ULUSLARARASI ANDLAŞMALAR HUKUKUNDA DEĞİŞİM, İSTİKRAR ve DEĞİŞİM YOLUYLA İSTİKRAR: REBUS SIC STANTIBUS

Öz

Uluslararası andlaşmaların taraflar nezdinde bağlayıcı olduğunu ve iyi niyetle ifa edilmeleri gerektiğini ifade eden pacta sunt servanda ilkesinin temel amacı, her devletin zamanında ortaya koyduğu iradenin arkasında durmasını sağlayarak devletlerarası ilişkilerde ve uluslararası hukuk düzeninde istikrarı sağlamak ve korumaktır. Bununla birlikte, bir andlaşmanın yapıldığı dönemdeki koşulların önemli ölçüde değişmesi halinde andlaşmanın tarafları arasındaki denge bozulabilecek, andlaşmanın konu ve amacı anlamsızlaşabilecek ve hatta ortadan kalkabilecektir. Bu çerçevede, pacta sunt servanda ilkesini hiçbir koşulda istisnası olmayan bir ilke olarak yorumlamak, uluslararası andlaşmalardan doğan yükümlülüklerinden çok farklı konjonktür ve koşullarda bile kurtulamayacağını düşünen devletleri ahdî ilişkiler içine girmemeye sevk edebilecek ve uluslararası ilişkilerde istikrarsızlığa yol açabilecektir. İşte ahdî uluslararası hukukta istikrar ve değişim arasındaki denge, andlaşmaların, akdedilmelerine zemin hazırlayan koşullardan bağımsız düşünülemeyeceği anlayışı üzerine kurulu olan ve geleneksel olarak rebus sic stantibus olarak adlandırılan “koşullarda esaslı değişiklik” ilkesi aracılığıyla sağlanmaya çalışılmaktadır. İlke, uluslararası andlaşmaların, yapıldıkları dönemdeki koşullarda taraflarca öngörülemeyen esaslı değişiklikler yaşanması durumunda sona erdirilebileceklerini veya tarafların bu andlaşmalardan çekilebileceklerini öngörmektedir. Uluslararası andlaşmalar hukukunun yerleşik ilkelerinden biri olan rebus sic stantibus, bu alanın aynı zamanda en tartışmalı ilkelerinden biridir. Gerek ulusal gerek uluslararası yargı mercileri ilkeyi uygulamakta çoğu zaman tereddüt etmekte ve pozitif uluslararası hukukun bir parçası olduğu artık tartışma götürmüyorsa da ilkenin tam olarak ne anlama geldiğine ilişkin devletler arasında görüş ayrılıkları bulunmaktadır. 1969 Viyana Andlaşmalar Hukuku Sözleşmesi’nin 62. maddesi ve uluslararası içtihat ilkenin “uluslararası andlaşmaların taraflarının ortak beklentileri” temelinde uygulanması yönünde objektif bir anlayış benimsemekte, devlet uygulamaları ise “devletlerin yaşamsal menfaatleri” temelinde sübjektif bir yorumu kabul etmiş görünmektedir. Elinizdeki çalışma, rebus sic stantibus ilkesinin, bir yandan amacına hizmet edebilmesi, diğer yandan devletler tarafından keyfî bir biçimde kullanılmasının önüne geçilebilmesi için nasıl bir muhakeme yürütülerek ileri sürülmesi gerektiğini tartışmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Andlaşmalar hukuku
• pacta sunt servanda
• rebus sic stantibus
• koşullarda esaslı değişiklik
• Viyana Andlaşmalar Hukuku Sözleşmesi.

Change, Stability and Stability by Change in the Law of Treaties: Rebus Sic Stantibus

Öz

The principle of pacta sunt servanda, according to which every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed in good faith aims at maintaining stability in international legal order. However, in cases where important change of circumstances occurs with regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of a treaty, the balance between the parties may be disturbed and the aim and the purpose of the treaty may become meaningless. Therefore, if the principle of pacta sunt servanda is interpreted as containing no exception, States would be reluctant to establish contractual relationships that could not be terminated even in very different conditions and circumstances. This would certainly cause instability in international relations. International law aims at establishing the balance between stability and change by the principle traditionally referred to as rebus sic stantibus which is based on the idea that treaties cannot be considered as being independent from the conditions that paved the way for their conclusion. According to this principle, in some cases where a fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred with regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of a treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, these latter may terminate the treaty or withdraw from it. Although being a settled principle of positive international law, the meaning of rebus sic stantibus generates intensive debate among States and national and international judicial instances. Article 62 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the international jurisprudence interpret the principle objectively in light of the “shared expectations” of the parties to international treaties. Whereas States seem to invoke the principle based on their subjective “vital interests”. This article discusses how the principle needs to be interpreted to achieve its aim without being discretionary used by States.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fundamental change of circumstances
• law of treaties
• pacta sunt servanda
• rebus sic stantibus
• Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

Kaynakça

1. Akkaya D, Uluslararası Andlaşmalarda Şartların Esaslı Değişimi: Rebus Sic Stantibus İlkesi (Seçkin 2021).
2. Ayhan H, Uluslararası Antlaşmalar Hukukunda Şartların Esaslı Değişikliği İlkesi. Rebus Sic Stantibus İlkesi (Adalet 2018).
3. Brierly JL, ‘Some Considerations on the Obsolescence of Treaties’ (1925) 11 Transactions of the Grotius Society 11-20.
4. Brierly JL, The Law of Nations: An Introduction to the International Law of Peace (Clarendon Press 1963).
5. Briggs HW, ‘Unilateral Denunciation of Treaties: The Vienna Convention and the International Court of Justice’ (1974) 68(1) American Journal of International Law 51-68.
6. Bynkershoek CV, Quaestionum Juris Publici Libri Duo. Translation by Tenney Frank (Clarendon Press 1930).
7. Bullington JP, ‘International Treaties and the Clause “Rebus Sic Stantibus”’ (1927) University of Pennsylvania Law Review 153-177.
8. Craven M, ‘What Happened to Unequal Treaties? The Continuities of Informal Empire’ (2005) 74 Nordic Journal of International Law 335-382.

9. Fitzmaurice G, ‘Second Report on the Law of Treaties’, 2 ILC Yearbook (1957) 16.
10. Fitzmaurice M, ‘Exceptional Circumstances and Treaty Commitments’ in Hollis D B (ed), The Oxford Guide to Treaties (Oxford University Press 2012) 595-623.
11. Flambouras DP, ‘The Doctrines of Impossibility of Performance and Clausula Rebus Sic Stantibus in the 1980 Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods and the Principles of European Contract Law-A Comparative Analysis’ (2001) 13(2) Pace International Law Review 261-293.
12. Garner JW, ‘The Doctrine of Rebus Sic Stantibus and the Termination of Treaties’ (1927) 21(3) American Journal of International Law 509-516.
13. Gentili A, De Iure Belli Libri Tres. A Translation of the Text, by John C. Rolfe, with an Introduction by Coleman Phillipson, and Indexes (Oceana Publications 1964).
14. Giegerich T, ‘Article 62 Fundamental Change of Circumstances’ in Dörr O and Schmalenbach K, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties A Commentary (Springer 2012) 1067-1104.
15. Grotius H, On the Law of War and Peace (Batoche Books Kitchener 2001).
16. Haraszti G, ‘Treaties and the Fundamental Change of Circumstances’ (1975) 146 RCADI 1-93.
17. Karski K and Kamiński T, ‘Effective Application of the Rule on Fundamental Change of Circumstances to Treaties Contravening the 1997 Polish Constitution’ (2015) 17 International Community Law Review 68-94.
18. Koeck HF, ‘The “Changed Circumstances” Clause After the United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties (1968-1969)’ (1974) 4 Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 93-115.
19. Kulaga J, ‘A Renaissance of the Doctrine of Rebus Sic Stantibus?’ (2020) 69 ICLQ 477-497.
20. Lissitzyn OJ, ‘Stability and Change: Unilateral Denunciation or Suspension of Treaties by Reason of Changed Circumstances’ (1967) American Society of International Law, Proceedings 61, Fourth Session 186-192.
21. Lissitzyn OJ, ‘Treaties and Changed Circumstances (Rebus Sic Stantibus)’ (1967) 61(4) American Journal of International Law 895-922.
22. Neff SC (ed), Hugo Grotius on the Law of War and Peace: Student Edition (Cambridge University Press 2012).
23. Pazarcı H, “Ege Adalarının Lozan ve Paris Andlaşmalarıyla Saptanan Askerden Arındırılmış Statüsü Değişmiş Midir?” (1988) 43(3) Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi 207-220.
24. Pink T (ed), Selections from Three Works of Francisco Suárez (Liberty Fund 2015).
25. Pufendorf S, Le droit de la nature et des gens, ou système général des principes les plus importants de la morale, de la jurisprudence, et de la politique (La Veuve 1734).
26. Radoikovitch MM, La révision des traités et le Pacte de la Société des Nations (Pedone 1930).
27. Scheffler WL, ‘The Politicization and Death or Rebus Sic Stantibus’ (1974) 2(1) Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce 67-77.
28. Suraputra S, ‘Doctrine of Rebus Sic Stantibus and Law of International Treaty’ (2014) 11(4) Jurnal Hukum Internasional 462-482.
29. Tzanakopoulos A ve Lekkas S-I, ‘Pacta sunt servanda versus Flexibility in the Suspension and Termination of Treaties’ in Tams C J, Tzanakopoulos A ve Zimmerman A (ed), Research Handbook on the Law of Treaties (Edward Elgar2014) 312-340, Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 5/2014,
30. Vattel E de, The Law of Nations Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, with Three Early Essays on the Origin and Nature of Natural Law and on Luxury (Liberty Fund 2008).
31. Villiger ME., Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2009).
32. Waldock H, Second report on the law of treaties, 2 ILC Yearbook (1963) 36.
33. Wehberg H, ‘Pacta Sunt Servanda’ (1959) 53(4) American Journal of International Law 775-786.
34. Wolff C, Jus Gentium Methodo Scientifica Pertractatum. Translation by Joseph H. Drake (Clarendon Press 1934).
35. Woolsey LH, ‘The Unilateral Termination of Treaties’ (1926) 20(2) American Journal of International Law 346-353.
36. --- ‘Article 28. Rebus Sic Stantibus’ (1935) 29 American Journal of International Law, Supplement: Research in International Law 1096-1126.
37. Case Concerning the Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1997, p. 7.
38. Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex, PCIJ Judgment, 7 June 1932, Series A/B 46.
39. Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (United Kingdom v. Iceland), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1973, p. 3.
40. Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco, PCIJ Advisory Opinion No. 4, 7 February 1923, Series B.
41. Comment by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on the publication of the presidential executive order to suspend the Russia-US plutonium management and disposition agreement, 3 October 2016, < http://www.mid.ru/en/web/guest/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2485001 > Erişim Tarihi 28 Aralık 2021.
42. Draft law suspending the Russia-US Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement submitted to the State Duma, 3 October 2016, < http://en.kremlin.ru/acts/news/53009 > Erişim Tarihi 28 Aralık 2021.
43. Draft articles on the Law of Treaties with Commentaries, United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties Official Records (1971), UN Doc. A/CONF. 39/11/Add.2, 7-94.
44. Report of the International Law Commission covering the work of its fifteenth session, 6 May-12 July 1963, with annexes, Doc. A/5509, 2 ILC Yearbook (1963) 187.
45. Reports of the International Law Commission on the second part of its seventeenth session and on its eighteenth session, Doc. A/6309/Rev.l, 2 ILC Yearbook (1966) 169.
46. Statement by the White House Press Secretary Announcement of Withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, Erişim Tarihi 24 Aralık 2021.
47. Treaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, signed at Moscow on 26 May 1972, 944 UNTS 13.
48. Traité de Versailles 1919, Reproduction integrale du texte officiel du traité, Librairie Militaire Berger-Levrault (1919).
49. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (adopted 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980), 1155 UNTS 331.