Analyzing the Salisbury Incident under International Law

Öz

On March 04, 2018, Sergei Skripal (former Russian spy) and his daughter, Yulia Skripal, were found unconscious in Salisbury in the United Kingdom. An investigation by the authorities found that Skripal and his daughter had been exposed to Novichok nerve agent. The UK Government claimed it was highly likely that the Russian government was responsible for the poisoning. The Russian government dismissed the allegations. Nonetheless, the Salisbury case has become an international crisis. This case has been analyzed in the context of various international legal principles, including prohibition of the use of force, self-defense, and armed attack. The prohibition of the use of force, for example, requires an examination of the compatibility of nerve agent use (in particular Novichok nerve agent) with international law. In the Salisbury incident, one important question is whether there is a threshold for the use of force in respect of Article 2(4) of the United Nations (UN) Charter. Assuming the Russian government is responsible for the Salisbury incident, another crucial issue is whether the Salisbury incident is tantamount to an armed attack for the purposes of Article 51 of the UN Charter, invoking the UK’s right to forcible self-defense.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Salisbury
• the prohibition of the use of force
• armed attack
• self-defense
• Novichok

Uluslararası Hukukta Salisbury Olayının İncelenmesi

Öz

4 Mart 2018 tarihinde İngiltere’nin Salisbury kentinde Sergei Skripal (eski Rus ajanı) ve kızı Yulia Skripal bilinci kapalı bir şekilde bulunmuşlardır. Yetkili mercilerin incelemesi ve araştırması sonucu Sergei Skripal ve kızının Novichok isimli sinir gazına maruz kaldıkları tespit edilmiştir. İngiltere Hükümeti kullanılan gazın çeşidi ve elde edilen delillerden yola çıkarak Rusya’nın bu zehirlenme vakasından sorumlu olabileceğini ifade etmiştir. Rusya olayı üstlenmemesine rağmen iddiaların aksini kanıtlayabilecek güçlü bir delil ileri sürememiştir. Salisbury olayı, basit bir zehirlenme vakasından öteye geçerek uluslararası bir krize dönüşmüş ve kuvvet kullanma yasağı, meşru müdafaa ve silahlı saldırı konularında uluslararası hukuk altında tartışmalara sebebiyet vermiştir. Bu kapsamda, Novichok gazı özelinde sinir gazı kullanımının uluslararası hukuka uygunluğunun incelenmesi, olayın kuvvet kullanma yasağına ilişkin değerlendirilmesi için önem arz etmektedir. BM Sözleşmesi madde 2(4) dikkate alınarak, Salisbury olayında incelenecek önemli hususlardan diğeri ise, kuvvet kullanma konusunda bir eşiğin var olup olmadığıdır. Salisbury olayından Rusya Hükümeti’nin sorumlu olduğu varsayımında, incelenmesi gereken diğer önemli bir husus bu olayın BM Sözleşmesi madde 51’de düzenlenen meşru müdafaa hakkı dâhilinde silahlı saldırı boyutuna ulaşıp ulaşmadığıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Salisbury
• kuvvet kullanma yasağı
• silahlı saldırı
• meşru müdafaa
• Novichok

Kaynakça

1. Kitaplar & Makaleler/Books and Articles google scholar
2. Acer Y ve Kaya İ, Uluslararası Hukuk Temel Ders Kitabı (9th edn, Seçkin 2018). google scholar
3. Aksar Y, Teoride ve Uygulamada Uluslararası Hukuk II (4th edn, Seçkin 2017). google scholar
4. Aust A, Handbook of International Law (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2010). google scholar
5. Bennett AL ve Oliver JK, Uluslararası Örgütler, İlkeler ve Meseleler (çev. Nasuh Uslu, BB101 2015). google scholar
6. Bozkurt E, Uluslararası Hukukta Kuvvet Kullanılması (3rd edn, Asil 2007). google scholar
7. Chai P, Hayes B, Erickson T and Boyer EW, ‘Novichok agents: a historical current and toxicological perspective’ 2018 (2) 1 Toxicology Communications 45-48. google scholar
8. Costanzi S and Koblentz G, ‘Controlling Novichoks after Salisbury: revising the Chemical Weapons Convention schedules’ 2019 The Nonproliferation Review 1-14. google scholar

9. Feder NM, ‘Reading the U.N. Charter Connotatively: Toward a New Definition of Armed Attack’ (1987) 19(2) New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 395-432. google scholar
10. Kretzmer D, ‘The Inherent Right to Self-Defence and Proportionality in Jus Ad Bellum’ (2013) 24(1) European Journal of International Law, 235-282. google scholar
11. Lewis S, ‘Salisbury, Novichok and International Law on the Use of Force’ (2018) 163 (4) The RUSI Journal, 10-19. google scholar
12. Lotrionte C, ‘Reconsidering the Consequences for State-Sponsored Hostile Cyber Operations Under International Law’ (2018) 3 (2) The Cyber Defence Review, 73-100. google scholar
13. Meray S, Devletler Hukukuna Giriş (4th edn, Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Yayınları 1975). google scholar
14. Pazarcı H, Uluslararası Hukuk (12th edn, Turan 2012). google scholar
15. Pirim C, ‘Devletlere Atfedilemeyen Silahlı Saldırılara Karşı Meşru Müdafaa: Uluslararası Hukukta Sınır Ötesi Operasyonun Hukuki Zemini’ 2019 (11) 40 TAAD 245- 303. google scholar
16. Ronen, Y, ‘Israel, Hizbollah, and the Second Lebanon War’ (Aralık 2006) 9 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 362-393. google scholar
17. Ruys T, ‘The Meaning of “Force” and the Boundaries of the Jus ad Bellum: Are “Minimal” Uses of Force Excluded from UN Charter Article 2(4)?’ (2014) 108(2) The American Journal of International Law 159-210. google scholar
18. Schmitt MN, ‘State-Sponsored Assassination in International and Domestic Law’ (1992) 17 Yale Journal of International Law 609-685. google scholar
19. Simma B, ‘NATO, the UN and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects’ (1999) 10 European Journal of International Law 1-22. google scholar Stewart C, Weapons of Mass Casualities and Terrorism Response Handbook, (Jones and Bartlett 2006). google scholar
20. United Nations, Yearbook of the United Nations 1988 (vol 42, Martinus Nijhoff Pub. 1994) google scholar
21. Vail C, ‘The Legality of Nuclear Weapons for Use and Deterrence’ (2017) 48(3) Georgetown Journal of International Law 839-872. google scholar
22. Mahkeme Kararları & Diğer Resmî Belgeler/ Court Decisions & Other Official Documents google scholar
23. Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) (Judgment) [2005] ICJ Rep 14. google scholar
24. Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), (Merits, Judgment) [1986] ICJ Rep 14 google scholar
25. Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) (Judgment) [2003] ICJ Rep 161. google scholar
26. Changes to Schedule 1 of the Annex on Chemicals to the Chemical Weapons Convention (decision adopted 27 November 2019) C-24/ Dec.5. (OPCW). google scholar
27. Commentary of 2017 Article 2, Geneva Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (adopted 12 August 1949, entred into force 21 October 1950) International Committee of The Red Cross (ICRC). google scholar
28. Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, Annex to GA Res. 2625, UN GAOR, 25th Sess. Supp. No. 28, 121, UN Doc. A/8028 (24 October 1970). google scholar
29. Diplomatik İlişkiler Hakkında Viyana Sözleşmesi (Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations) (signed 18 April 1961, entered into force 24 April 1964) 500 UNTS 95 (VCDR). google scholar
30. Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (signed 2 September 1947, entered into force 12 March 1948) 21 UNTS 77. google scholar
31. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion) [1996] ICJ Rep 226. google scholar
32. NATO, ‘Statement by the North Atlantic Council on the Use of a Nerve Agent in Salisbury’, Press Release, (2018) 033, 14 March 2018. google scholar
33. Savaşın Ulusal Politika Aracı Olarak Yasaklanmasına İlişkin Genel Anlaşma, Kellog-Briand Paktı (General Treaty for the Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy, Kellog-Briand Peace Pact) (signed 27 August 1928, entered into force 24 July 1929) 94 LNTS 57. google scholar
34. The Covenant of the League of Nations (Milletler Cemiyeti Misakı) (1919) google scholar
