Uluslararası Çevre Sözleşmelerinde Uygunluk Sistemlerine Bir Örnek Olarak Aarhus Sözleşmesi

Abstract

Çevrenin korunmasına yönelik gereksinimler arttıkça devletler, çok sayıda çok taraflı çevre sözleşmesi akdetmeye yönelmiştir. Bu artış, sözleşmelere taraf olan devletlerin yükümlülüklerini yerine getirip getirmediklerini denetleme ihtiyacını doğurmuştur. Uygunluk (compliance) sistemleri, bu çok taraflı çevre sözleşmelerinin âkit devletlerinin yükümlülüklerini yerine getirmelerini sağlamak amacına yönelik önemli bir araçtır. Çevresel Konularda Bilgiye Erişim, Karar Alma Süreçlerine Halkın Katılımı ve Yargıya Başvuru Sözleşmesi (Aarhus Sözleşmesi) de bu amacı içeren önemli sözleşmelerden biridir. Bu Sözleşme hem gerçek hem de tüzel kişilere Uygunluk Komitesi’ne başvuru imkanı tanıyarak, âkit devletlerin Sözleşme ile yüklendikleri yükümlülüklere riayet edip etmediğine ilişkin denetimi sağlar. Aarhus Sözleşmesi uygunluk sisteminin bu sıra dışı özelliği nedeniyle öğretide mahkeme benzeri yapıya dönüşebileceğine dair çeşitli görüşler ileri sürülmüştür. Çalışmada ilk olarak, uygunluğun ne olduğu, uygunluk sistemlerinin ortak özellikleri ve uygunluk sistemlerine neden ihtiyaç duyulduğu genel olarak incelenmektedir. Ardından Aarhus Sözleşmesi uygunluk sisteminin yapısı ve işlevi, onu diğer uygunluk sistemlerinden ayıran özellikleriyle irdelenmektedir. Çalışmanın son kısmında ise uygunluk sistemi içinde alınan kararların normatif gücü, bağlayıcı olup olmadığı ve uyuşmazlık çözüm yolları ile ilişkisi değerlendirilmektedir. Özellikle, Uygunluk Komitesi’nin âkit devletlerin Sözleşme ile uygun olmadığına ilişkin değerlendirmesi sonucunda aldığı kararların Taraflar Toplantısı tarafından onaylanması durumunda, bu kararların bağlayıcılığına ilişkin değerlendirme öğretideki yetkili yorum (authoritative interpretation), de facto hukuk yapım faaliyeti (de facto lawmaking) ve zımni yetki (implied powers) karineleri bakımından ele alınmıştır.

Keywords

• Çevresel Konularda Bilgiye Erişim
• Karar Alma Süreçlerine Halkın Katılımı ve Yargıya Başvuru Sözleşmesi
• Aarhus Sözleşmesi
• Uygunluk Denetimi
• Uluslararası Çevre Hukuku
• Uygunluk Komitesi

The Aarhus Convention as an Example of Compliance Mechanisms in International Environmental Agreements

Abstract

The protection of the environment has become an increasingly important problem, and because of the increasing need to solve this problem, many multilateral environmental agreements have been signed. Because of the creation of environmental agreements in response to these growing needs, it has become increasingly important to monitor states’ compliance with the commitments set out in these agreements. Compliance mechanisms play a critical function in ensuring that parties honour these commitments. Among such treaties, the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decisionmaking, and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) is particularly notable for its innovative compliance mechanism. This mechanism allows both individ uals and legal entities to report to the Compliance Committee on the noncompliance of the States Parties with their obligations. Due to this participatory and quasiadjudicial nature, some scholars argue that this mechanism approaches the character of a quasi judicial body. This study begins by analysing the concept of a compliance mechanism, its main features and the rationale behind compliance mechanisms in international environmental law. It will then analyse the institutional design and functioning of the Aarhus Convention’s Compliance Mechanism, with a particular focus on its distinctive features. Finally, the study discusses the normative effect of the Compliance Committee’s findings of noncompliance by the States Parties, especially when approved by the Meeting of the Parties, and whether these findings can become binding through mechanisms such as authoritative interpretation, de facto lawmaking and the exercise of implied powers.

Keywords

• Convention on Access to Information
• Public Participation in Decisionmaking
• and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters
• Aarhus Convention
• Compliance Mechanism
• International Environmental Law
• Compliance Committee

References

1. Aust A, Modern Treaty Law and Practice, (3rd edn, Cambridge University Pres 2013) google scholar
2. Birnie P, Boyle A and Redgwell C, International Law & The Environment, (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2009). google scholar
3. Bodansky D, ‘Legally Binding versus Non-legally Binding Instruments’ in Scott Barrett, Carlo Carraro and Jaime de Melo (eds), Towards a Workable and Effective Climate Regime (CEPR Press, 2015), ss. 155–165. google scholar
4. Bruch C and Broderick J, ‘International Law and Processes in Michael Faure (ed), Elgar Encyclopedia of Environmental Law (Edward Elgar Publishing 2023) 35-51. google scholar
5. Brunnêe J, “Reweaving the Fabric of International Law? Patterns of Consent in Environmental Framework Agreements” in Rüdiger Wolfrum, Volker Röben (eds), Developments of International Law in Treaty Making (Springer 2005) 101-127. google scholar
6. Brunnêe J, Procedure and Substance in International Environmental Law, The Pocket Books of the Hague Academy on International Law, (Brill 2020). google scholar
7. Cassese A, International Law, (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2005). google scholar
8. Dörr O and Schmalenbach K (eds), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties a Commentary, (Springer 2012). google scholar

