1951 tarihli Mültecilerin Hukuki Statüsüne İlişkin Sözleşme çerçevesinde mülteci statüsünün sona ermesine yönelik ölçütlerin incelenmesi ve Türk Hukuku üzerindeki yansımalarının değerlendirilmesi

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 65 Sayı: 2, 393 - 448, 01.06.2016

Neva Övünç Öztürk

https://doi.org/10.1501/Hukfak_0000001816

Cited By: 6

Öz

1951 tarihli Birleşmiş Milletler (BM) Mültecilerin Hukuki Statüsüne İlişkin Cenevre Sözleşmesi (1951 Sözleşmesi/Sözleşme), mülteci statüsünün tanınmasına yönelik şartları belirlediği gibi aynı zamanda statünün sona ermesine yönelik ölçütleri de düzenlemiştir. Bu ölçütler, 6458 sayılı Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu’na (YUKK/Kanun) da aktarılmıştır. Kanun’da sona ermeye yönelik ölçütler sadece mülteci statüsünün değil, diğer uluslararası koruma statüleri olan; şartlı mülteci ve ikincil koruma statülerinin sona ermesinde de etkili olacak şekilde kaleme alınmıştır. Makalede, 1951 Sözleşmesi’nde yer alan ilgili hükümlerin; BM Mülteciler Yüksek Komiserliği (BMMYK), doktrin ve ülke uygulamaları
çerçevesinde yapılan yorumlarının karşılaştırmalı bir eksende
değerlendirilmesi, YUKK’da bulunan ilgili düzenlemelerle karşılaştırılması
ve bu hükümlerin, mülteci statüsü dışındaki diğer uluslararası koruma
statüleri bakımından etki doğurması hususlarının ele alınması amaçlanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Mülteci statüsü, mülteci statüsünün sona ermesi, Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu, uluslararası koruma statüsü, uluslararası koruma statüsünün sona ermesi

Evaluation of the Criteria for the Cessation of Refugee Status within 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Analyis of Their Reflections on Turkish Law

Öz

1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951 Convention) not only designated the criteria for the recognition of refugee status but also regulated the conditions upon which the status would be ceased. These conditions have been transferred to Foreigners and International Protection Act (FIPA) (Act Number 6458). FIPA enabled the cessation clauses to be applicable to conditional refugee status and subsidiary protection status as well as the refugee status. The purpose of this article is firstly to evaluate the interpretations of the cessation clauses of 1951 Convention by comparatively analysing UNHCR’s and doctrine’s recommendations together with the state practices; secondly to compare FIPA’s relevant provisions with the Convention’s; and thirdly to argue the function of the applicability of the Convention provisions to international protection statuses other than refugee status

Anahtar Kelimeler

Refugee status, cessation of refugee status, Foreigners and International Protection Act, international protection status, cessation of international protection status

Kaynakça

• AKKUTAY, A.İ.: Diplomatik Koruma ve İnsan Hakları İlişkisi, Ankara 2013.
• ALLAIN, J.: “The Jus Cogens Nature of Non-Refoulement”, International Journal of Refugee Law, 2001, vol. 13, S. 4, s. 533–558.
• AUST, A.: Modern Treaty Law and Practice, Cambridge 2000.
• AYBAY, R.: “Uluslararası Antlaşmaların Türk Hukukundaki Yeri”, Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, 2007, S. 70, s. 187–213.
• BAYATA CANYAŞ, A.: “Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu Kapsamındaki Geri Gönderme Yasağının Uygulanma Koşullarının AİHM Kararları Çerçevesinde İrdelenmesi, Hacettepe Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2015, vol. 5, S.1, s. 73-90.
• BETTINSON, V.: “Loss and Denial of Refugee Status”, içinde An Introduction to International Refugee Law (eds. Rafiqul Islam ve Jahid Hossain Bhuiyan), Leiden-Boston 2013.
• ÇİÇEKLİ, B.: Uluslararası Hukukta Mülteciler ve Sığınmacılar, Ankara 2009.
• CLARK, T./CRÉPEAU, F.: “Mainstreaming Refugee Rights-The 1951 Refugee Convention and International Human Rights Law”, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 1999, vol. 17, s. 391 389–410.
• 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, s. 23–68.
• DEN HEIJER, M.: “Whose Rights and Which Rights? The Continuing Story of Non-Refoulement under the European Convention on Human Rights”, European Journal of Migration and Law, 2008, vol. 10, s. 277– 314.
• DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS OF AUSTRALIA REFUGEE AND HUMANITARIAN DIVISION (I.M.A. AUSTRALIA): The Cessation Clauses (Article 1C) An Australian Perspective, A Paper Prepared as a Contribution to the UNHCR’s 2002,<http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/refugee/convention 2002/04_cessation.pdf> (E.T.: 10.08.2015). Series, Canberra
• DOĞAN, V.: Türk Vatandaşlık Hukuku, Ankara 2009.
• DUFFY, A.: “Expulsion to Face Torture? Non-refoulement in International Law”, International Journal of Refugee Law, 2008, vol. 20, S. 3, s. 373– 390.
• ECRE: Comments From The European Council on Refugees and Exiles on the European Commission Proposal to Recast the Qualification Directive, work/protection-in-europe/148.html.> (E.T.: 12.08.2015). 2010,
• EKŞİ, N.: Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Hukuku, İstanbul 2015.
• ERTEN, R.: “Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu Hakkında Genel Bir Değerlendirme”, Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2015, C. XIX, S. 1, s. 3-51.
• EXPERT ROUNDTABLE ORGANIZED BY UNHCR: Summary Conclusions: Cessation of Refugee Status, Lisbon 03.05.2001, <http://www.refworld.org/docid/470a33bcd.html> (E.T.: 10.08.2015).
• FITZPATRICK, J.: “End of Protection: Legal Standards for Cessation of Refugee Status and Withdrawal of Temporary Protection”, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 1998-1999, vol. 13, s. 343-381.
• FITZPATRICK, J./BONOAN, R.: “Cessation of Refugee Protection”, içinde Refugee Protection in International Law UNHCR’s Global Consultations on International Protection (eds. Erika Feller, Volker Türk, ve Frances Nicholson), Cambridge 2005, s. 491–544.
• FORTIN, A.: “The Meaning of İProtectionı in the Refugee Definition”, International Journal of Refugee Law, 2001, vol. 12, S. 4, s. 548–576.
• GOODWIN-GILL, G.S.: “Non-Refoulement and the New Asylum Seekers”, Virginia Journal of International Law, 1985-1986, vol. 26, s. 897-918.
• GOODWIN-GILL, G.S./MCADAM, J.: The Refugee in International Law, New York 2011.
• GÖÇMEN, İ.: Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi Işığında Avrupa Birliği ve Türkiye Göç Hukuku, Ankara 2015.
• GRAHL-MADSEN, A.: The Status of Refugees in International Law, Leiden 1966.
• GÜNGÖR, G.: Tâbiiyet Hukuku, Ankara 2015.
• HATHAWAY, J.C.: The Law of Refugee Status, Toronto-Vancouver 1991.
• ———. The Rights of Refugees under International Law, Cambridge 2005.
• HATHAWAY, J.C./FOSTER, M.: The Law of Refugee Status, Cambridge 2014.
• HYNDMAN, P.: “Asylum and Non-Refoulement-Are These Obligations Owed to Refugees Under International Law?”, Philippine Law Journal, 1982, vol. 57, s. 43-77.
• IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD OF CANADA LEGAL SERVICES (IRB CANADA): Interpretation of the Convention Refugee Definition in the Case Law, (Interpretation of Canada, 31.12.2010), cisr.gc.ca/eng/brdcom/references/legjur/Pages/Def2010.aspx.> (E.T.:12.08.2015).
• KALABALIK, H.: İnsan Hakları Hukuku, Ankara 2013.
• KELLER, K.M.: “Comparative and International Law Perspective on the United States (Non) Compliance with Its Duty of Non-Refoulement”, Yale Human Rights & Development Law Journal, 1999, vol. 2, s. 183–
• KNEEBONE, S./O’SULLIVAN, M.: “Article 1C 1951 Convention”, içinde The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol: A Commentary (ed. Andreas Zimmermann), Oxford 2011, s. 481-536.
• 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.
• LINDERFALK, U.: On the Interpretation of Treaties, Dordrecht 2007.
• MCADAM, J.: “Interpretation of 1951 Convention”, içinde The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol: A Commentary (ed. Andreas Zimmermann), Oxford 2011, s. 75-116.
• MCADAM, J.: Complementary Protection in International Refugee Law, Oxford-New York 2007.
• NOMER, E.: Türk Vatandaşlık Hukuku, İstanbul, 2010.
• O’SULLIVAN, M.: “Acting the Part: Can Non-State Entities Provide Protection Under International Refugee Law?”, International Journal of Refugee Law, 2012, vol. 24, S. 1, s. 85–110.
• ÖZKAN, I.: Göç, İltica ve Sığınma Hukuku, Ankara 2013.
• ÖZTÜRK, N.Ö.: Mültecinin Hukukî Statüsünün Belirlenmesi, Ankara 2015.
• PARKER, K./NEYLON, L.B.: “Jus Cogens: Compelling the Law of Human Rights”, Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 1988- 1989, vol. 12, s. 411–464.
• PAZARCI, H.: Uluslararası Hukuk, Ankara 2010.
• PERLUSS, D./HARTMAN, J.F.: “Temporary Refuge: Emergence of a Customary Norm”, Virginia Journal of International Law, 1985-1986, vol. 26, s. 551-626.
• TAKAHASHI, S.: “UNHCR Handbook on Voluntary Repatriation: The Emphasis of Return over Protection”, International Journal of Refugee Law, 1997, vol. 9, s. 593-612.
• TOPAL, A.H.: Uluslararası Hukuk Açısından Diplomatik Sığınma ve Assange Olayı, İstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2014, vol. 1, S. 1, s. 49-74.
• TURHAN, T./TANRIBİLİR, F.B.: Vatandaşlık Hukuku Ders Notları, Ankara 2009.
• UN AD HOC COMMITTEE: Memorandum by the Secretary-General, 3 January <http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae68c280.html> (E.T.: 12.08.2015). 1950, E/AC.32/2,
• UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES (UNHCR): Handbook Voluntary Repatriation: International Protection, Geneva 1996.
• ———. Guidelines On International Protection Application of the Exclusion Clauses: Article 1F of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, <http://www.unhcr.org/3f7d48514.html> (E.T.: 10.08.2015).
• ———. Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, HCR/IP/4/Eng/REV.1 Reedited, Geneva 1992, <http://www.unhcr.org/3d58e13-b4.html> (E.T.: 12.08.2015).
• ———. Note on Burden and Standard of Proof in Refugee Claims, Geneva 1998, <www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/3ae6b3338.pdf.> (E.T.: 10. 08.2015).
• ———. Note on Burden and Standard of Proof in Refugee Claims, Geneva 1998, 12.08.2015). (E.T.:
• ———. Note on Cessation Clauses (EC/47/SC/CRP.30), 30.05.1997, <http://www.unhcr.org/3ae68cf610.html> (E.T.: 10.08.2015).
• ———. The Cessation Clauses: Guidelines on their Application, Geneva
• ———. The Exclusion Clauses: Guidelines on their Application, 02.12.1996, <http://www.refworld.org/ docid/3ae6b31d9f.html> (E.T.: 10.08.2015).
• ———. UNHCR Comments on the European Commission’s Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Minimum Standards for the Qualification and Status of Third Country Nationals or Stateless Persons as Beneficiaries of International Protection and the Content of the Protection Granted, (Comments on Recast Qualification Directive), 12.08.2015); 551, 21
• c503db52.html> 2009, (E.T.:
• ———. UNHCR Recommends Starting The Cessation Process for Refugees pdate&utm_campaign=1fd6d6a38cWLU_11_04_2014&utm_medium= email&utm_term=0_7176f0fc3d-1fd6d6a38c-419648261> 13.08.2015). Croatia (Press Release), 04.04.2014, (E.T.:
• ———. Master Glossary of Terms Rev. 1, Geneva 2006, <http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/42ce7d-444.pdf.> (E.T.: 02.08.2015).
• VRACHNAS, J.: “The Operation and Scope of Article 1C(5) of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees”, Journal of Migration and Refugee Issues, 2005-2006, vol. 1, s. 51-66. Watson, Alan: Roman Law & Comparative Law, Athens, Georgia, 1991.