On the Controversial Illegality of the Unilateral Use of Force for the Prevention of Genocide: The ‘Doubtfulness’ Clause Adopted by the ICJ in the Case Filed by Ukraine Against Russia
Yıl: 2022 Cilt: 19 Sayı: 76 Sayfa Aralığı: 39 - 52 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.33458/uidergisi.1213906 İndeks Tarihi: 21-02-2023
On the Controversial Illegality of the Unilateral Use of Force for the Prevention of Genocide: The ‘Doubtfulness’ Clause Adopted by the ICJ in the Case Filed by Ukraine Against Russia
Öz: The ICJ in its order dated 16 March 2022, decided that the legality of the unilateral use of force to prevent acts of genocide is ‘doubtful’. Based on this order, it is possible to say that the ICJ provides a yellow light to unilateral use of force for the prevention of acts of genocide. But the ICJ expressed its opinion in this respect in 2007, underlining that every state may only act within the limits permitted by international law. The doctrine underscored that the unilateral use of force for the prevention of genocide was forbidden. In this situation, the following question arises: is it really doubtful? To find the answer to this question, it is necessary to examine the legal basis and means for the prevention of genocide. In this article, the legality of the unilateral use of force for the obligation to prevent genocide has been comprehensively discussed.
Anahtar Kelime: Soykırımın Önlenmesinde Tek Taraflı Kuvvet Kullanımının Tartışmalı Aykırılığı Üzerine: UAD’nin Ukrayna Tarafından Rusya Aleyhine Açılan Davada Kabul Ettiği ‘Belirsizlik' Tespiti
Öz: Uluslararası Adalet Divanı (UAD), 16 Mart 2022 tarihli kararında, soykırım fiillerinin önlenmesi için tek taraflı kuvvet kullanımının hukukiliğinin ‘belirsiz’ olduğuna karar vermiştir. Bu karardan hareketle, UAD’nin soykırımın önlenmesi için tek taraflı kuvvet kullanımına sarı ışık yaktığını söylemek mümkündür. Aslında UAD bu konudaki görüşünü, her Devletin ancak uluslararası hukukun izin verdiği sınırlar içinde hareket edebileceğinin altını çizdiği 2007 tarihli kararında açıklamıştı. Doktrin, bu tespiti, soykırım fiillerini önlemek için tek taraflı kuvvet kullanımının yasaklanması olarak değerlendirmişti. Bu durumda akla şu soru gelmektedir: Gerçekten soykırımın önlenmesi için tek taraflı kuvvet kullanımının hukukiliği ‘şüpheli’ midir? Bu sorunun cevabını bulabilmek için soykırımın önlenmesinin hukuki zeminini ve araçlarını incelemek gerekir. Bu makalede, tek taraflı kuvvet kullanımı ile soykırımı önleme yükümlülüğü kapsamlı bir şekilde tartışılmıştır.
Anahtar Kelime: Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Bibliyografik
- Cassese, Antonio (1999). “Ex iniuria ius oritur: Are We Moving towards International Legitimation of Forcible Humanitarian Countermeasures in the World Community?”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 10, No 1, p. 23-30.
- Colorio, Matteo (7 March 2022). “Ukraine at the International Court of Justice: Does Genocide Justify the Use of Force?”, https://internationallaw.blog/2022/03/07/ukraine-at-the-international-court-of-justice- does-genocide-justify-the-use-of-force/, (Accessed 11 April 2022)
- Crawford, James (2014). Chance, Order, Change: The Course of International Law. Leiden, Brill Nijhoff. Demirel, Naim (2013). “Uluslararası Hukukta İnsani Müdahale ve Hukuki Meşruiyet Sorunu”, FSM İlmi Araştırmalar İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Dergisi, No 1, p. 152-172.
- De Wet, Erika (2012). “Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes”, in Hierarchy in International Law: The Place of Human Rights, ed. Erika de Wet and Iure Vidmar, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 541- 561.
- Erkiner, Hakkı Hakan. and Emerant Yves Ombga Akoudou (2021). “The Concepts of the Responsibility to Protect and Human Security within the United Nations: Return on the Meanings.” İstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol. 27, No 1, p. 387-444.
- Ertuğrul, Ümmühan Elçin (2016). “Koruma Sorumluluğu: İnsani Müdahaleyi Makyajlamak”, Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol. 20, p. 441-470.
- Fastenrath, Ulrich (1993). “Relative Normativity in International Law”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 4, No 1, p. 305-340.
- Gill, Terry D (9 March 2022). “Remarks on the Law Relating to the Use Of Force in the Ukraine Conflict”, https://lieber.westpoint.edu/remarks-use-of-force-ukraine-conflict/ (Accessed 11 April 2022).
- Helmersen, Sondre Torp (2014). “The Prohibition of the Use Of Force As Jus Cogens: Explaining Apparent Derogations”, Netherlands International Law Review, Vol. 61, No 2, p. 167-193.
