Uluslararası Çevre Sözleşmelerinde Uygunluk Sistemlerine Bir Örnek Olarak Aarhus Sözleşmesi

Year 2025, Volume: 45 Issue: 1, 109 - 140, 12.08.2025

Ceren Ertürk Özdemir

https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2025.45.1.1570347

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

• Aust A, Modern Treaty Law and Practice, (3rd edn, Cambridge University Pres 2013) google scholar
• Birnie P, Boyle A and Redgwell C, International Law & The Environment, (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2009). google scholar
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Brunnêe J, Procedure and Substance in International Environmental Law, The Pocket Books of the Hague Academy on International Law, (Brill 2020). google scholar
• Cassese A, International Law, (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2005). google scholar
• Dörr O and Schmalenbach K (eds), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties a Commentary, (Springer 2012). google scholar
• Ebbesson J, Gaugitsch H, Jendroska J, Marshall F and Stec S, The Aarhus Convention: An Implementation Guide (2nd edn, UNECE 2014). google scholar
• Erkiner H H, Devletin Haksız Fiilden Kaynaklanan Uluslararası Sorumluluğu (Oniki Levha Yayıncılık 2010). google scholar
• Ertürk C, Uluslararası Hukukta Halkın Katılımı İlkesi ve İlkenin Ulusal Hukuka Yansıması (2018, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayınlanmamış tez). google scholar
• 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
• 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
• Güneş Ş, Uluslararası Hukuk Açısından Çevresel Etki Değerlendirmesi, (Siyasal Kitapevi 2007). google scholar
• 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
• Hey E, ‘Compliance Procedure: Aarhus Convention’ in Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law (Oxford University Press, 2021). google scholar
• 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
• Karagözoğlu C, İnsan Hakları Sözleşmelerinin Ülke Dışına Uygulanabilirliği Çerçevesinde Devletin Yetkisi ve Sorumluluğu, (Onikilevha Yayınları 2023). google scholar
• Kern S and Andrusevych A (eds), Case-law of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee 2004–2014 (3rd edn, RACSE 2016). google scholar
• Kiss A and Shelton D, International Environmental Law (3rd edn, Transnational Publishers, 2004). google scholar
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Sands P, Peel J, Fabra A and McKenzie R, Principles of International Environmental Law, (Cambridge University Press 2018). google scholar
• 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
• Stec S and Lefkowitz S C, Aarhus Convention The An Implementation Guide, (United Nations Publications 2000). google scholar
• Şimşek E G, Uluslararası Hukukta Doğal Hayatın Korunması, (Beta 2016). google scholar
• 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
• Tanaka Y, The Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes (Cambridge University Press 2018). google scholar
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• UNECE, Guide to the The Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (2nd edn 2019). google scholar
• 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
• Anlar Güneş Ş , ‘İklim Değişikliği Yükümlülüklerine Uygunluğun Sağlanması: Kyoto Protokolü Uygunluk Mekanizması’ (2011) 8 (31) Uluslararası İlişkiler 69-94. google scholar
• Boyle A, ‘Human Rights and the Environment: Where Next’ (2012) 23 (3) The European Journal of International Law 613-642. google scholar
• Brunnêe J, ‘COPing with Consent: Law-Making Under Multilateral Environmental Agreements’ (2002) 15 Leiden Journal of International Law, 1-52. google scholar
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Fitzmaurice M and Redwell C, ‘Environmental Non-Compliance Procedures and International Law’ (2000) 31 NYIL 35-65. google scholar
• Fitzmaurice M, ‘Environmental Compliance Control’, (2018) 8 (2) Wroclaw Review of Law 372-394. google scholar
• Fitzmaurice M, ‘The Kyoto Protocol Compliance Regime and Treaty Law’ (2004) 8 Singapore Year Book of International Law, 23-40. google scholar
• Güneş A, ‘Aarhus Sözleşmesi Üzerine Bir İnceleme’ (2000) 14 (1) Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 299-333. google scholar
• Jendrośka J, ‘Aarhus Convention Compliance Committe: Origins, Status and Activities’ (2011) 8 (4) JEEPL 301-314. google scholar
• Koskenniemi M, ‘Breach ot Treaty or Non-Copmliance? Reflections on the Enforcement of the Montreal Protocol’ (1992) 3(1) YIEL 123-162. google scholar
• 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
• 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
• Röben V, ‘Institutional Developments under Modern International Environmental Agreements,’ (2000) 4 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 363-443. google scholar
• 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
• 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
• Tanaka Y, ‘The Legal Consequences of Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law’ (2021) 68 Netherlands International Law Review 1-33. google scholar
• Venzke I, ‘Authoritative Interpretation’ Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law, Amsterdam Law School Researh Paper No. 2018-28, 1-31. google scholar
• Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, (Greece v. Turkey) [1978] ICJ Rep 3, google scholar
• Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment google scholar
• of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) [2007] ICJ Rep 43. google scholar
• Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Limited, (Belgium v Spain) [1970] ICJ Rep 3. google scholar
• 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
• Factory at Chorzow, Merits, Judgment No 13,[1928] PCIJ., Series A, No. 17, p. 47. google scholar
• Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) [1997] ICJ Rep 7. google scholar
• 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
• Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, [2004] (Advisory Opinion) ICJ Rep 136. google scholar
• Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, (Advisory Opinion) [1996] ICJ Rep 66. google scholar
• Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay) [2010] ICJ Rep 14. google scholar
• Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal) [2012] ICJ Rep 422 para 69. google scholar
• 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
• Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening) [2014] ICJ Rep 226. google scholar
• United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) Governing Council Decision (2002) UNEP/GCSS.VII/6. google scholar
• UNEP, Comparative Analysis of Compliance Mechanisms under Selected Multilateral Environmental Agreements (UNEP, 2007). google scholar
• 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
• 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
• 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
• UNGA, Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, (A/RES/56/83, 28 January 2002). google scholar
• Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 1522, p. 3. google scholar
• Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 1673, p. 57. google scholar
• Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 2303, p. 162. google scholar
• Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 2226, p. 208. google scholar
• Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 1989, p. 309. google scholar
• Convention on long-range transboundary air pollution, United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 1302, p. 217. google scholar
• 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
• Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, A/Conf.48/14/Rev.1. google scholar
• Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I). google scholar
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171 and vol. 1057, p. 407. google scholar
• American Convention on Human Rights "Pact of San José, Costa Rica", United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1144, p.123. google scholar
• African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol.1520, p.217. google scholar
• Aarhus Sözleşmesi Uygunluk Komitesi’ne Yapılan Bildirim, Başvuru ve Müracaatlar google scholar
• ACCC/A/2014/1 (Belarus) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2017/11 google scholar
• ACCC/A/2020/2 (Kazakhstan) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2021/6 google scholar
• ACCC/C/2004/01 (Kazakhstan) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2005/2/Add.1 google scholar
• ACCC/C/2004/03 (Ukraine) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2005/2/Add.3 google scholar
• ACCC/C/2004/03 (Ukraine) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2005/2/Add.3 google scholar
• ACCC/C/2004/4 (Hungary) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2005/2/Add.4 google scholar
• ACCC/C/2004/07 (Poland) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
• ACCC/C/2004/09 (Armenia) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
• ACCC/C/2005/11 (Belgium) ECE/MP.PP/2008/5/Add.3 google scholar
• ACCC/C/2005/12 (Albania) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2007/4/Add.1 google scholar
• ACCC/C/2006/18 (Denmark) ECE/MP.PP/2008/5/Add.4, google scholar
• ACCC/C/2007/21 (EU) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2009/2/Add.1 google scholar
• ACCC/C/2008/32 (EU) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2011/4/Add.1 ve ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2017/7. google scholar
• ACCC/C/2008/33 (United Kingdom) ECE/MP. PP/C.1/2010/6/Add.3 google scholar
• ACCC/C/2009/36 (Spain) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2010/4/Add.2 google scholar
• ACCC/C/2011/61 (United Kingdom) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2013/13 google scholar
• ACCC/C/2012/72 (EU) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
• ACCC/C/2012/73 (United Kingdom) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
• ACCC/C/2012/74 (United Kingdom) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
• ACCC/C/2012/75 (United Kingdom) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
• ACCC/C/2013/79 (Italy) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
• ACCC/C/2013/82 (Norway) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
• ACCC/C/2013/93 (Norway) (ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2017/16) google scholar
• ACCC/C/2013/97 (Austria) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
• ACCC/C/2016/136 (United Kingdom) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
• ACCC/C/2018/160 (Germany) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
• ACCC/C/2019/165 (Ireland) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
• ACCC/C/2019/166 (Portugal) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
• ACCC/C/2019/167 (Kazakhstan) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
• ACCC/C/2019/169 (Hungary) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
• ACCC/C/2019/170 (Kazakhstan) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
• ACCC/C/2019/171 (Albania) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
• ACCC/C/2019/172 (Belgium) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
• ACCC/C/2020/175 (Croatia) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
• ACCC/C/2021/180 (United Kingdom) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
• ACCC/C/2021/184 (United Kingdom and EU) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
• ACCC/C/2021/185 (United Kingdom) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
• ACCC/C/2021/188 (United Kingdom) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
• ACCC/C/2021/190 (United Kingdom) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
• ACCC/C/2022/193 (Ireland) (Kabul Edilemez) google scholar
• ACCC/M/2014/1 (The Former Yugoslav Republic) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2017/8 google scholar
• ACCC/M/2017/2 (Turkmenistan) ECE/MP.PP/2021/58 google scholar
• ACCC/M/2017/3 (EU) ECE/MP.PP/2021/51 google scholar
• ACCC/M/2021/4 (EU) https://unece.org/env/pp/cc/accc.m.2021.4_european-union (Accessed 24.09.2024). google scholar
• ACCC/M/2021/5 (Moldovia) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2022/11 google scholar
• ACCC/S/2004/1 (Ukraine) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2005/2/Add.3 google scholar
• ACCC/S/2015/2 (Belarus) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2021/13 google scholar
• 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
• International Environmental Agreements Database Project, https://www.iea.ulaval.ca/en/agreements (Accessed 24.09.2024). google scholar
• 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
• 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