Opinions and Evaluations on the Latest Situation in the Eastern Mediterranean

(MAY NOT BE USED WITHOUT ATTRIBUTION TO BAU DEGS AND THE AUTHOR)

Suspension of Oruç Reis Seismic Research Activities and Its Consequences

The cancellation or postponement on 21 July of the work of the Oruç Reis seismic research vessel 300 km east of the Libya-Türkiye line, "as a result of Germany's intervention following Greece's objections, complaints and threats", has had grave consequences.

First of all, it has unfortunately turned even the area 300 km east of the Libya-Türkiye line into a disputed or negotiable area. In other words, contrary to what some have said, the NAVTEX area from which Oruç Reis withdrew is not in the Kastellorizo (Meis) and Rhodes region. Just as it lies 300 km east of the Libya-Türkiye line, it also lies 300 km south of Kastellorizo. Put differently, it is the eastern tip of Greece's claim on the so-called Seville map, which leaves Türkiye an area of 41,000 square kilometers. That is, Greece objected at the most maximalist point of its maximalist demands and, one way or another, made Türkiye stop its work even at this point.

               

Türkiye - Libya line; research area of the Oruç Reis seismic research vessel canceled on 21 July 2020

In view of this situation, we have been faced with the prospect of nullifying the Libya-Türkiye agreement with our own hands and rendering our Eastern Mediterranean and Libya policy void. The Greeks see this as a great diplomatic victory and, so to speak, as bringing the Turks to their knees.

Moreover, the areas from which we most recently stepped back are areas licensed to TPAO in 2011 and 2012. As a result, we have had to withdraw from areas we declared to be ours years ago.

                                                 

TPAO license areas; TPAO license areas where the work of the Oruç Reis seismic research vessel was canceled

These developments have also emboldened Egypt. On 30 July 2020, the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement claiming rights in the areas put out to tender by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Türkiye on 30 May 2020 and warned Türkiye. Although this attracted little public attention, we found it very interesting and did our best to inform all concerned that "we were concerned that Egypt was on the verge of signing an Exclusive Economic Zone agreement with Greece."

Greece Is Not Our Counterpart in the Eastern Mediterranean on the Delimitation of Maritime Jurisdiction Areas

On the other hand, statements by Turkish officials to the effect that we are ready to negotiate with Greece in the Eastern Mediterranean have further increased our concern. Agreeing to negotiate with Greece in the Eastern Mediterranean would be a stance causing irreversible damage, because Greece is not our counterpart in the Eastern Mediterranean. There is no issue between us. Greece simply has a demand on maritime areas that are rightfully ours.

There is nothing to negotiate, in terms of any delimitation of maritime jurisdiction areas in the Eastern Mediterranean, with Greece, which is trying to define Exclusive Economic Zones for its islands contrary to international law and to the decisions of the International Court of Justice and arbitral tribunals (details are available in my books and articles). Although the legal dimension is summarized further below, even at its simplest, it is an incredibly unlawful impudence for Greece to claim a maritime jurisdiction area with a total coastline of 167 km on the sides of its islands facing the Eastern Mediterranean against 1,870 km of Anatolian coastline.

What Happens If We Negotiate the Delimitation of Maritime Jurisdiction Areas in the Eastern Mediterranean with Greece?

As is known, the maritime jurisdiction areas (EEZ and Continental Shelf) agreement we concluded with Libya was made, in line with the court decisions issued to date in the law of the sea, on the basis of principles such as equity, equidistance, proportionality, the primacy of geography, non-encroachment, and the assessment of special, human and other circumstances. In this context, the islands were naturally granted maritime jurisdiction only as far as their territorial waters and the Libya-Türkiye line was drawn just outside the territorial waters of these islands.

In this case, negotiating with Greece as a counterpart in the Eastern Mediterranean could mean discussing how to meet Greece's demand, that is, discussing how much of what is rightfully ours we would give to Greece.

Negotiating how much continental shelf the islands will be granted means nullifying the Libya agreement, because when we signed this agreement and drew the Türkiye-Libya line, in accordance with the law of the sea, the islands were not granted any maritime jurisdiction beyond their territorial waters. Furthermore, if negotiations begin on granting the islands maritime jurisdiction beyond their territorial waters, this will also mean losing the continental shelf line west of the island of Cyprus, which we have argued since 2004 runs along the limit of its territorial waters. This, in turn, would mean accepting the Seville map that confines us to the Gulf of Antalya.

