Turkish Foreign Minister presents map showing Turkish continental shelf reaching Crete

[ioannis76]

Turkish Foreign Minister presents map showing Turkish continental shelf reaching Crete

http://en.protothema.gr/turkish-fore...eaching-crete/

The map is in the twentieth minute (20:04) of Cavusoglu's speech.
Of course, the turkish minister decided to "delete" Kastelorizo off the map. The actual map of the EEZ is as shown below:



Is Turkey officially looking for a war with such provocations? Or is this all for "domestic consumption", in the face of the emerging (and expensive) turkish fiasco in Syria, the failure of the Akkuyu "nuclear power plant" (for which Turkey already seems incapable of even laying down the concrete) https://ahvalnews.com/akkuyu/turkeys...oncerns-birgun

[Sir Adrian]

Big deal, it's just a map. Turkey won't risk going against all of NATO just for some Greek islands.

[PointOfViewGun]

The map that is used in the presentation in the video is from Turkey's claimed continental shelf in eastern Mediterranean that was registered to UN in 2004. This was mainly done in response to Southern Cyprus unilaterally eliminating their EEZ with Egypt.



The map does not delete Kastellorizo. Turkey simply argues that such islands sits on the continental shelf of Turkey. Similar maps have been used by the Turkish government for a long time since the idea of continental shelf took shape. Just like Turkey, Greece tries to claim the most. A small island suddenly generates heck of a lot of EEZ and basically cuts off the Mediterrenean region of Turkey's access to the sea. We know that such a scenario would not be established even under the latest UNCLOS if Turkey was a signatory.

Though we all see that this is not a "let's discuss this particular situation" thread but a "let's bash Turkey" thread by ioannis76, specifically geared for that. So, don't expect much.

[kyrtgr]

The map that is used in the presentation in the video is from Turkey's claimed continental shelf in eastern Mediterranean that was registered to UN in 2004.

Can you please show us the registration that you claim that Turkey made to the UN in 2004?
It should be here : https://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLA...EFILES/TUR.htm but I can't seem to find it. Also it should be published in the LOS bulletin but no luck there either.

This was mainly done in response to Southern Cyprus unilaterally eliminating their EEZ with Egypt.

What do you mean by "eliminating their EEZ"? And by definition Cyprus didn't unilaterally did anything since it was an agreement with Egypt, hence two parties neighboring each other.

The map does not delete Kastellorizo. Turkey simply argues that such islands sits on the continental shelf of Turkey. Similar maps have been used by the Turkish government for a long time since the idea of continental shelf took shape. Just like Turkey, Greece tries to claim the most. A small island suddenly generates heck of a lot of EEZ and basically cuts off the Mediterrenean region of Turkey's access to the sea.

It's not the small island that generates the EEZ. It's the total of the Greek coastline that faces towards Turkey and is more than double of the respective Turkish one.

We know that such a scenario would not be established even under the latest UNCLOS if Turkey was a signatory.

It's not that "we know", it's that you wish. Since an agreement on this proved not to be possible, we'll know only through arbitration or other legal means of dispute resolving.
BTW, since you mentioned that Turkey is not signatory to UNCLOS, what is EEZ and CS (continental shelf) for Turkey? Their definition is in UNCLOS but since Turkey, as you claim, is not bound by it what is the definition Turkey uses? And if it's not bound by it how does Turkey even have EEZ/CS since that right derives through UNCLOS?

[PointOfViewGun]

Can you please show us the registration that you claim that Turkey made to the UN in 2004?
It should be here : https://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLA...EFILES/TUR.htm but I can't seem to find it. Also it should be published in the LOS bulletin but no luck there either.

It's in that link actually. Dated 2 March 2004. No. 54. Page 127.

What do you mean by "eliminating their EEZ"? And by definition Cyprus didn't unilaterally did anything since it was an agreement with Egypt, hence two parties neighboring each other.

It should have said "delimitating" which seems to have been changed by my spelling correction attempt. I'll fix that. Southern Cypriot action was an unilateral action within the context that they disregarded Northern Cypriot rights.

It's not the small island that generates the EEZ. It's the total of the Greek coastline that faces towards Turkey and is more than double of the respective Turkish one.

In that region, yes, it is the few small islands, 3 i think. The totality of the Greek coastline elsewhere has no right over that particular region. A few small islands just a few miles from Kaş alone cuts off much of the access of the entire Mediterranean region of Turkey.

