Geçici korumanın uluslararası koruma rejimine uyumu üzerine bir inceleme

Öz

Geçici koruma, bağlayıcılık arz eden uluslararası bir kaynakta tanımlanmamıştır. Bununla birlikte kitlesel akın durumlarında, uygulama ile gelişmiş ve şekillenmiştir. Geçici korumanın şekillenmesinde özellikle 90’lı yıllarda, Eski Yugoslavya ve Kosova krizleri etkili olmuştur. Bu dönemde, geçici korumaya yönelik en belirgin uygulama örnekleri Avrupa’da kendini göstermiştir. Bu dönemdeki uygulamaların ortak noktası, 1951 tarihli Mültecilerin Hukuki Statüsüne İlişkin Sözleşme’nin özellikle Bosna ve Kosova’dan yönelen kitlesel akına uygulanmasından imtina edilmesi olmuştur. Bu dönemde BMMYK da bu esnek ve pragmatik uygulamayı, geri gönderme yasağının etkin şekilde işletilebilmesini güvence altına alabilmek adına desteklemiştir. 90’lardaki geçici koruma uygulamalarının uluslararası koruma rejimi ile uyumsuzluk arz eden birçok özelliği, AB’nin Geçici Koruma Direktifi ile giderilmiştir. Bu makalede, geçici korumanın Avrupa coğrafyasındaki doğuşu ve gelişimi incelenmiş, geçici korumanın uluslararası koruma rejimi ile uyumlu olabilmesi için gereken hususlar ortaya konmuş ve sonrasında Türk hukukundaki geçici koruma uygulaması bu hususlar ekseninde değerlendirilmiştir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Geçici koruma, uluslararası koruma, 1951 Tarihli

An Analysis on the Consistency of Temporary Protection With International Protection Regime

Öz

Temporary protection is not defined in a binding international instrument. It is emerged and developed through state practices. European practice in 90’s significantly affected the development of the concept of temporary protection. A common feature of the state practices in Europe in the 90’s was to avoid the full application of 1951 Convention Relating the Status of Refugees. UNHCR on the other hand, supported this flexible and pragmatic method in order to assure the effective implementation of nonrefoulement principle. Although the past European practice demonstrated some deficiencies in consistency with international protection regime, EU’s Temporary Protection Directive mostly restored these shortcomings. Against this backdrop, this article aims to analyze the grounds for the emergence and development of temporary protection in Europe, set the conditions necessary for temporary protection to be in line with international protection and evaluate Turkish temporary protection practice within this context

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Temporary protection, international protection, 1951

Kaynakça

1. ALBERT, M.: “Governance and Prima Facie Refugee Status Determination: Clarifying The Boundaries of Temporary Protection, Group Determination and Mass-Influx”, Refugee Survey Quarterly, 2010, Vol. 29, S.1, s. 61-91.
2. ALLAIN, J.: “The Jus Cogens Nature of Non-Refoulement”, International Journal of Refugee Law, 2001, vol. 13, S. 4, s. 533-558.
3. ARENAS, N.: “The Concept of Mass Influx of Dixplaced Persons in the European Directive Establishing the Temporary Protection System”, European Journal of Migration and Law, 2005, vol. 7, ss. 435-450.
4. BARUTCISKI, M./SHURKE, A.: “Lessons from the Kosova refugee Crisis: Innovations in Protection and Burden Sharing”, içinde Global Changes in Asylum Regimes (ed. Daniele Joly), Hampshire, NY 2002, ss. 79-104.
5. BATCHELOR, C.A.: “Stateless Persons: Some Gaps in International Protection”, International Journal of Refugee Law, 1995, vol. 7, s. 232– 259.
6. BAYRAKTAROĞLU ÖZÇELİK, G.: “Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu Hükümleri Uyarınca Yabancıların Türkiye’den Sınır Dışı Edilmesi”, TBB Dergisi, 2013, S. 108, Ss. 211-258.
7. BHUIYAN, J.H.: “Refugee Status Determination: Analysis and Application”, içinde An Introduction to International Refugee Law (eds. Islam, R./Bhuiyan, J.H.) Leiden The Netherlands 2013, s. 37-72.
8. Bkz. UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY: Note on International Protection, (A/AC.96/830), (E.T.: 12.01.2017). 07.09.1994, paras. 26-29,

