DEVLET MERKEZLİ ULUSLARARASI HUKUK SİSTEMİ ve DEVLET DIŞI SİLÂHLI AKTÖRLER

Öz

Günümüzde devletler hala uluslararası hukuk sisteminin asli kişisidir. Ancak uluslararası nitelikte olmayan silâhlı çatışmalarda yaşanan artışın bir sonucu olarak artık devlet dışı silâhlı aktörler de artan şekilde sistemde rol oynamaktadırlar ve uluslararası insancıl hukuk ve uluslararası insan hakları hukukunu en ağır şekilde ihlâl etmektedirler. Sivillerin korunmasını sağlamak için devlet dışı silâhlı aktörlerin de uluslararası insancıl hukuk ve uluslararası insan hakları hukukuna bağlı olması ve saygı göstermesi gereklidir. Ancak insan hakları ve insancıl hukuk normlarına taraf olmadıkları halde bu normların neden devlet dışı silâhlı aktörleri bağlaması gerektiği ve bunun hukuksal dayanağının ne olduğu konusu uluslararası hukukta oldukça tartışmalı bir konudur. Devlet dışı silâhlı aktörler uluslararası insancıl hukuk alanında en önemli aktörlerden bir tanesi olmasına karşın bunların uluslararası insancıl hukuk ihlâlleri dolayısıyla sorumluluğu konusu uluslararası hukukta yeterince düzenlenmemiştir. Bu konuda mevcut dolaylı sorumluluk modellerinden birisi olan bireysel cezai sorumluluk mekanizması yetersizdir. Diğer dolaylı sorumluluk mekanizmasını oluşturan devlet dışı silâhlı aktörlerin gerçekleştirdiği insan hakları ve insancıl hukuk ihlâllerinden dolayı devletleri hesap verir kılma mekanizması da etkin değildir. Zira devletler; etkin denetim, bütünsel denetim veya onaylama doktrinlerinin ardına saklanarak sorumluluktan kaçabilmektedirler. Devletlerin, devleti sorumlu tutmada izafe koşullarını kolaylaştıran yeni bir hesap verme modelini kabul etmesi de pek mümkün görünmemektedir. Devlet dışı silâhlı aktörlerin günümüzde geçirdiği evrim nedeniyle bunların doğrudan sorumluluğu önem kazanmıştır. Ancak önerilen bu doğrudan sorumluluk modeli de siyasal ve hukuksal açıdan bir dizi ikilemler içermektedir. Bu nedenle doğrudan sorumluluk modeli uluslararası hukukun gri bölgelerinden bir tanesi olmaya devam etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Devlet Merkezli Sistem,Devlet Dışı Silâhlı Aktörler,Uluslararası Nitelikte Olmayan Silâhlı Çatışmalar,Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Hukuku,Uluslararası Sorumluluk

STATE-CENTRIC INTERNATIONAL LAW SYSTEM AND ARMED NON-STATE ACTORS

Öz

States are still the fundamental entities of the international law system. As a result of the rise of non-international armed conflicts, however, armed non-state actors started to play an increasing role within the international system and they seriously violate the international humanitarian law and the international human rights law, to which they should be subject and respect for the protection of civilians. Nevertheless, the questions of why these norms should be binding for armed non-state actors and what the legal basis for this are highly disputed in the international law since they are not a party to the norms of human rights and humanitarian law. Although armed non-state actors are one of the most important subjects within the sphere of international humanitarian law, the issue of responsibility for their violations of international humanitarian law has not been adequately regulated within the international law. Of the present indirect responsibility models, the mechanism of the individual criminal responsibility is insufficient. The other indirect responsibility model that is the mechanism of the making states accountable for the violations of human rights and humanitarian law by armed non-state actors is inefficient because states may evade their responsibility through hiding behind the doctrines of effective control, overall control and approval. On the other hand, adaptation of a new accountability model which facilitates the conditions of attribution for making states responsible does not seem possible. The direct responsibility of armed non-state actors has gained importance due to their recent evolution. However, this recommended model of direct responsibility has a series of dilemmas from political and legal aspects of the subject. Hence, direct responsibility model continues to remain as one of the grey areas of the international law. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• State-centric System,Armed Non-State Actors,Non-international Armed Conflicts,International Human Rights Law,International Responsibility

