DEVLETLERİN ÖZEN YÜKÜMLÜLÜĞÜ İLKESİ BAĞLAMINDA DENİZLERDE GÖÇMENLERİ KORUMA GÖREVİ

Öz

Göç, bir göçmenin yolculuğunu kapsadığı kadar birçok devleti ve uluslararası aktörü de içine alan ulus ötesi bir olgudur. Son dönemde artmakta olan kitlesel göç hareketi ile birlikte kadınlar ve çocuklar dahil olmak üzere birçok insanın uygun olmayan araçlar ile (tekne, şişme bot) seyahat etmesi sonucu binlerce mülteci ve göçmen denizlerde hayatını kaybetmektedir. Bu makalede, uluslararası insan hakları hukukunun pozitif özen yükümlülüğü ilkesi bağlamında denizlerde göçmenlere (düzensiz göçmen ya da sığınmacılar) karşı koruma görevlerinin yerine getirilmemesi sebebiyle birden fazla devletin sorumluluğunun olabileceği analiz edilmektedir. Bu analiz, Uluslararası Mülteci Hukuku, Deniz Hukuku ve İnsan Hakları Hukuku arasındaki ilişki ile özen yükümlülüğünün sınırları bağlamında devletlerin göçmenleri koruma sorumluluğu ve denizlerde geri gönderilmemenin ülke dışı etkisi kapsamında değerlendirilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Göçmen
• Uluslararası Mülteci Hukuku
• Uluslararası Deniz Hukuku
• İnsan Hakları Hukuku
• denizler
• Geri gönderilmeme ilkesi
• Özen yükümlülüğü

The Duty of Protecting Migrants at Sea in the Context of the Principle of Due Di̇li̇gence

Öz

Migration is a transnational phenomenon that includes many states and international actors as well as encompassing an immigrant’s journey. With the recent increasing mass migration movement, many people, including women and children, travel by unsuitable vehicles (boats, inflatable boats) and thousands of refugees and migrants die in the seas. This article analyses that plurality of states have the responsibility of duty to protect migrants (irregular migrants or asylum seekers) at sea within the context of the positive due diligence principle of international human rights law. This analysis is evaluated the extraterritorial effect of the duty to protect migrants and non-refoulement at sea in the context of the relationship between International Refugee Law, Law of the Sea and Human Rights Law and the limits of the due diligence.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Migrant
• International Refugee Law
• Law of the Sea
• Human Rights Law
• sea
• non-refoulment principle
• due diligence

Kaynakça

1. AİHM, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’ne Ek 4 No.lu Protokol’ün 4. Maddesine İlitkin Rehber: Yabancıların Topluca Sınır Dışı Edilmeleri Yasağı, Avrupa Konseyi, (2020) 5 Erişim Tarihi: 12.03.2021.
2. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (B.H. v. S.M.), Judgment, 2007 I.C.J. 43.
3. Arbour, L. ‘The Responsibility to Protect as a Duty of Care in International Law and Practice’, (2008) 34 Review of International Studies 445–458.
4. Asady ve diğerleri/Slovakya, (Başvuru no. 24917/15, AİHM, Karar tarihi: 24 Mart 2020).
5. Avrupa Birliği Temel Haklar Ajansı, Sığınma, Sınırlar ve Göç ile ilgili Avrupa Hukuku El Kitabı (Avrupa Konseyi, 2014)
6. Bankovic and others v. Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom, (Application No. 52207/99, Judgement of 12 December 2001).
7. Barnes, R., ‘Refugee Law at Sea’, (2004) 53 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 48–61.
8. Barnidge, R. P., ‘The Due Diligence Principle under International Law’, 8 International Community Law Review (2006) 81–122.

