Araştırma Makalesi


DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.2.0088   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.2.0088    Tam Metin (PDF)

Devletin Uluslararası Sorumluluğa Ağırlıklı Olarak Diplomatik Himaye Çerçevesinde Başvurması: İç Başvuru Yollarının Tüketilmesi Şartının Uygulanabilirliği

Ali Bal

Bir devletin bir başka devletin uluslararası hukuka aykırı eylemlerinden dolayı sorumluluğuna başvurmasının kabul edilebilirliği bakımından hangi şartların uygulanacağı, başvurunun niteliğine bağlıdır. Başvuran devletin doğrudan zarara uğradığı durumlarda diplomatik himayenin uluslararası örf ve âdet niteliğindeki şartları uygulanmayacağı için, fiilen vatandaşa verilen -ve hukukî bir varsayım gereğince devletin de dolaylı olarak uğradığı kabul edilen- zararlara dayanan başvuruların öncekilerden ayrı mütalaa edilmesi zorunludur. Uygulamada, özellikle iç başvuru yollarının tüketilmesi şartının uygulanabilirliğinin tespiti bakımından, devletin uluslararası mahkemelerde haklar öne sürerken doğrudan zararlarına mı yoksa dolaylı zararlarına mı dayandığı meselesi gündeme gelmektedir. Uluslararası Hukuk Komisyonunun ilgili uluslararası yargı ve hakemlik kararlarını ve doktrindeki görüşleri dikkate alarak hazırladığı Diplomatik Himayeye İlişkin Taslakta, bir uluslararası başvurunun “ağırlıklı olarak” vatandaşa verilen zarara dayanarak getirildiğinde, iç başvuru yollarının tüketilmesi gerekeceği öngörülmüştür. Bununla birlikte, devletin hem doğrudan hem de vatandaşlarının zararlarına dayanarak haklar öne sürdüğü böyle karma nitelikli başvurularda iç başvuru yollarının tüketilmesi şartının uygulanabilirliği hakkında karar vermek için, duruma göre, başka kriterlerin veya başvuruyla ilgili çeşitli unsurların da göz önünde bulundurulması gerektiği kabul edilebilmektedir. Bu makalede, bir devletin uluslararası sorumluluğa diplomatik himaye hakkını kullanmak suretiyle başvurduğunu tespit etmenin gerekliliği, zorlukları ve sonuçları, ilgili kodifikasyon çalışmaları, uluslararası yargı ve hakemlik organlarının kararları ve hukukî görüşler ışığında ayrıntılı bir şekilde incelenmektedir.

DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.2.0088   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.2.0088    Tam Metin (PDF)

Invocation of Responsibility by a State on the Basis of Diplomatic Protection: The Applicability of the Requirement of Exhaustion of Local Remedies

Ali Bal

The requirements which apply in terms of the admissibility of a state’s invocation of another state’s responsibility for its internationally wrongful acts depends on the nature of the claim. Since the international customary requirements of diplomatic protection are not applicable to cases where the applicant state is directly injured, the claims based on the injuries to a national, which are also by a legal fiction regarded as the indirect injuries to his or her state of nationality, must be considered separately from the former ones. In practice, especially in determining the applicability of the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies, the question arises about whether the state relies on its direct injuries or indirect injuries while asserting rights before international courts. The Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection prepared by the International Law Commission, taking into account the relevant international judicial and arbitral decisions and opinions of jurists, provide that local remedies shall be exhausted where an international claim is brought “preponderantly” on the basis of an injury to a national. However, it is suggested that other criteria or various factors related to the claim, as the case may be, should also be considered in order to decide on the applicability of the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies in such mixed claims containing elements of both injury to the state and injury to the nationals of the state. In this article, the necessity, difficulties, and consequences of determining whether a state invoked the responsibility by means of the right to exercise diplomatic protection are examined in detail in the light of the relevant codification works, decisions of judicial or arbitral bodies, and juristic opinions.


