ULUSLARARASI HUKUKUN ÜÇ YÜZÜ: ELEŞTİREL BİR YAKLAŞIM

Öz

Bu çalışma, uluslararası hukukun neden var olduğu ve uluslararası ilişkilerde ne işe yaradığı tartışmalarını incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Modern uluslararası hukukun ortaya çıkışı doktrinde 16. yüzyılda haklı savaş ve deniz ticaretinin düzenlenmesi konularıyla ilişkilendirilmektedir. Ancak ortaya çıkışından bugüne uluslararası hukukun varlık sebebi ve neye hizmet ettiği tartışılmaktadır. Farklı bakış açılarına göre değişik yorumlamalara gebe olan uluslararası hukuk, barışın sağlanması aracı, ulusal çıkarların optimizasyon mekanizması ya da hegemonyanın silahı olarak adlandırılmıştır. Bu birbirinden farklı değerlendirmeler sırasıyla liberal ve realist teoriler ile Uluslararası Hukuka Üçüncü Dünya Yaklaşımları (Third World Approaches to International Law - TWAIL) perspektifinden yapılmaktadır. Eldeki çalışma, bu üç bakış açısı üzerinden uluslararası hukukun varlık sebebini açıklamaya çalışacaktır. Bu anlamda öncelikle liberal teoriye odaklanılacak ve uluslararası hukukun barışa aracılık ettiği/edebileceği iddiaları tartışılacaktır. Sonrasında realist perspektiften uluslararası hukukun işlevi sorgulanacak ve ulusal çıkarlarla yaşadığı çatışma irdelenecektir. Son olarak ise TWAIL üzerinden uluslararası hukukun Üçüncü Dünya halklarına ve devletlerine nasıl bir hegemonya aracı olarak dikte edildiği incelenecektir. Bu üç argüman üzerinden çalışma, uluslararası hukuka ilişkin farklı Uluslararası İlişkiler teorilerinin nasıl anlamlar yüklediğini tartışmakta ve bu bağlamda uluslararası hukuka eleştirel bir değerlendirme sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Liberalizm
• Realizm
• Uluslararası Hukuka Üçüncü Dünya Yaklaşımları
• Uluslararası Hukuk

Three Faces of International Law: A Critical Approach

Öz

This study aims to quest for why there is international law and what is its functions in international relations. The emergence of modern international law has been related to just war and maritime commerce in 16th century in the doctrine. However, since the emergence of international law, its raison d’etre and what it serves for has been discussed. From different perspectives it is possible to approach international law differently such as the tool of peace, a mechanism for gaining national interest or the weapon of hegemony by powerful states. These different approaches have been reflected by the International Relations (IR) theories of liberalism, realism, and Third World Approach to International Law - TWAIL. This paper, therefore, attempts to analyze the raison d’etre of international law from three different perspectives. To do so, the study firstly analyzes liberal IR theory and discusses the claims of liberalism such as international law may be the tool for international peace. Secondly, realist IR perspective has been used to questioning international law through the national interest and international law nexus. Lastly, TWAIL perspective has been included to the discussion for analyzing how the international law has been used by First World countries against Third World countries. Through these arguments, the paper discusses the meanings attributed to the international law by different International Relations theories and provides a critical evaluation to the international law.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Liberalism
• Realism
• Third World Approaches to International Law
• International Law

Kaynakça

1. Altman D, ‘The Evolution of Territorial Conquest After 1945 and the Limits of the Territorial Integ-rity Norm’ (2020) 74 International Organization 490
2. Anghie A, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (Cambridge University Press 2005) Erişim 2 Eylül 2022
3. ——, ‘TWAIL: Past and Future’ (2008) 10 International Community Law Review 479
4. ——, ‘Rethinking Sovereignty in International Law’ (2009) 5 Annual Review of Law and Social Science 291
5. Antunes S ve Camisao I, ‘Realism’ in Stephen McGlinchey, Rosie Walters ve Christian Scheinpflug (eds), International Relations Theory (E-International Relations Publishing 2017)
6. Appiagyei-Atua K, ‘Ethical Dimensions of Third-World Approaches to International Law (Twail): A Critical Review’ (2015) 8 African Journal of Legal Studies 209
7. Arend AC, ‘International Law and the Preemptive Use of Military Force’ (2003) 26 The Washington Quarterly 89
8. Arsava F, ‘Uluslararası Hukukta Güç ve Hukuk İlişkisi’ (2012) 3 Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi 351

9. Bailliet CM and Larsen KM, Promoting Peace Through International Law (OUP Oxford 2015)
10. Bassiouni MC, ‘International Crimes: “Jus Cogens” and “Obligatio Erga Omnes”’ (1996) 59 Law and Contemporary Problems 63
11. Bennett L ve Oliver J, Uluslararası Örgütler: İlkeler ve Meseleler (Nasuh Uslu çev, 1. bs, BB101 Yayınları 2015)
12. Booth K ve Erskine T, International Relations Theory Today (John Wiley & Sons 2016)
13. Burchill S, ‘Liberalism’, Theories of International Relations (3rd edn, Palgrave Macmillan 2005)
14. ——, Theories of International Relations (Macmillan International Higher Education 2013)
15. Buzan B, Wæver O ve Wilde J de, Security: A New Framework for Analysis (Lynne Rienner Pub-lishers 1998)
16. Cali B (ed), International Law for International Relations (Oxford University Press 2009)
17. Carr EH, The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939: Reissued with a New Preface from Michael Cox (Springer 2016)
18. Chamberlin W, ‘Origins of the Kellogg-Briand Pact’ (1952) 15 The Historian 77
19. Charney JI, ‘Universal International Law’ (1993) 87 The American Journal of International Law 529
20. Chimni BS, ‘The Geopolitics of Refugee Studies: A View from the South’ (1998) 11 Journal of Refugee Studies 350
21. ——, ‘Globalization, Humanitarianism and the Erosion of Refugee Protection’ (2000) 13 Journal of Refugee Studies 243
22. ——, ‘The Birth of a “Discipline”: From Refugee to Forced Migration Studies’ (2009) 22 Journal of Refugee Studies 11
23. ——, ‘The World of TWAIL: Introduction to the Special Issue’ (2011) 3 Trade, Law and Develop-ment 14
24. ——, ‘Capitalism, Imperialism, and International Law in the Twenty-First Century’ (2012) 14 Ore-gon Review of International Law 17
25. ——, ‘Global Compact on Refugees: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back’ (2019) 30 International Journal of Refugee Law 630
26. Cox RW, ‘Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory’ (1981) 10 Millennium 126
27. Crawford NC, ‘Just War Theory and the U.S. Counterterror War’ (2003) 1 Perspectives on Politics 5
28. de Wet E, ‘Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes’ in Dinah Shelton (ed), The Oxford Handbook of International Human Rights Law (1. bs, Oxford University Press 2013) accessed 2 September 2022
29. Demirkol A, ‘Understanding American Strategic Culture and Foreign Policy Through Robert Kagan: A Review’ (2021) 4 Uluslararası İlişkiler ve Diplomasi 1
30. ——, ‘An Empirical Analysis of Securitization Discourse in the European Union’ (2022) 19 Migra-tion Letters 273
31. ——, ‘Realism Said, “Goodbye!” To Liberalism: The Case of Russia’s Invasion in Ukraine’ (Uni-versity of Economics in Bratislava 2022)
32. Demirkol A ve Kırdım ŞE, ‘Marksizm ve Uluslararası Hukuk: Teori Mi Eleştiri Mi?’ (2021) 2021 Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 417
33. Deplano R, ‘The Use of International Law by the United Nations Security Council: An Empirical Framework for Analysis’ (2015) 29 Emory Int’l L. Rev. Recent Dev. 2085
34. Donnelly J, ‘Realism’ in Scott Burchill and others (eds), Theories of International Relations (3rd edn, Palgrave Macmillan 2005)
35. Dunne T, Kurki M and Smith S, International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (Oxford University Press 2021)
36. Elshtain JB, ‘Just War and Humanitarian Intervention’ (2001) 95 Proceedings of the Annual Meet-ing (American Society of International Law) 1
37. Eralp A, ‘Uluslararası İlişkiler Disiplininin Oluşumu: İdealizm-Realizm Tartışması’ içinde İhsan Dağı and others (eds), Devlet, Sistem ve Kimlik: Uluslararası İlişkilerde Temel Yaklaşımlar (16. bs, İletişim Yayınları 2019)
38. ——, Devlet, sistem ve kimlik: uluslararası ilişkilerde temel yaklaşımlar (16. bs, İletişim Yayınları 2019)
39. Ereker FA, ‘İlkçağlardan Günümüze Haklı Savaş Kavramı’ (2004) 1 Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi 1
40. Ersoy E, ‘Realizm’, Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri (2. bs, İletişim Yayınları 2021)
41. Eslava L ve Pahuja S, ‘Between Resistance and Reform: TWAIL and the Universality of Interna-tional Law’ (2011) 3 Trade, Law and Development 103
42. Fabbrini S, ‘US Unilateralism and American Conservative Nationalism’, The United States Contest-ed : American Unilateralism and European Discontent (Routledge 2006) accessed 12 January 2021
43. Fitzmaurice A, ‘Liberalism and Empire in Nineteenth-Century International Law’ (2012) 117 The American Historical Review 122
44. Fixdal M ve Smith D, ‘Humanitarian Intervention and Just War’ (1998) 42 Mershon International Studies Review 283
45. Fleming DF, ‘Woodrow Wilson and Collective Security Today’ (1956) 18 The Journal of Politics 611
46. Focarelli C, ‘Promotional Jus Cogens: A Critical Appraisal of Jus Cogens’ Legal Effects’ (2008) 77 Nordic Journal of International Law 429
47. Franck TM, ‘Terrorism and the Right of Self-Defense’ (2001) 95 The American Journal of Interna-tional Law 839
48. Gathii JT, ‘TWAIL: A Brief History of Its Origins, Its Decentralized Network, and a Tentative Bibli-ography’ (2011) 3 Trade, Law and Development 26
49. Gözen R, ‘İdealizm’ içinde Ramazan Gözen (ed), Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri (2 bs, İletişim Yayınları 2021)
50. Guiora AN, ‘Anticipatory Self-Defence and International Law—A Re-Evaluation’ (2008) 13 Jour-nal of Conflict & Security Law 3
51. Hobbes T, Leviathan (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform 2011)
52. Johnson JT, ‘Just War, As It Was and Is’ [2005] First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion & Pub-lic Life 14
53. Joyner DH, ‘Why I Stopped Believing in Customary International Law’ (2018) 9 Asian Journal of International Law 31
54. Jünemann A, Fromm N and Scherer N, ‘The Kaleidoscope of Migration’ in Annette Jünemann, Ni-kolas Scherer and Nicolas Fromm (eds), Fortress Europe? Challenges and Failures of Migration and Asylum Policies (Springer Fachmedien 2017) Erişim 19 Aralık 2021
55. Kagan R, Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order (Vintage Books 2004)
56. Kale B, ‘The Limits of an International Burden-Sharing Approach: The Syrian Refugee Protection Crisis and Its Consequences on Turkey’s Refugee Policy’ (2017) 22 PERCEPTIONS: Journal of International Affairs 55
57. Kant I, Perpetual Peace and Other Essays (Hackett Publishing 1983)
58. Keohane RO, Power and Governance in a Partially Globalized World (Psychology Press 2002)
59. Kırdım ŞE, ‘A Dichotomus Practice of International Relations: Theory Behind Humanitarian Inter-vention Until World War II’ (2017) 61 Akademik Bakış Dergisi 26
60. ——, ‘Pandemilerle Mücadele İçin Uluslararası Hukukta “Cebri Yardım”’ (2020) 10 Hacettepe Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 760
61. ——, ‘TWAIL’i Anlamak: Uluslararası Hukuka Eleştirel Bir Yaklaşım’ (2021) 41 Public and Private International Law Bulletin 129
62. ——, ‘Uluslararası Hukuk Savaş Halinde: Trump Yönetiminin Uluslararası Hukuk Yaklaşımı Üzerine Bir İnceleme’ (2021) 12 İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 148
63. ——, Uluslararası Hukukta İnsani Müdahale Doktrini ve Birleşmiş Milletlerde Paylaşımlı Yetki Mekanizması (Yetkin Yayınları 2021)
64. ——, Uluslararası Hukukta Israrlı İtiraz (On İki Levha Yayıncılık 2022)
65. Kırdım ŞE ve Demirkol A, ‘Türk Göç Hukukunu TWAIL Üzerinden Değerlendirmek: Dünya Beş’ten Ne Kadar Büyük?’ (2021) 18 Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 1577
66. ——, ‘Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Hukukunun Bir Kaynağı Olarak Uluslararası Örf ve Âdet Hukuku’ (2021) 25 Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 379
67. Lauterpacht H, ‘The Grotian Tradition in International Law’ (1946) 23 British Year Book of Interna-tional Law 1
68. Lebow RN, ‘Classical Realism’ içinde Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki ve Steve Smith (eds), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (3. bs, Oxford University Press 2013)
69. Luban D, ‘Just War and Human Rights’ (1980) 9 Philosophy & Public Affairs 160
70. Machiavelli N, The Prince (Penguin Publishing Group 2003)
71. Malone D ve Khong Y, Unilateralism and U.S. Foreign Policy: International Perspectives (Lynne Rienner Publishers 2003)
72. Maran R, ‘Detention and Torture in Guantanamo’ (2006) 33 Social Justice 151
73. McGlinchey S Scheinpflug, Christian and Walters R (eds), International Relations Theory (2017)
74. Meiser JW, ‘Liberalism’ in Stephen McGlinchey Scheinpflug, Christian, Rosie Walters and Christian Scheinpflug (eds), International Relations Theory (E-International Relations Publishing 2017)
75. Moravcsik A, ‘Liberalism and International Relations Theory’
76. ——, Liberal International Relations Theory: A Social Scientific Assessment (Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University Cambridge, MA 2001)
77. ——, ‘Liberal Theories of International Relations: A Primer’ Erişim 3 Eylül 2022
78. Mutua M, ‘Critical Race Theory and International Law: The View of an Insider-Outsider’ (2000) 45 Villanova Law Review 841
