Implementation Of The International Court Of Justice’s Orders On Provisional Measures

Öz

Provisional measures, which are indicated to protect the rights of the parties in a dispute and to prevent the aggravation of the dispute until the decision on the merits is rendered, are at the centre of the judicial function of the International Court of Justice. Failure to comply with these measures not only renders the Court's judicial authority and function meaningless, but also calls into question its authority. If the provisional measures are intended to prevent the commission of grave crimes against civilians, the consequences of non-compliance will be much more severe. The Court's recent provisional measures on the grounds that acts of violence against Rohingya (Arakan) Muslims in Myanmar and Israel's military operations in Gaza create a risk of genocide have also come to the fore in this context. In such cases, since the compliance with provisional measures, which are legally binding, cannot be left entirely to the will and desire of the relevant state, it will be important to mobilise international legal mechanisms for their implementation. The purpose of this study is to provide a general framework of international law mechanisms that can be utilised to ensure compliance with the provisional measures indicated by the Court. In line with this purpose, it examines the role of the Court in dispute settlement; the powers of the United Nations Security Council and the General Assembly; and finally, the options available to disputant States and non-disputant parties.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• International Court of Justice
• Provisional measures
• Responsibility of States
• Gaza
• Myanmar

Uluslararası Adalet Divanı'nın Geçici Tedbir Kararlarının Uygulanması

Öz

Bir uyuşmazlıkta, esas hakkında karar verilinceye kadar tarafların haklarının korunması ve uyuşmazlığın ağırlaşmasının engellenmesi amacıyla başvurulan geçici tedbirler, Uluslararası Adalet Divanı’nın yargısal işlevinin merkezinde yer almaktadır. Bu tedbirlere uyulmaması, Divan’ın yargısal yetkisini ve işlevini anlamsızlaştıracağı gibi otoritesinin de sorgulanmasına neden olmaktadır. Geçici tedbirlerin sivillere karşı ağır suçların işlenmesini önlemeye yönelik olması halinde, bu tedbirlere uyulmamasının sonuçları çok daha ağır olacaktır. Myanmar’da Rohingya (Arakan) Müslümanlarına yönelik şiddet eylemlerinin ve İsrail’in Gazze’de gerçekleştirdiği askeri operasyonlarının soykırım riski yaratması gerekçesiyle Divan’ın yakın zamanda verdiği geçici tedbir kararları da bu bağlamda gündeme gelmiştir. Bu gibi durumlarda, hukuki bağlayıcılığı konusunda tereddüt bulunmayan geçici tedbir kararlarına uyulup uyulmaması tamamıyla ilgili devletin iradesine ve isteğine bırakılamayacağından, bu kararların uygulanmasına yönelik uluslararası hukuk mekanizmalarının harekete geçirilmesi önem arz edecektir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Uluslararası Adalet Divanı’nın geçici tedbir kararlarına uyulmasının sağlanmasına yönelik başvurulabilecek uluslararası hukuk mekanizmalarına ilişkin genel bir çerçeve sunmaktır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda, görülmekte olan uyuşmazlıkta etkinliği devam eden Divan’ın rolü; Divan’ın kararlarının uygulanmasıyla ilgili sıklıkla gündeme gelen Birleşmiş Milletler Güvenlik Konseyi’nin ve Genel Kurul’un yetkileri; son olarak da, ilgili uyuşmazlıkta taraf olan ve üçüncü devletlerin başvurabileceği yöntemler incelenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Uluslararası Adalet Divanı
• Geçici tedbirler
• Devletlerin sorumluluğu
• Gazze
• Myanmar

