Abstract

This study has been prepared with the aim of analyzing the challenges and boundaries of the international criminal court, which is shaped within the interaction of international law and international relations disciplines, with a theoretical approach and concepts. This international criminal institution has been developed in a significant and disproportionate manner in the latest years yet has failed to deliver full justice in practice. This process, which has evolved through the gradual development of international norms (the life cycle of norms) and various international criminal proceedings, gave rise to many controversial theories and concepts and managed to find place in the academic literature of both disciplines. Lack of a coercion mechanism in international law which will make itself legally binding for all states and the belief in the unshakable nature of state sovereignty have also made the prosecution of perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity and most importantly, genocide a difficult process. This situation has led to the failure of ensuring states’ full compliance with international norms, especially with regard to human rights. In this context, the main purpose of this study is making sense of international criminal court within the framework of states’ approach to international legal norms. For this purpose, the compliance of states with international legal norms will be analyzed by nourishing from the discussions within the academic literature and by drawing on one of the main theories of the discipline of international relations, constructivism. Relying upon this analysis, an alternative approach will be advocated for the prevention of the crimes under the jurisdiction of international criminal courts, through utilizing the concepts of ‘new sovereignty’, ‘transnational legal process’ and aforementioned ‘the life cycle of norms’.

Keywords

• A Compliance with Norms of International Law
• Theories of International Relations
• The Life Cycle of Norms
• Transnational Legal Process
• New Sovereignty

İNŞACILIK YAKLAŞIMI VE KAVRAMSAL TARTIŞMALAR ÇERÇEVESİNDE ULUSLARARASI CEZA MAHKEMESİ

Abstract

Bu çalışma uluslararası hukuk ve uluslararası ilişkiler disiplinlerinin etkileşimi içerisinde şekillenen Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi’nin (UCM) sınırlarını ve yaşadığı zorlukları, teorik bir yaklaşımla ve kavramlarla ele alma amacıyla hazırlanmıştır. Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi, çoğunlukla istikrarsız şekilde ve tartışmalara konu olarak son yıllarda kayda değer bir biçimde gelişse de uygulamada tam anlamıyla adil olmayı başaramamış uluslararası bir ceza kurumudur. Uluslararası normların aşamalı gelişimi (normların hayat döngüsü) ve çeşitli uluslararası ceza yargılamaları ile günümüzde birçok ihtilaflı kuram ve kavramla tartışılan bu uluslararası ceza kurumu her iki disiplininin akademik yazınında da kendine yer bulmayı başarmıştır. Uluslararası hukukun devletleri bağlayacak bir zorlama mekanizmasından yoksun oluşu ve devlet egemenliğinin sarsılmaz doğasına olan inanç, savaş suçu, insanlığa karşı işlenen suçlar ve en önemlisi soykırım suçu işleyen faillerin yargılamasını da zorlu bir süreç haline getirmiştir. Bu durum devletlerin uluslararası normlara, özellikle insan hakları konusunda tam anlamıyla uyumunun hiçbir zaman garanti altına alınamamasına sebep olmuştur. Bu kapsamda çalışmanın amacı, devletlerin uluslararası hukuk normlarına yaklaşımları çerçevesinde UCM’nin anlamlandırılmasıdır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda, devletlerin uluslararası hukuk normlarına uyumu konusu akademik literatürdeki tartışmalardan beslenerek ve uluslararası ilişkiler disiplininin inşacılık kuramından yararlanılarak analiz edilecektir. Bu analizden yola çıkarak uluslararası ceza mahkemelerinin kapsamına giren suçların önlenmesine yönelik ‘ulus-üstü yasal süreç’, ‘yeni egemenlik’ ve bahsi geçen ‘normların hayat döngüsü’ kavramlarından yararlanan alternatif bir yaklaşım savunulacaktır.

Keywords

• Uluslararası Hukuk Normlarına Uyum
• İnşacılık
• Normların Hayat Döngüsü
• Ulus-üstü Yasal Süreç
• Yeni Egemenlik

References

1. Abbott, K. (1992). Elements of a joint discipline. Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting, 86, 167-172. doi:10.1017/S027250370009457X.
2. Akande, D. (2004). İnternational law immunities and the international criminal court, American Journal Of International Law. 98(3), 407-433. doi:10.2307/3181639.
3. Armstrong, D. (2009). Routledge handbook of international law. Routledge.
4. Bass, G. J. (2000). Stay the hand of vengeance: the politics of war crimes tribunals. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
5. Becker, S. (2010). The objections of larger nations to the international criminal court. Revue Internationale De Droit Pénal, 81(1), 47-64.
6. Brunnée, J. ve Toope, S. J. (2012), Constructivism and international law, Ed. Jeffrey L. Dunoff ve Mark A. Pollack, Interdisciplinary Perspectives On International Law And International Relations: The State Of The Art, Cambridge University Press.
7. Cacciatori M. (2019), Al-Bashir: Why the ICC is between a rock and a hard place. https://theconversation.com/al-bashir-why-the-icc-is-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-115388/ April 12, 2019 (Erişim Tarihi: 10.07.2019).
8. Carter Linda E. (2010). The principle of complementarity and the international criminal court: the role of ne bis in idem, 8, Santa Clara J. Int'l L. 165-198.

9. Chayes A. ve Chayes A. H. (1993). On Compliance, International Organization, 47(2), 175-205. Does the ICC have a bias against Africa? Conflict Zone https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx4TK8YqY3c (Erişim Tarihi: 09.07.2019).
10. Donnely, J. (2014), Theories of international relations. Burchill S. ve Linklater A. (Eds). (3.Bs.). Palgrave Macmillan.
11. Fearon, J. D. (1999). What is identity (As we now use the word)? Stanford University.
12. Fehl, C. (2004). Explaining the international criminal court: A ‘practice test’ for rationalist and constructivist approaches, European Journal Of International Relations, 10(3), 357–394.
13. Finnemore M. ve Sikkink K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change, International Organization, 52, 887-917.
14. Galtung, J. (2013). Bir Başka Açıdan İnsan Hakları. Çev: Sözen M., Metis Yayınları.
15. Goldsmith, J. ve Krasner, S. (2003). The limits of idealism. Daedalus, 132(1), 47-63.
16. Henkin, L. (1968). How nations behave: law and foreign policy. New York: Published For The Council On Foreign Relations. F.A. Praeger.
17. http://www.coalitionfortheicc.org. .
18. http://www.coalitionfortheicc.org/cases/omar-albashir (Erişim Tarihi: 02.05.2019). .
19. http://www.coalitionfortheicc.org/country/libya (Erişim Tarihi: 02.05.2019). .
20. https://fas.org/nuke/control/abmt/chron.htm (Erişim Tarihi: 03.06.2020). .
21. https://www.amicc.org/obama-administration (Erişim Tarihi: 30.11.2020).
22. https://www.dw.com/en/fatou-bensouda-on-conflict-zone/av-19006172 (Erişim Tarihi: 09.07.2019).
23. https://www.icc-cpi.int/ (Erişim Tarihi: 16.03.2020). .
24. https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/item.aspx?name=otp-statement-05-12-2014-2 (Erişim Tarihi: 10.07.2019).
25. https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/9f86d4/pdf/ (Erişim Tarihi: 08.07.2019).
26. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/apr/12/icc-rejects-request-to-investigate-war-crimes-in-afghanistan (Erişim Tarihi: 09.07.2019).
27. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jun/07/british-troops-war-crimes-iraq-historic-allegations-team (Erişim Tarihi: 09.07.2019).
28. Jo, H. ve Simmons, A. B. (2016). Can the international criminal court deter atrocity?. International Organization, 70(3), 433-475.
29. Kenney, C. ve Norris, J. (2018), International justice on trial? taking stock of international justice over the past quarter century, Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/reports/2018/03/28/448415/international-justice-trial/( Erişim Tarihi: 07.04.2019).
30. Koh, H. H. (1997). Why do nations obey ınternational law?. Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2101. 2599-2659.
31. Koskenniemi, M. (2002). Between impunity and show trials. Max Planck. Yearbook Of United Nations Law.
32. Krasner, S. (1999). Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Prınceton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
33. Ku, C. ve Diehl, P. (2001). Exploring international law: opportunities and challenges for political science research: a roundtable. International Studies Review, 3(1), 3-23.
34. Lebow, R.N. (2008), A cultural theory of international relations, Cambridge University Press.
35. March, J. ve Olsen, J. (1989). The Logic Of Appropriateness, The Oxford Handbook of Political Science.
36. Mayerfeld, J. (2003). Who shall be the judge? The united states, theınternational criminal court, and the global enforcement of human rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 25(1), 93–129.
37. Olsen, J. P. ve March, J. G. (2004), The logic of appropriateness, ARENA Working Papers 9, ARENA.
38. Price, R. ve Reus-Smit, C. (1998). Dangerous liaisons?. European Journal of International Relations, 4. 259-294. doi: 10.1177/1354066198004003001.
39. Reus-Smit, C. (Ed.). (2004). The politics of international law (Cambridge Studies in International Relations). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40. Robinson, D. (2015). Inescapable dyads: Why the international criminal court cannot win, Leiden Journal Of International Law, 28(2), 323-347.
41. Rudolph, C. (2001). Constructing an atrocities regime: the politics of war crimes tribunals, International Organization, Cambridge University Press.
42. SABC Digital News video “ICC prosecutor’s resolve on Darfur unshakable” 12.11.2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBgEbXYfmjA (Erişim Tarihi: 02.05.2019).
43. Simmons, B. ve Danner A. (2007). Credible commitments and the international criminal court. International Organization 64(2), 225-256.
44. Simmons, B. ve Danner A. (2009). The international criminal court, Ed. Armstrong D. Routledge Handbook Of International Law.
45. Struett, M. (2008), Politics of constructing the international criminal court: NGO’s, discourse, and agency, Palgrave Macmillan.