Çevresel Değerler Ve Jus Cogens İlişkisi Üzerine Değerlendirme

Öz

Çevrenin korunması ihtiyacı ve uluslararası toplumun tamamını etkileyen çevresel bozulmanın insanlığın geleceğini tehdit ettiği yıllardır kabul edilen bir gerçekliktir. Küresel iklim değişikliği, biyolojik çeşitliliğin kaybı, doğal kaynakların sömürülmesi, küresel ortak alanlara verilen çevresel zararlar uluslararası toplumun tamamını tehdit etmektedir. Ancak uluslararası hukuk kişilerini bu tahribattan alıkoyup çevresel değerleri tam manasıyla koruyan bağlayıcı uluslararası hukuk kurallar ise yok denecek kadar azdır. Çevrenin etkili ve sürüdürülebilir bir şekilde korunmasının en etkili yollarından bir tanesi de uluslararası bağlayıcı ve uygulanabilir çevresel normlar oluşturmaktır. Bu bağlamda, uluslararası toplumun hayati çıkarlarını tehdit eden çevresel tahribatın geri dönüşü olmayan zararları barındırdığı düşünüldüğünde jus cogens normlar kapsamına çevrenin korunmasına yönelik değerlerin de dahil edilmesi gerekliliği tartışması hiç olmadığı kadar acil bir konuyu oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmanın amacı, çevrenin korunmasının jus cogens norm olarak değerlendirilmesinin zamanının gelip gelmediği sorunsalını gündeme getirmektir. Mevcut çalışmada uluslararası hukuk kuralları ışığında çevresel değerlerin jus cogens norm olarak tanınmasının mümkün olup olmadığı ele alınmaktadır. Bu değerlendirme yapılırken jus cogens normun sahip olması gereken özellikleri çevresel değerlerin korunması ilkelerinin taşıyıp taşımadığı uluslararası hukuk ilkeleri incelenerek tespit edilmeye çalışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Jus Cogens
• Çevresel Değerler
• Çevrenin Korunması
• Uluslararası Toplumun Ortak Menfaati
• Uluslararası Hukukun Emredici Kuralları

EVALUTION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES AND JUS COGENS

Öz

It has been an accepted reality for years that the need to protect the environment and the consequences of environmental degradation affecting the entire international community, threatens the future of humanity. Global climate change, loss of biodiversity, exploitation of natural resources, and environmental damage to global commons threaten the entire international community. However, binding international legal rules that would prevent international law entities from this destruction and fully protect environmental values are almost non-existent. One of the most effective ways to protect the environment effectively and sustainably is to establish internationally binding and applicable environmental norms. In this context, considering that environmental destruction, which threatens the vital interests of the international community, involves irreversible damage, the discussion on the necessity of including values for environmental protection within the scope of jus cogens norms is more urgent than ever. The aim of the study is to raise the question of whether it is time to consider environmental protection as a jus cogens norm. The current study examines whether it is possible to recognize environmental values as jus cogens norms in the light of international law rules. While making this assessment, an attempt was made determine whether the principles of protection of environmental values bear the features that the jus cogens norm should have by examining the principles of international law.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Jus Cogens
• Environmental Values
• Common Interest of the International Community
• Peremptory Rules of International Community
• Protection of the Environment

Kaynakça

1. Abi-Saab, Geoges: “The Concept of ‘International Crimes’ and Its Placein Contemporary International Law”, Weiler, Joseph H. H./Cassese, Antonio/Spinedi, Marina (eds.), International Crimes of State: A Critical Analysis of the ILC’s Draft Article 19 on State Responsibility, Walter de Gruyter, 1989.
2. Afacan, Ayşe Nur: Uluslararası Hukukun Emredici Normları, Oniki Levha Yayıncılık, İstanbul 2023.
3. Aksar, Yusuf: Teoride ve Uygulamada Uluslararası Hukuk-I, 6. Baskı, Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara 2021.
4. Alexidze, Levan: “Legal Nature of Jus Cogens in Contemporary International Law”, Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, Cilt 172, 1981, s. 219-270.
5. Ata Dağıstanlı, Esra: Uluslararası Hukukta Çevresel Zararlardan Dolayı Devletin Sorumluluğu, Adalet Yayınevi, Ankara 2024.
6. Başkaracaoğlu, Elif: Uluslararası Hukukta “Jus Cogens” (Emredici Kurallar), Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul 2011.
