Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

SİLAHLI ÇATIŞMA SIRASINDA SİLAHLI KUVVETLER PERSONELİNİN YAŞAM HAKKI

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 20, 129 - 159, 30.12.2022

Berkant Akkuş

Öz

Silahlı çatışmalar sırasında yaşam hakkı, uluslararası insan hakları hukuku ile uluslararası insancıl hukuk arasındaki ilişki için önemli bir test alanıdır. Hukukun bu iki dalının birbirine yakınlaştığı ancak yaşam hakkı ve özellikle de devletin fiili kontrolünde olmayan kişilere yönelik ölümcül güç kullanımı söz konusu olduğunda, genellikle birbirleriyle çeliştikleri tartışılmaktadır ve uluslararası insancıl hukukun silahlı çatışmalarda herhangi bir yaşam hakkı tanımadığı düşünülmektedir. Yaşam hakkının askeri personele uygulanması tartışmalı bir konu olmuş ve duygusal ihtilaflar yaratmıştır. Bu konuda iki ana görüş bulunmaktadır. Silahlı çatışma sırasında ölüm olasılığını isteyerek kabul etmenin, silahlı kuvvetlerde görev yapmanın doğal bir parçası olduğunu kabul edenler ve bu doğru olsa da, devletlerin yine de silahlı kuvvetlerini uygun şekilde eğitme ve donatma yükümlülüğü olduğunu iddia edenler. Bu makale, bu alandaki davaları gözden geçirmekte ve bir devletin silahlı kuvvetleriyle ilgili olarak ne zaman yaşam hakkı yükümlülükleri olduğu ve bu yükümlülüklerin ne anlama geldiği konusunda bir görüş sunmaktadır. Makalenin araştırma sorularını incelemek için Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi içtihatlarının yanı sıra evrensel insan hakları hukuku standartları ve diğer bölgesel insan hakları kurumlarının kararları da incelenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yaşam Hakkı Uluslararası İnsancıl Hukuk Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi

Kaynakça

  • (Smith) v Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner (Equality and Human Rights Commission Intervening), [2010] UKSC 29 (UK Supreme Court 06 30, 2010).
  • Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the UK, 61498/08 (ECtHR 10 04, 2010).
  • Al-Skeini and others v. UK, 55721/07 (ECtHR 07 07, 2011).
  • Anwar, S., & Toney, R. (1998). International Human Rights Law and Military Personnel: A Look Behind the Barrack Walls. American University International Law Review, 538.
  • Arabadjiev, A. (2006). Human Rights of Members of the Armed Forces. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
  • Asaro, P. (2016). Jus Nascendi, Robotic Weapons and the Martens Clause. I. Kerr, M. Froomkin, & R. Calo içinde, Robot Law (s. 367). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Banković and others v Belgium and 16 Other Contracting States, 52207/99 (ECtHR 12 12, 2001).
  • Beck, L. D. (2006). The Right to Life in Armed Conflict: Does International Humanitarian Law Provide All the Answers? International Review of the Red Cross, 864.
  • Case Concerning the Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States) (Judgment), ICJ Rep 392 (International Court of Justice 06 27, 1986).
  • Council of Europe. (2010). Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)4 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Human Rights of Members of the Armed Forces. Strasbourg: Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers.
  • Crawford, E. (2010). The Treatment of Combatants and Insurgents under the Law of Armed Conflict. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
  • Cyprus v Turkey, 25781/94 (ECtHR 05 10, 2001).
  • Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Bosco Ntaganda, ICC-01/04-02/06-309 (International Criminal Court 06 14, 2014).
  • Dennis, M. (2005). Agora: ICJ Advisory Opinion on Construction of a Wall in the Application of Human Rights Treaties Extraterritorially in Times of Armed Conflict and Military Occupation. American Journal of International Law, 119-141.
  • Dinstein, Y. (2005). Collateral Damage and the Principle of Proportionality. D. Wippman, & M. Evangelista içinde, New Wars, New Laws? (s. 214). New York: Transnational.
  • Ekins, R., Morgan, J., & Tugendhat, T. (2015). Clearing the Fog of Law Saving Our Armed Forces From Defeat by Judicial Diktat. London: Policy Exchange.
  • Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 5100/71 (ECtHR 06 08, 1976).
  • Esat Bayram v. Turkey, 75535/01 (ECtHR 05 29, 2009).
  • Frank, T. (2008). On Proportionality of Countermeasures in International Law. American Journal of International Law, 715.
  • Gaggioli, G. (2013). L'influence Mutuelle Entre Les Droits de L'homme et le Droit International Humanitaire à la Lumière du Droit à la Vie. Paris: Editions A. Pedone.
  • Gaggioli, G. (2013). Use of Force in Armed Conflicts, The Interplay between the Conduct of Hostilities and Law Enforcement Paradigms. Geneva: ICRC.
  • Gaggioli, G., & Kolb, R. (2007). A Right to Life in Armed Conflicts? : the Contribution of the European Court of Human Rights. Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, 115.
  • Goodman, R. (2013). The Power to Kill or Capture Enemy Combatants. European Journal of International Law, 819.
  • Gormley, P. (1985). The Right to Life and the Rule of Non-Derogability: Peremptory Norms of Jus Cogens. B. Ramcharan içinde, The Right to Life in International Law (s. 120-159). Leiden: Brill Nijhoff.
  • Hampson, F., & Salama, I. (2005). Working Paper on the Relationship between Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law. Geneva : UN.
  • Hassan v. the United Kingdom, 29750/09 (ECtHR 09 16, 2014).
  • Heintze, H. J. (2010). On the Relationship Between Human Rights Law Protection and International Humanitarian Law. International Review of the Red Cross, 789-814.
  • ICRC. (2020). The Roots of Restraint in War. Geneva: ICRC.
  • ICRC. (2022, 07 29). Military Manuals. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/cihlweb_ara_2.nsf/docindexeng-print/src_iimima adresinden alındı
  • International Law Commission. (2004). Report of the Study Group on Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law. Geneva: UN.
  • Joseph, S., & Sander, B. (2018). Scope of Application. D. Moeckli, S. Shah, S. Sivakumaran, & D. Harris içinde, International Human Rights Law (s. 120). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Juan Carlos Abella v. Argentina (la Tablada), 11.137 (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 11 18, 1997).
  • Kaya v Turkey, 158/1996 (ECtHR 02 19, 1998).
  • Kelly and Others v. UK, 30054/96 (ECtHR 08 04, 2001).
  • Kleffner, J. (2013). Friend or Foe? On the Protective Reach of the Law of Armed Conflict. M. Matthee, B. Toebes, & M. Brus içinde, Armed Conflict and International Law, in Search of the Human Face—Liber Amicorum in Memory of Avril McDonald (s. 296). The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.
  • Kleffner, J. (2015). The Beneficiaries of the Rights Stemming from Common Article 3. A. Clapham, P. Gaeta, & M. Sassòli içinde, The 1949 Geneva Conventions: A Commentary (s. 436). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Kolb, R. (1999). Aspects Historiques de la Relation Entre le Droit International Humanitaire et les Droits de l'Homme. Canadian Yearbook of International Law, 67-69.
  • Lambert, A. (2009). Democratic Civilian Control of Armed Forces in the Post-Cold War Era. Münster: LIT Verlag.
  • Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion) , ICJ Rep 136 (International Court of Justice 07 09, 2004).
  • Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion), ICJ Rep. 226 (International Court of Justice 07 08, 1996).
  • Liivoja, R., & Duxbury, A. (2019). Human Rights of Service Personnel. Human Rights Defender, 15.
  • Lindroos, A. (2005). Addressing Norm Conflicts in a Fragmented Legal System: The Doctrine of Lex Specialis. Nordic Journal of International Law, 27-66.
  • Lopez Burgos v. Uruguay, 59/79 (Human Rights Committee 07 29, 1981).
  • Lubell, N. (2005). Challenges in Applying Human Rights Law to Armed Conflict. International Review of the Red Cross, 742.
  • Maringira, G. (2017). Soldiers as Victims: Behind Military Barracks in the Post-Colonial African Army. African Security Review, 79.
