İnsani Müdahale, Koruma Sorumluluğu ve İnsanların İnsani Müdahalesi: Bir Doğal Hukuk Yaklaşımı

Abstract

İnsani müdahale müessesi, modern uluslararası hukukta kuvvet kullanma yasağının istisnası, egemen devletlerin iç işlerine müdahale etmeme yasağının ve devlet egemenliğinin muarızıdır. İster modern uluslararası hukuk içinde kabul edilsin, ister ona aykırı olduğu iddia edilsin, ister koruma sorumluluğu gibi başka tezler içinde yeniden yazılsın, insani müdahale müessesesi doğal hukuktan kaynaklanan bir hak ve görev olduğu için yeri geldikçe gündeme gelmeye devam edecektir. Bu çalışmada insani müdahale müessesesi, ona yapılan temel itirazlar, devlet uygulamaları ve uluslararası teamül tartışmalarıyla birlikte ele alınmıştır. Çalışma, koruma sorumluluğu da dahil olmak üzere, insani müdahalenin geçirdiği dönüşümleri açıklamaktadır. Koruma sorumluluğu kendi halkını koruma sorumluluğunu taşımakta aciz veya isteksiz olan devletler için öngörülmüştür. Buna mukabil süregiden insani krizlere, hatta soykırıma, müdahale etmekte aciz ya da isteksiz davranan devletlerden oluşan uluslararası topluluk yerine kim harekete geçecektir? Bu makale bu soruya cevap olarak, devletlerin insani müdahalesinden insanların insani müdahalesine nasıl varıldığını Sumud Filosu örneği üzerinden ve doğal hukuktaki kökeniyle birlikte ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

• İnsani müdahale
• Koruma sorumluluğu
• Sumud Filosu
• İnsanların insani müdahalesi
• İnsani krizler.

Humanitarian Intervention, Responsibility to Protect and Humanitarian Intervention by People: A Natural Law Approach

Abstract

The institution of humanitarian intervention stands as an exception to the prohibition on the use of force in modern international law and as an antithesis to both the principle of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of sovereign states and to the very notion of sovereignty itself. Whether it is accepted within the framework of contemporary international law, deemed to be in contravention of it, or rearticulated under alternative doctrines such as the responsibility to protect, humanitarian intervention (as a right and duty grounded in natural law) will continue to resurface whenever circumstances demand. This study examines the institution of humanitarian intervention alongside the principal objections raised against it, the relevant state practices, and the evolving customary norms. It elucidates the transformations the concept has undergone, including its metamorphosis into the doctrine of the responsibility to protect. The responsibility to protect was conceived for states that are either unable or unwilling to safeguard their own populations. Yet, in the face of ongoing humanitarian crises (and even genocide) if the international community, composed of states, remains equally unable or unwilling to act, who then shall assume the mantle of responsibility? This article seeks to answer that question by tracing the evolution from humanitarian intervention by states to humanitarian intervention by people, illustrated through the example of the Sumud Flotilla and grounded in its natural law origins.

Keywords

• Humanitarian intervention
• Responsibility to protect
• Sumud Flotilla
• Humanitarian intervention by people
• Humanitarian crises.

References

1. Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, ICJ, (Advisory Opinion), (22 July 2010).
2. Acer, Yücel/ Kaya, İbrahim. Uluslararası Hukuk (İngilizce Özetli). Legal Yayınevi, İstanbul, 2012.
3. Achcar, Gilbert. “Barack Obama’s Libya speech and the tasks of anti-imperialists.” LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE, 4 April 2011, https://mondediplo.com/openpage/barack-obama-s-libya-speech-and-the-tasks-of-anti , (ET: 26.09.2025).
4. Aksar, Yusuf. “The European Court of Human Rights and the Cyprus Problem.” Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, C. 50, S. 3, 2001, s. 141-174.
5. Aksar, Yusuf. Teori ve Uygulamada Uluslararası Hukuk, Cilt I, Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2025.
6. Aksar, Yusuf. Teori ve Uygulamada Uluslararası Hukuk, Cilt II, Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2023.
7. Albright, Madeleine. “Interview with Lesley Stahl.” 60 Minutes CBS, 12 May 1996 https://www.democracynow.org/2022/3/24/former_secretary_state_madeleine_albright_dies, (ET: 09.10.2025).
8. Ali, Syeda Fizzah. “International Law, Human Rights and the Iraq War.” Pakistan Horizon 62, no. 2/3 (2009): 63– 75. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24710997.

9. Allison, Roy. “Humanitarian Intervention, Kosovo, and Beyond: Divergent Norms.” in Russia, the West, and Military Intervention. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013.
10. Altuğ, Yılmaz. Devletler Umumi Hukuku. Çağlayan Kitabevi, İstanbul, 1995.
11. Annan, Kofi. “We the peoples: the role of the United Nations in the 21st Century.” 2000, http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/wethepeople.pdf, (ET: 27.09.2025).
12. Annan, Kofi. “Two Concepts of Sovereignty.” The Economist, 18 September 1999, https://www.economist.com/international/1999/09/16/two-concepts-of-sovereignty, (ET: 27.09.2025).
13. Aral, Berdal. Küresel Güvenlikten Küresel Tahakküme: BM Güvenlik Sistemi ve İslam Dünyası. Küre Yayınları, 2016.
14. Aral, Berdal. Uluslararası Hukukta Meşru Müdafaa Hakkı. Siyasal Kitabevi, Ankara, 1999.
15. Arbatov, Alexei G. “The Transformation of Russian Military Doctrine: Lessons Learned from Kosovo and Chechnya.” George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies Papers, S. 2, July 2000, https://www.marshallcenter.org/en/publications/marshall-center-papers/transformation-russian-military- doctrine-lessons-learned-kosovo-and-chechnya/transformation-russian-military, (ET: 29.10.2025).
16. Arı, Tayyar. Uluslararası İlişkiler ve Dış Politika. MKM Yayınları, Bursa, 2008.
17. Atalay, Ahmet Halûk. Uluslararası Hukukun Oluşumu: İlk Küreselleşme Dönemi. Göçebe Yayınları, İstanbul, 1997.
18. Barelli, Mauro. “Preventing and Responding to Atrocity Crimes: China, Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect,” Journal of Conflict & Security Law, C. 23, S. 2, 2018, s. 173-201.
19. Bass, Gary J. Freedom’s Battle: The Origins of Humanitarian Intervention. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, New York, 2009.
20. Başaran, Halil Rahman. “Responsibility to Protect: An anti-fragile perspective.” Mississippi College Law Review, C. 32, S. 3, 2014, s. 467-493.
21. Başaran, Halil Rahman. “Responsibility to Protect: An Explanation”, Houston Journal of International Law, C. 36, S. 3, 2014, s. 581-624
22. Bayraktar, Fethullah. “On the Controversial Illegality of the Unilateral Use of Force for the Prevention of Genocide: The ‘Doubtfulness’ Clause Adopted by the ICJ in the Case Filed by Ukraine Against Russia.” Uluslararası İlişkiler, C. 76, S. 1, 2022, s. 39-52.
23. Blum, William. Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II. Updated edition, Common Courage Press, Monroe, 2004.
24. Canales, Sarah Basford. “Australian woman on pro-Palestinian aid flotilla will be ‘indefinitely detained’ by Israel unless she signs waiver.” The Guardian, 10 October 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/10/australian-woman-on-pro-palestinian-aid-flotilla-will- be-indefinitely-detained-by-israel-unless-she-signs-waiver, (ET: 10.10.2025).
25. Cohen, Tom. “Obama: It’s the world’s ‘red line’ on Syria; Senate panel backs military strike plan.” CNN, 4 September 2013, https://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/04/politics/us-syria, (ET: 09.10.2025).
26. Convention concernant les lois et coutumes de la guerre sur terre (La Haye II), Conclue à La Haye le 29 juillet 1899. https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/23/261_225_251/fr (ET: 12.02.2026).
27. Daillier, Patrick et al., editors. Droit International Public. LGDJ, Paris, 2022.
28. Demirel, Naim. “Uluslararası Hukukta İnsani Müdahale ve Hukuki Meşruiyet Sorunu.” FSM İlmi Araştırmalar İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Dergisi, C. 1, S. 1, 2013, s. 152-172.
29. Demirel, Naim. BM Güvenlik Konseyi ve Uluslararası Barışın Korunması. Derin Yayınları, İstanbul, 2013.
30. Deng, Francis M et al., editors. Sovereignty As Responsibility: Conflict Management in Africa. Brookings Institution Press, Washington D. C., 1996.
31. Denk, Erdem. Uluslararası Örgütler Hukuku Birleşmiş Milletler Sistemi, Siyasal Kitabevi, Ankara, 2024.
32. Dixon, Martin. Textbook on International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007.
33. Doğan, İlyas. Devletler Hukuku. Astana Yayınları, Ankara, 2013.
34. Doyle, Michael and Beenish Riaz. “Humanitarian Intervention.” in Cope, Z. Ed. The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Geopolitics. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47227-5_62 (ET: 09.10.2025).
35. Draft UNSC Resolution, UN Doc S/1999/328 (26 March 1999) https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un- documents/document/kos-s-1999-328.php, (ET: 23.10.2025).
36. Economic Community of West African States, Protocol Relating to the Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management, Resolution, Peace-Keeping and Security (1999), https://amaniafrica-et.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/04/Protocol-Relating-to-the-Mechanism-for-Conflict-Prevention-Management- Resolution-Peace-Keeping-and-Security-1999.pdf, (ET: 09.10.2025).
37. el Maverdi, Ebu’l Hasan Habib. El-Ahkâmü’s Sultaniye. Bedir Yayınevi, 2015.
38. el Menawy, Abdellatif. “Why Egypt blocked the Global March to Gaza.” Arab News, 13 June 2025, https://arab.news/ytg2h, (ET: 15.06.2025).
39. Erkiner, Hakkı Hakan. “Uluslararası Hukukta Uluslararası Topluluk Kavramının Başlıca Görünümleri.” MÜHF Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, C. 16, S. 1-2, 2010, s. 77-133.
40. Erkiner, Hakkı Hakan. Devletin Haksız Fiilden Kaynaklanan Uluslararası Sorumluluğu. On İki Levha Yayınları, İstanbul, 2010.
41. Erkiner, Hakkı Hakan/ Akoudou, Emerant Yves Ombga. “The Concepts of the Responsibility to Protect and Human Security within the United Nations: Return on the Meanings.” İstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, C. 8, S. 2, 2021, s. 387-444.
42. Freedom Flotilla Coalition, “A Month After Conscience Attack: Freedom Flotilla Ship Madleen Sets Sail for Gaza.” https://freedomflotilla.org/2025/06/01/a-month-after-conscience-attack-freedom-flotilla-ship- madleen-sets-sail-for-gaza/, (ET: 15.06.2025).
43. Eroğlu, Hamza. Devletler Umumi Hukuku. Adım Yayıncılık, Ankara, 1991.
44. Gabbat, Adam. “Russia and China veto of Syria sanctions condemned as ‘indefensible’.” The Guardian, 19 July 2012 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/19/russia-china-syria-sanction-veto, (ET: 09.10.2025).
45. Genser, Jared. “The United Nations Security Council’s Implementation of the Responsibility to Protect: A Review of Past Interventions and Recommendations for Improvement.” Chicago Journal of International Law. C. 18, S. 2, 2018, s. 420–445.
46. Gray, Christine. “The Use of Force and the International Legal Order.” in Evans, Malcom D Ed. International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010.
47. Gray, Christine. International Law and the Use of Force. OUP, Oxford, 2004.
48. Hadduri, Macid. İslâm Hukukunda Savaş ve Barış. Yöneliş Yayınları, İstanbul, 1999.
49. Hamidullah, Muhammed. İslâm’da Devlet İdaresi. Beyan Yayınları, İstanbul, 2007.
50. Heraclides, Alexis and Ada Dialla. Humanitarian Intervention in the Long Nineteenth Century: Setting the Precedent. Manchester University Press, Manchester, 2015.
51. Heraclides, Alexis. Humanitarian Intervention in the Long Nineteenth Century. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015.
52. Herman, Edward S. “Responsibility to Protect (R2P): An Instrument of Aggression.” Voltaire Network, 9 November 2013, http://www.voltairenet.org/article180927.html, (ET: 02.06.2025).
53. Hirsch, Ernst. Hukuk Felsefesi ve Hukuk Sosyolojisi Dersleri. Banka ve Ticaret Hukuku Araştırma Enstitüsü, Ankara, 2001.
54. Holzgrefe, J L and Robert O Keohane, editors. Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003.
55. House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. Global Britain: The Responsibility to Protect and Humanitarian Intervention. House of Commons, 10 Sept. 2018, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmfaff/1005/100503.htm, (ET: 29.10.2025).
56. “Humanitarian Military Intervention.” FPIF, 20 January 2005, http://fpif.org/humanitarian_military_intervention/, (ET: 29.10.2025).
57. Human Rights Watch, “War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention” 25 January 2004, https://www.hrw.org/news/2004/01/25/war-iraq-not-humanitarian-intervention (ET: 20.02.2026).
58. “Implementation Steps for President Tump’s Proposal for a Comprehensive End of Gaza War.” 10 October 2025, https://x.com/FABIAN_ARG1/status/1976398050739486871, (ET: 14.10.2025).
59. “Independent International Commission on Kosovo, Kosovo Report: Conflict.” International Response, Lessons Learned (Stockholm, 2000) https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/pbei/unup/0001648/f_0001648_860.pdf , (ET: 09.10.2025).
60. “International Comission on Intervention & State Sovereignty, The Responsibility to Protect (2001)”. https://www.globalr2p.org/resources/the-responsibility-to-protect-report-of-the-international- commission-on-intervention-and-state-sovereignty-2001/, (ET: 27.09.2025).
61. Ishetar, Sakari. “Echoes of Abstention: Russian Policy in Libya and Implications for Regional Stability.” https://jpia.princeton.edu/news/echoes-abstention-russian-policy-libya-and-implications-regional- stability, (ET: 27.09.2025).
62. “Israel defies UN and vows to cut ties with UNRWA, with US blessing.” FRANCE 24, 28 January 2025, https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250128-israel-to-cut-all-contact-with-unrwa-intermediaries- israel-un-envoy, (ET: 15.06.2025).
63. İHH İnsani Yardım Vakfı, “Mavi Marmara.” https://ihh.org.tr/mavi-marmara, (ET: 15.06.2025).
64. “İsrail hapishanesinden kurtulan Şuayb Ordu, Siyonist zulmü ifşa etti! Böcekli hücrelere atıp şantaj yaptılar.” Türkiye, 14 Haziran 2025, https://www.turkiyegazetesi.com.tr/dunya/israil-hapishanesinden-kurtulan-suayb- ordu-siyonist-zulmu-ifsa-etti-bocekli-hucrelere-atip-santaj-yaptilar-1123536?cache_refresh=1&s=1 (ET: 15.06.2025).
65. Jashari, Muhamed. “The Position of Russian Diplomacy toward the Kosovo Issue (1998-1999).” Vakanüvis Uluslararası Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi. C. 7. S. 1., 2022, s. 1613- 1632.
66. Karaoğlu, Ali Osman. “Libya’ya Askeri Müdahale ve Uluslararası Hukukta Yeniden İnşa Sorumluluğu.” İstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, C. 6, S. 1, 2019, s. 199-224.
67. Kersten, Mark. “The ICC and Iraq: ‘A Pinochet Moment’?.” Justice in Conflict, 13 January 2014, https://justiceinconflict.org/2014/01/13/the-icc-and-iraq-a-pinochet-moment/, (ET: 10.10.2025).
68. Kolb, Richard. Theory of International Law. Bloomsbury Academic, London, 2016.
69. Kul, Muhammet Celal. “Savaş Suçlarından Soykırıma: İsrail’in Gazze’deki Fiillerinin Hukuki Değerlendirmesi.” Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi, C. 63. S. 1., 2025, s. 379–410.
70. Kul, Muhammet Celal. “Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi’nin Tecavüz Suçu (Saldırı Suçu) Üzerindeki Yargı Yetkisi ve Harekete Geçirilmesi.” İbn Haldun Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, C. I, S. 1, 2023, s. 81-114.
71. Kul, Muhammet Celal. Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi ve Uluslararası Tecavüz (Saldırı) Suçu. On İki Levha Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2016.
72. Kuran, Selami. Uluslararası Deniz Hukuku. Beta Yayınları, İstanbul, 2014.
73. La Pradelle, Albert de Geouffre de. Maitres et Doctrines du Droit des Gens. Les Éditions Internationales, Paris, 1950.
74. Lavrov, Sergei. “Russia Will Not Pass Any UNSC Resolution Against Syria, Will Not Allow Any Military Intervention in It.” Free Online Library, 27 September 2011, https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Lavrov%3A+Russia+Will+Not+Pass+any+UNSC+Resolution+against+Syria%2C +Will...-a0277999760, (ET: 29.10.2025).
75. Leffler, Melvyn P. “Think Again: Bush’s Foreign Policy.” Foreign Policy, 23 October 2009, https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/23/think-again-bushs-foreign-policy/, (ET: 23.10.2025).
76. Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v Belgium), Verbatim record 1999/14, https://icj- web.leman.un-icc.cloud/sites/default/files/case-related/105/105-19990510-ORA-01-00-BI.pdf, (ET: 05.06.2025).
77. Lidman, Melanie and Renata Brito. “Greta Thunberg is among flotilla activists deported from Israel. Others remain in prison.” AP News, 7 October 2025, https://apnews.com/article/mideast-wars-gaza-flotilla- activists-greta-thunberg-9de91cb4ab857180a30ef420c776c73b, (ET: 10.10.2025).
78. Malanczuk, Peter. Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law. Routledge, London, 1997.
79. Mancini, Ryan. “Rafah crossing to reopen as Israel-Hamas ceasefire deal takes effect.” The Hill, 11 October 2025 https://thehill.com/policy/international/5551440-rafah-crossing-israel-hamas-ceasefire/, (ET: 14.10.2025).
80. McKirdy, Euan. “8 times Russia blocked a U.N. Security Council resolution on Syria.” CNN, 13 April 2017, https://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/13/middleeast/russia-unsc-syria-resolutions/index.html, (ET: 09.10.2025).
81. Merriam Webster, “intervention.” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intervention, (ET: 01.06.2025).
82. Müller, Konrad, editor. Instrumenta Pacis Westphalicae: Die Westfälischen Friedensverträge 1648 (The Westphalian Peace Treaties). Lang, Bern, 1975.
83. Necatigil, Zaim. The Cyprus Conflict in the International Law in C H Dodd ed. The Political and Social Development of the Northern Cyprus. Eothen Press, North Humberside, 1993.
84. Newman, Edward. “Exploring the UK’s Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention.” International Peacekeeping, C. 28, S. 4, 2021, s. 632–660.
85. Núñez, Jorge E. “State Sovereignty: Concept and Conceptions.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, C. 37, S. 1, 2024, s. 2131–2150.
86. Nussbaum, Arthur. A Concise History of the Law of Nations. The Macmillan Company, New York, 1954.
87. Nye, Joseph S and David A Welch. Küresel Çatışma ve İşbirliğini Anlamak. Türkiye İş Bankası Yayınları, İstanbul, 2010.
88. Obama, Barack. “Full Text of President Obama’s 2013 Speech at UN General Assembly.” The Times of Israel, 24 September 2013, https://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-of-obamas-2013-speech-at-un-general- assembly/, (ET: 29.10.2025).
89. Öktem, Emre. Uluslararası Teamül Hukuku. Beta Yayınları, İstanbul, 2013.
90. Press Release, General Assembly, Secretary-General Presents His Annual Report to General Assembly, UN Press Release GA/9596 (20 September 1999).
91. Press Release, Security Council, Security Council Grants Year-Long Mandate Extension for United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Central African Republic, UN Press Release SC/11264 (28 January 2014) https://press.un.org/en/2014/sc11264.doc.htm, (ET: 13.10.2025).
92. “R2P IDEAS in Brief: France and R2P.” Asia Pacific Responsibility to Protect, 2015. r2pasiapacific.org/files/3021/r2pbrief_2015_france_and_r2p.pdf, (ET: 23.10.2025).
93. Regan, Patrick M. “Choosing to Intervene: Outside Interventions in Internal Conflicts.” The Journal of Politics, C. 60, S. 3, 1998, s. 754-779.
94. Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Actions of the United Nations During the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda, S/1999/1257 (15 December 1999); “Chairman of Independent Inquiry…” Press Release SC/6843, 14 April 2000 https://press.un.org/en/20000414.sc6843.doc.html, (ET: 10.10.2025).
95. Roberts, Dan and Spencer Ackerman. “China backs Russia in opposition to Syria action.” CNBC / AFP, 4 September 2013, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/04/syria-strikes-draft-resolution-90-days, (ET: 09.10.2025).
96. Roberts, Dan and Spencer Ackerman. “US draft resolution allows Obama 90 days for military action against Syria.” The Guardian, 4 September 2013, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/04/syria-strikes- draft-resolution-90-days, (ET: 09.10.2025).
97. Schmitt, Michael N. “The Syrian Intervention: Assessing the Possible International Law Justifications.” International Law Studies, C. 89, S. 1, 2013, s. 744-756.
98. Schulz, William F/ Adam, Silke/ Drescher, Björn. “Is there a religious bias? Attitudes toward military humanitarian intervention in Germany.” European Journal of International Security (2024) C. 9, S. 3, 2024, s. 434-448.
99. Security Council Members Brief on Syria Statement. 21 March 2012, https://dam.media.un.org/archive/H-E-- Ambassador-Garard-Araud-of-France-speaks-to-the-press-following-a-Security-Council-Meeting-on- the-situation-in-Syria--2AM9LOYBLUMX.html, (ET: 23.10.2025).
100. Security Council, 53rd year 3937th meeting, Saturday, 24 October 1998, New York. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/262399?ln=fr&v=pdf, (ET: 23.10.2025).
101. Seyedfarshi, Amir. “French Interventionism in the Age of R2P: A Critical Examination of the Case of Mali.” Creighton International & Comparative Law Journal, C. 7, S. 1, 2015, s. 2-36.
102. Shah, Anup. “On the “Clinton doctrine” of humanitarian intervention: The Clinton Doctrine of Humanitarian Interventions.” Global Issues, 2 December 2000, https://www.globalissues.org/article/451/the-clinton- doctrine-of-humanitarian-interventions, (ET: 29.10.2025).
103. Simma, Bruno. “NATO, the UN and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects.” European Journal of International Law, C. 10, S. 1, 1999, s. 1-22.
104. Šimonović, Ivan. “The Responsibility to Protect.” UN Chronicle, C. 53, S. 4, 2017, s. 18-20.
105. Snetkov, Aglaya/ Lanteigne, Marc. “‘The Loud Dissenter and its Cautious Partner’ – Russia, China, Global Governance and Humanitarian Intervention.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific C. 15, S. 1, 2015, s. 113- 146.
106. Stepanova, Ekaterina. “Russia’s Approach to the Conflict in Libya, the East-West Dimension and the Role of the OSCE.” http://www.estepanova.net/Stepanova_Russia_Libya.pdf , (ET: 27.09.2025).
107. Sur, Melda. Uluslararası Hukukun Esasları. Beta Yayınları. İstanbul, 2025.
108. “Syria crisis: US senators’ draft backs limited action.” BBC News, 4 September 2013, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23954889, (ET: 09.10.2025).
109. Taşdemir, Fatma. “Başarısız Devletler ve Uluslarararası Hukuk Açısından Ortaya Çıkardığı Sorunlar.” Erciyes Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, C. 8, S. 1, 2013, s. 405-423.
110. The Association of Iraqi Jurists, US Violations of Occupation Law in Iraq Report to the Ninth Session of the Human Rights Council, The Universal Periodic Review, The United States, November 2010, https://upr- info.org/sites/default/files/documents/2013-10/aijtheassociationofiraqijurists.pdf (ET: 20.02.2026).
111. The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. 1 December 2001, https://www.globalr2p.org/resources/the-responsibility-to-protect-report-of-the- international-commission-on-intervention-and-state-sovereignty-2001/, (ET: 09.10.2025).
112. The United Nations, “Syria: Assad’s armed forces must face accountability, says rights probe.” UN NEWS, 6 February 2025, https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/02/1159861, (ET: 02.06.2025).
113. Toluner, Sevin. Dış Politika Sorunları. Beta Yayınları, İstanbul, 2000.
114. Trindade, Antônio Augusto Cançado. International Law for Humankind: Towards a New Jus Gentium. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, 2010.
115. Ukraine v Russian Federation, Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, ICJ, 2022.
116. UN Commission on Human Rights, Situation of human rights in the Darfur region of the Sudan, E/CN.4/2005/3, 7 May 2004, https://www.refworld.org/reference/countryrep/unchr/2004/en/36050, (ET: 09.10.2025).
117. UN GAOR, 54th session 8th plenary meeting 16, UN Doc a/54/pv.8 (22 September 1999) https://docs.un.org/en/A/54/PV.8, (ET: 23.10.2025).
118. UN General Assembly, 2005 World Summit Outcome: resolution adopted by the General Assembly, A/RES/60/1, 24 October 2005, https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/unga/2005/en/19525 (ET: 21.10.2025).
119. UN General Assembly, Implementing the responsibility to protect: report of the Secretary-General, A/63/677, 12 January 2009, https://www.refworld.org/reference/themreport/unga/2009/en/64691 (ET: 21.10.2025).
120. UN Security Council, Security Council resolution 1160 (1998) [On the letters from the United Kingdom (S/1998/223) and the United States (S/1998/272)], S/RES/1160 (1998), 31 March 1998, https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/unsc/1998/en/93682 (ET: 23.10.2025).
121. UN Security Council, Security Council resolution 1199 (1998) [The situation in Kosovo], S/RES/1199 (1998), 23 September 1998, https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/unsc/1998/en/94407 (ET: 23.10.2025).
122. UN Security Council, Security Council resolution 1203 (1998) [Kosovo], S/RES/1203 (1998), 24 October 1998, https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/unsc/1998/en/76664 (ET: 23.10.2025).
123. UN Security Council, Security Council resolution 1973 (2011) [on the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya], S/RES/1973(2011), 17 March 2011, https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/unsc/2011/en/76684 (ET: 23.10.2025).
124. UN Security Council, Security Council resolution 678 (1990) [Iraq-Kuwait], S/RES/678 (1990), 29 November 1990, https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/unsc/1990/en/8997 (ET: 20.02.2026).
125. UN Security Council, Security Council resolution 688 (1991) [Iraq], S/RES/688 (1991), 5 April 1991, https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/unsc/1991/en/113183 (ET: 23.10.2025).
126. UN Security Council, Security Council resolution 733 (1992) [Somalia], S/RES/733 (1992), 23 January 1992, https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/unsc/1992/en/85875 (ET: 23.10.2025).
127. UN Security Council, Security Council resolution 794 (1992) [Somalia], S/RES/794 (1992), 3 December 1992, https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/unsc/1992/en/80089 (ET: 23.10.2025).
128. UN Security Council, Security Council resolution 940 (1994) [UN Mission in Haiti], S/RES/940 (1994), 31 July 1994, https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/unsc/1994/en/92315 (ET: 09.10.2025).
129. United Kingdom. Chemical Weapon Use by Syrian Regime: UK Government Legal Position. GOV.UK, 29 Aug. 2013, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a759039e5274a545822c7df/Chemical-weapon-use- by-Syrian-regime-UK-government-legal-position.pdf. (ET: 29.10.2025).
130. United Nations - African Union Hybrid Operation in Darfur, https://unamid.unmissions.org/timeline, (ET: 21.10.2025).
131. United Nations, “In Gaza, daily food intake has fallen well below ‘survival’ level” UN NEWS, 5 June 2025, https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164076 (ET: 15.06.2025).
132. United Nations, “Somalia UNOSOM I Background.” https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/mission/past/unosom1backgr2.html?utm, (ET: 29.10.2025).
133. UNSC, Sixty-fourth year 6095th meeting Friday, 20 March 2009, 10 a.m. New York, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3- CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/Somalia%20S%20PV6095.pdf, (ET: 29.10.2025).
134. Uyghur Human Rights Project, “The Complicity of Heritage: Cultural Heritage and Genocide in the Uyghur Region” (February 2023) https://uhrp.org/report/the-complicity-of-heritage-cultural-heritage-and- genocide-in-the-uyghur-region/uhrp.org , (ET: 09.10.2025).
135. Ünal, Şeref. Uluslararası Hukuk Açısından Ermeni Sorunu. Türk Tarih Kurumu, Ankara, 2011.
136. Ünal, Şeref. Uluslararası Hukuk. Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara, 2005.
137. Visscher, Charles de. Théories et Réalités en Droit International Public. Éditions A. Pedone, Paris, 1960.
138. Yaman, Ahmet. İslam Hukukunda Uluslararası İlişkiler. Fecr Yayınevi, Ankara, 1998.
139. Yavuz, Sevgi Tansu/ Mutlu, Erdem İlker. “Koruma Sorumluluğu, Uluslararası Teamül Hukuku Haline Gelmiş Midir? Sorunsalın Hipotetik Bir Bakışla Anlatısı.” Hacettepe Law Review, C. 14, S. 2, 2024, s. 89-126.
140. Zhenmin, Liu. Statement by Ambassador Liu Zhenmin at the Plenary Session of the General Assembly on the Question of “Responsibility to Protect” (24 July 2009) (China) paras 1, 2. https://www.globalr2p.org/wp- content/uploads/2022/07/2009-R2PDebate-China.pdf, (ET: 23.10.2025).
141. Zimmermann, Andreas. “The Obligation to Prevent Genocide: Towards a General Responsibility to Protect?”, in Ulrich Fastenrath et al eds. From Bilateralism to Community Interests: Essays Essays in Honour of Judge Bruno Simma. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011.