INTERNATICOUROFJUSTICE
PLEADINORAARGUMENTS,DOCUMENTS
AEGEAN SEA
CONTINENTAL SHELFCASE
COUR INTERNATDEJUSTICE
MEMOIRES,PLAIDETDOCUMENTS
AFFAIRE
DU PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
DE LAMER ÉGÉE The present volume contains the record filedin the AegeunSea Conlinenla1
Shrlfcase.
This case, entered on the Court's General List on 10 August 1976 under
nurnber 62, was the subject of an Order on Interim Measures of Protection
(AegeartSea Con~inen~aS lhelJ:Interim Protec~iotz.OrderoJII September
1976,i.C.J. Reports 1976,p. 3)and of a Judgment delivered on 19 Decernber
1978ClegeatzSeo Conlinenla/SlieiJ Judgfnent.1.C.J.Reports 1978, p. 3).
The Application, Request for lnterim Measures of Protection and Obser-
vations thereon. Memorial and Oral Arguments appear in this volume in
chronological order.
The page references originally appearing in the statements have been
altered to correspond with the pagination of the present edition.
The Hague, 1980.
Lepresent volume reproduit le dossier de l'affaire du PIarealrconritzenfalde
la mer Egee.
Cette affaire, inscrite au rôle généralsous le numé62 fe 10aoiit1976, a
fait l'objet d'une ordonnance portant indication de mesures conservatoires
(Plofeau coririrzentalde lu ttrer Egee. rnesirresconservafoires, ordontiance
du II.septenibre1976.C.I.J.Recueil1976,p. 3)et d'unarrêtrendu le19 décem-
bre 1978 IPIatearrcontinentalde la nrerEgée,arret. C.IJ. Recueil 1978p.3).
La requête,la demande en indication de mesures conservatoires et les
observations y relatives. le mémoire etles plaidoiries sont reproduits dans le
présent volumesuivant leur ordre chronologique.
Les renvois d'un expose à l'autre ont étémodifiéspour tenir compte de la
pagination de la présenteédition.
La Haye, 1980. CONTENTS - TABLE DESMATIERES
Page
Application Instituting Proceedings Submitted by the Government of
Greece
The subject of the dispute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Thelaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Anilexes flothe Application
Aiirirx 1.Decisions of the Turkish Governrnent granting perrnits for
the exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf of the
Aegean, published in the OJficial Gozefte of the Turkish
Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ant~ex II. Official correspondence exchanged between Creece and
Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AtirrcrIll . . , , . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AniiwlV . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Anfiex V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Anfiex VI. Statement of the Greek delegation at the meeting of
experts of the Governments of Greece and Turkey in Berne on
19and 20 June 1976. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .
Anrlex VI1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Annex VI11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ai!ric.IX. ~kg~ernentpacifique des différendsinternationaux. Acte
général,Genève,le 26 septembre 1928(Grèce) . . . . . . . .
AririrxX. Règlement pacifique des différendsinternationaux. Acte
généralG , enève,le 26 septembre 1928 (Turquie). . . . . . . .
Request for the Indication of Interim Measures of Protection Sub-
mitted by the Government ofGreece
Caseto which this request relates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Rights to be protected . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Grounds of the request. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 63
The extreme urgency of the request . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 65
1nterirn measures proposed . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 66
Observations of the Government of Turkey on the Request by the
Government ofGreece for Provisional Measures of Protection . . . 69
Oral Arguments onthe Request for the Indication of Interim Measures
of Protection
OPEN~N OGTHE ORAL PROCEEUING S. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 80
DECLARATI OEM. KARANDKE (AS~cE). . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
PLA[DOIR IE M. E~ISTATHIAD (ESR~cE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 S AECEAN SEA CONTINENTAL SHELF
ARGUSIEN OF PROFESSO O'CONSELLIGREEC ..)........
The areas of the Aegean under dispute ;nature of claim ......
OutIineof main events ...................
Central principle:the allocationsof the seabed .........
Refutation ofTurkish contentions :
The Greek islands as mere "protruberances" of the Turkish
continental shelf ...................
Misapplication of the concept of "natural prolongation" of land
mass ........................
Entitlernent ofGreek islands to continental she.........
Importance to the conception of the continental shelf of the exercise
of politicalauthority...................
