The Fight for Mediterranean: Turkey, Greece, France, Libya, Egypt ...

[Nebaki]

It's interesting that you mention the 1976 case while forget to mention the Bern Agreement of the same year where Greece and Turkey agreed to hold talks over the issue while both had a moratorium over making any move on the water. The talks started on January 1976 and were finalized on November of the same year producing the Bern Agreement. Greece left these negotiations in 1981 and started its activities again. The court case, on the other hands, saw Greece acting unilaterally. Normally, nations go to court together after deciding the scope of the issues for the court to handle. Basically, Greece going to the court was a publicity stunt by the Greek government as talks were ongoing with Turkey and it was treated as such.

Activities of sides claims ones again while presenting themselves as the Victim. On the Meanwhile all of this Years hoping for another teammate which is powerful enough and can enforce Greek dreams against Turkey. Since that day nothing has really changed Greece again have dones this and condemned any negotiating with Turkey.

For Foreigners just google or watch any related case regarding Greece-Turkey-Cyprus-Aegean under this Link:https://www.icj-cij.org/

You guys will clearly see who wants to talk and who is begging for another Solution.

[Infidel144]

The part where it doesn't always create an equitable solution as I indicated. Thats why ICJ often diverged from simply applying those.

So there is nothing unclear about a 200nm with equidistant line for facing coasts.

[ioannis76]

It's interesting that you mention the 1976 case while forget to mention the Bern Agreement of the same year where Greece and Turkey agreed to hold talks over the issue while both had a moratorium over making any move on the water. The talks started on January 1976 and were finalized on November of the same year producing the Bern Agreement. Greece left these negotiations in 1981 and started its activities again. The court case, on the other hands, saw Greece acting unilaterally. Normally, nations go to court together after deciding the scope of the issues for the court to handle. Basically, Greece going to the court was a publicity stunt by the Greek government as talks were ongoing with Turkey and it was treated as such.

You obviously didn't open the link I posted:

The two countries launched negotiations on the issue of the continental shelf and in November 1976, signed the Berne procès-verbal setting out a framework for dialogue on the issue until it was submitted to the International Court. But 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.

Activities of sides claims ones again while presenting themselves as the Victim.

who is the one that unilateraly sends research vessels in areas that the UNCLOS sees as another country's territory?
Greece "provokes" Turkey, Cyprus "provokes" Turkey, Syria "provokes" Turkey, Armenia "provokes" Turkey. If Turkey has problems with all its neighbors, maybe it isn't the neighbors' fault.

[ioannis76]

This is the Turkish-Lybian agreement map.
As we can see, Turkey has completely "swallowed" Kastelorizo, as well as Ro and Megisti (its adjacent islands) as well as the EEZ of Rhodes, Karpathos, Kasos, as well as Crete.
This is in clear violation of the UNCLOS, of course.

[PointOfViewGun]

You obviously didn't open the link I posted:
who is the one that unilateraly sends research vessels in areas that the UNCLOS sees as another country's territory?
Greece "provokes" Turkey, Cyprus "provokes" Turkey, Syria "provokes" Turkey, Armenia "provokes" Turkey. If Turkey has problems with all its neighbors, maybe it isn't the neighbors' fault.

Am I to understand any point you ignore in my response as you acknowledging its merit? OK. However, you keep arguing as if a map exists within the text of UNCLOS that explicitly shows us the EEZ of Greece. It doesn't. Neither Turkish nor Greek EEZ in the are is established. There are only claims. It can only be established by both parties agreeing on it for it to be legal under UNCLOS.

[Alastor]

Am I to understand any point you ignore in my response as you acknowledging its merit? OK. However, you keep arguing as if a map exists within the text of UNCLOS that explicitly shows us the EEZ of Greece. It doesn't. Neither Turkish nor Greek EEZ in the are is established. There are only claims. It can only be established by both parties agreeing on it for it to be legal under UNCLOS.

Absurd. What is the point of UNCLOS if it doesn't provide a framework to be followed? If arbitrary claims is all there is and states making agreements between them then UNCLOS may as well not exist. It makes no difference. Then again Turkey did reject UNCLOS, so I guess your position is in accordance with that. What I really don't get then is why do you pretend Turkey has UNCLOS on her side? Why do you need to appear as if you are following an international agreement Turkey as a state hasn't even signed?

