HUKUK, ÂDİLİN SANATI’dır : Türk Dış Politikası’nın “Çöküntü ve Hezimet”i…


BM İsrail vs. Mavi Marmara Komisyon Raporu – Hukuki Özet Değerlendirme

©Av.Hakan Hanlı

Birleşmiş Milletler’in tek ama tek bağlayıcı karar veren organı, Güvenlik Konseyi’dir. Güvenlik Konseyi’nin DAİMİ 5 üyesinin (ABD, İngiltere, Fransa, Rusya ve Çin) VETO hakkı vardır. ABD her zaman, İsrail aleyhine her türlü kararı VETO ediyor.

Bir de İsrail ile Türkiye uzlaşsın deniliyor: İsrail deli mi ki, Türkiye ile uzlaşsın !.

Ayrıca, bu konuda gözden kaçan asıl mesele:

BM nezdinde, Mavi Marmara Komisyonunun kurulmasını, Türkiye istedi.

BM Komisyonunun hazırladığı rapor/verdiği karar, Türkiye aleyhine çıktı !.

Hatta, hiç talep etmediğimiz halde, “GAZZE’deki ablukanın da MEŞRU olduğu” karara bağlandı.

Bu açıdan bu olay, TÜRK DIŞ POLİTİKASI AÇISINDAN CİDDİ BİR ÇÖKÜNTÜ ve HEZİMETTİR !.

NOT: Bir devletin, LAHEY ADALET DİVANINA, ilgili devletlerin uzlaşması olmadan, tek taraflı olarak başvurusu, KABUL EDİLMEZ.

***

States Have the Right to Blockade: “Israel & Mavi Marmara”

As Turkish Foreign Affairs Minister, Ahmet Davudoğlu, several retired ambassadors and experts claim that “A Government is not entitled to interfere to a ship of another government in international waters“.

But, we claim that this opinion is not true.

In this respect, let us give three examples:

During the incidents in Cuba, US drew a line 200 miles away to the island and thousand (1.000) miles away from US and declared that it would sink the Russian ship if they pass such line. Russian ships stopped five (5) miles away and returned.

Currently, off Somalia, 40-120 miles away from Somali coasts, pirate boats are being stopped, searched, and sunk.

In order to prevent cocaine smuggling, US stop and search ships in the Gulf of Mexico even “in the Colombian territorial waters let alone the international waters“.


In this respect, the practice can be summarized as follows: “If it constitutes a threat for our country, we would search those ships by stopping them within a reasonable distance appropriate for proving our claim.” The claim here is: “The suspicion in our being of the target rather than their threat against us.”

In this regard, Israel is RIGHT, but their method was particularly disturbing us and the world.

That is, as a rule, Israel needed at first “to notify the ships that they are ready to intervene by showing themselves.

Then in sequence: (a) to ensure that it is fired in front of the ship for easing their speed down or changing their route; (b) if the ship would not ease its speed down, the fire would not continue, will be abreast to its own ship and the direction of the ship would be changed.

Israel’s ships there, all of them have the hardware and power required for easily doing this.

In the meantime, Israel, would contact other states, especially Turkey through diplomatic channels immediately in order to ensure that “the country of which flag the ship is bearing would order the ship’s captain for changing route of the ship.”

Meanwhile, the international diplomacy would be activated. If a result would not have been obtained in spite of every effort, then the ship may be boarded and a fire may be started…

However, without having taken these measures, a sudden attack would not be right.

The fact here is: A strong State would have met the requirements, would not even dare to come five (5) miles near to the ship, let alone to grave the ship to the port of Ashdod !.

***

Aynı konuda/Related:

Güçlü devletsen…

Devletlerin blokaj uygulama hakkı vardır. 

Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident September 2011

Sir Geoffrey Palmer, Chair

President Alvaro Uribe, Vice-Chair

Mr. Joseph Ciechanover Itzhar

Mr. Süleyman Özdem Sanberk

*****

Av.Hakan Hanlı’nın diğer makalelerini okumak için tıklayınız !

(Opinions & Eds by Attorney Hakan Hanlı) 

 

%d bloggers like this: