Public and Private International Law Bulletin

GÖNDERBİLGİ
EnglishTürkçe

Araştırma Makalesi


DOI :10.26650/ppil.2023.44.1.1427529   IUP :10.26650/ppil.2023.44.1.1427529    Tam Metin (PDF)

Olağan Dışı Teslim Örneğiyle Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Hukuku İhlallerinde Devletlerarası İş Birliği

Necdet Umut Orcan

11 Eylül saldırıları sonrası Amerika Birleşik Devletleri ve özellikle Merkezi İstihbarat Teşkilatı (CIA), teröre karşı savaş bağlamında şüpheli görülen kişilerin yakalanması, hukuka aykırı olarak başka ülkelere kaçırılması ve kötü muamele içeren usullerle sorgulanmasını içeren bir Teslim, Tutma ve Sorgulama Programı (ing. “Rendition, Detention and Interrogation”) yürütmüştür. Ancak bu olağan dışı teslim ve sorgulamalar, doğaları gereği, yalnızca Birleşik Devletlerin tek taraflı girişimleriyle gerçekleştirilebilecek nitelikte değildir: Programın, kişilerin yakalanması, tutulması ve sorgulanması aşamaları için önemli usuli güvenceler içeren Birleşik Devletler hukuk sisteminde gerçekleştirilmesi mümkün olmadığından, özellikle kişilerin hukuka aykırı transferi ve sorgulama aşamalarında başka devletlerin topraklarının kullanılması gerekmiştir. Bu nedenle teslim ve sorgu işlemlerinde diğer devletlerin iş birliğine gerek duyulmuştur. Öyle görünüyor ki Program’ın içerdiği hukuka aykırı usuller neredeyse ilk aşamalardan itibaren tüm uluslararası kamuoyu tarafından bilinir olsa da demokrasi ve insan hakları açılarından gelişmiş addedilen devletlerden bu açıdan sorunlu devletlere kadar geniş bir yelpazede en az elli dört devlet CIA ile iş birliği yapmaktan çekinmemiştir. Bu çalışma bu iş birliğinin nedenlerini araştırmakta, bu nedeni iş birliği yapan devletler arasındaki ulusal güvenliğin insan haklarına üstün kılınma algısında bulmaktadır. Bu amaçla çalışmanın ilk bölümünde olağan dışı teslim uygulaması ve bu uygulamanın insan hakları hukuku açısından değerlendirilmesine yer verilmiş, ikinci bölümde ise iş birliğinde bulunan devletler anıldıktan sonra iş birliğinde neden bulunulmuş olabileceği sorusu cevaplanmaya çalışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Olağan dışı teslim, İşkence yasağı, Kişi özgürlüğü ve güvenliği, Adil yargılanma hakkı, İnsan hakları, İş birliği teorileri, Teröre karşı savaş, Uluslararası ilişkiler
DOI :10.26650/ppil.2023.44.1.1427529   IUP :10.26650/ppil.2023.44.1.1427529    Tam Metin (PDF)

Interstate Cooperation in Violations of International Human Rights Law: The Case of Extraordinary Rendition

Necdet Umut Orcan

Following the 9/11 attacks, the United States, specifically the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), implemented a Rendition, Detention and Interrogation Programme, which involved capturing, unlawfully detaining, and interrogating individuals suspected of involvement in the War on Terror. The United States could not carry out these extraordinary renditions and interrogations alone. The Programme required the use of other countries’ territories for the unlawful rendition and interrogation of persons, as it could not be carried out within the United States legal system, which provides effective procedural safeguards for the apprehension, detention and interrogation of individuals. Cooperation with other states was necessary during the rendition and interrogation stages. Although the international community was aware of the unlawful procedures involved in the Programme from the beginning, at least 54 states, ranging from those considered to have been ‘advanced’ in terms of democracy and human rights to those with problematic records in this regard, cooperated with the CIA. This study investigates the reasons for cooperation between states in the practice of extraordinary rendition. It finds that the perception of national security as a priority over human rights is the main driver of such cooperation. The purpose of this study is to examine the practice of extraordinary rendition and assess it under human rights law. Then, after listing the states that cooperated with the CIA, it attempts to answer the question of why cooperation might have existed.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Extraordinary rendition, Prohibition of torture, Personal liberty and security, Right to a fair trial, Human rights, Theories of cooperation, War on terror, International relations

