TANAP Antlaşmalarının Uluslararası Hukuk ve Kamulaştırma Hukuku Açısından Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Türkiye ile Azerbaycan arasında, Şahdeniz 2 sahasından çıkartılan doğalgazınTürkiy etoprakları üzerinden Avrupa’ya nakledilmesi amacıyla gerçekleştirilen Trans Anadolu Doğal Gaz Boru Hattı Projesi (TANAP), dünyanın gündeminde olan bir projedir. TANAP’ın hukuksal detayları, iki devlet arasında imzalanan Hükûmetlerarası Antlaşma (HA) ve Türkiye ile TANAP Proje Şirketi arasında imzalanan Ev Sahibi Hükûmet Antlaşması’nda (ESHA) yer almaktadır. Adı geçen antlaşmalara bakıldığında HA’nın daha çok çerçeve antlaşm aniteliğinde olduğu, bunakarşın ESHA’nın ise daha detaylı hükümle riçeren bir özel huku ksözleşmesi olduğu görülmektedir. İki taraflı bir yatırım antlaşması niteliğinde olan TANAP Antlaşmaları, daha çok yatırımcının, yani Azerbaycan’ın haklarını korur nitelikte hükümler içermektedir. Zira, gerek tarafların projedeki payları, gerekse kaynak ülkenin Azeri toprakları olduğu düşünüldüğünde bu durumun da doğal ve hukuki olduğu kabul edilmelidir. 

Keywords

• TANAP,hükûmetlerarası antlaşma,ev sahibi hükûmet antlaşması,enerji hukuku,uluslararası antlaşmalar,uluslararası hukuk

Evaluation of Tanap Agreements in Terms of International Law and Expropriation Law

Abstract

Trans Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline Project (TANAP) is a project, between Azerbaijan and Turkey, on the World’s front burner realized in order to transport the natural gas produced from the Şahdeniz 2 field to Europe through Turkish territory. Legal details of TANAP are included in the Intergovernmental Agreement (IA) between two states and in the Hosting Government Agreement (HGA) signed between Turkey and TANAP Project Company. Having looked at the aforesaid agreements, IA is mainly considered as an outline agreement, on the other hand, HGA is considered as a private law contract including more detailed provisions. TANAP Agreements, having the characteristics of a bilateral investment agreement, include provisions mostly protecting the interests of the investor, namely Azerbaijan. Considering either participating interests of parties in the project, or that the source country is Azeri land, it should be admitted that the situation is natural and legal. 

Keywords

• TANAP,intergovernmental agreement,host government agreement,energy law,international agreements,international law

References

1. ADC v. Hungary, ICSID ARB/03/16, 02.10.2006. Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States.United Nations General Assembly’s decision No. 3281 (XXIX).
2. Cohen, Ariel (2014). ‘’Caspian Gas, TANAP and TAP in Europe’s Energy Security’’. IAI: 1-17.
3. Çal, Sedat (2007). ‘’Kamu Hizmeti: Bir Tanım Denemesi’’. Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi XI (1-2): 599-655.
4. Çal, Sedat (2008). ‘’Bakü-Tiflis-Ceyhan Boru Hattı Projesi Kapsamındaki Anlaşmaların Hukuki Yönden Değerlendirilmesi’’. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi 63 (4): 89-134.
5. Heiskanen, Veijo (2003). ‘’The Contribution of the Iran –United States Claims Tribunal to The Development of The Doctrine of Indirect Expropriation’’. International Law Forum 5 (3): 176-187.
6. Hekimoğlu, Mehmet Merdan (2012). ‘’Bakü-Tiflis-Ceyhan Boru Hattı Projesi’nin Hukuki Boyutları’’. Bilig Türk Dünyası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 63: 77-92.
7. Hildyard, Nicholas ve Greg Muttıtt (2004). “Turbo-Charging Investor Sovereignity: Investment Agreements and Corporate Colonialism”. Destroy And Profit: 43-63.
8. Hoffmann, Anne K. (2008). ‘’Indirect Expropriation’’ in Standarts of Investment Protection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

