KÖLELİK, ZORLA ÇALIŞTIRMA VE BENZER UYGULAMALARA İLİŞKİN YASAĞIN ULUSLARARASI HUKUK VE AİHM İÇTİHATLARI ÇERÇEVESİNDE GELİŞİMİ

Year 2019, Issue: 2, 55 - 112, 31.07.2019

Ali Bal

https://doi.org/10.33432/ybuhukuk.553022

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Kölelik, köle ticareti, kulluk, insan ticareti, zorla veya zorunlu olarak çalıştırma ve bunlara benzer uygulamaların uluslararası hukuk çerçevesinde yasaklanması, insan haklarının tarihsel gelişimi içerisinde oldukça eskidir. İlgili uluslararası düzenlemeler, bu uygulamaların nisbeten azalmasına yol açmakla birlikte, sonunu getirememiş ve hatta hukuk karşısında âdeta bağışıklık kazanarak yeni ve kolaylıkla fark edilmez biçimlere bürünüp varlığını sürdürmesini ve dünyanın çeşitli yerlerinde endişe verici şekilde yaygınlaşmasını engelleyememiştir. Konuyla ilgili birçok düzenleme ve güvence mekanizması içinde Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesinin “kölelik ve zorla çalıştırma yasağı”nı düzenleyen 4. maddesi ile Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesinin içtihadı şüphesiz önemli bir yer tutar. AİHM’nin içtihadı, hem konuyla ilgili somut vakaların Sözleşme çerçevesinde denetlenip karara bağlanmasını sağlamaktadır hem de Sözleşmenin 4. maddesindeki insan hakları ile taraf devletlerin yükümlülüklerini açıklayıp geliştirmektedir. Böyle bir işlev görürken AİHM, söz konusu hükmün anlam ve kapsamını belirlemek ve bazen de sağladığı koruma düzeyini arttırmak için ilgili uluslararası hukuk düzenlemeleri ile Avrupa Konseyi üyesi devletlerin ortak değer ve standartlarını göz önünde bulundurmaktadır. Diğer taraftan, zorla veya zorunlu olarak çalıştırma mutlak bir yasak olmadığından, istenen bir çalışmanın bu yasak kapsamına girip girmediğini incelerken Mahkemenin çatışan menfaatleri 4. maddenin hedefleri ışığında bağdaştırmaya çalıştığı da görülmektedir. Bütün bunlar, konunun çeşitli yönleri bulunduğunu, geçmişte olduğu gibi günümüzde de önemini koruduğunu ve dikkatle incelenmesi gerektiğini göstermektedir

Keywords

Uluslararası hukuk, AİHM, kölelik, kulluk, insan ticareti, zorla veya zorunlu olarak çalıştırma

THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROHIBITION OF SLAVERY, FORCED LABOUR AND SIMILAR PRACTICES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE ECtHR CASE LAW

Abstract

Prohibition of slavery, slave trade, servitude, human trafficking, forced or compulsory labour and similar practices in international law has a long-standing background within the historical development of human rights law. While the relevant international materials have caused a decrease in these practices, they could not be completely eradicated. Moreover their new and more subtle forms, as it were by developing immunity to the law, are alarmingly on the rise in many parts of the world. Article 4 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms prohibiting “slavery and forced labour” and the European Court of Human Rights case law have surely an important place in the relevant international legal instruments. ECtHR’s judgments serve not only to decide the cases brought before the Court but also to elucidate and develop the human rights and the contracting states’ obligations under Article 4 of the Convention. ECtHR, while doing so, makes reference to the relevant international law rules and common standards of the member states of the Council of Europe in order to determine the meaning and scope of the provision and sometimes to provide a higher level of protection. On the other hand the Court attempts to strike a balance between the competing interests in the light of the underlying objectives of Article 4 when deciding whether a service required to be performed falls within the prohibition of forced or compulsory labour since this prohibition has not an absolute character. All these features show that it is essential to examine carefully the subject which has many aspects and maintains its importance today as in the past.