GENİŞLETİLMİŞ ÖZET


In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the United States carried out a “Rendition, Detention and Interrogation Programme”, which involved the capture, unlawful detention, and interrogation of persons suspected of involvement in the War on Terror. It is accepted by government officials and legal experts close to the administration that, İn the context of the “global war on terror”, the United States has resorted to many practices whose compliance with international law is highly controversial. At the heart of these practices has been the extraordinary rendition programme, which some trace back to the Clinton administration and others to the capture of the Lebanese hijacker Fawaz Younis in international waters during the Reagan administration. Regardless of when it began, scholars have agreed that it gained both momentum and diversity under George W. Bush administration. The Rendition, Detention, Interrogation Programme, of which extraordinary rendition is a significant part, was officially terminated by President Barack Obama in an executive order issued on January 22, 2009. 

The practice of extraordinary rendition has different manifestations and definitions. Because it is not possible to discuss each of these definitions in this study and because it is the first definition adopted by an international court, the definition adopted by the European Court of Human Rights in the United Kingdom Intelligence and Security Committee is taken as the basis. According to this definition and as used in this study, extraordinary rendition is “the unlawful transfer of persons from one jurisdiction or state to another, where there is a real risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, for the purpose of detention and interrogation outside the ordinary legal system”.

Although the programme officially ended in 2009, it continues to be a subject of ongoing scrutiny under international human rights law. One reason for this is that the effects of the Programme are still felt nearly 15 years after its official termination. The Guantanamo Bay detention centre, which has “housed” 779 detainees since 2002, a significant number of whom were subjected to the Programme, has not yet been evacuated. Moreover, numerous developments in the international political arena regarding the programme remain. For example, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism repeatedly referred to the practice of extraordinary rendition in his 2023 report on Guantanamo Bay detainees. International human rights organisations continue to mobilize international public opinion on this issue. Most importantly, the programme’s journey before international judicial and quasi-judicial bodies is far from complete. As of January 16, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that six different rights had been violated (and some rights in more than one respect) in a case brought by one of the victims of the Programme. Also on September 12, 2023, a shadow report on Guantanamo detainees was submitted to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. 

It is clear that the extraordinary rendition Programme, by its very nature, leads to human rights violations on many fronts. Furthermore, by nature, this programme requires cooperation between States. It is interesting that more than 50 states, some of which have very good human rights records, were partners in that programme. This study focuses on the reasons for this cooperation and aims to provide a theoretical description of the actions that facilitate or complicate joint violations of international human rights law.

The first part of this study examines the practice of extraordinary rendition in terms of its main stages and explains why it is contrary to international law, particularly human rights law. The programme, inter alia, violates the prohibition of torture, the right to liberty and security, the right to a fair trial, the right to a family life and the right to an effective remedy. The second part discusses why states might have participated in such a Programme. With this focus, the first section of the second part first maps cooperation and shows, on the basis of official data, which states have contributed to the Programme and what measures they have taken. This shows that states with excellent to very poor human rights records participated in the Programme. It then examines why different states have engaged in this cooperation. This section first presents the main factors that have been proposed to explain why states cooperate in general and then considers their possible manifestations in the practice of extraordinary rendition.

None of the international relations theories of cooperation can fully explain the interstate cooperation in this programme. This paper argues that the fact that the extraordinary rendition programme entails gross violations of human rights provides a new dynamic to cooperation and that states participating in the extraordinary rendition programme have a greater tendency to trade off human rights for national security interests. Indeed, a comparison of states that participated in the rendition programme with those that did not shows that their votes on human rights issues in the UN General Assembly overlap significantly with those of the United States.


