Akdeniz Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2024
In 1973, Iraq and Türkiye entered into an agreement (the Iraq-Turkey Crude Oil Pipeline Agreement... more In 1973, Iraq and Türkiye entered into an agreement (the Iraq-Turkey Crude Oil Pipeline Agreement) aimed at building a pipeline system for the transport of crude oil from Iraqi fields, as well as allowing its storage and loading at facilities at a Turkish Mediterranean port in Ceyhan for export. The Agreement has been amended by various additional agreements and protocols over the years, the latest of which was signed in 2010. All these agreements, together referred to by the Tribunal as ITP Agreements, constitute the legal framework that is still in force today. The first two pipelines built within the framework of the ITP Agreements became respectively operational in 1977 and in 1987. In 2005, the Kurdish Region of Iraq (the KRI) was established as an autonomous region of the federal Iraqi state. At that time, there were no federal regulations regarding the exploitation of crude oil reserves located in the KRI. In 2007, the Kurdish Regional Government (the KRG) issued a hydrocarbon regulation pertaining to the management of crude oil and gas fields in the KRI. However the Federal Government of Iraq (FGI) and the KRG disagreed on the interpretation of the Iraqi Constitution in relation to the management and ownership of oil and natural resources in the region. In 2012, the KRG and Türkiye announced that a new pipeline would be built in the KRI, close to the Turkish border, in order to export the KRI crude oil to the world via the ITP pipeline system. This latest pipeline, completed in 2013, was connected to the pumping station of the ITP system located in Fishkabur, Iraq. On May 23rd, 2014, the Republic of Iraq filed a complaint against Türkiye to the International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Panel (the Tribunal), alleging that Türkiye transported Iraqi oil sent by the KRG without the approval of the Ministry of Petroleum of the Republic of Iraq, in violation of the ITP Agreements. Türkiye put forward various arguments against Iraq’s claims. One of these arguments stated that Türkiye had suspended the application fo the ITP Agreements pursuant to the rebus sic stantibus principle, as codified in Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Indeed, Türkiye claimed that this suspension was warranted, based on two material facts that created a fundamental change of circumstances: a) the KRG’s suspension of oil supplies to Iraq’s State Oil Marketing Company (SOMO) in 2012, and b) the bombing of the 1987 pipeline by the Islamic State terrorist group (more commonly known as ISIS) in 2014. In its final judgment, the Tribunal stated that the KRG’s suspension of oil supplies to SOMO in 2012 did not constitute a fundamental change of circumstances and rejected Türkiye’s claim that the rebus sic stantibus principle applied. With regard to the bombing of the second pipeline, the Tribunal accepted that this situation fundamentally changed the circumstances of the ITP Agreements. However, the Tribunal also noted that Türkiye had started transporting and storing crude oil from the KRG even before the second pipeline was damaged. According to the Tribunal, this showed that Türkiye’s motivation to cooperate with the KRG was not related to the ITP framework becoming inapplicable. In this context, considering that both parties to the ITP Agreements are under the obligation to act in good faith when it comes to applying their treaty obligations, the Court rejected Türkiye’s claims and stated that it could not apply the rebus sic stantibus principle for the events that occurred after Turkey had already violated its obligations arising from the ITP Agreements by engaging directly the KRG.
There are two provisions regarding territorial application in the European Convention on Human Ri... more There are two provisions regarding territorial application in the European Convention on Human Rights. General rule of territorial application is regulated by Article 1. As to Article 56, also known as the "colonial clause", it is the regulation regarding the territories for whose international relations a state party is responsible. The European Court of Human Rights recognizes the extraterritorial application of the Convention within the framework of Article 1. On the other hand, Article 56 is interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights in a way that excludes from the protection of the Convention the territories for whose international relations the party states are responsible. This situation, which was accepted by the Court itself as unfair, does not comply with the Court's perspective on Article 1 and extraterritorial application, and carries the political and legal remnants of the colonial period to the present day.
Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Jun 17, 2023
Amerikalılar Arası İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, insan hakları ihlallerinin sonuçlarının onarımına yön... more Amerikalılar Arası İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, insan hakları ihlallerinin sonuçlarının onarımına yönelik yaratıcı ve kapsamlı içtihadı ile insan haklarının uluslararası korunması mekanizmaları içerisinde özel bir konum edinmiştir. Mahkeme, Amerika İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesinin kendisine tanıdığı yetkiyi devletlerin uluslararası hukuka aykırı eylemlerinden sorumluluğuna ilişkin uluslararası hukuk ile temellendirmiş, insan hakları ihlallerinin özgül niteliklerini dikkate alarak onarım araçlarını zenginleştirmiştir. Böylece onarımı tazminat ve ihlali tespit eden kararın ötesinde tasarlayarak insan hakları ihlal edilen mağdurlara telafi sunulması ve gelecekte benzer ihlallerin önüne geçilmesi bakımından etkili adımlar atmıştır. Mahkeme onarım içtihadında hem bireylerin mağduriyetlerinin telafi edilmesi ile insan hakları kavramında içerilen daha geniş kamusal yarara ulaşılması için yapısal ve sistemik değişimlerin gerçekleştirilmesini bir arada vurgulayarak, hem de onarımı sosyal-ekonomik ve kültürel boyutları içerisinde düşünerek insan hakları hukukuna önemli bir katkı sağlamıştır.
