A Study on the Immunity of Sunken State Vessels in International Law

Öz

This study examines whether sunken warships and other state-owned or state-operated vessels that were engaged in warfare or other public services at the time of their loss fall within the scope of the rule known as state immunity in international law. The doctrine addresses the issue through discussions on whether the vessel retains its status after the sinking or whether the flag state’s ownership over the vessel continues. On the other hand, since the continuation of the vessel’s status does not alter the scope of the principle’s application, the study focuses on the practice of customary international law rather than theoretical discussions. Therefore, this study aims to answer the question of whether the rule of state immunity, which is now well-established in international law, also applies to sunken vessels. For this purpose, the study is divided into three main sections. First, the immunity of sunken state vessels is examined within the framework of international agreements. Due to the inadequacy of bilateral and multilateral international treaties, the second section attempts to resolve the issue through customary international law by examining opinio juris and state practice. The third section examines foreign court decisions on this issue. The study demonstrates the existence of an established — or at least long-developing — rule of customary international law that the state vessels benefit from state immunity regardless of how much time has passed since their sinking or in which maritime zone they are located.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• State immunity
• state vessel
• sovereignty
• customary international law
• underwater cultural heritage

Etik Beyan

This article is not subject to Ethics Committee permission.

ULUSLARARASI HUKUKTA BATIK DEVLET GEMİLERİNİN BAĞIŞIKLIĞI ÜZERİNE BİR İNCELEME

Öz

Bu çalışmada batık savaş gemileri ile kaybolmaları anında savaşta veya diğer kamu hizmetlerinde görevli olan devlete ait ya da devlet tarafından işletilen diğer gemilerin uluslararası hukukta devlet bağışıklığı olarak bilinen kuralın uygulama alanına girip girmediği incelenmektedir. Doktrinde meselenin batmadan sonra gemi statüsünü sürdürüp sürdürmediği veya bayrak devletinin gemi üzerindeki mülkiyetinin devam edip etmediği tartışmaları üzerinden ele alındığı görülmektedir. Diğer taraftan gemi statüsünün sürüp sürmemesi ilkenin uygulama alanını değiştirmeyeceğinden, çalışmada teorik tartışmalardan ziyade uluslararası teamül hukuku pratiğine odaklanılmaktadır. Dolayısıyla, bu çalışmanın amacı uluslararası hukukta artık yerleşmiş olan devlet mallarına yönelik bağışıklık kuralının batık gemiler bakımından da geçerli olup olmadığı sorusunun cevaplanmasıdır. Bu amaçla çalışma üç ana bölüme ayrılmıştır. İlk olarak batık devlet gemilerinin bağışıklığı, uluslararası antlaşmalar çerçevesinde incelenmektedir. İki ve çok taraflı uluslararası antlaşmaların yetersizliği nedeniyle ikinci bölümde batık devlet gemilerinin bağışıklığı meselesi opinio juris ve devlet uygulaması incelenerek uluslararası teamül hukuku yoluyla çözümlenmeye çalışılmaktadır. Üçüncü bölümde ise bu konudaki yabancı mahkeme kararları ele alınmaktadır. Çalışmada uluslararası teamül hukukunda devlet gemilerinin batmalarının ardından ne kadar bir süre geçtiğine ve hangi deniz bölgesinde bulunduklarına bakılmaksızın devlet bağışıklığından yararlanacakları yönünde yerleşmiş – veya en azından uzunca bir süredir yerleşmekte olan – bir uluslararası teamül hukuku kuralının varlığı gösterilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Devlet bağışıklığı
• devlet gemisi
• egemenlik
• uluslararası teamül hukuku
• sualtı kültürel mirası

Etik Beyan

Bu makale Etik Kurul iznine tabi değildir

Kaynakça

1. ‘HMS Birkenhead’ (1990) 5(2) International Journal of Estuarine and Coastal Law 404-405.
2. ‘Simon v Taylor’ (1980) 56 International Law Reports 40-47.
3. ‘U.S.-France Agreement regarding the Sunken Vessel La Belle’ (2003) 97 The American Journal of International Law 688-689.
4. 28 U.S. Code § 1609.
5. 43 U.S.C. §§ 2101-2106 (1994).
6. Agreement concerning the wreck of the CSS Alabama, U.S.-Fr., Oct. 30, 1989, T.I.A.S. No. 11687.
7. Aznar-Gomez MJ, ‘Legal Status of Sunken Warships ‘Revisited’’ (2003) 9(1) Spanish Yearbook of International Law Online 61-101.
8. Aznar-Gomez MJ, ‘Treasure Hunters, Sunken State Vessels and the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage’ (2010) 25(3) The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 209-236.

