Yıl 2017, Cilt 5 , Sayı 3, Sayfalar 923 - 945 2017-11-01

Uluslararası Hukukta Devletleri Tanıma ve Tanıma Teorileri
The Recognition of States in International Law and Recognition Theories

Abdullah KIRAN [1]


Gerek uluslararası hukuk ve gerekse uluslararası ilişkilerde tanımlaması en zor ve hatta en karmaşık kavramlardan biri de tanımadır. Uluslararası tanıma, kendi kaderini belirleme yoluyla ortaya çıkmış yeni bir devletin varlığını hukuki olarak kabul etme anlamına gelmektedir. Ancak tanıma meselesinde siyaset, uluslararası hukuk ve iç hukuk gibi alanlar iç içe geçmiş bulunmaktadır. Tanıma eyleminde hukuki ve siyasal unsurlar birlikte göz önünde bulundurulmasına rağmen, devletler daha çok siyasi tercihlerini esas almaktadırlar. Tanıma, belirli bir toprak parçası üzerindeki hak iddialarını da tanımak ve kabul etmeyi içerir. Kuşkusuz bu durum tanıma meselesini ciddi anlamda karmaşık bir hale getirmektedir. Çünkü tanıma sadece bir devlet veya hükümeti tanımakla bitmemekte, o devlet ve hükümetin egemenliğindeki toprakları da kapsamaktadır. Günümüzde tanıma, bir devletin devlet olma koşullarını yerine getirmesinin ötesinde yer alan bazı olguları da içeren bir hal almıştır. Çünkü tanıma, özü itibariyle siyasi bir yargıdır. Ancak bu siyasi yargıya mutlaka hukuki bir elbise giydirilmelidir.

The problem of defining recognition term in international law and as well in international politics is considered as one of the most difficult and complicated topic. When a state gains its independence through a declaration which is based upon self-determination principle, the issue of its recognition comes forward. In International law, to recognize such a state means to accept its legitimate existence. Although the issue of recognition has been seen as a topic of international law, it is not possible to separate it from politics and domestic law. In parallel with that fact, the elements of juristic and politics are needed to be taken into consideration in the act of recognition. However, states usually rely on their political choices on the matter of recognition issue rather than rely on other components. The case of recognition justify the territorial aspirations of newly emerged states and thus the issue of recognition become much more complicated. Because of the fact that the act of recognition doesn’t fulfill simply the recognition of a newly emerged state or government, it includes the endorsement of the land under the sovereignty of the state and government. Today to be recognized by other states is more important than fulfilling the conditions of being statehood for a newly emerged state, because the recognition is a political judgment rather than legal considerations in its essence. Even if it is like that, this political judgment has to have a legal dressing on itself.

