MÜLTECI HUKUKUNDA “DAHİLİ KORUMA ALTERNATİFİ”

Öz

Günümüzde mülteci hukukunun en yoğun tartışılan konularından biri de 1951 tarihli Mültecilerin Hukuki Durumuna Dair Cenevre Sözleşmesi’ndeki mülteci tanımıdır. Doktrinde ve pratikte bu tanımın artık günümüz ihtiyaçları için yeterli olmadığı ve aynı zamanda taraf ülkelerce muğlak ifadelerin ve boşlukların farklı yorumlanarak sözleşmenin amacına da hizmet etmediği vurgulanmaktadır. Bu farklı uygulamaların başında gelen internal protection alternative (IPA) (İç Koruma, Dahili Koruma Alternatifi) limitidir. 1970’lerin sonlarına doğru uygulanmaya başlanmış olan dahili koruma alternatifi limiti, iltica talebinde bulunan kişinin menşe ülkesinin başka bir bölümünde devlet korumasından yararlanması söz konusu ise iltica başvurusunun reddedilmesine sebep olmaktadır. Ancak, dahili koruma alternatifinin hangi hallerde ve nasıl uygulanacağı Sözleşme’de açıkca belirtilmemiştir. Bundan dolayı da ülkeler bu durumu kendi çıkarları doğrultusunda yorumlayabilmektedir. Buna gerekçe olarakta uluslararası korumanın ikame koruma olmasını göstermektedirler. Ancak, dahili koruma alternatifinin mültecilik statüsü verilmesinde limit olarak kullanılması bazı durumlarda dolaylı geri gönderme olarakta nitelendirilebilmektedir. Bu nedenle mültecilik talebini reddeden ülkelerin bu tavrı ne 1951 Cenevre Sözleşmesi’nin özüne ve ruhuna ne de insan haklarına uygun bir yaklaşım olarak kabul edilebilir. Bu çalışmada Cenevre Sözleşmesi çerçevesinde dahili koruma alternatifinin içeriği açıklanıp, sözleşmeye üye devletlerin mültecilik statüsü verirken dahili koruma alternatifini nasıl uyguladıkları incelenecektir. Ardından dahili koruma alternatifinin Cenevre Sözleşmesi ve Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi çerçevesinde uygulanabilirliği tartışılacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dahili koruma alternatifi
• mülteci
• Cenevre Sözleşmesi
• geri göndermeme
• insan hakları

“INTERNAL PROTECTION ALTERNATIVE” IN REFUGEE LAW

Öz

The 1951 Geneva Convention Concerning the Legal Status of Refugees’ definition of a refugee is one of the most hotly contested topics in refugee law today. It is underlined that this definition is insufficient to meet the needs of modern doctrine and practice, and that gaps and ambiguous language are not serving the intended goal of the convention because they are understood differently by the contracting states. The IPA limit is the primary use among these several types. If the applicant for asylum receives state protection in a different region of their country of origin, their asylum application will be denied due to the IPA restriction, which was implemented in the late 1970s. On the other hand, in certain situations, providing refugee status up to the IPA might also be referred to as indirect refoulement. As a result, states that reject refugee requests cannot be said to be acting in a way that upholds human rights or the letter and spirit of the 1951 Geneva Convention. The purpose of this study is to evaluate how member states of the Geneva treaty utilise the IPA when granting refugee status, as well as to clarify the IPA’s contents within the framework of the treaty. Next, it will be considered whether the Internal Protection Alternative is applicable under the Geneva Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• IPA
• refugee
• Geneva Convention
• non-refoulement
• human rights

