İŞGAL ALTINDAKİ FİLİSTİN TOPRAKLARI İLE İLGİLİ ULUSLARARASI YÜKÜMLÜLÜKLERİN İHLALİ İDDİALARI (NİKARAGUA/ALMANYA) DAVASININ DÜŞÜNDÜRDÜKLERİ: SİLAH TİCARETİ ANTLAŞMASI’NIN ETKİNLİĞİ VE DEVLET SORUMLULUĞU

Year 2025, Volume: 16 Issue: 2, 148 - 161

Hilal Cecanpınar

https://doi.org/10.21492/inuhfd.1780427

Abstract

Uluslararası silah ticareti, yalnızca güç dengelerini değil, sivillerin korunmasına ilişkin insancıl hukuk normlarının uygulanabilirliğini ve devletlerin uluslararası sorumluluklarını da doğrudan etkilemektedir. 2013 yılında kabul edilen Silah Ticareti Antlaşması (STA), bu alandaki ilk küresel bağlayıcı çerçeve olmakla birlikte, uygulamadaki etkinliği tartışmalıdır. Nikaragua v. Almanya davası, bir devletin STA’ya taraf olmaması halinde antlaşmaya dayanamamasının doğurduğu hukuki sonuçları görünür kılmıştır.
Mevcut literatürde dava çoğunlukla Soykırım Sözleşmesi ve Cenevre Sözleşmeleri bağlamında ele alınmış, STA’nın rolü ise sınırlı incelenmiştir. Bu makale, söz konusu boşluğu doldurarak davayı STA’nın etkinliği açısından değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır.
Çalışmada yöntem olarak normatif analiz benimsenmiş; Uluslararası Adalet Divanı içtihadı, STA hükümleri ve Uluslararası Hukuk Komisyonu (UHK)’nun 2001 Taslak Maddeleri birlikte incelenmiştir. Bulgular, STA’nın 6. ve 7. maddelerindeki mutlak yasaklar ve risk değerlendirmesi yükümlülüklerinin teorik olarak güçlü bir çerçeve sunduğunu; ancak belirsiz normatif ifadeler, yaptırım eksiklikleri, raporlama yükümlülüklerinin ihlali ve büyük silah ihracatçılarının taraf olmaması nedeniyle pratikte sınırlı işlev gördüğünü ortaya koymaktadır.
Makalenin temel çıktısı, STA’nın eksikliklerinin devlet sorumluluğu hukuku aracılığıyla tamamlanabileceğini göstermesidir. Taraf devletler bakımından ihlaller doğrudan antlaşma temelli sorumluluk doğururken, taraf olmayan devletler bakımından yardım ve teşvik sorumluluğu (Taslak Maddeler m. 16) ve erga omnes yükümlülükler sorumluluğu gündeme getirmektedir. Bu yaklaşım, STA ile devlet sorumluluğu rejimini bütüncül bir çerçevede ele alarak, literatüre özgün bir katkı sunmaya çalışmaktadır.

Keywords

Silah Ticareti Antlaşması (STA) , Uluslararası Adalet Divanı , Devletlerin Sorumluluğu , Erga Omnes Yükümlülükler , Özen Yükümlülüğü

Ethical Statement

İnÜHFD’ye gönderilen makalenin etik kurul izni veya herhangi bir özel izne ihtiyacı yoktur.

THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE CASE ALLEGED BREACHES OF CERTAIN INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS IN RESPECT OF THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY (NICARAGUA V. GERMANY): THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ARMS TRADE TREATY AND STATE RESPONSIBILITY

Abstract

The international arms trade not only shapes power balances but also directly affects the implementation of humanitarian law norms concerning the protection of civilians and the international responsibility of states. The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), adopted in 2013, constitutes the first global binding framework in this field; however, its effectiveness in practice remains contested. The Nicaragua v. Germany case has highlighted the legal consequences arising when a state cannot rely on the ATT due to its non-party status.
Existing literature has largely analysed the case through the Genocide Convention and the Geneva Conventions, while the role of the ATT has remained underexplored. This article aims to fill that gap by assessing the case in terms of the ATT’s effectiveness.
The study employs a normative analysis, drawing upon UAD jurisprudence, the provisions of the ATT, and the 2001 Draft Articles on State Responsibility of the International Law Commission. The findings indicate that Articles 6 and 7 of the ATT, which establish absolute prohibitions and risk-assessment obligations, provide a theoretically robust framework. Nevertheless, vague standards, lack of enforcement mechanisms, deficiencies in reporting obligations, and the non-participation of major arms exporters significantly limit its practical impact.
The main contribution of the article is to demonstrate how the shortcomings of the ATT can be complemented by the regime of state responsibility. For state parties, violations directly give rise to treaty-based responsibility, while for non-parties, responsibility may still arise under the duty not to aid or assist (Article 16 of the UHK Articles) and erga omnes obligations. By integrating the ATT with the framework of state responsibility, this article provides a holistic analysis and offers an original contribution to the existing literature.

