Medeni ve Siyasi Haklara İlişkin Uluslararası Sözleşme’nin (ICCPR) 19. Maddesi Kapsamında İfade Özgürlüğünün Kapsamı ve Terörizme Teşvik Bağlamında Sınırları

Öz

Bu araştırma, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi (AİHM), İnsan Hakları Komitesi ve diğer bölgesel insan hakları mahkemeleri tarafından verilen kararlara göre, terörizmi teşvikle mücadele alanında ifade özgürlüğü ile ulusal güvenlik arasındaki karmaşık etkileşimi incelemektedir. AİHM kararlarını ve uluslararası insan hakları standartlarını inceleyen bu çalışma, temel hakları korurken kışkırtmayı ele almanın doğasında olan karmaşık hukuki, etik ve politika hususlarını ele alıyor. Temel bulgular, terörizmi kışkırtmanın oluşturduğu riskleri azaltırken ifade özgürlüğünü korumak için gereken hassas dengenin altını çiziyor. AİHM tarafından oluşturulan niyet, içerik, bağlam ve potansiyel zararın değerlendirilmesi gibi hukuki standartlar, izin verilen ifadenin sınırlarının belirlenmesine yönelik bir çerçeve sunmaktadır. Araştırma, kışkırtma durumlarında ifade özgürlüğüne yönelik açık yasal çerçevelere, haklı sınırlamalara ve orantılı kısıtlamalara duyulan ihtiyacı vurguluyor. Ayrıca çalışma, güvenlik zorunluluklarını sivil özgürlüklerle uzlaştırma konusunda paydaşların karşılaştığı etik ikilemleri vurguluyor ve terörle mücadele amacıyla ifade özgürlüğünün kısıtlanmasının doğasında olan etik hususların altını çiziyor. Araştırma, politikaların sonuçlarını ve uluslararası insan hakları belgelerini inceleyerek politika yapıcılara, hukukçulara ve insan hakları savunucularına, insan hakları ilkelerini korurken terörle mücadelenin karmaşıklıklarını aşma konusunda içgörüler sunuyor. Temelde bu araştırma, terörizme teşvikle ilgili hukuki, etik ve politika boyutlarının incelikli bir şekilde anlaşılmasına katkıda bulunmakta ve ifade özgürlüğünün korunması ile insani açıdan ulusal güvenlik sorunlarının ele alınması arasında bir denge kurmaya çalışan paydaşlar için değerli bir kaynak sağlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Teröre Teşvik
• Terörü Yüceltme
• İfade Özgürlüğü ve İfade Özgürlüğüne Yönelik Sınırlamalar

The Scope of Freedom of Expression under Article 19 of the ICCPR and Its Limits Regarding Incitement to Terrorism

Abstract

Since its first ever judgment Lawless v. Ireland (no. 1) the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has had occasion to adjudicate a large number of cases concerning terrorism. Combating terrorism remains one of the top priorities of the European union. The approach towards the online content possibly connected to terrorist propaganda has become stricter. Modern terrorism is global and decentralized while the social media and the social platforms such as Facebook, X, You Tube, TikTok are abused for terrorist propaganda. The aim of this paper is to observe some of the major human rights implications of combating incitement to and glorification of terrorism and to provide some elementary tools for researchers and students to use in the development of policy and practice in this field. The paper will provide a brief overview of how human rights (particularly freedom of expression) work in practice, and under what specific circumstances may be lawfully restricted. It will then outline the major international instruments concerned with the issue of incitement to terrorism, including the international framework governing freedom of expression. Considering the international human rights standards, decisions taken by European Court of Human Rights as a basic purpose of this article. Moreover, decisions of the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), the European Court (ECtHR) and Commission of Human Rights (ECommHR) as well as decisions from outside the European Convention system such as those of the US Supreme Court. This paper will try to outline basic principles that apply to the restriction of freedom of expression in the context of combating direct incitement or glorification of terrorism.

Keywords

• Incitement to Terrorism
• Glorification to Terrorism
• Freedom of Expression and Limitations on Freedom of Expression.

References

1. Akdeniz, Y., Mujić, Ž., & Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. (2016). Freedom of expression on the Internet: A study of legal provisions and practices in OSCE participating States.
2. Alinak v. Turkey, Application No. 34520/97 (European Court of Human Rights, 2006).
3. American Convention on Human Rights. (1969). Article 9(2).
4. Animal Defenders International v. United Kingdom, Application No. 48876/08 (European Court of Human Rights, 2013).
5. Anthony Fernando v. Sri Lanka, Communication No. 1189/2003 (Human Rights Committee, 2005).
6. Association of Southeast Asian Nations. (2012). ASEAN Human Rights Declaration.
7. Ballantyne, Davidson and McIntyre v. Canada, Communication Nos. 359/1989 & 385/1989 (Human Rights Committee, 1990).
8. Bărbulescu v. Romania, App. No. 61496/08, European Court of Human Rights, 5 September 2017.

9. Biancardi v. Italy, Application No. 77419/16 (European Court of Human Rights, 2022).
10. Bossuyt, M. J. (1987). Guide to the travaux préparatoires of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Martinus Nijhoff.
11. Botta v. Italy, Application No. 21439/93 (European Court of Human Rights, 1998).
12. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
13. Callamard, A. (2008). Expert meeting on the links between Articles 19 and 20 of the ICCPR. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
14. Carvajal Carvajal v. Colombia, Series C No. 352, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 13 March 2018.
15. Carver, R. (2016). İfade özgürlüğü, basın hukuku ve hakaret.
16. Ceylan v. Turkey, Application No. 23556/94 (European Court of Human Rights, 1999).
17. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942).
18. Chimakure v. Attorney-General of Zimbabwe, Constitutional Application No. SC 247/09 (Zimbabwe Constitutional Court, 2014).
19. Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (September 14, 1963). Entered into force December 4, 1969.
20. Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft. (1963, September 14). Entered into force December 4, 1969.
21. Council of Europe. (2005). Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism (CETS No. 196). Entered into force June 1, 2007.
22. Council of Europe. (2005). Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism.
23. Council of Europe. (2005). Explanatory report on the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism (CM (2005)34).
24. Council of the European Union. (2002). Council framework decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism (as amended by 2008/919/JHA).
25. Criminal Code of Spain. (1995, November 23). Article 578.
26. Cumpănă and Mazăre v. Romania [GC], Application No. 33348/96 (European Court of Human Rights, 2004).
27. Cumpănă and Mazăre v. Romania, App. No. 33348/96, European Court of Human Rights, 17 December 2004.
28. Cumpănă and Mazăre v. Romania, Application No. 33348/96 (European Court of Human Rights, 2004).
29. Delfi AS v. Estonia, App. No. 64569/09, European Court of Human Rights, 16 June 2015.
30. Dink v. Turkey, Application Nos. 2668/07 et al. (European Court of Human Rights, 2010).
31. Drieman and Others v. Norway, Application No. 33678/96 (European Court of Human Rights, 2000).
32. Essono Mika Miha v. Equatorial Guinea, Communication No. 414/1990 (Human Rights Committee, 1994).
33. European Convention on Human Rights (1950).
34. European Parliament, & Council of the European Union. (2017). Directive (EU) 2017/541 on combating terrorism.
35. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2017). Directive (EU) 2017/541 on combating terrorism—Impact on fundamental rights and freedoms.
36. Europol. (2019). Internet organised crime threat assessment (IOCTA) 2019.
37. France. (2015). Criminal code (Code pénal).
38. Francisco Martorell v. Chile, Report No. 11/96, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 3 May 1996.
39. Gaskin v. United Kingdom, Application No. 10454/83 (European Court of Human Rights, 1989).