[PointOfViewGun]

Absurd. What is the point of UNCLOS if it doesn't provide a framework to be followed? If arbitrary claims is all there is and states making agreements between them then UNCLOS may as well not exist. It makes no difference. Then again Turkey did reject UNCLOS, so I guess your position is in accordance with that. What I really don't get then is why do you pretend Turkey has UNCLOS on her side? Why do you need to appear as if you are following an international agreement Turkey as a state hasn't even signed?

When points I make fly over people's heads, sure, what you say makes sense... UNCLOS is just fine for most cases.The situation between Greece and Turkey is not such a case, neither is the one between Nicaragua and Colombia. Thats why ICJ had to diverge from the maximalist approach of Greece that ignores the principle of equity. Turkey has UNCLOS on its side not because it strictly supports its claims but because it supports a line somewhere between what Greece claims and what Turkey claims. In the case of the region south of Kastellorizo it would favor Turkey much more. I'm not trying to appear to be following UNCLOS. I am following it to evaluate what Greece claims. Why that poses a problem to you is beyond me.



If UNCLOS provides the framework in the way you think it does why did the ICJ applied it differently for Nicaragua and Colombia?

[Alastor]

When points I make fly over people's heads, sure, what you say makes sense... UNCLOS is just fine for most cases.The situation between Greece and Turkey is not such a case, neither is the one between Nicaragua and Colombia. Thats why ICJ had to diverge from the maximalist approach of Greece that ignores the principle of equity. Turkey has UNCLOS on its side not because it strictly supports its claims but because it supports a line somewhere between what Greece claims and what Turkey claims. In the case of the region south of Kastellorizo it would favor Turkey much more. I'm not trying to appear to be following UNCLOS. I am following it to evaluate what Greece claims. Why that poses a problem to you is beyond me.

UNCLOS is fine in every case. Unless the sovereign states involved don't like it. Indeed the only time equity is mentioned in UNCLOS that could be relevant is when advising arbitration for conflicts. At that point UNCLOS says, ok nothing can be done, here is some advice. International law has the problem that it attempts to dictate the behaviour of sovereign parties. Sovereign means you don't have to obey any law but your own. At the same time there are consequences for states acting however they want, such as sanctions and war. That's why they try to find deals. That's why there is the ICJ and international arbitration panels. Greece and Turkey have not gone to the ICJ, nor to an arbitration panel in order to agree to something different. That doesn't change the fact that should both parties respect UNCLOS, the end result would be clearly on the side of Greece. Whether Greece gets what it is entitled to by UNCLOS or not, depends on how much power it can assert towards the other party and on such a deciding body. Not whether it has the law on its side. It does. But between international law and sovereignty, the latter wins.

Greece has the right to extend it's territorial waters to 12 nm for instance in the Aegean. That is clear. It hasn't done so because Turkey maintains an active casus belli. Not because it doesn't have the law on its side. Simply because it's not powerful enough to enforce this right.

So again, why do you need so badly to have an international agreement Turkey obviously doesn't respect and hasn't even signed... on Turkey's side?

If UNCLOS provides the framework in the way you think it does why did the ICJ applied it differently for Nicaragua and Colombia?

Because the two states agreed to something different. It is their right as sovereign states.

[PointOfViewGun]

Because the two states agreed to something different. It is their right as sovereign states.

No, they didn't. They went to ICJ to settle their disputes. ICJ, based on UNCLOS, decided on that map where Colombian islands didn't get the EEZ Greece claims to have. Without accepting that simple fact there is no progress. You're merely ignoring facts of the situation to wish yourself a more favorable situation.

[Alastor]

No, they didn't. They went to ICJ to settle their disputes. ICJ, based on UNCLOS, decided on that map where Colombian islands didn't get the EEZ Greece claims to have. Without accepting that simple fact there is no progress. You're merely ignoring facts of the situation to wish yourself a more favorable situation.

Yes they did. The ICJ can't enforce its will on sovereign parties. The states simply agree beforehand that they will obey the ruling. It is their choice, nothing can legally compel them to do it. So they went to the ICJ, they presented their cases, it made a decision and they accepted it. That's all.

It hasn't escaped my notice btw that you are still not answering my question. Why do you need so badly for Turkey to have an agreement they haven't signed on their side? I mean seriously, if UNCLOS benefited Turkey and they wanted to respect it, they would have signed it. Simple as that.

