ULUSLARARASI HUKUKUN SINIRLARINDA BİR MÜDAHALE ARACI: SİBER YAPTIRIMLAR VE SİBER KARŞI ÖNLEMLER ÜZERİNE HUKUKİ BİR DEĞERLENDİRME

Öz

ortaya çıkan “siber yaptırımlar” ve “siber karşı önlemler” kavramlarını hukuki açıdan incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Birleşmiş Milletler Güvenlik Konseyi tarafından uygulanan kolektif yaptırımlar ile devletlerin tek taraflı olarak uyguladığı karşı önlemler arasındaki farklar, normatif dayanaklar ve meşruiyet sorunu temelinde analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmada ilk olarak Birleşmiş Milletler Şartı’nın VII. Bölümü çerçevesinde siber yaptırımların hukuki geçerliliği ve uygulanabilirliği değerlendirilmiştir. İkinci bölümde ise devletlerin tek taraflı olarak uyguladığı siber karşı önlemler, “Devlet Sorumluluğu” çerçevesinde ele alınmış; atfedilebilirlik, orantılılık ve geçicilik gibi uluslararası hukuk ilkeleri ışığında hukuki sınırları irdelenmiştir. Son olarak, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri, Birleşik Krallık ve Avrupa Birliği gibi aktörlerin siber yaptırım uygulamaları örneklerle değerlendirilmiş; Türkiye’nin bu konudaki yaklaşımı da karşılaştırmalı olarak ele alınmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular, siber yaptırımların hem kolektif hem de tek taraflı biçimlerinin, teknik gelişmelerin hızına paralel olarak uluslararası hukukta yeni düzenlemelere ihtiyaç duyulduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Siber yaptırım
• siber karşı önlem
• Güvenlik Konseyi
• devlet sorumluluğu
• insan hakları

An Instrument of Intervention within the Limits of International Law: A Legal Assessment of Cyber Sanctions and Cyber Countermeasures

Öz

This study examines the concepts of cyber sanctions and cyber countermeasures from a legal perspective, in response to the growing cyber security threats in the context of international law. It analyses the differences, normative bases, and legitimacy issues between collective sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council and unilateral countermeasures implemented by individual states. The first section evaluates the legal validity and applicability of cyber sanctions within the framework of Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The second section addresses unilateral cyber countermeasures taken by states, analysed under the framework of State Responsibility. It examines their legal limits considering international law principles such as attributability, proportionality, and temporariness. Finally, the study evaluates the cyber sanction practices of actors such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, and provides a comparative analysis of Turkey’s approach. The findings indicate that both collective and unilateral cyber sanctions highlight the need for new regulatory measures in international law in line with the rapid pace of technological developments.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cyber sanction
• cyber countermeasure
• Security Council
• state responsibility
• human rights

Kaynakça

1. AALCO, Extraterritorial Application of National Legislation: Sanctions Imposed against Third Parties (2014) 22 E.T.07.03.2025.
2. Air Services Agreement of 27 March 1946 (United States v France), Decision of the Arbitral Tribunal
3. Akdağ İ, Birleşmiş Milletler Tarafından Gerçekleştirilen Silahsızlanma Çalışmaları ve Türkiye’nin Bu Çalışmalara Yaklaşımı (Master’s thesis, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü 2014).
4. AP, Russian Cybercrime Network Targeted for Sanctions Across US, UK And Australia, E.T. 12.04.2025 .
5. Bayram M, ‘Angola İç Savaşının Ana Aktörleri ve Uluslararası Ramifikasyonları’ (2016) 6(15) Ordu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi 365–383.
6. Benatar M and Gombeer K, ‘Cyber Sanctions: Exploring a Blind Spot in the Current Legal Debate’ (ESIL 2011 4th Research Forum, 2011).
7. Birleşmiş Milletler İnsan Hakları Konseyi, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Negative Impact of Unilateral Coercive Measures on the Enjoyment of Human Rights, Idriss Jazairy, UN Doc A/HRC/30/45 (10 August 2015).
8. Bogdanova I and Callo-Muller M V, ‘Unilateral Cyber Sanctions: Between Questioned Legality and Normative Value’ (2021) 54 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 911-954.

9. Bolaman N B, ‘1980 Sonrası Türkiye-Ortadoğu İlişkilerinin Türk Siyasal Hayatına Etkileri (İran, Irak, Suriye, İsrail, Mısır)’ in Savaş AR and Zabun AH (eds), 1980’den Günümüze Türk Siyasal Hayatı: Siyaset, Ekonomi, Dış Politika (Özgür Yayınları 2023).
10. Boyle A, ‘Soft Law in International Law-Making’ in Malcolm D. Evans (ed), International Law (Oxford University Press 2014) 118–137.
11. Bryant R, ‘What Kind of Space is Cyberspace’ Minerva-An Internet (2001) 5 Journal of Philosophy 138-155.
12. Chatinakrob T, ‘Interplay of International Law and Cyberspace: State Sovereignty Violation, Extraterritorial Effects, and the Paradigm of Cyber Sovereignty’ (2024) 23(1) Chinese Journal of International Law 25-72.
13. Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, Pub L No 115–44, 131 Stat 886 (2 August 2017) E.T. 13.05.2025.
14. Crawford J and Baetens F, ‘The Creation of States in International Law’ in D Lyons (ed), Leading Works in International Law (Routledge 2023) 37–53.
15. Crawford J, ‘The Relationship Between Sanctions and Countermeasures’ in Mariano Garcia Rubio and Hassiba Hadj-Sahraoui (eds), United Nations Sanctions and International Law (Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Vol 1, Kluwer Law International 2001).
16. Crawford J, The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries (Cambridge University Press 2002).
17. Çokişler E, ‘Uluslararası Hukukta İkincil Yaptırımlar Açısından Amerika’nın Hasımlarıyla Mücadele Yasası’ (2021) 18(69) Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi 71-86.
18. Demirkasımoğlu N, ‘Nitel Araştırma Geleneğinde Nicel Göstergelerin Kullanımı ve Genellenebilirlik Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme’ (2021) 42 Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 231-242.
19. Denk E, Uluslararası Örgütler Hukuku: Birleşmiş Milletler Sistemi (Siyasal Kitabevi 2015).
20. Dias T, Countermeasures in International Law and Their Role in Cyberspace (Research Paper, International Law Programme, May 2024).
21. Domain Nedir, E.T. 06.05.2025.
22. Eckert C, Gatzert N and Schubert M, ‘Analyzing Spillover Effects from Data Breaches to the US (Cyber) Insurance Industry’ (2023) 29(6) The European Journal of Finance 669-692.
23. Elagab O Y, The legality of non-forcible counter-measures in international law (PhD Thesis, University of Oxford 1986).
24. Eslam H. And Tiwari G, ‘Cyberspace: Reimagining Cybersecurity and Its Impact on State Sovereignty’ in Mohamed Chawki and Ajith Abraham (eds), Cybercrime Unveiled: Technologies for Analysing Legal Complexity (Springer 2025).
25. European Council, Timeline - Sanctions Against Cyber-Attacks, E.T. 13.05.2025).
26. European Union, Decision (CFSP) 2019/797 — restrictive measures against cyber-attacks threatening the EU or its Member States (2019).
27. European Union, Regulation 2019/796 — restrictive measures against cyber-attacks threatening the EU or its Member States (2019) E.T.03.03.2025.
28. Evans D M, International Law (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2006).
29. Executive Order, ‘Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber Enabled Activities’ (1 April 2015) E.T. 28.05.2024.
30. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia) (Judgment) [1997] ICJ Rep 7.
31. Ghironi F, Kim D, and Ozhan G. K, ‘International Economic Sanctions and Third-Country Effects’ (2024) 72(2) IMF Economic Review 611-652.
32. Giegerich T, ‘Retorsion’, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online edn, Oxford University Press, 2021) E.T. 15.01.2025.
