MIRJAN DAMAŠKA’NIN ‘AMAÇLAR VE BAŞARILAR ARASINDA ULUSLARARASI CEZA MAHKEMESİ’ ADLI MAKALESİ ÜZERİNE BİR ELEŞTİRİ: ULUSLARARASI CEZA MAHKEMESİNİN ÇELİŞKİLERİ

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı Mirjan’nın ‘Amaçlar ve Başarılar Arasında Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi’ adlı çalışmasını tartışmaya açmaktır. Damaška ilgili makalede bir yandan Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi’nin normatif yapısını ele alırken, diğer yandan da mahkemenin amaçları ve başarıları arasındaki artan ayrışmayı incelemektedir. Mirjan Damaška mahkemenin birçok başarısı arasında, mağdurların ve tanıkların korunması noktasındaki sorunların aşıldığına önemle vurgu yapmıştır. Ne var ki, Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi varoluş amacı olan yaptırım uygulama noktasında kapasite eksikliği çekmektedir ve de bağımsız bir kuruluş olma karakterinden yoksundur.Buradan hareketle, makalede Mirjan Damaška’nın makalesine eleştirel açıdan yaklaşmakta; mevcut sorunların Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemenin meşruiyetini sorgulamaya açtığını ve Mahkemeye yöneltilen eleştirilerin mahkemenin karşıtlarını güçlendirdiği yönündeki argümanlar tartışılacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mirjan Damaška
• Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi
• Niyet
• Başarı
• Eksiklik ve İnceleme

A Critique to Mirjan Damaška’ ‘International Criminal Court between Aspiration and Achievement’ Article: The Paradoxes of the International Criminal Court

Öz

This research aims to examine Mirjan Damaka's article "The International Criminal Court between Aspiration and Achievement." Mirjan Damaka examined the International Criminal Court's normative structure and the growing gap between its aspiration and achievements in his paper. The International Criminal Court, among its many accomplishments, overcomes challenges by protecting and helping victims and witnesses. Despite its founding aims, however, the International Criminal Court lacks enforcement ability and independent structural characteristics. As a result, this study will argue Mirjan Damaka's missing points by examining how these challenges call into question the Court's credibility and empower the Court's adversaries.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• : Mirjan Damaška
• International Criminal Court
• Aspiration
• Achievement
• Gap
• Review

Kaynakça

1. Akande, D. (2012). “The Effect of Security Council Resolutions and Domestic Proceedings on State Obligations to Cooperate with the ICC”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 10(2), pp.299- 324.
2. Askin, K.D. (2005). ‘The Jurisprudence of International War Crimes Tribunals’, in Helen Durham and Tracey Gurd, (eds), Listening to the Silences: Women and War, Martinus Nijhoff , Leiden.
3. Balachandran, G., & Sethi, A. (2015). Israel–Gaza Crisis: Understanding the War Crimes Debate. Strategic Analysis, 39(2), 176-183.
4. Blatmann, R. and Bowman, K. (2008). “Achievements and Problems of the International Criminal Court: A View from Within”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 6(4), pp.711-730.
5. Bolton, J.R. (2001). “International Criminal Law vs. State Sovereignty: Another Round”, Law and Contemporary Problems,64(1), pp.167-180.
6. Brown, B. S. (1998). “US Objections to the Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Brief Response”. NewYork University Journal of International Law and Policy,31, pp.855-866.
7. Burke-White, W. W. (2008). “Proactive Complementarity: The International Criminal Court and National Courts in the Rome System of International Justice”, Harvard International Law Journal, 49, pp.53-108 . Cassese, A., Gaeta, P., Baig, L., Fan, M., and Gosnell, C. (2013). “Cassese's International Criminal Law”, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
8. Cogans, J.K. (2002). “International Criminal Courts and Fair Trials: Difficulties and Prospects”, Yale Journal of International Law, 27, 2002, pp.111-140.