Legal requirements for indication of interirn measures : general
considerations ..................... 99
Article41 of the Court'sStatute ............... 101
Article 33 of the General Act for the Pacific Settlement of Inter-
national Disputes .................... 101
Greece'srelianceon Article 33 as presumptively in force...... 103
Conditions for indicating interim measures:review of previous cases 104
Matters in which Greece'srights could be prejudiced ....... 107
Allegeddistinction between exploration and scientificresearch ... 108
Technical aspects of seismicexploration ............ 1IO
Jurisdiction of the Court.................. 110
The Joint Communiquéof 31 May 1975 ........... Itl
The 1928 General Act .................. 112
Article 37 of the Statute ................. 114
Wider implications of the case................ 115
Summing-up and conclusion ................ 115
1 Qumio~ BYJUDGE RUDA................... 118
PLAIDOIR IE M.PISTO (GRCC E)............... 119
Rôlede laCour dans le maintien de lapaix ........... 120
Menaces au maintien du srallrqrio dans la région ........ 120
Portée de l'accord intervenu entre les premiers ministres le 31 mai
1975 .........................
Jurisprudence arbitrale..................
Correspondance diplomatique ...............
Jurisprudence de laCour .................
Mesures conservatoires demandées ..... ; ........
Origineet portéedes droits a protéger............
Acte finalde la conference d'Helsinkide 1975.........
Menaces a l'exercicepaisibledescompétences de police .....
Menaces au maintien de la paix etde la sécurité........
Essaistzirclr'aire....................
D~LARATIO DE M .KARANDRE (GASECF.). ............
Conclusions finales ....................
Réponse a la question delaCour ............... CONTENTS
Page
138
ARGUMEN OFTPROFE S COR NNEL(LREECE.) . . . . . . . . .'. 139
Replyto question put byJudgeRuda . . . . . . . . .. . . . 139
Areaswhich Greece would seem to have coveredby theOrder of the
Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Communication du ministère des affairesétrangères deTurquie en
datedu25août 1976 . . . . . . . .-.. . . . . . . . .
Cette communication n'affectepas la position de laGrèce . . ...
Documentssubmitted tothe Court after the filing of the Requestfor
theIndicationof InterimMeasures ofProtection
Extracts from the GreekOflci alazettesof 1936and 1973concerning
the territorial sea. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .
Compulsory Law No. 230 of 17 Septernber/ 13 October 1936
concerning the establishmentof the territorial seaof Greece . . .
Legislative Decree No. 187 of 29 September/3 .October 1973
promulgating the"Codeof PublicMaritirneLaw" . . . . . . .
Compte rendu desrencontres d'expertsde1aGrèceet de laTurquie pour
le plateau continental (Ber31,janvier-2 février1976 et 19-20juin
19761,rédigépar legroupe d'expertsgrec . . . . . . . . . . . .
Berne I(31janvier-2 février1976). . . .. . . . . . .. . .
Berne11(19-20juin 1976). . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .
Annex 1. Statement on Turkish positions by Ambassador Bilge,
Berne,3 1January 1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Annex II. Section of geologicaldata of Turkish position during
Berne meeting as dictated by Professor Arp2tFebruary 1976
Annexill. Informa1draft on the equidistance line . . . . . .
Extracts from the log books of thGigas,the Nautilus, the PezopouIos
and the Leun, and report of the Greek Naval Chief of Staff of the
movernents of theMTA -Sismik1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Articles intwo Turkish newspapers published o1June 1975 . . . .
Announcement No. 108, issued by the Department of Navigation . .
Hydrography of the Turkish Navy, broadcast on 18 August 1976,
concerning the new area ofresearch ofSismikI from 18-25August
1976. . '.. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . .
MémoiredetaGr&ce (questionde lacompétence)
Introduction .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
A. Rappeldes faitset dela procédure. . . . . .. . . . . .. 191
B. L'existenced'un différend. . . . . . . .. . : . . . .. 192SI1 AEGEAN SEA CONTINEhTAL SHELF
Page
Premièrepartie. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . 199
Remarques préliminaires . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . 199
1.II existe un lien de compétenceobligatoire entre la Grèce et la
Turquie au titre de I'Actegénéralpour le règlementpacifique des
difirends internationaux . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .
A. La compétence de la Cour en vertu de l'Actegénéral :- La
Grèceet laTurquie sont partiea I'Actegénéral . . . . . .
B. L'Acte général est un <<traité en vigueur >> conférant
juridictioa la Cour internationale de Justice conformément
aux articles 36, paragraphe 1,et 37 du Statut de la Co. .
1. L'article 17de l'Actegénéral. . . . . .. . . . . .
2. L'article37 du Statut de la Co.r . . . . . . . . . .
II. L'Acte généraelst en vigueur.. . . . . . . . .. . . . .
A. Le droit et la pratique attestent que I'Acte généralest en
vigueur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. La pratique du Secrétairegénéral des ations Unies . . .
2. Jurisprudence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. La pratique des Etats. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .
1) L'accord de règlement franco-thaïlandais du 17 no-
vembre 1946 . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2) LaConvention européenne pour le règlementpacifique
des différendsinternationaux . . . . . . . . . .
3) eniprirrirsiton~egie. .ér.l.an. . . .. . . .Cerfa. .s
4) L'affairedu Ternple.dPrénlt Viliéa. . . . . . . .
5) L'Acte général a continué d'êtrementionné dans les
compilations et listes de traités . . . . . . . .. .
6) Les opinions de la doctrine confirment le maintien en
vigueur de l'Actegénéral . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Aucun événementn'amis fin a l'Actegénéral. . . . . . .
1. L'Actegénéraln'a pas cesséd'êtreen vigueur en raison de
2. L'Acte général n'est pas devenucaduc en raison de sa. .
non-application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. L'Acte génerarreviséle 28 avril 1949 n'a pas affectéle
maintien en vigueur de l'Actegénéral. . . . . . . . .
4. Pratique des partieaI'Actegenéral postérieurea1973 . .
5. Le caractère indépendant de l'Acte généralest confirmé
par la comparaison des réserves dans les adhésions a
l'Acte général avec les réserves formulées dans les
déclarations de l'article 36 du Statut de la Cour'
permanente deJustice internationale . . . . . . . . .
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III.La réservegrecque n'affectepas la compétencede laCour . . .
A. Le différend ne porte pas sur des questions que le droit
international laisselacompétenceexclusive des Etats . . .
B. Ledifférend n'apas trait au statut territde laGrèce. . . CONTENTS
Page
Deuxième partie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 260
1. Rappel des faits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
A. Leséchanges de vueet négociations précédanlta décisiondu
31 mai 1975. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .
B. Négociations postérieuresa la décisiondu 31mai 1975 . . .
II. Réfutation desthèses duGouvernement turc . . . . . . . .
A. Un communiquéconjoint peut constituer un accord en droit
international . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .
1.Caractèreobligatoire des déclarations unilatéralesen droit
international . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Existence d'un accordverbal ayant forcede droit . . . .
B. soumettre leur différendala Cour internationalede Justiced.
1. Les négociationssur la rédaction d'un compromis et le
règlement du différend ne modifient pas l'obligation
assumée . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. L'absence de compromis ne rend pas caduque cette
obligation . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
III. Ledroit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. L'accordintervenu est plus qu'un engagement de négocier :il
attribue directement compétence a laCour . . . . . . . .
3. L'accord intervenu oblige les partiesaconclure tout accord
d'application nécessairea l'exécutionde l'obligatio. . . .
C. Le refus de conclure un accord d'application par l'une des
parties (en admettant qu'un tel accord soit nécessaire)permet
à l'autre partiede saisir unilatéralementla Cour . . . . .
D. Un accord d'application n'est pas au surplus nécessaire :le
communique conjoint ouvre aux parties lavoie de la requéte
comme celledu compromis. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E. En admettant même qu'un accord complémentaire soit
juridiquement nécessairepour saisir la Cour, les deux parties
telaccord . .io.d. n.g.ci. . .. . . . . . .. conclu. .n . .n
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Annexesau mémoire
Annexe 1. 1) Note grecque du 3septembre 1976. 2) Note turque du
28 mars 1977 . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .
Annexe 1bis. 1) Communiquépubliéà Berne le 11 novembre 1976.
2) Procès-verbalsur la procédurea suivre pour la délimitation du
plateau continentalentre larèceet laTurquie . . . . . . . .
AnnexeIl. Listedetraitésde conciliation. . . . . . . . . . . .
