Uluslararası Teamül Hukukunun Manevi Unsuru: Opinio Juris

Abstract

Uluslararası teamül hukuku, uluslararası hukukun en eski kaynağıdır. Uluslararası hukukta andlaşmaların sayısındaki kayda değer artışa ve en önemli kaynak olarak kabul edilmesine rağmen önemini halen korumaktadır. Fakat, andlaşmalar gibi yazılı bir kaynak olmaması, birtakım zorlukları da beraberinde getirmektedir. Çünkü uluslararası teamül hukuku, devlet uygulamalarının incelenmesini gerektirdiği için andlaşmaların sahip olduğu açıklığa sahip değildir. O nedenle her şeyden önce ispatlanması gerekir. Fakat bu konu, önemli zorluklar barındırmaktadır. Öncelikle ispat hem maddi hem manevi unsur bağlamında ayrı ayrı değerlendirilmesi gereken bir sorundur. Fakat bu zorluğu daha da pekiştiren şey ise manevi unsur yani, opinio juris’tir. Çünkü, tüzel kişiliğe sahip olan devletlere hukuki inanç atfetmek ve bunu ispat etmek son derece zordur. Uluslararası teamül hukukunun maddi unsuru; devletin faaliyetleri ile alakalı olduğu için neden anıldığı anlaşılabilmektedir. Fakat opinio juris açıklanmaya daha çok muhtaçtır. Hem de uluslararası teamül hukukuna asıl hukuk kuralı vasfını kazandıran unsur opinio juris’tir. Çünkü, teamülün tanımı devlet uygulaması ile sınırlanacak olursa, uluslararası nezaket kuralları gibi kurallardan ayrılması mümkün olmaz. Bazen opinio juris’in ispat şekilleri ile devlet uygulama biçimleri arasında örtüşmeler olabilir. Bu durum, bir unsurun ispatının diğeri için de yeterli görülmesi anlayışına yol açmamalıdır. Aksi halde, teamül hukuku tek bir unsura indirgenmiş olur. Ayrıca, bu yöntem, doğru bir yöntem değildir. Opinio juris’in tespiti bütün deliller ışığında yapılmalı ve devletlerin uygulamada bulunurken hukuk kuralı olarak kabul ettikleri ispatlanmalıdır.

Keywords

• uluslararası hukuk
• uluslararası hukukun kaynakları
• uluslararası teamül hukuku
• manevi unsur
• opinio juris

The Subjective Element of International Customary Law: Opinio Juris

Abstract

International customary law is the oldest source of international law. Despite the significant increase in the number of treaties in international law and their acceptance as the most important source, it still maintains its importance. However, the lack of a written source such as treaties brings with it some difficulties. Because international customary law requires the examination of state practices, it does not have the clarity that treaties have. Therefore, it must first of all be proven. However, this issue contains significant difficulties. First of all, evidence is a problem that needs to be evaluated separately in context of both material and subjective elements. However, what further reinforces this difficulty is the subjective element: opinio juris. Because it is extremely difficult to attribute legal belief to states, which are legal entities, and to prove it. The objective element of international customary law; it is understandable why it is mentioned because it is related to the activities of the state. However, opinio juris needs more explanation. Moreover, the element that gives international customary law the real characteristic of a legal rule is opinio juris. Because, if the definition of custom is limited to state practice, it is not possible to separate it from rules such as international courtesy rules. Sometimes there may be overlaps between the forms of evidence of opinio juris and the forms of state practice. This should not lead to the understanding that evidence for one element is sufficient for the other. Otherwise, international customary law will be transformed into a single element. In addition, this method is not a correct method. The determination of the opinio juris must be made in the light of all the evidence and it must be proven that the states accept the practice as law.

