Olağan Dışı Teslim Örneğiyle Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Hukuku İhlallerinde Devletlerarası İş Birliği

Öz

11 Eylül saldırıları sonrası Amerika Birleşik Devletleri ve özellikle Merkezi İstihbarat Teşkilatı (CIA), teröre karşı savaş bağlamında şüpheli görülen kişilerin yakalanması, hukuka aykırı olarak başka ülkelere kaçırılması ve kötü muamele içeren usullerle sorgulanmasını içeren bir Teslim, Tutma ve Sorgulama Programı (ing. “Rendition, Detention and Interrogation”) yürütmüştür. Ancak bu olağan dışı teslim ve sorgulamalar, doğaları gereği, yalnızca Birleşik Devletlerin tek taraflı girişimleriyle gerçekleştirilebilecek nitelikte değildir: Programın, kişilerin yakalanması, tutulması ve sorgulanması aşamaları için önemli usuli güvenceler içeren Birleşik Devletler hukuk sisteminde gerçekleştirilmesi mümkün olmadığından, özellikle kişilerin hukuka aykırı transferi ve sorgulama aşamalarında başka devletlerin topraklarının kullanılması gerekmiştir. Bu nedenle teslim ve sorgu işlemlerinde diğer devletlerin iş birliğine gerek duyulmuştur. Öyle görünüyor ki Program’ın içerdiği hukuka aykırı usuller neredeyse ilk aşamalardan itibaren tüm uluslararası kamuoyu tarafından bilinir olsa da demokrasi ve insan hakları açılarından gelişmiş addedilen devletlerden bu açıdan sorunlu devletlere kadar geniş bir yelpazede en az elli dört devlet CIA ile iş birliği yapmaktan çekinmemiştir. Bu çalışma bu iş birliğinin nedenlerini araştırmakta, bu nedeni iş birliği yapan devletler arasındaki ulusal güvenliğin insan haklarına üstün kılınma algısında bulmaktadır. Bu amaçla çalışmanın ilk bölümünde olağan dışı teslim uygulaması ve bu uygulamanın insan hakları hukuku açısından değerlendirilmesine yer verilmiş, ikinci bölümde ise iş birliğinde bulunan devletler anıldıktan sonra iş birliğinde neden bulunulmuş olabileceği sorusu cevaplanmaya çalışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Olağan dışı teslim
• İşkence yasağı
• Kişi özgürlüğü ve güvenliği
• Adil yargılanma hakkı
• İnsan hakları
• İş birliği teorileri
• Teröre karşı savaş
• Uluslararası ilişkiler

Interstate Cooperation in Violations of International Human Rights Law: The Case of Extraordinary Rendition

Öz

Following the 9/11 attacks, the United States, specifically the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), implemented a Rendition, Detention and Interrogation Programme, which involved capturing, unlawfully detaining, and interrogating individuals suspected of involvement in the War on Terror. The United States could not carry out these extraordinary renditions and interrogations alone. The Programme required the use of other countries’ territories for the unlawful rendition and interrogation of persons, as it could not be carried out within the United States legal system, which provides effective procedural safeguards for the apprehension, detention and interrogation of individuals. Cooperation with other states was necessary during the rendition and interrogation stages. Although the international community was aware of the unlawful procedures involved in the Programme from the beginning, at least 54 states, ranging from those considered to have been ‘advanced’ in terms of democracy and human rights to those with problematic records in this regard, cooperated with the CIA. This study investigates the reasons for cooperation between states in the practice of extraordinary rendition. It finds that the perception of national security as a priority over human rights is the main driver of such cooperation. The purpose of this study is to examine the practice of extraordinary rendition and assess it under human rights law. Then, after listing the states that cooperated with the CIA, it attempts to answer the question of why cooperation might have existed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Extraordinary rendition
• Prohibition of torture
• Personal liberty and security
• Right to a fair trial
• Human rights
• Theories of cooperation
• War on terror
• International relations

Kaynakça

1. Bush GW, Decision Points (Crown Publishers 2010). google scholar
2. Cordell R, ‘Did 9/11 Change Everything? Security and Human Rights Trade-offs in International Cooperation’ (University of Essex 2017). google scholar
3. Grieco J, Cooperation Among Nations (Cornell University Press 1990). google scholar
4. Guzman AT, How International Law Works: a Rational Choice Theory (Oxford University Press 2007). google scholar
5. Hillebrand C, The CIA’s extraordinary rendition and secret detention programme: European reactions and the challenges of future international intelligence co-operation (Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael 2009). google scholar
6. Ignatieff M (ed), American Exceptionalism and Human Rights (Princeton University Press 2005). google scholar
7. Keohane RO, After Hegemony : Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton University Press 1984). google scholar
8. Mercer J, Reputation and International Politics (Cornell Studies in Security Affairs, Cornell University Press 1996). google scholar

9. Odell JS and Dustin Tingley, ‘Negotiating Agreements in International Relations’ in Mansbridge J and Cathie Jo Martin (eds), Negotiating Agreement in Politics (American Political Science Association 2013). google scholar
10. Raphael S and Ruth Blakeley, ‘Rendition in the “War on Terror”’ in Jackson R (ed), The Routledge Handbook of Critical Terrorism Studies (Routledge 2016). google scholar
11. Sartori AE, Deterrence by Diplomacy (Princeton University Press 2005). google scholar
12. Singh A, Globalizing Torture: CIA Secret Detention and Extraordinary Rendition, 2013). google scholar
13. Sterling-Folker J, Theories of International Cooperation and the Primacy of Anarchy: Explaining U.S. International Policy-Making After Bretton Woods (State University of New York Press 2002). google scholar
14. Tomz M, Reputation and International Cooperation: Sovereign Debt Across Three Centuries (Princeton University Press 2007). google scholar
15. Ambos K and Annika Maleen Poschadel, ‘Terrorists and Fair Trial: The Right to a Fair Trial for Alleged Terrorists Detained in Guantanamo Bay’ (2013) 9(4) Utrecht Law Review 109-126. google scholar
16. Blakeley R and Sam Raphael, ‘Human rights fact-finding and the CIA’s rendition, detention and interrogation programme: A response to Cordell’ (2018) 21(2) International Area Studies Review 169-178. google scholar
17. Cordell R, ‘Security-Civil Liberties Trade-offs: International Cooperation in Extraordinary Rendition’ (2019) 45(4) International Interactions 369-400. google scholar
18. Dai X, Duncan Snidal and Michael Sampson, ‘International Cooperation Theory and International Institutions’ (2017) International Studies 1-33. google scholar
19. Fisher L, ‘Extraordinary Rendition : the Price of Secrecy’ (2008) 57(5) The American University Law Review 1405-1451. google scholar
20. Gartzke E and Kristian Skrede Gleditsch, ‘Why democracies may actually be less reliable allies’ (2004) 48(4) American Journal of Political Science 775-795. google scholar
21. Gaubatz KT, ‘Democratic States and Commitment in International Relations’ (1996) 50(1) International Organization 109-139. google scholar
22. Gowa J, ‘Anarchy, Egoism, and Third Images: The Evolution of Cooperation and International Relations’ (1986) 40(1) International Organization 167-186. google scholar
23. Grieco J, ‘Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: A realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism’ (1988) 42(3) International Organization 485-507. google scholar
24. Johnston P, ‘Leaving the Invisible Universe: Why All Victims of Extraordinary Rendition Need a Cause of Action Against the United States’ (2008) 16(1) Journal of Law and Policy 357-416. google scholar
25. Langlois JP and Catherine Langlois, ‘Tacit Bargaining in International Relations: A Game Model and a Case Study’ (1996) 40(4) The Journal of Conflict Resolution 569-596. google scholar
26. Mattes M and Mariana Rodmguez, ‘Autocracies and International Cooperation’ (2014) 58(3) International Studies Quarterly 527-538. google scholar
27. Milner H, ‘International Theories of Cooperation among Nations: Strengths and Weaknesses’ (1992) 44(3) World Politics 466-496. google scholar
28. Oye KA, ‘Explaining Cooperation under Anarchy: Hypotheses and Strategies’ (1985) 38(1) World Politics 1-24. google scholar
29. Putnam RD, ‘Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games’ (1988) 42(3) International Organization 427-460. google scholar
30. Raphael Sam, Crofton Black, Ruth Blakeley and Steve Kostas, ‘Tracking rendition aircraft as a way to understand CIA secret detention and torture in Europe’ (2016) 20(1) The International Journal of Human Rights 78-103. google scholar
31. Roach K, ‘Substitute Justice? Challenges to American Counterterrorism Activities in Non-American Court’ (2013) 82(4) Mississippi Law Journal 907-974. google scholar
32. Robeda A, ‘The Death of Implied Causes of Action: The Supreme Court’s Recent Bivens Jurisprudence and the Effect on State Constitutional Tort Jurisprudence: Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko’ (2003) 33(3) New Mexico Law Review 401-429. google scholar
33. Rosen PM, ‘The Bivens Constitutional Tort: An Unfulfilled Promise’ (1989) 67(2/3) North Carolina Law Review 337-377. google scholar
34. Sadat LN, ‘Extraordinary Rendition, Torture, and Other Nightmares from the War on Terror’ (2007) 75(5) The George Washington Law Review 1200-1248. google scholar
35. Sage MV, ‘The Exploitation of Legal Loopholes in the Name of National Security: A Case Study on Extraordinary Rendition’ (2006) 37(1) California Western International Law Journal 121-142. google scholar
36. Satterthwaite ML, ‘The Story of El-Masri v. Tenet: Human Rights and Humanitarian Law in the ‘‘War on Terror’’’ (2008) 08 NYU School of Law: Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series 535-577. google scholar
37. Schmidt A and Kathryn Sikkink, ‘Partners in Crime: An Empirical Evaluation of the CIA Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation Program’ (2018) 16(4) Perspectives on Politics 1014-1033. google scholar
38. Snidal D, ‘Relative Gains and the Pattern of International Cooperation’ (1991) 85(3) The American Political Science Review 701-726. google scholar
39. Webb MC and Stephen D Krasner, ‘Hegemonic Stability Theory: An Empirical Assessment’ (1989) 15(2) Review of International Studies 183-198. google scholar
40. Weissbrodt D and Amy Bergquist, ‘Extraordinary Rendition: A Human Rights Analysis’ (2006) 19 Harvard Human Rights Journal 124-160. google scholar
41. Weissbrodt D and Mattias Hallendorff, ‘Travaux Preparatoires of the Fair Trial Provisions-Articles 8 to 11-of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ (1999) 21 Human Rights Quarterly 10611096. google scholar
42. Yazid MNM, ‘The Theory of Hegemonic Stability, Hegemonic Power and International Political Economic Stability’ (2015) 3 Global Journal of Political Science and Administration 67-79. google scholar
43. Aolain FN, ‘Technical Visit to the United States and Guantanamo Detention Facility by the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism’ (June 14, 2023) 1 Erişim Tarihi 27 January 2024. google scholar
44. BBC News, ‘Bush admits to CIA secret prisons’ (BBC News, September 7) Erişim Tarihi 23 January 2024. google scholar
45. Bush GW, ‘Humane Treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees’ Erişim Tarihi 8 July 2024. google scholar
46. Duffy H and Hannah R Garry, Submission to the UN Human Rights Committee Concerning Arbitrary Detention & Torture by the United States Against Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Erişim Tarihi 17 January 2024. google scholar
