Uluslararası Toplumun Kutup Politikaları: Arktik-Antarktika Karşılaştırması

Abstract

Küresel iklim değişikliğinin bir sonucu olarak eriyen buzullar, Kutup Bölgeleri’ndeki ekonomik fırsatları ortaya çıkarmış ve bu durum iki bölgenin statüsünün sorgulanmasına yol açmıştır. İnsanlığın ortak mirası olarak kabul edilen Antarktika’ya nazaran Arktik, ulus devletlerin egemenlik mücadelesine sahne olmaktadır. Bu çalışma, İngiliz Okulu teorisinin uluslararası toplum anlayışı çerçevesinde Kutup Bölgeleri’ndeki faaliyetlerini ele almaktadır. Kutup Bölgeleri’nin hukuki, ekonomik ve politik statüsünün karşılaştırıldığı bu çalışmada İngiliz Okulu’nun çoğulcu-dayanışmacı ayrımı düzen-adalet farkı kapsamında değerlendirilmiştir. Dayanışmacı uluslararası toplumun adalet anlayışı ile düzen sağladığı Antarktika’nın aksine; diplomasi, uluslararası hukuk gibi İngiliz Okulu kuramlarıyla düzen sağlanan Arktik Bölgesi yönetiminde uluslararası toplumun çoğulcu perspektifinin ağır bastığı gözlenmektedir.

Keywords

• Arktik,Antarktika,İngiliz Okulu,Uluslararası Toplum,Düzen,Adalet

Polar Policies of the International Society: The Comparison between Arctic-Antarctic

Abstract

As a result of the global climate change, the melting ice caps have revealed the economic opportunities in the Polar Regions and this change has led to question the status of the two regions. On the contrary of Antarctic as a common heritage of mankind, Arctic become conflict zone  between sovereign nation states. This study analyses the activities of international society in Polar Regions based on the English School theory. Moreover, comparing the legal, economic and political status of the Polar Regions, the distinction between the pluralist-solidarist approaches of the English School was evaluated within the context of the difference between order and justice. Unlike Antarctica, where the solidarity of international community has ensured the order with the perspective of justice; the governance in the Arctic Region provided by the international community is based on a pluralistic perspective, which is regulated by the institutions such as diplomacy and international law of English School theory.

Keywords

• Arctic,Antarctic,English School,International Society,Order,Justice

References

1. Ağkaya, O. (2016). “İngiliz Okulu ve Uluslararası Toplum Düşüncesi”. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 71(4): 1059-1089.
2. Anderson, R. T. (2008). “The Antarctic Scene: Legal and Political Facts”. G. D. Triggs. (Ed.). The Antarctic Treaty Regime: Law, Environment and Resources. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom. 67-64.
3. Antarctic Treaty Secretariat. (2011). “The Antarctic Treaty”. http://www.ats.aq/e/ats.htm (erişim tarihi: 26 Temmuz 2017).
4. Antarctic Treaty Parties. https://www.ats.aq/devAS/ats_parties.aspx?lang=e (erişim tarihi: 30 Temmuz 2019).
5. Arctic Council Member States. (2015). https://arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us/member-states (erişim tarihi: 26 Temmuz 2019).
6. Arctic Council Working Groups. (2015). https://arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us/working-groups (erişim tarihi: 3 Ağustos 2019).
7. Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy. (1991). http://library.arcticportal.org/1542/1/artic_environment.pdf (erişim tarihi: 3 Ağustos 2019).
8. Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. (2015). https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/a-12/ (erişim tarihi: 5 Ağustos 2019).

9. Attenborough, D. (2011). Frozen Planet Belgeseli-To the Ends of the Earth, BBC ve The Open University.
10. Atvur, S. (2017). “Ekolojik Perspektifte Antarktika’da Güvenlik”. H. Gümrükçü, G. Ersoy, et al. (Ed.). Küresel Bakışla Kutup Çağı-3: Tarihi ve Hukuki Perspektif-Ekolojik Dönüşüm. Efil Yayınevi. Ankara, 89-109.
11. Başlar, K. (1998). The Concept of the Common Heritage of Mankind in International Law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. United Kingdom.
12. Berkman, P. A. (2011). “President Eisenhower, The Antarctic Treaty, and the Origin of International Spaces”. P. A. Berkman, M. A. Lang, D. W. H. Walton ve O. R. Young (Ed.). Science Diplomacy: Antarctica, Science, and the Governance of International Spaces. Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri. 17-27.
13. Berkman, P. A., Vylegzhanin, A. N. ve Young, O. (2016). “Governing the Bering Strait Region: Current Status, Emerging Issues and Future Options”. Ocean Develompent and International Law, 47 (2): 186-217.
14. Birleşmiş Milletler Deniz Hukuku Sözleşmesi – BMDHS. (1982). https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf (erişim tarihi: 26 Temmuz 2019).
15. Boyd, R., Bjerkgard, T., Nordahl, B. ve Schiellerup, H. (2016). Mineral Resources in Arctic: An Introduction. Geological Survey of Norway. Norway.
16. Bryanski, G. “Russia’s Putin says Arctic Trade Route to Rival Suez”. Reuters, 22.09.2011.
17. Bull H. (1984a). “The Emergence of a Universal International Society”. H. Bull ve A. Watson (Ed.). The Expansion of International Society. Clarendon Press, United States of America. 117-126.
18. Bull, H. (1984b). “The Revolt Against West” H. Bull ve A. Watson (Ed.). The Expansion of International Society. Clarendon Press, United States of America. 217-228.
19. Bull, H. (2002), The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. Palgrave, United States of America, 3. Baskı.
20. Bull, H. ve Watson, A. (1984). The Expansion of International Society. Clarendon Press, United States of America.
21. Buzan, B. (1993). “From International System to International Society: Structural Realim and Regime Theory Meet the English School”. International Organization. 47 (3): 327-352.
22. Buzan, B. (2001). “The English School: An Underexploited Resource in IR”. Review of International Studies. 27 (3): 471-488.
23. Buzan, B. (2015). Uluslararası İlişkilerde İngiliz Okulu. (Çev. H. Özdemir), Uluslararası İlişkiler Kütüphanesi-Röle Akademik Yayıncılık, İstanbul.
24. Byers, M. (2013). International Law and the Arctic. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.
25. CIA-Central Intelligence Agency. (2017). “The World Factbook: Antarctica”. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ay.html (erişim tarihi: 08.06.2017).
26. Coburn, S. (2017). “Eyeing 2048: Antarctic Treaty System’s Mining Ban”, Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 42(2): 1-6.
27. Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). https://www.ccamlr.org/en/organisation/about-ccamlr (erişim tarihi: 15.07.2015).
28. Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resources Activities (CRAMRA), https://www.ats.aq/documents/recatt/Att311_e.pdf, (erişim tarihi: 08.09.2015).
29. Costonguay, N. (2017). “The Efficiency of Institutions in Regards to Disputes within the Arctic: A Case Study of the Beaufort Sea and the Barents Sea Disputes”. Ecole Nationale d’Administration Publique.
30. Currie, D. E. J. (2007). “Sovereignty and Conflict in the Arctic Due to Climate Change: Climate Change and Legal Status of the Arctic Ocean” LL.B. (Hons.) LL.M., Legal Adviser Greenpeace International.
31. Cutler, A. C. (1991). “The ‘Grotian Tradition in International Relations”. Review of International Studies, 17: 41-65.
32. Devlen, B. ve Özdamar. (2010). “Uluslararası İlişkilerde İngiliz Okulu Kuramı: Kökenleri, Kavramları ve Tartışmaları”. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 7(25): 43-68.
33. Drewry, D. J. (2008). “The Antarctic Physical Environment”. G. D. Triggs (Ed.). The Antarctic Treaty Regime: Law, Environment and Resources. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, 6-27.