It's not that "we know", it's that you wish. Since an agreement on this proved not to be possible, we'll know only through arbitration or other legal means of dispute resolving.
BTW, since you mentioned that Turkey is not signatory to UNCLOS, what is EEZ and CS (continental shelf) for Turkey? Their definition is in UNCLOS but since Turkey, as you claim, is not bound by it what is the definition Turkey uses? And if it's not bound by it how does Turkey even have EEZ/CS since that right derives through UNCLOS?

We kinda know though. Arbitration cases done under the UNCLOS have not granted a similar picture to what Greece would get for other parties.

Just because UNCLOS covers EEZ and continental shelf principles doesn't mean they're its creation. That's like saying if you're not a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights you can't have basic human rights. Regardless, even though Turkey did not sign the latest UNCLOS they were party to the conference. They simply declined to sign as their concerns were ignored. Much of the world has very simple borders. They didn't really want to complicate a set of laws to make it more detailed without caring what it would mean for Turkey. Greece, on the other hand, tries to bully Turkey through a convenient law.

[alhoon]

Northern Cypriots can claim their rights once they reunite with Cyrpus, which is the only internationally recognized authority of the whole island. They don't have separate rights. If Cyprus wants to drill the gas and give all the profits to a single person in Alabama, they can do so. It's in their EEZ.

[Aexodus]

Why the hell does Turkey have a say in this if it’s a case of North v South Cyprus, POVG.

[alhoon]

Why the hell does Turkey have a say in this if it’s a case of North v South Cyprus, POVG.

There is no North Cyprus and of course Turkey doesn't have a say, they just act as a rogue state bully.

[PointOfViewGun]

Northern Cypriots can claim their rights once they reunite with Cyrpus, which is the only internationally recognized authority of the whole island. They don't have separate rights. If Cyprus wants to drill the gas and give all the profits to a single person in Alabama, they can do so. It's in their EEZ.

It would directly violate Northern Cypriot rights as they had no say in that. Saying that they can claim them somehow at a later date is empty talk.

Why the hell does Turkey have a say in this if it’s a case of North v South Cyprus, POVG.

No one said it was an exclusively North vs South issue, though, even in that context Turkey would have a say, just like Greece does, under the guarantor agreement.

[alhoon]

It would directly violate Northern Cypriot rights as they had no say in that. Saying that they can claim them somehow at a later date is empty talk.

What I am saying is that Northern Cypriots or South Cypriots don't have rights to it. The government of Cyprus has. The Cypriots living in the occupied part can demand Turkish forces to leave and then take part in elections that would determine the government of Cyprus.

No one said it was an exclusively North vs South issue, though, even in that context Turkey would have a say, just like Greece does, under the guarantor agreement.

That agreement was clearly made void by the actions of Turkey as they are occupying a part of island 45 years later, the island they supposedly guarantee.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

It would directly violate Northern Cypriot rights as they had no say in that. Saying that they can claim them somehow at a later date is empty talk.

In what way does it violate their rights? Which rights specifically are violated?

[Odenat]

What I am saying is that Northern Cypriots or South Cypriots don't have rights to it. The government of Cyprus has. The Cypriots living in the occupied part can demand Turkish forces to leave and then take part in elections that would determine the government of Cyprus.

There is no government of Cyprus, there are government of North Cyprus and South Cyprus. Also, there are no occupied part at Cyprus as Turkish troops are there on the request of North Cypriot government.(This is exactly what USA is saying for Afghanistan&North Iraq). North Cyprus is an independent country . You know very well that North Cypriots will never be able to take part in elections that would determine the government of Cyprus because Greek Cypriots rejected UN plan.

That agreement was clearly made void by the actions of Turkey as they are occupying a part of island 45 years later, the island they supposedly guarantee.

According to your logic, Lausanne treaty was also clearly made void by the actions of Greece as they militarized Eastern Aegean islands. Well, that opens the question about the ownership of those islands, isn't it?

[PointOfViewGun]

What I am saying is that Northern Cypriots or South Cypriots don't have rights to it. The government of Cyprus has. The Cypriots living in the occupied part can demand Turkish forces to leave and then take part in elections that would determine the government of Cyprus.

People have rights, not the governments. Governments have duties. Turkish forces leaving the island doesn't change anything. Greeks could get down from their high horses, accept what they have done, and face the consequences of their actions. Then there could be a united island. The reason we have no unification today is because back in 1974-1975, fueled by their embarrassment, Greek authorities on the islands acted like spoiled brats.

