ULUSLARARASI ADALET DİVANI ÖNÜNDE SOYKIRIM İDDİALARI: GAMBİYA V. MYANMAR VE GÜNEY AFRİKA V. İSRAİL BAŞVURULARININ ANALİZİ VE KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

Öz

Bu çalışma, 1948 tarihli Soykırım Sözleşmesi’nin ihlali iddialarıyla Uluslararası Adalet Divanı (UAD) önüne taşınan Gambiya v. Myanmar ve Güney Afrika v. İsrail başvurularını incelemekte ve karşılaştırmaktadır. Bu amaçla ilk önce tarafların yargı yetkisi, dava ehliyeti ve Sözleşme’nin 2. maddesi kapsamındaki hukuki argümanları ile UAD’nin bu taleplere yönelik verdiği ihtiyati tedbir kararları aktarılmaktadır. Sonrasında ise başvuruların benzer ve farklı yönleri ele alınmaktadır. Buna göre karşılaştırılan iki davanın en belirgin ortak özelliği, başvuran devletlerin coğrafi olarak uzakta olmalarına veya siyasi olarak olaylardan doğrudan etkilenmemelerine rağmen, soykırım yasağının uluslararası toplumun tümünü ilgilendiren erga omnes partes niteliğine dayanarak dava açma ehliyetini meşru kılmış olmalarıdır. Nitekim UAD de her iki davanın ihtiyati tedbir aşamasında prima facie olarak yargı yetkisini ve başvuranların dava ehliyetini kabul etmiş; ayrıca Rohingyalar ile Gazze’deki Filistinlilerin Sözleşme kapsamında korunan grup özelliklerini taşıdığına hükmetmiştir. Yine de erga omnes partes kavramının UAD’nin artacak iş yükü ve hukukun siyasallaşması üzerindeki olası etkileri bazı soru işaretleri barındırmaktadır. Ek olarak, esasa geçilecek ilerleyen safhalarda her iki davanın da en çetin tartışma konusunun özel kastın ispatı olacağı düşünülmektedir. UAD’nin dolaylı kanıtlardan hareketle kastı tespit ederken aradığı ‘tek makul çıkarım testi’ şeklindeki yüksek ispat eşiği, davalı devletlerin eylemlerini meşru müdafaa veya isyana karşı mücadele gibi alternatif amaçlarla gerekçelendirme çabaları karşısında başvuran taraflar için kritik bir zorluk teşkil edecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Uluslararası Adalet Divanı
• Soykırım Sözleşmesi
• Korunan Grup
• Erga Omnes Partes
• Özel Kast

Genocide Claims before the International Court of Justice: Analysis and Comparison of the Gambia v. Myanmar and South Africa v. Israel Cases

Öz

This study examines and compares the applications brought before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) alleging violations of the 1948 Genocide Convention in The Gambia v. Myanmar and South Africa v. Israel. To this end, the parties’ jurisdiction, standing to sue, and legal arguments under Article 2 of the Convention, as well as the ICJ’s provisional measures decisions on these claims, are first presented. It then addresses the similarities and differences between the two applications. The most prominent common feature of the two cases being compared is that, despite the applicant states being geographically distant or not directly affected by the events politically, they have legitimized their standing to bring the case based on the erga omnes partes nature of the prohibition of genocide, which concerns the entire international community. Accordingly, at the provisional measures stage, the ICJ in both cases accepted prima facie its jurisdiction and the applicants’ standing, and further held that the Rohingya and the Palestinians in Gaza constitute protected groups within the meaning of the Convention. Nevertheless, the concept of erga omnes partes raises some questions regarding its potential impact on the increasing workload of the ICJ and the politicization of law. Moreover, at later stages on the merits, the most contentious issue in both cases is likely to be the proof of specific intent. The Court’s demanding standard of proof -requiring that genocidal intent be the ‘only reasonable inference’ drawn from indirect evidence-will pose a critical challenge for the applicants, particularly in the face of respondents’ efforts to justify their conduct by reference to alternative purposes such as self-defence or counterinsurgency.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• International Court of Justice
• Genocide Convention
• Erga Omnes Partes
• Protected Group
• Specific Intent

Kaynakça

1. Agenjo, Adrián. “Expanding the Limits of Genocidal Intent: A Protective Interpretation”. Völkerrechtsblog, May 18, 2024. https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/expanding-the-limits-of-genocidal-intent/.
2. Arribas, Fernández. “The ICJ Order on Provisional Measures of January 2024 in South Africa v. Israel on Genocide Case: An Expected but Disappointing Decision.” Paix et Securite Internationales Journal of International Law and International Relations 12, no. 1 (2024).
3. Becker, Michael. “Crisis in Gaza: South Africa v Israel at the International Court of Justice (or the Unbearable Lightness of Provisional Measures)”. Melbourne Journal of International Law 25, no. 2 (January 1, 2024). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5018178.
4. Behrens, Paul. “The Crime of Genocide and the Problem of Subjective Substantiality”. German Yearbook of International Law 59, no. 321 (2016).
5. British Institute of International and Comparative Law. Reflections on the South Africa v. Israel Case at the International Court of Justice, 9 February 2024.
6. Clark, Janine Natalya. “Elucidating the Dolus Specialis: An Analysis of ICTY Jurisprudence on Genocidal Intent.” Criminal Law Forum 26, no. 3-4 (2015): 497–531.
7. Fragkiadaki, Iliana. “South Africa v ICJ: Reflections on the Institutional Deficits of the ICJ.” Rule of Law Journal 4, no. 1 (October 30, 2024).
8. Graf, Jan-Phillip. “Erga Omnes Partes Standing and Procedural Issues in South Africa v. Israel”. EJIL: Talk!, February 2024. https://www.ejiltalk.org/erga-omnes-partes-standing-and-procedural-issues-in-south-africa-v-israel/.

