Redirecting to http://dergipark.org.tr/_fragment?_hash=Hn8gQHQgZvTAiS-LohX5R_MLkc-4FgsPPwd5n4aAcUY&_path=id%3D1650828%26_format%3Dhtml%26_locale%3Dtr%26_controller%3DApp%255CController%255CSite%255CArticleController%253A%253AesiArticleStats.
Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Turkey's Legal Contribution to the South Africa v. Israel Case: An Analysis within the Framework of Article 63 of the ICJ Statute

Yıl 2025, Sayı: 17, 67 - 93, 30.06.2025

Osman Öğütcü

https://doi.org/10.34230/fiad.1650828

Öz

This study examines the legal submission made by Turkey regarding its intervention in the judicial proceedings initiated by South Africa against Israel. The study considers Turkey's legal reasoning in comparison with the approaches adopted by other intervening states. It identifies common legal approaches among intervening states, including their emphasis on the jus cogens status of the prohibition of genocide, the erga omnes partes nature of obligations to prevent genocide, and the possibility of establishing genocidal intent through indirect evidence. Turkey's intervention makes distinctive contributions in three areas: its interpretation of responsibilities arising from occupying power status; its argument that systematic destruction of health systems constitutes genocide; and its analysis of the relationship between apartheid and genocide. The study also identifies aspects that could have strengthened Turkey's application, including a more comprehensive challenge to Israel's self-defense argument, greater emphasis on cultural heritage destruction as evidence of genocidal intent, deeper analysis of the prevention obligation's scope, and more thorough examination of humanitarian aid obstruction. The research concludes that Article 63 interventions serve as important mechanisms for developing and clarifying international norms. The ICJ's assessment of these interventions will potentially contribute significantly to the evolution of international law regarding erga omnes partes obligations, determination of genocidal intent, and the scope of genocide prevention obligations. Future research should include detailed analysis of the ICJ's assessments of intervention applications in this case and examination of their effects on the development of international law, particularly concerning the relationship between genocide and other international crimes, and the scope of prevention obligations for occupying powers.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Palestine Turkey International Law International Court of Justice Genocide