9. Balleste R, ‘The Ethics of Space Exploration: Harrowing Stories of Death, Survival, and the Unknown’ (2002) 37(2) Connecticut Journal of International Law 138-162.
10. Baltimore, Crisfield & Onancock Line, Inc. v. United States (140 F.2d 230, 4th Cir. 1944)
11. Bautista LB, ‘Gaps, Issues, and Prospects: International Law and the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage’ (2005) 14 Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies, 57-89.
12. Bederman DJ, ‘Historic Salvage and the Law of the Sea’ (1998) 30(1) University of Miami Inter-American Law Review 99-130.
13. Berzak J, ‘The Palestinian Bid for Statehood: It’s Repercussions for Business and International Law’ (2013) 12(1) Journal of International Business and Law 89-114.
14. Birleşmiş Millet Şartı (1 UNTS XVI).
15. Blake J, ‘The Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage’ (1996) 45(4) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 819-843.
16. Brekhus S, ‘Salvage of Wrecks and Wreckage: Legal Issues Arising from the Rund Find’ (1976) 20 Scandinavian Studies in Law 37-68.
17. Brownlie I, Principles of Public International Law (7. Baskı Oxford University Press 2008).
18. Caflisch L, ‘Submarine Antiquities and the International Law of the Sea’ (1982) 13 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 3-32.
19. Chen R, ‘Bilateral or Multilateral Agreements between States for the Settlement of Dispute over Ownership of Underwater Cultural Heritage: Background, Ownership Clauses, and Implications for China’ (2002) 4 China Oceans Law Review 111-138.
20. Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules with Respect to Assistance and Salvage at Sea, of 23 September 1910, 37 Stat. 1658.
21. Crandall JJ, ‘Extending Admiralty Jurisdiction over Nonmaritime Property: Ascertaining the Salvor’s Possessory and Proprietary Rights to Sunken Aicraf’ (1984) 15(4) Pacific Law Journal 977-1012.
22. Curfman D, ‘Thar Be Treasure Here: Rights to Ancient Shipwrecks in International Waters - A New Policy Regime’ (2008) 86(1) Washington University Law Review 181-208.
23. Dromgoole S, Underwater Cultural Heritage and International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2013).
24. Dunlap WV, ‘Ownership of Underwater Cultural Heritage’ (2018) 49(3) Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 425-440.
25. Eustis II FA, ‘The Glomar Explorer Incident: Implications for the Law of Salvage’ (1975) 16(1) Virginia Journal of International Law 177-186.
26. Exchange of Notes between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Italy regarding the Salvage of H.M.S. ‘Spartan’, 6 November 1952 Erişim Tarihi: 24 Temmuz 2024.
27. Feasibility Study for the Drafting of a New Instrument for the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, UNESCO Doc. 146 EX127 (Mart 23, 1995) Erişim Tarihi: 24 Temmuz 2024.
28. Federal Register, Volume 69, Number 24 (Thursday, 5 February, 2004) 5647-5648 Erişim Tarihi: 12 Ağustos 2024.
29. Forrest C, ‘An International Perspective on Sunken State Vessels as Underwater Cultural Heritage’ (2003) 34(1) Ocean Development & International Law 41-57.
30. Forrest C, Maritime Legacies and the Law: Effective Legal Governance of WWI Wrecks (Edward Elgar Publishing 2019).
31. Gaskell NJJ, ‘The 1989 Salvage Convention and the Lloyd’s Open Form (LOF) Salvage Agreement 1990’ (1991) 16(1) Tulane Maritime Law Journal 1-104.
32. Gökçe Y, ‘Mutlak Yargı Bağışıklığından Sınırlı Yargı Bağışıklığına Geçiş Trendi, İş Hukukundan Doğan Uyuşmazlıklarda Yargı Bağışıklığı ve Ülkemizdeki Durum’ (2014) 18(1) Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 91-111.
33. Güner MB, ‘Kurtarma Hukukunda Sualtı Kültür Varlıkları’ (2010) 26(2) Banka ve Ticaret Hukuku Dergisi 57-72.
34. Harris JR, ‘Protecting Sunken Warships as Objects Entitled to Sovereign Immunity’ (2002) 33(1) University of Miami Inter-American Law Review 101-126.
