DAVETLE MÜDAHALE BAĞLAMINDA KUVVET KULLANMAYA VERİLEN RIZANIN KUVVET KULLANMA YASAĞI İLE NASIL BAĞDAŞTIRILACAĞI SORUNSALI

Öz

“Talep üzerine askeri yardım, kuvvet kullanımına rıza” olarak da ifade edilen “davetle müdahale” kavramı, esas olarak bir devletin kendi yetki alanı dahilinde iç çatışma ve benzeri bir durumu bastırmak için bir başka devletin kuvvet kullanımına rıza gösterebileceği fikrine dayanmaktadır. İlk bakışta uluslararası hukukta “müdahale etmeme ilkesi”nin ya da Birleşmiş Milletler Şartı’nın 2/4. maddesinde yer verilen uluslararası ilişkilerde “kuvvet kullanma yasağı”nın ihlali olarak görülebilecek bu doktrinin hiçbir bağlayıcı uluslararası belgede yer almamasına rağmen uluslararası toplumda genel kabulü ve yaygın uygulaması karşısında hangi hukuki dayanakla meşrulaştırılabileceğinin ele alınması önemlidir. Bu çalışmada, devletlerin kendi yetki sınırları dahilinde kuvvet kullanılmasına verdikleri rızanın kuvvet kullanmayı hukuka uygun hale getirme üzerindeki etkisi ve uluslararası hukukta kuvvet kullanma yasağının jus cogens statüsü ile rıza üzerine kuvvet kullanılmasının nasıl bağdaştırılacağı sorunu irdelenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Davetle Müdahale
• Kuvvet Kullanma Yasağı
• Jus Cogens Norm
• Uluslara-rası Hukuk
• Birleşmiş Milletler Şartı
• Madde 2/4

The Problem of How to Reconcile Consent to the Use of Force with the Prohibition of the Use of Force in the Context of Intervention by Invitation

Öz

The Article 2/4 of the UN Charter obliges all UN members to refrain from resorting to the threat or use of force in their international relations, either against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other state or in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN. This means that an armed intervention with these characteristics is prohibited. Intervention by invitation is also a form of using military force by a state on the territory of another state, even though it is based on the permission of the host state. However, although the doctrine of intervention by invitation is a form of use of force, it is generally accepted internationally in state practices and in the decisions of UN bodies. In this case, the question arises of what the legal basis of the doctrine of intervention by invitation is and whether it is contrary to the prohibition of the use of force, which is accepted as a jus cogens norm. The aim of this study is to reveal whether the doctrine of intervention by invitation conflicts with the prohibition of the use of force which is described as a jus cogens norm in generally, and with Article 2/4 of the UN Charter in particular. In this study, decisions of UN bodies (General Assembly, Security Council, International Court Of Justice Decisions) and opinions of lawyers are used, indicating that intervention by invitation is generally accepted. In the study, first of all, the concept of intervention by invitation is tried to be explained in the context of basic international law concepts and principles such as the concept of intervention, the prohibition of intervention in internal affairs and the prohibition of the use of force. In particular, By examining the content of the regulation on the prohibition of the use of force in the Article 2/4 of the UN Charter, it is tried to reveal whether intervention by invitation is a form of use of force within the scope of this article and, in this context, to determine the extent of the jus cogens norm nature of the prohibition on the use of force. In addition, the different views put forward as the basis for why intervention by invitation, which is accepted both in the actions and opinions of sovereign states and in the decisions taken by the most important UN bodies, does not constitute a violation of international law are discussed. Among the approaches discussed in this context, first of all, the idea that intervention by invitation is outside the scope of the Article 2/4 of the UN Charter because it does not meet the qualifications in the article, in other words, the idea that it does not have an international character and is not against the territorial integrity or political independence of the inviting state, is discussed, and then the opinion of the intervention by invitation doctrine can be considered lawful since it is not clearly considered unlawful in the UN Charter is being examined. Finally, the approach that looks at the issue from the perspective of the rules regarding the responsibility of the state is discussed, and in this context, “Draft Articles On Responsibility Of States For Internationally Wrongful Acts” adopted by the UN International Law Commission in 2001, which contains the conditions that prevents an act of a state that will not comply with the international obligations of the state from being unlawful. is referenced. This study focuses on whether the “consent” element, which is one of these conditions, can be applied as a reason that eliminates unlawfulness in the case of the use of force. In addition, a conclusion is reached as to on what legal grounds this type of use of force, which is used upon consent, can be reconciled with the prohibition of the use of force, as opposed to the general acceptance of intervention by invitation. As a result of the study, It is concluded that peremptory aspect of the prohibition of the use of force is only limited to the qualifications listed in the Article 2/4 of the UN Charter, in other words, there will be a violation of the peremptory aspect of the prohibition on the use of force only if the use of force aims at aggressive actions targeting the territorial integrity and political independence of a state. Although the doctrine of intervention by invitation is a form of use of force, it is concluded that the prohibition on the use of force is not violated because it does not meet the qualifications in this article, therefore there is no violation of the article in question and the doctrine of intervention by invitation should be accepted as a category in itself.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Intervention by Invitation
• Prohibition of Use of Force
• Jus Cogens Norm
• International Law
• United Nations Charter
• Article 2/4

Kaynakça

1. Aksar, Yusuf. Teoride ve Uygulamada Uluslararası Hukuk-II, Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi 2019.
2. Bannelier, Karine, Christakis Theodore, “Under the UN Security Council's Watchful Eyes: Military Intervention by Invitation in the Malian Conflict”. Leiden Journal of International Law. 26/4 (2013): 855-874
3. Başeren, Sertaç Hami. Uluslararası Hukukta Devletlerin Münferiden Kuvvet Kullanmalarının Sınırları. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 2003
4. Boer, Lianne J.M, “The Greater Part Of Jurisconsults’: On Consensus Claims And Their Footnotes In Legal Scholarship”, Leiden Journal of International Law. 29/4 (2016): 1021-1042
5. Bordin, Fernando Lusa. “Reflections on Customary International Law. The Authority of Codification Conventions and ILC Draft Articles in International Law”, International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 63/3, (2014): 535-567
6. Bozkurt, Enver, Yasin Poyraz ve Selcen Erdal. Devletler Hukuku. Ankara: Yetkin Yayınevi, 2021
7. Butchard, Patrick M. “Back to San Francisco: Explaining the Inherent Contradictions of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter”, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 23/2 (2018): 229-267
8. Byrne, Max. “Consent and the Use of Force: An Examination of “Inter-vention by Invitation” as a Basis for US Drone Strikes in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen”. 3/1 (2016) Journal on the Use of Force and International Law 97-125