7. Başlar, Kemal: “Uluslararası Hukukta ‘Erga Omnes’ Kavramı”, Milletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Hukuk Özel Hukuk Bülteni, Prof. Dr. Ergin Nomer’e Armağan, Cilt 22, Sayı 2, 2002, s. 75-108.
8. Berat, Lynn: “Defending the Right to a Healthy Environment: Toward a Crime of Geocide in International Law”, Boston University International Law Journal, Cilt 11, 1993, s. 327-348.

9. Bergeron, N. Gagnon: “Breaking the Cycle of Deferment: Jus Cogens in the Practice of International Law”, Utrecht Law Review, Cilt 15, Sayı 1, 2019, s. 50-64.
10. Beyerlin, Ulrich: “State Community Interests and Institution- Building in International Environmental Law”, ZaoERV, Cilt 56, 1996, s. 602-627.
11. Birnie, Patricia/Boyle, Alan/Redgwell, Catharine: International Law and The Environment, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2009.
12. Borgese, Elizabeth Mann: The Oceanic Circle: Governing the Seas as a Global Resource, United Nations University Press, New York, 1998.
13. Bothe, Michael: “Criminal Responsibility for Environmental Damage in Times of Armed Conflict”, International Law Studies Series US Naval War College, Cilt 69, 1996, s. 473-478.
14. Brunnee, Jutta: “Common Interest” - Echoes from an Empty Shell? Some Thoughts on Common Interest and International Environmental Law”, Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, Cilt 49, 1989, s. 791-808.
15. Byers, Michael: “Conseptualising the Relationship between Jus Cogens and Erga Omnes”, Nordic Journal of International Law, Cilt 66, 1997, s. 211-239.
16. Cambage, K. Singleton: “International Legal Sources and Global Environmental Crises: The Inadequacy of Principles, Treaties, and Custom”, ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law, Cilt 2, 1995, s. 171-187.
17. Charney, Jonathon I.: “Third State Remedies for Environmental Damage to the Worlds’s Common Spaces”, Francioni, Francesco/Scovazzi, Tullio (eds.), Internation Responsibility for Environmental Harm, Graham/Trotman, 1991.
18. Chavarro, Murillo Jimena: “Common Concern of Humankind and Its Implications in International Environmental Law”, Macquarie Journal of International and Comparative Environmental Law, Cilt 5, Sayı 2, 2008, s. 133-147.
19. Costelloe, Daniel: Legal Consequences of Peremptory Norms in International Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2017.
20. Criddle, Evan J./Decent, Evan Fox: “A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens”, Yale Journal of International Law, Cilt 34, Sayı 2, Summer 2009, s. 331-388.
21. Cullet, Philippe: “Definition of an Environmental Right in a Human Rights Context”, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Cilt 13, Sayı 1, 1995, s. 25-40.
22. Çelik, Edip: Milletlerarası Hukuk 1. Kitap, Filiz Kitabevi, İstanbul 1984.
23. Danilenko, Gennady M.: “International Jus Cogens: Issues of Law Making”, European Journal of International Law, Cilt 2, Sayı 1, 1991, s. 42-65.
24. Denk, Erdem: “Uluslararası Andlaşmalar Hukukunda Jus Cogens Kurallar”, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, Cilt: 56, Sayı 2, 2001, s. 43-70.
25. Desgagne, Richard: “Integrating Environmental Values into the European Convention on Human Rights”, American Journal of International Law, Cilt 89, Sayı 2, 1995, s. 263-294.
26. Dubois, Dan: “The Authority of Peremptory Norms in International Law: State Consent or Natural Law?”, Nordic Journal of International Law, Cilt 78, Sayı 2, 2009, s. 133-176.
27. Ertuğrul, Ümmühan Elçin: Uluslararası Hukukun Emredici Normlarından Doğan Yükümlülüklerin Ciddi İhlallerinden Devletin Sorumluluğu, Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara 2021.
28. Fitzmaurice, Malgosia: “State Responsibility and Liability”, Sobenes, Edgardo/Mead, Sarah/Samson, Benjamin (eds.), The Environment Through the Lens of International Courts and Tribunals, Asser Press, The Hague 2022.
29. Forrest, Martin Francisco: “Delineating a Hierarchical Outline of International Law Sources and Norms”, Saskatchewan Law Review, Cilt 65, 2002, s. 333-368.
30. Gangl, Walter T.: “The Jus Cogens Dimensions of Nuclear Technology,” Cornell International Law Journal, Cilt 13, Sayı 1, Article 3, 1980, s. 63-87.
31. Gormley, Paul: “The Right to Life and the Rule of Non-Derogability: Peremptory Norms of Jus Cogens”, Ramcharan, Bertrand (ed.): The Right to Life in International Law, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht 1985, s. 120-159.
32. Gülgeç, Yahya Berkol: “The Problem of Jus Cogens from a Theorical Perspective”, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 66, Sayı 1, 2017, s. 73-116.
33. Gündüz, Aslan: Milletlerarası Hukuk, 7. Baskı, Beta Yayınevi, İstanbul 2014.
34. Hannikainen, Lauri: Peremptory Norms (Jus Cogens) in International Law: Historical Development, Criteria, Present Status, Helsinki: Finnish Lawyers Publishing, Helsinki 1988.
35. Hey, Ellen: “The Interaction between Human Rights and the Environment in the European ‘Aarhus Space,’”, Grear, Anna/Kotzé, Louis, (eds.), Research Handbook on Human Rights and the Environment, Edward Elgar, 2015.
36. Higgings, Rosalyn: “Derogations Under Human Rights Treaties”, British Yearbook of International Law, Cilt 48, 1976, s. 281-319.
37. Horn, Laura: “The Implications of the Concept of a Common Concern of Human Kind on a Human Right to a Healthy Environment,” Macquarie Journal of International and Comparative Environmental Law, Cilt 1, 2004, s. 233-268.
38. Hossain, Kamrul : “The concept of jus cogens and the obligation under the U.N. Charter”, Santa Clara Journal of International Law, Cilt 3, Sayı 1, 2005, s. 72-98.
39. Janis, Mark Weston: “The Nature of Jus Cogens”, Connecticut Journal of International Law, Cilt 3, 1988, s. 359-363.
40. Kadelbach, Stefan: “Jus Cogens, Obligations Erga Omnes and other Rules - The Identification of Fundamental Rules”, Tomuschat, Christian/Thouvenin, Jean-Marc (ed.), The Funamental Rules of the International Legal Order: Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden 2006.
41. Karvatska, Svitlana:”Jus Cogens: Problem of the Role in Treaty Interpretation”, Indonesian Law Journal, Cilt 9, Sayı 2, 2021, s. 305-318.
42. Kiss, A.: “The Protection of Environmental Interests of the World Community Through International Environmental Law”, Wolfrum, Rüdiger (ed.), Enforcing Environmental Standarts: Economic Mechanisims As Viable Means?, Springer, Berlin 1996.
43. Kiss, Alexandre: “The Common Concern of Mankind”, Environmental Policy and Law”, Cilt: 27, Sayı: 4, 1997.
44. Kolb, Robert: Peremptory International Law – Jus Cogens A General Inventory, Hart Publishing, Oxford 2015. (Peremptory International Law)
45. Kolb, Robert: “Short Reflection on the ICJ’s Whaling Case and the Review by International Courts and Tribunals of “Discretionary Powers”, Australian Year Book of International Law, Cilt 32, 2014, s. 135-144. (Whaling Case)
46. Kotzé, Louis J.: In Search of a Right to a Healthy Environment in International Law Jus Cogens Norms, Knox, John H./Pejan, Ramin (eds.), The Human Right to a Healty Environment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2018.
47. Linderfalk, Ulf: “The Effect of Jus Cogens Norms: Whoever Opened Pandora’s Box, Did You Ever Think About the Consequences?”, European Journal of International Law, Cilt 18, Sayı 5, 2017, s. 853-872. (The Effect of Jus Cogens Norms)
48. Linderfalk, Ulf: Understanding Jus Cogens in International Law and International Legal Discourse, Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton 2020. (Understanding Jus Cogens)
49. Macdonald, R. St. J.: “Fundamental Norms in Contemporary International Law” Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international, Cilt 25, 1988, s. 115-149.
50. Mangır, Demet Şefika: Uluslararası Toplumun Anayasası Jus Cogens, Nobel Yayıncılık, Ankara 2015.
51. May, James R./Daly, Erin: Global Environmental Constitutionalism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2015.
52. Mayer, Benoit: The International Law on Climate Changes, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2018.
53. Murphy, Sean D.: “Peremptory Norms of General International Law (Jus Cogens) and Other Topics : The Seventy First Sessions of the International Law Commission”, American Journal of International Law, Cilt 114, Sayı 1, 2020, s. 68-86.
54. Ohlin, Jens David: “In Praise of Jus Cogens’ Conceptual Incoherence”, McGill Law Journal, Cilt 63, Sayı 4, June 2018, s. 701-726.
