CONTRİBUTİON OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE TO INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND EVALUATION OF THE PULP MİLLS JUDGMENT

Abstract

The magnitude of environmental problems at the international level has brought international co-operation efforts for the protection of the environment and many regulations have been made in international law for the protection of the environment. Especially the application of the principles of environmental law by international judicial bodies in disputes based on environmental problems will contribute to the development of international environmental law. The significance of this case arises not only from the direct examination of environmental issues but also from the Court’s interpretation of specific principles of international environmental law in this judgment, such as environmental impact assesment, the precautionary principle, and sustainable development. In the decision, it is recognised as an obligation under international law for states planning projects and activities that may cause serious transboundary environmental damage or threaten shared natural resources to complete the environmental impact assessment process. Although the exact scope and content of environmental impact assessment, which has a duty of care at its root, is not clear in international law, the fact that it is clearly included in this judgement as a part of international law is important in terms of environmental disputes that may be brought before the International Court of Justice.

Keywords

• International Court of Justice
• Pulp Mills Decision
• Environmental İmpact Assesment
• Sustainable Devolopment
• Precautionary Principle

ULUSLARARASI ADALET DİVANI’NIN ULUSLARARASI ÇEVRE HUKUKUNA KATKISI VE PULP MİLLS KARARININ DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Abstract

Uluslararası düzeyde çevre sorunlarının büyüklüğü beraberinde çevrenin korunması açısından uluslararası işbirliği çabalarını getirmiş ve çevrenin korunması amacıyla uluslararası hukukta çok sayıda düzenleme yapılmıştır. Özellikle uluslararası yargı organlarının, çevre sorunlarının esas alındığı uyuşmazlıklarda çevre hukukunun ilkelerini uygulamaları uluslararası çevre hukukunun gelişimine katkı sunacaktır. Bu kapsamda Uluslararası Adalet Divanı’nda görülen, Uruguay ile Arjantin arasında sınır oluşturan Uruguay nehrini konu alan Pulp Mills davası önemlidir. Bu davanın önemi, çevre sorunlarının doğrudan incelenmesinin yanında çevresel etki değerlendirmesi, ihtiyat ilkesi, sürdürülebilir kalkınma gibi uluslararası çevre hukukunun belirli ilkelerinin Divan tarafından bu kararda yorumlanmasından kaynaklanmaktadır. Kararda, sınır aşan nitelikte ciddi düzeyde çevreye zarar verebilecek olan ya da paylaşılan doğal kaynakları tehdit eden proje ve faaliyetleri planlayan devletlerin çevresel etki değerlendirmesi sürecini tamamlamaları uluslararası hukukta bir yükümlülük olarak kabul edilmiştir. Kökeninde özen yükümlülüğü bulunan çevresel etki değerlendirmesinin uluslararası hukukta tam olarak kapsamı ve içeriği açık olmamakla birlikte uluslararası hukukun bir parçası olduğunun açıkça bu kararda yer alması Uluslararası Adalet Divanı önüne getirilebilecek çevreye ilişkin uyuşmazlıklar açısından önemlidir.

Keywords

• Uluslararası Adalet Divanı,
• Pulp Mills Kararı,
• Çevresel Etki Değerlendirmesi
• Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma
• İhtiyat İlkesi

References

1. Kitaplar ve Makaleler Abdullahzade, Cavid: “Gabcikova- Nagymaraos Davası Kararında Uluslararası Adalet Divanı’nın 1969 Tarihli Antlaşmalar Hukuku Sözleşmesi’ne İlişkin Değerlendirmesi”, Cilt: 25, Sayı: 1-2, 2005, s. 1-22.
2. Akhtarhavari, Afshin: “Power, Environmental Principles and the International Court of Justice”, Australian Year Book of International Law, Cilt: 28, 2009, s. 91-129.
3. Aksar, Yusuf: Temel Metinler ve Davalarla Uluslararası Hukuk, 1. Baskı, Seçkin Yayınları, Ankara 2017.
4. Anton, Donald K.: “Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay”, Australian International Law Journal, 2010, s. 213-223. https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUIntLawJl/2010/13.pdf. (Erişim Tarihi: 13.09.2023)
5. Anlar, Şule Anlar: “Gabcikova- Nagymoros Davası”, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 55, Sayı 2, 2006, s. 91-116.
6. Bekhoven, Jeroen Van: “Public Participation as a General Principle in International Environmental Law: Its Current Status and Real Impact”, National Taiwan University Law Review, Cilt 11, Sayı 2, 2016, s. 219-271.
7. Boyle, Birnie/Redgwell, Catherine: International Law & Environment, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2009.
8. Boyle, Alan: “Pulp Mills Case: A Commentary”, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2011, s. 1-5. https://www.biicl.org/files/5167_pulp_mills_case.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 13.09.2023).

9. Bodansky, Daniel: “International Environmental Law,” Esposito Carlos/Parlett, Kate, (ed.), Cambridge Companion to the International Court of Justice, Cambridge University Press, 2023, s. 389-410.
10. Duboiss, Sandrine Maljean/Richard, Vanessa: “The International Court of Justice’s Judgement of 20 April 2010 in the Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay) case, HAL Open Science, 2018, s. 1-11. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01416769, (Erişim Tarihi: 11.09.2023).
11. Duymaz, Seda Yurtcanlı: “Çevre Yönetimine Katılım: Sınır Aşan Çevresel Etki Değerlendirmesi- Espoo Sözleşmesi,” Orhan, Gökhan/Mazlum Cerit, Semra/Kaya, Yasemin (ed.), Uluslararası Çevre Rejimleri, Dora Yayınları, Bursa 2017, s. 477-507.
12. Fitzmaurice, Malgosia: “The International Court of Justice and International Environmental Law”, Tams, Christian J./Sloan, James (ed.) The Development of International Law by the International Court of Justice, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2013, 353-374.
13. Güneş, Şule: “Kosta Rika- Nikaragua Davası”, Savaşan, Zerrin/Ünay, Hakan (ed.), Uluslararası Çevre Hukuku ve Politikaları: Dünden Bugüne ve Geleceğe, Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara 2021, s. 713-739.
14. Güneş, Ahmet M.: Çevre Hukuku, 5. Baskı, Adalet Yayınevi, Ankara 2023.
15. Güneş, Ahmet M.: Çevre Hukukunda İhtiyat İlkesi, 1. Baskı, Bilge Yayınevi, Ankara 2012.
16. Güner, Neslihan Özkerim: İklim Değişikliği Nedeniyle Devletlerin Sorumluluğu, 1. Baskı, Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara 2018.
17. Guillermo, Juan/Coustasse, Sandoval/Samuelson, Emily Sweeney: “The ICJ’s Treatment of Technical Evidence in the Pulp Mills Case”, Goettingen Journal of International Law, Cilt 3, Sayı 1, 2011, s. 447-471. https://www.gojil.eu/issues/31/31_article_coustasse_sweeney-samuelson.pdf. (Erişim Tarihi: 02.10.2023).
18. Harrison, James: “Significant International Environmental Law Cases: 2017-18”, Journal of Environmental Law, Cilt 30, Sayı 3, 2018, s. 527-541.
19. Merkouris, Panos: “Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay): of Environmental Impact Assesments and “Phantom Experts”, The Hague Justice Portal, 2010, s. 1-11. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2378882. (Erişim Tarihi: 13.09.2023).
20. Mcintyre, Owen: “The World Court’s Ongoing Contribution to International Water Law: The Pulp Case Between Argentina and Uruguay”, Water Alternatives, Cilt 4, Sayı 2, 2011, s. 124-144. https://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/allabs/135-a4-2-2/file. (Erişim Tarihi: 18.09.2023).
21. McIntrye, Owen: “The Proceduralisation and Growing Maturity of InternationalWater Law: Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), International Court -of Justice, 20 April 2010”, Journal of Environmental Law, Cilt 22 Sayı 3, Yıl 2010, s. 475-497.
22. Kazhdan, Daniel: “Precautionary Pulp: Pulp Mills and the Evolving Dispute Between International Tribunals over the reach of the Precautionary Principle”, Ecology Law Quarterly Cilt 38, Sayı 2, 2011, s. 527-552.
23. Kayhan, Ali Kerem: Uluslararası Hukukta Atmosferin Korunması ve Devletlerin Sorumluluğu, 1. Baskı, On İki Levha Yayınları, İstanbul 2017.
24. Payne, Cymie R. , “Environmental Impact Assessment as a Duty under International Law: The International Court of Justice Judgment on Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay”, European Journal of Risk Regulation, Cilt 1, Sayı 3, 2010, s. 317-324.
25. Pazarcı, Hüseyin: Uluslararası Hukuk Dersleri 4. Kitap, 2. Bası, Turhan Kitapevi, Ankara 2006.
26. Paoli, Leslie-Anne Duvic: The Status of the Right to Public Participation in International Environmental Law: An Analysis of the Jurisprudence. Yearbook of International Environmental Law, Cilt 23, Sayı 1, 2012, s. 80-105.
27. Sands, Philippe: “International Courts and the Aplication of the Concept of “Sustainable Development”, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Cilt 3, 1999, s. 389-405. https://www.mpil.de/files/pdf2/mpunyb_ sands_3.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 13.06.2024).
28. Skalar, Meltem Sarıbeyoğlu: Uluslararası Hukuk ve Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma: Kavram, İlkeler ve Yargısal Uygulama, 1. Baskı, Beta Yayınevi, İstanbul 2015.
29. Savaşan, Zerrin: “Çevre Hukuku ve Politikaları: Uluslararası Düzlemden Küresel Düzleme”, Savaşan, Zerrin/Ünay, Hakan (ed.), Uluslararası Çevre Hukuku ve Politikaları: Dünden Bugüne ve Geleceğe, Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara 2021, s. 33-64.
30. Ütük, Utku: “Uluslararası Adalet Divanı’nda Çevre Uyuşmazlıkları”, Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler Dergisi, Cilt 32, Sayı 1, 2023, s. 21-50.
31. Vinuales, Jorge E.: “The Contribution of thr International Court of Justice to the Development of International Environmental Law: A Contemporary Assesment”, Fordham International Law Journal, Cilt 32, 2008, s. 232-258.
32. Zhu, Xiaoqin/He, Jinlong: “International Court of Justice’s Impact on International Environmental Law: Focusing on the Pulp Mills Case”, Yearbook of International Environmental Law, Cilt 23, Sayı 1, 2012, s. 106-130.
33. Uluslararası Yargı Kararları ve Diğer Kaynaklar Convention on Environmental Impact Assesment in a Transboundary Context. Espoo, Finland, 25 February 1991. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1991/02/19910225%2008-29%20PM/Ch_XXVII_04p.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 06.07.2024).
34. ICJ, Case Concerning Pulp Mills On the River Uruguay (Argentina & Uruguay), Judgment of 20 April 2010, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/135/135-20100420-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 28.10.2023).
