Öz
Bosna-Hersek ile Hırvatistan arasındaki sınır anlaşmazlıklarını Pelješac Köprüsü örneği üzerinden ele alan bu çalışma, köprünün bölgesel dinamikler üzerindeki hukuki, ekonomik ve jeopolitik etkilerini değerlendirmektedir. Çalışmanın temel amacı, köprünün inşasının sınır ihtilaflarını nasıl şekillendirdiğini ve tarafların uluslararası hukuk çerçevesinde doğan yükümlülüklerini ne ölçüde yerine getirdiğini ortaya koymaktır. Bu doğrultuda, ulusal ve uluslararası hukuk belgeleri, diplomatik metinler, akademik çalışmalar ve resmi raporlar incelenerek, sınır uyuşmazlıkları tarihsel ve hukuki bağlamda analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, Pelješac Köprüsü’nün Bosna-Hersek’in deniz erişimini kısıtladığını, egemenlik haklarını zayıflattığını, sınır gerilimlerini artırdığını ve uluslararası hukuk bağlamında ekonomik, siyasi ve hukuki tartışmalara neden olduğunu göstermektedir. Ayrıca, Hırvatistan, projeyi Bosna-Hersek’in deniz yetki iddialarını dikkate almadan yürütmüştür. Bu bağlamda, Pelješac Köprüsü yalnızca iki ülke arasındaki sınır ihtilaflarını değil, aynı zamanda Adriyatik bölgesindeki jeopolitik dengeleri de doğrudan etkilemektedir. Çalışma, sınır anlaşmazlıklarının uluslararası hukuk perspektifinden ele alınmasına yönelik yeni bir çerçeve sunmakta ve benzer ihtilaflar için çözüm önerileri getirerek literatüre önemli bir katkı sağlamaktadır.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- American Society of International Law. (1993). Conference of Yugoslavia arbitration commission opinions, no. 1–10. In International Legal Materials, 92 (pp. 163-167). Washington, D.C.
- Badinter Arbitration Committee. (1992). Opinion No. 3 on the borders of Croatia, Serbia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina. European Journal of International Law, 3(1), 178-185.
- Bennett, C. (1995). Yugoslavia’s bloody collapse: Causes, course and consequences. New York: New York University Press.
- Bickl, T. (2019). Bridge over troubled waters: The Pelješac project, China, and the implications for good-neighbourly relations and the EU. Politička Misao: Časopis Za Politologiju, 56(3-4), 53-55.
- Blake, G., & Topalovic, D. (1996). The maritime boundaries of the Adriatic Sea. Maritime Briefing, 1(8), 4. Durham University IBRU Publication.
- Dimitrijević, D. S. (2016). Unresolved border issues between Serbia and successor states of the former Yugoslavia. Serbian Science Today, 3, 370-371.
- Grant, T. D. (1999). The Recognition of States: Law and practice in debate and evolution. westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
- Hoş, B. Y., Çetin, E., & Ceyhan, Z. (2021). Bosna Hersek’in deniz yetki alanlarını gasp eden Peljesac Köprüsü ve Bosna Hersek’in deniz koridoru. Türkiye Siyaset Bilimi Dergisi, 4(1), 84–86.
- Imamović, M. (2020). The maritime border disputes of Croatia (Master's thesis, Gothenburg University). Retrieved from https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/handle/2077/67529/gupea_2077_67529_1.pdf
- Klemencic, M. (2000). The border agreement between Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina - The first but not the last. Boundary & Security Bulletin, Durham University IBRU Publications, 2-3.
- Kovacevic, D. (2017, August 7). Croatia rejects Bosnian ‘threats’ over Peljesac bridge. Balkan Insight. Retrieved October 14, 2020, from https://balkaninsight.com/2017/08/07/croatia-rejects-bosnian-threatsover-peljesac-bridge-08-07-2017/
- Kunst, I., & Klarić, Z. (2021). Is the Pelješac bridge construction going to affect tourism sustainability of the peninsula? Tourism: An International Interdisciplinary Journal, 69(2), 305. Retrieved from https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/376975
- Navari, C. (2014). Territoriality, self-determination and Crimea after Badinter. International Affairs, 90(6), 1299–1318. doi: 10.1111/1468-2346.12171
- Pavlic, V. (2017, August 5). Bosnia determined to stop Peljesac bridge construction. Total Croatia News. Retrieved October 14, 2020, from https://www.total-croatia-news.com/politics/20989-bosnia-determined-to-stop-peljesac-bridge-construction
- Pellet, A. (1992). The opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee: A second breath for the self-determination of peoples. European Journal of International Law, 3(1), 172.
- Pomerance, M. (1998). The Badinter Commission: The use and misuse of the International Court of Justice’s jurisprudence. Michigan Journal of International Law, 20(1), 32.
- Radan, P. (2000). Post-secession international borders: A critical analysis of the opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Commission. Melbourne University Law Review, 24(1), 4, 50.
- Sevdik, S. (2021). The final countdown to save the Ottomans’ last legacy in BIH from the encirclement of Pelješac bridge. AVİM Blog. Retrieved October 14, 2020, from https://avim.org.tr/Blog/THE-FINAL-COUNTDOWN-TO-SAVE-THE-OTTOMANS-LAST-LEGACY-IN-BIH-FROM-THE-ENCIRCLEMENT-OF-PELJESAC-BRIDGE
- Šelo Šabić, S., & Borić, S. (2016). Crossing over: A perspective on Croatian open border issues. Zagreb: Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO). Retrieved from https://irmo.hr/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Crossing-over_WEB.pdf
- Tatar, V. (2012). Eski Yugoslavya’da yeni devletler: Birleşmiş Milletler ve büyük güçler [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
Öz
This study examines the border disputes between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia through the case of the Pelješac Bridge, assessing its legal, economic, and geopolitical implications for regional dynamics. The primary objective of the study is to explore how the construction of the bridge has shaped border disputes and to what extent the parties have fulfilled their obligations under international law. To this end, national and international legal documents, diplomatic records, academic studies, and official reports have been analyzed, providing a historical and legal framework for the border disputes. The findings indicate that the Pelješac Bridge restricts Bosnia and Herzegovina’s maritime access, weakens its sovereignty, escalates border tensions, and raises economic, political, and legal debates within the context of international law. Furthermore, it has been determined that Croatia has not fully adhered to international maritime law norms in the implementation of the project. In this context, the Pelješac Bridge affects not only the border disputes between the two countries but also directly influences the geopolitical balance in the Adriatic region. This study presents a new framework for addressing border disputes from an international legal perspective and contributes significantly to the literature by offering solutions for similar conflicts.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Bosnia and Herzegovina Croatia Neum agreement Peljesac Bridge
Kaynakça
- American Society of International Law. (1993). Conference of Yugoslavia arbitration commission opinions, no. 1–10. In International Legal Materials, 92 (pp. 163-167). Washington, D.C.
- Badinter Arbitration Committee. (1992). Opinion No. 3 on the borders of Croatia, Serbia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina. European Journal of International Law, 3(1), 178-185.
- Bennett, C. (1995). Yugoslavia’s bloody collapse: Causes, course and consequences. New York: New York University Press.
- Bickl, T. (2019). Bridge over troubled waters: The Pelješac project, China, and the implications for good-neighbourly relations and the EU. Politička Misao: Časopis Za Politologiju, 56(3-4), 53-55.
- Blake, G., & Topalovic, D. (1996). The maritime boundaries of the Adriatic Sea. Maritime Briefing, 1(8), 4. Durham University IBRU Publication.
- Dimitrijević, D. S. (2016). Unresolved border issues between Serbia and successor states of the former Yugoslavia. Serbian Science Today, 3, 370-371.
- Grant, T. D. (1999). The Recognition of States: Law and practice in debate and evolution. westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
- Hoş, B. Y., Çetin, E., & Ceyhan, Z. (2021). Bosna Hersek’in deniz yetki alanlarını gasp eden Peljesac Köprüsü ve Bosna Hersek’in deniz koridoru. Türkiye Siyaset Bilimi Dergisi, 4(1), 84–86.
- Imamović, M. (2020). The maritime border disputes of Croatia (Master's thesis, Gothenburg University). Retrieved from https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/handle/2077/67529/gupea_2077_67529_1.pdf
- Klemencic, M. (2000). The border agreement between Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina - The first but not the last. Boundary & Security Bulletin, Durham University IBRU Publications, 2-3.
- Kovacevic, D. (2017, August 7). Croatia rejects Bosnian ‘threats’ over Peljesac bridge. Balkan Insight. Retrieved October 14, 2020, from https://balkaninsight.com/2017/08/07/croatia-rejects-bosnian-threatsover-peljesac-bridge-08-07-2017/
- Kunst, I., & Klarić, Z. (2021). Is the Pelješac bridge construction going to affect tourism sustainability of the peninsula? Tourism: An International Interdisciplinary Journal, 69(2), 305. Retrieved from https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/376975
- Navari, C. (2014). Territoriality, self-determination and Crimea after Badinter. International Affairs, 90(6), 1299–1318. doi: 10.1111/1468-2346.12171
- Pavlic, V. (2017, August 5). Bosnia determined to stop Peljesac bridge construction. Total Croatia News. Retrieved October 14, 2020, from https://www.total-croatia-news.com/politics/20989-bosnia-determined-to-stop-peljesac-bridge-construction
- Pellet, A. (1992). The opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee: A second breath for the self-determination of peoples. European Journal of International Law, 3(1), 172.
- Pomerance, M. (1998). The Badinter Commission: The use and misuse of the International Court of Justice’s jurisprudence. Michigan Journal of International Law, 20(1), 32.
- Radan, P. (2000). Post-secession international borders: A critical analysis of the opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Commission. Melbourne University Law Review, 24(1), 4, 50.
- Sevdik, S. (2021). The final countdown to save the Ottomans’ last legacy in BIH from the encirclement of Pelješac bridge. AVİM Blog. Retrieved October 14, 2020, from https://avim.org.tr/Blog/THE-FINAL-COUNTDOWN-TO-SAVE-THE-OTTOMANS-LAST-LEGACY-IN-BIH-FROM-THE-ENCIRCLEMENT-OF-PELJESAC-BRIDGE
- Šelo Šabić, S., & Borić, S. (2016). Crossing over: A perspective on Croatian open border issues. Zagreb: Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO). Retrieved from https://irmo.hr/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Crossing-over_WEB.pdf
- Tatar, V. (2012). Eski Yugoslavya’da yeni devletler: Birleşmiş Milletler ve büyük güçler [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
Ayrıntılar
| Birincil Dil | Türkçe |
|---|---|
| Konular | Bölgesel Çalışmalar, Uluslararası İlişkilerde Siyaset, Uluslararası İlişkilerde Uyuşmazlık Çözümü |
| Bölüm | ARAŞTIRMA MAKALELERİ |
| Yazarlar | |
| Yayımlanma Tarihi | 30 Nisan 2025 |
| Gönderilme Tarihi | 22 Kasım 2024 |
| Kabul Tarihi | 18 Nisan 2025 |
| Yayımlandığı Sayı | Yıl 2025 Sayı: 84 |
Kaynak Göster
Dergimiz EBSCOhost, ULAKBİM/Sosyal Bilimler Veri Tabanında, SOBİAD ve Türk Eğitim İndeksi'nde yer alan uluslararası hakemli bir dergidir.