Keywords

Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) , International Court of Justice , State Responsibility , Erga Omnes Obligations , Due Diligence

References

• ALTAMIMI, Abdulmalik M.: “The UN Arms Trade Treaty: A Multilateral Trade and Security Treaty Not Regulated by International Trade Law?”, in Langlett, David/Basu-Bal, Aniruddha/Argüello, Gabriel/RAJPUT, Tanuj (ed.), Contemporary Issues in Regulation of Risk: Transport, Trade and Environment in Perspective – Liber Amicorum Lars-Göran Malmberg, Brill Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston 2022, s.28-62.
• AUST, Anthony: Modern Treaty Law and Practice, 3. Bası, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013.
• AZAROVA, Valentina: “Zone of Non-Responsibility”, Journal of International Law of Peace and Armed Conflict, 4(2), 2021, s.62-86.
• BASTAKI, Jinan: “The ‘Capacity to Influence’, State Responsibility, and the Obligation to Prevent Genocide”, https://opiniojuris.org/2024/03/30/the-capacity-to-influence-state-responsibility-and-the-obligation-to-prevent-genocide, (Erişim: 04.09.2025).
• BOLTON, Matthew/JAMES, Katelyn E.: “Nascent Spirit of New York or Ghost of Arms Control Past?: The Normative Implications of the Arms Trade Treaty for Global Policymaking”, Global Policy, 5(4), 2014, s.439-452.
• BRANDES, Marlitt: “‘All’s Well That Ends Well’ or ‘Much Ado About Nothing’?: A Commentary on the Arms Trade Treaty”, Goettingen Journal of International Law, 5(2), 2013, s.399-429.
• BROMLEY, Mark/COOPER, Neil/HOLTOM, Paul: “The UN Arms Trade Treaty: Arms Export Controls, the Human Security Agenda and the Lessons of History”, International Affairs, 88(5), 2012, s.1029-1048.
• CRAWFORD, James: The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2002.
• DUGGAL, Anshul: “ICJ’s Provisional Measures Approach in Nicaragua v. Germany – Unusual or a Practice in Judicial Economy?”, Insights (ASIL), 28(9), 2024, s.1-6.
• ERKİNER Hakkı Hakan: Devletin Haksız Fiilden Kaynaklanan Uluslararası Sorumluluğu, 1. Baskı, XII Levha Yayınları, İstanbul 2010.
• FUKUI, Yasuhito: “The Arms Trade Treaty”, Journal of Conflict & Security Law, 20(2), 2015, s.301-321.
• GAETA, Paola/VIÑUALES, Jorge E./ZAPPALÀ, Salvatore: Cassese’s International Law, 3. Bası, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2020.
• GALBRAITH, Jean: “President Trump ‘Unsigns’ Arms Trade Treaty After Requesting Its Return from the Senate Source”, American Journal of International Law, 113(4), 2019, s.812-818.
• GARCIA, Denise: “Global Norms on Arms: The Significance of the Arms Trade Treaty for Global Security in World Politics”, Global Policy, 5(4), 2014, s.425-432.
• GÖZLÜGÖL, Said Vakkas: “Birleşmiş Milletler Uluslararası Silah Ticareti Antlaşması”, Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 10(23), 2013, s.313-333.
• HARTMANN, Jacques/KÖHNE, Lea/WIDDIG, Vincent: “Arms Exports and Access to Justice: Enforcing International Law through Domestic Courts”, https://www.ejiltalk.org/arms-exports-and-access-to-justice-enforcing-international-law-through-domestic-courts/, (Erişim: 06.09.2025).
• HENDERSON, Stacey: “The Arms Trade Treaty: Responsibility to Protect in Action?”, Brill Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston 2017, s.147-172.
• ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment of 19 December 2005, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/116/116-20051219-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf (Erişim: 07.09.2025).
• ICJ, Alleged Breaches of Certain International Obligations in Respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Nicaragua v. Germany), 2024, https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192 (Erişim: 07.09.2025).
• ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of 26 February 2007, https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192 (Erişim: 07.09.2025).
• ICJ, Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgment of 16 December 2015, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/150/150-20151216-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf (Erişim:07.09.2025).
• ICJ, Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Judgment of 16 December 2015, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/152/152-20151216-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf (Erişim: 07.09.2025).
• ICJ, Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment of 25 September 1997, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/92/092-19970925-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf (Erişim: 07.09.2025).
• ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/131/131-20040709-ADV-01-00-EN.pdf (Erişim: 07.09.2025).
• ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment of 27 June 1986, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/70/070-19860627-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf (Erişim: 07.09.2025).
• ICJ, Nicaragua v. Germany, 2024, https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192 (Erişim: 07.09.2025). ICJ, The Republic of Nicaragua Institutes Proceedings against the Federal Republic of Germany and Requests the Court to Indicate Provisional Measures, Press Release, 2024, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240301-PRE-01-00-EN.pdf, (Erişim: 07.09.2025).
• INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION: “Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries”, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, vol. II, Part Two, A/56/10, (Erişim: 13.11.2025).
• JORGENSEN, Nina H. B.: “State Responsibility for Aiding or Assisting International Crimes in the Context of the Arms Trade Treaty”, American Journal of International Law, 108(4), 2014, s.722-749.
• KOIVUROVA, Timo/SINGH, Krittika: “Due Diligence”, Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2022, s.1-22.
• LANOVOY, Vladyslav: “Arms Transfers to Israel: Knowledge and Risk of Violations of International Law”, https://www.justsecurity.org/94674/arms-transfers-israel/ (Erişim: 06.09.2025).
• LUSTGARTEN, Laurence: “The Arms Trade: Achievements, Failings, Future”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 64(3), 2015, s.569-600.
• MEYER, Paul: “A Banner Year for Conventional Arms Control? The Arms Trade Treaty and the Small Arms Challenge”, Global Governance, 20, 2014, s.203-212.
• MORELLI, Antonio: Withdrawal from Multilateral Treaties, Brill Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston 2022.
• MOYNIHAN, Harriet: “Aiding and Assisting: The Mental Element Under Article 16 of the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 67(2), 2018, s.455-471.
• PANKE, Diana/FRIEDRICHS, Gordon M.: “Regime Complexity as an Asset? The Negotiations of the Arms Trade Treaty”, Journal of Global Security Studies, 8(1), 2023, s.1-17.
• PIETROPAOLI, Irene: “The Obligations of Third States and Corporations to Prevent and Punish Genocide”, https://www.somo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Obligations-of-Third-States-and-Corporations-to-Prevent-and-Punish-Genocide-in-Gaza-3.pdf, (Erişim: 07.09.2025).
• PİRİM, Ceren Zeynep: “Uluslararası Sorumluluk Hukukunda Devletlerin Ağırlaştırılmış Sorumluluğu: Kurumsal Bir Değerlendirme”, Public and Private International Law Bulletin, 32(2), 2012, s.147-182.
• SIKKINK, Kathryn/RISSE, Thomas/ROPP, Steve C.: The Persistent Power of Human Rights: From Commitment to Compliance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013.
• STA Resmî Web Sitesi, https://thearmstradetreaty.org/treaty-status.html?templateId=209883, (Erişim: 14.07.2025).
• STAVRIANAKIS, Anna: “Legitimising Liberal Militarism: Politics, Law and War in the Arms Trade Treaty”, Third World Quarterly, 37(5), 2016, s.840-865.
• STEDJAN, Scott: “Introductory Note to the Arms Trade Treaty”, International Legal Materials, 52(4), 2013, s.985-997.
• SUTTON, Jessica: “Gender-Based Violence and the Arms Trade Treaty: Article 7(4) Under Fire”, New Zealand Journal of Public and International Law, 18(1), 2020, s.49-104.
• UN TREATY COLLECTION: “Arms Trade Treay”, https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src= TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVI-8&chapter=26, (Erişim: 10.07.2025).
• WEIL, Prosper: “Towards Relative Normativity in International Law?”, American Journal of International Law, 77(3), 1983, s.415-442.
• WENTKER, Alexander/STENDEL, Robert: “Conspicuously Absent: The Indispensable Third Party Principle at the ICJ in Nicaragua v. Germany”, https://verfassungsblog.de/conspicuously-absent/, (Erişim: 07.09.2025).
• WENTKER, Alexander/STENDEL, Robert: “Taking the Road Less Travelled: The ICJ’s Pragmatic Approach to Provisional Measures in Nicaragua v. Germany”, https://www.ejiltalk.org/taking-the-road-less-travelled-the-icjs-pragmatic-approach-to-provisional-measures-in-nicaragua-v-germany, (Erişim: 03.09.2025).
• YASMIN JALIL, Ghazala: “Arms Trade Treaty: A Critical Analysis”, Strategic Studies, 36(3), 2016, s.78-94.
• ZANGENEH, Parisa: “The ICJ’s Insufficient Engagement with Germany’s Interpretation of the External Dimension of Common Article 1 in the Nicaragua v. Germany Proceedings”, https://opiniojuris.org/2024/09/25/the-icjs-insufficient-engagement-with-germanys-interpretation-of-the-external-dimension-of-common-article-1-in-t (Erişim: 07.09.2025).
• ZEMANEK, Karl: “New Trends in the Enforcement of Erga Omnes Obligations”, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 4, 2000, s.1-52.