Keywords

International Law, ECtHR, Slavery, Servitude, Human Trafficking, Forced or Compulsory Labour, Positive Obligations

References

• Akandji-Kombe, Jean-François (2007) Positive Obligations under the European Conventionon Human Rights: A Guide to the Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights, Council of Europe.
• Allain, Jean (2009) “The Definition of Slavery in International Law”, Howard Law Journal, C: 52, s. 239-275.
• Allain, Jean (2010) “Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia: The European Court of Human Rights and Trafficking as Slavery”, Human Rights Law Review, C: 10, s. 546-557.
• Allain, Jean/Hickey, Robin (2012) “Property and the Definition of Slavery”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, C: 61, s. 915-938.
• Atakan, Arda (2010) “Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin Takdir Yetkisi Doktrinine İlişkin Bir İnceleme”, Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, C: 16, s. 29-36.
• Aybay, Rona/Oral, Elif (2016) Kamusal Uluslararası Hukuk, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• Bal, Ali (2006) “Devletin Uluslararası Sorumluluğunun Doğması” (Yüksek Lisans Tezi) Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
• Clark, Ian (2007) International Legitimacy and World Society, Oxford University Press.
• Cullen, Holly (2006) “Siliadin v France: Positive Obligations under Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights”, Human Rights Law Review, C: 6, s. 585-592.
• Çavuşoğlu, Naz (1992) “İnsan Hakları Avrupa Sözleşmesi’ni ‘Yaşayan Belge’ Yapan Yorum Teknikleri”, İnsan Hakları Yıllığı, S: 14, s. 131-146.
• Dijk, P. van/Hoof, G. J. H. Van (1998) Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, 3. Baskı, Kluwer Law International.
• Doğru, Osman (2008) “Devletin Sorumluluğu: İnsan Hakları Avrupa Sözleşmesi’nde Pozitif Yükümlülükler”, Danıştay ve İdari Yargı Günü 139. Yıl Sempozyumu (11.05.2007), Danıştay Tasnif ve Yayın Bürosu Yayınları, s. 193-210.
• Doğru, Osman/Nalbant, Atilla (2012) İnsan Hakları Avrupa Sözleşmesi: Açıklama ve Önemli Kararlar, C: 1: İHAS 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ve 7. Maddeler, Council of Europe/TC Yargıtay Başkanlığı.
• Dorssemont, Filip/Lörcher, Klaus (2013) “Conclusions: The European Convention on Human Rights and the Employment Relation”: Dorssemont, Filip/Lörcher, Klaus/Schömann, Isabelle (Ed.), The European Convention on Human Rights and the Employment Relation, Hart Publishing, s. 417-429.
• Duymaz, Erkan (2013) “Modern Kölelik: Avrupa Konseyi Hukukunda Kölelik, Kulluk ve Zorla Çalıştırma Yasakları Üzerine Bir İnceleme”, Legal Hukuk Dergisi, C: 11, S: 123, s. 67-104.
• Füglistaler, Gabriel (2016) The Principle of Subsidiarity and the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the European Court of Human Rights’ Post-2011 Jurisprudence, IDHEAP.
• Gallagher, Anne T. (2010) The International Law of Human Trafficking, Cambridge University Press.
• Garner, Bryan A. (Ed.) (2009) Black’s Law Dictionary, 9. Baskı, West Publishing Co.
• Gemalmaz, Mehmet Semih (2007) Ulusalüstü İnsan Hakları Hukukunun Genel Teorisine Giriş, 6. Baskı, Legal.
• Göçmen, İlke (2014) “Bir Temel Hak Olarak İnsan Ticareti Yasağı: Avrupa Özelinde Bir İnceleme”, MHB, S: 1, s. 1-29.
• Gözübüyük, Şeref/Gölcüklü, Feyyaz (2004) Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi ve Uygulaması, 5. Baskı, Turhan.
• Gündüz, Aslan (2003) Milletlerarası Hukuk Temel Belgeler Örnek Kararlar, 5. Baskı, Beta.
