Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

FORUM PROROGATUM BAĞLAMINDA ULUSLARARASI ADALET DİVANI’NIN YARGI YETKİSİ: HUKUKİ TEMELLER VE TARTIŞMALAR

Year 2025, Volume: 22 Issue: 2, 723 - 776, 26.06.2025

Şahin Eray Kırdım

https://doi.org/10.63117/yuhfd.1727948

Abstract

Bu makale, Uluslararası Adalet Divanı’nın (UAD) forum prorogatum ilkesine dayalı yargı yetkisini, UAD ve selefi Uluslararası Sürekli Adalet Divanı (USAD) içtihatları ve usul kuralları çerçevesinde ele alarak, ilkenin tarihsel gelişimini, hukuki temellerini ve uygulamadaki yansımalarını incelemektedir. Ayrıca çalışmada, forum prorogatum ilkesine yöneltilen eleştiriler ve ilkenin uluslararası hukuk düzenine olan katkıları da değerlendirilmektedir.
Forum prorogatum, davalı devletin UAD’nin yargı yetkisini başlangıçta tanımamış olmasına rağmen, sonradan açık veya zımni rıza göstermesi yoluyla bu eksikliğin giderilmesini sağlayan bir mekanizma olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Bu anlamda forum prorogatum ilkesi, devletlerarası uyuşmazlıkların çözümünde esneklik sağlayarak uluslararası hukukta rızaya dayalı yargı yetkisi anlayışını genişletmektedir. Diğer taraftan, UAD’nin yargı yetkisinin tesis edilmesini sağlayan yollardan biri olarak forum prorogatum, ilkenin USAD tarafından ilk defa uygulandığı 1920’lerden bu yana, hem uluslararası hukukçular hem de uygulayıcılar arasında tartışmalara konu olmuştur.
Bu anlamda makale, forum prorogatum yolunun kavramsal çerçevesini, tarihsel gelişimini ve uygulanmasını inceleyerek doktrine katkı sağlamayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaçla makale üç ana bölüme ayrılmıştır. İlk bölümde, UAD’nin yargı yetkisi genel hatlarıyla ele alınarak, bu yetkinin tesis edilmesini sağlayan yöntemler UAD Statüsü esas alınarak incelenmektedir. İkinci bölümde, forum prorogatum ilkesinin kavramsal çerçevesi ve tarihsel arka planı açıklanmakta; ardından, USAD ve UAD’nin bu ilkeyi nasıl uyguladıkları, seçili içtihatlar ışığında değerlendirilmektedir. Üçüncü bölümde ise forum prorogatum ilkesinin, UAD Statüsü ve İç Tüzüğü ile olan uyumu hem normatif hem de pratik yönleriyle eleştirel bir perspektiften incelenmektedir.

Keywords

Forum Prorogatum Uluslararası Adalet D vanı (UAD) Uyuşmazlıkların Yargısal Çözümü Yargı Yetk s Zımn Rıza.

References

  • BURMESTER, Henry (2012), “The basis of the Court’s jurisdiction and the Scope and Usefulness of Forum Prorogatum,” içinde The ICJ and the Evolution of International Law: The Enduring Impact of the Corfu Channel Case, Editörler, Karine Bannelier, Théodore Christakis, Sarah Heathcote (London: Routledge), ss. 87-97.
  • KELSEN, Hans (1951), The Law of the United Nations (London: Stevens & Sons Limited).
  • KOLB, Robert (2013), The International Court of Justice (Oxford/Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing).
  • LAUTERPACHT, Hersch (1982), The Development of International Law by the International Court (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
  • OCAKHAN, Özgür (2021), Uluslararası Yatırım Hukukunda Meşru Beklentiler (İstanbul: On İki Levha Yayıncılık).
  • OELLERS-FRAHM, Karin (2006), “Article 96 of the UN Charter,” içinde The Statute of the International Court of Justice, A Commentary, Editör, Andreas Zimmermann vd. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
  • PAZARCI, Hüseyin (2017), Uluslararası Hukuk, 16. Baskı (Ankara: Turhan).
  • ROMANO, Cesare PR, ALTER, Karen J, SHANY, Yuval (2014), “Bodies, The Issues, and Players,” içinde The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication, Editör, Cesare PR Romano vd. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), ss. 3-26.
  • SHIHATA, Ibrahim F. I. (1965), The Power of the International Court to Determine Its Own Jurisdiction (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff), s. 129.
  • SUR, Melda (2008), Uluslararası Hukukun Esasları, 3. Baskı (İstanbul: Beta).
  • XUE, Hanqin (2017), Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (Leiden/Boston: Brill).
  • “At Global Affairs Canada in 2021,” Canadian Yearbook of International Law, Cilt: 59 (2021), ss. 494-516.
  • “The United Nations, 31st Session,” Harvard International Law Journal, Cilt: 18, Sayı: 3 (1977), ss. 649-676.
  • ACER, Yücel (2003), “Uluslararası Adalet Divanı’nın Zorunlu Yargı Yetkisini Tanımada Çekinceler ve Geçerlilikleri,” Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 56, Sayı: 1, ss. 11-27.
  • AESCHLEMAN, Nicole L. (2005), “The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: Quo Vadis, America,” Santa Clara Law Review, Cilt: 45, Sayı: 4, ss. 937-980.
  • Anand, R. P. (1965), “Execution of International Judicial Awards: Experience Since 1945,” University of Pittsburgh Law Review, Cilt: 26, Sayı: 4, ss. 671-704.
  • AYOUB, Leoni (2020), “The Death Knell of Forum Prorogatum or: How the ICJ Missed Its Opportunity to Generate Its Own Jurisdiction,” Hague Yearbook of International Law, Cilt: 33, ss. 1-30.
  • BANCROFT, Harding F. ve STEIN, Eric (1949), “The Corfu Channel Case,” Stanford Law Review, Cilt: 1, Sayı: 4, ss. 646-657.
  • BEKTAŞ, M. H. Mustafa ve ALAN, Talip (2020), “ABD Büyükelçiliği’nin Taşınması Davası’nın Muhtemel Sonuçları,” Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, Sayı: 148, ss. 353-379.
  • BROCHARD, Edwin M. (1925), “Mavrommatis Concessions Cases,” American Journal of International Law, Cilt: 19, Sayı: 4, ss. 728-738.
  • DEL CASTILLO, Lilian (2017), “The Whaling in the Antarctic Case, Applying the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling as a Self-Contained Regime,” China Oceans Law Review, Cilt: 2017, Sayı: 2, ss. 75-108.
  • DELLAPENNA, Joseph W. (2023), “The Dispute over the Status and Use of the Silala River (Chile v. Bolivia): The International Court of Justice Again Declines to Apply International Water Law,”Wyoming Law Review, Cilt: 23, Sayı: 2, ss. 73-102.
  • ERKINER, Hakkı Hakan ve BÜYÜK, Mehmet Emin (2021), “Türk-Yunan İlişkileri Kapsamında Kıta Sahanlığı Uyuşmazlığının Çözüm Yeri Birleşmiş Milletler Uluslararası Adalet Divanı Olabilir mi?,” Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 27, Sayı: 2, ss. 1013-1038.
  • GEORGE, Mary (2021), “Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice,” Asian Journal of International Law, Cilt: 11, Sayı: 1, ss. 214-218.
  • GİŞİ, Selçuk (2016), “Uluslararasi Sürekli Adalet Divanı’nın Chorzów Fabrikası Kararı ve Uluslararası Sorumluluk,” Erzincan Binali Yıldırım Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 20, Sayı: 3, ss. 15-43.
  • GÖZLER, Kemal (2007), Res Iudicata’nın Türkçesi Üzerine, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 25, Sayı: 2, ss. 45-61.
  • GUBBINS, Eoin (2006), “Precedent in the WTO: Advantages of De Jure Stare Decesis,” Trinity College Law Review, Cilt: 9, ss. 70-90.
  • GÜLGEÇ, Yahya Berkol (2015), “Uluslararası Adalet Divanı’nın Yargı Yetkisi ve Yargı Yetkisini Genişletme Çabalarının Eleştirisi,” Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, Sayı: 117, ss. 379-418.
  • GÜNDÜZ, Aslan (1983), “Ege Denizi Kıta Sahanlığı Davası ve Bazı Düşünceler,” Milletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni, Cilt: 3, Sayı: 2, ss. 11-23.
  • GÜNDÜZ, Fatma Ebru ve GÜNDÜZ, Hakan (2012), “Uluslararası Adalet Divanı’nın ‘Anglo-Iranien Oil Co.-1952’ Kararının İncelenmesi,” Dicle Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 17-18, ss. 163-178.