AnncxeIII. Travaux préparatoiresdel'Actegénéral . . . . . . .
Annexe IV. 1) RésolutionAl24 (1)de l'Assembléegénérale del'ONU
l'Assembléede la SociétédesNationssol. . . d. . . .ril.1. . . .
Annexe V. Accession de nouveaux Etats aux traités conclussous les
auspices de la Sociétdes Nations. . . . . . . . . . . . . .XIV AEGEAN SEA CONTINENTAL SHELF
Oral Arguments onJurisdiction
OPENIN OCTHE ORAL PROCEEDING S..............
QUESTIO BYTHE COURT .....................
DECLARATI DE M .KONSTAI.TOPOU (GLOESCE...........
PLAIWIRI EEM.EVRICEN ISRÈCE ..............
Historique du différendsoumis àla Cour ............
1960-1973 .......................
Fin 1973-31mai 1975 ..................
QUESTION DSM .GROS ET SIHUMPHRW EALWCK ETDE M.DILLARD . .
PLAIDOIR DEM.EVRIGENfIsS uite................
31 mai 1975-été1976 ..................
Eté 1976-9octobre 1978 .................
ARGUMENT OF PROFESSO OR'CONNEL (LREECE) ...........
The compromissory clauses relied on by Gree.........
Challenges made by Turkey..................
Absence of respondent from proceedings : anomalies resulting
therefrom .......................
Turkish contention that case should not be proceeded with while
negotiations continue..................
Statement ofTurkish position at UNCLOS III........
Scopeof a dutyto negotiate................
Four propositionsdrawnfromCourt'sJudgrnents .......
Existence ofa dispute..................
Relevanceofthe possibility ofdiscontinuance.......
Firstground ofjurisdictiothe 1928 General Act ........
Turkish contention that the Acts neither in force nor applicable
between the parties..................
Cornparisons with,and distinctions from, thelear Testscases .
Relationship of the General Act to the League of Nations.
General rule of treaty-law that treaties remain in force until
terminated according to la...............
Intentions of the parties as the criterion for ascertaining if a treaty
is inforce ......................
Treatment of the question in the Mernor:procedural difficulties
resulting from non-appearance of Turkey .........
Referencesto General Act during the period 1946-1973....
The Greek reservation to the GenerAct :context and interpreta-
tion ........................
Second ground of jurisdiction: The Brussels Joint Communiqué
(31 ~ay 1975) ......................
PLAIDOIR DEEM.DEVISSCHE (RRBCE ...............
Actegénérad l eGenèvede 1928 ...............
Emprunts norvégiens ..................
Essai suclkairesopinion dissidente commune ........ CONTENTS
Objections faitesàla validitéde l'Actegénéral..........
Intégration idéologiquede l'Acte général au systeme de sécurité
collectivede la SdN ..................
Travaux préparatoires .................
Intégration technique etorganiquede l'Actegénérala cesysteme .
Portée des article43 et 46 ...............
Références auSecrétaire générad le la SdN dans les articles 43
a47 .......................
Référencesa la Cour permanente de Justice internationale dans
lechapitre II....................
Recours a la procédurejudiciaire non subordonné au recours
préalable a la conciliation ...............
Substitution de laCour internationale a laCour permanente . .
Défaut d'applicationde l'Actegénéral ............
N'affecterait passon maintien en vigueur ..........
Pratique attestant que l'Acteest en vigueur .........
Adoption de l'Actegénéralrevisé..............
Résolution268 (III)du 28 avril 1949 ............
Intention des Etats ayant pris para la revision ........
Attitude ultérieurede ces Etats..............
Réactionsde la doctrine ................
Changement fondamental de circonstances ..........
Convention de Vienne sur ledroit destraites ........
Doctrine ......................
Conclusion :l'Actegénéralest en vigueur ............
PLAIDOI REIM .WEIL(GRCCE .................
Réservede laGrècea l'Actegénérad l eGenèvede 1928 ......
1. Lecontexte procedural du problème ............
Mise en Œuvre de la réciprocitéaux termes de l'article 36 du
Statut de laCour ..................
Mise en Œuvre de la réciprocitéaux termes de l'article 39 de
l'Actegénéra.l...................
Conséquencesde l'absencede laTurquie ..........
