Andlaşmalar Hukuku ve Uluslararası Sorumluluk Hukukunun Kesişim Noktasında Exceptio Inadimplenti Non Est Adimplendum

Abstract

Uluslararası hukukta exceptio inadimplenti non est adimplendum veya exceptio inadimpleti contractus olarak adlandırılan ilke bir uluslararası hukuk kişisinin bir uluslararası yükümlülüğünü yerine getirmediği durumlarda, yükümlülüğün muhatabı olan diğer uluslararası hukuk kişisinin aynı veya benzer bir yükümlülüğünü yerine getirmeyebileceğini öngörmekte ve karşılıklılık üzerine kurulu bir anlayışla, taraflar arasında âdil bir denge kurmayı hedeflemektedir. 1969 Viyana Andlaşmalar Hukuku Sözleşmesi’nin 60. maddesi bir uluslararası andlaşmanın, âkit taraflardan biri tarafından ihlâl edilmesi durumunda, diğer âkit tarafın andlaşmayı sona erdirebileceğini veya tamamen veya kısmen yürürlüğünü askıya alabileceğini düzenleyerek exceptio inadimplenti non est adimplendum ilkesinin temelindeki anlayışı benimsiyor olsa da ihlâlin “esaslı” olması gerektiğini hükme bağlayarak ilkeye genel bir atıf yapmamaktadır. Bunun yanı sıra, 1969 Sözleşmesi’nin 73. maddesi genel uluslararası sorumluluk hukuku kurallarına atıfta bulunmakta ve sözleşme hükümlerinin, devletlerin uluslararası sorumluluğa ilişkin kurallarına halel getirmeyeceğini hükme bağlayarak bir uluslararası andlaşmanın ihlâli durumunda uluslararası sorumluluk hukuku kurallarının da devreye girebileceğini açıkça düzenlemektedir. İşte bu noktada, exceptio inadimplenti non est adimplendum ilkesinin uluslararası sorumluluk hukuku altında bir karşı önlem telâkki edilip edilemeyeceği sorusu gündeme gelmektedir. Elinizdeki çalışma, ilkenin temellerini andlaşmalar hukukundan mı yoksa uluslararası sorumluluk hukukundan mı aldığı, başka bir ifade ile, andlaşmalar hukuku ve sorumluluk hukuku arasında exceptio ilkesi bağlamında bulunan ilişkinin bir rekabet ilişkisi mi yoksa bir tamamlayıcılık ilişkisi mi olduğu sorusuna odaklanmaktadır.

Keywords

• Andlaşmalar hukuku
• exceptio inadimpleti contractus
• exceptio inadimplenti non est adimplendum
• uluslararası sorumluluk hukuku

Exceptio Inadimplenti Non Est Adimplendum at the Intersection of Treaty Law and Law of International Responsibility

Abstract

The principle commonly referred to as exceptio inadimplenti non est adimplendum or exceptio inadimpleti contractus provides that in international law, the performance of an obligation may be withheld if the other party has itself failed to perform the same or a related obligation. Being based on reciprocity, it aims, therefore, to establish a fair balance between the parties. Article 60 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties reflects the foundations of exception inadimplenti non est adimplendum. Paragraph one states that “A material breach of a treaty by one of the parties
entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part.” However, by referring only to material breaches, this article does not make general reference to the traditional and classical version of the principle. Besides, Article 73 of the 1969 Convention, by providing that “the provisions of the Convention shall not prejudge any question that may arise in regard to a treaty from the international responsibility of a State,” explicitly stipulates that in case of treaty violations, international responsibility rules would also apply. The question then arises whether exceptio inadimplenti non est adimplendum could be considered as a countermeasure under the law of State responsibility. This article focuses on whether exception has its roots and foundations in the law of treaties or in the law of international responsibility.

Keywords

• Exceptio inadimpleti contractus
• exceptio inadimplenti non est adimplendum
• exception of non-performance
• law of treaties
• law of State responsibility

References

1. Abi-Saab G, “Cours général de droit international public” (1987) 207 Recueil des cours de l’Académie de droit international 9-463.
2. Akehurst M, ‘Reprisals by Third States’ (1970) 44 British Yearbook of lnternational Law 1-18.
3. Arangio Ruiz V, La compravendita in diritto romano (Jovene 1956).
4. Bilder R B, ‘Breach of Treaty and Response Thereto’ (1967) 61 Proceedings American Society of International Law (1967).
5. Briggs H W, ‘Unilateral Denunciation of Treaties: The Vienna Convention and the International Court of Justice’ (1974) 68(1) The American Journal of International Law 51-68.
6. Cavaglieri A, “Règles générales du droit de la paix” (1929) 26 Recueil des cours de l’Académie de droit international 311-586.
7. Chatinakrob T, ‘Material Breach and its Exception’, An Analysis of a “Humanitarian Character” (2018) 5(2) IALS Student Law Review 43-54.
8. Chinkin C, ‘Nonperformance of International Agreements’ (1982) 17(3) Texas International Law Journal 387-432.

9. Crandall, S B, Treaties, Their Making and Enforcement (2nd edn, John Byrne & Company 1916).
10. Crawford J ve Olleson S, ‘The Exception of Non-performance: Links between the Law of Treaties and the Law of State Responsibility’ (2000) 21 Australian Year Book of International Law 55.
11. Dupuy P M, ‘Droit des traités, codification et responsabilité internationale’ (1997) 43 Annuaire français de droit international 7.
12. Fitzmaurice M, ‘Angst of the Exceptio Inadimplenti Non Est Adimplendum in International Law’ in Bartels L and Paddeu F (eds), Exceptions in International Law (Oxford University Press 2020) 285-304.
13. Fitzmaurice M, ‘The Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Case: The Law of Treaties’ (1998) 11 Leiden Journal of International Law 321-344.
14. Fontanelli F, ‘The Invocation of the Exception of Non-Performance: A Case-Study on the Role and Application of General Principles of International Law of Contractual Origin’ (2012) 1(1) Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law 119-136.
15. Forlati S, ‘Reactions to Non-Performance of Treaties in International Law’ (2021) 25 Leiden Journal of International Law 759-770.
16. Garner J, ‘The Unilateral Denunciation of Treaties by One Party Because of Alleged Non-Performance by Another Party or Parties’ (1935) 29(4) AJIL 569-585.
17. Greig D W, ‘Reciprocity, Proportionality, and the Law of Treaties’ (1994) 34(2) Virginia Journal of International Law 295-404.
18. Kirgis Jr. F L, ‘Some Lingering Questions about Article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties’ (1989) 22(3) Cornell International Law Journal 549-573.
19. Lefeber R, ‘The Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project and the Law of State Responsibility’ (1998) 11 Leiden Journal of International Law 609-623.
20. Oppenheim L, International Law (4th edn, Longmans 1926-1928), vol I.
21. Paddeu F, Justification and Excuse in International Law: Concept and Theory of General Defences (Cambridge University Press 2018).
22. Sicilianos L-A, ‘The Relationship Between Reprisals and Denunciation or Suspension of a Treaty’ (1993) 4 European Journal of International Law 341-359.
23. Simma B ve Tams C, ‘Article 60 (Convention of 1969)’ in Corten O ve Klein P (eds), The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties A Commentary (Oxford University Press 2011) 1351-1378.
24. Tams C, ‘Regulating Treaty Breaches’ (2016) Erişim Tarihi 16 Eylül 2021
25. Xiouri M, ‘Problems in the Relationship between the Termination or Suspension of a Treaty on the Ground of Its Material Breach and Countermeasures’ (2015) 6 Queen Mary Law Journal 63-76.