AN EXAMINATON ON THE UNILATERAL STATE ACT STATUS OF NOTIFICATION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

Year 2019, Issue: 2, 1 - 22, 31.07.2019

Elif Uzun

https://doi.org/10.33432/ybuhukuk.541712

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Unilateral acts of states is one of the controversial issues in international law. Although some forms of unilateral acts are accepted by customary international law, different perspectives on the theoretical basis of legal relations between states render an agreement on the subject impossible. The idea behind considering unilateral acts being legal transactions is their capacity to create legal obligations for the author state, independent from any negotiation process with or any approval of other states. The International Court of Justice’s decisions in Nuclear Tests Cases has triggered an interest to the subject which results in a more common recognition of the concept. But it is still impossible to argue that a theory of unilateral acts could be constructed. The work of International Law Commission, which could not produce the expected Draft Articles, may be an evident of this fact. Beside its controversial character, there is also some inconsistency between presentation of examples of unilateral acts by different scholars. Sometimes notification is added by scholars to the list of unilateral acts of states, including recognition, protest, waiver and promise. This article discusses the accuracy of adding notification to this list.

Keywords

Unilateral Acts of States, International Law, Recognition, Protest, Waiver, Promise, Notification

ULUSLARARASI HUKUKTA BİLDİRİMİN TEK TARAFLI DEVLET İŞLEMİ NİTELİĞİ ÜZERİNE BİR İNCELEME

Abstract

Devletlerin tek taraflı hukuki işlemleri uluslararası hukuktaki
ihtilaflı meselelerinden biridir. Her ne kadar uluslararası örf ve âdet hukuku
bazı tek taraflı işlemlerin varlığını kabul etmişse de, devletler arasındaki
hukuki ilişkilerin teorik temelleri hakkındaki farklı perspektifler konu
üzerinde bir uzlaşmaya varmayı imkansız kılmaktadır. Tek taraflı işlemleri
hukuki işlemler olarak görmenin ardında yatan düşünce, bu işlemlerin diğer
devletlerle yürütülen bir müzakere sürecinden veya onlardan alınacak bir
onaydan bağımsız şekilde işlem sahibi devlet için hukuki yükümlülük yaratma
kapasitesidir. Uluslararası Adalet Divanı’nın Nükleer Denemeler Davaları’ndaki
kararları, konuya, nihayetinde daha yaygın bir kabulle sonuçlanan bir ilgi
uyandırmıştır. Fakat yine de bir tek taraflı işlemler teorisinin inşa
edildiğini söylemek mümkün değildir. Uluslararası Hukuk Komisyonu’nun
kendisinden beklenen Taslak Maddeleri oluşturamamış olan çalışması da bu
durumun kanıtı niteliğindedir. Meselenin ihtilaflı karakteri yanında, farklı
yazarların tek taraflı işlem örneklerine ilişkin sunumlarında da tutarsızlık
bulunmaktadır. Kimi zaman; tanıma, protesto, vazgeçme ve taahhütten oluşan
listeye bildirim de dahil edilmektedir. Bu makale bildirimin söz konusu listeye
dahil edilmesinin isabetli olup olmadığını tartışmaktadır.

Keywords

Tek taraflı devlet işlemleri, uluslararası hukuk, tanıma, protesto, vazgeçme, taahhüt

