ULUSLARARASI CEZA HUKUKUNDA TAMAMLAYICILIK (İKAME) İLKESİ

Öz

Uluslararası hukuk, devletlere ulaslararası suçları araştırmak, soruşturmak ve cezalandırmak üzere genel bir görev yüklemektedir. 2002 yılında yürürlüğe giren Roma Statüsü, uluslararası alanda işlenen özel nitelikteki bazı suçları soruşturmak üzere sürekli ve uluslarası nitelikteki bir mahkeme kurulması yönünde yaklaşık elli yıldır sürdürülen çabaları sona erdirmiştir. Bu kapsamda kurulmuş olan Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi uluslararası ceza adaletinin sağlanması yönünde çok olumlu bir adım olarak karşılanmıştır. Öte yandan, bu mahkemenin kurulması devletler arasında bazı anlaşmazlıklara yol açabileceği ve devletlerin ulusal egemenlik haklarının zedeleneceği yününde bazı tartırşmaları da beraberinde getirmiştir. Bu bağlamda, Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi’ni oluşturunlar tarafından Roma Statüsü’ne konulan tamamlayıcılık (ikame, ikincil) yetkisi olarak adlandırılan ilke, devletlerin ulusal egemenlik ve yargılama yetkileri alanında ortaya çıkabilecek anlaşmazlıkları dengelemek üzere öngörülmüştür. Roma Satatüsü’nün 10. paragrafında Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesinin yetkisinin ulusal yargılama yetkisini tamamlayıcı nitelikte olduğu açıkça vurgulanmıştır. Statü’nün 1. maddesi de Mahkemenin uluslararası nitelikteki çok önemli suçları işleyenleri yargılama yetkisinin varlığını ve bu yetkinin ulusal yargılama yetkisini tamamlayıcı nitelikte olduğunu belirtmektedir. Bu hükümlere göre, tamamlayıcılık ilkesi iki önemli özellik taşımaktadır. Birincisi, işlenen suç uluslarası ceza yargılamasının konusunu oluştursa bile devletler kendi topraklarında vatandaşlarının işledikleri suçları ulusal yargılama yetkisine dayanarak birincil olarak soruşturma ve yargılama hakkına sahiptir. İkinci olarak, ancak bazı şartların gerçekleşmesi durumunda bu tür suç ve suçlular uluslararası bir ceza yargılmasının konusunu oluşturabilecektir. Bu çalışma, uluslararası ceza hukukunda yer alan tamamlayıcılık (ikame, ikincil) ilkesini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmada, bu ilkenin tanımı, tarihsel gelişimi, uygulamaları, amaçları ve etkinliği üzerinde durulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Tamamlayıcılık (ikame, ikincil)
• uluslararası hukuk
• uluslararası suçlar
• Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi
• Roma Statüsü

THE PRINCIPLE OF ‘COMPLEMENTARITY’ IN INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW

Öz

International law provides for a general duty of States to investigate, prosecute and punish international crimes. The Rome Statute came into existence in 2002, marking the end of over fifty years of elaborations to create a permanent global court to prosecute particularly heinous crimes of international significance. The establishment of the International Criminal Court was accompanied by extraordinary optimism for the prospects of international criminal justice. On the other hand, an important objection the creation of the ICC is that it would create conflict between states and interfere with national sovereignty. In that context, the principle of complementarity is a formula created by the ICC founders who have sought to balance the conflicting interests of international justice and state sovereignty. Paragraph 10 of the Rome Statute emphasizes that “…the International Criminal Court established under this Statute shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions.” Article 1 of the Statute further asserts that the Court “shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern [….] and shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdiction.”. According to these provisions, the principle of complementarity reconciles two competing features and jurisdictions. The first is the sovereignty of the state, which claims national jurisdiction over its citizens and crimes committed on its territory, even though these crimes are of an international character and may fall within international jurisdiction. The second feature functions only in exceptional circumstances and gives an international tribunal the ability to exercise jurisdiction over these heinous crimes. This article aims to analyse the principle of complementarity in international criminal law. It addresses the definition, historical development, implementations, purposes and effectiveness of the principle.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• complementarity
• international law
• international crimes
• the International Criminal Court
• the Rome Statute

Kaynakça

1. Almqvist Jessica, ‘‘Complementarity and Human Rights: A Litmus Test for the International Criminal Court’’, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Review, Vol. 33, Issue 3, 2008, pp.335-365.
2. Ambos Kai, The Colombian Peace Process and the Principle of Complementarity of the International Criminal Court, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2010. Bantekas Ilias and Nash Susan, İnternational Criminal Law, Second Edition, 2003.
3. Benzing Markus, ‘‘The Complementarity Regime of the International Criminal Court: International Criminal Justice between State Sovereignty and the Fight against Impunity’’, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Vol. 7, 2003, pp.591-632.
4. Brown Bartram S., ‘‘Primacy or Complementarity: Reconciling the Jurisdiction of National Courts and International Criminal Tribunals’’, The Yale Journal of International Law, Vol.23, 1998, pp.383-486.
5. Burke-White William W., ‘‘Proactive Complementarity: The International Criminal Court and National Courts in the Rome System of Justice’’, Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 49, 2008.
6. Burke-White, William W. ‘‘Complementarity in Practice: The International Criminal Court as Part of a System of Multi-Level Global Governance in the Democratic Republic of Congo’’, Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol.18, pp.557-590.
7. Carnero-Rojo Enrique, ‘‘The Role of Fair Trial Considerations in the Complementarity Regime of the International Criminal Court: From ‘No Peace without Justice’ to ‘No Peace with Victor's Justice’?’’, Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol.18, 2005, pp.829-869.
8. Carter Linda E., ‘‘The Future of the International Criminal Court: Complementarity As Strength or a Weakness? Washington University Global Studies Law Review, Vol.12, 2013.

9. Cryer Robert, Friman Hakan, Robinson Darryl, Wilmshurst Elizabeth, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, Cambridge University Press, 2010. El Zeidy Mohamed M., The Principle of Complementarity in International Criminal Law, 2008.
10. Gianaris William N., ‘‘The New World Order and the Need for an International Criminal Court’’, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 16, Issue 1, 1992
11. Gioga Federica, ‘‘State Sovereignty, Jurisdiction, and ‘Modern’International Law: The Principle of Complementarity in the International Criminal Court’’, Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 19, pp.1095-1123.
12. Grossman Claudio and Bradlow Daniel D., ‘‘Are We Being Propelled Towards a People- Centered Transnational Legal Order?’’, American University International Law Review, Vol.9, No.1, 1993, pp.1-25.
13. Hall Christopher Keith, “The First Proposal for A Permanent International Criminal Court,” International Review of the Red Cross, Issue 322, 1998, pp.57-74.
14. Henzelin M., Heiskanen V. and Mettraux G., ‘‘Reparations to Victims before the ICC: Lessons from International Mass Claims Processes’’, Criminal Law Forum, Vol. 17, 2006, pp.317-344.
15. Jamison Sandra L., “A Permanent International Criminal Court: A Proposal that Overcomes Past Objections”, Denver Journal of International Law & Policy, Vol. 23, Issue 2, 1995.
16. Judicial Independence: Law and Practice of Appointments to the European Court of Human Rights, Report from Interights, London, 2003.
17. Jurdi Nidal Nabil, ‘‘The Prosecutorial Interpretation of the Complementarity Principle: Does It Really Contribute to Ending Impunity on the National Level?’’, International Criminal Law Review, Vol.10, 2010.
18. Kleffner Jann K., ‘‘The Impact of Complementarity on National Implementation of Substantive International Criminal Law’’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol.1, 2003, pp.86-113.
19. Krings Britta Lisa, ‘‘The Principles of ‘Complementarity’ and Universal Jurisdiction in International Criminal Law: Antagonists or Perfect Match?’’, Goettingen Journal of International Law, Vol.4, Number 3, 2012.
20. Kyriakakis Joanna, ‘‘Corparations and The International Criminal Court: The Complemantarity Objection Stripped Bare’’, Criminal Law Forum, Vol.19, 2008.
21. Marshall Katharine A. ‘‘Prevention and Complementarity in the International Criminal Court: A Positive Approach’’, Human Rights Brief, Vol. 17, No.2, 2010, pp.21-26.
22. McKeon Patricia A., ‘‘An International Criminal Court: Balancing the Principle of Sovereignty Against the Demands for International Justice’’, Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development, Vol. 12, Issue 2, Spring 1997.
23. Mullins Christopher W., Kauzlarich David and Rothe Dawn, “The International Criminal Court and the Control of State Crime: Prospects and Problems,” Critical Criminology, Vol. 12, Issue 3, 2004.
24. Natarajan Mangai and Kukaj Antigona, ‘‘The International Criminal Court’’, International Crime and Justice, Ed. Mangai Natarajan, Cambridge University Press 2011.
25. Newton, Michael A., ‘‘Comparative Complementarity: Domestic Jurisdiction Consistent with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’’, Military Law Review, Vol.167, March 2001.
26. Schabas William A. ‘‘Complementarity in Practice: Some Uncomplimentary Thoughts’’, Criminal Law Forum, Vol.19, 2008, pp.5-33.
27. Solera Oscar, ‘‘Complementary Jurisdiction and International Criminal Justice’’, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 84, No: 845, 2002, pp.145-177.
28. Stahn Carsten, ‘‘Complementarity and Cooperative Justice Ahead of Their Time? The United Nations War Crimes Comission, Fact Finding and Evidence’’, Springer Science Business Media Dordrecht, Criminal Law Forum, 2014, 25, pp.223-260.
29. Stahn Carsten, ‘‘Libya, the International Criminal Court and Complementarity: A Test for ‘Shared Responsibility’’’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol.10, 2012, pp.325- 349.
30. Stigen Jo, The Relationship between the International Criminal Court and National Jurisdictions, The Principle of Complementarity, Leiden and Boston, 2008.
31. Tedeschini Michele, ‘‘Complementarity in Practice: the ICC’s Inconsistent Approach in the Gaddafi and Al-Senussi Admissibility Decisions’’, Amsterdam Law Forum, Vol.7, 2015.
32. The Principle of Complementarity, The American Non-Governmental Organizations Coalition for the International Criminal Court Publication.
33. van der Wilt Harmen, Lyngdorf Sandra, ‘‘Procedural Obligations Under the European Convention on Human Rights: Useful Guidelines for the Assessment of ‘Unwillingness’ and ‘Inability’ in the Context of the Complementarity Principle’’, International Criminal Law Review, Vol. 9, Issue 1,2009, pp. 39-75.
34. Xavier Philippe, ‘‘The Principles of Universal Jurisdiction and Complementarity: How do the Two Principles Intermesh?’’, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol.88, Number 862, June 2006.
35. Xavier Philippe, ‘The Principles of Universal Jurisdiction and Complementarity: How do the Two Principles Intermesh?’, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol.88, Number 862, June 2006, pp.375-398.
36. Yang Lijun, ‘‘On the Principle of Complementarity in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’’, Chinese Journal of International Law, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2005, pp.121-132. Leonard Eric K., ‘‘Discovering the New Face of Sovereignty: Complementarity and the International Criminal Court’’, New Political Science, Vol.27, 2008, pp.87-104.