ULUSLARARASI İNSANCIL HUKUK İNSANSIZ HAVA ARAÇLARININ KULLANILDIĞI OPERASYONLARDA ŞEFFAFLIK YÜKÜMLÜLÜĞÜ YARATIR MI?

Abstract

İnsansız hava araçlarının silahlı çatışmalarda aktif olarak kullanılmaya başlanmasıyla beraber saldırıların hukuki dayanağının açıklanması, hedeflerin kimliğinin belirlenmesi, sivil kayıpların kamuoyuyla paylaşılması, tarafsız ve etkin soruşturmaların yürütülmesine yönelik endişeler giderek artmaktadır. Bu gerekçelerle, şeffaflık eksikliği insansız hava araçlarının kullanıldığı operasyonlarda hayati bir konumdadır. Uluslararası insancıl hukuk devletlere açık bir şeffaflık yükümlülüğü getirmemektedir. Ancak uluslararası toplumda şeffaflığın sağlanmasına yönelik bir eğilim bulunmaktadır. Bu makale uluslararası insancıl hukukta şeffaflık yükümlülüğünün hukuki temellerini araştırmaktadır. Cenevre Sözleşmeleri’nin Ortak 1. Maddesinde yer alan saygı gösterme, saygı gösterilmesini sağlama ve soruşturma görevinin şeffaflık yükümlülüğü için bir temel oluşturduğu savunulmaktadır. Etkili başvuru hakkı ve hakikat hakkı, şeffaflık yükümlülüğüne doğru bir yönelim yarattığı için makalede incelenmektedir. Şeffaflık yükümlülüğünün hukukun üstünlüğünün sağlanmasında öneme sahip olduğu gerekçesiyle, bu makalenin araştırma sonuçları uluslararası insancıl hukukta şeffaflık için bir hukuki temel oluşturmayı amaçlamaktadır.

Keywords

• Uluslararası insancıl hukuk
• şeffaflık
• insansız hava araçları
• ortak madde 1

DOES INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW CREATE AN OBLIGATION OF TRANSPARENCY IN OPERATIONS USING UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES?

Abstract

With the active use of unmanned aerial vehicles in armed conflicts, there are growing concerns about the legal basis for attacks, the identification of targets, the public disclosure of civilian casualties, and the conduct of impartial and effective investigations. For these reasons, lack of transparency is crucial in operations using drones. International humanitarian law does not impose a clear transparency obligation on states. However, there is a trend in the international community towards transparency. This article explores the legal foundations of the transparency obligation in international humanitarian law. It is argued that the duty to respect, ensure respect and investigate in Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions provides a basis for the obligation of transparency. The right to effective remedy and the right to truth are examined in the article as they create a trend towards the obligation of transparency. Given the importance of the duty of transparency in ensuring the rule of law, the research results of this article aim to provide a legal basis for transparency in international humanitarian law.

Keywords

• International humanitarian law
• transparency
• unmanned aerial vehicles
• common article 1

References

1. Al-Skeini and others v The United Kingdom, 55721/07 (ECtHR 07 07, 2011).
2. Antkowiak, T. (2002). Truth as Right and Remedy in International Human Rights Experience. Michigan Journal of International Law, 977.
3. Bautista de Arellana v Colombia , 563/1993 (United Nations Human Rights Committee 10 27, 1995).
4. Beck, L. D., & Henckaerts, J. M. (2005). Customary International Humanitarian Law. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
5. Bianchi, A. (2013). On Power and Illusion: The Concept of Transparency in International Law. A. Bianchi, & A. Peters içinde, Transparency in International Law (s. 9). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
6. Brehm, M. (2007). The Arms Trade and States’ Duty to Ensure Respect for Humanitarian and Human Rights Law. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 359-387.
7. Cambridge Dictionaries. (2022, 08 06). https://dictionary.cambridge.org/. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/transparency adresinden alındı
8. Case Concerning the Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States) (Judgment), ICJ Rep 392 (International Court of Justice 06 27, 1986).

9. Caso Velásquez Rodríguez vs Honduras, Series C No 4 (IACtHR 07 29, 1988).
10. Claude Reyes and Others v Chile, Series C No 151 (IACtHR 09 19, 2006).
11. Cohen, A., & Shany, Y. (2012). Beyond the Grave Breaches Regime: The Duty to Investigate Alleged Violations of International Law Governing Armed Conflicts. M. Schmitt, & L. Arimatsu içinde, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law (s. 61). The Hague: TMC Asser Press.
12. Commission of Experts. (1994). Final Report of the Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to Resolution 780 of the Security Council. Geneva: UN.
13. Cyprus v Turkey, 25781/94 (ECtHR 05 10, 2001).
14. David, V. (2014). The Expanding Right to an Effective Remedy: Common Developments at the Human Rights Committee and the Inter-American Court. British Journal of American Legal Studies, 259-277.
15. Desmet, E. (2018). The Un Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation : A Landmark or Window - Dressing ? An Analysis with Special Attention to the Situation of Indigenous Peoples. South African Journal on Human Rights, 71-103.
16. Dörmann, K., & Serralvo, J. (2015). Common Article 1 to the Geneva Conventions and the Obligation to Prevent International Humanitarian Law Violations. International Review of the Red Cross, 707-736.
17. Draper, L. (2014, 12 12). The Wedding That Became a Funeral: U.S. Still Silent One Year on From Deadly Yemen Drone Strike. Newsweek, s. 4.
18. Droege, C. (2006). International Commission of Jurists, The Right to a Remedy and to Reparation for Gross Human Rights Violations A Practitioners Guide. Geneva: International Commission of Jurists.
19. Focarelli, C. (2010). Common Article 1 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions: A Soap Bubble? European Journal of International Law, 158.
20. Geiss, R. (2015). Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions : Scope and Content of the Obligation to Ensure Respect - Narrow but Deep or Wide and Shallow? H. Krieger içinde, Inducing Compliance with International Humanitarian Law : Lessons from the African Great Lakes Region (s. 417-441). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. Groome, D. (2011). The Right to Truth in the Fight Against Impunity. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 198.
22. Gupta, A., & Mason, M. (2014). A Transparency Turn in Global Environmental Governance. A. Gupta, & M. Mason içinde, Transparency in Global Environmental Governance: Critical Perspectives (s. 3). Cambridge: MIT Press.
23. ICRC. (2007). International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts. International Review of the Red Cross, 719.
24. ICRC. (2022, 08 13). Customary IHL: Rule 158. https://www.icrc.org/: https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule158 adresinden alındı
25. Imseis, A. (2005). Critical Reflections on the International Humanitarian Law Aspects of the ICJ Wall Advisory Opinion. The American Journal of International Law, 102-118.
26. International Commission of Jurists. (2000). Amicus Curie Brief Before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Case of Efrain Bamaca Velasquez v Guatemala. Geneva: International Commission of Jurists.
27. Isayeva v. Russia, 57950/00 (ECtHR 02 24, 2005).
28. José Vicente and Others v Colombia, 612/1995 (United Nations Human Rights Committee 06 14, 1994).
29. Kessler, B. (2001). The Duty to Ensure Respect under Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions: Its Implications on International and Non-International Armed Conflicts. German Yearbook of International Law, 39.
30. Klaaren, J. (2013). The Human Right to Information. A. Bianchi, & A. Peters içinde, Transparency In International Law (s. 225). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
31. Koh, H. (2013, 05 07). How to End the Forever War? http://opiniojuris.org: http://opiniojuris.org/wp-content/uploads/2013-5-7-corrected-koh-oxford-union-speech-as-delivered.pdf adresinden alındı
32. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion) , ICJ Rep 136 (International Court of Justice 07 09, 2004).
33. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion), ICJ Rep. 226 (International Court of Justice 07 08, 1996).
34. Lieblich, E. (2012). Show Us the Films: Transparency, National Security and Disclosure of Information Collected by Advanced Weapon Systems under International Law. Israel Law Review, 459.
35. Margalit, A. (2014). The Duty to Investigate Civilian Casualties During Armed Conflict and Its Implementation in Practice. T. Gill içinde, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law (s. 162). The Hague: TMC Asser Press.
36. María del Carmen Almeida de Quinteros v Uruguay, 107/1981 (UN Human Rights Committee 07 21, 1983).
37. McCann and Others v UK, 18984/91 (ECtHR 09 27, 1995).
38. McDonagh, M. (2013). The Right to Information in International Human Rights Law. Human Rights Law Review, 25-55.
39. Naftali, O. B. (2013). How Much Secrecy Does Warfare Need? A. Bianchi, & A. Peters içinde, Transparency In International Law (s. 360). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40. Naqvi, Y. (2006). The Right to the Truth in International Law: Fact or Fiction? International Review of the Red Cross, 271.
41. Orellana, M. (2011). The Right of Access to Information and Investment Arbitration. ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, 71.
42. Palwankar, U. (1994). Measures Available to States for Fulfilling Their Obligation to Ensure Respect for International Humanitarian Law. International Review of the Red Cross, 9-26.
43. Pasqualucci , J. (1994). The Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth: Truth Commissions, Impunity and the Inter-American Human Rights System. Boston University International Law Journal, 369.
