İNSAN HAKLARI İHLALLERİ VE SOYKIRIM İDDİALARI BAĞLAMINDA RUSYA-UKRAYNA SAVAŞINDA KORUMA SORUMLULUĞU İLKESİNİN UYGULANABİLİRLİĞİ

Öz

Rusya’nın 2022 yılı Şubat ayında Ukrayna’ya karşı başlattığı askeri operasyonun temel amacı başta Donbas halkı olmak üzere bu ülkede yaşayan Rus azınlığı Kiev yönetiminin sekiz yıldır süregelen baskı, aşağılama, çeşitli insan hakları ihlalleri ve soykırımdan korumak olarak ilan edildi. Başka bir ülkedeki bir topluluğu soykırım, savaş suçları, etnik temizlik ya da insanlığa karşı suçlardan herhangi birine karşı koruma iddiası taşıyan bir askeri operasyon, uluslararası hukuk bakımından en çok koruma sorumluluğu ilkesi bağlamında ele alınmaya uygundur. Bu makalede de Rusya’nın Ukrayna’daki savaşının hukukiliği koruma sorumluluğu ilkesi etrafında tartışılmakta ve bu kapsamda, Ukrayna’da 2014 yılından bugüne yaşananların ve bu ülkedeki Rus azınlığa yönelik politikaların Rusya’nın askeri müdahalesini meşrulaştıracak ölçüde ağır insan hakları ihlalleri içerip içermediği ve hatta Rusya’nın iddia ettiği gibi bir soykırım olarak değerlendirilip değerlendirilemeyeceği sorgulanmaktadır. Makalede koruma sorumluluğu ilkesinin muhtevasının, Ukrayna’da son sekiz yılda yaşananların ve Rusya’nın iddialarının incelenmesi sonucunda, 1948 tarihli Soykırım Sözleşmesi’nin hükümlerinden de hareketle Ukrayna’da Rus azınlığa yönelik sistematik bir soykırımdan bahsedilemeyeceği ve dolayısıyla Rusya’nın Ukrayna’daki askeri operasyonunun koruma sorumluluğu ilkesi bağlamında meşrulaştırılamayacağı sonucuna ulaşılmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Rusya
• Ukrayna
• Koruma Sorumluluğu
• İnsan Hakları
• Soykırım

THE APPLICABILITY OF RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT IN THE RUSSIA – UKRAINE WAR WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF ALLEGATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND GENOCIDE

Öz

The main aim of Russia’s military operation against Ukraine in February 2022 was declared as protecting the Donbas people and the Russian minority living in this country from the eight years of oppression, humiliation, various human rights violations and genocide by the Kyiv administration. A military operation pretending to protect a community in another country from any of the cases such as genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity is suited at best to be assessed within the context of the principle of responsibility to protect in terms of international law. In this article, complianceence with the international law of Russia’s war in Ukraine is discussed within the framework of responsibility to protect, and in this context, it is questioned whether the events in Ukraine since 2014 and the policies towards the Russian minority in this country contain serious human rights violations to legitimize Russia's military intervention, and whether these developments can be defined as a genocide as claimed by Russia. After examining the content of the principle of responsibility to protect and Russia's allegations with regard to the events in Ukraine in the last eight years, and by considering the provisions of the 1948 Genocide Convention, the article concluded that it is impossible to speak of a systematic genocide against the Russian minority in Ukraine, and therefore, the military operation of Russia in Ukraine cannot be legitimized in the context of the principle of responsibility to protect.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Russia
• Ukraine
• Responsibility to Protect
• Human Rights
• Genocide

