Münhasır Ekonomik Bölge ve Kıta Sahanlığının Deniz Sınırlandırması Sürecinde İlgili Kıyılar ve İlgili Alan Kavramlarının Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Uluslararası Adalet Divanı ve Hakemlik Mahkemeleri tarafından deniz alanlarının sınırlandırılmasında ilgili alan ve ilgili kıyılar kavramlarının kullanımı konusunda bir belirsizlik hakimdir. Münhasır ekonomik bölgenin ve kıta sahanlığının sınırlandırılması sürecinde şeffaf, hakkaniyete uygun, öngörülebilir bir sonuca ulaşmak için ilgili alan ve ilgili kıyıların belirlenmesinde hangi kriterlere ihtiyaç duyulduğu netleştirilmelidir. Bu makale, ilgili alan ve ilgili kıyıların belirlenmesi sürecini içeren içtihatları inceleyecektir. İçtihatlardaki farklı yaklaşımlar analiz edilerek, eleştirel bir bakış açısıyla ön ve yarıçapsal iz düşüm, potansiyel hak sahiplikleri, denize doğru uzanma kavramları incelenecektir. Deniz yetki alanlarının sınırlandırılması hukuku, açık ve net bir dizi hukuk kuralından oluşmamaktadır. Bu yüzden, ilgili kıyıların ve alanın belirlenmesine yönelik yaklaşımın karar alma sürecinde aşırı bir yargısal öznelliğe yol açmaması için neler yapılabileceği bu makalede değerlendirilecektir.

Keywords

• Hakkani̇yet İlkesi̇
• Deniz Alanlarının Sınırlandırılması
• Kıta Sahanlığı
• Münhasır Ekonomik Bölge
• İlgili Kıyılar
• İlgili Alan
• Deniz Hukuku

Evaluation of the Concepts of Relevant Coasts and Relevant Area in the Process of Maritime Delimitation of Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf

Abstract

There is ambiguity over the use of the concepts of relevant area and relevant coasts in maritime delimitation by the International Court of Justice and Arbitral Tribunals. In order to achieve a transparent, equitable and predictable outcome in the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, it should be clarified which criteria are needed in order to determine the relevant area and the relevant coasts. This article will examine case law involving the process of determining the relevant area and the relevant coasts. Different approaches in the case law will be analyzed and the concepts of frontal and radial projection, potential entitlement, and seaward extension will be examined from a critical perspective. The law of maritime delimitation does not consist of a clear set of legal rules. Therefore, this article will assess what can be done to ensure that the approach to determining the relevant coasts and area does not lead to excessive judicial subjectivity in the decision-making process.

Keywords

• The Equitable Principle
• Delimitation of Maritime Areas
• Continental Shelf
• Exclusive Economic Zone
• Relevant Coasts
• Relevant Area
• Law of the Sea

References

1. Antunes, Nuno Marques. Towards the Conceptualisation of Maritime Delimitation: Legal and Technical Aspects of a Political Process. Brill, Leiden 2003.
2. Black Sea Case. “Romania, Memorial”. (9.22) https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/132/14697.pdf, E.T. 31.08.2023.
3. Black Sea Case. “Ukraine, Counter-Memorial”. (3.9) https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/132/14699.pdf, E.T. 31.08.2023.
4. British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL). “Report on the Obligation of States under Articles 74(3) and 83(3) of UNCLOS in respect of Undelimited Maritime Areas”. https://www.biicl.org/projects/obligations-of-states-under-articles-743-and-833-of-unclos-in-respect-ofundelimited-maritime-areas, E.T. 31.08.2023.
5. Carleton, Chris/Schofield, Clive. “Development in the Technical Determination of Maritime Space: Charts, Datum, Baselines and Maritime Zones”. Maritime Briefing. C. 3, S. 3, 2001, s. 1-79.
6. Charney, Jonathan. “Progress in International Maritime Boundary Delimitation Law”. American Journal of International Law. C. 88, S. 2, 1994, s. 227-256.
7. Continental Shelf (Libya v. Malta), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1985.
8. Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jarnahiriya/Malta), Application to Intervene, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984.

