Foundations of Turkish Claims in the Eastern Mediterranean

Cover Page

Abstract


The Eastern Mediterranean is becoming a new region of interstate confrontation and clash of national interests. This is largely due to the discovery of oil and gas reserves, the development of which is becoming possible with the existing technology. The Republic of Turkey has a special position regarding this maritime region. The paper analyzes those bases - historical, political and legal - that determine Turkey’s current policy with regard to maritime delimitation and the settlement of maritime disputes in the Eastern Mediterranean. Particularly, it is shown that Turkey’s policy in the region continues to be based on the approaches that were announced by Turkey during the I-III UN Conferences on the Law of the Sea (1958, 1960, 1973-1982 respectively), which have remained unchanged up to now. This position, as regards both the outer limits of the territorial sea, the legal regime of islands and the delimitation of the continental shelf, continues to define the essence of the controversy between Turkey and other countries of the region, including Greece and the Republic of Cyprus. At the same time, it is shown that there is a set of circumstances that significantly limit the prospects of solving these interstate contradictions within the framework of international judicial instances, including the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The conclusion is made that, for both Turkey and Greece, the most acceptable option would be to work out a “model” of settlement, which would not imply the obligation of its immediate implementation. Particular attention is paid to the ideological and practical framing of Turkish claims within the framework of the “Blue Homeland” doctrine, developed by a number of retired Turkish officers. It shows how Ankara uses the ideas of pan-Turkism and neo-Ottomanism to justify its claims to vast maritime spaces. The distinctive feature of this doctrine most likely is its anti-American, anti-NATO and anti-European orientation. There is a paradoxical situation when certain ideas enshrined in this concept directly correlate with the interests of the Russian Federation.


Full Text

Fig. 1. Turkey’s maritime claims under “Mavi Vatan” doctrine
Source: Mavi Vatan. URL: https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mavi_Vatan (accessed: 15.03.2021).

Fig. 2. The delimitation line between Turkey and Libya under 2019 Memorandum
Source: Full text of Turkey-Libya maritime agreement revealed. URL: https://nordicmonitor.com/2019/12/the-full-text-of-turkey-libya-maritime-agreement-revealed/ (accessed: 15.03.2021).

 

Fig. 3. Turkey’s outer limits of the continental shelf presented to the UN
Source: Letter dated 24 April 2020 from the Permanent Representative of Cyprus to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General. URL: https://undocs.org/en/a/74/824 (accessed: 10.02.2021).

About the authors

Pavel Andreevich Gudev

Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences

Author for correspondence.
Email: gudev@imemo.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2951-6313
Moscow, Russian Federation

PhD in History, Leading Research Fellow

References

  1. Abgarjan, D. R. (2015). Practice of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Moscow: Justicinformpubl. (In Russian).
  2. Vylegzhanin, A. N., & Kalamkaryan, R. A. (2012). International custom as the main source of international law. State and Law, (6), 78-89. (In Russian).
  3. Karaman, I. V. (2007). International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: Regulations and justice. Odessa: Feniks publ. (In Russian).
  4. Labut, D. A. (2008). The concept of “natural continuation of the state’s land territory” in the documents of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. International Law, (2), 27-46. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.25136/2306-9899.2018.2.26992
  5. Tihomin, K. V. (2008). The role of island territories in the delimitation of sea spaces. Moscow Journal of International Law, (3), 151-171. (In Russian).
  6. Başlar, K. (2001). Two Facets of the Aegean Sea Dispute: ‘de lege lata’ and ‘de lege ferenda’. In K. Başlar (Ed.), Turkey and international law (pp. 153-213.). Ankara: Özen Publ. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20060822022924/http://www.turkishweekly.net/pdf/aegean_sea.pdf
  7. Çubukçuoğlu, S. S. (2014). Turkey’s EEZ in the Mediterranean Sea: The case of Kastellorizo [master’s thesis]. Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/9532225/Turkeys_EEZ_in_the_Mediterranean_Sea_The_Case_of_Kastellorizo
  8. Georgiades, E. A. (2011). The Imia Islets: A beginning to the maritime delimitation of the Aegean Sea dispute. Ocean and Coastal Law Journal, 17(1), 103-126. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.mainelaw. maine.edu/oclj/vol17/iss1/5
  9. Gürdeniz, C. (2019). Mavi Vatan Yazilari. Istanbul: Kirmizi Kedi Yayinevi
  10. Gürdeniz, C. (2020). Mavi Vatan’in Güney Cephesi: Dogu Akdeniz. Ankara: Pankus Yayinlari
  11. Inan, Y., & Gozen, M. P. (2009). Turkey’s maritime boundary relations. In M. Kibaroğlu (Ed.), Eastern Mediterranean. Countries and issues (pp. 153-213). Ankara: Foreign Policy Institute
  12. Kaysi, D. A. (2013). The law and geopolitics of maritime delimitation in the Eastern Mediterranean [master’s thesis]. Yale Law School. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/28172239/The_Law_and_Geopolitics_of_Maritime_Delimitation_in_the_Eastern_Mediterranean
  13. Politakis, P. G. (1995). The Aegean agenda: Greek national interests and the new law of the Sea Convention. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 4(4), 497-527. https://doi.org/10.1163/157180895X00259
  14. Potka, F. (2006). Geopolitics and the overlapping EEZ claims in Eastern Mediterranean: a Liberal Institutionalism approach for the resolution between Cyprus and Turkey [master’s thesis]. Flensburg: Europa-Universität Flensburg & University of Southern Denmark. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/29570077/ Geopolitics_and_the_overlapping_EEZ_claims_in_Eastern_Mediterranean_a_Liberal_Institutionalism_approach_for_the_resolution_between_Cyprus_and_Turkey
  15. Siousiouras, P., & Chrysochou, G. (2014). The aegean dispute in the context of contemporary judicial decisions on maritime delimitation. Laws, 3(1), 12-49. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws3010012
  16. Van Dyke, J. M. (1989). The role of islands in delimiting maritime zones: The case of the Aegean Sea. Ocean Yearbook Online, 8(1), 44-69. https://doi.org/10.1163/221160089X00047
  17. Van Dyke, J. M. (2005). An analysis of the Aegean disputes under international law. Ocean Development & International Law, 36(1), 63-117. https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320590909088
  18. Wilson, A. (1979). The Aegean dispute: Introduction. The Adelphi Papers, 19(155), 1-1. https://doi.org/10.1080/05679327908457350
  19. Yaycı, C. (2019). Libya Türkiye’nin Denizden Komsusudur - Dogu Akdeniz’de Deniz Alanlarinin Sinirlandirilmasinda Libya’nin Rolü. Istanbul: ASAM Yayinlari.
  20. Yaycı, C. (2020). Libya Türkiye’nin Denizden Komsusudur. Istanbul: Kirmizi kedi Yayinevi.
  21. Yiallourides, С. (2019). Maritime disputes and international law: Disputed waters and seabed resources in Asia and Europe. London: Routledge.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files Action
1.
Fig. 1. Turkey’s maritime claims under “Mavi Vatan” doctrine

View (134KB) Indexing metadata
2.
Fig. 2. The delimitation line between Turkey and Libya under 2019 Memorandum

View (460KB) Indexing metadata
3.
Fig. 3. Turkey’s outer limits of the continental shelf presented to the UN

View (545KB) Indexing metadata

Statistics

Views

Abstract - 253

PDF (Russian) - 88

Cited-By


PlumX

Dimensions


Copyright (c) 2021 Gudev P.A.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies