Küreselleşmenin Hukuki Boyutları ve Birleşmiş Milletler İhtisas Kuruluşları ile Uluslararası Adalet Divanı’nın Devletlerin Egemenliği Üzerindeki Etkisi

Yıl 2019, , 808 - 832, 27.12.2019

Abdulkadir Gülçür

https://doi.org/10.33433/maruhad.665454

Öz

Birleşmiş Milletler’in kurulması ve ardından kabul edilen uluslararası belgeler ile uluslararası hukuk önemli bir değişim yaşamıştır. Eş zamanlı olarak küreselleşme kavramı altında değerlendirilen gelişmeler, kabul edilen uluslararası kurallar ile birlikte devletlerin mutlak egemenlik sınırlarının silikleşmesi yönünde dramatik bir dönüşümün fitilini ateşlemiştir. Bu durumun meydana gelmesinde, uluslararası hukukta daha önce yalnızca devletler arasında ulusal menfaatler üzerinden yürüyen karşılıklı ilişkilerin, uluslararası toplumun ortak menfaatlerini kapsayacak şekilde genişlemesi ve bununla bağlantılı olarak uluslararası hukukun öznelerinin yalnızca devletler olmaktan çıkarak, uluslararası örgütlerin, devlet-dışı aktörlerin ve bireylerin de sisteme dahil olması etkili olmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Birleşmiş Milletler İhtisas Kuruluşları, Uluslararası Adalet Divanı, Küreselleşme, Egemenlik, Uluslararası hukuk

Kaynakça

• Abdulkadir Gülçür, Uluslararası Deniz Hukuku Mahkemesi’nin Yapısı ve Yargı Yetkisi, İstanbul: Beta Yayınları, 2017.
• Andrew Solomon, “When Can an Individual Enforce a Right Set Forth in an International Treaty?”, American Society of International Law and the International Judicial Academy, Vol. 1, Iss. 3 (July 2006).
• Angela Del Vecchio, “Globalization and Its Effect on International Courts and Tribunals”, The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, Vol. 5, (2006), ss. 1-11.
• Anne-Marie Slaughter, “Judicial Globalization”, Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol. 40, Iss. 4, (2000), ss. 1103-1124. Anthony Aust, Modern Treaty Law and Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Second Edition, 2007.
• Anupam Chander, “Globalization and Distrust”, The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 114 (2005), ss. 1193 – 1236. Bart Van Vooren & Ramses A. Wessel, EU External Relations Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Third Printing, 2016.
• Bruno Simma, “Universality of International Law from the Perspective of a Practitioner”, The European Journal of International Law, Vol. 20, No. 2 (2009), ss. 265 – 297. Clive Parry, “League of Nations”, Rudolf Bernhardt (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Volume 5, International Organizations in General içinde (192-201), Amsterdam, New York, Oxford: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1983.
• Cynthia D. Wallace, “Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928)”, Rudolf Bernhardt (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Volume 3, Use of Force – War and Neurality – Peace Treaties içinde (236239), Amsterdam, New York, Oxford: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982.
• Danielle S. Petito, “Sovereignty and Globalization: Fallacies, Truth, and Perception”, New York Law School Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 17, (2001), ss. 1139-1172. Diane Sabom, “U.N. Wants to Rule New World Order”, Insight on the News, 23 October 2000.
• Dukagjin Leka, “Challenges of State Sovereignty in the Age of Globalization”, Acta Universitatis Danubis Juridica, Vol. 13, No. 2, (2017), ss. 61-72. Esra Katıman, “Arctic Sunrise Davası Işığında, Uluslararası Hukuk ve Çevre Koruma Eylemleri”, İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 5, Sayı 1 (2014), ss. 139-158.
• Hakkı Hakan Erkiner, “Grotius Öncesinde İlk Modern Uluslararası Hukuk Düşüncesinin Oluştuğu Tarihsel Koşullar ve Erken Klâsik Dönemdeki Öğreti”, Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt 18, Sayı 1 (2012), ss. 51-146.
• Hisashi Owada, “Human Security and International Law”, (Eds. Ulrich Fastenrath et al.) From Bilateralism to Community Interest: Essays in Honour of Judge Bruno Simma içinde (505-520), Oxford University Press, 2011.
• Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace a Philosophical Essay (1795), (Translated by M. Campbell Smitth), London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., Third Edition, 1917. Işıl Özkan, Hukukun Küreselleşmesi ve Ulusötesi Hukuk, İstanbul: XII Levha Yayınları, 2014.
• Ivan Simonovic, “State Sovereignty and Globalization: Are Some States More Equal”, Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol. 28, No. 3 (2000), ss. 381-404. Jeremy A. Rabkin, Law Without Nations? Why Constitutional Government Requires Sovereign States, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, Second Printing, 2007.
• John G. Merrils, International Dispute Settlement, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Fifth Edition, 2011. John Gerard Ruggie, “The United Nations and Globalization: Patterns and Limits of Institutional Adaptation”, Journal of Global Governance, Vol. 9, No. 3 (July–Sept. 2003), ss. 301-321.
• John Quigley, “The United States’ Withdrawal From International Court of Justice Jurisdiction in Consular Cases: Reasons and Consequences”, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, Vol. 19 (2009), ss. 263-305.
• Julian Ku & John Yoo, “Globalization and Sovereignty”, Berkeley Journal of International Law, Vol. 31, (2013), ss. 210-235. Lance Bartholomeusz, “The Amicus Curiae before International Courts and Tribunals”, Non-State Actors and International Law, Vol. 5 (2005) ss. 209 286.
• Looking Ahead: International Law in the 21st Century, Canadian Council on International Law, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, London and New York, 2002.
• Mariko Kawano, “Decisions of the International Court of Justice on Disputes Concerning Internal Law” (Giorgio Gaja and Jenny Grote Stoutenburg eds.), Enhancing the Rule of Law through the International Court of Justice içinde (119-138), Leiden, Boston: Brill Nijhoff Publishing, 2014.
• Mehmet Akad, Bihterin Vural Dinçkol, Nihat Bulut, Genel Kamu Hukuku, 12. Basım, İstanbul: Der Yayınları, 2016.
• Miguel de la Madrid H., “National Sovereignty and Globalization”, Houston Journal of International Law, Vol. 19 No. 3 (1997), ss. 553-563.
• Oktay Uygun, “Küreselleşme ve Değişen Egemenlik Anlayışının Sosyal Haklara Etkisi”, Anayasa Yargısı Dergisi, Cilt 20, (2003), ss. 250-284. Paul Schiff Berman, “From International Law to Law and Globalization”, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 43 (2005), ss. 485-556.
• Peter Haggenmacher, “Vitoria’dan Vattel’e Uluslararası Hukuk Kişisi Olarak Egemen Devlet” (Çev. İdil Selçuk), Cemal Bâli Akal (Ed.), Devlet Kuramı içinde (257-265), Dördüncü Baskı, Ankara: Dost Kitabevi, 2013.
• Peter Malanczuk, Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law, 7th Edition, London and New York: Routledge Publishing, 1997. Philippe Sands, Hukuksuz Dünya, (Çev. Bilge Firuze Çallı), İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları, 2016. Rafael Domingo, The New Global Law, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
• Rafael Reuveny, “On Free Trade, Climate Change, and the WTO”, (Eds. Jim Sheffield et al.), Globalization: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow içinde (177-193), Emergent Publications, 2013. Richard N. Current, “The Stimson Doctrine and the Hoover Doctrine”, The American Historical Review, Vol. 59, No. 3 (April 1954) ss. 513-542.
• Ronald A. Brand, “External Sovereignty and International Law”, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 18, Iss. 5 (1994), ss. 1685-1697. Rosallyn Higgins, Problems & Process: International Law and How We Use It, Reprinted, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
• Sevin Toluner, Milletlerarası Hukuk (Giriş – Kaynaklar), (Ed. Ayşe Nur Tütüncü ve diğerleri), İstanbul: Beta Yayınları, 2017. United Nations Millennium Declaration, 18 September 2000, A/RES/55/2. “U.S. Strategy for Responding to ICJ’s Avena Decision”, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 99, No. 2 (Apr., 2005), ss. 489-492.
• Vaughan Lowe, “Private Disputes and the Public Interest in International Law”, (Duncan French, Matthew Saul and Nigel D. White eds.), International Law and Dispute Settlement: New Problems and Techniques içinde (3-16), Oxford, Portland: Hart Publishing 2010. William Twining, “Responding to Globalization”, Osgoode Hall Law Journal, Vol. 49, (2011), ss. 353-373.
• Yearbook of the United Nations, (1946-1947).
• Yoshifumi Tanaka, “Protection of Community Interests in International Law: The Case of the Law of the Sea”, Max Planck UNYB, Vol. 15, (2011), ss. 329-375. Y
• 2.6.1988 tarih ve 19830 sayılı Resmî Gazete. Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004.
• Breyer, J., Dissenting, Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008). BVerfG, Judgment of the Second Senate of 30 June 2009 – 2 BvE 2/08.
• Case of Al-Skeini and Others v. UK, Judgment delivered by Grand Chamber of ECHR. Case of Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, Judgment delivered by Third Section of ECHR, 7 February 2017.
• “Enrica Lexie” Incident (Italy v. India), Provisional Measures, Order of 24 July 2015, ITLOS Reports 2015.
• Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion, Oc-1/82 Of September 24, 1982, “ Other Treaties “ Subject to the Consultative Jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 64 American Convention on Human Rights). Jadhav Case (India v. Pakistan), Order of 18 May 2017.
• LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of 3 March 1999, I.C.J. Reports 1999. LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2001.
• Opinion of the Court, Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008). Provisional Measures, Order of 16 July 2008, I.C.J. Reports 2008.
• Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America) (Mexico v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of 16 July 2008, I.C.J. Reports 2008.
• Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America) (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009.
• United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1980.
• United States v. Trapilo, 130 F.3d 547, Second Circuit (1997) (https://www.ravellaw.com/ opinions/4dcda50c8ff7d6c6dc9ac3f7b7df52a4) (Çevrimiçi: 14.10.2017).
• Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Paraguay v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of 9 April 1998, I.C.J. Reports 1998.
• Yahoo! Inc. v. la Ligue Contre le Racisme et L’antisemitisme, 379 F.3d 1120, Ninth Circuit, (2004). (https:// www.ravellaw.com/opinions/c7712cc144ec93b461ca13314d304ede?query=379%20F.%203d%20 1120) (Çevrimiçi: 14.10.2017).
• http://www.ansa.it/english/news/politics/2015/08/26/india-suspends-italian-marine-case_bd7f3fa7-b1bc408a-96d8-421c3bb140b2.html (Çevrimiçi: 15.10.2017).
• https://www.lexislegalnews.com/articles/5336/ecuador-agrees-to-pay-occidental-1-billion-in-satisfactionof-icsid-award (Çevrimiçi: 15.10.2017).
• http://www.livemint.com/Politics/2tAms0Ck9IStyUE4nXajKN/Kulbhushan-Jadhav-will-not-be-executeduntil-mercy-pleas-exh.html (Çevrimiçi: 16.10.2017).
• http://www.recht-harmonisch.de/GG-turkisch.pdf (Çevrimiçi: 30.04.2018). https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=III-8&chapter=3&clang=_en (Çevrimiçi: 22.04.2018)