  • May, L. (2017). Human Rights, Proportionality and the Lives of Soldiers. S. Bazargan, & S. Rickless içinde, The Ethics of War (s. 47). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • McCann and others v. UK, 18984/91 (ECtHR 09 27, 1995).
  • McKerr v UK, 28883/95 (ECtHR 08 04, 2001).
  • Melzer, N. (2009). Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law. Geneva: ICRC.
  • Melzer, N. (2010). Keeping the Balance Between Military Necessity and Humanity: A Response to Four Critiques of the ICRC's Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 905.
  • Meron, T. (2006). The Humanization of International Law. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
  • Milanovic, M. (2013, 06 24). UK Supreme Court Decides Smith (No. 2) v. The Ministry of Defence. https://www.ejiltalk.org: https://www.ejiltalk.org/uk-supreme-court-decides-smith-no-2-v-the-ministry-of-defence/ adresinden alındı
  • Milanovic, M. (2016). Extraterritorial Derogations from Human Rights Treaties in Armed Conflict. N. Bhuta içinde, The Frontiers of Human Rights (s. 55-88). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Ministry of Defence. (2016, 10 04). Government to Protect Armed Forces from Persistent Legal Claims in Future Overseas Operations. https://www.gov.uk/: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-protect-armed-forces-from-persistent-legal-claims-in-future-overseas-operations adresinden alındı
  • Mosendz v. Ukraine, 52013/08 (ECtHR 01 17, 2013).
  • O'Keefe, R. (2004). Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: A Commentary. Revue Belge de Droit International , 751-815.
  • Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. (2008). Handbook on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Armed Forces Personnel. Warsaw: Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.
  • Osman v. the United Kingdom, 23452/94 (ECtHR 10 28, 1998).
  • Öktem, E. (2011). Terörizm / İnsancıl Hukuk ve İnsan Hakları. İstanbul: Derin Yayınları.
  • Park, I. (2018). The Right to Life in Armed Conflict. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
  • Perevedentsev v. Russia, 39583/05 (ECtHR 04 24, 2014).
  • Pritchard v. UK, 1573/11 (ECtHR 12 20, 2010).
  • Prosecutor v. Issa Hassan Sesay, Morris Kallon and Augustine Gbao (the RUF accused) (Trial judgment), SCSL-04-15-T (Special Court for Sierra Leone 03 02, 2009).
  • R (Smith and others) v The Ministry of Defence, 2012/0249 (UK Supreme Court 06 19, 2013).
  • Rodenhäuser, T. (2016). Squaring the Circle? Prosecuting Sexual Violence against Child Soldiers by their Own Forces. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 171.
  • Rowe, P. (2008). Military Misconduct During International Armed Operations: Bad Apples or Systemic Failure? Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 165-189.
  • Rowe, P. (2010). The Impact of Human Rights Law on Armed Forces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Rowe, P. (2014). Human Rights of Members of the Armed Forces. A. Clapham, & P. Gaeta içinde, The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Armed Conflict (s. 520). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Salgin v Turkey, 46748/99 (ECtHR 05 20, 2007).
  • Sandoz, Y., Swinarski, C., & Zimmermann, B. (1987 ). Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross.
  • Sassòli, M. (2007). Le droit international humanitaire, une lex specialis par rapport aux droits humains? A. Auer, & A. Flückiger içinde, Les droits de l'homme et la constitution : études en l'honneur du Professeur Giorgio Malinverni (s. 375-395). Geneva: Schulthess.
  • Sassòli, M. (2011). The Role of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law in New Types of Armed Conflicts. O. B. Naftali içinde, International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law (s. 66). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Sassòli, M. (2019). International Humanitarian Law: Rules, Controversies and Solutions to Problems Arising in Warfare. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Schabas, W. (2007). Lex Specialis? Belt and Suspenders? The Parallel Operation of Human Rights Law and the Law of Armed Conflict, and the Conundrum of Jus Ad Bellum. Israel Law Review, 592.
  • Serdar Mohammed v. Ministry of Defence, HQ12X03367 (England and Wales High Court 05 02, 2014).
  • State of Israel. (2015). The 2014 Gaza Conflict (7 July – 26 August 2014): Factual and Legal Aspects. Jerusalem: State of Israel.
  • Stoyanovi v. Bulgaria, 42980/04 (ECtHR 02 09, 2011).
  • Taşdemir, F. (2012). İnsan Hakları Hukuku ve İnsancıl Hukuk Açısından Türkiye’nin Ayrılıkçı Terör Örgütü PKK İle Mücadelesi. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 107-151.
  • The UN General Assembly. (1970). G.A. Res. 2675 (XXV), Basic Principles for the Protection of Civilian Populations in Armed Conflicts. Geneva: The UN General Assembly.
  • The United States Department of Defense. (2016). The Department of Defense Law of War Manual. Virginia: The Department of Defense.
  • Tütüncü, A. N. (2006). İnsancıl Hukuka Giriş. İstanbul : Beta Yayınları.
  • UN. Commission on Human Rights. (1983). Human Rights in Chile . New York: UN. Commission on Human Rights.
  • United Nations Security Council . (2004). Resolution 1565 (2004). Geneva: United Nations Security Council .
  • Vierdag, E. (1998). The Time of the ‘Conclusion’ of a Multilateral Treaty: Article 30 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and Related Provisions. British Yearbook of International Law, 100.
  • Wallace, S. (2019). The Application of the European Convention on Human Rights to Military Operations. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
  • Walzer, M. (2015). Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. New York: Basic Books.
  • Watkin, K. (2004). Controlling the Use of Force: A Role for Human Rights Norms in Contemporary Armed Conflict. American Journal of International Law, 1-34.
  • Watts , J. C. (2010). Has Human Rights Law Become Lex Specialis for the European Court of Human Rights in Right to Life Cases Arising from Internal Armed Conflicts? The International Journal of Human Rights, 584-602.
  • Wright, J. (2012). Excessive Ambiguity: Analysing and Refining the Proportionality Standard. International Review of the Red Cross, 827.
  • Wright, J. (2016). The Operational Obligation under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Challenges for Coherence – Views from the English Supreme Court and Strasbourg. Journal of European Tort Law, 58.

