Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Uluslararası Hukukta Meşru Müdafaa Hakkına Yeni Bir Yaklaşım: İsteksiz veya Aciz Devlet Doktrini

Yıl 2021, , 2387 - 2414, 15.09.2021

Nesrin Singil

https://doi.org/10.15337/suhfd.937045
Cited By: 2

Öz

1945 tarihli Birleşmiş Milletler Şartı ile üye devletlerin kuvvet kullanması yasaklanmıştır. Bu yasağın bir istisnası olarak ise, meşru müdafaa hakkı dü-zenlenmiştir. Başlarda bu hakkın, sadece bir devletten başka bir devlete karşı gerçekleşen silahlı saldırılar bakımından ele alındığı görülmektedir. Sonraları, bu hak eylemleri bir devlete atfedilebilir olan devlet dışı aktörler bakımından da uygulanmaya başlamıştır. Günümüzde bazı devlet dışı aktörlerin, devlet-lerden bağımsız faaliyetler gerçekleştirdiği görülmektedir. Bu aktörlerin saldı-rılarına maruz kalan devletin, meşru müdafaa hakkına başvurup başvurama-yacağı hususu tartışılmaktadır. Burada devlet dışı aktörlere karşı meşru mü-dafaa hakkının kullanabilmesinin temeli, isteksiz veya aciz devlet doktrinine dayanmaktadır. Bu doktrini destekleyen devletlerin sayısı gün geçtikçe art-maktadır. Ancak doktrine ilişkin, henüz genel bir kabul bulunmamaktadır. Genel bir kabulün oluşabilmesi için, doktrinin sağlam bir zemine oturtulması önem arz etmektedir. Bunu sağlamak için ise, doktrinde bazı koşulların ele alındığı görülmektedir. Bu çalışmanın birinci bölümünde meşru müdafaa hakkı detaylandırılmıştır. İkinci bölümünde, isteksiz veya aciz devlet doktri-nine ilişkin süreç, devlet uygulamaları ve Uluslararası Adalet Divanı Kararla-rı bakımından ele alınmıştır. Son bölümde ise, doktrine ilişkin açıklamalar ve koşullara yer verilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

kuvvet kullanma yasağı meşru müdafaa hakkı devlet dışı aktörler isteksiz veya aciz devlet doktrini 11 eylül saldırıları

Kaynakça

  • AYDIN OKUR, Derya, “IŞİD’e Karşı Suriye’de Yapılan Operasyonların Meşruiyeti Bakımından İsteksiz ya da Aciz Devlet Teorisi”, İKÜHFD, C. 14, S. 2, 2015, ss. 39-65.
  • BETHLEHEM, Daniel, “Notes and Comments: Principles Relevant to the Scope of a State’s Right of Self-Defense against an Imminent or Actual Armed Attack by Nonstate Actors”, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 106, 2012, ss. 1-8.
  • BODE, Ingvild, “Manifestly Failing and Unwilling or Unable as Intervention Formulas: A Critical Assessment”, Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention in the 21st Century, Ed. Aiden Warren, Damian Grenfell, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 2017, ss. 164-191.
  • CHACKO, Elena/DEEKS, Ashley, “Which States Support the Unwilling and Unable Test?”, 10 October 2016, https://www.lawfareblog.com/which-states-support-unwilling-and-unable-test.
  • CHRISTAKIS, Theodore, “Challenging the Unwilling or Unable Test”, ZaöRV, Vol. 77, 2017, ss.19-22.
  • CRAIG, Martin, “Challenging and Refining the Unwilling or Unable Doctrine”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 52, 2019, ss. 387-461.
  • DEEKS, Ashley S., “Unwilling or Unable: Toward a Normative Framework for Extraterritorial Self-Defense”, Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol. 52, 2012, ss. 483-550.
  • DINSTEIN, Yoram, War, Aggression and Self-Defence, 5th edn, Canbridge, Cambridge University Press, 2011.
  • HAKIMI, Monica, “Defensive Force against Non-State Actors: The State of Play”, International Law Studies, Vol. XCI, 2015, ss. 1-31.
  • HELLER, Kevin Jon, “Eric Posner Rejects the Unwilling or Unable Test!”, 9 October 2012, http://opiniojuris.org/2012/10/08/eric-posner-rejects-the-unwilling-or-unable-test/.
  • KAYA, İbrahim, Uluslararası Hukukta Temel Belgeler: Basic Documents in International Law, 4. Baskı, Ankara, Seçkin Yayıncılık, 2020, ss. 12-48.
  • KURAN, Selami/GÜR, Hande, “Devlet-Dışı Aktörlere Karşı Meşru Müdafaada İsteksiz veya Aciz Doktrini: Suriye ve DAEŞ Örneği”, MÜHF-HAD, C. 23, S. 1, 2017, ss. 57-88.
  • LEHTO, Marja, “The Fight against ISIL in Syria: Comments on the Recent Discussion of the Right of Self-defence against Non-state Actors”, Nordic Journal of International Law, Vol. LXXXVII, 2018, ss. 1-25.
  • MAHMOUDI, Said, “The Unwilling or Unable Doctrine: The Right to Use Extraterritorial Self-Defense Against Non-State Actors”, Thesis in International Public Law, Stockholm University Faculty of Law, 2017.
  • NUSSBERGER, Benjamin, “Sustainable Self-Defense? How the German Government justifies continuing its fight against ISIL in Syria”, 2 October 2019, https://www.ejiltalk.org/sustainable-self-defense-how-the-german-government-justifies-continuing-its-fight-against-isil-in-syria/.
  • QURESHI, Waseem Ahmad, “Examining the Legitimacy and Reasonableness of the Use of Force: From Just War Doctrine to the Unwilling or Unable Test”, Oklahoma City University Review, Vol. 42, No. 3, 2018, ss. 221-289.
  • QURESHI, Waseem Ahmad, “International Law and the Application of the Unwilling or Unable Test in Syrian Conflict”, Drexel Law Review, Vol. 11, 2018, ss. 61-99.
  • RANDELZHOFER, Albrecht/NOLTE, George, “Article 51”, The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, Ed. Bruno Simma, Daniel-Erasmus Khan, Georg Nolte, Adreas Paulus, Nikolai Wessendorf, 3rd edn, Vol. I, Oxford Scholarly Authorities on International Law, 2012.
  • SCHRIJVER, Nico/VAN DEN HERIK, Larissa, “Leiden Policy Recommendations on Counter-terorism and International Law”, Netherlands International Law Review, Vol. 57 (3), ss. 531-550.
  • SJOSTEDT, Britta, “Applying the Unable/Unwilling State Doctrine-Can a State Be Unable to Take Action?”, ZaöRV, Vol. 77, 2017, ss. 39-42.
  • TIBORI-SZABÓ, Kinga, “The ‘Unwilling or Unable’ Test and the Law of Self-defence”, Fundamental Rights in International and European Law: Public and Private Law Perspectives, Ed. Christophe Paulussen, Tamara Takács, Vesna Lazić, Ben Van Rompuy, Heidelberg, Springer, 2016, ss. 73-97.
  • TÜTÜNCÜ, Ayşe Nur/ŞİMŞEK G., Engin/UZUN, Elif/ARIKOĞLU, Enver/AKÜN, Neslihan Verda/BAŞKARACAOĞLU, Elif/KORKMAZ SÜRER, Mukaddes/GÜNEYSU, Gökhan/GÖKALP, İbrahim, Milletlerarası Adalet Divanı Kararları: 1990-2007, İstanbul, Beta, 2008.
  • WILLIAMS, Gareth D., “Piercing the Shield of Sovereignty: An Assessment of the Legal Status of the Unwilling or Unable Test”, UNSW Law Journal, Vol. 36 (2), 2013, ss. 619-641.
  • WILMSHURST, Elizabeth, Principles of International Law on the Use of Force by States in Self-Defence, Chatham House, ILP WP 05/01, 2005.
  • Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports, 2005, p. 168.
  • Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Separate Opinion of Judge Kooijmans, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports, 2005, p. 306.
  • Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Separate Opinion of Judge Simma, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports, 2005, p. 334.
  • Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission-Partial Award: Jus Ad Bellum - Ethiopia's Claims 1-8, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, 19 December 2005, Vol. XXVI pp. 457-469.
  • Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports, 2004, p. 136.
  • Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Separate Opinion of Judge Higgins, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports, 2004, p. 207.
  • Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel, Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports, 1986, p. 259.
  • Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports, 1986, p. 14.
  • Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Dissenting Opinion of Judge Sir Robert Jennings, Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports, 1986, p. 528.
  • Charter of the United Nations, signed on 26 June 1945, entered into force on 24 October 1945, https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/ctc/uncharter.pdf.
  • SCOR, UN Doc. S/PV. 2292, 17 July 1981, https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/43220E2368A3DDF7052568000052412C.
  • UN Doc. S/2014/691, 22 September 2014, https://undocs.org/S/2014/691.
  • UN Doc. S/2014/695, 23 September 2014, https://undocs.org/S/2014/695.
  • UN Doc. S/2015/221, 31 March 2015, https://undocs.org/S/2015/221.
  • UN Doc. S/2015/563, 24 July 2015, https://undocs.org/S/2015/563.
  • UN Doc. S/2015/946, 10 December 2015, https://undocs.org/S/2015/946.
  • UN Doc. S/PV. 3653, 15 April 1996, https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/310AC20FB347D24185256311004E0E4B.
  • UN Doc. S/RES/2249(2015), 20 November 2015, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_2249.pdf.
  • UNGA, A/RES. 2625 (XXV), Declaration on Principles of lnternational Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, (A/8082) 24 October 1970, https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/2625(XXV).
  • UNGA, Res. 3314 (1974), https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/3314(XXIX).
  • UNGA, UN Doc. A/50/1016, S/1996/614, 1 August 1996, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/219759.

A New Approach to the Right to Self-Defense in International Law: Unwilling or Unable State Doctrine

Yıl 2021, , 2387 - 2414, 15.09.2021

Nesrin Singil

https://doi.org/10.15337/suhfd.937045
Cited By: 2

Öz

The use of force is prohibited for the member states by the 1945 United Nations Charter. As an exception to this prohibition, the right to self-defense is regulated. Initially, it is seen that this right was dealt with only in terms of armed attacks from one state to another. Later, it began to be applied also in terms of non-state actors whose actions are attributable to a state. Today, it is seen that these actors carry out independent activities from states. The issue of whether the state, which is exposed to the attacks of these actors, can apply for the right of self-defense is being discussed. Herein, the basis for exercising the right of self-defense against non-state actors is based on the unwilling or unable state doctrine. The number of States supporting this doctrine is increasing day by day. However, there is no general acceptance regarding the doctrine yet. For a general acceptance of the doctrine, it is important that the doctrine be based on a safe ground. In order to achieve this, it is seen that some conditions are discussed in the doctrine. In the first part of this study, the right of self-defense is detailed. In the second part, the process regarding unwilling or unable state doctrine is discussed in terms of state practices and the decisions of the International Court of Justice. In the last part, explanations and conditions regarding the doctrine are mentioned.

Anahtar Kelimeler

prohibition of use of force right to self-defense non-state actors 9/11 attack unwlling or unable state doctrine

Kaynakça

  • AYDIN OKUR, Derya, “IŞİD’e Karşı Suriye’de Yapılan Operasyonların Meşruiyeti Bakımından İsteksiz ya da Aciz Devlet Teorisi”, İKÜHFD, C. 14, S. 2, 2015, ss. 39-65.
  • BETHLEHEM, Daniel, “Notes and Comments: Principles Relevant to the Scope of a State’s Right of Self-Defense against an Imminent or Actual Armed Attack by Nonstate Actors”, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 106, 2012, ss. 1-8.
  • BODE, Ingvild, “Manifestly Failing and Unwilling or Unable as Intervention Formulas: A Critical Assessment”, Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention in the 21st Century, Ed. Aiden Warren, Damian Grenfell, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 2017, ss. 164-191.
  • CHACKO, Elena/DEEKS, Ashley, “Which States Support the Unwilling and Unable Test?”, 10 October 2016, https://www.lawfareblog.com/which-states-support-unwilling-and-unable-test.
  • CHRISTAKIS, Theodore, “Challenging the Unwilling or Unable Test”, ZaöRV, Vol. 77, 2017, ss.19-22.
  • CRAIG, Martin, “Challenging and Refining the Unwilling or Unable Doctrine”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 52, 2019, ss. 387-461.
  • DEEKS, Ashley S., “Unwilling or Unable: Toward a Normative Framework for Extraterritorial Self-Defense”, Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol. 52, 2012, ss. 483-550.
  • DINSTEIN, Yoram, War, Aggression and Self-Defence, 5th edn, Canbridge, Cambridge University Press, 2011.
  • HAKIMI, Monica, “Defensive Force against Non-State Actors: The State of Play”, International Law Studies, Vol. XCI, 2015, ss. 1-31.
  • HELLER, Kevin Jon, “Eric Posner Rejects the Unwilling or Unable Test!”, 9 October 2012, http://opiniojuris.org/2012/10/08/eric-posner-rejects-the-unwilling-or-unable-test/.
  • KAYA, İbrahim, Uluslararası Hukukta Temel Belgeler: Basic Documents in International Law, 4. Baskı, Ankara, Seçkin Yayıncılık, 2020, ss. 12-48.
  • KURAN, Selami/GÜR, Hande, “Devlet-Dışı Aktörlere Karşı Meşru Müdafaada İsteksiz veya Aciz Doktrini: Suriye ve DAEŞ Örneği”, MÜHF-HAD, C. 23, S. 1, 2017, ss. 57-88.
  • LEHTO, Marja, “The Fight against ISIL in Syria: Comments on the Recent Discussion of the Right of Self-defence against Non-state Actors”, Nordic Journal of International Law, Vol. LXXXVII, 2018, ss. 1-25.
  • MAHMOUDI, Said, “The Unwilling or Unable Doctrine: The Right to Use Extraterritorial Self-Defense Against Non-State Actors”, Thesis in International Public Law, Stockholm University Faculty of Law, 2017.
  • NUSSBERGER, Benjamin, “Sustainable Self-Defense? How the German Government justifies continuing its fight against ISIL in Syria”, 2 October 2019, https://www.ejiltalk.org/sustainable-self-defense-how-the-german-government-justifies-continuing-its-fight-against-isil-in-syria/.
  • QURESHI, Waseem Ahmad, “Examining the Legitimacy and Reasonableness of the Use of Force: From Just War Doctrine to the Unwilling or Unable Test”, Oklahoma City University Review, Vol. 42, No. 3, 2018, ss. 221-289.
  • QURESHI, Waseem Ahmad, “International Law and the Application of the Unwilling or Unable Test in Syrian Conflict”, Drexel Law Review, Vol. 11, 2018, ss. 61-99.
  • RANDELZHOFER, Albrecht/NOLTE, George, “Article 51”, The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, Ed. Bruno Simma, Daniel-Erasmus Khan, Georg Nolte, Adreas Paulus, Nikolai Wessendorf, 3rd edn, Vol. I, Oxford Scholarly Authorities on International Law, 2012.
  • SCHRIJVER, Nico/VAN DEN HERIK, Larissa, “Leiden Policy Recommendations on Counter-terorism and International Law”, Netherlands International Law Review, Vol. 57 (3), ss. 531-550.
  • SJOSTEDT, Britta, “Applying the Unable/Unwilling State Doctrine-Can a State Be Unable to Take Action?”, ZaöRV, Vol. 77, 2017, ss. 39-42.
  • TIBORI-SZABÓ, Kinga, “The ‘Unwilling or Unable’ Test and the Law of Self-defence”, Fundamental Rights in International and European Law: Public and Private Law Perspectives, Ed. Christophe Paulussen, Tamara Takács, Vesna Lazić, Ben Van Rompuy, Heidelberg, Springer, 2016, ss. 73-97.
  • TÜTÜNCÜ, Ayşe Nur/ŞİMŞEK G., Engin/UZUN, Elif/ARIKOĞLU, Enver/AKÜN, Neslihan Verda/BAŞKARACAOĞLU, Elif/KORKMAZ SÜRER, Mukaddes/GÜNEYSU, Gökhan/GÖKALP, İbrahim, Milletlerarası Adalet Divanı Kararları: 1990-2007, İstanbul, Beta, 2008.
  • WILLIAMS, Gareth D., “Piercing the Shield of Sovereignty: An Assessment of the Legal Status of the Unwilling or Unable Test”, UNSW Law Journal, Vol. 36 (2), 2013, ss. 619-641.
  • WILMSHURST, Elizabeth, Principles of International Law on the Use of Force by States in Self-Defence, Chatham House, ILP WP 05/01, 2005.
  • Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports, 2005, p. 168.
  • Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Separate Opinion of Judge Kooijmans, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports, 2005, p. 306.
  • Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Separate Opinion of Judge Simma, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports, 2005, p. 334.
  • Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission-Partial Award: Jus Ad Bellum - Ethiopia's Claims 1-8, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, 19 December 2005, Vol. XXVI pp. 457-469.
  • Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports, 2004, p. 136.
  • Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Separate Opinion of Judge Higgins, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports, 2004, p. 207.
  • Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel, Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports, 1986, p. 259.
  • Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports, 1986, p. 14.
  • Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Dissenting Opinion of Judge Sir Robert Jennings, Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports, 1986, p. 528.
  • Charter of the United Nations, signed on 26 June 1945, entered into force on 24 October 1945, https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/ctc/uncharter.pdf.
  • SCOR, UN Doc. S/PV. 2292, 17 July 1981, https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/43220E2368A3DDF7052568000052412C.
  • UN Doc. S/2014/691, 22 September 2014, https://undocs.org/S/2014/691.
  • UN Doc. S/2014/695, 23 September 2014, https://undocs.org/S/2014/695.
  • UN Doc. S/2015/221, 31 March 2015, https://undocs.org/S/2015/221.
  • UN Doc. S/2015/563, 24 July 2015, https://undocs.org/S/2015/563.
  • UN Doc. S/2015/946, 10 December 2015, https://undocs.org/S/2015/946.
  • UN Doc. S/PV. 3653, 15 April 1996, https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/310AC20FB347D24185256311004E0E4B.
  • UN Doc. S/RES/2249(2015), 20 November 2015, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_2249.pdf.
  • UNGA, A/RES. 2625 (XXV), Declaration on Principles of lnternational Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, (A/8082) 24 October 1970, https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/2625(XXV).
  • UNGA, Res. 3314 (1974), https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/3314(XXIX).
  • UNGA, UN Doc. A/50/1016, S/1996/614, 1 August 1996, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/219759.
Toplam 45 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Hukuk
Bölüm ARAŞTIRMA MAKALELERİ
Yazarlar

Nesrin Singil 0000-0003-1983-178X

Yayımlanma Tarihi 15 Eylül 2021
Kabul Tarihi 9 Eylül 2021
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2021

Kaynak Göster

APA Singil, N. (2021). Uluslararası Hukukta Meşru Müdafaa Hakkına Yeni Bir Yaklaşım: İsteksiz veya Aciz Devlet Doktrini. Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 29(3), 2387-2414. https://doi.org/10.15337/suhfd.937045
AMA Singil N. Uluslararası Hukukta Meşru Müdafaa Hakkına Yeni Bir Yaklaşım: İsteksiz veya Aciz Devlet Doktrini. Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi. Eylül 2021;29(3):2387-2414. doi:10.15337/suhfd.937045
Chicago Singil, Nesrin. “Uluslararası Hukukta Meşru Müdafaa Hakkına Yeni Bir Yaklaşım: İsteksiz Veya Aciz Devlet Doktrini”. Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 29, sy. 3 (Eylül 2021): 2387-2414. https://doi.org/10.15337/suhfd.937045.
EndNote Singil N (01 Eylül 2021) Uluslararası Hukukta Meşru Müdafaa Hakkına Yeni Bir Yaklaşım: İsteksiz veya Aciz Devlet Doktrini. Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 29 3 2387–2414.
IEEE N. Singil, “Uluslararası Hukukta Meşru Müdafaa Hakkına Yeni Bir Yaklaşım: İsteksiz veya Aciz Devlet Doktrini”, Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, c. 29, sy. 3, ss. 2387–2414, 2021, doi: 10.15337/suhfd.937045.
ISNAD Singil, Nesrin. “Uluslararası Hukukta Meşru Müdafaa Hakkına Yeni Bir Yaklaşım: İsteksiz Veya Aciz Devlet Doktrini”. Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 29/3 (Eylül 2021), 2387-2414. https://doi.org/10.15337/suhfd.937045.
JAMA Singil N. Uluslararası Hukukta Meşru Müdafaa Hakkına Yeni Bir Yaklaşım: İsteksiz veya Aciz Devlet Doktrini. Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi. 2021;29:2387–2414.
MLA Singil, Nesrin. “Uluslararası Hukukta Meşru Müdafaa Hakkına Yeni Bir Yaklaşım: İsteksiz Veya Aciz Devlet Doktrini”. Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, c. 29, sy. 3, 2021, ss. 2387-14, doi:10.15337/suhfd.937045.
Vancouver Singil N. Uluslararası Hukukta Meşru Müdafaa Hakkına Yeni Bir Yaklaşım: İsteksiz veya Aciz Devlet Doktrini. Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi. 2021;29(3):2387-414.

Cited By

ULUSLARARSI HUKUK ÇERÇEVESİNDE İSRAİL-FİLİSTİN ÇATIŞMASI: DEVLET DIŞI AKTÖRLER VE MEŞRU MÜDAFAA
Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi
https://doi.org/10.20979/ueyd.1469204
Legal Status in the Donbas Conflicts: Foreign Fighters, Mercenaries, Far-Right Radicals
Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi
https://doi.org/10.52273/sduhfd..1378211