This page is maintained by İlayda Açıkgöz, Kübra Aygül, Su İlayda Başeğmez, Muhammed İkbal Uzun with the help of Beliz Küçükosman. This page is not a complete report but a program report for the ECON318 project for the 2018-2019 spring semester.

Turkey is subject to a set of international and domestic regulations for its straits. Turkish straits face various environmental disasters such as pollution, vessel collision, closure and harms in land by vessels, oil leak, and explosions of tankers which should covered by Protection and Indemnity (P&I) Insurances. There are other straits around the world which are subject to various legislations against dangers posed by maritime trade. Turkish Straits on the other hand are still constrained by the articles of the Montreux Convention but has since experienced new regulations passed for the safety of the straits in accordance with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Conventions. However, the reduced yet clear continuation of damaging episodes seem to point out a need for improvement in the management and conservation of the Turkish Straits. Thus, the aim of this project is to investigate and offer a design which might be applied to alleviate the damage caused by possible environmental disasters.

A plan has been devised for Turkey to keep the Turkish Straits clean and safe where steps will be divided into two categories based on their operation time. We argue that Turkey may first introduce a Complimentary Insurance recommended as a Bosphorus transit insurance for ships who are obliged to pay it, build a pipeline (such as the Samsun-Ceyhan Pipeline) with the cooperation of nearby oil exporting countries to decrease traffic and finally implement IMO 2020 as soon as possible to lessen the sulphur emissions harming its citizens. Furthermore, a more comprehensive long-term strategy will be conceived where we urge for the straits acquiring a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) or similar recognition from the IMO which will be invaluable for the Turkish attempts to introduce adjustments to Protection and Indemnity (P&I) insurances or to mandate a wide scale Bosphorus specific insurance only obtained from certain legally accredited insurance companies for a quick recovery from possible incidents.

Overview

Nearly 48,000 vessels pass the Turkish straits each year, which makes this area one of the busiest gateways. Although the Turkish government reserves the right to regulate the traits for safety and environmental causes, commercial shipping whose incidents indicate that the regulations made by the government are insufficient maintain the right of free passage in peacetime provided by the Montreux Convention.

1. Throughout history, the straits have witnessed countless accidents.

a. Many of them caused environmental disasters.

b. The accidents not only create a dangerous environment for Turkey but also can harm the surrounding Black, Mediterranean and Aegean seas, potentially causing an aftershock in both environmental and economic terms for the wider region swiftly resulting in an obstruction for international maritime trade.

2. Abandoned, sunken ships or the ones who are left to their fate are posing a serious threat to marine traffic and need to be cleared of the sea’s ecosystem. The fact that there even is such a problem is an unfortunate expression of the Turkish insurance and marine sectors’ inadequacy.

We conclude that a permanent solution to the many incidents occurring in the straits cannot be immediately implemented due to pre-existing rigidities in the system which Turkey cannot adjust itself easily but there still viable options for the conservation and/or sanitization of the straits. There are three actions which could benefit the country without necessitating heavy political pressure or bring upon drastic diplomatic penalties. In the first two issues, the lack of a well-structured insurance scheme which even originally caused the embarrassing eruption of over 100 ghost ships in Turkish waters, finally corrected with an amendment to correct in November 2017 with article 7 of the ports law can be used as an argument for the need of a re-evaluation.

1. Complimentary Insurance: Turkey may introduce a complimentary insurance in its legislation under article 9 of the ports’ regulation. This insurance can be implemented as a “strait passage security” which will effectively give Turkey a legitimate reason to add in a secondary warrant. This warrant cannot in any way stop ships that haven’t bought the insurance or exceed minor insurance costs like that of 50 or 100 million dollars. Nevertheless, Turkey can incentivize the secondary insurance as long as all ships aren’t required (allowed) to obtain it and the ships that do are given the opportunity to endure less waiting time which is currently peaked at 168 hours.

2. Alternative Pipeline: A pipeline, in this case Samsun-Ceyhan, would not only turn Turkey into an Energy hub but would also provide an alternative method of transporting oil. The benefits of such a scheme could be immeasurable as Turkey would be able to discourage any low profit and risky trade operations regarding oil transportation over the straits while also benefiting from the decreased traffic’s safety. The Samsun-Ceyhan pipeline which was shelved due to political reasons was notably promising in this regard (UPI, 2013).

3. IMO 2020: The International Maritime Organization (IMO) 2020 regulations where the members agreed upon a global sulphur oxides (SOx) emission cap of 0.50% m/m in the heavy fuel oil of ships should be implemented immediately, preferably even before January 2020, as the reduced sulphur emission will be critical for the health of the over 10 million residents of Istanbul. The fines should roughly be equal to or slightly be lower than the marginal cost of not using oil with sulphur emissions less than 0.50% m/m.

Although the first two of the above-mentioned three policies will be instrumental in reducing the amount and costs of new ship crashes in the Turkish straits, it is not an entirely cohesive plan. The main issue regarding the uniqueness of the Turkish straits and how Turkey will preserve and benefit from that uniqueness requires two additional measures. These measures should be taken unilaterally and pre-emptively in order to prevent any catastrophic incident, which unfortunately seems to be statistically viable, which would not only bring upon an unprecedented environmental disaster affecting not only the Bosphorus but the neighboring Black and Aegean seas for many years.

1. Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA): Turkey can be greatly empowered if it can successfully defend the claim that Turkish Straits are or can be likened to a PSSA as in the case of Torres Strait between Australia and Papua New Guinea, which would provide a direly needed recognition of the straits’ distinctive vulnerability and importance. The recognition would have to be instigated by a non-biased reputable source or significantly damaging event which Turkey would use as justification to claim that the Bosphorus was “sensitive” which would then require steps of acknowledgement. This claim would not only allow further environmental and safety measures to be taken but could also warrant an entirely unique policy provided that the IMO members do not oppose it with a clear majority. Then these adjustments would require the consent and support of the Montreux Convention signatory parties and permanent UN Security Council members where the opinions of the United Kingdom and Russia which are in both groups could be argued to matter the most.

2. P&I Adjustment: P&I insurance while being great on paper has unfortunately not solved Turkey’s problems with the Turkish Straits as it has simply proven to be ineffective due to many reasons including the International Group’s (a union of the largest 13 P&I clubs) cartel-like prevalence, the lack of sufficient insurance capital in Turkey and the specific issues regarding the Turkish Straits. The most important recommendations to examine would consist of a basic total assets requirement (necessitated by crashes such as the in the case of the dry cargo ship named Hera), a lean operating requirement (necessitated by crashes such as in the case of the general cargo ship named Tallas) and most notably a Bosphorus related insurance which will be the most effective.

