Uluslararası Kriminal Polis Teşkilatı’nın Uluslararası Örgüt Statüsü
Buğra SarıGünümüzde başta Birleşmiş Milletler tarafından uluslararası örgüt olarak tanınmasına ve bu doğrultuda faaliyet göstermesine rağmen, INTERPOL’ün uluslararası örgüt statüsü ve uluslararası hukuk şahsiyeti literatürde tartışmalı bir konu olagelmiştir. Kimi yazarlar INTERPOL’ün formel bir uluslararası andlaşma marifetiyle kurulmamış olmasından yola çıkarak, örgütün uluslararası örgüt olamayacağını ve dolayısıyla uluslararası hukuk şahsı olarak kabul edilemeyeceğini öne sürmektedirler. Buradan hareketle, bu çalışma INTERPOL’ün uluslararası örgüt statüsünü sorgulamakta ve uluslararası örgüt olarak uluslararası hukuk şahsiyetine sahip olduğu yönünde tavır almaktadır. Bunu desteklemek amacıyla çalışma, INTERPOL’ün neden uluslararası örgüt statüsünde olduğunu uluslararası hukuki dayanaklarıyla ortaya koymaktadır. Nitekim INTERPOL’ün kurucu belgesi olan 1956 Anayasası yapılış süreci, muhtevası ve taraf devletlerin müteakip uygulamalarından yola çıkarak basit usulde düzenlenmiş bir andlaşma özelliği taşımaktadır. Örgüt aynı zamanda devletlerden ayrı iradesini gösteren organlara ya da kurumsal bir yapıya ve uluslararası hukuk şahsiyetine sahiptir.
International Organization Status of the International Criminal Police Organization
Buğra SarıThe International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) functions as an international organization, and is recognized in this regard by the United Nations. However, the status of INTERPOL as an international organization, and thereby its international legal personality has been a point of controversy in the literature. In this respect, some international lawyers argue that since INTERPOL was not established by a formal international treaty, it cannot be classified as an international organization with international legal personality. Problematizing this argument, this study questions whether INTERPOL is an international organization. At the end of the discussion, the study reaches the conclusion, by demonstrating its relevant international legal bases, that INTERPOL is an international organization with international legal personality. Accordingly, the 1956 INTERPOL Constitution constitutes an international treaty in simplified form. Moreover, the Organization has autonomous organs with distinct will and international legal personality.
INTERPOL, consisting of 194 member countries, aims to ensure and promote international criminal police cooperation, and develop platforms in this regard in order to prevent and suppress crimes which do not constitute a political, military, religious or racial character from transcending national borders. To fulfill this aim bestowed upon the Organization by its constitution, INTERPOL has to have the capacity to act on international legal order such as concluding treaties, disposing of movable and immovable property and instituting legal proceedings. Such a necessity for INTERPOL inevitably requires having an international organization status with international legal personality. Otherwise, it would be impossible for INTERPOL to perform tasks and duties, or the actions it undertakes on international plane would be legally invalid.
Accordingly, INTERPOL sought to be recognized as an international organization in international legal order after its inception. In this respect, INTERPOL was first recognized as a non-governmental organization (NGO) by the United Nations Economic and Social Council in 1949. Then in 1971, it was given international organization status by the United Nations through a special arrangement. In addition, INTERPOL has been enjoying observer status in the United Nations General Assembly since 1996.
From this point, INTERPOL functions as an international organization, and is recognized in this regard by the United Nations. However, the status of INTERPOL as an international organization, and thereby its international legal personality has been a point of controversy in the literature. For instance, Schermers (1983, p. 148), pointing that INTERPOL was not established by a formal treaty, classifies INTERPOL as an NGO rather than an international organization. In addition, Gallas (1983, s. 187) asserts that since INTERPOL’s members are criminal police authorities rather than states or governments, INTERPOL is not an international organization. Based on this reasoning, for Gallas, INTERPOL does not have an international legal personality. In line with Schermers and Gallas, Gless (2007) states that INTERPOL was not established on a formal international treaty and its members are composed of police authorities rather than governments.
Problematizing the controversy in the literature, this study questions whether INTERPOL is an international organization with international legal personality. At the end of discussion, the study reaches the conclusion, by demonstrating its relevant international legal bases, that INTERPOL is an international organization with international legal personality. In this respect, based on the jurisprudence of International Court of Justice and definition of the term ‘international organization’ given by the International Law Commission (ILC), there are three distinct criteria to differentiate between international organizations and other entities functioning in the international realm: (i) being established by an international treaty or other instrument governed by international law; (ii) having at least one organ with a will of its own; (iii) having international legal personality.
Questioning INTERPOL’s status as an international organization by utilizing these criteria, INTERPOL fulfills all of the three. Regarding the first criterion, although INTERPOL was not established by a formal international treaty in terms of the features enumerated in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the 1956 Constitution of INTERPOL constitutes an international treaty in simplified form. Hence, INTERPOL was founded on an international treaty contrary to the argument raised by Schermers, Gallas and Gless.
Regarding the second criterion, INTERPOL has autonomous organs with distinct will. For instance, members of INTERPOL’s Executive Committee “shall conduct themselves as representatives of the Organization and not as representatives of their respective countries” (1956 Interpol Constitution Art. 22). Similarly, the Secretary General and the staff shall not accept instructions from governments or any other authority outside INTERPOL. Hence, each member of the Organization shall “respect the exclusively international character of the Secretary General and the staff” (1956 Interpol Constitution Art. 30).
Lastly, regarding the third criterion, it is possible to infer INTERPOL’s international legal personality through an inductive reasoning. Accordingly, it is assumed that if an organization does not have international legal personality, that organization does not have the capacity to perform legal acts such as concluding treaties with other persons of international law to fulfill the functions bestowed upon it by its definitive statute. In the case of INTERPOL, the Organization has to enter into a legal relationship with member states to ensure and promote worldwide international criminal police cooperation. To this end, INTERPOL concluded headquarters agreements with states.