34. Dunne, T. (1998). Inventing International Society:A History of the English School. MacMillan Press, Great Britain.
35. European Parliament Briefing. (2017). “Arctic Continental Shelf Claims Mapping Interests in the Circumpolar North”. https://cor.europa.eu/en/engage/studies/Documents/EPRS_BRI(2017)595870_EN.pdf (erişim tarihi: 5 Ağustos 2019).
36. Hatipoğlu, E. (2014). “Uluslararası İlişkilerde İngiliz Okulu”. T. Arı (Ed.), Postmodern Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri 2: Uluslararası İlişkilerde Eleştirel Yaklaşımlar. Dora Basım Yayın Dağıtım, Bursa, 125-148.
37. Hayashi, M. (1986). “The Antarctica Question in the United Nations”. Cornell International Law Journal. 19(2): 275-290.
38. Heywood, A. (2013). Siyaset. Özipek, B. B., Şahin, B., Yıldız, et al. (çev.). Adres Yayınları, Ankara. 9. Baskı.
39. Ilulissat Declaration. (2008). https://cil.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2008-Ilulissat-Declaration.pdf (erişim tarihi: 5 Ağustos 2019).
40. International Maritime Organization. http://www.imo.org/en/About/Pages/Default.aspx (erişim tarihi: 5 Ağustos 2019).
41. İnan Şimşek, A. (2016). “Arktika Bölgesi’ndeki Deniz Yetki Alanlarındaki Çatışmalara Genel Bakış”. H. Gümrükçü, A. İnan Şimşek ve G. Ersoy (Ed.). Küresel Bakışla Kutup Çağı: Farklı Disiplinler, Çok Yönlü Perspektifler. Efil Yayınevi. Ankara, 93-118.
42. İnan Şimşek, A. (2018). “Küresel İklim Değişikliğinin Bir Sonucu Olarak Kutuplarda Yönetişim Tartışmaları”. İktisat ve Toplum Dergisi, 91: 49-55.
43. Jensen, O. (2011). “The Barents Sea: Treaty between Norway and the Russian Federation concerning Maritime Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean”. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 26(1): 151-168.
44. Joint Statement of the President of the United States of America and the President of the Russian Federation on Cooperation in the Bering Strait Region. (2011). https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/26/joint-statement-president-united-states-america-and-president-russian-fe (erişim tarihi: 3 Ağustos 2019).
45. Jones, R. E. (1981). “The English School of International Relations: A Case for Closure”. Review of International Studies, 7: 1-13.
46. Kiss, A. (1985). “The Common Heritage of Mankind: Utopia or Reality?” International Journal. 40(3.): 423-441.
47. Kolak, J. J. (2011). “Geological Context”. Bartels, L. H. ve Brenda, P. (Eds.). An Evaluation of the Science Needs to Inform Decisions on Outer Continental Shelf Energy Development in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Alaska. US. Geological Survey Circular 1370, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri. 13-40.
48. Kriz, Z. ve Chrastansky, F. (2012). “Existing Conflicts in the Arctic and the Risk of Escalation: Rhetoric and Reality”. Perspectives-The Review of International Affairs. 20(1): 111-139.
49. Kuersten, A. (2016). “The Arctic Five versus the Arctic Council”. L. Heininen, H. Exner-Pirot ve J. Plouffe (Ed.). Arctic Yearbook 2016. Northern Research Forum, İzlanda. 389-395.
50. Linklater, A. (2010). “The English School Conception of International Society: Reflections on Western and non-Western Perspectives”. Ritsumeikan Annual Review of International Studies, 9: 1-13. ISSN: 1347-8214.
51. Linklater, A. (2013). “İngiliz Okulu”. S. Burchill, A. Linklater, et al. (Ed.), Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri. M. Ağcan ve A. Aslan (Çev.), Küre Yayınları, İstanbul.
52. Maquieira, C. (1986). “Antarctica Prior to the Antarctic Treaty: A Political and Legal Perspective”. Antarctic Treaty System: An Assessment. National Academy Press, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri. 49-54.
53. National Academy of Sciences. “The International Geophysical Year.” http://www.nas.edu/history/igy/ (erişim tarihi: 18 Temmuz 2017).
54. Ocean Conservancy. (2012). Navigating the North: An Assessment of the Environmental Risks of Arctic Vessel Traffic. Amerika Birleşik Devletleri.
55. Oceans & Law of The Sea - United Nations. https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm (erişim tarihi: 6Ağustos 2019).
