Abstract
This chapter posits that the territorial waters issue lies at the heart of the Aegean dispute(s) as it defines the limits necessary also to resolve related problems. Hence, following an overview of the status quo established by the Lausanne Peace Treaty, it explores the prevailing problems between Greece and Turkey. Building on an overview of the legal regime of the territorial waters, the chapter elaborates on the potential implications of the extension of Greek territorial waters to 12 nautical miles. In light of the changing political conjuncture, as well as the developments in international law, the chapter concludes that it is necessary for Ankara and Athens to reorient their Aegean policies towards economic and social development by prioritising the principles of equity and duty to cooperate.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Defined under Article 122 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), ‘“enclosed and semi-enclosed sea” means a gulf, basin or sea surrounded by two or more states and connected to another sea or the ocean by a narrow outlet or consisting entirely or primarily of the territorial seas and exclusive economic zones of two or more coastal states’.
- 2.
Before the Security Council, the Greek representative argued that Turkish activities over the Greek continental shelf constituted a threat to international peace and security and indicated the purpose of their appeal to the Council was to ‘denounce the activities of Turkey’ as they had already brought the dispute before the ICJ (UN-Dag 1976, p. 2). In Resolution 395, the Council advised the parties to do their best to resolve the dispute and also to seek a solution through judicial settlement, without referring to the nature of the dispute as a threat to international peace and security (UNSC 1976).
- 3.
In 1978, the ICJ concluded that it was ‘without jurisdiction to entertain the Application’—as Turkey rejected to appear before the Court—and failed to produce a settlement for the dispute (ICJ 1978).
- 4.
As for the method of the settlement of the continental shelf dispute, yet again Greece and Turkey had their differences. Greece sought for a settlement through third-party involvement and judicial means, whereas Turkey desired to begin with bilateral negotiations. Nevertheless, the parties have so far agreed to disagree not only regarding the method of settlement, but also about which standards to apply to delimit the Aegean continental shelf. While Greece argues that the delimitation should be made between the Turkish mainland and the Greek islands on the basis of a median line, Turkey claims that islands located just in front of the Turkish mainland cannot be taken as a reference for delimitation. Accordingly, it argues that the Greek and Turkish main lands should be considered as the basis of delimitation, and the Greek islands should be taken into account at the second stage, that is, while determining the continental shelves of these two countries.
- 5.
Concerning innocent passage, Article 18 of the UNCLOS provides:
(1) Passage means navigation through the territorial sea for the purpose of: (a) traversing that sea without entering internal waters or calling at a roadstead or port facility outside internal waters; or (b) proceeding to or from internal waters or a call at such roadstead or port facility.
(2) Passage shall be continuous and expeditious. However, passage includes stopping and anchoring, but only in so far as the same are incidental to ordinary navigation or are rendered necessary by force majeure or distress or for the purpose of rendering assistance to persons, ships or aircraft in danger or distress.
Further, according to Article 19, ‘Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law’ (UN 1982).
- 6.
Article 3 of the UNCLOS provides that ‘Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding twelve nautical nm, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention’.
- 7.
According to Article 38(2) of UNCLOS,
[t]ransit passage means the exercise in accordance with this Part of the freedom of navigation and overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of the strait between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone. However, the requirement of continuous and expeditious transit does not preclude passage through the strait for the purpose of entering, leaving or returning from a State bordering the strait, subject to the conditions of entry to that State. (UN 1982)
- 8.
For further details, see Chapter 14.
- 9.
‘A treaty does not create either obligations or rights for a third State without its consent’ (UNTS 1980, p. 341).
- 10.
See, ICJ, Reports of Judgments Advisory Opinions and Orders, Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v. Norway), Judgment of 18 December 1951; ICJ, Reports of Judgments Advisory Opinions and Orders, Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Iceland, Merits, Judgment of 25 July 1974; ICJ, Reports of Judgments Advisory Opinions and Orders, Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland), Merits, Judgment of 25 July 1974.
- 11.
While the agreement set the framework for negotiations on the continental shelf dispute, the parties failed to achieve further progress. As to the reasons for the failure of the process, Greece and Turkey have differing views. On the one hand, Athens argues that ‘this dialogue was inconclusive and ended in 1981 due to Turkey’s continuous vacillations and intransigent stance, thus the Berne procès-verbal—the validity and duration of which directly depended on the course of the negotiations—ceased to apply’ (MFA-GR 2016). On the other hand, Ankara posits that the Bern Agreement, which was concluded ‘[i]n conformity with the Security Council decision, and in view of the Court’s rejection of the Greek contention and claims […is] still valid and its terms continue to be binding for both countries’ (MFA 2016).
References
Acer, Y. (2003). The Aegean maritime disputes and international law. Wiltshire: Ashgate.
Acer, Y. (2006). A proposal for a joint maritime development regime in the Aegean sea. Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 37(1), 49–77.
Başeren, S. H. (2006). Ege Sorunları, 25. Ankara: Türk Deniz Araştırmaları Vakfı Yayınları.
