ULUSLARARASI İNSAN HAKLARI HUKUKUNUN BİR KAYNAĞI OLARAK ULUSLARARASI ÖRF VE ÂDET HUKUKU

Şahin Eray Kırdım; Atahan Demirkol

doi:10.34246/ahbvuhfd.1018775

TR EN

ULUSLARARASI İNSAN HAKLARI HUKUKUNUN BİR KAYNAĞI OLARAK ULUSLARARASI ÖRF VE ÂDET HUKUKU

Öz

Bu çalışmada uluslararası örf ve âdet hukuku ile uluslararası insan hakları hukuku arasındaki ilişki incelenmektedir. Uluslararası insan hakları hukuku uluslararası hukukun görece yeni bir alt dalı olup, İkinci Dünya Savaşı sonrasında ortaya çıkmıştır. Doktrinde uluslararası insan hakları hukukunun kaynaklarına ilişkin tartışmalar hâlâ devam etmektedir. Bu tartışmalardan bir tanesi de uluslararası örf ve âdet hukukunun, uluslararası insan hakları hukukuna kaynaklık edip etmediğine yöneliktir. Doktrindeki bazı yazarlar, uluslararası örf ve âdet hukuku normlarının uluslararası insan hakları hukuku kurallarının kaynağı olamayacağını ileri sürseler de eldeki çalışma bunun aksini iddia etmektedir. Bu amaçla çalışma öncelikle uluslararası örf ve âdet hukuku ile uluslararası insan hakları hukukunun genel niteliklerini kısaca açıklamaktadır. Daha sonra ise bu ikisi arasındaki ilişkide, ilkinin ikincisine erga omnes nitelik kazandırarak olumlu, ancak bazı devletleri kuralların oluşum sürecinden dışlayarak olumsuz etki yaptığını ileri sürmektedir. Bu olumsuz etki özellikle Uluslararası Hukuka Üçüncü Dünya Yaklaşımları literatürü üzerinden açıklanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İnsan Hakları, Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Hukuku, Uluslararası Örf ve Âdet Hukuku, Erga Omnes, TWAIL

CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW AS A SOURCE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

Öz

This study examines the relationship between customary international law and international human rights law. International human rights law is a relatively new sub-branch of international law, which emerged after the Second World War. The debates in the doctrine regarding the sources of international human rights law still continue. One of these debates is about whether customary international law is a source of international human rights law. Although some authors argue that customary international law norms cannot be a source of international human rights law rules, the present study claims otherwise. For this purpose, this study briefly explains the general characteristics of customary international law and international human rights law. Later, on the relationship between these two, it is argued that the former has a positive effect on the latter by giving erga omnes character to it, but a negative effect by excluding some states from the formation of the rules. This negative effect is explained in particular through the Third World Approaches to International Law literature.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Human Rights, International Human Rights Law, Customary International Law, Erga Omnes, TWAIL

Kaynakça

African Union, Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, 11 July 2003.
Akehurst M, “Custom as a Source of International Law”, 1976, 47(1), British Yearbook of International Law, s. 1-53.
Akkutay A İ, “İnsan Hakları Hukukunun Pozitivist Yönünü Oluşturan İlgili Uluslararası Antlaşmaların Feminist Yaklaşıma Etkisi”, 2017, Özel Sayı, Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, s. 14-42.
Alves J A L, “The Declaration of Human Rights in Postmodernity”, 2000, 22, Human Rights Quarterly, s. 478-500.
Arsava A F, “Uluslararası Hukukta Güç ve Hukuk İlişkisi”, 2012, 3(10), TAAD, s. 351-380.
Austin J, Lectures on Jurisprudence, J. Murray, 1869.
Aybay R, İnsan Hakları Hukuku, 3. Baskı, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2017.
Badaru O A, “Examining the Utility of Third World Approaches to International Law for International Human Rights Law”, 2008, 10(4), International Community Law Review, s. 379-387.
Barcelona Traction, Light & Power Co., Ltd. (BeIg. v. Sp.), 1970 I.C.J. 3 (Second Phase) (Judgment of Feb. 5).
Barkin J S, “The Evolution of the Constitution of Sovereignty and the Emergence of Human Rights Norms”, 1998, 27(2), Millennium, s. 229-252.

Barna M, “Sosyal Devlet ve Eşitlik”, 2001, 3, İzmir Barosu Dergisi, s. 107-114.
Başlar K, “Uluslararası Hukukta Erga Omnes Kavramı”, 2002, 22(2), Milletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni, Prof. Dr. Ergin Nomer’e Armağan, s. 75-108.
Baxi U, The Future of Human Rights, Oxford University Press, 2007.
Bederman D J, “Acquiescence, Objection and the Death of Customary International Law”, 2010, 21(1), Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, s. 31-45.
Beitz C, “What Human Rights Mean”, 2003, 132(1), Daedalus, s. 36-46.
Beitz C, The Idea of Human Rights, Oxford University Press, 2011.
Bos M, A Methodology of International Law, North-Holland, 1984.
Boucher D, “The Recognition Theory of Rights, Customary International Law and Human Rights”, 2011, 59(3), Political Studies, s. 753-771.
Bradley C A/Goldsmith J L, “The Current Illegitimacy of International Human Rights Litigation”, 1997, 66, Fordham Law Review, s. 319-369.
Bradley C A/Goldsmith J L, “Federal Courts and the Incorporation of International Law”, 1997, 111, Harvard Law Review, s. 2260-2275.
Brownlie I, Principles of Public International Law, Clarendon Press, 1973.
Buergenthal T, “The Evolving International Human Rights System”, 2006, 100(4), American Journal of International Law, s. 783-807.
Buergenthal T, “The Normative and Institutional Evolution of International Human Rights”, 1997, 19(4), Human Rights Quarterly, s. 703-723.
Byers M, Custom, Power and the Power of Rules: International Relations and Customary International Law, Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Çalık T, “Birleşmiş Milletler İnsan Hakları Sözleşmeleri Kapsamında İnsan Haklarının Korunması”, 2016, 24(1), Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, s. 69-120.
Case Concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo, (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of The Congo), Judgment, ICJ Reports, 30 November 2010.
Case Concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment, 30 June 1995, I.C.J. Reports 1995.
Cassel D, “Does International Human Rights Law Make a Difference”, 2001, 2, Chicago Journal of International Law, s. 121-135.
Çelebi H/Özdemi̇r A M, “Uluslararası Hukukta Eleştirel Yaklaşımlar”, 2010, 7(25), Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, s. 69-90.
Cerna M, “Universality of Human Rights and Cultural Diversity: Implementation of Human Rights in Different Socio-Cultural Contexts”, 1994, 16(4), Human Rights Quarterly, s. 740-752.
Chimni B S, “Customary International Law: A Third World Perspective”, 2018, 112(1), American Journal of International Law, s. 1-46.
Chimni B S, “Prolegomena to a Class Approach to International Law”, 2010, 21(1), European Journal of International Law, s. 57-82.
Chimni B S, “Third World Approaches to International Law: A Manifesto”, 2006, 8(1), International Community Law Review, s. 3-27.
Chimni B S, International Law and World Order: A Critique of Contemporary Approaches, 2. Baskı, Cambridge University Press, 2017.
Christenson G A, “Customary International Human Rights Law in Domestic Court Decisions”, 1995, 25, Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, s. 225-254.
Committee on Formation of Customary (General) International Law, Final Report of the Committee, “Statement of Principles Applicable to the Formation of General Customary International Law”, International Law Association, section 15, 2000, Erişim Tarihi 12.11.2020.
Council of Europe, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, 4 November 1950, ETS 5. D’Amato A, “Human Rights as Part of Customary International Law: A Plea for Change of Paradigms”, 1995, 25, Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, s. 47-98.
D’Amato A, “The Concept of Special Custom in International Law”, 1969, 63(2), American Journal of International Law, s. 211-223.
D’Amato A, The Concept of Custom in International Law, Cornell University Press, 1971.
Dahlman C, “The Function of Opinio Juris in Customary International Law”, 2012, 81(3), Nordic Journal of International Law, s. 327-339.
de Schutter O, International Human Rights Law: Cases, Materials, Commentary, Cambridge University Press, 2010.
de Wet E, “Invoking Obligations Erga Omnes in The Twenty-First Century: Progressive Developments Since Barcelona Traction”, 2013, 38(1), South African Yearbook of International Law, s. 2-19.
de Wet E, “Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes”, in Dinah Shelton (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of International Human Rights Law, Oxford University Press, 2013, s. 540-560.
Demirci F, Meşru Devletin İnşası: Klasik Toplum Sözleşmesi Kuramlarında Birey-Devlet İlişkisi (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau), 1. Baskı, Orion Akademi, 2021.
Dinstein Y, “The erga omnes Applicability of Human Rights”, 1992, 30(1), Archiv des Völkerrechts, s. 16-21.
Doğan İ, İnsan Hakları Hukuku Ders Kitabı, 1. Baskı, Astana Yayınları, 2013.
Domingues v United States, merits, 2002 IACHR, Report No. 62/02, Case 12.285.
Donnelly J, “Human Rights as Natural Rights”, 1982, 4(2), Human Rights Quarterly, s. 391-405.
Donnelly J, “The Relative Universality of Human Rights”, 2007, 29(2), Human Rights Quarterly, s. 281-306.
Donnelly J/Whelan D J, International Human Rights, 5. Baskı, Routledge, 2018.
Dumberry P, “Incoherent and Ineffective: The Concept of Persıstent Objector Revisited”, 2010, 59(3), International and Comparative Law Quarterly, s. 779-802.
Elias O, “The Nature of the Subjective Element in Customary International Law”, 1995, 44(3), The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, s. 501-520.
Erdoğan M, İnsan Hakları Teorisi ve Hukuku, 2. Baskı, Orion Kitabevi, 2011.
Evans T, “International Human Rights Law as Power/Knowledge”, 2005, 27(3), Human Rights Quarterly, s. 1046-1068.
Fidler D, “Challenging the Classical Concept of Custom: Perspectives on the Future of Customary International Law”, 1996, 39, German Yearbook of International Law, s. 198-248.
Forsythe D P, Human Rights in International Relations, Cambridge University Press, 2017.
Freeman M, Human Rights, John Wiley & Sons, 2017.
Galindo G R B/Yip C, “Customary International Law and the Third World: Do Not Step on the Grass”, 2017, 16(2), Chinese Journal of International Law, s. 251-270.
Goldsmith J/Posner E, “A Theory of Customary International Law”, 1999, 66(4), The University of Chicago Law Review, s. 1113-1177.
Goodale M, “Introduction Locating Rights, Envisioning Law Between the Global and the Local”, in Mark Goodale/Sally Engle Merry (eds.), The Practice of Human Rights: Tracking Law between the Global and the Local, Cambridge University Press, 2007, s. 1-38.
Goodman R/Jinks D, “Measuring the Effects of Human Rights Treaties”, 2003, 14(1), European Journal of International Law, s. 171-183.
Göçer M, “Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Andlaşmalarının Bağdaşmazlığı Sorunu ve Uluslararası Hukuk”, 2001, 56(3), Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, s. 47-70.
Gözler K, İnsan Hakları Hukuku, 2. Baskı, Ekin Basım Yayın Dağıtım, 2018.
Greer S, The European Convention on Human Rights: Achievements, Problems and Prospects, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Guzman A, “Saving Customary International Law”, 2005, 27(1), Michigan Journal of International Law, s. 115-176.
Haas H, International Human Rights: A Comprehensive Introduction, Routledge, 2014.
Hannum H, “The Status of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in National and International Law”, 1995, 25, Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, s. 287-397.
Hannum H, “The UDHR in National and International Law”, 1998, 3(2), Health and Human Rights, s. 144-158.
Hathaway O A, “Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference?”, 2002, 111(8), The Yale Law Journal s. 1935-2042.
Henkin L, “Human Rights and State Sovereignty”, 1996, 25, Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, s. 31-45.
Henkin L, “The Universality of the Concept of Human Rights”, 1989, 506(1), The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, s. 10-16.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, 2 May 1948. Inter-Science Research and Development Services (Pty) Ltd v Republica Popular Moçambique, per Margo J., 1980 2 SA 111 T, 125.
Joyner D, “Why I Stopped Believing in Customary International Law”, 2018, 9(1), Asian Journal of International Law, s. 31-45.
Kapani M, İnsan Haklarının Uluslararası Boyutları, 2. Baskı, Bilgi Yayınevi, 1991.
Kapani M, Kamu Hürriyetleri, 7. Baskı, Yetkin Yayınları, 1993.
Kelly P, “The Twilight of Customary International Law”, 1999, 40, Virginia Journal of International Law, s. 449-544.
Kelsen H, “Peace through Law”, 1943, 2(1), Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, s. 52-67.
Kelsen H, Principles of International Law, 2. Baskı, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966.
Kırdım Ş E, “TWAIL’i Anlamak: Uluslararası Hukuka Eleştirel Bir Yaklaşım”, 2021, 41(1), Public and Private International Law Bulletin, s.129-158.
Kırdım Ş E/Demirkol A, “San Francisco Konferansı Görüşmeleri ve Birleşmiş Milletler Kararları Işığında Self-Determinasyon Kavramının İncelenmesi”, 2021, 25(1), Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, s. 389-430.
Klein D F, “A Theory for the Application of the Customary International Law of Human Rights by Domestic Courts”, 1988, 13, Yale Journal of International Law 13, s. 332-365.
Kolb R, “Selected Problems in the Theory of Customary International Law”, Netherlands International Law Review, 2003, 50(2), s. 119-150.
Kunz J, “The Nature of Customary International Law”, 1953, 47(4), American Journal of International Law, s. 662-669.
Kunz J L, “The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights”, 1949, 43(2), American Journal of International Law, s. 316-323.
Lauren P G, The Evolution of International Human Rights: Visions Seen, 3. Baskı, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011.
Lepard B, “Introduction”, in Brian D. Lepard (ed.), Reexamining Customary International Law, Cambridge University Press, 2017, s. 1-44.
Lillich R B, “The Growing Importance of Customary International Human Rights Law”, 1995, 25, Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, s. 1-30.
Lutz E L/Sikkink K, “International Human Rights Law and Practice in Latin America”, 2000, 54(3), International Organization, s. 633-659.
McClane JB , “How Late in the Emergence of a Norm of Customary International Law May a Persistent Objector Object”, 1989, 13, ILSA Journal of International Law, s. 1-26.
Mendelson M, “The Subjective Element in Customary International Law”, 1996, 66(1), British Yearbook of International Law, s. 177-208.
Meron T, “The Geneva Conventions as Customary Law”, 1987, 81(2), American Journal of International Law, s. 348-370.
Meron T, Human Rights and Humanitarian Norms as Customary Law, Clarendon Press, 1989.
Meron T, Human Rights Law-Making in the United Nations, Clarendon, 1986.
Morsink J, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting, and Intent, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999.
Müllerson R, “On the Nature and Scope of Customary International Law”, 1997, 2(1), Austrian Review of International and European Law Online, s. 341-360.
Mumcu A/Küzeci E, İnsan Hakları & Kamu Özgürlükleri: Kavramlar, Evrensel ve Ulusal Gelişimleri, Bugünkü Durumları, 3. Baskı, Savaş Yayınları, 2003.
Mutua M, “Critical Race Theory and International Law: The View of an Insider-Outsider”, 2000, 45, Villanova Law Review, s. 841-854.
Mutua M, “Savages, Victims, and Saviors: The Metaphor of Human Rights”, 2001, 42(1), Harvard International Law Journal, s. 201-245.
Mutua M, “The Ideology of Human Rights”, 1996, 36(3), Virginia Journal of International Law, s. 589-657.
Mutua M, “What Is TWAIL?”, 2000, 94, Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting, s. 31-38.
Neumayer E, “Do International Human Rights Treaties Improve Respect for Human Rights?”, 2005, 49(6), Journal of Conflict Resolution, s. 925-953.
Pazarcı H, Uluslararası Hukuk, 16. Baskı, Turhan Kitabevi, 2017.
Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya, 2020 SCC 5 (February 28, 2020).
North Sea Continental Shelf cases (Federal Republic of Germany v Netherlands, Federal Republic of Germany v Denmark), merits, 1969 ICJ Rep. 3, para. 77; Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America), merits, 1986 ICJ Rep. 14.
Official Records of United Nations General Assembly, Fifty-sixth Session, 28 January 2002, UN Doc. A/RES/56/83.
Organization of African Unity (OAU), African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 27 June 1981, CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21 I.L.M. 58 (1982).
Organization of African Unity (OAU), African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, 11 July 1990, CAB/LEG/24.9/49 (1990).
Organization of African Unity (OAU), Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, 10 September 1969, 1001 U.N.T.S. 45.
Organization of American States (OAS), Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (“Protocol of San Salvador”), 16 November 1999, A-52.
Organization of American States (OAS), American Convention on Human Rights, “Pact of San Jose”, Costa Rica, 22 November 1969.
Organization of American States (OAS), American Convention on Human Rights, “Pact of San Jose”, Costa Rica, 22 November 1969.
Organization of American States (OAS), Charter of the Organisation of American States, 30 April 1948.
Organization of American States (OAS), Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, 9 December 1985, OAS Treaty Series, No. 67.
Organization of American States (OAS), Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, 9 June 1994.
Organization of American States (OAS), Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women (“Convention of Belem do Para”), 9 June 1994.
Organization of American States (OAS), Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty (“Pact of San Jose”), 8 June 1990, OAS Treaty Series, N°.73.
Özkan I, “Uluslararası Hukuk – Ulusal Hukuk İlişkileri”, 2013, 8(Özel), Journal of Yaşar University s. 2127-2176.
Paust J J, “The Complex Nature, Sources and Evidences of Customary Human Rights”, 1995, 25, Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, s. 147-164.
Pease KK/Forsythe DP, “Human Rights, Humanitarian Intervention, and World Politics”, 1993, 15 Human Rights Quarterly, s. 290-314.
Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012.
Ramina L, “TWAIL - ‘Third World Approaches to International Law’ and Human Rights: Some Considerations”, 2018, 5(1), Revista de Investigações Constitucionais, s. 261-272.
Reisman M, “Sovereignty and Human Rights in Contemporary International Law”, 1990, 84(4), American Journal of International Law, s. 866-876.
Report of the International Law Commission, Sixty- seventh session, 4 May-5 June and 6 July-7 August 2015, UN Doc. A/70/10, Advance Unedited Version, 24 August 2015.
Restatement of the Law, Third, Foreign Relations Law of the United States, American Law Institute, 1987.
Risse T/Ropp S C/ Sikkink K, The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change, 7. Baskı, Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Robbins M, “Powerful States, Customary Law and the Erosion of Human Rights through Regional Enforcement”, 2004, 35, California Western International Law Journal, s. 275-302.
Scharf M, “Accelerated Formation of Customary International Law”, 2014, 20, ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law, s. 305-342.
Schwelb E, “The Influence Of The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights On International And National Law”, 1959, 53, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at Its Annual Meeting (1921-1969), s. 217-229.
Shah J, “UDHR: Our North Star for Global Social Justice or an Imperial and Settler-Colonial Tool to Limit Our Conception of Freedom”, 2018, 31, Pace International Law Review, s. 569-576.
Shaw M N, Uluslararası Hukuk, Çev. İbrahim Kaya vd., TÜBA, 2018.
Shelton D, “International Law in Domestic Systems”, in Karen B. Brown/David V. Snyder (eds.), General Reports of the XVIIIth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law, Springer, 2012, s. 509-540.
Sinclair I, The Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties, 2. Baskı, Manchester University Press, 1984.
Sohn L, “Sources of International Law”, 1995, 25(1), Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law, s. 399-406.
Söyler Y, “Barcelona Traction Davası ve Uluslararası Hukuka Etkisi”, 2015, 19(3), Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, s. 207-248.
Statute of the International Court of Justice, 26 June 1945, 59 Stat. 1055, 33 U.N.T.S. 933.
Stein T, “The Approach of the Different Drummer: The Principle of the Persistent Objector in International Law”, 1985, 26, Harvard International Law Journal, s. 457-482.
The Core International Human Rights Treaties, United Nations, 2014.
Thirlway H, “Human Rights in Customary Law: An Attempt to Define Some of the Issues”, 2015, 28, Leiden Journal of International Law, s. 495-506.
Thirlway H, The Sources of International Law, 2. Baskı, Oxford University Press, 2019.
Trachtman J, “Persistent Objectors, Cooperation, and the Utility of Customary International Law”, 2010, 21, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, s. 221-233.
Trimble R P, “A Revisionist View of Customary International Law”, 1986, 33, UCLA Law Review, s. 665-732.
Türe F, “İnsan Haklarının Normatif Kökeni”, 2014, 32, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, s. 149-161.
U.N. Charter, 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI., art. 2/7.
UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III).
UN General Assembly, Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, 12 July 1993, A/CONF.157/23.
Ünal Ş, Temel Hak ve Özgürlükler ve İnsan Hakları Hukuku, Yetkin Yayınları, 1997.
Vicuña FO, “Costumary International Law in a Global Community: Tailor Made?”, 2005, 38(148), Estudios Internacionales, s. 21-38.
Vidmar J, “Norm Conflicts and Hierarchy in International Law: Towards a Vertical International Legal System?”, in Erika De Wet/Jure Vidmar (eds.), Hierarchy In International Law: The Place Of Human Rights, Oxford University Press, 2012, s. 13-41.
Weil P, “Towards Relative Normativity in International Law?”, 1983, 77(3), American Journal of International Law, s. 413-442.
Weisburd A M, “The Effect of Treaties and Other Formal International Acts on the Customary Law of Human Rights”, 1995, 25, Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, s. 99-146.
Zabunoğlu H G/Sönmez E Y, “Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Hukukunda Üçüncü Dünya Yaklaşımları”, 2021, 12(1), İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, s. 258-270.
Ziemele I, “Customary International Law in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights-The Method”, 2013, 12(2), The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, s. 243-252.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

