EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FREEDOM OF THE HIGH SEAS, NATIONALITY OF SHIPS AND FLAG STATE’S EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION, IN THE LIGHT OF CUSTOMARY LAW,CONVENTIONS AND THE COURT RULINGS

Yıl 2014, Cilt: 18 Sayı: 1, 179 - 208, 01.01.2014

Sinan Misili

Öz

Nowaday, substantial part of the the world trade materialized by seaway. Current importance of seas makes even more important the high seas which constitute the biggest part of it. The high seas form a legal regime by customary law and conventions.Nationality of ships and fl ag state’s exclusive jurisdiction principles are also among this legal regime. The legal regime of high seas actually based on the freedom of the high seas principle. The period from coming out of these principles to present day has been firstly within the customary law and later in the conventions.These principles are now part of the international sea law by important international and national court rulings. The joint outcome of customary law, conventions and court rulings form our view as: So to say, there is a cause and effect relationship between the principles of freedom of the high seas, nationality of the ships and fl ag state’s exclusive jurisdiction

Anahtar Kelimeler

High Seas, Freedom of the High Seas, Nationality of the Ships, Flag State, Exclusive Jurisdiction

AÇIK DENİZLERİN SERBESTLİĞİ , GEMİLERİN UYRUKLUĞU VE BAYRAK DEVLETİ MÜNHASIR YARGI YETKİSİ ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN TEAMÜL HUKUKU, KONVANSİYONLAR VE MAHKEME KARARLARI IŞIĞINDA İNCELENMESİ

Öz

Günümüzde dünya ticaretinin önemli bir kısmı deniz yoluyla gerçekleşmektedir. Denizlerin var olan önemi onun en büyük alanını oluşturan açık denizleri daha da önemli hale getirmektedir. Açık denizler, hem teamül hukuku ve hem de konvansiyonlar ile hukuki bir rejim teşkil etmektedir. Bu hukuki rejim içinde gemilerin uyrukluğu ve bayrak devleti münhasır yargı yetkisi ilkeleri de yer almaktadır. Açık denizlerin hukuki rejimi ise esasen açık denizlerin serbestliği ilkesine dayanmaktadır. Bu ilkelerin ortaya çıkmasından günümüze kadar olan süreçleri ise önce teamül hukukunda sonra konvansiyonlarda yer almaları ile olmuştur. Bu ilkeler uluslararası ve ulusal önemli mahkeme kararları ile de uluslarararası deniz hukukunun ayrılmaz birer parçaları olmuşlardır. Temaül hukuku, konvansiyonlar ve mahkeme kararlarının ortak sonucu şu görüşümüzü ortaya çıkarmıştır: Açık denizlerin serbestliği ilkesi, gemilerin uyrukluğu ve bayrak devletinin münhasır yargı yetkisi arasında adeta bir neden sonuç ilişkisi vardır

Anahtar Kelimeler

Açık Deniz, Açık Denizlerin Serbestliği, Gemilerin Uyrukluğu, Bayrak Devleti, Münhasır Yargı Yetkisi.

Kaynakça

• ANDERSON III.,H.Edwin,The Nationality of Ships and Flags of Convenience: Economics, Politics, and Alternatives, Tulane Maritime Law Journal, Vol.21,s.139,1996-1997,s.139-170.
• BENNETT,Allyson, That Sinking Feeling, Stateless Ships,Universal Jurisdiction, and the Drug Trafficking Vessel Interdiction Act, The Yale Journal of International Law,Vol.37,s.433-461.
• BROWN, E.D.,The International Law of The Sea Vol.1 Introductory Manual,Darmouth 1994.
• CHURCHILL,R.R./LOWE,A.V.,The Law of The Sea, Juris Publishing, 1999.
• COLES,Richard /WATT Edward,Ship Registration Law and Practice,2nd. Edt., Informa, London 2009.
• DeSOMBRE,Elizabeth R.,Flagging Standards Globalization and Environmental,Safety, and Labor Regulations at Sea, 2006.
• GOLDREIN QC,Iain/HANNAFORD,Matt/TURNER,Paul, Ship Sale and Purchase,4th. edt.,Informa Law 2003.
• GOODMAN,Camille, The Regime For Flag State Responsibility in Internatioanl Fisheries Law- Effective Fact, Creative Fıction,Or Further Work Required, Vol.23, A&NZ Mar.Lj 2009,s.157-169.
• GUILFOYLE,Douglas,Shipping Interdiction and the Law of the Sea,Cambridge University Press,2011.
• KURAN,Selami, Uluslararası Deniz Hukuku,2.bası,Ocak 2008.
• MANDARAKA-SHEPPARD,Aleka,Modern Maritime Law and Risk Management, 2nd edt.,2007.
• MATLIN,David F.,Re-evaluating the Status of Flags of Convenience under Internatioanl Law, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law,Vol.23,1990- 1991,s.1017-1055.
• McCONNELL,Moira L.,’Darkening Confusion Mounted Upon Darkening Confusion’:The Search fort he Elusive Genuine Link, Journal of Maritime Lae and Commerce,Vol 16,No.3,July,1985,s.365-396.
• McCORQUODALE,Robert/DIXON,Martin, Cases and Materials on International Law,4th edt.,Oxford University Press,2003.
• ODEKE,Adumuni,Bareboat Charter(Ship)Registration,Kluwer Law International,1998.
• OECD Study on Flags of Convenience, Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, Vol.4,No.2,s.231-254.
• OPPENHEIM,L. ,International Law A Treatise,Vol.1 Peace,3rd. Edt. edited by Ronald F. Roxburgh, The Lawbook Exchange Ltd.,Clark New Jersey 2005.
• ÖZÇAYIR,Oya, Port State Control,2nd. edt,LLP,2004.
• ROTHWELL,Donald R./STEPHENS,Tim,The International Law of the Sea,2011
• SERDY,Andrew ,Public International Law Aspects of Shipping Regulation, Maritime Law,2nd. Editor: Yvonne Baatz, Sweet&Maxwell, 2011,s.343- 384.
• SINGH,Nagendra, International Law Problems of Merchant Shipping, Collected Course of The Hague Academy of Internatioanl Law,Vol.107,Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1962.
• SOHN,Louis B./NOYES,John E.,Cases and Materials on the Law of the Sea,2004.
• TACHE,Simon,The Nationality of Ships: The Definitional Controversy and Enforcement of Genuine Link, Vol.16, International Lawyer,1982,s.301-312.
• TANAKA,Yoshifumi, The International Law of The Sea,Cambridge University Press,2012.
• http://www.icj-cij.org/pcij/serie_A/A_10/35_Lotus_Opinion_Moore.pdf (erişim 14.11.2013).
• http://www.imo.org/KnowledgeCentre/ReferencesAndArchives/Pages/ TheOriginsOfIMO.aspx (erişim 29.11.2013).
• Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S.571 (1953),U.S. Supreme Court,25. Mayıs 1953, s.584, https://www.casetext.com/case/lauritzen-v-larsen/ (erişim 18.11.2013).
• Liechtenstein v. Guetemala, Reports of Judgements Advisory Opinions and Orders, Second Phase,April 6th 1955, International Court of Justice, karar için bkz. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/18/2674.pdf (erişim 29.11.2013).
• Maul v. United States,U.S. Supreme Court, 274 U.S. 501(1927), http://caselaw. lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court =us& vol=274&invol=501 (erişim 18.11.2013).
• Muscat Dhows Case France v. Britain,Permanent Court of Arbitration,8 Ağustos 1905, karar için bkz. http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/ index.php?id=6128 ve http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/Docs/PCA/ Muscat%20Dhows%20English%20Award%20PCA.pdf 18.11.2013). (erişim
• Naim Molvan v. Attorney General for Palestine 1948 A.C. 351, http://www. legalcrystal.com/judgements/description/945795 , (erişim 18.11.2013).
• Reports of Judgements,Advisory Opinions and Orders, Constitution of The Maritime Safety Committee of The Inter-Governmental Maritime Consulatative Organization, Advisory Opinion of 8 June 1960, International Court Of Justice, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/ files/43/2419.pdf (erişim 18.11.2013).
• Saint Vincent and The Grenadines v. Guinea, The M/V Saiga No.2 Case,1 Temmuz 1999 International Tribune For The Law of The Sea, http:// www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_2/merits/ Judgment.01.07.99.E.pdf (erişim 29.11.2013).
• The Case of the S.S. Lotus, France v. Turkey,7 September 1927, Series A.- No.10,Permanent Court of International Justice http://www.icj-cij.org/ pcij/serie_A/A_10/30_Lotus_Arret.pdf (erişim 19.11.2013).
• United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/ uncls/uncls.html (erişim 28.11.2013).
• United States v. Marino-Garcia,679 F.2d. 1373, 1985 A.M.C. 1815(11th. Cir. 1982) https://www.casetext.com/case/us-v-marino-garcia/ (erişim 18.11.2013).
• 1958 Geneva Convention on the Law of the Sea, http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/ gclos/gclos.html (erişim 28.11.2013).