  • JENNINGS, R. Y. (1996), “The Judiciary, International and National, and the Development of International Law,” International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Cilt: 45, Sayı: 1, ss. 1-12.
  • KELSEN, Hans (1945), “The Old and the New League: The Covenant and the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals,” American Journal of International Law, Cilt: 39, Sayı: 1, ss. 45-83.
  • LIPSTEIN, Kurt (1957, “Ambatielos Case, The. Last Phase,” International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Cilt: 6, Sayı: 4, ss. 643-656.
  • MOLLEL, Andrew L. (2007), “Judicial Settlement of Armed Conflicts in International Law: Reflecting the 2005 International Court of Justice Decision in the Democratic Republic of Congo,” Nordic Journal of International Law, Cilt: 76, Sayı: 4, ss. 407-434.
  • MOLLENGARDEN, Zachary ve ZAMIR, Noam (2021), “The Monetary Gold Principle: Back to Basics,” American Journal of International Law, Cilt: 115, Sayı: 1, ss. 41-77.
  • PALCHETTI, Paolo (2008), “Activity of the International Court of Justice in 2008,” Italian Yearbook of International Law, Cilt: 18, Sayı: 1, ss. 201-217.
  • PICKERT, Perry L. (1976), “Draft Articles for the Expansion of Authoritative Interpretation of United States Treaties,” Brooklyn Journal of International Law, Cilt: 2, Sayı: 2, ss. 205-227.
  • PORTUAL, Vinicius (2007), “Understanding the International Court of Justice: Part I: The History of the Court,” ILSA Quarterly, Cilt: 16, Sayı: 1, ss. 50-51.
  • POULIOT, Vincent (2008),“Forum Prorogatum before the International Court of Justice: The Djibouti v. France Case,” Hague Justice Journal, Cilt: 3, Sayı: 3, ss. 201-213.
  • REICHEL, Marla C. (1998), “Martime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain,” Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, Cilt: 26, Sayı: 4, ss. 725-744.
  • REISMAN, W. Michael (1987), “The Other Shoe Falls: The Future of Article 36(1): Jurisdiction in the Light of Nicaragua,” American Journal of International Law, Cilt: 81, Sayı: 1, ss. 166-173.
  • SALIBA, Aziz Tuffi ve BARBOSA, Lutiana Valadares Fernandes (2023), “Djibouti v. France Reflections on the Jurisprudential Contributions on the Judgment,” Revista da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Cilt: 82, ss. 57-74.
  • SCOTT, Gary L. ve CARR, Craig L. (1987), “The ICJ and Compulsory Jurisdiction: The Case for Closing the Clause,” The American Journal of International Law, Cilt: 81, Sayı: 1, ss. 57-76.
  • STRAUSS, Andrew (2011), “Cutting the Gordian Knot: How and Why the United Nations Should Vest the International Court of Justice with Referral Jurisdiction,” Cornell International Law Journal, Cilt: 44, Sayı: 3, ss. 603-658.
  • SZCZUDLIK, Katarzyna Barbara (2015), “Forum Prorogatum in the Corfu Channel Case and in Subsequent ICJ Jurisprudence, Folia Iuridica Universitatis Wratislaviensis, Cilt: 4, Sayı: 2 (2015), ss. 57–70.
  • TASSINIS, Orfeas Chasapis (2013), “Preliminary Issues Posed by the Doctrine of Forum Prorogatum and the Case of Djibouti v. France,” International Community Law Review, Cilt: 15, Sayı: 4, ss. 483-504.
  • VERNANA, Anthony (1964), “Judicial Means for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes between Nations: Possibilities and Limitations,” Kentucky Law Journal, Cilt: 53, Sayı: 1, s. 98-114.
  • VERSAN, Rauf (2004), Milletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni, Cilt: 24, Sayı: 2 (2004), ss. 767-772.
  • VYLEGZHANIN, Alexander N. ve ZINCHENKO, Olga I. (2023), “Cases Relating to the Law of the Sea: Issues of Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice,” Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University Law, Cilt: 2023, Sayı: 3, ss. 686-702.
  • WALDOCK, C. H. M. (1948), “Forum Prorogatum or Acceptance of a Unilateral Summons to Appear before the International Court,” International Law Quarterly, Cilt: 2, Sayı: 3, ss. 377-391.
  • WILCOX, Francis O. (1946), “The United States Accepts Compulsory Jurisdiction,” American Journal of International Law, Cilt: 40, Sayı: 4, s. 699-719.
  • YEE, Sienho (1999), “Forum Prorogatum in the International Court,” German Yearbook of International Law, Cilt: 42, ss. 147-191.
  • YEE, Sienho (2001), “Forum Prorogatum and the Advisory Proceedings of the International Court,” The American Journal of International Law, Cilt: 95, Sayı: 2, ss. 381-385.
  • YEE, Sienho (2003), “Forum Prorogatum Returns to the International Court of Justice,” Leiden Journal of International Law, Cilt: 16, Sayı: 4, ss. 701-714.
  • ZHUANG, Yuan (2022), “On the Effectiveness of ICJ’s Advisory Opinions in the Settlement of International Disputes: From the Perspective of the Mauritius/Maldives Case,” China Oceans Law Review, Cilt: 2022, Sayı: 4, ss. 155-178.
  • ULUSLARARASI SÜREKLİ ADALET DİVANI KARARLARI, AYRI/MUHALİF GÖRÜŞLERİ, DOKÜMANLARI
  • 1924 PCIJ, Series A, No. 2, Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Judgment of 30 August 1924 (Objection to the Jurisdiction of the Court), https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/permanent-court-of-international-justice/serie_A/A_02/06_Mavrommatis_en_Palestine_Arret.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 12.11.2024).