  • Albert, M., & Hilkermeier, L. (Eds.). (2004). Observing international relations: Niklas Luhmann and world politics. London: Routledge.
  • Algan, B. (2004). Rethinking ‘third generation’human rights. Ankara Law Review, 1(1), 121-155.
  • Anderson, D. R. C. (1995). The collapse of Yugoslavia: Background and summary. Research Paper No. 14. Department of the Parliamentary Library.
  • Araujo, F. R. (2000). Sovereignty, Human Rights, and Self-Determination: The Meaning of International Law. Fordham International Law Journal, 24(1), 1477-1532.
  • Azarkan, E. (2016). Devletlerin Tanınması ve 1933 Montevideo Sözleşmesi. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 15(4), 1055-1068.
  • Body, J.A. (1977). Digest of United States Practice of International Law.
  • Caplan, R. (2005). Europe and the recognition of new states in Yugoslavia. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Cedeno, V. R. (2003). Unilateral Acts of States. Document A/CN.4/534, 195-211.
  • Crawford, J. (1977). The criteria for statehood in international law. British Yearbook of International Law, 48(1), 93-182.
  • Danilo, T. (1993). Recognition of States: A Comment. European Journal of International Law, 4(1), 66-71.
  • Denza, E. (2011). European Practice on the Recognition of States. European Law Review, 36(3), 321-339
  • Dimitrijević, D. (2006). The new international legal order and new states in the Balkans. Medjunarodni Problemi, 58(3), 272-293.
  • Duursma, J. (1996). Fragmentation and the International Relations of Micro-states: Self-determination and Statehood (Vol. 2). USA: Cambridge University Press.
  • Eastwood Jr, L. S. (1992). Secession: state practice and international law after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, 3, 299-349.
  • Eckert, A. E. (2002). Constructing States: The Role of the International Community in the Creation of New States. Journal of Public and International Affairs, 13, 19-39.
  • European Community: Declaration on Yugoslavia and on the Guidelines on the Recognition of New States. (1992). International Legal Materials, 31(6), 1485-1487. (Erişim: 02.11.2016), http://www.jstor.org/stable/20693758
  • Fromkin, D. (2001). A peace to end all peace: The fall of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of the modern Middle East. Macmillan.
  • Fukuyama, F. (2011). The origins of political order: From prehuman times to the French Revolution. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  • General Assembly, Twenty-third Session, Resolution No:2379 (XXIII), 25 October 1968
  • Gözler, K. (2007). Devletin Genel Teorisi. Bursa: Ekin Kitapevi.
  • Grant, T. D. (1999). The recognition of states: law and practice in debate and evolution. USA: Greenwood Publishing Group.
  • Happold, M. (Ed.). (2013). International law in a multipolar world. New York: Routledge.
  • Higgings, N. (2010). Regulation the Use Force in Wars of National Liberation- The For a New Regime. Leiden-Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishhers.
  • Hillgruber, C. (1998). The admission of new states to the international community. European Journal of International Law, 9(3), 491-509.
  • Jellinek, G. (1900). Allgemeine Staatslehre. Berlin: Häring.
  • Kelsen, H. (1941). Recognition in International Law: Theoretical Observations. The American Journal of International Law, 35(4), 605-617.
  • Ker-Lindsay, J. (2012). The foreign policy of counter secession: preventing the recognition of contested states. UK: Oxford University Press.
  • Kornhauser, S. (2011). Self-Determination, Micro Sovereignty and Human Rights in International Law: A Trinity of Categorical Imperative Norms Through the Creation of the Doctrine of Micro Sovereignty. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2270324
  • Kuzu, E. (2011). Uluslararası Hukuk’ta Tanıma ve Kosova’nın Tanınması Sorunu. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi.
  • Levinson, C. (2016). Libya Rebels Build Parallel State. (Erişim: 02.11.2016), http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703648304576265021509675668
  • Lewis, B. (2002). What went wrong?: Western impact and Middle Eastern response. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Macklem, P. (2008). Indigenous Recognition in International Law: Theoretical Observations. Michigan Journal of International Law, 30(1), 177-210.
  • Macklem, P. (2015). Human rights in international law: three generations or one?. London Review of International Law, 3(1), 61-92.
  • Malanczuk, P.(1997). Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law. New York: Routledge
  • Mills, A. (2014). Rethinking Jurisdiction in International Law. British Yearbook of International Law, 84(1), 187-239.
  • Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933). (Erişim: 02.11.2016), https://www.ilsa.org/jessup/jessup15/Montevideo%20Convention.pdf
  • O'Connell, D. P. (1965), International Law. Stevens & Sons
  • Oppenheim, L. (1905) International Law. Longmans Green & Co.
  • Pazarcı, H. (2010). Uluslararası Hukuk. Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi
  • Radan, P. (2002). The Break Up of Yugoslavia and International Law. London: Routledge.
  • Ryngaert, C., & Sobrie, S. (2011). Recognition of states: International law or realpolitik? The practice of recognition in the wake of Kosovo, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia. Leiden journal of international law, 24(2), 467-490.
  • Shaw, M. N. (2008). International Law. Cambridge University Press.
  • Sloane, R. D. (2002). The Changing Face of Recognition in International Law: A Case Study of Tibet. Emory International Law Review, 16.
  • Sloane, Robert D. (2002), “The changing face of Recognition in International Law: A Case Study of Tibet,” 16 Emory International Law Review 107 (2002)
  • Talmon, S. (1998). Recognation of Governments In International Law, wiht particular reference to governments in exile, Clarendon Press, Oxford
  • Talmon, S. (1998). Recognition of governments in international law: with particular reference to governments in exile. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Talmon, S. (1999). Who is a legitimate government in exile? Towards normative criteria for governmental legitimacy in international law. In: Guy Goodwin-Gill & Stefan Talmon (eds.), The Reality of International Law. EssaysinHonour of Ian Brownlie (OxfordUniversity Press), pp. 499-537.
  • Tinoco Arbitration, (1923) 1 R.I.A.A. 375
  • UN General Assembly (1991), Forty- sixth sessesion, Agenda item 68, A/46/804, 18 December 1991
  • United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, G.A. Res. 61/295, U.N. Doc. AIRES/61295 (Sept. 13, 2007)
  • Von Bernstorff, J. (2012). Georg Jellinek and the Origins of Liberal Constitutionalism in International Law. Goettingen Journal of International Law, 4(3), 659-675.
  • Warbrick, C. (2000). Brownlie's principles of public international law: an assessment. European Journal of International Law, 11(3), 621-636.
  • Wood, M. C. (1997). Participation of former Yugoslav states in the United Nations and in multilateral treaties. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 1, 231-257.
Konular Sosyal
Yayımlanma Tarihi Kasım 2017
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Yazar: Abdullah KIRAN
Ülke: Turkey


