Devlet-Dışı Aktörlere Karşı Meşru Müdafaada "İsteksiz veya Aciz" Doktrini: Suriye ve DAEŞ Örneği

Öz

•     Devlet-dışı aktörler, sınırları belli bir ülkeye sahip olmadıklarından faaliyetlerini devam ettirebilmek için bir devletin ülkesine ihtiyaç duymaktadırlar. Ülkesini kullandıkları ev sahibi devlet, bu birimlerle işbirliği içinde olabilir ve aktif destek sağlayabilir. Ya da aktif destekte bulunmaksızın pasif olarak bu birimlerin kendi ülkesini kullanmalarına izin verebilir.      Bu çalışmada ele alınacak konu, ev sahibi devletin devlet-dışı aktörlerin faaliyetlerine karışma düzeylerinden bir tanesi olan isteksiz veya âciz olma durumunda, mağdur devletin ev sahibi devletin ülkesinde bu birimlere yönelik kuvvet kullanıp kullanamayacağıdır. Konuyla ilgili olarak bahsedilecek olan, DAEŞ’e yönelik müdahale ile yeniden gündeme gelen “isteksiz veya âciz” doktrinidir. Buna göre devlet-dı- şı aktörlere ev sahipliği yapan devletlerin, bu birimlerin faaliyetlerini engellemek istememesi veya bu konuda âciz kalmaları durumunda, ev sahibi devletin ülkesinde bu birimlere yönelik kuvvet kullanmaları konusu tartışılmaktadır. Uluslararası hukukta henüz tam olarak yerini bulamamış bu doktrinin, devlet-dışı aktörlere karşı meşru müdafaa konusuna yeni bir boyut kazandıracağı kesindir.   
•  As non-state actors do not have a bordered country, they need a country of a state to continue their activities. This host state, of which country they use, can be in collaboration with these units and provide active support. Or, without providing active support, it can allow these units to use its country, passively.
•     The issue which will be examined in this study is that if the host state will use force against these units in its country in case of that it is reluctant or helpless, which is one of the levels of interfering to non-state actors’ activities by the host country, or not. This will be mentioned concerning to the issue is the “reluctant or helpless” doctrine, which reawaken with the action against ISIS. According to that, in case the host countries to non-state actors do not want to prevent activities of these units or they become helpless in that issue, it is being discussed that the use of force by the host country. It is certain that, this doctrine, which has not found its own level in the international law yet, will add a new dimension to the issue of necessary defence against non-state actors.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Meşru müdafaa,Devlet-dışı Aktörler,"İsteksiz veya Aciz" Doktrini,Suriye,DAEŞ

Kaynakça

1. Kitaplar
2. Dinstein, Yoram. War, Aggression and Self Defense. 4th Edition. New York: Camb- ridge University Press, 2005.
3. Henckaerts, Jean-Marie ve Louise Doswald-Beck. Uluslararası insancıl Teamül (Örf-Adet) Hukuku Cilt: 1: Kurallar. ye tercüme edenler: Emre Öktem, Melike Batur Yamaner, Dolunay Özbek, Ble- da R. Kurtdarcan, Mehmet Cengiz Uzun, Abdullah Kaya). İstanbul: Beta Basım A.Ş. Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayınları 66, 2005.
4. Kuran, Selami, Derya Aydın Okur, Meltem Sarıbeyoğlu ve Reşat Volkan Günel. Uluslararası Hukuk Temel Metinler.
5. Gözden Geçirilmiş 3. Baskı, İstanbul: Beta Yayınevi, 2014.
6. Lubell, Noam. Extraterritorial Use of Force Against Non-State Actors. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
7. Ruys, Tom. Armed Attack and Article 51 of the UN Charter, Evolutions in Cus- tomary Law and Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
8. Tütüncü, Ayşe Nur. İnsancıl Hukuka Giriş. İstanbul: Beta Basım, 2012.

