ULUSLARARASI CEZA MAHKEMESİ KARŞISINDA ABD’NİN DURUMU VE “MADDE 98 ANDLAŞMALARI”

Öz

Uluslararası toplumu bir bütün olarak etkileyen savaş suçları, insanlığa karşı suçlar, soykırım ve saldırı suçu gibi suçların sorumlularının bireysel olarak hesap vermesi için harcanan büyük çabanın sonucu olan daimi bir mahkeme olarak Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi’nin (UCM), belli şartlarda Mahkemenin kurucu andlaşması olan Roma Statüsü’ne taraf olmayan devletlerin vatandaşları üzerinde yargı yetkisini kullanabilmesi mümkündür. ABD, UCM kurulduğundan bu yana Mahkeme’nin Statü’ye taraf olmayan devletlerin vatandaşları üzerinde yargı yetkisine sahip olmasına itiraz etmiştir. Bu çalışma ABD’nin UCM’ye karşı olan tutumu doğrultusunda, ABD’nin kendi vatandaşlarını Mahkemenin yargı yetkisi dışında tutmak için aldığı tedbirlerin ve Statüye taraf devletlerin madde 98 andlaşmaları akdetmelerinin meşruluğunu sorgulayacaktır. Bu doğrultuda özellikle ABD’nin “madde 98 andlaşmalarının” ve uluslararası bağışıklıkların Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi’nin şüphelilerin teslimini sağlayabilmesine ve onları yargılayabilmesine ne derece etki ettiği incelenecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi (UCM)
• Amerika Birleşik Devletleri
• ikili bağışıklık andlaşmaları
• madde 98 andlaşmaları

THE POSITION OF USA AGAINST THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AND “THE ARTICLE 98 TREATIES"

Öz

The reason behind the establishment of International Criminal Court (ICC) as a permanent international criminal court is to ensure the accountability of the perpetrators of most serious crimes that affect the international community as a whole - like the crime of genocide, Crimes against humanity, war crimes, the crime of aggression-. The Rome Statute, which is institutive instrument of ICC, makes it possible under certain conditions that jurisdiction by ICC can be exercised over the nationals of states that are not party to the Rome Statute. The United States has argued against the Court’s jurisdiction over the nationals of states that are not party to the Statute since the establishment of the ICC. This article questions the legitimacy of the measures taken by the United States to shield its nationals from the Court's jurisdiction and the conclusion of article 98 agreements of the states that are party to the Statute. In this respect, the article in particular will examine how the “Article 98 agreements” of the United States and international immunities have affected the International Criminal Court's ability to prosecute and secure custody of suspects.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• International Criminal Court (ICC)
• United States of America
• bilateral immunity agreements
• Article 98 agreements
• international immunities

Kaynakça

1. Barker, J. Craig, The Protection of Diplomatic Personnel, Routledge, 2016
2. Cassese, Antonio, The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. A Commentary, (Edt. Professor Antonio Cassese, Professor Paola Gaeta, Mr John R.W.D. Jones), Oxford University Press, 2002.
3. Döner, Ayhan, İnsan Haklarının Uluslararası Alanda Korunması ve Avrupa Sistemi, Ankara 2003.
4. Fox, Hazel, Law Of State Immunity, Oxford University Press, 2002.
5. Gioia, Federica, The International Criminal Court and National Jurisdictions, The Complementary Role of the International Criminal Court: Are There any Time-Limits?, M. Politi,F. Gioia (edts.), The International Criminal Court and National Jurisdictions, Routledge, 2016.
6. Gündüz, Aslan, Yabancı Devletin Yargı Bağışıklığı ve Milletlerarası Hukuk, Üçdal Neşriyat, İstanbul 1984
7. Kelsen, Hans, The Law of United Nations: A Critical Analysis of Its Fundamental Problems, The Lawbook Exchange, 1950.
8. Kul, Muhammet Celal, Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi ve Uluslararası Tecavüz (Saldırı) Suçu, Ankara 2016.

9. Kuran, Selami, Uluslararası Deniz Hukuku, 5. bs., İstanbul 2016.
10. Kurşun, Günal, 101 Soruda Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi, Ankara 2011
11. McGoldrick, Dominic, “Political and Legal Responses to the ICC”, Dominic McGoldrick, Peter Rowe and Eric Donnelly (edt.) The Permanent International Criminal Court: Legal and Policy Issues,Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2004.
12. McGoldrick, Dominic, “Political and Legal Responses to the ICC”, Dominic McGoldrick, Peter Rowe and Eric Donnelly (edt.) The Permanent International Criminal Court: Legal and Policy Issues,(Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2004.
13. Orakhelashvili, Alexander, Research Handbook on Jurisdiction and Immunities in International Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015.
14. Tezcan, Durmuş; Erdem, Mustafa Ruhan; Önok, Rıfat Murat, Uluslararası Ceza Hukuku, Ankara 2009.
15. Watts, Arthur, “The Legal Position in International Law of Heads Of States, Heads of Governments and Foreign Ministers”, (1994) 247 III Recueil Des Cours. Wickremasinghe, Chanaka, Immunities Enjoyed By Officials Of States And International Organizations, Malcom D. Evans ( edt.), International Law, Oxford University Press, 3.ed., 2010
16. Abass, Ademola, “The Competence of the Security Council to Terminate the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court”, The Texas International Law Journal. Vol. 40, 2005.
17. Akande, Dapo, “TheJurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over Nationals of Non-Parties: Legal Basis and Limits”, Journal of International Criminal JUstice, Vol. 1, 2003.
18. Akande, Dapo; Shah, Sangeeta, “Immunities of State Officials, International Crimes and Foreign Domestic Courts”, The European Journal of International Law, Vol. 21, No. 4, 2011.
19. Akipek, Ömer İlhan, “NATO Kuvvetleri Sözleşmesine Göre Vazife Kavramı ve Türkiye'deki Tatbikatı”, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, C. 24, S. 1, 1967.
20. Aksar, Yusuf, “Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi ve Amerika Birleşik Devletleri”, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, C. 52, S. 2, 2003.
21. Alebeek, Rosanne Van, “National Courts, International Crimes and The Functional Immunity Of State Offıcials”, Netherlands International Law Review, Vol. 59 (1), 2012.
22. Benzing, Markus, “U.S. Bilateral Non-Surrender Agreements and Article 98 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court: An Axercise in the Law of Treaties”, Max Planck UNYB, Vol. 8, 2004.
23. Bogdan, Attila, “The United States and the International Criminal Court: Avoiding Jurisdiction Th rough Bilateral Agreements in Reliance on Article 98”, International Criminal Law Review, Vol. 8, 2008.
24. Cassese, Antonio, “The Belgian Court of Cassation v. the International Court of Justice: The Sharon and Others Case”, Journal of İnternational Criminal Justice, Vol. 1, 2003.
25. Cassese, Antonio, “When May Senior State Officials Be Tried for International Crimes? Some Comments on the Congo v. Belgium Case”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 13, No. 4, 2002.