Kaynakça

1. Akkutay, Ali İbrahim. (2016). “Silâhlı Çatışmalar Hukukunda İç Silâhlı Çatışmaların Uluslararasılaşması”, Ankara Üni. Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 65(1), 1-61.
2. Albayrak. Gökhan. (2016). “Devlet Dışı Silâhlı Aktörlerin İnsancıl Hukuk Sorumluluğu ve Suriye Krizi”, içinde (Ed.) Fatma Taşdemir, Suriye, Çatışma ve Uluslararası Hukuk, Ankara: Nobelkitap.
3. Bangerter, Olivier. (2011). “ Reasons Why Armed Groups Choose To Respect International Humanitarian Law Or Not”, IRRC, 93(882), 353-384.
4. Başlar, Kemal. (2005). Uluslararası Hukukta Hükümet Dışı Kuruluşlar, Ankara: Usak Yayınları.
5. Bayıllıoğlu, Uğur.(2016). İnsani Müdahale Çıkmazından Çıkış Arayışı: Koruma Sorumluluğu Libya ve Suriye Örnek(sizlik)leriyle, Ankara:Turhan kitabevi.
6. Bellal, Annyssa ve Stuart Casey-Maslen. (2001), “Enhancing Compliance with International Law Armed Non-State Actors”, Goetting Journal of International Law, 3(1), 175-197.
7. Bellal, Annyssa. (2015). “Establishing Direct Responsibility of Non-State Armed Groups for Violations of International Norms: Issues of Attribution”, içinde (Eds.), Noemi Gal- Or, Cedric Ryngaert ve Math Noortmann, Responsibilities of the Non-State Actor in Armed Conflict and the Market Place, s.305. Leiden, Boston: Brill Nijhoff.
8. Bilkova, Veronika. (2015). “Establishing Direct Responsibility of Armed Opposition Groups for Violations of International Humanitarian Law”, içinde (Eds.), Noemi Gal- Or, Cedric Ryngaert ve Math Noortmann, Responsibilities of the Non-State Actor in Armed Conflict and the Market Place, Leiden, Boston: Brill Nijhoff.

9. Bongard, Pascal ve Jonathan Somer. (2011). “Monitoring Armed Non-State Actor Compliance With Humanitarian Norms: A Look at International Mechanisms and The Geneva Call Deed of Commitment”, IRRC, 93(883)
10. Albayrak. Gökhan. (2016). “Devlet Dışı Silâhlı Aktörlerin İnsancıl Hukuk Sorumluluğu ve Suriye Krizi”, içinde (Ed.) Fatma Taşdemir, Suriye, Çatışma ve Uluslararası Hukuk, Ankara: Nobelkitap.
11. Bangerter, Olivier. (2011). “ Reasons Why Armed Groups Choose To Respect International Humanitarian Law Or Not”, IRRC, 93(882), 353-384.
12. Başlar, Kemal. (2005). Uluslararası Hukukta Hükümet Dışı Kuruluşlar, Ankara: Usak Yayınları.
13. Bayıllıoğlu, Uğur.(2016). İnsani Müdahale Çıkmazından Çıkış Arayışı: Koruma Sorumluluğu Libya ve Suriye Örnek(sizlik)leriyle, Ankara:Turhan kitabevi.
14. Bellal, Annyssa ve Stuart Casey-Maslen. (2001), “Enhancing Compliance with International Law Armed Non-State Actors”, Goetting Journal of International Law, 3(1), 175-197.
15. Bellal, Annyssa. (2015). “Establishing Direct Responsibility of Non-State Armed Groups for Violations of International Norms: Issues of Attribution”, içinde (Eds.), Noemi Gal- Or, Cedric Ryngaert ve Math Noortmann, Responsibilities of the Non-State Actor in Armed Conflict and the Market Place, s.305. Leiden, Boston: Brill Nijhoff.
16. Bilkova, Veronika. (2015). “Establishing Direct Responsibility of Armed Opposition Groups for Violations of International Humanitarian Law”, içinde (Eds.), Noemi Gal- Or, Cedric Ryngaert ve Math Noortmann, Responsibilities of the Non-State Actor in Armed Conflict and the Market Place, Leiden, Boston: Brill Nijhoff.
17. Bongard, Pascal ve Jonathan Somer. (2011). “Monitoring Armed Non-State Actor Compliance With Humanitarian Norms: A Look at International Mechanisms and The Geneva Call Deed of Commitment”, IRRC, 93(883)
18. Chertoff, Emily, Lara Dominguez, Zak Manfredi ve Peter Tzeng. (2015). State Responsibility for Non-State Actors That Detain in the Course of a NIAC, A Report of Center for Global Legal Challenges, Center for Global Legal Challenges.
19. Clapham, Andrew. (2010). “The Rights and Responsibilities of Armed Non-State Actors: The Legal Lanscape and Issues Surrounding Engagement, https://www.researchgate. net/publication/228142550_The_Rights_and_Responsibilities_of_Armed_Nonstate_ Actors_The_Legal_Landscape_Issues_Surrounding_Engagement, (erişim : 25.04.2017).
20. Clapham, Andrew. (2006). “Human Rights Obligations of Non- State Actors in Conflict Situations”, IRRC, 88(863), 491 – 523.
21. Cronogue. Graham. (2013). “ Rebels, Negligent Support, and State Accountability: Holding States Accountable fort he Human Rights Violations of Non-State Actors”, Duke Journal of Comparative&International Law, 23(365),365-388.
22. Dabone, Zakaria. (2011). “International Law: Armed Groups in a State-centric System”, 93(882), 395-424.
23. Dahl, Arne Willy ve Magnus Sandbu. (2006), “The Threshold of Armed Conflict”, Mil.L.&L. War Rev.,45,369-379.
24. Erdem, Mete (2015). “İnsancıl Hukukta Martens Kaydı”, İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 6 (2), s.211-286.
25. Heffes. Ezequiel. (2013). “The Responsibility of Armed Opposition Groups For Violations of International Humanitarian Law: Challenging The State-Centric System of International Law”, Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, 4, 81-107.
26. Henckaerts, Jean-Marie ve Louise Doswald- Beck. (2005).Uluslararası İnsancıl Teamül (Örf-Adet) Hukuku Cilt I: Kurallar, Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayınları: Beta Basım.
27. Higgins, Noelle. (2009).”The Regulation of Armed Non-StateActors: Promoting the Application of the Laws of War to Conflicts Involving National Liberation Movements”, Human Rights Brief, 17(1),12-18.
28. Jones, Seth G. ve Patrick B. Johnston, (2013). “ The Future of Insurgency”, Studies in Conflict& Terrorism, 36,1-25.
29. Kleffner, Jann K. (2011). “The Applicability of International Humanitarian Law to Organized Armed Groups”, International Review of the Red Cross, 93(882), 443-461.
30. Lauterpacht, H. (1947), Recognition in International Law, Cambridge.
31. Lele, Ajey. (2014). “Asymmetric Warfare: A State vs Non-State Conflict”, OASIS, No 20, 97-111.
32. Longworth, Sally Alexandra, (2008), Obligations of Non-State Armed Actors in Internal Armed Conflicts, Faculty of Law Lund University,(Master Thesis), Spring.
33. Moir, Lindsay. (2002). The Law of Internal Armed Conflict, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34. Murray, Daragh. (2015). “How International Humanitarian Law Treaties Bind Non-State Armed Groups”, Journal of Conflict & Security Law, 20(1), 101-131.
35. Pazarcı, Hüseyin. (2000). Uluslararası Hukuk Dersler IV. Kitap, Ankara: Turhan Kitapevi.
36. Pazarcı. Hüseyin. (2006). Uluslararası Hukuk, Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi.
37. Pettersson, Therese ve Peter Wallensteen. (2015). “Armed Conflicts, 1946-2014”, Journal of Peace Research, 52 (4), 536-550.