Kaynakça

1. Article 27 Republic of Croatia, Act on International and Temporary Protection. Official Gazette, No 70/15.
2. BUHEJI ET AL., Mohamed: Alleviation of Refugees COVID-19 Pandemic Risks-A Framework for Uncertainty Mitigation, International Business Research, Cilt:13, Sayı:7, Yıl:2020, s. 69-79.
3. BverfG 2 BvR 403/84, BvR 1501/84 [1989] (German Federal Constitutional Court).
4. Canada (Attorney General) v Ward [1993] 2 SCR 689, 709 (Supreme Court of Canada).
5. CARLIER, Jean-Yves and others (eds): Who is a Refugee? A Comparative Case Law Study, Kluwer Law International, NYC-London 1997.
6. CARLIER, Jean-Yves: Droit d’asile et des réfugiés, Brill Nijhoff, Boston 2008, s. 140.
7. CLAYTON, Gina: Even If... The Use of the IPA in Asylum Decisions in the UK’ (Asylum Aid, 1 July 2014) erişim tarihi 3 Şubat 2024.
8. Council Decisions (EU) 2015/1523 of 14 September 2015 and 2015/1601 of 22 September 2015

9. Council of the European Union, Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004
10. CRAWLEY, Heaven: The Politics of Refugee Protection in a (Post)COVID-19 World, Social Sciences, Cilt: 10, Sayı: 3, Yıl: 2021.
11. DRC65MNSNO [2012] (Inter-Ministerial Eligibility Commission of Spain). ECRE, ‘Actors of Protection and the Application of the Internal Protection Alternative: National Report Spain’ (2014) 12.
12. Executive Committee of the High Commissioner’s Programme, Note on International Protection, International Journal of Refugee Law, Volume 34, Issue 1, March 2022, s. 93–113.
13. GILBERT, Geoff: Is Europe living up to its obligations to refugees?, Eur. J. Int. Law, Cilt: 15, Sayı:5 , Yıl:2004, s.963-987.
14. HATHAWAY, James C., and FOSTER, Michelle: Internal protection/relocation/flight alternative as an aspect of refugee status determination in FELLER, E. et al (eds), In Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR’s Global Consultations on International Protection, CUP, Cambridge 2003.
15. HATHAWAY, James C.: International Refugee Law: The Michigan Guidelines on the Internal Protection Alternative, Mich J Intl L, Cilt:21, Sayı:1, Yıl:1999, s. 131–133.
16. HATHAWAY, James ve FOSTER, Michelle: Law of Refugee Status, CUP, Cambridge 2014.
17. HONKALA, Nora: ‘A Feminist Human Rights Perspective on the Use of Internal Relocation by Asylum Adjudicators’ in GREEN, James ve WATERS, Christopher (eds), Adjudicating International Human Rights: Essays in Honour of Sandy Ghandi, Brill Nijhoff, Boston 2015.
18. https://lexparency.org/eu/32011L0095/ART_8 erişim tarihi 5 Ocak 2024.
19. https://www.unhcr.org/tr/35627-forced-displacement-hit-record-high-in-2021-with-too-few-able-to-go-home erişim tarihi 28 Nisan 2024.
20. https://www.who.int/news/item/21-11-2022-who-to-identify-pathogens-that-could-cause-future-outbreaks-and-pandemics erişim tarihi 22 Şubat 2024.
21. IVO, Niks Matthijs: The importance of human rights protection in the internal protection alternative inquiry, (Yüksek Lisans Tezi, The American University in Kahire 2020).
22. Januzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 5, [2006] 2 AC 426, para 7.
23. KARACA, Eren: Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi Bağlamında Geri Gönderme Yasağı, Lexpera Blog, 02/09/2022, < https://blog.lexpera.com.tr/avrupa-insan-haklari-sozlesmesi-baglaminda-geri-gonderme yasagi/#:~:text=A%C4%B0HS%20Ba%C4%9Flam%C4%B1nda%20Geri%20G%C3%B6nderme%20Yasa%C4%9F%C4%B1,3.maddesi%20kapsam%C4%B1nda%20de%C4%9Ferlendirilmeye%20ba%C5%9Flanm%C4%B1%C5%9Ft%C4%B1r> erişim tarihi: 25 Ocak 2024.
24. KINCHIN, Niamh ve MOUGOUEI, Davoud: What Can Artificial Intelligence Do for Refugee Status Determination? A Proposal for Removing Subjective Fear, Int. J. Refug. Law, Cilt:34, Sayı:3-4, Yıl:2022, s. 373-397.
25. KJELLBERG STJERNSTRÖM, Ida: Assessing security and IPA in Afghanistan: A comparative case study on the assessment of security and internal protection alternative in Sweden and Norway, (Master thesis, Uppsala University 2020).
26. LIBAL ET AL., Kathryn: Human Rights of Forced Migrants During the COVID‑19 Pandemic: An Opportunity for Mobilization and Solidarity, Journal of Human Rights and Social Work, Cilt:6, Sayı: 1, Yıl: 2021, s. 148-160.
27. Matter of R – [1992] 20 I&N Dec 621 Interim Decision 3195 (US Board of Immigration Appeals), citing Matter of A costa [1985] 19 I&N Dec 211, Interim Decision 2986 (US Board of Immigration Appeals).
28. NÍ GHRÁINNE, Bríd: Safe zones and the internal protection alternative, International & Comparative Law Quarterly, Cilt:69, Sayı:2, Yıl:2020, s. 335-364.
29. NÍ GHRÁINNE, Bríd: The Internal Protection Alternative in Costello, Foster, and McAdam, The Oxford Handbook of International Refugee Law, OUP, Oxford 2020.
30. NÍ GHRÁİNNE, Bríd: The Internal Protection Alternative Inquiry and Human Rights Considerations–Irrelevant or Indispensable?, Int. J. Refug. Law, Cilt:27, Sayı:1 , Yıl: 2015, s. 29-51.
31. Norwegian Directorate of Immigration (UDI). (2014). UDI 2014-004 Asylpraksis Afghanistan.
32. R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Jonah [1985] Imm AR (English High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division.
33. SCHULTZ, Jessica: The Internal Protection Alternative in Refugee Law: Treaty Basis and Scope of Application Under The 1951 Convention Relating to The Status of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol, 1. Baskı, Brill, Boston 2018.
34. Sığınma, sınırlar ve göç ile ilgili Avrupa hukuku el (2014) kitabıhttps://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Handbook_asylum_TUR.
35. UK HOME OFFICE, Asylum Policy Instruction: Assessing Credibility and Refugee Status (Version 9.0, 2015) 13.
36. UN General Assembly, Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol 189, 137.
37. UNCHR, UNHCR Regional Representation for Central Europe (rrce), The Internal Flight Alternative Practices: A
38. UNHCR Research Study in Central European Countries (2012).
39. UNHCR ‘An Overview of Protection Issues in Western Europe: Legislative Trends and Positions Taken by UNHCR’ (September 1995) 95.
40. UNHCR Refugee Agency UK, https://www.unhcr.org/uk/ erişim tarihi 5 Ocak 2024.
41. UNHCR, Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2021. Bknz: http://www.unhcr.org/global-trends2021/ erişim tarihi 10 Nisan 2024.
42. UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection: ‘Internal Flight or Relocation Alternative’ within the Context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (2003).
43. UNHCR, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, (2018). Eligibility guidelines for assessing the international protection needs of asylum-seekers from Afghanistan. https://reliefweb.int/report/afghanistan/unhcr-eligibility-guidelines-assessing-international-protection-needs erişim tarihi 10 Mart 2024.
44. USLU, Mustafa Semih: Türk Yabancılar Hukuku Bakımından Aile İkamet İzni, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü 2022.
45. ÜSTÜN, Mustafa Tayfun: Göçün Güvenlikleştirilmesi ve Frontex Operasyonları’ in KALAYCI, İsa, KALMIŞ, Gökhan (eds): Çağlar Boyu Göç (Tarih-Kültür-Medeniyet), Gazi Kitabevi, Ankara 2021.
46. YILMAZ ELMAS, Fatma: Avrupa Birliği göç-dış politika ilişkisinde paradigma değişimi, (Doktora tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi 2016).
47. ZIMMERMANN, Andreas: the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol: A Commentary, OUP, Oxford 2010, s. 446.