THE RIGHT TO LIFE OF ARMED FORCES DURING ARMED CONFLICT

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 20, 129 - 159, 30.12.2022

Berkant Akkuş

Öz

The right to life during armed conflict is an important testing ground for the relationship between international human rights law and international humanitarian law. It is argued that these two branches of law converge but contradict each other when it comes to the right to life and especially the use of lethal force against persons not under the de facto control of the state, and it is thought that international humanitarian law does not recognize any right to life in armed conflicts. The application of the right to life to military personnel has been a controversial issue and has created emotional conflicts. There are two main views on this issue. Those who accept that willingly accepting the possibility of death during armed conflict is a natural part of serving in the armed forces, and those who argue that while this is true, states still have an obligation to properly train and equip their armed forces. This article reviews cases in this area and provides a view of when a state has right to life obligations in relation to its armed forces and what those obligations mean. In order to examine the research questions of the article, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as the universal human rights law standards and the decisions of other regional human rights institutions were examined.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Right to Life International Humanitarian Law European Court of Human Rights

Kaynakça

  • (Smith) v Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner (Equality and Human Rights Commission Intervening), [2010] UKSC 29 (UK Supreme Court 06 30, 2010).
  • Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the UK, 61498/08 (ECtHR 10 04, 2010).
  • Al-Skeini and others v. UK, 55721/07 (ECtHR 07 07, 2011).
  • Anwar, S., & Toney, R. (1998). International Human Rights Law and Military Personnel: A Look Behind the Barrack Walls. American University International Law Review, 538.
  • Arabadjiev, A. (2006). Human Rights of Members of the Armed Forces. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
  • Asaro, P. (2016). Jus Nascendi, Robotic Weapons and the Martens Clause. I. Kerr, M. Froomkin, & R. Calo içinde, Robot Law (s. 367). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Banković and others v Belgium and 16 Other Contracting States, 52207/99 (ECtHR 12 12, 2001).
  • Beck, L. D. (2006). The Right to Life in Armed Conflict: Does International Humanitarian Law Provide All the Answers? International Review of the Red Cross, 864.
  • Case Concerning the Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States) (Judgment), ICJ Rep 392 (International Court of Justice 06 27, 1986).
  • Council of Europe. (2010). Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)4 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Human Rights of Members of the Armed Forces. Strasbourg: Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers.
  • Crawford, E. (2010). The Treatment of Combatants and Insurgents under the Law of Armed Conflict. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
  • Cyprus v Turkey, 25781/94 (ECtHR 05 10, 2001).
  • Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Bosco Ntaganda, ICC-01/04-02/06-309 (International Criminal Court 06 14, 2014).
  • Dennis, M. (2005). Agora: ICJ Advisory Opinion on Construction of a Wall in the Application of Human Rights Treaties Extraterritorially in Times of Armed Conflict and Military Occupation. American Journal of International Law, 119-141.
  • Dinstein, Y. (2005). Collateral Damage and the Principle of Proportionality. D. Wippman, & M. Evangelista içinde, New Wars, New Laws? (s. 214). New York: Transnational.
  • Ekins, R., Morgan, J., & Tugendhat, T. (2015). Clearing the Fog of Law Saving Our Armed Forces From Defeat by Judicial Diktat. London: Policy Exchange.
  • Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 5100/71 (ECtHR 06 08, 1976).
  • Esat Bayram v. Turkey, 75535/01 (ECtHR 05 29, 2009).
  • Frank, T. (2008). On Proportionality of Countermeasures in International Law. American Journal of International Law, 715.
  • Gaggioli, G. (2013). L'influence Mutuelle Entre Les Droits de L'homme et le Droit International Humanitaire à la Lumière du Droit à la Vie. Paris: Editions A. Pedone.
  • Gaggioli, G. (2013). Use of Force in Armed Conflicts, The Interplay between the Conduct of Hostilities and Law Enforcement Paradigms. Geneva: ICRC.
  • Gaggioli, G., & Kolb, R. (2007). A Right to Life in Armed Conflicts? : the Contribution of the European Court of Human Rights. Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, 115.
  • Goodman, R. (2013). The Power to Kill or Capture Enemy Combatants. European Journal of International Law, 819.