9. IEA Reports (2014). ‘’Energy Supply Security- Emergency response systems of individual IEA countries’’.
10. Isakoff, Peter D. (2013). ‘’Defining the Scope of Indirect Expropriation for International Investments’’. Cleveland State University The Global Business Law Review Law Journals: 189-209.
11. Kaya, İslam Safa (2015). ‘’Preventing Transboundary Harm Arising from Hazardous Activities in International Law: Example of Transportation by Transit Pipelines’’. Legal Journal Of Law 13 (148): 61-77.
12. Knaupp, Benjamin D. (1998). ‘’Classifying International Agreements Under U.S. Law: The Beijing Platform as a Case Study”. Brigham Young University Law Review. 1998/01/01. Marvin Feldman v. Mexico, Case No. ARB(AF)/99/1, 16.12.2002.
13. Muratoğlu, Reha Aykul (2002). “Trilateral Agreements: Bakü-Tiflis-Ceyhan Pipeline Case Study”. Conference on Natural Gas Transit and Storage in South East Europe. İstanbul.
14. Poirier, Johanne (2001). The Functions of Intergovernmental Agreements: Post-Devolution Concordats in a Comparative Perspective. The Constitution Unit School of Public Policy UCL, London.
15. PSEG Global, Inc. The North American Coal Corporation and Konya Ingin Elektrik Üretim ve Ticaret Limited Şirketi v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/5.
16. Radu, Anca (2008). ‘’Foreign Investors in the EU—Which ‘Best Treatment’? Interactions Between Bilateral Investment Treaties and EU Law’’. European Law Journal 14 (2): 237-260.
17. Reinisch, August (2008). Legality of Expropriation, Standarts of Investment Protection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18. Remer, Terre-Eve Lawson (2005). “A Role for the IFC in Integrating Environmental & Human Rights Standards into Core Project Covenants: Case Study of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Oil Pipeline Project”. Houser Global Law School Program, NYU School of Law. 1-41.
19. Rudolf, Dolzer ve Christoph Schreuer (2008). Principles of International Investment Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20. Schreuer, Christoph (2005). The Concept of Expropriation under the ETC and other Investment Protection Treaties. http://www.univie.ac.at/intlaw/pdf/csunpublpaper_3.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 10.08.2016).
21. Siemens A.G. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, http://www.italaw.com/cases/1026#sthash.RCGiaLka.dpuf (Erişim Tarihi: 19.11.2015).
22. Sornarajah, Muthucumaraswamy (2004). The International Law on Foreign Investment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Tecmed v. Mexico Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2, 29.05.2003.
24. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Taking of Property, UNCTAD Series on issues in international investment agreements, 2000.
25. United Nations General Assembly’s Decision About that Permanent Sovereignty Over Natural Resources, No. 1803, dated 1962.
26. Volterra, Robert (2003). ‘’Mitigating Expropriation Risk for Oil&Gas Investment in the Caspian Region’’. A Presentation to IEA Roundtable on Caspian Oil&Gas Scenarios, April 15.
27. The Official Gazette of the Turkish Republic dated 13.08.1989 and numbered 20251.
28. The Official Gazette of the Turkish Republic dated 17.01.2013 and numbered 28531.
29. The Official Gazette of the Turkish Republic dated 01.10.2014 and numbered 29136.
30. The Official Gazette of the Turkish Republic dated 21.10.2014 and numbered 29152.
31. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, International Investment Agreements: Key Issues, Vol. 1, 2004.
32. http://www.eud.org.tr/TR/Genel/BelgeGoster.aspx?F6E10F8892433CFFA79D6F5E6C1B43FFF78DC9BBD0367EBD , (Erişim Tarihi: 28.07.2016).
33. http://www.tanap.com/tanap-projesi/tanap-nedir/ , (Erişim Tarihi: 26.04.2016).
34. http://www.tanap.com/haber/enerjinin-ipek-yolu-strongtanapstrong-icin-imzalar-atildi/ , (26.04.2016).
35. http://www.mfa.gov.tr/data/Kutuphane/Yayinlar/enerjisucevre102014.pdf , (Erişim Tarihi: 28.07.2016).