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has gained a special place within the mechanisms of international protection of human rights with its creative and comprehensive jurisprudence on the reparation of the consequences of human rights violations. The Court has based the jurisdiction granted to it by the American Convention on Human Rights within the framework of the responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts, and has enriched the means of reparation by taking into account the specific characteristics of human rights violations. Thus, by designing the reparation beyond compensation and the declaratory relief, it has taken effective steps to provide reparation to victims of human rights violations and to prevent future similar violations. In its case law on reparation, the Court made a significant contribution to human rights law by emphasizing together the reparation of individual grievances and the realization of structural and systemic changes to achieve the broader public interest embodied in the concept of human rights and by considering the repair within its social-economic and cultural dimensions.
Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi
Amerikalılar Arası İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, insan hakları ihlallerinin sonuçlarının onarımına yön... more Amerikalılar Arası İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, insan hakları ihlallerinin sonuçlarının onarımına yönelik yaratıcı ve kapsamlı içtihadı ile insan haklarının uluslararası korunması mekanizmaları içerisinde özel bir konum edinmiştir. Mahkeme, Amerika İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesinin kendisine tanıdığı yetkiyi devletlerin uluslararası hukuka aykırı eylemlerinden sorumluluğuna ilişkin uluslararası hukuk ile temellendirmiş, insan hakları ihlallerinin özgül niteliklerini dikkate alarak onarım araçlarını zenginleştirmiştir. Böylece onarımı tazminat ve ihlali tespit eden kararın ötesinde tasarlayarak insan hakları ihlal edilen mağdurlara telafi sunulması ve gelecekte benzer ihlallerin önüne geçilmesi bakımından etkili adımlar atmıştır. Mahkeme onarım içtihadında hem bireylerin mağduriyetlerinin telafi edilmesi ile insan hakları kavramında içerilen daha geniş kamusal yarara ulaşılması için yapısal ve sistemik değişimlerin gerçekleştirilmesini bir arada vurgulayarak, hem de onarımı sosyal-ekonomik ve ...
Devletler arasında yapılan uluslararası anlaşmaların sayısı her geçen gün artmaktadır. Bununla bi... more Devletler arasında yapılan uluslararası anlaşmaların sayısı her geçen gün artmaktadır. Bununla birlikte, meydana gelen tüm anlaşmaların hukuken bağlayıcı olduğunu söylemek mümkün değildir. Uluslararası hukuk açısından, bir anlaşmanın hukuken bağlayıcı olup olmadığı son derece önemli bir meseledir. Nitekim bir anlaşmayla ilgili ortaya çıkabilecek uyuşmazlıkların uluslararası hukuk meselesi olup olmaması anlaşmanın hukuki bağlayıcılığı ile yakından ilgilidir. Anlaşmanın hukuki bağlayıcılığı tarafların hukuken bağlanma kastı doğrultusunda tespit edilir ve söz konusu anlaşmayla ilgili çıkabilecek uyuşmazlıklara uygulanacak kuralların belirlenmesini sağlar. Herhangi bir şekilde ifade edilebilen hukuken bağlanma kastının belirlenmesinde geçerli olan kesin bir ölçüt bulunmamakla beraber bu konuda yol gösterici olan pek çok kriter bulunmaktadır. P5+1 devletleri ile İran arasında yapılmış olan Kapsamlı Ortak Eylem Planı bu kriterler çerçevesinde değerlendirildiğinde ortaya çıkan sonuç söz ko...
Akdeniz Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2024
In 1973, Iraq and Türkiye entered into an agreement (the Iraq-Turkey Crude Oil Pipeline Agreement... more In 1973, Iraq and Türkiye entered into an agreement (the Iraq-Turkey Crude Oil Pipeline Agreement) aimed at building a pipeline system for the transport of crude oil from Iraqi fields, as well as allowing its storage and loading at facilities at a Turkish Mediterranean port in Ceyhan for export. The Agreement has been amended by various additional agreements and protocols over the years, the latest of which was signed in 2010. All these agreements, together referred to by the Tribunal as ITP Agreements, constitute the legal framework that is still in force today. The first two pipelines built within the framework of the ITP Agreements became respectively operational in 1977 and in 1987. In 2005, the Kurdish Region of Iraq (the KRI) was established as an autonomous region of the federal Iraqi state. At that time, there were no federal regulations regarding the exploitation of crude oil reserves located in the KRI. In 2007, the Kurdish Regional Government (the KRG) issued a hydrocarbon regulation pertaining to the management of crude oil and gas fields in the KRI. However the Federal Government of Iraq (FGI) and the KRG disagreed on the interpretation of the Iraqi Constitution in relation to the management and ownership of oil and natural resources in the region. In 2012, the KRG and Türkiye announced that a new pipeline would be built in the KRI, close to the Turkish border, in order to export the KRI crude oil to the world via the ITP pipeline system. This latest pipeline, completed in 2013, was connected to the pumping station of the ITP system located in Fishkabur, Iraq. On May 23rd, 2014, the Republic of Iraq filed a complaint against Türkiye to the International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Panel (the Tribunal), alleging that Türkiye transported Iraqi oil sent by the KRG without the approval of the Ministry of Petroleum of the Republic of Iraq, in violation of the ITP Agreements. Türkiye put forward various arguments against Iraq’s claims. One of these arguments stated that Türkiye had suspended the application fo the ITP Agreements pursuant to the rebus sic stantibus principle, as codified in Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Indeed, Türkiye claimed that this suspension was warranted, based on two material facts that created a fundamental change of circumstances: a) the KRG’s suspension of oil supplies to Iraq’s State Oil Marketing Company (SOMO) in 2012, and b) the bombing of the 1987 pipeline by the Islamic State terrorist group (more commonly known as ISIS) in 2014. In its final judgment, the Tribunal stated that the KRG’s suspension of oil supplies to SOMO in 2012 did not constitute a fundamental change of circumstances and rejected Türkiye’s claim that the rebus sic stantibus principle applied. With regard to the bombing of the second pipeline, the Tribunal accepted that this situation fundamentally changed the circumstances of the ITP Agreements. However, the Tribunal also noted that Türkiye had started transporting and storing crude oil from the KRG even before the second pipeline was damaged. According to the Tribunal, this showed that Türkiye’s motivation to cooperate with the KRG was not related to the ITP framework becoming inapplicable. In this context, considering that both parties to the ITP Agreements are under the obligation to act in good faith when it comes to applying their treaty obligations, the Court rejected Türkiye’s claims and stated that it could not apply the rebus sic stantibus principle for the events that occurred after Turkey had already violated its obligations arising from the ITP Agreements by engaging directly the KRG.
There are two provisions regarding territorial application in the European Convention on Human Ri... more There are two provisions regarding territorial application in the European Convention on Human Rights. General rule of territorial application is regulated by Article 1. As to Article 56, also known as the "colonial clause", it is the regulation regarding the territories for whose international relations a state party is responsible. The European Court of Human Rights recognizes the extraterritorial application of the Convention within the framework of Article 1. On the other hand, Article 56 is interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights in a way that excludes from the protection of the Convention the territories for whose international relations the party states are responsible. This situation, which was accepted by the Court itself as unfair, does not comply with the Court's perspective on Article 1 and extraterritorial application, and carries the political and legal remnants of the colonial period to the present day.
Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Jun 17, 2023
Amerikalılar Arası İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, insan hakları ihlallerinin sonuçlarının onarımına yön... more Amerikalılar Arası İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, insan hakları ihlallerinin sonuçlarının onarımına yönelik yaratıcı ve kapsamlı içtihadı ile insan haklarının uluslararası korunması mekanizmaları içerisinde özel bir konum edinmiştir. Mahkeme, Amerika İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesinin kendisine tanıdığı yetkiyi devletlerin uluslararası hukuka aykırı eylemlerinden sorumluluğuna ilişkin uluslararası hukuk ile temellendirmiş, insan hakları ihlallerinin özgül niteliklerini dikkate alarak onarım araçlarını zenginleştirmiştir. Böylece onarımı tazminat ve ihlali tespit eden kararın ötesinde tasarlayarak insan hakları ihlal edilen mağdurlara telafi sunulması ve gelecekte benzer ihlallerin önüne geçilmesi bakımından etkili adımlar atmıştır. Mahkeme onarım içtihadında hem bireylerin mağduriyetlerinin telafi edilmesi ile insan hakları kavramında içerilen daha geniş kamusal yarara ulaşılması için yapısal ve sistemik değişimlerin gerçekleştirilmesini bir arada vurgulayarak, hem de onarımı sosyal-ekonomik ve kültürel boyutları içerisinde düşünerek insan hakları hukukuna önemli bir katkı sağlamıştır.
