SOYKIRIMI SUÇUNUN ÖNLENMESİ VE CEZALANDIRILMASI SÖZLEŞMESİ ÇERÇEVESİNDE DEVLETİN SORUMLULUĞU

Öz

1948 tarihli Soykırımı Önleme ve Cezalandırma Sözleşmesi, soykırım suçunun tanımını yaparak yasaklamıştır. Devletin Soykırım Sözleşmesindeki sorumluluğu, iç hukukunda Sözleşmeye uygun düzenleme yaparak soykırımı uluslararası suç olarak tanıması ve faillerin yargılanması konusunda gerekli iş birliğini yapmasıdır. Bu anlamda Soykırım Sözleşmesi taraf devletler arasında devlet başkanları dahil suçluların yargılanması ve iadesi konusunda adli iş birliğini tesis etmektedir. Soykırımın alelade cinayetler serisi olmaması, organize ve sistematik yok etme faaliyetlerini ve güçlü bir niyetlilik gerektirmesi, emir-komuta zinciri, itaat-otorite-yaptırım, ikna edici propaganda ve söylem teknikleri, etkili şiddet araçlarına gereksinim duyması nedenleriyle suçun Devlet katılımı olmadan gerçekleşmeyeceği fikrini doğurmaktadır. Bu nedenle Devletin sorumluluğu konusu soykırım suçları için farklı yorumlara neden olabilmektedir. Ancak gerek Sözleşmenin hazırlanış sürecinde gerek Uluslararası Hukuk Komisyonu’nun Devletin Sorumluluğunu belirleme çalışmalarında ve ilgili Raporlarında gerekse de literatürdeki yaygın görüşte Devletlerin Sözleşmede anılan yükümlülüklerini aşan bir yaklaşım söz konusu değildir. Tüzel kişiliklerin cezai sorumluluğu olmadığı hususu açıktır. Çalışmanın amacı Uluslararası Adalet Divanının Devlet sorumluluğuna ilişkin bir kararının yarattığı çelişkiyi ilgili hukuk metinlerini analiz ederek tartışmaktır. Hukuki analiz ve mukayese yöntemleri kullanılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Soykırım Sözleşmesi
• Devlet Sorumluluğu
• cezai sorumluluk
• Uluslararası Adalet Divanı

STATE RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE

Öz

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted in 1948, establishes the prohibition of genocide by providing its definition. The responsibility of states under this Convention involves enacting domestic legislation consistent with its provisions to recognize genocide as an international crime and to cooperate in the prosecution of perpetrators. Accordingly, the Genocide Convention facilitates judicial cooperation among state parties, facilitating the prosecution and extradition of criminals, including heads of state. Genocide requires a comprehensive plan or at least strong intentionality, a chain of command, power to enforce obedience, authority, persuasive propaganda and discourse, and effective means of violence. Therefore, it is argued that genocide cannot occur without state involvement. This notion raises questions about the role of the state in genocide. However, the state is an institutionalized abstract entity. It is not possible to discuss the will, intent to commit a crime, fault, and criminal liability of legal entities. Notably, there exists no criminal liability for states or legal entities. The aim of the study is to discuss the contradiction created by a decision of the International Court of Justice regarding state responsibility by analyzing relevant legal texts. Legal analysis and comparative methodologies have been utilized.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Genocide Convention
• State Responsibility
• International Court of Justice
• Criminal liability

Kaynakça

1. Ago, R. (1976). Fifth report on state responsibility. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2(1), 1-169.
2. Akün, V. N. (2004). Uluslararası hukukta ve Türk Hukuku’nda soykırım (jenosid) suçu. Milletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni, 24(1-2), 53-70.
3. Başkaracaoğlu, E. (2011). Uluslararası hukukta “jus cogens” (emredici kurallar) [Doktora Tezi]. İstanbul Üniversitesi.
4. Bonaf, B. I. (2009). The relationship between state and individual responsibility for international crimes. Martinus Nıjhoff Publisdhers.
5. Case Barcelona Traction. Light anti Power Company. Limited. Second Phase. Judgement. ICJ Reports 1970. Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crime of Genocide (Further Requests fort he Indication of Provisional Measures). Separate Opinion of Lauterpacht. ICJ Reports 1993.
6. Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of Congo. Jurisdiction of the Court and Admissibility of the Application (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Rwanda). Judgement. 3 February 2006.
7. Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Preliminary Objections. ICJ Judgment of 11 July 1996. 617. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/91/091-19960711-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf
8. Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Judgment. 26 February 2007.