9. BOED, R.: “The State of the Right of Asylum in International Law”, Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, 1994-1995, vol. 5, ss.1
10. COLEMAN, N.: “Non-Refoulement Revised - Renewed Review of the Status of the Principle of Non-Refoulement as Customary International Law”, European Journal of Migration and Law, 2003, vol. 5, ss. 23-68.
11. COLES, G.J.L.: “Temporary Refuge and the Large Scale Influx of Refugees”, Australian Year Book of International Law, 1978-1980, vol. 8, ss. 191-194.
12. ÇÖRTOĞLU, S./KAVŞAT, F.C.: “Geçici Koruma Yönetmeliği Uyarınca Geçici Koruma Kararının Kapsamı, Alınması ve Sona Ermesi”, Başkent Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2015, vol.1, S.1, ss. 329-366;
13. DUFFY, A.: “Expulsion to Face Torture? Non-refoulement in International Law”, International Journal of Refugee Law, 2008, vol. 20, S. 3, ss.
14. DURIEUX, J-F.: “Temporary Protection: Hovering at the Edges of Refugee Law”, içinde Netherlands Yearbook of International Law (eds. Ambrus, M./Wessel, R.A.) 2014, ss. 221-253.
15. EDWARDS, A.: “Temporary Protection, Derogation and the 1951 Refugee Convention”, Melbourne Journal of International Law, 2012, vol. 13, S. 1, s. 595-635.
16. EKŞİ, N.: “Geçici Koruma Yönetmeliği Uyarınca Geçici Korumanın Şartları, Geçici Koruma Usulü, Sağlanan Haklar ve Geçici Korumanın Sona Ermesi”, İstanbul Barosu Dergisi, 2014, vol. 88, S. 6, ss. 65-89.
17. ELÇİN, D.: “Türkiye’de Bulunan Suriyelilere Uygulanan Geçici Koruma Statüsü 2011/55 Sayılı Avrupa Konseyi Yönergesi ile Geçici Koruma Yönetmeliği Arasındaki Benzerlik ve Farklılıklar”, TBB Dergisi, 2016, S. 124, ss. 9-80;
18. EUROPEAN COUNCIL ON REFUGEES AND EXILES (ECRE): Position on Sharing the Responsibility: Protecting Refugees and Displaced Persons in the Context of Large Scale Arrivals, March 1996, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/403a40744.html (21.08.2015);.
19. FARMER, A.: “Non-Refoulement and Jus Cogens: Limiting Anti-Terror Measures (E.T.: 12.12.2017). Threaten Refugee Protection”, 2008,
20. FITZPATRICK, J.: “Flight From Asylum: Trends Toward Temporary “Refuge” and Local Responses to Forced Migrations, Virginia Journal of International Law, 1994, vol. 35, S.3, ss.1-70
21. FORTIN, A.: “The Meaning of İProtectionı in the Refugee Definition”, International Journal of Refugee Law, 2001, vol. 12, S. 4, ss. 548-576.
22. FRANZ, B.: Uprooted and Unwanted: Bosnian Refugees in Austria and the United States, College Station 2005.
23. GOODWIN-GILL, G.S.: “Non-Refoulement and the New Asylum Seekers”, (Non-Refoulement), Virginia Journal of International Law, 1985-1986, vol. 26, ss. 897-918.
24. GOODWIN-GILL, G.S.: “The International Law of Refugee Protection”, içinde The Oxford Handbook of Refugee and Forced Migration Studies (eds. Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, E., et. al), Oxford 2014.
25. GOODWIN-GILL, G.S.: Art. 31 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees: Non-Penaliation, Detention and Protection, (Art. 31), A Paper Prepared at the Request of the Department of Internaitonal Protection (E.T.: 10.01.2017). UNHCR Global
26. Consultations, 2001,
27. GORLICK, B.: “The Convention and the Committee Against Torture: A Complementary Protection Regime for Refugees, International Journal of Refugee Law, 1999, vol. 11, S.3, ss. 479-495.
28. GÖRENDAĞ, V.: 676 Sayılı KHK ile Mülteci Hukukunun Temel İlkeleri Askıya multeci-hukukunun-temel-ilkeleri-askiya-aliniyor> (E.T.: 12.01.2017).
29. HARVEY, C.: Seeking Asylum in the UK Problems and Prospects, Hampshire 2000..
30. HATHAWAY, J.C./FOSTER, M.:The Law of Refugee Status, Cambridge 2014.
31. HATHAWAY, J.C.: The Rights of Refugees under International Law, Cambridge 2005.
