41Received 23.05.2021.
Acknowledgements. The article was prepared within the project “Post-Crisis World Order: Challenges and Technologies, Competition and Cooperation” supported by the grant from Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation program for research projects in priority areas of scientific and technological development (Agreement ¹ 075-15-2020-783).
Abstract. The Aegean Sea as a common sea region for Greece and Turkey is not only an important source of aquatic biological and energy resources, but also a water area where both countries have their own interests in its economic development and use. Traditionally, this sea area, most of which is a high sea in terms of rules and provisions of the modern international maritime law, has been used by both states on a parity basis, and other extra-regional countries have had equal rights with them here. However, the desire of Greece and Turkey to extend their zones of sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction over maritime zones, seabed and subsoil has given rise to new maritime disputes. It is no coincidence that the problem of delimiting the continental shelf, i. e. the underwater margin of the continent where coastal countries are vested with rights to explore and exploit its resources, has accompanied the Turkish-Greek negotiations for decades. Greece has even initiated legal proceedings before the International Court of Justice on the issue, but for various reasons the Court found that it had no jurisdiction to hear the case. To date, the positions of the parties on this issue have not changed; they are directly opposite and mutually exclusive. This and other circumstances, as well as the fact that Turkey is not a party to either the 1958 Geneva Conventions or the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, severely limits the possibility of a new trial. Moreover, the legal positivism of the Greek position on the entire spectrum of Aegean Sea problems, i. e. an appeal solely to the applicable rules and provisions of international law of the sea, not only fails to satisfy Turkey but also has negative consequences for other countries. First of all, this concerns issues related to the freedom of navigation. Greece’s claim to extend the outer limits of its territorial sea from 6 to 12 nautical miles around the huge number of Greek islands in the Aegean Sea would inevitably lead to a significant reduction of the high sea. Although at a minimum the right of innocent passage and at a maximum the more liberal rule of the law of the sea – the right of transit passage – will apply, the legal regime for these maritime areas will be fundamentally different and more heavily regulated. The passage of merchant ships and warships, as well as the overflight of military aircraft, including those of any foreign country, also of the U.S. and Russian Federation, will not be as free as on the high seas. All of these issues are dealt with in this (second) part of the paper.
Keywords: continental shelf, International Court of Justice, delimitation, regime of islands, 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, territorial sea, right of innocent passage, right of transit passage, high seas, freedom of navigation
REFERENCES
1. Dyke Jon M.V. The Role of Islands in Delimiting Maritime Zones: The Case of the Aegean Sea. Ocean Yearbook, 1989, vol. 8, iss. 1, pp. 44-69. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1163/221160089X00047
2. Summaries of judgments, advisory opinions and orders of the International Court of Justice 1948–1991. UN, 1993. 297 p. (In Russ.) Available at: https://legal.un.org/icjsummaries/documents/russian/st_leg_serf1.pdf (accessed 25.02.2021).
3. Greek-Turkish dispute over the delimitation of the continental shelf. Hellenic Republic, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. August 23, 2021. Available at: https://www.mfa.gr/en/issues-of-greek-turkish-relations/relevant-documents/delimitation-of-the-continental-shelf.html (accessed 15.03.2021).
4. Labut’ D.A. The concept of the “natural continuation of the land territory of the state” in the documents of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. International Law, 2018, vol. 2, pp. 27-46. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.25136/2306-9899.2018.2.26992
5. Turkey: draft article on delimitation between States; various aspects involved. A/CONF.62/C.2/L.23. Codification Division, Office of Legal Affairs, Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Available at: https://legal.un.org/diplomaticconferences/1973_los/docs/english/vol_3/a_conf62_c2_l23.pdf (accessed 15.03.2021).
6. Tikhomin K.V. The role of island territories in maritime delimitation. Moscow Journal of International Law, 2008, no. 3, pp. 151-171. (In Russ.)
7. Dyke Jon M.V. An Analysis of the Aegean Disputes under International Law. Ocean Development & International Law, 2005, vol. 36, iss. 1, pp. 63-117. DOI: 10.1080/00908320590909088
8. Territorial sea – Casus belli. Hellenic Republic, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. August 23, 2021. Available at: https://www.mfa.gr/en/issues-of-greek-turkish-relations/relevant-documents/territorial-sea-casus-belli.html (accessed 15.03.2021).
9. Turkey: draft article on the breadth of the territorial sea; global or regional criteria; open seas and oceans, semi-enclosed seas and enclosed seas. A/CONF.62/C.2/L.8. Codification Division, Office of Legal Affairs, Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Available at: https://legal.un.org/diplomaticconferences/1973_los/docs/english/vol_3/a_conf62_c2_l8.pdf (accessed 15.03.2021).
10. The Breadth of Territorial Waters. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Available at: http://www.mfa.gov.tr/thebreadth-of-territorial-waters.en.mfa (accessed 15.03.2021).
11. Pratt M., Schofield Ñ. The Imia/Kardak Rocks Dispute in the Aegean Sea. IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin, Spring 1996. Available at: https://docplayer.net/20915976-The-imia-kardak-rocks-dispute-in-the-aegean-sea.html (accessed 11.03.2021).
12. Act No. 463 on the Delimitation of the Territorial Waters of Finland (as amended by Act No. 144/1965, Act No. 332/1966 and Act No. 981/1995) adopted in Helsinki on 18 August 1956. Finlex, online database of up-to-date legislative and other judicial information of Finland. Available at: https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/1956/en19560463.pdf (accessed 11.03.2021).
13. Decree on the Application of the Act on the Delimitation of the Territorial Waters of Finland (No. 993) issued in Helsinki on 31 July 1995(1). Marine Regions, Flanders Marine Institute. Available at: https://www.marineregions.org/documents/FIN_1995_Decree.pdf (accessed 11.03.2021).
14. Exchange of notes constituting an agreement on the procedure to be followed in the modification of the limits of the territorial waters in the Gulf of Finland 6 April and 4 May 1994. The Embassy of Estonia in Helsinki to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland. Maritime Space: Maritime Zones and Maritime Delimitation. Available at: https://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TREATIES/EST-FIN1994GF.pdf (accessed 11.03.2021).
15. Law on the Territorial Sea (Law No. 30 of 2 May 1977). Maritime Space: Maritime Zones and Maritime Delimitation. Available at: https://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/JPN_1977_Law.pdf (accessed 11.03.2021).
16. Straight Baseline and Territorial Sea Claims: Japan. Limits in the Seas, 1998, ¹ 120. Office of Ocean Affairs, US State Department. Available at: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/LIS-120.pdf (accessed 11.03.2021).
17. Kawasaki Y. International straits: an issue concerning Japan’s ratification of the United Nations. IBRU Boundary & Security Bulletin, 1995, vol. 3, no. 2. Available at: https://duracuk-lb01-production.terminalfour.net/media/durham-university/research-/research-centres/ibru-centre-for-borders-research/maps-and-databases/publications-database/boundary-amp-security-bulletins/bsb3-2_kawasaki.pdf (accessed 11.03.2021).
18. Dyke Jon M.V. The Aegean Sea dispute: options and avenues. Marine Policy, 1996, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 397-404. DOI: 10.1016/0308-597X(96)00025-5 Available at: https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/54246/1/Folder%2028.pdf (accessed 11.03.2021).
19. Gudev P.A. US policy in the World’s Oceans. International Trends, 2016, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 106-120. DOI: 10.17994/IT.2016.14.1.44.9
20. Roach J.A., Smith W.R. Excessive Maritime Claims. 3rd ed. Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2012. 926 p.
21. Lopez M.A.G. International Straits. Concept, Classification and Rules of Passage. Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer, 2010. 218 p. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12906-3
22. Kraska J. Legal Vortex in the Strait of Hormuz. Virginia Journal of International Law, 2014, vol. 323, pp. 323-366. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2472065 (accessed 17.09.2019).
23. A Constitution for the Oceans. Statements by the President of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Tomi T.B. Ko (Singapore). (In Russ.) Available at: http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/koh_russian.pdf (accessed 14.04.2020).
24. Tanaka Y. The International Law of the Sea. New York, Cambridge University Press, 2012. 435 p. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511844478
25. Gudev P.A. The Political and Legal Aspects of the US-Iranian Confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz and its Adjacent Waters: Legal Interpretations. The Oriens, 2020, no. 2, pp. 161-176. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.31857/S086919080009166-9
26. Politakis P.G. The Aegean Agenda: Greek National Interests and the New Law of the Sea Convention. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 1995, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 497-527. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1163/157180895X00259
27. Anufrieva L.P., Melkov G.M., Panov V.P., Shinkareckaya G.G., Shumilov V.M. International Law. Textbook. Moscow, RIOR, 2011. 720 p. (In Russ.)
28. Declarations and Reservations. Greece. UN Treaty Collection. Law of the Sea. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXI-6&chapter=21&Temp=mtdsg3&clang=_en#EndDec (accessed 11.03.2021).
Registered in System SCIENCE INDEX
No comments