EVALUATION OF SAFE ZONES IN TERMS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND TURKEY’S SAFE ZONE PRACTICES IN SYRIA

Öz

Safe zones are areas created with the purpose of providing shelter, food, water, and basic necessities to refugees fleeing conflict zones. These zones represent an international effort driven by the goal of aid and protection. Within the framework of international law, there are principles and criteria governing the establishment of safe zones. According to these principles, refugees must be treated with respect for their human rights, and inhumane or degrading treatment should be avoided. This article aims to examine the fundamental challenges, benefits, and risks of safe zones within the scope of international law. By evaluating the underlying objective of regulating migration flows, the article assesses whether the existence of safe zones serves as an alternative for states receiving refugees to comply with their obligations under international law, especially regarding the right to seek asylum and the principle of non-refoulement.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Safe Zones
• Refugee Protection
• Access to Asylum
• The Principle of Non-Refoulement
• The Right to Asylum

GÜVENLİ BÖLGELERİN ULUSLARARASI HUKUK AÇISINDAN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ VE TÜRKİYE’NİN SURİYE’DE TESİS ETTİĞİ GÜVENLİ BÖLGE UYGULAMALARI

Öz

Güvenli bölgeler, genellikle çatışma bölgelerinden kaçan mültecilere barınma, gıda, su ve temel ihtiyaçlar sağlamak amacıyla oluşturulan alanlardır. Bu bölgeler, uluslararası toplumun yardım ve koruma amacı taşıyan bir girişimidir. Uluslararası hukuk çerçevesinde, güvenli bölgelerin oluşturulmasıyla ilgili bir dizi prensip ve kriter bulunmaktadır. Bu ilkelere göre, mültecilerin insan haklarına saygı gösterilmeli, insanlık dışı veya aşağılayıcı muamele yapılmamalı ve güvenli bölgelerde barınma hakları korunmalıdır. Ayrıca, uluslararası toplumun desteği ve iş birliği ile güvenli bölgelerin sürdürülebilirliği sağlanmalıdır. Bu bölgelerin oluşturulmasıyla ilgili kararlar dikkatlice değerlendirilmeli ve mültecilerin güvenliği, sağlığı ve refahı gözetilmelidir. Bu sayede uluslararası toplum, çatışma bölgelerinden kaçan mültecilere geçici bir sığınak ve koruma sağlayarak insani yardımda bulunabilir. Bu makale, uluslararası hukuk kapsamında güvenli bölgelerin temel zorluklarını, faydalarını, risklerini ele almayı ve mülteci alan devletlerin uyması gereken hukuki çerçeveye ilişkin incelemelerde bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Güvenli Bölgeler
• Mülteci Koruması
• İlticaya Erişim
• Geri Göndermeme Yasağı
• Sığınma Hakkı

Kaynakça

1. Adar, S. (2020). Repatriation to Turkey’s Safe Zone in Northeast Syria: Ankara’s Goals and European Concerns. Berlin: German Institute for International and Security Affairs.
2. Aksar, Y. (2022). Teoride ve Uygulamada Uluslararası Hukuk II. İstanbul: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
3. Alptekin, H. (2019). Suriye’de Oluşturulacak Güvenli Bölgede Taraflar ve Tutumlar. Ankara: SETA Yayınları.
4. Chau, W. (2012). Creating Refuge in Hell: The Coming of Age of Safe Areas for the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict. Auckland University Law Review, 18(1), 191-215.
5. Chetail, V. (2004). Voluntary Repatriation in Public International Law: Concepts and Contents. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 23(3), 1-32.
6. Chetail, V. (2014). Are Refugee Rights Human Rights? An Unorthodox Questioning of the Relations Between Refugee Law and Human Rights Law. R. Rubio-Marín (Ed.). Human Rights and Immigration içinde (s. 19-72). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Chetail, V. (2014). Armed Conflict and Forced Migration: A Systemic Approach to International Humanitarian Law, Refugee Law and Human Rights Law. A. Clapham ve P. Gaeta (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Armed Conflict içinde (s. 700-734). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Chetail, V. (2015). The Transfer and Deportation of Civilians. A. Clapham, P. Gaeta, M. Sassòli (Ed.). The 1949 Geneva Conventions: A Commentary içinde (s. 1185-1213). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