GENİŞLETİLMİŞ ÖZET


The Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, which were completed by the ILC in 2001, focus on the definition of the basic rules governing the international responsibility of the state. They define, among others, the general conditions for invoking state responsibility. As for detailed provisions on the requirements necessary for invoking international responsibility by exercising a state’s right of diplomatic protection, they have been supplied by the Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection adopted by the ILC in 2006. To establish whether a state invoked international responsibility on the basis of a direct injury to itself or an indirect one suffered through an injury to a national constitutes the most critical point for determining the requirements to apply in terms of admissibility of the claim. The international customary requirements of diplomatic protection (the rule relating to the nationality of claims and the rule of exhaustion of local remedies) are applicable with regard to second-type claims but not to first-type ones.

In practice, the parties to a dispute often differ on the applicability of the rule of exhaustion of local remedies. The main reasons underlying this issue are that states frequently claim, in the same proceedings, that they have suffered both direct and indirect injuries caused by an internationally wrongful act, and/or request the authorized court to rule on both. While there is no doubt that the local remedies rule is applicable in principle in cases where the claimant state is indirectly injured as a result of internationally wrongful acts of another state, it is not easy to decide whether an international claim should be classified as a direct claim or an indirect one where it is a mixed one in the sense that it contains elements of both injury to the state and injury to the nationals of the state and accordingly, whether that rule applies or not in those cases.

Some criteria are suggested to make a decision on the applicability of the requirement in question in such mixed claims based on both direct and indirect injuries. Article 14(3) of the ILC’s Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection provides that local remedies shall be exhausted where an international claim is brought “preponderantly” on the basis of an injury to a national. In the Commentary to the Draft Articles, the ILC states that the court or tribunal should examine the different elements of the claim and decide whether the direct or the indirect element is preponderant. According to the ILC, while applying this test, some factors such as the subject of the dispute, the nature of the claim, and the nature of the remedy claimed should also be considered. The preponderance test has, to some extent, been applied together with one or more of these factors in some international judicial and arbitral decisions in order to qualify the claim. Some authors maintained that it is also related to the nature of the substantive rights allegedly violated. Support for this approach is to be found in the practice of judicial authorities, especially ITLOS’ case law. 

To classify an international claim as a direct or an indirect one for the purpose of deciding the applicability of the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies, which is one of the most complex and controversial questions in international law, it may be necessary to consider all the circumstances around the case. In this context, to determine whether the direct or the indirect injury is preponderant in a certain claim, different elements and aspects of the claim should be distinguished from each other, weighed up and then objectively assessed as a whole. In the process of determining the nature of the claim, international courts and tribunals may consider its true substance rather than its formulation by the applicant state, as the case may be.

There is no uniformity in the practice of qualifying international claims in terms of the applicability of the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies, and judicial authorities have sometimes made the distinction arbitrarily or without proper legal reasoning. Although it is difficult to argue that the relevant suggestion of the ILC offers a valid remedy for every situation, it cannot be ignored that it provides important guidance for the authorities concerned. Considering the developments in international law and international relations such as increasing recognition of the rights of individuals, increase in the activities of individuals and companies in the international arena, and diversification of international relations, it may be argued that the subject of the present article will continue to be legally discussed and improved within the framework of various cases in the future. 


PDF Görünüm

Referanslar

  • Kitaplar - Makaleler google scholar
  • Acer Y ve Kaya İ, Uluslararası Hukuk Temel Ders Kitabı (11. Baskı, Seçkin 2020). google scholar
  • Adede A O, ‘A Survey of Treaty Provisions on the Rule of Exhaustion of Local Remedies’ (1977) 18 Harvard International Law Journal 1-17. google scholar
  • Adler M H, ‘The Exhaustion of the Local Remedies Rule after the International Court of Justice’s Decision in ELSI’ (1990) 39 ICLQ 641-653. google scholar
  • Akehurst M ve Malanczuk P, Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law (7. Baskı, Routledge 1997). google scholar
  • Akkutay A İ, Diplomatik Koruma ve İnsan Hakları İlişkisi (Adalet 2013). google scholar
  • Aksar Y, Teoride ve Uygulamada Uluslararası Hukuk, C 2 (5. Baskı, Seçkin 2019). google scholar
  • Amerasinghe C F, Local Remedies in International Law (2. Baskı, Cambridge University Press 2004). google scholar
  • Bal A, ‘Bayrak Devletinin Yabancı Gemi Mürettebatı Üzerindeki (Diplomatik) Himayesi’ iç Karadeniz 3. Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Kongresi Kitabı (UBAK 2020) 292-311 www.karadenizkongresi.org/kongre-kitaplari> Erişim Tarihi 24.11.2020. google scholar
  • Bal A, Uluslararası Adalet Divanının Geçici Tedbirler Rejimi (Seçkin, 2020). google scholar
  • Bal A, Uluslararası Hava Hukuku - Hava Sahasının Hukukî Rejimi (Seçkin 2019). google scholar
  • Bilge A S, Tebaanın Yabancı Memleketlerde Diplomatik Himayesi (AÜSBF Yayınları 1953). google scholar
  • Bodansky D ve Crook J R, ‘Symposium: The ILC’s State Responsibility Articles: Introduction and Overview’ (2002) 96 AJIL 773-791. google scholar
  • Borchard E M, The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad or The Law of International Claims (The Banks Law Publishing Co 1925). google scholar
  • Brownlie I, Principles of Public International Law (6. Baskı, Oxford University Press 2003). google scholar
  • Crawford J, State Responsibility: The General Part (Cambridge University Press 2013) (2013). google scholar
  • Crawford J, The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries (Cambridge University Press 2002) (2002). google scholar
  • Çamyamaç A ve İnci Z Ö, Uluslararası Hukuk ve Ceza Hukuku Yönleriyle Diplomatik Bir Bağışıklık Olarak Ceza Yargısından Muafiyet (Seçkin 2020). google scholar
  • Doehring K, ‘Local Remedies, Exhaustion of’ iç R. Bernhardt (ed), EPIL, Vol 3 (Elsevier 1997) 238-242. google scholar
  • Drenan M T, ‘Gone Overboard: Why the Arctic Sunrise Case Signals an Over-Expansion of the Ship-as-a-Unit Concept in the Diplomatic Protection Context’ (2014) 45 California Western International Law Journal 109-167. google scholar
  • Dugard J, ‘Diplomatic Protection’ (Güncelleme Ocak 2007) MPEPIL. google scholar
  • Erkiner H H, Devletin Haksız Fiilden Kaynaklanan Uluslararası Sorumluluğu (On İki Levha 2010). google scholar
  • Fitzmaurice G, ‘Hersch Lauterpacht: The Scholar as Judge, Part I’ (1961) 37 BYIL (1961) 1-71. google scholar
  • Fitzmaurice G, ‘The Case of the I’m Alone’ (1936) 17 BYIL 82-111. google scholar
  • French D, ‘Trail Smelter (United States of America/Canada) (1938 and 1941)’ iç Eirik Bjorge ve Cameron Miles (edr), Landmark Cases in Public International Law (Hart Publishing 2017) 159-188. google scholar
  • Gaja G, ‘States having an Interest in Compliance with the Obligation Breached’ iç James Crawford, Alain Pellet ve Simon Olleson (edr), The Law of International Responsibility (Oxford University Press 2010) 957-964. google scholar
  • Gautier P, ‘On the Classification of Obligations in International Law’ iç Holger Hestermeyer ve diğerleri (edr), Coexistence, Cooperation and Solidarity (Liber Amicorum Rüdiger Wolfrum) (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2012) 853-879. google scholar
  • Geck W K, ‘Diplomatic Protection’ iç R. Bernhardt (ed), EPIL, Vol 1 (Elsevier 1992) 1045-1067. google scholar
  • Guilfoyle D, ‘Article 91’ iç Alexander Proelss (ed), The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (Nomos 2017) 692-699. google scholar
  • Gündüz A, Milletlerarası Hukuk Temel Belgeler Örnek Kararlar (5. Baskı, Beta 2003). google scholar
  • Hyde C C, International Law: Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the United States, Vol 2 (2. Baskı, Little, Brown & Co 1947). google scholar
  • Iluyomade B O, ‘Dual Claim and the Exhaustion of Local Remedies Rule in International Law’ (1977) 10 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 83-95. google scholar
  • Jessup P C, A Modern Law of Nations: An Introduction (The Macmillan Co, 1948). google scholar
  • Jimenez de Arechaga E ve Tanzi A, ‘International State Responsibility’ iç Mohammed Bedjaoui (ed), International Law: Achievements and Prospects (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1991) 347-380. google scholar
  • Jimenez de Arechaga E, ‘International Law in the Past Third of a Century’ (1978) 159 Recueil des Cours 1-343. google scholar
  • Kaczorowska A, Public International Law (4. Baskı, Routledge 2010). google scholar
  • Karaman I V, Dispute Resolution in the Law of the Sea (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2012). google scholar
  • Kato N, ‘Protection of a Ship by the Flag State and Diplomatic Protection: Conceptual Relationship and Admissibility of Claims’ (15.03.2015) 297-316 < http://hokuga.hgu.jp/dspace/ handle/123456789/2861> Erişim Tarihi 25.03.2021. google scholar
  • Kjeldgaard-Pedersen A, The International Legal Personality of the Individual (Oxford University Press 2018). google scholar
  • Klein N, Dispute Settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Cambridge University Press 2004). google scholar
  • Kokott J, ‘Interim Report on the Exhaustion of Local Remedies’ iç London Conference Report of International Law Association Committee on Diplomatic Protection of Persons and Property (2000) 3-27. google scholar
  • Kolb R, The International Law of State Responsibility: An Introduction (Edward Elgar Publishing 2017). google scholar
  • Lourie G, ‘Diplomatic Protection under the State-to-State Arbitration Clauses of Investment Treaties’ (2015) Austrian Yearbook on International Arbitration 511-542. google scholar
  • Madders K J, ‘Trail Smelter Arbitration’ iç R. Bernhardt (ed), EPIL, Vol 4 (Elsevier 2000) 900-903. google scholar
  • Marotti L, ‘Determining the Scope of the Local Remedies Rule in UNCLOS Disputes’ (2017) 21 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 36-62. google scholar
  • Matsui Y, ‘The Transformation of the Law of State Responsibility’ iç Rene Provost (ed), State Responsibility in International Law (Routledge 2016) 3-63. google scholar
  • Meray S L, Devletler Hukukuna Giriş, C 1 (3. Baskı, AÜSBF Yayınları 1968). google scholar
  • Meron T, ‘The Incidence of the Rule of Exhaustion of Local Remedies’ (1959) 35 BYIL 83-101. google scholar
  • Milano E, ‘Diplomatic Protection and Human Rights before the International Court of Justice: Re-fashioning Tradition?’ (2004) 35 NYIL 85-142. google scholar
  • Murphy S D, ‘The ELSI Case: An Investment Dispute at the International Court of Justice’ (1991) 16 YJIL 391-452. google scholar
  • O’Brien J, International Law (Cavendish Publishing Limited 2001). google scholar
  • Okowa P, ‘Issues of Admissibility and the Law on International Responsibility’ iç Malcolm D. Evans (ed), International Law (3. Baskı, Oxford University Press 2010) (2010) 472-503. google scholar
  • Okowa P, ‘Issues of Admissibility and the Law on International Responsibility’ iç Malcolm D. Evans (ed), International Law (Oxford University Press 2003) 473-502. google scholar
  • Oppenheim L, Jennings R ve Watts A, Oppenheim’s International Law, Vol 1: Peace, Introduction and Part 1 (9. Baskı, Longman 1996). google scholar
  • Oxman B H ve Cogliati-Bantz V P, ‘The M/V “Virginia G” (Panama/Guinea-Bissau)’ (2014) 108 AJIL 769-775. google scholar
  • Pazarcı H, Uluslararası Hukuk Dersleri, 3. Kitap (4. Baskı, Turhan Kitabevi 2005). google scholar
  • Pellet A, ‘The Second Death of Euripide Mavrommatis? Notes on the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection’ (2008) 7 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 33-58. google scholar
