, esaTu is warmonaqmni Tu daarsda rogorcim saxis saxelmwifo, rogorc es saer-TaSoriso samarTlis mier aRiqmeba,SeiZleba miRebul iqnes misi aRiarebispolitikuri gadawyvetileba.~ 7 aranaklebsayuradReboa imave dokumentisSemdgomi daskvna: `aseT situaciaSi moqmedeba,romlis mizanic aris saboloostatusis dadgena, metad Seesatyviseba1244 rezoluciis ganzraxvebs, vidre nebismierirezultatis blokireba maSin,rodesac yvela Tanxmdeba status-kvosSenarCunebis SeuZleblobaze~. argumentadiqca is garemoebac, rom damoukideblobisaRiarebiT das ru l deboda saboloostatusis Semu Savebis procesi,rasac gulisxmobda uSiSroebis sabWosrezolucia. da bo los, evrosabWos dokumenti,iuri diuli TvalsazrisiT,ara savaldebu lod aRiare bda uSiSroebissabWos rezoluciis preambulasa dateqstSi dafiqsirebul princips iugoslaviissuverenitetsa da teritoriulmTlianobaze.sulac ar aris aucilebeli saerTa-Soriso samarTlis specialistoba, rommkiTxvels SeumCneveli ar darCes zemoTmoyvanil argumentTa saeWvo damajerebloba;arc meti, arc naklebi, saubariagaeros uSiSroebis sabWos rezoluciissajaro reviziasa da misi fuZemdeblurimomentis – organizaciis wevri saxelmwifossuverenitetsa da mTlianobis xelyofaze.kosovos damoukideblobis momxre-Ta da mowinaaRmdege mxareTa argumentirebiszemoT naxsenebi britanelimkvlevris azriT, serbeTisa da ruse-Tis argumentebi gacilebiT martivi daaraorazrovania; mTavari is aris, romsuverenuli saxelmwifo serbeTi ardasTanxmebia Tavisi teritoriis erTinawilis damoukideblobas. am poziciazeidgnen evrokavSiris wevrebi – saberZne-Ti, espaneTi, kviprosi, slovakia, bulgareTida rumineTi, Tumca vetos uflebaar gamoiyenes, rasac Tavisi axsna aqvs.samarTlebrivi TvalsazrisiT, ZneliaserbeTisa da ruseTis iseTi argumentebisuaryofa, rogoric aris gaerosuSiSroebis sabWos 1244 rezoluciismeaTe muxli, sadac dafiqsirebulia kosovosaTvis`mniSvnelovani avtonomiaiugoslaviis samokavSireo respublikisCarCoebSi~. imave rezoluciaSi pirdapiraris miTiTebuli, rom kosovoSi saer-TaSoriso Zalebis (samSvidobo Tu samxedro)yofna mowonebuli da damtkicebuliunda iyos gaeros mier, rac ar momxdara.mTavari da fuZemdebluri principis,romlis `cinikur da aRmaSfoTebelignorirebaze~ miuTiTebda belgradi damoskovi, Tanaxmad, nebismieri sazRvrebisSecvla mxolod da mxolod urTierTSeTanxmebissafuZvelzea dasaSvebi.raki aseTi SeTanxmeba belgradsa dapriStinas Soris ar momxdara, ukanonoakosovos damoukideblobac.kosovos movlenebma mwvave diskusiebisTemad aqcia agreTve saerTa-215

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010Soriso samarTlis kidev erTi problema(romelic dRiTidRe sul ufroda ufro aqtualuri xdeba); igulisxmebaTviTgamocxadebul `saxelmwifoTa~cnobisa da aRiarebis sakiTxi.gordias kvanZi isev da isev teritoriulimTlianobisa da TviTgamorkvevisprincipTa urTierTkavSiria. saerTa-Soriso sazogadoebis winaSe saxelmwifoTacnoba-aRiarebis dilema pirvelimsoflio omis Semdgom wlebSi dadga,rodesac versalisa da Semdgom konferenciebzerTuli gadasawyveti xdeboda,Tu vin unda yofiliyo konferenciebismonawile (xmis uflebiT) da erTaligis wevri. es sakiTxi ganixilebodamonte videos saerTaSoriso konferenciaze(1933 weli), sadac miiRes kidevdaskvniTi konvencia. es ukanaskneli oTxkriteriums iTvaliswinebda, rogorcaucilebel winapirobas, saxelmwifoTaaRiarebisa da saerTaSoriso doneze misicnobisaTvis. esenia: 1. mudmivi mosaxleoba;2. garkveuli teritoriis floba(Tumca zustad ar iyo gansazRvruliteritoriis legitimuroba mezobelisaxelmwifoebis TvalTaxedviT – p.c.);3. mTavrobis arseboba; 4. saxelmwifosunari sxva qveynebTan urTierTobisdam yarebis TvalsazrisiT (SemdgomSispecialistTa mier araerTxel yofilagaprotestebuli am punqtis bundovanixasiaTi – p.c.). 