Proposals by a French expert regarding the delineation of territorial waters, continental shelf and EEZ in the Aegean Sea

March 13, 2012 | Filed under: Featured News,Geopolitics,Opinion & Analysis

Sometimes it is useful beyond the standard Greek positions on national issues, to also explore what is being discussed away from the spotilight. So we present today, the article of the French diplomat and expert in maritime affairs, Didier Ortolland entitled “The Greek-Turkish dispute over the Aegean Sea: a possible solution?” Originally published in the French magazine “Défense nationale et sécurité collective” and then in www.diploweb.com, where we found it.

To avoid misunderstandings, we should make clear that we do not adopt the article, nor the accompanying map. It is however very interesting to look at the proposals of the French expert, that shows a “compromise” between Greek and Turkish positions because such a “compromise” seems to have been discussed, at least until April 2011, under the so-called “exploratory talks” between Greece and Turkey. These talks began by then Greek Foreign Minister G. Papandreou in 1999 – and apparently they were not only “exploratory” since after the April 2011 had reached the fiftieth round … Recall that the Turkish diplomat Denis Bouloukbasi who was involved in these “exploratory” contacts until the 36th round, has published a book entitled “The staircase of the Foreign Ministry” in which he claims that part of the agreement was the withdrawal of Greece from the extension of its territorial waters in specific regions of the Aegean, just like the proposal of D. Ortolland … This claim by Bouloukbasi was denied by some close associates of G. Papandreou like P. Beglitis and S. Lambrinidis, but given the veil of secrecy surrounding these contacts, everyone can believe what he wants. Also note that D. Koumoutsakos the Greek Foreign Ministry spokesman stated in 2004 that the then new government of New Democracy “froze” the Greek-Turkish agreement that was “in the making” by the previous government, while the former Greek Prime minister Mr. Simitis has written that in 2004 his government was very close to a Greek-Turkish agreement.

Again to avoid misunderstandings, we do not claim that the article of D. Ortolland captures the theme of Greek-Turkish talks, or that the agreement reported by Costas Simitis and D. Koumoutsakos has this form. But it is known that at least the Greek side (and probably the Turkish side as well) has sought the views of international experts, so it is likely that some points reflect the thematic knowledge of Greek-Turkish talks.

Here is the article by D. Ortolland and the detailed map that comes with it.

* Didier Ortolland is Coordinator of the Geopolitical Atlas of Maritime Spaces ; he writes here in a personal capacity

The evolution of the Law of the Sea, which gives countries new spaces of sovereignty and areas of jurisdiction without specifying their delimitation, is the source of the dispute between Greece and Turkey in the Aegean Sea. This article sets out possible solutions for the delimitation of territorial waters, the continental shelf and exclusive economic zones with reference to the established related jurisprudence and the practice of the states, while taking into consideration the equity and security requirements of both countries.

As part of its strategy of geopolitical synergy, www.diploweb.com is pleased to present this article, which first appeared in Défense nationale et sécurité collective, February 2009, pp. 74-87.

IN THE course of the last 40 years, Greece and Turkey have found themselves on the brink of war because of their basic opposition concerning the exercise of sovereignty on the waters of the Aegean Sea. Historical factors weigh heavily : Turkey lost most of its European territories in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (see map), while Greece maintained cultural hegemony over the area as well as the shoreline of Anatolia since ancient times : Constantinople fell into the hands of the Ottomans five centuries earlier (1453) but the Greek populations remained until recently on the eastern bank of the Aegean Sea. The Treaty of Lausanne dated 24 July 1923 led to the flight of 1.3 million Greeks from the regions of Smyrna and Eastern Thrace, and of 400,000 Muslims who left Western Thrace to settle in Turkey. There are two opposing historical realities coupled with resentment.

The territorial division resulting from the Treaty of Lausanne [1]and the Treaty of Paris of 10 February 1947 [2]seemed relatively stable ; Greece logically had almost all of the islands of the Aegean Sea, populated by Greeks since ancient times. However, the evolution of international law, following the Second World War, and particularly after 1958, [3] has hampered the status quo.

In effect, the Greek islands are scattered all over the Aegean Sea, reaching the coast of Turkey ; particularly in the case of Lesbos, Chios, Kos, Rhodes and Samos. Some smaller islands are even closer, such as Megisti (Castellorizo) located towards the south-east only 1,300 m from the Turkish coast. This situation has become very complicated with the evolution of the Law of the Sea.

The Law of the Sea and the Greco-Turkish dispute

The evolution of the Law of the Sea is at the source of the Greco-Turkish dispute in the Aegean Sea. The exercise of sovereignty of the coastal states on the waters situated beyond their territory has been accepted since the eighteenth century ; this territorial sea was at the time limited to 3 nautical miles (n miles). With technological progress, the states felt the need to enlarge their waters to ensure security and to exploit the marine and subsoil resources. This extension of areas under sovereignty (territorial waters) and under jurisdiction (continental shelf and exclusive economic zone) is the source of many disputes, including those of the Aegean Sea. Due to the difference between states giving greater importance to free navigation and those concerned foremost about their security or the exploitation of marine resources beyond their territory, the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone said nothing about the maximum breadth of the territorial waters. Some countries have meanwhile decided to extend it to 12 n miles ; it has been the case for France since 1971. The exploitation of hydrocarbons of the continental shelf, beyond territorial waters, developed rapidly. The Convention on the Continental Shelf of 29 April 1958 recognized this right. Finally, the concept of exclusive economic zone (EEZ) which allows the exercise of jurisdiction over 200 n miles was to be acknowledged by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea concluded at Montego Bay in December 1982. Many countries did not wait for the signing of the Convention to establish EEZs beforehand ; France did so in 1976. These developments disturbed the relative stability of the Aegean Sea respected since the end of the Second World War and raised a controversy regarding territorial waters and the continental shelf.

