Uluslararası Hukuka Uygun Geçici Koruma Rejiminin Unsurları Üzerine

Year 2016, Issue: 3, 62 - 92, 01.01.2016

Meltem İneli Ciğer

Abstract

Geçici koruma göç akınlarının yönetiminde ve silahlı çatışma, yaygın şiddet, insan hakları ihlalleri ve doğal afet gibi nedenlerle ülkesini terk etmek zorunda kalan kişilerin korunmasında tarihte önemli bir rol oynamış ve bugün de bu önemini muhafaza eden bir koruma biçimidir. Bugün sayısı 2.7 milyonu aşan Suriyeli ülkemizde geçici koruma politikası çerçevesinde korunmaktadır. Geçici koruma politikaları bugün milyonların hukuki statüsünü ve yaşamını etkilemesine rağmen, uluslararası hukukta geçici korumayı tanımlayan ve emredici hükümler ile düzenleyen bir hukuki belge bulunmamaktadır. Bu durum uluslararası hukukta geçici koruma ile ilgili bir hukuk boşluğu yaratmaktadır. Bu hukuk boşluğunun bir sonucu olarak çeşitli devletler geçici korumadan yararlanan kişilerin vasıfları, geçici korumanın süresi, sona ermesi ve bu statüden yararlananların hak ve yükümlülükleri gibi konularda birbirinden farklı düzenlemeler getirmiştir. Bu hususlar ışığında, bu makalede‘geçici koruma nedir?’ ve ‘geçici korumayı düzenleyen uluslararası hukuk kuralları nelerdir?’ sorularına cevap aranacaktır. Bu soruların tartışılması suretiyle uluslararası hukuka uygun bir geçici koruma rejiminin unsurları belirlenmeye çalışılacaktır

Keywords

Geçici koruma, uluslararası hukuk, kitlesel akın, Suriyeli sığınmacıların Türkiye’de geçici korunması, geri göndermeme ilkesi

On the Elements of Temporary Protection Regime in Line with International Law

Abstract

Throughout the history; Temporary protection has played a key role both in management of migration flows and in protection of the persons who were forced to leave their countries due to such reasons as armed conflict, violation of human rights, widespread violence and natural disaster. And its role is still relevant. More than 2.7 million Syrian nationals are under temporary protection regime. Though temporary protection has affected lives and legal status of millions, there is no legal document which defines and regulates it with mandatory provisions in line with international law. This creates a lacunae on temporary protection in international law. As a result of such lacunae in law; several States have made differing arrangements on qualifications, rights and obligations of temporary protection beneficiaries as well as period and expiry of temporary protection. In light of these issues; this article seeks answers to the following questions: ‘what is temporary protection?’ and ‘what are the international rules of law regulating temporary protection?’. This article will seek to specify elements of temporary protection regime in line with international law by means of discussing the concerned questions

Keywords

Temporary protection, international law, mass influx, temporary protection of Syrians in Turkey, principle of non-refoulement

