Uluslararasi Deni̇z Hukuku Mahkemesi̇ Perspekti̇fi̇nden Yarışan Yargı Yetki̇si̇ Sorunu
İkinci Dünya Savaşı sonrası uluslararası hukukun gelişimi ve uzmanlık alanlarına ayrılmasıyla birlikte uluslararası yargı mercilerinin hızlı şekilde çoğalması ihtilafların her bir alt disiplinin gerekleri doğrultusunda çözümlenmesini sağlamıştır. Bununla birlikte yaşanan bu gelişme bazı sorunlara da neden olmuştur. Bu sorunlardan önemli bir tanesi de yarışan yetki olarak isimlendirilen aynı uyuşmazlığın farklı yönleri itibariyle birden fazla uluslararası yargı merciinin yetkisine girebilmesidir. Uluslararası hukuk henüz bu konuda bir yeknesaklık getirmeye yönelik genel çaplı bir düzenlemeye gitmemiştir. Bu doğrultuda her bir uluslararası yargı merci kendi kurucu antlaşması veya statüsü doğrultusunda önüne gelen ihtilafı çözmekte veya diğer yargı merciinin vereceği nihai karara kadar bekletmektedir. Uluslararası alanda en yeni yargı organlarından birisi olan Uluslararası Deniz Hukuku Mahkemesi de şimdiye kadar karşılaştığı bazı uyuşmazlıklarda bu sorunu deneyimlemiştir. İşbu çalışmada bilhassa Uluslararası Deniz Hukuku Mahkemesini merkeze alarak yeri geldikçe de 1982 BMDHS kapsamındaki deniz hukuku uyuşmazlık çözüm sistemi çerçevesinde diğer uluslararası yargı mercileri ile yarışan yetki kapsamında karşılaşılan olaylara hem kuramsal açıdan hem de uygulama açısından örnekler verilmek suretiyle mesele izah edilmeye çalışılacaktır.
THE PROBLEM OF COMPETING JURISDICTION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA
With the development of international law after the Second World War and its division into areas of expertise, the rapid proliferation of international judicial authorities enabled the resolution of disputes in line with the requirements of each sub-discipline. However, this development also caused some problems. One of these problems is that the same dispute, which is called competing jurisdiction, can come under the jurisdiction of more than one international judicial body due to different aspects. International law has not yet made a general regulation to bring uniformity in this regard. In this respect, each international judicial body resolves the conflict that comes before it in accordance with its founding treaty or status or makes it wait until the final decision of the other judicial authority. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea which is one of the newest judicial bodies in the international arena has experienced this problem in some disputes it has faced so far. In this study, the issue will be explained by giving examples both theoretically and practically, of the events encountered within the scope of the dispute resolution system of the law of the sea under the 1982 UNCLOS, especially by centering the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
___
- Arbitral Tribunal Constituted Pursuant to Article 287, and Article 1 of Annex VII, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea for the Dispute Concerning the MOX Plant, Ireland v. The United Kingdom, PCA Case No. 2002-01; Order No. 3, 4, 5, 6.
- Berat Lale Akkutay, 1982 Birleşmiş Milletler Deniz Hukuku Sözleşmesi Çerçevesinde Uyuşmazlıkların Çözüm Yolları (Adalet Yayınevi 2012).
- Collections of the Permanent Court of International Justice Series A9, Factory at Chorzów (Jurisdiction), Judgment of 26 July 1927.
- Deniz Kızılsümer, ‘Onuncu Kuruluş Yılında Uluslararası Deniz Hukuku Mahkemesi’, (2005) 2 Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi.
- Dispute Concerning Access to Information Under Article 9 of the OSPAR Convention, Ireland v. The United Kingdom, PCA Case No. 2001-03.
- Elihu Lauterpacht, Aspects of the Administration of International Justice (Grotius Publications Limited 1991).
- James Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (OUP 2012).
- Jasper Finke, ‘Competing Jurisdiction of International Courts and Tribunals in Light of the MOX Plant Dispute’ (2006) 49 German Y.B. Int’l L.
- Joost Pauwelyn and Luiz Eduardo Salles, “Forum Shopping before International Tribunals: (Real) Concerns, (Im)Possible Solutions”, (2009) 42 Cornell Int. Law J.,
- Judgment of the ECJ (Grand Chamber) of 30 May 2006, Case C-459/03, Commission v. Ireland.
- Judgment on the merits delivered by the Grand Chamber, Mangouras v. Spain [GC], no. 12050/04, ECHR 2010.
- Kerem Batır, ‘Birleşmiş Milletler Deniz Hukuku Sözleşmesi Uyarınca Uyuşmazlıkların Çözümü: Mox Plant Davası ve Yargı Yetkilerinin Örtüşmesi’, (2008) 16 Uluslararası Hukuk ve Politika.
- Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean, (Somalia v. Kenya), Preliminary Objections, I.C.J. Judgment of 2 February 2017.
- MOX Plant (Ireland v. the United Kingdom), (Provisional Measures, Order of 3 December 2001), ITLOS Reports 2001.
- Natalie Klein, Dispute Settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (CUP 2005).
- Nikolaos Lavranos, On the Need to Regulate Competing Jurisdictions between International Courts and Tribunals, EUI MWP, 2009/14 –http://hdl.handle. net/1814/11484.
- Philippe Sands, Principles of International Environmental Law, Second Edition, (CUP 2003).
- Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, Geneva, 2006.
- Robin R Churchill, “Mox Plant Arbitration and Cases” in Rüdiger Wolfrum and Anne Peters (eds.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (OUP 2018).
- Shabtai Rosenne and Louis B. Sohn, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary Volume V (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1989.
- Shigeru Oda, ‘Dispute Settlement Prospects in the Law of the Sea’ (1995) 44 The International and Comparative Law Quarterly.
- Separate Opinion of Judge Jesus, MOX Plant (Ireland v. The United Kingdom), Provisional Measures, Order of 3 December 2001.
- Separate Opinion of Judge Anderson, MOX Plant (Ireland v. The United Kingdom), Provisional Measures, Order of 3 December 2001.
- Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), Provisional Measures, Order of 27 August 1999, ITLOS Reports 1999.
- Southern Bluefin Tuna Case, (Australia, and New Zealand v. Japan) Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility August 4, 2000, rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
- Text of the Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna, https:// www.ccsbt.org/sites/default/files/userfiles/file/docs_english/basic_documents/ convention.pdf
- Tim Stephens, International Courts and Environmental Protection (CUP 2009).
- Tullio Treves, “The Jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea”, in Chandrasekhara Rao, and Rahmatullah Khan (eds.), The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Law and Practice (Kluwer Law International, 2001).
- Tullio Treves, “Conflicts Between the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the International Court of Justice”, (1999) 31 International Law and Politics.
- Vaughan Lowe, ‘Overlapping Jurisdiction in International Tribunals’ (1999) 20 Aust. YBIL.
- Yoshifumi Tanaka, The International Law of the Sea (CUP 2019).
- Yuval Shany, ‘The First MOX Plant Award: The Need to Harmonize Competing Environmental Regimes and Dispute Settlement Procedures’, (December 2004) 17 Leiden Journal of International Law
- Yuval Shany, The Competing Jurisdictions of International Courts and Tribunals (OUP 2004).
- ISSN: 1309-9485
- Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 2 Sayı
- Başlangıç: 2010
- Yayıncı: Türkiye Adalet Akademisi