That agreement was clearly made void by the actions of Turkey as they are occupying a part of island 45 years later, the island they supposedly guarantee.

If the agreement gets void by foreign action than it was the Greek forces that invaded the island before Turks did that made it void. However, no, Turkish forces on the island doesn't make the agreement void. It just indicates that the parties could not reach a conclusion so far.

In what way does it violate their rights? Which rights specifically are violated?

They don't get to have the same say as their Greek counterparts do on how natural resources are handled. Southern Cyprus, despite claiming sovereignty over the entire island, hence its population, is only governed by parts of that population and its decisions are only directed at one portion of the island.

[kyrtgr]

It's in that link actually. Dated 2 March 2004. No. 54. Page 127.

No it's not, that's not EEZ/CS registration. Which part of that letter you think that it is? Saying that Turkey does not recognize an agreement made by two other states and that west of the longitude 32 16' 18" has legal rights is not registration.
A registration requires a chart and a list of coordinates as per article 75 and 84 of UNCLOS. Lets take the Cyprus-Egypt agreement for example. It was submitted to UN and published in the "Treaties" section of LOS bulletin No 52 (page 45) with 8 point coordinates and a chart. Also a Maritime Zone Notification was circulated by the UN Secretariat confirming the deposit. Notice also the submission by Seychelles in the same bulletin (page 17) in the "National Legislation" section with coordinates and chart followed by a Maritime Zone Confirmation. That is how a registration is done. Turkey's letter was published in the "Communications by States" section of the bulletin labeled as information note concerning objections on an agreement.

Southern Cypriot action was an unilateral action within the context that they disregarded Northern Cypriot rights.

Republic of Cyprus is the only competent state on the island to conclude international treaties. TC have rights but they have them through the RoC state and it's constitution. Natural resources belong to the state and any benefits from them will come to all the Cypriots in the form of state investments, better infrastructure, lighter taxation etc. No one will get cash benefits. Further more, RoC seems to represent TC's rights better than the so called government of "North Cyprus" as the latter recognizes Turkeys claim that islands do not have EEZ/CS and so they are willing to give property of the state to Turkey.

In that region, yes, it is the few small islands, 3 i think. The totality of the Greek coastline elsewhere has no right over that particular region. A few small islands just a few miles from Kaş alone cuts off much of the access of the entire Mediterranean region of Turkey.

If you single out one island, sure, whatever island you pick it will have too small coastline to have a full effect on maritime zones. But collectively all the inhabited islands have more coastline that Turkey opposite to them. You could probably single out an island if it was isolated and more than 200 miles away from the rest where their effect is diminished. But by the same logic the coastline of Turkey further than 200 miles away will have no effect either.

We kinda know though. Arbitration cases done under the UNCLOS have not granted a similar picture to what Greece would get for other parties.

I think we've been through that again. Arbitration cases follow a 3 stage methodology. First they draw the median line, then check if the ratio of coastlines in on par with the ratio of the EEZ areas ratio and if not adjust the border line accordingly. In every case I've seen Turkey using as argument the coastline difference was vast. Not to mention that for many the applicable law was not UNCLOS III.

Just because UNCLOS covers EEZ and continental shelf principles doesn't mean they're its creation. That's like saying if you're not a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights you can't have basic human rights. Regardless, even though Turkey did not sign the latest UNCLOS they were party to the conference. They simply declined to sign as their concerns were ignored. Much of the world has very simple borders. They didn't really want to complicate a set of laws to make it more detailed without caring what it would mean for Turkey. Greece, on the other hand, tries to bully Turkey through a convenient law.

Actually with UNCLOS I and UNCLOS III (neither signed by Turkey), CS and EEZ respectively were established in international law for the first time. And as UNCLOS I was superseded by UNCLOS III, when you talk about CS or EEZ and refer to international law, UNCLOS III is what you are talking about. There is nothing else.
And yes, if we disregard the fact that Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a customary law, a state that hasn't signed it would not be obliged to observe it and people in that state's area of control should not take their UDHR based human rights as granted.
A couple of problems arise from saying that Turkey is not bound by the treaty because she didn't signed it.
First what is EEZ for Turkey? The definition is in UNCLOS III and the concept was never part of international law before that (same with continental shelf and UNCLOS I). So a mere mention of EEZ is a reference to UNCLOS. So what prevents Turkey to call EEZ something else than what UNCLOS says, saying that it's not bound by it? Lets say prohibit free navigation or ask fees for laying cables or have full sovereignty or anything else.
Second is reciprocity. Signatories to UNCLOS III not only accept that they can have an EEZ under it's rules, but that other states can have one too under the same rules. I think you understands why Turkey having rights under UNCLOS but denying it's obligations under it is a problem.
The reasons why Turkey didn't sign and why the rest of the countries signed are not relevant at this point, but you can't make assumptions on why the others did. Adhering to a complicated law doesn't concern you if you have simple borders and that complication doesn't apply to you. Or maybe Turkeys proposals were ridiculous. Or simply their sense of "fairness" is different than Turkey's.
Saying that someone tries to bully through the use of law is beyond me. Greece is not the one using force or the threat of force. Turkey is, and that is bullying. And I assume that calling it a "convenient law" for Greece you acknowledge that law is on Greece's side?