47. Eski S and Yarin Eski, ‘Dutch tolerance of torture? CIA extraordinary rendition flights in the Netherlands’ Palgrave Communications Erişim Tarihi: 23 January 2024. google scholar
48. Froomkin D, ‘Cheney’s ‘Dark Side’ is Showing’ (The Washington Post: Opinions, November 7) Erişim Tarihi 22 January 2024. google scholar
49. Geyer F, ‘Fruit of the poisonous tree: member states’ indirect use of extraordinary rendition and the EU counter-terrorism strategy’ CEPS Working Documents No 263 Erişim Tarihi 22 January 2024. google scholar
50. Grozdanova R, ‘Extraordinary Rendition and Human Rights: The Case of Khaled El-Masri’ Erişim Tarihi 22 January 2024. google scholar
51. Hall J, ‘Torture report reveals how Poland objected to CIA’s secret jail on its soil - but became ‘flexible’ after being bought off with large cash payment’ (Daily Mail Online, December 10) Erişim Tarihi 23 January 2024. google scholar
52. Marty D, ‘Alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers involving Council of Europe member states’ (2006) Erişim Tarihi 23 January 2024. google scholar
53. Mayer J, ‘Outsourcing Torture: The secret history of America’s ‘extraordinary rendition’ program’ (The New Yorker, February 14 & 21) . google scholar
54. Erişim Tarihi 23 January 2024.Peace IfE, ‘Global Terrorism Index 2019: Measuring the Impact of Terrorism’ (2019) Erişim Tarihi 8 July 2024. google scholar
55. Priest D, ‘CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons’ (The Washington Post, November 2) Erişim Tarihi 23 January 2024. google scholar
56. ‘Report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Detention and Interrogation Program’ (2014). google scholar
57. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CRPT-113srpt288.pdf Erişim Tarihi 23 January 2024. google scholar
58. Retief J-M, ‘Extraordinary rendition in international law: criminalising the indefinable?’ Erişim Tarihi 23 January 2024. google scholar
59. Rosenberg C, ‘What the C.I.A.’s Torture Program Looked Like to the Tortured’ (The New York Times, November 2021) Erişim Tarihi 24 January 2024.The Committee on International Human Rights of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York and The Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, ‘Torture by Proxy: International and Domestic Law Applicable to “Extraordinary Renditions”’ (2004) Erişim Tarihi 22 January 2024. google scholar
60. The United Kingdom Intelligence and Security Committee, ‘Rendition’ Erişim Tarihi 24 January 2024. google scholar
61. Thiessen MA, ‘Arrest Bill Clinton!’ (The Washington Post, December 12) Erişim Tarihi 22 January 2024. google scholar
62. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘Statement of High Commissioner for Human Rights on Detention of Taliban and Al Qaida Prisoners at US Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba’ (OHCHR, 16 June 2002) Erişim Tarihi 17 June 2024. google scholar
63. World Bank National Accounts Data, ‘GDP (current US$)’ (World Bank Group) > Erişim Tarihi 8 July 2024. google scholar
64. ‘Guantânamo Bay: over 20years of injustice ’ (Amnesty International, 9 August 2023) Erişim Tarihi 25 January 2024. google scholar
65. Amnesty International, ‘Memorandum to the US Government on the rights of people in US custody in Afghanistan and Guantânamo Bay’ (April 2002). google scholar
66. Amnesty International, ‘Report 2003, United States of America’ (28 May 2003). google scholar
67. Amnesty International, ‘Unlawful detention of six men from Bosnia-Herzegovina in Guantânamo Bay’ (29 May 2003). google scholar
68. Amnesty International, United States of America, ‘The threat of a bad example: Undermining international standards as ‘war on terror’ detentions continue’ (18 August 2003). google scholar
69. Amnesty International, ‘Incommunicado detention/Fear of illtreatment’ (20 August 2003.) google scholar
70. Avrupa Konseyi Parlamenterler Asamblesi, Res 1340/2003 (26 June 2003). google scholar
71. Avrupa Parlamentosu Res 2005/2658 (15 December 2005). google scholar
72. Avrupa Parlamentosu Res 2006/2200 (14 February 2007). google scholar
73. Avrupa Parlamentosu Res 2012/2033 (11 September 2012). google scholar
74. Avrupa Parlamentosu Res 2013/2702 (10 October 2013). google scholar
75. Avrupa Parlamentosu Res 2014/2997 (11 February 2015). google scholar
76. Avrupa Parlamentosu Res 2016/2573 (8 June 2016). google scholar
77. Birleşmiş Milletler Genel Kurulu Res 60/147 (21 March 2006) UN Doc A/RES/60/147. google scholar
78. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (adopted 10 December 1984, entered into force 26 June 1987) 1465 UNTS 85. google scholar
79. International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, ‘Antiterrorism Measures, Security and Human Rights: Developments in Europe, Central Asia and North America in the Aftermath of September 11’ (April 2003). google scholar
80. Human Rights Watch, ‘United States, Presumption of Guilt: Human Rights Abuses of Post-September 11 Detainees’ (August 2002). google scholar
81. Human Rights Watch, ‘United States: Reports of Torture of AlQaeda Suspects’ (26 December 2002). google scholar
82. Human Rights Watch, ‘Statement on US Secret Detention Facilities’ (6 November 2005). google scholar
83. Human Rights Watch, ‘List of “Ghost Prisoners” Possibly in CIA Custody’ (30 November 2005). google scholar
84. International Committee of the Red Cross, ‘United States: ICRC President urges progress on detention-related issues’, (16 January 2004). google scholar
85. International Committee of the Red Cross, ‘ICRC Report on the Treatment of Fourteen “High Value Detainees” in CIA Custody WAS 07/76’ (14 February 2007). google scholar
86. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 99 UNTS 171. google scholar
87. Opinion No. 10/2019 concerning Mustafa Ceyhan (Azerbaijan and Turkey), Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention at its eighty-fourth session, 24 April-3 May 2019, Erişim Tarihi 22 January 2024. google scholar
88. Report of the International Law Commission, ‘The work of its fifty-third session, Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries’ Erişim Tarihi: 23 January 2024. google scholar
89. Temporary Committee, The alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners, (2006/2200(INI)), § 42, Erişim Tarihi 23 January 2024. google scholar
90. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948) UNGA Res 217 A(III). google scholar
91. Abu-Zubaydah v Litvanya App no 46454/11 (ECHR, 31 May 2018). google scholar
92. Ahmed Hussein Mustafa Kamil Agiza v İsveç (2005) CAT/C/34/D/233/2003. google scholar
93. Al-Hawsawi v Litvanya App no 6383/17 (ECHR, 16 January 2024). google scholar
94. Al-Nashiri v Polonya App no 28761/11 (ECHR, 31 May 2018). google scholar
95. Al-Nashiri v. Romanya App no 33234/12 (ECHR, 31 May 2018). google scholar
96. Arar v. Ashcroft, 414 F. Supp. 2d 250 (Eastern District of New York 2006). google scholar
97. Babar Ahmad and others v UK (dec.), App nos 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08 (ECHR, 6 July 2010). google scholar
98. Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents 403 US 388 (1971). google scholar
99. El-Masri v Makedonya App no 39630/09 (ECHR, 13 December 2012). google scholar
100. El-Masri v. Tenet, 437 F. Supp. 2d 530 (Eastern District Virginia 2006). google scholar
101. Husayn v Polonya (Abu Zubaydah) App no 7511/13 (ECHR, 24 July 2014). google scholar
102. Mohammed Alzery v İsveç (2006) CCPR/C/88/D/1416/2005. google scholar
103. Mr. Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi and 25 others v the United States of America Op no 29/2006 (UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, 8 December 2005). google scholar
104. Nasr ve Ghali c İtalya App no 44883/09 (ECHR, 23 February 2016). google scholar