9. Chetail, V. (2019). International Migration Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Chetail, V. (2021). Moving Towards an Integrated Approach of Refugee Law and Human Rights Law. C. Costello, M. Foster, J. McAdam (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of International Refugee Law içinde (s. 202-220). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Ciğer, M. (2019). The Global Compact on Refugees and Burden Sharing: Will the Compact Address the Normative Gap Concerning Burden Sharing?. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 38(2),115-138.
12. Çetinkaya, L. (2017). Safe Zone: A Response to Large-Scale Refugee Outflows and Human Suffering. Berlin: Springer.
13. Deeks, A. (2012). Unwilling or Unable: Toward a Normative Framework for Extraterritorial Self-Defense. Virginia Journal of International Law, 52(3), 483-550.
14. Edwards, A. (2005). Human Rights, Refugees, and the Right to Enjoy Asylum. International Journal of Refugee Law, 17(2), 293-330.
15. Eralp, D. (2020). The Safe Zone for Undesirables on the Turkey-Syria Border. Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice, 32(2), 181-189.
16. Gall, C. (2021, 02 16). In Turkey’s Safe Zone in Syria, Security and Misery Go Hand in Hand. The New York Times. General Comment No. 29: Article 4: Derogations During a State of Emergency, UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11 (Human Rights Committee 08 31, 2001).
17. General Comment No. 31, Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13 (Human Rights Committee 05 26, 2004).
18. Geneva Academy. (2022). Military Occupation of Syria by Turkey. https://www.rulac.org/browse/conflicts/military-occupation-of-syria (Erişim Tarihi: 02.10.2023).
19. Ghráinne, B. (2019). Internally Displaced Persons and International Law. S. Juss (Ed.). Research Handbook on International Refugee Law içinde (s. 31-43). Cheltenham: Elgar.
20. Ghráinne, B. (2020). Safe Zones and the Internal Protection Alternative. British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 69(2), 335-364.
21. Ghráinne, B. (2020). The Syrian Safe Zone and International Law. Prague: Institute of International Relations.
22. Gilbert, G, Anna R. (2017). Creating Safe Zones and Safe Corridors in Conflict Situations: Providing Protection at Home or Preventing the Search for Asylum?. Sydney: The Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law.
23. Gillard, E. (2008). There’s No Place Like Home: States’ Obligations in Relation to Transfers of Persons. International Review of the Red Cross, 90(871), 703-750.
24. Gillard, E. (2017). Safe Areas: The International Legal Framework. International Review of the Red Cross, 99(3), 1075-1101. Hansen, Thomas. 2014. "Extraterritorial Migration Control and the Reach of Human Rights". ss. 113-131 içinde Research Handbook on International Law and Migration. Cheltenham: Elgar.
25. Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy, 27765/09 (ECtHR 02 23, 2012).
26. Human Rights Watch. (2019). Turkey: Syrians Being Deported to Danger. London: Human Rights Watch.
27. Human Rights Watch. (2019). Syria: Civilians Abused in Safe Zones. https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/11/27/syria-civilians-abused-safe-zones (Erişim Tarihi: 03.10.2023).
28. ICRC. (2019). Customary IHL Study Rule 132 ICRC Customary IHL Database. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul (Erişim Tarihi: 03.10.2023).
29. ICRC. (2019). IHL Database. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul (Erişim Tarihi: 03.10.2023).
30. Jacques, M. (2012). Armed Conflict and Displacement: The Protection of Refugees and Displaced Persons under International Humanitarian Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Keen, D. (2017). Anything but Safe: Problems with the Protection of Civilians in So-Called Safe Zones. London: London School of Economics and Political Science.
32. Kocacık, M. (2019,08 08). Blatant Aggression: Syria Rejects US-Turkey Safe Zones. Al Jazeera.