9. BBC News, ‘Libya given migrant patrol boats’, 15 May 2009, Erişim Tarihi: 03.03.2021.
10. BM Deniz Hukuku Sözleşmesi/United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 10 December 1982, unts 1833. Türkçe metni için bakınız: Erişim Tarihi: 02.03.2021.
11. Bonnitcha J. and McCorquodale, R., ‘The Concept of “Due Diligence” in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’, (2017) 28(3) EUR. J. INT’L L. 899.
12. Coomans, F. and Kamminga, M. T., Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties (Intersentia, Antwerp- Oxford, 2004).
13. Uluslararası Haksız Fiillerden Ötürü Devletin Uluslararası Sorumluluğu Taslak Metin /Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts with Commentaries 2001, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, Erişim Tarihi: 12.02.2021.
14. Ertürk, Y., ‘The Due Diligence Standard as a Tool for the Elimination of Violence Against Women’, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2006/61 (Jan. 20, 2006).
15. Fallon, F., “’We were left in the sea’: asylum seekers forced off in Lesbos”, (19 March 2021) The Guardian, available at: Erişim Tarihi: 18.04.2021
16. French, D. and Stephens T. (Rapporteurs), International Law Association Study Group on Due Diligence in International Law, ILA Study Group, First Report, 7 March 2014.
17. Giuffré, M., “Access to Asylum at Sea? Non-refoulement and a Comprehensive Approach to Extraterritorial Human Rights Obligations”, in Violeta Moreno-Lax and Efthymios Papastavridis (eds.), Boat Refugees’ and Migrants at Sea: A Comprehensive Approach ( Brill Nijhoff, 2017) 248-275.
18. Goodwin-Gill, G. S., “Setting the Scene: Refugees, Asylum Seekers, and Migrants at Sea–the Need for a Long-term, Protection-Centred Vision”, in Violeta Moreno-Lax, and Efthymios Papastavridis (eds.), Boat Refugees’ and Migrants at Sea: A Comprehensive Approach (Brill Nijhoff, 2017) 17-31.
19. Goodwin-Gill, G. S., ‘International refugee law: Where it comes from, and where it’s going’ (2017) 45 Int’l J. Legal Info. 24.
20. Guilfoyle, D., “Transnational crime and the rule of law at sea: responses to maritime migration and piracy compared”, in Violeta Moreno-Lax and Efthymios Papastavridis (eds.), ‘Boat Refugees’ and Migrants at Sea: A Comprehensive Approach, (Brill Nijhoff, 2017) 169-196.
21. Hathaway, J. C. M., The rights of refugees under international law (Cambridge University Press, 2005).
22. Hathaway, J. C. and Foster, M., The Law of Refugee Status (Cambridge University Press, 2014).
23. Heller, C., Pezzani, L. and Studio, S., ‘Forensic Oceanography. Report on the “Left-To-Die Boat”’, , Erişim Tarihi: 03.03.2021.
24. Heschl, L., “Extraterritorial Immigration Control Measures by EU Member States”, in Lisa Heschl (edt.), Protecting the Rights of Refugees Beyond European Borders: Establishing Extraterritorial Legal Responsibilities (Intersentia, 2018) 47-140.
25. Hessbruegge, J. A., ‘The Historical Development of the Doctrines of Attribution and Due Diligence in International Law’, (2004) 36 N.Y.U. J. INT’L L. & POL. 265.
26. Hirsi Jamaa ve diğerleri / İtalya (Başvuru no. 27765/09, AİHM, Karar tarihi: 23 Şubat 2012), (Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy, Application No.27765/09, ECtHR, Judgement of 23 February 2012).
27. Human Rights Watch, ‘Pushed Back, Pushed Around – Italy’s Forced Return of Boat Migrants and Asylum Seekers, Libya’s Mistreatment of Migrants and Asylum Seekers’, Sept. 2009, Erişim Tarihi: 03.03.2021.
28. International Court of Justice, Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, (judgement of 26 February 2007).
29. International Organization for Migration, ‘December 2020 update - NGO ships involved in search and rescue in the Mediterranean and legal proceedings against them’ Erişim Tarihi: 12.02.2021.
30. International Organization for Migration, Missing Migrants Project (Web Page) Erişim tarihi: 12.02.2021.
31. Kamminga, M. T., ‘“Due diligence” Mania: The Misguided Introduction of an Extraneous Concept into Human Rights Discourse’, in Ingrid Westendorp (ed.), The Women’s Convention Turned 30 (Maastricht Faculty of Law Working Paper No. 2011/07, 2012) 407-417.
32. Kim, S., “Non-refoulement and extraterritorial jurisdiction: State sovereignty and migration controls at sea in the European context” (2017) 30(1) Leiden journal of international law 49-70.
33. Komp, L. M., “The Duty to Assist Persons in Distress: An Alternative Source of Protection against the Return of Migrants and Asylum Seekers to the High Seas?”, in Violeta Moreno-Lax and Efthymios Papastavridis (eds.), ‘Boat Refugees’ and Migrants at Sea: A Comprehensive Approach, (Brill Nijhoff, 2017), 222-247.
34. Mazzeschi, R. P. ‘The Due Diligence Rule and the Nature of the International Responsibility of States’, (1992) 35 German Yearbook of International Law, 9–51.
35. McKErnan, B., “Greece accused of ‘shocking’ illegal pushback against refugees at sea” (26 April 2021) The Guardian, available at: Erişim Tarihi: 28.04.2021.
36. MCNEILL, W. H., ‘Human Migration in Historical Perspective’, (1984) 10 (1) Population and Development Review, 1-18.
37. Mediterranean: Dead and Missing at Sea, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Erişim tarihi: 12.02.2021.
38. Medvedyev ve diğerleri / Fransa, (Application no. 3394/03, Judgment of 29 Mart 2010).
39. Milanovic, M., Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties: Law, Principles, and Policy, (Oxford University Press, 2011)
40. Moreno-Lax, V., ‘Seeking Asylum in the Mediterranean: Against a Fragmentary Reading of EU Member States’ Obligations Accruing at Sea’, (2011) 23 International Journal of Refugee Law 181.
41. M.S.S v Belgium and Greece, (Application No. 30696/09, Judgment of 21 January 2011).
42. N.D ve N.T / İspanya kararı (Başvuru no. 8675/15, AİHM Karar tarihi: 13 Şubat 2020) (N.D and N.T v. Spain, App. No. 8675/15, ECtHR Judgement given of 13 February 2020)
43. North, A. M., ‘Extraterritorial Effect of Non-Refoulement’, The International Association of Refugee Law Judges World Conference, 7–9 September 2011, < https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/557030f64.pdf> Erişim Tarihi: 22.03.2021.
44. Osman v. UK, (Application No. 23452/94, Judgment of 28 October 1998).
45. Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom, (Application No. 8139/09, Judgment of 17 January 2012).
46. ÖNER, A. Ş.,“Göç Çalışmalarında Temel Kavramlar”, in Aslı Ş. ÖNER ve Gülfer Ihlamur Öner (edt.), Küreselleşme Çağında Göç: Kavramlar, Tartışmalar (İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2012) 13-27
47. ÖNGÖR, S., Coğrafya Terimleri Sözlüğü, (Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları, 1980) , Erişim Tarihi: 16.02.2017.
48. Papanicolopulu, I., ‘Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy. Application No. 27765/09’ (2013) 107(2) American Journal of International Law, 417-423.
49. Remarks by Peter D. Sutherland, UN Special Representative for International Migration Before the United Nations Security Council, May 11, 2015, Erişim Tarihi: 12.02.2021.
50. Sınıraşan Örgütlü Suçlara Karşı BM Sözleşmesine Ek Kara, Deniz ve Hava Yoluyla Göçmen Kaçakçılığı Karşı Protokol, 5 Kasım 2000, UNTS 2241.
51. Smith, H., “Cyprus rebuked for ‘violent’ pushbacks of boats carrying asylum seekers”, (18 March 2021) The Guardian, available at: < https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/18/watchdog-criticises-cyprus-treatment-asylum-seekers> Erişim Tarihi: 18.04.2021.
52. Soykırımı Önleme ve Cezalandırma Sözleşmesi (Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, opened for signature Dec. 9, 1948, 78 U.N.T.S. 277, yürürlülük tarihi: 12 Ocak 1951).
53. Stalker, C., ‘Jurisdiction’, in M.D. Evans (ed.), International Law (4th edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014) 309–335.
54. Stoyanova, V., ‘Causation between State Omission and Harm within the Framework of Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2018) 18 Human Rights Law Review 309-346.
55. The Haitian Centre for Human Rights et al v. United States, Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, Decision as to the merits of case 10.675 13 March 1997, Report No. 51/96.
56. Trevisanut, S., ‘Is There a Right to Be Rescued At Sea? A Constructive View’, 4 Questions of International Law (June 2014) 3–15.
57. ------‘The Principle of Non-Refoulement And the De-Territorialization of Border Control at Sea’(2014) 27(3) Leiden Journal of International Law, 661-675.
58. UN Human Rights Committee, ‘General Comment No. 31: The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant’,
59. U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13 (May 26, 2004).
60. UN High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR Note on the Principle of Non-Refoulement, November 1997, Erişim Tarihi: 22.03.2021.
61. UNHCR, “Follow-up from UNHCR on Italy’s push-backs” (2009) Briefing notes, Erişim Tarihi: 02.03.2021.
62. UNHCR Press Releases, ‘Follow-up from UNHCR on Italy’s push-backs’, 12 May 2009, Erişim Tarihi: 03.03.2021.
63. UNHCR Press Releases, ‘UNHCR deeply concerned over returns from Italy to Libya’, 7 May 2009, Erişim Tarihi: 03.03.2021.
64. UNHCR, ‘Note on international protection’ (13 September 2001) a/ac.96/951.
65. UNSC Resolution 2240 (9 October 2015) un Doc. s/res/2240. Available at: Erişim Tarihi: 22.02.2021.
66. Xhavara ve Diğerleri / İtalya ve Arnavutluk, Başvuru no. 39473/98, Karar Tarihi: 11 Ocak 2001.
67. Velásquez- Rodriguez v. Honduras, Judgment, Inter-American Court of Human Rights Series C No. 4 (29 July 1988).
68. 1974 tarihli Denizde Can Güvenliği Uluslararası Sözleşmesi/International Convention on Salvage, 28 April 1989, UNTS. 1953.
69. 1979 Denizde Arama ve Kurtarma Uluslararası Sözleşmesi/International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 27 April 1979, UNTS. 1403.
70. 1989 Uluslararası Kurtarma Sözleşmesi/International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1 November 1974, UNTS. 1184.