Araştırma Makalesi


DOI :10.26650/JPLC2022-1072147   IUP :10.26650/JPLC2022-1072147    Tam Metin (PDF)

Uluslararası Adalet Divanı Kararları Işığında Bireysel Hakların Diplomatik ve Konsüler Haklar Bağlamında Korunması

Cüneyt YükselDeniz Baran

Birlemiş Milletler’in başlıca yargı organı olan Uluslararası Adalet Divanı (UAD veya Divan), küresel çapta hukukun üstünlüğünün tesis edilmesi gayretleriyle, kurulduğundan bu yana insan haklarının korunması konusunda çok önemli katkılarda bulunmuştur. Divan’ın kuruluşundan bu yana çözüme kavuşturduğu birçok davada doğrudan bireylerin hakları ve menfaatleri ile ilgili meseleleri ele aldığı ve 21. yüzyılda bireysel hakların uluslararası hukuk çerçevesinde korunması konusunda daha etkin bir tutuma sahip olma eğilimi göstermeye başladığı söylenebilir. Bu eğilim, 2000’li yılların başından itibaren görülen ve bireylerin adil yargılanma hakkının uluslararası hukuk çerçevesinde korunması açısından çok önemli bir yere sahip olan bazı konsüler hakların güvence altına alınmasına ilişkin bir dizi davada verilen gözlemlenmektedir. Bu kararlar kronolojik sırasıyla LaGrand, Avena ve Diğerleri ve UAD’nin en güncel kararlarından biri olan 2019 tarihli Jadhav Kararı’dır. Bu makalede söz konusu eğilime işaret edebilmek için söz konusu davalar sırasıyla detaylı bir şekilde incelenmektedir. Özellikle, son bölümde yer alan Jadhav Kararı’nın önceki emsal davalarda verilen kararların ötesine geçen yönlerine ışık tutulmaktadır. Böylece, bu makale ile Divan’ın bireysel hakları aktif bir şekilde koruma hususunda sergilediği gelişimin ilgili davaların mukayeseli bir şekilde ele alınması yöntemiyle ortaya konması hedeflenmektedir.

DOI :10.26650/JPLC2022-1072147   IUP :10.26650/JPLC2022-1072147    Tam Metin (PDF)

International Court of Justice Judgments on the Protection of Individual Rights in the Context of Diplomatic and Consular Rights

Cüneyt YükselDeniz Baran

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the main judicial body of the United Nations, has contributed significantly to the protection of human rights in its efforts to build up the rule of law on a global scale. The ICJ has dealt with issues directly related to the rights and interests of individuals in cases brought before it, and in the 21st century, began to endorse a more active approach in the protection of individual rights. This is apparent in several judgments since the early 2000s on the protection of certain consular rights. The relevant cases are LaGrand, Avena and Others, and Jadhav, the latter being one of the most recent judgments of the ICJ. In this article, these cases are examined in detail, to illustrate the abovementioned tendency of the ICJ. In particular, the different and more progressive aspects of the Jadhav Judgment compared to the LaGrand and Avena Judgments are highlighted. The main aim of this article is to prove the evolving approach of the ICJ in terms of actively protecting individual rights, through a comparison of three similar cases where it dealt with the violation of the same individual rights.


GENİŞLETİLMİŞ ÖZET


The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the main judicial body of the United Nations (UN), has contributed significantly to the protection of human rights in its efforts to build up the rule of law on a global scale. Although the ICJ is founded upon a state-centric approach, it has also directly dealt with issues on the rights and interests of individuals in many cases brought before it. 

It could be claimed that in the 21st century, the ICJ has begun to endorse a more active approach in the protection of individual rights within the framework of international law. This tendency is apparent in the judgments made in a series of cases since the early 2000s on the protection of certain consular rights stipulated in Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR). These rights are greatly important in the protection of the individual’s right to a fair trial within the framework of international law. These judgments are, in chronological order, LaGrand, Avena and Others, and Jadhav, the latest one of which was published in 2019 and is one of the most recent judgments of the ICJ. In these cases, the ICJ has adopted an increasingly evolving approach in the active protection of individual rights. 

The LaGrand case, published in 2001, was filed by Germany against the United States, claiming that the two German nationals involved were not allowed to avail of the rights they were entitled to under Article 36 of the VCCR. They were sentenced to death by a U.S. court in 1984 after being found guilty of participation in a robbery. The German authorities were not notified about the case until 1992; thus, could only intervene in the case eight years after the sentence had been delivered. It was also only revealed at this late stage that both German nationals were not duly notified of their rights under Article 36 of the VCCR. Nevertheless, the renewed objections raised in the U.S. courts were rejected, and the death sentences were not overturned. Thus, Germany brought the United States’ supposed violation of Article 36 of VCCR before the ICJ. The ICJ found that the United States violated Article 36 of VCCR. In fact, the United States admitted to the violation but disputed Germany’s assertions on the breadth of the scope of the relevant remedies. The ICJ decided that the United States should take all the necessary measures to ensure that the death sentence imposed would be considered and reviewed effectively. In this case, the ICJ also made a crucial interpretation by recognizing that international treaties generate exclusive individual rights distinct from those of their states of nationality, while not finding it necessary to assess Germany’s claims that the individual rights stipulated in the VCCR should also be considered as human rights.  

In the Avena and Others Judgment, dated 2004, the United States was again the defendant, while the plaintiff this time was Mexico. The case involved 54 Mexican nationals who were arrested, tried, and sentenced to death by U.S. courts. Mexico claimed that its nationals were deprived of their consular rights arising from Article 36 of the VCCR. Once again, the ICJ found that the United States violated the VCCR. 

The Jadhav Judgment is the third judgment regarding violations of Article 36 of the VCCR. The case concerned an Indian national who was arrested by Pakistani security officials and tried and sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court. Thereupon, India applied for institution of proceedings with the ICJ for violations by Pakistan of various international law rules, primarily Article 36 of the VCCR. In this case, the arguments submitted by the parties and the chain of events leading to the dispute differed greatly to the two previous cases. However, the judgment was similar, with the ICJ once again finding the defendant responsible for violations of the consular rights granted by the VCCR. The main innovation in the Jadhav Judgment was relative to the remedies. Going beyond the remedies provided in the previous cases, the ICJ decided that the responsible state should not only take all the necessary measures to ensure that its death penalty decision will be considered and reviewed but also make changes in its national laws, if necessary. It was also noteworthy that in the Jadhav Judgment, the ICJ made some connections between Article 14 of the UN Convention on Civil and Political Rights—stipulating the individual’s right to fair trial—and Article 36 of VCCR.