55. Orakhelashvili, Alexander: Peremptory Norms in International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2008.
56. Oral, Nilüfer: “Environmental Protection as a Peremptory Norm of General International Law Is It Time?”, Tladi, Dire (ed.), Peremptory Norms of General International Law (Jus Cogens), Brill Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston 2021, s. 575-599.
57. Orellana, Marcos A.: “Criminal Punishment for Environmental Damage: Individual and State Responsibility at a Crossroad”, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, Cilt 17, Sayı 4, 2005, s. 673-696.
58. Oxman, Bernard H.: “The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: The Eighth Session (1979)”, American Journal of International Law, Cilt: 74, Sayı. 1, 1980, s. 1-47.
59. Parker, Karen/Neylon, Lyn Beth: “Jus Cogens: Compelling the Law of Human Rights”, Hastings International & Comparative Law Review, Cilt 12, 1988-1989, s. 411-463.
60. Pazarcı, Hüseyin: “Uluslararası Hukukta Jus Cogens Kavramı”, Prof. Dr. Bülent Nuri Esen’e Armağan, Ankara 1977, s. 365-379.
61. Pellet, Alain: “Can a State Commit a Crime- Definitely, Yes”, ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law, Cilt 4, Sayı 2, Spring 1998, s. 315-322.
62. Petrič, Ernest: “Principles of the Charter of the United Nations: jus cogens?”, Czech Yearbook of Public and Private International Law, Cilt 7, 2016, s. 3-17.
63. Schwarzenberger, Georg: “International Jus Cogens?”, Texas Law Review, Cilt 43, 1964-1965, s. 455-478. (International Jus Cogens)
64. Schwarzenberger, Georg: “The Problem of International Public Policy”, Current Lewgal Problems, Cilt 18, Sayı 1, 1965, s. 191-214. (International Public Policy)
65. Shabtai, Rosenne: “State Responsibility and International Crimes: Further Reflections on Article 19 of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility”, New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, Cilt 30, Sayı 1-2, 1997, s. 145-166.
66. Shaw, Malcolm: International Law, 8th Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2017.
67. Shelton, Dinah: “International Law and Relative Normativity”, Malcolm Evans (ed.), International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2003 (Relative Normativity)
68. Shelton, Dinah: “Common Concern of Humanity”, Iustum Aequum Salutare, Cilt: 5, Sayı: 1,2009, s. 33-40. (Common Concern)
69. Shelton, Dinah: Jus Cogens, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2021 (Jus Cogens)
70. Singh, Nagendra: “Right to Environment and Sustainable Development as a Principle of International Law”, Studia Diplomatica, Cilt 41, Sayı 1, 1988, s. 45-61.
71. Spinedi, Marina: “International Crimes of State- The Legislative History”, Weiler, J. H. H. Weiler/Cassese, Antonio/Spinedi, Marina (eds.): International Crimes of State- A Critical Analysis of the ILC’S Draft Article 19 on State Responsibility, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin and New York 1989
72. Teles, Patricia Galvao: “Peremptory Norms of General International Law (Jus Cogens) and the Fundamental Values of the International Community”, Tladi, Dire (ed.), Peremptory Norms of General International Law (Jus Cogens), Brill Nijhoff, Leiden & Boston 2021.
73. Thirlway, Hugh: “The Sources of International Law”, Macolm Evans (ed.), International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2003.
74. Tomuschat, Christian: “Obligations Arising for States without or against Their Will”, Recueil des Cours, Cilt 241, 1993, s. 195-374. (Obligations for States)
75. Tomuschat, Christian: “The Security Council and Jus Cogens”, E. Cannizzaro (ed.), The Present and Future of Jus Cogens, Sapienza Università Editrice, Rome 2015. (Jus Cogens)
76. Topal, Ahmet Hamdi: “Silahlı Çatışmalarda Doğal Çevrenin Korunması”, Milletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni, Yıl: 29, Sayı 1-2, 2009, s. 211-236.
77. Tunkin, G. I.: “Jus cogens in Contemporary International Law”, The University of Toledo Law Review, Cilt 1971, Sayı 1-2, 1971, s. 107-118.
78. Turner, Stephen J.: Global Environmental Right, Routledge, Abingdon 2014.
79. Uhlmann, Kornicker: “State Community Interests, Jus Cogens and Protection of the Global Environment: Developing Criteria for Peremptory Norms”, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, Cilt 11, Sayı 1, 1998, s. 101-135.
80. Verdross, Alfred: “Forbidden Treaties in International Law”, American Journal of International Law, Cilt 31, Sayı 4, 1937, s. 571-577. (Forbidden Treaties in International Law)
81. Verdross, Alfred: “Jus Dispositivum and Jus Cogens in International Law”, The American Journal of International Law, Cilt 60, Sayı 1, 1966, s. 55-63. (Jus Dispositivum and Jus Cogens)
82. Weatherall, Thomas: Jus Cogens International Law and Social Contract, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2015.
83. Wet, Erika De: “Sources and the Hierarchy of International Law: The Place of Peremptory Norms and Article 103 of the UN Charter within the Sources of International Law”, Besson, Samantha/D’Aspremont, Jean (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Sources of International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2017.
84. Whiteman, Marjorie M.: “Jus Cogens in International law, with a Project List”, Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, Cilt 7, 1977, s. 609-628.
85. Wyatt, Julian: “Law Making at the Intersection of International Environmental, Humanitarian and Criminal Law: the Issue of Damage to the Environment in International Armed Conflict”, International Review of the Red Cross, Cilt 92, Sayı 879, 2010, s. 593-646.
86. Zierler, David: Invention of Ecocide: Agent Orange, Vietnam, and the Scientists Who Changed the Way We Think About the Environment, University of Georgia Press, 2011.
87. Uluslararası Yargı Kararları
88. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Provisional Measures, Order of 23 January 2020, I.C.J. Reports 2020, para. 40, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/178/178-20200123-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 10.04.2025) Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project (HungarylSlovakia), Judgment, 1. C. J. Reports 1997, p. 41, para.53, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/92/092-19970925-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 20.03.2025)
89. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 81st Sess, Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Victims of the Tugboat ‘13 de Marzo’ v Cuba, Rep No 47/96, OR OEAlSer.UV/ II.95/Doc.7, rev (1997), para. 79, https://www.refworld.org/jurisprudence/caselaw/iachr/ 1996/en/17078 (Erişim Tarihi: 28.01.2025)
90. ITLOS, Responsibilities and obligations of States with respect to activities in the Area, Advisory Opinion, 1 February 2011, ITLOS Reports 2011, p. 10, para. 180, https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_17/17_adv_op_010211_en.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 20.03.2025)
91. Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012, p. 422, at p. 457, para. 99, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/144/144-20120720-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 17.04.2025)
92. Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012, Separate Opinion of Judge Cancado Trindade, para. 182, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/144/144-20120720-JUD-01-04-EN.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 04.05.2025)
93. “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala, Judgment of 24 November 2009, Inter- American Court of Human Rights, Series C, No. 211, at p. 41, para. 140, https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_211_ing.pdf (Erişim Traihi: 17.04.2025)
94. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1. C.J. Reports 1996, p. 257, para. 79, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/95/095-19960708-ADV-01-00-EN.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 17.04.2025)
95. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986, p 14, para 269. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/70/070-19860627-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 28.01.2025)
96. Michael Domingues v. United States (Case 12.285, Merits, Judgment of 22 October 2002, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report No. 62/02, para. 49, https://www.cidh.org/annualrep/2002eng/usa.12285.htm (Erişim Tarihi: 17.04.2025)
97. Prosecutor v. Delalic, et al., Case No. IT-96-21-T, Judgment of 16 November 1998, Trial Chamber, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, at para. 454, https://www.icty.org/x/cases/mucic/tjug/en/ (Erişim Tarihi: 17.04.2025)
98. Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija (Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Judgment of 10 December 1998, Trial Chamber, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Judicial Reports 1998, vol. 1, p. p. 569, para. 153, https://www.refworld.org/jurisprudence/caselaw/icty/1998/en/20418 (Erişim Tarihi: 17.04.2025)
99. Prosecutor v. Jelisic Case No. IT-95-10-T, Judgment of 14 December 1999, Trial Chamber, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Judicial Reports 1999, pp. 431-433, para. 60, https://www.icty.org/x/cases/jelisic/tjug/en/ (Erişim Tarihi: 17.04.2025)
100. R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate and others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte [1999] 2 All ER 97 (HL) at 179, https://www.uniset.ca/other/cs5/2000AC147.html (06.02.2025)
101. Trail smelter case (United States, Canada), Report of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. III, 1941, p. 1905, https://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_iii/1905-1982.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 20.03.2025)
102. Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2014, p. 226, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/148/148-20140331-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 23.04.2025)