35. Henn C, ‘The Trouble with Treasure: Historic Shipwrecks Discovered in International Waters’ (2012) 19(2) University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review 141-196.
36. Idris JHM and Dewi CTI, ‘Sovereign Immunity of Non-Commercial Government Vessels and Due Regard: China Coast Guard in the Natunas’ (2021) 18(2) Indonesian Journal of International Law 229-252.
37. International Convention on Salvage, 28 April 1989, 1953 UNTS 165 Erişim Tarihi: 12 Haziran 2024.
38. International Court of Justice Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy), ICJ Reports (2012).
39. Kaya İ, ‘Uluslararası Hukukta Devlet Bağışıklığı ve Jasta’ (2017) 2(2) İstanbul Medeniyet Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 9-27.
40. Kuran S, ‘Savaş Gemilerinin Dokunulmazlığı ve Yargı Bağışıklığı’ (2011) 25(1) Milletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni 229-240.
41. LaBarge C, ‘How Two Sunken Ships Caused a War: The Legal and Cultural Battle between Great Britain, Canada, and the Inuit over the Franklin Expedition Shipwrecks’ (2019) 42(1) Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review 79-116.
42. Leich MN, Cumulative Digest of United States Practice in International Law 1980 (U.S. Government Publishing Office 1986).
43. Migliorino L, ‘The Recovery of Sunken Warships in International Law’, in Budislav Vakas (ed) Essays on the New Law of the Sea (Sveucilisna Naklada Liver 1985).
44. Moore JB, A Digest of International Law, c. Volume 2 (Governmet Printing Office 1906) 571-582 Erişim Tarihi: 17 Temmuz 2024.
45. Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks (adopted 18 May 2007, entered into force 14 April 2015) 46 ILM 694 Erişim Tarihi: 01 Ağustos 2024.
46. Neil J, ‘Sifting through the Wreckage: An Analysis and Proposed Resolution concerning the Disposition of Historic Shipwrecks Located in International Waters’ (2010) 55(3) New York Law School Law Review 895-922.
47. Nelson MR, ‘Finders, Weepers-Losers, Keepers - Florida Court Says U.S. Company Must Return Recovered Treasure to Kingdom of Spain’ (2010) 16(3) Law and Business Review of the Americas 587-602.
48. O’Keefe PJ and Prott LV, ‘Australian Protection of Historic Shipwrecks’ (1978) 6 Australian Year Book of International Law 119-138.
49. Oda S and Owada H, ‘Annual Review of Japanese Practice in International Law XVI (1978-1980)’ (1986) 29 Japanese Annual of International Law 74-197.
50. Odyssey Marine Exploration Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, Amended Complaint against The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel filed by Odyssey Marine Exploration, Case No: 8:07-CV-00614-SCB-MAP, Filing 25 (August 7, 2007) Erişim tarihi: 20 Temmuz 2024.
51. Odyssey Marine Exploration Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, Response in opposition re 131 Motion to dismiss Amended Complaint or for summary judgment filed by Republic of Peru, Case No: 8:07-CV-00614-SDM-MAP, Filing 141 (November 17, 2008) Erişim Tarihi: 20 Temmuz 2024.
52. Odyssey Marine Exploration Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, Motion to dismiss Amended Complaint or for summary judgment by Kingdom of Spain, Case No: 8:07-CV-00614-SDM-MAP, Filing 131 (September 22, 2008) Erişim Tarihi: 20 Temmuz 2024.
53. Odyssey Marine Exploration Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, Statement of Interest and Brief as Amicus Curiae in support of the Kingdom of Spain by United States of America; re 244 Order on motion to file amicus brief, Case No: 8:07-CV-00614-SDM-MAP, Filing 247 (September 29, 2008) Erişim Tarihi: 20 Temmuz 2024.
54. Odyssey Marine Exploration Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, Report And Recommendation re 132 Motion to vacate 5 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief pursuant to Supplemental Rule E(4)(f) filed by Kingdom of Spain, 131 Motion to dismiss Amended Complaint or for summary judgment filed by Kingdom of Spain. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo on 6/3/2009, Case No: 8:07-CV-00614-SDM-MAP, Filing 209 (June 3, 2009) Erişim Tarihi: 20 Temmuz 2024.
