SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Adam Akademi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 15 Sayı: 2

The Relationship Between Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect: Consistency or Contradiction?

Egemenlik ve Koruma Sorumluluğu Arasındaki İlişki: Çelişki mi Uyum mu?

Semra Aksu

Pages
589–612
Publication Date
2025-12-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗

Abstract

Following the Cold War, humanitarian interventions began to be debated again and gradually became one of the most important issues in international law, particularly in response to humanitarian crises in Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo. The inconsistent, inadequate or indifferent responses of the international community to these crises paved the way for a new movement, leading to the creation of a systematic and well-defined framework to address the problems in practice. This new concept, called the Responsibility to Protect, was built on the same intellectual tradition as humanitarian intervention. It adopted the notion of ‘sovereignty as responsibility’, to prevent the principles of sovereign equality and non-intervention principles from being invoked as shields in the face of humanitarian crises. The Responsibility to Protect emphasizes that sovereignty entails not only rights but also the primary responsibility of the state to protect its population from genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. If a state fails to fulfill this responsibility, the responsibility is transferred to the international community, which must then take action or intervene. This approach has challenged the principle of the inviolability of state sovereignty, a cornerstone of the Westphalian order, leading many states to regard the concept with caution out of concern that their sovereignty may be undermined. However, when the theories of Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes—the principal architects of the Westphalian conception of sovereignty—are examined, it becomes evident that they do not necessarily conflict with the Responsibility to Protect but, in certain respects, they can be seen as complementary. Both thinkers associated sovereignty not merely with an absolute right, but also with the responsibility to ensure the security of the people. The aim of this study is to analyze the relationship between Responsibility to Protect and the sovereignty theories of Bodin and Hobbes, identifying the points at which these concepts converge and the ways in which they reinforce one another.

Özet

Soğuk Savaş sonrasında Somali, Ruanda, Bosna ve Kosova’da yaşanan insani krizlerle birlikte insani müdahaleler tekrardan tartışılmaya başlanmış ve giderek uluslararası hukukun en önemli meselelerinden biri haline gelmiştir. İnsani krizlere uluslararası toplumun tutarsız ve yetersiz reaksiyonları ya da kayıtsızlığı yeni bir hareketin oluşmasına zemin hazırlamış ve uygulamadaki sorunları ortadan kaldırmak adına sistematik ve belirgin bir çerçevede yeni bir konsept oluşturulmuştur. Koruma Sorumluluğu adı verilen ve insani müdahale ile aynı düşünce geleneği üzerine inşa edilen bu kavramla, egemen eşitlik ve içişlerine müdahale yasağı ilkelerinin insani krizlerde bir kalkan olarak kullanılmasını önlemek adına ‘sorumluluk olarak egemenlik’ anlayışı benimsemiştir. Devlete öncelikli sorumluluk yükleyerek egemenliğin aynı zamanda halkın soykırım, etnik temizlik, insanlığa karşı suç ve savaş suçlarından korunması anlamına geldiğini vurgulayan Koruma Sorumluluğu, devletin bu sorumluluğu yerine getirememesi durumunda, uluslararası topluma harekete geçme/müdahale etme sorumluluğu yüklemektedir. Bu yaklaşım, Vestfalyan düzenin egemenlik anlayışının temelini oluşturan devlet egemenliğinin dokunulmazlığı ilkesini sorgulatmış ve birçok devlet, egemenliklerinin aşınacağı endişesiyle bu kavrama mesafeli yaklaşmıştır. Ancak, Vestfalyan egemenlik anlayışının temel düşünürleri olan Jean Bodin ve Thomas Hobbes’un egemenlik nazariyeleri incelendiğinde, Koruma Sorumluluğu ile çatışmaktan ziyade belirli açılardan uyumlu olduğu görülmektedir. Her iki düşünür de egemenliği, yalnızca mutlak bir hak olarak değil, aynı zamanda halkın güvenliğini sağlama sorumluluğuyla ilişkilendirmiştir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Koruma Sorumluluğu ile Bodin ve Hobbes’un egemenlik teorileri arasındaki ilişkiyi analiz ederek, bu kavramların hangi noktalarda çakıştığını ve hangi açılardan birbirini tamamladığını ortaya koymaktır.

