REVISITING THE TU QUOQUE DEFENCE: THE S.S. LOTUS CASE AND ITS RELEVANCE TO CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL LAW

Öz

The S.S. Lotus case (1927) is often cited as the archetype of positivist reasoning in international law, establishing the principle that what is not expressly prohibited is permitted. Yet this reading overlooks a subtler layer of normative reasoning within the judgment. This article revisits Lotus through the lens of the tu quoque argument, commonly dismissed as a fallacy or an obsolete defence in international criminal law. It argues that Turkey’s reliance on provisions borrowed verbatim from the Italian Penal Code and procedural doctrines from the French Code of Criminal Procedure operated as a soft legitimation strategy, implicitly asserting parity with European legal systems. In doing so, Turkey’s argument performed a reflexive form of legality. If Turkey’s law were inconsistent with international norms, so too would be the very European sources from which it was drawn. Building on Sienho Yee’s typology and Hersch Lauterpacht’s reflections on ‘uncertain situations’ the study shows how tu quoque transcends its narrow criminal law context to function as a discursive mechanism of normative balancing in asymmetrical legal orders. The article situates this within the interwar moment of international adjudication, when sovereignty, imitation, and legality intertwined in the making of modern international law. Ultimately, the study proposes that the tu quoque argument far from being a mere plea of exculpation retains analytical value for understanding legitimacy and reciprocity in contemporary international law, including emerging fields such as cyber and space regulation. Revisiting Lotus thus illuminates the enduring tension between legality, legitimacy, and equality among sovereigns.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• S.S. Lotus Case
• Tu Quoque Defence
• Legitimacy
• Reciprocity
• Sovereignty
• Mimicry
• Asymmetry
• Normative Consistency
• Interwar Jurisprudence

TU QUOQUE SAVUNMASINI YENİDEN ELE ALMAK: S.S. LOTUS DAVASI VE GÜNCEL ULUSLARARASI HUKUKLA İLİŞKİSİ

Öz

S.S. Lotus Davası (1927), uluslararası hukukta pozitivist akıl yürütmenin arketipi olarak sıklıkla örnek gösterilmekte ve açıkça yasaklanmayan hususlara izin verilmesi ilkesini ortaya koymaktadır. Ancak bu yorum, kararın içindeki daha ince bir normatif akıl yürütme katmanını gözden kaçırmaktadır. Bu makale, uluslararası ceza hukukunda genellikle bir yanılsama veya geçersiz bir savunma olarak reddedilen tu quoque argümanı açısından Lotus Davasını yeniden ele almaktadır. Makale, Türkiye’nin İtalyan Ceza Kanunu’ndan aynen alıntılanan hükümler ve Fransız Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu’ndan alınan usul doktrinlerine dayanmasının, Avrupa hukuk sistemleriyle eşitliği dolaylı olarak iddia eden yumuşak bir meşrulaştırma stratejisi olarak işlediğini savunmaktadır. Böylelikle Türkiye’nin argümanı, düşünümsel bir hukukilik biçimi sergilemiştir. Türkiye’nin hukuku uluslararası normlarla tutarsızsa, bu hukukun dayandığı Avrupa kökenli hukuk normları da aynı şekilde tutarsızdır. Sienho Yee’nin tipolojisi ve Hersch Lauterpacht’ın ‘belirsiz durumlar’ üzerine düşüncelerinden yola çıkan çalışma, tu quoque ile ilişkilendirilen dar ceza hukuku bağlamını aşarak asimetrik hukuk düzenlerinde normatif dengeleme için söylemsel bir mekanizma olarak nasıl işlediğini göstermeye çalışmaktadır. Makale, bunu modern uluslararası hukukun oluşumunda egemenlik, öykünme ve hukukiliğin iç içe geçtiği, savaşlar arası dönemde uluslararası yargılamanın bağlamına yerleştirmektedir. Sonuç olarak, çalışma, tu quoque argümanının, sadece bir aklama savunması olmaktan uzak, siber ve uzay düzenlemeleri gibi yeni ortaya çıkan alanlar da dahil olmak üzere, çağdaş uluslararası hukukta meşruiyet ve karşılıklılığı anlamak için analitik değer taşıdığını öne sürmektedir. Lotus Davasına yeniden bakmak, egemenler arasında hukukilik, meşruiyet ve eşitlik arasındaki süregelen gerilimi de ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• S.S. Lotus Davası
• Tu Quoque Savunması
• Meşruiyet
• Mütekabiliyet
• Egemenlik
• Taklit
• Asimetri
• Normatif Tutarlılık
• Savaşlar Arası Hukuk