Tarihler

Yayımlanma Tarihi : 1 Kasım 2017

Bibtex @araştırma makalesi { anemon322000, journal = {Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi}, issn = {}, eissn = {2149-4622}, address = {}, publisher = {Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi}, year = {2017}, volume = {5}, pages = {923 - 945}, doi = {10.18506/anemon.322000}, title = {Uluslararası Hukukta Devletleri Tanıma ve Tanıma Teorileri}, key = {cite}, author = {KIRAN, Abdullah} }
APA KIRAN, A . (2017). Uluslararası Hukukta Devletleri Tanıma ve Tanıma Teorileri. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi , 5 (3) , 923-945 . DOI: 10.18506/anemon.322000
MLA KIRAN, A . "Uluslararası Hukukta Devletleri Tanıma ve Tanıma Teorileri". Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 5 (2017 ): 923-945 <https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/anemon/issue/30429/322000>
Chicago KIRAN, A . "Uluslararası Hukukta Devletleri Tanıma ve Tanıma Teorileri". Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 5 (2017 ): 923-945
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - Uluslararası Hukukta Devletleri Tanıma ve Tanıma Teorileri AU - Abdullah KIRAN Y1 - 2017 PY - 2017 N1 - doi: 10.18506/anemon.322000 DO - 10.18506/anemon.322000 T2 - Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 923 EP - 945 VL - 5 IS - 3 SN - -2149-4622 M3 - doi: 10.18506/anemon.322000 UR - https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.322000 Y2 - 2017 ER -
EndNote %0 Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi Uluslararası Hukukta Devletleri Tanıma ve Tanıma Teorileri %A Abdullah KIRAN %T Uluslararası Hukukta Devletleri Tanıma ve Tanıma Teorileri %D 2017 %J Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi %P -2149-4622 %V 5 %N 3 %R doi: 10.18506/anemon.322000 %U 10.18506/anemon.322000
ISNAD KIRAN, Abdullah . "Uluslararası Hukukta Devletleri Tanıma ve Tanıma Teorileri". Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 5 / 3 (Kasım 2017): 923-945 . https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.322000
AMA KIRAN A . Uluslararası Hukukta Devletleri Tanıma ve Tanıma Teorileri. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2017; 5(3): 923-945.
Vancouver KIRAN A . Uluslararası Hukukta Devletleri Tanıma ve Tanıma Teorileri. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2017; 5(3): 945-923.