9. Makaleler
10. Aolain, Fionnuala Ni. “Authorizing Force: A Review of Turkish, Dutch French Action”, Just Security. 16 October 2014. https://www.justsecurity.org/16282/ authorizing-force-review-turkish-dutch-french-action/ (22.04.2016). Arimatsu, Louise ve Michael N. Schmitt. “Attacking “Islamic State” and the Khora- san Group: Surveying the International Law Landscape”, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law Bulletin. Vol.53 (2014): 1-29.
11. Aydın Okur, Derya. “DAEŞ’e Karşı Suriye’de Yapılan Operasyonların Meşruiyeti Bakımından ‘İsteksiz ya da Aciz Devlet’ Teorisi”, İstanbul Kültür Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi. Cilt: 14, Sayı: 2 (Temmuz 2015): 39-65.
12. Baker, Peter ve Eric Schmitt, “Many Missteps in Assessment of ISIS Threat”, New York Times. 29 September 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/ world/middleeast/obama-fault-is-shared-in-misjudging-of-isis-threat.html?_r=0 (17.04.2016).
13. Cassese, Antonio. “The International Community’s ‘Legal’ Response to Terrorism”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly. Vol.38 (1989): 589-608.
14. Dascal Jennifer, Ashley Deeks ve Ryan Goodman. “Strikes in Syria: The Interna- tional Law Framework”, Just Security. 24 September 2014. https://www.just- security.org/15479/strikes-syria-international-law-framework-daskal-deeks- goodman/ (27.04.2016).
15. Dawood I. Ahmed, “Defending Weak States Against the ‘Unwilling or Unable’ Doctrine of Self-Defense.”, Journal of International Law & International Rela- tions. Vol.9, No.1 , (April 2013): 1-46.
16. Deeks, Ashley S. “Unwilling or Unable: Toward a Normative Framework for Extra- territorial Self-Defense”, Virginia Journal of International Law. Vol.52, No.3 (2012): 483-550.
17. Deeks, Ashley. “The UK’s Article 51 Letter on Use of Force in Syria”, Lawfare. 12 December 2014. https://www.lawfareblog.com/uks-article-51-letter-use-force- syria (24.04.2016).
18. Goodman, Ryan. “International Law - and the Unwilling and Unable Test - for US Military Operations in Syria”, Just Secuity. 12 September 2014. https:// www.justsecurity.org/14949/international-law-unwilling-unable-test-military- operations-syria/ (04.05.2016).
19. Goodman, Ryan. “International Law on Airstrikes Against ISIS in Syria”, Just Se- curity. 28 August 2014. https://www.justsecurity.org/14414/international-law- airstrikes-isis-syria/(04.05.2016).
20. Hakimi, Monica. “Defensive Force Against Non-State Actors: The State of Play”. International Law Studies. Vol. 91 (2015): 1-35.
21. Heller, Kevin Jon. “Do Attacks on ISIS in Syria Justify the ‘Unwilling or Unable’ Test?”, Opinio Juris. 1 December 2014. http://opiniojuris.org/2014/12/13/ attacks-isis-syria-justify-unwilling-unable-test/ (27.04.2016) .
22. Horowitz, Jonathan. “Is the US Allowed to Control a Syrian Airfield?”, Just Secu- rity. 27 January 2016. https://www.justsecurity.org/28988/allowed-control-syri- an-airfield/ (27.04.2016).
23. Horowitz, Jonothan. “Does the Unwilling/Unable Test Hang on Territorial Control?: A Response to Michael Lewis”, Just Security. 12 September 2014. https://www. justsecurity.org/14953/unwillingunable-test-hang-territorial-control-response- michael-lewis/ (25.04.2016).
24. Irshaid, Faisal. “Isis, Isil, IS or Daesh? One Group, Many Names”, BBC News. 2 December 2015. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27994277 (22.04.2016).
25. Jakobsen, Peter Viggo Jens Elo Rytter (Ed.). Copenhagen, Danish Institute for In- ternational Studies. “New Threats and the Use of Force”. 2005. http://www.isn. ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail/?lang=en&id=16807 (30.04.2016).
26. Karam, Zeina. “A Look at the State Militans in Syria”, Associated Press. 28 August 2014. http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/08/a_look_at_the_islamic_ state_mi.html (17.04.2016).
27. Kress, Claus. “The Fine Line Between Collective Self-Defense and Intervention by Invitation: Reflections on the Use of Force Against ‘IS’ in Syria”, Just Security. 17 February 2015. https://www.justsecurity.org/20118/claus-kreb-force-isil-syria/ (29.04.2016).
28. Lewis, Michael. “What Does the ‘Unwilling or Unable’ Standard Mean in the Con- text of Syria?”, Just Security. 12 September 2014. https://www.justsecurity. org/14903/unwilling-unable-standard-context-syria/ (25.04.2016).
29. M. R., “The Many Names of ISIS (also known as IS, ISIL, SIC and Da’ish)”, The Economist. 28 September 2014. http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist- explains/2014/09/economist-explains-19 (22.04.2016).
30. O’Connell , Mary. “Lawful Self Defense to Terrorism”. University of Pittsburgh Law Review. Vol.63 (2002): 889-908. Ohlin, Jens David. “The Unwilling or Unable Doctrine Comes to Life”, Opinio Juris. 23 September 2014. http://opiniojuris.org/2014/09/23/unwilling-unable- doctrine-comes-life/ (17.04.2016).
31. Ruys, Tom ve Sten Verhoeven. “Attacks by Private Actors and the Right of Self Defense”. Journal of Conflict and Security Law. Vol.10, No.3 (2005): 289-320.
32. Skalar Sarıbeyoğlu, Meltem. “Silahlı Çatışmalarda Sivillerin Korunması İçin Güvenli Bölgeler”. Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt. 9, Sayı. 123-124 (2014):37-64.
33. Schmitt, Michael N. “ ‘Change Direction’ 2006: Israeli Operations in Lebanon and the International Law of Self Defense”. International Law Studies. Vol.84 (2007): 265-301.
34. Szabo, Kinga Tibori. “The ‘Unwilling or Unable’ Test and the Law of Self-defense”, Ed. Christophe Paulussen, Tamara Takacs, Vesna Lazic, Ben Van Rompuy (Ed.). Fundamental Rights in International and European Law - Public and Private Law Perspectives. The Hague: T.M.C Asser Press, 2015. 73-97.
35. Taşdemir, Fatma. “İç Savaş Çerçevesinde Terörizm ve DAEŞ Örneği”. Uluslararası Hukuk ve Politika. Cilt: 11, Sayı: 42 (2015): 41-67.
36. Trapp, Kimberly N. “Back to Basis: Necessity, Proportionality and the Right of Self- Defense Against Non-State Terrorist Actors”. Internationaland Comparative Law Quarterly. Vol 56 (2007): 141-156.
37. Travalio, Greg ve John Altenburg. “Terrorism, State Responsibility and the Use of Military Force”. Chicago Journal of International Law. Vol.4, No.1 (2003): 97-120.
38. Walsh, Maj. Patrick. “What if Assad Becomes Willing Now that Russia is Able?”, Lawfare. 20 October 2015. https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-if-assad-becomes- willing-now-russia-able (25.04.2016).
39. Williams, Gareth D. “Piercing the Shield of Sovereignty: An Assessment of the Legal Status of the ‘Unwilling or Unable’ Test”. U. N. S. W. Law Journal. Vol.36 No.2 (2013):619-641.
40. Uluslararası Mahkeme Kararları
41. Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2005, p. 168.
42. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 136.