Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An analysis of the convention on the protection of the Black Sea against pollution (the Bucharest Convention) from the perspective of Turkish contract law

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Critical environmental problems in the marine and coastal environments of the Black Sea basin require international cooperation. Although there is no comprehensive assessment in the academic literature about these environmental problems, the Bucharest Convention has not been included in court decisions in Türkiye, and consequently, the convention has not been effectively incorporated into the judicial process in Türkiye. This article is to understand and measure the impact of the Bucharest Convention on Turkish domestic law and its implementation. In doing so, the significance and effectiveness of the convention in domestic law will be revealed, and ways to improve legislation and court decisions will be explored. Considering the protocols included in the Bucharest Convention, criteria have been identified, and the adequacy of Turkish legislation has been investigated. The criteria were determined through technical–legal analysis by the EFLD (Environmental and Forestry Law Department). The compliance of the convention with domestic legislation was evaluated statistically. As a result, Turkish legislation was found to be 71, 42% compatible with the convention. The study highlights the effectiveness of the Bucharest Convention in addressing deficiencies in domestic law in the areas of pollution caused by activities on the continental shelf (10%), pollution from or through the atmosphere (25%), cooperation in pollution response during emergencies (50%), and the conservation of living marine resources (50%). A notable outcome of the study is that the direct impact of the convention on court decisions is limited. There is a need to enhance the effectiveness of the convention by improving the capacity of actors involved in the judicial processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Notes

  1. The Bucharest Convention was ratified by Law No. 3937 on December 7, 1993, and published in the Official Gazette No. 21788 on December 14, 1993.

  2. EU accession negotiations are the process by which a country joins the EU (Bakır and Ertan, 2018; Toksoy et al., 2022). They are complex and can take many years, but bring the benefits of peace, prosperity, and quality of life Türkiye applied for EU accession negotiations on October 3, 2005, and the negotiations are still ongoing in 2023.

Abbreviations

EFLD:

Environmental and Forestry Law Department

EU:

European Union

LBS:

Land-based sources

References

  • Arat, G., M. Türkeş, and E. Saner, Uluslararası sözleşmeler ön rapor. G. Arat, & M. Türkeş içinde, Vizyon, 2023.

  • Avoyan, E., van Tatenhove, J., & Toonen, H. (2017). The performance of the Black Sea Commission as a collaborative governance regime. Marine Policy, 81, 285–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aybak, T. (2002). Globalization in Europe and new regionalism in the black sea: towards innovative policies in the field of environment. Nato Science Series Sub Series v Science and Technology Policy, 37, 57–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aybay, R. (2007). Uluslararası Antlaşmaların Türk Hukukundaki Yeri. TBB Dergisi, 70, 187–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aydin Coşkun, A., & Gençay, G. (2011). Kyoto Protocol and deforestation. “A legal analysis on Turkish environment and forest legislation.” Forest Policy and Economics., 13(5), 366–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, B., & Yeager, B. (2015). Coordinated ocean stewardship in the Arctic: Needs, challenges and possible models for an Arctic Ocean coordinating agreement. Transnational Environmental Law, 4(2), 359–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakir, C., & Ertan, G. (Eds.). (2018). Policy analysis in Turkey. Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ban, K. (2016). Sustainable development goals. News Survey, 37(02), 18–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Başkan, A.E., Karadenizde çevresel güvenlik.

  • Bhargava, V. K. (2006). Global issues for global citizens: An introduction to key development challenges. World Bank Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bou Franch, V. and A. Nuray, Environmental Law for the Black Sea Region. 1999.

  • Coşkun, A. A., & Gençay, G. (2011). Kyoto Protocol and “deforestation”: A legal analysis on Turkish environment and forest legislation. Forest Policy and Economics, 13(5), 366–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debbarma, J., & Choi, Y. (2022). A taxonomy of green governance: A qualitative and quantitative analysis towards sustainable development. Sustainable Cities and Society, 79, 103693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DKBS. DKBS. 2023 [cited 2023 24.02.2023]; Available from: https://denizcilikistatistikleri.uab.gov.tr/turk-bogazlari-gemi-gecis-istatistikleri

  • Doussis, E. (2006). Environmental protection of the Black Sea: A legal perspective. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 6(3), 355–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durusu, B. (2010). Karadenizin Kirliliğe Karşı Korunmasında Uluslararası İşbirliği ve Ortak Denetim Projesi. Sayıştay Dergisi, 77, 171–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elvan, O.D., Ü. Birben, and H.E. Ünal, The effectiveness of the Bern Convention on wildlife legislation and judicial decisions in Turkey. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 2020.

  • Elvan, O. D. (2013). The legal environmental risk analysis (LERA) sample of mining and the environment in Turkish legislation. Resources Policy, 38(3), 252–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elvan, O. D., et al. (2021b). Forest fire and law: An analysis of Turkish forest fire legislation based on Food and Agriculture Organization criteria. Fire Ecology, 17(1), 12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elvan, O. D., Birben, Ü., & Ünal, H. E. (2021a). The effectiveness of the Bern Convention on wildlife legislation and judicial decisions in Turkey. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 21, 305–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elvan, O. D., & Turker, Y. O. (2014). Analysis of Turkish groundwater legislation and policy regarding international principles and conventions. Water Science and Technology, 69(10), 2155–2165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eyüboğlu, Ö., Eyuboglu, H., & Eyüboğlu, F. (2022). Türkiye deniz ve kıyılarında ekosistem yaklaşımını dikkate alan kara kökenli kirliliğe karşı ulusal eylem planının hazırlanması: önlemler programının belirlenmesi. Biyolojik Çeşitlilik Ve Koruma, 15(1), 50–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, R., Landrigan, P. J., Balakrishnan, K., Bathan, G., Bose-O’Reilly, S., Brauer, M., & Yan, C. (2022). Pollution and health: a progress update. The Lancet Planetary Health, 6(6), e535–e547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Göktepe, B.G., The Black Sea one decade after the Bucharest Convention an overview of the international activities in the Black sea Region. Journal of Black Sea/Mediterranean Environment, 2002. 8(1).

