Views
62
Downloands
27
Bu çalışmamızda Fransa’nın Mali Cumhuriyeti’ne yönelik gerçekleştirdiği tek taraflı askeri müdahalenin meşruiyetini sağlamak için kullandığı Koruma Sorumluluğu(R2P) ilkesi incelenecektir. Fransa, Mali’de gerçekleştirdiği askeri müdahaleyi meşrulaştırmak için dört argüman öne sürmüştür: Birleşmiş Milletler Güvenlik Konseyi’nin (BMGK) 2085 sayılı kararı ile verdiği yetkilendirme (20 Aralık 2012), Mali hükümeti tarafından yapılan davet (davet ile müdahale), kolektif meşru müdafaa hakkı (51. Madde) ve Koruma Sorumluluğu’na (R2P) başvurma. Fransa hükümeti tarafından ileri sürülen BMGK’nın 2085 sayılı kararı ile verdiği yetkilendirme (20 Aralık 2012), Mali hükümeti tarafından yapılan davet (davet ile müdahale), kolektif meşru müdafaa hakkı (51. Madde) gibi gerekçeler, uluslararası hukukun temel ihtiyaçlarını karşılamak konusunda yetersiz kalmıştır. Fransa tarafından eski sömürgelerinde gerçekleştirilen askeri müdahalelerde ilk üç argüman kullanılmış olmasına rağmen insani gerekçeler öne sürülerek R2P’ye başvurma yeni bir durumdur. Bu durum şüphelere neden olduğu için Mali müdahalesinin uluslararası hukuk açısından değerlendirilerek R2P ilkesinin gereksinimlerin yerine getirilip getirilmediği incelenecektir.
In this study, the principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) used by France to provide the legitimacy of unilateral military intervention in the Republic of Mali is analyzed. In order to legally justify the military intervention in Mali, France put forward four arguments: the authorization given by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in Resolution 2085 (20 December 2012), an invitation by the Malian government (intervention by invitation), its right of collective self-defense (51th Article), and the application of R2P. The reasons given by the French government, such as the authorization given by the UNSC in Resolution 2085 (20 December 2012), an invitation by the Malian government (intervention by invitation), its right of collective self-defense (51th Article), have failed to meet the basic needs of international law. Although the first three arguments were used by France in military interventions in its former colonies, applying for R2P on humanitarian grounds is a new situation. Since this situation raises doubts, financial intervention will be evaluated within the perspective of international law and whether the requirements of the R2P principle are fulfilled.
In this study, the principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) utilized by France to provide the legitimacy of unilateral military intervention in the Republic of Mali is analyzed. In order to justify legally the military intervention in Mali, France put forward four arguments: the authorization given by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in Resolution 2085 (20 December 2012), an invitation by the Malian government (intervention by invitation), its right of collective self-defense (51th Article),and the application of R2P. The reasons given by the French government, such as the authorization given by the UNSC in Resolution 2085 (20 December 2012), an invitation by the Malian government (intervention by invitation), its right of collective self-defense (51th Article), have failed to meet the basic needs of international law. Although the first three arguments were used by France in military interventions in its former colonies, applying for R2P on humanitarian grounds is a new situation. Since this situation raises doubts, Mali intervention will be evaluated within the perspective of international law and whether the requirements of R2P principle are fulfilled.
Field : Ziraat, Orman ve Su Ürünleri; Spor Bilimleri
Journal Type : Uluslararası
Article Detail 
Similar Articles
Download PDF
Journal Information
Listen Paper
Cite
Print This Page
Share
Mendeley
