“İnsan Haklarının Sonu” Tartışmasının Sonu: İnsan Haklarında Kritik Dönüm Noktaları ve Kademeli Değişimler

Yıl 2024, Sayı: 28, 77 - 94, 12.07.2024

Oğuz Kaan Pehlivan

Öz

Akademi ve uygulayıcılar, insan haklarının önemli bir zorlukla karşı karşıya olduğunu vurgulamaktadır: insan haklarının kademeli bir şekilde aşınması ve sonunun gelmesi. Bu aşınma, insan haklarının güvenlik ile haklar ve özgürlükler arasındaki dengeyi yeniden düşünmeye yol açmış ve değişen siyasi dinamikler karşısında insan haklarının ne kadar güvenilir olduğu konusunda endişeleri artırmıştır. Azınlık ve marjinal gruplar, ayrımcılık ve sistematik zulümden muzdarip olurken, kontrol teknolojilerinin ve otoriter yönetimlerin yükselişi bu zorlukları daha da kötüleştirmektedir. 11 Eylül sonrası dönemde, işkence ve insanlık dışı muamelenin meşruiyeti üzerine yaşanan tartışmalar ile güvenlik gereksinimleri nedeniyle alınan aşırı tedbirler, “insan haklarının sonu” tartışmasını öne çıkarmıştır. Esasında “İnsan haklarının sonu” tartışması oldukça yanıltıcı. Zira teknolojik gelişmeler ve tarihsel trendler bu tartışmanın aksi yönünde veriler sunmaktadır. İnsan hakları tarihi, iki farklı şekilde insan hakları alanında tutarlı ve sürekli ilerlemeler kaydedildiğini göstermektedir: i) kritik dönüm noktaları (critical junctures) olan siyasi kararlarla ve ii) mahkeme ve BM komisyon kararları ve insan hakları konusunda çalışan çoğu STK’ların çabalarıyla gerçekleşen kademeli değişimlerle (incremental changes).

Anahtar Kelimeler

insan haklarının sonu, 11 Eylül sonrası güvenlik önlemleri, kritik dönemeçler olarak siyasi kararlar, kademeli ilerlemeler olarak yargı kararları, hesap verebilirlik mekanizmaları, insan haklarının tarihi trendleri

END OF “END OF HUMAN RIGHTS” DEBATE: CRITICAL JUNCTURES AND INCREMENTAL CHANGES OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Öz

Many scholars emphasize that human rights face a major challenge: the gradual erosion and end of human rights. This erosion has led to a rethinking of the balance between security and rights and freedoms, and raised concerns about how reliable human rights are in the face of changing political dynamics. Minority and marginalized groups suffer from discrimination and systematic persecution, while the rise of control technologies and authoritarian regimes exacerbate these challenges. The post-9/11 era was thought to be the “end of human rights” as debates over the legitimacy of measures such as torture were driven by security needs. However, technological developments and historical trends suggest otherwise. Human rights have experienced (i) critical junctures through political decisions, and (ii) incremental changes through judicial protections and activism by civil society organizations, which both lead to empower the understanding and application of human rights. The debate about the “end of human rights” continues but is essentially misleading. However, the changes that have occurred in the history of human rights demonstrate consistent and continuous progress, driven by political and judicial decisions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

end of human rights, Post-9/11 security measures, political decisions as critical junctures, judicial protections as incremental changes, accountability mechanisms, historical trends of human rights

Etik Beyan

There is no requirement of Ethics Committee Approval for this study.

Kaynakça

• Ackerman BA, Before the Next Attack: Preserving Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism (Yale University Press 2006)
• Alston P, ‘Human Rights Under Siege: How to Respond to the Populist Threat Facing Human Rights’ (2017) 14 Sur - International Journal on Human Rights 267
• ‘Annual Reports - ECHR - ECHR / CEDH’ (ECHR) <https://www.echr.coe.int/annual-reports> accessed 14 March 2024
• Bailes J and Aksan C, Weapon of the Strong: Conversations on US State Terrorism (Pluto Press 2012)
• Calder J, ‘Who Will Be Free? The Battles for Human Rights to 2050’ [2012] The Futurist 29
• Cmiel K, ‘The Emergence of Human Rights Politics in the United States’ (1999) 86 Journal of American History 1231
• Costas Douzinas, The End of Human Rights (Hart Publishing 2000)
• ——, ‘The End(s) of Human Rights’ (2002) 26 Melbourne University Law Review 445
• Dershowitz AM, Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge (Yale University Press 2002)
• Douzinas C, Human Rights and Empire: The Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism (Routledge-Cavendish 2007)
• English RD, Russia and the Idea of the West: Gorbachev, Intellectuals, and the End of the Cold War (Columbia University Press 2000)
• Falk RA, Human Rights Horizons: The Pursuit of Justice in a Globalizing World (Routledge 2000)
• Gearty C, Can Human Rights Survive? (1st edition, Cambridge University Press 2006)
• Halmai G, Perspectives on Global Constitutionalism: The Use of Foreign and International Law (Eleven International Publishing 2014)
• Hopgood S, The Endtimes of Human Rights (Cornell University Press 2013)
• ‘Human Rights - All You Need to Know’ (Politics.co.uk) <https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/human-rights/> accessed 14 March 2024
• Ignatieff M, ‘Opinion | Is the Human Rights Era Ending?’ The New York Times (5 February 2002) <https://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/05/opinion/is-the-human-rights-era-ending.html> accessed 12 March 2024
• ——, ‘Lesser Evils’ The New York Times (2 May 2004) <https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/magazine/lesser-evils.html> accessed 12 March 2024
• ——, The Lesser Evil | Princeton University Press (Princeton University Press 2005)
• Land MK and Aronson JD, New Technologies for Human Rights Law and Practice (Cambridge University Press 2018)
• Levitsky S and Ziblatt D, How Democracies Die (Crown Publishing 2018)
• MacDonald E, ‘Review Essay - The Future of Human Rights? Theory and Practice in an International Context: Review of Upendra Baxi’s The Future of Human Rights’ (2004) 5 German Law Journal 969
• Motha S and Zartaloudis T, ‘Law, Ethics and the Utopian End of Human Rights’ (2003) 12 Social & Legal Studies 243
• Nations U, ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ (United Nations) <https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights> accessed 14 March 2024
• Niklas Luhmann, ‘The Autopoiesis of Social Systems’ in Felix Geyer and Johannes van der Zouwen (eds), Sociocybernetic Paradoxes: Observation, Control and Evolution of Self-Steering Systems (Sage Publications 1986)
• ——, Law as a Social System (Oxford University Press 2004)
• Pehlivan OK, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi ve Avrupa Adalet Divanı Kararları Işığında Sosyo-Ekonomik Hakların Korunması in Kıvılcım Ertan Akkoyunlu, Filiz Kartal and Yeliz Şanlı Atay (eds), Sosyal Adalet için İnsan Hakları: Sosyal Haklar (Türkiye ve Orta Doğu Amme İdaresi Enstitüsü (TODAİE) 2014)
• Rajagopal B, ‘Counter-Hegemonic International Law: Rethinking Human Rights and Development as a Third World Strategy’ (2006) 27 Third World Quarterly 767
• Sikkink K, Evidence for Hope: Making Human Rights Work in the 21st Century (Princeton University Press 2019)
• Souillac G, Human Rights in Crisis: The Sacred and the Secular in Contemporary French Thought (Lexington Books 2005)
• ‘Statistics - ECHR - ECHR - ECHR / CEDH’ (ECHR) <https://www.echr.coe.int/statistical-reports> accessed 14 March 2024
• ‘Treaty Bodies’ (OHCHR) <https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies> accessed 14 March 2024
• Tumber H and Waisbord S, The Routledge Companion to Media and Human Rights (Routledge 2017)
• Upendra Baxi, The Future of Human Rights (Third Edition, Oxford University Press 2008)
• Zuboff S, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power (PublicAffairs Books 2019)
• Case of Myrna Mack Chang v Guatemala, Hernández Mack and ors (on behalf of Mack Chang) v Guatemala [2003] IACHR Series C No 101 (Inter-American Court of Human Rights [IACtHR])
• Christine Goodwin v the United Kingdom [2002] ECtHR [GC] 60596/09
• Informationsverein Lentia and Others v Austria [1993] ECtHR 24753/13, 28610/13, 57854/13, 65553/13
• Khan v the United Kingdom [2000] ECtHR 35394/97
• Lingens v Austria [1986] ECtHR 41193/15, 51044/15, 53856/15, 1724/16, 2809/16, 8141/16, 16976/16, 18306/16, 43625/16, 46334/16, 46376/16, 56677/16, 57523/16, 59609/16, 76672/16, 77512/16, 77526/16
• Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v Germany [1978] ECtHR 6210/73, 6877/75, 7132/75
• Malone v the United Kingdom (just satisfaction) [1985] ECtHR 8691/79
• Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities [2008] ECJ Joined cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P
• Z and Others v the United Kingdom [2001] ECtHR [GC] 29392/95
• Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan 2002 (Official Journal L Series)