References

• Acer, Yücel/Kaya, İbrahim (2015) Uluslararası Hukuk Temel Ders Ki-tabı, 6. Baskı, Ankara, Seçkin.
• Belik, Mahmut R. (1966) ‘Devletler Hukukunda Hukukî Tasarruflar’ İÜHFM, C:32, S:2-4, ss. 456-466.
• BMGK, A/RES/51/160, 30 Ocak 1997.
• Bodansky, Daniel (2000) ‘What is so bad about Unilateral Action to Protect the Enivorenment’ EJIL, C: 11, S:2, ss. 339-347.
• Bozkurt, Enver/Kütükçü, M. Akif/Poyraz, Yasin (2012) Devletler Hu-kuku, Gözden geçirilmiş 7. Baskı, Ankara, Yetkin.
• Caşın, Mesut Hakkı (2013) Modern Uluslararası Hukukun Temel Esas-ları, C: 1, 1. B., İstanbul, Legal Yayıncılık.
• Cedeño, Víctor Rodríguez (1998) First report on unilateral acts of Sta-tes, A/CN.4/486, 5 Mart 1998.
• Cedeño, Víctor Rodríguez (2004) Seventh report on unilateral acts of States, 22 Nisan 2004, A/CN.4/542.
• Cedeño, Victor Rodrígez/ Cazorla, Maria Isabel Torres ‘Unilateral Acts of States in International Law’: Rüdiger Wolfrum (Editör) (2012) The Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Law, C: X, 1. B., Oxford, OUP.
• Chow, Pok Yin S. (2017) ‘Reservations as Unilateral Acts? Examining the International Law Commission’s Approach to Reservations’ International and Comparative Law Quarterly, C: 66, ss. 335-365.
• Crawford, James (2012) Brownlie’s Principles of International Law, 8. Bası, Oxford vd., OUP.
• Çağıran, Mehmet Emin (2005) Uluslararası Hukukta Devletin Tek Taraflı İşlemleri, 1. B., Ankara, Platin Yayınları.
• Çelik, Edip F. (1984) Milletlerarası Hukuk – Birinci Kitap, İstanbul, Filiz Kitabevi.
• Degan, Vladimir-Djuro (1994) ‘Unilateral Act as a Source of Particular International Law’ Finnish Yearbook of International Law, C: 5, ss. 149-266.
• Dominick, Mary F. ‘Notification’: Bernhardt, Rudolf (Editör) (1986) Encyclopedia of International Law, Vol: 9, Amsterdam, Elsevier, s. 288-290.
• Dupuy, Pierre-Marie (2000) ‘The Place and Role of Unilateralism in Contemporary International Law’ EJIL, C: 11, S:2, ss. 19-29.
• Eckart, Christian (2012) Promises of States under International Law, 1. B, Oxford, Hart Publishing.
• Evans, Malcolm D. (Editör) (2010) International Law, 3. Bası, Oxford, OUP.
• Fiedler, Wilfreid ‘Unilateral Acts in International Law’: Rudofl Bernhardt (Editör) (1984) Encyclopedia of International Law, C: 7, 1. B., Amster-dam-Oxford-New York, North Holland.
• Goodman, Camille (2006) ‘Acta Sunt Servanda – A Regime for Regulating the Unilateral Acts of States at International Law’ Australian Yearbook of International Law, C: 25, ss. 43-73.
• Gündüz, Aslan (2014) Milletlerarası Hukuk – Konu Anlatımı, Temel Belgeler, Örnek Kararlar, Ed. Reşat Volkan Günel, 7. Baskı, İstanbul, Beta Ba-sım.
• ICJ, Nuclear Tests Case (Australia vs. France), Judgment of 20 December 1974, I.C.J. Reports 1974, ss. 253-274.
• Kassoti, Eva (2013) ‘Unilateral Legal Acts Revisited: Common Law v. Civil Law Approaches and Lessons from the International law Commission's (Fa-iled) Attempt to Codify Unilateral Acts of States’, Hague Yearbook of International Law, C. 26, ss. 168-200.
• Kuzmarov, Betina (2005) ‘Unilateral Acts in International Relations: Accepting the Limits of International Law, C: 8, Yearbook of New Zealand Ju-risprudence, ss. 77-97.
• Martti, Koskenniemi (2006) From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument, 1. Baskı, Cambridge vd., CUP.
• Jennings, Sir Robert / Watts, Arthur (Editörler) (1996) Oppenheim’s International Law, 9. Bası, Londra ve New York, Longman.
• Pazarcı, Hüseyin (2011) Uluslararası Hukuk, 10. B., Ankara, Turhan Ki-tabevi.
• Report of the International Law Commission (2006) Fifty-eighth ses-sion, ‘Chapter IX – Unilateral Acts of States’, ss. 159-166.
• Rubin, Alfred P. (1977) ‘The International Legal Effects of Unilateral Declarations’ American Journal of International Law, C: 71, ss. 1-30.
• Sands, Philippe (2000) ‘ ‘Unilateralism’, Values and International Law’ EJIL, C: 11, S:2, ss. 291-302.
• Shaw, Malcom N. (2016) International Law, 7. Bası, Cambridge vd., Cambridge University Press.
• Suy, Erik (2001) ‘Some Unfinished New Thoughts on Unilateral Acts of States as a Source of International Law’ Journal for Juridical Science, C: 26, S: 3, ss. 1-11.
• Thirlway, Hugh (2014) The Sources of International Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Virally, Michel ‘The Sources of International Law’: Sorensen, Max (Edi-tör) (1968) Manual of Public International Law, Londra, MacMillian, ss. 116-174.
• Viyana Andlaşmalar Hukuku Sözleşmesi - Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969. Türkçesi: Gündüz, ss. 66-87.
• Zemanek, Karl ‘Unilateral Legal Acts Revisited’: Wellens, Karel (Editör) (1998) International Law: Theory and Practice – Essays in Honour of Eric Suy, Lahey/Boston/Londra, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.