Düşmanlıkların Yürütülmesinde Orantılılık İlkesi: Teorik Ve Pratik Zorluklar

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2, 271 - 284, 24.10.2023

Adem Özer

Öz

Düşmanlıkların yürütülmesi esnasında sivil kayıpların ve sivil nesnelere verilen zararın azaltılmasının alternatif yollarını arayan devletler, silahlı çatışma esnasında uluslararası silahlı çatışma hukuku olarak da bilinen uluslararası insancıl hukuk kurallarının ehemmiyetine özel bir önem atfetmektedirler. Orantılılık ilkesi ise uluslararası insancıl hukuk ile askeri hukukun birleştiği noktayı temsil etmektedir. Hedefleme döngüsü esnasında orantılılık ilkesine ilişkin hukuki analiz, saldırıdan elde edilmesi beklenen askeri avantaj ile beklenen ikincil zararın karşılaştırılmasını sağlamaktadır. Ancak askeri avantaj ile ikincil hasarın ölçülmesi ve karşılaştırılmasının zor ve tartışmalı olduğu hem teorik hem de pratik uygulamalarda kendisini göstermektedir. Bu bağlamda söz konusu zorlukların ele alınması ve analiz edilmesi çalışmanın temel amacını oluşturmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Uluslararası İnsancıl Hukuk, Orantılılık İlkesi, İkincil Zarar, Askeri Fayda, Aşırılık.