• Hansard, T. C. (Ed.) (1816) The Parliamentary Debates from the Year 1803 to the Present Time, C: 32 (from the first day of February to the sixth day of March, 1816), T. C. Hansard.
• Harris, David/O’Boyle, Michael/Bates, Ed/Buckley, Carla (2009) Harris, O’Boyle and Warbrick’s Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, 2. Baskı, Oxford University Press.
• Jacobs, Francis G./White, Robin C. A. (1996) The European Convention on Human Rights, 2. Baskı, Clarendon Press.
• Kapani, Münci (1993) Kamu Hürriyetleri, 7. Baskı, Yetkin.
• Karan, Ulaş (2007) “Sosyal Hakların Güçlendirilmesi Açısından Bir İmkan: ‘Bütüncül Yaklaşım’”, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, C: 40, s. 31-62.
• Karan, Ulaş (2018) “Kölelik, Kulluk, Zorla Çalıştırma ve Zorunlu Çalışma Yasağı: Anayasa ve Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi Bağlamında Karşılaştırmalı Analiz”, AÜHFD, C: 67, s. 415-462.
• Kızılsümer, Deniz (2007) “İnsan Ticareti ile Mücadele: Uluslararası Belgeler ve Türkiye’nin Çabaları”, AÜSBFD, C: 61, S: 1, s. 113-145.
• Lachs, Manfred (1997) “Pacta Sunt Servanda”: Bernhardt, R. (Ed.), EPIL, C: 3, Elsevier, s. 847-854.
• Lesaffer, Randall (2015) “Vienna and the Abolition of the Slave Trade”, <http://opil.ouplaw.com/page/vienna-slave-trade-abolition> s.e.t. 05.04.2019.
• Mantouvalou, Virginia (2006) “Servitude and Forced Labour in the 21st Century: The Human Rights of Domestic Workers”, Industrial Law Journal, C: 35, s. 395-414.
• Mantouvalou, Virginia (2012) “Human Rights for Precarious Workers: The Legislative Precariousness of Domestic Labor”, Comparative Labor Law&Policy Journal, C: 34, s. 133-165.
• Mantouvalou, Virginia (2013) “The Prohibition of Slavery, Servitude and Forced and Compulsory Labour under Article 4 ECHR”: Dorssemont, Filip/Lörcher, Klaus/Schömann, Isabelle (Ed.), The European Convention on Human Rights and the Employment Relation, Hart Publishing, s. 143-157.
• Merrills, J. G./Robertson, A. H. (2001) Human Rights in Europe: A Study of the European Convention on Human Rights, 4. Baskı, Manchester University Press.
• Mowbray, Alastair (2004) The Development of Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights, Hart Publishing.
• Pazarcı, Hüseyin (2014) Uluslararası Hukuk Dersleri, 1. Kitap, Gözden Geçirilmiş 12. Baskı, Turhan Kitabevi.
• Scarpa, Silvia (2008) Trafficking in Human Beings: Modern Slavery, Oxford University Press.
• Schabas, William A. (2015) The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary, Oxford University Press.
• Soyer Güleç, Sesim (2012) “Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin Güney Kıbrıs ve Rusya’ya Karşı Verdiği 07.01.2010 Tarihli ‘Rantseva’ Kararından Çıkan Bazı Sonuçlar”, İÜHFM, C: 70, S: 1, s. 123-152.
• Stoyanova, Vladislava (2011) “Complementary Protection for Victims of Human Trafficking under the European Convention on Human Rights”, Goettingen Journal of International Law, C: 3, s. 777-817.
• Stoyanova, Vladislava (2012) “Dancing on the Borders of Article 4: Human Trafficking and the European Court of Human Rights in the Rantsev Case”, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, C: 30, s. 163-194.
• Stoyanova, Vladislava (2014) “Article 4 of the ECHR and the Obligation of Criminalising Slavery, Servitude, Forced Labour and Human Trafficking”, Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law, C: 3, s. 407-443.
