Uluslararası Ceza Hukukunda Evrensellik İlkesi ve Arjantin Mahkemelerinde Adalet Arayan Uygur Türkleri

Öz

Cezai yargı yetkisi, esas itibarıyla ülkesel niteliklidir. Bununla birlikte devletler, farklı bağlama noktalarına dayanarak, ülke dışında işlenen suçlar üzerinde de yetki iddiasında bulunabilmekte veya “evrensellik ilkesi” çerçevesinde hareket ederek, ceza yasalarının uygulama alanını genişletebilmektedir. Evrensellik ilkesi gereğince; suç sayılan eylem, bir yabancı tarafından, yabancı bir ülkede işlenmiş ve doğrudan devletin ulusal çıkarlarına yönelmemiş olsa da cezai yargı yetkisinin kullanılması söz konusu olmaktadır. Bu durum; eylemin, uluslararası toplumun temel değerlerini ihlal ettiği, böylelikle bütününe yöneldiği varsayımından ve cezasız kalmaması gerektiğinin kabulünden kaynaklanmaktadır. İlkenin, uluslararası adalet ideali bakımından vazgeçilmez niteliği; uzun süredir Çin hükümetinin sistematik ayrımcılığının ve baskısının hedefi olduğu bilinen Uygur Türklerinin, Arjantin Mahkemelerinde süregelen adalet arayışında da kendisini göstermiştir. Nitekim 17 Ağustos 2022 tarihinde Çin yetkilileri hakkında suç duyurusunda bulunulmasıyla başlayan süreç; 18 Haziran 2025 tarihinde, Arjantin Federal Ceza Temyiz Mahkemesi’nin, ülkesinde evrensellik ilkesi çerçevesinde gerçekleşecek bir yargılamanın önünü açan “anıtsal” kararı ile bugünkü aşamaya gelmiştir. Böylelikle evrensellik ilkesi; eylemleri, pek çok devlet/uluslararası kuruluş tarafından “soykırım” ve “insanlığa karşı suç” olarak nitelendirilen Çin yetkililerinin yararlandığı cezasızlık ayrıcalığının sona erdirilmesi için tarihi bir fırsat yaratmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cezai Yargı Yetkisi
• Evrensellik İlkesi
• Evrensel Yargı Yetkisi
• Uygur Türkleri
• Çin
• Arjantin.

The Principle of Universality in International Criminal Law and Uygur Turks Seeking Justice in Argentina Courts

Öz

Criminal jurisdiction is primarily territorial. However, states may assert jurisdiction over crimes committed outside their territory based on different connecting factors or, acting within the framework of the “principle of universality,” may extend the scope of application of their criminal laws. According to this principle, even if the act constituting the crime was committed by a foreigner in a foreign country and did not directly target the national interests of the state, the criminal jurisdiction is still possible. This situation stems from the assumption that the act violates the fundamental values of the international community, thus targeting the community as a whole, and from the acceptance that it should not go unpunished. The indispensable nature of this principle in terms of the ideal of international justice has also been demonstrated in the ongoing quest for justice in the Argentine courts by the Uyghur Turks, who have long been known to be the target of systematic discrimination and oppression by the Chinese government. Indeed, the process that began with the filing of a criminal complaint against Chinese officials on August 17, 2022, has reached its current stage with the “landmark” decision of the Argentine Federal Criminal Appeals Court on June 18, 2025, which paved the way for a trial to be held in Argentina under the principle of universality. Thus, the principle has created a historic opportunity to end the impunity enjoyed by Chinese officials whose actions have been characterized as “genocide” and “crimes against humanity” by numerous states and international organizations.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Criminal Jurisdiction
• Principle of Universality
• Universal Jurisdiction
• Uyghur Turks
• China
• Argentina.

Kaynakça

1. Kitaplar ve Makaleler Addis, Adeno. “Imagining the International Community: The Constitutive Dimension of Universal Jurisdiction.” Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 1, February 2009, s. 129-162.
2. Aydın, Hüseyin. “Yabancı Ülkede İşlenen Suçlarda Türk Mahkemelerinin Yetkisi.” Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi (Prof. Dr. Durmuş Tezcan’a Armağan), C. 21, Özel Sayı, 2019, s. 349-377.
3. Bassiouni, M. Cherif, “Universal Jurisdiction for International Crimes: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Practice.” Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol. 42, January 2001, s. 82-162.
4. Başaran Ece, “Evrensel Ceza Yargılaması.” EÜHFD, C. III, S. 2, 2008, s. 215-248.
5. Bekou, Olympia / Cryer, Robert. “The International Criminal Court and Universal Jurisdiction: A Close Encounter?.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 1, January 2007, s. 49-68.
6. Bos, Adriaan. The International Criminal Court: A Perspective. The International Criminal Court The Making of the Rome Statute Issues, Negotiations, Results, (Ed.: Roy S. Lee), Hague, 1999, s. 463-470.
7. Chopra, Jarat. “Establishing Universal Jurisdiction.” The Brown Journal of World Affairs, Vol. 6, No. 1, Winter/Spring 1999, s. 3-17.
8. Colón-Ríos, Joel. “Constituent Power, the Rights of Nature, and Universal Jurisdiction.” McGill Law Journal, Vol. 60, No. 1, September 2014, s. 127-172.

9. Deschenes, Jules. Toward International Criminal Justice. The Prosecution of International Crimes: a Critical Study of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, (Eds.: Clark S. Roger/Sann Madeleine), New Jersey, 1996, s. 29-58.
10. Dicker, Richard. “A Few Reflections on the Current Status and Future Direction of Universal Jurisdiction Practice.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), Vol. 107, International Law in a Multipolar World (2013), s. 233-237.
11. Donovan, Donald Francis / Roberts, Anthea. “The Emerging Recognition of Universal Civil Jurisdiction.” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 100, No. 1, January 2006, s. 142-163.
12. Ekiz, Serkan / Koç Başar, Cansu. “Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi Kararlarında Actio Popularis: Çevre Kirliliği ve İklim Değişikliği Bağlamında Bir Değerlendirme.” Sakarya Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, C. 12, S. 2, 2024, s. 831-868.
13. Erdal, Selcen. Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesinin Devlet Egemenliğine Etkisi. 2. Baskı, Ankara, 2018.
14. Fowler, Alexandra. “Comparing Universal Jurisdiction in Europe and in Latin America: A Vehicle for International Justice or for Colonial Reckoning?.” The International Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2025, s. 736-757.
15. Goadby, F. M.. “The International Congress of Comparative Law at the Hague.” Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law, Vol. 14, No. 4, 1932, s. 244-246.
16. Grotius, Hugo. Savaş ve Barış Hukuku (De Iure Belli Ac Pacis) (Çev.: Seha L. Meray), Ankara, 1967.
17. Hawkins, Darren. “Universal Jurisdiction for Human Rights: From Legal Principle to Limited Reality.” Global Governance, Vol. 9, No. 3, July–September 2003, s. 347-365.
18. Kaplan, Mahmut. “Türk Ceza Kanunu’nun Yer Bakımından Uygulanmasında Koruma İlkesi.” Antalya Bilim Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, C. 7, S. 14, Aralık 2019, s. 651-671.
19. Kaya, Burak. “Uluslararası Ceza Hukukunda Evrensellik İlkesi.” Uluslararası Hukuk ve Sosyal Bilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, C. 2, S. 1, 2020, s. 46-60.
20. Keçeligil, Hasan Tahsin. “Evrensel Yargı Yetkisi: Ceza Hukuku Bağlamında Evrensellik İlkesine Bakış.” Terazi
21. Hukuk Dergisi, C. 13, S. 143, Temmuz 2018, s. 123-141.
22. Kissinger, Henry A.. “The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction.” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 80, No. 4, July-August, 2001, s. 86- 96.
