Abstract
1979 Devriminden sonra ABD-İran ilişkilerine ihtilaf ve çatışmalar
damga vurmuştur. ABD, siyasi ve askeri tedbirlerin yanında ambargo
uygulayarak İran’ı nükleer programı ve Orta Doğu politikasından
vazgeçmeye zorlamıştır. Birleşmiş Milletler Güvenlik Konseyi kararlarına
rağmen ABD’nin 2018 Mayıs’ında ambargo uygulamasını yeniden
başlatması üzerine İran 1955 Dostluk, İktisadi İlişkiler ve Konsolosluk
Hakları Andlaşmasına dayanarak Uluslararası Adalet Divanına
başvurmuş ve Divandan esasla ilgili karar almadan önce Amerikan
ambargosunun kaldırılmasına yönelik ihtiyati tedbirler almasını talep
etmiştir. Divan 3 Ekim 2018’de verdiği kararda İran’ın ihtiyati tedbirler
talebini büyük ölçüde haklı bularak ABD’den tıbbi malzemeler, yiyecek
ve tarım ürünleri ve sivil uçakların bakımı ve yedek parçalarının satışı
ve bunlarla ilgili mali muameleleri kısıtlayan veya yasaklayan tedbirleri
kaldırmasını istemiştir. Divan ihtiyati tedbirler kararı alırken birtakım
kıstasları dikkate almaktadır. Bunlar arasında öncelikli ve en önemlisi
davanın esasıyla ilgili prima facie yetkisinin bulunmasıdır. Divanın bu
davada verdiği prima facie yetki kararı önceki kararlarına nazaran daha
fazla tartışmalı noktalar ihtiva etmektedir.
Keywords
Uluslararası yargı UAD İhtiyati tedbirler Prima facie yetki İran/ABD 1955 Andlaşmasının İhlali Davası
References
- Actes du Colloque de 1984 de la Société Belge de Droit International, Les moyens de pression économiques et le droit international, Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles, 1985.
- C. Amerasinghe, Jurisdiction of International Tribunals, Kluwer Law International, 2003, s. 348;
- C. Tomuschat, “Article 36”, The Statute of International Court of Justice – A Commentary, 2nd edition
- Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with commentaries, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1966, vol. II, s. 249.
- Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, vol. II (Part Two), s. 128 vd.
- F. Capotorti, “L’extinction et la suspension des traités”, Hague Recueil (1971), s. 517 vd.
- H. Pazarcı, Uluslararası Hukuk Dersleri, I. Kitap, 3. baskı, Turhan Kitabevi, 1992, s. 270.
- I.C. McGibbon, “Some Observation on the Part of Protest in International Law”, BYIL, 1953, s. 298.
- Institut de Droit International, Provisional Measures – Preparatory Work, Yearbook 2017, s. 297-298.
- J. Crawford, The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility, Cambridge University Press, 2002, s. 282.
- J. Wouters, S. Verhoeven, “Desuetudo”, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Heidelberg and Oxford University Press, 2011;
- K. Oellers-Frahm, “Article 41”, The Statute of International Court of Justice – A Commentary, 2nd edition, (Eds) A. Zimmermann, C. Tomuschat, K. Oellers-Frahm, C.J. Tams, Oxford University Press, 2012, s. 1212.
- L. Collins, “Provisional and Protective Measures in International Litigation”, Hague Recueil (1992)
- L. Dubouis, “L’embargo dans la pratique contemporaine, Annuaire française de droit international, 1967
- M. Lando, “Plausibility in the Provisional Measures Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice”, Leiden Journal of International Law (2018), 31, s. 641-2.
- M.E. Çağıran, Uluslararası Hukukta Devletin Tek Taraflı İşlemleri, Platin, 2005, s. 224.
- P. Weil, D. Richemond, “The Oil Platforms Case before the International Court of Justice: A Non-case of International Responsibility”, International responsibility today : essays in memory of Oscar Schachter, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, s. 329-340.
- R.B. Lillich (Ed.), Economic Coercition and the New International Economic Order, Charlotesville, 1976;
- S. Oda, “Provisional measures – The Practice of International Court of Justice”, Fifty years of the International Court of Justice – Essays in honor of Sir Robert Jennings, Cambridge University Press 1996, s. 551.
- T. Giegerich, “Article 54 – Termination of or withdrawal from a treaty under its provisions or by consent of the parties”, loc. cit., s. 958.
- T. Giegerich, “Article 62 – Fundamental Change of Circumstances”, O. Dörr, K. Schmalenbach (Editors), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties – A Commentary, Springer, 2012, s. 1077 vd.
- T.O. Elias, The International Court of Justice and some contemporary problems, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1983, s. 70-71.
Abstract
References
- Actes du Colloque de 1984 de la Société Belge de Droit International, Les moyens de pression économiques et le droit international, Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles, 1985.
- C. Amerasinghe, Jurisdiction of International Tribunals, Kluwer Law International, 2003, s. 348;
- C. Tomuschat, “Article 36”, The Statute of International Court of Justice – A Commentary, 2nd edition
- Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with commentaries, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1966, vol. II, s. 249.
- Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, vol. II (Part Two), s. 128 vd.
- F. Capotorti, “L’extinction et la suspension des traités”, Hague Recueil (1971), s. 517 vd.
- H. Pazarcı, Uluslararası Hukuk Dersleri, I. Kitap, 3. baskı, Turhan Kitabevi, 1992, s. 270.
- I.C. McGibbon, “Some Observation on the Part of Protest in International Law”, BYIL, 1953, s. 298.
- Institut de Droit International, Provisional Measures – Preparatory Work, Yearbook 2017, s. 297-298.
- J. Crawford, The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility, Cambridge University Press, 2002, s. 282.
- J. Wouters, S. Verhoeven, “Desuetudo”, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Heidelberg and Oxford University Press, 2011;
- K. Oellers-Frahm, “Article 41”, The Statute of International Court of Justice – A Commentary, 2nd edition, (Eds) A. Zimmermann, C. Tomuschat, K. Oellers-Frahm, C.J. Tams, Oxford University Press, 2012, s. 1212.
- L. Collins, “Provisional and Protective Measures in International Litigation”, Hague Recueil (1992)
- L. Dubouis, “L’embargo dans la pratique contemporaine, Annuaire française de droit international, 1967
- M. Lando, “Plausibility in the Provisional Measures Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice”, Leiden Journal of International Law (2018), 31, s. 641-2.
- M.E. Çağıran, Uluslararası Hukukta Devletin Tek Taraflı İşlemleri, Platin, 2005, s. 224.
- P. Weil, D. Richemond, “The Oil Platforms Case before the International Court of Justice: A Non-case of International Responsibility”, International responsibility today : essays in memory of Oscar Schachter, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, s. 329-340.
- R.B. Lillich (Ed.), Economic Coercition and the New International Economic Order, Charlotesville, 1976;
- S. Oda, “Provisional measures – The Practice of International Court of Justice”, Fifty years of the International Court of Justice – Essays in honor of Sir Robert Jennings, Cambridge University Press 1996, s. 551.
- T. Giegerich, “Article 54 – Termination of or withdrawal from a treaty under its provisions or by consent of the parties”, loc. cit., s. 958.
- T. Giegerich, “Article 62 – Fundamental Change of Circumstances”, O. Dörr, K. Schmalenbach (Editors), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties – A Commentary, Springer, 2012, s. 1077 vd.
- T.O. Elias, The International Court of Justice and some contemporary problems, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1983, s. 70-71.
Details
| Primary Language | Turkish |
|---|---|
| Subjects | Law in Context |
| Journal Section | Articles |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | June 24, 2020 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2020 Issue: 15 |