35. UN Doc. A/RES/3314 (XXIX), Definition of Aggression (14 Aralık 1974). google scholar
36. UN Doc. A/56/49(Vol. I)/Corr.4. Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001). google scholar
37. UN Doc. S/19798 (19 Nisan 1988). google scholar
38. UN Doc. S/RES/611 (25 Nisan 1988). google scholar
39. UN Security Council, ‘Moscow ‘Highly Likely’ Behind Salisbury Chemical Attack, Prime Minister of United Kingdom Says in Letter to Security Council’, Press Release, 8203rd Meeting, SC/13247, 14 Mart 2018. google scholar
40. Online Kaynaklar/Online Sources google scholar
41. Akande D, ‘The Use of Nerve Agents in Salisbury: Why does it Matter Whether it Amounts to a Use of Force in International Law?’ (EJIL: Talk, 17 March 2018) Erişim Tarihi 15 Aralık 2019. google scholar
42. Birleşmiş Milletler Andlaşması, RG, 24.8.1945, Sayı 6092 Erişim Tarihi 20 Ocak 2021. google scholar
43. Convention on the Prohibiton of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, Erişim Tarihi 1 Kasım 2019. google scholar
44. Davies G and Luhn A ‘Skripal poisoning suspects claim they were tourists in ‘wonderful town of Salisbury’ to visit ‘famous’ cathedral’ (Telegraph, 13 September 2018) Erişim Tarihi 28 Kasım 2019. google scholar
45. Dearden L, ‘Salisbury novichok attack: Police officer Nick Bailey says he was ‘petrified’ after being poisoned’ (Independent, 22 November 2018) Erişim Tarihi 27 Kasım 2019. google scholar
46. European Council conclusions on the Salisbury attack, 22 March 2018 (European Council, 22 March 2018) Erişim Tarihi 6 Haziran 2021. google scholar
47. Evidence of Russia’s involvement in Salisbury attack (UK Government, 6 September 2018) www.gov.uk/government/speeches/you-dont-recruit-an-arsonist-to-put-out-a-fire-you-especially-dont-do-that-when-the-fire-is-one-they-caused> Erişim Tarihi 5 Haziran 2021. google scholar
48. Human Rights Watch, ‘Human Rights Watch World Report 1992 - Nicaragua’ (1 January 1992) Erişim Tarihi 18 Temmuz 2020. google scholar
49. Joint statement from Prime Minister May and Prime Minister Rutte (UK Government, 4 October 2018) Erişim Tarihi 5 Haziran 2021. google scholar
50. Joint statement by Prime Minister May and Prime Minister Rutte on cyber activities of the Russian military intelligence service, the GRU (Government of Netherlands, 4 October 2018) www.government.nl/latest/news/2018/10/04/joint-statement-by-prime-minister-may-and-prime-minister-rutte-on-cyber-activities-of-the-russian-military-intelligence-service-the-gru> Erişim Tarihi 5 Haziran 2021. google scholar
51. Kimyasal Silahların Geliştirilmesinin, Üretiminin, Stoklanmasının ve Kullanımının Yasaklanması ve Bunların İmhası ile İlgili Sözleşme (Kimyasal Silahlar Sözleşmesi), RG, 3.5.1997, Sayı 22978 (Mükerrer) Erişim Tarihi 20 Temmuz 2020. google scholar
52. Lieblich E, ‘The Salisbury Incident and the Threshold for ‘Unlawful Use of Force’ under International Law: between Stigmatization and Escalation’ (Stockholm Centre, 20 April 2018) Erişim Tarihi 17 Aralık 2019. google scholar
53. Omand D, ‘From Nudge to Novichok: The response to the Skripal nerve agnt attack holds lessons for countering hybrid threats’ (2018) Hybrid Coe, 4 Erişim Tarihi 28 Kasım 2019. google scholar
54. OPCW, Webcast: CSP-24 Erişim Tarihi 10 Kasım 2019. google scholar
55. PM Commons statement on Salisbury incident: 12 March 2018 (UK Government, 12 March 2018) Erişim Tarihi 28 Kasım 2019. google scholar
56. Press Association, ‘Novichok victim Charlie Rowley says poison could still kill him’ (Guardian, 9 December 2018) Erişim Tarihi 27 Kasım 2019. google scholar
57. Ruys T, ‘‘License to Kill’ in Salisbury: State-sponsored assassinations and the jus ad bellum’ (Just Security, 15 March 2018) Erişim Tarihi 10 Aralık 2019. google scholar
58. Telegraph Reporters, ‘Police officer poisoned by Novichok returns to active duty 10 months after Salisbury attack’ (Telegraph, 15 January 2019) Erişim Tarihi 27 Kasım 2019. google scholar
59. Weller M, ‘An International Use of Force in Salisbury?’ (EJIL: Talk, 14 March 2018) Erişim Tarihi 26 Kasım 2019. google scholar