Publication: Uluslararası Deniz Hukuku Mahkemesi’nin Danışma Görüşü Vermeye İlişkin Yargı Yetkisi
Abstract
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.
The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and Annex VI of Convention which is the Statute of International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea only have provisions about Sea Bed Disputes Chamber’s advisory jurisdiction. Despite that, there is a long-term debate whether the whole Tribunal able to give an advisory opinion. On March 27, 2013, the Tribunal had the opportunity to examine whether it has jurisdiction to give an advisory opinion for the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission application. Although there were two opposite approaches in the written statements of states, the Tribunal had recognized its competence and had given answers about illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. In particular, it is important has been mentioned in the advisory opinion about the flag states have due diligence obligations in respect of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and the breach of these obligations may lead to international responsibility.
The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and Annex VI of Convention which is the Statute of International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea only have provisions about Sea Bed Disputes Chamber’s advisory jurisdiction. Despite that, there is a long-term debate whether the whole Tribunal able to give an advisory opinion. On March 27, 2013, the Tribunal had the opportunity to examine whether it has jurisdiction to give an advisory opinion for the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission application. Although there were two opposite approaches in the written statements of states, the Tribunal had recognized its competence and had given answers about illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. In particular, it is important has been mentioned in the advisory opinion about the flag states have due diligence obligations in respect of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and the breach of these obligations may lead to international responsibility.