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has gained a special place within the mechanisms of international protection of human rights with its creative and comprehensive jurisprudence on the reparation of the consequences of human rights violations. The Court has based the jurisdiction granted to it by the American Convention on Human Rights within the framework of the responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts, and has enriched the means of reparation by taking into account the specific characteristics of human rights violations. Thus, by designing the reparation beyond compensation and the declaratory relief, it has taken effective steps to provide reparation to victims of human rights violations and to prevent future similar violations. In its case law on reparation, the Court made a significant contribution to human rights law by emphasizing together the reparation of individual grievances and the realization of structural and systemic changes to achieve the broader public interest embodied in the concept of human rights and by considering the repair within its social-economic and cultural dimensions.
Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi
Amerikalılar Arası İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, insan hakları ihlallerinin sonuçlarının onarımına yön... more Amerikalılar Arası İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, insan hakları ihlallerinin sonuçlarının onarımına yönelik yaratıcı ve kapsamlı içtihadı ile insan haklarının uluslararası korunması mekanizmaları içerisinde özel bir konum edinmiştir. Mahkeme, Amerika İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesinin kendisine tanıdığı yetkiyi devletlerin uluslararası hukuka aykırı eylemlerinden sorumluluğuna ilişkin uluslararası hukuk ile temellendirmiş, insan hakları ihlallerinin özgül niteliklerini dikkate alarak onarım araçlarını zenginleştirmiştir. Böylece onarımı tazminat ve ihlali tespit eden kararın ötesinde tasarlayarak insan hakları ihlal edilen mağdurlara telafi sunulması ve gelecekte benzer ihlallerin önüne geçilmesi bakımından etkili adımlar atmıştır. Mahkeme onarım içtihadında hem bireylerin mağduriyetlerinin telafi edilmesi ile insan hakları kavramında içerilen daha geniş kamusal yarara ulaşılması için yapısal ve sistemik değişimlerin gerçekleştirilmesini bir arada vurgulayarak, hem de onarımı sosyal-ekonomik ve ...
Devletler arasında yapılan uluslararası anlaşmaların sayısı her geçen gün artmaktadır. Bununla bi... more Devletler arasında yapılan uluslararası anlaşmaların sayısı her geçen gün artmaktadır. Bununla birlikte, meydana gelen tüm anlaşmaların hukuken bağlayıcı olduğunu söylemek mümkün değildir. Uluslararası hukuk açısından, bir anlaşmanın hukuken bağlayıcı olup olmadığı son derece önemli bir meseledir. Nitekim bir anlaşmayla ilgili ortaya çıkabilecek uyuşmazlıkların uluslararası hukuk meselesi olup olmaması anlaşmanın hukuki bağlayıcılığı ile yakından ilgilidir. Anlaşmanın hukuki bağlayıcılığı tarafların hukuken bağlanma kastı doğrultusunda tespit edilir ve söz konusu anlaşmayla ilgili çıkabilecek uyuşmazlıklara uygulanacak kuralların belirlenmesini sağlar. Herhangi bir şekilde ifade edilebilen hukuken bağlanma kastının belirlenmesinde geçerli olan kesin bir ölçüt bulunmamakla beraber bu konuda yol gösterici olan pek çok kriter bulunmaktadır. P5+1 devletleri ile İran arasında yapılmış olan Kapsamlı Ortak Eylem Planı bu kriterler çerçevesinde değerlendirildiğinde ortaya çıkan sonuç söz ko...
Uploads
Papers
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has gained a special place within the mechanisms of international protection of human rights with its creative and comprehensive jurisprudence on the reparation of the consequences of human rights violations. The Court has based the jurisdiction granted to it by the American Convention on Human Rights within the framework of the responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts, and has enriched the means of reparation by taking into account the specific characteristics of human rights violations. Thus, by designing the reparation beyond compensation and the declaratory relief, it has taken effective steps to provide reparation to victims of human rights violations and to prevent future similar violations. In its case law on reparation, the Court made a significant contribution to human rights law by emphasizing together the reparation of individual grievances and the realization of structural and systemic changes to achieve the broader public interest embodied in the concept of human rights and by considering the repair within its social-economic and cultural dimensions.
Books
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has gained a special place within the mechanisms of international protection of human rights with its creative and comprehensive jurisprudence on the reparation of the consequences of human rights violations. The Court has based the jurisdiction granted to it by the American Convention on Human Rights within the framework of the responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts, and has enriched the means of reparation by taking into account the specific characteristics of human rights violations. Thus, by designing the reparation beyond compensation and the declaratory relief, it has taken effective steps to provide reparation to victims of human rights violations and to prevent future similar violations. In its case law on reparation, the Court made a significant contribution to human rights law by emphasizing together the reparation of individual grievances and the realization of structural and systemic changes to achieve the broader public interest embodied in the concept of human rights and by considering the repair within its social-economic and cultural dimensions.