General Assessment of the Legal Rights of Observer States Including Türkiye in the International Seabed Authority

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 2, 467 - 522, 14.10.2022

Berilşah Kocabıyık

Öz

Possibility of engaging deep seabed mining activities in the seabed areas beyond national jurisdiction referred as the Area has been considered an emerging issue in recent years. Technological advancements and increasing mineral supplydemand, especially rare earth minerals for technological devices, and the need of several minerals for infrastructure for renewable energy platforms have attracted most of the States to conduct deep seabed mining activities in the Area. As technology advances and commercial appetite increases, the transition from exploration to exploitation may commence soon.
While this demand is growing, there are still several concerns including the protection of the deep seabed ecosystem and effective application of common heritage of mankind principle. This article starts off the role of the International Seabed Authority (the ISA) including its historical development and mandate, then examines the participation of Observer States of the ISA to meetings and of activities in the area, discusses whether sufficient transparency for meetings and decisions for the Observer States and stakeholders is provided by the ISA with a recommendation for a way forward. Finally, the article examines Türkiye’s position to activities in the Area. The main objective of this article is to answer how could the ISA act on behalf of humankind as a whole, while Non-Party States to the UNCLOS cannot vote in the ISA meetings and how could the concept of common heritage of mankind be fully implemented while they are restricted from conducting activities in the Area?

Anahtar Kelimeler

Common Heritage of Mankind, Observer State, Law of the Sea, International Seabed Authority

Türkiye Dahil Gözlemci Devletlerin Uluslararası Deniz Yatağı Otoritesindeki Hukuki Haklarının Genel Değerlendirmesi

Öz

Saha olarak adlandırılan ulusal yetki alanlarının ötesindeki deniz yatağı alanlarında derin deniz yatağı madenciliği faaliyetlerinde bulunma imkanı son yıllarda giderek önem kazanan bir konu olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Teknolojik gelişmeler ve artan mineral arz-talebi, özellikle teknolojik cihazlar için nadir toprak mineralleri ve yenilenebilir enerji platformlarının altyapısı için çeşitli minerallere duyulan ihtiyaç, Devletlerin çoğunu Sahada derin deniz dibi madenciliği faaliyetleri gerçekleştirmeye çekmiştir. Teknoloji ilerledikçe ve ticari talep arttıkça, aramadan faydalanmaya geçiş yakında başlayabilir.
Bu talep artarken, derin deniz yatağı ekosisteminin korunması ve insanlığın ortak mirası ilkesinin etkin bir şekilde uygulanması gibi bazı endişeler de devam etmektedir. Bu makale, Uluslararası Deniz Yatağı Otoritesi'nin (ISA) tarihsel gelişimi ve yetkileri de dahil olmak üzere üstlendiği rol ile başlamakta, daha sonra ISA'nın Gözlemci Devletlerinin toplantılara ve alandaki faaliyetlere katılımını incelemekte, Gözlemci Devletler ve paydaşlar için toplantılar ve kararlar için yeterli şeffaflığın ISA tarafından sağlanıp sağlanmadığını tartışmakta ve ileriye dönük bir yol haritası önermektedir. Makale son olarak, Türkiye'nin Saha'daki faaliyetlere yönelik tutumunu incelemektedir. Bu makalenin temel amacı, BMDHS'ye Taraf Olmayan Devletler ISA toplantılarında oy kullanamazken ISA'nın nasıl bir bütün olarak insanlık adına hareket edebileceğini ve Saha'da faaliyet yürütmeleri kısıtlanırken insanlığın ortak mirası kavramının nasıl tam olarak uygulanabileceğini cevaplamaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İnsanlığın Ortak Mirası, Gözlemci Devlet, Deniz Hukuku, Uluslararası Deniz Yatağı Otoritesi

