Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

SİLAHLI ÇATIŞMALARDA KÜLTÜREL VARLIKLARIN KORUNMASI

Year 2022, Volume: 19 Issue: 1, 255 - 282, 01.03.2022

Abstract

Kültürel varlıklar, hem geçmişle kurulan bağın korunması hem de gelecek nesillere aktarım borcu bakımından önem arz etmektedir. Bu nedenle silahlı çatışmalar sırasında kültürel varlıkların korunmasına ilişkin düzenlemelere savaş hukuku ve insancıl hukuk belgeleri içerisinde yer verilmiştir. Bu hususa ilişkin çabalar 18. yy’a dayansa da ancak 1954 tarihli Lahey Silahlı Çatışmalar Esnasında Kültürel Varlıkların Korunması Sözleşmesi ile özel olarak bir bağlayıcı bir düzenlemeye ulaşılmıştır. Uluslararası hukuk alanındaki gelişmeler neticesinde uluslararası ceza mahkemelerinin statülerinde de kültürel varlıklara kasten saldırı eylemi savaş suçu olarak kabul edilmiş; bu konuda yargılamalar yapılmıştır.
2016 yılında Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi, Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi davasında silahlı çatışmalar sırasında kültürel varlıklara verilen zararlardan dolayı mahkumiyete hükmetmiştir. Karar, Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi’nin ilk kez kültürel varlıklarla ilgili özel olarak yargılama yapması ve Roma Sözleşmesi md 8 (2) (e) (iv)’nin uygulama biçimini göstermesi bakımından önemlidir. Kararı önemli kılan diğer husus ise hükmedilen maddi tazminat cezasının mağdurlar için kurulan Güven Fonu aracılığıyla ödenerek mağduriyeti giderme çabasıdır. Çalışmada öncelikle kültürel varlıkların korunması hususunun tarihi gelişimi ve uluslararası düzenlemeler incelenecektir. Daha sonra ise Nürnberg, Eski Yugoslavya ve Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesinin kararlarına yer verilecektir.