Territorial waters

Greece has extended its territorial waters to 6 n miles by an Act of September 1936. Greek territorial waters thus cover 43.5 per cent of the Aegean Sea while Turkish territorial waters represent only 7.5 per cent. If the territorial waters of the two countries were brought to 12 n miles, 71.5 per cent of the Aegean Sea would be under Greek sovereignty and 8.7 per cent Turkish. The area of high sea would be reduced from 49 per cent to 19.7 per cent. If the two countries established EEZs, the remaining space (19.7 per cent) would fall entirely under the jurisdiction of Athens. [4] This explains why Turkey has always exerted pressure on its neighbour, claiming that the enlargement of Greek territorial waters to 12 n miles would represent a casus belli. The Turkish Parliament endorsed this stance with a resolution adopted in June 1995, shortly after Greece’s ratification of the Montego Bay Convention. The difficulty arises from the fact that, under the Convention, ‘ships of all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy right of innocent passage’ in the territorial waters of another state. This right involves restrictions for military vessels and submarines (which are required to navigate on the surface) and could be regulated by the coastal state. If the Greek territorial waters were extended to 12 n miles in the Aegean Sea, Turkish warships coming from the Bosporus or from Izmir would be subject to the limitations of the ‘right of innocent passage’ or even to regulations adopted by Athens to link the central Mediterranean Sea.

The continental shelf

In November 1973, the Turkish government allotted fuel research zones to the Turkish State Petroleum Company in the area located between the Greek islands of Lesbos, Skiros, Limnos and west of Samothrace. In July 1974, it further issued new permits extending this zone to the West and claimed a new narrow portion of the continental shelf located between the Greek islands of the Dodecanese and the Cyclades. Greece strongly protested against these two decisions. Turkey nevertheless sent oceanographic vessels to the contested area : the Candarli in May-June 1974, and also the Sismik I, in August 1976, whose mission brought the two countries to the brink of armed conflict. Their positions could then be summarized as follows :

. For Greece, international law, and specially the Convention on the Continental Shelf, gives the islands the right to exercise jurisdiction on their continental shelf and specifies that the continental shelf between two countries must be defined on a median line basis. [5] Thus, each of the islands of the Aegean Sea has its continental shelf, and the frontiers with Turkey should be defined on the basis of the median line.

. For Turkey, the Greek islands do not have rights to exert jurisdiction on the continental shelf, as they are located on the Turkish continental shelf. The ‘special circumstances’ mentioned by the Convention on the Continental Shelf (Art. 6.2) justify in this case the non-application of the median line method.

Noting that the different positions were leading nowhere, Greece submitted the controversy to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in August 1976 but Turkey refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the Court, which in the end declared itself incompetent. [6] Since then, the maritime issue has remained and has been aggravated by territorial arguments. [7] International law has, however, evolved, affecting the position of the countries and adding to the controversy. The Montego Bay Convention reinforced the position of Greece in specifying that the coastal states could extend the area of their territorial waters to 12 n miles, while strengthening the Turkish position by removing any reference to the median line in the delimitation of the continental shelf. In effect, according to the Convention, the delimitation of the territorial waters as well as the EEZ ‘shall be effected by agreement, on the basis of international law . . . in order to achieve an equitable solution.’ (Arts. 74 and 83) Turkey is one of the rare states that have refused to sign the Convention because it refuses the possibility of extending the width of territorial waters to 12 n miles. The Convention cannot therefore be applied to Turkey, in theory, but jurisprudence tends more and more to consider that its principal provisions belong nevertheless to customary law.

Jurisprudence and maritime spaces

Jurisprudence fills the gaps in the Law of the Sea Convention on the delimitation of maritime spaces. The silence of the Convention on the methods of delimiting maritime spaces has been progressively covered by the jurisprudence of the ICJ, which has established applicable principles ; the Court has thus defined the notions of equidistance/special circumstances for the delimitation of the territorial sea, and of equitable principles/pertinent circumstances for the continental shelf and the EEZ, which involves—to simplify matters—tracing a provisional median line to check if the result is equitable. Considering the many special circumstances presented by the Aegean Sea, one may suppose that the result in this case would not be equitable. Several decisions regarding contentious cases highlight useful guidelines for the delimitation of the maritime spaces. [8]

. The decision of February 1969 on the continental shelf of the North Sea underlines the right of each state to benefit from the entire continental shelf which ‘represents the natural extension of its territory under the sea’. It has also specified that there should be a reasonable relation between the extent of the zones belonging to each state and the length of its shoreline (proportionality criterion).

. The decision of June 1977 on the continental shelf of the English Channel and the Channel Islands specified that the principle of the natural extension of territory did not have an absolute value and could be restricted in particular circumstances, which resulted in limiting the maritime space of the Channel Islands to 12 n miles embedded within the French continental shelf.

. The decision of June 1993 regarding the maritime delimitation between Greenland and the Norwegian island of Jan Mayen specified that a substantial disproportion between the length of the coast and the allotted maritime surface justifies a correction of the equidistance method.

The applicable law and jurisprudence developed in recent years may thus determine the main principles in delimiting the maritime space of the Aegean Sea, while taking into consideration the fundamental concerns of the two states (equity, security).