[PointOfViewGun]

Yes they did. The ICJ can't enforce its will on sovereign parties. The states simply agree beforehand that they will obey the ruling. It is their choice, nothing can legally compel them to do it. So they went to the ICJ, they presented their cases, it made a decision and they accepted it. That's all.

I hasn't escaped my notice btw that you are still not answering my question. Why do you need so badly for Turkey to have an agreement they haven't signed on their side? I mean seriously, if UNCLOS benefited Turkey and they wanted to respect it, they would have signed it. Simple as that.

I'm baffled with these mental gymnastics. It's completely mind boggling...

[Alastor]

I'm baffled with these mental gymnastics. It's completely mind boggling...

Yet another dodge. My question remains unanswered. And mental gymnastics? I guess if you have no idea how international law works and can only parrot the ridiculous propaganda Erdogan's media have fed you, you would say that yes. But for everyone else, what I said should be pretty clear.

[alhoon]

This is the Turkish-Lybian agreement map.
As we can see, Turkey has completely "swallowed" Kastelorizo, as well as Ro and Megisti (its adjacent islands) as well as the EEZ of Rhodes, Karpathos, Kasos, as well as Crete.
This is in clear violation of the UNCLOS, of course.

And we can't do much about it. The Turkish deal is just a piece of paper and so is the UNCLOS. Turkish warships and research vessels come and go as they please and all we do is point to papers.

That Erdo will not accept international standards whether we're right or wrong (we're right) is proven and what some pieces of paper say is a completely moot point by now as Turkey has de facto and unilaterally done what they want to do.
The question is what do we do now and how to counter Turkish aggression? What are our next steps? What avenues are open to us? Is EU going to help us or they will just say "bad Turkey!" and go back to their business leaving us dead in the water?

Because as things are right now, whatever the international law says and whether Greece is right or Turkey is right (Greece is right) doesn't matter. Turkey can start drilling outside Piraeus and aaaaaall the papers in the world won't stop them.
Sanctions will. Economic pressure will. Alliances will. Not papers.

PS. there are other ways to make Turkey to back down but let's talk about the ones I mentioned.

[Nebaki]

whether we're right or wrong (we're right) is proven and what some pieces of paper say is a completely moot point by now as Turkey has de facto and unilaterally done what they want to do.

Because as things are right now, whatever the international law says and whether Greece is right or Turkey is right (Greece is right) doesn't matter. Turkey can start drilling outside Piraeus and aaaaaall the papers in the world won't stop them.
Sanctions will. Economic pressure will. Alliances will. Not papers.

You are not right and nothing has been prooved - we already discussed this here which not even me pointed out - you just ignored it and now are posting the same things after a dozens of replies from other Users.

We got here are good Video which explains the current Situation very well:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Alastor]

You are not right and nothing has been prooved - we already discussed this here which not even me pointed out - you just ignored it and now are posting the same things after a dozens of replies from other Users.

We got here are good Video which explains the current Situation very well:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Proven? Turkey's supporters on this wouldn't know proof if it hit them on the head after falling from orbit. No Greece has international law on its side. But like alhoon and I said earlier that doesn't mean it will get what it is legally entitled to, because that's not how international law works. That doesn't change the fact Greece is on the right and no amount of nonsensical justifications from Erdogan and his propaganda machine will change it either. I still can't understand though, why Turkey is trying so hard to pretend they have international law (UNCLOS) on their side, when they haven't even signed the damn thing.

As for that video. Good? Explains the situation well? You can't be for real. Implying Greece is a belligerent state? Whom did the Greek PM threaten? How many times per week does Erdogan threaten Greece with destruction and war? I have lost count. A video full of false equivalences while dishonestly keeping equal distances doesn't a good explanation make. Greece's position is maximalist? So equivalent to Turkey's big fat arbitrary "mine" pin on the East Med? What law is their claim based on? God knows... or Allah I guess. Greece may be interpreting UNCLOS strictly with their claim, but they are still in line with UNCLOS. Turkey isn't, again Turkey is not even a party to that agreement. So no, sometimes someone is right and someone is wrong and pretending both are equally right or wrong is not gonna cut it. This time Turkey is wrong and Greece is right. Anything less than that can only be the product of ignorance, fanaticism or hypocrisy. Which one is your pick?