9. Ebbesson J, Gaugitsch H, Jendroska J, Marshall F and Stec S, The Aarhus Convention: An Implementation Guide (2nd edn, UNECE 2014). google scholar
10. Erkiner H H, Devletin Haksız Fiilden Kaynaklanan Uluslararası Sorumluluğu (Oniki Levha Yayıncılık 2010). google scholar
11. Ertürk C, Uluslararası Hukukta Halkın Katılımı İlkesi ve İlkenin Ulusal Hukuka Yansıması (2018, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayınlanmamış tez). google scholar
12. Fitzmaurice M “Non-Compliance Procedures and the Law of Treaties” in Tullio Treves, Laura Pineschi, Attila Tanzi, Cesare Pitea, Chiara Ragni, Francesca Romanin Jacur (eds) Non-Compliance Procedures and Mechanisms and the Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements (T.M.C. Asser Press 2009, 453-483. google scholar
13. Fitzmaurice M, ‘International Responsibility and Liability’ in Daniel Bodansky, Jutta Brunnêe, Ellen Hey (eds), The Oxford Handbooks of International Environmental Law (Oxford University Press 2008) 1010-1035. google scholar
14. Güneş Ş, Uluslararası Hukuk Açısından Çevresel Etki Değerlendirmesi, (Siyasal Kitapevi 2007). google scholar
15. Hey E, ‘The Interaction between human rights and the environment in the European ‘Aarhus Space’’, in Anna Grear and Louise Kotzê (eds), Research Handbook on Human Rights and The Environment (Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2015) ss 353-379. google scholar
16. Hey E, ‘Compliance Procedure: Aarhus Convention’ in Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law (Oxford University Press, 2021). google scholar
17. Jendrośka J, ‘Practice and Relevant Cases that Emerged in the Contex of the Espoo Convention Implementation Committee’ in Tullio Treves, Laura Pineschi, Attila Tanzi, Cesare Pitea, Chiara Ragni, Francesca Romanin Jacur (eds), Non-Compliance Procedures and Mechanisms and the Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements (T.M.C. Asser Press, 2009) 319-336. google scholar
18. Karagözoğlu C, İnsan Hakları Sözleşmelerinin Ülke Dışına Uygulanabilirliği Çerçevesinde Devletin Yetkisi ve Sorumluluğu, (Onikilevha Yayınları 2023). google scholar
19. Kern S and Andrusevych A (eds), Case-law of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee 2004–2014 (3rd edn, RACSE 2016). google scholar
20. Kiss A and Shelton D, International Environmental Law (3rd edn, Transnational Publishers, 2004). google scholar
21. Klabbers J, ‘Compliance Procedures’ in Daniel Bodansky, Jutta Brunnêe, Ellen Hey (eds), The Oxford Handbooks of International Environmental Law (Oxford University Press 2008) 995-1009. google scholar
22. Koester V, ‘The Aarhus Convention Compliance Mechanism and Proceedings before its Compliance Committee’ in Charles Banner (ed) The Aarhus Convention A Guide for UK Lawyers (Hart Publishing 2015) 201-215. google scholar
23. Koester V, ‘The Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention)’ in Geir Ulfstein, Thilo Marauhn, Andreas Zimmermann (eds), Making Treaties Work Human Rights, Environment and Arms Control (Cambridge University Press, 2007) 179-217. google scholar
24. Loibl G, ‘Compliance Procedures and Mechanisms’ in Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Marcel Brus, and Panos Merkouris (eds), Research Handbook on International Environmental Law (2nd edn, Edward Elgar Publishing Cheltenham 2021) 293-320. google scholar
25. Pitea C, ‘Procedures and Mechanisms for Review of Compliance under the 1998 Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters’ in Tullio Treves, Laura Pineschi, Attila Tanzi, Cesare Pitea, Chiara Ragni, Francesca Romanin Jacur (eds), Non-Compliance Procedures and Mechanisms and the Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements (T.M.C. Asser Press 2009) 221-250. google scholar
26. Sands P, Peel J, Fabra A and McKenzie R, Principles of International Environmental Law, (Cambridge University Press 2018). google scholar
27. Savaşan Z, ‘Legitimacy Questions of Non-Compliance Procedures: Examples from the Kyoto and Montreal Protocols’ in Christina Voigt, (ed) International Judicial Practice on the Environment: Questions of Legitimacy. Studies on International Courts and Tribunals (Cambridge University Press 2019) 364-388. google scholar
28. Stec S and Lefkowitz S C, Aarhus Convention The An Implementation Guide, (United Nations Publications 2000). google scholar
29. Şimşek E G, Uluslararası Hukukta Doğal Hayatın Korunması, (Beta 2016). google scholar
30. Tanaka Y, ‘Compliance Procedures: Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs)’ in Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Proce- dural Law (online ed. Oxford University Press, 2021). < https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law-mpeipro/e1893.013.1893/ law-mpeipro-e1893> (accessed 02/10/2024). google scholar
31. Tanaka Y, The Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes (Cambridge University Press 2018). google scholar
32. Tanzi A and Pitea C, ‘Non-Compliance Mechanisms: Lessons Learnd And The Way Forward’ in . Tullio Treves, Laura Pineschi, Attila Tanzi, Cesare Pitea, Chiara Ragni, Francesca Roman in Jacur (eds), Non-Compliance Procedures and Mechanisms and the Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements (T.M.C. Asser Press 2009) 569-580. google scholar
33. Treves T, ‘The Settlement of Disputes and Non-Compliance Procedures’, in Tullio Treves, Laura Pineschi, Attila Tanzi, Cesare Pitea, Chiara Ragni, Francesca Romanin Jacur (eds), Non-Compliance Procedures and Mechanisms and the Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements (T.M.C. Asser Press 2009) 499-521. google scholar
34. Ulfstein G, ‘Dispute Resolution, compliance control and enforcement in international environmental law’in Geir Ulfstein, Thilo Marauhn, Andreas Zimmermann (eds), Making Treaties Work Human Rights, Environment and Arms Control (Cambridge University Press, 2007) 115-133. google scholar
35. Ulfstein G, ‘Reweaving the Fabric of International Law? Patterns of Consent in Environmental Framework Agreements, Comment by Geir Ulfstein' in Rüdiger Wolfrum, Volker Röben, (eds) Developments of International Law in Treaty Making, (Springer 2010) 145-155. google scholar
36. UNECE, Guide to the The Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (2nd edn 2019). google scholar
37. Adsett H, Daniel A, Husain M, and Mcdorman T L, ‘Compliance Committees and Recent Multilateral Environmental Agreements: The Canadian Experience with Their Negotiation and Operation’ (2004) 42 The Canadian Yearbook of International Law 91-142. google scholar
38. Anlar Güneş Ş , ‘İklim Değişikliği Yükümlülüklerine Uygunluğun Sağlanması: Kyoto Protokolü Uygunluk Mekanizması’ (2011) 8 (31) Uluslararası İlişkiler 69-94. google scholar
39. Boyle A, ‘Human Rights and the Environment: Where Next’ (2012) 23 (3) The European Journal of International Law 613-642. google scholar
40. Brunnêe J, ‘COPing with Consent: Law-Making Under Multilateral Environmental Agreements’ (2002) 15 Leiden Journal of International Law, 1-52. google scholar
41. Churchill R R and Ulfstein G, ‘Autonomous Institutional Arrangements in Multilateral Environmental Agreements: A Little-Noticed Phenomenon in International Law’ (2000) 94 (4) The American Journal of International Law, 623-659. google scholar
42. Dellinger M, ‘Ten Years of the Aarhus Convention: How Procedural Democracy is Paving the Way for Substantive Change in National and International Environmental Law’ (2012) 23 (2) Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy, 309-366. google scholar
43. Duvic-Paoli, Leslie-Anne ‘The Status of the Right to Public Participation in International Environmental Law: An Analysis of the Jurispru- dence’ (2012) 83 Yearbook of International Environmental Law 80-105. google scholar
44. Fasoli, E And McGlone A, ‘The Non-Compliance Mechanism Under the Aarhus Convention as ‘Soft’ Enforcement of International Environmental Law: Not So Soft After All!’ (2018) 65 Neth Int Law Rev 27–53. google scholar
45. Fitzmaurice M and Redwell C, ‘Environmental Non-Compliance Procedures and International Law’ (2000) 31 NYIL 35-65. google scholar
46. Fitzmaurice M, ‘Environmental Compliance Control’, (2018) 8 (2) Wroclaw Review of Law 372-394. google scholar
47. Fitzmaurice M, ‘The Kyoto Protocol Compliance Regime and Treaty Law’ (2004) 8 Singapore Year Book of International Law, 23-40. google scholar
48. Güneş A, ‘Aarhus Sözleşmesi Üzerine Bir İnceleme’ (2000) 14 (1) Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 299-333. google scholar
49. Jendrośka J, ‘Aarhus Convention Compliance Committe: Origins, Status and Activities’ (2011) 8 (4) JEEPL 301-314. google scholar
50. Koskenniemi M, ‘Breach ot Treaty or Non-Copmliance? Reflections on the Enforcement of the Montreal Protocol’ (1992) 3(1) YIEL 123-162. google scholar
51. Kravchenko S, ‘The Aarhus Convention and Innovation in Compliance with Multilateral Environmental Agreements’, (2007) 18 (1) Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy, 1-50. google scholar
52. Pitea C ‘Non-Compliance Procedure of the Aarhus Convention: Between Environmental and Human Rights Control Mechanisms’, (2006) 16 The Italian Yearbook of International Law, 85-116. google scholar
53. Röben V, ‘Institutional Developments under Modern International Environmental Agreements,’ (2000) 4 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 363-443. google scholar
54. Samvel G, ‘Non-Judical, Advisory, Yet Impactful? The Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee as a Gateway to Environmental Jutice’ (2000) 9(2) Transnational Environmental Law 211-238. google scholar
55. Tanaka Y, ‘Reflections on Transboundary Air Pollution in Arctic: Limits of Shared Responsibility’ (2014) 83(3) Nordic Journal of Interna- tional Law 213-250. google scholar
56. Tanaka Y, ‘The Legal Consequences of Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law’ (2021) 68 Netherlands International Law Review 1-33. google scholar
57. Venzke I, ‘Authoritative Interpretation’ Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law, Amsterdam Law School Researh Paper No. 2018-28, 1-31. google scholar
58. Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, (Greece v. Turkey) [1978] ICJ Rep 3, google scholar
59. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment google scholar
60. of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) [2007] ICJ Rep 43. google scholar
61. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Limited, (Belgium v Spain) [1970] ICJ Rep 3. google scholar
62. Effect of awards of compensation made by the U.N. Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion of July 13th, I954: [1954] ICJ Rep 47, s. 61. google scholar
63. Factory at Chorzow, Merits, Judgment No 13,[1928] PCIJ., Series A, No. 17, p. 47. google scholar
64. Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) [1997] ICJ Rep 7. google scholar
65. Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) (Advisory Opinion) [1971] ICJ Rep 16. google scholar
66. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, [2004] (Advisory Opinion) ICJ Rep 136. google scholar
67. Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, (Advisory Opinion) [1996] ICJ Rep 66. google scholar
68. Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay) [2010] ICJ Rep 14. google scholar
69. Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal) [2012] ICJ Rep 422 para 69. google scholar
70. Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area, Advisory Opinion of 1 February 2011, ITLOS Case No. 17, ITLOS Reports 2011, p. 10. google scholar
71. Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening) [2014] ICJ Rep 226. google scholar
72. United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) Governing Council Decision (2002) UNEP/GCSS.VII/6. google scholar
73. UNEP, Comparative Analysis of Compliance Mechanisms under Selected Multilateral Environmental Agreements (UNEP, 2007). google scholar
74. UN Commission on Human Rights, Human Rights Resolution 2005/60: Human Rights and the Environment as Part of Sustainable Development, (E/CN.4/RES/2005/60, 2005). google scholar
75. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the relationship between climate change and human rights, (HRC, A/HRC/10/61, 2009). google scholar
76. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Analytical study on the relationship between human rights and the environment: report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (HRC, A/HRC/19/34, 2011). google scholar
77. UNGA, Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, (A/RES/56/83, 28 January 2002). google scholar
78. Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 1522, p. 3. google scholar
79. Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 1673, p. 57. google scholar
80. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 2303, p. 162. google scholar
81. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 2226, p. 208. google scholar
82. Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 1989, p. 309. google scholar
83. Convention on long-range transboundary air pollution, United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 1302, p. 217. google scholar
84. Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 2161, p. 447. google scholar
85. Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, A/Conf.48/14/Rev.1. google scholar
86. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I). google scholar
87. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171 and vol. 1057, p. 407. google scholar
88. American Convention on Human Rights "Pact of San José, Costa Rica", United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1144, p.123. google scholar
89. African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol.1520, p.217. google scholar
90. Aarhus Sözleşmesi Uygunluk Komitesi’ne Yapılan Bildirim, Başvuru ve Müracaatlar google scholar
91. ACCC/A/2014/1 (Belarus) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2017/11 google scholar
92. ACCC/A/2020/2 (Kazakhstan) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2021/6 google scholar
93. ACCC/C/2004/01 (Kazakhstan) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2005/2/Add.1 google scholar
94. ACCC/C/2004/03 (Ukraine) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2005/2/Add.3 google scholar
