BM, Bosna Soykırımı Ve Küresel Adalet

Abstract

The United Nations has failed to effectively address the international crimes committed  in the Former Yugoslavia during the civil war that broke out in early 1990s. The UN had a difficult test when it failed to both take effective measures to prevent the clashes and prosecute the perpetrators of the war crimes committed in the combat zone. The UN, which has remained passive and inactive during the conflict, paid particular attention to considering political balances rather than the pursuit of justice. To this end, it adopted a reluctant approach towards the International  Criminal Tribunal (ICTY) set up to prosecute the war criminals in Former Yugoslavia. The success stories of this tribunal may be attributable to the indespensable role played by the non-state actors which remained committed to the collection of war crimes evidence from combat sites. Civil society actors also took an aggressive stance during the hearings before the Tribunal, which issued pathbreaking  rulings that gave a new direction to international criminal law. 

Keywords

• Bosnian genocide, UN, Security Council, global justice, civil society organizations

BM, BOSNA SOYKIRIMI VE KÜRESEL ADALET

Öz

Soğuk Savaş’ın sona ermesinden sonra uluslararası siyasi düzenin karşı karşıya kaldığı önemli sınavlardan biri olan Bosna’daki iç savaş ve savaş sırasında işlenen uluslararası suçların kovuşturulması ile ilgili sorunda BM, küresel adaleti sağlama konusunda oldukça başarısız bir sınav vermiştir. Çatışmaların başlamasından itibaren edilgen ve etkisiz bir tutum sergileyen BM, mahkemenin kurulması ve yargılamalar sırasında da bireylerin haklarını koruyucu bir politikadan çok siyasi dengeleri gözeten bir tutum içinde olmuştur. Savaş suçlularını yargılamak için kurulan mahkeme’nin öncü sayılabilecek kararlarında ise BM’nin değil gönüllü çalışan sivil toplum örgütlerinin önemli rolleri söz konusudur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bosna soykırımı, BM, Güvenlik Konseyi, küresel adalet, sivil toplum örgütleri

Kaynakça

1. Akhavan, P. “Beyond Impinity: Can International Criminal Justice Prevent Future Atrocities?” American Journal of International Law 95, No. 1 (2001): 7-31.
2. Aldrich, G. H. “Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.” American Journal of International Law 90, No. 1 (1996): 64-69.
3. Arbour, L. “The International Tribunals for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law in the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.” Mc Gill Law Journal , No. 1 (2000):195-201.
4. Arbour, L. & Neier, A., “History and Future of the International Criminal Tribu- nals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.” American University International Law Review 13, No. 6 (1998):1495-1508.
5. Askin, K. D. “Sexual Violence in Decisions and Indıctments of the Yugoslav and Rwandan Tribunals: Current Status.” American Journal of International Law 93, No. 1 (1999): 97-123.
6. Banks, A. M. Overview of Sexual Violence and International Criminal Law. La- hey: Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice, 2005.Bassiouni, C. Crimes Against
7. Humanity, Historical Evolution and Contemporary Application. Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2011.
8. Bassiouni, C. “From Versailles to Rwanda in Seventy-Five Years: The Need to Establish a Permanent International Criminal Court.” Harvard Human Rights Jo- urnal 40 (1997): 11-62

9. Bassiouni, M. ve Manikas, P., The Law of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. NY: Transnational Publishers, 1996.
10. Bergsmo, M., “International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: Recent Developments.” Human Rights Law Journal 15 (1994): 405-409. Copelon,
11. R. “Gender Crimes as War Crimes: Integrating Crimes Against Women into Inter- national Criminal Law.” McGill Law Journal 46, No. 2 (2000): 217-240. Freeman, M. A. Freeman,
12. M. A. “International Institutions and Gendered Justice.” Journal of International Affairs 52, No. 2 (1999): 513-532.
13. Hagay-Frey, A. Sex and Gender Crimes in the New International Law, Past, Pre- sent, Future. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publisher, 2011.
14. MacPherson, B. F., “Building an International Criminal Court for the 21st Cen- tury.” Connecticut Journal of International Law 13, No. 1 (1998):1-60
15. Meron, T., “War Crimes in Yugoslavia and the Development of International Law.” American Journal of International Law 88, 1 (1994): 78-87.
16. Mettraux, G., “Crimes Against Humanity in the Jurisprudence of the Internati- onal Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda.” Harvard International Law Journal 43, No. 1 (2002): 237-316.
17. Murphy, S. D., “Progress and Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.” American Journal of International Law 93, No. 1 (1999):57-97.Pejic, J., “Accountability for International Crimes: From Conjecture to Reality.” International Review of Red Cross 84, No. 845 (2002):13-33.
18. Schabas, W. A., An Introduction to the International Criminal Court. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Short, J. M., “Sexual Violence as Genocide:
19. The Developing Law of the International Criminal Court.” Michigan Journal of Race & Law 8, No. 3 (2003): 503-526.
20. Smidt, M. L., “The International Criminal Court: An Effective Means of Deterren- ce?” Military Law Review 167, No.1 (2001): 156-240.
21. Taşdemir, F., Uluslararası Nitelikte Olmayan Silahlı Çatışmalar Hukuku. Ankara: Adalet Yayınevi, 2009.
22. Tiefenbrun, S. W., “The Paradox of International Adjudication: Developments in the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the World Court, and the International Criminal Court.” North Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial Regulation 25, No.3 (2000):552-576 Resmi belgeler
23. BM Güvenlik Konseyi Kararı S/RES/713 (1991).
24. BM Güvelik Konseyi Kararı S/RES/764 (1992).
25. BM Güvenlik Konseyi Kararı S/RES/771 (1992).
26. BM Güvenlik Konseyi Kararı S/RES/780 (1992).
27. BM Güvenlik Konseyi Kararı S/RES/808 (1993).
28. BM Güvenlik Konseyi Kararı S/RES/827 (1993).
29. Final Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Co- uncil Resolution 780 (1992).
30. Interim Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992).
31. Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 2 of Security Council Re- solution 808 (1993), U.N. Doc. S/25704 (1993).
32. The Statute of the International Tribunal, annexed to Report of the Secretary-Ge- neral pursuant to paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808 (1993).