[PointOfViewGun]

Because as things are right now, whatever the international law says and whether Greece is right or Turkey is right (Greece is right) doesn't matter.

If you believe Greece is right so much why do you back away from grounding it in law and international practice? You even resorted to altering what the law says a few pages ago as you were ignoring international practice. If Greece is right it shouldn't have been hard to address points raised against it.

[Alastor]

If you believe Greece is right so much why do you back away from grounding it in law and international practice? You even resorted to altering what the law says a few pages ago as you were ignoring international practice. If Greece is right it shouldn't have been hard to address points raised against it.

By going to the Hague as discussed earlier? Ok, go to the Hague and do what? Considering Turkey hasn't signed UNCLOS under what grounds could the ICJ try a case when one of the parties does not accept the relevant law? Indeed, Turkey has already refused to recognize the competence of the ICJ to try such a matter before. So how could this go to the Hague under the present circumstances? Not under the umbrella of UNCLOS.

Nevertheless, the Greek PM has said that he wants a discussion on the matter, as long as Turkey stops pretending it already owns those waters by sending ships to look for resources. And should discussions fail, that he is prepared to go to international arbitration bodies over the matter (such as the ICJ). Now Greece, unlike you, understands how international law works. Greek authorities understand that once they get to the point of a legal dispute, international arbitration is all about finding a compromise in order to avoid the alternative. Considering Greece is claiming exactly what UNCLOS entitles her to claim, any compromise further from that is a loss. Despite that Greece is prepared to lose part of their rightful claim to resolve this conflict. As I said the Greek PM did speak of international arbitration. But it is also reasonable that Greece would prefer to attempt to negotiate directly first before surrendering that right to the whims of a court, or other such body.

Then there is of course the other, perhaps more pertinent question, why the Hague? Why not let's say Hamburg? Indeed if the dispute was all about UNCLOS it should be Hamburg. But again Turkey doesn't recognize the validity of UNCLOS and hasn't signed it. Even more interestingly Turkey's claims over Greece extend further than UNCLOS anyway. Turkish officials have repeatedly attacked the Lausanne treaty or the Paris treaty for instance, there are attempts to claim small islands in the Aegean, like some Turkish members wrote about earlier, attempts to gray areas in between the Greek islands and several other open disputes. Turkey attempts to bolster their hand by asking for a general negotiation under customary law, hence the Hague, rather than a specific one under UNCLOS. Considering Turkey has right on its side in exactly zero of those topics, such a move is very dangerous for Greece. Why? Because, as said many times, international law is not the same as your state's criminal law. Once this reaches an arbitration, the more Turkey demands, rightfully or wrongly, the more Greece is likely to lose. And if the international treaties that support Greece, such as UNCLOS, are not accepted by the other side, Greece is losing valuable negotiating leverage. I mean why do you think Turkey hasn't signed UNCLOS? That's because Turkey, unlike you, also knows how international law works. Finally, once an international agreement between Greece and Turkey is signed, then that will be international law in this matter, not UNCLOS. And then Turkey will be rightfully claiming all kinds of things they currently have no right to claim. The only alternative to that is, of course, war.

[ioannis76]

And we can't do much about it. The Turkish deal is just a piece of paper and so is the UNCLOS. Turkish warships and research vessels come and go as they please and all we do is point to papers.

That Erdo will not accept international standards whether we're right or wrong (we're right) is proven and what some pieces of paper say is a completely moot point by now as Turkey has de facto and unilaterally done what they want to do.
The question is what do we do now and how to counter Turkish aggression? What are our next steps? What avenues are open to us? Is EU going to help us or they will just say "bad Turkey!" and go back to their business leaving us dead in the water?

Because as things are right now, whatever the international law says and whether Greece is right or Turkey is right (Greece is right) doesn't matter. Turkey can start drilling outside Piraeus and aaaaaall the papers in the world won't stop them.
Sanctions will. Economic pressure will. Alliances will. Not papers.

PS. there are other ways to make Turkey to back down but let's talk about the ones I mentioned.

There are quite a few things, short of war, that we can, actually, do.

