Uluslararası Hukukta Tanıma Teorilerinin Eleştirel Değerlendirilmesi

Year 2020, , 191 - 212, 15.04.2020

Erdem Ertürk

https://doi.org/10.30915/abd.742413

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Uluslararası hukukta devletlerin tanınma teorileri iki grupta incelenir. Kurucu teori, tanımanın hukuki oluşturucu özelliğini savunurken, uluslararası hukukun işleyişi bağlamında yöntemsel sorunlar yaratır. Bu sorunlara tepki gösteren açıklayıcı teori, tanınma eyleminin oluşturucu etkisi olmadığını savunur. Çalışma, teorilerin, karşılıklı tanınma eyleminin uluslararası kişileri niteleyici özelliğini hesaba katma bağlamında yetersiz kaldığını eleştirel olarak ortaya koyar. Temel farklılıklarına rağmen, her iki teorinin kavramsal zemininde, tüm çelişkileri ile birlikte, Emer de Vattel’in mutlak egemenlik fikrinin yattığını ve bahsedilen yetersizliğin esas nedeninin bu olduğunu gösterir. Mutlak egemenlik fikrinin tanınma kavramını kısıtlı bir ekonomi içerisine hapsettiğini ve ancak bu kısıtlamanın giderilmesi durumunda devletler arası ilişkisel durumun karşılıklı oluşturucu etkisinin açıklanabileceğini savunur.

Keywords

Tanıma, Uluslararası Hukuk, Devlet, Uluslararası Kişilik, Açıklayıcı Teori, Kurucu Teori

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE THEORIES OF RECOGNITION OF STATES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

Abstract

There are two general theories of recognition of states. Defending the legally constitutive effect of recognition, the constitutive theory disturbs the procedural order of international law. Reacting to this disturbance, the declarative theory dismisses any legally constitutive effect of recognition. This study provides a critique of the failure of both theories to account for the determinative effect of mutual recognition upon states as persons of international law. Despite their fundamental differences, both theories incorporate Vattel’s problematic notion of absolute sovereignty and this incorporation causes the aforementioned failure by trapping the theories within a restrictive economy. It is only by removing this restriction that one can account for the relational aspect of coming into being as an international subject.

Keywords

Recognition, International Law, Statehood, International Subject, Declarative Theory, Constitutive Theory

References

• Angie A., ‘Western Discourses on Sovereignty’, (Evans J., Genovese A., Reilly A., Wolfe P., (eds.), Sovereignty: Frontiers of Possibility, (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2013).
• Barbour C., Pavlich G., (eds.), After Sovereignty: On the Question of Political Beginnings, (London: Routledge, 2010).
• Bodin J., On Sovereignty: Four Chapters from the Six Books of The Commonwealth, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
• Brierly J.L., The Law of Nations, (6th Ed.), (Waldock H., ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963).
• Cassese A., International Law, (2nd Ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).
• Chen T., The International Law of Recognition, (Green L.C., ed.), (London: Stevens & Sons Limited, 1951).
• Craven M., ‘Statehood, Self-Determination, and Recognition’, (Evans M.D., ed.), International Law, (4th Ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).
• Derrida J., ‘From Restricted to General Economy: A Hegelianism Without Reserve’, Writing and Difference, (London: Routledge, 2001).
• Erdal S., ‘Uluslararası Hukukta Tanıma Kurumu ve Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti Örneği’, Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 13, Sayı 1, Yıl 2005.
• Fitzpatrick P., ‘Latin Roots: The Force of International Law as Event’, (Johns F., Joyce R., Rahuja S., eds.), Events: The Force of International Law, (Abingdon: Routledge, 2011).
• Hall E., Treatise on International Law, (4th Ed.), (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895).
• Hegel G.W.F., Phenomenology of Spirit, (çev. A.V. Miller), (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
• Joyce R., Competing Sovereignties, (London: Routledge, 2013).
• Kelsen H., ‘Recognition in International Law: Theoretical Observations’, 35 American Journal of International Law, 1941.
• Koskenniemi M., From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
• Koskenniemi M., ‘What is International Law For?’, (Evans M.D. ed.), International Law, (3rd Ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).
• Kunz, J.L., ‘Critical Remarks on Lauterpacht’s ‘‘Recognition in International Law’’, 44 American Journal Of International Law, 1950.
• Lauterpach H., Recognition in International Law, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947).
• Lauterpacht H., ‘Recognition of States in International Law’, The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 53, 1944.
• - - - - Montevideo Convention On Rights and Duties of States, 1933.
• Nancy JL., Inoperative Community, (Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1991).
• Oppenheim L., International Law, Vol. I, Peace, (1st Ed.), (London: Longman, 1905).
• Shaw M., International Law, (6th Ed.), (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008).
• Talmon S., ‘The Constitutive Versus the Declarative Theory of Recognition: Tertium Non Datur?’ British Yearbook of International Law, Vol.75, Issue 1, 2005.
• Tourme-Jouannet E., ‘The International Law of Recognition’, The European Journal of International Law, Vol. 24, No.2, 2013.
• Vattel E., The Law of Nations, (Kapossy B., Whatmore R. (eds.)), (Indianapolis: Library Fund Inc., 2008).
• Williams J.F., ‘Recognition’, Transactions of the Grotius Society, Vol. 15, Problems of Peace and War, 53, 1929.