saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali...4 saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #1, 2008 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N1, 2008 redkolegiisagan `saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnals~ iv. javaxiSvilis

ivane javaxiSvilis sax. Tbilisis saxelmwifo universitetiiuridiuli fakultetis saerTaSoriso samarTlis instituti

Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State UniversityInternational Law Institute, Faculty of Law

Organization for Security andCo-operation in EuropeOSCE Mission to Georgia

#1, 2008

saerTaSoriso

samarTlis

Jurnali

JOURNAL OFINTERNATIONAL

LAW

Tbilisi, Tbilisi,2008

`saerTaSoriso samarTalis Jurnali~ samecniero xasiaTis samenovani gamocemaa. masSi

warmodgenilia rogorc saerTaSoriso samarTlisa da saerTaSoriso urTierTobebis prob-

lemebi, aseve saqarTvelos kanonmdeblobis sakiTxebi.

Jurnali gamiznulia saerTaSoriso samarTlis specialistebisa da mkiTxvelTa farTo

wrisaTvis.

Jurnali gamoicema saqarTveloSi euTos misiis finansuri mxardaWeriT.statiebSi gamoTqmuli mosazrebani ekuTvnis avtors da SeiZleba ar asaxavdeseuTos pozicias.

The Journal is Published with Financial Support of the OSCE Mission to Georgia.The views expressed in the articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflectthe official position of the OSCE.

© Tsu

ISSN 1512-0368

dabeWdilia ..

3

BOARD OF EDITORS

Editor in Chief

ALEXIDZE LEVAN

Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University(TSU)

Executive Editor

TUSHURI RUSUDAN

(TSU)

Members of the Board:

butkeviCi volodimeradamianis uflebaTa evropulisasamarTlo (strasburgi, safrangeTi)

gabriCiZe gaga(Tsu)

demetraSvili avTandil(Tsu)

kereseliZe daviT(Tsu)

korkelia konstantine(Tsu)

koCariani vigenerevnis saxelmwifo universiteti(somxeTi)

mamedovi rusTambaqos saxelmwifo universiteti(azerbaijani)

pataraia daviT(Tsu)

qurdaZe irine(Tsu)

ugrexeliZe mindia (strasburgi, safrangeTi)

hanikaineni laurturkus universiteti (fineTi)

saredaqcio kolegia

mTavari redaqtori

aleqsiZe levaniv. javaxiSvilis sax. Tbilisis sax. universiteti

(Tsu)

aRmasrulebeli redaqtori

tuSuri rusudan(Tsu)

saredaqcio kolegiis wevrebi:

BUTKEVICH VOLODIMIR

European Court of Human Rights(Strasbourg, France)

GABRICHIDZE GAGA

(TSU)

HANNIKAINEN LAURI

University of Turku (Finland)

DEMETRASHVILI AVTANDIL

(TSU)

KERESELIDZE DAVID

(TSU)

KORKELIA KONSTANTINE

(TSU)

KOCHARYAN VIGEN

Yerevan State University (Armenia)

MAMEDOV RUSTAM

Baku State University (Azerbaijan)

PATARAIA DAVID

(TSU)

KURDADZE IRINE

(TSU)

UGREKHELIDZE MINDIA

(Strasbourg, France)

4

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #1, 2008 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N1, 2008

redkolegiisagan

`saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnals~ iv. javaxiSvilis saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo uni-versitetis saerTaSoriso samarTlisa da saerTaSoriso urTierTobebis fakulteti gamoscemda1996 wlidan, saqarTveloSi gaeros ltolvilTa umaRlesi komisris warmomadgenlobis,saqarTveloSi gaeros ganviTarebis programis mudmivi warmomadgenlobis, ̀ Ria sazogadoebissamarTlebrivi iniciativisa~ da saqarTveloSi amerikis SeerTebuli Statebis saelCos dax-marebiT.

saredaqcio kolegia kidev erTxel uxdis did madlobas am organizaciebs esoden mniS-vnelovani mxardaWerisaTvis.

Jurnali ar gamosula 2005 wlis Semdeg. saqarTveloSi saerTaSoriso samarTlis mecniere-bis ganviTarebisa da demokratiuli principebis ganmtkicebis xelSewyobis mizniT, Tbilisissaxelmwifo universitetis iuridiuli fakultetis saerTaSoriso samarTlis kaTedram ganaaxlaJurnalis gamocema.

Jurnalis am nomris momzadeba da gamoqveyneba SesaZlebeli gaxda evropaSi uSiSroebisa daTanamSromlobis organizaciis (euTo) saqarTveloSi delegaciis finansuri mxardaWeriT. sare-daqcio kolegia madlobas uxdis euTos misias am keTilSobilur daxmarebisaTvis.

***

`saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali" perioduli samecniero gamocemaa, romelic gamoqvey-ndeba weliwadSi orjer. masSi warmodgenil naSromebSi ganixileba saerTaSoriso sajaro dakerZo samarTlis problemebi, saerTaSoriso urTierTobaTa sakiTxebi, saqarTvelos kanonm-deblobisa da misi saerTaSorisosamarTlebrivi praqtikis aqtualuri aspeqtebi. Jurnali gam-iznulia rogorc saerTaSoriso samarTlis specialistebisaTvis, aseve aRniSnuli problema-tikiT dainteresebul mkiTxvelTa farTo wrisaTvis.

is garemoeba, rom yoveli statia, rogorc wesi, qveyndeba qarTul da inglisur enebze,agreTve, zogjer, rusuladac, SesaZleblobas aZlevs warmodgenili sakiTxebiT dainterese-bul am enebis mcodne ucxoelebs, gaecnon avtorTa mecnierul debulebebs, aseve saqarTve-los zogierT kanonsa Tu saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebas.

statiebis warmodgena SeiZleba samive aRniSnul enaze. saredaqcio kolegia uzrunvely-ofs maTs Targmnas Sesabamis enebze.

Jurnali Tavis gverdebs dauTmobs rogorc Teoretikos da praqtikos iuristebs, asevestudentebs, romlebic ikvleven saerTaSorisosamarTlebriv sakiTxebs da romelTa statieb-Si gaSuqebuli iqneba Tanamedrove saerTaSoriso samarTlis normaTa srulyofisa da SemdgomiganviTarebis aqtualuri problemebi, maT Soris: adamianis uflebaTa dacvis saerTaSorisomeqanizmebi, samoqalaqo sazogadoebis mSeneblobis sakiTxebi.

JurnalSi avtorTa mier gamoqveynebuli Sexedulebebi SeiZleba ar emTxveodes saredaq-cio kolegiis wevrTa azrs.

5

FROM THE EDITORIAL BOARD

The Journal of International Law has been published by the Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State UniversityDepartment of International Law and International Relations since 1996 with the support provided by theUNCHR office in Georgia, the UNDP office in Georgia, Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI) and the USEmbassy to Georgia.

The Editorial Board is honored to convey the appreciation for provision of such an indispensable sup-port, once again, to the above mentioned organizations.

The Publication of the Journal was suspended in 2005. Aiming at promoting the development of thescience of International Law and strengthening the democratic principles in Georgia, the Chair of Interna-tional Law of the Tbilisi State University Law Department renewed publication of the Journal.

The publication of the current volume has become possible with the support of OSCE Mission toGeorgia. The Editorial Board expresses the gratitude to the OSCE Mission for this generous contribution.

***

The Journal of International Law is the scientific periodical, published twice a year. The articles present-ed cover issues of public and private international law, international relations, important aspects of theGeorgian legislation and Georgia’s international legal practice. The Journal is intended for experts of inter-national law, as well as for broad circles of readers interested in above mentioned issues.

The fact that each article, as a rule, is published in Georgian and English and occasionally in Russianlanguage as well, provides the possibility for the foreigner readers interested in these topics to becomeacquainted with the scientific concepts of authors, as well as certain Georgian legislative acts and interna-tional treaties to which Georgia is a party.

The articles may be submitted in all the languages listed above. The Editorial Board provides corre-sponding translation.

The Journal welcomes the contributions from scholars and practicing lawyers, as well as studentsengaged in research of international law issues, and whose articles [Priority will be given to articles whichrefer to the pressing problems of enhancement of the norms of the contemporary International Law and theirfurther development, particularly dealing with international protection mechanisms of Human Rights andbuilding civil society.

The views expressed by the authors in the Journal may not correspond to that of the Editorial Board.

6


Sinaarsi CONTENTS

I. saerTaSoriso samarTlis Teoriuli problemebi

irine qurdaZe, saerTaSoriso da Sidasaxelmwifoebrivi samarTlis Tanafardobis Sesaxeb mecnieruli koncefciebis ganviTarebis etapebi da Tanamedroveoba ------------- 7

Irine Kurdadze, Stages of Development of Scientific Concepts on Correlation BetweenInternational and Domestic Law and Contemporary Events --------------------------------------------------- 21

II. saerTaSoriso sisxlis samarTali

levan aleqsiZe, afxazeTSi qarTveli mosaxleobis eTnikuri wmendissaerTaSoriso dagmobis saqmeSi euTos gadamwyveti rolis Sesaxeb ------------------------------ 33

Levan Alexidze, Vital Role of OSCE in Condemning Ethnic Cleansing of Georgian Populationin Abkhazia, Georgia, by the International Community ----------------------------------------------------------- 40

qeTevan xuciSvili, suverenuli imunitetebis dacvam unda gadawonos Tu araadamianebis dacva uflebaTa masobrivi darRvevebisgan? --------------------------------------------- 47

Ketevan Khutsishvili, Shall Protection of Sovereign Immunities Supersede Protectionof Human Beings From Mass Atrocities? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 65

III. saerTaSoriso sazRvao samarTali

eka siraZe, sanapiro saxelmwifos iurisdiqcia Sida wylebsa da teritoriul zRvaSi mcurav ucxo saxelmwifos gemze, sazRvao samarTlis Sesaxeb gaeros 1982 wlis konvenciis mixedviT ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 82

Eka Siradze, Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over the Ship of Foreign State in the InternalWaters and the Territorial Seas in Accordance with the United NationsConvention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 92

IV. adamianis uflebaTa saerTaSoriso samarTali

elene siWinava, ,,gonivruli vadis~ moTxovna ------------------------------------------------------------------- 101Elene Sichinava, “A Reasonable Time” Requirement ---------------------------------------------------------------- 115

nona kalandaZe, `SromiTi migrantebisa da maTi ojaxis wevrebis uflebaTa dacvisSesaxeb~ saerTaSoriso konvencia da SromiT migrantTa da maTi ojaxiswevrebis uflebaTa dacvis monitoringis gaeros meqanizmebi -------------------------------------- 127

Nona Kalandadze, International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All MigrantWorkers and Members of Their Families and UN Monitoring Mechanisms for theProtection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families ---------------------------- 141

lali fafiaSvili, arasrulwlovanTa marTlmsajulebis zogierTi sakiTxi -------------------- 153Lali Papiashvili, Some Issues of Juvenile Justice -------------------------------------------------------------------- 165

givi miqanaZe, ombudsmenis instituti ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 174Givi Mikanadze, Ombudsman Institution -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 182

V. saerTaSoriso saxelSekrulebo samarTali

xaTuna ToTlaZe, `saqarTvelos saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebis Sesaxeb~ saqarTvelos kaninis xarvezebi ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 189

Khatuna Totladze, Gaps of the Law of Georgia “On International Treaties of Georgia” -------------------- 199

VI. saerTaSoriso samarTlis roli arasaerTaSoriso SeiaraRebulikonfliqtebis mogvarebaSiirakli giviaSvili, bolo periodSi ruseTis federaciis mxridan saqarTvelos

mimarT gadadgmuli nabijebis saerTaSorisosamarTlebrivi Sefaseba ------------------------- 207Irakli Giviashvili, International Legal Assessment of the Recent Stepts Taken

by the Russian Federation with Respect to Georgia -------------------------------------------------------------- 215

VII. diplomatiuri samarTali

mariam gociriZe, fizikuri da iuridiuli pirebis diplomatiuri dacvasaerTaSoriso sajaro samarTalSi -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 222

Mariam Gotsiridze, Diplomatic Protection of Natural and Legal Persons inInternational Public Law ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 237

danarTisaqarTvelos kanoni diplomatiuri samsaxuris Sesaxeb ----------------------------------------------------- 250

7

irine qurdaZe

saerTaSoriso da Sidasaxelmwifoebrivi samarTlis Tanafardobis Sesaxeb mecnieruli koncefciebis

ganviTarebis etapebi da Tanamedroveoba

saerTaSoriso samarTlisa da Sidasa-xelmwifoebrivi samarTlis Tanafar-dobis sakiTxi erT-erTi yvelaze rTulida aqtualuri problemaa saerTaSorisosamarTlis mecnierebaSi.

Tanamedrove msoflioSi mzardma in-tegraciulma procesebma bolo aTwleu-lis ganmavlobaSi saerTaSoriso da naci-onaluri samarTlis daaxloeba gamoiw-via. amaze miuTiTebs is garemoebac, romsaerTaSoriso samarTali ara marto sax-elmwifos sagareo urTierTobebis mog-varebis (rogorc es warsulSi iyo), aramedSidasaxelmwifoebrivi regulirebis sa-marTlebriv meqanizmad iqca. ekonomiku-ri, satransporto, informaciuli kav-Sirebis universalizaciam, globaluriekologiuri problemebis gamwvavebam, mi-graciis masobrivma xasiaTma da, rac mTa-varia, mSvidobisa da uSiSroebis dacvas-Tan dakavSirebuli sakiTxebis (masobriviganadgurebis iaraRis warmoeba, saerTa-Soriso terorizmTan brZola da sxva)kontrolze ayvanis aucileblobam Seqm-na myari obieqturi baza amgvari tenden-ciis gaRrmavebisaTvis. msoflioSi axalimarTlwesrigis arseboba moiTxovs, erTimxriv, nacionaluri gadawyvetilebebisdaaxloebas da, meore mxriv, saerTaSori-so Tanamegobrobis mier saerTo gadawyve-tilebebis miRebas.

warmoiSoba mravali problemuri kiT-xva, romelTa gadaWra saWiroa politi-kuri da iuridiuli kuTxiT: rogor Se-vuTavsoT saxelmwifos suverenuli uf-lebebi da saerTaSoriso organizaciaTauflebamosilebebi, dasaSvebia Tu arapirvelis SezRudva, rogor movaxdinoTmxareTa interesebis paritetuli dacva,ra sazRvramde SeiZleba saerTaSoriso

normebisa da meqanizmebis gavrceleba,romlebic am mizans emsaxurebian?

Tanamedrove etapze, rodesac saer-TaSoriso samarTals esoden didi mniS-vneloba eniWeba, saerTaSoriso da Sida-saxelmwifoebrivi samarTlis normaTakoliziis SemTxvevaSi, sakiTxi, Tu ro-mels unda mieniWos upiratesoba, sulufro xSirad xdeba calkeuli saxelmwi-fos sasamarTlo praqtikis gansjadi. espraqtika ki, Tavis mxriv, saerTaSorisosamarTlis TeoriaSi ayenebs saerTaSori-so samarTlisa da SidasaxelmwifoebrivisamarTlis Tanafardobis problemas.

warsulSi saerTaSoriso samarTlismkvlevrebi ar ixilavdnen gancalkevebu-lad Tanafardobis problemas, vinaidanam sakiTxs gansakuTrebuli praqtikulimniSvneloba ar hqonda.

Tanafardobis sakiTxTan dakavSire-biT saerTaSoriso samarTalSi XIX sauku-nidan moyolebuli Camoyalibda 2 mim-dinareoba: dualisturi da monisturi.

dualisturi Teoriis koncefcia ey-rdnoba Semdeg Tezas: saerTaSoriso sa-marTali da Sidasaxelmwifoebrivi samar-Tali ori gancalkevebuli samarT-lebrivi sistemaa da, aqedan gamomdinare,gamoricxulia romelimes primati.

dualisturi Teoria CamoyalibdaXIX–XX saukuneebSi gabatonebuli pozi-tivisturi mimarTulebis gavlenis Sede-gad. rogorc cnobilia, pozitivizmisskola uaryofda bunebiTi samarTlismniSvnelobas da samarTals ganixilavdarogorc saxelmwifo xelisuflebis mierdadgenil da uzrunvelyofil qceviswess. saerTaSoriso samarTlis normadiTvleboda mxolod is qcevis wesi, rome-lic saxelmwifoTa mkafio (xelSekrule-

8


ba) Tu dumiliT (Cveuleba) SeTanxmebiTiqmneboda. pozitivizmi cdilobda, ganem-tkicebina burJuaziuli saxelmwifos pr-aqtika, daecva maTi suvereniteti da da-moukidebloba. am periodSi saerTaSori-so urTierTobebi Sidasaxelmwifoebrivicxovrebis SedarebiT mcire sakiTxebs mo-icavda. saerTaSoriso samarTlisa da Si-dasaxelmwifoebrivi samarTlis dapiri-spireba exeboda ZiriTadad diplomati-ur da savaWro urTierTobebs, ucxoel-Ta uflebebs, naosnobis reJims. saerTa-Soriso politikaSi SesamCnevi iyo Tavis-ufali vaWrobis tendenciebi. SemdgomSisaerTaSoriso kavSirebis gazrda iwvevssaerTaSorisosamarTlebrivi da saxelm-wifosamarTlebrivi regulirebis sakiT-xTa wris gazrdas.

germaneli iuristi tripeli 1899 welsgamoqveynebul naSromSi `saerTaSorisosamarTali da SidasaxelmwifoebrivisamarTali~, agreTve sxva Semdgom pub-likaciebSi1 ixilavda saerTaSoriso daSidasaxelmwifoebriv samarTals, rogorcor gansxvavebul marTlwesrigs, romelT-ac gansxvavebuli regulirebis obieqti,subieqti da wyaroebi aqvT.2

amasTan, tripeli aRiarebs, rom arse-bobs sakiTxTa iseTi wre, romelic saer-TaSorisosamarTlebrivi da saxelmwi-fosamarTlebrivi regulirebis sferosmiekuTvneba. zogjer saWiro xdeba saer-TaSorisosamarTlebrivi normebis aRqmaSidasaxelmwifoebriv samarTalSi, da pi-riqiT. misi azriT, saWiroa ara recefcia,aramed ama Tu im debulebis reproduqciasaxecvlili formiT, `vinaidan saubariaaxali samarTlis SemoRebaze sxva wyaro-ebTan erTad, Tumca SinaarsiT isini erT-nairia~, anu, tripelis azriT, Tu saer-TaSoriso samarTlisa da Sidasaxelmwi-foebrivi samarTlis normebs erTnairi anmiaxloebuli Sinaarsi aqvT, erTi samarT-lebrivi sistemidan meore samarTlebrivsistemaSi normis gadatana xdeba mxolodSesabamisi normis axal normaSi gardaqm-niT, rasac iuridiul literaturaSi, ro-gorc wesi, gamoxataven terminiT – ̀ tra-nsformacia~.

tripelis Semdeg am sakiTxs ixilavscnobili italieli pozitivisti j. anci-loti. misi azriT, saerTaSorisosamarT-lebrivi norma moqmedebs mxolod saerTa-Soriso urTierTobebis farglebSi, xolo

saxelmwifosamarTlebrivi norma – SidaurTierTobebis farglebSi. saerTaSori-sosamarTlebrivi normebi ar axdens gav-lenas Sida normebis savaldebulo xasi-aTze, da piriqiT. aqedan gamomdinare, arwarmoiSoba konfliqti saerTaSoriso daSidasaxelmwifoebriv samarTals Soris,Tumca erTs SeuZlia miuTiTos meoreze.iseve, rogorc tripeli, anciloti amtki-cebs, rom `saerTaSoriso samarTali daSidasaxelmwifoebrivi samarTali... war-moadgenen gancalkevebul marTlwes-rigs~.

magram avtori iZulebulia aRiaros,rom saxelmwifos ar SeuZlia, Sidasaxelm-wifoebriv normaze dayrdnobiT uari ga-nacxados saerTaSoriso valdebulebisSesrulebaze, aseve igi Tvlis, rom prin-cipi, romlis Sesabamisadac Sidasaxelm-wifoebrivi norma sruliad damoukidebe-lia saerTaSoriso valdebulebis Sesa-bamisoba-Seusabamobisagan, ar gamoricx-avs im garemoebas, rom normis ganmarteb-isas saxelmwifo angariSs uwevs saerTa-Soriso valdebulebebs.3

dualistur TeoriaTa mimdevrebisul ufro Zlierdebodnen me-20 saukunis50-ian wlebSi da male gabatonebuli mdgo-mareoba daikaves, magram isini ar iziarebentripelisa da ancilotis ukidures po-ziciebs. maTi azriT, saerTaSoriso da Si-dasaxelmwifoebrivi samarTlis normeb-is meSveobiT erTsa da imave sferos miku-Tvnebul urTierTobaTa regulirebaSesaZlebelia, magram koliziis warmoSo-bis SemTxvevaSi winaaRmdegobaTa daZle-va SeiZleba mxolod diplomatiuri mola-parakebiT an saerTaSoriso davis mogva-rebis sxva saSualebebiT, an saerTaSorisopasuxismgeblobis meqanizmebis amuSave-biT. am azrs iziareben germaneli iuris-tebi: u. Seineri da g. dami, romlebic e.w.`zomieri dualizmis~ Teorias qadageben.4

mogvianebiT vrceldeba koordinaci-is Teoria, romelic 1950-ian wlebSi cno-bili gaxda rogorc ̀ ficmorisis kompro-misi~. am Teoriis mixedviT, orive siste-ma damoukidebelia, isini moqmedeben sxva-dasxva sferoSi da, amdenad, orive uzena-esia Tavis sferoSi, magram SeiZleba war-moiSvas valdebulebaTa konfliqti, Tu:saxelmwifom ver SeZlo nebismier donezeemoqmeda saerTaSoriso samarTlis moTx-ovnaTa Sesabamisad. Sedegi: Sida normis

9

iuridiuli Zala uryevia, `Tumca wamoi-Wreba saxelmwifos saerTaSorisosamarT-lebrivi pasuxismgebloba~.5 imave azrisaaS. ruso.6

XIX saukunis bolos da XX saukunisdasawyisSi literaturaSi aseve gavr-celda monisturi Teoriis erT-erTi mi-marTuleba: Sidasaxelmwifoebrivi sama-rTlis primati saerTaSoriso samarTa-lTan mimarTebiT. am Teoriis sawyis ele-mentebs jer kidev hegelis filosofiurnaSromebSi vpoulobT, Semdgomi ganviTa-reba ki man ZiriTadad germanul saerTa-SorisosamarTlebriv literaturaSi pova.misi momxreni, romlebsac xSirad ̀ saerTa-SorisosamarTlebriv nihilistebad~ naT-laven, uaryofdnen saerTaSoriso samar-Tlis arsebobas da amtkicebdnen, rom sax-elmwifos neba aranairi gareSe ZaliT araris SezRuduli. es Teoria amarTlebdagermanuli imperiis mizanswrafvas, arSezRuduliyo saerTaSorisosamarTleb-rivi normebiT. am periodSi Camoyalibdaori Teoria: `Zalis Teoria~ da `sagareosaxelmwifo samarTlis Teoria~. isini ax-los dganan erTmaneTTan saboloo daskv-nebiT. orive Teorias mivyavarT saerTa-Soriso samarTlis uaryofamde saxelmwi-fos SeuzRudavi Zalauflebis sasarge-blod. 7

orive Teoria agebuli iyo faqtobri-vad im debulebebze, rom saerTaSorisourTierTobebis regulireba xdeba mx-olod calkeuli saxelmwifos nebis safu-Zvelze, ris gareSec ar arsebobs misTvissavaldebulo saerTaSoriso samarT-lebrivi norma.

sinamdvileSi es Teoriebi ar Seesabam-eboda imdroindel realobasac, vinaidanXIX–XX saukuneTa mijnazec saxelmwifo-Ta TanamSromloba sul ufro da ufrointensiurad moiTxovs zogadad yvelasaxelmwifosaTvis savaldebulod aRi-arebuli saerTaSoriso normebis arse-bobas, miuxedavad imisa, Seesabameba Tuara maTi moqmedeba saxelmwifos inter-ess an nebas. es aramc da aramc ar niSnavs,rom saerTaSoriso samarTali aris Seuc-vleli. sayovelTaod aRiarebuli saer-TaSorisosamarTlebrivi normebi iqmne-boda da iqmneba saxelmwifoTa nebis SeT-anxmebis safuZvelze, maTi Secvla an gau-qmeba SesaZlebelia agreTve SeTanxmebissafuZvelze da ara erTi saxelmwifos

nebiT. Tumca axalSeqmnili saxelmwifoe-bi ver cvlian ukve arsebul sistemas, anusaxelmwifo emorCileba ukve arsebulmarTlwesrigs, rac migviTiTebs saerTa-Soriso samarTlis primatze. es ar niS-navs, rom calkeuli saxelmwifoebi ar ar-Rveven saerTaSorisosamarTlebriv nor-mebs, magram es srulebiTac ar amarTlebsnihilistur Teoriebs saerTaSoriso sa-marTlis sferoSi.

amitom avtorTa umravlesoba am drosaqtiurad qadagebda saerTaSoriso sa-marTlis iuridiul savaldebuloobas daamtkicebda amas praqtikis magaliTebiT.unda gvaxsovdes, rom am dros arsebobdauamravi mecnieri, romlebic aRiarebdnensaerTaSoriso samarTlis obieqtur ar-sebobas da garkveuli normebis calkeulsaxelmwifoTa nebaze maRla dgomas.8

pirveli msoflio omis Semdeg vrce-ldeba monisturi Teoriis meore mimar-Tuleba – saerTaSoriso samarTlis pri-mati Sidasaxelmwifoebriv samarTalze.

h. kelzeni kategoriulad uaryofdabunebiTi samarTlis raime kavSirs pozi-tiur samarTalTan. igi ixilavs samarTals,rogorc normaTa Caketil ierarqias. amnormatiuli sistemis SigniT yvela sa-marTlebrivi norma erTiania. es normebi,maT Soris saerTaSorisosamarTlebrivi,aregulirebs urTierTobebs individebsSoris. `Tu saerTaSoriso samarTaliavaldebulebs da uflebamosils xdissaxelmwifos, es exeba individebsac, anuim individebs, romlebic saxelmwifo or-ganoebs warmoadgenen. am qcevis wess saer-TaSoriso samarTali adgens ara pirda-pir, aramed erovnuli marTlwesrigismeSveobiT~. es ukanaskneli ki gansazRv-ravs im pirTa wres, romlebic axorciele-ben saerTaSoriso samarTals saxelmwifoorganoebSi. am gagebiT saerTaSorisomarTlwesrigi axdens sakuTari normebisSesrulebis delegirebas erovnuli sa-marTlisadmi. h. kelzenis azriT, samarT-lis am erTian sistemaSi saerTaSorisosamarTali ufro maRla dgas, vidre ero-vnuli samarTali. swored saerTaSorisosamarTali gansazRvravs erovnuli sama-rTlis materialur Sinaarss. is erovnu-li samarTlis (amasTan konstituciurinormebis) safuZvelia. saerTaSoriso mar-Tlwesrigi mniSvnelovania mxolod rogorcuniversaluri marTlwesrigis nawili.9

i. qurdaZe, saerTaSoriso da Sidasaxelmwifoebrivi samarTlis Tanafardobis Sesaxeb...

10


naSromSi – ̀ saerTaSoriso samarTlisprincipebi~ – kelzeni amtkicebs, rom sa-erTaSoriso samarTali umaRlesi marTl-wesrigia, romlis SezRudva dauSvebelia,is TviTon zRudavs nacionalur marTl-wesrigs. nacionaluri marTlwesrigismoqmedebis sferos SezRudva saerTa-Soriso marTlwesrigis mniSvnelovanifunqciaa. erovnuli marTlwesrigis mniS-vnelovan maxasiaTeblad ki avtori miiC-nevs im garemoebas, rom erovnuli marTl-wesrigi mxolod saerTaSoriso marTl-wesrigs emorCileba.

h. kelzenis mier Seqmnili samarTlisuniversaluri sistemis yvela samarT-lebrivi normis sagani individis qmede-baa, Tu Sidasaxelmwifoebrivi norma uSu-alod aregulirebs individis qmedebas,saerTaSoriso norma aregulirebs maTnacionaluri marTlwesrigis meSveobiT.swored nacionaluri marTlwesrigi gan-sazRvravs, Tu romel Tanamdebobis pirsan saxelmwifo organoebs SeuZliaT aamo-qmedon es normebi. maSasadame, kelzenisazriT, saerTaSoriso samarTali saerTa-SorisosamarTlebrivi normis moqmedeb-is ̀ materialur elements~, xolo Sidasax-elmwifoebrivi `personalur elements~gansazRvravs. am TvalTaxedvidan saer-TaSoriso samarTlis normebi ar moiTx-ovs `transformacias~, Tu es specialu-rad ar aris gaTvaliswinebuli TviT sae-rTaSorisosamarTlebrivi normiT. nor-mis gadatana xdeba uSualod da eyrdnobasaerTaSoriso samarTlis ̀ delegirebas~Sidasaxelmwifoebrivi samarTlis mima-rT. es aris ara transformacia, aramedsamarTlis Seqmnis proceduris faza,romlis formac erTiania.10

amgvarad, kelzeni uaryofs dualis-tur Teorias, romelic, misi mtkicebiT,gamomdinareobs suverenitetis dogmi-dan, romlis mixedviTac `saerTaSorisosamarTali qmnis ufleba-movaleobebsmxolod saxelmwifoTaTvis da ara misiorganoebisa da moqalaqeTaTvis~. amiTkelzeni upirispirdeba dualistur midg-omas da acxadebs, rom saerTaSoriso sa-marTali Sidasaxelmwifoebriv marTl-wesrigTan erTad qmnis erTian sistemas –samarTlis universalur sistemas.

kelzenis Teoria samarTlebrivi nor-mebis piramiduli ierarqiisa da saerTa-Soriso da Sidasaxelmwifoebrivi samarT-

lebrivi sistemebis erTianobis SesaxebsaerTaSoriso samarTlis primatis mo-nisturi Teoriis klasikur modelad iyoaRiarebuli, magram mas arcTu ise bevrimimdevari hyavda.

monistur Teorias iziareben ara mar-to pozitivistebi, aramed solidariste-bic, magram Tu h. kelzeni ierarqiis bolosuzenaesi normis iuridiulobis iqiT armidis da am ̀ ZiriTadi normis~ (Grundnorm)safuZvels normativizmis konstruqciisCarCoebis gareT eZebs, solidaristebiierarqiis safuZvlad pozitiuri samar-Tlis gareT mdebare òbieqtur movle-nebs Tvlian~. am koncefciis TvalsaCinowarmomadgenelia frangi iuristi J. seli,romelsac saerTaSorisosamarTlebriviurTierTobebi warmoudgenia rogorcuricxvi ùrTierTobis~ erTianoba. isi-ni erTmaneTTan dakavSirebulia `socia-luri solidarobiT~. iseve, rogorc kel-zeni, seli miiCnevs, rom saerTaSoriso sa-marTali aris ̀ umaRlesi~ marTlwesrigi,xolo saxelmwifo aris marTlwesrigi,romelic uSualod saerTaSoriso mar-Tlwesrigs emorCileba. selic, saer-TaSoriso samarTlis primatis safuZ-velze, uaryofs saxelmwifo suverenite-tis cnebas da asabuTebs individis saer-TaSoriso samarTalsubieqtobas. misiazriT, saxelmwifo suverenitetis cnebaèwinaaRmdegeba faqts da samarTals~,uaryofs saxelmwifos ZiriTadi uflebe-bis cnebas, rogorc iuridiul namdvilo-bas moklebuls~. avtori amtkicebs, rom`saerTaSoriso urTierTobebi – es arisurTierTobebi individsa da jgufebsSoris, romlebic warmoiSoba saxelmwifosazRvrebs gareT~. `saerTaSoriso sa-marTlis progresi damokidebuli iqnebaimaze, Tu ramdenad zesaxelmwifoebrivigaxdeba igi momavalSi~.11

amave Teorias, Tumca ufro zomieriformiT, iziarebdnen avstrieli a. ferd-rosi da Sveicarieli p. gugenhaimi.

p. gugenhaimi werda: `saerTaSorisosamarTlis primatis principis Tanaxmad,misi kompetencia potenciurad SeuzRu-davia..., yvela sagani, romelic reguli-rdeba Sidasaxelmwifoebrivi samarTliT,SeiZleba daregulirdes saerTaSorisosamarTliT. saxelmwifos damoukideblo-ba sxva araferia, Tu ara misi damorCile-ba ̀ umaRlesi marTlwesrigisadmi~.12

11

h. kelzenis mier Seqmnili `venis sko-lis~ erT-erTi moRvawe a. ferdrosi Taviskoncefcias ̀ zomieri monizmis~ Teoriasuwodebs. igi uSvebs saerTaSoriso da Si-dasaxelmwifoebriv samarTals Soriskonfliqtis SesaZleblobas. es konfliq-tebi SeiZleba gadaiWras mxolod iurid-iuli sistemis erTianobaSi saerTaSo-riso sajaro samarTlis primatis safuZ-velze, radganac ̀ SidasaxelmwifoebrivisamarTali SeiZleba Tavisuflad ganvi-Tardes mxolod saerTaSoriso samarT-lis CarCoebSi~. ferdrosi kategoriu-lad ar miuTiTebs SidasaxelmwifoebrivisamarTlis damorCilebaze saerTaSo-riso samarTlisadmi.13

aRsaniSnavia, rom ̀ zomieri monizmisa~da ̀ zomieri dualizmis~ zogierTi daskv-na emTxveva erTmaneTs. ase magaliTad:orive koncefcia aRiarebs, rom saerTa-Soriso samarTalsa da Sidasaxelmwifoe-briv samarTals Soris SeiZleba warmoiS-vas kolizia, romlis gadawyvetac Sesa-Zlebelia mxolod saerTaSoriso samarT-lis daxmarebiT, kerZod, saerTaSorisodavebis mSvidobiani mogvarebiT da saer-TaSoriso pasuxismgeblobis institute-bis daxmarebiT.

malkom Sou miiCnevs, rom monizmisa Tudualizmis poziciebis zedmiwevniT aRi-areba ar iZleva SesaZleblobas, CavwvdeTrealur situacias. saWiroa saxelmwifo-Ta konstitiuciuri da sasamarTlo praq-tikisa da saerTaSoriso sasamarTloeb-is saqmianobis Seswavla.14

misi dakvirvebiT, qveynebis umravle-soba aRiarebs CveulebiTi normebis Se-fardebas maTi sakuTari iurisdiqciissferoSi, Tu isini ar ewinaaRmdegebian Si-dasaxelmwifoebriv normebs, xolo zogi-erTi qveyana aniWebs kidevac saerTa-Soriso samarTals uzenaes Zalas Sidasax-elmwifoebrivi normebis mimarT. 15

avtoris azriT, rogorc wesi, saqmegvaqvs valdebulebaTa konfliqtTan, anusaxelmwifo Tavis Sida samarTalSi armoqmedebs saerTaSoriso samarTliT gan-sazRvrul valdebulebaTa Sesabamisad.aseT SemTxvevaSi saxelmwifos Sida pozi-cia rCeba xelSeuxebeli (da ar baTilde-ba saerTaSoriso samarTlis sawinaaRm-dego normiT), magram, radganac saxelm-wifos, romlis moqmedeba saerTaSorisoasparezze arRvevs saerTaSoriso samarT-

lis normas, pasuxismgebloba gadainacv-lebs saerTaSoriso sferoSi da gamoi-wvevs diplomatiur protests an sasamarT-los qmedebas.16

i. brounli miiCnevs, rom Teoriulikonstruqciebi aRiareben problemas daugulebelyofen realobas. `Tu vinme ga-dawyvets, gaiziaros ficmorisisa da ru-sos Sexedulebani, is ufro axlos aRmoCn-deba sinamdvilesTan. da mainc, zogadiTeoriuli konstruqciebi srulad verasaxaven am urTierTobas~.17

avtoris xazgasmiT, Sesabamisobis sa-kiTxi miuTiTebs im gansxvavebebze, rom-lebic arsebobs organizaciaSi anu iuris-diqciis bunebaSi (erovnulia Tu saerTa-Soriso) orive sistemis normaTa, rogorcmoqnili instrumentebis, xasiaTs Soris,davis mogvarebis, da ara sadavo sakiTxe-bis regulirebis, TvalsazrisiT. magal-iTad, saerTaSoriso sasamarTlom Sei-Zleba gamoiyenos Sidasaxelmwifoebrivinorma, amave dros, organom, rogoricaa,vTqvaT, aSS-is ucxouri pretenziebismogvarebis komisia, romelic naciona-luri organoa, SeiZleba gamoiyenos saer-TaSoriso samarTlis norma.

`rodesac erovnuli sasamarTlo iye-nebs saerTaSoriso samarTals, uazroadaisvas kiTxva – iyo Tu ara `transfor-mirebuli~ es norma SidasaxelmwifoebrivsamarTalSi, Tuki transformacia ar mo-iTxovs erovnuli samarTlebrivi siste-mis mier dadgenil specialur procedu-ras, romlis gareSe verc erTi organo vergamoiyenebs saerTaSoriso samarTlisnormas~.

frangi mecnierebi (j. kombaku, a. pel-dalie, d. karo, p-m. diupui), romlebiczomieri dualizmis poziciaze dganan,aRiareben saerTaSoriso samarTlisa daSidasaxelmwifoebrivi samarTlis avto-nomiurobas, magram aqve xazs usvamen imgaremoebas, rom verc erTi maTgani erTi-meorisagan izolirebulad ver imoqme-debs da es sistemebi urTierTdamokide-bulia da urTierTSevsebadi.18

amave dros, TiTqmis yvela maTgani, aseTu ise, aRiarebs saerTaSoriso samarT-lis, da ara mxolod saerTaSoriso xe-lSekrulebebis, primats Sidasaxelmwi-foebrivi samarTlis mimarT.

d. karo miuTiTebs XIX saukunis dam-levidan arsebul sasamarTlo praqtikasa


12


da Tanamedrove saerTaSoriso samarTa-lSi arsebul CveulebiTsa da konvenciurnormebze. kerZod, igi ixilavs ̀ saerTaSo-riso xelSekrulebaTa Sesaxeb~ 1969 wlisvenis konvenciis 27-e muxls da askvnis:àmgvari saerTaSoriso samarTlis uzen-aesobis principi cxadyofs, rom saerTa-Soriso samarTali (anu mTeli pozitiurisaerTaSoriso samarTali da ara mxolodxelSekrulebebi) mTlianobaSi ufro maR-la dgas, vidre SidasaxelmwifoebrivnormaTa erToblioba: sakonstitucio,sakanonmdeblo, aRmasrulebeli da sasa-marTlo gadawyvetilebebi. es primatiaRiares saerTaSoriso arbitraJma dasasamarTloebma~.19

rogorc karo, aseve sxva mecnierebimimarTaven sasamarTlo praqtikas imisdasadastureblad, rom saerTaSorisosayovelTao samarTali, xelSekrulebeb-is CaTvliT, ufro maRla dgas, vidre Si-dasaxelmwifoebrivi samarTali. rogorcwesi, isini erTsa da imave istoriulfaqtebs mimarTaven. 1875 wels ̀ montigos~saqmis ganxilvisas arbitraJma daadgina,rom `xelSekruleba konstituciaze uf-ro maRla dgas~.

mogvianebiT, `jorj pinsonis~ 1928wlis saqmis ganxilvisas, arbitraJma miu-TiTa, rom safrangeTsa da meqsikas Sorisdadebuli xelSekruleba ufro maRladgas, vidre meqsikis konstitucia: ̀ udavoa,saerTaSoriso samarTali Sidasaxelmwi-foebriv samarTalze ufro maRla dgas~.

saerTaSoriso marTlmsajulebis mud-mivma palatam Tavis 1932 wlis 4 Teberv-lis sakonsultacio daskvnaSi aRniSna:`gamomdinare sayovelTaod aRiarebuliprincipebidan, erT saxelmwifos sxva sax-elmwifosTan davisas ar SeuZlia, Tavisiqveynis konstituciis safuZvelze gaiTa-visuflos Tavi im valdebulebebisagan,romelTac akisrebs mas saerTaSoriso sa-marTali an konkretuli xelSekruleba~.

igive azri gamoTqva gaeros saerTa-Soriso sasamarTlom 1998 wels Tavis sa-konsultacio daskvnaSi, romelic exebo-da palestinis ganTavisuflebis organi-zaciis warmomadgenlobas gaeros Stab-binaSi.20

p-m. diupui ufro frTxilia daskvneb-is gamotanaSi: ̀ saerTaSoriso samarTalida Sidasaxelmwifoebrivi samarTali ur-TierTdamokidebulia da urTierTSevse-

badia. am urTierTobas mniSvnelovnad ga-napirobebs Sidasaxelmwifoebrivi sakon-stitucio arCevani. swored es gvaZlevsSesaZleblobas, met-naklebad mkafioddavaskvnaT, mieniWeba Tu ara saerTaSo-riso samarTals ierarqiulad ufro ma-Rali adgili Sidasaxelmwifoebriv samar-TalTan SedarebiT~.21

dalie da peri kategoriulad acxade-ben: `saerTaSoriso marTlmsajuleba dasakanonmdeblo praqtika, agreTve, nacio-naluri marTlmsajuleba sul ufro daufro xSirad aRiareben, rom saerTaSo-riso samarTali ver iarsebebda Sidasax-elmwifoebrivi samarTlis mimarT Tavi-si primatis ganmtkicebis gareSe~.21

sainteresoa aRniSnul avtorTa miermotanili faqtobrivi masala:

san-franciskos konferenciaze 1945wlis ivnisSi uaryofil iqna belgiis del-egaciis winadadeba, gaeros wesdebaSi See-tanaT saerTaSoriso samarTlis prima-tis principi, magram sami wlis Semdeg gae-ros saerTaSoriso samarTlis komisiismier SemuSavebul `saxelmwifoTa ufle-bebisa da movaleobaTa deklaraciis~ pro-eqtSi Setanil iqna specialuri muxli,romlis mixedviTac: ̀ yoveli saxelmwifovaldebulia, sxva saxelmwifoebTan daam-yaros urTierTobebi saerTaSoriso sama-rTlis normebisa da im principebis Sesa-bamisad, rom yovelgvari saxelmwifos su-vereniteti eqvemdebareba saerTaSorisosamarTlis primats~ (me-14 muxli).22

italieli profesori l. bravo miiC-nevs, rom `Tanamedrove etapze monizm-dualizmis problema atarebs wminda Te-oriul xasiaTs.23 Tumca msjelobisas igiTviTon midis daskvnamde, rom Tanamed-rove etapze saxelmwifoTa sistemebzegavlenas axdens saerTaSoriso samarTa-li. ufro metic, avtori ixilavs SemTx-vevebs, rodesac saxelmwifo iZulebulia,gaiTvaliswinos da gaiziaros saerTaSo-riso samarTlis normebi. magaliTad, bra-vo exeba jus cogens-is normebs da miuTiTebs,rom nacionalur kanons ar SeuZlia daar-Rvios aseTi norma, Tundac igi sxva qce-vis wess Seicavdes.

evropis (strasburgis) adamianis ufle-baTa sasamarTlos yofil Tavmjdomarelucius vildhabers Zalze sainteresopozicia aqvs. misi naazrevis mixedviT,`dualisturi Tu monisturi koncefci-

13

is mxardaWera ufro ideologiuri Sexed-ulebebis sagania – politikurad xel-sayrelia an, sulac, utopiuri TvalTa-xedvaa. miT ufro, es sakiTxi ar aris Seda-rebiTi kvlevis sagani nacionalur mar-TlwesrigTan mimarTebiT, vinaidan orivekoncefcia, sabolood, rogorc wesi, fo-kusirdeba Sidasaxelmwifoebriv samar-Talze. ufro swori iqneboda gveTqva,rom praqtikulad yoveli Sidasaxelmwi-foebrivi samarTlebrivi sistema moicavsmonistur da dualistur koncefciaTaelementebs~. magaliTad mas e. w. dualis-turi koncefciis mxardamWeri qveynebimohyavs: `zogierT qveyanaSi (did brita-neTSi, irlandiaSi, kanadaSi, avstraliasada skandinaviis qveynebSi) saerTaSorisoxelSekrulebebi moiTxoven implementa-cias Sidasaxelmwifoebriv samarTalSispecialuri samarTlebrivi aqtis meSve-obiT. miuxedavad amisa, sasamarTlo iy-enebs xelSekrulebas ufro xSirad aratransformaciis droidan, aramed rati-ficirebis momentidan. es, ra Tqma unda,ar aris dualizmi~.24

a. kasese, erTi mxriv, acxadebs, rom`saxelmwifoTa umravlesoba ar cnobssaerTaSoriso normebis primats Tavisierovnuli samarTlebrivi sistemis mima-rT, magram es ar niSnavs, rom saerTaSori-so Tanamegobrobis umravlesoba cdi-lobs daakninos saerTaSorisosamarT-lebrivi standartebi TavianT samarT-lebriv sistemebSi, aseve ar niSnavs, romisini sistematiurad da Cveulebrivuaryofen saerTaSoriso normebs, ufropiriqiT, mcire gamonaklisebis garda,isini icaven TavianT valdebulebebs, ma-gram saxelmwifoebi sabolood amjobin-eben, ar Seitanon TavianT konstitucie-bsa da kanonebSi mtkice da uryevi valde-bulebebi saerTaSoriso samarTlisnormebis upirobo Sesrulebis moTx-ovniT~.

meore mxriv, is aRiarebs: ̀ Cven mowme-ni varT, rom Tanamedrove saerTaSorisosamarTalSi Tavs iCens mzardi mniSvnelo-bis fenomeni: sul ufro da ufro metisaerTaSoriso norma pirdapir mimarTavspirovnebas – an akisrebs mas valdebule-bebs, an aniWebs uflebebs. es wesebi pirda-pir vrceldeba pirovnebebze, saxelmwi-fos erovnuli samarTlis SuamavlobisgareSe.25

sainteresoa is transformacia26, rome-lic ganicada saerTaSoriso samarTlissabWoTa doqtrinam – igi uaryofda moni-sturi Teoriis orive mimarTulebas da mx-olod nawilobriv iziarebda dualisturmidgomas. sabWoTa mecnierebi ixilavdnensaerTaSoriso da SidasaxelmwifoebrivsamarTals, rogorc ̀ samarTlis gancal-kevebul sistemebs~,27 Tumca, imavdrou-lad, dualizmis tradiciul doqtrina-sac emijnebodnen ideologiur Sexedu-lebaTa sxvadasxvaobis gamo. maTi mtkice-biT, `realisturi dualizmis~ (rogorcTavianT koncefcias uwodebdnen) gansx-vaveba tradiciulisagan isaa, rom so-cialisturi mecniereba ikvlevs rogorcsaerTaSoriso, aseve Sidasaxelmwifoe-briv samarTals socialuri kavSirebissistemaSi da amiT scildeba maTi urTi-erTkavSirebis konkretul, wminda iurid-iul aspeqtebs. sabWoTa mecnierTa gan-martebiT, es garemoeba iZleoda SesaZle-blobas, aexsnaT am urTierTkavSirebisnamdvili (realuri) mizezebi. a. gaver-dovski, romelmac aRniSnul problemasaraerTi naSromi miuZRvna, maT Soris mo-nografia ̀ saerTaSoriso normebis imple-mentacia~, werda, rom saerTaSoriso daSidasaxelmwifoebrivi samarTlis Sefar-debis analizisas socialisturi saerTa-SorisosamarTlebrivi doqtrina gamom-dinareobs saxelmwifo suverenitetisprincipidan da ganixilavs saerTaSorisoda Sidasaxelmwifoebriv samarTals, ro-gorc or damoukidebel da gancalkeve-bul sistemas, romlebic mWidro kavSir-Sia erTmaneTTan.28

sabWoTa mecnierebi eyrdnobodnensaxelmwifo suverenitetis marqsistulkoncefcias da eTanxmebodnen dual-istebs, rom saerTaSoriso samarTali daSidasaxelmwifoebrivi samarTali oridamoukidebeli samarTlebrivi sistemaa.amave dros, isini eTanxmebodnen mosazre-bas, rom, Tumca orive sistema erTmane-Tisagan izolirebulia, am sistemebsSoris arsebobs mWidro kavSiri.29

v. butkeviCi aRniSnavda, rom `dual-istebi imdenad gaerTnen saerTaSorisoda Sidasaxelmwifoebrivi samarTlisurTierTobaTa maxasiaTeblebis Seswav-liT, ... rom SesaZleblad ar miiCnies amsamarTlebrivi sistemebisa da maTi ele-


14


mentebis erTmaneTTan Sefardebis arse-boba~.30

magram, Tu arsebobs Sefardeba sa-marTlebriv sistemebs Soris, is unda reg-ulirdebodes normaTa ierarqiulobismixedviT. es sakiTxi ki sabWoTa mecniere-bis TeoriaSi Riad rCeboda. sxvagvaradrom vTqvaT, sabWoTa skola ar iziarebdaorTodoqsul dualizms (anciloti), vi-naidan ar uaryofda saerTaSoriso da Si-dasaxelmwifoebrivi samarTlis urT-ierTkavSirs da, aqedan gamomdinare, aRi-arebda am samarTlebriv sistemebs SoriswarmoSobil koliziasac.

sabWoTa mecnierebi Semdeg daskvnasakeTebdnen: `nebismierma saxelmwifomkeTilsindisierad unda Seasrulos saer-TaSoriso samarTlis normebi, saerTa-Soriso xelSekrulebebi da valdebule-bebi. magram imavdroulad mxolod iseTsaerTaSoriso normas aqvs namdvili Zalada moraluri avtoriteti, romelic su-verenul saxelmwifos Tavs ar axvevs sxvasaxelmwifos nebas da ar ewinaaRmdegebasaxelmwifo wyobasa da samarTlebriv sis-temas~.31

sabWoTa kavSiris daSlisa da ruseTisdamoukidebel saxelmwifod gamocxade-bis Semdeg rusi mecnierebi Tumca kvlavdualistur Teorias ìziareben~, msje-lobisas maTs koncefciebSi axali elemen-tebi Cndeba, isini sul ufro xSirad ape-lireben saerTaSoriso samarTlis prima-tis koncefciis elementebze. Sefardeb-is problemis ganxilvisas s. CerniCenkoyuradRebas amaxvilebs terminologiaze.misi Sexedulebisamebr saubaria ara Si-dasaxelmwifoebrivi da saerTaSoriso sa-marTlis Tanafardobaze, aramed saerTa-Soriso da Sidasaxelmwifoebrivi marTl-wesrigebis gamijvnaze, vinaidan marTlwes-rigi ufro farTo cnebaa.

Cveni azriT, am problemasTan dakav-SirebiT terminebis amgvari gamoyeneba pi-robiTia, vinaidan visaubrebT samarT-lebriv sistemasa Tu marTlwesrigze,obieqturi sazRvrebi Sidasaxelmwifoe-briv da saerTaSoriso samarTals SorisganisazRvreba urTierTobaTa reguli-rebis bunebiT da Sesabamisi urTierTobe-bis SesaZlo monawileTa wriT. s. CerniCen-ko Tavis monografiaSic amtkicebs dual-isturi Teoriis sicocxlisunarianobas.sainteresoa, rogor frTxilad Semohyavs

mas Tavis msjelobebSi ̀ saerTaSoriso sa-marTlis prioritetis~ cneba da aviTarebsam ideas. igi aRniSnavs, rom saerTaSorisosamarTali da Sidasaxelmwifoebrivi sa-marTali sxvadasxva sivrceSi moqmedebenda, aqedan gamomdinare, TviT sakiTxisdasma, rom saerTaSoriso samarTalma arSeiZleba daareguliros Sidasaxelmwi-foebrivi urTierTobebi, usafuZvloa.avtori acxadebs, rom Sidasaxelmwifoe-brivi samarTali unda esadagebodes saer-TaSoriso samarTals, raTa uzrunvely-os am ukanasknelis ganxorcieleba. am ga-gebiT, igi dasaSvebad miiCnevs saerTaSo-riso samarTlis primats.32

avtori msjelobisas, faqtobrivad,aRiarebs, rom arsebobs samarTlebrivisistema (saerTaSoriso samarTali), ro-melsac unda Seesabamebodes nacionalu-ri samarTali. bunebrivia, ismeba kiTxva:Tu ar iarsebebs amgvari Sesabamisobisdadgenis iuridiuli moTxovna, ratomganaxorcielebs saxelmwifo nebayoflo-biT aseT iuridiul qmedebas? pasuxs av-tori konstituciur normaSi xedavs, Tu-mca konstituciuri norma ierarqiuladmaRla mdgomi Sidasaxelmwifoebrivinormaa, rac warmoSobs kiTxvas: ratomaisaxa konstituciur normaSi amgvaridebuleba?

cnobil rus Teoretikos i. lukaSuksmiaCnia, rom saerTaSoriso normebis uSu-alo moqmedeba pirobiT xasiaTs atarebs,vinaidan uSualo moqmedebas normebi iw-yeben mxolod mas Semdeg, rac maT Sesabam-isi iuridiuli Zala mieniWeba naciona-luri samarTlis mixedviT.33

saxelmwifo TviTon wyvets, romelsamarTlebriv sistemas airCevs, magramsaxelmwifom iseTi samarTlebrivi siste-ma unda Seqmnas, romelic uzrunvelyofssaerTaSoriso valdebulebebis Sesrule-bas. misi azriT, saerTaSoriso da Sidasa-xelmwifoebrivi samarTlis Sefardebisdadgenisas mTavari roli ekuTvnis kon-stituciur samarTals. lukaSuki miu-TiTebs 1969 wlis venis konvenciis 27-emuxlze da acxadebs, rom im SemTxvevaSicki, rodesac saerTaSoriso xelSekrule-ba ewinaaRmdegeba konstitucias, is inar-Cunebs saxelmwifosaTvis saerTaSori-sosamarTlebriv savaldebulo Zalas, ma-gram saxelmwifos SigniT igi – xelSek-ruleba – praqtikulad gamouyenebelia.

15

naSromis mesame gamocemaSi33 ki av-tori mniSvnelovnad ̀ aaxlebs~ Tavis kon-cefcias. mas aqcenti gadaaqvs ori siste-mis ùrTierTqmedebaze~. amjerad avto-ri mWidrod akavSirebs am fenomens glo-balizaciis procesTan – ̀ samarTlebriviregulirebis globalizaciisadmi mi-drekileba sul ufro da ufro SesamCnevixdeba... saerTaSoriso da Sidasaxelmwi-foebrivi samarTlis urTierTqmedebisgaRrmavebas mivyavarT globaluri sama-rTlebrivi sistemis anu supersistemisSeqmnamde,~34 magram, xazs usvams avtori,es ar niSnavs `msoflio saxelmwifos~,`msoflio samarTlis~ Seqmnas. èrovnu-li samarTlebrivi sistema metwilad mo-qmedebs rogorc globaluri samarTleb-rivi sistemis nawili da unda Seesabame-bodes mis principebs, Tumca es ar niSnavssaerTaSoriso samarTlis srul domini-rebas Sidasaxelmwifoebriv samarTalze.erovnuli samarTlebrivi sistemis daqve-mdebareba xdeba mxolod iq, sadac es saWi-roa saerTaSoriso samarTlis normalu-ri funqcionirebisaTvis~.35

amgvarad, i. lukaSuki, erTi mxriv,uaryofs saerTaSoriso samarTlis sayo-velTaod aRiarebuli principebisa danormebis (aRsaniSnavia, rom avtori Ziri-Tadad saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebisprioritetze saubrobs) Sidasaxelmwi-foebriv samarTlebriv normebze uSua-lo, saxelmwifos nebis gamomJRavnebis ga-reSe, uzenaesobas (primats), magram, amavedros, iZulebulia, Zalze bundovnad,aRiaros erovnuli samarTlis saerTa-Soriso samarTlisadmi daqvemdebarebisaucilebloba, rasac globalizaciisprocesebis ganviTarebiT xsnis. aq isev daisev Cven ver vxedavT mTavars – ra aiZu-lebs saxelmwifos, imoqmedos, sayovel-Taod aRiarebuli principebisa da norme-bis Sesabamisad, ara marto saerTaSorisoasparezze, sadac saerTaSoriso samarT-lis primati sayovelTaod aris aRiare-buli, aramed qveynis SigniTac, maSinac,rodesac misi kanonebi, konstituciisCaTvliT, upirispirdeba aRniSnul prin-cipebsa da normebs. primatis arsi xomisaa, rom saerTaSoriso samarTlis nor-mebi ufro maRla dgas, miuxedavad imisa,aRiarebs saxelmwifo mas Tu ara, radga-nac saxelmwifoTa saerTaSoriso Tanam-

Sromlobis saerTo neba ufro maRla dgas,vidre calkeuli saxelmwifos neba.

qarTul samecniero literaturaSisaerTaSoriso samarTlisa da naciona-luri samarTlis Tanafardobis sakiTxiarasdros yofila kompleqsuri gamokv-levis, analizis sagani, magram zogierTiaspeqtis ganxilvas miuZRvnes TavianTinaSromebi i. futkaraZem36, k. korkeliam37,p. cnobilaZem38; ufro farTo da detalu-ri analizi mocemulia l. aleqsiZis mono-grafiaSi, romelic jer kidev 1982 welsgamoica39, Tumca naSromSi ganxiluliamxolod saerTaSoriso samarTlis prima-tis problema saerTaSorisosamarTleb-rivi urTierTobebis mimarT.

rac Seexeba saerTaSoriso xelSekru-lebebis prioritets saqarTvelos Sida-saxelmwifoebriv samarTalTan mimarTe-biT, aq yvela avtori aRiarebs xelSekru-lebaTa am upiratesobas, Tumca saqarT-velos konstituciis gamonaklisiT. anuavtorebi sityvasityviT ganmartaven ko-nstituciis me-6 muxlis formulas da ga-moyofen saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebssaerTaSoriso samarTlis sayovelTaodaRiarebuli principebisa da normebisagan.

CvenTvis gansaxilveli Temis konte-qstSi sainteresoa avtorTa Sexedule-bani, saxeldobr saerTaSoriso samarT-lis, anu sayovelTaod aRiarebuli princ-ipebisa da normebis, primatis Sesaxeb.

rogorc ukve aRvniSneT, saerTaSori-so samarTlis primatze, rogorc saerTa-Soriso urTierTobebSi, aseve Sidasaxel-mwifoebriv samarTalSi, SeiZleba msje-loba mxolod im SemTxvevaSi, Tu `prima-tis~ cnebis sawyis elementad saxelmwi-fos calkeuli nebelobis TavisuflebisSezRudva warmogvidgeba, miuxedavad im-isa, surs mas Tu ara, daemorCilos nor-mas, romlis SeqmnaSi ar monawileobda, anaqtiurad ewinaaRmdegeboda mis Camoyal-ibebas, an saerTod ar monawileobda amprocesSi, radganac igi mis saerTaSori-so asparezze gaCenamde Seiqmna. amgvarad,Cveni azriT, primati yvela saxelmwifosmimarT obieqturad arsebuli saerTa-Soriso marTlwesrigis yvelaze funda-menturi da sasicocxlo normebisadmiupirobo damorCilebas gulisxmobs, rad-gan es principebi da normebi saxelmwi-foebis saerTo nebis gamomxatvelia.


16


am TvalsazrisiT sainteresoa i. fu-tkaraZis Sexeduleba imis Taobaze, romsaqarTvelos konstituciis me-7 muxliTgaTvaliswinebuli adamianis uflebebida Tavisuflebebi saqarTveloSi pirda-piri, uSualo moqmedebisaa. es niSnavs,rom, miuxedavad imisa, aisaxa Tu ara saqa-rTvelos Sidasaxelmwifoebriv normati-ul aqtSi sayovelTaod aRiarebuli ada-mianis uflebebi da Tavisuflebebi, maTidacva uzrunvelyofili unda iyos saxe-lmwifoSi40. avtori im daskvnamde midis,rom `xelisuflebis ganxorcielebisas,e.i. konstituciis principebisa da normebisdadgenis drosac, xalxi da saxelmwifoSezRuduli arian sayovelTaod aRiare-buli uflebebiTa da TavisuflebebiT,rogorc uSualod moqmedi samarTliT.41

k. korkelia exeba saerTaSoriso sa-marTlis primatis erT-erT ZiriTad ko-mponents – saerTaSoriso CveulebiTi sa-marTlis adgils saqarTvelos Sidasax-elwifoebrivi normebis ierarqiaSi da sa-pirispiro daskvnamde midis: ̀ radgan kon-stituciis me-7 muxli ar adgens adamianisuflebaTa saerTaSoriso CveulebiTi sa-marTlis normebis ierarqiul Tanafar-dobas sxva aqtebis mimarT, am kategoriisnormebisadmi gamoyenebul unda iqnessaerTaSoriso CveulebiTi samarTlisnormebTan dakavSirebuli saqarTveloSiarsebuli zogadi midgoma (rac ganisazR-vreba rogorc konstituciis me-6(2) mux-liT, ise ganxiluli sxva normatiuli aq-tebiT), romlis Tanaxmad, saerTaSorisoCveulebiTi samarTlis normebs saqarTve-los kanonmdeblobis mimarT upirateso-ba eniWeba (magaliTad, kanonis mimarT,magram ara konstituciis mimarT)~.42

avtori absoluturad sworad ganmar-tavs, rom konstituciis me-6(2) muxliTsaqarTvelos mTeli kanonmdebloba `da-mokidebulia~ saerTaSoriso samarTlissayovelTaod aRiarebul principebsa danormebze, xolo Tu ar Seesabameba, undaSeicvalos; igive iTqmis momaval Sidasax-elmwifoebriv normebze. Tuki es ase araris, aseTi Sesabamisobis ararsebobis da-dgenis SemTxvevaSi upiratesoba mieniWe-ba saerTaSoriso samarTlis sayovelTa-od aRiarebul principebsa da normebs~.43

marTebulia avtoris mosazreba imisSesaxeb, rom saqarTvelos saxelmwifoe-brivi damoukideblobis aRdgenis aqtis

(9.IV.91) debuleba, romlis mixedviT, saqa-rTvelos kanonebis mimarT saerTaSorisosamarTlis primati da misi normebis pir-dapiri moqmedeba saqarTvelos terito-riaze cxaddeba respublikis erT-erTZiriTad konstituciur principad da auci-leblad saerTaSorisosamarTlebriviCveulebis primatsac moicavs, saqarTve-los 1995 wlis konstituciis ZaliT gax-da saqarTvelos kanonmdeblobis nawili.mis normebs eniWeba Sidasaxelmwifoebri-vi iuridiuli Zala saqarTveloSi, rac sa-erTaSoriso CveulebiTi samarTlis no-rmebis uSualo gamoyenebis winapirobaa.44

magram ver daveTanxmebiT avtors, romsaerTaSoriso samarTlis primati, ker-Zod saerTaSoriso CveulebiTi samarT-lis sayovelTaod aRiarebuli principe-bisa da normebis saxiT, maT Soris iseTe-bic, romlebic adamianis uflebebs icavsda aregulirebs, ufro dabla dgas, vidresaqarTvelos konstitucia, – `koliziisSemTxvevaSi upiratesoba unda mieniWosqveynis konstitucias~.45

termini `Seesabameba~ aRniSnavs ukvearsebul realur mdgomareobas da aramolodins momavalSi moTxovnisas, Tumca,Cveni azriT, kanonmdebelma igulisxma,rom saqarTvelos konstitucia nebismi-er SemTxvevaSi, da ara konstituciis mi-Rebis momentisaTvis, unda pasuxobdes ampirobas. aseve Cndeba kiTxva: obieqturadSeesabameba ki yovelTvis saqarTveloskanonmdebloba saerTaSoriso samarTlissayovelTaod aRiarebul principebsa danormebs? aseTi kiTxva ar gaCndeboda, TusaqarTvelo, Tundac saerTaSoriso xe-lSekrulebebis ratificireba-SeerTebisproceduris gavlisas, moiTxovda jerkanonmdeblobis SesabamisobaSi moyvanasda mxolod Semdgom am procedurebis gav-las. Tumca saqarTvelos parlamentispraqtikam dagvanaxva, rom SesaZlebeliaiseTi viTarebac, rodesac qveyana jer ax-dens ratificirebas da mxolod Semdgomaxdens kanonmdeblobis harmonizaciasdokumentTan (amis magaliTia saerTaSo-riso sisxlis samarTlis sasamarTlosstatutis ratificirebis procedura).

sakiTxi ufro iolad wydeba, rodesacvsaubrobT saerTaSoriso xelSekrule-baze, Tundac mravalmxriv regionalurze(magaliTad, evropis kavSirTan mimarTe-biT), radganac am SemTxvevaSi saxelmwi-

17

fos neba, SezRudos Tavisi suverenite-ti, naTelia. is Tanaxmaa, Secvalos kons-tituciis debuleba xelSekrulebiT ga-Tvaliswinebuli moTxovnebis Sesabamis-ad (ase gaakeTa safrangeTma, Tanac ara-erTxel, evropis gaerTianebis evropiskavSirSi gadazrdis procesis ganmavlo-baSi). magram es, vimeoreb, exeba saerTa-Soriso xelSekrulebas, romelSic monaw-ileoba-armonawileobis sakiTxs TviTonsaxelmwifo wyvets.

im SemTxvevaSi, Tu Sidasaxelmwifoe-brivi samarTalgamomyenebeli organowaawydeba Seusabamobas konstituciasada arsebul sayovelTaod aRiarebul sae-rTaSorisosamarTlebriv normaTa Soris,is dilemis winaSe dadgeba – romeli nor-ma gamoiyenos. Cven veTanxmebiT i. futka-raZis mosazrebas, rom gamoyenebul undaiqnes saerTaSoriso samarTlis primati-dan gamomdinare norma, rogorc saqarT-velos teritoriaze pirdapiri moqmede-bis norma. nebismieri saerTaSoriso sasa-marTlo, magaliTad, adamianis ufleba-Ta sferoSi, daakmayofilebs moqalaqissarCels misi saxelmwifos winaaRmdeg,romlis konstitucia ar Seesabameba sayo-velTaod aRiarebul normas, miT umetes,Tu is aRiarebs, rom misi kanonmdebloba`Seesabameba~ sayovelTaod aRiarebulsaerTaSorisosamarTlebriv principebsada normebs.

vfiqrobT, kanonmdebelma saqarTve-los konstituciaSi saerTaSoriso sama-rTlis sayovelTaod aRiarebuli princ-ipebisa da normebis terminis gamoyenebi-sas igulisxma, rom, vinaidan saqarTveloTanamedrove civilizebuli Tanamegob-robis wevria, iziarebs saerTaSoriso sa-marTliT aRiarebul ideebs, kanoniereb-is kriteriumebs, im ZiriTad mimarTule-bebs, romlebiTac moxdeba saqarTvelossaerTaSorisosamarTlebrivi da Sidasax-elmwifoebrivi urTierTobebis reguli-reba. saxelmwifos samarTlebrivi siste-ma ar Semoifargleba iuridiuli normeb-is erTobliobiT. samarTlebrivi siste-ma moicavs rogorc iuridiul normebs(saerTaSoriso samarTalTan mimarTebiTim xelSekrulebebs, romlebic jerovaniwesiT aRiara saxelmwifom), marTlSeg-nebas (romelic unda gamomdinareobdessaerTaSoriso samarTlis sayovelTaoprincipebisa da normebis Sinaarsidan),

normebis safuZvelze warmoSobil samar-TalurTierTobebs (maT Soris saerTa-SorisosamarTlebrivs), aseve normaTga-moyenebiT process (romlis meSveobiTacxdeba saerTaSorisosamarTlebrivi nor-mebis `Semosvla~ nacionalur samarTal-Si). yvela am procesis regulireba sayo-velTaod aRiarebuli principebisa danormebis gareSe dauSvebelia. saqarTve-los kanonmdebeli valdebulia, ixelmZR-vanelos am principebiTa da normebiT sa-marTalSemoqmedebiTi procesis dros,vinaidan isini samarTlis ideologiurwyaroa. amis garda, im SemTxvevebSi, rode-sac esa Tu is sazogadoebrivi urTierTo-ba ar regulirdeba saxelmwifos samarT-lebrivi normebiT (samarTlis vakuumi), isi-ni gamoiyeneba uSualo normatiul safu-Zvlad konkretul iuridiul saqmeze sa-marTalgamoyenebiTi gadawyvetilebisgamotanis dros.

amgvarad, sayovelTaod aRiarebuliprincipebisa da normebis moqmedeba vrce-ldeba ara mxolod SidasaxelmwifoebrivsamarTalze, aramed samarTlebriv siste-maze.

sayovelTaod aRiarebuli principe-bisa da normebis umravlesoba (adamianisuflebaTa samarTali, saerTaSoriso saz-Rvao samarTali) konkretuli Sinaarsi-saa, rac niSnavs, rom maTi gamoyeneba ero-vnuli samarTlis gamoyenebiT sferoSiuSualod aris SesaZlebeli. magaliTad,mosamarTle valdebulia, uzrunvelyossaerTaSoriso paqtebSi asaxuli normeb-is gamoyeneba, Tundac isini ar iyos asaxu-li saxelmwifos nacionalur kanonmde-blobaSi ara marto imitom, rom es doku-menti iuridiulad savaldebulo gaxdasaqarTvelosaTvis misi ratificirebisSemdeg, aramed imitom, rom am dokument-ebSi asaxuli normis umravlesoba Tavis-Tavad sayovelTao xasiaTisaa, esenia: ad-amianis uflebaTa pativiscemis principi,qalisa da mamakacis Tanasworuflebiano-bis principi, xalxis mier bunebrivi sim-didrisa da resursebis gankargvis Tavi-suflebis principi, monobisa da monaTva-Wrobis akrZalvis principi da sxva. Tum-ca am paqtis uamrav normas aSkarad saer-To principebis Sinaarsi aqvs – sasamarT-loSi saqmis samarTliani ganxilvis prin-cipi, udanaSaulobis prezumfcia, samar-Talsubieqtobis ufleba da sxva. amgva-


18


rad, konstituciis 84-e muxli, romelicadgens, rom ̀ mosamarTle Tavis saqmiano-baSi... emorCileba... konstitucias da kan-ons~, gagebul unda iqnes farTod. mosa-marTlem unda ixelmZRvanelos sayovel-Taod aRiarebuli principebiTa da norme-biT da saerTo principebiT imdenad, ram-denadac am ukanasknelebs upiratesi ZalaaqvT saqarTvelos konstituciasa da ka-nonebTan mimarTebiT, xolo saerTaSo-riso xelSekrulebebiT, Tu isini ar ewi-naaRmdegebian saqarTvelos konstitu-cias. anu saqarTvelos konstituciiTgamocxadebuli saerTaSoriso samarT-lis sayovelTaod aRiarebuli principe-bis primati nacionalur samarTalTanmimarTebiT saSualebas aZlevs samarTal-gamoyenebiTi organoebis warmomadgen-lebs, ar iyvnen SezRuduli im sakanonm-deblo baziT, romelsac calmxrivad qm-nis saxelmwifo. Tavis mxriv, saxelmwifovaldebulia, Seqmnas sakanonmdeblo bazasayovelTaod aRiarebuli principebisada normebis Sesabamisad. TavisTavad say-ovelTao principebisa da normebis upi-ratesoba nacionalur samarTalTan mima-rTebiT ar qmnis rTul koliziur viTare-bas (gansxvavebiT saxelSekrulebo sa-marTlisagan), vinaidan sayovelTao prin-cipebi gamodis rogorc saxelmwifoSiarsebuli sazogadoebrivi urTierTobe-bis regulatori, rogorc bazisi, romel-zec unda iqnes agebuli samarTlebrivisakanonmdeblo zednaSeni. sayovelTaoprincipebisa da normebis samarTlebrivisazRvrebi ar aris mkafiod SemosazRvru-li, rac unda iyos gaTvaliswinebuli ka-nonmdeblis mier. praqtikaSi es niSnavs,rom marTlmsajulebis organoebs Seu-ZliaT, gamoitanon gadawyvetileba naci-onaluri kanonebis safuZvelze, magram esxels ar uSlis maT, ixelmZRvanelon Sesa-bamisi saerTaSoriso normebiT, miT ume-tes, rodesac es ukanasknelni afarToeben anakonkreteben im debulebas, romelickonstituciaSi an kanonSia mocemuli.

saqarTvelo erT-erTi pirveli saxe-lmwifoa, romelmac aRmosavleT evro-pasa da dsT-is sivrceSi jer kidev sabWo-Ta kavSiris arsebobis pirobebSi saxelm-wifoebrivi damoukideblobis aRdgenis-Tanave damoukideblobis aqtiT (09.04.1991 w.)aRiara saerTaSoriso samarTlis primatisaqarTvelos kanonmdeblobis mimarT, ma-

gram am debulebis ganmtkiceba moxda 1995wlis konstituciis me-6 da me-7 muxlebiT.

amgvarad, Tanamedrove saerTaSori-so samarTali aris zogaddemokratiuliSinaarsis normaTa erToblioba, rac ka-cobriobis ganviTarebis obieqtur kanon-zomierebas asaxavs. Tu sawyis etapze sae-rTaSoriso samarTali efemeruli siste-ma iyo, dRes igi Camoyalibda pozitiursamarTlebriv sistemad, romelic msof-lio marTlwesrigis mSvidobiani gziTganviTarebis garantia. Tu warsulSi sa-xelmwifos neba dominirebda saerTaSo-riso urTierTobebis warmarTvaSi, dRessaxelmwifo iZulebulia, daemorCilos immarTlwesrigs, romelic saerTaSorisosazogadoebis mier saerTaSoriso samar-TalSi aisaxa. SemTxveviTi ar aris, romaxal politikur azrovnebaSi iseT cne-bebTan erTad, rogorebicaa: zogadsaka-cobrio faseulobebisa da interesebisprioriteti, msoflios erTianoba daqveynebis urTierTdamokidebuleba, gan-viTarebis gzebis arCevanis Tavisufle-ba, saerTaSoriso urTierTobebSi sulufro myarad mkvidrdeba saerTaSorisosamarTlis primatis koncefcia.

Tanamedrove saerTaSoriso samarTa-li sul ufro da ufro iWreba suverenu-li saxelmwifoebis saSinao saqmeebis ode-sRac gansakuTrebuli sferos kompeten-ciaSi. dRes saerTaSoriso samarTlisprimati, anu misi sayovelTaod aRiarebu-li principebi da normebi ara marto saer-TaSoriso samarTlis subieqtTa da, Zir-iTadad, saxelmwifoTa Soris urTierTo-bis uzenaesi samarTlebrivi postulate-bia, aramed saxelmwifoebis Sidasaxelm-wifoebriv samarTlebriv sistemaze maR-la dgeba. saerTaSoriso asparezze monaw-ile saxelmwifoebis saerTaSoriso da ko-nstituciuri praqtika Zalze saintere-so Teoriulad normatiul da sasamarT-lo praqtikas Seicavs.

miuxedavad imisa, rom saxelmwifoebiTavad irCeven, romeli koncefciis mimde-vari arian, Tanamedrove etapze monizm-dualizmis problema atarebs ufro Teo-riul xasiaTs, vinaidan saxelmwifo or-ganoebma, rogorc administraciulma,aseve sasamarTlom, rogorc erT, asevemeore SemTxvevaSi, unda gadawyvitonerTi da igive problemebi. Tanamedroveetapze saerTaSoriso samarTali ara mx-

19

olod gavlenas axdens saxelmwifoTasistemebze, ufro metic, xSirad saxelm-wifo iZulebulia, gaiTvaliswinos da

gaiziaros saerTaSoriso samarTlisnormebi.

1 H. Triepel. VSlkerrecht und Landesrecht. Leipzig, 1899, s. 89; misive: "Droitinternational et droit interne. Fondation Carnegie 1920, pp. 78-81; Les rapportsentre le droit inetrnational et le droit inetrnational – Recueil des Cours", theHague Academy of "International Law", 1923. t. 1, p. 83-103.

2 H. Triepel. Les rapports… p.89.3 Àíöèëîòòè Ä., Êóðñ ìåæäóíàðîäíîãî ïðàâà., Ì., 1961, ñ. 35; Giorgio Gaja, Positivism

and Dualism in Dionisio Anzilotti – "European Journal of International Law", vol.3,N1., 1992.

4 ix. U. Scheuner. L’ Influence du droit interne sur la formulation du droit international."Recueil des Cours de l’Academie de droit international". T 68 (1939-II) p. 116-117; ix. G Dahm. Völkerrecht. Bd I Stutgart 1958, seite 56.

5 G. Fitzmaurice, The General Principles of International Law Considered from theStandpoint of the Rule of Law – "Recueil des Cours", the Hague Academy ofInternational Law, T 92 1957, II, p. 68-94.

6 ix.Rouseau Ch. Principles de droit intenational public, Paris, 1958, I, p. 369-550.7 Lasson A. Prinzip und Zukunft des Völkerrecht. Berlin, 1871, gv. 402; Zorn A.

Gründzuge des Völkerrechts. Leipzig 1903 I Bid. seite 8-9.8 ix. R. Phillimore. Commentaries upon International Law, VI, London, 1878, $

XXII; T. Twiss. The Law of Nations, Oxford, 1861; $2; P. Fauchill. Traité de droitinternational public t. 1 partie 1, Paris, 1992, p. 6-9; Oppenheim. L, InternationalLaw, London, 1920; Ôðàíö Ëèñò, Ìåæäóíàðîäíîå ïðàâî â ñèñòåìàòè÷åñêîìèçëîæåíèè, Ïåðåâîä Â.Ý. Ãðàáàðÿ,1912. Þðüåâ, Ðèâüå À., Ó÷åáíèê ìåæäóíàðîäíîãîïðàâà, Ì., 1893, $47; Ãåôòåð À., Åâðîïåéñêîå ìåæäóíàðîäíîå ïðàâî, ÑÏÁ, 1880.

9 H. Kelsen. General Theory of Law and State. English trans. Wedberg CambridgeMass. 1949, p. 81.

10 See: H. Kelsen. Principles of International Law, N.Y. 1966, p. 41.11 G Scelle. Cours de droit international public. Paris, 1948, p. 17.12 P. Guggenheim. Traité de droit international public. Genéve, 1953, v I, p. 27.13 Ôåðäðîññ À., Ìåæäóíàðîäíîå ïðàâî. Ì., 1959, p. 50.14 Shaw N.M. International Law.(Fifth ed). Cambridge Univ. Press. 2004, p. 120-173;15 M. Shaw. op. cit. p. 123.16 See: Brownlie Ian. Principles of Public International Law. Oxford University press, 2003

Chap.II The Relation of Municipal and International Law, pp. .31-52.17 Ibid. p. 5218 Yean Combacau, Serge Sur. Droit International Public, 5 th.ed, Montchrestien, 2001, p.

181: P. Daillier et A Pellet. Droit international public. L.G.D.J. 2002, p. 95-97; DominiqueCarreau. Droit International.7 th ed. Paris, Pedone, 2001, p. 43-70; Pierre-Moris Dupuy.Droit international public. Dalloz, 2000, p. 387-389; Michel Virally. Sur un point auxAnes;les rapports entre droit internetional et droit interne – Me'lange Rolin. Paris. Pedone1964, p. 497.

19 D. Carreau, op cit., p. 45.20 D. Carraou, op cit., p. 47; See also: A. B.eramdone. La hierarchie des droits. Paris, 2002, p.

31-32.21 P-M. Dupuy, op cit., p. 389.22 P. Daillier et A. Pellet, op cit., p. 97.23 Áðàâî Ë.Ô., Ïðèìåíåíèå ìåæäóíàðîäíîãî ïðàâà â ïðàâîïîðÿäêå åâðîïåéñêèõ

ñòðàí. "Ðîññèéñêèé" Åæåãîäíèê ìåæäóíàðîäíîãî ïðàâà, Ñàíêò Ïåòåðáóðã,1995, ñ. 131.

24 Luzius Wildhaber. Wechselspiel zwiscvhen Innen und Aussen: Schweizer Landesrecht,Rechtsvergleichung, Volkerrecht/ – basel;Frankfurt am Main:Helbing und Lichtenhahn, 1996,pp. 52 (Reception of International Law into Domestic Law: Comparative European Ap-proaches).


20


25 A. Cassese, International Law, Oxford University Pres, 2005, p.236-237.26 An interesting analysis see: Tarja Längström. Transpformation in Russia and International

Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden / Boston, 2003.27 Ìþëåðñîí Ð.À. Ñîîòíîøåíèå ìåæäóíàðîäíîãî è íàöèîíàëüíîãî ïðàâà. "Ìåæä.

îòíîø". Ì., 1982, ñòð. 10.28 Ãàâåðäîâñêèé À.Ñ. Èìïëåìåíòàöèÿ íîðì ìåæäóíàðîäíîãî ïðàâà, Êèåâ.1980,

ñòð. 63.29 Ëåâèí Ä.Á. Îñíîâíûå ïðîáëåìû ìåæäóíàðîäíîãî ïðàâà. Ì.1982, ñòð. 121,

209.30 Áóòêåâè÷ Â.Ã. Ñîîòíîøåíèå âíóòðèãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî è ìåæäóíàðîäíîãî

ïðàâà. Êèåâ. 1981, ñòð. 53.31 Ëåâèí Ä.Á. Îñíîâíûå ïðîáëåìû ìåæäóíàðîäíîãî ïðàâà. Ì., 1982 èìî. ñòð. 124.32 ×åðíè÷åíêî Ñ.Â. Òåîðèÿ ìåæäóíàðîäíîãî ïðàâà. Ì., ò. 1, 1999, gv 147.33 Ëóêàøóê È.È Ìåæäóíàðîäíîå ïðàâî (îáùàÿ ÷àñòü). Ì., 1996, ñòð. 221-222, 224.34 Ëóêàøóê È. Ìåæäóíàðîäíîå Ïðàâî, îáùàÿ ÷àñòü, Ì. 2005, ñò 255-295.35 Ibid., pp. 293-294.36 i. futkaraZe, saerTaSoriso samarTlis sayovelTaod aRiarebuli

normebi da moqalaqeTa politikur-ekonomikuri da socialur-kulturuli uflebebisa da Tavisuflebebis dacva saqarTvelossakonstitucio sasamarTloSi, àdamiani da konstitucia~, 3, 1998.

37 k. korkelia, saerTaSoriso CveulebiTi samarTali saqarTvelossamarTlebriv sistemaSi, ̀ saqarTvelo da saerTaSoriso samarTali~, Tb.,2001, gv. 62-80.

38 p. cnobilaZe, erovnuli kanonmdeblobisa da saerTaSoriso samarTlisurTierTqmedeba, iqve, gv. 48-61.

39 Àëåêñèäçå Ë., Íåêîòîðûå âîïðîñû òåîðèè ìåæäóíàðîäíîãî ïðàâà-èìïåðàòèâíûå íîðìû (jus cogens), Òá., 1982.

40 iakob futkaraZe, cit. naSromi, gv. 27.41 iqve, gv. 28.42 k. korkelia, saerTaSoriso CveulebiTi samarTali... gv. 79.43 iqve, gv. 66-67.44 iqve, gv. 69.45 iqve, gv. 70.

21

IRINE KURDADZE

STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS ON CORRELATION BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL

AND DOMESTIC LAW AND CONTEMPORARY EVENTS

The issue of the correlation of betweenInternational and domestic law is one of themost complex problems of current importancein the doctrin of international law.

The growing integration processes in thecontemporary world brought about the rap-prochement of international and national lawin the last decade. This is indicated also bythe fact that international law does not onlyrepresent the tool for international relationsof states (as this used to be in the past), buthas also turned into the domestic regulationmechanism. The universalisation of econom-ic, transport and information links, the inten-sification of the global ecological problems,mass character of migration, and what is mostimportant, the necessity of keeping under thecontrol the matters related to the protectionof peace and security, the production of themass destruction weapons, the fight againstinternational terrorism, etc. created a strongobjective basis for strengthening this trend.The new world order requires on the one handbringing national decisions closer and on theother hand making common decisions by theinternational community.

A number of challenging questionsemerge, which call for political and legal solu-tion: how shall the state sovereign rights becorrelated with the authority of internationalorganizations? Is it acceptable to limit the first?How shall the interests of parties be protect-ed on an equal footing? To what extent caninternational norms and mechanisms servingthis purpose be used?

At the current stage, when the internation-al law is attributed such a great importance,in the case of clash of the norms of interna-tional and domestic law the question, as towhich shall be given a priority, is increasinglybecoming an issue of deliberation of the iner-

national courts. The case law, on its turn, inthe theory of international law causes the prob-lem of correlation of international and nation-al law.

In the past the international law research-ers didnot conside the problem of correlationseparately, as the latter did not have a signif-icant practical importance.

Starting from the 19th century the two di-rections have been formed in international lawin relation with the issue of correlation: thedualistic and monistic. The concept of the du-alistic theory was based on the following the-sis – international and domestic law are twoseparate legal systems and therefore, prima-cy of any of those over the other is excluded.

The dualistic theory as a result of influ-ence of the positivism emergea, which domi-nated in XIX-XX centuries. As it is well known,the positivism school rejected the significanceof the natural law and considered the law asthe rule of behavior established and providedfor by state power. Only those rules of behav-ior formulated by the mutual explicit (treaty)or implicit (custom) agreements of states wererecognized to be rules of international law. Thepositivism was trying to strengthen the prac-tice of the bourgeois states, protect their sov-ereignty and independence. At that stage theinternational law encompassed relatively lim-ited number of domestic issues of states. Theinternational and national law contradictedeach other mainly in diplomatic and sale is-sues, the rights of foreigners, the regime ofsailing. The trends of free trade were percep-tible in international politics. Later on theboosting of international bonds resulted in thewidening of the circle of matters to be regulat-ed by international and national law.

The German lawyer Triepel in his work“International Law and National Law”, pub-

22


lished in 1899, as well as in the subsequentpublications,1 was discussing international andnational law, as the two different legal orders,which possess different object, subject andsources of regulation.2

At the same time Triepel recognized thatthere are some questions, regulation of whichbelongs to the international and national law.Sometimes reflection of the international le-gal norms in the national law and vice versabecomes indispensable. According to him, thisrefers not to reception, but to the reproduc-tion of given norms in the altered form, as thisrefers to the introduction of a new law alongwith the other sources, although content issimilar, i.e. according to Triepel, internationaland national law norms have similar or closeto each other content, the transfer of the normfrom one legal system to another occurs onlythrough transforming of the correspondingnorm to the new norm, i.e. this is the conver-sion, which in legal literature is as a rule called“transformation”.3

Following Triepel, this issue was consid-ered by the well-known Italian positivist D.Anzilotti. Author argued that international le-gal norm functions only within the frames ofinternational relations, as per the national le-gal norm, it operates within the confine of thedomestic relations. International legal normsdo not influence the binding character of thenational norms and vice versa. Consequentlythere is no conflict emerging between the in-ternational and national law, however one canrefer to another. Alike Triepel, Anzilotti arguesthat “international and national law … repre-sent separate legal orders”.

However the author is compelled to rec-ognize that a state can not refuse to meet in-ternational obligation, justifying this with thenational norm. He also considers that the prin-ciple, according to which the domestic normfully depends on the compatibility with the in-ternational obligations, does not exclude thatupon the interpretation of norm a state takesinto account international obligations.

The supporters of the dualistic theory be-came increasingly active during the 50ies of20th century and soon won the dominant posi-tion. But, they did not agree with Triepel’s andAnzilotti’s extreme positions. They recognizedthe possibility of regulating the same fieldsthrough the norms of international and nationallaw but according to them, in case of collission

the controversies should have been solvedonly through the diplomatic negotiations orother mechanisms of settlement of internation-al disputes or putting in operation internationalaccountability mechanisms. This position isshared by the German lawyers U. Scheunerand G. Dahm, who promulgate the so called“balanced dualism“ theory.4

Subsequently the coordination theory pro-liferated, which became known as the “Fitzmaurice compromise“ in 1950ies. Accord-ing to this theory, both systems are indepen-dent, they operate in different fields and there-fore, both are supreme in their own fields. How-ever, a conflict between the obligations mayemerge if a state is not able to act at any level inline with the requirements of international law.The result will be as follows: the legal force ofthe national norm is absolute, „however inter-national legal responsibility of a state emerges“5

The same position is shared by Ch. Rouseau.6

At the end of the 19th century and thebegining of the 20th century one of the direc-tions of the monist theory also proliferated: theprimacy of domestic law over the internation-al law. The initial elements of this theory arealready found in the philosophical works ofHegel. The theory was further developed ba-sically in the German international legal liter-ature. Its supporters, who often are called the“international legal nihilists”, rejected the ex-istence of international law and argued thatthe state will is not limited by any externalforce. This theory justified the German em-pire’s aim which did not wish to be limited byinternational legal norms. Two theories wereshaped in this period: “the theory of force” and“the theory of external state law”. These the-ories stand close to each other with their ulti-mate conclusions. Both theories lead to re-jection of the international law in favor of theunlimited power of a state.7

Both theories were in principle based onthe provisions that the regulation of interna-tional relations takes place only based on thewill of a state, without which there is no legalnorm binding a state.

In reality these theories did not correspondto the reality of that time either, as at the edgeof 19th and 20th centuries cooperation of statesdid more and more intensely require the ex-istence of the generally recognized obligato-ry international norms, notwithstanding wheth-er their actions corresponded to the interests

23

or will of a state. This absolutely does notmean that international law is unalterable. Theuniversally recognized norms of internationallaw used to be created and still are createdbased on the agreement of the will of states,their alteration or annulment is possible alsobased on the agreement and not on the basisof the will of one state. However, the newlyemerged states cannot change the alreadyexisting system, which means that a state com-plies with the already settled order that indi-cates at the primacy of international law. Thisdoes not mean that separate states do notviolate international legal norms however thisdoes not certainly justify the nihilist theoriesin the field of international law.

Due to this the majority of the authors wasactively promoting the obligatory character ofinternational law and was proving this throughthe examples of the practice. It should be re-membered that there were numerous authorsat that time recognizing the objective existenceof international law and standing of certainnorms above the will of separate states.8

After the First World War the second di-rection of the monist theory starts emerging –the primacy of international law over the do-mestic law.

H. Kelsen categorically denied any relationof the natural law with the positive law. It consid-ered law as the closed hierarchy of norms. Allthe legal norms within this normative system rep-resent one unity. All these norms, among theminternational legal norms, regulate the relationsbetween the individuals. If international law bindsand authorizes state, this does not mean that itdoes not bind and authorize individuals; thismeans that international law binds and grantsauthority to individuals who represent state bod-ies. This rule of conduct is established by inter-national law not directly, but through the nation-al legal order. The latter defines the circle ofpersons which implement international law indomestic bodies. In this respect the interna-tional legal order delegates the implementa-tion of its norms to domestic law. According toH. Kelsen in this uniform system of law inter-national law stands higher than domestic law.Certainly international law defines the materi-al content of domestic law. It is the basis ofdomestic law (among them are the constitu-tional norms). The international legal ordershows its importance only as a part of univer-sal legal order.9

In “The Principles of International Law”Kelsen argues that international law is thesupreme legal order, limitation of which is notallowed, it limits national legal order itself. Lim-iting the functioning of national legal order isimportant function of the international legalorder. As per important characteristic of do-mestic legal order the author considers thecircumstance that domestic legal order obeysonly international legal order.

The object of all he legal norms of the uni-versal legal system created by H. Kelsen is theaction of an individual. If the domestic legal normdirectly regulates actis of an individual, interna-tional norm regulates them through the domes-tic legal order. It is the domestic legal order whichidentifies which officials or the state bodies canmake these norms work. Therefore, in Kelsen’sview, international law defines the “materialelement” of the operation of the internationallegal norm, whereas the domestic law definesthe “personal element”. From this viewpointthe norms of international law do not require“transformation”, if this is not specifically en-visaged by the international legal norm itself.The norm is transmitted directly and is basedon the “delegation” of international law withregard to domestic law. This is not transfor-mation, but a phase of the procedure of cre-ation of law, the form of which is uniform.10

Therefore, Kelsen rejects the dualistictheory, which, according to his position, de-rives from the dogma of sovereignty, accord-ing to which “international law creates rightsand obligations for states only and not for itsorgans and citizens». With this Kelsen goingagainst the dualistic approach, states that in-ternational law together with the domestic lawcreates uniform system and represents theuniversal system of law.

The Kelsen Theory on the pyramid hier-archy of legal norms, the unity of internation-al and domestic legal systems was recognizedas the classical model of the monistic theoryof primacy of international law, however it hadnot many supporters.

The monistic theory is shared not only bypositivists, but by solidarists as well, if H. Kelsendoes not go at the end of the hierarchy beyondthe legality of the supreme norm and places thesearch for the basis of the “main norm”(Grundnorm) outside the scope of the construc-tion of normativism, solidarists “enlist the objec-tive events” outside the positive law to the basis

I. KURDADZE, STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS ON CORRELATION BETWEEN ...

24


of the basis of hierarchy. A well-known repre-sentative of this concept is the French lawyerG. Scelle, who considers the international legalrelations as unity of endless “relations”. Theyare linked with each other through “social soli-darity”. At the same time, alike Kelsen, G Scellealso considers that international law is the “su-preme” legal order, as for the state – this is alegal order, which directly to obeys to interna-tional legal order. Scelle also rejects the notionof state sovereignty on the basis of the primacyof international law and argues about the exist-ence of the legal capacity of individual. He arguesthat the notion of the state sovereignty “oppos-es fact and law”, rejects the notion of main rightsof a state, as a devoid of legal certainty. The authorargues that “international relations are relationsbetween an individual and groups, which emerg-es beyond the state boundaries”. “The progressof international law shall depend on the extent towhich it will become supranational in the future”.11

The same theory, though in a more limitedform, was shared by the Austrian A. Verdrossand the Swiss P. Guggenheim.

P. Guggenheim was writing: “according tothe principle of primacy of international law,its competence is potentially unlimited…, allsubjects, which are regulated by domestic law,may be regulated by international law. Theindependence of a state is nothing more thanits subjecting to “the supreme legal order”.12

One of the figures of the “Vienna School”created by H. Kelsen – A. Ferdross calls his con-cept the theory of “balanced i.e. complicatedparted monism”. He allows for the possibility ofconflict between the international and nationallaws. These conflicts may be solved only withinthe unity of the legal system, based on the pri-macy of public international law, as “the domes-tic law may freely develop only within the framesof international law». Verdross does not indicatecategorically to subordination of domestic lawto international law.13

It is apt to mention that some of the con-clusions of “balanced monism” and “balanceddualism” coincide with each other. For exam-ple, the both concepts recognize that theremay be collision created between internation-al and domestic laws, which can be regulatedonly with the assistance of international law,in particular, with the support of the instituteof peaceful settlement of international disputesand the institute of international accountability.

Malcolm Show considers that strict recogni-tion of the positions of monism or dualism donot provide for possibility to understand the realsituation. The studying of states’ constitutionaland court practice and practice of internationalcourts is necessary.14

According to his observation, majority ofstates recognizes employing customary normswithin the field of their own jurisdictions, if theydo not contradict the domestic norms, andsome states even grant the priority to the in-ternational law over the domestic legal norms.15

According to the author, as a rule we dealwith the conflict of obligations, i.e. a state doesnot act within its domestic law in accordance withthe international legal obligations. In such casethe domestic position of a state remains intact(and is not annulled by the counter norm of inter-national law), but if a state’s action at the inter-national plane violates international legal norm,its responsibility moves into international field andcauses diplomatic protest or a court action.

I. Brownlie16 considers that the theoreticalconstructions recognize the problem and re-ject the reality. If there is anyone to agree withthe opinion of Fitzmorriss and Rousso, thisperson will appear closer to the reality. Andstill, completely general theoretical construc-tions will not reflect this relation.17 The authorunderlines the fact that the issue of the corre-lation points at the differences which exists inthe organization i.e. in the nature of jurisdic-tion (would that be national or international)between the character of the norms of thebosth systems, as of the flexible instrumentsof the dispute settlement and not of the regu-lation of the disputed issues. For instance,international court may employ domestic norm;at the same time the body, such as, for, exam-ple, the US Foreign Claims Settlement Com-mission, which is the domestic organ, mayemploy international legal norm.

When domestic court employs internation-al law, it is sensless to put the question wheth-er the norm was “transformed“ into domesticlaw, if the transformation does not require aspecial procedure, established by the nation-al legal system, whithout which none of theorgans may use the international legal norm.

The French scientists (Y. Combacau, A.Pellet, P. Dailliet, D. Carreau. P-M. Dupuy), whosupport the balanced dualism, recognize theautonomy of international and domestic law,but at the same time underline the fact that

25

none of them can act in isolation from anoth-er and these systems are interrelated andconcurrent.18

At the same time, almost all of them, inone way or the other, recognize the primacyof international law and not only of interna-tional treaties, with regard to domestic law.

D. Carreau points out the court practiceand the customary and conventional normsof the contemporary internaitonal law beginingfrom the end of XIX century. In particular, itconsiders the Article 27 of the Vienna Con-vention on the Law of Treaties and concludes:“such a principle of primacy of internationallaw makes it clear that international law (i.e.the entire positive law and not only treaties)in sum stand higher than unity of domesticnorms: the constitutional, legislative, executiveand court decisions. This primacy was recog-nized by international arbitration and courts“.19

Carreau, as well as other scientists, referto the court practice in order to prove thatuniversal international law, including treaties,stands higher than domestic law. As a rule,they refer to the same historic facts. Consid-ering the Montigo case in 1875 the arbitrationfound that “treaty is higher than constitution“.

Later, considering the George Pinsoncase in 1928 arbitration pointed out that atreaty concluded between France and Mexicois higher than the Mexian Concsistion: “thereis no doubt that international law stands high-er thatn domestic law“.

The Permanent Chamber of InternationalJustice pointed out in its decision of 4 Febru-ary 1932: “Deriving from the universally rec-ognized principles, one state, in the disputewith another state, cannot, based on the ownConstitution free itself from the obligations,which are placed on it by international law ora specific treaty“.

The same opinion was expressed by theInternational Court of Justice in the 1998 Ad-visory Opinion with regard to the Represen-tation of the Palestine Liberation Organization(in the Headquarter in New York).20

P-M. Dupuy is more coscious in making con-clusions: “relation of international and domesticlaw is inrrelated and concurrent. The way thisrelation is implemented significantly depends onthe constitutional choice of a state. This gives usa possibility to conclude more or less clearly whe-ther international law is granted higher hierarcicalstand in relation with the domestic law“.21

Dailler and Pellet categorically declare: “in-ternational justice and legislative practice, as wellas domestic justice more and more often recog-nize that internaitonal law would not have exist-ed without strengtehning its primacy with regardto domestic law“.22

The factual material cited by these authorsis interesting:

At the San-Fransisco Conference in June,1956 the suggestion of the Belgian delegationto include into the UN Charter the principle ofprimacy of international law was rejected. How-ever, three years later the United Nations In-ternational Law Commission “the Declarationof the State Rights and Obligations” draft in-cluded a special article, according to which “ev-ery state is obliged to conduct relations withother states in accordance with the norms ofinternational law and the principle according towhich all state sovereignty is subjected to theprimacy of international law” (Art. 14).

The Italian Professor L. Bravo considersthat “at the contemporary stage the problemof monism-dualism has absolutely theoreticalimportance”.23 However, during the consider-ation he himself reaches the conclusion thatinternational law influences state systems atthe current stage. Even more, the author con-siders the cases, when state is compelled totake into consideration norms of internationallaw. For example, Bravo refers to jus cogensnorms and points out that national law cannotoutweight such a norm, even if it contains adifferent norm of conduct.

The former Chairman of the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights Lucius Wildhabberrpossesses extremely interesting position. Ac-cording to his position, the support to dualis-tic or monistic concepts is a subject of moreideological considerations, political preferenc-es or it is at all a utopian view. Especially asthis issue is not a subject of comparative studyvis-à-vis the domestic legal order, as bothconcepts, at the end, as a rule, focus on do-mestic law. It would be more precise to saythat practically all state domestic legal systemsinclude the elements of both – monistic anddualistic systems. He cites the so called sup-porter states of the dualistic system as an ex-ample: “in some states (United Kingdom, Ire-land, Canada, Australia and Scandinaviancountries) international treaties require imple-mentation into domestic law through specificnormative acts. Despite this, courts use the


26


international treaties not from the transforma-tion point, but from the moment of ratification.Such cases, definitely, does not constitutedualism”.24

A. Cassesse on the one hand declaresthat “most States do not accord primacy to in-ternational riles in their national legal systems.Thus, it may be concluded that most membersof the world community tend to play down thepossible role of international legal standartsin their domestic legal setting. It does not fol-low, however, that they normally and system-atically disregard international norms. Thecontrary is rather the rule. The failure of Statesto accord to international law pride of place athome only means that they fo not intednd tithe their hands formally, at the constitutionalor legislative level. In other words, subject tothe few exceptions already referred to, Statesultimately prefer not to enshrine in their con-stitutions or in their laws a firm and irrevoca-ble commitment to unqualified observance ofall international rules”.

On the other hand he recognizes that “weare faced with a phenomenon of increasingimportqnce: there are more and more inter-national rules that address themselves directlyto individuals, either by imposing obligationsor by granting rights. These rules intend to,and to, reach individuals directly, that is, notthrough the medium of the municipal law ofStates. They ar thus operative as soon as theyemerge, regadless of what is provided for inany particular national legal systems, and evencontraty to possible national rules”.25

The transformation, which the Soviet doc-trine of international law experienced26, is in-teresting, as it rejected both directions of themonist theory and only partially shared thedualist approach. The Soviet scientists con-sidered international and domestic law, as“separate systems of law”27, however at thesame time they distanced themselves from thedualism traditional doctrine as well due to theideological differences. According to them, “thedifference of “realistic dualism” (as they werereferring to their concept) from the traditionalis that the Socialist science studies as inter-national, as well as domestic laws in the sys-tem of socialist connections and thus goesbeyond the concrete, pure legal aspects oftheir interrelation».

According to the soviet scientists, this cir-cumstance was giving a possibility to explain

the true reasons of these interrelations. A.Gaverdovsky, who devoted not one work tothe problem, among them the monograph “Theimplementation of international norms”, wrotethat when analyzing the correlation of the in-ternational land national laws, the socialist le-gal doctrine derives from the principle of thestate sovereignty, and considers internation-al and domestic laws as two independent andseparate from each other systems, which areclosely interrelated.28

Soviet scientists were based on the Marx-ist concept of the state sovereignty and agreedwith dualists that international law and domesticlaw are two independent legal systems. At thesame time they shared the view that despitethe fact that the two systems are isolated fromeach other, there still is a close link in betweenthe systems.29

V. Butkevich has mentioned that “the du-alists are so much entertained with studyingthe characteristics of the relation of interna-tional and domestic laws … that they did notconsider the existence of the correlation ofthese legal systems and their elements wouldbe possible”.30

However, if there is the correlation in be-tween the legal systems, it must be regulatedin accordance with the hierarchy of norms.This issue remained open in the soviet scien-tific theory. In other words, the soviet schooldid not share the orthodox dualism (Anzilotti), as itdid not reject the interrelation of the interna-tional and domestic laws and therefore recog-nized the collision in relation of these systems.

The soviet scientists were drawing theconclusions as follows: “Any state must fulfillthe international legal norms, internationaltreaties and obligations in good faith. Howev-er, at the same time only such internationalnorm has a real force and moral authoritywhich does not impose the will of other stateover a sovereign state and does not conflictwith the state order and legal system”.31

After the dissolution of the Soviet Unionand creation of the independent Russianstate, even though the Russian scientists still“share” the dualist theory, new elements ap-pear in their concepts. They more and morefrequently appeal to the elements of the con-cept of the primacy of international law. Whendiscussing the problem of interrelationChernichenko pays attention at the terminol-ogy. According to him, this refers not to the

27

correlation of domestic and international law,but at separating the international and domes-tic legal orders, as the legal order is the broad-er concept.

In our opinion, the usage of the terminol-ogy related to this issue is relative, as notwith-standing whether we talk about legal systemor the legal order, the objective boundariesbetween the domestic and international laware defined by the nature of the regulation ofrelations and the circle of participants of therespective relations. S. Chernichenko arguesabout the livelihood of the dualist theory in hismonograph as well. It is interesting to observe,how carefully he introduces in his reasoningthe concept of the “priority of international law”and develops the idea. He mentions that in-ternational law and domestic law function indifferent spaces and therefore identifying theissue that international law cannot regulatedomestic relations is not grounded, the au-thor declares that domestic law must corre-spond the international law in order to ensureits implementation. In this sense he considersprimacy of international law as acceptable.32

The author almost confesses in the con-sideration that there is a legal system (inter-national law) to which domestic law must cor-respond. Naturally, the question emerges, ifthere is no legal requirement of establishingsuch a correspondence, why should a statevoluntarily implement such a legal action? Theauthor sees the answer in the constitutionalnorm, though the constitutional norm is a high-er standing norm in domestic law that causesthe question: why is such a norm included inthe constitution?

The prominent Russian scholar I.Lukashuk considers that the direct function-ing of international norms has a relative char-acter, as the norms commence direct actiononly when they are attributed the correspond-ing legal force in line with the national law.33

A state decides itself, which system tochoose, but a state shall create such a legalsystem which provides for the implementationof international obligations. According to him,when establishing the correlation of interna-tional and domestic law, the main role is at-tributed to the constitutional law. Lukashukpoints out the Article 27 of the Vienna Con-vention on the Law of Treaties and declares,that even in cases when international treatycontradicts constitution, it retains the interna-

tional legal force for the state. However withinthe state it – the treaty – is almost not appli-cable.

In the third edition of the work the authorconsiderably “renews” his concept. He shiftsan attention towards the “correlation” of thetwo systems. This time the author closely re-lates this phenomenon with the globalizationprocess – “the tending of the legal regulationtoward globalization seems more and more no-ticeable … the deepening of interrelation ofinternational and domestic laws leads us tothe creation of the global legal system, or thesuper system”.34 But the author underlines thatthis does not mean the creation of “the worldstate”, “the world law”. The national legal sys-tem in a large part operates as the part of theglobal legal system and must correspond toits principles.

However this does not mean the completedominance of international law with regard tothe domestic law. The subjection of the do-mestic legal system occurs only when this isneeded for the normal functioning of interna-tional law.35

Therefore, I. Lukashuk on the one handrejects the supremacy (primacy) of the uni-versally recognized principles and norms ofinternational law (it is apt to mention that theauthor in principle talks about the priority ofinternational treaties) over the norms of do-mestic law without the indication of state will,however at the same time he is compelled tovery vaguely recognize the necessity of sub-jecting the domestic law to international, thathe explains with the advancement of the glo-balization processes. Here we again confrontthe main issue – what compels the state toact in accordance with the universally recog-nized principles and norms, not only at theinternational plane, where the primacy of in-ternational law is universally recognized, butalso within a state as well, in cases when itslaws, including constitution, contradict thementioned principles and norms. The essenceof the primacy after all is that the norms ofinternational law take precedence notwith-standing whether a state recognizes them ornot, as the general will of states to cooperatestands higher than the will of one particularstate.

The issue of correlation of internationallaw and domestic law has never been the subjectof complex study and analysis in the Georgian


28


science. Although separate aspects have beenstudied by I. Putkaradze36, K. Korkelia37, P. Tsno-biladze38, broader and more detailed analysisis provided in the monograph by L. Alexidze,published as early as in 198239, however thework studies only the issue of primacy of in-ternational law vis-à-vis international relations.

In relation to the primacy of internationaltreaties over the Georgian domestic legisla-tion all the named authors recognize the pri-ority of treaties over the national norms, how-ever with the exception of the Constitution ofGeorgia. In other words, the authors literarilyinterpret the formula of Article 6 of the Consti-tution and separate international treaties fromthe universally recognized principles andnorms of international law.

In the context of the topic of our consider-ation the views of the authors on the primacyof the international law per se, i.e. universallyrecognized principles and norms, are interesting.

As mentioned already the discussion overthe issue of the primacy of international lawboth in international relations as well as do-mestic law can only be held in case if the orig-inal element of the concept of “primacy” is thelimitation of the freedom of separate willpowerof a state, despite whether it wishes to abidethe norm in creation of which it did not partic-ipate, actively opposed its establishment or didnot take part in the process at all, as it wascreated before its emergence at the interna-tional areana. Therefore, in our view, the pri-macy contemplates the unconditional abidingby all states to the vitally important norms ofthe international legal order, as these princi-ples and norms reflect will of states.

In this regard I. Putkaradze’s position, ac-cording to which the human rights and free-doms envisaged by the Article 7 of the Consti-tution of Georgia have direct and immediateeffect in Georgia, is interesting. This meansthat notwithstanding whether the universallyrecognized human rights and freedoms are re-flected in the Georgian domestic legislation,their observance must be guaranteed in thestate40. The author reaches the conclusion that“when exercising authority, i.e. even at thepoint of identifying the constitutional principlesand norms the people and the state are boundby the universally recognized rights and free-doms, as directly acting law”.41

K. Korkelia refers to one of the main com-ponents of the primacy of international law –

a stand of customary international law in thehierarchy of the Georgian legislation andreaches the opposite conclusion: as the Arti-cle 7 of the Constitution does not establishthe hierarchical correlation of the norms ofinternational customary human rights law withregard to other acts, the general approachestablished in Georgia shall be applied in re-lation to this category of norms (as establishedby the Article 6(2) of the Constitution, andconsidered by other normative acts), accord-ing to which the norms of international cus-tomary law have primacy over the Georgianlegislation (for example, over the laws, but notthe Constitution).42

The author absolutely correctly provides thatin line with the Article 6(2) of the Constitution theentire Georgian legislation is “dependant” on theuniversally recognized principles and norms ofinternational law, and when it does not corre-spond to the latter, the former shall be changed.The same is true with regard to the upcomingdomestic norms. If this is not so, than in case ofestablishing that the domestic acts do not cor-respond with the universally recognized princi-ples and norms of international law, the latterwill take precedence”.43

The author’s view that a provision of theAct of the Restoration of Georgian State Inde-pendence (09/04/1991), according to whichthe primacy of international law in relation withthe Georgian laws and the direct operation ofits norms in Georgia is recognized by one ofthe main constitutional principles of the Re-public, does inevitably include the primacy ofthe international customary law as well, andthis has become the part of the Georgian leg-islation with the 1995 Constitution, is correct.The norms of international customary law aregranted the domestic legal force in Georgia,and this is the immediate pre-condition for di-rect employment of the international custom-ary norms in Georgia.44

Herewith we can not share of the author sview in that the primacy of international law, inparticular in the form of the universally recog-nized principles and norms, among those pro-tecting and regulating human rights, stand low-er than the Constitution of Georgia – in thecase of collision the primacy shall be given tothe Constitution of the country.

The term “corresponds” defines the al-ready existing situation and not the require-ment for the future, however, in our view, the

29

legislator contemplated that the Constitutionof Georgia in any case and not only by thetime of the adoption of the Constitution mustcomply with this requirements. At the sametime the question emerges: is the Georgianlegislation objectively in line with the univer-sally recognized principles and norms of in-ternational law? Such a question would nothave emerged, provided that Georgia, evenwhen undergoing the procedure of ratifyingor accessing the international treaties, wouldfirst require harmonization of the Georgian leg-islation with the latter and undertake the pro-cedures only afterwards. However the prac-tice of the Georgian Parliament has confirmedthat it is also possible that the country firstratifies the international treaty and only after-wards harmonizes the domestic legislation withthe instrument (as an example of this the rat-ification of the Statute of the InternationalCriminal Court can be cited).

The issue can be solved in an easier man-ner, when we discuss the international trea-ties, even multilateral regional (for example,in relation with the European Union), as in thiscase the will of a state, to limit its sovereignty,is evident. A state agrees to alter the Consti-tutional provision in line with requirements asenvisaged by the international treaty (this iswhat did France, and not once, in the processof transformation of the European Communi-ties into the European Union). But this, mustbe reiterated, refers to international treaty, theissue of participation into or staying outsideof which is decided by a state.

In case if the domestic law employing bodycomes across the inconsistencies in the Con-stitution and the universally recognized normsof international law, it will have a dilemma -which norm to use. Herewith we support theview of I. Putkaradze that the norm shall beused deriving from the primacy of internation-al law, as the norm directly applicable in Geor-gia. Any international court, such as for exam-ple, in the field of human rights, will grantagainst a state whose constitution does notcorrespond with the universally recognizednorms, especially if it recognizes that its legis-lation “is in line with” the universally recog-nized principles and norms of international law.

In our view when including the terminolo-gy of universally recognized principles andnorms of international law in the Constitutionof Georgia, the legislator implied that Geor-

gia, being a member of the contemporary civ-ilized world community, does share the ideasrecognized by international law and the crite-ria of legality recognized by it, as well as themain directions of international law throughwhich the regulation of Georgia’s internation-al legal relations and domestic relations willtake place. The legal system of a state is notconfined to the unity of legal norms. The legalsystem includes as legal norms (in relation withthe international law the treaties which wereduly recognized by a state), legal conscious(which must derive from the content of univer-sally recognized principles and norms of in-ternational law), the legal relations based onthe norms (among those international ones),as well as the process of the norm application(through which the “introduction” of the inter-national legal norms into the domestic legis-lation takes place). Regulation of all these pro-cesses without the universally recognizednorms and principles is inadmissible. The Geo-rgian legislator is obliged to be guided by theseprinciples and norms in the legal drafting pro-cess, as they constitute the ideological sourceof law. Apart from this, in cases when any giv-en relation is not regulated by state legalnorms (the vacuum of law), they are used asan immediate normative basis when decidingon application of law in a concrete legal case.

Therefore the operation of the universal-ly recognized principles and norms extendsover not only the domestic law, but at the le-gal system as a whole.

The majority of the universally recognizedprinciples and norms (the law of human rights,international law of the sea) have a concretecontent, meaning that their direct applicationin the field of domestic law is possible. Forexample, a judge is obliged to ensure the ob-servance of norms included into the Interna-tional Covenants of 1966 , even if they arenot reflected in the domestic legislation of thecountry, not only due to the fact that a giveninstrument has become legally binding forGeorgia following its ratification, but also dueto the fact that the majority of the norms ofthe instruments carry universal character. Thevery principle of respect of human rights, theprinciple of equality of a man and a woman,the principle of freely using the natural resourc-es and wealth by people, the principle of out-lawing the slavery and slave trade, are amongthose. However, a number of norms of the In-


30


ternational Covenant on Civil and PoliticalRights have explicit content of the universalprincipels – the principle of fair trial, the pre-sumption of innocence, a right to legal per-sonality, etc. Therefore, Article 84 of the Con-stitution, establishing that “a judge … in his/her activities … is bound by the Constitutionand a law”, must be widely interpreted. A judgemust be guided by the universally recognizedprinciples and norms and general principlesas the latter possess the primacy over theConstitution and laws of Georgia, and by in-ternational treaties, provided that they do notcontradict with the Constitution of Georgia.Therefore, the primacy of the universally rec-ognized principles of international law over thedomestic law, recognized by the Constitutionof Georgia, grants a possibility to law apply-ing bodies not to be bound by the legislativebasis created unilaterally by a state. On itsturn, a state is obliged to establish the legis-lative basis in line with the universally recog-nized principles and norms. As a matter of factthe primacy of universally recognized princi-ples and norms vis-à-vis the domestic legisla-tion does not create a hard collision situation(unlike the treaty law), as the universal princi-ples operate as regulator, the basis of thepublic relations within a state, upon which thelegislation should be built. The legal bound-aries of the universal principles and norms arenot clearly identified, and this has to be takeninto consideration by the legislator. In prac-tice this means that judicial bodies may makedecisions based on the domestic legislation,but this does not hamper them to be guidedby the respective international norms, espe-cially when the latter broaden or specify theprovision of the Constitution or a law.

Georgia is one of the first states in the East-ern European and CIS area which still beforethe dissolution of the Soviet Union, right uponthe restoration of independence, with the Act ofIndependence (09/04/1991) recognized the pri-macy of international law over the Georgian leg-islation. However the reinforcement of this pro-

vision was possible only in the 1995 Constitu-tion through the Article 6 and Article 7.

Therefore, the contemporary internation-al law is the unity of norms with the generaldemocratic content, reflecting the objectivepattern of the development of mankind. If in-ternational law at the initial stage of the for-mation represented ephemeral system, todayit is established as a positive legal system,which is the guarantee of peaceful develop-ment of the world legal order. If in the past thewill of a state dominated in directing interna-tional relations, today a state is obliged tocomply with the legal order, which is reflectedin international law by the world community. Itis not by conicidence that in the new politicalreasoning along with the concepts such as thepriority of the general values and interests ofmankind, the unity of the world and interrela-tion of states, the freedom of the choice ofways of development, the concept of the pri-macy of international law becomes increasing-ly establsihed in international relations.

The contemporary international law increas-ingly intrudes into the fields which in the paststrictly belonged to the internal regulation ofsovereign states. Today the primacy of interna-tional law, i.e. the universally recognized princi-ples and norms of international law, are not onlythe supreme legal postulates of the relations ofsubjects of international law, and mainly states,but it stands higher than domestic legal systemsof states. The international and constitutionalpractice of states includes very interesting the-oretical normative practice and case law.

Even though states choose themselveswhich of the concepts to follow, at the currentstage the problem of monism-dualism carriesmore theoretical character, as the state bodiesboth – adminsitrative and judicial shall decidethe same problems in both cases. At the currentstage international law not only influences statesystems, even more, in some cases a state iscompelled to consider and take into account thenorms of generally recognized norms of inter-national law.

1 H. Triepel. Völkerrecht und Landesrecht. Leipzig , 1899, s. 89; The same author: "Droitinternational et droit interne. Fondation Carnegie 1920, pp. 78-81; Les rapports entre ledroit inetrnational et le droit inetrnational – "Recueil des Cours", the Hague Academy of"International La w", 1923. t. 1, p. 83-103.

31

2 H. Triepel. Les rapports… p. 89.3 Àíöèëîòòè Ä. Êóðñ ìåæäóíàðîäíîãî ïðàâà. Ì., 1961. ñòð. 35; Giorgio Gaja. Positivism

and Dualism in Dionisio Anzilotti – “European Journal of International Law”, vol.3, N1.,

1992.4 See: U. Scheuner. L’ Influence du droit interne sur la formulation du droit international.

"Recueil des Cours de l’Academie de droit international". T 68 (1939-II) p. 116-117; See

also: G. Dahm. Völkerrecht. Bd I Stutgart 1958, seite 565 G. Fitzmaurice, The General Principles of International Law Considered from the Stand-

point of the Rule of Law- "Recueil des Cours", the Hague Academy of International Law, T

92 1957, II, p. 68-94.6 See: Rouseau Ch. Principles de droit intenational public, Paris, 1958, I, p. 369-550.7 Lasson A. Prinzip und Zukunft des Völkerrecht. Berlin, 1871, p. 402; Zorn A. Gründzuge

des Völkerrechts. Leipzig 1903 I Bid. seite 8-9.8 See: R. Phillimore. Commentaries upon International Law, VI, London, 1878, $ XXII; T.

Twiss. The Law of Nations, Oxford, 1861; $2; P. Fauchill. Traité de Droit International

Public t. 1 partie 1, Paris, 1992, p. 6-9; Oppenheim. L, International Law, London, 1920; A.

Rivier Le Droit Iinternational (Russion Translation), 1893, Moscow, E. Nys. Le Droit

International. Les principes, les theories le of Aits. Bruxselles 1912.9 H. Kelsen. General Theory of Law and State. English trans. Wedberg Cambridge Mass.

1949, p. 81.10 See: H. Kelsen. Principles of International Law, N.Y. 1966, p. 41.11 G Scelle. Cours de droit international public. Paris, 1948, p. 17.12 P. Guggenheim. Traité de droit international public. Genéve, 1953, v I, p. 27.13 Ôåðäðîññ À., Ìåæäóíàðîäíîå ïðàâî. Ì., 1959, p. 50.14 Shaw N.M. International Law.(Fifth ed). Cambridge Univ. Press. 2004, p. 120-173;15 M. Shaw. op. cit. p. 123.16 See: Brownlie Ian. Principles of Public International Law. Oxford University press, 2003

Chap.II The Relation of Municipal and International Law, pp. .31-52.17 Ibid. p. 5218 Yean Combacau, Serge Sur. Droit International Public, 5 th.ed, Montchrestien, 2001, p.

181: P. Daillier et A Pellet. Droit international public. L.G.D.J. 2002, p. 95-97; Dominique

Carreau. Droit International.7 th ed. Paris, Pedone, 2001, p. 43-70; Pierre-Moris Dupuy.

Droit international public. Dalloz, 2000, p. 387-389; Michel Virally. Sur un point aux

Anes;les rapports entre droit internetional et droit interne – Me'lange Rolin. Paris. Pedone

1964, p. 497.19 D. Carreau, op cit., p. 45.20 D. Carraou, op cit., p. 47; See also: A. B.eramdone. La hierarchie des droits. Paris, 2002, p.

31-32.21 P-M. Dupuy, op cit., p. 389.22 P. Daillier et A. Pellet, op cit., p. 97.23 Áðàâî Ë.Ô., Ïðèìåíåíèå ìåæäóíàðîäíîãî ïðàâà â ïðàâîïîðÿäêå åâðîïåéñêèõ

ñòðàí. "Ðîññèéñêèé" Åæåãîäíèê ìåæäóíàðîäíîãî ïðàâà, Ñàíêò Ïåòåðáóðã,

1995, ñ. 131.24 Luzius Wildhaber. Wechselspiel zwiscvhen Innen und Aussen: Schweizer Landesrecht,

Rechtsvergleichung, Volkerrecht/ – basel;Frankfurt am Main:Helbing und Lichtenhahn, 1996,

pp. 52 (Reception of International Law into Domestic Law: Comparative European Ap-

proaches).25 A. Cassese, International Law, Oxford University Pres, 2005, p.236-237.26 An interesting analysis see: Tarja Längström. Transpformation in Russia and International

Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden / Boston, 2003.27 Ìþëåðñîí Ð.À. Ñîîòíîøåíèå ìåæäóíàðîäíîãî è íàöèîíàëüíîãî ïðàâà. "Ìåæä.

îòíîø". Ì., 1982, ñòð. 10.28 Ãàâåðäîâñêèé À.Ñ. Èìïëåìåíòàöèÿ íîðì ìåæäóíàðîäíîãî ïðàâà, Êèåâ.1980,

ñòð. 63.29 Ëåâèí Ä.Á. Îñíîâíûå ïðîáëåìû ìåæäóíàðîäíîãî ïðàâà. Ì.1982, ñòð. 121,

209.


32


30 Áóòêåâè÷ Â.Ã. Ñîîòíîøåíèå âíóòðèãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî è ìåæäóíàðîäíîãî ïðàâà.

Êèåâ. 1981, ñòð. 53.31 Ëåâèí Ä.Á. Îñíîâíûå ïðîáëåìû ìåæäóíàðîäíîãî ïðàâà. Ì., 1982 èìî. ñòð. 124.32 ×åðíè÷åíêî Ñ.Â. Òåîðèÿ ìåæäóíàðîäíîãî ïðàâà. Ì., ò. 1, 1999, gv 147.33 Ëóêàøóê È.È Ìåæäóíàðîäíîå ïðàâî (îáùàÿ ÷àñòü). Ì., 1996, ñòð. 221-222, 224.34 Ëóêàøóê È. Ìåæäóíàðîäíîå Ïðàâî, îáùàÿ ÷àñòü, Ì. 2005, ñò 255-295.35 Ibid., pp. 293-294.36 Putkaradze I., The Universally Recognized Norms of International Law and the Protection

of the Citizens’ Political-Economic and Social-Cultural Rights and Freedoms at the Consti-tutional Court of Georgia. “A Person and a Constitution”, No.3, 1998.

37 K. Korkelia, Customary International Law in the Legal System of Georgia. “Georgia andInternational Law” Tbilisi, 2001, pp. 62-80.

38 P. Tsnobiladze. Correlation of National Legislation and International Law, Ibid., pp.48-61.39 Àëåêñèäçå Ë., Íåêîòîðûå âîïðîñû òåîðèè ìåæäóíàðîäíîãî ïðàâà-èìïåðà-

òèâíûå íîðìû (jus cogens), Òá., 1982.40 Iakob Putkaradze, cited work, p. 27.41 Ibid. p. 2842 K. Korkelia, Customary International Law… p. 79.43 Ibid., pp.66-67.44 Ibid., p.69.45 Ibid., 70.

33

levan aleqsiZe

afxazeTSi qarTveli mosaxleobis eTnikuriwmendis saerTaSoriso dagmobis saqmeSi

euTos gadamwyveti rolis Sesaxeb

2008 wlis 29 maiss gaeros generaluriasambleis 62-e sesiam miiRo istoriulimniSvnelobis rezolucia – ̀ afxazeTidan,saqarTvelo, qveynis SigniT gadaadgile-bul pirTa da ltolvilTa statusisSesaxeb~, romelSic gaeros praqtikaSipirvelad dafiqsirda afxazeTSi qarTve-lebis eTnikuri wmendis faqti. rezolu-ciaSi naTqvamia: ìmowmebs ra uSiSroebissabWos yvela saTanado rezolucias, iRebsra mxedvelobaSi evropaSi uSiSroebisa daTanamSromlobis organizaciis (euTo)budapeStis (1994), lisabonisa (1996) dastambolis (1999) samitebis daskvnebs, ker-Zod moxsenebebs afxazeTSi, saqarTvelo,èTnikuri wmendisa~ da saerTaSoriso hu-manitaruli samarTlis sxva seriozulidarRvevebis Sesaxeb...

xazs usvams im mniSvnelobas, romelicaqvs afxazeTidan, saqarTvelo, ltolvil-Ta da qveynis SigniT gadaadgilebul pir-Ta sakuTrebis dacvas, èTnikuri wmen-dis~ msxverplTa CaTvliT, da mouwodebsyvela wevr saxelmwifos, ar dauSvan maTsiurisdiqciaSi myofi pirebis mier afx-azeTis, saqarTvelo, teritoriaze sakuT-rebis SeZena, repatriantebis uflebaTadarRveviT...~1

sagulisxmoa, rom konfliqtis dawye-bidanve gaeros uSiSroebis sabWo Tu gen-eraluri asamblea erideboda èTnikuriwmendis~ dafiqsirebas Tavis rezolucie-bSi, Tumca 1992-1993 wlisaTvis sul ufroda ufro idgams fexs adamianurobiswinaaRmdeg iseTi danaSaulis gansazRvre-ba, rogoricaa èTnikuri wmenda~. ufrometic, yofili iugoslaviis teritori-aze momxdari danaSaulebis mzardma ric-xvma aiZula gaeros generaluri asamblea,ecno èTnikuri wmenda~ genocidis for-mad, romelic sxva eTnikuri warmoSobis

adamianTa jgufis masobrivi mkvlelobiT,wamebiT, teroriTa da sxva araadamianurisaSualebebiT xorcieldeba.2

1994 wlis 24 maiss gamoqveynda gaerosuSiSroebis sabWos mier Seqmnili eqspert-Ta komisiis moxseneba, romelSic mocemu-li iyo èTnikuri wmendis~ cneba: es aris`winaswar gansazRvruli politika, rome-lic miznad isaxavs erTi eTnikuri Tureligiuri jgufis, sastiki mopyrobiT anteroris gziT, gandevnas sxva eTnikurian religiuri jgufis mier garkveuligeografiuli aridan. ZiriTadad es xde-ba cru nacionalizmis, istoriuli wy-enisa da SurisZiebis mZlavri mamoZravebe-li grZnobis saxeliT. am qmedebis namdvilimizani teritoriis okupacia da misi gar-kveuli jgufebisagan gawmendaa~.3

sxva moxsenebaSi aRniSnuli iyo, romès politika xorcieldeba Semdegi saSu-alebebiT: mkvlelobebi, wameba, ukanonodakaveba da dapatimreba, ukanono dax-vretebi, gaupatiureba da seqsualuriZaladoba, samoqalaqo mosaxleobis ge-toebSi moTavseba, iZulebiTi gadaadgi-leba, deportacia, samoqalaqo pirebsa daobieqtebze ganzrax samxedro Tavdasxma,an aseTi Tavdasxmis gamoyenebis muqara~.4

praqtikulad aseTi gansazRvreba savse-biT Tavsdeba genocidis danaSaulis Car-CoebSi, magram mainc aqcenti gadataniliiyo èTnikur wmendaze~, radganac mus-limebi bosniis serbeTSi bosnia da herce-govinis mravalmilioniani mosaxleobismcire nawils Seadgendnen. formalurad,iuristebi gansazRvraven, rom genocidadaRiarebisaTvis msxverpli unda iyoskonkretuli umciresobis jgufi, romel-ic ar warmoadgens mTeli qveynis teri-toriaze mcxovrebi umravlesobis nawils

34


(aseTad miCneuli iyo bosnia da hercegov-inaSi mcxovrebi muslimuri mosaxleoba).

yofil iugoslaviaSi momxdar dana-SaulTa Taobaze Seqmnili saerTaSorisotribunali araerTxel afiqsirebda, romèTnikuri wmenda~ aris moqmedebebi, mimar-Tuli samoqalaqo mosaxleobis garkveu-li jgufis winaaRmdeg, romlebic aRiqmebarogorc erTi an ramdenime erovnuli Tupolitikuri jgufi. am aqtebis ganxorci-eleba unda mivakuTvnoT erTsa da imavemodels: saxelmwifo doneze dagegmili daorganizebuli moqmedebebi... maT aqvTsaerTo mizani – ̀ eTnikuri wmendis~ orga-nizeba garkveul teritoriaze da axalisaxelmwifos Seqmna. es moqmedebebi arissaSualeba èTnikuri wmendis~ politikisgatarebisaTvis. amitom sasamarTlo pala-tas miaCnia, rom zemoaRniSnuli moqmede-bebi `danaSaulia adamianurobis winaaRm-deg~.5

1994 wels saqarTveloSi Seiqmna saxelm-wifo komisia, romlis Tavmjdomareoba memxvda wilad, afxazeTSi qarTvelo mosax-leobis winaaRmdeg èTnikuri wmendis/ge-nocidis~ faqtebis dadgenisa da masalebissaerTaSoriso tribunalebisaTvis gadace-mis mizniT. am komisiam, saqarTvelos pro-kuraturis daxmarebiT, afxazeTidan gamo-ZevebulebTan Sexvedrebze, JurnalistTamier mopovebul foto- da videomasalebzedayrdnobiT, daiwyo afxazeTSi datriale-buli saSineli tragediis Seswavla.

yovelwliurad gaeros uSiSroebis sab-Wosa da adamianis uflebaTa komisiaSi vr-celdeboda zemoxsenebuli komisiis mox-senebebi, romlebSic aRnusxuli da Se-jamebuli iyo im droisaTvis mopovebulifaqtebi. pirveli dokumenti gancxadebissaxes atarebda.6

dawyebuli 1995 wlidan vrceldebodadokumentebi, romlebic, ufro vrceli dakonkretuli faqtebis moyvanis garda,Seicavda praqtikis mecnierul Sefasebas.magaliTad, gaeros adamianis uflebaTakomisiaSi gavrcelebuli dokumenti da-saxelebuli iyo: èTnikuri wmendis/geno-cidis politika afxazeTSi agresiuliseparatizmis ZiriTadi iaraRia~. masSiganxiluli iyo iseTi sakiTxebi, rogorebi-caa: ̀ 1. genocidi/eTnikuri wmenda – adami-anurobis winaaRmdeg mimarTuli saerTa-Soriso danaSauli; 2. separatistTa faSis-

turi ideologia da misi cxovrebaSi ga-tareba; 3. faqtebi, romlebic amxelenafxazeTSi qarTveli mosaxleobis mimarTgenocidis/eTnikuri wmendis politikas.7

aseTsave saxes atarebda Semdegi mox-senebac.8

am moxsenebebSi afxazeTSi momxdaritragedia Sedarebuli iyo eTnikuri wmen-dis msoflios sxva regionebSi arsebulpraqtikasTan. cnobilia, rom am barbaro-suli politikis Sedegad daiRupa 6 000mSvidobiani mosaxle, xolo 200 000-zemeti gaaZeves teroriTa da araadamianurimopyrobiT, mxolod imitom, rom isiniqarTvelebi iyvnen, rac savsebiT Tavsdebo-da ̀ eTnikuri wmendis~ im gansazRvrebaSi,romelic saerTaSoriso eqspertebisa datribunalebis daskvnebSi aisaxa.

gansakuTrebiT vrceli da yovlis-momcveli iyo (38 gverdi, plus danarTirukebis saxiT) bolo, Semajamebeli mox-seneba – saqarTvelos saxelmwifo komisiisdaskvnebi afxazeTSi, saqarTvelo, qarT-veli mosaxleobis winaaRmdeg gatarebu-li genocidis/eTnikuri wmendis politi-kis Taobaze da masalebis saerTaSorisotribunalisaTvis gadacemis Sesaxeb, sa-Tanado procesis saerTaSoriso princi-pebis Sesabamisad.9

samwuxarod, rogorc aRvniSne, uSiS-roebis sabWo da adamianis uflebaTa ko-misia ̀ moeridnen~ am sakiTxis dRis wesrig-Si Setanas, Tumca igive specialuri momx-senebeli eide pirdapir aRniSnavda TavismoxsenebaSi, rom saqarTvelos teritori-uli mTlianobisa da xelSeuxeblobisdarRvevas mosdevda eTnikuri wmendaafxazeTSi.10

pirveli saerTaSoriso organizacia,romelic imTaviTve gamoexmaura afxazeT-Si mimdinare tragikul ambebs, iyo evro-paSi uSiSroebisa da TanamSromlobis or-ganizacia (euTo). 1994 wels budapeStis sa-mitze monawile saxelmwifoebma gamoT-qves Rrma SeSfoTeba afxazeTSi èTni-kuri wmendis, mosaxleobis, gansakuTre-biT qarTvelTa, TavianTi sacxovrebeliadgilebidan masobrivi gandevnisa daudanaSaulo moqalaqeTa didi raodeno-biT daRupvis gamo~.11

magram yvelaze amomwurav, Tumca la-koniur gansazRvrebas im politikisas,romelsac atareben separatistebi afx-azeTSi, Seicavs lisabonis samitis dek-

35

laracia (1996 wlis 3 dekemberi): ̀ Cven (eu-Tos monawile saxelmwifoebi – l.a.) vg-mobT ̀ eTnikur wmendas~, romelic gamoix-ateba afxazeTSi ZiriTadad qarTvelimosaxleobis masobrivi ganadgurebiTa daiZulebiTi gaZevebiT~.12

1999 wlis noemberSi stambolSi mow-veul euTos samitze miRebul deklara-ciaSi saxelmwifoebma `kvlav ganacxa-des~, rom ̀ gadaWriT gmoben ̀ eTnikur wme-ndas~, rogorc es formulirebulia bu-dapeStisa da lisabonis umaRlesi donisSexvedrebze, ramac gamoiwvia afxazeTSi,saqarTvelo, ZiriTadad qarTuli mosax-leobis ganadgureba da iZulebiTi gaZeve-ba, da Zaladobis aqtebs, romlebic aRiniS-na galis raionSi 1998 wlis maisSi iq dab-runebul pirebTan dakavSirebiT, racmiznad isaxavda dabrunebis survilismqone adamianebSi SiSis danergvas. viZle-viT rekomendacias, raTa momdevno wlisdasawyisSi galis raionSi gaigzavnos faq-tebis damdgeni misia, euTosa da gaerosmonawileobiT, maT Soris mimdinare èT-nikuri wmendis~ SemTxvevebis Sesaxeb cno-bebis Sesafaseblad ~.13

samwuxarod, aRniSnuli komisia ar Seq-mnila, magram euTos deklaraciaSi afx-azeTSi arsebuli konfliqtisaTvis aseTididi yuradRebis daTmoba da èTnikuriwmendis~, separatistebis saSinel danaSa-ulTa kidev erTxel dagmobas uaRresaddidi mniSvneloba hqonda saerTaSorisoTanamegobrobis yuradRebis mobilizaci-isaTvis.

sagulisxmoa, rom lisabonSi dekla-raciis aRniSnuli formulis ganxilvisasruseTis delegaciam kategoriuli uariganacxada mis miRebaze, radganac masSinaxsenebi termini `gamoixateba~ (resulting,âûðàæàåòñÿ) awmyo droSi gvqonda gamoy-enebuli. ruseTis mtkicebiT, 1994 wlidanengurze maTi samSvidobo Zalebi idga daaranairi eTnikuri wmenda iq aRar yofi-la. amitom, maTi azriT, termini `gamoix-ateba~ unda Secvliliyo terminiT `gam-oixata~.

maTi pozicia Seicvala, rodesac ga-vacani euTos misiis zemoaRniSnuli mox-seneba da 1000-ze meti piris saxeli, rom-lebic daxoces samSvidoboebis galSi yof-nis dros.

aseve gavacani evrokavSiris parla-mentis 1996 wlis 14 noembris rezolucia,

romelSic ewera, rom `parlamenti SeS-foTebulia... eTnikuri wmendis SeuCerebe-li procesiT afxazeTis regionSi~.

da kidev erTi: deklaraciis rusulTargmanSi termini `masobrivi ganadgu-reba~ (mass destruction) iyo SecvliliterminiT – ̀ masobrivi dangreva~, im moti-viT, rom ̀ destruction~ dangrevasac niSnavs.momixda aqac samarTlianobis aRdgena dasabolood Targmnilma teqstma saTanadosaxe miiRo: “îñóøåñòâëÿþò “ýòíè÷åñêóþ÷èñòêó”, êîòîðàÿ âûðàæàåòñÿ â ìàññîâîìóíè÷òîæåíèè è íàñèëüñòâåííîì èçãíàíèè âîñíîâíîì ãðóçèíñêîãî íàñåëåíèÿ Àáõàçèè”. (xaz-gasma Cemia – l.a.).

aRsaniSnavia, rom ufro adre dsT-issamitebzec ruseTi iZulebuli iyo, gahy-oloda monawile saxelmwifoTa saerToganwyobilebas da dasTanxmeboda afx-azeTSi èTnikuri wmendis~ dagmobas. ma-galiTad: minskSi 1995 wlis 26 maiss Cata-rebul samitze pirdapir aRiares afxa-zeTSi èTnikuri wmendis~ faqti; euTosbudapeStis Sexvedram umaRles donezegamoxata Rrma SeSfoTeba ̀ eTnikur wmen-dasTan~, ZiriTadad qarTveli mosaxleo-bis sacxovrebeli adgilebidan masobrivgandevnasTan da didi raodenobiT udan-aSaulo samoqalaqo pirTa daRupvasTandakavSirebiT.14

sagulisxmoa gaeros uSiSroebis sab-Wos pozicia. Tu gaviTvaliswinebT, romam organoSi gadawyvetilebaTa miRebaxdeba xmaTa umravlesobiT (15-dan 9 xmaunda iyos dadebiTi), yvela mudmivi wev-ris dadebiTi xmis CaTvliT, xolo ruse-Tis mier vetos uflebis gamoyenebis sa-SiSroeba yovelTvis sufevda da sufevs,sabWos mier davebis mSvidobiani daregu-lirebis Sesaxeb Tavisa (gaeros wesdebisme-6 Tavi) da, aRarafers vambob, agresiisaRkveTisa da mSvidobis dacvis mizniTiZulebiTi RonisZiebis gatarebis saSu-alebebis (gaeros wesdebis me-7 Tavi) Car-CoebSi moqmedebisas, vera da ver xerxde-ba uSiSroebis sabWos mier afxazeTSièrovnuli wmendis~ pirdapiri dafiq-sireba. magram euTos mier miRebuli Se-fasebebi imdenad Zlieri iyo da aris, romsabWo 1995 wlidan dawyebuli 2006 wlisCaTvliT yvela miRebul rezoluciaSiìmowmebs~ euTos jer budapeStis gadaw-yvetilebebs, xolo Semdgom lisabonisada stambolis samitebis daskvnebs, da mi-

l. aleqsiZe, afxazeTSi qarTveli mosaxleobis eTnikuri wmendis saerTaSoriso ...

36


uReblad miaCnia afxazeTSi konfliqtisSedegad demografiuli cvlilebebi.15

aRsaniSnavia, rom 2006 wlamde yvelarezolucia Seicavda miTiTebas lisabon-isa da stambolis samitTa gadawyvetile-bebze, magaliTad, 2002 wels miRebul re-zoluciaSi uSiSroebis sabWo ìmowmebs~lisabonisa (S/1997/57, Annex) da stambo-lis samitTa daskvnebs afxazeTSi, saqar-Tvelo, mdgomareobis Sesaxeb.16

Tumca 2006 wlis Semdgom sabWo aRariyenebs am formulas, magram sistemati-urad adasturebs im rezoluciebs, rom-lebic Seicaven am formulas.17

bolo wlebSi gaeros uSiSroebis sab-Wo pasiurobs afxazeTSi konfliqtis mo-gvarebaSi, upasuxod tovebs separatist-Ta sabotaJs da kategoriul uars acxa-debs, ganixilon nebismieri saerTaSorisoorganizaciis (bodenis gegma) an saqarTve-los mier wamoyenebuli winadadebebi(erT-erTi maTgani gavrcelda saqarTve-los mier, rogorc uSiSroebis sabWos do-kumenti 1999 wels), radgan maTSi fiq-sirdeba afxazeTis saqarTvelos Semadgen-lobaSi arseboba da aRiarebulia saqarTve-los teritoriuli mTlianobisa da suve-renitetis xelSeuxebloba.18

igive pozicias dRemde ikavebs separa-tistuli reJimi saqarTvelos perziden-tis mier warmodgenili axali winadade-bebis mimarT.

ruseTis dRevandeli politika afx-azeTSi konfliqtis mimarT faqtobrivadda samarTlebrivad mxars uWers separat-istebis reJims; Tumca oficialuradruseTi ar cnobs afxazeTis `damoukide-blobas~, faqtobrivad man daamyara sepa-ratistebTan mWidro urTierToba: eko-nomikuri blokadis moxsna, ruseTis mo-qalaqeobis masobrivi darigeba, separat-

istTa organoebTan oficialuri samarT-lebrivi kavSirebi, saqarTvelos nebarTvisgareSe samSvidobo Zalebis gaZliereba,strategiuli gzebis rekonstruqciismizniT, e.w. sarkinigzo jarebis Semoyva-na, da, saerTod, afxazeTis regionisèkonomikuri aRorZinebis~ procesisdawyeba, maSin, rodesac asiaTasobiT ga-Zevebuli adamiani uaRresad mZime mate-rialur pirobebSi cxovrobs. yvela arse-buli dokumentis mixedviT, yovelgvariekonomikuri rekonstruqcia regionSi mx-olod ltolvilTa da qveynis SigniTgadaadgilebul pirTa afxazeTSi dab-runebis Seuqcevad procesTan unda iyosmWidrod dakavSirebuli.

separatistTa reJims araviTari uf-leba ar aqvs, Caataros raime saxis arCev-nebi, faqtobrivad, ukacriel afxazeTSi(550 000 mcxovrebidan regionSi darCa 150000-ze naklebi, xolo TviT eTnikuri af-xazebis umravlesoba cxovrobs regionsgareT da ar apirebs dabrunebas gapar-taxebul samSobloSi).

am viTarebaSi gaeros generaluri asam-bleis rezolucia, romelic miRebul iqnaruseTis medgari winaaRmdegobis miuxe-davad, saxelmwifoTa saerTaSoriso Tan-amegobrobisaTvis kidev erTi Sexsenebaa,rom, rodesac nebismier regionSi (rogoripatara da mcirericxovanic ar unda iyosigi) separatistebis zraxvebs ewireba asi-aTasobiT udanaSaulo adamiani, saerTa-Soriso organizaciebi ar SeiZleba pasi-urobdnen, saWiroa energiuli brZolaTanamedrove kacobriobisaTvis adami-anis esoden Rirebul uflebaTa dacvi-saTvis.

am keTilSobilur saqmeSi udidesi wv-lili miuZRvis evropaSi uSiSroebisa daTanamSromlobis organizacias.

1 gaeros generaluri asambleis rezolucia: A/RES/62/249, May 29, 2008.2 ix. gaeros genaraluri asambleis rezolucia: A/47/121 December17, 1992.3 UN Doc. S/1994/674, para.129, May 24,1994.4 UN Doc. S/25/277, para.56.5 International Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia. In the Trial Chamber, Prosecutor V.

Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic. Review of the Indictments Pursuant to Rule 61of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 90-91, 11 July, 1996.

6 Statement dated 15 February 1994 of the Republic of Georgia State Committeefor Investigation and Revaluation of Materials Concerning the Policy of Genocideand Ethnic Cleansing Against the Georgian Population in Abkhazia, and

37

Submission of Such Materials to an International Tribunal – UN Security CouncilS/1994/225 26 February 1994.

7 UN Security Council, doc. S/1995/200,14 March 1995; UN ECOSOC, Commissionon Human Rights, Fifty-First Session, doc. E/CN.4/1995/139, 8 February 1995.

8 E/CN.4/1996/146, 10 April 1996.9 Report on the Policy of Ethnic Cleansing/Genocide Conducted in the Territory of

Abkhazia, Georgia, and a Necessity of Bringing to Justice the Persons Whocommitted these Crimes in accordance with International Principles of DueProcess – UN Doc. A/52/16; S/1997/317, 16 April 1997.

10 E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/36, 6 July 19947, para. 31.11 Meeting of the Heads of States and Governments of the OSCE Participating States,

4 and 5 December 1994, in “Towards a Genuine Partnership in a New Era”, UN Doc.A/49/800-S/1994/1435, annex. Budapest Decisions , Regional Issues , Georgia,para. 2.

12 Lisbon Summit Declaration, 3 December 1996, UN Doc. A/51/76, appendix I,para. 20. ar SemiZlia, ar aRvniSno Tamaz diasamiZis fasdaudebelisaqmianobis Sesaxeb, romelic wlebis ganmavlobaSi afxazeTsa dacxinvalis regionSi arsebul konfliqtebTan dakavSirebiT agrovebdada aqveynebda arsebul aqtebs qarTul, rusul da inglisur enebze –regionuli konfliqtebi saqarTveloSi – samxreT oseTis avtonomiuriolqi, afxazeTis assr (1989-2002), politikur-samarTlebrivi aqtebiskrebuli, Tb., 2003; Regional Conflicts in Georgia – The Autonomous Oblast ofSouth Ossetia, The Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia (1989-2002), TheCollection of Political-legal Acts, Tbilisi, 2003.

13 euTos stambolis samitis deklaracia, 1999 wlis 19 noemberi, $17,www.osce.org

14 Ñáîðíèê äîêóìåíòîâ, êàñàþùèõñÿ âîïðîñà óðåãóëèðîâàíèÿ êîíôëèêòà âÀáõàçèè, Ãðóçèÿ, ïðèíÿòûõ â ïåðèîä ñ 1992 ïî 1999 ãã. UNDP, Òáèëèñè 1999, ñò.59-60.

15 ix. uSiSroebis sabWos rezoluciebi: 1036/1996/12 ianvari 1996; 1065-1996, 12ivlisi 1996.

16 ix. rezoluciebi: 1427/29 ivlisi 2002; 1582/28 invisi 2005; 1615 (2005); 1656(2006).

17 ix. rezoluciebi: 1656 (2006); 1716 (2006)… 1808 (2008).18 Basic Principles for Determining the Status of Abkhazia within a New State

Structure of Georgia – doc. S/1999/813, Annex.


38


39


40


LEVAN ALEXIDZE

VITAL ROLE OF OSCE IN CONDEMNINGETHNIC CLEANSING OF GEORGIAN POPULATION

IN ABKHAZIA, GEORGIA, BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

At its sixty-second session, on 29 May 2008,the General Assembly of the United Nationsadopted extraordinary Resolution concerningthe “Status of internally displaced persons andrefugees from Abkhazia, Georgia”, which for thefirst time in the UN practice acknowledged thefact of ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abk-hazia. The Resolution reads as follows: “Re-calling all relevant Security Council resolu-tions, and noting the conclusions of the Budap-est (1994), Lisbon (1996) and Istanbul (1999)summits of the Organization for Security andCooperation in Europe, in particular the re-ports of “ethnic cleansing” and other seriousviolations of international humanitarian law inAbkhazia, Georgia…

Emphasizes the importance of preservingthe property rights of refugees and internallydisplaced persons from Abkhazia, Georgia,including victims of reported “ethnic cleans-ing”, and calls upon all Member States to de-ter persons under their jurisdiction from ob-taining property within the territory of Abkha-zia, Georgia, in violation of the rights of re-turnees…”1

It is noteworthy that from the very outsetof the conflict the United Nations Security Co-uncil, as well as General Assembly avoidedacknowledging “ethnic cleansing” in reso-lutions adopted by them; however, by 1992-1993 definition of a crime against humanitysuch as “ethnic cleansing” was increasinglyintroduced. And what is more, the growingoccurrence of crimes in the territory of theformer Yugoslavia persuaded the United Na-tions General Assembly to acknowledge “eth-nic cleansing” as a form of genocide, whichwas exercised through mass killing, torture,

terror and other inhuman means against agroup of people of other ethnic origin.2

On 24 May 1994 the Final Report of theCommission of Experts established by theUnited Nations Security Council was published,which provided for a concept of “ethnic clea-nsing”, defined as follows: “ethnic cleansing”is a purposeful policy designed by one ethnicor religious group to remove by violent andterror-inspiring means the civilian populationof another ethnic or religious group from cer-tain geographic areas. To a large extent, it iscarried out in the name of mis-guided nation-alism, historic grievances and a powerful driv-ing sense of revenge. This purpose appearsto be the occupation of territory to the exclu-sion of the purged group or groups”.3

Another report mentioned that “this poli-cyis implemented through the following means:killing, torture, illegal detention and imprison-ment, illegal executions, rape and sexual vio-lence, placing civil population in ghettos,forced displacement, deportation, purposefularmed attacks on civilians and civilian objects,or threatening such an attack”.4

Such a definition fully fits the frame of def-inition of genocide, but an emphasis was stillshifted to “ethnic cleansing”, as Muslims rep-resented a small part of the multi-million pop-ulation in Bosnian Serbia of Bosnia and Herze-govina. Formally, as defined by lawyers, inorder to be recognized as a victim of geno-cide, person shall belong to a specific minor-ity group, which is not a part of majority popu-lation living throughout entire territory of acountry (the Muslim population living in Bos-nia and Herzegovina was considered to besuch a group).

41

International tribunal for the Former Yu-goslavia, has not once stated that “ethniccleansing” is a set of actions directed againsta certain group of civilians, perceived to beone or several national or political groups;these acts shall be attributed to one and thesame model: these are the state planned andorganized actions… they have a common goal:to organize “ethnic cleansing” at a particularterritory and create a new state. These ac-tions serve as means to exercise policy of “eth-nic cleansing”. Based on this the Trial Cham-ber consider that the above-mentioned actsconstitute “crimes against humanity”.5

In 1994 a State Commission was estab-lished in Georgia in order to reveal facts of“ethnic cleansing/genocide” committed againstthe Georgian population in Abkhazia and toultimately submit the respective material to aninternational tribunal. Chairmanship of theCommission was conferred on me. The Com-mission, with the support of the Georgian Pros-ecution Service, based on meetings with thepopulation displaced from Abkhazia, and photoand video material obtained by journalists,commenced studying the outrageous tragedythat had taken place in Abkhazia.

Reports, listing and summing up the factsestablished by the respective time, were dis-seminated within the UN Security Council andHuman Rights Commission on a yearly basis.The first document was drafted as a State-ment.6

Starting from 1995, the documents distrib-uted, along with providing for lengthy informa-tion on the concrete facts, contained scientificassessment of the practice. For instance, thetitle of the document submitted to the UnitedNations Human Rights Commission was “Eth-nic cleansing/genocide is the main tool foraggressive separatism in Abkhazia”. The doc-ument considered such issues as: 1. Geno-cide/Ethnic cleansing as an international crimeagainst humanity; 2. Fascist ideology of sep-aratists and its implementation in practice; 3.Facts revealing the policy of ethnic cleansing/genocide exercised against the Georgian pop-ulation in Abkhazia.7

The subsequent report was of the sameformat.8

The reports provided for comparison ofthe practice of ethnic cleansing in other re-gions of the world and of the tragedy that had

occurred in Abkhazia. It is known, that 6,000peaceful civilians died as a result of the bar-barian policy, and over 200,000 georgianswere expelled from Abkhazia through terrorand inhuman treatment due to the only rea-son of being Georgians. The latter complete-ly fitted the definition of “ethnic cleansing” asprovided by international experts and tribunalsin their conclusions.

It is to be memtioned, that more then150000 of peoples belonging to other etnicgoorps also had to leave the region

The last, summing-up report was of a par-ticular extent and all-inclusive (38 pages, plusthe maps. See the annex) – Report of thePolicy of Ethnic/Genocide Conducted in theTerritory of Abkhazia, Georgia, and the Ne-cessity of Brining to Justice the Persons WhoCommitted These Crimes in Accordance withInternational Principles of Due Process.9

Unfortunately, as I mentioned already, both– the Security Council as well as the HumanRights Commission “circumvented” to includethis topic into the agenda, however the Spe-cial Rapporteur Eide did straightforwardlymentioned in the Report that violating the terri-torial integrity of Georgia was followed by eth-nic cleansing in Abkhazia.10

The first international organization whichfrom the very beginning echoed the tragicdevelopments taking place in Abkhazia wasnonetheless the Organization for Security andCooperation in Europe (OSCE). Already in1994 the Budapest Summit participating statesexpressed their deep concern over “‘ethniccleansing’, the massive expulsion of people,predominantly Georgian, from their living ar-eas and the deaths in large number of inno-cent civilians”.11

However, the most comprehensive, thoughconcise definition of the policies carried outby the separatists in Abkhazia is included intothe Lisbon Summit Declaration (dated 3 De-cember 1996): “We (the OSCE member states– L.A.) condemn the ‘ethnic cleansing’ result-ing in mass destruction and forcible expulsionof predominantly Georgian population in Abk-hazia”.12

In November 1999 in the Declarationadopted at the OSCE Summit convened inIstanbul the states “reiterated” their “strongcondemnation as formulated in the Budapestand Lisbon Summit Documents, of the “ethnic

L. ALEXIDZE, VITAL ROLE OF OSCE IN CONDEMNING ETHNIC CLEANSING OF GEORGIAN ...

42


cleansing” resulting in mass destruction andforcible expulsion of predominantly Georgianpopulation in Abkhazia, Georgia, and of theviolent acts in May 1998 in the Gali region exer-cised against the returnees, the goal of whichwas provoking fear within those willing to return …we recommend that a fact-finding mission withthe participation of the OSCE and the UnitedNations be dispatched early next year to theGali region to assess, inter alia, reported cas-es of continued “ethnic cleansing” .13

Unfortunately, the above-mentioned Com-mission has not been created however attrib-uting such an importance in the OSCE decla-ration to the conflict in Abkhazia and onceagain condemning egregious crime of “ethniccleansing” perpetrated by separatists had im-mense importance for mobilizing attention ofthe international community.

It is worth mentioning that when discuss-ing a diaft formulation of the Declaration inLisbon, the Russian Delegation was categori-cally against its adoption, as we had used theterm “resulting” in the present continioustense. According to the statements of Russia,starting from 1994 the Russian peacekeep-ers were stationed at Enguri and no ethniccleansing had happened there since. There-fore, according to the position of the Russiandelegation, the term “resulting” should havebeen changed with the term “resulted”.

Their position was altered as I submittedto them the afore-mentioned Report of theOSCE mission and the list of names of over1,000 persons killed during the peacekeep-ers’ presence in Gali region.

I also submitted to them the EU Parliamen-tary Resolution of November 14, 1996, whichstated that “Parliament is concerned… due tocontinuing process of ethnic cleansing in Abk-hazia region.”

One more note shall be made here, asthe term “mass destruction” was changed inthe Russian translation in a manner that theword stood not for physical extermination ofpopulation, but more for demolition or ruiningbuildings, deriving from the position that “de-struction” also means demolition. I had to dealwith reinstating justice in this case as well andultimately the final version of the translationin Russian was formulated in the followingmanner: “îñóøåñòâëÿþò “ýòíè÷åñêóþ ÷èñ-òêó”, êîòîðàÿ âûðàæàåòñÿ â ìàññîâîì óíè÷-òîæåíèè è íàñèëüñòâåííîì èçãíàíèè â

îñíîâíîì ãðóçèíñêîãî íàñåëåíèÿ Àáõàçèè”.(Emphasis made by me – L.A.).

It is to be mentioned that even at the CISearlier summits Russia was made to follow thegeneral position of the participating states andagree to condemn “ethnic cleansing” in Abkha-zia. For example, the fact of ethnic cleansingin Abkhazia was directly recognized at theSummit held in Minsk on 26 May, 1995: theOSCE Budapest highest level meeting ex-pressed concern over “ethnic cleansing”, massexpulsion of predominantly Georgian popula-tion and death of a big number of innocentcivilians.14

The position of the United Nations Securi-ty Council is notable. If we take into accountthe fact that decisions in this body are madewith the majority vote (9 affirmative votes outof 15 are required), including positive votesof all the permanent members of the SecurityCouncil, as well as the fact that there alwayswas and still persists a threat from Russia toexercise a right to veto with regard to any ac-tion and decision relating to peaceful settle-ment of conflicts (Chapter VI of the UnitedNations Charter), not to say anything aboutpossibility of undertaking action in case of aneed of coercive measures for the purpose ofstopping acts of aggression and maintainingpeace (Chapter VII of the United Nations Char-ter), there is no possibility over and over againto declare directly occurrence of “ethnic clea-nsing” in Abkhazia. However, OSCE assessmentswere and continue to be so strong that Secu-rity Council “recalls” in all of its resolutions ado-pted during 1995-2006 the OSCE Budapestdecisions and following that the conclusionsof the Lisbon and Istanbul Summits and con-siders the demographic changes as a resultof the conflict in Abkhazia unacceptable.15

It s to be mentioned here that until 2006all the resolutions included a reference to theLisbon and Istanbul decisions, such as for ex-ample in the resolution adopted in 2002, theSecurity Council “recalls” the Lisbon (S/1997/57, Annex) and the Istanbul Summit conclu-sions concerning the situation in Abkhazia,Georgia.16

Notwithstanding the fact that since 2006the Council does not use this formula it sys-tematically reaffirms the Resolutions contain-ing the above-mentioned formula.17

The United Nations Security Council hastaken very inactive role in resolving the con-

43

flict in Abkhazia lately, it leaves without anyreaction sabotage exercised by the separat-ists and an uncompromising refusal to con-sider proposals submitted by any internation-al organization (the Boden Plan) or the Gov-ernment of Georgia (one of which was dissem-inated by Georgia as the Security Councildocument in 1999), as they confirm Abkhaziabeing a part of Georgia and they recognizeinviolability of territorial integrity and sovereign-ty of Georgia.18

The current policy of Russia with regardto the conflict in Abkhazia backs up the sepa-ratist regime both de facto and de jure. De-spite the fact that Russia has never formallyrecognized “independence” of Abkhazia, theformer has actually established close relationswith the separatist, that is expressed in drop-ping economic blockade, mass granting of theRussian nationality, establishing official legalrelations with the separatist bodies, strength-ening peacekeeping forces without the con-sent of Georgia, introduction of the so calledrailway army forces for the sake of reconstruc-tion of strategically important roads, and in gen-eral commencement of a process of “economicrevival” of the Abkhazia region, while hundredsof thousands of displaced population remain

in utmost severe material conditions. It is aptto recall here that according to all the existingdocuments, any kind ofeconomic reconstruc-tion in the region shall be closely linked withthe irreversible process of return of the refugeesand internally displaced persons to Abkhazia.

The separatist regime has absolutely noright to hold any election in a factually depop-ulated Abkhazia (out of population of 550,000there are less than 150,000 remaining in Abk-hazia, the majority of the ethnic Abkhaz liveoutside the region without an intention of re-turning to the devastated homeland).

In this state of affairs the United NationsGeneral Assembly Resolution, adopted de-spite the harsh opposition of Russia, is yetanother reminder to the international commu-nity that when hundreds of thousand innocentpeople fall victims of the intentions of sepa-ratists in any region (notwithstanding howsmall and under inhabited it may be) the in-ternational organizations may not hold a pas-sive stance; the vigorous fight for protectionof such precious rights of contemporary civili-zation is indispensable.

The endowment of the Organization forSecurity and Cooperation in Europe in under-taking this noble duty is enormous.

1 United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/62/249, 29 May, 2008.2 See: United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/47/121 December 18, 19923 UN Doc. S/1994/674, para.129, 24 May 1994.4 UN Doc. S/25/277, para.56.5 International Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia; In the Trial Chamber, Prosecutor v.

Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic Review of the Indictments Pursuant to Rule61 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 90-91, 11 July, 1996.

6 Statement dated 15 February 1994 of the Republic of Georgia State Committeefor Investigation and Revaluation of Materials Concerning the Policy of Genocideand Ethnic Cleansing Against the Georgian Population in Abkhazia, andSubmission of Such Materials to an International Tribunal – UN Security Councildoc. S/1994/225 26 February 1994.

7 UN Security Council, doc. S/1995/200, 14 March 1995; UN ECOSOC, Commissionon Human Rights, Fifty-First Session, doc. E/CN.4/1995/139, 8 February 1995.

8 E/CN.4/1996/146, 10 April 1996.9 Report on the Policy of Ethnic Cleansing/Genocide Conducted in the Territory of

Abkhazia, Georgia, and a Necessity of Bringing to Justice the Persons Whocommitted these Crimes in accordance with International Principles of DueProcess – UN Doc. A/52/16; S/1997/317, 16 April 1997.

10 E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/36, 6 July 1994, para. 31.11 Meeting of the Heads of State and Government of the OSCE Participating States,

4 and 5 December 1994, in “Towards a Genuine Partnership in a New Era”, UNDoc. A/49/800-S/1994/1435, annex. Budapest Decisions, Regional Issues,Georgia, para. 2.


44


13 Lisbon Summit Declaration, 3 December 1996, UN Doc. A/51/76, appendix I,para. 20. I have to mention extremely important work accomplished by Mr. TamazDiasamidze, who has collected and published the acts related with the conflictsin Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region in Georgian, Russian and English languages– Regional Conflicts in Georgia – The Autonomous Oblast of South Ossetia, TheAutonomous SS Republic of Abkhazia (1989-2002), The Collection of Political-legal Acts”, Tbilisi, 2003.

13 OSCE Istanbul Summit Declaration, 19 November, 1999 par. 17, www.osce.org.14 Collected Materials Concerning Regulating the Conflict in Abkhazia, Georgia,

adopted in 1992-1999, UNDP, Tbilisi 1999 pp.59-60.15 See: United Nations Security Council 1036/1996/12 January 1996; 1065-1996, 12

July 1996.16 See: Resolutions 1427/29 July 2002; 1582/28 June 2005; 1615 (2005); 1656

(2006).17 See: Resolutions 1656 (2006); 1716 (2006)… 1808 (2008)18 Basic Principles for Determining the Status of Abkhazia within a New State

Structure of Georgia – Doc. S/1999/813, Annex.

45


46


47

qeTevan xuciSvili

suverenuli imunitetebis dacvamunda gadawonos Tu ara adamianebis

dacva uflebaTa masobrivi darRvevebisgan?

`ra Tqma unda, civilizebuli erebis kanonmdebloba

danaSaulad acxadebda erTi adamianis mier meoris SiSveli

muStebiT Seuracxyofas. rogor moxda, rom am danaSaulis

milionebze gamravlebiTa da SiSvel muStebze iaraRis damatebiT

qmedeba samarTlebrivad daSvebul aqtad gadaiqca?~1

I. Sesavali

sicocxlis ufleba, wamebisagan dac-vis ufleba, ufleba... adamianis ramdeniarsebiTi uflebaa daculi, romelTadarRveva yoveli adamianis mimarT iwvevsmkacr sasjels calkeuli `Cveulebrivi~damnaSavisaTvis. mniSvnelovania imisgarkveva, Tu rogor xdeba maRali Cinissaxelmwifo moxeleTa dasja maT mieraTasobiT adamianis umniSvnelovanesiuflebebis darRvevis – maT Soris: adami-anTa sicocxlis uflebis xelyofis, wame-bis dagegmvisa da ganxorcielebis xe-lmZRvanelobisTvis; ra pasuxismgeblobaekisrebaT maT, vinc gegmavs, Tumca pira-dad ar aris CarTuli yvelaze ufro saz-arel da SemaZrwunebel danaSaulTa –`saerTaSoriso danaSaulTa~2 – fiziku-rad ganxorcielebaSi? adamianis ufle-bebis dacvis TvalsazrisiT, mniSvnelobaunda eniWebodes imas, adamianis ufleba-Ta masobrivi darRvevebis damgegmavi dapolitikis SemmuSavebeli (suverenuli)imunitetiT daculi (moqmedi) saxelm-wifo meTauri an sxva moqmedi maRali Tan-amdebobis piria, Tu Cveulebrivi, ammiznisaTvis ̀ dabali donisad~ wodebulimkvleli? unda xdebodes, Tu ara univer-saluri iurisdiqciis gavrceleba, yve-lanairi daTqmisa da SezRudvis gareSe,umaRlesi rangis politikis Semqmnele-bze, romlebic ̀ avtorni~ arian adamianisuflebaTa im masobrivi uxeSi darRveveb-

isa, romelTa Cadenis gamoc maTi qvemdgo-mi Semsruleblebi isjebian?

zemoT wamoweuli problemebidan ga-momdinare, am statiaSi dasmuli mTavarikiTxvaa: ramdenad legitimuri SeiZle-ba iyos saxelmwifos meTaurTa da sxvamaRali rangis Tanamdebobis pirTa imu-nitetebis3 gauqmebis moTxovna adami-anis uflebaTa masobrivi masStaburidarRvevebis SemTxvevaSi da maTi uni-versalur iurisdiqcias daqvemdebare-ba, raTa yvela saxelmwifos, romelsacfizikurad SeuZlia maTi sisxlissa-marTlebrivi devna, samarTlebrivadacSeeZlos ase moqceva? kiTxvaze pasuxisgasacemad magaliTis saxiT ganvixilavTpinoCetis4 saqmes da SevecdebiT, gavar-kvioT: ramdenad SeiZleba saxelmwifosuverenitetis daTmoba adamianTa saer-TaSoriso danaSaulTagan dasacavad dasxvadasxva imunitetiT `kargad dacul-Ta~5 sisxlissamarTlebrivi devnis gansa-xorcieleblad, rasac isini imsaxurebenadamianis uflebaTa masobrivi sastikidarRvevebis dagegmvis, xelmZRvanelo-bisa Tu amgvari danaSaulebis Cadenis neb-is darTvisaTvis, maT Soris sakuTar mo-qalaqeTa winaaRmdeg. SevecdebiT, vaCve-noT, rom, marTalia, pinoCetis saqme saer-TaSoriso danaSaulis Camdeni saxelmwi-fos (yofili) meTauris sisxlissamarT-lebrivi pasuxismgeblobis koncefciisganviTarebis procesSi axal talRad iqnamiCneuli, am kuTxiT aRniSnuli gadaw-

48


yvetileba Zalian viwroa6. vinaidan imuni-tetebis sakiTxi sakmaod winaaRmdegob-rivia da farTo saxelmwifo praqtikis7

moSvelieba ver xerxdeba, mokle paralelsgavavlebT kidev erT saintereso koncef-ciasTan: es aris jer kidev CamoyalibebisprocesSi myofi humanitaruli inter-venciis koncefcia, romelic ganixilebaadamianis uflebaTa masobrivi darRveve-bis SemTxvevebSi8. Tumca saxelmwifoTasuverenuli Tanasworobisa da saxelmwi-fos (suverenuli) imunitetebis dacvaTanamedrove saerTaSoriso urTierTo-bebis mniSvnelovani principebia, isiniSeiZleba, uaryofil iqnen aseTi gadaw-yvetilebis misaRebad ̀ mniSvnelovan sax-elmwifoTa~9 an saerTaSoriso Tanamego-brobis saxeliT gadawyvetilebaTa mimRe-bi maTi gaerTianebebis sakmarisad momza-debuli politikuri nebis arsebobisSemTxvevaSi.10

sakiTxi gansakuTrebiT mniSvnelova-nia, radgan saerTaSoriso danaSaulisCamdenTa imunitetebis uaryofa `saer-TaSoriso tribunalebisaTvis"11 axalicneba ar aris. sisxlissamarTlebrividevnis erovnul doneze ganxorcielebisupiratesobaTa12 gaTvaliswinebiT, kideverTi kiTxva Cndeba: saxelmwifoTa ero-vnul sasamarTloebs ratom ar unda hqon-deT uflebamosileba, imave principisgamoyenebiT ganaxorcielon sakuTariiurisdiqcia da universaluri sisxlis-samarTlebrivi iurisdiqcias dauqvemde-baron es damnaSaveni saerTaSoriso dana-Saulis CadenisaTvis?

mTavar kiTxvaze pasuxis gacemamde daim moTxovnis legitimurobis srulfas-ovnad gasaazreblad, rom umaRlesi rang-is saxelmwifo Tanamdebobis pirebis abso-luturi imuniteti, romelic maT sisxlis-samarTlebrivi devnisgan icavs, unda ga-uqmdes, mniSvnelovania, mokled gavaana-lizoT saxelmwifo imunitetis koncef-cia da (maRali rangis saxelmwifo mox-eleTa) individualuri sisxlissamarT-lebrivi pasuxismgeblobis cneba.

saerTaSoriso samarTalSi universa-luri iurisdiqciis cnebis analizisa dasaerTaSoriso danaSaulis CamdenTa mima-rT universaluri iurisdiqciis gansax-orcieleblad imunitetebis gauqmebisSesaZleblobis SepirispirebiT adamianisuflebaTa dacvis saxeliT warmoebul

humanitaruli intervenciis koncefcia-sTan SevecdebiT, davaskvnaT, SesaZlebe-lia Tu ara imgvari saxelmwifo praqti-kisa da adamianis uflebaTa saerTaSori-so samarTlis Sesabamisi normebis Camoya-libeba, romelTa meSveobiT suverenulsaxelmwifoTa umaRlesi rangis warmo-madgenlebi universalur iurisdiqciasdaeqvemdebarebian da, Sesabamisad, nebis-mieri qveynis Sidasaxelmwifoebrivi sasa-marTloebi SeZleben saerTaSoriso dana-Saulis CadenisTvis imunitetebiT dacu-li maRali rangis Tanamdebobis pirebissisxlissamarTlebriv devnas. am statiaSiimunitetebis, saxelmwifoTa suverenuliTanasworobis principisa da adamianTasaerTaSoriso danaSaulisgan dacvisproblemis urTierTmimarTebasac ganvix-ilavT. ZiriTad argumentad saerTa-Soriso humanitaruli samarTlis mZimedarRvevebis dasjaze orientirebul bel-giis kanons13 movixmobT da msgavs inicia-tivaTa mxardaWeris mizanSewonilobisCvenebas SevecdebiT.

momdevno TavSi ganvixilavT suver-enuli imunitetis koncefcias da vaCve-nebT, rom adamianis uflebaTa samarTlisganviTarebis Tanamedrove etapze saxe-lmwifoTa imunitetebisa da suverenuliTanasworobis dacvas ar eniWeba ufrodidi mniSvneloba, vidre adamianis ufle-baTa umZimesi darRvevebis, saerTaSorisodanaSaulTa, Camdenebis sisxlissamarT-lebriv devnas; statiis mesame TavSi saer-TaSoriso danaSaulisTvis pasuxismgebelliderebze individualuri sisxlissa-marTlebrivi pasuxismgeblobis Seracx-vis koncefciaze visaubrebT, xolo sta-tiis meoTxe TavSi SevexebiT humanitaru-li intervenciis Temas maSin, rodesacqveyanaSi adamianis uflebaTa mZime dar-Rvevebi xdeba. es Tema sainteresoa, sta-tiis miznebidan gamomdinare, imdenad,ramdenadac am naSromis TemasTan dakav-Sirebuli sasamarTlo praqtikis nakle-boba iwvevs imis saWiroebas, rom moxdesanalogebis moZieba da paralelebis gav-leba sxva mcdelobebTan, moxdes adamian-Ta dacva maTi uflebebis masobrivi dar-Rvevebisagan, Tundac saxelmwifo suve-renitetis darRvevis xarjze; statiismexuTe TavSi ganxilulia pinoCetis, ro-gorc imunitetebis dacvis mxriv da dam-naSave saxelmwifo liderTa sisxlissa-

49

marTlebrivi devnis konteqstSi erT-erTi mniSvnelovani, saqme.

miuxedavad im mniSvnelobisa, romel-ic imunitetebis sxvadasxva saxeobas14

eniWeba, naSromSi maRali rangis saxelm-wifo moxeleebisaTvis miniWebuli imu-nitetebi ganixileba rogorc erTi, erT-gvarovani koncefcia, romlis daxmare-biT saerTaSoriso danaSaulis CamdenimaRali rangis damnaSaveebi Tavs aride-ben sisxlissamarTlebriv pasuxismge-blobas. amdenad, viTvliswinebT ra ratio-ne materiae da ratione personae imuni-tetebs Soris gansxvavebebs, am gansxvave-basa da maTs mniSvnelobaze yuradRebas argavamaxvilebT15, radgan, jer erTi, sta-tiis formatia SezRuduli da, meore,adamianis uflebaTa darRvevis msxver-plisTvis TiTqmis aranairi mniSvnelobaar eniWeba, maT winaaRmdeg saerTaSorisodanaSaulis Camdeni piri daculi iyo, pi-robiTad, à~ Tu `b~ tipis imunitetiT.msxverplTaTvis mniSvnelovani mxolodis garemoebaa, rom ̀ kargad daculi~16 ma-Rali Tanamdebobis piri pasuxismgebeliaCadenili danaSaulisaTvis, da mas Seu-Zlia, Tavi aaridos am pasuxismgeblobasmisTvis miniWebuli kargad Camoyalibe-buli imunitetebis daxmarebiT. am stati-aSi arc SedarebiT naklebad mniSvnelo-vani danaSaulebis, anu im danaSaulTa Cam-den liderTa SesaZlo pasuxismgeblobasganvixilavT, romlebic saerTaSorisodanaSaulis ganmartebis sazRvrebs gareTxvdebian17. amdenad, ganvixilavT nebis-mieri saxis imunitets, romlebzec Sesa-Zloa, saxelmwifoTa damnaSave lidereb-ma apelireba moaxdinon, da romlebicdakavSirebulia maT mier saerTaSorisodanaSaulis Cadenasa da sisxlissamarT-lebriv pasuxismgeblobasTan.

II. imunitetebisa da saxelmwifoTa

suverenuli Tanasworobis dacva.18

ratom unda eniWebodes am yovelives

ufro meti mniSvneloba, vidre

adamianTa dacvas maTi uflebebis

sastiki darRvevebisgan?

`Tu politikur liderTa gonebidanSesaZlebeli iqneboda suverenitetisdoqtrinis amoSla, es Seamcirebda Tu araadamianis uflebaTa darRvevebis im gan-sakuTrebul formebs, romlebic mTavro-

baTa araadekvatur qmedebebs ukavSirde-ba? am cnebis gauqmeba gaaZlierebda Tuara adamianTa solidarobas, romelzeckoleqtiuri pasuxismgeblobisa da indi-vidualuri angariSvaldebulebis arsiadamokidebuli?~19 – es aris is fundamen-turi kiTxva, romelsac riCard folkisvams Tavis naSromSi. kiTxvebi, romlebicstatiis am TavSia dasmuli imave sakiTx-ebTan mimarTebiT, Semdegia: SesaZloa Tuara, adamianTa dacva maTi uflebebis ma-sobrivi da sastiki darRvevebisgan miC-neul iqnes ufro mniSvnelovnad, vidre(saxelmwifo) suverenuli imunitetebisdacva da amdenad, saerTaSoriso asparez-ze saxelmwifoebis warmomadgenelTa xe-lSeuvaloba dadges riskis qveS sisxlis-samarTlebrivi devnis gansaxorciele-blad da, SesaZloa, momavalSi adamianTamasobrivi ganadgurebis Tavidan asaci-leblad?

am kiTxvebze pasuxebis mosaZebnadmizanSewonilia suverenuli (saxelmwifo)imunitetis koncefciis20 mokle mimoxil-va, raTa ganvsazRvroT misTvis istori-ulad miniWebuli mniSvneloba. suverenu-li (saxelmwifo) imunitetis da saxelmwi-foTa suverenuli Tanasworobis dacvassaerTaSoriso urTierTobebSi arsebiTimniSvneloba eniWeba – eseni saerTaSorisosamarTlis is koncefciebia, romelTa de-taluri ganxilva am statiis farglebsscildeba, amitom maTze yuradReba SevaC-ereT mxolod adamianis uflebebis ideisganviTarebasTan kavSirSi. ar vamtkicebT,rom suverenuli imunitetis koncefciasruliad unda gaqres, suverenuli (sax-elmwifo) imunitetis cnebas SevexebiTmxolod imdenad, ramdenadac is SeiZlebaxelSemSleli iyos saerTaSoriso dana-Saulis CamdenTa sisxlissamarTlebrividevnisaTvis.

suverenuli (an saxelmwifo) imunite-ti saerTaSoriso samarTlis saxelmZRv-aneloebSi ganmartebulia rogorc `sa-marTlebrivi wesebi da principebi, rom-lebic ganmartaven im pirobebs, romelTaarsebobisas ucxo saxelmwifos SeuZliasxva saxelmwifos (xSirad uwodeben ̀ sasa-marTlos adgilsamyofel saxelmwifos~)21

iurisdiqciisgan (sakanonmdeblo, sasa-marTlo da administraciuli xelisu-flebebisgan) Tavisufleba moiTxovos~.es koncefcia saukuneebis ganmavlobaSi

q. xuciSvili, suverenuli imunitetebis dacvam unda gadawonos Tu ara adamianebis dacva ...

50


saerTaSoriso urTierTobebis sabazisoelementad iyo miCneuli. am wesidan gamo-mdinare, ̀ istoriulad, saxelmwifo meTa-urebi ar eqvemdebarebodnen sisxlissama-rTlebriv pasuxismgeblobas maT mier Ca-denili qmedebebisaTvis, suverenisa da sa-xelmwifo suverenitetis Serwymis ga-mo~.22 amdenad, `suverenuli imunitetiswesis arsebobis Teoriuli dasabami imdroidan modis, rodesac saxelmwifoTaumetesoba individualuri suverenebis –monarqebis – mier imarTeboda, romlebic,am sityvis pirdapiri mniSvnelobiT, axde-ndnen saxelmwifos personificirebas~.23

`saxelmwifosa da misi meTauris urTie-rTkavSiri amdenad Zalze axlos iyo luiXIV-is sityvebTan: “L’Etat, c’est moi”.24

saerTaSoriso samarTlisa da saxelm-wifos cnebis ganviTarebasTan erTad ammimarTebiT midgomebic Seicvala. Tan-amedrove saerTaSoriso urTierTobebSisaxelmwifoTa suverenuli Tanasworobisdacvis mTavari mizezi SeiZleba iyos ̀ Ta-naswor suverenTa~ saerTaSoriso urT-ierTobebis mxardaWera saerTaSorisowesrigis SesanarCuneblad. saerTaSorisosamarTlis ZiriTadi subieqtebi suver-enuli saxelmwifoebi arian da magaliT-isTvis mxolod erTi – universalurisaerTaSoriso organizacia – gaerTianeb-uli erebis organizacia rom davasaxe-loT, igi efuZneba `yvela wevri saxelm-wifos suverenuli Tanasworobis prin-cips~,25 Tumca es `suverenuli Tanaswo-roba~ ar SeiZleba aRqmuli iyos rogorcupirobo, ramdenadac zemoT aRniSnuliprincipis aRiarebis paralelurad gaerossakuTari wevrebis uflebaTa garkveuliSezRudva Semoaqvs Semdegi debulebis me-SveobiT: ̀ wevrobidan gamomdinare ufle-bebisa da upiratesobebis uzrunvelsayo-fad TiToeulma wevrma keTilsindisie-rad unda Seasrulos is valdebulebebi,romlebic maT am wesdebiT aqvT nakisri~.26

erT-erTi ̀ nakisri valdebuleba~ adamia-nis uflebaTa dacvaa, radgan, imave wes-debis Sesabamisad, gaerTianebuli erebisorganizaciis miznebs Sorisaa `yvelas-Tvis adamianis uflebaTa da ZiriTad Ta-visuflebaTa dacvis xelSewyoba da waxa-liseba,~27 da `yvela adamianis uflebebi-sa da ZiriTadi Tavisuflebebis dacva dasayovelTao pativiscema~.28 Sesabamisad,SesaZlebelia, davaskvnaT, rom im SemTx-

vevaSi, Tu gaeros wevri saxelmwifoebi arSeasruleben maTze wesdebiT dakisrebulvaldebulebebs, ar eqnebaT SesaZleblo-ba, saxelmwifoTa suverenuli Tanas-worobis principze apelirebiT saxelmwi-foebisTvis zogadad miniWebuli imuni-tetebisa da suverenuli Tanasworobisdacva moiTxovon.

gamomdinare zemoTqmulidan, saxelm-wifo imunitetisa da saxelmwifo suve-renitetis koncefciebi Semdeg logika-ze dafuZnebulad SeiZleba CaiTvalos: escnebebi ar gulisxmoben saerTaSorisodanaSaulis CamdenTaTvis dausjelobisgarantias. isini saxelmwifoTa Tanaswo-robis dasacavad arian Seqmnilni im piro-biT, rom es ukanasknelni maTze dakisre-bul valdebulebebs asruleben. ser vot-sis Tanaxmad, `gansakuTrebiT ukanaskne-li naxevari saukunis ganmavlobaSi sax-elmwifo imunitetis maregulirebel sa-marTalSi mniSvnelovani cvlilebebiganxorcielda.praqtikulma saWiroebeb-ma gamoiwvia dRevandel saerTaSorisoTanamegobrobaSi saxelmwifos rolis ga-dasinjva. maTi imunitetiT absoluturidaculobis moZvelebuli cnebebi gzasuTmoben ufro mokrZalebul Sexedule-bebs."29 foqsis Tanaxmad, `vestfaliseu-li saxelmwifos Ziris Seryevis erT-erTifaqtori pirovnebisTvis da TiToeuliadamianis fundamenturi interesebi-sTvis gazrdili mniSvnelobis miniWebaa.maSin, rodesac am interesebis dacva, sax-elmwifos garda, sxva arc erTi proces-iT an institutis meSveobiT SeiZleba arcganxorcieldes, Camoyalibda midgoma,romlis Tanaxmad, aseTi interesisdaqvemdebareba aucileblad ar SeiZlebaganxorcieldes saxelmwifo interesisad-mi...~.30 daskvna, romelic gamomdinareobsSemdegia: saerTaSoriso samarTlisa daadamianis uflebaTa samarTlis ganviTa-reba ar iZleva imis saSualebas, rom saxe-lmwifo suverenitets amofarebiT moxdesadamianis uflebaTa sastiki darRveveb-is CamdenTa dausjelad datoveba.

aRsaniSnavia, rom saxelmwifo suvereni-tetis xelSeuxeblobis idea iseTi SeuvaliaRar aris maSin, rodesac sapirwoned adami-anTa uflebebis masobrivi darRvevebia. ad-amianis uflebaTa samarTlis ganviTareba,humanitaruli intervenciis ideis Semotana,saerTaSoriso tribunalebis winaSe imu-

51

nitetebis moSveliebis dauSvebloba amis man-iSnebelia. yuradRebas imsaxurebs Sidasax-elmwifoebrivi sasamarTloebi, romlebic ararian yovelTvis uflebamosilni, ganaxor-cielon universaluri iurisdiqcia da dam-naSave liderebis gasamarTlebis koncefciaZiriTadad saerTaSoriso masStabiT Seqmni-li sasamarTlo institutebisTvisaa mind-obili.31 1994 wels ser vatsma aRniSna, rom:`saWiroa sifrTxile imasTan dakavSirebiT,Tu ramdenad aris saxelmwifo imunitetisSemzRudveli wesi mxardaWerili saerTa-Soriso Tanamegobrobis mier zogadad imis-aTvis, rom visaubroT mis saerTaSorisoCveulebiTi samarTlis nawilad Camoyali-bebaze: SemzRudavi ganmartebis dafuZnebistendencia Zlieria, Tumca imis Tqma jer arSeiZleba, rom amasTan dakavSirebiT konsen-susi arsebobs~.32

adamianis uflebaTa samarTlis ganvi-Tarebam me-20 saukuneSi ganapiroba adami-anis uflebebis ufro meti mxardaWera, vi-dre saxelmwifos warmomadgeneli sxvadasx-va imunitetiT daculi umaRlesi donis zo-gierTi saxelmwifo Tanamdebobis piris xe-lSeuvalobis dacva. am transformaciasTan sdevda meore msoflio omis Semdeg ad-amianis uflebebis cnebis ganviTarebis pro-cesi, romlis Sedegad adamianis uflebebiaRar iyo ̀ saxelmwifos Sida saqme~.33

daskvnis saxiT aRsaniSnavia, rom sax-elmwifoTa suverenuli TanasworobisdacvisTvis miniWebuli uzarmazari mniS-vnelobis miuxedavad, adamianTa uflebeb-is sastiki da masobrivi darRvevebisgandacva ufro metad unda iyos dafasebulida politikuri mosazrebani Tu poziciebiunda ganisazRvrebodes da garkveulwiladicvlebodes adamianTa borotebisgandacvis saWiroebis safuZvelze, rac xSir-ad sakuTari mTavrobidan momdinareobs.

amasobaSi humanitaruli intervenci-is koncefcia, rogorc Cans, warmoiSva dasaerTaSoriso samarTlis aRiarebuli mec-nierebis garkveuli nawilis34 mxardaWerismopovebac moaxerxa, rom aRaraferi vTq-vaT im saxelmwifoTa mxardaWeraze, rom-lebic kanonierad aRiareben aRniSnulkoncefcias. saxelmwifoTa `kanongare-Sed~35 aRiarebiskenac garkveuli ZvrebiSeiniSneba. am siaxleTa dakvirveba da an-alizi iZleva imis mtkicebis saSualebas,rom imunitetebis dacva ar SeiZleba up-irobod xelSeuxebeli darCes.

Tu aRiarebuli iqneba SesaZlebloba,saerTaSoriso Tanamegobrobam gadawyvi-tos im saxelmwifoTa ̀ kanongareSed~ gamo-cxadeba, romelTa liderebic saerTa-Soriso danaSaulebs Cadian, logikuria mt-kicebac, rom imave saxelmwifoebis Sidasax-elmwifoebriv sasamarTloebs SesaZleblo-ba unda hqondeT, gamoiyenon universaluriiurisdiqcia amgvar damnaSaveTa dasas-jelad, miuxedavad imisa, es ukanasknelni rasaxis imunitetebiT sargebloben.

statiis momdevno Tavebi ganixilavs,erTi mxriv, imunitetebis cnebisa da saer-TaSoriso danaSaulis CadenisTvis indi-vidualuri sisxlissamarTlebrivi pasux-ismgeblobis urTierTmimarTebas da, me-ore mxriv, humanitaruli intervenciisSedarebiT axalCamoyalibebul cnebas.Tumca maTi am etapze aRniSvnac mniSvne-lovania imis sademonstraciod, rom saxe-lmwifo suverenitetis Zvelma cnebamdakarga pirvandeli mniSvneloba ara mxo-lod calkeul individebTan (miuxedavadmaTi rangisa), aramed mTlianad saxelmwi-foebTan mimarTebiT, raSic mocemul saz-Rvrebs Soris moqceuli mTeli rigi ter-itoriebisa moiazreba. am cnebaTa Sedar-eba kidev erTxel naTelyofs, rom imuni-tetebis koncefciaze mimarTva ase Tavi-suflad aRar aris SesaZlebeli, radganaRniSnuli axalaRmocenebuli cnebebi iw-vevs da Tavis TavSi moicavs ara mxolodromelime calke aRebuli saxelmwifoscalkeul damnaSave liderTa sisxlisa-marTlebriv pasuxismgeblobas, aramedmTeli saxelmwifos ̀ dasjas~. Sesabamisad,SesaZloa, TavSekavebis gareSe davaskv-naT, rom im SemTxvevaSic ki, Tu warsulSiimunitetebsa da saxelmwifoTa suver-enuli Tanasworobis dacvas ufro didimniSvneloba eniWeboda, vidre adamianTamasobrivi uflebebis darRvevisgan dac-vas, es simarTles ukve aRar Seesabameba.

III. rogori urTierTmimarTebaa

mZime saerTaSoriso danaSaulis

CadenisTvis arsebul individualuri

sisxlisamarTlebrivi pasuxismgeblobis

cnebasa da imunitetebs Soris?

imunitetebiT daculi sisxlis sama-rTlis damnaSave liderebis sisxlissa-marTlebriv devnasTan dakavSirebuliproblemebi, rogorc wesi, maSin warmoCn-


52


deba xolme, rodesac Sidasaxelmwifoe-brivi sasamarTloebis mier universaluriiurisdiqciis ganxorcielebis sakiTxiganixileba. am TvalsazrisiT zedapirzeamodis kiTxva: SesaZloa Tu ara imis mtki-ceba, rom saerTaSoriso samarTali yo-velTvis sworxazovnad uWerda mxars`kargad daculTa~ 36 absolutur imuni-tetsa da xelSeuxeblobas? am sakiTxisanalizisaTvis mizanSewonilia, mokledmimovixiloT saerTaSoriso danaSauleb-isTvis individualuri pasuxismgeblobisaRiarebis procesi. individualuri sisx-lissamarTlebrivi pasuxismgeblobiskoncefciis ganviTarebis ganxilva Sesa-Zleblobas iZleva, mokled gadavavloTTvali im progress, romlis miRweva mox-da saerTaSoriso danaSaulis Camden ma-Rali rangis saxelmwifo moxeleTa, miuxe-davad maTTvis miniWebuli imunitetebi-sa da privilegiebisa, sisxlissamarT-lebrivi devnisa da gasamarTlebis mxriv.am cvlilebebma mniSvnelovani roli Sea-srula saxelmwifo imunitetis ideisgarSemo kiTxvis niSnebis gaCenaSi im situ-aciebSi, rodesac saerTaSoriso danaSau-lis Cadena xdeba saxelmwifos warmomad-geneli pirebis mier, romlebic sisxlis-samarTlebrivi devnisgan Sesabamisi imu-nitetiT daculobis pretenzias acxade-ben.37 adamianis uflebaTa doqtrinis eta-pobrivma ganviTarebam dasabami misca suv-erenuli imunitetis doqtrinis erozias.

farTod aRiarebulia, rom niurnber-gis tribunalis wesdeba da misi gadaw-yvetileba saerTaSoriso danaSaulebi-saTvis individualuri pasuxismgeblobisaRiarebis dasabamia, maT Soris imu-nitetebiT dacul pirebTan mimarTeba-Sic. Tumca niurnbergis procesebamde iyoversalis xelSekruleba38, da mniSvnelo-vania aRiniSnos, rom cvlilebaTa pirve-li talRa am mimarTulebiT ukve pirvelimsoflio omis39 Semdeg SeiniSna, rodesackaizeri vilhelm II am `braldebulisdasasjelad Seqmnili specialuri tribu-nalis~40 iurisdiqcias daqvemdebarebulpirad gamocxadda. omis wamomwyebTa pasu-xismgeblobaSi micemis komisiis sasjel-Ta aRsrulebis Sesaxeb angariSSi aseveaRniSnulia: `... komisia survils gamoTq-vams, pirdapir ganacxados, rom xelisu-flebaSi myofi adamianebis mimarT ar ar-sebobs mizezi, ris gamoc rangi, ramdenad

maRalic ar unda iyos igi, nebismierpirobebSi unda icavdes mis mflobels impasuxismgeblobisgan Tavis aridebismizniT, romelic dadgenilia kanonieradSeqmnili sasamarTlos mier. igive saxelm-wifo meTaurebzec vrceldeba~.41 Tumcaes saxelmwifo suverenitetis koncefci-isadmi midgomis Secvlis sakmaod adreuletapze Zalze mniSvnelovani ganacxadiiyo, komisiis angariSiT Semdgom ̀ SeTava-zebul iqna, dafuZnebuliyo maRali do-nis tribunali, romelic mravali eriswarmomadgeneli mosamarTleebisgan da-kompleqtdeboda da Sesabamisi saxelmwi-fos TanxmobiT SeZlebda saxelmwifosyofili meTauris gasamarTlebas, rac da-fuZnebuli unda yofiliyo sazavo xel-Sekrulebis Sesabamis muxlebze~.42 daTq-ma da SezRudva ̀ saxelmwifos Tanxmobas-Tan~ dakavSirebiT SesaZlebelia gavigoT,Tu mxedvelobaSi miviRebT versalis xe-lSekrulebis Seqmnis dros mZime saerTa-Soriso danaSaulebisaTvis imunitetebiTdaculi pirebis individualuri sisxlis-samarTlebrivi pasuxismgeblobis kon-cefciis ganviTarebis dones. am daTqmismiuxedavad, aRniSnuli principi kvlavacrCeba mniSvnelovan garRvevad saxelm-wifo suverenitetisa da gansakuTrebiTsastiki danaSaulebisgan adamianis dac-vis urTierTmimarTebis aRqmis Tvalsaz-risiT. aRniSnul angariSSi aseve aRniS-nulia Semdegi: `Tu suverenis/monarqisimuniteti... iseT princips daafuZnebda,rom gansakuTrebuli sisastike, mimar-Tuli omis wesebisa, Cveulebebisa da ka-cobriobis kanonebis winaaRmdeg, damt-kicdeboda da bralad Seeracxeboda dam-naSaves, magram arc erT SemTxvevaSi ardaisjeboda Camdeni... amgvari Sedegi Sokismomgvreli iqneboda civilizebuli kaco-briobisaTvis~.43

amdenad, miuxedavad imisa, rom es iyoabsoluturad Canasaxovani formiT ar-sebuli wesi, romelic praqtikaSi aras-dros ganxorcielebula, pirveli msof-lio omis Semdeg gakeTebuli daskvnebissaSualebiT moxda imis aRiareba, rom Sesa-Zlebelia suverenuli imunitetis cneb-is absoluturi dacvis uaryofa da gan-sakuTrebiT mZime danaSaulis Cadeni-saTvis, gamonaklis SemTxvevaSi, Tundacmonarqis daqvemdebareba am wesisadmi.44

amgvarad, aRsaniSnavia saxelmwifos me-

53

Tauris sisxlissamarTlebrivi pasux-ismgeblobis SesaZleblobis versalis xe-lSekrulebis mier pirvelad da imdroisTvis uprecedento aRiareba.

imunitetebs amofarebis winaaRmdegkidev erTi pozitiuri nabiji gadaidganiurnbergSi, sadac umaRlesi saxelm-wifo Tanamdebobis pirebis gasamarTle-ba moxda. `saerTaSoriso samxedro tri-bunalis wesdebam... calsaxad daadginasaerTaSoriso sisxlis samarTalSi indi-vidualuri sisxlissamarTlebrivi pa-suxismgeblobis principi..., miuxedavadimisa, ra dacvas iTvaliswinebs Sidasax-elmwifoebrivi samarTali, aseve saxelm-wifos qmedebis doqtrinisa Tu sxva imu-nitetebis yuradRebis miRma datove-biT...~.45

niurnbergis tribunalis mier saer-TaSoriso danaSaulTaTvis individu-aluri sisxlissamarTlebrivi pasuxis-mgeblobis Semotana am koncefciis ganvi-Tarebis procesis dasasruli ar yofila.saerTaSoriso samarTlis ganviTarebamsaWiro gaxada principebis Semdgomi Semu-Saveba, rasac niurnbergis principebis46

Camoyalibeba mohyva. niurnbergis princ-ipebma gaaRrmava saerTaSoriso danaSau-lis Camden liderTa sisxlissamarT-lebrivi pasuxismgeblobis principis aRi-arebis mniSvneloba da misi sayovelTaoaRiareba moitana.

rogorc kasese aRniSnavs, `tradici-uli wesi, romlis Tanaxmad, maRali sax-elmwifo rangis pirebi ar SeiZleba pasux-isgebaSi miecnen oficialuri uflebam-osilebis Sesrulebisas ganxorcielebu-li qmedebebisaTvis, mniSvnelovnad Sei-rya meore msoflio omis Semdeg, rodesacsaerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebma da sasa-marTlo gadawyvetilebebma ganamtkicesprincipi, rom es ̀ TavSesafari~ aRar daicavsomis danaSaulTa, mSvidobisa Tu kacob-riobis winaaRmdeg mimarTul danaSaulTaCadenaSi braldebul maRali rangis sax-elmwifo moxeleebs. ufro mogvianebiT esprincipi gavrcelda saerTaSoriso dan-aSaulis sxva saxeebsa da wamebazec~.47

Secvlil msoflio wesrigs cota metidro dasWirda, raTa kidev erTxel mi-bruneboda saerTaSoriso samxedro tri-bunalis wesdebis me-7 muxliT aRiarebulprincips da gaesamarTlebina saxelmwi-fos umaRlesi Tanamdebobis pirebi im

SemTxvevebSi, rodesac isini arad agdebd-nen aTasobiT sakuTari Tu sxva qveynebismoqalaqisTvis samarTlianobis darRve-vas da saerTaSoriso danaSaulebs Cadio-dnen. es ki mxolod me-20 saukunis miwu-ruls moxda, maSin, rodesac gaerTianeb-uli erebis organizaciis uSiSroebis sa-bWom saerTaSoriso danaSaulebis Camden-Ta dasasjelad gadawyvita ad hoc saer-TaSoriso tribunalebis daarseba yo-fili iugoslaviisa48 da ruandisaTvis49.ìs, rom wesi, romlis mixedviT, saxelmwi-fos meTaurs ar aqvs ufleba, sakuTarioficialuri pozicia daasaxelos mize-zad, ratomac ar SeiZleba misi sisxlissa-marTlebrivi devna genocidis, omis dan-aSaulebisa da kacobriobis winaaRmdegmimarTuli danaSaulebis CadenisaTvis,saerTaSoriso CveulebiTi samarTlisnormis xasiaTis matarebel normad iqnadadasturebuli yofili iugoslaviisa-Tvis Seqmnili saerTaSoriso sasamarT-los palatis mier miRebul gadawyveti-lebaSi, romlis Tanaxmad, sakuTari wes-debis me-7 muxlis 1-li punqtis Sesabam-isad, sasamarTlos SeuZlia, ganaxorcie-los iurisdiqcia prezident miloSeviC-Tan mimarTebiT, miuxedavad imisa, romgenocidi da sxva saerTaSoriso danaSau-lebi, romelTa savaraudo Cadena eracx-eba mas bralad, Cadenili iyo maSin, rode-sac is iugoslaviis federaciuli respub-likis moqmedi saxelmwifo meTauri iyo~.50

ori ad hoc tribunalis ganviTarebis xa-zis gagrZelebad sisxlis samarTlis mud-mivmoqmedma sasamarTlom, romelic ro-mis statutiT dafuZnda, aseve aRiara im-unitetebis moSveliebis dauSvebloba imdamnaSaveTa mxridan, romlebic statut-is51 kompetenciis farglebSi xvdebian.

amdenad, rogorc es mokle mimoxil-vac cxadyofs, SesaZlebelia vamtkicoT,rom maRali rangis saxelmwifo moxeleTaindividualuri sisxlissamarTlebrivipasuxismgeblobis aRiareba dafuZnebulipraqtikaa. problema universaluri iuri-sdiqciis imunitetebTan urTierTmimar-Tebis kuTxiT wamoiWreba im tribunaleb-Tan dakavSirebiT, romlebmac unda ganax-orcielon saerTaSoriso danaSaulis Ca-mden maRali Tanamdebobis pirTa, saxelm-wifos meTaurTa CaTvliT, sisxlissamar-Tlebrivi devna. tribunalebi, romleb-mac suverenul saxelmwifoTa damnaSave


54


liderebis sisxlissamarTlebrivi devnaganaxorcieles, saerTaSoriso an `misimsgavsni~ mainc iyvnen. am ganviTarebamunda daiwyos mimarTulebis cvla da undagadainacvlos erovnuli sasamarTloeb-isken. aRsaniSnavia aseve, rom imunitete-biT daculTa sisxlissamarTlebrividevnis ufleba miecaT an mxolod gamar-jvebul saxelmwifoebs, an inicirebuliiyo gaerTianebuli erebis organizaciisuSiSroebis sabWos mier. arsebiTia amisaRniSvna, radgan saerTaSoriso dana-Saulebze universaluri iurisdiqciisgavrcelebis da, Sesabamisad, mravalgva-ri imunitetiT dacul adamianTa nebis-mieri saxelmwifos Sida sasamarTlosiurisdiqcias daqvemdebarebis ideis mow-inaaRmdegeni xSirad aRniSnaven, rom Si-dasaxelmwifoebrivi sasamarTloebisT-vis am uflebamosilebis miniWebam Sesa-Zloa politikuri miznebiT manipulire-ba gamoiwvios da sxva suverenul saxelm-wifoTa liderebis winaaRmdeg mimarTuliaraRad iqces. am argumentis ukugdebamartivia, Tu erTmaneTs davupirispirebTor Semdeg situacias: erTi mxriv, nebismi-er saxelmwifos aqvs ufleba, ganaxorcie-los universaluri iurisdiqcia, rasacupirispirdeba situacia, rodesac mxolod`privilegirebul~ saxelmwifoebs, rom-lebic, SesaZloa, iyvnen gamarjvebulierebi anda gaeros uSiSroebis sabWoSi ad-gilis mqone maqsimum 15 saxelmwifo, aqvTufleba, gansazRvron sisxlissamarT-lebrivi devnis Sesabamisi procedurebi.politikuri Zalaufleba kidev ufrometad SeiZleba iyos manipulirebuliuSiSroebis sabWos 5 mudmivi wevris mier,romelTac yovelTvis aqvT SesaZleblo-ba, iyvnen msoflio ganviTarebis yvelazeufro mniSvnelovani sakiTxebis Sesaxebgadawyvetilebis miRebis procesis monaw-ileni.52 politikuri Zalauflebis boro-tad gamoyenebis Sesaxeb wuxili nebismi-eri saqmianobidan SeiZleba gamomdinare-obdes, rogorc es naTlad cxadyo ameri-kis SeerTebuli Statebis antagonizmma,sisxlis samarTlis mudmivmoqmedi sasama-rTlos dafuZnebisTvis gaweulma winaaR-mdegobam. erovnuli sasamarTloebisTvissaerTaSoriso danaSaulebze universa-luri iurisdiqciis ganxorcielebis uf-lebamosilebis miniWeba da maTTvis nebis-mieri saxelmwifos nebismieri lideris

gasamarTlebis uflebis miniWeba mxolodsaerTaSoriso danaSaulis CadenisaTvissaerTaSoriso danaSaulis yvela CamdenissamarTlis winaSe wardgenis uzrunvely-ofis ukeTes SesaZleblobad unda ganix-ilebodes.

aqve unda aRiniSnos isic, rom versa-lis komisiis moxseneba `wesebis dacviTSeqmnil tribunals~, da ara `saerTa-Soriso tribunals~, axsenebs, rodesackaizeris gasamarTlebas exeba. Tumca qve-moT mocemuli pozicia SeiZleba gaakri-tikon imunitetebiT daculTa xelSeux-eblobis momxreebma, aRniSnuli moxseneb-is ganxilvisas mainc SesaZlebelia vamt-kicoT, rom savaldebulo ar aris, auci-leblad saerTaSoriso tribunalebma ga-asamarTlon imunitetebiT daculi pire-bi – am saxis braldebulTa sisxlissamar-Tlebrivi pasuxismgeblobis sakiTxi Sesa-Zloa, xvdebodes universalur iurisdiq-ciaSi, rac imas niSnavs, rom nebismieriqveynis Sidasaxelmwifoebrivi sasamarT-loebi, miuxedavad imisa, aqvT Tu ara ramesaxis kavSiri Cadenil danaSaulTan, dam-naSavesTan Tu msxverplTan, uflebam-osilni unda iyvnen, SeZlon maTi sisxlis-samarTlebriv pasuxisgebaSi micema.

o’neili kidev ufro Sors midis daamtkicebs, rom ̀ poziciis gamyareba aseveSesaZlebelia diplomatiuri imunitete-bis analogiis gziT, sadac arc moqmed daarc yofil saxelmwifo meTaurebs araqvT imuniteti im aqtebTan mimarTebiT,romlebic arRveven saerTaSoriso samar-Tals~.53 Sedarebebis Sedegad igi askvnis:`zustad ise, rogorc warmgzavn saxelm-wifos aqvs ufleba, mouxsnas imunitetiim diplomats, romelic oficialuri uf-lebamosilebis farglebs gareT moqme-debs, saxelmwifos meTaurs, romelic sak-uTar uflebamosilebas uxeSad aWarbebsda arRvevs saerTaSoriso danaSaulis Ca-deniT, SeiZleba CaeTvalos rogorc saku-Tari imunitetis moxsna. imunitetis ̀ mox-snis~ es forma, romelic avtomatur re-JimSi ganxorcielebadad unda miviCnioTim qmedebebisTvis, romlebic saerTaSo-riso samarTlis darRvevad iTvleba, ufromkacrad SeiZleba CaiTvalos, vidre diplo-matiuri imunitetisa, radgan warmgzavnsaxelmwifos SeuZlia, airCios, ar mouxs-nas imuniteti sakuTar diplomatebs~.54

55

yofili iugoslaviisa da ruandis-aTvis saerTaSoriso sisxlis samarTlistribunalebis Seqmnis garSemo arsebuligaremoebebis analizis Sedegad SesaZloadavaskvnaT, rom rogorc yofili iugo-slaviis, ise ruandis suvereniteti ug-ulebelyofil iqna uSiSroebis sabWos Se-sabamisi gadawyvetilebebiT, maSin, rode-sac adamianis uflebaTa dacvis kuTxiTsituaciam ukiduresi zRvargadasulo-bis piks miaRwia, da saerTaSoriso Taname-gobrobam saWirod CaTvala adamianisuflebebis darRvevis yvelaze SemzaravisituaciebisaTvis miepyro yuradReba.imave xasiaTis argumentaciis gaTval-iswinebiT, rac gamoyenebuli iyo zemoTxsenebuli SemTxvevebis ganxilvisas, io-lia, vamtkicoT, rom, adamianis ufleba-Ta darRvevebis TvalsazrisiT Cadeniliqmedebebi, sirTulis mixedviT, saerTa-Soriso danaSaulebs utoldeba, maTi sis-xlissamarTlebrivi devna unda moeqcesnebismieri saxelmwifos erovnuli sasa-marTlos iurisdiqciaSi, romelic ̀ wese-bis dacviT aris Seqmnili~, rogorc es nax-senebia versalis daskvnaSi, raTa yvelaSesaZlo saSualebis gamoyenebiTa da maq-simlurad swrafad gadaeces marTlmsa-julebas. es mniSvnelovania ara mxolodukve Cadenil danaSaulTa gamosaZiebladda sisxlissamarTlebrivi devnis sawar-moeblad, aramed aman SesaZloa, aseve da-debiTi roli Seasrulos prevenciis kuT-xiT da xeli Seuwyos momavalSi amgvaridanaSaulebis Cadenis Tavidan acilebas.am RonisZiebaTa mniSvnelobisa da aseveimis gaTvaliswinebiT, rom araerTxel da-irRva saxelmwifoTa suverenuli Tanas-woroba sxva saxelmwifoTa mxridan, iqne-boda es uSiSroebis sabWos gadawyvetile-bebiTa Tu `gamarjvebulTa samarTalze~orientirebuli tribunalebis organize-biT, aralegitimuria imis mtkiceba, romnebismieri saxelmwifos erovnuli sasa-marTloebis mier devna, miuxedavad Cad-enil danaSaulTan kavSirisa, saxelmwi-foTa suverenuli Tanasworobis winaaRm-deg mimarTul qmedebaa.

bolo dros ganviTarebuli movlene-bi kidev ufro met safuZvels iZleva imi-saTvis, rom am sakiTxis nebismieri erov-nuli sasamarTlos mier gadawyveta ganvi-xiloT rogorc samarTlebrivad, ise mo-ralurad gamarTlebulad. movlenebi,

romlebic momdevno TavSia ganxiluli,gacilebiT ufro sakamaToa, vidre erTisuverenuli saxelmwifos damnaSave lid-eris meore saxelmwifos mier gasamarTle-ba SeiZleba iyos. e.w. `humanitaruli in-tervencia~ iqneba ganxiluli imisaTvis,rom moxdes misi Sepirispireba sisxlissa-marTlebriv devnasTan imunitetebis ga-Tvaliswinebis gareSe, da imis saCveneb-lad, rom saxelmwifo suverenitets Sesa-Zloa, ufro meti safrTxe emuqrebodes,vidre calkeuli – ragind maRal rangSiayvanili – damnaSavis dasjaa.

IV. universaluri iurisdiqcia da

adamianis uflebaTa dacvis axali

mcdeloba – humanitaruli intervencia?

adamianis uflebaTa masobrivad dam-rRvevi nebismieri damnaSavis sisxlissa-marTlebrivi devnisaTvis Sesabamisiiurisdiqciis55 dadgena unda moxdes. amTavSi mokled iqneba mimoxiluli iuris-diqciis Tema, ramdenadac saxelmwifoTasuverenuli Tanasworobis dacva iuris-diqciis koncefciasTanac aris kavSirSi:ìurisdiqcia exeba saxelmwifos ufleba-mosilebas, gavlena moaxdinos xalxze,qonebasa da viTarebaze da asaxavs saxelm-wifoTa suverenitetis ZiriTad princi-pebs – saxelmwifoTa Tanasworobasa dasaSinao saqmeebSi Caurevlobas. iurisdiq-cia saxelmwifo suverenitetis sasic-ocxlo da namdvilad centraluri maxasi-aTebelia...~.56

iurisdiqciis cneba am statiis inter-esis sferoSi xvdeba da ganixileba am Tav-Si imdenad, ramdenadac naSromSi naCve-nebia, rom sisxlissamarTlebrivi pasu-xismgebloba saerTaSoriso danaSauli-saTvis nebismier SemTxvevaSi ùniversa-lur iurisdiqcias~ unda iyos daqvemde-barebuli da, amdenad, suverenuli imu-nitetebi ar SeiZleba gamoyenebul iqnesamgvari danaSaulis Camdeni umaRlesiTanamdebobis pirebis mier sisxlissamar-Tlebrivi pasuxismgeblobis Tavidan ac-ilebis saSualebad. Sous mtkicebiT, ̀ mar-Talia, iurisdiqcia mWidrod aris dakav-Sirebuli teritoriasTan, is masTan eqsk-luziurad ar aris gadajaWvuli. mravalqveyanas aqvs iurisdiqcia im danaSaule-bze sisxlissamarTlebrivi devnis gansax-orcieleblad, romlebic maTi terito-


56


riis farglebs gareT iyo Cadenili...~.57

Sou aseve acxadebs, rom `diplomatebs,magaliTad, farTo imuniteti icavs imqveynis kanonebisgan, sadac isini muSaobenda saxelmwifoTa mravali suverenuli aq-ti ar SeiZleba kiTxvis niSnis qveS dadges anSeicalos ucxo qveynis sasamarTloSi~.58

iurisdiqciis yvela princips SorisgansakuTrebiT universalurobis prin-cipia Cveni interesis sagani. universa-luri iurisdiqcia59 `mniSvnelovani cv-lilebebis pirasaa,~ – acxadebs brumho-li,60 da aRniSnavs, rom ̀ es doqtrina, axlaCamoyalibebis procesSi myofi, saerTa-Soriso marTlmsajulebis ganuyofeli,Tumca damatebiTi, komponenti aucile-blad gaxdeba. amasTan erTad, mas serio-zuli winaaRmdegobebi eRobeba, raTa gax-des stabilurad xelmisawvdomi meqaniz-mi, samarTlianad da miukerZoeblad ganx-orcielebuli~.61 es sirTule, ZiriTadad,suverenuli imunitetis ganuxrel moSve-liebasa da saerTaSoriso urTierTobeb-Si misTvis sakmaod mniSvnelovani rolisminiWebas ukavSirdeba. universaluriiurisdiqcia am naSromis miznebisTvissaintereso koncefciaa, radgan misTvismniSvneloba ar aqvs dacvis sxvadasxva me-qanizms, da saSualebas aZlevs nebismierisaxelmwifos erovnul sasamarTloebs,saerTaSoriso danaSaulis Camdenni wa-rudginos marTlmsajulebas, miuxedavadimisa, ra kavSiri aqvs Cadenil danaSaulsiurisdiqciis ganmaxorcielebl saxelmwi-fosTan. Tumca aqve unda aRiniSnos isic,rom universaluri iurisdiqcia ar SeiZ-leba CaiTvalos farTod mxardaWerilad.

mniSvnelovania yuradRebis mipyrobaSedarebiT axalCamoyalibebuli humani-taruli intervenciis62 cnebaze, ramdena-dac igi suverenuli imunitetis kon-cefciis Semdgom Sesustebas uwyobs xels,raTa moxdes adamianis uflebaTa masob-riv darRvevebze reagireba nebismieri sa-xelmwifos mxridan mas Semdeg, rac yvelasxva samarTlebrivi da politikuri saSu-alebebis amowurva moxdeba. iTvleba, romes axali koncefcia yalibdeba swored imfaqtis gamo, rom saerTaSoriso danaSau-lebis CadeniT adamianis uflebaTa iseTimwvave darRvevebi xdeba, romlebSic Care-vis ufleba damnaSaveTa dasasjelad, Tu-ndac Zalis gamoyenebiT, saerTaSorisoTanamegobrobas eZleva. Sedegad ibadeba

kiTxva: Tu humanitaruli intervenciisgamarTleba SeiZleba adamianis ufleba-Ta dacvis saxeliT, ra aris aseTi miuRe-beli saerTaSoriso danaSaulebTan mima-rTebiT universaluri iurisdiqciis aRi-arebasTan dakavSirebiT? nacvlad imisa,rom ama Tu im saxelmwifos udanaSaulomosaxleobisTvis, saerTaSoriso dana-SaulTa CadenaSi SesaZlo braleul Tavi-anT liderTa gamo, ar dadges kidev ufrogamanadgurebeli Sedegebi, ratom ar Sei-Zleba, am liderTa universalur iuris-diqcias daqvemdebareba da marTlmsaju-lebisaTvis wardgena nebismier saxelmwi-foSi, romelsac es fizikurad SeuZlia?

aseTi cvlilebis sargebeli praqti-kulad Semdegia: sisxlis samarTlis damna-Save lideri miiRebs damsaxurebul sas-jels, sisxlissamarTlebrivi devna miza-nmimarTulia da nacvlad im jgufebis si-cocxlisTvis riskis Seqmnisa, romlebicukve gaxdnen kriminal liderTa mier gata-rebuli politikisa Tu qmedebebis msxve-rplni, mxolod maT moeTxovebaT pasuxi,vinc amas ̀ imsaxureben~. am SemTxvevaSi si-sxlissamarTlebrivi devnac mizanmimar-Tulad ganxorcieldeba da msxverplTaceqnebaT SesaZlebloba, ixilon rom samar-Tali aRsruldeba, maSin, rodesac human-itaruli intervenciis ganxorcielebakidev ufro met udanaSaulo adamians Sei-wiravs, im jgufebTan erTad, romlebic,SesaZloa, damnaSaveTa msxverplni manam-de gaxdnen.

amdenad, kiTxva isev kiTxvad rCeba: Tuhumanitaruli intervencia misaRebia ga-monaklis SemTxvevebSi, rodesac adami-anis uflebaTa masobriv darRvevaTa mas-Stabebi da formebi gansakuTrebiT SemaS-foTebelia, ratom ar SeiZleba, sxva saxe-lmwifoTa erovnuli sasamarTloebismier maTi sisxlissamarTlebrivi devnasaerTaSoriso danaSaulebis CadenisaT-vis, vinc imunitetebiT arian daculni,ganvixiloT rogorc saxelmwifoTa suv-erenuli Tanasworobis ardamrRvevelida, Sesabamisad, gaxdes SesaZlebeli, mo-exsnaT imunitetebi maT, vinc sakuTariqmedebebiT amas imsaxureben, miuxedavadmaTi rangisa?

Tu arsebobs imis riski, rom moxdebapolitikuri uflebamosilebis borotadgamoyeneba da Tu saxelmwifoebi saWiroe-ben miukerZoeblobis met garantiebs, vi-

57

dre es SeiZleba garantirebuli iyos rome-lime saxelmwifos erovnuli sasamarTloe-bis mier, gaerTianebuli erebis orga-nizaciis uSiSroebis sabWo SeiZleba aRi-Wurvos uflebamosilebiT, miiRos gadaw-yvetileba damnaSave liderebTan da maTmier Seqmnil situaciebTan dakavSirebiT,da cnos isini `saerTaSoriso iurisdiq-cias~ daqvemdebarebulad, radgan maTi qme-debebi iwvevs adamianis uflebaTa sastikdarRvevebs, rac, Tavis mxriv `safrTxesuqmnis saerTaSoriso mSvidobasa da usafr-Txoebas~.

rac ar unda iyos humanitaruli in-tervenciis dasabuTebis ukan mdgari mo-tivacia da misi gamarTleba, ar SeiZlebaCaiTvalos, rom igi iurisdiqciis rome-lime aRiarebul koncefcias Seesabameba.ar SeiZleba vamtkicoT, rom am koncefci-is savaraudo Semdgomi ganviTarebiTa damisi saerTaSoriso samarTlis aRiarebulwesad Camoyalibebis SemTxvevaSi, Tundacmisi gamoyeneba mxolod Zalian gamonak-lis SemTxvevebSi moxdes, TiTqos is nak-lebad daazaralebs saxelmwifo suveren-itets, vidre damnaSavis statusze yura-dRebis miqcevis gareSe saerTaSorisodanaSaulisaTvis universaluri iuris-diqciis ganxorcieleba. saerTaSorisosamarTlisa da adamianis uflebebis sama-rTlis ganviTareba cxadyofs sayovel-Taod aRiarebuli principebis progresu-li ganviTarebis saWiroebas.

amdenad, humanitaruli intervenci-is ganviTarebadi koncefciidan momdi-nare miniSneba, – rom adamianis uflebaTamasobrivi darRvevebi SesaZloa sakmarisimizezi iyos saxelmwifoTa suverenuliTanasworobis gauTvaliswineblobisa daSesaZlo gaxdes qveynis, erTi SexedviT,`saSinao~ saqmeebSi Careva, SeiZleba,– ga-modges daskvnisaTvis, rom adamianis uf-lebaTa koncefciis ganviTarebis Taname-drove etapze absoluturad SesaZlebe-li SeiZleba iyos saerTaSoriso danaSau-lis Camdeni Tundac umaRlesi Tanamde-bobis pirebis universaluri iurisdiqci-isaTvis daqvemdebareba, im SesaZleblo-bebTan erTad, romlebic ukve arsebobs,maT Soris sisxlissamarTlebrivi devnisganxorcieleba, e.w. `komplementarobis~principis63 gamoyenebiT, saerTaSorisosisxlis sasamarTlos64 mier.

SeiZleba davaskvnaT, Tu arsebobs re-aluri politikuri neba da saerTaSorisodanaSaulis Semadgeneli adamianTa ufle-bebis sastiki darRvevisgan dasacavadre-a-luri mzaoba, aucileblad moiZebne-ba suverenuli imunitetisa da suverenu-li Tanasworobis cnebaTa dacvis labiri-nTidan gamosvlis gzebi da saerTaSorisodanaSaulebis CamdenTa marTlmsajuleb-isaTvis damsaxurebisamebr wardgenis Se-saZlebloba, raTa moxdes marTlmsaju-lebis interesebis ganxorcieleba, moma-vali danaSaulebis Tavidan acileba daimisTvis, rom gadarCenil msxverplT mie-ceT Tundac mcireodeni imedi momavlisa.

V. ganxiluli Temebis fonze ra

gadawyvetileba miiRo sasamarTlom

pinoCetis saqmesTan dakavSirebiT?

statiis SezRuduli formatis gamo,saqmis65 mokle reziumeTi Semovifar-glebiT. saqme SeirCa Semdegi mosazrebiT:pinoCetis saqme aRiarebulia pirvel – daprecedentis Semqmnel – saqmed, romli-Tac erovnul sasamarTlos iurisdiqci-is ganxorcielebis neba mieca, maSin, ro-desac saxelmwifos ar hqonda aranairikavSiri Cadenil danaSaulebTan da rode-sac ar moxda saxelmwifos yofili meTau-ris imunitetis gaTvaliswineba mis miersaxelmwifos meTauris postze yofnisassaerTaSoriso danaSaulebis CadenasTandakavSirebiT. lordTa palatam miiCnia,rom danaSaulebrivi qmedeba, romelic arunda xvdebodes im qmedebaTa CamonaTval-Si, romelTa mimarT suverenuli imunite-tis gavrceleba jer kidev SesaZlebelia,wamebaa, – aqti, romelic imdenad sasti-kia, rom misi Camdenis dasja nebadarTu-li unda iyos universaluri iurisdiqci-is gamoyenebiT. miuxedavad amisa, lordTapalatis gadawyvetileba Zalian limiti-rebuli da TavSekavebuli iyo.66 is maincSeiZleba CaiTvalos rogorc saxelmwifo-ze, da ara adamianis uflebebze, orienti-rebuli gadawyvetileba. `miuxedavad im-isa, rom, erTi SexedviT, ise Cans, TiTqosmosamarTleebma ar gaiTvaliswines da pa-tivi ar sces Ciles suverenitets, radganmaT uaryves imuniteti, misi aSkara moxs-nis gareSe, TiToeul mosamarTles kar-gad esmoda suverenitetis sakiTxi da imu-nitetis gaTvaliswinebaze uari gaamarT-


58


les imiT, rom konvenciaze xelis mower-iT Cilem uari Tqva masze~.67 literatur-aSi aseve SevxvdebiT mosazrebas, romlisTanaxmad, `pinoCetis gadawyvetilebauCvenebs politikisa da saxelmwifo suv-erenitetis mdgrad Zalauflebas Tana-medrove saerTaSorisosamarTlebrivwesrigSi~.68

nebismier SemTxvevaSi, saqme sainte-resoa imdenad, ramdenadac pinoCetissaqmis pirvelad ganxilvisas mosamarT-leTa umravlesobam daadgina: `saerTa-Soriso samarTalma naTeli gaxada is, romgarkveuli saxis qmedebebi, maT Soriswameba da mZevlad xelSi Cagdeba yovel-mxriv da yvelasTan mimarTebiT miuRebe-li qmedebebia. es exeba saxelmwifos me-Taurebs zustad iseve, an kidev ufrometad, vidre nebismier sxvas; sawinaaRm-dego daskvna saerTaSoriso samarTalsmoCvenebiTs gaxdida~.69 pinoCetis saqmismesamed ganxilvisas lordTa palatis mo-samarTleTa umravlesobam – eqvsi erTiswinaaRmdeg – daadgina, rom pinoCets arSeeZlo imunitetis moSvelieba wamebiskonvenciis70 sawinaaRmdegod CadeniliqmedebebisTvis sisxlissamarTlebrivipasuxismgeblobis asarideblad.

piter karteri svams kiTxvas: ̀ SeiZle-ba Tu ara iTqvas, rom pinoCetis saqmezemiRebuli gadawyvetilebis Sedegad aR-mocenda zogadi saerTaSoriso samarT-lis uryevi norma, romelic ar Seesabame-ba nebismier aqamde dadebul xelSekrule-baSi arsebul diplomatiur imunitetebs,imdenad, ramdenadac isini vrceldebaadamianis uflebaTa saerTaSoriso samar-Talze?~ da misi pasuxi zedmiwevniT lako-niuria: `SesaZloa~.71 rogorc qristianCinkini marTebulad aRniSnavs, ̀ imunite-tis uaryofa..., romelzec apelireba keT-deba saxelmwifos yofili meTauris mieroficialurad Cadenil wamebis faqtebT-an dakavSirebiT, saerTaSoriso samarT-lis or xedvas Soris arCevans warmoad-gens: horizontalur sistemasa, romelicsaxelmwifoTa suverenul Tanasworoba-zea dafuZnebuli da vertikalur siste-mas Soris, romelic jus cogens normebs,rogoricaa adamianis ZiriTadi uflebe-bi, icavs. arCevani martivi ar iyo~.72

radgan suverenuli imunitetebis sa-kiTxi sakmaod winaaRmdegobrivia, am Te-masTan dakavSirebiT gansxvavebuli mo-

sazrebebic arsebobs. ̀ pinoCetis saqmezelordTa palatis mier miRebuli gadaw-yvetilebis kritikuli ganxilvisas hen-ri kisinjeri saubrobs mosamarTleTatiraniaze, ramac mTavrobis tiraniaSecvala, aseve prokurorul diskreci-aze, angariSvaldebulebis gareSe, daafrTxilebs, rom ìstoriulad brZenTadiqtatura xSirad inkviziciebiTa dajadoqrebze nadirobiT sruldeboda~.73

am statiis miznebisTvis sainteresokidev erTi – erodias74 – saqmis ganxilvi-sas iangi SeniSnavs, rom `sagareo saqmeTamoqmedi ministrebis sisxlissamarT-lebrivi iurisdiqciisgan absoluturiimunitetebiT dacvisa da xelSeuxeblo-bis ganmtkicebisas sasamarTlom Taviaarida belgiis mier universaluriiurisdiqciis savaraudo ganxorcieleb-is kanonierebis Sesaxeb poziciis gamox-atvas. Tumca sasamarTlo imunitetis sa-kiTxis ganxilvas miudga imis aRiarebiT,rom belgias hqonda saerTaSoriso sa-marTliT gansazRvruli universaluriiurisdiqcia, rogorc saqmem cxadyo, sa-erTaSoriso samarTalSi universaluriiurisdiqcia ganpirobebulia garkveuliwesebiT, romelTa Soris aRsaniSnavi imu-nitetis wesia~.75

isic aRiniSna: `problema isaa,... romTanamedrove saerTaSoriso samarTalSiseriozuli gaurkvevlobaa saxelmwifosada mTavrobis meTaurTa imunitetebTandakavSirebiT~.76 es gaurkvevloba adami-anis uflebaTa dacvis sasargeblod undagadawydes, saxelmwifoTa iZulebiT, uariTqvan sakuTar egoistur ganwyobebze, da-culni iyvnen sisxlissamarTlebrivi dev-nisgan. adamianis uflebaTa dacvas undamieniWos prioriteti da es gansakuTre-biT mniSvnelovania im danaSaulebTan mi-marTebiT, romlebsac `saerTaSoriso~ewodeba. Sesabamisad, saerTaSoriso dan-aSaulTa sisxlissamarTlebrivi devnisprincipi unda iqnes aRiarebuli univer-saluri iurisdiqciis principis parale-lurad da yvela saxelmwifo unda iyosuflebamosili, ganaxorcielos sakuTa-ri iurisdiqcia amgvari danaSaulebis Ca-mdenTa mimarT, miuxedavad imisa, ra sta-tusiT sargeblobs damnaSave, an aris Tuara raime kavSiri Cadenil danaSaulsa dasisxlissamarTlebrivi devnis ganmaxor-cielebel saxelmwifos Soris. samwuxar-

59

od, viTareba jerjerobiT ar aris aseTida, rogorc foqsi SeniSnavs: `saxelmwi-fos moqmed meTaurTa sisxlissamarT-lebrivi iurisdiqciisagan absoluturiimuniteti da maTTvis miniWebuli perso-naluri xelSeuxebloba..., rogorc Cans,zogadad Seesabameba Tanamedrove saxelm-wifo praqtikas~.77 marTlmsajulebissaerTaSoriso sasamarTlos gadawyveti-lebis Tanaxmad, `saerTaSoriso Cveule-biTi samarTliT ganmtkicebuli imu-nitetebi, maT Soris ucxo qveynebis saga-reo saqmeTa ministrebisaTvis, jer kidevsaeWvod rCeba ucxo qveynebis sasamarT-loebis winaSe, maSinac ki, rodesac es sasa-marTloebi gafarToebul sisxlissamar-Tlebriv iurisdiqcias axorcielebengarkveul seriozul danaSaulTa preven-ciisa da sisxlissamarTlebrivi devnisTaobaze sxvadasxva saerTaSoriso kon-venciis safuZvelze~.78 sasamarTlom ̀ da-askvna, rom imuniteti dausjelobas arniSnavs~. Tumca, samwuxarod, es aris zus-tad, rasac is gulisxmobs. marTlmsaju-lebis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos mierCamoTvlili oTxi safuZveli79 TiTqmisyovelTvis umoqmedoa. rogorc iangi gan-martavs, ùniversaluri iurisdiqciisucxo saxelmwifos an ucxo qveynis moqa-laqis mimarT gansaxorcieleblad, rome-lic saxelmwifo imunitetiT SeiZlebasargeblobdes, erovnulma sasamarTlomori piroba unda daakmayofilos: pirvelrigSi, saerTaSoriso samarTlis Sesabam-isad, sasamarTlos universaluri iuris-diqcia unda hqondes da, meore, ucxo saxe-lmwifo an pirovneba araviTar SemTxve-vaSi ar unda sargeblobdes imunitetiT~.80

problema swored esaa. samarTali da saxe-lmwifo praqtika imgvarad unda ganviTa-rdes, rom moxdes im principis gadawona,romlis Tanaxmad, sxva saxelmwifoTa ma-Rali rangis saxelmwifo Tanamdebobis pi-rebi iyenebdnen imunitets, rogorc safars,saerTaSoriso danaSaulis CadenisTvissisxlissamarTlebrivi devnis Tavidanasacileblad, maSin, rodesac marTlmsa-julebis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos mi-er CamoTvlili oTxi garemoeba praqtika-Si ar moqmedebs da damnaSaveni dausjelnirCebian adamianis uflebebis yvelaze mZ-ime darRvevisaTvis.

rogorc ukve aRvniSneT, versalis xe-lSekrulebam dauSva SesaZlebloba, momx-

dariyo gansakuTrebiT saSiS danaSaulTaCadenaSi CarTuli saxelmwifo meTaurisdasja. pinoCetis saqme, miuxedavad imisa,rom Zalze SezRudulia daskvnebis kuTx-iT, unda CaiTvalos rogorc umaRlesirangis saxelmwifo moxeleTa da umaRle-si Tanamdebobis pirTa dausjelobis wina-aRmdeg mimarTuli precedentis Semqmne-li saqme. Tumca saerTaSoriso danaSau-lis Camden damnaSave liderTa nebismierqveyanaSi sisxlissamarTlebrivi devniskoncefcia – ar mieceT SesaZlebloba, da-usjelobiT isargeblon msoflios nebi-smier kuTxeSi, miuxedavad imisa, arsebobsTu ara maT mier Cadenil danaSaulsa damocemul saxelmwifos Soris raime saxiskavSiri – unda dafuZndes rogorc saer-TaSoriso CveulebiTi samarTlis normada saxelmwifoebs ar unda SeeZloT saku-Tari suverenuli imunitetebis win wamow-eva maTi damnaSave liderebis sxva saxelm-wifoebis mier sisxlissamarTlebrivi de-vnis SemTxvevaSi. versalis xelSekrule-bam da niurnbergis sasamarTlo proces-ebma amis realobad qcevis kargi safuZ-veli Seqmnes. axla, rodesac sakmao drogavida da adamianis uflebaTa samarTa-li sakmaod kargad ganviTarda saimisod,rom daicvas adamianebi masobrivi ufle-bebis darRvevebisgan, romelTac sakuTa-ri an sxva saxelmwifoebis damnaSave lide-rebi Cadian, samarTlianobis moTxovna arSeiZleba daiCrdilos suverenuli imuni-tetebis absoluturi dacvis ukve moZve-lebuli koncefciiT. manam, sanam humani-taruli intervencia saerTaSoriso sa-marTlis sabolood Camoyalibebul nor-mad iqceva, gacilebiT upriani da praqti-kuli iqneboda maRali saxelmwifo Tanam-debobis pirebis mier Cadenil saerTaSo-riso danaSaulebze universaluri iuris-diqciis gavrceleba da maTTvis SeZlebis-dagvarad naklebi SesaZleblobis micema,amoefaron imunitetis damcav sistemas.

VI. daskvna – imunitetebi kvlavac unda

uSlidnen xels adamianis uflebaTa dacvas?

statiaSi naCvenebi iyo, rom saxelmwi-foTa suverenuli Tanasworobis dacva dasuverenuli imunitetebis xelSeuxeblo-ba me-20 saukunis ganmavlobaSi mniSvnelo-van SezRudvebs ganicdida. adamianis uf-lebaTa samarTlis ganviTarebam am sfer-


60


oSi mniSvnelovan cvlilebebs misca biZgida warmoSva saWiroeba, samarTlis ganvi-TarebasTan erTad adamianis uflebaTaseriozuli masStaburi darRvevebisgandacvis meqanizmebi ufro metad ganviTa-rdes, da saxelmwifoebma aRiaron ufle-bamosilebis, gavlenisa da saxelmwifoaparatis borotad gamoyenebiT adamianisuflebaTa Semzaravi darRvevebis CamdendamnaSave liderTa dasjis mniSvneloba.

Tu humanitaruli intervenciis uf-leba SeiZleba aRiarebul iqnes gamosaye-neblad vargis instrumentad, maSin, ro-desac adamianis uflebaTa darRvevis do-ne warmoudgenel masStabebs aRwevs, saer-TaSoriso samarTali unda uSvebdes suv-erenuli imunitetis darRvevis SesaZle-blobas da saxelmwifoTa moqmedi xelmZR-vanelebis, ise rogorc imunitetiT dac-uli sxva maRali saxelmwifo Tanamdebo-bis pirebis, sisxlissamarTlebriv pasu-xismgeblobas. samarTali unda ganviTar-des imdenad, rom moxdes individualurisisxlissamarTlebrivi pasuxismgeblobisdaSveba, Tundac saerTaSoriso danaSau-lebisaTvis, moxvdes universaluri iuris-diqciis qveS da ar mieceT damnaSave li-derebs saSualeba, Tavi daaRwion marTlmsa-julebas da eZion usafrTxo TavSesafari,maSin, rodesac SedarebiT naklebmniS-vnelovani damnaSaveebi sasjels iReben.

SeiZleba daisvas kiTxva – aris Tu araromelime sxva saerTaSoriso organiza-cia, romelsac uflebamosileba aqvs, ratio-ne personae imuniteti mouxsnas savarau-do damnaSaves? gaerTianebuli erebisorganizaciis uSiSroebis sabWos Sesa-Zloa, hqondes aseTi uflebamosileba.`gaerTianebuli erebis organizaciis we-sdebiT, uSiSroebis sabWos, gaeros wesde-bis VII Tavis Sesabamisad, aqvs mandati, ga-nixilos saerTaSoriso mSvidobisa da us-afrTxoebis darRvevis, safrTxis Seqmnisada maTi darRvevis SemTxvevebi. isini xSir-ad SesaZloa, swored seriozul dana-Saulebs ukavSirdebodes~.81 niurnbergistribunalma aRiara adamianis uflebaTauxeSi darRvevisaTvis yvela saxis poli-tikuri lideris individualuri pasux-ismgeblobis principi. gaeros uSiSroeb-is sabWos Semdgomma praqtikam aCvena, romadamianis uflebaTa darRvevebTan dakav-Sirebuli garkveuli situaciebi aRiare-bul iqna rogorc saerTaSoriso mSvi-

dobisa da usafrTxoebisaTvis safrTxisSemqmneli da saerTaSoriso tribunale-bic Camoayaliba gaerom, raTa momxdariyocalkeul saxelmwifoTa liderebis gasa-marTleba, miuxedavad maTi sxva saxelm-wifoebTan suverenuli Tanasworobisa. imSemTxvevaSi, Tu uSiSroebis sabWo gadaw-yvets, rom saerTaSoriso mSvidobisa dausafrTxoebisaTvis safrTxis Seqmna anmaTi darRveva gamowveulia maRali rang-is saxelmwifo moxeleTa qmedebebiT, rom-lebic imavdroulad adamianis uflebaTafarTomasStabiani sastiki darRvevebisgamomwvevi mizezicaa, sxva RonisZiebebisgatarebasTan erTad, uSiSroebis sabWosunda hqondes uflebamosileba, gamoacx-ados, rom damnaSave liderebi xvdebianuniversaluri iurisdiqciis qveS da da-saSvebia maTi sisxlissamarTlebrivi dev-na nebismieri qveynis sasamarTlos miersaerTaSoriso danaSaulTa CadenisaTvis.uSiSroebis sabWos SesaZlebloba aqvs, ase-Ti gadawyvetileba gamoitanos maRalirangis saxelmwifo moxeleTa mimarT imSemTxvevaSic ki, rodesac isini jer kidevpostze imyofebian.

sisxlis samarTlis saerTaSoriso sa-samarTlos wesdeba aRiarebs amgvar lide-rTaTvis imunitetis CamorTmevis SesaZ-leblobas, raTa moxdes maTi saerTaSori-so danaSaulis CadenisaTvis gasamarTle-ba. amdenad, daskvna, romlis Tanaxmad, sa-erTaSoriso danaSaulTa jgufs mikuTv-nebulTa mimarT universaluri iurisdi-qciis aRiareba unda moxdes, ris safuZve-lzec msoflio sazogadoebriobas adami-anis uflebaTa masobrivi da sastiki dar-Rvevebis CadenaSi damnaSave liderebissisxlissamarTlebrivi devnisa da gasama-rTlebis saSualeba unda mieces, da amprocesSi gaeros uSiSroebis sabWo (ro-gorc politikuri organo) da marTlmsa-julebis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlo (ro-gorc sasamarTlo organo) SeiZleba kar-gad iyvnen gamoyenebulni, rogorc bal-ansis damcveli saerTaSoriso organoe-bi, romelTac SesaZlebloba aqvT, gaakon-trolon saxelmwifoTa Sors suverenuliTanasworobis dacva da amavdroulad uz-runvelyon, yvelaze Semzaravi danaSau-lebi, samarTlebrivi xarvezebisa da Sez-Rudvebis gamo, dausjeli ar darCes.

amdenad, saxelmwifoTa suverenuliTanasworoba, saxelmwifoebis meTaurTa

61

da sxva maRali rangis politikis ganm-sazRvrel Tanamdebobis pirTa imunite-ti da ar niSnavs imas, rom isini unda iwy-narebdnen da nebas rTavdnen adamianisuflebaTa aSkara da sastiki farTomas-Stabiani darRvevis Cadenas. roca adami-anuri tragedia warmoudgenel masSta-bebs aRwevs, humanitaruli intervenciisTeoriis Camoyalibebisa da misi suvere-nuli saxelmwifos saSinao saqmeebSi Care-vis damkvidrebis niSnebi SeimCneva; yve-laze sastik danaSaulebTan mimarTebiTuniversaluri iurisdiqciis principisarsebobis pirobebSi nebismieri saxelmwi-fos ufleba, gaasamarTlos umaRlesirangis moxeleebi, aRiarebul unda iqnessamarTlis safuZvlianad ganmtkicebulprincipad da misi dacva saWiroa yovel-Tvis, raTa moxdes samarTlianobis princ-ipebis ganxorcieleba da uflebaTa daum-saxurebeli darRvevisagan aTasobiT ad-amianis dacva. adamianis uflebaTa dacvisidea ukve gadascda erTi konkretuli sa-xelmwifos sazRvrebs da farTo saerTa-Soriso sazogadoebis gansjisa da wuxi-lis sagnad iqca. adamianis uflebaTa sas-tiki farTomasStabiani darRvevebis Ta-vidan acileba da msxverplTa dacva gan-sakuTrebiT mimzidvelia, did adgilsikavebs politikuri liderebis gamosv-lebSi da yovlis SemZleTa politikuriprogramebis deklarirebuli nawili maincgaxda. teqnikur problemebTan erTad,rac damnaSave liderTa dakavebasa da maTmier sasjelis moxdas ukavSirdeba, dauS-vebelia damatebiTi barierebisa da lim-itirebis SemoReba, rac adamianis ufleb-Ta sastiki masobrivi darRvevebis Camde-ni umaRlesi Tanamdebobis pirebis sisx-lissamarTlebriv devnas xels SeuSlis.da saerTod, romelime imuniteti Rirs kiadamianis uflebaTa masobrivi darRveve-bis msxverplTa godebad? adamianis uf-lebaTa sferoSi dauSvebelia mxoloddabali rangis damnaSaveTa dasja da maTi,vinc gegmavs da marTavs adamianis ufle-baTa masobriv sastik darRvevebs, Tavisu-flad datoveba da imis saSualebis mice-

ma, rom moiSvelion imuniteti, rogorcargumenti, sisxlissamarTlebrivi pasux-ismgeblobis Tavidan acilebisa, amavdro-ulad, imunitetebiT dacul adamianTajgufi SeiZleba, gafarTovdes, Tu gaviT-valiswinebT saxelmwifoTaSorisi urT-ierTobebis ganviTarebis Tanamedrovetendenciebs, rasac Sedegad SesaZloa mo-hyves damnaSaveTa gazrdili raodenoba,romlebic Seecdebian, Tavi Seafaron su-verenitetis cnebas im dros, rodesac yve-laze sastik danaSaulTa sapasuxod hu-manitaruli intervencia TanamedrovesaerTaSoriso samarTlis nawilad Camoy-alibebuli SeiZleba gaxdes.

msoflioSi dRes, roca adamianis uf-lebaTa dacva aRar aris miCneuli suver-enuli saxelmwifos Sida saqmed, rocaarCevnebs akvirdebian saerTaSoriso sad-amkvirveblo misiebi da saerTaSorisoorganizaciebs nebismieri saxelmwifossasjelaRsrulebis dawesebulebebis sak-nebamdec SeuZliaT miRweva, saxelmwifoimunitetisa da adamianis uflebaTa sas-tiki darRvevebis Camdeni saxelmwifomoxeleebis xelSeuxebloba ar unda rCe-bodes nebismieri saxelmwifos kontrolsgareT da mxolod erTi konkretuli suv-erenuli saxelmwifos kompetenciis far-glebSi, romelic, savaraudoa, arafersgaakeTebs, raTa sakadrisad mixedos amSemTxvevas. adamianis uflebaTa sastikimasobrivi darRvevebi unda isjebodes.amisTvis sakmarisi ar iqneba mxolod adhoc saerTaSoriso tribunalebi. sisxlissamarTlis saerTaSoriso sasamarTlos`komplementarobis~ princips Tavisi uar-yofiTi mxareebi aqvs. amdenad, yvelazeufro Semzaravi – anu saerTaSoriso da-naSaulebis mimarT universaluri iuris-diqciis aRiareba – unda miviCnioT gamo-savlad, raTa gardaulvad iqnes miRweu-li maTi dasja, vinc amas imsaxurebs. dasa-sjelni unda daisajon da saxelmwifoimuniteti ar SeiZleba urcxvad iyos ga-moyenebuli damsaxurebuli sasjelis Ta-vidan asarideblad.

1 mosamarTle jeqsoni, Sesavali sityva, warmoTqmuli saerTaSoriso tri-bunalis winaSe. ix.: Jackson, R. (1947) The Nuremberg Case as Presented byRobert H. Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States, gv. 82-83.


62


2 `saerTaSoriso danaSaulis~ cnebasTan dakavSirebiT ix.: De Than, C.&Shorts, E. (2003) International Criminal Law and Human Rights, gv.13-14; Kit-tichaisaree, K. (2001) International Criminal Law, gv.3-4; Steiner, H.J.& Alston, P.(ed.) (2000) International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Moral, gv.1132-38; Cassese, A. (2003) International Criminal Law, gv.23-25.

3 saxelSekrulebo samarTlis venis konvenciis me-2 muxlis me-7 punqtSimocemuli definiciis Sesabamisad,.

4 ix.: United Kingdom House of Lords, Regina v. Bartle and the Commissioner ofPolice for the Metropolis and Other (Appellants), Ex Parte Pinochet (Respon-dent) (Second Appeal hearing from a Divisional Court of the Queen's BenchDivision holding that former heads of state are entitled to immunity), House ofLords, 24 March 1999 [1999] 2 All ER 97, [1999] 2 WLR 827.

5 ix.: Tams, C.J. “Well-Protected Enemies of Mankind”, in The Cambridge LawJournal (July, 2002) vol.61, part 2, at 246, gv. 246-249.120

6 ix.: O’Neill, K.C. “A New Customary Law of Head of State Immunity?: Hirohito andPinochet”, in Stanford Journal of International Law (2002), vol. 38, at 289, gv. 314-317.

7 ix.: Bianchi, A. “Immunity Versus Human Rights: The Pinochet Case”, in EJIL(1999), vol.10, No.2, at 237, gv. 254-62.

8 ix., zogadad: Greenwood, C. “Is There a Right of Humanitarian Intervention?”,in The World Today (February 1993) vol. 49, gv. 34-40, (cited from the LSE CoursePack for LL461); Simma, B. “NATO, the UN and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects”,in EJIL, (1999), vol.10, No.1, gv. 1-22; Kritsiotis, D. “The Kosovo Crisis and NATO’sApplication of Armed Force Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia”, in ICQL(2000), vol.49(2), at 330; “Kosovo: House of Commons Foreign Affairs Commit-tee 4th Report, June 2000”, in ICLQ (2000), vol.49(4), gv. 876-943.

9 natos Zalebis mier kosovoSi ganxorcielebuli humanitaruli inter-venciis msgavsad.

10 gaerTianebuli erebis organizaciis uSiSroebis sabWos saxiT.11 ix.: saerTaSoriso samxedro tribunalis wesdeba, me-7 muxli; Soreuli

aRmosavleTis saerTaSoriso samxedro tribunalis wesdeba, me-6 muxli;yofili iugoslaviisaTvis Seqmnili saerTaSoriso sisxlis samarTlistribunalis wesdeba, me-7 muxlis me-2 punqti; ruandisaTvis Seqmnili saer-TaSoriso sisxlis samarTlis tribunalis wesdeba, me-6 muxlis me-2 punq-ti; saerTaSoriso sisxlis samarTlis sasamarTlos damfuZnebeli ro-mis statuti, 27-e muxli.

12 mag., is, rom sasamarTloebi ukve arseboben da damatebiTi saxsrebisgamoyofa saWiro ar aris, da a.S.

13 ix.: Smis, S & Van der Borght, K “Belgian Law concerning The Punishment of GraveBreaches of International Humanitarian Law: A Contested Law with UncontestedObjectives “in ASIL Insiqhts, (Juli 2003)”.

14 ix., zogadad: Mallory, J.L. “Resolving the Confusion Over Head of State Immu-nity: The Defined Rights of Kings”, in Columbia Law Review (1986), vol. 86, at169, gv.169-71.

15 amasTan dakavSirebiT ix., zogadad: Brohmer, J. (1997) State Immunity andthe Violation of Human Rights, gv. 2-4 & 24-33; Higgins, R. (1994) Problems andProcesses gv. 78-94.

16 ix. me-5 sqolio, zemoT.17 saerTaSoriso danaSaulis ganmartebasTan dakavSirebiT ix.: Schabas, W.A.

(2001) An Introduction to the International Criminal Court, gv. 21-53.18 principi par in parem non habet imperium.19 ix. Falk, R. (1998) Sovereignty and Human Dignity: The Search for Reconcilia-

tion, in Steiner, H.J.& Alston, P. (ed.) (2000) International Human Rights in Con-text: Law, Politics, Moral, gv. 581.

20 ix., zogadad: Bröhmer, J. (1997) State Immunity and the Violation of HumanRights, gv. 14-33; European Convention on State Immunity; Fox, H. (2002) TheLaw of State Immunity, gv. 11-64; Lewis, C.J. (1990) State and Diplomatic Immu-nity, gv. 7-21; McClanahan, G.V. (1989) Diplomatic Immunity, pp. 27-83; Malanc-zuk, P. (1997) Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law, gv. 118-123;O’Neill, K.C. A New Customary Law of Head of State Immunity?: Hirohito and

63

Pinochet, Stanford Journal of International Law, 38, 2002 at 289, gv. 291-295;Brownlie, I. (1998) Principles of Public International Law, gv. 327-328.

21 ix. Malanczuk, P. (1997) Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law, gv. 118.22 ix. Bassiouni, M. C. (1992) Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal

Law, gv. 465.23 ix. Lewis, C.J. (1990) State and Diplomatic Immunity, gv. 15.24 ,,saxelmwifo – es me var". ix. Watts, A. (1994) The Legal Position in Interna-

tional Law of Heads of States, Heads of Governments and Foreign ministers inCollected Courses of The Hague Academy of International Law gv. 35.

25 gaerTianebuli erebis organizaciis wesdeba, me-2 muxlis 1-li punqti.26 Ibid., me-2 muxlis me-2 punqti.27 Ibid., 1-li muxlis me-3 punqti.28 Ibid., 55-e muxlis g qvepunqti.29 ix.: 24-e sqolio, supra, gv. 36.30 ix.: Fox, H. (2002) The Law of State Immunity, gv. 26.31 Tumca saerTaSoriso sisxlis samarTlis tribunalis srulad `saerTa-

Sorisod~ miCneva, misi bunebidan gamomdinare, rTulia.32 ix.: 29-e sqolio, supra.33 ix., mag.: Shaw, M.N. (2003) International Law, gv. 574.34 ix.: me-8 sqolio, supra.35 ix., zogadad: Simpson, G. (2004) Great Powers and Outlaw States: Unequal

Sovereigns in the International Legal Order.36 ix., me-5 sqolio, supra.37 ix., mag.: me-6 sqolio, supra, gv. 292.38 versalis xelSekruleba, 28 ivnisi, 1919.39 ix: Commission on the Responsibilities of the Authors of the War on the En-

forcement of Penalties, American Journal of International Law (1920) vol.14(1),gv. 95-154.

40 versalis xelSekruleba, 227-e muxli.41 ix. 39- e sqolio, supra, gv.116.42 ix. 39- e sqolio, supra, gv.116..43 Ibid.44 ix.: Fox, H. (2002) The Law of State Immunity, gv.429.45 ix.: Bassiouni, M. C. (1992) Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal

Law, gv.343.46 gaeros generaluri asambleis rezolucia 95/1 III principi ganamtki-

cebs individualuri sisxlissamarTlebrivi pasuxismgeblobis princips,romelic dafiqsirebulia saerTaSoriso samxedro tribunalis wesdeb-is me-7 muxlSi.

47 ix.: Cassese, A. (2003) International Criminal Law, gv. 267.48 gaerTianebuli erebis organizaciis uSiSroebis sabWos rezoluciebi:

808-e da 827-e (1993).49 gaerTianebuli erebis organizaciis uSiSroebis sabWos rezolucia –

955 (1994).50 ix.: Milosevic, ICTY decision on preliminary motions, Trial Chamber III, Decision of

8 November 2001, paras. 226-33, citirebulia: Fox, H. (2002) The Law ofState Immunity, gv. xx.

51 saerTaSoriso sisxlis samarTlis sasamarTlos damfuZnebeli romis stat-uti, 27-e muxli.

52 radgan gaerTianebuli erebis organizaciis uSiSroebis sabWo ufleba-mosilia, sakuTari diskreciiT imoqmedos saerTaSoriso mSvidobisa dausafrTxoebisaTvis Seqmnil nebismier safrTxesTan an maTs darRvevas-Tan dakavSirebiT, da radgan orive politikuri cneba ufroa, vidre sa-marTlebrivi, moqmedebis Tavisufleba da politikuri SexedulebebiTgadawyvetilebis miReba sul ar unda iyos gamoricxuli mis mier gadaw-yvetilebebis miRebis procesSi. amasTan dakavSirebiT ix. zogadad: Con-forti, B. (2005) The Law and Practice of the United Nations.

53 ix.: O’Neill, K.C. “A New Customary Law of Head of State Immunity?: Hirohitoand Pinochet”, in Stanford Journal of International Law (2002), vol. 38, at 289, gv. 294.

54 Ibid.


64


55 sxvadasxva saxis iurisdiqciaTa detaluri ganxilva am naSromis far-glebs scildeba. ix., zogadad: Brownlie, I. (1998) Principles of Public Inter-national Law, pp.289-299; Bantekas, I. & Nash,S. (2003) international CriminalLaw gv. 143-148, gv. 151-165.

56 ix.: Shaw, M.N. (2003) International Law, gv. 572. ( teqstSi xazgasma avtoris).57 Ibid., gv. 573.58 ix.: Shaw, M.N. (2003) International Law, gv. 572. ( teqstSi xazgasma avtoris).59 ix., magaliTad: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of

Genocide, International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, ConventionAgainst Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or punish-ment.

60 ix.: Broomhall, B. (2003) International Justice and The International criminalCourt, gv. 105.

61 Ibid.62 Tumca es cneba jer kidev ar aris a priory saerTaSoriso samarTlis nor-

mad farTod aRiarebuli: ix., mag.: “Kosovo: House of Commons ForeignAffairs Committee 4th Report, June 2000”, in ICLQ (2000), vol.49(4), gv. 876-943.

63 komplementarobis principTan dakavSirebiT zogadad ix.: Simpson, G.(2004) “Politics, Sovereignty, Remembrance” in: McGoldrick, D & et al (ed.), ThePermanent International Criminal Court: Legal and Policy Issues, gv. 55.

64 ix.:: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Art. 17; es principicgulisxmobs suverenuli imunitetebis mxardaWeras. amdenad, argumenti,romlis Tanaxmad, saerTaSoriso sisxlis samarTlis sasamarTlos upre-cedento universaluri iurisdiqcia gaaCnia, unda uariyos.

65 ix.: Pinochet House of Lords, Regina v. Bartle and the Commissioner of Policefor the Metropolis and Other (Appellants), Ex Parte Pinochet (Respondent) (SecondAppeal hearing from a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division holdingthat former heads of state are entitled to immunity), House of Lords, 24 March 1999.

66 ix., zogadad:: Horowitz, J. Regina v. Bartle and the Commissioner of Police forthe Metropolis and Others Ex Parte Pinochet: Universal Jurisdiction and Sover-eign Immunity for Jus Cogens Violations in Fordham International Law Journalvol.23, pp.489-527; O’Neill, K.C. “A New Customary Law of Head of State Immu-nity?: Hirohito and Pinochet”, in Stanford Journal of International Law (2002), vol.38, at 289, gv. 317.

67 Ibid., gv. 316.68 Ibid., gv. 291.69 ix.:Ex parte Pinochet (No.1), [1999] 1 A.C. at 109.70 ix.:Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treat-

ment or punishment71 ix.:Carter, P. (2002) “International Criminal Law and Human Rights” in: Butler,

F.(ed.), Human Rights Protection: Methods and Effectiveness, gv. 145.72 ix.:Chinkin, C. M. “United Kingdom House of Lords, (Spanish Request for extra-

dition). Regina v.Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte(No.3).[1999] 2 WLR 827”, in American Journal of International Law (1999) vol.93,at 703, see: gv. 711.

73 ix.:Fox, H. The Resolution of the Institute of International Law on the Immunitiesof Heads of State and Government, International and Comparative Law Quarter-ly, (January 2002) vol. 51, gv. 119.

74 ix.: Case Concerning The Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republicof The Congo v. Belgium), International Court of Justice, 14 February, 2002.

75 ix.: Yang, X. “Immunity for International Crimes: A Reaffirmation of TraditionalDoctrine”, in Cambridge Law Journal, (July 2002), vol.61, part 2, at 239; gv. 245.

76 ix.: sqolio 73, supra, gv. 124.77 ix.: sqolio 73, supra, gv. 125.78 ix.: sqolio 75, supra, gv. 244.79 ix.: sqolio 74, supra, §. 61.80 ix.: Yang, X. “Immunity for International Crimes: A Reaffirmation of Traditional

Doctrine”, in Cambridge Law Journal, (July 2002), vol.61, part 2, at 239; gv. 245..81 ix.: Cassese, A. (2003) International Criminal Law, gv. 3.

65

KETEVAN KHUTSISHVILI

SHALL PROTECTION OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES SUPERSEDEPROTECTION OF HUMAN BEINGS FROM MASS ATROCITIES?

“Of course, it was under the law of all civilized peoplesa crime for one man with his bare knuckles to assault another.

How did it come that multiplying this crime by a million, andadding firearms to bare knuckles, made a legally innocent act?”1

I. INTRODUCTION

A right to life, a right to be free from tor-ture, a right to … there are so many essentialhuman rights violation of which to individualvictims causes severe punishment of individ-ual, “ordinary” offenders. It is important toenquire how high ranking state officials, mas-terminding and perpetrating murder and tor-ture of thousands are held accountable; whatis a responsibility of those who plot, but donot necessarily physically execute the mostegregious crimes, named “internationalcrimes”2, disrupting conscience of entire man-kind? From human rights protection perspec-tive shall it matter whether a planner and apolicy maker of massive atrocities is a (serv-ing) head of state or other incumbent high lev-el state official, enjoying (sovereign) immuni-ties or an ordinary, for that pur-pose a “lower-level” murderer? Should the universal juris-diction be applicable without any reservationto the highest level policy makers mastermind-ing human rights atrocities whose lower-levelexecutors are brought to justice for the samecrimes?

Deriving from the issues raised above, amain question this essay brings forward is thefollowing: How legitimate can be a claim ofannulling immunity of heads of states andother high level state officials3 for grosshuman rights violations and subjectingthem to universal jurisdiction, in order tomake every nation, physically capable toprosecute them, legally entitled to do so?To try to answer this question a case of Pi-nochet4 will be discussed as a case study and

conclusions will be drawn with regard to thefollowing: how far can state sovereignty becompromised for protection of human beingsfrom international crimes and prosecution ofthose “well-protected”5 by different immunitiesfor masterminding, directing or allowing massatrocities to happen, including against theirown nationals? It will be argued that eventhough the Pinochet case was considered asa new wave in the development of the con-cept of criminal responsibility of (former) headof state for international crimes, its judgmentin this sense is only very limited.6 As the issueof immunities is rather controversial and ex-tensive state practice7 can not be cited in re-lation to the topic of the essay, a brief parallelwill be drawn with another interesting concept:a still emerging concept of humanitarian in-tervention in cases of gross human rights vio-lations8. It will be demonstrated that eventhough protection of sovereign equality ofstates and of state (sovereign) immunities areimportant principles of contemporary interna-tional relations, these principles can still bedisregarded when there is a sufficiently ma-ture political will of “important states”9 or theiralliances, making decisions on behalf of theinternational community.10

The topic of this essay is especially im-portant, as disregarding immunities of perpe-trators of international crimes is not a newnotion for “international tribunals”11. Taking intoaccount advantages of prosecution at nation-al level12 yet another question emerges: whyshould domestic courts not be allowed to ex-ercise their jurisdiction using the same princi-ple and exercise universal criminal jurisdiction

66


over these offenders for commission of inter-national crimes?

In order to answer the main question thisessay poses and to understand in depth thelegitimacy of a quest to rescind an absoluteimmunity from criminal prosecution of the high-est level state officials, it is important to brieflyanalyze a concept of state immunity and de-velopment of a notion of individual criminalresponsibility (of high ranking state officials).Analyzing the universal jurisdiction in interna-tional law and contrasting a possibility of abol-ishing immunities to exercise universal juris-diction over perpetrators of internationalcrimes with the recently introduced concep-tion of humanitarian intervention for protec-tion of human rights – conclusion will be drawnin relation to feasibility of establishment ofstate practice and respective norms of inter-national human rights law to subject the high-est representatives of sovereign states to uni-versal jurisdiction, and thus grant domesticcourts of any nation possibility to prosecutehigh ranking state officials protected by im-munities when perpetrating internationalcrimes. Interrelation of immunities, a principleof sovereign equality of states and a problemof protection of human beings from interna-tional crimes will also be discussed. The mainargument the essay tries to develop is thatthe initiatives similar to the Belgian law con-cerning The Punishment of Grave Breachesof International Humanitarian Law13 must besupported in this sense.

The following Chapter will discuss devel-opment of a concept of sovereign immunity,and will show that at the current stage of de-velopment of human rights law protection ofimmunities and sovereign equality of states isnot valued more than prosecution of gravehuman rights violations, constituting interna-tional crimes. Chapter III will discuss develop-ment of attributing individual criminal respon-sibility to criminal leaders for grave interna-tional crimes and Chapter IV will introduce anidea of humanitarian intervention when grosshuman rights violations take place in a coun-try. This topic is interesting for the purposesof the Essay as the lack of case law in relationto the theme of this work calls for drawing anal-ogies with other attempts to protect humanbeings from mass atrocities and for that com-promising even state sovereignty. Chapter Vintroduces the case of Pinochet as a ground-

breaking case in relation to protection of im-munities and prosecution of criminal leadersof states.

It is important to underline at this stagethat despite realizing importance attached todifferent types of immunities14, for the purpos-es of this essay immunities afforded to highlevel state officials will be regarded as a one,unified concept, which helps the high rankingperpetrators of international crimes to escapecriminal responsibility. Thus, appreciating dif-ferences between immunity ratione materiaeand immunity ratione personae the essay willnot concentrate on these differences and theimportance attached to them15. This is due tothe limited format of the essay and also dueto the fact that if the matter is discussed fromthe victims’ perspective, there is too little a dif-ference for victims of human rights atrocities,whether a person responsible for grave inter-national crimes was covered by immunity “a”or immunity “b”. What is important for victimsis that a “well-protected”16 high level official isresponsible for the crime, and he/she can es-cape this responsibility due to the well-config-ured immunities afforded to him/her. The es-say will also not consider responsibility of crim-inal leaders for relatively minor crimes – orthose which fall outside the scope of definitionof international crimes17. Thus, the interest ofthe essay is to consider the relationship of anytype of immunity that can possibly be arguedby criminal leaders of states, with their criminalresponsibility for international crimes.

II. PROTECTION OF IMMUNITIES AND

SOVEREIGN EQUALITY OF STATES18:

WHY SHALL THIS MATTER MORE

THAN PROTECTION OF HUMAN

BEINGSFROM ATROCITIES?

“If the doctrine of sovereignty could beerased from the minds of political leaders,would it reduce those forms of human suffer-ing associated with extreme governmental fail-ure? Would such an erasure strengthen sen-timents of human solidarity on which an ethosof collective responsibility and individual ac-countability depends?”19 This is a fundamen-tal question Richard Falk put in his essay. Thequestions, this Chapter poses in relation tothe same issues, are the following: Can pro-tection of human beings from atrocities beconsidered as having more value than protec-

67

tion of sovereign (state) immunity and there-fore, can inviolability of those representing astate at international plane be put under riskfor the sake of prosecution and, possibly,avoiding future massacres?

To find answers to these questions a cur-sory overview of a concept of sovereign (state)immunity20 is apt in order to appreciate signif-icance attached to it historically. Protection ofsovereign (state) immunity and equality ofstates in international relations do have con-siderable importance. These are concepts ofinternational law, detailed study of which fallsoutside the scope of this essay and therefore,the background discussion will only center onthem from the viewpoint of their correlation withthe development of human rights idea. TheEssay does not argue that a concept of sov-ereign immunity has to vanish altogether.Scope of an enquiry of this work only extendsto notion of sovereign (state) immunity asmuch as it may become a bar to prosecutionof perpetrators of international crimes.

Sovereign (or state) immunity is definedin international law textbooks as “the legal rulesand principles determining the conditions un-der which a foreign state may claim freedomfrom the jurisdiction (the legislative, judicial andadministrative powers) of another state (oftencalled the “forum state”).”21 This conceptionwas considered to be a cornerstone of inter-national relations for centuries. Deriving fromthis rule, “[h]istorically, heads of state were notsubject to criminal responsibility for their ac-tions, because of the merger of the sovereignand the sovereignty of the state.”22 Thus, “[t]hetheoretical basis of the rule of sovereign im-munity can be traced to a time when mostStates were ruled by personal sovereigns who,in a very real sense, personified the State”.23

“The interrelationship between the State andits Head was thus very close: in Loius XIV’swords, ‘L’Etat, c’est moi’”.24

With the development of international lawand conception of state, the attitudes in thisrespect changed. In contemporary interna-tional relations rationale for protection of sov-ereign equality of states may be found in needof supporting international relations betweenthe “equally sovereigns”, in order to maintainproper legal order internationally. Primary sub-jects of international law are sovereign statesand to mention as an example only one – uni-versal international organization, the United

Nations, it “is based on the principle of thesovereign equality of all its Members”25, i.e.sovereign states. However, this “sovereignequality” can not be conceived to be uncondi-tional, as along with recognizing the aforemen-tioned principle, the UN Charter qualifies therights of its members by introducing the follo-wing provision: “All Members, in order to en-sure to all of them the rights and benefits re-sulting from membership, shall fulfil in goodfaith the obligations assumed by them in ac-cordance with the present Charter.”26 One ofthe “obligations assumed” is obligation to pro-tect human rights, as according to the sameCharter, the purposes of the United Nationsinclude “promoting and encouraging respectfor human rights and for fundamental freedomsfor all”27 and “universal respect for, and obser-vance of, human rights and fundamental free-doms for all”.28 Accordingly, it may be conclud-ed that if member states do not comply withthe obligations imposed upon them by theCharter, they may not appeal to the conceptof sovereign equality of states and may notrequire full protection of immunities and sov-ereign equality to which a state is generallyentitled.

Consequently, rationale behind the conceptsof state immunity and state sovereignty maybe formulated as follows: these notions do notmean granting impunity to those perpetratinginternational crimes rather they stand for pro-tecting equality of states, provided that theymeet the obligations imposed on them. As SirWatts argues, “over the past half century inparticular, significant changes have occurredin the law relating to State immunity. Practicalneeds have led to a re-evaluation of the roleof the State in today’s international communi-ty. Older notions of their absolute entitlementto immunity are giving way to a more qualifiedview”29. According to Fox, “[a]nother factor atwork in the dismantling of the WestphalianState is the increased significance given to theindividual and the fundamental interests ofeach human being. Whilst those interests maynot necessarily be protected by a process orinstitution other than the State, a perceptionhas emerged that such interest cannot nec-essarily be subordinated to the State inter-est...”30 A conclusion follows that developmentof international law and law of human rightsdoes not permit shielding behind state sover-eignty in order to excuse perpetrations of hor-rific human rights atrocities.

K. KHUTSISHVILI, SHALL PROTECTION OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES SUPERSEDE PROTECTION...

68


As the Essay will demonstrate, idea of in-violability of state sovereignty is no longer thatintegral, when protection of human beings frommass violations of human rights is at stake.Development of human rights law, introduc-tion of an idea of humanitarian interventionand no plea of immunities whatsoever beforeinternational tribunals signals this. Concernmust be expressed in relation to domestic tri-bunals that are not entitled to fully exerciseuniversal jurisdiction and the concept of judg-ing criminal leaders is basically confined tojudicial institutions created under internation-al authority31. Writing in 1994 Sir Watts noted,that “it is […] to be cautious about the extentto which a restrictive rule of State immunity issufficiently generally supported throughoutthe international community to be yet estab-lished as a rule of customary international law:the trend towards adoption of the restrictiveview is strong, but it cannot yet be said to en-joy consensus.32

Advancement of human rights law in 20th

century determined support of human rightsmore than inviolability of certain highest levelstate officials, representing a state and thuscovered by different immunities. This trans-formation was accompanied with the march ofdevelopment of human rights notion since theWorld War II: human rights are no longer “do-mestic matter of a state.”33

Therefore, it follows that despite huge im-portance attaching to the protection of sover-eign equality of states, protection of human be-ings from atrocities must be valued more andpolitical consideration shall be determined andto certain extent substituted by considerationsof necessity of protection of humans from theevil emanating in many cases from own government.

Meanwhile, concept of humanitarian inter-vention seems to have emerged and evensecured support of a number of respected in-ternational law scholars34, not to mention thesupport of states which recognize this conceptas lawful. Now developments also move to-wards recognizing “outlaw” states35. Observ-ing these novelties, it can be argued that pro-tection of immunities can not stay uncondition-ally intact. If the international community candecide to “outlaw” the states leaders of whichperpetrate international crimes, an argumentfollows that domestic courts of the same statesmay be permitted to exercise universal juris-diction to prosecute the perpetrators, disre-

garding the different immunities they may havethe benefit of.

The subsequent chapters of the Essay willfocus on correlation of notion of immunitiesand individual criminal responsibility for inter-national crimes on the one hand and relative-ly newly emerged concepts of humanitarianintervention on the other. However, it is impor-tant to mention them at this stage as well, todemonstrate that the old notion of state sov-ereignty has lost its original importance notonly in relation to separate individuals (despitetheir rank), but in relation to entire countries,in a sense of entire territories within a givenstate boundaries. Comparison of these no-tions will once again demonstrate that conceptof immunities may not be appealed to so cou-rageously any more, as these newly material-ized notions incur and imply responsibility ofnot only individual criminal leaders of any giv-en sovereign state, but “punishment” of en-tire state. Consequently, it may be concludedwithout restraint that even if immunities andprotection of sovereign equality of states didmatter more than protection of human beingsfrom massive atrocities, this does not hold trueany more.

III. HOW DOES THE NOTION OF INDIVIDUAL

CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR GRAVE

INTERNATIONAL CRIMES CORRELATE

WITH IMMUNITIES?

A problem related to prosecuting criminalleaders protected by immunities and involvedin perpetration of international crimes emerg-es as a rule when exercise of universal crimi-nal jurisdiction by domestic courts of states isconsidered. Surfacing question in this regardis as follows: Can it be claimed that interna-tional law has always straightforwardly sup-ported absolute immunity and inviolability ofthe highest ranking “well-protected”36? To an-alyze this, an overview of recognition of indi-vidual criminal responsibility for internationalcrimes is apt: examining advancement of theconcept of individual criminal responsibility ofhigh ranking state officials gives a possibilityto glance over the progress in developing thenotion of charging and judging the criminalleaders for international crimes, irrespectiveof their immunities and privileges. These trans-formations served as considerable challengeto the idea of state immunity in respect of in-

69

ternational crimes perpetrated by those rep-resenting state and claiming respective immu-nity from prosecution37.With the gradual de-velopment of human rights doctrine ploddingerosion of doctrine of sovereign immunity tookplace.

It is broadly accepted that the NurembergCharter and its Judgment stand as corner-stones in recognizing the concept of individu-al criminal responsibility for internationalcrimes, including of those protected by immu-nities. However, before the Nuremberg trialsthere was the Versailles Treaty38 and for ouranalysis it is important to mention that the firstwave of change was noticed already after theWorld War I39, when the Kaiser Wilhelm II wasannounced to be falling under the jurisdictionof a “special tribunalp constituted to try theaccused.”40 The Report of the Commission onthe Responsibilities of the Authors of the Waron the Enforcement of Penalties further stat-ed: “… the Commission desire to state ex-pressly that in the hierarchy of persons inauthority, there is no reason why rank, how-ever exalted, should in any circumstances pro-tect the holder of it from responsibility whenthat responsibility has been established be-fore a properly constituted tribunal. This ex-tends even to the case of heads of states”.41

Though this was a considerable challenge tothe notion of state sovereignty at the earlystage of change of perception in this regard,the Report of the Commission further “pro-posed the establishment of a high tribunalcomposed of judges drawn from many nations,and included the possibility of the trial beforethat tribunal of a former head of a state withthe consent of that state itself secured by ar-ticles in the Treaty of Peace.”42 The reserva-tion referring to the “consent of [the] state”can be understood if we take into consider-ation level of development of the concept ofindividual criminal responsibility for grave in-ternational crimes of persons covered by im-munities at the time when the Versailles Trea-ty was concluded. Despite this reservation, thestated principle remains to be an importantbreakthrough in the perception of interrela-tion of state sovereignty and protection ofhumans from outrageous carnage. The sameReport further noted: “If the immunity of a sov-ereign […] would involve laying down the prin-ciple that the greatest outrages against thelaws and customs of war and the laws of hu-

manity, if proved against him, could in no cir-cumstances be punished […] such a conclu-sion would shock the conscience of civilizedmankind.”43

Thus, even though in an extremely rudi-mentary form and even though, never real-ized in practice, the conclusions after theWorld War I recognized possibility of neglect-ing the absolute protection of sovereign im-munity and subjecting even Sovereign to pros-ecution for exceptional outrages.44 Thereforethe Versailles Treaty stands out for its initialand at that time unprecedented recognitionof criminal responsibility of a head of state.

The next positive development in relationto disregarding the claim of immunities wasmarked at Nuremberg, where prosecution ofthe highest level state representatives for in-ternational crimes took place. “The [IMT] Char-ter did… establish unequivocally, the princi-ple of individual criminal responsibility underinternational criminal law… irrespective of anymandates under national law, and irrespec-tive of the doctrine of Act of State and otherimmunities...”45

The pronouncement by the NurembergTribunal of individual criminal responsibility forinternational crimes was not an end to devel-opment of this concept. Developments in in-ternational law prompted a need for furtherelaboration of the principles, and the Nurem-berg Principles46 followed, reaffirming impor-tance and overall recognition of a principle ofcriminal responsibility of leaders perpetratinginternational crimes.

As Cassese argues, “[t]he traditional rulewhereby senior State officials may not be heldaccountable for acts performed in the dis-charge of their official duties was significantlyundermined after the Second World War, wheninternational treaties and judicial decisionsupheld the principle that this ‘shield’ no long-er protects those senior State officials accusedof war crimes, crimes against peace, or crimesagainst humanity. More recently, this princi-ple has been extended to torture and otherinternational crimes.”47 The re-establishedworld order needed some more time to onceagain return to the principle recognized by theArticle 7 of the International Military TribunalCharter and try highest ranking state officials,when they ignored plea for justice of thou-sands of their own or other states’ nationalsand perpetrated international crimes. This


70


only happened in the late 20th century, whenthe Security Council of the United Nations de-cided to create ad hoc international tribunalsand try perpetrators of international crimes inthe former Yugoslavia48 and Rwanda49. “Thecustomary international law character of therule that a head of State cannot plead his of-ficial position as a bar to criminal liability forgenocide, war crimes, and crimes against hu-manity before an international tribunal hasbeen confirmed by a Chamber of the Interna-tional Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugo-slavia (ICTY) in ruling that in accordance withArticle 7.1 of its statute the ICTY has jurisdic-tion over President Milosevic, even though thegenocide and other international crimes al-leged were committed at a time when he wasserving as head of State of the Federal Re-public of Yugoslavia.”50 Following the lines ofdevelopment of the two ad hoc tribunals, thepermanent International Criminal Court, estab-lished by the Rome Statute, also recognizedimpossibility of a plea of immunities by the offe-nders falling under the scope of the Statute51.

Thus, as this cursory overview witnesses,recognition of the individual criminal respon-sibility of the high ranking state officials maybe argued to be a settled practice. Problememerges in correlation of universal jurisdictionwith immunities in respect with tribunals thatare to prosecute high ranking officials, includ-ing heads of states for international crimes.Tribunals, that have prosecuted leaders ofsovereign states where international, or atleast “internationalized”. This developmentmust start shifting and should move towardsnational, domestic courts. It is noticeable alsothat prosecutions of those covered by immu-nities were permitted to either victoriousstates, or were commissioned by the UnitedNations Security Council. It is essential to pointthis out, as antagonists to the idea of univer-sal jurisdiction for international crimes andthus, of subjecting those covered by differentimmunities to jurisdiction of national courts ofany state frequently argue that granting do-mestic courts this jurisdiction might involvepolitical abuse of power and serve as a polit-ical tool against leaders of other sovereignstates. This argument may be easily eliminat-ed by contrasting the state of affairs when anynation is entitled to exercise universal juris-diction with the one, when only “privileged”nations, would that be victorious nations or

maximum 15 countries occupying their seatsin the Security Council of the United Nationsare entitled to decide respective principles ofprosecution. Even more can the political pow-er be abused by the Permanent Five mem-bers of the Security Council, which are alwaysin a position to partake in decision makingprocesses related to the most important as-pects of the world development52. Concernsrelated to the political abuse of power maystem from any activity, as this was clearly dem-onstrated by the antagonism of the UnitedStates in relation to the permanent Interna-tional Criminal Court. Granting to the domes-tic courts universal jurisdiction over interna-tional crimes and recognizing their capacity toprosecute any leader of any state exclusivelyfor perpetration of this type of crimes must beconsidered as a possibility which would ensurebetter possibilities of bringing all perpetratorsto justice.

It must also be noted that the Report ofthe Versailles Commission mentions a “prop-erly constituted tribunal”, not “an internation-al tribunal” when referring to judging Kaiser.Even though the following statement might bechallenged by supporters of inviolability ofthose enjoying immunities, referring to the men-tioned report it may still be argued, that it isnot necessarily needed to have an interna-tionally constructed tribunal to judge thoseprotected by immunities, but individual crimi-nal responsibility of this type of defendants maybe falling under universal jurisdiction, i.e. do-mestic courts of any state, despite link with acommitted crime, perpetrator or a victim, mustbe entitled to bring them to justice.

O’Neil goes further and argues that “anargument can also be made through the anal-ogy to diplomatic immunity that both currentand former heads of state do not have immu-nity for acts that violate international law.”53 Shegoes on in comparing and concludes: “just assending state can waive the immunity of a dip-lomat who acts outside the scope of his offi-cial duties, a head of state who violates hisofficial duties by committing internationalcrimes may be regarded as waiving his ownimmunity. This form of “waiver”, which couldbe considered automatic for acts in violationof international law, would be stricter than thatof diplomatic immunity because the sendingstate can choose not to waive immunity for itsdiplomats.”54

71

Analyzing the circumstances surroundingcreation of the International Criminal Tribunalfor the Former Yugoslavia and the InternationalCriminal Tribunal for Rwanda it can be con-cluded that sovereignty of both – the formerYugoslavia and Rwanda were disregarded bythe respective decisions of the Security Coun-cil, when the human rights situation in bothcountries reached a point of extreme abnor-mality, and international community decidedto deal with the most appalling human rightssituations. Following the same line of argumen-tation, as employed when considering thementioned cases, it can be easily argued thatwhen the situation is so harsh in terms of hu-man rights abuses that the perpetrated actsequal to international crimes, the prosecutionof these crimes must be entrusted to any na-tional court, “pproperly constructed”, as men-tioned by the Versailles Conclusion, to bringperpetrators to justice by all means available,and as soon as possible. This is not only im-portant for the prosecution of already com-mitted crimes, but this may also play a role ofdeterrent and contribute to preventing futureatrocities. Realizing the importance of theseactions, as well as considering the fact thatsovereign equality of states has already beennot once violated by other states, being thatthrough decisions of the Security Council orby way of organizing the “victors’ justice” ori-ented tribunals, it is not legitimate to arguethat prosecution of international crimes bynational courts of any state, irrespective of abone with the perpetrated crime will be an ac-tion directed against sovereign equality ofstates.

Recent developments have given evenmore reason to consider the judicial settlementof this issue in any domestic court more rea-sonable and both – legally and morally justifi-able. The developments that are reviewed inthe following Chapter are much more contro-versial than the idea of prosecuting criminalleaders of any sovereign state by anothermight be. So called “humanitarian intervention”will be analyzed in order to contrast them withthe possibility of undertaking criminal prose-cutions, disregarding the pleas of immunity andshowing that there may be worse threats tosovereignty of states than prosecution ofindividual – however highly placed – perpe-trators.

IV. UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION AND A NEW

ATTEMPT TO PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS –

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION?

To prosecute any perpetrator of humanrights atrocities, a respective jurisdiction55 mustbe established. This Chapter will briefly intro-duce a topic of jurisdiction, as protection ofsovereign equality of states is also related tothe concept of jurisdictions: “Jurisdiction con-cerns the power of the state to affect people,property and circumstances and reflects thebasic principles of state sovereignty, equalityof states and non-interference in domesticaffairs. Jurisdiction is a vital and indeed cen-tral feature of state sovereigntyp”.56 A notionof jurisdiction falls within the scope of the in-terest of this essay, and is dealt with in thisChapter, as much as it is argued in the essaythat criminal responsibility for internationalcrimes must by all means be subject to “uni-versal jurisdiction”, and thus, sovereign immu-nities may not be claimed as a shield for thehighest level perpetrators of such crimes.Shaw argues, that “pwhile jurisdiction is closelylinked with territory it is not exclusively so tied.Many states have jurisdiction to try offencesthat have taken place outside their territory...”57

Shaw further states that “[diplomats], for ex-ample, have extensive immunity from the lawsof the country in which they are working andvarious sovereign acts by states may not bequestioned or overturned in the courts of aforeign country”.58

Of all the principles of jurisdiction the uni-versality principle is of interest for the purposesof this essay. Universal Jurisdiction59 “is at a turn-ing point”, argues Broomhall,60 mentioning that“this doctrine stands poised to become an inte-gral, albeit supplemental component of theemerging international justice system. At thesame time, serious obstacles stand in the wayof its realization as a consistently available toolof fair and impartial enforcement”.61 These diffi-culties derive mainly from the continued asser-tion of sovereign immunity and granting it quitean importance in international relations. Univer-sal jurisdiction is an interesting concept for thepurposes of this Essay, as it disregards the dif-ferent mechanisms of protection and providesa possibility for domestic courts of any state tobring perpetrators of international crimes to jus-tice, despite the nexus the committed crimes mayhave with a prosecuting state. It can be argued


72


though that exercising universal jurisdiction maynot be considered to be widely supported.

Development of relatively recent notion ofhumanitarian intervention62 is interesting forthe purposes of this essay, as it serves as atool of further erosion of a concept of sover-eign immunity for the sake of dealing with themass human rights atrocities in any given stateafter all other legal and political means haveproven to be inefficient. This new concept isconsidered to be emerging due to the veryfact that international crimes so severely vio-late essential human rights that it is not per-missible for the international community notto intervene, even by using force and thuspunish the perpetrators. Consequently aquestion emerges: if humanitarian interven-tion may be justified to protect human rights,what is so unacceptable in recognizing uni-versal jurisdiction over international crimes andinstead of letting causing even more devas-tating results for the general population of anygiven country, leaders of which might be im-plicated in committing international crimes, tosubject these leaders to universal jurisdictionand bring them to justice in any state physi-cally capable to do so? The benefits of suchchange in practice seem to be the following: acriminal leader receives deserved punishment,prosecution is targeted and instead of involv-ing risk to lives of groups, already victimizedby policies or conducts of criminal leaders onlythose “deserving” are hold to account. In thiscase prosecution is targeted and victims cansee that justice is served, whereas by exercis-ing humanitarian intervention even more in-nocent people become victims along with thosegroups that might already have been victims ofperpetrators.

Therefore, the question remains: if huma-nitarian intervention can be tolerated in particu-larly exceptional situations, when the scale andcharacter of perpetration is extremely abhor-rent, why can not the prosecution of thoseprotected by immunities for perpetration ofinternational crimes by courts of other statesbe considered as not infringing sovereign equ-ality of states and thus, make it possible to stripoff immunities from those deserving so due totheir activities, notwithstanding their rank?

If there is a risk of political misuse and ifstates need more assurance of impartialitythan this can be guaranteed by a nationalcourt of any given state, the Security Council

of the United Nations may be entrusted to makea decision over criminal leaders and situationsthey create and recognize them subjected to“universal jurisdiction”, as their activities inflictgross human rights atrocities, causing “threatto international peace and security”.

Whatever motivation behind and justifica-tion for humanitarian intervention, it may notbe considered to be fitting any of the recog-nized concepts of jurisdiction. It can not beargued that by possibly developing this con-cept further and making it a rule of interna-tional law, even if used in very exceptional sit-uations, it would cause less harm to state sove-reignty than recognition of exercise of univer-sal jurisdiction over international crimes, dis-regarding the status of the perpetrator. Thedevelopment of international and human rightslaws evidence the need for progressive deve-lopment of universally recognized principles.

Thus, a signal stemming from the emerg-ing concept of humanitarian intervention, thatmass human rights violations may serve as agood cause to disregard sovereign equalityof states and intervene in seemingly “domes-tic” matters, may lead to a conclusion that atthe current stage of development of the con-cept of human rights protection it may perfectlybe possible to subject even the highest rank-ing perpetrators of international crimes to uni-versal jurisdiction along with already existingpossibilities of prosecution, including the pros-ecution according to the “complementarity”principle63 of the International Criminal Court64.

Therefore, the conclusion follows: if thereis a real political will and devotion to the pro-tection of human beings from atrocities, con-stituting international crimes, there will be apossibility to find way out from a maze of pro-tection of sovereign immunity and sovereignequality notions and bring perpetrators of in-ternational crimes to justice as deserved, toserve the interests of justice, to work as deter-rent for future atrocities and to give survivedvictims at least a bit of hope of the future.

V. AFTER ALL THE ABOVE DISCUSSED, WHAT DID

COURT RULE IN THE PINOCHET CASE?

Due to the limited format of the essay, thecontent of the case65 will not be considered indetails: a limited discussion of the case willsuffice for the purposes of the essay. Thecase has been selected due to the following

73

consideration: Pinochet case is recognized asthe first – and precedent creating case – al-lowing exercise of jurisdiction of a nationalcourt, not having any nexus with the perpe-trated crimes and not recognizing the immuni-ty of a former head of state in relation to inter-national crimes committed by him when in of-fice as a head of state. The criminal actionconsidered by the House of Lords as the onenot fitting the list of actions over which thesovereign immunity must still be claimed, istorture, an international crime, an act so hei-nous that punishment of a perpetrator may beallowed under universal jurisdiction. Still, thedecision of the House of Lords was very limit-ed and reserved66. It can still be consideredas a state-centered decision, not the humanrights oriented one. “Although at first glanceit appears as though the judges did not re-spect Chile’s sovereignty because they deniedimmunity without any explicit waiver of immu-nity, each judge was cognizant of the sover-eignty question and justified the lack of theimmunity defense on the basis that Chile hadsigned it away.”67 As argued elsewhere, “thePinochet decision speak[s] to the continuedascendancy of politics and state sovereigntyin the current international legal order”.68

At any rate, the case is interesting for thepurposes of this essay, as the majority in theFirst Pinochet Case concluded that “internationallaw has made plain that certain types of con-duct, including torture and hostage-taking, arenot acceptable conduct on the part of any-one. This applies as much to heads of state,or even more so, as it does to everyone else;the contrary conclusion would make a mock-ery of international law.”69 The six to one ma-jority of the House of Lords in the Third Pi-nochet Case held that Pinochet could not haveclaimed immunity for actions perpetratedagainst the Torture Convention.70

Peter Carter puts a question: “Can it besaid that as a result of the Pinochet decisionthere has now emerged a peremptory law ofgeneral international law inconsistent with dip-lomatic immunities contained in any treatiesinsofar as they might appear to extend to in-ternational crimes against human rights?” andhis answer is extremely concise: “Possibly”.71

As Christine M. Chinkin aptly mentions,“[d]enial of the immunity … claimed for aformer head of state for official acts of torturerepresented a choice between two visions of

international law: a horizontal system basedupon the sovereign equality of states and avertical system that upholds norms of jus co-gens such as those guaranteeing fundamen-tal human rights. The choice was not easy”.72

As the issue of sovereign immunities is afairly controversial issue, there are differentviews on the matter as well. “Writing criticallyof the Lords’ decision in the Pinochet case,Henry Kissinger talks of the tyranny of judgesreplacing that of government, of prosecutori-al discretion without accountability and warnsthat ‘historically the dictatorship of the virtuoushas often led to inquisitions and witch hunts’”.73

When discussing yet another interestingcase for our purposes – a case of Yerodia74,Yang notes that “[w]hile affirming absoluteimmunity from criminal jurisdiction and invio-lability enjoyed by incumbent Ministers forForeign Affairs, the Court avoided taking aposition on the legality of the purported exer-cise of universal jurisdiction by Belgium. How-ever, since the Court approached the issue ofimmunity by assuming that Belgium had uni-versal jurisdiction under international law, thecase definitely shows that, in international law,universal jurisdiction is circumscribed by cer-tain rules, notable among which is the rule ofimmunity.”75 It has also been observed that“[t]he problemp is that there is a considerableuncertainty as to the present international lawrelating to Heads of State and Government.”76

This uncertainty needs to be solved in favourof human rights protection, making States toabandon their egoistic desires to protect them-selves from prosecutions. Protection of humanrights must be given a priority and this is es-pecially so in relation to crimes, termed “inter-national”. Therefore, a principle of prosecu-tion for international crimes must be recog-nized as a principle coexisting with universaljurisdiction and all states must be entitled toexercise their jurisdiction over perpetrators ofsuch crimes, disregarding the status of theperpetrator or any nexus of the crime with theprosecuting state. Unfortunately, the situationis not like this yet77, and as Fox notes, “abso-lute immunity from criminal jurisdiction andpersonal inviolability afforded to serving Headsof State in office … appear to be generally inline with current state practice”.78 Deriving fromthe judgment of the ICJ, “the immunities un-der customary international law, includingthose of Ministers for Foreign Affairs, remain


74


opposable before the courts of a foreign State,even where those courts exercise an extend-ed criminal jurisdiction on the basis of variousinternational conventions on the preventionand punishment of certain serious crimes.”79

The Court “conclude[d] that immunity does notmean impunity.” Unfortunately, however, this isexactly what it means. The four grounds enu-merated by the International Court of Justice80

almost never work. As Yang argues, “in seek-ing to exercise universal jurisdiction over aforeign State or a foreign national who maybenefit from State immunity, a domestic courthas to satisfy two conditions: first, that thecourt has universal jurisdiction, as conferredby international law; and second, that the for-eign State or the individual does not enjoyimmunity under the circumstances.”81 This isexactly the problem. The law and state prac-tice must develop in a manner to overcomethe principle according to which the high rank-ing officials of other states use immunities asa shield to avoid prosecution for internationalcrimes, when the four circumstances enumer-ated by the ICJ do not work in practice andthey stay at large, not bearing responsibilityfor most terrible atrocities.

As it was underlined already, the VersaillesTreaty recognized a possibility of trying a stateleader implicated in perpetration of egregiouscrimes. Pinochet case, even though, very lim-ited in its conclusions, must be considered asa guideline and a precedent creating case inthe efforts against impunity of the highest lev-el state officials. However, the concept of hold-ing the criminal leaders accountable for inter-national crimes anywhere, so that they are notable to enjoy impunity in any part of the world,disrespecting nexus of a crime perpetrated bythem to the state prosecuting them, must turnto be a rule of customary international law andstates may not be able to claim their sover-eign immunity when putting to justice their crim-inal leaders. The Versailles Treaty and Nurem-berg prosecutions laid a good ground for mak-ing this reality. Now, as the sufficient time haspassed and the human rights law has devel-oped well enough to protect human beingsfrom the massive atrocities perpetrated bytheir or other states’ criminal leaders, questfor justice may not be shadowed by alreadyarchaic conception of absolute protection ofsovereign immunities. Before making human-itarian intervention a finally settled rule of in-

ternational law, it would be much more appro-priate and practical to recognize universal ju-risdiction over international crimes, perpetrat-ed by high level state officials, when servingtheir term of office and give them as less pos-sibilities to shield behind armours of protec-tion of immunities as possible.

VI. CONCLUSION: SHALL IMMUNITIES

CONTINUE TO STAND ON THE WAY TO

THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RI\GHTS?

The essay has demonstrated that protec-tion of sovereign equality of states and invio-lability of sovereign immunities has been sub-jected to considerable restrictions throughoutthe 20th century. Development of human rightslaw has prompted and necessitated consider-able changes in the field. As the law progress-es, the development of protection mechanismsfrom atrocities must evolve further, and statesmust recognize the importance of prosecutionof the criminal leaders for the atrocities theyperpetrate misusing their official capacity andinfluence, as well as a state apparatus for that.

If the right of humanitarian interventionmay be recognized as an appropriate mecha-nism to employ, when the human rights atroc-ities reach unimaginable scales, internationallaw must allow breach of sovereign immunityand individual criminal responsibility under theuniversal jurisdiction of acting heads of states,as well as other high level state officials, pro-tected by immunity. Law must develop in a wayto allow individual criminal responsibility for atleast international crimes to fall under univer-sal jurisdiction and not to let criminal leadersto escape justice and seek safe heaven whenthe relatively minor perpetrators receive pun-ishment.

It may be enquired, if may there be anyinternational organization able to pronounceon lifting the immunity ratione personae fromalleged perpetrators? The Security Council ofthe United Nations could be such an organ.“The United Nations Security Council is man-dated, under Chapter VII of the United NationsCharter, to deal with threats to, or breachesof, international peace and security. Oftensuch threats or breaches may and indeed doresult from, among other things, seriouscrimes.”82 The Nuremberg Tribunal recognizedthe individual criminal responsibility for theatrocities of all sorts of political leaders. The

75

subsequent practice of the UN SC has shownthat the situation with regard to the humanrights protection has been recognized as athreat to international peace and security andinternational criminal tribunals have been setup by the UN to judge leaders of individualstates notwithstanding their sovereign equal-ity with other states. If the Security Councildecide that a threat to or a breach of peaceand security are caused by the actions of highlevel officials which at the same time causehuman rights atrocities, the Security Councilshall be authorized along with other measuresto pronounce that these criminal leaders fallunder universal jurisdiction and may be pros-ecuted for commission of international crimesby courts of any nation. The Security Councilcan rule this even in respect of the criminalleaders or high ranking officials even when theyare still in office.

The Statute of the International CriminalCourt recognizes possibility of lifting the im-munity of those leaders in order to punishthem for international crimes. Therefore, theconclusion that the universal jurisdiction overcrimes belonging to the group of “internation-al crimes” must be recognized, giving worldcommunity a possibility to prosecute and judgecriminal leaders for human rights atrocities andthe Security Council (as a political body) aswell as the International Court of Justice (as ajudicial body) can be well used as balancinginternational bodies able to oversee and con-trol the maintenance of sovereign equalityamong states, but at the same time, ensuringthat the most heinous atrocities do not go un-punished due to legal limitations and gaps.

Conclusion: sovereign equality of states,immunity of heads of states and other highranking policy makers does not mean thategregious human rights atrocities shall be tol-erated and allowed by them. If the theory ofhumanitarian intervention seems to be emerg-ing and becoming an established form of in-tervention into domestic matters of sovereignstates, when the human tragedy reaches un-imaginable scale, when there is a principle ofuniversal jurisdiction existing for the most atro-cious crimes, the right of any state to try thehighest ranking officials must be recognizedas a solid rule of law and must be observed atall times to serve justice and protect thousands

from undeserved violation of their rights. TheIdea of human rights protection has alreadytransgressed state boundaries and has be-come a concern of wider international com-munity. Promotion and protection of victims ofatrocities is particularly attracting speeches ofpolitical leaders and has become a part of atleast the declared political agendas of themighty. Apart from technical problems, relat-ed to apprehension and serving sentencesthere shall not be any additional prescriptionsbarring prosecution of highest ranking officials,responsible for mass human rights atrocities.After all, do any of the immunities cost a thingvis-À-vis the outcry of victims of mass atroci-ties? In the era of human rights protection judg-ing only lower-ranking criminals and allowingthose who mastermind and direct mass hu-man rights atrocities to claim immunities mustnot be tolerated. At the same time, a group ofpeople entitled to the immunities may be ex-panded, taking into account the contemporarydevelopments of interstate relations and theremay be more perpetrators emerging shield-ing behind the immunity in the age when hu-manitarian intervention for the most outra-geous crimes seem to be becoming a part ofcontemporary international law.

In the world, where human rights protec-tion is no longer considered to be exclusivelyinternal matter of a sovereign state, whereelections monitoring is undertaken by inter-national observers and international organi-zations can reach as far as prison cells in anygiven state, the notion of state immunity andinviolability of state officials responsible forgravest human rights atrocities shall not bestaying outside the reach of any state and with-in the compound of sovereign state, whichmost probably will do nothing to deal with thematter. Atrocities must be punished. Only adhoc international criminal tribunals will not suf-fice to achieve this goal. The “complementar-ity” principle of the International Criminal Courthas its negative sides. Therefore, recognitionof universal criminal jurisdiction over mostegregious – or international crimes – must bethe way forward and towards recognition ofunavoidable punishment. Those deservingmust be punished and state immunity can notbe shamelessly be used to escape the de-served punishment.


76


Bibliography:

BANTEKAS, Ilias and NASH, Susan 2003 International Criminal Law, 2nd edn. London: Cavendish Publishing; BASSIOUNI, Cherif M 1992 Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal Law, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff

Publishers;BROWNLIE, Ian 1998 Principles of Public International Law, 5th edn, Oxford: Caledonian Press;BRÕHMER, Jurgen 1997 State Immunity and The Violation of Human Rights: This book is a part of the

Series: International Studies in Human Rights, vol. 47, The Hague: Martinus Hijnoff Publishers;BROOMHALL, Bruce 2003 International Justice and The International Criminal Court: Between Sovereignty

and the Rule of Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press;CASSESE, Antonio 2003 International Criminal Law, New York: Oxford University Press;CARTER, Peter 2002 “International Criminal Law and Human Rights” in: BUTLER, Frances (ed.), Human

Rights Protection: Methods and Effectiveness, London: Kluwer Law International;CONFORTI, Benedetto 2005 The Law and Practice of the United Nations, 3rd revised edn, The book is a part

of the Series: Legal Aspects of International Organizations, vol. 42, Leiden: Martinus NijhoffPublishers;

DE THAN, Claire and SHORTS, Edwin 2003 International Criminal Law and Human Rights, 1st edn, London:Sweet & Maxwell;

FALK, Richard 1998 Sovereignty and Human Dignity: The Search for Reconciliation, in Steiner, H.J. &Alston, P. (ed.) (2000) International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Moral 2nd edn,New York: Oxford University Press;

FOX, Hazel 2002 The Law of State Immunity, New York: Oxford University Press;HIGGINS, Rosalyn 1994 Problems and Processes: International Law and How We Use It, 1st edn, Oxford:

Clarendon Press;JACKSON, Robert 1947 The Nuremberg Case as Presented by Robert H. Jackson, Chief of Counsel for

the United States, New York: Alfred A. Knoff;KITTICHAISAREE, Kriangsak 2001 International Criminal Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press;LEWIS, Charles J 1990 State and Diplomatic Immunity, 3rd edn, London: Lloyd’s of London Press;MALANCZUK, Peter 1997 Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law, 7th revised edn, London:

Routledge;McCLANAHAN, Grant V 1989 Diplomatic Immunity, London: C. Hurst & Co. Publishers;McGOLDRIC, Dominic, et al (ed.) 2004 The Permanent International Criminal Court: Legal and Policy

Issues, Oregon: Hart PublishingSCHABAS, William A. (2001) An Introduction to the International Criminal Court, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press;SHAW, Malcolm N 2003 International Law 5th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;SIMPSON, Gerry 2004 Great Powers and Outlaw States: Unequal Sovereigns in the International Legal

Order, New York: Cambridge University Press;STEINER, Henry J. and ALSTON Philip, 2000 International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals,

2nd edn, New York: Oxford University Press;WATTS, Arthur 1994 (III) The Legal Position in International Law of Heads of States, Heads of Governments

and Foreign Ministers in Collected Courses of The Hague Academy of International Law,Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers;

Electronic Articles:

BIANCHI, A. “Immunity Versus Human Rights: The Pinochet Case”, in European Journal of InternationalLaw (1999), vol.10, No.2;

CHINKIN, Christine M “United Kingdom House of Lords, (Spanish Request for extradition). Regina v. BowStreet Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex Parte Pinochet Ugarte (No.3).[1999] 2 WLR 827”, inAmerican Journal of International Law (1999) vol.93, at 703;

Commission on the Responsibilities of the Authors of the War on the Enforcement of Penalties,American Journal of International Law (1920) vol.14(1), pp.95-154;

77

FOX, Hazel The Resolution of the Institute of International Law on the Immunities of Heads of State andGovernment, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, (January 2002) vol. 51;

GREENWOOD, Christopher “Is There a Right of Humanitarian Intervention?”, in The World Today(February 1993) vol. 49 (cited from the LSE Course Pack for LL461);

HOROWITZ, Jodi Regina v. Bartle and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others ExParte Pinochet: Universal Jurisdiction and Sovereign Immunity for Jus Cogens Violations inFordham International Law Journal (1999-2000) vol.23;

“Kosovo: House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee 4th Report, June 2000”, in International andComparative Law Quarterly (2000), vol.49(4);

KRITSIOTIS, D. “The Kosovo Crisis and NATO’s Application of Armed Force Against the FederalRepublic of Yugoslavia”, in International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2000), vol.49(2);

MALLORY, J.L. “Resolving the Confusion Over Head of State Immunity: The Defined Rights of Kings”, inColumbia Law Review (1986), vol.86, at 169;

O’NEIL, Kerry C. “A New Customary Law of Head of State Immunity?: Hirohito and Pinochet”, inStanford Journal of International Law (2002), vol. 38;

SIMMA, Bruno “NATO, the UN and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects”, in European Journal ofInternational Law, (1999), vol.10, No.1;

SMIS, Stefaan and VAN DER BORGHT, Kim “Belgian Law Concerning The Punishment of GraveBreaches of International Humanitarian Law: A Contested Law with UncontestedObjectives” in ASIL Insights (July 2003) American Society of International Law;

TAMS, Christian J. “Well-Protected Enemies of Mankind”, in The Cambridge Law Journal (July, 2002)vol.61, part 2;

YANG, “Immunity for International Crimes: A Reaffirmation of Traditional Doctrine”, in Cambridge LawJournal, (July 2002), vol.61, part 2.

Other Electronic Resources:

Case Concerning The Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of The Congo v. Belgium),International Court of Justice, 14 February, 2002http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/iCOBE/iCOBEframe.htmCharter of the International Military Tribunalhttp://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/imtconst.htm;Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imtfech.htmCharter of the United Nationshttp://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or punishmenthttp://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h–cat39.htmConvention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocidehttp://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.htmlEuropean Convention on State Immunity, Basle, 16.V.1972 http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/074.htm;International Convention against the Taking of Hostageshttp://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism–convention–hostages.htmlPinochet House of Lords, Regina v. Bartle and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Other(Appellants), Ex Parte Pinochet (Respondent) (Second Appeal hearing from a Divisional Court of theQueen's Bench Division holding that former heads of state are entitled to immunity), House of Lords, 24March 1999http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990324/pino1.htmRome Statute of the International Criminal Court: http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/romefra.htmStatute of the International Criminal Tribunal for The Former Yugoslaviahttp://www.un.org/icty/legaldoc-e/index.htmStatute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda


78


http://69.94.11.53/ENGLISH/basicdocs/statute/2004.pdfThe Versailles Treaty June 28, 1919http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/partxiv.htmUN Resolution 95/1 Principle III: Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950 http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-nurem.htmVienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969:http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1–1–1969.pdf#search='Vienna%20Convention%20on%20the%20Law%20of%20Treaties'

United Nations Security Council Resolutions:

808 (1993): Resolution of 22 February 1993 http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N93/098/21/IMG/N9309821.pdf?OpenElement827 (1993): Resolution of 25 May, 1993http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N93/306/28/IMG/N9330628.pdf?OpenElement955 (1994), Resolution of 8 November, 1994 http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N95/140/97/PDF/N9514097.pdf?OpenElement

1 Justice Jackson, in the Opening Statement before the International MilitaryTribunal: Jackson, R. (1947) The Nuremberg Case as Presented by Robert H.Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States, pp.82-83.

2 On the notion of “international crimes” in general see: e.g., De Than, C.& Shorts,E. (2003) Interna-tional Criminal Law and Human Rights, pp.13-14; Kittichaisaree,K. (2001) International Criminal Law, pp.3-4; Steiner, H.J.& Alston, P. (ed.) (2000)Inter-na-tional Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Moral, pp.1132-38;Cassese, A. (2003) Interna-tional Criminal Law, pp. 23-25.

3 As defined by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art. 2(7).4 United Kingdom House of Lords, Regina v. Bartle and the Commissioner of

Police for the Metropolis and Other (Appellants), Ex Parte Pinochet (Res-pon-dent)(Second Appeal hearing from a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Divisionholding that former heads of state are entitled to immunity), House of Lords, 24March 1999 [1999] 2 All ER 97, [1999] 2 WLR 827.

5 See: Tams, C.J. “Well-Protected Enemies of Mankind”, in The Cambridge LawJournal (July, 2002) vol.61, part 2, at 246, pp. 246-249.

6 See: O’Neill, K.C. “A New Customary Law of Head of State Immunity?: Hirohito andPinochet”, in Stanford Journal of International Law (2002), vol. 38, at 289, pp. 314-317.

7 See: Bianchi, A. “Immunity Versus Human Rights: The Pinochet Case”, in EJIL(1999), vol.10, No.2, at 237, pp. 254-62.

8 See, in general: Greenwood, C. “Is There a Right of Humanitarian Intervention?”,in The World Today (February 1993) vol. 49, pp.34-40, (cited from the LSE CoursePack for LL461); Simma, B. “NATO, the UN and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects”,in EJIL, (1999), vol.10, No.1, pp.1-22; Kritsiotis, D. “The Kosovo Crisis and NATO’sApplication of Armed Force Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia”, in ICQL(2000), vol.49(2), at 330; “Kosovo: House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee4th Report, June 2000”, in ICLQ (2000), vol.49(4), pp. 876-943.

9 As in the case of humanitarian intervention of NATO states in Kosovo.10 In the face of the United Nations’ Security Council.11 See: Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Art.7; Charter of the International

military Tribunal for the Far East, Art.6; Statute of the International Criminal Tribunalfor The Former Yugoslavia, Art. 7(2); Statute of the International Criminal Tribunalfor Rwanda, Art.6(2); Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Art. 27.

12 e.g. courts already exist, no additional expenses are needed, etc.

79

13 See: Smis, S & Van der Borght, K “Belgian Law concerning The Punishment ofGrave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law: A Contested Law withUncontested Objectives” in ASIL Insights, (July 2003).

14 See, in general: Mallory, J.L. “Resolving the Con-fusion Over Head of StateImmunity: The Defined Rights of Kings”, in Columbia Law Review (1986), vol. 86,at 169, pp.169-71

15 On this see in general: Brohmer, J. (1997) State Immunity and the Violation ofHuman Rights, pp. 2-4 & 24-33; Higgins, R. (1994) Problems and Proce-sses pp.78-94

16 See footnote 5 supra17 On definition of international crimes see: Schabas, W.A. (2001) An Introduction

to the International Criminal Court, pp. 21-5318 The principle par in parem non habet imperium.19 Falk, R. (1998) Sovereignty and Human Dignity: The Search for Reconciliation,

in Steiner, H.J.& Alston, P. (ed.) (2000) International Human Rights in Context:Law, Politics, Moral, p. 581

20 See, in general: Bröhmer, J. (1997) State Immunity and the Violation of HumanRights, pp. 14-33; European Convention on State Immunity; Fox, H. (2002) TheLaw of State Immunity, pp. 11-64; Lewis, C.J. (1990) State and DiplomaticImmunity, pp. 7-21; McClanahan, G.V. (1989) Diplomatic Immunity, pp. 27-83;Malanczuk, P. (1997) Ake-hurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law, pp.118-123; O’Neill, K.C. A New Customary Law of Head of State Immunity?: Hirohitoand Pinochet, Stanford Journal of International Law, 38, 2002 at 289, pp. 291-295; Brownlie, I. (1998) Principles of Public International Law, pp. 327-328.

21 Malanczuk, P. (1997) Akehurst’s Modern Introdu-ction to International Law, p. 11822 Bassiouni, M. C. (1992) Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal Law,

p. 46523 Lewis, C.J. (1990) State and Diplomatic Immunity, p. 1524 Watts, A. (1994) The Legal Position in Interna-tio-nal Law of Heads of States,

Heads of Governments and Foreign ministers in Collected Courses of The HagueAcademy of International Law p. 35

25 Art.2(1), Charter of the United Nations26 Ibid., Art.2(2)27 Ibid., Art.1(3)28 Ibid., Art.55(c)29 See: footnote 24 supra, at p. 3630 See: Fox, H. (2002) The Law of State Immunity, p. 2631 Though, International Military Tribunal can not be considered entirely

“international” by its nature32 See: footnote 29, supra33 See, e.g.: Shaw, M.N. (2003) International Law, p. 57434 See: footnote 8, supra35 See, in general: Simpson, G. (2004) Great Powers and Outlaw States: Unequal

Sovereigns n the International Legal Order36 See: footnote 5, supra37 See, e.g. footnote 6 supra, p. 29238 The Versailles Treaty June 28, 191939 See: Commission on the Responsibilities of the Authors of the War on the

Enforcement of Pena-lties, American Journal of International Law (1920) vol.14(1),pp. 95-154

40 The Versailles Treaty, Art. 22741 See: footnote 39 supra, p. 11642 Ibid.43 Ibid.44 See: Fox, H. (2002) The Law of State Immunity, p. 42945 Bassiouni, M. C. (1992) Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal Law,

p. 34346 UN Resolution 95/1 Principles III affirms the con-cept of individual criminal

responsibility pronounced by the Art. 7 of the International Military Tribunal Charter


80


47 See: Cassese, A. (2003) International Criminal Law, p. 267.48 United Nations Security Council Resolutions 808 and 827(1993).49 United Nations Security Council Resolution 955 (1994).50 Milosevic, ICTY decision on preliminary motions, Trial Chamber III, Decision of

8 November 2001, paras. 226-33, seen in: Fox, H. (2002) The Law of StateImmunity, p. xx.

51 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Art. 27.52 As the Security Council of the United Nations can deal on its own discretion with

any threat or breach of international peace and security, which are not legal butrather, political concepts, the arbitrariness and employment of politicalconsiderations is not necessarily excluded in Security Council’s decision makingprocess. On this see, in general: Conforti, B. (2005) The Law and Practice of theUnited Nations.

53 O’Neill, K.C. “A New Customary Law of Head of State Immunity?: Hirohito andPinochet”, in Stan-ford Journal of International Law (2002), vol. 38, at 289, p. 294.

54 O’Neill, K.C. “A New Customary Law of Head of State Immunity?: Hirohito andPinochet”, in Stan-ford Journal of International Law (2002), vol. 38, at 289, p. 294.

55 Detailed consideration of different types of jurisdiction falls outside the scope ofthis essay. See, in general: Brownlie, I. (1998) Principles of Public InternationalLaw, pp.289-299; Bantekas, I. & Nash,S. (2003) international Criminal Law pp.143-148, pp. 151-165.

56 Shaw, M.N. (2003) International Law, p. 572. (emphasis added).57 Shaw, M.N. (2003) International Law, (emphasis added). p. 573.58 Ibid.59 See, e.g.: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of

Genocide, International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, Conve-ntionAgainst Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or punishment

60 Broomhall, B. (2003) International Justice and The International criminal Court,p. 105.

61 Ibid.62 Albeit this concept is not yet widely accepted as a priory notion of international law:

See, e.g.: “Ko-so-vo: House of Commons Foreign Affairs Commi-ttee 4th Report,June 2000”, in ICLQ (2000), vol. 49(4), pp. 876-943.

63 On the complementarity principle, in general see: Simpson, G. (2004) “Politics,Sovereignty, Reme-brance” in: McGoldrick, D & et al (ed.), The Perma-nentInternational Criminal Court: Legal and Policy Issues, p. 55.

64 See: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Art. 17; Even this principlesuggests the support to the sovereign immunity. Thus, the argu-ment accordingto which the International Criminal Court has unprecedented universal jurisdictionmust be dismissed.

65 See: Pinochet House of Lords, Regina v. Bartle and the Commissioner of Policefor the Metropolis and Other (Appellants), Ex Parte Pinochet (Res-pon-dent)(Second Appeal hearing from a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Divisionholding that former heads of state are entitled to immunity), House of Lords, 24March 1999.

66 See, in general: Horowitz, J. Regina v. Bartle and the Commissioner of Police forthe Metropolis and Others Ex Parte Pinochet: Universal Jurisdiction and SovereignImmunity for Jus Cogens Violations in Fordham International Law Journal vol.23,pp.489-527; O’Neill, K.C. “A New Customary Law of Head of State Immunity?:Hirohito and Pinochet”, in Stanford Journal of International Law (2002), vol. 38, at289, p. 317.

67 See: footnote 66 supra, p. 316.68 Ibid., p. 291.69 Ex parte Pinochet (No.1), [1999] 1 A.C. at 109.70 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment

or punishment.71 Carter, P. (2002) “International Criminal Law and Human Rights” in: Butler, F.(ed.),

Human Rights Protection: Methods and Effectiveness, p. 145.

81

72 Chinkin, C. M. “United Kingdom House of Lords, (Spanish Request for extradition).Regina v.Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte(No.3).[1999] 2 WLR 827”, in American Journal of International Law (1999) vol.93,at 703, see: p. 711.

73 Fox, H. The Resolution of the Institute of Inter-national Law on the Immunities ofHeads of State and Government, International and Compa-rative Law Quarterly,(January 2002) vol. 51, p. 119.

74 Case Concerning The Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic ofThe Congo v. Bel-gi-um), International Court of Justice, 14 February, 2002.

75 Yang, X. “Immunity for International Crimes: A Rea-ffir--mation of TraditionalDoctrine”, in Cambridge Law Journal, (July 2002), vol.61, part 2, at 239; See: p. 245.

76 Fox, H. The Resolution of the Institute of Interna-tional Law on the Immunities ofHeads of State and Government, International and Comparative Law Quarterly,(January 2002) vol. 51, p. 124.

77 See: footnote 76 supra, p. 244.78 See: footnote 77 supra, p. 125.79 See: footnote 76 supra, p. 244.80 See: footnote 75 supra, p. 61.81 See: footnote 76 supra, p. 246.82 Cassese, A. (2003) International Criminal Law, p. 3.


82


eka siraZe

sanapiro saxelmwifos iurisdiqcia

Sida wylebsa da teritoriul zRvaSi mcurav

ucxo saxelmwifos gemze, sazRvao samarTlis

Sesaxeb gaeros 1982 wlis konvenciis mixedviT

Sesavali

rogorc sazRvao samarTlis Sesaxebgaeros me-3 konferenciis TavmjdomareToma b. kohma ganacxada, 1982 wlis 10 de-kembers1 Seiqmna axali Canaweri iurispru-denciis istoriaSi2.

konferenciis mier miRebuli sazRvaosamarTlis Sesaxeb gaeros konvencia3, sxvamraval Rirsebas Soris, erTi metad mniS-vnelovani Tvisebis matarebelia: igi ar-cerT qveyanas, miuxedavad maTi geogra-fiuli mdebareobisa, politikuri wonisada flotis ganviTarebis xarisxisa, ar aZ-levs saSualebas, isargeblos mxoloduflebebiT da ar iyos Sesabamis movale-obaTa matarebeli SedarebiT naklebgan-viTarebuli da susti saxelmwifoebiswinaSe. da kidev erTi mniSvnelovani mo-menti: man udidesi roli Seasrula axalinormebis CamoyalibebaSi, romelTaganmravali Tavad gaxda Semdgom Cveulebi-Ti samarTlis norma. konvencia ganixile-ba rogorc yovlismomcveli politikurida iuridiuli naSromi, romelic Seicavsdireqtivebs saerTaSoriso politikis,urTierTobebisa da samarTlisaTvis. isamyarebs axal saerTaSoriso wesrigs mso-flio okeaneebze4.

winamdebare naSromis mizania konven-ciis im muxlTa ganxilva, romlebic exebasanapiro saxelmwifos iurisdiqcias uc-xo qveynebis gemebze Tavis Sida wylebsa dateritoriul zRvaSi, sadac sanapiro sax-elmwifoebs aqvT aRiarebuli suvereni-teti, magram sadavo xdeba am suverenite-tis farglebi da saxelmwifoTa mier sak-uTari kanonebis aRsruleba.

sazRvao samarTlis sferoSi yvelazeseriozuli konfliqtebi swored orifundamenturi principis – teritoriu-li suverenulobisa da zRvebis Tavisuf-lebis – Sejaxebis fonze xdeboda.5

Sida wylebi

nebismieri saxelmwifos moqmedeba ad-gilobriv Tu saerTaSoriso asparezzeganpirobebulia suverenitetis princip-iT. problema ki maSin warmoiSoba, rode-sac saerTaSoriso samarTlis ori an metisuverenuli subieqtis interesebi kveTserTmaneTs. radgan teritoriuli suve-reniteti yvelaze ufro sruli saxiT aZ-levs saxelmwifos uflebas, ganaxorcie-los Tavisi iurisdiqcia, amitom, zRvas-Tan mimarTebiT, centraluri roli eniWebaimis gansazRvras, napiridan ramdenad Sorsvrceldeba sanapiro saxelmwifos gavlena.

sawyisi xazebi asrulebs am funqcias,anu iZleva aTvlis saSualebas imis gansa-sazRvravad, Tu sad aqvs sanapiro saxelm-wifos absoluturi iurisdiqcia, da sadaxorcielebs Tavis uflebebs sxva saxelm-wifoebTan paralelurad.

imis gamo, rom saxelmwifoTa umete-sobis sanapiro xazi dawaxnagebulia, Se-mofarglulia kunZulebiT, yureebiT,mdinaris SesarTavebiT, portebiTa daa.S., arsebobs sawyisi xazebis ori saxe: Cve-ulebrivi da swori.

konvenciis me-5 muxlis Tanaxmad, ter-itoriuli zRvis siganis asaTvlelad ga-moyenebuli sawyisi xazebi aris sanapirosgarSemo ukiduresi miqcevis xazi, rogorc

83

aRniSnulia sanapiro saxelmwifos ofi-cialurad aRiarebul msxvilmasStabianrukebze.

konvenciis me-8 muxlis Tanaxmad, Sidaanu erovnul wylebs miekuTvneba wylebi,romlebic ganlagebulia xmeleTsa da imsawyis xazebs Soris, saidanac aiTvlebateritoriuli zRvisa da yvela sxva zo-nis sigane. amrigad, Sida wylebi moicavsyureebs, mdinaris SesarTavebs, portebs,kunZulebs da a.S.6

sanapiro saxelmwifos mier iuris-diqciis sakiTxis ganxilvisas, upirvelesyovlisa, unda ganisazRvros, yvela gemierTnairi statusiT sargeblobs Tu ara.konvenciis Tanaxmad, samxedro da saxelm-wifo sakuTrebaSi myofi arakomerciulimiznebiT gamoyenebuli gemebi sargeblo-ben sruli imunitetiT sanapiro saxelm-wifos iurisdiqciidan.7 es praqtika siax-le ar aris da asaxavs CveulebiTi samarT-lis kargad Camoyalibebul normas.

pirvelad am sakiTxis kodifikaciadaiwyo 1926 wlis 10 aprilis briuseliskonvecniiT ̀ saxelmwifo sakuTrebaSi ar-sebuli gemebis imunitetTan dakavSire-buli zogierTi wesis unifikaciis Sesax-eb~. Tumca manamde, gacilebiT adre, 1873wels Charkiech-is saqmis ganxilvisas sasa-marTlom daadgina, rom miuxedavad imi-sa, gemi ekuTvnoda Tu ara egviptis nax-evrad suverenuli saxelmwifos suverensda dacuravda osmaleTis samxedro dro-Sis qveS, misi dakaveba ar ewinaaRmdegebo-da saerTaSoriso samarTlis normebs, ra-dgan im konkretul SemTxvevaSi gemi gamo-iyeneboda komerciuli gadazidvebisaT-vis. kerZod, dadgenilebaSi aRiniSna, romTu suvereni agzavnis Tavisi saxelmwifoskuTvnil gems savaWrod, man unda icodes– amiT uars ambobs aseTi gemisaTvis mini-Webul nebismier privilegiaze.8

Tumca is, rom samxedro da saxelm-wifo sakuTrebaSi myofi arakomerciulimiznebisaTvis gamoyenebuli gemebi sarge-bloben sanapiro saxelmwifos iurisdiq-ciisagan imunitetiT, ar aTavisuflebsmaT sanapiro saxelmwifos kanonebis Ses-rulebisa da pativiscemis valdebulebi-sagan. winaaRmdeg SemTxvevaSi sanapirosaxelmwifo uflebamosilia, damrRvevgems mosTxovos Tavisi Sida wylebisa dateritoriuli zRvis datoveba, xolodroSis saxelmwifo pasuxismgebelia miy-enebul zianze.9

rac Seexeba savaWro flots, SidawylebSi sanapiro saxelmwifos SeuZlia,maT mimarT gaakontrolos: naosnoba, ga-dafrena, TevzWera, samecniero kvleva,wyalqveSa kabelebis gayvana, zRvis fske-ris damuSaveba, garemos dacva.

Tumca am sakiTxebidan umetesobas ko-nvencia aregulirebs mxolod teritori-ul zRvasTan mimarTebiT da Riad aqvsdatovebuli Sida wylebis reJimi. amismizezi, albaT, isic aris, rom masze vrce-ldeba sanapiro saxelmwifos iurisdiq-cia srulad, iSviaTi gamonaklisebis gar-da, rodesac sanapiro saxelmwifo or-mxrivi xelSekrulebebiT sxvis sasarge-blod Tavad zRudavs Tavis suverenitets.amdenad, sanapiro saxelmwifos SeuZlia,imgvarad gaakontrolos ucxo qveynisgemi Tavis Sida wylebSi, rogorc es moxde-boda mis saxmeleTo teritoriaze.10

radgan aRiarebulia, rom Sida wyle-bi Tavisi statusiT gaTanabrebulia sax-elmwifos saxmeleTo teritoriasTan,naTelia, misi statusis gansazRvra nak-lebad SeiZleba iyos romelime saerTa-Soriso konvenciis sagani.

saerTo normaa, rom ucxoeTis gemebs araqvT Sida wylebSi navigaciis ufleba. uf-ro sadavoa sakiTxi portebSi Sesvlis Sesax-eb. CveulebiTi samarTlis Tanaxmad, ar ar-sebobs norma, romelic avaldebulebdesqveynebs maT portebSi ucxo saxelmwifoTagemebis aucilebel SeSvebas11. meore mxriv,Aramco-s 1958 wlis saarbitraJo gadawyve-tilebaSi aRniSnulia, rom ̀ saerTaSorisosamarTlis Tanaxmad, yoveli qveynis por-tebi unda iyos Ria sxva saxelmwifos geme-bisaTvis da maTi daxurva SeiZleba mxolodmaSin, rodesac amas moiTxovs portis sax-elmwifos sasicocxlo interesebi~12. Tum-ca imave sasamarTlom Nicaragua-s saqmisganxilvisas daadgina, rom ̀ Tavisi suveren-itetis gaTvaliswinebiT, sanapiro saxelm-wifos SeuZlia, moawesrigos portebis xe-lmisawvdomoba~13. miuxedavad imisa, romsaxelmwifoTa saerTaSoriso portebSi ig-ulisxmeba, isini Ria unda iyvnen gemebissaerTaSoriso moZraobisaTvis (ra Tqmaunda, es ar vrceldeba samxedro gemebze),am wess mainc ar moupovebia CveulebiTi sa-marTlis normis statusi. yoveli saxelm-wifo mainc Tavad wyvets portebSi gemebisSesvlis wess, damoukideblad an ormxrivixelSekrulebebis safuZvelze14.

e. siraZe, sanapiro saxelmwifos iurisdiqcia Sida wylebisa da teritoriul zRvaSi ...

84


upirveles yovlisa, saxelmwifoebsaqvT ufleba, gansazRvron, Tu romel ge-mebs miscemen navsadgurSi Sesvlis ufle-bas da, meore, saxelmwifos SeuZlia, saer-TaSoriso mimosvlis usafrTxoebismizniT daxuros navsadguri. am dros Zne-lia imis mtkiceba, sasicocxloa es inter-esebi Tu ara.

rogorc zemoT aris aRniSnuli, Sidawylebi saxelmwifos teritoriis nawil-ia da portebSi Semosul gemebsa da maTekipaJebze Sesabamisad vrceldeba sanapi-ro saxelmwifos iurisdiqcia. Tumca gemzeyovelTvis vrceldeba droSis saxelmwi-fos iurisdiqciac15, rac garkveul nor-maTa kolizias (anu iurisdiqciaTa kon-fliqts) iwvevs. am sakiTxTan dakavSire-biT arsebobs ornairi midgoma: frangu-li da angloamerikuli.

franguli midgoma Camoyalibda oramerikul gemTan – “Sally” da “Newton” – mima-rTebiT, romlebzec moxda Cxubi ekipaJiswevrebs Soris. safrangeTis sasamarTlomdaadgina, rom portSi gemis bortze dana-Saulis Cadenis SemTxvevaSi, Tu is mxolodgemis Sida ganawess arRvevs da exeba gemsada ekipaJs, pirdapir gavlenas ar axdensportSi wesrigsa da usafrTxoebaze da Tugemidan ar miiReben daxmarebis Txovnas,adgilobrivi xelisufleba ar unda Cae-rios. am wesSi garkveuli Sesworeba Sevi-da amerikul gem “Tempset”-Tan dakavSire-biT, rodesac kapitnis TanaSemwem havrisportSi mokla ekipaJis erTi wevri da er-Tic daWra. am SemTxvevaSi sasamarTlomganaxorciela iurisdiqcia, radgan momx-darma napirze simSvide daarRvia.16

angloamerikuli midgomiT, Sesabami-si xelSekrulebis ararsebobis SemTxve-vaSi, yoveli saxelmwifo Tavis iurisdiq-cias axorcielebs sakuTar Sida wylebSi.inglisuri sasamarTloebi srul iuris-diqcias acxadeben ucxo saxelmwifos ge-mebis ekipaJebze didi britaneTis SidawylebSi. saqmis – “Regina v. Cunningham” –mixedviT, sxva mezRvaurze Tavdasxmis-aTvis sami amerikeli mezRvauri daisaja,radgan gemi, romlis bortzec danaSaulimoxda, inglisis sanapirosTan idga, anudanaSauli Cadenili iyo inglisis teri-toriaze17.

iurisdiqciebs Soris konfliqts war-moSobda imis mtkiceba, rom savaWro gemiganxiluli unda iyos im saxelmwifos

`mcurav teritoriad~, romlis droSisqveSac is dacuravs. Tumca es postulatimoklebulia yovelgvar safuZvels, gan-sakuTrebiT e.w. ̀ Ria~ registrebis epoqa-Si. es idea jer kidev 1923 wels uaryo aSS-is uzenaesma sasamarTlom saqmis – CunardS.S. Co. v. Mellon – ganxilvisas: `gancxa-deba keTdeba imis Taobaze, rom savaWrogemi aris im saxelmwifos teritoriis naw-ili, romlis droSis qveSac igi dacuravs.magram es unda ganixilebodes rogorcfiguruli gamonaTqvami, erTgvari meta-fora. es wesi srulad gamoiyeneba gemebzeRia zRvaSi, sadac ar moqmedebs terito-riuli suvereniteti; xolo rac Seexebaucxo saxelmwifos teritoriul wylebSimcurav gemebs, maTze es wesi naklebad mo-qmedebs, Tu pirdapir ar aris nebadarT-uli adgilobrivi suverenis mier~.18

Tumca zemoaRniSnuli ar niSnavs, romdroSis saxelmwifos iurisdiqcia sruli-ad wydeba gemis ucxo saxelmwifos teri-toriul wylebSi yofnis periodSi. amdros SeiZleba moqmedebdes e.w. ̀ parale-luri iurisdiqciebi~. magaliTad, SeerTe-buli Statebis sasamarTlom saqmis – Benzv. Compania Naviera Hidalgo, S.A. – ganxil-visas daadgina, rom gemze ucxoel dam-qiravebelsa da ucxour ekipaJs SoriswarmoSobil davaze aSS-is kanonebi am uka-nasknelis Sida wylebSi ar unda gavrcel-des im SemTxvevaSi, rodesac erTaderTikavSiri StatebTan mis portSi gemis tran-zitulad yofnaa.19 Tumca, rodesac gemiatarebs drois garkveul periods aSS-iswylebSi, igi itvirTeba da/an gadmoitvi-rTeba aSS-is portebSi da mosarCele arisaSS-is moqalaqe, maSin davaze calsaxadgavrceldeba aSS-is kanonmdebloba.20

magram mZime danaSaulis SemTxvevaSi,gemis mxolod portSi dgomis faqtic sak-marisi safuZvelia iurisdiqciis gansaxor-cieleblad. es midgoma dafiqsirda `Wil-denhu~-is saqmis ganxilvisas, rodesac, bel-giuri gemis ekipaJis erTma wevrma moklameore aSS-is erT-erT portSi dgomisdros21.

saqarTvelos kanonmdeblobiT, saqar-Tvelos teritoriaze (maT Soris SidawylebSi) Cadenil danaSaulze vrceldebasaqarTvelos sisxlissamarTlebrivi iuri-sdiqcia22, Tumca ormxriv xelSekrule-bebSi aRniSnulia, rom saqarTvelos sisx-lissamarTlebrivi iurisdiqcia ucxo qvey-

85

nis gemebze saqarTvelos portebSi vr-celdeba, Tu: danaSaulis Sedegebi vr-celdeba saqarTvelos teritoriaze, sa-frTxes uqmnis qveynis uSiSroebas, Cade-nilia saqarTvelos moqalaqis mier an miswinaaRmdeg, dakavSirebulia narkotiku-li nivTierebebis ukanono brunvasTan.aseTi ormxrivi xelSekruleba saqarTve-los gaformebuli aqvs: saberZneTTan,ukrainasTan, azerbaijanTan, ruseTTan,kviprosTan, TurqeTTan da a.S.23

rogorc zemoT moyvanili magaliTe-bidanac Cans, saxelmwifoebi ar ereviangemebis Sida ganawesSi, SromiTsa da samo-qalaqo davebSi ekipaJis wevrebs Soris.

iurisdiqciis ganxorcielebis kuTx-iT, gasul aTwleulebSi didi mniSvnelo-ba SeiZina garemos dacvis sakiTxebma. TugaviTvaliswinebT, rom sanapiro areali– yvelaze produqtiuli sazRvao garemo– metismetad aris xelyofili zRvis gare-moze mavne zemoqmedebiT,24 gasakviri araris, rom sanapiro saxelmwifoebis mieriurisdiqciis ganxorcielebis dros erT-erTi yvelaze ufro didi mniSvnelobaswored zRvis garemos dacvasTan dakav-Sirebul sakiTxebs exeba.

zRvis garemos dacvasTan dakavSire-bulma problemam gansakuTrebuli aqtu-aloba SeiZina me-20 saukunis 60-70-ianiwlebidan. am mimarTulebiT droSis saxe-lmwifos valdebulebebis gazrdis para-lelurad izrdeba sanapiro saxelmwifosufleba, gaakontrolos Tavisi iurisdi-qciis qveS myofi sazRvao garemo da gana-xorcielos ara marto sakanonmdeblo,aramed, rac Zalian mniSvnelovania, aRma-srulebeli iurisdiqciac.

miuxedavad imisa, rom zRvis dabinZu-rebis mravali wyaro arsebobs,25 winamde-bare kvlevis sferoSi mxolod gemebidanzRvis dabinZureba xvdeba. konvenciaSigaremos dacvis sakiTxebs daTmobili aqvsXII Tavi.26

konvenciis Tanaxmad, saxelmwifoebsSeuZliaT, daadginon konkretuli moTx-ovnebi zRvis garemos dabinZurebis aRkve-Tis, Semcirebis an gakontrolebismizniT, rogorc mis portebSi ucxo qvey-nis gemebis Sesvlis piroba.27

sanapiro saxelmwifos iurisdiqciamoicavs im uflebasac, rom uari eTqvasucxoeTis gemebs portebSi Sesvlaze. Tum-

ca am dros problemuria gansacdelSi my-ofi gemebis sakiTxi. ramdenad aqvs sana-piro saxelmwifos maTTvis uaris Tqmisufleba? ukanasknel wlebSi yvelaze mniS-vnelovani saqme iyos Prestige-s SemTxveva,rodesac espaneTis mTavrobam uari uTxragems portSi Sesvlaze, sxvaTa Soris, eko-logiuri usafrTxoebis mizeziT, Semdegigi CaiZira espaneTis gansakuTrebulekonomikur zonaSi da daabinZura ro-gorc espaneTis, ise portugaliisa da sa-frangeTis sanapiroebi. miuxedavad seri-ozuli incidentebisa, calsaxa pasuxi amkiTxvaze dRemde ar arsebobs. ufro met-ic, saxelmwifoTa praqtika da kanonmde-bloba imisken ixreba, rom, Tu ekipaJisgadarCena moxerxda, portis saxel-mwifos SeiZleba hqondes kargi argume-ntebi, aseT gems uari uTxras portSi Se-svlaze.28

Tu gemi daabinZurebs sanapiro sax-elmwifos sazRvao zonebs, mis winaaRmdegSeiZleba ganxorcieldes aRmasrulebeliiurisdiqcia portSi Sesvlis SemTxvevaSi.29

am dros aucilebeli pirobaa, gemiportSi nebayoflobiT imyofebodes. aseTSemTxvevaSi, sanapiro saxelmwifos Seu-Zlia, sruli moculobiT aamoqmedos dam-rRvevi gemis mimarT Tavisi saTanadokanonmdebloba.30 amdenad, gemze, romeliciZulebiT aris Sesuli portSi, ar vrce-ldeba zemoxsenebuli punqtis moqmedeba.am dros SeiZleba warmoiSvas igive kiTxva– iTvleba ki gansacdelSi myofi gemi ne-bayoflobiT Sesulad portSi, Tu ara?Tavad konvencia ar gansazRvravs arc`gansacdelSi myofi~ gemis cnebas da arcdauZleveli Zalis garemoebebs.

Tumca, meore mxriv, konvenciis 221-emuxli uflebas aZlevs sanapiro saxelm-wifos, miiRos zomebi ubeduri SemTxveve-bidan gamomdinare zRvis dabinZurebisTavidan asacileblad. aqac swored ammuxliT SeuZliaT xelmZRvaneloba sana-piro saxelmwifoebs.

gansxvavebiT portebSi Sesuli gemeb-isagan, konvencia kvlav arafers ambobsSida wylebSi myof gemebze aRmasrulebe-li iurisdiqciis ganxorcielebaze, mag-ram, Tu gaviTvaliswinebT sanapiro saxe-lmwifos suverenitetis xarisxs SidawylebSi, aseTi dazusteba arcaa auci-lebeli.


86


teritoriuli zRva

konvencia aRiarebs, rom sanapiro sax-elmwifos aqvs iurisdiqcia Tavis teri-toriul zRavze, mis fskersa da Tavze sa-haero sivrceze.31 Tumca konvenciis mux-lebis ufro detaluri Seswavlis SemdegnaTeli xdeba, rom suvereniteti terito-riul zRavze gansxvavdeba sahaero sivr-ceSi ganxorcielebuli suverenitetisa-gan. kerZod, igulisxmeba mSvidobiani gav-lis ufleba teritoriul zRvaSi, romel-ic mniSvnelovanwilad zRudavs sanapirosaxelmwifos iurisdiqcias. kerZod, sana-piro saxelmwifos suvereniteti ar vrce-ldeba gemze, romelic mis teritoriulzRavSi imyofeba mSvidobiani gavlis re-JimSi.

konvenciam sakanonmdeblo donezepirvelad gansazRvra teritoriulizRvis maqsimaluri sifarTove rogorc 12sazRvao mili.32

rac Seexeba mSvidobian gavlas – igiuflebas aZlevs nebismieri sazRvao TuzRvaze gasasvlelis armqone saxelmwi-fos nebismieri tipis gems, savaWro iqnebais, Tu samxedro, miuxedavad teritori-uli zRvis sifarTovisa da imisa, Tu rasaxis suverenitets axorcielebs sana-piro qveyana masze, hqondes Seuferxebe-li naosnobis saSualeba33. ufro metic,konvenciis Tanaxmad, mSvidobiani gavlamoicavs ara marto aqtiur gavlas, aramedgaCerebasa da Ruzis CaSvebas, Tuki es ga-mowveulia Cveulebrivi naosnobiT, dau-Zleveli Zalis garemoebebis, an zRvazeadamianis sicocxlis gadarCenis mizeziT34.

sanapiro qveyanas ar aqvs ufleba, xeliSeuSalos gavlas, romelic aris mSvi-dobiani, garda konvenciiT gaTvaliswineb-uli SemTxvevebisa35. sanapiro qveyana uf-lebamosilia, aRkveTos gemis gavla mis te-ritoriul zRvaSi, Tuki is ar aris mSvido-biani, an SeaCeros igi, roca aseTi SeCerebamniSvnelovania usafrTxoebisaTvis.36

konvenciis me-19 muxlis 1-li punqtisTanaxmad, `gavla manamdea mSvidobiani,sanam igi ar xelyofs sanapiro qveynis mS-vidobas, wesrigsa da usafrTxoebas~.

konvencia iZleva detalur CamonaT-vals, rodis ar iTvleba gavla mSvidobi-anad da, Sesabamisad, sanapiro saxelmwifouflebamosili xdeba, gaavrcelos Sesaba-mis gemze sakuTari iurisdiqcia. kerZod,

gavla CaiTvleba sanapiro qveynis mSvido-bisa da usafrTxoebis darRvevad, Tu igimimarTulia Semdegi moqmedebebisaken:1. Zalis gamoyenebis Sesaxeb muqara an Za-

lis gamoyeneba saqarTvelos suvereni-tetis, teritoriuli mTlianobis anpolitikuri damoukideblobis wina-aRmdeg, an sxva saxiT saerTaSoriso sa-marTlis principebisa da normebis dar-Rveva.

2. samxedro manevrebi an nebismieri sax-is iaraRis gamoyenebiT swavleba.

3. saqmianoba, romlis mizania infor-maciis Segroveba saqarTvelos Tavda-cvisa da usafrTxoebis sazianod.

4. propaganda, romelic xelyofs ̀ sana-piro saxelmwifos~ Tavdacvisa da us-afrTxoebis interesebs.

5. safreni aparatis haerSi asvla an gem-banze miReba.

6. samxedro mowyobilobis haerSi awevaan gembanze miReba.

7. sabaJo, fiskaluri, saemigracio dasanitariuli kanonmdeblobis darR-veviT tvirTisa da valutis datvir-Tva an gadmotvirTva, fizikuri pirisgembanze miReba an gemidan gadmosma.

8. zRvis garemos ganzrax da seriozulidabinZureba.

9. TevzWera.10. samecniero-kvleviTi, saZiebo an hid-

rografiuli saqmianoba.11. kavSirgabmulobisa da eleqtronuli

sistemebis an sxva mowyobilobebisa danagebobebis funqcionirebisaTvis xe-lisSemSleli pirobebis Seqmna.

12. nebismieri sxva saqmianoba, romelicmSvidobian gavlasTan uSualod araris dakavSirebuli37.Tumca mSvidobiani gavlis ufleba ar

zRudavs sanapiro saxelmwifos sakanon-mdeblo iurisdiqcias aseTi gemebis mima-rT, kerZod, sanapiro saxelmwifos ufle-ba aqvs, miiRos kanonebi da daadginos wese-bi naosnobisa da sanaosno saSualebebis,aseve kabelebis, zRvis cocxali resurse-bis, TevzWerisa da sxva sakiTxebisgarSemo38. mSvidobiani gavlis dros yve-la gemi valdebulia, Seasrulos da daic-vas sanapiro qveynis kanonebi da wesebi,magram sanapiro saxelmwifom ar SeiZle-ba daawesos diskriminaciuli wesebi gemisdroSis saxelmwifos an gemis tipis mixed-viT39.

87

konvenciis Tanaxmad, sanapiro sax-elmwifos gansakuTrebul SemTxvevebSi,Tavisi qveynis usafrTxoebis dacvismizniT an iaraRis gamocdis dros, Seu-Zlia, droebiT SeaCeros mSvidobiani gav-lis ufleba Tavisi teritoriuli zRvisgansazRvrul zonaSi, magram aseTi Se-Cereba unda moxdes aradiskriminaciulsafuZvelze da ZalaSi Sevides saTanadodgamocxadebis Semdeg40.

konvenciis XII Tavis debulebebi sana-piro saxelmwifos uflebas aZlevs, ganax-orcielos aRmasrulebeli iurisdiqciagemis mimarT, romelic arRvevs zRvisgaremos dacvis wesebs.41 sanapiro saxelm-wifo ar aris uflebamosili, aRkveTosgavla, Tu gemi ̀ ganzrax da seriozulad~ar abinZurebs mis teritoriul zRvas,Tumca aq `seriozuli~ dabinZurebis ra-ime erTgvarovani kriteriumi ar arse-bobs, da igi konkretuli napiris Tavise-burebasa da sanapiro saxelmwifos kanon-mdeblobazea damokidebuli, radgan esukanaskneli uflebamosilia, miiRos ka-nonebi mSvidobiani gavlis reJimSi myofigemebisaTvis, garemos dacvasTan dakav-SirebiT. marTalia, imave konvenciis Ta-naxmad, sanapiro saxelmwifo sakanonmde-blo iurisdiqciis ganxorcielebis drosar aris uflebamosili, miiRos kanonebi,romlebic, faqtobrivad, zRudavs mSvi-dobiani gavlis uflebas,42 magram, garem-os dacvis uzrunvelyofis mizniT, kon-venciis 22-e muxlis Tanaxmad, sanapirosaxelmwifo uflebamosilia, SesabamisigemebisaTvis daadginos sazRvao xazebi daderefnebi, romlebiTac unda ixelmZRv-anelos am ukanasknelma mSvidobiani gav-lis dros.

rac Seexeba sanapiro saxelmwifos aR-masrulebel iurisdiqcias, konvenciis 220-emuxlis me-2 punqtis Tanaxmad, es ukanas-kneli uflebamosilia, Seamowmos da daa-kavos gemi, romlis mimarTac arsebobsmtkice rwmena, rom man teritoriul zR-vaSi yofnis dros daarRvia saerTaSorisonormebis safuZvelze miRebuli saxelm-wifo kanonebi, gemebidan zRvis garemosdabinZurebis aRkveTasTan, Semcirebasada gakontrolebasTan dakavSirebiT.Tumca mSvidobiani gavlis reJimSi myofigemebisaTvis zemoaRniSnuli wesi ise undaiqnes gamoyenebuli, rom ziani ar miayenos24-e da 27-e muxlebs.

rogorc zemoT aRiniSna, 24-e muxlisTanaxmad, sakanonmdeblo iurisdiqciisganxorcielebis procesSi sanapiro sax-elmwifom safrTxe ar unda Seuqmnas mS-vidobiani gavlis uflebas, xolo 27-emuxliT dadgenilia teritoriul zRva-Si sisxlissamarTlebrivi iurisdiqciisganxorcielebis pirobebi, rac qvemoTufro detalurad iqneba ganxiluli.

mSvidobiani gavlis dros saxelmwi-fos suverenitetis gamovlenad SeiZle-ba CaiTvalos sanapiro saxelmwifoTamier miRebuli wesebi, gemebisaTvis mSvi-dobiani gavlisaTvis sanebarTvo siste-mis miRebis Sesaxeb. es gansakuTrebiT ex-eba samxedro da atomur gemebs43.

rac Seexeba teritoriul zRvaSi sisx-lissamarTlebriv iurisdiqcias, kon-venciis 27-e muxli sanapiro saxelmwifosmisi ganxorcielebis uflebas aZlevs mx-olod sam SemTxvevaSi.

pirveli SemTxveva exeba mSvidobianigavlis reJimSi myofi gemis bortze dana-Saulis Cadenas, Tu:1. misi Sedegebi vrceldeba sanapiro

saxelmwifos teritoriaze;2. danaSaulis xasiaTidan gamomdinare,

safrTxe eqmneba sanapiro saxelmwi-foSi simSvidesa da/an marTlwesrigsmis teritoriul zRvaSi;

3. gemis kapitani an droSis saxelmwifosdiplomatiuri an sakonsulo agentimimarTavs daxmarebis gawevis Txov-niT sanapiro saxelmwifos saxelisu-flebo organoebsa; da

4. aseTi zomebis miReba aucilebelianarkotikuli an fsiqotropuli niv-Tierebebis ukanono brunvis aRsak-veTad.meore SemTxveva exeba situacias, ro-

desac gemi teritoriul zRvaSi SemodisSida wylebidan da iq aqvs Cadenili samar-TaldarRveva. am dros sanapiro saxelm-wifo uflebamosilia, aseTi gemis winaaR-mdeg miiRos nebismieri zoma, anu misiiurisdiqcia ar aris SezRuduli. es gamo-mdinareobs sanapiro saxelmwifos Seuz-Rudavi sisxlissamarTlebrivi iuris-diqciidan mis Sida wylebSi.

mesame SemTxveva exeba gemebs, romelT-ac samarTaldarRveva Caidines terito-riul zRvaSi Semosvlamde. am dros sana-piro saxelmwifos sisxlissamarTlebriviiurisdiqcia ar vrceldeba, garda kon-


88


venciis XII TaviT gaTvaliswinebuli Sem-Txvevebisa. zemoaRniSnuli wesi emyarebasazRvao samarTlis erT-erT fundamen-tur princips, romlis Tanaxmadac, RiazRavSi gemze vrceldeba mxolod droSissaxelmwifos iurisdiqcia.44

konvenciis 220-e muxlis me-2 punqtisZaliT, sanapiro saxelmwifo uflebamo-silia, Seamowmos an/da daakavos gemi aramarto garemos dacvis sferoSi misi kano-nmdeblobis, aramed saerTaSoriso weseb-isa da standartebis darRvevis SemTx-vevaSic. da bolos, konvenciis 25-e muxlisme-2 punqtis Tanaxmad, sanapiro saxelm-wifo uflebamosilia, miiRos saWiro zo-mebi, raTa aRkveTos portebSi Sesvlis we-sebis darRveva. ra Tqma unda, aseTi zomebiSeiZleba aRsruldes teritoriul zRvaSi.

teritoriul zRvaSi sanapiro saxelm-wifos aRmasrulebeli iurisdiqciis sak-iTxis ganxilvisas sainteresoa norvegi-is, rogorc konvenciis wevri erT-erTitradiciuli, ganviTarebuli sazRvaosaxelmwifos, magaliTi. misi kanonmdeb-lobis Tanaxmad, gemi SeiZleba dakavebu-li iyos adgilobrivi kanonebisa da wese-bis darRvevisaTvis teritoriul zRvaSi,maT Soris, ekipaJiT dakompleqtebasa dakonstruqciasTan dakavSirebiT45. Tumcakonvenciis 21-e muxliT pirdapir ikrZa-leba sanapiro saxelmwifos teritoriulzRvaSi mSvidobiani gavlis reJimSi myofigemis ekipaJiT dakompleqtebisa da kon-struqciis Taobaze kanonebis miReba.

aSS-is sanapiro dacvis kodeqsis 89-eganyofilebis Tanaxmad, sanapiro dacvisTanamSromlebi uflebamosilni arian,ganaxorcielon SeerTebuli Statebisiurisdiqciis qveS myof gemze Semowmeba,inspeqtireba, gamokvleva, dakaveba da da-patimreba, SeerTebuli Statebis kanon-ebis aRsrulebis mizniT.46 amasTan, napi-ridan moSorebuli kontrabandis Tavi-dan asacilebeli RonisZiebebis gansaxo-rcieleblad aucilebelia, rom aSS-issanapiro dacvas hqondes iurisdiqciarogorc gemze, ise qmedebaze.47 Tu aSS-issanapiro dacvis oficrebi aRmoaCenenaSS-is gemze an aSS-is iurisdiqciaSi myofgemze darRvevebs, isini uflebamosilniarian, gemi miiyvanon portSi, pasuxismge-beli piri daapatimron da/an daajarimon,xolo Tavad gems konfiskacia gaukeTonda/an jarima daadon mas.48

cxel kvalze devna

sanapiro saxelmwifos mier Sidawylebsa da teritoriul zRvaSi aRmas-rulebeli iurisdiqciis ganxorcieleb-is erT-erTi garantiaa cxel kvalze dev-nis ufleba, rac mas miniWebuli aqvs kon-venciiT.

konvenciis 111-e muxlis Tanaxmad,cxel kvalze devna SeiZleba, Tu ucxoeT-is gemi an misi navebi imyofebian devnisganmaxorcielebeli saxelmwifos SidawylebSi, teritoriul zRvaSi, mimdebarezonaSi, arqipelagur wylebSi. cxelkvalze devnis ufleba erT-erTi uZvele-sia CveulebiTi sazRvao samarTlisnormebidan. sasamarTlom saqmis – The I’mAlone (1935)49 – ganxilvisas aRiara sana-piro saxelmwifos ufleba, rom mismasamxedro gemma ganaxorcielos ucxoqveynis gemis devna, Tu man daarRvia sana-piro saxelmwifos kanonebi Sida wylebSian teritoriul zRvaSi da daakavos ase-Ti gemi Ria zRvaSi. Behring Sea Fur SealarbitraJma dadginda, rom cxel kvalzedevna ̀ unda iyos dauyovnebeli... da undaiyos kontrolis farglebSi~50.

konvenciis 111-e muxli, romelic asax-avs CveulebiTi samarTlis normas, gan-sazRvravs, rom cxel kvalze devna SeiZle-ba mxolod im SemTxvevaSi, Tu sanapirosaxelmwifos kompetentur pirebs aqvTsakmarisi safuZveli, ifiqron, rom gemmadaarRvia am qveynis kanonebi da wesebi.amrigad, konvenciiT aranairi gansxvave-ba ar aris dadgenili darRveuli kanonisxasiaTis mixedviT.

Tumca zustad aris gamijnuli, Turomeli zonidan ra samarTaldarRvevi-saTvis SeiZleba daiwyos devna. magali-Tad, gemis winaaRmdeg, romelmac terito-riul zRvaSi ar daicva sanitariuli wese-bi, ar SeiZleba devnis dawyeba mimdebarezonis miRma.

cxel kvalze devnasTan erTad moqme-debs konstruqciuli yofnis (constructivepresence) doqtrina, anu aucilebeli araris, uSualod devnili gemi arRvevdeswesebs Sida wylebsa da/an teritoriulzRvaSi, aramed sakmarisia, misi navi an eki-paJis wevrebi iyvnen CarTulni kanonsa-winaaRmdego saqmianobaSi am zonebSi, ra-Ta sanapiro saxelmwifom ganaxorcieloscxel kvalze devna.

89

The Araunah-is saqmis ganxilvisas bri-taneTis mTavrobam aRniSna, rom, marTalia,Tavad kanaduri TevzsaWeri gemi ar imyo-feboda teritoriul zRvaSi da ar monaw-ileobda ukanono TevzWeraSi, misi daka-veba gamarTlebuli iyo, radgan misi mezR-vaurebi navebiT iyvnen Sesuli ruseTisteritoriul zRvaSi da iWerdnen Tevzs51.

mdevnel gems SeuZlia, gamoiyenos neb-ismieri saWiro da gonivruli zoma, raTadaakavos gemi, Tumca TiToeuli qveyanasakuTar wesebs adgens imaze, Tu rogorxdeba damnaSave gemisa da piris dakavebamisi iurisdiqciis farglebSi;52 meoremxriv, ukanono devnis an Zalis ukanonogamoyenebis SemTxvevaSi miyenebuli zara-lisaTvis dadgenilia kompensacia.53

zogierTi avtori miiCnevs, rom cxelkvalze devnis ufleba aris privilegia,54

rac eniWeba sanapiro saxelmwifos damna-Save gemis mier ormagi valdebulebis dar-Rvevis SemTxvevaSi, anu, pirveli, rode-sac gemi arRvevs adgilobriv kanonebs dameore, rodesac is uars acxadebs, Cabardesadgilobriv kompetentur organoebs.55

sanam es aris cxel kvalze devna da isgrZeldeba Ria zRvaSi, misi dasrulebissakiTxi droze da adgilze ar aris damok-idebuli, magram Tu ar arsebobs special-uri uflebaaRmWurveli xelSekruleba,devna wydeba maSinve, rogorc ki devniligemi gadakveTs nebismieri saxelmwifosteritoriuli zRvis gare sazRvars, gar-da sanapiro saxelmwifosi. 56

konvenciis 111-e muxlis me-3 punqtizustad adgens, rom devna wydeba da aradroebiT Cerdeba devnili gemis terito-riul zRvaSi SesvlasTan erTad, anu mde-vnel gems ar aqvs ufleba, daelodos, ro-dis gamova devnili gemi teritoriulizRvidan.57

devna SeiZleba ganaxorcielos mx-olod samxedro gemma an sahaero xomald-ma, an am miznebisaTvis saxelmwifos mierspecialurad uflebamosilma gemma (san-apiro dacvis gemebi). mdevneli gemis adg-ilmdebareoba devnis dawyebis momenti-saTvis naklebmniSvnelovania, radgan araris aucilebeli, devnis dawyebis momen-

tisTvis is aucileblad imyofebodesteritoriul zRvaSi an mimdebare zonaSi.

daskvna

konvenciam SeZlo, Seeqmna, met-nakle-bad yvelasTvis misaRebi, universalurireJimi, rodesac maqsimalurad aris dac-uli balansi, erTi mxriv, sanapiro sax-elmwifos teritoriul suverenitetsada, meore mxriv, naosnobis TavisuflebasSoris. rogorc aSS-is mTavrobis komen-tarebSia aRniSnuli, `[is] adgens balansssanapiro da sazRvao interesebs SoriszRvis yvela zonis mimarT~.58

am balansis dacvam uzrunvelyo, upirve-les yovlisa, konvenciis aseTi popularobarogorc ganviTarebul, ise ganviTarebadsaxelmwifoebSi. es dasturdeba kidev erTx-el aSS-is prezidentis mimarTvaSi senatisad-mi, sadac aRniSnulia, rom `SeerTebulStatebs aqvs ZiriTadi da xangrZlivierovnuli interesebi okeaneebSi da Tanda-TanobiT mivida im azramde, rom am intere-sebis srulad dacva yvelaze ukeT moxerxde-ba sayovelTaod aRiarebuli saerTaSorisoCarCo xelSekrulebiT, romelic aregu-lirebs zRvebis gamoyenebas~59.

konvenciam SemoiRo axali muxlebi,romlebmac mniSvnelovnad gaafarTovasanapiro saxelmwifos iurisdiqcia aramarto Sida wylebsa da teritoriul zRveb-Si, aramed sxva sazRvao zonebSic, kerZod,igulisxmeba zRvis garemos dacvasTandakavSirebuli normebi. sanapiro saxelm-wifos iurisdiqciis tradiciuli Car-Coebi, rac, ZiriTadad, sisxlissamarT-lebrivi iurisdiqciiT iyo Semofarglu-li, seriozulad gafarTovda garemosdacviTi iurisdiqciiT. ufro metic, Ta-mamad SeiZleba iTqvas, rom sanapiro saxe-lmwifoebis mier ganxorcielebul iuris-diqciebs Soris swored es sferoa yvelazeunificirebuli da efeqturi.

da bolos, konvencia ara marto ani-Webs sanapiro saxelmwifos iurisdiqciassazRvao zonebze, aramed aZlevs saSuale-bas, realurad aRasrulos es iurisdiq-cia, kerZod, cxel kvalze devnis ufleb-is miniWebiT.

1 igulisxmeba gaeros sazRvao samarTlis Sesaxeb konvenciis xelmoweris dRe.2 ix. ”A Constitution for the Oceans” Remark by Tommy T.B. Koh, of Singapore,

President of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.3 SemdgomSi – `konvencia~.


90


4 ix. Bernaert’s Guide to the 1982 United Nations Convention of the Law of theSea, Arnd Bernaerts, Trafford Publishing, 2006. gv. 9.

5 ix. Bernaert’s Guide to the 1982 United Nations Convention of the Law of theSea, Arnd Bernaerts, Trafford Publishing, 2006. gv. 2.

6 sainteresoa, rom kanadam 1996 wlis 18 dekembris saokeano aqtSi daafiq-sira: `sami okeane – CrdiloeTyinulovani, wynari da atlantikis – arisyvela kanadelis saerTo memkvidreoba~. Premable of Oceans Act, 18.12.1996.http://www.parl.go.ca/House.

7 konvencia, 32-e muxli.8 The Cases in the law of the Sea, Simmonds. Vol. 2, p. 56.9 konvenciis 31-e muxli.10 aq gamonaklisia Sida wylebi, delimitirebuli swori sawyisi xazebiT, rode-

sac mis sazRvrebSi moxvdeba wylis masa, romelic adre teritoriul zRvasmiekuTvneboda. am dros Sida wylebSi moqmedebs mSvidobiani gavlis ufle-ba, romlis Taviseburebebze qvemoT ufro detalurad iqneba saubari.

11 Tumca saxelmwifoTa praqtikis Tanaxmad, es norma ar sruldeba, anuucxo saxelmwifoTa gemebs aqvT ufleba, daubrkoleblad Sevidnen sxvasaxelmwifoTa portebSi.

12 R.R. Churchill&A.V.Lowe ‘The law of the sea’3rd edition p. 61.13 Nicaragua vs. United States; ICJ Reports 1981.14 Coastal Satte Jurisdiction and Vessel Source Pollution, Øystein Jensen, FNI

report 3/2006, Fridtjof Nansens Institutt, p. 16.15 magaliTad, gemis Sidaganawesi da a.S.16 ix. The law of the sea, R.R. Churchill A.V. Lowe, Third edition, Juris Publishing,

Manchester University Press, 1999. p. 66-67.17 ix. The law of the sea, R.R. Churchill A.V. Lowe, Third edition, Juris Publishing,

Manchester University Press, 1999. p. 68.18 Cunard S.S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 100 (1923).19 Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalho, S.A., 353 U.S. 138 (1957).20 ix. United States’ Sur-Reply as Amicus Curiare to Defendant’s Reply in Support

of Its Motion to Dismiss in the United States District Court for the Southern Dis-trict of texas Houston Division, C.A. No. H-00-2649, gv. 3.

21 ix. The law of the sea, R.R. Churchill A.V. Lowe, Third edition, Juris Publishing,Manchester University Press, 1999. p. 67.

22 saqarTvelos sisxlis samarTlis kodeqsi, me-4 muxli. saqarTvelos sa-kanonmdeblo macne, 41 (48), 1999.

23 Tumca aris gansxvavebuli midgomac. magaliTad, ruseTis federaciasada bulgareTis respublikas Soris dadebul 1995 wlis 15 maisis xelSek-rulebaSi savaWro naosnobis Sesaxeb aRniSnulia, rom TiToeul xe-lSemkvrel saxelmwifos ufleba aqvs, mis portSi Semosul meore xe-lSemkvreli mxaris gemze ganaxorcielos sruli iurisdiqcia, nebismieridanaSaulis Cadenis SemTxvevaSi. ix. Ìåæäóíàðîäíîå ìîðñêîå ïðàâî –ó÷åáíîå ïîñoáèå, Ì., 2003, gv. 55.

24 ufro metic, dReisaTvis dedamiwis mosaxleobis naxevarze meti cx-ovrobs 100 km-ian sazRvao sanapiro zolSi, 2,5 milionze meti mosaxleo-bis qalaqebis or mesamedze metiT. amasTan, 2025 wlisTvis mosalodne-lia, rom dedamiwis mosaxleobis 75% icxovrebs sanapiro zolSi. ix. Unit-ed nations Convendtion on the Law of the Sea – 20nt Anniversary (1982-2002).The Martine Envirenment. Are we Destrying the Oceans?

25 sul konvencia 6 saxis dabinZurebis wyaros ganasxvavebs erTmaneTisagan.26 am sakiTxs detalurad awesrigebs gemebidan zRvis dabinZurebis aRkve-

Tis Sesaxeb 1973/78 wlebis konvencia (marpoli, 73/78).27 211-e muxlis me-3 punqti..28 Coastal Satte Jurisdiction and Vessel Source Pollution, Øystein Jensen, FNI

report 3/2006, Fridtjof Nansens Institutt, p. 16. ; Transmittal Letter. Text of a letterfrom the President to the U.S. Senate, October 7, 1994. U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, 1994.

29 konvencia, 218-e muxlis 1-li punqti.30 konvencia, 220-e muxlis 1-li punqti.31 konvencia, me-2 muxli.

91

32 konvencia, me-4 muxlis 1-li punqti. sazRvao mili udris daaxloebiT1852 metrs.

33 konvencia, me-18 muxlis 1-li punqti.34 ibid., me-18 muxlis me-2 punqti.35 ibid., 24-e muxli.36 ibid., 25-e muxlis me-3 punqti.37 ix. konvencia, me-19 muxlis me-2 punqti.38 ix. konvencia, 21-e muxli.39 ibid., 24-e muxlis me-2 punqti.40 ibid., 25-e muxlis me-3 punqti.41 konvencia, 218-e, 220-e muxlebi.42 konvencia, 24-e muxli.43 magaliTad, kambojis saxelmwifo sabWos dekretis Tanaxmad, ucxour samxedro

gemebs winaswari nebarTvis miReba sWirdebaT teritoriul zRvaSi Sesvlamde.Tumca aqve und aRiniSnos, rom aSS ar aRiarebs am moTxovnas. ix. DoD 2005 1-M.Summary of Claims. Cambodia. gv. 90. analogiuri moTxovna aris dafiqsirebulisamxedro gemebisaTvis siera leones sazRvao zonebis (daarsebis) Sesaxeb 1996wlis dekretSi. Sierra Leone: The Maritime Zones (Establishment) Decree, 1996,Article 5.2. arabeTis gaerTianebuli saemiroebis kanonmdeblobiT, samxedro ge-mebs mSvidobiani gavlis gansaxorcieleblad sWirdebaT winaswar nebarTvismopoveba, maSin, roca atomuri gemebi mxolod gafrTxilebiT unda Semoifar-glon. arabeTis gaerTianebuli saemiroebis sazRvao zonebis delimitaciisSesaxeb 1993 wlis 17 oqtombris 19 federaluri kanonis me-5 muxli. ix. NationalLegislation – DOALOS/OLA- United Nations.

44 konvencia, 92-e muxlis 1-li punqti.45 ix.: Coastal State Jurisdiction and Vessel Source Pollution, Øystein Jensen, FNI

report 3/2006, Fridtjof Nansens Institutt, p. 25.46 ix.: John E. Crowley, Jr. U.S. Maritime Law Enforcement Practices, gv. 253. aqve aris

ganmartebuli, rom ̀ aSS-is iurisdiqciis qveS myof gemad~ iTvleba: erovnebisgareSe mcuravi gemi; aseTTan gaTanabrebuli gemi; ucxo qveyanaSi registr-irebuli gemi, Tu droSis saxelmwifo Tanaxmaa aSS-is mier aRmasrulebeliiurisdiqciis ganxorcielebaze; aSS-is sabaJo wylebSi myofi gemi; ucxo sax-elmwifos teritoriul zRvaSi myofi gemi, Tu es saxelmwifo Tanaxmaa, romaSS-ma ganaxorcielos aRmasrulebeli iurisdiqcia; aSS-is mimdebare zonaSimyofi gemi, romelic Sedis aSS-is teritoriaze, an gamodis iqidan.

47 ibid.48 ibid.49 UN Rep. Vol. III, p. 1609.50 Proceedings, Vol. XIII, p. 300 the Behring Sea Fur Seal Arbitration, 1893.51 (GB, Russia) Moore, IA, 1888, p. 824.52 magaliTad, kanadis mimdebare zonaSi ucxo saxelmwifos gemis dapatim-

reba SeiZleba mxolod generaluri prokuroris sanqciiT, me-12 muxli,kanadis saokeano aqti, 1996 wlis 18 dekemberi.. http://www.parl.go.ca/House.

53 konvecia, 111-e muxlis me-8 punqti.54 ix.: D. P. O’Connell, The International Law of the Sea. Vol. II, p. 1077.55 Tumca zogierTi avtori Tvlis, rom cxel kvalze devnis ufleba re-

aluri uflebaa da ara privilegia. ix.: Gidel (1932) Vol.3, p.348.56 saqme The Itata-s (1892) mixedviT, Ciles gems daedevna aSS-is ori kreiseri

san-diegos portidan. devnili gemi Sevida Ciles erT-erT portSi, sa-dac mas Sehyvnen mdevneli kreiserebi. igi daapatimres da daabrunes ukan,san-diegos portSi. aSS-Ciles sarCelTa komisiam aRiara, rom Ciles ter-itoriul zRvaSi devnis gagrZeleba saerTaSoriso samarTlis normebisdarRveva iyo. (Chile, US) Moore Dig. Vol. II, p. 985.

57 Jenevis 1956-58 ww konferenciaze daniis winadadeba iyo daewesebinaT 6saaTiani intervali mocdisaTvis. magram am winadadebam, rogorc warmatebaver hpova. UN Doc. A/CONF. 13/C.2/L. gv. 99.

58 Commentary – The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea andthe Agreement on Implementation of Part XI. U.S. Department of State DispatchSupplement. Febryary 1995. Vol. 6. No.1. p. 5.

59 Transmittal Letter. Text of a letter from the President to the U.S. Senate, October 7,1994. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1994.


92


EKA SIRADZE

JURISDICTION OF THE COASTAL STATE OVER THE SHIPOF FOREIGN STATE IN THE INTERNAL WATERS AND

THE TERRITORIAL SEAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNITEDNATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA OF 1982

INTRODUCTION

As it was stated by Mr. Tommy B. Koh,President of the Third United Nations Confer-ence on the Law of the Sea, in December 101982,1 new record in the history of jurispru-dence has been created.2

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea3

adopted by the conference, together with oth-er values has rather important characteristics:The Convention does not give an opportunityto any State irrespective of its geographic sit-uation, political strength and level of marinedevelopment to enjoy only the rights and notto be bound with relevant obligations beforethe less developed and weak States. And onemore important aspect is that it has played thegreatest role in creation of new norms andmany of these norms have become the normsof customary law. The Convention is consid-ered as comprehensive political and legal pa-per, which includes directives for internation-al relations, policy and law. It establishes newinternational control over the world ocean.4

The aim of this paper is to discuss the Ar-ticles of the Convention on the jurisdiction ofthe coastal State over the ship of foreign Statein its internal waters and the territorial seas,in the present format, where the coastal Stateshave recognized sovereignty, though thescopes of this sovereignty and execution ofown laws by the States becomes a subject ofdispute.

The most serious conflicts in the field ofthe law of the sea has taken place as a resultof intersection of these two fundamental prin-ciples – territorial sovereignty and indepen-dence of the seas.5

INTERNAL WATERS

Activity of any State on domestic or inter-national level is based on the principle of sov-ereignty. The problem arises when interestsof one or more sovereign subjects of interna-tional law intersect each other.

As the territorial sovereignty entitles aState to exercise its jurisdiction in the mostcomprehensive manner, the central role is giv-en to determine to what level the influence ofthe coastal State extends.

Baselines perform this function, i.e. providefor an opportunity of measurement in order todetermine where the coastal State has an ab-solute jurisdiction and where it exercises itsrights simultaneously with other States.

Due to the most of coastlines of the Statesare indented, fringed by the islands, gulfs ormouths of river, ports and etc. there are twotypes of baselines normal and straight.

In accordance with Article 5 of the Con-vention, baselines used for measuring thebreadth of the territorial sea is the low-waterline along the coast as marked on large-scalecharts officially recognized by the coastal State.

Following to Article 8 of the Convention,waters on the land ward side of the baselineof the territorial sea form part of the internali.e. national waters of the State, from whichthe breadth of the territorial sea and all otherzones are measured. Therefore, internal wa-ters include gulfs, mouths of river, ports, is-lands etc.6

The coastal State while considering theissue of jurisdiction, first of all should deter-mine whether all ships enjoy the same statusor not. Following to the Convention warshipsand other government ships operated for non-

93

commercial purposes enjoy full immunity fromthe jurisdiction of the coastal State.7 This prac-tice is not an innovation and reflects well es-tablished norm of the customary law.

Codification of this issue first was initiatedby the Brussels Convention “for the Unifica-tion of Certain Rules Concerning the Immuni-ty of State-owned Ships” of April 10, 1926.However, long before in 1873, In Charkiechcase the court established that, irrespectivethe fact whether the ship was owned by sov-ereign of semi sovereign State of Egypt andwas sailing under the flag of Ottoman Navy,its detention was not in conflict with the normsof international law, because in that particularcase the ship was used for commercial ship-ment. Namely, in resolution was noted that, ifa sovereign assumes the character of a trade,and sends a vessel belonging to him to thiscountry to trade here, he must be consideredto have waived any privilege which might oth-erwise attach to the vessel as the property ofthe sovereign...8

Although, the fact that warships and gov-ernment ships operated for non-commercialpurposes enjoy immunity from the jurisdictionof the coastal State, it does not release themfrom the obligation to respect and observe thelaws of the coastal State. Otherwise the coastalState is entitled to require violating ship to leaveinternal waters and the territorial sea. There-fore, the flag State shall bear responsibility forany caused damage.9

As regards to merchant marine, in inter-nal waters the coastal State in relation to themmay control the following: navigation, over-flight, fishing, scientific research, laying of sub-marine cables, processing of seabed, protec-tion of environment.

The majority of these issues are regulat-ed by the Convention, though only with respectto the territorial sea and the regime of the in-ternal waters remained open. Perhaps this isreasoned also by the fact that, the jurisdictionof the coastal State is completely extended,except few exceptions, when the coastal Statelimits its sovereignty in favor of the other Stateunder bilateral agreement. Consequently, thecoastal State in its internal waters may controlthe ship of foreign State likewise it would oc-cur at its land territory.10

As it is recognized that the internal waterswith their status are equalized to the land ter-ritory of a State, it is obvious that determina-

tion of its status may unlikely be the subject ofany international Convention.

It is general norm that foreign ships do nothave a right of navigation in internal waters.The issue of entry into the port is more dis-putable. In accordance with the customary lawthere is no norm which bounds the States toallow necessary entry to the ships of foreignStates into their ports.11 On the other hand inArbitrary decision of Aramco of 1958 is notedthat following to international law ports of eachcountry must be open for the ships of otherStates and they may be closed only when it isrequired by vital interests of the State of port.12

But in Nicaragua case the same court estab-lished that the State of a port taking into con-sideration its sovereignty may regulate acces-sibility to the ports.13 Although, the internationalports of the States is considered to be openfor international navigation of the ships (cer-tainly this does not refer to military ships), thisrule has not obtained the status of customarylaw norm. Each State determines the rule ofentry of the ships into the ports itself inde-pendently or on the basis of bilateral interna-tional agreements.14

First of all States are entitled to determinewhich ship may be granted with the right toenter into the port and secondly, the State mayclose a port for international navigation forsecurity purposes. In this case it is difficult toprove whether this is crucial interest of the Stateor not.

As stated above, the internal waters arethe part of the territory of a State and conse-quently jurisdiction of a coastal State extendsover the ships and their crew entered into theports. However, the jurisdiction of a flag State15

always extends over the ship, which causescertain collision of norms (or conflict of juris-dictions). There are two different approacheswith respect to this issue: French and Anglo-American.

French approach was established in re-lation to two American ships “Sally” and“Newton”, where the fight between the crewmembers took place. French court estab-lished that, in case of commitment of crimein a port on the board of a ship, if it onlyviolates internal regulations of a ship andrefers to the ship and a crew, local authori-ties shall not interfere, unless it has directaffect on the good order and security of theport and if request on assistance is received

E. SIRADZE, JURISDICTION OF THE COASTAL STATE OVER THE SHIP OF FOREIGN STATE...

94


from the ship. In relation to American Ship“Tempset” particular amendment has beenmade into this rule, when in Havre Port theassistant to the captain has killed one of thecrew members and wounded another one.In this case the Court exercised the jurisdic-tion, since the incident has disturbed thepeace.16

Anglo-American approach implies that incase of nonexistence of relevant agreement,each State shall exercise its jurisdiction overits internal waters. English courts, in the inter-nal waters of Great Britain declare completejurisdiction over the crew of ships of foreignStates. In “Regina v. Cunningham” case threeAmerican sailors were punished for assault onother sailor on a board of a ship, which wasanchoring nearby the coasts of England – be-cause the crime was committed on the territo-ry of England.17

The assertion of the fact that the merchantship shall be considered as a “sailing” territo-ry of flag State was resulting in conflict be-tween jurisdictions. However, this postulate isunreasonable especially, in so called “openregisters” era. Even in 1923 (this idea) wasrefused by the Supreme Court of the USA inCunard S.S. Co. v. Mellon case. Statementsometimes made that a merchant ship is a partof the territory of the country whose flag sheflies. But this, as has been aptly observed, is afigure of speech, a metaphor, is mainly appli-cable to ships on the high seas, where thereis no territorial sovereign, and as respectsships in foreign territorial waters, it has littleapplication beyond what is affirmatively or tac-itly permitted by the local sovereign.18

However, the abovementioned does notmean that jurisdiction of a flag State is comp-letely terminated, when the ship is in the in-ternal waters of a foreign State. In this caseso called “parallel jurisdictions” may be oper-ating. For example, the Court of the UnitedStates in Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo,S.A. case established that, on dispute betweena foreign employer and a foreign crew the lawof the USA shall not be extended in the inter-nal waters of the latter in case when the onlyAmerican connection was that the ship was intransit passage in the United States port.19

Though, when the ship is staying in the USAwaters for a certain period, it is loading and/or unloading in the ports of the USA, the claim-

ant is the Citizen of the USA, the legislation ofthe USA shall definitely extend over the ship.20

In case of agrave crime, only the fact thata ship is standing in the port is a sufficientground for exercising the jurisdiction. Thisapproach has been noted in “Wildenhus”case, when a crew member of the Belgium shipkilled another member while the ship wasstanding in one of the ports of the USA.21

In accordance to the legislation of Geor-gia if the crime is committed on the territory ofGeorgia (including the internal waters) thecriminal jurisdiction of Georgia shall be ap-plied.22 However in the bilateral agreements itis noted that of the criminal law jurisdiction ofGeorgia extends over the ships of foreignStates in the ports of Georgia if: the results ofthe crime extends on the territory of Georgia,the security of the country in under the risk,the crime is committed by the citizen of Geor-gia or against him/her, or it is connected tothe illegal traffic of narcotics drugs. Georgiahas concluded such bilateral agreements withGreece, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Russia, Cyprus,Turkey, etc.23

As it is obvious from the aforementionedexamples, the States do not interfere in inter-nal regulation of the ship, in labour and civildisputes between the crew members.

In a viewpoint of exercising jurisdiction, inpassed decades the issues of environmentprotection acquired paramount importance. Ifwe take into consideration that the coastalarea – the most productive area of the sea –is mostly infringed by the harmful influence onthe marine environment,24 it does not aston-ish that upon the exercise of the jurisdictionby the States, the most importance is given tothe issues of protection of environment.

Problem regarding the protection of ma-rine environment especially gained its impor-tance from 60th-70th of XX century. In this re-spect in parallel with the increase of obliga-tion of a flag State the right of a coastal Stateto control the marine environment under itsjurisdiction, and exercise not only legislative,but executive jurisdiction, which is very impor-tant, is also increasing.

Although, there are numbers of sources,25

in the sphere of the present research onlymarine pollution from the ships is envisaged.Part XII of the Convention is devoted to theprotection of environment.26

95

Following to the Convention, the Statesare entitled to establish particular require-ments for the prevention, reduction or controlof the pollution of the marine environment asa condition for the entry of foreign vessels intotheir ports.27

Jurisdiction of a coastal State includes theright to refuse the entry of foreign vessels intoits ports. However, in sucha case problematicis the issue of the ships being under distress.To what extent the coastal States are entitledto refuse them? In previous years the mostimportant case was Prestige case, when theGovernment of Spain refused the ship to en-ter into port, including for ecological safetyreasons, and afterwards the ship sank in theEEZ of Spain and polluted coast of Spain aswell as coasts of Portugal and France. Irre-spective of the serious incident, direct answeron this question still does not exist. Further-more practice and legislation of the States in-clines to the fact that, if the crew is rescued, aport State may have a good argument to refusethe entry of such vessel into the port.28

If ship pollutes the maritime zones of acoastal State, executive jurisdiction may beexercised against her in case of entry into itsport.29

In this case there is an essential conditionthat a vessel has entered voluntarily into aport. In such a case the coastal State may com-pletely undertake its legislation against thevessel.30 Therefore, the vessel which is forc-edly entered into a port does not fall underthe mentioned provision. In this case the samequestion may arise, whether the entry of avessel under the distress is considered vol-untarily or not? The Convention itself does notdefine either the term “under distress” norconditions of force majeure.

On the other hand Article 221 of the Con-vention entitles a coastal State to take mea-sures in order to avoid marine pollution fol-lowing upon a casualty. So, one can assumethat in specific case the coastal States mayapply this Article.

Contrary to vessels entered into the ports,the Convention does not provide for exerciseof executive jurisdiction over the vessels in theinternal waters. However, if we take into con-sideration the quality of sovereignty of a coast-al State in its internal waters, lack of such clar-ification is not essential.

TERRITORIAL SEA

The Convention recognises that, sover-eignty of a coastal State extends to the air spaceover the territorial sea as well as to its bed andsubsoil.31 However, after detailed study of Arti-cles of the Convention, it becomes clear thatthere is a difference between the exercising sov-ereignty over the territorial sea and the airspace. In particular, right to an innocent pas-sage in the territorial sea is implied, which sig-nificantly limits the jurisdiction of a coastal State.Namely the sovereignty of a coastal State doesnot extend over the vessels, staying at its terri-torial sea with innocent passage regime.

For the first time on ligislative level the Con-vention established the breadth of a territorialsea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles.32

As regards to innocent passage – it enti-tles any ship of a coastal or non-coastal Statewhether merchant or military, to have an op-portunity of expeditious navigation regardlessof the breadth of territorial sea and type of sov-ereignty exercised by a coastal State over it.33

Furthermore, according to the Convention in-nocent passage includes not only active pas-sage, but stopping and anchoring, in so faras it is caused by ordinary navigation or forcemajeure conditions or for the purpose of res-cuing the life of persons or vessels at sea.34

Coastal State shall not hamper the inno-cent passage except in accordance with theConvention.35 However, in its territorial sea acoastal State is entitled to prevent the pas-sage of ship, which is not innocent or suspendit if such suspension is essential for securitypurposes.36

According to Article 19, paragraph 1 of theConvention “passage is innocent so long as itis not prejudicial to the peace, good order orsecurity of the coastal State”.

The Convention provides for a detailed listwhen the passage is not considered to be in-cessant and consequently, coastal State be-comes entitled to extend its jurisdiction overthe relevant ship. In particular, passage shallbe considered to be prejudicial to the peaceand security of the coastal State if it engagesin any of the following activities:1. Any threat or use of force against the sov-

ereignty, territorial integrity or political in-dependence of Georgia, or in any othermanner in violation of the principles andnorms of international law;


96


2. Military manures or study by exercisingweapons of any kind;

3. Activity aimed at collecting information tothe prejudice of the defence or security ofGeorgia;

4. Act of propaganda aimed at affecting thedefence or security interests of Georgia;

5. The launching or taking on board of anyaircraft;

6. The launching or taking on board of anymilitary device;

7. The loading or unloading of any commodityand currency or person contrary to thecustoms, fiscal, immigration or sanitary lawsand regulations;

8. Wilful and serious pollution of marine envi-ronment;

9. Fishing;10. The carrying out of scientific-research,

survey or hydrographic activities;11. Act aimed at interfering with any systems

of communication and electronic systemsor other facilities or installations;

12. Any other activity not having a direct bear-ing on innocent passage.37

However, the right of innocent passagedoes not restrict the jurisdiction of coastalStates over such ships. In particular, the coast-al State is entitled to adopt laws and establishregulations on navigation and navigationalaids, as well as cables, living resources of thesea, fishing and other issues.38 Throughoutthe innocent passage, all ships are obliged toperform and observe laws and regulations ofa coastal State. But, the costal State shall notestablish discriminative rules with respect tothe flag or type of a ship.39

Following to the Convention, in exception-al cases the coastal State may suspend therights of innocent passage in specified areasof its territorial sea for the purposes of securi-ty protection of its country, or during the mili-tary exercises. But, such suspension shall bedone on non-discriminative basis and takeeffect only after having been duly published.40

Provisions of part XII of the Convention en-title the costal State to exercise executive juris-diction over the ship violating the regulationson the protection of maritime environment.41

The costal state is not entitled to prevent pas-sage unless a ship is polluting its territorial sea“wilfully and seriously”. Though, there is no anycommon criterion on the “serious” pollution andit depends on particular features of a coasts

and legislation of the coastal State, since thelater is entitled to adopt laws for the ships inthe regime of innocent passage, regarding theenvironmental protection. Although, in accor-dance with the same Convention, the coastalState whilst exercising its legislative jurisdictionis not entitled to adopt laws, which in fact re-stricts the right to an innocent passage.42 Forthe purposes of ensuring environmental pro-tection, following to Article 22 of the Conven-tion, the coastal State is entitled to establishsea lines and corridors for vessels ships, whichshall be applied by the latter during the inno-cent passage.

As regards to executive jurisdiction ofcoastal State, in accordance with paragraph2 of Article 220 of the Convention, a State isentitled to inspect or detain the ship, wherethe evidence warrants that while it was stay-ing in its territorial sea has violated the lawsof the State, regarding prevention, reductionand control of marine environment pollutionfrom the vessels adopted on the basis of in-ternational law. However, the abovementionedregulation shall be applied to vessels in of in-nocent passage, without prejudice to Articles 24and 27.

As it was stated above, in accordance withArticle 24, in the process of exercising legis-lative jurisdiction, the coastal State shall nothamper the right of innocent passage. Article27 provides for the terms of exercising crimi-nal jurisdiction on the territorial sea that willbe discussed below in more details.

During the innocent passage, regulationsadopted by the coastal State on introductionof permit system for innocent passage of ves-sel may be considered as an expression ofState sovereignty. Especially it refers to war-ships and nuclear-powered ships.43

Regarding to the criminal jurisdiction overthe territorial sea, Article 26 of the Conven-tion grants the State with the right to exerciseit only in three cases.

Firss case concerns the commitment of acrime on a board of a ship in innocent pas-sage, if:1. The consequences of the crime extend to

the coastal State;2. The crime is of a kind to disturb the peace

of the coastal State and/or the good orderin its territorial sea;

3. The assistance of the local authorities hasbeen requested by the captain of the ship

97

or by a diplomatic agent or consular offic-er of the flag State; and

4. Such measures are necessary for the sup-pression of illicit traffic in narcotic drugsor psychotropic substances.The second case refers to the situation

when the ship enters into the territorial seafrom internal waters where it has committed acrime. In this case the coastal State is entitledto take any measure against such vessel, i.e.its jurisdiction is not limited. It comes from theunlimited criminal jurisdiction of the coastalState in its internal waters.

The third case refers to ships, which havecommitted a crime before entering the territo-rial water from the high seas. In this case thecriminal jurisdiction of the coastal State doesnot extend except as provided in part XII ofthe Convention. the abovementioned regula-tion is based on the fundamental principle ofthe Law of the Sea stating that only flag Statejurisdiction is extended over the ship in thehigh sea.44

Under paragraph 2 of Article 220 of theConvention, the coastal State is entitled to in-spect or/and detain the vessel not only in caseof violation of its legislation on environmentalprotection, but in cases of violation of inter-national regulations and standards as well. Fi-nally in accordance with paragraph 2 of Arti-cle 25, the coastal State has the right to takenecessary steps to prevent breach of regula-tions on the entry into ports. Certainly, suchsteps may be undertaken in the territorial sea.

The example of Norway as one of the tra-ditional developed maritime State is interest-ing whilst discussing the issue of executivejurisdiction of the coastal State in the territori-al sea. According to its legislation vessel maybe detained for violation of local laws and reg-ulations in the territorial sea, among them,concerning manning and construction.45 How-ever, Article 22 of the Convention forbids thecoastal State to adopt law on manning andconstruction of vessels in innocent passagein a territorial sea.

In accordance with section 89 of the Codeof the USA on the Protection of Coast, thecoast guard personnel are entitled to exerciseexamination, inspection, investigation, deten-tion and arrest of vessels under the jurisdic-tion of the United State in order to execute thelaws of the United States.46 Furthermore, forexercising activities aimed at avoiding contra-

band outside from the coast, it is necessaryfor the coast guard of the USA to have juris-diction over the vessels as well as over theactions there in.47 If the officials of the coastguard of the USA discover the violations onUSA vessel or on a vessel under the jurisdic-tion of the USA, they are entitled to take thevessel into the port, arrest and/or fine respon-sible persons and confiscate the vessel itselfand/or impose a fine on it.48

HOT PURSUIT

One of the guarantees to exercise theexecutive jurisdiction by the coastal State, overthe internal waters and the territorial sea, isthe right of hot pursuit, which is granted underthe Convention. In accordance with Article 111of the Convention, hot pursuit may be under-taken when a foreign ship or her boats arewithin the internal waters, the territorial sea,the contiguous zone, the archipelagic watersof the pursuing State. The right of a hot pur-suit is one of the oldest norms of the custom-ary law of the sea. In cases such as ‘The I’mAlone’ case (1935)49 the customary law recog-nised the right of the coastal State to entitleits warships to exercise pursuit of a foreignship, if she has violated the law of the coastalState in its internal waters or the territorial sea,and to detain such a ship on the high sea. InBehring Sea Fur Seal arbitration it was estab-lished that, hot pursuit shall be immediate …and shall be in the frames of control.50

Article 111 of the Convention reflecting thecustomary law rule, stipulates that hot pursuitmay be undertaken when the competent au-thorities of the coastal State have a good rea-son to believe that the ship has violated thelaws and regulations of that State. However,the Convention does not provide for any dif-ference in relation to the quality of a violatedlaw.

However, it is strictly determined from whichzone and for what violation the pursuit maybe commenced. For example, it is prohibitedto commence the pursuit outside the contigu-ous zone, against a ship which did not observethe sanitary regulations in the territorial sea.

Together with the hot pursuit, the doctrineof constructive presence operates. In otherwords, it is not necessary the regulations tobe violated directly by the ship in internal wa-ters and/or territorial sea, but involvement of


98


its boat or crew members in illegal activities inthis zones is a good reason for the coastalState to exercise the hot pursuit.

In ‘the Araunah’ case the British Govern-ment noted that, although, the Canadian fish-ing vessel was not in the territorial sea andwas not participating in illegal fishing, its de-tention was justified because its sailors en-tered in the territorial sea of Russia by theboats and were fishing.51

A Persuing ship may take any necessaryand reasonable measure to detain the guiltyship. However, each country establishes itsown regulations regarding the procedure ofdetention of a guilty ship and person withinthe scopes of its jurisdiction.52 On the otherhand the compensation for any damagecaused as a result of illegal pursuit or illegaluse of force is established.53

Some authors deem that, the right of hotpursuit is a privilege54 which is granted to thecoastal State in case of violation of doubleobligations by the offender ship. First, whenship violates the local laws, and the secondwhen it refuses to surrender to local compe-tent authorities.55

While it is hot pursuit and it continues onthe high sea the issue of its conclusion doesnot depend on time and place. But if there isno special entitling agreement, the pursuitshall end when the pursued ship crosses theouter boarder of the territorial sea of any Stateother then the persuing State.56

Article 111.3 of the Convention strictlydetermines that the hot pursuit ceases andnot temporarily terminates when the ship pur-sued enters the territorial sea of any otherState. In other words perusing ship shall nothave a right to wait when the pursued shipleaves the territorial sea.57

Pursuit may be exercised only by a war-ship or an aircraft or a specially authorizedship for these purposes (ships of coastguards). Location of the pursued vessel forthe moment of commencement of pursuit is

less important, as it is not necessary for it tobe in the territorial sea or the contiguous zonefor the moment of commencement of pursuit.

CONCLUSION

The Convention managed to establishmore or less acceptable, universal regime foreveryone, when the territorial sovereignty ofcoastal State on the one hand, and freedomof navigation on the other hand are balanced.As it is noted in the commentary of the USA, itestablishes the balance between the coastaland maritime interests with respect to all mar-itime zones.58

First of all this balance has ensured pop-ularity of the Convention both in developedand developing States. This once again isproved in the address of the US President tothe Senate, where it is noted that, The UnitedState has a basic and long term national in-terest in the oceans and gradually came tothe opinion that complete protection of thisinterests can be best achieved by universallyrecognized international frame agreement,which manages the application of the seas.59

The convention has introduced new Arti-cles that have significantly extended the juris-diction of the coastal State not only in the in-ternal waters and the territorial seas, but alsoin other maritime zones. In particular, the normsrelating to the protection of maritime environ-ment is implied. Traditional scope of jurisdic-tion of the coastal State, mainly limited withcriminal law jurisdiction, has been significant-ly extended with the jurisdiction of environmen-tal protection. Moreover, it may be easily saidthat exactly this area is the most unified andeffective among all jurisdictions exercised bythe coastal States.

And finally the Convention not only grantsthe coastal States the jurisdiction over themaritime zones, but gives an opportunity toactually execute this jurisdiction, in particularby granting the right of hot pursuit.

1 Implied the date of signature of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.2 Please see ”A Constitution for the Oceans” Remark by Tommy T.B. Koh, of Singapore,

President of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.3 Hereafter “Convention”.4 Please see. Bernaert’s Guide to the 1982 United Nations Convention of the Law

of the Sea, Arnd Bernaerts, Trafford Publishing, 2006. p. 9.

99

5 Please see. Bernaert’s Guide to the 1982 United Nations Convention of the Lawof the Sea, Arnd Bernaerts, Trafford Publishing, 2006. p. 2.

6 It is interesting that Canada, in the Oceans Act of December 18, 1998, hasstated that whereas Canada recognizes that “the three oceans, the Arctic, thePacific and the Atlantic, are the common heritage of all Canadians”. Preambleof Oceans Act, 18.12.1996. http://www.parl.go.ca/House.

7 The Convention, Article 32.8 The Cases in the law of the Sea, Simmonds. Vol. 2, p. 56.9 The Convention, Article 31.10 Here the exception is the internal water with delimited straight baselines, when

the mass of the water falls within its borders, which previously was belonged tothe territorial sea. In this case the right of innocent passage is operating in theinternal waters. Its features will be discussed below in detail.

11 However, the State practice reviles that this norm is not performed, i.e. ships offoreign States are entitled to enter into the ports of other States without difficulties.

12 R.R. Churchill&A.V.Lowe ‘The law of the sea’3rd edition p. 61.13 Nicaragua vs. United States; ICJ Reports 1981.14 Coastal Satte Jurisdiction and Vessel Source Pollution, ystein Jensen, FNI

report 3/2006, Fridtjof Nansens Institutt, p. 16.15 For example, internal regulation of a ship, etc.16 Please see the law of the sea, R.R. Churchill A.V. Lowe, Third edition, Juris

Publishing, Manchester University Press, 1999. p. 66-67.17 Please see the law of the sea, R.R. Churchill A.V. Lowe, Third edition, Juris

Publishing, Manchester University Press, 1999. p. 68.18 Cunard S.S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 100 (1923).19 Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalho, S.A., 353 U.S. 138 (1957).20 Please see the United States’ Sur-Reply as Amicus Curiare to Defendant’s

Reply in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss in the United States District Court forthe Southern District of Texas Houston Division, C.A. No. H-00-2649, p. 3.

21 Please see. The law of the sea, R.R. Churchill A.V. Lowe, Third edition, JurisPublishing, Manchester University Press, 1999. p. 67.

22 The Criminal Code of Georgia, Article 4. Georgian Legal Almanac N41 (48),1999.

23 However, there is also a different approach. For example in the agreementbetween Russian Federation and Republic of Bulgaria on the merchant Shippingof May 15, 1995, it is noted that each contracting State shall be entitled to exercisecomplete jurisdiction over the ship of another contracting party entered into theport in case of commitment of any crime. Please see. Ìåæäóíà-ðîäíîå ìîðñêîåïðàâî – ó÷åáíîå ïîñoáèå, Ìîñêâà, Èçäàòåëüñòâî “Þðèäè÷åñêàÿ Ëèòåðà-òóðà”,2003. p. 55.

24 Moreover, nowadays more then a half of the world population is leaving in 100km sea coastline, in more then two thirds of the cities of more then 2.5 millionpopulations. Herewith for the year 2025 it was expected that 75% of the worldpopulation will live in the sea coastline. Please see United Nations Conventionon the Law of the Sea – 20th Anniversary (1982-2002). The Marine Environment.Are we destroying the Oceans?

25 Totally 6 kind of the source of pollution is differed from each other by theConvention.

26 The issue of prevention of marine pollution from the ships is in detailed regulatedby the Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution from Ships of 1973/78(MARPOL 73/78).

27 Article 211(3).28 Coastal State Jurisdiction and Vessel Source Pollution, Øystein Jensen, FNI

report 3/2006, Fridtjof Nansens Institute, p. 16. ; Transmittal Letter. Text of aletter from the President to the U.S. Senate, October 7, 1994. U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, 1994.

29 The Convention, Article 218(1).30 The Convention, Article 220(1).31 The Convention, Article 2.32 The Convention, Article 4. 1 nautical mile equals approximately to 1852 meter.33 The Convention, Article 18.1.34 The Convention,. Article 18.2.35 Ibid. Article 24.36 Ibid. Article 25.3.37 The Convention, Article 4. 1 nautical mile equals approximately to 1852 meter.


100


38 Please see. The Convention, Article 21.39 Ibid. Article 24.2.40 Ibid. Article 25.3.41 The Convention, Articles 218, 220.42 The Convention, Articles 24.43 For example, in accordance with the decree of the State Council of Cambodia

foreign military vessels shall obtain preliminary permit before the entry into theterritorial sea. However, shall be mentioned that the USA does not recognize thisrequirement. Please see. DoD 2005 1-M. Summary of Claims. Cambodia. p. 90.For the military vessels similar requirement is stated in the Maritime Zones(Establishment) Decree of Sierra Leone of 1996. Please see Sierra Leone: TheMaritime Zones (Establishment) Decree, 1996, Article 5.2. Under the legislationof United Arab Emirates, military vessels to exercise innocent passage need toobtain preliminary permit, while nuclear-powered ships shall be limited onlywith the notification. Article 5 of the Federal Law of United Arab Emirates on theDelimitation of Border Zones of Emirates of October 17, 1993, N19. Please see.National Legislation – DOALOS/OLA – United Nations.

44 The Convention, Article 92.1.45 Please see. Coastal State Jurisdiction and Vessel Source Pollution, Øystein

Jensen, FNI report 3/2006, Fridtjof Nansens Institutt, p. 25.46 Please see. John E. Crowley, Jr. U.S. Maritime Law Enforcement Practices, p.

253.Herewith it is defined that the following ships are considered “to be underthe jurisdiction of the USA”: ships without nationality, ships equalized to suchships, ships registered in foreign country, if the flag State agrees executivejurisdiction to be exercised by the USA; the ship in the customs waters of theUSA; the ship being in the territorial sea of the foreign State, if this State agreesexecutive jurisdiction to be exercise by the USA; ship being in the contiguouszone of the USA, which enters or exists the territory of the USA.

47 Ibid.48 Ibid.49 UN Rep. Vol. III, p. 1609.50 Proceedings, Vol. XIII, p. 300 the Behring Sea Fur Seal Arbitration, 1893.51 (GB, Russia) Moore, IA, 1888, p. 824.52 For example, a ship of a foreign State in the con-tinuous zone of Canada may be

detained only with the consent of the Attorney General of Canada. Article 12,Oceans Act of Canada, December 18, 1996… http://www.parl.go.ca/House.

53 The Convention, Article 111.54 Please see. D. P. O’Connell, The International Law of the Sea. Vol. II, p. 1077.55 However, some authors deem that the right of hot pursuit is a real rights and not

a privilege. Please see. Gidel (1932) Vol.3, p. 348.56 In the The Itata’ (1892) case the ship of Chile was pursued by two cruisers of the

USA from the port of San Diego. Pursued ship entered in one of the ports of Chilewhere it was followed by the pursuing cruisers. It was detained and taken back toSan Diego port. Commission of the USA-Chile claims recognized that continueof pursuit in the territorial sea of Chile was a violation of the norms of internationallaw. (Chile, US) Moore Dig. Vol. II, p. 985 .

57 On Geneva Conference of 1956-58 the proposal of Denmark was to establishsix hour period of waiting. But this proposal did not succeed. UN Doc. A/CONF.13/C.2/L. p. 99.

58 Com-men-tary – The 1982 Uni-ted Na-ti-ons Con-ven-ti-on on the Law of theSea and the Agre-e-ment on Imple-men-ta-ti-on of Part XI. U.S. De-par-tment ofSta-te Dis-patch Sup-ple-ment. Feb-ru-ary 1995. Vol. 6. No.1. p. 5.

59 Transmittal Letter. Text of a letter from the President to the U.S. Senate, October7, 1994. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1994.

101

elene siWinava

`gonivruli vadis~ moTxovna(adamisnis uflebaTa evropuli konvenciis mixedviT)

adamianis uflebaTa da ZiriTadTavisuflebaTa dacvis evropuli kon-venciis me-6 muxlis mixedviT, `kanonissafuZvelze Seqmnili miukerZoebeli dadamoukidebeli sasamarTlos~ mier saqmisganxilva jer kidev ar aris sakmarisi ga-rantia – samarTliani sasamarTlosuzrunvelsayofad saWiroa kidev erTipirobis dacva: samarTalwarmoeba undaganxorcieldes ̀ gonivrul vadaSi~.

procesis xangrZlivobis problemaaqtualuria bevri evropuli saxelmwi-fosaTvis. es iqidanac Cans, rom evropu-li sasamarTlos gadawyvetilebaTa udi-desi nawili swored `gonivruli vadis~moTxovnis darRvevas exeba.

sakiTxi gansakuTrebiT mwvaved saqar-TveloSi dgas. saerTo sasamarTloebis,gansakuTrebiT samoqalaqo saqmeTa kole-giis, mier saproceso kanonmdeblobiTgansazRvruli vadebis darRveva da kon-venciiT gaTvaliswinebuli `gonivrulivadis~ moTxovnis ugulebelyofa miRe-bul praqtikad iqca.

yvelasaTvis xelmisawvdomia uzenae-si sasamarTlos vebgverdi1, sadac war-modgenilia monacemebi im saqmeTa Sesax-eb, romlebic ganxilulia Cveni sasamarT-loebis mier. samwuxarod, TiToeuli sa-qme zemoT aRniSnuli mdgomareobis dama-dasturebel magaliTad gamodgeba.

ratom aris SeuZlebeli ̀ samarTlianisasamarTlos uflebis~ realizeba ̀ goni-vruli vadis~ garantiis gareSe da ratomgaxda saWiro misi gaTvaliswineba kon-venciiT?

`gonivruli vadis moTxovnis dacva,pirvel rigSi, Sedis rogorc Tavad piris,aseve marTlmsajulebis jerovnad ganx-orcielebis interesebSi~.2

`rogorc sisxlis samarTlis, asevesxva saqmeebSi gonivruli vadis garanti-is mizania yvela mxaris dacva samarTal-warmoebis gaWianurebisagan~.3

sisxlis samarTlis saqmeSi piri,romelic ganaCenis molodinSi, didi xnisganmavlobaSi imyofeba gaurkvevel mdgo-mareobaSi, ganicdis Zlier stress. xSir-ad is ufro komfortulad grZnobs Tavs,Tundac mkacri ganaCenis gamotanis Sem-deg, vidre mis molodinSi.4 amasTanave,àseT SemTxvevaSi mxedvelobaSia misaRe-bi is garemoeba, rom piris braldebuladyofna gavlenas axdens mis reputaciaze~.5

aseve, samoqalaqo saqmis TiToeulimxarisaTvis arsebiTad mniSvnelovania imdavis drouli gadawyveta, romelSic igimonawileobs. xSirad gadawyvetilebisgamotana xdeba imdenad dagvianebiT, rommas ukve aRar SeuZlia, gavlena moaxdinosdavis Sedegze.

garda amisa, samarTalwarmoebis swrafida efeqturi ganxorcieleba sajaro in-teresicaa. saxelmwifom yvela zoma undamiiRos, rom saqme didi xnis ganmavlobaSiar gaCerdes warmoebaSi, raTa am gziTSesaZlebeli gaxdes saxelmwifo resurse-bis dazogva.

da bolos, ̀ es garantia xazs usvams ma-rTlmsajulebis ganxorcielebis mniS-vnelobas iseTi gaWianurebis gareSe,rogoric safrTxes uqmnis mis efeqtur-obasa da sandoobas~.6

1999 wlis 20 maiss ratificirebis Sed-egad evropuli konvencia gaxda Cveni ka-nonmdeblobis nawili7. ufro metic, CvenaviReT valdebuleba, rom danarCeni ka-nonmdebloba da praqtika misi Sesabamisiiqneboda. 8

aqedan gamomdinare, CvenTvis mniS-vnelovania, rogor ganmartavs evropulisasamarTlo am moTxovnas? misi Sefase-biT, sad gadis samarTalwarmoebis xangr-Zlivobis gonivrulobis zRvari? ra faq-torebi uwyobs xels gaWianurebas? razomebi unda miiRos saxelmwifom am prob-lemis gadasaWrelad? – TiToeuli es sa-kiTxi qvemoT iqneba ganxiluli.

102


gasaTvaliswinebeli drois

dasawyisi da dasasruli

`xelSekrulebaTa samarTlis Sesaxebvenis konvenciis~ 28-e muxlis Tanaxmad,`Tu sxva mizani ar gamomdinareobs an xe-lSekrulebiT sxva ram ar aris dadgeni-li, misi debulebebi ar akisrebs pasux-ismgeblobas mxares nebismier im moqmede-basa Tu faqtze, romelmac arseboba Sew-yvita am mxarisaTvis xelSekrulebis amo-qmedebis dRes~.9

aRniSnuli principi vrceldeba ad-amianis uflebaTa evropul konvenciaz-ec. strasburgis sasamarTlom samarTal-warmoebis xangrZlivobaze msjelobisasara erT saqmeSi aRniSna, rom konvenciasara aqvs ukuqceviTi Zala.

saqmis – silva pontesi portugaliiswinaaRmdeg – ganxilvisas sasamarTlomdaadgina, rom dro, romelic mxedvelo-baSia misaRebi me-6 muxlis 1-li punqtismixedviT, daiwyo ara 1977 wlis 20 de-kembers, rodesac ganmcxadebelma samo-qalaqo sarCeliT mimarTa sasamarTlosjanmrTelobis dazianebis gamo kompensa-ciis moTxovniT, aramed 1978 wlis 9 noem-bers, rodesac konvencia ZalaSi SevidaportugaliisaTvis.10

amasTanave, ̀ sasamarTlos Sefasebaze– ganxorcielda Tu ara samarTalwarmoe-ba saTanado siswrafiT konvenciis Zala-Si Sesvlis Semdeg – gavlenas moaxdens isfaqti, rom saqmis ganxilva ukve xangr-Zlivad mimdinareobs~,11 anu garkveul-wilad xdeba im periodis gaTvaliswine-bac, romelic gasulia ratifikaciamde.

saxelmwifosaTvis konvenciis ZalaSiSesvlis TariRis dadgenis Semdeg sasamar-Tlo arkvevs mxedvelobaSi misaRebi droisdasawyissa da dasasruls.

`sisxlis samarTlis saqmeebSi me-6muxlis 1-li punqtiT gaTvaliswinebuli`gonivruli vada~ iwyeba pirisaTvis bra-ldebis wayenebisTanave~.12

`braldebis wayeneba~ me-6 muxlis 1-lipunqtis miznebisaTvis, es aris uflebamo-sili organos mier pirisaTvis oficialuriSetyobineba, romelic gulisxmobs sisxlissamarTlis danaSaulis Cadenis mtkicebas~.13

`pirs braldeba SeiZleba wauyenon,magaliTad, dakavebis dros an rodesacdaiwyeba winasawari gamoZieba~.14

saqmize vemhofi germaniis winaaRmdegsasamarTlom daadgina, rom gasaTval-

iswinebeli periodi daiwyo maSin, rode-sac daakaves ganmcxadebeli. am dRes gaicadapatimrebis brZaneba, romliTac ganm-cxadeblis mimarT arsebobda gonivrulieWvi, rom man Caidina danaSauli. sabralde-bo aqti ki Sedgenil iqna mxolod mas Sem-deg, rac winaswari gamoZiebis dasrule-bidan gavida 2 welze meti.15

aqedan gamomdinare, sisxlis samarT-lis saqmeSi mxedvelobaSi misaRebi vadisdawyebis drod yovelTvis unda iqnes miC-neuli is TariRi, rodesac pirma pirve-lad oficialuri gziT miiRo nebismierisaxis informacia imis Sesaxeb, rom mis mi-marT Sesabamisi saxelmwifo organoebismier dawyebulia garkveuli procedure-bi. Cveulebriv, es aris braldebis wayene-bis dro. aris SemTxvevebi, rodesac bra-ldebis wayenebas win uswrebs sisxlissa-marTlebrivi devnis dawyeba, piris eWvmi-tanilad cnoba, dakaveba an sxva saproce-so qmedeba. aseT SemTxvevaSi nebismieri esTariRi, romelic win uswrebda danarCe-ns da saidanac ganmcxadebelma pirveladSeityo, rom mis mimarT gaCnda eWvi, undaiqnes gamoyenebuli vadis dasawyisad.

samoqalaqo saqmeebSi es sakiTxi Sem-degnairad wydeba: Tu ganmcxadebeli Ta-vad mosarCelea, drois aTvla iwyeba sar-Celis Setanis TariRidan. im SemTxvevaSi,Tu ganmcxadebeli sargeblobs mopasuxisstatusiT, zemoT aRniSnuli mizniT gam-oiyeneba uwyebis Cabarebis dro.

saqmis – guinCo portugaliis winaaRm-deg – ganxilvisas sasamarTlom daadgi-na, rom dro, romlis gonivruloba undaSefasdes, daiwyo, rodesac ganmcxade-belma janmrTelobis dazianebis gamo ko-mpensaciis moTxovniT sarCeliT mimarTasasamarTlos.16

saqmis – vernilo safrangeTis winaa-Rmdeg – dadginda, rom mxedvelobaSi mis-aRebi dro daiwyo maSin, rodesac ganmcx-adeblebi, rogorc mopasuxeebi, gamoZax-ebul iqnen tribunalis winaSe.17

Zalian sainteresoa saqme boimartinisafrangeTis winaaRmdeg, sadac ganmcxa-debelma Seitana sarCeli parizis admin-istraciul sasamarTloSi. aRmoCnda,rom aRniSnuli sasamarTlo organo ariyo uflebamosili, ganexila es sarCelida saqme, gansjadobis mixedviT, gadaug-zavna Conseil d’Etat-s. miuxedavad amisa,evropulma sasamarTlom daadgina, rom

103

drois aTvla unda daiwyos im momentidan,rodesac ganmcxadebelma pirvelad Seit-ana sarCeli, Tundac arauflebamosilorganoSi.18

sasamarTlo organoebis muSaoba undaiyos ise organizebuli, rom aseTi tipisSecdomebis SemTxvevaSic ar moxdes samar-Talwarmoebis gaWianureba. is faqti, rompiri ar aris saTanadod informirebuli,rogor gamoiyenos saproceso uflebebi,ar unda gaxdes safuZveli, imisa, dairRvesmisi ufleba – swrafad ganixilon misisaqme.

samoqalaqo da administraciul saq-meebSi ̀ gonivruli vada~, Cveulebriv, iw-yeba sasamarTloSi sarCelis Setanisas,magram calkeul SemTxvevaSi SesaZlebe-lia, daiwyos ufro adrec.19 ̀ aseTi SemTx-veva xSiradaa maSin, rodesac ganmcxade-beli valdebulia, amowuros winaswariadministraciuli organoebisaTvis mima-rTvis saSualebebi manam, sanam is mimar-Tavs sasamarTlos~.20

saqmis – valee safrangeTis winaaRm-deg – ganxilvisas sasamarTlom daadgi-na, rom dro, romelic unda iqnes gaTval-iswinebuli, daiwyo maSin, rodesac ganm-cxadebelma saCivriT mimarTa janmrTe-lobisa da socialuri dacvis saminis-tros kompensaciis moTxovniT. 21

`rogorc sisxlis, aseve samoqalaqosaqmeebSi gonivruli vadis dineba wydebasaqmeze saboloo gadawyvetilebis miRe-bisTanave da moicavs saapelacio da saka-sacio procedurebs~.22

`mxedvelobaSi misaRebi drois perio-di moicavs mTel samarTalwarmoebas.sisxlis samarTlis saqmeebSi is srulde-ba, rodesac gadawydeba piris mimarT way-enebuli braldebebi da saboloo ganaCen-iT igi gamocxaddeba damnaSaved an udan-aSaulod; an sruldeba sisxlissamarT-lebrivi devnis Sewyvetisas~.23

saqmeze – ̀ H~ safrangeTis winaaRmdeg– sasamarTlom daadgina, rom dro, ro-melic gasaTvaliswinebelia me-6 muxlis1-li punqtis mixedviT, dasrulda, rode-sac ganmcxadebels Seatyobines umaRle-si administraciuli sasamarTlos gada-wyvetileba.24

aRsaniSnavia, rom saboloo gadaw-yvetileba, romelsac ama Tu im saqmezeiReben, ar aris yovelTvis sakasacio sasa-marTlos gadawyvetileba, – xSirad sa-

marTalwarmoeba sruldeba adreuletapze:

saqmis – milazi italiis winaaRmdeg –ganxilvisas, sasamarTlom daadgina, rommxedvelobaSi misaRebi dro dasrulda1983 wlis 7 marts, rodesac kalabriisraionulma sasamarTlom gamoitana gada-wyvetileba.25

`rodesac braldebuli gamarTlebu-lia da prokurors ar Seaqvs saCivari,`gonivruli vadis~ garantia ganagrZobsmoqmedebas manam, sanam gasaCivrebis vadaar amoiwureba da am momentamde samar-Talwarmoebis xangrZlivobaze pasux-ismgebelia saxelmwifo.‘’26

Sesabamisad, im SemTxvevaSi, Tukonkretuli samarTalwarmoeba armoicavs yvela etaps, romelic saproce-so kanonmdeblobiT aris gaTvaliswineb-uli, mxedvelobaSi misaRebi periodisdasasrulad unda iqnes miCneuli is dro,rodesac ZalaSi Sevida gadawyvetileba,romelic aRniSnul saqmeze iyo saboloo.

`Tu Sida instanciebSi procesi kvlavmimdinareobs, rodesac ganacxads ganix-ilavs strasburgis sasamarTlo,gonivruli vadis moqmedeba grZeldeba amukanasknelis mier gadawyvetilebis gamo-tanamde~.27

erT-erTi mniSvnelovani sakiTxi,romelic araerTxel gamxdara evropulisasamarTlos msjelobis sagani, aris sa-konstitucio sasamarTloSi mimdinaresamarTalwarmoebis periodi:

saqmis – boki germaniis winaaRmdeg –ganxilvisas sasamarTlom ganacxada: „sa-kiTxis gadawyveta – me-6 muxlis 1-li pun-qti unda iqnes Tu ara gamoyenebuli sa-konstitucio sasamarTloSi ganxor-cielebuli procedurebis mimarT –damokidebulia imaze, sakonstituciosasamarTlos gadawyvetileba axdens Tuara gavlenas konkretuli saqmis Sedegze,romlis ganxilva mimdinareobs saerTosasamarTloebis mier~. 28

samarTalwarmoebis vadaze msjelobi-sas sadavoa kidev erTi periodi: saqmeze– girolami italiis winaaRmdeg – sasa-marTlom daadgina, rom samarTalwarmoe-bis vadis gansazRvrisas ar SeiZleba imdrois gaTvaliswineba, romlis ganmavlo-baSic ganmcxadebeli gaurbis iurisdiq-cias an imaleba. am wesidan arsebobsgamonaklisi – Tu braldebuli miimala

e. siWinava, ̀ gonivruli vadis~ moTxovna

104


`sakmarisi mizezis~ gamo. magaliTad, TuCaTvala, rom misi saqme ar iqneboda ganx-iluli samarTliani sasamarTlos mier dahqonda safuZveli, ase CaeTvala. 29

sasamarTlom daadgina, rom `samar-Talwarmoebis xangrZlivobis gonivru-loba unda Sefasdes saqmis konkretuligaremoebebis gaTvaliswinebiT da im kri-teriumebis mixedviT, romlebic Camoyal-ibebulia sasamarTlos precedentul sa-marTalSi, kerZod, esenia: saqmis sir-Tule, ganmcxadeblis qceva da Sesabamissaxelmwifo organoTa qmedebebi~.30

TiToeuli faqtori unda iqnes ganx-iluli cal-calke da Semdeg SefasdesmaTi kumulaciuri efeqti.

1. saqmis sirTule

`rogorc sisxlis, aseve samoqalaqosamarTlis saqmeebSi darRveva rom ar da-dgindes, saxelmwifom unda daasabuTos,rom samarTalwarmoebis xangrZlivobaganpirobebuli iyo saqmis sirTuliT~.31

ufro metic, `sasamarTlo saqmis sir-Tules amowmebs manam, sanam Seafasebs saxel-mwifo organoebis an ganmcxadeblis qcevas~. 32

saqmis sirTulis Sefasebisas yuradRe-ba eqceva iseT faqtorebs, rogorebicaa:samarTlis aspeqtebi, mtkicebulebaTamoculoba, braldebaTa an braldebulTaraodenoba, eqspertis daskvnis mopovebissaWiroeba, Cvenebis mopoveba sazRvarga-reTidan, saqmeTa gaerTianeba erT warmoe-bad.33

rogorc aRiniSna, erT-erTi umTavre-si faqtori, romelsac sasamarTlo iRebsmxedvelobaSi saqmis sirTulis Sefasebi-sas, aris procesis monawileTa raodenoba.

magaliTad, saqmis – ̀ union alimenta-ria sanders~ espaneTis winaaRmdeg – ganx-ilvisas mTavroba amtkicebda, rom saqmeiyo rTuli, vinaidan sarCelebi Setaniliiyo ara erTi mopasuxis mimarT. evropul-ma sasamarTlom ganacxada, rom pirveliinstanciis sasamarTloSi gamocxadda mx-olod erTi mopasuxe da arc erTi saapel-acio sasamarTlos winaSe, ramac gaamar-tiva sasamarTlos davaleba. 34

saqmeze – angeluCi italiis winaaRm-deg – sasamarTlom daadgina, rom saqmeiyo rTuli braldebulTa raodenobisgamo. 35

saqmis sirTuliT saxelmwifos Seu-Zlia Tavi imarTlos ukiduresad gamona-klis SemTxvevebSi, rodesac gamovlinde-ba iseTi garemoebebi, rac uCveuloa sasa-marTlo praqtikisaTvis da amis winaswargansazRvra SeuZlebelia.

mosarCeleTa da braldebulTa sim-ravle arcTu ise iSviaTia da amitomacamisaTvis saTanadod unda iyos mzad sasa-marTlo. erT-erTi yvelaze martivi ga-mosavalia saqmeTa erTmaneTisagan gamoy-ofa an saqmis ganxilva ramdenime mosa-marTlis mier. miTiTeba problemaze, ro-melic eqvemdebareba regulirebas, arSeiZleba iyos gamamarTlebeli.

samarTlebrivi sakiTxebisa da saqmisfaqtobrivi garemoebebis SeswavlasTanerTad evropuli sasamarTlo jerovanyuradRebas uTmobs procedurul sakiTx-ebs. gamoyenebul saproceso moqmedebaTada RonisZiebaTa raodenoba da xangr-Zlivoba, marTlac, gansazRvravs saqmissirTules.

am TvalsazrisiT Zalian sainteresoasaqme foti da sxvebi italiis winaaRmdeg.aRniSnuli saqmis ganxilvisas mTavrobaacxadebda, rom winaswari gamoZieba moi-cavda Zalian bevr zomas. sasamarTlomaRniSna, rom braldebebi, romlebic waye-nebuli hqonda ganmcxadebels, garkveul-wilad rTulia, magram radganac isiniCadenilia sajarod da dadgenilia adgi-lze, maTi gamoZieba arc ise Znelia. amas-Tan, fotis garda, sxvaTa saqmeebi ganxi-lul iqna mxolod erT instanciaSi. Sesa-bamisad, gairkva, rom es saqme ar yofilagansakuTrebulad rTuli.36

rTuli proceduris erT-erTi sain-tereso magaliTia paraleluri samarTa-lwarmoeba rogorc sisxlis, aseve samo-qalaqo samarTlis saqmeebSi:

saqmis – gunteri TurqeTis winaaRm-deg – ganxilvisas mTavroba acxadebda,rom saqme iyo rTuli. dava exeboda memk-vidreobas. erTdroulad mimdinareobdaori procesi. dava arsebiTad ver gadawy-deboda, sanam ar dasruldeboda memkvi-dreobis mowmobis gacemasTan dakavSire-buli procesi. sasamarTlo ar daeTanxmasaxelmwifos da aRniSna, rom saqme ar iyorTuli. 37

saqmeSi – bodaerti belgiis winaaRmdeg– 6 weli da 3 Tve strasburgis sasamarT-los mier ar CaiTvala aragonivrulad,

105

radgan saqme exeboda mkvlelobasTandakavSirebul rTul gamoZiebasa da para-lelurad ori saqmis mimdinareobas.38

paraleluri samarTalwarmoeba arisis faqtori, romelzec SeuZlia saxelm-wifos, samarTlianad miuTiTos saqmissirTulis dasamtkiceblad.

xSiria SemTxveva, rodesac mTavrobaprocesis sirTules asabuTebs imiT, romsaqmisTvis saWiro gaxda eqspertis daskv-nis warmodgena.

saqmeze – vernilo safrangeTis wina-aRmdeg – mTavroba acxadebda, rom igi iyorTuli. erT-erTi safuZveli amisa eqsper-tis daskvnis saWiroeba gaxda. evropulmasasamarTlom ar gaiziara es mosazreba.39

saqmeSi – novicki avstriis winaaRmdeg– mixedviT, ganmcxadebeli iTxovda li-cenziis gacemas medikamentze. mTavrobaacxadebda, rom saqme iyo rTuli, radgansaWiro gaxda ara erTi eqspertis daskv-nis mopoveba da mecnieruli kvlevis Cata-reba. eqspertebis daskvnis mopoveba gaar-Tula iman, rom ganmcxadebelma daagvianadokumentebis warmodgena. sasamarTlomganacxada, rom zemoT xsenebuli mizeze-bis gamo saqme iyo gansakuTrebuladrTuli. miuxedavad amisa, dadginda me-6muxlis 1-li punqtis darRveva.40

saqmeTa Zalian did nawilSi CndebaiseTi sakiTxi, romelic saWiroebs eqs-pertis daskvnas, amitomac, Tu yvela amtipis saqme CaiTvleba rTulad da maszemiuTiTebs saxelmwifo, rogorc gamamar-Tlebel garemoebaze, es xels Seuwyobsaraswori praqtikis damkvidrebas.

moTxovnebi saxelmwifo organoebismimarT gansakuTrebiT mkacri unda iyos,Tuki problemebs igi winaswar icnobda dahqonda dro mosamzadeblad.

saqmeSi – valee safrangeTis winaaRm-deg, romelic exeboda ganmcxadeblismier kompensaciis moTxovnas janmrTe-lobisa da socialuri dacvis saminist-rosagan, – sasamarTlom ar gaiziara mTav-robis argumenti sirTulis Taobaze, mi-uxedavad imisa, rom kompensaciis sakiT-xis gadawyveta garkveul sirTuleebTaniyo dakavSirebuli. sasamarTlos Sexed-ulebiT, àseTi problemebis gansazRvraSeiZleboda winaswar da misi gadaWris gze-bi unda moeZebnaT ufro adre~.41

saxelmwifoebi poziciis dasasabuTe-blad zogjer uTiTeben iseT garemoeba-

ze, rogoricaa procesis monawileTagamoucxadebloba, rac, maTi ganmarte-biT, saqmis garTulebis mizezia.

saqmeSi – konigi germaniis winaaRmdeg –sasamarTlom aRniSna: ̀ mTavrobam ver da-asabuTa, rom saqme moicavda faqtobrivan samarTlebriv sirTules, magram aq wam-oiWra sxva problema: administraciulisasamarTlos me-4 palatas hqonda sirTu-leebi mowmeebis gamoZaxebasTan dakav-SirebiT, vinaidan zogierTma mowmem Seicv-ala saxeli da misamarTi~.42

saqmis – guinCo portugaliis winaaRm-deg – ganxilvisas mTavroba saqmis sir-Tules asabuTebda imiT, rom ar gamocxa-dnen mowmeebi da advokatebi. es mosazre-ba ar gaiziara sasamarTlom da aRniSna,rom mTavrobis mier moxseniebuli gare-moebebi ar arTulebda process ise, romes uCveulo yofiliyo aseTi tipis samar-TalwarmoebisaTvis.43

vfiqrobT, iseTi argumenti, rogor-icaa sasamarTloTa warumatebloba pro-cesis monawileTa gamocxadebis uzrun-velyofaSi, ar aris sakmarisi, rom mTli-anobaSi saqme miekuTvnos rTul katego-rias. amisaTvis saWiroa sxva komponente-bis arseboba.

aseve sainteresoa, Tu ramdenad aisa-xeba braldebulis qmedebebi saqmis sir-Tuleze:

saqmeSi – feranteli da santanjeloitaliis winaaRmdeg – mTavroba acxadeb-da, rom procesis xangrZlivoba, erTiSexedviT, SeiZleba Candes gadaWarbebu-li, magram is gamarTlebulia gamoZiebissirTuliT, vinaidan ganmcxadebelma jeraRiara danaSauli da Semdeg uaryo. ganm-cxadeblis azriT, braldebulis mier Cve-nebis Secvla ar SeiZleboda ganxiluliyorogorc garemoeba, romelmac gaarTulagamoZieba, radgan braldebuli ar arisvaldebuli, iTanamSromlos gamoZiebasTan.sasamarTlo, marTlac, daeTanxma mTav-robas, rom saqme iyo rTuli, magram araam garemoebis gamo – es faqtori mas mxed-velobaSi ar miuRia.44

saqmeSi – zmalinski poloneTis wina-aRmdeg – mTavrobam ganacxada, rom igiiyo rTuli. ganmcxadeblis gancxadebiT,mis mier sarCelis Secvlas ar gamouwve-via saqmis garTuleba. sasamarTlom ga-nacxada, rom, marTalia, saqme iyo garkve-uli sirTulis, magram amas ar SeuZlia


106


gaamarTlos samarTalwarmoebis saerToxangrZlivoba.45

mimaCnia, rom braldebuls ar akisriavaldebuleba, iTanamSromlos gamoZieba-sTan. mosarCele ki iyenebs Tavis sapro-ceso uflebebs, rodesac afarToebs anazustebs sarCels. es ar aris uCveulosasamarTlo praqtikisaTvis. Sesabamisad,am faqtorebze, rogorc gamamarTlebelgaremoebebze, saxelmwifom unda miuTi-Tos ukiduresad gamonaklis SemTxveveb-Si, rodesac es gamoiwvevs gauTval-iswinebel da mniSvnelovan garTulebebs.

2. ganmcxadeblis qmedeba

`saxelmwifo pasuxismgebelia mx-olod im darRvevebze, romlebic miewere-ba mas. Tu mxareebma samarTalwarmoebisdros an braldebulma sisxlis samarTlissaqmeSi gamoiwvia an xeli Seuwyo gaWia-nurebas, drois es periodi ar unda iqnesmxedvelobaSi miRebuli~.46

magaliTad, saqmeze – proszaki polo-neTis winaaRmdeg – sasamarTlom daadgi-na, rom samarTalwarmoebis gaWianurebasxeli Seuwyo Tavad ganmcxadebelma, racgamoixata SemdegSi: man usafuZvlodmoiTxova mosamarTlis acileba 3 SemTx-vevaSi; ramdenjerme ar gamocxadda sasa-marTlo sxdomaze; uari ganacxada fsi-qiatriuli Semowmebis Catarebaze. Se-sabamisad, ar dadginda me-6 muxlis 1-lipunqtis darRveva.47

aRsaniSnavia, rom saxelmwifo pasuxsar agebs ganmcxadeblis mizeziT gamow-veul gaWianurebaze im SemTxvevaSic, ro-desac es ukanaskneli moqmedebs kanonismoTxovnaTa farglebSi.

magaliTad, saqmeSi – kemaCe safrange-Tis winaaRmdeg – mTavroba amtkicebda,rom ganmcxadebelma Tavad Seuwyo xeliprocesis gaWianurebas, vinaidan moiTx-ova sxdomis gadadeba. ganmcxadebelmaganmarta, rom fsiqikuri mdgomareobisgamo mas ar Seswevda unari, daswrebodasxdomas. evropulma sasamarTlom daad-gina, rom saxelmwifos ar SeiZleba daeki-sros pasuxismgebloba im gaWianurebi-saTvis, romelic moxda ganmcxadeblisTanxmobiT.48

strasburgis sasamarTlo samarTal-warmoebis TiToeul etaps ganixilavs daafasebs cal-calke. Sesabamisad, mTavro-

bas TiToeul etapTan dakavSirebiT mo-eTxoveba detaluri axsna-ganmartebiswarmodgena.

saxeldobr, saqmeze – boimartini sa-frangeTis winaaRmdeg – sasamarTlomdaadgina, rom ganmcxadeblebma xeli Seu-wyes procesis gaWianurebas, vinaidan Sec-domiT Seitanes gancxadeba arauflebam-osil sasamarTlo organoSi; saapelaciosaCivris Setanidan 4 Tvis ganmavlobaSiar warmoadgines saTanado dokumentacia.ganmcxadeblebi pasuxismgebelni iyvnendrois garkveul monakveTze (9 Tveze),magram danarCen periodTan dakavSirebiTmTavrobam ver warmoadgina saTanado axsna-ganmarteba. (mopasuxe ministrs dasWirda20 Tve Sesageblis mosamzadeblad da sasa-marTlos, romelic saqmes ganixilavda, –5 weli saqmis mosasmenad). Sesabamisad,saerTo vada – 8 weli da 4 Tve – miCneuliqna aragonivrulad da dadginda me-6muxlis 1-li punqtis darRveva.49

saxelmwifos SeuZlia, poziciis dasa-sabuTeblad miuTiTos ganmcxadeblisqmedebebze, magram am gziT is pasuxismge-blobas aicilebs mxolod drois im mona-kveTze, romelic gaWianurebulia ganmc-xadeblis qmedebis Sedegad da ara mTelsamarTalwarmoebaze.

adamianis uflebaTa evropuli sasa-marTlos precedentuli samarTlis ana-lizi gviCvenebs, rom ganmcxadeblis qme-debebis SefasebisaTvis gansxvavebulistandartebia dawesebuli sisxlisa da sa-moqalaqo samarTlis saqmeebSi.

moTxovnebi saxelmwifo organoebismimarT sisxlis samarTlis saqmeebTandakavSirebiT aris bevrad ufro mkacri,vidre samoqalaqo davebis ganmxilvelisasamarTloebis mimarT. es aixsneba imiT,rom samoqalaqo saqmeebSi samarTalwar-moebis swrafi da efeqturi ganxorci-eleba damokidebulia mxareTa iniciati-vasa da mondomebaze. Sesabamisad, pasux-ismgeblobas didi doziT inawileben pro-cesis monawileebi.

saqmeSi – sirikosta da viola itali-is winaaRmdeg – mTavrobam aRniSna, romsamarTalwarmoebis gaWianurebas xeliSeuwyo ganmcxadebelma. italiaSi mxare-ebma TviTon unda gamoiCinon iniciativa,raTa swrafad warimarTos samoqalaqosamarTalwarmoeba. es aris ”principio dis-pozitivo”-s moqmedebis ZiriTadi wesi. evro-

107

pulma sasamarTlom gaiziara mTavrobisargumentacia da dasZina, rom “principiodispozitivo” ar aTavisuflebs sasamarT-loebs valdebulebisagan, uzrunvelyon`gonivruli vadis~ moTxovnebi”.50

rogorc samoqalaqo, aseve sisxlissamarTlis saqmeebSi sasamarTloebma sa-erTo koordinaciis gawevis gziT undauzrunvelyon mxareebis mier saprocesomovaleobaTa Sesruleba. procesis monaw-ileebze gonivruli kontrolis gawevissaSualebas sasamarTloebs unda aZlevdesSesabamisi kanonmdebloba. samarTalwar-moebis swrafi ganxorcieleba ar aris mx-olod mxareTa interesis sagani. saxelm-wifo Tavad unda iyos dainteresebuli,TiToeuli dava ganxilul iqnes mokle va-daSi, raTa, erTi mxriv, aicilos sasamar-TloTa gadatvirTuloba da, meore mxriv,dazogos saxelmwifo resursebi. amgvar-ad, saxelmwifo ki ar unda daelodos mxa-reTa iniciativebs, aramed Tavad undaSeqmnas iseTi moqnili sistema, rom saqmedidi xnis ganmavlobaSi ar darCes war-moebaSi.

erT-erTi problemuri sakiTxi, racTavs iCens samoqalaqo saqmeebSi ganmcxa-debelTa qmedebebis Sefasebisas, aris me-ore mxaris qmedebebi. SeiZleba Tu ara,maTze pasuxismgebloba daekisros sax-elmwifos? am TvalsazrisiT sainteresoaSemdegi saqmeebis mimoxilva:

saqmeze – vernilo safrangeTis wina-aRmdeg – evropulma sasamarTlom daad-gina, rom orive mxarem xeli Seuwyo pro-cesis gaWianurebas, rac gamoixata Sem-degSi: mosarCeleebs – torzuloebs –oTx-naxevari Tve dasWirdaT `tribunal degrande~-sTvis pasuxis warsadgenad; saa-pelacio sasamarTloSi saCivris wardge-na daagvianes sam-naxevari TviT; saapel-acio sasamarTlos mier saqmis ganxilvisdros verniloebis damatebiTi saCivrissapasuxod dasWirdaT oTx-naxevari Tve.Semdeg, rodesac batoni torzulo gar-daicvala, misma colma procesis gagrZe-leba daayovna weliwadiTa da 4 TviT. amsaqmeze ki strasburgis sasamarTlom aR-niSna, rom mxolod im SemTxvevaSi daekis-reba pasuxismgebloba saxelmwifos me-6muxlis 1-li punqtis moTxovnaTa Seusru-leblobisaTvis, Tu gaWianurebebi gamow-veulia saxelmwifos mier xolo meoremxaris moqmedebebis gamo, romelmac sab-

olood xeli SeuSala ganmcxadeblis saq-mis swrafad ganxilvas, mas pasuxismgeb-loba ar daekisreba. ufro metic, mTav-robas SeuZlia, masze miuTiTos, rogorcgamamarTlebel garemoebaze.51

saqmeze – boki germaniis winaaRmdeg –sasamarTlom aRniSna, rom `saxelmwifoar aris pasuxismgebeli mopasuxis qmede-baze, romlis winaaRmdeg ganmcxadebelsaqvs Setanili samoqalaqo sarCeli~52

amis sawinaaRmdegod saqmeSi – guinCoportugaliis winaaRmdeg – mixedviT, sa-samarTlom aRniSna: `mTavrobis mier mi-TiTebuli garemoebebi – mopasuxe mxarismowmeebisa da advokatebis gamoucxadeb-loba – ar SeiZleba iqnes gamoyenebuli gan-mcxadeblis winaaRmdeg. procesis gaWia-nurebaze pasuxs ar agebs ganmcxadebeli~.53

viziareb swored am saqmeSi gamoxat-ul mosazrebas da mimaCnia, rom sasamarT-lom ara marto TviTon ar unda daarRviossaproceso vadebi, aramed aseve unda uz-runvelyos misi dacva mxareebis mier. manunda mouwodos procesis monawileebs dagasces brZanebebi, daawesos drois limi-ti da a.S.

rodesac saxelmwifo iRebs valde-bulebas konvenciis yvela debulebis Ses-rulebaze, is ar akeTebs daTqmas, rom misiiurisdiqciis qveS myof pirebs daicavsmxolod saxelmwifo organoTa ukanonoqmedebebisagan. imis miuxedavad, vin daar-Rvevs ganmcxadeblis uflebas, swrafadganixilon misi saqme, – saxelmwifo orga-no Tu kerZo piri, Sedegi mainc erTi daigivea. nebismier SemTxvevaSi saxelmwi-fom ar unda dauSvas aseTi darRveva daTu mainc moxdeba es, adekvaturad undaimoqmedos.

Sesabamisad, Tu samarTalwarmoebisgaWianurebas xeli Seuwyo ara ganmcxade-belma, aramed procesis meore mxarem, esgaWianurebebi ar unda mieweros ganmcxa-debels da masze pasuxi unda agos saxelm-wifom.

evropulma sasamarTlom rogorc araerT saqmesze daadgina, ganmcxadebels arSeiZleba pasuxismgebloba daekisros im-isaTvis, rom is iyenebs misTvis xelmisawv-dom yvela saSualebas~, miuxedavad imisa,efeqturia Tu ara isini.

magaliTad, saqmeSi – zmalinski polo-neTis winaaRmdeg – mTavrobam ganacxada,rom ganmcxadebelma xeli Seuwyo gaWia-


108


nurebas, vinaidan ara erTxel gaafarTo-va da Secvala sarCelebi. sasamarTlom kiaRniSna, rom ganmcxadebelma gamoiyenaTavisi saproceso uflebebi da mas xeliar Seuwyvia procesis gaWianurebisaTvis.Sesabamisad, daadgina me-6 muxlis 1-lipunqtis darRveva.54

kidev erTi fundamenturi principi,romelic gamoiyeneba ganmcxadeblisqmedebis Sefasebisas, aisaxa saqmeSi – ko-rigliano italiis winaaRmdeg: `pirs armoeTxoveba, aqtiurad iTanamSromlossasamarTlo organoebTan~. 55

`ganmcxadebeli valdebuli ar aris,aqtiurad iTanamSromlos im samarTal-warmoebis daCqarebaSi, ris Sedegadac masemuqreba msjavrdeba~.56

ìm SemTxvevaSi, Tuki ganmcxadebelicdilobs, Tavisi qmedebebiT daaCqarossamarTalwarmoebis ganxorcieleba, esCaiTvleba mis sasargeblod, xolo Tukiigi amas aqtiurad ar cdilobs, es nega-tiurad ar aisaxeba ganmcxadeblis pre-tenziaze samarTalwarmoebis gaWianure-basTan dakavSirebiT~.57

`saxelmwifo pasuxismgebelia Tavisdaudevar qmedebebze, ramac gamoiwviaprocesis gaWianureba. mas ar SeuZliaamtkicos, rom ganmcxadebels unda gamo-eCina iniciativa misTvis amis Sesaxsene-blad~.58

4. saxelmwifo organoTa qmedebebi

TiToeuli saxelmwifo saerTaSorisoxelSekrulebis ratificirebis SedegadaRebuli valdebulebebis Sesrulebasaxdens saxelmwifo organoebis meSveobiT.Sesabamisad, imis dasadgenad, `gonivru-li vadis~ moTxovna dacul iqna Tu ara,evropuli sasamarTlo afasebs swored amorganoTa qmedebebs.

saqmis – martins moreira portuga-liis winaaRmdeg – ganxilvisas dadginda,rom samarTalwarmoeba gaWianurda same-dicino institutis mizeziT, vinaidandroulad ar iqna Catarebuli Semowmeba.mTavrobam ganacxada, rom portugaliissaerTaSoriso pasuxismgeblobis sakiTxiSeiZleba dadges mxolod sasamarTloorganoTa qmedebebis gamo da ara sakanon-mdeblo, aRmasrulebeli da sxva organoe-bis, aseve im pirebis qmedebaTa gamo, rom-lebic ar Sedian saxelmwifo struqtur-

aSi. am saqmeSi samedicino instituts arhqonda ierarqiuli urTierToba sasa-marTlosTan. aRniSnuli mosazreba argaiziara evropulma sasamarTlom da ga-nacxada, rom ̀ konvenciis ratificirebi-sas portugaliam aiRo valdebuleba,romuzrunvelyofda mis dacvas sxvadasxvaorganos mier. imas, rom samedicino ins-tituti ar aris sasamarTlo organo, araaqvs arsebiTi mniSvneloba. nebismier Sem-TxvevaSi samedicino Semowmeba CatardasasamarTlos moTxovniT, romelic rCebapasuxismgeblad marTlmsajulebis swra-fad ganxorcielebaze~.59

aqedan gamomdinare, irkveva:pirveli. saxelmwifo konvenciis ra-

tificirebisas iRebs valdebulebas misSesrulebaze da pasuxismgebelia yveladarRvevaze, romelic moxdeba misi iuris-diqciis farglebSi, miuxedavad imisa, essasamarTlos mier aris gamowveuli Tusxva saxelmwifo organoebis mxridan. ad-amianis uflebaTa evropuli konvenciismxare aris saxelmwifo da ara misi calke-uli organo, magaliTad, sasamarTlo.saxelmwifo organoebi da moxeleebi axo-rcieleben sajaro xelisuflebas da, Se-sabamisad, maT qmedebebze pasuxismgeblo-bas iRebs saxelmwifo;

meore. msjeloba ufro Sors SeiZle-ba wavides. saxelmwifom unda Seasrulosrogorc negatiuri, aseve pozitiuri va-ldebuleba. man ara marto TviTon ar undadaarRvios konvenciis debulebebi, ara-med unda daicvas nebismieri piri misi uf-lebebis xelyofisagan Tavisi iurisdiq-ciis farglebSi.

saqmeSi – martins moreira portu-galiis winaaRmdeg, romelSic sasamarT-lo akisrebs pasuxismgeblobas saxelmwi-fos samedicino institutis mier Cade-nil darRvevebze, – msjelobs imaze, romes instituti eqvemdebareboda portu-galiis iusticiis saministros. portu-galiis saxelmwifos hqonda am dawese-bulebis Sesabamisi saSualebebiT uzrun-velyofis valdebuleba me-6 muxlis 1-lipunqtis Sesabamisad. 60

mimaCnia, rom miuxedavad imisa, es sa-medicino instituti iqneboda saxelmwi-fo Tu kerZo dawesebuleba, nebismier Sem-TxvevaSi unda damdgariyo saxelmwifospasuxismgeblobis sakiTxi.

109

saxelmwifom Tavisi moqalaqe undadaicvas ara marto saxelmwifo organoe-bis mier misi uflebebis xelyofisagan,aramed nebismier SemTxvevaSi, rodesacmisi kanonieri interesebi ilaxeba sxvafizikuri Tu iuridiuli pirebis mier.

Sesabamisad, Tu darRveulia pirisufleba – swrafad iqnes ganxiluli misisaqme, aq ukve zedmetia msjeloba imaze,vin Seuwyo amas xeli – sajaro moxelem TukerZo pirma. adamianis uflebaTa darRve-va ar unda dauSvas saxelmwifom da Tumainc dairRveva, unda moaxdinos amazereagireba. winaaRmdeg SemTxvevaSi Tvi-Ton agebs pasuxs, radgan, jer, ver daic-va piri Tavisi uflebebis xelyofisaganda, Semdeg, ver uzrunvelyo darRveuliuflebis aRdgena;

mesame. sasamarTlo organoebs marTe-bulad aqvT dakisrebuli gansakuTrebu-li roli marTlmsajulebis swrafad gan-xorcielebis saqmeSi. sasamarTlo valde-bulia, ara marto TviTon ar daarRviosis vadebi, romlebic mas aqvs dawesebuligarkveuli saproceso movaleobebis Sesa-sruleblad, aramed uzrunvelyos proce-sis efeqturad da swrafad warmarTva. manunda miiRos zomebi procesis TiToeulimonawilis mimarT, raTa aravis ar miecessaSualeba, raime formiT xeli SeuSalosmarTlmsajulebis swrafad ganxorci-elebas.

`saqmeze – vernilo safrangeTis wina-aRmdeg – evropulma sasamarTlom daad-gina, rom ̀ erovnul sasamarTloebs evale-baT, mxareebs Seuqmnan Sesabamisi pirobebi,raTa Tavidan iqnes acilebuli saqmis ganx-ilvis gaumarTlebeli gaWianureba~.61

`sasamarTloebi arian pasuxismgebeliimaze, rom uzrunvelyofil iqnes saqmisdamakmayofileblad warmarTva mxa-reebTan TanamSromlobis gziT~.62

sasamarTlos mier miRebul zomebsSoris erT-erTi yvelaze sainteresoasaqmeTa gaerTianebis sakiTxi, rac xSir-ad gamxdara davis sagani.

magaliTad, saqmeze – kemaCe safrange-Tis winaaRmdeg – sasamarTlom daadgina,rom ganmcxadeblis saqme gaerTianebuliiyo klaushoferis saqmesTan. am uka-nasknelis dabruneba safrangeTSi Svei-cariis saxelmwifo organoebma dagvi-anebiT uzrunvelyves, ramac ganapirobasamarTalwarmoebis gaWianureba 2 wliTa

da 8 TviT. ganmcxadebeli amtkicebda,rom Tu SeuZlebeli iyo klaushoferisdabruneba, saxelmwifo organoebs See-ZloT, gamoeyoT misi saqme kemaCesa da se-Cios saqmeebisagan, rac ar moxda, radga-nac braldebulebi Zalian mkacri ganaCe-nis gamotanis safrTxis winaSe idgnen daklaushoferis Cveneba saqmis erT-erTmniSvnelovani elementi iyo. evropulmasasamarTlom ar gaiziara mTavrobis ar-gumenti, rom saqmeebis aseTi gamocal-keveba ar SeiZleboda yofiliyo gaTval-iswinebuli. Sesabamisad, daadgina me-6muxlis 1-li punqtis darRveva.63

gansxvavebuli gadawyvetileba iqnamiRebuli saqmeze – bodaerti belgiiswinaaRmdeg. sasamarTlom daadgina, romganmcxadebelsa da baton pirons braliedebodaT vinme jehinis mkvlelobaSi. pi-rons brali edeboda kidev sxva danaSau-lebis CadenaSi. amaTgan erT-erTi mWid-rod iyo dakavSirebuli jehinis mkvle-lobis saqmesTan. mosamarTlem gadawyvi-ta, dalodeboda gamoZiebis Sedegs am saq-mesTan dakavSirebiT da pironisadmi way-enebuli yvela braldeba gaeerTianebinaerT warmoebad. aseve mxedvelobaSi iqnamiRebuli is garemoeba, rom ganmcxadebe-li da batoni pironi erTmaneTs abraleb-dnen jehinis mkvlelobas. evropuli sasa-marTlos dadgenilebiT, am gadawyveti-lebam Seqmna safrTxe ganmcxadeblis saq-mis ganxilvis gaWianurebisa, magram, miu-xedavad amisa, daadgina, rom am danaSaul-Ta mniSvnelobidan da braldebaTa urT-ierTdamokidebulebidan gamomdinare,sasamarTlos gadawyvetileba saqmeTagaerTianebis Taobaze iyo gamarTlebu-li. Sesabamisad, ar daadgina me-6 muxlis1-li punqtis darRveva.64

erTi SexedviT, sasamarTlos intere-si, gaaerTianos msgavsi tipis saqmeebi,gonivrulia da TavisTavad pozitiuriRonisZiebaa, radgan miznad isaxavs saqmisyovelmxriv da obieqtur gamokvlevas,magram im SemTxvevaSi, Tuki am RonisZieb-is gatareba ki ar aumjobesebs ganmcxade-blis mdgomareobas, aramed piriqiT, iw-vevs misi saqmis ganxilvis gaWianurebas,maSin saxelmwifo am qmedebaze, rogorcgamamarTlebel garemoebaze, ver miuTi-Tebs da aRniSnuli zoma SeiZleba gaxdesmisTvis pasuxismgeblobis dakisrebissafuZveli.


110


saxelmwifo yovelTvis unda iyos orien-tirebuli piris uflebis dacvaze – swrafadiqnes ganxiluli misi saqme da did xans ardarCes gaurkvevlobaSi. Sesabamisad, rode-sac saxelmwifo organoebi gansazRvravenTavianT qmedebebs, upirveles yovlisa, mxed-velobaSi unda miiRon piris interesebi daprioriteti mianiWon maT. winaaRmdeg SemTx-vevaSi saxelmwifo organos qmedebebi undaCaiTvalos evropuli konvenciis me-6 muxlis1-l punqtTan Seusabamod.

erT-erTi umTavresi sakiTxi, romel-ic yovelTvis iCens Tavs saxelmwifo or-ganoTa qmedebebis Sefasebisas, aris sasa-marTloTa gadatvirTuloba. es aris isargumenti, romelsac orive mxare iyenebs(rogorc ganmcxadebeli, aseve saxelm-wifo) poziciis dasasabuTeblad da oriveaZlevs misTvis sasargeblo interpreta-cias. evropul sasamarTlos ki am sakiTx-is Sesaswavlad mravali standarti aqvsCamoyalibebuli.

saqmeSi – cimermani da Staineri Svei-cariis winaaRmdeg – mopasuxe saxelmwifosdaekisra pasuxismgebloba imisaTvis, romsaapelacio procedurebs dasWirda TiTq-mis sam-naxevari weliwadi, romlis umetesinawilis ganmavlobaSi saqme iyo gaCerebu-li. SeTanxmebuli mizezi iyo is, rom sasa-marTlos hqonda uamravi saqme da priori-teti mianiWa maT, romelnic ufro mniS-vnelovnad miiCnia am kategoriaSi ar mox-vda ganmcxadeblis saqme. sasamarTlossaqmeebi ugrovdeboda wlebis ganmavlo-baSi da adekvaturi zomebi, raTa gazrdi-liyo sasamarTlos TanamSromelTa rao-denoba an sxvagvarad momxdariyo sasama-rTlo sistemis organizeba, ar yofilagatarebuli.~.

aRniSnuli saqmidan irkveva: rodesacsaxelmwifo Tavisi poziciis dasasabuTe-blad miuTiTebs, rom sasamarTlo gada-tvirTulia, man unda daamtkicos oripirobis arseboba: pirveli, rom sasamarT-loTa gadatvirTuloba aris droebiTida ara permanentuli problema da saqme-Ta raodenobis gazrda iyo moulodneli;meore, saxelmwifom situaciis gamosas-woreblad miiRo adekvaturi zomebi sa-Tanado siswrafiT.

am ori pirobis dacva aucilebelia,magram ara sakmarisi:

aseve saWiroa, rom saxelmwifos miermiRebul zomebs hqondes konkretuli Se-

degi ganmcxadeblis mimarT. am Tval-sazrisiT, sainteresoa Semdegi saqmeebi:

saqmeSi – buxholci germaniis winaa-Rmdeg – sasamarTlom ganacxada, rom saxe-lmwifos ar SeiZleba daekisros pasux-ismgebloba, Tuki darRvevebi gamowveu-lia sasamarTloTa gadatvirTulobiT,risi winaswar gansazRvrac ar xerxdeba dasaxelmwifo iRebs swraf da adekvaturzomebs. am saqmeSi ar dadgenila mopasuxesaxelmwifos mier me-6 muxlis 1-li punq-tis darRveva, radganac saqmeTa gada-tvirTuloba moxda moulodnelad 1970-iani wlebis ekonomikuri krizisis Sede-gad da, Sesabamisad, miRebul iqna adekva-turi zomebi, raTa gazrdiliyo mosamar-TleTa raodenoba, rodesac problemagaxda TvalsaCino. miuxedavad imisa, romam RonisZiebebma veranairi sargebeli vermoutana ganmcxadebels, es iyo is zomebi,romlebic am konkretul garemoebaTa ar-sebobisas SeeZlo gaetarebina mopasuxe sax-elmwifos.66

gansxvavebuli gadawyvetilebaa miRe-buli saqmeze – sirikosta da viola ital-iis winaaRmdeg, sadac saxelmwifom miu-TiTa, rom man miiRo zomebi situaciis ga-mosasworeblad, kerZod, italiis parla-mentma scada, gamoesworebina marTlmsa-julebis ganxorcielebis neli tempisamoqalaqo saproceso kodeqsis gadasin-jvis gziT. sasamarTlom aRniSna, rom ametapze ar aris Sesaferisi spekulireba imRonisZiebebiT, romelnic dagvianebiT ga-tarda.67

aseve saqmeze – milazi italiis winaa-Rmdeg – sasamarTlom daadgina me-6 mux-lis darRveva. miuxedavad imisa, rom sasa-marTloTa gadatvirTulobis problemismosagvareblad xelisufleba moqmedebdameTodurad, – prioritets aniWebda imsaqmeebs, sadac braldebulebi imyofe-bodnen patimrobaSi; dainiSnen mosamarT-leebi da gaizarda sasamarTlos Semad-genloba, – ganmcxadebels mainc mouwia,10 weli dalodeboda pirveli instanciissasamarTlos mier gadawyvetilebis gamo-tanas. 68

aqedan Cans, rom evropuli sasamarT-lo awesebs Zalian maRal standarts. saxe-lmwifos mier miRebuli TiToeuli zomaunda Sefasdes imis mixedviT, ramdenadefeqturi iyo is ganmcxadeblis mimarT.konkretuli saCivris sagania ara qveynis

111

zogadi politikis ganxilva, aramed gan-mcxadeblis mimarT ganxorcielebulikonkretuli darRvevis faqti. im SemT-xvevaSic, Tu reforma zogadad warmate-buli iyo, magram man ver gamoaswora gan-mcxadeblis mdgomareoba, masze miTiTebaiqneba usafuZvlo.

arsebobs precedentebi, sadac sasa-marTlom ar daadgina me-6 muxlis darRve-va, radgan saxelmwifo organoebis miergamowveuli gaWianurebebi ar miiCnia xan-grZlivad.

magaliTad, saqmeSi – noimaisteri avs-triis winaaRmdeg – sasamarTlom daadg-ina, rom 15 Tvis ganmavlobaSi ar momxdaranoimaisteris dakiTxva an dapirispirebamowmeebs Soris, ar Catarebula sxva saga-moZiebo moqmedebebi. saqmis ganxilva dai-wyo gamoZiebis damTavrebidan erTi wlisSemdeg. miuxedavad amisa, evropul sasa-marTlos es faqtebi ar miuCnevia sak-marisad daskvnisaTvis, rom vada iyo gada-Warbebuli. mTavrobam aRniSna, rom mosa-marTleebs sWirdebodaT garkveuli dro,raTa gascnobodnen saqmis masalebs, rome-lnic 21 toms Seadgenda da TiToeulitomi 500 gverds moicavda. rodesac stra-sburgis sasamarTlom ganixila es saqme, 7weli iyo gasuli noimaisterisTvis waye-nebuli braldebidan da jer kidev ar iyogamotanili saboloo ganaCeni erovnulisasamarTloebis mier.69

vfiqrob, am SemTxvevaSi gasaziarebe-lia mosamarTle zekias gansxvavebuliazri: ̀ miuxedavad am sirTulisa da mTav-robis axsna-ganmartebisa, drois aseTSualeds araferi amarTlebs~.

mimaCnia, rom gancda, romelic aqvsganaCenis molodinSi myof adamians, Seu-fasebelia da Tundac mcire droiT misidayovneba aseT gaurkvevel mdgomareoba-Si, aris darRveva da, Sesabamisad, undagamoiwvios saxelmwifo organoTa pasux-ismgeblobis sakiTxis dayeneba.

rogorc sasamarTlos praqtikis mo-moxilvidan Cans, samarTalwarmoebis xan-grZlivobis problema aqtualuria araerT qveyanaSi. misi gamomwvevi mizezebixSirad sxvadasxvaa:

`saxelmwifoebi pasuxs ageben samo-qalaqo da administraciul organoTaSemdegi moqmedebebisaTvis – dadgenilisaregistracio procedurebisa da sasa-marTlo mosmenebis gadadeba-gaWia-

nurebebisaTvis, romlebic gamowveuliaadministraciul organoTa TanamSrom-lobis naklebobiT~.70

`gaWianurebis SemTxvevebi samoqalaqosamarTalwarmoebisas moicavs: samarTa-lwarmoebis gadadebas sxva saqmeze ganaCe-nis dadgenamde, sasamarTlo ganxilvis ansaxelmwifos mier mtkicebulebebis war-modgenis gadadebas, sasamarTlos regis-traturis an administraciuli organoe-bis braliT gamowveul gaWianurebas~.71

`sisxlis samarTalwarmoebasTandakavSirebul saqmeebSi isini moicaven:sasamarTloebs Soris saqmeebis moZra-obas, ori an meti gansasjelis saqmis mos-menas erTdroulad, ganaCenis miwodebasmsjavrdebulisaTvis~.72

konvenciis ratificirebis SedegadaRebuli valdebulebebis Sesasruleb-lad aucilebelia, yvela saxelmwifomuzrunvelyos sasamarTloTa mowyoba me-6muxli 1-li punqtis Sesabamisad.

`konvencia xelSemkvrel mxareebs ava-ldebulebs, organizeba gauwion samarT-lebriv sistemebs ise, rom sasamarTloebssaSualeba hqondeT, daakmayofilon me-6muxlis 1-li punqtis moTxovnebi. saxelm-wifo pasuxismgebelia ara marto konkre-tul darRvevebze, imis gamo rom ver ax-dens marTlmsajulebis swrafad ganxor-cielebas, aramed im SemTxvevebzec, rocaver zrdis resursebs. miuxedavad imisa,rom sasamarTloebi gadatvirTulia daar aris Seqmnili saTanado struqtura,rac iwvevs gaWianurebebs~.73

daskvna

Cveni qveynis kanonmdebloba da praq-tika rom Seesabamebodes `gonivruli va-dis~ moTxovnas, aucilebelia, saxelmwifoorganoebma miiRon mTeli rigi zomebisa.

saxeldobr, unda Seivsos Semdegi sa-kanonmdeblo xarvezebi: sisxlis samarT-lis saproceso kodeqsis II Tavi – ̀ sisxlissamarTlis procesis principebi~ – ar Sei-cavs debulebas marTlmsajulebis ̀ goni-vrul vadaSi~ ganxorcielebis Sesaxeb;amave kanonSi aseve ar aris muxli, romli-Tac ganisazRvreboda saqmis ganxilvisvada I instanciis sasamarTlos mier; asevesasurvelia, saqarTvelos sisxlis sa-marTlis saproceso kanonmdeblobiTgaTvaliswinebuli iyos saqmeTa garkveu-


112


li kategoria, romelTa ganxilvas pri-oriteti unda mianiWon sasamarTloebma.

`gonivruli vadis~ moTxovnis dar-Rvevebi saqarTveloSi ZiriTadad ganpi-robebulia sasamarTloTa gadatvirTu-lobiT. imisaTvis, raTa Semcirdes adami-anis uflebaTa darRvevis aseTi aSkarafaqtebi, kanonmdeblobis gadasinjvisparalelurad aucilebelia sasamarTlostruqturis gafarToeba, mosamarTleTaraodenobis (ra Tqma unda es ar unda mox-des profesionalizmis xarjze), agreTvesasamarTlos TanamSromelTa gazrda.saWiroa, sasamarTlos Seeqmnas obieqtu-ri pirobebi evropuli konvenciis moTx-ovnebis dasacavad, magram aseve aucilebe-lia Tavad mosamarTleTa mzaoba – saqmis

ganxilvis dros mudmivad iyvnen orien-tirebulni ̀ gonivruli vadis~ moTxovnisdacvaze.

aRniSnul problemasTan brZola auci-lebelia: raTa ar dairRves Cveni moqala-qeebis ufleba – swrafad ganixilon maTisaqme da didi xnis ganmavlobaSi ar darC-nen gaurkvevlobaSi; raTa ar dagrovdesbevri ganuxilveli saqme da ar gadait-virTos sasamarTloebi da, rac mTavaria, sa-frTxe ar Seeqmnas marTlmsajulebis efeq-turobasa da sandoobas;

da bolos, ̀ gonivruli vadis~ moTxo-vna unda iqnes daculi, raTa saqarTvelosmier ar dairRves saerTaSoriso samarT-lis fundamenturi principi – Pacta sundservanda.

1 www.supremecourt.ge2 b. boxaSvili, adamianis uflebaTa evropuli sasamarTlos precedentu-

li samarTali, Tb., 2004, gv. 241.3 DJ Harris, M O’ Boyle, C Warbrick, “Law of the European Convention on Human

Rights”, 1995, p.223.4 ix. stefan cvaigis ,,SiSiT~, dostoevskis ,,danaSauli da sasjeli~.5 DJ Harris, M O’ Boyle, C Warbrick “Law of the European Convention on Human

Rights”, 1995, p. 223.6 DJ Harris, M O’ Boyle, C Warbrick “Law of the European Convention on Human

Rights”, 1995, p. 223.7kanoni saqarTvelos saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebis Sesaxeb, 1997 wlis

16 oqtomberi, me-6 muxlis 1-li nawili.8 saqarTvelos konstitucia, me-6 muxlis meore nawili.9 xelSekrulebaTa samarTlis Sesaxeb venis konvencia, 1969 wlis 22 maisi,

28-e muxli.10 ix. saqme silva pontesi portugaliis winaaRmdeg (Silva Pontes v. Portu-

gal), 1994 wlis 23 marti, 14940/89, 38-e punqti (ix. saqme bageta italiiswinaaRmdeg (Baggetta v. Italy ), 1987 wlis 25 ivnisi, 13/1986/111/159, me-20 punqti).

11 DJ Harris, M O’ Boyle, C Warbrick “Law of the European Convention on HumanRights” 1995, p.223.

12 The published case-law on the European Convention on Human Rights, 2003,p. 210.

13foti da sxvebi italiis winaaRmdeg (Foti and others v. Italy), 1982 wlis 10dekemberi, .7604/76; 7719/76; 7781/77; 7913/77; 52-e punqti.

14 P. Leach ,,Taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights~, 2005, p. 260.15 vemhofi germaniis winaaRmdeg ( Wemhoff v. FRG), 1968 wlis 27 ivnisi (ix.

noimaisteri avstriis winaaRmdeg (Neumeister v. Austria), 1968 wlis 27

ivnisi, #1936/63 )).16 ix.guinCo portugaliis winaaRmdeg (Guincho v. Portugal), 1984 wlis 10 iv-

lisi, 8990/80, 29-e punqti.17 ix. vernilo safrangeTis winaaRmdeg (Vernillo v. France), 1991 wlis 20 Teber-

vali, 11889/85, 29-e punqti.18 ix. boimartini safrangeTis winaaRmdeg (Beau-mar-tin v. France), 1994 wlis 24

noemberi, 15287/89, 30-e punqti.19 see The published case-law on the European Convention on Human Rights,

2003, p. 211.

113

20 DJ Harris, M O’ Boyle, C Warbrick “Law of the European Convention on HumanRights”, 1995, p. 195.

21ix.valee safrangeTis winaaRmdeg (Valee v. France),1994 wlis 26 aprili,22121/93, 33-e punqti.

22 C. Ovey and R. White, “The European convention on Human rights”, 2002, p.167.

23 A.H Robertson, J.G Merrills “Human Rights in Europe”, 1993, p.101.24 ix. ,,H~ safrangeTis winaaRmdeg (H v. France), 1989 wlis 24 oqtomberi,

10073/82, 48-e punqti.25 ix. milazi italiis winaaRmdeg (Milasi v. Italy), 1987 wlis 25 ivnisi, 14/1986/

112/160, me-14 punqti.26 DJ Harris, M O’ Boyle, C Warbrick “Law of the European Convention on Human

Rights”, 1995, p.225(ix. feraro italiis winaaRmdeg (Ferraro v. Italy),1991wlis 19 Tebervali, 16/1990/207/267, me-15 punqti).

27 DJ Harris, M O’ Boyle, C Warbrick “Law of the Eur-o-pean Convention on HumanRights”, 1995, p. 223.

28 boki germaniis winaaRmdeg (Bock v. FRG), 1989 wlis 29 marti, 1/1988/145/199, 37-e punqti.

29 ix. girolami italiis winaaRmdeg (Girolami v. Italy), 1991 wlis 19 Teberva-li, 15/1990/206/266 (see DJ Harris, M O’ Boyle, C Warbrick “Law of the Europe-an Convention on Human Rights”, 1995, p.223.)

30 boki germaniis winaRmdeg (Bock v. FRG), 1989 wlis 29 marti, 1/1988/145/199, 38-e punqti; hentrixi safrangeTis winaaRmdeg (Hentrich v. France),1994 wlis 22 seqtemberi, 13616/88, 59-e punqti.

31 A.H Robertson, J.G Merrills “Human Rights in Europe”, 1993, p.102.32 The published case-law on the European Convention on Human Rights, De-

cember, 2003, p. 210.33 see DJ Harris, M O’ Boyle, C Warbrick “Law of the European Convention on

Human Rights”, 1995, p. 224.34 ix. ùnion alimentaria sanders~ espaneTis winaaRmdeg (Union Almentaria

Sanders S.A. v. Spain), 1989 wlis 7 ivlisi, 11681/85 32-e-33-e punqtebi.35 ix. angeluCi italiis winaaRmdeg (Angelucci v. Italy), 1991 wlis 20 oq-

tomberi, .13/1990/204/26, me-15 punqti.36ix.foti da sxvebi italiis winaaRmdeg (Foti and others v. Italy), 1982 wlis 10

dekemberi, 7604/76; 7719/76; 7781/77; 7913/77, 57, 58-e punqtebi.37 ix. gunteri TurqeTis winaaRmdeg (Gunter v. Turkey ), 2005 wlis 22 Teberva-

li, 22/05/2005, 34-e da 37-e punqtebi.38 bodaerti belgiis winaaRmdeg (Boddaert v. Belgium), 1992 wlis 12 oqtomberi,

65/1991/317/389.39ix. vernilo safrangeTis winaaRmdeg (Vernillo v. France), 1991 wlis 20 Teber-

vali, 11889/85, 31-e punqti.40 ix.noviki avstriis winaaRmdeg (Nowicky v. Austria), 2005 wlis 24 Teberva-

li, 34983/02, 49-e da 53-e punqtebi.41 valee safrangeTis winaaRmdeg (Vallee v. France), 1994 wlis 26 prili, 22121/

93-e, 37-e, 38-e punqtebi.42 konigi germaniis winaaRmdeg ( Konig v. Germany), 1987 wlis 28 ivnisi, 6232/

73, 102-e pun-q-ti.43 ix. guinCo portugaliis winaaRmdeg (Guincho v. Portugal), 1984 wlis 10

ivlisi, 8990/80, 33-e punqti.44ix. feranteli da santangelo italiis winaaRmdeg (Ferrantelli and Santan-

gelo v. Italy), 1996 wlis 23 Tebervali, 48/1995/554/640, 40-e, 42-e punqtebi.45 ix.zmalinski poloneTis winaaRmdeg (Zmalinski v. Poland ), 2005 wlis 22 mar-

ti, 52039/99, 39-e, 42-e da 46-e punqtebi.46 C. Ovey and R. White, “The European convention on Human rights”, 2002, p.

167.47ix. proszaki poloneTis winaaRmdeg (Proszak v. Poland), 1997 wlis 16 de-

kemberi, 2/1997/786/987 me-40 punqti.48 ix. kemaCe safrangeTis winaaRmdeg (Kemmache v. France), 1994 wlis 24

noemberi, 17621/91.


114


49ix. boimartini safrangeTis winaaRmdeg (Bea-umartin v. France), 1994 wlis24 noemberi, 15287/89, 33-e punqti.

50 sirikosta da viola italiis winaaRmdeg (Ciricosta and Viola v. Italy), 1995wlis 4 dekemberi, 5/1995/511/594, 26 da 30-e punqtebi.

51 ix. vernilo safrangeTis winaaRmdeg (Vernillo v. France), 1991 wlis 20 Teber-vali, 11889/85, 34-e punqti.

52 boki germaniis winaaRmdeg ( Bock v. FRG), 1989 wlis 29 marti, 1/1988/145/199.53 guinCo portugaliis winaaRmdeg (Guincho v. Portugal), 1984 wlis 10 ivli-

si, 8990/80, 34-e punqti.54 ix. zmalinski poloneTis winaaRmdeg (Zmalinski v. Poland ), 2005 wlis 22

marti, 52039/99, me-40, 43-e, 47-e punqtebi.55 korigliano italiis winaaRmdeg (Corigliano v. Italy), 1982 wlis 10 dekemberi,

8304/78, 42-e punqti.56 b. boxaSvili, adamianis uflebaTa evropuli sasamarTlos precedentu-

li samarTali, Tb., 2004, gv. 243.57 iqve.58 DJ Harris, M O’ Boyle, C Warbrick “Law of the European Convention on Human

Right”, 1995, p.225.59 martins moreira portugaliis winaaRmdeg (Martins Moreira v. Portugal),

1988 wlis 26 oqtomberi, 21/1987/144/198, me-60 punqti.60 martins moreira portugaliis winaaRmdeg (Martins Moreira v. Portugal),

1988 wlis 26 oqtomberi, 21/1987/144/198, me-60 punqti.61 k. korkelia, i. qurdaZe, adamianis uflebaTa saerTaSoriso samarTali

adamianis uflebaTa evropuli konvenciis mixedviT, 2004, gv. 162.62 proszaki poloneTis winaaRmdeg (Proszak v. Poland), 1997 wlis 16 dekemberi,

2/1997/786/987, 33-e punqti.63ix. kemaCe safrangeTis winaaRmdeg (Kemmache v. France), 1994 wlis 24 noem-

beri, 17621/91, 68-e punqti.64 ix. bodaerti belgiis winaaRmdeg ( Boddaert v. Belgium), 1992 wlis 12 oq-

tomberi, 65/1991/ 317/389, 37-e-38-e punqtebi.65ix. cimermani da Staineri Sveicariis winaaRmdeg ( Zimmerman and Steiner

v. Switzerland), 1983 wlis 13 ivlisi, 8737/79.66 ix. buxholci germaniis winaaRmdeg (Buchholz v. Germany), 1981 wlis 6

maisi, 7759/77.67ix. sirikosta da viola italiis winaaRmdeg, (Ciricosta and Viola v. Italy),

1995 wlis 4 dekemberi, 5/1995/511/594, 31-e punqti.68 ix. milazi italiis winaaRmdeg (Milasi v. Italy), 1987wlis 25 ivnisi, 14/1986/

112/160, me-17 da me-18 punqtebi.69 ix. noimaisteri avstriis winaaRmdeg (Neumeister v. Austria), 1968 wlis 27

ivnisi, 1936/63, me-20 da 21-e punqtebi.70 DJ Harris, M O’ Boyle, C Warbrick “Law of the European Convention on Human

Rights”, 1995, p.225.71 b. boxaSvili, adamianis uflebaTa evropuli sasamarTlos precedentu-

li samarTali, 2004, gv. 244.72 iqve.73 DJ Harris, M O’ Boyle, C Warbrick “Law of the European Convention on Human

Rights”,1995, p. 227.

115

ELENE SICHINAVA

“A REASONABLE TIME” REQUIREMENT(ACCORDING TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS)

INTRODUCTION

According to the Article 6 of the EuropeanConvention for the Protection of Human Rightsand Fundamental Freedoms consideration ofa case “by an independent and impartial tri-bunal established by law” is not yet enough aguarantee. In order to provide a fair trial, onemore condition shall be observed: the procee-dings shall take place “within a reasonable time”.

The problem of the lengthy proceedingsis a pressing issue for numerous EuropeanStates. This is also evidently based on the factthat the vast part of the judgments of the Eu-ropean Court of Human Rights actually refersto the violations of “a reasonable time”.

The issue is especially insistent in Geor-gia. Violating the procedural terms by the gen-eral courts of Georgia, especially by the civilchamber, and disregarding the Conventionalrequirement of “a reasonable time” has turnedto be the established practice.

The web-site of the Supreme Court ofGeorgia1 which is accessible to public, providesthe information about the cases consideredby our courts. Unfortunately, any of the casescould be used to prove the state of affairsmentioned above.

Why is it impossible to realize the right toa fair trail without “a reasonable time” guar-antee impossible and why was its inclusionmade necessary into the Convention?

“The observance of the requirement of areasonable time, first of all, falls within theperson’s interests, as well as within the inter-ests of due administration of justice”.2

“The purpose of a reasonable time guar-antee in criminal as well as other types of cas-es is the protection of all the parties to a casefrom protracted proceedings”.3

In a criminal case, a person, awaiting theverdict is maintained in a hazy situation for a

long time, is subjected to a strong pressure.In many cases a person feels more comfort-able after delivering even a tough verdict, thanhe is in anticipation of a verdict.4 At the sametime, “in such a case it is also to be taken intoaccount that having a status of an accusedinfluences person’s reputation”.5

In civil cases as well, for each of the par-ties to a case it is essentially important to havea timely adjudication. Frequently the decisionover a case is delivered so belatedly that itcan no more have an impact at the outcomeof the dispute.

Apart from this, administration of swift andefficient proceedings constitutes a public in-terest. A State must undertake all the measuresfor not having proceedings over a case for along time in order to save the State resources.

Finally, “this guarantee underlines the im-portance of administration of justice without adelay which threatens its efficiency and cred-ibility”.6

The European Convention for the Protec-tion of Human Rights and Fundamental Free-doms, being ratified by Georgia on 20 May,1999, became a part of our legislation.7 Evenmore, Georgia undertook an obligation tomake the entire Georgian legislation and prac-tice in line with the Convention requirements.8

It is important for us therefore to be sen-tient of the definition of this requirement asprovided by the European Court of HumanRights. According to its practice, where is thedividing line for a reasonable time in the pro-ceedings? What factors provide for protract-ing the proceedings? What measures shall beundertaken by a State to overcome this prob-lem?

Each of these issues will be consideredbelow.

116


THE BEGINNING AND THE END OF THE

TIME TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION

According to the Article 28 of the ViennaConvention on the Law of Treaties, “unless adifferent intention appears from the treaty oris otherwise established, its provisions do notbound a party in relation to any act or factwhich took place or any situation which ceasedto exist before the date of the entry into forceof the treaty with respect to that party”.9

The foregone principle also extends to theEuropean Convention for the Protection ofHuman Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.The Strasbourg Court has mentioned in a num-ber of cases dealing with the length of the pro-ceedings that the Convention does not havea retroactive effect.

In the case Silva Pontes v. Portugal theCourt concluded, that the period to be takeninto consideration for the purpose of the Arti-cle 6(1) did not begin to run when the appli-cant first brought the civil action before therelevant court requesting compensation for thedamage of the health on 20 December 1977,but only on 9 November 1978, when the Con-vention entered into force with regard to Por-tugal.10

At the same time, “the judgment of theCourt, on whether or not the proceedings havetaken place with the respective speed, afterthe Convention entered into force, will be in-fluenced by the very fact that the case is be-ing considered for a long time already”.11 Thisconnotates that to a certain degree the timelapsed before the ratification of the Conven-tion is also taken into consideration.

After the establishing the date of the en-try into force of the Convention with regard toa particular State, the Court considers thebeginning and the end of the time to be takeninto consideration.

“in criminal matters, the “reasonable time”referred to in Article 6(1) begins to run as soonas a person is charged”.12

“... Charge”, for the purposes of Article6(1), may in general be defined as "the offi-cial notification given to an individual by thecompetent authority of an allegation that hehas committed a criminal offence”.13

“A person may be charged at the time ofarrest or when preliminary proceedings areopened”.14

In the case Wemhoff v. FRG the Courtfound, that the beginning of the period to betaken into consideration must run from 9 No-vember 1961, the date on which the firstcharges were levelled against Wemhoff andhis arrest was ordered. It was on that date thathis right to a hearing within a reasonable timecame into being so that the criminal chargescould be determined. The indictment was how-ever filed only over two years after the pre-trial investigation was completed.15

Deriving from this, in a criminal case thestarting date for determining the time to betaken into consideration shall be the date,when a person for the first time was officiallynotified via official sources about the com-mencement by the duly authorized state bod-ies of certain procedures in his respect. As arule, this is the time when a person is charged.There are also instances when the commence-ment of the criminal prosecution, recognitionof a person as suspect, detention or otherprocedural action precedes charging. In sucha case any date, which preceded the others,and when the applicant learned for the firsttime that a doubt had emerged in his respectshall be considered as the commencement ofthe term.

In civil cases this issue is solved in the fol-lowing manner: if the applicant was a plaintiff,the calculation of the term shall start from fil-ing a suit. In cases where the applicant was arespondent, the time of handing over the courtnotification on appearance in court shall beconsidered as a starting point for this term.

In the case Guincho v. Portugal the Courtfound that the starting point of the relevantperiod, reasonableness of which should havebeen assessed, was the date proceedingswere instituted before the Court requestingcompensation for health damages.16

In the case Vernillo v. France the Courtfound that the period to be considered beganwhen the applicants were summoned beforethe tribunal.17

The case Beaumartin v. France is espe-cially interesting, as the application was filedin the Paris Administrative Court. It appearedthat the dispute fell outside that court’s juris-diction and forwarded the application and thefile to the Conseil d’Etat. The European Courtregarded that the calculation of a reasonabletime should have been commenced from themoment when the applicant first filed the case,

117

even if to the court which did not have juris-diction over it.18

The court management shall be organizedin such a way to avoid the protraction of pro-ceedings even in cases of such errors. Thefact that the person is not duly notified on us-ing the procedural rights shall not turn to bethe ground for violating his/her right to swiftproceedings.

In civil and administrative cases the “ rea-sonable time” referred to in Article 6(1) nor-mally begins to run from the moment the ac-tion was instituted before the “tribunal”; how-ever in certain circumstances the time maybegin to run earlier .19 “Such instances oftentake place when the applicant is obliged toexhaust the preliminary remedies in the formof applying to the administrative bodies be-fore applying to court”. 20

In the case Vallee v. France the Courtfound that the period to be taken into consid-eration began when the applicant lodged hispreliminary claim for compensation with theMinister for Solidarity, Health and Social Pro-tection.21

“In criminal, as well as civil cases the pe-riod to be taken into consideration lasts untilthe final determination of the case; and there-fore includes appeal and cassation proceed-ings”.22

“Time period to be taken into considerationincludes the entire proceeding. In the criminalcase it finishes when the charges broughtagainst a person are decided and he/she isproved guilty or not guilty by the final decisionof the court; or it will finish at the moment thecriminal prosecution is dismissed”.23

In the case H v. France the Court found,that the time for the purposes of Article 6(1)ended when the applicant was notified of thejudgment given by the supreme administra-tive court.24

It is apt to mention here that the final de-cision made on any given case is not alwaysthe decision of the court of cassation. Oftentimes the proceedings are finalized at an ear-lier stage:

In the case Milasi v. Italy the Court foundthat the period to be taken into account forthe purposes of Article 6(1) ended on 7 March1983, when the Reggio Calabria District Courtgave judgment.25

“When the charged person is found notguilty and the prosecutor does not appeal the

decision, a reasonable time guarantee con-tinues being in force until the time establishedfor appeal lapses and up to this moment theState is responsible for the length of the pro-ceedings”.26

Respectively, when the particular legalproceedings do not involve all the proceduralstages envisaged by the legislation, the endof the period to be taken into considerationshall be the time, when the decision, which wasfinal on the given case, entered into force.

“If the proceedings still endure in the do-mestic instances by the time when the Stras-bourg Court considers an application, the pe-riod of a reasonable time continues beforedelivering a decision by the latter”.27

One of the important issues, which has notonce become a subject of deliberation for theEuropean Court, is the period of proceedingsbefore a constitutional court:

In the case Bock v. FRG the Court foundthat “as a review of its case-law demonstrates,there are circumstances in which proceedingsbefore the Constitutional Court of a State mustbe taken into the reckoning in determining therelevant period. It has to be considered wheth-er the Constitutional Court's decision was ca-pable of affecting the outcome of the casewhich has been litigated before the ordinarycourts. The question whether Article 6(1) isapplicable to constitutional complaint proceed-ings must accordingly be treated on the mer-its of each case, in the light of all the circum-stances”.28

When considering the terms of the pro-ceedings one more time period is arguable:

In the case Girolami v. Italy the Court con-cluded, that in the cases in which the appli-cant escapes the jurisdiction of the court or isin hiding, the period for which the applicantwas on the run, should be excluded from thecalculation. However, there is an exceptionfrom the rule in cases when the charged per-son had “a reasonable doubt” to believe thathe would not get a fair trial and had a reasonto think so”. 29

The Court also concluded that “the rea-sonableness of the length of proceedings mustbe assessed in the light of the particular cir-cumstances of the case and having regard tothe criteria laid down in the court’s case-law,in particular the complexity of the case andthe conduct of the applicant and of the au-thorities concerned”.30

E. SICHINAVA, “A REASONABLE TIME” REQUIREMENT

118


Each of the factors shall be consideredseparately and their cumulative effect shall beassessed therein afterwards.

1. THE COMPLEXITY OF A CASE

“In criminal, as well as civil cases, in ordernot to establish a violation, a State shall provethat the length of proceedings was precondi-tioned by the complexity of the case”.31

Even more, “the Court considers the com-plexity of the case before assessing the con-duct of the State bodies or of an applicant”.32

When assessing the complexity of thecase the factors such as the aspects of thelaw, as well as volume of evidence, a numberof the charges or the accused, the necessityof acquiring the expert opinions, receiving thewitness statements from abroad, unification ofthe cases in one proceeding, are taken intoconsideration”.33

As mentioned already, one of the mostimportant factors taken into consideration bythe Court when assessing the complexity ofthe case is a number of the participants of theproceedings.

For example, in the case Union Almentar-ia Sanders S.A. v. Spain the Government sub-mitted that the case was fairly complex, asthere were several defendants, against whomdifferent claims were being made. The Euro-pean Court underlined that only one of thedefendants appeared before the Court of FirstInstance and none of them before the Courtof Appeal which simplified the task of thosecourts”.34

In the case Angelucci v. Italy the court con-cluded that the case was undoubtedly of somecomplexity owing to the number of accused”.35

A State can cite the complexity of a caseas a justification only in extremely exceptionalsituations, when such circumstances are re-vealed that are unusual for the court practiceand its prediction in advance is impossible.

A number of plaintiffs and accused maybe high in many instances and the court shallbe therefore accordingly prepared for that.One of the easiest ways out of the situation isseparation of proceedings or consideration ofa case by several judges. Citing the problemwhich is subjected to regulation can not beconsidered as a justification.

Along with studying legal issues and fac-tual circumstances of the case, the European

Court pays due attention to the proceduralmatters. The number and the duration of theemployed procedural actions and measuresundertaken do indeed determine the complex-ity of the case.

In this respect the case of Foti and othersv. Italy is of a particular interest. In its submis-sion the Government asserted that the pre-liminary investigation involved a large numberof measures. The Court noted that the offenc-es of which the applicants were accused canin themselves scarcely be described as com-plex. As offences committed in public and es-tablished on the spot, they should not havegiven rise to a difficult process of preliminaryinvestigation. Furthermore, except in the sec-ond Foti case, they were dealt with at one ju-risdictional level alone. The applicants’ caseswere thus not especially complex”.36

One of the interesting cases of the com-plex cases is parallel proceedings in both –civil and criminal cases:

In the case Gunter v. Turkey the Respon-dent Government submitted that the appli-cant's case was a complicated inheritance dis-pute. There were two proceedings pending atthe same time. The case could not have beenessentially considered until the case concern-ing the certificate of inheritance was not fina-lised. The Court observed that the proceed-ings were not complex.37

In the case Boddaert v. Belgium the Stras-bourg Court did not consider the term of sixyears and three month unreasonable, as thecomplex circumstances related with the mur-der and a parallel investigation of two caseswere involved.38

Conducting the parallel proceedings is thefactor, which can be justly referred to by a statewhen claiming the complexity of the case.

The instances of maintaining by a Gov-ernment of complexity of the proceedings dueto the fact that there was a need of the expertevidence are frequent.

In the case Vernillo v. France the Respon-dent Government was alleging that the casewas complex. One of the reasons for that wasthe need to seek an expert opinion. The Courtdid not agree with the position.39

In the case Nowicky v. Austria the appli-cant was requesting the issuing of a licenceto produce the medicament. The Governmentargued that the proceedings were complexnamely in that their very nature necessitated

119

the taking of several expert opinions and sci-entific research. Furthermore, in the courseof the proceedings at issue the applicant al-tered his request for authorisation of the me-dicament at issue several times, which madeit necessary to conduct further research. TheCourt considered that, due to the above men-tioned reasons, the case was of considerablecomplexity. Despite this, the Court held thatthere has been a violation of Article 6(1).40

In the vast majority of cases there is an is-sue emerging which requires the expert opin-ion. Therefore, if all the cases of this kind areconsidered complex and this is referred to by aState, as a justifying circumstance, this will con-tribute to establishing erroneous practice.

The requirements towards the state insti-tutions shall be especially strict when the prob-lem was known to a State beforehand and ithad time for preparation.

In the case Vallee v. France in which theapplicant claimed compensation from the Min-istry for Solidarity, Health and Social Protec-tion did not agree with the submission of theGovernment that the case was complex, de-spite the fact that paying the compensationwas related with certain intricacy. Accordingto the Court’s position, “such problems hadbeen foreseeable and therefore a solutioncould probably have been found earlier”.41

In order to justify their position in somecases the states refer to the circumstancessuch as the non-appearance of the partici-pants of the proceedings in court, which ac-cording to their explanations, is the reason formaking the case complex.

In the case Konig v. Germany the Courtnoted that “the Government could not provethat the case contained the factual or the le-gal complexity. However, it is true that the 4thChamber of the Administrative Court encoun-tered great difficulties in tracing witnessesseveral of whom had in the meantime changedname or address”.42

In the case Guincho v. Portugal the Gov-ernment was claiming that the case was com-plex due to the failure of witnesses and law-yers to appear in the court. The Court did notagree with the latter view: the circumstancesadverted to by the Government did not com-plicate the conduct of the proceedings in amanner unusual for such litigation.43

We regard the arguments such as thecourts may be unsuccessful in cases the wit-

nesses do not appear in a court is not suffi-cient for considering the case as a whole tobe complex. Some other components shallalso be present therein.

It is also interesting to consider how theacts of the charged person may resemble onthe complexity of the case:

In the case Ferrantelli and Santangelo v.Italy the Government conceded that the totalduration of the proceedings might at first sightappear excessive, but justified it among oth-ers on the basis of the undeniably complexnature of the investigation because of thestatements and confessions made and thenretracted by the accused. According to theapplicant’s position, the change of the testi-mony of the accused could not have beenconsidered as the circumstance complicatingthe case, due to the fact that the accused isnot obliged to cooperate with the investiga-tion. The Court in fact agreed with the Gov-ernment’s submission that the case was un-doubtedly complex, but not due to these cir-cumstances. The Court has not taken this ar-gument into consideration.44

In the case Zmalinski v. Poland the Gov-ernment were of the view that the case hadbeen complex. According to the applicant mod-ifications of his claims had not complicated it.The Court considers that, even though thecase was of some complexity, it cannot be saidthat this in itself justified the entire length ofthe proceedings.45

We consider that a charged person is notobliged to cooperate with the investigation. Asregards the plaintiff, the latter employs the pro-cedural rights when broadening or specifying theclaim. This is not out of the ordinary for courtpractice. Correspondingly, referring to these fac-tors, as justifying circumstances, shall be em-ployed by a State only in extremely exceptionalcircumstances, when this involves unpredictableand substantial complications.

2. CONDUCT OF AN APPLICANT

“State is only responsible for the violationswhich can be attributable to it. If the partiesduring the proceedings or the accused in acriminal case caused or contributed to pro-traction of the proceedings, this time-periodshall not be taken into consideration”.46

For instance, in the case Proszac v. Po-land the Court noted that the applicant con-


120


tributed decisively to slowing down the pro-ceedings via groundlessly challenging the re-porting judge on three occasions, as well asher failures to attend the hearings, and herrefusal to attend for the ... psychiatric exami-nation. Therefore, no violation of Article 6(1)was found.47

It is apt to mention that a State is not re-sponsible for the protracted proceedings whichwere caused due to the applicant even inthose cases, when the latter acts within theframework of the law.

For instance, in the case Kemmache v.France the Government argued that the ap-plicant contributed to prolonged proceedingsdue to the seeking the adjournment of the pro-ceedings. The applicant clarified, that he wasincapable to attend the hearing due to thepsychiatric conditions. The European Courtfound, that a State can not be held responsi-ble for the protracted proceedings, if that wascaused by the applicant.48

The Strasbourg Court considers and as-sesses each stage of the legal proceedingsseparately. Respectively, a Government is re-quired to submit detailed clarifications in res-pect with each of the stages of the proceedings.

In particular, in the case Beaumartin v.France the Court concluded that the appli-cants prolonged the proceedings by errone-ously bringing proceedings in the Court whichhad no jurisdiction over the case. They alsocontributed to the length of the proceedingsby not filing their pleadings until four monthsafter lodging their appeal. The applicants wereresponsible for a certain period of time (9months), however for the rest of the time noexplanations have been forthcoming from theGovernment (the respondent ministry waitedtwenty months after the commencement ofproceedings before filing pleadings and thecourt dealing with the case took over fiveyears to hold its first hearing). Respectively,the Court did not regard as “reasonable” inthis instance a lapse of time of eight years andfour months and therefore found that therehas been a violation of Article 6 para 1. 49

A state can refer to the actions of the ap-plicant in order to justify its own position; how-ever this way the state will avoid responsibilityonly on the time period which was protracteddue to the acts of the applicant and not withregard to the entire proceedings.

The analysis of the case law of the Euro-pean Court of Human Rights proves that dif-ferent standards are established for assess-ing the acts of an applicant in civil and crimi-nal cases.

The requirements with regard to state areto a large extent stricter in respect with thecriminal cases than with respect of consider-ing civil cases. This can be explained with thefact that expeditious and efficient proceedingsin civil cases depends on the initiative anddetermination of the parties to a case. Respec-tively, the responsibility is to a large extentshared by the parties to a case.

In the case Ciricosta and Viola v. Italy theGovernment submitted that the length of theproceedings was entirely attributable to theapplicants. In Italy it was “essentially for theparties to take the initiative with regard to theprogress of civil proceedings” (principio dis-positivo). The European Court shared the viewof the Government and added that the “prin-cipio dispositivo” does not dispense the courtsfrom ensuring compliance with the require-ments of “a reasonable time“.50

In civil, as well as in criminal cases, thecourts shall ensure meeting procedural obli-gations by the parties through general coor-dination. The appropriate legislation shall begiving to the courts the possibility of exercis-ing the reasonable control over the parties toa case. Swift legal proceedings do not fall onlywithin the interest of the parties to a case. Astate shall itself be interested in consideringeach case in a short term, in order to, on theone hand, avoid the backlogging the courtsand on the other side to save the state re-sources. Therefore, a state shall not wait forthe initiatives of parties, but shall establishsuch a flexible system which would ensure thatthe case is not being continued for long.

One of the problematic issues, which sur-faces in civil cases when assessing the actsof the applicant, is the actions of the otherparty. May state be responsible for that? Inthis respect the following cases are interest-ing to consider:

In the case Vernillo v. France the EuropeanCourt established that both parties contributedto protracting the case proceedings, which wasexpressed in the following: the Torzuolis, theplaintiffs, took four and a half months to reply inthe tribunal de grande instance; they filed theirsecond set of appeal pleadings three and a half

121

months after the first set; and during the appealon points of law they took four and a half monthsto reply to the Vernillos’ supplementary plead-ings. Furthermore, a year and four monthselapsed before Mrs Torzuoli resumed the pro-ceedings after her husband’s death. In this casethe Court pointed out that only delays attribut-able to the State may justify a finding of a failureto comply with the “reasonable time” requirement– the Article 6(1). If the prolongation of the pro-ceedings is caused due to the other party to thecase, which ultimately led to the protracted con-sideration of the applicant’s case, the State shallnot be responsible for that. Even more, the Gov-ernment can use this as a justification.51

In the case Bock v. FRG the Court noted,that “State is not responsible for the actionsof the respondent, against whom the applicanthas filed a complaint”.52

Contrary to this, in the case Guincho v.Portugal the Court established that “the … cir-cumstances set out by the Government, andin particular the failure to appear of witnessesand of lawyers for the defendants, cannot, inthe Court’s view, be held against the applicant.… [t]he dilatory nature of the proceedingscannot be attributed to the applicant”.53

We share the opinion expressed in thisvery case and believe, that a court shall notonly avoid violation of the procedural time-lim-its, but shall also ensure that the parties tothe case observe them as well. A court mustalso call upon the parties to a case, issue or-ders, establish time-limits, etc.

When a State undertakes an obligation toobserve all the provisions of the Convention,it does not make a reservation that it will se-cure the rights to persons within its jurisdic-tion only from violating them from the side ofthe state bodies. Despite who is a violator ofa right of an applicant to have the case con-sidered in a speedy manner – being that astate body or a private individual, the result isthe same. In any case a State shall not allowfor such a violation and if this still happens,shall react adequately.

Respectively, if the applicant, and not theother party to a case, has contributed to theprotracted proceedings, these delays shall notbe attributable to the applicant and a stateshall be responsible for this.

The European Court has found in a num-ber of cases, that an applicant can not be heldresponsible for using all the possibilities thatare available, notwithstanding their efficiency.

For example, in the case Zmalinski v. Po-land the Respondent Government submittedthat the applicant had partly contributed to thedelay by frequent extensions and modificationsof his claims. However, the Court consideredthat the applicant’s conduct, in particular themanner in which he exercised his proceduralrights, had not substantially contributed to thelength of the proceedings. Therefore, no vio-lation of Article 6(1) was found.54

Yet another fundamental principle, em-ployed when evaluating the acts of an applicant,is expressed in the case Corigliano v. Italy: “theperson concerned is not required to activelyco-operate with the judicial authorities”.55

“An applicant is not obliged to activelycooperate in speeding-up the proceedingsafter which he/she will be exposed to convic-tion in the charges brought against him/her”.56

“If the applicant, through the actions un-dertaken, tries to speed-up the administrationof proceedings, this shall be credited towardshim/her, however if he/she does not activelytry this, it can not be negatively influencingthe claim of the applicant on protracted pro-ceedings”.57

“A State is responsible for its omissions,which resulted into the protracted proceed-ings. It may not claim that the applicant shouldhave shown the initiative of noticing this”.58

3. CONDUCT OF AUTHORITIES

Each State implements the obligationsundertaken by ratifying an international trea-ty through the state institutions. Respectively,the European Court assess the actions ofthese very organs in order to establish, wheth-er a “reasonable time” requirement was ob-served.

In the case Martins Moreira v. Portugal itwas established that the medical institutionsfailed to timely conduct medical examination.In the Government's view, only the conduct ofthe judicial authorities in question could incurthe international liability of Portugal in thismatter and not any errors on the part of thelegislature, the executive, or organs or per-sons outside the State structure, in this in-stance the Institute, which had no hierarchi-cal relationship with the courts. This argumentwas not shared by the European Court, whichstated that “in ratifying the Convention, thePortuguese State undertook the obligation to


122


respect it and it must, in particular, ensure thatthe Convention is complied with by its differ-ent authorities. The fact that the medical in-stitutions were not judicial in character is im-material in this respect. In any event, the ex-amination in question was to be effected inthe context of judicial proceedings supervisedby the court, which remained responsible forensuring the speedy conduct of the trial”.59

Deriving from this, it is clear that:First, upon the ratification of a convention

a state undertakes responsibility to implementit and is responsible for all the violations with-in its jurisdiction, notwithstanding whether thisis caused by a court or other state institutions.A party to the European Convention on Hu-man Rights is a State and not its separate in-stitutions, for example, a court. The state in-stitutions and officials undertake the publicauthority and respectively, a State is respon-sible for their actions.

Second, the deliberation can go even fur-ther. A state shall fulfill both – negative andpositive obligations. It must not only not vio-late the conventional provisions itself, but mustsecure to any person within its jurisdiction therights protected by the Convention.

In the case Martins Moreira v. Portugal inwhich the Court found the State liable for vio-lations exercised by the medical institution,considered that the medical institution cameunder the administrative authority of the Min-istry of Justice. Accordingly, the PortugueseState was under a duty to provide them withappropriate means in relation to the objectivespursued so as to enable them to comply withthe requirements of Article 6 para. 1.60

We consider that notwithstanding wheth-er this medical institute would be a state or aprivate establishment, a state responsibilityshould have been involved in any case.

A state shall protect its own national notonly from violating the rights by the state bod-ies, but also in those cases, when the legalinterests of the former are violated by otherprivate or legal persons.

Respectively, if a right of a person to anexpedite proceeding is violated, it is surplusto deliberate on who contributed to this – acivil servant or a private individual. A state shallnot allow violation of human rights and in caseif this takes place any way, it shall react overit. In the contrary situation it shall be held re-sponsible, as first it could not protect a per-

son from violating the rights and afterwards itdid not provide for recovering the rights vio-lated.

Third, judicial authorities are rightlycharged with a special role in the expeditiousadministration of justice. A court is not onlyobliged to observe the terms established forcertain procedural obligations itself, but alsoto provide for efficient and expeditious hold-ing of the proceedings. It must undertake themeasures in respect of each of the partici-pants of the proceedings in order not to giveanyone a possibility to interfere with the swiftadministration of justice.

In the case Vernillo v. France the Europe-an Court concluded, that “the national courtsare obliged to create such conditions to states,which would provide to avoid the unjustifiableprolongation of the consideration of a case“.61

“The courts are responsible for ensuringthat cases proceeded satisfactorily in coop-eration with the parties”.62

One of the most interesting issues withinthe measures undertaken by a court is theunification of cases, which frequently has be-come an issue of contention.

For instance, in the case Kemmache v.France the Court held that the case of theapplicant was unified with the case of Mr.Klaushofer. His return to France was belated-ly provided by the Swiss state bodies. Thiscaused the delaying the proceedings for twoyears and eight months. The applicant allegedthat if the return of Mr. Klaushofer was impos-sible, the State bodies could have separatedproceedings in respect with Mr. Kemmacheand Mr. Ceccio, what did not happen as theaccused were risking very harsh sentence andMr. Klaushofer’s statement was one of theimportant elements. The European Court didnot accept the argument of the Government,as to the impossibility of the separation of suchcases. Therefore, the Court found violation ofArticle 6(1).63

Different decision was made in the caseBoddaert v. Belgium. The Court noted that theapplicant and Mr. Piron were charged with themurder of Jehin. Mr. Piron was also accusedin committing other crimes. One of the crimeswas closely linked with the murder of Jehin.The investigating judge chose to shelve theinvestigation in case and to await the outcomeof the investigation of the “second case” inorder to complete the file of the first and to

123

hold a joint trial on all the charges broughtagainst Mr. Piron. It was also taken into con-sideration that Mr. Boddaert and Mr. Pironaccused each other of having committed thecrime of which they were both suspected. TheEuropean Court found that in proceeding inthis manner they undoubtedly took the risk ofpostponing even further Mr. Boddaert's com-mittal for trial. However, the gravity of the of-fences in question and the interdependenceof the charges, could reasonably appear tomake it necessary for such a “parallel progres-sion” of the two cases. Consequently, no vio-lation of Article 6 (1) was found.64

At a glance, the interest of the Court, tounite the cases of the similar types, is nimble,and in itself is a positive measure, as it setsas a goal overall and objective investigationof the case, however in case if such a mea-sure does not advance the situation of anapplicant, but on the contrary, causes delaysin considering his/her case, a state can notrefer to this action as a justification and themeasure may become a reason for imposingthe liability on it.

A state must always be oriented at the pro-tection of the right of a person to swift consid-eration of his/her case so that he/she is notleft in ambiguity for long. Therefore, when thestate institutions consider their actions, thelatter shall first of all take into considerationthe interests of a person and grant them apriority. Otherwise the actions of the state bodyshall be considered contrary to the Article 6(1)of the European Convention.

One of the key issues, always surfacingwhen assessing the actions of a state body, isoverloading of courts. This is the argument,which is used by the both sides (applicant, aswell as a respondent State) in order to groundtheir position and both sides interpret this intheir own way. The European Court has onthe other hand established a number of its ownstandards for considering this issue.

In the case Zimmerman and Steiner v.Switzerland the respondent state was foundliable, as almost three and a half years wererequired for the appeals procedures, in thecourse of majority of which the case was puton hold. The announced reason was that thecourt was overloaded, and the cases whichwere considered more important, were grant-ed priority. The case of the applicant did notappear in this list. The cases were collected

at the court during years and the adequatemeasures, which would have increased thenumber of staff or otherwise boost the organi-zation of the court system, were not undertaken.65

It is clearly shown from the case that whena State, in order to ground its position, stipu-lates, that the court is overloaded, it has toprove the presence of the two conditions: first,that the overloading of courts is a temporaryincident and not a permanent problem and theincrease in number of cases was unexpected;and, second, the state undertook the ade-quate measures in order to improve the situa-tion with the respective speed.

Observation of these two conditions isessential, but not sufficient:

It is also required that the states under-take measures with respect to the given ap-plicant. In this respect the following cases areof interest:

In the case Buchholz v. Germany the Courtheld that a State may not be held responsi-ble, if the violations are caused due to theoverloading of the courts, which could nothave been predicted in advance and if a stateundertakes swift and adequate measuresthereto. The Court did not found the respon-dent state liable for violating Article 6(1) in thiscase, as the overloading of courts was a re-sult of unexpected economic crisis in 1970sand respectively, the adequate measures wereundertaken to increase a number of judges,as soon as the problem became visible. De-spite the fact that these measures could notcontribute to advancing the applicant’s situa-tion, these were the measures which couldhave been undertaken by the respondent statein the given circumstances.66

A different decision was made in the caseCiricosta and Viola v. Italy, in which the Stateindicated that the state had undertaken therespective measures to improve the situation.In particular, the Italian Parliament has triedto remedy the slow workings of justice by re-vising the Code of Civil Procedure. The Courtnoted that it was not appropriate at that stageto speculate about measures which had beenundertaken belatedly.67

Also, in the case Milasi v. Italy the Courtfound violation of Article 6. Despite the factthat the authorities had endeavored to meetthe crisis of backlogging the courts by actingmethodically, by giving priority to the trials ofthose defendants who were in custody and by


124


appointing more judges and court staff, theapplicant had to wait nearly ten years beforethe “criminal charge” against him was the sub-ject of a judicial determination at first in-stance.68

It is evident from the aforementioned thatthe European Court set a very high standard.Each of the measures undertaken by a Stateshall be assessed based on its effectivenesswith regard to the applicant. The subject ofany given application is not the review of thegeneral policy of a state, but the concrete factof violation committed by the State. Even inthe case if a reform was in principle success-ful, but it could not improve the applicant’s sit-uation, referring to it will not be grounded.

There are precedents, in which the Courtheld no violation of Article 6, as the protrac-tions in the proceedings caused by the Statebodies were not considered to be lengthy.

For instance, in the case Neumeister v.Austria the Court held that Mr. Neumeister hadnot been interrogated during the fifteenmonths, there were no confrontation of wit-nesses and other investigative actions under-taken. The consideration of case commencedin a year after the finalizing the investigation.Despite all this, the European Court has notconsidered these facts to be sufficient for find-ing that the terms were violated. The Govern-ment noted that the delays were in large partcaused by the need to give the legal repre-sentatives of the parties and also the judgessitting on the case time to get acquainted withthe case record, which comprised twenty-onevolumes of about five hundred pages each.Over seven years had elapsed between thetime Neumeister was originally charged andthe time when the Strasbourg Court was con-sidering his application, and he did not yet hada judgment of conviction or acquittal.69

We consider that in this case the dissent-ing opinion of the Judge Zekia shall be takeninto consideration: “Notwithstanding the diffi-culties encountered in the preparation andpresentation of the case I am unable to per-suade myself - even after making certain al-lowances for the delays caused by the neces-sity for these long investigations and the diffi-culties of procuring evidence - that such a longinterval and delay between the date Neumeis-ter was originally charged and the date of theconclusion of his trial, could be considered ascompatible with the letter and spirit of Article 6(1) of the Convention…”

We consider, that a feeling that a humanbeing has, while awaiting a verdict, can notbe assessed and delaying his being in suchan uncertain condition for even very shorttime period is a violation and respectively shallinvolve the responsibility of state bodies.

As it is evidenced from the Court case lawreview, the issue of duration of the proceed-ings is problematic in a number of states. Thereasons causing it often diverse:

“The States are held accountable for theactions of the civil and administrative bodies,that is expressed in the following: the estab-lished registration procedures, postponing thecourt hearing and protractions, which arecaused due to the lack of staff in the adminis-trative bodies”.70

“Protraction of the civil proceedings in-cludes the following: postponing the deliveryof the decision until the judgment is deliveredon another case, postponing the court hear-ing or the submission of the evidence by astate, the delays caused due to the fault ofthe registry of other administrative bodies”.71

“In the criminal proceedings they include:movement of the case between the courts,hearing a case of two or more defendants atonce, handing the verdict to the sentenced”.72

For the purpose of implementing all theobligations undertaken by states upon the rat-ification of the Convention it is necessary toarrange the judicial system in line with the re-quirements of Article 6(1).

“The Convention obliges the states par-ties to organize the legal systems in a mannerto allow the courts to fulfill the requirement ofArticle 6(1). The state is not only responsiblefor the specific violations due to the fact that itcould not swiftly administer justice, but alsodue to not increasing the resources despitethe fact that the courts are overloaded andthere is no structure created, that as a resultcauses protraction”.73

CONCLUSION

In order to make the legislation and thepractice of our country in line with the require-ment of the “reasonable time”, a number ofmeasures shall be undertaken by the statebodies.

In particular, the following legislative gapsshall be filled up: Chapter II of the CriminalProcedure Code of Georgia – “The Principles

125

of the Criminal Procedure” does not contain aprovision about administering justice “in a rea-sonable time”. The same Law does not con-tain any provision which would have definedthe time-frame for the first instance court todeal with the case. It would be also desirableto include into the Criminal Procedure Codeof Georgia the categories of priority caseswhich should be given priority by courts.

Violations of a requirement of a “reason-able time” in Georgia are in general condi-tioned with the fact that the courts are over-loaded. In order to decrease the number ofsuch vivid violations of human rights, alongwith the revision of the legislation the broad-ening of the judicial branch of power and in-crease of the number of judges and court staffis needed (there is no doubt that this shall notbe exercised on the expense of professional-

ism). The courts shall have objective condi-tions for the protection of the requirements ofthe European Convention, and at the sametime the readiness of the judges to be orient-ed at the observation of the requirement of “areasonable time” is also required.

The fight against this problem is essen-tial, in order not to violate a right of our citi-zens to have their cases processed quicklyand do not stay in the unclear situation forthe extended period of time. This is also im-portant for avoiding backlogging the courtsand what is important, avoiding threatening theefficiency and credibility of justice.

And finally, the requirement of “a reason-able time” shall be observed, in order not tohave the fundamental principle of internationallaw – pacta sund servanda – violated by Georgia.

1 www.supremecourt.ge2 See: b. boxaSvili àdamianis uflebaTa evropuli sasamarTlos

precedentuli samarTali~, 2004, gv. 241.3 See: DJ Harris, M O’ Boyle, C Warbrick “Law of the European Convention on

Human Rights”, 1995, p. 223.4 See: “Fear” by Stefan Zveig, “A Crime and a Punishment” by T. Dostoyevsky.5 See: DJ Harris, M O’ Boyle, C Warbrick “Law of the European Convention on

Human Rights”, 1995, p. 223.6 Ibid.7 See: Article 6(1) of the Law of Georgia on International Treaties, 16 October, 1997.8 See: Article 6(2) of the Constitution of Georgia.9 See: Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 22 May, 1969.10 See: Silva Pontes v. Portugal, 23 March 1994, 14940/89, para. 38; also: Baggetta

v. Italy, 25 June, 1987, 13/1986/111/159, para. 20.11 See: DJ Harris, M O’ Boyle, C Warbrick “Law of the European Convention on

Human Rights”, 1995, p. 223.12 See: Council of Europe, Key case-law extracts – The published case-law on the

European Convention on Human Rights, 2003, p. 210.13 See: Foti and others v. Italy 10 December 1982, .7604/76; 7719/76; 7781/77; 7913/

77; para. 52.14 See: P.Leach “Taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights”, 2005, p. 260.15 Wemhoff v. FRG 27 June 1968, .7 (See also Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June, 1968#1936/63 ).

16 See: Guincho v. Portugal, 10 July 1984, 8990/80, para. 29.17 See: Vernillo v. France, 20 February, 1991, 11889/85, para. 29.18 See: Beaumartin v. France, 24 November, 1994, 15287/89, para. 30.19 See: Council of Europe, Key case-law extracts – The Published Case-law on the

European Convention on Human Rights, December, 2003, p. 211.20 See: DJ Harris, M O’ Boyle, C Warbrick “Law of the European Convention on

Human Rights”, 1995, p. 195.21 See: Va l lee v. France, 26 April, 1994 22121/93, para. 33.22 See: C. Ovey and R. White, “The European convention on Human rights”, 2002, p. 167.23 See: A.H. Robertson, J.G Merrills “Human Rights in Europe”, 1993, p. 101.24 See: H v. France, 24 October, 1989, #10073/82, para. 48.25 See: Milasi v. Italy, 25 July, 1987, #14/1986/112/ 160, para. 14.26 DJ Harris, M O’ Boyle, C Warbrick “Law of the European Convention on Human

Rights”, 1995, p. 225; See also: Ferraro v. Italy, 19 February, 1991, 16/1990/207/267, para. 15).


126


27 See: DJ Harris, M O’ Boyle, C Warbrick “Law of the European Convention onHuman Rights”, 1995, p. 223.

28 See: Bock v. FRG, 29 March, 1989, 1/1988/145/ 199, para. 37.29 See: Girolami v. Italy, 19 February, 1991, 15/1990/206/266; See also: DJ Harris, M

O’ Boyle, C Warbrick “Law of the European Convention on Human Rights”, 1995,p. 223.

30 See: Bock v. FRG, 29 March, 1989, 1/1988/145/ 199, para. 38; Hentrich v. France,22 September, 1994, 13616/88, para. 59.

31 See: A. H. Robertson, J.G. Merrills “Human Rights in Europe”, 1993, p. 102.32 See: Council of Europe, Key case-law extracts – The Published Case-law on the

European Convention on Human Rights, 2003, p. 210.33 See: DJ Harris, M O’ Boyle, C Warbrick “Law of the European Convention on

Human Rights”, 1995, p. 224.34 See: Union Almentaria Sanders S.A. v. Spain, 7 July, 1989, #11681/85 para.-s 32-33.35 See: Angelucci v. Italy, 20 October, 1991, 13/1990/204/26, para. 15.36 See: Foti and others v. Italy, 10 December, 1982, # 7604/76; 7719/76; 7781/77;

7913/77, para.-s 57-58.37 See: Gunter v. Turkey, 22 February, 2005, # 22/05/2005, para.-s 34 and 37.38 See: Boddaert v. Belgium, 12 October, 1992, #65/1991/317/389.39 See: Vernillo v. France, 20 February, 1991, #11889/85, para. 31.40 See: Nowicky v. Austria, 24 February, 2005, # 34983/02, para.-s 49 and 53.41 See: Vallee v. France, 26 April, 1994, # 22121/93, para.-s 37-38.42 See: Konig v. Germany, 28 June, 1987, #6232/73, para. 102.43 See: Guincho v. Portugal, 10 July, 1984, #8990/ 80, para. 33.44 See: Ferrantelli and Santangelo v. Italy, 23 February, 1996, #48/1995/554/640,

para.-s 40-42.45 See: Zmalinski v. Poland, 22 March, 2005, # 52039/99, para.-s 39, 42 and 46.46 See: C. Ovey and R. White, “The European Convention on Human Rights”, 2002, p. 167.47 See: Proszak v. Poland, 16 December, 1997, # 2/1997/786/987 para. 40.48 See: Kemmache v. France, 24 November, 1994, 17621/91.49 See: Beaumartin v. France, 24 November, 1994, # 15287/89, para. 33.50 See: Ciricosta and Viola v. Italy, 4 December, 1995, # 5/1995/511/594, para.-s

26 and 30.51 See: Vernillo v. France, 20 February, 1991, #11889/85, para. 34.52 See: Bock v. FRG, 29 March, 1989, #1/1988/ 145/199.53 See: Guincho v. Portugal, 10 July, 1984, #8990/80, para. 34.54 See: Zmalinski v. Poland, 22 March, 2005, # 52039/99, para.-s 40, 43, and 47.55 See: Corigliano v. Italy, 10 December, 1982, # 8304/78, para. 42.56 b. boxaSvili ̀ adamianis uflebaTa evropuli sasamarTlos precedentuli

samarTali~, 2004, gv. 243.57 Ibid.58 DJ Harris, M O’ Boyle, C Warbrick “Law of the European Convention on Human

Right”, 1995, p. 225.59 See: Martins Moreira v. Portugal, 26 October, 1988, 21/1987/144/198, para. 60.60 See: Martins Moreira v. Portugal, 26 October, 1988, 21/1987/144/198, para. 60.61 See: Korkelia K., Kurdadze Ir., “International Law of Human Rights from the

Perspective of the European Convention on Human Rights”, 2004. p. 162.62 See: Proszak v. Poland, 16 December, 1997, #2/1997/786/987, para. 33.63 See: Kemmache v. France, 24 November, 1994, 17621/91, para. 68.64 See: Boddaert v. Belgium, 12 October, 1992, 65/1991/317/389 para.-s 37-38.65 See: Zimmerman and Steiner v. Switzerland, 13 July, 1983, # 8737/79.66 See: Buchholz v. Germany, 6 May, 1981, 7759/77.67 See: Ciricosta and Viola v. Italy, 4 December, 1995, #5/1995/511/594, para. 31.68 See: Milasi v. Italy, 25 June, 1987, 14/1986/112/160, para.-s 17 and 18.69 See: Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June, 1968, 1936/63, para.-s 20 and 21.70 DJ Harris, M O’ Boyle, C Warbrick “Law of the European Convention on Human

Rights”, 1995, p. 225.71 b. boxaSvili ̀ adamianis uflebaTa evropuli sasamarTlos precedentuli

samarTali~, 2004, gv. 244.72 Ibid.73 DJ Harris, M O’ Boyle, C Warbrick “Law of the European Convention on Human Rights”,

1995, p. 227.

127

nona kalandaZe

`SromiTi migrantebisa da maTi ojaxis wevrebis

uflebaTa dacvis Sesaxeb~ saerTaSoriso konvencia da

SromiT migrantTa da maTi ojaxis wevrebis uflebaTa

dacvis monitoringis gaeros meqanizmebi

Sesavali

SromiTi migracia Tanamedrove glo-balizaciis umniSvnelovanesi elementi dasaerTaSoriso integraciuli procesebisgamoxatulebaa. igi kidev ufro ganviTar-da meore msoflio omis Semdeg. amis mizezi,erTi mxriv, msoflioSi mimdinare poli-tikuri da ekonomikuri procesebi, qveynebsSoris urTierTobis normalizacia, ucx-oelTa politikuri, SromiTi da socialuriuflebebis TandaTanobiT ganmtkiceba, me-ore mxriv ki saxelmwifoebs Soris mimosv-lis gaadvileba, transportis gaiafeba, mo-saxleobis informirebulobis zrda iyo.

msoflio migraciul viTarebaze didigavlena moaxdina socialisturi siste-mis daSlam. cxovrebis donis mkveTradgauaresebam, politikuri viTarebis dam-Zimebam migraciis axali talRebi warmoS-va. ekonomikuri viTarebis mkveTrad gau-aresebam da Siga da gare Sromis bazrebzeSeqmnilma samuSao Zalis miwodeba-moTx-ovnis gauwonasworebelma viTarebam saqa-rTveloSic arnaxuli SromiTi migraci-uli procesebi gamoiwvia.

gaerTianebuli erebis organizaciamSromiTi migrantebis mimarT seriozulidaintereseba pirvelad 1972 wels gamoav-lina, mas mere, rac ekonomikurma da so-cialurma sabWom Tavis 1706-e (LIII) re-zoluciiT gangaSi atexa samuSao Zalisaralegalur transportirebaze ramdenimeevropul qveyanasa da `monobisa da iZu-lebiTi Sromis pirobebSi~ SromiTi migran-tebis eqspluataciaze afrikis zogierTqveyanaSi. imave wels generalurma asamb-leam Tavis 2920-e (XXVII) rezoluciaSi gak-icxa ucxoel SromiT migrantTa diskrimi-

nacia da mouwoda mTavrobebs, SeewyvitaTmsgavsi qmedebebi da SromiT migrantTamiRebis pirobebi gaeumjobesebinaT1.

SromiTi migrantebisa da maTi ojaxe-bis wevrTa dacvis Sesaxeb saerTaSorisokonvencia gaerom kenWisyris gareSe mi-iRo 1990 wels.2 igi yvelaze farTo saer-TaSoriso konvenciaa, romelic SromiTimigrantebisa da maTi ojaxebis rogorcsamoqalaqo da politikur, ise ekonomi-kur, socialur da kulturul ufleba-Ta dacvas isaxavs miznad, da konkretu-lad gansazRvravs SromiTi migrantebisada maTi ojaxis wevrebis uflebebs mx-olod saxelmwifoTa valdebulebebTanerTad, maTi imigraciuli politikisa dapraqtikis gaTvaliswinebiT.3

konvenciis miRebiT ganisazRvra Sro-miT migrantTa uflebebi da am uflebaTauzrunvelyofis saSualebebi. masSi gaer-Tianebulia 30-wliani diskusiebi, maTSoris: gaeros adamianis uflebaTa kvle-vebi, daskvnebi da rekomendaciebi, eqspe-rtTa Sefasebebi, debatebi da gaeros re-zoluciebi SromiT migrantebTan dakav-SirebiT.4

2007 wlis martSi aRniSnuli konvenci-is monawile ukve 51 saxelmwifoa, aqedan37-ma moaxdina misi ratificireba.5

1. `SromiTi migrantebisa da maTiojaxis wevrebis uflebaTa dacvisSesaxeb~ saerTaSoriso konvenciis

mokle mimoxilva

SromiTi migrantebis konvencia aZli-erebs da avsebs gaero-s adamianis ufle-baTa ZiriTad xelSekrulebebSi gatare-bul principebsa da debulebebs.6

128


konvencia7 iTvaliswinebs im mini-maluri standartebis gatarebas, racgulisxmobs SromiTi migrantebisa damaTi ojaxis wevrebis mimarT saxelmwifo-Ta mxridan aucileblad gasatarebel Ro-nisZiebebs, saimigracio statusis miuxe-davad, anu saxelmwifosTvis mniSvnelobaar unda hqondes SromiTi migrantebisa damaTi ojaxis wevrebis warmomavlobas, – isyvela sxva moqalaqis msgavsad unda icav-des maTs uflebebsa da Rirsebas.

migrantebTan dakavSirebul yvelasxva saxis instrumentTan SedarebiT kon-venciis pirveli nawili ̀ SromiTi migran-tebis~ cnebis yvelaze amomwurav gan-martebas gvaZlevs8. konvencia vrcelde-ba ganusxvaveblad yvela migrant muSasada maTi ojaxis wevrebze. miuxedavad imi-sa, rom konvenciis amkrZalavi safuZv-lebis CamonaTvali ilustraciulia daaraamomwuravi, is mainc ufro srulia,vidre adamianis uflebaTa sxva konven-ciebSi warmodgenili safuZvlebi.9

konvencia qveyanaSi legalurad myofda mudmivi statusis mqone yvela SromiTmigrants aniWebs damatebiT uflebebs.yvela im SromiT migrantsa da maTi ojax-is wevrebs, romlebic legalurad imyofe-bian an floben mudmiv statuss damsaq-mebel saxelmwifoSi, ufleba aqvT, iyvnensrulad informirebulni maTi momavalisamuSao pirobebis Sesaxeb, aseve samuSaopirobebTan dakavSirebul sxva sakiTxeb-ze (37-e muxli).

konvencia avaldebulebs monawilesaxelmwifoebs SromiTi migrantebis, ro-gorc individebis, pativiscemas, igi gvTa-vazobs saerTaSoriso migraciis mimarTnormaluri, samarTliani, humanuri dakanonieri pirobebis SeqmnisaTvis xelSew-yobis CarCoebs.10

2. SromiT migrantTa komitetis

saqmianoba

2.1. SromiT migrantTa komiteti daSromiT migrantTa uflebebis dacvismonitoringis meqanizmebi

samwuxarod, nebismier konvenciasTanSeerTeba ar niSnavs imas, rom masSi Camo-Tvlili uflebebi da movaleobebi saTa-nadod da ganuxrelad Sesruldeba. amitomTavad konvenciiT gaTvaliswinebulia

konvenciis aRsrulebaze pasuxismgebeliorganoebis Camoyalibeba, raTa moaxdinoskonvenciis implementaciis monitoringi.11

ZalaSi Sesvlis mere12 SromiTi migran-tebis konvenciis 72-e muxlis safuZvelzeSeiqmna SromiTi migrantebisa da maTiojaxis wevrebis uflebaTa dacvis komi-teti13, romelic Sedis gaeros adamianisuflebaTa umaRlesi komisris ofisis Se-madgenlobaSi.14

SromiTi migrantebis komiteti damo-ukidebel eqspertTa jgufia, romelicmonitorings uwevs monawile saxelmwifo-Ta mier SromiTi migrantebis konvenciisimplementacias.15

SromiTi migrantebis komitetma Tavi-si pirveli sesia 2004 wels Caatara. komi-tetis Sexvedrebi yovelwliurad ewyoba.gaeros generaluri mdivani winaswar (racSeiZleba adre) atyobinebs komitetismonawileebs rogorc Sekrebis adgils, iseTariRs.16

Tavad komiteti Tavisi muSaobis Sem-cvel angariSebs aqveynebs yovelwli-urad.17 angariSebi sajaroa da xelmisawv-domi. maTi gacnoba SesaZlebelia inter-netiTac. angariSebSi ZiriTadad warmod-genilia informacia imaze, Tu ras axor-cielebs komiteti.18

monitoringis gasaumjobeseblad mni-Svnelovania aseve komitetTa Tavmjdoma-reebisa da komitetTaSorisi Sexvedreb-is rolis aRniSvna. gaeros generalurmaasambleam 1983 wlidan daawesa aseTi Sex-vedrebi, romelTa ZiriTadi mizani xel-Sekrulebebis aRsrulebaze zedamxedve-li komitetebis muSaobis srulyofaa.pirvelad komitetTa TavmjdomareebisSexvedra 1984 wels Sedga, 1995 wlidan kiaseTi Sexvedrebi yovelwliurad ewyoba.19

imarTeba aseve komitetTaSorisi Sex-vedrebi, romelTa20 mTavari sakiTxi sam-uSao meTodebis harmonizaciaa.

2.2. monawile saxelmwifoTaangariSebis ganxilva SromiTi migrantebis komitetis mier

komitetis ZiriTadi movaleobaaSromiTi migrantebis konvenciis imple-mentaciis monitoringi, monawile sax-elmwifoTa mier warmodgenili angariSe-bis ganxilvis safuZvelze.

129

angariSTa sistemis ZiriTadi mizanisaxelmwifos Sesabamisobis monitoring-is saSualebas iZleva.

yvela monawile saxelmwifo valdebu-lia, waradginos regularuli angariSe-bi maT mier konvenciis gamoyenebis mizniTmiRebuli zomebis Sesaxeb.21 angariSebiswardgena savaldebuloa SromiTi migran-tebis konvenciasTan SeerTebis mere, er-Ti wlis ganmavlobaSi, SemdgomSi ki yovelxuT weliwadSi erTxel da maSinac, rode-sac amas komiteti moiTxovs.22 maTSi miTi-Tebuli unda iyos faqtorebi da siZne-leebi (aseTTa arsebobis SemTxvevaSi), ro-mlebic gavlenas axdenen aRniSnuli kon-venciis ganxorcielebasa da praqtikaSimisi debulebebis gamoyenebaze. angari-SebSi aseve Seitaneba dainteresebuli mo-nawile saxelmwifos informacia migra-ciuli nakadebis aRweraze23 da, rac kidevsainteresoa da mniSvnelovani monitor-ingis TvalsazrisiT, es moxsenebebi saja-rod unda gamoqveyndes aRniSnul qveynebSi.24

komitets SemuSavebuli aqvs angari-Sis formisa da Sinaarsis wesebis Semcve-li dokumentic25, romelic iTvaliswinebszogadi xasiaTis informaciis ganyofi-lebas.26

garda imisa, rom monitoringis gamw-evi komitetebi SeimuSaveben direqtivebssaxelmwifoebis mier angariSebis dawer-isaTvis, azusteben konvenciis debuleba-Ta zogad ganmartebebs, awyoben konvenci-asTan dakavSirebul diskusiebs. komitetisfunqciaSi aseve Sedis SromiTi migrant-ebis konvenciis monawile saxelmwifoTamier konvenciis pirobebis Sesrulebisgamyarebis xelSewyoba.

2.3. saxelmwifoTaSorisi saCivrebisprocedura SromiTi migrantebiskonvenciis mixedviT

SromiTi migrantebis konvenciis 76-emuxlis debulebaTa gaTvaliswinebiT, amkonvenciis monawile romelime saxelmwi-fos ufleba aqvs, werilobiT mimarTosmeore saxelmwifos, Tu Tvlis, rom igiarRvevs an ar asrulebs konvenciiT nak-isr valdebulebebs. sami Tvis ganmavlo-baSi, werilobiTi Setyobinebis miRebisSemdeg, saxelmwifo werilobiTve warud-

gens gamomgzavn saxelmwifos axsna-gan-martebas an nebismier sxva gancxadebas.

msgavsi werilobiTi formiT erTmasaxelmwifom meoris Sesaxeb SeiZleba mi-marTos aseve Sesabamis komitets. Sety-obinebis miRebidan 12 Tvis ganmavlobaSikomiteti waradgens angariSs. Tu sakiTxidadebiTad gadawyda, komiteti Tavis an-gariSSi Semoifargleba faqtebisa da sa-kiTxis gadaWris mokle mimoxilviT. ma-gram, Tu ver moxerxda sakiTxis dadebi-Tad gadawyveta, komitetis angariSmaunda moicvas dainteresebul saxelmwi-foTa Soris wamoWril sakiTxebTan dakav-Sirebuli faqtebis CamonaTvalic.

praqtikuli Tu diplomatiuri mize-zebidan gamomdinare, saxelmwifoebi eri-debian da zogjer sulac ar surT saxelm-wifoTaSoris davebSi Cabma. amasve adas-turebs marTlmsajulebis saerTaSorisosasamarTlos gamocdileba. kargad Camoy-alibebul sasamarTlo sistemaSic ki, ma-galiTad, evropis kavSirsa da evropis sa-bWoSi, Zalian mcirea saxelmwifoTaSorissaCivarTa ricxvi.27

aseTi saxis ganacxadebi Cabardebagaero-s generalur mdivans, romelicugzavnis aslebs SromiTi migrantebiskonvenciis monawile sxva saxelmwifoeb-sac. msgavsi werilobiTi ganacxadi Sei-Zleba nebismier dros iqnes gauqmebuligeneraluri mdivnisaTvis Setyobinebisgagzavnis gziT.

mSvidobisa da uSiSroebisaTvis raimexifaTis Seqmnis SemTxvevaSi gaeros uSiS-roebis sabWos SeuZlia Careva, imis miuxe-davad, Tu vis mier iqna Setanili saCi-vari.28

yvela zemoaRniSnuli proceduraZalaSi Seva maSin, rodesac SromiTi mi-grantebis konvenciis monawile aTi sax-elmwifo mainc cnobs SromiTi migrante-bis komitetis uflebamosilebas, raTakomitetma ganixilos erT-erTi saxelm-wifos ganacxadi, rom meore saxelmwifoar asrulebs konvenciiT dakisrebulvaldebulebebs (konvenciis 76-e muxlisme-2 punqti).

saxelmwifoTaSorisi saCivrebi maincdarCeba saerTaSoriso samarTlis trad-iciuli bunebis erTgul da daSinebis ux-ifaTo saSualebad.29

n. kalandaZe, `SromiTi migrantebisa da maTi ojaxebis wevrebis uflebaTa dacvis ...

130


2.4. individualuri saCivrebis proce-dura SromiTi migrantebis konvenci-is mixedviT

individualuri saCivrebic erT-erTimeqanizmia, romliTac xdeba adamianisuflebaTa ganxorcieleba. ramdenadacSromiTi migrantebis konvenciiT gaTval-iswinebul individualuri saCivrebis mi-mReb meqanizms jerjerobiT ar dauwyiafunqcionireba, SromiTi migrantebis ko-mitets jerac ar SeumuSavebia procedu-ruli wesebi da ar gaaCnia gamocdilebaindividualur saCivrebis ganxilvasTandakavSirebiT. Tumca komitets SeuZlia,sxva organoebis mier SemuSavebuli pro-cedurebis msgavsad imoqmedos da analo-giuri meTodebiT ganaxorcielos Sromi-Ti migrantebis konvenciis 77-e muxlSigatarebul debulebaTa RonisZiebebi.30

rogorc zemoT aRvniSneT, sanqciisraRac elementi SeiZleba Seefardos sax-elmwifos, Tu aRmoCnda, rom igi arRvevsSeTanxmebiT masze dakisrebul valdebu-lebebs. swored aqedan gamomdinare, indi-vidualuri saCivrebi nawilobriv maincexmarebian adamianis uflebebTan dakav-Sirebul valdebulebaTa aRsrulebas –saxelmwifo, albaT, ufro Sesabamisadmoeqceva nakisr valdebulebebs, vidregariskavs raime damsjeli sanqciis Se-moRebas. uaryofiTi Sedegi saxelmwifosxSirad Tavisi kanonmdeblobis an praqti-kis Secvlisaken ubiZgebs.31 unda aRiniS-nos, rom individualur saCivarTa warma-teba ufro didia, roca momCivnisaTvis xe-lmisawvdomia adgilobrivi saSualebebi.32

3. sagangebo momxseneblebi

SromiT migrantTa uflebebis

monitoringis sistemaSi

adamianis uflebaTa monitoringissaerTaSoriso organoebi xSirad mimar-Taven momxseneblebs daxmarebisaTvis.

komisia sagangebo momxseneblisagan33

iTxovs migrantTa uflebebis ganxor-cielebis dabrkolebaTa ganxilvas, lega-luri da aralegaluri migrantebis CaTv-liT34.

sagangebo momxsenebeli migrantTauflebebis darRvevis SemTxvevaSi mo-wodebuli informaciis safuZvelze ug-zavnis saswrafo saCivrebsa Tu mima-

rTvebs saTanado saxelmwifos, raTagaarkvios arsebuli situaciebi, an/damiaqcevinos yuradReba maTze.35 special-ur momxsenebels exeba migrantis ufle-bebTan dakavSirebuli individualurisaCivrebisa da gansazRvrul qveyanaSimaTi saerTo situaciis aRmweri mima-rTvebis ganxilvac. sagangebo momxseneb-lis mier gagzavnilma mimarTvam SeiZle-ba gamoiwvios informaciis gamoTxovis,urTierTTanamSromlobis (sabraldebowerilebi), an/da sxva gadaudebeli mo-qmedebebi (saswrafo saCivrebi). sagange-bo momxsenebels SemuSavebuli aqvs spe-cialuri kiTxvaric, romelic xelmisawv-domia nebismieri adamianisaTvis. misi nax-va SesaZlebelia internetiTac.36 sagange-bo momxsenebels ufleba aqvs, gamoiTxo-vos informacia migrantTa uflebebisdarRvevaze xelisuflebis, xelSemkvrelimxareebis, mTavrobaTaSorisi da gaerossxva kompetenturi organoebisa Tu ara-samTavrobo organizaciebis daxmarebiT,migrantTa organizaciis CaTvliT, da mi-iRos Sesabamisi zomebi37, romlebic zemoTvaxseneT.

sagangebo momxsenebeli aseve axor-cielebs vizitebs qveynebSi,38 maTimTavrobebis mowvevis safuZvelze. qveya-naSi msgavsi vizitis ganxorcieleba argulisxmobs, rom qveynis mTavrobam daar-Rvia adamianis uflebebi, – igi situaci-is yvela SesaZlo detalSi garkvevis sa-Sualebas iZleva 39.

specialuri momxseneblebi adgenen,rom migrantebi gansakuTrebiT iCagrebi-an, Tu SeezRudebaT Tavisufleba. sax-elmwifoTa mier aralegaluri migraci-is SemcirebasTan dakavSirebuli RonisZ-iebebi arRveven migrantTa uflebebs.legaluri satatusis armqone SromiTimigrantebi xSirad ver iReben saTanadodaxmarebas verc mimRebi qveynisagan, vercTavianTi sakonsuloebis warmomad-genelTagan. sakonsulo dawesebulebebsxSirad ar yofniT kvalificiuri person-ali. zogierT SemTxvevaSi sakonsuloebiar cnoben usabuTo migrantebs TavianTmoqalaqeebad, risi mizezic legaluristatusis arqonaa40.

daucvelia migrant bavSvTa uflebe-bic, maT ar gaaCniaT TavianTi uflebebisdacvis raime garanti. miuxedavad imisa,rom maT mimarT mxolod ukidures SemTx-

131

vevebSi unda gamoiyenebodes adminis-traciuli dakaveba, xSirad mainc mimar-Taven am RonisZiebas.41

sagangebo momxsenebeli aRniSnavs,rom saxelmwifos mier migraciis wesebisdarRveva ar unda iwvevdes damrRvevi mi-grantis, rogorc damnaSavis, mimarT da-mokidebulebas. sagangebo momxseneblebixSirad ar iReben mniSvnelovani raodeno-bis saxelmwifoTa mxridan aranair in-formacias maTs praqtikasa Tu kanonmde-blobasTan dakavSirebiT.42

samwuxarod, legaluri migraciisdrosac SeimCneva uflebebis darRveva.diskriminacia da antimigraciuli ideo-logia iseTi faqtorebia, romlebic yve-la migrantze moqmedebs, iqneba is lega-luri Tu aralegaluri statusis mqone.

ueWvelia, momxsenebelTa muSaobamSerCeul uflebebsa da Tavisuflebebzedidad gazarda adamianis uflebaTa mniS-vneloba. ufro metic, momxseneblebismier Segrovili kvlevebisa da sxva sta-tistikuri monacemebis gamoyeneba Sei-Zleba saerTaSoriso da regionuli orga-noebis dasaxmareblad standartebis gan-viTarebis sakiTxSi.43

4. arasamTavrobo organizaciebis

roli gaeros monitoringis sistemaSi

arasamTavrobo organizaciebi regu-larulad monawileoben gaeros samuSaojgufebSi44, magram arasamTavrobo orga-nizaciebis mier miwodebul informaciasoficialuri statusi yvela komitetSiar gaaCnia.45

amJamad, saxelmwifoTa angariSebis ganx-ilvisas, gaeros komitetTa wevrebi arasam-Tavrobo organizaciaTa mier mowodebulinformacias sakmaod farTod iyeneben.

unda aRiniSnos aseve, rom gaeros eko-nomikuri da socialuri sabWos 1996 wlissesiaze erT-erT sakiTxad ixileboda gan-kargulebebi arasamTavrobo organizaci-ebTan mosaTaTbireblad. am dokumentSiganxiluli erT-erTi principis mixed-viT, arasamTavrobo organizacias undahqonoda warmomadgenlobiTi struqturada organizaciis saqmianobis makontro-lebeli wevrebis pasuxismgeblobis meqa-nizmebi.46 Tumca warmomadgenlobis aseTisazomebiT gansjas ar mieca ufro zustiganmarteba.47

SeiZleba iTqvas, kacobrioba Tanda-Tan aanalizebs arasamTavrobo organi-zaciaTa rols da maTi monawileoba sulufro mniSvnelovani da Rirebuli xdebagaeros monitoringis sistemaSic.

5. adamianis uflebaTa dacvis monitor-

ingis sistemis problemebi

rogorc ukve aRvniSneT, adamianissaerTaSoriso uflebebi samarTlis Se-darebiT axali sistemaa da mxolod or-mocdaaTze odnav meti wlis istoria aqvs.

ukanaskneli ocdaTxuTmeti wlis gan-mavlobaSi saxelmwifo midgoma adamianisuflebebisadmi mkveTrad Seicvala. amJa-mad TiToeuli saxelmwifo aRiarebs ad-amianis uflebebs, magram mudmivad rCebakiTxva: ra xarisxiT? samwuxarod, saxelm-wifoebis mier dokumentebze xelmoweramxolod sxvebis dasanaxad xdeba.

gaerosa da regionuli organizacie-bis wevrTa raodenobis zrdam gamoiwviaadamianis uflebebisadmi miZRvnili do-kumentebis xelmomwer saxelmwifoTa ra-odenobis zrda. miuxedavad amisa, es su-lac ar daemTxva implementaciis monito-ringis makontrolebel uwyebaTa resu-rsebisa Tu saSualebebis zrdas.

garda amisa, problemaa zogierT sax-elmwifosTan xelSekrulebebis kvlavacratificirebaze dialogebis warmarTva.aqve unda aRiniSnos, rom bevri saxelm-wifo konvencias mxolod daTqmebis ga-keTebis SemTxvevaSi aRiarebs. sayovel-Tao ratificirebis miRwevis sawyis eta-pze daTqmebi, albaT, uaryofiT mxaredunda ganvixiloT.48

angariSebis sistemas xSirad susts uwo-deben, vinaidan is damokidebulia saxelm-wifos mxridan Sesabamisobis survilze.xSir SemTxvevaSi angariSebi formaluri daprozaulia, faqtobrivad, im kanonTa game-orebaa, romlebic SesabamisobaSia dadge-nil normebTan. Tu saxelmwifos rati-ficirebuli aqvs gaeros yvela (Svidive)ZiriTadi xelSekruleba, moeTxoveba Svi-di angariSi, albaT, maTi umravlesoba erT-sa da imave dros; Svidive angariSis ward-gena saWiroa JenevaSi an niu-iorkSi damoiTxoveba Svidi sxvadasxva daskvna.gadadgmulia nabijebi erTi ZiriTadi do-kumentis Seqmnisaken. amgvari ZiriTadi sax-elmZRvanelo principebis proeqti Seiqmna


132


2004 wels, Tumca unda aRiniSnos, rom maspraqtikaSi cota saxelmwifo Tu iyenebs –mas arc vinme uWers mxars da arc vinmegmobs.49

CamorCena erT-erTi seriozuli sak-iTxia. Tu gaviTvaliswinebT, rom saxelm-wifoTa angariSebis ganxilvas saSualodsami weli sWirdeba, xolo perioduli an-gariSis wardgena savaldebuloa or weli-wadSi erTxel, problema aSkaraa. gaerosSeuZlia sanqciebis Sefardeba, Zalisgamoyeneba da, bolos da bolos, wevrobisCamorTmeva. wesdebis Tanaxmad, nebismiersaxelmwifos, romelic ar asrulebs or-ganizaciis moTxovnebs, SeiZleba eTxovosmisi rigebis datoveba. miuxedavad amisa,mas xSirad urCevnia saxelmwifos sakuTarrigebSi datoveba, vidre misi gagdeba damasze kontrolis mTlianad dakargva.

monawile saxelmwifoTa daswreba imSexvedraze, romelzec ganixileba maTiangariSebi, sasargeblo ki aris, magrammasTan dakavSirebuli xarjebi amas Seu-Zlebels xdis. sesiebis raodenobis zrdaaseve procesis daCqarebis erT-erTigzaa, Tumca aq kvlavac mTavaria resur-sebis problema. gaeros monitoringisuwyebaTa Rrma finansuri sirTuleebigamoaaSkarava venis deklaraciam da samo-qmedo gegmam da adamianis uflebaTa mso-flio konferenciam.

bolo wlebSi mudmivi diskusia mim-dinareobs gaeros moxsenebis sistemisracionalizaciaze. mTavrobaTa valde-bulebaa, zogjer erTsa da imave sakiTxe-bze moxsenebebi warudginon sxvadasxvaperiodulobis sistemiT momuSave ram-denime saxelSekrulebo organos. moxse-nebebis mniSvnelovani dagvianebiT ward-gena da zogierTi saxelSekrulebo orga-nos mxridan moxsenebaTa ganxilva asevemniSvnelovnad Wianurdeba.50

garda amisa, monawileTa raodenobisgazrda dakavSirebulia Targmanis xar-jebis zrdasTan. gaeroSi angariSebi un-da iTargmnos gaeros oficialur enebze(Cinuri, inglisuri, franguli, rusuli,espanuri da arabuli) da SeiZleba kidevsxva enebze. angariSebis reziumeebi amJa-mad mzaddeba inglisur da frangul eneb-ze mxolod imitom, rom Semcirdes ward-genis dagvianebis SemTxvevebi, magramgaero kvlavac moiTxovs angariSebis yve-la oficialur enaze Targmnas maTs ofi-

cialur gamoqveynebamde. Tumca saukeTe-so, risi varaudic SeiZleba, aris gaerosmier finansuri saxsrebis ekonomiuradgamoyeneba.

miuxedavad imisa, rom zogierT SemTx-vevaSi adamianis uflebebi irRveva ekono-mikuri faqtorebis gamo, ufro xSiradaRniSnulis mizezebi politikuria. gaerossistemaSi problemaa is, rom darRvevaklasificirebuli unda iyos rogorc mu-qara saerTaSoriso mSvidobisa da uSiS-roebis mimarT, gansazRvrebis mixedviT kikomitetis mier miRebuli bevri individ-ualuri saCivari amgvarad ar kvalifici-rdeba. amas emateba isic, rom individu-aluri Setyobinebebi arasakmarisad gamo-iyeneba. individualuri saCivrebis ganx-ilvis procesi unda iyos ufro swrafi,sajaro, srulad dasabuTebuli da masunda mohyves gadawyvetilebis Sesrule-ba. saxelSekrulebo monitoringis yvelaorganos mieca winadadeba, mieRoT Ses-rulebasTan dakavSirebuli procedure-bi da zomebi, romlebic maT gauCenda an-gariSebis droulad Cabarebis survils.51

generalurma mdivanma aRniSna sax-elSekrulebo monitoringis organoTamuSaobis modernizebis aucilebloba.Tumca es nawilobriv mimarTulia ufrosaxelmwifoTa mier angariSebis Sedgena-sTan dakavSirebuli muSaobis Semcirebi-saken, vidre gaeros finansuri mdgomar-eobis Semsubuqebisaken. mimdinareobsTanamSromlobis ganmtkiceba xelSek-rulebis monitoringis uwyebebs Soris daangariSgebasTan dakavSirebuli miTiTe-bebis modernizeba.52 arsebuli sistemasakmaod araefeqtiania misken mimarTuliresursebis gaTvaliswinebiT.53

6. saqarTvelo da qarTvel

SromiT migrantebTan

dakavSirebuli problemebi

sabWoTa kavSiris daSlis SemdegsaqarTveloSi mimdinare socialur-eko-nomikurma procesebma qveynidan migraci-is farTo masStabebi gamoiwvia. kvlevisSedegebidan gamomdinare, intensiuri mi-graciis mTavari ganmapirobebeli saqar-Tvelos mosaxleobis cxovrebis donisgauaresebaa.54

XX saukunis 20-ian wlebSi saqarTve-los soflebSi SromiTi resursebis bune-

133

brivi mateba maRali iyo da adgilobriviSromiTi bazrebi ver uzrunvelyofdnensamuSao Zalis miwodebis moTxovniT da-balansebas, ramac mosaxleobis migraciagamoiwvia, gansakuTrebiT miwiT naklebaduzrunvelyofili mTiani da eTnikuriumciresobebiT kompaqturad dasaxlebu-li regionebidan.

amJamad SromiTi migraciis saSuale-biT saqarTveloSi aseulaTasobiT ojaxiiRebs saarsebo Tanxas. qveyanaSi ki Semo-dis samuSao Zalis eqsportiT miRebulimniSvnelovani valuta55.

yvelaze mniSvnelovani faqtori, ro-melic gansazRvravs saqarTvelodan ara-legaluri migraciis samomavlo poten-cials, aris socialur-ekonomikuri gan-viTareba da is, Tu ramdenad did sarge-bels miiRebs saqarTvelos mosaxleobanebismieri progresidan. Tu mosaxleobisumravlesoba kvlav gaWirvebaSi darCeba,unda vivaraudoT, rom saqarTvelodanaralegaluri migracia arsebiTad verSemcirdeba56.

saqarTvelos mTavrobis yvelazerTuli amocanaa sazRvargareT migraci-is stimulis Semcireba saqarTvelos mo-qalaqeTaTvis socialur-ekonomikuripirobebis gaumjobesebiT. mso-m da sxvasaerTaSoriso organizaciebma TavianTTavze aiRes valdebuleba, daxmareba gau-wion saqarTvelos mTavrobas am amocaneb-is SesrulebaSi.57

bolo ramdenime wlis manZilze msodakavebulia mniSvnelovani saqmianobiT:es aris saqarTvelos migraciuli kanon-ebis farTod ganxilvisa da maTi erTiankanonmdeblobad gaerTianebis xelSewyo-ba, rac migraciis yvela aspeqts daareg-ulirebs. saqarTvelos sinamdvileSi ararsebobs aqtiuri samoqalaqo Careulo-bis tradicia da amgvar nabijebs Zaliancota Tu dgams. amis nacvlad motyuebu-li klientebi amjobineben samarTlis sak-uTar xelSi aRebas, piradad ukavSirde-bian trefikerebsa da samuSaoze amyvanebs,zewolas axdenen maTze da moiTxoven fu-lis dabrunebas. xalxma zogjer ar icis,sad Seitanos saCivari da ar endobian sa-marTaldamcav struqturebs, rogorebi-caa: policia da prokuratura.

sakanonmdeblo baza jerjerobiT ara-sakmarisia, marTvis struqtura da poli-tika ki adekvaturi ar aris ukanono mig-

raciis organizatorTa winaaRmdeg myaripoziciis dasafiqsireblad, da es maSin,roca saqarTvelom gaeros adamianis uf-lebaTa TiTqmis yvela ZiriTad xelSek-rulebas moawera xeli. analitikosebiacxadeben, rom mTavrobis zogierT war-momadgenels finansuri interesi aqvsturistuli firmebisa da dasaqmebis Suamav-lebis muSaobisadmi, rac xsnis im faqts, romukanono migraciisa da trefikingis amde-nad bevri organizatori kvlav praqti-kulad dausjelad agrZelebs saqarTve-loSi saqmianobas.58

xalxs saqarTveloSi ZiriTadad araqvs warmodgenili, Tu ra riskTan arisdakavSirebuli migracia.

amas garda, saxelmwifo moxeleebi in-fomirebulni unda iyvnen aralegalurimigraciisa da trefikingis ganmartebis,xasiaTisa da gavrcelebis sferoTa Sesax-eb seminarebisa da simpoziumebis saSu-alebiT. maT agreTve unda gaiaron specia-luri treningi, raTa gansazRvron Tavi-anTi roli misi Tavidan acilebisa da kon-trolis saqmeSi.59

es is sferoa, sadac saqarTvelos mTa-vrobam sadaveebi Tavis xelSi unda aiRos,saerTaSoriso sazogadoebam ki mas mxariunda dauWiros.

daskvna

2005 wels msoflioSi 185-idan 192 mil-ionamde migranti dafiqsirda,60 rac mso-flio mosaxleobis daaxloebiT sam pro-cents Seadgens. migraciis sakiTxiT mra-vali gamgzavni, tranzituli Tu mimRebiqveyanaa dainteresebuli. migracia glo-balizaciis mniSvnelovani elementi gax-da,61 aucilebelia, ukeT vicodeT mosax-leobis saerTaSoriso gadaadgilebebismizezi da ganviTarebasTan maTi rTulikavSiri62. SromiTi migrantebisa da maTiojaxis wevrTa sakiTxi adamianis ufle-bebSi yvelaze rTulia. Tanamedrove an-tiimigraciul klimatSi bevr ganviTare-bul industriul qveyanaSi ekonomikurmigrantebs yovelTvis eqmnebaT proble-mebi. rTul ekonomikur periodebSi isinipolitikosebisa da mediis samizned iqce-vian da sazogadoebisaTvis safrTxed mi-iCnevian, gansakuTrebiT es dasaqmebisqveyanaSi aralegalurad SesulT exebaT.aralegaluri migrantebi xSirad so-


134


cialuri keTildReobis uzrunvelmyofiqveynisTvis aRiqmebian e.w. ̀ mimTviseble-bad~, kriminalebad, anda problemis po-tenciur gamomwvevebad.

migracias didi wvlili Seaqvs Tan-amedrove socialur da ekonomikur urT-ierTobaTa ganviTarebasa da gardaqmna-Si. didia SromiTi migraciis roli msof-lios mravali qveynis ganviTarebaSic.SromiTi migracia obieqturi realobaada, xSirad, garegnulad uaryofiTi fo-nis miuxedavad, ufro meti dadebiTi mo-mentis Semcvelia, vidre uaryofiTisa.63

marTalia, iuristebma Camoayalibesadamianis saerTaSoriso uflebaTa stan-dartebi, magram maTi ganxorcielebisaT-vis aucilebelia TanamSromloba poli-tikosTa mxridan. garkveul mizezTa gamosaxelmwifoebi Sors dganan saerTaSori-so samarTlis potencialis sruli gamoy-enebisagan.64 bevri saxelmwifo, maT Sorisdidi saxelmwifoebi, ar Cqaroben mis pro-gresul ganviTarebas, risi damamtkicebe-li faqtebic praqtikaSi mravladaa.65

gaeros aTwliani programa aseTive dama-mtkicebeli sabuTia, is, samwuxarod, nak-lebad Seicavs iseT debulebebs, rom-lebic srulyofen samarTlebriv norma-Ta realizacias.66 monitoringis saerTa-Soriso meqanizmebi, maT Soris moxsenebi-sa da saCivris procedurebi, SromiTi mi-grantebis uflebaTa Sidasaxelmwifoe-brivi dacvisaTvis mxolod damatebiT sa-Sualebebia.67

SromiTi migrantebis konvenciaSi ga-tarebul principebs ase Tu ise garkveu-li gavlena mainc aqvT ama Tu im qveyanasada regionze. zog mimReb qveyanaSi Semcir-da antimigraciuli ganwyoba.68 praqtikagviCvenebs, rom standartebis dadgenasada maTs ganxorcielebas Soris didi gan-sxvavebaa. saerTaSoriso sazogadoebamkonkretulad daasaxela is ZiriTadi uf-lebebi da Tavisuflebebi, rac garanti-rebuli unda iyos yvelasaTvis. maTi sax-elmwifos doneze amuSaveba ukve TviT

saxelmwifos, xolo maTi gamoyeneba Ti-Toeuli individis saqmea. rac mTavariada rasac TviT gaero aRiarebs, adamianisuflebaTa ganxorcielebis gzaze ZalzemniSvnelovani sakiTxia ganaTlebis miRe-ba. is sazogadoebis fundamenturi Rire-bulebebisakenaa mimarTuli. TiToeulmamoqalaqem unda icodes Tavisi uflebebi.

rac Seexeba mdgomareobas saqarTve-losTan mimarTebiT: saqarTveloSi sam-uSao adgilis moZieba uaRresad rTulia,xolo dasaqmebidan miRebuli Semosavle-bi ar aris sakmarisi sakuTari Tavisa daojaxis rCenisaTvis. swored dasaqmebisSesaZleblobebis SezRuduloba da Sro-mis bazris normaluri funqcionirebi-saTvis pirobebis ararseboba, samuSao Za-lis dabali anazRaureba aiZulebs saqar-Tvelos mosaxleobis yvelaze aqtiur naw-ils, eZebos samuSao da arsebobis wyaroqveynis gareT, Tundac piradi RirsebisSelaxvisa da Tavisuflebis dakargvisfasad. saxelmwifo marTvis sistemis da-gegmili reorganizaciisa da restruq-turizaciis Sedegad dasaqmebulTa rao-denoba mniSvnelovnad Semcirda.

arsebulma situaciam aCvena, rom sa-Wiroa daCqardes gaerosa da Sromis saer-TaSoriso organizaciis (Sso) im konven-ciebTan saqarTvelos mierTebis proce-dura, romlebic saerTaSoriso donezeqmnian SromiTi migraciis regulirebissamarTlebriv safuZvlebs. maTgan pirvelrigSi aRsaniSnavia gaeros saerTaSorisokonvencia ~SromiTi migrantebisa da maTiojaxis wevrebis uflebebis dacvis Sesax-eb~. Sso-m da sxva saerTaSoriso organiza-ciebma unda uzrunvelyon daxmareba dasaerTaSoriso eqspertebis kvalificiu-ri rCevebi aralegalur migraciasa datrefikingTan dakavSirebuli samTavro-bo politikisaTvis. mniSvnelovania, mTa-vroba, sazogadoeba da saerTaSoriso sa-zogadoebrioba erToblivad muSaobdnenda axorcielebdnen am mimarTulebiTRonisZiebebs.

1 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, The Interna-tional Convention on Migrant Workers and its Committee, Fact Sheet No. 24(Rev.1), p. 3. ekonomikuri da socialuri sabWos 1973 wlis moTxovnis safuZ-velze umciresobaTa dacvisa da diskriminaciis aRmofxvris qvekomi-siam 1976 wels miiRo aqti kanonsawinaaRmdego da faruli trefikingis

135


Sedegad Sromis gamoyenebaze. aRniSnuli aqti gaeros mouwodebda, Se-eqmna konvencia, romelic daicavda SromiTi migrantebis uflebebs.swored am rekomendacias gamoexmaura msoflios rasizmisa da rasistu-li mopyrobis winaaRmdeg brZolis 1978 wlis Jenevis konferencia, xologeneraluri asambleis 33/163 rezoluciaSi aRiniSna mdgomareobis gaum-jobesebis da adamianis uflebebisa da SromiTi migrantebis Rirsebisdacvis uzrunvelmyofi zomebis Sesaxeb.

2ix. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_treaty_bodies, aseve: ManfredNowak, Introduction to the International Human Rights Regime, The Raoul Wal-lenberg Institute, Human Rights Library, Volume 14, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,Leiden/Boston, 2003; asborn eide, katarina krauze, alan rosasi, ekono-mikuri, socialuri da kulturuli uflebebi, saxelmZRvanelo, meoreganaxlebuli gamocema, Targmani nana jafariZe-WyoiZisa, 2005, gv. 456.

3asborn eide, katarina krauze, alan rosasi, ekonomikuri, socialuri dakulturuli uflebebi, saxelmZRvanelo, meore ganaxlebuli gamocema,Targmani nana jafariZe-WyoiZisa, 2005, gv. 456.

4 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, The Interna-tional Convention on Migrant Workers and its Committee, Fact Sheet No. 24(Rev.1), p. 1.

5ix. http://www.ohchr.org/english/countries/ratification/13.htm, 2006.6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_treaty_bodies, 2006.7konvencia Sedgeba preambulisa da cxra nawilisagan: preambula, 1.gamoy-

enebis sfero da terminTa ganmartebebi; 2.uflebebTan mimarTebiTaradiskriminacia; 3.SromiTi migrantebisa da maTi ojaxis wevrTa ufle-bebi; 4.legaluri da mudmivi statusis mqone SromiTi migrantebisa damaTi ojaxis wevrTa sxva uflebebi; 5.debulebebi, romlebic gamoiyenebaSromiTi migrantebisa da maTi ojaxis wevrTa konkretuli kategorieb-is mimarT; 6.SromiTi migrantebisa da maTi ojaxis wevrTa saerTaSorisomigraciisaTvis normaluri, samarTliani, humanuri da kanonieri pirobe-bis SeqmnisaTvis xelSewyoba; 7.konvenciis gamoyenebis sfero; 8.zogadidebulebebi; 9. daskvniTi debulebebi.

8 kerZod, konvenciis me-2 muxlis 1-li punqti gansazRvravs SromiT mi-grants, rogorc ̀ pirs, romelic iqneba, aris da iyo dakavebuli anazRau-rebadi saqmianobiT im saxelmwifoSi, romlis moqalaqec is ar aris.~

9ix.: saerTaSoriso paqti ̀ ekonomikuri, socialuri da kulturuli ufle-bebis Sesaxeb~, saerTaSoriso paqti `samoqalaqo da politikuri ufle-bebis Sesaxeb~.


11gaeros adamianis uflebaTa ZiriTadi xelSekrulebebis (1966 wlis saer-TaSoriso paqti `samoqalaqo da politikuri uflebebis Sesaxeb~ (Tavisifakultatiuri oqmebiT), 1966 wlis saerTaSoriso paqti èkonomikuri,socialuri da kulturuli uflebebis Sesaxeb~, 1965 wlis konvencia ̀ ra-sobrivi diskriminaciis yvela formis aRmofxvris Sesaxeb~, 1979 wliskonvencia `qalTa diskriminaciis yvela formis likvidaciis Sesaxeb~,1984 wlis konvencia `wamebisa da sxva sastiki, araadamianuri an RirsebisSemlaxavi mopyrobisa da sasjelis winaaRmdeg~, 1989 wlis ̀ bavSvis ufle-baTa konvencia~, 1990 wlis saerTaSoriso konvencia `yvela migranti mu-Sisa da maTi ojaxis wevrTa uflebebis dacvis Sesaxeb) implementaciismonitoringze momuSave organoebs warmoadgenen komitetebi. arsebobsadamianis uflebaTa Svidi komiteti, romlebic Seqmnilia Sesabamisi xe-lSekrulebis pirobebis implementaciis monitoringisaTvis.

12 20 qveynis mier ratifikaciis Semdeg.13 gaeroSi arsebobs adamianis uflebaTa Svidi komiteti. isini ixilaven

saxelmwifoTa angariSebs, individualur saCivrebsa da mimarTvebs, aqvey-neben zogad komentarebs, romlebic ZiriTad sakiTxebsa da muSaobisprincipebis interpretacias exeba. arsebobs aseve komitetTa Tavmjdoma-reebisa da komitetTaSorisi Sexvedrebis procedura. TiToeuli komi-tetis funqciaa gaeros Svidi ZiriTadi konvenciis pirobebis implemen-taciis monitoringi, kerZod: adamianis uflebaTa komiteti (HumanRights Committee (HRC) )zedamxedvelobs 1966 wlis ̀ samoqalaqo da poli-

136


tikuri uflebebis Sesaxeb~ saerTaSoriso paqtis (Tavisi fakultatiurioqmebiT) monitorings, ekonomikur, socialur da kulturul ufleba-Ta komiteti(Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR))_ 1966 wlis ̀ ekonomikuri, socialuri da kulturuli uflebebis Sesax-eb~ saerTaSoriso paqtis, rasobrivi diskriminaciis aRmofxvriskomiteti(Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) _1965 wlis `rasobrivi diskriminaciis yvela formis aRmofxvris Sesaxeb~konvenciis, qalTa mimarT diskriminaciis aRmofxvris komiteti (Com-mittee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)) _ 1979wlis `qalTa diskriminaciis yvela formis likvidaciis Sesaxeb~ kon-venciis, wamebis sawinaaRmdego komiteti(The Committee Against Torture(CAT)) _ 1984 wlis `wamebisa da sxva sastiki, araadamianuri an RirsebisSemlaxavi mopyrobisa da sasjelis winaaRmdeg~ konvenciis, bavSvTa ufle-bebis komiteti (The Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC)) _ 1989 wlis`bavSvis uflebaTa~ konvenciis, SromiTi migrantebis komiteti (The Com-mittee on Migrant Workers (CMW)) _ 1990 wlis `yvela migranti muSisa damaTi ojaxis wevrTa uflebebis dacvis Sesaxeb~ saerTaSoriso konvenci-is implementaciis monitorings.

14gaeros adamianis uflebaTa komisia – adamianis uflebebis dacvisa dapopularizaciisaTvis momuSave ZiriTadi organo. dafuZnda 1946 wels(gaeros ekonomikuri da socialuri sabWos mier). komisris funqciebSiSedis msoflio masStabiT adamianis uflebebis dacva, monitoringi, misiganviTareba, popularizacia da adamianis uflebaTa kodifikaciac.

15komitetis SemadgenlobaSi amJamad aris 10 damoukidebeli eqsperti. eqs-pertTa raodenoba 41-e saxelmwifos mier ratifikaciis Semdgomgaizrdeba 14-amde. eqspertebis arCeva xdeba monawile saxelmwifoebismier faruli kenWisyris safuZvelze. gaiTvaliswineba rogorc SromiTimigrantebis warmoSobis, ise maTi damsaqmebeli qveynebis teritoriebzeeqspertTa SedarebiT Tanabrad gadanawileba. monawile eqspertebi Ta-vianTi movaleobis Sesasruleblad airCevian oTxi wliT. komitetiswevrebis raodenobis naxevari airCeva yovel or weliwadSi erTxel. maTiuflebamosilebis ganxorcieleba iwyeba yoveli wlis 1 ianvars da srul-deba meoTxe wlis 31 dekembers (konvenciis 72-e muxlis me-5 punqtis a)qvepunqtis Tanaxmad). gamonaklisia SemTxveva, rodesac konvencia Zala-Si Seva 41-e saxelmwifosaTvis da airCeva damatebiT oTxi damoukidebe-li eqsperti. am eqspertTagan ors irCevs monawile saxelmwifoTa Sex-vedris Tavmjdomare kenWisyris safuZvelze. maTi uflebamosilebis vadaor welia (72-e muxlis me-5 punqtis b) qvepunqti). Tu eqsperti daiRupebaan gadadgeba dakavebuli Tanamdebobidan, an uars ganacxadebs movale-obebis Sesrulebaze raime sxva mizeziT, maSin komiteti dauyovneblivmoiTxovs sxva kandidatis dasaxelebas imave wevri saxelmwifos mier,romelsac wina kandidatura hyavda warmodgenili. dasaxelebuli kan-didati Tavis uflebamosilebas ganaxorcielebs im vadaSi, ra droc hqon-da wina kandidats darCenili (72-e muxlis me-6 punqti). gaeros genera-luri mdivani aucilebeli personaliTa da pirobebiT uzrunvelyofskomitetis funqciebis ganxorcielebas. komitetis wevrebi sargeblobenSeRavaTebiTa da privilegiebiT, eqspertebisaTvis miniWebuli imuni-tetiT (72-e muxlis me-9 punqti). komiteti Tavis wevrebs Soris irCevsTavmjdomares, sam vice-Tavmjdomaresa da momxsenebels. komitetis wevr-Ta arCevisas imarjvebs xmaTa umravlesobis mqone piri. Tu warmodgeni-lia erTi kandidatura, komitets SeuZlia, sxva damatebiTi procedure-bis gareSe dadebiTad gadawyvitos misi arCevis sakiTxi (75-e muxli).

16 http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G04/414/27/PDF/G0441427.pdf?OpenElement.

17 http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cmw/annual_reports.htm, 2008.18aRniSnuli informacia Seicavs organizaciul da sxva sakiTxebs: muSao-

bis meTodebs, dainteresebul mxareebTan TanamSromlobis pirobebs,SromiTi migrantebis konvenciis monawile saxelmwifoTa mier konvenciis73-e muxlis mixedviT warmodgenil angariSebs, konvenciis 74-e muxlismixedviT, konvenciis monawile saxelmwifoTa mier angariSTa ganxilvasda damatebiT warmodgenil sxva informacias.

137


19komitetTa Tavmjdomareebis mier gansaxilveli sakiTxebi fokusirebu-lia teqnikuri xasiaTis problemebze, rac gaeros komitetTaSorisi daspecialuri procedurebis informaciis urTierTgacvlas ukavSirde-ba. garda amisa, ewyoba araoficialuri konsultaciebi ama Tu im xelSek-rulebis monawile saxelmwifoebTan, gaeros partniorebTan daarasamTavrobo organizaciebTan.

20 pirveli aseTi Sexvedra moewyo 2002 wels JenevaSi.21 http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cmw/index.htm22 saerTaSoriso konvencia `SromiTi migrantebisa da maTi ojaxis wevrTa

dacvis Sesaxeb~, 73-e muxlis .1-li punqti;aseve: http://www.un.org/russian/documen/convents/migrant7.htm23 saerTaSoriso konvencia `SromiTi migrantebisa da maTi ojaxis wevrTa

dacvis Sesaxeb~, 73-e muxlis me-2 punqti;aseve: http://www.un.org/russian/documen/convents/migrant7.htm24 saerTaSoriso konvencia `SromiTi migrantebisa da maTi ojaxis wevreb-

is dacvis Sesaxeb, 73-e muxlis, me-4 punqti;aseve: http://www.un.org/russian/documen/convents/migrant7.htm25 United Nations, HRI, International Human Rights Instruments, Distr., General

Hri/Gen/2/Rev.2/Add. 1, 6 May 2005, Original: English, Compilation of Guidelineson the Form and Content of Reports to be Submitted by States Parties to theInternational Human Rights Treaties.

26 angariSis es nawili unda Seicavdes:a) SromiTi migrantebis konvenciis monawile saxelmwifos aRniSnu-

li konvenciis implementaciisaTvis konstituciuri, sakanonmdeblo,sasamarTlo da administraciuli CarCoebis, aseve migraciasTan dakav-Sirebuli ormxrivi, regionuli Tu mravalmxrivi SeTanxmebebis aRweras;b) migraciul nakadebze (imigraciis, tranzitis, emigraciis) ricxobrivda xarisxobriv da, rac SeiZleba, detalur informacias; g) realurimdgomareobis, iseve rogorc konvenciis implementaciasTan dakavSire-buli sakiTxebis, aRweras da konvenciis debulebebis Seusruleblobisgamomwvevi mizezebis gansazRvras; d) monawile saxelmwifos mier konven-ciis gavrcelebisa da konvenciaSi gatarebuli debulebebis mxardasa-Werad samoqalaqo sazogadoebasTan TanamSromlobisaTvis gatarebuliRonisZiebebis Sesaxeb informacias (United Nations, HRI, International Hu-man Rights Instruments, Distr., General Hri/Gen/2/Rev.2/Add. 1, 6 May 2005, Original:English, Compilation of Guidelines on the Form and Content of Reports to beSubmitted by States Parties to the International Human Rights Treaties, p.2).

angariSis meore nawili unda Seicavdes konvenciis saTiToo muxl-Tan, kerZod, konkretuli saxelmwifos mier konvenciis debulebebis im-plementaciasTan, dakavSirebul informacias. imisaTvis, rom saxelmwi-foebs gauadvildeT angariSis warmodgena, angariSis formisa da Sinaar-sis wesebis Semcveli dokumenti moicavs CamonaTvals, Tu ra Tanmimdevro-biT unda moxdes angariSSi informaciis warmodgena (United Nations, HRI,International Human Rights Instruments, Distr., General Hri/Gen/2/Rev.2/Add. 1,6 May 2005, Original: English, Compilation of Guidelines on the Form and Con-tent of Reports to be Submitted by States Parties to the International HumanRights Treaties, p.2-5).

angariSis meore nawilis a) punqti aucileblad unda Seicavdeszogad principebze miTiTebas, kerZod SromiTi migrantebis konvenciis1-li muxlis 1-l qvepunqtsa da me-7 muxlSi (aradiskriminaciuloba), 83-e(uflebaTa dacvis efeqturi saSualebebi) da 84-e (saxelmwifos valde-buleba kovenciis pirobebis Sesrulebaze) muxlebSi gatarebul princi-pebTan SesabamisobaSi saxelmwifos mier gatarebul RonisZiebebs; b) punq-tSi SromiTi migrantebis konvenciis mesame nawilis (SromiTi migrante-bisa da maTi ojaxis wevrTa adamianis uflebebi) muxlebTan Sesabamiso-baSi gatarebuli RonisZiebebi Camoiwereba. gansazRvruli Tanmimdevro-biT konvenciis mesame nawilis TiTqmis yvela muxlSi gatarebuli ufleb-is Sesabamisad unda iqnes moyvanili informacia am uflebis implementa-ciasa da Sedegebze (me-8, me-9 da me-10; me-11; me-12, me-13 da 26-e; me-14 dame-15; me-16.1_me-16.4, me-17 da 24-e; me-16.5-me_16.9, me-18 da me-19; me-20;21-e, 22-e da 23-e; 25-e, 27-e, 28-e; 29-e, 30-e, 31-e; 32-e da 33-e); g) punqtiSromiTi migrantebis konvenciis me-4 nawilis (legaluri da mudmivi sta-

138


tusis mqone migrantebisa da maTi ojaxis wevrTa sxva uflebebi) muxlebsSeexeba. aqac arsebobs angariSSi muxlebis gansazRvruli Tanmimdevro-biT dacvis wesi (37-e, 38-e, 39-e, me-40, 41-e, 42-e, 43-e; 54-e, 55-e; 44-e da 50-e; 45-e da 53-e; 46-e, 47-e, 48-e; 51-e, 52-e; 49-e da 56-e); d) punqti SromiTimigrantebis konvenciis me-5 nawilSi arsebul (debulebebi, romlebicgamoiyeneba SromiTi migrantebisa da maTi ojaxis wevrebis konkretulikategoriebis mimarT) muxlebTan dakavSirebiT saxelmwifos mier gatare-bul RonisZiebebze unda gvawvdides informacias (aq unda mieTiTos kon-venciis 57-e muxlidan 63-e muxlis CaTvliT saxelmwifos mier gatarebu-li RonisZiebebis Sesaxeb); e) punqti SromiTi migrantebis konvenciis me-6 nawilis (SromiTi migrantebisa da maTi ojaxis wevrTa saerTaSorisomigraciisTvis normaluri, samarTliani, humanuri da kanonieri pirobe-bis SeqmnisTvis xelSewyoba) muxlebs unda exebodes (65-e muxlidan 71-emuxlis CaTvliT SromiTi migrantebis konvenciis monawile saxelmwi-fos mier gatarebuli RonisZiebebis Sesaxeb informacia).

27asborn eide, katarina krauze, alan rosasi, ekonomikuri, socialuri dakulturuli uflebebi, saxelmZRvanelo, meore ganaxlebuli gamocema,Targmani nana jafariZe-WyoiZisa, 2005, gv. 219.

28 iqve.29iqve.30 http://www.un.org/russian/hr/complaints/procedures1.htm#631asborn eide, katarina krauze, alan rosasi, ekonomikuri, socialuri da

kulturuli uflebebi, saxelmZRvanelo, meore ganaxlebuli gamocema,Targmani nana jafariZe-WyoiZisa, 2005, gv. 221.

32generaluri asambleis uflebaTa da valdebulebaTa deklaraciis me-9muxlSi gancxadebulia yvela adamianis ufleba, iCivlos darRvevebTandakavSirebiT rogorc saxelmwifo, aseve saerTaSoriso doneze.

33amJamad specialuri momxseneblebi arian: gabriela rodriges pizaro(kosta rika) 1999 wlidan da j.a. bustamante (meqsika), 2005 wlis agvis-todan (Res. 2005/47).

34sagangebo momxseneblis ZiriTadi funqciebia: a)SromiTi migrantebisada maTi ojaxis wevrTa uflebebis darRvevebTan dakavSirebiT infor-maciis Segroveba yvela mniSvnelovani wyarodan, migrantebis CaTvliT;b)SromiTi migrantebis uflebebis darRvevaTa Sesawyvetad da ufleba-Ta dasacavad saTanado rekomendaciebis SemuSaveba; g)saTanado saerTa-Soriso normaTa da standartebis efeqturi gamoyenebis xelSewyoba;d)erovnul, regionalur da saerTaSoriso doneze migrantTa uflebeb-is dasacavad moqmedebaTa da saSualebaTa gamoyenebaze rekomendacieb-is gaweva; e)informaciis moTxovnisas an analizisas gaiTvaliswinos sqe-sobrivi Sesabamisoba da gansakuTrebuli yuradReba miaqcios migrantqalTa miimarT diskriminaciuli da Zalismieri meTodebis gamoyenebas.http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/migration/rapporteur/index.htm

35 http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/monitoring/chapter19.html#H – Addressing thehuman rights situation through UN mechanisms, thematic procedures

36 http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/docs/mmig-quest_ru.doc37 http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/docs/mmig-quest_ru.doc38 http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/migration/rapporteur/visits.htm39 amJamad gaeroSi Semaval qveyanaTa mandatebi moicavs avRaneTs, kongos

demokratiul respublikas, haitis, eraysa da palestinis 1967 wlidanokupirebul teritoriebs. Tematuri mandatebi moicavs adamianTa iZu-lebis an iZulebiTi gauCinarebisa da TviTneburi dapatimrebis sakiTxe-bze momuSave jgufebs.

40 Îðãàíèçàöèÿ îáúåäèíåííûõ íàöèé, ýêîíîìè÷åñêèé è ñîöèàëüíûé ñîâåò Distr. Gen-eral E/CN.4/2003/85,30 December 2002, RUSSIAN, Original: English, Êîìèññèÿ ïî ïðàâàì÷åëîâåêà, Ïÿòüäåñÿò äåâÿòàÿ ñåññèÿ, Ïóíêò 14 à) ïðåäâàðèòåëüíîé ïîâåñòêè äíÿ,Êîíêðåòíûé ãðóïïû è ëèöà, òðóäÿùèåñÿ-ìèãðàíòû, Äîêëàä Ñïåöèàëüíîãî, äîêëàä÷èêàã-æè Ãàáðèýëû Ðîäðèãåñ Ïèñàððî, ïðåäñòàâëåííûé â ñîîòâåòñòâèè ñ ðåçîëþöèåé2002/62, Êîìèññèè ïî ïðàâàì ÷åëîâåêà, ñòð. 3.

41 Îðãàíèçàöèÿ îáúåäèíåííûõ íàöèé, ýêîíîìè÷åñêèé è ñîöèàëüíûé ñîâåò Distr. Gen-eral E/CN.4/2003/85,30 December 2002, RUSSIAN, Original: English, Êîìèññèÿ ïî ïðàâàì÷åëîâåêà, Ïÿòüäåñÿò äåâÿòàÿ ñåññèÿ, Ïóíêò 14 à) ïðåäâàðèòåëüíîé ïîâåñòêè äíÿ,Êîíêðåòíûé ãðóïïû è ëèöà, òðóäÿùèåñÿ-ìèãðàíòû, Äîêëàä Ñïåöèàëüíîãî, äîêëàä÷èêà

139


ã-æè Ãàáðèýëû Ðîäðèãåñ Ïèñàððî, ïðåäñòàâëåííûé â ñîîòâåòñòâèè ñ ðåçîëþöèåé

2002/62, Êîìèññèè ïî ïðàâàì ÷åëîâåêà, ñòð. 19.42 Îðãàíèçàöèÿ îáúåäèíåííûõ íàöèé, ýêîíîìè÷åñêèé è ñîöèàëüíûé ñîâåò Distr. Gen-

eral E/CN.4/2003/85,30 December 2002, RUSSIAN, Original: English, Êîìèññèÿ ïî ïðàâàì

÷åëîâåêà, Ïÿòüäåñÿò äåâÿòàÿ ñåññèÿ, Ïóíêò 14 à) ïðåäâàðèòåëüíîé ïîâåñòêè äíÿ,

Êîíêðåòíûé ãðóïïû è ëèöà, òðóäÿùèåñÿ-ìèãðàíòû, Äîêëàä Ñïåöèàëüíîãî, äîêëàä÷èêà

ã-æè Ãàáðèýëû Ðîäðèãåñ Ïèñàððî, ïðåäñòàâëåííûé â ñîîòâåòñòâèè ñ ðåçîëþöèåé

2002/62, Êîìèññèè ïî ïðàâàì ÷åëîâåêà, ñòð. 31.43 asborn eide, katarina krauze, alan rosasi, ekonomikuri, socialuri

da kulturuli uflebebi, saxelmZRvanelo, meore ganaxlebuli gamoce-ma, Targmani nana jafariZe-WyoiZisa,2005, gv. 222.

44 Mobilization of the Conscience of Mankind: Conditions of Effectiveness of Human RightsNGOs Peter R. Baehr Professor and Director Netherlands Institute of Human Rights(SIM) Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands, NGOs: The People's Voice in Internation-al Governance?,Leon GordenkerProfessor Emeritus Princeton University Princeton, NJ,USA Presentations Made at a UNU Public Forumon Human Rights and NGOs on 18September 1996, UNU, Tokyo, Japan , - Reliability.

45 arasamTavrobo organizaciebis mier miwodebul informacias oficial-uri statusi aqvs: wamebis sawinaaRmdego komitetSi, ekonomikur, social-ur da kulturul uflebaTa komitetsa da bavSvis uflebaTa komitetSi,xolo adamianis uflebaTa komitetSi, qalTa mimarT diskriminaciis aR-mofxvris komitetsa da rasobrivi diskriminaciis aRmofxvris komitetSimoxvedrili arasamTavrobo organizaciaTa informaciis statusi nak-lebad oficialur xasiaTs atarebs, Tumca es ar niSnavs, rom igi nakle-bad mniSvnelovania. arasamTavrobo organizaciebs ufleba aqvT, weri-lobiTi moxsenebebi waradginon ekonomikur, socialur da kulturuluflebaTa komitetSi da monawileoba miiRon zogadi diskusiisaTvisgamoyofil dRes Catarebul ganxilvebSi. arasamTavrobo organizacie-bs ufleba aqvT, komitetis winaSe gamovidnen ara mxolod werilobiT,aramed sityviTac. ix. asborn eide, katarina krauze, alan rosasi,ekonomikuri, socialuri da kulturuli uflebebi, saxelmZRvanelo,meore ganaxlebuli gamocema, Targmani nana jafariZe-WyoiZisa 2005, gv.502.

46 Un/Scetdg/29/Inf. 63, Ecosoc Resolution 1996/31: Arrangements for Consulta-tion With Non-Governmental Organizations, Part 1. Principles to be Applied in theEstablishment of Consultative Relations, 12.

47 Mobilization of the Conscience of Mankind: Conditions of Effectiveness of Hu-man Rights NGOs Peter R. Baehr Professor and Director Netherlands Instituteof Human Rights (SIM) Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands, NGOs: The Peo-ple's Voice in International Governance?,Leon GordenkerProfessor EmeritusPrinceton University Princeton, NJ, USA Presentations Made at a UNU PublicForumon Human Rights and NGOs on 18 September 1996, UNU, Tokyo, Japan- Representativeness

48 asborn eide, katarina krauze, alan rosasi, ekonomikuri, socialurida kulturuli uflebebi, saxelmZRvanelo, meore ganaxlebuli gamoce-ma, Targmani nana jafariZe-WyoiZisa, 2005, gv. 230.

49 iqve, gv. 232-234.50 asborn eide, katarina krauze, alan rosasi, ekonomikuri, socialuri

da kulturuli uflebebi, saxelmZRvanelo, meore ganaxlebuli gamoce-ma, Targmani nana jafariZe-WyoiZisa, 2005, gv. 503.

51 asborn eide, katarina krauze, alan rosasi, ekonomikuri, socialurida kulturuli uflebebi, saxelmZRvanelo, meore ganaxlebuli gamoce-ma, Targmani nana jafariZe-WyoiZisa, 2005, gv. 232-243.

52 UN Doc. A/58/351 p.7.53 asborn eide, katarina krauze, alan rosasi, ekonomikuri, socialuri

da kulturuli uflebebi, saxelmZRvanelo, meore ganaxlebuli gamoce-ma, Targmani nana jafariZe-WyoiZisa, 2005, gv. 239.

54 davide terci, migraciis saerTaSoriso organizaciis saqarTvelosmisiis xelmZRvaneli, SromiTi migracia saqarTvelodan – migraciis saer-TaSoriso organizaciis angariSi, Tb., 2003, gv. 5.

140


55 rogorc Sromis saerTaSoriso organizaciis eqspertTa Sefasebebi miu-TiTebs, SromiT migrantebs weliwadSi fulisa da saqonlis saxiT SeaqvTsaSualod 2000 aSS-is dolari, anu TveSi saSualod 166.7 dolari. es cifriTiTqmis emTxveva saqarTveloSi saSualo gzavnilis sidides – 162, 4 aSSdolars. saerTaSoriso organizaciis saqarTvelos misiis xelmZRvane-li, SromiTi migracia saqarTvelodan – migraciis saerTaSoriso orga-nizaciis angariSi, Tb., 2003, gv. 61.

56 statistikis saxelmwifo departamentis informaciiT, 1990-1998 wlebSisaqarTvelo datova 194 600-ma qarTvelma. damoukidebeli eqspertebi kiacxadeben, rom es cifri Zalian dabalia. maTi gamoTvliT, imave peri-odSi saqarTvelodan wavida 1 638 000 qarTveli _ es ki Zalian didicifria, Tu gaviTvaliswinebT imas, rom 1990 wlis dasawyisSi saqarTve-los mTliani mosaxleoba iyo 5 421 700-sa (damoukidebeli eqspertebisinformaciiT) da 5 456 100-s (mTavrobis informacia) Soris.

57`gaWirveba sazRvargareT Tu SimSili samSobloSi~, saqarTvelodan ara-legaluri migraciis kvleva, migraciis saerTaSoriso organizacia, se-qtemberi, 2001 weli, gv. 6.

58iqve.59 iqve, gv. 67-69.60 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Migrant_Workers61 http://www.un.org/russian/topics/reform/refordoc/part2.htm62 Migrant Workers in International Human Rights Law Their Protection in Coun-

tries of Employment, Ryszard Chelewinski, Clarendod Press Oxford, 1997, p.V,ix. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=74392289

63saerTaSoriso organizaciis saqarTvelos misiis xelmZRvaneli, SromiTimigracia saqarTvelodan – migraciis saerTaSoriso organizaciis an-gariSi, Tb., 2003.

64 amJamad msoflioSi ar arsebobs adamianis uflebebze momuSave raimesaerTaSoriso tribunali, Tumca gaeros zogierTi komiteti muSaobskvazisasamarTlo mimarTulebiT (International Human Rigths MonitoringMechanisms, Essays in honour of Jakob Th. Möller, The Raoul Wallenberg Insti-tute Human Rights Library, Volume 7, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hagu/Boston/London, Kluwer Law International, 2001, p. 133), `miukerZoebeli msa-julTa jgufi, romelic funqcionirebs proceduris sakuTari wesis Se-sabamisad da romelsac SeuZlia arCeuli mxareebis eqspertTa Cvenebismosmena sakuTari azris gamoTqmamde (romelic samarTlebrivad ar arissavaldebulo). process, romelSic monawileobas iRebs iseTi organoe-bi, rogoricaa adamianis uflebaTa komiteti da rasobrivi diskrimi-naciis yvela formis aRmofxvris komiteti (romelsac SeuZlia indi-vidualuri saCivrebis miReba), aqvs sasamarTlos saxe. adamianis ufle-baTa zogierTi aspeqtis win wamoweva ruandisa da yofili iugoslaviissisxlis samarTlis sagangebo tribunalebis damsaxurebaa". adamianissaerTaSoriso uflebebi, saxelmZRvanelo, meore gamocema, rona k.m. smi-ti, oqsfordis universitetis gamomcemloba, 2005, gv. 217.

65 magaliTad, dRemde SromiTi migrantebis konvencia miRebuli ar aqvsarc erT did saxelmwifos, risTvisac ix.: http://www.ohchr.org/english/coun-tries/ratification/13.htm

66 saqarTvelo da saerTaSoriso samarTali, statiaTa krebuli, Tb., 2001,gv. 25-26, ix. aseve: http://www.un.org/esa/about_esa.html

67 asborn eide, katarina krauze, alan rosasi, ekonomikuri, socialurida kulturuli uflebebi, saxelmZRvanelo, meore ganaxlebuli gamoce-ma, Targmani nana jafariZe-WyoiZisa, 2005, gv. 525.

68 http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=288

141

NONA KALANDADZE

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OFALL MIGRANT WORKERS AND MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILIES AND UNMONITORING MECHANISMS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS

OF MIGRANT WORKERS AND MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILIES

INTRODUCTION

Labour migration is a very important as-pect of globalization and an expression of theprocesses of international integration. It hasrapidly accelerated in the aftermath of WorldWar II. It was reasoned by current political andeconomic processes, normalization of the re-lations among the countries, reinforcement ofpolitical, labour and social rights of aliens onthe one hand and facilitation of communica-tions between the different States, reductionof transportation prices and increase of thelevel of awareness of the population on theother hand.

The collapse of the socialist system had agreat impact on the migration trend of theworld. The rapid deterioration of living stan-dards and increasing political instability gen-erated new waves of migrations. The devel-opment of migration from Georgia was equal-ly affected and determined by economic col-lapse and the newly emerging trends of la-bour force supply and demand on the domes-tic, as well as international labour market.

For the first time its serious interest hasbeen expressed by the Organization of Unit-ed Nations in 1972, since the Economic andSocial Council in its resolution 1706 (LIII) ex-pressed alarm at the illegal transportation oflabour to some European States and at theexploitation of workers from some AfricanStates "in conditions akin to slavery and forcedlabour”. Later the same year, the General As-sembly in its resolution 2920 (XXVII) con-demned discrimination against foreign work-ers and called upon Governments to end suchpractices and to improve reception arrange-ments for migrant labours.1

International Convention on the Protectionof the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Mem-bers of Their Families was adopted by the UNwithout the ballot in 1990.2 This convention isthe broadest international convention in theworld, which aims at the protection of civil andpolitical as well as economic, social and cul-tural rights of the labour migrants and theirfamilies. It defines the rights of the labour mi-grants and the members of their families indetails, only together with the obligations ofthe States in a view of there immigration poli-cy and practices.3

By adopting the Convention, the rights ofthe labour migrants and the remedies to en-sure their rights have been defined. It involves30-years discussions, including UN research-es on human rights, opinions and recommen-dations, expert assessments, debates and UNresolutions on the labour migrants.4

51 States were the members of the con-vention by March, 2007, among them 37States have ratified this convention.5

1. SHORT OVERVIEW OF THE INTERNATIONAL

“CONVENTION ON THE PROTECTION OF THE

RIGHTS OF ALL MIGRANT WORKERS AND

MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILIES”

Convention on Migrant Workers strength-ens and completes principles and provisionsstipulated in the basic treaties on human rightsof the UN.6

The Convention7 stipulates the implemen-tation of such minimum standards, which im-plies the conduction of necessary activities bythe State in relation to the labour migrants andtheir families, in spite of emigration status, sothe origin of the labour migrants and mem-

142


bers of their families shall not be important forthe States, they shall equally to other citizensprotect their rights and dignity.

In comparison to all other instruments onthe migrants, the first part of the Conventionprovides for the comprehensive definition ofthe term “Migrant Workers”8. The Conventionapplies equally to all migrant workers andmember of their families. In spite of the factthat, the list of restrictions is illustrative andnon-comprehensive, it is still more completethan the grounds stated by the other Conven-tions on Human Rights.9

The Convention grants all migrant work-ers who are documented and in regular sta-tion with the additional rights. All migrant work-ers and members of their families legally re-siding or having a permanent status in theState of employment shall have the right to befully informed on their future working condi-tions, as appropriate, as well as on the otherissues related to their working conditions (Ar-ticle 37).

The Convention bounds the State partiesto respect migrant workers as individuals, itprovides for the frames of support to createnormal, fair, human and lawful conditions inrelation to the international migration.10

2. ACTIVITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON MIGRANT

WORKERS

2.1. Committee on Migrant Workers andMonitoring Mechanisms of the Protectionof Rights of Migrant Workers

Unfortunately accession to any conven-tion does not mean that the listed rights andobligations will be performed appropriately andsteadily. Therefore the Convention providesfor the creation of the bodies responsible forthe implementation of the Convention aimedat monitoring of process of implementation ofthe Convention.11

After the entry into force12 on the basis ofArticle 72 of the Convention on the MigrantWorkers the Committee on the protection ofthe rights of migrant workers and members oftheir families was established,13 which is a com-ponent of the office of the UN High Commis-sioner for Human Rights.14

The Committee on the Migrant Workers isan independent group of experts, which mon-itors the implementation of the Convention onthe Migrant Workers by the States.15

The Committee on Migrant Workers heldits first session in 2004. The meetings of theCommittee take place annually. SecretaryGeneral of the UN preliminary informs the par-ticipants of the committee on the place as wellas on the date of the meeting (as early aspossible).16

The Committee is publishing its reports onthe activities annually.17 The report is publicand accessible. They can be also found in in-ternet. The reports mainly provide for infor-mation on the activities of the committee.18

For the enhancement of monitoring it is alsoimportant to underline the role of meetings ofChairmen and inter-committee meetings. The UNGeneral Assembly has introduced such meet-ings since 1983, which aims at enhancement ofactivity of the committees supervising the exe-cution of treaties. First meeting of the Chairmenof the Committees was held in 1984, but from1995 such meetings take place annually.19

Also inter-committee meetings are beingheld aimed at20 harmonization of working methods.

2.2. Examination of the Reports of theMember States by the Committee onMigrant Workers

The main task of the Committee is moni-toring the implementation of the Conventionon the Migrant Workers on the basis of re-ports submitted by the Member States.

The main aim of the system of reports pro-vides an opportunity to monitor the compati-bility of the State.

Each Member State shall be obliged tosubmit the regular reports on the measurestaken for the implementation of the Conven-tion.21 The Submission of the report is manda-tory within one year after the entry into forceof the Convention for the State Party con-cerned, thereafter every five years and when-ever the Committee so requests.22 The reportsshall also indicate factors and difficulties (ifany) affecting the implementation of the Con-vention and shall include information on thecharacteristics of migration flows in which theState Party concerned is involved,23 Iand whichis also interesting and important in the scopeof monitoring, these reports shall be widelyavailable to the public in their own countries.24

The Committee has also elaborated the doc-ument containing the form and content of re-port,25 which provides for the section of infor-mation of a general nature.26

143

Furthermore, monitoring committees elab-orate directives for the States to write reports,clarify general definitions of the provisions ofthe Convention, and arrange discussions re-lated to the Convention. One of the functionsof the committee also includes the promotionof enhancement of implementation of provi-sions of the Convention by the State Partiesto the Convention on migrant workers.

2.3. Procedure of Interstate AppealsAccording to the Convention onMigrant Workers

In accordance with the provisions of Arti-cle 76 of the Convention on Migrant workers,any State Party to this Convention is entitledto address another State in written form if con-siders that this State violates or does not per-form the obligations under the Convention.After three months from the date of receipt ofthe written notification, the State shall submitexplanation or any other statement in writtenform to the sending State.

Similar written notification regarding the oth-er State shall be submitted to the relevant com-mittee by any State. Within 12 months fromthe date of receipt of such notification the com-mittee shall submit a report. If the decision ispositive, the committee will refer only facts andsolution methods in its report. But if it is notpossible to solve the issue positively, the re-port of the committee shall include list of factsrelated to issue raised between the States con-cerned.

From practical or diplomatic point of view,the States avoid and sometimes even do notwant to be involved in disputes between theStates. It is proved also by the experience ofInternational Judiciary. Even in well foundedcourt systems such as in EU and Council ofEurope, the amount of interstate appeals isvery low.27

Such kind of applications shall be deliv-ered to the UN Secretary General, who shallsend their copies to the other member Statesto the Convention on Migrant Workers. Suchwritten notification shall be any time abolishedby sending notification to the Secretary General.

In case of threat to peace and security theUN Security Council may intervene, despitethe facts who lodged the complaint. 28

All abovementioned procedure shall comeinto force when ten States Parties to the Con-

vention on Migrant Workers recognize thecompetence of the Committee on migrantworkers to consider communications to theeffect that a State Party claims that anotherState Party is not fulfilling its obligations (Arti-cle 76, paragraph 2 of the Convention).

Interstate appeals shall remain faithful andintimidating safe means of traditional natureof international law.29

2.4. Procedure of Individual Appealsin Accordance with the Conventionon Migrant Workers

Individual appeals are one of the mecha-nisms implementing human rights. As themechanism of receiving individual appealsdoes not operate yet, procedural rules are notelaborated by the Committee on Migrant Work-ers and thus it does not have an experiencein the field of individual appeals. However theCommittee may operate similarly to the pro-cedures established by other bodies and im-plement activities, stipulated by Article 77 ofthe Convention on Migrant Workers, throughthe same methods.30

As it is already mentioned a certain elementof sanction may be imposed on a State, if it vio-lates obligations under the treaty. Therefore,individual appeals partially help the performanceof obligations related to human rights – perhapsthe State will have an appropriate approach tothe obligations, rather than risk to introduce apunitive sanction. Negative results often push aState to change its legislation or practice.31 Itshould be mentioned that the success of indi-vidual appeals is higher when local means areavailable to the claimant.32

3. SPECIAL RAPPORTEURS IN MONITORING

SYSTEMS OF LABOUR MIGRANTS

Human rights monitoring international or-ganizations often address to Rapporteurs forassistance.

The Commission requires special Rappor-teurs33 to discuss obstacles related to the im-plementation of migrant rights, including legaland illegal migrants.34

Upon receiving the information on viola-tion of rights of migrants, Special Rapporteurshall immediately send an appeal or addressto the relevant State, in order to clarify thesituation and/or to draw attention on them.35

N. KALANDADZE, INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF ALL ...

144


Special Rapporteur shall discuss individualappeals regarding rights of migrants and alsodiscuss applications defining general situa-tions in certain countries. The application ofSpecial Rapporteur may cause necessity ofrequesting information, mutual cooperation(accusatory letters) and/or other urgent ac-tivities (urgent appeals). Special Rapporteurhas elaborated special questionnaire, whichis available for any person. This can also befound on the internet.36 Special Rapporteur isentitled to request information on violation ofthe rights of migrants through the Authorities,contracting parties, intergovernmental andcompetent bodies of the UN or NGOs includ-ing migrant organizations and take abovemen-tioned appropriate measures.37

Special Rapporteur also holds visits in dif-ferent countries38 upon invitation of their Gov-ernments. Such visits do not necessarily meanthat the Government of the country has violat-ed human rights, but that gives opportunity toelucidate every possible detail of the situation.39

Special Rapporteurs determine that mi-grants are oppressed by deprivation of theirliberty. Activities of the States to decrease ir-regular migration violate the rights of migrants.Labour migrants having legal status oftencould not receive assistance neither from re-ceiving country nor from representatives ofconsulates of their countries. Consular postsoften have a lack of qualified staff. In somecases consulates do not recognize migrantswithout any documentation as their citizens be-cause of their illegal status.40

Rights of migrant children are not protect-ed as well, they are not guaranteed with anyprotection of their rights. Although, adminis-trative detention towards them should be usedonly as a last resort, this measure is appliedquite often.41

Special Rapporteur notes that violation ofmigration rules by the States shall not be areason to consider the violator migrant as anoffender. Special Rapporteurs often do notreceive any information from considerablenumber of States about their practices andlegislation.42

Unfortunately the rights are also violatedin cases of legal migration. Discrimination andanti-migration ideology reflect on each migrantwhether having legal or illegal status.

Undoubtedly, the work of Rapporteurs onselected rights and freedoms has greatly in-

creased the importance of human rights. Fur-thermore, researches and statistics collectedby Rapporteurs may be used in order to as-sist international and regional bodies in thefield of standard development.43

4. THE ROLE OF NGOS IN THE UN

MONITORING PROCESS

The NGOs are regularly taking part in theworking groups of the UN44, but the informa-tion provided by the NGOs does not have anofficial status in all committees.45

Currently while discussing the State re-ports the information provided by NGOs iswidely used by the UN committee members.

It shall be also mentioned that on the ses-sion of Economic and Social Council of UN in1996 orders to be consulted with NGOs wasdiscussed as one of the issue. In accordancewith the principles discussed in this document,the NGO should have representative structureand mechanism of responsibility of a membercontrolling the activity of the organization.46

However, consideration of representation withsuch dimensions has not been determined moreprecisely.47

Can be mentioned that mankind is ana-lyzing the role of NGOs and their participationalso in the monitoring system of the UN hasbecome more important and valuable.

5. PROBLEMS RELATED TO HUMAN RIGHTS

PROTECTION MONITORING SYSTEM

As it is already discussed above, interna-tional human rights are a new system and haveabout more than 50 years history.

Within last thirty-five years the State ap-proach to Human Rights has been dramati-cally changed. Nowadays each State recog-nizes human rights but the question still re-mains: in what quality? Unfortunately signa-ture of the documents by the States has a for-mal character.

The increasing number of the membersof the UN and regional organizations resultedin increased number of States signing the doc-uments devoted to human rights. However itdid not coincide with the increase of resourc-es and remedies of agencies controlling theimplementation process.

Still the problem is to initiate a dialoguewith number of States on ratification of a trea-

145

ty. It should be mentioned that many Statesrecognize the convention only after making areservation. At the initial stage of reachinguniversal ratification, the reservations shall beconsidered negatively.48

Reporting system is frequently consideredas a weak system, because it depends on awill of a State. In many cases reports have moreformal and prosaic character and, in fact, theyare repetition of those laws which are in comp-liance with the established norms. If a Statehas ratified all (seven) main treaties, it shallbe obliged to submit seven reports, perhapsmost of them at the same time to Geneva orNew York and to make seven different opin-ions. The draft of such guideline principles wereelaborated in 2004. However, a few States areimplementing them in practice. This project eitheris not supported or condemned by anybody.49

One of the serious problems is to be back-ward. Taking into consideration that discus-sion of the State reports takes approximatelythree years, while submission of periodicallyreports is obligatory once in two years, theproblem is obvious. The UN is entitled to im-pose sanctions, use of force and finally, dep-rivation of membership. In accordance toCharter any State who does not fulfill the re-quirements of the organizations, may be askedto leave its positions. Despite this, the UN pre-fers to leave a State on its positions ratherthan to deprive its membership and to losecontrol over it.

Participation of State parties during thediscussion process of their reports is useful,but the expenses related to their participationmake it impossible. One of the ways to speedup the process is to increase a number of ses-sions, but the problem of resources still re-mains to be important. Vienna declaration andaction plan as well as world conference onhuman rights revealed serious financial diffi-culties of Monitoring agencies of the UN.

Rationalization of the UN reporting systemhas been long discussed since the last years.Obligation of the Governments is to deliverreports on the same topics to several treatybased body operating with different periodi-cal systems. Submission of the reports withdelay and also considerable delay of discus-sion of reports by some treaty base bodies isa long lasting procedure.50

Furthermore, the increase of the partici-pants is related to the increase of translation

expenses. In the UN the reports shall be trans-lated into official languages of the UN (Chi-nese, English, French, Russian, Spanish andArabic languages) and may be also translat-ed into other languages. Currently the re-sumes are prepared only in English and Frenchin order to reduce the number of delays ofsubmission. Nevertheless, the UN still requiresthe reports to be translated into all official lan-guages before their publication. However, thebest that can be supposed is to use the finan-cial resources of the UN in the most economicway.

Despite the fact that in some cases humanrights are violated because of an economic fac-tor, in the most cases the reasons are political.The main problem in the UN system is that theviolation shall be classified as a threat to inter-national peace and security, but many individu-al appeals received by the Committee are notqualified in accordance with this definition. Inaddition, individual notifications are not appliedsufficiently. Consideration of individual appealsshall be rapid, public and well-grounded and befollowed by the decision. Every treaty monitor-ing body was proposed to take measures andprocedures related to the implementation, whichwould motivate them to submit reports in time.51

Un Secretary General underlined the ne-cessity of modernization of treaty monitoringbodies operation. However it is more directedto reduction of a cooperation in making re-ports, rather than facilitation of financial situ-ation of the UN. The cooperation between trea-ty monitoring agencies are developing andproposals in relation to the reports are mod-ernizing.52 The existing system with its resourc-es is quite inefficient.53

6. GEORGIA AND THE PROBLEMS RELATED TO

GEORGIAN LABOUR MIGRANTS

The political and economic processesunderway in Georgia since the breakdown ofthe former Soviet Union activated a large-scalemigration from the country. As confirmed bythe results of this study, the main factor lead-ing to the intensive migration of population fromGeorgia is the ongoing deterioration of thelocal social-economic conditions and, thus, of thestandard of living of the Georgian population.54

In 1990th natural increase of labour recours-es in villages was high and local labour mar-kets were not able to ensure to balance la-


146


bour forces with provisional requirement, whichled to the migration of population from moun-tainous regions and especially from regionssettled by ethnic minorities.

Currently, hundreds of thousands of fam-ilies are receiving living wage through labourmigration, while the country receives solidamount through export of labour forces.55

The most important factor that determinesthe future potential of irregular migration fromGeorgia is social-economic development andthe benefit that the population can have fromany progress. If the living condition of majori-ty of population remains in hardship, presum-ably irregular migration from Georgia will not re-duce.56

The most challenging task ahead for theGovernment of Georgia is to reduce the in-centives to migrate abroad by improving thesocial-economic conditions of Georgian citizens.Internacional OrganizaTion for Migration (IOM)and other international organizations have showna clear commitment to assist the Georgian gov-ernment in accomplishing these tasks.57

Within last decades IOM important activi-ties are: wide discussion of the laws of Geor-gia in the field of migration and promotion oftheir unification into common legislation, whichshall ensure to regulate all aspects of migra-tion. There in no civil inclusion practice in Ge-orgia and very small number of people are be-having in this way. Instead deceived clientsprefer to find justice themselves, they commu-nicate with traffickers and employers themse-lves, put pressure on and request to returnmoney. Sometimes people are not awarewhere to appeal and do not trust law enforce-ment bodies, such as police and prosecutorsoffice.

The legislative basis is as of yet insuffi-cient, and the management structures andpolicy focus are not adequate enough to beable to take a firm stance against organizersof irregular migration, despite the fact thatGeorgia has signed almost all UN treaties re-garding Human Rights. Some analysts claimthat certain government officials have vestedfinancial interests in the operation of tourismfirms and employment mediators, which couldserve as an explanation why so many orga-nizers of irregular migration can still operatein virtual impunity in Georgia.58

Generally people in Georgia do not haveany idea about the risks related to migration.

Furthermore, government officials shouldbe informed through seminars and sympo-siums on the definition, nature and incidenceof irregular migration and trafficking. Theyshould also be trained in determining whatroles they can play in its prevention and control.59

This is an area where the Government ofGeorgia has to take the lead, assisted by theinternational community.

CONCLUSION

In 2005, the number of international mi-grants is between 185 and 192 million.60 Thisrepresents approximately three per cent of theworld population. Nearly all countries are con-cerned by migration, whether as sending, tran-sit, or receiving countries. International migra-tion has become an intrinsic feature of glo-balization.61 We need better understanding ofthe causes of international flows of people andtheir complex interrelationship with develop-ment.62 The plight of migrant workers and theirfamilies is one of those intractable issues inthe field of human rights. In the current anti-immigration climate in many developed indus-trialized countries, economic migrants are of-ten misunderstood. They are easy targets forpoliticians and the media in difficult economictimes and are considered a threat to the hostsociety, particularly those that enter the coun-try of employment without authorization. Ille-gal migrants are frequently perceived as“scroungers” on the welfare state, as crimi-nals, or as potential trouble-makers.

Migration contributes to the transforma-tion of contemporary economic and social re-lations. Labour migration plays a great role inthe development of many countries in theworld. Labour migration is an objective realityand despite its predominantly negative per-ception, this process yields more benefits thandetriments.63

Although, lawyers have established inter-national standards of human rights, but in or-der to implement them cooperation with politi-cians is very necessary. Because of certainreasons the States do not use the potential ofinternational law.64 Numbers of States includ-ing big States do not seek for rapid progressdevelopment, which has often been proved inpractice.65 It is also proved by the UN 10-yearprogramme. Unfortunately it does not containprovisions improving realization of legal

147

norms.66 International monitoring mechanismsincluding reporting and appealing proceduresare only additional means for protection of therights of labour migrants on domestic level.67

The principles promoted through the con-vention have nevertheless had an impact inspecific countries and regions. In several re-ceiving countries, anti-immigrant sentimentshave decreased. 68 Practice reveals that thereis a great difference between the establish-ment of standards and their implementation.International society named those fundamen-tal rights and freedoms, which shall be guar-anteed to everyone. Their operation on a Statelevel depends on a State, while its implemen-tation depends on an individual. On the wayof implementation of human rights the mostimportant issue which is also recognized bythe UN is the education. It is directed to fun-damental values of the society. Each citizenshall be aware of their rights.

The situation in respect to Georgia is asfollows: it is extremely difficult to find a job inGeorgia, and incomes from employment are of-ten not enough to secure one’s own and fami-

ly’s subsistence. Limited employment possibil-ities, dysfunctional labour market dynamicsand low wages, forces the most active part ofthe Georgian population to seek work and in-comes outside the country, even if it results inreduction of their dignity and deprivation oftheir liberty. The planned reorganization andrestructuring of the State management sys-tem resulted in a significant decrease in thenumber of employed.

Current situation revealed the necessityto speed up accession process to the UN andILO conventions that provide the internation-al legal grounds for the regulation of labourmigration. Among them particular attentionshall be drawn to International “Convention onthe Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Work-ers and Members of Their Families”. ILO andother international organizations shall ensurethe assistance and provide recommendationsof international experts on Governmental pol-icy related to irregular migration and traffick-ing issues. The government, society and in-ternational community shall work and carry outactivities in this field together.

1 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, The interna-tional Convention on Migrant Workers and its Committee, Fact Sheet No. 24(Rev. 1), p.3 On the basis of the request of the economic and social council at1973 U.N. subcommittee on the prevention of discrimination and protection ofminorities in 1976 adopted the act on the use of labour resulted from illegal andhidden trafficking. The mentioned act was calling for the UN to elaborate theConvention, which would protect the rights of the labour migrants. This particularrecommendation was responded by the Geneva conference of 1978 on fightingagainst racism and racial treatment. But in the resolution 33/163 of the GeneralAssembly was mentioned on improvement of the condition and ensuring thehuman rights protection and dignity of the labour migrants.

2 Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human rights treaty_bodies, also ManfredNowak, Introduction to the International Human Rights Regime, The Raoul Wal-lenberg Institute, Human Rights Library, Volume 14, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,Leiden/Boston, 2003 and economic social and cultural rights, guideline secondupdated edition, Asborn Eide, Katerina Krauze, Alan Rosas, 2005, p. 456.

3 Economic, social and cultural rights, guidelines, second updated edition, As-born Eide, Katerina Krauze, Alan Rosas, 2005, p. 456.

4 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, The Interna-tional Convention on Migrant Workers and its Committee, Fact Sheet No. 24(Rev.1), p. 1

5 Please see http://www.ohchr.org/english/countries/ ratification/13.htm, 2006.6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_treaty_ bodies,2C2006.7 The convention consists of preamble and nine part: Preamble, 1. Scope and

Definitions, 2. Non-discrimination with respect to rights, 3. Human rights of allMigrant Workers and Members of their Families, 4. Other Rights of Migrant Work-ers and Members of their Families who are Documented or in a Regular Situa-tion, 5. Provisions Applicable to Particular Categories of Migrant Workers and oftheir Families, 6. Promotion of Sound, Equitable, Humane and Lawful Condi-


148


tions Connection with International Migration of Workers and Members of TheirFamilies, 7. Application of the Convention, 8. General Provisions, 9. Final Provi-sions.

8 In particular, Article 2, paragraph 1 of the Convention provides for the migrantworker as “a person who is to be engaged, is engaged or has been engaged ina remunerated activity in a State of which he or she is not a national”.

9 Please see International “Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”,International “Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”.


11 The Committees are the monitoring bodies of the implementation of the UNhuman rights basic treaties (International Covenant “on Civil and Political Rights”of 1966 (with its optional protocols) International Covenant on “Economic, Socialand Cultural Rights” of 1966, the Convention “on the Elimination of all forms ofRacial Discrimination” of 1965, The Convention “on the Elimination of all Formsof Discrimination against Women” of 1979, the Convention “against Torture andOther Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment” of 1984, the Con-vention “on the Rights of Child” of 1989, International Convention “on the Protec-tion of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families” of 1990).There are seven committees on the protection of the human rights, which arecreated for the monitoring of implementation of the Provisions of relevant Trea-ties.

12 After the ratification by 20 countries.13 There are seven committees on the protection of the human rights in the UN.

They examine the state reports, individual claims and applications, publish gen-eral comments, which basically relates to the issues and interpretation of theworking principles. There is also procedure of the meetings of Chairmen of theCommittees and inter-committees. The function of each committee is to monitorthe implementation of provisions of the seven basic treaties of the UN, in partic-ular: Human Rights Committee (HRC) supervises the monitoring process ofInternational Covenant “on Civil and Political Rights” (with its optional protocols)of 1966, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) - Interna-tional Covenant “on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights” of 1966, Committeeon the Elimination of Racial Discrimination(CERD) - Convention “on the Elimi-nation of all Forms of Racial Discrimination” of 1965, Committee on the Elimina-tion of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) - Convention “on the Eliminationof all Forms of Discrimination Against Women” of 1979, The Committee AgainstTorture (CAT) - Convention “against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrad-ing Treatment or Punishment” of 1984, The Committee on the Rights of the Child(CRC) - The Convention “on the Rights of the Child” of 1989, The Committee onMigrant Workers - Convention “on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Work-ers and Members of Their Families” of 1990.

14 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights – main body working for theprotection and popularization of Human Rights was established in 1946 (by theUN Economic and Social Council). The functions of the Commissioner includes:protection of the human rights throughout the word, monitoring, its development,popularization and codification of human rights as well.

15 Currently committee consists with 10 independent experts. The amount of theexperts will increase after the entry into force of the Convention for the forty-firstState Party, of fourteen experts. The Members of the Committee shall be electedby secret ballot by the States Parties, due consideration being given to equitablegeographical distribution including both States of origin and States of employ-ment of the migrant workers. The members of the Committee shall serve for aterm of four years. Half of the members of the Committee are elected once in twoyears. Their term of office starts at January 1 of each year and ends at December31 of the forth year (in accordance with Article 72, paragraph 5, sub-paragraph a)of the Convention). Exceptional case is when the Convention will enter into forcefor the forty-first State Party and additionally four experts will be elected. Fromthese experts two members shall be chosen by the Chairman of the meeting onthe basis of secret ballot. They shall serve for a tern of two years. (Article 72,

149

paragraph 5, sub-paragraph b)). If a member of the Committee dies or resignsor declares that for any other cause he or she can no longer perform the duties ofthe Committee, the State Party that nominated the expert shall appoint anotherexpert from among its own nationals for the remaining part of the term (Article 72,paragraph 6). The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall provide thenecessary staff and facilities for the effective performance of the functions of theCommittee. The members of the Committee shall be entitled to the facilities,privileges and immunities of experts (Article 72, paragraph 9). The committeeshall among its members elect the Chairman, 3 Vice-chairman and Reporter.During the election of the members of committee the person with the majority ofvotes shall win. If one candidate is nominated, the Committee shall be entitled todecide the issue of his/her election positively without further procedures (Article 75).

16 http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/GO4/414/27/PDF/G0441427.pdf?OpenElement.

17 http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cmw/ anual_reports.htm,2008.18 Mentioned information includes organizational and other issues: working meth-

ods, terms of cooperation with the interested parties, reports submitted by StateParties of the Convention on the Migrant Workers following to Article 73 of theConvention, in accordance with Article 74 of the Convention examination of thereports and additionally submitted other information by the State Parties.

19 The issues to be discussed by the chairmen of the committees are focused onthe technical problems, connected to exchange of information on the inter-com-mittee and special procedures. Furthermore unofficial consultations with one oranother Member States, partners of the UN and NGOs is being held.

20 First such meeting was held in 2002, in Geneva.21 http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cmw/index.htm.22 International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers

and Members of Their Families, Article 73, paragraph 1;Also: http://www.un.org/russian/document/convents/migrant7.htm.23 International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers

and Members of Their Families, Article 73, paragraph 2;Also: http://www.un.org/russian/document/convents/migrant7.htm.

24 International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workersand Members of Their Families, Article 73, paragraph 4;Also: http://www.un.org/russian/document/convents/migrant7.htm.

25 United Nations, HRI, International Human Rights Instruments, Distr., GeneralHri/Gen/2/Rev.2/Add. 1, 6 May 2005, Original: English, Compilation of Guidelineson the Form and Content of Reports to be Submitted by States Parties to theInternational Human Rights Treaties.

26 This part of the report shall include the following:a) Description of the constitutional, legislative, judicial and administrative

framework governing the implementation of the Convention, and any bilateralregional or multiregional agreements in the field of migration entered into by thereporting State party; b) actual qualitative information, as disaggregated as pos-sible, on the characteristics and nature of the migration flows (immigration, tran-sit and emigration); c) description of actual situation as regards the practicalimplementation of the Convention in the reporting State and indicate the circum-stances affecting the fulfillment of the obligations of the reporting State under theConvention; d) information on the measures taken by the State party for thedissemination and promotion of the Convention and on the cooperation withsociety in order to promote and respect the rights contained in the Convention.(United Nations, HRI, International Human Rights Instruments, Distr., GeneralHri/Gen/2/Rev.2/Add. 1, 6 May 2005, Original: English, Compilation of Guidelineson the Form and Content of Reports to be Submitted by States Parties to theInternational Human Rights Treaties, p. 2).

Second part of the report shall include information related to each Articles of theConvention, in particular implementation of the provisions of the Convention by acertain State. In order to facilitate the reporting procedure for the States parties, thedocument on the procedures of form and content shall include the list reflecting thesequence of information to be submitted in the report (United Nations, HRI, Interna-tional Human Rights Instruments, Distr., General Hri/Gen/2/Rev.2/Add. 1, 6 May


150


2005, Original: English, Compilation of Guidelines on the Form and Content ofReports to be Submitted by States Parties to the International Human RightsTreaties, p. 2-5).

Paragraph a) of the second part of the report shall necessarily include theindication on General Principles, in particular measures taken by the State in consis-tence with the principles envisaged by Article 1(1) and Article 7(non discrimination) ofthe Convention on Migrant Workers; Article 83 (effective remedies for the protection ofrights) Article 84 (obligation of the State to implement the Convention). In paragraphb) activities implemented on the compatibly with Articles of Part III (Human rights ofall migrant workers and members of their families) of the Convention on the MigrantWorkers shall be listed. The information on the implementation of these rights andresults shall be provided in determined sequence following to the rights provided foralmost in all Articles of the third part of the Convention (Articles 8, 9 and 10; 11; 12, 13and 26; 14 and 15; 16.1 and 16.4, 17 and 24; 16.5-16.9, 18 and 19; 20, 21, 22 and 23;25, 27, 28; 29, 30, 31; 32 and 33). Paragraph c) concerns the Articles of Part IV of theConvention on the Migrant Workers (other rights of migrant workers and their fami-lies who are documented or in a regular situation). There is also the procedure onthe sequence of Articles in the report (Articles 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43; 54, 55; 44 and50; 45 and 53; 46, 47, 48; 51, 52; 49 and 56); paragraph d) shall provide informationon measures taken by the State in relation to Articles (provisions applicable to partic-ular categories of migrant workers and members of their families) stipulated by PartV of the Convention on the Migrant Workers (here activities carried out on articles 57to 63 of the Convention shall be indicated); paragraph e) shall concern the Articles(promotion of sound, equitable, humane and lawful conditions in connection withinternational migration of workers and members of their families) of Part VI of theConvention on the Migrant Workers (The State party should provide information onthe measures taken from Article 65 to Article 71).

27 International Human Rights, guidelines, second edition, Rona K.M. Smith, pub-lication of Oxford University, 2005, p.219.

28 Ibidem.29 International Human Rights, guidelines, second edition, Rona K.M. Smith, pub-

lication of Oxford University, 2005, p.219.30 http://www.un.org/russian/hr/complaints/ procedures1.htm#631 International Human Rights, guidelines, second edition, Rona K.M. Smith, pub-

lication of Oxford University, 2005, p.22132 Article 9 of the Declaration of Rights and Obligations of General Assembly pro-

vides for all human rights to lodge a complaint regarding violations both onnational as well as on international level.

33 Currently Special Rapporteurs are: Gabriela Rodríguez Pizarro (Costa Rica)since 1999 and J.A. Bustamante (Mexico) since August 2005 (Res. 2005/47).

34 Main functions of Special Rapporteurs are: a) collection of information from allimportant sources including migrants regarding the violation of rights of migrantworkers and their families; b) elaboration of recommendations in order to studyviolations of rights of migrant workers and to protects their rights; c) promotion ofeffective use of relevant international norms and standards; d) provision of rec-ommendations regarding the use of remedies and actions in order to protectrights of migrants on national, regional and international levels; e) while re-questing and analyzing information consideration shall be given to sexual com-pliance and special attention shall be drawn to the application of discriminativeand forcible means against migrants women. http://www.ohchr.org/english/is-sues/migration/rapporteur/index.htm

35 http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/monitoring/chapter 19.html#H – Addressing thehuman rights situation through UN mechanisms, thematic procedures

36 http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/docs/mmig-quest_ru.doc37 http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/docs/mmig-quest_ru.doc38 http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/migration/ rapporteur/visits.htm39 Currently the mandate of the UN member States include Afghanistan, Democratic

Republic of Congo, Haiti, Iraq and Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.

151

Thematic mandates include the team working on the issues related to compul-sion of persons or forcible disappearance of persons and wilful detention.

40 Îðãàíèçàöèÿ îáúåäèíåííûõ íàöèé, ýêîíîìè÷åñêèé è ñîöèàëüíûé ñîâåò Distr.

General E/CN.4/2003/85,30 December 2002, RUSSIAN, Original: English,

Êîìèññèÿ ïî ïðàâàì ÷åëîâåêà, Ïÿòüäåñÿò äåâÿòàÿ ñåññèÿ, Ïóíêò 14 à)

ïðåäâàðèòåëüíîé ïîâåñòêè äíÿ, Êîíêðåòíûé ãðóïïû è ëèöà, òðóäÿùèåñÿ-

ìèãðàíòû, Äîêëàä Ñïåöèàëüíîãî, äîêëàä÷èêà ã-æè Ãàáðèýëû Ðîäðèãåñ

Ïèñàððî, ïðåäñòàâëåííûé â ñîîòâåòñòâèè ñ ðåçîëþöèåé 2002/62, Êîìèññèè

ïî ïðàâàì ÷åëîâåêà, ñòð. 3.41 Îðãàíèçàöèÿ îáúåäèíåííûõ íàöèé, ýêîíîìè÷åñêèé è ñîöèàëüíûé ñîâåò Distr.




ìèãðàíòû, Äîêëàä Ñïåöèàëüíîãî, äîêëàä÷èêà ã-æè Ãàáðèýëû ÐîäðèãåñÏèñàððî, ïðåäñòàâëåííûé â ñîîòâåòñòâèè ñ ðåçîëþöèåé 2002/62, Êîìèññèè

ïî ïðàâàì ÷åëîâåêà, ñòð. 19.42 Îðãàíèçàöèÿ îáúåäèíåííûõ íàöèé, ýêîíîìè÷åñêèé è ñîöèàëüíûé ñîâåò Distr.




ìèãðàíòû, Äîêëàä Ñïåöèàëüíîãî, äîêëàä÷èêà ã-æè Ãàáðèýëû Ðîäðèãåñ

Ïèñàððî, ïðåäñòàâëåííûé â ñîîòâåòñòâèè ñ ðåçîëþöèåé 2002/62, Êîìèññèè

ïî ïðàâàì ÷åëîâåêà, ñòð. 31.43 International Human Rights, Guidelines, second edition, Rona K.M. Smith, pub-

lication of Oxford University, 2005, p. 222.44 Mobilization of the Conscience of Mankind: Conditions of Effectiveness of Hu-

man Rights NGOs Peter R. Baehr Professor and Director Netherlands Instituteof Human Rights (SIM) Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands, NGOs: The Peo-ple's Voice in International Governance?, Leon Gordenker Professor EmeritusPrinceton University Princeton, NJ, USA Presentations Made at a UNU PublicForum on Human Rights and NGOs on 18 September 1996, UNU, Tokyo, Japan,- Reliability.

45 The information provided by the NGOs has the official status in: CommitteeAgainst Torture, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Commit-tee on the Right of Child, but information provided by NGOs in the Human RightsCommittee, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Womenand Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination has less informativecharacter, although it does not mean that they are less important. The NGOs areentitled to submit their reports to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultur-al Rights in written form and participate in discussions held on the day of generaldiscussions. The NGOs are entitled to not only to submit their proposals inwritten form but also to make a speech – please see: Economic, Social andCultural Rights, guidelines, second edition, Asborn Eide, Katarina Krause, AllanRosas, 2005, p. 502.

46 Un/Scetdg/29/Inf. 63, Ecosoc Resolution 1996/31: Arrangements for Consulta-tion With Non-Governmental Organizations, Part 1. Principles to be Applied in theEstablishment of Consultative Relations, 12.

47 Mobilization of the Conscience of Mankind: Conditions of Effectiveness of Hu-man Rights NGOs Peter R. Baehr Professor and Director Netherlands Instituteof Human Rights (SIM) Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands, NGOs: The Peo-ple's Voice in International Governance?, Leon Gordenker Professor EmeritusPrinceton University Princeton, NJ, USA Presentations Made at a UNU PublicForum on Human Rights and NGOs on 18 September 1996, UNU, Tokyo, Japan- Representativeness.

48 International Human Rights, guidelines, second edition, Rona K.M. Smith, pub-lication of Oxford University, 2005, p. 230.

49 International Human Rights, guidelines, second edition, Rona K.M. Smith, pub-lication of Oxford University, 2005, p. 232-234.


152


50 Economic, social and cultural rights, guidelines, second edition, Asborn Eide,Katarina Krause, Allan Rosas, 2005, p. 503.

51 International Human Rights, guidelines, second edition, Rona K.M. Smith, pub-lication of Oxford University, 2005, p. 232-243.

52 UN Doc, A/58/351 p. 7.53 International Human Rights, guidelines, second edition, Rona K.M. Smith, pub-

lication of Oxford University, 2005, p. 239.54 Davide Tertzi, Head of the Mission of International Organization for Migration in

Georgia – Report of International Organization for Migration, 2003, Tbilisi, p. 5 .55 Following to the evaluations of experts of International Labour Organization

(ILO), labour migrants channel an annual average of 2000 USD in the form ofmoney and goods to their home countries. This amounts to an average of 166.7USD per month. This figure almost coincides with the average remittance sent toGeorgia 162.4 USD – Head of the mission of International Organization for Mi-gration in Georgia, Labour migration from Georgia – Report of International Or-ganization for Migration, 2003, Tbilisi, p. 61.

56 In accordance with the information provided by the State Department of Statis-tics, 194 600 citizens of Georgia left the country in 1990-1998. But according toindependent experts this figure is very law. Following to their calculation 1 638000 citizens of Georgia left the country during this period.56 Taking into accountthat in the beginning of 1990 the total amount of population was over 5 421 700(information provided by independent experts) and 5 456 100, this number isvery high.

57 “Hardship abroad or Hunger at Home”, A Study of Irregular Migration from Geor-gia, International Organization for Migration, September, 2001, p. 6.

58 Ibidem.59 Ibidem.60 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committeeon Migrant_Workers.61 http://www.un.org/russian/topics/reform/refordoc/ part2.htm.62 Migrant Workers in International Human Rights Law Their Protection in Coun-

tries of Employment, Ryszard Chelewinski, Clarendod Press Oxford, 1997, p.V,ix. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a= o&d=74392289.

63 IOM Chief of Mission to Georgia, labour migration from Georgia – report ofInternational Organization for Migration, Tbilisi, 2003.

64 Currently no international tribunal working on human rights issues exist, butseveral UN committees work on quasi court direction. (International HumanRights Monitoring Mechanisms, Essays in honour of Jakob Th. Möller, The RaoulWallenberg Institute Human Rights Library, Volume 7, Martinus Nijhoff Publish-ers, The Hagu/Boston/London, Kluwer Law International, 2001, p. 133), Group ofimpartial judges, operating in accordance with its own rules of procedures andwhich before expressing its opinion (which is not legally binding) can listen thetestimonies of experts selected by the parties. Proceeding, where the Commit-tee on Human Rights and the Committee on Elimination of All Forms of Discrim-ination (which can receive individual complaints) are participating, have the formof court. Putting forward of some aspects of human rights is a merit of interna-tional criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia – international human rights,guidelines, second edition, Rona K.M. Smith, publication of Oxford University,2005, p. 217.

65 For example: None of the big States accepted International Convention on theProtection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.Please see: http://www.ohchr.org/ english/countries/ratification/13.htm.

66 Georgia and International Law, compilation of Articles, Tbilisi, 2001, p. 25-26.Please see also: http://www.un.org/esa/about_esa.html.

67 Economic, social and cultural rights, guidelines, second renewed edition, ,Asborn Eide, Katarina Krause, Allan Rosas, 2005, p. 525.

68 http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/ display.cfm?id=288.

153

lali fafiaSvili

arasrulwlovanTa marTlmsajulebis zogierTi sakiTxi

patimrobaSi myofi 18 wlamde asakisbavSvebis raodenoba mTeli msofliosmasStabiT mniSvnelovnad gaizarda. imatarogorc winaswari dakavebis adgilebSimyofi, aseve msjavrdebuli pirebis ricx-vma. gaero-s bavSvTa daxmarebis saerTa-Soriso fondis (UNICEF) kvlevis mixed-viT, samarTaldamcavebis mier erT mil-ionze met bavSvs aqvs Tavisufleba aRkve-Tili. amavdroulad, arasrulwlovanTamzard raodenobas brali edeba araZala-dobriv danaSaulebSi.

patimrobaSi myof bavSvebs xSiradelaxebaT TavianTi ZiriTadi uflebebi –maT Soris, ganaTlebis arqona da Ziri-Tadi samedicino daxmarebis nakleboba.xSirad pirobebi, romlebSic isini cx-ovroben, Sokismomgvreli da araadamia-nuria; gaTbobis ararseboba, araadekva-turi kveba, arasakmarisi sawolebi, cudisanitariuli pirobebi da mecadineobaTaararseboba, sastiki da araadamianuridisciplinuri zomebi, arasakmarisi saZi-nebeli sivrce da sacxovrebeli oTaxebi,ganaTlebisa da profesiuli swavlebissaSualebaTa dabali done an ararseboba,informaciis nakleboba da garesamyaros-Tan kontaqtis simcire an saerTod arqo-na da a.S. zogierTi maTgani xangrZlividroiT aris ganTavsebuli izolirebulsakanSi. xSiria fizikuri Zaladoba da as-eve xSirad samarTliani procesis yvelazefundamenturi principebic ki darRveu-lia. rogorc wesi, mSoblebs uars eubnebi-an vizitis uflebaze da TiTqmis ar arianinformirebulni maTi Svilebis adgilm-debareobis Sesaxeb.

cxadia, axalgazrda damnaSaveTaTvisinstitucionalizacia Zalze mtkivneu-li procesia. is faqti, rom isini dapatim-rebulni da ganTavsebulni arian cixeSian arasrulwlovanTa dawesebulebaSi,

mTeli cxovrebis ganmavlobaSi asvams maTdaRs, rac asaxulia piradobis oficial-ur dokumentebSi da rasac isini ver gaeq-cevian samsaxuris Zebnisas Tu sazogado-ebaSi normaluri cxovrebisaken miswra-febis procesSi. ufro metic, araerTgzisgamovlinda dasjisa da TavisuflebisaRkveTis araefeqturoba.

kriminalurma da arasrulwlovanTamarTlmsajulebis istoriam, aseve cixee-bidan gamosuli axalgazrdebisaTvis sas-jelis xelmeored misjis maRalma donemaCvena dasjaze dafuZnebuli sisxlissa-marTlebrivi kontrolis tradiciulimidgomis marcxi.

bavSvebisaTvis Tavisuflebis aRkve-Tis nacvlad, bavSvis uflebaTa konven-cia mouwodebs saxelmwifoebs, ̀ xeli Seu-wyon ... aseTi bavSvebis mimarT zomebismiRebas sasamarTlo ganxilvis gareSe~.(me-40 muxli). formaluri marTlmsaju-lebis sistemaSi Sesvla SesaZloa, trav-muli iyos mozardisaTvis da daRi daas-vas mas. Sesabamisad, aRniSnuli yovel-Tvis unda iqnes Tavidan acilebuli, Tukisaqmis adekvaturi ganxilva SesaZlebelianaklebad formaluri gziT. sisxlissa-marTlebrivi pasuxismgebloba SeiZlebaSeicvalos: gafrTxilebiT imis Taobaze,rom momavalSi Cadenil danaSaulebs uf-ro seriozuli Sedegi mohyveba, zedamxed-velobis an konsultaciis garkveuliformebis nebayoflobiTi miRebiT, sko-laSi siarulis valdebulebiT, danaSaul-Tan asocirebuli pirebisa an adgilebi-sagan Tavis aridebis pirobiT, sazogado-ebrivi samsaxuriT, dazaralebulis pir-veladi mdgomareobis aRdgeniT an masTanSerigebiT. bavSvis uflebebs unda Seesa-bamebodes formaluri gasamarTlebisalternativa, romelic uaryofs iseTzomas, rogoricaa fizikuri dasja. Sesa-

154


bamisad, Tavisuflebis aRkveTa ar undaSeefardos, Tu arasrulwlovani ar arisbraldebuli mZime qmedebaSi, romelicmoicavs Zaladobas sxva piris winaaRmdegan midrekilia sxva mZime danaSaulTa Cad-enisaken, da Tu ar mohyolia Sesabamisireagireba; arasrulwlovanis janmrTe-loba ganmsazRvreli faqtori unda iyosmisi saqmis ganxilvisas.

amgvarad, ufro mniSvnelovania imisuzrunvelyofa, rom bavSvebis rac Sei-Zleba minimaluri raodenoba ganTavsdescixeSi. aRniSnuli miznis misaRwevad yu-radReba unda gamaxvildes arasrulwlo-vanTa damnaSaveobis prevenciaze, rac Za-lisxmevas moiTxovs mTeli sazogadoebismxridan, raTa garantirebul iqnes moza-rdTa harmoniuli ganviTareba bavSvobisadreuli asakidan. ramdenadac bavSvobisasakSi daudevrobasa da danaSauls SoriskavSiri, aseve danaSaulSi monawileobisdone sakmaod maRalia, riadis saxelmZR-vanelo principebis Sesabamisad, sazoga-doeba da mTavroba pasuxismgebelia, daex-maron ojaxebs bavSvebis fizikuri da go-nebrivi janmrTelobis uzrunvelyofaSi,aseve maTs movlasa da dacvaSi. samTavro-bo organoebma maRali prioritetulimniSvneloba unda mianiWon axalgazrde-bisaTvis Sesabamisi programebis ganxor-cielebas da gamoyon sakmao resursebimomsaxurebis efeqturi uzrunvelyofi-saTvis, maT Soris narkotikuli nivTier-ebebisa da alkoholis moxmarebis pre-venciisa da mkurnalobisaTvis. amasTan,uzrunvelyofil unda iqnes, rom amgvariresursebi sargeblis momtani iyos axal-gazrdebisaTvis. pekinis wesebi naTladgamoxatavs reabilitacia/reintegraci-is procesis mniSvnelobas. ufro metic,arasrulwlovanTa keTildReobis xe-lSewyoba miCneulia yovlismomcveli so-cialuri politikis erTaderT amocanad,romelmac gadamwyveti roli unda Seas-rulos maTi danaSaulis prevenciaSi.

winamdebare dokumentis mizania, war-moadginos TavisuflebaaRkveTili bavS-vebis dacvis saerTaSoriso kanonmdebloba.

fundamenturi principebi xazs us-vams arasrulwlovanTa marTlmsaju-lebis sakiTxebze nebismier midgomas,maT Soris: sisxlissamarTlebrivi pasux-ismgeblobis zRvruli asaki unda iyos 15

weli an am asakTan rac SeiZleba miaxloe-buli; udanaSaulobis prezumfcia; sa-marTliani sasamarTlos garantiebi; mSo-belTaTvis an meurveTaTvis dauyovnebe-li Setyobineba da arasrulwlovanTadakavebisas maTTvis TavianTi uflebeb-is gacnoba; SesaZleblobis farglebSiwinaswari patimrobis Tavidan acileba danebismieri winaswari patimrobis vadisrac SeiZleba umoklesi vadiT Semcirebisuzrunvelyofa, misi gamoyeneba mxolodukiduresi zomis saxiT; momsaxurebis sa-SualebebiTa da momsaxurebiT sargeblo-bis ufleba, romlebic pasuxoben janm-rTelobisa da adamianis Rirsebis moTx-ovnebs da rogorc prevenciuli, aseve sa-mkurnalo adekvaturi samedicino mom-saxurebis ufleba; akrZalva yvela disci-plinuri zomisa, romlebic Seicavs sas-tik, araadamianur an Rirsebis Semlaxvelmopyrobas, maT Soris, fizikur dasjas,romelmac SesaZloa, safrTxe Seuqmnasarasrulwlovanis fizikur an gonebrivjanmrTelobas; samarTliani da adamia-nuri mopyrobis ufleba, maT Soris paem-nebis, piradi cxovrebis, garesamyarosTankomunikaciisa da yoveldRiuri mecadin-eobis ufleba; ganaTlebis uzrunvelyo-fa (Tavisuflebis aRkveTis dawesebuleb-is gareT kvalificirebuli maswavle-blebis mier), romelic Seesabameba mismoTxovnebs da romlis mizania arasrul-wlovanis momzadeba sazogadoebaSi dasa-bruneblad; bavSvebis ufrosebisagan gan-calkevebulad ganTavsebis uzrunvelyo-fa, Tuki isini ar arian erTi ojaxis wev-rebi; sikvdiliT dasjis akrZalva.

arasrulwlovanTa marTlmsajuleb-isadmi swori midgoma aseve moiTxovs,Zalisxmeva, pirvel rigSi, mimarTuliiyos bavSvebSi danaSaulis Tavidan ac-ilebisaken.

arasrulwlovanTa marTlmsajulebafarTo sakiTxia, romelic moicavs damna-Saveobis prevencias, danaSaulTa tipebs,romlebisTvisac bavSvs SeiZleba braliwaeyenos da policiaSi, sasamarTlosa daarasrulwlovanTa Tavisuflebis aRkve-Tis adgilebSi maTdami mopyrobis sakiTx-ebs. Sesabamisad, es aris mravalmxrivi, ur-TierTdakavSirebuli funqciuri siste-mebi gansxvavebuli monawileebiT.

155

arasrulwlovanTa marTlmsajuleb-is specialuri sistemis funqcionirebaxSirad ganxilvis sagania, kerZod, arisTu ara igi:• efeqturi;• samarTliani da adamianuri – igi pa-

tivs unda scemdes adamianis Rirsebas,romelic Sefasebulia saerTaSoriso,regionalur da adgilobriv aras-rulwlovanTa marTlmsajulebisa daadamianis uflebaTa standartebiTda yuradRebiT unda moekidos aras-rulwlovanTa ganviTarebis (keTil-dReobis) moTxovnebs.Sesabamisad, saxelmwifoebma, erTi

mxriv, unda daabalanson daucvel aras-rulwlovanTa interesebi da, meore mxriv,uzrunvelyon sazogadoebis dacva sxveb-isagan, saxelmwifo resursebis efeqturigamoyenebis gziT.

arasrulwlovanTa marTlmsajuleb-is sistemis mizania: xeli Seuwyos arasru-lwlovanTa gamosworebas, maTi pasuxism-geblobis gaazrebisa da maTi qmedebis Se-degebis gagebaSi daxmarebis gawevis gziT;Tavidan aicilos an minimumamde daiy-vanos formaluri marTlmsajulebis sis-temis gamoyeneba; xeli Seuwyos maTs re-integracias, romelic ZiriTadi sazru-navia; dasaqmdes sxva ramiT sadamsjeloRonisZiebis (Tavisuflebis aRkveTis)nacvlad.

formaluri marTlmsajulebis sis-temis gamoyenebis Tavidan acilebisa daminimumamde dayvanis mizniT, SemuSavdasxvadasxva alternatiuli programa, ro-mlebic Semoifarglebian: 1. damnaSavee-biT, romlebmac pirvelad Caidines dana-Sauli; 2. damnaSaveebiT, romlebic bral-debulni arian msubuqi qmedebebis Cade-naSi; 3. damnaSaveebiT, romlebic aRiare-ben danaSauls.

alternatiuli programa moicavs: 1. po-liciis gafrTxilebas – policia iRebsgadawyvetilebas, ar mimarTos bralis wa-yenebis formalur process, aramed ub-ralod gaafrTxilos arasrulwlovanida misi mSoblebi, rom nebismieri amgvarisaqcielis ganmeoreba gamoiwvevs sasa-marTlos Carevas; 2.safrangeTis Rappel ala loi-s (mowodebas kanonis dacvisaken) –sasamarTlos warmomadgenlebis, aras-rulwlovanisa da mSoblebis formalur

Sexvedras, ra drosac arasrulwlovanigaecnoba danaSaulTan dakavSirebul sa-marTlebriv teqsts da aseve sasamarTlospotenciur ganaCenebs; 3.sasamarTloSigamocxadebamde socialuri muSakebismier Semowmebis procesis ganxorciele-bas da arasrulwlovanisaTvis SeTavaze-bas, rom, Tu igi aRiarebs danaSauls dadamakmayofileblad daamTavrebs spe-cialur kurss, braldebis mxare daxur-avs saqmes.

SotlandiaSi `bavSvTa sasamarTloprocesebis~ sistemis pirobebi aris uf-ro naklebad formaluri da gansxvavebu-li, vidre sasamarTlo procesebi; ara-profesionali wevrebis momzadebuli Se-madgenloba saqmes ganixilavs arasrul-wlovanTan, ojaxTan, maswavleblebTan,socialur muSakebTan erTad da iRebs ga-dawyvetilebas, romelic efuZneba aras-rulwlovanis keTildReobas. gadawyve-tileba eqvemdebareba gasaCivrebas; fil-ipinebSi ̀ soflis marTlmsajulebis sis-tema~ moicavs Suamdgomlobis sqemas, ro-melic miznad isaxavs ormxrivad misaRebigadawyvetilebis miRebas da a.S.

danaSaulis CadenaSi eWvmitanilibavSvebi sargebloben imave uflebebiT,rogorebiTac ufrosebi, maT Soris: udan-aSaulobis prezumfciis uflebiT, pira-di cxovrebis uflebiT (romelic moicavsuflebas, ar Catardes Cxreka sakmarisimizezis ararsebobisas), informaciis ga-cemis valdebulebis arqonis uflebiT dauflebiT, ar iqnes dakiTxuli zedamxed-velis daswrebis gareSe. damatebiT, isinisargebloben specialuri dacvis ufle-biT, romelic moicavs uflebas, ar iyvnenmoTavsebuli ufrosebTan erTad da uf-lebas, maTs ojaxebs an sxva pasuxismgebelufrosebs dauyovnebliv miewodoT in-formacia maTi mdgomareobis Sesaxeb.

bavSvis uflebaTa konvenciis 37-emuxlis `b~ punqtis Tanaxmad: àrc erTbavSvs ar unda aRekveTos TavisuflebaTviTneburad an ukanonod~. damatebiTigi iTvaliswinebs, rom ̀ bavSvis dapatim-reba, dakaveba an cixeSi moTavseba ... undagamoiyenebodes, rogorc ukiduresi zomarac SeiZleba naklebi drois ganmavloba-Si~. es exeba procesis yvela fazas – gamo-Ziebidan patimrobamde.

l. fafiaSvili, arasrulwlovanTa marTlmsajulebis zogierTi sakiTxi

156


gamoZiebis an sasamarTlo procesismolodinSi myof mozardebTan mimarTe-biT ̀ ukiduresi zomis~ moTxovna gulisx-mobs, rom dakaveba ar aris gamarTlebu-li, im SemTxvevaSi, Tu ar arsebobs sxvagza, raTa Tavidan iqnes acilebuli gaq-cevis safrTxe, damatebiT danaSaulisCadena an mtkicebulebaTa falsificir-eba. winaswari patimrobis sanacvlod gi-raos gadaxda ar aris mizanSewonili, rad-gan igi diskriminaciulia gaWirvebuliojaxebis mozardebisaTvis. rodesac sa-eWvoa ojaxebis SesaZlebloba, uzrunve-lyon efeqturi zedamxedveloba, SeiZle-ba gamoyenebul iqnes zedamxedvelobisdamatebiTi formebi an bavSvi SeiZlebadroebiT ganTavsdes mzrunvelobis dawe-sebulebaSi. im bavSvebis SemTxvevaSi, rom-lebmac datoves ojaxebi cudad mopyro-bis an uyuradRebobis gamo, aseve, romel-Ta ojaxebis identificireba an adgilm-debareobis dadgena ver xerxdeba, sxvazedamxedveli ufrosis an sxva pasuxism-gebeli organizaciis mfarvelobaSi gan-Tavseba unda iqnes gaTvaliswinebuli.rodesac mozardis winaswar dakaveba ga-rdauvalia, prioritetuli unda iyossaqmis SeZlebisdagvarad droulad das-ruleba.

dakavebuli mozardebi sargeblobenimave uflebebiT, romlebiTac sxva pire-bi, maT Soris: humanuri mopyrobis ufle-biT, sakuTar ojaxebTan kontaqtis uf-lebiT, uflebiT, miewodoT informaciadakavebis mizezTa Sesaxeb, samarTleb-rivi daxmarebis uflebiT da uflebiT,gaaproteston TavianTi TavisuflebisaRkveTis kanoniereba. damatebiT maTaqvT gaeros bavSvis uflebaTa konvenci-is 37-e muxliT gaTvaliswinebuli ufle-ba, ar iyvnen ganTavsebulni ufrosebTanerTad da ufleba, moepyron ise, rogorcmaTs asaks Seefereba. bavSvis uflebaTakonvenciis 37-e muxlis ̀ g~ punqtis Tanax-mad, `yoveli TavisuflebaaRkveTilibavSvi unda gancalkevdes ufrosebisagan,Tu ar miiCneva, rom bavSvis yvelaze WeS-mariti interesebisaTvis amis gakeTeba araris saWiro~. seriozuli mRelvarebis sa-kiTxia, rom qveyanaTa umetesobaSi ar ar-sebobs dawesebulebebi, romlebic ganku-Tvnili iqneboda damnaSave gogonebisa-Tvis. amdenad, isini ganTavsebulni arian

ufros msjavrdebulebTan erTad, miuxe-davad safrTxisa, rom ufrosebTan isiniSesaZloa, daeuflon danaSaulis xelo-bas.1 ufleba, ar ganTavsdnen ufrosebT-an erTad, upirveles yovlisa, mimarTu-lia Zaladobis, eqspluataciis an sxvamsjavrdebulTa mier Cagvris Tavidanasacileblad.

patimrobis xangrZlivoba rac SeiZ-leba mokle unda iyos (moklevadiani dap-atimreba), sanam alternatiuli sanqcie-bi (sazogadoebrivi samsaxuri, samuSaomiyenebuli zaralis asanazRaureblad dasaswavlo programis gavla) iqneba gamoy-enebuli msubuqi danaSaulebisaTvis. mi-uxedavad maTi warmatebisa, sazogadoe-brivi alternativebis umravlesoba maincmxolod umniSvnelo rols asrulebsumetes marTlmsajulebis sistemebSi.ufro metic, udidesi mniSvneloba undamieniWos arasrulwlovanebSi danaSaulisprevencias da gadayvanis sruli mxardaW-era xelmisawvdomi unda iyos yvela bavS-visaTvis, romlebic cxovroben axal-gazrda damnaSaveTa dawesebulebebSi,raTa minimumamde iqnes dayvanili xelax-la danaSaulis Cadenisa da dapatimrebismaRali riski. bavSvTa specialuri saWi-roebebi da cxovrebis pirobebi Tavisu-flebis aRkveTis ganmavlobaSi sazoga-doebis mxridan moiTxovs sagangebo rea-girebas samarTlebrivi da praqtikuliTvalsazrisiT.

dawesebulebebSi dapatimrebuli ara-srulwlovnebi garantirebulini undaiyvnen iseTi mizanmimarTuli RonisZiebe-biTa da programebiT sargeblobiT, rom-lebic xels Seuwyobs da SeunarCunebs maTjanmrTelobasa da Tavmoyvareobas, ga-namtkicebs maTi pasuxismgeblobis grZno-bas da daexmareba im unar-Cvevebis ganvi-Tarebas, rac momavalSi waadgebaT, ganav-iTaron TavianTi potenciali sazoga-doebis sruluflebiani wevrobisaTvis.(gaeros TavisuflebaaRkveTil aras-rulwlovanTa dacvis wesebi, me-12 wesi).

aseve arsebobs efeqturi programe-bis saWiroeba, romlebic daexmareba dan-aSaulSi CarTul mozardebs, gadalaxonTavianTi problemebi da moemzadon kano-nmorCili sazogadoebis wevrobisaTvis.

arasrulwlovan damnaSaveTa reabil-itaciis programam unda uzrunvelyos

157

Semdegi: 1. arasapatimro programebis xel-misawvdomoba, romelic moicavs xelmZRv-anelobasa da zedamxedvelobas, proba-cias, sazogadoebriv samsaxurs, dazara-lebulTa kompensirebasa da restitu-cias, jgufur konsultaciebs.; 2. sapati-mro dawesebulebebi unda iyos sakmari-sad patara, raTa gaadvildes individu-aluri zrunva da imgvarad unda iyos de-centralizebuli, rom arasrulwlovansmieces saSualeba, es mzrunveloba miiRosTavis sazogadoebasTan axlos; 3. sapati-mro reabilitaciis programebis xelmis-awvdomoba, ganaTlebis, konsultaciis,profesiuli wvrTnisa da dasvenebis CaTv-liT, adaptirebuli gansxvavebuli tipisdamnaSaveTa moTxovnebze, sazogadoebrivsamsaxurebTan TanamSromlobiT da pro-gramebis SesaZleblobis farglebSi; 4. sa-zogadoebisagan izolireba ar unda iyosaucileblobaze meti da dapatimrebul-Ta kavSiri sakuTar ojaxebTan xelSewyo-bili da gamartivebuli unda iyos, Tukies ar ewinaaRmdegeba bavSvis interesebs;5. efeqturi, damoukidebeli meqanizmebi,romelnic Seqmnilia, raTa gamoZiebuliqnes saCivrebi bavSvis uflebaTa damr-Rvevi samarTaldamcavi organoebis an Tan-amdebobis pirTa winaaRmdeg.

saerTaSoriso dokumentebi

bavSvTa da mozardTa didi raodeno-bisaTvis arasrulwlovanTa marTlmsa-julebis sistemaSi CarTva realobaa, ammzardi problemis pasuxad gaerom miiRorigi saerTaSoriso dokumentebisa, ro-melnic pirdapir bavSvTa uflebebsa daarasrulwlovanTa danaSaulebs exeba.

arasrulwlovanTa marTlmsajuleb-is yvelaze mniSvnelovani dokumenti bavS-vis uflebaTa konvenciaa (kerZod, 37-e,39-e, me-40 muxlebi), romelsac amyarebsarasrulwlovanTa marTlmsajulebaSigaeros minimaluri standartebi da no-rmebi. minimaluri standartebi moicavs:arasrulwlovanTa mimarT marTlmsaju-lebis aRsrulebis Sesaxeb gaeros mini-malur standartul wesebs (pekinis wese-bi), arasrulwlovanTa Soris danaSaulisTavidan acilebis Sesaxeb gaeros saxel-mZRvanelo principebsa (riadis principe-bi) da gaeros TavisuflebaaRkveTil ara-

srulwlovanTa dacvis minimalur stan-dartebs (havanis wesebi), da ufro axals –venis sisxlis samarTlis marTlmsaju-lebis sistemaSi arasrulwlovanebTanmuSaobis saxelmZRvanelo principebs.gaeros minimaluri standartebi da nor-mebi emateba, avrcobs da amyarebs gaerosbavSvis uflebaTa konvenciis debule-bebs. miuxedavad imisa, rom saxelmZRvane-lo principebi pirdapir ar avaldebu-lebs saqarTvelos, ìsini erToblivadqmnian universaluri standartebismTlian pakets da gansazRvraven msofliossazogadoebis mier gasaTvaliswinebelsasurvel praqtikas~.

gaeros bavSvis uflebaTa konvencianaTlad gansazRvravs, rom arasrulwlo-vanTa marTlmsajulebis Taobaze kanon-ebis SemuSavebisa da ganxorcielebisasgasaTvaliswinebelia bavSvTa xelSeuva-li specialuri moTxovnebi da daucvelo-ba. arasrulwlovanTa marTlmsajulebissistemis upirvelesi amocana unda iyosara dasja danaSaulis CadenisaTvis, ara-med – arasrulwlovanis reabilitacia dareintegracia.

ramdenime aTwleulis manZilze arse-buli saerTaSoriso dokumentebi adgenenstandartebs da Seicaven saxelmZRvane-lo principebs arasrulwlovanTa marT-lmsajulebis aRsrulebis Taobaze. miu-xedavad amisa, maTSi Sesuli uflebebi,normebi da principebi regularulad ig-norirebulia, xSirad daucvelia da xan-daxan seriozulad darRveulia. gaerosbavSvis uflebaTa konvenciis wevri yve-la saxelmwifo (gardamavali da sustiekonomikis SemTxvevaSic) valdebulia,`gamoyos SesaZlo resursebis maqsimalu-ri raodenoba konvenciis ganxorcieleb-isaTvis da prioriteti unda mieniWoT ba-vSvebs~.2 sadReiso amocanaa, bavSvTa uf-lebebis universaluri miReba gardaiqm-nas maTi uflebebis universalur dacvad.

I. gaeros bavSvis uflebaTa konven-cia – UNCRC (1989). bavSvis uflebaTakonvencia pirveli saerTaSoriso doku-mentia bavSvTa Tavisuflebis aRkveTazesaerTaSorisosamarTlebriv regulire-basTan mimarTebiT erTiani midgomis Ses-amuSaveblad. bavSvis uflebaTa konven-ciis yvelaze specifikuri muxlebi aras-rulwlovanTa marTlmsajulebasTan


158


dakavSirebiT aris 37-e da me-40. bavSvisuflebaTa konvenciis 37-e muxlis pirve-li punqti specialurad icavs Tavisuf-lebaaRkveTil bavSvebs maTi samarTlianiprocesis darRvevisagan da icavs maTi pi-rovnuli xelSeuxeblobis uflebas. igi:• krZalavs wamebas, sastik, araadamia-

nur, Rirsebis Semlaxvel mopyrobas ansasjels, sikvdiliT dasjas, samuda-mo patimrobas, Tavisuflebis aRkve-Tas ukanonod an TviTneburad, da-kavebas an dapatimrebas;

• iTvaliswinebs, rom dakaveba an dapa-timreba gamoyenebul unda iqnes mxo-lod, rogorc ukiduresi zoma da racSeiZleba naklebi periodis ganmavlo-baSi;

• aRwers TavisuflebaaRkveTili bavS-vebis uflebas, epyrobodnen adamia-nurad da pirovnebis Rirsebis pati-viscemiT, ise, rom gaTvaliswinebuliiyos misi asaki, gancalkevebuli iyosufrosebisagan, SeinarCunos ojaxTankavSiri, dauyovnebliv miiRos samar-Tlebrivi da sxva Sesabamisi daxmare-ba, gaaprotestos misi TavisuflebisaRkveTis kanoniereba da daelodosdauyovnebliv gadawyvetilebis gamo-tanas nebismieri aseTi procesu-aluri qmedebis Taobaze.ufro metic, me-40 muxli moicavs uf-

lebebs yvela bavSvisas, vinc Caidina da-naSauli da dakavSirebulia iseT sakiTx-ebTan, rogorebicaa: principi nullum cri-men sine lage – ar arsebobs danaSauli,rom ar iyos gaTvaliswinebuli kanoniT;minimaluri dacvis garantia sadamsjeloproceduris yvela etapze; kanonebis,procedurebis, organoebisa da dawese-bulebebis Camoyalibeba uSualod iseTibavSvebisaTvis, romlebic braldebulnian cnobilni arian sisxlis samarTliskanonmdeblobis damrRvevebad, da aseve,adgens sisxlissamarTlebrivi pasuxism-geblobis minimalur asaks. damnaSave bavS-visadmi mopyroba xels unda uwyobdesmisi Rirsebisa da sakuTari Tavis mniSv-nelobis grZnobis ganviTarebas, rac masganumtkicebs adamianis uflebebisa dasxva ZiriTadi Tavisuflebebisadmi pa-tiviscemas, gaiTvaliswinebs bavSvis asaksda xels Seuwyobs mis reintegracias, Tav-dajerebulobis ganmtkicebas sazogado-

ebaSi misi sasargeblo rolis Sesaxeb, ase-ve gaiTvaliswinebs alternatiul insti-tuciuri movlis sakiTxebs. wevri saxelm-wifoebisagan igi moiTxovs, uzrunvely-os, rom arasrulwlovanTa marTlmsaju-lebis gansakuTrebuli sistemis miznebiiyos ufro pozitiuri, vidre damsjelo-biTi.

arasrulwlovanTa marTlmsajuleb-is aRsrulebis Sesaxeb gaeros mini-maluri standartuli wesebi – pekiniswesebi (1985). pekinis wesebi pirveli saer-TaSorisosamarTlebrivi dokumentia,romelic mTlianad adgens arasrulwlo-vanTa marTlmsajulebis aRsrulebiswesebs. maT praqtikulad win gauswresbavSvis uflebaTa konvencias. isini spe-cialurad aris naxsenebi gaeros bavSvisuflebaTa konvenciis SesavalSi.

pekinis wesebi saxelmwifoebs uwesebsmiTiTebebs bavSvis uflebaTa dacvisa daarasrulwlovanTa marTlmsajulebiscalke da specializebuli sistemebis gan-viTarebisaTvis, maTi moTxovnebis pati-viscemis Sesaxeb.

saxelmwifoebisaTvis rekomendebu-lia, gamoiyenon yvela SesaZlo resursi,`maT Soris: ojaxi, moxaliseebi da sazoga-doebis sxva jgufebi, iseve, rogorc sko-lebi da sxva sazogadoebrivi dawesebule-bebi~, raTa ganxorcieldes ori mizani:

1) minimumamde iyos dayvanili `kano-nis gamoyenebis~ aucilebloba da

2) Semcirdes ziani, romelic SeiZlebagamoiwvios iseTma Carevam, rogoricaa`kanonmdeblobis damrRvev arasrulwlo-vanebTan mopyroba efeqturad, samarT-lianad da humanurad~.

pekinis wesebi iTvaliswinebs, rom da-patimreba unda iqnes gamoyenebuli mx-olod rogorc sasjelis ukiduresi zoma(ultimium refugium), rac SeiZleba, moklevadiT da Sesabamisad: mxars uWers insti-tucionalizaciis alternativis gamoy-enebas, rac SeiZleba, maqsimalur zRvram-de. minimaluri Carevis principi mniS-vnelovnad exmareba axalgazrdebs, rom-lebic cnobili arian damnaSaveebad...

pekinis wesebis Sesabamisad: sisxlis-samarTlebrivi pasuxismgeblobis asakiar unda iyos ̀ Zalian dabali~ da unda iT-valiswinebdes mozardis emociuri, su-lieri da inteleqtualuri ganviTareb-

159

is aspeqtebs; ZiriTadi procedurulidacva garantirebuli unda iyos proce-sis yvela stadiaze;3 upiratesoba undamieces acilebebs; winaswari dakavebiszomebi gamoyenebuli unda iqnes ̀ mxolodrogorc sasjelis ukiduresi zoma da,rac SeiZleba, mokle vadiT~, Tavisufle-baaRkveTilni unda iyvnen gancalkeve-bulni ufrosebisagan da unda hqondeTaucilebeli movla, dacva, daxmareba;aRniSnuli wesebi aseve iTvaliswinebs:sikvdiliT dasjisa da saxalxo dasjisakrZalvas; mkacri SezRudvebis dawesebasiq, sadac SesaZlebelia TavisuflebisaRkveTa; institucionalizaciis, racSeiZleba, minimalurad gamoyenebas. dawe-sebulebebSi ganTavsebul arasrulwlo-vanTa mopyroba unda iTvaliswinebdes:movlas, dacvas, ganaTlebasa da profesi-ul wvrTnas; specialur yuradRebas axal-gazrda mdedrobiTi sqesis damnaSaveebismimarT, mSoblebTan da meurveebTan urT-ierTobis uflebis uzrunvelyofas; ade-kvatur akademiur da/an profesiulwvrTnas, raTa `maT ar datovon dawese-buleba ganaTlebis gareSe~; SesaZlebeliunda iyos xSirad da vadaze adre pirobiTganTavisuflebis Txovna da a.S.

arasrulwlovanTa Soris danaSau-lis Tavidan acilebis Sesaxeb gaerossaxelmZRvanelo principebi – riadisprincipebi. riadis principebi aris pre-venciisa da socialuri reintegraciismravalmxrivi midgoma. prevencia an misimiznebi ar unda Semoifarglos mxolodsazogadoebis dacviT an danaSaulis kon-troliT, aramed misi mTavari motiviunda iyos axalgazrdebis keTildReobaadreuli bavSvobidanve, rasac `nebis-mieri prevenciuli programis mima-rTuleba~ unda gulisxmobdes. principe-bi mouwodebs, rom orientacia mimarTu-li iyos bavSvisaken, danaSaulis pre-venciis politikis progresisaken da mis-aRebi zomebis uwyveti gamosworebisa daganviTarebisaken.

riadis principebi aseve mouwodebs:arasrulwlovanTa xelSewyobisa da da-cvis mizniT specialuri kanonebis miReb-isaken; danaSaulTa statusis dekrimi-nalizaciisaken; ombudsmenis samsaxurisan msgavsi damoukidebeli organos

daarsebisaken, aseve arasrulwlovanebT-an momuSave personalis wvrTnisaken.

gaeros wesebi TavisuflebaaRkve-Til arasrulwlovanTa dacvis Sesaxeb– JDLs. pekinis wesebsa da riadis princi-pebTan SedarebiT, JDLs awesebs Tavisu-flebaaRkveTil arasrulwlovanTa Sesa-xeb ufro detalur wesebs, romelTa mi-zania, daxurul dawesebulebaSic ki iyosdaculi dakavebuli arasrulwlovanisRirseba da ZiriTadi uflebebi.

TavisuflebaaRkveTil arasrulwlo-vanTa dacvis Sesaxeb gaeros wesebi, rom-lebic inspirirebulia bavSvis uflebaTakonvenciiT, gansazRvravs arasrulwlo-van damnaSaveTa reabilitaciis amom-wurav midgomas. zogierTi ZiriTadi prin-cipia:• dawesebulebebi decentralizebuli

unda iyos, raTa Tavidan iqnes acile-buli arasrulwlovanTa dakavebamaTi ojaxebisa da sazogadoebisaganmoSorebiT, da unda iyos patara, raTaiZleodes individualurad yura-dRebis miqcevis saSualebas.

• sistema unda Seicavdes Ria da nax-evrad Ria dawesebulebebs, raTa See-sabamebodes moTxovnebs bavSvisas,romelsac sWirdeba sacxovrebelimowyoba, Tumca es seriozul safrTx-es ar unda uqmnides sazogadoebas.

• zrunva unda daiwyos individualuripiris saWiroebaTa SefasebiT da undaSeicavdes: ganaTlebis Sesabamis for-mebs, muSaobas, sulier da fizikurkonsultaciebs, dasvenebas da samed-icino problemebis, maT Soris narko-tikul nivTierebebsa Tu alkoholzedamokidebulebis, mogvarebas.

• bavSvis uflebebis pativiscema auci-lebelia reabilitaciisaTvis, radganxels uwyobs sxvaTa uflebebis pa-tiviscemas.

TavisuflebaaRkveTil arasrul-wlovanTa wesebis Sesabamisad, winaswaridakaveba, rac SeiZleba, maqsimalurzRvramde unda iyos Tavidan acilebuli;yvela Zala unda iqnes gamoyenebuli al-ternatiuli zomebis Sesafardeblad; Tuprevenciuli dakaveba aris gamoyenebuli,prioriteti unda mieniWos swraf sasa-marTlo process, raTa uzrunvelyofil


160


iqnes mcire dakavebis periodebi; arasru-lwlovanebi winaswar sapatimroebSi udan-aSaulod unda iTvlebodnen; maT undamieceT ufaso samarTlebrivi daxmarebi-sa da advokatTan komunikaciis ufleba;unda hqondeT: samuSaos (anazRaurebiT),ganaTlebis an profesiuli wvrTnis miRe-bis saSualeba, aseve, miiRon da SeinaxonSesabamisi masalebi TavianTi Tavisufa-li droisa da dasvenebisaTvis.

arasrulwlovanTa dawesebulebeb-is marTvasTan dakavSirebiT gaeroswesebi TavisuflebaaRkveTil aras-rulwlovanTa dacvis Sesaxeb gan-sazRvravs, rom arasrulwlovani ar undaiqnes dapatimrebuli moqmedi dapatimre-bis brZanebis gareSe; yoveli arasrul-wlovanisaTvis unda Seiqmnas individu-alur CanawerTa dosie, romelic konfi-dencialuri iqneba da romlis informa-cia sadavo ar gaxdeba misTvis. arasrul-wlovanebi izolirebulni unda iyvnenufrosebisagan, Tuki isini ar arian maTiojaxis wevrebi.

Tavisuflebis aRkveTa unda xdebodesmxolod im dawesebulebebSi, romlebicpasuxoben janmrTelobisa da adamianisRirsebis moTxovnebs: saZineblebi undaSedgebodes patara jgufisaTvis gankuT-vnili saerTo an individualuri oTaxeb-isagan; sanitariuli mowyobilobebi undaiyos damakmayofilebeli da misaRebi fiz-ikuri moTxovnilebebisa da piradi cx-ovrebisaTvis; personaluri tansacmlisfloba da qoneba nebadarTuli unda iyos;tanisamosi unda iyos klimatis Sesaferi-si da adekvaturi kargi janmrTelobisuzrunvelsayofad; sakvebi unda iyos mis-aRebad momzadebuli da mirTmeuli nor-maluri sadilis dros; xelmisawvdomiunda iyos sufTa sasmeli wyali; profi-laqtikuri da gamosajanmrTelebelisamedicino momsaxureba adekvaturi undaiyos; ganaTleba unda mimdinareobdes sa-zogadoebriv skolebSi da Sesabamisi sa-ganmanaTleblo programa, biblioTeka daprofesiuli wvrTna xelmisawvdomi iyos;imavdroulad, arasrulwlovans undahqondes muSaobisa da Sesabamisi anazRau-rebis miRebis saSualeba; gamajansaRebe-li saqmianoba, aseve zogierTis religi-uri aqtivoba nebadarTuli da mxardaWe-

rili unda iyos; arasrulwlovanebs undahqondeT garesamyarosTan adekvaturikontaqti, maT Soris, SeuzRudavi kon-taqti ojaxis wevrebTan da megobrebTan;maT unda mieceT ufleba, datovon dawe-sebulebebi TavianT ojaxebSi vizitebi-saTvis an saganmanaTleblo Tu sxva mniS-vnelovan mizezTa gamo; aseve, unda hqon-deT ufleba, miiRon regularuli da xSi-ri stumrebi, werilobiTi an telefoniTkomunikaciis ufleba da saSualeba, sis-tematiurad iyvnen informirebulni axa-li ambebis Sesaxeb.

Tavisuflebis aRkveTa an Zalis gamo-yeneba SezRuduli unda iyos da mxolodSesabamisi kanoniT an wesebiT regulire-bul SemTxvevaSi unda gamoiyenebodes,Tuki igi ar gamoiwvevs damcirebas da ga-moyenebul iqneba, rac SeiZleba, mokle pe-riodiT; personalis mier iaraRis tare-ba akrZaluli unda iyos; regularuliinspeqtireba unda Catardes kvalifici-uri damoukidebeli inspeqtorebis mierda yoveli Semowmeba unda damTavrdes an-gariSiT; arasrulwlovanTa uflebebisdarRvevis amsaxveli faqtebis an dakave-bis dawesebulebaTa funqcionirebisSesaxeb unda ecnoboT kompetentur or-ganoebs.

gaeros wesebi TavisuflebaaRkveTilarasrulwlovanTa dacvis Sesaxeb asevegansazRvravs disciplinuri procedure-bisa da arasrulwlovanTa mier saCivreb-is aRZvris wesebs.

gaeros rezolucia #1997/30 – aras-rulwlovanTa marTlmsajulebis aR-sruleba: venis saxelmZRvanelo princi-pebi (1997). es samoqmedo programa iTval-iswinebs RonisZiebaTa amomwurav nusxas,romelTa mizania arasrulwlovanTa mar-Tlmsajulebis aRsrulebis kargad fun-qcionirebadi sistemis Seqmna, bavSvisuflebaTa konvenciis, pekinis wesebis,riadis saxelmZRvanelo principebisa daarasrulwlovanTa dawesebulebebis mar-Tvis Sesaxeb TavisuflebaaRkveTil aras-rulwlovanTa dacvis gaeros wesebis Se-sabamisad da am saerTaSoriso standart-ebis efeqturad gamoyenebisa da Sefarde-bis xelSewyoba. dazaralebuli bavSvisa damowmeebis sakiTxs gansakuTrebuli yura-dReba eTmoba.

161

saxelmZRvanelo principebis Sesabam-isad, unda daarsdes bavSvze orientire-buli arasrulwlovanTa marTlmsaju-lebis srulyofili sistema; saxelmwifomunda uzrunvelyos specialuri proce-durebis ganxorcieleba, romelic mima-rTuli iqneba bavSvebis specifikuri mo-Txovnebis gaTvaliswinebisaken; unda gan-viTardes minimaluri Carevis principi;unda Semcirdes bavSvebis daketil dawese-bulebebSi ganTavseba;

evrosabWos mier miRebuli instru-menti – evrosabWos ori ZiriTadi xelSek-ruleba: adamianis uflebaTa da ZiriTadTavisuflebaTa dacvis evropuli kon-vencia (1950) da evropis socialuri qar-tia (1961) – 1989 wlamde ar Seicavdaaranair specialur debulebas bavSvTauflebebis Sesaxeb. miuxedavad amisa,bavSvTa uflebebze miTiTeba SeiZlebamoviZioT adamianis uflebaTa evropulikonvenciis zogierT muxlSi4.

1996 wels miRebul iqna bavSvTa uf-lebebis gamoyenebis konvencia. am konve-nciis mizania `[bavSvTa] uflebebis xel-Sewyoba, maTTvis saproceso uflebebisminiWeba da maTi uflebebis gamoyenebisgaadvileba imis uzrunvelyofiT, rombavSvebi arian ... informirebulni da neba-darTulni, monawileoba miiRon sasamar-Tlos im procesebSi, romlebic maT exe-ba~. konvencia aZlierebs da qmnis bavSvTasaproceso uflebebs da gansazRvravs sa-xelmwifoebisa da maTi organoebis rols,valdebulebebsa da pasuxismgeblobebs.

miuxedavad im faqtisa, rom saqarTve-los sakanonmdeblo aqtebi – sisxlis sa-marTlis kodeqsi, sisxlis samarTlissaproceso kodeqsi da kanonebi cixeebisSesaxeb – gansazRvravs arasrulwlovandamnaSaveTa specialur mopyrobas, Za-lian adrea saqarTveloSi arasrulwlo-vanTa marTlmsajulebis arsebobasa daganviTarebaze saubari.

arasrulwlovanTa saqmeebi ixilebasaerTo sasamarTloebSi. es faqti mow-mobs, rom, miuxedavad konkretuli samar-Tlebrivi normebisa, saqarTvelos mar-Tlmsajuleba ar ganixilavs arasrul-wlovanTa sasamarTlo procesebs, ro-gorc damoukidebels, Tumca igi princip-ulad da arsobrivad gansxvavdeba uf-rosebis saerTosamarTlebrivi procese-

bisagan. mosamarTleebs ar aqvT arasrul-wlovanTa danaSaulebze individualurimidgomis diskreciuli uflebamosileba.

saerTo praqtikaSi ganaTlebisa daarasrulwlovanis gamosworebisaken mima-rTuli saqmianoba SezRudulia, rac se-riozulad abrkolebs momavalSi maTiresocializaciis process.

saqarTveloSi dawesebulebebis Ziri-Tadi daniSnuleba da fizikuri garemo araris arasrulwlovanis marTlmsajuleb-is sareabilitacio miznebis Sesabamisi.arasrulwlovanebi ar arian garantire-bulni, rom isargebleben mizanmimarTu-li RonisZiebebiT an programebiT, rom-lebic daexmarebian maT, ganaviTaron sak-uTari sazogadoebis wevrTa potenciali... gansakuTrebuli yuradReba undamieqces patimrobaSi myofTa saWiroebebspiradi cxovrebis stimulisaTvis, Sesa-Zleblobebs, gaerTiandnen TanatolebT-an da monawileoba miiRon ganaTlebis mi-Rebis procesSi, sportSi, fizikur varji-Sebsa Tu Tavisufali drois gatarebaSi,rogorc amas moiTxovs TavisuflebaaRk-veTil arasrulwlovanTa Sesaxeb gaeroswesebi; saZineblebi ar Seesabameba moTx-ovnil standartebs, sakvebi araadekva-turia da a.S., magram jerjerobiT yvela-ze mwvave sakiTxad dgas drois xangrZli-voba, romlis ganmavlobaSic bavSvebi izo-lirebulni arian da, Sesabamisad, ganic-dian mecadineobebis naklebobas. axal-gazrdebisaTvis cixis sistemebSi gatare-buli xangrZlivi periodi gansakuTrebu-lad aZnelebs maTs reabilitacias sazo-gadoebaSi. ikargeba ojaxuri da sazoga-doebrivi kavSirebi, ganaTleba ignorire-bulia, Sesabamisad, maT dasaqmebis mcireSesaZlebloba eZlevaT, radgan nasa-marTlevni arian da ver miiRes profesi-uli codna.

cixeSi, marTalia, aris oTxi social-uri muSakis Stati, irkveva, rom ar arse-bobs raime gegma bavSvis gaTavisuflebisdroisaTvis. Sesabamisad, zogierTi bavS-vi sacxovrebeli adgilis gareSe rCeba, araqvs samsaxuri an xeloba, rac qmnis dana-Saulis xelaxla Cadenis saSiSroebas.saWiroa TanamSromloba probaciisa daavWalis TanamSromlebs Soris, raTa bavS-vis gaTavisufleba saTanadod daigegmosda mis mxardasaWerad miRebul iqnes Se-


162


sabamisi zomebi, aseve, TiToeul sasjel-moxdil bavSvTan mimarTebiT gaTavisu-flebamde unda SemuSavdes masze Semdgo-mi zrunvis gegma.

miuxedavad im faqtisa, rom arasrul-wlovanTa cixeebSi ganTavseba Zviria, sam-wuxarod, cixis sazogadoebrivi alter-natiuli saSualebebiT Secvlis nakle-bobaa. marTalia, sisxlis samarTlis kod-eqsi ganusazRvravs mosamarTles mTelrigs SesaZlo arasapatimro sanqciebisas,gasamarTlebis dros, praqtikaSi, Zaliancota arCevania – uamravi araadekvaturialternatiuli dasjis saSualebaa.

arsebuli proceduris Tanaxmad, TubavSvi dapatimrebulia, igi dakavebuliiqneba policiis izolatorSi 48 saaTisganmavlobaSi, sanam Catardeba gamoZiebada miiReba gadawyvetileba imis Taobaze,arsebobs Tu ara mtkicebulebebi bavSvisdasadanaSauleblad. izolatorSi arse-buli pirobebi amJamad ar SeesabamebasaerTaSoriso minimalur standartebs.policias aklia moqnloba – maT ar aqvTufleba, am drois ganmavlobaSi bavSvigaaTavisuflon mSoblebis an meurveebismzrunvelobidan, miscen gafrTxileba,rogorc dakavebisa da gamoZiebis alter-natiuli saSualeba, an saerTod gamoyonigi sisxlissamarTlebrivi sistemidan,maSinac ki, Tu aRiarebs Tavis danaSaulsda inaniebs mas...

gaeros bavSvis uflebaTa konvenciisada gaeros minimaluri standartebisa danormebis moTxovnaTa sawinaaRmdegod po-licias, prokuraturasa da mosamarT-leebs ar aqvT uflebamosileba, gadaiy-vanon bavSvi sisxlissamarTlebrivi marT-lmsajulebis sistemidan sazogadoebrivprogramebSi, romlebic yuradRebas amax-vileben danaSaulebriv qmedebebsa dabavSvTan da mis ojaxTan muSaobaze. dana-Saulis pirvelad CamdenTaTvis, aseve,ganmeorebiT msubuqi danaSaulis Camden-TaTvis amgvari sqemis Camoyalibeba uz-runvelyofs, rom bavSvi ar iqnes sasama-rTloSi wardgenili msubuqi danaSauleb-isaTvis da ar miadges yvela is arasasur-veli Sedegi, rasac gasamarTleba iwvevs.amiT bavSvebs miecemaT sakuTar ojaxebSidarCenis, ganaTlebis ufleba da daxmare-bis miRebis saSualeba.

pekinis wesebis me-6 wesis moTxovnisSesabamisad, gadawyvetilebis mimRebTsisxlis samarTlis procesis nebismierstadiaze unda hqondeT diskreciis gamo-yenebis SesaZlebloba, maT Soris gadaw-yvetilebebze, gagrZeldes, Tu ara gamo-Zieba an devna. aRniSnuli wesis Sesabamis-ad, sadac SesaZlebelia, arasrulwlovandamnaSaveTa saqmeebi ganxilul unda iq-nes formaluri sasamarTlo ganxilvisgareSe. damatebiT me-10 wesi gansazRv-ravs, rom mosamarTlem an sxva kompeten-turma organom, dayovnebis gareSe, undaganixilos ganTavisuflebis sakiTxi. po-licia ar sargeblobs aRniSnuli wesebiTgaTvaliswinebuli diskreciuli ufle-bamosilebiT. Sesabamisad, policias undamieces diskreciis ufleba, ar gaagrZe-los Zieba. es ar niSnavs aucileblad, rommoxdes danaSaulebrivi qmedebis ignor-ireba, aramed – unda mieceT maT damna-SaveTa mimarT alternatiuli, gansxvave-buli zomebis gamoyenebis saSualeba sa-Wiroebis SemTxvevaSi. policias undamieces uflebamosileba, gaafrTxilosbavSvi, rom SemdegSi danaSaulis CadenasSesaZloa, mohyves misi gasamarTleba, anCarTos bavSvi iseT programaSi, romelicyuradRebas miaqcevs mis danaSaulebrivsaqciels.

policiis ganyofilebaSi miyvanidandakiTxvis dawyebamde, drois mciremonakveTis gamo, mSoblebi ver axerxebenmisvlas da dakiTxvaze daswrebas, risgamoc es ufleba azrs kargavs.

im bavSvebisaTvis, romlebic aRiare-ben danaSauls, ar arsebobs araformalu-ri sasamarTlo procesis sistema da amasmivyavarT araaucilebeli winaswari pa-timrobisaken. mokled, ar arsebobs siste-ma, romlis meSveobiTac saqme SeiZlebaswrafad damTavrdes da bralis wayene-bidan mokle vadebSi waredginos sasamar-Tlos saboloo mosmenisaTvis. sanacv-lod, bavSvi rigSi unda idges da elodosmisi saqmis ganxilvis dawyebas. es ar xde-ba bavSvis sasargeblod da dakaveba araris gamoyenebuli, rogorc ukiduresizoma da, rac SeiZleba, naklebi xangrZli-vobiT. resursebis TvalsazrisiTac Za-lian araefeqturi da Zviria. konsolidi-rebuli sasamarTlo procesi xels Seuwy-

163

obs misi gadadebis Semcirebas da Seamok-lebs bavSvis patimrobaSi yofnis dros.

rogorc Cans, maswavleblebsa da ad-vokatebs ar aqvT saSualeba, dakiTxvisdawyebamde daelaparakon bavSvebs. amg-varad, ar aris SesaZlebloba, auxsnan Ta-vianTi iq yofnis mizani, roli da is, Tura moelis bavSvs dapatimrebis Sedegad.Zalian xSirad dacvis uzrunvelyofa mas-wavleblisa da advokatis daswrebiT il-uziaa. amgvarad, advokats unda hqondesufleba, policiis mier nebismieri dak-iTxvis dawyebamde piradad daelaparakosTavis dasacav bavSvs.

sasamarTloebs, sifrTxilis mizniT,im bavSvebisaTvis, romlebic sasamarT-los winaSe unda wardgnen, mowyobiliaqvT SesaSinebeli adgilebi, iseTive ga-liebi, rogorSic ufrosebs aTavsebensasamarTlo procesis dros, amasTan, ari-an mSoblebisagan moSorebiT. sasamarTlosxdomis dawyebisas mosamarTle uxsniseWvmitanils Tavis uflebebs, magram, ro-gorc wesi, bevri bavSvi ver igebs mosama-rTlis mier gamoyenebul iuridiul enasda ar ician sasamarTlo procesis Sesax-eb. mSoblebis ase Sors yofna arTmevs maTim daxmarebis gawevis SesaZleblobas,risi micemac SeuZliaT sasamarTlos wi-na Semdgomi bavSvisTvis. ufrosebis sasa-marTlos am SiSismomgvrel arenaze mniS-vnelovania, arasrulwlovanebi adek-vaturad iyvnen warmodgenilni da garan-tirebulni, rom maTi saqme Sesabamisadganixileba saTanado Semamsubuqebelifaqtorebis fonze.

pekinis wesebi detalurad gansazRv-ravs patimrobis sakiTxebs. bavSvisaTvismiyenebuli nebismieri sanqcia yovelTvisunda iyos danaSaulis garemoebis, aras-rulwlovanis mdgomareobisa da saWiroe-bis, iseve, rogorc sazogadoebrivi saWi-roebis, proporciuli. bavSvis saukeTe-so interesi unda iyos mTavari saxelmZR-vanelo principi nebismier gadawyvetile-baSi.

sisxlis samarTlis kodeqsi Seicavsdebulebebs, romlebic exeba dakavebulisvadamde da pirobiT gaTavisuflebas, Tu-mca aRniSnuli farTod ar gamoiyeneba.sasamarTlos SeuZlia, sasjelis vadisgasvlamde pirobiT gaaTavisuflos aras-rulwlovani, romelsac misjili aqvs

gamosasworebeli samuSaos Sesruleba anpatimroba, Tu sasamarTlo miiCnevs, rommisi gamosworebisaTvis saWiro aRar arissasjelis mTlianad moxda. Tumca, Tu mov-iZiebT zogierT ganacxads vadamde gan-Tavisuflebis Taobaze, vnaxavT, rom ara-srulwlovanTa patimrobis gadasinjvisSemTxvevebi, arsebuli sasjelis saWiroe-bis gansazRvris mizniT, iSviaTobaa, saq-meebis ganuxilveloba niSnavs gaeros bav-Svis uflebaTa konvenciis 25-e muxlTan,adamianis uflebaTa evropul konven-ciasa da pekinis wesebis 32-e wesis me-3 pun-qtTan da 28-e wesTan Seusabamobas.

arasrulwlovanTa marTlmsajuleb-is arsebuli sistema iTvaliswinebs dis-krecias, moqnilobisa da kriminalizaci-is alternativebis Zalze mcire saSuale-bebs, raTa Seesabamebodes adamianis uf-lebaTa standartebs. Tu bavSvi eWvmita-nilia danaSaulSi, igi ulmoblad moxvde-ba sisxlissamarTlebrivi marTlmsaju-lebis sistemaSi; Tu dakavebulia, arcpolicias da arc prokurors aranairidiskrecia ar gaaCniaT, raTa SewyvitongamoZieba da gamoiyvanon bavSvi sisxlis-samarTlebrivi sistemidan. Zalze xSiriawinaswari patimrobis gamoyenebis SemTx-vevebi da mcirea sasamarTloebisaTvisxelmisawvdomi arCevani, raTa gamoiyenonarasapatimro dasjis saSualebebi. amJa-mad arsebuli arasrulwlovanTa patim-robis dawesebulebebi arRvevs bavSvebisuflebebs. damatebiT ar arsebobs aras-rulwlovanTa policia, arasrulwlo-vanTa sasamarTloebi da a.S.

aucilebelia, SemoRebul iqnes dana-Saulis Cadenis riskis qveS myofi bavSve-bisaTvis adreuli Carevis programebi,gansxvavebuli programebi maTTvis, vincCaidina danaSauli, megobruli marTlm-sajulebis sistemisa da alternativisSeqmna, sazogadoebrivi sasjelis SemoReba.

bavSvebi aRar unda ganTavsdnen poli-ciis izolatorebSi. maTi mcire raode-noba, romlebic dakavebulni arian mZimeZaladobrivi danaSaulis CadenisaTvis anqonebis qurdobisaTvis, unda ganTavsd-nen dacul sapatimro adgilebSi. yvelasxva danarCeni bavSvi unda ganTavisuf-lda maTi mSoblebis, an sadac cxovroben,im bavSvTa saxlebis zedamxedvelobidan.


164


1 hovard ligi sisxlis samarTlis reformisaTvis, (1997 w.) gogonebismimarT Tavisuflebis aRkveTis gamoyeneba, faqtebis furceli 16.

2 venis deklaracia da samoqmedo programa (1-li nawili, §21) miRebuliaadamianis uflebebze msoflio konferenciis mier, vena, 25 ivnisi, 1993.(/C.157/24 (1-li nawili, 111-e Tavi)).

3 udanaSaulobis prezumfcia; ufleba, ecnobos cvlilebebis Sesaxeb;dumilis ufleba; konsultaciis ufleba; mSoblis an meurvis daswrebisufleba; mowmesTan dapirispirebisa da jvaredini dakiTxvis ufleba;zemdgom instanciaSi gasaCivrebis ufleba; piradi cxovrebis dacva.

4 mag.: me-.5; me-.6.1.; me-8.1; me-8.2 muxlebi; pirveli damatebiTi oqmis me-2muxli.

erovnul doneze unda Seiqmnas rigi sazogadoebrivi samsaxurebisa, maT Soris:• prevenciuli samsaxuri antisocialuri moqcevis an danaSaulis Cadenis riskis qveS

myofi bavSvebisaTvis.• winaswari dakavebisagan gansxvavebuli programebi.• Tavisuflebis aRkveTis an winaswari patimrobis alternatiuli saSualebebi,

romelnic moicavs aRzrdas, zedamxedvelobas.es programebi unda Seiqmnas da dafuZndes saswrafod, xelmisawvdomi unda iyos mTe-

li qveynis masStabiT da yvela bavSvma unda SeZlos maTiT sargebloba.

165

The number of children aged under 18held in detention in all over the world grewdramatically. Increases took place in both theremand and sentenced population. Accordingto UNICEF researches, over 1 million childrenare deprived of their liberty by law enforce-ment officials. At the same time an increasingnumber of juveniles are being prosecuted of-ten for non-violent offences.

Children in detention often suffer viola-tions of their basic rights – including no edu-cation and lack of basic medical care. Fre-quently, the conditions under which they liveare deplorable and inhumane – no heat, in-adequate food, insufficient beds, poor sani-tation facilities and no exercise, cruel and in-human disciplinary measures, insufficientsleeping space and living quarters, poor ornon existent educational and vocational train-ing opportunities, lack of information and littleor no contact with the outside world and etc.Some are kept in solitary confinement for longperiods. Physical abuse is common. In manycases, even the most fundamental principlesof due process are violated. Parents are com-monly denied right to visit and are often notinformed of a child’s whereabouts.

It is clear that institutionalization is an ex-tremely painful process for young offenders.The fact that they have been arrested andplaced in a prison or a juvenile institution stig-matizes them for life, a stigma that is memori-alized in official identity documents and fromwhich they cannot escape as they seek em-ployment and a normal life in the community.Moreover it has repeatedly demonstrated theineffectiveness of both punishment and incar-ceration.

The history of criminal and juvenile jus-tice and the high reconviction rates for youngpeople leaving prison establishment demon-strate the failure of traditional approaches tocrime control based on punishment.

LALI PAPIASHVILI

SOME ISSUES OF JUVENILE JUSTICE

Instead of depriving children of liberty, theConvention on the Rights of the Child urgesStates to “seek to promote measures for deal-ing with such children without resorting to ju-dicial proceedings” (Article 40). Entry into theformal justice system can be traumatic and canstigmatize an adolescent. It should thereforebe avoided whenever the matter can be ade-quately dealt with in a less formal way. Diver-sion can take the form of a warning that fu-ture offences will have more serious conse-quences, voluntary acceptance of some formof supervision or counselling, a commitmentto attend school or to avoid persons or plac-es associated with the offence, community ser-vice, or restitution to or reconciliation with thevictim. The alternative to formal adjudicationmust be compatible with the rights of the child,which precludes measures such as corporalpunishment. Therefore, deprivation of person-al liberty shall not be imposed unless the ju-venile is adjudicated of a serious act involv-ing violence against another person or of per-sistence in committing other serious offencesand unless there is no other appropriate re-sponse; The well-being of juvenile should bethe guiding factor in the consideration of herhis case.

Therefore there is a more fundamentalneed to ensure that the numbers of young-sters in custody are kept to an absolute mini-mum. And in order to achieve this goal atten-tion should be paid to the prevention of juve-nile delinquency which requires efforts on thepart of the entire society to ensure the har-monious development of adolescents, withrespect for and promotion of their personalityfrom early childhood. Since there is a highcorrelation between neglect and exposure toviolence during childhood and involvement incrime, society and government are responsi-ble according to Riyadh Guidelines to assistthe family in providing care and protection and

166


in ensuring the physical and mental wellbeingof children. Government agencies should givehigh priority to programmes for young personsand provide sufficient resources for the effec-tive delivery of services, facilities and staff foradequate medical and mental health care,nutrition, housing and other relevant servic-es, including drug and alcohol abuse preven-tion and treatment, ensuring that such resourc-es reach and actually benefit young persons.The Beijing Rules clearly stresses the impor-tance of the rehabilitation/reintegration pro-cess. Furthermore, the promotion of juvenilewelfare is viewed as only one of the objec-tives of comprehensive social policy for juve-niles that shall, play a crucial role also in pre-vention of juvenile delinquency.

The aim of the paper is to represent theinternational legislation for the protection ofthe children that deprived their liberty

Fundamental principles underlyingany approach to issues of juvenile justiceinclude: – The minimum age for criminal re-sponsibility should be the age of 15 or as closeas possible to that age; – presumption of in-nocence; – due process guarantees; – imme-diate notification of parents or guardians andtheir right to be present upon the apprehen-sion of a juvenile; – avoiding detention beforetrial if possible and ensuring that any pre-trialdetention is for the shortest possible periodand only as the last resort; – right to facilitiesand services that meet all the requirementsof health and human dignity, and to adequatemedical care, both preventive and remedial;– prohibition of all disciplinary measures con-stituting cruel, inhuman or degrading treat-ment including corporal punishment that maycompromise the physical or mental health ofthe juveniles concerned; – right to fair andhumane treatment, including the right to vis-its, to privacy, to communication with the out-side world and to time for daily exercise; – pro-vision of education (provided outside the de-tention facility by qualified teachers) suited tohis her needs and designed to prepare himher for return to society; – ensuring that chil-dren are detained separately from adults un-less they are members of the same family; –prohibition of death penalty

A proper approach to juvenile justice alsorequires that efforts be made to prevent chil-dren coming into conflict with the law in thefirst place.

Juvenile justice is a broad topic coveringprevention of delinquency, the type of offenc-es with which children may be charged andthe way they are treated by the police, by thecourts and in facilities for juvenile offenders.Therefore it is a multiple, inter-connected func-tional systems with different players .

The functioning of a specific JJ system isoften judged by whether it is:• effective; and• fair and humane – It must respect human

dignity judged by references to internation-al, regional and domestic JJ and HR stan-dards and be considerate of the develop-mental needs (well-being) of a juvenileinvolved.Therefore states have to balance interest

of the vulnerable juveniles from one hand andprotection of society from the other througheffective use of state resources.

The aim of Juvenile Jusice system is toencourage a behavioral change of a juvenileinvolved by helping him/her to feel account-able and to understand the consequences ofhis/her actions; avoid or minimize interventionby the formal justice system; promote reinte-gration as the main goal of treatment; employother than punitive responses (such as depri-vation of liberty).

In order to avoid or minimize the interven-tion by the formal justice system, various al-ternative programs were developed to reachthat aim. But the alternative programs aredesigned and limited to the: 1. first-time of-fenders, 2. offenders accused of non-seriousacts 3. offenders who admit the offence:

Alternative programs include: 1. policecaution – the police decide not to press for-mal charges but simply to warn the juvenileand parents that any recurrence of that be-havior will result in a court appearance; 2.French Rappel a la loi – formal meeting ofrepresentatives of court, juvenile and parentswithin which the juvenile is appraised of thelegal text relating to the offence as well as ofthe potential sentences of the court; 3. Screen-ing process carried out by a social workerbefore the court appearance and offer that ifthe juvenile agrees to the offence and thancan satisfactorily complete a special coursethe prosecution will drop the case.

In Scotland “children’s hearings” systemconditions of the hearing are less formal andadversarial than in court setting; a panel of

167

trained lay members discusses the act with thejuvenile, family, teachers and social workerand decides on disposition based on the ju-venile’s welfare. Decision is subject to client’sappeal. While the ”village justice system” inthe Philippines involves mediation schemedesigned to bring about mutually acceptablesettlement and etc.

Children suspected of committing an offencehave the same rights as adults, including theright to be presumed innocent, the right toprivacy (which includes the right not to besearched without sufficient cause), the rightnot to be obliged to give information and theright not to be interrogated without the pres-ence of an advisor. In addition, they have theright to special protection, which includes theright not to be confined with adults and theright to have their families or another responsi-ble adult notified of their situation immediately.

Article 37(b) of the Convention on the Rightsof the Child states that: “No child shall be de-prived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbi-trarily”. It adds that “the arrest, detention or im-prisonment of a child shall be used only as ameasure of last resort and for the shortestappropriate period of time”. This applies to allphases of proceedings, from investigation tosentencing.

With regard to adolescents under inves-tigation or awaiting trial, the ‘last resort’ re-quirement means that detention is not warrant-ed unless there is no other way to avoid asubstantial risk of flight, the commission ofadditional offences or tampering with evi-dence. The payment of caution (bail) as analternative to detention prior to trial is not ap-propriate because it discriminates againstadolescents from poor families. Where thefamily’s ability to ensure effective supervisionis uncertain, additional forms of supervisionconditions may be imposed or the child maybe placed in foster care on a temporary ba-sis. In the case of children who have left homedue to abuse or neglect, or whose family can-not be identified or located, release into thecare and supervision of another responsibleadult or organization should be considered.When the detention of an adolescent await-ing trial is unavoidable, priority should be giv-en to completing the trial as soon as possible.

Adolescents in detention have the samebasic human rights as other persons, includ-ing the right to humane treatment, the right to

contact with their families, the right to be in-formed of the reasons for detention, the rightto legal assistance and the right to challengethe legality of the deprivation of liberty. In ad-dition, they have the right laid out in Article 37of the UNCRC not to be detained with adultsand the right to be treated in accordance withthe needs of persons of their age. Accordingto article 37(c) of the Convention of the Rightsof the Child: “every child deprived of his orher liberty shall be separated from adults, withthe exception of unusual cases in which it isnot in the child’s best interest maintain suchseparation”. It is a great matter of concern thatin most countries there are not young offend-ers institutions designed for girls. Thereforethey are held together with adult prisonersdespite concerns that they may learn criminalskills from mixing with adult offenders1. Theright not to be detained with adults is intend-ed primarily to prevent abuse, exploitation orvictimization by other prisoners.

Sentences should be kept as short aspossible (short-term incarceration) while alter-native sanctions (community services, work topay the damages incurred, and attendanceof learning schemes) could be adopted in cas-es of non-severe offences. Despite their suc-cess, most community alternatives still only playa marginal role in most justice systems. More-over, great importance should be placed onjuvenile crime prevention and comprehensiveresettlement support should be made availableto all youngsters leaving young offender in-stitution in order to minimise the currently highrisk of re-offending and imprisonment. Chil-dren’s special needs and life circumstanceswhile deprived liberty require a special res-ponse from society in law and in practice.

“Juveniles detained in facilities should beguaranteed the benefit of meaningful activitiesand programmes which would serve to promoteand sustain their health and self-respect, tofoster their sense of responsibility and encour-age those attitudes and skills that will assistthem in developing their potential as membersof society” (UN Rules for the Protection of Ju-veniles Deprived of their Liberty, Rule 12).

There is also a need for effective pro-grammes that help adolescents involved incrime overcome their problems, and assistthem in preparing for life as law-abiding mem-bers of society.

L. PAPIASHVILI, SOME ISSUES OF JUVENILE JUSTICE

168


The system for the rehabilitation of juve-nile offenders should ensure the following:1. availability of Non-residential programmes,including guidance and supervision, proba-tion, community service, compensation andrestitution to the victim and group counselling;2.Residential facilities should be small enoughto facilitate individual treatment, and be de-centralized so as to permit juveniles to receivetreatment near their community; 3. availabilityof residential rehabilitation programmes in-volving education, counselling, vocationaltraining and recreation, adapted to the needsof the different types of offenders, in cooper-ation with community-based services and pro-grammes when possible; 4. isolation from thecommunity should be no greater than neces-sary, and contact between the residents andtheir families should be encouraged and fa-cilitated, unless it would be contrary to the in-terests of the child; 5. Effective, independentmechanisms established to investigate com-plaints against law enforcement agencies orofficials alleging violations of the rights of thechild.

INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS

Involvement with juvenile justice systemsis a reality for a great number of children andadolescents. Addressing this growing concern,the United Nations has adopted a number ofinternational instruments directly dealing withchildren’s rights and juvenile delinquency.

The most important instrument for juve-nile justice is the UNCRC ( specifically articles37, 39, 40) supported by the UN Minimum Stan-dards and Norms in Juvenile Justice. The min-imum standards are made up of the UnitedNations Standard Minimum Rules for the Ad-ministration of Juvenile Justice (the ‘BeijingRules’), the United Nations Guidelines on thePrevention of Delinquency (the ‘Riyadh Guide-lines’) and the United Nations Rules on theProtection of Juveniles Deprived of Liberty.The UN Minimum Rules for the protection ofJuveniles deprived of their Liberty (HavanaRules) and the more recent Vienna Guidelinesfor action on Children in Criminal Justice Sys-tem. The UN minimum standards and Normssupplement expand and support the provi-sions in the UNCRC. Although guidelines arenot binding for Georgia directly, “together theyconstitute a comprehensive set of universal

standards and set out desirable practices tobe pursued by the world community.

The UNCRC makes it clear that the inher-ent special needs and vulnerability of childrenmust be taken into account in the implementa-tion and development of laws on juvenile jus-tice. The primary goal of a juvenile justice sys-tem should not be that of punishment for thecrime, but rehabilitation and reintegration of thejuvenile.

International instruments setting out stan-dards and containing guidelines for adminis-tration of juvenile justice have existed for sev-eral decades. However the rights, norms andprinciples involved are regularly ignored, ex-tensively disregarded and sometimes alsoseriously violated. Despite the fact, that allstate parties to the UNCRC (even with transi-tional or week economies) are obliged to “al-locate the maximum extent of its available re-sources for the implementation of the Conven-tion and priority give to children.”2 The chal-lenge nowadays is to transform the universalacceptance of children’s rights into universalobservance of these rights.

I. Un Convention on the Rights of theChild: The UNCRC (1989) – The Conventionon the Rights of the Child is the first internation-al instrument to adopt a coherent child rightsapproach to the international legal regulationof the deprivation of liberty of children. Themost specific articles of the CRC in relation tojuvenile justice are Art. 37 & 40. Article 37(1)of the Convention on the rights of the Childspecifically protects children deprived of theirliberty from violations of their due process andpersonal integrity rights. It:• prohibits torture, cruel, inhuman, degrad-

ing treatment or punishment, capital pun-ishment and life imprisonment, arbitrary orillegal arrest, detention or imprisonment;

• stipulates that arrest and detention shallonly be used as a last resort and for theshortest appropriate period of time; and

• describes the right of children deprived oftheir liberty to be treated with humanity,respect and dignity in a manner that takesinto account their age, to be separated fromadults, to maintain family contact, to haveprompt access to legal and other assis-tance, to challenge the legality of theirdetention and to expect a prompt decisionin relation to any resulting action.

169

Moreover, article 40 covers the rights ofall children in conflict with the law relates to mat-ters such as the principle of nullum crimen sinelege; the minimum procedural safeguards tobe guaranteed at all stages of penal proceed-ings; the establishment of laws, procedures,authorities and institutions specifically appli-cable to children alleged as, accused of, orrecognized as having infringed the Penal Law,including a minimum age for criminal respon-sibility; Treatment of children in conflict withlaw in a manner consistent with the promotionof the child’s sense of dignity and worth, whichreinforces the child’s respect for the humanrights and fundamental freedoms of othersand which takes into account the child’s ageand the desirability of promoting the child’sreintegration and the child’s assuming a con-structive role in society and the availability ofalternatives to institutional care. It requiresStates Parties to promote a distinctive systemof juvenile justice with specific positive ratherthan punitive aims.

Un Minimum Rules for the Administra-tion of Juvenile Justice: The Beljinc Rules(1985) – The Beijing Rules were the first inter-national legal instrument to lay down compre-hensively rules for the administration of juve-nile justice. They actually predate the UNCRCand are specifically mentioned in the Pream-ble of the latter.

The Beijing Rules, provide guidance toStates for the protection of children’s right andrespect for their needs in the development ofseparate and specialised systems of juvenilejustice.

States are urged to use all the resourcesavailable, “including the family, volunteers andother community groups, as well as schools andother community institutions” to reach two goals:

(1) to minimize necessity for “interventionunder the law and

(2) to reduce harm that may be causedby such intervention by “dealing with juvenilesin conflict with the law effectively, fairly andhumanely”.

The Beijing Rules stipulate that detentionshould be used only as a last resort (ultimumrefugium) and for the shortest possible peri-od of time and therefore encourage the useof alternatives to institutionalisation to themaximum extent possible. Young people who areidentified as having committed an offence are

best helped by the principle of minimum inter-vention.

According to the Beijing Rules the age ofcriminal responsibility should not be “too low,bearing in mind the facts of emotional, mentaland intellectual maturity of the juvenile; basicprocedural safeguards should be guaranteedat all stages of proceedings3; preferenceshould be given to diversion; pre-trial deten-tion should be used “only as a measure of lastresort and for the shortest possible period oftime”, detainees should be kept separate fromadults and should receive necessary care,protection and assistance; prohibition of cap-ital or corporate punishment; strict limitationwhere deprivation of liberty is a possibility;least possible use of institutionalization. Treat-ment of juveniles placed in institutions shouldprovide care, protection, education and vo-cational training; special attention to youngfemale offenders, right to access for parentsor guardians. Adequate academic and/or vo-cational training should be provided to ensurethat “they do not leave the institution at aneducational disadvantage”; possibility of fre-quent and early recourse to conditional re-lease and etc.

UN Guidelines for the Prevention ofJuvenile Delinquency (The Riyadh Guide-lines) – The Riyadh Guidelines represent acompre-hensive approach to prevention andsocial reintegration. Prevention or rather itsgoals shall not be limited to protection of soci-eties or crime control but shall be informed bythe well being of your person from the earlychildhood, which should be the “focus of anypreventive program”. The Guidelines call forchild-centered orientation, progressive delin-quency prevention policies and continuous im-provement and development of measures.

The Riyadh Guidelines also call for theenactment of specific laws and procedures topromote and protect rights of juveniles; thedecriminalization of status offences; the es-tablishment of an office of ombudsman or sim-ilar independent body as well as the trainingof the personnel working with juveniles.

Un Rules for Protection of JuvenilesDeprived of Their Liberty: The JDLs –Com-pared to the Beijing Rules and Riyadh Guide-lines, the JDLs set out far more detailed rulesto follow focused on ensuring, even in thedetention in closed facilities, full respect for the


170


human dignity and fundamental HR of detainedjuveniles.

The UN Rules for the Protection of Juve-niles Deprived of their Liberty set forth a com-prehensive approach to the rehabilitation ofjuvenile offenders, inspired by the Conventionon the Rights of the Child. Some of the mainprinciples are:• Facilities should be decentralized, to pre-

vent juveniles from being detained far fromtheir families and communities, and smallenough to allow for individualized atten-tion.

• The system should include open or semi-open facilities, to meet the needs of chil-dren who require a residential setting butdo not pose a serious danger to the com-munity.

• Treatment should begin with an evalua-tion of the needs of the individual, andshould include appropriate forms of educa-tion, work, spiritual and psychosocial coun-selling, recreation and care of medicalproblems, including drug or alcohol de-pendency.

• Respect for the rights of the child is es-sential to rehabilitation, because it encour-ages respect for the rights of others.According to the JDs detention before

trial shall be avoided to the extent possible;all efforts should be made to apply alternativemeasures; if preventive detention is used, pri-ority should be on a speedy trial to ensurethe short detention periods; juveniles in pre-trial detention should be presumed innocent;they should have the right to free legal aidand communicate with their counsels; theyshould have a chance to pursue work (withremuneration), education or vocational train-ing and to receive and retain materials for theirleisure and recreation.

Concerning Management of juvenilefacilities JDs states, that juveniles shouldnot be detained without a valid commitmentorder ; individual record file should be estab-lished for each juvenile which should be con-fidential, however information from the fileshould be contestable by juvenile concerned.Juveniles should be separated from adultsunless they are members of the same family

Deprivation of liberty should only be infacilities which meat all the requirements ofhealth and human dignity. Sleeping accommo-dation should consist of small group dormito-

ries or individual bedrooms; sanitary installationsshould be sufficient and suitable for physicalneeds and privacy; the possession of personalclothing and effects should be allowed; cloth-ing should be suitable for the climate and ad-equate to ensure good health; food should besuitably prepared and presented at normalmeal times; clean drinking water should beavailable, preventive and remedial medicalcare should be adequate; education shouldtake place in community schools and juvenilesshould have access to appropriate educationalprograms, library and vocational training. Atthe same time, juveniles should have the oppor-tunity to work and receive an equitable remu-neration. Recreation activities as well as prac-tice of one’s religion shall be allowed supported;

Juveniles should have adequate commu-nication with the outside world, including butnot limited to family members and friends; ju-veniles should be permitted to leave the facil-ities for visits to their family homes or for edu-cational, vocational or other important reasons;they should also have the right to receive reg-ular and frequent visits, the right to communi-cate in writing or by phone and the opportuni-ty to keep themselves informed regularly ofthe news.

Recourse or physical restraint or the useof force should be limited to exceptional cas-es and only as explicitly authorized by law orregulation; even then they should not causehumiliation or degradation and be used onlyfor the shortest possible time; carrying of weap-ons by personnel should be prohibited; Reg-ular inspections should be conducted by qual-ified independent inspectors and each inspec-tion should finish with a report; facts indicat-ing a violation of rights of juveniles or opera-tion of a detention facility should be commu-nicated to competent authorities.

JDs also sets rules for disciplinary proceed-ings and rules for complaints by juveniles.

Un Resolution 1997/30 Administrationof Juvenile Justice: The Vienna Guide-lines (1997). This program of action providesa comprehensive set of measures aimed atestablishing a well-functioning system of ju-venile justice administration according to theCRC, Beijing Rules, Riyadh Guidelines andJDLs and promoting effective use and appli-cation of these int’l standards. The topic ofchild victims and witnesses is given a specialconsideration.

171

According to the Guidelines comprehen-sive child-centered juvenile justice processshould be established; states should specialprocedures designed to take into account thespecific needs of children; principle of mini-mum intervention should be developed; theplacement of children in closed institutionsshould be reduced;

Instruments Adopted by Council ofEurope – Prior to 1989, the Council’s two maintreaties – the European Convention for theProtection of Human Rights and Fundamen-tal Freedoms (1950) (ECHR) and the Euro-pean Social Charter (1961) did not containany specific provisions relating to the rightsof children. However, references to the rightsof children can be found in several articles ofthe ECHR4.

In 1996 European Convention on theExercise of Children’s Rights was adopt-ed. The objective of this Convention is to pro-mote the [children’s] rights, to grant them pro-cedural rights and to facilitate the exercise ofthese rights by ensuring that children are …informed and allowed to participate in proceed-ings affecting them before a judicial authority.The Convention strengthens and creates pro-cedural rights of children and determinesroles, duties and responsibilities of the stateand its agents.

Although Georgian legislative acts – Crim-inal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, and Pris-on Laws provide special treatment of juvenileoffenders, it is too early to speak about the ex-istence and development of juvenile justice inGeorgia.

Juvenile cases are tried in the commoncourt. This fact shows that despite particular le-gal norms, Georgian justice does not consid-er juvenile legal procedure as an independentprocedure, while it is principally and substan-tially different from common legal proceduresof adults. Judges do not have discretionarypower of individual approach to juvenile crimes.

In general practice, the activities in thedirection of education and correction of juve-nile offenders are limited, which seriously im-pedes their further re-socialization.

The overall design of the facilities in Geor-gia and physical environment is not in keenwith the rehabilitative aim of juvenile justice.Juveniles are not guaranteed the benefit ofmeaningful activities or programmes that willassist them to develop their potential as mem-

bers of society.. There is sant regard to theneed of the detainees for privacy sensory stim-uli, opportunities for association with peers andparticipation in education, work sport, physi-cal exercise or leisure time activities as re-quired by the UN Rules on Juveniles Deprivedof their Liberty. .Sleeping accommodation didnot meet the required standards, the food isinadequate and etc. But of far greater con-cern is the length of time for which childrenare locked up in cells and the consequent lackof exercise. The long periods of time spent byyoung people In the prison system makes itextremely difficult for them to be rehabilitatedin the community. Family ties and communityties will have been lost, education neglectedwith little possibility of employment both dueto the stigma of having been imprisoned andthe failure to acquire any vocational skills.

Although there are four social worker staffat the prison there appears to be no planningfor when a child is released. Thus some chil-dren find themselves with no accommodation,job or skills on release, making the risk of re-offending high. There needs to be coopera-tion between probation and the staff in Avchalato ensure that a child’s release is properlyplanned and arrangements for the child’s sup-port are in place and ensure that each childwho has served a term of imprisonment has adischarge care plan before release.

Despite the fact, that placing juveniles incustody is expensive, unfortunately there is alack of community-based alternates to custo-dy. Although the Criminal Code provides thejudge with a range of possible non-custodialsanctions when sentencing, in practice, theoptions are few and there are an inadequaterange of alternatives to detention.

Under current procedure, once a child isarrested he/she will be detained in the policeisolator for up to 48 hours while an investiga-tion is conducted and a decision made as towhether there is evidence to charge the child.The conditions in the isolator do not at presentconform to international minimum standards.The police lack flexibility: they do not have thepower to release the child into the care of hisparents or guardian during this time, to give awarning as an alternative to detention and in-vestigation or generally to divert children awayfrom the criminal justice system even if thechild admits his/her guilt and confesses to theoffence.


172


Contrary to the requirements of the UNCRCand the UN Minimum Standars and Norms, thepolice, prosecutors and judges have no pow-er to divert children from the criminal justice sys-tem into community based programmes thataddress offending behavior and work with thechild and his/her family. The establishment ofsuch schemes for first time offenders and re-peat minor offenders would ensure that chil-dren are not taken to court for minor offencesand suffer all te disadvantages that prosecu-tion causes. It would enable children to staywith their families, in education and allow themto receive support.

Rule 6 of the Beijing Rules require thatdecision makers should be able to exercisediscretion at any stage in the criminal process,including in relation to the decision on wheth-er to continue with an investigation or prose-cution. The Rule requires that considerationshould be given wherever appropriate to deal-ing with juvenile offenders without resorting toformal trial. In addition, Rule 10 provides thata judge or other competent body shall withoutdelay consider the issue of release. The po-lice do not have the discretion envisaged inthe Rules. Therefore, the police should be giv-en discretion simply not to proceed with aninvestigation. This does not necessarily meanignoring the offending behavior, but taking al-ternative, diversionary measures to deal withoffending where this is necessary. Policeshould be given the power either to warn achild that further offending may lead to pros-ecution, or to refer a child to a diversion pro-gramme that would address the child’s offend-ing behavior.

The short period of time between arrival atthe police station and the start of questioningdoes not allow time for the parents to arrive atthe police station and to be present at ques-tioning, making this right largely meaningless.

There is no system of summary trial forchildren who admit offences and this leads tounnecessary pre-trial detention. In otherwords no system by which his case can befast-tracked and brought into the court short-ly after charge for final hearing. Instead , thechild must wait in the queue for his case to beheard. This is not in the child’s best interestsand is not using detention as a last resort forthe shortest period of time. It is also deeplyineffective and costly from resource perspec-tive. Consolidated trials would assist the pro-

cess of reducing delay and would reduce thetime children spent in detention.

There does not appear to be any oppor-tunity for the teacher or the lawyer to speakto the child before the questioning begins.Thus there is no opportunity to explain whythey are there, their role or what is going tohappen to the child as a result of being ar-rested. To a great extent the protection pro-vided by the attendance of the teacher andthe lawyer is illusory. Therefore, the lawyershould be entitled to talk to his child client inprivate before any questioning by the policeoccurs.

Courts are frightened and intimidating plac-es for children facing trial who, like adults areplaced in a cage in the court, away from theirparents. At the outset of court hearings, judg-es explain the rights of the accused , but it islikely that many children fail to understand thelegal language used by the judge and are notfamiliar with court procedure. The physicalplacement of the parents so far away from thechild reduces the support that they are ableto offer a child facing trial. In the intimidatingarena of an adult court, it is vital that minorsare adequately represented o ensure that theircase is properly considered and that mitigat-ing factors are presented.

The Beijing Rules lay down detailed onsentencing. Any sanction imposed on a childmust always be proportionate to the circum-stances of the offence and also to the circum-stances and the needs of the juvenile, as wellas the needs of society. The best interest ofthe child should be the guiding principle in anydecision.

The Criminal Code has provisions relat-ing to early release and parole, but these arenot widely used. He court can conditionallyrelease a juvenile sentenced to corrective la-bour or imprisonment before the expiration ofthe term if the court holds that complation ofthe sentence is no longer necessary for cor-rective purposes. Although it is encouragingto see some applications for early release, itwould appear that it is rare to review the sen-tence of a juvenile to determine a need forcustody continues to exist. The failure to re-view amounts to non-compliance with art. 25UNCRC, the ECHR and Rules 32.3 and 28 ofthe Beijing Rules.

Current system of JJ provides too little dis-cretion, flexibility and alternatives to criminal-

173

ization to meet human rights standards. Oncea child is suspected of a crime he/she will findhimself inexorably drawn into the criminal jus-tice system. Once arrested, the police haveno discretion to discontinue their investigationand divert the child out of the criminal systemand neither does the prosecutor. There is fartoo great a use of pretrial detention and toofew options of non-custodial sentencing avail-able to the courts. The detention facilities pres-ently used for juveniles violate children’srights. In addition there is no juvenile policejuvenile courts and etc.

It is necessary to introduce early interven-tion programmes for children at risk of offend-ing, diversion programmes for those who haveoffended the development of a child friendlyjustice system and alternative, communitybased sentences for children who offend.

Children should no longer be placed inpolice isolators. The small number of children

arrested for serious offences of violence orfor persistent property theft should be placedin secure accommodation. All other childrenshould be released under the supervision oftheir parents or the children’s home in whichthey live.

A range of community based servicesshould be developed nationally, including:• preventive services for children at risk of

anti-social behaviour or offending• a range of pre-trial diversion programmes• a range of alternatives to custodial sen-

tencing and pre-trial detention, includingfostering, supervision.These programmes should be developed

and funded as a matter of urgency and shouldbe made available country wide and for everychild who could benefit.

1 The Howard League for Penal Reform, (1997), The Use of Imprisonment forgirls, Fachtsheet No. 16.

2 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (Part 1, para. 21) adopted by theWorld Conference on Human Rights, Vienna, 25 June 1993, (A/CONF. 157/24(Part 1, chp.111).

3 Presumption of innocence; the right to be notified of the charges; the right toremain silent; the right to counsel; the right to the presence of parent or guardian;the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses; the right to appeal to a higherauthority, the protection of privacy.

4 Example Art. 5; Art. 6.1; Art. 8.1; Art. 8.2; Art. 2 of the first additional protocol .


174


givi miqanaZe

ombudsmenis instituti

adamianis uflebebi zogadsakaco-brio faseulobaa. maTs formirebaSi mniS-vnelovani roli Seasrula kulturul-istoriulma epoqebma, civilizaciebma dapolitikurma Zalebma.

adamianis uflebaTa koncefcia bu-nebiTi samarTlis doqtrinidan gamom-dinareobs da Tavis TavSi or ZiriTadcnebas Seicavs: pirveli imiT gamoixate-ba, rom adamians miniWebuli aqvs xelSeu-vali da ganusxvisebeli uflebebi. es mor-aluri uflebebi yoveli individis adami-anuri bunebidan gamomdinareobs da maTidaniSnulebaa adamianis sakuTari Rirse-bis grZnobis SenarCuneba; adamianis uf-lebebis koncefciis meore cnebas iurid-iuli uflebebi ganekuTvneba. maTi dad-gena im normaSemoqmedebiTi procesebismixedviT xdeba, romlebic rogorc erov-nul, aseve saerTaSoriso doneze mimdi-nareobs. msgavsi uflebebis safuZveliimaTi Tanxmobaa, viszec es uflebebi un-da gavrceldes, anu samarTlebrivi obi-eqtisa, maSin, roca pirveli jgufis uf-lebebis safuZveli bunebiTi wesrigia.

adamianis sicocxle da Rirseba mTe-li istoriis ganmavlobaSi fexqveS iTe-leboda. iseTi normebis gamoyenebis idea,romlebic erTiani iqneboda yvela adami-anisaTvis yovelgvari diskriminaciisgareSe, ramdenime aswleulis win daibada.marTlac, ar arsebobs sazogadoeba, ro-melsac ar hqonodes raime wesebi garkveu-li uflebebis dasacavad.

sazogadoebis yvela wevris Tanaswo-robis principi, iseve rogorc sxva bevriZiriTadi principi, romlebic Seadgenenimas, rac dRes adamianis uflebebad iwo-deba, praqtikulad niSandoblivia yove-li kulturis, religiisa da filosofi-uri tradiciebisaTvis. erTi aseTi tra-diciaTagani, romlis saTavec religiaSi

devs, `bunebiT uflebebad~ (jus naturale,natural rights) iwodeba.

adamianis uflebebis, rogorc termi-nis, aRmocenebasa da damkvidrebas win usw-rebda XVII saukunis filosofosTa dapolitikur moRvaweTa Soris farTodgavrcelebuli `bunebiTi uflebebis~cneba, romelic antikuri xanis moazro-vneTa mier SemuSavebul ̀ bunebiTi samar-Tlis~ (lex naturale) Teorias ukavSirdeba.`bunebiTi uflebebis~ sinonimad `ganuy-ofeli~ anu `xelSeuvali uflebebi~ (in-alienable rights) ixmareboda.

bunebiT samarTalTan dakavSirebiTJak mariteni SeniSnavda: ̀ adamianis piro-vneba uflebebs mxolod im faqtis gamoflobs, rom igi aris pirovneba, mTliano-ba, sakuTari Tavisa da qmedebebis baton-patroni. bunebiTi samarTlis wyalobiT,adamians ufleba aqvs: pativs scemdnen,iyos uflebaTa subieqti, flobdes ufle-bebs. yovelive es ki adamians mxolod imfaqtis gamo ekuTvnis, rom igi adamianiaris~.

XVIII saukunis ganmavlobaSi `bunebiTuflebebTan~ dakavSirebulma ideebispirvelma gamoxatulebam `bunebiTi sa-marTlis~ normebis iuridiul normebadcnoba gamoiwvia. aRniSnuli normebi pir-velad gaxda kacobriobis istoriaSi ero-vnuli konstituciebis nawili da amiTgamoixata xelSekrulebiTi urTierTobasaxelmwifosa da individs Soris, saidan-ac gamomdinareobda, rom saxelmwifosZalaufleba Tavisufali pirovnebis Tan-xmobas efuZneboda. 1776 wlis amerikisdamoukideblobis deklaracia da 1789wlis adamianisa da moqalaqis uflebaTafranguli deklaracia mocemuli wanam-ZRvridan momdinareobs. Semdgom period-Si es principi gaiziares evropulma, laT-inoamerikulma da aziis im saxelmwifoe-

175

bma, romlebic koloniebis xvedrs gadau-rCnen.

miuxedavad zemoaRniSnulisa, Segvi-Zlia samarTlianad vamtkicoT, rom ad-amianis uflebebi, rogorc politikur-samarTlebrivi movlena, axali da uaxle-si istoriis nayofia. sayovelTaod cno-bilia, rom yovel pirovnebas miniWebuliaqvs saerTaSoriso samarTliT aRiarebu-li adamianis uflebebi da Tavisuflebe-bi, saxelmwifo ki, Tavis mxriv, valdebu-lia, pativs scemdes da icavdes am ufle-bebsa da Tavisuflebebs. es Tvalsazrisikargad aris asaxuli gaerTianebuli ere-bis organizaciis wesdebaSi, romlis pre-ambulaSic gaerTianebuli erebis xalxeb-ma erTxmad ganacxades, rom TavianT miz-nad daisaxes, ganamtkicon rwmena adami-anis ZiriTadi uflebebisadmi, adamianispirovnebis Rirsebisa da Rirebulebebi-sadmi. gaero mowodebulia, xeli Seuwyosadamianis uflebebisa da ZiriTadi Tavi-suflebebis sayovelTao pativiscemasa dadacvas yvelasaTvis, rasis, sqesis, enisada religiis ganurCevlad.

gaeros wesdebaSi aRniSnuli Rirebu-lebis SetaniT organizaciis mamamTav-rebma safuZveli Cauyares saerTaSorisosamarTlis axali dargis – adamianis uf-lebaTa saerTaSoriso samarTlis aRmo-cenebas. am ukanasknelis sabaziso doku-mentad 1948 wlis 10 dekembris gaeros ad-amianis uflebaTa sayovelTao deklara-cia iqca. gamomdinare iqidan, rom dekla-racia savaldebulo Zalis matarebeli araris, Seiqmna saerTaSoriso dokumentebi(paqtebi, konvenciebi da qartiebi), rom-lebSic adamianis uflebebis efeqturidacvis meqanizmebi Caido.

adamianis uflebaTa ganviTarebisa daganmtkicebis meore etapi iyo adamianisuflebaTa saerTaSoriso samarTliT aRi-arebuli principebis danergva erovnulkonstituciebSi da qveynis Sidasakanon-mdeblo sistemis harmonizacia maTdami.amasTanave, aucileblobam ganapiroba,adamianis uflebaTa dacvis iseTi saer-TaSoriso meqanizmebis kvalobaze, rogo-rebicaa: gaeros adamianis uflebaTa ko-miteti, adamianis uflebaTa evropis sasa-marTlo, adamianis uflebaTa amerikissaxelmwifoTaSorisi komisia da sasamar-Tlo, afrikis adamianisa da xalxTa uf-lebebis komisia, qveynebs SigniTac Seqm-

niliyo analogiuri institutebi, rom-lebic uzrunvelyofdnen adamianisuflebebisa da Tavisuflebebis ganxor-cielebas. aRniSnuli moTxovna emsaxure-boda im amosaval debulebas, romlis mixe-dviTac adamianis uflebebi garantire-buli unda iyos ara marto normatiulad,aramed – praqtikuladac.

saxelmwifos, rogorc erTi mTlianisda misi calkeuli organoebis, damokide-buleba adamianis uflebebisadmi aSkaramaCvenebelia im politikuri weswyobile-bisa, romelic mocemul saxelmwifoSiadamkvidrebuli. dResdReobiT TiTqmisar darCa maRalganviTarebuli demokra-tiuli saxelmwifo, romelsac Tavis kon-stituciaSi adamianis ZiriTadi uflebe-bi da Tavisuflebebi ar hqondes dafiq-sirebuli.

konstituciaSi adamianis uflebaTada TavisuflebaTa asaxva qmnis pirovneb-is mimarT saxelmwifos SesaZlo Zalmom-reobis SeboWvis samarTlebriv garantias.bunebrivia, yvela uflebasa da Tavisuf-lebas konstitucia ver asaxavs, Tundac immizezis gamo, rom sazogadoebis ganviTa-rebasTan erTad sayovelTaod aRiarebuluflebaTa da TavisuflebaTa arealicfarTovdeba.

konstituciuri normebiT ganmtki-cebulia saxelmwifosa da misi organoeb-is mier pirovnebis uflebaTa dacva. amavedros, aseTi saxelmwifoebrivi monawile-oba ar gamoricxavs TviT individis aqti-ur moqmedebasac, rac piris interesTadacvis SesaZleblobas mniSvnelovnadafarToebs.

ombudsmenis instituts gansakuTre-buli adgili ukavia im meqanizmebs Soris,romlebic adamianis uflebebsa da kanon-ier interesebs saxelmwifo mmarTvelo-bis organoTa TviTnebobisagan icavs. om-budsmenis institutis SemoReba ganpiro-bebuli iyo saxelmwifo organoTa mieradamianis uflebebis darRvevisas ufle-baTa dacvis gazrdis, moqalaqeebSi biu-rokratiuli sistemis mimarT daucvelo-bis grZnobis Semcirebis, mmarTvelobisxarisxis gaumjobesebisa da pirovnebasa dasaxelmwifos Soris urTierTobebis human-izaciis mizniT.

sityva òmbudsmeni~ momdinareobsùmbud~-isgan (Sua saukuneebis Svedurenaze is Zalas an avtoritets niSnavda)

g. miqanaZe, ombudsmenis instituti

176


da, rogorc Cans, aqvs islandiuri fuZe,xolo Sveduri sityva ùmbud~ iTargmne-ba rogorc Tarjimani an sxva pirTa war-momadgeneli; meore mosazrebiT, termi-ni ̀ ombudsmeni~ germanuli warmoSobisaada misi fuZe momdinareobs germanel tom-Ta cxovrebis adreuli periodidan. om-budsmenad iwodeboda piri, romelic mkv-lelobis Semdgom dazaralebuli mxarissaxeliT vergelds krebda. warsulSiSvedebi da sxva skandinavieli xalxebi am-jobinebdnen, sityva ombudsmeni eTargm-naT rogorc ̀ rwmunebuli~, ̀ saqmeTa mmar-Tveli~, ̀ ndobiT aRWurvili piri~; aris me-same mosazrebac, romlis Tanaxmadac, om-budsmenis institutis warmoSoba safuZ-vels iRebs romaeli cenzorebis, tri-bunebisa da provinciebis prokurorebi-sagan.

ombudsmenis instituti pirveladSvedeTSi 1809 wels daarsda, rodesac Sve-deTis riksdagma miiRo dokumenti marT-vis Sesaxeb (konstituciuri aqti). aRniS-nul dokuments safuZvlad daedo mon-teskies xelisuflebis danawilebis Teo-ria. mefisa da parlamentis uflebamosi-lebis gasaTanasworeblad am ukanasknelseZleoda specialuri saparlamento ko-misris (ombudsmenis) arCevis ufleba,romelsac zedamxedveloba unda gaewiasasamarTloebisa da xelisuflebis sxvaorganoebisaTvis parlamentis mier miRe-buli kanonebis Sesrulebaze.

dasawyisSive ombudsmeni aRiWurvaaRmasrulebeli xelisuflebisa da sxvaorganoTa saqmianobaze konstituciurikontrolis ganxorcielebis funqciiT.mas daevala administraciis TviTnebobi-sagan moqalaqeTa uflebebis dacva, rad-gan saerTo sasamarTloebi administra-ciaze kontrols ar axorcielebdnen da,Sesabamisad, igi rCeboda yovelgvari kon-trolis gareSe.

ombudsmeni ganisazRvreba rogorcndobaminiWebuli damoukidebeli piri,romelic parlamentis mier uflebamosi-lia, daicvas calkeul moqalaqeTa ufle-bebi da ganaxorcielos saparlamento ko-ntroli saxelmwifo Tanamdebobis pire-bze, magram maT mier miRebuli gadaw-yvetilebebis Secvlis uflebis gareSe.

1919 wlidan moyolebuli, msgavsi or-ganoebi msoflios sxvadasxva qveyanaSicdainerga da samarTlebrivi kontrolis

sistemaSi Sevida. aRniSnul wlamde sapa-rlamento ombudsmenis instituti, Sve-deTis garda, sxvagan arsad arsebobda. amwels igi fineTSi dainerga.

samarTlebrivi saxelmwifos pirobeb-Si ganuzomeli mniSvneloba eniWeba adami-anis uflebaTa dacvis samarTlebriv-in-stitucionaluri garantiebis ganmaxor-cielebel organoebs – sakonstituciosasamarTlosa da ombudsmenis insti-tuts. meore msoflio omis Semdeg msof-lio sazogadoebrioba mivida im daskvnam-de, rom adamianis uflebaTa darRvevisfaqtebi xels uSlida msoflioSi marTl-wesrigis ganmtkicebas, ramac ganapirobaadamianis uflebaTa dacvis rogorc sa-erTaSoriso, aseve Sidasaxelmwifoebrivimeqanizmebis Zieba-Seqmnis procesi. amdroisaTvis msoflios sxvadasxva qveya-naSi farTod ikidebs fexs konstituci-uri kontrolisa da ombudsmenis insti-tutebi.

Tanamedrove msoflios 80-ze met qvey-anaSi ombudsmenis institutis 100-zemeti nairsaxeobaa, Tumca TiToeuli maT-gani zrunavs Sesabamis saxelmwifoSi ad-amianis uflebaTa da TavisuflebaTadacvaze. aRniSnuli instituti daniasada norvegiaSi 1953 wels dafuZnda, Tum-ca norvegiaSi igi 1963 wlamde samxedroombudsmenis institutis saxiT funq-cionirebda;

1952 wels ceilonSi, gaeros mier ombu-dsmenis institutis Taobaze gamarTulseminarze, daniis pirveli ombudsmenis,Stefan gurviCis, moxsenebiT aRfrTov-anebulma axalzelandielebma, romlebicam seminarze generaluri prokurorisada iusticiis ministris moadgilis sax-iT iyvnen warmodgenilni, 1962 wlis 7 se-qtembers miiRes kanoni, romelmac am qvey-anaSi ombudsmenis institutis SemoRebissafuZveli Seqmna.

administraciul sasamarTloTasistemis krizisis da am problemebze mar-Tlmsajulebis saerTaSoriso komisiisinglisis qvedanayofis mier momzadebu-li Whyatt Report axdenda did britaneTSiombudsmenis institutis SemoRebis reko-mendebas. marTalia, mas bevri mowinaaRm-dege hyavda, ZiriTadad, saxelmwifo biu-rokratiis saxiT da arc premier-ministrmak-milanis konservatoruli mTavrobauWerda mxars, magram vilsonma, romelmac

177

1964 wlis arCevnebisaTvis es sakiTxi Ta-vis winasaarCevno programaSi Seitana, ar-CevnebSi gaimarjva da sami wlis Semdeg, 1967wels miRebul iqna kanoni saparlamentorwmunebulis Sesaxeb.

1960-70-iani wlebis mijnaze es insti-tuti fexs ikidebs aSS-is sxvadasxva Stat-Si, 1973 wels – safrangeTSi, 1976 wels –portugaliaSi, 1981 wels – espaneTSi, 1982wels – holandiaSi, 1988 wels – poloneT-Si, xolo 1995 wels – saqarTveloSi (sax-alxo damcvelis Sesaxeb muxli pirveladsaqarTvelos 1995 wlis konstituciaSigaCnda, organuli kanoni `saqarTvelossaxalxo damcvelis Sesaxeb~ miRebul iqna1996 wlis 16 maiss, xolo pirveli saxalxodamcveli saqarTvelos parlamentma 1997wlis 29 oqtombers airCia).1

saerTaSoriso praqtikaSi xSiria om-budsmenis sxvadasxva saxelwodeba. ker-Zod, safrangeTSi mas mediators uwode-ben, portugaliaSi – iusticiis prove-dors, espaneTSi, saqarTvelos msgavsad,– saxalxo damcvels, poloneTSi – rwmu-nebuls da sxva. miuxedavad saxelwodeba-Ta aseTi mravalferovnebisa, termin òm-budsmens~ SenarCunebuli aqvs Tavisi gan-sakuTrebuli adgili, rogorc adamianisuflebaTa dacvis am meqanizmis saerToaRmniSvnels.

gamocdileba adasturebs, rom ombu-dsmenis institutze moTxovnileba yve-laze metad maSin warmoiSoba, roca mo-qmed institutebs saxelmwifo mmarTve-lobis organoebis mimarT sakontrolouflebebis ganxorcielebis unari ar Sesw-evT da saWiroa administraciis TviTne-bobisagan moqalaqeTa uflebebis damate-biTi dacva.

ombudsmenis institutis Seqmna mWid-rodaa dakavSirebuli rogorc xelisu-flebis danawilebis TeoriasTan, asevesazogadoebis Tanamedrove ganviTare-basa Tu saxelmwifo da administraciulisaqmianobis gafarToebasTan. es ukanas-kneli ki iwvevs saxelmwifo-administra-ciul organoebsa da moqalaqeebs SorisuTanxmoebis zrdas. aRniSnuls xels uwy-obs saxelmwifo aparatSi TanamSromel-Ta ricxvis mudmivi zrda, samarTlebrivinormebisa da miwerilobebis didi raode-noba, aRmasrulebeli xelisuflebissaqmianobaze parlamentis sainformaciodeficiti, administraciul sasamarTlo-

Ta saqmeebiT gadatvirTva da sxv. aseTpirobebSi moqalaqe yoveldRiurad gan-icdis administraciul da sxva biurok-ratiul organoTa zemoqmedebas, rac sa-xelmwifosadmi maTs ukmayofilebasa daundoblobas iwvevs.

yovelive zemoTqmulidan SegviZliadavaskvnaT, rom ombudsmenis institut-is gavrceleba da zogierTi qveynis poli-tikur-samarTlebriv sistemaSi CarTvaganpirobebulia sazogadoebis cxovreb-is yvela socialur sferoSi saxelmwifosSeRweviT, saxelmwifos administraciulifunqciebis gafarToebiT, saxelmwifoeb-rivi regulirebis gziT, rac sakanonmde-blo xelisuflebis rolsa da administra-ciuli aparatis poziciebs ganamtkicebs.

garda zemoTqmulisa, arsebobs sxvagaremoebebi, romlebic zogierT qveyana-Si ombudsmenis institutis Seqmnis mi-zezs asaxavs. ZiriTadad, es aris saxelm-wifoebrivi saqmianobis yvela sferoSisamarTlebrivi funqciebis gafarToeba,saxelmwifos administraciuli funqcie-bis gazrda, ris safuZvelzec wina planzegamodis aRmasrulebeli xelisufleba daiqmneba administraciul gadawyvetile-baTa personalizaciisa da individual-izaciis saWiroeba. ombudsmeni sxva sax-elmwifo organoebTan mimarTebiT afar-Toebs parlamentis tradiciul sakon-trolo funqciebs. swored amitom msof-lios mravalma qveyanam ombudsmenis in-stitutis CamoyalibebiT Seavso moqmedisakontrolo funqciebi.

ombudsmenis kompetenciaSi ar SedismoqalaqeTa Soris davebis ganxilva. – misisaqmianobis sferoa urTierToba moqala-qesa da saxelmwifo organos, sazogadoe-briv organizacias, dawesebulebas Soris.qveyanaTa umravlesobaSi ombudsmenisfunqcia aris kontroli mxolod saxelm-wifoebrivi instanciis, mosamsaxureTada im pirTa saqmianobaze, romlebic mTav-robis davalebiT muSaoben da adminis-traciul funqciebs axorcieleben, e.i.kontroli `moqalaqe – aRmasrulebelixelisufleba~ urTierTobebis sferoSi.es aris Sida da sagangebo kontroli. misiganxorcieleba xdeba ombudsmenis inicia-tiviT, moqalaqeTa moTxovnis an saCivre-bis safuZvelze.

xSirad ombudsmeni situacias ganix-ilavs ara marto gadawyvetilebis kanon-


178


Tan Sesabamisobisa da administraciismoqmedebis gaTvaliswinebiT, aramed masSeuZlia, saxelmwifo organoebis saqmi-anoba kompleqsurad Seiswavlos da mi-iRos gadawyvetileba maTi moqmedebis sa-marTlianobasa da mizanSewonilobaze.aRniSnuli gansakuTrebiT im saxelmwi-foebs exeba, romlebSic kontroli admin-istraciis moqmedebis kanonierebaze ad-ministraciul sasamarTloTa meSveobiTxorcieldeba. sakontrolo RonisZiebeb-is Sedegi, upirveles yovlisa, moqalaqe-Ta uflebebis ganxorcieleba da saxelm-wifo administraciis saqmianobaSi xarve-zebis aRmofxvraa.

Tanamedrove msoflioSi moqalaqeebiuflebebis dasacavad upiratesobas ani-Weben aratradiciul saSualebebs. om-budsmenis instituti damoukidebelia daasrulebs Tavis funqciebs, miuxedavadimisa, rom igi samarTlebrivi kontrolissistemis Semadgeneli nawilia. ombudsme-nis saqmianoba, moqalaqeTa uflebebisdamcveli sxva organoebisagan gansxvave-biT, ufro demokratiulia da ganmtkice-bulia ufasod gaweuli samsaxuris prin-cipiT. yvelaze ukeT misi daniSnulebagamoixateba daniis ombudsmenis institu-tis ofisis karebze mikrul abraze daw-erili ori sityviT – `karebi Riaa~.

sxva samarTaldamcavi organoebisa-gan ombudsmeni imiT gansxvavdeba, rom igidakavebulia mxolod moqalaqeTa ufle-bebiT. Sesabamisi kompetenturi organoe-bisadmi mimarTviT, igi aiZulebs maT, ka-nonis Sesabamisad, ganixilon sadavo si-tuaciebi. ombudsmeni damoukidebeliaTavisi funqciebis ganxorcielebisas dagamoZiebis Casatareblad flobs yvelasaWiro uflebamosilebas.

ombudsmenis umTavresi funqcia ad-amianis uflebaTa da TavisuflebaTadarRvevis faqtebis gamovlena da darR-veuli uflebebis aRdgenis xelSewyobaa.am mizniT, igi zedamxedvelobs saxelm-wifo xelisuflebis, adgilobrivi TviT-mmarTvelobis organoebis, Tanamdebobisada iuridiul pirTa saqmianobas, afasebsmaT mier miRebul aqtebs, aZlevs rekomen-daciebsa da winadadebebs. erT-erTi um-niSvnelovanesi funqcia, romelsac es in-stituti atarebs, adamianis uflebaTada TavisuflebaTa dacvis sferoSi sagan-manaTleblo saqmianobis warmoebaa.

administraciuli organoebi da Tan-amdebobisa Tu iuridiuli pirebi valde-buli arian, warudginon masalebi, sabu-Tebi da sxva informacia, romelic esaWi-roeba ombudsmens Tavisi uflebamosile-bis gansaxorcieleblad. Semowmebis Catare-bisas ombudsmeni daubrkoleblad Sedissaxelmwifo xelisuflebisa da adgilo-brivi TviTmmarTvelobis nebismier orga-noSi, sawarmoSi, organizaciasa da dawese-bulebaSi, maT Soris samxedro qvedanay-ofSi, dakavebis, winaswari patimrobisada Tavisuflebis SezRudvis adgilebSi.

saxelmwifo organo, Tanamdebobis aniuridiuli piri, romelsac rekomendaci-iT an winadadebiT mimarTavs ombudsmeni,valdebulia, kanonmdeblobiT dadgenilvadaSi ganixilos da werilobiT acnobosmas ganxilvis Sedegebi. ombudsmenis saq-mianobisaTvis dabrkolebaTa Seqmna isje-ba kanoniT.

ombudsmenis saqmianobas farTo sa-zogadoebrivi rezonansi aqvs, radgan igiwliuri muSaobis Sedegebs moxsenebis sax-iT warudgens mis amrCev an damniSvnelorganos. aRniSnul moxsenebaSi mocemu-lia aRmasrulebeli xelisuflebis mxri-dan moqalaqeTa uflebebis darRvevisfaqtebi. wliuri moxseneba xels uwyobsadamianis uflebebis sferoSi arsebulimdgomareobis Sesaxeb sazogadoebis in-formirebas.

rogorc wesi, umravles qveyanaSi, sa-dac ombudsmenis instituti funqcion-irebs, amgvari angariSis wardgena misiamrCevi an damniSvneli organos winaSe we-liwadSi erTxel xdeba. aRniSnulidangamonaklisia saqarTvelos saxalxo dam-cveli. 1999 wels evropis sabWom saqarT-velos am saerTaSoriso organizaciaSigawevrianebisas erT-erT moTxovnad wa-uyena `saqarTvelos saxalxo damcvelisSesaxeb~ organul kanonSi Semdegi cv-lilebis Setana – saxalxo damcvels par-lamentisTvis angariSi weliwadSi araerTxel, aramed orjer unda waredgina.saqarTvelos parlamentma 1999 wlis 23ivniss daakmayofila evropis sabWos aR-niSnuli moTxovna da organuli kanonis22-e muxlis pirveli punqti CamoayalibaSemdegi redaqciiT: `saqarTvelos sax-alxo damcveli saqarTvelos parlamentswarudgens angariSs qveyanaSi adamianisuflebaTa da TavisuflebaTa dacvis

179

mdgomareobis Sesaxeb eqvs TveSi erTxel,kalendaruli wlis martsa da oqtomberSi~.

angariSis umTavresi daniSnulebaa,mis amrCev an damniSvnel organos ecno-bos qveyanaSi adamianis uflebaTa dacva-sTan dakavSirebiT arsebuli mdgomareo-bis Sesaxeb, mieTiTos im sakanonmdebloaqtebze, romlebic arRveven adamianisuflebebsa da Tavisuflebebs, maTSi cv-lilebebis Setanis an gauqmebis rekomen-daciiT, mxilebul iqnnen is saxelmwifoorganoebi da Tanamdebobis pirebi, rome-lTa qmedebebmac gamoiwvia adamianis uf-lebaTa darRveva. ombudsmenis angariSSiasaxul faqtebsa da komentarebze, agre-Tve miRweul Sedegebze didad aris damok-idebuli sazogadoebaSi am institutisa-dmi ndoba da misi avtoritetis gazrda.

ombudsmenis institutis cnobili sa-erTaSoriso mkvlevari fleinerjesterimiiCnevs, rom òmbudsmenis institutiSeiZleba mivakuTvnoT sajarosamarT-lebrivi zedamxedvelobis specialur in-stitutebs~. imavdroulad rusi profe-sori boicova acxadebs, rom ̀ ombudsmeni,rogorc sajarosamarTlebrivi institu-ti, emsaxureba sazogadoebriv intere-sebs; amitom misi moxsenebebi SeiZleba Se-vafasoT rogorc sajaro saCivrebi~.

msoflioSi damkvidrebuli praqtikismixedviT, ombudsmeni aqtiurad Tanam-Sromlobs masmediasTan da iyenebs maszemoqmedebis saSualebis saxiT Sesabami-si organoebis mier darRveuli uflebeb-is aRsadgenad da aRmasrulebeli xelisu-flebis saqmianobaSi gamovlenil xarvez-Ta gamosaaSkaraveblad. masmediasTan ur-TierTobiT ombudsmeni informacias awv-dis sazogadoebas gaweuli saqmianobisada miRweuli Sedegebis Sesaxeb, rac misiavtoritetis amaRlebas da am institu-tis saxelmwifo organoebze zemoqmedeb-is gaZlierebas uwyobs xels. aRniSnuli ki,saboloo jamSi, adamianis darRveuliuflebis aRdgenis met SesaZleblobas iZ-leva.

miuxedavad imisa, rom mTel msofli-oSi ombudsmenebi cdiloben, ganamtki-con ndoba moqalaqesa da administraciasSoris, yovel calkeul saxelmwifoSi ar-sebobs Taviseburebebi im konkretul miz-nebsa da amocanebTan mimarTebiT, rom-lebic dasmulia ama Tu im ombudsmenissamsaxuris winaSe. ombudsmeni muSaobs im

pirobebSi, rogorc damaxasiaTebelia misiqveynisaTvis da, Sesabamisad, amitomac amuwyebis organizacia da funqcionirebissaSualebebi gansxvavebulia. aRniSnulidakavSirebulia calkeul saxelmwifoTaspecifikurobasTan, ombudsmenis klasi-kuri modelis sakuTarTan, zog SemTxve-vaSi savsebiT originalur, samarTlebrivda administraciul sistemasTan misad-agebasTan. es arcaa gasakviri, radgan qve-yana, romelic am instituts amkvidrebs,cdilobs ukve moqmed samarTlebrivsistemasTan mis Serwymas. swored amitomombudsmenis institutebs, saerTo niSneb-is miuxedavad, aqvT is specifikuri Ta-viseburebebi, romlebic ganpirobebuliaerovnuli tradiciebiT, moqmedi kon-trolisa da zedamxedvelobis organoTasistemiT, maT Soris kompetenciaTa ga-nawilebiT da a.S.

ombudsmeni msoflio instituciona-lizmSi Semovida rogorc adamianis uf-lebebis dacvaze sakanonmdeblo organosuflebamosili instituti, Tumca igi araris saparlamento organo da, amdenad,logikuria mecnierebasa da praqtikaSimis damoukideblobaze gakeTebuli aq-centi. marTalia, igi afarToebs da avsebsparlamentis sakontrolo funqciebs sxvasaxelmwifo organoebTan mimarTebiT, maskanonmdeblis winaSe akisria angariSval-debulebac, magram igi Tavisi uflebamo-silebis ganxorcielebis procesSi damo-ukidebelia – Tavisufalia nebismierisxva saxelmwifo organos Tu Tanamdebo-bis piris zewolisagan. igi emorCilebamxolod kanons, romelic normatiuldoneze Tavad axdens misi damoukideblo-bis konstatacias, ufro sworad ki, qmnisam mdgomareobis iuridiul safuZvels.ombudsmenis damoukideblobis xarisxzemetyvelebs is faqtic, rom igi ar mieku-Tvneba xelisuflebis arcerT Stos. xSir-ad ama Tu im qveyanaSi ombudsmenis saqmi-anobis efeqturobis xarisxi da misadmisazogadoebis ndobis faqtori uSualodam Tanamdebobaze myofi adamianis pirov-nul avtoritetzea damokidebuli.

ombudsmenis damoukideblobis garan-tia gansazRvravs misi saqmianobis efeq-turobas. am mxriv mniSvnelovania, Tu ro-meli saxelmwifo organos mier xdeba pi-ris arCeva an daniSvna ombudsmenis Tanam-debobaze. qveyanaTa umetesobaSi ombuds-


180


mens umaRlesi sakanonmdeblo organoirCevs, Tumca zogn ombudsmenis insti-tutma aRmasrulebeli xelisuflebismier daniSvniTi saxe miiRo. kerZod, saf-rangeTSi mediatori iniSneba saxelmwifosabWos dekretiT, didi britaneTis sapa-rlamento rwmunebuls ki niSnavs dedofali.

ombudsmenis garantiebze saubrisasar SeiZleba gauTvaliswinebloba kanonm-deblobiT gantkicebuli SesaZleblobe-bisa ombudsmenisaTvis vadamde uflebam-osilebis Sewyvetis Taobaze. umetes SemT-xvevaSi aRniSnuli mizezebi identuriaimisa, rac gansazRvrulia saqarTvelossaxalxo damcvelisaTvis organuli kano-niT – moqalaqeobis dakargvis, zedized 4Tvis ganmavlobaSi movaleobis Seusrule-blobis, mis mimarT sasamarTlos gamam-tyunebeli ganaCenis kanonier ZalaSi Ses-vlis, sasamarTlos mier misi qmeduunar-od, ugzo-ukvlod dakargulad an garda-cvlilad cnobis, mis statusTan SeuTav-sebeli Tanamdebobis dakavebis an SeuTav-sebeli saqmianobis warmoebis, nebayof-lobiT gadadgomisa da gardacvalebisSemTxvevaSi. niderlandebSi es SeiZlebaiyos SemTxveva, rodesac erovnul om-budsmens sasamarTlos kanonier ZalaSiSesuli gadawyvetilebiT dauwesdebamzrunveloba da meurveoba, gamocxadde-ba gakotrebulad, miiRebs moratoriums,an aRekveTeba Tavisufleba valebis gamo2

(samoqalaqo da politikur uflebaTasaerTaSoriso paqtis me-11 muxlis Tanax-mad: àravis SeiZleba aRekveTos Tavisu-fleba mxolod saxelSekrulebo valde-bulebebis Seusruleblobis safuZ-velze"); agreTve, Tu igi Tavisi moqmede-bis an umoqmedobis Sedegad iwvevs qvedapalatis seriozul undoblobas. umaR-lesi sakanonmdeblo organos mxridan om-budsmenis uflebamosilebis vadamde Sew-yvetis safuZvlad misTvis undoblobisgamocxadeba dafiqsirebulia SvedeTiskanoniTac. poloneTSi rwmunebulisuflebamosilebis vadamde Sewyveta Sesa-Zlebelia am ukanasknelis mier ficis da-rRvevis SemTxvevaSi.

xelSeuxeblobis garantia ganamtki-cebs ombudsmenis damoukideblobasa damisi saqmianobis miukerZoeblobas. umrav-lesi qveynis kanonmdebloba dauSvebladmiiCnevs ombudsmenis sisxlis samarTlispasuxisgebaSi micemas, dakavebas an dapa-

timrebas, misi binis, manqanis, samuSao ad-gilis an pirad gaCxrekas im organos Tanx-mobis gareSe, romlis mierac daniSnulian arCeulia igi. gamonaklisia danaSau-lze waswreba, rac dauyovnebliv undaecnobos mis amrCev an damniSvnel orga-nos da mxolod misi TanxmobiT unda ganx-orcieldes saTanado saproceso moqme-debebi; uaris SemTxvevaSi, dakavebuli andapatimrebuli ombudsmeni dauyovneb-liv unda gaTavisufldes.

ombudsmenis damoukideblad moR-vaweobisaTvis damatebiTi garantiaa misiufleba, ar misces Cveneba im faqtis gamo,romelic mas gaandes, rogorc ombudsmensda romelic mas unarCundeba uflebam-osilebis Sewyvetis Semdegac. mniSvnelo-vani garantiaa, agreTve, ombudsmenis pa-suxisgebaSi micemis dauSvebloba Tavisimovaleobis Sesrulebisas gamoTqmuliazrebisa da SexedulebebisaTvis.

finansuri damoukideblobis Tval-sazrisiT, aRiarebulia, rom ombudsmenisinstitutis organizaciasa da saqmiano-basTan dakavSirebuli xarjTaRricxvacalke muxliT unda iyos gaTvaliswineb-uli saxelmwifo biujetSi, amasTan, mra-val qveyanaSi damkvidrebulia praqtika,romlis mixedviTac ombudsmenisaTvis bi-ujetiT gaTvaliswinebuli Tanxebisodenoba ar SeiZleba iyos wina wlis biu-jetiT gamoyofil Tanxebze naklebi.

yovelive zemoaRniSnulidan gamomdi-nare, SegviZlia davaskvnaT, rom ombuds-menma miiRo sakanonmdeblo da sazogado-ebrivi aRiareba im saxelmwifoebSi, sadacarsebobs marTva-gamgeobis sxvadasxvaforma: konstituciuri monarqia, saprez-idento respublika, saparlamento res-publika. ombudsmenis instituti warma-tebiT funqcionirebs sxvadasxva samarT-lebriv (anglosaqsuri da kontinenturisamarTlis) ojaxs mikuTvnebul saxelmwi-foebSi.

ombudsmenis nebismier saxelmwifowyobilebasTan Segueba aixsneba im gare-moebiT, rom yvela qveynisaTvis damaxasi-aTebelia biurokratiuli problemebi.saxelmwifos administraciuli funqcie-bis gafarToebasa da saxelmwifo regu-lirebis zrdas Sedegad sakanonmdebloxelisuflebis mniSvnelobis Semcireba daaRmasrulebel struqturaTa pozicieb-is ganmtkiceba mohyveba. ar aris gamori-

181

cxuli administraciuli organoebis Seg-nebuli gadaxra samarTlebrivi da admin-istraciuli eTikis normebisagan.

ombudsmenis institutis SemoRebas imqveynebSi, romlebic SvedeTisagan gansx-vavdebian mmarTvelobis sistemiT, admin-istraciul-politikuri mowyobiT, so-cialuri, istoriuli TaviseburebebiT,mravali sirTule axlda Tan. skandinavi-is qveynebis gareT ombudsmenis ideis aRi-arebis gaWianurebis miuxedavad, ombuds-menma daamtkica Tavisi mniSvneloba da,rac mTavaria, igi SesaniSnavad Seesisxlx-orca sxvadasxva qveynis erovnul samarT-lebriv sistemebs, miuxedavad imisa, aRi-arebdnen isini xelisuflebis danawileb-is princips Tu prioritets aniWebdnenaRmasrulebel xelisuflebas.

ombudsmenis moqniloba gamoaSkarav-da mis warmatebul saqmianobaSi rogorcunitarul, aseve federaciul saxelmwi-foebSi. im specifikurma pirobebma, rom-lebic win uswrebdnen institutis Seqm-nas, ganapirobes tradiciuli skandinavi-uri modelis mniSvnelovani transforma-cia. TiToeuli ombudsmenis samsaxuriTaviseburad axdenda arsebuli proble-mebis gadawyvetas, amitomac ombudsmenissamarTlebrivi institutis SedarebiTianalizis gakeTeba sakmaod rTulia. misSeqmnasa da funqcionirebaSi gamoxatu-lia Taviseburebani da ganmasxvavebeliniSnebi, erovnuli, saxelmwifoebrivimeqanizmis erTgvari gansxvavebuli isto-ria.

1 saxalxo damcvelis Sesaxeb muxli pirvelad saqarTvelos 1995 wlis

konstituciaSi gaCnda, organuli kanoni `saqarTvelos saxalxo

damcvelis Sesaxeb~ miRebul iqna 1996 wlis 16 maiss, xolo pirveli

saxalxo damcveli saqarTvelos parlamentma 1997 wlis 29 oqtombers

airCia.2 samoqalaqo da politikur uflebaTa saerTaSoriso paqtis me-11 muxlis

Tanaxmad: àravis SeiZleba aRekveTos Tavisufleba mxolod

saxelSekrulebo valdebulebebis Seusruleblobis safuZvelze~.


gamoyenebuli literatura:

1. g. miqanaZe – ̀ evropis ombudsmenebi~, Tb. 1999.2. g. miqanaZe – statia `saxalxo damcvelis instituti saqarTveloSi~, statiaTa

krebuli àdamianis uflebaTa evropuli standartebi da maTi gavlena saqarTveloskanonmdeblobasa da praqtikaze~, k. korkelias redaqtorobiT, Tb., 2006.

3. Àëüâàðî Õèëü Ðîáëåñ – “Ïàðëàìåíòñêèé êîíòðîëü çà àäìèíèñòðàöèåé (èíñòèòóòîìáóä-ñìàíà)”, Ì., 1997.

4. Ý. Öîëëýð – “Çàùèòà ïðàâ ÷åëîâåêà âî ôðàíöèè”, Ì., 1993.5. Í. Ðàãîçèí – “Ïðàâà ÷åëîâåêà â ñîâðåìåííîì ìèðå”, Äîíåöê 1995.6. Â. Áîéöîâà – “Çàùèòà ïðàâ ÷åëîâåêà è ãðàæäàíèíà – ìèðîâîé îïûò”, Ì., 1996.7. Í. Õàìàíåâà – “Óïîëíîìî÷åííûé ïî ïðàâàì ÷åëîâåêà – çàùèòíèê ïðàâ ãðàæäàí”, Ì., 1998.8. Gregory R., Hutchesson P. – “The Parliamentary Ombudsman. A Study in the Control of

Administrative Action”, London, 1975.9. Clark D. Citizen and Administration in France – the Review of Discussion the Conseil d’Elat v.

Ombudsmen // Public Administration, 1984.10. Commissioner for Civil Rights Protection of Poland – “National Ombudsmen (Legislation of 27

Countries)”, Warsaw 1998.

182


GIVI MIKANADZE

OMBUDSMAN INSTITUTION

Human rights represent universal value.Cultural-historical eras, civilizations and polit-ical forces play considerable roles in their de-velopment.

The concept of human rights derives fromthe natural law doctrine and embraces twomain notions. The first implies that a humanbeing is granted inviolable and inalienablerights. These moral rights originate from hu-man nature of an individual and their purposeis to preserve the sense of self-esteem of ahuman being. The second notion of the con-cept of human rights embodies legal rights.They are established as a result of legal draft-ing processes which take place at both – na-tional and international planes. These rights arebased on the consent of those who shall enjoythese rights, i.e. of legal objects, whereas therights affiliated to the first group are based onthe natural order.

Life and dignity of a human being have beentrampled throughout the history. The idea ofemploying uniform norms without any discrim-ination towards each and every individualemerged several centuries ago. Indeed thereis no society which would have no rules forprotection of certain rights.

Principle of equality of every member ofhuman society, just alike many other basicprinciples, which make up what today callehuman rights, are in principle attributable toall cultures, religions and philosophical tradi-tions. One of such traditions, which derivesfrom religion, is called jus naturale, or naturalrights.

Emergence and establishment of the termhuman rights was preceded with the notion ofnatural rights, widely accepted by XVII centu-ry philosophers and politicians. The conceptof natural rights was on its turn related withthe theory of natural law (lex naturale) elabo-rated by intellectuals of ancient era. “Inviola-ble” or “inalienable rights” were used as syn-onyms to the term “natural rights”.

Jacques Maritain has noted with regardto natural law: Individual human being pos-sesses rights solely due to the fact that he/she is a personality, integral master of himselfand his actions. Thanks to the natural law ahuman being has a right to be respected, be asubject of rights, to possess rights. All of theseare deserved by a human being due to a sin-gle reason of being a human.

During XVIII century first incarnation ofideas related with the “natural rights” resultedinto recognition of norms of “natural law” aslegal norms. The mentioned norms becameconstituents of national constitutions first timein the history of mankind thus depicting con-tractual relationship between a state and anindividual, deriving from which state authoritywas based on the consent of an independentindividual. The 1776 United States Declara-tion of Independence and the 1789 FrenchDeclaration of the Rights of Man and Citizenderive from the above mentioned basis. In thesubsequent period the principle was sharedby a number of European, Latin American andAsian states, which escaped the fate of beingcolonialized.

Despite all the above-mentioned, it can berightly argued that human rights, as political-legal phenomenon is a creature of new andmodern history. It is universally recognized thateach individual is granted rights and obliga-tions prescribed by international law, and stateon its turn is obliged to respect and protectthese rights and freedoms. This standpoint iswell reflected in the United Nations Charter, inthe Preamble of which the Peoples of the Unit-ed Nations have unanimously declared thatthey were determined to reaffirm faith in fun-damental human rights, in the dignity andworth of the human person. United Nations isresolute to “promote and encourage respectfor human rights and for fundamental freedomsfor all without distinction as to race, sex, lan-guage, or religion”.

183

By introducing the aforementioned valueinto the Charter of the United Nations the fa-thers of the organization laid down foundationfor emerging new field of international law –international law of human rights. The keystonedocument for the latter appeared to be the1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights,adopted and proclaimed by the UN GeneralAssembly Resolution of 10 December 1948.Based on the fact that the Declaration doesnot possess an obligatory character, a num-ber of international instruments (Covenants,Conventions, and Charters) were drafted,which incorporated efficient mechanisms ofhuman rights protection.

The second stage of development andstrengthening human rights was introductionof principles recognized by international lawinto the national constitutions and respectiveharmonization of domestic legislation. At thesame time, in conjunction with introducing suchinternational human rights protection institu-tions as the UN Human Rights Committee, theEuropean Court of Human Rights, Inter-Ameri-can Commission on Human Rights, Inter-Amer-ican Court of Human Rights, African Commis-sion on Human and People’s Rights, it wasnecessitated to create similar institutions atnational levels, to ensure protection of humanrights and freedoms. The necessity served theemerging provision following which human rightsmust be guaranteed not only normatively, butin practice as well.

Approach of a state as a single whole aswell as of its individual bodies with regard tohuman rights is a conspicuous indicator of apolitical system established in the state. Nowa-days, there are almost no highly developedstates which do not have fundamental humanrights and freedoms contained in the consti-tution.

Reflection of human rights and freedomsin constitution creates legal guarantees of re-stricting a state’s possible oppression of anindividual. It is true, that not all the rights andfreedoms can be included into a constitution,if for no other reason than due to the fact thatalong with development of a society the circleof universally recognized rights and freedomsis also expanding.

Constitutional norms provide for protec-tion of rights of an individual by a state and its

bodies. At the same time such a participationof a state does not exclude vigorous actionson behalf of an individual that considerably ex-tends options for protecting interests of a per-son.

Ombudsman institution occupies a partic-ular place among the mechanisms which pro-tect human rights and legal interests of an in-dividual from arbitrariness of state governingbodies. Introduction of ombudsman institutionwas caused by the need of increasing possi-bility of protection of human rights when theyhappen to be violated by state bodies, as wellas the need of decreasing the since of citi-zens of being unprotected vis-a-vis a bureau-cratic system, improving the degree of gover-nance and humanizing relations between aperson and a state.

The word “ombudsman” originates from“umbud” (in the medieval Swedish the wordstood for strength or authority) and, as it seems,must be coming from Icelandic roots, whereasthe Swedish word “umbud” means translatoror representative. According to another view,the word is of a German origin and its rootscome from the early stages of the Germantribes’ life. A person who was convening Ver-geld on behalf of the injured party in a murdercase was called ombudsman. In the past theSwedes and other Scandinavian nations pre-ferred to translate word ombudsman as a“plenipotentiary”, “confident” or “charge d'affai-res”. In line with the third view the roots ofOmbudsman institution originate from Romancensors, tribunes and provincial procurators.

Ombudsman institution was first establishedin Sweden in 1809. This was the time whenthe Swedish Riksdag approved a documenton governance (a constitutional act). Thementioned document was based on Montes-quieu theory of separation of powers. In or-der to put on apart the powers of a King and aParliament the latter was allowed to elect aspecial parliamentary commissioner (ombuds-man) who would oversee the implementationof laws adopted by the Parliament in courtsand other organs of administration.

Right from the beginning an ombudsmanwas equipped with a function of control of ac-tivities of executive and other bodies of au-thority. Ombudsman was charged to protectrights of citizens from arbitrariness of admin-

G. MIKANADZE, OMBIDSMAN INSTITUTION

184


istration, as common courts did not exercisecontrol over administration and respectivelythe latter was left without any supervision.

Ombudsman is defined as entrusted in-dependent person who is authorized by a Par-liament to protect rights of individual citizensand exercise parliamentary control over stateofficials, however he/she does not possess aright to alter decisions made by them.

Since 1919 the similar bodies were intro-duced and incorporated into the legal controlsystem in a number of countries throughoutthe world. Before 1919 the ombudsman insti-tution did not exist anywhere but Sweden. Inthat year the institute was introduced in Finland.

In a Rule of Law state tremendous impor-tance is attached to organs carrying into ef-fect legal and institutional guarantees for hu-man rights protection – constitutional court andinstitution of ombudsman. After World War IIthe world community reached the conclusionthat facts of human rights violation were ham-pering establishment of legal order through-out the world, and this led to the process ofsearching and creating both – international,as well as national mechanisms of humanrights protection. By now in a diverse group ofstates institutions of constitutional control andombudsman are being widely disseminated.

There are more than 100 diversities ofombudsman institution in over 80 countries ofthe contemporary world, though each of themtakes care of protection of human rights andfreedoms in a respective state. The institutewas launched in Denmark and Norway in 1953;however, in Norway it functioned as a martialombudsman’s institution until 1963.

In 1952 representatives of New Zealand –the Prosecutor General and a Deputy Minis-ter of Justice of the country – attending an UNorganized seminar on ombudsman institutionwere flabbergasted after listening to the re-port of the first ombudsman of Denmark Ste-fan Gurvich in Ceylon and a law introducingan institution of ombudsman followed, whichwas adopted on 7 September, 1962.

Whyatt Report, produced by the Englandsection of the International Justice Commis-sion working on the crisis in the administra-tive court system also recommended introduc-tion of ombudsman institution in Great Britain.Despite having many opponents in the state

bureaucracy as well as lacking the support ofthe Prime Minister MacMillan’s ConservativeGovernment, Wilson, who included the issueinto his pre-election campaign program, wonthe elections and Law on Parliamentary Rep-resentative was adopted in three years time,in 1967.

At the edge of 1960-70s the institution wasbeing introduced into a number of US states,in 1973 – in France, in 1976 – in Portugal, in1981 – in Spain, in 1982 – in the Netherlands,in 1988 – in Poland, in 1995 – in Georgia.1

In international practice ombudsman isoften called different names. In particular, it iscalled Mediator in France, Provedor for Jus-tice – in Portugal, Public Defender, like inGeorgia – in Spain, Commissioner – in Poland,etc. Despite such a variety of names the term“ombudsman” has maintained its particularposition, as of international denominator of thismechanism of human rights protection.

The experience proves that ombudsmaninstitution is mostly demanded in cases whendifferent institutions fail to exercise functionsof controlling state authorities and additionalprotection of citizens’ rights from arbitrarinessof an administration is considered necessary.

Creation of ombudsman institution is close-ly linked with both – the theory of separationof powers, as well as contemporary develop-ment of society and broadening the scope ofstate and administrative activities. The latter isa cause of expansion of disagreement betweenstate-administrative bodies and citizens. Thisis supported by a constant increase of numberof people employed in state apparatus, greatnumber of legal acts and regulations, infor-mation deficit over executive branch of thegovernment in parliament, overloading admin-istrative courts with proceedings, etc. In sucha situation a citizen is constantly under thepressure of administrative and other bureau-cratic institutions that causes citizen’s displea-sure and distrust towards a state.

Based on all the above mentioned it canbe concluded that proliferation of ombudsmaninstitution and its inclusion into political-legalsystems of a number of countries is precondi-tioned with the state entering into all socialspheres of life of a society, broadening state’sadministrative functions, through state regu-lations, which strengthen a role of legislative

185

branch of the government and a position ofadministrative apparatus.

Apart from the above mentioned there areother conditions, which serve as a reason ofcreating an ombudsman institution in a num-ber of states. In general, this is broadening oflegal functions in every field of state activi-ties, extending state’s administrative functions,based on what an executive branch of thegovernment moves onto forefront and a needof personalization and individualization of ad-ministrative decisions emerges. Thus, om-budsman widens traditional parliamentary con-trol functions in relation to other state institu-tions. This is exactly the reason which prompt-ed a number of countries worldwide to fill thegaps in control functions through creation ofombudsman institution.

Ombudsman is not entitled to deal withcomplaints citizens may have against eachother. Field of ombudsman’s activities is limit-ed to relations between a citizen and a statebody, public organization, institution. In a ma-jority of countries ombudsman’s function is onlyconfined to controlling employees of state bod-ies and those who perform on behalf of a stateand undertake administrative functions, whichis a control in the field of “citizen – state insti-tutions” relations. This is internal and a spe-cial control. It is exercised on the initiative ofombudsman, based on the application or com-plaint of citizens.

Often ombudsman not only considers asituation from the angle of compatibility of adecision and action of administration with thelaw, but ombudsman is entitled to study statebodies’ actions in an intricate manner and con-clude on legality and expediency of their ac-tions. This particularly applies to states wherecontrol over compatibility of administration’saction with law is exercised through adminis-trative courts. The result of the control exer-cised is first and foremost observance of rightsof citizens and elimination of shortcomings inactivities of state administration.

In the contemporary world citizens favornon-traditional measures of protection of theirrights. Ombudsman institution is independentand undertakes its functions despite the factthat the institution is a part of a legal controlsystem. Unlike other organs protecting rightsof citizens, activities of ombudsman are more

democratic and strengthened by a principleof serving without any charge. Its role is bestdescribed by two words on a signboard at theentrance door of the Danish ombudsman:“Door’s open”.

The difference from other bodies of lawenforcement is that ombudsman institutiondeals only with individual’s rights. Making ap-plications to the relevant competent bodies itmakes them consider complaints in pursuancewith law. Ombudsman acts independently andpossesses all capacities needed for conduct-ing investigation.

Main function of ombudsman is to revealfacts of human rights violation and to supportrestoration of the infringed rights. To that end,ombudsman supervises activities of state au-thorities, local self-government bodies, officialsand legal entities, evaluates acts passed bythem and provides recommendations and sug-gestions to them. One of the most importantfunctions attributed to ombudsman institutionis conducting public awareness and educa-tion activities in the field of protection of hu-man rights.

Administrative bodies, officials as well aslegal entities are obliged to submit to ombuds-man any materials, documents or other infor-mation, as requested by him/her to exercisehis/her authority. During exercising control om-budsman is entitled to enter any state and lo-cal self-government bodies without restrictions,enterprise, organization and establishment,including armed forces, places of detention,pre-trial imprisonment and deprivation of liberty.

State authority, official or legal entity, whichis given a recommendation or proposal byombudsman, is obliged to consider the sub-mitted and notify ombudsman on the resultsthereafter within the time limits established bylaw. Impeding ombudsman’s activities is pun-ished by law.

Ombudsman’s activity acquires wide pub-lic resonance, as his/her work results are an-nually submitted as a report to a body elect-ing or appointing ombudsman. The latter fur-nishes information about facts of violation ofrights of citizens by executive branch of thegovernment. Annual report facilitates provisionof information to a wider society with regardto situation in the field of human rights pro-tection.


186


As a rule, in a majority of the countrieswhich have ombudsman’s institution such re-ports are submitted to bodies electing or ap-pointing ombudsman once a year. Public De-fender of Georgia operates on a regulationwhich is exception from the general rule. In1999, when joining Council of Europe, the lat-ter set as one of the conditions to Georgia’smembership of the organization to introducethe following amendments to the Organic Lawon “Public Defender of Georgia”: Public De-fender has to submit reports to the Parliamentnot annually, but biannually. The Parliamentof Georgia, accepting the afore-mentionedrequirement of the Council of Europe, amend-ed the Article 22 paragraph 1 of the OrganicLaw on 23 June 1999. The amendment readsas follows: “Public Defender of Georgia shallsubmit a report on situation regarding protec-tion of human rights and freedoms in the coun-try to the Parliament of Georgia once in everysix months, in March and October of a calen-dar year”.

The foremost purpose of the Report is toinform the ombudsman’s electing or appoint-ing body about situation on protection of hu-man rights and freedoms in a country, identifylegal acts violating human rights and freedoms,along with submitting the recommendation toamend or annul them, divulge state bodies andofficials whose actions resulted into violationof human rights. The level of trust towards theombudsman’s institution and growth of its in-fluence within the wider public largely dependson facts and comments incorporated into om-budsman’s report.

Renowned international researcher workingon the topic of ombudsman’s institution Flein-er-Jester considers that “ombudsman institu-tion may be ascribed to special institutions ofpublic law supervision”. At the same time Rus-sian Professor Boytsova states that “ombuds-man, as a public law institution, serves publicinterests; therefore the reports produced byombudsman may be considered as public com-plaints”.

According to the practice establishedworldwide, ombudsman actively cooperateswith the media and uses it as a means to in-fluence the respective bodies in order to re-store rights violated by them, and disclosegaps identified in activities of the executive

branch of the government. Through relationswith mass media ombudsman provides infor-mation to the society about the work undertak-en and results achieved, which contributes tostrengthen institution’s authority, and its in-creased ability to influence over state author-ities. This, ultimately, provides for better pos-sibility of restoring abused rights of humanbeings.

Despite the fact that ombudsmen through-out the world are committed to reinforce trustbetween an individual and administration,each country has its specificities in relation toparticular goals and objectives, which are iden-tified by a given ombudsman’s institution.Ombudsman works in an environment char-acterizing and specific only to a given coun-try, and respectively, the institution’s set-upand means of operation may differ from acountry to another. This is related with thespecificities of any given state, as well as ad-justing a classical model of ombudsman’s in-stitution to own, in some occasions to abso-lutely unique legal and administrative systems.This is not surprising, as a country, which in-troduces the ombudsman’s institution, tries itsamalgamation into already existing domesticlegal system. This is exactly the reason whyombudsman institutions, despite the commonfeatures, have their unique specific featureswhich are prompted by their national traditions,existing system of control and supervision, dis-tribution of competences between them, etc.

Ombudsman entered the world institution-alism as a legislative organ’s entrusted bodyto deal with protection of human rights, how-ever it is not a legislative institution; thereforestressing its independence in both – theoryand practice is appropriate. It is true that om-budsman expands and fills in the parliamen-tary oversight functions with regard to otherstate institutions, however he/she is at thesame time accountable to a legislative organalong with acting independently, being freefrom pressure of any other state body or offi-cial. Ombudsman abides only by law which it-self ascertains ombudsman’s independenceat the normative level, or more specifically,creates legal basis for such independence.The fact that this institution does not belongto any branches of government also reflectsindependence of ombudsman. Often degree

187

of efficiency of activities of an ombudsman anda factor of public trust toward the institutiondirectly depend on the personal authority ofan individual occupying a position of ombu-dsman.

Guaranteeing ombudsman’s indepen-dence defines efficiency of his activities. In thisregard great importance is attached to a bodywhich elects or appoints an ombudsman. Inmajority of countries ombudsman is electedby a supreme legislative body. However, thereare countries where ombudsman has turnedinto institution appointed by executive branchof the government. In particular, mediator isappointed in France by a decree of a Conseild’Etat, Parliamentary Commissioner is ap-pointed by the Queen of the United Kingdom.

While discussing guarantees provided toan ombudsman, legally fixed possibility of pre-term termination of authority of an ombuds-man can not be omitted. In majority of casesthe reasons are identical to those identified inthe Organic Law of Georgia, which include los-ing nationality of the country, failure to per-form as a Public Defender during consecutive4 months, rendering a final judgment of con-viction against him/her, recognition by a courtas legally incapable, missing or dead, occu-pation of a position or engagement in an ac-tivity incompatible with his/her status, resig-nation from office by a personal applicationand death. In case of the Netherlands theremay also be a case when a national ombuds-man is subjected to guardianship by a courtdecision, is announced bankrupt, acceptsmoratorium or is imprisoned due to indebted-ness2; also, if he/she deserves serious non-confidence of a lower house due to his/heraction or inaction. Possibility of pre-term ter-mination of authority of an ombudsman is en-visaged by the Swedish law as well. Pre-termtermination of authority of Commissioner ofPoland is possible in case of breaching oathby ombudsman.

Guaranteeing inviolability strengthens in-dependence and impartiality of an ombuds-man. Legislation of a majority of states pro-hibits subjecting ombudsman to criminal lia-bility, detention or imprisonment, search of hisapartment, car, workplace or person without apreliminary consent of an organ who has elect-ed or appointed ombudsman. The exception

is made in cases when ombudsman is caughtflagrante delicto, which shall be immediatelynotified to an organ who has elected or ap-pointed ombudsman and appropriate proce-dural actions may be undertaken only with theconsent of that body; if no such a consent isacquired, a detained or imprisoned ombuds-man shall be immediately released.

Additional guarantee of ombudsman’s inde-pendent action is a right attributed to the lat-ter not to testify on the fact disclosed to him/her as to the ombudsman. This right is alsoreserved to an ombudsman after the termina-tion of his/her office. Another important guar-antee is also that an ombudsman shall not bepreceded on the account of ideas and opin-ions expressed by him/her while performinghis/her duties.

In terms of financial independence it isrecognized that a separate budget line shallbe allocated to the ombudsman’s expendi-tures in the state budget. At the same time,there is a set practice in many countries inline with which amount allocated to the om-budsman institution from the state budget maynot be less than that in a preceding year.

Based upon all the above mentioned con-clusion may follow that ombudsman has acquiredlegal and public recognition in the states witha diverse forms of governance – being con-stitutional monarchy, presidential republic,parliamentary republic. Ombudsman institutionsuccessfully operates in states belonging todifferent legal systems (Anglo-Saxon and Con-tinental).

The fact that ombudsman’s institution fitswell into any state order can be explained withthe fact that all the states have bureaucraticproblems. Widening administrative functionsof a state and broadening state regulationresult into decrease of importance of legisla-tive body and strengthening positions of ex-ecutive power. Administrative bodies wittinglydeviating from observing legal and ethicalnorms may also not be ruled out.

Introduction of ombudsman’s institution inthe countries which differ from Sweden in termsof system of governance, administrative-politi-cal arrangements, social and historic peculiar-ities was accompanied with a number of diffi-culties. Despite the overextended period ofrecognizing the idea of ombudsman’s institu-


188


1 A provision about Public Defender was initially introduced in the 1995 Constitution

of Georgia, the Organic Law on Public Defender of Georgia was adopted on 16

May 1996 and the first Public Defender was elected by Parliament on 29 October

1997.2 According to the Article 11 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights “No one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfill a

contractual obligation”.

tion outside Scandinavian states, the institu-tion proved its importance and what is impor-tant, it perfectly conjuncts with the nationallegal systems of various countries despite thefact, whether they recognize a principle ofseparation of powers or grant a priority to ex-ecutive branch of government.

Flexibility of ombudsman’s institution wasrevealed in its successful activities both in theUnitarian as well as Federal states. The spe-cific conditions, which preceded creation of the

institution, provided for a significant transfor-mation of the traditional Scandinavian model.Ombudsmen offices in each of the countrieswere solving emerging problems on their ownway. Indeed this is exactly the reason why acomparative analysis of legal institution ofombudsman is difficult. Peculiarities and dis-tinguishing features, as well as somewhat dif-ferent histories of national, state mechanismsare expressed in its creation and functioning.

Bibliography:

1. G. Mikanadze - European Ombudsmen, Tbilisi, 1999.2. G. Mikanadze - Public Defenders Institution in Georgia, Collection of Articles "European Standards

on Human Rights and their Influence on legislationa and Practice in Georgia", editted by K.Korkelia, Tbilisi, 2006.

3. Àëüâàðî Õèëü Ðîáëåñ – "Ïàðëàìåíòñêèé êîíòðîëü çà àäìèíèñòðàöèåé (èíñòèòóòîìáóä-ñìàíà)", Ì., 1997.

4. Ý. Öîëëýð – "Çàùèòà ïðàâ ÷åëîâåêà âî ôðàíöèè", Ì. 1993.5. Í. Ðàãîçèí – "Ïðàâà ÷åëîâåêà â ñîâðåìåííîì ìèðå", Äîíåöê, 1995.6. Â. Áîéöîâà – "Çàùèòà ïðàâ ÷åëîâåêà è ãðàæäàíèíà – ìèðîâîé îïûò", Ì. 1996.7. Í. Õàìàíåâà – "Óïîëíîìî÷åííûé ïî ïðàâàì ÷åëîâåêà – çàùèòíèê ïðàâ ãðàæäàí", Ì. 1998.8. Gregory R., Hutchesson P. – "The Parliamentary Ombudsman. A Study in the Control of

Administrative Action", London, 1975.9. Clark D. Citizen and Administration in France – the Review of Discussion the Conseil d’Elat v.

Ombudsmen // Public Administration, 1984.10. Commissioner for Civil Rights Protection of Poland – "National Ombudsmen (Legislation of 27

Countries)", Warsaw, 1998.

189

xaTuna ToTlaZe

`saqarTvelos saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebis Sesaxeb~

saqarTvelos kanonis xarvezebi

1. Sesavali

saqarTvelos samarTlebriv sistema-Si saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebas sakmaodmniSvnelovani adgili ukavia. saqarTve-los konstituciis Tanaxmad: `...saqar-Tvelos saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebas anSeTanxmebas, Tu igi ar ewinaaRmdegeba sa-qarTvelos konstitucias, konstitu-ciur SeTanxmebas aqvs upiratesi iuri-diuli Zala Sidasaxelmwifoebrivi nor-matiuli aqtebis mimarT~.1 saerTaSorisoxelSekruleba saqarTvelos kanonmde-blobis nawili, SidasaxelmwifoebrivisamarTlis wyaroa, romelsac SeuZliaiuridiuli da fizikuri pirebisaTvisuflebebisa da movaleobebis warmoSoba.saxelmwifoebi damoukidebelni arian,daadginon saerTaSoriso xelSekruleb-is adgili Sidasaxelmwifoebriv normaTaierarqiaSi.2 saerTaSoriso xelSekrule-bis upiratesi iuridiuli Zala kanonTanSedarebiT aRiarebulia mravali saxelm-wifos, maT Soris im saxelmwifoTa didinawilis mier, romlebmac 90-iani wlebisdasawyisSi moipoves an aRadgines saxelm-wifoebrivi damoukidebloba.

saqarTvelos konstituciis zemox-senebuli debulebis Sesrulebis mizniT,1997 wlis 16 oqtombers miRebul iqnasaqarTvelos kanoni ̀ saqarTvelos saer-TaSoriso xelSekrulebebis Sesaxeb~,romelic morgebulia saxelmwifoSi 90-ian wlebSi arsebul realobas. 1997 welsamgvari tipis kanonis miRebam safuZveliCauyara saxelSekrulebo samarTliskuTxiT saqarTveloSi Tanamedrove praq-tikis damkvidrebas.

saqarTveloSi bolo xans ganviTare-bulma movlenebma gamoiwvia mTeli rigisakanonmdeblo cvlilebebisa, maT Soris

saqarTvelos konstituciaSi.3 miRebuliqna ̀ saqarTvelos mTavrobis struqtur-is, uflebamosilebisa da saqmianobis we-sis Sesaxeb~ saqarTvelos kanoni. ganxor-cielebuli cvlilebebidan gamomdinare,warmoiSva samarTlebrivi da praqtikulixasiaTis problemebi dRes moqmedi ̀ saqar-Tvelos saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebisSesaxeb saqarTvelos kanonis~ implement-aciasTan dakavSirebiT.

2. kanonis implementaciis procesSi

warmoSobili samarTlebrivi xasiaTis

problemebi

samarTlebrivi kuTxiT, aRsaniSnavia,rom dRes moqmedi `kanoni saqarTvelossaerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebis Sesaxeb~saerTod ar iTvaliswinebs premier-min-istris, rogorc mTavrobis meTauris,kompetencias saerTaSoriso xelSekru-lebis dadebis, Sesrulebisa da moqmedeb-is Sewyvetis kuTxiT, rac TavisTavad ewi-naaRmdegeba rogorc qveynis konstitu-cias, ise saqarTvelos mier nakisr saer-TaSoriso valdebulebebs, kerZod ki 1969wlis ̀ saxelSekrulebo samarTlis Sesax-eb venis konvenciis~ im debulebebs, rom-lebic gansazRvraven mTavrobis meTaur-Ta kompetencias. erTi mxriv, saqarTve-los premier-ministri, zemoxsenebulikonvenciis moTxovnaTa Sesabamisad, xel-Sekrulebis teqstis miRebis an misi avTen-turobis dadgenis, an xelSekrulebissavaldebuloobaze saxelmwifos Tanxmo-bis gamoxatvis mizniT, ex officio, yovelg-vari uflebamosilebis wardgenis gareSe,iTvleba saxelmwifos warmomadgenlad,xolo meore mxriv, ar aris Seqmnili pre-mier-ministris mier Tavisi uflebam-osilebis ganxorcielebis amsaxveli Si-

190


dasaxelmwifoebrivi meqanizmi, rac kon-venciis praqtikaSi implementaciis kuTx-iT warmoSobs rogorc teqnikuri, ise sa-marTlebrivi xasiaTis sirTuleebs.

saqarTvelos kanonmdeblobis Tanax-mad, aRmasrulebeli xelisuflebis rolisaerTaSoriso xelSekrulebis dadebisprocesSi bevrad ufro farToa, vidresakanonmdeblo xelisuflebisa, rac gan-pirobebulia saerTaSoriso praqtikiT,saqarTvelos samarTlebrivi tradicie-biTa da, zogadad, saerTaSoriso urTier-Tobebis sferoSi aRmasrulebeli xeli-suflebis rolis dominirebiT.4 ̀ saqarT-velos saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebisSesaxeb~ saqarTvelos kanonis Sesabamis-ad, aRmasrulebeli xelisuflebis kompe-tenciaSi Sedis: saerTaSoriso xelSek-rulebis dadebis inicireba, uflebamosi-lebis gacema, molaparakebebis warmoebasxva saxelmwifoebTan, monawileoba xe-lSekrulebis teqstis miRebasa da avTen-turobis dadgenaSi, xelSekrulebis xel-mowera, xelSekrulebis damtkiceba, saer-TaSoriso xelSekrulebis Sesrulebazekontroli da im saerTaSoriso xelSek-rulebaTa moqmedebis SewyvetasTan daka-vSirebuli procedurebis ganxorciele-ba, romelTa savaldebulod aRiarebazeman gamoxata Tanxmoba.

`saqarTvelos saerTaSoriso xelSek-rulebebis Sesaxeb~ saqarTvelos kanoniadgens saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebaTasam kategorias: saxelmwifoTaSoriss,mTavrobaTaSorissa da uwyebaTaSoriss.5

gadawyvetilebas saxelmwifoTaSorisi damTavrobaTaSorisi xelSekrulebis dade-baze iRebs saqarTvelos prezidenti, uw-yebaTaSorisi xelSekrulebis dadebaze kisagareo saqmeTa ministri. faqtobrivad,saqarTvelos premier-ministris roliSeTavsebuli aqvs saqarTvelos prezi-dents, romelic kanonis miRebis drois-aTvis iTvleboda rogorc saxelmwifos,ise aRmasrulebeli xelisuflebis meTau-rad. Sesabamisad, dRes arsebuli realo-bis gaTvaliswinebiT, mniSvnelovaniasaqarTvelos premier-ministris insti-tutis mniSvnelobis wamoweva da misi ko-mpetenciis gansazRvra saerTaSoriso xe-lSekrulebebTan dakavSirebuli moqme-debebis mimarT.

marTebulia, gadawyvetilebas mTav-robaTaSorisi saerTaSoriso xelSekru-

lebis dadebaze iRebdes saqarTvelospremier-ministri, rogorc saqarTvelosmTavrobis meTauri. Sesabamisad, nebis-mieri moqmedeba, romelic ukavSirdebamTavrobaTaSorisi xasiaTis saerTaSorisoxelSekrulebis dadebas an misi moqmede-bis Sewyvetas, unda xorcieldebodes pre-mier-ministris uSualo monawileobiT.

3. rekomendaciebi saerTaSoriso

xelSekrulebis dadebis Sesaxeb

aRmasrulebeli Tu sakanonmdebloxelisuflebis mxridan xelSekrulebissavaldebulod aRiarebaze Tanxmobis ga-moxatvis konkretuli formis miuxeda-vad (xelmowera, ratificireba, miReba,damtkiceba, SeerTeba, dokumentebis gac-vla, romlebic Seadgens xelSekrulebas),nebismieri zemoaRniSnuli kategoriisxelSekrulebis proeqtis mimarT xorci-eldeba Sesabamisi, kanoniT dadgenili Si-dasaxelmwifoebrivi procedurebi.

sawyis etapze aRsaniSnavia rekomen-daciebis institutis arseboba, rac Za-lze moqnili da gamartivebuli formaasaerTaSoriso xelSekrulebis dadebisSesaxeb winadadebasTan SedarebiT, rome-lmac unda gaiaros kanoniT dadgeniliSidasaxelmwifoebrivi procedurebi. re-komendaciis gauziareblobis SemTxveva-Si, misi ganxilva wydeba Sesabamisi samin-istroebis mier xelSekrulebis dadebismizanSewonilobis ganxilvis rTuli dadroSi gaWianurebuli proceduris ganx-orcielebis gareSe. kanonis Tanaxmad, re-komendaciis wardgenis ufleba aqvT saqa-rTvelos parlaments, saqarTvelos uze-naes sasamarTlosa da saxalxo damcvels6.saqarTvelos parlamentis wevrs, Tavisikompetenciidan gamomdinare, SesaZlebe-lia hqondes saerTaSoriso xelSekruleb-is dadebis Sesaxeb rekomendaciis wardge-nis ufleba, aseve mniSvnelovania, reko-mendaciis wardgenis ufleba mieniWossaqarTvelos sakonstitucio sasamarT-los da aWarisa da afxazeTis avtonomi-uri respublikebis uzenaes sabWoebs,rasac kanoni ar iTvaliswinebs. kanonisTanaxmad, `rekomendaciebi saqarTvelossaerTaSoriso xelSekrulebis dadebisTaobaze unda Seicavdes xelSekrulebisdadebis mizanSewonilobis dasabuTebas~,rac sakmaod bundovani debulebaa da

191

praqtikaSi, rogorc wesi, araerTgvaro-vani interpretaciis sagani xdeba. amitommarTebulia, dakonkretdes, rom rekome-ndaciebi saqarTvelos saerTaSoriso xe-lSekrulebis dadebis Taobaze unda Sei-cavdes saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebisteqsts qarTul enaze da ganmartebiT ba-raTs xelSekrulebis dadebis mizanSe-wonilobis Sesaxeb.

4. ucxo saxelmwifos an saerTaSoriso

organizaciis SeTavazeba

saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebis

dadebis Taobaze

rac Seexeba ucxo saxelmwifos ansaerTaSoriso organizaciis SeTavazebassaerTaSoriso xelSekrulebis dadebisTaobaze, kanoni ar ganmartavs, Tu ra Sem-TxvevaSi ganixileba SeTavazeba wardgeni-lad da eZleva mas oficialuri msvlelo-ba. saxelmwifoTa praqtikaSi xSiria SemT-xvevebi, rodesac saerTaSoriso xelSek-rulebis proeqti gadaecemaT qveynis pi-rvel pirebs oficialuri vizitebisdros. Sesabamisad, mniSvnelovania ganima-rtos, rom SeTavazeba wardgenilad iTv-leba mxolod maSin, Tu igi waredginebasaqarTvelos prezidents, saqarTvelospremier-ministrs, saqarTvelos umaRle-si politikuri Tanamdebobis pirs ansaqarTvelos mxarisaTvis wardgeniliadiplomatiuri arxebiT7.

5. kanonis praqtikaSi ganxorcielebis

procesSi warmoSobili sirTuleebi

moqmedi kanonis Tanaxmad, saerTa-Soriso xelSekrulebis dadebis Sesaxebwinadadebas saqarTvelos prezidentswarudgens saqarTvelos sagareo saqmeTasaministro. winadadebis wardgenis uf-leba aqvT aRmasrulebeli xelisufleb-is centralur organoebs. ̀ saqarTvelosmTavrobis struqturis, uflebamosile-bisa da saqmianobis wesis Sesaxeb~ saqar-Tvelos kanonis Tanaxmad, qveyanaSi aRmas-rulebeli xelisuflebis ganxorciele-bas uzrunvelyofs saqarTvelos mTavro-ba8, romelic Sedgeba premier-ministrisada ministrebisagan, maT Soris saxelm-wifo ministrebisagan. Sesabamisad, saer-TaSoriso xelSekrulebis dadebis Sesax-eb winadadebis wardgenis ufleba unda

hqondes mTavrobis yvela rgols, rogorcsaministroebs, ise saxelmwifo minis-trebs.

winadadeba waredgineba sagareo saqme-Ta saministros, romelic, Tavis mxriv,aRniSnul winadadebas daskvnisaTvis wa-rudgens: saqarTvelos iusticiis samini-stros – saqarTvelos kanonmdeblobas-Tan misi Sesabamisobisa da SesaZlo samar-Tlebrivi Sedegebis Sesaxeb; saqarTvelosfinansTa saministros – xelSekrulebisdadebis SesaZlo safinanso-ekonomikuriSedegebis Sesaxeb; agreTve saqarTvelosaRmasrulebeli xelisuflebis Sesabamiscentralur organos.9 praqtikaSi zemo-aRniSnuli procedura sakmaod gaWianu-rebuli da garTulebulia, vinaidan ara-erTgvarovnad xdeba saministroebisa daprezidentis administraciis mier kano-nis zogadi xasiaTis debulebebis inter-pretacia. saministroebis, rogorc maTskompetenciaSi Semaval sakiTxze dasade-bi xelSekrulebis lobistis, funqciaTagasazrdelad, zemoaRniSnuli proce-durebis gasamartiveblad da dasaCqare-blad mizanSewonilia, sagareo saqmeTasaministroSi sxvadasxva uwyebidan Semo-suli winadadeba iyos sruli, Seicavdes:a) saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebis teqstsqarTul enaze; b) ganmartebiT baraTs;g) saqarTvelos sagareo saqmeTa saminis-tros daskvnas saerTaSoriso xelSek-rulebis dadebis SesaZlo sagareo poli-tikuri Sedegebis Sesaxeb; d) saqarTve-los iusticiis saministros daskvnas sa-erTaSoriso xelSekrulebis proeqtissaqarTvelos kanonmdeblobasTan Sesaba-misobisa da misi dadebis SesaZlo samarT-lebrivi Sedegebis Sesaxeb da, saWiroebisSemTxvevaSi, proeqts saqarTvelos nor-matiul aqtebSi cvlilebebisa da damate-bebis Setanis Sesaxeb; e) saqarTvelos fi-nansTa saministros daskvnas saerTaSo-riso xelSekrulebis dadebis SesaZlo sa-finanso-ekonomikuri Sedegebis Sesaxeb;v) dainteresebuli kompetenturi uwyeb-is/uwyebebis daskvnebs; z) SeTanxmebis fu-rcels, romelSic mieTiTeba aRniSnulidaskvnebis gaTvaliswinebis an gauTvalis-wineblobis Sesaxeb dasabuTebuli argume-ntacia; T) saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebisSesrulebaze pasuxismgebeli saminist-ros/saministroebis dasaxelebas (mTli-ani paketi); da xelSekrulebis dadebis sa-

x. ToTlaZe, `saqarTvelos saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebis Sesaxeb~ saqarTvelos ...

192


gareo politikuri mizanSewonilobisSesaxeb sagareo saqmeTa saministros sab-oloo analizis safuZvelze waredginosprezidentis administracias, rac kidevufro ganamtkicebs sagareo saqmeTa sami-nistros, rogorc politikuri gadawyve-tilebis mimRebi centraluri uwyebis,rols. aqve unda aRiniSnos, rom mTavro-baTaSorisi xelSekrulebis dadebis Sesax-eb winadadeba unda waredginos saqarTve-los premier-ministrs.

6. saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebis

miReba, rogorc xelSekrulebis

savaldebulod aRiarebaze Tanxmobis

gamoxatvis erT-erTi forma

mniSvnelovania aRiniSnos, rom moqme-di kanoni ar iTvaliswinebs saerTaSo-riso xelSekrulebis savaldebulod aRi-arebaze Tanxmobis gamoxatvis iseT for-mas, rogoric aris xelSekrulebis miReba.

saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebis miRebasaxelmwifos mxridan xelSekrulebis sa-valdebulod aRiarebaze Tanxmobis gamo-xatvis SedarebiT axali formaa, Tumcasiaxle aq ufro metad terminologiu-ria, vidre arsobrivi, razec metyvelebssaxelmwifoTa saxelSekrulebo praqti-ka da is faqti, rom erTi da igive proce-dura erT SemTxvevaSi ganixileba rogorcxelSekrulebis miReba, xolo sxva SemTx-vevaSi xelSekrulebasTan SeerTeba. mag.,iuneskos wesdebaSi naTqvamia, rom sax-elmwifoebs SeuZliaT, SeuerTdnen wesde-bas misi miRebis gziT,10 rac xorcieldebagaeros generaluri mdivnisaTvis xelSek-rulebis miRebis Sesaxeb oficialuridokumentis gadacemiT.

zogierT SemTxvevaSi saerTaSorisoxelSekrulebis miReba SeiZleba gamoye-nebul iqnes ratifikaciis nacvlad. esSesaZlebelia, rodesac saerTaSorisoxelSekruleba, Tavisi miznisa da obieq-tis xasiaTis gaTvaliswinebiT, ar saWi-roebs ratifikacias. yvelaze xSirad te-rmini `miReba~ Cadebulia Tavad xelSek-rulebis teqstSi, rogorc saxelmwifo-Ta mxridan Tanxmobis gamoxatvis alter-natiuli forma.

miReba, iseve rogorc damtkiceba, fo-rmdeba dokumenturad. saratifikaciosigelebisagan gansxvavebiT, miRebisa dadamtkicebis dokumentebs ar aqvT mkaf-

iod dadgenili forma. rogorc wesi, esaris werili an nota, romelsac mTavro-bis saxeliT xels awers sagareo saqmeTaministri an misi moadgile, Tumca amSemTxvevaSic SesaZlebelia am dokument-Ta gacvla an depozitarisaTvis maTiSesanaxad Cabareba.11

`saxelSekrulebo samarTlis Sesaxeb~venis 1969 wlis konvenciis me-14 muxlispraqtikaSi saTanado implementaciismizniT da imis gaTvaliswinebiT, rom mra-valmxrivi saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebixSirad iTvaliswinebs miRebas, rogorcxelSekrulebis savaldebulod aRiareba-ze saxelmwifos mxridan Tanxmobis gamo-xatvis erT-erT formas, saWiroa, saqarT-velos Sidasaxelmwifoebrivi kanonmde-blobiT Camoyalibdes konkretuli sa-marTlebrivi meqanizmi da ganisazRvros,Tu romeli saxelisuflebo Stos kompe-tenciaSi Seva saerTaSoriso xelSek-rulebis miReba, rogorc mis savaldebu-loobaze Tanxmobis gamoxatvis forma.


droebiT gamoyeneba

yuradRebas iqcevs saerTaSoriso xel-Sekrulebis droebiT gamoyenebis sakiTxi.`saxelSekrulebo samarTlis Sesaxeb~ ve-nis 1969 wlis konvencia iTvaliswinebssaxelmwifoTa mier xelSekrulebis an misinawilis droebiT gamoyenebis SesaZle-blobas, Tu es gaTvaliswinebulia TviTxelSekrulebiT, an Tu molaparakebaSimonawile saxelmwifoebi amaze sxvagvaradSeTanxmdnen. aucilebelia, saerTaSori-so xelSekrulebis droebiT gamoyenebaganvasxvaoT saerTaSoriso xelSekruleb-is ZalaSi Sesvlisagan. Tu xelSekrulebaZalaSi Sevida, is droebiT aRar gamoiye-neba. xelSekrulebis droebiT gamoyeneb-is SesaZlebloba ganpirobebulia im gare-moebiT, rom zogierT SemTxvevaSi saxelm-wifoebs surT xelSekrulebis amoqmede-ba misi xelmoweris momentidan, miuxeda-vad imisa, rom xelSekrulebis ZalaSi Ses-vlisaTvis SesaZlebelia, aucilebeliiyos Sesabamisi Sidasaxelmwifoebriviprocedurebis ganxorcieleba – ratifi-cireba, damtkiceba. Sesabamisad, saerTa-Soriso xelSekrulebis droebiT gamoye-neba mTlianad damokidebulia saxelmwi-foTa SeTanxmebaze.12

193

`saqarTvelos saerTaSoriso xelSek-rulebebis Sesaxeb~ saqarTvelos kanonisme-20 muxlis Sesabamisad, Tu saerTaSo-riso xelSekruleba iTvaliswinebs mTli-anad xelSekrulebis an misi zogierTi de-bulebis droebiT gamoyenebas, an amis Se-saxeb mxareebs Soris miRweulia SeTanxme-ba, saqarTvelo aseT xelSekrulebas iye-nebs misi ZalaSi Sesvlis momentidan.

kanonis es debuleba krZalavs saqar-Tvelos mier saerTaSoriso xelSekru-lebis droebiT gamoyenebas, rac imas niS-navs, rom saqarTvelos kanoni uars acxa-debs konvenciis debulebebiT gaTvalis-winebul SesaZleblobaze.13

im SemTxvevaSi, Tu mravalmxrivi saer-TaSoriso xelSekruleba iTvaliswinebsdroebiT gamoyenebas, saqarTvelo, kano-nis moTxovnaTa Sesabamisad, valdebulia,gaakeTos daTqma saerTaSoriso xelSek-rulebis mimarT, romelic saSualebasmiscems mas, xelSekruleba gamoiyenos mx-olod im droidan, rodesac saqarTvelogamoxatavs Tanxmobas saerTaSoriso xe-lSekrulebis savaldebulod aRiarebisSesaxeb. rac Seexeba ormxriv saerTaSo-riso xelSekrulebebs, saqarTvelom Taviunda Seikavos xelSekrulebaSi iseTi de-bulebebis gaTvaliswinebisagan, romelicmiznad isaxavs mis droebiT gamoyenebas.

aRsaniSnavia, rom saerTaSoriso xel-Sekrulebis droebiT gamoyenebaze uary-ofiTi damokidebuleba ara mxolod saqa-rTvelom, aramed sxva qveynebmac gamoxa-tes.14 saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebis sa-marTlis Sesaxeb venis konferenciaze ra-mdenime saxelmwifom aRniSna, rom maT sax-elmwifoebSi akrZalulia saerTaSorisoxelSekrulebis droebiT gamoyeneba.15

aqve unda aRiniSnos, rom, rogorc sa-qarTvelos saxelSekrulebo praqtikamaraerTxel daadastura, calkeul SemTx-vevaSi mizanSewonilia saerTaSoriso xe-lSekrulebis droebiT gamoyeneba. mag.suam-is wesdeba, romelsac saqarTvelomxeli moawera daTqmis gareSe, iTvaliswi-nebda mis droebiT gamoyenebas xelSek-rulebis ZalaSi Sesvlamde. Sesabamisad,saqarTvelom, daeyrdno ra venis konven-cias, romelsac, rogorc saerTaSorisoxelSekrulebas, saqarTvelos konstitu-ciis Tanaxmad, upiratesi iuridiuliZala aqvs yvela sxva normatiuli aqtismimarT, qveynis sagareo politikuri pri-

oritetebidan gamomdinare, daiwyo wes-debiT nakisri valdebulebebis Sesrule-ba mis ZalaSi Sesvlamde.

zemoaRniSnuli praqtikis gaTval-iswinebiTa da saxelmwifoebrivi intere-sebidan gamomdinare, sasurvelia,saqarTvelos kanonmdeblobiT daSvebuliqnes saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebisdroebiT gamoyenebis SesaZlebloba.amasTan, saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebisdroebiT gamoyenebis vadis usasrulobam-de gagrZelebis Tavidan acilebis mizniT,SesaZlebelia, kanonmdeblobiT dadg-indes konkretuli vada, romlis ganmav-lobaSic saqarTvelom unda gadawyvitos,gaxdes Tu ara saerTaSoriso xelSek-rulebis monawile.

8. samxedro xasiaTis saerTaSoriso

xelSekruleba

saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebis dade-basTan dakavSirebiT sakanonmdeblo xe-lisuflebis roli, rogorc wesi, vr-celdeba saxelmwifosaTvis gansakuTre-biT mniSvnelovani saerTaSoriso xelSek-rulebis dadebaze. bunebrivia, rom Ti-Toeuli saxelmwifo Tavad gansazRvravsim sakiTxebis areals, romelsac igi gan-sakuTrebiT mniSvnelovnad aRiarebs da,Sesabamisad, adgens parlamentissavaldebulo monawileobas am kategori-is saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebis dade-baSi.16

`saqarTvelos saerTaSoriso xelSek-rulebebis Sesaxeb~ saqarTvelos kanonisme-14 da saqarTvelos konstituciis 65-emuxlebis Tanaxmad, im saerTaSoriso xe-lSekrulebebisa da SeTanxmebebis garda,romlebic iTvaliswineben ratificire-bas, savaldebuloa aseve iseTi xelSek-rulebisa Tu SeTanxmebis ratificireba,romelic samxedro xasiaTisaa, xolo xse-nebuli kanonis me-4 muxlis Sesabamisad,xelSekruleba, romelic exeba samxedrosakiTxebs, ideba saqarTvelos saxeliT.Sesabamisad, saqarTvelos Tavdacvis sami-nistro, rogorc aRmasrulebeli xelisu-flebis centraluri organo, moklebu-lia SesaZleblobas, Tavis kompetenciasmikuTvnebul sakiTxebze dados uwyeba-TaSorisi saerTaSoriso xelSekruleba.vinaidan kanoni ar iZleva ̀ samxedro xasi-aTis xelSekrulebis~ gansazRvrebas, xo-


194


lo kanonis ganmartebis kompetencia sasa-marTlo xelisuflebis prerogativaa,praqtikaSi xSirad iqmneba sirTuleebisamxedro xasiaTis xelSekrulebebis da-debasTan dakavSirebul Sidasaxelmwi-foebriv proceduraTa ganxorcielebiskuTxiT.

saqarTvelos sagareo politikis Zir-iTadi mimarTuleba evropul da evroat-lantikur struqturebSi integraciaa. ammizniT SemuSavda saqarTvelos erovnuliusafrTxoebis koncefcia da saqarTve-los sagareo politikis strategia 2006-2009 wlebisaTvis. saqarTvelos erT-erTistrategiuli mizani da prioritetuliamocanaa saerTo evropul ojaxSi adgi-lis damkvidreba evrokavSirTan integra-ciis gaRrmavebisa da natoSi gawevriane-bis gziT,17 romlis misaRwevad, natos sta-ndartebis Sesabamisad, intensiurad ide-ba saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebi Tavda-cvis sferoSi. calkeuli xelSekrulebe-bis mimarT xSirad saWiroa, saxelmwifommaqsimalurad swrafad gamoxatos Tanx-moba maTi savaldebulod aRiarebis Sesa-xeb. kanoniT dadgenili Sidasaxelmwifo-ebrivi procedurebi ki sakmaod gaWianu-rebulia droSi, rac aferxebs qveynisa-Tvis mniSvnelovani dokumentebis miRe-bas. saqarTvelos Tavdacvis saministrosgarkveul SemTxvevebSi uwevs politiku-ri gadawyvetilebis miReba xelSekruleb-is xelmowerisa da misi savaldebulod aR-iarebis mizniT. cxadia, aseTi tipis xel-Sekrulebebi warmoSobs saqarTvelos po-litikur, da ara samarTlebriv, valde-bulebas.

yovelive zemoaRniSnulis gaTval-iswinebiT, mniSvnelovania, ̀ saqarTvelossaerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebis Sesaxeb~saqarTvelos kanoniT ganisazRvros sam-xedro xasiaTis xelSekruleba, rac imasniSnavs, rom yvela sxva tipis saerTaSo-riso xelSekruleba, romelic exeba samxe-dro sakiTxebs da ar jdeba ̀ samxedro xa-siaTis xelSekrulebis~ definiciaSi, Se-saZlebelia daidos saqarTvelos Tavda-cvis saministros saxeliT, mxareTa SeT-anxmebis safuZvelze mieniWos uwyebaTa-Sorisi xasiaTi da ZalaSi Sevides, Tundacxelmoweris gziT.

`samxedro xasiaTis xelSekruleba~SesaZlebelia ganimartos Semdegnairad:`samxedro sferoSi TanamSromlobis Zir-

iTadi principebis Sesaxeb saerTaSorisoxelSekruleba an xelSekruleba, romel-ic exeba ucxo saxelmwifos SeiaraRebu-li Zalebis mier tranzitis an droebiTiganlagebis mizniT saqarTvelos teri-toriis gamoyenebas, SeiaraRebul konf-liqtebSi an samSvidobo operaciebSi saqa-rTvelos samxedro Zalebis monawile-obas, sabrZolo masalebis miRebas an gada-cemas, samxedro wvrTnebs~.


Sesruleba

saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebis ke-Tilsindisierad Sesrulebis principisaerTaSoriso samarTlis uZvelesi prin-cipia. vercerTi samarTlebrivi sistemaver iarsebebda misi subieqtebis mier aRe-buli valdebulebebis Sesrulebis imper-atiuli moTxovnis gareSe.

venis konvenciiT ganmtkicebuli pri-ncipi – pacta sunt servanda (xelSekrule-ba unda Sesruldes) – inkorporirebuliasaqarTvelos kanonSi ̀ saqarTvelos saer-TaSoriso xelSekrulebebis Sesaxeb~, ro-mlis 31-e muxlis Tanaxmad, saqarTvelossaerTaSoriso xelSekruleba eqvemdeba-reba keTilsindisierad Sesrulebas.

saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebis ganx-orcielebis sakiTxi SeiZleba ganvixiloTrogorc qveynebisaTvis miniWebuli suv-erenuli ufleba, Tavad gansazRvros ase-Ti meTodebi qveynis mowyobis, tradicie-bisa da gamocdilebis gaTvaliswinebiT,Tu msgavsi sakiTxebi Tavad xelSekrule-biT ar aris konkretulad gansazRvruli.

Sesabamisad, dasturdeba, rom Tavadsaxelmwifoebma unda gansazRvron saer-TaSoriso xelSekrulebis Sesrulebisgzebi da meTodebi.

aseTi saxiT SerCeuli gzebi da meTo-debi ganekuTvneba qveynis Sidasaxelmwi-foebrivi samarTlis kompetencias, rom-lis Sedegebi gavlenas axdens saerTaSo-riso asparezze saxelmwifos mier saerTa-Soriso-saxelSekrulebo valdebulebaze.18

saqarTvelos kanonis Tanaxmad, saqar-Tvelos prezidenti da parlamenti iRebenSesabamis zomebs saerTaSoriso xelSek-rulebis Sesrulebis uzrunvelsayofad,xolo saqarTvelos aRmasrulebeli xeli-suflebis centraluri organoebi, ro-melTa kompetencias ganekuTvneba saqar-

195

Tvelos saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebiTgansazRvruli sakiTxebi, uzrunvelyo-fen saqarTvelos mier saerTaSoriso xe-lSekrulebiT nakisri valdebulebebisSesrulebas, Tvalyurs adevneben xelSek-rulebidan gamomdinare saqarTvelosuflebebis dacvasa da xelSekrulebissxva mxareebis mier TavianTi valdebule-bebis Sesrulebas. saerTaSoriso xelSek-rulebis Sesrulebaze ki saerTo zedam-xedvelobas axorcielebs sagareo saqme-Ta saministro. Sesabamisad, saqarTvelosaRmasrulebeli xelisuflebis centra-luri organoebi valdebulni arian, saga-reo saqmeTa saministros miawodon sruliinformacia saerTaSoriso xelSekruleb-is Sesrulebis mdgomareobis Sesaxeb.

saerTo zedamxedveloba saqarTve-los saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebis Ses-rulebaze moicavs sxvadasxvagvari Roni-sZiebis gatarebas, maT Soris sagareo sa-qmeTa saministros mier saqarTvelos uw-yebebis saqmianobis koordinacias. swo-red amiT iyo ganpirobebuli, rom 1999wlis zafxulSi sagareo saqmeTa saminist-roSi Seiqmna saerTaSoriso xelSekrule-bebis Sesrulebis analizisa da kontro-lis sammarTvelo. funqciurad es sammar-Tvelo saerTaSorisosamarTlebrivi de-partamentis SemadgenlobaSi unda yo-filiyo, Tumca maSindeli struqturulireorganizaciis Sedegad sammarTveloCamoyalibda saministros generalur sa-mdivnoSi, xolo 2001 wlis maisSi, prezi-dentis specialuri brZanebulebiT, sa-gareo saqmeTa saministroSi Seiqmna uwye-baTaSorisi organo – saqarTvelos saer-TaSoriso xelSekrulebebis Sesrulebismaregulirebeli sakonsultacio sabWo19.

sammarTvelos muSaobis procesSi gam-oikveTa mravlobiTi xasiaTis sirTulee-bi. kerZod, uwyebebSi ar iyo Sesabamisistruqtura an piri, romelsac daevale-boda aRniSnuli sakiTxebis koordinire-ba. xSirad sagareo uwyeba iRebda araf-rismTqmel da upasuxismgeblo pasuxebs,magaliTad aseTs: `saministro/uwyebaver axorcielebs xelSekrulebiT nakisrvaldebulebebs finansuri problemebisgamo~, maSin, roca zogierTi punqtis Ses-ruleba saerTod ar iyo damokidebulifinansur uzrunvelyofaze. uwyebaTadaaxloebiT 40%-idan ki saerTod aranai-ri pasuxi ar mosula, rac aseve koordina-

ciis sisustesa da Sida kontrolis meqa-nizmis ararsebobaze miuTiTebda.20

saqarTvelos uwyebebidan Semosuliinformaciis analizma aCvena is zerele daupasuxismgeblo damokidebuleba, rasacsamTavrobo dawesebulebaTa umravleso-ba iCenda saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebe-biT nakisr valdebulebaTa SesrulebisTvalsazrisiT. aRniSnuli dafiqsirdasammarTvelos mier gaweuli muSaobis pi-rvel angariSSi, romelic waredgina saga-reo saqmeTa ministrs, magram, imis gamo,rom misi uflebamosileba, reagireba mo-exdina uwyebaTa mxridan funqciebis ara-srulfasovnad Sesrulebaze, SezRuduliiyo, da ar arsebobda konkretuli meqa-nizmi, riTac sagareo uwyeba realur ze-damxedvelobas ganaxorcielebda saer-TaSoriso xelSekrulebebis Sesrulebaze,es dokumenti darCa mxolod Sidamoxmare-bis informaciad da ver mieca saTanadomsvleloba.

rac Seexeba saqarTvelos saerTaSo-riso xelSekrulebebis Sesrulebis mareg-ulirebel sakonsultacio sabWos, 2003wlis noemberSi ganviTarebuli movleneb-is Semdeg, faqtobrivad, SeCerda sabWosmuSaoba, xolo sagareo uwyebam ramden-imejer ganicada reorganizacia. aseT vi-TarebaSi Seferxda saerTaSoriso xelSek-rulebebis Sesrulebaze zedamxedvelo-bis ganxorcieleba sagareo uwyebis mxri-dan. Tavad sakonsultacio sabWos funq-cionirebis maregulirebeli dokumentiki SesabamisobaSia mosayvani axlandelkanonmdeblobasTan da gansaxorcielebe-lia cvlilebebi Sesabamis normatiulaqtSi.

aRsaniSnavia, rom, miuxedavad kano-niT gawerili konkretuli valdebulebe-bisa, arcerTi normatiuli aqti ar gan-sazRvravs konkretul meqanizms, romel-ic unda gamoiyenebodes saqarTvelos aR-masrulebeli xelisuflebis centralu-ri organoebis mxridan xelSekrulebiTnakisri valdebulebebis darRvevis an Se-usruleblobis SemTxvevaSi. kanoni ad-gens uwyebaTa zogad valdebulebas, mia-wodon informacia sagareo saqmeTa samin-istros saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebisSesrulebis mdgomareobis Sesaxeb. saqar-Tvelos sagareo saqmeTa saministro, ro-gorc saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebis da-debis, misi moqmedebis Sewyvetisa da Ses-


196


rulebis saerTo koordinatori, maqsi-malurad unda iyos informirebuli xe-lSekrulebaTa Sesrulebis mdgomareobisSesaxeb, risTvisac mniSvnelovania, gan-isazRvros konkretuli vadebi, romelTaganmavlobaSic saministroebi valdebu-lni iqnebian, miawodon mas sruli da amom-wuravi informacia saerTaSoriso xe-lSekrulebiT nakisr valdebulebaTa Ses-rulebis mdgomareobisa da masTan dakav-Sirebuli sirTuleebis Sesaxeb. mag., Sesa-Zlebelia, sul cota, weliwadSi erTxelmainc, saministroebi amzadebdnen an-gariSs maTs kompetencias mikuTvnebulsaerTaSoriso xelSekrulebaTa mdgoma-reobis Sesaxeb, rac waredgineba sagareosaqmeTa saministros.

aseve, Camosayalibebelia SesabamisiSida struqturebi aRmasrulebeli xeli-suflebis yvela dawesebulebaSi, raTasrulfasovnad moxdes sagareo uwyebismier masze kanoniT dakisrebuli funqci-is ganxorcieleba. amis misaRwevad saWi-roa mareglamentebeli dokumentis miRe-ba saqarTvelos prezidentis an premier-ministris doneze. specialuri Sida stru-qturebis organizeba gaaZlierebs koor-dinebul moqmedebas da mniSvnelovnadgaizrdeba rogorc uwyebaTa pasuxismge-bloba saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebisSesrulebis mimarTulebiT, aseve daixve-weba warmosadgeni informaciis xarisxi.

aucilebelia, aRdges saqmianoba Sesa-bamisi sakonsultacio sabWosi, romliswevrebic, maRali Tanamdebobis pirTa ga-rda, sasurvelia, iyvnen am dargis gamoCe-nili mecnieri-eqspertebi.

10. daskvna/rekomendaciebi

amgvarad, yovelive zemoaRniSnulisanalizis safuZvelze SesaZlebelia dava-skvnaT, rom saqarTvelos kanoni `saqar-Tvelos saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebisSesaxeb~ veRar asaxavs qveyanaSi arsebulmdgomareobas da misi implementaciis pro-cesSi iqmneba rogorc praqtikuli, isesamarTlebrivi xasiaTis sirTuleebi. Se-sabamisad, saqarTvelos mier nakisri sae-rTaSoriso valdebulebebis keTilsin-disierad Sesrulebis mizniT, aucilebe-lia Seiqmnas moqnili samarTlebrivi me-qanizmi, rac aseve xels Seuwyobs saerTa-Soriso xelSekrulebebTan dakavSirebiT

saqarTvelos aRmasrulebeli, sakanonm-deblo da sasamarTlo xelisuflebis Ta-namedrove praqtikis damkvidrebas.– aucilebelia, kanonmdeblobiT ganisa-

zRvros premier-ministris roli saer-TaSoriso xelSekrulebebTan dakav-Sirebuli moqmedebebis mimarT.

– marTebulia, kanoniT ufro detaluradgaiweros saerTaSoriso xelSekrule-bebis dadebis, Sesrulebisa da moqme-debis Sewyvetis mizniT gansaxorciele-beli procedurebi da aqedan gamomdina-re Sedegebi.

– saqarTvelos saministroebis ufleba-movaleobaTa mkafiod gansazRvris Sede-gad gamartivdeba da daCqardeba saer-TaSoriso xelSekrulebis dadebis miz-niT gansaxorcielebeli Sidasaxelmwi-foebrivi procedurebi da gaizrdebasaministroebis, rogorc TavianTi in-teresebis lobistis, roli.

– mniSvnelovania ganmtkicdes sagareosaqmeTa saministros, rogorc poli-tikuri gadawyvetilebis mimRebi orga-nos, roli.

– arsebuli praqtikis gaTvaliswinebiTada saxelmwifoebrivi interesebidan ga-momdinare, mizanSewonilia, daSvebuliqnes saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebisdroebiT gamoyeneba.

– dasaxvewia saerTaSoriso xelSekrule-bis rogorc saqarTvelos, aseve kont-ragentis mxridan Sesrulebis mimdina-reobis Sesaxeb informaciis warmodge-nis teqnologia. yvela saministrosunda daekisros valdebuleba, miawo-dos sagareo saqmeTa saministros sru-li da amomwuravi informacia saerTa-Soriso xelSekrulebiT nakisr valde-bulebaTa Sesrulebisa da masTan dakav-Sirebuli sirTuleebis Sesaxeb, sulcota, weliwadSi erTxel mainc.

– unda gaaqtiurdes ormxrivi TanamSro-mloba kontragent mxaresTan da, sasu-rvelia, maTi mxridan iqnes mopovebuliinformacia imis Sesaxeb, Tu rogor ar-Tmevs Tavs esa Tu is uwyeba nakisr val-debulebaTa Sesrulebas. amavdrou-lad, saqarTvelos uwyebebis mxridansistematurad unda iqnes warmodgeni-li informacia, rogor arTmevs Tavskontragenti mxaris struqturebikonkretul valdebulebaTa Sesrule-

197

bas da aRniSnulis Sesaxeb dauyovneb-liv unda ecnobos sagareo saqmeTa sami-nistros, xolo sagareo uwyebam, Tavismxriv, aRniSnuli informacia unda mi-

awodos saqarTvelos prezidentsa daparlaments Semdgomi reagirebisaTvis.

gamoyenebuli literatura

1. saqarTvelos kanoni „saqarTvelos saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebis Sesaxeb~, 1997 weli.2. `saxelSekrulebo samarTlis Sesaxeb~ venis 1969 wlis konvencia.3. k. korkelia, saerTaSoriso xelSekruleba saerTaSoriso da Sidasaxelmwifoebriv

samarTalSi, Tb., 1998.4. saqarTvelos kanoni „saqarTvelos mTavrobis struqturis, uflebamosilebisa da

saqmianobis wesis Sesaxeb~, 2004 weli.5. iuneskos wesdeba.6. `saqarTvelos erovnuli usafrTxoebis koncefcia~ da ̀ saqarTvelos sagareo poli-

tikis strategia – 2006-2009~.7. saqarTvelos prezidentis brZanebuleba saqarTvelos sagareo saqmeTa sami-

nistrosTan saqarTvelos saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebis Sesrulebis sakonsulta-cio sabWos Seqmnisa da debulebis damtkicebis Sesaxeb, 2001 wlis 11 maisi, 188, saqarTve-los prezidentis aqtebis krebuli, 5, Tbilisi, 2001 weli.

8. saqarTvelos sagareo saqmeTa saministros saarqivo dokumentacia.9. 1995 wlis 24 agvistos saqarTvelos konstitucia.10. 2004 wlis 6 Tebervlis konstituciuri kanoni 3272 ̀ saqarTvelos konstituciaSi cv-

lilebebisa da damatebebis Setanis Sesaxeb~.11. F.G. Jacobs, S. Roberts (Edited), The Effect of Treaties in Domestic Law, Vol. 7, Sweet &

Maxwell, 1987.12. À.Í. Òàëàëàåâ, Âåíñêàÿ Êîíâåíöèÿ î ïðàâå ìåæäóíàðîäíûõ äîãîâîðîâ, Êîìåíòàðèé, Ì., 1997.13. P. Reuter ‘Introduction to The Law of Treaties’, last edition.14. Î. Òèóíîâ, Ïðèíöèï ñîáëþäåíèÿ ìåæäóíàðîäíûõ îáúÿçàòåëüñòâ, Ì., 1979.15. Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law by Malanczuk, Peter; 1997.

1 ix. 1995 wlis 24 agvistos saqarTvelos konstituciis me-6 muxli.2 F.G. Jacobs, S. Roberts (Edited), The Effect of Treaties in Domestic Law, Vol. 7,

Sweet & Maxwell, 1987, p. xxiii-xxxi.3 ix. 2004 wlis 6 Tebervlis konstituciuri kanoni N3272 `saqarTvelos

konstituciaSi cvlilebebisa da damatebebis Setanis Sesaxeb~.4 k. korkelia, saerTaSoriso xelSekruleba saerTaSoriso da Sidasaxelm-

wifoebriv samarTalSi, Tb., 1998, gv. 49-50.5 saqarTvelos kanoni „saqarTvelos saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebis Sesax-

eb~, 1997 weli, me-4 muxli.6 saqarTvelos kanoni „saqarTvelos saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebis Sesax-

eb~, 1997 weli, me-8 muxli.7 mag., xelSekrulebis teqstis miRebis mizniT gamarTul molaparakebebze

SesaZlebelia molaparakebis erT-erTma mxarem meore mxares gadascesaxali xelSekrulebis proeqti. saxelmwifoTa Soris damkvidrebulipraqtikis Tanaxmad, aseTi SeTavazeba oficialurad gadacemulad iTv-leba da fiqsirdeba molaparakebebis oqmSi.

8 ix. saqarTvelos kanoni „saqarTvelos mTavrobis struqturis, ufleba-mosilebisa da saqmianobis wesis Sesaxeb~, 2004 weli, 1-li muxli.

9 saqarTvelos kanoni „saqarTvelos saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebis Sesax-eb~, 1997 weli, me-9 muxlis me-7 punqti.

10 ix. iuneskos wesdeba, muxli XV.


198


11 À.Í. Òàëàëàåâ, Âåíñêàÿ Êîíâåíöèÿ î ïðàâå ìåæäóíàðîäíûõ äîãîâîðîâ,Êîìåíòàðèé, Ì., 1997, ñ. 43.

12 k. korkelia, saerTaSoriso xelSekruleba saerTaSoriso da Sidasax-elmwifoebriv samarTalSi, Tb., 1998, gv. 89-90.

13 ix. `saxelSekrulebo samarTlis Sesaxeb~ venis 1969 wlis konvencia, me-20muxli.

14 À.Í. Òàëàëàåâ, Âåíñêàÿ Êîíâåíöèÿ î ïðàâå ìåæäóíàðîäíûõ äîãîâîðîâ,Êîìåíòàðèé, Ì.,1997, ñ. 61-63.

15 `saxelSekrulebo samarTlis Sesaxeb~ venis 1969 wlis konvenciis 25-emuxlis mimarT kolumbiam da kosta-rikam gaakeTes daTqmebi, romlebi-Tac uari ganacxades saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebis droebiT gamoyeneba-ze, TavianTi kanonmdeblobiT dadgenili wesis gamo.

16 G. Gulmann, Denmark, F.G. Roberts (Edited), The Effect of Treaties in DomesticLaw, Vol. 7, Sweet & Maxwell, 1987, p. 29-30.

17 ix. saqarTvelos erovnuli usafrTxoebis koncefcia da saqarTvelossagareo politikis strategia – 2006-2009, www.mfa.gov.ge

18 k. korkelia, saerTaSoriso xelSekruleba saerTaSoriso da Sidasax-elmwifoebriv samarTalSi, Tb., 1998, gv. 94-95.

19 ix. saqarTvelos prezidentis brZanebuleba saqarTvelos sagareo samin-istrosTan saqarTvelos saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebis Sesrulebissakonsultacio sabWos Seqmnisa da debulebis damtkicebis Sesaxeb, 2001wlis 11 maisi, N 188, saqarTvelos prezidentis aqtebis krebuli, N5,Tbilisi, 2001 weli, gv. 38-39.

20 ix. sagareo saqmeTa saministros saarqivo dokumentacia (mimowerebi).

199

KHATUNA TOTLADZE

GAPS OF THE LAW OF GEORGIA"ON INTERNATIONAL TREATIES OF GEORGIA"

1. INTRODUCTION

International treaties play an importantrole in the legal system of Georgia. In accor-dance with the Constitution of Georgia: "... Aninternational treaty or agreement of Georgiaunless it contradicts the Constitution of Geor-gia, the Constitutional Agreement, shall takeprecedence over domestic normative acts".1

International treaty is a part of the legislationof Georgia and the source of domestic law,which can impose the rights and obligationsto the legal and physical persons. The Statesare independent to determine the place of theinternational treaties into the hierarchy of do-mestic norms.2 Precedence of internationaltreaties over the law have been recognizedby the number of States, including majority ofthe States, that at the beginning of 90 obtainedor regained its State independence.

In order to implement the aforementionednorm of the Constitution of Georgia, the Lawof Georgia "on International Treaties of Geor-gia" was adopted on October 16, 1997, whichwas adjusted to the Georgian reality of 90s.Adoption of this law in 1997 formed the basisfor establishment of modern practice in Georgiawith respect to the law of international treaties.

Resent developments in Georgia result-ed in range of legislative amendments, includ-ing Constitutional changes.3 The Law of Geor-gia "on the Structure, Authority and Rules ofOperation of the Government of Georgia" wasadopted. Legal and practical problems regard-ing the implementation of Law "on InternationalTreaties of Georgia" have emerged as an out-come of the mention amendments.

2. THE PROBLEMS OF LEGAL NATUREEMERGED IN THE PROCESS OFIMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAW

From the legal perspective it should benoted that the Law on "International Treaties

of Georgia" makes no provision for the com-petence of the Prime Minister, as the head ofGovernment inconcluding, implementing andterminating international treaty, which does notcomply with the Constitution of the country aswell as the international obligations assumedby Georgia, in particular provisions of the Vi-enna Convention on "the Law of Treaties" of1969 determining competences of the Headsof Governments. On the one hand the PrimeMinister of Georgia according to the above-mentioned Convention, for the purpose ofadopting or authenticating the text of a treatyor for the purpose of expressing the consentof the State to be bound by a treaty, ex officiowithout having to produce any powers is con-sidered as a representative of the State, buton the other hand no domestic mechanism,reflecting the implementation of its powers bythe Prime Minister is established, which in aview of practical implementation of the Con-vention creates the difficulties of technical aswell as legal nature.

In accordance with the legislation of Geor-gia, the role of the executive authority in theprocess of concluding the international treatyis broader than the role of the legislative au-thority, which is reasoned by the internationalpractice, Georgian legal traditions and domi-nating role of the executive authority in thefield of international relations in general.4 Ac-cordingto the law of Georgia "on InternationalTreaties of Georgia" the competence of theexecutive authority includes the following: ini-tiating conclusion of international treaty, de-livering of powers, conducting negotiations withother States, participating in the process ofadoption and authentication of the text of atreaty, signing a treaty, controlling perfor-mance of international treaties and implement-ing the procedures of termination of those in-ternational treaties, on which the consent of aState to be bound by a treaty is expressed.

200


The law of Georgia "on International Trea-ties of Georgia" provides for three categoriesof international treaties: interstate, intergov-ernmental and interagency.5 Decision on theconclusion of interstate and intergovernmen-tal treaties shall be made by the President ofGeorgia, but the decision on the conclusionof interagency treaty shall be made by theMinister of Foreign Affairs. In fact, the role ofthe Prime Minister of Georgia is combined withthe President. The latter was considered asthe Head of State as well as the Head of exec-utive authority upon the adoption of the law.Therefore, considering current reality, it isimportant to put forward the significance of theof Prime Minister and determine its compe-tence in relation with the activities connectedto international treaties.

It would be reasonable if the decision onthe conclusion of intergovernmental treatiesis made by the Prime Minister as the Head ofGovernment of Georgia. Consequently, anyaction related to the conclusion of internation-al treaties of intergovernmental nature or ter-mination of its operation shall be implement-ed by the direct participation of the Prime Min-ister.

3. RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE CONCLUSION

OF INTERNATIONAL TREATIES

In spite of the particular form of express-ing the consent to be bound by a treaty by ex-ecutive or legislative authority (signature, rat-ification, acceptance, approval, accession,exchange of instruments, which constitute atreaty), the appropriate internal proceduresunder the relevant law shall be conducted onany type of aforementioned draft treaty.

On initial stage, the existence of the advi-sory institute shall be underscored, which isextremely flexible and simplified form in com-parison with the proposals on the conclusionof international treaties, which shall passthrough the domestic procedures stipulatedby the law. In case of non acceptance of rec-ommendation, its consideration shall be ter-minated without complex and extensive pro-cedure of examination of expediency of theconclusion of international treaty by the rele-vant Ministries. Following to the law the Par-liament of Georgia, the Supreme Court ofGeorgia and the Public Defender of Georgia

are entitled to submit recommendation.6 Mem-ber of Parliament within his/her competencemay also submit recommendation on conclu-sion of international treaty. It is also importantto entitle the Constitutional Court of Georgia,the Supreme Councils of Autonomous Repub-lics of Adjaria and Afkhazia to submit recom-mendation which is not envisaged by the law.In accordance with the existing law "recom-mendations on the conclusion of internationaltreaties shall include the motivation on expe-diency", which is quite an unclear provisionand in practice, usually becomes subject todiverse interpretation. Therefore, it would beadvisable to define that the recommendationson the conclusion of international treaties shallinclude the text of international treaty in Geor-gian language and explanatory memorandumon the expediency of concluding the treaty.

4. PROPOSAL TO FOREIGN STATEOR INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION

ON THE CONCLUSION OF A TREATY

The law does not stipulate when the pro-posal to foreign State or international organi-zation on the conclusion of a treaty is consid-ered to be officially submitted. In practice,there are number of cases when the draft in-ternational treaty is delivered to the first per-sons of the country during the official visits.Consequently, it is important to determine thattreaty is considered to be submitted if it is pre-sented to the President of Georgia, Prime Min-ister of Georgia, high political officials or if it isdelivered to Georgian party through the dip-lomatic channels.7

5. DIFFICULTIES ARISEN DURINGTHE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAW

In accordance with the existinglaw propos-al regarding the conclusion of the internationaltreaty shall be submitted to the President ofGeorgia by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ofGeorgia. The central bodies of executive au-thority are also entitled to submit a proposal.According to the law of Georgia "on Structure,Authority and Rules of Operation of the Gov-ernment of Georgia", the Government of Geor-gia shall provide for implementation of theexecutive power,8 which shall consist of thePrime Minister and Ministers including State

201

Ministers. Consequently, all bodies of the Gov-ernment including Ministries as well as theState Ministers shouid have the right to sub-mit a proposal on the conclusion of interna-tional treaty.

The proposal shall be submitted to theMinistry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia, the lat-ter submits these proposals to the Ministry ofJustice of Georgia for conclusion on the com-patibility of a treaty with the legislation of Geor-gia and on possible legal effects, to the Minis-try of Finance – for the conclusion on possi-ble financial-economic outcomes of a treatyand also to the relevant central body of exec-utive authority.9 In practice, the abovemen-tioned procedure is extended in time and israther complicated, since the interpretation ofthe general provision of law is made in a dif-ferent ways by the Ministries and the Adminis-tration of the President. In order to increasethe role of the Ministries as the lobbies of atreaty within their competence and to simplifythe abovementioned procedure, the propos-als of different Ministries submitted to the Min-istry of Foreign Affairs shall be comprehen-sive and include the following: a) text of theinternational treaty in Georgian language;b) explanatory memorandum; c) opinion of theMinistry of Foreign Affairs on possible foreignpolitical outcomes of International treaty;d) opinions of the Ministry of Justice on thecompatibility of a treaty with the legislation ofGeorgia and on possible legal effects and incase of necessity draft law on amendmentsand addenda into the normative acts of Geor-gia; e) opinion of the Ministry of Finance onpossible financial-economic outcomes of atreaty; f) opinion of relevant competent author-ity/authorities; g) paper of agreement includ-ing well-grounded arguments on acceptanceor non acceptance of these opinions; h) nameof the Ministry/Ministries responsible for theimplementation of a treaty (whole package).On the bases of final analysis of the Ministryof Foreign Affairs this package shall be pre-sented to the Administration of the President,which will reinforce the role of the Ministry ofForeign Affairs as a central authority for mak-ing political decisions. It is important to bementione that the proposal on conclusion ofintergovernmental treaty shouldl be submittedto the Prime Minister of Georgia.

6. ACCEPTANCE OF INTERNATIONAL

TREATY, AS ONE OF THE FORMS OF

CONSENT TO BE BOUND BY A TREATY

Existing current legislation does not providefor acceptana asa form of expression of con-sent to be bound by treaty .

Acceptance of international treaty is a re-sent form of the consent of the State to bebound by a treaty. However, innovation is rath-er terminological then conceptual, which isproved by a treaty practice of the States andthe fact that the same procedure in one caseis considered as acceptance of a treaty andin other cases as accession to a treaty. Forexample, the Constitution of UNESCO providesfor that the States may accede to the Consti-tution through its acceptance,10 which shall bedone by delivering the official document onthe acceptance of a treaty to the SecretaryGeneral of the UN.

In some cases the acceptance of a treatymay be applied instead of the ratification. Thisis possible when international treaty by to itsgoal and objective is not the subject to ratifi-cation. Mostly the term "acceptance" is includ-ed into the text of a treaty, as an alternativeform of consent of a State to be bound by atreaty.

Acceptance as well as approval shall beformed documentary. In opposite to the ratifi-cation instrument, document of the accep-tance and approval does not have clearly de-termined form. Generally it is a letter or ver-bal note, which on behalf of the Governmentis signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs orits deputy, although even in this case it is pos-sible to exchange these documents or submitthem to the depository for the filing.11

In a view of proper implementation of Arti-cle 14 of the (1969) Vienna Convention "onthe Law of Treaty" in practice, and consider-ing the fact that multilateral international trea-ties often provide for the acceptance as oneof the forms of consent of the State to bebound by a treaty, it is essential to establishparticular legal mechanism by Georgian do-mestic legislation and to define which Stateshall have authority to accept internationaltreaty as a form of consent of the State to bebound by a treaty.

K. TOTLADZE, GAPS OF THE LAW OF GEORGIA “ON INTERNATIONAL TREATIES OF GEORGIA”

202


7. PROVISIONAL APPLICATIONOF INTERNATIONAL TREATY

Attention shall be drawn on the issue ofthe provisional application of internationaltreaty. 1969 Vienna Convention "on the Lawof Treaty" provides the opportunity for theState on provisional application of a treaty ora part of a treaty unless the treaty otherwiseprovides or the negotiating States have oth-erwise agreed. It is important to diverse theprovisional application of the treaty from theentering of the treaty into force. Once a trea-ty entered into force it can not be provisional-ly applied. Possibility of the provisional appli-cation of a treaty is based on the circumstancethat in some cases States are willing to applya treaty upon its signature notwithstanding thefact that implementation of relevant domesticprocedures – ratification, approval may benecessary for a treaty to enter into force.Therefore provisional application of a treatytotally depends on the agreement and the willof the States.12

In accordance with Article 20 of the law ofGeorgia "on International Treaties of Georgia",if international treaty provides for the provi-sional application of the treaty or its severalprovisions, or parties have agreed on this,Georgia applies such treaties upon its entryinto force.

The abovementioned provision of the lawprohibits provisional application of internation-al treaty by Georgia unless thetreaty is inforce, which means that the law of Georgiarejects the opportunities envisaged by the pro-visions of the Convention.13

In case provisional application is prescribedby multilateral international treaty, Georgiaaccording to the requirements of the law, isobliged to make a reservation to the interna-tional treaty, which will give the opportunity toapply a treaty only after Georgia expressesconsent of the State to be bound by interna-tional treaty. As regards to bilateral interna-tional treaty, Georgia shall refrain from inclu-sion of the provisions related to its provision-al application.

Worthwhile to mention that negative ap-proach on provisional application of interna-tional treaty is expressed not only by Geor-gia, but by other countries as well.14 At ViennaConference on the International Law of Trea-ty, several Countries have stated, that provi-

sional application of international treaties isprohibited in there countries.15

Practice of treaties of Georgia has provedthat in particular cases provisional applicationof the international treaty is reasonable. Forinstance GUAM Statute, which was stipulatingits provisional application until its entry intoforce, has been signed by Georgia without anyreservations. Therefore, based on ViennaConvention which in accordance with the Con-stitution of Georgia as an international treatytakes precedence over all other normativeacts, and in accordance with the foreign poli-cy priorities of the state, Georgia started per-formance of obligations under the Statute be-fore its effective date.

Considering the abovementioned practiceand according to the State interests, it wouldbe desirable if the legislation of Georgia al-lows provisional application of an internation-al treaty. However, in order to avoid the end-less extension of provisional application of atreaty, it is possible to certain term to be de-termined by the legislation, and during thatperiod Georgia shall decide weather to be-come a party to international treaty.

8. INTERNATIONAL TREATY OF MILITARYCHARACTER

The role of legislative authority in relationto the conclusion of international treaty gen-erally applies to the conclusion of treaties ofexclusive importance for the State. It is natu-ral that each State determines the area of theissues, recognized as exclusively importantand, therefore provides for obligatory partici-pation of the Parliament in conclusion of trea-ties of such category.16

In accordance with Article 14 of the law ofGeorgia "on International Treaties of Georgia"and Article 65 of the Constitution of Georgiaapart from the international treaties and agree-ments providing for ratification, it shall also beobligatory to ratify an international treaty andagreement which is of a military character, butfollowing to Article 4 of the mentioned law, trea-ty referring to the military issues shall be con-cluded on behalf of Georgia. Thus the Minis-try of Defense as central organ of executiveauthority does not have an opportunity to con-clude interagency treaties on the issues with-in its competence. Since the law does not stip-ulates the definition of "Treaties of Military

203

Character", and interpretation of the law is thecompetence of the judiciary, in practice diffi-culties related to the performance of domes-tic procedures with respect to the conclusionof treaties of military character often arise.

Main direction of Georgian foreign policyis the integration into European and Euro-At-lantic structures. To that end national securityconcept of Georgia and the Georgian ForeignPolicy Strategy for 2006 – 2009 has been elab-orated. One of the strategic aims and priori-ties of Georgia is to establish Georgia’s placein common European family by deepening in-tegration in European Union and joiningNATO.17 To accomplish this goal, following tothe NATO standards, international treaties inthe field of defense are intensively conclud-ing. In relations with particular treaties it is of-ten necessary for the State to express its con-sent to be bound by them as soon as possi-ble. Internal procedures provided by the laware time-consuming that hinders the accep-tance of important instruments for the coun-try. In certain cases Ministry of Defense ofGeorgia has to make a political decision inorder to sign and to be bound by a treaty. It isclear that such documents arises political andno legal obligations to Georgia.

Considering all the abovementioned it isimportant to define a treaty of military charac-ter by the Law "on International Treaties ofGeorgia", which implies that all other types oftreaties concerning the military issues, whichdo not fall under the definition of "Treaty ofMilitary Character" may be concluded on be-half of the Ministry of Defense of Georgia, uponthe agreement of the parties and may enterinto force even by the signature.

"Treaty of Military Character" may be de-fined as follows: "International treaty on thebasic principles of cooperation in the militaryfield or treaty on the usage of Georgian terri-tory for transit or temporary dislocation pur-poses of armed forces of a foreign State, par-ticipation of Georgian military forces in thearmed Conflicts or peacekeeping operations,receipt or transmission of military equipment,military trainings".

9. PERFORMANCE OF INTERNATIONAL TREATY

Principle on performance of internationaltreaty in good faith is an ancient principle ofinternational law. None of the legal system

would exist without imperative requirement ofperformance of obligations recognized by itssubjects.

Principle – pacta sunt servanda (treatyshall be performed) reinforced by Vienna Con-vention is incorporated into the law of Geor-gia "on International Treaties of Georgia".Following to its Article 31 international treatyof Georgia shall be the subject of performancein good faith.

Issue of implementation of the internationaltreaty may be considered as a sovereign rightgranted to the country to define such meth-ods itself by considering State arrangement,traditions and experience unless the similarissues are particularly defined by the treaty.

Therefore it is proved that the States shalldefine the ways and methods of performanceof international treaty it themselves.

Ways and methods selected in such a wayfalls under the competence of national law, theresults of which has an affects on internation-al treaty obligations of a state on internation-al level.18

According to the Georgian legistation thePresident and the Parliament of Georgia aretaking relevant measures in order to ensureperformance of international treaty, and thecentral bodies of executive authority, that havecompetence on certain issues of internationaltreaties are, shall ensure performance of ob-ligations of Georgia undertaken by interna-tional treaty, observe the protection of inter-ests of Georgia as well as performance of ob-ligations by the other parties of the treaty. TheMinistry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia providesgeneral supervision on the performance of theinternational treaty. Thus, the central bodiesof executive authority of Georgia shall beobliged to provide the Ministry of Foreign Af-fairs with comprehensive information on thecondition of performance of international treaty.

General supervision on the performanceof international treaty covers the conductionof different activities, including coordination ofactivities of Georgian agencies by the Minis-try of Foreign Affairs. Basically on that ground,in summer 1999, the Division of Performance,Analyze and Control of International Treatieswas the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Based onits functions this Division supposed to be as apart of Department of International Law, how-ever as a result of structural reorganizationsthe Division was established in the General


204


Secretariat of the Ministry. But in May 2001on the basis of special decree of the Presi-dent, interagency organ has been establishedin the Ministry of Foreign Affairs – AdvisoryCouncil regulating performance of Georgian in-ternational treaties.19

In the process of operation of the Divisionnumber of difficulties emerged. In particularthere was no relevant structure or person atthe agency, to whom the coordination of thementioned issues could be assigned. Fre-quently Ministry of Foreign Affairas receivedmeaningless and irresponsible replies, for ex-ample: "Ministry/body is not able to performobligation undertaken by a treaty, because ofthe financial problems", while the performanceof some of the paragraphs was not actuallyconnected to the financial arrangements. Ap-proximately 40% of the agencies did not evenreply, which was also pointing on the weak-ness of the coordination and nonexistence ofcontrolling mechanisms.20

Analysis of the received information fromthe relevant bodies of Georgia reviled super-ficial and irresponsible approach, which themost state bodies were demonstrating in aview of performance of international treatyobligations. This fact was mentioned in the firstReport of the Division, which was submittedto the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Georgia,but since his competence was quite limitedand was not able to react on undue perfor-mance by the agencies and there was nomechanism, which would facilitate the actualsupervision by the Ministry of Foreign Affairson the performance of treaty obligations;therefore this document remained only as aninternal information and could not be reactedor respectively.

Regarding to the Advisory Council regu-lating the performance of international trea-ties, as a result of the developments in No-vember 2003 in fact it terminated its activity,while the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was un-der the reorganization for several times. Insuch conditions the supervision by the Minis-try of Foreign Affairs on the performance ofinternational treaties was terminated. The doc-ument regulating the functioning of the Advi-sory Council has to be amended to bringit inline with existing the legislation and amend-ments into the relevant normative acts shalltake place.

Despite the particular obligations pre-scribed by the law none of the normative actsdetermine a mechanism, which shall be ap-plied by the central bodies of the executiveauthority of Georgia in case of breach or non-performance of treaty obligations. The lawprovides for the general obligations of agen-esis to provide the Ministry of Foreign Affairswith the information on the conditions of per-formance of international treaties. The Minis-try of Foreign Affairs of Georgia as a generalcoordinator of the conclusion, operation, ter-mination and performance of an internationaltreaty, should be fully informed on the condi-tions of performance of treaties, for this goalparticular terms shall be defined within whichthe Ministries will be obliged to submit com-plete and comprehensive information on thecondition of the performance of treaty obliga-tions and on related difficulties. For example,perhaps at least once a year every Ministryshouldl prepare a report on the performanceof the international treaties under ther com-petence, and submitit to the Ministry of For-eign Affairs of Georgia.

Also relevant structures should be estab-lished in all bodies of the executive authorityin order to promote proper implementation offunctions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairesprescribed by the law. To achieve this goal,adoption of the regulating document on thelevel of the President or the Prime Minister isessential. Organization of the specific internalstructure will enhance the coordinated activi-ty and the responsibility of relevant bodies onthe performance of international treaties andsignificantly increase the quality of informa-tion to be presented as well.

Restoration of the activity of appropriateAdvisory Council is necessary and would bedesirable that relevant prominent scholar-ex-perts together with the high officials to be in-cluded as its members.

10. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATIONS

Thus, on the basis of the abovementionedanalysis of all the , we can conclude that thelaw of Georgia "on International Treaties ofGeorgia" does not meet the requirements ofthe current reality any more and during its im-plementation process number of practical andlegal difficulties arises. Accordingly, in orderto perform international obligations of Geor-

205

gia in a good faith, it is necessary to createflexible legal mechanism, which will promoteestablishment of modern practice of legisla-tive, executive and judicial bodies of Georgiain relation to international treaties.– The role of the Prime Minister of Georgia

with respect to the activities concerning in-ternational treaties should be necessarilydetermined.

– It is reasonable to define the procedure ofconclusion, implementation and terminationof international treaty and its outcomes.

– As a result of strict determination of rightsand obligations of the Ministries of Geor-gia, internal procedures will be more simpli-fied and quick and the role of the Ministriesas the lobbyists of their interests will be in-creased.

– It is important to reinforce the role of theMinistry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia, as apolitical decision-making body.

– Taking into consideration the existing prac-tice and interests of the State, to allow pro-visional application of international treatywould be reasonable.

– Procedure of delivering information on im-plementation of the International treaty bothby Georgian Party as well as by the othercontracting party should be improved; AllMinistries obliged to deliver comprehensiveinformation to the Ministry of Foreign Affairsof Georgia regarding performance of inter-national obligations and related problemsat least once a year.

– Bilateral cooperation between the Partiesshould be developed and collection of in-formation from the other party on perfor-mance of their obligations by the relevantauthority is be desirable. At the same time,the competent authorities of Georgia shouldsystematically inform the Ministry of Foreignaffairs of Georgia on performance of obli-gations are performed by the relevant bod-ies of the other contracting party, and sub-sequently, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ofGeorgia shall notify the President of Geor-gia and the parliament for further reaction.

Bibliography:

1. The law of Georgia "on International Treaties of Georgia", 1997.2. Vienna Convention on the "Law of Treaties", 1969.3. K. Korkelia, International Treaty in International and Domestic Law, 1998.4. Law of Georgia on the Structure, Authority and Rules of Operation of the Government of Georgia, 2004.5. Constitution of UNESCO.6. "National Security Concept of Georgia" and "Georgian Foreign Policy Strategy for 2006- 2009.7. Decree of the President of Georgia on the Approval of Regulation on Creation of Advisory

Council on performance of International Treaty of Georgia to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ofGeorgia, 11 May 2001, N 188, Compilation of the acts of the President of Georgia, N 5. Tbilisi 2001.

8. Archive documentation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia.9. Constitution of Georgia of 24 August 1995.10. Constitutional law N3272 of 6 February 2004 on "Amendments and Addenda to the Constitution

of Georgia".11. F.G. Jacobs, S. Roberts (Edited), The Effect of Treaties in Domestic Law, Vol. 7, Sweet & Maxwell, 1987.12. À.Í. Òàëàëàåâ, Âåíñêàÿ Êîíâåíöèÿ î ïðàâå ìåæäóíàðîäíûõ äîãîâîðîâ, Êîììåíòàðèé, Ì,

Èçäàòåëüñòâî "Þðèäè÷åñêàÿ ëèòåðàòóðà”,1997.13. P. Reuter ‘Introduction to The Law of Treaties’, last edition.14. Î. Òèóíîâ, Ïðèíöèï ñîáëþäåíèÿ ìåæäóíàðîäíûõ îáÿçàòåëüñòâ. Ì., 1979.15. Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law by Malanczuk, Peter; 1997.

1 Please see the Constitution of Georgia of August 24, 1995 Article 6.2 F.G. Jacobs, S. Roberts (Edited), The Effect of Treaties in Domestic Law, Vol. 7,

Sweet & Maxwell, 1987. p. XXIII-XXXI.


206


3 Please see Constitutional Law of February 6, 2004, N3272 on "Amendmentsand Addenda to the Constitution of Georgia."

4 K. Korkelia, International Treaty in International and Domestic Law, 1998, pages49-50.

5 The Law on "the International Treaties of Georgia", 1997, Article 4.6 The Law on "the International Treaties of Georgia", 1997, Article 8.7 For example, during the negotiations aiming at the acceptance of the texts of a

treaty, it is possible for one party to deliver a new text of a treaty to the other party.According to the established practice between the states, such proposal isconsidered to be officially presented and is mentioned in the minutes of speaking.

8 Please see the law of Georgia on "Structure, Authority and Rules of Operation ofthe Gove-r-nment of Georgia", 2004, Article 1.

9 Please see law of Georgia on "International Trea-ties of Georgia", 1997, Article 9,paragraph 7.

10 Please see the Constitution of UNSCO, Article XV.11 À.Í. Òàëàëàåâ, Âåíñêàÿ Êîíâåíöèÿ î ïðàâå ìåæäóíàðîäíûõ äîãîâîðîâ,

Êîììåíòàðèé, Ì, Èçäàòåëüñòâî "Þðèäè÷åñêàÿ ëèòåðàòóðà", 1997, ñòð 43.12 K. Korkelia International Treaty in International and Domestic Law, 1998, pages

89-90.13 Please see Vienna Convention "on the Law of Treaty" 1969. Article 20.14 À.Í. Òàëàëàåâ, Âåíñêàÿ Êîíâåíöèÿ î ïðàâå ìåæäóíàðîäíûõ äîãîâîðîâ,

Êîììåíòàðèé, Ì, Èçäàòåëüñòâî "Þðèäè÷åñêàÿ ëèòåðàòóðà", 1997, ñòð 61-63.15 Columbia and Costa Rica made a reservation to Article 25 of Vienna Convention

"on the Law of Treaty" 1969, by which they refused the provisional application ofinternational treaty because of the rule established by their legislations.

16 G. Gulmann, Denmark, F.G. Roberts (Edited), The Effect of Treaties in DomesticLaw, Vol. 7, Sweet & Maxwell, 1987. p. 29-30.

17 Please see "Georgian Conception on National Security" and "Strategy of GeorgianInternational Policy for 2006-2009". www.mfa.gov.ge.

18 K. Korkelia International Treaty in International and Domestic Law, 1998, pages94-95.

19 Please see the decree of the President of Georgia on the Approval of Regulationon Creation of Advisory Council on performance of International Treaty of Georgiato the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia, 11 May 2001, N 188, Compilation ofthe acts of the President of Georgia, N 5. Tbilisi 2001. P. 38-39.

20 Please see archive documentation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs(correspondence).

207

irakli giviaSvili

bolo periodSi ruseTis federaciismxridan saqarTvelos mimarT gadadgmuli

nabijebis saerTaSorisosamarTlebrivi Sefaseba

1. ruseTis federaciis saerTaSorisos-

amarTlebrivi valdebuleba, 1996 wlis

gadawyvetilebidan gamomdinare

valdebulebebis 2008 wlis 6 marts

moxsnis miuxedavad

àfxazeTSi, saqarTvelo, konfliq-tis daregulirebis zomebis Taobaze~dsT-is saxelmwifos meTaurTa sabWos1996 wlis 19 ianvris gadawyvetilebis me-6 punqtis Tanaxmad, gadawyvetilebaSimonawile saxelmwifoebi (maT Soris ruse-Tic) aRiareben, rom afxazeTi saqarTve-los ganuyofeli nawilia da saqarTvelosmTavrobasTan SeTanxmebis gareSe ar ga-naxorcieleben savaWro-ekonomikur, fi-nansur, satransporto da sxvagvar ope-raciebs afxazuri mxaris de-faqto xe-lisuflebasTan (me-6 punqtis a) qvepunq-ti), ar daamyareben oficialur konta-qtebs afxazeTis teritoriaze arsebulistruqturebis warmomadgenlebTan anmaTi Tanamdebobis pirebTan, aseve maTmier Seqmnili SeiaraRebuli formirebe-bis wevrebTan (me-6 punqtis b) qvepunqti),xolo aRniSnuli gadawyvetilebis me-7punqtis Tanaxmad, dsT-is monawile sax-elmwifoebi ar dauSveben TavianT teri-toriebze afxazuri mxaris xelisufleb-is, aseve im pirebis, romlebic oficial-urad warmoadgenen am xelisuflebas,warmomadgenlobebs.1

2008 wlis 6 marts ruseTis federaciamganacxada àfxazeTSi, saqarTvelo, kon-fliqtis daregulirebis zomebis Taobaze~dsT-is saxelmwifos meTaurTa sabWos 1996wlis 19 ianvris gadawyvetilebidan gamom-dinare valdebulebebis moxsnis Taobaze.

dsT-is saxelmwifos meTaurTa sabWos1996 wlis `gadawyvetileba afxazeTSi,saqarTvelo, konfliqtis daregulireb-

is zomebis Taobaze~ aris dsT-is sawesde-bo organos gadawyvetileba. gansxvavebiTdsT-is egidiT miRebuli SeTanxmebebisa(romlebic saerTaSoriso xelSekru-lebebia da maT mimarT gamoiyeneba veniskonvencia saerTaSoriso saxelSekrule-bo samarTlis Sesaxeb2), dsT-is sawesdeboorganoebis mier miRebul gadawyvetile-baTa Sesaxeb ar arsebobs raime samarTleb-rivi dokumenti, romelic naTlad gansaz-Rvravda maTs samarTlebriv statuss,kerZod, aris Tu ara dsT-is organoTamier miRebuli gadawyvetilebebi saerTa-Soriso xelSekrulebebi.

sakiTxi – aris Tu ara dsT-is sawesde-bo organoTa mier miRebuli gadawyveti-leba saerTaSoriso xelSekruleba, metadbundovania. misi garkveva daevala dsT-iseqspertTa jgufs (sakonslutacio komi-tets), romelic dsT-is saxelmwifoTapraqtikis mimoxilviT akeTebs dsT-is sa-wesdebo organoTa mier miRebuli gadaw-yvetilebebis samarTlebriv analizs. aR-niSnuli jgufis mier momzadebuli doku-mentis Tanaxmad,3 dsT-is sawesdebo orga-noTa mier miRebuli gadawyvetilebebisstatusi sxvadasxvanairad ganixilebawevr saxelmwifoebSi. zemoaRniSnul ana-litikur dokumentSi naTlad aris Camoy-alibebuli ruseTis oficialuri pozi-cia dsT-is gadawyvetilebaTa samarTle-brivi statusis Sesaxeb. kerZod, ruseTisfederacia dsT-is gadawyvetilebebs arganixilavs saerTaSoriso xelSekrule-bebad. isini ganixilebian rogorc saer-TaSoriso organizaciis mier miRebuliaqtebi, romlebic garkveul valdebule-bas (politikurs) warmoqmnian masSi mona-wile saxelmwifosaTvis. belorusiisa dayazaxeTis mxareebi aseve ar aRiareben ga-dawyvetilebaTa saerTaSorisosamarT-

208


lebriv xasiaTs. Tumca aRsaniSnavia, romarsebobs qveynebis jgufi, romlebicdsT-is gadawyvetilebebs miiCneven saer-TaSoriso xelSekrulebebad da maT mima-rT avrceleben venis konvencias saerTa-Soriso xelSekrulebebis Sesaxeb. saqar-Tvelo miekuTvneba qveyanaTa am jgufsda, Sesabamisad, atarebs Sidasaxelmwifo-ebriv procedurebs gadawyvetilebaTamimarT. xolo somxeTis mxare saerTaSo-riso xelSekrulebebis statuss aniWebsdsT-is farglebSi miRebul mxolod imgadawyvetilebebs, romlebic ratifici-rebulia parlamentis mier.

es imas niSnavs, rom saqarTvelo verSeZlebs, ruseTis federaciisagan moiTx-ovos 1996 wlis gadawyvetilebidan gamos-vlis sakiTxis saqarTvelosTan SeTanxme-ba (es marTebuli iqneboda im SemTxvevaSi,Tu am gadawyvetilebas saerTaSoriso xe-lSekrulebis statusi eqneboda ruseTisfederaciaSi).

Tumca 1996 wlis gadawyvetilebidan2008 wlis 6 marts gamosvla ar rTavs nebasruseTis xelisuflebas, ganaxorcielosmoqmedebani afxazeTis separatistulreJimTan saqarTvelos teritoriulimTlianobis sawinaaRmdegod, radgan:

1) zogadad saerTaSoriso samarTliTdaculia: a) saxelmwifos teritoriulimTlianobis xelSeuxeblobis principi;b) sxva saxelmwifos saSinao saqmeebSi Cau-revlobis principi; g) saxelmwifos sazR-vrebis urRvevobis principi.

2) dsT-is saxelmwifo meTaurTa 1996wlis 19 ianvris gadawyvetilebis garda,saidanac ruseTi gamovida, ruseTis fed-eracias aRiarebuli aqvs saqarTvelosteritoriuli mTlianoba da, Sesabami-sad, soxumis TviTgamocxadebuli reJimisukanonoba, dsT-is saxelmwifo meTaurTasxva analogiuri gadawyvetilebis msgav-sad, magaliTad: 1996 wlis 19 maisis gadaw-yvetileba àfxazeTis konfliqtur zo-naSi, saqarTveloSi, mSvidobis SenarCu-nebis koleqtiuri Zalebis ganlagebisa damandatis vadis gagrZelebis Sesaxeb; 1997wlis 28 martis gadawyvetileba afxazeTiskonfliqtis daregulirebis msvlelobisSesaxeb4; 1998 wlis 8 maisis gadawyvetile-ba àfxazeTis konfliqtis daregulire-bis damatebiTi zomebis Sesaxeb”da sxva.

3) saqarTvelos teritoriuli mTli-anobis principi ganmtkicebulia gaero-s

uSiSroebis sabWos im rezoluciebiT, ro-mlebic exeba afxazeTis konfliqts.

4) separatistuli reJimebis milita-rizacia SesaZlebelia Sefasdes rogorcmSvidobis safrTxis muqara, rac ikrZale-ba gaeros wesdebiT (gaeros wesdebis VIITavi – ̀ moqmedebani mSvidobisadmi safr-Txis damuqrebis, mSvidobis darRvevisa daagresiis aqtebis gamo (39-e-51-e muxlebi).

2. afxazeTsa da samxreT oseTTan

mimarTebiT ruseTis federaciis

mTavrobisaTvis ruseTis prezidentis

2008 wlis 16 aprilis davaleba

2008 wlis 16 aprils ruseTis fed-eraciis prezidentma daavala ruseTisfederaciis mTavrobas, daiwyos pirdapi-ri TanamSromloba afxazeTisa da cxin-valis regionis de-faqto xelisuflebiswarmomadgenlebTan. amave davalebiT,dgindeba ruseTis federaciis mier cno-badi im dokumentebis CamonaTvali, rom-lebsac gascemen afxazeTisa da cxinvalisregionis de-faqto organoebi fizikurpirebze; afxazeTsa da cxinvalis region-Si xdeba adgilobrivi kanonmdeblobisSesabamisad registrirebuli iuridiulipirebis kanonierebis aRiareba; ruseTisaRmasrulebeli xelisuflebis feder-alur organoebs evalebaT TanamSromlo-ba da samarTlebrivi daxmarebis aRmoCe-na afxazeTTan da cxinvalis regionTansamoqalaqo, saojaxo da sisxlis samarT-lis saqmeebze. afxazeTisa da cxinvalisregionis teritoriaze mudmivad mcxov-reb pirTa interesebidan gamomdinare,ruseTis federaciis sagareo saqmeTasaministros teritoriul organoebs ev-alebaT sakonsulo funqciebis Sesrule-ba. aseve igegmeba, afxazeTTan da cxinva-lis regionTan TanamSromlobis Semdgo-mi gaRrmavebis mizniT, damatebiTi wina-dadebebis ganxilva.

ruseTis federaciis prezidentis ze-moT aRniSnuli davaleba mTavrobisadmida maTi mxridan ukanasknel periodSi sa-qarTvelos mimarT ganxorcielebuliqmedebebi aSkarad ewinaaRmdegeba saerTa-Soriso CveulebiTi da kodificirebulisamarTliT gamtkicebul sayovelTaodaRiarebul ZiriTad principebsa da nor-mebs, romlebic saerTaSoriso sistemisqvakuTxedia da ganmtkicebulia rogorc

209

gaeros wesdebiTa da helsinkis 1975 wlisdaskvniTi aqtiT, ise yvela universalurTu regionalur (dsT) saerTaSoriso org-anizaciaTa damfuZnebeli dokumentebiT.

ruseTis federaciis mier ganxorci-elebuli qmedebebi, romlebic ,,argumen-tirebulia“konfliqtis zonaSi ruseTisfederaciis moqalaqeTa dacviT, Seusaba-moa im ZiriTad valdebulebasTan, romel-ic gamomdinareobs àdamianis uflebaTaevropuli konvenciidan. kerZod, konven-ciis pirveli muxlis Tanaxmad, xelSem-kvrel mxareebs ekisrebaT valdebuleba,uzrunvelyon adamianis uflebebis dacvamxolod sakuTari iurisdiqciis farglebSi5.

gadawyvetileba imis Taobaze, rom ru-seTis federaciis sagareo saqmeTa samini-stros teritoriuli organoebi krasno-daris mxaresa da CrdiloeT oseT-alani-is respublikaSi, saWiroebis SemTxvevaSi,ganaxorcieleben sakonsulo funqciebs,arRvevs venis 1963 wlis sakonsulo urT-ierTobebis Sesaxeb konvencias6. xolo ga-dawyvetileba separatistul reJimebTansamoqalaqo, saojaxo da sisxlissamarT-lebriv sakiTxebSi TanamSromlobis Sesaxebaris dsT-is 1993 wlis samoqalaqo, sao-jaxo da sisxlissamarTlebriv sakiTxeb-Si samarTlebrivi urTierTdaxmarebisSesaxeb konvenciisa7 da 1959 wlis sisxlissamarTlis sakiTxebSi urTierTdaxmare-bis Sesaxeb evropuli konvenciis darRve-va8. Sesabamisad, saxezea saerTaSorisovaldebulebebis pirnaTlad SesrulebissaerTaSoriso samarTlis principis dar-Rveva. aseve uxeSad ugulebelyofiliasaerTaSoriso saxelSekrulebo samarTa-lSi damkvidrebuli da saerTaSoriso sa-xelSekrulebo samarTlis Sesaxeb venis1969 wlis konvenciiT ganmtkicebuli pri-ncipi – pacta sunt servanta – xelSekrule-ba unda Sesruldes.

3. saqarTvelos Sinagan saqmeTa saminis-

tros upiloto (mzveravi) TviTmfri-

navis Camogdebis saerTaSorisosamarT-

lebrivi analizi

2008 wlis 20 aprils saqarTvelos Si-nagan saqmeTa saministros upiloto (mz-veravi) TviTmfrinavi gasrolis SedegadsaqarTvelos teritoriis, konkretuladki afxazeTis avtonomiuri respublikis

teritoriis, sahaero sivrceSi Camoagdogamanadgurebelma. qarTuli mxaris mtki-cebiT, aRniSnuli upiloto TviTmfri-navi Camoagdo ruseTis federaciis gama-nadgurebelma.

saqarTvelom saerTaSorisosamarT-lebrivi Sefaseba unda misces aRniSnulmovlenas.

3.1. Zalis gamoyenebisakrZalvis principi

gaeros wesdebis9 me-2 muxlis me-4 pun-qtSi Camoyalibebulia Zalis gamoyenebisakrZalvis principi, kerZod, dadgenilia,rom gaeros yvela wevrma saxelmwifomTavi unda Seikavos meore saxelmwifosteritoriuli mTlianobis an politiku-ri damoukideblobis winaaRmdeg muqa-risa Tu Zalis gamoyenebisagan. unda aRin-iSnos, rom Zalis gamoyeneba am muxlSigulisxmobs samxedro Zalas.10

saqarTvelos Sinagan saqmeTa saminis-tros upiloto (mzveravi) TviTmfrinavisCamogdeba meore saxelmwifos mier uda-vod Zalis gamoyenebis akrZalvis princi-pis darRvevaa, romelic ganmtkicebuliagaeros wesdebis me-2 muxlis me-4 punqtSi.

3.2. agresiis aqti

1974 wels gaeros generalurma asamb-leam miiRo 3314-e rezolucia agresiisgansazRvrebis Sesaxeb11. aRniSnuli re-zoluciis 1-li muxlis Tanaxmad, agre-siaa erTi saxelmwifos mier samxedroZalis gamoyeneba meore saxelmwifos su-verenitetis, teritoriuli mTlianobisan politikuri damoukideblobis winaa-Rmdeg. rezoluciis me-2 muxlis Tanaxmad,Tu erTma saxelmwifom samxedro Zala pi-rvelma gamoiyena da amiT daarRvia gaeroswesdeba, maSin misi moqmedeba ganixilebarogorc prima facie mtkicebuleba agresi-is aqtis ganxorcielebisa. Tumca, aRsani-Snavia, amave muxlis Tanaxmad, gaeros uSi-Sroebis sabWom SeiZleba daadginos, rommoqmedeba ar kvalificirdeba rogorcagresia, arasakmarisi simZimis gamo. rezo-luciis me-3 muxlSi CamoTvlilia moqme-debani, romlebic, miuxedavad omis gamo-cxadebisa, CaiTvleba agresiis aqtad:

i. giviaSvili, bolo periodSi ruseTis federaciis mxridan saqarTvelos mimarT ...

210


à) erTi saxelmwifos samxedro Zaleb-is mier meore saxelmwifos teritoriazeSeWra an Seteva, an nebismieri samxedrookupacia, Tundac droebiTi, romelicaseTi SeWris an Setevis Sedegia, an sxvasaxelmwifos teritoriis an misi nawilisnebismieri aneqsia samxedro Zalis gamoye-nebiT;

b) erTi saxelmwifos SeiaraRebuliZalebis mier mier meore saxelmwifosteritoriis dabombva, an erTi saxelmwi-fos mier meore saxelmwifos teri-toriis winaaRmdeg raime sxva saxis iar-aRis gamoyeneba;

c) erTi saxelmwifos SeiaraRebuliZalebis mier meore saxelmwifos navsad-gurebis an sanapiroebis blokada;

d) erTi saxelmwifos SeiaraRebuliZalebis mier meore saxelmwifos saxmele-To, sazRvao an sahaero Zalebze Seteva;

e) erTi saxelmwifos mier SeiaraRebu-li Zalebis gamoyeneba im saxelmwifos te-ritoriaze, sadac imyofeba mimReb saxel-mwifosTan SeTanxmebiT, rodesac Zalisgamoyeneba arRvevs aseTi SeTanxmebis pi-robebs an SeTanxmebis vadis Sewyvetis Sem-deg maT teritoriaze yofnis nebismierigaxangrZliveba;

f) erTi saxelmwifos mier ganxorcie-lebuli qmedeba, romelic nebas rTavs me-ore saxelmwifos, raTa misi teritoriagamoyenebul iqnes am ukanasknelis miermesame saxelmwifos winaaRmdeg agresiisaqtis gansaxorcieleblad;

g) erTi saxelmwifos mier, an misi saxe-liT, SeiaraRebuli bandebis, jgufebis,araregularuli SenaerTebis an daqira-vebuli pirebis gagzavna, romlebic axor-cieleben samxedro Zalebis moqmedebebsmeore saxelmwifos winaaRmdeg iseTi sim-ZimiT, rom ganixilebian rogorc zemoTCamoTvlili aqtebi, an maTSi arsebiTi mo-nawileobis miReba~.

saqarTvelos konstituciisa me-3muxlisa da saxelmwifo sazRvris SesaxebsaqarTvelos kanonis me-2 muxlis Tanax-mad, saqarTvelos teritoria moicavs sa-qarTvelos teritoriis sahaero sivrc-es, Sesabamisad, ucxo saxelmwifos gama-nadgureblis mier saqarTvelos SinagansaqmeTa saministros upiloto (mzveravi)TviTmfrinavis Camogdeba saqarTvelossahaero sivrceSi udavod aris saqarTve-los saxelmwifos teritoriis mimarT

samxedro Zalis gamoyeneba da, Sesabamis-ad, agresiis aqti, rac dadgenilia agre-siis gansazRvrebis Sesaxeb gaeros gener-aluri asambleis 1974 wlis rezoluciisdanarTis me-3 muxlis (b) punqtSi.

3.3. Tavdacvis uflebisgamoyenebis marTebuloba

gaeros wesdebis 51-e muxlis Tanaxmad,gaeros wevr saxelmwifos aqvs Tavdacvisufleba im SemTxvevaSi, Tu samxedro Set-eva ganxorcieldeba mis winaaRmdeg. ammuxlis mixedviT, Tavdacvis mizniT sam-xedro zomebis gamoyeneba daiSveba manam,sanam uSiSroebis sabWo miiRebs saTanadozomebs saerTaSoriso mSvidobisa da usaf-rTxoebis aRsadgenad. Tavdacvis ufleb-is gamoyenebis SemTxvevaSi, saxelmwifovaldebulia, uSiSroebis sabWos miawodosinformacia gatarebuli TavdacviTi zo-mebis Taobaze. Tumca unda aRiniSnos,rom, marTalia, samxedro Seteva avtoma-turad warmoSobs wesdebis me-2 muxlis me-4 punqtis (anu Zalis gamoyenebis akrZal-vis principis) darRvevis prezumfcias, ammuxlis darRveva yovelTvis ar kvalifi-cirdeba samxedro Setevad 51-e muxlismniSvnelobiT, 12 – 51-e muxlSi naxsenebisamxedro Seteva saxezea mxolod maSin,rodesac samxedro Zala gamoyenebuliaSedarebiT farTo masStabebiT da arsebi-Ti xasiaTis SedegebiT (ubralo sasazRv-ro incidentebi, magaliTad, erTi saxel-mwifos sasazRvro samxedro patrulismier meore saxelmwifos sazRvris gadak-veTa ganixileba rogorc me-2 muxlis me-4punqtis darRveva, magram ara rogorcsamxedro Seteva, 51-e muxlis Sesabamis-ad).13 unda aRiniSnos, rom gaeros wesdeb-is komentarebis mixedviT, gaeros gener-aluri asambleis 1974 wlis rezoluciaSiCamoTvlili agresiis aqtebi (maT Soris,zemoT xsenebuli me-3 muxlis (b) punqtiTgaTvaliswinebuli moqmedeba) SesaZlebe-lia, miCneul iqnes 51-e muxlSi miTiTebu-li samxedro Setevis magaliTad.14 Sesaba-misad, erTi saxelmwifos mier meore sax-elmwifos teritoriis mimarT samxedroZalis gamoyenebis SemTxvevaSi, dazarale-bul saxelmwifos SeuZlia, hqondes pre-tenzia, gaeros wesdebis 51-e muxlis Tana-xmad, Tavdacvis uflebis gamoyenebaze.

211

3.4. gaeros wesdebis VII Tavi –moqmedebani mSvidobisadmisafrTxis damuqrebis, mSvidobisdarRvevisa da agresiis aqtebisgamo (39-e-51-e muxlebi)

gaeros wesdebis 39-e muxlis Tanaxmad,uSiSroebis sabWo adgens mSvidobisadmisafrTxis damuqrebis, mSvidobis darRve-visa Tu agresiis aqtebs da iRebs gadaw-yvetilebas im zomebis Taobaze, romlebicSesaZlebelia miRebul iqnes wesdebis 41-eda 42-e muxlebis Sesabamisad, raTa aRdg-es an SenarCundes saerTaSoriso mSvidobada usafrTxoeba.

uSiSroebis sabWo 39-e muxlis konte-qstSi agresiis aqtis dadgenisas iyenebsagresiis aqtis generaluri asambleiseulgansazRvrebas.15 Tumca uSiSroebis sabWosmier agresiis dadgena 39-e muxlis konte-qstSi politikuri gadawyvetilebaa dayofila SemTxvevebi, rodesac mokleva-dian samxedro qmedebaTaTvis ar miuku-Tvnebia agresiis kategoria. 16

mSvidobisadmi safrTxis damuqrebis,mSvidobis darRvevisa da agresiis aqteb-is dadgenis SemTxvevaSi, 41-e muxlis Se-sabamisad, uSiSroebis sabWo iRebs gadaw-yvetilebas arasamxedro xasiaTis zomeb-is miRebis Taobaze da mouwodebs gaeroswevr qveynebs, gaataros es zomebi (mag.:ekonomikuri urTierTobebis gawyveta;sarkinigzo, saaviacio, sazRvao, safostokavSirebis gawyveta; diplomatiuri urT-ierTobebis gawyveta).

Tu aRmoCnda, rom 41-e muxliT gaTva-liswinebuli zomebi ar aris sakmarisi, ma-Sin, 42-e muxlis Sesabamisad, uSiSroebissabWos SeuZlia, miiRos samxedro zomebisahaero, sazRvao da saxmeleTo ZalebisgamoyenebiT, raTa aRdges saerTaSorisomSvidoba da usafrTxoeba.

Tumca gasaTvaliswinebelia is gare-moeba, rom gaeros wesdebis 27-e muxlisTanaxmad, uSiSroebis sabWo iRebs gadaw-yvetilebas umravlesobiT (minimum 9 wev-ri) da saWiroa yvela mudmivi wevri saxe-lmwifos Tanxmoba (ruseTis federaciisCaTvliT).

agresiis aqtis dadgenis Taobaze Se-saZlebelia, saqarTvelom, 39-e muxlisTanaxmad, mimarTos gaeros uSiSroebissabWos, magram, vinaidan ruseTis federa-cias mudmivi adgili aqvs da saWiroa misi

Tanxmoba gadawyvetilebis misaRebad, re-aluri Sedegis miRweva ararealuria.

3.5. marTlmsajulebis saerTaSorisosasamarTlo (ICJ)

saqarTvelos SeuZlia, saCivriT mima-rTos marTlmsajulebis saerTaSorisosasamarTlos gaeros wesdebis me-2 muxlisme-4 punqtis darRvevis gamo da moiTxo-vos ruseTis federaciis mopasuxed cno-ba. Tumca ruseTis federacia ar ganeku-Tvneba saxelmwifoTa im jgufs, romelT-ac sakuTar TavTan mimarTebiT aRiarebu-li aqvT sasamarTlos avtomaturi iuris-diqcia. aqedan gamomdinare, yovel konk-retul saqmeze misi mxridan saWiroa ICJ-siurisdiqciis aRiareba, raTa sasamarT-lom SeZlos aRniSnuli saqmis ganxilva.

unda aRiniSnos, rom SesaZlebeliamarTlmsajulebis saerTaSoriso sasa-marTlos sakonsultacio daskvnis (Advi-sory Opinion) mopoveba, romlis gamoTxo-vis uSualo kompetencia gaeros gener-alur asambleasa da uSiSroebis sabWosaqvT. amisaTvis werilobiTi kiTxviT undamiemarTos sasamarTlos. sakonsultaciodaskvnas ar gaaCnia iuridiulad savalde-bulo Zala.

3.6. sisxlis samarTlis saerTa-Soriso sasamarTlo (ICC)

1998 wlis romis statuti sisxlis sa-marTlis saerTaSoriso sasamarTloze17

aris saerTaSorisosamarTlebrivi meqa-nizmi, romelsac saerTaSoriso Taname-gobroba iyenebs Cadenil sisxlissamarT-lebriv danaSaulTa da damnaSaveTa gasa-marTlebisa da dasjis mizniT. saqarTve-lom statutze xelis moweris Semdeg moa-xdina misi ratificireba da aris misisruluflebiani wevri qveyana. statut-is me-12 muxlis mixedviT, misi yvela wevriqveyana aRiarebs sasamarTlos iurisdiq-cias im SemTxvevebze, rodesac mZime dan-aSauli Cadenilia: a)genocidis, b) adami-anobis winaaRmdeg danaSaulis, g) omisdanaSaulis an d) agresiis saxiT. ruse-Tis federacias aseve xeli aqvs mowerilistatutze, Tumca mis mier igi ar arisratificirebuli. saerTaSoriso xelSek-rulebaTa samarTlis Sesaxeb venis 1969wlis konvenciis me-18 muxlis mixedviT,


212


Tu saxelmwifom xeli moawera, magram armoaxdina saerTaSoriso SeTanxmebis rat-ificireba, igi mainc valdebulia, TaviSeikavos iseTi moqmedebisagan, romelicpirdapir ewinaaRmdegeba SeTanxmebis sa-gansa da mizans.

saqarTvelom SesaZlebelia daadana-Saulos ruseTis federacia venis konven-ciis me-18 muxlis darRvevis gamo.

4. kosovos aRiarebis

saerTaSorisosamarTlebrivi

Sedegebi saqarTvelosaTvis

bolo drois ganmavlobaSi saerTaSo-riso doneze zogierTi komentatoris mierkeTdeboda Sefasebebi imis Taobaze, romkosovos aRiareba Seqmnida precedents,romelic daadgenda TviTgamorkvevis pri-ncipis teritoriuli mTlianobis prin-cipiT gadawonis sakiTxs. aseve keTdebo-da prognozi, rom kosovos aRiarebis Sem-deg msgavsad miudgebodnen msoflioSiarsebul sxva auRiarebel subieqtebs daSeiqmneboda axali realoba, rac terito-riuli mTlianobis principis mniSvnelo-bas daakninebda.

Sesabamisad, msgavsi mosazrebebis sa-fuZvlianobis Sesafaseblad saWiroasaerTaSorisosamarTlebrivi analizi sa-qarTvelosaTvis kosovos aRiarebidangamomdinare safrTxeebisa.

wlebis ganmavlobaSi kosovo politi-kuri davis sagania serbeTis mTavrobasada kosovoSi mcxovreb eTnikur albane-lebs Soris.

1999 wels gaeros uSiSroebis sabWommiiRo 1244-e rezolucia,18 romelic ad-gens gaeros droebiT mmarTvelobas ko-sovoSi da aregulirebs samoqalaqo da sa-mxedro xasiaTis administrirebas. aRniS-nuli rezoluciis safuZvelze 1999 wli-dan kosovo imarTeba kosovoSi gaerosdroebiTi administraciis misiis (UNMIK)mier.

2001 wels, gaeros 1244-e rezoluciissafuZvelze, kosovoSi gaeros droebiTiadministraciis misia UNMIK-ma Camoayal-iba kosovos konstituciuri CarCo (Con-stitutional Framework for Kosovo), romlissafuZvelzec Seiqmna TviTmmarTvelobisadgilobrivi droebiTi institutebi(PISG), maTSi Sedis: kosovos arCeviTiasamblea, prezidentisa da premier-mi-

nistris postebi. amave rezoluciis sa-fuZvelze gaeros kosovos mmarTveloba-Si daxmarebas uwevs natos egidiT moqme-di samSvidoboebi, e.w. kosovos Zalebi(KFOR). xazgasasmelia, rom 1244-e rezo-lucia aRiarebs maSin jer kidev iugos-laviis federaluri respublikis (rom-lis samarTalmemkvidred iTvleba serbe-Ti) teritoriul mTlianobasa da suve-renitets. miuxedavad imisa, rom 1244-erezolucia ar cnobs kosovos damouki-deblobas, igi ar aniWebs serbeTs aranairrols kosovos mmarTvelobaSi.

upirveles yovlisa, unda aRiniSnos,gancxadeba imisa, rom konkretulad kos-ovos aRiareba Seqmnis axal realobas daTviTgamorkvevis principi gadawonis te-ritoriuli mTlianobis princips, saer-TaSorisosamarTlebrivi kuTxiT dausa-buTebelia. subieqtebis aRiareba xdebo-da kosovos aRiarebamde da moxdeba mas Se-mdegac da ar aris safuZveli, raze dayr-dnobiTac SeiZleba gacxaddes, rom koso-vos aRiareba iqneba gadamwyveti, rac da-arRvevs arsebul balanss TviTgamorkve-vis principsa da teritoriuli mTliano-bis princips Soris saerTaSoriso samar-TalSi.

magaliTad, TviTgamorkvevis princi-pis amoqmedebis safuZvelze moxda deko-lonizacia afrikis kontinentze, daiSa-la sabWoTa kavSiri, iugoslavia, sul ax-laxan damoukidebloba moipova montene-grom, indonezias gamoeyo aRmosavleTtimori. es procesi ar dawyebula koso-vos e.w. SesaZlo precedentiT da arc mis-iT gagrZeldeba. es is procesia, romel-ic saerTaSoriso samarTlis farglebSixorcieldeba.

arsebobs uamravi saerTaSoriso do-kumenti, sadac ganmtkicebulia rogorcteritoriuli mTlianobis, aseve TviT-gamorkvevis principi.19 am or principsSoris arsebobs urTierTqmedeba da arSeiZleba calkeuli subieqtis, mag. koso-vos, aRiarebam daarRvios am saerTaSori-sosamarTlebrivi dokumentebiT warmo-qmnili urTierTqmedeba.

ismis kiTxva: saerTaSorisosamarT-lebrivad ra SeiZleba mohyves ruseTisfederaciis an/da sxva saxelmwifoebismier afxazeTis avtonomiuri respubli-kisa da cxinvalis regionis damoukidebelsaxelmwifoebad aRiarebas? aq mniSvne-

213

lovania mimovixiloT sxva msgavsi SemTx-vevebi. magaliTad, palestina aRiara 100-ze metma saxelmwifom, magram igi dRemdear iTvleba damoukidebel saxelmwifodda ar aris gaeros wevri; taivani aRiara24-ma saxelmwifom, maT Soris wminda say-darma, magram igi ar aris gaeros wevri daar miiCneva saerTaSoriso samarTlis sub-ieqtad; kviprosis CrdiloeT respubli-ka aRiara mxolod TurqeTma da laparak-ic zedmetia imaze, rom igi saerTaSorisoTanamegobrobam damoukidebel saxelmwi-fod da saerTaSoriso samarTlis subi-eqtad miiCnios.

unda aRiniSnos, rom saerTaSorisosamarTalSi ar arsebobs konkretuladgawerili iuridiulad savaldebulouniversaluri xasiaTis norma, romelicdaaregulirebda cnobis kriteriumebs.Tumca arsebobs garkveuli dokumentebida normebi, romlebic saubroben aRiare-

bis gamarTlebul safuZvlebze. pirveliaseTi aris is, rom TviTgamorkvevis prin-cipis realizeba da aRiareba maSin arisgamarTlebuli, rodesac subieqtis mosa-xleobis mimarT ganxorcielda samxedroagresia da maT ar eZlevaT saSualeba eko-nomikuri, kulturuli da politikuriidentificirebisa. xolo, rodesac arxdeba samxedro xasiaTis zomebis gamoye-neba adgilobrivi mosaxleobis mimarT damaT eZlevaT SesaZlebloba didi subieq-tis farglebSi demokratiuli meqanizme-bis gamoyenebisa da ganviTarebis, maSincnoba aris gaumarTlebeli. aq mniSvne-lovania evrokavSiris deklaraciis gax-seneba aRmosavleT evropaSi da sabWoTakavSiris teritoriaze axali saxelmwi-foebis aRiarebis saxelmZRvanelo princ-ipebis Taobaze, romelic 1991 wels20 iqnamiRebuli.

1 ̀ 6. adastureben ra, rom afxazeTi aris saqarTvelos ganuyofeli nawili,Tanamegobrobis monawile saxelmwifoebi saqarTvelos mTavrobasTanSeuTanxmeblad:

a) ar ganaxorcieleben savaWro-ekonomikur, finansur, satranspor-to, an sxva operaciebs afxazTa mxaris xelisuflebasTan;

b) ar daamyareben oficialur kontaqtebs afxazeTis teritoriazearsebuli struqturebis warmomadgenlebTan an Tanamdebobis pirebTan,agreTve, maT mier Seqmnili SeiaraRebuli formirebebis wevrebTan.

7. damoukidebel saxelmwifoTa Tanamegobrobis monawile saxelmwi-foebi ar dauSveben TavianT teritoriebze afxazTa mxaris xelisuflebiswarmomadgenlobebs, agreTve pirebs, romlebic oficialurad warmoad-genen am xelisuflebas~. àfxazeTSi, saqarTvelo, konfliqtis daregu-lirebis zomebis Taobaze~ dsT-is saxelmwifos meTaurTa sabWos 1996 wlis19 ianvris gadawyvetileba. ix.: (qarTuli teqsti) <http://www.rrc.ge/law/Gadackyvet 1996_01_19_q.htm?lawid=1148&lng_3=ge>, (inglisuri teqsti)<http://www.rrc.ge/law/gad_ 1996_01_19_e.htm?lawid=1148&lng_3=en>

2 saerTaSoriso saxelSekrulebo samarTlis Sesaxeb venis konvenciisaTvisix. Malcolm D. Evans Blackstone’s International Law Documents (BlackstonePress, 2001).

3 Ðåøåíèå Ñîâåòà Ìèíèñòðîâ Èíîñòðàííûõ Äåë 25 àïðåëÿ 2007 ãîäà Îðåêîìåíäàöèÿõ Êîíñóëüòàòèâíîãî êîìèòåòà ðóêîâîäèòåëåé ïðàâîâûõ ñëóæáìèíèñòåðñòâ èíîñòðàííûõ äåë ãîñóäàðñòâ-ó÷àñòíèêîâ ÑîäðóæåñòâàÍåçàâèñèìûõ Ãîñóäàðñòâ “Î ìåòîäè÷åñêèõ ðåêîìåíäàöèÿõ ïî ðàçðàáîòêåïðîåêòîâ ìåæäóíàðîäíûõ äîãîâîðîâ, çàêëþ÷àåìûõ â ðàìêàõ ÑîäðóæåñòâàÍåçàâèñèìûõ Ãîñóäàðñòâ” è “Î ðåøåíèÿõ îðãàíîâ Ñîäðóæåñòâà ÍåçàâèñèìûõÃîñóäàðñòâ”.

4 ix.: (qarTuli teqsti) < http://www.rrc.ge/law/ gadawk 1997_03_28_q.htm?lawid=1158&lng_3=ge>, (inglisuri teqsti) <http://www.rrc.ge/law/gad1_1997_03_28_e.htm?lawid=1158&lng_3=en>

5ix.<http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Basic+Texts/Basic+Texts/The+European+Convention+on+Human+Rights+and+its+Protocols/>

6 ix. Malcolm D. Evans Blackstone’s International Law Documents (BlackstonePress, 2001).


214


7 Êîíâåíöèÿ î ïðàâîâîé ïîìîùè è ïðàâîâûõ îòíîøåíèÿõ ïî ãðàæäàíñêèì,ñåìåéíûì è óãîëîâíûì äåëàì (22 ÿíâàðÿ 1993 ã., ã. Ìèíñê).

8 ix. <http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/ Html/030.htm>9 ix. <http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/>10 B. Simma (ed.), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 117.

11 ix. <http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/ GEN/NR0/739/16/IMG/NR073916.pdf?OpenElement>

12 B. Simma (ed.), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 796.

13 iqve.14 iqve.15 iqve, gv. 722.16 iqve.17 ix. <http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/romefra. htm>18 ix. <http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/ N99/172/89/PDF/N9917289.pdf?OpenElement>

19 ix. D. Kumbaro, The Kosovo Crisis in an International Law Perspective: Self-Determination, Territorial Integrity and Nato Intervention (Final Report, 2002,Nato, Office of Information and Press).

20 EC Declaration on the “Guidelines on the Recognition of New States in Eastern Europe andin the Soviet Union” (16 December 1991), Annex 1.

215

IRAKLI GIVIASHVILI

INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ASSESSMENT OF THE RECENT STEPTS TAKENBY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION WITH RESPECT TO GEORGIA

1. INTERNATIONAL LEGAL OBLIGATION

OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

NOTWITHSTANDING DECLINING

THE OBLIGATIONS DERIVING FROM

THE 1996 DECISION BY IT ON 6 MARCH, 2008

According to the paragraph 6 of the Deci-sion Taken by the Council of the Heads ofStates of the Commonwealth of IndependentStates (CIS) on Measures for Settlement ofthe Conflict in Abkhazia, Georgia the Statesparties to the Decision (including the RussianFederation) confirm, that Abkhazia is an inte-gral part of Georgia and without consent ofthe Government of Georgia they will not exer-cise trade, economic, financial, transport orother relations with the authorities of the Abk-haz side (para. 6(a)), as well as neither willthey engage themselves in official contactswith the representatives or officials of thestructures established in the territory of Abk-hazia, nor with the members of military forma-tions of Abkhazia (para. 6(b)). As for the para-graph 7 of the aforementioned Decision, theMember-States of the CIS will not permit thefunctioning of representations of the authori-ties of neither the Abkhaz side in their territo-ries, nor the persons in a capacity of officialrepresentative of those authorities.1

On 6 March, 2008 the Russian Federa-tion declared about declining the obligationsensuing the Decision taken on 19 March, 1996by the Council of the Heads of the CIS on Mea-sures for Settlement of the Conflict in Abkha-zia, Georgia.

The 1996 Decision of the Council of theHeads of States of the CIS on Measures forSettlement of the Conflict in Abkhazia, Geor-gia is a decision made by a statutory body ofthe CIS. Unlike the agreements concludedunder the aegis of the CIS (which belong tointernational treaties and in relation to which

the Vienna Convention on the Law of Trea-ties2 applies), there is no legal document clear-ly defining the legal status of the decisions ofthe CIS statutory bodies, and in particular clar-ifying whether the decisions made by the CISorgans represent international treaties.

The question, whether a decision of theCIS statutory body is an internaitonal treaty,is very vague. The CIS Expert Group (a Con-sultative Committee), which makes legal anal-ysis of the decisions taken by the CIS statuto-ry bodies based on the review of the CIS mem-ber-States practices, was charged to elucidatethe issue. According to the document3 draftedby the group the legal status of the decisionsmade by the statutory bodies of the CIS arediversely perceived in different member-states. The aforementioned analytical docu-ment clearly provides for the formal positionof the Russian Federation with regard to thelegal status of the decisions of the CIS. In par-ticular, the Russian Federation does not re-gard the CIS decisions to be international trea-ties. They are considered as acts adopted byan international organization, which entail cer-tain (political) obligations for its States-Parties.Neither Belarus nor Kazakhstan recognize theinternational legal character of the decisions.However, it must be mentioned that there is agroup of states which consider the CIS deci-sions to be international treaties and extendover them the Vienna Convention on the Lawof Treaties. Georgia belongs to this group ofstates and therefore it carries out the domes-tic procedures with respect to the decisions.As regards Armenia, only the decisions takenwithin the CIS that are ratified by the Parlia-ment of Armenia are considered to be inter-national treaties.

The foregone implies that Georgia is notin a position to demand from the Russian Fed-eration to agree the issue over the withdrawal

216


from the 1996 Decision (this would be rele-vant if the Decision had a status of interna-tional treaty in the Russian Federation) withthe former. However, withdrawing from the1996 Decision on 6 March 2008 does not au-thorize the Russian Federation to undertakeactivities with the Abkhaz separatist regimeagainst the territorial integrity of Georgia, as:

1) The international law in general rec-ognizes protection of: a) the principle of invio-lability of territorial integrity of a state; b) aswell as the principle of non-interference intodomestic matters of a state and c) the princi-ple of integrity of state bounderies.

2) Apart from the 19 January, 1996 De-cision of the Heads of States of the CIS, fromwhich the Russian side withdrew, the latter hasrecognized territorial integrity of Georgia andthus unlawfullness of the self-proclaimed re-gime of Sukhumi, in accordance with otheranalogous decisions of the Heads of States ofthe CIS. As an example the following can bereffered to: The Decision of 19 May 1996 onthe Presence and Extending the Mandate ofthe Collective Peacekeeping Forces in theConlifct Zone of Abkhazia, Georgia; The 28March 1997 Decision on Implementation of theMeasures for Conflict Settlement in Abkhazia,Georgia;4 The 8 May 1998 Decision on Addi-tional Measures with regard to the Settlementof the conflict in Abkhazia, Georgia etc.

3) The principle of the territorial integrityof Georgia is reinforced by the Unied NationsSecurity Council Resolutions regarding theconflict in Abkhazia, Georgia ;

4) Militarisation of the separatist regimesmay be considered as creating threats topeace, which is outlawed by the Charter of theUnited Nations (Chapter VII of the Charter ofthe United Nations - Action with Respect toThreats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace,and Acts of Aggression, Articles 39-51).

2. THE TASK ASSIGNED BY THE 16 APRIL

2008 DECREE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE

RUSSIAN FEDERATION TO THE GOVERNMENT

OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION REGARDING

ABKHAZIA AND SOUTH OSSETIA

On 16 April, 2008 the President of theRussian Federation assigned the Governmnetof the Russian Federation a task to commencedirect cooperation with the representatives ofthe de-facto authorities of Abkhazia and the

Tskhinvali region.The same Decree estab-lished the list of official documents that shallbe issued by the de-facto organs of Abkhaziaand Tskhinvali regions to natural persons, aswell as recognized validity of the registrationof the legal entities registered in Abkhazia andTskhinvali region in accordance with the locallegislation; in line with the afore mentionedDecree the Federal bodies of the executivebranch of the Russian Federation are chargedto cooperate with and provide mutual legalassistance to the Abkhazia and Tskhinvali re-gion in civil, family, and criminal matters. De-riving from the interests of persons permanent-ly residing in Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali re-gion the territorial bodies of the Ministry ofForeign Affairs of the Russian Federation arecharged to perform consular duties; concur-rently the consideration of the additional pro-posals for the further enhancement of coop-eration with Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali re-gion are envisaged.

The above mentioned task given by thePresident of the Russian Federation to theGovernment and the actions undertaken latelyby the Russian Federation with regard toGeorgia do clearly contradict with the univer-sally recognized norms enshrined in both in-ternational customary and codified laws, whichrepresent the cornerstone of the internation-al system and are supported by the United Na-tions Charter, the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, aswell as by the founding documents of all theuniversal or regional (inter alia the CIS) inter-national organizations.

The actions undertaken by the RussainFederation which were "reasoned" by the pro-tecting the citizens of the Russian Federation inthe conflict zone, are not compliant with the gen-eral obligation stemming from the EuropeanConvention for the Protection of Human Rightsand Fundamental Freedoms. In particular, theArticle 1 of the Convention obliges the HighContracting Parties to secure the protection ofthe rights only within their jurisdiction5.

The decision about granting the territorialbodies of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of theRussian Federation in the Krasnodar Kray andthe Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, in caseof such a need the authority to undertake con-sular duties, violates the 1963 Vienna Con-vention on Consular Relations6. The decisionto have mutual legal cooperation with the sep-aratist regimes in civil, family and criminal

217

matters, violates the 1993 CIS Convention onLegal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil,Family, and Criminal Matters7 and the 1959European Convention on Mutual Assistancein Criminal Matters8. Respectively, the viola-tion of the principle of discharging internationalobligations in good faith is evident. Yet anoth-er principle established in international lawand supported by the 1969 Vienna Conven-tion on the Law of Treaties – pact sunt ser-vanda – is also violated.

3. INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ANALYSIS

OF THE SHOOTING DOWN THE

UNMANNED (SPY) PLANE OF THE

MINISTRY OF INTERIOR OF GEORGIA

On 20 April, 2008 the unmanned (spy)plane of the Ministry of Interior of Georgia wasshot down by a fighter in the airial space ofGeorgia, in particular in the Autonomous Re-public of Abkhazia. As allaged by the Geor-gian side, the plane was shot down by thefighter of the Russian Federation. There shallbe an internaitonal legal appraisal of the factby Georgia.

3.1 Principle of Prohibition ofUse of Force

Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter9

determines the principle of prohibition of useof force; in particular it stipulates that all Mem-ber states of the United Nations shall refrainfrom the threat or use of force against the ter-ritorial integrity or political independence ofany state. It is apt to mention here that armedforce is considered in the mentioned articleunder the use of force.10

Shooting down of the unmanned (spy)plane of the Ministry of Interior of Georgia byother state does certainly constitute a viola-tion of the principle of prohibition of use offorce, as safeguarded in the Article 2(4) of theUnited Nations Charter.

3.2 Act of Aggression

In 1974 the United Nations General As-sembly adopted the Resolution 3314 about thedeifinition of aggression.11 According to theArticle 1 of the the mentioned Resolution, ag-gression is a use of armed force by a State

against the sovereignty, territorial integrity orpolitical independence of another State. Ac-cording to Article 2 of the Resolution, if a stateuses armed force in contravention of the Unit-ed Nations Charter, this will constitute primafacie evidence of an act of aggression. How-ever, it must be also mentioned that accord-ing to the same Article, the United Nations Se-curity Council may, in conformity with the Char-ter, conclude that a determination that an actof aggression has been committed is not jus-tified if the committed act was not of sufficientgravity. The Article 3 of the Resolution pro-vides for the acts, which, if committed regard-less of a declaration of war shall qualify as anact of aggression:

a) the invasion or attack by the armed forc-es of a State of the territory of another State,or any military occupation, however tempo-rary, resulting from such invasion or attack,or any annexation by the use of force of theterritory of another State or part thereof;

b) Bombardment by the armed forces of aState against the territory of another State orthe use of any weapons by a State againstthe territory of another State;

c) The blockade of the ports or costs of aState by the amed forces of another State;

d) An attack by the armed forces of a Stateon the land, sea or air forces, or marine andair fleets of another State;

e) The use of armed forces of one Statewhich are within the territory of another Statewith the agreement of the receiving State, incontravention of the provisions provided forin the agreement or any extention of their pres-ence on such territory beyond the terminationof the agreement;

f) The action of a State in allowing its ter-ritory, which it has placed at the disposal ofanother State, to be used by that other Statefor perpetrating an act of aggression againstthe third State;

g) The sending by or on behalf of a Stateof armed bands, groups, irregulars or merce-naries, which carry out acts of armed forceagainst another State of such gravity as toamount to the acts listed above, or its sub-stantial involvement therein.

According to the Article 3 of the Constitu-tion of Georgia and the Article 2 of the Law ofGeorgia on State Boundaries the territory ofGeorgia includes the air space of Georgia, re-

I. GIVIASVILI, INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ASSESSMENT OF THE RECENT STEPTS TAKEN BY THE RUSSIAN...

218


spectively, shooting down by a fighter of a for-eign state of the unmanned (spy) plane of theMinistry of Interior of Georgia does without anydoubt constitute a use of armed force againstthe Georgian state territory and correspond-ingly this constitutes the act of aggression, asdefined by the Article 3 (b) of the 1974 UnitedNations General Assembly Resolution.

3.3. Relevance of the Use ofthe Right of Self-defense

According to the Article 51 of the UnitedNations Charter, a Member of the United Na-tions possesses the inherent right of self-de-fense if an armed attack occurs against it.According to the mentioned article, resortingto armed forces for the purpose of self-de-fense is permitted until the Security Councilhas taken measures necessary to maintaininternational peace and security. In case ofusing the right of self-defense, the state isobliged to immediately report to the SecurityCouncil on the measures taken by it in theexercise of the right of self-defense. Howeverit must be mentioned that even though thearmed attack automatically triggers the rightto act contrary to the principle established bythe Article 2(4) of the UN Charter (i.e. the prin-ciple of prohibition of use of force), the viola-tion of the mentioned paragraph is not alwaysqualified as an armed attack within the mean-ing of the Article 51 of the Charter.12 An armedattack, as provided for in the Article 51, is ex-ercised only when the armed force is used ina relatively wide scale, inflicting the substan-tial outcomes (simple accidents at the stateboundaries, such as for example, crossing bya border patrol police of a state the borderline of another state will be considered a vio-lation of Article 2(4), but not an armed attackwithin the meaning of the Article 51).13 It mustbe mentioned that according to a Commen-tary to the United Nations Charter, the acts ofaggression provided for in the 1974 UnitedNations General Assembly Resolution (includ-ing an act envisaged by the above mentionedArticle 3(b)) may be considered as an instanceof an armed attack, as provided for in the Ar-ticle 51.14 Correspondingly, if a state uses anarmed force against the territory of anotherstate, an injured state may claim to use the

right of self-defense as provided for by theArticle 51 of the United Nations Charter.

3.4 Chapter VII of the United NationsCharter – the Actions with respect toThreats to the Peace, Breaches of thePeace and Acts of Aggression (Art. 39-51)

According to the Article 39 of the UntedNations Charter, the Security Council shalldetermine the existence of any threat to thepeace, breach of the peace, or act of aggres-sion and shall decide what measures shall betaken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42,to restore or maintain international peace andsecurity.

The Security Council, acting within thecontecxt of the Article 39, when establishingan act of aggression, uses the definition asprovided for by the UN General Assembly.15

However, establishing an act of aggression bythe Security Council within the meaning of theArticle 39 represents a political decision andthere have been cases when the SecurityCouncil have not recognized certain shortterm armed activities as aggression.16

In case of establishing a threat to thepeace, breach of the peace and the act ofaggression, in accordance with the Article 41,the Security Council may decide to undertakemeasures not involving the use of armed forceand it may call upon the Members of the Unit-ed Nations to apply such measures (for ex-ample, interruption of econoic relations andof rail, air, sea, and postal communication;severance of diplomatic relations).

If the measures provided for in Article 41prove to be inadequate, the Security Councilmay, in accordance with the Article 42, takesuch action by air, sea, or land forces as maybe necessary to restore international peaceand security.

However, it must also be taken into con-sideration that according to the Article 27 ofthe United Nations Charter the Security Councilmakes a decision by a majority of affirmativevote (of minimum 9 members), including theconcurring votes of the permanent members(which icludes the Russian Federation as well).

There is a possibility for Georgia to applyto the Security Council in order to determinethe act of aggression based on the Article39, however taking into account that the Rus-

219

sian Federation is a permanent member of theCouncil, and thus, its affirmative vote is alsorequired for taking a decision, reaching thetengable result is unrealistic.

3.5 The Internaitonal Court ofJustice (ICJ)

Georgia may apply to the InternationalCourt of Justice claiming the violation of theArticle 2(4) of the United Nations Charter andrequest the Russian Federation to be a re-spondent party to a case. However, the Rus-sian Federation does not belong to the groupof States, which have recognized automaticjurisdiction of the ICY under Art. 36 of the ICYStatute. Based on this there is a need that theRussian Federation recognizes the jurisdictionof the ICY in relation to any given case in or-der for the ICY to exercise its jurisdiction.

It must be mentioned that the AdvisoryOpinion of the ICY, which can be requestedby the General Assembly or the Security Coun-cil, may be sought. A written request shall besubmitted to the ICY to that end. Hawever TheAdvisory Opinion does not have a legally bind-ing force.

3.6 International Criminal Court (ICC)

The 1998 Rome Statute of the InternationalCriminal Court17 represents an internationallegal mechanism, which the international com-munity shall employ for bringing to justice per-petrators of the crimes. Georgia, after sign-ing the Statute, ratified it and thus is a State-Party to it. According to the Article 12 of theStatute, a State which becomes a Party to theStatute thereby accepts the jurisdiction of theCourt with respect to the following most seri-ous crimes: a) Genocide, b) Crimes againsthumanity, c) War crimes, d) the crime of ag-gression. The Russian Federation has alsosigned the Statute, however it has not ratifiedthe document yet. In accordance with the Arti-cle 18 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on theLaw of Treaties, a State is obliged to refrainfrom acts which would defeat the object andpurpose of a treaty when it has signed thetreaty, but not ratified it.

Georgia may claim that the Russian Fed-eration violated Article 18 of the Vienna Con-vention.

4. INTERNATIONAL LEGAL CONSEQUENCES

DERIVING FROM THE RECOGNITION OF

KOSOVO FOR GEORGIA

A number of international commentatorshave lately evaluated the recognition of Kosovoas a creation of the precedent establishing thesuperiority of the principle of self-determina-tion over the principle of the territorial integri-ty of a State. It was also suggested that therecognition of Kosovo would have involved thesame approach with regard to other unrecog-nized subjects throughout the world and a newreality would have emerged resulting in thedevaluing the principle of territorial integrity.

Respectively, in order to assess the valid-ity of such opinions, international legal assess-ment shall be made with regard to the threatsfor Georgia stemming from the recognition ofKosovo.

Kosovo has for years been a topic of po-litical confrontation between the Governmentof Serbia and ethnic Albanians living in Kosovo.

In 1999 the United Nations Security Coun-cil adopted the Resolution 1244.18 The Reso-lution establishes the temporary presence ofthe United Nations and regulates the adminis-tration by the international civil and securitypresence. Starting from 1999, based on thementioned Resolution, Kosovo is administeredby the interim UN Administration in Kosovo(hereinafter – UNMIK).

In 2001, based on the Resolution 1244the UNMIK created Constitutional Frameworkfor Kosovo, based on which the provisionalinstitutes of self-government (PISG), includ-ing the elective assembly, as well as the postsof the President and the Prime Minister, esta-blished. Based on the very same Resolution,the United Nations assisted in interim admin-istration of Kosovo by the peace-keeping socalled Kosovo Forces (KFOR) operating un-der the NATO aegis. It must be underlined thatthe Resolution 1244 recognizes the territorialintegrity and sovereignty of then still FederalRepublic of Yugoslavia (whose successor stateis considered to be Serbia). Despite the factthat the Resolution 1244 does not recognizeindependence of Kosovo, it does not grant anyrole to Serbia in Kosovo administration. Im-primis it must be stated that declaring that thevery recognition of Kosovo will bring about thenew reality and this will confirm the fact that


220


the principle of self-determination will super-sede the principle of territorial integrity of aState, is devoid of any international legalgrounds. The recognition of subjects used totake place before the recognition of Kosovoand will be occurring in the future as well; andthere is no ground based on which it may beclaimed that the recognition of Kosovo will playthe decisive role in destroying the existingbalance between the principle of self-deter-mination and the principle of territorial integri-ty in international law.

It may be mentioned here as an examplethat based on the principle of self-determina-tion the decolonisation on the African conti-nent took place, the Soviet Union as well asYugoslavia was dissolved, and Montenegro gotindependence not long ago. East Timor wasseparated from Indonesia. This process hasnot commenced with the so called Kosovo’spossible precedent and will neither proceedwith it. This is the process, which takes placewithin the constraints of the international law.

There are numerous international treatiesin force, which confirm both – the principle ofterritorial integrity, as well as the principle ofself-determination.19 There is an interactionbetween the two principles, and the recogni-tion of individual subjects, such as for exam-ple Kosovo, can not violate the interplay de-riving from these international documents.

The question emerges – in terms of theinternational law what may follow the recogni-tion of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia andthe Tskhinvali region as independent statesby the Russian Federation and/or any other

States? It is important to consider other simi-lar situations in this respect. For example, Pal-estine is recognized by over 100 States, how-ever up to now it is neither considered to bean independent state and nor it is a UN mem-ber-state. Taiwan is recognized by 24 States,including the Holy See, however it is not a UNmember-State and is not considered to be asubject of international law. Northern CyprusRepublic is only recognized by Turkey and itis beyond any consideration that it may berecognized by the international community asan independent State and a subject of inter-national law.

It must be mentioned that there is no con-cretely prescribed legally binding universalnorm of international law, regulating the crite-ria of recognition. However, there are certaindocuments and norms referring to the justi-fied basis of the recognition. The first such anorm is that the realisation and recognition ofthe principle of self-determination is justifiedonly in case when an armed aggression isexercised against the population of the sub-ject and they are not entitled to economic,cultural and political identification. As regardsthe situations, when there are no military mea-sures exercised against the local populationand they are given possibility to exercise anddevelop democratic mechanisms within theframework of the big subject, then the recog-nition is not justified. IT is important to recallhere the EC Declaration on the `Guidelineson the Recognition of New States in EasternEurope and in the Soviet Union', which wasadopted in 1991.20

1 "Confirming that Abkhazia is an integral part of Georgia, the member-states ofthe Commonwealth of Independent States, without consent of the Government ofGeorgia:

a) will not exercise trade-economic, financial, transport or other operationswith the authorities of the Abkhaz side;

b) Will not engage themselves in official contacts neither with the representa-tives or officials of the structures established in the territory of Abkhazia, nor withthe members of military formations of Abkhazia.

7. Member-states of the Commonwealth of Independent States will not permitthe functioning of representations of the authorities of neither the Abkhaz side in theirterritories, nor the persons in a capacity of official representative of those authorities"

See: Decision Taken by the Council of the Heads of States of the Common-wealth of Independent States on Measures for Settlement of the conflict in Abkha-zia, Georgia.

See: The Georgian text at: http://www.rrc.ge/ law Gadackyvet_1996_01_19_q.htm?lawid=1148&lng_3=ge

221

The English text at: /http://www.rrc.ge/law/gad_1996_01_19_e.htm?lawid=1148&lng_3=en>2 For the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties See: Malcolm D. Evans Black-stone’s International Law Documents (Blackstone Press, 2001).

3 The Decision of the Council of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of 25 April, 2007 onthe Recommendations of the Consultative Committee of the Heads of LegalServices of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of the CIS State Parties on "Method-ological Recommendations with regard to Elaboration of the Draft InternationalTreaties in the Framework of the Commonwealth of Independent States" and"About Decisions of the Organs of the Commonwealth of Independent States"

4 See: The Georgian text at: http://www.rrc.ge/law/ gadawk_1997_03_28_q.htm?lawid=1158&lng_3=ge;The English text at: http://www.rrc.ge/law/gad1 1997_03_28_e.htm?lawid=1158&lng_3=en

5 See: http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/ Basic+Texts/Basic+Texts/The+European+Conventi on+on+Human+Rights+and+its+Protocols/

6 See: Malcolm D. Evans Blackstone’s International Law Documents (BlackstonePress, 2001).

7 The Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal elations in Civil, Family andCriminal Matters (22 January 1993, Minsk)

8 See: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/ Html/030.htm9 See: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/10 See: B. Simma (ed.), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 117.

11 See: http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/ GEN/NR0/739/16/IMG/NR073916.pdf?OpenElement.

12 See: B. Simma (ed.), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 796.



15 B. Simma (ed.), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 722.


17 See: http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/ romefra.htm.18 See: http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/ N99/172/89/PDF/N9917289.pdf?OpenElement

19 See: D. Kumbaro, The Kosovo Crisis in an International Law Perspective: Self-Determination, Territorial Integrity and NATO Intervention (Final Report, 2002,NATO, Office of Information and Press).

20 EC Declaration on the `Guidelines on the Recognition of New States in EasternEurope and in the Soviet Union' (16 December 1991), Annex 1.


222


mariam gociriZe

fizikuri da iuridiuli pirebis diplomatiuridacva saerTaSoriso sajaro samarTalSi

1. Sesavali

globalizaciis procesis dRevandeletapze ukve aravis ukvirs is faqti, romadamianebi toveben sakuTari warmoSobisada moqalaqeobis saxelmwifos da muSao-bis, swavlisa Tu sxvagvari miznebiT miem-gzavrebian ucxo saxelmwifoSi; erT saxe-lmwifoSi dafuZnebuli iuridiuli pire-bi TavianTi filialebisa Tu warmomad-genlobebis meSveobiT moRvaweobas ewevi-an meore saxelmwifos teritoriaze; msof-lio ekonomikis Zalze mniSvnelovan glo-balur procesebSi wamyvan rols sworedmultinacionaluri sawarmoebi asrule-ben; da a.S. amdenad, Zalian didia Sansi imi-sa, rom fizikuri Tu iuridiuli pirebigaxdnen samarTaldarRvevis, uflebaTaSelaxvis msxverplni, anda aRmoCndnenqonebrivi Tu araqonebrivi zianis miyene-bis obieqtni ucxo saxelmwifos terito-riaze.

marTalia, saxelmwifo Tavisi diplo-matiuri da sakonsulo warmomadgenlo-bebis meSveobiT icavs Tavis moqalaqeebs,miuxedavad maTi adgilsamyofelisa, da,amasTan, yvela demokratiul saxelmwi-foSi ucxoels aqvs iseTive ufleba, mima-rTos SidasasamarTloebsa da darRveuliuflebebis aRdgenis sxva institutciursaSualebebs, rogorc am qveynis moqala-qeebs, magram sainteresoa, ra gamosavaliarsebobs, iseT SemTxvevaSi, rodesac Si-dasaxelmwifoebriv samarTlebriv reJim-Si am sakiTxis gadawyveta SeuZlebelia?

Tanamedrove saerTaSoriso samarTlisTanaxmad, saxelmwifo pasuxs agebs, Tavi-si qmedebiT an umoqmedobiT, ucxoeli-saTvis moyenebuli zianisaTvis. diploma-tiuri dacva swored is meqanizmia, rom-lis meSveobiTac moqalaqeobis saxelmwi-fos SeuZlia, saerTaSoriso doneze da-

icvas sakuTari moqalaqis uflebebi damoipovos misTvis Sesabamisi samarTleb-rivi dakmayofileba Tu kompensacia.

winamdebare naSromis mizani sworedimis gansazRvraa, ramdenad SesaZlebeliaTanamedrove saerTaSoriso samarTlisCarCoebSi saxelmwifom daicvas sakuTarimoqalaqeebi saerTaSoriso sasamarTlo-Si. amasTan, es naSromi, diplomatiuri da-cvis meqanizmis ubralo gansazRvrasTanerTad, Seecdeba, daadginos, Tu ramdenadrealuri da xelmisawvdomi saSualebaaaRniSnuli meqanizmi Cveulebrivi moqa-laqeebisaTvis, sakuTari moqalaqeobissaxelmwifos meSveobiT, Sidasaxelmwifo-ebriv doneze darRveuli uflebebis saer-TaSoriso samarTlebriv reJimSi aRdge-nis TvalsazrisiT.

naSromis pirvel nawilSi warmodge-nilia diplomatiuri dacvis Sesaxeb saer-TaSoriso samarTlis analizi. aRniSnulimeqanizmis principis zusti gansazRvrismizniT, yuradReba gamaxvilebulia ro-gorc istoriul, aseve wmindad saerTaSo-risosamarTlebriv aspeqtebze. SemdgomTavebSi ki mocemulia diplomatiuri dacvismeqanizmis Semadgeneli elementebis de-taluri aRwera da samarTlebrivi analizi.

2. diplomatiuri dacvis

meqanizmis arsi

diplomatiuri dacvis meqanizmisCamoyalibebis safuZvelia istoriuliprincipi, romlis mixedviTac, erTi sax-elmwifos moqalaqisaTvis meore saxelm-wifoSi miyenebuli ziani saerTaSorisodoneze ganixileboda rogorc ziani mo-qalaqeobis saxelmwifosadmi. emerix devetelis cnobili sityvebis Tanaxmad,`moqalaqisadmi miyenebuli ziani – es ara-pirdapiri ziania saxelmwifosadmi.1

223

Tanamedrove saerTaSoriso samarTalSidiplomatiuri dacvis meqanizmi damkvid-rebulia rogorc saerTaSoriso samarT-lis CveulebiTi norma.2 Tanamedrove sa-marTalSi ar arsebobs zogadsamarTleb-rivi saxelSekrulebo instrumenti, ro-melic daaregulirebda diplomatiuridacvis meqanizmis samarTlebriv aspeq-tebs. misi Sinaarsis gansazRvra wlebisganmavlobaSi xdeboda ZiriTad wyaroTaganmartebis damxmare saSualebebiT.3 mcde-loba diplomatiuri dacvis Sesaxeb arse-buli saerTaSoriso samarTlis bazis ko-difikaciisa ganaxorciela gaerTianebu-li erebis organizaciis saerTaSorisosamarTlis komisiam (SemdgomSi – ̀ saerTa-Soriso samarTlis komisia~ an ̀ komisia~).komisiis mier diplomatiuri dacvis Sesa-xeb muxlebis proeqtis (SemdgomSi – ̀ mux-lebis proeqti~ an ̀ proeqti~) teqsti, ko-mentarebTan erTad, pirveli mosmeniTmiRebul iqna 2004 wels,4 xolo 2006 welsproeqti damtkicda meore mosmeniT.5 amdroisaTvis diplomatiuri dacvis sa-marTlis kodifikaciis aRniSnuli doku-menti rCeba isev da isev proeqtad da masaranairi savaldebulo Zala, garda Zir-iTad wyaroTa ganmartebis damxmare fun-qciisa,6 ar gaaCnia saerTaSoriso sazoga-doebis wevri saxelmwifoebisaTvis.

saerTaSoriso marTlmsajulebis mud-mivma sasamarTlom diplomatiuri dacvaganmarta rogorc `saerTaSoriso samar-Tlis elementaruli principi~, romlismixedviTac, `saxelmwifo uflebamosil-ia, daicvas sakuTari subieqti, rodesacam ukanasknels ziani miadga sxva saxelm-wifos mier Cadenili qmedebiT, romelicewinaaRmdegeba saerTaSoriso samarTals, darodesac am saxelmwifoSi CveulebrivigziT zianis anazRaureba ver moxerxda~.7

komisia diplomatiuri dacvis SesaxebnormaTa proeqtSi Semdegnairad ganmar-tavs am instruments: ̀ diplomatiuri da-cva moicavs diplomatiuri qmedebis andavis mSvidobiani mogvarebis sxva saSu-alebis gamoyenebas saxelmwifos mier imsaxelmwifos pasuxismgeblobis dasmismizniT, romelmac saerTaSorisosamarT-lebrivi darRvevis meSveobiT ziani miay-ena ganmcxadebeli saxelmwifos moqalaqefizikur an iuridiul pirs, Tuki aRniS-nuli miznad isaxavs aseTi pasuxismgeblo-bis implementacias~.8

rogorc vxedavT, diplomatiuridacva aris is meqanizmi, romelsac Seu-Zlia, saSualeba misces sazRvargareTmyof moqalaqes, daicvas Tvisi darRveu-li uflebebi sakuTari saxelmwifos Sua-mdgomlobiT, iseT SemTxvevebSi, rodesacdarRveva warmoSobs saxelmwifos pasux-ismgeblobas.9 Tumca unda aRiniSnos, romdiplomatiuri dacvis ganxorcieleba yve-lanairi meTodiT dauSvebelia. rogorcssk-is mier SemuSavebuli ganmartebidanCans, diplomatiuri dacvis ganxorcie-leba saerTaSorisosamarTlebriv CarCo-ebSi moeqceva mxolod davis mogvarebismSvidobiani xerxebis gamoyenebis SemTx-vevaSi. sainteresoa is garemoebac, romdiplomatiuri dacva ar moicavs im moqa-laqeTa dacvas, romlebic sazRvargareTsaxelmwifos saxeliT ewevian diploma-tiur-warmomadgenlobiT saqmianobas,radgan amgvar SemTxvevaSi Cadenili qme-deba aRiqmeba saxelmwifos winaaRmdegganxorcielebul pirdapir darRvevad.aseTia zogadad diplomatiuri dacvismeqanizmis samarTlebrivi arsi. is, Tu ra-mdenad xelmisawvdomi da realurad ganx-orcielebadi meqanizmia diplomatiuridacva, amis demonstrirebas misi ZiriTa-di Semadgeneli elementebisa da princi-pebis detaluri analiziT SevecdebiT.

3. diplomatiuri dacvis meqanizmis Zir-

iTadi elementebi da principebi – Teo-

ria praqtikis winaaRmdeg

diplomatiuri dacva, rogorc erTimTliani samarTlebrivi meqanizmi, uam-ravi calkeuli elementisagan Sedgeba,romelTa jer cal-calke da Semdgom erTmTlian meqanizmad amoqmedebisaTvis auci-lebelia calkeuli principisa Tu moTx-ovnis dakmayofileba. aRniSnul proces-Si ki vawydebiT uamrav bariers, rac Zalzeamcirebs im pirTa wres, romelTac eZle-vaT realuri SesaZlebloba, isargeblondiplomatiuri dacviT.

3.1. diplomatiuri dacvis ganxorcielebis ufleba

saerTaSoriso samarTlis tradiciu-li principis Tanaxmad, diplomatiuridacvis ganxorcieleba saxelmwifos pre-rogativaa. saerTaSoriso marTlmsaju-

m. gociriZe, fizikuri da iuridiuli pirebis diplomatiuri dacva saerTaSoriso sajaro ...

224


lebis mudmivma sasamarTlom mavromati-sis palestinuri koncesiebis saqmeze ga-nacxada, rom diplomatiuri dacvis ganx-orcielebisas saxelmwifo iyenebs Tavisuflebas, ̀ uzrunvelyos saerTaSorisos-amarTlebrivi normebis pativiscema Ta-vis subieqtTan mimarTebiT~.10

diplomatiuri dacvis ganxorciele-ba saxelmwifos uflebaa. saerTaSorisosamarTlis Tanaxmad, saxelmwifo ar arisvaldebuli, daicvas sakuTari moqalaqesaerTaSoriso arenaze da, Sesabamisad,dacvis ganxorcielebaze uaris Tqmis Sem-TxvevaSi aranairi pasuxismgebloba arekisreba. es ganpirobebulia im faqtiT,rom saxelmwifoebi istoriulad Tavsarideben, saerTaSoriso samarTalSi mis-cen ufleba individebs, Tavad wamoiwyonsaqme saxelmwifoebis winaaRmdeg, rasacxsnian saxelmwifo suverenitetsa da SidasaqmeebSi Caurevlobis principebTan da-kavSirebuli mizezebiT.11 kompania ̀ barse-lona treqSenis~ saqmeze saerTaSorisomarTlmsajulebis sasamarTlom daadgi-na, rom: `saerTaSoriso samarTlis far-glebSi dawesebuli SezRudvebis Tanax-mad, saxelmwifos SeuZlia, ganaxorcie-los diplomatiuri dacva im saSualebe-biTa da im farglebSi, rasac saWirod mi-iCnevs... saxelmwifo unda ganvixiloTrogorc erTaderTi msajuli, romelsacSeuZlia, gadawyvitos, ganaxorcielebsTu ara igi dacvas, ra farglebSi da ro-dis Sewyvets~.12

amgvarad, rogorc ukve gamoikveTa,pirveli da yvelaze mniSvnelovani dab-rkoleba fizikuri Tu iuridiuli piri-saTvis – isargeblos Tavisi moqalaqeo-bis saxelmwifos dacviT, aris saxelmwi-fos mier diplomatiuri dacvis valde-bulebis ganxorcielebis ararseboba. am-denad, moqalaqe saerTaSorisosamarT-lebriv reJimSi veranairad aiZulebs sax-elmwifos, ganaxorcielos misi dacva.ufro metic, ̀ Tundac fizikurma an iuri-diulma pirma [romlis saxeliTac saxelm-wifo axorcielebs diplomatiur dacvas]CaTvalos, rom misi ufleba araadekvatu-rad iqna daculi, mas saerTaSorisosa-marTlebriv reJimSi ar gaaCnia aranairisamarTlebrivi saSualeba~.13

Tumca aqve unda aRiniSnos is dadebi-Ti tendenciebi, rac am mxriv saxelmwifo-Ta Tanamedrove praqtikaSi SeiniSneba.

saerTaSorisosamarTlebrivi sazogadoe-bis zogierTi wevri Tvlis, rom indivi-debs unda hqondeT ufleba, mosTxovonsaxelmwifos, ganaxorcielos diploma-tiuri dacva maTi saxeliT. arsebobs, ma-rTalia, Zalze SezRuduli masStabiT, ma-gram mainc, saxelmwifo praqtika, romel-ic exmianeba aRniSnul mosazrebas.14 ram-denime saxelmwifos konstituciuri de-bulebebiT, aRiarebulia individis uf-leba, miiRos saxelmwifo dacva im zianisgamo, romelic miadga ucxo qveynis ter-itoriaze.15 maT Soris aris saqarTveloc.saqarTvelos konstituciis me-13 muxlisTanaxmad: `saqarTvelo mfarvelobs Ta-vis moqalaqes ganurCevlad misi adgilsa-myofelisa~.

miuxedavad zemoaRniSnuli dadebiTiZvrebisa, faqti faqtad rCeba – saerTa-Soriso samarTalSi kvlavac savaldebu-lo Zalas inarCunebs tradiciuli prin-cipi diplomatiuri dacvis ganxorcie-lebis saxelmwifo uflebis Sesaxeb. saer-TaSoriso samarTlis komisiam uaryo Se-Tavazeba, eRiarebinaT dacvis ganxorci-elebaze saxelmwifos SezRuduli valde-buleba.16 Tumca verc am dadebiTi tenden-ciebis sruliad ugulebelyofa SeZlo.komisiam diplomatiuri dacvis Sesaxebmuxlebis proeqtSi Cado me-19(a) muxli17,romelic erTgvar rekomendacias uwevssaxelmwifos, dacvis gareSe ar datovos,gansakuTrebiT, is moqalaqeebi, romelT-ac mniSvnelovani ziani miadgaT.

3.2. diplomatiuri dacvismeqanizmis beneficiarebi

moqalaqeoba aris damakavSirebelirgoli saxelmwifosa da dazaralebulpirs Soris, rac safuZvels iZleva diplo-matiuri dacvis ganxorcielebisaTvis.18

am SemTxvevaSi, termini moqalaqe moicavsrogorc fizikur, aseve iuridiul pirebs.fizikuri da iuridiuli pirebis mo-qalaqeobis gansazRvrisas vawydebiT Ti-Toeuli maTganisaTvis damaxasiaTebelgarkveul Taviseburebebs, ris gamoc amor jgufs cal-calke ganvixilavT.

fizikuri pirebi. istoriulad, imisgansazRvra, Tu vin warmoadgens Tavis mo-qalaqes, ganekuTvneboda saxelmwifosprerogativas. saerTaSoriso marTlmsa-julebis mudmivma sasamarTlom saqmeze –

225

moqalaqeobis dadgenilebebi tunissa damarokoSi – gansazRvra, rom: ̀ moqalaqeo-bis sakiTxebi ganekuTvneba principulad[saxelmwifoTa] Sida kompetencias~.19

imave Sinaarsis debuleba iqna Cadebuli1930 wlis konvenciaSi – ̀ moqalqeobis Se-saxeb kanonTa Soris konfliqtTan dakav-Sirebuli ramdenime sakiTxis Sesaxeb~.20

miuxedavad imisa, rom, rogorc vxe-davT, Tavad saerTaSoriso samarTliskonteqstSi iqna aRiarebuli saxelmwi-fos eqskluziuri ufleba, TviTon gada-wyvitos, Tu vin miekuTvneba mis moqalaqe-Ta rigebs, saqme arcTu ise martivad aris,rogorc erTi SexedviT Cans. saerTaSori-sosamarTlebriv CarCoebSi ama Tu im pi-ris saxelmwifosadmi moqalaqeobrivi ku-Tvnilebis gansazRvrisas saxelmwifosaRniSnuli ufleba izRudeba.21 ufro zu-stad rom vTqvaT, yvela is piri, romelicsaxelmwifos iurisdiqciaSi aRiarebuliamis moqalaqed, saerTaSoriso samarTlisTanaxmad, am SemTxvevaSi diplomatiuridacvis miznebisaTvis, SesaZloa, sulac arCaiTvalos am qveynis moqalaqed.

marTalia, saerTaSoriso samarTliskomisiis mier formulirebuli muxlebisproeqtis me-4 muxli aRiarebs saxelmwi-fos uflebas, Tavad gansazRvros, Tu vinSeiZleba iyos misi moqalaqe, amavdrou-lad awesebs am uflebis SezRudvas saer-TaSoriso samarTlis farglebSi.22 muxligvTavazobs araamomwurav CamonaTvalsmoqalaqeobis im meTodebisas, romlebicSeesabameba moqmed saerTaSoriso samar-Tals. dabadebiT, mSoblebis moqalaqeo-bis mixedviT, naturalizaciiT, saxelm-wifo samarTalmemkvidreobiT miRebulimoqalaqeoba sruliad Seesabameba, saer-TaSoriso samarTlis gagebiT, moqalaqe-obis miRebis safuZvlebs. Tumca arsebobsmoqalaqeobis miRebis iseTi formebic,romlebic, Tumca SidasaxelmwifoebrvsamarTlebriv reJimSi sruliad misaRe-bia, magram saerTaSoriso samarTlisTvismiuRebeli, magaliTad, meuRlis mier qo-rwinebis Sedegad moqalaqeobis avtomat-urad miReba.23

amdenad, piri, romelic, qveynis Sida-kanonmdeblobis Sesabamisad, saxelmwi-fos sruluflebiani moqalaqea, imyofe-ba masTan samarTlebriv da politikurkavSirSi, pirnaTlad asrulebs Tavis mo-qalaqeobriv valdebulebebs, ixdis gada-

saxadebs, da a.S., ver isargeblebs saxelm-wifo dacviT, vinaidan misi moqalaqeobaver eqceva ̀ moqalaqeobis~ saerTaSorisosamarTliseul ganmartebaSi.

iuridiuli pirebi. diplomatiuridacvis Sesaxeb saerTaSoriso Cveulebi-Ti samarTlisa da am sakiTxis irgvliv sa-erTaSoriso sasamarTlo praqtikis, ag-reTve gaeros saerTaSoriso samarTliskomisiis mier SemuSavebuli muxlebisproeqtis mixedviT, diplomatiuri dac-va vrceldeba ara mxolod fizikur, ara-med iuridiul pirebzec. iuridiuli pi-rebis diplomatiuri dacva Zalze mrava-lferovani da saintereso sferoa. aq er-TmaneTisagan unda ganvasxvaoT korpora-ciebisa da arasaSemosavlo iuridiulipirebis dacva. ufro metic, diplomatiu-ri dacviT sargebloben ara mxolod kor-poraciebi, aramed maTi mewileebic.

saxelmwifoebs dReisaTvis ukve Zal-ze didi praqtika daugrovdaT korpora-ciaTa diplomatiuri dacvis sferoSi.korporacia am SemTxvevaSi gulisxmobsSezRuduli pasuxismgeblobis mqone saSe-mosavlo iuridiul pirs, romlis kapita-lic warmodgenilia wilebis saxiT.24

iseve, rogorc fizikuri pirebis SemT-xvevaSi, korporacia unda akmayofileb-des garkveul moTxovnebs, raTa CaiTva-los konkretuli qveynis moqalaqed. Tu-mca unda aRiniSnos, rom, fizikuri pire-bis msgavsad, saerTaSoriso samarTaliimdenad maRal bariers uwesebs korpora-ciebs, rom maTgan Zalze bevri SeiZleba,am saerTaSorisosamarTlebrivi insti-tutis gavrcelebis arealis miRma aRmo-Cndes. iseve, rogorc zemoT aRvniSneT, amSemTxvevaSic korporaciebisaTvis moqa-laqeobis miniWebis sakiTxi qveynis Sidakompetencias ganekuTvneba.25 magram amSida kompetencias iseve ar aqvs raime Zaladiplomatiuri dacvis miznebisaTvis, ro-gorc fizikuri pirebis SemTxvevaSi.

saxelmwifoebi iuridiuli piris mo-qalaqeobis gansazRvrisaTvis sxvadasxvatests iyeneben, – iqneba es registraciisqveyana, saTavo ofisis, Tu, ubralod, wa-rmomadgenlobis adgilmdebareobis qve-yana. saqarTvelo, magaliTad, iuridiu-li piris qmedunarianobis gansazRvrisa-Tvis iyenebs iuridiuli piris adminis-traciis faqtobrivi adgilmdebareobisqveynis samarTals.26 marTlmsajulebis


226


saerTaSoriso sasamarTlom kompania`barselona treqSenis~ saqmeze ganmarta,rom, saerTaSoriso samarTlis tradici-uli normis Tanaxmad, korporaciis dip-lomatiuri dacvis ufleba eniWeba im sa-xelmwifos, romelSic kompania inkorpo-rirebulia da aqvs registrirebuli wa-rmomadgenloba.27 amdenad, rogorc vxedavT,korporaciis mier moqalaqeobis moTxov-nis dakmayofilebis kriteriumi sakmaodmaRalia: korporacia qveynis moqalaqedrom CaiTvalos, unda iyos ara mxolodinkorporirebuli, aramed unda gaaCndesregistrirebuli warmomadgenlobac ma-Sin, rodesac, SeiZleba, qveynebi am oritestidan mxolod erTs iyenebndnen.

amasTan, unda aRiniSnos, rom am krite-riumiT SeiZleba TamaSs miRma aRmoCndnenis saxelmwifoebi, romlebsac gacilebiTmeti ekonomikuri interesi aqvT kompani-is mimarT, vidre im saxelmwifos, romel-ic, SesaZloa, akmayofilebdes moqala-qeobis qveynis moTxovnebs diplomatiuridacvis miznebisaTvis. miT umetes, Tana-medrove ekonomikuri da komerciuli ur-TierTobebis pirobebSi kompanias SesaZ-loa, saerTod ar hqondes Sexeba Tavisi in-korporaciis saxelmwifosTan, magram Za-lze mWidrod iyos dakavSirebuli rome-lime sxva saxelmwifosTan an saxelmwi-foebTan. kompania ̀ barselona treqSenis~saqmis mixedviT, kompaniis umetesi wilibelgiis moqalaqeebis xelSi iyo, Tumca,sasamarTlos gadawyvetilebiT, belgiasar hqonda ufleba, diplomatiuri dacvaganexorcielebina kompaniis saxeliT, xo-lo kanada, romelic CaiTvala kompaniissaxeliT diplomatiuri dacvis ganxor-cielebis uflebis mqone saxelmwifod,saerTod ar dainteresebula kompaniisbediT.

saqme isaa, rom aseTi formalisturimidgomiT ver iqneba dakmayofilebuli aminstrumentis mizani – saTanado diplo-matiuri dacviT uzrunvelyos korpora-ciebi. amgvar SemTxvevaSi, alternatiu-li kriteriumis – WeSmariti ekonomikuriinteresisa da efeqturi kavSiris – gamo-yenebiT ufro metad iqneboda korpo-raciis dacvis mizani miRweuli.

saerTaSoriso samarTlis komisia See-cada, moqalaqeobis aRniSnuli bariericotaTi mainc daewia qvemoT da muxlebisproeqtis me-9 muxlSi datova mxolod

erTi kriteriumi – inkorporaciis adgi-li. Tumca gacilebiT mniSvnelovani wins-vla iyo gamonaklisis am zogadi wesidanis, rac Caido muxlSi: ̀ im SemTxvevaSi, ro-desac korporacias akontroleben sxvaqveynis an qveynebis moqalaqeebi da Tavadkompania ar eweva raime mniSvnelovan saq-mianobas inkorporaciis qveyanaSi, amavd-roulad, administracia mdebareobs dafinansuri kontroli xorcieldeba amsxva saxelmwifodan, moqalaqeobis sax-elmwifod CaiTvleba es ukanaskneli,~28

rac Zalze mniSvnelovani winsvlaa – gama-rtivda moqalaqeobis dadgenis kriteri-umi da aseve gaTvaliswinebul iqna is qvey-nebi, romlebic, SesaZloa, gacilebiT me-tad iyvnen dainteresebulni korporaci-is uflebaTa dacviT.

korporaciebis diplomatiuri dac-vis fundamenturi principis Tanaxmad,korporaciis diplomatiuri dacva undaganxorcieldes korporaciis, da ara mismewileTa, moqalaqeobis saxelmwifosmier.29 sasamarTlos ganmartebiT, ̀ SesaZ-loa orma sxvadasxva institutma ganica-dos ziani erTi da imave samarTaldarR-vevis Sedegad, magram mxolod erTi maT-ganis ufleba CaiTvleba darRveulad~.30

sasamarTlos gadawyvetileba – diploma-tiuri dacvis ganxorcielebis eqskluzi-uri ufleba mieniWebina inkorporaciissaxelmwifosaTvis – aixsna ramdenime mize-ziT: pirveli, korporacia da mewileebiori gancalkevebuli warmonaqmnia. ùb-ralo faqti, rom ziani ganicada orivem,– korporaciam da mewilem, – ar niSnavs,imas, rom orives SeuZlia miiRos kompen-sacia~.31 korporaciis gansakuTrebuliTvisebaa is, rom mewileTa pasuxismgeb-loba SezRudulia da gancalkevebuliakorporaciis uflebebisa da pasuxismge-blobebisgan; meore, ucxoeli mewileebifulis dabandebisas iTvaliswineben imrisks, rom inkorporaciis saxelmwifomSesaZloa, ar ganaxorcielos korporaci-is diplomatiuri dacvis diskreciuliufleba;32 bolos, sasamarTlos ganmarte-biT, mewileTa saxelmwifosaTvis diplo-matiuri dacvis ganxorcieleba gamoiw-vevs davaTa mravalmxrivobas.

Tuki, rogorc sasamarTlo ganmartavs,mewile da korporacia ori damoukidebe-li institutia, maSin gaugebaria, ratomar SeiZleba, orive maTganis saxelmwifos

227

hqondes dacvis Tanabari ufleba. Tumcamewilis pasuxismgebloba kompaniaSi Sez-Rudulia, warmoudgenelia vamtkicoT,rom kompaniisaTvis arsebiTi zianis miy-enebam aranairi efeqti iqonios da ar daa-zaralos mewile. warmoidgineT, ra dReSiaRmoCndeba igi, Tuki mxolod korpora-ciis saxelmwifos mivaniWebT diplomati-uri dacvis uflebas da es ukanaskneli amuflebis ganxorcielebaze uars ityvis.riskis aRebaze ramdenad SeiZleba iyossaubari im pirobebSi, rodesac, Tanamed-rove saxelmwifo praqtikis Tanaxmad, ro-gorc wesi, saxelmwifoebi ucxoel mewar-meebs uweseben savaldebulo moTxovnaskompaniis inkorporaciis saxiT. amdenad,es ver CaiTvleba nebayoflobiT riskad;da bolos, Tuki problema proceduruliTvalsazrisiT gveqneba davebis mraval-mxrivobasa da ricxovnobasTan, amis gada-wyvetac SeiZleba warmoebaTa gaerTia-nebiT, ramdenimewarmomadgenliani mx-aris, konsolidirebuli ganacxadis, ansulac, daswrebis principis gamoyenebiT.unda iTqvas agreTve, rom procedurulsirTuleebs gadawonis is realoba, ro-melsac sasamarTlos aRniSnuli midgomisgamoyeneba mogvcems, kerZod, mewileebiZalian xSirad yovelgvari dacvis gareSeaRmoCndebian.

sasamarTlom Tavisi mkacri formali-sturi midgomidan dauSva orad ori ga-monaklisi, rodesac mewilis saxelmwifosaqvs ufleba, daicvas sakuTari moqala-qis interesebi: a) rogorc gamonaklisi Zi-riTadi principidan da b) rodesac zianimiadga pirdapir da uSualod mewiles, misuflebebsa da interesebs;33 mewilis moqa-laqeobis saxelmwifos, Tavis mxriv, dip-lomatiuri dacvis ganxorcieleba gamo-naklisis saxiT SeuZlia mxolod 2 SemTx-vevaSi: a) rodesac korporacia wyvets ar-sebobas inkorporaciis saxelmwifoSi34 dab) korporaciis saxelmwifo Tavad arismiyenebuli zianis avtori da, Sesabamis-ad, mewileTa uflebebis dacvis erTad-erT saSualebad saerTaSoriso marTlm-sajuleba rCeba.35

maSasadame, Tuki korporacia `Sewy-vets arsebobas~, mewilis saxelmwifosSeuZlia, gamoiyenos diplomatiuri da-cvis ganxorcielebis ufleba.36 unda aRin-iSnos, rom am SemTxvevaSi sasamarTlommetad mkacr kriteriums mimarTa – kor-

poracia SesaZloa, formalurad ganagr-Zobdes arsebobas, Tumca realurad para-lizebuli iyos. aRniSnuli ar gaiTval-iswina sasamarTlom da daadgina, rom ̀ ko-mpaniis arsebobis mxolod samarTlebri-vad Sewyvetis SemTxvevaSi erTmevaT mewi-leebs kompaniis meSveobiT zianis anaz-Raurebis saSualeba~.37

komisiis proeqtis me-11 muxli kidevufro amkacrebs kriteriums da miuTi-Tebs, rom kompaniis mier arsebobis Sewyve-ta ar unda iyos ganpirobebuli im zian-iT, romelic diplomatiuri dacvis Sesa-Zlo obieqtia.38 aRniSnuli axsnilia imiT,rom am SemTxvevaSi, saxeze gvaqvs isev uSu-alod korporaciis uflebis Selaxva dadiplomatiuri dacvis prerogativa gane-kuTvneba inkorporaciis saxelmwifos.39

Tumca aq isev gaurkvevloba iCens Tavs –warmoudgenelia, rogor SeiZleba, inkor-poraciis saxelmwifom diplomatiuridacva ganaxorcielos ararsebuli kor-poraciis saxeliT.

meore gamonaklisis mixedviT, ̀ mewil-eTa saxelmwifos ufleba aqvs, ganaxor-cielos diplomatiuri dacva, rodesacsaxelmwifo, romlis pasuxismgeblobissakiTxic unda dadges, aris korporaciismoqalaqeobis saxelmwifo~.40 zemoaRniS-nuli gadawyvetilebis Semdgom periodSiam gamonakliss misdevdnen saxelmwifoe-bi, ZiriTadad, ormxrivi xelSekrulebe-bis formiT. Tumca sasamarTlo praq-tikis saxiT Zalze mniSvnelovania, mar-Tlmsajulebis saerTaSoriso sasamarT-los gadawyvetileba saqmeze – kompaniaèleqtronika siqulas Sesaxeb~.41 aq sasa-marTlom realurad dauSva aRniSnuligamonaklisi, rodesac amerikis SeerTe-bul Statebs mianiWa ufleba, daecva misimoqalaqe ori kompania, romlebic flob-dnen italiuri kompaniis wilebis abso-lutur raodenobas, da romelsac zara-li miadga misi moqalaqeobis saxelmwifos– italiis – mier. saqmidan Cans, rom sasa-marTlom gverdi auara formalisturmidgomas da aRiara aRniSnuli gamonak-lisi mewilis saxelmwifos sasargeblod.

mocemuli gamonaklisi gaTvaliswi-nebul iqna saerTaSoriso samarTlis ko-misiis mierac, diplomatiuri dacvis Se-saxeb muxlebis proeqtSi. marTalia, ko-misiam aRiara es gamonaklisi, magram amav-droulad SezRuda iseTi SemTxvevebi-


228


saTvis, rodesac inkorporacia am qveya-naSi kompaniis mier saqmianobis ganxor-cielebis savaldebulo moTxovnaa.42 ga-ugebaria, ratom gadawyvita komisiam aR-niSnuli gamonaklisis kidev ufro SezRu-dva, maSin, rodesac saerTaSoriso samar-Tlis CveulebiTi norma korporaciaTadiplomatiuri dacvis eqskluziuri uf-lebis Sesaxeb isedac mZime mdgomareoba-Si ayenebs kompaniis mewileebs.

garda zogadi wesidan gamonakliseb-isa, mewileTa moqalaqeobis saxelmwifoe-bic sargebloben diplomatiuri dacvisganxorcielebis eqskluziuri uflebiTiseT SemTxvevebSi, rodesac ziani miadgauSualod mewilis uflebas. saerTa-Soriso sasamarTlom aRniSna, rom ̀ yvelaSemTxvevaSi, rodesac ziani miadgeba misuSualo uflebas, mewilis saxelmwifosaqvs damoukidebeli moqmedebis ufle-ba~.43 arsebobs uflebebi da interesebi,romlebic mxolod mewileebs ekuTvniTkompaniaSi. eseni SeiZleba iyos: uflebadividendebze, generalur Sexvedraze da-swrebisa da xmis micemis uflebebi, aseve,magaliTad, likvidaciisas kompaniis sa-kuTrebidan wilis miRebis ufleba da sxva.

mewileTa diplomatiuri dacvis eseqskluziuri ufleba Caido diplomati-uri dacvis Sesaxeb muxlebis proeqtSic.me-12 muxlSi komisiam aSkarad gaavlo xazikorporaciisa da mewilis uflebebs So-ris. ra Tqma unda, SeiZleba arsebobdes in-teresTa sferoebi, sadac korporaciisada mewileTa uflebebi da interesebiaucileblad gadaikveTeba, Tumca moce-muli muxlis formulirebaSi, albaT, esuflebebi ver Cajdeba, rac kidev ufrozRudavs im sferos, sadac mewilis moqa-laqeobis saxelmwifos saerTaSoriso do-neze SeuZlia misi moqalaqis saxeliT in-tervencia.

diplomatiuri dacvis Sesaxeb saerTa-Soriso samarTlis tradiciuli normebiicnobs mxolod erTi saxis iuridiulipirebis, kerZod korporaciebis, diploma-tiur dacvas. aRniSnuli ganpirobebuliamaTTvis damaxasiaTebeli specifikuriniSan-TvisebebiT, romlebic maT aZlevensaSualebas, gansakuTrebuli roli dai-kavon saerTaSoriso arenaze.

miuxedavad zemoaRniSnulisa, ar undadagvaviwydes, rom qveynis Sida kanonmdeb-loba icnobs uamravi saxis sxva iuridi-

ul pirsac, romlebic warmoadgenen sax-elmwifos subieqtebs da Tanabrad eqce-vian saxelmwifo dacvis konstituciuriuflebis CarCoebSi. magaliTisTvis avi-RoT saqarTvelos samoqalaqo samarTliskodeqsi, romlis me-8 muxlis Tanaxmad,kerZosamarTlebrivi urTierTobebis su-bieqti SeiZleba iyos rogorc fizikuri,aseve iuridiuli piri, samewarmeoc daarasamewarmeoc, saqarTvelos Tu ucxoqveynis iuridiuli piri.44 aRniSnuli ko-rporaciebis garda, moicavs uamrav iu-ridiul warmonaqmns, romlebic korpora-ciebze aranakleb mniSvnelovan rols as-ruleben rogorc qveynis SigniT, ise saer-TaSoriso arenaze. aseT iuridiul pirebsSeiZleba mivakuTvnoT: fondebi, kavSire-bi asociaciebi, arasamTavrobo orga-nizaciebi, romlebic arseboben sxvadasx-va grantiT an SemowirulobiT da emsax-urebian ama Tu im sferos ganviTarebas,bavSvTa, qalaTa da a.S. uflebebis dacvas,da sxva uamrav mizans. saerTaSoriso mar-Tlmsajulebis mudmivma sasamarTlomramdenime aTeuli wlis win daadgina, romTemis adgilobriv organos,45 iseve,rogorc universitets,46 SeiZleba mivani-WoT qveynis moqalaqis statusi.

korporaciaTa garda, sxva iuridiu-li pirebis diplomatiuri dacvis aranairtradicias ar icnobs saerTaSoriso sa-marTali. arada, gaugebaria, ratom arunda daicvas aseTi iuridiuli pirebisakuTarma saxelmwifom.

Tumca aqve unda damaimedeblad aRin-iSnos, rom gaeros saerTaSoriso samarT-lis komisiis maRalkvalificiur wevrebsar gamorCeniaT aRniSnuli sakiTxi da di-plomatiuri dacvis muxlebis proeqtisme-13 muxlSi Cades debuleba, romlisTanaxmad, diplomatiuri dacvis SesaxebkorporaciisTvis gaTvaliswinebuli we-sebi Tanabrad vrceldeba `sxva iuridi-ul pirebze~.47 am SemTxvevaSi moqalaqeo-bis saxelmwifod unda CaiTvalos is, ro-melSic Seiqmna es iuridiuli piri.48 iuri-diul pirs rom unda hqondes raime for-maluri safuZveli, anu aRiarebul iqnesiuridiulad, xazgasmul iqna aseve saer-TaSoriso sasamarTlos mierac.49

aqve unda aRiniSnos erTi Zalze mniS-vnelovani winsvla sxva iuridiuli pire-bis diplomatiur dacvasTan dakavSire-biT: saerTaSoriso samarTlis komisiis

229

diplomatiuri dacvis Sesaxeb muxlebisproeqtisa da TandarTuli komentareb-is 2004 wlisaTvis SemuSavebuli versiisTanaxmad, sxva iuridiul pirebze vrce-ldeboda mxolod is muxlebi, romlebicuSualod korporaciis dacvas Seexeba,rac ar moicavda mewileTa diplomatiuridacvis maregulirebel normebs. aRniSnu-lis Sedegad TamaSs miRma rCebodnen ise-Ti arasaSemosavlo organizaciis wevre-bi, romlebic dafuZnebulni arian wevro-bis principze. aseT organizaciebSi wev-rebs sakuTari saqmianobis Sedegad miRe-buli Semosavali SeaqvT iuridiuli piriskapitalSi da am ukanasknelis likvidaci-is SemTxvevaSi iReben wils organizaciisqonebidan. amgvarad, aseT organizacia-Ta wevrebi Tavisi bunebiT, Tumca SezRu-duli formiT, magram mainc uTanabrde-bian imave pozicias, rasac mewileebifloben korporaciaSi, ufro zustad,iZenen iseTsave uflebebsa da interesebsorganizaciis kapitalis mimarT misi li-kvidaciis SemTxvevaSi. Tumca ukve 2006wlis angariSSi diplomatiuri dacvismuxlebis proeqtis Sesaxeb Setanil iqnacvlileba da korporaciis mewileTa dip-lomatiuri dacvis reJimi analogiis wes-iT gavrcelda sxva iuridiuli pirebiswevrebzec.50

3.3. `davis moqalaqeobis~ principi

diplomatiuri dacvis meqanizmi em-yareba e.w. ̀ davis moqalaqeobis~ princips.rogorc zemoT araerTgzis aRvniSneT,`swored moqalaqeobrivi kavSiri saxelm-wifosa da individs Soris aZlevs saxelm-wifos uflebas, ganaxorcielos diplo-matiuri dacva~.51 saxelmwifosa da pirsSoris formaluri kavSiris damtkicebisgareSe, rasac warmoadgens moqalaqeoba,Zalze Zneli dasamtkicebelia, rom saxel-mwifos aqvs am piris saxeliT diplomati-uri dacvis ganxorcielebis interesi dasafuZveli.52 davis moqalaqeobis princi-pi niSnavs imas, rom diplomatiuri dacvisganxorcielebis ufleba aqvs mxolod mo-qalaqeobis saxelmwifos. es sakiTxi Za-lian martivi gadasawyvetia maSin, rode-sac fizikuri Tu iuridiuli piri erTiqveynis moqalaqea. sakiTxi rTuldeba or-magi moqalaqeobis SemTxvevaSi, vinaidan`davis moqalaqeobis~ principidan gamom-

dinare, moqalaqeobis orive saxelmwifosaqvs ufleba, ganaxorcielos diplomati-uri dacva.

ormagi an mravalmxrivi moqalaqeobaar aris akrZaluli saerTaSoriso samar-Tlis Tanaxmad.53 Tumca ormagi moqala-qeoba seriozul problemebs warmoSobsqveynebisTvis, romelTac surT TavianTimoqalaqeebis mimarT dacvis ganxorcie-leba.

diplomatiuri dacvis ganxorcie-lebisaTvis mTavaria saxelmwifosa da mo-qalaqes Soris moqalaqeobrivi kavSirisarseboba. aqedan logikurad gamomdinar-eobs, rom yoveli moqalaqeobis saxelm-wifo uflebamosilia, diplomatiuridacva ramdenime moqalaqeobis mqone pi-ris saxeliT ganaxorcielos mesame saxe-lmwifos winaaRmdeg. miuxedavad zemoaR-niSnuli logikisa, 1955 wels notebomissaqmeze55 marTlmsajulebis saerTaSori-so sasamarTlo sakiTxs cota rTulad mi-udga da gansazRvra, rom mxolod moqala-qeobrivi kavSiri ar aris sakmarisi daaucilebelia moqalaqesa da mis saxelm-wifos Soris WeSmariti kavSiris arsebo-ba. amiT sasamarTlom kidev ufro gaam-kacra diplomatiuri dacvis ganxorcie-lebisaTvis dadgenili isedac mkacri mo-Txovnebi. aRniSnuli testis farTod ga-moyeneba yvela SemTxvevaSi Zalze SezRu-davs diplomatiuri dacvis ganxorciele-bis SesaZleblobas, rac TavisTavad ewina-aRmdegeba diplomatiuri dacvis Ziri-Tad mizans – misces saxelmwifos saSuale-ba, daicvas Tavisi moqalaqe saerTaSori-so doneze.

aRniSnuli praqtika ar Seesabameba sa-erTaSoriso samarTalSi damkvidrebulpraqtikas. salemis saqmeze saerTaSorisoarbitraJis gadawyvetilebis Tanaxmad,`mopasuxe saxelmwifos ar aqvs ufleba,sadavod gaxados ganmcxadebeli saxelm-wifos sarCelis dasaSveboba moqalaqeo-bis sxva saxelmwifoze miTiTebiT~.56 igivedaadgina italia-amerikis tribunalmamerjis saqmeze 1955 wels.57

imave princips daeyrdno saerTa-Soriso samarTlis komisia muxlebis pro-eqtis me-6 muxlis SemuSavebisas. aRniSnu-li muxlis mixedviT, ormagi anda ramden-ime moqalaqeobis SemTxvevaSi, moqalaqe-obis yovel saxelmwifos SeuZlia, ganax-orcielos diplomatiuri dacva mesame


230


saxelmwifos winaaRmdeg.58 komisia ufroSorsac wavida da me-6 muxlis meore nawilSigansazRvra, rom moqalaqeobis ramdenimesaxelmwifos erTdroulad SeuZlia gana-xorcielos diplomatiuri dacva.59

axla vnaxoT, ra xdeba iseT SemTxveva-Si, rodesac erTi moqalaqeobis saxelm-wifo davobs meore moqalaqeobis saxelm-wifos winaaRmdeg. Zvelad saerTaSorisosamarTalSi gamefebuli iyo e.w. `pasux-ismgeblobis gamoricxvis~ doqtrina, ro-mlis mixedviTac erTi moqalaqeobis sax-elmwifos mier meore moqalaqeobis sax-elmwifos mimarT diplomatiuri dacvisganxorcieleba dauSvebeli iyo.60 aRniS-nuli principi aseve xazgasmul iqna saer-TaSoriso sasamarTlos mier, rogorc`damkvidrebuli praqtika~ `zianis anaz-Raurebis~ saqmeze.61

aRniSnul praqtikaze dayrdnoba Tan-amedrove saerTaSoriso samarTalSi, –rodesac Zalian gaxSirda mimosvla sxva-dasxva qveyanas Soris, gaadvilda bizne-sis gadatana ucxo qveyanaSi, da roca,aseT pirobebSi pirebi, nebiT Tu maTi neb-isagan damoukideblad, xSirad xdebianucxo qveyn(eb)is moqalaqeebi, – ZalzegaumarTlebeli iqneboda. es doqtrinadaucvels datovebda bevr adamians. sabe-dnierod, saerTaSoriso samarTali me-tad swrafad progresirebadi dargia. ma-rTalia, aRniSnuli doqtrina mTlianadar gauqmebula da verc gauqmdeba, saxel-mwifo suverenitetis universaluri pri-ncipidan gamomdinare, magram gamosavalimoinaxa.62 imis dasadgenad, SeiZleboda Tuara erTi moqalaqeobis saxelmwifos me-oris mimarT ganexorcielebina diploma-tiuri dacva, amerika-italiis tribu-nalma merjis saqmis mixedviT daadgina:`principi..., romelic gamoricxavs dip-lomatiur dacvas ormagi moqalaqeobisSemTxvevaSi, ver gadawonis efeqturi mo-qalaqeobis princips, Tuki aseTi moqala-qeoba ekuTvnis ganmcxadebel saxelmwi-fos~.63 efeqturi moqalaqeobis principiamave wels gamoiyena marTlmsajulebissaerTaSoriso sasamarTlomac notebomissaqmeze. marTalia, sasamarTlom am sakiT-xze imsjela cota sxva konteqstSi, Tu-mca mniSvnelovani roli Seasrula moma-valSi ormagi moqalaqeobis principTanmimarTebiT Semdgomi gadawyvetilebebismiRebaSi. magaliTad, efeqturi moqala-

qeobis principiT italia-amerikis, aseveiran-amerikis tribunalebma uamravi ga-dawyvetileba gamoitanes.64 saqmeze – a/18– iran-amerikis tribunalma merjisa danotebomis saqmeTa gadawyvetilebebzedayrdnobiT, daadgina, rom ormagi moqa-laqeobis sakiTxi unda gadawyvetiliyoyoveli saqmis konkretuli garemoebebismixedviT, moqalaqis efeqturi moqala-qeobis gansazRvris gziT.65 tribunalmaSemdgomSi mravaljer gamoiyena efeqtu-ri moqalaqeobis principi, maT SoriserT-erT saqmeze tribunalma ganacxada,rom mocemul SemTxvevebSi ̀ efeqturi mo-qalaqeobis Teoria aris gadawyvetis gza,romelic yvelaze ufro metad Seesabame-ba saerTaSoriso sajaro samarTlis pri-ncipebs~.66

amdenad, rogorc vxedavT, Tanamed-rove saerTaSoriso samarTalSi praqti-ka ixreba `pasuxismgeblobis gamoricx-vis~ uZvelesi doqtrinidan gamonaklisisdaSvebisaken. ufro metic, saerTaSorisosamarTlis komisiam aRniSnuli gamonak-lisi proeqtSic Seitana. me-7 muxlis mi-xedviT, ̀ moqalaqeobis saxelmwifos Seu-Zlia, ganaxorcielos diplomatiuri da-cva piris saxeliT im saxelmwifos winaaR-mdeg, romelsac aqvs dominanturi moqa-laqeoba zianis miyenebisas, iseve, rogorcganacxadis oficialuri wardgenisas~.67

aq, rogorc vxedavT, efeqturi moqala-qeobis garda, aucilebeli moTxovnaa,moqalaqeobis dominanturi kavSiri dadg-indes, rogorc zianis miyenebisas, iseveganacxadis oficialurad wardgenisas.68

uamravi faqtori SeiZleba iqnes gaTvali-swinebuli efeqturi moqalaqeobis gan-sazRvrisas. rogorc safrangeT-germani-is Sereulma tribunalma erT-erT saqmezemiuTiTa, piri miCneul unda iqnes im qvey-nis moqalaqed, romelTanac ara mxolodsamarTlebrivi, aramed faqtobrivi kav-Siric aqvs.69 es SeiZleba moicavdes: qvey-anaSi cxovrebis periods, moqalaqeobismiRebis TariRs, ganaTlebis miRebis ad-gils, enas, romelzec miiRo ganaTleba,dasaqmebasa da finansur interesebs, oja-xuri cxovrebis adgils, ojaxur kavSi-rebs saxelmwifoSi, socialur da sajarocxovrebaSi monawileobas, gadasaxadebisgadaxdas, sabanko angariSebs, dazRvevas,vizitebs sxva moqalaqeobis saxelmwifo-Si, pasportis flobasa da gamoyenebas,

231

samxedro samsaxurs da a.S.70 arbitraJismudmivmoqmedma sasamarTlom kanevarossaqmeze efeqturi kavSiris dasadgenadmxedvelobaSi miiRo is faqti, rom pirikenWs iyrida perus senatis wevrobis kan-didatad, da is, rom igi mogvianebiT das-Tanxmda, gamxdariyo perus generalurikonsuli niderlandebis samefoSi.71 Tum-ca, amavdroulad, unda aRiniSnos, romarc erTi zemoaRniSnuli faqtori araris gadamwyveti Zalis mqone da am faq-torisaTvis wonisa da mniSvnelobis mini-Weba damokidebulia yoveli saqmis konk-retul garemoebebze.72

3.4. `gangrZobadi moqalaqeobis~principi

moqalaqeobasTan dakavSirebuli me-ore problemuri sakiTxi – es aris `gan-grZobadi moqalaqeobis~ principi, rom-lis arsi isaa rom mxolod moqalaqeo-brivi kavSiri saxelmwifosa da pirs Sorisar aris sakmarisi saxelmwifos mier dip-lomatiuri dacvis ganxorcielebis le-gitimaciisaTvis, aramed aucilebelia,piri saxelmwifos moqalaqe iyos rogorcdanaSaulis Cadenis momentSi, aseve samar-Talwarmoebis garkveuli etapisTvisac.am wesis erT-erTi mizania, Tavidan airi-dos patara saxelmwifoTa moqalaqeebismier Zlieri saxelmwifoebisaTvis daviswamowyebis uflebis gadacema.73

saerTaSoriso samarTlis maRalkva-lificiuri mecnierebi fiqroben, saxelm-wifoebi savaldebulod Sesasrulebelinormis Zalas aniWeben im wess, rom moqa-laqeobrivi kavSiri unda arsebobdes ro-gorc zianis miyenebis momentSi, ise gark-veul etapzec. ian braunlis gancxadeb-iT, SeTanxmeba ar aris miRweuli aRniSnu-li wesis meore nawilTan mimarTebiT, anuis, – Tu ra etapamde unda iqnes SenarCu-nebuli moqalaqeoba.74 am sakiTxTan daka-vSirebiT sxvadasxva midgoma arsebobs,kerZod, etapi, romlamdec gangrZobadimoqalaqeobis principi unda iqnes dacu-li, gansxvavdeba: diplomatiuri mola-parakebebis dawyeba, ganacxadis oficia-luri wardgena, im xelSekrulebis xel-mowera, ratifikacia an ZalaSi Sesvla,romelic davas saerTaSoriso arbitraJsgadascems, zepiri mosmenis dasruleba,sasamarTlo gadawyvetilebis miReba, ga-

dawyvetilebis aRsruleba, da a.S.75 fele-risa da openhaimis mosazrebiT ki, saxelm-wifoTa praqtikidan gamomdinare, yvela-ze misaRebia, saxelmwifom moqalaqeobaSeinarCunos ganacxadis oficialur wa-rdgenamde.76 Tumca aqve isic unda aRiniS-nos, rom sul ramdenime wlis win, rogorcsainvesticio davebis gadawyvetis saer-TaSoriso saarbitraJo komisiam 2003 wlisgadawyvetilebSi ganacxada, moqalaqeo-ba SenarCunebul unda iqnes sasamarTlosmier saboloo gadawyvetilebis gamota-nis etapisTvisac.77

rogorc vxedavT, aRniSnuli normakidev erTi SemzRudveli faqtoria dip-lomatiuri dacvis ganxorcielebisaT-vis. Tan, Tu gaviTvaliswinebT im faqts,rom moqalaqes uwevs, jer Sida saSuale-bebiT ecados davis gadawyvetas, Semdegelodos, rodis miiRebs saxelmwifo gada-wyvetilebas, misi saxeliT ganaxorcie-los diplomatiuri dacva, xolo Semdegdoneze davis dawyebasa da sasamarTlowarmoebis ama Tu im etapis dasrulebas,arcTu ise moklebulia logikas daskvna,rom moqalaqis mier am periodSi moqala-qeobis Secvlis albaToba sakmaod didia.amasTan, gasaTvaliswinebelia is faqti,rom xSirad moqalaqeobis Secvla ar arisdamokidebuli piris survilze da es av-tomaturad misgan damoukideblad xde-ba. aseT SemTxvevaSi, gamodis, rom piriyovelgvari dacvis gareSe rCeba.

gangrZobadi moqalaqeobis principi,raRa Tqma unda, saerTaSoriso samarTliskomisiam gaiTvaliswina muxlebis proeq-tSi. Tumca aq komisiis maRalkvalifici-uri wevrebi ufro lmobierebi aRmoCnd-nen da garkveuli gamonaklisi dauSves amwesidan. komisiam gansazRvra, rom piri sa-xelmwifos gangrZobad moqalaqeobas un-da inarCunebdes zianis miyenebis momenti-dan sasamarTlosaTvis ganacxadis ofi-cialuri wardgenis momentamde.78 Tumcakomisiam gaiTvaliswina, rom saerTaSori-so sazogadoebaSi ar arsebobs SeTanxmebaam or etaps Soris moqalaqeobis Senar-Cunebis aucileblobaze da gadawyvita,Tuki ver mtkicdeba gangrZobiToba, ma-Sin orive etapze moqalaqeobis qona Cai-Tvleba gangrZobiTi moqalaqeobis wesisSesabamisad.79 gangrZobadi moqalaqeobisaRniSnuli principi gamoiyeneba rogorcfizikuri, ise iuridiuli pirebis diplo-


232


matiur dacvasTan mimarTebiT.80 komisiamsworad gansazRvra is garemoeba, rom, Tu-ki vaRiarebT gangrZobiTi moqalaqeobisprincips, maSin unda gaviTvaliswinoTpirTa interesebic da am wesidan garkveu-li samarTliani gamonaklisic davuSvaT.fizikuri pirebis saxeliT SesaZlebeliadiplomatiuri dacvis ganxorcielebamocemuli principis gverdis avliT, Tukisami piroba kumulaciurad dakmayofile-bulia: a) pirs hqonda samarTalmemkvid-ris winmswrebi saxelmwifos moqalaqeobaan, ubralod, dakarga wina moqalaqeoba;b) axali moqalaqeobis miReba ar ukavSir-deba mis mimarT diplomatiuri dacvisganxorcielebas; da g) axali moqalaqeo-ba ar aris miRebuli saerTaSoriso samar-Tlis darRveviT.81

komisiam aqac gamoiyena is wesi, rom-lis mixedviTac, korporaciis mier mopa-suxe saxelmwifos moqalaqeobis miRebisSemTxvevaSi, ganmcxadebeli saxelmwifokargavs diplomatiuri dacvis ganxor-cielebis uflebas.82 Tumca komisiam kor-poraciebTan mimarTebiT, negatiuri ga-monaklisebis garda, pozitiuri gamonak-lisic dauSva. proeqtis avtorebma gaiT-valiswines is azri, rom inkorporaciissaxelmwifoSi, korporaciis mier arsebo-bis Sewyvetis SemTxvevaSi, verc erTi saxe-lmwifo SeZlebs diplomatiuri dacvisganxorcielebas korporaciis saxeliT.aqedan gamomdinare, komisiam dauSva ga-monaklisi da gansazRvra, rom saxelmwi-fo kvlavac inarCunebs diplomatiuridacvis ganxorcielebis uflebas imkorporaciis saxeliT, romelic iyo misimoqalaqe zianis miyenebis dros da amzianis Sedegad Sewyvita arseboba inkor-poraciis saxelmwifos kanonmdeblobisSesabamisad.83 gangrZobadi moqalaqeobisprincipTan dakavSirebiT korporacieb-is mimarT dawesebuli reJimi analogiiswesiT vrceldeba arakomerciul iurid-iul pirebzec.84

daskvna

statiis dasawyisSi daisva sakiTxi, Turamdenad xelmisawvdomi saSualebaa dip-lomatiuri dacva Cveulebrivi rigiTimoqalaqisaTvis, romelsac ucxo saxelm-wifos qmedebiT daerRva ufleba, miadga

ziani. zemoT mocemuli detaluri anal-izi ar gvaZlevs saSualebas, diplomati-uri dacva miviCnioT moqalaqisaTvis al-ternatiul, xelmisawvdom da realuridakmayofilebis miRebis saSualebad.

moqmedi saerTaSoriso samarTlisfarglebSi diplomatiuri dacvis ganxo-rcieleba ganekuTvneba saxelmwifos dis-kreciul uflebamosilebas, es aris dis-kreciuli procesi, romlis drosac pirijer iZulebulia, molaparakebebi da Sua-mavloba awarmoos sakuTar saxelmwifos-Tan, raTa Semdeg SeZlos davis saerTa-Soriso marTlmsajulebisadmi daqvemde-bareba: gansakuTrebiT iseT SemTxvevebSi,rodesac damrRvevi pirisaTvis ar arse-bobs adekvaturi, xelmisawvdomi da efeq-turi saSualeba, yovlad gaumarTle-belia diplomatiuri dacvis ganxor-cielebis diskreciuli uflebis saxelm-wifosaTvis datoveba. Tanamedrove saxe-lmwifo praqtika ixreba iqiTken, rom na-wilobriv mainc gaxados savaldebulodiplomatiuri dacvis ganxorcieleba sa-xelmwifos mier. Tumca manam, sanam es me-qanizmi inarCunebs diskreciul xasiaTs,moqalaqeebisaTvis igi ver CaiTvleba da-cvis xelmisawvdom da alternatiul sa-Sualebad. savalalo Sedegi, rac aRniS-nul eqskluziur uflebamosilebas ax-lavs Tan, naTlad iqna gamoxatuli amnis-tiis saerTaSoriso arasamTavrobo orga-nizaciis mier: ̀ saxelmwifoebi xSirad msx-verplad Sewiraven dazaralebulTa kanon-ier uflebebs iseT politikur intere-sebs, rogoric aris samarTaldarRvevazepasuxismgebel saxelmwifosTan megobru-li urTierTobebis SenarCuneba~.85

winamdebare naSromSi mocemulma ana-lizma cxadyo, rom diplomatiuri dacvisganxorcielebis valdebulebis ararse-boba ar aris am meqanizmTan dakavSirebu-li erTaderTi problema. diplomatiuridacvis ganxorcielebas win uZRvis uam-ravi formaluri da proceduruli wina-piroba, rac Zalze amcirebs iseT SemTx-vevaTa ricxvs, rodesac moqalaqes Tavi-si saxelmwifos meSveobiT diplomatiuridacvis realuri ganxorcielebis saSu-aleba aqvs.

pirveli yvelaze mniSvnelovani moTx-ovna, rac ukavSirdeba moqalaqeobrivkavSirs saxelmwifosa da dazaralebulpirs Soris, mxolod aseTi kavSiris dad-

233

geniT ar Semoifargleba. damatebiT undaiqnes gansazRvruli, Seesabameba Tu arapiris mier moqalaqeobis mopovebis for-ma saerTaSoriso samarTlis moTxovnebs.yvelaze ufro mizanSewonili da logi-kuria, moqalaqeobis sakiTxis gansazRvramTlianad saxelmwifos regulirebis sf-eroSi eqceodes. aseT SemTxvevaSi SeiZle-ba Tavidan iqnes acilebuli iseTi SemTx-vevebi, rodesac moqalaqe, romelic wleb-is ganmavlobaSi mWidro moqalaqeobrivikavSiriT aris dakavSirebuli saxelmwi-fosTan, rCeba dacvis gareSe mxolod damxolod imitom, rom moqalaqeobis mopo-vebis forma ar Seesabameba saerTaSorisosamarTlis moTxovnebs.

moqalaqeobis sakiTxi amiT ar mTavr-deba. `gangrZobadi moqalaqeobis prin-cipma~, misi dRemde gaurkveveli Sinaar-sidan gamomdinare, SeiZleba warmoSvas xe-lovnuri problemebi diplomatiuri da-cvis ganxorcielebisaTvis. marTalia,udavoa, rom gangrZobadi moqalaqeobisarseboba calsaxad savaldebulo winapi-robaa diplomatiuri dacvis ganxor-cielebisaTvis, magram dRemde daudgene-lia, Tu ra etapamde unda iqnes SenarCu-nebuli moqalaqeoba. gansakuTrebiT saSi-Sia iseTi praqtikis gamoyeneba, romelicmoqalaqeobrivi kavSiris arsebobas mo-iTxovs saqmeze saboloo gadawyvetileb-is gamotanis an aseTi gadawyvetilebisaRsrulebis periodamde. saerTaSorisosasamarTlo dawesebulebaSi samarTalwa-rmoeba sakmaod xangrZlivi procesia. wle-bia saWiro zogierTi ganacxadis mxolodda mxolod warmoebaSi misaRebad, aRara-fers vambobT saqmis ganxilvasa da sabo-loo gadawyvetilebis gamotanaze, miTumetes, am gadawyvetilebis aRsruleba-ze. mTeli am periodis ganmavlobaSi pirismier moqalaqeobis Secvla arcTu iseararealuria. gangrZobadi moqalaqeobisprincipis mkacri dacviT ki moqalaqem Se-saZloa, sabolood dakargos dacvis saSu-aleba saerTaSoriso marTlmsajulebisfarglebSi.

garda zemoaRniSnulisa, arsebobs ua-mravi sxva moTxovna Tu winapiroba, rom-lebic saxelmwifom unda daakmayofilosdiplomatiuri dacvis ganxorcielebismizniT, iqneba es Sida saSualebebis amowu-rva, saxelmwifos qmedebaSi saerTaSori-sosamarTlebrivi darRvevis dadgena,

ormag an mravalmxriv moqalaqeobasTandakavSirebuli sakiTxebi, fizikuri daiuridiuli pirisa da misi mewileebis, Se-sabamisad wevrebis, mimarT diplomati-uri dacvis ganxorcielebis Tavisebure-baTa gaTvaliswineba, Tu sxva ram. yvelaam pirobis simravlisa da, zog SemTxveva-Si, sirTulis, aseve konkretul momentSimoqalaqeobis saxelmwifos sagareopoli-tikuri miznebisa da interesebis gaTval-iswinebiT, Znelia vimsjeloT, ramdenadrealuria saxelmwifos mier diplomati-uri dacvis ganxorcielebis Sesaxeb keTi-li nebis gamovlena.

bolos, gasaTvaliswinebelia kideverTi faqtori, romelzec naSromis Ziri-Tad nawilSi ar gvisaubria, im ubralo mi-zezis gamo, rom Seexeba saerTaSoriso sa-samarTlos gadawyvetilebis aRsrulebasda ara uSualod diplomatiuri dacvissamarTlebriv meqanizms: Tuki dadgindasaxelmwifos mier saerTaSoriso samarT-lis darRveva, am ukanasknelma dazarale-bul saxelmwifos unda gadauxados kom-pensacia. am SemTxvevaSic saxelmwifoflobs diskreciul uflebamosilebas,gadauxados Tu ara reparaciis SedegadmiRebuli anazRaureba samarTaldarRve-vis msxverpls. saerTaSoriso samarTliskomisiamac Riad datova sakiTxi imasTandakavSirebiT, valdebulia Tu ara saxel-mwifo, dazaralebul pirs gadauxados isanazRaureba, rac kompensaciis saxiT mi-iRo diplomatiuri dacvis ganxorciele-bis gziT wamowyebuli davis mis sasarge-blod gadawyvetis Sedegad.

iseve, rogorc yvela samarTlebriviprocedura, ra Tqma unda, diplomatiuridacvac moicavs mTel rigs savaldebulomoTxovnebisas – wesebisa Tu winapirobe-bis dakmayofilebasa da Sesrulebas. aR-niSnuli Zalze logikuri da marTebulia,Tumca diplomatiuri dacva moicavs uam-ravi wvrilmani pirobis, teqnikuri Tuformaluri wesisa da moTxovnis dacvisvaldebulebas, ramac SesaZloa, xelovnu-ri barierebi warmoSvas dacvis am meqaniz-mis ganxorcielebisaTvis. diplomatiuridacva – es aris saSualeba saxelmwifos-aTvis, daicvas sakuTari moqalaqe sxvaqveynis ukanono qmedebisagan, iseve, ro-gorc moqalaqeTaTvis – ucxo qveyanaSidakarguli samarTali saerTaSorisodoneze moipovon. amdenad, mTavari amosa-


234


vali wertili diplomatiuri dacvis gan-xorcielebisas unda iyos moqalaqis uf-lebebisa da interesebis dacva da misTvismiyenebuli zianis gamo saTanado dakmayo-filebis uzrunvelyofa. swored am mizan-sa da ideaze unda iyos morgebuli yvelaformaluri, proceduruli, Tu sxva sax-is winapiroba, rac aucilebelia diplo-matiuri dacvis ganxorcielebisaTvis.

rogorc naSromis ZiriTad nawilSivnaxeT, diplomatiuri dacvis sferoSiSeiniSneba dadebiTi da sakmaod saimedotendenciebi. gaeros saerTaSoriso sama-

rTlis komisiam didi wvlili Seitana ammimarTulebiT da, saxelmwifoTa arse-bul praqtikaze dayrdnobiT, mraval sa-kiTxze yvelaze liberaluri gadawyveti-leba SemogvTavaza. saerTaSoriso samar-Tali swrafad ganviTarebadi dargia. vi-medovnebT, uaxloes momavalSi yvela ze-moaRniSnuli problema gadawydeba dadiplomatiuri dacva ufro metad miuax-lovdeba im mizans, rasac saxelmwifosmier sakuTari subieqtebis uflebebisada interesebis dacva hqvia

1 ` Shelter from the Storm: Rethinking Diplomatic Protection of Dual Nationals inModern International Law~ (SemdgomSi – Shelter from the Storm), Craig Forcese,George Washington International Law Review, George Washington University,2005, p. 1.

2 Shelter from the Storm, p. 472; CveulebiTi norma aris samarTlis normissaxiT damkvidrebuli sayovelTao praqtika, ix. Article 38(1)(a), Statute ofthe International Court of Justice, http://www.icj-cij.org/documents

3 sasamarTlo praqtika da saerTaSoriso samarTlis maRalkvalificiurmecnierTa Sromebi. ix. Article 38(1)(d), Statute of the International Court ofJustice.

4 I.L.C., Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-sixthsession (3 May-4 June and 5 July-6 August 2004) UN Doc. A/59/10, p.22.

5 I.L.C., Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-eighthsession (2006) UN Doc. A/61/10 (SemdgomSi - Report of the International LawComission 2006), p. 13.

6 saerTaSoriso samarTlis komisiis wevrTa naSromebi unda ganvixiloTrogorc maRalkvalificiur mecnierTa Sromebi marTlmsajulebis saer-TaSoriso sasamarTlos wesdebis 38(1)(d) muxlis konteqstSi. ix. Article2(1), Statute of the International Law Commission, Adopted by the General As-sembly in its Resolution 174 (II) of 21 November 1947.

7 Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions Case, p. 12.8 Article 1: Definition and Scope; Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, Interna-

tional Law Commission,fifty-eighth session, 2006 (SemdgomSi - Draft Articles onDiplomatic Protection)

9 ix. Malcolm N. Shaw, ̀ International Law ~ (SemdgomSi – M. N. Shaw, ̀ Internation-al Law~), Fifth Edition, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 733.

10 Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions Case, p. 12.11 M.N. Shaw, Ìnternational Law~, p. 722.12`Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited~

(Belgium v. Spain) Second Face, Judgment of 5 January 1970I.C.J Reports, p. 4413 ix. iqve, gv. 44.14 `First Report on Diplomatic Protraction~, ICL, 52 Session, Doc. A/cn.4/506, 7

March 2000, para. 80.15 ix. iqve, §80.16 Report of the International Law Commission 2004, p.28.17 Article 19(a), Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection 2006.18 Report of the International Law Commission 2004, p. 29.19 `Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco~, PCIJ, Advisory Opinion of 7

February 1923, Series B, No. 4, p.24.20 Article 3, Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of

Nationality Laws, 1930.

235

21 `Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Moroc ~, p. 24, ix. Report of the Inter-national Law Commission 2004, pp. 30-31.

22 Article 4, Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection 2006.23 Article 9(1), Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against

Women, 1979.24 Report of the International Law Commission 2006, p.52.25`Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocc~, p. 24.2624-e muxli, saqarTvelos kanoni saerTaSoriso kerZo samarTlis Sesax-

eb, 29 aprili, 1998, 1362 – Iis.27 ix.`Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction~.28 Article 9, Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection 2006.29 Report of the International Law Commission 2006, p.5830 ix.`Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction~, para 44.31 ix. iqve, §44.32 ix. iqve, §43.33 Report of the International Law Commission 2006, pp. 55-70.34 `Case Concerning the Barcelona Tractin~, para 65.35 ix. iqve, § 92.36 es praqtika gamoyenebul iqna aseve adamianis uflebaTa evropuli sasama-

rTlos mier. ix. Agrotexim case, ECHR., Series A (1995), No. 330-A, para. 68.37 `Case Concerning the Barcelona Tract n~, para 66.38 Article 11, Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection 2006.39 Report of the International Law Commission 2006, p. 61-62.40 `Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction~, para 92.41 `Case concerning Electronica Sicula S.p.A~, United States of America v. Italy,

ICJ. Reports, 20 July 1989.42 Article 11§b, Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection 2006.43 `Case Concerning the Barcelona Tracti n~, para 46-47.44 me-8 muxlis pirveli nawili, saqarTvelos samoqalaqo kodeqsi, 1976 wlis

28 ivnisi, 786 – Iis.45 ix. Case of Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, P.C.I.J. Reports,

Series A, No. 7.46 ix. Appeal from a Judgment of the Hungaro-Czechoslovak Mixed Arbitral Tribu-

nal, P.C.I.J. Reports, Series A/B, No. 61.47 Article 13, Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection 2006.48 Report of the International Law Commission 2006, p. 70.49`Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction~, para 38.50 Report of the International Law Commission 2006, p. 70.51 `Nottebohm Case~, p. 13.52 ix. Brownlie, Ian, Principles of Public International Law (SemdgomSi - I. Braun-

lie, Principles of Public International Law), 5th edition, 1998, p. 391.53 Article 3, Hague Convention 1930; Chapter V, ETS 166 – European Convention on

Nationality, 6.Sptember 1997.54 ix. Case of Nottebohm.55 I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, p. 390.56 Report of the International Law Commission 2006, p. 42.57 Article 6(1), Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection 2006.58 Article 6(2), Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection 2006.59 Article 4, Hague Convention 1930.60 Case of Raparation of Injuries Suffered in the Service of the Unoted Nations,

I.C.J. General List No 4, April 11, 1949, p. 186.61 Shelter for the Storm, pp.494-495.62 Shelter for the Storm, gv. .495.63 Report of the International Law Commission 2006, p. 45.64 The Role of International Human Rights and the Law of Diplomatic Protection in

Resolving Zimbabve’s Land Crisis, Jonathan Shirley, Boston College Interna-tional and Compatarive Law Review, Winter 2004, pp. 170-171.

65 Nasser Esphahanian v. Bank Tejarat, Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, CaseNo 157, Awards No 31-157-2, 29. 03.1983, p. 12.


236


66 Article 7, Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection 2006.67 Report of the International Law Commission 2006, pp. 43-47.68 Nasser Esphahanian v. Bank Tejarat, p. 17.69 Report of the International Law Commission 2006, p. 46.70 Nasser Esphahanian v. Bank Tejarat, p. 15.71 Report of the International Law Commission 2006, p. 46.72 `Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited~,

Separate Opinion of Judge Jessup, para 48, Separate Opinion of Judge Fitzma-rice, para. 63.

73 `The Continuous Nationality of Claims Principle: Its Historical Development AndCurren Relevance to Investor-State Investment Disputes~, Matthe S. Duchesne,George Washington University, 2004, p. 4.

74 ix. iqve, gv.4.75 ix. iqve, gv.4.76 Case of Loewen Group Inc. v. USAICSID Reports, vol. 7 (2005), p. 442 at para.

225 (ix. Report of the International Law Commission 2006, p. 37).77 Articles 5 and 10, Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection 2006.78 Report of the International Law Commission 2006, p. 36.79 Articles 5, paragraph 1 and 10, paragraph 1, Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protec-

tion 2006.80 Articles 5, paragraph 2, Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection 2006; Report of

the International Law Commission 2006, p. 39.81 Articles 10, paragraph 2, Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection 2006.82 Articles 10, paragraph 3, Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection 2006.83 ix. iqve, muxli 13.84 Symposium: State Immunity in Civil Proceedings for Serious Violations of Hu-

man Rights – Torture and State Immunity: Deflecting Immunity, Destroying Sover-eignty, Lorna McGregor, European Journal of International Law, November, 2007,p. 910.

237

MARIAM GOTSIRIDZE

DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION OF NATURAL AND LEGAL PERSONSIN INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC LAW

1. INTRODUCTION

At the current stage of globalization nobodyis astonished with the fact, that people are leav-ing the States of their origin and nationality andare moving to the foreign States for work, edu-cation or other purposes; the legal personsfounded in one State through their branches andrepresentations are performing their activitieson the territory of the other State; multinationalindustries are indeed playing the leading role inrather important global process of the worldeconomy. Therefore, the possibility for the legaland natural persons to become the victims ofviolation of law, infringement of rights or appearas objects of property or non-property damageon the territory of foreign State is extremely high.

Although, a State protects its citizensthrough its diplomatic and consular represen-tations irrespective of their location and alsoin all democratic countries aliens are enjoy-ing the same rights to apply to domestic courtsand other institutional remedies for restitutionof violated rights, it is interesting what is theway out when the solution of the present is-sue is impossible under the domestic law?

In accordance with contemporary interna-tional law the State shall be liable for the dam-age caused to aliens by its action or inaction.Diplomatic protection is the mechanismthrough which the State of nationality may pro-tect the rights of its citizen on international leveland obtain the relevant legal satisfaction orcompensation for him/her.

The aim of the present paper is to define,to what extent it is possible for a State to pro-tect its Citizens in international courts in thescope of contemporary international law. Here-with the present paper will endeavor to deter-mine both definition of mechanism of diplomaticprotection and to what extent is the mentioned

mechanism real and accessible for ordinaryCitizens, in a view of restitution of violatedrights in international law through the State ofown nationality.

The first part of the paper provides foranalyze of international law on the diplomaticprotection. In order to define the principle ofthe mentioned mechanism precisely, the at-tention is drawn both on the aspects of histor-ical as well as international law. Further chap-ters provide for detailed description of con-stituent elements of the mechanism of diplo-matic protection and the legal analyze.

2. THE GIST OF MECHANISM OF

DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION

Establishment of mechanisms of diplomat-ic protection was based on historic principle,stipulating that the damage caused to the na-tional of one State in another State was con-sidered on international level as the damagecaused to the State of nationality. In accor-dance with well known words of Emrikh DeVetel, the damage caused to a national is anindirect damage caused to a State.1

Mechanism of the diplomatic protection isestablished in contemporary international lawas the customary norm.2 There is no treatyinstrument of general law in the contemporarylaw, which would regulate the legal aspects ofmechanism of diplomatic protection. Through-out the years its content was defined throughsubsidiary means for the determination of mainsources.3 Attempt of codification of existingbase of international law on the diplomaticprotection was carried out by the Internation-al Law Commission of the United Nations(Hereafter – International Law Commission orCommission). Text of the draft Articles on dip-lomatic protection (Hereafter- draft Articles or

238


draft) together with the comments was adopt-ed with the first hearing in 2004,4 but in 2006the draft was approved with the second hear-ing.5 Currently, mentioned document of codifi-cation of international law on diplomatic pro-tection still remains as a draft and does nothave any binding force other than subsidiarymeans for the determination of main sourcesfor the Member States of the international com-munity.6

Permanent Court of International Justicehas defined the diplomatic protection as "anElementary Principle of International Law", stat-ing that "a State is entitled to protect its sub-ject, when injured by acts contrary to interna-tional law committed, from whom have beenunable to obtain satisfaction through the or-dinary channels".7

Commission in the draft norms on the dip-lomatic protection defines this instrument asfollows: "diplomatic Protection consists of theinvocation by a State, through diplomatic ac-tion or other means of peaceful settlement, ofthe responsibility of another State for an inju-ry caused by an internationally wrongful actof that State to a natural or legal person thatis a national of the former State with a view tothe implementation of such responsibility."8

As we see, diplomatic protection is a me-chanism, which may give an opportunity to thecitizen residing abroad to protect his/her vio-lated rights through his/her own State, in cas-es, when the violation rises a State liability.9

Although, shall be noted that exercising dip-lomatic protection with all methods is inadmis-sible. As it is seen in the definition elaboratedby the International Law Commission, exerciseof diplomatic protection falls under the framesof international law only in case of applyingthe remedies of peaceful settlement of dispute.It is also interesting that diplomatic protectioncovers protection of only those nationals whoare not involved in diplomatic-representationalactivities abroad on behalf of the State, be-cause such violations are considered as di-rect violation against a State. Generally this isa legal gist of the mechanism of diplomaticprotection.

We shall endeavor to demonstrate to whatextent the diplomatic protection is accessibleand realized mechanism, through detailedanalyze of its main consisting elements andprinciples.

3. MAIN ELEMENTS AND PRINCIPLES OF

MECHANISM OF DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION:

THEORY VERSUS PRACTICE

Diplomatic protection as one complete le-gal mechanism consists with numerous sepa-rate elements, in order to put in motion firstseparately and further as a one completemechanism it is necessary to comply with cer-tain principles and requirements. In the men-tioned process we face numbers of barriers,which significantly decrease the range of per-sons who have a real opportunity to enjoy dip-lomatic protection.

3.1. Right to Exercise DiplomaticProtection

In accordance with traditional principle ofinternational law, exercise of diplomatic pro-tection is a prerogative of the State. Perma-nent Court of International Justice in the Caseof "Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions" stat-ed that while exercising diplomatic protectiona State applies its right "to ensure, in the per-son of its subjects, respect for the rules of in-ternational law".10

Exercise of diplomatic protection is theright of a State. According to the internationallaw, a State is not obliged to protect its citizenon international level and consequently incase of refusal to exercise protection no lia-bility shall be imposed. This is caused by thefact that the States historically avoid grantingindividuals with the right in international law toinitiate a case against the States themselves,which is motivated by reasons related to theprinciple of State sovereignty and non inter-ference into internal affairs of the State.11 Onthe case "Barcelona Traction" PermanentCourt of International Justice stated that: "Statemay exercise diplomatic protection by what-ever means and to whatever extent it thinksfit, for it is its own right that the State is assert-ing... The State must be viewed as the solejudge to decide whether its protection will begranted, to what extent it is granted, and whenit will cease".12

Thus, as it is already illustrated, first andthe most important obstacle for natural andlegal persons to enjoy the protection by aState of their nationality is nonexistence ofobligation of a State to exercise diplomaticprotection. Therefore, citizen is not able to

239

force a State to exercise his/her protection ininternational law regime. Furthermore, "shouldthe natural or legal persons on whose behalf[the State exercise diplomatic protection] con-sider that their rights are not adequately pro-tected, they have no remedy in internationallaw"13

However, in this respect the positive trendsin contemporary practice of the States shallbe underscored. Some members of the inter-national legal community believe that individ-ual should be entitled to request a State toexercise diplomatic protection as a matter ofright on their behalf. Although limited, there isin fact some State practice to support thisview.14 Constitutional provisions in a numberof States recognize the right of individual toreceive diplomatic protection for injuries suf-fered abroad.15 Among these States is Georgiaas well. In accordance with Article 13 of theConstitution of Georgia: "Georgia shall pro-tect its citizens irrespective of their location."

In spite of the abovementioned positivetrends, the fact remains that traditional princi-ple on the right of a State to the exercise dip-lomatic protection still maintains binding forcein international law. International Law Commis-sion refused the proposal on the recognitionof limited obligation of a State on exercisingdiplomatic protection.16 However, it could notneglect absolutely these positive trends. Com-mission in the draft Articles on diplomatic pro-tection included Article 19(a)17, which some-how recommends a State to not leave withoutthe State protection especially that citizens,who suffered by the significant damage.

3.2. Beneficiaries of the Mechanismof Diplomatic Protection

Nationality is a bound between the Stateand injured person, which provides the basisfor exercising diplomatic protection.18 In thiscase the term national includes as natural aswell as legal persons. In defining the national-ity of natural and legal persons, we face cer-tain characters for each of them, for that rea-son this two groups are discussed separately.

Natural Persons. Historically it was a pre-rogative of a State to define who its nationalswere. Permanent Court of International Jus-tice on the case "Nationality Decrees in Tunisand Morocco" defined that questions of na-tionality wera in principle within domestic com-

petence [of the States].19 Provision of the samecontent was included in the Convention "onCertain Questions Relating to the Conflict ofNational Laws" of 1930.20

Although the exclusive right of each Stateto determine who are its nationals was recog-nized in the context of international law, thecase is not so simple, as it is seen. In theframes of international law mentioned right ofa state to determine the nationality of a per-son is limited.21 In particular, following to theinternational law all those persons who underthe jurisdiction of a State are recognized asits nationals, in this case for the purpose ofdiplomatic protection, may not be consideredas nationals of this country at all.

As Article 4 of draft Articles formulated bythe International Law Commission, recogniz-es the right of a State to determine who canbe its national, at the same time establishesthe limitation of this right in frames of interna-tional law.22 The Article provides for non-com-prehensive list of methods of nationality whichcomplies with international law. Nationality ac-quired by birth, descent, naturalization, succe-ssion of State totally corresponds to the groundsof acquisition of nationality in the scope of in-ternational law. However there are also suchforms of acquisition of nationality, which aretotally acceptable under domestic law, but areunacceptable under international law; For ex-ample, automatically acquisition of the nation-ality by a spouse as a result of marriage.23

Thus, a person being a national of a Statewith full rights in accordance with the domes-tic legislation, has a political and legal boundwith it, performs its national obligations in agood faith, pays taxes, etc, will not be able toenjoy State protection, unless its nationalityfalls under the definition of "national" follow-ing to international law.

Legal Persons. According to the custom-ary international law on diplomatic protectionand international practice on this issue, alsoArticles of draft Articles elaborated by the In-ternational Law Commission of the UN, diplo-matic protection covers not only natural butlegal persons as well. Diplomatic protectionof Legal persons is very important and diversearea. Here we have to distinguish protectionof corporations and non-profit-making legalpersons. Furthermore, not only corporationsenjoy diplomatic protection but also theirshareholders.

M. GOTSIRIDZE, DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION OF NATURAL AND LEGAL PERSONS IN INTERNATIONAL ...

240


Currently State practice is largely con-cerned with the diplomatic protection of cor-porations. In this case corporation means prof-it-making legal person with limited liability,whose capital is generally represented byshares.24

As with natural persons corporations shallmeet certain requirements in order to be con-sidered as nationals of a particular State.Though, it should be also noted that similar tonatural persons, international law provides forsuch high barrier to the corporations that nu-merous part of them may appear out of theapplication of the institute of this internationallaw. As it is already stated above, in this casethe issue of granting of nationality to a corpo-ration is within the internal jurisdiction of acountry.25 But this domestic competence doesnot have any power for the purposes of diplo-matic protection as in case of natural persons.

The States to determine nationality of le-gal person, are applying the different tests,weather it is the State of registration, head-quarter or simply country of location of repre-sentation. For example, Georgia in order todetermine the legal capacity of the legal per-son applies the law of the country of factuallocation of the administration of legal person.26

International Court of Justice on the "caseconcerning the Barcelona Traction" deter-mined that in accordance with the traditionalnorms of international law, right of diplomaticprotection of the corporation shall be grantedto that State where the company is incorpo-rated and has a registered representation.27

Thus, as it is seen the criteria of upholdingthe request of the company on nationality israther high, corporation to be considered asa national of a country shall not only be incor-porated, but shall also have registered repre-sentation. Whilst, the countries may apply oneof these two tests.

Furthermore, shall be noted that underthis criteria the States, which have substan-tially more economic interests towards the com-pany may remain out of game, rather thanthose States, which may meet the requirementsof the country of nationality for the purposesof diplomatic protection. Particularly in condi-tions of contemporary economic and commer-cial relations, company may not have any tiewith a State of its incorporation, but may havea tight bound with any other State or States.

On the case of company "Barcelona Traction",the most part of a share was in hands of na-tionals of Belgium, however, following to thedecision of the Court, Belgium did not have aright to exercise diplomatic protection on be-half of the company. But Canada which hasbeen considered as a State having the rightto exercise diplomatic protection, has not evenexpressed its interest in the fortune of theCompany.

With such formalistic approach, the pur-pose of this instrument will not be satisfied toensure appropriate diplomatic protection forthe corporations. In such a case, as an alter-native criteria, by applying genuine economicinterest and criteria of effective bound the aimof the protection of corporation would be bet-ter achieved.

International Law Commission, tried to re-duce the mentioned barriers of the nationalityand in Article 9 of the draft Articles has leftonly one criteria – the place of incorporation.Though, much important success out of pro-cedures of this exception was the provisionincluded into this Article. "However, when thecorporation is controlled by nationals of an-other State or States and has no substantialbusiness activities in the State of incorpora-tion, and the seat of management and the fina-ncial control of the corporation are both loca-ted in another State, that State shall be rega-rded as the State of nationality."28 This is extre-mely important success, the criteria of estab-lishing the nationality has been simplified, andalso those countries have been taken into con-sideration, which may be much more interest-ed to protect the rights of the corporation.

In accordance with fundamental principleof the diplomatic protection of corporations acorporation is to be protected by the State ofnationality of the corporation and not by theState of nationality of the shareholders in acorporation.29 Under the interpretation of thecourt "for although two separate entities mayhave suffered from the same wrong, it is onlyone entity whose rights have been infringed."30

The decision of the court to grant the State ofincorporation with the exclusive right of diplo-matic protection was motivated with severalreasons. First, corporation and shareholdersare two different entities. "But the mere factthat damage is sustained by both companyand shareholder does not imply that both are

241

entitled to claim compensation"31. Exclusivecharacteristic of the corporation is that theresponsibility of shareholders is limited and isseparated from the rights and responsibilitiesof the corporation. The second, foreign share-holder upon the subscription of the capital istaking into consideration the risk that the Stateof incorporation may not exercise the discre-tion of diplomatic protection of the corpora-tion.32 Finally, under interpretation of the court,exercise of diplomatic protection by the Statesof the shareholders will cause the variety ofthe disputes.

If under the definition of the court, share-holder and corporation are two different enti-ties, then it is unclear why a State of both ofthem may enjoy equal rights of protection.Despite of the fact that responsibility of theshareholder is limited in the company, it is in-conceivable to prove that substantial damageof the company will not have any effect to andinjure shareholder. Imagine the situation of theshareholder, if only the State of incorporationis granted with the right of diplomatic protec-tion and this later will refuse to exercise thisright. How can be possible to discuss the as-sumption of risk in such conditions when fol-lowing to the contemporary State practice, theStates as a rule establish obligatory require-ments in a form of incorporation to the foreignentrepreneurs. Thus, this can not be consid-ered as a voluntary risk. Finally, if the prob-lem arises in a procedural viewpoint relatedto variety and quantity of the disputes, it canbe also solved by merging the enterprises,consolidated application of the party with theseveral representatives, or using the princi-ple of attendance. Shall be also noted that thereality provided by mentioned approach of thecourt will outweigh the procedural difficulties,in particular, those shareholders frequentlyappear to be without any protection.

The court allowed two exceptions from itssevere formalistic approach, when a State ofthe shareholder is entitled to protect the in-terests of its nationals: a) as an exception fromthe main principles; and b) when directlyshareholder and his/her rights and interestswere injured.33 The State of nationality of theshareholder is entitled to exercise diplomaticprotection as an exception only in two cases:a) when corporation ceases its existence inthe State of incorporation;34 and b) State ofthe corporation is the author of the caused

damage and consequently, remedy for theprotection of the rights of shareholders re-mains only international justice.35

Therefore, if the corporation "ceases toexist" the State of the shareholder may applythe right to exercise the diplomatic protection.36

It shall be noted, that in this case the courtapplied extremely severe criteria. The corpo-ration may formally continue its existence, al-though in reality be paralyzed, the mentionedwas not considered by the court and estab-lished that, "only in the event of the legal de-mise of the company are the shareholdersdeprived of the possibility of a remedy avail-able through the company".37

Article 11 of draft Articles makes the crite-ria even stricter and states that, cease of ex-istence of the company shall not be reasonedby the caused injury, which is possible objectof diplomatic protection.38 The mentioned ismotivated by the fact that in this case the di-rect infringement of right of corporation takesplace and prerogative of diplomatic protectionfalls under the State of incorporation.39 Although,we still face with misunderstanding, it is incon-ceivable how the State of incorporation willexercise the diplomatic protection on behalfof the non-existed corporation.

Following to the second exception "theState of the shareholders has a right of diplo-matic protection when the State whose respon-sibility is invoked is the national State of thecompany".40 Afterwards the mentioned deci-sion, this exception was followed by Statesmostly under the form of bilateral agreement.Though, in the view of practice of court, thejudgment of the International Court of Justiceon the case "concerning Electronica Sicula"41

is very important. Here the court has reallyallowed a mentioned exception, when grant-ed the United States of America with the rightto protect its two national companies, whichwere holding the absolute amount of sharesof Italian company and which were damagedby the State of its nationality, Italy. From thiscase it is obvious that the court digressed fromthe formal approach and recognized thementioned exception in favor of the sharehold-er’s State.

This exceptions wera taken into consider-ation by the International Law Commission aswell, in the draft Articles on diplomatic protec-tion.42 It is vague why did the Commission de-cide to limit the mentioned exception, while the


242


customary norm of international law on the ex-clusive right on the diplomatic protection ofcorporations actually puts the shareholders inthe difficult condition.

Apart from the exceptions from generalrules, the States of nationality of sharehold-ers also enjoy the exclusive rights to exercisediplomatic protection in cases when directlythe right of shareholder is injured. The inter-national court has indicated that in every casewhenever one of his direct rights is infringed,the State of the shareholder has an indepen-dent right of action.43 There are rights and in-terests which belong only to shareholders ofthe Company. These rights may be the rightto dividends, right to attend general meetingand right to vote, also right to receive sharefrom the property of the company upon its liq-uidation, etc.

This exclusive right to diplomatic protec-tion of shareholders was included in the draftArticles on diplomatic protection. The Commis-sion in Article 12 drew a line between the rightsof corporation and shareholders. Certainly, theareas of interests where rights and interestsof corporation and shareholder inevitably in-tersect each other may exist, but probablythese rights could not be included in this Arti-cle. This much more restricts the area, wherethe State of nationality of a shareholder mayintervene on behalf of its national on interna-tional level.

Traditional norms on diplomatic protectionrecognize diplomatic protection of only onetype of legal persons, in particular, corpora-tions. This is reasoned by their characteris-tics, which give them opportunity to have anexclusive role on international level.

Despite the abovementioned, we shall notforget that the domestic legislation of the coun-try recognizes numerous types of other legalpersons representing the subjects of a Stateand fall under the scopes of constitutional righton State protection. For example, Article 8 ofthe Civil Code of Georgia envisages that anynatural or legal person may be a subject ofprivate law relations, both entrepreneurial andnon-entrepreneurial persons of Georgia andof the other countries.44 Apart from corpora-tions this includes numbers of legal entities,which play no less important role than the cor-porations both on national and internationallevel. Such legal persons are funds, unions,

associations, non-governmental organiza-tions, existing with different grants and contri-butions, and serve to develop different areas,to protect the rights of women, children etc,and to achieve many other goals. Severaldecades ago Permanent Court of Internation-al Justice has established that the local bodyof a community45 as well as the university46 maybe granted the status of a national.

International Law does not recognize anyother tradition of diplomatic protection of le-gal persons other than corporations. It isvague why such legal persons shall not beprotected by their own State.

Although, it shall be hopefully mentioned thathighly qualified members of the International LawCommission of the UN did not miss this issueand they put a provision in Article 13 of draftArticles on diplomatic protection, according towhich the rules on diplomatic protection provid-ed for corporations shall be equally applied to"other legal persons".47 In such case State ofnationality shall be the State under where thislegal person has been created.48 Also the ICYunderlined that a legal person shall have anyformal ground, in other words shall be recog-nized as legal. 49

One of the very important successes inrespect to diplomatic protection of legal per-sons shall be mentioned. In accordance withthe draft Articles on diplomatic protection ofInternational Law Commission and version ofattached comments elaborated in 2004, onlyArticles related to protection of corporationsare applicable to other legal persons, whichdid not include the provisions regulating dip-lomatic protection of shareholders. Conse-quently such members of non-profit-makingorganizations which were founded on thebases of principle of membership remainedoutside the game. Members of such organi-zations deposit the income received from theiractivities in capital of legal person and in caseof liquidation of the latter, they receive sharefrom the property of the organization. Thus,members of such organizations, with their na-ture but in limited forms, equal to positions thatthe shareholders hold in the corporation. Inparticular, they obtain same rights and inter-ests on the capital of the organization uponits liquidation. However, the report of 2006concerning draft Articles on diplomatic protec-tion has been amended and the regulations

243

on diplomatic protection of shareholders wasextended to members of other legal personsby analogy.50

3.3. Principle of "Nationality of Dispute"

Mechanism of diplomatic protection isbased on so called "principle of nationality ofdispute". As it was already mentioned above,the bond of nationality between the State andthe individual alone confers upon the State theright of diplomatic protection.51 Without prov-ing formal bond between a State and a per-son, that is a nationality, it is very difficult toprove that the State has an interest andgrounds to exercise diplomatic protection onbehalf of this person.52 Principle of nationalityof dispute means, that only the State of na-tionality is entitled to exercise the right of dip-lomatic protection. This issue can be easilysolved when both natural and legal personsare nationals of the same State. This is morecomplicated in case of dual nationality, as fol-lowing to the principle of "nationality of dis-pute" both States of nationalities are entitledto exercise diplomatic protection.

Dual or multiple nationality is not forbid-den by international law.53 However dual na-tionality raises number of problems for thecountries desiring to exercise diplomatic pro-tection to their nationals.

Existence of the bond between the Stateand a national is necessary in order to exer-cise diplomatic protection. Consequently, it islogical that each State of nationality is entitledto exercise diplomatic protection against thethird State on behalf of person having severalnationalities. Despite the abovementioned,the International Court of Justice in Nottebo-hm Case55 in 1951 referred the issue in a morecomplicated way and determined that onlybond of nationality is not enough and exist-ence of real tie between the State and a na-tional is necessary. With this the court madethese existing strict requirements for exercis-ing diplomatic protection even more severe.Wide application of the mentioned text will ex-tremely limit the availability of exercising dip-lomatic protection, which contradicts to thepurposes of diplomatic protection to give theopportunity to a State to protect its nationalon international level.

The above mentioned practice does notcomply with the practice established in inter-

national law. Following to the decision of theInternational Court of Arbitration on SalemCase the Defendant State is not entitled to putin question admissibility of a claim of the Ap-plicant State by indicating on other State ofnationality.56 The same decision was made bythe Italian-American Tribunal on Mergi Casein 1955.57

International Law Commission relied on thesame principle upon elaboration of Article 6of draft Articles. In accordance with this Arti-cle, in case of dual or multiple nationality eachState may exercise diplomatic protectionagainst the third State.58 The commission wentfurther and in paragraph 2 of Article 6 deter-mined that two or more States of nationality mayjointly exercise diplomatic protection.59

Now let us see what happens when oneState of nationality claims against the otherState of nationality. Previously so called doc-trine of "exclusion of responsibility" was dom-inating in international law, according to whichexercising diplomatic protection by the oneState of nationality over the other State ofnationality was not allowed. 60 This principlewas emphasized by the ICY as "establishedpractice" in a case of "Reparation of Injuries".61

It would be unreasonable to rely on thementioned practice in contemporary interna-tional law, whilst communication between dif-ferent States and moving business to anotherState have become easier and frequent, whilein such circumstances people often becomenational(s) of other States either voluntarilyor involuntarily. This doctrine would leave nu-merous individuals without protection. Fortu-nately, international law is avery rapidly de-veloping field. Although the abovementioneddoctrine was not abolished at all and followingto universal principle of State sovereigntycould not be abolished, the way out has beenfound.62 In order to determine whether it waspossible to exercise diplomatic protection byone State towards the other State the Ameri-can-Italian Tribunal on "Mergi" case estab-lished: Principle … that excludes diplomaticprotection in cases of dual nationality couldnot outweigh the principle of effective nation-ality, if such nationality belongs to ApplicantState.63 At the same year the principle of ef-fective nationality was applied by the Interna-tional Court of Justice in "Nottebohm" case.Although the Court discussed on this issuesin a rather different contexts, it played impor-


244


tant role in further decision making process inrelations to dual nationality, for instance nu-merous decisions were made by Italian-Amer-ican Tribunal as well as by Iran-American Tri-bunal under the principle of effective nation-ality.64 In A/18 case Iran-American Tribunal,relying on decisions on Mergi and Nottebohmcases, established that issue of dual nation-ality should be solved according to particularcircumstances of each case by defining effec-tive nationality of a citizen.65 The principle ofeffective nationality was frequently used infuture by the Tribunal, among them, in one ofthe cases the Tribunal declared that in presentcase the theory of effective nationality was theway of solution which was mostly in conformi-ty with the principles of public internationalxlaw.66

Thus, as we see the contemporary inter-national law practice aims at making excep-tion from the oldest doctrine on "exclusion ofresponsibility". Furthermore, the Internation-al Law Commission included these exceptionsalso in draft Articles. In accordance with Arti-cle 7 "a State of nationality may exercise dip-lomatic protection in respect of a personagainst a State of which that person is also anational unless the nationality of the formerState is predominant, both at the date of inju-ry and at the date of the official presentationof the claim".67 It is obvious that, apart fromeffective nationality necessary requirement isto establish dominant bond of nationality atthe date of injury and at the date of the officialpresentation of the claim.68 Numerous factorsmay be taken into consideration while deter-mining effective nationality. As it was men-tioned in one of the cases by French-Germanmixed Tribunal, a person shall be consideredas a national of that country to which he/shehas not only legal but factual bond as well.69

This may include the living period in the coun-try, date of acquiring nationality, place of edu-cation, language of education, employmentand financial interests, place of family life, fam-ily ties in the State, participation in social andpublic life, taxation, bank accounts, insurance,visits in other State of nationality, possessionand use of passport, military service, etc.70 Inorder to establish effective tie PermanentCourt of Arbitration in "Canevaro" case tookinto consideration the fact that the person wasstanding for candidacy of the Senate of Peruand later agreed to become honorary consul

of Peru in the Kingdom of Netherlands.71 How-ever it shall be mentioned that none of theabovementioned factors is decisive and theweight and importance attributed to each fac-tor will vary according to the circumstances ofeach case.72

3.3. Principle of "Continuous Nationality"

Second problem concerning the nation-ality is the principle of "continuous nationality".The core of the principle is that only national-ity tie between the State and a person is notenough to legitimate exercise of diplomaticprotection by the State, but a person shall bea national of a State both for the moment ofcommitting crime and particular stage of legalproceedings. One of the aims of this rule is toavoid delivering the right of initiating disputeby the nationals of small States to big States.73

According to opinions of highly qualifiedscholars of international law the States givethe obligatory nature the rule that nationalitytie must exist both for the moment of injuryand particular stage. Ian Brownlie noted that,there is no agreement on the second part ofthis rule; in particular, how long the continuityof nationality must last.74 There are severalapproaches regarding this issue, in particu-lar, a phase, up to which the continuous na-tionality principle must be protected is differ-ent: initiation of diplomatic negotiations, filingof the claim, signature, ratification or entry intoforce of the agreement referring the disputeto arbitration, conclusion of the oral hearing,delivery of judgment and execution of award,etc.75 In the opinion of Feller and Oppenheim,following the practice of States, more accept-able for States is to retain nationality until theofficial presentation of the claim.76 Though, itshall be mentioned that several years ago in2003 International Center for Settlement of In-vestment Disputes (ICSID) arbitral tribunal inits decision declared that continuity of nation-ality must last until the final judgment of theCourt.77

As we see the abovementioned provisionis one more restricting factor for exercising ofdiplomatic protection. In addition if we take intoconsideration that a national has to attemptto resolve a dispute by internal remedies, fur-ther to wait for the decision of the State to ex-ercise diplomatic protection on his/her behalf,initiation of the dispute and conclusion of a

245

certain stage of the court proceeding, it wouldbe logical to conclude that probability ofchanging nationality by a national is ratherhigh. Furthermore, attention shall be given tothe fact that often changing of nationality doesnot depend on a desire of an individual and ithappens automatically, independently fromhim/her. In such case individual remains with-out any protection.

Principle of "Continuous Nationality" cer-tainly was envisaged in draft Articles by theInternational Law Commission. But high qual-ified members of the Commission were moreflexible and allowed some exceptions from thisrule. The Commission determined that a per-son must be a national of a State continuous-ly from the date of injury to the date of officialpresentation of the claim to the Court.78

Though the Commission taking into consider-ation that there is no agreement in interna-tional community on necessity to retain nation-ality between these two dates, decided that ifcontinuity can not be proved possession ofnationality on both dates will be consideredin accordance with the role on "continuousnationality."79 The mentioned Principle of "Con-tinuous Nationality" is applicable in respect todiplomatic protection of both natural and le-gal persons.80 The Commission determinedcorrectly that if we recognize the Principle of"Continuous Nationality" we shall take intoconsideration the interests of persons and al-low certain fair exceptions from this rule. It ispossible to exercise diplomatic protection onbehalf of natural persons by avoiding thepresent principle if the following conditions aremet: a) the person seeking diplomatic protec-tion had the nationality of a predecessor Stateor has lost his or her previous nationality; b)the acquisition of the new nationality is notrelated to exercising diplomatic protection inrespect of this person; c) the acquisition ofthe new nationality has taken place in a man-ner not inconsistent with international law.81

Here the Commission applied the rule stip-ulating that a State is no longer entitled to ex-ercise diplomatic protection in respect of acorporation that acquires the nationality of theApplicant State.82 However, the Commission inrespect with the corporations has allowed bothnegative and positive exceptions. Authors ofthe project took into consideration the opin-ion that none of the State may exercise diplo-matic protection on behalf of the corporation

in case of liquidation of the corporation in theState of incorporation. Consequently the Com-mission allowed exception and determined aState continues to be entitled to exercise dip-lomatic protection in respect of a corporationwhich was its national at the date of injury andwhich, as the result of the injury, has ceasedto exist according to the law of the State ofincorporation.83 The regime regarding the prin-ciple on "continues nationality", established inrelation to corporations extends to non-profit-making legal persons by analogy.84

CONCLUSION

At the beginning we raised a question, inwhat extend the diplomatic protection is ac-cessible for an ordinary citizen, whose rightswere violated and injured by action of foreignState. Abovementioned detailed analyze of thementioned institute certainly does not providesfor the opportunity to consider diplomatic pro-tection as alternative, accessible and real rem-edy of satisfaction of the citizen.

In the frames of current international law,exercise of diplomatic protection falls underthe discretion of the State, and it is the discre-tion process during which a person initially isforced to conduct negotiations and petitionwith herl his own State, in order to submit thedispute to international justice. Especially incases when for the violating rights a personthere is no adequate, accessible and effec-tive remedy, it is totally inadmissible to leavethe discretion of exercising diplomatic protec-tion to the State. Contemporary State practiceinclines to bind a State at least partially to ex-ercise diplomatic protection. Although, untilthis mechanism maintains the discretionarycharacter, it can not be considered as an ac-cessible and alternative remedy for the pro-tection of citizens. Regrettable result which isfollowed by the mentioned discretion was clear-ly illustrated by NGO Amnesty International:The States frequently sacrifice the legal rightsof the victims to those political interests, suchas maintenance of friendly relations with aState responsible for the violation.85

Analyse provided for by the present pa-per made clear that non-existence of the obli-gation of diplomatic protection is not the onlyproblem connected to this mechanism. Priorto the exercise of diplomatic protection thereare numerous formal and procedural precon-


246


ditions, which extremely decreases the num-ber of such cases, when the citizen has a realopportunity to exercise diplomatic protectionthrough his/her State.

First most important requirement, relatedto the national bond between a State and vic-tim, is not limited only to determine such bond.Moreover, shall be defined weather the formof obtaining nationality complies with the re-quirements of international law. Determinationof the issue of nationality to be completelyunder the jurisdiction of a State is the mostreasonable and logical. In this case, such in-cidents may be avoided when the citizen hav-ing tight national bond with the State through-out the years remains without protection onlydue to the fact that the form of obtaining citi-zenship contradicts to the requirements of in-ternational law.

The issue of citizenship does not end withthis. "The principle of continuous nationality"following to its vague content may create arti-ficial problems for exercising diplomatic pro-tection. Although, the existence of continuousnationality is certainly an essential mandato-ry precondition for exercising diplomatic pro-tection, it is still unclear until which level thenationality shall be maintained. Application ofsuch practice which requires the existence ofnational tie until the delivery of final judgmenton the case or until its execution is extremelydangerous. In the institution of InternationalCourt, execution of justice is rather extendedprocess. The years are required for only ad-missibility of some applications, not to men-tion the consideration of the case and deliv-ery of final judgment, moreover the executionof this case. Throughout this entire periodchange of nationality by a person is not sounreal. By the strict protection of the principleof "continuous nationality" the citizen may losethe opportunity of protection in frames of in-ternational justice.

Besides the abovementioned, there arenumbers of other requirements and precon-ditions which shall be satisfied for the purpos-es of exercising diplomatic protection by theState, which may be, exhaustion of domesticremedies, determination of violation of inter-national law in the action of the State, issuesrelated to dual or multiple nationality, takinginto consideration the features of exercise ofdiplomatic protection of natural and legal per-sons and their shareholders, relevant mem-

bers and etc. Bearing into mind the multitudeof all these conditions, and complexity in somecases, also the aims and interests of foreignpolicy of the State of nationality in certaincases,it is hard to discuss how real it is theexpression of good will by the State on exer-cise of diplomatic protection.

Finally, one more factor has to be takeninto consideration, which has not been dis-cussed in the main part of present paper justfor the simple reason that it is related to theexecution of decision of the international courtand not directly connected to the legal mech-anism of diplomatic protection. If the violationof international law by the State is established,this latter shall pay compensation to the in-jured State. Also in this case the State has dis-cretion whether to pay the compensation re-ceived by the reparation to the violated victimor not. Commission on International Law leftthe issue open whether the State is obliged topay that compensation to the injured personor no, which as form of compensation was re-ceived as a result of solving the dispute, initi-ated through exercising diplomatic protection,in favor of injured.

Likewise all legal procedures, diplomaticprotection certainly involves the satisfactionand performance of range of mandatory re-quirements, procedures and preconditions.Mentioned is rather logical and correct, how-ever, diplomatic protection includes the obli-gation to protect numbers of minor terms, tech-nical and formal procedures and require-ments, which may raise artificial barriers forexercising this mechanism of protection. Dip-lomatic protection is a remedy for a State toprotect its citizen against illegal action of theother country, as well as for citizens to achievethe reparation of violated law on internationallevel. Thus, the main point while exercisingdiplomatic protection shall be the protectionof rights and interests of the citizen and provi-sion of proper satisfaction for the caused in-juries. All formal, procedural and other kindof preconditions, which are necessary for ex-ercising diplomatic protection, shall be exact-ly adjusted on this aim and idea.

As we saw in the main part of the paper, inthe filed of diplomatic protection positive andrather reliable trends are evident. The Inter-national Law Commission of the UN has madea great contribution in this direction and on

247

the basis of existing practice of States, pro-posed the most liberal solution on the rangeof subjects. International law is avery rapidlydeveloping field. Hopefully, in the nearest fu-

1 "Shelter from the Storm: Rethinking Diplomatic Protection of Dual Nationals inModern Interna-tional Law" (Heirafter – Shelter from the Storm), Craig Forcese,George Washington International Law Review, George Washington University, 2005, p. 1.

2 Shelter from the Storm, p. 472; customary norm is the universal practice estab-lished in a form of law, please see. Article 38(1)(a), Statute of the International Courtof Justice, http://www.icj-cij.org/documents.

3 Practice of the court and works of high qualified scientists. Please see. Article38(1)(d), Statute of the International Court of Justice.

4 I.L.C., Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-sixthsession (3 May-4 June and 5 July-6 August 2004) UN Doc. A/59/10, p.22.

5 .L.C., Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-eighthsession (2006) UN Doc. A/61/10 (Hereafter - Report of the International LawCommission 2006), p. 13.

6 Works of the members of the International Law Commission shall be consid-ered as works of scientists of recognized competence in the context of Article38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Please see. Article 2(1),Statute of the International Law Commission, Adopted by the General Assemblyin its Resolution 174 (II) of 21 November 1947.

7 Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions Case, p. 12.8 Article 1: Definition and Scope; Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, Interna-

tional Law Commis-sion, fifty-eighth session, 2006 (hereafter - Draft Articles onDiplomatic Protection)

9 Please see. Malcolm N. Shaw, "International Law" (hereafter – M. N. Shaw, "Inter-national Law"), Fifth Edition, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 733.

10 Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions Case, p. 12.11 M.N. Shaw, "International Law", p. 72212 "Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited"

(Belgium v. Spain) Second Face, Judgment of 5 January 1970I.C.J Reports, p. 4413 Ibidem, p. 4414"First Report on Diplomatic Protraction", ICL, 52 Session, Doc. A/cn.4/506, 7

March 2000, para. 80. Please see. Ibidem, paragraph 80.15 Ibidem, paragraph 8016 Report of the International Law Commission 2004, p.28.17 Article 19(a), Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection 2006.18 Report of the International Law Commission 2004, p.29. 19 "Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Moro-cco", PCIJ, Advisory Opinion of 7

February 1923, Series B, No. 4, p.24.20 Article 3, Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of

Nationality Laws, 1930.21 "Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco", p. 24, please see. Report of

the International Law Commission 2004, pp. 30-31.22 Article 4, Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection 2006.23 Article 9(1), Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against

Women, 1979.24 Report of the International Law Commission 2006, p.52.25 "Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Moro-cco", p.24. 26 Article 24, the Law of Georgia on International Private Law, April 29, 1998, N136527 "Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction"

ture all abovementioned problems will besolved and diplomatic protection will approachto that aim, which is protection of rights andinterests of its subjects by a State.


248


28 Article 9, Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection 2006.29 Report of the International Law Commission 2006, p.5830 Please see. "Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction", paragraph 44.31 Please see Ibidem, paragraph 4432 Please see Ibidem, paragraph 4333 Report of the International Law Commission 2006, pp. 55-70.34 "Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction", para-g-raph 65.35 Ibidem, paragraph 9236 This practice was also applied by the European Court of Human Rights. Please

see Agrotexim case, ECHR., Series A (1995), No. 330-A, paragraph. 68.37 "Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction", pa-ra-g-raph 65.38 Article 11, Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection 2006.39 Report of the International Law Commission 2006, pp. 61-62.40 "Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction", pa-rag-raph 65.41 "Case concerning Electronica Sicula S.p.A.", United States of America v. Italy,

ICJ. Reports, 20 July 1989.42 Article 11, Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection 200643 "Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction", paragraphs 46-47.44 Article 8, Civil Code of Georgia, 28 June1976, N786 – I-is45 Please see: Case of Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, P.C.I.J.

Reports, Series A, No. 7.46 Please see: Appeal from a Judgment of the Hungaro-Czechoslovak Mixed Arbi-

tral Tribunal, P.C.I.J. Reports, Series A/B, No. 61.47 Article 13, Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection 2006.48 Report of the International Law Commission 2006, p. 7049 "Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction", paragraph 38.50 Report of the International Law Commission 2006, p. 7051 "Nottebohm Case", p. 13.52 Please see: Brownlie, Ian, Principles of Public In-ter-national Law (Hereafter - I.

Braunlie, Principles of Public International Law), 5th edition, 1998, p. 391.53 Article 3, Hague Convention 1930; Chapter V, ETS 166 – European Convention on

Nationality, 6.Sptember 1997.54 Please see: Case of Nottebohm55 I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, p. 390.56 Report of the International Law Commission 2006, p. 42.57 Article 6(1), Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection 2006.58 Article 6(2), Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection 2006.59 Article 4, Hague Convention 1930.60 Case of Reparation of Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations,

I.C.J. General List No 4, April 11, 1949, p. 186.61 Shelter for the Storm, pp.494-495.62 See ibidem. p. 49563 Report of the International Law Commission 2006, p. 45.64 The Role of International Human Rights and the Law of Diplomatic Protection in

Resolving Zimbabve’s Land Crisis, Jonathan Shirley, Boston College Interna-tional and Comparative Law Review, Winter 2004, pp. 170-171.

65 Nasser Esphahanian v. Bank Tejarat, Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, CaseNo 157, Awards No 31-157-2, 29. 03.1983, p. 12.

66 Article 7, Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection 2006.67 Report of the International Law Commission 2006, pp. 43-47.68 Nasser Esphahanian v. Bank Tejarat, p. 17.69 Report of the International Law Commission 2006, p. 46.70 Nasser Esphahanian v. Bank Tejarat, p. 1571 Report of the International Law Commission 2006, p. 4672 "Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited",

Separate Opinion of Judge Jessup, paragraph 48, Separate Opinion of JudgeFitzmarice, paragraph. 63.

249

73 "The Continuous Nationality of Claims Principle: Its Historical Development AndCurren Relevance to Investor-State Investment Disputes", Matthe S. Du-ch-esne,George Washington University, 2004, p. 4.

74 See Ibidem. p. 475 See Ibidem. p. 476 Case of Loewen Group Inc. v. USAICSID Reports, vol. 7 (2005), p. 442 at pa-

ragraph. 225 (Please see. Report of the International Law Commission 2006, p. 37).77 Articles 5 and 10, Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection 2006.78 Report of the International Law Commission 2006, p. 36.79 Articles 5, paragraph 1 and 10, paragraph 1, Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protec-

tion 2006.80 Articles 5, paragraph 2, Draft Articles on Diplo-matic Protection 2006; Report of

the International Law Commission 2006, p. 3981 Articles 10, paragraph 2, Draft Articles on Diplo-ma-tic Protection 2006.82 Articles 10, paragraph 3, Draft Articles on Diplo-ma-tic Protection 2006.83 Please see Ibidem: Article 13.84 Symposium: State Immunity in Civil Proceedings for Serious Violations of Human

Rights – Torture and State Immunity: Deflecting Immunity, Dest-roying Sovereign-ty, Lorna McGregor, European Journal of International Law, November, 2007, p. 910.

M. GOTSIRIDZE, DIPLOMATIC PROTECRION OF NATURAL AND LEGAL PERSONS IN INTERNATIONAL ...

250


danarTi

saqarTvelos kanonidiplomatiuri samsaxuris Sesaxeb

Tavi I

zogadi debulebani

muxli 1. kanonis regulirebis sfero

1. es kanoni adgens saqarTvelos diplomatiuri samsaxuris organizebis samarT-lebriv safuZvlebs, awesrigebs diplomatiuri samsaxuris gavlasTan dakavSirebulurTierTobebs, gansazRvravs diplomatiur samsaxurSi myofi piris samarTlebriv mdgo-mareobas.

2. diplomatiuri samsaxuri monawileobs qveynis sagareo politikuri kursisformirebaSi, uzrunvelyofs mis ganxorcielebas da saqarTvelos konstituciis,saqarTvelos saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebisa da SeTanxmebebis, am kanonisa dasaqarTvelos sxva normatiuli aqtebis Sesabamisad koordinacias uwevs qveynis saerTa-Soriso urTierTobebs.

muxli 2. kanonSi gamoyenebul terminTa ganmarteba

am kanonSi gamoyenebul terminebs aqvT Semdegi mniSvneloba:a) diplomatiuri samsaxuri – saqarTvelos sagareo saqmeTa saministro da misi

qvedanayofebi qveynis teritoriaze da sazRvargareT;b) saqarTvelos sagareo saqmeTa saministro (SemdgomSi – saministro) – samTavrobo

dawesebuleba, romelic axorcielebs sxva saxelmwifoebTan da saerTaSoriso organiza-ciebTan qveynis saerTaSoriso urTierTobebis saxelmwifoebriv marTvas;

g) diplomatiuri warmomadgenloba – saministros qvedanayofi sazRvargareT,romelic saerTaSoriso organizaciasTan da adgilsamyofel saxelmwifosTan diplo-matiuri da sakonsulo urTierTobebisas warmoadgens saqarTvelos;

d) sakonsulo dawesebuleba – saministros qvedanayofi sazRvargareT, romelicadgilsamyofel saxelmwifosTan sakonsulo urTierTobisas da im saxelmwifosTan dip-lomatiuri urTierTobisas, sadac diplomatiuri warmomadgenloba ar aris dafuZneb-uli, warmoadgens saqarTvelos;

e) diplomatiuri misia – diplomatiuri misia im mniSvnelobiT, romelic mas miniWe-buli aqvs „diplomatiuri urTierTobis Sesaxeb" 1961 wlis venis konvenciiT;

v) teritoriuli organo – saministros warmomadgenloba saqarTvelos teritoriaze;z) diplomatiuri rangi – diplomatiur samsaxurSi dawesebuli specialuri rangi,

romelic eniWeba diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis pirs;T) diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis piri – diplomatiur samsaxurSi diplomatiur Tan-

amdebobaze daniSnuli piri, romelsac miniWebuli aqvs diplomatiuri rangi;i) administraciul-teqnikuri personali – saqarTvelos kanonmdeblobis Sesabamis-

ad saministros sistemaSi aradiplomatiur Tanamdebobaze daniSnuli an xelSekruleb-is safuZvelze samuSaod miRebuli saqarTvelos moqalaqeebi, romlebic administraci-

251

ul-teqnikur momsaxurebas uweven diplomatiur warmomadgenlobebsa da sakonsulodawesebulebebs;

k) diplomatiuri samsaxuris rezervi – am kanoniT dadgenili wesis Sesabamisad, ro-taciis wesiT samuSao mivlinebis vadaze adre Sewyvetisa da rotaciis wesiT samuSaomivlinebis vadis gasvlis gamo gamowveuli pirebi, agreTve is pirebi, romlebmac war-matebiT gaiares konkursi, magram vakansiis ararsebobis gamo ver dainiSnnen SesabamisTanamdebobaze;

l) diplomatiuri samsaxuris aqtiuri rezervi – saqarTvelos parlamentis aparat-is, saqarTvelos prezidentis administraciis, saqarTvelos mTavrobis kancelariis,saqarTvelos Tavdacvis saministros, saqarTvelos erovnuli uSiSroebis sabWos aparat-is, konfliqtebis mogvarebis sakiTxebSi saqarTvelos saxelmwifo ministris aparatisda evropul da evroatlantikur struqturebSi integraciis sakiTxebSi saqarTvelossaxelmwifo ministris aparatis sajaro moxeleebi, agreTve saqarTvelos Sesabamisi saer-TaSoriso xelSekrulebis an SeTanxmebis safuZvelze saqarTvelos Sinagan saqmeTa samin-istros da saqarTvelos sagareo dazvervis specialuri samsaxuris TanamSromlebi,romlebic monawileoben qveynis sagareo politikuri kursisa da saerTaSoriso urT-ierTobebis Sesaxeb winadadebebis SemuSavebasa da ganxorcielebaSi. diplomatiuri sam-saxuris aqtiur rezervSi Casaricxi pirebis TanamdebobaTa nusxa, garda saqarTvelosparlamentis aparatis sajaro moxeleebisa, saqarTvelos sagareo saqmeTa ministriswardginebiT ganisazRvreba saqarTvelos prezidentis brZanebulebiT. diplomatiurisamsaxuris aqtiur rezervSi Casaricxi saqarTvelos parlamentis aparatis sajaro mox-eleebis nusxas adgens saqarTvelos parlamentis Tavmjdomare;

m) momsaxure personali – xelSekrulebis safuZvelze samuSaod miRebuli saTanadokvalifikaciis mqone saqarTvelosa da ucxo qveynis moqalaqeebi da moqalaqeobis arm-qone pirebi, romlebic, „diplomatiuri urTierTobis Sesaxeb" 1961 wlis venis konvenci-is Sesabamisad, emsaxurebian diplomatiur warmomadgenlobebsa da sakonsulo dawese-bulebebs;

n) rotacia – saministros, diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobisa da sakonsulo dawese-bulebis Tanamdebobis pirTa urTierTSenacvleba;

o) rotaciis wesiT samuSao mivlineba – diplomatiur warmomadgenlobaSi an sakon-sulo dawesebulebaSi samuSaod wargzavna am kanoniT dadgenili wesiTa da vadiT;

p) ojaxis wevri – diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis pirisa da administraciul-teqni-kuri personalis meuRle, arasrulwlovani Svili, meurveobis an mzrunvelobis qveS my-ofi piri;

J) pirveladi mowyobis xarjebi – diplomatiur warmomadgenlobasa da sakonsulodawesebulebaSi samuSaod mivlinebuli Tanamdebobis pirisa da misi ojaxis wevrebis sa-yofacxovrebo mowyobisaTvis erTjeradad gacemuli Tanxa, romlis miznobriobasa daodenobas, adgilsamyofeli saxelmwifos TaviseburebaTa gaTvaliswinebiT da saqarT-velos finansTa saministrosTan SeTanxmebiT, adgens saqarTvelos sagareo saqmeTa min-istri;

r) saqarTvelos Tavdacvis saministros warmomadgeneli – saqarTvelos Tavdacvissaministros mier saerTaSoriso organizaciaSi samuSaod mivlinebuli Tanamdebobispiri.

muxli 3. diplomatiuri samsaxuris ZiriTadi amocanebi da funqciebi

diplomatiuri samsaxuris ZiriTadi amocanebi da funqciebia:a) saerTaSoriso da regionuli mSvidobisa da usafrTxoebis ganmtkicebisaTvis xe-

lis Sewyoba;b) saqarTvelos usafrTxoebisa da saerTaSoriso statusis ganmtkiceba;g) adamianis sayovelTaod aRiarebul uflebaTa da TavisuflebaTa dacvisaTvis

xelis Sewyoba;

danarTi, saqarTvelos kanoni diplomatiuri samsaxuris Sesaxeb

252


d) kompetenciis farglebSi saqarTvelos moqalaqeTa ZiriTadi uflebebisa daTavisuflebebis dacva;

e) saerTaSoriso samarTlis sayovelTaod aRiarebuli principebisa da normebisganuxreli dacvisa da Semdgomi ganviTarebisaTvis xelis Sewyoba;

v) saqarTvelos sagareo politikuri kursis ZiriTadi mimarTulebebis Sesaxeb wi-nadadebebis SemuSaveba;

z) saerTaSoriso urTierTobebSi saqarTvelos interesebis warmodgena da dacva;T) diplomatiuri saSualebebiT saqarTvelos suverenitetis, qveynis usafrTxoeb-

is, misi teritoriuli mTlianobisa da sazRvrebis urRvevobis da sxva saxelmwifoe-brivi interesebis dacva;

i) saqarTvelosa da sxva saxelmwifoebsa da saerTaSoriso organizaciebs Soris poli-tikuri, ekonomikuri, kulturuli, samecniero da sxva saxis kavSirebis ganmtkiceba;

k) saerTaSoriso urTierTobebSi saqarTvelos saxelmwifo dawesebulebebis saqmi-anobis koordinacia;

l) sxva saxelmwifoebTan saqarTvelos sakonsulo politikis gatareba;m) sazRvargareT ganlagebuli saqarTvelos sazogadoebrivi organizaciebisa da

dawesebulebebis saqmianobisaTvis xelis Sewyoba.

muxli 4. diplomatiuri samsaxuris faseulobebi, principebi da profesiulieTikis qartia

1. diplomatiuri samsaxuris faseulobebia:a) profesionalizmi, erTguleba, patiosneba da miukerZoebloba;b) patriotizmi da angariSvaldebuleba qveynisa da xalxis winaSe.

2. diplomatiuri samsaxuris principebia:a) erovnuli interesebis Tanmimdevrulad ganxorcieleba;b) sagareo politikis qmedebebisa da iniciativebis mdgradoba da prognozirebadoba;g) adamianis sayovelTaod aRiarebul uflebaTa da TavisuflebaTa pativiscema;d) saqarTvelos konstituciis, saqarTvelos saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebisa da

SeTanxmebebis, am kanonisa da saqarTvelos sxva normatiuli aqtebis moTxovnaTa zustida Tanmimdevruli dacva;

e) saqarTvelos yvela moqalaqisaTvis maTi unaris, kvalifikaciisa da profesiulimomzadebis Sesabamisad diplomatiur samsaxurSi Sesvlis Tanabari SesaZleblobebisuzrunvelyofa;

v) mosamsaxureTa kadrebis stabiluroba;z) diplomatiuri samsaxuris erTianoba;T) politikuri neitraliteti.

3. diplomatiuri samsaxuris profesiuli eTikis qartiis mizania, xeli Seuwyos dip-lomatiuri samsaxuris faseulobebisa da principebis pativiscemas.

muxli 5. diplomatiuri samsaxuris xelmZRvaneli

diplomatiur samsaxurs xelmZRvanelobs saqarTvelos sagareo saqmeTa ministri(SemdgomSi – ministri).

muxli 6. diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobebi

1. saqarTvelos diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobebia:a) saqarTvelos saelCo;b) saerTaSoriso organizaciasTan arsebuli saqarTvelos mudmivi warmomadgenloba;g) saqarTvelos diplomatiuri misia.

253

2. diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobis xelmZRvanels saqarTvelos parlamentis Tanx-mobiT Tanamdebobaze niSnavs saqarTvelos prezidenti.

3. diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobis xelmZRvanels ministris wardginebiT Tanamde-bobidan aTavisuflebs saqarTvelos prezidenti.

muxli 7. sakonsulo dawesebulebebi

saqarTvelos sakonsulo dawesebulebis saxeebi da maTi samarTlebrivi mdgomareo-ba ganisazRvreba „saqarTvelos sakonsulo dawesebulebaTa Sesaxeb" saqarTvelos kano-niTa da saqarTvelos sxva normatiuli aqtebiT.

muxli 8. gadawyvetilebebi diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobisa da sakonsulodawesebulebis dafuZnebis, reorganizaciisa da likvidaciis Sesaxeb

1. gadawyvetilebebs diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobis dafuZnebis, reorganizaci-isa da likvidaciis Sesaxeb iRebs saqarTvelos prezidenti.

2. gadawyvetilebebs sakonsulo dawesebulebis dafuZnebis, reorganizaciisa dalikvidaciis Sesaxeb iRebs ministri.

Tavi II

diplomatiuri samsaxuris sakadro Semadgenloba

muxli 9. diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis piris samarTlebrivi mdgomareoba

1. diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis piri iricxeba saqarTvelos saxelmwifo samsaxurSi.2. diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis piris samarTlebrivi mdgomareoba regulirdeba am

kanoniTa da saqarTvelos Sesabamisi normatiuli aqtebiT.

muxli 10. diplomatiur samsaxurSi Tanamdebobis pirTa kategoriebi

diplomatiur samsaxurSi dawesebulia Tanamdebobis pirTa Semdegi kategoriebi:a) diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis pirebi;b) administraciul-teqnikuri personali;g) momsaxure personali.

muxli 11. diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis pirTa kategoriebi

diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis pirTa kategoriebia:a) umaRlesi diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis piri (A kategoria);b) ufrosi diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis piri (B kategoria);g) umcrosi diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis piri (C kategoria).

muxli 12. umaRlesi diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis pirebi ( kategoria)

umaRlesi diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis pirebi arian:a) ministris pirveli moadgile da moadgile (A1);b) saministros departamentis direqtori (A2);g) sagangebo da sruluflebiani elCi (A2);d) saerTaSoriso organizaciasTan saqarTvelos mudmivi warmomadgeneli (A2);e) saqarTvelos diplomatiuri misiis xelmZRvaneli (A2);


254


v) saqarTvelos generaluri konsuli (A3);z) sagangebo davalebaTa elCi (A3).

muxli 13. ufrosi diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis pirebi ( kategoria)

ufrosi diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis pirebi arian:a) saministros departamentis direqtoris moadgile (B1);b) sagangebo da sruluflebiani despani (B1);g) saerTaSoriso organizaciasTan saqarTvelos mudmivi warmomadgenlis moadgile (B1);d) saministros departamentSi Semavali sammarTvelos ufrosi (B2);e) ufrosi mrCeveli (B2);v) konsuli (B2);z) mrCeveli (B3);T) Tavdacvis ataSe da saqarTvelos Tavdacvis saministros warmomadgeneli (B3).

muxli 14. umcrosi diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis pirebi (C kategoria)

umcrosi diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis pirebi arian:a) vice-konsuli (C1);b) pirveli mdivani (C1);g) sakonsulo agenti (C2);d) meore mdivani (C2);e) mesame mdivani (C3);v) ataSe (C3);z) Tavdacvis ataSes aparatisa da saqarTvelos Tavdacvis saministros warmomad-

genlis aparatis Tanamdebobis pirebi (C3).

muxli 15. diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis pirisTanamdebobrivi SeuTavsebloba

diplomatiur Tanamdebobaze daniSvnis momentidan piri wyvets nebismier aqtiurpolitikur saqmianobas. diplomatiur samsaxurSi moRvaweobis periodSi diplomati-uri Tanamdebobis piri politikurad neitraluria da ara aqvs ufleba, eweodes saqmi-anobas/propagandas nebismieri politikuri partiis, organizaciis, gaerTianebissasargeblod an winaaRmdeg.

muxli 16. diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis piris valdebulebani

diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis piri valdebulia:a) daicvas saqarTvelos saxelmwifo interesebi;b) pativi sces da daicvas saqarTvelosa da adgilsamyofeli saxelmwifos kanonmde-

bloba da Cveulebani;g) piradi interesebisaTvis ar gamoiyenos diplomatiuri uflebebi da imuniteti.

muxli 17. diplomatiur Tanamdebobaze daniSvna

1. saministros diplomatiur Tanamdebobebze iniSnebian saqarTvelos moqalaqeebi.2. saministros diplomatiur Tanamdebobaze daniSvna xdeba gadayvanis wesiT, konkur-

sis wesiT an ukonkursod.3. gadayvanis wesiT diplomatiur Tanamdebobaze iniSnebian diplomatiuri Tanam-

debobis pirebi.

255

4. konkursis wesiT diplomatiur Tanamdebobaze iniSnebian pirebi, romlebsac aqvTumaRlesi ganaTleba, floben saqarTvelos saxelmwifo enas da or ucxour enas mainc.

5. ukonkursod daniSvna SeiZleba Semdeg diplomatiur Tanamdebobaze:a) ministris moadgile;b) saministros departamentis direqtori;g) sagangebo da sruluflebiani elCi;d) saerTaSoriso organizaciasTan saqarTvelos mudmivi warmomadgeneli;e) saqarTvelos diplomatiuri misiis xelmZRvaneli;v) sagangebo davalebaTa elCi.

6. ukonkursod diplomatiur Tanamdebobaze SeiZleba dainiSnon:a) umaRlesi diplomatiuri rangis mqone pirebi;b) diplomatiur Tanamdebobaze droebiT armyofi moxelis Semcvleli – moxelis

samsaxurSi gamosvlamde;g) konkursis wesiT dasaniSni Tanamdebobis piris movaleobis Semsrulebeli –

konkursis Sedegebis mixedviT piris Tanamdebobaze daniSvnamde;d) diplomatiuri samsaxuris rezervSi Caricxuli da diplomatiuri samsaxuris aq-

tiur rezervSi myofi pirebi saministros sakonkurso-saatestacio komisiis rekomen-daciis safuZvelze;

e) diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobidan da sakonsulo dawesebulebidan rotaciiswesiT samuSao mivlinebis vadis gasvlis gamo gamowveuli pirebi.

7. konkursis wesiT vakantur Tanamdebobebze dasaniSni pirebis Sefasebas axor-cielebs saministros sakonkurso-saatestacio komisia.

8. konkursis Catarebis wesi ganisazRvreba ministris brZanebiT.9. diplomatiur samsaxurSi miRebasTan da diplomatiuri samsaxuris gavlasTan

dakavSirebul sxva sakiTxebze, moxelis kvalifikaciis dasadgenad, ministris individ-ualuri administraciul-samarTlebrivi aqtiT SeiZleba dawesdes damatebiTi moTx-ovnebi.

muxli 18. saministros departamentis direqtorisa dasagangebo davalebaTa elCis daniSvna

1. saministros departamentis direqtoris Tanamdebobaze ministri niSnavs pirs,romelsac aqvs umaRlesi ganaTleba, saTanado kvalifikacia da profesiuli momzadeba,flobs saqarTvelos saxelmwifo enas, or ucxour enas mainc da aqvs sagareo urTier-Tobebis sferoSi muSaobis gamocdileba.

2. sagangebo davalebaTa elCis Tanamdebobaze ministri niSnavs pirs, romelsac aqvsumaRlesi ganaTleba, saTanado kvalifikacia da profesiuli momzadeba, flobssaqarTvelos saxelmwifo enas da erT ucxour enas mainc.

Tavi III

diplomatiuri samsaxuris gavla

muxli 19. diplomatiuri samsaxuris gavlis wesi

diplomatiuri samsaxuris gavlis wesi ganisazRvreba ministris administraciul-samarTlebrivi aqtiT.

muxli 20. rotacia

1. mosamsaxureTa kadrebis stabilurobis uzrunvelsayofad diplomatiur samsax-urSi dawesebulia Tanamdebobis pirTa rotacia.


256


2. rotaciis farglebSi xorcieldeba diplomatiur warmomadgenlobasa da sakon-sulo dawesebulebaSi pirTa samuSao mivlineba, diplomatiur warmomadgenlobasa dasakonsulo dawesebulebaSi samuSaod mivlinebul pirTa gamowveva saministroSi saqmi-anobis gasagrZeleblad.

3. rotaciis wesiT samuSao mivlinebidan gamowveulma pirma momdevno rotaciis wes-iT samuSao mivlinebamde saministroSi unda imuSaos aranakleb erTi wlisa. ministri,saWiroebis SemTxvevaSi, uflebamosilia, es vada Seamciros.

4. am muxlis me-3 punqtiT gaTvaliswinebul vadaSi CaiTvleba rotaciis wesiT sam-uSao mivlinebidan gamowveuli piris diplomatiuri samsaxuris rezervSi yofnis dro.

muxli 21. rotaciis wesiT samuSao mivlinebis xarjebis anazRaureba

diplomatiur warmomadgenlobasa da sakonsulo dawesebulebaSi rotaciis wesiTsamuSao mivlinebis xarjebis anazRaureba regulirdeba ministris administraciul-samarTlebrivi aqtiT dadgenili wesiT.

muxli 22. diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobisa dasakonsulo dawesebulebis Tanamdebobis pirebi

1. diplomatiur warmomadgenlobasa da sakonsulo dawesebulebaSi diplomatiurTanamdebobaze rotaciis wesiT samuSao mivlinebiT, diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobisxelmZRvanelis, agreTve Tavdacvis ataSes da saqarTvelos Tavdacvis saministros war-momadgenlis garda, warigzavnebian saministros diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis pirebi.

2. diplomatiur warmomadgenlobasa da sakonsulo dawesebulebaSi aradiplomati-ur Tanamdebobaze rotaciis wesiT samuSao mivlinebiT warigzavneba saministros ad-ministraciul-teqnikuri personali.

3. gansakuTrebul SemTxvevaSi diplomatiur warmomadgenlobasa da sakonsulodawesebulebaSi aradiplomatiur Tanamdebobaze rotaciis wesiT samuSao mivlinebiTsaministrosTan SeTanxmebiT SeiZleba wargzavnil iqnes piri, romelic ar aris saminis-tros sistemis mosamsaxure.

muxli 23. diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobidan da sakonsulodawesebulebidan rotaciis wesiT gamowveuli pirebi

1. diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobidan da sakonsulo dawesebulebidan rotaciiswesiT samuSao mivlinebis vadis gasvlis gamo gamowveuli pirebi saministroSi Sesabami-si vakanturi Tanamdebobis arsebobis SemTxvevaSi unda dainiSnon Sesabamis Tanamde-bobaze.

2. diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobidan da sakonsulo dawesebulebidan rotaciiswesiT samuSao mivlinebis vadis gasvlis gamo gamowveuli pirebi saministroSi Sesabami-si vakansiis ararsebobis SemTxvevaSi iricxebian diplomatiuri samsaxuris rezervSi.

muxli 24. diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobidan da sakonsulo dawesebulebidanTanamdebobis piris vadaze adre gamowvevis safuZvlebi

1. diplomatiur warmomadgenlobasa da sakonsulo dawesebulebaSi rotaciis wesiTsamuSao mivlinebis vadaze adre Sewyveta da Tanamdebobis piris vadaze adre gamowveva,diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobis xelmZRvanelis, Tavdacvis ataSes da saqarTvelosTavdacvis saministros warmomadgenlis garda, ministrma SeiZleba ganaxorcielos:

a) diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobis an sakonsulo dawesebulebis likvidaciisas an/da reorganizaciisas;

257

b) diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobis an sakonsulo dawesebulebis saStato ganrig-iT gaTvaliswinebul TanamdebobaTa Semcirebisas;

g) mivlinebuli piris adgilsamyofeli saxelmwifos mier „persona non gratad"gamocxadebisas;

d) mniSvnelovani saerTaSoriso garTulebisas, romelic SeiZleba gamoiwvios dip-lomatiuri an sakonsulo Tanamdebobis piris Semdgomma muSaobam adgilsamyofel sax-elmwifoSi;

e) Tanamdebobis piris TanxmobiT misi sxva Tanamdebobaze gadayvanisas;v) Tanamdebobis piris moTxovnisas;z) Tanamdebobis piris mZime avadmyofobisas, romelic SeuZlebels xdis mis mier dak-

isrebul movaleobaTa Sesrulebas;T) Tanamdebobis piris gardacvalebisas;i) Tanamdebobis piris mier dakisrebul movaleobaTa arajerovnad Sesrulebis gamo;k) saqarTvelos kanonmdeblobiT gaTvaliswinebul sxva SemTxvevebSi.2. vadaze adre gamowveva xdeba ministris administraciul-samarTlebrivi aqtiT,

saministros xelmZRvanelobis, saministros generaluri inspeqciis an/da diplomati-uri warmomadgenlobis xelmZRvanelis wardginebiT.

muxli 25. saqarTvelos sakanonmdeblo xelisuflebis organoSi arCeva da saerTaSoriso organizaciaSi samuSaod mivlineba

1. diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis piri, romelic arCeuli iqneba saqarTvelos sakanon-mdeblo xelisuflebis organoSi an saxelmwifoebrivi saWiroebis SemTxvevaSi samuSaodmivlinebuli iqneba saerTaSoriso organizaciaSi (an saqarTvelos saxelmwifo dawese-bulebaSi), iricxeba diplomatiuri samsaxuris rezervSi da Sesabamisi uflebamosileb-is vadis gasvlis Semdeg SeiZleba dainiSnos diplomatiur samsaxurSi Sesabamis Tanam-debobaze.

2. am muxlis pirveli punqtiT gansazRvrul pirs unarCundeba diplomatiuri rangi,sargeblobs saqarTvelos kanonmdeblobiT gaTvaliswinebuli SeRavaTebiT da SesaZle-belia wardgenil iqnes morigi diplomatiuri rangis misaniWeblad.

muxli 26. diplomatiuri samsaxuris rezervi

1. am kanonis 24-e muxlis pirveli punqtis „a“ – „d“, „v“ da „z“ qvepunqtebis safuZ-velze rotaciis wesiT samuSao mivlinebis vadaze adre Sewyvetisa da rotaciis wesiTsamuSao mivlinebis vadis gasvlis gamo gamowveuli pirebi, agreTve is pirebi, romlebmacwarmatebiT gaiares konkursi, magram vakansiis ararsebobis gamo ver dainiSnnen Sesaba-mis Tanamdebobaze, Caricxuli iqnebian diplomatiuri samsaxuris rezervSi da vakan-turi Tanamdebobis dakavebisas mieniWebaT upiratesoba maTi diplomatiuri rangisada kvalifikaciis Sesabamisad.

2. sazRvargareT saswavleblad gamgzavrebuli pirebis diplomatiuri samsaxurisrezervSi Caricxvis pirobebi ganisazRvreba diplomatiuri samsaxuris gavlis wesiT.

3. diplomatiuri samsaxuris rezervSi Caricxul, rotaciis wesiT samuSao mivlineb-is vadaze adre Sewyvetisa da rotaciis wesiT samuSao mivlinebis vadis gasvlis gamogamowveul pirebs ufleba aqvT, rezervSi yofnis periodSi axorcielebdnen anazRaure-bad saqmianobas sxva dawesebulebaSi.

4. am muxlis me-3 punqtis moqmedeba ar vrceldeba rotaciis wesiT samuSao mivlineb-is vadaze adre Sewyvetisa da rotaciis wesiT samuSao mivlinebis vadis gasvlis gamogamowveul im pirebze, romlebic uars ganacxadeben saministros mier SeTavazebul Tan-amdebobaze da survils gamoTqvamen, Caricxul iqnnen rezervSi.

5. diplomatiuri samsaxuris rezervSi yofnis maqsimaluri vadaa 3 weli. aRniSnulivada ar vrceldeba am kanonis 25-e muxliT gansazRvrul pirebze.


258


muxli 27. diplomatiuri samsaxuris aqtiuri rezervi

1. saqarTvelos parlamentis aparatis, saqarTvelos prezidentis administraciis,saqarTvelos mTavrobis kancelariis, saqarTvelos Tavdacvis saministros, saqarTve-los erovnuli uSiSroebis sabWos aparatis, konfliqtebis mogvarebis sakiTxebSisaqarTvelos saxelmwifo ministris aparatis da evropul da evroatlantikur struq-turebSi integraciis sakiTxebSi saqarTvelos saxelmwifo ministris aparatis sajaromoxeleebi, agreTve saqarTvelos Sesabamisi saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebis an SeTanxmebissafuZvelze saqarTvelos Sinagan saqmeTa saministros da saqarTvelos sagareo daz-vervis specialuri samsaxuris TanamSromlebi, romlebic monawileoben qveynis sagareopolitikuri kursisa da saerTaSoriso urTierTobebis Sesaxeb winadadebebis SemuSave-basa da ganxorcielebaSi, iricxebian diplomatiuri samsaxuris aqtiur rezervSi.

2. diplomatiuri samsaxuris aqtiur rezervSi Casaricxi pirebis TanamdebobaTanusxa, garda saqarTvelos parlamentis aparatis sajaro moxeleebisa, ministris ward-ginebiT ganisazRvreba saqarTvelos prezidentis brZanebulebiT.

3. diplomatiuri samsaxuris aqtiur rezervSi Casaricxi saqarTvelos parlamentisaparatis sajaro moxeleebis nusxas adgens saqarTvelos parlamentis Tavmjdomare.

muxli 28. diplomatiur warmomadgenlobasa da sakonsulodawesebulebaSi rotaciis wesiT samuSao mivlinebis vada

1. diplomatiur warmomadgenlobasa da sakonsulo dawesebulebaSi rotaciis wesiTsamuSao mivlinebis TiToeuli vada diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobis xelmZRvaneli-saTvis da generaluri konsulisaTvis aris 4 weli, xolo diplomatiuri Tanamdebobisyvela sxva pirisaTvis – 3 weli.

2. administraciul-teqnikuri personalisaTvis sazRvargareT samuSao mivlinebisvadaa 3 weli.

3. diplomatiur warmomadgenlobasa da sakonsulo dawesebulebaSi rotaciis wesiTsamuSao mivlinebiT wargzavna da gamowveva xorcieldeba ministris administraciul-samarTlebrivi aqtis safuZvelze.

muxli 29. diplomatiur warmomadgenlobasa da sakonsulo dawesebulebaSi sam-uSao mivlinebis vadis gagrZeleba

ministri uflebamosilia:a) saqarTvelos prezidentTan SeTanxmebiT, rotaciis wesiT samuSao mivlinebis vada

gaugrZelos diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobis xelmZRvanels;b) diplomatiur warmomadgenlobasa da sakonsulo dawesebulebaSi rotaciis wesiT

samuSao mivlinebiT wargzavnili Tanamdebobis piris mivlinebis vada gansakuTrebulSemTxvevaSi gaagrZelos 1 wlamde, xolo generaluri konsulis mivlinebis vada – 2 wlamde;

g) diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobis xelmZRvanelis an generaluri konsulis ward-ginebis safuZvelze, misi mivlinebis vadis gasvlamde, gaugrZelos mivlinebis vada dip-lomatiur warmomadgenlobasa da sakonsulo dawesebulebaSi momuSave administraci-ul-teqnikur personals.

muxli 30. saqmeTa droebiTi rwmunebulis daniSvna

1. diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobis xelmZRvanelis mier movaleobaTa droebiT Seus-ruleblobis SemTxvevaSi diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobis muSaobas xelmZRvanelobssaqmeTa droebiTi rwmunebuli.

2. Sesabamisi diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis piri saqmeTa droebiT rwmunebulad iniS-neba ministris administraciul-samarTlebrivi aqtiT.

259

muxli 31. sakonsulo dawesebulebis xelmZRvanelis movaleobis Semsruleblis daniSvna

sakonsulo dawesebulebis xelmZRvanelis mier movaleobaTa droebiT Seusruleblo-bis SemTxvevaSi sakonsulo dawesebulebis muSaobas xelmZRvanelobs ministris miergansazRvruli piri – sakonsulo dawesebulebis xelmZRvanelis movaleobis Semsrulebeli.

muxli 32. Tavdacvis ataSe, saqarTvelos Tavdacvis saministroswarmomadgeneli da maTi aparatebi

1. saqarTvelos Tavdacvis ministrma, saministrosTan SeTanxmebiT, diplomatiurwarmomadgenlobaSi SeiZleba samuSaod miavlinos Tavdacvis ataSe, xolo saerTaSorisoorganizaciaSi – saqarTvelos Tavdacvis saministros warmomadgeneli, romlebic Se-dian diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobis personalis SemadgenlobaSi da samxedro xasia-Tis urTierTobebSi TavianTi kompetenciis farglebSi warmoadgenen saqarTvelos.

2. Tavdacvis ataSe da saqarTvelos Tavdacvis saministros warmomadgeneli imyo-febian diplomatiuri warmomadgenlobis xelmZRvanelis operatiul da saqarTvelosTavdacvis ministris administraciul daqvemdebarebaSi.

3. adgilsamyofel saxelmwifosTan SeTanxmebiT, Tavdacvis ataSe SeiZleba akred-itebul iyos or an orze met saxelmwifoSi.

4. adgilsamyofel saxelmwifosTan SeTanxmebiT SeiZleba dafuZnebul iqnes Tav-dacvis ataSes aparati, xolo saerTaSoriso organizaciasTan SeiZleba dafuZnebul iqnessaqarTvelos Tavdacvis saministros warmomadgenlis aparati, romlebSic Sedianaparatis ufrosi da umcrosi diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis pirebi, administraciul-teqnikuri personali da momsaxure personali.

5. Tavdacvis ataSes, saqarTvelos Tavdacvis saministros warmomadgenlis da maTiaparatebis saqmianobis wesi da Tanamdebobebis dasaxelebebi ganisazRvreba debulebiT,romelsac saministrosTan SeTanxmebiT amtkicebs saqarTvelos Tavdacvis ministri.

6. Tavdacvis ataSes, saqarTvelos Tavdacvis saministros warmomadgenels da maTaparatebs materialur-teqnikurad uzrunvelyofs saqarTvelos Tavdacvis saminis-tro. am pirebisa da maTi aparatebis Tanamdebobis pirTa Tanamdebobrivi sargoebi daaparatebis Senaxvis xarjebi ganisazRvreba saqarTvelos Tavdacvis ministris adminis-traciulsamarTlebrivi aqtiT.

7. Tavdacvis ataSes, saqarTvelos Tavdacvis saministros warmomadgenlis da maTiaparatebis Tanamdebobis pirTa mier samsaxuris gavlis, maTi gamowvevis, socialuridacvisa da garantiebis mimarT gamoiyeneba am kanoniT dadgenili wesebi.

8. Tavdacvis ataSe, saqarTvelos Tavdacvis saministros warmomadgeneli, maTiaparatebis Tanamdebobis pirebi da maTi ojaxis wevrebi pirveladi sayofacxovrebomowyobisaTvis erTjeradad iReben Tanxas, romlis miznobriobasa da odenobas, adgil-samyofeli saxelmwifos TaviseburebaTa gaTvaliswinebiT da saqarTvelos finansTasaministrosTan SeTanxmebiT, adgens saqarTvelos Tavdacvis ministri.

9. Tavdacvis ataSes, saqarTvelos Tavdacvis saministros warmomadgenlis an maTTan mcx-ovrebi ojaxis wevris gardacvalebis SemTxvevaSi saqarTvelos Tavdacvis saministro dafaravsyvela xarjs, maT Soris, gardacvlilis saqarTveloSi gadmosvenebis safasurs.

Tavi IV

diplomatiuri rangebi

muxli 33. diplomatiuri rangebis miniWeba

1. diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis pirebs saministros sakonkurso-saatestacio komisi-is daskvnis safuZvelze, ministris administraciul-samarTlebrivi aqtiT, dakavebuli


260


Tanamdebobis, namsaxurebi wlebis, profesiuli momzadebisa da damsaxurebis Sesabamis-ad eniWebaT diplomatiuri rangebi, umaRlesi diplomatiuri rangebis garda.

2. diplomatiuri rangebis miniWebis wess gansazRvravs ministri.3. diplomatiuri rangisaTvis dawesebulia Sesabamisi danamati, romlis odenobac

ganisazRvreba saqarTvelos prezidentis brZanebulebiT.4. diplomatiuri rangi aseve mieniWebaT diplomatiuri samsaxuris aqtiur rezerv-

Si myof pirebs am muxlis pirveli punqtiT gansazRvruli wesis Sesabamisad.

muxli 34. umaRlesi diplomatiuri rangebis miniWeba

1. umaRlesi diplomatiuri rangebi SeiZleba mieniWoT mxolod umaRlesi diploma-tiuri Tanamdebobis pirebs saqarTvelos prezidentis mier, ministris wardginebiT.

2. sagangebo da sruluflebiani elCis diplomatiuri rangi SeiZleba mieniWoT mx-olod im umaRlesi diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis pirebs, romlebsac ukaviaT an ekavaTdiplomatiuri warmomadgenlobis xelmZRvanelis Tanamdeboba.

muxli 35. diplomatiuri rangebis kategoriebi

diplomatiur samsaxurSi dawesebulia diplomatiuri rangebis Semdegi kategoriebi:a) umaRlesi diplomatiuri rangebi:a.a) sagangebo da sruluflebiani elCi;a.b) sagangebo da sruluflebiani despani;b) ufrosi diplomatiuri rangebi:b.a) ufrosi mrCeveli;b.b) mrCeveli;b.g) umcrosi mrCeveli;g) umcrosi diplomatiuri rangebi:g.a) pirveli mdivani;g.b) meore mdivani;g.g) mesame mdivani;g.d) ataSe.

muxli 36. diplomatiuri rangebis miniWebis vadebi

1. diplomatiuri rangebis miniWebisaTvis gansazRvrulia diplomatiuri samsaxurisgavlis Semdegi vadebi:

a) „ataSes“ pirveladi diplomatiuri rangis miniWebisaTvis – diplomatiuri samsax-uris gavlis 1 weli;

b) „mdivnis“ diplomatiuri rangis miniWebisaTvis – diplomatiuri samsaxuris gav-lis 2 weli;

g) „mrCevlis“ diplomatiuri rangis miniWebisaTvis – diplomatiuri samsaxuris gav-lis 3 weli.

2. Sesabamis Tanamdebobaze daniSvnis an gansakuTrebuli damsaxurebis gamo dasaSve-bia diplomatiuri rangis vadaze adre miniWeba.

3. TiToeuli kategoriis farglebSi diplomatiuri rangis vadaze adre miniWebadasaSvebia mxolod erTxel.

muxli 37. diplomatiuri rangebis kategoriebisa dadiplomatiuri Tanamdebobebis Tanafardoba

1. umaRlesi diplomatiuri rangebi SeiZleba mieniWoT umaRlesi diplomatiuri Tan-amdebobis pirebs.

261

2. ufrosi diplomatiuri rangebi SeiZleba mieniWoT ufrosi diplomatiuri Tanam-debobis pirebs. ufros diplomatiur Tanamdebobaze pirvelad daniSnul pirs eniWeba„umcrosi mrCevlis~ diplomatiuri rangi.

3. umcrosi diplomatiuri rangebi SeiZleba mieniWoT umcrosi diplomatiuri Tan-amdebobis pirebs.

muxli 38. diplomatiuri rangebis moqmedebis vada

1. umaRlesi diplomatiuri rangis miniWeba xdeba samudamod.2. diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis piris mier diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis datovebis

SemTxvevaSi xdeba miniWebuli ufrosi an umcrosi diplomatiuri rangis moqmedebis Se-Cereba diplomatiur Tanamdebobaze mis xelaxal daniSvnamde.

3. diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis piris diplomatiur samsaxurSi dabrunebisas xdebaim diplomatiuri rangis moqmedebis aRdgena, romelic mas miniWebuli hqonda diploma-tiuri Tanamdebobidan gaTavisuflebamde.

4. diplomatiuri rangis miniWeba dasturdeba Sesabamisi mowmobis gacemiT.5. umaRlesi diplomatiuri rangis miniWeba dasturdeba Sesabamisi mowmobis gacemi-

Ta da saqarTvelos prezidentis mier saTanado sigelis gadacemiT.

muxli 39. saklaso Cinis miniWeba

administraciul-teqnikur personals, saqarTvelos kanonmdeblobis Sesabamisad,SeiZleba mieniWos saxelmwifo moxeleTaTvis dawesebuli saklaso Cinebi.

Tavi V

samsaxuridan gaTavisufleba

muxli 40. samsaxuridan gaTavisufleba

1. diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis pirs da administraciul-teqnikur personals(SemdgomSi – piri) samsaxuridan aTavisuflebs ministri.

2. piris samsaxuridan gaTavisuflebis safuZvlebia:a) piradi gancxadeba;b) daniSvnis Sesaxeb brZanebiT gaTvaliswinebuli vadis gasvla;g) saStato nusxiT gaTvaliswinebul TanamdebobaTa Semcireba;d) sxva samsaxurSi gadasvla;e) arakanonierad gaTavisuflebuli piris samsaxurSi aRdgena kanonier ZalaSi Sesu-

li sasamarTlos Sesabamisi gadawyvetilebis safuZvelze;v) dakavebul TanamdebobasTan Seusabamoba, kerZod:v.a) atestaciis aradamakmayofilebeli Sedegebi;v.b) janmrTelobis aradamakmayofilebeli mdgomareoba;v.g) gamosacdeli vadis aradamakmayofilebeli Sedegebi;z) samsaxurebrivi disciplinis darRveva, Tu piris mimarT ukve moqmedebs disci-

plinuri pasuxismgeblobis nebismieri sxva zoma, an samsaxurebrivi disciplinis uxeSidarRveva;

T) danaSaulis Cadena kanonier ZalaSi Sesuli sasamarTlos gamamtyunebeli ganaCe-nis safuZvelze;

i) Tanamdebobrivi SeuTavsebloba, Tu igi ar aRmoifxvra SeuTavseblobis gamov-lenidan 10 dRis vadaSi;


262


k) narkotikuli saSualebebis, fsiqotropuli an toqsikuri nivTierebebis ukanonomoxmareba;

l) samsaxuris an misi struqturuli qvedanayofis reorganizacia an/da likvidacia;m) 65 wlis asakis miRweva;n) gardacvaleba;o) moqalaqeobis Secvla;p) ugzo-ukvlod dakargulad aRiareba;J) qmeduunarod aRiareba;r) rotaciis wesiT samuSao mivlinebis vadaze adre Sewyveta am kanonis 24-e muxlis

pirveli punqtis „g“, „d“, „v“, „z“ an „T“ qvepunqtebis Sesabamisad.

Tavi VI

socialuri dacva da garantiebi

muxli 41. diplomatiuri da sakonsulo imuniteti

1. rotaciis wesiT samuSao mivlinebaSi wargzavnili piri da misi ojaxis wevrebisaqarTvelos saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebisa da SeTanxmebebis Sesabamisad sarge-bloben diplomatiuri da sakonsulo imunitetiT.

2. pirisa da misi ojaxis wevrebisaTvis diplomatiur da sakonsulo imunitetze uarisTqmis Sesaxeb gadawyvetilebas iRebs ministri.

muxli 42. rotaciis wesiT samuSao mivlinebaSi wargzavnili pirisa da misi ojaxiswevrebis socialuri dacva

1. sazRvargareT diplomatiuri da sakonsulo saqmianobis ganxorcielebam ar undamiayenos ziani pirsa da misi ojaxis wevrebs.

2. saministro valdebulia, yovelmxrivi daxmareba aRmouCinos rotaciis wesiT sam-uSao mivlinebaSi wargzavnil pirsa da misi ojaxis wevrebs adgilsamyofel saxelmwifo-Si sayofacxovrebo pirobebis SeqmnaSi.

3. saministro, diplomatiuri warmomadgenloba da sakonsulo dawesebuleba valde-buli arian, yovelmxrivi daxmareba aRmouCinon adgilsamyofel saxelmwifoSi myof pire-bis ojaxebs.

4. diplomatiur warmomadgenlobasa da sakonsulo dawesebulebaSi rotaciis wesiTsamuSao mivlinebaSi wargzavnili piris meuRles saqarTveloSi dabrunebamde unar-Cundeba Tanamdeboba im saxelmwifo samsaxurSi, romelSic igi muSaobda meuRlis miv-linebamde.

muxli 43. diplomatiuri an sakonsulo saqmianobis ganxorcieleba rTul poli-tikur, ekonomikur, sayofacxovrebo, kriminogenul da klimatur pirobebSi

1. diplomatiuri an sakonsulo saqmianobis gansaxorcieleblad diplomatiuri Tan-amdebobis piris mivlineba im qveynebSi, sadac rTuli politikuri, ekonomikuri, say-ofacxovrebo, kriminogenuli da klimaturi pirobebia, dasaSvebia mxolod diploma-tiuri Tanamdebobis piris TanxmobiT.

2. mivlinebis adgilebSi SeiaraRebuli an samoqalaqo konfliqtebis, stiqiuri ube-durebebis an sxva iseTi viTarebis warmoSobisas, romelic safrTxes uqmnis samuSaodmivlinebuli pirisa da misi ojaxis wevrebis sicocxlesa da qonebas, saqarTvelo iRebsyvela saWiro zomas maTi sicocxlisa da qonebis usafrTxoebis uzrunvelsayofad dadasacavad.

263

muxli 44. rotaciis wesiT samuSao mivlinebis ganxorcielebisaTvis saWiro mgzavrobis, pirveladi mowyobisa da gansakuTrebuli mdgomareobis SeqmnasTan dakavSirebuli xarjebi

diplomatiur warmomadgenlobasa da sakonsulo dawesebulebaSi rotaciis wesiTsamuSao mivlinebaSi wargzavnil pirs da misi ojaxis wevrebs, ministris administraci-ul-samarTlebrivi aqtis Sesabamisad, mgzavrobis orive mimarTulebiT unazRaurde-baT mgzavrobisa da piradi tvirTis gadazidvis xarjebi, adgilsamyofel saxelmwifoSipirveladi mowyobis xarjebi da yovelwliuri Svebulebis dros mgzavrobasTan dakav-Sirebuli xarjebi (ara umetes saqarTveloSi gamomgzavrebasTan da saqarTvelodan gamg-zavrebasTan dakavSirebuli xarjebis odenobisa).

muxli 45. rotaciis wesiT samuSao mivlinebaSi wargzavnilipiris sayofacxovrebo da socialuri uzrunvelyofa

1. sazRvargareT diplomatiuri da sakonsulo saqmianobis ganxorcielebisas piriuzrunvelyofili unda iyos sacxovrebliT masTan mcxovreb ojaxis wevrTa raodeno-bis, misi Tanamdebobrivi mdgomareobisa da adgilobrivi pirobebis gaTvaliswinebiT.

2. rotaciis wesiT samuSao mivlinebaSi wargzavnili piri da misi ojaxis wevrebiuzrunvelyofili unda iyvnen savaldebulo samedicino dazRveviTa da samedicino mom-saxurebiT.

3. diplomatiur warmomadgenlobasa da sakonsulo dawesebulebaSi rotaciis wesiTsamuSao mivlinebaSi wargzavnili piris an masTan mcxovrebi ojaxis wevris gardacvaleb-is SemTxvevaSi saministro dafaravs yvela xarjs, maT Soris, gardacvlilis saqarTvelo-Si gadmosvenebis safasurs.

muxli 46. rotaciis wesiT samuSao mivlinebaSi wargzavnili Tanamdebobis piris Svebuleba

diplomatiur warmomadgenlobasa da sakonsulo dawesebulebaSi rotaciis wesiTsamuSao mivlinebaSi wargzavnil Tanamdebobis pirs ufleba aqvs, isargeblos kuTvniliSvebulebiT, romlis xangrZlivobaa weliwadSi 30 kalendaruli dRe.

Tavi VII

diplomatiuri samsaxuris finansuri da

organizaciuli uzrunvelyofa

muxli 47. diplomatiuri samsaxuris finansuri uzrunvelyofa

1. saxelmwifo uzrunvelyofs diplomatiuri samsaxuris, misi personalisa da qonebisusafrTxoebis gansakuTrebul dacvas rogorc saqarTvelos teritoriaze, ise sazR-vargareT, saqarTvelos konstituciis, saqarTvelos saerTaSoriso xelSekrulebebisada SeTanxmebebis da saqarTvelos kanonmdeblobis Sesabamisad.

2. diplomatiuri samsaxurisa da misi personalis materialur-teqnikuri da finan-suri uzrunvelyofa rogorc saqarTvelos teritoriaze, ise sazRvargareT, xorcield-eba saqarTvelos saxelmwifo biujetis xarjze.

3. diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis pirTa socialuri dacvis sxva garantiebi gan-isazRvreba ministris administraciul-samarTlebrivi aqtiT.


264


muxli 48. diplomatiuri samsaxuris sakomunikacioda saarqivo uzrunvelyofa

1. diplomatiur samsaxurs aqvs sakuriero momsaxurebis damoukidebeli sistema. igisargeblobs saxelisuflebo specialuri kavSirebis sistemebiT, saerTo daniSnulebissafeldiegero samsaxuriT da kavSirgabmulobisa da fostis sistemebiT.

2. diplomatiur samsaxurs aqvs sakuTari arqivi, romelSic daculia diplomatiuriurTierTobebis amsaxveli mniSvnelovani dokumentebi.

Tavi VIII

gardamavali da daskvniTi debulebani

muxli 49. gardamavali debulebani

1. am kanonis debulebebi vrceldeba saministros sistemis yvela Tanamdebobis pirze,maTi daniSvnis TariRis miuxedavad.

2. am kanonis amoqmedebisaTvis diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis pirebTan gaTanabrebu-li pirebi Cairicxebian diplomatiuri samsaxuris aqtiur rezervSi.

3. am kanonis amoqmedebasTan dakavSirebiT:a) eTxovos saqarTvelos prezidents, am kanonis amoqmedebidan 2 Tvis vadaSi miiRos

normatiuli aqtebi „diplomatiuri samsaxuris aqtiur rezervSi Casaricx pirTa Tanam-debobrivi nusxis Sesaxeb" da „diplomatiuri rangisaTvis dawesebuli danamatis odeno-bis gansazRvris Sesaxeb";

b) eTxovos saqarTvelos parlamentis Tavmjdomares, am kanonis amoqmedebidan 2 TvisvadaSi daadginos saqarTvelos parlamentis aparatis sajaro moxeleebis nusxa, rom-lebic unda Cairicxon diplomatiuri samsaxuris aqtiur rezervSi;

g) saqarTvelos sagareo saqmeTa ministrma am kanonis amoqmedebidan 2 Tvis vadaSiuzrunvelyos Semdegi administraciulsamarTlebrivi aqtebis gamocema:

g.a) „sazRvargareT saqarTvelos diplomatiur warmomadgenlobebsa da sakonsulodawesebulebebSi samuSaod mivlinebuli mosamsaxurisa da misi ojaxis wevrTa pirveladimowyobis xarjebis anazRaurebis wesis Sesaxeb";

g.b) „saqarTvelos sagareo saqmeTa saministros sistemis mosamsaxureTa atestaciisada konkursis Catarebis debulebis damtkicebis Sesaxeb";

g.g) „diplomatiuri samsaxuris gavlis wesis Sesaxeb";g.d) „sazRvargareT saqarTvelos diplomatiur warmomadgenlobebsa da sakonsulo

dawesebulebebSi rotaciis wesiT samuSaod mivlinebul pirTa grZelvadiani samuSao miv-linebis anazRaurebis wesis Sesaxeb";

g.e) „diplomatiuri rangis miniWebis wesis Sesaxeb";g.v) „diplomatiuri Tanamdebobis pirTa socialuri dacvis sxva garantiebis gan-

sazRvris Sesaxeb";d) saqarTvelos Tavdacvis ministrma am kanonis amoqmedebidan 2 Tvis vadaSi uzrun-

velyos Semdegi administraciul-samarTlebrivi aqtebis gamocema:d.a) „Tavdacvis ataSes, saqarTvelos Tavdacvis saministros warmomadgenlis da maTi

aparatebis saqmianobis wesisa da Tanamdebobebis dasaxelebebis Sesaxeb debulebis damt-kicebis Taobaze";

d.b) „Tavdacvis ataSes, saqarTvelos Tavdacvis saministros warmomadgenlis da maTiaparatebis Tanamdebobis pirTa Tanamdebobrivi sargoebisa da aparatebis Senaxvis xar-jebis gansazRvris Sesaxeb";

d.g) „Tavdacvis ataSes, saqarTvelos Tavdacvis saministros warmomadgenlis, maTiaparatebis Tanamdebobis pirebisa da maTi ojaxis wevrebis pirveladi sayofacxovrebomowyobisaTvis erTjeradi Tanxis odenobis gansazRvris Sesaxeb~.

265

muxli 50. daskvniTi debulebani

1. es kanoni amoqmeddes 2008 wlis 1 ianvridan.2. am kanonis amoqmedebisTanave Zaladakargulad iqnes cnobili saqarTvelos 1999

wlis 25 ivnisis kanoni „diplomatiuri samsaxuris Sesaxeb" (saqarTvelos sakanonmdeblo mac-ne, #30(37), 1999 weli, mux. 161).

saqarTvelos prezidentismovaleobis Semsrulebelin. burjanaZe

Tbilisi,2007 wlis 7 dekemberi.#5568_IIs


Tarjimnebi: mixeil Ciqobava

qeTevan xuciSvili

redaqtori/koreqtori Tamar gabelaia

komp. uzrunvelyofa lali kurdRelaSvili

Translation: Micheil ChikobavaKetevan Khutsishvili

Editor/Corrector Tamar Gabelaia

IT Support Lali Kurdgelashvili