ULUSLARARASI ADALET DİVANI’NDA GÖRÜLEN GÜNEY AFRİKA–İSRAİL DAVASINA TÜRKİYE’NİN MÜDAHİLLİK BAŞVURUSU: İSRAİL’İN OLASI SAVUNMALARINA YÖNELİK TEMEL HUKUKİ ARGÜMANLAR

Öz

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’nin, Güney Afrika’nın İsrail’e karşı açtığı ve halen Uluslararası Adalet Divanı nezdinde görülmekte olan soykırım davasına yönelik müdahale başvurusunu konu edinmektedir. Türkiye, 26 Haziran 1945 tarihli UAD Statüsü’nün 63. maddesine dayanarak davaya taraf değil, müdahil sıfatıyla katılmak üzere başvurmuş ve bu doğrultuda davacı Güney Afrika lehine iki temel hukuki argüman öne sürmüştür. Çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye’nin müdahale talebinin arkasında yatan hukuki ve siyasal gayeyi ortaya koymak ve bu başvuru çerçevesinde, İsrail’in Divan önünde gerçekleştirmesi muhtemel savunmalarına karşı hangi hukuki tezlerin ileri sürüldüğünü açıklığa kavuşturmaktır. İlk olarak, Türkiye, meşru müdafaa hakkının soykırım suçunu haklı göstermek amacıyla kullanılmasının uluslararası hukuk tarafından kabul edilemeyeceğini savunmaktadır. İkinci olarak ise, İsrail’in Gazze Şeridi’ndeki askeri operasyonlarının, bölgedeki işgalin halen devam ediyor oluşu nedeniyle, Birleşmiş Milletler Antlaşması’nın 51. maddesi uyarınca meşru müdafaa hakkı kapsamında değerlendirilemeyeceğini ileri sürmektedir. Bu çerçevede Türkiye’nin müdahalesi, Uluslararası Adalet Divanı nezdindeki yargılamada Sözleşme’nin yorumuna katkı sunarak suçun bağlamsal unsurlarına ilişkin önemli hukuki perspektifler ortaya koymayı hedeflemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Soykırım
• Soykırım Sözleşmesi
• UAD
• Davaya Müdahale
• uluslararası sorumluluk

TURKEY’S APPLICATION FOR INTERVENTION IN THE CASE OF SOUTH AFRİCA V. ISRAEL BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE: CORE LEGAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST ISRAEL’S POTENTIAL DEFENSES

Öz

This study focuses on Türkiye’s declaration of intervention before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the ongoing proceedings initiated by the Republic of South Africa against Israel concerning allegations of genocide. Türkiye has sought to participate in the case not as a party to the dispute but in the capacity of an intervening State under Article 63 of the Statute of the ICJ, dated 26 June 1945. In this context, Türkiye submitted two principal legal arguments in support of the Applicant, South Africa. The aim of this study is to examine the legal and political motivations underlying Türkiye’s intervention and to clarify the legal positions advanced by Türkiye in response to the potential defences that may be raised by Israel before the Court. First, Türkiye argues that the right of self-defence cannot be invoked under international law to justify acts amounting to genocide. Secondly, it argues that Israel’s military operations in the Gaza Strip cannot be considered as acts of self-defence within the meaning of Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, given the ongoing nature of the occupation in the territory. In this context, Türkiye’s intervention before the International Court of Justice aims not only to contribute to the interpretation of the Convention, but also to offer significant legal perspectives on the contextual elements of the crime.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Genocide
• Genocide Convention
• ICJ
• Intervention in Proceedings
• Responsibility Under International Law