Kaynakça

1. Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Rep. 2004 (9 July 2004).
2. Agassi, Joseph. “Rationality and the Tu Quoque Argument.” Inquiry 16, No. 1-4 (1973): 395-406.
3. Aikin, Scott F. “Tu Quoque Arguments and the Significance of Hypocrisy.” Informal Logic 28, (2008): 155-169.
4. Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis. (Signed at London on August 8, 1945).
5. Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Judgment, I.C.J. Rep. 2024 (31 January 2024).
6. Bassiouni, M. Cherif. Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal Law. The Hague: Brill-Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1999.
7. Bassiouni, M. Cherif. Crimes Against Humanity: Historical Evolution and Contemporary Application. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
8. Bassiouni, M. Cherif. Introduction to International Criminal Law (Second Revised Edition). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2014.

9. Başaran, Halil Rahman. “The ‘Clean Hands’ Doctrine in International Law,” The Lawyer Quarterly 15, N. 3 (2025): 403-416.
10. Berlin, Stephanie. “The Tu Quoque Defence.” Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons, War Crimes Memoranda, (2002): 1-34.
11. Berge, George Wendell. “The Case of the S.S. Lotus.” Michigan Law Review 26, No. 4 (1928): 361-382.
12. Biddle, Francis. In Brief Authority: From the Years with Roosevelt to the Nuremberg Trial. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1962.
13. Garner, Bryan A. Black’s Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition). St. Paul: Thomson/West, 2008. Bogdandy, Armin von and Rau, Markus. “The Lotus.” Max Planck Encyclopaedias of International Law (MPIL). Access Date: October 9, 2025, https://opil.ouplaw.com/ display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e162.
14. Borelli, Katerina. “Between Show-Trials and Utopia: A Study of the Tu Quoque Defence.” Leiden Journal of International Law 32, No. 2 (2019): 315-331.
15. Cassese, Antonio and Röling, Bernard V. A. (Eds.). The Tokyo Trial and Beyond: Reflections of a Peacemonger. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993.
16. Castro, Eleonora. “Clarifying the Clean Hands Doctrine under General International Law,” Journal of International Dispute Settlement 16, (2025): 1-16.
17. Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Rep. 2023 (30 March 2023).
18. Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), T.I.A.S. No. 1589, 4 Bevans 20, (Promulgated on January 19, 1946).
19. Control Council Law No. 10. Punishment of Persons Guilty of War Crimes, Crimes Against Peace and Against Humanity. Berlin, (December 20, 1945).
20. Darcy, Shane. “Defences to International Crimes.” In William A. Schabas and Nadia Bernaz (Eds.). Routledge Handbook of International Criminal Law. London: Routledge, 2011.
21. Diversion of Water from the Meuse (Netherlands v. Belgium), Individual Opinion by Judge M. Hudson, Permanent Court of International Justice, Series A/B, No. 70 (June 28, 1937).
22. Dost, Süleyman. “Milletlerarası Hukukta Mütekabiliyet İlkesi.” Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 5, N. 2 (2015): 1-37.
23. Dost, Süleyman. Uluslararası Hukukta Adalet: Temel Kaynaklar, Metinler ve Kararlar Bağlamında. Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları, 2019.
24. Franck, Thomas M. Fairness in International Law and Institutions. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.
25. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, I.C.J. Rep. 1997 (25 September 1997).
26. Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, League of Nations Treaty Series 118, (Signed in 1929, Entered into force 1931).
27. Harhoff, Frederik. “Tu Quoque Principle.” In Antonio Cassese (Ed.). The Oxford Companion to International Criminal Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
28. Heise, Nicole A. “Deciding not to Decide: Nuremberg and the Ambiguous History of Tu Quoque Defense.” SSRN Electronic Journal (January 2009): 1-24.
29. Hertogen, An. “Letting Lotus Bloom.” European Journal of International Law 26, No. 4 (2015): 901-926.
30. Heydte, Friedrich von der. “Exposé Préliminaire sur le Problème que pose l’Existence des Armes de Destruction Massive et la Distinction entre les Objectifs Militaires et Non Militaires en Général.” Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International 52, No. 2 (1967): 73-94.
31. Hague Declaration (IV, 2) Concerning Asphyxiating Gases, Consolidated Treaty Series 187, (Signed in 1899, Entered into force 1900).
32. Kałduński, Marcin. “Conclusions.” In Marcin Kałduński (Ed.). Reciprocity in International Law. Torun: Palgrave Macmillan, 2024.
33. Knieriem, August von. The Nuremberg Trials. Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1959. Krabbe, Maartje J. M. Excusable Evil: An Analysis of Complete Defenses in International Criminal Law. Cambridge: Intersentia, 2014.