Incertitude de laGrècequant a l'applicationde la réciprocité . .
II. L'interprétationde la réserve...............
A. Comment interpréter une réserve a un instrument tel que
I'Actegénéral? ..................
Réservesaux déclarations d'acceptationde lajuridiction de la
Cour et aux instruments d'adhésion a l'Actegénéral .'. .
Directives générales régissant l'interprétation des actes
unilatéraux ...................
Lecture naturelle et raisonnable eu égard a l'intention du
Gouvernement a l'époque .............
B. La détermination des différendssoustraits par la réserve a la
compétencede laCour ................
Le mécanisme desréserves à l'Actegénéralet ion application htlGt:S SEA COSTISESTAL SHE1.F
Page
Limitation apportée par l'Acte général a la formulation des
réserves ....................
Application de l'article39 par lesparties a l'Actegénéra l..
L'interprétationdesconcepts ...............
Sens des mots <cet.notamment. » ............
Concept A et concept B ................
La lecture naturelle et raisonnable exclut qu'il y ait deux
réserves .....................
Intention de laGrèceàl'époque ............
Equilibre internede la réserve .............
Objections possibles .................
Le contenu desconcepts ................
Statut territoria...................
La délimitationdu territoire national est étrangèreau concept
de statut territoria.................
II!. L'application de la réserve................ 421
Le dimerend ne porte pas sur des questions.relevant de la
compétence exclusive desEtats ............. 421
Le dinerend n'intéressepas lestatut territorial ........ 421
Conclusion :ledifférendne relève pas de laréserve ........ 424
1. Intention de laGrececontenue dans sa reserve al'Actegénéral . 426
Analyse du texte grec de la réserve ............ 427
Origineslointaineset immédiatesdela réserve ........ 427
Motifs du rattachement de la réservede statut territoriala cellede .
compétenceexclusive ................ 431
II.Conception hellénique du statut territorial ou du territoire
national ....................... 433
Lois helléniquesrelatives au plateau continental ....... 434
Accord greco-italien du 24 mai 1977 sur la délimitation du plateau
continental ...................... 437
Coïncidence entre droit helléniqueet droit international ...... 439
Réponse a la question de la Cour ............... 439
Greek reservation concerning territorial status ;refutation of Turkish
contention that "sovereign rights over the continental shelf ...
affect the territorial status of both Stat........... 441
Meaning of "anèct" ................... 442
Meaning of "status" and "territorial" ............ 443
Meaning of "territorial status" in historical contex....... 445
DraRing of Article 39 of the Ceneral Act ........... 450ARGUME NFTPROFESSO OR'CONNE .(LOIII.)............ 453
Delimitation isnot aquestion ofterritorial sta........ 453
The concept of the continental shelf could no1 have been
anticipated when reservation was made .......... 453
Objectively."territorial status" cannot comprehend the continental
shelf. the rights over which are not territorial ........ 454
Disturbing consequences of an opposite view ......... 458
Possibiliiy for Greece to have withdrawn the reservation before
instituting proceeding.................. 460
PLAIDOIR DEEM .PIST (GRÈCE )................ 461
Le communique conjoint du 31 mai 1975 comme fondement de la
compétencede laCour .................. 461
Circonstancesde laconclusion de cet accord ......... 464
QUES~IO BSTIIIPRI-SIDENT .................. 467
Pl..~~~or~~r~i~a~.Pls~o~sliit................. 468
Le communiqué conjoint remplit les conditions requises pour
produire leseffetsjuridiques attachasun accord international . . 469
Croëtrlaridoriet~tal................... 470
Convention de Vienne sur ledroit des traites.......... 471
Le communique conjoint contient au minimum une obligation de
conclure un accord concernant la juridiction obligatoire de la
Cour .......................
La conduite subséquente des parties n'a pas modifié ses effets
juridiques ......................
Réfutation des objectionspossiblesa lacompétencede laCour ...
Réponsea la question de M. DilIar..............
Question de sir Humphrey Waldock et réponse .........
Réponse a la question de .Gros et sir Wumphrey Waldock ....
Raisons qui ont déterminéla Grèce a choisir la voie de l'Acte
général .......................
Cotnpugairdflrc~rici~éde Sofiuri dc Billgorie ........
Reponse a la question de .Gros et sir Humphrey Waldock
Absence d'accord desparties donnant prioritéau traitéde 1930. .