• Stoyanova, Vladislava (2017) “Irregular Migrants and the Prohibition of Slavery, Servitude, Forced Labour & Human Trafficking under Article 4 of the ECHR”, EJIL: Talk!, <https://www.ejiltalk.org/irregular-migrants-and-the-prohibition-of-slavery-servitude-forced-labour-human-trafficking-under-article-4-of-the-echr/> s.e.t. 05.04.2019.
• Sur, Melda (1995) İş Hukukunun Uluslararası Kaynakları: Avrupa Konseyi Çerçevesinde Kabul Edilen Belgeler, DEÜ Hukuk Fakültesi Döner Sermaye İşletmesi Yayınları.
• Sur, Melda (2018) Uluslararası Hukukun Esasları, Gözden Geçirilmiş 12. Baskı, Beta.
• Tezcan, Durmuş/Erdem, Mustafa Ruhan/Sancakdar, Oğuz (2004) Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi Işığında Türkiye’nin İnsan Hakları Sorunu, 2. Baskı, Seçkin.
• Trebilcock, Anne M. (2000) “Slavery”: Bernhardt, R. (Ed.), EPIL, C: 4, Elsevier, s. 422-426.
• Weissbrodt, David/Anti-Slavery International (2002) Abolishing Slavery and Its Contemporary Forms, OHCHR-HR/PUB/02/4.
• Zwaak, Leo (2006) “Freedom from Slavery, Servitude and Forced Labour (Article 4)”: Dijk, Pieter van/Hoof, Fried van/Rijn Arjen van/Zwaak Leo (Ed.), Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, 4. Baskı, Intersentia, s. 443-453.
• Case of A. v. Switzerland, Commission (Plenary), Decision of 09.05.1984.
• Case of Bayatyan v. Armenia, ECHR (Grand Chamber), 07.07.2011.
• Case of Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland, ECHR (Grand Chamber), Judgment of 30.06.2005.
• Case of Bucha v. Slovakia, ECHR (Third Section), Decision as to the Admissibility of 20.09.2011.
• Case of C.N. and V. v. France, ECHR (Fifth Section), Judgment of 11.10.2012 (final 11.01.2013).
• Case of C.N. v. The United Kingdom, ECHR (Fourth Section), Judgment of 13.11.2012 (final 13.02.2013).
• Case of Chitos v. Greece, ECHR (First Section), Judgment of 04.06.2015.
• Case of Chowdury and Others v. Greece, ECHR (First Section), Judgment of 30.03.2017.
• Case of De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp (“Vagrancy”) v. Belgium, ECHR (Plenary), Judgment of 18.06.1971.
• Case of Floroiu v. Romania, ECHR (Third Section), Decision of 12.03.2013.
• Case of Four Companies v. Austria, Commission (Plenary), Decision of 27.09.1976.
• Case of Graziani-Weiss v. Austria, ECHR (Second Section), Judgment of 18.10.2011 (final 18.01.2012).
• Case of I. v. Norway, Commission (Plenary), Decision of 17.12.1963.
• Case of Ireland v. the United Kingdom, ECHR (Plenary), Judgment of 18.01.1978.
• Case of J. and Others v. Austria, ECHR (Fourth Section), Concurring Opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, Joined by Judge Tsotsoria of 17.01.2017 (final 17.04.2017).
• Case of J. and Others v. Austria, ECHR (Fourth Section), Judgment of 17.01.2017 (final 17.04.2017).
• Case of Jeronovičs v. Latvia, ECHR (Grand Chamber), Judgment of 05.07.2016.
• Case of Johansen v. Norway, Commission (Plenary), Decision of 14.10.1985.
• Case of Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, ECHR (Chamber), Judgment of 18.07.1994.
• Case of Konstantin Markin v. Russia, ECHR (Grand Chamber), Judgment of 22.03.2012.
• Case of Loizidou v. Turkey (Preliminary Objections), ECHR (Chamber), Judgment of 23.03.1995.
• Case of M. and Others v. Italy and Bulgaria, ECHR (Second Section), Judgment of 31.07.2012 (final 17.12.2012).
• Case of Meier v. Switzerland, ECHR (Third Section), Judgment of 09.02.2016.
• Case of Mihal v. Slovakia, ECHR (Third Section), Decision as to the Admissibility of 28.06.2011.
