Uluslararası Hukukta Devletlerin Egemen Eşitliğini Yeniden Düşünmek: Normatif İddialar ve Pratik Gerçeklikler

Öz

Egemen eşitlik, modern uluslararası hukukun temel ilkelerinden biri olarak kabul edilmekte olup Birleşmiş Milletler Antlaşması’nın 2(1). maddesinde açık biçimde ifade edilmiştir. Bu ilke, devletlerin büyüklüğü, ekonomik gücü ya da siyasal tercihleri ne olursa olsun uluslararası hukuk düzeninde eşit hukuki statüye sahip olduklarını varsayar. Bununla birlikte, uluslararası kurumların ve küresel yönetişim yapılarının içkin güç asimetrileri nedeniyle egemen eşitlik ilkesinin uygulamada çoğu zaman sembolik bir nitelik taşıdığı görülmektedir. Bu çalışma, egemen eşitlik ilkesini normatif iddiaları ile pratik uygulanışı arasındaki gerilim bağlamında yeniden değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma, hukuki metinlerin öğretisel analizi ile egemen eşitlik literatürüne ilişkin eleştirel söylem analizini bir arada kullanmaktadır. Çalışma, egemen eşitlik kavramının Avrupa merkezli kökenlerinden Birleşmiş Milletler sistemi içindeki kurumsallaşmasına uzanan tarihsel gelişimini incelemekte ve bu ilkenin sömürge sonrası hiyerarşiler, güç asimetrileri ve tanınma siyasetleri içinde nasıl hem inşa edildiğini hem de tartışmaya açıldığını göstermektedir. Sonuç olarak egemen eşitliğin normatif değeri sürmekle birlikte, ilkenin anlamlı biçimde uygulanabilmesi daha çoğulcu hukuki çerçevelerin geliştirilmesini, uluslararası kurumlarda kapsayıcılığın artırılmasını ve devletlerin farklı tarihsel ve siyasal konumlarını dikkate alan tanınma süreçlerinin oluşturulmasını gerektirmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Egemen Eşitlik
• Uluslararası Hukuk
• Postkolonyal Eleştiri
• BM Antlaşması
• Kurumsal Eşitsizlik

Rethinking Sovereign Equality of States in International Law: Normative Claims and Practical Realities

Öz

Sovereign equality is widely recognized as a fundamental principle of modern international law and is explicitly articulated in Article 2(1) of the United Nations Charter. The concept of sovereign equality guarantees legal parity among all states, regardless of their size, relative wealth, or political orientation. However, in practice, this principle has often functioned more symbolically than substantively due to structural inequalities embedded within international institutions and systems of global governance. This article re-evaluates the principle of sovereign equality and examines its contemporary relevance in a global order marked by a significant gap between its normative ideal and its uneven application in international law. The methodology combines doctrinal analysis of legal texts and treaties with a critical discourse analysis of key scholarly works referenced in the study. The paper traces the historical evolution of sovereign equality from its Eurocentric origins through its codification within the United Nations system and examines how it has been both constructed and contested through postcolonial hierarchies, asymmetries, and recognition politics. Drawing on critical legal theory and postcolonial thought, the study demonstrates the dual character of sovereign equality as both a legal instrument designed to protect weaker states from domination and a mechanism that may reproduce forms of exclusion and inequality. Accordingly, while sovereign equality retains significant normative value, its meaningful application requires structural reforms, including more pluralistic legal frameworks, greater inclusivity in international institutional practices, and recognition processes that reflect the diverse realities and needs of states.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sovereign Equality
• International Law
• Postcolonial Critique
• UN Charter
• Institutional Inequality

Kaynakça

1. Ansong, A. (2018). The concept of sovereign equality of states in international law. GIMPA Law Review, 2(1), 13–42.
2. Baker, P. J. (1923–1924). The doctrine of legal equality of states. British Yearbook of International Law, 4, 1–20.
3. Brown, P. M. (1915). The theory of the independence and equality of states. American Journal of International Law, 9(2), 305–335.
4. Byers, M., Raghavan, V., & Becerra-Ramirez, M. (2005). Voices from the outside: Sovereign equality, international law, and the imbalance of power. Cambridge University Press.
5. Cimanuka, K. J. L. (2022). Principle of sovereign equality and non-interference in the internal affairs of a state. Tirtayasa Journal of International Law, 1(1), 59–75.
6. Gaubatz, K. T. (2015). Democratic states and the sovereign equality norm. Retrieved December 13, 2025, from http://kktg.net/kurt/publications/pubs/Sovereign%20Equality.pdf
7. Hasan, A. S. M. M. (2021). Uluslararası hukukta devletlerin içişlerine karışmama ilkesinin incelenmesi: Bangladeş örneği (Doctoral dissertation, Bursa Uludağ University). YöK. Tez.
8. Honneth, A. (1995). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts. MIT Press.

9. International Court of Justice. (1969). North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v. Netherlands), Judgment. ICJ Reports 1969, p. 3.
10. International Court of Justice. (2005). Case concerning certain property (Liechtenstein v. Germany), Judgment of 10 February 2005. ICJ Reports 2005, p. 6.
11. Kelsen, H. (1944). The principle of sovereign equality of states as a basis for international organization. Yale Law Journal, 53(2), 207–220.
12. Kingsbury, B. (1998). Sovereignty and inequality. European Journal of International Law, 9(4), 599–625.
13. Koskenniemi, M., & Kari, V. (2020). Sovereign equality. In J. E. Viñuales (Ed.), The UN Friendly Relations Declaration at 50: An assessment of the fundamental principles of international law (pp. 166–188). Cambridge University Press.
14. Kyryliuk, N., Savchyn, N., Bobryk, V., Koroied, S., & Makhinchuk, V. (2022). The place of the sovereign equality of states in the modern system of basic principles of international law. ASTRA Salvensis, 10(1), 563–575.
15. Magarasevic, A. (1980). On the sovereign equality of states in contemporary international law. Zbornik Radova, 14, 27–60.
16. Mao, Y. (1956). The principle of sovereign equality in the United Nations (Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago).
17. McNair, A. D. (1927). Equality in international law. Michigan Law Review, 26(2), 131–152.
18. Moslemi, B., & Babaeimehr, A. (2015). Principle of sovereign equality of states in the light of the doctrine of responsibility to protect. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies, Special Issue, 687–697.
19. Risvas, M. (2017). Non-discrimination in international law and sovereign equality of states: An historical perspective. Houston Journal of International Law, 39(1), 79–112.
20. Roth, B. R. (2005). Sovereign equality and “bounded pluralism” in the international legal order. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), 99, 392–395.
21. Stirk, P. M. R. (2012). The Westphalian model and sovereign equality. Review of International Studies, 38(3), 641–660.
22. Thomas, A. van W., & Thomas, A. J. (1951). Equality of states in international law: Fact or fiction? Virginia Law Review, 37(6), 791–823.
23. United Nations. (1945). Charter of the United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter
24. United Nations. (1965). Consensus on principle of sovereign equality of states reached by Special Committee on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations of States. International Legal Materials, 4(1), 28–50.
25. United Nations. (1969). Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%201155/volume-1155-i-18232-english.pdf
26. United Nations General Assembly. (1970). Declaration on principles of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation among states in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (A/RES/25/2625).
27. Wright, Q. (1970). The equality of states. Cornell International Law Journal, 3(1), 1–8.
28. Yurtsever, S., & Öğün, M. N. (2020). Sovereign equality in international relations. Uluslararası Türk Kültür Coğrafyasında Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(2), 152–172.
29. Zarakol, A. (2018). Sovereign equality as misrecognition. Review of International Studies, 44(5), 848–862.