40. Gomes Lund v. Brazil (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2010).
41. Gough v. United Kingdom, Application No. 49237/11 (European Court of Human Rights, 2014).
42. Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France, Application No. 71111/01 (European Court of Human Rights, 2007).
43. Hämäläinen v. Finland, Application No. 37359/09 (European Court of Human Rights, n.d.).
44. Handyside v. United Kingdom, Application No. 5493/72 (European Court of Human Rights, 1976).
45. Human Rights Council. (2011). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (Sixteenth session, Agenda item 3).
46. Human Rights Council. (2011). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (Sixteenth session, Agenda item 3). United Nations.
47. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. (2009). Report of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression: Annual report 2009 (OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 51).
48. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (December 16, 1966). Entered into force March 23, 1976.
49. Kagan, E. (1996). Private speech, public purpose: The role of government motive in First Amendment doctrine. University of Chicago Law Review, 63(2), 413–517.
50. Kang v. Republic of Korea, Communication No. 878/1999 (Human Rights Committee, 2003).
51. Karan, U. (2018). İfade özgürlüğü—Anayasa Mahkemesine bireysel başvuru el kitapları serisi 2.
52. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955 (Supreme Court of India).
53. Keun-Tae Kim v. Republic of Korea, Communication No. 574/1994 (Human Rights Committee, 1999).
54. Kokkinakis v. Greece, Application No. 14307/88 (European Court of Human Rights, 1993).
55. Köksal, T. D. (Çev.). (2018). Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi kapsamında ifade özgürlüğünün korunması. Council of Europe.
56. Kopp v. Switzerland, Application No. 13/1997/797/1000 (European Court of Human Rights, 1998).
57. Kremnitzer, M., & Ghanayim, K. (2000). Incitement, not sedition. In D. Kretzmer & F. Hazan (Eds.), Freedom of speech and incitement against democracy (pp. 147–197).
58. League of Arab States. (2004). Arab Charter on Human Rights.
59. Leroy v. France, Application No. 36109/03 (European Court of Human Rights, 2008).
60. Lingens v. Austria, Application No. 9815/82 (European Court of Human Rights, 1986).
61. Luisiana Rois v. Republic of Venezuela (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2004).
62. Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete & Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary, App. No. 22947/13, European Court of Human Rights, 2 February 2016.
63. Malone v. United Kingdom, Application No. 8691/79 (European Court of Human Rights, 1984).
64. Mouvement Raëlien Suisse v. Switzerland, Application No. 16354/06 (European Court of Human Rights, 2012).
65. Mpaka-Nsusu v. Zaire, Communication No. 157/1983 (Human Rights Committee, 1986).
66. Mukong v. Cameroon, Communication No. 458/1991 (Human Rights Committee, 1994).
67. Muller v. Switzerland, Application No. 10737/82 (European Court of Human Rights, 1988).
68. Murat Vural v. Turkey, App. No. 9540/07, European Court of Human Rights, 21 January 2015.
69. Nowak, J., Rotunda, R., Gunther, G., & Sullivan, K. M. (1997). Constitutional law. West Publishing.
70. Nowak, M. (2005). UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR commentary (2nd ed.). N. P. Engel.
71. Organization of American States. (1969). American Convention on Human Rights.
72. Otegi Mondragon v. Spain, Application No. 2034/07 (European Court of Human Rights, 2011).
73. Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain, App. No. 28955/06, European Court of Human Rights, 12 September 2011.
74. Patrick Coleman v. Australia, Communication No. 1157/2003 (Human Rights Committee, 2006).
75. Perinçek v. Switzerland, Application No. 27510/08 (European Court of Human Rights, 2015).
76. Perna v. Italy, Application No. 48898/99 (European Court of Human Rights, 2003).
