The Exercise of the Right of Hot Pursuit According to International Law in Accordance with the Cooperation of States

Year 2018, Volume: 1 Issue: 2, 367 - 422, 28.03.2019

Nasıh Sarp Ergüven

Abstract

The right of hot pursuit which is firstly prescribed by 1958 Convention on the High Seas (CHS), revised by 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and having the feature of international customary law constitutes one of the primary exceptions of the principle of the exclusive jurisdiction of flag state and freedom of navigation. Above mentioned right which enables the coastal state to intervene and to exercise its judicial power on foreign flag ships within the high seas, that also prevents the abuse of the principle of the exclusive jurisdiction of flag state and the freedom of navigation by foreign states ships which violate the rule of law of coastal state maritime zones.
Currently, states have been exercising the right of hot pursuit more effectively by radio detecting and ranging, naval underwater sensors, un-manned air vehicles and advanced satellites in accordance with technological developments. However, the concept of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), which comes to the fore with UNCLOS, obstructs the supervision of the foreign state ships in terms of its compliance with the regulations of the coastal state on these maritime zones. Also technically more developed ships of today which are used for drug trafficking and illegal fishing have aggravated the situation.
In this vein, the exercise of multilateral hot pursuit in cooperation gains an essential ground in state practice recently. State actions under the multilateral hot pursuit which could not be performed by only one state, concerning time and distance, and in collaboration of the coastal states of the same region for common problems is considered as a positive development in respect of maritime security. Bilateral agreements signed between states related to the subject matter indicates the acceptance of the concept by states.
Apart from all these favoring developments on this subject, the fact that contracting states empower each other to pursue within each one’s territorial sea by bilateral agreements does not comply with the scope of the right of hot pursuit which is prescribed by CHS and UNCLOS. States cannot extend the scope of application of the mentioned right unlawfully by transferring it to other states that they do not have the relevant power inherently. This might induce some disputes between states in the forthcoming period.

Keywords

Right of Hot Pursuit, Drug Trafficking, Illegal Fishing, Maritime Security, The Principle of the Exclusive Jurisdiction of Flag State.

Uluslararası Hukuk Açısından Sıcak Takip Hakkının Devletlerin İşbirliği Doğrultusunda Kullanılması

Abstract

Sıcak takip hakkı kıyı devletine ait deniz alanlarına yönelik kuralları ihlal eden yabancı devlet bayraklı gemilerin, takip edilerek bunlara müdahalede bulunulmasına ve devamında yargılama yetkisinin kullanılmasına imkân tanımaktadır.
Sıcak takip hakkının birden fazla devlet tarafından işbirliği halinde kullanılması, devletler arasındaki uygulamada son yıllarda kendine önemli bir yer edinmiştir. Aynı bölgede yer alan kıyı devletlerinin, müşterek sorunlara karşı beraber hareket ederek, süre ve mesafe açısından tek bir devletin sürdürmesinin mümkün olmadığı sıcak takip kapsamındaki faaliyetleri, ortak bir şekilde yerine getirmeleri, deniz güvenliğinin sağlanması hususunda olumlu bir gelişme biçiminde değerlendirilmektedir.
Konuyla ilgili tüm bu müspet gelişmelerin yanı sıra, devletlerin imzaladıkları iki taraflı anlaşmalarda, karşı taraf devlete kendi karasularında takibe devam etme yetkisi tanımaları uygulamasının, ADS ve BMDHS ile düzenlenen sıcak takip hakkının kapsamı ile uyumlu olmadığını ifade etmek gerekmektedir.

Keywords

Sıcak Takip Hakkı, Uyuşturucu Madde Ticareti, Kaçak Balıkçılık, Deniz Güvenliği, Bayrak Kuralı

References

• Allen, C. H.: “Doctrine of Hot Pursuit: A Functional Interpretation Adaptable to Emerging Maritime Law Enforcement Technologies and Practices”, Ocean Development & International Law, 1989, Vol. 20, No. 4, s. 309-341.
• Churchill, R. R./Lowe, A. V.: The Law of the Sea, Manchester, 2010.
• Ergüven, N. S.: “Uluslararası Hukuk Açısından Antarktika Güvenliği”, Küresel Bakışla Kutup Çağı-3, Ankara, 2017, s. 52-65.
• Ergüven, N. S.: “Deniz Güvenliğinin Değişen Gündeminde Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin Konumu”, TESAM II. Sosyal Bilimler Kongresi, Bursa, 2018, s. 169-184.
• Gilmore, W. C.: “Hot Pursuit: The Case of R. v. Mills and Others”, Int'l & Comp. L.Q., 1995, Vol. 44, No. 4, s. 949-958.
• Gullett, W./Schofield, C.: “Pushing the Limits of the Law of the Sea Convention: Australian and French Cooperative Surveillance and Enforcement in the Southern Ocean”, Int’l J. Marine and Coastal L., 2007, Vol. 22, No. 4, s. 545-583.
• Gündüz, A.: Milletlerarası Hukuk, Konu Anlatımı, Temel Belgeler, Örnek Kararlar, (Ed., Günel, R. V.), İstanbul, 2013.
• Molenaar, E. J.: “Multilateral Hot Pursuit and Illegal Fishing in the Southern Ocean: The Pursuits of the Viarsa 1 and the South Tomi”, Int’l J. Marine and Coastal L., 2004, Vol. 19, No. 1, s. 19-42.
• O’Connell, D. P.: The International Law of the Sea, Volume II, (Ed., Shearer, I. A.), Oxford, 1984.
• Poulantzas, N. M.: The Right of Hot Pursuit in International Law, The Hague-London-New York, 2002.
• Reuland, R.: “The Customary Right of Hot Pursuit Onto the High Seas: Annotations to Article 111 of the Law of the Sea Convention”, Va. J. Int’l L., 1993, Vol. 33, No 3, s. 557-590.
• Rothwell, D. R., Stephens T.: The International Law of the Sea, Oxford-Portland, 2010.
• Tanaka, Y.: The International Law of the Sea, Cambridge, 2015.
• Tasikas, V.: “Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and the Doctrine of Hot Pursuit: A New Era of Coast Guard Maritime Law Enforcement Operations”, Tul. Mar. L. J., 2004, Vol. 29, No. 1, s. 59-80.
• S. S. “I’m Alone” (Canada v. United States), Awards of 30 June 1933 and 5 January 1935, http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_III/1609-1618.pdf.
• Investigation of Certain Incidents Affecting the British Trawler Red Crusader, Report of 23 March 1952 of the Commission of Enquiry Established by the Government of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark on 15 November 1961, http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/ vol_XXIX/521-539.pdf.
• The M/V “Saiga” (No. 2) Case (Saint Vincent and The Grenadines v. Guinea), Judgment of 1 July 1999, https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/ itlos/documents/cases/ case_no_2/merits/Judgment.01.07.99.E.pdf.