Sınıraşan Çevre Zararı Kapsamında İnsan Hakları Andlaşmalarının Ülke Dışında Uygulanması

Bu makale sınıraşan çevre zararı hallerinde insan hakları andlaşmaları bakımından yetki konusunu ele almaktadır. Makalede çevre ve sınıraşan zarar terimlerinin tanımları ile uluslararası çevre hukukunun sınıraşan çevre zararına uygulanabilir olan ilgili hükümlerine yer verilmesi hedeflenmektedir. Ayrıca, insan hakları andlaşmalarının ülkesel kapsamı incelenmekte ve sınıraşan çevre zararı hallerinde yetkinin tesis edilmesi konusuna odaklanılmaktadır. Bölge veya kişi üzerinde etkin kontrol kurulmasına odaklanmış olan klasik yaklaşımın bu bağlamda uygun olmadığı ileri sürülmektedir. Bunun yerine,Amerikalılararası İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi tarafından benimsenen ve çevre zararına yol açan etkinlikler ile bu sebeple ortaya çıkan insan hakları ihlalleri üzerinde etkin kontrole dayanan fonksiyonel yaklaşım gibi farklı yetki yaklaşımlarının kullanılması tavsiye edilmektedir. Buna ek olarak, uluslararası teamül hukukundaki devletlerin sınıraşan zarar meydana getiren hareketlerden kaçınmasına ilişkin genel kuralın uluslararası insan hukuku kapsamında bir özel durum olarak uygulanmasının mümkün olduğu iddia edilmektedir. Son olarak, makalede devletlerin sınıraşan çevre zararlarından kaynaklanan insan hakları ihlallerinden doğan yükümlülüklerine ilişkin olarak açıklığa kavuşturulması gereken bazı güncel sorunlara değinilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

İnsan hakları, sınıraşan çevre zararı, yetki, ülke dışında uygulama, Amerikalılararası İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi Çevre ve İnsan Hakları Danışma Görüşü (OC-23/17)

The Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties in the Context of Environmental Transboundary Harm

This article treats the issue of jurisdiction under human rights treaties in cases of environmental transboundary harm. It aims to cover the definitions of the environment and transboundary harm as well as the relevant rules under international environmental law applicable to environmental transboundary harm. Thereafter, it analyses the territorial scope of human rights treaties and focuses on the establishment of a jurisdictional link in cases of environmental transboundary damages. It suggests that the classical approach, which is focused on effective control over an area or persons, is not apt in this context. Rather, this article proposes the use of other approaches to jurisdiction, such as the functional approach adopted by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights which is based on an effective control over the activities causing environmental harm and consequent human rights violations. It further argues that the general rule under customary international law which prohibits States from engaging in acts causing transboundary harm could also be applied as a special feature in the context of international human rights law. Finally, this article concludes by pointing out some current challenges that need to be clarified with respect to the obligations of States arising from human rights breaches caused by environmental transboundary damages.

Keywords:

Human rights, environmental transboundary harm, jurisdiction, extraterritorial application, IACtHR Advisory Opinion on the Environment and Human Rights (OC-23/17,

PDF

___

A.S. and others v Italy Comm no 3042/2017 (HRC, 4 November 2020).
A.S. and others v Malta Comm no 3043/2017 (HRC, 13 March 2020).
Advisory Opinion on the Responsibilities and Obligations of States with respect to Activities in the Area (Advisory Opinion of 1 February 2011) ITLOS Reports 2011.
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, ‘General Comment No. 3: The Right to Life (Article 4)’ (12 December 2015).
Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v UK App no 61498/08 (ECHR, 2 March 2010).
Al-Skeini and others v UK App no 55721/07 (ECHR, 7 July 2011).
Armando Alejandre Jr et al v Cuba Report no 86/99 (IACHR 29 September 1999).
Banković and others v Belgium and others App no 52207/99 (ECHR, 12 December 2001).
Ben El Mahi and others v Denmark App no 853/06 (ECHR, 11 December 2006).
Besson S, ‘The Extraterritoriality of the European Convention on Human Rights: Why Human Rights Depend on Jurisdiction and What Jurisdiction Amounts to’ (2012) 25(4) Leiden Journal of International Law 857-884.
Bhuta N, ‘The Frontiers of Extraterritoriality – Human Rights Law as Global Law’ in Nehal Bhuta (ed) The Frontiers of Human Rights (OUP 2016).
Bilder R, ‘The Role of Unilateral State Action in Preventing International Environmental Injury’, 14 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law (1981) 51-95.
Boyle A and Anderson M (eds), Human Rights Approaches to Environmental Protection (1st edn, OUP 1996).
Boyle A, ‘Human Rights and the Environment: Where Next?’ (2012) 23 EJIL 613-642.
Cambridge Online Dictionary accessed 7 August 2021.
Campbell-Duruflé C and Atapattu S, ‘The Inter-American Court’s Environment and Human Rights Advisory Opinion: Implications for International Climate Law’ (2018) 8(3-4) Climate Law 321-337.
Carter v Russia App no 20914/07 (ECHR, 21 September 2021).
Case Concerning Aerial Herbicide Spraying (Ecuador v Colombia) (Discontinued) Memorial of Ecuador.
Case Concerning Aerial Herbicide Spraying (Ecuador v Colombia) Order of 13 September 2013.
Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda) (Judgment) [2005] ICJ Rep 168.
Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v United States of America) (Judgment) [2004] ICJ Rep 12.
Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay) (Judgment) [2010] ICJ Rep 14.
Case Concerning the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (Judgment) [1997] ICJ Rep 7.
Catan and others v Moldova and Russia App nos 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06 (ECHR, 19 October 2012).
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v Costa Rica) (Judgment) [2015] ICJ Rep 665.
Compact Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edn, 1991).
Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (adopted 25 February 1991, entered into force 10 September 1997) 1989 UNTS 309.
Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses (adopted 21 May 1997, entered into force 17 August 2014) (1997) 36 ILM 700.
Coomans F, ‘The Extraterritorial Scope of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Work of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ (2011) 11 HRL 1-35.
Corfu Channel Case (UK v Albania) (Merits) [1949] ICJ Rep 4, 22.
Council of Europe, Manual on Human Rights and the Environment (2012).
Crawford J, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (9th edn, OUP 2019).