Kaynakça

1. Acer, Yücel. “Türkiye’nin Soykırım Davasına Müdahilliği ve Yansımaları.” SETA, 3 Haziran 2024, https://www.setav.org/odak/odak-turkiyenin-soykirim-davasina-mudahilligi-ve-yansimalari.
2. Ahmed, Awara Hussein, ve Hemn Shawkat Ali. “The Implications of UN Security Council Resolutions in Shaping the Dynamics of the Palestinian-Israel Peace Process: The Israel-Hamas War as a Case Study.” Indonesian Journal of International Law 22, no. 2 (2025): Article 2. https://doi.org/10.17304/ijil.vol22.2.1904.
3. Akkutay, Berat Lale. Viyana Andlaşmalar Hukuku Sözleşmesi, Objektif Rejim Yaratan Andlaşma Teorisi ve Erga Omnes Yükümlülüklerin Andlaşmalarla İlişkisi Çerçevesinde Uluslararası Andlaşmaların Üçüncü Devletlere Etkisi. Ankara: Adalet Yayınevi, 2020.
4. Albanese, Francesca. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territory Occupied Since 1967. A/HRC/55/73. United Nations, 25 March 2024.https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessionsregular/session55/advance-versions/a-hrc-55-73-auv.pdf.
5. Al Jazeera English. Gaza siege a textbook case of genocide under international law, says legal expert. Youtube video, 9:03. July 21, 2024. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VHlds8YTrw.
6. Ambos, Kai. “The 2024 ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Occupied Palestinian Territory – An Introduction.” Verfassungsblog, October 9, 2024. https://verfassungsblog.de/the-2024-icj-advisory-opinion-on-the-occupied-palestinian-territory/.
7. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). Order on Declarations of Intervention, 5 June 2023. I.C.J. Reports 2023. https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/182/182-20230605-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf.
8. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar). Order on Declarations of Intervention, 3 July 2024. I.C.J. Reports 2024. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/178/178-20240703-ord-01-00-en.pdf.