  • Pergantis V, ‘Towards a “Humanization” of Diplomatic Protection?’ (2006) 66 ZaöRV 351-397. google scholar
  • Potestâ M, ‘Republic of Italy v Republic of Cuba’ (2012) 106 AJIL 341-347. google scholar
  • Rao C, ‘ITLOS: The First Six Years’ (2002) 6 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 183-300. google scholar
  • Sachariew K, ‘State Responsibility for Multilateral Treaty Violations: Identifying the ‘Injured State’ and its Legal Status’ (1988) 35 Netherlands International Law Review 273-289. google scholar
  • Shaw M, International Law (8. Baskı, Cambridge University Press 2017). google scholar
  • Sohn L B, Cases and Materials on the Law of the Sea (2. Baskı, Brill Nijhoff 2014). google scholar
  • Sur M, Uluslararası Hukukun Esasları (14. Baskı, Beta 2020). google scholar
  • Tanaka Y, The International Law of the Sea (3. Baskı, Cambridge University Press 2019). google scholar
  • Thirlway H, ‘The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: 1960-1989, Supplement 2009, Parts Seven and Eight’ (2010) 80 BYIL (2010) 10-216. google scholar
  • Thirlway H, ‘The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: 1960-1989, Part Seven’ (1996) 66 BYIL (1996) 1-96. google scholar
  • Vattel E, Le Droit des Gens, ou Principes de la Loi Naturelle, appliques a la Conduite et aux Affaires des Nations et des Souverains (1758) iç Charles G Fenwick (çev), The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns (Carnegie Institution of Washington 1916). google scholar
  • Vermeer-Künzli A, ‘A Matter of Interest: Diplomatic Protection and State Responsibility Erga Omnes’ (2007) 56 ICLQ (2007/b) 553-581. google scholar
  • Vermeer-Künzli A, ‘Case Concerning Mexican Nationals’ (2005) 18 LJIL 49-64. google scholar
  • Vermeer-Künzli A, The Protection of Individuals by means of Diplomatic Protection: Diplomatic Protection as a Human Rights Instrument (Leiden University 2007) (2007/a). google scholar
  • Wendel P, State Responsibility for Interferences with the Freedom of Navigation in Public International Law (Springer 2007). google scholar
  • Whiteman M M, Damages in International Law, Vol 1 (U. S. Government Printing Office 1937). google scholar
  • Wittich S, ‘Direct Injury and the Incidence of the Local Remedies Rule’ (2000; Basım 2002) 5 Austrian Review of International and European Law (2000) 121-187. google scholar
  • Wittich S, ‘The International Law Commission’s Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts Adopted on Second Reading’ (2002) 15 LJIL 891-919. google scholar
  • Yang H, Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships in Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea (Springer 2006). google scholar
  • Yee S, ‘Article 40’ iç Andreas Zimmermann, Christian Tomuschat, Karin Oellers-Frahm ve Christian J. Tams (edr), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (2. Baskı, Oxford University Press 2012) 922-999. google scholar
  • Özel Belgeler google scholar
  • ‘Responsibility of States for Damage Done in Their Territory to the Person or Property of Foreigners’ (1929) 23 AJIL Special Supplement 133-239. google scholar
  • Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v Democratic Republic of the Congo) (Judgment of 24.05.2007) ICJ Reports 2007. google scholar
  • Air Service Agreement of 27 March 1946 between the United States of America and France (USA/ France) (Award of 09.12.1978) 18 RIAA 417 vd. google scholar
  • Alabama Claims of the United States of America against Great Britain (United States of America v Great Britain) (Award of 14.09.1872) 29 RIAA 127 vd. google scholar
  • Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947 (Advisory Opinion of 26.04.1988) ICJ Reports 1988. google scholar
  • Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v Russian Federation) (Judgment of 08.11.2019) ICJ Reports 2019. google scholar
  • Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v Russian Federation) (Separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade of 08.11.2019) ICJ Reports 2019. google scholar
  • Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v United Arab Emirates) (Order of 23.07.2018) ICJ Reports 2018. google scholar
  • Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v United Arab Emirates) (Separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade of 23.07.2018) ICJ Reports 2018. google scholar
  • Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda) (Judgment of 19.12.2005) ICJ Reports 2005. google scholar
  • Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium) (Judgment of 14.02.2002) ICJ Reports 2002. google scholar
  • Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v United States of America) (Judgment of 31.03.2004) ICJ Reports 2004. google scholar
  • Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v United States of America) (Separate Opinion of Judge Tomka of 31.03.2004) ICJ Reports 2004. google scholar
  • Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v United States of America) (Separate Opinion of Judge Vereshchetin of 31.03.2004) ICJ Reports 2004. google scholar
  • Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v United States of America) (Separate Opinion of Judge Parra-Aranguren of 31.03.2004) ICJ Reports 2004. google scholar
  • Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v United States of America) (Separate Opinion of Judge ad hoc Sepûlveda of 31.03.2004) ICJ Reports 2004. google scholar
  • Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (New Application: 1962) (Belgium v Spain) (Judgment of 05.02.1970) ICJ Reports 1970. google scholar
  • Case of the Swiss Confederation v the German Federal Republic (No I) (Award of 03.07.1958) 29 RIAA 405 vd. google scholar
  • Corfu Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Albania) (Judgment of 09.04.1949) ICJ Reports 1949. google scholar
  • Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (United States of America v Italy) (Judgment of 20.07.1989) ICJ Reports 1989. google scholar
  • Factory at Chorzow (Merits) (Germany vPoland) (Judgment of 13.09.1928) PCIJ Series A No 17. google scholar
  • Georgia v Russia (I) App no 13255/07 (ECHR (Grand Chamber), 03.07.2014). google scholar
  • Georgia v Russia (II) App no 38263/08 (ECHR (Fifth Section), 13.12.2011). google scholar
  • I’m Alone (Canada v United States) (Joint Final Report of 05.01.1935) 3 RIAA 1609 vd. google scholar
  • ILC, ‘Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection with Commentaries’ (2006) 2(2) Yearbook of the ILC (ILC, Draft Articles/Commentaries on Diplomatic Protection). google scholar
  • ILC, ‘Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries’ (2001) 2(2) Yearbook of the ILC (ILC, Draft Articles/Commentaries on Responsibility). google scholar
  • Interhandel (Switzerland v United States of America) (Dissenting Opinion of President Klaestad of 21.03.1959) ICJ Reports 1959. google scholar
  • Interhandel (Switzerland v United States of America) (Dissenting Opinion of Judge Winiarski of 21.03.1959) ICJ Reports 1959. google scholar
  • Interhandel (Switzerland v United States of America) (Dissenting Opinion of Sir Hersch Lauterpacht of 21.03.1959) ICJ Reports 1959. google scholar
  • Interhandel (Switzerland v United States of America) (Judgment of 21.03.1959) ICJ Reports 1959. google scholar
  • LaGrand (Germany v United States of America) (Judgment of 27.06.2001) ICJ Reports 2001. google scholar
  • Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Greece v Great Britain) (Judgment of 30.08.1924) PCIJ Series A No 2. google scholar
  • Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v Guatemala) (Judgment of 06.04.1955) ICJ Reports 1955. google scholar
  • Panevezys-Saldutiskis Railway (Estonia v Lithuania) (Judgment of 28.02.1939) PCIJ Series A/B No 76. google scholar
  • Payment of Various Serbian Loans Issued in France (France/Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) (Judgment of 12.07.1929) PCIJ Series A No 20. google scholar
  • Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations (Advisory Opinion of 11.04.1949) ICJ Reports 1949. google scholar
  • The “Camouco” Case (Panama v France) (Judgment of 07.02.2000) ITLOS Reports 2000. google scholar