Although a P&I adjustment could be highly potent, a different scheme could also be developed within the wider scheme of maritime insurance. If a PSSA like recognition could be achieved for the Turkish Straits, Turkey could justify a wide scale Bosphorus related insurance where ship-owners whose ships are crossing the straits would have to buy specific insurance from prominent United Kingdom based insurance companies. This insurance would be maintained so that Turkey can immediately have the funds to scour oil out of the Straits.

A. International Agreements Turkey is Subject to;

A.1. The Montreux Convention

“The 1936 Montreux Convention on the Regime of the Straits (hereafter referred to as the Montreux Convention) regulates the legal status of Turkish Straits which are regulated to settle innocent transit and safety of navigation in the Straits of the Çanakkale, the Sea of Marmara and the İstanbul comprised under the general term "Turkish Straits" and of the Black Sea. It was signed among the former USSR, the former Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Greece, France, the United Kingdom, and Japan on July 20, 1936, and entered into force on November 9, 1936. The seven-decade old Convention is the longest lasting accord since the 165 years period of the 1841 Convention[1] on the Straits, which marked the first time the Turkish Straits was regulated by a multilateral convention. The Montreux Convention on the Regime of the Straits has been open for accession to all states. Initially, the effective period is twenty years. The end date of the contract is 9 November 1956. As of this date, the expiry of the termination period was subject to the preliminary notification declarations of the Contracting States to terminate the Convention. However, in Article 1 of the Convention was stated as “Transition from the sea in the Straits and an infinite period of freedom of transportation” (Zorlu Uğur, 2016).

The Montreux Convention on the Regime of the Straits brought an end to the restrictions imposed by the Lausanne Convention, and reconfirmed the sovereign rights of Turkey.

· Convention has provided for restrictions on the class, tonnage, and duration of stay for warships of non-Black Sea states in the Black Sea,

· It does not allow any access for the submarines or aircraft carrier of non-littoral states,

· It does not allow for the passage of aircraft carriers of the Black Seas states,

· It does permit the navigation of their submarines in exceptional circumstances and on the condition that they navigate on the surface during daytime and are not escorted by another vessel.

Turkey has retained the right to determine and regulate the passage through the straits at its own discretion in time of war when Turkey is belligerent or when Turkey considers itself to be threatened with imminent danger of war. In this case, Turkey may close the Straits to the warships of all states, or it may allow the passage of warships of certain states only. In time of war when Turkey is neutral, the Straits are to be closed to the warships of all belligerent states. Those provisions of the Convention concerning the time of the war when Turkey is neutral and when it is belligerent were applied during World War II. The principle of the freedom of navigation has been fundamentally restricted by the Montreux regime as far as warships and aircraft are concerned. Within the limitations of the Montreux Convention and according to the data on tonnage as of January 1, 2006, non-Black Sea states may maintain up to a maximum total naval force of 43.500 tons, consisting of light surface vessels, minor war vessels and auxiliary vessels in the Black Sea. Any individual non-Black Sea state may keep a total of 29.000 tons of naval force which is two thirds of the aforementioned figure, and the presence of such force in the Black Sea may not exceed twenty-one days. It seems evident that, with such a limited force, a non-littoral state that may have political and military designs regarding the Black Sea would not be able to carry out its objectives. For any non-littoral state that wants to maintain a naval force in the Black Sea without any limitations on class, tonnage or duration of stay, and which wants to exercise the rights and freedoms of the high seas in the Black Sea, the Montreux Convention remains as an impediment.” (Oral and Öztürk, 2006).

The Montreux Convention’s Articles

The second article states that “In time of peace, merchant vessels shall enjoy complete freedom of transit and navigation in the Straits, by day and by night, under any flag and with any kind of cargo, without any formalities, except as provided in Article 3” while article 3 only necessitates a “sanitary control prescribed by Turkish law within the framework of international sanitary regulations”. The articles from 8 to 18 are related to peace time passage through the straits yet the 20th article states that if Turkey is a belligerent in a war, those articles are not applicable and that “the passage of warships shall be left entirely to the discretion of the Turkish Government.” The ninth article is significant in that it states “Naval auxiliary vessels specifically designed for the carriage of fuel, liquid or non-liquid... (shall) continue to be on the same footing as vessels of war for the purpose of the remaining provisions governing transit”. The eleventh article states that Black Sea Powers can only send capital ships larger than 15.000 gross tonnages if they are passing through the straits “on condition that these vessels pass through the Straits singly, escorted by not more than two destroyers”. The articles from 12 to 16 only concern warships. The 17th article notes that the provisions do not prevent any naval force from paying a courtesy visit at the invitation of the Turkish government. The 18th article specifies in the first paragraph that the “aggregate tonnage which non-Black Sea Powers may have in that sea (Black Sea) in time of peace” as

a. “The aggregate tonnage of the said Powers shall not exceed 30.000 tons;”

b. “If at any time the tonnage of the strongest fleet in the Black Sea shall exceed by at least 10,000 tons the tonnage of the strongest fleet in that sea at the date of the signature of the present convention, the aggregate tonnage of 30.000 tons mentioned in paragraph (a) shall be increased by the same amount, up to a maximum of 45.000 tons.”

c. “The tonnage which any one non-Black Sea Power may have in the Black Sea shall be limited to two-thirds of the aggregate tonnage provided for in paragraphs (a) and (b) above;”

d. “In the event, however, of one or more non-Black Sea Powers desiring to send naval forces into the Black Sea, for a humanitarian purpose, the said forces, which shall in no case exceed 8.000 tons altogether, shall be allowed to enter the Black Sea without having to give the notification” as long as the Turkish government provides an authorization which the other contracting parties do not object to within 24 hours and the limits specified in (a) and (b) aren’t exceeded.

The 18th article’s second paragraph notes that warships “belonging to Non-Black Sea Powers shall not remain in the Black Sea more than twenty-one days, whatever be the object of their presence there.”

The 19th article is significant in that it states that if Turkey is not a belligerent in the case of a war, it has to allow warships to pass through the straits as long as they are within the limitations set up in the articles from 10 to 18 while also noting warships “shall not make any capture, exercise the right of visit and search, or carry out any hostile act in the Straits”. The article does also put certain strains on the warships that may pass under exceptional cases such as the non-permitted violation of article 25 regarding the refusal of prejudice to any contracting parties to the convention. The 21st article states the actions that Turkey can take if it considers itself under threatened with imminent war while also necessitating justification by the League of Nations. The 23rd article is interested with aircraft whereas the 24th article states that the Turkish government will also undertake the functions of the International Commission which previously controlled the Straits. Thus, the Turkish government is responsible of executing the agreed upon provisions set up mentioned above including the ones regarding warships. The Turkish government is also required to inform the representatives of the contracting parties at Ankara in the case of a foreign naval force passage. The articles from 25 to 29 are only procedural arrangements such as the exclusion of prejudice and how the convention’s ratification will be communicated. Among these, the 28th article is significant however as it clearly states that “The principle of freedom of transit and navigation affirmed in Article 1 of the present convention shall however continue without limit of time”.

Evaluation of the Montreux Convention

A table was created based on the interpretation of the aforementioned articles.

Table 1: Advantages and disadvantages of interpretation of the articles.

Advantages	Disadvantages
The convention clearly gives Turkey jurisdiction over Turkish Straits, transferring the authorities of the International Commission in article 24.	The Convention severely ties down Turkey’s hands whenever the topic is merchant vessels. Most actions it might want to take can be disputed by the other contracting states.
The convention gives Turkey the right and responsibility to secure the Turkish Straits which was probably invaluable considering the times.	The 19th article stating how under specific conditions Turkey is to allow the passage of warships which are not supposed to be hostile during transit seems to be risk to say the least.
The 18th article ought to be taken into consideration as it distinguishes the tonnage limits for non-Black Sea Powers. This article allows helps the Convention relax our neighbors.	The limits specified in the 18th article may also lead up to a situation where non-Black Sea Powers can agitate our neighbors by entering the sea with their warships in time intervals.
There are no restrictions put on Turkey to regulate traffic in the straits. Turkey can set speed, limit and acceleration limits, which it eventually did.	The 28th article stating that the 1st article is without a time limit may yield an open-ended opposition to any changes Turkey may want.
It is clear that the convention was unable to estimate various environmental dangers the ships that passed through the straits brought which necessitates possibly beneficial adjustments.
The complications brought by the extent and speed of modern trade, such as the fulfillment services, are understandably not covered and therefore may be used for a favorable change.

Note: Neighbors here refers to other Black Sea states.

Comments on the Montreux Convention

According to the Montreux Convention, the Turkish Straits are open to warships of Black Sea countries in time of peace, but not to warships of other countries except for the aggregate tonnage allowed. This provides security to the Black Sea countries. When Turkey is neutral in wartime, passage of belligerents' warships is prohibited. This is the only way that Turkey can protect itself from involvement in a war. It is clear that allowing passage of warships belonging to belligerents would make the Straits a battlefield. Therefore, the second conclusion of this thesis is that the current system under the Montreux Convention is ideal for safeguarding the interests and strategic exigencies of all parties: Turkey, the Russian Federation, other Black Sea countries and the Western powers, including the United States. Nevertheless, it is clear that every side has demands regarding the passage regime for the Turkish Straits. Russia wants greater restrictions while the United States wants a greater naval presence in the Black Sea. As for Turkey, it wants the Straits to be more secure, both environmental and militarily.

A.2 MARPOL 73/78 -International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973, as Amended by the Protocol of 1978

As a result of accidents and pollution events, International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) Convention has been developed. MARPOL 73/78 is the basic international convention governing the issues of operation or accident and the prevention of marine pollution from ships. The MARPOL 73/78 contract not only regulates oil pollution, but also bulk and packaged chemical / toxic substances, contaminated water, garbage and air pollution. It was adopted on 2 November 1973. It could not reach the number of signatures required at first and did not enter into force. After an increase in the number of accidents, the contract entered into force on 2 October 1983.

In accordance with the provisions of the Protocol of 1978, participation in Annexes I and II of the MARPOL 73/78 Convention shall be compulsory; III. IV. and V. Annexes are optional. This regulation facilitated the entry into force of the MARPOL 73/78 Convention. In 1997, a new protocol was issued to regulate air pollution issues arising from ships, which added Annex VI to the Convention. The 1997 Protocol was enacted on 19 May 2005 in the world. According to this contract; each flag state is responsible for ensuring that ships under its flag comply with the provisions of the Convention. As a sign of the fulfillment of this responsibility, the ships shall be given the certificates and the conditions specified in the Contract. So, certificates on ships are a sign of compliance with rules.

Also, any violation of the MARPOL 73/78 Convention within the jurisdiction of any Party to the Convention is punishable either under the law of that Party or under the law of the flag State. In this respect, the term “jurisdiction” in the Convention should be construed in the light of international law in force at the time the Convention is applied or interpreted. With the exception of very small vessels, ships engaged on international voyages must carry on board valid international certificates which may be accepted at foreign ports as prima facie evidence that the ship complies with the requirements of the Convention. If, however, there are clear grounds for believing that the condition of the ship or its equipment does not correspond substantially with the particulars of the certificate, or if the ship does not carry a valid certificate, the authority carrying out the inspection may detain the ship until it is satisfied that the ship can proceed to sea without presenting unreasonable threat of harm to the marine environment. Under Article 17, the Parties to the Convention accept the obligation to promote, in consultation with other international bodies and with the assistance of UNEP, support for those Parties which request technical assistance for various purposes, such as training, the supply of equipment, research, and combating pollution.

Annex I - Rules for Prevention of Oil Pollution

It entered into force on 2 October 1983. It includes rules for the prevention of oil pollution arising from both accident and operation reasons. It regulates the requirements for ships to have The International Oil Pollution Prevention Document (IOPP) for the compliance of the ships with the rules. There are special and aggravated rules for oil tankers. Double wall requirements, crude oil washing system, separated ballast tanks; inert gas system is one of these requirements. Special sea areas are defined for oil pollution prevention. In the special marine areas, the waste water or bilge water containing oil into the sea is bound to very strict rules.

Annex VI - Rules for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships

New regulations on the limitation of emissions including emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO_x) and sulfur oxides (SO_x) from the flue (exhaust) gases of ships by the emission of emissions damaging the ozone layer. This Annex, which covers all international vessels, fixed and floating drilling units and other platforms with 400 GRT and larger tonnage, has limited the sulfur and sulfur ratio of ship fuel, and it has become mandatory to equip the ship chimneys with systems that allow limiting SO_x emissions. All new ship diesel engines with 130 kW and higher power installed on the ships built later were required to comply with the requirements in terms of NO_x emissions and International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate (IAPP) has been made compulsory for the vessels under the Annex. Special emission control sites where SO_x, NO_x and particulates are more tightly bounded have been identified. With the new rules that entered into force in 2013, all greenhouse gas emission emissions were significantly reduced.

A.3 OPRC 1990- International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation

After the oil tanker accident named Exxon Valdez in 1989, the conference, which was held in 1990, was adopted in 1995 and the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation (OPRC) was adopted. The contract will not apply to any warship, auxiliary warship, or other ships used in a state or state-run and non-commercial government business. Nevertheless, States Parties shall ensure that such ships shall act in accordance with the Contract to the extent they are reasonable and practicable, taking appropriate measures not to disrupt the operation or operational capacity of such ships to which they possess or operate. (Article 1/3) The Convention applies to oil pollution incidents originating from sea ports and oil loading and unloading facilities, offshore facilities and finally ships, as well as offshore and marine environment or related interests. Oil pollution from ships may be on the high seas as well as in the territorial waters. Indeed, in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, the event of oil pollution may be an event which may result in an emergency operation or other opposition, which may originate or result in the same origin, which may or may not result in the means to see the sequence of events. States parties are obliged to ensure that they have oil emergency plans in accordance with the principles determined by IMO on ships carrying their own flags (art. 3). This obligation also applies to oil processing plants, ports and offshore facilities. States parties can control the emergency plans of these ships in their ports or offshore facilities in accordance with international treaties and their legislation. One of the most important stages in the process of oil pollution prevention is undoubtedly to inform the relevant authorities of the incident which will lead to pollution. Because the spread of oil in the sea is fast and requires the intervention with the same speed. Ship and offshore facility managers are obliged to report oil spill or any possibility of a leak to the nearest coastal state in their ships or in any other part of the sea (Art. 4). When the State Party receives such notice, it shall consider the incident to determine whether the incident is an oil pollution; evaluate the nature, scope and possible consequences of oil pollution; shall inform all States whose interests are affected or affected by the incident in an urgent manner, the details of the assessment in relation to the incident, and the measures and other measures to be applied by it’s for the purpose of elimination of the incident (Article 5). If the size of oil pollution makes this necessary, the situation should be reported to IMO. Both IMO's commissioning and individual and collective notification obligations are indicative of international cooperation, taking into account that oil contamination is a result of serious consequences.

A.4 1992 Fund Convention (FUND-92)

The Fund was established in 1996 under the FUND-92 Convention and is funded by the companies and other establishments in the Member States that purchased certain types of oil transported by sea. The Fund is an international organization managed by the member states. The Fund is administered by two entities: The Assembly and The Administrative Committee. The Assembly is made up of representatives of the Governments of the Member States. The Administrative Committee consisting of 15 Member States is a sub-entity elected by the Assembly. The main function of this Committee is to approve the demands. The Administrative Committee, however, left the Director-General to have broader powers of approving and paying the claims. Claimants under the CLC-92 contract; In the event that they do not receive the full amount of compensation requested by an event, they may be entitled to receive additional compensation under the FUND 92 contract. The following may apply for additional compensation under FUND 92:

· If the damage exceeds the liability limit under the CLC-92 Convention,

· If the ship owner is not responsible under the CLC-92 Convention (if the damage is caused by a natural disaster or a movement or negligence caused by a natural disaster or by a third party) or by the government responsible for the operation of if the other responsible authorities have been the result of the negligence in carrying out this task)

· If the ship-owner does not have the financial means to fully meet his responsibilities in the CLC-92 Convention and is insufficient to pay the applicable compensation claim.

The Fund does not pay compensation in the following cases:

· Damage caused by pollution; if it was caused by oil or if it was caused by a war, hostility, civil war or an uprising, or by the oil cast out of the battleship (the CLC-92 Convention is not held responsible for the owner of the ship).

· If the applicant, as stated in the Convention, cannot prove that the damage is caused by an incident involving one or more vessels (this is either installed or adapted to carry oil as bulk cargo, loaded or unloaded under certain conditions, The Supplementary Fund provides additional funds (financial resources) for damages in the member states of the 2003 Supplementary Fund Protocol in addition to the 1992 Fund. The criteria required to cover claims for damages are covered by the FUND-92 Convention. The policy adopted by the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund in order to remedy the damages in this book also applies to the Supplementary Fund.

Fund payments under the 1992 Fund Convention (FUND-92)

The maximum compensation payable by the Fund for any event is 203 million SDR regardless of the ship's tonnage. This maximum amount also includes compensation paid by the ship's owner or his insurer under the CLC-92 Convention. If the total amount of accepted claims exceeds the total amount of compensation under the 1992 Conventions (CLC-92 and FUND-92), the amount of compensation to be paid to each claimant shall be reduced proportionately. In the event of the possibility of such a situation, the Fund may have to restrict compensation payments to ensure equal treatment to all claimants. If the uncertainty about the total amount of accepted demand decreases, the payment level may increase at an advanced stage. Following a serious accident assessed under the Supplementary Fund, it provides compensation up to $ 1.15 Billion, including an amount of compensation for each CLC-92 and FUND-92 per accident. An advantage of the Supplementary Fund is that, as the FUND-92, each of the claimants will not be required to reduce the amount of compensation equally, because of the large compensation limit they provide. Because it is not possible to overcome such a large amount of compensation. Thus, it will be possible for the claimants to be fully compensated when more compensation is paid.

Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments

The Courts in a State or States where the pollution damage occurs have exclusive jurisdiction over actions for compensation under the Conventions against the ship-owner, his insurer and the IOPC Funds. If the same incident causes damage in more than one State Party to the respective Convention, any action for compensation for damage arising out of the incident can be brought in the courts of any of these States. A judgment by a Court competent under the applicable Convention, which is enforceable in the State of origin and is in that State no longer subject to ordinary forms of review, shall be recognized and enforceable in the other Contracting States.

Claim Settlement

The principal role of the IOPC Funds is to pay compensation to those who have suffered oil pollution damage in a Member State who cannot obtain full compensation for the pollution damage from the ship-owner under the relevant Civil Liability Convention. Claimants may be individuals, partnerships, companies, private organizations or public bodies, including States or local authorities. In the great majority of cases, claims are settled out of court. The Director has the authority to settle claims and pay compensation up to predetermined levels. However, for incidents involving larger claims or where a specific claim gives rise to a question of principle which has not previously been decided by the governing bodies, the Director needs approval from the relevant governing body of the Fund in question. The Director is further permitted, in certain circumstances, and within certain limits, to make provisional payment of compensation before a claim is settled if this is necessary to mitigate undue financial hardship to victims of pollution incidents. Under the Fund Conventions, the Funds are obliged to ensure that all claimants are given equal treatment so if the total amount of the established claims exceeds the total amount of compensation available under the Civil Liability and Fund Conventions, each claimant will receive the same proportion of the loss. When there is a risk that this situation will arise, the Funds may have to restrict compensation payments to a percentage of the losses to ensure that all claimants are given equal treatment. The payment level may increase at a later stage if the uncertainty about the total amount of the established claims is reduced. One important effect of the establishment of the Supplementary Fund is that, in practically all cases, it should be possible from the outset to pay compensation for pollution damage in Supplementary Fund Member States at 100% of the amount of damage agreed between the Fund and the claimant.

Admissibility of Claims for Compensation

To be entitled to compensation, the pollution damage must result in an actual and quantifiable economic loss. The claimant must be able to show the amount of his loss or damage by producing accounting records or other appropriate evidence. An oil pollution incident can generally give rise to claims for five types of pollution damage:

· Property damage

· Costs of clean-up operations at sea and on shore

· Economic losses by fishermen or those engaged in marine culture

· Economic losses in the tourism sector

· Costs for reinstatement of the environment

Claims are assessed according to criteria established by the Governments of Member States. These criteria, which also apply to claims against the Supplementary Fund, are set out in the 1992 Fund’s Claims Manual, which is a practical guide on how to present claims for compensation. The Funds, normally in co-operation with the ship owner’s insurer, usually appoint experts to monitor clean-up operations, to investigate the technical merits of claims and to make independent assessments of the losses.

2003 Supplementary Fund Protocol

The Supplementary Fund Protocol is adopted in 2003 and came into force in 2005, and so, the International Oil Pollution Compensation Supplementary Fund 2003 is established as a supplementary fund. The Supplementary Fund provides additional compensation beyond the amount available in the 1992 Fund Convention in the 1992 Member States of the Fund which is parties of the Protocol. The total amount available for compensation for each event is 750 million SDR, including amounts to be paid under the 1992 Conventions. Annual contribution to the Supplementary Fund is made in the same way as contributions to the 1992 Fund. However, the contribution system for the Supplementary Fund is different from the 1992 Fund, and it is considered that each Member State contributes at least 1 million tons of oil each year in order to pay the contributions.

A.5 BUNKERS 2001-International Convention on Civil Liability for BUNKER Oil Pollution Damage

The Convention was adopted to ensure that adequate, prompt, and effective compensation is available to persons who suffer damage caused by spills of oil, when carried as fuel in ships' BUNKERs. The Convention applies to damage caused on the territory, including the territorial sea, and in exclusive economic zones of States Parties. The BUNKERs convention provides a free-standing instrument covering pollution damage only.

"Pollution damage" means:

· Loss or damage caused outside the ship by contamination resulting from the escape or discharge of BUNKER oil from the ship, wherever such escape or discharge may occur, provided that compensation for impairment of the environment other than loss of profit from such impairment shall be limited to costs of reasonable measures of reinstatement actually undertaken or to be undertaken; and

· The costs of preventive measures and further loss or damage caused by preventive measures.

The convention is modeled on the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969. As with that convention, a key requirement in the BUNKERs convention is the need for the registered owner of a vessel to maintain compulsory insurance cover.

Another key provision is the requirement for direct action - this would allow a claim for compensation for pollution damage to be brought directly against an insurer. The Convention requires ships over 1,000 gross tonnage to maintain insurance or other financial security, such as the guarantee of a bank or similar financial institution, to cover the liability of the registered owner for pollution damage in an amount equal to the limits of liability under the applicable national or international limitation regime, but in all cases, not exceeding an amount calculated in accordance with the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976, as amended (IMO).

Turkey became a party to the BUNKERS 2001 Convention in 26.02.2013 (Law No. 6439) BUNKER Certificate shall be issued to the ships having a valid financial guarantee by administration. Turkish flagged vessels and BUNKERS-2001 flagship ships of the countries that are not party to the ship registry records 10 different port presidencies (Trabzon, Zonguldak, Samsun, İstanbul, Bandırma, Çanakkale, İzmir, Antalya, Mersin and İskenderun) by proving financial security by applying to the port. They have BUNKER Certificate issued by these presidencies. Vessels operated for all commercial purposes of 1000 GT and above, which do not have this certificate, shall not be taken into the ports of our country and the ports of the other Contracting States and their open terminals, or shall not be permitted if their assurance is filled at this stage. New equip ships covered by the Convention, on the basis of the GT event of a pollution, which Turkey is a party of Liability Convention against Maritime Claims is entitled, to limit its liability determined up to the following limits for events other than death and injury. Therefore, the ships which visit the ports of Turkey and which are within the scope of the contract should have financial security.

Important points of the contract:

Event: A chain of events or events of the same origin that pose a threat to pollution or cause serious and immediate damage.

Application area: The territorial waters, including the country of the Contracting States, the exclusive economic zone.

Pollution Loss: Expenses related to the measures to be taken and the elimination of loss and environmental damages other than the ship caused by ship fuel

Ship Fuel: Any hydrocarbon mineral oil used for the operation and movement of the ship, including lubricating oils, and any residues thereof.

Ship: No matter what type of vessel or sea vessel.

Exceptions: The provisions of this contract include; it does not apply to pollution damage defined in CLC-92, warships, auxiliary battleships and non-commercial vessels.

Obligation to Insurance: Vessels of 1000 GRT and above shall be obliged to undertake an insurance covering the amount of financial responsibility calculated in accordance with the International Convention on the Limitation of Liability for Marine Receivables in 1976 (as enacted in the 2012 Limit Amendments, 8 June 2015). (Through P & I Clubs or Bank Guarantees)

In order to understand the enforcement mechanism of the Convention,

Article 9 Jurisdiction

1. Where an incident has caused pollution damage in the territory, including the territorial sea, or in an area referred to in article 2(a)(ii) of one or more States Parties, or preventive measures have been taken to prevent or minimize pollution damage in such territory, including the territorial sea, or in such area, actions for compensation against the ship-owner, insurer or other person providing security for the ship-owners liability may be brought only in the courts of any such States Parties. 2. Reasonable notice of any action taken under paragraph 1 shall be given to each defendant. 3. Each State Party shall ensure that its courts have jurisdiction to entertain actions for compensation under this Convention.