PDF Görünüm

Referanslar

  • Bush GW, Decision Points (Crown Publishers 2010). google scholar
  • Cordell R, ‘Did 9/11 Change Everything? Security and Human Rights Trade-offs in International Cooperation’ (University of Essex 2017). google scholar
  • Grieco J, Cooperation Among Nations (Cornell University Press 1990). google scholar
  • Guzman AT, How International Law Works: a Rational Choice Theory (Oxford University Press 2007). google scholar
  • Hillebrand C, The CIA’s extraordinary rendition and secret detention programme: European reactions and the challenges of future international intelligence co-operation (Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael 2009). google scholar
  • Ignatieff M (ed), American Exceptionalism and Human Rights (Princeton University Press 2005). google scholar
  • Keohane RO, After Hegemony : Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton University Press 1984). google scholar
  • Mercer J, Reputation and International Politics (Cornell Studies in Security Affairs, Cornell University Press 1996). google scholar
  • Odell JS and Dustin Tingley, ‘Negotiating Agreements in International Relations’ in Mansbridge J and Cathie Jo Martin (eds), Negotiating Agreement in Politics (American Political Science Association 2013). google scholar
  • Raphael S and Ruth Blakeley, ‘Rendition in the “War on Terror”’ in Jackson R (ed), The Routledge Handbook of Critical Terrorism Studies (Routledge 2016). google scholar
  • Sartori AE, Deterrence by Diplomacy (Princeton University Press 2005). google scholar
  • Singh A, Globalizing Torture: CIA Secret Detention and Extraordinary Rendition, 2013). google scholar
  • Sterling-Folker J, Theories of International Cooperation and the Primacy of Anarchy: Explaining U.S. International Policy-Making After Bretton Woods (State University of New York Press 2002). google scholar
  • Tomz M, Reputation and International Cooperation: Sovereign Debt Across Three Centuries (Princeton University Press 2007). google scholar
  • Ambos K and Annika Maleen Poschadel, ‘Terrorists and Fair Trial: The Right to a Fair Trial for Alleged Terrorists Detained in Guantanamo Bay’ (2013) 9(4) Utrecht Law Review 109-126. google scholar
  • Blakeley R and Sam Raphael, ‘Human rights fact-finding and the CIA’s rendition, detention and interrogation programme: A response to Cordell’ (2018) 21(2) International Area Studies Review 169-178. google scholar
  • Cordell R, ‘Security-Civil Liberties Trade-offs: International Cooperation in Extraordinary Rendition’ (2019) 45(4) International Interactions 369-400. google scholar
  • Dai X, Duncan Snidal and Michael Sampson, ‘International Cooperation Theory and International Institutions’ (2017) International Studies 1-33. google scholar
  • Fisher L, ‘Extraordinary Rendition : the Price of Secrecy’ (2008) 57(5) The American University Law Review 1405-1451. google scholar
  • Gartzke E and Kristian Skrede Gleditsch, ‘Why democracies may actually be less reliable allies’ (2004) 48(4) American Journal of Political Science 775-795. google scholar
  • Gaubatz KT, ‘Democratic States and Commitment in International Relations’ (1996) 50(1) International Organization 109-139. google scholar
  • Gowa J, ‘Anarchy, Egoism, and Third Images: The Evolution of Cooperation and International Relations’ (1986) 40(1) International Organization 167-186. google scholar
  • Grieco J, ‘Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: A realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism’ (1988) 42(3) International Organization 485-507. google scholar
  • Johnston P, ‘Leaving the Invisible Universe: Why All Victims of Extraordinary Rendition Need a Cause of Action Against the United States’ (2008) 16(1) Journal of Law and Policy 357-416. google scholar
  • Langlois JP and Catherine Langlois, ‘Tacit Bargaining in International Relations: A Game Model and a Case Study’ (1996) 40(4) The Journal of Conflict Resolution 569-596. google scholar
  • Mattes M and Mariana Rodmguez, ‘Autocracies and International Cooperation’ (2014) 58(3) International Studies Quarterly 527-538. google scholar
  • Milner H, ‘International Theories of Cooperation among Nations: Strengths and Weaknesses’ (1992) 44(3) World Politics 466-496. google scholar
