Ukrayna’ya Silah Tedarikinin Hukuki Çerçevesi

Abstract

Birleşmiş Milletler (BM) Şartı’nın 2.madde, 4.fıkrasında öngörülen kuvvet kullanma yasağının istisnasını teşkil eden yasal savunma hakkının saldırıya uğrayan devlet tarafından münferiden kullanılması mümkün olduğu gibi, kolektif olarak kullanılması da mümkündür. Rusya-Ukrayna savaşında Ukrayna’ya yapılan silah tedarikinin bu bağlamda kimi devletler tarafından Ukrayna’nın münferit yasal savunma hakkını destekleme amacı ile yapıldığını ileri sürmektedir. Ancak yapılan silah tedarikinin koşullara göre kolektif yasal savunma hakkının kullanılması şeklinde de yorumlanması ve bu durumda silah tedariki yapan devletlerin savaş tarafı olarak kabul edilme olasılığı bulunmaktadır. Makalede Ukrayna’ya yapılan silah tedarikinin yasal savunma hakkı yanı sıra klâsik tarafsızlık hukuku ve saldırıya uğrayan devlete yardımla bağlantılı olarak ortaya çıkan “non-belligerency” statüsü ve insancıl hukuk ışığında hukuki sonuçları ortaya konulmakta ve değerlendirilmektedir.

Keywords

• Kolektif yasal savunma
• tarafsızlık hukuku
• non-belligerency
• uluslararası sorumluluk
• dolaylı saldırı.

Legal Framework of Arms Supply to Ukraine

Abstract

The right of self-defense, which constitutes an exception to the prohibition on the use of force stipulated in Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the UN Charter, can be used individually by the attacked state, as well as collectively. In this context, it is argued that the arms supply to Ukraine in the Russia-Ukraine war was made by some states with the aim of supporting Ukraine's individual legal right to defense. However, depending on the circumstances, the arms supply may also be interpreted as the exercise of the right to collective self-defense, and in this case, the arms-supplying states may be considered as war parties. In the article, the legal consequences of the arms supply to Ukraine are presented and evaluated in the light of the legal right to self-defense, as well as the classical law of neutrality and the status of not being a party to the war, which arises in connection with aiding the attacked state, and humanitarian law.

Keywords

• Collective legal defense
• neutrality law
• non-belligerency
• international responsibility
• indirect attack.

References

1. Ambos, Kai, “Wird Deutschland durch Waffenlieferungen an die Ukraine zur Konfliktpartei?”, Verfassungsblog, 28.2.2022, https://verfassungsblog.de/wird-deutschland-durch-waffenlieferungen-an-die-ukraine-zur-konfliktpartei/. (ET: 27.08.2024)
2. Bothe, Michael, “The Law of Neutrality”, bknz.: Dieter Fleck (ed), The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law (2.bası), C.20, No.1,2009
3. Bradley, Curtis A. / Goldsmith, Jack L., “Congressional Authorization and the War on Terrorism”, Harv.L.Rev., C.118, No.7, 2005, ss.2047-2490.
4. Corten, Oliver, The Law against War - The Prohibition on the Use of Force in Contemporary International Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2010
5. Dinstein, Yoram, War, Aggression and Self-Defence, 5.bası. Cambridge University Press, 2011.
6. Dörr, Oliver, “Use of Force, Prohibition of”, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Oxford University Press, 2022
7. Ferraro, Tristan, “The ICRC’s Legal Position on the Notion of Armed Conflict”, International Review of the Red Cross, C 97, No.900, 2015, ss.1227-1252.
8. Green, James A., “The Article 51 Reporting Requirements for Self-Defence Actions”, Va.J.Int.Law, C.55, No 3, 2015, ss.563-624.

