Yabancı Terörist Savaşçı Olgusuyla Mücadele: Fransa ve Belçika Karşılaştırması

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Fransa ve Belçika’nın Yabancı Terörist Savaşçılar (YTS) olgusuna karşı aldığı tedbirleri insan hakları perspektifinden karşılaştırmalı olarak incelemektedir. Çalışma, örnek vaka incelemesi yöntemiyle iki ülkenin Ortadoğu’daki çatışmalara giden, Avrupa’ya geri dönen veya yer değiştiren YTS’lere veya şüpheli YTS’lere yönelik aldığı hukuki, idari, önleyici veya kişilerin rehabilitasyonunu hedefleyen tedbirleri analiz etmektedir. Bulgular, Fransa’nın daha sert ve güvenlik odaklı; Belçika’nın ise daha önleyici ve yerel tabanlı politikalar geliştirdiğini ortaya koymaktadır. İnsan hakları açısından; çalışmada Fransa’nın olağanüstü hal uygulamaları ile seyahat yasakları gibi önlemler eleştirilirken, Belçika’da ise rehabilitasyon programlarının yetersizliği ve geri dönüşlerine izin verilmeyen çocukların oluşturduğu insani riske dikkat çekilmektedir. Her iki ülkede de soruşturma ve kovuşturmaların bağımsızlık ve tarafsızlık ilkesi çerçevesinde yürütülmemesi, ceza infaz kurumlarının radikalleşme riskini artıran yapılar hâline gelmesi ve vatandaşlıktan yoksun bırakma gibi tedbirler benzer insan hakları riskleriyle eleştirilmektedir. Sonuçlar, her iki ülkenin de güvenlik öncelikleri ile insan hakları yükümlülükleri arasında denge kurmakta zorlandığını ve bu alanda daha şeffaf, hak temelli politikalara öncelik vermesi gerektiğini göstermektedir.

Keywords

• Uluslararası Güvenlik
• Terörizm
• Uluslararası Hukuk
• Uluslararası İlişkiler
• İnsan Hakları Hukuku
• Yabancı Terörist Savaşçılar
• Fransa
• Belçika

Combating The Foreign Terrorist Fighter Phenomenon: A Comparison of France and Belgium

Abstract

This study comparatively examines the measures taken by France and Belgium against the phenomenon of Foreign Terrorist Fighters (FTFs) from a human rights perspective. The study analyzes the legal, administrative, preventive, or rehabilitation measures taken by the two countries against FTFs or suspected FTFs who travelled to conflicts in the Middle East, returned to Europe, or relocated, using a case study methodology. The findings reveal that France developed stricter and security-focused policies, while Belgium pursued more preventative and locally grounded approaches. From a human rights perspective, the study criticizes measures such as France’s state of emergency declarations and travel bans, while highlighting the inadequacy of rehabilitation programs and the humanitarian risk posed by children who are not allowed to return to Belgium. In both countries, the failure to conduct investigations and prosecutions within the framework of the principles of independence and impartiality has led to penitentiary institutions becoming structures that increase the risk of radicalization, and measures such as deprivation of citizenship have been criticized for similar human rights risks. The results show that both countries struggle to balance national security priorities with their human rights obligations, and should prioritize more transparent, rights-based policies in this area.

Keywords

• International Security
• Terrorism
• International Law
• International Relations
• Human Rights Law
• Foreign Terrorist Fighters
• France
• Belgium

References

1. ADAL, G. (2016). Video: Belçika’da Verviers terör hücresi üyelerine 16 yıla kadar hapis. Lyon: Euronews.
2. AI. (2016). Amnesty International Report 2015/16: The State of The World’s Human Rights. London: AI.
3. AI. (2016). Upturned Lives: The Disproportıonate Impact of France’s State of Emergency. London: AI.
4. AI. (2020). Responses to Covid-19 and States’ Human Rights Obligations: Preliminary Observations. London: AI.
5. ANF. (2012). LOI n° 2012-1432 du 21 décembre 2012 relative à la sécurité et à la lutte contre le terrorisme. Paris: ANF.
6. ANF. (2014). LOI n° 2014-1353 du 13 novembre 2014 renforçant les dispositions relatives à la lutte contre le terrorisme (1). Paris: ANF.
7. ANF. (2014). LOI n° 2014-2110 renforçant les dispositions relatives à la lutte contre le terrorisme. Paris: ANF.
8. ANF. (2015). Loi n° 55-385 du 3 avril 1955 relative à l’état d’urgence. Paris: ANF.

9. ARCHICK, K., et al. (2015). European Fighters in Syria and Iraq: Assessments, Responses, and Issues for the United States. Washington: LOCCRS.
10. ARSLAN, H. (2018). Vekâlet Savaşlarının Transformasyonu. Third Mediterranean International Congress on Social Sciences, 375-386.
11. ARSLAN, H. (2020). Vekâlet Savaşları Bağlamında Suudi Arabistan-Husi Çatışmasının ve Aramco Saldırısının Bölgesel ve Küresel Güvenliğe Etkileri. Anadolu Strateji Dergisi, 2(1), 19-32.
12. BBC. (2017). Brüksel’de intihar bombacısı olduğundan şüphelenilen kişi öldürüldü. London: BBC.
13. BBC. (2019). Brüksel’deki Yahudi Müzesi saldırısının sanıkları suçlu bulundu. London: BBC.
14. BOUTIN, B., et al. (2016). The Foreign Fighters Phenomenon in the European Union: Profiles, Threats and Policies. Hague: ICCT.
15. BURGIS, T. (2016). EU Terror Chief Warns on Handling of Syria Returnees. London: Financial Times.
16. CANIK, M. E. (2024). Esed rejimi hapishanelerinde işkence altında 18 yıl tutulan Merab: Bize vurmak için elektrik kabloları kullanıyorlardı. Ankara: AA.
17. CHIRANI, M. (2024). Managing Islamist Terrorist and Radicalised Prisoners: France’s Strategy between 2013 and 2023. Hague: ICCT.
18. CoE. (2016). Committee of Experts on Terrorism (Codexter) Profiles on Counter-Terrorist Capacity: Belgium. Strasbourg, CoE.
19. COOLSAET R., RENARD, T. (2018). Returnees – Who are they, why are they (not) coming back and how should we deal with them? Assessing Policies on Returning Foreign Terrorist Fighters in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. Brussels: EGMONT.
20. COOLSAET, R. (2016). What Drives Europeans to Syria, and to Islamic State? Insights from the Belgian Case. Brussels: EGMONT.
21. CRB. (1867). Belgium Criminal Code. Brussels: CRB.
22. CRB. (1980). Loi sur l’accès au territoire, le séjour, l’établissement et l’éloignement des étrangers. Brussels: CRB.
23. CRB. (1984). Code de la nationalité belge. Brussels: CRB.
24. CREIGHTON, L., RIEDENSTEIN, C. (2024). Boosting Europe’s Digital Leaders: A New Momentum for the D9+. Washington: CEPA.
25. CTED. (2018). The Challenge of Returning and Relocating Foreign Terrorist Fighters: Research Perspectives. New York: CTED.
26. DE STANDAARD. (2018). Vlaanderen verdeeld over lot kinderen Syriëstrijders. Brussels: DE STANDAARD.
27. DUFFY, H. (2018). Guidelines for Addressing the Threats and Challenges of ‘Foreign Terrorist Fighters’ within a Human Rights Framework. Warsaw: OSCE.
28. ECtHR. (2022). T. 14.9.2022, Applications nos. 24384/19 and 44234/20): https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{“itemid”:[“001-219333”]}, (A.D. 12.7.2025).
29. EMN. (2024). A new national prevention mechanism will monitor places of deprivation of liberty, including closed centres. Brussels: EMN.
30. EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT. (2018). Terrorism in the EU: terror attacks, deaths and arrests. Brussels: EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT.
31. EUROPOL. (2019). European Union Terrorism Situation and Trend Report 2019. Lahey: EUROPOL.
32. FR GOUVERNEMENT. (2015). Stop djihadisme: contre le djihadisme, tous vigilants et tous acteurs. Paris: FR GOUVERNEMENT
33. FRANCE24. (2012). Toulouse gunman Merah was ‘raised to hate Jews’. Paris: France24.
34. HAMAID, M. (2017). Foreign fighters: a five eyes border management perspective. Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism Journal, 12(1), 47-65.
35. HELLMUTH, D. (2015). Countering Jihadi Radicals and Foreign Fighters in the United States and France: Très Similaire. Journal for Deradicalization, 5(4), 1-43.
36. HERNANDEZ, M. (2019). Trump, France’s Macron clash over Daesh/ISIS fighters. Ankara: Anadolu Agency.
37. HERSZENHORN, D. M. (2019). Trump threatens to release ISIS fighters if EU doesn’t take them. Washington: POLITICO.
38. HIGGINS, A. (2015). Belgium Confronts the Jihadist Danger Within. New York: New York Times.
39. HOFFMAN, A., FURLAN, M. (2020). Challenges Posed by Returning Foreign Fighters. Washington: GWUPOE.
40. HRW. (2014). France: Counterterrorism Bill Threatens Rights. New York: HRW.
41. KACHROO, R. (2019). IS threat will grow after the caliphate falls, Interpol chief warns. London: ITV News.
42. LYNCH, C. (2013). Europe’s New ‘Time Bomb’ Is Ticking in Syria”. Washington: Foreign Policy.
43. MFA. (2016). Turkey-Belgium Foreign Affairs, Justice and Interior Ministers Meeting. Ankara: MFA.
44. NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE. (2016). French Ministry of Health’s response to Paris attacks of 13 November 2015. Maryland: NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE.
45. NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE. (2023). July 14th 2016 Nice Terrorist Attack Court Trial: A Protocol on Sleep Quality and Somatic Symptoms as Markers of Risk for Traumatic Reactivation in Adolescents Exposed to This Attack. Maryland: NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE.
