CRIME OF AGGRESSION UNDER THE ROME STATUTE AND EXCLUSION OF UNILATERAL HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION

Yıl 2018, Sayı: 33, 353 - 362, 25.10.2018

Şahin Eray Kırdım

https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.394655

Öz

Unilateral humanitarian intervention is one of the most controversial
issues in international law and relations. This controversy arises from the
fact that while it serves a praiseworthy practice such as saving people
suffering from gross human rights violations, it is illegal under international
law. This article examines how this illegality fits the definition of the crime
of aggression under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The
main contention is that while the doctrine of unilateral humanitarian
intervention constitutes an illegal practice of international relations, the
International Criminal Court is not able to try the persons ordering military
interventions for humanitarian purposes. This arises mostly because unilateral
humanitarian intervention is in a “grey area” of international law.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention, International Criminal Court, Crime of Aggression, Rome Statute

ROMA STATÜSÜ KAPSAMINDA SALDIRI SUÇU VE TEK TARAFLI İNSANİ MÜDAHALENİN KAPSAM DIŞINDA KALMASI

Öz

Tek taraflı insani müdahaleler uluslararası hukuk ve uluslaraası ilişklerin
en tartışmalı konularından biri olagelmiştir. Bu tartışmadan şurdan
kaynaklanır: İnsani müdahale ağır insan hakları ihlallerinden dolayı acı çeken
insanları kurtarmak gibi takdire şayan bir amaca hizmet etse de, uluslararası
hukukta genellike yasadışı olarak kabul edilir. Bu çalışmanın temel amacı,
genellikle yasadışı olarak kabul edilen tek taraflı insani müdahale konseptinin
Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi'nin kurucu metni olan Roma Statüsü'ne uygunluğunu
incelemektir. Çalışmanın savunduğu temel fikir, her ne kadar tek taraflı insani
müdahale doktrini uluslararası ilişkilerin yasadışı bir uygulaması olması da,
Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi'nin insani amaçlarla askeri müdahale emri veren kişileri
yargılama yetkisine sahip olmadığıdır. Bunun nedeni, tek taraflı insani
müdahale konseptinin uluslararası hukukun “gri
bir bölgesi”nde yer almasındandır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Tek Taraflı İnsani Müdahale, Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi, Saldırı Suçu, Roma Statüsü