33. Labbé, J. (2012). Are Safe Areas a Viable Way out of the Humanitarian Deadlock in Syria?. New York: International Peace Institute.
34. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion), 136 (ICJ 07 09, 2004).
35. Lilly, D. (2014). Protection of Civilians Sites: A New Type of Displacement Settlement?. Humanitarian Exchange, 62(12), 31-33.
36. Long, K. (2013). In Search of Sanctuary: Border Closures, Safe Zones and Refugee Protection. Journal of Refugee Studies, 26(3), 448-476.
37. Long, K. (2013). The Point of No Return: Refugees, Rights, and Repatriation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38. Milanovic, M. (2016). Extraterritorial Derogations from Human Rights Treaties in Armed Conflict. N. Bhuta (Ed.). The Frontiers of Human Rights içinde (s. 55-88). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39. MSS v Belgium and Greece, 30696/09 (ECtHR 01 21, 2011).
40. Norwegian Refugee Council. (2018). Dangerous Ground: Syria’s Refugees Face an Uncertain Future. Oslo: Norwegian Refugee Council.
41. OHCHR. (2020). Syria: Violations and Abuses Rife in Areas under Turkish-Affiliated Armed Groups. Geneva: OHCHR.
42. Orchard, P. (2014). Revisiting Humanitarian Safe Areas for Civilian Protection. Global Governance, 20(1), 55-75.
43. Özkizilcik, Ö. (2020). The Syrian National Army: Structure, Functions, and Three Scenarios for its Relationship with Damascus. Geneva: Geneva Centre for Security Policy.
44. R v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and Another, Ex parte European Roma Rights Centre and Others, [2004] UKHL 55 (United Kingdom: House of Lords (Judicial Committee) 12 09, 2004).
45. Sassòli, M. (2019). International Humanitarian Law: Rules, Controversies, and Solutions to Problems Arising in Warfare. Cheltenham: Elgar.
46. Schultz, J. (2019). The Internal Protection Alternative and its Relation to Refugee Status. S. Juss (Ed.). Research Handbook on International Refugee Law içinde (s. 126-139). Cheltenham: Elgar.
47. Schultz, J. (2019). The Internal Protection Alternative in Refugee Law. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff.
48. Skalar, M. (2014). Silahlı Çatışmalarda Sivillerin Korunması için Güvenli Bölgeler. Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(123), 37-64.
49. Soering v UK, 14038/88 (ECtHR 07 07, 1989).
50. Stoyanova, V. (2020). The Right to Leave any Country and the Interplay between Jurisdiction and Proportionality in Human Rights Law. International Journal of Refugee Law, 32(3), 403-439.
51. Sufi and Elmi v United Kingdom, 8319/07 (ECtHR 06 28, 2011).
52. Taşdemir, F. (2012). İnsan Hakları Hukuku ve İnsancıl Hukuk Açısından Türkiye’nin Ayrılıkçı Terör Örgütü PKK ile Mücadelesi. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(1), 107-151.
53. UNGA. (2019). Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. Geneva: UNGA.
54. UNHCR. (2001). Interpreting Article 1 of the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Geneva: UNHCR.
55. UNHCR. (2002). Global Consultations on International Protection Third Track: Voluntary Repatriation. Geneva: UNHCR.
56. UNHCR. (2003). Guidelines on International Protection: Internal Flight or Relocation Alternative within the Context of Article 1A (2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention and/or 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Geneva: UNHCR.
57. UNHCR. (2007). Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of Non-Refoulement Obligations under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. Geneva: UNHCR.
58. Wallace, R. (2014). The Principle of Non-Refoulement in International Refugee Law. V. Chetail, C. Bauloz (Ed.). Research Handbook on International Law and Migration içinde (s. 417-438). Cheltenham: Elgar.
59. Yamashita, H. (2004). Humanitarian Space and International Politics: The Creation of Safe Areas. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
60. Yayla, H. (2022). Uluslararası Hukukta Güvenli Bölge. İstanbul: On İki Levha Yayıncılık.