Ukrayna-Rusya krizi ve DTÖ hukuku: Güvenlik istisnalarının yükselişi mi?

Yıl 2023, , 381 - 406, 30.04.2023

Mustafa Göker

https://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.1176633

Cited By: 1

Öz

Ticarive ticaret–dışı çıkarlar ayrımı;uluslararası ilişkilerinköklü tartışmalarından olan siyasal ve siyasal olmayan konular arasındaki önceliğe dair tartışmanınbir yansıması olup, siyaset ve ekonomi arasındaki açığı temsil etmektedir. Bu bağlamda, güvenlik,ticaret–dışı değerlerin en önemlisidir denilebilir. GATT,ticari konuları disipline ederken âkid tarafların ticaret–dışı çıkarlarını da dikkate almıştır. Bu kapsamda, GATT kurallarına aykırı tedbirleri almaya imkân veren çeşitli istisna düzenlemelerine yer verilmiştir. Bunlar arasında ulusal güvenlik istisnaları da yer almaktadır. Güvenlik istisnaları gerek GATT gereksede DTÖ döneminde uzunca bir süre devletlerin başvurmakta ihtiyatla yaklaştıkları bir araçolmuştur. Ancak son yıllarda, uluslararası ilişkilerde artan gerginlik ortamına bağlı olarak,devletleringüvenlik istisnalarınıticaret kısıtlayıcı ulusal önlemlerin meşruiyet dayanağı olarak daha sık öne sürmeye başladıkları gözlenmektedir. Güvenlik istisnaları yakın zamanda iki DTÖ panelinde uygulama alanı bulmuştur. Bunu yenilerinin takip etmesi muhtemeldir. Özellikle, Ukrayna’da 2014 yılında başlayan siyasal gelişmeler ile ABD’de Trump Yönetiminin başta Çin olmak üzere çeşitli ülkelere karşı temelde siyasal gerekçelerle uygulamaya koyduğu ticaret kısıtlayıcı önlemler güvenlik istisnalarını ön plana taşımıştır.Çalışma, DTÖ hukukundaki güvenlik istisnalarının uygulanma koşullarınıve Ukrayna-Rusya Kirizi bağlamında gündeme gelme potansiyelini incelemekte; yöntemolarak, ağırlıkla,yasal metin analizi ve içtihad kararlarına başvurmayı benimsemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ukrayna-Rusya Krizi, Ticari Yaptırımlar, DTÖ Hukuku, Güvenlik İstisnaları

Ukraine-Russia crisis and the WTO law: Rise of security exceptions?

Öz

The distinction between trade and non–trade interests is a reflection of the debate on the priority between political and non-political issues and represents the gap between politics and economy. In this context, it can be said that security is the most important non–trade value.While disciplining trade matters, GATT also took into account the non–trade concerns of the contracting parties. As a result, various exceptions that allow taking measures contrary to the GATT rules are provided. Those include national security exceptions in addition to others.Security exceptions have been an instrumentwhich states have been cautious, for a long time, to apply both in the GATT and WTO periods. However, due to the increasing tension in international relations in recent years, it has been observed that states have begun to employsecurityexceptions more frequently as the legitimacy basis of their national trade-restrictive measures. Theyhave recently found application in two WTO panels. It is likely that new ones will follow. The political developments in Ukraine that started in 2014 and revived in 2022 and the trade restrictive measures implemented by the Trump Administration of the USAagainst various countries, especially China, onpolitical grounds, have brought security exceptions to the fore.This study examines the conditions for the application of security exceptions in the WTO law and its potential to be invoked in the context ofthe Ukraine-Russia Crisis. As a method, it mainly employs legal text analysis and reference to case-law decisions.

Kaynakça

• ABD Başkanlık kararnamesi (Executive Order), 11 Mart 2022 (Erişim adresi: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/03/11/executive-order-on-prohibiting-certain-imports-exports-and-new-investment-with-respect-to-continued-russian-federation-aggression/ Erişim tarihi: 02.08.2022)
• Alford, R.P. (2011). The self-judging WTO security exception. Utah Law Review, (3), 697–759.
• Analytical index of the GATT – Article XXI (Erişim adresi: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/gatt_ai_e/art21_e.pdf Erişim tarihi: 30.04.2022)
• Brown, C. (2007). A common law of international adjudication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Cann, W.A. Jr. (2001). Creating standards and accountability for the use of the WTO security exception: Reducing the role of power-based relations and establishing a new balance between sovereignty and multilateralism. Yale Journal of International Law, (26), 413–485.
• Cho, S. (1998). GATT non–violation issues in the WTO framework: Are they the Achilles’ Heel of the dispute settlement process?, Harvard International Law Journal, 39(2), 311–355.
• DTÖ Dokümanı, WT/DSB/M/403: DSB minutes of the meeting held in the Centre William Rappard on 23 October 2017, WT/DSB/M/403. (Erişim adresi: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S005.aspx Erişim tarihi: 27.07.2022)
• Gallagher, P. (2002). Guide to dispute settlement. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
• GATT Dokümanı, C/M/188: Minutes of meeting held in the Centre William Rappard on 29 May 1985. (Erişim adresi: https://docs.wto.org/gattdocs/q/GG/C/M188.PDF Erişim tarihi: 30.04.2022)
• GATT Dokümanı, L/4250: Circulation of the notification by Sweden on the introduction of a global quota system for leather shoes, plastic shoes and rubber shoes, 17 November 1975. (Erişim adresi: https://docs.wto.org/gattdocs/q/GG/L4399/4250.PDF Erişim tarihi: 19.05.2022)
• GATT Dokümanı, L/5426: Decision concerning article XXI of the General Agreement, 30 November 1982. (Erişim adresi: https://docs.wto.org/gattdocs/q/GG/L5599/5426.PDF Erişim tarihi: 19.05.2022)
• GATT Dokümanı, WT/DSB/M/442: Minutes of DSB meeting held in the Centre William Rappard on 29 June 2020. (Erişim adresi: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/WT/DSB/M442.pdf&Open=True Erişim tarihi: 24.07.2022)
• Göker, M. (2020). DTÖ anlaşmazlıklarının hallinde uluslararası hukuk: Yönetimli etkileşim modeli. (Doktora Tezi), Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
• Hahn, M.J. (1991). Vital interests and the law of the GATT: An analysis of GATT’s security exception. Michigan Journal of International Law, 12(3), 558–620.
• Jackson, J.H. (1997). The world trading system, law and policy of international economic relations (second edition), Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.
• Jacobs, F. G. (1969). Varieties of approach to treaty interpretation: With special reference to the Draft Convention on the Law of the Treaties Before the Vienna Diplomatic Conference, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 18(2), 318–346.
• Kaya, T. (2017). DTÖ anlaşmalarındaki yükümlülüklerden kaçınmaya olanak sağlayan istisna hükümleri. Hacettepe Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(2), 169–192 .
• Kuyper, P. J. (1994). The law of the GATT as a special field of international law: Ignorance, further refinement or self-contained system of international law? Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, (25), 227–257.
• Lindsay, P. (2003). The ambiguity of GATT article XXI subtle success or rampant failure? Duke Law Journal, 52(6), 1277–1313.
• Mitchell, A. D., & Heaton, D. (2010). The inherent jurisdiction of WTO tribunals: The select application of public international law required by judicial function. Michigan Journal of International Law, 31(3), 559–619.
• Neuwirth, R.J., & Svetlicinii, A. (2016). The current EU/US-Russia conflict over Ukraine and the WTO: a preliminary note on (trade) restrictive measures. Post-Soviet Affairs, 32(3), 237–271.
• Özel Özcan, M.S. (2019). 2000 yılı sonrası Rusya Federasyonu’nda büyük güç statüsünün sorgulanması. Güvenlik Çalışmaları Dergisi, 21(2), 177–196.
• Pauwelyn, J. (2001). The role of public international law in the WTO: How far can we go? The American Journal of International Law, 95 (3), 535–578.
• Pauwelyn, J. (2003). Conflict of norms in public international law How WTO relates to other rules of international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Pauwelyn, J., Trachtman, J. P., & Steger, D. P. (2004). [The jurisdiction of the WTO is limited to trade]. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), 98, 135–146. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25659908
• Politico, 11 March 2022 (Russia has threatened to sue countries that decide to suspend its most-favored-nation status at the WTO. Erişim adresi: https://www.politico.eu/article/remove-russia-trade-privilege-what-need-know/ Erişim tarihi: 05.04.2022).
• Russian Today, 18 September 2014 (Sanctions against Russia ‘violates” core principles of WTO – Putin. Erişim adresi:https://www.rt.com/business/188772-sanctions-russia-protect-economy-putin Erişim tarihi: 05.04.2022).
• Scwarzenberger, G. (1966). The principles and standards of international economic law. Leyden: A.W. Sijthoff.
• Sputnik International, 22 April 2016 (Russia rules out appealing to WTO over Western sanctions. Erişim adresi: https://sputniknews.com/politics/201604221038475089-russia-wont-appeal-wto-sanctions/ Erişim tarihi: 05.04.2022).
• Third Party Executive Summary of the USA, Russia – Measures concerning traffic in transit, WT/DS512, February 27, 2018 (Erişim adresi: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/DS/US.3d.Pty.Exec.Summ.fin.%28public%29.pdf Erişim tarihi: 26.07.2022)
• UN News, 2 March 2022 (General Assembly resolution demands end to Russian offensive in Ukraine. Erişim adresi: https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1113152 Erişim tarihi: 02.08.2022).
• United Nations International Law Commission (2006). Fragmentation of international law: Difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, finalised by Martti Koskenniemi, Geneva, 13 April 2006, A/CN.4/L.682.
• Van Damme, I. (2009). Treaty interpretation by the WTO Appellate Body. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Van Den Bossche, P. (2005). The law and policy of the World Trade Organization. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Voon, T. (2019). Can international trade law recover? The security exception in WTO law: Entering a new era. American Journal of International Law, (113), 45–50.
• Yılmaz, M. (2020). Dünya Ticaret Örgütü hukuku bakımından uluslararası ticarette güvenlik istisnası. Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, (1), 249–304.
• Zhou, J. (2020). New WTO ruling on national security in Qatar – Saudi Arabia Case and its impact on South Korea – Japan dispute, American Society of Interntional Law, 24(22). (Erişim adresi: https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/24/issue/22/new-wto-ruling-national-security-qatar-saudi-arabia-case-and-its-impact Erişim tarihi: 29.07.2022)