Journals / İnsan Hakları Yıllığı / 2022 / Cilt: 40

THE APPLICABILITY OF RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT IN THE RUSSIA – UKRAINE WAR WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF ALLEGATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND GENOCIDE

İNSAN HAKLARI İHLALLERİ VE SOYKIRIM İDDİALARI BAĞLAMINDA RUSYA-UKRAYNA SAVAŞINDA KORUMA SORUMLULUĞU İLKESİNİN UYGULANABİLİRLİĞİ

Pages
55–94
Publication Date
2023-01-13
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)

After examining the content of the principle of responsibility to protect and Russia's allegations with regard to the events in Ukraine in the last eight years, and by considering the provisions of the 1948 Genocide Convention, the article concluded that it is impossible to speak of a systematic genocide against the Russian minority in Ukraine, and therefore, the military operation of Russia in Ukraine cannot be legitimized in the context of the principle of responsibility to protect.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The main aim of Russia’s military operation against Ukraine in February 2022 was declared as protecting the Donbas people and the Russian minority living in this country from the eight years of oppression, humiliation, various human rights violations and genocide by the Kyiv administration.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this article, complianceence with the international law of Russia’s war in Ukraine is discussed within the framework of responsibility to protect, and in this context, it is questioned whether the events in Ukraine since 2014 and the policies towards the Russian minority in this country contain serious human rights violations to legitimize Russia's military intervention, and whether these developments can be defined as a genocide as claimed by Russia.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:After examining the content of the principle of responsibility to protect and Russia's allegations with regard to the events in Ukraine in the last eight years, and by considering the provisions of the 1948 Genocide Convention, the article concluded that it is impossible to speak of a systematic genocide against the Russian minority in Ukraine, and therefore, the military operation of Russia in Ukraine cannot be legitimized in the context of the principle of responsibility to protect.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2022 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Rusya · Ukrayna · Koruma Sorumluluğu

Abstract

The main aim of Russia’s military operation against Ukraine in February 2022 was declared as protecting the Donbas people and the Russian minority living in this country from the eight years of oppression, humiliation, various human rights violations and genocide by the Kyiv administration. A military operation pretending to protect a community in another country from any of the cases such as genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity is suited at best to be assessed within the context of the principle of responsibility to protect in terms of international law. In this article, complianceence with the international law of Russia’s war in Ukraine is discussed within the framework of responsibility to protect, and in this context, it is questioned whether the events in Ukraine since 2014 and the policies towards the Russian minority in this country contain serious human rights violations to legitimize Russia's military intervention, and whether these developments can be defined as a genocide as claimed by Russia. After examining the content of the principle of responsibility to protect and Russia's allegations with regard to the events in Ukraine in the last eight years, and by considering the provisions of the 1948 Genocide Convention, the article concluded that it is impossible to speak of a systematic genocide against the Russian minority in Ukraine, and therefore, the military operation of Russia in Ukraine cannot be legitimized in the context of the principle of responsibility to protect.

Özet

Rusya’nın 2022 yılı Şubat ayında Ukrayna’ya karşı başlattığı askeri operasyonun temel amacı başta Donbas halkı olmak üzere bu ülkede yaşayan Rus azınlığı Kiev yönetiminin sekiz yıldır süregelen baskı, aşağılama, çeşitli insan hakları ihlalleri ve soykırımdan korumak olarak ilan edildi. Başka bir ülkedeki bir topluluğu soykırım, savaş suçları, etnik temizlik ya da insanlığa karşı suçlardan herhangi birine karşı koruma iddiası taşıyan bir askeri operasyon, uluslararası hukuk bakımından en çok koruma sorumluluğu ilkesi bağlamında ele alınmaya uygundur. Bu makalede de Rusya’nın Ukrayna’daki savaşının hukukiliği koruma sorumluluğu ilkesi etrafında tartışılmakta ve bu kapsamda, Ukrayna’da 2014 yılından bugüne yaşananların ve bu ülkedeki Rus azınlığa yönelik politikaların Rusya’nın askeri müdahalesini meşrulaştıracak ölçüde ağır insan hakları ihlalleri içerip içermediği ve hatta Rusya’nın iddia ettiği gibi bir soykırım olarak değerlendirilip değerlendirilemeyeceği sorgulanmaktadır. Makalede koruma sorumluluğu ilkesinin muhtevasının, Ukrayna’da son sekiz yılda yaşananların ve Rusya’nın iddialarının incelenmesi sonucunda, 1948 tarihli Soykırım Sözleşmesi’nin hükümlerinden de hareketle Ukrayna’da Rus azınlığa yönelik sistematik bir soykırımdan bahsedilemeyeceği ve dolayısıyla Rusya’nın Ukrayna’daki askeri operasyonunun koruma sorumluluğu ilkesi bağlamında meşrulaştırılamayacağı sonucuna ulaşılmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZER, A., KAYA, R. (2023). THE APPLICABILITY OF RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT IN THE RUSSIA – UKRAINE WAR WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF ALLEGATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND GENOCIDE. İnsan Hakları Yıllığı, Cilt: 40, 55–94. https://ajindex.com/articles/876878

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. “Bolee 720 tysiach zhitelei Donbassa poluchili rossiiskie pasporta”, Ria Novosti, 27.01.2022, (https://ria.ru/20220127/donbass-1769781282.html, Erişim: 30.08.2022) “Feik: Sekretnyi prikaz komanduiushchego Natsional'noi gvardiei Ukrainy predusmatrival nastuplenie na Donbass v marte 2022 goda”, StopFake.org, 03.09.2022, (https://www.stopfake.org/ru/fejk-sekretnyj-prikaz-komanduyushhego-natsionalnoj-gvardiej-ukrainy-predusmatrival-nastuplenii-na-donbass-v-marte-2022-goda/, Erişim: 30.08.2022) “International Court orders Russia to ‘immediately suspend’ military operations in Ukraine”, UN News Global Perspective Human Stories, 16 March 2022, https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1114052 Erişim: 08.10.2022) “MO RF opublikovalo original sekretnogo prikaza o podgotovke Kievom nastupleniia na Donbass”, TASS, 09.03.2022, (https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/14006523?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=smm_social_share, Erişim: 30.08.2022) “O brifinge Komissii General'nogo soveta partii "Edinaia Rossiia” po mezhdunarodnomu sotrudnichestvu i podderzhke sootechestvennikov zarubezhom, posviashchennom situatsii vokrug ukrainskogo krizisa”, Ministerstvo inostrannıh del Rossiiskoi Federatsii, (https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/news/1804537/, Erişim: 30.08.2022) “Trends and Observations from the Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine”, OSCE, 2014-2020, (https://www.osce.org/special-monitoring-mission-to-ukraine/417620, Erişim: 30.08.2022) “Zelensky signs into law bill on indigenous peoples of Ukraine”, Interfax, 22.06.2021, (https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/72305/ Erişim: 30.08.2022) “Zelensky's full speech at Munich Security Conference”, The Kyiv Independent, 19.02.2022, (https://kyivindependent.com/national/zelenskys-full-speech-at-munich-security-conference, Erişim: 30.08.2022)
  2. Abomo, Paul Tang: R2P and the US Intervention in Libya, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2019.
  3. Aksar, Yusuf: Teoride ve Uygulamada Uluslararası Hukuk II (4. Baskı), Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2017.
  4. Annan, Kofi: “We, the Peoples”: The role of the United Nations in the 21st Century”, Millennium report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, 2000.
  5. Arsava, A. Füsun: “Egemenlik ve Koruma Sorumluluğu”, Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Volume XV, Number 1 (2011), s. 101-124.
  6. Azarkan, Ezeli: “Uluslararası Hukukta İnsanlığa Karşı Suçlar”, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 52, Sayı 3 (2003), s. 275-297.
  7. Bogner, Matilda: “7 years with no answers. What is lacking in