UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON LAW OF SEA AS A MIXED TREATY OF EU: A HEADACHE FOR TURKEY?

Abstract

International agreements and treaties concluded by EU constitute parts of acquis communautaire. Therefore Member States are expected to take all the relevant measures to enable EU to fulfil its obligations arising out of the agreements and treaties it concluded. United Nations Convention on Law of Sea UNCLOS is a mixed treaty that had to be concluded by EU and all of its Member States jointly as a result of complicated nature of EU’s competence. As a mixed treaty of EU, it constitutes a part of acquis. Before acceding to EU, candidate states are expected to acquire acquis. Turkey has been negotiating to accede to EU. However she is not only a non-party to UNCLOS, but also a persistent objector to its certain provisions due to Aegean Sea dispute with Greece. Turkish perspective to EU membership raises the question whether she is under a legal obligation to ratify UNCLOS to be considered to have acquired acquis in its full sense

Keywords

• Mixed Treaty
• UNCLOS
• EU
• Competence
• Aegean Sea

United Nations Convention on Law of Sea as a Mixed Treaty of EU: A headache for Turkey?

Öz

Avrupa Birliği tarafından akdedilmiş uluslararası anlaşmalar ve andlaşmalar acquis communautaire yani AB müktesebatının bir parçasını teşkil etmektedir. AB’nin akdettiği bu anlaşma ve andlaşmalardan doğan yükümlülüklerini yerine getirebilmesi için, üye devletler gerekli tüm tedbirleri almak zorundadırlar. Birleşmiş Milletler Deniz Hukuku Sözleşmesi BMDHS gibi bazı uluslararası andlaşmalar, AB’nin yetkisinin karmaşık karakteri nedeniyle, hem AB hem de üye devletler tarafından birlikte akdedilmekte, bu nedenle karma andlaşmalar olarak nitelendirilmektedirler. Karma andlaşmalar da AB müktesebatının bir parçasını teşkil etmektedir. AB üyeliğinin gerçekleşebilmesi için, Türkiye gibi aday devletlerin müktesebatı kabul etmeleri gerekmektedir. Ege Denizi’nde, Yunanistan ile Türkiye arasında mevcudiyetini koruyan hukuki uyuşmazlıklar nedeniyle, Türkiye BMDHS’ne taraf olmamış, hatta bu sözleşmenin bazı hükümleri için ısrarlı redci konumuna gelmiştir. AB üyeliği perspektifi, Türkiye’nin müktesebatı tam anlamıyla kabul etmiş sayılması için, BMDHS’ne taraf olma zorunluluğunun olup olmadığı konusunu gündeme getirmektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Karma Andlaşma
• BMDHS
• AB
• Yetki
• Ege Denizi

References

1. Aydoğan Özman, Deniz Hukuku I, Ankara, Turhan Kitabevi, 2006.
2. Damian Chalmers et al, European Union Law, New York, Cambridge University Press.
3. Gökhan Yaşar Duran and Çağdaş Evrim Ergun, Uluslararası Hukukta Adalar, Kocaeli, Çakmak Yayınevi, 2011.
4. Hüseyin Pazarcı, Uluslararası Hukuk Dersleri II. Kitap Ankara, Turhan Kitap Evi, 1999.
5. Koen Lenaerts and PietVan Nuffel, European Union Law, London, Sweet & Maxwell, 2011.
6. Peter Malanczuk, Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law, New York, Routledge, 1997.
7. Piet Eeckhout, External Relations of the European Union, (New York, Oxford University Press 2004).
8. S. Rıdvan Karluk, Avrupa Birliği ve Türkiye, Istanbul, Beta, 2005. Articles

9. Aurelia A. Georgopoulos, “Delimitation of the Continental Shelf in the Aegean Sea”, Fordham International Law Journal, Volume 12, No I, 1988, p. 90- 126.
10. Eva Steinberger, “The WTO Treaty as A Mixed Agreement: Problems with the EC’s and the EC Member States’ Membership of the WTO”, European Journal of International Law Volume 17, No 4, 2006, p.837-862.
11. Jon M.Van Dyke, “An Analysis of the Aegean Dispute Under International Law”, Ocean Development And International Law, Volume 36, No I, 2005, p. 63- 117.
12. Paul James Cardwell and Duncan French, “Who Decides? The CJEU’s Judgment on Jurisdiction in Mox Plant Dispute”, Journal of Environmental Law, Volume 19, No I, 2007, p.121-129.
13. Rafael Leal-Arcas, “The European Community and Mixed Agreements”, European Foreign Affairs Review, Volume 6, No 4, 2001, p. 483-513.
14. Sonja Boelaert-Suominen, “The European Community, the European Court of Justice and the Law of Sea”, The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, Volume 23, No 4, 2008, p. 643-713.
15. Decisions and Opinions of Court of Justice of the European Union
16. Case 181/73, R. & V. Haegeman v Belgian State, ECR 00449.
17. Case C- 221/89, The Queen v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and Others, [1991] ECR-I 3905.
18. Case C- 308/06, International association of Independent Tank Owners (Intertanko) and others v Secretary of State for Transport, [2008] ECR-I 04057.
19. Case C-22/70, Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Communities – European Agreement on Road transport,, [1971] ECR 263.
20. Case C-246/07, European Commission v Sweden, [2010] ECR-I 03317.
21. Case C-459/03, Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland, [2006] ECR-I 04635.
22. Opinion 1/08 [2009] ECR I-11129.
23. Opinion 1/94 [1994] ECR I-05267. Internet Resources
24. BRUSSELS EUROPEAN COUNCIL – 17 JULY 2006 - PRESIDENCY CONCLUSIONS at 54