Avrupa Birliği Mevzuatında Güvenli Üçüncü Ülke Kavramı ve Türkiye-AB Geri Kabul Anlaşmasına Yansımaları

Year 2018, Volume: 38 Issue: 1, 11 - 40, 05.09.2018

Esen Aydın

Abstract

Çalışmamız kapsamında güvenli üçüncü ülke kavramının tanımına yer verildikten sonra, kavramın hukuki dayanağı ve güvenli üçüncü ülkenin belirlenmesine ilişkin genel kriterler ortaya konulmuştur. Genel kriterlerin belirlenmesinin ardından, AB hukukunda güvenli üçüncü ülke kavramının ne şekilde düzenlendiği ve AB’nin çeşitli mekanizmalar vasıtasıyla gerçekleştirdiği güvenli üçüncü ülke uygulamaları incelenmiştir. Bu kapsamda, güvenli üçüncü ülke kavramını tanımlayan ve detaylı kriterler öngören Uluslararası Korumaya İlişkin AB Usul Yönergesi hükümleri, uluslararası koruma başvurusunu incelemekle sorumlu devletin belirlenmesini sağlayan Dublin III Tüzüğü hükümleri ve Türkiye-AB Geri Kabul Anlaşması özelinde AB geri kabul anlaşmaları incelenmiştir. Türkiye-AB Geri Kabul Anlaşmasının uygulanabilmesi bakımından Türkiye’nin güvenli üçüncü ülke olarak kabul edilmesi büyük önem arz etmektedir. Dolayısıyla çalışmamız kapsamında Türkiye’nin güvenli üçüncü ülke olmak için AB hukukunda aranan kriterleri yerine getirip getirmediği de incelenecektir. 

Keywords

Güvenli üçüncü ülke, Dublin III Tüzüğü, AB Usul Yönergesi, Türkiye-AB Geri Kabul Anlaşması, 1951 tarihli Cenevre Konvansiyonu

The Concept of Safe Third Country in European Union Acquis and its Reflections on the Turkey-EU Readmission Agreement

Abstract

In this article, after giving definition of the concept of safe third country, general criteria have been laid down for determining which countries are safe and the legal basis of the concept. Following the establishment of general criteria, the safe third-country concept in EU law and the safe third-country practices that the EU has achieved through various mechanisms have been analyzed. In this context, the provisions of the EU Procedures Directive which defines the concept of safe third country and envisages detailed criteria, Dublin III Regulation provisions which allows the determination of the state responsible for examining the application for international protection and the EU readmission agreements, specifically EU-Turkey Readmission Agreement are examined. For the implementation of the EU-Turkey Readmission Agreement Turkey must be considered a safe third country. Therefore, our study analyzes whether Turkey fulfills the requirements under EU law in order to be a safe third country. 

Keywords

Safe third country, Dublin III Regulation, EU Procedures Directive, Turkey-EU Readmission Agreement, 1951 Geneva Convention