Keywords
🔖

Cite This Article

Aksu, S. (2025). The Relationship Between Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect: Consistency or Contradiction?. Adam Akademi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 2, 589–612. https://doi.org/10.31679/adamakademi.1527463

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

References (35)

  1. Ağaoğulları, M. A. (Ed.). (2015). Sokrates’ten Jakobenlere Batı’da Siyasal Düşünceler (6th ed.). İletişim Yayınları.
  2. Arsava, F. (2011). Egemenlik ve Koruma Sorumluluğu, Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 15 (1), 101-124.
  3. Ban, K. (2011, March 17). Statement on Libya. United Nations. Erişim https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2011-03-17/statement-libya
  4. Berkowitz, P. (2008). Leviathan Then and Now. Policy Review, 151.
  5. Bodin, J. (1955). Six Books of the Commonwealth (M. J. Tooley, Ed.). Alden Press.
  6. Çağıran, M. E. (2021). Uluslararası Hukuk Düzeninde Değişimler ve Kovid-19 Salgını. H. Gökpınar (ed.), Devlet hizmetinde 45 yıl: Prof. Dr. Cemalettin Taşkıran’a Armağan (45-60). Barış Kitap.
  7. Delbruck, J. (2002). Prospects for a ‘World (Internal) Law’?: Legal Development in a Changing International System. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 9(2), 401-431.
  8. Doyle, M. W. (2015). The Question of Intervention: John Stuart Mill and the Responsibility to Protect. Yale University Press.
  9. Fröhlich, M. (2015). The Responsiblity to Protect: Foundation, transformation and application of an emerging norm.
  10. F. Klose (ed.), The Emergence of Humanitarian Intervention: Ideas and Practice from the Nineteenth Century to the Present, (299-330). Cambridge University Press.
  11. Glanville, L. (2010). The Antecedents of ‘Sovereignty as Responsibility’. European Journal of International Relations, 17(2), 233-255.
  12. Glanville, L. (2014). Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect: A New History. The University of Chicago Press.
  13. Göze, A. (1989). Siyasal Düşünceler ve Yönetimler. Beta Basım. İstanbul.
  14. Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2000). Empire. Harvard University Press. Cambridge.
  15. Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan: Or the Matter, Form and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil. London: Andrew Crooke.
  16. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). 2001. The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty.
  17. International Court of Justice. (1950). Asylum Case (Colombia v. Peru), Judgment, 20 Kasım 1950.
  18. Luck, E. C. (2009). Sovereignty, Choice, and the Responsibility to Protect. Global Responsibility to Protect, 1, 10-21.
  19. Lütem, İ. (1947). Egemenlik Kavramı ve Devletlerarası Hukuk. Sakarya Basımevi.
  20. Mara, G. M. (1988). Hobbes’s Counsel to Sovereigns. Journal of Politics, 50(2), 390-411.
  21. Martin, S. (2011). Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect. Griffith Law Review, 20(1), 153-187.
  22. Merriam, C. E. (2001). History of the Theory of Sovereignty Since Rousseau. Batoche Books. (Original work published 1900)
  23. Molier, G. (2006). Humanitarian Intervention and The Responsibility to Protect After 9/11. Netherlands International Law Review, 53 (1), 37-62.
  24. United Nations General Assembly. (1970). Resolution 2625 (XXV): Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Frinedly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. UN Doc. A/RES2625.
  25. United Nations General Assembly. (2005). 2005 World Summit Outcome. UN Doc. A/RES/60/1.
  26. United Nations General Assembly. (6 Nisan 2005). Official Records: 59th Session, 85th Plenary Meeting, A/59/PV.85.
  27. United Nations General Assembly. (6 Nisan 2005). Official Records: 59th Session, 86th Plenary Meeting, A/59/PV.86.
  28. United Nations General Assembly. (7 Nisan 2005). Official Records: 59th Session, 87th Plenary Meeting, A/59/PV.87.
  29. United Nations General Assembly. (7 Nisan 2005). Official Records: 59th Session, 88th Plenary Meeting, A/59/PV.88.
  30. United Nations General Assembly. (8 Nisan 2005). Official Records: 59th Session, 89th Plenary Meeting, A/59/PV.89.
  31. United Nations General Assembly. (8 Nisan 2005). Official Records: 59th Session, 90th Plenary Meeting, A/59/PV.90.
  32. United Nations Secretary-General. (2000). We the peoples: The role of the United Nations in the twenty-first century. UN Doc. A/54/2000.
  33. United Nations Secretary-General. (2005). In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Secuirty and Human Rights for All, Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/59/2005.
  34. United Nations Security Council. (2011). Resolution 1973 (2011), UN Doc. S/RES/1973.
  35. United Nations. (2009). Delegates Seek to End Global Paralysis in Face of Atrocities as General Assembly Holds Interactive Dialogue on Responsiblity to Protect (Press Release No. GA/10847). https://press.un.org/en/2009/ga10847.doc.htm.