32. HYNDMAN, P.: “Asylum and Non-Refoulement-Are These Obligations Owed to Refugees Under International Law?”, Philippine Law Journal, 1982, vol. 57, ss. 43-77.
33. İÇDUYGU, A./AKSEL, D.B.: “Turkish Migration Policies, A Critical Historical Retrospective”, Perceptions, 2013, vol. XVIII, S.3, ss. 167
34. İÇDUYGU, A./ERDER, S./GENÇKAYA, Ö.F.: Türkiye’nin Uluslararası Göç Politikaları, 1923-2023: Ulus-devlet Oluşumundan Ulus-Ötesi Dönüşümlere MireKoç Proje Raporları 1/2014, İstanbul 2014.
35. JACOBSEN, K.: “Factors Influencing the Policy Responses of Host Governments to Mass Refugee Influxes”, International Migration Review, Autumn 1996, vol. 30, S. 3, ss. 655-678.
36. JOLY, D.: “Temporary Protection and the Bosnian Crisis: A Cornerstone of the New European Regime”, içinde Global Changes in Asylum Regimes (ed. Daniele Joly) Hampshire, NY 2002, ss. 48-78.
37. KÄLIN, W.: “Flight in times of war”, Revue Internationale de la Croix- Rouge/International Review of the Red Cross, 2001, vol. 83, S. 843, ss.
38. KERBER, K.: “The Temporary Protection Directive”, European Journal of Migration and Law, 2002, vol. 4, ss. 193-214.
39. KİRİŞÇİ, K.: Misafirliğin Ötesine Geçerken: Türkiye’nin “Suriyeli Mülteciler” Sınavı, Uluslararası Stratejik Araştırmalar Kurumu & Brooking S Enstitüsü, Ankara 2014.
40. KJAERUM, M.: “Temporary Protection in Europe in the 1990s”, International Journal of Refugee Law, 1994, vol. 6, ss. 444-456.
41. LAUTERPACHT, E./ BETHLEHEM, D.: “The Scope and Content of the Principle of Non-Refoulement: Opinion” İçinde Refugee Protection in International Law UNHCR’s Global Consultations on International Protection (eds. Erica Feller, Volker Türk, ve Frances Nicholson), Cambridge 2005, s. 87–179.
42. LAVENEX, S.: The Europeanisation of Refugee Policies Between human rights and internal security, Hampshire 2002.
43. MANDAL, R.: Protection Mechanisms Outside of the 1951 Convention (“Complementary Protection”), Legal and Protection Policy Research Series 12.01.2017). (E.T.:
44. MANSOURI, F./LEACH, M./NETHERY, A.: “Temporary Protection and the refugee Convention in Australia, Denmark and Germany”, Refuge: Canada’s periodical on refugees, 2010, vol. 26, S. 1, ss. 135-147.
45. MCADAM, J.: Complementary Protection and Beyond: How States Deal with Human Rights Protection, Sydney Law School Legal Studies Research (E.T.: 15.01.2017). Paper 2006,
46. MCADAM, J.: Complementary Protection in International Refugee Law, (Complementary Protection), Oxford 2007.
47. MORGENSTERN, F.: “The Right of Asylum”, (Right of Asylum), British Yearbook of International Law, 1949, vol. 26, ss. 327-357.
48. MÜLTECİ-DER: Mültecilerin Türkiye’deki Durumlarına Dair Gözlemler, 2016, content/uploads/2016/10/MULTECILERIN-TURKIYE-DEKI- DURUMLARINA-DAIR-GOZLEMLER-NISAN-2016.pdf> 10.01.2017). (E.T.:
49. NOLL, G.: ”Risky Games? A Theoretical Approach to Burden-Sharing in the Asylum Field”, Journal of Refugee Studies, 2003, C. 16, S. 3, ss. 236-252.
50. NOLL, G.: Negotiating Asylum, The Eu Acquis, Extraterritorial Protection and the Common Market of Deflection, The Hague 2000.
51. ÖZTÜRK, N.Ö.: “Avrupa Birliği Temel Haklar Şartı’nda Yer Alan Sığınma Hakkının Tahlili”, İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2012, vol. 3, S.2, ss. 187-229.
52. ÖZTÜRK, N.Ö.: Mültecinin Hukukî Statüsünün Belirlenmesi, Ankara 2015.
53. PARKER, K./NEYLON, L.B.: “Jus Cogens: Compelling the Law of Human Rights”, Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 1988-1989, vol. 12, ss. 411-464.
54. PERLUSS, D./HARTMAN, J.F.: “Temporary Refuge: Emergence of Customary Norm”, Virginia Journal of International Law, 1986, vol. 26, S.3, ss. 551-626.
55. RUTINWA, B.: Prima Facie Status and Refugee Protection, UNHCR New Issues in Refugee Research Working Paper No. 69, Geneva 2002.
