Peer Reviewed Articles

Lone actor or lone wolf terrorism is characterized by individuals who carry out violent acts independently, without being affiliated with any terrorist organization, posing a new threat that challenges modern security paradigms. These terrorists are often motivated by personal ideological beliefs and typically radicalize through the internet and social media. While the roots of lone actor terrorism can be traced back to 19th-century anarchist movements, the threat has become more prominent in the 20th and 21st centuries. Unlike traditional terrorist organizations, lone actors operate independently, making detection and prevention more difficult. In this context, combating lone actor terrorism requires new strategies, including the early detection of radicalization processes, tighter control of radical propaganda on the internet and social media, increasing psychosocial support services, and strengthening international cooperation. Additionally, tracking lone actors’ digital footprints, analyzing their psychosocial profiles, and developing international legal frameworks related to this threat are critical for future research and efforts in combating this evolving security challenge. This research examines the place of lone actor terrorism in the historical framework of terrorism, propose new research areas and the measures that can be taken to combat this terrorism.

Many scholars emphasize that human rights face a major challenge: the gradual erosion and end of human rights. This erosion has led to a rethinking of the balance between security and rights and freedoms, and raised concerns about how reliable human rights are in the face of changing political dynamics. Minority and marginalized groups suffer from discrimination and systematic persecution, while the rise of control technologies and authoritarian regimes exacerbate these challenges. 

The post-9/11 era was thought to be the "end of human rights" as debates over the legitimacy of measures such as torture were driven by security needs. However, technological developments and historical trends suggest otherwise. Human rights have experienced (i) critical junctures through political decisions, and (ii) incremental changes through judicial protections and activism by civil society organizations, which both lead to empower the understanding and application of human rights. 

The debate about the "end of human rights" continues but is essentially misleading. However, the changes that have occurred in the history of human rights demonstrate consistent and continuous progress, driven by political and judicial decisions.

 The law of succession, a complex and evolving area of international law, deals with the succession and change of responsibilities of states in international relations. The 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession to Treaties, which entered into force on November 6, 1996, sets the basic framework in this area. The concept of succession can be defined as the replacement of one state by another or the transfer of rights and obligations from one state to another. However, the complexity behind this definition arises from the interaction and conflict of different principles and rules of international law. While the succession of states is discussed in the literature within the framework of succession to bilateral and multilateral treaties, property, archives and debts of the predecessor state, the issue of succession to international organizations emerges as one of these areas of conflict. As such, it is controversial how to choose between the rules of succession to treaties, especially multilateral treaties, and the provisions in the constituent documents/constitutions of international organizations. 

In this article, the basic principles of the concept of succession will be discussed in the context of membership in international organizations and the basic approaches in this field, the practices of states and international organizations and the work of the International Law Commission will be examined. The article proposes a modus operandi for understanding the complexity of succession law and aims to provide a basis for shedding light on the debate in this area. 

The International Court of Justice has a dual resolution mechanism: adversarial proceedings and advisory opinions. In both cases, States have the capacity of a party. UN organs and 16 specialized agencies can apply to the Court for advisory opinions. In addition, states can become parties by intervening in cases that concern them. In this study, the institution of friendly participation in the judicial proceedings of the International Court of Justice will be discussed, and the participation of third parties in the case and the submission of information and documents will be discussed. Pursuant to Article 38 of the Statute of the Court, the legal foundations of the institution of friendly intervention will be investigated in the light of the relevant international treaties and their provisions, customary law and general principles of law, as well as the Court's decisions, jurisprudence and doctrinal discussions. 

The International Court of Justice has two kinds of function; to settle international legal disputes brought by States (Contentious cases) and to give a legal opinion (advisory proceeding) on legal questions of States, authorized UN Bodies and specialized organs. Also States have the right to intervene in the disputes (both contentious cases or advisory proceedings) at any time. Within this article, amicus curiae and amicus brief procedures, in other words, the participation of third parties whom nonparties to the dispute before the International Court of Justice will be examined. Third-party participation to the proceedings before the Court will. Regarding the article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice.

With the proliferation of bilateral and multilateral international investment treaties, the barriers to a global flow of investment have gradually weakened. The standards for the protection of investments in host countries have evolved over time into a separate international legal regime and principles to ensure that investments are protected independently of the law of the host country. We see that independent international principles and guidelines are included in investment treaties signed by states, either bilaterally or multilaterally. The inclusion of certain principles in these treaties makes it necessary to discuss the legal nature of these principles. It is important to determine under which heading these principles are included in the epistemological model of the sources of international law stipulated in Article 38 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. This is because the legal effects of these principles and their binding nature in terms of implementation will vary according to their legal nature. The principle of fair and equitable treatment is included in many bilateral or multilateral investment treaties. This principle is included in the treaties with a norm dimension. 

This article aims to contribute to the debate on the legal nature of the principle of fair and equitable treatment. Is this principle a rule of customary law or has it become a rule of customary law? Can this principle be considered as a general principle of law? These questions are within the scope of this article. It should be noted in advance that this principle cannot be regarded as a rule of customary law or a general principle of law, but only as a norm in the relevant treaties in which it appears.

 This study will discuss whether cyber-attacks trigger the right of self-defense. Cyber-attacks primarily result in the loss of valuable intellectual property, company secrets and plans, and economically valuable data, as well as collateral damages such as the expenditures to be made to restore security as the security of the targeted system is breached. But more importantly, cyber-attacks have the potential to cause severe and irreparable disasters. An attack targeting the software of airplanes and airports can be catastrophic, leading to fatalities. 

In light of these information, this study seeks to answer the following questions. How to respond to cyber attacks in such scenarios? Are established norms sufficient to respond effectively to cyber-attacks? Or will states prefer a system where everyone seeks their own rights within the framework of the institution of self-help? Already, states are expanding the boundaries of established norms and seeking new methods.

In the process of the emergence of social and economic rights, initiatives launched in the international arena have played an important role in the formation of conventions, laws, judicial decisions and other legal documents covering a wide range of issues. In this context, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was established as a comprehensive text on social and economic rights, which has its origins in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and covers the areas such as food, work, housing, education, health, etc. that people need in order to live a dignified life. Social and economic rights, which have developed in the shadow of human rights and have an increasingly stronger structure in international and domestic legal systems, are now referred to as a separate social rights law. However, there are many question marks regarding the protection of these rights and even an ongoing debate on whether these rights are “actionable”. 

Another point that has been widely discussed internationally in the context of this convention is the absence of an “individual complaint” remedy, which has an important place in the protection of rights. At the regional level, there are no mechanisms directly established to protect these rights. However, in terms of Europe, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) that social and economic rights cannot be considered outside the scope of the convention and the decisions of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in cases brought before it indicate that there is some protection, albeit weak.