Le traite de 1930 n'entre pas dans le champ d'application de
l'article19 de l'Actegenéral..............
Préambuleet article 4 du traite de 1938...........
Intention des partie...................
Réponse a la question du Président ..............
Conclusions finales ................SV111 AEGEANSEA CONTISENTAL SHELF
Page
Documents submitted tothecourt afterthe filing otheMernorial
A 1. Extraits desdébatsdu Conseil de sécurité ..........
Séancesdes12et 13 août 1976 ..............
Séancedu 25 aout 1976. ................
A 2. Letter of the Permanent Representative of Turkey to the Security
Council (New York, 18August 1976) ...........
A 3. Jointcommuniqué of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs ofGreece
and Turkey (New York, 1October 1976) ..........
A 4. Communiqué conjoint des ministres des affaires étrangères de
Grèceet deTurquie (Bruxelles,.I1décembre1976) ......
A 5. Communiqué commun des ministres des affaires étrangères de
Grèce etde Turquie (Strasbourg, 29janvier 1977) ......
A 6. Communiqué conjoint des ministres des affaires étrangèresde
Grece et de Turquie (Strasbourg, 28 avril 1977)......
A 7. Communiqué conjoint des ministres des affaires étrangères de
Grèceet deTurquie (Bruxelles,9 décembre 1977). ......
A 8. Joint communiqué of the Prime Ministers of Greece and Turkey
(Montreux, 11 March 1978) ...............
A 9. Discours de M. Bilge,représentantde la Turquie a la conférence
surledroitde la mer (Genève,25 mai 1978) .........
A 10. Joint communiquéof the Prime Ministers of Greece and Turkey
(Washington, 29 May 1978) ...............
A 1 1. Joint communiquéof the Secretaries General of the Ministries of
Foreign Affairsof Greece and Turkey (Ankara, 5July 1978) . .
A 12. Greek note to Turkey (9September 1978). .........
A 13. Joint communiquéof the Secretaries General of the Ministries of
Foreign Affairs of Greece and Turkey (Athens, 20 September
1978). .......................
A 14. Joint Press release of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Greece
andTurkey (New York, 28 Septernber 1978) ........
A 15. Turkish note 10 Greece(Ankara, 29 September 1978) .....
A 16. Annonce à la presse du porte-parole du ministere des affaires
étrangèresdeTurquie (29 septembre 1978) .........
B 1. Rapport de la TroisièmeCommisSion a l'Assembléede la Société
desNations (rapporteur M.N. Politis)...........
B 2. Extraits du procès-verbalde ladeuxièmeséancede la Troisième
Commission de I'Assembléede la Sociétédes Nations, 11 sep-
tembre 1928 .....................
B 3. Procès-verbal de la dixièmeséancede la Premiere Commission
de l'Assembléede laSociétédes Nations, 21septembre 1928 . .
B 4. Note introductive aux conventions de conciliation, d'arbitrage et
de règlementjudiciaire (extrait du rapport du comité d'arbitrage
et de sécuritésur lestravaux dea troisièmesession). .....
B5. Procès-verbal de la séance mixte des Première et Troisieme
Commissions de I'Assembléede la Société des Nations,24 sep-
tembre 1928 ......................
B6. Procès-verbal des treizième et quatorzième séances de la
Troisieme Commission de l'Assembléede la Société des Nations,
24 septembre 1928. .................. CONTENTS XIX
Page
Actes postérieurs a la date à laquelle le Secretaire généralde
l'organisation des Nations Unies a assumé ses fonctions de
dépositaire......................
Restitution a l'Acte général du26 septembre 1928 de son
eflicacitépremière ....................
Extrait du procès-verbal de la dix-huitième séanceplénièretenue
par l'Assembléede la Société des Nations le 25 septembre 1928 .
Article 12 de la convention de paix signée a Athènes le 14 no-
vembre 19 13 entre laGrèce et la Turquie ..........
Articles 12, 13, 15, 57, 126, 181 et 188 du traite de paix de
Neuilly du 27 novembre 1919avec la Bulgarie. .......
