Küresel Hukuki Çoğulluk: Uluslararası Hukuk İçin Yeni bir Meydan Okuma Mı?

Yargı yetkisine ilişkin çoğulluğun bulunduğu yeni çağda, uluslararası düzen ihtiyacı çok çeşitli uluslararası aktörler, sayısız düzenleyici rejimler ve çatışan yargı yetkisi iddialarına bağlı olarak daha da artmıştır. Dolayısıyla, hukuk literatürü hukuki çoğulluk konusuna daha yoğun şekilde değinirken, akademisyenler küresel hukuki çoğulluğun mevcut sonuçlarının neler olduğunu ve ön görülebilir gelecekte ne tip sonuçlar doğurabileceğini araştırmışlardır. Sonuç birlik mi, çok çeşitlilik mi yoksa parçalanma mı olacaktır? Bu hususta çalışma, uluslararası hukukun ne ölçüde açık, ortak ve uygulanabilir bir standartlar seti sağladığını değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaca paralel olarak, öncelikle karşılaştırmalı bir yaklaşım benimsemekte ve farklı perspektiflerin uluslararası hukuku tarihsel olarak nasıl yorumladığını ve öncüllerinin zamanla nasıl değiştiğini incelemektedir. Daha sonra, Birleşmiş Milletlerin ve öne çıkan bilim insanlarının bakış açısına göre yasalar çatışması durumunun hukukun üstünlüğünün evrenselliği açısından yıpratıcı etkiler doğurup doğurmadığını analiz etmektedir. Sonunda, ulus-aşırı hukuki dinamiklerin daha iyi anlaşılabilmesi için, uluslararası hukukun daimi bir reform ihtiyacı olan, faydalı ve yaşayan bir araç olarak tanınması gerektiği sonucuna varmaktadır.

GLOBAL LEGAL PLURALISM: A NEW CHALLENGE TO INTERNATIONAL LAW?

In the new era of jurisdictionalpluralism, the need for internationalorder has further scaled up dependingupon a diverse range of internationalactors, numerous regulatory regimesand overlapping jurisdictional assertionsof authority. Accordingly, legal literaturehas more intensively touched upon thesubject of legal pluralism and scholarshave tendency to investigate what thecurrent effects of global legal pluralismare and what kind of outcomes it mightbring in foreseeable future namely:Unity, Multiplicity or Fragmentation? Onthis subject matter, this paper aims atevaluating to what extent internationallaw provides an explicit and common setof standards applicable in the new era. Inline with this target, it initially adopteda comparative approach and examinedhow different perspectives haveinterpreted international law historicallyand how their premises have changedover time. Later, it analysed whetheror not the conflict of laws could havecorrosive effects to the universality ofrule of law according to the standpointsof United Nations and prominentscholars. At last, it inferred that in anattempt to understand transnationallegal dynamics better, international lawshould be recognized as a utilisable livinginstrument which is in constant need ofreformation.

PDF

___

Üye S., Teoride ve Pratikte Hukuki Çoğulluk (Turhan Yayınevi, Ankara 2013).
Twining W., General Jurisprudence: Understanding Law from a Global Perspective (1st edn, Cambridge University Press 2008).
Tamahana B., ‘Understanding Legal Pluralism: Past to Present, Local to Global’ (2007) 29 Sydney L. Rev. 1.
Sur M., Uluslararası Hukukun Esasları (2nd edn Beta Basım Yayım, İstanbul 2006).
Disaggregated Sovereignty: Toward the Public Accountability of Global Government Networks’ (2004) Government and Opposition 161.
Slaughter A.M., ‘International Law in a World of Liberal States’ (1995) 6 Eur. J. Int’l L. 503.
Roberts A.E., ‘Traditional and Modern Approaches to Customary International Law: A Reconciliation)’ (2001) 97 AJIL 757.
Project on International Courts and Tribunals, The International Judiciary in Context (2004).
Pauwelyn J., ‘Bridging Fragmentation and Unity: International Law as a Universe of Inter-connected Islands’, (2004) 25 Mich. JIL 903.
Passas N., ‘Global Anomie, Dysnomie, Economic Crime: Hidden Consequences of Neoliberalism and Globalization in Russia and Around the World’ (2000) 27(2) SJ 77.
Nolkaemper A, ‘Rule of Law Dynamics in an Era of International and Transnational Governance’ [2011] citing ACIL Research Paper No 2011-10
Morgenthau H.J., ‘Positivism, Functionalism and International Law’ 34 AJIL 272.
Michaels R., ‘the Re-statement of Non-State Law: The State Choice of Law, and the Challenge from Global Legal Pluralism’ (2005) 51 WL Rev 1209.
Merry S.E., ‘Legal Pluralism’ (1988) 22(5) L. & Soc’y Rev. 870.
Ku C., ‘Global Governance and the Changing Face of International Law (2001) ACUNS Reports& Papers 2001/2.
Koskenniemi M. & Leino P., ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Postmodern Anxieties’ (2002) 15 LJIL 553
Koskenniemi M., ‘What is International Law for?’ in M. Evan (ed), International Law (1st edn OUP,2003).
Korkman P. & Makinen V. (eds), Universalism in International Law and Political Philosophy, 4, (Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies 2008).
Kingsbury B., Director of Institute for International Law and Justice, ‘Administrative Governance’ (Audio-Visual Library of International Law Lecture Series, n.d.) accessed 18 November 2013.
Kaya T., ‘Uluslararası Hukuk Bölünüyor mu? Uluslararası Hukukun Genişlemesi ve Farklılaşmasından Kaynaklanan Zorluklar’ (2012) 61 AUHFD 149.
Kammerhofer J. & D’aspremont J. (eds), International Legal Positivism in a Post- Modern World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2014, Forthcoming) accessed 23 December 2013.
Janis M.W., ‘Jeremy Bentham and Fashioning of International Law’ (1984) 78 AJIL 405.
Hart H.L.A., The Concept of Law (3rd edn, OUP 2012).
Griffiths H., ‘What Is Legal Pluralism?’ (1986) 24 J. Legal Pluralism 1.
Glenn H.P., ‘Sustainable Diversity in Law’ (2011) 3 HJRL 1.
Fischer-Lescano A & Teubner G, ‘Regime Collisions: the Vain Search for Legal Unity in the Fragmentation of Global Law’ (2004) 24 Mich. J. Int’l L. 999.
Dworkin RM, Taking Rights Seriously (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1977)
Cover RM, ‘The Uses of Jurisdictional Redundancy: Interest, Ideology, and Innovation’ (1981) 22 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 639.
Burke-White WW, ‘International Legal Pluralism’ [2004] MJIL 963, accessed 08 November 13
Global Legal Pluralism: A Jurisprudence of Law Beyond Borders (Cambridge University Press, 2012).
The New Legal Pluralism’ (2009) 5 Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 225.
A Pluralist Approach to International Law’ (2007) 32 Yale J. Int’l L. 301, 326-327.
From International Law to Law and Globalization’ (2005) 43 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 534.
Berman P.S., ‘Choice of Law and Jurisdiction on Internet: Towards a Cosmopolitan Vision’ (2005) 153 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1819.
Austin J., The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (London: The University of London 1832) .
Secondary Sources Augiar C.M., ‘Cosmopolitanism’ (28 September 2006)McMaster University/ CAPES Foundation accessed 24 December 2013.
United Nations, ‘Rule of Law’ accessed 20 December 2013.
UNGA International Law Commission (ILC), ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion International Law’ (13 April 2006) UN Doc A/CN.4/L.687, finalized by Martti Koskenniemi.
Additional Sources Report of the Secretary-General, ‘the Rule of Law and Transitional Justice in Conflict and Post-conflict Societies’ UN Doc S/2004/616.
Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties (23 May 1969) 1155 UNTS 331, entered into force 27 January 1980.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (10 December 1982) 1833 UNTS 3, entered into force 16 November 1994.
Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (10 May 1993) 1833 UNTS No. 1-31363, entered into force 20 May 1994.
Table of Legislation Charter of the United Nations (26 June 1945) 1 UNTS XVI, entered into force 24 October 1945.
The MOX Plant Case (Ireland v United Kingdom) PCIJ (24 June 2013) 42 ILM 118.
Southern Bluefin Tuna Case (Australia and New Zealand v. Japan) (4 August 2000) UNRIAA vol.13 (2004).
Table of Cases Nicaragua v. United States of America [1986] ICJ 14.