EGEMENLİK VE İNSANCIL MÜDAHALE: ÇELİŞKİLİ BİR KURAM OLARAK ULUSLARARASI HUKUK

Abstract

In this study, the duality of "sovereignty and humanitarian intervention" will be put on the table by adopting the concepts of Critical Legal Studies – especially those introduced by Martti Koskenniemi. It is seen that states can emphasize both the rights of sovereignty and humanitarian intervention in the circumstances necessitated by their national interests. Between these two concepts, there is a paralysis caused by pushing and pulling. This paralysis deepens the dilemma in a system where the notion of sovereignty is principal and makes it impossible to choose a side between these two concepts. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine was put forward to solve the dilemma in question by coding humanitarian intervention as the result of sovereignty. However, the doctrine cannot escape from being an "apology" for state behaviour. As a result, international law, which is extremely flexible due to its structure, stands with the powerful side in the situation of inequality between the parties. Therefore, reintegration of the principle of "justice" into the system can be a way to solve this dilemma.