9. Gunawan, Yordan, Sonya Whisler Refisyanti, Aliza Mufida, Kukuh Derajat Takarub, and Aisah Nur. “Jurisdiction of International Court of Justice (ICJ) over the Genocide Violations: With Special References to Rohingya Case”. Fiat Justisia: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 14, no. 4 (July 28, 2020): 313. https://doi.org/10.25041/fiatjustisia.v14no4.1900.
10. Human Rights Council. Report of the Detailed Findings of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar. 39th sess, Agenda Item 4, UN Doc A/HRC/39/CRP.2 (17 September 2018).
11. ICJ. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar). Application Instituting Proceedings and Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures (11 November 2019).
12. ICJ. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar). Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, Order (23 January 2020).
13. ICJ. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro). Judgment (26 February 2007).
14. ICJ. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, Order (26 January 2024).
15. ICJ. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar). Preliminary Objections, Judgment (22 July 2022).
16. ICJ. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar). Verbatim Record (11 December 2019), Remarks by Christopher Staker.
17. ICJ. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar., Written Observations of The Gambia on the Preliminary Objections Raised by Myanmar (20 April 2021).
18. ICJ. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). Application Instituting Proceedings containing a Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures (29 December 2023).
19. ICJ. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, Order, Seperate Opinion of Judge ad hoc Barak (26 January 2024).
20. ICJ. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). Verbatim Record (11 January 2024), Remarks by Tembeka Ngcukaitobi.
21. ICJ. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). Verbatim Record (12 January 2024), Remarks by Galit Raguan.
22. ICJ. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain). Judgment (5 February 1970).
23. ICTR. Prosecutor v. Akayesu. Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Judgement (2 September 1998).
24. Jeffrey, Alex. “Geopolitics and Genocide: The Gambia vs. Myanmar at the International Court of Justice”. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 41, no. 8 (July 14, 2023). https://doi.org/10.1177/23996544231188822.
25. Just Security. “Top Experts’ Views of Int’l Court of Justice Ruling on Israel Gaza Operations (South Africa v Israel, Genocide Convention Case)”. Just Security, January 26, 2024. https://www.justsecurity.org/91457/top-experts-views-of-intl-court-of-justice-ruling-on-israel-gaza-operations-south-africa-v-israel-genocide-convention-case/.
26. Keitner, Chimene. “Understanding South Africa v. Israel at the International Court of Justice”. Lawfare, January 16, 2024. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/understanding-south-africa-v.-israel-at-the-international-court-of-justice.
27. Kreca, Milenko. “Decisions of the International Court of Justice in Gambia v. Myanmar and South Africa v. Israel Cases as a New Perspective of Adjudication.” Collection of Papers from the Conference Organized on Occasion of the Day of the Faculty of Law 2025, no. 1 (2025): 1-21. HeinOnline.
28. Laine, Tessa. The Application of Obligations Erga Omnes (Partes) in the Protection of Stateless Persons from the Crime of Genocide – A Study of The Gambia v. Myanmar Case (Master Thesis, Åbo Akademi University 2024)
29. Mazzeschi, Riccardo Pisillo, and Eugenio Carli. “Proof of Specific Intent in the Crime of Genocide.” Journal of International Criminal Justice 22 (2024).
30. Ramsden, Michael. “Litigating the Gaza Crisis: Legal and Political Strategies in South Africa v. Israel.” Cardozo International & Comparative Law Review 8, no. 2 (2025).
31. Renshaw, Catherine. “The Numbers Game: Substantiality and the Definition of Genocide”. Journal of Genocide Research 25, no. 2 (November 22, 2021): 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2021.2003990. Sturma, Pavel, and Milan Lipovský. The Crime of Genocide: Then and Now. Brill Nijhoff, 2022.
32. Tams, Christian, Lars Berster, and Björn Schiffbauer. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: A Commentary. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014.
33. Tams, Christian. Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
34. Tekin, Burak. “Uluslararası Adalet Divanı’nda Görülen Güney Afrika–İsrail Davasına Türkiye’nin Müdahillik Başvurusu: İsrail’in Olası Savunmalarına Yönelik Temel Hukuki Argümanlar”. Uluslararası Suçlar ve Tarih, no. 26 (September 30, 2025): 29–66. https://doi.org/10.54842/ustich.1751390.
35. ———. “The Plight of the Rohingya: Genocide Allegations and Provisional Measures in the Gambia v Myanmar at the International Court of Justice”. SSRN Electronic Journal 21, no. 2 (2020). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3688935
36. ———. “Uluslararası Adalet Divanı’nın Gambiya-Myanmar Davasında Soykırım Suçunun Tespiti Bakımından Karşılaşacağı Dört Temel Hukuki Soruna Dair Bir Değerlendirme”. Uluslararası Suçlar ve Tarih, no. 22 (2021): 29–73.
37. UN. “Transcript of Secretary-General’s Remarks at Press Encounter with President of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim”. Secretary-General, July 2, 2018. https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/press-events/2018-07-02/transcript-of-secretary-generals-remarks-press-encounter-president-of-the-world-bank-jim-yong-kim.
38. Uraz, Onur. “Growing Role of the International Court of Justice as a Field of Lawfare: Perils and Prospects”. Athena – Critical Inquiries in Law, Philosophy and Globalization 5, no. 1 (July 14, 2025). https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2724-6299/21521.
39. Uzun, Elif ve Neslihan Özkerim Güner. “Uluslararası Adalet Divanının Gambiya vs. Myanmar İhtiyati Tedbir Kararının Devlet Sorumluluğu Açısından Değerlendirilmesi.” İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 15, no. 2 (2024): 335–49.
40. Velenczei, Dora Vanda. “South Africa v Israel: Bosnia v Serbia 2.0?” International Law Blog, February 13, 2024. https://internationallaw.blog/2024/02/13/south-africa-v-israel-bosnia-v-serbia-2-0/.
41. Vogiatzis, Nikos, “Interpreting the Right to Interpretation under Article 6(3)(e) ECHR: A Cautious Evolution in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights?”, Human Rights Law Review, Volume 22, Issue 1, March 2022, s. 1-25.
42. Zarni, Maung, and Alice Cowley. “The Slow-Burning Genocide of Myanmar’s Rohingya”. Washington International Law Journal 23, no. 3 (June 1, 2014): 683. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wilj/vol23/iss3/8/.