DIPLOMATIC FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND TRAVEL GRANTED TO DIPLOMATIC AGENTS

Yıl 2019, , 457 - 486, 26.12.2019

Anıl Çamyamaç

https://doi.org/10.33717/deuhfd.642016

Öz

Diplomatic privileges and immunities are indeed the necessities of

diplomatic life. Without them it would have been impossible for diplomatic

agents to fulfil their duties. In other words, these privileges and immunities

ensure the way of diplomatic life in a sense. Among these privileges and

immunities is the freedom of movement and travel. This freedom ensures free

movement and travel of foreign diplomat or members of a diplomatic mission

and their families in the state to which they are sent. In reality for a long time

there was no such regulation for freedom of movement and travel since no state,

except in exceptional cases or conditions, as it appears, had a mind to restrict

this kind of freedom. That is because the functions of diplomatic mission

necessitate this kind of freedom. Unfortunately with the commencement of the

Second World War, this situation had dramatically changed. After the war

particularly Communist States had restricted this right. Following the

Communist States’ practice the Western States put restrictions for the members

of the diplomatic missions of the Communist States to their freedom of

movement and travel in the name of reciprocity, as well. This situation

necessitated a provision for the freedom movement and travel. This kind of rule

first placed in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations in article

26. Provisions alike were inserted in the following documents concerned. Thus,

the main purpose of this article is to analyze the freedom of movement and

travel in diplomatic relations.

DİPLOMATİK TEMSİLCİLER VE ONLARA TANINAN HAREKET VE SEYAHAT SERBESTİSİ

Öz

Diplomatik ayrıcalık ve bağışıklıklar diplomatik hayatın vazgeçilmez

unsurlarıdır. Onlar olmaksızın diplomatik ajanların görevlerini yerine getirmesi

mümkün olamayacaktır. Bir başka deyişle, bu ayrıcalık ve bağışıklıklar bir

anlamda diplomatik yaşam biçimini garanti etmektedir. Bu ayrıcalık ve bağışıklıklar

arasında hareket ve seyahat serbestisi de yer almaktadır. Bu serbesti

yabancı diplomat, diplomatik misyon üyeleri ve onların ailelerinin gönderilmiş

oldukları devlette serbestçe hareket ve seyahat etmelerini garanti altına almaktadır.

Gerçekte çok uzun bir süre, hiçbir devletin, istisnaî durum ve koşullar

haricinde, görüldüğü üzere, bu tür bir serbestiyi sınırlandırma düşüncesi olmadığından

dolayı hareket ve seyahat serbestisi için bu tür bir düzenlemeye gerek

duyulmamıştır. Bunun da nedeni, diplomatik misyonun işlevlerinin bu tür bir

serbestiyi zarurî kılmasında yatmaktaydı. Ne yazık ki, II. Dünya Savaşının başlamasıyla

birlikte, bu durum dramatik bir biçimde değişmiştir. Savaştan sonra,

özellikle komünist devletler bu serbestiyi sınırlandırmıştır. Komünist devletlerin

uygulamasını takip eden Batılı devletlerse, Komünist devletlerin diplomatik

misyon üyeleri için karşılıklılık gereği hareket ve seyahat serbestisine sınırlandırma

koymuştur. Bu durum hareket ve seyahat serbestisi için bir hükmü zarurî

kılmıştır. Bu tür düzenlemeye ilk önce 1961 tarihli Diplomatik İlişkilere Dair

Viyana Sözleşmesinde 26. madde olarak yer verilmiştir. Benzer hükümler ilgili

diğer sözleşmelerde de yer almıştır. Böylelikle, bu çalışmanın ana amacı, diplomatik

ilişkilerde hareket ve seyahat serbestisini irdelemek olacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Hareket ve Seyahat Serbestisi, Diplomatik Ajanlar, Diplomatik Ayrıcalık ve Bağışıklıklar, Ulusal Güvenlik, Güvenlik Bölgeleri, 1961 tarihli Diplomatik İlişkilere Dair Viyana Sözleşmesi

