Dergiler / Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 33

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

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

Sayfa
353–362
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

This arises mostly because unilateralhumanitarian intervention is in a “grey area” of international law.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Unilateral humanitarian intervention is one of the most controversial issues in international law and relations.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:This controversyarises from the fact that while it serves a praiseworthy practice such as saving people suffering from gross human rightsviolations, it is illegal under international law.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:This arises mostly because unilateralhumanitarian intervention is in a “grey area” of international law.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

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

Abstract

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 genellikle 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.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

KIRDIM, Ş. E. (2022). CRIME OF AGGRESSION UNDER THE ROME STATUTE AND EXCLUSION OF UNILATERAL HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 33, 353–362. https://ajindex.com/articles/587636

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (10)

  1. World Summit Outcome, G.A. Res. 60/1, U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/1 (Oct. 24. 2005).
  2. 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.
  3. Akehurst, M. (1984). “Humanitarian Intervention”, Intervention in World Politics, (Ed. Hedley). Oxford University Press,
  4. 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.
  5. Benjamin, B. (1992). “Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention: Legalizing the Use of Force to Prevent Human Rights Atrocities”, Fordham International Law Journal, 16, 120-158.
  6. 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,
  7. Cambridge. Delbruck, J. (1992). “A Fresh Look at Humanitarian Intervention under the Authority of the United States”, Indian Law Journal, 67/4, 887-901.
  8. 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.
  9. Franck, T. (2002). Recourse to Force: State Action Against Threats and Armed Attacks, University Press,
  10. 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 Conc