INTERNMENT IN INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW AND NON-STATE ARMED GROUPS

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 9, 53 - 75, 31.05.2018

Fatma Taşdemir , Erdinç Özdemir

Öz

Being different from criminal detention, internment (administrative
detention) in a non-punitive quality is based on security grounds and is an
exceptional measure ordered by the executive power. The purpose of internment
is to prevent individuals considered to be security threats from engaging in
hostile acts, not to punish them for their past conducts. Capturing and holding
members of the adversary is an inherent feature of armed conflict. Whether
carried out by state or non-state parties the deprivation of liberty of the
adversaries is an ordinary occurrence in situations of armed conflict. In
international armed conflicts, captured combatants may be deprived of liberty
as ‘prisoner of war.’ However, in non-international armed conflicts where there
is no such a status, it is a controversial issue on what grounds and procedures
captured adversaries can be detained. The present article discusses whether
there is a legal basis of detention by non-state armed groups as significant
actors of the contemporary armed conflicts. The article consists of two main parts.
The term of internment is identified in the first and examined in the context
of the non-international armed conflict. The second part deals with the legal
basis of the internment carried out by non-state armed groups.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Armed Non-State Actors, Security Detention, Administrative Detention, Preventive Detention, International Humanitarian Law.

ULUSLARARASI İNSANCIL HUKUKTA İDARİ GÖZALTI VE DEVLET DIŞI SİLAHLI AKTÖRLER

Öz

İdari gözaltı,
adli gözaltıdan farklı olarak, güvenlik esasına dayalı, cezalandırıcı nitelikte
olmayan ve yürütme erki tarafından emredilen istisnai bir tedbirdir. İdari
gözaltının amacı, geçmişteki davranışlarından dolayı kişileri cezalandırmak
değil, güvenlik için tehdit oluşturduğu değerlendirilen bireylerin düşmanca
eylemlere girişmelerini önlemektir. Karşı tarafa mensup olanları yakalama ve
alıkoyma, silahlı çatışmanın doğasında var olan bir özelliktir. Uygulayanı
devlet olsun devlet dışı aktör olsun, karşı tarafı özgürlüğünden yoksun
bırakma, silahlı çatışmalarda meydana gelen sıradan bir olaydır. Uluslararası
olmayan silahlı çatışmalarda ele geçirilen muharipler, savaş esiri olarak
özgürlüklerinden yoksun bırakılabilmektedir. Ancak muharip statüsünün olmadığı
uluslararası olmayan silahlı çatışmalarda yakalanan karşı taraf mensuplarının
hangi esas ve usullere göre gözaltında tutulacağı konusu tartışmalıdır. Bu
makalede günümüz silahlı çatışmalarının önemli birer aktörü olan devlet dışı
silahlı aktörler tarafından uygulanan gözaltı tedbirinin yasal dayanağı olup
olmadığı tartışılacaktır. Makale iki
ana bölümden oluşmaktadır. Birinci bölümde, önleyici gözaltı kavramı
tanımlanmış ve uluslararası olmayan silahlı çatışmalar kapsamında özellikleri
ele alınmıştır. İkinci bölümde ise devlet dışı silahlı aktörlerin uyguladıkları
önleyici gözaltının yasal dayanakları tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Devlet Dışı Silahlı Aktörler, Enterne Etme, Güvenlik Amaçlı Gözaltı, İdari Gözaltı, Önleyici Gözaltı, Özgürlüğünden Yoksun Bırakılma

Kaynakça

• 31st International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (October 2011). Strengthening Legal Protection for Victims of Armed Conflicts. ICRC Report.
• Aslan, M.Y. (2008). Savaş Hukukunun Temel Prensipleri. Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, (79), 235-274.
• Bothe, M. (2004). Direct Participation in Hostilities in Non-International Armed Conflict. Second Expert Meeting on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities, The Hague: ICRC.
• Boothby, W. H. (2012). The Law of Targeting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Casalin, D. (2011). Taking Prisoners: Reviewing the International Humanitarian Law Grounds for Deprivation of Liberty by Armed Opposition Groups. IRRC, 93 (883), 743-757.
• Cerone, J. (2006).Status of Detainees in Non-International Armed Conflict, and their Protection in the Course of Criminal Proceedings: The Case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. ASIL Insights, 10 (17), (July 14, 2006).
• Chatham House ve ICRC. (2008, 22-23 September). Expert Meeting on Procedural Safeguards for Security Detention in Non-International Armed Conflict [Öz]. London. Erişim adresi: https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/public/Research/International%20Law/il220908summary.pdf
• Clapham, A. (2009). Non-State Actors. In Postconflict Peace-building: A Lexicon. Vincent Chetail, (Ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 200-212. Erişim adresi: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1339810
• Crawford, E. (2010). The Treatment of Combatants and Insurgents under the Law of Armed Conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Crawford, E. (2015). Identifying the Enemy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Davidson, T. ve Gibson, K. (2009). Expert Meeting on Security Detention Report. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 40, 323-381.
• Deeks, A. S. (2009). Administrative Detention in Armed Conflict. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 40, 403-436.
• Dinstein, Y. (2004). Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Dörmann, K. (2012). Detention in Non-International Armed Conflicts. In Watkin, K. ve Norris, A. (Eds). Non-International Armed Conflict in the Twenty-First Century. Military Bookshop, Newport, 347-368.
• Genelkurmay Başkanlığı (2010). Silahlı Çatışma Hukuku ile ilgili Uluslar arası Hukuk Metinleri. Ankara: Genelkurmay Basımevi.
• Goodman, R. (2009). The Detention of Civilians in Armed Conflict. American Journal of International Law, 103, 48-74.
• Goodman, R. (2015). Authorization versus Regulation of Detention in Non-International Armed Conflicts. International Law Studies, 91, 155-170.
• Heffes, E. (2015). Detentions by Armed Opposition Groups in Non-International Armed Conflicts: Towards a New Characterization of International Humanitarian Law. Journal of Conflict & Security Law, 20(2), 229-250.
• Henckaerts, J. M. ve Doswald-Beck, L. (2005). Uluslararası İnsancıl Teamül (Örf-Adet) Hukuku Cilt I: Kurallar, Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayınları: Beta
• Hill-Cawthorne, L. ve Akande, D. (2014). Locating the Legal Basis for Detention in Non-International Armed Conflicts: A Rejoinder to Aurel Sari. EJIL Talk (June 2, 2014).
• Hill-Cawthorne, L. (2016). Detention in Non-International Armed Conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Horowitz, J. (2014). Clarity or Confusion? General Comment 35 and Security Detention. Just Security (November 21, 2014).
• ICRC (2008). How is the Term “Armed Conflict” Defined in International Humanitarian Law? ICRC Opinion Paper.
• ICRC (2013). Strengthening Legal Protection for Persons Deprived of their Liberty in relation to Non-International Armed Conflict. Regional Consultations 2012-13 Background Paper, ICRC Background Paper.
• ICRC (2014). Internment in Armed Conflict: Basic Rules and Challenges. ICRC Opinion Paper.
• ICRC (2015). International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts. ICRC Report.
• ICRC (2015, 27-29 April).Strengthening International Humanitarian Law Protecting Persons Deprived of Their Liberty, Geneva, Switzerland. ICRC Background Document Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/-V/II.116 Doc.5 Rev.1 Corr., 22 October 2002.
• International Institute of Humanitarian Law (2006). The Manual on the Law of Non-International Armed Conflict. Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, 36