79. ——, ‘What Is TWAIL?’ (2000) 94 Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting 31
80. Ochoa-Ruiz N ve Salamanca-Aguado E, ‘Exploring the Limits of International Law Relating to the Use of Force in Self-Defence’ (2005) 16 European Journal of International Law 499
81. Okafor OC, ‘Critical Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL): Theory, Methodolo-gy, or Both?’ (2008) 10 International Community Law Review 371
82. Özpek BB, ‘Liberalizm ve Uluslararası İlişkiler’ içinde Ramazan Gözen (ed), Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri (2. bs, İletişim Yayınları 2021)
83. Parmar P, ‘TWAIL: An Epistemological Inquiry’ (2008) 10 International Community Law Review 363
84. Press-Barnathan G, ‘The Neglected Dimension of Commercial Liberalism: Economic Cooperation and Transition to Peace’ (2006) 43 Journal of Peace Research 261
85. Roele I, ‘We Have Not Seen the Last of the Rogue State’ (2012) 13 German Law Journal 560
86. Russett B, ‘Liberalism’ içinde Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith (eds), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (3. bs, Oxford University Press 2013)
87. Sauer T, ‘American Unilateralism’ (2002) 33 Security Dialogue 114
88. Schrijver N, ‘The Ban on the Use of Force in the UN Charter’ in Marc Weller (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in Internatiol Law (Oxford University Press 2015)
89. Schuman FL, International Politics (1941)
90. Shah J, ‘UDHR: Our North Star for Global Social Justice or an Imperial and Settler-Colonial Tool to Limit Our Conception of Freedom’ (2018) 31 Pace International Law Review 569
91. Simma B, ‘Universality of International Law from the Perspective of a Practitioner’ (2009) 20 Eu-ropean Journal of International Law 265
92. Slaughter A-M, ‘International Law in a World of Liberal States’ (1995) 6 European Journal of Inter-national Law 503
93. Slaughter A-M ve Alvarez JE, ‘A Liberal Theory of International Law’ (2000) 94 Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law) 240
94. Smith L, ‘The Wilsonian Challenge to International Law’ (2011) 13 Journal of the History of Inter-national Law / Revue d’histoire du droit international 179
95. Smith S, ‘Bir Disiplinin Öz Görüntüleri: Uluslararası İlişkiler Kuramının Bir Soyağacı’ içinde Ken Booth and Steve Smith (eds), Uluslararası İlişkiler Kuramları (Uluslararası İlişkiler Kütüphanesi 2015)
96. Snell JL, ‘Wilson on Germany and the Fourteen Points’ (1954) 26 The Journal of Modern History 364
97. Soldz S, ‘Healers or Interrogators: Psychology and the United States Torture Regime’ (2008) 18 Psychoanalytic Dialogues 592
98. Stromberg RN, ‘The Idea of Collective Security’ (1956) 17 Journal of the History of Ideas 250
99. Sunter AF, ‘TWAIL as Naturalized Epistemological Inquiry’ (2007) 20 Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence 475
100. Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War (OUP Oxford 2009)
101. Todaro MP, Economics for a Developing World (Longman 1982)
102. Vagts DF, ‘The Hague Conventions and Arms Control’ (2000) 94 The American Journal of Interna-tional Law 31
103. Van den hole L, ‘Anticipatory Self-Defence under International Law’ (2003) 19 American Universi-ty International Law Review 69
104. Verdross A, ‘Jus Dispositivum and Jus Cogens in International Law’ (1966) 60 The American Jour-nal of International Law 55
105. von Elbe J, ‘The Evolution of the Concept of the Just War in International Law’ (1939) 33 The American Journal of International Law 665
106. Wæver O, ‘Securitization and Desecuritization’ in Ronnie D Lipschutz (ed), On security, vol New directions in world politics (Columbia University Press 1995) Erişim 21 Kasım 2020
107. Walden RM, ‘Customary International Law: A Jurisprudential Analysis’ (1978) 13 Israel Law Re-view 86
108. Watson A, ‘An Approach to Customary Law’ (1984) 1984 University of Illinois Law Review 561
109. Weil P, ‘Towards Relative Normativity in International Law?’ (1983) 77 The American Journal of International Law 413
110. Werner WG, ‘From Justus Hostis to Rogue State the Concept of the Enemy in International Legal Thinking’ (2004) 17 International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 155
111. Zabunoğlu HG ve Sönmez EY, ‘Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Hukukunda Üçüncü Dünya Yak-laşımları’ (2021) 12 İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 258
112. Zoubir YH, ‘Libya in US Foreign Policy: From Rogue State to Good Fellow?’ (2002) 23 Third World Quarterly 31