8 miuxedavad imisa, rommontevideos konvencia sul sxva realobisgaTvaliswinebiT iqna SemuSavebulisul sxva regioniosaTvis (mas xeli moaweraaSS-ma da laTinuri amerikis 18-masaxelmwifom), 60 wlis Semdegac ki, 1991-1993 wlebSi, saxelmwifos deginaciis amgansazRvrebiT xelmZRvanelobda e.w. badinteriskomisia, rodesac yofil iugoslaviasTandakavSirebiT rekomendaci ebsamzadebda evrokavSiris dakveTiT. amaveprincipebis gaTvaliswinebiT cdilobdamiloSeviCis braleulobis dadgenassaerTaSoriso tribunalic, rodesacarkvevda, romeli saxelmwifos teritoriazemoqmedebda braldebuli: xorvatiisTu iugoslaviis. sayuradReboa,rom 2008 wlis pirveli oqtombris nomerSigamoqveynebul werilSi rusuligazeTi `komersanti~ 9 swored montevideosprincipebs iSveliebda im versiisdasamtkiceblad, rom TiTqos saerTa-Soriso samarTali cnobs TviTaRiarebisprincipsac. sinamdvileSi, anbanuri WeSmaritebaa,rom saxelmwifoebriobis Teoriamxolod im saxelmwifoebs cnobssaerTaSoriso samarTlis subieqtad,romelTac sxva saxelmwifoebi aRiarebenaseTad. Tavi rom avaridoT gauTavebelda usagno davas imis Taobaze, Tu ramdenisaxelmwifos mier unda iyos aRiarebuliesa Tu is saxelmwifoebrivi warmonaqmni,raTa cnobil iqnes saerTaSoriso samar-Tlis subieqtad, imave montevideos konvenciispirvelive principi – `mudmivimosaxleoba~ – gamoricxavs afxazeTisada cxinvalis regionis saerTaSorisosamarTlis subieqtobas; am teritoriebis`mudmivi mosaxleobis didi nawili(afxazeTSi yvelaze mravalricxovanieTnikuri jgufi) ucxo saxelmwifossamxedro Zalis mier iqna gamoZevebuli,TviT `saxelmwifoebi~ ki okupirebuliaimave ucxo qveynis mier. komikuri situaciebicdagrovda praqtikaSi: magali-Tad, taivansa da kontinentur CineTsSoris maRiarebeli arCevanis procesSior-orjer Seicvales pozicia (oficialurpoziciazea saubari) liberiam daCvenTvis ukve kargad cnobilma naurum.ra fasi an mniSvneloba SeiZleba hqondessaerTaSoriso TanamegobrobisaTvisaseT cnoba-arcnobas?aRniSnul problemasTan mimarTebiT,specialistebi 1941 wlis 14 agvistosamerikis prezident ruzveltisa da britaneTispremier CerCilis mier xelmoweril`atlantikur qartiasac~ imowmeben.dokumenti meore msoflio omis Semdgomimsoflios `mowyobis~ sakiTxebs exebodada ruzveltis prin cipul poziciasacasaxavda, erTa TviTgamorkvevisa da axalsaxelmwifoTa Seqmnis TvalsazrisiT. h.kisinjeri imowmebs ruzveltis sityvebs:`me mtkiced mwams, rom, Tu Cven vapirebTuzrunvelvyoT stabiluri msoflio, igiCamorCenil qveynebsac unda moicavdes~.ruzveltis rwmeniT, xalxebi unda gan-216

p. cincaZe, saerTaSoriso samarTlis normebi da konfliqtebi saqarTveloSi kosovos magaliTzeTavisuflebuliyvnen `CamorCenili koloniuri politikis Sedegebisagan~. 10rogorc vxedavT, dokumentSi laparakiakoloniur qveynebze, maTi suverenitetisada damoukideblobis aRdgenaze daam qveynebis xalxebis TviTgamorkvevisuf lebaze. ase rom, kosovos, afxazeTis,cxinvalis regionisa Tu sxva romelimeTanamedrove separatistuli warmonaqmnis`gasaxelmwifoebriobisa!~ da maTicnoba-aRiarebis sasargeblod igi namdviladar gamodgeba.1(http:///www.un.org./russin/documen/scresol/res 1999/res 1244. htm).2iqve.3http://www.un.org.Косово/4”Новое время“, 1992, 34.5`saqarTvelos respublika~, 2007 w., 8 da 11 dekemberi, 241, 242.6http://newxvole.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/hi/russian/internatio..8.18.20097BBC RUSSIAN.com8http:ru.wikipedia.orglwiki9`Комерсант~ №177, 01.10.2008.10Г. Кисинджер, Дипломатия, М., 1990, gv. 350.217

PAATA TSINTSADZEKOSOVO: NORMS AND CONFLICTS OFINTERNATIONAL LAW IN GEORGIASince February 17, 2008 when local Albaniansdeclared their independence, the disputeconcerning the legitimacy of the Serbianseparatist province worsened. Although leadingstates in the world (e.g. USA, EU)recognizeAlbania’s independence, Russia, Serbiaand a number of other states consider it aninfringement on the territorial integrity of asovereign state, implemented with militaryforces, and claim it violates international lawregulations. In this regard, the environmenthas not fundamentally changed by the July22 Resolution of the UN International Court. Itis evident that scientifi c and political disorderwill continue for a long time in central Europe,over what many people consider is the legalbasis of an artificially created quasi-state. Theresulting factor adds dramatic effect to the situation;many experts think the Hague Courtresolution will negatively affect confl icts existingin the post-Soviet arena. How real such adanger is will be obvious in the future, however,the role of the civilized west is alreadyprovoking non-homogenous comments andappraisals. How and why has it happened thatthe chief “arbiter” in the world following WorldWar II (the Euro-Atlantic founders of the UnitedNations Organization and its Security Council)have so simply and promptly refuted a SpecialResolution of their own “fi rstling?”The June 10, 1999 UN Security CouncilResolution No. 1244 was neither annullednor recently corrected. The resolution directlyspecifi es for a political process towards theestablishment of an interim political frameworkagreement providing for a substantial self-governmentfor Kosovo, taking into full accountthe Rambouillet accords and the principles ofsovereignty and the territorial integrity of theFederal Republic of Yugoslavia and the othercountries of the region, as well as the demilitarizationof the KLA. 1A specifi c list of urgent measures for stabilizationof the crisis region is in Annex 2 ofthe aforementioned Resolution The 7th and8th clauses state:“7. Safe and free return of all refugeesand displaced persons under the supervisionof the Offi ce of the United Nations HighCommissioner for Refugees... 2Under Clause 8, the formula takes into accountthe Rambouillet accords and the principlesof sovereignty and territorial integrity of allother countries of the region, and the demilitarizationof UCK, is repeated word by word.In the Security Council Resolution theRambouillet accords are acknowledged severaltimes and an optimal scheme of confl ictregulation was actually, more or less, workedout . The Ambassador of France even submitteda detailed project for the future constitutionof the separatists to the United NationsSecretary-General on June 4, 1999. The 60-page text envisaged an almost unprecedentedextensive self-government with its legislativeand executive organizations, police andinclusive international relations. One of theclauses which was originally unacceptable forAlbanian separatists, was a principal agreementon the sovereignty and territorial integrityof Yugoslavia. 3 Shortly afterwards, the sovereigntyand territorial integrity of Yugoslavia be-218

P. TSINTSADZE, KOSOVO: NORMS AND CONFLICTS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN GEORGIAcame the main point of the Security Councilresolution and subject of dispute at the sametime.It is a known fact that western politiciansdo not like to look for confl ict veracity in historicalroots and the concept of “historical justice”is buried deep in their political dictionaries.On the other hand, ignoring a historicalfact may be quite justifi ed and productive inthe regulation process of the same ethnoterritorialconfl ict. Serbians can hardly forgettheir history and the historical fact that theirancestors lived in Kosovo in the 7th centuryand this territory was the center their nation’sdevelopment. When the Serbians were routedin the war against Turkey in 1389, the numberof Albanians increased, and by the end of19 th century, Kosovo was a center of separatism.Many Serbians moved to Belgrade. Asfor Kosovo, Italy occupied it during World WarII (it also was a part of the marionette “GreatAlbania”), and it was returned to Yugoslaviaafter the war. Although in politics as well as inscience, engaging with parallels requires greatcare and extremely high precision.In the Kosovo epic one element must betaken into consideration; this is the role of externalforces in the promotion of separatism,providing both open and hidden support. AsDniester, Abkhaz and Ossetian separatistshave had consistent support from Russia (includingmilitary), Kosovars (Kosovo Albanians)have also always found compassion and supportfrom tyrants. In 1981, Kosovars expectingassistance from outside provoked a clashwith the army with the slogan: “Kosovo – theRepublic”. During the 1980s, however, Kosovoformally retained the status of autonomy , andfunctioned with the attributes of a republic –parliament, government, and representativesin the highest bodies of the country. 1987saw the beginning of a new period in the region’shistory when the Milosevic era commenced.Within the next ten years, Serbiansconsidered the “return” of Kosovo Milosevic’sgreatest achievement. While the majority ofAlbanians in Kosovo argued for separationand joining Kosovo to Albania (analogy of “twoOssetias”?), Serbians had their own counter-argument.