Article 10 Recognition and enforcement

1. Any judgment given by a Court with jurisdiction in accordance with article 9 which is enforceable in the State of origin where it is no longer subject to ordinary forms of review, shall be recognized in any State Party, except: (a) where the judgment was obtained by fraud; or (b) where the defendant was not given reasonable notice and a fair opportunity to present his or her case. 2. A judgment recognized under paragraph 1 shall be enforceable in each State Party as soon as the formalities required in that State have been complied with. The formalities shall not permit the merits of the case to be re-opened.

Law No. 1997 Regulation on the Determination of the Procedures and Principles Regarding the Regulation and Supervision of the International Contract (BUNKER 2001) Certificate on the Legal Responsibility of The Obligation of Oil Pollution from the Ship Fuels

Approval date: 19/12/2013

ARTICLE 6 Information to be included in the certificate

This certificate is issued in two original copies, in English and Turkish, with the following information.

a) Name of the ship and port of registration,

b) Name of the ship-owner,

c) IMO ship identification number and call sign,

d) Type of collateral,

e) The place and name of the insurer or the bank's business centers providing the collateral or the collateral,

f) The validity period of the certificate (this period shall not be longer than the validity period of the insurance or other security),

g) Certificate number

ARTICLE 7 Documents required for certificate issuance

(1) In order to issue a certificate, financial assurance is mandatory as specified in the Legal Liability Agreement for Ship Fuel.

(2) Financial assurance shall be an insurance policy or bank guarantee in accordance with the international limits determined by the ship's tonnage.

ARTICLE 8 Accepted guarantees for issuing certificates

(1) Certificates shall be issued to the ships in exchange for the policy issued by a club or insurer listed on the list of valid P & I Clubs and Insurance Companies announced by the Ministry in accordance with the Directive on P & I Clubs and Insurance Companies to be Accepted in Administrative Procedures within the Scope of Administrative Procedures as of 12.12.2012 and numbered 18971 (has changed with Law No.45168 and dated 30.05.2017).

(2) In order to issue a Certificate to the ships, the guarantee shown is a bank guarantee, and this bank must be a bank established in accordance with Turkish legislation.

Law No. 5347 Regulation of Law on the Principles of Intervention and Damages in Emergency for the Protection of the Sea Surrounding by Oil and Other Harmful Materials

Environmental pollution is defined as all kinds of negative impacts that occur in the environment and may impair the health, environmental values and ecological balance of living things. The claims of those who have been damaged due to an incident and those who have interfered with an incident and those who have avoided the contamination are notified to the Undersecretaries. The Undersecretaries shall provide for the determination of damages and compensation by the responsible person or guarantor. Claims for compensation and compensation shall be made in writing to the Undersecretaries. For this purpose, the petition includes the identity and address information of the damaged person, the type, quality, estimated amount of the damage, the loss assessment activities and other information, photographs and reports. Wage requests include information on the location, type, duration, activity and material and equipment used in the activity. The Undersecretaries shall evaluate the requests and recommendations of the responsible persons or their representatives or the experts provided by them for the payment of compensation and compensation requests. These recommendations and requests; the law shall be taken into consideration when it serves the purposes of implementing this Regulation and the provisions of the international contract.

The payment requests to be made to the responsible persons shall be made in writing by the Undersecretaries. If not, responsible Turkish is used in English as well as in Turkish. The request includes the following information:

a) The names and addresses of the claimant and the affected person and their representatives, if any.

b) Identities of vessels involved in the incident.

c) Location, date and other details of the incident.

ç) Type and estimated amount of damage or contamination.

d) The amount of compensation requested.

e) Additional information and documents.

The Undersecretaries examines the requests received by it, taking into consideration the documents and information submitted by the requestor, as well as the documents and information it will obtain, as well as the issues stated below, and takes into account the amount determined by the damage assessment commission, whether or not it can be requested from the responsible person.

a) Whether the loss was incurred or whether the service for the requested fee was provided.

b) Whether the loss is related to the incident or whether the fee is related to the measure taken.

c) The claimant is the one who has been damaged or is entitled to request.

ç) Whether the loss is based on documents and reports generated as a result of appropriate investigations.

d) The damage is generally reasonable.

Turkey is a party to the contractual compensation claims made in the compensation system established in the framework of the implementation of these contracts, the demand of compensation and costs, evaluation and payment is subject to the relevant provisions of the contract. If international contracts do not contain provisions for compensation of damages, the loss shall be compensated in accordance with the relevant national legislation in accordance with the polluter pays principle. If the polluter or responsible person cannot be identified, the Undersecretaries shall intervene with all its capabilities and other resources specified in the emergency response plans. This case is limited to the scope of the compensation fund created by international agreements that Turkey's side of damages. The remuneration of persons and institutions / organizations intervening by means of procurement of services to the Goods and Services under the Law on Emergency Response and Compensation of Damages in the Pollution of the Marine Environment by Petroleum and Other Hazardous Materials published in the Official Gazette no. 26150 payable according to the provisions of the relevant regulation.

Capital Expenditure

Capital expenditures, commonly known as CapEx, are funds used by a company to acquire, upgrade and maintain physical assets, such as properties, buildings, industrial plants, technology or equipment. CapEx is often used by the company to make new projects or investments. Capital expenditure on fixed assets can include everything from repairing a roof to building, buying equipment, building a new factory. Such financial expenditure is also made by companies to maintain or increase the scope of their activities. Capital expenditures are for future large purchases. The lifespan of these acquisitions goes beyond the current account period. Since these costs can only be recovered through depreciation over time, companies often use a separate budget to separate the operating budget for CaPex purchases.

Law No. 5684 Insurance Law

President of KOTO and also TOBB HRH Member Necmi Bulut and KOTO 22th Insurance Professional Committee Chairman Olcay İlter conveyed the problems of their agencies to Treasury and Finance Minister Berat Albayrak. In the meeting held at KOTO, banks, brokers, PTT, Turkcell, TÜVTÜRK, such as the structure of the Insurance Law by taking advantage of the gap was made unfair competition. According to claims, the agencies fall into a disadvantaged position during the implementation of the law. Also, before the law, insurance agencies can sign contracts that protect their rights in relation to their own power, and they have to sign contracts where there is no substance that protects itself due to the increase in other sales channels. Insurance agencies that can be called 16 thousand local commercial actors are ignored step by step. Before the law, insurance agencies can sign contracts that protect their rights in relation to their own power, and they have to sign contracts where there is no substance that protects itself due to the increase in other sales channels.

A.6 Other International Conventions

A.6.1 Lausanne Convention

“The 1923 Lausanne Convention on the Straits, which regulated navigation between the Black Sea and the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas, and provided for the legal status of the Black Sea, has provided for innocent passage at sea and freedom of navigation on air. Although the regime of Lausanne did not envision any restriction on passage through straits, it did set forth certain limitations on warships concerning their tonnage in the Black Sea. Because the Lausanne Convention on the Straits called for the demilitarization of the Straits zone and no military deployment was permitted therein, the sovereign rights of Turkey were, at the time, restricted over the Turkish Straits. Turkey had been deprived of the right to take measures for its defense and security, and furthermore there were serious gaps left regarding Russian security in the Black Sea.” (Oral and Öztürk, 2006, 18).

A.6.2 International Conference on Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention

“Another example under current international law recognizing a coastal state’s right to intervene is the section of the International Conference on Safety of Life at Sea (1974). The SOLAS protocol applies to all ships over 500 Gross Tonnage as they are presumed to carry environmental risks due to ship fuel and/or crude oil cargo. Regulation 19 of Chapter 1 and Regulation 11 of Chapter 8 gives the coastal state the right to inspect a ship’s certificate and the ships‟ potential danger to the environment, and preserve of safety of navigation. Turkey, as a party to this convention clearly is entitled to conduct an investigation of the ship, including its certificate. In light of Montreux Convention, does this violate freedom of passage? Clearly the convention recognized the overriding safety interest of a state against a potential incident and has imposed a limit on the principle for “freedom of passage and navigation” (Aybay and Oral, 1998). Also, SOLAS allows port states to inspect and hold a ship for serious violations. The Port State shall act in the interest of all coastal states in the region and, at least indirectly, in the interest of the interests of the international community as a whole, if they exercise their powers of application. Port State control minimizes the risk of major pollution damage in marine accidents anywhere, as it helps reduce the number of submarines in the world's oceans; high seas.

A.7 International Agreement Turkey is Not Subject to;

A.7.1 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

Furthermore, Turkey’s right to regulate the safety and protection of its extensive and densely populated coast finds support under current international law. Many new international conventions have been drawn up reflecting the growing international concern over pollution and the protection of the marine environment (Aybay and Oral, 1998). Turkey, as an active participant of the Third Law of the Sea Conference, has not signed the agreement and approval. Therefore, the provisions of the contract do not bind Turkey. The reason Turkey's disagreement is not in terms of the provisions concerning the protection of the marine environment, mainly is in terms of the breadth of territorial waters and 33 arrangements for compulsory jurisdiction in maritime law disputes. Although Turkey is not a party to UNCLOS, adopting UNCLOS as a new legal regime of the Turkish Straits at this time will probably benefit Turkey because not only is navigational and environmental safety in the Turkish Straits at stake, but also the safety of the twelve million residents of İstanbul. Its authoritative international tribunals provide the means for peaceful dispute resolution. In sum, adopting UNCLOS as the new legal regime of the Turkish Straits should prevent confrontation in the region by providing the internationally-accepted rules of transit for the Turkish Straits and by establishing the legal foundation for the implementation of maritime traffic rules that address -the safety of navigation and environmental concerns raised in the 1994 Turkish Regulations” (Pavlyuk, 1998). Re-addressing the issue of countries' territorial waters, as countries enter into contradictory practices; a clear redefinition of the nature and scope of the powers of the coastal states in terms of fishing rights; determination of the legal regime to be subject to scientific research activities in the seas; content of rights and obligations in coastal states in the protection of the marine environment; the need to conclude various issues such as objections to changing the criteria for the external border of the continental shelf has emerged. The 1982 UNCLOS, however, adopted different rules from the Geneva Convention with respect to the rights of passage through straits used in international navigation. According to the UNCLOS, the transit passage regime became the general rule for straits used in international navigation. The UNCLOS created two divergent rules for two different types of international straits. In the first instance, straits connecting one part of the high seas, or exclusive economic zone, with another part of the high seas, or exclusive economic zone, are subject to the transit regime with one exception. “UNCLOS specifically recognizes the right of coastal states to protect their environment against pollution and other similar hazards. Foreign ships must abide by the laws and regulations enacted by the coastal state. UNCLOS further reflects the heightened international awareness of the very serious safety and environmental hazards modern maritime activities create by imposing a duty on all states to protect the marine environment. UNCLOS rules of transit passage provide a viable alternative to the 1998 Turkish Regulations. As provided in Section 6 (from Article 213 to 222), the enforcement of the Convention is assigned to State Parties. According to those provisions, States shall enforce laws and regulations adopted in accordance with the Convention and with international rules and standards. States also take measures necessary to implement applicable international rules and standards. The Convention stipulates enforcement power specifically for each category of states and for different sources of pollution.

A.8 Articles of the Convention Related with Marine Accidents

The provisions of international law and contracts for the investigation of marine accidents and the necessity of the investigation of sea accidents, the reporting and the provisions of the contract that each flag state is obliged to examine are as follows:

· The United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea, 1982 (UNCLOS): Article 94

· International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS): Portion I Law 21

· International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1983 (MARPOL): Article 4, 6, 8 and 12, Additional I Law 9(3) and 10(6), Additional II Law 10(3) (1)

· International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW): Reg. ¼

· International Convention on Load Lines, 1966 (LL): Article 23

· Torremolinos International Convention for The Safety of Fishing Vessels, 1977 (SFV): Article 7

· International Labor Organization (ILO): ILO No: 134 (Article 2-3) and 152 (Article 36 and 39)

· Code for the Investigation of Marine Casualties and Incidents, IMO Res. 849 (20).

· On 18 June 2003, Marine Accident Investigation Commission was established within the Undersecretaries for Maritime Affairs to increase the safety of life and the safety of the sea and to prevent similar marine accidents. MAIC examines marine accidents in accordance with the basic principles for determining the conditions and causes of marine accidents, which are taking place in our seas or carrying our flag (Ece).

