IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF THE PRIVATE SERVANTS OF THE DIPLOMATIC AGENTS

Year 2018, Volume: 9 Issue: 2, 1 - 22, 29.12.2018

Anıl Çamyamaç , Zekiye Özen İnci

https://doi.org/10.21492/inuhfd.418466

Cited By: 1

Abstract

One
of the most oldest and important branches of international law is without a
doubt the law of diplomacy since it mainly regulates the intercourse between
states. The rules of the law of diplomacy are mainly codified by the 1961
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. One of the most arguable subjects on
the law of diplomacy is the immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the
receiving states, which is provided for the embassy personnel and their family
members of the sending state, forming part of their households. Although it is
recognised as one of the most oldest rules of international law, it is also one
of the most critised rules, as well. It is believed that a special class of
people have been created by providing this kind of immunity for them. Yet,
among the members of the diplomatic mission there are some level of differences
in enjoying this immunity; with a few exceptions, most of the States have
demonstrated the tendency to restrict the diplomatic privileges and immunities,
particullary for those who do not have diplomatic title. Hence, in this sense
the private servants of the members of a diplomatic mission would be the first
ones to be thought of. In this respect, the main purpose of this article is to
shed light on the issues relating to immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of
the receiving state for a diplomatic agent’s private servants.

Keywords

1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, diplomatic immunities and privileges, immunity from criminal jurisdiction, diplomatic agents, private servant, member of a household.

DİPLOMATİK AJANIN ÖZEL HİZMETÇİSİNİN CEZA YARGISINDAN BAĞIŞIKLIĞI

Abstract

Temelde
devletlerarasındaki ilişkileri düzenlediği için diplomasi hukuku şüphe yoktur
ki uluslararası hukukun en eski ve en önemli dallarından biridir. Diplomasi
hukukunun kuralları genel olarak 1961 tarihli Diplomatik İlişkilere Dair Viyana
Sözleşmesiyle kodifiye edilmiştir. Gönderen devletin elçilik personeli ve
onların hâne halkını teşkil eden aile üyelerine sağlanan kabul eden devletin
ceza yargısından bağışıklık diplomasi hukukunun en çok tartışılan konularından
biridir. Uluslararası hukukun en eski kurallarından biri olarak tanınmasına
karşılık, bu kural aynı zamanda en fazla eleştirilen kurallardan biridir. Bu
tür bir bağışıklığın sağlanmasıyla özel statüyü haiz özel bir insan sınıfı
yaratıldığına inanılmaktadır. Ancak, diplomatik misyon üyeleri arasında bu
bağışıklıktan yararlanmada bazı seviye farkları vardır. Az sayıda istisna
dışında birçok devlet, özellikle de diplomatik rütbeyi haiz olmayan kişiler
için başta olmak üzere diplomatik ayrıcalık ve bağışıklıkların kısıtlaması
eğilimi sergilemektedir. Böylelikle, bu bağlamda ilk düşünülenler bir
diplomatik misyonun üyelerinin özel hizmetçileri olmaktadır. Bu çerçevede, bu
çalışmanın temel amacı diplomatik ajanın özel hizmetçisinin kabul eden devletin
ceza yargısından bağışıklığıyla alâkalı konulara ışık tutmaktır.

Keywords

ceza yargısından bağışıklık, diplomatik ajanlar, özel hizmetçi, 1961 tarihli Diplomatik İlişkilere Dair Viyana Sözleşmesi, diplomatik ayrıcalık ve bağışıklıklar, hâne halkı üyesi.

