1992 Petrol kirliliği zararının tazmini için bir uluslararası fonun kurulması ile ilgili uluslararası sözleşme'de 2003 tarihli protokol ile kabul edilen değişiklikler

Bu makalenin gayesi, 1992 Petrol Kirliliği Zararının Tazmini İçin Bir Uluslararası Fonun Kurulması İle İlgili Uluslararası Sözleşme’de 2003 Tarihli Protokol (Protokol) ile kabul edilen değişikliklere dair temel bilgileri vermek ve Protokol’ün milletlerarası petrol kirliliği tazmin rejimi üzerindeki etkilerini ortaya koymaktır. Çalışmada, Protokol’ün milletlerarası petrol kirliliği tazmin rejimini güçlendirmesine karşılık, rejimin sorunlarına kalıcı çözümler getirmediği tespit edilmiştir. Tamamlayıcı Fon’un sadece petrol endüstrisi tarafından finanse edilmesi, rejimin özünü oluşturan katkılar arasındaki dengeyi bozmuştur. STOPIA ve TOPIA tip sözleşmelerinin ihdası, bozulan dengenin gönüllülük temelinde yeniden tesis edilmesi arayışının bir sonucudur. Bu tip sözleşmeler, yeni ve ilginç bir yaklaşım sergilemekte iseler de milletlerarası deniz hukukunun gelişimine ters düşmektedirler. Milletlerarası petrol kirliliği tazmin rejiminin sorunlarına kalıcı ve esaslı çözümler getirilmesi için 1992 HSS ve 1992 FS’nin kapsamlı biçimde tadil edilmeleri gereklidir. Bu sözleşmelerin gelecekteki tadil çalışmalarında, kaynağına bakılmaksızın kirlenme zararları için tek bir tazmin rejimi kurulması görüşünün ve sınırsız sorumluluk fikrinin önemli bir destek bulacağı beklenmektedir. Belirtilen olumsuzluklarına rağmen Türkiye’nin Protokol’e taraf olmasında fayda bulunduğu değerlendirilmektedir.

Amendments adopted by “Protocol of 2003 to the international convention on the establishment of an international fund for compensation for oil pollution damage 1992

This article’s purpose is to present the main information regarding the amendments adopted by “Protocol of 2003 to the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992” (Protocol) and indicate the influence of the Protocol on the international oil pollution compensation regime. In this study, it was identified that the Protocol didn’t provide durable solutions for questions of the regime, in spite of the fact that it strengthened the international oil pollution compensation regime. That Supplementary Fund is only financed by the oil industry has broken the balance between the related contributions constituting the core of the regime. The establishment of the STOPIA and TOPIA standard contracts is a result of the seeking that the said balance is reconstructed. These standard contracts are contrary to the development of international maritime law, although they exhibit an interesting and new approaching in this law. 1992 CLC and 1992 FC must be amended extensively for providing durable and substantial solutions to the problems of the international oil pollution compensation regime. In the prospective amendment workings of these conventions, it is expected that the view of the establishment of a unique compensation regime and the principle of the strict liability, for pollution damage, will be welcomed a major support, irrespective of its source. It is considered to be beneficial that Turkey is party to the Protocol, despite the aforementioned its negative aspects.

PDF

___

Abdullayev, C.: Uluslararası Hukuk Açısından Gemilerden Kaynaklanan Petrol Kirliliği, Ankara 2005.
Acar, S.: Petrolden Kaynaklanan Kirlenme Zararlarının Tazmininde Yeni Dönem: STOPIA ve TOPIA. E – akademi, Hukuk, Ekonomi ve Siyasal Bilimler Aylık Internet Dergisi, Ocak 2009, S. 83, s. 1 vd.
Chau, W.: Liability and Compensation for Bunker Pollution, Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, October 2002, Vol. 33, No. 5, s. 553 vd.
Demir, İ.: 1996 Tarihli Tehlikeli ve Zararlı Maddelerin Deniz Yoluyla Taşınmasına İlişkin Zararlardan Sorumluluk ve Tazminata Dair Milletlerarası Sözleşme’de 2010 tarihli Protokol İle Kabul Edilen Değişiklikler, Batider 2011, C. XXVII, S. 3, s. 199 vd.
Gaskell, N. / Forrest, C.: Marine Pollution Damage in Australia: Implementing The Bunker Oil Convention 2001 and The Supplementary Fund Protocol 2003, The University of Queensland Law Journal 2008, Vol. 27/2, s. 103 vd.
Hooke, N.: Maritime Casualties (1963-1996), 2.ed., London 1997.
ICIMF: The US Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) Why Has It Been so Successful at Reducing Spills? _____http://www.ocimf.com>.
Ilgın, C.: Bunker Konvansiyonu ve Konvansiyon’un Türkiye Açısından Değerlendirilmesi, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul 2003.
Jacobsson, M.: The International Liability and Compensation Regime for Oil Pollution from Ships – International Solutions for a Global Problem. Tulane Maritime Law Journal, Winter 2007, Vol. 32, No. 1, s. 1 vd.
Kara, H.: Uluslararası Sözleşmeler ve Türk Hukukuna Göre Gemilerin Sebep Olduğu Deniz Kirliliği Zararlarından Hukuki Sorumluluk, İstanbul 2005.
Karan, H.: The Process of Revising Liability Limits Under International Maritime Conventions, Prof. Dr. Turgut Kalpsüz’e Armağan, Ankara 2003, s. 429 vd.
Ling, Z.: Compulsory Insurance and Compensation for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, Springer 2007.
Moller, T.: The Nakhodka Oil Spill Response – The Technical Adviser’s Perspective, _____http://www.itoph.com/_assets/documents/paj_97.pdf>.
Ooesterveen, W.: Some Recent Developments Regarding Liability for Damage Resulting from Oil Pollution – from the Perspective of an EU Member State, Environmental Law Review 2004, Vol. 6, s. 223 vd.
Özçayır, O.: Liability for Oil Pollution and Collisions, London – Hong Kong 1998.
Pavliha, M. / Grbec, M.: The 2003 Supplementary Fund Protocol: An Important Improvement to the International Compensations System for Oil Pollution Damage, Collected Papers of Zagreb Law Faculty, January 2008, Vol. 58, No. 1-2, s. 307 vd.
White, C.: Factors Affecting the Cost of Oil Spills, http://www.itopf.com/_assets/documents/costs02.pdf
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on a Second Set of Community Measures on Maritime Safety Following the Sinking of the Oil Tanker ERIKA, COM (2000) 802 final, available at http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smatapi!celexplus!prod!celexnumdoc &Ig=en&numdoc=52000 DC0802.
International Maritime Organization, Official Records of the International Conference on the Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, London 1983.
International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds, Annual Report 1998.
International oil Pollution Compensation Funds, Annual Report 2010.
IOPC/OCT. 11/3/5, September 28, 2011.
IOPC/OCT. 11/3/6, September 13, 2011.
LEG/CONF. 12/19, March 27, 2001.
LEG/CONF. 14/9, April 29, 2003.
LEG/CONF. 14/12, May 6, 2003.
LEG/CONF. 14/13, May 6, 2003.
LEG/CONF. 14/14, May 6, 2003.
LEG/CONF. 14/21, May 27, 2003.
LEG/CONF. 14/29, May 27, 2003.
LEG 82/12, November 6, 2000.
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Establishment of a Fund for the Compensation of Oil Pollution Damage in European Waters and Related Measures, Com (2000) 802 final, availableat_____http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi! celexuplus!prod!celexnumdoc&Ig=en&numdoc=52000PC0802C02>.
SUPPFUND/A/ES.2/7, February 1, 2006.
92FUND/A/ES.4/6, April 3, 2000.
92FUND/A/ES.4/7, April 6, 2000.
92FUND/A/ES.10/13, February 1, 2006.
92FUND/A/ES.11/6, April 20, 2006.
92FUND/A.6/4/1, September 14, 2001.
92FUND/A.6/5, September 24, 2001.
92FUND/A.6/28, October 19, 2001.
92FUND/A.11/23, October 18, 2006.
92FUND/WGR.3/5, February 9, 2001.
92FUND/WGR.3/5/1, February 26, 2001.
92 FUND/WGR.3/8/2, May 24, 2001.
92FUND/WGR.3/14/7, January 20, 2003.
92FUND/WGR.3/19/3, February 2, 2004.
92FUND/WGR.3/22, May 14, 2004.
_____http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/StatusOfConventions/Pages/Def ault.aspx>.
_____http://www.iopcfund.org/npdf/incidents2010_e.pdf>.
_____http://www.iopcfund.org/npdf/incidents2010_e.pdf#page=46>.
_____http://www.iopcfund.org/history.htm>.