Yumuşak Hukuk Niteliğindeki BM Genel Kurul Kararları ve UAD Kararlarının Uluslararası Örf ve Âdet Hukuku Kurallarının Oluşumu Üzerindeki Etkisi ve Normatif Rolü

Öz

Bu çalışma, yumuşak hukuk belgelerinin uluslararası örf ve âdet hukuku kurallarının oluşum sürecindeki rolünü incelemektedir. Yumuşak hukuk, bağlayıcı olmamakla birlikte devlet davranışlarını yönlendirir, mevcut örf ve âdet kurallarının açıklığa kavuşmasına ve belirsizliklerin giderilmesine katkı sağlayabilir. Birleşmiş Milletler Genel Kurulu kararları, yumuşak hukuk niteliğinde önemli araçlar olarak, çok sayıda devletin katılımıyla kabul edilmeleri sayesinde devlet uygulamalarını şekillendirir ve uluslararası toplumda ortak anlayışın gelişmesini destekler. Uluslararası Hukuk Komisyonu’nun rapor ve taslak sonuçları, bu belgelerin doğrudan kural yaratmasa da devlet uygulamaları ve hukuki yükümlülük bilinci (opinio juris) üzerinde etkili olarak örf ve âdet hukukunun kristalize olmasına katkıda bulunabileceğini göstermektedir. Uluslararası Adalet Divanı kararları, yalnızca dava tarafları için bağlayıcı olmasına karşın diğer devletler açısından rehberlik eden, yani yumuşak hukuk niteliğinde işlev görür; mevcut kuralların açıklığa kavuşmasını sağlar, belirsiz uygulamaları somutlaştırır ve yeni örf ve âdet kurallarının oluşumunu hızlandırır. Sonuç olarak, yumuşak hukuk, uluslararası örf ve âdet hukuku kurallarının açıklanması, kristalize edilmesi ve yeni normların oluşumunda merkezi bir rol oynar; uluslararası hukuk düzeninin evrimsel ve dinamik gelişimine etkin katkı sağlar.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• yumuşak hukuk
• uluslararası örf ve âdet hukuku
• uluslararası hukuk komisyonu
• BM Genel Kurulu
• kristalize etme

The Effect and Normative Role of UN General Assembly Resolutions and ICJ Decisions of Soft Law Character on the Formation of International Customary Law Rules

Öz

This study examines the role of soft law instruments in the formation of customary international law. Although non-binding, soft law guides state behaviour and contributes to clarifying existing customary rules while reducing uncertainties. United Nations General Assembly resolutions, as key soft law instruments, shape state practice and foster a shared understanding within the international community due to their adoption by a broad range of states. Reports and draft conclusions of the International Law Commission indicate that while such instruments do not directly create rules, they provide important evidence for the development of state practice and opinio juris, facilitating the crystallization of customary norms. International Court of Justice decisions, although binding only on the parties to a case, function as soft law for other states, clarifying existing rules, solidifying ambiguous practices, and accelerating the emergence of new customary norms. Overall, soft law extends beyond a merely supplementary role, playing a central part in the elucidation, crystallization, and creation of new customary international law rules, and actively contributing to the evolutionary and dynamic development of the international legal order.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• soft law
• customary international law
• International Law Commission
• United Nations General Assembly
• crystallization

Kaynakça

1. Abbott W K and Snidal D, ‘Hard and Soft Law in International Governance’ (2000) 54(3) International Organization 421-456.
2. Adiban S, ‘The Changing Human Rights Discourse and the Helsinki Final Act’ (2024) 12(9) Open Journal of Social Sciences 279-298.
3. Aksar Y, Temel Metinle ve Davalarla Uluslararası Hukuk (Seçkin 2017).
4. Albayrak G ve Gültekin Albayrak B, ‘Uluslararası Hukukta Uluslararası Teamül Kurallarının Antlaşmalar ile İlişkisi’ (2021) 9(2) Sakarya Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 273-292.
5. Annex to the Declaration of 21 June 1976 by Governments of OECD Member Countries on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises, Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (OECD Guidelines (1976) Department of State Bulletin (DptStBull).
6. Baade W H, ‘The Legal Effects of Codes of Conduct for Multinational Enterprises’ (1979) 22 German Yearbook of International Law 11-52.
7. Baxter R R, ‘International Law in “Her Infinite Variety’ (1980) 29(4) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 549-566.
8. Boyle A and Chinkin C, The Making of International Law (Oxford University Press 2007).