9. Cassese, A. (2007). The Nicaragua and Tadic tests revisited in the light of the ICJ judgment on genocide in Bosnia. European Journal of International Law, 18(4), 649-668. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chm034
10. Cassese, A. (2010). The character of the violated obligation. C. James, P. Alain ve S. Olleson (Ed.), The law of international responsibility (s. 445-471) içinde. Oxford University Press.
11. Crawford, J. ve Olleson, S. (2003). The nature and forms of international responsibility. M. D. Evans (Ed.), International law (s. 445-471) içinde. Oxford University Press.
12. Crawford, J. (2010). Investment arbitration and the ILC articles on state responsibility. ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, 25(1), 127–199. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chm034
13. Çeçen, A. (1999). İnsan hakları rehberi. Bilim Yayınları.
14. Danilenko, G. M. (1991). International jus cogens: Issues of law-making. European Journal of International Law, 2(1), 42-55. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejıl/2.1.42
15. Doğan, İ. ve Özdemir, O. (2015). Yaşam hakkı. İ. Doğan (Ed.), İnsan hakları hukuku (s. 409-449) içinde. Astana Yayınları.
16. Doğan, İ. (2016). Devletler hukuku. Astana Yayınları.
17. Dönmezer, S. ve Erman, S. (1994). Nazari ve tatbiki ceza hukuku genel kısım (Cilt IV). Der Yayınları.
18. Drost, P. N. (1959). Genocide – United Nations legislation on ınternational criminal law. Leyden: A. W. Sythoff.
19. Erkiner, H. H. (2010). Devletin haksız fiilden kaynaklanan uluslararası sorumluluğu. Levha Yayınları.
20. Ertuğrul, Ü. E. (2001). Uluslararası hukukun emredici normlarından doğan yükümlülük ihlallerinden devletin sorumluluğu [Doktora Tezi]. Gazi Üniversitesi.
21. First report on State responsibility. James Crawford. DOCUMENT A/CN.4/490 and Add. 1–7. International Law Commission. Documents of Fiftieth Session. Geneva. (20 April-12 June 1998). New York. 27 July-14 August 1998. https://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_490.pdf
22. Hafızoğulları, Z. (1996). Ceza normu, normatif bir yapı olarak ceza hukuku düzeni. US-A Yayıncılık.
23. Hurlock, W. L. (1997). The international court of justice: Effectively providing a long overdue remedy for ending state-sponsored genocide (Bosnia-Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia). American University Journal of International Law and Policy, 12(2), 298-328.
24. Kadelbach, S. (2005). Jus Cogens, obligations Erga Omnes and other rules – the identification of fundamental norms. C. Tomuschat ve J. M. Thouvenin (Ed.), The fundamental rules of the international legal order: Jus Cogens and obligations Erga Omnes (s. 21-40) içinde. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
25. Kreß, C. (2006). The crime of genocide under international law. International Criminal Law Review, 6, 461–502.
26. Lemkin, R. (1944). Axis rule in occupied europe: laws of occupation, analysis of government, proposal for redress. Columbia Universiy Press.
27. Malekian, F. (2020). Orchestrating diversity ın ınternational criminal justice. Nova Science Publish.
28. Meray, L. S. (1962). Devletler hukukuna giriş. Sevinç Matbaası.
29. Meron, T. (1998). Classification of armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia: Nicaragua’s fallout. The American Journal of International Law, 92(2), 236-242. https://doi.org/10.2307/2998032
30. Milanovic, M. (2006). State responsibility for genocide. The European Journal of International Law, 17(3), 553-604. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chl019
31. Odman, T. (1996). Eski Yugoslavya ile ilgili uluslararası ceza mahkemesinin kuruluşu ve yasal dayanağı. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 45(1), 131-151. https://doi.org/10.1501/Hukfak_0000000669
32. Özen, M. (2003). Türk ceza kanunu tasarısının tüzel kişilerin ceza sorumluluğuna ilişkin hükümlerine bir bakış. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 52(1), 63-88. https://doi.org/10.1501/Hukfak_0000000543
33. Pazarcı, H. (2021). Uluslararası hukuk. Turhan Yayınları.
34. Pellet, A. (2010). The definition of responsibility in international law. C. James, P. Alain ve S. Olleson (Ed.), The law of international responsibility (s. 3-16) içinde. Oxford University Press.
35. Pirim, C. Z. (2012). Uluslararası sorumluluk hukukunda devletlerin ağırlaştırılmış sorumluluğu: Kuramsal bir değerlendirme. Public and Private International Law Bulletin, 32(2), 147-182.
36. Quigley, J. (2006). The genocide convention. An international law analysis. Ashgate Publishing Limited.
37. Ragazzi, M. (1998). The concept of international obligations erga omnes. Clarendon Press.
38. Report of the Commission to the General Assembly on the work of its fifty-third session. Yearbook of the International Law Commission- 2001. V.2 Part Two. https://legal.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/english/ilc_2001_v2_p2.pdf. 142. Article 58 Commentary Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Fiftieth Session. 20 April-12 June 1998. 27 July-14 August 1998'. para. 264; First Report on State Responsibility. Mr James Crawford. Special Rapporteur'. note 73. para. 63 vd.
39. Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fiftieth session. 20 April -12 June and 27 July - 14 August 1998. Official Records of the General Assembly. Fifty-third session. Supplement No.10. UN Doc. A/53/10
40. Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session. (6 May-26 July 1996). Official Records of the General Assembly. Fifty-first session. Supplement No.10. 1996. Vol II (2). Doc. A/51/10. https://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/reports/a_51_10.pdf. Chapter II. m. 4.
41. Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Advisory Opinion. ICJ Reports. 28 May 1951. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/12/012-19510410-ORA-01-00-BI.pdf
42. Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001. https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/9_6_2001.pdf
43. Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. Comments and Information Received From Governments: Report of the Secretary-General. 9 March 2007. UN Doc. A/62/63. https://www.un.org/law/cod/sixth/62/provisional.htm
44. Roma Statute of The International Criminal Court. 14. https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/RS-Eng.pdf
45. Schabas, W. A. (2000). Genocide in ınternational law. Cambridge University Press.
46. Schabas, W. A. (2001). Was genocide committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina? First judgments of the international criminal tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Fordham International Law Journal, 25(1), 21-53.
47. Scobbie, I. (2002). The invocation of responsibility for the breach of ‘obligations under peremptory norms of general international law. European Journal of International Law, 13(5), s. 1201-1220.
48. Shaw, M. N. (2018). Uluslararası hukuk. (İ. Kaya ve Y. Acer Çev.). Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Yayınları. (Orijinal eserin basım tarihi 2003).
49. Şen, S. T. (2010). Uluslararası hukukta soykırım, etnik temizlik ve saldırı. 12 Levha Yayınları.
50. Tams, C. J. (2005). Enforcing obligations erga omnes in international law. Cambridge University Press.
51. Tezcan, D., Erdem, M. R. ve Önok, R. (2022). Teorik ve pratik ceza özel hukuku. Seçkin Yayınları.
52. The Prosecutor v Delalic and Others. Judgement. Case IT-96-21-T. 16 Nov 1998, https://www.refworld.org/cases,ICTY,4148380e4.html
53. The Prosecutor v. Goran Jelisic. Judgement. IT-95-10. T. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). 14 December 1999. https://www.icty.org/x/cases/jelisic/tjug/en
54. The Prosecutor v. Krstic. Judgement. ICTY. IT-98-33-A. 19 April 2004. https://www.icty.org/x/cases/krstic/acjug/en/krs-aj040419e.pdf
55. Prosecutor v. Milan Simic (Sentencing Judgement), IT-95-9/2-S, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 17 October 2002, par 34., https://www.refworld.org/cases,ICTY,4148380e4.html
56. The Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovac and Zoran Vukovic (Trial Judgment), IT-96-23-T & IT-96-23/1-T, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 22 February 2001, para 466, https://www.refworld.org/cases,ICTY,3ae6b7560.html
57. The Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic. Case IT-98-33-A. 2 August 2001. https://cld.irmct.org/assets/filings/Judgement-Krstic.pdf
58. The Prosecutor v. Tadic. ICTY. Appeals Chamber. Yargı Yetkisine İlişkin Temyiz Kararı. IT-94-1-AR72. 2 October 1995. para. 97
59. Third Report of G.G. Fitzmaurice. Special Rapporteur. Treaty Law. Document: A/CN.4/115 and Corr. 1. CIDA 1958. Vol. II
60. Turhan, F. (2005). Yeni Türk Ceza Kanunu’na göre uluslararası suçların cezalandırılması. Hukuki Perspektifler Dergisi, 3, 23-54.
61. United Nations (2001). Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. with commentaries. 2001. (Article 40). s. 112. para. 2.
62. United Nations (2018). Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. With commentaries 2001.
63. United Nations Conference On The Law Of Treaties. First and second sessions Vienna. 26 March-24 May 1968 and 9 April-22 May 1969 Official Records Documents of the Conference. UN. New York. 1971
64. United Nations General Assembly (1947, 21 November). Res.174(II). A/3623. Report of the International Law- Law Commission Covering the Work of its Ninth Session. 23 April-28 June 1957. Yearbook of the International Law Commission. Vol.II. 1957. s.131. https://legal.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/english/ilc_1957_v2.pdf
65. United Nations International Law Commission (53rd sess. 2001. Geneva). Drafting Committee. State responsibility: titles and texts of draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts / adopted by the Drafting Committee on 2nd reading. A/CN.4/L.602/Rev.1. 26 July 2001. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/439777?ln=en
66. Uzun, E. (2007). Milletlerarası hukuka aykırı eylemlerinden dolayı devletlerin sorumluluğu. Beta Yayınları.