The delimitation of territorial waters

The Montego Bay Convention stipulates that ‘every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 n miles. . .’ If international law does not impose a restriction to this rule, some states have meanwhile decided to limit the breadth of their territorial waters to allow a high sea passage between their territorial waters : Japan has voluntarily limited its territorial sea to 3 n miles to avoid territorializing its straits ; the same goes for Estonia and Finland to allow the Russian fleet access to St Petersburg within international waters without having to transit through territorial waters of its neighbours, [9] thus avoiding the regime of ‘innocent passage’. Given a territorial sea limited to 6 n miles, Turkey actually has access to the Turkish straits from the Mediterranean through international waters ; the port of Izmir is likewise accessible without passing through Greek waters. With the extension of the territorial waters to 12 n miles, the territorial waters of the Cyclades and the Dodecanese would be connected, and Turkey would be obliged to pass through Greek waters to reach Istanbul. However, a narrow zone of high seas remains between Chios and Lesbos to reach Izmir.

A possible delemitation of Aegean waters (click to enlarge)

A solution to the dispute in the Aegean Sea could be based on the voluntary restriction by Greece of the breadth of its territorial waters in areas sensitive for navigation (in particular between the Cyclades and the Dodecanese, between Lesbos and Chios, between Antipsara and Kalogeri, and between Rhodes and Karpathos) in order to maintain a high sea corridor of 3 to 5 n miles wide, whose use could be regulated for commercial ships [10]and totally free for military vessels. In all other areas, Greece may extend its territorial waters to 12 n miles. [11] There are overlapping cases when coasts are adjacent or are facing each other and the space between them is less than 24 n miles. In this case, the Law of the Sea Convention proposes the application of the principle of equidistance except where historical titles or special circumstances [12] are involved. That is the case for the Greek islands facing the Turkish coast, particularly Lesbos, Samos, Chios and the Dodecanese islands including Rhodes, as well as—more to the East—the island of Megisti (Castellorizo) situated in front of the Turkish city of Kas. The two countries seem to agree on this point.

Delimitation of the continental shelf

This begins where the territorial waters end, so its extent is based on the breadth of the territorial waters, whether this is 3, 6 or 12 n miles. The Turkish claims (made in 1973 and 1974) begin beyond 6 n miles of the territorial waters of Greece, but since that date international law (Montego Bay Convention) accepts a maximal breadth of 12 n miles without restriction. There are four zones, with different characteristics :

. North of the Aegean Sea : there is an area of high sea beyond 12 n miles measured from the islands of Limnos, Hagios Eustratos, Lesbos, Scyros and Psara. Turkey could claim the entire zone on the basis of the decision of June 1977 (the Channel Islands ‘landlocked’ within the French continental shelf) but Greece could assert that the circumstances are different, since the space is much more limited than in the Channel or the Bay of Granville. The creation of a Joint Development Area [13]could partly satisfy the claims of both parties, determination of the sharing of benefits being the most delicate aspect. [14] Jurisdiction on the continental shelf may be distinct from jurisdiction on the water column (EEZ).

. Central Zone (off the Gulf of Kusadasi) : the proposals for the Northern Zone could apply to the area beyond 12 n miles of each country (creation of a Joint Development Area–see map).

. Southern Zone (between the Cyclades and Dodecanese) : Turkey claims a narrow space starting at 6 n miles from the Cyclades and Dodecanese. The implementation of 12 n miles in this area would leave small pockets of non-exploitable high seas that the principle of equity seems to allot to Greece, the total freedom of navigation for warships being guaranteed in this zone by the creation of an international corridor 3 to 5 n miles wide.

. Area between Rhodes and Megisti : the right of these two islands to territorial waters of 12 n miles cannot be questioned, the maritime space being large enough. The assignment of jurisdiction on the continental shelf and the water column (EEZ) is, however, debatable for Megisti because of the disproportional length of the coastline. [15]This disproportion is less obvious in the case of Rhodes but, due to its location, the full application of the median line for the delimitation of the continental shelf and of the EEZ could be unfair for Turkey and could justify a limited application for Rhodes.

The exclusive economic zone

Greece could freely extend its EEZ in all other areas of the Aegean Sea situated beyond 12 n miles. One may also consider separating the exercise of jurisdiction on the continental shelf from that of the EEZ. The jurisprudence on the ‘natural extension of the territory under the sea’ being applicable only to the continental shelf, Greece might claim jurisdiction on the water column above the Joint Development Areas. However, the delimitation in the Mediterranean (south-east of Rhodes) should follow that of the continental shelf. [16] The international corridor could be given an international status but some competences such as anti-pollution control of commercial ships could be given either to Greece, since this corridor touches on its 12 n miles, or to both countries, or to another entity to be determined.

The Contiguous Zone

A coastal state may carry out checks to ‘prevent infringements of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea’ in an area of 24 n miles measured from its baselines, that is to say up to 12 n miles outside the external limit of its territorial waters. In the Aegean Sea the two states could exercise this right within the limits fixed above, with the exception of the Joint Development Areas and the corridor.

In 1993 the European Council determined the so-called ‘Copenhagen criteria’, making it possible to evaluate Turkey’s progress in preparation for membership. These criteria included in particular ‘its determination to solve eventual border controversy in conformity with the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes as stipulated in the United Nations Charter, including, if applicable, the recognition of the authority of the International Court of Justice.’ The framework of negotiations, determined by the Intergovernmental Conference of 3 October 2005, opened following the decision to begin negotiations in December 2004, confirms these criteria. It is also specified that during the period prior to possible membership, Turkey shall progressively align its positions with those of the EU in international organizations, which logically implies its adherence to the Montego Bay Convention.

This is a difficult element in the negotiations of which we cannot foresee the outcome. Turkey’s membership of the EU would imply a radical change in its conceptions with regard the Law of the Sea and its recognition of the authority of the International Court of Justice. The jurisprudence of the Court is not necessarily against the positions of Ankara, particularly on the continental shelf, but Turkey should drop its claims regarding the breadth of territorial waters. Another solution would involve voluntary arrangements of this rule in the context of a bilateral agreement or an ad hoc arbitration after determination of mutually agreed parameters which might take into account the suggestions made in this article.

