Maritime delimitation dispute in Eastern Mediterranean

Ladies and Gentleman, welcome to my presentation. 

First of all, let me thank you all for coming here today and  I'm going to talk about Maritime delimitation dispute in Eastern Mediterranean

The riparian states of the Eastern Mediterranean are attempting to declare an Exclusive Economic Zone to explore and exploit hydrocarbon resources. A coastal state can declare an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) without being a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Although Türkiye and the TRNC are not parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea but they have the right to declare an Exclusive Economic Zone.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea regulates sovereign rights of the coastal state, which is for economic purposes, include legislative and judicial powers. However, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea also gives third states some rights on this maritime zone. Economic activities should not violate the rights of third states in Exclusive Economic Zone. In terms of delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone between states that are proximate and the ones neighboring on the coast, the “Equitable Principle” has been adopted, which is recognized for the delimitation of the continental shelf. Accordingly, the Exclusive Economic Zone delimitation will be made through an agreement and in a way that will reach a fair conclusion in accordance with the international law.

It is also of great importance for Türkiye to determine the borders of the Exclusive Economic Zone and to direct its policies and practices in the Eastern Mediterranean according to these borders. Policies are needed to integrate with the declaration of the Exclusive Economic Zone. In the new policy to be determined, two options are on the table; The first is to search for hydrocarbons within their Exclusive Economic Zones, which the Republic of Turkey and the TRNC will declare separately as independent states. The second is to conduct hydrocarbon explorations in the new Exclusive Economic Zone, which will be announced by focusing on the integration of the TRNC with Turkey from next year, taking into account the changing international conditions.

In both cases, priority should be given to the exploration of potential resources in our marine area. It is a fact that we have not done much exploration and exploration in the deep seas and we have neglected our seas until now. This is more true for the Eastern Mediterranean. An oil and natural gas exploration campaign should be launched to cover all our sea areas, both by developing our own opportunities and by partnering with foreign companies with deep-sea exploration technology.

Maritime delimitation is a difficult process if islands are involved. Parties do not easily agree on the size of the maritime areas to be accorded to islands. In fact, islands have been at the core of the disagreements in all the maritime delimitation disputes. The related states are left with no choice but to take the disputes to international courts for settlement. Other geographical features such as the geographical location of the coasts of the related States and their respective coastal lengths create relatively less complicated situations.

Regardless of its surrounding political circumstances, the Eastern Mediterranean is a difficult region for maritime delimitation basically due to the presence of islands, namely the island of Cyprus and Greek islands of Crete (Girit), Kasos (Çoban Adası), Karpathos (Kerpe), Rhodes (Rodos) and Kastellorizo (Meis).

The legal arguments of the States in the region over this rather technical matter carry therefore a significant value if the settlement is to be sought through international law. This review focuses on the legal approach of Turkey without a detailed evaluation. The aim here is rather to identify both the claims of Turkey over the maritime borders and to review legal arguments to clarify the fundamental points of this approach.

Despite its frequent use, the geographical limits of “the Eastern Mediterranean Sea” do not have a comprehensive agreement. This is not however a matter to settle here as far as maritime delimitation is concerned. Disputing parties or competent courts should not bind themselves with such a definition but rather with the coastal projections that “meet and overlap” in a delimitation process. It is however clear which countries are involved in the issue of maritime delimitation in the region. The states which are actually and potentially affected by maritime delimitation in the region are Turkey, Egypt, Greece, Israel, Palestine, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus , and the Greek Administration of Southern Cyprus.

Six countries, namely Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Egypt, and the Greek Administration of Southern Cyprus have declared Exclusive Economic Zone. Since there is no need for declaration, other states, including Turkey, have continental shelf areas. Some states have chosen to sign an Exclusive Economic Zone Delimitation Agreement without a declaration. Exclusive Economic Zone is part of the memorandum that Turkey signed with Libya on November 17, 2019. Therefore, Turkey does apply an Exclusive Economic Zone in the Eastern Mediterranean, at least in relation to Libya.

Sovereign rights and powers

The continental shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone grant the coastal state sovereign rights and powers over natural resources. The prevailing rule at this point is the principle of "the land dominates the sea". In other words, states have sovereign rights and powers in the sea areas adjacent to their coasts because they are on the coast of the sea.

The Greek Cypriot Administration's refusal to recognize the TRNC as a legitimate political authority, while the TRNC and Turkey reject the Greek Cypriot Administration's claim that the island has sole say, even if the European Union  and other relevant international actors do not accept the TRNC as a state. Despite accepting the rights of the Turkish existence in the island, the fact that they only made treaties with the Greek Cypriot Administration in violation of the rights of the Turkish Cypriots in matters concerning the entire island, the division of the Eastern Mediterranean maritime areas has become a part of the sovereignty issue over the island, rather than being a mere maritime issue.