  • Graham, J., T.W. Plumptre, and B. Amos, Principles for good governance in the 21st century. Vol. 15. 2003: Institute on governance Ottawa.

  • Güneş, Ş., Karadeniz’de çevresel iş birliği, 1992 Bükreş Sözleşmesi. 2001.

  • ICPDR. ICPDR. 2023 [cited 2023 23.04.2023]; ICPDR (The International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River)]. Available from: http://www.icpdr.org/main/danube-basin/black-sea

  • Karşili, C. (2011) Türkiyede akarsu havzalarında kişi başına düşen su miktarının coğrafi bilgi sistemleriyle analizi. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.

  • Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Küçük, Y. K., & Topçu, A. (2012). Deniz taşımacılığından kaynaklanan kirlilik. Ankara Üniversitesi Çevrebilimleri Dergisi, 4(2), 75–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moraru, A. M., & Dusca, I. A. (2011). Is the Bucharest Convention on the protection of the Black Sea against pollution still a matter of general concern? Has it reached its purpose? IBSU Scientific Journal, 5(1), 57–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2019). OECD Environmental Performance Review: Türkiye 2019. OECD Publishing, Paris/ministry of Environment and Urbanization, Turkey, Ankara. https://doi.org/10.1787/653318da-tr

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olena, K. and A. Ivanova, International legal protection of the marine environment from pollution from ships on the example of the Black Sea. 2020.

  • Oral, N., Chapter III The Regional Legal Framework for the Protection and Preservation of the Black Sea Marine Environment, in Regional Co-operation and Protection of the Marine Environment Under International Law. 2013, Brill Nijhoff. p. 75–125.

  • Özkan, A. (2014). Implementing International Environmental Law in the Black Sea Basin: An Analysis of Bucharest Convention. Zeitschrift Für Die Welt Der Türken/journal of World of Turks, 6(1), 229–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rekacewicz, P. and E. Bournay, UNEP. GRID-Arendal:http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/detail/greatweather-and-flood-catastrophes-over-the-last-forty-years_86f3, 2005.

  • Sarangi, U. (2023). Blue economy, blue finance and ocean governance for achieving sustainable development goals Natural Resources Forum. Wiley Online Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satterthwaite, E. V., et al. (2022). Five actionable pillars to engage the next generation of leaders in the co-design of transformative ocean solutions. PLoS Biology, 20(10), e3001832.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schunz, S., Transatlantic Relations and the Challenges of Climate Change and the Environment. Transatlantic Relations: Challenge and Resilience, 2022.

  • Stancheva, M., et al. (2022). Supporting multi-use of the sea with maritime spatial planning The case of a multi-use opportunity development-Bulgaria Black Sea. Marine Policy, 136, 104927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tassinari, F. (2006). A synergy for Black Sea regional cooperation: Guidelines for an EU Initiative. CEPS Policy Briefs, 1–12, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toksoy, F., Balki, B., & Stakheyeva, H. (2022). Merger control in the EU and Turkey: A comparative guide. Hollanda: Wolters Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tunç, H. (2000). “Milletlerarasi Sözleşmelerin Türk iç Hukukuna Etkisi ve avrupa insan haklari mahkemesinin türkiye ile ilgili örnek karar incelemesi. Anayasa Yargisi Dergisi, Cilt, 17, 174–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Türker, Y. Ö., & Aydin, A. (2022). How ready is the Turkish Legislation for the green deal? Energy and Climate Change, 3, 100084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velikova, V., & Oral, N. (2012). Governance of the protection of the Black Sea: a model for regional cooperation In Environmental security in watersheds The Sea of Azov. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vespremeanu, E., et al. (2018). International cooperation in the black sea basin. The Black Sea Physical Environmental and Historical Perspectives, 2018, 125–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voegtlin, C., & Scherer, A. G. (2017). Responsible innovation and the innovation of responsibility: Governing sustainable development in a globalized world. Journal of Business Ethics, 143, 227–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yildirim, S., & Kaplan, M. (2020). Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Kapsamında Türkiye’de Denizler ve Deniz Ürünleri Profili. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 19(3), 853–866.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding is associated with this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental and Forestry Law Department, Faculty of Forestry, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, 34473, Bahcekoy, Istanbul, Turkey

    Nilay Tulukcu Yıldızbaş & Osman Devrim Elvan

  2. Department of Forest Economics, Faculty of Forestry, Çankırı Karatekin University, Çankırı, 18200, Turkey

    Üstüner Birben

  3. Department of Civil Law, Faculty of Law, Maltepe University, Istanbul, 34857, Turkey

    Melek Bilgin Yüce

Authors
  1. Nilay Tulukcu Yıldızbaş
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Üstüner Birben
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Osman Devrim Elvan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Melek Bilgin Yüce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

NTY helped in conceptualization, methodology, investigation, writing–original draft, and visualization. ÜB helped in conceptualization, methodology, and writing–review and editing. ODE helped in conceptualization and writing–review and editing. MBY worked in investigation and writing–review and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nilay Tulukcu Yıldızbaş.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yıldızbaş, N.T., Birben, Ü., Elvan, O.D. et al. An analysis of the convention on the protection of the Black Sea against pollution (the Bucharest Convention) from the perspective of Turkish contract law. Int Environ Agreements 23, 485–502 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-023-09621-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-023-09621-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation