Yes. This is given in Kelley's General Topology. (Kelley was one of the main mathematicians who developed the theory of nets so that it would be useful in topology generally rather than just certain applications in analysis.)
In the section "Convergence Classes" at the end of Chapter 2 of his book, Kelley lists the following axioms for convergent nets in a topological space $X$
a) If $S$ is a net such that $S_n = s$ for each $n$ [i.e., a constant net], then $S$ converges to $s$.
b) If $S$ converges to $s$, so does each subnet.
c) If $S$ does not converge to $s$, then there is a subnet of $S$, no subnet of which converges to $s$.
d) (Theorem on iterated limits): Let $D$ be a directed set. For each $m \in D$, let $E_m$ be a directed set, let $F$ be the product $D \times \prod_{m \in D} E_m$ and for $(m,f)$ in $F$ let $R(m,f) = (m,f(m))$. If $S(m,n)$ is an element of $X$ for each $m \in D$ and $n \in E_m$ and $\lim_m \lim_n S(m,n) = s$, then $S \circ R$ converges to $s$.
He has previously shown that in any topological space, convergence of nets satisfies a) through d). (The first three are easy; part d) is, I believe, an original result of his.) In this section he proves the converse: given a set $S$ and a set $\mathcal{C}$ of pairs (net,point) satisfying the four axioms above, there exists a unique topology on $S$ such that a net $N$ converges to $s \in X$ iff $(N,s) \in \mathcal{C}$.
I have always found property d) to be unappealing bordering on completely opaque, but that's a purely personal statement.
Addendum: I would be very interested to know if anyone has ever put this characterization to any useful purpose. A couple of years ago I decided to relearn general topology and write notes this time. The flower of my efforts was an essay on convergence in topological spaces that seems to cover all the bases (especially, comparing nets and filters) more solidly than in any text I have seen.
http://math.uga.edu/~pete/convergence.pdf
But "even" in these notes I didn't talk about either the theorem on iterated limits or (consequently) Kelley's theorem above: I honestly just couldn't internalize it without putting a lot more thought into it. But I've always felt/worried that there must be some insight and content there...
