18 Mart 2016 Tarihli AB-Türkiye Zirvesi Bildirisinin Hukuki Niteliği

Year 2017, Volume: 1 Issue: 1, 47 - 85, 01.06.2017

Nuray Ekşi

Abstract

Türkiye ile Avrupa Birliği
arasında yapılan geri kabul antlaşmasının üçüncü ülke vatandaşları ve
vatansızlar açısından uygulanma tarihinin geriye çekilmesi için bazı adımlar
atılmıştır. Bu adımlardan biri de 18 Mart 2016 tarihli toplantı sonucunda
hazırlanan metindir. Bu metin “AB-Türkiye Anlaşması”, “AB-Türkiye Mülteci
Anlaşması”, “AB-Türkiye Açıklaması”, “AB-Türkiye Mutabakat Zaptı” ve
“AB-Türkiye Basın Açıklaması” başta olmak üzere muhtelif adlarla anılmaktadır.
18 Mart 2016 tarihli metnin içeriğinin yanı sıra hukuki niteliği ve özellikle
bir milletlerarası antlaşma olup olmadığı da tartışılmaktadır. Çalışmamızda
ABAD kararlarının yanı sıra atipik milletlerarası antlaşmalara ilişkin
Milletlerarası Adalet Divanı kararları ve Viyana Antlaşmalar Hukuku
Konvansiyonu uyarınca 18 Mart 2016 tarihli metnin hukuki niteliği
irdelenecektir.

Keywords

Avrupa Birliği-Türkiye Geri Kabul Antlaşması, Ortak Geri Kabul Komitesi, Ortak Geri Kabul Komitesi’nin 2/2016 sayılı kararı, 18 Mart 2016 tarihli AB-Türkiye Açıklaması, AB-Türkiye Mülteci Anlaşması, atipik milletlerarası antlaşma

Legal Nature of the Statement of EU-Turkey Summit Dated 18 March 2016

Abstract

Some steps have been taken to bring forward the
implementation date of the readmission agreement between Turkey
and the European Union for third country nationals and stateless persons. One
of these steps is the text drafted at the end of the meeting of 18 March 2016.
This text is referred to in various names, in particular the “EU-Turkey
Agreement”, “EU-Turkey Refugee Deal”, “EU-Turkey Statement”, “EU-Turkey
Memorandum of Understanding” and “EU-Turkey Press Release”. Not only the
content of the text dated 18 March 2016 but also its legal nature as well as
whether it can be qualified as an international treaty has also been under
discussion. This study will evaluate the legal nature of the text dated 18
March 2016 in
accordance with the decisions of the ECJ and the decisions of International
Court of Justice concerning atypical international treaties as well as the
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Keywords

European Union-Turkey Readmission Agreement, Joint Readmission Committee, Decision No 2/2016 of the Joint Readmission Committee, EU-Turkey Statement of 18 March 2016, EU-Turkey Refugee Deal, atypical international treaty

References

• Aydın, G. (2016). Deniz Yoluyla Gerçekleştirilen Düzensiz Göç ile Mücadelede Devletlerin Yetki ve Uygulamaları, 2, GAD.
• Babicka, K. (2017). EU-Turkey deal seems to be schizophrenic, http:// migrationonline.cz/en/eu-turkey-deal-seems-to-be-schizophrenic (17.6.2017).
• —Council Decision (EU) 2016/551 of 23 March 2016 establishing the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the Joint Readmission Committee on a Decision of the Joint Readmission Committee on implementing arrangements for the application of Articles 4 and 6 of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Turkey on the readmission of persons residing withoutauthorisation from 1 June 2016, OJ L95 9.4.2016 s. 9-11.
• Heijer, D. M. and Spijkerboer, T. (2017). Is the EU-Turkey refugee and migration deal a treaty? 7 April 2016: http://eulawanalysis. blogspot.com.tr/2016/04/is-eu-turkey-refugee-and-migration-deal. html (17.6.2017).
• Ekşi, N. (2014). The New Turkish Law on Foreigners and International Protection: An Overall Assessment, Schriften zum Migrationsrecht, Band 17, Baden-Baden.
• Ekşi, N. (2016). Türkiye Avrupa Birliği Geri Kabul Antlaşması, İstanbul.
• Ekşi, N. (2016). Yabancılar Hukukuna İlişkin Mevzuat ve Antlaşmalar, İstanbul.
• Ekşi, N. (2015). Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Hukuku, 3. bası, İstanbul.
• Ekşi, N. (2016). Türkiye-Avrupa Birliği Geri Kabul Antlaşması: Bir Hatalar Zinciri, 14(163) LHD, s. 3565-3572. Ekşi, N. (2016). Joint Readmission Committee Constituted by the EU- Turkey Readmission Agreement Has No Power to Change of Date from 1 October 2017 to 1 June 2016 for the Implementation of Obligations Contained in Articles 4 and 6 on the Readmission of Third Country Nationals and Stateless Persons, 1(1) RAL, s. 21-25.
• Elitez, C. (2016). The EU-Turkey “Refugee Deal”: A New Way of Responsibility-Sharing or the Collapse of the International System for the Protection of Refugees?, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Hukuk Yüksek Lisans Programı (İnsan Hakları Hukuku), Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisan Tezi, İstanbul.
• ––European Commission-Fact Sheet EU-Turkey joint action plan Brussels, 15 October 2015: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5860_en.htm (17.6.2017).
• Labayle, H. and Bruycker, D.P. (2017). The EU-Turkey Agreement on migration and asylum: False pretences or a fool’s bargain? [Blog] EU Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy 1.4.2016: http:// eumigrationlawblog.eu/the-eu-turkey-agreement-on-migration-and- asylum-false-pretences-or-a-fools-bargain/(26.6.2017).
• Matuşescu, C. (2016). Considerations on the Legal Nature and Validity of the EU-Turkey Refugee Deal. Law Review, (6).
• Meeting of heads of state or government with Turkey-EU-Turkey statement, 29.11.2015: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/ press-releases/2015/11/29-eu-turkey-meeting-statement/(17.6.2017).
• Peers, S. (2016). Steve, The draft EU/Turkey deal on migration and refugees: is it legal?: http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com.tr/2016/03/the- draft-euturkey-deal-on-migration.html (17.6.2017).
• Toluner, S. Sevin, (2005-2006). “Objektif Hukukî Durum Yaratan Andlaşmalar” Kavramı Gerekli midir?, Prof. Dr. Aslan Gündüz’ün Anısına Armağan, (2005-2006)1-2 MHB.