56. Owens, J. (2011). “The Legal Status of the Bering Strait”. China Oceans Law Review, 13(1): 85-113.
57. Palabıyık, M. S. (2015). “İngiliz Okulu”. R. Gözen (Ed.), Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri. İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul, 217-255.
58. Ronnfeldt C. F. (1999). “Beyond a Pluralist Conception of International Society?: A Case Study on the Intarnational Response to the Conflict in Bosnia – Hercegoniva”. Cooperation and Conflict, 34(2): 141-168.
59. Ross, E. (2003). “Origins of the Antarctic Treaty: 1908-1959”. University of Canterbury Review, 502: 2-11.
60. Sanır, F. (2000). Coğrafya Terimleri Sözlüğü, Gazi Kitabevi, Ankara.
61. Scientific Committee on Antarctic Researh. https://www.scar.org/ (erişim tarihi: 6 Ağustos 2019).
62. Spitsbergen Treaty. (1920). https://www.loc.gov/law/help/us-treaties/bevans/m-ust000002-0269.pdf (erişim tarihi: 5 Ağustos 2019).
63. Tepper, R. ve Haward, M. (2005). “The Development of Malaysia’s Position on Antarctica: 1982 to 2004”. Polar Record, 41 (2): 113-124
64. The Antarctic Treaty. (1959). https://www.ats.aq/e/ats.htm (erişim tarihi: 23 Temmuz 2019).
65. The Arctic Council: A Backgrounder. (2018). https://arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us (erişim tarihi: 3 Ağustos 2019).
66. “Points in the Bering Sea Case”, The Chicago Sunday Tribune, 26.03.1893. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. (1991). https://www.ats.aq/e/ep.htm (erişim tarihi: 24 Temmuz 2019).
67. Triggs, G. D. (2008). The Antarctic Treaty Regime: Law, Environment and Resources. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.
68. USGS – U.S. Geological Survey. (2008). “Circum Arctic Resource Apprasial: Estimates of Undiscovered Oil and Gas North of the Arctic Circle”. https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3049/fs2008-3049.pdf (erişim tarihi: 26 Temmuz 2019).
69. Uysal Oğuz, C. (2017). “Inuit Halkı ve İklim Değişikliği”. H. Gümrükçü, G. Ersoy, A. İnan Şimşek ve F. C. Yaşar Dinçer (Ed.). Küresel Bakışla Kutup Çağı 3: Tarihi ve Hukuki Perspektif –Ekolojik Dönüşüm. Efil Yayınevi, Ankara. 111- 131.
70. Uysal Oğuz, C. ve Ersoy, G. (2016). “Kutuplardaki İklim Değişikliğinin Bölgesel ve Küresel Etkileri”. H. Gümrükçü, A. İnan Şimşek ve G. Ersoy (Ed.). Küresel Bakışla Kutup Çağı: Farklı Disiplinler, Çok Yönlü Perspektifler. Efil Yayınevi. Ankara, 157-170.
71. Vicuna, F. O. (2008). “The Antarctic Treaty System: A Viable Alternative fort he Regulation of resource-orianted activities”. G. D. Triggs, (Ed.). The Antarctic Treaty Regime: Law, Environment and Resources. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom. 65-76.
72. Vigni, P. (2000). “The Interaction Between the Antarctic Treaty System and the Other Relevant Conventions Applicable to the Antartctic Area”, J. A. Forewein ve R. Wolfrum (Ed.), Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Kluwer Law International, Hollanda, 481-542.
73. Viotti, P. R. ve Kauppi M. V. (2012). International Relations Theory. Pearson Education, United States of America. 5. Basım.
74. Vitebski, P. (2005), “The Arctic is a Homeland”, http://www.thearctic.is/PDF/homeland.pdf (erişim tarihi: 21 Mart 2015).
75. Watson, A. (1987). “Hedley Bull, States Systems and International Societies”. Review of International Studies, 13(2): 147-153.
76. Weber, M. (2009). “Defining the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf Across the Arctic Basin: The Russian Submission, States’ Rights, Boundary Deliminat.on and Arctic Regional Cooperation”. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 24(4): 653-681.
77. Wight, M. (1992). The International Theory: Three Traditions, Holmes & Meier Publishers, United States of America.
78. Young, O. (2004). “The Structure of Arctic Cooperation: Solving Problems/Seizing Opprtunities”. The Fourth Conference of Parliamentarians of Arctic Region, Finlandiya.
79. Young, O. (2017). “Why Should We Take an Interest in What Happens in Antarctica?”. K. Dodds, A. D. Hemmings ve P. Roberts (Ed.). Handbook on the Politics of Antarctica. Edwar Elgar Publishing, United Kingdom. xiv-xvi.