Copyright February 2009-Ortolland/Défense nationale et sécurité collective.

Défense nationale et sécurité collective is a publication whose purpose is to tackle all—national and international—political, economic, social and scientific issues by considering them from the viewpoint of defence. This specific aspect enabled it to outlive WW II and later on all the crises, hardships and regime changes that followed. Its readers in France all still share a common interest in defence and security, despite any differences in opinion, origins or political sensitivity. See

[1] The Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923 questioned the Treaty of Sèvres of 10 August 1920 which had amputated the former Ottoman Empire of its Arab provinces, Anatolian Armenia and Eastern Thrace and the region of Smyrna (Izmir). After Lausanne, the Arab regions of the Middle East remained under the mandate of France and the United Kingdom, but Turkey received the region of Smyrna and Eastern Thrace.

[2] The Dodecanese islands (Rhodes and neighbouring islands) were ceded by Turkey to Italy by the Treaty of London in May 1913. The Treaty of Paris of 10 February 1947 placed the islands under the sovereignty of Athens.

[3] Adoption of the Convention on the Continental Shelf and the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone.

[4] The issue on the size of territorial waters has consequences on the airspace, which in general covers the territorial waters. Athens considers that its airspace measures 10 n miles wide around its territory but Ankara only recognizes 6 n miles. A number of incidents have taken place during control operations of the airspace. Two Greek and Turkish fighter aircraft collided in May 2006.

[5] Article 6.2 of the Convention on the Continental Shelf dated 29 April 1958.

[6] Decision of 19 December 1978 : the International Court of Justice declared itself incompetent considering reservations of Greece on the jurisdiction of the International Permanent Court of Justice (which had preceded the ICJ) for the ‘issues related to the territorial status of Greece’.

[7] Turkey claims in effect that Greece can exercise sovereignty only on the islands that have been nominally ceded by the Treaties and questions the sovereignty of Athens on the islet of Imia/Kardak and on the island of Gavdos. This claim was formulated only in 1995.

[8] See in particular Didier Ortolland and Jean-Pierre Pirat, Atlas Géopolitique des espaces maritimes (Courbevoie : Technip, 2008).

[9] It is also the case of Sweden and Denmark for the Danish straits and of Chile for the strait of Le Maire.

[10] The trade of hydrocarbon raises the risk to the environment : importance of the transit via Bosporus (70 million tons per year) and the forthcoming opening of the Bourgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline, which will allow the transport of 35 million tons more starting in 2009 and 50 million tons thereafter.

[11] It is worth noting that Turkey,is not against the principle of a 12 n miles width, as it applies it in the Mediterranean Sea, off Cyprus.

[12] Montego Bay Convention, Art. 15.

[13] Turkey had suggested recourse to this type of arrangement in the 1970s.

[14] There is no rule in this matter ; many agreements provide for an equal, others an unequal, sharing of revenues.

[15] The surface area of Megisti is only 12 sq. km and the island has 430 inhabitants ; the ratio of the length of the coastline is favourable to Turkey.

[16] Turkey, which protested in March 2004 against the negotiation of an agreement on the maritime delimitation between Egypt and Cyprus, seems to claim an area reaching beyond the equidistant in the area.

Some comments by “En krypto”:
1. It is important that the author accepts specific Greek positions that are disputed by Turkey, including the right of the Greek islands on having territorial waters at 12 nautical miles, continental shelf and EEZ. It is also important that the entire continental shelf area between Thassos, Samothrace and Lemnos are given to Greece. Furthermore, the proposed solution has as direct consequence the significant expansion of the Greek air space at 12 nautical miles (except for “corridors”) without allowing Turkey to challenge that as it does today (as it will bridge the gap of by 6 nm territorial waters and 10 miles national airspace). It is also interesting that the author examines the Turkish theory of “gray zones” only as footnote (rather evaluating them as not so important) and do not take them into account in the proposed solution.

2. The author also accepts specific Turkish positions such as claims on continental shelf areas west of the Greek islands (on the basis of the Turkish argument that the islands are deposited on the continental shelf of Asia Minor) and refuses the right of the continental shelf and EEZ for Kastellorizo. In these matters, obviously Greece has counter arguments, but the author’s position is based on jurisprudence of the International Court in The Hague and is important for the Greek side to be aware of the difficulty to disprove the Turkish positions.

3. The demand for “free corridor” for Turkish warships (with the status of international waters) through Greek territorial waters, is unjustified. International law provides for the concept of “innocent passage” under which warships can pass through the territorial waters of another country – and the fact that Turkey already uses that to perform the well know visits near the western Greek islands of Andros and Kea in the Aegean is a good proof of it. So it is not clear what restrictions can be imposed if Greece has the sovereignty of these “corridors”, though probably this point is influenced by the requirements of other, powerful states for free navigation of their military vessels.

Sources:
enkripto.com
diploweb.com

Related News:

  1. Defence Minister on continental shelf, ΕΕΖ and Cyprus
  2. Red alert for Ankara causing crisis in the Aegean
  3. Greek FM: Our efforts intensified Turkey’s isolation
  4. A New Era of Mideast Energy?
  • Makos

    Very interesting article indeed. It gets into the deep water of the legal issues in a settlement in the Aegean.

    However I have 2 points:

    1) According to Professor Kariotis (the father of the Greek EEZ, and the Greek representative in Montego Bay) the declaration (and later delineation) of the Greek EEZ will solve all the problems in the Aegean.

