Teorik Perspektiften Jus Cogens Sorunu

Öz

Jus cogens kavramıyla birlikte uluslararası hukukta yeni ve bağımsız bir kaynak ortaya çıkmıştır. Jus cogens normlar geçerliliklerini Viyana Antlaşmalar Hukuku Sözleşmesi'nin 53. maddesinde yansımasını bulan bir uluslararası örf ve âdet hukuku normuna borçludur. Bu maddenin detaylı analizi, jus cogens normların hiyerarşik olarak uluslararası örf ve âdet hukuku ile uluslararası antlaşmalar arasında yer aldığını göstermektedir. Jus cogens normlar hiyerarşik olarak uluslararası örf ve âdet hukukunun altında yer alsa da, uluslararası teamül kuralları önünde bir uygulama önceliğine sahiptirler. Jus cogens kavramı pek çok şeklî ve maddî belirsizliklerden mustariptir. Ancak, hangi yükümlülüklerin jus cogens teşkil ettiğini belirlemekteki güçlük temel olarak 53. madde tarafından öngörülen jus cogens kaynaklanmaktadır. Madde jus cogens normları için şeklî kriterlerden oluşan bir tanılama testi sağladığı için, prosedürel ve şeklî gereklilikler aydınlatıldığında, bu kriterlere uyan bütün normların içeriklerinden bağımsız olarak jus cogens olduğunu kabul etmek gerekecektir

THE PROBLEM OF JUS COGENS FROM A THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE

Öz

With the concept of jus cogens a new and independent source of international law is introduced. Jus cogens norms owe their validity to a norm of c ustomary international law which is reflected by Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The detailed analysis of this article reveals that jus cogens norms are hierarchically located between customary international law and international treaties. Although jus cogens norms are hierarchically inferior to customary international law, a primacy of application is granted to jus cogens norms over any customary rule. The concept of jus cogens is afflicted with many formal and material ambiguities. However, the difficulty of determining which obligations constitute jus cogens mainly stems from the fact that the procedure envisaged by Article 53 for the creation of jus cogens norms is ambiguous. Since the article provides an identification test for jus cogens norms solely on formal basis, once these procedural and formal requirements are enlightened it needs to be conceded that any norm fulfilling these criteria, regardless of its content, is jus cogens as no material requirement in relation to jus cogens norms exists

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Jus cogens, hierarchy of norms in international law, primacy of application, customary international law

Kaynakça

1. Anrade, Gustavo Fernandes de (2001), "Comparative Constitutional Law: Judicial Review", Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 977- 989.
2. Aust, Anthony (2010), Handbook of International Law¸ 2nd Edition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
3. Austin, John (2001), The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (ed. Wilfrid E. Rumble), 2nd Edition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
4. Barnett, Hilaire (2002), Constitutional and Administrative Law, 4th Edition, London, Cavendish.
5. Bassiouni, M. Cherif (1996), "International Crimes: 'Jus Cogens' and 'Obligatio Erga Omnes'", Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 59, No. 4, pp. 63-74.
6. Cassese, Antonio (2005), International Law, 2nd Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
7. Christenson, Gordon A. (1987), "The World Court and Jus Cogens", The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 81, No. 1, pp. 93-101.
8. Crawford, James (2012), Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law, 8th Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

