Lotus Görüşü’nün Gelişimi ve Geçerliliğini Sürdürmesi Üzerine Bir İnceleme

Uluslararası Daimi Adalet Divanı (PCIJ), 1927 tarihli Bozkurt-Lotus kararında, uluslararası hukukta kişiler ve uluslararası hukukta sorumluluğun kaynağı ile ilgili meseleleri pozitivist bir yaklaşımla ele aldı. Davanın ardından yaklaşık bir asır sonra, kararda geçen Lotus “görüşü” uluslararası hukukun en tartışmalı ifadelerinden biri olmaya devam ediyor. Bu makale, “Lotus görüşü” ve “Lotus prensibi” arasındaki ayrımı dikkate alarak bu iki kavramın uluslararası hukuktaki geçerliliğini “uluslararası sistemde değişim ve devamlılık” tartışmaları çerçevesinde ele alacaktır. Lotus görüşü, uluslararası hukuktaki pozitivist-gönüllülük esaslı yaklaşımı yansıtırken, Lotus prensibi ise kısıtlayıcı bir kural ihdas edilmedikçe uluslararası hukukta devletlerin serbestliği prensibini ifade eder. Bu makale Lotus prensibinin geçerliliğini yitirdiğini iddia ederken, Lotus görüşünün mevcut uluslararası hukukun temelini ve düzenini yansıtmaya devam ettiğini ortaya koyuyor. Kararın normatif ve yöntem bakımından incelenmesi literatürde yaygın bir şekilde bulunduğundan bu makale Lotus Davası’nın karar metnine ve esasına girmeyip, yalnızca uluslararası hukukta sorumululuğun kaynağı ve uluslararası hukukta kişiler meselelerine odaklanacaktır. Makale uluslararası hukuk düzenindeki pratik örnekler üzerinden tezlerini ispatlayacaktır. Bu amaçla öncelikle uluslararası hukukun kişileri ve anlaşmalara çekince koyma konularında üç ayrı örnek üzerinden görüşün geçerliliğini koruduğunu açıklarken yine aynı örneklerin prensibin güncel uluslararası hukuk düzeninin gerekliliklerini karşılayamadığını anlatacaktır.

EVOLUTION OF THE LOTUS DICTUM: AN INQUIRY FOR ASSESSING THE CONTINUING VALIDITY

In its landmark ‘Lotus’case of 19271, the PermanentCourt of International Justice (PCIJ) consideredthe issues related to the subjects, sources, andfoundation of the obligation under the internationallaw from a positivist approach. After almost acentury later, the Lotus dictum remains as one of themost controversial quotation of international law.This paper presents examples to explore the validityof the Lotus dictum and the principle derivedfrom the judgment in the light of the discussion ofstate-centrism in international law. The paper willfollow a bottom-up approach to reach its point; toassess whether there are any change or continuityin international legal order described in the Lotuscase. To examine the relevance of the Lotus inmodern day, the paper draws a distinction betweenthe Lotus principle and the Lotus dictum. The latterone refers to the positivist-voluntarist approach tointernational law as the actual text of the majoritydecision points out, and the former one refers topermissiveness in legal lacuna, as it is commonlyarticulated and applied. The paper claims althoughthe Lotus principle may be characterized as outdated,the ideas expressed in the Lotus dictum arestill relevant in the contemporary international lawas it is reflecting the conceptual underpinning of theinternational legal order and as well as shaping theinternational legal thought. To demonstrate this, thepaper first explores two issues, namely: internationallegal personality and reservation regime to treatieswith three illustrative arguments re-affirming thevalidity of the Lotus dictum. It then uses the sameexamples to present the practical applicability ofthe Lotus principle is decreasing. Notably, the focusof the paper is limited to the sources of obligationunder the international law and subjects of it andwill not engage in the merits and judgment of thecase. The arguments will be made with illustrationof functional and practical examples, and thenormative and methodological assessment ofthe judgment is beyond this paper as it is highlyexamined in literature.

PDF

___

Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo (Request for Advisory Opinion) [2010] 22 July 2010, ICJ Rep. 403.
Armed Activities on the Territory of Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo v Rwanda) [2002] (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) Joint Separate Opinion by judges Higgins Kooijmans, Elaraby, Owada And Simma 2006 ICJ Rep 6.
Arrest Warrant of 14 February 2002, Judgment [2002] ICJ Rep 63.
Asylum Case (Colombia v Peru), (Judgment) (1950) ICJ Rep 1950.
Dominguez v United States, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Rep No 62/02, (Merits) Case-12.285 (2002).
Fisheries Case (The United Kingdom v. Norway) (Judgment) (1951) ICJ Rep 1951.
Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between WHO and Egypt, (Advisory Opinion) Separate Opinion of Judge Gros, (1980) ICJ Rep 1980, at 103
Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, Advisory Opinion [1996] ICJ Rep 66.
Louzidou v Turkey (Preliminary Objections) (1995) 20 EHRR 99.
Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Advisory Opinion [1951] ICJ Rep 15.
The Case of the SS “Lotus” (France v Turkey) (Judgment) [1927] PCIJ Series A No 9.
Akehurst M, ‘Customs as a Source of International Law’ (1974-75) 47, British Yearbook of International Law.
Alston P, ‘The “Not-a-Cat” Syndrome: Can the International Human Rights Regime Accommodate Non-State Actors?’ in Philip Alston (eds), Non-State Actors and Human Rights (Oxford University Press, 2005).
Beaulac S, ‘The Westphalian Model in Defining International Law: Challenging the Myth’ (2004) 8 Australian Journal of Legal History.
Bogdany A and Rau M, ‘ The Lotus’ in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed), Max Planck Enclopedia of Public International Law http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/ law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e162?prd=EPIL (accessed 9 May 2019).
Bradley C and Gulati M, ‘Withdrawing from International Custom.’ (2010) 120(2) Yale Law Journal.
Bowett D, ‘Reservations to Non-Restricted Multilateral Treaties’ (1976) 48 British Yearbook of International Law 67.
Charney J, ‘Universal International Law’ (1993) 87(4) American Journal of International Law.
Clark B, ‘The Vienna Convention Reservations Regime and the Convention on Discrimination Against Women’, (1991) 85 American Journal of International Law.
Dumberry P, ‘Incoherent And Ineffective: The Concept Of Persistent Objector Revisited’ (2010) 59 International and Comparative Law Quarterly.
Fastenrath U, ‘Relative Normativity in International Law’ (1993) 4 European Journal of International Law.
Goodman R, ‘Human Rights Treaties, Invalid Reservations and State Consent’ (2002) 96 American Journal of International Law.
Handeyside H, ‘The Lotus Principle in the ICJ Jurisprudence: Was the Ship Ever Afloat?’ (2007) 29(1) Michigan Journal of International Law.
Hertogen A, ‘Letting Lotus Bloom’ (2015) 26 European Journal of International Law.
Howley J, ‘The Non-State Actor and International Law: A Challenge to State Primacy?’ (2009) 7 (1) Dialogue: Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia.
Hollis D, ‘Private Actors in Public International Law: Amicus Curiae and the Case for the Retention of State Sovereignty’, (2002) 25 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review
Kirsch N, ‘The Decay of Consent: International Law in an Age of Global Public Goods’, 108 American Journal of International Law (2014), 1-40.
Kleinlein T, ‘Constitutionalization in International Law’, (2012) 231 Max- Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften
Lakhany F, ‘How Important Are Non-State Actors’ (2006) 59(3) Pakistan Horizon 37, at 39,
Loschin L, ‘The Persistent Objector, and Customary Human Rights Law: A Proposed Analytical Framework’ (1996) 2 University of California Davis Journal of international law & Policy.
Malgosia Fitzmaurice, ‘The Practical Working of the Law of Treaties’ in Malcolm D Evan (eds), International Law (Oxford University Press, 2014).
Meek M, ‘International Law: Reservations to Multilateral Agreements’ (1955), 5 De Paul Law Review.
Morgenthau H, ‘Positivism, functionalism, and international law’ (1940) 34 The American Journal of International Law.
Moloney R, ‘Incompatible Reservations to Human Rights Treaties: Severability and the Problem of State Consent’ (2014) 51 Michigan Journal of International Law
Nagan W, ‘The Changing Character of Sovereignty in International Law and International Relations’ (2004) 43:141, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law.
Sari A and Jachec-Neale A, ‘International Law in 2050’ (2018) Essex Center of International Law Occasional Paper 2018/1, at 7. Available at https://papers. ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3180686. (accessed 9 May 2019).
Sieber U, ‘Legal Order in a Global World – The Development of a Fragmented System of National, International, and Private Norms’, (2010) 14 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law.
Simma B and Paulus A. L., ‘The Responsibility of Individuals for Human Rights Abuses in Internal Conflicts: A Positivist View’ (1999) 93 American Journal of International Law.
Slaughter A, and White W, ‘The Future of International Law Is Domestic (or, The European Way of Law)’ (2006), 47:2 Harvard Journal of International Law
Stone J, ‘Non Liquet and the Function of Law in the International Community’ (1959) 35 British Yearbook of International Law.
Tezcan D, ‘Bozkurt Lotus Davasının Uluslararası Hukuktaki Önemi ve Yeri’, Çağdaş Türkiye Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi, V: 4-5, 1994-1995, s. 267-274.
Trimble P, ‘Globalization, International Institutions and the Erosion of National Sovereignty’, (1997) 95 Michigan Law Review
Acer Y, The Aegean Maritime Dispute, and International Law (Aldershot, 2003).
Aust A, Modern Treaty Law and Practice, (Cambridge University Press, 2000).
Crawford J, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, 2013).
Balcıoğlu M, Kütükçü M A, Poyraz Y and Bozkurt E, (eds) Bozkurt Lotus Davası, (Ankara 2003).
Batır K, Yirmibirinci Yüzyılda Deniz Haydutluğu ve Uluslararası Hukuk, (USAK publishing 2011).
Friedman W, The Changing Structure of International Law, (Columbia University Press, 1966).
Hernández G, The International Court of Justice and the Judicial Function (Oxford University Press 2014).
Kolb R, Theory of International Law (Hart Publishing, 2016).
Parlett, K. The Individual in the International Legal System: Continuity and Change in International Law. (Cambridge University Press, 2011).
Peters A, Ulfstein G and Klabbers J, The Constitutionalization of International Law (Oxford University Press, 2009).
Poyraz Y, (ed) Lotus Meselesi, (Ankara 2011).
Shabtai R, Perplexities of Modern International Law, (Martinus Nijhoff, 2004).
Shermers H and Blokker N, International Institutional Law (Brills, 2011).
Alain Pellet, ‘ILC Meeting with Human Rights Bodies’ ILC(LIX)/RT/CRP.1
26 July 2007, http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/ilc_lix_rt_crp1. pdf (accessed 9 May 2019).
Alain Pellet, ‘Eighth report on reservations to treaties’ (2003) 2(1) International Law Commission UN Doc A/CN.4/535
ILC Report of the ILC on the work of its 63rd session 26 April – 3 June and 4 July -12 August 2011 UN Doc A/66/70 at 3.2.3
ILC, ‘First Report on Diplomatic Protection’ (7 March 2000) UN Doc A/ CN4/506. Available at http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_ cn4_506.pdf (accessed 9 May 2019).
UNHRC ‘General Comment 24’ in Note by the Secretariat Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies [2008] UN Doc HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9.