Eastern mediterranen sea-disputes on eez Student: CIUCANU Alexandra Asst.Prof.Dr:Eyyub KANDEMİR

Legal context- UNCLOS The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, also called the Law of the Sea Treaty) is an international treaty that was concluded at the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III, 1973-1982)

UNCLOS establishes a comprehensive legal regime regulating all uses of the world’s seas and oceans and their resources and includes a binding procedure for settlement of disputes between participating states. It divides marine space that is within the limits of national jurisdiction into several zones: -the territorial sea (up to 12 nautical miles from the baselines); -the contiguous zone (up to an additional 12 nautical miles); -the EEZ (up to 200 nautical miles), and the continental shelf (up to 200 nautical miles or 350 in certain circumstances)

The EEZ region Articles 55-75 (Part V) of UNCLOS concern the EEZ. In order to establish an EEZ, a state needs to make a proclamation. Within its proclaimed EEZ, a coastal state has sovereign rights to explore and exploit, conserve and manage all natural resources (living and non-living) of the waters above the seabed and of the seabed and subsoil (Article 56). Rights pertaining to the seabed and subsoil are exercised in accordance with the Convention’s continental shelf provisions (Article 56) (see also footnote 52 below). The coastal state also has jurisdiction over artificial islands and installations, marine scientific research, and the protection and preservation of the marine environment (Article 56). The EEZ of a coastal state stretches from the externallimit of the territorial sea out to a limit not exceeding 200 NM, measured from the baselines (Article 57).

The RoC maritime zones and boundaries The RoC declared a territorial sea of 12 NM through the Territorial Sea Law passed in 1964 According to a Continental Shelf Law passed in 1974,the RoC also has a continental shelf The RoC Continental Shelf Law stipulates that, in relation to any state whose coasts lie opposite those of the Republic, the outer boundary of the continental shelf will not extend beyond the median line, unless otherwise agreed between the Republic and that state.

The RoC delimited its EEZ in the south-western, southern and south-eastern directions through separate bilateral agreements, respectively, with Egypt, Lebanon and Israel

The RoC’s agreement with Egypt was signed on 17 February 2003 and entered into force on 7 March 2004.62 The RoC and Egypt also concluded in May 2006 a ‘Framework Agreement concerning the development of cross-median line resources’. Agreements with Lebanon and Israel were signed in January 2007 and December 2010, respectively. The Cyprus-Israel agreement was ratified by both sides and became operative within a few months after signature. In addition, talks are on-going between the RoC and Israeli governments for a ‘gas-sharing agreement’ relating to exploitation of hydrocarbon reserves that straddle the maritime border separating the EEZs of the two countries

Turkey’s maritime zones Turkey is not a party to UNCLOS. It has a territorial sea law, which generally sets the breadth of its territorial sea at 6 NM with a proviso authorizing the Council of Ministers (CoM) ‘to establish the breadth of the territorial sea, in certain seas, up to a limit exceeding six nautical miles, under reservation to take into account all special circumstances and relevant situations therein, and in conformity with the equity principle’. Presently, a 6 NM limit applies to the territorial sea in the Aegean Sea while the limit in the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea is 12 NM as determined in a CoM decree. Turkey has no continental shelf- or EEZ-related legislation. A CoM decree established the Turkish EEZ in the Black Sea at 200 NM but no EEZ proclamation exists for the Mediterranean or the Aegean Seas.

Turkey disputes the boundary agreed between the RoC and Egypt because of its own continental shelf claims in the region extending from Cyprus in the east, to the Greek island of Rhodes (Rodos) in the west. Specifically, as depicted in a map published by the Turkish MFA, Turkey claims as part of its continental shelf the area off the southern Anatolian coast limited in the east by 32° 16’ 18” E longitude, in the west by 28 00’ 00” E longitude and in the south by the equidistance/median line between the coasts of Turkey and Egypt. The basis for Turkey’s claims here, as in the Aegean Sea, is its position that the capacity of an island (in this case, Cyprus) to generate maritime zones should be restricted when the island’s competition for these zones is with a continental coastal state (in this case, Turkey) and hence the equidistance/ median line is not applicable.

Maritime delimitation issues in the eastern Mediterranean As mentioned earlier, an EEZ delimitation agreement has been in place between Egypt and the RoC since 2003. As a result of the Aegean dispute, Greece has to date not delimited its maritime boundaries in the Eastern Mediterranean while Turkey’s only agreement in the region is with the TRNC, made in 2011 to delimit the continental shelf .

Turkey disputes the boundary agreed between the RoC and Egypt because of its own continental shelf claims in the region extending from Cyprus in the east, to the Greek island of Rhodes (Rodos) in the west. Specifically, as depicted in a map published by the Turkish MFA,Turkey claims as part of its continental shelf the area off the southern Anatolian coast limited in the east by 32° 16’ 18” E longitude, in the west by 28 00’ 00” E longitude and in the south by the equidistance/median line between the coasts of Turkey and Egypt. The basis for Turkey’s claims here, as in the Aegean Sea, is its position that the capacity of an island (in this case, Cyprus) to generate maritime zones should be restricted when the island’s competition for these zones is with a continental coastal state (in this case, Turkey) and hence the equidistance/ median line is not applicable

Turkey’s objection to the RoC-Egypt agreement was registered with the UN through an information note submitted in March 2004 (Turkey 2004). In this communication, Turkey stated that it ‘does not recognize the said agreement and reserves all its legal rights related to the delimitation of [continental shelf and EEZ] in the west of the longitude 32° 16’ 18”’. The basis of this objection was said to be ‘legal reasons which arise from the established principles of international law’, namely that maritime delimitation in the Eastern Mediterranean, ‘especially in areas falling beyond the western part of the longitude 32° 16’ 18”, also concerns Turkey’s ipso facto and ab initio legal and sovereign rights’ and that, therefore, delimitation in these areas

If maritime boundaries were drawn in accordance with the positions of the RoC and Greece, they would be as in picture

Potential Turkish continental shelf/EEZ in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea ‘according to the equitable principles’ as proposed by Turkey.

Continental shelf delimitation agreement between Turkey and the TrnC The first step of the Turkish-Turkish Cypriot response to the Greek Cypriot exploratory drilling in Block 12 was a continental shelf delimitation agreement between Turkey and the TRNC,which was co-signed by the Turkish Prime Minister, Erdoğan, and the Turkish Cypriot President, Derviș Eroğlu, on 21 September 2011.The agreement draws in the east-west direction in Cyprus’s north ‘a continental shelf boundary between the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and Turkey.

In the run-up to Noble Energy’s commencement of drilling on behalf of the RoC in the Aphrodite field of Block 12 and for a while afterwards, there was a lot of talk about the Turkish navy ships patrolling the area and concern about what this might lead to. Several Turkish officials publicly stated that Turkish warships would be accompanying the Turkish research vessel Piri Reis as it explored in the Cyprus seas on behalf of the TRNC

Increased activity for exploration of oil and gas in the Eastern Mediterranean by the RoC has induced Turkey to become more assertive as a relevant coastal state in the area. Turkey has been doing this by increasing its presence there not only through patrols and exercises by its navy and air force but also by way of expanding its oil and gas exploration activities in what it regards as its continental shelf in the Eastern Mediterranean.

On 5 September 2012 Turkey submitted a letter to the UN in answer to the RoC’s objection of 15 June 2012 (Turkey 2012). The letter stated that the relevant Council of Minister decrees statement were for renewing licences already issued by the Turkish government in 2007 and 2008. It was maintained that the said licence areas fall entirely within the Turkish continental shelf where Turkey exercises exclusive sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting its natural resources of the seabed and subsoil under international law, both customary and case.

On 30 October 2012, the RoC government announced its decision to grant licences to four bidders for Blocks 2, 3, 9, and 11. Blocks 9 and 11 are adjacent to the already licensed Block 12, Block 9 being adjacent to the latter in the north and Block 11 in the east. All four blocks lie outside the area claimed by Turkey as its continental shelf but Blocks 2, 3 and 9 coincide with the areas which the Turkish Cypriots licensed to TPAO in September 2011. The Turkish and the TRNC MFAs both reacted to this development by issuing separate statements.

SOURCES A)BOOKS-EDIT REFERENCES: Donald K.Anton, Penelope Mathew&Wayne Morgan, “International law-Cases and Materials”,ed.Oxford Unıverity Press, 2005 R.R.Churchill,A.V.Lowe, “The law of the sea”,3rd edition, Manchester Univerity Press, 1824 Major Thomas E. Behuniak (Fall 1978). "The Seizure and Recovery of the S.S. Mayaguez: Legal Analysis of United States Claims, Part 1" (PDF). Military Law Review (Department of the Army). Retrieved 21 July 2014.  Gürel, Ayla; Mullen, Fiona; Tzimitras, Harry (2013). “The Cyprus Hydrocarbons Issue: Context, Positions and Future Scenarios”(PDF). PCC Report (1). Peace Research Institute Oslo

B)ARTICLES Maja Sersic, “Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the seabed and its subsoil” in Budislav Vukas, ed., The legal regime of Enclosed and Semi-enclosed seas: the particular Case of the Mediterranean (Zagreb: 1988) Mirjam Skrk, “Exclusive Economic Zones in Enclosed or Semi- Enclosed Seas” in Budislav Vukas, ed., The legal regime of Enclosed and Semi-enclosed seas: the particular Case of the Mediterranean (Zagreb: 1988) Vid Vudasovic, “Barcelona Convention as an important component of the Mediterranean Action Plan” in Budislav Vukas, ed., The legal regime of Enclosed and Semi-enclosed seas: the particular Case of the Mediterranean (Zagreb: 1988) Bayram Öztürk and Sertaç Hami Başeren, “J. Black Sea/Mediterranean (2008) “ The exclusive economic zone debates in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and fisheries Budisalv Vukas, “The Mediterranean: an Enclosed or Semi-enclosed sea?” in Budislav Vukas, ed., The legal regime of Enclosed and Semi-enclosed seas: the particular Case of the Mediterranean (Zagreb: 1988) Mazen Adi,”The application of the law of the sea and the convention on the Mediterranean Sea” , Divison for ocean affaırs and the Law of the sea office of legal affairs, The United Nations, New York, 2009

C)WEB LIBRARY http://www.fao.org www.un.org www.eoearth.org www.wikipedia.org

THANK YOU