[PointOfViewGun]

No it's not, that's not EEZ/CS registration. Which part of that letter you think that it is? Saying that Turkey does not recognize an agreement made by two other states and that west of the longitude 32 16' 18" has legal rights is not registration.
A registration requires a chart and a list of coordinates as per article 75 and 84 of UNCLOS. Lets take the Cyprus-Egypt agreement for example. It was submitted to UN and published in the "Treaties" section of LOS bulletin No 52 (page 45) with 8 point coordinates and a chart. Also a Maritime Zone Notification was circulated by the UN Secretariat confirming the deposit. Notice also the submission by Seychelles in the same bulletin (page 17) in the "National Legislation" section with coordinates and chart followed by a Maritime Zone Confirmation. That is how a registration is done. Turkey's letter was published in the "Communications by States" section of the bulletin labeled as information note concerning objections on an agreement.

It's not really a long section. You can read it yourself from the link I provided under the ANNEX part of page 127. I can't copy past it for some reason. Turkey made its objection and formally declared its reservations regarding a particular region.

Republic of Cyprus is the only competent state on the island to conclude international treaties. TC have rights but they have them through the RoC state and it's constitution. Natural resources belong to the state and any benefits from them will come to all the Cypriots in the form of state investments, better infrastructure, lighter taxation etc. No one will get cash benefits. Further more, RoC seems to represent TC's rights better than the so called government of "North Cyprus" as the latter recognizes Turkeys claim that islands do not have EEZ/CS and so they are willing to give property of the state to Turkey.

Natural resources belong to the public. The state is simply geared to deal with it for the benefit of the public, all of it, not parts of it. Northern Cypriots had no say in that deal, nor they are getting anything out of it.

If you single out one island, sure, whatever island you pick it will have too small coastline to have a full effect on maritime zones. But collectively all the inhabited islands have more coastline that Turkey opposite to them. You could probably single out an island if it was isolated and more than 200 miles away from the rest where their effect is diminished. But by the same logic the coastline of Turkey further than 200 miles away will have no effect either.

That's a really absurd way to look at it. You basically want to consider Kefalonia as well in order to carve out an EEZ for Greece in the Eastern Mediterranean. As I said, the totality of the Greek coastline doesn't matter in such a context. Just like I nowhere said that Turkey's entire coastline matters. Why the hell would I count the Black sea coastline? It's region specific.

I think we've been through that again. Arbitration cases follow a 3 stage methodology. First they draw the median line, then check if the ratio of coastlines in on par with the ratio of the EEZ areas ratio and if not adjust the border line accordingly. In every case I've seen Turkey using as argument the coastline difference was vast. Not to mention that for many the applicable law was not UNCLOS III.

Yup, we went through that. You tried to pass it as a generic rule when there was nothing to suggest that. So, talking about things as if they were written when there is little substance to back them up towards the implied conclusion doesn't really help. In any case, even if we hold what you say at face value, in the case of Kastellorizo, Greeks would get hell of a lot less than what they're claiming.

