Uluslararası Deniz Hukuku Mahkemesi’nin Danışma Görüşü Vermeye İlişkin Yargı Yetkisi

1982 Birleşmiş Milletler Deniz Hukuku Sözleşmesi’nde (BMDHS) ve Sözleşme’nin VI numaralı Ek’i olanUluslararası Deniz Hukuku Mahkemesi Statüsü’nde yalnızca Deniz Dibi Uyuşmazlıkları Dairesi’nindanışma görüşü verme yetkisinden bahsedilmiştir. Buna karşın, Mahkeme’nin tüm üyelerinin hazırolduğu şekilde, önlerine gelen bir talepte danışma görüşü vermeye yetkili olup olmadıkları uzunsüredir tartışılmaktaydı. 27 Mart 2013’te Alt Bölge Balıkçılık Komisyonu tarafından Mahkeme’yeyapılan danışma görüşü başvurusu ile Mahkeme danışma görüşü vermeye yetkili olup olmadığınıinceleme fırsatı yakalamıştır. Devletlerin Mahkeme’ye sundukları yazılı beyanlarında iki zıt yaklaşımbulunmasına rağmen, Mahkeme kendisini yetkili görerek yasadışı, bildirilmemiş ve düzenlenmemişbalıkçılık hususunda önemli cevaplar vermiştir. Özellikle yasadışı, bildirilmemiş ve düzenlenmemişbalıkçılık hususunda bayrak devletinin gerekli özen yükümlülükleri ve bu yükümlülüklere aykırıdavranışlarının uluslararası sorumluluğa yol açabileceğinin danışma görüşünde belirtilmiş olmasıönem arz etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Uluslararası Deniz Hukuku Mahkemesi, Danışma görüşü, Yargı yetkisi, Yasadışı balıkçılık, Gerekli özen yükümlülüğü

PDF

___

Akkutay, Berat Lale. 1982 Birleşmiş Milletler Deniz Hukuku Sözleşmesi Çerçevesinde Uyuşmazlıkların Çözüm Yolları. Ankara: Adalet Yayınevi, 2012.
Aksar, Yusuf. Evrensel Yargı Kuruluşları. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık, 2007.
Babu, R. Rajesh. “State Responsibility for Illegal, Unreported and Unrelated Fishing and Sustainable Fisheries in the EEZ: Some Reflections on the ITLOS Advisory Opinion of 2015”. Indian Journal of International Law. Vol. 55, Issue 2 (2015), ss. 239-264.
Bjorge, Eirik. “The Vienna Rules, Evolutionary Interpretation, and the Intentions of the Parties”, Andrea Bianchi, Daniel Peat and Matthew Windsor (Ed.). Interpretation in International Law içinde (189- 204). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Clapham, Andrew. Brierly’s Law of Nations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
García-Revillo, Miguel García. The Contentious and Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Leiden: Brill/Nijhoff, 2015.
Lando, Massimo. “The Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: Comments on the Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission”. Leiden Journal of International Law. Volume 29, Issue 2, (2016), ss. 441-461.
Mayr, Teresa F. & Jelka Mayr-Singer. “Keep the Wheels Spinning: The Contributions of Advisory Opinions of the International Court of Justice to the Development of International Law”. Heidelberg Journal of International Law, Vol. 76, (2016), ss. 425-449.
Ndiaye, Tafsir Malick. “The Advisory Function of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea”. Chinese Journal of International Law. Volume 9, Issue 3, (2010), ss. 565-587.
Ruys, Tom & Anemoon Soete. “Creeping Advisory Jurisdiction of International Courts and Tribunals? The case of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea”. Leiden Journal of International Law. Volume 29, Issue 01, (March 2016), ss. 155-176.
Sarıbeyoğlu Skalar, Meltem. Uluslararası Hukuk ve Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma. İstanbul: Beta Yayınevi, 2015.
Schatz, Valentin. Fishing for Interpretation: The ITLOS Advisory Opinion on Flag State Responsibility for Illegal Fishing in the EEZ. Ocean Development & International Law. Vol. 47, No. 4, (2016), ss. 327-345.
Thirlway, Hugh W. A. “Advisory Opinions of International Courts”, Rudolf Bernhardt (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Volume 1 Settlement of Disputes içinde (4-9). Amsterdam, New York, Oxford: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1981.
Wolfrum, Rüdiger. “Advisory Opinions: Are They a Suitable Alternative for the Settlement of International Disputes?”. Rüdiger Wolfrum, Ina Gätzschmann (Ed.). International Dispute Settlement: Room for Innovations? içinde (35-67). Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer.
Ki-Jun You, “Advisory Opinions of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: Article 138 of the Rules of the Tribunal, Revisited”, Ocean Development & International Law, Volume 39, Issue 4, (2008), ss. 360-371.
Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2010.
Application for Review of Judgment No. 158 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1973.
Case No. 21: Request for an Advisory Opinion submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission Written Statement of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Case No. 21: Request for an Advisory Opinion submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission Written Statement of the United Kingdom.
Dede and Elhüseyni v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/22, Award.
Dissenting Opinion by M. Moore, Collections of the of the Permanent Court of International Justice Series A10, S.S. Lotus, Judgment of 7 September 1927.
Interpretation of Peace Treaties, Advisory Opinion: I.C.J. Reports 1950.
Judgment on the merits delivered by the Grand Chamber, Bayatyan v. Armenia [GC], no. 23459/03, ECHR 2011.
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996 (I).
Responsibilities and Obligations of States with respect to Activities in the Area, Advisory Opinion, 1 February 2011, ITLOS Reports 2011.
Request for Advisory Opinion submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission, Advisory Opinion, 2 April 2015, ITLOS Reports 2015.
Separate Opinion of Judge Lucky, Request for Advisory Opinion submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission, Advisory Opinion, 2 April 2015, ITLOS Reports 2015.
Separate Opinion of Judge Paik, Request for Advisory Opinion submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission, Advisory Opinion, 2 April 2015, ITLOS Reports 2015.
Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975.
https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no.21/SRFC_1985_Convention_English_ translation_May_2013__3_.pdf (Çevrimiçi: 04.12.2016).