Karadeniz, Azak Denizi ve Kerç Boğazı’ndaki Kıyı Devletlerinin Haklarına İlişkin Uyuşmazlık (Ukrayna v. Rusya Federasyonu) Kapsamında Rusya’nın Egemenlik Haklarına Yönelik İlk İtirazının İncelenmesi

Öz

2016’da Ukrayna, Rusya Federasyonu’na (Rusya) karşı 1982 tarihli Birleşmiş Milletler Deniz Hukuku Sözleşmesi (BMDHS) Ek VII uyarınca Karadeniz, Azak Denizi ve Kerç Boğazı’ndaki kıyı devleti haklarına ilişkin tahkim yargılaması başlatmıştır. Rusya, Hakem Mahkemesi’nin yetkisine itiraz etmiş ve öncelikli olarak karara bağlanmasını talep etmiştir. Rusya, Ukrayna’nın taleplerinin egemenlik iddialarına yönelik olduğunu ve Hakem Mahkemesi’nin yetkisi olmadığını ileri sürmüştür. Hakem Mahkemesi inceleme sonucunda Rusya’nın bu itirazını kabul ederken, diğer bazı iddialarını reddetmiş, bazılarını ise esasa girmeden karara bağlayamayacağını belirtmiştir. Bu çalışmada, uyuşmazlığın özetine yer verildikten sonra Hakem Mahkemesi’nin kabul ettiği itiraz ele alınmıştır. Çalışmanın sonucunda, Hakem Mahkemesi’nin Chagos MPA kararından etkilendiği ancak Ukrayna’nın hangi taleplerinin egemenlik sorunuyla ilgili olduğunu belirlemediği için yetki konusunda açık kapı bırakıldığı ve taleplerin egemenlikle ilgisi olmadığına karar verilmesiyle yetki alanının genişletilebileceği sonucuna varılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Birleşmiş Milletler Deniz Hukuku Sözleşmesi
• Karma Uyuşmazlık
• Egemenlik
• Yetki İtirazı
• Kırım

Analysis of Russia’s Preliminary Objections Regarding Sovereignty Rights Within the Scope of Dispute Concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, And Kerch Strait (Ukraine v. The Russian Federation)

Öz

In 2016, Ukraine initiated an arbitration proceeding against the Russian Federation (Russia) regarding the coastal state rights in the Black Sea, Azov Sea and Kerch Strait in accordance with Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) dated 1982. Russia objected to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal and demanded that the objection is resolved preliminarily. Russia has argued that Ukraine’s claims are based on claims of sovereignty over which the Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction. As a result of its review, the Arbitral Tribunal accepted Russia’s objection regarding sovereignty issues, rejected some of its other objections, and stated that it could not decide without entering into the merits of some other objections. In this study, after the summary of the dispute, the objection accepted by the Arbitral Tribunal is discussed. As a result of the study, it was concluded that the Arbitral Tribunal followed the Chagos MPA award, but since it did not determine which claims of Ukraine were related to the sovereignty dispute, the door was left open on the issue of jurisdiction; hence the jurisdiction could be expanded by considering the claims as not related to the sovereignty dispute.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
• Mixed Dispute
• Sovereignty
• Objection to Jurisdiction
• Crimea

Kaynakça

1. Birleşmiş Milletler Genel Kurul Kararı, 68/262, U.N. Doc. No. A/RES/68/262 (27 Mart 2014).
2. Rusya ve Ukrayna Arasındaki Azak Denizi ve Kerç Boğazı’nın Kullanılmasında İşbirliği Anlaşması (Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Ukraine on Cooperation in the Use of the Sea of Azov and the Strait of Kerch), 2003, (et. 20/05/2021). Metnin resmi olmayan çevirisi için bkz. (et. 20/11/2021).
3. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982), ; Resmi olmayan Türkçe metin için bkz. Birleşmiş Milletler Deniz Hukuku Sözleşmesi (1982),
4. Akıncı, Z.: Milletlerarası Tahkim, İstanbul 2020.
5. Blackaby, N. – Partasides, C., et al: “Agreement to Arbitrate” in Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, B. 6, 2015.
6. Born, G.: International Arbitration: Law and Practice, B. 3, 2021.
7. Buga, I.: “Territorial Sovereignty Issues in Maritime Disputes: A Jurisdictional Dilemma for Law of the Sea Tribunals”, The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 2012, Vol. 27.
8. Can, H. – Tuna, E.: Milletlerarası Tahkim Hukuku, Ankara 2021.