9. Arsava, A. Füsun. “Soykırım Sözleşmesinin Sınırları – Ukrayna Tarafından Rusya Federasyonu Aleyhine Uluslararası Adalet Divanı Nezdinde Açılan Davada Verilen 2 Şubat 2024 Tarihli Ara Karara İlişkin Değerlendirme.” İstanbul Aydın Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 11, no. 1 (2015).
10. Barrie, George. “Third-Party State Intervention in Disputes Before the International Court of Justice: A Reassessment of Articles 62 and 63 of the ICJ Statute.” Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa 53, no. 1 (2020). https://doi.org/10.25159/0010-4051/6598
11. Brown, Chester, and Rhys Carvosso. “Chapter 29: The Interplay between Substantive and Procedural Law in the Settlement of International Disputes.” In Research Handbook on International Procedural Law. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2024. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788970792.00043
12. Hofbauer, Jane A. “Chapter 21: Intervention: Expanding the Bilateral Dispute Settlement Model of International Proceedings.” In Research Handbook on International Procedural Law. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2024.
13. International Court of Justice. Declaration of Intervention of Türkiye, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). August 7, 2024. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240807-int-01-00-en.pdf.
14. International Court of Justice. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (South Africa v. Israel). Application Instituting Proceedings, 28 December 2023. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf.
15. International Court of Justice. Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro). Judgment of 26 February 2007. I.C.J. Reports 2007.
16. International Court of Justice. Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua Intervening), Application by Nicaragua for Permission to Intervene, Judgment of 13 September 1990. ICJ Reports 1990.
17. International Court of Justice. Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Application by Honduras to Intervene, Judgment of 4 May 2011. ICJ Reports 2011.
18. International Court of Justice. “Nicaragua Withdraws Its Application for Permission to Intervene in the Proceedings.” Press release no. 2025/15, April 3, 2025. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20250304-pre-01-00-en.pdf.
19. International Court of Justice. Application of the Genocide Convention (The Gambia v. Myanmar: 7 States Intervening). Press release no. 2025/37, July 29, 2025. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/178/178-20250729-pre-01-00-en.pdf.
20. International Criminal Court. Situation in the State of Palestine. Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision No. ICC 02/17 2 Red. 5 February 2021.
21. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “President Herzog Meets with Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides.” Last modified October 21, 2023. https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/president-herzog-meets-with-cypriot-president-nikos-christodoulides-21-oct-2023.
22. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “President Herzog Meets with UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.” Last modified October 19, 2023. https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/president-herzog-meets-with-uk-prime-minister-rishi-sunak-19-oct-2023.
23. Kolb, Robert. The International Court of Justice. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2013.
24. Lewiandy, Lewiandy, Alicia Hadioetomo, ve Juan Joubert Immanuel Panelewen. “Examining Israel’s Non-Compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 2728.” Innovative: Journal of Social Science Research 4, no. 4 (2024): 14017–1431. https://doi.org/10.31004/innovative.v4i4.12329.
25. Longobardo, Marco. “Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem.” American Journal of International Law 119, no. 2 (2025): 297–305.
26. Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem. Advisory Opinion. International Court of Justice, 19 July 2024.
27. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Advisory Opinion. I.C.J. Reports 2004.
28. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States). Judgment. I.C.J. Reports 1986.
29. Miron, Alina, and Christine Chinkin. “Article 63.” In The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, edited by Andreas Zimmermann, Christian Tams, Karin Oellers-Frahm, and Christian Tomuschat, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.
30. Oda, Shigeru. The International Court of Justice Viewed from the Bench (1976–1993). Vol. 244. Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law / Recueil des cours de l’Académie de La Haye. Leiden: Brill | Nijhoff, 1993. https://doi.org/10.1163/1875-8096_pplrdc_A9789041100870_01
31. Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America). Judgment. I.C.J. Reports 2003.
32. Öğütcü, Osman. "Turkey's Legal Contribution to the South Africa v. Israel Case: An Analysis within the Framework of Article 63 of the ICJ Statute." Filistin Araştırmaları Dergisi, Haziran 2025. https://doi.org/10.34230/fiad.1650828 Palchetti, Paolo. “Opening the International Court of Justice to Third States: Intervention and Beyond.” Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 6 (2002).
33. Reuters. “France, Britain and Others Allowed to Intervene in Myanmar ICJ Genocide Case.” Reuters, July 3, 2024. https://www.reuters.com/world/france-britain-others-allowed-intervene-myanmar-icj-genocide-case-2024-07-03/.
34. Rosenne, Shabtai. The Law and Practice of the International Court, 1920–2005. Vol. III. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Schabas, William A. Genocide in International Law: The Crime of Crimes. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
35. SETA. “SETA Panelinde Türkiye’nin UAD’de İsrail’e Karşı Açılan Soykırım Davasına Müdahillik Başvurusu Ele Alındı.” SETA, August 7, 2024. https://www.setav.org/yucel-acer/seta-panelinde-turkiyenin-uadde-israile-karsi-acilan-soykirim-davasina-mudahillik-basvurusu-ele-alindi.
36. Statute of the International Court of Justice, 26 June 1945. Annex to the Charter of the United Nations. https://www.icj-cij.org/en/statute.
37. Tams, Christian J. Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
38. Tanaka, Yoshifumi. The Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
39. Thirlway, Hugh. The International Court of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
40. Thirlway, Hugh. The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: Fifty Years of Jurisprudence. Vol. I. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013
41. Thirlway, Hugh W. A. The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: Fifty Years of Jurisprudence. Vol II. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2013.
42. Twitter. Prime Minister of Israel (@IsraeliPM). “Tweet.” November 6, 2023, 1:49 p.m. https://twitter.com/IsraeliPM/status/1721525305393766829.
43. Uraz, Onur. “Uluslararası Adalet Divanı’nın Gambiya-Myanmar Davasında Soykırım Suçunun Tespiti Bakımından Karşılaşacağı Dört Temel Hukuki Soruna Dair Bir Değerlendirme.” Uluslararası Suçlar ve Tarih / International Crimes and History 22 (2021): 29-73.
44. United Nations. Charter of the United Nations, Article 51. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text.