9. Greenwood, Christopher, “Scope of Application of Humanitarian Law”, bknz.: Dieter Fleck (ed.), The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law, 2.bası, 2008, s.45-78.
10. Greig, Don W., “Self-Defence and the Security Council: What Does Article 51 Require?”, ICLQ, C.40, No.2, 1991, ss.366-402.
11. Higgins, Rosalyn, The Development of International Law through the Political Organs of the United Nations, Oxford University Press, 1963 .
12. Ingber, Rebecca, “Co-Belligerency”, Yale J.INT’L.L, C.42, No.1, 2017, ss.67-75.
13. Krajewski, Markus, “Neither Neutral nor Party to the Conflict? On the Legal Assessment of Arms Supplies to Ukraine”, Völkerrechtsblog, 9.3.2022, https:// voelkerrechtsblog.org/neither-neutral-nor-party-to-the-conflict/. (ET 27.0.2024)
14. Kreß, Claus, “Der Ukraine Krieg und das völkerrechtliche Gewaltverbot”, bknz.: Universität zu Köln (ed.), Sonderdruck aus Juristische Studiengesellschaft (Hukuk Araştırmaları Topluluğu, Özel Baskı, Jahresband 2021/2022, ss.67-95.
15. Melzer, Nils, Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law, ICRC, Cenevre, 2009.
16. Oeter, Stefan, Neutralität und Waffenhandel, Berlin, Springer Verlag, 1992.
17. Pobjie, Erin Kimberley, “Use of force and Article 2(4) of the UN Charter: The Meaning of a Prohibited ‘Use of Force’ between States under International Law”, KUPS, PhD thesis (doktora tezi), Universität zu Köln, 2019.
18. Randelzhofer, Albrecht/Dörr, Oliver, ”Article 2(4)”, bknz.: Bruno Simma et.al. (eds.), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, 3.bası, Oxford University Press, 2012.
19. Rifaat, Ahmed M., International Aggression. A Study of the Legal Concept: Its Development and Definition in Iternational Law, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1979.
20. Ruys, Tom, “The Meaning of “Force” and the Boundaries of the jus ad bellum: Are ‘Minimal’ Uses of Force Excluded from UN Charter Article 2(4)?”, AJIL, C.108, No2, 2014, ss.159-210.
21. Talmon, Stefan A.G., “The Provision of Arms to the Victim of Armed Aggression: the Case of Ukraine”, Universität Bonn, Research Paper No.20/2022 (6.2.2022).
22. Talmon, Stefan A.G., https/::verfassungsblog.de/waffenlieferung-an--ukraine-als-ausdruck-eines-wertebasierten-völkerrechts/., (ET: 27.08.2024)
23. van Steenberghe, Raphaël/Lesaffre, Pauline, “The ICRC’s “support-based approach”: A Suitable but Incomplete Theory”, QIL, No.59, 2019, ss.5-23.
24. von Heinegg, Wolff Heintschel,“’Benevolent’ Third States in International Armed Conflicts: The Myth of the Irrevalence of the Law of Neutrality”, bknz.: Michael N. Schmitt / Jelene Pejic (eds.), International Law and Armed Conflicht: Exploring the Faultlines, International Humanitarian Law Series, C.15, Brill/Nijhoff, 2007, ss.43-568
25. von Heinegg, Wolff Heintschel, “Neutrality in the War Against Ukraine, Articles of War”, 1.3.2022, https://lieber.westpoint.edu/nautrality-in-the-war-agaisnt-ukraine/Lieber Institute/Articles of War, (ET: 27.08.2024)
26. Kararlar: 27.6.1986 tarihli UAD kararı (Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), bknz.: I.C.J. Reports 1986, s.14, 103 (Rn.195) ve 118, Rn.228.
27. 08.07.1996 tarihli UAD kararı (Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion), bknz.: I.C.J. Reports 1996, s.226,242, Rn.89.
28. 19.12.2005 tarihli UAD kararı (Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo Democratic Republic v. Uganda), bknz.: I.C.J. Reports 2005, s.168, 227 (Rn.164).
29. UNGA Resolution 2625 /xxv, 24.10.1970 (Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, bknz.: GA-25th Session, A/RES/2525/(XXV).
30. UNGA Resolution 3314 / xxıx, 14.12.1974 (Definition of Aggression), bknz.: GA 2339th plenary meeting, A/RES3314/(XXIX).
31. UNGA Resolution 42/22, 18.11.1987 (Declaration on the Enhancement of the Effectiveness of the Principle of Refraining from the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations), bknz.: GA 42th Session, A/RES/42/22.
32. UNGA Resolution 56/83, 28.01.2002 (Responsibility of States for İnternationally Wrongful Acts), bknz.: GA 56th session, A/RES/56/83.