KORUMA SORUMLULUĞU’NUN NORMATİF STATÜSÜ

Koruma Sorumluluğu önce bir rapor daha sonra Birleşmiş Milletler’in resmi bir belgesi olarak kısa zamanda gelişme göstermiş olmasına karşın, normatif statüsü üzerine süregelen tartışma halen devam etmektedir. Özellikle 2011’de gerçekleşen Libya müdahalesinin ardından söz konusu ülkenin daha da istikrarsızlaşması üzerine, Koruma Sorumluluğu’nun zaten tartışmalı olan geçerliliğinin sona erdiği düşüncesi yaygınlaşmış olsa da bu çalışmada, yeni bir okuma üzerinden bu prensibin kısmen de olsa halen geçerli bir normatif gücü olduğu görüşü savunulmaktadır. 2017 Ağustos’unda Rohingyalı Müslüman halkın başına gelen toplu zulüm karşısında uluslararası toplumun sessiz kaldığı veya Suriye krizinde kimyasal silah kullanımına rağmen BM Güvenlik Konseyi’nin herhangi bir eylemde bulunamadığı bir dönemde, Koruma Sorumluluğu ve devletlere yüklediği sorumlulukların savunulması daha da önem kazanmaktadır. Vahşet suçları karşısında BM Güvenlik Konseyi daimi üyelerinin veto hakkının askıya alınması girişimi, Koruma Sorumluluğu’nun geleceği için hayati bir öneme sahip olup, ağır insan hakları ihlallerinde devletlerin egemenlik ve toprak bütünlüğü üzerinden bir meşruiyet söylemi geliştirmelerinin önüne geçilmesini amaçlamaktadır.

NORMATIVE STATUS OF RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT

Although the concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) has progressed significantly in a short period of time, first  as a report and later as an official document of the United Nations (UN), the ongoing debate over its normative status is still continuing. In particular, the Libya intervention in 2011 and the destabilization of the country after the military intervention has intensified the debate on the presumed death of this concept. This study argues that R2P  still has  a certain normative power and aims at demonstrating it through a new reading. The Report of the Secretary General in 2009 about the implementation of the concept has created three pillars. The first pillar involves the responsibility of every state to protect its populations from four mass atrocity crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. The second consists of the international community’s responsibility to encourage and assist states in protecting its citizens. Finally, the third pillar implies that the international community has a responsibility to use appropriate means to protect populations against crimes if a state fails to do so itself. The first pillar, also known as internal sovereignty which requires effective control and authority by protecting fundamental human rights of every person over a given territory claimed by the state, has already been accepted as an international norm because none of the members of the international society can treat its populations as it wishes. However, the states continue to commit massive human rights abuses. Moreover, they legitimize their violations through the incontestable argument of fight against terrorism. We can refer to two current cases that not only reflect this tendency, but also indicate the relativity of the concept of terrorism and the disproportionality of states measures for security. In August 2017, the world has witnessed the international community’s silence in the face of mass atrocities perpetrated against the Rohingya people in Myanmar. The government has declared that they were fighting against terrorists and for the lives of twelve security agents killed in an armed attack. As a result, seven hundred thousand people had to flee their villages and seek refuge in Bangladesh. As to the Syrian crisis, the Security Council  has also been  paralyzed even when  chemical weapons were being used against civilians. This crisis has also illustrated another chronic problem: the systematic use of veto right by the permanent members of UN Security Council. From the beginning of the crisis in 2011 until April 2018, Russian Federation obstructed every attempt of conflict resolution, including military intervention foreseen through the third pillar of R2P, by using their veto right for twelve resolutions about the Syrian crisis out of twenty-nine. The fight against terrorism has also been the central argument of the offıcial statements made by the Syrian government to legitimize the loss of four hundred thousand of their citizens. The reaction of the international community against the systematic use of veto right has come in 2005 from five small states known as S-5. This group stayed operational until 2012 and in 2013, it evolved into a new and larger group called ACT (Accountability, Coherence and Transparency). Both groups recommended to the permanent members of the Security Council not to use their veto right in case of mass atrocities and not to block any attempt of conflict resolution. Furthermore, if states use their veto right, they are invited to justify their decision according to international law. In 2015, the ACT group published a code of conduct regarding Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. Again, in 2015, French and Mexican governments have launched a process of suspension of veto powers in cases of mass atrocity. In their political statement they aimed at leading efforts to secure voluntary restraint on the use of the veto by the permanent members of the UN Security Council. Global support for a more responsible UN Security Council is growing. Currently, 117 countries support both the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group’s Code of Conduct and the French/Mexican Declaration. Under these circumstances, it becomes all the more important to underline the values encompassed by the Responsibility to Protect. Therefore, the initiative for the suspension of the use of  the right to veto  in case of mass atrocities is vital for the future of Responsibility to Protect and seeks to prevent States from developing a legitimizing discourse on sovereignty and territorial integrity over and above severe human rights violations.