  • Oye KA, ‘Explaining Cooperation under Anarchy: Hypotheses and Strategies’ (1985) 38(1) World Politics 1-24. google scholar
  • Putnam RD, ‘Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games’ (1988) 42(3) International Organization 427-460. google scholar
  • Raphael Sam, Crofton Black, Ruth Blakeley and Steve Kostas, ‘Tracking rendition aircraft as a way to understand CIA secret detention and torture in Europe’ (2016) 20(1) The International Journal of Human Rights 78-103. google scholar
  • Roach K, ‘Substitute Justice? Challenges to American Counterterrorism Activities in Non-American Court’ (2013) 82(4) Mississippi Law Journal 907-974. google scholar
  • Robeda A, ‘The Death of Implied Causes of Action: The Supreme Court’s Recent Bivens Jurisprudence and the Effect on State Constitutional Tort Jurisprudence: Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko’ (2003) 33(3) New Mexico Law Review 401-429. google scholar
  • Rosen PM, ‘The Bivens Constitutional Tort: An Unfulfilled Promise’ (1989) 67(2/3) North Carolina Law Review 337-377. google scholar
  • Sadat LN, ‘Extraordinary Rendition, Torture, and Other Nightmares from the War on Terror’ (2007) 75(5) The George Washington Law Review 1200-1248. google scholar
  • Sage MV, ‘The Exploitation of Legal Loopholes in the Name of National Security: A Case Study on Extraordinary Rendition’ (2006) 37(1) California Western International Law Journal 121-142. google scholar
  • Satterthwaite ML, ‘The Story of El-Masri v. Tenet: Human Rights and Humanitarian Law in the ‘‘War on Terror’’’ (2008) 08 NYU School of Law: Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series 535-577. google scholar
  • Schmidt A and Kathryn Sikkink, ‘Partners in Crime: An Empirical Evaluation of the CIA Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation Program’ (2018) 16(4) Perspectives on Politics 1014-1033. google scholar
  • Snidal D, ‘Relative Gains and the Pattern of International Cooperation’ (1991) 85(3) The American Political Science Review 701-726. google scholar
  • Webb MC and Stephen D Krasner, ‘Hegemonic Stability Theory: An Empirical Assessment’ (1989) 15(2) Review of International Studies 183-198. google scholar
  • Weissbrodt D and Amy Bergquist, ‘Extraordinary Rendition: A Human Rights Analysis’ (2006) 19 Harvard Human Rights Journal 124-160. google scholar
  • Weissbrodt D and Mattias Hallendorff, ‘Travaux Preparatoires of the Fair Trial Provisions-Articles 8 to 11-of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ (1999) 21 Human Rights Quarterly 10611096. google scholar
  • Yazid MNM, ‘The Theory of Hegemonic Stability, Hegemonic Power and International Political Economic Stability’ (2015) 3 Global Journal of Political Science and Administration 67-79. google scholar
  • Aolain FN, ‘Technical Visit to the United States and Guantanamo Detention Facility by the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism’ (June 14, 2023) 1 <https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/ issues/terrorism/sr/2023-06-26-SR-terrorism-technical-visit-US-guantanamo-detention-facility. pdf> Erişim Tarihi 27 January 2024. google scholar
  • BBC News, ‘Bush admits to CIA secret prisons’ (BBC News, September 7) Erişim Tarihi 23 January 2024. google scholar
  • Bush GW, ‘Humane Treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees’ <https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/ NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/02.02.07.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 8 July 2024. google scholar
  • Duffy H and Hannah R Garry, Submission to the UN Human Rights Committee Concerning Arbitrary Detention & Torture by the United States Against Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, <https://promiseinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Abu-Zubaydah-UNHRC-Submission-2023.09.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 17 January 2024. google scholar
  • Eski S and Yarin Eski, ‘Dutch tolerance of torture? CIA extraordinary rendition flights in the Netherlands’ Palgrave Communications <https://www.nature.com/articles/palcomms201784. pdf> Erişim Tarihi: 23 January 2024. google scholar