References

• AB Geçici Koruma Direktifi Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between member states in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof, OJ L 212/12, 7 August 2001.
• Akram, S. M. & Rempel, T. (2004), “Temporary Protection as an instru- ment or Implementing the Right of Return of Return for Palestinian Refugees”, Boston University International Law Journal, No:22(1), p.1.
• Amnesty International (1997),“Bosnia-Herzegovina: “Who’s Living in My House?”: Obstacles to the Safe Return of Refugees and Displaced People” 19 March 1997, EUR 63/001/1997.
• Bauloz, C., Ineli-Ciger, M., Singer, S.& Stayanova V. (2015), Seeking Asylum in the European Union: Selected Protection Issues Raised by the Second Phase of the Common Asylum System, Brill Publishing, Leiden, Boston.
• Coles G. J. L. (1978),“Temporary Refuge and the Large Scale Influx of Refu- gees”, Australian Yearbook of International Law, No:8, p.189.
• Crock, M.& Bones, K. (2015), “Australian Exceptionalism: Temporary Pro- tection and the Rights of Refugees”, Melbourne Journal of International Law, No: 16, p. 1.
• Çiçekli, B. (2009), Uluslararası Hukukta Mülteciler ve Sığınmacılar, Seçkin Yayınevi, Ankara.
• Davies, S. E. (2008), Legitimising Rejection International Refugee Law in Southeast Asia, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden.
• Durieux, J. F. & McAdam, J. (2004), “Non-refoulement Through Time: The Case for a Derogation Clause to the Refugee Convention in Mass Influx Emergencies”, International Journal of Refugee Law No:1 6(1), p.17.
• Edwards, A. (2005),“Human Rights, Refugees, and the Right ‘to Enjoy’ Asy- lum”, International Journal of Refugee Law, No:17(2), p. 293.
• Edwards, A. (2012), “Temporary Protection, Derogation and the 1951 Re- fugee Convention”, Melbourne Journal of International Law No:13, p. 595.
• Eurostat http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/7233417/3-200 42016-AP-EN.pdf/ 05/05/2016.
• ExCom Conclusion No 14 (XXX) ‘General’ (1979).
• ExCoM Conclusion No 19 (XXXI) ‘Temporary Refuge’ (1979).
• ExCoM Conclusion No 22 (XXXII) ‘Protection of Asylum Seekers in Situa- tions of Large Scale Influx’ (1981).
• ExCom Conclusion No 6 (XXVIII) ‘Non-Refoulement’ (1977).
• ExCom Conclusion No 65 (XLII) ‘General Conclusion on International Protection’ (1991).
• ExCom Conclusion No 69 (XLIII) ‘Cessation of Status’ (1992).
• ExCom Conclusion No 79 (XLVII) ‘General’ (1996).
• ExCom Conclusion No 81 (XLVII) ‘General’ (1997).
• ExCom Conclusion No 100 (LV) ‘Conclusion on International Coopera- tion and Burden and Responsibility Sharing in Mass Influx Situations’ (2004).
• Fitzpatrick, J. (2000), “Temporary Protection of Refugees: Elements of a Formalized Regime” 92 (2) American Journal of International Law, No: 92(2), p. 279.
• Fitzpatrick, J. (1999), “The End of Protection: Legal Standards For Cessati- on of Refugee Status and Withdrawal of Temporary Protection”, George- town Immigration Journal, No:13, p. 343.
• Fitzpatrick, J. & Bonoan, R. (2003), “Cessation of Refugee Protection” E. Feller, V. Türk, F. Nicholson (Eds), Refugee Protection in International Law UNHCR’s Global Consultations on International Protection,CUP, Cambridge, p. 491.
• Goodwin-Gill, G. S. & McAdam, J. (2007), The Refugee in International Law, 3rd edn, OUP, Oxford.
• Hathaway, J. C.& Neve, R. A. (1997), “Making International Refugee Law Relevant Again: A Proposal for Collectivized and Solution-Oriented Pro- tection” Harv. Hum. Rts. J. No:10, p.115.
• Hathaway, J. C. (2005), The Right of Refugees under International Law,CUP, Cambridge.
• Hurwitz, A.(2009), The Collective Responsibility of States to Protect Refuge- es,OUP, Oxford.
• International Law Association (ILA) (2002) ‘Report of the Committee on Refugee Procedures of the ILA (Delhi Conference, 2002). Final Report and Draft Guidelines on Temporary Protection’<http://www.refworld. org/docid/428090994.html> 05/05/2016. Ineli-Ciger, 2014
• Ineli-Ciger, M. (2014), “Implications of the New Turkish Law on Foreigners and International Protection and Regulation no. 29153 on Temporary protection for Syrians Seeking Protection in Turkey” Oxford Monitor of Forced Migration, No. 4(2), p. 28. Ineli-Ciger,2015a
• Ineli-Ciger, M. (2015), “Revisiting Temporary Protection as a Protection Option to Respond to Mass Influx Situations” J.-P. Gauci, M. Giuffré ve L. Tsourdi (Eds), Exploring the Boundaries of Refugee Law, Current Prote- ction Challenges, Brill Publishing, Leiden, Boston, p. 197. Ineli-Ciger, 2015 b
• Ineli-Ciger, M. (2015), “Has the Temporary Protection Directive Become Obsolete? An Examination of the Directive and its Lack of Implemen- tation in View of the Recent Asylum Crisis in the Mediterranean” C. Bauloz, M. Ineli-Ciger, S. Singer, V. Stayanova (Eds), Seeking Asylum in the European Union: Selected Protection Issues Raised by the Second Phase of the Common Asylum System, Brill Publishing, Leiden, Boston, p. 225. Ineli-Ciger, 2016
• Ineli-Ciger, M. (2016), “Time to activate the Temporary Protection Directi- ve: Why the Directive can play a key role in solving the migration crisis in Europe?”, European Journal of Migration and Law, No: 18, p.1.