Kaynakça

Birleşmiş Millet Güvenlik Konseyi ve Genel Kurul Kararları & Güvenlik Konseyi Oturum Tutanakları

A/63/677, 12 Ocak 2009.

A/RES/62/557, 15 Eylül 2008.

A/RES/63/308, 14 Eylül 2009.

A/RES/63/308, 9 Ekim 2009.

A/RES/72/188, 19 Aralık 2017.

A/RES/72/191, 19 Aralık 2017.

S/2018/138, 20 Şubat 2018.

S/2018/369, 19 Nisan 2018.

S/PV.8060, 28 Eylül 2017.

S/PV.8188, 24 Şubat 2018

S/PV.8242, 25 Nisan 2018.

S/RES/1564, 18 Eylül 2004.

S/RES/2401, 24 Şubat 2018.

UN Doc A/60/L.49, 17 Mart 2006.

UN Doc A/66/L.42, 28 Mart 2012.

UN Doc A/66/L.42, 28 Mart 2012.

UN Doc A/68/PV.6, 23 Eylül 2013.

UN Doc S/21048, 22 Aralık 1989.

UN Doc S/PV.7052, 29 Ekim 2013.

UN Doc S/PV.7285, 23 Ekim 2014.

UN Doc S/PV.7539, 20 Ekim 2015.

UN Doc S/PV.8228, 10 Nisan 2018.

BBC Türkçe (2017), “Myanmar krizi: Arakan Rohingya Kurtuluş Ordusu kim?”, 6 Eylül 2017 http://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-dunya-41172871 (Erişim Tarihi: 05.04.2018).

BBC Türkçe (2015), “Myanmar: Arakan Müslümanları oy kullanamadı; seçim sonuçları bekleniyor”, 9 Kasım 2015 http://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler/2015/11/151109_ myanmar_sonuclar (Erişim Tarihi: 05.04.2018).

Bellamy, A. J., ve Reike, R. (2010). The responsibility to protect and international law.  Global Responsibility to Protect,  2(3), 267-286.

Caruso, R., ve Locatelli, A. (Eds.). (2014).  Understanding terrorism: A socio-economic perspective. Emerald Group Publishing.

Center for UN Reform, ACT Grubu bilgi notu, http://centerforunreform.org/sites/default/files/ FACT%20SHEET%20ACT%20June%202015.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 20.03.2018)

Chesterman S. (2002), Just War or Just Peace?: Humanitarian Intervention and International Law, Oxford University Press.

Cronogue G. (2012), “Responsibility to Protect: Syria the Law, Politics, and Future of Humanitarian Intervention Post-Libya”, Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, 3(1).

Evans G. (2008), The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and for All, Washington: The Brookings Institution.

Finnemore M. ve Sikkink K. (1998), “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change”, International Organization, 52(4).

Finnemore M. (2003), The Purpose of Intervention, Cornell University Press, Londra, 2003.

Global R2P, Liste of supporters, 09 Şubat 2018. http://www.globalr2p.org/media/files/2018-02-09-coc-list-of-supporters.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 30.04.2018)

Harrington J. (2017), “The Working Methods of The United Nations Security Council: Maintaining The Implementation of Change”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 66.

High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change (2004), A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, New York, United Nations.

Hobson C. (2016), “Responding to Failure: The Responsibility to Protect after Libya”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 44(3).

International Crisis Group (2016), Myanmar: A New Muslim Insurgency in Rakhine State, Report no:283.

International Peace Institute (2015), “Elders Propose Veto Reform in Cases of Atrocities”, 26 Eylül 2015. https://www.ipinst.org/2015/09/preventing-mass-atrocities#8 (Erişim Tarihi: 13.04.2018).

