SORUMLULUK İSNADINDA ULUSLARARASI YARGI ORGANLARINCA UYGULANAN KRİTERLER VE AİHM’İN YAKLAŞIMI

Öz

Devlet sorumluluğu meselesi uluslararası hukukun tartışmalı konuları arasında güncelliğini korumaktadır. Devletin kendi ülkesi dışında ve resmi kurumu olmayan aktörlerce gerçekleştirilen eylemlerden devlete sorumluluk isnadı sözkonusu olduğunda, mesele daha karmaşık hale gelmektedir. Üzerinde tartışmaların halen devam ettiği BM Uluslararası Hukuk Komisyonu’nun 2001 tarihli Devletlerin Uluslararası Hukuka Aykırı Eylemlerinden Doğan Sorumluluklarına İlişkin Taslak Maddelerinde de yer verilen bu mesele uluslararası mahkemelerin karşısına artan sıklıkla çıkmaktadır. Uluslararası mahkemeler devletin ülkesi dışında ve resmî kurumları haricindeki aktörlerce gerçekleştirilen eylemlerden devlete sorumluluk isnadı amacıyla farklı kriter ve eşikler benimsemektedirler. Uluslararası Adalet Divanı “etkin kontrol”, Eski Yugoslavya Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi ile Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi “genel kontrol” kriterleri tercih ederken, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin içtihadında bir çeşitlilik görülmektedir. Bu çerçevede makalede, AİHM’in bu kriter çeşitliliği, uluslararası hukukun parçalanması tartışmaları içinde; sorumluluk isnadı ve yargılama yetkisi kavramlarını birlikte kullanması ise sorumluluk hukukunun genel ilkeleriyle uyumu bağlamında ele alınmaktadır. İnceleme sonucunda, uluslararası mahkemelerce görev ve yetki alanlarına göre farklı kriterler benimsenmesinin uluslararası hukuk bakımından bir çelişki teşkil etmediği değerlendirilmekle birlikte, AİHM’in kriter çeşitliliğinin; içtihadının öngörülebilirliğine zarar vermeyecek ve tutarlı şekilde uygulanarak sorumluluk kavramının kapsamını istenmeyen şekilde genişletecek esnek yaklaşımlardan kaçınılmasının önem taşıdığı sonucuna varılmaktadır. Sorumluluk, İsnat, Etkin Kontrol, AİHM, Yargılama Yetkisi, Parçalanma

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sorumluluk
• İsnat
• Etkin Kontrol
• AİHM
• Yargılama Yetkisi
• Parçalanma

Etik Beyan

Çalışmanın tüm süreçlerinin araştırma ve yayın etiğine uygun olduğunu, etik kurallara ve bilimsel atıf gösterme ilkelerine uyduğumu beyan ederim

CRITERIA APPLIED BY THE INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ORGANS AND THE ECtHR'S APPROACH

Öz

The issue of state responsibility remains as one of the disputed topics of international law. When it comes to the attribution of responsibility for the state for the acts committed outside its territory and by the actors, which are not its de jure organs, this issue becomes even more controversial. The international courts are increasingly facing this issue, which was also examined in the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts dated 2001 (discussions on the Articles are still ongoing) by the UN International Law Commission. The international courts endorse different criteria for the attribution of responsibility for the acts committed outside the states’ territory. While the International Court of Justice focuses on effective control criterion, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, as well as the International Criminal Court endorse overall control criterion. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), on the other hand, uses varied criteria for the attribution of responsibility to the states. This Article examines this varity of criteria by the ECtHR in the framework of the disputes on the fragmentation of international law. The compatibility of the approach of the ECtHR on intertwining the concepts of attribution and jurisdiction with the principles of state responsibility law is also addressed. As a conclusion, adoption of different criteria by the international courts for the attribution of responsibility, on its own, does not constitute a contradiction with international law. As to the variety of criteria used by the ECtHR for the attribution of responsibility, it is crucial to implement these criteria in a way to maintain the predictability of its case-law and in a consistent manner, as well as to avoid adopting too flexible approaches that may result in an unwarranted broadening in the scope of state responsibility.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Responsibility
• ATTRIBUTION
• EFFECTIVE CONTROL
• ECtHR
• Jurisdiction
• Fragmentation

Etik Beyan

I declare that all stages of the study are in line with the ethical principles of research and publication, and I followed ethical rules, as well as the principles of scientific reference.

Kaynakça

1. Altıparmak K, ‘Bankovic: An Obstacle to the Application of the European Convention on Human Rights in Iraq?’ (2004) 9(2) Journal of Conflict & Security Law 213
2. Arsava F, ‘AİHS’nin Extraterritorial Bağlayıcılığı’ (2026) 23 Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 1
3. Azaklı Köse M, ‘Uluslararası Hukukta Eylemin Devlete Atfedilmesi ile Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi Çerçevesinde Ülke Dışı Yetki Arasındaki İlişki’ (2021) 41(1) Public and Private International Law Bulletin 261
4. Crawford J, State Responsibility: The General Part (Cambridge University Press 2013)
5. Crawford J and Olleson S, ‘The Nature and Forms of International Responsibility’ in Malcolm D Evans (ed) International Law (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2006)
6. Dzehtsiarou K, ‘What is Law for the European Court of Human Rights?’ (2018) 49 Georgetown Journal of International Law 89
7. International Law Commission, ‘Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts’ (November 2001) UN Doc A/56/10
8. International Law Commission, ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law’ (18 July 2006) UN Doc A/CN.4/L.702

9. Jay AR, ‘The European Convention on Human Rights and the Black Hole of State Responsibility’ [2014] Cambridge Student Law Review 48
10. Mackenzie R and Scott G, State Responsibility for Non-State Actors-Past, Present and Prospects for Future (Hart Publishing 2022)
11. Miklasová J, ‘The Conflation of Jurisdiction and Attribution Tests, the Law, and the International Legal Status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia: A Review of Recent ECtHR Case Law’ (2022) 24(1) International Community Law Review 100
12. Milanovic M, ‘Jurisdiction, Attribution and Responsibility in Jaloud’ (EJIL: Talk!, 11 December 2014) accessed 5 May 2026
13. Milanovic M, ‘Jurisdiction and Responsibility: Trends in the Jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court’ in Anne van Aaken and Iulia Motoc (eds) The European Convention on Human Rights and General International Law (Oxford University Press 2016)
14. Milanovic M, ‘Special Rules of Attribution of Conduct in International Law’ [2020] 96 International Law Studies 296
15. Motoc I and Vasel JJ, ‘The ECHR and Responsibility of the State: Moving Towards Judicial Integration: A View from the Bench’ in Anne van Aaken and Iulia Motoc (eds) The European Convention on Human Rights and General International Law (Oxford University Press 2018)
16. Necatigil ZM, ‘Judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the Loizidou Case: A Critical Examination’ (1999) 4(3) Perceptions 1
17. Olleson S, ‘Attribution in Investment Treaty Arbitration’ (2016) 31(2) ICSID Review-Foreign Investment Law 458
18. Özersay K, ‘Avrupa Birliği Normları ve AİHM Kararları Çerçevesinde Kuzey Kıbrıs’ (2004) 3(2) Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi 49
19. Pauwelyn J, ‘Bridging Fragmentation and Unity: International Law as a Universe of Inter-Connected Islands’ (2004) 25 Michigan Journal of International Law 903
20. Plakokefalos I, ‘The Use of Force by Non-State Actors and the Limits of Attribution of Conduct: A Reply to Vladyslav Lanovoy’ (2017) 28 EJIL 587
21. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002) 2187 UNTS 3
22. Rooney JM, ‘The Relationship between Jurisdiction and Attribution after Jaloud v Netherlands’ (2015) 62(3) Netherlands International Law Review 407
23. Singh S, ‘The Potential of International Law: Fragmentation and Ethics’ (2011) 24 LJIL 23
24. Statute of the International Court of Justice (1945) 33 UNTS 993
25. Weatherall T, Duality of Responsibility in International Law (Brill/Nijhoff 2022)
26. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro) (Merits) [2007] ICJ Rep 43
27. Banković v Belgium (Admissibility) [GC] ECHR 2001-XII 333
28. Behrami and Behrami v France; Saramati v France, Germany and Norway (dec) [GC] ECHR 2007-VIII 45
29. Catan and Others v Moldova and Russia [GC] ECHR 2012-V 309
30. Chiragov and Others v Armenia (2015) ECHR 591
31. Cyprus v Turkey [GC] ECHR 2001-IV 1
32. Demir and Baykara v Turkey [GC] ECHR 2008-V 353
33. Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy [GC] ECHR 2012-II 97
34. Ilaşcu and Others v Moldova and Russia [GC] ECHR 2004-VII 179
35. Jaloud v The Netherlands [GC] ECHR 2014-VI 229
36. Loizidou v Turkey (Preliminary Objections) (1995) Series A no 310
37. Loizidou v Turkey (Merits) (1996) Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI 2216
38. Medvedyev and Others v France ECHR 2010-III 61
39. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) [1984] ICJ Rep 392
40. Moser v Austria (2006) 43 EHRR 21
41. Phosphates in Morocco (Italy v France) (1938) PCIJ Rep Series A/B No 74 Prosecutor v Bosco Ntaganda (Judgment) ICC-01/04-02/06, 8 July 2019
42. Prosecutor v Germain Katanga (Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute) ICC-01/04-01/07, 7 March 2014
43. Prosecutor v Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo (Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute) ICC-01/05-01/08, 21 March 2016
44. Prosecutor v Lubanga (Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute) ICC-01/04-01/06, 14 March 2012
45. Prosecutor v Tadić (Appeal Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A, 15 July 1999
46. Settlers of German Origin in Poland (Advisory Opinion) (1923) PCIJ Rep Series B No 6
47. SS Wimbledon (UK v Germany) (1923) PCIJ Rep Series A No 1