  • 1925 PCIJ, Series A, No. 4, Interpretation of Judgment, Judgment of 26 March 1925 (Chamber of Summary Procedure), https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/permanent-court-of-international-justice/serie_A/A_04/14_Interpretation_Arret_No_3.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 12.11.2024).
  • 1925 PCIJ, Series A, No. 5, Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions, Judgment of 26 March 1925, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/permanent-court-of-international-justice/serie_A/A_05/15_Mavrommatis_a_Jerusalem_Arret_19250326.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 12.11.2024).
  • 1928 PCIJ, Series A, No. 15, Rights of Minorities in Upper Silesia (Minority Schools), Judgment of 26 April 1928, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/permanent-court-of-international-justice/serie_A/A_15/46_Droits_de_minorites_en_Haute_Silesie_Ecoles_minoritaires_Arret.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 05.11.2024).
  • 1928 PCIJ, Series A, No. 15, Rights of Minorities in Upper Silesia (Minority Schools), Dissenting Opinion by M. Huber, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/permanent-court-of-international-justice/serie_A/A_15/47_Droits_de_minorites_en_Haute_Silesie_Ecoles_minoritaires_Opinion_Huber.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 05.11.2024).
  • 1928 PCIJ, Series A, No. 15, Rights of Minorities in Upper Silesia (Minority Schools), Dissenting Opinion by M. Nyholm, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/permanent-court-of-international-justice/serie_A/A_15/48_Droits_de_minorites_en_Haute_Silesie_Ecoles_minoritaires_Opinion_Nyholm.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 05.11.2024).
  • 1928 PCIJ, Series A, No. 15, Rights of Minorities in Upper Silesia (Minority Schools), Dissenting Opinion by M. Negulesco, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/permanent-court-of-international-justice/serie_A/A_15/49_Droits_de_minorites_en_Haute_Silesie_Ecoles_minoritaires_Opinion_Negulesco.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 05.11.2024).
  • 1928 PCIJ, Series A, No. 17, Factory at Chorzów (Merits), Judgment of 13 September 1928, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/permanent-court-of-international-justice/serie_A/A_17/54_Usine_de_Chorzow_Fond_Arret.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 22.11.2024).
  • 1939 PCIJ, Series A/B, No. 78, Société Commerciale de Belgique, Judgment of 15 June 1939, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/permanent-court-of-international-justice/serie_AB/AB_78/01_Societe_commerciale_de_Belgique_Arret.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 15.11.2024).
  • League of Nations, Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, 16 December 1920, https://www.refworld.org/legal/constinstr/lon/1920/en/57478 (Erişim Tarihi: 06.11.2024).
  • PCIJ, Elaboration of the Rules of Court of March 11th, 1936, Series D, third Addendum to No. 2 (1936), 65, 69, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/permanent-court-of-international-justice/serie_D/D_02_3e_addendum.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 05.11.2024).
  • Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, Interim Protection, Order of 11 September 1976, I.C.J. Reports 1976.
  • Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment of December 19, 1978, I.C.J. Reports 1978.
  • Ambatielos Case (Jurisdiction), Judgment of July 1, 1952, I.C.J. Reports 1952.
  • Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. Case (Jurisdiction), Judgment of July 22, I952, I.C.J. Reports I952.
  • Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Order of September 13, 1993, Further Requests for the Indication of Provisional Measures, Separate Opinion of Judge ad hoc Lauterpacht, I.C.J. Reports 1993.
  • Case of the Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943, Judgment of June 15, 1954, I.C.J. Reports 1954.
  • Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo v. France), Provisional Measure, Order of 17 June 2003, I.C.J. Reports 2003.
  • Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo v. France), Order of 16 November 2010, I.C.J. Reports 2010.
  • Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 13 February 2019, I.C.J. Reports 2019.
  • Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v. France), Judgment of 4 June 2008, I.C.J. Reports 2008.
  • Corfu Channel Case, Judgment on Preliminary Objection (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania), Judgment of 25 March 1948, I.C.J. Reports 1948.
  • Declaration recognizing as compulsory the jurisdiction of the Court, in conformity with Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. London, 13 February 1946, 1 UNTS 3, https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201/v1.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 20.2024).