PDF Görünüm

Referanslar

  • Aceves, William ‘Avena and Other Mexican Nationals’ (2003) 97(4) The American Journal of International Law 923. google scholar
  • Baetens, Freya ‘The International Court of Justice renders its judgment in the Jadhav case (India v. Pakistan)’ (EjilTalk, 18 Temmuz 2019) <ejiltalk.org/the-international-court-of-justice-renders-its-judgment-in-the-jadhav-case-india-v-pakistan/> Erişim Tarihi 16 Mayıs 2021. google scholar
  • Buchan, Russell and Navarrete, Inaki ‘The Jadhav Judgment: Espionage, Carve-Outs and Customary Exceptions’ (EjilTalk, 8 Ağustos 2019) <ejiltalk.org/the-jadhav-judgment-espionage-carve-outs-and-customary-exceptions/ > Erişim Tarihi 1 Mayıs 2021. google scholar
  • Buys Galway, Cindy ‘REFLECTIONS ON THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON CONSULAR RELATIONS’, (2013) 38 Southern Illinois University Law Journal 57. google scholar
  • Buys, Cindy ‘Reflections on the 50th Anniversary of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations’, (2014) 38 S ILL U L J 57. google scholar
  • Crook John R, ‘The International Court of Justice and Human Rights’ (2004) 1 Nw J Int’l Hum Rts 2. google scholar
  • Das, Sagnik and Nargas, Aarushi, ‘Mapping the Jadhav Dispute at the World Court: Evaluating India and Pakistan’s Arguments’ (2017) 48(1) California Western International Law Journal 35. google scholar
  • Drinan, Cara H ‘Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: Private Enforcement in American Courts after LaGran’ (2002) 54 STAN L REV 1303. google scholar
  • Garditz, Klaus Ferdinand, ‘Article 36, Vienna Convention on Consular Relations - treaty interpretation and enforcement - International Court of Justice - fair trial - suppression of evidence’ (2007) 101(3) American Journal of International Law 499. google scholar
  • Ghandhi, Sandy ‘Human Rights and the International Court of Justice The Ahmadou Sadio Diallo Case’ (2011) 11(3) Human Rights Law Review 527. google scholar
  • Gowlland-Debbas, Vera ‘The ICJ and the challenges of human rights law’ in M Andenas and E Bjorge (eds), A Farewell to Fragmentation: Reassertion and Convergence in International Law (Studies on International Courts and Tribunals) (Cambridge University Press 2005). google scholar
  • Hoppe, Carsten ‘Implementation of LaGrand and Avena in Germany and the United States: Exploring a Transatlantic Divide in Search of a Uniform Interpretation of Consular Rights’ (2007) 18(2) EJIL 317. google scholar
  • Janis, Mark ‘Individuals and the International Court’ in AS Muller and others (eds), The International Court of Justice Its Future Role after Fifty Years, (Kluwer Law International, 1997). google scholar
  • Javed, Kashif ‘Right of Consular Access under the Vienna Convention Has No Exception: A Critique of Jadhav Case (India v. Pakistan)’ (2019) 50(74) Journal of Law and Society 64. google scholar
  • Jennings, Robert ‘The LaGrand Case’ (2002) 1 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 13. google scholar
  • Kadish, Mark J ‘Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: A Search for the Right to Consul’ (1197) 18 MICH J INT’L L 565. google scholar
  • Kattan, Victor ‘Jadhav Case (India v. Pakistan)’ (2014) 114(2) American Journal of International Law 281. google scholar
  • Lee, Luke T and Quigley, John Consular Law and Practice (3nd ed, OUP 2008) 49. google scholar
  • Lowe, Vaughan and Fitzmaurice, Malgosia Fifty Years of the International Court of Justice (Cambridge University Press 1996). google scholar
  • Brown, Chester A Common Law of International Adjudication (OUP 2007) 209. google scholar
  • Mennecke, Martin and Tams, Christian J ‘Lagrand Case (Germany v United States of America)’ (2002) 51(2) The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 449. google scholar
  • Omer, Reema ‘Beyond “Winners” and “Losers”: Understanding the International Court of Justice’s Judgment in the Jadhav Case’ (Opiniojuris, 31 Temmuz 2019) <opiniojuris.org/2019/07/31/beyond-winners-and-losers-understanding-the-international-court-of-justicesjudgment-in-the-jadhav-case/ > Erişim Tarihi 16 Mayıs 2021. google scholar
  • Peters, Anne Beyond Human Rights: The Legal Status of the Individual in International Law (Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law) (Cambridge University Press 2016). google scholar
  • Quigley, John ‘Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: In Retrospect and Into the Future’ (2014) 38 S ILL U L J 2. google scholar
  • Schafer, Raphael and Bagchi, Kanad ‘Reflections on the International Court of Justice Decision in the Jadhav Case (India v. Pakistan): Part I’ (Opiniojuris, 25 Temmuz 2019) <opiniojuris.org/2019/07/25/reflections-on-the-international-court-of-justice-decision-in-the-jadhav-case-india-vpakistan-part-i/ > Erişim Tarihi 10 Mayıs 2021. google scholar
  • Schafer, Raphael and Bagchi, Kanad ‘Reflections on the International Court of Justice Decision in the Jadhav Case (India v. Pakistan): Part II’ (Opiniojuris, 25 Temmuz 2019) <opiniojuris.org/2019/07/25/reflections-on-the-international-court-of-justice-decision-in-the-jadhav-case-india-vpakistan-part-ii/ > Erişim Tarihi 16 Mayıs 2021. google scholar
  • Simma, Bruno and Hoppe, Carsten, ‘From LaGrand and Avena to Medellin - A Rocky Road toward Implementation’ (2005) 14(1) TUL J INT’l & COMP L 7. google scholar
  • Tams, Christian J ‘Consular Assistance: Rights, Remedies and Responsibility: Comments on the ICJ’s Judgment in the LaGrand Case’ (2002) 13(5) EJIL 1257. google scholar
  • Tams, Christian J “Recognizing Guarantees and Assurances of Non-Repetition: LaGrand and the Law of State Responsibility” (2002) 27 YALE J INT’l L 441. google scholar
  • Tinta, Monica Feria ‘Due Process and the Right to Life in the Context of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: Arguing the LaGrand Case’ (2001) 12(2) EJIL 363. google scholar