9. Boyle A, ‘Some Reflections on the Relationship of Treaties and Soft Law’ (1999) 48(4) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 901-913.
10. Boyle A, ‘Soft Law in International Law-Making’ in M D Evans (ed), International Law (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2006) 141-159.
11. Boyle A, ‘Soft Law in International Law-Making’ in Malcolm D. Evans (ed), International Law (Oxford University Press 2014) 118–137.
12. Brower N C and Tepe B J, ‘The Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States: A Reflection or a Rejection of International Law?’ (1975) 9(2) International Lawyer 295-318.
13. Byers M, Custom, Power and the Power of Rules: International Relations and Customary International Law (Cambridge University Press 1999).
14. Cassese A, International Law (Oxford University Press 2005).
15. Chaisee J and Ji X, ‘Soft Law in International Law-Making: How Soft International Taxation Law is Reshaping International Economic Governance’ (2018) 13(2) Asian Journal of WTO & International Health Law & Policy 463-509.
16. Cheng B, General Principles of International Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals (Cambridge University Press 1987) (first published 1953).
17. Chinkin M C, ‘The Challenge of Soft Law: Development and Change in International Law’ (1989) 38(4) International & Comparative Law Quarterly 850-866.
18. Cihangir N, ‘The Role of Soft Law and the Interplay Between Soft Law and Hard Law in the Context of International Human Rights’ (2017) 8(14) Law & Justice Review 201-219.
19. Cohen H H, ‘Theorizing Precedent in International Law’ in Andrea Bianchi, Daniel Peat and Matthew Windsor (eds), Interpretation in International Law (Oxford University Press 2015).
20. Colombian-Peruvian asylum case, Judgment of November 20th 1950: I.C.J, Reports 1950.
21. Çelik F E, Milletlerarası Hukuk (Birinci Kitap, Filiz Kitabevi 1987).
22. Denk E, Uluslararası Örgütler Hukuku Birleşmiş Milletler Sistemi (Siyasal Kitabevi 2015).
23. Dost S, ‘Uluslararası Hukukta Bağlayıcı Olmayan Hukuk’ (2019) 14(173-174) Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 35-74.
24. Dupuy P M, ‘Soft Law and the International Law of the Environment’ (1990) 12(2) Michigan Journal of International Law 420-435.
25. Emir N, ‘Uluslararası Hukuk Komisyonu’nun “Uluslararası Örf ve Âdet Hukukunun Belirlenmesine İlişkin Taslak Sonuçlar” Metni Çerçevesinde Uluslararası Örgütlerin Uluslararası Örf ve Âdet Hukukuna Etkisi’ (2020) 11(2) İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 665-679.
26. Erkiner H H ve Tezel A, ‘Uluslararası Teamül Hukuku Kurallarının Varlığının ve Değişiminin Tespiti’ (2022) 28(2) Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi 662-693.
27. European Parliament, Better Regulation and the Improvement of EU Regulatory Environment: Institutional and Legal Implications of the Use of “Soft Law” Instruments, Background Note (2007) PE 378.290, 3. Erişim Tarihi 27 Ocak 2025.
28. First Report on Formation and Evidence of Customary International Law by Michael Wood, Special Rapporteur, 17 May 2013.
29. General Assembly Resolution 3281 (XXIX): Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, Official Records of the General Assembly: Twenty-Ninth Session, Supplement No. 31 (A/9631).
30. Gold J, Interpretation: the IMF and International Law (Kluwer International Law 1996).
31. Guzman T A and Meyer L T, ‘International Common Law: the Soft Law of International Tribunals’ (2008) 9(2) Chicago Journal of International Law 515-536.
32. Guzman T A and Meyer L T, ‘International Soft Law’ (2010) 2(1) Journal of Legal Analysis 171-225.
33. Hahn M, ‘Interesting Times: Soft Law in International Economic Governance’ in Manjiao Chi, Marc Bungenberg and Andrea K. Bjorklund (eds), Asian Yearbook of International Economic Law 2022 (Springer 2022).
34. Higashi J, ‘The Role of Resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly in the Formative Process of International Customary Law’ (1982) 25 Japanese Annual of International Law 11-25.
35. Higgins R, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (Oxford University Press 1994).
36. Hurst H, ‘The Status of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in National and International Law’ (1995) 25(1-2) Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 289-398.
37. Brownlie I, Legal Status of Natural Resources in International Law (some aspects) (Martinus Nijhoff 1979).
38. International Law Commission, ‘Draft Conclusions on Identification of Customary International Law, with Commentaries’ UN Doc A/73/10 (2018).
39. International Law Commission, ‘Fifth Report on Identification of Customary International Law’ UN Doc A/CN.4/717 (2018).
40. Raustiala K, ‘Form and Substance in International Agreements’ (2005) 99(3) American Journal of International Law 581-614.
41. Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2019.
42. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996.
43. Lichtenstein C C, ‘Hard Law v. Soft Law: Unnecessary Dichotomy?’ (2001) 35(4) International Lawyer 1433 1442.
44. Mejía-Lemos D G, ‘Some Considerations Regarding “Instant” International Customary Law Fifty Years Later’ (2015) 55(1) Indian Journal of International Law 85-108.
45. Mesquita R and Pires A, ‘Jurisprudence in Hard and Soft Law Output of International Organizations: A Network Analysis of the Use of Precedent in UN Security Council and General Assembly Resolutions’ (2024) Artificial Intelligence and Law 1-30.
46. Militarv and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America). Merits, Judgment. I.C.J. Reports 1986.
47. Naicker M, ‘The Use of Soft Law in the International Legal System in the Context of Global Governance’ (LLM thesis, University of Pretoria 2014).
48. North Sea Continental Shelf Case, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1969. Olivier M, ‘The Relevance of ‘Soft Law’ as a Source of International Human Rights’ (2002) 35(2) Comparative and International Law Journal 289-307.
49. Öktem E, Uluslararası Teamül Hukuku (1 Baskı, Beta 2013).
50. Pazarcı H, Uluslararası Hukuk (21. Bası, Turhan 2022).
51. Pronto N A, ‘Understanding the hard/soft Distinction in International Law’ (2015) 48(4) Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 941-956.
52. Shaw N M, International Law (Sixth Edition, Cambridge University Press 2008).
53. Shelton L D, ‘International Law and Relative Normativity’, in Malcolm D. Evans (ed), International Law (Oxford University Press 2010).
54. Shelton L D, ‘Soft Law’ in Handbook of International Law (forthcoming, Routledge 2008) GWU Law School Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper No 322, GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No 322.
55. Sur M, Uluslararası Hukukun Esasları (15. Baskı Beta 2021). Thirlway H, The Sources of International Law (Oxford University Press 2019).
56. United Nations General Assembly, A/CN.4/663, International Law Commission, Sixty-fifth session Geneva, 6 May-7 June and 8 July-9 August 2013.
57. Vogelaar W T, ‘Multinational Enterprises: The Guidelines in Practice’ (1977) OECD Observer No 86.