Turkey reserving Aegean airspace - Greece making international protest

[Alastor]

For all it's worth I like the Turkish language, but the Turkish long standing cassus belli is by no means friendly and not becoming of a nato member to use it on another that has literally no means of launching an expeditionary war it self.

I am somewhat familiar with the Turkish language as well, I don't mind it. Sometimes it even sounds interesting, especially when I can find parallels which is not as uncommon as one would think, sometimes it sounds a bit too "rough" for my tastes though.

But whatever the case may be Bodrum is a terrible, horrible name and an affront to the great history of that area. Hell an affront to good taste in general. I'm not using that name, no matter what people say.

[TASS07]

Greece doesn't claim that all of the Aegean is Greek. What Greece claims is that all waters that are 10 miles around any Greek land are also Greek territorial waters (meaning there is the right of innocent passage), except in cases where other lands are nearby at which point Greece only claims as far as half the distance to the other territory. Under international law, we have the right the claim 12 miles around all of our land, but Turkey has declared that if we decide to follow through with our rights under international law that it will be a cause of war.

Coming back to the starting point of this thread then, cause I've not been answered sufficiently yet I find. What's the issue then? Did Turkey violate any Greek territorial waters? As it stands I could see the 12 nm becoming a bit difficult in some spots (even with the right of innocent passage), as in cutting neutral passageways (=read international waters inbetween territorial seas) off. I didn't go and measure the entire aegean though. Should it be the case though that should be taken into consideration. Not extending to 12nm here sounds easiest to me. Else you'd have to treat it akin to a strait and agree on terms that would allow all those with a vested interest in (military) right of passage (so nations on the aegean and the black sea) to pursue those, much like the bosporus stuff for the black sea (if Turkey was allowed to excert full control over passage there, that would make the black sea an inland sea).

It does. There are 2 problems here:
1. The valuable reserves are not just in one or another's territorial waters. If we move with the 12 nm as treaties we (and not Turkey) have signed allow us to do, and especially if we go by the EEZ, then we get all the reserves.
2. Our territorial waters block their access to the international waters big time. If we do the 12nm they practically can't take their ships out of Smyrna to Hallicarnasus or something. DLS I don't know the Turkish names for these cities, I don't imply we should take them.

1. What reserves are we talking about? And are you aware that if we're going by the EEZ then that of Turkey expands pretty much all the way to athens (200nm...). Also this wasn't my point: I was asking where Turkey violated any territorial waters, cause such is the original point of this thread.
2. See above, even though it's besides the point I made. It would seem to me that in such a case Turkish protest against your territorital water claims is actually justified (and has precendent in international customs/law).

By threatening us to increase your sea border to 12 miles, you are bullying us. You know very well that'll destroy Turkish economic and diplomatic situation. A ship sailing from İstanbul to İzmir will need to get permission from Greece! Which country on Earth will accept that? What would be your action if we say any ship&plane going from Thessalonica to Athens need to get permission from Turkey? You also reject our request to come to table to discuss the situation.

As I said before I didin't measure the entire Aegean and 12 nm around all Aegean Greek islands further south would like harmstring some (military) passage for Turkey, yes. But please remain honest about this topic and don't make a fuzz about stuff that doesn't exist. Prove me wrong, but I just went to google maps and measured distances between any greek islands/islands and turkish coast that could interfere with the route you depict and I don't see how it would be blocked. The right of innocent passage aside.

And, on the subject of threat of war; England and France did the same at 1939, were they bullying Germany too? You are threatening us of destroying most of our economy and refuse to come to table, what do you expect we'll do? Of course, we'll try to defend ourself.

That's just blowing it out of proportion.

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

1. What reserves are we talking about? And are you aware that if we're going by the EEZ then that of Turkey expands pretty much all the way to athens (200nm...). Also this wasn't my point: I was asking where Turkey violated any territorial waters, cause such is the original point of this thread.

I think the islands that Greece has are extending our EEZ covering the way to Athens, that's the problem Turkey has, that Greece owns these islands and thus can't own the entire aegean all the way to Athens..

[Odenat]

As I said before I didin't measure the entire Aegean and 12 nm around all Aegean Greek islands further south would like harmstring some (military) passage for Turkey, yes. But please remain honest about this topic and don't make a fuzz about stuff that doesn't exist. Prove me wrong, but I just went to google maps and measured distances between any greek islands/islands and turkish coast that could interfere with the route you depict and I don't see how it would be blocked. The right of innocent passage aside.


That's just blowing it out of proportion.

Our Greek friends already posted "their Aegean sea". As you can see from the below map, any ship who's going 500 m. away from Turkish coast is entering Greek waters. As you can see this includes international shipping too. There's no way a Russian ship follow international waters to reach Mediterranean. Actually, i'm sure you already saw this map, why are you asking for proof?