77. Ramešová, K. (2020). Public provocation to commit a terrorist offence: Balancing between the liberties and the security. Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology, 14(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2020-1-6
78. Reisoğlu, S. (2001). Uluslararası boyutlarıyla insan hakları. Beta Yayınevi.
79. Robert Faurisson v. France, Communication No. 550/1993 (Human Rights Committee, 1986).
80. Ronen, Y. (2010). Incitement to terrorist acts and international law. Leiden Journal of International Law, 23(3), 645–674.
81. Ross v. Canada, Communication No. 736/1997 (Human Rights Committee, 2000).
82. Rotaru v. Romania, Application No. 28341/95 (European Court of Human Rights, 2000).
83. Saul, B. (2005). Definition of “terrorism” in the UN Security Council: 1985–2004. Chinese Journal of International Law, 4(1), 141–166.
84. Saul, B. (2005). Speaking of terror: Criminalising incitement to violence. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 28(3), 870–899.
85. Scanlen and Holderness v. Zimbabwe, Communication No. 297/2005, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 3 April 2009.
86. Scheinin, M. (2011). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (A/HRC/16/51, Practice 8). United Nations.
87. Shamieh, L., & Szenes, Z. (2015). The propaganda of ISIS/DAESH through the virtual space. Defence Against Terrorism Review, 7(1), 9–25.
88. Shin v. Republic of Korea, Communication No. 926/2000 (Human Rights Committee, 2004).
89. Sohn v. Republic of Korea, Communication No. 518/1992, U.N. Human Rights Committee (1995).
90. Solum, L. B. (1989). Freedom of communicative action: A theory of the First Amendment freedom of speech. Northwestern University Law Review, 83(1), 54–110.
91. State v. DeLoreto, 827 A.2d 671 (Conn. 2003).
92. Stomakhin v. Russia, Application No. 52273/07 (European Court of Human Rights, 2018).
93. Sürek v. Turkey, Application No. 24762/94 (European Court of Human Rights, 1999).
94. Tanör, B., & Yüzbaşıoğlu, N. (2006). 1982 Anayasası’na göre Türk anayasa hukuku. Beta Yayınları.
95. The Guardian. (2006, January 12). Abu Hamza trial: Islamic cleric had terror handbook, court told. https://www.theguardian.com
96. The Sunday Times (No. 1) v. United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights, n.d.).
97. The Sunday Times v. United Kingdom, Application No. 6538/74 (European Court of Human Rights, 1979).
98. Tønsberg Blad and Haukom v. Norway, App. No. 510/04, European Court of Human Rights, 1 March 2007.
99. UNESCO. (2015). Countering online hate speech.
100. United Nations General Assembly. (1994). Measures to eliminate international terrorism (Resolution 49/60).
101. United Nations General Assembly. (1994). Resolution 49/60: Measures to eliminate international terrorism.
102. United Nations Human Rights Committee. (2005). Eighty-fifth session: Experts to review reports of Canada, Paraguay, Italy, Brazil (HR/CT/670).
103. United Nations Human Rights Committee. (2011). General comment No. 34: Article 19—Freedoms of opinion and expression (CCPR/C/GC/34).
104. United Nations Human Rights Council. (2013). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (A/HRC/23/40).
105. United Nations Human Rights Council. (n.d.). Report of the Special Rapporteur … Mission to Mongolia (A/HRC/37/58/Add.2).
106. United Nations Security Council. (2005). Security Council Resolution 1624 (2005).
107. United States v. Fullmer, 584 F.3d 132 (3d Cir. 2009).
108. United States v. Parr, 545 F.3d 491 (7th Cir. 2008).
109. United States v. Pinkston, 338 F. App’x 801 (11th Cir. 2009).
110. Van Dijk, P., & van Hoof, G. (1990). Theory and practice of the European Convention on Human Rights.
111. Velichkin v. Belarus, Communication No. 1022/2001 (Human Rights Committee, 2005).
112. Veretto v. Ukraine, Application No. 20372/11 (European Court of Human Rights, 2013).
113. Vogt v. Germany, Application No. 17851/91 (European Court of Human Rights, 1995).
114. Wingrove v. United Kingdom, Application No. 17419/90 (European Court of Human Rights, 1996).
115. Yavuz and Yaylalı v. Turkey, Application No. 12606/11 (European Court of Human Rights, 2013).