Nükleer Silahların Kullanılması Yasağı Bakımından Kuzey Kore’nin Israrlı Muhalif (Persistent Objector) Devlet Statüsü
Hatice TürkayNükleer silahlar 1945 yılında ilk kez Amerika Birleşik Devletleri (ABD) tarafından Hiroşima ve Nagazaki’de kullanılmasından beri hem canlılar hem de çevre üzerinde yarattığı ciddi etkiler nedeniyle bir şekilde hem üretimi hem kullanımı sınırlandırılmaya çalışılan bir silah türüdür. 1968 tarihli Nükleer Silahların Yayılmasının Önlenmesi Andlaşması (NSYÖA) bu amaçla yapılan önemli bir düzenlemedir. Andlaşma ABD, Rusya, Birleşik Krallık, Fransa ve Çin’i nükleer devlet olarak kabul etmiştir. Kore Demokratik Halk Cumhuriyeti (Kuzey Kore) andlaşmanın nükleer devlet sıfatı tanıdığı devletlerden biri değildir. Ancak Kuzey Kore, ilk lideri Kim Il Jong döneminde nükleer silah çalışmalarını başlatmış ve 2018 yılında nükleer silah geliştirme hedefine ulaştığını ilan etmiştir. Bu nedenle bugün Kuzey Kore’nin de nükleer silah sahibi olduğu bilinmektedir. Kuzey Kore de bu bilgiyi faklı zamanlarda da doğrulamaya devam etmektedir. 2017 yılında Nükleer Silahların Yasaklanmasına Dair Andlaşma yapılmış, ancak açık bir yasak getiren bu andlaşma özellikle nükleer devlet olarak kabul edilen beş devletin itirazıyla karşılaşmıştır. 2003 yılında Nükleer Silahların Yayılmasının Önlenmesi Andlaşması’ndan çekilen Kuzey Kore bu andlaşmanın da tarafı değildir. Bu nedenle kendisi için herhangi bağlayıcı bir düzenleme bulunmadığını savunmaktadır. Dolayısıyla söz konusu silahların kullanılmasına ilişkin yasağın uluslararası hukuk kaynakları bakımından niteliği daha önemli hâle gelmektedir. Yasağın örf ve adet kuralına dönüştüğü ve bu nedenle ısrarlı muhalif niteliği bulunmayan tüm devletleri bağlayacağı ifade edilmelidir. Dolayısıyla evrensel bir örf adet kuralına dönüşen bu yasağa tabi olmak istemeyen devletler sözü edilen kurala sürekli ve ısrarlı bir şekilde itiraz etmelidir. Kuzey Kore’nin yasağa tabi olmaması için de ısrarlı muhalif statüsüne sahip olması gerekir. Bu nedenle Kuzey Kore’nin yasak karşısındaki durumunun tespiti için ısrarlı muhalif statüsü incelenmelidir.
State Status of North Korea Persistent Objector with Respect To The Prohibition on the Use of Nuclear Weapons
Hatice TürkayNuclear weapons are a type of weapon that has been tried to be limited in production and use in some ways due to the serious effects they have on both living things and the environment since they were first used by the USA in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 provides an important arrangement for this purpose. The treaty recognised the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China as nuclear states. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is not a state that the treaty recognises as a nuclear state. However, North Korea began nuclear weapons studies during its first leader, Kim Il Jong, and declared that it had reached its goal of developing nuclear weapons in 2018. For this reason, it is known today that North Korea also has nuclear weapons. North Korea has also confirmed this information at different times. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was signed in 2017, which introduced an explicit ban, but the treaty faced objections from five states, which are considered nuclear states. North Korea, which withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NSYÖA) in 2003, is also not a party to the treaty. Therefore, he argued that there is no binding regulation. Therefore, the nature of the prohibition on the use of such weapons has become more important in terms of the sources of international law. It should be noted that the prohibition has become a customary rule and therefore binds all states that do not have a persistent objector attribute. Therefore, states that do not want to be subjected to this ban, which has become a universal customary rule, must constantly and persistently object to the said rule. For North Korea to not be subjected to a ban, it must also have a persistent objector status. In order to determine the situation of North Korea with respect to the ban, it should be examined whether it has the status of a persistent objector.
Customary rules are one of the main sources of international law and are important because of the structure of international law. Customary rules are of two types, universal and regional. Universal ones are binding unless there is persistent objection. For regional agreements to be binding, consent is required.
For customary rules to be formed, the general practise (the material element) and the general belief (the psychological element) must co-exist. General practise refers to the repeated practise of any state, including those states that are particularly “related” to the subject. The general belief, expressed as opinio juris, is that the aforementioned practise is accepted as a legal requirement. The existence of these two elements is necessary for the formation of customary rules.
The established customary rules are binding. However, the fact that the state is bound by customary rules that it does not want is contrary to the general character of law, especially the principle of sovereign equality of states. For this reason, these states are given the right to obtain a persistent objector status. In other words, if a state that does not want a universal customary rule to bind itself persistently, expresses this objection, it will not be bound by the rule. There are some requirements for persistent objector status. First, the objection should start from the first formation phase of the rule and continue through the formation phase and beyond. The State should express its objection whenever and wherever necessary. Disputing a rule after the creation phase is complete does not grant this status.
To assess whether North Korea has persistent objector status despite a ban on the use of nuclear weapons, the nature of the ban must first be determined. The prohibition on the use of nuclear weapons is contained in treaties. As is known, treaties, as a rule, only bind their parties. The attitude of states that are not parties to the treaty on nuclear weapons depends on the nature of the ban.
It must be admitted that the prohibition has become a customary rule. Such weapons were first used by the United States in 1945 but, were not used again afterward. Therefore, it is possible to say that there is a general practise not to use this type of weapon. In terms of the general belief element, it is necessary to examine treaties aimed at the spread and use of this type of weapon, and the denuclearisation of some areas. The number of such treaties and the parties to them has reached a significant level. For the state parties, it can be posited that there is a belief that the law is behind the general practise. However, the extent of the ban is controversial. Although this type of weapon has not been used except the USA, many states produce, develop, or store this type of weapon. In this context, many agreements have been reached. It is not appropriate to accept the ban on use only. Even if this type of weapon is not intentionally used, even if it is actuated by accident, it will have serious and serious consequences.
Some authors argue that the ban turns into jus cogens. However, compliance with the definition laid down in Article 53 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is debatable. One condition of being a jus cogens is acceptance by the society of states that one cannot deviate from this rule in any way. These conditions are not met by agreements made for the production, development or storage of nuclear weapons. In fact, although no treaty accepts the use of nuclear weapons, treaties arranged by such stages prevent the jus cogens qualification.
This prohibition has become a customary rule; it is possible for North Korea to maintain a persistent objector status if it fulfils the necessary conditions against this prohibition. However, the objection must remain for this status. Whereas, North Korea became a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency in 1974 and signed the treaty allowing inspections in 1992, became a party to the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty in 1985, and signed a joint declaration with South Korea on the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula. Although, it withdrew from the NPT in 2003, it frequently stated that his work was for peaceful purposes. These actions signify that, starting from the formation stage, North Korea has not consistently objected to the rule. For this reason, North Korea is subject to the said ban, and its violations are grounds for liability.
