Özellikle II. Dünya savaşı sonrasında birçok uluslararası örgütün teşkil edilmesi ile ortaya çıkan yeni uluslararası hukuk düzeni dahilinde uluslararası hukukun kaynaklarının arasında, başta Birleşmiş Milletler olmak üzere uluslararası örgütlerin verdikleri kararların yer alıp almadığı bunların nasıl nitelendirileceği ve bunlar vasıtasıyla yaratılan yükümlülüklerin diğer uluslararası hukuk kaynaklarından ileri gelen yükümlülükler ile çatışması söz konusu olduğunda çatışmanın nasıl çözüme kavuşturulacağı gibi hususların üzerinde uluslararası hukuk öğretisinde bir çok tartışma süregelmektedir. Bu kapsamda çalışmamız, BM organlarının kararlarıyla yaratılan bir yükümlülük ile Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’nin devletlere atfettiği yükümlülükler arasında bir çatışma olması halinde oluşan çatışma karşısında nasıl hareket edilmesi gerektiğini, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin vermiş olduğu “Al-Dulimi ve Montana Management Inc. v. İsviçre” kararı ve önceki içtihadı kapsamında ele almaktadır.
Especially the II. With the establishment of many international organizations after the World War II and the new international law system that emerged, the sources of international law include whether or not the decisions made by international organizations, primarily the United Nations, and how they are defined and how the obligations created through them will conflict with the obligations arising from other international law sources and how the conflict will be resolved. In this context, our work addresses how to act against a conflict that occurs in the event of an obligation created by decisions of the United Nations bodies and a conflict between the obligations imposed by the European Convention on Human Rights to the States, within the framework of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights "Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v. Switzerland" and the previous draft.
International organisations are included as subjects of the modern international society (community) as well as states. This inclusion has particularly emerged with the establishment of many international organisations after the World Wars. This situation has led to changes in the international legal order, which was originally designed for states. In this context, there are a lot of ongoing discussions taking place in the following issues: How will the resolutions of International Organisations, especially the United Nations (UN) resolutions, characterised in addition to the provisions listed in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice? Whether it is possible to accept these resolutions as a source of international law? How is the conflict resolved if obligations arising from other sources of international law contradict with obligations created by these resolutions? In this regard, this study focuses on the examination of possible conflict between obligations created by the Security Council resolutions for the state parties of the European Convention on Human Rights (EHCR) and the obligations of those states under the ECHR. Both obligations stem from an international treaty. The importance lies in Security Council as being the most important decision-making body of the UN. The European Convention on Human Rights is also important as a constitutional instrument of the European public order. The way in which states should act in case of this conflict will be analysed within the context of European Court of Justice’s (ECrtHR) decision on the Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v. Switzerland case. The study will also consider previous jurisprudence of the ECrtHR. In this way, the study will contribute to the understanding of the ECtHR's position on this issue.
Alan : Hukuk
Dergi Türü : Ulusal
Benzer Makaleler | Yazar | # |
---|
Makale | Yazar | # |
---|