- Kagan, Joshua M. (2006). “The Obligation to Use Force to Stop Acts of Genocide: An Overview of Legal Prec- edents, Customary Norms, and State Responsibility”, San Diego International Law Journal, Vol. 7, No 2, p. 461-490.
- Keller, Linda M. (25 May 2001). “Belgian Jury to Decide Case Concerning Rwandan Genocide”, https://www. asil.org/insights/volume/6/issue/13/belgian-jury-decide-case-concerning-rwandan-genocide, (Ac- cessed 11 April 2022).
- Lagerwall, Anne (07 November 2017). “Jus Cogens”, https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/docu- ment/obo-9780199796953/obo-9780199796953-0124.xml (Accesed 19 October 2022).
- Langer, Maximo (2011). “The Diplomacy of Universal Jurisdiction: The Political Branches and the Trans- national Prosecution of International Crimes”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 105, No 1, p. 1-55.
- Lillich, Richard B. (1967). “Forcible Self-Help by States for Protect Human Rights”, Iowa Law Review, Vol. 53, p. 325-351.
- Longobardo, Marco (2015). “Genocide, Obligations Erga Omnes, and the Responsibility to Protect: Remarks on a Complex Convergence”, The International Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 19, No 8, p. 1199-1212.
- Memeti, Ardit. and Bekim Nuhija (2013). “The Concept of Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law”, New Balkan Politics, No 14, p. 31-47.
- Mitchell, Claire (31 Mars 2011). “Aut Dedere Aut Judiciare: The Exradite or Prosecute Clause in International Law”, https://books.openedition.org/iheid/301 (Accesed 11 April 2022).
- Nihreieva, Olena O. (25 September 2019). “Enforcement Of Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law: To The Issue Of Measures”, http://dspace.onu.edu.ua:8080/bitstream/123456789/25888/1/96-105.pdf (Accessed 11 April 2022).
- Peltonen, Hannes (2011). “Sovereignty as Responsibility, Responsibility to Protect and International Order: On Responsibility, Communal Crime Prevention and International Law”, Uluslararası İlişkiler, Vol. 7, No 28, p. 59-81.
- Schiffbauer, Björn (2018). “The Duty to Prevent Genocide under International Law: Naming and Shaming as a Measure of Prevention”, Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal, Vol. 12, No 3, p. 83-94.
- Sicilianos, Linos-Alexander (2002). “The Classification of Obligations and the Multilateral Dimension of the Relations of International Responsibility”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 13, No 5, p. 1127- 1145.
- Šimonović, Ivan (2017). “The Responsibility to Protect”, UN Chronicle, Vol. 53, No 4, p. 18-20.
- Tams, Christian J. (2005). Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes In International Law, Cambridge, Cambridge Uni- versity Press.
- Tams, Christian J. (2011). “Individual States as Guardians of Community Interests”, Ulrich Fastenrath et al. (eds.), From Bilateralism to Community Interests. Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 379-405.
- Tanaka, Yoshifumi (2021). “The Legal Consequences of Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law”, Neth- erland International Law Review, Vol. 68, p. 1-33.
- Van Steenberghe, Raphael (22 September 2017). “Aut Dedere Aut Judiciare”, https://www.oxfordbibliogra- phies.com/view/document/obo-9780199796953/obo-9780199796953-0023.xml?rskey=UBnbKQ& result=6&q=opinio+juris#firstMatch (Accesed 19 October 2022).
- Ventura Manuel. and Dapo Akande (6 September 2013). “Mothers of Srebrenica: The Obligation to Prevent Genocide and Jus Cogens – Implications for Humanitarian Intervention”, https://www.ejiltalk.org/ ignoring-the-elephant-in-the-room-in-mothers-of-srebrenica-is-the-obligation-to-prevent-genocide- jus-cogens/, (Accessed 11 April 2022)
- Wouters, Jan. and Sten Verhoeven (2005). “The Prohibition of Genocide as a Norm of Ius Cogens and Its Im- plications for the Enforcement of the Law of Genocide”, International Criminal Law Review, Vol. 5, p. 401–416.
- Zemanek, Karl (2000). “New Trends In the Enforcement of Erga Omnes Obligations”, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online, Vol. 4, No 1, p. 1-52.
- Zhu, Wenqi. and Binxin Zhang (2011). “Expectation of Prosecuting the Crimes of Genocide in China”, René Provost and Payam Akhavan (eds.), Confronting Genocide, Dordrecht, Springer, p. 173-191.
- Zimmermann, Andreas (2011). “The Obligation to Prevent Genocide: Towards a General Responsibility to Protect?”, Ulrich Fastenrath et al. (eds.), From Bilateralism to Community Interests. Oxford, Oxford Uni- versity Press, p. 629-645.