  • Tisne, Philip ‘The ICJ and Municipal Law: The Precedential Effect of the Avena and Lagrand Decisions in U.S. Courts’ (2005) 29(4) Fordham International Law Journal 865. google scholar
  • Vicuna, Fransisco Orrego ‘Individuals and Non-State Entities before International Courts and Tribunals’ (2001) 5 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 53. google scholar
  • Warren, Mark ‘Rendered Meaningless? Security Detentions and the Erosion of Consular Access Rights’ (2014) 38 S ILL U L J 27. google scholar
  • Mevzuat google scholar
  • ‘Agreement on Consular Access Between the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Government of the Republic of India’ (2008) <https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/No%20Volume/54471/ Part/I-54471-08000002804b7dde.pdf > Erişim Tarihi 22 Nisan 2021. google scholar
  • Birleşmiş Milletler, ‘United Nations Conference on Consular Relations’ (1963) <https://legal.un.org/ diplomaticconferences/1963_cons_relations/docs/english/vol_1.pdf > Erişim Tarihi 10 Nisan 2021. google scholar
  • BM Medeni ve Siyasal Haklar Sözleşmesi (16 Aralık 1966) 999 UNTS 171. google scholar
  • Konsolosluk İlişkileri Hakkında Viyana Sözleşmesi, 19 Mart 1963. google scholar
  • Pakistan Army Act (1952) m 133B. google scholar
  • U.N. Conference on Consular Relations, Summary Records of Plenary Meetings and of the Meetings of the First and Second Committees (15 Mart 1963) 338 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.25/6. google scholar
  • U.N. Conference on Consular Relations, Summary Records of Plenary Meetings and of the Meetings of the First and Second Committees 338, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.25/6 (Vol. I) (Mar. 15, 1963). google scholar
  • U.N. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 32 (23 Ağustos 2007) U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32. google scholar
  • Uluslararası Hukuk Komisyonu’nun Devletlerin Haksız Fiillerinden Kaynaklanan Sorumluluğuna İlişkin Taslak Maddeleri (2001) < https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/9_6_2001.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 1 Mayıs 2021. google scholar
  • Viyana Andlaşmalar Hukuku Sözleşmesi (23 Mayıs 1969) 1155 UNTS 33. google scholar
  • Ulusal ve Uluslararası Mahkeme Kararları google scholar
  • Avena Kararı 2004 <https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/128/128-20040331-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf > Erişim Tarihi 18 Nisan 2021. google scholar
  • Avena Kararı İhtiyati Tedbir Kararı (2003) < https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/128/provisional-measures> Erişim Tarihi 30 Nisan 2021. google scholar
  • Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, (30 Mayıs 1999) Inter-Am Ct H R (ser C) No 52. google scholar
  • Chorzow Factory Kararı (1927) PCIJ Rep Series A No 17. google scholar
  • Findlay v. UK App No 22107/93 (ECHR, 1997). google scholar
  • Inter-American Court of Human Rights, ‘16 Numaralı Danışma Görüşü’ (1999) <http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/ opiniones/seriea_16_ing.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 16 Nisan 2021. google scholar
  • Inter-American Court of Human Rights, ‘16 Numaralı Danışma Görüşü’ (1999), Trindade’nin Tamamlayıcı Görüşü. google scholar
  • Jadhav Kararı 2019 <https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/168/168-20190717-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf > Erişim Tarihi 21 Nisan 202. google scholar
  • Jadhav Kararı İhtiyati Tedbir Kararı (2017) <https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/168/provisional-measures> Erişim Tarihi 2 Mayıs 2021. google scholar
  • Jadhav Kararı, Oral Submissions-India (2019) < https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/168/168-20190717-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf > Erişim Tarihi 14 Mayıs 2021. google scholar
  • Jadhav Kararı, Written Submissions-Pakistan (2017) <https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/168/168-20171213-WRI-01-00-EN.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 17 Mayıs 2021. google scholar
  • Jadhav Kararı, Yargıç Cançado Trindade’nin Ayrık Görüşü (2019) < https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/168/168-20190717-JUD-01-01-EN.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 18 Mayıs 2021. google scholar
  • Jadhav Kararı, Yargıç Jillani’nin Karşı Oy Görüşü (2019) <https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/168/168-20190717-JUD-01-05-EN.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 2 Mayıs 2021. google scholar
  • Jadhav Kararı, Yargıç Robinson’un Ayrık Görüşü (2019) <https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/168/168-20190717-JUD-01-03-EN.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 19 Mayıs 2021. google scholar
  • Korfu Kanalı Kararı (Birleşik Krallık v Arnavutluk) (Esas) [1949] ICJ Rep 4. google scholar
  • LaGrand Kararı 2001 (Yargıç Oda Karşı Oy Görüş) <https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/104/104-20010627-JUD-01-03-EN.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 15 Nisan 2021 para. 19. google scholar
  • LaGrand Kararı 2001 (Yargıç Shi Karşı Oy Görüş) <https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/104/104-20010627-JUD-01-02-EN.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 15 Nisan 2021. google scholar
  • LaGrand Kararı 2001 < https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/104/104-20010627-JUD-01-00-EN. pdf> Erişim Tarihi 11 Nisan 2021. google scholar
  • Pakistan Yüksek Mahkemesi, Said Zaman Khan et al v Federation of Pakistan (29 Ağustos 2016) Civil Petition No 842 of 2016. google scholar
  • Law Office of Ghazi Suleiman v Sudan (29 Mayıs 2003) <http://www.achpr.org/files/sessions/33rd/ comunications/228.99/achpr33_228_99_eng.pdf. > Erişim Tarihi 17 Mayıs 2021. google scholar

Atıflar

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


DIŞA AKTAR



APA

Yüksel, C., & Baran, D. (2022). Uluslararası Adalet Divanı Kararları Işığında Bireysel Hakların Diplomatik ve Konsüler Haklar Bağlamında Korunması. Ceza Hukuku ve Kriminoloji Dergisi, 10(1), 1-40. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2022-1072147


AMA

Yüksel C, Baran D. Uluslararası Adalet Divanı Kararları Işığında Bireysel Hakların Diplomatik ve Konsüler Haklar Bağlamında Korunması. Ceza Hukuku ve Kriminoloji Dergisi. 2022;10(1):1-40. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2022-1072147


ABNT

Yüksel, C.; Baran, D. Uluslararası Adalet Divanı Kararları Işığında Bireysel Hakların Diplomatik ve Konsüler Haklar Bağlamında Korunması. Ceza Hukuku ve Kriminoloji Dergisi, [Publisher Location], v. 10, n. 1, p. 1-40, 2022.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Yüksel, Cüneyt, and Deniz Baran. 2022. “Uluslararası Adalet Divanı Kararları Işığında Bireysel Hakların Diplomatik ve Konsüler Haklar Bağlamında Korunması.” Ceza Hukuku ve Kriminoloji Dergisi 10, no. 1: 1-40. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2022-1072147


Chicago: Humanities Style

Yüksel, Cüneyt, and Deniz Baran. Uluslararası Adalet Divanı Kararları Işığında Bireysel Hakların Diplomatik ve Konsüler Haklar Bağlamında Korunması.” Ceza Hukuku ve Kriminoloji Dergisi 10, no. 1 (Nov. 2022): 1-40. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2022-1072147


Harvard: Australian Style

Yüksel, C & Baran, D 2022, 'Uluslararası Adalet Divanı Kararları Işığında Bireysel Hakların Diplomatik ve Konsüler Haklar Bağlamında Korunması', Ceza Hukuku ve Kriminoloji Dergisi, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1-40, viewed 30 Nov. 2022, https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2022-1072147


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Yüksel, C. and Baran, D. (2022) ‘Uluslararası Adalet Divanı Kararları Işığında Bireysel Hakların Diplomatik ve Konsüler Haklar Bağlamında Korunması’, Ceza Hukuku ve Kriminoloji Dergisi, 10(1), pp. 1-40. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2022-1072147 (30 Nov. 2022).


MLA

Yüksel, Cüneyt, and Deniz Baran. Uluslararası Adalet Divanı Kararları Işığında Bireysel Hakların Diplomatik ve Konsüler Haklar Bağlamında Korunması.” Ceza Hukuku ve Kriminoloji Dergisi, vol. 10, no. 1, 2022, pp. 1-40. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2022-1072147


Vancouver

Yüksel C, Baran D. Uluslararası Adalet Divanı Kararları Işığında Bireysel Hakların Diplomatik ve Konsüler Haklar Bağlamında Korunması. Ceza Hukuku ve Kriminoloji Dergisi [Internet]. 30 Nov. 2022 [cited 30 Nov. 2022];10(1):1-40. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2022-1072147 doi: 10.26650/JPLC2022-1072147


ISNAD

Yüksel, Cüneyt - Baran, Deniz. Uluslararası Adalet Divanı Kararları Işığında Bireysel Hakların Diplomatik ve Konsüler Haklar Bağlamında Korunması”. Ceza Hukuku ve Kriminoloji Dergisi 10/1 (Nov. 2022): 1-40. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2022-1072147



ZAMAN ÇİZELGESİ


Gönderim11.02.2022
Kabul26.03.2022
Çevrimiçi Yayınlanma05.05.2022

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.