33. Cihangir N, ‘The Role of Soft Law and the Interplay Between Soft Law and Hard Law in the Context of International Human Rights’ (2017) 8(14) Law & Justice Review 201-219.
34. Hofer A, ‘The Developed/Developing Divide on Unilateral Coercive Measures: Legitimate Enforcement or Illegitimate Intervention?’ (2017) 16(2) Chinese Journal of International Law 175-214.
35. International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries (2001).
36. Joint Communique of the 14th Meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Russian Federation, the Republic of India and the People’s Republic of China (19 April 2016) E.T.05.07.2024.
37. Jones L, Societies Under Siege: Exploring How International Economic Sanctions (do not) Work (Oxford University Press, 2015).
38. Kafadar M F, ‘Uluslararası Hukukta Devletlerin Sorumluluğu Bağlamında Siber Saldırıların Atfedilebilirliği Meselesi’ (2020) 2 Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 1027-1054.
39. Köchler H, ‘Sanctions and International Law’ (2019) 14(3) International Organisations Research Journal 27-47.
40. Melzer N, Cyberwarfare and International Law (United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research 2011).
41. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 108.
42. Milliyet, Türkiye Suriye Elçisini Geri Çekti 23.09.2024.
43. Mohamad R, ‘Unilateral Sanctions in International Law: A Quest for Legality’ in Ali Z Marossi and Marisa R Bassett (eds), Economic Sanctions under International Law (T.M.C. Asser Press 2015).
44. Note by the Secretary-General, Economic measures as a means of political and economic coercion against developing countries, UN Doc A/48/535 (25 October 1993).
45. Özkerim Güner N, İklim Değişikliği Nedeniyle Devletlerin Sorumluluğu (1st edn, Seçkin Yayıncılık 2018).
46. Pazarcı H, Uluslararası Hukuk (Gözden geçirilmiş 21. baskı, Turhan Kitabevi 2022).
47. Peksen D, ‘Better or worse? The Effect of Economic Sanctions on Human Rights’ (2009) 46(1) Journal of Peace Research 59-77.
48. Prosecutor v Duško Tadić aka “Dule” (Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction) (ICTY, 2 October 1995).
49. Responsabilité de l’Allemagne à raison des dommages causés dans les colonies portugaises du sud de l’Afrique (Portugal v Germany) (Naulilaa Arbitration) (1928) 2 RIAA 1011.
50. Reuters, UK Discovers Russian ‘Espionage Tool’, Sanctions GRU Officers over Cyberattacks, E.T.12.04.2025.
51. Reveron D. S, (ed), Cyberspace and National Security: Threats, Opportunities, and Power in a Virtual World (Georgetown University Press 2012).
52. Rodríguez F, ‘The Human Consequences of Economic Sanctions’ (2024) 51(4) Journal of Economic Studies 942-963.
53. Rusinova V and Martynova E, ‘Fighting Cyber Attacks with Sanctions: Digital Threats, Economic Responses’ (2024) 57 Israel Law Review 135-174.
54. Ruys T, ‘Sanctions, Retortions and Countermeasures: Concepts and International Legal Framework’ in (eds) Research Handbook on UN Sanctions and International Law (Edward Elgar Publishing 2017) 19–51.
55. Schmitt M N (ed), Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations (Cambridge University Press 2017).
56. Schmitt N M (ed), Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare (Cambridge University Press 2013).
57. Schmitt N M, ‘Below the Threshold Cyber Operations: The Countermeasures Response Option and International Law’ (2013) 54 Virginia Journal of International Law 697.
58. Shackelford S J and Andres B R, ‘State Responsibility for Cyber Attacks: Competing Standards for a Growing Problem’ (2010) 42 Georgetown Journal of International Law 971-1016.