  • Gormley, P. (1985). The Right to Life and the Rule of Non-Derogability: Peremptory Norms of Jus Cogens. B. Ramcharan içinde, The Right to Life in International Law (s. 120-159). Leiden: Brill Nijhoff.
  • Hampson, F., & Salama, I. (2005). Working Paper on the Relationship between Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law. Geneva : UN.
  • Hassan v. the United Kingdom, 29750/09 (ECtHR 09 16, 2014).
  • Heintze, H. J. (2010). On the Relationship Between Human Rights Law Protection and International Humanitarian Law. International Review of the Red Cross, 789-814.
  • ICRC. (2020). The Roots of Restraint in War. Geneva: ICRC.
  • ICRC. (2022, 07 29). Military Manuals. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/cihlweb_ara_2.nsf/docindexeng-print/src_iimima adresinden alındı
  • International Law Commission. (2004). Report of the Study Group on Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law. Geneva: UN.
  • Joseph, S., & Sander, B. (2018). Scope of Application. D. Moeckli, S. Shah, S. Sivakumaran, & D. Harris içinde, International Human Rights Law (s. 120). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Juan Carlos Abella v. Argentina (la Tablada), 11.137 (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 11 18, 1997).
  • Kaya v Turkey, 158/1996 (ECtHR 02 19, 1998).
  • Kelly and Others v. UK, 30054/96 (ECtHR 08 04, 2001).
  • Kleffner, J. (2013). Friend or Foe? On the Protective Reach of the Law of Armed Conflict. M. Matthee, B. Toebes, & M. Brus içinde, Armed Conflict and International Law, in Search of the Human Face—Liber Amicorum in Memory of Avril McDonald (s. 296). The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.
  • Kleffner, J. (2015). The Beneficiaries of the Rights Stemming from Common Article 3. A. Clapham, P. Gaeta, & M. Sassòli içinde, The 1949 Geneva Conventions: A Commentary (s. 436). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Kolb, R. (1999). Aspects Historiques de la Relation Entre le Droit International Humanitaire et les Droits de l'Homme. Canadian Yearbook of International Law, 67-69.
  • Lambert, A. (2009). Democratic Civilian Control of Armed Forces in the Post-Cold War Era. Münster: LIT Verlag.
  • Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion) , ICJ Rep 136 (International Court of Justice 07 09, 2004).
  • Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion), ICJ Rep. 226 (International Court of Justice 07 08, 1996).
  • Liivoja, R., & Duxbury, A. (2019). Human Rights of Service Personnel. Human Rights Defender, 15.
  • Lindroos, A. (2005). Addressing Norm Conflicts in a Fragmented Legal System: The Doctrine of Lex Specialis. Nordic Journal of International Law, 27-66.
  • Lopez Burgos v. Uruguay, 59/79 (Human Rights Committee 07 29, 1981).
  • Lubell, N. (2005). Challenges in Applying Human Rights Law to Armed Conflict. International Review of the Red Cross, 742.
  • Maringira, G. (2017). Soldiers as Victims: Behind Military Barracks in the Post-Colonial African Army. African Security Review, 79.
  • May, L. (2017). Human Rights, Proportionality and the Lives of Soldiers. S. Bazargan, & S. Rickless içinde, The Ethics of War (s. 47). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • McCann and others v. UK, 18984/91 (ECtHR 09 27, 1995).
  • McKerr v UK, 28883/95 (ECtHR 08 04, 2001).
  • Melzer, N. (2009). Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law. Geneva: ICRC.
  • Melzer, N. (2010). Keeping the Balance Between Military Necessity and Humanity: A Response to Four Critiques of the ICRC's Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 905.
  • Meron, T. (2006). The Humanization of International Law. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
  • Milanovic, M. (2013, 06 24). UK Supreme Court Decides Smith (No. 2) v. The Ministry of Defence. https://www.ejiltalk.org: https://www.ejiltalk.org/uk-supreme-court-decides-smith-no-2-v-the-ministry-of-defence/ adresinden alındı
  • Milanovic, M. (2016). Extraterritorial Derogations from Human Rights Treaties in Armed Conflict. N. Bhuta içinde, The Frontiers of Human Rights (s. 55-88). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Ministry of Defence. (2016, 10 04). Government to Protect Armed Forces from Persistent Legal Claims in Future Overseas Operations. https://www.gov.uk/: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-protect-armed-forces-from-persistent-legal-claims-in-future-overseas-operations adresinden alındı
  • Mosendz v. Ukraine, 52013/08 (ECtHR 01 17, 2013).
  • O'Keefe, R. (2004). Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: A Commentary. Revue Belge de Droit International , 751-815.
  • Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. (2008). Handbook on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Armed Forces Personnel. Warsaw: Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.
  • Osman v. the United Kingdom, 23452/94 (ECtHR 10 28, 1998).
  • Öktem, E. (2011). Terörizm / İnsancıl Hukuk ve İnsan Hakları. İstanbul: Derin Yayınları.
  • Park, I. (2018). The Right to Life in Armed Conflict. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
  • Perevedentsev v. Russia, 39583/05 (ECtHR 04 24, 2014).
  • Pritchard v. UK, 1573/11 (ECtHR 12 20, 2010).
  • Prosecutor v. Issa Hassan Sesay, Morris Kallon and Augustine Gbao (the RUF accused) (Trial judgment), SCSL-04-15-T (Special Court for Sierra Leone 03 02, 2009).
  • R (Smith and others) v The Ministry of Defence, 2012/0249 (UK Supreme Court 06 19, 2013).
  • Rodenhäuser, T. (2016). Squaring the Circle? Prosecuting Sexual Violence against Child Soldiers by their Own Forces. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 171.
  • Rowe, P. (2008). Military Misconduct During International Armed Operations: Bad Apples or Systemic Failure? Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 165-189.
  • Rowe, P. (2010). The Impact of Human Rights Law on Armed Forces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Rowe, P. (2014). Human Rights of Members of the Armed Forces. A. Clapham, & P. Gaeta içinde, The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Armed Conflict (s. 520). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Salgin v Turkey, 46748/99 (ECtHR 05 20, 2007).
  • Sandoz, Y., Swinarski, C., & Zimmermann, B. (1987 ). Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross.
  • Sassòli, M. (2007). Le droit international humanitaire, une lex specialis par rapport aux droits humains? A. Auer, & A. Flückiger içinde, Les droits de l'homme et la constitution : études en l'honneur du Professeur Giorgio Malinverni (s. 375-395). Geneva: Schulthess.
  • Sassòli, M. (2011). The Role of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law in New Types of Armed Conflicts. O. B. Naftali içinde, International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law (s. 66). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Sassòli, M. (2019). International Humanitarian Law: Rules, Controversies and Solutions to Problems Arising in Warfare. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Schabas, W. (2007). Lex Specialis? Belt and Suspenders? The Parallel Operation of Human Rights Law and the Law of Armed Conflict, and the Conundrum of Jus Ad Bellum. Israel Law Review, 592.
  • Serdar Mohammed v. Ministry of Defence, HQ12X03367 (England and Wales High Court 05 02, 2014).
  • State of Israel. (2015). The 2014 Gaza Conflict (7 July – 26 August 2014): Factual and Legal Aspects. Jerusalem: State of Israel.
  • Stoyanovi v. Bulgaria, 42980/04 (ECtHR 02 09, 2011).
  • Taşdemir, F. (2012). İnsan Hakları Hukuku ve İnsancıl Hukuk Açısından Türkiye’nin Ayrılıkçı Terör Örgütü PKK İle Mücadelesi. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 107-151.
  • The UN General Assembly. (1970). G.A. Res. 2675 (XXV), Basic Principles for the Protection of Civilian Populations in Armed Conflicts. Geneva: The UN General Assembly.
  • The United States Department of Defense. (2016). The Department of Defense Law of War Manual. Virginia: The Department of Defense.
  • Tütüncü, A. N. (2006). İnsancıl Hukuka Giriş. İstanbul : Beta Yayınları.
  • UN. Commission on Human Rights. (1983). Human Rights in Chile . New York: UN. Commission on Human Rights.
  • United Nations Security Council . (2004). Resolution 1565 (2004). Geneva: United Nations Security Council .
  • Vierdag, E. (1998). The Time of the ‘Conclusion’ of a Multilateral Treaty: Article 30 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and Related Provisions. British Yearbook of International Law, 100.
  • Wallace, S. (2019). The Application of the European Convention on Human Rights to Military Operations. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
  • Walzer, M. (2015). Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. New York: Basic Books.
  • Watkin, K. (2004). Controlling the Use of Force: A Role for Human Rights Norms in Contemporary Armed Conflict. American Journal of International Law, 1-34.
  • Watts , J. C. (2010). Has Human Rights Law Become Lex Specialis for the European Court of Human Rights in Right to Life Cases Arising from Internal Armed Conflicts? The International Journal of Human Rights, 584-602.
  • Wright, J. (2012). Excessive Ambiguity: Analysing and Refining the Proportionality Standard. International Review of the Red Cross, 827.
  • Wright, J. (2016). The Operational Obligation under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Challenges for Coherence – Views from the English Supreme Court and Strasbourg. Journal of European Tort Law, 58.
Toplam 90 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Tüm Sayı
Yazarlar

Berkant Akkuş 0000-0001-6652-2512

Yayımlanma Tarihi 30 Aralık 2022
Gönderilme Tarihi 30 Temmuz 2022
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2022 Cilt: 9 Sayı: 20

Kaynak Göster

APA Akkuş, B. (2022). SİLAHLI ÇATIŞMA SIRASINDA SİLAHLI KUVVETLER PERSONELİNİN YAŞAM HAKKI. Akademik Hassasiyetler, 9(20), 129-159.
AMA Akkuş B. SİLAHLI ÇATIŞMA SIRASINDA SİLAHLI KUVVETLER PERSONELİNİN YAŞAM HAKKI. Akademik Hassasiyetler. Aralık 2022;9(20):129-159.
Chicago Akkuş, Berkant. “SİLAHLI ÇATIŞMA SIRASINDA SİLAHLI KUVVETLER PERSONELİNİN YAŞAM HAKKI”. Akademik Hassasiyetler 9, sy. 20 (Aralık 2022): 129-59.
EndNote Akkuş B (01 Aralık 2022) SİLAHLI ÇATIŞMA SIRASINDA SİLAHLI KUVVETLER PERSONELİNİN YAŞAM HAKKI. Akademik Hassasiyetler 9 20 129–159.
IEEE B. Akkuş, “SİLAHLI ÇATIŞMA SIRASINDA SİLAHLI KUVVETLER PERSONELİNİN YAŞAM HAKKI”, Akademik Hassasiyetler, c. 9, sy. 20, ss. 129–159, 2022.
ISNAD Akkuş, Berkant. “SİLAHLI ÇATIŞMA SIRASINDA SİLAHLI KUVVETLER PERSONELİNİN YAŞAM HAKKI”. Akademik Hassasiyetler 9/20 (Aralık 2022), 129-159.
JAMA Akkuş B. SİLAHLI ÇATIŞMA SIRASINDA SİLAHLI KUVVETLER PERSONELİNİN YAŞAM HAKKI. Akademik Hassasiyetler. 2022;9:129–159.
MLA Akkuş, Berkant. “SİLAHLI ÇATIŞMA SIRASINDA SİLAHLI KUVVETLER PERSONELİNİN YAŞAM HAKKI”. Akademik Hassasiyetler, c. 9, sy. 20, 2022, ss. 129-5.
Vancouver Akkuş B. SİLAHLI ÇATIŞMA SIRASINDA SİLAHLI KUVVETLER PERSONELİNİN YAŞAM HAKKI. Akademik Hassasiyetler. 2022;9(20):129-5.
 Kapak Resmi İndir