  • Froomkin D, ‘Cheney’s ‘Dark Side’ is Showing’ (The Washington Post: Opinions, November 7) Erişim Tarihi 22 January 2024. google scholar
  • Geyer F, ‘Fruit of the poisonous tree: member states’ indirect use of extraordinary rendition and the EU counter-terrorism strategy’ CEPS Working Documents No 263 <https://www.ssrn.com/ abstract=1338018> Erişim Tarihi 22 January 2024. google scholar
  • Grozdanova R, ‘Extraordinary Rendition and Human Rights: The Case of Khaled El-Masri’ <http:// asiapacific.anu.edu.au/regarding-rights/2013/03/08/extraordinary-rendition-and-human-rights-the-case-of-khaled-el-masri/> Erişim Tarihi 22 January 2024. google scholar
  • Hall J, ‘Torture report reveals how Poland objected to CIA’s secret jail on its soil - but became ‘flexible’ after being bought off with large cash payment’ (Daily Mail Online, December 10) Erişim Tarihi 23 January 2024. google scholar
  • Marty D, ‘Alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers involving Council of Europe member states’ (2006) <https://pace.coe.int/en/files/11527/html> Erişim Tarihi 23 January 2024. google scholar
  • Mayer J, ‘Outsourcing Torture: The secret history of America’s ‘extraordinary rendition’ program’ (The New Yorker, February 14 & 21) . google scholar
  • Erişim Tarihi 23 January 2024.Peace IfE, ‘Global Terrorism Index 2019: Measuring the Impact of Terrorism’ (2019) <https://www.visionofhumanity.org/maps/global-terrorism-index/> Erişim Tarihi 8 July 2024. google scholar
  • Priest D, ‘CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons’ (The Washington Post, November 2) Erişim Tarihi 23 January 2024. google scholar
  • ‘Report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Detention and Interrogation Program’ (2014). google scholar
  • https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CRPT-113srpt288.pdf Erişim Tarihi 23 January 2024. google scholar
  • Retief J-M, ‘Extraordinary rendition in international law: criminalising the indefinable?’ <https:// repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/52302/Retief_Extraordinary_2015.pdf;sequence=1> Erişim Tarihi 23 January 2024. google scholar
  • Rosenberg C, ‘What the C.I.A.’s Torture Program Looked Like to the Tortured’ (The New York Times, November 2021) Erişim Tarihi 24 January 2024.The Committee on International Human Rights of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York and The Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, ‘Torture by Proxy: International and Domestic Law Applicable to “Extraordinary Renditions”’ (2004) <https://www.therenditionproject.org.uk/pdf/PDF%2039%20%5BCHRGJ-2006-06-REP%20Torture%20by%20Proxy%5D.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 22 January 2024. google scholar
  • The United Kingdom Intelligence and Security Committee, ‘Rendition’ <https://fas.org/irp/world/ uk/rendition.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 24 January 2024. google scholar
  • Thiessen MA, ‘Arrest Bill Clinton!’ (The Washington Post, December 12) Erişim Tarihi 22 January 2024. google scholar
  • UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘Statement of High Commissioner for Human Rights on Detention of Taliban and Al Qaida Prisoners at US Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba’ (OHCHR, 16 June 2002) Erişim Tarihi 17 June 2024. google scholar
  • World Bank National Accounts Data, ‘GDP (current US$)’ (World Bank Group) > Erişim Tarihi 8 July 2024. google scholar
  • ‘Guantânamo Bay: over 20years of injustice ’ (Amnesty International, 9 August 2023) Erişim Tarihi 25 January 2024. google scholar
  • Amnesty International, ‘Memorandum to the US Government on the rights of people in US custody in Afghanistan and Guantânamo Bay’ (April 2002). google scholar
  • Amnesty International, ‘Report 2003, United States of America’ (28 May 2003). google scholar
  • Amnesty International, ‘Unlawful detention of six men from Bosnia-Herzegovina in Guantânamo Bay’ (29 May 2003). google scholar
  • Amnesty International, United States of America, ‘The threat of a bad example: Undermining international standards as ‘war on terror’ detentions continue’ (18 August 2003). google scholar
  • Amnesty International, ‘Incommunicado detention/Fear of illtreatment’ (20 August 2003.) google scholar
  • Avrupa Konseyi Parlamenterler Asamblesi, Res 1340/2003 (26 June 2003). google scholar
  • Avrupa Parlamentosu Res 2005/2658 (15 December 2005). google scholar
  • Avrupa Parlamentosu Res 2006/2200 (14 February 2007). google scholar
  • Avrupa Parlamentosu Res 2012/2033 (11 September 2012). google scholar
  • Avrupa Parlamentosu Res 2013/2702 (10 October 2013). google scholar
  • Avrupa Parlamentosu Res 2014/2997 (11 February 2015). google scholar
  • Avrupa Parlamentosu Res 2016/2573 (8 June 2016). google scholar
  • Birleşmiş Milletler Genel Kurulu Res 60/147 (21 March 2006) UN Doc A/RES/60/147. google scholar
  • Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (adopted 10 December 1984, entered into force 26 June 1987) 1465 UNTS 85. google scholar
  • International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, ‘Antiterrorism Measures, Security and Human Rights: Developments in Europe, Central Asia and North America in the Aftermath of September 11’ (April 2003). google scholar
  • Human Rights Watch, ‘United States, Presumption of Guilt: Human Rights Abuses of Post-September 11 Detainees’ (August 2002). google scholar
  • Human Rights Watch, ‘United States: Reports of Torture of AlQaeda Suspects’ (26 December 2002). google scholar
  • Human Rights Watch, ‘Statement on US Secret Detention Facilities’ (6 November 2005). google scholar
  • Human Rights Watch, ‘List of “Ghost Prisoners” Possibly in CIA Custody’ (30 November 2005). google scholar
  • International Committee of the Red Cross, ‘United States: ICRC President urges progress on detention-related issues’, (16 January 2004). google scholar
  • International Committee of the Red Cross, ‘ICRC Report on the Treatment of Fourteen “High Value Detainees” in CIA Custody WAS 07/76’ (14 February 2007). google scholar
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 99 UNTS 171. google scholar
  • Opinion No. 10/2019 concerning Mustafa Ceyhan (Azerbaijan and Turkey), Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention at its eighty-fourth session, 24 April-3 May 2019, <https:// documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G19/190/83/PDF/G1919083.pdf?OpenElement> Erişim Tarihi 22 January 2024. google scholar
  • Report of the International Law Commission, ‘The work of its fifty-third session, Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries’ <https://legal. un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf> Erişim Tarihi: 23 January 2024. google scholar
  • Temporary Committee, The alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners, (2006/2200(INI)), § 42, <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/ sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A6-2007-0020&language=EN> Erişim Tarihi 23 January 2024. google scholar
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948) UNGA Res 217 A(III). google scholar
  • Abu-Zubaydah v Litvanya App no 46454/11 (ECHR, 31 May 2018). google scholar
  • Ahmed Hussein Mustafa Kamil Agiza v İsveç (2005) CAT/C/34/D/233/2003. google scholar
  • Al-Hawsawi v Litvanya App no 6383/17 (ECHR, 16 January 2024). google scholar
  • Al-Nashiri v Polonya App no 28761/11 (ECHR, 31 May 2018). google scholar
  • Al-Nashiri v. Romanya App no 33234/12 (ECHR, 31 May 2018). google scholar
  • Arar v. Ashcroft, 414 F. Supp. 2d 250 (Eastern District of New York 2006). google scholar
  • Babar Ahmad and others v UK (dec.), App nos 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08 (ECHR, 6 July 2010). google scholar
  • Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents 403 US 388 (1971). google scholar
  • El-Masri v Makedonya App no 39630/09 (ECHR, 13 December 2012). google scholar
  • El-Masri v. Tenet, 437 F. Supp. 2d 530 (Eastern District Virginia 2006). google scholar
  • Husayn v Polonya (Abu Zubaydah) App no 7511/13 (ECHR, 24 July 2014). google scholar
  • Mohammed Alzery v İsveç (2006) CCPR/C/88/D/1416/2005. google scholar
  • Mr. Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi and 25 others v the United States of America Op no 29/2006 (UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, 8 December 2005). google scholar
  • Nasr ve Ghali c İtalya App no 44883/09 (ECHR, 23 February 2016). google scholar