Kaynakça

1. Alland, Denis. “Countermeasures of General Interest”, European Journal of International Law, 2002, 13(5), ss. 1221-1239
2. Arbour, J.-Maurice. “Quelques réflexions sur les mesures conservatoires indiquées par la Cour internationale de justice”, Les Cahiers de Droit, 1975, 16(3), ss. 531-573
3. Bal, Ali. Uluslararası Adalet Divanının Geçici Tedbirler Rejimi, Seçkin Yayıncılık, 2020
4. Boisson de Chazournes, Laurence ve Angelini, Antonella. “After 'The Court Rose': The Rise of Diplomatic Means to Implement the Pronouncements of the International Court of Justice”, The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 2012, 11(1), ss. 1-46
5. Bozkurt, Enver. Uluslararası Hukukta Kuvvet Kullanımı, Asil Yayın, 3. Baskı, 2007
6. Carillo Salcedo, Juan Antonio. “Droit international et souveraineté des États. Cours général de droit international public”, Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International, vol. 257, 1996
7. Çağıran, Mehmet Emin Çağıran. “Soykırım Sözleşmesinin Gazze’de Uygulanması Davasında Uluslararası Adalet Divanı’nın İhtiyati Tedbir Kararı”, Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, 2024, S. 172, ss. 327-366
8. Çalışkan, Ayla. “Rusya-Ukrayna Savaşında Üçüncü Devletlerce Alınan Önlemlerin Hukuki Niteliği”, Hacettepe Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2023, 13(2), ss. 299-335

9. Dawidowicz, Martin. “Third-party Coutermeasures: A Progressive Developent of International Law”, Questions of International Law, Zoom-in 29, 2016, ss. 3-15
10. Dupuy, René-Jean. La communauté international entre le mythe et l’histoire, Economica/UNESCO, 1986
11. Elçin Ertuğrul, Ümmühan. Uluslararası Hukukun Emredici Normlarından Doğan Yükümlülüklerin Ciddi İhlallerinden Devletin Sorumluluğu, Yetkin Yayınevi, 2012
12. Erkiner, Hakkı Hakan. “Birleşmiş Milletler Uluslararası Adalet Divanı Kararlarının Birleşmiş Milletler Güvenlik Konseyi Aracılığıyla Uygulatılması”, Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2017, 23(2), ss. 87-102
13. Erkiner, Hakkı Hakan. Devletin haksız Fiilden Kaynaklanan Uluslararası Sorumluluğu, Seçkin Yayıncılık, Üçüncü Baskı, 2024
14. Gemalmaz, Mehmet Semih. Provisional Measures of Protection in International Law: 1907 – 2010, Legal Yayınevi, 2011
15. Gündüz, Aslan. Milletlerarası Hukuk, Savaş Yayınevi, 9. Baskı, 2018
16. Hellio, Hugues ve Henry, Solveig. “Le suivi par la Cour internationale de Justice de ses ordonnances en indication de mesures conservatoires. Une pratique émergente entre inspiration, discrétion et recherche d’effectivité”, Revue générale de droit international public, 2020, 2, ss. 225-260
17. Jørgensen, Nina HB. “The Obligation of Cooperation”, in James Crawford, and others (eds), The Law of International Responsibility, Oxford Commentaries on International Law, Oxford University Press, 2010, ss. 695-701
18. Kayğusuz Akbay, Mehtap. “Gambia / Myanmar Davasında Önemli Bir Aşama: Uluslararası Adalet Divanı’nın Geçici Önlemler Kararı”, Hacettepe Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2020, 10(1), ss. 268-309
19. Keskin, Funda. Uluslararası Hukukta Kuvvet Kullanma: Savaş, Karışma ve Birleşmiş Milletler, Mülkiyeliler Birliği Vakfı Yayınları No:20, 1998 Kolb, Robert. International Court of Justice, Hart Publishing, 2013
20. Lando, Massimo. “Compliance with Provisional Measures Indicated by the International Court of Justice”, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 2017, 8(1), ss. 1-34
21. Mendelson, Maurice. “State responsibility for breach of interim protection orders of the International Court of Justice”, in M. Fitzmaurice, D. Sarooshi (eds), Issues of State Responsibility Before International Judicial Institutions, Oxford and Portland Oregon, 2004, ss. 35-53
22. Miles, Cameron A.. Provisional Measures Before International Courts and Tribunals, Cambridge University Press, 2017
23. Mosler, Hermann ve Oellers-Frahm, Karin. “Art. 94”, in Bruno Simma et al. (eds), The Charter of the United Nations. A Commentary, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2002, ss. 1174-1179.
24. Palchetti, Paolo. “Responsibility for breach of provisional measures of the ICJ: between protection of the rights of the parties and respect of the judicial function”, Rivista di Diritto Internazionale, 2017, 100/1, ss. 5-22
25. Pazarcı, Hüseyin. Uluslararası Hukuk Dersleri, 4. Kitap. Turhan Kitapevi, 4. Bası, 2020
26. Pillepich, Alain. “Article 94”, in J.P. Cot, A. Pellet, M. Forteau (ed.), La Charte des Nations Unie, Commentaire article par article, Economica, 3e éd., 2005, Vol. II, ss. 1987-1998
27. Pirim, Ceren Zeynep. Uluslararası Hukukta Devletin Ağırlaştırılmış Sorumluluğu, Turhan Kitapevi, 2022
28. Schulte, Constanze. Compliance with Decisions of the International Court of Justice, Oxford University Press, 2004
29. Sicilianos, Linos-Alexandre. “Countermeasures in Response to Grave Violations of Obligations Owed to the International Community”, in James Crawford, and others (eds), The Law of International Responsibility, Oxford Commentaries on International Law, Oxford University Press, 2010, ss. 1137-1148
30. Singh, Shannon Raj. “Standing on ‘Shared Values’: The ICJ’s Myanmar Decision and its Implications for Atrocity Prevention”, https://opiniojuris.org/2020/01/29/standing-on-shared-values-the-icjs-myanmar-decision-and-its-implications-for-atrocity-prevention/
31. Sur, Melda. Uluslararası Hukukun Esasları. Beta Yayınları, 17. Baskı, 2024
32. Tams, Christian J.. “Individual States as Guardians of Community Interests”, in Ulrich Fastenrath, and others (eds), From Bilateralism to Community Interest: Essays in Honour of Bruno Simma, Oxford University Press, 2011, ss. 379-405.
33. Tams, Christian J.. “Article 94 UN Charter”, in Andreas Zimmermann, and others (eds), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, 3rd Edition, 2019, Oxford Commentaries on International Law
34. Tanzi, Attila. “Problems of Enforcement of Decisions of the International Court of Justice and the Law of the United Nations”, European Journal of International Law, 1995, 6(4), ss. 539-572
35. The Diakonia International Humanitarian Law Centre, ICJ Order on Provisional Measures in South Africa v. Israel: Legal Consequences for Third States, https://apidiakoniase.cdn.triggerfish.cloud/uploads/sites/2/2024/02/South-Africa-v.-Israel-Provisional-Measures-and-Third-States.pdf
36. Uzun, Elif. Milletlerarası Hukuka Aykırı Eylemlerden Dolayı Devletin Sorunluluğu, Seçkin Yayıncılık, 3. Baskı, 2021
37. Vučić, Mihajlo. “Binding Effect of Provisional Measures as an Inherent Judicial Power – an Example of Cross-Fertilization”, Annals of the Faculty of Law in Belgrade, 2018, LXVI (4), ss. 127-147
38. Wood, Michael ve Sthoeger, Eran. The UN Security Council and International Law, Cambridge University Press, 2022
39. UAD Kararları ve Danışma Görüşleri (kronolojik sırayla)
40. ICJ, Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion of 38 May 1951
41. ICJ, Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. (Royaume-Uni c. Iran), Order of 5 July 1951
42. ICJ, Interhandel (Suisse c. Etats-Unis d’Amérique), Order of 24 October 1957
43. ICJ, Case Concerning The Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Judgment 5 February 1970
44. ICJ, Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland), Order of 17 August 1972
45. ICJ, United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), Order of 15 December 1979
46. ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment of 27 June 1986
47. ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Order of 8 April 1993
48. ICJ, East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment of 30 June 1995
49. ICJ, Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Paraguay v. United States of America), Order of 9 April 1998
50. ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Order of 1 July 2000
51. ICJ, LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgment of 27 June 2001
52. ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004
53. ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment of 19 December 2005
54. ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), Judgment of 3 February 2006
55. ICJ, 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
56. ICJ, Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Order of 15 Octobre 2008
57. ICJ, Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Judgment of 20 July 2012
58. ICJ, Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Order of 22 November 2013
59. ICJ, Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgment of 16 December 2015
60. ICJ, Jadhav (India v. Pakistan), Order of 18 May 2017
61. ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Order of 23 January 2020
62. ICJ, Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Armenia v. Azerbaijan), Order of 7 December 2021
63. ICJ, Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Azerbaijan v. Armenia), Order of 7 December 2021
64. ICJ, Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Order of 16 March 2022
65. ICJ, Application of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Canada and the Netherlands v. Syrian Arab Republic), Order of 16 Novembre 2023
66. ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Order of 26 January 2024
67. ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Order of 28 March 2024
68. ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Order of 24 May 2024