9. Cassese, Antonio. International Law. 2nd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005
10. Christakis, Théodore ve Bannelier Karine. “Volenti Non Fit Iniuria? The Effects of Consent to Military Intervention”, Annuaire Français de Droit International. 50/1 (2004): 102-137
11. Corten, Olivier. The Law Against War: The Prohibition on the Use of Force in Contemporary International Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2010
12. Crawford, James. Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law. 8th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012
13. Crawford James., “The ILC’s Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts: A Retrospect”. American Journal of International Law. 96/4 (2002): 874-890
14. André de Hoogh, “Jus cogens and the Use of Armed Force”, içinde The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law, Marc Weller (ed), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015)
15. de Wet, Erika. “The Modern Practice of Intervention by Invitation in Africa and Its Implications for the Prohibition of the Use of Force”, European Journal of International Law, 26/4 (2015): 979-998
16. Denk, Erdem. “Uluslararası Antlaşmalar Hukukunda Jus Cogens Kurallar”. Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi. 56/2 (2001): 43-70
17. Doswald-Beck, Louise. “The Legal Validity of Military Intervention by Invitation of the Government”. British Yearbook of International Law. 56/1 (1986): 189-252
18. Dressler Jr., Michael, “I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream: Interventions byInvitation in the Aftermath of Coup D'etats”. Penn State Law Review. 127/1 (2022): 237-266
19. Gourgourinis, Anastasios. “General/Particular International Law and Primary/Secondary Rules: Unitary Terminology of a Fragmented System”. European Journal of International Law. 22/4 (2011): 993-1026
20. Gray, Christine. “The Use of Force and the International Legal Order in International Law” içinde International Law, ed. Malcolm D. Evans, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010
21. Gray, Christine. International Law and the Use of Force. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008
22. Gündüz, Aslan. Milletlerarası Hukuk: Temel Belgeler, Örnek Kararlar. İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık, 2013
23. James A. Green, “Questioning the peremptory status of the prohibition of the use of force”. Michigan Journal of International Law. 32/2 (2011): 215-257
24. Jamnejad, Maziar, Jamnejad, Michael Wood. “The Principle of Non-intervention. Leiden Journal of International Law”. 22/2 (2009): 345-381
25. Jennings, Robert, Arthur Watts (eds), Oppenheim’s International Law Volume I, Peace: Introduction and Part I. 9th edn, Longman, 1992
26. Le Mon, Christopher. “Unilateral Intervention by Invitation in Civil Wars: The Effective Control Test Tested” (2003) 35 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 741-793
27. Lord A.D. McNair, The Law of Treaties. 2nd edn, Clarendon Press, 1961
28. Marston, Geoffrey. “United Kingdom Materials on International Law”. British Yearbook of International Law. 57/1 (1986): 487-654
29. Pazarcı, Hüseyin. Uluslararası Hukuk Dersleri, 4. Kitap (4. Baskı, Turhan Kitabevi 2020)
30. Perkins, John A. “The Right of Counterintervention”, The Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, 17/2 (1986): 171-224
31. Ronzitti, Natalino. “Use of Force, Jus cogens and State Consent” içinde The Current Legal Regulation of the Use of Force, ed. Antonio Cassese, 147-166. (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1986)
32. Ruys, Tom, “The Meaning Of “Force” And The Boundaries Of The Jus Ad Bellum: Are “Minimal” Uses Of Force Excluded From UN Charter Article 2(4)?”, The American Journal of International Law, 108/2 (2014): 159- 210
33. Schachter, Oscar. International Law in Theory and Practice. Brill Nijhoff, 1991
34. Shaw, Malcolm N. Uluslararası Hukuk, Çeviren İbrahim Kaya, Ankara: Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi, 2018
35. Sivakumaran, Sandesh. The Law of International Armed Conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012
36. Sönmezoğlu, Faruk. Uluslararası Politika ve Dış Politika Analizi. İstanbul: Filiz Kitabevi 1989
37. Tanca, Antonio. Foreign Armed Intervention in Internal Conflict (Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993)
38. Taşdemir, Fatma. Uluslararası Terörizme Karşı Devletlerin Kuvvete Başvurma Yetkisi. USAK Yayınları, 2006
39. Tosun, Fatih. “Uluslararası Hukuk’ta Kuvvet Kullanma ve Karışma Kavramlarının Değişen Anlamı”. Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi. 9/9 (2009): 89-118
40. Visser, Laura. “May the Force Be with You: The Legal Classifcation of Intervention by Invitation”, Netherlands International Law Review. 66 (2019): 21-45
41. Wippman, David. “Military Intervention, Regional Organisations, And Host-State Consent. Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, 7/1, (1996): 209-240
42. Birleşmiş Milletler Belgeleri
43. Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, 13 April 2006, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682.
44. Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Supplement No. 10 (A/56/10), November 2001, UN Doc. A/56/10.
45. Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty, GA Res. 2131, 21 December 1965, UN Doc. A/RES/2131(XX).
46. Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, GA Res. 2625, 24 October 1970, UN Doc. A/RES/2625(XXV).
47. Definition of Aggression, GA Res. 3314 (XXIX), 14 December 1974, UN Doc. A/RES/3316(XXIX).
48. Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States, GA Res. 36/103, 9 December 1981, UN Doc. A/RES/36/103.
49. Mali, SC Res. 2100, 25 April 2013, UN Doc. S/RES/2100.
50. Institut de Droit International, Present Problems of the Use of Force in International Law, Tenth Commission — Sub-Group C Resolu-tion (10 RES-C EN PLENIERE), 8 September 2011.