Kaynakça

• 12 Ağustos 1949 Tarihli Cenevre Sözleşmeleri ve Protokolleri (Cenevre Sözleşmeleri) (2008). (Yay. Haz.) Melike Batur Yamaner; Emre Öktem; Bleda Kurtdarcan; Mehmet C. Uzun (Yay. Haz.), İstanbul: Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayınları No:42.
• Amoroso, D. et all.(2018). “Autonomy in Weapon Systems: The Military Application of Artificial Intelligence as a Litmus Test for Germany’s New Foreign and Security Policy”, Heinrich Böll Foundation.
• Boogaard, J. V. D. (2015). “Proportionality and Autonomous Weapons Systems”. Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, (6), 247-283.
• Cannızzaro, E. (2006). “Contextualizing proportionality: jus ad bellum and jus in bello in the Lebanese war”. International Review of the Red Cross, 88(864), 779-792.
• Chakrabarty, I. (September, 2019). “Reformulating Rules on Dual Object Targeting”. The Groningen Journal of International Law, Erişim adresi: https://grojil.org/2019/09/30/reformulating-rules-on-dual-object-targeting/.
• Chengeta, T. (2016). “Measuring Autonomous Weapon Systems against International Humanitarian Law Rules”, Journal of Law and Cyber Warfare, 5(1), 63-137.
• Cohen, A. (2010). Proportionality in Modern Asymmetrical Wars. Jerusalem: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
• Crawford, E. ve Pert, A. (2015). International Humanitarian Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Crootof, R. (2015). “Autonomous Weapon Systems and Proportionality”. Völkerrechtsblog. Erişim adresi: https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/autonomous-weapon-systems-and-proportionality/
• Crowe, J. ve Scheuber, K. W. (2013). Principles of International Humanitarian Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
• Dınsteın, Y. (2004). The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Dost, S. (2018). “Uluslararası Hukukta Orantılılık İlkesi”. Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi Dergisi, 6(12), 361-399.
• Fenrıck, W. (1982). “The Rule of Proportionality and Protocol I in Conventional Warfare”, Military Law Review, (98), 102-107.
• Field Manual 3-24 MCWP 3-33.5 (May, 2014). Insurgencies and Countering Insurgencies.
• Gardam, J. (2004). Necessity, Proportionality and the Use of Force by States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Geıß, R. (2015). The International-Law Dimension of Autonomous Weapons Systems. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
• Gıllard, E. C. (2018). Proportionality in the Conduct of Hostilities: The Incidental Harm Side of the Assessment. London: Chatham House: The Royal Institute of International Affairs.
• Gısel, L. (2018). The Principle Of Proportionality in the Rules Governing the Conduct of Hostilities Under International Humanitarian Law (İnternational Expert Meeting 22–23 June 2016 – Quebec). International Committee of the Red Cross and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
• Gunawan, Y., Aulawı, Mohammad Haris Aulawi, Andi Rizal Ramadhan (2019)., “Command Responsibility of Autonomous Weapons Systems under International Humanitarian Law”. Indonesian Law Journal, 7(3), 351-368.
• Henckaerts, J. M. ve Beck, L.D. (2005). Uluslararası İnsancıl Teamül (Örf-Adet) Hukuku Cilt 1: Kurallar. (Çev.) A. Emre Öktem ve Diğerleri, İstanbul: Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayınları.
• Henderson, I. ve Reece, K. (2018). “Proportionality under International Humanitarian Law: The “Reasonable Military Commander” Standard and Reverberating Effects”. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 51(3), 835-856.
• ICJ Rome Statute (1998). Erişim adresi: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/RS-Eng.pdf.
• ICRC (2014). “Applying İnternational Humanitarian Law“, Expert Meeting Autonomous Weapon Systems Technical, Military, Legal And Humanitarian Aspects Geneva, Switzerland 26 to 28 March 2014.
• ICTY, Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 2000.
• ICTY, Prosecutor v. Galić, IT-98-29-T, Trial Judgement, 5 December 2003. International Court Of Justice (ICJ), Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996.
• International Court Of Justice (ICJ), Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996.
• International Law Association (ILA) Study Group (2017). “The Conduct of Hostilities and International Humanitarian Law: Challenges of 21st Century Warfare”. International Law Studies. (93), 322-388.
• Jensen, E. T. (2013). “Cyber Attacks: Proportionality and Precautions in Attack”. International Law Studies, 89(1), 198-217.
• Kılcup, J. (2016). “Proportionality in Customary International Law: An Argument Against Aspirational Laws of War”. Chicago Journal of International Law, 17(1), 244-272.
• Kolb, R. ve Hyde, R. (2008). An Introduction to the International Law of Armed Conflicts. Oxford—Portland Oregon: Hart Publishing.
• Maroonıan, A. (March, 2023). “Contextualization of The Principle of Proportionality in IHL: Criteria and Examples”. Articles of War, Erişim adresi: https://lieber.westpoint.edu/contextualization-principle-proportionality-ihl-criteria-examples/.
• Maroonıan, A. (October, 2022). “Proportionality in International Humanitarian Law: A Principle and a Rule”. Articles of War, Erişim adresi: https://lieber.westpoint.edu/proportionality-international-humanitarian-law-principle-rule/.
• Melzer, N. (2016). International Humanitarian Law: A Comprehensive Introduction. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross.
• Oxford Learner's Dictionaries, “Injury”, Erişim adresi: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/injury?q=%09injury.
• Pomson, O. (2021). “Proportionality and Civilian Use of a Military Objective”. Opinio Juris, Erişim adresi: http://opiniojuris.org/2021/06/24/proportionality-and-civilian-use-of-a-military-objective/.
• Prosecutor v. Boskoski ve Tarculovski (Trial Judgment), IT-04-82-T, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 10 July 2008.
• Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident September 2011.
• Sandoz, Y., Swınarskı, C. ve Zımmermann, B. (Eds.) (1987). Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross & Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
• Sassòli, M. (2003). Legitimate Targets Of Attacks Under İnternational Humanitarian Law. Harvard: Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research at Harvard University.
• Schmitt, M. N. ve diğerleri (eds.) (2013). Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations: Prepared by the International Group of Experts at the Invitation of the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Schmitt, M. N. (2006). “Faultlines in the Law of Attack”. S. Breau and A. Jachec-Neale (eds.), Testing the Boundaries of International Humanitarian Law. British Institute of International & Comparative Law.
• Schmitt, M. N. (2013). “Autonomous Weapon Systems and International Humanitarian Law: A Reply to the Critics”. Harvard National Security Journal Features, 1-37.
• Schmitt, M. N. (2020). “International Humanitarian Law and the Conduct of Hostilities”. Ben Saul and Dapo Akande(Eds.). The Oxford Guide to International Humanitarian Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. S ehrawat, V. (2017). “Autonomous weapon system: Law of armed conflict (LOAC) and other legal challenges”. Computer Law & Security Review, 33(1), 315-337.
• Shue, H. ve Wippman, D. (2002). “Limiting Attacks on Dual-Use Facilities Performing Indispensable Civilian Functions”. Cornell International Law Journal, 35(3), 559-579.
• The Public Committee against Torture in Israel et al. v. The Government of Israel et al., Supreme Court of Israel, 14 December 2006.
• Thurer, D. (2011). International Humanitarian Law: Theory, Practice, Context. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers Publishing.
• Türk Dil Kurumu (2023). “Yaralanma”. Erişim adresi: https://sozluk.gov.tr/ yaralanma.
• UK Military of Defence (2004). The Joint Doctrine and Concepts Centre (JDCC): The Joint Service Manual of The Law of Armed Conflict. Joint Service Publication 383.
• Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi Roma Statüsü. (2002). Erişim adresi: https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/komisyon/insanhaklari/mevzuat_CDRS.htm.
• Vincze, V. (2017). “The Role of Customary Principles of International Humanitarian Law in Environmental Protection”. Pécs Journal of International and European Law. (II), 19-39.
• Vogel, R. J. (2011). “Drone Warfare and the Law of Armed Conflict”. Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, 39(1), 101-138.
• Watkin, K. (2005). “Assessing Proportionality: Moral Complexity And Legal Rules”. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, (8), 3-53.