References

• ‘18 Mart 2016 Tarihli Türkiye – AB Zirvesi Bildirisi’ <https://www.ab.gov.tr/files/AB_Iliskileri/18_mart_2016_turkiye_ab_zirvesi_bildirisi_.pdf> accessed 17 August 2018
• Acer Y, Kaya İ ve Mahir G, Küresel ve Bölgesel Perspektiften Türkiye’nin İltica Stratejisi (Usak 2010)
• Batır K, ‘Avrupa Birliği’nin Geri Kabul Anlaşmaları: Türkiye İle AB Arasında İmzalanan Geri Kabul Anlaşması Çerçevesinde Hukuki Bir Değerlendirme’ (2017) 15 Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi 585
• Borchelt G, ‘The Safe Third Coutry Practice in the European Union: A Misguided Approach to Asylum Law and a Violation of International Human Rights Standarts’ (2002) 33 Columbia Human Rights Law Review 473
• Bozkurt K, ‘Geri Kabul ve Vize Serbestisi Anlaşması’ [2016] TBB Dergisi 387
• Collinson S, ‘Visa Requirements, Carrier Sanctions, “Safe Third Coutries” and “Readmission”: The Development of an Asylum “Buffer Zone” in Europe’ (1996) 21 Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 76
• Costello C, ‘The Asylum Procedures Directive and the Proliferation of Safe Country Practices: Deterrence, Deflection and the Dismantling of International Protection?’ (2005) 7 European Journal of Migration and Law 35
• Çelikel A ve Öztekin Gelgel G, Yabancılar Hukuku (23rd edn, Beta 2017)
• Çiçekli B, Uluslararası Hukukta Mülteciler ve Sığınmacılar (Seçkin 2009)
• ——, Yabancılar ve Mülteci Hukuku (6th edn, Seçkin 2016)
• Doğan V, Türk Yabancılar Hukuku (2nd edn, Savaş 2017)
• Ekinci MU, ‘Türkiye-AB Geri Kabul Anlaşması ve Vize Diyaloğu – Rapor’ (Siyaset Ekonomi ve Toplum Araştırmaları Vakfı, 2016) http://file.setav.org/Files/Pdf/20160521180027_turkiye-abgeri-kabul-anlasmasi-ve-vize-diyalogu-pdf.pdf
• European Comission, ‘COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIl- On the State of Play of the Common Fisheries Policy and Consultation on the Fishing Opportunities for 2019’ (2018) <https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-85-EN-F1-1.PDF
• Gil-Bazo M-T, ‘The Pratice of Mediterranean States in the Context of the European Union’s Justice and Home Affairs External Dimension. The Safe Third Country Concept Revisited’ (2006) 18 International Journal of Refugee Law 571
• ——, ‘The Safe Third Country Concept in International Agreements on Refugee Protection - Assessing State Practice’ (2015) 33 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 42
• Gkliati M, ‘The EU-Turkey Deal and the Safe Third Country Concept Before the Greek Asylum Appeals Committees’ (2017) 3 Movements Journal 213
• Goodwin-Gill GS and McAdam J, Refugee in International Law (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2007)
• Göçmen İ, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi Işığında Avrupa Birliği ve Göç Hukuku (Seçkin 2015)
• ——, ‘Türkiye Ile Avrupa Birliği Arasındaki Geri Kabul Anlaşmasının Hukuki Yönden Analizi’ (2015) 13 Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi 21
• Hailbronner K, ‘Legal Requirements for the EU-Turkey Refugee Agreement: A Reply to J.
• Hathaway’ (Verfassungblog, 2016) <https://verfassungsblog.de/legal-requirements-for-the-euturkey-refugee-agreement-a-reply-to-j-hathaway/> accessed 25 August 2018
• Hathaway JC, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law (5th edn, Cambridge University Press 2015)
• ——, ‘Three Legal Requirements for the EU-Turkey Deal : An Interview with JAMES HATHAWAY’ (Verfassungblog, 2016) 9 <https://verfassungsblog.de/three-legal-requirementsfor-the-eu-turkey-deal-an-interview-with-james-hathaway/> accessed 26 August 2018
• Hurwitz A, The Collective Responsibility of States to Protect Refugees (Oxford University Press 2009)
• Lambert H, ‘“Safe Third Country” in the European Union: An Evolving Concept in International Law and Implications for the UK’ (2012) 26 Journal of Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Law 318
• Legomsky SH, ‘Secondary Refugee Movements and the Return of Asylum Seekers to Third Countries: The Meaning of Effective Protection’ (2003) 15 International Journal of Refugee Law 567
• Moreno-Lax V, ‘The Legality of the “Safe Third Country” Notion Contested: Insights from the Law of Treaties’ in Guy S Goodwin-Gill and P Weckel (eds), Migration & Refugee Protection in the 21st Century: Legal Aspects (Martinus Nijhoff 2015)
• Özcan M, Avrupa Birliği Sığınma Hukuku (Usak 2005)
• Özkan I, ‘Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi ve Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı Kararları Işığında Avrupa Birliği’nin Göç ve Sığınma Politikası’ [2011] Ankara Barosu Dergisi 165
• ——, Göç - İltica ve Sığınma Hukuku (2nd edn, Seçkin 2017)
• Öztürk NÖ, Mültecinin Hukuki Statüsünün Belirlenmesi (Seçkin 2015)
• Peers S and Roman E, ‘The EU, Turkey and the Refugee Crisis: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?’ (2016) http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-eu-turkey-and-refugee-crisis-what.html accessed 27 August 2018
• Roman E, Baird T and Radcliffe T, ‘Statewatch Analysis: Why Turkey Is Not a “Safe Country”’ (2016) http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/no-283-why-turkey-is-not-a-safe-country.pdf accessed 27 August 2018
• Thym D, ‘Why the EU-Turkey Deal Can Be Legal and a Step in the Right Direction’ (2016) http://eumigrationlawblog.eu/why-the-eu-turkey-deal-can-be-legal-and-a-step-in-the-rightdirection/ accessed 27 August 2018
• Ulusoy O, ‘Turkey as a Safe Third Country?’ (University of Oxford Faculty of Law, 2016) https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/centre-criminology/centreborder-criminologies/blog/2016/03/turkey-safe-third> accessed 26 August 2018
• UN General Assembly, ‘Note on International Protection’ (1993)
• UNHCR, ‘Position on Conventions Recently Concluded In Europe (Dublin and Schengen)’ (2016) http://www.unhcr.org/protection/operations/43662e942/unhcr-position-conventions-recentlyconcluded-europe-dublin-schengen-conventions.html accessed 16 July 2018
• UNHCR Executive Committee, ‘EXCOM No. 15 Refugees Without an Asylum Country’ (1979) http://www.unhcr.org/excom/exconc/3ae68c960/refugees-asylum-country.html > accessed 16 July 2018
• UNHCR Türkiye and Türk İçişleri Bakanlığı, ‘İltica ve Göç Mevzuatı’ (2005) http://www.goc.gov.tr/files/files/iltica_goc.pdf> accessed 17 July 2018
• UNHCR, ‘ExCom Conclusion No 58 (XL), “Problem of Refugees and Asylum Seekers Who Move in an Irregular Manner From a Country in Which They Had Already Found Protection”’ (1989) http://www.unhcr.org/4aa77aa09.pdf> accessed 27 August 2018
• Wouters CW, International Legal Standards for the Protection From Refoulement (Intersentia 2009)
• Zimmermann A, Dörschner J and Machts F (eds), The 1951 Convention Relationg to the Status of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol – A Commentary (Oxford University Press 2011)