Uluslararası İnsancıl Hukukta Askeri Gereklilik ve İnsani Mülahazalar Arasındaki Denge

Öz

Askeri gereklilik ilkesi, Silahlı Çatışmalar Hukuku’nun temel bileşenlerinden biridir. İlke, meşru bir askeri amaca ulaşmak için gerekli olan ve Uluslararası İnsancıl Hukuk tarafından yasaklanmayan davranışlara izin vermektedir. Silahlı çatışma durumunda tek meşru amaç, çatışmanın diğer taraflarının askeri yeteneklerini zayıflatmaktır. Bu nedenle, ilke kapsamında silahlı çatışmaya taraf olanların yalnızca meşru amaca ulaşmak için gerekli olan savaş yöntem ve araçları kullanması öngörülmektedir. Ancak ilke, Uluslararası İnsancıl Hukuk uyarınca yasaklanan davranışların gerçekleştirilmesine ve ilgili hukukun herhangi bir kuralın uygulanmasının göz ardı edilmesine olanak tanımamaktadır. Dolayısıyla, Uluslararası İnsancıl Hukuk, askeri gereklilik ile savaş yöntem ve araçlarına belirli sınırlamalar getiren insani mülahazalar arasında bir denge oluşturmakta ve savaşın acımasız gerçekliğinde insani değerlerin korunmasına yardımcı olmaktadır. Bu bağlamda çalışmanın temel amacını; askeri gereklilik ilkesinin gerçek değerinin ve uygulamasının açıklaması, askeri uygulamada ne şekilde referans noktası olduğunun ve Uluslararası İnsancıl Hukuk’un askeri gereklilik ve insani mülahazalar arasında gerçekçi ve anlamlı bir denge kurduğunun analiz edilmesi oluşturmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Silahlı çatışma
• Uluslararası İnsancıl Hukuk
• askeri gereklilik ilkesi
• insani mülahazalar
• savaş yöntemleri ve araçları

THE BALANCE BETWEEN MILITARY NECESSITY AND HUMANITARIAN CONSIDERATIONS IN INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

Öz

The principle of military necessity is one of the fundamental components of the Law of Armed Conflicts. The principle permits conduct that is necessary to achieve a legitimate military aim and is not prohibited by International Humanitarian Law. In a situation of armed conflict, the only legitimate aim is to weaken the military capabilities of the other parties to the conflict. Therefore, within the scope of the principle, parties to an armed conflict are expected to use only the methods and means of war that are necessary to achieve the legitimate aim. However, the principle does not allow conduct prohibited under International Humanitarian Law to be carried out and the application of any rules of relevant law to be disregarded. International Humanitarian Law therefore creates a balance between military necessity and humanitarian considerations that impose certain limitations on the methods and means of warfare, helping to preserve human values in the brutal reality of war. In this context, the main purpose of the study is; to provide an explanation of the true value and application of the principle of military necessity, an analysis on how to reach a reference point in military operations and how International Humanitarian Law establishes a realistic and meaningful balance between military necessity and humanitarian considerations.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Armed conflicts
• international humanitarian law
• principle of military necessity
• principle of humanity
• methods and means of warfare.

Kaynakça

1. 12 Ağustos 1949 Tarihli Cenevre Sözleşmeleri ve Protokolleri (Cenevre Sözleşmeleri), Haz. Melike Batur Yamaner vd. İstanbul: Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayınları No:42, 2008.
2. Aksar, Yusuf. “Birleşmiş Milletler Palmer (Mavi Marmara) Raporu ve Uluslararası Hukuk”. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi 9(33), (Bahar 2012): 23-40.
3. Aksar, Yusuf. Teori ve Uygulamada Uluslararası Hukuk II (4. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık, 2017.
4. Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Government of Israel et. al., HCJ 2056/04, Supreme Court, 20 June 2004.
5. Bilgin, Kıvılcım R. ve Türedi, Gülayşe Ü. “Carl Von Clausewitz”. Erhan Büyükakıncı, (ed.), Savaş Kuramları. Ankara: Adres Yayınları, 2015.
6. Bourke, John. “Kant's Doctrine of "Perpetual Peace". Philosophy 17, no. 68 (1942): 324-333.
7. Chavannes, Esther and Arkhipov-Goya, Amit. “Towards Responsible Autonomy The Ethics of Robotic and Autonomous Systems in a Military Context”. The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies 2019: 1-83.
8. Clausewitz, Carl Von. “Savaşın Temel İlkeleri”. Politik ve Askeri Savaş Sanatı I (İkinci Baskı). Ankara: İlk Eriş Yayınları, 2014.

9. Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 29 July 1899. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/150 (erişim 05.05.2020).
10. Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/195 (erişim 05.05.2020).
11. Crawford, Emily and Pert, Alison. International Humanitarian Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
12. Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of certain Explosive Projectiles Saint Petersburg, 29 November/11 December 1868, https://www.weaponslaw.org/assets/downloads/1868_St_Petersburg_Declaration.pdf (Erişim 05.05.2020).
13. Dinstein, Yoram. “Military Necessity”. Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law [MPIL], September 2015.
14. Dinstein, Yoram. The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
15. Done at Rome on 17 July 1998, in force on 1 July 2002, United Nations, Treaty. Series, 2187(38544), Depositary: Secretary-General of the United. https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/RS-Eng.pdf (erişim 05.05.2020).
16. Doswald-Beck, Louise. “International Humanitarian Law and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons”. International Review of the Red Cross (1961 - 1997), 37(316), (1997): 35-55.
17. Downey, William Gerald. “The Law of War and Military Necessity”. American Journal of International Law 47/2, 1953: 251-262.
18. Forrest, Craig. “The Doctrine of Military Necessity and the Protection of Cultural Property During Armed Conflicts”. California Western International Law Journal 37, no. 2 (2007): 177-219.
19. Germany, Federal Ministry of Defence, Joint Service Regulation (ZDv) 15/2, Law of Armed Conflict Manual, 2013. Greenwood, Christopher. “Historical Development and Legal Basis”. Dieter Fleck (ed.), The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law (Second Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
20. Handbook on International Rules Governing Military Operations, Geneva: ICRC, December 2013. Hayashi, Nobuo. “Requirements of Military Necessity in International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law”. Boston University International Law Journal, 28/1 (2010): 41-139.
21. Henckaerts, Jean-Marie and Doswald-Beck, Louise. Uluslararası İnsancıl Teamül (Örf-Adet) Hukuku Cilt: 1: Kurallar. (Yay. haz. Emre Öktem vd.). (İstanbul: Beta Basım Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayınları 66, 2005).
22. Horton, Scott. “Kriegsraison or Military Necessity? The Bush Administration’s Wilhelmine Attitude Towards the Conduct of War”. Fordham International Law Journal 30, no. 3 2006: 576-598.
23. ICJ, Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 9 July 2004.
24. Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field (Lieber Code), 24 April 1863, https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/110 (erişim 05.05.2020).
25. Johansen, Sigrid Redse. The Military Commander's Necessity: The Law of Armed Conflict and its Limits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.
26. Johnson, David E. Hard Fighting Israel in Lebanon and Gaza. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2001.
27. Keck, Trevor A. “Not All Civilians Are Created Equal: The Principle of Distinction, The Question of Direct Participation In Hostilities And Evolving Restraints On The Use Of Force In Warfare”. Military Law Review 211, Spring 2012.
28. Krishnan, Armin. Killer Robots Legality and Ethicality of Autonomous Weapons. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2009.
29. Kuran, Selami ve Türkay Kahraman, F. Şeyda. “Silahlı Çatışmalarda Kültürel Varlıkların Korunması Hukuki Rejiminde Bir İstisna Olarak “Askeri Gereklilik”: Antlaşmalarla Getirilen Düzenlemeler”, Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi 23, no. 1 (2017): 89-158.
30. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion ICJ, (1996).
31. Melzer, Nils. International Humanitarian Law: A Comprehensive Introduction. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross, 2016.
32. Özer, Adem ve Taşdemir, Fatma (ed.), Stepler, Dinyeper ve Barut: Rusya-Ukrayna Savaşı’nın Uluslararası Hukuk Veçhesi. Ankara: Adalet Yayınevi, 2023.
33. Press, Michael. “Of Robots and Rules: Autonomous Weapon Systems in The Law of Armed Conflict”. Georgetown Journal of International Law 48, 2017: 1337-1366.
34. Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga (Judgment pursuant to article 74 of the Statute), ICC-01/04-01/07, International Criminal Court, 7 March 2014.
35. Prosecutor v. Milan Martic (Judgment), IT-95-11-T, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 12 June 2007.
36. Sandoz, Yves, Swinarski, Christophe and Zimmermann, Bruno (eds.). Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross, 1987.
37. Schmitt, Michael N. “Military Necessity and Humanity in International Humanitarian Law: Preserving the Delicate Balance”. Virginia Journal of International Law 50, no. 4 (2010): 795-839.
38. Shimoda case (Compensation claim against Japan brought by the residents of Hiroshmina & Nagasaki), Tokyo District Court, 7 December 1963.
39. Solis, Gary D. The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
40. Supreme Court of Israel, Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel, Case No. HCJ 769/02, 13 December 2006.
41. Supreme Court of United States, 2023, https://www.supremecourt.gov/ (Erişim 05.05.2023).
42. The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, US Navy, US Marine Corps and US Coast Guard, NWP 1-14M/MCTP 11-10B/COMDTPUB P5800.7A, 2017 (US Commander’s Handbook).
43. Thürer, Daniel. International Humanitarian Law: Theory, Practice, Context. Leiden: Les, Brill, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers Publishing, 2011.
44. UK Military of Defence, The Joint Doctrine and Concepts Centre (JDCC): The Joint Service Manual of The Law of Armed Conflict, 2004.
45. UNGA/HRC/12/48 (25 September 2009).
46. UNGA/HRC/3/2 (23 November 2006).
47. US v. Wilhelm List et al., The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Vol. VIII, 1949.
48. US, The Department of Defense Law of War Manual, June 2015 (Updated July 2023). (Washington: Office of General Counsel Department of Defence, 2023).
49. US, The Department of Defense Law of War Manual. Washington: The Department of Defence June 2015, updated May 2016.
50. Venturini, Gabriella. “Necessity in the Law of Armed Conflict and in International Criminal Law”. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 41 (2011): 45-78.
51. Vincze, Viola. “Taming the Untameable: The Role of Military Necessity in Constraining Violence”. ELTE Law Journal 2, no. 1 (2016): 93-117.
52. Vincze, Viola. “The Role of Customary Principles of International Humanitarian Law in Environmental Protection”. Pécs Journal of International and European Law (II), (2017): 19-39.
53. Vogel, Ryan J. “Drone Warfare and the Law of Armed Conflict”. Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 39, no. 1 (2011): 101-138.