Articles 15 et 16 du traitéentre lespuissances alliées etla Grèce
relatif a la Thrace signéle10 août 1920 a Sèvreset maintenu en
vigueur par leprotocole XVI de la conférencede Lausanne. , ,
Article 16 du traité entre les principales Puissances alliéeset
la Grece concernant la protection des minorités en Gréce,signé
le 15 août 1920 a Sèvreset maintenu en vigueur par le prolo--
coie XVI de laconeence deLausanne. ..........
Article 12 de la convention de Belgrade du 10 mai 1923 entre la
Grece et la Yougoslavie, relative au règlement du transit par voie
deSalonique .....................
Articles 44, 45 et 92 du traitéde paix avec la Turquie, signé a
Lausanne le 24juillet 1923 ...............
Article 4 de la convention concernant la frontière de Thrace,
signéea Lausanne le 24 juillet 1923 ............
Décret-loi no210du 3-5 octobre 1973 portant code minier ...
Accord du 24 mai 1977 entre la République helléniqueet la
République italienne sur la délimitation des zones du plateau
continentalpropres a chacun des deux Etats.........
Certificat du président de la Chambre des députés desHellènes
(Athènes,30juin 1978) .................
Exposédes motifs du projet de loi d'approbation parlementaire
de l'Actegénéralpar laGrèce ..............
Original du manuscrit du projet de loi d'approbation parlemen-
taire de l'Actegénéral .................
Projet définitifde loi d'approbation soumis au Parlement ....
Certificat du présidentde la Chambre des députés desHellènes
attestant que le projet de loi précitéa votésans débat ....
Original du texte définitifde la loid'approbation de l'Actegénéral
Procès-verbal du dépôt a la Sociétédes Nations de l'instrument
d'adhésion de la Grèce à l'Acte généralpour le règlement
pacifique des différendsinternationaux. ..........
List of treaties demonstrating the interchangeability of "territorial
status" and other expressions ..............
Extraits deJ. Barabé,Leservicejiiridiqrrr des Nutioi~sUtiies et les
iraifes interriuticit~atix,thèse,Paris, 19..........
Exposé des motifssoumis a la Chambre des députésen vue de
l'approbation du projet de loi autorisant l'adhésionde la Grècea
la clause facultative de l'article 36 du Statut de la Cour
permanente de Justice internationale. ...........SS AEGEAS SEACOSTISESTALSIIELF
F 2. Loi portant acceptation sous conditions par la Grècede la clause
de l'artic36 du Statut de la Cour permanente de Justice inter-
nationale de La Haye concernant l'arbitrage obligatoir(Joiirrial
officief.sciculeA no 152.6 août 1928) .........
F 3. Proposition du ministre des affaires étrangères au conseil des
ministres au sujet des réserves.............
F 4. Décisiondu Conseil des ministres au sujetdes reserves. ....
F 5. Transmission de fa décisiondu Conseil des ministresau ministre
desaffaires étrangères .................
F 6. Nouvelle proposition du ministre des affaires étrangères au
Conseil des ministres demandant a posteriori modification de la
décisionprécédente ..................
F 7. Nouvelle décisiondu Conseil des ministres approuvant a pos-
teriori la nouvelle proposition du ministre des affaires étran-
gers ........................
F 8. Annonce par la Sociétédes Nations du dépôtde la déclaration
hellénique d'acceptation de la disposition facultative de I'arti-
cle 36 du Statut de laCour permanente de Justice internationale .APPLICATIONINSTITUTINGPROCEEDINGS
SUBMITTED BYTHE GOVERNMENT
OF GREECE
REQUÊTE INTRODUCTIVE D'INSTANCE
PRÉSENTÉE PAR LEGOUVERNEMENT
DE LAGRÈCE I have the honour to submit to the International Court of Justice, in
accordance with Article 40 of its Statute read in conjunction with Article 35
of its Rules of Court, an Application instituting proceedings on behalf of
Greece against Turkey in the foflowing case:
1. On 1 November 1973a decision was pubfished in the Officia1Turkish
Gazette granting the Turkish State Petroleum Company (TPAO) the right
to carry out exploration for petroleum in 27 regions of the Aegean conti-
nental shelf east of a line starting at the mouth of the Evros River in the
north and extending southwards and to the West of the Greek isfands of
Chios and Psara.
The area covered by these perrnits encroached upon the continental shetf
of the Greek islands of Samothrace, Limnos, Aghios Eustratios, Lesbos,
Chios, Psara and Antipsara. A copy of the Gazette and the accornpanying
map is set forth in Annex 1.