    If Greece does that, there will be no particular reason to expand our territorial waters to 12 miles. We can even negotiate any kind of agreement that fits Turkey. No problem.

    However the large majority of the sea surface of the Aegean will come to Greece in terms of economic exploitation. And that what matters! Hydrocarbons, even fishing.

    As for the continental shelf is an old concept that has been surpassed by the concept of the EEZ. Even in Montego Bay there were discussions regarding the complete abolishment of the concept of the continental shelf. We have the recent example of Cyprus and Israel that declared their EEZs, agreed on their limits, but never even considered talking about the continental shelf!

    To put it in other words the talk over the issue of the continental shelf is obviously a Turkish demand because it will give some economic rights in the Aegean to Turkey. The concept of the EEZ on the other hand gives them almost nothing. That’s the whole point. The crazy thing is that the Greek side has accepted to discuss the issue of the continental shelf with Turkey but says almost nothing about the EEZ. This is a ridiculous stance for any serious diplomatic effort.

    2) The article says nothing about the geopolitical aspects that deal with the vision of Turkey to become a regional power, to control its surrounding countries, deprive them of any chance to gain more power (hydrocarbons in this case) and instead use the resources of its neighbors for its own benefit. The point is that Turkey will always have demands over Greece no matter what agreement is achieved or what Turkish claims the Greek side accepts. That is the main problem here. The political mentality of the Turkish leadership.

  • Phoevos

    This is nonsense. Why would Greece have to negotaite rights it already has? The EEZ methodology has already been adopted and is part of Greek legislation. Even if one wanted to, they can’t set the EEZ other than the median line. This is a closed chapter now.

    This article was written in 2009. In 2011 we adopted Greek legislation that prohibits what the article suggests. It would simply be illegal to propose.

    This is an exercise which is a waste of time. Why even bring this up in 2012?

    • Makos

      Phoevos the issue of the continental shelf is still on the table. Mr Rozakis the close adviser of Mr. Papandreou has recently stated that the issue of the EEZ is of not so great importance (a recent ‘fashion’ according to his words!) and that in any case the EEZ issue should be resolved after an agreement is a achieved on the continental shelf! This was at least until a few months ago the official outrageous Greek position.

      The video you are posting promotes the reasonable position that Professor Karyotis is struggling for decades to convince the Greek government to final adopt.

      New Democracy has make official statements that will indeed promote the EEZ. I hope if it comes to power will do so. In any case the party leader Samaras finally did not attended this event. I believe that finally all this will be just words and false promises before the elections.

      Greece has not seen what Cyprus has achieved and how it did that. Nor their is any willingness to benefit from the expertise of our brothers. Cyprus has proven beyond any doubt that the Greek politicians are ridiculous if not traitors.

      Unfortunately Greece has some individuals, renowned in the world for their knowledge and skills but refuses to ask for their help. Mr Karyotis and Mr. Kassinis should be employed by the Greek government to do the job, just as Mr Pissarides, the Greek Nobel prize winner in economics should be called to run the economy as minister (instead of having a failed law professor for God shake!).

      • Phoevos

        Mako:

        Agreed. The continental shelf of 12 vs. 6 is still on the table.

        The reason I favor the EEZ route is that apart from being firmly the European Acquis (European Law) as far as the median line is concerned, it also unblocks the stalemate.

        Really, if you think about it, what are the chances of Turkey ever agreeing on anything? Subzero I think.

        Therefore the most logical route is to ignore Turkey for the moment and go about our business like a typical European state will do. In accordance with the European Law and European norms and procedures.

        Turkey is not part of Europe and it will be decades before she is even considered. And because also Turkey is part of the middle East, Europe is not really interested in allowing Mid East issues to mingle and dictate her policies and most importantly its laws.

        • Tyroneez

          Dear phoevos
          I’m not sure , what it is you are asking the Greek government to do ??
          When ever turkey has tried to explore in disputed … But international waters …
          Greece has dispatched warships and threatened war …
          In the face of this determination by Greece to fight … Turkey has always been forced … (Presumably by Washington and NATO ) to backdown and withdrawn it’s exploration vessels .
          Turkey’s constant prodding and attempts to create facts on the ground , by trying unsuccessfully to claim half the Aegean as its own (continental shelf) have always been succesfully met by Greece’s de-facto (causes belli) ..
          Likewise Turkey has stated that any attempt by Greece to extend its territorial waters to 12 nautical miles .. Or even explore or drill in these disputed areas , will also be a cause for war ..the now famous Turkish parliaments ..(causes belli)
          Hence the stalemate …
          So you see either country declaring the EEZ as theirs and being able to enforcing it … Are two different things ..
          It would just lead to a nasty and uneccesary war …the outcome of which , is very uncertain … Who knows what disasters it may lead too ..
          trying to extend Greece’s territorial waters to 12 nautical miles would give Greece 80% of the aegean …having the same effect as declaring almost the whole Aegean as Greek EEZ ..
          This too , for Turkey … Would be a cause for war ..
          Hence again the STALEMATE …
          I would like you to consider what is REALLY at stake here …
          1 / I doubt very much that the Turks are after any oil or gas deposits … Which if present would have been found by now in the 49% within Greece’s now accepted 6 mile territorial limit (excepting the little that has been found around THASOS) …