B. Regulations on Turkish Straits

B.1 Regulation on Turkish Straits (1998) and Its Application Instruction

Maritime Traffic Regulations for the Turkish Straits were designed in 1994 firstly, in the light of the experience gained, a new one (1998) has been drafted. The reason of the need for this change is mainly due to the misuse of the words and the complaints from other countries like Greece, Black Sea countries etc. (The Ministry of Foreign Affairs). IMO's Maritime Safety Committee was discussed and approved those related separations in regards to respect of safety of navigation in the Turkish Straits. Majority of IMO Member States supported endorsement of using proposed traffic separation. There is a de facto implementation in regards to use traffic separation and reporting formalities during the passage of the Straits. In terms of the tonnage of the vessels passing through the Straits, it is seen that there is a 19-fold increase since signing of the Montreux Convention until 2002 (Güneş, 2007). According to the comparison of 2006 and 2018, it can be said that tonnage passing through İstanbul strait increased by 28% and for Çanakkale Strait the tonnage has increased by 42% (Directorate General of Maritime Commerce). The Straits, based on heavy tanker traffic such as oil transportation, are exposed to a highly risky sea transport due to flammable, explosive toxic chemicals and nuclear waste.

The Montreux Straits Convention does not include any arrangements for the prevention of complex and multidimensional problems in the Turkish Straits. The principle of free passage contained in the Convention stipulates that merchant ships can freely pass through the straits day and night without taking the pilot to the Turkish authorities without any notification. From 1998 Statues, any ship shall notify its intended entrance to the Straits with Navigation Plan 1 to the Vessel Traffic Control System (VTS) which is obligatory requirement. Content of SP1 report and SP2 report has covers all ship particular together with information about insurer of ship. Transition regime in terms of the Montreux Convention for the Straits subject to the provisions of the Turkish Straits, Turkey's in-land waters regime with the capacity of coastal states will be applied. Turkey, in the straits faced by stay where issues of mitigation, transportation, but receive various measures to ensure that goods, safety of navigation and protection of environment in the straits that the traffic separation scheme envisages to give the transition those who ship building plan, large and passage of the dangerous cargo ships linking to specific conditions, under extraordinary conditions, a series of applications have been initiated, which envisage various provisions to stop the passage of ships from the straits. The legal basis for such practices is the 1998 Statutes which replaced it with 1994 (Güneş, 2007).

The 1998 Statue laws that are applied are based on international treaties, Turkish legislations, statutory rules and orders. Maritime Traffic Regulations for the Turkish Straits (1998) are regulated for İstanbul and Çanakkale straits to provide safety of navigation, life, property and environment. All vessels are involved. It is managed by the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure. The description of the vessels that are passing through the straits and the borders that these straits have are mentioned in that regulation. Traffic separation scheme is organized with the International Convention for Preventing Collision at Sea (COLREGS 72) Reg. (10) and adopted by International Maritime Organization (IMO).

What COLREGS 72, Reg.10 says about traffic separation scheme,

(a) This Rule applies to traffic separation schemes adopted by the Organization.

(b) A vessel using a traffic separation scheme shall:

(i) proceed in the appropriate traffic lane in the general direction of traffic flow for that lane;

(ii) so far as practicable keep clear of a traffic separation line or separation zone;

(iii) Normally join or leave a traffic lane at the termination of the lane, but when joining or leaving from the side shall do so at as small an angle to the general direction of traffic flow as practicable.

(c) A vessel shall so far as practicable avoid crossing traffic lanes, but if obliged to do so shall cross as nearly as practicable at right angles to the general direction of traffic flow.

(d) Inshore traffic zones shall not normally be used by through traffic which can safely use the appropriate traffic lane within the adjacent traffic separation scheme.

(e) A vessel, other than a crossing vessel, shall not normally enter a separation zone or cross a separation line except:

(i) In cases of emergency to avoid immediate danger;

(ii) To engage in fishing within a separation zone.

(f) A vessel navigating in areas near the terminations of traffic separation schemes shall do so with particular caution.

(g) A vessel shall so far as practicable avoid anchoring in a traffic separation scheme or in areas near its terminations.

(h) A vessel not using a traffic separation scheme shall avoid it by as wide a margin as is practicable.

(i) A vessel engaged in fishing shall not impede the passage of any vessel following a traffic lane.

(j) A vessel of less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the safe passage of a power-driven vessel following a traffic lane.

According to the 1998 Statue, Directorate General of Coastal Safety of The Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure has formed traffic control center and stations. Regulations are giving information about precautions to be taken for transit passage and requirements for shipmaster and authorized personnel to perform at the time of transit. Also, the speed limit to be followed in the straits and what to do in case of an accident or breakdown are mentioned in the regulation. It is expected to follow the instructions of the traffic control center and station. The decisions of stopping and starting of the traffic are made by The Port Presidency and Traffic Control Stations. Vessels have to act within the traffic separation scheme. If there are some vessels that do not have difficulty while they are not in the scheme, they are reported to The International Maritime Organization (IMO) and their flag states (Regulations on Turkish Straits, 1998). Vessels are responsible to report the difficulties that they faced to the traffic control center and stations. Traffic control center and station take measures for the vessels that are carrying dangerous cargo and nuclear cargo. Expenses, which are arising because of illegality, are the liabilities of ship-owners, operators or its agency. Masters have to inform traffic control center and station when there is stream or there are problems with the eyesight. Within the traffic separation scheme, safety and customs inspections are not carried out unless it is deemed necessary.

According to the regulation that was issued in 1998, execution was belonging to Council of Ministers, and also Under Secretariat of Maritime Affairs was responsible to administer. However, according to the valid application instruction, Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure has the execution authorization and General Directorate of Sea and Inland Water Regulation of The Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure have the administration of the regulation. If there is a need for change in the regulation, the ability is belonging to the authority which is Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure. If there is a need for change because of illegitimacy, petitions can be available.

According to the application instruction, the indirect passing vessels are allowed to stop for 168 hours -formerly 48 hours- due to traffic planning and / or adverse weather and sea conditions in the Straits. Vessels that lose their technical qualifications or seaworthiness, after having proved their competence in accordance with the fifth article of the regulation, can move again with the permission of the port authority. In cases where the centers temporarily suspend İstanbul or Çanakkale straits traffic in one direction or in both directions for a one-way traffic organization or other reasons, with respect to the conditions of stream or visibility, the vessels must be guided by a pilot and a tugboat. Otherwise, they may be taken to the İstanbul/ Çanakkale Strait with the instructions given by the Center.

Table 2: 8^th article of the application instruction

LNG Vessels*	LPG Vessels
	the length > 150 meters	passing through İstanbul	Day time, with a pilot, with tugboat
day time
with a pilot	the length > 150 meters and carrying LPG	passing through Çanakkale	Day time, with a pilot, with tugboat
60 tons < tugboat < 150 tons
permission from Directorate General of Maritime and Inland Waters Regulation	150 m < the length <200 m and not carrying LPG	passing through Çanakkale	Day or night time, with a pilot