38. Rodenhauser, Tilman (2015).“International Legal Obligations of Armed Opposition Groups in Syria”, International Review of Law, 2, 1-16.
39. Sassòli, Marco. (2002). “State Responsibility for Violations of International Humanitarian Law,” International Review of the Red Cross, 84 (846), 401-434.
40. Sassòli, Marco. (2010). “Taking Armed Groups Seriously: Ways to Improve their Compliance with International Humanitarian Law”, JIHLS, 1(5),
41. Schabas, William A. (2003). “Punishment of Non-State Actors in Non-International Armed Conflict”, Fordham International Law Journal, 26(4), 907-933.
42. Schneckener, Ulrich, “Armed Non-State Actors and the Monopoly of Force”, Bailes, Alyson, Ulrich Scheneckener ve Herbert Wulf, Revisiting the State Monopoly on the Legitimate Use of Force, (içinde), http://www.wulf-herbert.de/DCAFPP24Wulf.pdf., (erişim:24.04.2017).
43. Sivakumaran, Sandesh. (2006). ‘Binding Armed Opposition Groups’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 55, 369–394.
44. Taşdemir. Fatma.(2013). ”Başarısız Devletler ve Uluslararası Hukuk Açısından Ortaya Çıkardığı Sorunlar”, Erciyes Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(1), 405-423.
45. Taşdemir. Fatma. (2009). Uluslararası Nitelikte Olmayan Silâhlı Çatışmalar Hukuku, Ankara: Adalet Yayınevi.
46. Vark, Rene.(2008). “State Responsibility for Private Armed Groups, in the Context of Terrorism”, Juridical International, XI, 184-193.
47. Verhoeven, Sten I. (2015). “International Responsibility of Armed Opposition Groups”, içinde (Eds.), Noemi Gal-Or, Cedric Ryngaert ve Math Noortmann, Responsibilities of the Non-State Actor in Armed Conflict and the Market Place, 286-287, Leiden, Boston: Brill Nijhoff.
48. Zegveld, Liesbeth. (2002). Accountability of Armed Opposition Groups in International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49. Afrika’da Ülke İçi Yerinden Edilen Kişiler İçin Koruma ve Yardım Konusunda Afrika Birliği (Kampala) Sözleşmesi, http://www.unhcr.org/about-us/background/4ae9bede9/african-union-convention-protection-assistance-internally-displaced-persons.html, (erişim: 25.04.2015).
50. Armed Non-State Actors: Current Trends&Future Challenges, (2015). DCAF Horizon, Working Paper.
51. Çocuk Haklarına Dair Sözleşmeye Ek Çocukların Silâhlı Çatışmalara Dahil Olmaları Konusundaki Seçmeli Protokol, https://www.ombudsman.gov.tr/contents/files/6314- -Cocuk-Haklarina-Dair-Sozlesmeye-Ek-Cocuklarin-Silahli-Catismalara-Dahil- Olmalari-Konusundaki-Secmeli-Protokol.pdf, (erişim : 25.04.2017).
52. Decision on the Defence Motion Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Prosecutor v. Tadić, ICTY, Appeals Chamber, IT-94-1, 2 October 1995, http://www.icty.org/x/cases/tadic/ acdec/en/51002.htm, (erişim: 28.12.2016).
53. Human Rights Obligations Of Armed Non-State Actors: An Explorations of the Practice of the UN Human Rights Council, December 2016, https://www.geneva-academy.ch/ joomlatools-files/docman-files/InBrief7_web.pdf, (erişim: 25.05.2017).
54. Human Rights In Palestine And Other Occupied Arab Territories Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, G.A, A/ HRC/ 12 /49, 25 September 2009, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/AHRC- 12-48.pdf, ( erişim: 19.12.2016).
55. ICJ, Case concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, United States of America v. Iran, Judgement, 24 May 1980, ICJ Reports 1980, http://www. icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=334&p1=3&p2=3&case=64&p3=5, (erişim: 28.12. 2016).
56. ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Boškoski and Tarčulovski, Case No. ICTY-IT–04–82-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 10 June 2008,http://www.icty.org/x/cases/boskoski_tarculovski/tjug/ en/080710.pdf, (erişm: 28.12.2016).
57. ILC Commentary to the Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001, A/56/10, 53rd session 2001, Commentary to Article 10, http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf, (erişim: 19.12.2016).
58. Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua, Merits, ICJ Reports (1986) para 218, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/70/6503.pdf, (erişim: 28.12.2016).
59. Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General- Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1564 of 18 September 2004, Geneva, 25 January 2005, http://www.un.org/news/dh/sudan/com_inq_darfur. pdf,(erişim: 28.12.2016).
60. Report of the International Commission on Libya, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session19/A. HRC.19.68.pdf,(erişim: 29.12.2016).
61. Report of the independent international commission of inquiryon the Syrian Arab Republic, A/HRC/ 21/50, 16 August 2012, Annex II, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session21/A-HRC-21-50_en.pdf,(erişim: 19.12. 2016).
62. Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001, http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/9_6_2001.pdf, (erişim: 25.12.2016).
63. 32nd International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary armed Conflicts, Report. (2015). ICRC, Geneva.