59. Špaček S, Laštovička M, Horák M and Plesník T, ‘Current Issues of Malicious Domains Blocking’ in 2019 IFIP/IEEE Symposium on Integrated Network and Service Management (IM) (IEEE 2019).
60. Şimşek G. E, ‘Uluslararası Hukuk Açısından Ekonomik Yaptırımlar ve ABD’nin Tek Taraflı Yaptırımlarının Kısa Bir Değerlendirilmesi’ (2020) 78(4) İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası 2049-2078.
61. T.C. Dışişleri Bakanlığı, ‘Türkiye- Ermenistan Siyasi İlişkileri’ 23.03.2024.
62. The Declaration of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China on the Promotion of International Law (25 June 2016) E.T.01.02.2024.
63. Tzanakopoulos A, ‘The Right to Be Free From Economic Coercion’ (2015) 4 Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law 616-633.
64. UK Government, Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (2018) E.T.01.02.2025.
65. UK Statutory Instruments, The Cyber (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, No 597 (2020) E.T.01.02.2025.
66. Ulaştırma ve Altyapı Bakanlığı, Ulusal Siber Güvenlik Stratejisi ve Eylem Planı (2024–2028) (2024) E.T. 12.04.2024.
67. Uluslararası Hukuk Komisyonu (International Law Commission), Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001).
68. UN Reports of International Arbitral Awards (RIAA) 415 (1978).
69. UNGA Res 2131 (XX), Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty, UN Doc A/RES/20/2131 (21 December 1965) E.T.01.03.2025.
70. UNGA Res 3281 (XXIX), Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States (adopted 12 December 1974) E.T.04.06.2025> E.T. 12.03.2025.
71. UNGA Res 56/83, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (12 December 2001) UN Doc A/RES/56/83 (ARSIWA).
72. United Nations Human Rights Council, ‘The Promotion, Protection and Enjoyment of Human Rights on the Internet’ UN Doc A/HRC/32/L.20 (27 June 2016).
73. United Nations Security Council, ‘Resolution 1718 (2006)’ (14 October 2006) UN Doc S/RES/1718 (2006).
74. United Nations Security Council, ‘Resolution 2199 (2015)’ (12 February 2015) UN Doc S/RES/2199 (2015).
75. United Nations Security Council, ‘Resolution 2341 (2017)’ (13 February 2017) UN Doc S/RES/2341 (2017).
76. United Nations Security Council, ‘Resolution 253 (1968)’ (29 May 1968) UN Doc S/RES/253.
77. United Nations Security Council, ‘Resolution 277 (1970)’ (18 March 1970) UN Doc S/RES/277.
78. United Nations Security Council, ‘Resolution 864 (1993)’ (15 September 1993) UN Doc S/RES/864.
79. United Nations Security Council, Letter dated 12 October 2001 from the Chairman of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 864 (1993) concerning the situation in Angola addressed to the President of the Security Council (12 October 2001) UN Doc S/2001/966.
80. United Nations Security Council, Letter dated 27 August 2019 from the Panel of Experts established pursuant to resolution 1874 (2009) addressed to the President of the Security Council (30 August 2019) UN Doc S/2019/691.
81. Uzun E, Devletin Milletlerarası Hukuka Aykırı Eyleminden Sorumluluğu (PhD thesis, Anadolu University 2007).
82. Weiss T. G, ‘Sanctions as a Foreign Policy Tool: Weighing Humanitarian Impulses’ (1999) 36(5) Journal of Peace Research 499-509.
83. What Is An IP Address? How Does It Work?, E.T.05.02.2025.
84. World Trade Organization (WTO), European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, Decision by the Arbitrators, WT/DS27/ARB, 9 April 1999.
85. Yearbook International Law Commission, 1979 Vol 2, Part 2, Report of the Commission to the General Assembly on the Work of Its Thirty-first Session, E.T.14.02.2025.