Eleştirel Uluslararası Hukuk Bağlamında Çin’in Arktik Politikalarının Analizi

Yıl 2019, , 122 - 144, 25.10.2019

Burcu Güçlü Akpınar

https://doi.org/10.25294/auiibfd.632961

Öz

Bu çalışma eleştirel
uluslararası hukuk bağlamında Çin’in Arktik bölgeye yönelik politikalarını
analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çin öncelikle Arktik bölge ülkelerinin egemen
haklarına saygı duyduğunu iddia etmekte ve bu nedenle de Birleşmiş Milletler
Deniz Hukuku Sözleşmesi (BMDHS) altında kendisine saygı duyulmasını talep
etmektedir. Çin geleneksel uluslararası hukuk kurallarının bölge için yetersiz
kaldığını ve bu durumun Arktik’te yönetimsellik açısından ciddi eksiklikler
doğurduğunu düşünmektedir. Bu bağlamda Arktik’te var olma prensibini küresel
politikalarla ilişkilendiren Çin’in aynı zamanda, bölge ülkeleriyle yaptığı
ikili anlaşmalar vasıtasıyla mevcut hukuki yapıyı dolaylı olarak etkilediği
anlaşılmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, Arktik bölgeyle ilgili olarak Çin’in savunmuş
olduğu bu yeni hukuki bağlamın yakın gelecekte mevcut uluslararası hukuk
mekanizmalarında reform yapılmasına neden olacağı düşünülmektedir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Eleştirel Uluslararası Hukuk, Arktik, Çin, BMDHS, Arktik Konseyi

Analysis of China's Arctic Policies in the Context of Critical International Law

Öz

This study aims to analyze China’s policies towards the Arctic region in
the context of critical international law. China primarily claims to respect
the sovereign rights of the countries of Arctic region and therefore it demands
to be respected own rights under the United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS). China considers that the traditional rules of international
law are inadequate for the region and this situation also causes serious
deficiencies in terms of governmentality in the Arctic. In this context, it is
understood that China, which associates the principle of it’s existence in the
Arctic with global policies, also indirectly affects the existing legal
structure by making bilateral agreements with the countries of the region. As a
result, it is thought that this new legal context that China has advocated for
the Arctic region will lead to reform of existing international legal
mechanisms in the near future.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Critical International Law, Arctic, China, UNCLOS, Arctic Council

Kaynakça

• Abbott K. W. and Snidal D. (2001)Hard and Soft Law in International Governance. Ed. Goldstein J. Kahler M. Keohane R. O. Slaughter A. M. Legalization and World Politics. Cambridge. MIT Press. ss. (37-72)
• Agamben G. (1998). Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Translated by Daniel Heller Roazen. Stanford. Stanford University Press.
• Agreements.( Jul 07, 2015)(https://arctic-council.org/index.php/en/our-work/agreements) (08.06.2019).
• Akman Ş.T. (2012). Hukuk politika ilişkisi bakımından eleştirel Hukuk Çalışmaları hareketi. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi. 61(4). ss. (1271-1306)
• Anghie A. (2014)Towards a Postcolonial International Law. Ed. Singh P. &Mayer B. Critical International Law: Postrealism, Postcolonialism, and Transnationalism. Oxford. Oxford University Press. ss. (123-142)
• Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2019, Office of the Secretary of Defence, 2019. https://media.defense.gov/2019/May/02/2002127082/-1/-1/1/2019_CHINA_MILITARY_POWER_REPORT.pdf, (20.05.2019)
• Auerswald D. (2019) China’s Multifaceted Arctic Strategy. https://warontherocks.com/2019/05/chinas-multifaceted-arctic-strategy/, (26.05.2019)
• Bai J.(2015). The IMO Polar Code: The Emerging Rules of Arctic Shipping Governance. The International Journal of Marine And Coastal Law. (30). ss. (674-699).
• Barannikova A.O, Bo D. (2015) The Development of Chinese-Russian Relations and Strengthening China’s Position in the Arctic. Asia-Pacific Journal of Marine Science & Education. 5 (2). ss. (10-20)
• Bennett M.M. (2015). How China Sees the Arctic: Reading Between Extraregional and Intraregional Narratives. Geopolitics, 20. ss. (645–668)
• Brosnan I.G, Leschine T. M, Miles E. L.(2011). Cooperation or Conflict in a Changing Arctic? Ocean Development & International Law. 42. ss. (173-210)
• China Interested in Fiber Optic Cable System that Crosses Arctic Circle (2018).Wire Journal International (January).s. (15)
• China Today. (March 1, 2018)
• China, Japan, ROK Agree to Strengthen Research Cooperation on Arctic. Xinhua.2018.06.09.http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-06/09/c_137240638.htm, (26.05.2019)
• China’s Arctic Policy. The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China. January 2018. http://english.gov.cn/archive/white_paper/2018/01/26/content_281476026660336.htm, (29.05.2019)
• China's Arctic Policy: How China Aligns Rights and Interests. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2018/620231/EPRS_BRI(2018)620231_EN.pdf, (28.05.2019)
• Dodds K. (Feb 18, 2016). What We Mean When We Talk About the Global Arctic.
• “Finland: Lavrov says Russia is 'open for broadest cooperation in the Arctic'” May 07, 2019, https://ruptly.tv/en/videos/20190507-010 , (18.05.2019)
• Foucault M. (2011). Entelektüelin Siyasi İşlevi. Çev. Ergüden I., Akınhay O., Keskin F. 3. Baskı. İstanbul. Ayrıntı Yayınları. ss. (294-299)
• Gardiner R. K. (2003). International Law. Harlow. Pearson Longman.
• Guschin A. (2015) China, Iceland and the Arctic. https://thediplomat.com/2015/05/china-iceland-and-the-arctic/, (26.05.2019)
• Hickey J. (2014). Law-making and the Law of the Sea: The BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Ed. Liivoja R. and Petman J. International Law-making: Essays in Honour of Jan Klabbers. Oxon. Routledge. ss. (271-282)
• https://www.newsdeeply.com/arctic/community/2016/02/18/what-we-mean-when-we-talk-about-the-global-arctic, (02.06.2019).
• https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf, (11.06.2019)
• Humrich C.(2013). Fragmented International Governance of Arctic Offshore Oil: Governance Challenges and Institutional Improvement. Global Environmental Politics. 13 (3), ss. (79-99)
• International Law, Economic Ideology and Seabed Resources. Nordic Journal of International Law. (65). ss. (533-555).
• Kahler. M.(2001). Legalization as Strategy: The Asia-Pasific Case. Ed. Goldstein J.L., Kahler M., Keohane R.O., Slaughter A.M. Legalization and World Politics. Cambridge. MIT Press.
• Kennedy D. (1996) International Law and Nineteenth Century: History of An Illusion. Nordic Journal of International Law. (65). ss. (385-420)
• Kınacıoğlu M. (2012). War on Terror’ and Hegemony: International Law-Making Regarding Terrorism After 9/11. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 8(32) ss. (67-83)
• Koskenniemi M. & Lehto M. (1996). The Privilege of Universality:
• Koskenniemi M. (1997) Hierarchy in International Law: A Sketch. European Journal of International Law. (8). ss. (566-582)
• Koskenniemi M. (2004a) The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870-1960. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
• Koskenniemi M. (2004b). International Law and Hegemony: A Reconfiguration. Cambridge Review of International Affairs,17(2). ss. (197-218)
• Koskenniemi M. (2005) From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument Reissue with a New Epilogue. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
• Koskenniemi M. (2016). What is Critical Research in International Law? Celebrating Structuralism. Leiden Journal of International Law. (29) ss. (727–735).
• Krasner S. D. (1999) Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton. Princeton University Press.
• Krisch N. (2005). International Law in Times of Hegemony: Unequal Power and the Shaping of the International Legal Order. The European Journal of International Law. 16(3). ss. (369-408)
• Lauterpacht H. (2011). The Function of Law in the International Community. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
• Lim K.S. (2018). China’s Arctic Policy & the Polar Silk Road Vision. Arctic Yearbook 2018. https://arcticyearbook.com/images/yearbook/2018/Scholarly_Papers/24_AY2018_Kong.pdf, (07.06.2019).
• Mastanduno M. (2001). A Realist View: Three Images of the Coming International Order. Ed. Paul T.V.& Hall J. A. International Order and the Future of World Politics. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. ss. (19-40)
• Meray S. L. (1977) Uluslararası Hukuk ve Örgütler El Kitabı. Ankara. Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi.
• Molenaars D. (Jun 05, 2019). Chinese Activity in the Arctic. https://qrius.com/chinese-activity-in-the-arctic/, (06.06.2019)
• Moore M.A. (2015) Panda in the Arctic. Canadian Sailing (Mar.2)
• Müllerson R. (2003). International Law Between Anarchy and Hegemony. ss. (221-250) Ed. Petman J.& Klabbers J. Nordic Cosmopolitanism: Essay in International law for Martti Koskenniemi. Leiden. Brill Academic Publisers.
• Nanda D. (2019). India’s Arctic Potential. Occasional Papers 186. https://www.orfonline.org/research/indias-arctic-potential-48263/, (11.06.2019)
• Pahuja S. (2012).Conserving the World’s Resources? Ed. Crawford J. and Koskenniemi M. The Cambridge Companion to International Law. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. ss. (398-420)
• Pazarcı H. (2010) Uluslararası Hukuk. 9. Baskı. Ankara. Turhan Kitabevi.
• Rainwater S. (2013). Race to the North: China's Arctic Strategy and Its Implications. Naval War College Review. 66. (2). ss. (62-82)
• Rainwater S. (2015). International Law and the “Globalization” of the Arctic: Assessing the Rights of Non-Arctic States in the High North. Emory International Law Review. Vol.30(1). ss. (115-153)
• Savin L. (2018). China and Multipolarity. https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/china-and-multipolarity, (08.06.2019)
• Schmitt C. (2012) Siyasal Kavramı. 2. Baskı. Çev. Ece Göztepe. İstanbul. Metis Yayınları.
• Schrijver N. (2016). Managing the global commons: common good or common sink? Third World Quarterly. 37(7). ss. (1252–1267)
• Sengupta S. (May 6, 2019). “United States Rattles Arctic Talks With a Sharp Warning to China and Russia”, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/climate/pompeo-arctic-china-russia.html (21.05.2019)
• Sevuntus L. (2018). Chinese Arctic Road and Belt. Chinese American Forum. Volume XXXIII No.3, Jan-March. ss. (13-17)
• Sophokles. (2018) Antigone. Çev. Ari Çokona. İstanbul. Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
• Sur M. (2010). Uluslararası Hukukun Esasları. Güncellenmiş 4. Baskı. İstanbul. Beta Yayınları.
• Takei Y. (2015). The Role of the Arctic Council from an International Law Perspective: Past, Present and Future. The Yearbook Of Polar Law, 6, (349-374)
• Trubek D.M. (2013) Law, State and the New Developmentalism: An Introduction. Ed. Trubek D. M., Garcia H. A., Coutinho D. R., Santos A. Law and New Developmental State: The Brazilian Experiance in Latin American Context. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. ss. (3-27)
• Tucker P. (May 3, 2019). Pentagon Warns Of China’s Rise in the Arctic, Missile Subs, Influence Operations. https://www.govexec.com/defense/2019/05/pentagon-warns-chinas-rise-arctic-missile-subs-influence-operations/156734/, (28. 05. 2019)
• Why China Wants to Expand Its Arctic Footprint. Dec 24, 2018. https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/why-china-wants-expand-its-arctic-footprint, (28.05.2019)
• Wodiske B. (2014). Preventing the Melting of the Arctic Council: China as a Permanent Observer and What It Means for the Council and the Environment. Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. Vol.36. ss. (305-330)
• Wu F. (2016) China’s Ascent in Global Governance and the Arctic. Вестник СПбГУ. Сер. 6. Вып. 2. ss. (118-126).
• Xie K. (2015). Some BRICS in the Arctic: Developing Powers Look North. Harvard International Review. (spring). ss. (60-63)
• Xinzhen L. ( May 30, 2019). Defending China’s Rights in the Arctic. Beijing Review.
• Young O. (2012). Arctic Politics in an Era of Global Change. The Brown Journal of World Affairs.(Fall/Winter).vol. xix, (1).ss. (165-178)
• Young O.R. (2009). The Arctic in Play: Governance in a Time of Rapid Change. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law. (24) ss. (423-442)
• Zhao L. (2016). Arctic Governance Paradigm and the Role of China. Вестник СПбГУ. Сер. 6. Вып. 2 ss. (127-138).
• Zhao L. (2018). Arctic Governance Challenges and Opportunities. https://www.cfr.org/report/arctic-governance, (31.05.2019)