References

• ALTUĞ Y., Devletler Umumi Hukuku, 10. Baskı, İstanbul, 1995.
• ASHMAN C. & TRESCOTT P., Diplomatic Crime, New York, 1991.
• BOCZEK B.A., The A to Z of International Law, Lanham, 2010.
• BROOKFIELD S.H., Immunity of the Subordinate Personnel of a Diplomatic Mission, British Yearbook of International Law, vol. 19, 1938, s. 151-160.
• ÇELİK E.F., Milletlerarası Hukuk, I. Kitap, 2. Baskı, İstanbul, 1987.
• DEÁK F., Organs of States in Their External Relations: Immunities and Privileges of State Organs and of the State, in Manual of Public International Law, edited by Sørensen, London, 1968, s. 381-467.
• DENZA E., Diplomatic Law: Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 3rd edition, Oxford, 2012. (reprint from the 2008 edition)
• DETTER I., The International Legal Order, Dartmouth, 1994.“Diplomatic Immunity—Servants: Case of Mohammed Lajed Ahmed”, American Journal of International Law, vol. 49/1, 1955, s. 100-101.do
• NASCIMENTO e SILVA G.E.,Diplomacy in International Law, Leiden, 1972.
• GRIFFIN M., Diplomatic Impunity, Student Lawyer, vol. 13, 1984, s. 18-25.“Guide to Diplomatic Missions in Turkey”, Republic of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ankara, 2008.
• GUTTERIDGE J.A.G., The Immunities of the Subordinate Diplomatic Staff, British Yearbook of International Law, vol. 24, 1947, s. 148-159.
• HARDY M., Modern Diplomatic Law, Manchester, 1968.
• HERSHEY A.S., Diplomatic Agents and Immunities, Washington D.C., 1919.
• HERSHEY A.S., The Essentials of International Public Law and Organization, Revised Edition, New York, 1930.
• LAUTERPACHT H. (ed.), Annual Digest and Reports of Public International Law Cases 1938-1940, International Law Reports, vol. 9, Cambridge, 1988. (reprint of 1942 edition)
• MERAY S.L., Devletler Hukukuna Giriş, II. Cilt, Yeniden Gözden Geçirilmiş 3. Bası, Ankara, 1965.
• MERVYN JONES J., Immunities of Servants of Diplomatic Agents and the Statute of Anne 7, C.12, Journal of Comparative Legislation & International Law, vol. 22/1, 1940, s. 19-31.
• MURTY B.S., The International Law of Diplomacy: The Diplomatic Instrument and World Public Order, New Haven, 1989.
• NAHLIK S.E., Development of Diplomatic Law. Selected Problems, Recueil des cours, vol. 222, 1990-III, 1990, s. 187-364.
• O’CONNELL D.P., International Law, vol. II, 2nd edition, London, 1970.
• OGDON M., Juridicial Bases of Diplomatic Immunity, Washington D.C., 1936.
• PREUSS L., Capacity for Legation and the Theoretical Basis for Diplomatic Immunity, New York University Law Quarterly Review, vol. 10/1, 1932, s. 170-187.
• PRZETACZNIK F., The History of the Jurisdictional Immunity of the Diplomatic Agents in English Law, Anglo-American Law Review, vol. 7/2, 1978, s. 348-395.
• REIßMANN A. & BOTHE S., Ending Impunity for the Bottommost Diplomatic Caste: German Practice in Relation to Domestic Workers in Diplomatic Households, German Yearbook of International Law, vol. 57, 2014, s. 633-649.
• SPADINGER W., Private Domestic Staff: A Risk Group on the Fringe of the Convention, in Diplomatic Law in a New Millenium, edited by Behrens, Oxford, 2017, s. 132-145.
• STAIANO F., Domestic Workers’ Human Rights versus Diplomatic Impunity: Developments in International and National Jurisprudence, Italian Yearbook of International Law, vol. 22, 2013, s. 201-220.
• TEZCAN D., Türk Hukukunda Diplomatik Yargı Bağışıklığı, in Birleşmiş Milletler Türk Derneği Yıllığı 1985, Ankara, 1986, s. 137-167.
• von GLAHN G., Law Among Nations: An Introduction to Public International Law, 7th edition, New York, 1996.
• WILSON C.E., Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities, Tucson, 1967.
• YOUNG E., The Development of the Law of Diplomatic Relations, British Yearbook of International Law, vol. 40, 1964, s. 141-182.