44. Paulussen, C., Dorsey, J., & Boutin, B. (2016). Towards a European Position on the Use of Armed Drones?: A Human Rights Approach. 26: International Centre for Counter-Terrorism.
45. Pejic, J. (2011). The Protective Scope of Common Article 3: More than Meets the Eye. International Review of the Red Cross, 189-225.
46. Peled, R., & Rabin, Y. (2011). The Constitutional Right to Information. Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 357-382.
47. Peters, A. (2013). Towards Transparency as a Global Norm. A. Bianchi, & A. Peters içinde, Transparency in International Law (s. 536). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48. Preuss, U. (2014). Transparency in International Law. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 827.
49. Prosecutor v Boškoski and Tarčulovski (Judgment), ICTY-04-82 (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia 07 10, 2008).
50. Prosecutor v Jean–Pierre Bemba Gombo (Decision on Confirmation of Charges), ICC-01/05-01/08 (International Criminal Court 06 15, 2009).
51. Prosecutor v Sefer Halilovic (Judgment), ICTY-01-48 (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia 11 16, 2005).
52. Prosecutor v. Blaškić, IT-95-14-A (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia 07 29, 2004).
53. Rajapakse v Sri Lanka, 1250/2004 (United Nations Human Rights Committee 07 14, 2006).
54. Robson, V. (2020). The Common Approach to Article 1: The Scope of Each State’s Obligation to Ensure Respect for the Geneva Conventions. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 101-115.
55. Sarma v Sri Lanka, 950/2000 (UN Human Rights Committee 07 31, 2003).
56. Sassoli, M. (2002). State Responsibility for Violations of International Humanitarian Law. International Review of the Red Cross, 401.
57. Sassoli, M. (2014). IHL Mechanisms in Armed Conflict: Where is the Problem? M. Veuthey içinde, Respecting International Humanitarian Law: Challenges and Responses (s. 111). Sanremo: International Institute of Humanitarian Law.
58. Schmitt, M., & Watts, S. (2020). Common Article 1 and the Duty to Ensure Respect. International Law Studies, 675-705.
59. Társaság a Szabadsagjogoket v Hungary, 37374/05 (ECtHR 04 14, 2009).
60. Taylor, L. (2014, 02 19). A Wedding that Became a Funeral: US Drone Attack on Marriage Procession in Yemen. https://www.hrw.org: https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/02/19/wedding-became-funeral/us-drone-attack-marriage-procession-yemen adresinden alındı
61. The International Commission of Jurists. (2012). The ICJ Declaration on Access to Justice and Right to a Remedy in International Human Rights Systems. Geneva: The International Commission of Jurists.
62. The Turkel Commission. (2013). The Public Commission to Examine the Maritime Incident of 31 May 2010, Israel’s Mechanisms for Examining and Investigating Complaints and Claims of Violations of the Laws of Armed Conflict According to International Law. Jerusalem: The Turkel Commission.
63. Todeschini, V. (2015, 08 05). Emerging Voices: The Right to a Remedy in Armed Conflict–International Humanitarian Law, Human Rights Law and the Principle of Systemic Integration. Opinio Juris: http://opiniojuris.org/2015/08/05/emerging-voices-the-right-to-a-remedy-in-armed-conflict-international-humanitarian-law-human-rights-law-and-the-principle-of-systemic-integration/ adresinden alındı
64. Türk Dil Kurumu. (2022, 08 06). https://www.tdk.gov.tr/. https://sozluk.gov.tr/ : https://sozluk.gov.tr/ adresinden alındı
65. UN CCPR. (2011). General Comment 34 (12 September 2011) UN Doc CCPR/C/GC/34. Geneva: UN.
66. UN Human Rights Committee. (2001). General Comment 29. Geneva: UN Human Rights Committee.
67. UN Human Rights Committee. (2004). General Comment 31. Geneva: UN Human Rights Committee.
68. UN Human Rights Council. (2009). Goldstone Report - Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. Geneva: UN Human Rights Council.
69. UN Human Rights Council. (2010). Tomuschat Report - Report of the Committee of Independent Experts in International Humanitarian and Human Rights Laws to Monitor and Assess Any Domestic, Legal or Other Proceedings Undertaken by both the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Side. Geneva: UN Human Rights Council.
70. UNCHR. (1998). Report of Special Rapporteur Submitted pursuant to Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1997/26’ (28 January 1998) UN Doc E/CN.4/1998/40. Geneva: UNCHR.
71. UNGA. (1946). Calling of an International Conference on Freedom of Information UN Doc A/RES/59(I). Geneva: UNGA.
72. UNGA. (2013). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism. Geneva: UNGA.
73. UNGA. (2014). Right to the Truth. Geneva: UNGA.
74. UNHRC. (2014). Ensuring Use of Remotely Piloted Aircraft or Armed Drones in Counter-Terrorism and Military Operations in Accordance with International Law, Including International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. Geneva: UNHRC.
75. UNHRC. (2015). Panel on Remotely Piloted Aircraft or Armed Drones in Counterterrorism and Military Operations. Geneva: UNHRC.
76. UNHRC. (2015). Report of the Detailed Findings of the Independent Commission of Inquiry Established Pursuant to Human Rights Council Resolution S-21/1’ (24 June 2015) UN Doc A/HRC/29/CRP.4. Geneva: UNHRC.
77. Villagran-Morales et al v Guatemala (Merits), Series C No 63 (IACtHR 11 19, 1999).
78. Woods, C. (2015). Sudden Death: America’s Secret Drone Wars. London : Hurst & Co.
79. Yasa v Turkey, 22495/93 (ECtHR 09 02, 1998).
80. Zegveld, L. (2003). Remedies for Victims of Violations of International Humanitarian Law. International Review of the Red Cross, 497.