The maritime delimitation problem in the Eastern Mediterranean and other disputes related to the Aegean Sea have been the source of chronic tension between Turkey and Greece since 1974. The newly discovered oil and gas reserves, estimated to be 879 million barrels and 286.2 trillion cubic feet, respectively, have added another layer to the long-standing tension between the two countries [1]. The territorial claims of both countries are shown in Figure 1.
7Figure-3 The Decision of the Arbitration Court in the Canada-France St. Pierre and Miquelon Maritime Boundary Case in Which France Was Granted a 13.8-Mile Exclusive Economic Zone for St. Pierre Island and Miquelon Island [5]
Conclusion
As summarized in the above two cases, Greece’s claims related to Megisti Island are not fully supported by the principles of international law. Instead, Greece gives great importance to maximizing its EEZ around Megisti Island, which would enable Greece to connect the EEZs of its islands with the EEZ of the Greek Cypriot administration. Chrysochou and Siousioura argue that the position of Greece on Megisti Island “is vital for the Greek national interests, as its influence if recognized, can connect the Hellenic EEZ to the Cypriot EEZ [6].” That connection would enable Greece to reduce the chances that Turkey could benefit from the natural resources in the Eastern Mediterranean. Both the Anglo-French Continental Shelf Case and the Canada-France St. Pierre and Miquelon Maritime Boundary Casedemonstrate that the decisions of the tribunal court and the arbitration court do not support the claims of Greece regarding Megisti Island. Erdogan’s expansionist foreign policies in other regions prevent Turkey from establishing a regional platform from which it can seek equitable solutions to the maritime delimitation dispute under international law. Therefore Turkey, which has the longest coastline in the Eastern Mediterranean, has had to rely on military operations to protect its rights in the area. Turkey’s inconsistent political and legal stances have made it difficult for the country to rely on other peaceful dispute-resolution methods. The maritime delimitation agreement between Turkey and Libya also is problematic in that it ignores the EEZ rights of Crete Island and Rhodes Island, both of which are in compliance with the criteria (such as population, size, length of the coast) related to the islands’ maritime zone entitlement.
To move forward, Turkey should reset its Eastern Mediterranean policy by relying on the principles of international law and work with Greece to give up its maximalist approach. The consensus in the international community is that the provisions of the UNCLOS have gained the status of customary international law. Therefore, it is neither reasonable nor sustainable for Turkey to preserve its “persistent objector status” (i.e., the clear and consistent objection of a sovereign state to a norm of customary international law) over the long term. Also of concern is the UNCLOS provision regarding the nature of the regime of a disputed island. The provision is problematic because it does not produce equitable solutions for islands, which in turn creates geographic anomalies with respect to the maritime delimitation rights of the mainland coast. The creation of such anomalies is the main reason why the tribunal court intervened in the Anglo-FrenchContinental Shelf Case and the arbitration court intervened in the Canada-France St. Pierre and MiquelonMaritime Boundary Case. Both courts saw the need to prevent the unfair interpretation of the UNCLOS provision on delimitation.
Greece also needs a reset. It can do this by abandoning its maximalist maritime policies in the Eastern Mediterranean and considering the impacts of the court’s rulings about the fair interpretation of Article 121 of UNCLOS regarding the maritime rights of Megisti Island. Turkey’s Mavi Vatan (“Blue Homeland”) doctrine, which was developed by retired Turkish admirals rather than maritime law experts and is based on the claim of a vast maritime domain, contains significant fallacies about international law. The doctrine has been a substantial obstacle to the establishment of an effective negation mechanism among the countries in the region to determine the maritime boundaries in the Eastern Mediterranean. Turkey should abandon the Mavi Vatan doctrine and develop a holistic approach to maritime delimitation in the Eastern Mediterranean. A key element of that new approach is reliance on regional cooperation and adherence to the international rule of law.
Footnotes:
[1] USGS 2020. Assessment of Undiscovered Conventional Oil and Gas Resources in the Eastern Mediterranean Area.
[2] Yunus Emre Açıkgönül wrote on Twitter: “Working with a graphic designer, we developed a more accurate version of my #EastMed delimitation map with better visuals. Again, drawing a map with full accuracy requires time and map expertise. My maps give the general idea based on int law. Small inaccuracy should be tolerated. ”https://twitter.com/yeacikgonul/status/1308146761777713152” / Twitter.
[3] According to Article 121, Regime of islands:
- An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.
- Except as provided in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone, and the continental shelf of an island are determined according to the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territories.
- Rocks that cannot sustain their own human habitation or economic life shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part8.htm
[4] Anglo-French Continental Shelf Case (1977) 18 RIAA.
[5] LIVINGSTONE, E. 1994. A Tale of Two Islands: An Analysis of the Court of Arbitration’sDecision in the Canada-France Maritime Boundary Dispute. DalhousieJournal of Legal Studies, 3.
[6] SIOUSIOURAS, P. & CHRYSOCHOU, G. 2014. The Aegean Dispute in the Context of Contemporary JudicialDecisions on Maritime Delimitation Laws, 3.
______________________________________________________
Orion Policy Institute (OPI) is an independent, non-profit, tax-exempt think tank focusing on a broad range of issues at the local, national, and global levels. OPI does not take institutional policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions represented herein should be understood to be solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of OPI.
