The Relationship Between Attribution of an Act to a State in International Law and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction within the Context of the European Convention on Human Rights

Abstract

Attribution of an internationally wrongful act to the state is a condition of holding a state responsible in international law and it operates according to special rules for that purpose. In most cases, it is an implied process in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Rules regarding attribution are not only in place while connecting a wrongful act to the State but are also applied when the respondent State’s extraterritorial jurisdiction is in question. In those cases, jurisdiction and attribution, two theoretically distinct issues, become intertwined. This study examines whether that approach is in conformity with international law. Jaloud v Netherlands is a significant judgment since the theoretic distinction between jurisdiction and attribution has been adopted by the European Court of Human Rights. It has been argued that a jurisdiction-establishing act and violation-establishing act must be held separately and that the two might not refer to the same acts in every case. Therefore, the distinction between the two is significant. Another question this study aims to answer is whether the Court applies its own criteria other than “effective control” which is recognized in general international law. To this end, the first part of the study examines what attribution means in international law, and the second part analyzes the Court’s jurisprudence in light of the questions mentioned above.

Keywords

• the European Court of Human Rights
• extraterritorial jurisdiction
• effective control
• responsibility
• attribution

Uluslararası Hukukta Eylemin Devlete Atfedilmesi ile Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi Çerçevesinde Ülke Dışı Yetki Arasındaki İlişki

Abstract

Uluslararası hukukta hukuka aykırı eylemin devlete atfedilmesi devletin sorumlu tutulabilmesinin bir koşuludur ve özel kurallar uyarınca gerçekleştirilmektedir. Atfedilme, uluslararası hukuka aykırı eylemin devlete bağlanması işlemidir. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi içtihadında çoğu halde bu işlem zımni olarak gerçekleştirilmektedir. Ancak atfedilmeye ilişkin kurallar, AİHM uygulamasında hukuka aykırı eylemin devlete bağlanabilmesinin ötesinde davalı devletin ülke dışı yetkisinin kurulması noktasında da gündeme gelmektedir. Söz konusu davalarda teorik bakımdan birbirinden ayrı iki mesele olan yetki ile atfedilme iç içe geçmiş haldedir. Bu çalışmada söz konusu yaklaşımın uluslararası hukuka uygun olup olmadığı incelenecektir. Jaloud v Netherlands kararı atfedilme-yetki arasındaki teorik ayrımın AİHM tarafından onaylanması bakımından önemli bir karardır. Doktrinde yetki-oluşturan eylem ile ihlal-oluşturan eylem ayrımı yapılarak bunların her zaman aynı eylemler olmayabileceği belirtilmektedir. İki mesele arasında yapılacak ayrım bu bakımdan önemlidir. Çalışmanın cevaplamayı amaçladığı diğer bir soru AİHM’in yetki bağlamında, genel uluslararası hukukta kabul edilen “etkin kontrol” kriteri dışında kendine özgü bir kriter uygulayıp uygulamadığıdır. Bu amaçla çalışmanın ilk kısmında uluslararası hukukta atfedilmenin ne anlama geldiği ve uluslararası hukukta atfedilmeye ilişkin kurallar incelenmiş, ikinci kısımda ise AİHM’in
ülke dışı yetkiye ilişkin içtihadı yukarıdaki sorular ışığında değerlendirilmiştir.

Keywords

• Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi
• ülke dışı yetki
• etkin kontrol
• sorumluluk
• atfedilme

References

1. Al Skeini v United Kingdom App No 55721/07 (ECtHR, 7 July 2011)
2. Aksar Y, Teoride ve Uygulamada Uluslararası Hukuk II (Seçkin 2019)
3. Aust A, Handbook of International Law (Cambridge University Press 2010)
4. Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi A.S. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/29 Award, 27 August 2009 (Italaw, 2009) https://www.italaw.com/cases/131 Erişim Tarihi 6 Ocak 2021
5. Behrami and Behrami v France App No 71412/01 and Saramati v France, Germany and Norway App No 78166/01 (ECtHR, 31 May 2007)
6. Brownlie I, System of the Law of Nations: State Responsibility Part I (Oxford University Press 1983)
7. Caron DD, ‘The ILC Articles on State Responsibility: The Paradoxical Relationship Between Form and Authority’ (2002) 96(4) American Journal of International Law, 857-873.
8. Condorelli L ve Kress C, ‘The Rules of Attribution: General Considerations’ in James Crawford ve Alain Pellet (edn), The Law of International Responsibility (Oxford University Press 2010) 221-236.

9. Crawford J, ‘State Responsibility’ in Rüdiger Wolfrum (edn), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford Public International Law 2006) https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1093?prd=EPIL Erişim Tarihi 15 Şubat 2021
10. Crawford J, ‘Investment Arbitration and the ILC Articles on State Responsibility’ (2010) 25(1) ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 127-199.
11. Crawford J, State Responsibility: The General Part (Cambridge University Press 2013)
12. Crawford J ve Keene A, ‘The Structure of State Responsibility under the European Convention on Human Rights’ in Anne van Aaken and Iulia Motoc (edn) The European Convention on Human Rights and General International Law (Oxford University Press, 2018) 178-197.
13. Dal U, Uluslararası Sorumluluk Hukukunda Uluslararası Hukuka Aykırı Eylemin Devlete Atfedilmesi (İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi 2019)
14. Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (2011) 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission (Part Two) Erişim Tarihi 16 Şubat 2021
15. Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, (2001) 2 (Part Two) Yearbook of the International Law Commission Erişim Tarihi 6 Ocak 2021
16. Evans M, ‘State Responsibility and the European Convention on Human Rights’ in Malgosia Fitzmaurice and Dan Sarooshi (edn) Issues of State Responsibility Before International Judicial Institutions (Hart Publishing, 2004) 139-160.
17. François J ve Kombe A, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi Kapsamında Pozitif Yükümlülükler Avrupa Konseyi İnsan Hakları El Kitapları No: 7 (1. Baskı, Avrupa Konseyi 2008)
18. Gondek M, The Reach of Human Rights in a Globalizing World (Maastricht University Doctoral Thesis 2009)
19. Ilascu and Others v Moldova and Russia App No 48787/99 (ECtHR, 8 July 2004)
20. Jaloud v Netherlands App No 47708/08 (ECtHR, 20 November 2014)
21. Larsen KM, ‘Attribution of Conduct in Peace Operations: The ‘Ultimate Authority and Control’ Test’, (2008) 19(3) The European Journal of International Law, 509-531.
22. Loizidou v Turkey App No 15318/89 (ECtHR, 18 December 1996)
23. Milanovic M, ‘Jurisdiction, Attribution and Responsibility in Jaloud’ (EJIL:Talk, 11 December 2014) https://www.ejiltalk.org/jurisdiction-attribution-and-responsibility-in-jaloud/ Erişim Tarihi 15 Şubat 2021
24. Nikaragua Davası, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America). Merits, Judgment. I.C.J. Reports 1986
25. Ortega ELA, ‘The attribution of international responsibility to a State for conduct of private individuals within the territory of another State’ (Indret, 2015) https://indret.com/wp-content/themes/indret/pdf/1116_es.pdf Erişim Tarihi 15 Şubat 2021
26. Palchetti P, ‘De Facto Organs of a State’ in Rüdiger Wolfrum (eds), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford Public International Law 2017) https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1394 Erişim Tarihi 6 Ocak 2021
27. Rooney JM, ‘The Relationship between Jurisdiction and Attribution after Jaloud v. Netherlands’ (2015) 62 Netherlands International Law Review 407-428.
28. Sari A, ‘Jaloud v Netherlands: New Directions in Extra-Territorial Military Operations’ (EJIL:Talk, 24 November 2014) https://www.ejiltalk.org/jaloud-v-netherlands-new-directions-in-extra-territorial-military-operations/ Erişim Tarihi 15 Şubat 2021
29. Second Report of the Special Rapporteur, Giorgio Gaja (56th session of the ILC) (2004) 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission (Part Two)
30. Schutter OD, ‘Globalization and Jurisdiction: Lessons from the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2006) 6(1) Baltic Yearbook of International Law 183-245.
31. Shaw MN, Uluslararası Hukuk (Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi 2018)
32. Shaw MN, International Law (8th edn, Cambridge University Press 2018)
33. Soykırım Sözleşmesi’nin Uygulanması Davası, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, 43.
34. Tadic Davası, Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic (Appeal Judgement), IT-94-1-A, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 15 July 1999, para. 162. https://www.refworld.org/cases,ICTY,40277f504.html Erişim Tarihi 6 Ocak 2021
35. Talmon S, ‘The Responsibility of Outside Powers For Acts of Secessionist Entities’ (2009) 58(3) International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 493-517.
36. Tams CJ, ‘Law-making in complex processes: The World Court and the modern law of state responsibility’ in Christine Chinkin ve Freya Baetens (edn), Sovereignty, Statehood and State Responsibility (Cambridge University Press 2015) 287-306.
37. Uzun E, Milletlerarası Hukuka Aykırı Eylemlerinden Dolayı Devletin Sorumluluğu (Seçkin, 2016)