Keywords

• international law
• sources of international law
• international customary law
• subjective element
• opinio juris

References

1. ACER, Yücel/KAYA, İbrahim, Uluslararası Hukuk: Temel Ders Kitabı, 13. Baskı, Seçkin, Ankara, 2022.
2. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ISSUES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW, Advisory Report on The Identification of Customary International Law, Advısory Report No. 29, The Hague November 2017, (Çevrimiçi) https://www.advisorycommitteeinternationallaw.nl/publications/advisory-reports/2017/11/01/the-identification-of-customary-international-law , E.T. 3.04.2025.
3. AKSAR, Yusuf, Teoride ve Uygulamada Uluslararası Hukuk-1-. Güncellenmiş 7. Baskı, Ankara, Seçkin, 2023.
4. ALBAYRAK, Gökhan/Gültekin-ALBAYRAK, Betül, “Uluslararası Hukukta Uluslararası Teamül Kurallarının Antlaşmalar ile İlişkisi”, Sakarya Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Y. 2021, C. 9, S. 2, s. 273-292.
5. BROWNLIE, Ian, Principles of Public International Law, Sixth Edition, Oxford University Press.
6. CABAN, Pavel. “Failure to React as Evidence of Opinio Iuris (A Comment to the ILC’s First Draft Conclusions on Identification of Customary International Law)”, Czech Yearbook of Public & Private International Law, Y. 2017, C. 8.
7. CASELLA, Paulo Borba. “Contemporary trends on opinio juris and the material evidence of international customary law.” Zanzibar Yearbook of Law, Y. 2013, C. 3; s. 1-19, (Çevrimiçi) chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://legal.un.org/ilc/sessions/65/pdfs/2013_amado_lecture_casella.pdf , E.T. 3.04.2025.
8. CHESSMAN, Stuart, “On Treaties and Custom: A Commentary on the Draft Restatement”, INT'L L., Y. 1984, C. 18, s. 421-437.

9. D'AMATO, Anthony. (1987). Trashing Customary International Law. American Journal of International Law, 81(1), s. 101-105.
10. DEMİREL, Naim, Uluslararası Hukukun Kaynakları, Der yayınları, İstanbul, 2019.
11. ERKİNER, Hakkı Hakan/ TEZEL, Aybüke, “Uluslararası Teamül Hukuku Kurallarının Varlığının ve Değişiminin Tespiti” Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, Y. 2022, C. 28, S. 2, s. 662-693.
12. GUZMAN, Andrew T. “Saving Customary International Law”, Mich. J. Int'l L., Y. 2005, C. 27.
13. GÜNDÜZ, Aslan, Milletlerarası Hukuk, Ed. Reşat Volkan Günel, 12. Baskı, Savaş Yayınevi, Ankara, 2024.
14. INTERNATIONAL LAW ASSOCIATION, Final Report of the Committee on formation of customary (General) International Law: Statement of Principles Applicable to the formation of General Customary Law, London, 2000, (Çevrimiçi) chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.law.umich.edu/facultyhome/drwcasebook/Documents/Documents/ILA%20Report%20on%20Formation%20of%20Customary%20International%20Law.pdf, E.T. 10.04.2025.
15. INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION, Draft Conclusions on Identification of Customary International Law, With Commentaries, UN Doc. A/73/10, 2018, (Çevrimiçi) chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/1_13_2018.pdf, E.T. 11.02.2025.
16. INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION, First Report on Formation and Evidence of Customary International Law, by Sir Michael Wood, Special Rapporteur, UN Document A/CN.4/663, 17 May 2013.
17. INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION, Second Report on Identification of Customary International Law by Michael Wood, Special Rapporteur, Vol. II (Part One), YBILC 2014, 22 May 2014.
18. INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION, The Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1950, Vol II, A/CN. 4/SER.A/1950/Add. 1.
19. INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION, Third Report on Identification of Customary International Law by Michael Wood, Special Rapporteur, YBILC 2015, Vol. II (Part One), 27 March 2015.
20. JALLOH, Charles C., “Identification of Customary International Law, Statement of the Chairperson of the Drafting Committee (November 24, 2020)”, Florida International University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 20-27, (Çevrimiçi) https://ssrn.com/abstract=3737098 , E.T. 6.05.2025.
21. KAYA, İslam Safa, Uluslararası Hukuk: Temel Bilgiler, 3. Baskı, Adalet Yayınevi, Ankara, 2022.
22. KOLB, Robert, The Law of Treaties, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016.
23. LANOVOY, Vladyslav, “Customary International Law in the Reasoning of International Courts and Tribunals” The Theory, Practice, and Interpretation of Customary International Law. The Rules of Interpretation of Customary International Law, Ed. Merkouris P, Kammerhofer J, Arajärvi N., Cambridge University Press, 2022.
24. LEPARD, Brian D., Customary International Law: A New Theory with Practical Applications, Cambridge University Press, 2010.
25. MALANCZUK, Peter, Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law, Routledge, London and New York, 1997.
26. MERAY, Seha, Devletler Hukukuna Giriş: Birinci Cilt, Ajans-Türk Matbaası, Ankara, 1960.
27. MÜLLERSON, Rein, “The Interplay of Objective and Subjective Elements in Customary Law”, International Law: Theory and Practice, Ed. Karel Wellens, Brill Nijhoff, 1998, s. 161-178.
28. ÖKTEM, Emre, Uluslararası Teamül Hukuku, Beta, İstanbul, 2013.
29. PAZARCI, Hüseyin, Uluslararası Hukuk, Gözden Geçirilmiş 21. Baskı, Turhan Kitabevi, Ankara, 2022.
30. PAZARCI, Hüseyin, Uluslararası Hukuk Dersleri 1. Kitap, 15. Bası, Turhan kitabevi, Ankara, 2021.
31. ROBERTS, Anthea, “Traditional and Modern Approaches to Customary International Law: A Reconciliation” American Journal of International Law, Y. 2001, C. 95.
32. SENDER, Omri/ WOOD, Michael, Identification of Customary International Law, Oxford University Press, 2024.
33. SHAW, Malcolm N., Uluslararası hukuk, Çeviri Ed. İbrahim Kaya, 8. Baskı, TÜBA Yayınları, 2018.
34. STEPIEN, Michal, “Taking the Two-Elements Theory of International Customary Law Seriously – Problems with Double Counting”, Wroclaw Review of Law Administration & Economics, Y. 2018, C. 8, S.2, s. 85-96.
35. TALAIE, Farhad, “The Importance of Custom and the Process of Its Formation in Modern International Law”, James Cook University Law Review,Y. 1998, C. 5, s. 27-45.
36. THIRLWAY, Hugh, The Sources of International Law, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 2019.
37. TÜTÜNCÜ, Ayşe Nur/ ARIKOĞLU, Enver/ AKÜN, Verda Neslihan, Derleyen, Toluner Milletlerarası Hukuk: Prof. Dr. Sevin Toluner'in Ders Notlarından, 3. Bası, Beta, İstanbul, 2023.
38. WEISBURD, Arthur M., “Customary International Law: The Problem of Treaties”, Vanderbilt Law Review, Y. 1988, C. 21, S. 1, 1988.
39. WOLFKE, Karol. Custom in Present International Law, Wroclaw, 1964.
40. VILLIGER, Mark Eugen, Customary international law and treaties: a study of their interactions and interrelations, with special consideration of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Brill, 1985.
41. ULUSLARARASI ANDLAŞMALAR VE YARGI KARARLARI
42. Case concerning Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Merits), Judgment of 12 April 1960: I.C.J. Reports 1960, p. 6. Colombian-Peruvian asylum case, Judgment of November 20th 1950: I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 266.
43. Fisheries case, Judgment of December 18th, 1951: I.C.J. Reports 1951, p 116.
44. Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2019, p. 95.
45. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226.
46. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14.
47. North Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 3.
48. Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2008, p. 12.
49. The Case of the S.S. “Lotus”, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 10 (1927).
50. Uluslararası Adalet Divanı Statüsü’nün Türkçe metni için bkz. (Çevrimiçi) chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://inhak.adalet.gov.tr/Resimler/Dokuman/2312020093041bm_02.pdf, E.T. 10.04.2025.