9. Continental Shelf (Tunisia v. Libya), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1982.
10. Convention on the Continental Shelf, adopted 29 April 1958, entered into force 10 June 1964, 499 U.N.T.S. 311.
11. Cooper, John. “Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area”. Ocean Development and International Law. C. 16, S. 1, 1986, s. 59-90.
12. Cottier, Thomas. Equitable Principles of Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Quest for Distributive Justice in International Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2015.
13. Delabie, Lucie. “The Role of Equity, Equitable Principles and the Equitable Solution in Maritime Delimitation”. Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Case Law: Is It Consistent and Predictable?. Editörler, Alex Elferink, Tore Henriksen, Signe Busch, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2018 s. 145-172.
14. Delimitation of Maritime Areas (Canada v. France), 21 RIAA 265 (1992).
15. Delimitation of The Maritime Boundary (Guinea v. Guinea-Bissau), 19 RIAA 149 (1986).
16. Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada v. the United States), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports, 1984.
17. Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary (Ghana v. Cote d’Ivoire), Judgment of 23 September 2017, ITLOS Reports 2017.
18. Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh v. Myanmar), Judgment of 14 March 2012, ITLOS Reports 2012.
19. Elferink, Alex. “Relevant Coasts and Relevant Area”. Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Case Law: Is It Consistent and Predictable?. Editörler, Alex Elferink, Tore Henriksen, Signe Busch, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2018 s. 173-199.
20. Elferink, Alex. The Law of Maritime Boundary Delimitation: A Case Study of the Russian Federation. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht 1994.
21. Ertuğrul, Ümmühan Elçin. “Birleşmı̇ ş Milletler Deniz Hukuku Sözleşmesı̇ ne Göre Kıyı Devletinin Egemen Hakları”. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi. C. 21, S. 1, 2017, s. 41-81.
22. Evans, Malcolm. “Less Than an Ocean Apart: The St Pierre and Miquelon and Jan Mayen Islands and the Delimitation of Maritime Zones”. International and Comparative Law Quarterly. C. 43, S. 3, 1994, s. 678-696.
23. Evans, Malcolm. “Relevant Circumstances”. Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Case Law: Is It Consistent and Predictable?. Editörler, Alex Elferink, Tore Henriksen, Signe Busch, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2018 s. 222-261.
24. Evans, Malcolm. Relevant Circumstances and Maritime Delimitation. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1989.
25. Feldman, Mark. “The Tunisia/Libya Continental Shelf Case: Geographic Justice or Judicial Compromise?”. American Journal of International Law. C. 77, S. 2, 1983, s. 219-238.
26. Fietta, Stephen/Cleverly, Robin. A Practitioner’s Guide to Maritime Boundary Delimitation. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2016.
27. In The Matter of An Arbitration (Guyana v. Suriname), Merit, 47 ILM 166 (2007).
28. International Court of Justice. “Costa Rica/Nicaragua, Nicaragua, Memorial”. [2.30], https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/157/157-20151208-WRI-01-00-EN.pdf, E.T. 31.08.2023.
29. International Court of Justice. “Oral Proceedings, 2017/10, 6 July 2017”. s. 25 [20], https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/157/oral-proceedings, E.T. 31.08.2023.
30. Jimenes de Arechaga, Separate Opinion, I.C.J. Reports, 1982.
31. Judge Evensen, Dissenting Opinion, I.C.J. Reports, 1982.
32. Kolb, Robert. Case Law on Equitable Maritime Delimitation: Digest and Commentaries. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden 2003.
33. Kunoy, Bjorn. “How Deep Is Your Love: Inner and Outer Continental Shelf Entitlements”. Japanese Yearbook of International Law. C. 62, S. 1, 2019, s. 335-375.
34. Kuran, Selami. Uluslararası Deniz Hukuku. 6. Bası, Beta Basım Yayın, İstanbul 2021.
35. Land and Maritime Boundary (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea Intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports, 2002.
36. Lando, Massimo. Maritime Delimitation as a Judicial Process. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2019.
37. Maritime Boundary Arbitration between Bangladesh and India, Award of 7 July 2014, PCA Case no. 2010-16.
38. Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway), Merit, I.C.J. Reports, 1993.
39. Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v Ukraine), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009.
40. Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 2018.
41. Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile), Judgement, I.C.J. Reports, 2014.
42. North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark), I.C.J. Reports, 1969.
43. Oda, Dissenting Opinion, I.C.J. Reports, 1982.
44. Olorundami, Fayokemi. “Revisiting the Libya/Malta Decision and Assessing Its Relevance (or Otherwise) to the East China Sea Dispute”. Chinese Journal of International Law. C. 15, S. 4, 2016, s. 717-740.
45. Platzöder, Renate. Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: Documents Vol. IX. Oceana Publication, New York 1982.
46. President Truman Proclamation No.2667, 28th September, 1945. Policy of the United States with Respect to the Natural Resources of the Subsoil and the Seabed of the Continental Shelf.
47. Rosenne, Shabtai/Nordquist, Myron/Grandy, Neal. United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary Vol. II. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden 1993.
48. Separate Opinion of Schwebel, I.C.J. Reports, 1984.
49. Statement by the UK, United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea; Official Records (A/CONF.13/37), Vol. VI, 93.
50. Tanaka, Yoshifumi. Predictability and Flexibility in the Law of Maritime Delimitation. Hart, London 2019.
51. Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports, 2012.
52. Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports, 2007.
53. UN. “Convention on the Continental Shelf”. https://le-gal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_continental_shelf.pdf, E.T. 26.10.2023.
54. UN. “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”. https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agrements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf, E.T. 26.10.2023.
55. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, adopted 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994, 1833 UNTS 397.
56. Weil, Prosper. The Law of Maritime Delimitation: Reflections, Grotius. Cambridge 1989.
57. Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1953, Vol. I, 216.