Aegean SEA Continental Shelf CASE PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Aegean SEA Continental Shelf CASE PDF

Description

AEGEAN SEA CONTINENTAL SHELF CASE GREECE V. TURKEY DECEMBER 19, 1978

Important to note: Brussels Communique was considered a treaty. While ICJ did not have jurisdiction, the court did not rule out the binding effect of the communique because it showed that the Prime Ministers intended to be bound by their agreements. Ending: court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the government of Greece. Background: The bilateral Turco-Greek relationship in the Aegean must be based on the following principles: The Aegean is a common sea between Turkey and Greece. The freedoms of the high seas and the air space above it, which at present both coastal States as well as third countries enjoy, should not be impaired. Any acquisition of new maritime areas should be based on mutual consent and should be fair and equitable. The fundamental source of tension between Turkey and Greece is the Greek perception to regard the entire Aegean as a Greek sea in total disregard of Turkey's rights and interests as one of the coastal states. The threat of extending Greek territorial waters beyond their present width of 6 miles ( Greece extended her territorial waters from 3 miles to 6 miles in 1936, Turkey followed suit in 1964), the remilitarization of the Eastern Aegean Islands placed under demilitarized status by virtue of the very agreements ceding them to Greece, a 10 mile "national air space" over territorial waters of 6, abuse of the FIR service responsibility as if it confers sovereignty (request of flight plans from state aircraft and allegations of "violations of" Athens FIR) can be counted among the issues which are the real underlying causes of the Turco-Greek conflict in the Aegean. Facts: On August 10, 1976, Registry of the Court, Greece instituted proceedings against Turkey in respect of a dispute concerning the delimitation of the continental shelf relating to each of the two states in the Aegean Sea and their rights thereover. The case was against the Turkish Government where after granting licenses to carry out petroleum exploration in submarine areas of the Aegean sea, it included areas which encroached upon the continental shelf in which according to Greece Government, appertained to certain Greek islands. Greece relied on these contentions for jurisdiction:

a.) Brussels Joint Communique Turkey stands ready to engage in a dialogue with Greece with a view to finding an equitable settlement of the issue that will be to the best interest of the two countries. The issue of the Continental Shelf has in the past led to tensions between Turkey and Greece. On August 10, 1976, Greece addressed a communication to the President of the Security Council requesting an urgent meeting of the Council on the ground that "following recent repeated flagrant

violations by Turkey of the sovereign rights of Greece in the continental shelf in the Aegean, a dangerous situation has been created threatening international peace and security." On the same day, by unilateral application, Greece instituted proceedings in the ICJ against Turkey in "a dispute concerning the delimitation of the continental shelf appertaining to Greece and Turkey in the Aegean Sea, and concerning the respective legal rights of those States to explore and exploit the CS of the Aegean." Also on the same day Greece filed a request for interim measures of protection. On August 25, 1976 Security Council, in its resolution 395(1976), called upon the parties "to resume direct negotiations over their differences" and appealed them "to do everything within their power to ensure that these (negotiations) result in mutually acceptable solutions." The Council, furthermore "invited Turkey and Greece in this respect to continue to take into account the contribution that appropriate judicial means, in particular the ICJ, are qualified to make to the settlement of any remaining legal differences which they may identify in connection with their present dispute."

Under the terms of this Agreement, the two governments have, inter alia, assumed the obligation to refrain from any initiative or act concerning the Aegean continental shelf. This specific obligation was observed by both countries over several years and thus it was possible to avert the dispute concerning the Aegean continental shelf from escalating into tensions and confrontations. 1976 Bern Agreement is still valid and its terms continue to be binding for both countries. Furthermore, the International Court of Justice, in a decision taken in 1982, stated that "delimitation is to be effected by agreement in accordance with equitable principles and taking into account all relevant circumstances." However Greece, who terminated the negotiating process with Turkey in 1981, started seismic and related activities and planned drilling operations in the disputed areas of the Aegean continental shelf in 1981.These activities which were open violations of the Bern Agreement have formed the main cause of the March 1987 crisis between Turkey and Greece. This crisis over drilling beyond territorial waters, was in fact the culmination of unilateral actions perpetrated by Greece as regards the Aegean. The crisis was averted and the "Davos Process", leading to meetings between Foreign Ministers and Prime Ministers was initiated. The process however yielded no tangible results on the major issues, due mainly to Greek insistence that the Agenda of the negotiations could contain no reference to the Aegean issues.

While the case was pending before the Court, the 2 governments resumed negotiations in accordance with the Security Council resolution. Their Minister of Foreign Affairs met in New York on October 1, 1976 and agreed that the question of the delimitation of the Aegean continental shelf should be the subject of negotiations between the 2 governments with the aim of reaching a mutually acceptable settlement. After, there was a meeting in Berne between representatives of the 2 governments from November 2-11, 1976 which outlined the procedure for future negotiations.

The subsequent meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the two states in brussels ended in a joint communique published on December 11, 1976 which expressed satisfaction with the previous meeting in Berne.

b.) General Act of 1928 Greece relied on Article 17 of the GA of 1928 for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. Which reads: “ All disputes with regard to which the parties are in conflict as to their respective rights shall, subject to any reservations which may be made under Article 39, be submitted for decision to the Permanent Court of International Justice, unless the parties agree, in the manner hereinafter provided, to have resort to an arbitral tribunal. It is understood that the disputes referred to above include in particular those mentioned in Article 36 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice.” This article provided reference for disputes, however since PCIJ was the predecessor of the present court, it is to be understood that the effect o Article 37 of its own statute is substituted for it in any treaty or convention in force which provides for reference of a matter to the permanent court. If GA is to be considered a convention in force, it is sufficient to establish jurisdiction.

However, Turkey contended that the act was no longer in force because as of 1931, Greece subjected itself to a reservation (b) which excluded itself from particular disputes relating to the territorial status of Greece. This invocation of Turkey, in the court’s view, must be considered as constituting an “enforcement” of the reservation within the meaning of Article 39, par 3, to wit: “if one of the parties to a dispute has made a reservation, the other parties may enforce the same reservation in regard to that party.” Greece responded saying their reservation was based on the notion that the idea of a continental shelf was unknown during 1931. However, The court therefore finds that the reservation must be interpreted in accordance with the rules of international law as they exist today and not as they existed in 1931. Greece then went on saying that that their reservation should not be understood as comprising of disputes relating to geographical extent of Greece’s right over continental shelfs in the Aegean Sea. However, court is of the opinion that the dispute which relates to the territorial status of Greece within the meaning of reservation (b) and that turkey’s invocation of the reservation had the effect of excluding the dispute from the application of Article 17 of the General Act. The General Act is therefore not a valid basis for the court’s jurisdiction....