Devlet İradesinin Dijital Çağda Dışa Vurumu: Üst Düzey Devlet Yetkililerin Sosyal Medya Açıklamalarının Tek Taraflı Beyanlar Rejimi Kapsamında Analizi

Öz

Dijital çağ, devletlerin iradelerini uluslararası topluma duyurma biçimlerini köklü biçimde değiştirmiştir. Diplomatik notalar ve resmî demeçler gibi klasik araçların yanı sıra artık sosyal medya, devletlerin en üst düzey temsilcileri tarafından doğrudan kullanılan bir iletişim alanı hâline gelmiştir. Devlet başkanları, hükümet başkanları ve dışişleri bakanlarının sosyal medya hesapları üzerinden yaptıkları açıklamalar, bu paylaşımların uluslararası hukuk bakımından tek taraflı beyan sayılıp sayılamayacağı sorusunu gündeme taşımaktadır. Tek taraflı beyanların bağlayıcılığına ilişkin ölçütler uzun süredir uluslararası yargı kararları ve doktrinle belirlenmiş durumdadır. Sürekli Uluslararası Adalet Divanı’nın Doğu Grönland kararı ile Uluslararası Adalet Divanı’nın Nükleer Denemeler davası, bu konuda yön verici içtihatlar oluşturmuştur. Uluslararası Hukuk Komisyonu’nun 2006 tarihli Rehber İlkeleri ise bu ölçütleri sistematik bir çerçeveye oturtarak, bağlayıcılığın istisnai fakat mümkün olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Bu makale, söz konusu kriterlerin sosyal medya beyanlarına nasıl uygulanabileceğini incelemektedir. Çalışmanın temel iddiası, açıklamanın yapıldığı platformun niteliğinin belirleyici olmadığı; bağlayıcılığın esasen yetki, açıklık, niyet, aleniyet ve güven ilkeleri çerçevesinde belirlendiğidir. Trump’ın Kudüs açıklaması, Biden’ın Tayvan beyanları, Macron’un Lübnan’a ilişkin paylaşımı ve 2017 Katar Haber Ajansı krizi gibi örnekler bu bağlamda değerlendirilmiştir. Sonuç olarak, sosyal medya beyanlarının da belirli koşullar altında uluslararası hukukta tek taraflı beyan niteliği kazanabileceği ileri sürülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Tek taraflı beyan
• Sosyal Medya
• Bağlayıcılık
• Ahde Vefa
• Uluslararası Adalet Divanı

The Expression of State Will in the Digital Age: Analysis of Social Media Statements by High-Level State Officials within the Framework of the Unilateral Declaration Regime

Öz

The digital age has radically changed the way states communicate their intentions to the international community. In addition to traditional tools such as diplomatic notes and official statements, social media has become a communication channel used directly by the highest-level representatives of states. Statements made by heads of state, heads of government, and foreign ministers through their social media accounts raise the question of whether such posts can be considered unilateral declarations under international law. The criteria for the binding nature of unilateral declarations have long been established by international judicial decisions and doctrine. The Permanent Court of International Justice's East Greenland decision and the International Court of Justice's Nuclear Tests case have established guiding precedents in this regard. The International Law Commission's 2006 Guiding Principles have systematised these criteria, establishing that bindingness is exceptional but possible. This article examines how these criteria can be applied to social media statements. The main argument of the study is that the nature of the platform on which the statement is made is not decisive; bindingness is essentially determined within the framework of the principles of authority, transparency, intention, publicity and trust. Examples such as Trump's Jerusalem statement, Biden's statements on Taiwan, Macron's post on Lebanon, and the 2017 Qatar News Agency crisis are evaluated in this context. Ultimately, it is argued that social media statements can also acquire the status of unilateral statements under international law under certain conditions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Unilateral declaration
• Social Media
• Binding Nature
• Pacta Sunt Servanda
• International Court of Justice

Kaynakça

1. Abbott KW and others, ‘The Concept of Legalization’ (2000) 54 International Organization 401–419
2. Appel Kuzmarov B, Unilateral Acts: A History of a Legal Doctrine (1st edn, Routledge 2018)
3. Arslan A, ‘Basra’da Katar Açmazı’ (2018) 1 Uluslararası İlişkiler ve Diplomasi 75–91
4. Aust A, Modern Treaty Law and Practice (3rd edn, CUP 2013)
5. Azarkan E, ‘Devletlerin Tanınması ve 1933 Montevideo Sözleşmesi’ (2016) 15(4) Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 1055–1068
6. Bayıllıoğlu U, ‘Tevfik Rüştü Aras’ın 1936 Tarihli Beyanı ve Uluslararası Hukukta Tek Taraflı Beyanlar Rejimi’ (2023) 43(2) PPIL 347
7. BBC, ‘2003: Libya Gives Up Chemical Weapons’ http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/19/newsid_4002000/4002441.stm Erişim Tarihi 10 Ekim 2025
8. Boz S S, ‘Türk İdare Hukukunda Estoppel Kuramının Uygulanabilirliği’ (2018) 5(2) PPIL 213

9. Carbone S, ‘Promise in International Law: A Confirmation of Its Binding Force’ (1975) 1 Italian Yearbook of International Law 166–172
10. Cedeño VR and Torres Cazorla MI, ‘Unilateral Acts of States in International Law’, Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Law (2019) https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1496 Erişim Tarihi 15 Temmuz 2025
11. Chinkin C, ‘A Mirage in the Sand? Distinguishing Binding and Non-Binding Relations Between States’ (1997) 10 Leiden Journal of International Law 223–247
12. Crawford J, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (OUP 2012)
13. Csatlos E, ‘The Legal Regime of Unilateral Act of States’ (2010) 70 Miskolc Journal of International Law 33–60
14. Çağıran ME, Uluslararası Hukukta Devletin Tek Taraflı İşlemleri (Platin Yayınları 2005)
15. Dabanlıoğlu Alanur N, ‘Uluslararası Yargı Kararları Işığında Estoppel İlkesi’ (2024) 28(2) EBYÜHFD 395
16. Dixon M, Textbook on International Law (7th edn, OUP 2013)
17. Dupuy P-M, ‘The Place and Role of Unilateralism in Contemporary International Law’ (2000) 11 European Journal of International Law 19–29
18. Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), ‘UK formally recognises Palestinian State’, 21 September 2025 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-formally-recognises-palestinian-state Erişim Tarihi 12 Ekim 2025
19. Fortuna M, ‘Statements by Officials on Social Media as Evidence Before the ICJ’ (2024) EJIL: Talk! https://www.ejiltalk.org/statements-by-officials-on-social-media-as-evidence-before-the-icj/ Erişim Tarihi 20 Ağustos 2025
20. Goodman C, ‘Acta Sunt Servanda? A Regime for Regulating the Unilateral Acts of States at International Law’ (2006) 25 Australian Year Book of International Law 43–74
21. Green JA, ‘The Rise of Twiplomacy and the Making of Customary International Law on Social Media’ (2022) 21 Chinese Journal of International Law 1–30
22. International Court of Justice, Nuclear Tests (Australia v France) (Judgment) (1974) ICJ Rep
23. — —, Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali) (Judgment) (1986) ICJ Rep
24. — —, Fisheries (United Kingdom v Norway) (Judgment) (1951) ICJ Rep
25. — —, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda) (Judgment) (2005) ICJ Rep
26. — —, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Judgment) (1986) ICJ Rep
27. International Law Commission, ‘Guiding Principles Applicable to Unilateral Declarations of States Capable of Creating Legal Obligations with Commentaries Thereto’ (2006) II(2) ILC Ybk 161
28. — —, ‘Ninth Report on Unilateral Acts of States’ (6 April 2006) https://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_569.pdf Erişim Tarihi 20 Temmuz 2025
29. Kassoti E, ‘Interpretation of Unilateral Acts in International Law’ (2022) 69 Netherlands International Law Review 295–326
30. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v Trump, No 1:17-cv-5205 (SDNY), No 18-1691 (2d Cir), No 20-197 (Supreme Court) https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-197/150726/20200820102824291_Knight%20First%20Amendment%20Inst.pdf Erişim Tarihi 10 Ağustos 2025
31. Kolasa J, ‘The Legal Character of a Unilateral State Act’ in Jan Kolasa (ed), The Nature of Source in International Legal Order, vol 1 (E-Wydawnictwo Prawnicza i Ekonomiczna Biblioteka Cyfrowa 2017)
32. Kolb R, ‘Principles as Sources of International Law (With Special Reference to Good Faith)’ (2006) 53 Netherlands International Law Review 1–36
33. Koskenniemi M, From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument (CUP 2005)
34. Kuzmarov B, ‘Unilateral Acts in International Relations: Accepting the Limits of International Law’ (2005) 8 Yearbook of New Zealand Jurisprudence 77–87
35. MacGibbon IC, ‘Estoppel in International Law’ (1958) 7 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 467–513
36. Minnerop P, ‘Nationally Determined Contributions Post-Global Stocktake: The Making of Prescribed Qualified Unilateral Acts in International Law’ (2025) 58 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 45–118
37. Macron E, X (Twitter), “France will stand by Lebanon and will provide 550 million euros in loans and grants to support the country’s reforms. #CEDRE”, 6 April 2018 https://x.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/982273880634118144 Erişim Tarihi 11 Ekim 2025
38. — —, X (Twitter), “Le Liban n’est pas seul.”, 6 August 2020 https://x.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1291300045040635904 Erişim Tarihi 11 Ekim 2025
39. — —, X (Twitter), “La France continuera à soutenir et aider la population du Liban…”, 4 August 2021 https://x.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1422868444802949126 Erişim Tarihi 11 Ekim 2025
40. Oberoi BAV, ‘The Conundrum of Unilateral Declarations: Moving Beyond the Congo Case’ (2017) Cambridge International Law Journal https://cilj.co.uk/2017/11/03/the-conundrum-of-unilateral-declarations-moving-beyond-the-congo-case/ Erişim Tarihi 15 Temmuz 2025
41. Pazarcı H ve Denk E, Uluslararası Hukuk (Turhan Kitabevi 2024)
42. Permanent Court of International Justice, Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Denmark v Norway) (Judgment) (1933) PCIJ Series A/B no 53
43. Reuters, ‘Biden says U.S. forces would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion’ https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-says-us-forces-would-defend-taiwan-event-chinese-invasion-2022-09-18/ Erişim Tarihi 3 Ağustos 2025
44. Rubin AP, ‘The International Legal Effects of Unilateral Declarations’ (1977) 71 American Journal of International Law 1–30
45. Saganek P, Unilateral Acts of States in Public International Law (1st edn, Brill | Nijhoff 2015)
46. Scott JB, ‘The Seventh International Conference of American States’ (1934) 28 American Journal of International Law 219–230
47. Serendahl E, ‘Unilateral Acts in the Age of Social Media’ (2018) 5 Oslo Law Review 126–146
48. Shaw MN, International Law (6th edn, CUP 2008)
49. Starmer K, X (Twitter), ‘My statement on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and our plan for peace including the recognition of a Palestinian State’, 10 July 2025 https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1950236096341676348 Erişim Tarihi 10 Ekim 2025
50. Sur M, Uluslararası Hukukun Esasları (Beta 2004)
51. Trump D, X (Twitter), ‘I have determined that it is time to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel…’, 6 December 2017 https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/938517073508163584 Erişim Tarihi 12 Ekim 2025
52. — —, X (Twitter), ‘North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the “Nuclear Button is on his desk…”’, 2 January 2018 https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/948355557022420992 Erişim Tarihi 10 Ekim 2025
53. UN General Assembly, ‘ES-10/19. Status of Jerusalem’ UN Doc A/RES/ES-10/19 (22 December 2017) https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/ES-10/19 Erişim Tarihi 10 Ağustos 2025
54. — —, ‘ES-11/1. Aggression Against Ukraine’ UN Doc A/RES/ES-11/1 (2 March 2022) https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N22/270/19/PDF/N2227019.pdf Erişim Tarihi 10 Ağustos 2025
55. US Department of State, ‘Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital’ https://2017-2021.state.gov/recognizing-jerusalem-as-israels-capital/ Erişim Tarihi 10 Ekim 2025
56. Uzun E, ‘Uluslararası Hukukta Bildirimin Tek Taraflı Devlet İşlemi Niteliği Üzerine Bir İnceleme’ (2019) 2 Yıldırım Beyazıt Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 1–22
57. Ünal Ş, Uluslararası Hukuk (Yetkin Yayıncılık 2005)
58. Özkerim Güner N ve Erhan Bulut Z, ‘Uluslararası Hukukta Sessizlik’ (2024) 32(3) SÜHFD 1731
59. Zelenskyy V, X (Twitter), ‘We will win. We will not give up.’, 21 May 2022 https://x.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1523750118377521152 Erişim Tarihi 10 Ekim 2025
60. — —, X (Twitter), ‘Freedom must prevail.’, 22 January 2024 https://x.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1749326680282235337 Erişim Tarihi 10 Ekim 2025