  • The “Enrica Lexie” Incident (Italy v India) (Order of 24.08.2015) ITLOS Reports 2015. google scholar
  • The Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (Kingdom of the Netherlands v Russian Federation) (Award on the Merits of 14.08.2015) PCA Case No 2014-02. google scholar
  • The M/V “Louisa” Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v Kingdom of Spain) (Order of 23.12.2010) ITLOS Reports 2010. google scholar
  • The M/V “Norstar” Case (Panama v Italy) (Judgment of 04.11.2016) ITLOS Reports 2016. google scholar
  • The M/V “Saiga” (No 2) Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v Guinea) (Judgment of 01.07.1999) ITLOS Reports 1999. google scholar
  • The M/V “Saiga” (No 2) Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v Guinea) (Separate Opinion of Judge Chandrasekhara Rao of 01.07.1999) ITLOS Reports 1999. google scholar
  • The M/V “Saiga” (No 2) Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v Guinea) (Separate Opinion of Judge Warioba of 01.07.1999) ITLOS Reports 1999. google scholar
  • The M/V “Saiga” (No 2) Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v Guinea) (Separate Opinion of Vice-President Wolfrum of 01.07.1999) ITLOS Reports 1999. google scholar
  • The M/V “Saiga” Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v Guinea) (Judgment of 04.12.1997) ITLOS Reports 1997. google scholar
  • The M/V “Virginia G” Case (Panama/Guinea-Bissau) (Joint Dissenting Opinion of Vice-President Hoffmann and Judges Marotta Rangel, Chandrasekhara Rao, Kateka, Gao and Bouguetaia of 14.04.2014) ITLOS Reports 2014. google scholar
  • The M/V “Virginia G” Case (Panama/Guinea-Bissau) (Joint Separate Opinion of Judges Cot and Kelly of 14.04.2014) ITLOS Reports 2014. google scholar
  • The M/V “Virginia G” Case (Panama/Guinea-Bissau) (Judgment of 14.04.2014) ITLOS Reports 2014. google scholar
  • The S.S. Wimbledon (Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan v Germany) (Judgment of 17.08.1923) PCIJ Series A No 1. google scholar
  • Trail Smelter Case (United States of America v Canada) (Award of 16.04.1938 and 11.03.1941) 3 RIAA 1905 vd. google scholar
  • UN Doc A/CN.4/134 and Add 1 (26.01.1961): Sixth Report on International Responsibility by F V Garcia-Amador (Special Rapporteur). google scholar
  • UN Doc A/CN.4/217 and Add 1 (20.01.1970): First Report on State Responsibility by Roberto Ago (Special Rapporteur). google scholar
  • UN Doc A/CN.4/302 and Add 1-3 (14.07.1977): Sixth Report on State Responsibility by Roberto Ago (Special Rapporteur). google scholar
  • UN Doc A/CN.4/344 (01.05.1981): Second Report on the Content, Forms and Degrees of International Responsibility by Willem Riphagen (Special Rapporteur). google scholar
  • UN Doc A/CN.4/506 and Add 1 (20.04.2000): First Report on Diplomatic Protection by John Dugard (Special Rapporteur). google scholar
  • UN Doc A/CN.4/514 (28.02.2001): Second Report on Diplomatic Protection by John Dugard (Special Rapporteur). google scholar
  • UN Doc A/CN.4/523 and Add 1 (16.04.2002): Third Report on Diplomatic Protection by John Dugard (Special Rapporteur). google scholar
  • UN Doc A/CN.4/538 (04.03.2004): Fifth Report on Diplomatic Protection by Mr. John Dugard (Special Rapporteur). google scholar
  • UN Doc A/CN.4/567 (07.03.2006): Seventh Report on Diplomatic Protection by John Dugard (Special Rapporteur). google scholar
  • UN Doc A/CN.4/96 (20.01.1956): (First) Report on International Responsibility by F V Garcia-Amador (Special Rapporteur). google scholar
  • UN Doc A/CN.4/L.647 (24.05.2004): Diplomatic Protection: Titles and Texts of the Draft Articles Adopted by the Drafting Committee on First Reading. google scholar
  • United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v Iran) (Judgment of 24.05.1980) ICJ Reports 1980. google scholar
  • İnternet Siteleri google scholar
  • <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int> google scholar
  • <https://legal.un.org/> google scholar
  • <https://treaties.un.org/> google scholar
  • <https://www.icj-cij.org/> google scholar
  • <https://www.itlos.org/> google scholar

