Le problème de l'application du droit sur la scène internationale

Öz

Cette étude analyse les obstacles normatifs et structurels rencontrés lors de l'institutionnalisation de la démocratie et de l'État de droit au niveau politique international, selon les perspectives de la théorie du droit naturel, de l'universalisme éthique et de la doctrine des droits de l'homme. Si l'ordre international moderne semble formellement avoir accepté les droits de l'homme, l'État de droit et la gouvernance démocratique comme normes universelles, leur application est souvent limitée par les asymétries de pouvoir, les normes de souveraineté et les calculs géopolitiques d'intérêt personnel. L'étude soutient que cette situation découle non seulement d'un manque d'application pratique, mais aussi de la tension inhérente entre droit normatif et droit positif au sein de la structure existentielle du système international. L'approche du droit naturel, qui fonde la source du droit sur la vérité morale, définit les limites de la légitimité du droit positif ; tandis que l'universalisme éthique affirme que les systèmes politiques devraient être soumis à des normes universelles, partant du principe que tous les individus possèdent une égale valeur morale. La doctrine des droits de l'homme, quant à elle, constitue le cadre normatif qui institutionnalise ces deux approches au sein de l'ordre juridique contemporain. Cependant, l’application sélective de la démocratie et de l’état de droit au niveau international érode la légitimité de l’ordre normatif et fragilise l’idée de justice mondiale. Cet article soutient que la crise en question peut être surmontée non seulement par des réformes institutionnelles, mais aussi par une transformation plus profonde qui exige une refonte des fondements éthiques du droit international.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Droit naturel
• droits de l'homme
• démocratie
• État de droit
• droit international
• justice mondiale.
• institutions politiques comparées

THE PROBLEM OF THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW IN THE INTERNATIONAL ARENA

Öz

This article examines the structural and normative barriers to the implementation of democracy and the law at the global level through the lens of the natural law approach, ethical universalism, and human rights doctrine. Although the contemporary global order formally recognizes democracy, human freedoms, and the law as universal benchmarks, their practical application rebases deeply constrained by sovereignty, power asymmetries, and geopolitical interests. The article argues that this gap between normativity and practice does not stem solely from deficiencies in enforcement mechanisms, but rather reflects a deeper ontological tension between moral universalism and the positivist foundations of international law. While natural law grounds legal validity in moral correctness and ethical rationality, ethical universalism asserts the equal moral worth of all persons, thereby demanding universal standards of political legitimacy. Human rights doctrine institutionalizes these claims within contemporary legal frameworks. Yet, selective application and instrumentalization of these norms undermine their legitimacy and erode the moral foundations of the global legal order. This study argues that overcoming the crisis requires not only institutional reforms but also a radical rethinking of the ethical foundations of international law.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Natural law
• human rights
• democracy
• rule of law
• international law
• global justice.
• comparative political institutions

Uluslararası Arenada Hukukun Uygulanması Sorunu

Öz

Bu çalışma, demokrasi ve hukukun üstünlüğünün uluslararası siyasal düzeyde kurumsallaştırılması sürecinde karşılaşılan normatif ve yapısal engelleri, doğal hukuk teorisi, etik evrenselcilik ve insan hakları doktrini perspektiflerinden analiz etmektedir. Modern uluslararası düzen, formel olarak insan hakları, hukukun üstünlüğü ve demokratik yönetişim ilkelerini evrensel normlar olarak kabul etmiş görünse de bu ilkelerin uygulanması çoğu zaman güç asimetrileri, egemenlik normu ve jeopolitik çıkar hesapları tarafından sınırlandırılmaktadır. Çalışma, bu durumun yalnızca pratik bir uygulama açığından değil, aynı zamanda uluslararası sistemin varoluşsal yapısında içkin olan normatif-pozitif hukuk geriliminden kaynaklandığını ileri sürmektedir. Doğal hukuk yaklaşımı, hukukun kaynağını ahlaki doğrulukta temellendirerek pozitif hukukun meşruiyet sınırlarını çizerken; etik evrenselcilik, tüm bireylerin eşit ahlaki değere sahip olduğu iddiası üzerinden siyasal düzenlerin evrensel normatif standartlara tâbi olması gerektiğini savunur. İnsan hakları doktrini ise bu iki yaklaşımı çağdaş hukuk düzeni içerisinde kurumsallaştıran normatif çerçeveyi oluşturur. Bununla birlikte, uluslararası düzeyde demokrasi ve hukukun üstünlüğünün seçici biçimde uygulanması, normatif düzenin meşruiyetini aşındırmakta ve küresel adalet fikrini zayıflatmaktadır. Bu makale, söz konusu krizin yalnızca kurumsal reformlarla değil, aynı zamanda uluslararası hukukun etik temellerini yeniden düşünmeyi gerektiren daha derin bir dönüşümle aşılabileceğini savunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Doğal hukuk
• insan hakları
• demokrasi
• hukukun üstünlüğü
• uluslararası hukuk
• küresel adalet.
• karşılaştırmalı siyasal kurumlar

Das Problem der Rechtsanwendung im internationalen Bereich

Öz

Diese Studie analysiert die normativen und strukturellen Hindernisse bei der Institutionalisierung von Demokratie und Rechtsstaatlichkeit auf internationaler Ebene aus der Perspektive des Naturrechts, des ethischen Universalismus und der Menschenrechtsdoktrin. Obwohl die moderne internationale Ordnung Menschenrechte, Rechtsstaatlichkeit und demokratische Regierungsführung formal als universelle Normen anerkannt zu haben scheint, wird deren Anwendung häufig durch Machtasymmetrien, Souveränitätsnormen und geopolitische Eigeninteressen eingeschränkt. Die Studie argumentiert, dass diese Situation nicht nur auf eine Lücke in der praktischen Anwendung, sondern auch auf die inhärente Spannung zwischen normativem und positivem Recht innerhalb der existentiellen Struktur des internationalen Systems zurückzuführen ist. Der naturrechtliche Ansatz, der die Quelle des Rechts in der moralischen Wahrheit verankert, definiert die Grenzen der Legitimität des positiven Rechts; der ethische Universalismus hingegen argumentiert, dass politische Systeme universellen normativen Standards unterliegen sollten, basierend auf der Annahme, dass alle Individuen den gleichen moralischen Wert besitzen. Die Menschenrechtsdoktrin bildet den normativen Rahmen, der diese beiden Ansätze in der gegenwärtigen Rechtsordnung institutionalisiert. Die selektive Anwendung von Demokratie und Rechtsstaatlichkeit auf internationaler Ebene untergräbt jedoch die Legitimität der normativen Ordnung und schwächt den Gedanken globaler Gerechtigkeit. Dieser Artikel argumentiert, dass die betreffende Krise nicht nur durch institutionelle Reformen, sondern auch durch einen tiefgreifenderen Wandel überwunden werden kann, der ein Überdenken der ethischen Grundlagen des Völkerrechts erfordert.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Naturrecht
• Menschenrechte
• Demokratie
• Rechtsstaatlichkeit
• Völkerrecht
• globale Gerechtigkeit.
• vergleichenden politischen Institutionen

Kaynakça

1. Akhavan P, ‘Beyond Impunity: Can International Criminal Justice Prevent Future Atrocities?’ (2001) 95 American Journal of International Law 7 https://doi.org/10.2307/2642034
2. Archibugi D, ‘Principles of Cosmopolitan Democracy’ in D Held, D Archibugi and M Köhler (eds), Re-imagining Political Community (Cambridge University Press 1998) 198
3. Aslan Ö, ‘Anayasal Devlet İlkesi Bağlamında İnsan Hakları ile Güvenlik Arasındaki Denge’ (2026) 23 Ombudsman Akademik 237 https://doi:10.32002/ombudsmanakademik.1767148
4. Buchanan A, Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-Determination: Moral Foundations for International Law (OUP 2003) https://doi.org/10.1093/0198295359.001.0001
5. Chandler D, International Statebuilding: The Rise of Post-Liberal Governance (Routledge 2010)
6. Charter of the United Nations (26 June 1945) arts 1, 2, 55 https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text accessed15 April 2026
7. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (adopted 9 December 1948, entered into force 12 January 1951) 78 UNTS 277 https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide-convention.shtml accessed 15 April 2026
8. Deng FM, Kimaro S, Lyons T, Rothchild D and Zartman IW, Sovereignty as Responsibility: Conflict Management in Africa (Brookings Institution Press 1996)

9. Donnelly J, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice (3rd edn, Cornell University Press 2013)
10. Dworkin R, Justice for Hedgehogs (Harvard University Press 2011)
11. European Convention on Human Rights (1950) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (4 November 1950) ETS No 5 https://www.echr.coe.int/european-convention-human-rights accessed 15 April 2026
12. Finnis J, Natural Law and Natural Rights (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2011)
13. Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International organization, 52(4), 887-917
14. Freeman, M. Human rights. John Wiley & Sons, 2022
15. Fuller, L. L. The morality of law, Yale University Press,1969
16. Habermas J, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (W Rehg tr, MIT Press 1996)
17. Hansen B, Unipolarity and World Politics: A Theory and Its Implications (1st edn, Routledge 2010) https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832301
18. Held D, Models of Democracy (3rd edn, Polity Press 2005)
19. Held D, ‘Principles of Cosmopolitan Order’ (2005) 39 Anales de la Catedra Francisco Suarez
20. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (16 December 1966) 999 UNTS 171 https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights accessed 15 April 2026
21. Kant I, Political Writings (H Reiss ed, HB Nisbet tr, Cambridge University Press 1991)
22. Kant I, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (M Gregor tr, Cambridge University Press 1997)
23. Keohane RO, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton University Press 1984)
24. Koh H H, ‘Why Do Nations Obey International Law?’ (1997) 106 Yale Law Journal 2599
25. Koskenniemi M, From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument (Cambridge University Press 2005)
26. Krasner SD, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (Princeton University Press 1999)
27. Mearsheimer JJ, ‘The False Promise of International Institutions’ (1994/95) 19(3) International Security 5.
28. Moravcsik A, ‘The Origins of Human Rights Regimes: Democratic Delegation in Postwar Europe’ (2000) 54 International Organization 217 https://doi.org/10.1162/002081800551163
29. Pogge T, World Poverty and Human Rights (2nd edn, Polity Press 2008)
30. Rawls J, The Law of Peoples (Harvard University Press 1999)
31. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (17 July 1998) 2187 UNTS 90 https://www.icc-cpi.int/resource-library/documents/rs-eng.pdf accessed 15 April 2026
32. Shaw MN, International Law (8th edn, Cambridge University Press 2017)
33. Simmons BA, Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics (Cambridge University Press 2009)
34. Singer P, The Expanding Circle: Ethics, Evolution, and Moral Progress (Princeton University Press 2011)
35. Şakar Z, Kozmopolitan Demokrasi Tartışmaları (Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Karabük Üniversitesi, 2019) https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/TezGoster?key=Mir2lXQK1dkmQ9Ige3PZbthfFbrXJyKG4gV3w3qbtVDbCU2vvFxTr9qaBGGuZOzX
36. Treaty on European Union (Consolidated Version 2016) Treaty on European Union (consolidated version 2016) [2016] OJ C202/13 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12016M/TXT accessed 15 April 2026
37. Tuck R, The Rights of War and Peace: Political Thought and the International Order from Grotius to Kant (Oxford University Press 1999)
38. Weber M, Economy and Society (G Roth and C Wittich eds, University of California Press 1978)