23. Kobrick, Eric S.. “The Ex Post Facto Prohibition and the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction over International Crimes.” Columbia Law Review, Vol. 87, No. 7, November 1987, s. 1515-1538.
24. Kocaoğlu, Sinan S.. “Evrensel Yetki.” TBB Dergisi, S. 60, 2005, s. 189-213.
25. Kolçak, Hakan / Ercan, Osman. “Baskı Altındaki Uygurlar ve Diğer Türk Toplulukları: Doğu Türkistan’da
26. Sürdürülen Sistematik İnsan Hakları İhlalleri.” Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları, C. 126, S. 248, Eylül-Ekim 2020, s. 77- 114.
27. Langer, Maximo. “The Diplomacy of Universal Jurisdiction: The Political Branches and the Transnational
28. Prosecution of International Crimes.” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 105, No. 1, January 2011, s. 1-49.
29. Önok, Rıfat Murat. Tarihi Perspektifiyle Uluslararası Ceza Divanı. Ankara, 2003.
30. Ruby, Joshua. “An Evolutionary Theory of Universal Jurisdiction.” UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs, Vol. 14, No. 2, Fall 2009, s. 567-589.
31. Sadat, Leila Nadya. The International Criminal Court and the Transformations of International Law: Justice for the New Millennium. New York, 2002.
32. Shaw, Malcolm N., Uluslararası Hukuk. (Çev.: Acer, Yücel / Kaya, İbrahim / Demirtepe, M. Turgut / Şimşek, G. Engin), 8. Baskı, Ankara, 2018.
33. Stephen, Christopher. “International Criminal Law: Wielding the Sword of Universal Criminal Justice?.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 61, No. 1, January 2012, s. 55-89.
34. Stewart, David. “Some Perspectives on Universal Jurisdiction.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), Vol. 102, April 9-12, 2008, s. 404-406.
35. Sunay, Reyhan. Tartışılan Egemenlik. Ankara, 2007.
36. Şahin, İlyas. “Ceza Kanunlarının Yer Bakımından Uygulanması ve Türk Ceza Kanunu’nda Esas Alınan İlkeler.” ERÜHFD, C. X, S. 1, 2015, s. 107-144.
37. Tezcan, Durmuş. Uluslararası Suçları Kovuşturmada Katedilen Yol: Uluslararası Nüremberg Askeri Mahkemesinden Eski Yugoslavya Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesine. Prof. Dr. Kenan Tunçomağ’a Armağan, İstanbul, 1997, s. 271-289.
38. Tezcan, Durmuş / Erdem, Mustafa Ruhan / Önok, R. Murat. Uluslararası Ceza Hukuku. 7. Baskı, Ankara, 2023.
39. Türkfiliz, Ata. 21. Yüzyıldaki Gelişmeler Işığında Uluslararası Hukukta Evrensellik İlkesi: Ukrayna ve Doğu Türkistan Örnekleri. İstanbul, 2024.
40. Waltz, Susan. “Prosecuting Dictators: International Law and the Pinochet Case.” World Policy Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, Spring 2001, s. 101-112.
41. Weiss, Peter. “Universal Jurisdiction: Past, Present and Future.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), Vol. 102, April 9-12, 2008, s. 406-409.
42. Wilson, Richard J.. “Spanish Supreme Court Affirms Conviction of Argentine Former Naval Officer for Crimes Against Humanity.” American Society of International Law, Vol. 12, Issue 1, January 30, 2008.
43. Yee, Sienho. “A Call for a More Rigorous Assessment of Universal Jurisdiction.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), Vol. 107, International Law in a Multipolar World (2013), s. 242-245.
44. - Uluslararası Sözleşmeler, Kararlar ve Belgeler
45. International Convention for the Suppression of Counterfeiting Currency, Geneva, 20 April 1929.
46. Convention of 1936 for the Suppression of the Illicit Traffic in Dangerous Drugs, Geneva, 26 June 1936.
47. Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis, and Charter of the International Military Tribunal, London, 8 August 1945.
48. Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949.
49. Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Geneva, 12 August 1949.
50. Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949.
51. Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949.
52. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, The Hague, 16 December 1970.
53. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation, Montreal, 23 September 1971.
54. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, Annexed to General Assembly Resolution 3166 (XVIII) of 14 December 1973.
55. European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, Strasbourg, 27 January 1977.
56. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly Resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984.
57. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998.
58. General Assembly of the United Nations A/RES/95/I (11 December 1946).
59. International Criminal Court-The Office of the Prosecutor, Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2020, 14 December 2000.
60. OHCHR Assessment of Human Rights Concerns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, People’s Republic of China, 31 August 2022.
61. Brussels Principles Against Impunity and for International Justice adopted by the Brussels Group for International Justice, following on from the colloquium “The Fight Against Impunity: Stakes and Perspectives", Brussels, March 11-13, 2002.
62. Resolution on International Penal Law, adopted by the Conference for the Unification of Penal Law, Warsaw, November 5, 1927.
63. Third International Congress of Penal Law, Palermo, 3-8 April 1933.
64. Institute of International Law, Seventeenth Commission Resolution, “Universal Criminal Jurisdiction with regard to the Crime of Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes” adopted on August 26, 2005.
65. Eighteenth International Congress of Penal Law, Istanbul, 20-27 September 2009.
66. The Case of the S.S. "Lotus", Publications of the Permanent Court of International Justice, Series A.-No. 70, September 7th, 1927.
67. Constitutional Tribunal (Second Chamber) (Spain), Judgment No. 237/2005.
68. The Judgment of the District Court of Jerusalem, 11.12.1961, Criminal Case No. 40/61.
69. The Judgment of the Supreme Court of Israel, 29.05.1962, Criminal Appeal No. 336/61.
70. House of Lords, Regina v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate and Others, Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 3) [2000] 1 A.C. 147.
71. - Elektronik Kaynaklar
72. https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/external/doc/en/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-0173.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 18.09.2025).
73. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1795?prd=OPIL, (Erişim Tarihi: 30.09.2025).
74. https://iiim.un.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/1StE3_21-Judgment_Unofficial-IIIM-Translation_EN.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 01.10.2025).
75. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy53qkd2z1eo, (Erişim Tarihi: 03.10.2025).
76. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-59988944, (Erişim Tarihi: 03.10.2025).
77. https://syriaaccountability.org/inside-the-raslan-trial-defense-demands-acquittal/, (Erişim Tarihi: 30.09.2025).
78. https://www.bstger.ch/uploads/2024-05-15_SK.2023.23_Dispositiv_ENG_anonymisiert.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 29.09.2025).
79. https://www.jurist.org/features/2024/05/22/former-gambian-minister-of-interior-ousman-sonko- sentenced-to-20-years-in-prison-for-crimes-against-humanity-in-historic-swiss-trial/, (Erişim Tarihi: 30.09.2025).
80. https://ordentliche-gerichtsbarkeit.hessen.de/presse/alaa-m-was-sentenced-to-lifelong-imprisonment, (Erişim Tarihi: 30.09.2025).
81. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/16/world/asia/china-xinjiang-documents.html; (Erişim Tarihi: 25.09.2025).
82. https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/19/break-their-lineage-break-their-roots/chinas-crimes-against- humanity-targeting, (Erişim Tarihi: 25.09.2025).
83. https://www.nchrd.org/2018/08/china-massive-numbers-of-uyghurs-other-ethnic-minorities-forced-into- re-education-programs/, (Erişim Tarihi: 24.09.2025).
84. https://newlinesinstitute.org/rules-based-international-order/genocide/the-uyghur-genocide-an- examination-of-chinas-breaches-of-the-1948-genocide-convention/, (Erişim Tarihi: 24.09.2025).