And Turkey does not ask more land or sea. It only wants that the currend status is preserved at Aegean. This is what Greeks call as aggressive!

This does not mean much to you, i'm sure if i was peacefully living at London or Paris, that does not mean anything to me. But it's our economy and our rights which is threatened, that means a lot to us.

For all it's worth I like the Turkish language, but the Turkish long standing cassus belli is by no means friendly and not becoming of a nato member to use it on another that has literally no means of launching an expeditionary war it self.

Yeah, let's peacefully allow our economy to be destroyed. Why did not England and France peacefully accepted the invasion of Poland? Damn, those guys are so aggressive.

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

Yeah, let's peacefully allow our economy to be destroyed. Why did not England and France peacefully accepted the invasion of Poland? Damn, those guys are so aggressive.

First of all, no comment for trying to equate Greece claiming sovereign rights with Nazi Germany.

About your economy being destroyed, nothing will change for your economy since right now all these zones are GREY that noone is profiting from.

[TASS07]

Our Greek friends already posted "their Aegean sea". As you can see from the below map, any ship who's going 500 m. away from Turkish coast is entering Greek waters. As you can see this includes international shipping too. There's no way a Russian ship follow international waters to reach Mediterranean. Actually, i'm sure you already saw this map, why are you asking for proof?

And Turkey does not ask more land or sea. It only wants that the currend status is preserved at Aegean. This is what Greeks call as aggressive!

This does not mean much to you, i'm sure if i was peacefully living at London or Paris, that does not mean anything to me. But it's our economy and our rights which is threatened, that means a lot to us.






Yeah, let's peacefully allow our economy to be destroyed. Why did not England and France peacefully accepted the invasion of Poland? Damn, those guys are so aggressive.

I was contesting your exaggeration that no ships could go between istanbul and izmir and now even your own map shows that this would be the case, even if one left the right of innocent passence aside (which has already been pointed out to you by others). So what is your point here exactly.
I already stated myself that 12 nm would probably large parts of the southern Aegean and that here agreement that regulate passage are necessary one way or the other, effectively making strict 12 nm total sovereignty claims a bit unrealistic. Again, what is your point?

However you're again totally overexaggerating and falling for nationalistic sentiments when you talk "about your economy being destroyed". The 12nm would not even infringe on that as likely all economic passage would fall under "innocent passage". What that would probably infringe on is potential Turkish strategic interests and military passageways that I do not even want to turn down as illegitimate, given that the country both borders syria and the black sea and has a coastline expanding all that way.

I am living in neither to (beautiful) cities you mention, but again your economy I don't see affected by this.

Also your comparsion to WWII and the invasion of poland is again blowing it entirely out of proportion (and the worst anology ever in so many ways) and a blatant overreaction.

[neoptolemos]

This is quite a pathetic way of claiming a lie. You make the entire argument that UNCLOS III is binding to everyone and then only claim it in name that it's not the case. Well, good luck with such petty arguments. I won't give any credence to it. Your strategy seems to be one relying on straw man arguments which is why you keep on focusing on Cyclades and Crete while making absolute claims about the general issue. Then, of course, you continue to talk as if your arguments haven't been addressed. This sort of childish arguments fueled by blind nationalistic attacks are quite pointless. As I said, I won't give much credence to them. To sum it up. You could not establish what's international law in this case.

You are still lying though but it is expected as you run out of arguments and you are still using the false premise of what I argue while you are unable to address the arguments. UNCLOS is the international law Greece abides to and regulates Greek territorial waters except the Greek-Turkish borders. Turkey has no say, no sovereignty, no legal issue and no jurisdiction on Crete or Cyclades and whatever UNCLOS status Turkey has is completely irrelevant.The only thing that Turkey has is the threat of war nothing more something that makes Turkish position even thinner.You failed to argue on which legal framework Turkish positions on casus belli and territorial waters stand.

UNCLOS III is not a law to be good or bad. You seem to be making stuff up to throw a bunch of attacks. For it to be a law between Turkey and Greece it needs to be signed and ratified by both parties. It's like talking as if laws of a country that I'm not a citizen of is binding to me. How am I shooting myself in the leg? You might want to read what I wrote earlier properly.

The very example you used with Russia and the 12 nm Turkey uses in Black Sea and Mediterranean sea just proves that even Turkey abides to that legal framework when forced to and underlines the lack of any substantial argument and double standards. The fact that Turkey is hiding behind the refusal of UNCLOS just proves that she has no legal ground at all and it is purely pathetic as the UNCLOS regulates Greek territorial waters except the Greek-Turkish borders. There is no need for a treaty on what extend the territorial waters of Greece would be as the UNCLOS provides that for Greece already and Turkey has no say in this nor Greece should care about Turkish stance in this.It is that simple

If you're going to accuse me of running out of arguments at least don't make it so obvious when you're unable to produce any arguments against the addressed points. As a result, you're merely repeating the same addressed points over and over again. I already told you why all the islands in the Aegean were relevant with respect to international waters and EEZ.

You are still say nothing substantial about it actually.The islands of the Aegean except the ones that border with Turkey are Greece's business not Turkeys. Territorial waters and EEZ are not the same thing and does not affect what Greece would or could do unilaterally with her territorial waters, but again on which legal framework Turkey base her claims on EEZ exactly?

The term does not include either the territorial sea or the continental shelf beyond the 200 nmi limit. The difference between the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone is that the first confers full sovereignty over the waters, whereas the second is merely a "sovereign right" which refers to the coastal state's rights below the surface of the sea. The surface waters, as can be seen in the map, are international waters.^[2]

Territorial waters=/=EEZ.
Greek territorial waters=/=Greek sea borders.

To answer your question, I don't know of any law that is binding to Turkey in cases of its vessels traveling in international waters, unless its governed by a bilateral treaty between the two nations.

That's just pathetic. Are you arguing that Turkish ships are not bound to any regulation when travelling in international near France or Italy and French or Italian territorial waters and that Turkey has bilateral treaties with Italy and France about it?How exactly Turkey defines international waters and territorial waters in France and Italy exactly? You do realize that Turkish ships are using both seas right while at the same time so there must be a legal framework to do so?
Still waiting

In the meantime:

The main international treaty on the use of the sea is UNCLOS (1982), which has been ratified by a majority of the states in the
Mediterranean, the EU and the Black Sea (Table 8), and which establishes a general framework for most activities (navigation, resource
exploitation and other economic uses of the sea, protection of the marine environment and research

http://www.eurocean.org/np4/file/2063/download.do.pdf

Luckily we have right wing lunatics in the ministry of defense, but yes, it is rather impossible for us to decrease our military with this sort of neighbor, and there's nothing I'd like to see more than Greece's military being reduced by more than half.

Actually I would like to see the military spending cut in half as well but I don't think Turkish aggression will ever let us do it actually.

Well you can't. Not as long as a very large part of Turks spend their time on the internet drawing maps that include Aleppo, Mosul, Cyprus, Xanthi and Rodos as Turkish...

Their whole claim to those islands is absurd. They did not spare effort to rid themself of non-Turks in order to have a racially pure nation state and yet now they desire islands with Greeks living there (since forever)...

What would they do with the Dodecanese anyway? Since this is their main source of butthurtness because the Italians gave it to a nation their occupied for compensation after they took it from an at that time no long existing state.
More ethnic cleansing in order to have fresh exile locations for unwanted Mountain-Turks or something? You tell me...

Well let's face it, Turkey is a major power and she can stand her ground on many levels. As long as their assertions are not addressed by the international community then she can lay claims backed on thin air and nobody would notice. Should Greek borders became EU borders or Greece becoming a US state then nothing will change really.

[Odenat]

I was contesting your exaggeration that no ships could go between istanbul and izmir and now even your own map shows that this would be the case, even if one left the right of innocent passence aside (which has already been pointed out to you by others). So what is your point here exactly.
I already stated myself that 12 nm would probably large parts of the southern Aegean and that here agreement that regulate passage are necessary one way or the other, effectively making strict 12 nm total sovereignty claims a bit unrealistic. Again, what is your point?

Are you not looking to the map or do you really believe that from now on, all Turkish shipping must be done inside this 500 mt. zone is acceptable ? I think your pro-greek sentiments obscure your view. You speak of right of innocent passage. Do you really think Greeks who are harassing Turkish fishermen on the international waters won't harass Turkish shipping?

For more reading; http://bjil.typepad.com/publicist/20...st01-oral.html

"Article 121 provided little guidance as to what principles of delimitation would apply in cases such as the Greek islands lying close to the Turkish coast. In exercising their rights and obligations under these vague provisions parties are bound by the general obligation under Article 300 to exercise the rights, jurisdiction and freedomsin the Conventionin a manner which would not constitute an abuse of right. The unilateral exercise of the rights to extend the territorial sea to twelve nautical miles, the EEZ to the full 200 nautical miles, and delimitation of the continental shelf would presumably constitute such an abuse."

It clearly states that UNCLOS is vague about the status of the islands and the unilateral exercise of the rights to extend the territorial sea to twelve nautical miles, is an abuse against UNCLOS. I think this close Greek claims that UNCLOS allow them use of 12 miles.

Case closed.

[PointOfViewGun]

You are still lying though but it is expected as you run out of arguments and you are still using the false premise of what I argue while you are unable to address the arguments. UNCLOS is the international law Greece abides to and regulates Greek territorial waters except the Greek-Turkish borders. Turkey has no say, no sovereignty, no legal issue and no jurisdiction on Crete or Cyclades and whatever UNCLOS status Turkey has is completely irrelevant.The only thing that Turkey has is the threat of war nothing more something that makes Turkish position even thinner.You failed to argue on which legal framework Turkish positions on casus belli and territorial waters stand.