• Kalshoven, F. ve Zegveld, L. (2011). Constraints on the Waging of War: An Introduction to International Humanitarian Law. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Karaosmanoğlu, A. L.(2011). Yirmibirinci Yüzyılda Savaşı Tartışmak: Clausewitz Yeniden. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 8(29), 5-25.
• La Rosa, A.M. ve Wuerzner, C. (2008). Armed Groups, Sanctions and the Implementation of İnternational Humanitarian Law. International Review of Red Cross, 90 (870), 327-341.
• Lennon, C. (2015). Detainees in the Global War on Terrorism Aboard Guantanamo Bay. Touro Law Review, 31(4), 1013-1041.
• Mahnad, R. (2013). Beyond Process: The Material Framework for Detention and the Particularities of Non-International Armed Conflict. In Terrt Gill (Ed.), Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law. The Hague: Asser Press, 33- 52.
• Melzer, N. (2009). Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under İnternational Humanitarian Law, ICRC: Geneva
• Murray, D. (2017). Non-State Armed Groups, Detention Authority in Non-International Armed Conflict, and the Coherence of International Law: Searching for a Way Forward. Leiden Journal of International Law, 30, 435-456.
• Pazarcı, H. (2012). Uluslar arası Hukuk. (11. Baskı). Ankara: Turhan.
• Pejic, J. (2005). Procedural Principles and Safeguards for Internment/Administrative Detention in Armed Conflict and Other Situations of Violence. IRRC, 87 (858), 375-391.
• Pejic, J. (2012). Conflict Classification and the Law Applicable to Detention and Use of Force. In Elizabeth Wilmshurst (Ed.), International Law and the Classification of Conflicts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 80-116.
• Pictet, J. (Ed.) (1958). Commentary: Geneva Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva: ICRC.
• Pictet, J. (Ed.) (1958). Commentary: Geneva Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva: ICRC.
• Rona, G. (2007). An Appraisal of US Practice Relating to ‘Enemy Combatants’. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, 10, 232-250.
• Sassòli, M. (2007). Ius ad Bellum and Ius in Bello – The Separation between the Legality of the Use of Force and Humanitarian Rules to Be Respected in Warfare: Crucial or Outdated? In Michael Schmitt ve Jelena Pejic (Eds.), International Law and Armed Conflict: Exploring the Faultlines. The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
• Sassoli, M. (2010). Taking Armed Groups Seriously: Ways to Improve their Compliance with International Humanitarian Law. International Humanitarian Legal Studies, 1, 5-51.
• Sassoli, M., Bouvier, A. ve Quintin, A.(2011). How Does Law Protect in War? ICRC. Part I, Chapter 12.
• Sassòli, M. (2015). “Internment” in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law.
• Schneckener, U. (2007). Armed Non-State Actors and the Monopoly of Force. In Bailes, Alyson, Ulrich Scheneckener ve Herbert Wulf, Revisiting the State Monopoly on the Legitimate Use of Force, Erişim adresi: http://www.wulf-herbert.de/DCAFPP24Wulf.pdf
• Schmitt, M. (2010). The Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities: A Critical Analysis. Harvard National Security Journal, 1, 5-44.
• Shaheed, F. (2014). UN HRC’s General Comment 35 on the Right to Liberty and Security: A Missed Oppotunity? Just Security (November 19, 2014).
• Shaheed, F. (2014). UN HRC’s General Comment 35 on the Right to Liberty and Security: A Missed Oppotunity? (Part Two) Just Security (November 20, 2014).
• United Nations Human Rights Committee General Comment No.35 (Article 9: Liberty and security of person), CCPR/C/GC/35 (December 16, 2014). Erişim adresi: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&TreatyID=8&DocTypeID=11
• Van Amstel, N. (2012). In Search of Legal Grounds to Detain for Armed Groups. International Humanitarian Legal Studies, 3, 160-191.
• Watkin, K. (2010). Opportunity Lost: Organised Armed Groups and the ICRC “Direct Participation in Hostilities” Interpretetive Guidance. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 42, 641-695.
• Wilmshurst, E. (2012). Conclusions. In Elizabeth Wilmshurst (Ed.), International Law and the Classification of Conflicts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 80-116.
• (Yale Law School) Center for Global Legal Challenges. (2015). State Responsibility for Non-State Actors that Detain in the Course of a NIAC; Yale Law School. 1-42.