9. Crowe, D. (2014). War Crimes, Genocide, and Justice: A Global History. Springer, p.161.
10. Cryer, R. (2005). “International Criminal Law vs. State Sovereignty: Another Round”, European Journal of International Law, 16(5), pp.979-1000.
11. Damaška, M. (2009). “The International Criminal Court Between Aspiration and Achievement”, UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs, 19, pp.19- 35.
12. Du Plessis, M. (2013). Universalising international criminal law-the ICC, Africa and the problem of political perceptions. Institute for Security Studies Papers, 2013(249), p.12.
13. Human Rights Watch/Africa and Human Rights Watch/Women’s Rights Project (1996). “Shattered Lives: Sexual Violence During the Rwandan Genocide and its Aftermath”, Human Rights Watch, New York.
14. Human Rights Watch Report, See http://www.hrw.org/ world-report2010/israel-occupied-palestinian-territoriesopt Kaul, H.P. (2007). “The International Criminal Court: Current Challenges and Perspectives”, Washington University Global Studies Law Review, 6, pp.75-583.
15. Keppler, E. (2012). “Managing Setbacks for the International Criminal Court in Africa”, Journal of African Law, 56(1), pp.1-14.
16. Kirsch, P. (2001). “The International Criminal Court: Current Issues and Perspectives”, Law and Contemporary Problems,64(1), 2001, pp.3-11.
17. Kyriakakis, J. (2008). “Corporations and the International Criminal Court: the Complementarity Objection Stripped Bare”, Criminal Law Forum,19, pp.115-151.
18. Malekian, F. (2009). “The Homogeneity of International Criminal Court with Islamic Jurisprudence”, International Criminal Law Review, vol.9, pp.595-621.
19. Moreno-Ocampo, L. (2007). “The International Criminal Court: Seeking Global Justice”, Case Western Reserv Journal of International Law, 40, pp.215-227.
20. Moreno‐Ocampo, L. (2010). “Keynote Address—Interdisciplinary Colloquium on Sexual Violence as International Crime: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Evidence”, Law & Social Inquiry, 35(4), pp.839-846.
21. Newton, M.A. (2001). “Comparative Complementarity: Domestic Jurisdiction Consistent with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court”, Military Law Review, 167, pp.20-74.
22. Oosterveld, V. (2009). “Th e Special Court of Sierra Leone’s Consideration of Gender-Based Violence: Contributing to Transitional Justice?”, Human Rights Review, 10. pp.73-98.
23. Pikis, G. M. (2010). “The Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court Analysis of the Statute, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the Regulations of the Court and Supplementary Instruments”, Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
24. Press Release, Int’l Criminal Court, The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, Requests Judicial Authorisation to Commence an Investigation into the Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (Nov. 20, 2017)
25. Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu (Appeal Judgment), ICTR-96-4-A, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), 1 June 2001, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,ICTR,4084f42f4.html [accessed 6 April 2021]
26. Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskic (Trial Judgement), IT-95-14-T, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 3 March 2000, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,ICTY,4146f1b24.html [accessed 6 April 2021].
27. Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovac and Zoran Vukovic (Trial Judgment), IT-96-23-T & IT-96-23/1-T, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 22 February 2001, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,ICTY,3ae6b7560.html [accessed 6 April 2021]
28. Raynor, K. (2019) ‘International Criminal Justice: Where Does It Go from Here?’ (Speech, Lincoln’s Inn, 22 May 2019) [available at https://opiniojuris.org/wp-content/uploads/Lincolns-22- May_ForKevinJonHeller-2.pdf]
29. ‘Report of the Bureau on Non-Cooperation (11th ASP)’ (Assembly of States Parties 2012) ICC-ASP/11/29 Available at https://asp.icccpi.int/en_menus/asp/sessions/documentation/11th%20session/Pages/eleventh%20session%20of%20the%20assembly%2 0of%20states%20parties.aspx, [accessed 12 March 2021].
30. Request for Assistance on behalf of the Government of the Republic of Kenya pursuant to Article 93(10) and Rule 194 [2011] ICC PreTrial Chamber II ICC-01/09-58 21-04-2011, 21 April 2011. available at https://www.icccpi.int/pages/record.aspx?uri=1062611 [accessed 12 March 2021].
31. Sachs, N. (2015). Why Israel Waits: Anti-solutionism as a strategy. Foreign Affairs, 94(6), 74-82.
32. Schabas, W. A. (2007). International Criminal Tribunals: A Review of 2007, Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights, 6, pp.382-314
33. Scheffer, D. (1999). “The International Criminal Court: The Challenge of Jurisdiction”, America Society of International Law Proceedings, 93, pp.68-72.
34. Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Prosecutor v. Lubanga Dyilo), Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-1136, Application for Leave to Appeal Trial Chamber I's January 18, 2008 Decision on Victims' Participation 3. Available at < http://www.icccpi. int/library/cases/ICC-01-04-01-06-1136-ENG.pdf> [accessed 28 january 2021].
35. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998, [online] Available at < http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/romefra.htm> [accessed 28 January 2021].
36. Than, C. and Shorts, E. (2003). “International Criminal Law and Human Rights”, Sweet & Maxwell, London.
37. Tolbert, D. (2008). “International Criminal Law: Past and Future”, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, 30, p.1281-1294.
38. Trumbull, C.P. (2008).“The Victims of Victim Participation in International Criminal Proceedings”, Michigan Journal of International Law, 29, 2008, pp.777-826.
39. UNFPA, Gender-based violence in Kosovo – A Case Study , May-July 2005, available at http:// www.unfpa.org/women/docs/gbv_kosovo.pdf . [accessed 12 March 2021].
40. UN News Service, ICC sentences former Congolese vice-president Bemba to 18 years in prison for war crimes, 21 June 2016, available at https://www.refworld.org/docid/576a466b40c.html [accessed 6 April 2021].
41. UN Security Council (2012), Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, 16 January 2002, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3dda29f94.html [accessed 6 April 2021].
42. Walker, A.J. (2004). “When a Good Idea Is Poorly Implemented: How the International Criminal Court Fails to Be Insulated from International Politics and to Protect Basic Due Process Guarantees”, West Virginia Law Review, 106, pp.245- 305