9. Dupont, P.: "Chapter 2 Contested Sovereignty over Land Territory and Maritime Zones" in Stress Testing the Law of the Sea, Leiden 2018.
10. Hamaiunova, V.: “Legal Position of LOS Tribunal Regarding Mixed Disputes”, Technology Transfer: Innovative Solutions in Social Sciences and Humanities, 2020, No. 12.
11. Harrison, J.: “Defining Disputes and Characterizing Claims: Subject-Matter Jurisdiction in Law of the Sea Convention Litigation”, Ocean Development and International Law, 2017, Vol. 48.
12. Hill-Cawthorne, L.: “International Litigation and Disaggregation of Disputes: Ukraine/Russia as a Case Study”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 2019, Vol. 68.
13. Jia, BB.: “The Question of Jurisdiction in the 2019 Arbitration between Ukraine and Russia”, Chinese Journal of International Law, 2020, Vol. 19.
14. Malintoppi, L.: “'Inter-State Arbitration of Disputed Sovereignty and Maritime Delimitation Issues”, in Menaker, A. (ed.): International Arbitration and the Rule of Law: Contribution and Conformity, 2017, ICCA Congress Series, Vol 19.
15. Oral, N.: “Ukraine v. The Russian Federation : Navigating Conflict over Sovereignty under UNCLOS”, International Law Studies, 2021, Vol. 97.
16. Özturanlı, B.: Devletlerarası Tahkim, Ankara 2016.
17. Qu, W.: “The Issue of Jurisdiction Over Mixed Disputes in the Chagos Marine Protection Area Arbitration and Beyond”, Ocean Development and International Law, 2016, Vol.47, No. 1.
18. Schatz, VJ. - Koval, D.: “Russia’s Annexation of Crimea and the Passage of Ships through Kerch Strait: A Law of the Sea Perspective”, Ocean Development and International Law, 2019, Vol. 50.
19. Schreuer, C.: “What Is a Legal Dispute?” in Buffard, I. (ed.): International Law between Universalism and Fragmentation: Festschrift in Honour of Gerhard Hafner, 2008.
20. Shi, J.: “Maritime Delimitation in the Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice” Chinese Journal of International Law, 2010, Vol. 9.
21. Shi, X. – Chang, Y.: “Order of Provisional Measures in Ukraine versus Russia and Mixed Disputes concerning Military Activities”, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 2020, Vol. 11, I. 2.
22. Sur, M.: Uluslararası Hukukun Esasları, İstanbul 2020.
23. Talmon, S.A.G.: “The Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration: A Case Study of the Creeping Expansion of the Jurisdiction of UNCLOS Part XV Courts and Tribunals”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 2012, Vol. 65.
24. Volterra, R.G. – Mandelli, G.F. – Nistal, Á.: “Current Legal Developments Ukraine/Russian Federation”, International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 2018, Vol. 33.
25. Zou, K. – Ye Q.: “Interpretation and Application of Article 298 of the Law of the Sea Convention in Recent Annex VII Arbitrations: An Appraisal”, Ocean Development and International Law, 2017, Vol. 48(3-4).
26. Permanent Court of Arbitration: “Services”, (et. 24/05/2021).
27. Schatz V.: “The Award concerning Preliminary Objections in Ukraine v. Russia: Observations regarding the Implicated Status of Crimea and the Sea of Azov”, EJIL Blog, 20 March 2020, (et. 24/05/2021).
28. An Arbitration before an arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China (South China Sea Arbitration), PCA Case No. 2013-19.
29. Case Concerning the Detention of Three Ukrainian Naval Vessels (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, (et. 27/05/ 2021).
30. Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration before an Arbitral Tribunal Constituted under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law ofthe Sea, between the Republic of Mauritius and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Chagos MPA), PCA Case No. 2011-03.
31. Dispute Concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait (Ukraine v. the Russian Federation), PCA Case No. 2017-06, Award on Preliminary Objections, (et. 24/05/ 2021).
32. Dispute Concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait (Ukraine v. the Russian Federation), PCA Case No. 2017-06, Rules of Procedure, (et. 24/05/2021).
33. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 Temmuz 1996.
34. Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Greece v. United Kingdom), Judgment, P.C.I.J. Series A, No. 2.
35. Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment, ICJ Reports, 2007.