Kaynakça

• United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Montego Bay, opened for signature 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994, UNTS 1994).
• Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (adopted 28 July 1994 entered into force 28 July 1996, 1836 UNTS 3).
• Convention on the High Seas (opened for signature 29 April 1958 entered into force 30 September 1962, 450 UNTS 11).
• 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (adopted 23 May 1969 entry into force 27 January 1980, 1155 UNTS 331).
• 2804 numbered Law of General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration, Official Gazette, 22/06/1935.
• Regulations on Prospecting and Exploration for Cobalt-Rich Crusts (adopted on 27 July 2012). https://www.isa.org.jm/mining-code accessed 12 October 2020.
• Regulations on Prospecting and Exploration for Polymetallic Nodules in the Area (adopted on 13 July 2000 and updated on 23 July 2013) https://www.isa.org.jm/mining-code accessed 12 October 2020.
• Regulations on Prospecting and Exploration for Polymetallic Sulphides in the Area (adopted on 7 May 2010) https://www.isa.org.jm/mining-code accessed 12 October 2020.
• Rules of Procedures of the Council of the International Seabed Authority, rule 82, <https://isa.org.jm/files/files/documents/rop_council.pdf> accessed 12 October 2020.
• The ISA, Rules of Procedures of the Legal and Technical Commission
• US Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act 30 USC §§ 1401–1473 (2002) (USA).
• Bektaş S, “Uluslararası Deniz Yatağının İşletilmesi ve Denizyatağı Uluslararası Otoritesi” (Legem Yayıncılık, 2016).
• Churchill R R and Alan Lowe V, The Law of the Sea (Manchester University Press, 2th ed, 1999) 188.
• Dingwall J, ‘Commercial Mining Activities in the Deep Seabed beyond National Jurisdiction: The International Legal Framework’ in C. Banet (ed.) the Law of the Seabed: Access, Uses, and Protection of Seabed Resources (Brill, 2020) 139.
• Egede E, Africa and the Deep Seabed Regime: Politics and International Law of the Common Heritage of Mankind’(Springer, 2011).
• Harrison J, ‘Making the Law of the Sea: A Study in the Development of International Law’ (Cambridge University Press, 2011).
• Jaeckel A. L, ‘The International Seabed Authority and the Precautionary Principle: Balancing Deep Seabed Mineral Mining and Marine Environmental Protection’ (Brill, 2017).
• Kuran S, Uluslararası Deniz Hukuku (İstanbul, Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım, 2014).
• Nordquist M.H. and others (eds), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary vol VI (Martinus Nijhoff, 1991) .
• Roach J A, ‘Marine Scientific Research in the Area’ in M. Lodge and M. H. Nordquist (eds), Peaceful Order in the World's Oceans: Essays in Honor of Satya N. Nandan (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2014).
• Topsoy F, ‘Denize İlişkin Bilimsel Araştırmalar (MSR) ve Türkiye’ (Turhan Kitabevi, 2011).
• Vizo R, ‘The General Rule of Interpretation in the International Jurisprudence Relating to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea’ in Angela Del Vecchio and Roberto Vizo (eds.) Interpretations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea by International Courts and Tribunals (Springer, 2019).
• Ardon J. A, ‘Transparency in the Operations of the International Seabed Authority: An Initial Assessment’ (2018) 95 Marine Policy 324.
• Dingwall J, ‘International Investment Protection in Deep Seabed Mining Beyond National Jurisdiction’ (2018) 19 Journal of World Investment & Trade 890.
• Elferink A.G.O, ‘The Regime of the Area: Delineating the Scope of Application of the Common Heritage Principle and Freedom of the High Seas’, (2007), 22 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 143.
• Feichtner I, ‘Sharing the Riches of the Sea: The Redistributive and Fiscal Dimension of Deep Seabed Exploitation’ (2019) 42 European Journal of International Law 601.
• Guntrip E, ‘The Common Heritage of Mankind: An Adequate Regime for Managing the Deep Seabed’, (2003) 4 Melbourne Journal of International Law 381.
• Güneş Ş. A, ‘Maden Kaynaklarının Yönetimi Bağlamında Uluslararası Deniz Yatağı Otoritesinin Rolü’ (2020) 17 Uluslararası İlişkiler 101.
• Kim R.E, ‘Should Deep Seabed Mining Be Allowed?’(2017) 82 Marine Policy 135.
• Kuran S, ‘Uluslararası Deniz Yatağının Hukuki Statüsü’ (1998) 9 Argumentum 453.
• Oxman B, The New Law of the Sea” (1983) 69 American Bar Association Journal 156.
• Pazarcı H, ‘Uluslararası Deniz Yatağı Düzeni ve Sorunları’ (1983)38 Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi 197.
• Roach, J.A, ‘Today’s Customary International Law of the Sea’ (2014) 45 Ocean Development & International Law 239.
• Scovazzi T, ‘Mining Protection of the Environment, Scientific Research and Bioprospecting: Some Considerations on the Role of the International Seabed Authority’(2004) 19 Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 383.
• Sipalla H, ‘Selected Recent Institutional and Rule Making Developments in the Law of the Sea (2015-2016)’ (2016) 2 Strathmore Law Journal 189.
• Sun L, ‘Dispute Settlement Relating to Deep Seabed Mining: A Participant’s Perspective’ (2017) 18 Melbourne Journal of International Law 71.
• Tanaka Y ‘Obligations and Liability of Sponsoring States Concerning Activities in the Area: Reflections on the ITLOS Advisory Opinion of 1 February 2011’(2013) 60 Netherlands International Law Review 205.
• Todorov A. A, ‘Future Work of the International Seabed Authority in the context of the Arctic Governance’, (2019) 34 Arktika i Sever (Arctic and North) 73.
• Tütüncü A. N, ‘Milletlerarası Hukukta Denizde Bilimsel Araştırmanın Farklı ve Çakışan Deniz Alanlarında Yönetimine Genel BirBakış’ (2019) 25 Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi 1358.
• Wolfrum R, ‘Legitimacy of International Law and the Exercise of Administrative Functions: The Example of the International Seabed Authority, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and International Fisheries Organizations’ (2008) 9 German Law Journal 2039.
• Korkut E, ‘Türkiye and The International Law of the Sea’, (DPhil thesis, Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania State University 2017).
• Responsibility and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area (Advisory Opinion of 1 February 2011) ITLOS Reports 2011, 10.
• The ISA, ISBA/25/C/WP.1 (22 March 2019).
• The ISA, 25/A/16 (25 July 2019).
• The ISA ISBA/25/A/2, (3 May 2019).
• The ISA Doc.24/A/24/2, (28 May 2018).
• The ISA ISBA/23/A/2, (5 June 2017).
• The ISA ISBA/22/A/2, (24 June 2016).