• Kälin, W., Caroni, M. & Heim L., (2011), ‘Article 33 para 1 1951 Conven- tion,’ A. Zimmermann, F. Machts, J. Dorschner (Eds), The 1951 Conven- tion Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol: A Commentary, OUP, Oxford, p. 1327.
• Kneebone, S. & O’Sullivan, M. (2011), ‘Article 1 C 1951 Convention’ A. Zimmermann, F. Machts, J. Dorschner (Eds.),The 1951 Convention Re- lating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol: A Commentary,OUP, Oxford, p. 481.
• Kushner, T. (1999), ‘Kosovo and the Refugee Crisis, 1999: The Search for Patterns amidst the Prejudice’ (1999) 33 (3) Patterns of Prejudice 74.
• Lauterpacht, E. & Bethlehem, D. (2003), “The Scope and Content of the Principle of Non-Refoulement: Opinion” E. Feller, V. Türk, F. Nicholson (Eds), Refugee Protection in International Law UNHCR’s Global Consulta- tions on International Protection, CUP, Cambridge, p. 78.
• Nowak, M. (2005),UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Com- mentary, Engel, Kehl.
• Skordas, A. (2010), ‘Council of the European Union, Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on Minimum Standards for Giving Tem- porary Protection in the Event of a Mass Influx of Displaced Persons and on Measures Promoting a Balance of Efforts Between Member States in Receiving such Persons and Bearing the Consequences Thereof’ K. Hailbronner (ed), EU Immigration and Asylum Law Commentary on EU Regulations and Directives, Hart Publishing, p. 803.
• Slingenber, L. (2014), The Reception of Asylum Seekers and International Law, Hart publishing.
• Perluss D.& Hartman J. F. (1985), “Temporary Refuge: Emergence of a Customary Norm”, Virginia Journal of International Law,No.26, p. 551.
• Sopf, D. (2001), “Temporary Protection in Europe After 1990: The Right to Remain of Genuine Convention Refugees”, Journal of Law and Policy, No.6, p. 109.
• Syria Regional Response <http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/country. php?id=224> 08/09/2016
• Thorburn, J. (1995), “Transcending Boundaries: Temporary Protection and Burden-Sharing in Europe”, IJRL, No.7(3), p. 459.
• UNHCR, Refugees/Migrants Emergency Response – Mediterranean, <data.un- hcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php>05/05/2016.
• UNHCR (1992), ‘A Comprehensive Response to the Humanitarian Crisis in the Former Yugoslavia’ 24 July 1992, HCR/IMFY/1992/2.
• UNHCR (2001), ‘Global Consultations Lisbon Expert Roundtable Conc- lusions- Cessation Status’ 3 -4 May 2001 <http://www.unhcr.org/419db- d2e4.pdf>
• UNHCR (2005), ‘Ensuring International Protection and Enhancing In- ternational Cooperation in Mass Influx Situations: Advance Summary Findings of the Study Commissioned by UNHCR’ Refugee Survey Qu- arterly No:4(1), p. 118.
• UNHCR (2012), ‘Roundtable on Temporary Protection: 19-20 July 2012’ International Institute of Humanitarian Law, San Remo, Italy: Sum- mary Conclusions on Temporary Protection’, 20 July 2012 <http://www. refworld.org/docid/506d908a2.html> 08/09/2016
• UNHCR (2013), ‘Guidelines on International Protection No. 3: Cessation of Refugee Status under Article 1 C (5) and (6) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the “Ceased Circumstances” Clauses)’ 10 February 2013, HCR/GIP/03/03, <http://www.refworld.org/doci- d/3e50de6b4.html>08/09/2016
• UNHCR (2014), ‘Guidelines on Temporary Protection or Stay Arrange- ments’ February 2014.
• UNSC (1992), ‘Report of the Secretary-General Prepared Pursuant to Re- solutions 1160 (1998), 1199 (1998) and 1203 (1998) of the Security Council’ 17 March 1999, S/1999/293, 2
• US, Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-649, Stat. (29 November 1990).
• USCIS <https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporaryprotectedstatus#- Countries%20Currently%20Designated%20for%20TPS> 08/09/2016
• USCIS <https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-sta- tus#Countries%20Currently%20Designated%20for%20TPS> 08/09/2016
• Van Selm Joanne (Ed.) (2000), Kosovo’s Refugees in the European Union, Pin- ter Publishing.
• Van Selm Joanne (1998), Refugee Protection in Europe: Lessons from the Yugos- lavian Crisis,Martinus Nijhoff publishing, Leiden. Mahkeme Kararları
• Chahal v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 413.
• Erdem v. Germany App no 3832 (ECHR, 05 July 2001).
• Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy, Application No. 27765/09 (ECHR, 23 Febru- ary 2012).
• Kadem v Malta App no 55263/00 (ECHR, 9 January 2003).
• M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, App no 30696/09 (ECHR, 21 January 2011).
• R v. Uxbridge Magistrates’ Court and another, ex parte Adimi R v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another, ex parte Sorani R v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another, ex parte Kaziu - [1999] All ER (D) 914 .
• Salah Sheekh v. The Netherlands App no 1948/04 (ECHR, 11 January 2007).
• Sharifi and Others v. Italy and Greece App no 16643/09 (ECHR, 21 October 2014).
• Singh v. Czech Republic App no 60538/00 (ECHR, 25 January 2005).
• Soering v. UK (1989) 11 EHRR 439.
• Sufi and Elmi v. United Kingdom App no 8319/07 and 11449/07 (ECHR, 28 June 2011).
• Suso Musa v Malta App no 42337/12 (ECHR, 23 July 2013).
• Tarakhel v. Switzerland Application no 29217/12 (ECHR, 4 November 2014).
• Vilvarajah and Others v. UK App No 13163/87, 13164/87, 13165/87, 13447/87, 13448/87 (ECHR, 30 October 1991).