Uluslararası Adalet Divanı Danışma Görüşlerinde Yetki ve Devletin Sorumluluğu Tartışması

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 30 Sayı: 3, 1409 - 1441, 15.09.2022

Ali Osman Karaoglu

https://doi.org/10.15337/suhfd.1090082

Cited By: 1

Öz

Uluslararası Adalet Divanı (UAD) hem Birleşmiş Milletler (BM) ana organı hem de devletler arasındaki uyuşmazlıkları çözüme kavuşturan bağımsız bir mahkemedir. Bu nedenle UAD bir yandan devletler arasında çekişmeli yargı yetkisi ile diğer yandan da BM organları ve uzmanlık kuruluşlarına danışma görüşü verebilme yetkisi ile donatılmıştır. Çekişmeli yargı yetkisi devletlerin rızasına dayanmakta ancak danışma görüşleri BM organları ve BM uzmanlık kuruluşlarının talebi ile verilmektedir. UAD’nin 2019 tarihli Chagos danışma görüşünde doğrudan devletin uluslararası sorumluluğuna ilişkin tespitlerde bulunması danışma görüşüne ilişkin yargı yetkisinin sınırlarını yeniden tartışmaya açmıştır. Nitekim Uluslararası Sürekli Adalet Divanı (USAD) tarafından reddedilen Doğu Karelia danışma görüşü talebinden bu yana danışma görüşlerinin çekişmeli yargı için aranan “rıza”yı dolanmak amacıyla kullanılmaması gerektiği ifade edilmektedir. Oysa UAD döneminde devletler BM Andlaşması ve UAD statüsüne taraf olmakla danışma görüşü verme yetkisini kabul ettikleri gibi günümüzde devletlerarası uyuşmazlıkların neredeyse tamamı BM organları ile diğer devletleri de ilgilendiren bir boyuta sahiptir. Nitekim UAD, Dünya Sağlık Örgütü’nce (DSÖ) nükleer silahlara ilişkin olarak talep edilen danışma görüşü talebi haricinde hiçbir danışma görüşü talebi hakkında yetkisizlik kararı vermemiştir. Dahası Divan danışma görüşlerinde, geçmişten bugüne artan bir şekilde, iki devlet arasındaki uyuşmazlıkların BM organları ve diğer devletlere sirayet eden boyutlarına değinerek devletlerin ve BM’nin uluslararası sorumluluğuna daha fazla değinmektedir. Uluslararası sorumluluk tespiti ise sorumluluğa ilişkin hukuki sonuçları da beraberinde getirmektedir. Bu çalışma UAD’nin danışma görüşlerinde giderek artan sorumluluk hukuku tespitlerini ve bu çerçevede gündeme gelen yetki tartışmalarını analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Uluslararası Hukuk, Uluslararası Adalet Divanı, Birleşmiş Milletler, Danışma Görüşü Verme Yetkisi, Uluslararası Sorumluluk

Kaynakça

• AKANDE, Dapo, The Competence of International Organizations and the Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, European Journal of International Law, Vol 9, 1998, p.439.
• ALLEN, Stephen, Self-Determination, The Chagos Advisory Opinion and The Chagossians, International & Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 69, Issue 1, 2020, pp. 2-4.
• AUST, Anthony, Advisory Opinions, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, Vol. 1, Issue 1, 2010, p.123.
• BARRIE, GN, The Neglected Aspects of the International Court Of Justice's "Wall Opinion" on the Consequences of Internationally Wrongful Acts, The Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa, Vol. 47, No. 1, 2014, p. 129.
• BAYRAK, Muhammed Enes, Barış İçin Birlik Kararı: Uluslararası Barış ve Güvenliğin Sürdürülmesinde Birleşmiş Milletler Genel Kurulu’nun Sorumluluğu, Onikilevha Yayıncılık, 2022, s.57 vd.
• BEDJAOUI, Mohammed, The Contribution of the International Court of Justice Towards Keeping and Restoring Peace, in Conflict Resolution: New Approaches and Methods, UNESCO Publishing, 2000, p. 13.
• BEDJAOUI, Mohammed, The New World Order and the Security Council: Testing the Legality of Its Acts, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1994, p. 78.
• BERMAN, Franklin, The International Court of Justice as an ‘Agent’ of Legal Development?, in TAMS, Christian J. & SLOAN, James (eds.), The Development of International Law by the International Court of Justice, Oxford University Press, 2013, pp.7-20.
• BERNABEI, Giulia, The Law-Making Effect of ICJ Advisory Opinions A Survey of the Chagos Opinion, in TELES, Patrícia Galvão & RIBEIRO, Manuel Almeida (eds.), Case-Law and the Development of International Law: Contributions by International Courts and Tribunals, Brill Nijhoff, 2021, p.127 vd.
• BORDIN, Fernando Lusa, State Responsibility in Advisory Proceedings: Thoughts on Judicial Propriety and Multilateralism in the Chagos Opinion, in BURRI, Thomas and TRINIDAD; Jamie (eds.), The International Court of Justice and Decolonisation: New Directions from the Chagos Advisory Opinion, Cambridge University Press, 2021, p.100.
• BOWETT, Derek W., The Court’s Role in Relation to International Organizations, in LOWE, Vaughan & FITZMAURICE, Malgosia (eds.), Fifty Years of the International Court of Justice: Essays in Honour of Sir Robert Jennings, Cambridge, Grotius Publications, 1996, p. 186.
• BROWNLIE, Ian, Principles of Public International Law, Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 5.
• BUTCHER, Goler T., The Consonance of U.S. Positions with the International Court’s Advisory Opinions, in DAMROSCH, Lori F. (eds.), The International Court of Justice at a Crossroads, New York, Transnational Publishers Inc., 1987, p. 436.
• CHIU, Hungdah, Succession in International Organisations, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly Vol. 14, No. 1, 1965, p. 83 vd.
• EMİR, Nergiz, Uluslararası Hukukta Kişilik Kavramı ve Uluslararası Örgütlerin Hukuki Kişiliğinin Sonuçları, Yetkin Yayınları, 2021, s.98-121.
• KATTAN, Victor, The Chagos Advisory Opinion and the Law of Self-Determination, Asian Journal of International Law, Vol.10, Issue 1, 2019, p.7.
• KLABBERS, Jan, An Introduction to International Organizations Law, Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp.46-47.
• LAUTERPACHT, Hersch, The Development of International Law by the International Court, Stevens & Sons Ltd., 1958, pp. 355-358.
• LIANG, Yuen-Li, Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 43, No. 3, 1949, p. 461.
• MAKARCZYK, Jerzy, The International Court of Justice on the Implied Powers of International Organizations, in MAKARCZYK, Jerzy (eds.), Essays in International Law in Honour of Judge Manfred Lachs, The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1984, p. 506.
• MAYR, Teresa F. & MAYR-SINGER, Jelka, Keep the Wheels Spinning: The Contributions of Advisory Opinions of the International Court of Justice to the Development of International Law, ZaöRV, Vol.76, 2016, pp.431-435.
• MINAS, Stephen, Why the ICJ’s Chagos Archipelago Advisory Opinion Matters for Global Justice and for ‘Global Britain’, Transnational Legal Theory, Vol.10, Issue 1, 2019, pp.129-133.
• PASQUALUCCI, Jo M., The Practice and Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 29.
• POMERANCE, Michla, The ICJ's Advisory Jurisdiction and the Crumbling Wall between the Political and the Judicial, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 99, No. 1, 2005, pp.34-40.
• PUMA, Giuseppe, Preliminary Questions in the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, ZaöRV, Vol.79, 2019, pp.865-877.
• RAMA-MONTALDO, Manuel, International Legal Personality and Implied Powers of International Organizations, British Yearbook of International Law, Vol.44, 1970, p. 112.
• RAMCHARAN, Bertrand, Modernizing the Role of the International Court of Justice (Chapter: A Judicial Review Role for the ICJ), TMC Asser Press, 2022, pp 113-120.
• RAO, Pemmaraju Sreenivasa, The United Nations and International Peace and Security-An Indian Perspective, in, TOMUSCHAT, Christian (eds.), The United Nations at Age Fifty: A Legal Perspective, Kluwer Law International, 1995, p. 179;
• ROSENNE, Shabtai, The Law and Practice of the International Court, 1920-1996, The Hague; London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1997, p. 989.
• RRECAJ, Besfort T., Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 (ICJ Advisory Opinion, 25 February 2019, General List No. 169), Utrecht Journal of International and European Law, Vol.35, 2020, p.54.
• SCHACHTER, Oscar, International Law in Theory and Practice, (Chapter VI, Resolutions and Political Texts), RCADI, Vol.178, 1982, p. 117.
• SCHWARZENBERGER, Georg, International Law, London: Stevens and Sons, vol. 1, pp. 26-27.
• SCHWEBEL, Stephen M., Widening the Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice without Amending Its Statute, Catholic University Law Review, Vol.33, Issue 2, 1984, p.358.
• SCHWEBEL, Stephen, Authorizing the Secretary-General of the United Nations to Request Advisory Opinions of the International Court of Justice, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 78, 1984, p. 876-878.
• SCOBBIE, Iain, Unchart(er)ed Waters?: Consequences of the Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory for the Responsibility of the UN for Palestine, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 16, Issue 5, 2005, p.941 vd.
• TALMON, Stefan, ‘The Duty Not to ‘Recognize as Lawful’ a Situation Created by the Illegal Use of Force or Other Serious Breaches of a Jus Cogens Obligation: An Obligation without Real Substance?’ in TOMUSCHAT, Christian & THOUVENIN, Jean-Marc (eds.), The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order: Jus Cogens And Obligations Erga Omnes, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006, p.99.
• TASHJIAN, Joel S., Contentious Matters and the Advisory Power: The ICJ and Israel's Wall, Chicago Journal of International Law, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2005, p.428.
• THIRLWAY, Hugh, The International Court of Justice, in EVANS, Malcolm D. (eds.), International Law, Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 582.
• WALDOCK, Humphrey, General Course on Public International Law, RCADI, Vol.106, 1962, (Chapter 6, Subsidiary and Derivative Sources of International Law), p. 88.
• 1960 tarihli ve 1514 sayılı Sömürge İdaresi Altındaki Ülkelere ve Halklara Bağımsızlık Verilmesine İlişkin Bildiri [UNGA Res. 1514 (XV) (14 December 1960)].
• Application for Review of Judgment No. 273 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion, 20 July 1982, I.C.J. Rep. 325, para.21.
• Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, Paragraph 2 of the Charter), Advisory Opinion, [1962] ICJ Rep 151, ICGJ 221 (ICJ 1962), 20th July 1962, para.157.
• Charter of the United Nations (adopted on 26 June 1945, entered into force on 24 October 1945) 1 UNTS 16, art. 96.
• Covenant of the League of Nations, 28 April 1919, 108 LNTS 188, art. 14. Çeviri: DENK, Erdem, Bakınız: http://www.erdemdenk.com/mcmisaki.doc (erişim tarihi 25.02.2022).
• Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, ILC 2001, UN Doc. A/56/49(Vol.1)/Corr.4, art. 1.
• East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment, 30 June 1995, I.C.J. 90, 102, para. 29.
• ICJ Website, https://www.icj-cij.org/en/organs-agencies-authorized (erişim tarihi 02.03.2022).
• International status of South-West Africa, Advisory Opinion, [1950] ICJ Rep 128, 11th July 1950, p.133-137.
• Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania; First Phase, Advisory Opinion, International Court of Justice (ICJ), I.C.J. Reports 1950, 30 March 1950, para.70-71.
• Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, 21 June 1971 I.C.J. 16, 55, para. 40.
• Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 19 July 2004 I.C.J. 136, 171, para. 46-50.
• Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion, ICJ GL No 169, ICGJ 534 (ICJ 2019), 25th February 2019, para.83-91.
• Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ GL No 95, [1996] ICJ Rep 226, 8th July 1996, para.11.
• Reparation for injuries suffered in the service of the Nations, Advisory Opinion, [1949] ICJ Rep 174, 11th April 1949, pp.187-188.
• Request for an Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, UNGA Res 71/292 (22 June 2017) UN Doc A/RES/71/292.
• Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion, [1951] ICJ Rep 15, 28th May 1951, pp-19-20.
• Statute of the International Court of Justice, 24 October 1945, 33 UNTS 993, art.36.
• The Status of Eastern Carelia, advisory opinion, PCIJ Series B, No. 5, para.27-28-29.
• UNGA Res. 258 (III), 3 December 1948 / UNGA Res. 338 (IV), 6 December 1949.
• UNGA Res. 71/292, 23 June 2017 / UNGA Res. ES-10/14, 8 December 2003.
• UNGA Res. No. 2145 (XXI), 27 October 1966 / UNSC Res. No. 264, 20 March 1969.
• UNSC Res. No. 276, 30 January 1970 / UNSC Res. No. 284, 29 July 1970.
• Western Sahara, 1975 I.C.J. 4, at 41, Advisory Opinion of 16 October 1975, para. 21.