Uluslararası Deniz Hukuku Çerçevesinde Sui Generis Korunan Alanlara İlişkin Hukuki Rejim

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 2, 523 - 561, 14.10.2022

Beyza Özturanlı , Mehmet Tamer Çobanoğlu Vildan Bölükbaşı , Eda Bayar Aydın

Öz

İnsanlık ve denizel kaynaklar arasındaki bağımlılığa rağmen, ekosistemlerin kaybını ve neticede iklim değişikliğini getiren, aşırı avlanma, aşırı kullanım, seyrüsefer, kara kaynaklı kirlilik gibi unsurları içeren insan faaliyetleri, denizel biyoçeşitliliğin sürdürülmesi ve deniz çevresinin korunmasına ilişkin en büyük tehdittir.
Deniz çevresinin korunabilmesi için en hayati çözümlerden biri, deniz ve okyanuslardaki insan faaliyetlerini sınırlamak için belirli alanların ihdas edilmesidir. Muhtelif korunan alanların yanısıra, deniz koruma alanları (DKA’lar), sadece ulusal yetki alanları için değil, ulusal yetkinin ötesindeki alanlar için de kullanışlı ve etkili bir alan bazlı yönetim aracı olarak görünmektedir. Günümüzde dünyada 18.448 DKA bulunmaktadır. Ayrıca bu korunan alanların tahsisi için pek çok farklı gerekçe ve farklı usuller bulunmaktadır. İyi tasarlanmış ve tam olarak uygulanabilen korunan alanların deniz ve okyanuslar açısından faydaları, hükumetlerarası ve hükumet-dışı örgütler tarafından defalarca belgelendirilmiştir. Ancak günümüzde bu korunan alanlarına ilişkin hukuki rejimi tanımlayan bir uluslararası hukuk çerçevesi bulunmamaktadır.
Sui generis korunan alanlara ilişkin uluslararası hukuk rejimin bulunmaması, Devletlerin bölgesel andlaşmalar ve çeşitli düzenlemeler çerçevesindeki mevcut hak ve yükümlülüklerinin yorumlanmasında geniş bir alan yaratmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, Devletlerin sui generis korunan alanların kurulmasına ve bu alanlardaki insan faaliyetlerinin düzenlenmesine ve sınırlanmasına ilişkin, hem ulusal yetkileri içindeki deniz alanları hem de açık denizlerdeki hukuki ehliyetleri ve yetkileri uluslararası hukuk bakımından incelenmiştir. Bu perspektif içerisinde, DKA’lara ilişkin bazı andlaşma rejimleri işlevsellikleri bakımından gözden geçirilmiş ve mevcut zorluklardan birtakım sonuçlara varılmıştır

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sui generis, Deniz Koruma Alanları, Hukuki Rejim, Uluslararası Deniz Hukuku

The Legal Framework Related to the Sui Generis Protected Areas Under International Law of the Sea

Öz

Despite the dependency between humanity and the marine resources, human activities have been the major threats to the sustainability of marine biodiversity and marine environment protection such as over-fishing, over-exploitation, shipping and land base pollution which have induced the loss of ecosystems and the climate change eventually.
The establishment of designated areas in the oceans and seas to restrict human activities is one of the most viable solutions to the successful protection of the marine environment. Marine protected areas (MPAs) along with various protected zones appear as useful and efficient area-based management tools not only for the national jurisdiction areas, but also for the areas beyond national jurisdiction. Today, there are 18.448 MPAs in the world. Also, there are different types and reasons for the establishment of those protected areas. The benefits of establishing well-designed and enforced fully protected areas in seas and oceans are well-documented by intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations several times. However, there is no international legal framework which defines the legal regime of those protected areas contemporarily. The lack of any international legal framework related to sui generis protected areas, opens up a wide space for interpreting the existing rights and obligations of States under various regional agreements and arrangements.
In this article, the legal competence and jurisdiction of the States to establish sui generis protected areas and to regulate and restrict human activities within them, both within national jurisdiction and on the high seas, have been examined in respect of international law. Within this perspective, few conventional regimes related to the MPAs have been reviewed in respect of their functionalities and some conclusions have been derived from current difficulties.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sui generis, Marine Protected Areas, Legal Regime, International Law of the Sea