Actually with UNCLOS I and UNCLOS III (neither signed by Turkey), CS and EEZ respectively were established in international law for the first time. And as UNCLOS I was superseded by UNCLOS III, when you talk about CS or EEZ and refer to international law, UNCLOS III is what you are talking about. There is nothing else.
And yes, if we disregard the fact that Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a customary law, a state that hasn't signed it would not be obliged to observe it and people in that state's area of control should not take their UDHR based human rights as granted.
A couple of problems arise from saying that Turkey is not bound by the treaty because she didn't signed it.
First what is EEZ for Turkey? The definition is in UNCLOS III and the concept was never part of international law before that (same with continental shelf and UNCLOS I). So a mere mention of EEZ is a reference to UNCLOS. So what prevents Turkey to call EEZ something else than what UNCLOS says, saying that it's not bound by it? Lets say prohibit free navigation or ask fees for laying cables or have full sovereignty or anything else.
Second is reciprocity. Signatories to UNCLOS III not only accept that they can have an EEZ under it's rules, but that other states can have one too under the same rules. I think you understands why Turkey having rights under UNCLOS but denying it's obligations under it is a problem.
The reasons why Turkey didn't sign and why the rest of the countries signed are not relevant at this point, but you can't make assumptions on why the others did. Adhering to a complicated law doesn't concern you if you have simple borders and that complication doesn't apply to you. Or maybe Turkeys proposals were ridiculous. Or simply their sense of "fairness" is different than Turkey's.
Saying that someone tries to bully through the use of law is beyond me. Greece is not the one using force or the threat of force. Turkey is, and that is bullying. And I assume that calling it a "convenient law" for Greece you acknowledge that law is on Greece's side?

You're not really saying anything that contradicts what I said for the most part. You're just adding technical parts to create some mental gymnastics.

[Alastor]

War? Laughable. Turkey knows there will be no war, certainly not one they won't win. So of course they act like asshats. Why wouldn't they? Might makes right and in this region at least they are the big boys in the pond. Turkey will keep on graying and claiming and graying and/or even invading, because they can. Turkey is not the first strong state to oppress and take advantage of its weaker neighbours, in fact this is a textbook behaviour. And all these discussions of treaties and such. Does it matter if Turkey is in the right or not? No. The only question here is, what is Greece going to do about it? Or Cyprus for that matter? Nothing? Yeah that's what I thought.

To quote the Athenians: "right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

[nhytgbvfeco2]

They don't get to have the same say as their Greek counterparts do on how natural resources are handled. Southern Cyprus, despite claiming sovereignty over the entire island, hence its population, is only governed by parts of that population and its decisions are only directed at one portion of the island.

So? What right does this violate? Should Cyprus just forever stop spending any capital until it gains control of the territory that is rightfully theirs? Should Ukraine cease all development in their country until they get Crimea back? Should Azerbaijan until they regain Nagorno-Karabagh? This isn't exactly a one of a kind unique scenario.

[PointOfViewGun]

So? What right does this violate? Should Cyprus just forever stop spending any capital until it gains control of the territory that is rightfully theirs? Should Ukraine cease all development in their country until they get Crimea back? Should Azerbaijan until they regain Nagorno-Karabagh? This isn't exactly a one of a kind unique scenario.

A joint committee to oversee the profits and divide accordingly would be a more sensible path instead of the asinine ones uttered for the sake of argumentation.

[kyrtgr]

It's not really a long section. You can read it yourself from the link I provided under the ANNEX part of page 127. I can't copy past it for some reason. Turkey made its objection and formally declared its reservations regarding a particular region.

But I have read it. You didn't read my reply which still stands, so I'm quoting my self below. (btw LOS bulletin pdfs seem to be locked and prevent copying)

No it's not, that's not EEZ/CS registration. Which part of that letter you think that it is? Saying that Turkey does not recognize an agreement made by two other states and that west of the longitude 32 16' 18" has legal rights is not registration.
A registration requires a chart and a list of coordinates as per article 75 and 84 of UNCLOS. Lets take the Cyprus-Egypt agreement for example. It was submitted to UN and published in the "Treaties" section of LOS bulletin No 52 (page 45) with 8 point coordinates and a chart. Also a Maritime Zone Notification was circulated by the UN Secretariat confirming the deposit. Notice also the submission by Seychelles in the same bulletin (page 17) in the "National Legislation" section with coordinates and chart followed by a Maritime Zone Confirmation. That is how a registration is done. Turkey's letter was published in the "Communications by States" section of the bulletin labeled as information note concerning objections on an agreement.

Natural resources belong to the public. The state is simply geared to deal with it for the benefit of the public, all of it, not parts of it. Northern Cypriots had no say in that deal, nor they are getting anything out of it.

No, simply no. The public doesn't own anything beyond it's private property. Take water for instance. Does the public individually or in groups have a say in it's management or revenues? All northern Cypriots have to do is vote their representatives and they'll have a say trough their representation in government. They may not get anything out of it until a solution to the Cyprus issue because turkish troops are preventing RoC to exercise control over northern Cyprus to make investments, infrastructure etc. Neither people in the north are paying taxes to RoC or get pensions from there to feel the effect. TCs are held hostages of Turkey so IMO you are barking at the wrong tree. After the solution, in case of unification the federal government will manage the resources or in case of two separate states they will go their separate ways with 2 separate EEZs.