Recall the Greek Ambassador from Ankara, and send the Turkish Ambassador back to Turkey.
Close down the Turkish Consulates in Komotini and Thessaloniki. "Kemal's house" returns as property of Greece. We could turn it into a museum.
These two measures are essentially a discontinuation of diplomatic relations with Turkey. They are mostly psychological measures, directed at both our enemy, Turkey, as well as our "allies" in the EU and NATO. They demonstrate that we do mean business. We can't just have them attack us verbally and by blocking our air and sea routes between Rhodes and Kastelorizo and do nothing.
Close down all borders with Turkey. Thus, we practically cancel the EU-Turkey deal regarding trade, as turkish cargo vehicles will have to use more expensive and time consuming routes. We can evoke reasons of national security and continue this as long as we want.
This would show our enemy that we mean business. It just won't do to ask the EU to impose sanctions at the same time when we don't do anything.

If you want to go to military measures, for starters we can recall the reserves, like Papandreou did back in the 80's. I, for one, would love to get my hands on a weapon and be back in uniform (again) right now. Particularly if that means being somewhere near turkish troops.

[PointOfViewGun]

Alastor, you're mostly repeating the points I've already touched upon that you chose to ignore or mindbogglingly dismissed, but I need to clarify a new point you raise. Why not go to Hamburg? You're likely referring to ITLOS; International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. This is what Greece declared about ITLOS:

Greece

“Pursuant to article 298, paragraph 1, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Hellenic Republic declares that it does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Part XV, section 2, with respect to the following disputes:

a) Disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles;

b) Disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;

c) Disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in this Convention.”

Basically, for some reason, Greece doesn't recognize the Tribunal of the very same agreement its basing its claim on. This ITLOS, in line with what I've been saying, doesn't always grant islands full EEZ. For example, the case between Bangladesh and Myanmar:

Therefore, it decided to revise accordingly the provisional line, by drawing a geodetic line starting at an azimuth of 215 from a point on the provisional line close to the coast ([63], para. 331–34). While this was in principle considered as a relevant circumstance for the purpose of the international law on maritime delimitations, ITLOS did not attribute any effect with regard to EEZ or Continental Shelf to St Martin’s Island in the end, asserting practical reasons, namely the alleged cut-off effect ([63], para. 318–19).

[Alastor]

Alastor, you're mostly repeating the points I've already touched upon that you chose to ignore or mindbogglingly dismissed, but I need to clarify a new point you raise.

I'm repeating points you have failed to answer in fact. And you are still failing to btw. It's kinda sad really, you don't even seem to realize how badly you fail to answer those points. And again, if your mind is so easily boggled by such things it is not my fault.

Why not go to Hamburg? You're likely referring to ITLOS; International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. This is what Greece declared about ITLOS

I am indeed referring to ITLOS. Of course trying to spin not having that option as the fault of Greece is quite funny considering that Turkey hasn't even signed the treaty that created this court. But to answer your point. Yes indeed, pursuant to article 298 of UNCLOS Greece stated that it refuses to be necessarily bound by the court of Hamburg's decisions in some relevant to this dispute matters. All this means Greece is trying to play it safe. And guess what, Greece has issued similar statements towards the Hague, as is their right, by amending their adherence to article 36 of The Statute of the International Court of Justice, rejecting in effect to be necessarily bound by the decisions of that court in matters that have to do with the EEZ and other relevant to the Aegean and East Med issues. So by your logic, if this can't go to Hamburg, for the same reason this can't go to the Hague either. Yet, there is talk of the Hague? Why? Because actually, the case can still be sent to either. That's how international law works. All Greece is saying is that it doesn't necessarily accept either court's jurisdiction as binding from the get-go. But should Greece and Turkey decide to go to an arbitration panel, or one of these courts, it will be binding should they agree for it to be and stick to it. it is really that simple.

Basically, for some reason, Greece doesn't recognize the Tribunal of the very same agreement its basing its claim on. This ITLOS, in line with what I've been saying, doesn't always grant islands full EEZ. For example, the case between Bangladesh and Myanmar

I'm sorry, weren't you the one that said Turkey has the law on its side? What law were you referring to again? Oh right the one Turkey hasn't even signed. Let me repeat, every case that reaches an international arbitration is different and will be treated as different. Taken at face value UNCLOS gives Greece the right to claim exactly what it does claim. It probably won't get it once this gets to a trial, because unfortunately international law deals with sovereign entities and only force can compel them to obey, anything else must come through compromise, but this doesn't mean Greece is not right.