Kaynakça

• Aybay, R.: Tarih ve Hukuk Açısından Konsolosluk, İstanbul, 2009.
• Clark, E.: Corps Diplomatique, Bristol, 1973.
• Cohen, J. A. & Chiu, H. (eds.), People’s China and International Law: A Documentary Study, vol. II, New Jersey, 1974.
• Delupis, I.: International Law and the Independent State, Essex, 1974.
• Denza, E.: Diplomatic Law: Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, New York, 1976.
• Denza, E.: Diplomatic Law: Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 3rd Edition, Oxford, 2008.
• Denza, E.: Diplomatic Law: Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 4th Edition, Oxford, 2016.
• do Nascimento e Silva, G. E.: Diplomacy in International Law, Leiden, 1972.
• Fravel, M. T.: Strong Borders, Secure Nation: Cooperation and Conflict in China’s Territorial Disputes, New Jersey, 2008.
• Goldsmith, J. L. & Posner, E. A.: The Limits of International Law, Oxford, 2005.
• Gore-Booth, H. P.: Satow’s Guide to Diplomatic Practice, 5th Edition, Essex, 1994. (7th Impression of the 1979 Edition)
• Grzybowski, K.: Soviet Public International Law: Doctrines and Diplomatic Practice, Leyden, 1970.
• Hardy, M.: Modern Diplomatic Law, Manchester, 1968. Hyde, C. C.: International Law Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the
• United States, vol. II, 2nd Revised Edition, Boston, 1947.
• Ismail, M. B. A.: Islamic Law and Transnational Diplomatic Law: A Quest for Complementarity in Divergent Legal Theories, Hampshire, 2016.
• Lee, L. T.: Consular Law and Practice, 2nd Edition, Oxford, 1991.
• McClanahan, G. V.: Diplomatic Immunity: Principles, Practices, Problems, London, 1989.
• Murty, B. S.: The International Law of Diplomacy: The Diplomatic Instrument and World Public Order, New Haven,, 1989.
• Nicholson, H.: The Evolution of Diplomatic Method, Oxford, 1954. (reprinted in 2011 by Leicester University)
• Ogdon, M.: Juridical Bases of Diplomatic Immunity: A Study in the Origin, Growth and Purpose of the Law, Washington D.C., 1936.
• Pazarcı, H.: Uluslararası Hukuk Dersleri, III. Kitap, Gözden Geçirilmiş Baskı, Ankara, 1999.
• Rana, K. S.: The Contemporary Embassy: Paths to Diplomatic Excellence, London, 2013.
• Reçber, K.: Diplomasi ve Konsolosluk Hukuku, Bursa, 2011.
• Sen, B.: A Diplomat’s Handbook of International Law and Practice, The Hague, 1965.
• Starke, J. G.: Introduction to International Law, 10th Edition, London, 1989.
• von Glahn, G., Law Among Nations: An Introduction to Public International Law, 7th Edition, New York, 1996.
• Wiegand, K. E.: Enduring Territorial Disputes: Strategies of Bargaining, Coercive Diplomacy, and Settlement, Georgia, 2011.
• Bruns, K.: On the Road to Vienna: The Role of the International Law Commission in the Codification of Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities, 1949-1958, in Diplomatic Law in a New Millennium, edited by Behrens, Oxford, 2017, s. 54-71.
• Cahier, P.: Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, International Conciliation, vol. 37, 1967, s. 5-40.
• Duquet, S. & Wouters, J.: Legal Duties of Diplomats Today, in Diplomatic Law in a New Millennium, edited by Behrens, Oxford, 2017, s. 247- 271.
• Economidès, C. P.: Le mont Athos et le droit international, Revue hellénique de droit international, vol. 38/1, 1985/86, s. 289-294.
• Elgavish, D.: Did Diplomatic Immunity Exist in the Ancient Near East, Journal of History of International Law, vol. 2/1, 2000, s. 73-90.
• Farooque, M.: Persona Non-Grata: Victim of Non-Grata Conducts, Indian Journal of International Law, vol. 28/1, 1988, s. 94-103.
• Grzybowski, K.: The Regime of Diplomacy and the Tehran Hostages, International & Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 30/1, 1981, s. 42-58.
• Ismail, M. B. A.: Justifications and Principles of Diplomatic Immunity: A Comparison between Islamic International Law and International Law, Journal of Islamic State Practice in International Law, vol. 9/1, 2013, s. 60-101.
• Koniradis, I. M.: The Mount Athos Avaton, Revue hellénique de droit international, vol. 53/1, 2000, s. 215-226.
• Lauterpacht, E.: The Codification of the Law of Diplomatic Immunity, Transactions of the Grotius Society, vol. 40, 1954, s. 65-81.
• Liang, Y. L.: Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities as a Subject for Codification, American Journal of International Law, vol. 47/3, 1953, s. 439-448.
• Lyons, B. A.: Personal Immunities of Diplomatic Agents, British Yearbook of International Law, vol. 31, 1954, s. 299-340.
• Morris, W. G.: Constitutional Solutions to the Problem of Diplomatic Crime and Immunity, Hofstra Law Review, vol. 36/3, 2007, s. 601-638.
• Nahlik, S. E.: Development of Diplomatic Law. Selected Problems, Recueil des cours, vol. 222, 1990-III, 1990, s. 187-364.
• Papastathis, C. K.: The Regime of Mount Athos, in Between Cultural Diversity and Common Heritage: Legal and Religious Perspectives on the Sacred Places of the Mediterranean, edited by Ferrari & Benzo, Surrey, 2014, s. 273-292.
• Partsch, K. J.: Reprisals, Encyclopedia of Public International Law: International Relations and Legal Cooperation in General-Diplomatic and Consular Relations, vol. 9, edited by Bernhardt, Amsterdam, 1986, s. 330-335.
• Partsch, K. J.: Retorsions, Encyclopedia of Public International Law: International Relations and Legal Cooperation in General-Diplomatic and Consular Relations, vol. 9, edited by Bernhardt, Amsterdam, 1986, s. 335-337.
• Przetacznik, F.: Reaffirmation of Basic Principles of Diplomatic and Consular Law by the International Court of Justice in the American Diplomatic Case in Iran, Sri Lanka Journal of International Law, vol. 3/1, 1991, s. 119-152.
• Roye, P. F.: Reforming the Laws and Practice of Diplomatic Immunity, University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, vol. 12/1, 1978, s. 91- 111.
• Siekmann, R. C. R.: Netherlands State Practice fort he Parliament Year 1978-1979, Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, vol. 11, 1980, s. 193-257.
• Tease, A. M.: Diplomatic Immunity and Divorce: Fernandez v. Fernandez, Connecticut Law Review, vol. 21/5, 1989, s. 1071-1095.
• Turack, D. C.: A Brief Review of the Provisions in Recent Agreements Concerning Freedom of Movement Issues in the Modern World, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, vol. 11/1, 1979, s. 95- 115.
• Witiw, E. P.: Persona Non Grata: Expelling Diplomats Who Abuse Their Privileges, New York Law School Journal of International & Comparative Law, vol. 9/2, 1988, s. 345-359.
• Young, E.: The Development of the Law of Diplomatic Relations, British Yearbook of International Law, vol. 40, 1964, s. 141-182.
• Zoglio, E. M.: Diplomatic Immunity from Local Jurisdiction, University of Baltimore Law Forum, vol. 7/2, 1977, s. 33-36.