46. NERVA, N. (2022). Derogations to the European Convention on Human Rights in Times of Emergency. Denmark: Danish Institute for Human Rights.
47. NIELSEN, N. (2014). EU states adopt new counter-terrorism plan. Brussels: EUobserver.
48. OBAMA, B. (2016). President Obama Delivers a Statement on ISIL. Washington: White House.
49. ODOXA FR. (2019). L’Opinion tranchée: Les Français approuvent massivement le jugement des djihadistes par l’Irak et ne veulent pas voir leurs enfants revenir. France: ODOXA FR.
50. OHCHR. (2015). Preliminary findings of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries - Mission to Belgium: 12 - 16 October 2015. New York: OHCHR.
51. OHCHR. (2019). Visit to Belgium Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. New York: OHCHR.
52. OSTAEYEN, P., VLIERDEN, G. (2018). Citizenship and Ancestry of Belgian Foreign Fighters. Hague: ICCT.
53. ÖZAR, S., YAVUZ, A. H. (2017). Avrupa’nın Terörle İmtihanı: Yabancı Terörist Savaşçılarla Mücadele Bağlamında Fransa ve Hollanda Tecrübesi, Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi, 8(31), 441-468.
54. ÖZKAN, Y. (2022). Brüksel’de 32 kişinin öldüğü 2016 saldırılarının zanlıları altı yıl sonra mahkeme önünde. London: BBC.
55. ÖZTÜRK, S. (2021). DEAŞ’ın Yükselişi ve Düşüşü. Ankara: Police Academy.
56. PAULUSSEN, C, ENTENMANN, E. (2014). Addressing Europe’s Foreign Fighter Issue Legal Avenues at the International and National Level in Security and Human Rights. Brill Journal, 25(1), 86-118.
57. PAULUSSEN, C. (2016). Repressing the Foreign Fighters Phenomenon and Terrorism in Western Europe: Towards an Effective Response Based on Human Rights. Hague: ICCT.
58. PIETRASANTA, S. (2015). La deradicalisation, outil de lutte contre le terrorisme. Paris: Premier Minister.
59. RENARD, T. (2020). Extremist Offender Management in Belgium. Brussels: ICSR.
60. RENARD, T. (2020). Sur le rapatriement des enfants et des combattants belges en Syrie. Brussels: EGMONT.
61. SCHMID, A. P., TINNES, J. (2015). Foreign (Terrorist) Fighters with IS: A European Perspective. Hague: ICCT.
62. ŞEKER, N. T., YAĞIZ, D. (2015). Charlie Hebdo Saldırısının Türk ve Fransız Basınındaki Sunumu, Akdeniz Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi, (24), 189-211.
63. SOUFAN CENTER. (2015). Foreign Fighters: An Updated Assessment of the Flow of Foreign Fighters into Syria and Iraq. New York: SOUFAN CENTER.
64. STEFFENS, E. (2017). Les combattants belges de l’EI doivent assumer leurs actes. Brussels: VRT NWS.
65. UN SECURITY COUNCIL. (2014). S/RES/2178(2014). New York: UN.
66. UN SECURITY COUNCIL. (2017). S/RES/2396(2017). New York: UN.
67. UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR. (2018). Preliminary findings of the visit: UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism concludes visit to France. New York: UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR.
68. UN. (1945). Statute of the International Court of Justice. San Francisco: UN.
69. UN. (N.D.). Treaties. San Francisco: UN.
70. UNHCR. (2013). Country Reports on Terrorism 2013-Belgium. Geneva: UNHCR.
71. UNHCR. (2013). International Protection Considerations with regard to people fleeing the Syrian Arab Republic: Update II. Geneva: UNHCR.
72. UNHRC. (2017). Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic. Geneva: UNHRC.
73. UNODC. (2017). Manuel sur la gestion des détenus extrémistes violents et la prévention de la radicalisation violente en milieu carcéral. New York, UNODC.
74. VIDINO, L., PIGONI, L., SNETKOV, A. (2014). Foreign Fighters: An Overview of Responses in Eleven Countries. ETH Zürich: CSS Studies.
75. WAUTELET, P. (2016). Deprivation of citizenship for ‘jihadists’ Analysis of Belgian and French practice and policy in light of the principle of equal treatment, Liege, 2016, s. 7.
76. YALÇINKAYA, H. (2017). IŞİD’in Yabancı Savaşçıları ve Yarattığı Tehdit: Türkiye’nin Tecrübesi (2014-2016). Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 14(53), 23-43.
77. YAZAR, E. (2021). İnsan Hakları Bağlamında Avrupa’da Yabancı Terörist Savaşçılar. Ankara: Adalet Publishing.
78. YAZAR, E. (2021). Assessment of the measures taken against foreign terrorist fighters in the context of human rights: The case of France, Germany, United Kingdom and Belgium. Police Academy Security Sciences Institute (Doctoral Thesis). Ankara.
79. YAZAR, E. (2023). Vatandaşlıktan Yoksun Bırakmada Gözetilmesi Gereken İlkeler: İnsan Hakları Açısından Bir Değerlendirme. Yıldırım Beyazıt Hukuk Dergisi, (1), 165-219.
80. ZUIJDEWIJN, J. R. (2014). The Foreign Fighters’ Threat: What History Can (not) Tell Us, Perspectives on Terrorism Journal, 8(5), 59-73.