Kaynakça

• 2005 World Summit Outcome, G.A. Res. 60/1, U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/1 (Oct. 24. 2005).
• Advisory Opinion, Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South
• Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), I.C.J. Reports 1971, 57.
• Akehurst, M. (1977). “The Use of Force to Protect Nationals Abroad”, International Relations, 5, 3-29.
• Akehurst, M. (1984). “Humanitarian Intervention”, Intervention in World Politics, (Ed. Hedley). Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
• Bazylar, M. (1987). “Reexamining the Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention in Light of the Atrocities in Kampuchea and Ethiopia”, Stanford Journal of International Law, 23, 547-619.
• Benjamin, B. (1992). “Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention: Legalizing the Use of Force to Prevent Human Rights Atrocities”, Fordham International Law Journal, 16, 120-158.
• Blaak, Mirjam (2010). “Ensuring justice for victims: what began in Rome is completed in Kampala?, EQ: Equality of Arms Review, 2/2, 10-13.
• Bouvier's Law Dictionary, (1890). Vol. II: Adapted to the Constitution and Laws Of the United States of America And of the Several States of the American Union.
• Burke, C. (2013). An Equitable Framework for Humanitarian Intervention, Hart, Oxford.
• Byers, M. and Chesterman, S. (2003). “Changing Rules about Rules? Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention and the Future of International Law”, Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal and Political Dilemmas, (Ed. Jeff L. Holzgrefe and Robert O. Keohane) University Press, Cambridge.
• Delbruck, J. (1992). “A Fresh Look at Humanitarian Intervention under the Authority of the United States”, Indian Law Journal, 67/4, 887-901.
• Fonteyne, J. (1974). “The Customary International Law Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention: Its Current Validity Under the U.N. Charter”, California Western International Law Journal, 4/2, 203-270.
• Franck, T. (2002). Recourse to Force: State Action Against Threats and Armed Attacks, University Press, Cambridge.
• Franck, T. (2003). “Interpretation and Change in the Law of Humanitarian Intervention”, Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal, And Political Dilemmas, (Ed. Jeff L. Holzgrefe and Robert O. Keohane), University Press, Cambridge.
• G.A. Res. 2131 (XX), Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and their Independence and Sovereignty, U.N. Doc. A/6014 (Dec. 21, 1966) (emphasis added).
• G.A. Res. 2625 (XXV), Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, annex, U.N. Doc. A/8028 (Oct. 24, 1971).
• G.A. Res. 3314 (XXIX), annex, U.N. Doc. A/9631 (Dec. 14, 1974).
• Hall, E. (1880). International Law, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
• Heraclides, A. (2014). “Humanitarian Intervention in International Law 1830-1939: The Debate”, Journal of The History of International Law, 16/1, 26-62.
• Kamminga, M. (1992). Inter-State Accountability for Violations of Human Rights, University of Pennsylvania Press, Pennsylvania.
• Kelsen, H. (2008). The Law of the United Nations: A Critical Analysis of Its Fundamental Problems, 7td edition, The Lawbook Exchange, Clark, NJ.
• Kreß, C. (2009). “Time for Decision: Some Thoughts on the Immediate Future of the Crime of Aggression: A Reply to Andreas Paulus”, The European Journal of International Law, 20/4, 1129-1146.
• Kreß, C. And von Holtzendorff, L. (2010). “The Kampala Compromise on the Crime of Aggression”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 8/5, 1179-1217.
• Krieg, A. (2009). Motivations for Humanitarian Intervention: Theoretical and Empirical Considerations, Springer.
• Leclerc-Gagne, E. and Byers, M. (2009). “A Question of Intent: The Crime of Aggression and Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention”, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 41/2, 37-390.
• Lepard, B. (2002). Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention: A Fresh Legal Approach Based on Fundamental Ethical Principles in International Law and World Religions, University of Pennsylvania Press, Pennsylvania.
• Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment of 27 June 1986, ICJ Rep. 14.
• Murphy, S. D. (1996). Humanitarian Intervention: The United Nations in an Evolving World Order, University of Pennsylvania Press, Pennsylvania.
• Novak, A. (2015). The International Criminal Court: An Introduction, Springer.
• O’Connell, M.E. & Niyazmatov, M. (2012). “What is Aggression? Comparing the Jus ad Bellum and the ICC Statute”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 10, 189-207.
• Oppenheim, L. (1905). International Law: A Treatise, Longmans, Greene and Co, London.
• Oxford English Dictionary Online (http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/113483?result=1&rskey=PWfdFM&, accessed on 21 July 2016).
• Paulus, A. (2010). “Second Thoughts on the Crime of Aggression”, The European Journal of International Law, 20/4, 1117–1128.
• Press Release (1996), Legal Prosecution of Aggression Required Agreed Definition, Preparatory Committee on the International Criminal Court Told (http://www.un.org/press/en/1996/19960327.l2765.html, accessed on 18 November 2016).
• Reisman, M. (1990). “Sovereignty and Human Rights in Contemporary International Law”, The American Journal of International Law 84, 866-876.
• Reisman, M. (2008). “Acting Before Victims Become Victims: Preventing and Arresting Mass Murder”, Case Western Reserve Jourbal of International Law, 40, 57-85.
• Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/9 art. 5(1) (1998, entered into force in 2002).
• Ronzitti, N. (1985). Rescuing Nationals Abroad Through Military Coercion and Intervention on Grounds of Humanity, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht.
• Shen, J. (2001). “The Non-Intervention Principle and Humanitarian Interventions Under International Law”, International Legal Theory, 7/1, 1-29.
• Stowell, E.C. (1921). Intervention in International Law, John Byrne & Co., Washington, D. C.
• Stromseth, J. (2003). “Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention: The Case for Incremental Change”, Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal, And Political Dilemmas, (Ed. Jeff L. Holzgrefe and Robert O. Keohane), University Press, Cambridge, 232-272.
• Teson, F. (1988). Humanitarian Intervention: An Inquiry İnto Law And Morality, Transnational Publishers, New York, NY.
• The Independent International Commission on Kosovo, The Kosovo Report: Conflict International Response, Lessons Learned (2000).
• UN Charter, 1945.
• United States of America v. Iran, 1980. United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, I.C.J. Reports 1980, 42.
• Verwey, W.D. (1985). “Humanitarian Intervention Under International Law”, Netherlands International Law Review, 32/3, 357–418.
• Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, 8 I.L.M. 679 (entered into force Jan. 27, 1980).
• Vincent, R. J. (1986). Human Rights and International Relations, University Press, Cambridge.
• Welsh, J. (2008). “The Security Council and Humanitarian Intervention”, The United Nations Security Council and War, (Ed. Vaughan Lowe et al.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 535-562.