Kaynakça

1. “Bolee 720 tysiach zhitelei Donbassa poluchili rossiiskie pasporta”, Ria Novosti, 27.01.2022, (https://ria.ru/20220127/donbass-1769781282.html, Erişim: 30.08.2022)
2. “Feik: Sekretnyi prikaz komanduiushchego Natsional'noi gvardiei Ukrainy predusmatrival nastuplenie na Donbass v marte 2022 goda”, StopFake.org, 03.09.2022, (https://www.stopfake.org/ru/fejk-sekretnyj-prikaz-komanduyushhego-natsionalnoj-gvardiej-ukrainy-predusmatrival-nastuplenii-na-donbass-v-marte-2022-goda/, Erişim: 30.08.2022)
3. “International Court orders Russia to ‘immediately suspend’ military operations in Ukraine”, UN News Global Perspective Human Stories, 16 March 2022, https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1114052 Erişim: 08.10.2022)
4. “MO RF opublikovalo original sekretnogo prikaza o podgotovke Kievom nastupleniia na Donbass”, TASS, 09.03.2022, (https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/14006523?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=smm_social_share, Erişim: 30.08.2022)
5. “O brifinge Komissii General'nogo soveta partii "Edinaia Rossiia” po mezhdunarodnomu sotrudnichestvu i podderzhke sootechestvennikov zarubezhom, posviashchennom situatsii vokrug ukrainskogo krizisa”, Ministerstvo inostrannıh del Rossiiskoi Federatsii, (https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/news/1804537/, Erişim: 30.08.2022)
6. “Trends and Observations from the Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine”, OSCE, 2014-2020, (https://www.osce.org/special-monitoring-mission-to-ukraine/417620, Erişim: 30.08.2022)
7. “Zelensky signs into law bill on indigenous peoples of Ukraine”, Interfax, 22.06.2021, (https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/72305/ Erişim: 30.08.2022)
8. “Zelensky's full speech at Munich Security Conference”, The Kyiv Independent, 19.02.2022, (https://kyivindependent.com/national/zelenskys-full-speech-at-munich-security-conference, Erişim: 30.08.2022)

9. Abomo, Paul Tang: R2P and the US Intervention in Libya, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2019.
10. Aksar, Yusuf: Teoride ve Uygulamada Uluslararası Hukuk II (4. Baskı), Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2017.
11. Annan, Kofi: “We, the Peoples”: The role of the United Nations in the 21st Century”, Millennium report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, 2000.
12. Arsava, A. Füsun: “Egemenlik ve Koruma Sorumluluğu”, Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Volume XV, Number 1 (2011), s. 101-124.
13. Azarkan, Ezeli: “Uluslararası Hukukta İnsanlığa Karşı Suçlar”, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 52, Sayı 3 (2003), s. 275-297.
14. Bogner, Matilda: “7 years with no answers. What is lacking in the investigations of the events in odesa on 2 May 2014?”, United Nations in Ukraine”, 30.04.2021, (https://ukraine.un.org/en/126054-7-years-no-answers-what-lacking-investigations-events-odesa-2-may-2014, Erişim: 30.08.2022)
15. Braathen, Torgeir P.: “The Responsibility to Protect and the Importance of International Consensus”, E-International Relations, (2015), s. 1-25.
16. Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America); International Court of Justice (ICJ), 27 June 1986.
17. Chandler, David: “Unravelling the Paradox of 'The Responsibility to Protect'”, Irish Studies in International Affairs, Volume 20 (2009), s. 27-39.
18. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 9 December 1948.
19. Crisis Group Europe Report No 260: Peace in Ukraine (II): A New Approach to Disengagement, 03.08.2020
20. Deng, Francis: “From ‘Sovereignty as Responsibility’ to the ‘Responsibility to Protect’”, Global Responsibility to Protect, Volume 2, Number 4 (2010), s. 353-370.
21. Ducci, Cecilia: “Genocide in Ukraine? The war of words and the politicization of the ‘crime of crimes’”, Aspen Institute Italia, 20.05.2022, https://aspeniaonline.it/genocide-in-ukraine-the-war-of-words-and-the-politicization-of-the-crime-of-crimes/ Erişim: 02.10.2022)
22. Dudko, Oksana: “A conceptual limbo of genocide: Russian rhetoric, mass atrocities in Ukraine, and the current definition’s limits”, Canadian Slavonic Papers, (2022), s. 1-14. (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00085006.2022.2106691?needAccess=true Erişim: 08.10.2022)
23. Eldem, Tuba: ‘Koruma Sorumluluğu’ Normunun Libya ve Suriye Krizleri Bağlamında İşlevselliği”, Uluslararası Hukuk ve Politika, Cilt 11, Sayı 43 (2015), s. 1-38.
24. Ertuğrul, Ümmühan Elçin: “Koruma Sorumluluğu: İnsani Müdahaleyi Makyajlamak”, Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt XX, Sayı 2 (2016), s. 441-470.
25. Etkind, Alexander: “Ukraine, Russia, and Genocide of Minor Differences”, Journal of Genocide Research, (2022), s. 1-19. (https://proxy.hacibayram.edu.tr:2091/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2022.2082911?scroll=top&needAccess=true Erişim: 06.10.2022)
26. Fortuin, Egbert: “Ukraine commits genocide on Russians: the term “genocide” in Russian propaganda”, Russian Linguistics, (2022), s. 1-35. (https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11185-022-09258-5.pdf Erişim: 09.10.2022)
27. Fröhlich, Manuel: “The responsibility to Protect: Foundation, Transformation, and Application of an Emerging Norm”, Fabian Klose (Ed.), The Emergence of Humanitarian Intervention: Ideas and Practice from the Nineteenth Century to the Present, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015, s. 299-330.
28. Gilligan, Emma: “Redefining Humanitarian Intervention: The Historical Challenge of R2P”, Journal of Human Rights, Volume 12, Number 1 (2013), s. 41-62.
29. Hannay, David: “Recommendations of the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change: A Member 's Perspective”, Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights, Volume 4, Number 1 (2005), s. 1-13.
30. Henckaerts, Jean-Marie / Doswald-Beck, Louise: Uluslararası İnsancıl Teamül (Örf-Adet) Hukuku Cilt 1: Kurallar, (Çev.) Emre Öktem vd., Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayınlar, İstanbul, 2005.
31. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), “The Responsibility to Protect Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty”, International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Ottowa, 2001.
32. Ishchenko, Volodymyr: “The unique extra-parliamentary power of Ukrainian radical nationalists is a threat to the political regime and minorities”, The Foreign Policy Centre, 18.07.2018, https://fpc.org.uk/the-unique-extra-parliamentary-power-of-ukrainian-radical-nationalists-is-a-threat-to-the-political-regime-and-minorities/, Erişim: 30.08.2022)
33. Karaoğlu, Ali Osman: “Libya’ya Askeri Müdahale ve Uluslararası Hukukta Yeniden İnşa Sorumluluğu”, İstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 6, S. 1 (2019), s. 199-223.
34. Kring, Franziska-Carolin: Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Revisited: Towards Climate Change-Related Obligations of States?, Berliner Wissenschafts, Verlag, 2020.
35. Kulyk, Volodymyr: “Ukraine’s 2017 Education Law Incites International Controversy Over Language Stipulation”, PONARS Eurasia Policy Memo No. 525, 2018, (https://www.ponarseurasia.org/ukraine-s-2017-education-law-incites-international-controversy-over-language-stipulation/, Erişim: 30.08.2022).
36. Kursani, Shpend: “Beyond Putin’s Analogies: The Genocide Debate on Ukraine and the Balkan Analogy Worth Noting”, Journal of Genocide Research, (2022), s. 1-14. (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2022.2099633?scroll=top&needAccess=true Erişim: 07.10.2022)
37. Likhachev, Vyacheslav: “Far-right Extremism as a Threat to Ukrainian Democracy”, Freedom House, 2018, (https://freedomhouse.org/report/analytical-brief/2018/far-right-extremism-threat-ukrainian-democracy, Erişim: 30.08.2022)
38. Likhachev, Vyacheslav: “The “Right Sector” and others: The behavior and role of radical nationalists in the Ukrainian political crisis of late 2013 – Early 2014”, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, C. 48, S. 2/3, 2015, s. 257-271.
39. Likhachev, Vyacheslav: “The Far Right in the Conflict between Russia and Ukraine”, Russie.Nei.Visions, S. 95, 2016, (https://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/rnv95_uk_likhachev_far-right_radicals_final.pdf, Erişim: 30.08.2022)
40. Luensmann, Valerie: “The Impact of the ICISS Report on State Sovereignty”, E-International Relations (2014), s. 1-5.
41. Ministerstvo inostrannıh del Rossiiskoi Federatsii: Belaya kniga: narushenij prav cheloveka i printsipa verkhovenstva prava na Ukraine (noyabr 2013 - mart 2014), Moskova, 2014.
42. Nanda, Ved P.: “The Global Challenge of Protecting Human Rights: Promising New Developments”, Denver Journal of International Law & Policy, Volume 34, Number 1 (2006), s. 1-15.
43. OHCHR: Accountability for killings in Ukraine from January 2014 to May 2016, 25.05.2016
44. OHCHR: Civic space and fundamental freedoms in Ukraine, 1 November 2019 – 31 October 2021”, 08.12.2021.
45. OHCHR: Human Rights in the Administration of Justice in Conflict-Related Criminal Cases in Ukraine April 2014 – April 2020, 01.08.2020.
46. OHCHR: Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine 16 November 2015 - 15 February 2016, 03.06.2016.
47. OHCHR: Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine, 1 August 2021 – 31 January 2022, 28.03.2022.
48. OHCHR: Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine, 1 February - 31 July 2021, 23.09.2021.
49. Orford, Anne: International Authority and The Responsibility to Protect, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011.
50. Putin, Vladimir: “Address by the President of the Russian Federation” 24.02.2022, (http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67843, Erişim: 30.08.2022)
51. Putin, Vladimir: “Address by the President of the Russian Federation”, 21.02.2022, (http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67828, Erişim: 30.08.2022)
52. Putin, Vladimir: “Concert marking the anniversary of Crimea’s reunification with Russia”, 18.03.2022, (http://en.kremlin.ru/d/68016, Erişim: 30.08.2022)
53. Putin, Vladimir: “Direct Line with Vladimir Putin”, 30.06.2021, (http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/65973, Erişim: 30.08.2022)
54. Putin, Vladimir: “Meeting with Security Council permanent members”, 25.02.2022, (http://en.kremlin.ru/d/67851, Erişim: 30.08.2022)
55. Putin, Vladimir: “Victory Parade on Red Square”; Vladimir Putin, “Address by the President of the Russian Federation” 21.02.2022, (http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67828, Erişim: 30.08.2022)
56. Shaw, Malcolm N.: Uluslararası Hukuk (Sekizinci Baskı), (Çev. Ed.) İbrahim Kaya, Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi, Ankara, 2018.
57. Shevel, Oxana: “Decommunization in Post-Euromaidan Ukraine: Law and Practice”, PONARS Eurasia Policy Memo No. 411, 2016, (https://www.ponarseurasia.org/decommunization-in-post-euromaidan-ukraine-law-and-practice/, Erişim: 30.08.2022).
58. Stahn, Carsten: “Responsibility to Protect: Political Rhetoric or Emerging Legal Norm?, The American Journal of International Law, Cilt 101, Sayı 99 (2007), s. 99-120.
59. Sukhov, Oleg: “Parliament Passes Ukrainian Language Bill”, Kyiv Post, 25.04.2019, (https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/parliament-passes-ukrainian-language-bill.html, Erişim: 30.08.2022)
60. Taşdemir, Fatma: “Suriye İç Savaşı’na Üçüncü Devletlerin Müdahalesi ve Uluslararası Hukuk”, (Ed.) Fatma Taşdemir, Suriye, Çatışma ve Uluslararası Hukuk (3. Baskı), Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2020, s. 157-182.
61. Taşdemir, Fatma: “The 2022 Russia-Ukraine War From the Perspective of Jus Ad Bellum: Is International Law Strengthened”, E-Journal of Law, Volume 8, Number 1 (2022), s. 97-122.
62. Umland, Andreas: “The far right in pre- and post-Euromaidan Ukraine: From ultra-nationalist party politics to ethno-centric uncivil society”, Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization, C. 28, S. 2, 2020, s. 247-268.
63. UN High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, ‘A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility’, 2004.
64. UNGA/63/677 (12 January 2009)
65. UNGA/64/864 (14 July 2010)
66. UNGA/65/877-S/2011/393 (28 June 2011)
67. UNGA/66/874-S/2012/578 (25 July 2012)
68. UNGA/67/929-S/2013/399 (9July 2013)
69. UNGA/68/947-S/2014/449 (11 July 2014)
70. UNGA/69/981-S/2015/500 (13 July 2015)
71. UNGA/70/999-S/2016/620 (22 July 2016)
72. UNGA/71/1016-S/2017/556 (10 August 2017)
73. UNGA/72/884-S/2018/525 (1 June 2018)
74. UNGA/RES/60/1 (24 October 2005)
75. UNSC/RES/1674 (28 April 2006)
76. UNSC/RES/1970 (26 February 2011)
77. UNSC/RES/1973 (17 March 2011)
78. UNSC/RES/2093 (6 March 2013)
79. UNSC/RES/2109 (11 July 2013)
80. UNSC/RES/2149 (10 April 2014)
81. UNSC/RES/2150 (16 April 2014)
82. UNSC/RES/2170 (15 August 2014)
83. UNSC/RES/2206 (3 March 2015)
84. UNSG/SM/7136 (20 September 1999)
85. Venice Commission: Opinion on the Draft Law on Languages in Ukraine, CDL-AD(2011)008, 2011.
86. Venice Commission: Opinion on the Law On Supporting the Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as the State Language, CDL-AD(2019)032, 2019.
87. Venice Commission: Opinion on the Provisions of the Law on Education of 5 September 2017, CDL-AD(2017)030, 2017.