MAKALE DEĞERLENDİRME SÜRECİ

Yazar tarafından gönderilen bir makale, gönderim tarihinden itibaren 10 gün içinde dergi sekreteri tarafından makalenin, telif sözleşmesinin ve benzerlik raporunun (Turnitin programı) eksiksiz ve düzgün bir şekilde gönderilip gönderilmediği yönünden incelenir. İstenilen bu dosyalar eksiksiz ve düzgün bir şekilde gönderilmiş ise makale; ikinci aşamada derginin yayın çizgisine uygun olup olmadığı yönünden değerlendirilir. Bu süreçte makale yayın çizgisine uygun değilse yazara iade edilir. Makale yayın çizgisine uygun ise şablona uygun bir şekilde gönderilip gönderilmediği yönünden değerlendirilir. Şayet makale şablona uyarlanıp gönderilmemiş ise değerlendirme sürecine alınmaz. Bu süreçte yazarın derginin belirlediği şartlara uygun bir şekilde sisteme makale yüklemesi beklenir. Makale şablona uygun bir şekilde hazırlanıp gönderilmiş ise son aşamada makale derginin yayın ilkeleri, yazım kuralları, öz, abstract, extented abstract, kaynakça gösterimi vb. yönlerden incelenir. Bu ayrıntılarda makalede bir sorun varsa yazarın bu hususları tamamlaması istenir ve verilen süre içerisinde eksiksiz bir şekilde yeniden makaleyi göndermesi istenir.
Tüm bu aşamaları geçen makale, editör tarafından bilimsel yeterliliğinin denetlenmesi amacıyla ikinci 7 günlük süre içerisinde çalışmaya uygun iki hakeme değerlendirmeleri için gönderilir. Hakemlerin değerlendirme süreleri 15 gündür. Bu süre zarfında hakemlik görevini tamamlamayan bir hakem olursa ilgili hakeme değerlendirmeyi tamamlaması için 7 günlük ek süre verilebilir. Bu süre zarfında hakem görevini yerine getirmezse yerine yeni bir hakem ataması yapılır. En az iki hakemden gelen raporlar olumlu ise makale yayın aşamasına alınır. Hakem raporlarından birisi olumlu diğeri olumsuz ise makale üçüncü bir hakeme gönderilir. Üçüncü hakem raporu da olumsuz ise makale ret edilir. Üçüncü hakemin değerlendirmesi olumlu ise makaleyle ilgili hakem raporları dergi alan editörlerinden oluşan Editörler Kurulu tarafından incelenir. Makalenin yayınlanmasıyla ilgili nihai karar alan editörlerinden oluşan Editörler Kurulu tarafından verilir. Hakem raporlarının yetersiz ve tatmin etmekten uzak olması veya İngilizce editör tarafından abstract ve extented abstract’ın yetersiz görülmesi hallerinde de yine makaleyle ilgili son karar Editörler Kurulu tarafından verilir. Tüm bu aşamalardan geçen bir makale en yakın sayıya yayınlanmak üzere eklenir. İlgili sayıda yer kalmaması halinde makalenin yayımı bir sonraki sayıya kaydırılır. Bu durumda ve tüm değerlendirme sürecinde yazar isterse makalesini geri çekme hakkına sahiptir. Ancak bu durumu dergiye bildirmesi gerekir. Makale gönderim tarihinden makalenin yayına kabul tarihine kadar tüm bu işlemler için ortalama 3 aylık bir süre öngörülmektedir.