Türkçe

Konular

Hukuk

Bölüm

Araştırma Makalesi

Yazarlar

Şahin Eray Kırdım
0000-0003-4207-6559
Türkiye

Atahan Demirkol
0000-0002-7185-5781
Türkiye

Yayımlanma Tarihi

31 Ekim 2021

Gönderilme Tarihi

9 Mayıs 2021

Kabul Tarihi

27 Ağustos 2021

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 2021 Cilt: 25 Sayı: 4

DOI

https://doi.org/10.34246/ahbvuhfd.1018775

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA84YE58PB

APA

Kırdım, Ş. E., & Demirkol, A. (2021). ULUSLARARASI İNSAN HAKLARI HUKUKUNUN BİR KAYNAĞI OLARAK ULUSLARARASI ÖRF VE ÂDET HUKUKU. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(4), 379-434. https://doi.org/10.34246/ahbvuhfd.1018775

AMA

1.Kırdım ŞE, Demirkol A. ULUSLARARASI İNSAN HAKLARI HUKUKUNUN BİR KAYNAĞI OLARAK ULUSLARARASI ÖRF VE ÂDET HUKUKU. HBV-HFD. 2021;25(4):379-434. doi:10.34246/ahbvuhfd.1018775

Chicago

Kırdım, Şahin Eray, ve Atahan Demirkol. 2021. “ULUSLARARASI İNSAN HAKLARI HUKUKUNUN BİR KAYNAĞI OLARAK ULUSLARARASI ÖRF VE ÂDET HUKUKU”. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 25 (4): 379-434. https://doi.org/10.34246/ahbvuhfd.1018775.

EndNote

Kırdım ŞE, Demirkol A (01 Ekim 2021) ULUSLARARASI İNSAN HAKLARI HUKUKUNUN BİR KAYNAĞI OLARAK ULUSLARARASI ÖRF VE ÂDET HUKUKU. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 25 4 379–434.

IEEE

[1]Ş. E. Kırdım ve A. Demirkol, “ULUSLARARASI İNSAN HAKLARI HUKUKUNUN BİR KAYNAĞI OLARAK ULUSLARARASI ÖRF VE ÂDET HUKUKU”, HBV-HFD, c. 25, sy 4, ss. 379–434, Eki. 2021, doi: 10.34246/ahbvuhfd.1018775.

ISNAD

Kırdım, Şahin Eray - Demirkol, Atahan. “ULUSLARARASI İNSAN HAKLARI HUKUKUNUN BİR KAYNAĞI OLARAK ULUSLARARASI ÖRF VE ÂDET HUKUKU”. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 25/4 (01 Ekim 2021): 379-434. https://doi.org/10.34246/ahbvuhfd.1018775.

JAMA

1.Kırdım ŞE, Demirkol A. ULUSLARARASI İNSAN HAKLARI HUKUKUNUN BİR KAYNAĞI OLARAK ULUSLARARASI ÖRF VE ÂDET HUKUKU. HBV-HFD. 2021;25:379–434.

MLA

Kırdım, Şahin Eray, ve Atahan Demirkol. “ULUSLARARASI İNSAN HAKLARI HUKUKUNUN BİR KAYNAĞI OLARAK ULUSLARARASI ÖRF VE ÂDET HUKUKU”. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, c. 25, sy 4, Ekim 2021, ss. 379-34, doi:10.34246/ahbvuhfd.1018775.

Vancouver

1.Şahin Eray Kırdım, Atahan Demirkol. ULUSLARARASI İNSAN HAKLARI HUKUKUNUN BİR KAYNAĞI OLARAK ULUSLARARASI ÖRF VE ÂDET HUKUKU. HBV-HFD. 01 Ekim 2021;25(4):379-434. doi:10.34246/ahbvuhfd.1018775

Cited By

ULUSLARARASI HUKUKUN ÜÇ YÜZÜ: ELEŞTİREL BİR YAKLAŞIM

Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi

https://doi.org/10.54049/taad.1274382

EXPLORING THE NON-REFOULEMENT PRINCIPLE IN THE ECTHR JURISPRUDENCE: SYRIANS UNDER TEMPORARY PROTECTION IN TÜRKIYE AS A CASE STUDY

Hacettepe Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi

https://doi.org/10.32957/hacettepehdf.1406406

ULUSLARARASI İNSAN HAKLARI HUKUKUNUN BİR KAYNAĞI OLARAK ULUSLARARASI ÖRF VE ÂDET HUKUKU

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW AS A SOURCE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kaynakça

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

Konular

Bölüm

Yazarlar

Yayımlanma Tarihi

Gönderilme Tarihi

Kabul Tarihi

Yayımlandığı Sayı

DOI

IZ

Kaynak Göster

Cited By

ULUSLARARASI HUKUKUN ÜÇ YÜZÜ: ELEŞTİREL BİR YAKLAŞIM

EXPLORING THE NON-REFOULEMENT PRINCIPLE IN THE ECTHR JURISPRUDENCE: SYRIANS UNDER TEMPORARY PROTECTION IN TÜRKIYE AS A CASE STUDY