SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Hacettepe Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi / 2015 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 1

Permissibility of Unilateral Military Interventions to Assist Self-Determination in International Law: State Practice and United Nations’ Responses

Uluslararası Hukukta Self-Determinasyona Yardım Gerekçesiyle Yapılan Tek Taraflı Askeri Müdahalelerin Kabul Edilebilirliği: Devlet Uygulamaları ve Birleşmiş Milletler’in Tepkileri

Müge KINACIOĞLU
Pages
105–126
Publication Date
2015-06-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The article’s main contention is that despite the incontestable significance attached to self-determination, the historical record of the UN responses to such military interventions demonstrates that the right of self-determination does not lend itself to an unquestionable legal right for a state to take a unilateral military action and intervene in domestic affairs of another state

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Permissibility of Unilateral Military Interventions to Assist Self-Determination in International Law: State Practice and United Nations’ ResponsesT his article aims to examine and analyze the problematic clash of the most promoted right of selfdetermination with the most enshrined norms of non-use of force and non-intervention in domestic affairs in international law.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It specifically addresses the question of justification of the use of force on the basis of assistance to peoples in their struggle for ‘external’ self-determination, and examine the permissibility of the state justifications for military intervention in support of external self-determination, by analyzing three Cold War cases where it was specifically invoked as the legal ground for military intervention and the United Nations (UN) reactions to them.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The article’s main contention is that despite the incontestable significance attached to self-determination, the historical record of the UN responses to such military interventions demonstrates that the right of self-determination does not lend itself to an unquestionable legal right for a state to take a unilateral military action and intervene in domestic affairs of another state
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kuvvet kullanımı · tek taraflı askeri müdahale · self-determinasyon

Abstract

Permissibility of Unilateral Military Interventions to Assist Self-Determination in International Law: State Practice and United Nations’ ResponsesT his article aims to examine and analyze the problematic clash of the most promoted right of selfdetermination with the most enshrined norms of non-use of force and non-intervention in domestic affairs in international law. It specifically addresses the question of justification of the use of force on the basis of assistance to peoples in their struggle for ‘external’ self-determination, and examine the permissibility of the state justifications for military intervention in support of external self-determination, by analyzing three Cold War cases where it was specifically invoked as the legal ground for military intervention and the United Nations (UN) reactions to them. The article’s main contention is that despite the incontestable significance attached to self-determination, the historical record of the UN responses to such military interventions demonstrates that the right of self-determination does not lend itself to an unquestionable legal right for a state to take a unilateral military action and intervene in domestic affairs of another state

Özet

Bu makale, uluslararası hukukta ve politikada yüceltilen self-determinasyon hakkı ile uluslararası hukukun kuvvet kullanma yasağı ve iç işlerine karışmama ilkelerinin problemli çatışmasını inceleyip, analiz etmektedir. Makale, özellikle halkların dış self-determinasyon hakkı için mücadelesine yardım etme gerekçesiyle kuvvet kullanımını meşrulaştırma sorunsalını ele almakta, ve askeri müdahale için hukuki zemin olarak gösterildiği üç Soğuk Savaş dönemi vakasını ve bunlara Birleşmiş Milletlerin (BM) tepkilerini inceleyerek, dış self-determinasyonu desteklemek için yapılan tek taraflı askeri müdahalelerin kabul edilebilirliğini, analiz etmektedir. Bu makalenin temel argümanı, self-determinasyon hakkına verilen tartışmasız öneme rağmen, BMin bu gerekçeyle yapılmış askeri müdahalelere tepkilerinin, devletlere bu gerekçeyle tek taraflı askeri müdahalede bulunma ve diğer bir devletin iç işlerine karışma hakkı tanımadığını ortaya koyduğudur.

🔖

Cite This Article

KINACIOĞLU, M. (2015). Permissibility of Unilateral Military Interventions to Assist Self-Determination in International Law: State Practice and United Nations’ Responses. Hacettepe Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 1, 105–126. https://ajindex.com/articles/669080

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. AKEHURST, Michael, A Modern Introduction to International Law, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1984.
  2. AREND, Anthony Clark/BECK, Robert J., International Law and the Use of Force, Beyond the UN Charter Paradigm, Routledge, London, 1993.
  3. BELOFF, Max, “Reflections on Intervention,” Journal of International Affairs, 1968, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 198-207.
  4. BROWNLIE, Ian, International Law and the Use of Force by States, Oxford University Press, London, 1963.
  5. CASSESE, Antonio, International Law in a Divided World, Oxford University Press, New York, 1994.
  6. CASSESE, Antonio, Self-Determination of Peoples, A Legal Reappraisal, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.
  7. ÇELİK, Edip, Milletlerarası Hukuk, Filiz Kitabevi, İstanbul, 1982.
  8. FALK, Richard, “Intervention and National Liberation”, Intervention in World Politics, (Hedley Bull, ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1984, pp. 119-133.
  9. FALK, Richard A., “The Right of Self-Determination Under International Law: The Coherence of Doctrine Versus the Incoherence of Experience”, Self-Determination and Self-Administration: A Sourcebook, (Wofgang Danspeckgruber and Arthur Watts, eds.), Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.,Boulder, 1997, pp. 47-63. Helsinki Final Act, 1 August 1975.
  10. HSIUNG, James C., Anarchy and Order: The Interplay of Politics and Law in International Relations, Lynne Rienner Publishers,
  11. Inc., Boulder, 1997. ICJ Reports, 1986, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966.
  12. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 16 December 1966.
  13. KARAOSMANOĞLU, Ali, İç Çatışmaların Çözümü ve Uluslararası Örgütler, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, İstanbul, 1981. Keesing’s Record of World Events 8, March 1962, http://www.keesings.com (accessed 19 January 2014). Keesing’s Record of World Events 22, January 1976, http://www.keesings.com (accessed 28 July 2014). Keesing’s Record of World Events 22, August 1976, http://www.keesings.com (accessed 10 October 2014).
  14. KELSEN, Hans, The Law of the United Nations, Stevens & Sons Limited, London, 1951.
  15. LAUTERPACHT, Hersch, Lassa Francis Lawrence Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise Vol. I, Longmans, Green & Co., London, 1955.
  16. MERAY, Seha L., Devletler Hukukuna Giriş, İkinci Cilt, Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, Ankara, 1965.
  17. PAZARCI, Hüseyin, Uluslararası Hukuk Dersleri, IV. Kitap, Turhan Kitabevi, Ankara, 2000. Press Release USUN-122, 1970