ORTAK MİRAS KAVRAMI BAĞLAMINDA ANTARKTİK İŞ BİRLİĞİ

Year 2021, , 231 - 244, 20.01.2021

Elçin Doruk

https://doi.org/10.18069/firatsbed.809292

Abstract

Antarktika siyasetinin temelini oluşturan Antarktika Antlaşmalar Sistemi’nden (AAS) yola çıkan bu çalışma uluslararası Antarktik iş birliğini ortak miras kavramına referansla analiz edecektir. Sosyal bilimler alanında Türkçe literatürde sınırlı sayıda çalışmada yer alan Antarktika kıtası, özellikle uluslararası hukuk ve uluslararası ilişkiler dahilinde kapsamlı incelemeyi gerektirmektedir. Bunun sebebi uluslararası hukukta tüm insanlığa ait kabul edilen bir kıta üstündeki egemenlik iddialarının varlığı tartışmalı olmasıdır. Bu bağlamda bu çalışma ortak kaynakların kullanımına yönelik uluslararası iş birliğini ve Antarktika siyasetinin tarihsel gelişimini ele alacaktır. Analiz sürecinde ilgili antlaşmalardan ve tamamlayıcı hukuk metinlerinden yararlanılacaktır. Antarktika’nın çevresel muhafazası ve Antarktik kaynakların sürdürülebilir geleceği ulusal çıkarlardan bağımsız ve ortak miras değerlerini temel alan eşitlikçi ve kapsamlı bir uluslararası rejim çerçevesinin çizilmesine bağlıdır.

Keywords

Antarktika Antlaşmalar Sistemi, ortak miras, antarktik ilişkileri, antarktik iş birliği

Antarctic Affairs In The Context Of Common Heritage

Abstract

This study aims to analyse international Antarctic cooperation with reference to the concept of common heritage of mankind within the basis of Antarctic Treaties System (AAS), which constructs the structure of Antarctic politics. The Antarctic continent, which is included in a limited number of studies in the Turkish literature in the field of social sciences, requires a comprehensive examination, especially within international law and international relations. This is because the existence of sovereignty claims on a continent that is accepted as belonging to all humanity in international law is controversial. Within this context, the study will capitalize on relevant treaties and complementary legal documents as it evaluates international cooperation for the use of common resources and the historical development of Antarctic politics. The overall aim is to demonstrate the fact that the environmental protection of Antarctica and the sustainable future of Antarctic resources depend on the drawing of an egalitarian and comprehensive international regime framework, free from national interests and based on the values of common heritage.

Keywords

The Antarctic Treaty System, Common Heritage of Mankind, Antarctic Affairs, The Politics of Antarctica