“What would Washington do ifCalifornian Mexicans composing the ethnicmajority there desired to join Mexico?”In any case when we try to analyze theseparatism narrative of “Albanian-Kosovo” afternearly 20 years we have to fi rst acknowledgethe contributions of the major benefi cialstrategies and tactics of the separatist’s struggle.In the 1990s, the sole leader of that time,writer and professor Ibrahim Rugov, chose thetactic of passive resistance (for which he waseven called the “Kosovo Gandhi”). At the beginningof 2000, the Kosovo Liberation Army(KLA), headed by Khashim Tachi (“Snake”)became stronger. Tachi is presently Head ofthe Kosovo government. The tactics of passiveresistance were justifi ed when businesslife came to a standstill in Kosovo, as wellas all sorts of administrative functions. Yet inthese very years, the birth rate reached recordlevels in Kosovo with two percent a year (!).At the same time, garnering international supportbecame the major aim of the separatists.The infl exible and senselessly rigid policy ofMilosevic in the struggle with separatism providedgood opportunities to Kosovars in thisrespect. The separatists actually counted onthe fatal mistakes of Milosevic – i.e. foreignmilitary intervention. Honestly, such a developmentof circumstances was hard to foresee.In the August1992 edition of the usually wellinformedRussian magazine, “Novoe Vremia” 4 ,military intervention of external forces inKosovo would have the same results as the“heroic troops” in Afghanistan had in 1979. Butin the end, the situation developed accordingto the separatists’ very scenario.Naturally, the Kosovo precedent becamesome kind of litmus paper for all those statesin the world that have already faced or mayface the risk of separatism. On the otherhand, the fact that the political, fi nancial andmilitary (!) sponsor-initiators of Kosovo independencewere Washington and its Europeanallies, and that NATO forces implemented themilitary liberation operation of the separatists, puts states in confl ict with their own separatistsin a delicate political – diplomatic situationas they try to maintain good relations with219

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010Europe and Washington. Evidently, this waswhy the triumph of Kosovo separatists was sorarely mentioned in Georgia (in view of objectiveanalysis). In Georgian political journalism,there are only a few pieces of work in this regard,among which are two letters by Mr. SimonKiladze, which are distinguished by objectivity. 5It is diffi cult to assert that the Georgian politicalelite had not realized the danger hidden in theKosovo example. Additionally, Europe and theUS delivered many reassuring announcementsthat: “Kosovo was the sole and unique caseand had nothing in common with Georgia”. Inthe purely legal point of view, this is absolutelycorrect; Disregarding historical and other facts,Tbilisi, unlike Belgrade, did not conductethniccleansing in the Abkhazia and Tskhinvali regions.On the contrary, up to 300,000 peoplebecame victims of ethnic cleansing – a factthat has been verifi ed several times internationally.For Moscow, however, Kosovo becamea political precedent, a reserve trumpcard that would by all means be played in thepost-Soviet area. Up till then everybody - beginningwith Vladimir Putin, Dmitri Medvedevand political experts - expressed “indignation”and “anxiety” “that the West disregarded andneglected international law”. Generally, onone side there was Serbia and its sole (andfi nal) partnerRussia, while on the other wasUSA and the EU However, for international relationsand western specialists of internationallaw, an unconditional unanimity is evident inneither camp. Some famous western expertstried to objectively specify the arguments forand against recognition of independence. Forexample, BBC observer Paul Reynolds, classified the arguments in the following way 6 :“the fact that Resolution No. 1244 of June 10,1999 of the UN