References

  • BBC News. (2015, 02 20). Mali Signs UN Ceasefire to End Conflict With Northern Rebels. 08 07, 2021 tarihinde https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-31544438 adresinden alındı
  • BM Genel Kurulu. (2002). Ceza Meselelerinde Onarıcı Adalet Programlarının Kullanımına İlişkin Temel İlkeler Hakkındaki Tavsiye Kararı. 2002/12.
  • Case Information Sheet Document Prepared By The Communications Service Of The International Criminal Tribunal For The Former Yugoslavia 1 “Dubrovnik” Pavle Strugar., (It-01-42) (ICTY).
  • Charter Of The International Military Tribunal For The Far East. (1946, 01 19).
  • Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. (1899, 08 29). The Hague.
  • Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. (1907, 11 18). The Hague.
  • Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field. (1864, 08 22). Geneva.
  • Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe. (1985). Granada.
  • ÇOKİŞLER, E. (2019). Silahlı Çatışmalar Sırasında Kültürel Malların Korunması Rejimi: Tarihsel Gelişimin Analizi. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 16(61), 55-74.
  • Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight. (1868, 12 11). Saint Petersburg.
  • ERDEM, M. (2018). Silahlı Çatışma Esnasında Kültürel Malların Uluslararası Toplum Yararına Korunması. İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(1), 185-216.
  • GARBETT, C. (2017). The International Criminal Court And Restorative Justice: Victims, Participation And The Processes Of Justice. Restorative Justice, 5(2), 198-220.
  • Genelkurmay Başkanlığı. (2010). Silahlı Çatışma Hukuku ile İlgili Uluslararası Hukuk Metinleri. Ankara: Genelkurmay Basımevi.
  • GLASIUS, M. (2006). The International Criminal Court A Global Civil Society Achievement. NewYork: Routlenge.
  • GOLDSTONE, R. (1998, 10 24). Ethnic Reconciliation Needs the Help of a Truth Commission. 09 07, 2021 tarihinde https://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/24/opinion/IHT-ethnic-reconciliation-needs-the-help-of-a-truth-commission.html adresinden alındı
  • GÜNEYSU, G. (2014). Çevrenin Silahlı Çatışmalar Esnasında Korunması. Ankara: Adalet Yayınevi.
  • ICC. (2011). Elements of Crime. The Hague. 01 19, 2022 tarihinde ICC, Elements of Crime, https://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/336923d8-a6ad-40ec-ad7b-45bf9de73d56/0/elementsofcrimeseng.pdf adresinden alındı
  • ICC. (2021). Policy on Cultural Heritage. 01 19, 2022 tarihinde file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/policy%20on%20cultural%20heritage.pdf (19.01.2022). adresinden alındı
  • ICC News. (2012, 05 15). President of the Assembly visits Addis Ababa. 09 07, 2021 tarihinde https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/item.aspx?name=pr794 adresinden alındı
  • ILC. (1949). The Charter and judgment of the Nürnberg Tribunal : history and analysis : memorandum / submitted by the Secretary-General.
  • Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field (Lieber Code). (1863, 04 24).
  • Judgment and Sentence, The Case of The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, Trial Chamber , ICC-01/12-01/15-171 (ICC 09 27, 2016).
  • Judgment: Alfred Rosenberg (International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg) 11 01, 1946). https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/45f18e/ adresinden alındı
  • KASTENBERG, J. E. (1997). The Legal Regime for Protection Cultural Property During Armed Conflict. Air Force Law Review, 42, 277-305.
  • KURAN, S., & TÜRKAY KAHRAMAN, Ş. (tarih yok). Silahlı Çatışmalarda Kültürel Varlıkların Korunması Hukuki Rejiminde Bir İstisna Olarak “Askeri Gereklilik” : Antlaşmalarla Getirilen Düzenlemeler. MUHF - HAD, 23(1), 89-157.
  • LOSTAL, M. (2017). The Misplaced Emphasis on the Intangible Dimension of Cultural Heritage in the Al Mahdi Case at the ICC. Inter Gentes, 1(2), 45-58.
  • MACMILLAN, F. (2013). Protection of Cultural Heritage. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 64(3), 351-364.
  • MATHIAS, S. (2021). Prosecuting Crimes Against Culture: The Contributions of the Al-Mahdi and Ntaganda Cases to the ICC Approach to Cultural Property Protections.
  • Emory International Law Review Recent Developments(35), 58-75.
  • MOFFETT, L. (2020). A Bridge Too Far? Attacks against Cultural Property used as Military Objectives as War Crimes: The Prlić et al. case and the Mostar Bridge. International Criminal Law Review, 20(2), 214-250.
  • NOVIC, E. (2016). The Concept of Cultural Genocide An International Law Perspective. Oxford: OUP.
  • O’KEEFE, R. (2006). The Protection of Cultural Property in Armed Conflict. New York: CUP.
  • ÖNOK, M. (tarih yok). Uluslararası Ceza Divanı’nı Kuran Roma Statüsü İle Türk Ulusal Mevzuatının Maddi Ceza Hukuku Kuralları Yönünden Uyumuna Dair Rapor. UCMK. 01 19, 2022 tarihinde http://ihop.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/UCM_rapor.pdf adresinden alındı
  • PAZARCI, H. (2006). Uluslararası Hukuk Dersleri 4. Kitap. Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi.
  • PINTON, S. (2020). The ICC Judgement in Al Mahdi: Heritage Communities and Restorative Justice in the International Criminal Protection of Cultural Heritage. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 19(1), 347-386.
  • Project of an International Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War. (1874, 08 27). Brussels.
  • Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar, IT-01-42-A (ICTY 07 17, 2008).
  • Prosecutor v. Vladimir Kovacevic, IT -01-42/2-AR11his.1 (ICTY 03 28, 2007).
  • REDRESS. (2019). Realising Victims’ Right to Reparations before the ICC. London: Redress.
  • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. (1998). The Hague.
  • Rules concerning the Control of Wireless Telegraphy in Time of War and Air Warfare. Drafted by a Commission of Jurists at the Hague. (1923).
  • SARIBEYOĞLU SKALAR, M. (2021). Uluslararası Kızılhaç Komitesi’nin Uluslararası Nitelikte Olmayan Silahlı Çatışmalarda Faaliyetlerine İlişkin Bir Değerlendirme: Taraflara Hizmetlerini Teklif Etme Hakkı. Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, 27(1), 48-63.
  • SARKIN, J. (2012). Enhancing the Legitimacy, Status and Role of the International Criminal Court by Using Transitional Justice or Restorative Justice Strategies. Interdisciplinary Journal of Human Rights Law, 6(1), 83-101.
  • SCATENA, M. (2015). Voluntary destruction of Cultural Heritage and international criminal law. University of Turin Department of Law.
  • SCHABAS, W. A. (2011). An Introduction to the International Criminal Court. Cambridge: CUP.
  • SHAW, M. N. (2018). Uluslararası Hukuk. (Y. Acer, İ. Kaya, T. Demirtepe, & G. Şimşek, Çev.) Ankara: TÜBA Akademi.
  • TEZCAN, D., ERDEM, M., & ÖNOK, R. (2021). Uluslararası Ceza Hukuku. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.
  • The Case of the Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, The Public Reparation Order of Trial Chamber VIII (ICC 08 17, 2017).
  • The Laws of War on Land. (1880, 09 09). Oxford.
  • TOMAN, J. (1996). Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. Hampshire: Dartmouth Publishing Company.
  • Treaty on the Protection of Artistic and Scientific Institutions and Historic Monuments (Roerich Pact). (1935, 04 15). Washington.
  • TRIFFTERER, O., & AMBOS, K. (2016). The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Commentary. Munich, Oxford, Baden-Baden: C.H. Beck Hart Nomos.
  • TÜRKAY KAHRAMAN, F. (2018). Silahlı Çatışmalarda Kültürel Varlıkların Korunması. İstanbul: XII Levya Yayıncılık.
  • UN. (1949, 08 12). IV. Geneva Convention Relative To The Protection Of Civilian Persons In Time Of War.
  • UN. (1977, 06 08). Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I).
  • UN. (1977, 06 08). Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II).
  • UN. (2009). Updated Statute Of The International Criminal Tribunal For The Former Yugoslavia.
  • UNESCO. (1954, 05 14). Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.
  • UNESCO. (1970, 11 14). Convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property.
  • UNESCO. (1978, 11 28). Recommendation for the Protection of Movable Cultural Property.
  • UNESCO. (1999). Second Protocol to The Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.
  • UNODC. (2006). Onarıcı Adalet El Kitabı, Ceza Adaleti El Kitapları Dizisi. New York: UN.
  • VRDOLJAK, A. F. (2015). International Exchange and Trade in Cultural Objects. V. Vadi, & B. Witt içinde, Culture and International Economic Law (s. 124-141). London: Routledge.
  • WHC. (2019, 07 10). Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.
  • WIERCZYNKA, K., & Jakubowski, A. (2017). Individual Responsibility for Deliberate Destruction of Cultural Heritage: Contextualizing the ICC Judgment in the Al-Mahdi Case. Chinese JIL, 695–721.
  • YAVUZ, H. A. (2017). Bir Savaş Suçu Olarak Kültürel Miras Niteliğindeki Eserlere Yönelik Saldırı Eylemi. Ankara Barosu Dergisi(3), 162-196.
  • YAVUZ, H., & ÖZAR, S. (2017). Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi’nin Al Mahdi Kararı. Küresel Bakış, 7(22), 1-27.

THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTIES IN ARMED CONFLICT

Year 2022, Volume: 19 Issue: 1, 255 - 282, 01.03.2022

Abstract

Cultural heritages are important both in terms of preserving the bond established with the past and the debt of transmission to future generations. For this reason, regulations regarding the protection of cultural heritage during armed conflicts are included in the laws of war and humanitarian law. Although the efforts on this issue date back to the 18th century, a special binding arrangement has been reached with the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. As a result of the developments in the field of international law, the act of willful attack on cultural heritages was accepted as a war crime in the statutes of international criminal courts and judgment has been made in this regard.
In 2016, the International Criminal Court ruled in the case of Ahmad Al Faqi al Mahdi for damages to cultural assets during armed conflicts. The decision is important in that the International Criminal Court for the first time conducts a special trial on cultural assets and demonstrates the way the Rome Convention article 8 (2) (e) (iv) applies. Another important aspect of the decision is the effort to eliminate victimization by paying the financial compensation penalty imposed through the Trust Fund established for victims. In the study, first of all, the historical development of the protection of cultural heritages and international regulations will be examined. Then, the decisions of Nuremberg, the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal will be given.

References

  • BBC News. (2015, 02 20). Mali Signs UN Ceasefire to End Conflict With Northern Rebels. 08 07, 2021 tarihinde https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-31544438 adresinden alındı
  • BM Genel Kurulu. (2002). Ceza Meselelerinde Onarıcı Adalet Programlarının Kullanımına İlişkin Temel İlkeler Hakkındaki Tavsiye Kararı. 2002/12.
  • Case Information Sheet Document Prepared By The Communications Service Of The International Criminal Tribunal For The Former Yugoslavia 1 “Dubrovnik” Pavle Strugar., (It-01-42) (ICTY).
  • Charter Of The International Military Tribunal For The Far East. (1946, 01 19).
  • Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. (1899, 08 29). The Hague.
  • Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. (1907, 11 18). The Hague.
  • Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field. (1864, 08 22). Geneva.
  • Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe. (1985). Granada.
  • ÇOKİŞLER, E. (2019). Silahlı Çatışmalar Sırasında Kültürel Malların Korunması Rejimi: Tarihsel Gelişimin Analizi. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 16(61), 55-74.
  • Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight. (1868, 12 11). Saint Petersburg.
  • ERDEM, M. (2018). Silahlı Çatışma Esnasında Kültürel Malların Uluslararası Toplum Yararına Korunması. İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(1), 185-216.
  • GARBETT, C. (2017). The International Criminal Court And Restorative Justice: Victims, Participation And The Processes Of Justice. Restorative Justice, 5(2), 198-220.
  • Genelkurmay Başkanlığı. (2010). Silahlı Çatışma Hukuku ile İlgili Uluslararası Hukuk Metinleri. Ankara: Genelkurmay Basımevi.
  • GLASIUS, M. (2006). The International Criminal Court A Global Civil Society Achievement. NewYork: Routlenge.
  • GOLDSTONE, R. (1998, 10 24). Ethnic Reconciliation Needs the Help of a Truth Commission. 09 07, 2021 tarihinde https://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/24/opinion/IHT-ethnic-reconciliation-needs-the-help-of-a-truth-commission.html adresinden alındı
  • GÜNEYSU, G. (2014). Çevrenin Silahlı Çatışmalar Esnasında Korunması. Ankara: Adalet Yayınevi.
  • ICC. (2011). Elements of Crime. The Hague. 01 19, 2022 tarihinde ICC, Elements of Crime, https://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/336923d8-a6ad-40ec-ad7b-45bf9de73d56/0/elementsofcrimeseng.pdf adresinden alındı
  • ICC. (2021). Policy on Cultural Heritage. 01 19, 2022 tarihinde file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/policy%20on%20cultural%20heritage.pdf (19.01.2022). adresinden alındı
  • ICC News. (2012, 05 15). President of the Assembly visits Addis Ababa. 09 07, 2021 tarihinde https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/item.aspx?name=pr794 adresinden alındı
  • ILC. (1949). The Charter and judgment of the Nürnberg Tribunal : history and analysis : memorandum / submitted by the Secretary-General.
  • Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field (Lieber Code). (1863, 04 24).
  • Judgment and Sentence, The Case of The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, Trial Chamber , ICC-01/12-01/15-171 (ICC 09 27, 2016).
  • Judgment: Alfred Rosenberg (International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg) 11 01, 1946). https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/45f18e/ adresinden alındı
  • KASTENBERG, J. E. (1997). The Legal Regime for Protection Cultural Property During Armed Conflict. Air Force Law Review, 42, 277-305.
  • KURAN, S., & TÜRKAY KAHRAMAN, Ş. (tarih yok). Silahlı Çatışmalarda Kültürel Varlıkların Korunması Hukuki Rejiminde Bir İstisna Olarak “Askeri Gereklilik” : Antlaşmalarla Getirilen Düzenlemeler. MUHF - HAD, 23(1), 89-157.
  • LOSTAL, M. (2017). The Misplaced Emphasis on the Intangible Dimension of Cultural Heritage in the Al Mahdi Case at the ICC. Inter Gentes, 1(2), 45-58.
  • MACMILLAN, F. (2013). Protection of Cultural Heritage. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 64(3), 351-364.
  • MATHIAS, S. (2021). Prosecuting Crimes Against Culture: The Contributions of the Al-Mahdi and Ntaganda Cases to the ICC Approach to Cultural Property Protections.
  • Emory International Law Review Recent Developments(35), 58-75.
  • MOFFETT, L. (2020). A Bridge Too Far? Attacks against Cultural Property used as Military Objectives as War Crimes: The Prlić et al. case and the Mostar Bridge. International Criminal Law Review, 20(2), 214-250.
  • NOVIC, E. (2016). The Concept of Cultural Genocide An International Law Perspective. Oxford: OUP.
  • O’KEEFE, R. (2006). The Protection of Cultural Property in Armed Conflict. New York: CUP.
  • ÖNOK, M. (tarih yok). Uluslararası Ceza Divanı’nı Kuran Roma Statüsü İle Türk Ulusal Mevzuatının Maddi Ceza Hukuku Kuralları Yönünden Uyumuna Dair Rapor. UCMK. 01 19, 2022 tarihinde http://ihop.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/UCM_rapor.pdf adresinden alındı
  • PAZARCI, H. (2006). Uluslararası Hukuk Dersleri 4. Kitap. Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi.
  • PINTON, S. (2020). The ICC Judgement in Al Mahdi: Heritage Communities and Restorative Justice in the International Criminal Protection of Cultural Heritage. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 19(1), 347-386.
  • Project of an International Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War. (1874, 08 27). Brussels.
  • Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar, IT-01-42-A (ICTY 07 17, 2008).
  • Prosecutor v. Vladimir Kovacevic, IT -01-42/2-AR11his.1 (ICTY 03 28, 2007).
  • REDRESS. (2019). Realising Victims’ Right to Reparations before the ICC. London: Redress.
  • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. (1998). The Hague.
  • Rules concerning the Control of Wireless Telegraphy in Time of War and Air Warfare. Drafted by a Commission of Jurists at the Hague. (1923).
  • SARIBEYOĞLU SKALAR, M. (2021). Uluslararası Kızılhaç Komitesi’nin Uluslararası Nitelikte Olmayan Silahlı Çatışmalarda Faaliyetlerine İlişkin Bir Değerlendirme: Taraflara Hizmetlerini Teklif Etme Hakkı. Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, 27(1), 48-63.
  • SARKIN, J. (2012). Enhancing the Legitimacy, Status and Role of the International Criminal Court by Using Transitional Justice or Restorative Justice Strategies. Interdisciplinary Journal of Human Rights Law, 6(1), 83-101.
  • SCATENA, M. (2015). Voluntary destruction of Cultural Heritage and international criminal law. University of Turin Department of Law.
  • SCHABAS, W. A. (2011). An Introduction to the International Criminal Court. Cambridge: CUP.
  • SHAW, M. N. (2018). Uluslararası Hukuk. (Y. Acer, İ. Kaya, T. Demirtepe, & G. Şimşek, Çev.) Ankara: TÜBA Akademi.
  • TEZCAN, D., ERDEM, M., & ÖNOK, R. (2021). Uluslararası Ceza Hukuku. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.
  • The Case of the Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, The Public Reparation Order of Trial Chamber VIII (ICC 08 17, 2017).
  • The Laws of War on Land. (1880, 09 09). Oxford.
  • TOMAN, J. (1996). Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. Hampshire: Dartmouth Publishing Company.
  • Treaty on the Protection of Artistic and Scientific Institutions and Historic Monuments (Roerich Pact). (1935, 04 15). Washington.
  • TRIFFTERER, O., & AMBOS, K. (2016). The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Commentary. Munich, Oxford, Baden-Baden: C.H. Beck Hart Nomos.
  • TÜRKAY KAHRAMAN, F. (2018). Silahlı Çatışmalarda Kültürel Varlıkların Korunması. İstanbul: XII Levya Yayıncılık.
  • UN. (1949, 08 12). IV. Geneva Convention Relative To The Protection Of Civilian Persons In Time Of War.
  • UN. (1977, 06 08). Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I).
  • UN. (1977, 06 08). Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II).
  • UN. (2009). Updated Statute Of The International Criminal Tribunal For The Former Yugoslavia.
  • UNESCO. (1954, 05 14). Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.
  • UNESCO. (1970, 11 14). Convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property.
  • UNESCO. (1978, 11 28). Recommendation for the Protection of Movable Cultural Property.
  • UNESCO. (1999). Second Protocol to The Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.
  • UNODC. (2006). Onarıcı Adalet El Kitabı, Ceza Adaleti El Kitapları Dizisi. New York: UN.
  • VRDOLJAK, A. F. (2015). International Exchange and Trade in Cultural Objects. V. Vadi, & B. Witt içinde, Culture and International Economic Law (s. 124-141). London: Routledge.
  • WHC. (2019, 07 10). Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.
  • WIERCZYNKA, K., & Jakubowski, A. (2017). Individual Responsibility for Deliberate Destruction of Cultural Heritage: Contextualizing the ICC Judgment in the Al-Mahdi Case. Chinese JIL, 695–721.
  • YAVUZ, H. A. (2017). Bir Savaş Suçu Olarak Kültürel Miras Niteliğindeki Eserlere Yönelik Saldırı Eylemi. Ankara Barosu Dergisi(3), 162-196.
  • YAVUZ, H., & ÖZAR, S. (2017). Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi’nin Al Mahdi Kararı. Küresel Bakış, 7(22), 1-27.
There are 67 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Law in Context
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Neslihan Özkerim Güner 0000-0001-8130-9461