Le Monde (2018), “Le secteur rebelle de la Ghouta orientale continue de se vider”, 27 Mart 2018. http://www.lemonde.fr/syrie/article/2018/03/27/syrie-le-secteur-rebelle-de-la-ghouta-orientalecontinue-de-se-vider_5277044_1618247.html (Erişim Tarihi: 30.04.2018)

Le Monde (2018a), “Donald Trump annoncedes frappes contre la Syrie en coordination avec Paris et Londres”, 14 Nisan 2018. http://www.lemonde.fr/ameriques/article/2018/04/14/donald-trump-annonce-desfrappes-contre-la-syrie-en-coordination-avec-paris-et-londres_5285332_3222.html (ErişimTarihi: 30.04.2018).

Le Point (2011), “La France reconnait le Conseil National de Transition comme le seul représentant”, 10 Mart 2011. http://www.lepoint.fr/societe/la-france-reconnait-le-conseil-national-de-transition-commeseul-representant-legitime-de-la-libye-10-03-2011-1304755_23.php (Erişim Tarihi: 12.03.2018).

Loiselle M.E. (2013), “The Normative Status of the Responsibility to Protect after Libya”, Global Responsibility to Protect, 5.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2018), Myanmar Ülke Bilgi Notu, http://www.ohchr.org/FR/Countries/AsiaRegion/Pages/MMIndex.aspx, (Erişim Tarihi: 26.04.2018).

Report of the Secretary General (2009), Implementing the responsibility to protect, A/63/677, 12 Ocak 2009.

Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (2001), Responsibility to Protect, http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS%20Report.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 25.02.2018).

Research UN, Veto Listesi, http://research.un.org/fr/docs/sc/quick (Erişim, 06.04.2018).

Revised draft outcome document of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly of September 2005 submitted by the President of the General Assembly, A/59/ HPLM/CRP.i/ Rev.s, 5 August 2005.

RFA (Radio Free Asia) (2018), “Myanmar Government Vows to Fight Muslim Terrorist Group”, 08 Ocak 2018. https://www.rfa.org/english/news/myanmar/myanmar-government-vowsto-fight-muslim-terrorist-group-01082018162620.html (Erişim Tarihi: 05.04.2018).

Roberts, A. (1999). Nato’s ‘humanitarian war’over kosovo.  Survival,  41(3), 102-123.

Strauss, E. (2009). A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush–on the assumed legal nature of the responsibility to protect.  Global Responsibility to Protect,  1(3), 291-323.

The Elders Resmi İnternet Sitesi, http://www.theelders.org/ (Erişim Tarihi: 13.04.2018).

The Independent (2017), Myanmar declares ARSA as terrorist group, 26 Ağustos 2017. http:// www.theindependentbd.com/post/111372 (Erişim Tarihi: 23.04.2018).

Türkmen F. (2006), İnsan Haklarının Yeni Boyutu. İnsancıl Müdahale, İstanbul, Okumuş Adam Yayınları.

UK Government (2015), Statement by Ambassador Matthew Rycroft of the UK Mission to the UN at the ACT Group Event on the Code of Conduct https://www.gov.uk/government/ speeches/im-proud-to-say-that-the-united-kingdom-is-signing-up-to-the-act-code-ofconduct (Erişim Tarihi: 30.04.2018).

United Nations Department of Political Affairs (2017), “Security Council Briefing on the Situation in Myanmar, Under-Secretary-General Jeffrey Feltman”, 12 Aralık 2017. http://www.un.org/undpa/en/speeches-statements/12122017/myanmar (Erişim Tarihi: 13.04.2018).

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (2018), “Rohingya Refugee Crisis”, 26 Nisan 2018. https://www.unocha.org/rohingya-refugee-crisis (Erişim Tarihi: 30.04.2018).

United Nations 2005 World Summit Outcome, A/RES/60/1/2005, 16 Eylül 2005. United Nations Millennium Declaration, A/RES/55/2, 8 Eylül 2000.

United Nations Meetings Coverage And Press Releases (2007), “Security Council Fails To Adopt Draft Resolution On Myanmar, Owing To Negative Votes By China, Russian Federation”, 12 Ocak 2007, https://www.un.org/press/en/2007/sc8939.doc.htm (Erişim, 08.04.2018).

Welsh J. (2011), “Civilian Protection in Libya: Putting Coercion and Controversy Back into RtoP”, Ethics & International Affairs, 25(3).

Kaynak Göster

ÖNERİ
  • ISSN: 1300-0845
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 2 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 1994
  • Yayıncı: Marmara Üniversitesi

5.9b2.1b