- Zimmermann, Andreas (2012). “The Security Council and the Obligation to Prevent Genocide and War Crimes”, Polish Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 32, p. 307-314.
| APA | BAYRAKTAR F (2022). On the Controversial Illegality of the Unilateral Use of Force for the Prevention of Genocide: The ‘Doubtfulness’ Clause Adopted by the ICJ in the Case Filed by Ukraine Against Russia. , 39 - 52. 10.33458/uidergisi.1213906 |
| Chicago | BAYRAKTAR FETHULLAH On the Controversial Illegality of the Unilateral Use of Force for the Prevention of Genocide: The ‘Doubtfulness’ Clause Adopted by the ICJ in the Case Filed by Ukraine Against Russia. (2022): 39 - 52. 10.33458/uidergisi.1213906 |
| MLA | BAYRAKTAR FETHULLAH On the Controversial Illegality of the Unilateral Use of Force for the Prevention of Genocide: The ‘Doubtfulness’ Clause Adopted by the ICJ in the Case Filed by Ukraine Against Russia. , 2022, ss.39 - 52. 10.33458/uidergisi.1213906 |
| AMA | BAYRAKTAR F On the Controversial Illegality of the Unilateral Use of Force for the Prevention of Genocide: The ‘Doubtfulness’ Clause Adopted by the ICJ in the Case Filed by Ukraine Against Russia. . 2022; 39 - 52. 10.33458/uidergisi.1213906 |
| Vancouver | BAYRAKTAR F On the Controversial Illegality of the Unilateral Use of Force for the Prevention of Genocide: The ‘Doubtfulness’ Clause Adopted by the ICJ in the Case Filed by Ukraine Against Russia. . 2022; 39 - 52. 10.33458/uidergisi.1213906 |
| IEEE | BAYRAKTAR F "On the Controversial Illegality of the Unilateral Use of Force for the Prevention of Genocide: The ‘Doubtfulness’ Clause Adopted by the ICJ in the Case Filed by Ukraine Against Russia." , ss.39 - 52, 2022. 10.33458/uidergisi.1213906 |
| ISNAD | BAYRAKTAR, FETHULLAH. "On the Controversial Illegality of the Unilateral Use of Force for the Prevention of Genocide: The ‘Doubtfulness’ Clause Adopted by the ICJ in the Case Filed by Ukraine Against Russia". (2022), 39-52. https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.1213906 |
| APA | BAYRAKTAR F (2022). On the Controversial Illegality of the Unilateral Use of Force for the Prevention of Genocide: The ‘Doubtfulness’ Clause Adopted by the ICJ in the Case Filed by Ukraine Against Russia. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 19(76), 39 - 52. 10.33458/uidergisi.1213906 |
| Chicago | BAYRAKTAR FETHULLAH On the Controversial Illegality of the Unilateral Use of Force for the Prevention of Genocide: The ‘Doubtfulness’ Clause Adopted by the ICJ in the Case Filed by Ukraine Against Russia. Uluslararası İlişkiler 19, no.76 (2022): 39 - 52. 10.33458/uidergisi.1213906 |
| MLA | BAYRAKTAR FETHULLAH On the Controversial Illegality of the Unilateral Use of Force for the Prevention of Genocide: The ‘Doubtfulness’ Clause Adopted by the ICJ in the Case Filed by Ukraine Against Russia. Uluslararası İlişkiler, vol.19, no.76, 2022, ss.39 - 52. 10.33458/uidergisi.1213906 |
| AMA | BAYRAKTAR F On the Controversial Illegality of the Unilateral Use of Force for the Prevention of Genocide: The ‘Doubtfulness’ Clause Adopted by the ICJ in the Case Filed by Ukraine Against Russia. Uluslararası İlişkiler. 2022; 19(76): 39 - 52. 10.33458/uidergisi.1213906 |
| Vancouver | BAYRAKTAR F On the Controversial Illegality of the Unilateral Use of Force for the Prevention of Genocide: The ‘Doubtfulness’ Clause Adopted by the ICJ in the Case Filed by Ukraine Against Russia. Uluslararası İlişkiler. 2022; 19(76): 39 - 52. 10.33458/uidergisi.1213906 |
| IEEE | BAYRAKTAR F "On the Controversial Illegality of the Unilateral Use of Force for the Prevention of Genocide: The ‘Doubtfulness’ Clause Adopted by the ICJ in the Case Filed by Ukraine Against Russia." Uluslararası İlişkiler, 19, ss.39 - 52, 2022. 10.33458/uidergisi.1213906 |
| ISNAD | BAYRAKTAR, FETHULLAH. "On the Controversial Illegality of the Unilateral Use of Force for the Prevention of Genocide: The ‘Doubtfulness’ Clause Adopted by the ICJ in the Case Filed by Ukraine Against Russia". Uluslararası İlişkiler 19/76 (2022), 39-52. https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.1213906 |