Greece's Signing of an EEZ Agreement with Egypt, Its Effects and a Summary Legal Assessment

On the other hand, following the developments, we had also stated during this process that we were receiving signs that the worst-case scenario, an Exclusive Economic Zone agreement between Greece and Egypt, would be signed, and that our abandoning seismic research was paving the way for this agreement. However, nothing changed and, unfortunately, Greece and Egypt signed an EEZ agreement. A map showing the line agreed by Greece and Egypt, as reported in the media, is presented below.

This agreement cannot nullify the Türkiye-Libya agreement. This agreement, aimed at preventing the maritime neighborhood of Türkiye and Libya, whose opposite coasts are as plain as day, has no negative effect on our agreement and cannot have any.

International Maritime Law establishes that coastal states may draw a "Straight Baseline" only if the coastal topography complies with the principles of Article 7 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Furthermore, apart from "Normal Baseline" and "Straight Baseline" drawings, Article 47 of UNCLOS also contains methods for determining "Archipelagic Baselines" as a special condition; however, this special method can be used by states recognized as "Archipelago States" under Article 46 of UNCLOS. Since Greece is neither an Archipelago State nor an Archipelagic State, it clearly cannot benefit from the special provisions of Article 47 of UNCLOS.

In addition, islands less than 200 miles from the mainland do not generate an EEZ; in other words, they are included in the EEZ area of the mainland and cannot create an EEZ of their own. Consequently, Greece's drawing of a straight baseline between the islands of Crete and Rhodes as if there were no sea between them to create a territorial sea boundary, and determining an EEZ from this line, is not only entirely unacceptable in terms of Türkiye's maritime rights and interests but also contrary to international maritime law and a violation of the law. Therefore, the Greece - Egypt Maritime Jurisdiction Areas Delimitation (EEZ) agreement is invalid. With this agreement, Greece has used its diplomatic cunning to deceive Egypt as well and to make it an instrument of its unlawfulness.

Spain has islands off the coast of Morocco. In the upper part of the map below you can see Spain's actual EEZ, and in the lower part what Spain's EEZ could be if it made unlawful demands like Greece. Acting in accordance with the law of the sea, Spain and Morocco take their mainlands as the basis for delimitation, observe the principles of the primacy of geography, non-encroachment and proportionality, and grant the Spanish islands lying on the opposite side (off the Moroccan mainland) no maritime jurisdiction beyond their territorial waters. Therefore, Greece's claim that Kastellorizo and its other islands have an EEZ does not correspond to legal and factual realities and is certainly not acceptable under international law.

Greece Has Compromised on Its Long-Standing Theses for the Sake of an Agreement with Egypt

On the other hand, as far as we have been able to learn, Greece has given up 50% of the EEZ area it envisaged for the islands of Rhodes and Crete for the sake of reaching an agreement with Egypt. This essentially means the collapse of the Greek theses, because Greece has refuted with its own hands the thesis it has argued from the outset that islands have as much maritime jurisdiction as mainlands.

Moreover, Egypt did not accept the Greek thesis that Kastellorizo has an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf and did not accept Kastellorizo as a relevant coast in the delimitation. This is the collapse of the Greek theses.

We Should Use the Concept of Exclusive Economic Zone, Not Continental Shelf, in All Our Statements

As is known, following the EEZ agreement signed between Egypt and Greece, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Türkiye published a statement on the matter on its official website. The statement read as follows:

“There is no maritime boundary between Greece and Egypt. The so-called maritime jurisdiction areas delimitation agreement announced to have been signed today is null and void for Türkiye. This understanding of ours will be demonstrated on the ground and at the table. The so-called delimited area lies within the Turkish continental shelf, which has also been notified to the United Nations.”

At this point, our view is that the expression "continental shelf" in this statement, which only partially covers ownership of the seabed and its non-living resources, should be changed to "Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which covers the use not only of non-living but also of living resources and is now accepted as the basis by all states." The agreement signed between Türkiye and Libya is in fact an EEZ agreement; this is clearly written in the signed Memorandum of Understanding on Maritime Jurisdiction Areas. That is why I believe the expression used here should also be corrected to EEZ. While all the states around us speak of EEZ rights, it is considered inappropriate for our national interests that we still insist on the term continental shelf. I feel it necessary to emphasize this point once again.

Sending Only Military Vessels to the Region Does Not Show That It Is Our Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ); A Seismic Research or Drilling Vessel Must Be Sent.

In addition, it is clear that the agreement concluded in this area usurps Türkiye's legal rights. Sending military vessels to the region to show that the EEZ belongs to us is not a meaningful solution, because outside other countries' territorial waters, military vessels can freely conduct training anywhere under the principle of free use of the seas for passage, training and similar purposes. In other words, keeping military vessels or holding exercises in that region does not show that the region belongs to you. There are already vessels from all over the world in the Eastern Mediterranean. So there is no point in announcing a NAVTEX for military vessels' training, live-fire exercises and the like.

Showing that this region belongs to us in terms of EEZ and continental shelf rights is only possible through the exploration, extraction and use of its resources. In this context, a seismic research or drilling vessel must urgently be sent to the region to show that these areas are within our exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and to stand up for our rights.

An EEZ Should Be Declared as Soon as Possible

Furthermore, and most importantly, we are left with only one option for a proactive strategy: declaring an EEZ. This is because Greece's next step will be to sign an EEZ agreement with the Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus. News of this has already begun to spread in the Greek and Greek Cypriot press. Therefore, without losing any time, an EEZ should urgently be declared in the Eastern Mediterranean, as if agreements had also been made with Israel and Lebanon.

There are two separate or complementary methods for determining an EEZ: "declaration" and "agreement". To declare an EEZ, under Article 75 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the coastal state must publish a map showing the declared EEZ or duly publish lists of geographical coordinates and deposit a copy with the UN Secretary-General. The 1982 UNCLOS grants the coastal state the right to declare an exclusive economic zone in and beyond its territorial waters.

On the other hand, Article 74 of the 1982 UNCLOS is literally understood to mean that, in order to achieve an equitable solution, EEZ delimitation between states with adjacent or opposite coasts would preferably be effected by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice.

In summary, the Convention and international judicial decisions refer to "an agreement to be reached among all the parties concerned" for an equitable solution. However, there is also no provision stating that an EEZ cannot be declared unilaterally.

In the Eastern Mediterranean, it is seen that states have chosen to declare their EEZs unilaterally and conclude bilateral agreements rather than reach agreements with all coastal states. In this context, the Greek Cypriot Administration, Libya, Syria, Lebanon and Israel have declared EEZs and concluded bilateral agreements. The Greek Cypriot Administration first signed an EEZ agreement with Egypt alone in 2003, then unilaterally declared an EEZ in 2004 and backdated its effective date to 2003. The EEZ map submitted by the Greek Cypriot Administration to the UN in 2004 is shown below.

Concern About the Outbreak of Conflict

Retreating out of fear that a conflict might break out is not in our nature. If tomorrow a state were to lay claim to one of our provinces, would we shy away from conflict and negotiate? Countless proofs already show that the Turkish Nation does not shy away from such situations and that the State of the Republic of Türkiye has never negotiated and never will.

In fact, it is hardly conceivable that Greece would risk a conflict with us, because it has so many soft spots... Where those soft spots are can be seen very clearly by looking at the map. I would particularly like to draw attention to the islands that were ceded to Greece on condition of demilitarized status but which Greece itself has militarized and armed, thereby removing the condition of cession, and to their positions right next to our Anatolian coasts.

Conclusion

In short, the Turkish Nation and State are aware of their rights and interests arising from international law.

As we have repeatedly stated, countless proofs already show that the Turkish Nation does not shy away from waging every kind of struggle, whatever the cost, to protect its rights and interests, and that the State of the Republic of Türkiye has never negotiated and never will. The recent statements by the highest authorities of our state are also in this direction.

All the power and might of the State of the Republic of Türkiye remain intact. Türkiye has not an inch of homeland soil nor a drop of homeland water to give away!

It is considered beneficial and necessary for the rights and interests of our country that the above points be taken into consideration.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Cihat Yaycı

Chair of BAU DEGS