What can we expect from The Hague?
The three parties to the right of New Democracy are negative about the possibility of Greece appealing to the International Court of Justice in The Hague to resolve its differences with Turkey. This became clear during the discussion of the government’s goals for the new four-year term in Parliament last week. This is a perception of things outside of international reality, similar to what we heard from the former government coalition of SYRIZA-ANEL regarding Greece’s negotiation of our debt in 2015. This does not mean that appealing to the International Court of Justice is simple and easy.
A key issue concerns what we accept to be referred to the court. Turkey has invented (literally) a multitude of issues. It disputes zones with administrative responsibilities (FIR and search-rescue zones) and the right to apply rules of international law (increasing Greek territorial waters to 12 nautical miles) even under threat of war. It raises the issue of demilitarization of the eastern Aegean islands and the difference in range between territorial waters and national airspace. It continues with maritime zones of exercising sovereign rights (continental shelf and exclusive economic zone) and ends up directly challenging Greece’s sovereignty of an unknown number of Greek islands.
It’s one thing to argue with your neighbor about the boundaries of your plots, and another to have a serious discussion with him about whether you own the couch, the TV and the refrigerator inside your house. These are obviously yours and you have no obligation to bring proof of purchase. For this reason, in a statement from January 2015, Greece has expressly excluded from the jurisdiction of the court any dispute related to:
a) Military activities and measures taken by the Hellenic Republic for the protection of its sovereignty and territorial integrity, for national defense purposes, as well as for the protection of its national security;
b) State boundaries or sovereignty over the territory of the Hellenic Republic, including any dispute over the breadth and limits of its territorial sea and its airspace.
Therefore, we neither accept discussing the demilitarization, nor the territorial seas and airspace, or our territorial sovereignty over our islands at the International Court. For this reason, the prime minister has repeated many times that our only dispute that can be brought to the court is the delimitation of the continental shelf and the exclusive economy zone (EEZ) in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. But there is another problem here.
If the Turks persist in challenging Greek sovereignty over the islands we are not going to reach an agreement to appeal to the International Court of Justice
After 1975, Greece stated in every direction that we should appeal to the International Court of Justice for the delimitation of the Aegean continental shelf. The Greek proposal was viewed in a particularly positive way by the international community. To sideline it, Turkey made a strategic move. It contested Greek sovereignty over small islands in the eastern Aegean that were liberated by the Greek fleet during the Balkan wars. All maritime zone delimitations are based on the coastlines of continental and island territories. If the delimitation of the continental shelf/EEZ is taken to the International Court of Justice, then Turkey will first ask to clarify who owns each island, because otherwise it is impossible to draw the maritime zones. The delimitation of the continental shelf/EEZ will follow as a second issue.
We used to believe that Turkey’s challenging of our sovereignty over the islands – through extreme and glaringly wrong interpretations of international law – was a negotiating tactic by Ankara that it would withdraw once we got to the heart of the matter. To date, no such thing has happened. Therefore, if the Turks persist in challenging Greek sovereignty, we are not going to reach an agreement to appeal to The Hague.
Another issue is which law will be applied by the International Court of Justice. Greece is bound by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982). Turkey has refused to sign the relevant text. In this case, the court will apply the customary international law that binds both countries. This does not create particular problems for Greece. On the one hand, the rules of customary international law assign a continental shelf and EEZ to both continental and island territory, contrary to what Turkey claims. On the other hand, most of the rules of customary international law are included in the UN’s 1982 Convention.
For a century now, states have chosen to resort to international justice instead of resolving their disputes through wars. What will result from the delimitation of our continental shelf and EEZ based on a decision of international justice? We will finally be able to exercise our sovereign rights beyond our territorial waters. Until today, in the areas where there is a dispute with Turkey, we are only nominally in charge of the maritime zones. After the court’s decision, we will be in practice.
Angelos Syrigos is a New Democracy MP and associate professor of international law and foreign policy at Panteion University in Athens.
