GÜÇ DENGESİNDEKİ SOĞUK SAVAŞ SONRASI DEĞİŞİMİN ULUSLARARASI HUKUKTAKİ EGEMEN EŞİTLİK DİLİNE YANSIMASI

Öz

Dilin gücünü kullanan uluslararası hukuk, devlet etkileşimi için bir “lingua gentium” olmuş ve yüzyıllar boyunca da değişen bir dile sahip olmuştur. Uluslararası hukukun dilindeki değişim, uluslararası sistemin güç yapısına bağlı bulunmaktadır. Dünya düzeninin bipolar sisteminin ortadan kalkmasıyla birlikte birbiriyle rekabet eden iki model ortaya çıkmıştır. Bunlardan biri tek kutuplu ve Birleşik Devletlerden proje edilen yapı; diğeri ise çoğulcu Birleşmiş Milletlere dayalı dünya düzeni sistemidir. Bu iki yapı egemenliği kademelendirici söylemini muhatap kitlesine hem tek kutuplu ve Birleşik Devletler’den proje edilen yapının emperyal lisanıyla, hem de görünürde çoğulcu Birleşmiş Milletlere dayalı yapı altında egemenlik lisanı ile yöneltmiştir. Bu yüzden “yoz devlet” etiketi ile ortaya çıkan ve 19’uncu yüzyıl uluslararası toplumunu karakterize eden dışlama mantığı ve söyleminin yanı sıra, “başarısız devlet” söylemi ile bu mantık egemenlik söyleminin içerisine entegre edilmiş ve gelişen süreç içerisinde koruma sorumluluğu ile birlikte egemenlik kavramını yeniden inşa etmeye yönelmiştir. Bu makalede, Soğuk Savaş sonrasında güç dengesinde oluşan bozulma ile birlikte; uluslararası hukuk söyleminin dayandığı inşanın temel unsuru olan devletlerin egemen eşitliğine yönelik söylem değişimi incelenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Güç Dengesi
• Egemen Eşitlik
• Uluslararası Hukuk
• Söylem

The Reflection Of The Change In The Balance of Power After The Cold War On The Language Of Sovereign Equality

Öz

International law that make use of the power of language has been “a lingua gentium” for state interaction, and also had an ever-changing discourse for centuries. The change in the discourse of international law depends on the power configuration of the international system. With the disappearance of the bipolar system of the world order, two competing models emerged as a result of the end of the cold war and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. One of them is the unipolar structure designed from the United States; the other is the multipolar world order system based on the United Nations. These two structures directed their discourse that reject equal sovereignty to their audience, both in the imperial language of the unipolar structure projected from the United States, and in the language of sovereignty under the apparently pluralist United Nations-based structure. Therefore, in addition to the logic and discourse of exclusion, which emerged with the label of "rogue state" and has characterized the understanding in the international society of the 19th century; another logic of exclusion has emerged in the language of sovereignty with the discourse of "failed state," and in the developing further process, it has integrated with the responsibility to protect in order to reconstruct sovereignty. In this article, with the deterioration in the balance of power after the Cold War; The change in discourse towards sovereign equality of states, which is the basic element of the construction on which the discourse of international law is based, has been examined.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Balance of Power
• Sovereign Equality
• International Law
• Discourse

Kaynakça

1. ADLER-NISSEN, R., VE GAMMELTOFT-HANSEN, T. (2008). Sovereignty Games: Instrumentalizing State Sovereignty in Europe and Beyond (1. baskı). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
2. AMSTRONG, D., FARRELL, T., ve LAMBERT, H. (2012). International Law and International Relations (2. baskı). New York: Cambridge University Press.
3. ANAND, R. P. (1967). Sovereign Equality of States In International Law-I. International Studies, 8(3), 215-241.
4. ANNAN, K. (1999). Two Concepts of Sovereignty | United Nations Secretary-General. 25 Eylül 2021 tarihinde https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/articles/1999-09-18/two-concepts-sovereignty adresinden alındı.
5. ANTONOV, M. (2016). The Legal Conceptions of Hans Kelsen and Eugen Ehrlich: Weighing Human Rights and Sovereignty (Law No. WP BRP 62/LAW/2016). Law. Saint Petesburg.
6. BECKETT, J. A. (2012). Faith and Resignation: A Journey Through International Law içinde M. Stone, I. R. Wall, & C. Douzinas (Ed.), New Critical Legal Thinking: Law and the Political (1. baskı, ss. 145-167). New York: Routledge.
7. BESSON, S. (2011). Sovereignty içinde Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (ss. 1-26). Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law [MPIL].
8. BIANCHI, A. (2016). International Law Theories: An Inquiry into Different Ways of Thinking (1. baskı). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

9. BIERSTEKER, T. J., ve WEBER, C. (1996). The Social Construction of State Sovereignty içinde S. Smith, C. Brown, R. W.Cox, A. Deighton, M. Light, A. Linklater, … R. B. J. Walker (Ed.), State Sovereignty as Social Construct (1. baskı, ss. 1-22). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. BİLGİN, P., ve MORTON, A. D. (2002). Historicising representations of “failed states”: Beyond the cold-war annexation of the social sciences? Third World Quarterly, 23(1), 55-80.
11. BULL, H. (2012). The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (4. baskı). China: Palgrave Macmillan.
12. BURR, V. (1995). An Introduction to Social Constructionism (1. baskı). London and New York: Routledge.
13. CHAN, K. (2013). State Failure and the Changing Face of the Jus ad Bellum, 18(3), 395-426.
14. COBDEN, R. (2016). Güç Dengesi İçinde A. Alatlı (Ed.), Batı’ya Yön Veren Metinler III: Aydınlanma/ Burjuva Yüzyılı/ Bilim Çağının Zaferi (1650-1800) (2. baskı, ss. 1329-1340). İstanbul: Alfa Başvuru.
15. COHEN, J. L. (2006). Sovereign Equality vs. Imperial Right: The Battle Over the “New World Order”. Constellations, 13(4), 485-505.
16. COHEN, J. L. (2010). Sovereignty in the Context of Globalization: A Constitutional Pluralist Perspective içinde S. Besson & J. Tasioulas (Ed.), The Philosophy of International Law (ss. 261-283). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. COOK, J. (2008). Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East. London: Pluto Press. Council of the European Union. (2003). European Security Strategy PESC 787-8 December 2003. Brussels.
18. DAVIS, D. M., ve KLARE, K. (2019). Critical Legal Realism in a Nutshell içinde Emilios Christodoulidis, R. Dukes, & M. Goldoni (Ed.), Research Handbook on Critical Legal Theory (1. baskı, ss. 27-45). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
19. DUBE, B., ve MANATSA, P. (2013). Failed State Discourse under International Law : the Place , Attributes and Implications. International Journal of Politics and Good Governance, 4(4), 1-23.
20. EHRLICH, E. (2017). Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law (3. baskı). London and New York: Routledge.
21. EMANUEL ADLER. (2005). Communitarian International Relations: The Epistemic Foundations of International Relations (1. baskı). London and New York: Routledge.
22. ENDICOTT, T. (2010). The Logic of Freedom and Power içinde S. Besson & J. Tasiaulas (Ed.), The Philosophy of International Law (1. baskı, ss. 245-261). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23. FAIRCLOUGH, N. (2012). Critical Discourse Analysis içinde J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis (1. baskı, ss. 7-21). London and New York: Routledge.
24. FALK, R. (1985). The Grotian Moment içinde R. Falk, F. Kratochwil, & S. H. Mendlovitz (Ed.), International Law: A Contemporary Perspective (1. baskı, s. 702). Avalon Publishing.
25. FARABI. (2019). İdeal Devlet (8. baskı). İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
26. FOUCAULT, M. (1991). Governmentality içinde G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Ed.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, with Two Lectures by and an Interview with Michel Foucault (1. baskı, ss. 87-105). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27. GENTZ, F. VON. (1806). Fragments Upon the Balance of Power in Europe. London: M. Peltier.
28. GOLDSMITH, J., ve LEVINSON, D. (2009). Law for States: International Law, Constitutional Law, Public Law. Harvard Law Review, 122(7), 1792-1868.
29. GRIFFITHS, M., ve O’CALLAGHAN, T. (2002). International Relations : The Key Concepts. Routledge key guides. London and New York: Routledge.
30. HALVORSON, D. (2010). ‘Bringing International Politics Back in’: Reconceptualising State Failure for the Twenty-first Century. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 64(5), 583-600.
31. HEHIR, A. (2019). Hollow Norms and the Responsibility to Protect (1. baskı). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
32. HELMAN, G. B., ve RATNER, S. R. (1992). Saving Failed States. Foreign Policy, (89), 3-20.
33. HILLA, J. (2008). Literary Effect of Sovereignty in International Law. Widener Law Review, 14(77), 77-147.
34. HINSLEY, F. H. (1986). Sovereignty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35. HOBSBAWM, E. (2017). Kısa 20. Yüzyıl: 1914-1991 Aşırılıklar Çağı (10. baskı). İstanbul: Sarmal Yayımcılık.
36. HOFFMANN, S. (1961). International Systems and International Law. World Politics, 14(1), 205-237.
37. HSIUNG, J. C. (1997). Anarchy & Order: The Interplay of Politics and Law in International Relations (1. baskı). London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
38. Human Rights Watch. (1992). Human Rights Watch Report 1992 (Events of 1991). New York.
39. ICISS (Co-chairs: Gareth Evans, & Mohamed Sahnoun). (2001). Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS).
40. INAYATULLAH, N. (1996). Beyond the Sovereignty Dilemma: Quasi-states as Social Construct içinde T. J. Biersteker & C. Weber (Ed.), State Sovereignty as Social Construct (1. baskı, ss. 51-81). New York: Cambridge University Press.
41. International Commission of Jurists on Aaland Islands. (1920). Of the International Committee of Jurists Entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the Task of Giving an Advisory Opinion upon the Legal Aspects of the Aaland Islands Question. London.
42. International Court of Justice. (1986). Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p.14.
43. JENKS, C. W. (1963). Law, Freedom and Welfare. London: Stevens & Son.
44. JONES, B. G. (2013). ‘Good Governance’ and ‘State Failure’: Genealogies of Imperial Discourse. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 26(1), 49-70.
45. KELSEN, H. (1960). Sovereignty and International Law. The Georgetown Law Journal, 48(4), 627-640.
46. KERTON-JOHNSON, N. (2011). Justifying America’s Wars: The Conduct and Practice of US Military Intervention (1. baskı). New York: Routledge.
47. KINGSBURY, B. (1998). Sovereignty and Inequality. European Journal of International Law, 9, 599-625.
48. KOLB, R. (2012). Politis and Sociological Jurisprudence of Inter-War International Law. European Journal of International Law, 23(1), 233-241.
49. KOLB, R., ve HYDE, R. (2008). An Introduction to the Law of Armed Conflict. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
50. KRASNER, S. (1999). Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (1. baskı). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
51. KREIJEN, G. (2004). State Failure, Sovereignty and Effectiveness (1. baskı). Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.
52. KREPS, S. E., ve AREND, A. C. (2006). Why States Follow the Rules: Toward a Positional Theory of Adherence to International Legal Regimes. Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, 16, 331-414.
53. KUHN, T. S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3. baskı). Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
54. LAKE, A. (1994). Confronting Backlash States. Foreign Affairs, 73(2), 45.
55. LEE, T. H. (2004). International Law, International Relations Theory, and Preemptive War: The Vitality of Sovereign Equality Today. Law and Contemporary Problems, 67(4), 147-167.
56. LEPARD, B. D. (2002). Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention (1. baskı). Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania University Press.
57. LITWAK, R. S. (2001). What’s in a Name? The Changing Foreign Policy Lexicon. Journal of International Affairs, 54(2), 376-392.
58. MCWHINNEY, E. (2001). Shifting Paradigms of International Law and World Order in an Era of Historical Transition içinde S. Yee & W. Tieya (Ed.), International Law in the Post- Cold War World (2. baskı, ss. 3-18). London: Routledge.
59. MENON, R. (2016). The Conceit of Humanitarian Intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
60. OPPENHEIM, L. (1912). International Law: A Treatise (Volume I) (2. baskı). London: Longmans, Green and Co.
61. OSIANDER, A. (2001). Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth. International Organization, 55(2), 251-287.
62. Our Failing Neighbour: Australia and the Future of Solomon Islands Strategy and International Program. (2001).
63. PLATON. (2020). Devlet (Politeia) (11. baskı). İstanbul: İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
64. SHEEHAN, M. (1995). The Balance of Power: History and Theory. London and New York: Routledge.
65. SIMMONS, B. A. (1998). Compliance with International Agreements. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 1998(1), 75-93.
66. SIMPSON, G. (2016). James Lorimer and the Character of Sovereigns: The Institutes as 21st Century Treatise. The European Journal of International Law, 27(2), 431-446.
67. STARKE, J. G. (1965). Elements of the Sociology of International Law. Australian Year Book of International Law, 9(1962), 119-136.
68. STERIO, M. (2009). A Grotian Moment: Challenges in the Legal Theory of Statehood. Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, 39(2), 209-237.
69. SUTTLE, O. (2016). Law as Deliberative Discourse: The Politics of International Legal Argument - Social Theory with Historical Illustrations. Journal of International Law and International Relations, 12(1), 151-203.
70. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. (2002).
71. U.N. (1996). International Law as a Language for International Relations. The Hague.
72. United Nations. (2004). Report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, a more Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, U.N. Doc. A/59/565 (Dec.2, 2004).
73. United Nations. (2005a). 2005 World Summit Outcome, U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/1 (Oct.24, 2005).
74. United Nations. (2005b). Report of Secretary General, “In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All”, U.N. Doc. A/59/2005 (Mar.21, 2005).
75. United States Government Printing Office. (1991). Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States (Book II). Washington: Office of the Fderal Register National Archives and Records Administration.
76. VENZKE, I. (2012). How Interpretation Makes International Law: On Semantic Change and Normative Twists. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
77. VENZKE, I. (2013). Contemporary Theories and International Lawmaking (ACIL Research Paper No. 2013-23). ACIL Research Paper 2013-23. Amsterdam.
78. WATSON, A. (1982). Diplomacy: The Dialogue Between States (1. baskı). Routledge.
79. WIGHT, M. (1992). International Theory: The Three Traditions. (G. Wight & B. Porter, Ed.) (1. baskı). New York: Holmes & Meier.
80. WOHLFORTH, W. C., KAUFMAN, S. J., ve LİTTLE, R. (2007). Introduction: Balance and Hierarchy in International Systems içinde W. C. Wohlforth, S. J. Kaufman, & R. Little (Ed.), Balance of Power in World History (1. baskı, ss. 1-22). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
81. WOOLAVER, H. (2014). State Failure, Sovereign Equality and Non-Intervention: Assessing Claimed Rights to Intervene in Failed States. Wisconsin International Law Journal, 32(3), 595-620.
82. YEE, S. (2001). Towards an International Law of Co-progressiveness içinde S. Yee & W. Tieya (Ed.), International Law in the Post- Cold War World (2. baskı, ss. 18-43). London: Routledge.