          2 / what they are really after in the Aegean is to bring into doubt … The sovereignty of the eastern Aegean islands …
          Specifically the Dodecanese …
          3 / given that Greek sovereignty over the Dodecanese (including kasteloriso) is not in doubt …
          And given that the now accepted 6 mile limit gives Greece an undisputed 49% of the Aegean …
          And given that Greece has successfully prevented turkey from extending it’s control from the 7% of it’s Coastal waters …into the 42% HIGH SEAS or international waters …
          It would seem that to raise the issue of extending control over this 42% of international waters … Would be risking Greece’s very favourable position with regard to sovereignty ..
          I doubt if it is worth the gamble … As there is very probably very little gas/ oil to be found …
          Giving turkey the excuse it needs to challenge the very nature of the dodecaneese treaty … is just what they are waiting for …
          As it is Turkish sovereignty is confined to only 7% of the Aegean … Within it’s 6 mile , but in practice often only 1 mile wide territorial waters …
          Leaving Greece in control of an undusputed 42% …
          Turkey has tried to push the concept of continental shelf … To try and gain control of a large proportion of the 5o% of the international waters …
          But as the powers have no appetite for a greek/ turkish war …
          The Turks have got nowhere with this noe outmoded continental shelf concept concept …
          For Greece to now stir the cauldron and risk all it’s advantages in the Aegean … For any dubious gains .. Would be foolish indeed …
          The thus far successful containment of Turkey to it’s tiny Coastal waters …had quite rightly been the main priority of all Greek government … No matter what their political hue …
          Which goes a long way to explain the Turks frustration …
          And constant provocations … They know they are at a disadvantage … And are just waiting for Greece to open the pandora’s box of the EEZ …so they can pounce …

          It is enough that they have been frustrated in their attempts to seize control of cypriot EEZ …
          Let them stew on that for a while …
          I think , One victory per decade … Is more than enough …
          For any maritime nation …ha ha ha
          (Slow and steady as she goes) to coin an old British sailing phrase ..

          • Phoevos

            You are confused. The Greek EEZ has already been formulated by international conventions.

            Who told you that the EEZ has to be defended? Simply put, no international oil exploration company would ever be willing to enter and explore the EEZ waters of another country. Private companies lacking legal base don’t even attempt it.

            This myth that you need to have a large fleet or airpower to protect your EEZ is beyond laughable.

            Cyprus does not have a Navy nor AirForce and is exploiting its EEZ. Once a country declares, oil companies have the legal basis to do work.

            BTW, in case you have not figured it out yet there is no way for Turkey to enter the EEZ of the EU, nor to do drilling there. The first thing a driller needs is a license from the EU which is not going to be given unless everything is satisfactory to the EU issuing authority. Cyprus did precisely the same thing. Got a license first from the EU.

            As I said, the Greek EEZ has already been defined by international organizations. Nothing to dispute about it. Just get used to it.

            http://www.seaaroundus.org/eez/300.aspx

  • Solinariforever

    This article is very enlightening to me, though I had to read it a couple of times to separate the prologue and history from the actual facts to understand some of the legal issues. I have read many summaries and scientific papers (from both sides) on both the AOZ and CB and from bits and pieces when connecting the dots I understand that the judicial part (in any court) favors Greece where the political one favors Turkey. Unfortunately UN and the WCJ are not absolute judicial in their judgment and it would be a great mistake for Greece to do something rush that would make the Cyprus debacle repeat itself all over again. Remember one thing, the world is watching and is ready to condone or condemn a result depending on each their own interest and if they have to contribute to make the wrong right!
    As long as the Greeks can declare their seas jurisdiction and be able to defend it by force if needed, there will be no problem for the world to except it, as long as they (the world) will not have to contribute one cent!
    The grossest 20th century world ethnic cleansing that followed the 1974 Turkish Cyprus invesion was due to this very issue. Did the world even try to reverse it? NO. Why? Because the Greek side were not then and they are still not now in the position to help defend themselves – having the right on our side is not enough! “syn Athina kai xeira keinei” my friends!
    What I am saying is this: Let’s not rush into action without having the means to deter any possible reaction of the opposite side.
    Maybe the Aegean is one of those cases that need not be explored for hydrocarbons – by any side. Let’s first clear up the CB and make sure the world understands, the innocent passage is secured for all through the 3 mile corridor – make no mistake there are many other than the Turks that will object to us doing something that will jeopardize the assurance of open passage!

    • Phoevos

      No. You are wrong. You don’t need to defend anything.

      Once the EEZ is declared it falls under the auspices of European Law. No one defends the EEZ. Europe defends its EEZ as a collective body of 27 nations + more to come.

      Once the legal basis is established it’s up to private companies to take the next step.

      Turkey does not even figure on this issue. It’s a 100% European matter because both Greece and Cyprus are both EU countries.

      If Turkey has any issue, they don’t need to address Greece. Just take it straight to the European Court that has juristiction over this matter. It’s the law.

