Hakkaniyet İlkelerinin Geometrisi: Üç Aşamalı Sınırlandırma Sürecinde Uygun Esas Noktaların Rolü

Year 2024, Volume: 7 Issue: 1, 155 - 188, 31.12.2024

Murat Sumer

Abstract

BMDHS, Kıta Sahanlığı ve Münhasır Ekonomik Bölge sınırlandırması için herhangi bir belirli yöntem öngörmez veya zorunlu kılmaz. Sözleşme, nihai hedef olan hakkaniyete uygun bir sonuca ulaşılmasını sağlamakla iktifa eder. Bu nedenle, deniz sınırlandırması yöntemlerinin geliştirilmesi gibi meşakkatli bir görev uluslararası yargı organlarına bırakılmıştır. Nitekim UAD, ITLOS ve tahkim mahkemelerinin kararları, deniz sınırlarının belirlenmesinde kullanılan yöntemlerin şekillenmesinde ve açıklığa kavuşturulmasında hayati bir rol oynamıştır.
Bu bağlamda, UADnin 2009 tarihli Karadeniz kararı, iki aşamalı süreçten üç aşamalı yaklaşıma geçiş bakımından deniz sınırlandırma hukukunda önemli bir tekamüldür. Bu yaklaşım, daha fazla netlik ve istikrar sunduğu için tercih edilmiştir. Ancak, bu faydalı metodolojik yaklaşımın, 1969 tarihli Kuzey Denizi Kıta Sahanlığı davalarından bu yana hem içtihat hem de sözleşme hukuku tarafından sürekli olarak reddedilmiş olan eşit uzaklık hattını örtük şekilde zorunlu bir yöntem olarak kabul etme riskini de taşıdığı görülmektedir. Mutlak eşit uzaklık yönteminin zorunlu bir sınırlandırma hattı olarak önceliklendirilmesi ziyadesiyle sorunlu olup, 74. ve 83. maddelerin amacı ve hedefleriyle de uyumlu değildir. Aksi takdirde, UNCLOSun mevcut tutumu, eşit uzaklık yöntemine daha baskın bir rol verilerek zedelenmiş olur.
Bu çerçevede, bu makale, geçici sınırlandırma hattının oluşturulmasında ilk adım olarak en uygun esas noktaların seçilmesinin hayati önemini vurgulamaktadır. Bu tür bir seçim, katı eşit uzaklık yönteminin kullanılmasından kaynaklanabilecek hakkaniyetsiz bir sonucu önlemek bakımından önem arz etmektedir.

Keywords

Üç Aşamalı Sınırlandırma, Uygun Esas Noktalar, Geçici Sınırlandırma Hattı, Eşit Uzaklık Yöntemi, Hakkaniyet İlkeleri

Geometry of Equitable Principles: The Role of Appropriate Base Points in the Three-Stage Delimitation Process

Abstract

UNCLOS neither indicates nor necessitates any specific methodology for the delimitation of the Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone. The Convention suffices to enshrine the ultimate goal of achieving an equitable result. Thus, the tedious task of developing methodological approaches is left to the international judicial bodies. The decisions of the ICJ, ITLOS and arbitral tribunals have indeed played a crucial role in the formation and elucidation of the methods of maritime boundary delimitation law.
In this context, the 2009 Black Sea judgment marked a significant evolution in maritime boundary delimitation by extending the two-stage process to a three-stage approach. The said approach has been favoured as it offers more clarity and consistency. However, there seems to be a risk of treating this useful methodological approach for disguising the equidistance line as the mandatory methodology which has been consistently rejected by both the case and treaty law since 1969 North Sea Continental Shelf cases. The prioritization of the strict equidistance method as a mandatory delimitation line is problematic and it would not be compatible with the objective and purposes of Articles 74 and 83. Otherwise, the compromise and balance offered by UNCLOS would be undermined by giving equidistance methodology a more dominant role.
Against this backdrop, this article underscores the crucial role of the selection of the most appropriate base points as an initial step in the construction of provisional delimitation line. Such a selection is indeed instrumental in mitigating the any inequitable outcome that may result from the employment of strict equidistance method.

Keywords

Three-Stage Delimitation, Appropriate Base Points, Provisional Delimitation Line, Equidistance Method, Equitable Principles