Gözen, M. P. (2009). The territorial sea issue in Greek-Turkish relations: Disputes, claims and settlement proposals. USA: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.
Gündüz, A. (2001). Greek-Turkish dispute, how to resolve them? In D. Keridis & D. Triantaphyllon (Eds.), Greek Turkish relations in the era of globalization (pp. 81–101). Dulles, VA: Brassey’s Publications.
Güneş, Ş. (1995). 12 Mil Sorunu ve Ege’nin Yarı-Kapalı Statüsü. Dış Politika Dergisi, IV(1), 73–95.
Hellenic Republic Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA-GR). (2016). Greek-Turkish dispute over the delimitation of the continental shelf. Retrieved June 30, 2016 from http://www.mfa.gr/en/issues-of-greek-turkish-relations/relevant-documents/delimitation-of-the-continental-shelf.html.
Herbert, G. J., & Shaw, T. M. (2000). Oceans governance and human security towards the end of the century: Regional approaches. In A. Chircop et al. (Eds.), The Aegean sea after the cold war (pp. 206–224). New York: St. Martin’s Press, Inc.
International Court of Justice (ICJ). (1978). Aegean sea continental shelf (Greece v. Turkey), Summary of the Judgement of 19 December 1978. Retrieved June 22, 2016 from http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=327&p1=3&p2=3&case=62&p3=5.
İnan, Y. (1988). Ege’de Zararsız ve Transit Geçiş Hakları. TC Genelkurmay Başkanlığı Deniz Kuvvetleri Komutanlığı Deniz Hukuku Sempozyumu Sonuç Raporu, Tebliğ No. 11, 26–27 October, 1–10.
İnan, Y., & Acer, Y. (2004). The Aegean disputes. In A. L. Karaosmanoğlu & S. Taşhan (Eds.), The Europeanization of Turkey’s security policy: Prospects and pitfalls (pp. 125–157). Ankara: Foreign Policy Institute.
İnan, Y., & Gözen, M. P. (2009). Turkey’s maritime boundary relations. In M. Kibaroğlu (Ed.), Eastern Mediterranean (pp. 153–211). Ankara: Foreign Policy Institute.
Katsepontes, P. N. (2000). Prospects for joint resource development: The case of the Aegean sea. In A. Chircop et al. (Eds.), The Aegean sea after the Cold War (pp. 159–184). New York: St. Martin’s Press, Inc.
Kurumahmut, A., & Başeren, S. H. (2004). The twilight zones in the Aegean. Ankara: Publications of Turkish Historical Society.
Lagoni, R. (1979). Oil and gas deposits across the national frontiers. American Journal of International Law, 73, 215–243.
Laipson, E. (1989). Discussions. In S. Taşhan (Ed.), The Aegean issues: Problems and prospects (pp. 25–29). Ankara: Foreign Policy Institute.
Marsh, J. E. (1989). Turkey and UNCLOS III, reflections on the Aegean. In S. Taşhan (Ed.), The Aegean issues: Problems and prospects (pp. 221–241). Ankara: Foreign Policy Institute.
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). (2016). The delimitation of the Aegean continental shelf. Retrieved June 30, 2016 from http://www.mfa.gov.tr/the-delimitation-of-the-aegean-continental-shelf.en.mfa.
UK Treaties Online (UK-TO). (1923). Lausanne Peace Treaty. Retrieved June 22, 2016, from http://treaties.fco.gov.uk/docs/pdf/1923/TS0016-1.pdf.
United Nations (UN). (1982). United Nations Convention on the law of the sea. Retrieved June 22, 2016 from http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf.
United Nations Dag Digital Library (UN-Dag). (1976). United Nations Security Council official records, Thirty-first Year, 1949th Meeting, 12 August 1976. Retrieved June 22, 2016 from http://dag.un.org/bitstream/handle/11176/70160/S_PV.1949-EN.pdf?sequence=17&isAllowed=y.
United Nations Diplomatic Conferences (UN-DC). (1958). United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Retrieved June 22, 2016 from http://legal.un.org/diplomaticconferences/lawofthesea-1958/lawofthesea-1958.html.
United Nations Security Council (UNSC). (1976). Resolution 395, 25 August.
United Nations Treaty Series (UNTS). (1980). Vienna convention on the law of treaties, concluded at Vienna on 23 May 1969. Retrieved June 22, 2016 from https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201155/volume-1155-I-18232-English.pdf.
Vukas, B. (1992). The new law of the sea and navigation: A view from the Mediterranean. In R. S. Pathak & R. P. Dhokalia (Eds.), International law in transition: Essays in memory of Judge Nagendra Singh (pp. 65–86). The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Yolga, N. (1988). Question de la Delimitation du Plateau Continental de la Mer Egee. In S. Taşhan (Ed.), The Aegean issues: Problems and prospects (pp. 133–146). Ankara: Foreign Policy Institute.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Güneş, Ş.A. (2017). Aegean Sea Territorial Waters Issue. In: Gözen Ercan, P. (eds) Turkish Foreign Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50451-3_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50451-3_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-50450-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-50451-3
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)