95. ACCC/C/2004/03 (Ukraine) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2005/2/Add.3 google scholar
96. ACCC/C/2004/4 (Hungary) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2005/2/Add.4 google scholar
97. ACCC/C/2004/07 (Poland) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
98. ACCC/C/2004/09 (Armenia) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
99. ACCC/C/2005/11 (Belgium) ECE/MP.PP/2008/5/Add.3 google scholar
100. ACCC/C/2005/12 (Albania) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2007/4/Add.1 google scholar
101. ACCC/C/2006/18 (Denmark) ECE/MP.PP/2008/5/Add.4, google scholar
102. ACCC/C/2007/21 (EU) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2009/2/Add.1 google scholar
103. ACCC/C/2008/32 (EU) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2011/4/Add.1 ve ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2017/7. google scholar
104. ACCC/C/2008/33 (United Kingdom) ECE/MP. PP/C.1/2010/6/Add.3 google scholar
105. ACCC/C/2009/36 (Spain) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2010/4/Add.2 google scholar
106. ACCC/C/2011/61 (United Kingdom) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2013/13 google scholar
107. ACCC/C/2012/72 (EU) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
108. ACCC/C/2012/73 (United Kingdom) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
109. ACCC/C/2012/74 (United Kingdom) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
110. ACCC/C/2012/75 (United Kingdom) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
111. ACCC/C/2013/79 (Italy) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
112. ACCC/C/2013/82 (Norway) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
113. ACCC/C/2013/93 (Norway) (ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2017/16) google scholar
114. ACCC/C/2013/97 (Austria) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
115. ACCC/C/2016/136 (United Kingdom) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
116. ACCC/C/2018/160 (Germany) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
117. ACCC/C/2019/165 (Ireland) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
118. ACCC/C/2019/166 (Portugal) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
119. ACCC/C/2019/167 (Kazakhstan) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
120. ACCC/C/2019/169 (Hungary) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
121. ACCC/C/2019/170 (Kazakhstan) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
122. ACCC/C/2019/171 (Albania) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
123. ACCC/C/2019/172 (Belgium) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
124. ACCC/C/2020/175 (Croatia) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
125. ACCC/C/2021/180 (United Kingdom) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
126. ACCC/C/2021/184 (United Kingdom and EU) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
127. ACCC/C/2021/185 (United Kingdom) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
128. ACCC/C/2021/188 (United Kingdom) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
129. ACCC/C/2021/190 (United Kingdom) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
130. ACCC/C/2022/193 (Ireland) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
131. ACCC/M/2014/1 (The Former Yugoslav Republic) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2017/8 google scholar
132. ACCC/M/2017/2 (Turkmenistan) ECE/MP.PP/2021/58 google scholar
133. ACCC/M/2017/3 (EU) ECE/MP.PP/2021/51 google scholar
134. ACCC/M/2021/4 (EU) https://unece.org/env/pp/cc/accc.m.2021.4_european-union (Accessed 24.09.2024). google scholar
135. ACCC/M/2021/5 (Moldovia) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2022/11 google scholar
136. ACCC/S/2004/1 (Ukraine) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2005/2/Add.3 google scholar
137. ACCC/S/2015/2 (Belarus) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2021/13 google scholar
138. Komite tarafından kabul edilemez bulunan bildirimlere şu adresten ulaşılabilir https://unece.org/env/pp/cc/communications-from- the-public (Accessed 24.09.2024). google scholar
139. International Environmental Agreements Database Project, https://www.iea.ulaval.ca/en/agreements (Accessed 24.09.2024). google scholar
140. Institut de droit international, Resolution: Obligation Erga Omnes in International Law, Krakow Session 2005 https://www.idiiil.org/ app/uploads/2017/06/2005\_kra\_01\_en.pdf. google scholar
141. UNEP “Guidelines on Compliance with and Enforcement of Multilateral Environmental Agreements” 2002 https://wedocs.unep.org/ bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/31773/English.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (Accessed: 26.09.2024). google scholar