Kaynakça

  • Akkutay, Berat Lale. Viyana Andlaşmalar Hukuku Sözleşmesi, Objektif Rejim Yaratan Andlaşma Teorisi ve Erga Omnes Yükümlülüklerin Andlaşmalarla İlişkisi Çerçevesinde Uluslararası Andlaşmaların Üçüncü Devletlere Etkisi. 1. baskı. Ankara: Adalet Yayınevi, 2020.
  • Aksar, Yusuf. “The Specific Intent (Dolus Specialis) Requirement of the Crime of Genocide: Confluence or Conflict between the Practice of Ad Hoc Tribunals and ICJ.” Uluslararası İlişkiler 6, no. 23 (2009): 113-126.
  • Berster, Lars. “Article II.” In Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: A Commentary, edited by Christian J. Tams, Lars Berster, and Björn Schiffbauer, 116-118. Oxford: Beck/Hart, 2014.
  • Clancy, Pearce. “Erga Omnes Partes Standing after South Africa v Israel.” EJIL: Talk!, February 1, 2024. https://www.ejiltalk.org/erga-omnes-partes-standing-after-south-africa-v-israel/.
  • International Court of Justice. “Application Instituting Proceedings and Request for Provisional Measures (South Africa v. Israel).” December 29, 2023.
  • International Court of Justice. “Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro).” I.C.J. Reports (2007).
  • International Court of Justice. “Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia).” I.C.J. Reports (2015).
  • International Court of Justice. “Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Order of 24 May 2024.”
  • International Court of Justice. “Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Order of 28 March 2024.”
  • International Court of Justice. “Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Provisional Measures, Oral Arguments of Israel.” CR 2024/2, January 12, 2024.
  • International Court of Justice. “Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem, Advisory Opinion.” July 19, 2024.
  • International Court of Justice. “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion.” I.C.J. Reports (2004).
  • International Court of Justice. “Order of 26 January 2024, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).”
  • International Court of Justice. “Press Release: The Republic of South Africa institutes proceedings against the State of Israel and requests the Court to indicate provisional measures.” Press Release No. 2023/77, December 29, 2023.
  • International Court of Justice, “Press Release: Nicaragua withdraws its Application for permission to intervene in the proceedings.” Press Release No: No. 2025/15, April 3, 2025.
  • International Court of Justice. “Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion.” I.C.J. Reports (1951).
  • International Court of Justice. “Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), Application of the Republic of the Philippines for Permission to Intervene.” ICJ Reports (2001).
  • International Court of Justice. “States entitled to appear before the Court.” https://www.icj-cij.org/states-entitled-to-appear.
  • International Court of Justice. “The Gambia v. Myanmar, Preliminary Objections.” January 20, 2021.
  • International Court of Justice. “Verbatim Record, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Public Sitting.” CR 2024/28, May 17, 2024.
  • International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Kayishema v. Ruzindana, ICTR-95-1-T, Judgment, 21 May 1999.
  • International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Prosecutor v. Akayesu, ICTR-96.4.T, Judgment, 2 September 1998.
  • International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Judgment, 7 July 2006.
  • International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Blagojević and Jokić, ICTY-02-60-T, Judgment, 17 January 2005.
  • International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Krstić, ICTY-98-33-T, Judgment, 2 August 2001.
  • International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Trial Chamber, Judgment of 5 December 2003, Case No. IT-98-29 T.
  • McIntyre, Juliette. “Why Nicaragua's Article 62 Intervention in South Africa v. Israel is Potentially Unhelpful.” VerfBlog, February 11, 2024. https://verfassungsblog.de/ why-nicaraguas-article-62-intervention-in-south-africa-v-israel-is-potentially-unhelpful/. DOI: 10.59704/79991772098d56b6.
  • Oellers-Frahm, Karin, and Andreas Zimmermann. “Article 41.” In The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, edited by Andreas Zimmermann, Christian J. Tams, Karin Oellers-Frahm, and Christian Tomuschat, 1156-1159. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.
  • Quintana, Juan José. Litigation at the International Court of Justice: Practice and Procedure. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2015.
  • Republic of Belize. “Application for Permission to Intervene and Declaration of Intervention of Belize.” Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). International Court of Justice, January 30, 2025.
  • Republic of Bolivia. “Declaration of Intervention by the Plurinational State of Bolivia.” Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). International Court of Justice, October 8, 2024.
  • Republic of Chile. “Declaration of Intervention.” Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). International Court of Justice, 2024.
  • Republic of Colombia. “Declaration of Intervention by the Republic of Colombia.” Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). International Court of Justice, April 5, 2024.
  • Republic of Cuba. “Declaration of Intervention before the International Court of Justice: Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).” International Court of Justice, January 8, 2025.
  • Republic of Ireland. “Declaration of Intervention before the International Court of Justice: Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).” International Court of Justice, January 6, 2025.
  • Republic of Maldives. “Declaration of Intervention before the International Court of Justice: Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).” International Court of Justice, October 1, 2024.
  • Republic of Nicaragua. “Application for Permission to Intervene in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).” International Court of Justice, January 22, 2024.
  • Republic of South Africa. “Comments on Israel's Response with Forensic Architecture Report.” Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). International Court of Justice, May 20, 2024.
  • Republic of South Africa. “Urgent Request and Application for the Indication of Additional Provisional Measures.” Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). International Court of Justice, March 6, 2024.
  • Republic of Türkiye. “Declaration of Intervention of the Republic of Türkiye: Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).” International Court of Justice, August 7, 2024.
  • Schabas, William A. Genocide in International Law: The Crime of Crimes. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
  • Schabas, William A. The Customary International Law of Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021.
  • Sebutinde, Julia. “Dissenting Opinion.” Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). International Court of Justice, January 26, 2024.
  • Shaw, Malcolm N. Uluslararası Hukuk. Edited by İbrahim Kaya, translated by Yücel Acer et al. Ankara: TÜBA, 2018.
  • State of Barak. “Separate Opinion.” Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). International Court of Justice, January 26, 2024.
  • State of Barak. “Separate Opinion.” Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Order of 28 March 2024.
  • State of Israel. “Observations of the State of Israel on the Request Filed by South Africa on 6 March 2024.” Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).
  • State of Israel. “Response to Judge Nolte's Question.” Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). International Court of Justice, May 18, 2024.
  • State of Libya. “Declaration of Intervention.” Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). International Court of Justice, 2024.
  • State of Palestine. “Declaration Recognizing the Competence of the International Court of Justice and Request for Intervention and Declaration of Intervention in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).” International Court of Justice, May 31, 2024.
  • State of Palestine. “Request for Intervention and Declaration of Intervention of the State of Palestine.” Application to intervene by the State of Palestine in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). International Court of Justice, May 31, 2024.
  • Thirlway, H. “Human Rights in Customary Law: An Attempt to Define Some of the Issues.” Leiden Journal of International Law 28 (2015): 495–500.
  • Ton, Nu Thanh Binh. “Article 63 Intervention before the International Court of Justice: New Developments and the Way Forward.” Opinio Juris (blog), July 26, 2024. https://opiniojuris.org/2024/07/26/article-63-intervention-before-the-international-court-of-justice-new-developments-and-the-way-forward/.
  • United Mexican States. “Declaration of Intervention.” Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). International Court of Justice, 2024.
  • United Nations Treaty Collection. “1. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.” https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src= TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4.
  • Wood, Michael. Customary International Law and Human Rights. EUI Working Paper AEL 2016/03. San Domenico di Fiesole: European University Institute, Academy of European Law, 2016.

