6. فهرست منابع
6-1. منابع فارسی
1- ابهری، حمید؛ مهرداد پاکزاد و محمد مهدی پور (1400). «مفهوم و تأثیر اکراه در مسئولیت مدنی در حقوق ایران و فرانسه»، فصلنامه پژوهشهای حقوق تطبیقی، شماره 3 دوره 25، صص 21-1. 20.1001.1.22516751.1400.25.3.3.2
2- احمدینژاد، مریم و یاسر امینالرعایا (1395). «ماهیت حقوقی دکترین حاشیه مجاز تفسیر»، نشریه سیاست خارجی، شماره 2 سال 30، صص 139-115.
3- شریفیطرازکوهی، حسین و جواد مبینی (1393). «دکترین حاشیه مجاز تفسیر در رویه دادگاه اروپایی حقوق بشر»، فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق عمومی، شماره 44 سال 16، صص 103-73.
4- عزیزی، ستار و حسین حسینی محجوب (1402). «مفهوم امنیت ملی در رویه قضایی دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر»، پژوهشنامه حقوق تطبیقی، شماره 1 دوره 7، صص 149-129.
5- کریمآبادی، محمدصادق (1398). «جایگاه حقوقی دکترین دولتها در تفسیر معاهدات بینالمللی»، فصلنامه بینالمللی قانونیار، شماره 9 دوره 3، صص 370-343.
6- موسیزاده، رضا؛ و محمدرضا سبحانی و حسین شریفیطرازکوهی و سعید منصوری (1399). «مفهوم و جایگاه صلاحدید در حقوق بینالملل»، فصلنامه علمی تحقیقات حقوقی بینالمللی، شماره 47 سال 13، صص 26-1.
7- موسوی، سیدفضلالله و یاسر امینالرعایا (1393). «بررسی حدود اختیارات کشورهای اروپایی در ممنوع کردن حجاب با تکیه بر دکترین صلاحدید دولتها»، نشریه مطالعات زن و خانواده، شماره 1 دوره 2، صص 116-93. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.22051/jwfs.2014.1517
8- نعیمی، سید مرتضی (1401). «فلسفه الزامآور بودن قرارداد: بررسی تطبیقی در نظام حقوقی کامن لا و حقوق ایران»، فصلنامه پژوهشهای حقوق تطبیقی، شماره 4 دوره 26، صص 136-110.
9- ویژه، محمدرضا و رضوان پویا (1398). «تعارض حقوق فردی و اخلاق عمومی در پرتو رویه دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر»، فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق عمومی، شماره 62 دوره 20، صص 37-9. https://doi.org/10.22054/qjpl.2018.27503.1688
6-2. منابع انگلیسی
A) Articles
10- Abdul Ainoko, Aduku (2022). “The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the European Court of Human Rights: The Inconsistent Application in the Interpretation of the Right to Freedom of Expression and the Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion”, Strathclyde Law Review, Issue1 Vol5, pp. 91-111. https://www.strathclydelawreview.com
11- Bakircioglu, Onder (2007). “The Application of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in Freedom of Expression and Public Morality Cases”, German Law Journal, Issue7 Volume8, pp. 711-733. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200005885
12- Chagas, Carolina A (2022). “Balancing Competences and the Margin of Appreciation: Structuring Deference at the ECtHR”, ICL Journal, Issue1 Vol16, pp. 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1515/icl-2021-0009
13- Luttichau, A. Marie (1994). “What Is the Meaning and Effect of the Principle of Margin of Appreciation within the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights? Is the Principle Compatible with the Concept of Effective Protection of Rights?”, B.L.J. vol26.
14- Nyeronvwo Komiti, Peter (2023). “The Doctrines of Margin of Appreciation and Evolutive Interpretation: A Review of the European Court of Human Rights”, Journal of Policy & Governance, Issue02 vol03, pp. 59-69. 10.33002/jpg030203
15- O'Donnell, Thomas A (1982). “The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine: Standards in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights”, Human Rights Quarterly, No4 Vol4, pp. 474-496.
B) Books
16- Christoffersen, Jonas and Madsen Mikael Rask (2011). The European Court of Human Rights between Law and Politics, London, Oxford University Press.
17- Letsas, George (2007). A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights, London, Oxford University Press.