35. ICJ, Case Concerning pulp mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, Order of July 13, 2006, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/135/135-20060713-ORD-02-00-EN.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 17.10.2023).
36. ICJ, Case concerning pulp mills on the River Uruguay, (Argentina v. Uruguay), Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, Order of January 23, 2007, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/135/135-20070123-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 22.10.2023).
37. ICJ, Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area, Costa Rica v. Nicaragua, Judgment of 16 December 2015, https://www.icj-cij.org/ sites/default/files/case-related/150/150-20151216-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf. (Erişim Tarihi: 28.10.2023).
38. ICJ, The Corfu Channel Case, Judgment of April 9 th, 1949, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/1/001-19490409-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf. (Erişim Tarihi: 24.09.2023).
39. ICJ, Case Concerning The Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Judgment of 5 February 1970, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/50/050-19700205-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 06.10.2023).
40. ICJ, Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v. France), Request For The Indication of Interim Measures of Protection, Order of 22 June 1973, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/58/058-19730622-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf. (Erişim Tarihi: 08.10.2023).
41. ICJ, Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v. France), Separete Opinion of Judge Petren, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/58/058-19741220-JUD-01-05-EN.pdf, s. 306. (Erişim Tarihi: 15.06.2024)
42. ICJ, Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v. France), Dissenting Opinion of Judge de Castro, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/58/058-19741220-JUD-01-08-EN.pdf s. 389. (Erişim Tarihi: 15.06.2024)
43. ICJ, Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with paragrafhs 63 of the Court’s Judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nucleer Tests (New Zealand v. France) Case. Order of 22 September 1995. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/97/097-19950922-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf. (Erişim Tarihi: 15.10.2023).
44. ICJ, Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with paragrafhs 63 of the Court’s Judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nucleer Tests (New Zealand v. France) Case. Order of 22 September 1995, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Koroma, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/97/097-19950922-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf. (Erişim Tarihi: 15.06.2024).
45. ICJ, Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with paragrafhs 63 of the Court’s Judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nucleer Tests (New Zealand v. France) Case. Order of 22 September 1995, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Palmer, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/97/097-19950922-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf. (Erişim Tarihi: 15.06.2024).
46. ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/95/095-19960708-ADV-01-00-EN.pdf. (Erişim Tarihi: 19.10.2023). ICJ, Case Concerning The Gabcikova & Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia) (Judgment of 25 September 1997), https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/92/092-19970925-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 28.10.2023).
47. ICJ, Case Concerning The Gabcikovo & Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia) (Judgment of 25 September 1997), Separate Opinion of Vice President Weeramentry, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/92/092-19970925-JUD-01-03-EN.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 06.07.2024).
48. ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weeremantry, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/95/095-19960708-ADV-01-12-EN.pdf. s. 454. (Erişim Tarihi: 24.10.2023).
49. ICJ, Pulp Mills Case, Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges Al-Khasawneh and Simma, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/135/135-20100420-JUD-01-01-EN.pdf. (Erişim Tarihi: 04.10.2023).
50. ICJ, Pulp Mills Case, Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Vinuesa, Para 4. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/135/135-20100420-JUD-01-08-EN.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 21.10.2023).
51. Uruguay and Argentina, Treaty concerning the boundary constituted by the River Uruguay. Signed at Montevideo, on 7 April 1961, No: 9074, https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20635/volume-635-I-9074English.pdf. (Erişim Tarihi: 28.10.2023).
52. Uruguay and Argentina, Statute of the River Uruguay. 26/02/1975 https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201295/volume-1295-I-21425-English.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 28.10.2023).
53. World Trade Organization, 3 September 1991, United States – Restrictions on Imports of Tuna, Report of the Panel, (DS21/R- 39S/155), https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/gatt_e/91tuna.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 06.07.2024).
54. World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Mechanism, DS58: United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds58_e.htm, (Erişim Tarihi: 06.07.2024).