Avrupa Birliği’ne Üyelik Yolunda Türkiye’nin Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesini Kuran Roma Statüsüne Taraf Olmasının Yeri

Öz

2002 yılında yürürlüğe giren ve Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi’ni kuran Roma Statüsü’ne Türkiye hala taraf olmamıştır. Ancak, Roma Statüsü’ne taraf olunması Avrupa Birliği müktesebatının bir parçası olduğundan AB; Türkiye’nin Birliğe katılmadan önce bu kriteri yerine getirmesini beklemektedir. Bu çalışmada Genişleme Politikası’nda AB’nin, aday ülkelerin Ortak Dış ve Güvenlik Politikası alanındaki mevzuatına ve bu kapsamda Roma Statüsü’ne taraf olunmasına ilişkin kurallarına uyum sağlanmasına yaklaşımı incelenecektir. AB’nin bu konudaki yaklaşımı çerçevesinde Türkiye’ye ilişkin tutumu açıklanacak ve Türkiye’nin Statü’ye taraf olmayı tercih etmemesinin AB’ye katılımına muhtemel etkisi incelenecektir. Böylece, AB’nin Genişleme Politikası’nda Ortak Dış ve Güvenlik Politikası’na ve bu kapsamda Roma Statüsü’ne taraf olunmasına ilişkin AB mevzuatına aday ülkelerin uyumuna yönelik esnek yaklaşımı nedeniyle, Türkiye AB’ye katılım anında Statü’ye taraf olmasa dahi; Ortak Dış ve Güvenlik Müzakere Faslı’nda AB mevzuatına yeterli derecede uyum sağlaması halinde bu durumun Birliğe katılımına engel teşkil etmeyebileceğinin gösterilmesi amaçlanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi
• Roma Statüsü
• Ortak Dış ve Güvenlik Politikası
• AB Genişleme Politikası

The Role of Turkey's Accession to the Rome Statute Establishing the International Criminal Court in its Path to the EU Membership

Öz

Turkey is not yet party to the Roma Statute establishing the International Criminal Court, which entered into force in 2002. Turkey, however, is expected to fulfil this criterion prior to EU accession as being party to the Rome Statute is part of the EU acquis communautaire. This study will initially explain EU’s approach to candidate countries’ alignment with the Common and Foreign Security (CFSP) acquis and ‘’being party to the Rome Statute’’ in particular within EU Enlargement Policy. This will contribute to clarify its approach towards Turkey’s accession to the Rome Statute and thus to analyse the expected results of Turkey’s choice of non-accession for its EU membership. In this way, this article strives to demonstrate that Turkey’s fundamental and satisfactory alignment with the CFSP acquis could be considered adequate for EU accession, ruling out its choice of non-accession to the Rome Satute, due to EU’s flexible approach to alignment with the CFSP acquis and to the Rome Statute accession in particular.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• International Criminal Court
• Roma Statute
• Common Foreign and Security Policy
• EU Enlargement Policy

