Ermenistan’ın ikinci Dağlık Karabağ Savaşı’ndaki insancıl hukuk kuralları ihlallerinden doğan uluslararası sorumluluğu / International responsibility of Armenia arising from the violations of the rules of humanitarian laws during the second war of Nagorno-Karabakh
Yükleniyor...
Tarih
2022
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Maltepe Üniversitesi
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Dağlık Karabağ sorunu genel hatları itibariyle Ermenistan’ın Azerbaycan’dan toprak taleplerinden kaynaklanan bir uluslararası sorundur. Dağlık Karabağ sorunu 1992 yılında savaşa dönüşmüştür ve Birinci Dağlık Karabağ Savaşı 1994’te imzalanan Ateşkes Andlaşması ile sona ermiştir. Ancak, Ateşkes Andlaşması’nın ardından bir barış andlaşması imzalanamadığı için Ateşkes Andlaşması’ndan sonra Dağlık Karabağ sorunu dondurulmuş bir uluslararası soruna dönüşmüştür. Ateşkes Andlaşması’nın Ermenistan tarafından ihlali sonucu ortaya çıkan İkinci Dağlık Karabağ Savaşı ise 27 Eylül 2020 tarihinde başlamış ve 10 Kasım 2020 tarihinde imzalanan Ateşkes Andlaşması ile sona ermiştir. İkinci Dağlık Karabağ Savaşı’nda Ermenistan tarafından pek çok insancıl hukuk kuralı ihlali gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Ermenistan’ın İkinci Dağlık Karabağ Savaşı’ndaki insancıl hukuk kuralları ihlallerinden doğan uluslararası sorumluluğunu incelemektir. Bu çalışmada Ermenistan’ın İkinci Dağlık Karabağ Savaşı’ndaki insancıl hukuk kuralları ihlallerinden doğan uluslararası sorumluluğu, Uluslararası Hukuk Komisyonu’nun hazırladığı Milletlerarası Haksız Fiilden Ötürü Devletin Sorumluluğuna İlişkin Taslak Maddeler’den hareketle incelenecektir. Bu çalışma ile varılan sonuca göre Ermenistan’ın İkinci Dağlık Karabağ Savaşı’ndaki insancıl hukuk kuralları ihlalleri ile uluslararası sorumluluğunun şartları gerçekleşmiştir. Çünkü, İkinci Dağlık Karabağ Savaşı’nda insancıl hukuk kurallarını ihlal eden uluslararası haksız filler gerçekleştirilmiştir ve bu fiiller Ermenistan’a isnat edilebilir fiillerdir. Bu çerçevede, Ermenistan’ın uluslararası sorumluluğunun sonucu olarak öncelikle İkinci Dağlık Karabağ Savaşı’nda gerçekleştirdiği uluslararası haksız fiillerin tekrar edilmeyeceğine dair uygun güvenceleri sunma yükümlülüğü söz konusudur. Ermenistan’ın uluslararası sorumluluğunun sonucu olarak ayrıca, İkinci Dağlık Karabağ Savaşı’nda kendisinin uluslararası haksız fiilleri sebebiyle ortaya çıkan zararları onarma yükümlülüğü söz konusudur.
In general terms, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is an international conflict arising from Armenia’s territorial claims from Azerbaijan. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict turned into war in 1992, and the First Nagorno-Karabakh War ended with the Ceasefire Agreement signed in 1994. However, since a peace agreement was not signed after the Ceasefire Agreement, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has transformed into a frozen international conflict. The Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, which emerged as a result of the violation of the Ceasefire Agreement by Armenia, started on September 27, 2020, and ended with the Ceasefire Agreement signed on November 10, 2020. During the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, Armenia has committed many violations regarding the rules of humanitarian laws. The purpose of this study is to examine the international responsibility of Armenia arising from the violations of the rules of humanitarian laws during the Second War of Nagorno-Karabakh. This study aims to review the international responsibility of Armenia arising from the violations of the rules of humanitarian laws during the Second War of Nagorno-Karabakh in the context of Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, which were prepared by the International Law Commission. According to the conclusion reached with this study, the conditions for responsibility regarding internationally wrongful acts have been realized by Armenia’s violations of the rules of humanitarian laws in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. This is because of the fact that internationally wrongful acts violating the rules of humanitarian laws were committed in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, and these acts are attributable to Armenia. In this framework, as a result of its international wrongful act responsibility, Armenia has an obligation to put an end to its internationally wrongful acts, which it carried out during the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War and continued from time to time after the Ceasefire Agreement, and to offer appropriate assurances that such internationally wrongful acts will not be repeated. Additionally, as a result of its responsibility regarding internationally wrongful acts, Armenia also has an obligation to provide reparations regarding the damage caused by its internationally wrongful acts in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. Armenia can fulfil its obligation regarding reparations through restitutions, compensations and satisfaction.
In general terms, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is an international conflict arising from Armenia’s territorial claims from Azerbaijan. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict turned into war in 1992, and the First Nagorno-Karabakh War ended with the Ceasefire Agreement signed in 1994. However, since a peace agreement was not signed after the Ceasefire Agreement, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has transformed into a frozen international conflict. The Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, which emerged as a result of the violation of the Ceasefire Agreement by Armenia, started on September 27, 2020, and ended with the Ceasefire Agreement signed on November 10, 2020. During the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, Armenia has committed many violations regarding the rules of humanitarian laws. The purpose of this study is to examine the international responsibility of Armenia arising from the violations of the rules of humanitarian laws during the Second War of Nagorno-Karabakh. This study aims to review the international responsibility of Armenia arising from the violations of the rules of humanitarian laws during the Second War of Nagorno-Karabakh in the context of Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, which were prepared by the International Law Commission. According to the conclusion reached with this study, the conditions for responsibility regarding internationally wrongful acts have been realized by Armenia’s violations of the rules of humanitarian laws in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. This is because of the fact that internationally wrongful acts violating the rules of humanitarian laws were committed in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, and these acts are attributable to Armenia. In this framework, as a result of its international wrongful act responsibility, Armenia has an obligation to put an end to its internationally wrongful acts, which it carried out during the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War and continued from time to time after the Ceasefire Agreement, and to offer appropriate assurances that such internationally wrongful acts will not be repeated. Additionally, as a result of its responsibility regarding internationally wrongful acts, Armenia also has an obligation to provide reparations regarding the damage caused by its internationally wrongful acts in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. Armenia can fulfil its obligation regarding reparations through restitutions, compensations and satisfaction.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Dağlık Karabağ Sorunu, İkinci Dağlık Karabağ Savaşı, İnsancıl Hukuk Kuralları, İnsancıl Hukuk Kurallarının İhlalleri, Uluslararası Sorumluluk, Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict, Second War of Nagorno-Karabakh, The Rules of Humanitarian Laws, The Violations of the Rules of Humanitarian Laws, Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts
Kaynak
Maltepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
Sayı
2
Künye
İsayev, T. (2022). Ermenistan’ın ikinci Dağlık Karabağ Savaşı’ndaki insancıl hukuk kuralları ihlallerinden doğan uluslararası sorumluluğu / International responsibility of Armenia arising from the violations of the rules of humanitarian laws during the second war of Nagorno-Karabakh. Maltepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Maltepe Üniversitesi.2, s. 71-95.