      • Tyroneez

        @phoevos above
        As the article and solinari and I … Have tried to point out … Greece has successfully confined turkey in it’s tiny Coastal strip … For 100 years now …
        It is turkey which is straining to break out …
        And of course you are entirely correct that Greece has right on it’s side …
        That is why turkey needs to get Greece to act as the aggressor first … So as to deflect any adverse international condemnation ..hence the constant prodding and provocations ..
        For they are unfortunate fully intending to start a war … If Greece declares 12 miles or EEZ and have said so openly …
        They have nothing to lose … From an armed conflict and everything to gain …
        Greece does not have the capability to occupy any Turkish territory … The best we can hope for is to repulse any Turkish assault , at catastrophic cost … And they will just come back again in six months … Until greece’s resource are exhausted ..
        And if you think that the Cypriot government would have got away with the drilling south of Cyprus …or even attempted to drill … If it was not for a pre-obtained Israeli guarantee …
        Than your understanding of geopolitical-strategic developments are not what I thought they were …
        Lookin back at the events , It is obvious now that thd Israelis having finally realised that piping their gas through turkey , is an impossibility and would leave them open to future Turkish blackmail …
        Had decided to go via cyprus and Greece … And they lead thd Turks in to a carefully laid trap …
        Where cyprus was to use an Israeli drilling company , so that the expected Turkish military response will have to by necessity threaten Israeli interests …
        Thus enabling israel to cast turkey in the role of regional/ international aggressor …
        And not as turkey always likes to portray it as just another aspect of the interminable bilateral Greco / Turkish squabble …
        With Israel in the mix , it was easy to bring in thd big powers , to stop turkey in it’s tracks … Very cost effective .. As it didn’t even need a war , to put turkey back in it’s place ..
        Now when it comes to the Aegean … If you said to me that thd Israeli alliance is now a game changer …
        Than I would have to concede that is a possibility …
        But only time will tell if israel is prepared to give Greece the green light .. As It did with cyprus …
        Since any israeli pipeline will not be passing through the Aegean …
        Although if turkey is foolish enough to try and stop a pipeline going past kasteloriso … Then they will force the issue and Israel’s hand …
        But all that is a few years away …
        Israel needs to deal with Iran first … And after Iran is pacified … We will see if turkey still has any appetite for belligerence and imperial dreams …
        Then is the time for Greece to implement it’s Aegean expansion …
        Don’t you think the Greek governments dont know what they are doing …especially now with Israeli interests behind the scenes ..
        The declaration of 12 mile or eez will only happen , if and when Greece and israel Decide it is necessary fir turkey to suffer a military defeat …and only then

        • Phoevos

          You are 100% wrong. The EEZ issue has nothing to do with military issues. It’s a pure 100% legal concept and it happens to be the European Law.

          Even if Greece didn’t want to deal with this issue, the European framework has already decided about it.

          Regarding Israel: Cyprus and Greece have already activated a common defence pact last September which remains in force.

          Furthermore, Israel already is the first country to recognize the Greek EEZ via its dealings with Cyprus. Cyprus is also a natural on this one two.

          My suggestion to you is to leave these long replies to the people who know about these matters.

          • Tyroneez

            Phoevos
            Again you miss the point of my comment …
            Which is … Of course you are correct regarding the legal aspects of thd EEZ issue …
            And of course it should not be a military issue ..
            But it is turkey who insists on making it so …
            Even to the point of preparing an invasion fleet … So as To have the capability of occupying islands , (kasteloriso) etc
            This is their way of signalling to the great powers that they will react to any change in thd balance of power in thd Aegean ..
            Likewise Greece also has drawn it’s lines in the sand …
            And so it has remained these last 70 years ..
            I am also saying that if Turkey doesnt change its attitudes …
            Then the time of reckoning (which you are eager for) may come anyway, if they are ever stupid enough to act unilaterally …
            The worst thing we can do is trigger anything by a Greek false move …
            Nothing is static in the world … Especially in volatile regions like the near east …
            For 70 years Greece has held it’s own … Against an ascendant turkey …which has had unequivocal Israeli and Anglo/American quiescence for it’s pushy ways …
            Although the USA has always had a policy of maintaining 70/100 parity … With regards to Greece/turkey , balance of power …otherwise the Turks would have had their way , long ago ..
            When looking at this issue , I can see that you are not taking into account the bigger picture … The great powers would take a very dim view if greece or were to provoke a crisis in the Aegean …
            Thus giving the hawks in turkey an opportunity to exploit the situation …and create fait-accompli on thd ground .. Which would be impossible for the powers to reverse
            But now , after the turkish/Israeli rift …
            Greeces military security situation is much improved … And turkeys prospects for a successful outcome in any Aegean conflict is that much more reduced …
            A fact for which we should rejoice …
            Because of their governments foolishness , the tide and balance of power has now turned against turkey …
            Weather it has turned sufficiently enough to thd point of enabling Greece to take control of 90% of the Aegean , right now , without a Turkish military response … Is debatable …
            All I’m saying is that I trust the Greek governments … In choosing the best time …to issue licences for Aegean exploration..this will only happen if the Americans and Israelis feel it is in their interests to allow Greece to push turkey further into it’s self created corner ??
            Far from being cowards and traitors … A clear head and a steady hand is essential … When playing poker …
            We have keeped a cool head for 40 years now since (cyprus 1974) …
            Whilst turkey has spent that time busily digging a hole for itself …firstly by its intransigence in Cyprus … And Kurdistan … And now with militarily threatening/challenging the Israelis in their own EEZ …
            the fact that turkey has finally dropped the mask of being a reliable friend to Israeli … Must mean that , Our first priority now is to use this israeli awakening … So as to get Turkey out of Cyprus …
            And play our hand in thd Aegean , if and when , turkey makes another strategic mistake …
            The trick in international stratigic power politics is to , cleverly exploit developments to your advantage … But never try and create the developments yourself … Especially by the use of force … Witness Cyprus 1974 … Were the Greeks got it so wrong … And turkey was able to exploit that fact …
            I know it’s a long and frustratingly slow business …
            But in this game …
            Patience is a virtue ..
            And haste is a folly ..

          • Phoevos

            Tyro:

            For one more time. This is a European matter not Turkish. If turkey wishes to inject herself where she does not belong then Turkey needs to take it up with the European courts.

            Greece is doing what the European law allows and most importantly what 27 other states(including Croatia) expect Greece to hold as a common line.

            Greece is not allowed to improvise nor cut any special deals with Turkey on matters affecting other states. Period.

            If as you say this might cause turkey to invade, then that’s Turkey’s problem. It’s Turkey that is going to be kicked mercilessly from the international community.

            Let turkey make any move they want. It might as well be the last move they ever make.

            Stop mixing apples and oranges. Turkey is Mid East. Greece and Cyprus are Europe. Two totally separate frames of reference.

