تناسب (قانون)


التناسب (Proportionality)، هو مبدأ عام في القانون يشمل عدة مفاهيم منفصلة (رغم أنها مترابطة):

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

التناسب كمبدأ عام في القنون

التاريخ

تطور مفهوم التناسب القابل للاختبار في القانون لأول مرة في المحاكم الإدارية العليا للدولة (ألمانية: Oberverwaltungsgericht) في ألمانيا أواخر القرن التاسع عشر، لمراجعة الإجراءات التي تتخذها الشرطة.[2]

نشأ اختبار التناسب بشكل منهجي مع السوابق القضائية للمحكمة الدستورية الاتحادية، Bundesverfassungsgericht.[3]

قانون الاتحاد الأوروپي

In European Union law there are generally acknowledged to be four stages to a proportionality test, namely,[4]

  • there must be a legitimate aim for a measure
  • the measure must be suitable to achieve the aim (potentially with a requirement of evidence to show it will have that effect)
  • the measure must be necessary to achieve the aim, that there cannot be any less onerous way of doing it
  • the measure must be reasonable, considering the competing interests of different groups at hand

It is, however, often seen that the third and fourth criteria are often merged into one by the European Court of Justice, depending on the margin of discretion that the Court sees as being afforded to the member state. Examples are found in R (Seymour-Smith) v Secretary of State for Employment, where the ECJ points out that a member state has some discretion in the policies it pursues, surrounding unfair dismissal, in reducing unemployment. Further examples of the proportionality test are seen in Mangold v Helm and Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co KG.

الاتفاقية الأوروپية لحقوق الإنسان

In the European Convention on Human Rights, proportionality is one of main principles utilised by the European Court of Human Rights used for scrutinizing actions adopted by national authorities which restricts rights under the Convention[5] - the other is the margin of appreciation.

أستراليا

While the European Union has placed a consistent focus on the proportionality test in the context of policy issues, namely human rights, the proportionality test in the Australian context is a matter of constitutional interpretation with respect to legislative power under the Constitution. Unlike Europe, the proportionality test as a means to characterize whether Commonwealth legislation falls under a head of power under section 51 of the Constitution of Australia,[6] has attracted divergent viewpoints, in which Kirby J has remarked that the 'test has not enjoyed universal favour'.[7] However, Owen Dixon CJ made clear that 'the question is essentially one of connexion, not appropriateness of proportionality, and where a sufficient connexion is established, it is not for the Court to judge whether the law is inappropriate or disproportionate'.[8]

القانون الجنائي

In criminal law, the principle of proportional justice is used to describe the idea that the punishment of a certain crime should be in proportion to the severity of the crime itself. In practice, systems of law differ greatly on the application of this principle. The principle of guilt is an absolute standard from which the 17th century Bloody Code of England emerged, which specified the death penalty even for minor crimes. In the 18th century Cesare Beccaria published On Crimes and Punishments which was to form the basis of penology based on the relative standard of culpability.

As a result Jeremy Bentham developed the idea of the panopticon in which prisoners would simply be watched, rather than subjected to corporal punishment. The idea in practice became a cruel and ineffective corrective. In some systems, proportionality was interpreted as lex talionis, (an eye for an eye). In others, it has led to a more restrictive manner of sentencing: for example, all European Union countries have accepted as a treaty obligation that no crime warrants the death penalty, whereas some other countries in the world do use it.

In self-defense cases, the amount of force employed by the defender must be proportionate to the threatened aggressive force. If deadly force is used to defend against non-deadly force, the harm inflicted by the actor (death or serious bodily harm) will be greater than the harm avoided (less than serious bodily harm). Even if deadly force is proportionate, its use must be necessary. Otherwise, unlawful conduct will only be justified when it involves the lesser harm of two harmful choices. If countering with non-deadly force or with no force at all avoids the threatened harm, defensive use of deadly force is no longer the lesser evil of only two choices. Alternatives involving still less societal harm are available.

In United States Law, the United States Supreme Court proposed the Proportionality Doctrine in three cases during the 1980s, namely Enmund v. Florida (1982), Solem v. Helm (1983) and Tison v. Arizona (1987), to clarify this key principle of proportionality within the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment. The fundamental principle behind proportionality is that the punishment should fit the crime. In 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that courts must do three things to decide whether a sentence is proportional to a specific crime:[9]

  1. Compare the nature and gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty,
  2. Compare the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; i.e., whether more serious crimes are subject to the same penalty or to less serious penalties, and
  3. Compare the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.

Proportionality is also present in other areas of municipal law in the United States, such as civil procedure. For example, it is embodied in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C), which considers whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.[10] Proportionality is a key consideration in the discovery process, and has been applied to e-discovery, where it has been attributed with significant cost-savings.[11] It is likely that proportionality will be applied to new and developing areas of law, such as the law of legal technology.

القانون الإنساني الدولي

ينبغي أن يكون الضرر الذي يلحق بالمدنيين المحميين أو الممتلكات المدنية متناسبًا وليس "مفرطًا مقارنة بالميزة العسكرية الملموسة والمباشرة المتوقعة" من جراء الهجوم على الأهداف العسكرية.[12][13]

كان لويز مورينو-اوكامپو هو المدعي العام الرئيسي للمحكمة الجنائية الدولية الذي حقق في مزاعم جرائم الحرب أثناء غزو العراق 2003. نشر اوكامپو رسالة مفتوحة تحتوي عن النتائج التي توصل إليها. وفي قسم بعنوان "الادعاءات المتعلقة بجرائم الحرب"، يوضح استخدام التناسب:

بموجب القانون الإنساني الدولي وميثاق روما الأساسي، فإن وفاة المدنيين أثناء نزاع مسلح، مهما كانت خطيرة ومؤسفة، لا تشكل في حد ذاتها جريمة حرب. يسمح القانون الإنساني الدولي وقانون روما الأساسي الأساسي للأطراف المتحاربة بتنفيذ هجمات متناسبة ضد الأهداف العسكرية،[12] حتى عندما يكون من المعروف أنها ستنجم عن وقوع قتلى أو إصابات بين المدنيين. تقع الجريمة إذا كان هناك هجوم متعمد موجه ضد المدنيين (مبدأ التمييز) (المادة 8 (2) (ب) (ط)) أو تم شن هجوم على هدف عسكري مع العلم بأن الإصابات العرضية التي ستلحق بالمدنيين ستكون واضحة مفرطة فيما يتعلق بالميزة العسكرية المتوقعة (مبدأ التناسب) (المادة 8 (2) (ب) (4)).

تُجرم المادة 8(2)(ب)(4):
شن هجوم متعمد مع العلم أن هذا الهجوم سيتسبب في خسائر عرضية في الأرواح أو إصابات بين المدنيين أو أضرارًا للأعيان المدنية أو ضررًا واسع النطاق وطويل الأمد وشديدًا للبيئة الطبيعية والذي من الواضح أنه سيكون مفرطًا مقارنة بالميزة العسكرية الشاملة المتوقعة الملموسة والمباشرة؛
تستند المادة 8(2)(ب)(4) إلى المبادئ الواردة في المادة 51 (5)(ب) من الپروتوكول الأول الإضافي لعام 1977 من اتفاقيات جنيڤ لعام 1949، لكنها تقصر الحظر الجنائي على الحالات المفرطة "بشكل واضح". تطبيق المادة 8(2)(ب)(4) يتطلب، في جملة أمور، تقييماً لما يلي:
(أ) الأضرار أو الإصابات المتوقعة بين المدنيين؛
(ب) الميزة العسكرية المتوقعة؛

(ج) وما إذا كان (أ) "مفرطًا بشكل واضح" بالنسبة إلى (ب).

انظر أيضاً

المصادر

  1. ^ Ministry of Justice, Part 44: General Rules about Costs, rule 44.4, accessed 14 November 2022
  2. ^ Hirschberg 1981, p. 6.
  3. ^ BVerfGE 3, 383, 399 (1954)
  4. ^ P Craig and G de Burca, EU Law (5th edn OUP 2011) 526
  5. ^ Dolzhikov, Alexey V. (2011-12-09). "The European Court of Human Rights on the Principle of Proportionality in 'Russian' Cases" (in الإنجليزية). Rochester, NY. SSRN 2695159. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  6. ^ قالب:Cite Legislation AU.
  7. ^ قالب:Cite AustLII.
  8. ^ قالب:Cite AustLII.
  9. ^ "FindLaw | Cases and Codes". Caselaw.lp.findlaw.com. Retrieved 19 June 2013.
  10. ^ "Rule 26. Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure | LII / Legal Information Institute". Law.cornell.edu. Retrieved 19 June 2013.
  11. ^ Kozubek, Michael (2011-03-01). "Proportionality Doctrine Reduces E-Discovery Costs and Abuses". Insidecounsel.com. Retrieved 19 June 2013.
  12. ^ أ ب Article 52 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions provides a widely accepted definition of military objective: "In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage", (Moreno-Ocampo 2006, p. 5, footnote 11)
  13. ^ Shamash 2005–2006.
  14. ^ Moreno-Ocampo 2006, pp. 4–5. See section "Allegations concerning War Crimes".

المراجع


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

وصلات خارجية