References

• Arnold, R. P. (1975). The common heritage of mankind as a legal concept. The International Lawyer, 153–158.
• Borgese, E. N., Ginsburg, N., & Morgan, J. R. (1988). Ocean Yearbook 7. The University of Chicago Press.
• Borgese, E. M. (2000). The economics of the common heritage. Ocean & coastal management, 43(8-9), 763-779.
• Doruk, E. (2018). Ortak Miras Antarktika’nın Uluslararası Rejim Kapsamında Yönetimi, Ege Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi.
• Egede, E. (2014). Common heritage of mankind. In: Carty, Anthony (Ed). Oxford Bibliographies Online: International Law, Oxford University Press, http://orca.cf.ac.uk/62755/ Erişim Tarihi: 12.06.2020.
• Frakes, J. (2003). Common Heritage of Mankind Principle and Deep Seabed, Outer Space, and Antarctica: Will Developed and Developing Nations Reach a Compromise, The. Wis. Int’l LJ, 21, 409.
• Gorove, S. (1971a). Concept of Common Heritage of Mankind: A Political Moral Or Legal Innovation, The. San Diego L. Rev., 9, 390.
• Gorove, S. (1971b). Freedom of Exploration and Use in the Outer Space Treaty: A Textual Analysis and Interpretation. Denv. J. Int’l L. & Pol’y, 1, 93.
• Güneş, A. M. (2011). Dünya Mirası Sözleşmesi’ne Kısa Bir Bakış, İstanbul Barosu Dergisi, 6, 141.
• Joyner, C. C. (1986). Protection of the Antarctic environment: Rethinking the problems and prospects. Cornell Int’l LJ, 19, 259.
• Kiss, A. (1985). The Common Heritage of Mankind: Utopia or Reality? International Journal, 40(3), 423-441.
• Kolk, G. (2009). Common Heritage of Mankind. İçinde A Concise Encyclopedia of the United Nations (ss. 47–51). Brill.
• Larschan, B., & Brennan, B. C. (1982). Common Heritage of Mankind Principle in International Law. Colum. J. Transnat’l L., 21, 305.
• Malanczuk, Peter. (1997). Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law (7th Revised edition). Routledge.
• Nanda, V., & Pring, G. R. (2012). International environmental law and policy for the 21st century. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
• Noyes, J. E. (2011). The common heritage of mankind: Past, present, and future. Denv. J. Int’l L. & Pol’y, 40, 447.
• Pardo, A. (1977). The Emerging Law of the Sea. The Law of the Sea, New York and London: Praeger, 33–76.
• Pardo, A. (1982). Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Preliminary Appraisal, The. San Diego L. Rev., 20, 489.
• Pardo, A. (1984a). The Law of the Sea: Its Past and Its Future. Or. L. Rev., 63, 7.
• Pardo, A. (1984b). Thırd-World Lecture 1984-Ocean Space And Mankınd. Carfax Publ. Co. Po Box 25, Abıngdon, Oxfordshire.
• Rana, H. S. (1994). Common Heritage of Mankind &(and) the Final Frontier: A Revaluation of Values Constituting the International Legal Regime for Outer Space Activities, The. Rutgers Law Journal, 26, 225.
• Shackelford, S. J. (2009). The tragedy of the common heritage of mankind. Stan. Envtl. LJ, 28, 109.
• Stenson, A., ve Gray, T. (1999). The politics of genetic resource control. Springer.
• Taylor, P., ve Stroud, L. (2014). Common heritage of mankind: A bibliography of legal writing. Lulu Press, Inc.
• Taylor, P., Stroud, L., ve Peteru, C. (2013). Multilateral environmental agreement negotiator’s handbook: Pacific region 2013. Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, Apia.
• Wolfrum, Rudiger. (1983). The principle of the common heritage of mankind. Heıdleberg J. Int’ll., 43, 312.
• Wolfrum, Rüdiger. (2009). Common heritage of mankind. Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 21.
• Mahathir, M. (1982). Statement by the Prime Minister of Malaysia, at the 37th Session of the United Na- tions General Assembly in New York, 29th September 1982. Foreign Affairs Malaysia 15 (3): 173–184.
• Malaysia (1983a). Memorandum by the delegation of Malaysia on Antarctica at the 6th ASEAN Inter- parliamentary Organisation (AIPO) General Assembly, in Singapore on 28th September, 1983. Foreign Affairs Malaysia 16 (3): 332–333.
• Malaysia (1983b). Antarctica: common heritage of man- kind: Malaysian statement on Antarctica to the Non- Governmental Organisations at the United Nations delivered on November 17, 1983. Foreign Affairs Malaysia 16 (4): 437–439.
• Sulong, Z.A. (1983b). ‘Question of Antarctica’: address by permanent representative to the United Nations Tan Sri Zainal Abidin Sulong on the ‘Question of Antarctica’ on November 28th, 1983. Foreign Affairs Malaysia 16 (4):442–451.
• Razali, I. (1990). Address by Malaysia on the ‘Question of Antarctica’. United Nations General Assembly Records 45th Session A/C.1/45/PV.46, 21–35.
• Ding, L.H. (2002). Speech by Y.B. Dat’ Seri Law Hieng Ding at opening of Malaysian International Seminar on Antarctica, www.moste.gov.my/kstas/speech/ Erişim Tarihi: 24.05.2020.
• Ismail. (1993). Address by Malaysia on the ’Question of Antarctica’, 48th session of the United Nations General Assembly. United Nations General Assembly Records 48th Session A/C.1/48/SR.32, 2–3.
• Jackson, A. (2002). Malaysia attends Treaty meeting. Australian Antarctic Magazine 4,47.
• Tepper, R. ve Haward, M. (2005). The development of Malaysia’s position on Antarctica: 1982 to 2004, Polar Record 41 (217), 113–124.