56. SOPF, D.: “Temporary Protection in Europe After 1990: The ‘Right to Remain’ of Genuine Convention Refugees, Journal of Law&Policy, 2001, vol. 6, ss. 109-156;
57. SUHRKE, A.: “Burden-Sharing During Refugee Emergencies: The Logic of Collective versus National Action”, Journal of Refugee Studies, 1998, C. 11, S. 4, ss. 399-403;
58. TALLY, K. A./YONATAN, B.: “Responsibility Sharing and the Rights of Refugees: The Case of Israel”, George Washington International Law Review, 2009, C. 41, S.3, ss. 619-649.
59. TESSENYI, G.: “Massive Refugee Flows and Europe’s Temporary Protection”, içinde EU Immigration and Asylum Law: Text and Commentary (eds. Peers, S./Rogers, N.), Leiden 2006, ss. 487-504;
60. THIELEMAN, E. R.: Burden Sharing: The International Politics of Refugee Protection, The Centre for Comparative Immigration Studies Working Paper, No. 134, San Diego 2006 (Paper prepared for the Conference “Immigration Policy after 9/11: US and European Perspectives”, University of Texas Austin, 2-3 March 2006); ULUSLARARASI AF ÖRGÜTÜ, toplu-sekilde-yasadisi-geri-gonderilmeleri-ab-turkiye-anlasmasindaki- olumcul-kusurlari-aciga-cikariyor> (E.T.: 10.01.2017);
61. ULUSLARARASI AF ÖRGÜTÜ: Güvenli Olmayan Sığınak, Türkiye’de Sığınmacılar ve Mülteciler Etkili Korumaya Erişemiyor, 2016, 10.01.2017); (E.T.:
62. UNHCR: Report of the International Meeting on Humanitarian Aid to Victims of the Conflict in the Former Yugoslavia, 10.08.1992, HCR/IMFY/1992/4, (E.T.: 10.01.2017).
63. UNHCR: “Summary Conclusions on Temporary Protection” (Summary Conclusions), UNHCR Roundtable on Temporary Protection International Institution of Humanitarian Law, International Journal of Refugee Law, 2013, vol. 25, S. 1, ss. 178-179.
64. UNHCR: Global Consultations on International Protection/Third Track: Reception of Asylum-Seekers, Including Standards of Treatment, in the Context of Individual Asylum Systems, 4 September 2001, EC/GC/01/17 (UNHCR Global Consultations: Reception of Asylum- Seekers), (E.T.: 12.01.2017).
65. UNHCR: Global Consultations on International Protection: Summary Conclusions on Article 31 of the 1951 Convention – Revised, Geneva Expert Roundtable 8-9 November 2001 (UNHCR Global Consultations Summary Conclusions: Article 31 of the 1951 Convention), (E.T.: 12.01.2017); UNHCR: Global Report 1999 Kosovo Emergency, (E.T.: 25.01.2017);
66. UNHCR: Guidelines on Temporary Protection and Stay Arrangements, (Guidelines), 10.01.2017). (E.T.:
67. UNHCR: Roundtable on Temporary Protection 19-20 July 2012, Discussion Paper, temporary-protection-roundtable-temporary-protection.html> 10.01.2017). (Roundtable), (E.T.: UNHCR: Syria Regional Refugee Response, 2017 (E.T.: 05.02.2017).
68. UNHCR: Updated UNHCR Guidelines for the Humanitarian Evacuation Programme of Kosovar Refugees in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, (E.T.: 21.01.2017). 11.05.1999,
69. UZUN, E.: “Geri Göndermeme (Non-Refoulement) İlkesinin Uluslararası Hukuktaki Konumu Üzerine bir Değerlendirme”, Uluslararası Hukuk ve Politika, 2012, vol. 8, S.30, ss.25-58.
70. WILLIAMS, G.L.: “The Correlation of Allegiance and Protection”, The Cambridge Law Journal, 1948, vol. 10, S. 1, ss. 54-76.
71. YILMAZ, S.: Kitlesel Akın (Sığınma) Durumunda Geçici Koruma Rejimi ve Asgari Muamele Standardı, Ankara 2016.
72. YILMAZOĞLU, E.C.: “Yabancıların Sınır Dışı Edilmesinin Anayasa Mahkemesinde Yargısal Denetimi”, Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi Dergisi, 2015, S. 5, ss. 905-926.
73. YOUNG, K.: “UNHCR and ICRC in the former Yugoslavia: Bosnia- Herzegovina”, Revue Internationale de la Croix-Rouge/International Review of Red Cross, September 2001, vol. 83, S. 843, ss. 781-805.