Kaynakça

• Antarctic Treaty (adopted 1 December 1959, entered into force 23 June 1961) 402 UNTS 71 (AT).
• Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR-SM-II/BG/10) Report of the Second Special Meeting of the Commission (Bremerhaven, Germany 15-16 July 2013).
• Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, 7th Meeting at Kuala Lumpur, 9-20 and 27 February 2004, Agenda item 18.2 (UNEP/CBD/COP/7/L.31).
• Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (adopted 22 September 1992, entered into force 25 March 1998), 2354 UNTS 67 (OSPAR Convention).
• Convention on Biological Diversity (adopted 5 June 1992, entered into force 29 December 1993) 1760 UNTS 79 (CBD Convention).
• Final Report of the Thirty-second Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (Baltimore, United States, 6–17 April 2009) Appendix 4 <https://documents.ats.aq/ATCM32/fr/ATCM32_fr002_e.pdf> accessed 1 August 2022.
• Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), ‘MPAs as a Tool for Fisheries Management’ < http://www.fao.org/ fishery/topic/4400/en> accessed 26 May 2022.
• Guidelines for the Management of Marine Protected Areas in the OSPAR Maritime Area (Reference Number: 2003-18) as amended in 2006 by the OSPAR Biodiversity Committee para. 3.46 <https://www.ospar.org/work-areas/bdc/marine-protected-areas/guidance-for-the-development-and-management-of-the-ospar-network> accessed 1 August 2022.
• International Legally Binding Instrument Under the United Nations Convention on The Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, UNGA Res 72/249 (24 December 2017) UN Doc A/RES/72/249.
• Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean (adopted 10 June 1995, entered into force 12 December 1999) 2102 UNTS 203 (Barcelona Convention SPA / BD Protocol).
• Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (adopted 4 October 1991, entered into force 14 January 1998) 2941 UNTS 3 (Madrid Protocol).
• Summary Report of the Workshops Addressing Marine Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction at the 3rd International Marine Protected Areas Congress (IMPAC 3) (Marseille, France, October 21-25, 2013) 6 <https://globaloceanforum.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ summary-report-of-workshops-addressing-marine-areas-beyond-national-jurisdiction-at-impac-3-marseille-france-october-21-25-20132.pdf> accessed 1 August 2022.
• UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA (2011), Note on the establishment of marine protected areas beyond national jurisdiction or in areas where the limits of national sovereignty or jurisdiction have not yet been defined in the Mediterranean Sea, by Scovazzi, T. Ed. RAC/SPA.
• United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (adopted 10 December 1982, entered into force 1 November 1994) 1833 U.N.T.S. 397 (UNCLOS).
• Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (adopted 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980) 1155 UNTS 331 (VCLT).
• Andreone G and Cataldi G, ‘Sui Generis Zones’ in David Attard and others (eds), The IMLI Manuel on International Maritime Law, Vol. I (Oxford 2014) 217-238.
• Besson S, ‘Theorizing the Sources of International Law’, in Besson S and Tasioulas J (eds.), The Philosophy of International Law (OUP Oxford 2010) 163–185.
• Brooks C and others, ‘Geopolitical Complexity at The Bottom of The World: CCAMLR's Ongoing Challenge of Adopting Marine Protected Areas’ in Liu N, Brooks CM and Qin T (eds), Governing Marine Living Resources in the Polar Regions (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019) 43.
• Czybulka D and Bosecke T, ‘Marine Protected Areas in the EEZ in light of International and European Community Law’ in von Nordheim H, Boedeker D, Krause JC (eds), Progress in Marine Conservation in Europe (Springer 2006) 29.
• De Santo E, ‘Implementation Challenges of Area-Based Management Tools (ABMTS) For Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ)’ (2018) 97 Marine Policy 34-43.
• Duan W, ‘Do the Establishment and Management of MPA s in ABNJ under Existing Treaty Regimes Have Legal Effects on Third States?’ in The International Legal Regime Relating to Marine Protected Areas in Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (Brill/Nijhoff 2022) 161.
• Frank V, The European Community and Marine Environmental Protection in the International Law of Sea: Implementing Global Obligations at the Regional Level (Martinus Nijhoff 2007).
• Gardiner N, ‘Marine Protected Areas in The Southern Ocean: Is the Antarctic Treaty System Ready to Co-Exist with A New United Nations Instrument for Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction’ (2020) 122 Marine Policy 1-9.
• Gavouneli M, The Functional Jurisdiction in the Law of Sea (Martinus Nijhoff 2007).
• Jakobsen U, ‘From a Functional to a Holistic Approach’, Marine Protected Areas in International Law in Arctic Perpective (Brill/Nijhoff 2016) 63.
• Jakobsen U, ‘Legal Competence to Establish MPAs within National Jurisdiction and on the High Seas’, Marine Protected Areas in International Law in Arctic Perspective (Brill/Nijhoff 2016) 19.
• Kelleher G, Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas (IUCN-The World Conservation Union 2009).
• Kvinikhidze S, ‘Contemporary Exclusive Fishery Zones or Why Some States Still Claim an EEZ’ (2008) 23 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 271-295.
• Liu N and Brooks C, ‘China's Changing Position Towards Marine Protected Areas in The Southern Ocean: Implications for Future Antarctic Governance’ (2018) 94 Marine Policy 189–195.
• Lodge M, ‘Environmental Regulation of Deep Seabed Mining’ in Bodansky D and Freestone D (eds), International Marine Environmental Law (Kluwer International Law, 2003) 52.
• Mossop J, ‘Reconciling Activities on The Extended Continental Shelf’ in Rayfuse R (ed), Research Handbook on International Marine Environmental Law (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015) 183.
• Öztürk B, ‘Marine Protected Areas in The High Seas of The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Seas, Some Proposals’ (2009) 15 Journal of Black Sea/Mediterranean Environment 69-82.
• Ricard P, ‘Sovereignty and Challenges of The Future International Legally Binding Instrument on Marine Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction: How to Reconcile the Individual Interests of States at Sea and the “Common Interest of Mankind”?’ (2019 ESIL Annual Conference, Athens, 12-14 September 2019) 4.
• Sage-Fuller B, The Pracautionary Principle in Marine Environmental Law: With Special References to High-Risk Vessels (Routledge 2013).
• Wolfrum R, ‘Sources of International Law’, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2011).
• Wright G, Rochette J and Druel E, ‘Marine Protected Areas in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction’ in Rayfuse R (ed), Research Handbook on International Marine Environmental Law (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015) 288.