C) Cases
18- (24622/22) (29 August 2024), (ECtHR, Pasquinelli and Others v. San Marino)
19- (20007/22) (27 August 2024), (ECtHR, Bielau v. Austria)
20- (53162/21) (20 February 2024), (ECtHR, Diaconeasa v. Romania)
21- (21881/20) (27 November 2023), (ECtHR, Communauté genevoise d’action syndicale (CGAS) v. Switzerland)
22- (74131/14) (17 February 2022), (ECtHR, Y v. Poland)
23- (10613/10) (8 March 2022), (ECtHR, Ekrem Can and Others v. Turkey)
24- (78873/13) (11 January 2022), (ECtHR, Freitas Rangel v. Portugal)
25- (26081/17) (15 February 2022), (ECtHR, Anatoliy Marinov v. Bulgaria)
26- (39325/20) (3 February 2022), (ECtHR, Šeks v. Croatia)
27- (30254/18) (24 March 2022), (ECtHR, A.M. v. Norway)
28- (29907/16 and 3 others – see appended list) (25 January 2022), (ECtHR, Negovanovic’ and Others v. Serbia)
29- (58795/15) (21 December 2021), (ECtHR, Stolkowski v. Poland)
30- (57239/13) (16 December 2021), (ECtHR, Zaklan v. Croatia)
31- (14305/17) (22 December 2020), (ECtHR, Selahattin Demirtas v. Turkey)
32- (31295/11) (16 January 2020), (ECtHR, Yam v. the United Kingdom)
33- (37452/02) (7 July 2011), (ECtHR, Stummer v. Austria)
34- (37553/05) (15 October 2015), (ECtHR, Kudrevicius and Others v. Lithuania)
35- (19554/05) (15 May 2014), (ECtHR, Taranenko v. Russia)
36- (38832/06) (20 May 2010), (ECtHR, Alajos Kiss v. Hungary)
37- (29157/09) (26 July 2011), (ECtHR, Liu v. Russia)
38- (25358/12) (24 January 2017), (ECtHR, Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy)
39- (65192/11) (26 June 2014), (ECtHR, Mennesson v. France)
40- (8793/79) (21 February 1986), (ECtHR, James and Others v. The United Kingdom)
41- (31443/96) (22 June 2004), (ECtHR, Broniowski v. Poland)
42- (60642/08) (16 July 2014), (ECtHR, Alisic and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)
43- (25701/94) (23 November 2000), (ECtHR, the Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece)
44- (6339/05) (10 April 2007), (ECtHR, Evans v. the United Kingdom)
45- (9267/81) (2 March 1987), (ECtHR, Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium)
46- (55508/07 and 29520/09) (21 October 2013), (ECtHR, Janowiec and Others v. Russia)
47- (20261/12) (23 June 2016), (ECtHR, Baka v. Hungary)
48- (29777/96) (16 February 2000), (ECtHR, Fitt v. the United Kingdom)
49- (35289/11) (19 September 2017), (ECtHR, Regner v. the Czech Republic)
50- (28957/95) (11 July 2002), (ECtHR, Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom)
51- (37359/09) (16 July 2014), (ECtHR, Hamalainen v. Finland)
52- (8978/80) (26 March 1985), (ECtHR, X and Y v. the Netherlands)
53- (13444/04) (30 April 2009), (ECtHR, Glor v. Switzerland)
54- (21279/02 and 36448/02) (22 October 2007), (ECtHR, Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France)
55- (26682/95) (8 July 1999), (ECtHR, Surek v. Turkey)
56- (Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II) (27 March 1998), (ECtHR, Petrovic v Austria)
57- (13378/05) (29 April 2008), (ECtHR, Burden v. the United Kingdom)
58- (30141/04) (24 June 2010), (ECtHR, Schalk and Kopf v. Austria)
59- (19010/07) (19 February 2013), (ECtHR, X and Others v. Austria)
60- (40016/98) (24 July 2003), (ECtHR, Karner v. Austria)
61- (29369/10) (23 April 2015), (ECtHR, Morice v. France)
62- (17224/11) (27 June 2017), (ECtHR, Medzlis Islamske Zajednice Brcko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina)
63- (29381/09 and 32684/09) (7 November 2013), (ECtHR, Vallianatos and Others v. Greece)
64- (45851/99) (27 April 2000), (ECtHR, Shackell v. the United Kingdom)
65- (33290/96) (21 December 1999), (ECtHR, Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal)
66- (Series A 94) (28 May 1985), (ECtHR, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom)
67- ( 22723/93, 22724/93 and 22725/93) (9 April 2002), (ECtHR, Yazar and Others v. Turkey)
68- ( 23885/94) (8 December 1999), (ECtHR, Freedom and Democracy Party v. Turkey)
69- (133/1996/752/951) (30 January 1998), (ECtHR, United Communist Party of Turkey and others v. Turkey)
ترجمه منابع فارسی به انگلیسی
1-Abhary,H. & Pakzad, M. & Mehdipour, M. (2021). The concept and effect of reluctance in civil liability in Iranian and French law. Faslname pajooheshhaye Hoghoogh Tatbighi, 3(25), 1-21. 20.1001.1.22516751.1400.25.3.3.2
2-Ahmadinejad, M. & Amin Roaya, Y. (2017). Mahiyate Hoghooghie Doctrine Hashiye Mojaze Tafsir [The Legal Nature of the Doctrine of the Margin of Appreciation]. Nashriye Siyasat Khareji, 2(30), 115-139. [In Persian]
3-SharifiTarazkoohi, H. & Mobini, H. (2015). The Application of the Margin of