• Case of Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, ECHR (First Section), Judgment of 07.01.2010 (final 10.05.2010).
• Case of S. v. Germany, Commission (Plenary), Decision of 04.10.1984.
• Case of S.M. v. Croatia, ECHR (First Section), Judgment of 19.07.2018.
• Case of Siliadin v. France, ECHR (Second Section), Judgment of 26.07.2005 (final 26.10.2005).
• Case of Steindel v. Germany, ECHR (Fifth Section), Decision as to the Admissibility of 14.09.2010.
• Case of Stummer v. Austria, ECHR (Grand Chamber), Judgment of 07.07.2011.
• Case of Stummer v. Austria, ECHR (Grand Chamber), Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Tulkens of 07.07.2011.
• Case of Talmon v. the Netherlands, Commission (Second Chamber), Decision of 26.02.1997.
• Case of Tibet Menteş and Others v. Turkey, ECHR (Second Section), Judgment of 24.10.2017 (final 24.01.2018).
• Case of Twenty-one Detained Persons v. Germany, Commission (Plenary), Decision of 06.04.1968.
• Case of Van der Mussele v. Belgium, ECHR (Plenary), Judgment of 23.11.1983.
• Case of Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, ECHR (Plenary), Judgment of 24.06.1982.
• Case of W., X., Y. and Z. v. The United Kingdom, Commission (Plenary), Decision of 19.07.1968.
• Case of X. and Y. v. Germany, Commission (Plenary), Decision of 11.12.1976.
• Case of X. v. Germany, Commission (Plenary), Decision of 01.04.1974.
• Case of X. v. Germany, Commission (Plenary), Decision of 13.12.1979.
• Case of X. v. The Netherlands, Commission (Plenary), Decision of 03.05.1983.
• Case of Zarb Adami v. Malta, ECHR (Fourth Section), Judgment of 20.06.2006 (final 20.09.2006).
• Case of Zhelyazkov v. Bulgaria, ECHR (Fourth Section), Judgment of 09.10.2012.
• Van Droogenbroeck contre Belgique, Rapport de la Commission, 09.07.1980.
• “Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries”, Yearbook of the ILC, 2001, C: 2, Bölüm 2.
• “Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with Commentaries”, Yearbook of the ILC, 1966, C: 2.
• Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, (Belçika v. İspanya), ICJ, Judgment of 05.02.1970.
• Case of Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Kovac and Vukovic, ICTY (Appeals Chamber), Judgement of 12.06.2002.
• European Court of Human Rights/Press Unit, “Factsheet: Conscientious Objection”, 10.2017.
• European Court of Human Rights/Press Unit, “Factsheet: Slavery, Servitude and Forced Labour”, 03.2017.
• European Court of Human Rights/Public Relations Unit, “Overview: 1959-2016”, 03.2017.
• ILO/Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to the 96th Session of the International Labour Conference, “Eradication of Forced Labour: General Survey concerning the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), and the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105)”, 2007.
• ILO/Report of the Director-General to the 98th Session of the International Labour Conference, “The Cost of Coercion: Global Report under the follow-up to the ILO Declarationon Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work”, 2009, (ILO, The Cost of Coercion).
• ILO/Special Action Programme to Combat Forced Labour, “ILO Indicators of Forced Labour”, 29.10.2013.
• http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/
• http://www.echr.coe.int/
• http://www.icj-cij.org/
• https://assembly.coe.int/
• https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/
• https://rm.coe.int/
• https://www.parliament.uk/