The Greek Cypriot Administration has no legal right to declare an Exclusive Economic Zone unilaterally. If there is more than one state and more than one people in a place, especially the disputed state cannot unilaterally declare an Exclusive Economic Zone on its own.

If the Republic of Cyprus were a single state on the island  then it could have declared an Exclusive Economic Zone. As of the current situation, there are de facto 3 separate states belonging to Turkish, Greek and British on the island of Cyprus. The issue here is the fact that the Turkish Cypriots (1960) were expelled from the Republic of Cyprus, of which they were founding partners, by force of arms in 1963 and that the said state turned into a unitary Greek state. The state known as the Republic of Cyprus does not belong to the Greeks alone.

The EU ignores Turkey in the Eastern Mediterranean and accepts Greece and the Greek Cypriot Administration as an integrated geographical area. The route chosen by the Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean is a dead end. They do not have the legal right to evaluate and develop any natural gas resources unilaterally around the island. The indispensable condition for Turkey and the TRNC's Energy Plans Strategy to successfully achieve its goals for the Eastern Mediterranean is its integration in the Mediterranean and the declaration of an "Exclusive Economic Zone".

Turkey signed limitation of Maritime Jurisdiction areas in the Eastern Mediterranean with the Libyan Government of National Accord. Subsequently it determined the Exclusive Economic Zone and declared it in the official newspaper. The continental shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone borders were adopted with a 30 km long border line.

The agreement will completely change the situation in the Mediterranean. This agreement has historical significance, meaning that it is a game-changer on conflicts and actors in the Eastern Mediterranean and has been an important political shift. The agreement was approved by the Presidential Council on December 6th , 2019 and adopted in the Libyan law. Two countries can conduct research activities in the determined areas within the context of it. This bilateral agreement was declared to the UN by Turkey and Libya. Through this agreement, Turkey and Libya are now neighbors from sea and have the opposite shores to one another. As a result of Turkey-Libya agreement, Mavi Vatan now has reached an area of 189,000 square km . The agreement was concluded within the framework of Anatolia-Africa Joint Line and the equitable principle. 

The agreement between Libya and Turkey is profitable with the equitable principle, for both sides. According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Turkey and Libya should bilaterally sign the agreement based on equitable principle. Both sides need to approve for an EEZ agreement to be in effect. Thus, it is seen that this agreement is convenient and legitimate within the context of international law.  Libya’s agreement with Turkey is much more profitable compared to a possible Libya-Greek Cypriot Administration and Libya-Greece EEZ agreement.

Considering the agreement in terms of hydrocarbon exploration in the Eastern Mediterranean, it is observed that Turkey should support its strategic and political superiority with economic dynamics as well in order to improve its activities. If Turkey makes agreements with Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Egypt in the region, overcoming the anti-Turkish stance, it can make important explorations that will provide important benefits to Turkey and the TRNC. The Eastern Mediterranean hydrocarbon exploration could improve in this way. The agreement has a negative effect on the EastMed pipeline project because countries that signed the project would plan to build this pipeline without Turkey and the TRNC. However, this agreement has blocked the route of the East Med pipeline project. 

Continental shelf and exclusive economic zone delimitation constitute the problems related to the delimitation of maritime jurisdiction areas in the Eastern Mediterranean. Since the Eastern Mediterranean is a narrow sea geographically, it creates problems in the delimitation of these two sea areas, and as mentioned above, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea makes it necessary to consider the rule that "determination of the exclusive economic zone - continental shelf of the states with adjacent or mutual coasts shall be made by agreement"

On the other hand, Greece is added to the equation by determining a line connecting the islands of Meis, Crete, Kaşot, Rhodes and Çoban, trying to limit the exclusive economic zone with the states in the region, especially the Greek Cypriot Administration of Cyprus and Egypt starting from the southern coasts of the islands and advocating delimitation with the Turkish side with the midline method. It is trying to squeeze in the Eastern Mediterranean by ignoring Turkey's open sea areas by supporting the bilateral agreements made by the Greek Cypriot Administration with other states in the region.

The Turkish side, on the other hand, is confronting the Greek side and its supporter, the Greek Cypriot Administration, by arguing that there should be a restriction on the maritime jurisdiction areas of these islands from a legal point of view, and that if any restriction is to be made in the Eastern Mediterranean, it should be done in accordance with fair principles.

While emphasizing delimitation with the midline method over the relevant islands, Greece argues that maritime jurisdiction areas should be determined over these islands by trying to obtain a continental shelf and an exclusive economic zone over these islands.

In this way, Greece tries to exclude Turkey from the Mediterranean just as it did in the Aegean Sea and pushes Turkey out of the equation by compressing it towards the north of the midlines between the Greek islands in the region and the Mediterranean coast of Turkey and Greece is trying increasing the maximum benefits from Turkeys hydrocarbon resources.

In this context, both Greece and the Greek Cypriot Administration of Cyprus are trying to seize a large part of Turkey's open sea areas in the Eastern Mediterranean. Moreover, Greece, using the advantage of the civil war in Libya and ignoring Libya's rights over the maritime areas, has determined an area of approximately 39 thousand square kilometers as its territorial waters, and then, for the sake of the idea of dominating the energy resources in the Eastern Mediterranean, Turkey is in the process of carrying the Eastern Mediterranean energy to the European market. It followed a policy of pushing ' out of the equation.

On the other hand, Libyan Government of National Accord did not accept Greece's declaration of an EEZ over the Island of Crete and licensing international energy companies to conduct research there, and supported Turkey's theses by giving a note to Greece. Also, Turkey and Libya had discussed and evaluated the situation long ago because of Greece's moves in the Mediterranean. However, the outbreak of the civil war in Libya in 2011 prevented the decisions to be taken.

The EU cannot be allowed or has no jurisdiction or authority to determine the land, maritime and air borders of its member states with third countries. The "membership solidarity" cannot overrule the international law or justify the unilateral Greek Cypriot and Greeces claims. 

Greece does not have a coast to the Eastern Mediterranean sea as the mainland and there is no continental shelf and exclusive economic zone limitation over the islands seperately. In this context, Greece-Egypt maritme agreement is null and void.

Article 46 of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; There is a condition that "the country must consist of archipelagos in order for the islands to have full authority" or it must be mostly made up of islands. In order for a country to be an "Islands State", it must be wholly or largely composed of islands. Various examples such as Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Cuba and the Philippines have been registered by the United Nations.

Contrary to appearances, Greece is not an "island state". Only 17% of the country's surface area consists of islands, islets and cliffs. In United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, there are no principles, principles or decisions that will make Greece an "Islands State" in the decisions of the International Court of Justice and the Arbitration Court.

Greece argues that the extreme points of its borders are Crete, Kerpe, Kaşot, Rhodes and Meis, and that it can make agreements with other countries on a midline basis by drawing a border over this line. Greece owns all the remaining waters between the islands as its own inland water.

The methodology for determining the maritime borders was formed as a result of the decisions of the Law of the Sea, the Court of Justice and the Arbitration Court. In determining the maritime border, fairness, equidistance, proportionality, the superiority of geography, non-closure, special and human conditions should be evaluated.

Meis(Kastellorizo) is an island that belongs to the mainland of Greece.Its distance from the Turkish mainland is 2 km, and its distance from the Greek mainland is 580 km. Meis, which is located on the "Wrong Side" by looking at the middle line, cannot form a coast in the delimitation, cannot have a continental shelf and an exclusive economic zone other than territorial waters. In international law, except the territorial waters of the islands that are under the sovereignty of a mainland country; It has no continental shelf and EEZ.

The Greek islands cannot cut the Turkey-Libya coastal projection. The Greek islands, which are on the wrong side of the midline between the mainland and whose coastline is incomparably small with the Turkish mainland, cannot form a continental shelf and an exclusive economic zone.

According to the Lausanne Treaty in the Aegean, there is no such right as a continental shelf around the islands. We will not discuss the eastern Mediterranean with Greece; Islands may have a Continental Shelf/Exclusive Economic Zone. However, the issue of having these rights is controversial. The EEZ is born in the oceans, the vast sea areas. For this reason, riparian states have been given the authority to establish sovereignty over a 200 nautical mile long sea area.

However, it is not possible to apply this scale in every marine area. For example, this length cannot be applied in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. Because there is not enough sea area to leave a 200-mile sea area to the riparian states.That is why the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean are in semi-closed sea status.

The islands of Meis, Rhodes, Kerpe and Kasot; It is not on the Greek continental shelf, but on the Turkish continental shelf. These islands are less than 200 miles from mainland Greece. Islands that are on the continental shelf of the mainland do not have a continental shelf separately.

Maritime jurisdiction area for the islands belonging to the MAINLANDS in the Mediterranean, except for the TERRITORIAL WATERS; No Continental Shelf or Exclusive Economic Zone given. Compared to the mainland, the Greek ISLANDS cannot cut the gap between the 2 mainlands, namely the Anatolian mainland, the Asian and African continents.

Greece and Greek Cyprus, maritime claims are maximalist.They base on the entitlement of islands to EEZ/CS. Entitlement and Delimitation are not the same thing. Islands may get zero or reduced EEZ/CS  if their presence distorts equitable delimitation.This is a fundamental international law principle.