55. Odyssey Marine Exploration Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, Order, Case No: 8:07-CV-00614-SDM-MAP, Filing 179 (February 13, 2009) Erişim Tarihi: 20 Temmuz 2024.
56. Odyssey Marine Exploration Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, Response to motion re 131 Motion to dismiss Amended Complaint or for summary judgment filed by Odyssey Marine Exploration Inc., Case No: 8:07-CV-00614-SDM-MAP, Filing 138 (November 17, 2008) Erişim Tarihi: 20 Temmuz 2024.
57. Odyssey Marine Exploration v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 10-10269 (11th Cir. 2011), Erişim Tarihi: 24 Temmuz 2024.
58. Özer DK, ‘Devletin Yargısal Bağışıklığına İlişkin Uluslararası Adalet Divanı’nın Almanya- İtalya: Yunanistan Müdahil Davasında Verdiği Karar ve Düşündürdükleri’ (2015) 5(2) Akdeniz Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 195-216.
59. Partnering Agreement Memorandum Concerning the Shipwreck of the HMS Sussex, Between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland & Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (Sep. 27, 2002) Erişim Tarihi: 28 Temmuz 2024.
60. Pazarcı H, Uluslararası Hukuk (16. Baskı Turhan Kitabevi 2017)
61. Protocol to amend the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Assistance and Salvage at Sea (Brussels 1967) Erişim Tarihi: 22 Temmuz 2024.
62. Riphagen W, ‘Some Reflections on ‘Functional Sovereignty’’ (1975) 6 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 121-165.
63. Roberts H, ‘The British Ratification of the Underwater Heritage Convention: Problems and Prospects’ (2018) 67(4) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 833-865.
64. Sak Y, Devletin Yargı Bağışıklığı ve Temel Hakların Korunması (Seçkin Yayıncılık 2015).
65. Shaw MN, International Law (8. Baskı Cambridge University Press 2017).
66. Sarid E, ‘International Underwater Cultural Heritage Governance: Past Doubts and Current Challenges’ (2017) 35(2) Berkeley Journal of International Law 219-261.
67. Sea Hunt, Inc. v. Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel or Vessels, 221 F.3d 634, 647 Erişim Tarihi: 17 Temmuz 2024.
68. Sea Hunt, Inc. v. Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel or Vessels, 47 F. Supp. 2d 678, 682 Erişim Tarihi: 17 Temmuz 2024.
69. Strati A, The Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage: An Emerging Objective of the Contemporary Law of the Sea (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1995).
70. Sur M, Uluslararası Hukukun Esasları (3. Baskı Beta 2008) 115).
71. The Exchange v. McFaddon 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116 (1812).
72. Thomas KR., ‘Enforcing against State Assests: The Case for Redistricting Private Creditor Enforcement and How Judges in England Have Used Context When Applying the Commercial Purposes Test’ (2015) 2(1) Journal of International and Comparative Law 115-140.
73. UN Doc. A/CONF.62/C.2/Informal Meeting/43/Rev.3.
74. United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property 2004, General Assembly resolution 59/38, annex, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fiftyninth Session, Supplement No. 49 (A/59/49) Erişim Tarihi: 10 Haziran 2024.
75. United States v. Steinmetz, 763 F. Supp. 1293 (D.N.J. 1991).
76. United States v. Steinmetz, 973 F.2d 212, 223 (3d Cir. 1992).
77. Walker JE, ‘A Contemporary Standard for Determining Title to Sunken Warships: A Tale of Two Vessels and Two Nations’ (2000) 12(2) University of San Francisco Maritime Law Journal 311-358.
78. Wright B, ‘Keepers, Weepers, or No Finders at All: The Effects of International Trends on the Exercise of U.S. Jurisdiction and Substantive Law in the Salvage of Historic Wrecks’ (2008) 33(1) Tulane Maritime Law Journal 285-312.
79. Yang X, State Immunity in International Law (Cambridge University Pres 2012.