Uluslararası Adalet Divanı'nda Yargı Bağımsızlığı Meselesinin Eleştirel Değerlendirmesi

Year 2024, Volume: 28 Issue: 3, 175 - 206, 30.07.2024

M. H. Mustafa Bektaş

https://doi.org/10.34246/ahbvuhfd.1418633

Abstract

Son yıllarda dünya siyasetine etki eden milliyetçiliğin yükselişi, çok taraflılığa dair şüphelerin artması, Covid-19 salgını ve Rusya-Ukrayna savaşı gibi gelişmeler göz önüne alındığında, uluslararası uyuşmazlıkların barışçıl çözümüne dair incelemelerin daha fazla önem kazandığı anlaşılmaktadır. Uluslararası uyuşmazlık çözüm mekanizmaları böylesine kritik bir dönemde talepleri karşılama ve itibarlarını koruma konusunda yeterli mi? Temelde politik olan ilgili oluşumların oldukça farklı kalması muhtemeldir ki bu, herhangi bir iyileştirici önlem almadan, bu bağlamda yaygın olarak kabul edilen kötü imaj sorunlarını daha da derinleştirebilecek bir gerçektir. Fakat bir yargı organı olarak Uluslararası Adalet Divanı'na (UAD) böyle bir serbestlik tanınması UAD’ın doğasına pek uygun olmayacaktır. UAD üyelerinin kendi ülkelerine olan bağlılıkları nedeniyle tarafsız kalabilmelerine dair endişeleri dile getiren bazı çalışmalar yapılmıştır. Nitekim bu, mevcut siyasi ruhun daha da tartışmalı hale getirdiği bir husustur. Bununla birlikte, tüm endişeleri ortadan kaldıracak kapsayıcı bir çözüm mevcut değildir. Mevcut çalışma çeşitli normatif değerlendirmeleri dikkate alıp, bu tür kaygıların UAD kararlarının otoritesini zayıflatabileceğine ilişkin değerlendirmelerde bulunmaktadır. Çalışma daha sonra, UAD'da süregelen yargı bağımsızlığına ilişkin tereddütlerin nasıl anlaşılması gerektiğini ele alıp nasıl aşılabileceği konusunu irdelemeye çalışmıştır.

Keywords

Tarafsızlık, UAD, Ulusal çıkarlar, Uluslararası adalet, Uyuşmazlık çözümü

Critical Evaluation Of Judicial Independence Question In The International Court Of Justice

Abstract

In view of developments in world politics in recent years, such as an upsurge in nationalism, doubts about multilateralism, the Covid pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine war, an inquiry concerning the peaceful resolution of international disputes is in order. How capable are international dispute resolution mechanisms of satisfying demands and preserving their reputations at such a critical time? The fundamentally political entities involved are likely to remain very disparate, a fact that can only worsen their widely acknowledged poor image in this respect without instituting any remedial measures. As a judicial body, however, the ICJ would hardly be allowed such latitude. Concerns about the impartiality of ICJ judges have already been expressed on the grounds of their perceived allegiance to their home countries, an issue that the existing political zeitgeist only makes more controversial. No solutions are readily available to alleviate all concerns. The current article takes several normative assessments into consideration, arguing that these can devalue the authority of the ICJ’s judgments. It then provides insight into how to recognise and deal with the persistent problem of judicial independence within the ICJ.

Keywords

Dispute resolution, ICJ, Impartiality, international justice, National interests

References

• Advisory Committee of Jurists, Proces-Verbaux of the Proceedings of the Committee, 16 June-24 July 1920.
• Akipek, Ö İ, Milletlerarası Adalet Divanı, Ankara, 1974.
• Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, Order, 16 March 2022, General List No. 182.
• Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) – Intervention, https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/182/intervention, Accessed on 22 July 2023.
• Alter K J, “Critical Junctures and the Future of International Courts in a Post-Liberal World Order” in Avidan Kent, Nikos Skoutaris and Jamie Trinidad (eds.), The Future of International Courts Regional, Institutional and Procedural Challenges, Routledge, 2019.
• Alter K, New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights, Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 2014.
• Ambatielos case (jurisdiction), Judgment of July 1st, 1952: I.C. J. Reports 1952.
• Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. case (jurisdiction), Judgment of July 22nd, I952: I.C.J. Reports I952.
• Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2019, https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/166/166-20191108-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf, Accessed on 22 July 2023.
• Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 19 April 2017, I.C.J. Reports 2017, p. 104, https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/166/166-20170419-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf, Accessed on 22 July 2023.
• Arı, T, “Morton A. Kaplan ve Uluslararası Politikada Sistem Yaklaşımı”, Uludağ Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(1-2), 1990, pp.103-118.
• Bogdandy A & Venzke I, “In Whose Name? An Investigation of International Courts’ Public Authority and Its Democratic Justification”, European Journal of International Law, 23(1), 2012, pp.7–41.
• Bowett D, Crawford J, Sinclair I, & Watts A, “Efficiency of Procedures and Working Methods: Report of the Study Group Established by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law as a Contribution to the UN Decade of International Law”, International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 45(S1), 1996, pp.1-32.
• Carrubba C & Gabel M, “International Courts: A Theoretical Assessment”, Annual Review of Political Science, 20, 2017, pp. 55-73.
• Cavallaro J & Brewer S, “Reevaluating Regional Human Rights Litigation in the Twenty-First Century: The Case of the Inter-American Court”, American Journal of International Law, 102(4), 2008, pp.768-827.
• Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America).
• Crawford, J, & McIntyre, J, “The Independence and Impartiality of the ‘International Judiciary’” in Shimon Shetreet & Christopher Forsyth (eds.) The Culture of Judicial Independence: Conceptual Foundations and Practical Challenges, Martinus Nijhoff, 2012.
• Dunoff J & Pollack M, “The Judicial Trilemma”, American Journal of International Law, 111(2), 2017, pp. 225-276. ...