            In Europe we follow the Acquis Com. (European Law). Turkey follows another legal framework which for all practical purposes you have to ignore because there is not a single European directive that says an EU country can disregard European law and custom.

          • Tyroneez

            Phoevos
            Once again I will ask you / what is it you want the Greek government to do ?? That it is not doing ??
            Please enlighten me

          • Phoevos

            Watch the video attached in the first comment. It tells you precisely what the Greek government should do. Already Makos commented about it. Are you telling me you can’t speak Greek?

          • Tyroneez

            Dear phoevos
            I have viewed it and , Da ellinika mou eine Apsoha …
            I’m just saying that the Aegean EEZ Declaration ..
            Shall and will happen , only and when the Americans finally decide to back Greece …. In this declaration …
            I’m also saying that now that Israel is on board … It may well happen sooner than later …
            I can predict that this moment will only come , if the proposed pipeline Israel-Cyprus-Greece is ever built …
            Then israel will require Cypriot EEZ … To join with …Greek EEZ …
            I noticed that Your speaker on the clip … Failed to inform his audience that both Egypt and libya have both refused to delineate EEZ with Greece … The Egyptians prefering to agree with turkey … That their EEZ should meet east of Crete … Thus denying EEZ to kasteloriso …
            And Libya has refused because they say GHAVDOS is not entitled to EEZ either ….
            Even the Italians are being difficult and they are in the EU ??
            Turkey is also pressuring Albania to abrogate it’s agreement with Greece … Which recognised Corfu’s EEZ ..
            Do you see it’s not all as clear cut as you like to believe …
            The trump card in all this though … Will prove to be the fact that Israel will obviously be opposed to Turkish EEZ and Egyptian EEZ , meeting between Crete and Cyprus … As this will box them in and isolate them further from Europe …
            At that time Greek EEZ (kasteloriso) will become indispensable to Israeli interests …
            And as i have said before …if you or anybody else thinks , just like the speaker in your (you tube clip) …
            That little defenceless Cyprus did it all on it’s own , then you are choosing to , not see the behind the scenes players …
            And don’t get me wrong , I am not saying that Cyprus & Greece or their leaderships are too coward to take on turkey …
            It’s just that the anglo-Americans through NATO .. Would not let them … As keeping a strong turkey was in their interest …
            Given that they would always back turkey in any conflict … Then it would always be completely pointless …
            But for 40 years we bravely did not succumb to turkeys attempts to exploit this strategic advantage further …and stood our ground …
            Now that that time seems to have passed … And events have moved on and circumstances have changed , It is time to redress past injustices ..
            IE the prolonged and unjustified occupation of Cyprus , and the prolonged stalemate in the Aegean …even perhaps the wests mistakes regarding the abandonment of (the treaty if sevre) can finally be put right …
            So you see the discovery of gas and oil in Israeli EEZ is the real game changer …coupled with turkeys disastrous mistake in not allowing israel to build a pipeline to Mersin .. Is the clincher …
            Please believe me I am just as , pro active in this than anybody on your clip …
            The only difference is I can see what is really happening in the background

  • Solinariforever

    Dear Phoevos,
    You obviously are more familiar than I in the legal stuff about the rights of EU members etc. However, if the EU members were so hot about protecting their own, knowing the situation, why are they not putting 500 jects on Greek soil and declare their intensions on helping Greece get through this. I am just afraid that in the aftermath, everyone will be for themselves, I know the Germans as well as the Brits think of Greece as a mere EU burden (the only value being its geopolitical position) – I have spent much time there and have had many discussions on this with real Germans! I agree in that Greece should not ever negotiate any rights that it alaready owns. Thus maybe, to avoid conflict until the right time comes, the Aegean could be a vacation rather than a hydrocarbon business – for all concerned!

    • Phoevos

      You are still missing the point. This is not about jets or military equipment.

      The EEZ is purely a legal framework. Without it you can’t explore.

      Once declared, the EZZ is not defended by constantly patrolling it, even though you could if so you wanted. But it’s not necessary.

      Once declared the EEZ is there for you regardless. It becomes part of a legal framework that is unbreakable.

      Those who confuse the EEZ with additional military expenditures have their own agenda. They either promote the idea (like you) that without military expenditure you can’t have nor can adequately protect your EEZ. Or, they are military types who wish to use this issue to increase their budgets (which is understandable but not necessarily logical)

      When you select an American or Norwegian platform to do the drilling the countries from which drilling companies originate are there to protect as well. Foreign country platforms which have been legally issued a drilling license from the EU are untouchable in my opinion.

      Now, I am not saying that the Greek Navy should not get the new FREMM frigates for its functional reasons or latest type drones to patrol the Greek waters. What I am saying is that those new acquisitions are not necessarily tied to the declaration of the EEZ.

      Those who advocate to wait are basically enemies of Greece. They fall into 2 main camps:

      1. True foreign enemies (like Turkey for example) who wish to paint the picture as a military one and then intimidate Greece into no-action.
      2. Domestic ones, who wish to use this issue as a means of fattening their budgets and in the process they fall for the turkish argument again.

      Neither camp should be listened to. This is a legal issue and whatever defense implications might have are purely secondary. Don’t put the cart in front of the horse.

  • Solinariforever

    Phoevos,
    thanks for posting the utube strip on the meeting of the Greek minds on the EEZ issue, I want you to know I appreciate it. Though I had heard and read about it, and was tuned to see something, to this day this is the first time I view it. Thanks it pleases me to see Greek creativity at work.
    You posted this , I see 3-days ago, I know I visited here before and it is an oversite that I did not see it.
    Also thanks to Tyroneez for posting the well known Greek EEZ with the Megisti and Strogilo EEZ included below!