Atıflar

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


DIŞA AKTAR



APA

Bal, A. (2021). Devletin Uluslararası Sorumluluğa Ağırlıklı Olarak Diplomatik Himaye Çerçevesinde Başvurması: İç Başvuru Yollarının Tüketilmesi Şartının Uygulanabilirliği. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, 79(2), 543-597. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.2.0088


AMA

Bal A. Devletin Uluslararası Sorumluluğa Ağırlıklı Olarak Diplomatik Himaye Çerçevesinde Başvurması: İç Başvuru Yollarının Tüketilmesi Şartının Uygulanabilirliği. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası. 2021;79(2):543-597. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.2.0088


ABNT

Bal, A. Devletin Uluslararası Sorumluluğa Ağırlıklı Olarak Diplomatik Himaye Çerçevesinde Başvurması: İç Başvuru Yollarının Tüketilmesi Şartının Uygulanabilirliği. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, [Publisher Location], v. 79, n. 2, p. 543-597, 2021.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Bal, Ali,. 2021. “Devletin Uluslararası Sorumluluğa Ağırlıklı Olarak Diplomatik Himaye Çerçevesinde Başvurması: İç Başvuru Yollarının Tüketilmesi Şartının Uygulanabilirliği.” İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası 79, no. 2: 543-597. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.2.0088


Chicago: Humanities Style

Bal, Ali,. Devletin Uluslararası Sorumluluğa Ağırlıklı Olarak Diplomatik Himaye Çerçevesinde Başvurması: İç Başvuru Yollarının Tüketilmesi Şartının Uygulanabilirliği.” İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası 79, no. 2 (Jun. 2022): 543-597. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.2.0088


Harvard: Australian Style

Bal, A 2021, 'Devletin Uluslararası Sorumluluğa Ağırlıklı Olarak Diplomatik Himaye Çerçevesinde Başvurması: İç Başvuru Yollarının Tüketilmesi Şartının Uygulanabilirliği', İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, vol. 79, no. 2, pp. 543-597, viewed 30 Jun. 2022, https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.2.0088


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Bal, A. (2021) ‘Devletin Uluslararası Sorumluluğa Ağırlıklı Olarak Diplomatik Himaye Çerçevesinde Başvurması: İç Başvuru Yollarının Tüketilmesi Şartının Uygulanabilirliği’, İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, 79(2), pp. 543-597. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.2.0088 (30 Jun. 2022).


MLA

Bal, Ali,. Devletin Uluslararası Sorumluluğa Ağırlıklı Olarak Diplomatik Himaye Çerçevesinde Başvurması: İç Başvuru Yollarının Tüketilmesi Şartının Uygulanabilirliği.” İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, vol. 79, no. 2, 2021, pp. 543-597. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.2.0088


Vancouver

Bal A. Devletin Uluslararası Sorumluluğa Ağırlıklı Olarak Diplomatik Himaye Çerçevesinde Başvurması: İç Başvuru Yollarının Tüketilmesi Şartının Uygulanabilirliği. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası [Internet]. 30 Jun. 2022 [cited 30 Jun. 2022];79(2):543-597. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.2.0088 doi: 10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.2.0088


ISNAD

Bal, Ali. Devletin Uluslararası Sorumluluğa Ağırlıklı Olarak Diplomatik Himaye Çerçevesinde Başvurması: İç Başvuru Yollarının Tüketilmesi Şartının Uygulanabilirliği”. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası 79/2 (Jun. 2022): 543-597. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.2.0088



ZAMAN ÇİZELGESİ


Gönderim07.12.2020
Kabul03.04.2021
Çevrimiçi Yayınlanma29.07.2021

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.