Atıflar

Biçimlendirilmiş bir atıfı kopyalayıp yapıştırın veya seçtiğiniz biçimde dışa aktarmak için seçeneklerden birini kullanın


DIŞA AKTAR



APA

Orcan, N.U. (2024). Olağan Dışı Teslim Örneğiyle Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Hukuku İhlallerinde Devletlerarası İş Birliği. Public and Private International Law Bulletin, 44(1), 281-318. https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2023.44.1.1427529


AMA

Orcan N U. Olağan Dışı Teslim Örneğiyle Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Hukuku İhlallerinde Devletlerarası İş Birliği. Public and Private International Law Bulletin. 2024;44(1):281-318. https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2023.44.1.1427529


ABNT

Orcan, N.U. Olağan Dışı Teslim Örneğiyle Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Hukuku İhlallerinde Devletlerarası İş Birliği. Public and Private International Law Bulletin, [Publisher Location], v. 44, n. 1, p. 281-318, 2024.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Orcan, Necdet Umut,. 2024. “Olağan Dışı Teslim Örneğiyle Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Hukuku İhlallerinde Devletlerarası İş Birliği.” Public and Private International Law Bulletin 44, no. 1: 281-318. https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2023.44.1.1427529


Chicago: Humanities Style

Orcan, Necdet Umut,. “Olağan Dışı Teslim Örneğiyle Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Hukuku İhlallerinde Devletlerarası İş Birliği.” Public and Private International Law Bulletin 44, no. 1 (Nov. 2024): 281-318. https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2023.44.1.1427529


Harvard: Australian Style

Orcan, NU 2024, 'Olağan Dışı Teslim Örneğiyle Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Hukuku İhlallerinde Devletlerarası İş Birliği', Public and Private International Law Bulletin, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 281-318, viewed 25 Nov. 2024, https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2023.44.1.1427529


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Orcan, N.U. (2024) ‘Olağan Dışı Teslim Örneğiyle Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Hukuku İhlallerinde Devletlerarası İş Birliği’, Public and Private International Law Bulletin, 44(1), pp. 281-318. https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2023.44.1.1427529 (25 Nov. 2024).


MLA

Orcan, Necdet Umut,. “Olağan Dışı Teslim Örneğiyle Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Hukuku İhlallerinde Devletlerarası İş Birliği.” Public and Private International Law Bulletin, vol. 44, no. 1, 2024, pp. 281-318. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2023.44.1.1427529


Vancouver

Orcan NU. Olağan Dışı Teslim Örneğiyle Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Hukuku İhlallerinde Devletlerarası İş Birliği. Public and Private International Law Bulletin [Internet]. 25 Nov. 2024 [cited 25 Nov. 2024];44(1):281-318. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2023.44.1.1427529 doi: 10.26650/ppil.2023.44.1.1427529


ISNAD

Orcan, NecdetUmut. “Olağan Dışı Teslim Örneğiyle Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Hukuku İhlallerinde Devletlerarası İş Birliği”. Public and Private International Law Bulletin 44/1 (Nov. 2024): 281-318. https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2023.44.1.1427529



ZAMAN ÇİZELGESİ


Gönderim29.01.2024
Kabul15.07.2024
Çevrimiçi Yayınlanma21.07.2024

LİSANS


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


PAYLAŞ




İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, uluslararası yayıncılık standartları ve etiğine uygun olarak, yüksek kalitede bilimsel dergi ve kitapların yayınlanmasıyla giderek artan bilimsel bilginin yayılmasına katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları açık erişimli, ticari olmayan, bilimsel yayıncılığı takip etmektedir.