That's a really absurd way to look at it. You basically want to consider Kefalonia as well in order to carve out an EEZ for Greece in the Eastern Mediterranean. As I said, the totality of the Greek coastline doesn't matter in such a context. Just like I nowhere said that Turkey's entire coastline matters. Why the hell would I count the Black sea coastline? It's region specific.

I spoke of coastline opposite of Turkey. The relevant coastline is the one that projects to each other (Greek and Turkish). West Greek coastline, Black sea, Marmara sea and most of the Mediterranean Turkish coastline are irrelevant to a Greek-Turkish maritime delimitation.

Yup, we went through that. You tried to pass it as a generic rule when there was nothing to suggest that. So, talking about things as if they were written when there is little substance to back them up towards the implied conclusion doesn't really help. In any case, even if we hold what you say at face value, in the case of Kastellorizo, Greeks would get hell of a lot less than what they're claiming.

The generic rule, judging by ICJ judicial decisions where UNCLOS III was applicable law, is the methodology not the result and even that is evolving. As I said before it's not up to me or you to prejudice the result but even if you are right about Greece getting a lot less in the Kastellorizo area, the final result will be much closer to the Greek position, simply because Turkeys position is ridiculously maximalistic.

You're not really saying anything that contradicts what I said for the most part. You're just adding technical parts to create some mental gymnastics.

I think that I addressed your point of EEZ existing before UNCLOS III. Yet you haven't answered on what is EEZ and CS for Turkey and what international law she is referring to when talking of her "rights in East Med based on international law" if not the UNCLOS III that she refuses to be bound of because she hasn't signed it.

[PointOfViewGun]

But I have read it. You didn't read my reply which still stands, so I'm quoting my self below. (btw LOS bulletin pdfs seem to be locked and prevent copying)

No, simply no. The public doesn't own anything beyond it's private property. Take water for instance. Does the public individually or in groups have a say in it's management or revenues? All northern Cypriots have to do is vote their representatives and they'll have a say trough their representation in government. They may not get anything out of it until a solution to the Cyprus issue because turkish troops are preventing RoC to exercise control over northern Cyprus to make investments, infrastructure etc. Neither people in the north are paying taxes to RoC or get pensions from there to feel the effect. TCs are held hostages of Turkey so IMO you are barking at the wrong tree. After the solution, in case of unification the federal government will manage the resources or in case of two separate states they will go their separate ways with 2 separate EEZs.

I spoke of coastline opposite of Turkey. The relevant coastline is the one that projects to each other (Greek and Turkish). West Greek coastline, Black sea, Marmara sea and most of the Mediterranean Turkish coastline are irrelevant to a Greek-Turkish maritime delimitation.

The generic rule, judging by ICJ judicial decisions where UNCLOS III was applicable law, is the methodology not the result and even that is evolving. As I said before it's not up to me or you to prejudice the result but even if you are right about Greece getting a lot less in the Kastellorizo area, the final result will be much closer to the Greek position, simply because Turkeys position is ridiculously maximalistic.

I think that I addressed your point of EEZ existing before UNCLOS III. Yet you haven't answered on what is EEZ and CS for Turkey and what international law she is referring to when talking of her "rights in East Med based on international law" if not the UNCLOS III that she refuses to be bound of because she hasn't signed it.

Natural resources are public property. They are managed by the public through elections. You do have a say in how they're used through the politicians that you elect. Some Northern Cypriots can participate in the elections, true, but thousands are not allowed to, and any participation is not the same as a Southern Cypriot participating in them. They don't have equal say. It's not really the Turkish army in Northern Cyprus that stops investment from the south but the Cypriots in general.

Interesting that you mention "most of the Mediterranean Turkish coastline" but somehow don't mention most of the Mediterranean Greek coastline. Vast majority of the islands of Greece have no projection to the region where Kastellorizo resides in.

The ridiculously "maximalistic" is actually that of Greece. They want to cut off almost the entirety of Aegean as well as Mediterranean to millions of people. In a similar case, especially to Kastellorizo, France got less than 20% of what it claimed around an island near a much larger Canadian land. So, I don't see how the map would look much closer to what Greeks want.