Güney Afrika v. İsrail Davasına Türkiye'nin Hukuki Katkısı: UAD Statüsü'nün 63. Maddesi Çerçevesinde Bir Analiz

Yıl 2025, Sayı: 17, 67 - 93, 30.06.2025

Osman Öğütcü

https://doi.org/10.34230/fiad.1650828

Öz

Bu çalışma, Türkiye'nin Güney Afrika'nın İsrail'e karşı başlattığı yargı sürecine müdahalesine ilişkin yaptığı hukuki sunumu incelemektedir. Çalışma, Türkiye'nin hukuki gerekçesini diğer müdahil devletler tarafından benimsenen yaklaşımlarla karşılaştırmalı olarak ele almaktadır. Soykırım yasağının jus cogens statüsüne, soykırımı önleme yükümlülüğünün erga omnes partes niteliğine ve soykırım niyetinin dolaylı kanıtlarla ortaya konması olasılığına yaptıkları vurgu da dâhil olmak üzere, müdahil devletler arasındaki ortak hukuki yaklaşımları tespit etmektedir. Türkiye'nin müdahalesi üç alanda ayırt edici katkılarda bulunmaktadır: işgalci güç statüsünden kaynaklanan sorumlulukların yorumlanması; sağlık sistemlerinin sistematik olarak tahrip edilmesinin soykırım teşkil ettiği argümanı ve apartheid ile soykırım arasındaki ilişkinin analizi. Çalışma ayrıca, İsrail'in meşru müdafaa argümanına daha kapsamlı bir itiraz, soykırım niyetinin kanıtı olarak kültürel mirasın tahribine daha fazla vurgu, önleme yükümlülüğünün kapsamına ilişkin daha derin bir analiz ve insani yardımın engellenmesine ilişkin daha kapsamlı bir inceleme gibi Türkiye'nin başvurusunu güçlendirebilecek hususları da tespit etmektedir. Araştırma, Madde 63 müdahalelerinin uluslararası normların geliştirilmesi ve açıklığa kavuşturulması için önemli mekanizmalar olarak hizmet ettiği sonucuna varmaktadır. UAD'nin bu müdahalelere ilişkin değerlendirmesi, erga omnes partes yükümlülükler, soykırım niyetinin tespiti ve soykırımı önleme yükümlülüklerinin kapsamına ilişkin uluslararası hukukun evrimine potansiyel olarak önemli katkı sağlayacaktır. Gelecekteki araştırmalar, UAD'nin bu davadaki müdahale başvurularına ilişkin değerlendirmelerinin ayrıntılı analizini ve bunların uluslararası hukukun gelişimi üzerindeki etkilerinin, özellikle de soykırım ile diğer uluslararası suçlar arasındaki ilişki ve işgalci güçler için önleme yükümlülüklerinin kapsamı açısından incelenmesini içermelidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Filistin Türkiye Uluslararası Hukuk Uluslararası Adalet Divanı Soykırım

Kaynakça

  • Akkutay, Berat Lale. Viyana Andlaşmalar Hukuku Sözleşmesi, Objektif Rejim Yaratan Andlaşma Teorisi ve Erga Omnes Yükümlülüklerin Andlaşmalarla İlişkisi Çerçevesinde Uluslararası Andlaşmaların Üçüncü Devletlere Etkisi. 1. baskı. Ankara: Adalet Yayınevi, 2020.
  • Aksar, Yusuf. “The Specific Intent (Dolus Specialis) Requirement of the Crime of Genocide: Confluence or Conflict between the Practice of Ad Hoc Tribunals and ICJ.” Uluslararası İlişkiler 6, no. 23 (2009): 113-126.
  • Berster, Lars. “Article II.” In Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: A Commentary, edited by Christian J. Tams, Lars Berster, and Björn Schiffbauer, 116-118. Oxford: Beck/Hart, 2014.
  • Clancy, Pearce. “Erga Omnes Partes Standing after South Africa v Israel.” EJIL: Talk!, February 1, 2024. https://www.ejiltalk.org/erga-omnes-partes-standing-after-south-africa-v-israel/.
  • International Court of Justice. “Application Instituting Proceedings and Request for Provisional Measures (South Africa v. Israel).” December 29, 2023.
  • International Court of Justice. “Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro).” I.C.J. Reports (2007).
  • International Court of Justice. “Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia).” I.C.J. Reports (2015).
  • International Court of Justice. “Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Order of 24 May 2024.”
  • International Court of Justice. “Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Order of 28 March 2024.”
  • International Court of Justice. “Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Provisional Measures, Oral Arguments of Israel.” CR 2024/2, January 12, 2024.
  • International Court of Justice. “Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem, Advisory Opinion.” July 19, 2024.
  • International Court of Justice. “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion.” I.C.J. Reports (2004).
  • International Court of Justice. “Order of 26 January 2024, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).”
  • International Court of Justice. “Press Release: The Republic of South Africa institutes proceedings against the State of Israel and requests the Court to indicate provisional measures.” Press Release No. 2023/77, December 29, 2023.
  • International Court of Justice, “Press Release: Nicaragua withdraws its Application for permission to intervene in the proceedings.” Press Release No: No. 2025/15, April 3, 2025.
  • International Court of Justice. “Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion.” I.C.J. Reports (1951).
  • International Court of Justice. “Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), Application of the Republic of the Philippines for Permission to Intervene.” ICJ Reports (2001).
  • International Court of Justice. “States entitled to appear before the Court.” https://www.icj-cij.org/states-entitled-to-appear.
  • International Court of Justice. “The Gambia v. Myanmar, Preliminary Objections.” January 20, 2021.
  • International Court of Justice. “Verbatim Record, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Public Sitting.” CR 2024/28, May 17, 2024.
  • International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Kayishema v. Ruzindana, ICTR-95-1-T, Judgment, 21 May 1999.
  • International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Prosecutor v. Akayesu, ICTR-96.4.T, Judgment, 2 September 1998.
  • International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Judgment, 7 July 2006.
  • International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Blagojević and Jokić, ICTY-02-60-T, Judgment, 17 January 2005.
  • International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Krstić, ICTY-98-33-T, Judgment, 2 August 2001.
  • International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Trial Chamber, Judgment of 5 December 2003, Case No. IT-98-29 T.
  • McIntyre, Juliette. “Why Nicaragua's Article 62 Intervention in South Africa v. Israel is Potentially Unhelpful.” VerfBlog, February 11, 2024. https://verfassungsblog.de/ why-nicaraguas-article-62-intervention-in-south-africa-v-israel-is-potentially-unhelpful/. DOI: 10.59704/79991772098d56b6.
  • Oellers-Frahm, Karin, and Andreas Zimmermann. “Article 41.” In The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, edited by Andreas Zimmermann, Christian J. Tams, Karin Oellers-Frahm, and Christian Tomuschat, 1156-1159. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.
  • Quintana, Juan José. Litigation at the International Court of Justice: Practice and Procedure. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2015.
  • Republic of Belize. “Application for Permission to Intervene and Declaration of Intervention of Belize.” Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). International Court of Justice, January 30, 2025.
  • Republic of Bolivia. “Declaration of Intervention by the Plurinational State of Bolivia.” Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). International Court of Justice, October 8, 2024.
  • Republic of Chile. “Declaration of Intervention.” Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). International Court of Justice, 2024.
  • Republic of Colombia. “Declaration of Intervention by the Republic of Colombia.” Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). International Court of Justice, April 5, 2024.
  • Republic of Cuba. “Declaration of Intervention before the International Court of Justice: Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).” International Court of Justice, January 8, 2025.
  • Republic of Ireland. “Declaration of Intervention before the International Court of Justice: Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).” International Court of Justice, January 6, 2025.
  • Republic of Maldives. “Declaration of Intervention before the International Court of Justice: Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).” International Court of Justice, October 1, 2024.
  • Republic of Nicaragua. “Application for Permission to Intervene in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).” International Court of Justice, January 22, 2024.
  • Republic of South Africa. “Comments on Israel's Response with Forensic Architecture Report.” Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). International Court of Justice, May 20, 2024.
  • Republic of South Africa. “Urgent Request and Application for the Indication of Additional Provisional Measures.” Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). International Court of Justice, March 6, 2024.
  • Republic of Türkiye. “Declaration of Intervention of the Republic of Türkiye: Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).” International Court of Justice, August 7, 2024.
  • Schabas, William A. Genocide in International Law: The Crime of Crimes. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
  • Schabas, William A. The Customary International Law of Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021.
  • Sebutinde, Julia. “Dissenting Opinion.” Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). International Court of Justice, January 26, 2024.
  • Shaw, Malcolm N. Uluslararası Hukuk. Edited by İbrahim Kaya, translated by Yücel Acer et al. Ankara: TÜBA, 2018.
  • State of Barak. “Separate Opinion.” Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). International Court of Justice, January 26, 2024.
  • State of Barak. “Separate Opinion.” Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Order of 28 March 2024.
  • State of Israel. “Observations of the State of Israel on the Request Filed by South Africa on 6 March 2024.” Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).
  • State of Israel. “Response to Judge Nolte's Question.” Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). International Court of Justice, May 18, 2024.
  • State of Libya. “Declaration of Intervention.” Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). International Court of Justice, 2024.
  • State of Palestine. “Declaration Recognizing the Competence of the International Court of Justice and Request for Intervention and Declaration of Intervention in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).” International Court of Justice, May 31, 2024.
  • State of Palestine. “Request for Intervention and Declaration of Intervention of the State of Palestine.” Application to intervene by the State of Palestine in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). International Court of Justice, May 31, 2024.
  • Thirlway, H. “Human Rights in Customary Law: An Attempt to Define Some of the Issues.” Leiden Journal of International Law 28 (2015): 495–500.
  • Ton, Nu Thanh Binh. “Article 63 Intervention before the International Court of Justice: New Developments and the Way Forward.” Opinio Juris (blog), July 26, 2024. https://opiniojuris.org/2024/07/26/article-63-intervention-before-the-international-court-of-justice-new-developments-and-the-way-forward/.
  • United Mexican States. “Declaration of Intervention.” Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). International Court of Justice, 2024.
  • United Nations Treaty Collection. “1. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.” https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src= TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4.
  • Wood, Michael. Customary International Law and Human Rights. EUI Working Paper AEL 2016/03. San Domenico di Fiesole: European University Institute, Academy of European Law, 2016.
Toplam 56 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Uluslararası İnsani ve İnsan Hakları Hukuku
Bölüm ARAŞTIRMA MAKALELERİ
Yazarlar

Osman Öğütcü 0000-0002-5335-3876

Yayımlanma Tarihi 30 Haziran 2025
Gönderilme Tarihi 4 Mart 2025
Kabul Tarihi 3 Haziran 2025
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2025 Sayı: 17

Kaynak Göster

Chicago Öğütcü, Osman. “Turkey’s Legal Contribution to the South Africa v. Israel Case: An Analysis within the Framework of Article 63 of the ICJ Statute”. Filistin Araştırmaları Dergisi, sy. 17 (Haziran 2025): 67-93. https://doi.org/10.34230/fiad.1650828.
 Kapak Resmi İndir

 Bu eser Creative Commons Atıf-GayriTicari 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.  Daha fazla bilgi için tıklayınız.


 Dizinler / Veri Tabanları: SCOPUS| EBSCO| INDEX ISLAMICUS| ERIH PLUS| MLA | INDEX COPERNICUS | CEEOL | SCIENTIFIC INDEXING  | DRJI | İSAM



FAD- Filistin Araştırmaları Dergisi

[BPS- Bulletin of Palestine Studies]


e-ISSN 2587-1862 

filistin.org