Publication Date March 1, 2022
Submission Date September 10, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2022 Volume: 19 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Özkerim Güner, N. (2022). SİLAHLI ÇATIŞMALARDA KÜLTÜREL VARLIKLARIN KORUNMASI. Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(1), 255-282.
AMA Özkerim Güner N. SİLAHLI ÇATIŞMALARDA KÜLTÜREL VARLIKLARIN KORUNMASI. YÜHFD. March 2022;19(1):255-282.
Chicago Özkerim Güner, Neslihan. “SİLAHLI ÇATIŞMALARDA KÜLTÜREL VARLIKLARIN KORUNMASI”. Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 19, no. 1 (March 2022): 255-82.
EndNote Özkerim Güner N (March 1, 2022) SİLAHLI ÇATIŞMALARDA KÜLTÜREL VARLIKLARIN KORUNMASI. Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 19 1 255–282.
IEEE N. Özkerim Güner, “SİLAHLI ÇATIŞMALARDA KÜLTÜREL VARLIKLARIN KORUNMASI”, YÜHFD, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 255–282, 2022.
ISNAD Özkerim Güner, Neslihan. “SİLAHLI ÇATIŞMALARDA KÜLTÜREL VARLIKLARIN KORUNMASI”. Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 19/1 (March 2022), 255-282.
JAMA Özkerim Güner N. SİLAHLI ÇATIŞMALARDA KÜLTÜREL VARLIKLARIN KORUNMASI. YÜHFD. 2022;19:255–282.
MLA Özkerim Güner, Neslihan. “SİLAHLI ÇATIŞMALARDA KÜLTÜREL VARLIKLARIN KORUNMASI”. Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. 19, no. 1, 2022, pp. 255-82.
Vancouver Özkerim Güner N. SİLAHLI ÇATIŞMALARDA KÜLTÜREL VARLIKLARIN KORUNMASI. YÜHFD. 2022;19(1):255-82.