Devletin Uluslararası Sorumluluğa Ağırlıklı Olarak Diplomatik Himaye Çerçevesinde Başvurması: İç Başvuru Yollarının Tüketilmesi Şartının UygulanabilirliğiAli 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.
Invocation of Responsibility by a State on the Basis of Diplomatic Protection: The Applicability of the Requirement of Exhaustion of Local RemediesAli 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.
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.