Kaynakça

1. Ali Emrah Bozbayındır, Turkey and the International Criminal Court: A Substantive Criminal Law Analysis in the Context of the Principle of Complementarity (Nomos Press, 2013).
2. Antoniadis, Antonis, Bekou Olympia. ‘’The European Union and the International Criminal Court : an awkward symbiosis in interesting times,’’ International Criminal Law Review, sayı: 7 (4), (2007).
3. Avrupa Komisyonu, ‘’Türkiye’nin Katılım Yönünde İlerlemesi Üzerine Komisyon’un 2000 Düzenli Raporu,’’ https://www.ab.gov.tr/files/AB_Iliskileri/AdaylikSureci/IlerlemeRaporlari/Turkiye_Ilerleme_Rap_2000.pdf (erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020).
4. Avrupa Komisyonu, ‘’Türkiye’nin Avrupa Birliğine Katılım Sürecine İlişkin 2002 Yılı İlerleme Raporu,’’ Ankara, Ekim 2002, https://www.ab.gov.tr/files/AB_Iliskileri/AdaylikSureci/IlerlemeRaporlari/Turkiye_Ilerleme_Rap_2002.pdf (erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020).
5. Bayıllıoğlu, Uğur. ‘’Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi ve Türkiye,’’ Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, sayı: 1 (2007). Baykal, Sanem. ‘’AB Hukukunun Temel İlkeleri Çerçevesinde AB’ye Katılım ve Türkiye’nin Müzakere Çerçeve Belgesinde Yer Alan Esaslar,’’ Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi, sayı: 12 (2013 ).
6. Council of the European Union, ‘’Council Common Position of 11 June 2001 on the International Criminal Court (2001/443/CFSP),’’ https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:02001E0443-20030616 (erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020)
7. Council of the European Union, ‘’Council Common Position of 20 June 2002 amending Common Position 2001/443/CFSP on the International Criminal Court (2002/474/CFSP),’’ https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32002E0474 (erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020).
8. Council of the European Union, ‘’Council Common Position 2003/444/CFSP of 16 June 2003 on the International Criminal Court,’’ https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32003E0444 (erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020).

9. Council of the European Union, ‘’Council Conclusions on Enlargement/stabilisation and association process, 2984th General Affairs Council Meeting,’’ 7-8 December 2009, Brussels, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/genaff/111830.pdf (erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020).
10. Council of the European Union, ‘’Council Decision 2011/168/CFSP of 21 March 2011 on the International Criminal Court and repealing Common Position 2003/444/CFSP,’’ https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32011D0168 (erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020).
11. Court of Justice of the European Union, Segi and Others v. Council, C-355/04 P, [2007] ECR I-1657.
12. Craig, Paul, Grainne de Burca. EU Law: Texts, Cases, and Materials (New York, Oxford University Press, 2011).
13. Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı Müsteşarlığı, ‘’Türkiye İçin Müzakere Çerçeve Belgesi ve İlgili Diğer Belgeler,’’ Ekim 2005, https://www.ab.gov.tr/files/AB_Iliskileri/AdaylikSureci/MuzakereCercevesi/Muzakere_Cercevesi_2005.pdf (erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020).
14. European Commission, ‘’European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations: Glossary,’’ https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/policy/glossary_en (erişim tarihi: 9.10.2020).
15. European Commission, ‘’Comprehensive monitoring report on Cyprus's preparations for membership,’’ EC (2003) 1202 final, Brussels, 5 October 2003.
16. European Commission, ‘’Comprehensive monitoring report on the Czech Republic's preparations for membership,’’ COM(2003) 675 final, Brussels,5 October 2003.
17. European Commission, ‘’Comprehensive Monitoring Report of the European Commission on the State of Preparedness for EU Membership of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia,’’ COM (2003)675 final, Brussels, 11 November 2003, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/b0184a76-a97e-4ec7-9c48-91644cfb956b/language-en (erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020).
18. European Commission, ‘’Issues Arising From Turkey’s Membership Perspective,’’ COM(2004)656 final, 6 October 2004, Brussels, https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/near/files/issues_paper_en.pdf (erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020).
19. European Commission, ‘’Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Recommendation of the European Commission on Turkey’s progress towards acces-sion,’’ COM(2004) 0656, 6 October 2004, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52004DC0656 (erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020). European Commission, ‘’Bulgaria Comprehensive Monitoring Report,’’ COM (2005) 534 final, Brussels, 25 October 2005.
20. European Commission, ‘’Serbia and Montenegro 2005 Progress Report,’’ SEC (2005) 1428 COM (2005) 561 final, Brüksel, 9 November 2005, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/cf1dff19-a22a-4c4f-a354-6febf9cc9d7e/language-en (erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020).
21. European Commission, ‘’Comprehensive monitoring report on Croatia’s state of preparedness for EU membership,’’ SWD (2012) 338 final, Brussels, 10 October 2012.
22. European Commission, ‘’EU Enlargement Factsheet: Croatia in the EU’’, 2013, http://ecilteuropa.eu/enlargement/countries/detailed-country-information/croatia/ (erişim tarihi: 9.10.2020).
23. European Council, ‘’European Council in Copenhagen 21-22 June 1993: Conclusions of The Presidency,’’ http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/72921.pdf (erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020).
24. European Council, ‘’European Council in Copenhagen 15-16 December 1995: Conclusions of The Presidency,’’ http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/00400-CILTEN5.htm (erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020).
25. European Council, ‘’10-11 December 1999: Conclusions of The Presidency,’’ http://www.consiliumd.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/ACFA4CILThtm (erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020).
26. European Parliament, ‘’International Criminal Court: Achievements and challenges 20 years after the adoption of the Rome Statute,’’ Briefing, July 2018.
27. European Parliament, ‘’Briefing No: 23 Legal Questions of Enlargement,’’ Luxembourg, 19 May 1998, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/enlargement/briefings/pdf/23a1_en.pdf (erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020).
28. General Secretariat of the European Council, ‘’The European Union and the International Criminal Court,’’ (Brussels, May 2010), https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/c3f8f6f3-b507-4adf-8111-b8b6f2cf8bfd (erişim tarihi: 9.10.2020).
29. Groeenler, Martin, David Rijks. ‘’The European Union and the International Criminal Court: The Politics of International Criminal Justice,’’ içinde The European Union and International Organizations (Routledge Press, 2009),167-187.
30. Hillion, Christophe. ‘’Adaptation for autonomy? Candidates for EU membership and the CFSP,’’ Global Affairs, sayı: 3:3 (2007).
31. International Criminal Court, ‘’Statement by Mr. Ismail Aramaz Head of the Turkish Delegation, ICC Review Conference: Kampala, 1 June 2010,’’ https://asp.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/RC2010/Statements/ICC-RC-gendeba-Turkey-ENG.pdf (erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020).
32. International Criminal Court, ‘’Review Conference of the Rome Statute,’’ 31 May-11 June 2010, https://asp.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/asp/reviewconference/Pages/review%20conference.aspx (erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020).
33. Miller, Vaughne. ‘’The EU’s Acquis Communautaire,’’Library of House of Commons, 26 April 2011.
34. Petrov, Roman. ‘’The External Dimension of the Acquis Communautaire,’’ EUI Working Papers, Paper No. 2007/02.
35. Sarıgüzel, Hacı. ‘’Uluslar Arası Ceza Mahkemesi International Criminal Court,’’ Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi Dergisi, sayı 3 (2013).
36. Sedelmeier, Ulrich. ‘’Enlargement,’’ içinde Policy-Making in the European Union (Oxford Press, 2010).
37. Şenol, Cem. ‘’Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi ve Yargı Yetkisini Türkiye ile İlişkili Bir Durumda Kullanabilmesi,’’ Ceza Hukuku Dergisi, sayı: 12(35) (2017).
38. ‘’Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasasının Bazı Maddelerinin Değiştirilmesi Hakkında Kanun,’’ Kanun No. 5170, 22 Mayıs 2004, https://www.anayasa.gen.tr/5170sk.htm (erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020). Wessel, R. A. (Ramses). ‘’Legal Acts in EU Common Foreign and Security Policy: Combining Legal Bases and Questions of Legality,’’ (2019).
39. United Nations, ‘’United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plemipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court,’’ A/CONF.183/13, Official Records, Vol II, sf 124, https://legal.un.org/diplomaticconferences/1998_icc/ (erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020).
40. UN General Assembly, ‘’Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,’’ (last amended 2010), 17 July 1998, https://www.icc-cpi.int/resource-library/documents/rs-eng.pdf (erişim tarihi: 12.10.2020).
41. Wouters, Jan, Basu Sudeshna. “The Creation of a Global Justice System: The European Union and the International Criminal Court,” içinde The Effectiveness of International Criminal Tribunals (Antwerp: Intersentia Press, 2009).