The very example you used with Russia and the 12 nm Turkey uses in Black Sea and Mediterranean sea just proves that even Turkey abides to that legal framework when forced to and underlines the lack of any substantial argument and double standards. The fact that Turkey is hiding behind the refusal of UNCLOS just proves that she has no legal ground at all and it is purely pathetic as the UNCLOS regulates Greek territorial waters except the Greek-Turkish borders. There is no need for a treaty on what extend the territorial waters of Greece would be as the UNCLOS provides that for Greece already and Turkey has no say in this nor Greece should care about Turkish stance in this.It is that simple

You are still say nothing substantial about it actually.The islands of the Aegean except the ones that border with Turkey are Greece's business not Turkeys. Territorial waters and EEZ are not the same thing and does not affect what Greece would or could do unilaterally with her territorial waters, but again on which legal framework Turkey base her claims on EEZ exactly?

Territorial waters=/=EEZ.
Greek territorial waters=/=Greek sea borders.
That's just pathetic. Are you arguing that Turkish ships are not bound to any regulation when travelling in international near France or Italy and French or Italian territorial waters and that Turkey has bilateral treaties with Italy and France about it?How exactly Turkey defines international waters and territorial waters in France and Italy exactly? You do realize that Turkish ships are using both seas right while at the same time so there must be a legal framework to do so?
Still waiting

In the meantime:
http://www.eurocean.org/np4/file/2063/download.do.pdf

Why would you insist that I lie and then repeat the same statements yourself that you accuse me of making it up? Strange... You can't argue that Greece's extension of territorial waters based on UNCLOS III around Crete or Cyclades is binding to Turkey and then also accuse me of lying about you claiming that the convention is binding to everyone.

Your comments on Russia and Turkey simply doesn't make sense. You seem to be making non-existent connections to argue for a particular outcome. You should produce outcomes based on what you know instead trying to bend what you know and make stuff up to reach a preset outcome.

I honestly don't know what confuses you. Extending territorial waters decreases the amount of international waters available to everyone. This similarly effect any kind of EEZ delimitation in the Aegean sea based on a median line. You know this. These have been pointed out before by many people. Yet, you choose to keep repeating the same irrelevant points of territorial waters not being EEZ or sea borders, which nobody argued as such. Perhaps you should tell me what confuses you specifically and I can help you with that.

Why don't you tell me which laws are binding to Turkey? It's definitely not UNCLOS III since Turkey is not a signatory and haven't ratified the convention. Do enlighten us.

[Treize]

Well let's face it, Turkey is a major power and she can stand her ground on many levels. As long as their assertions are not addressed by the international community then she can lay claims backed on thin air and nobody would notice. Should Greek borders became EU borders or Greece becoming a US state then nothing will change really.

What can Turkey do about it? Nothing at all.

Greece needs to keep the reserve corps that is called ASDEN intact and keep the navy (submarines!) and air force adequate. Nothing will happen. Now if wierdo anarcho-communists decide to slash the army they will certainly use some excuse to invade the islands off the coast of Ionia and the Cyprus/Tenedos/Imbros scenario would be repeated. Greece needs to keep a deterrent.

Greece would be wise to confine military investments to assymetrical counters. SHORAD, AT missile teams (to prevent forces from landing) and such should be at these islands. Navy should be focussed on submarines.
The forces bordering Macedonia and and deployments abroad should not be given priority given the economic situation. The only thing Greece needs to do is 1) make taking the islands costly, 2) keep the Thrace barrier intact and 3) maintain an air force/air defence that can remain operational against a larger sized force (despersed air field, good radar network etc). I think Greece currently has most of this in place already. Sultan Erdo Han will bark but he will not bite anyway, he is way too far up the ass of Obama for that.

[neoptolemos]

For more reading; http://bjil.typepad.com/publicist/20...st01-oral.html

"Article 121 provided little guidance as to what principles of delimitation would apply in cases such as the Greek islands lying close to the Turkish coast. In exercising their rights and obligations under these vague provisions parties are bound by the general obligation under Article 300 to exercise the rights, jurisdiction and freedomsin the Conventionin a manner which would not constitute an abuse of right. The unilateral exercise of the rights to extend the territorial sea to twelve nautical miles, the EEZ to the full 200 nautical miles, and delimitation of the continental shelf would presumably constitute such an abuse."

It clearly states that UNCLOS is vague about the status of the islands and the unilateral exercise of the rights to extend the territorial sea to twelve nautical miles, is an abuse against UNCLOS. I think this close Greek claims that UNCLOS allow them use of 12 miles.

Case closed.

A text by a Turkish author for the Turkish stance which mentions article 121:
http://www.un.org/depts/los/conventi...clos/part8.htm

1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.

2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.

3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

You do realise that Cyclades and Crete or Cythera or Skyros have no borders with Turkey while the author mentions the islands who border with Turkey right?
Case closed/

Why would you insist that I lie and then repeat the same statements yourself that you accuse me of making it up? Strange... You can't argue that Greece's extension of territorial waters based on UNCLOS III around Crete or Cyclades is binding to Turkey and then also accuse me of lying about you claiming that the convention is binding to everyone.

And you are still lying about what I ve claimed.for the ninth time quote me claiming that UNCLOS is binding to everyone or admit that you are simply lying about this.

Your comments on Russia and Turkey simply doesn't make sense. You seem to be making non-existent connections to argue for a particular outcome. You should produce outcomes based on what you know instead trying to bend what you know and make stuff up to reach a preset outcome.

Well you mentioned Russia not me, it simply backfired at you. I made a case in which Turkey has a limitation of 12nm territorial waters in a closed sea , a precedent case, what you failed to address is why Turkey has 12nm as territorial waters in Black and Mediterrenean sea.

I honestly don't know what confuses you. Extending territorial waters decreases the amount of international waters available to everyone. This similarly effect any kind of EEZ delimitation in the Aegean sea based on a median line. You know this. These have been pointed out before by many people. Yet, you choose to keep repeating the same irrelevant points of territorial waters not being EEZ or sea borders, which nobody argued as such. Perhaps you should tell me what confuses you specifically and I can help you with that.

The extension of territorial waters, except the Greek-Turkish borders, under UNCLOS defines the amount of international waters and the legal framework of international waters that is the purpose of the treaty the overwhelming majority of UN states have ratified. What Turkey thinks or not about it is not Greece's concern and since Turkey does not abide with UNCLOS there is no legal ground to do anything against it. I don't know why are you mentioning and confusing EEZ with territorial waters 2 different legal entities. Territorial waters are part of a states sovereign right and apart from Greek-Turkish borders Turkey has no say over it. EEZ are not defined according to territorial waters as i have already pointed out.

Why don't you tell me which laws are binding to Turkey? It's definitely not UNCLOS III since Turkey is not a signatory and haven't ratified the convention. Do enlighten us.

Are you answering with a question now? I have already asked you repeatedly and you still haven't answer while I have provided a source stating that UNCLOS is the general legal framework in Mediterranean and Black sea and since you are the one claiming that UNCLOS is not binding to Turkey (or accepted by her) thus Turkey has another legal framework you ought to know which when arguing against UNCLOS. I take your inability to answer or provide any source ,even concerning specific examples, as an acceptance of lack of arguments and understanding of international law.
Or you could enlighten us what international laws Turkey is using when entering Italian or French territorial waters or international waters defined after them since does not abide to UNCLOS? Is Turkey a special case and has bilateral treaties with every maritime state?All these are genuine questions because you have spent post over post trying to explain what Turkey rejects UNCLOS and you haven't provided what Turkey accepts as international law of the sea since it is not UNCLOS as you claim.

And for th Nth time under which legal framework Turkish threat of war stands?

What can Turkey do about it? Nothing at all.

Greece needs to keep the reserve corps that is called ASDEN intact and keep the navy (submarines!) and air force adequate. Nothing will happen. Now if wierdo anarcho-communists decide to slash the army they will certainly use some excuse to invade the islands off the coast of Ionia and the Cyprus/Tenedos/Imbros scenario would be repeated. Greece needs to keep a deterrent.

Greece would be wise to confine military investments to assymetrical counters. SHORAD, AT missile teams (to prevent forces from landing) and such should be at these islands. Navy should be focussed on submarines.
The forces bordering Macedonia and and deployments abroad should not be given priority given the economic situation. The only thing Greece needs to do is 1) make taking the islands costly, 2) keep the Thrace barrier intact and 3) maintain an air force/air defence that can remain operational against a larger sized force (despersed air field, good radar network etc). I think Greece currently has most of this in place already. Sultan Erdo Han will bark but he will not bite anyway, he is way too far up the ass of Obama for that.

Do you honestly believe that Turkey can't do anything? I think it is a matter of circumstances, if the odds favor Turkey she may attack but in general I believe this is highly unlikely.

[Treize]

Turkey cannot do much. They could try to invade the island but this would be costly. They could invade Thrace but this would remove their superiority in numbers (unless they want to invade Bulgaria too) and USA would never tolerate that. They could try something in Cyprus but as you know more and more Turkish Cypriots are already sick and tired of Turkish occupation and there are no more Turks to "liberate". Inside Turkey the number of Greeks to commit pogroms against can be counted on a hand or two. Unless they want to target that last pork butcher of the city and the Patriarch or something. But that would be irrelevant.

[TASS07]

Are you not looking to the map or do you really believe that from now on, all Turkish shipping must be done inside this 500 mt. zone is acceptable ? I think your pro-greek sentiments obscure your view.

Let me borrow your own words: That "pro-greek" sentiments ad hominem already closes your case. It's as hollow as it gets, just look at what I've written so far in this thread and don't expose yourself by trying to tarnish my credibility with haltless claims. I'm also fairly certain that it would be more than 500 meters and theoretically even enough to channel through the traffic to Izmir.

You speak of right of innocent passage. Do you really think Greeks who are harassing Turkish fishermen on the international waters won't harass Turkish shipping?

It's too completely different affairs. Passage is just what it is and not taking anything from anybody, material wise. Fishermen fish fish, a ressource for which nations can compete.

That you're immediately throwing me into some imaginary pro-greek corner, when I call you out on exaggeration and flat nationalist reaction patterns, only further reinforces my point: You're totally overreacting.

[neoptolemos]

Turkey cannot do much. They could try to invade the island but this would be costly. They could invade Thrace but this would remove their superiority in numbers (unless they want to invade Bulgaria too) and USA would never tolerate that. They could try something in Cyprus but as you know more and more Turkish Cypriots are already sick and tired of Turkish occupation and there are no more Turks to "liberate". Inside Turkey the number of Greeks to commit pogroms against can be counted on a hand or two. Unless they want to target that last pork butcher of the city and the Patriarch or something. But that would be irrelevant.

Well these are very good points and besides I don't think that any Turkish politician could bare the burden of any dead Turkish soldier over irrational "Imperialistic" claims.
@TASS07
Oh man, the description of you as "pro-Greek" could be the joke of this thread so far.

[PointOfViewGun]

And you are still lying about what I ve claimed.for the ninth time quote me claiming that UNCLOS is binding to everyone or admit that you are simply lying about this.

Well you mentioned Russia not me, it simply backfired at you. I made a case in which Turkey has a limitation of 12nm territorial waters in a closed sea , a precedent case, what you failed to address is why Turkey has 12nm as territorial waters in Black and Mediterrenean sea.

The extension of territorial waters, except the Greek-Turkish borders, under UNCLOS defines the amount of international waters and the legal framework of international waters that is the purpose of the treaty the overwhelming majority of UN states have ratified. What Turkey thinks or not about it is not Greece's concern and since Turkey does not abide with UNCLOS there is no legal ground to do anything against it. I don't know why are you mentioning and confusing EEZ with territorial waters 2 different legal entities. Territorial waters are part of a states sovereign right and apart from Greek-Turkish borders Turkey has no say over it. EEZ are not defined according to territorial waters as i have already pointed out.


Are you answering with a question now? I have already asked you repeatedly and you still haven't answer while I have provided a source stating that UNCLOS is the general legal framework in Mediterranean and Black sea and since you are the one claiming that UNCLOS is not binding to Turkey (or accepted by her) thus Turkey has another legal framework you ought to know which when arguing against UNCLOS. I take your inability to answer or provide any source ,even concerning specific examples, as an acceptance of lack of arguments and understanding of international law.
Or you could enlighten us what international laws Turkey is using when entering Italian or French territorial waters or international waters defined after them since does not abide to UNCLOS? Is Turkey a special case and has bilateral treaties with every maritime state?All these are genuine questions because you have spent post over post trying to explain what Turkey rejects UNCLOS and you haven't provided what Turkey accepts as international law of the sea since it is not UNCLOS as you claim.

And for th Nth time under which legal framework Turkish threat of war stands?

I find it quite pathetic to repeat an accusation of lying without even trying to address the explanation. I guess you are lying about me lying. I quoted you on it as you requested and pointed out at the arguments you made. I will not entertain this charade of yours as I've addressed it sufficiently already.

My comments on Russia did not backfire. You're just unable to address them in a proper manner. I already addressed this issue as well. You wanted to call double standards but it failed. Turkey extending its territories in Black sea to 12nm in agreement with other Black Sea nations doesn't show that Turkey finds UNCLOS III binding. You need them to sign the convention and ratify it.

UNCLOS III is not binding to Turkey as you keep on arguing for. It doesn't matter if those islands have a border with Turkey or not. Turkey can and does object to any unilateral extension of sea territory. Moreover, sea territory does effect EEZ zone, especially if a median line between mainland Turkey and Greece is used. I told you this before. Don't agree with it if you want but it's a very childish argumentation to keep on talking as if this was not pointed out to you.

I already answered your question. I told you that I didn't know of a single convention that Turkey is a signatory member of. I pointed out bilateral agreements and customary practices. This is, however, a deflection tactic of yours as you're unable to accept that a convention is not binding until its signed and ratified. Frankly, it doesn't really matter. The only relevant thing here is UNCLOS III. So, if you have a better answer do provide it and tell us the legally binding conventions or treaties that Turkey uses in such a context. What you think it is doesn't cut it. This question requires knowledge.

[alhoon]

There's no way a Russian ship follow international waters to reach Mediterranean.

You realize, I hope, that you control the Dardanelles. There's no way for a Russian ship to follow international waters to reach the Mediterranean even now.

@TASS07
Oh man, the description of you as "pro-Greek" could be the joke of this thread so far.

A foreigner that doesn't immediately adopt our side isn't pro-Turkish. I believe he's wrong in many things, but so far I could say his stance is slightly pro-Greek. He just said that he's not so eager to accept Kathimerini as a creditable source and as someone that doesn't really have something to lose and doesn't live in either country, I totally get it.
I mean, can we really know who is right in the territorial squabbles between China and Japan? We either stick with Japan because we don't like China or we stick with China cause we want to teenage-resist big bad USA.

I find it quite pathetic to repeat an accusation of lying without even trying to address the explanation. I guess you are lying about me lying.

Ooooooooooor
nobody is lying and it's a case of misunderstanding and you are both too stubborn to admit it, even when you know it was a misunderstanding and none of you actually tried to lie and deceive the "audience" that comprises of Greeks-convinced-they're-right, Turks-convinced-they're-right and a couple of bored foreigners.

[Odenat]

You realize, I hope, that you control the Dardanelles. There's no way for a Russian ship to follow international waters to reach the Mediterranean even now.

omg, do you know nothing about the current status of Dardanelles? Go read Montreux convention.

A foreigner that doesn't immediately adopt our side isn't pro-Turkish.

Funny, then why did you accuse every foreigner who posted here of being pro Turkish?

Turkey cannot do much. They could try to invade the island but this would be costly. They could invade Thrace but this would remove their superiority in numbers (unless they want to invade Bulgaria too) and USA would never tolerate that. They could try something in Cyprus but as you know more and more Turkish Cypriots are already sick and tired of Turkish occupation and there are no more Turks to "liberate". Inside Turkey the number of Greeks to commit pogroms against can be counted on a hand or two. Unless they want to target that last pork butcher of the city and the Patriarch or something. But that would be irrelevant.

We do not have to do anything. We are very happy with the status-quo. We are not the aggressive side, we just want to protect the current situation. It's Greece that want to double their national waters by taking over international waters.

I already showed at my posts that even Unclos is not giving the right to greece to increase its sea borders to 12 miles. Greeks can not respond to that, just wrote that the article is made by Turkish! An article confirmed and published by Berkeley Journal of International Law! An article signed by The Regents of the University of California!

You already lost the case. USA won't do anything, they themselves did not ratify UNCLOS! Actually Turkish case is rock-solid. You can go to ICJ if you want.

[neoptolemos]

I find it quite pathetic to repeat an accusation of lying without even trying to address the explanation. I guess you are lying about me lying. I quoted you on it as you requested and pointed out at the arguments you made. I will not entertain this charade of yours as I've addressed it sufficiently already.

You haven't addressed anything because you are continuing lying about what i ve claimed.You ve just quoted me explaining that Creece's territorial waters in Crete and Cyclades are subject of Greece's sovereign right provisioned by UNCLOS and it doesn't matter if Turkey has or hasn't signed or is she bound to UNCLOS because for the case of Cyclades or Crete she has no say /right/jurisdiction. Don't go around the bush, you are lying of what I ve claimed, I ll take that as your acceptance of lying repeatedly.

My comments on Russia did not backfire. You're just unable to address them in a proper manner. I already addressed this issue as well. You wanted to call double standards but it failed. Turkey extending its territories in Black sea to 12nm in agreement with other Black Sea nations doesn't show that Turkey finds UNCLOS III binding. You need them to sign the convention and ratify it.

No you have not. Turkish territorial waters are 12 nm and you haven't adressed why they are 12nm. There is no arbiratry number in this.I am not arguing that UNCLOS is binding to Turkey I am asking why you are using the 12nm in the Black sea. Russia is bound to the UNCLOS as I have mentioned already

UNCLOS III is not binding to Turkey as you keep on arguing for. It doesn't matter if those islands have a border with Turkey or not. Turkey can and does object to any unilateral extension of sea territory. Moreover, sea territory does effect EEZ zone, especially if a median line between mainland Turkey and Greece is used. I told you this before. Don't agree with it if you want but it's a very childish argumentation to keep on talking as if this was not pointed out to you.