  • Declaration recognizing as compulsory the jurisdiction of the Court, in conformity with Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, New York, 16 November 1946, 1 UNTS 37, https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201/v1.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 20.10.2024).
  • Denunciation of Clause and the Optional Further Acceptance Thereof under New Conditions by Several States, United Kingdom, London, 28 February, 1940, 200 LNTS 485, https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/LON/Volume%20200/v200.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 18.10.2024).
  • Fisheries Case, Judgment of December 18, 1951, I.C.J. Reports 1951.
  • Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Niger), Judgment of April 16, 2013, I.C.J. Reports 2013.
  • Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment of September 25, 1997, I.C.J. Reports 1997.
  • Haya de la Torre (Colombia v. Peru), Judgment of June 13, 1951, I.C.J. Reports 1951.
  • International Court of Justice, Declarations recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory, https://www.icj-cij.org/declarations (Erişim Tarihi: 18.10.2024).
  • International Court of Justice, Rules of Court (1978), Adopted on 14 April 1978 and Entered into Force on 1 July 1978, https://www.icj-cij.org/index.php/rules (Erişim Tarihi: 10.11.2024).
  • International Court of Justice, Yearbook 2021-2022, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4060785?v=pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 28.11.2024).
  • Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, Advisory Opinion of 30 March 1950, I.C.J. Reports 1950.
  • Land and Maritime Boundury between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment of October 10, 2002, I.C.J. Reports 2002.
  • Observations of the Government of Turkey on the Request by the Government of Greece for Provisional Measures of Protection, 26 August 1976, paras. 12-17, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/62/9483.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 09.12.2024).
  • Preliminary Observations: Refusal by the Imperial Government of Iran to accept the jurisdiction of the Court, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/16/10980.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 09.12.2024).
  • 24 Ağustos 1945 Tarih ve 6902 Sayılı Resmi Gazete, https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/6092.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 21.01.2025).
  • Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation, art. 14, https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20974/volume-974-I-14118-english.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 15.10.2024)
  • Resolution 9 (1946), adopted by the Security Council at its 76th meeting, 15 October 1946, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/111947?v=pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 28.10.2024).
  • Special Agreement Between the Republic of Hungary and the Slovak Republic for Submıssıon to the International Court of Justice of the Differences Between Them Concerning the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/92/10835.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 15.10.2024).
  • Special Agreement Seising the International Court of Justice of the Boundary Dispute Between Burkina Faso and the Republic of Niger, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/149/15985.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 15.10.2024).
  • Statute of the International Court of Justice, https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=I-3&chapter=1&clang=_en#1 (Erişim Tarihi: 25.10.2024).
  • Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights. Signed at Tehran, on 15 August 1955, art. 22, https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Treaty-of-Amity-Economic-Relations-and-Consular-Rights-between-the-United-States-of-America-and-Iran-Aug.-15-1955.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 15.10.2024)
  • UN General Assembly, Conditions on which Switzerland may become a Party to the International Court of Justice, A/RES/91, 11 December 1946, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/209868?v=pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 28.10.2024).
  • UN General Assembly, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, United Nations, Treaty Series, Volume 78, 277, https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4 (Erişim Tarihi: 15.10.2024).
  • UN General Assembly, Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, 13 February 1946.
  • UN General Assembly, Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies, 21 November 1947.
  • United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, art. 93/1, 1 UNTS XVI, 24 October 1945, https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/ctc/uncharter.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 25.10.2024).
There are 104 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Law in Context (Other)
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Şahin Eray Kırdım