References

• Aréchaga JD, Separate Opinion, Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1982
• Basir SM and Aziz SNA, 'Undelimited Maritime Areas: Obligations of States under Article 74(3) and 83(3) of UNCLOS' (2020) 18 Indonesian J Int'l L 63
• Churchill R and Lowe V, The Law of the Sea (3rd edn, Juris 1999)
• Collins, E and Rogoff M. “The International Law of Maritime Boundary Delimitation” 34 Maine Law Review 1
• Connell DPO, The International Law of the Sea Volume II (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1984)
• Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), Judgment, I. C.J. Reports 1985
• Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1982
• Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Atlantic Ocean (Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire), Judgment, ITLOS Reports 2017
• Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area, Judgment, 1. C.J. Reports 1984
• Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary Between Mauritius and Maldives in the Indian Ocean (Mauritius/Maldives) Judgment, 28 April 2023
• Elferink AGO, Henriksen T and Busch SV (eds), Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Case Law: Is It Consistent and Predictable? (Cambridge University Press 2018)
• Evans M, ‘Maritime Boundary Delimitation’, Donald Rothwell (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea (Oxford 2017)
• Evans M, 'Maritime Delimitation and Expanding Categories of Relevant Circumstances' (1991) 40 Int'l & Comp LQ 1
• Fietta S and Cleverly R, A Practitioner`s Guide to Maritime Boundary Delimitation (Oxford University Press 2016)
• Galea I, 'Equidistance - Special Circumstances: A Return to the Geneva Convention of 1958 or a Continuing Uncertainty?' (2018) 20 Romanian J Int'l L 10
• Galea I, 'Recent Developments in International Law on Maritime Delimitations: The Judgment of the International Court of Justice of 2 February 2018 in the Costa Rica - Nicaragua Case' (2018)
• Gorka M, 'Equitable Principles in the Delimitation of the Aegean Continental Shelf' (2022) 11 Polish Rev Int'l & Eur L 199
• Hamid AG and Sein KM, 'Refining the Maritime Boundary Delimitation Methodology: The Search for Predictability and Certainty' (2019) 27 IIUMLJ 35
• Hestermeyer HP, Wolfrum R and Cot JP, ‘The Dual Function of Base Points’, Coexistence, Cooperation and Solidarity: Liber Amicorum Rüdiger wolfrum (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2012)
• Ishii Y, ‘Relevant Coasts and Relevant Area in the Maritime Delimitation of the EEZ and Continental Shelf’ (2020) 51 Ocean Development & International Law 307
• Jayakumar S, The Regulation of Continental Shelf Development (Brill 2013)
• Jang HD, 'Diminishing Role of Islands in Maritime Boundary Delimitation: Case Studies of Dokdo/Tajeshima Island and the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands' (2013) 35 U Haw L Rev 139
• Kraska J, Maritime Power and the Law of the Sea (Oxford 2010)
• Lando M, Maritime Delimitation as a Judicial Process (1st edn, Cambridge University Press 2019)
• Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1993
• Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009
• Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2014
• Muhlendahl P M, 'Tiny Land Features in Recent Maritime Delimitation Case Law' (2016) 31 Int'l J Marine & Coastal L 1
• Nordquist MH, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff 1985)
• North Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1969
• Olorundami F, 'Objectivity versus Subjectivity in the Context of the ICJ's Three-Stage Methodology of Maritime Boundary Delimitation' (2017) 32 Int'l J Marine & Coastal L 36
• Olorundami F, 'The ICJ and Its Lip Service to the Non-Priority Status of the Equidistance Method of Delimitation' (2015) 4 Cambridge J Int'l & Comp L 53
• Papanicolopulu, I., ‘The Note on Maritime Delimitation in a Multizonal Context: The Case of the Mediterranean’, 38 Ocean Development and International Law 4
• Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration, The People’s Republic of Bangladesh and The Republic of India (The Hague, 7 July 2014)
• Proelss A, Maggio A and Tanaka Y, ‘Exclusive Economic Zone’, United Nations Convention on the law of the sea (UNCLOS): A Commentary (CH Beck 2017)
• Rothwell D and Stephens T, The International Law of the Sea (Hart 2016)
• Schaller C, ‘Hardly Predictable and yet an Equitable Solution: Delimitation by Judicial Process as an Option for Greece and Turkey in the Eastern Mediterranean’ (2022) 35 Leiden Journal of International Law 549
• Siousiouras P and Chrysochou G, 'The Aegean Dispute in the Context of Contemporary Judicial Decisions on Maritime Delimitation' (2014) 3 Laws 12
• Schofield C, 'Holding back the waves? sea level rise and maritime claims', Ruppel OC, Roschmann C and Ruppel-Schlichting K (eds), Climate Change: International Law and Global Governance: Legal Responses and Global Responsibility Vol.1 (2013) available at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2239&context=lhapapers;
• Schofield C, ‘The Trouble with Islands: The Definition and Role of Islands and Rocks in Maritime Boundary Delimitation’, Maritime Boundary Disputes, Settlement Processes, and the Law of the Sea (Martinus Nijhoff 2009)
• Sumer M, ‘Equitable Considerations in the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf’ (2023) 100 Int'l L. Stud. Ser. US Naval War Col. 752
• Stoica V, 'The Development of Maritime Delimitation by the International Court of Justice' (2018) 20 Romanian J Int'l L 114
• Tanaka Y, The International Law of the Sea (4th edn, Cambridge University Press 2023)
• Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012
• Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007
• Uykur T, 'Settlement of Maritime Delimitation Disputes within Complex Geographical Settings' (2014) 20 ILSA J Int'l & Comp L 357
• Yanai S, ‘International Law Concerning Maritime Boundary Delimitation’, Attard DJ and others (eds), The IMLI Manual on International Maritime Law - Volume I (Oxford University Press 2014)
• Young R, “The Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf: A First Impression” (1958) 52 American Journal of International Law 733
• Yuyao J, 'The Development and Legal Status of the Three-Stage Approach: Its Implications for the Sino-Japan Delimitation of the Continental Shelf in the East China Sea' 2014 China Oceans L Rev 161