See I am not arguing that UNCLOS is binding to Turkey, stop lying. What Turkey does or not does not affect the Greek territorial waters afar from her borders. And how exactly Turkey can object to Greek territorial waters in Crete as there is no border with Turkey exactly? There is already UNCLOS for that and Turkey has no right or juridstiction to object anything away her borders.
And you are still repeating the same mistake. EEZ=/= Territorial waters it is not so hard to understad.
Again:

The term does not include either the territorial sea or the continental shelf beyond the 200 nmi limit. The difference between the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone is that the first confers full sovereignty over the waters, whereas the second is merely a "sovereign right" which refers to the coastal state's rights below the surface of the sea. The surface waters, as can be seen in the map, are international waters.^[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone

http://www.gc.noaa.gov/gcil_maritime.html#territorial

Territorial Sea

Each coastal State may claim a territorial sea that extends seaward up to 12 nautical miles (nm) from its baselines. The coastal State exercises sovereignty over its territorial sea, the air space above it, and the seabed and subsoil beneath it. Foreign flag ships enjoy the right of innocent passage while transiting the territorial sea subject to laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State that are in conformity with the Law of the Sea Convention and other rules of international law relating to such passage.
The U.S. claimed a 12 nm territorial sea in 1988 (Presidential Proclamation No. 5928, December 27, 1988).

Each coastal State may claim an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) beyond and adjacent to its territorial sea that extends seaward up to 200 nm from its baselines (or out to a maritime boundary with another coastal State). Within its EEZ, a coastal State has: (a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the seabed and subsoil and the superjacent waters and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds; (b) jurisdiction as provided for in international law with regard to the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations, and structures, marine scientific research, and the protection and preservation of the marine environment, and (c) other rights and duties provided for under international law.

The U.S. claimed a 200 nm EEZ in 1983 (Presidential Proclamation No. 5030 of March 10, 1983). The U.S. EEZ overlaps its 12 nm - 24 nm contiguous zone.
I already answered your question. I told you that I didn't know of a single convention that Turkey is a signatory member of. I pointed out bilateral agreements and customary practices. This is, however, a deflection tactic of yours as you're unable to accept that a convention is not binding until its signed and ratified. Frankly, it doesn't really matter. The only relevant thing here is UNCLOS III. So, if you have a better answer do provide it and tell us the legally binding conventions or treaties that Turkey uses in such a context. What you think it is doesn't cut it. This question requires knowledge.

territorial sea - the sovereignty of a coastal state extends beyond its land territory and internal waters to an adjacent belt of sea, described as the territorial sea in the UNCLOS (Part II); this sovereignty extends to the air space over the territorial sea as well as its underlying seabed and subsoil; every state has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles; the normal baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the mean low-water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal state; where the coasts of two states are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither state is entitled to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line, every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baseline from which the territorial seas of both states are measured; the UNCLOS describes specific rules for archipelagic states.

exclusive economic zone (EEZ) - the UNCLOS (Part V) defines the EEZ as a zone beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea in which a coastal state has: sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents, and winds; jurisdiction with regard to the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations, and structures; marine scientific research; the protection and preservation of the marine environment; the outer limit of the exclusive economic zone shall not exceed 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...elds/2106.html

EEZ=/=territorial waters.

As for the joke of median line, apart from not been a provision for this in UNCLOS for territorial waters others than that of the sea borders where exactly do you base this claim? C Greek territorial waters in Cyclades and Crete are a sovereign right of Greece under UN -who provides the international legal framework for that-so Turkey has no right nor jurisdiction to restrict anything and that's why she has the threat of war as the only "argument" preventing Greece not to, something which again is against UN norms.
So far we have Greece backed by UNCLOS,on what basis does Turkey make these outlandish assertions and threats of war?Do enlighten us

I already answered your question. I told you that I didn't know of a single convention that Turkey is a signatory member of. I pointed out bilateral agreements and customary practices. This is, however, a deflection tactic of yours as you're unable to accept that a convention is not binding until its signed and ratified. Frankly, it doesn't really matter. The only relevant thing here is UNCLOS III. So, if you have a better answer do provide it and tell us the legally binding conventions or treaties that Turkey uses in such a context. What you think it is doesn't cut it. This question requires knowledge.

It requires knowledge that you lack while at the same time you are arguing about Turkish claims and international law.Thank you, you have just proven my point that you are unfamiliar with the subject and you are arguing for the sake of antagonism. The main legal framework for Black and Meditterenean seas as provided by the source is the UNCLOS either Turkey has not signed it or not accepting but nevertheless it seems she has to act within it unless proven the opposite.(Does have treaties with France and Italy about their territorial waters and what Turkey recognizes?)

[alhoon]

Funny, then why did you accuse every foreigner who posted here of being pro Turkish?

I did not.

We are not the aggressive side

You threaten us with war and you infringe on our borders every day.

It's Greece that want to double their national waters by taking over international waters.

It's our right to do so, and we don't because you're aggressive and threaten us with war.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Nobody is threatening anybody with war. You are all on a forum, not a foreign ministry.