Publication Date June 26, 2025
Submission Date January 13, 2025
Acceptance Date February 21, 2025
Published in Issue Year 2025 Volume: 22 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Kırdım, Ş. E. (2025). FORUM PROROGATUM BAĞLAMINDA ULUSLARARASI ADALET DİVANI’NIN YARGI YETKİSİ: HUKUKİ TEMELLER VE TARTIŞMALAR. Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(2), 723-776. https://doi.org/10.63117/yuhfd.1727948
AMA Kırdım ŞE. FORUM PROROGATUM BAĞLAMINDA ULUSLARARASI ADALET DİVANI’NIN YARGI YETKİSİ: HUKUKİ TEMELLER VE TARTIŞMALAR. YÜHFD. June 2025;22(2):723-776. doi:10.63117/yuhfd.1727948
Chicago Kırdım, Şahin Eray. “FORUM PROROGATUM BAĞLAMINDA ULUSLARARASI ADALET DİVANI’NIN YARGI YETKİSİ: HUKUKİ TEMELLER VE TARTIŞMALAR”. Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 22, no. 2 (June 2025): 723-76. https://doi.org/10.63117/yuhfd.1727948.
EndNote Kırdım ŞE (June 1, 2025) FORUM PROROGATUM BAĞLAMINDA ULUSLARARASI ADALET DİVANI’NIN YARGI YETKİSİ: HUKUKİ TEMELLER VE TARTIŞMALAR. Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 22 2 723–776.
IEEE Ş. E. Kırdım, “FORUM PROROGATUM BAĞLAMINDA ULUSLARARASI ADALET DİVANI’NIN YARGI YETKİSİ: HUKUKİ TEMELLER VE TARTIŞMALAR”, YÜHFD, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 723–776, 2025, doi: 10.63117/yuhfd.1727948.
ISNAD Kırdım, Şahin Eray. “FORUM PROROGATUM BAĞLAMINDA ULUSLARARASI ADALET DİVANI’NIN YARGI YETKİSİ: HUKUKİ TEMELLER VE TARTIŞMALAR”. Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 22/2 (June2025), 723-776. https://doi.org/10.63117/yuhfd.1727948.
JAMA Kırdım ŞE. FORUM PROROGATUM BAĞLAMINDA ULUSLARARASI ADALET DİVANI’NIN YARGI YETKİSİ: HUKUKİ TEMELLER VE TARTIŞMALAR. YÜHFD. 2025;22:723–776.
MLA Kırdım, Şahin Eray. “FORUM PROROGATUM BAĞLAMINDA ULUSLARARASI ADALET DİVANI’NIN YARGI YETKİSİ: HUKUKİ TEMELLER VE TARTIŞMALAR”. Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. 22, no. 2, 2025, pp. 723-76, doi:10.63117/yuhfd.1727948.
Vancouver Kırdım ŞE. FORUM PROROGATUM BAĞLAMINDA ULUSLARARASI ADALET DİVANI’NIN YARGI YETKİSİ: HUKUKİ TEMELLER VE TARTIŞMALAR. YÜHFD. 2025;22(2):723-76.
 Download Cover Image