85. https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/country-reports/ohchr-assessment-human-rights-concerns- xinjiang-uyghur-autonomous-region, (Erişim Tarihi: 25.09.2025).
86. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0375_EN.html, (Erişim Tarihi: 29.09.2025).
87. https://www.voanews.com/a/criminal-case-filed-in-argentina-over-china-s-treatment-of- uyghurs-/6718611.html, (Erişim Tarihi: 23.09.2025).
88. https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-dunya-55984442, (Erişim Tarihi: 25.09.2025).
89. https://tr.euronews.com/2018/12/18/toplama-kamplarina-alinan-uygur-turkleri-icin-hangi-ulke-ne-dedi- ne-yapti, (Erişim Tarihi: 29.09.2025).
90. https://www.tribunalconstitucional.es/ResolucionesTraducidas/237-2005,%20of%20September%2026.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 01.10.2025).
91. https://tr.euronews.com/2018/11/14/uygurlara-baski-yapan-cin-e-yeni-yaptirimlar-icin-abd-kongresi- nden-yasa-tasarisi, (Erişim Tarihi: 29.09.2025).
92. https://uhrp.org/statement/lawyers-acting-for-uhrp-and-wuc-submit-universal-jurisdiction-complaint-to- the-criminal-courts-of-argentina/, (Erişim Tarihi: 23.09.2025).
93. http://www.biblioteca.jus.gov.ar/argentina-constitution.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 24.09.2025).
94. https://reliefweb.int/report/myanmar/argentine-prosecutor-seeks-arrest-warrants-genocide-and-crimes- against-humanity-committed-against-rohingya-community, (Erişim Tarihi: 30.09.2025).
95. https://www.ictj.org/latest-news/historic-ruling-court-argentina-orders-maduros-arrest-crimes-against- humanity, (Erişim Tarihi: 30.09.2025).
96. http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/120000-124999/123921/norma.htm, (Erişim Tarihi: 24.09.2025).
97. https://asil.org/ILIB/argentina-court-revives-uygher-genocide-claims, (Erişim Tarihi: 23.09.2025).
98. https://uhrp.org/statement/landmark-decision-as-argentina-court-of-cassation-reverses-judges- decision-not-to-open-uyghur-case-for-crimes-against-humanity-and-genocide/, (Erişim Tarihi: 24.09.2025).
99. https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Argentina-Uyghur-case-Kanat-Federal- Criminal-Court-of-Cassation-ruling-June-18-2025.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 25.09.2025).
100. https://www.ilsa.org/Jessup/Jessup16/Batch%201/TheLotusCase.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 18.09.2025).
101. https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/7205b9/pdf/, (Erişim Tarihi: 12.09.2025).
102. https://treaties.un.org/pages/LONViewDetails.aspx?src=LON&id=563&chapter=30&clang=_en, (Erişim Tarihi: 16.09.2025).
103. https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=VI-12-a&chapter=6&clang=_en, (Erişim Tarihi: 16.09.2025).
104. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/nuremberg-tribunal-charter-1945?activeTab=, (Erişim Tarihi: 19.09.2025).
105. https://treaties.un.org/doc/db/terrorism/conv2-english.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 18.09.2025).
106. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20974/volume-974-I-14118-english.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 18.09.2025).
107. https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_4_1973.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 18.09.2025).
108. https://rm.coe.int/16800771b2, (Erişim Tarihi: 18.09.2025).
109. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/cat.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 18.09.2025).
110. https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/f438e9/pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 18.09.2025).
111. https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/Rome-Statute-eng.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 18.09.2025).
112. https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/f204ef/pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 18.09.2025).
113. https://www.uniset.ca/other/cs5/2000AC147.html, (Erişim Tarihi: 19.09.2025).
114. https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/aceae7/pdf/, (Erişim Tarihi: 18.09.2025).
115. https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/itemsDocuments/2020-PE/2020-pe-report-eng.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 24.09.2025).