The Exclusion Clauses Under International Refugee Protection in International Refugee Law and The Status of Child Soldiers

Yıl 2020, , 1 - 36, 15.04.2020

Sibel Safi

https://doi.org/10.15337/suhfd.644550

Öz

The 1951 Convention Relating to the
Status of Refugees provides provisions for the well-founded fear of persecution
of refugees in their countries to grant refugee status in cases where the state
is unwilling or unable to protect him/her, while also stipulating that those
who commit the most serious offenses are excluded. This is understandable both
in terms of not being left unpunished and for the protection of public security
in the country of asylum. However, what is critical to child soldiers applying
for asylum is the fact that even if they meet conditions that are provided in
the definition of refugees, they will not be able to access protection, and in
particular the Refugee Convention refuses to protect it ‘due to the existence
of grave breaches’. Furthermore, although there are provisions in Article 1 (F)
of the Convention on the conditions of exclusion from international protection,
there is no detailed regulation as to which conditions meet this, and the
interpretation and application of these provisions raises certain problems. In
this study, the conditions of exclusion from international protection referred
to in Article 1 (F) of the Geneva Convention of 1951 will be analyzed and at
the same time the situation of child soldiers who are not subject to a separate
regulation under this article will be evaluated in the context of refugee law.

Anahtar Kelimeler

International Refugee Law, Excluding Circumstances, Article 1(F), Child Soldiers, Crimes Against Humanity

Mülteci Hukukunda Uluslararası Koruma Dışında Bırakma ve Çocuk Askerler

Öz

1951 Cenevre Sözleşmesi, ülkesinde haklı nedenlere dayanan zulüm görme iddiasında
olan kişilere, devletinin kendisini korumaya istekli olmadığı veya korumaya muktedir
olamadığı durumlarda mülteci statüsü verileceğine ilişkin tanımı yaparken aynı
zamanda en ağır suçları işleyen kişilerin bu statünün dışında kalmasına ilişkin de
hükümler düzenlemiştir. Bu, gerek suçluların cezasız bırakılmamaları gerekse iltica
ülkesinde kamu güvenliğinin korunması açısından anlaşılabilir bir durumdur.
Bununla birlikte, sığınma talebinde bulunan çocuk askerler için kritik olan şey,
mülteci tanımına uyan koşulları taşısalar bile korumaya erişemeyecekleri ve özellikle
de Mülteci Sözleşmesinin ‘ağır suçların varlığı nedeniyle’ korumayı reddettiği
gerçeğidir. Bu çalışmada 1951 Cenevre Sözleşmesi 1(F) hükmünde sayılan
uluslararası koruma dışında bırakma koşulları analiz edilecek ve aynı zamanda bu
madde hükmü ile ayrı bir düzenlemeye tabii olmayan çocuk askerlerin durumu
Mülteci hukuku bağlamında değerlendirilecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

ÇOCUK ASKERLER, ULUSLARARASI KORUMA, MÜLTECİ HUKUKU, 1F MADDESİ, KORUMA DIŞINDA BIRAKMA

Kaynakça

• -Akar, Emine., İnsancıl Hukuk Çerçevesinde Çocuk Askerler Sorunu, 2019, Astanayayınları.-B. Simma and P.Alston, “The Sources of Human Rights Law Custom, Jus Cogensand General Principles, “ (1988-89) 12 Aust. Y.B.I.L.82.-Çiçekli, B. (2009) Uluslararası Hukukta Mülteciler ve Sığınmacılar, Seçkin yayınevi.-Grahl-Madsen, Division of International Protection (DIP), UN High Commissionerfor Refugees (UNHCR), Commentary of the Refugee Convention 1951 (Articles 2-11, 13-37), October 1997, available at:http://www.refworld.org/docid/4785ee9d2.html [accessed 13 March 2017],Commentary of the Refugee Convention 1951 (Articles 2-11, 13-37).-Hathaway, J. 2014, The Law of Refugee Status, Cambridge Press.-I.A.Macdonald and R. Toal, (8th edition 2010) Immigration Law and Practice in theUnited Kingdom, at (12.97).-J. Rikhof, (2012) The Criminal Refugee: The Treatment of Asylum Seekers with aCriminal Background in International and Domestic Law.-Joshua Dankof, ‘Advocating Duress and Infancy Exceptions to the Persecutor Bar toAsylum for Former Child Soldiers’, Children’s Legal Rights Journal 31 (2011).-Menekşe, T., İltica Hukukunda Hariçte bırakma Değerlendirmesi, Göç AraştırmalarıDergisi, Cilt.4, Sayı.1,Ocak-Haziran 2018.-Öztürk, N.Ö. Mültecilerin hukuki statüsünün belirlenmesi, Ekim 2015, Ankara,Seçkin.-Safi, S. Mülteci Hukuku, Legal yayınevi, 2017-Terrorism Versus Human Rights, 19 Isr. Y.B.H. Rts. 297.-P. Weis, (1960) The Concept of the Refugee in International Law, 87 J. du droitinternational 928.-Safi, Sibel., Mülteci Hukuku, Legal Yayınevi, 2017.-W.A.Schabas and N. Bernaz (eds) Routledge Handbook of International CriminalLaw (2011) .BELGELER-Articles Considered bu the Committee of the Whole United Nations Conference on -Territorial Asylum, UN Doc. A/CONF.78/ 12 (Feb. 4, 1977) at Art. 2(2) aktaran A.Grahl-Madsen.-Accord Statements of Mr. Petren of Sweden, UN Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.29 (Jul.19,1951) s.16.-BMMYK, 2003 ,( Statü Dışında Bırakma İlkeleri), paragraf 4.-BMMYK, 2003, (Statü Dışında Bırakma İlkeleri) paragraf 8-9.-BMMYK, 1998, paragraf 150.-BMMYK, 2003, (Statü Dışında Bırakma İlkeleri)paragraf 5.-BMMYK, 2003, (Statü Dışında Bırakma İlkeleri) paragraf 5.-Bundesrepublik (CJEU, 2010) s. (101).-2645 (XXV) sayılı BM Genel Kurulu 6. Komite raporları (A/8716, 2551/XXIV veA/7845 sayılı BM belgeleri.-Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951, 189 UNTS 137, Art. 1(F) (b) .-Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951, 189 UNTS 137, Art. 1(F) (b) .-Convention for the Suppression of Financing Terrorism, 2002, 2178 UNTS 197., atArt. 15 .-Council Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011.-IRO Constitution, Part II, at (3).-Re YYMT and FRFJ, (2010) 115 ALD 590 (Aus. AAT, jun.16, 2010) s. 636-37(124) .-Reintegration of Child Soldiers in Africa, Cape Town. 27-30 April 1997.http://cocukhaklari.barobirlik.org.tr/dokuman/mevzuat_uakararlar/cocukadaletsistemininuygulanmasi.pdf (son erişim tarihi-05-11-2019).-Model Treaty on Extradition, Art. 3(b).-Swiss Office federal des refugeies, Manuel de procedures D’asile (1996) at 144.-ST, 509322 (FR. CRR (French Refugee Commission Appeals ) Jul. 21, 2006) .-Statement of Mr. Hoare of the United Kingdom, UN Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.3 (Jul.3,1951) at 15.-Statement of Mr. Robinson of Israel, UN Doc. E/AC.32/SR.5 (Jan.18, 1950) at 11(45).-Statement of Mr. Rochefort of France, UN Doc. E/AC.7/SR.166 (Aug. 22, 1950) at4.-Statement of Mr. Rochefort of France, UN Doc. E/AC.7/SR.166 (Aug. 22, 1950) at7.-Statement of Baron van Boetzelaer of the Netherlands, UN Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.29(Jul.19, 1951).-Statement of Mr. Cjance of Canada, UN Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.29 (Jul.19, 1951) at 26.-Statement of Mr. Rochefort of France, UN Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.29 (Jul. 19, 1951) .-10 C 7.09 (Ger. BverwG (German Federal Administrative Court) , Feb. 16, 2010) .-Statement of Mr. Herment of Belgium, UN Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.29 (Jul.19, 1951).https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/60F64A1AF972330DC12577B90033FADB-DCAF_Oct2006.pdf (son erişim tarihi. 05-10-2019).https://www.refworld.org/cgibin/texis/vtx/rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf?reldoc=y&docid=55fa66404 (son erişimtarihi-7-10-2019).- Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Under Control Council LawNo. 10, Volume IV; (Washington D.C.:U.S.Government Printing Office).-UK Border Agency, Exclusion: Articles 1(F) and 33(2) of the Refugee Convention(Apr. 2008) at (2.3.3) .-UNICEF, Cape Town Principles and Best practices, adopted at the Symposium onthe -Prevention of Recruitment of Children into the Armed Forces andDemobilization and Social-UNHCR, Background Note on the Application of the Exclusion Clauses: Article 1Fof the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 4 September 2003,http://www.unhcr. org/refworld/docid/3f5857d24.html. (son erişim tarihi-10-09-2019).-UNHCR Guidelines on International Protection No. 5, at 5(14).-UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection No. 5, at 2(2).-UNHCR, Background Note on Exclusion Clauses, at 35(94)-(95).-UNHCR, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Statusunder,1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees.,Handbook at (151) .-UNHCR Guidelines on International Protection, No.5: Application of the ExclusionClauses: Article 1F of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees,UN Doc.HCR/GIP/03/05.-UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection No. 5, at 5(16).-UNHCR, Background Note on Exclusion Clauses, at 35(96).-UN Ad Hoc Committee on Refugees and Stateless Persons, Ad Hoc Committee onStatelessness and Related Problems, Corrigendum to Proposal for a Draft Convention submitted by France, UN Doc. E/AC.32/L.3/Corr.1 9 (Jan.18, 1950).-Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UNGA Res. 217 A (III), UN Doc. A/ 810(Dec.10, 1948) 14/2. Madde.-Universal Declaration , Art 14 (2).DAVALAR-Aguirre-Aguirre (USSC, 1999) .-AH (Algeria) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (2012) 1 WLR 3469(Eng. CA, Apr. 2, 2012) at 3481-82 (31).-Attorney General (Miniser of Immigration) v. Tamil X, (2011) 1 NZLR 721 (NZSC,Aug. 27, 2010) at 737.-Brzezinski v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998) 4 FC 525(Can. FCTD, Jul. 9, 1998) s.540.-Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mehmet.-Chan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000) 4 FC 390 (Can.FCA, Jul.24, 2000) s.394 (4).-Dhayakpa v. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, (1995) 62 FCR 556, (Aus.FC, Nov. 9, 1995) at 565.-Ezokola v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2013) SCC 40(Can.SC, Jul. 19, 2013) at 36.-FCTD, Feb. 41 Ovcharuk v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ,(1998) 88-Gavrila v. Canada (Minister of Justice) (2010) 3SCR 342 (Can. SC., Nov. 25, 2010)s.348(12).-Negusie v. Holder, Attorney Attorney General, (2009) 555 US 511 (USSC, Mar. 3,2009) at 527.-Ovcharuk (Aus. FFC, 1998) .(1992) 2 FC 598 (Can. FCA, April 1, 1992) at 606 .-Ramirez v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1992) 2 FC 306(Can. FCA, Feb. 7, 1992.-Shamlou v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995) FCJ 1537(Can. FCTD, Nov. 15, 1995).-Soering v .United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 439 (ECtHR, Jul. 7, 1989) at (86).-S v. Refugee Status Appeals Authority (NZCA, 1998) s. 297 .-Suresh v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002) 1 SCR 3 (Can.SC, Jan. 11, 2002) at 57 (102).-Sumaida v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000) 3 FC 66 (Can.FCA, Jan. 7, 2000-TI v. United Kingdom (2000) INLR 211 (ECtHR, Mar. 7, 2000).-Pushpanathan, Supreme Court of Canada (Can. SC, 1998) , 1024-Rudyak v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2006) FC 1141 (Can.FC, Sept. 29, 2006.-United States of America v. Cullinane, 2003, 2NZLR 1 (NZCA, Dec. 18, 2001) s.13-17 (49)-(70).-Xie v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2005) 1 FCR 304 (Can.FCA, Jun. 30, 2004.-Tamil X (NZSC, 2010) at 733(13).-Zrig v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)n(2003) 3FC 761 (Can.FCA, April 7, 2003) at 812 (108).