9. Currie, John H. (2008), Public International Law, 4th Edition, Toronto, Irwin Law.
10. Czapliński, Wladyslav (2006), "Ius Cogens and the Law of Treaties", in The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order: Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes (eds. Christian Tomuschat and Jean-Marc Thouvenin), Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 83-98.
11. D'Amato, Anthony (1962), "Treaties As a Source of General Rules of International Law", Northwestern University School of Law Faculty Working Papers, http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/facultyworkingpapers/1 20, Date of Access: 22 August 2016. No. 120,
12. Danilenko, Gennady M. (1991), "International Jus Cogens: Issues of Law- Making", European Journal of International Law, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 42- 65.
13. Denk, Erdem (2001), "Uluslararası Antlaşmalar Hukukunda Jus Cogens Kurallar", Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol. 56, No. 2, pp. 44-70.
14. Dixon, Martin (2013), Textbook on International Law, 7th Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
15. Elias, Olufemi (1991), "Some Remarks on the Persistent Objector Rule in Customary International Law", The Denning Law Journal, Vol. 6, pp. 37- 51.
16. Fuller, Lon L. (1958), "Positivism and Fidelity to Law: A Reply to Professor Hart", Harvard Law Review, Vol. 71, No. 4, pp. 630-672.
17. Gardiner, Richard K. (2003), International Law, Essex, Pearson.
18. Goldsmith, Jack L. and Posner, Eric A., "A Theory of Customary International Law", Chicago University John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper No. 63, http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/63.Goldsmith- Posner.pdf, Date of Access: 18 August 2016.
19. Gözler, Kemal (2011), Anayasa Hukukunun Genel Teorisi, Vol. I, Bursa, Ekin.
20. Gözler, Kemal (2013b), Hukuka Giriş, 10th Edition, Bursa, Ekin.
21. Gözler, Kemal (2009), İdare Hukuku, 2.b., Cilt: 1, Bursa, Ekin.
22. Gözler, Kemal (2013a), "Yorum İlkeleri", in Kamu Hukukçuları Platformu: Anayasa Hukukunda Yorum ve Norm Somutlaştırması (ed. Ozan Ergül), Ankara, Türkiye Barolar Birliği Yayınları.
23. Gülgeç, Yahya Berkol (2016), Normlar Hiyerarşisi: Türk, Alman ve İngiliz Hukuk Sistemlerinde Kural İşlemlerin ve Mahkeme Kararlarının Hiyerarşik Gücü, İstanbul, On İki Levha.
24. Haase, Marco (2004), Grundnorm - Gemeinwille - Geist, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck.
25. Hart, H.L.A. (2012), The Concept of Law, 3rd Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
26. Heckmann, Dirk (1997), Geltungskraft und Geltungsverlust von Rechtsnormen, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck.
27. Hillier, Tim (1998), Sourcebook on Public International Law, London, Cavendish.
28. Kaczorowska, Alina (2010), Public International Law, 4th Edition, New York, Routledge.
29. Kadelbach, Stefan (2006), "Jus Cogens, Obligations Erga Omnes and other Rules - The Identification of Fundamental Rules", in The Funamental Rules of the International Legal Order: Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes (eds. Christian Tomuschat and Jean-Marc Thouvenin), Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 21-40.
30. Karakaş, Işıl (2007), "The Continuous Problematic Concept of International Law: Jus Cogens Via Human Rights", Erdoğan Teziç'e Armağan¸ İstanbul, Galatasaray Üniversitesi Yayınları, pp. 59-71.
31. Kelsen, Hans (1973), Essays in Legal and Moral Philosophy, Dordrecht, Reidel Publishing Company.
32. Kelsen, Hans (1949), General Theory of Law and State (trns. Anders Wedberg), 3rd Edition, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
33. Kelsen, Hans (2008), Pure Theory of Law (trns. Max Knight), 5th Edition, New Jersey, The Law Book Exchange.
34. Kommers, Donald P., Finn, John E. and Jacobsohn, Gary J. (2010), American Constitutional Law: Essays, Cases and Comparative Notes, 3rd Edition, Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield.
35. Lau, Holning (2005), "Rethinking the Persistent Objector Doctrine in International Human Rights Law", Chicago Journal of International Law, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 495-510.
36. Linderfalk, Ulf (2008), "The Effect of Jus Cogens Norms: Whoever opened Pandora's Box, Did You Ever Think About the Consequences?", The European Journal of International Law, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 853-871.
37. Lowe, Vaughan (2011), International Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
38. Mangır, Demet Şefika (2011), Uluslararası Andlaşmalar Hukukunda Jus Cogens (Buyruk) Kurallar, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Enver Bozkurt, Kırıkkale University Central Library, Ref. No. KZ 3092 M36 2015 k.1.
39. Oppenheim, Lassa Francis Lawrence (1905), International Law: A Treatise, Vol. I, London, Longmans.
40. Ossenbühl, Fritz (2007), "Gesetz und Recht: Die Rechtsquellen im demokratischen Rechtsstaat", Handbuch des Staatsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (eds. Josef Isensee and Paul Kirchhof), 3rd Edition, Vol: 5, Heidelberg, C.F. Müller.
41. Raz, Joseph (1997), The Concept of a Legal System, 2nd Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
42. Rozakis, Christos L. (1976), The Concept of Jus Cogens in the Law of Treaties¸ Amsterdam, North-Holland.
43. Schmahl, Stefanie (2006), "An Example of Jus Cogens: The Status of Prisoners of War", in The Funamental Rules of the International Legal Order: Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes (eds. Christian Tomuschat and Jean-Marc Thouvenin), Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 41- 68.
44. Schwelb, Egon (1967), "Some Aspects of International Jus Cogens as Formulated by the International Law Commission", The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 61, No. 4, pp. 946-975.
45. Shaw, Malcolm N. (2008), International Law, 6th Edition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
46. Stein, Ted L. (1985), "The Approach of the Different Drummer the Principle of the Persistent Objector in International Law", Harvard Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 457-482.
47. Stott, David and Felix, Alexandra (1997), Principles of Administrative Law, London, Cavendish.
48. Teziç, Erdoğan (2014), Anayasa Hukuku, 14th Edition, İstanbul, Beta.
49. Tunkin, Grigory (1993), "Is General International Law Customary Law Only?", European Journal of International Law, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 534- 541.
50. Vattel, Emer de (2008), Law of Nations (eds. Béla Kapossy and Richard Whatmore), Indianapolis, Liberty Fund.
51. Yarwood, Lisa (2011), State Accountability under International Law: Holding states accountable for a breach of jus cogens norms, New York, Routledge.
52. Wallace, Rebecca M. M. (2002), International Law, 4th Edition, London, Sweet & Maxwell.