34. Lauterpacht, Hersch. “The Law of Nations and the Punishment of War Crimes.” The British Year Book of International Law 21, (1944): 58-96.
35. May, Larry. War Crimes and Just War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Rep. 1986 (27 June 1986).
36. Paris, Francesco and Ghei, Nita. “The Role of Reciprocity in International Law.” Cornell International Law Journal 36, No. 1 (2003): 93-123.
37. Parker, Richard A. “Tu Quoque Arguments: A Rhetorical Perspective.” The Journal of the American Forensic Association 20, No. 3 (1984): 123-132.
38. Prosecutor v. Fatmir Limaj, Haradin Bala, Isak Musliu, Judgment, Case No. IT-03-66-T, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Trial Chamber II, (November 30, 2005).
39. Prosecutor v. Kupreškić et al., Decision on Evidence of the Good Character of the Accused and the Defence of Tu Quoque, Case No. IT-95-16-T, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Trial Chamber, (February 17, 1999).
40. Prosecutor v. Kupreškić et al., Trial Judgment, IT-95-16-T, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), (January 14, 2000).
41. Prosecutor v. Milan Martić, Judgment, Case No. IT-95-11-A, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Appeals Chamber, (October 8, 2008).
42. Provost, René. International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
43. Ruffert, Matthias. “Reprisals.” Max Planck Encyclopaedias of International Law (MPIL). Access Date: April 22, 2025, https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/ law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1771.
44. Schabas, William A. Relationships between International Criminal Law and Other Branches of International Law. Pocketbooks of the Hague Academy of International Law. The Hague: Brill/Nijhoff, 2022.
45. Schedler, George. “Does Strict Judicial Scrutiny Involve the Tu Quoque Fallacy?” Law and Philosophy 9, No. 3 (1990): 269-283.
46. Schwebel, Stephen M. “Clean Hands, Principle.” Max Planck Encyclopaedias of International Law (MPIL). Access Date: November 11, 2025, https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/ 10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e18.
47. Schmidt, Ulf. “Preparing for Poison Warfare: The Ethics and Politics of Britain’s Chemical Weapons Program, 1915-1945.” In Bretislav Friedrich et al. (Eds.). One Hundred Years of Chemical Warfare: Research, Deployment, Consequences. Cham: Springer, 2017.
48. Simma, Bruno. “Reciprocity.” Max Planck Encyclopaedias of International Law (MPIL). Access Date: April 22, 2025, https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/ law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1461.
49. Special Agreement (Compromis) between France and Turkey for the Lotus Case, Submitted under Article 40 of the PCIJ Statute, (Signed on October 12, 1926). In Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the Permanent Court of International Justice. New York: United Nations Publications, 2012.
50. The Case of the S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey), Judgment, Permanent Court of International Justice, Series A, No. 10, (September 7, 1927).
51. The Case of the S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey), Discours Prononcé par Mahmout Essat Bey, Permanent Court of International Justice, Series C, No. 13-II, (1927).
52. The Case of the S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey), Separate Opinion of Judge John Bassett Moore, Permanent Court of International Justice, Series A, No. 10, (September 7, 1927).
53. Treaty of Peace with Turkey and Other Instruments (Lausanne), League of Nations Treaty Series Volume XXVIII, (Signed on July 24, 1923).
54. Turkish Penal Code (Law No. 765), Official Gazette No. 320, March 13, 1926, (Adopted on March 1, 1926, Entered into force on July 1, 1926).
55. United States v. Ernst von Weizsäcker et al. (The Ministries Case), U.S. Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, under Control Council Law No. 10, (April 11, 1949). In Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals, Volume IV, Nuremberg (October 1946 - April 1949).
56. Vagias, Michail. The Territorial Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
57. Walton, Douglas. Ad Hominem Arguments. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1998.
58. Walton, Douglas. The Place of Emotion in Argument. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992.
59. Werzijl, J. H. W. The Jurisprudence of the World Court: A Case by Case Commentary (Volume I - The PCIJ 1922-1940). Leiden: A. W. Sijthoff, 1965.
60. Whelan, Arianna. Reciprocity in Public International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023.
61. Woetzel, Robert K. The Nuremberg Trials in International Law. London: Stevens and Sons, 1962.
62. Yee, Sienho. “The Tu Quoque Argument as a Defence to International Crimes, Prosecution and Punishment.” Chinese Journal of International Law 3, No. 1 (2004): 87-134.
63. Zoller, Elizabeth. Peacetime Unilateral Remedies. New York: Transnational Publishers, 1984.