Security Council appealed tothe regulation of the Kosovo crisis in a politicalmanner, but said nothing about the nature ofthe regulation itself, speaks for the separatists’benefi t (in the opinion of British experts). Asthe Security Council has not made a furtherresolution on the Kosovo status, the West hasa reason to assert that the Security Councilresolution envisages a change of the directiontowards those common principles which werereviewed by the Ministers of Foreign Affairsof the G-8 Countries, immediately before theResolution of June 10. Therefore, the lattercould be the basis for recognition of Kosovoindependence.Supporters of independence consideredthe Resolution of the Security Council articlethat stated “establishment of an interim politicalframework agreement providing for asubstantial self-government for Kosovo” wasreviewed as a general principle. One passageof the EU document is also worth noting:“Generally, once a entity has emergedas a state in the sense of international law, apolitical decision can be taken to recognizeit”. 7 The conclusion of the same document isalso highly interesting: “Acting to implementthe Final Status outcome in such a situationis more compatible with the intentions of 1244than continuing to work to block any outcomein a situation where everyone agrees thatthe status quo is unsustainable”. The circumstancethat by recognizing independence, theprocess of processing a fi nal status would becomprehensive became an argument as well,which was implied by the Resolution of theSecurity Council. And fi nally, the documentof the European Council considered the preambleand the principle specifi ed under thetext concerning the sovereignty and territorialintegrity of Yugoslavia under the Resolution ofthe Security Council as non-compulsory, froma legal point of view.It is not necessary to be a specialist ofinternational law to note a hesitant convictionof the aforementioned arguments; the matterrefers to the public revision of the UN SecurityCouncil Resolution and its founding moment– the sovereignty of a member state of the organizationand infringement of integrity.In Mr. Reynold’s opinion, Serbian andRussian arguments are far easier and clearer;the main thing is that a sovereign state Serbiahas not agreed with the independence of onepart of its territory. This position was upheldby EU members, Greece, Spain, Cyprus,Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania, however,they did not exercise their right to veto. Fromthe legal point of view, it is diffi cult to object220

P. TSINTSADZE, KOSOVO: NORMS AND CONFLICTS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN GEORGIAto Serbia and Russia’s Article 10 argumentswhere a “substantial autonomy within theFederal Republic of Yugoslavia” is determined,which is important for Kosovo. It isdirectly specifi ed in the same Resolution thatthe presence of international forces (peacefulor military) in Kosovo should be approved andcertifi ed by the UN, which has not taken place.The cynical and indignant disregard of thisgeneral and founding principle was noted byBelgrade and Moscow. This is the principle inwhich, changing any borders may be allowedonly on the basis of mutual agreement. Aslong as there is no such agreement betweenBelgrade and Prishtina, the independence ofKosovo is illegal.Kosovo events created yet another internationallaw problem, which is a subject ofheated debate ( becoming more actual); thisis the issue of recognition of self-declared“states”. The interrelation of territorial integrityand self-determination principles is a Gordianknot. The dilemma of recognizing states in theinternational arena arose in the years followingWorld War I, when at Versailles and subsequentconferences it became diffi cult to decidewho should be allowed to participate inthe conferences (with a voting right) and be amember of the League of Nations. This issuewas reviewed at the Montevideo InternationalConference (1933), where a conclusive conventionwas adopted. The latter envisaged thefi nal four criteria as a necessary preconditionfor recognizing states and for acknowledgingthem on the international level. These criteriawere: 1. Permanent population; 2. Ownershipof determined territory (although the legitimacyof the territory was not exactly determinedfrom the point of view of neighboring states);3. Existence of government; 4. Ability of a stateto establish relations with other countries (theobscure nature of this clause was further protestedby specialists many times) 8 .Although the convention of Montevideowas designed in consideration of for the absolutelydiffering realities of other regions (itwas signed by the USA and 18 Latin Americanstates), even after 60 years, in 1991-1993the Badinter Commission was directed withsuch determination by a state that was preparingrecommendations in relation to theformer Yugoslavia at the order of the EU.The International Tribunal also tried to establishMilosevic’s allegations considering thesevery principles when it investigated on whichterritory the state made the charge : Croatiaor Yugoslavi? In a letter published in theOctober 1, 2008 edition of the Russian newspaper“Kommersant,” 9 the very principle ofMontevideo was used to ascertain the version,as if international law recognized the principleof self-acknowledgment as well. Actually, it is asimple truth that the theory of State organizationonly recognizes those states as subjectsof international law, which are recognized assuch by other states. The question remains;how many states must recognize a particularstate formation before it is acknowledgedasa subject of international law?The sameprinciple of Montevideo – “Permanent population”excludes the subjectivity of internationallaw on Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region; amajor portion of the “permanent population”of these territories (the biggest ethnic group inAbkhazia) was expelled by a military force of aforeign state and the “states” themselves wereoccupied by the same occupying country. Thisbrings to mind various comic situations, for example,in the process of recognizing the choicebetween Taiwan and continental China Liberiaand Nauru (well-known to Georgia) changedtheir positions twice (the matter concerns tooffi cial position). What price or signifi cancemay such recognition/non-recognition have onthe International Commonwealth?In relation to this problem, specialists applythe Atlantic Charter, signed by Franklin DelanorRoosevelt, and Winston Churchill, on August14, 1941. The document regards the matters ofthe “arrangement” of the world following WorldWar II and refl ected Roosevelt’s principal positionas well, in view of the self-elucidation ofnations and the creation of new states. EvenHenry Kissinger quoted Roosevelt “I am fi rmlyof the belief that if we are to arrive at a stablepeace, it must involve the development ofbackward countries”. Roosevelt believed thatpeople should be freed from a backward colo-221

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #2, 2010 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N2, 2010nial policy”. 10 It is evident the document evaluatescolonial countries and the restoration oftheir sovereignty and independence and thepeople’s right to self-elucidation. Thus, it willnever prove useful to the formation of a stateof Kosovo, Abkhazia, Tskhinvali Region or anyother current separatist entity and their recognition-acknowledgement.1(http:///www.un.org./russin/documen/scresol/res 1999/res 1244. htm).2The same.3 ,http://www.un.org.Косово/4“Novoe Vremia”, 1992. No.345“Republic of Georgia”, 2007, December 8 and 11. #241, #2426http://newxvole.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/hi/russian/internatio..8.18.20097BBC RUSSIAN.com8http:ru.wikipedia.orglwiki9“Kommersant” No.177. 01.10.200810H. Kissinger. Diplomacy. М. 1990 p. 350222

mTargmneliinglisuri teqstis redaqtori-koreqtoriqarTuli teqstis redaqtori-koreqtorikomp. uzrunvelyofadiana JRentipol rimpliTamar gabelaialali kurdRelaSviliTranslatorsEnglish Proof-readerGeorgian Proof-readerIT SupportDiana ZhgentiPaul RimpleTamar GabelaiaLali Kurdgelashvili