2. On 7 February 1974 the Government of Greece addressed a Note
Verbale to the Government ofTurkey in which it questioned the validity of
the. perrnits issued by the Turkish Government and reserved the sovereign
rights of Greece over the continental shelf and the subsoil of the islands of
Samothrace, Limnos, Açhios Eustratios, Lesbos, Chios, Psara and Antipsara
for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources.
'I'heTurkish Governinent replied on 27 February 1974 that there are vast
submarine areas along and offshore the Turkish coast which constitute the
natural prolongation of the Anatolian coast and therefore its continental
shelf whereas the Greek islands lying very close to the Turkish coast do not
possess a continental shelf of their own. The texts of the above-mentioned
Notes Verbales are set forth in Annex LI.
3. On 24 May 1974 the Greek Government addressed a Note to the
Turkish Government in which it declared that, while reserving its position,
it was not opposed to a delimitation of the continental shelf between Greece
and Turkey upon the basis of positive international law as codified by the
Convention on the Continental Shelf signed at Geneva in 1958.The Turkish
Government stated in response on 5 June 1974that it was willing to discuss
the matter within the frarnework of the rules of international law.
4. On 14 June 1974the Government of Greece addressed a further Note
Verbale to the Government of Turkey, reaffirming and reserving al1 the
sovereign rights of Greece over the continental shelf of the Greek islands
opposite the Turkish coast.
5. The Official Turkish Gazette of 18 July 1974 contained details of the
grant of new exploration permits for petroleurn in the Aegean Sea to the4 AEGEAN SEA
Turkish Petroleum Company. These new permits extended the area of the
original grants to the Turkish Petroleum Company further west of the Greek
islands of Samothrace, Aghios Eustratios, Lesbos, Psara, Antipsara and
Chios. Furthermore, permits were granted for the first time in the southern
Aegean to the north west and Westof the islands of lkaria and the Dode-
canese group of islands, including the island of Rhodes to the south. A copy
of the Gazette and the accompanying map, as well as a map showing the
area covered by successive exploration permits, issued by the Turkish
Government, are included in Annex 1.
6. On 22 August 1974the Government of Greece addressed a Note to the
Government of Turkey regrettingthe action of Turkey ingrantingexploration
permits for petroleum to the Turkish Petroleum Company in the Aegean Sea
westwards of the Greek islands, and stating that the sovereign rights of
Greece for the purpose of exploring and exploiting the natural resources of
the continental shelf of the said islands were exclusive to Greece. Conse-
quently, the Greek Government lodged a vigorous protest with the Turkish
Government and stated that it did not recognise any validity in the actions
of the Turkish Government which were in contradiction with the rules of
international law.
7. On 16 September 1974 the Turkish Government rejected the aforesaid
Note of protest, stating that the said areas were part of the Turkish con-
tinental shelf; but added that a mutually acceptablesolution of the probtems
of delimiting the said sea areas of the Aegean, whose opposite coasts both
countries share, should be reached through negotiations.
8. There followed discussions between the Ambassador of Greece in
Ankara and the Turkish Government, which led to the Government of
Greece addressing a further Note to the Turkish Government on 27 January
1975. This recalled the latter's assurances that Turkey was anirnated by a
spirit of conciliation, and the Governrnent of Greece proposed that the
differences over the applicable law, as over the substance of the matter, be
referred to the International Court of Justice.
9. On 6 February 1975 the Government of Turkey replied in a Note
Verbale to the Government of Greece in which it said that it was the con-
sidered vie~ of the Turkish Governntent .that various vitalquestions con-
cerning the Aegean Sea were still outstanding between Greece and Turkey,
which should be settled through peaceïul means. The Government of Turkey
stated that "in principle it favourably considers the Greek Government's
proposal to refer the dispute of the delimitation of the Aegean continental
shelf jointly to the International Court of Justice" and proposed that high-
level talks be initiated between the two Governments.
IO. On 10 February 1975 the Government of Greece addressed a Note
Verbale to the Government of Turkey in which it stated that it agreed that,
following suitable preparation, talks should be held in order to draft the
terms of the special agreement to submit the matter to the lnternational
Court of Justice.
11. The texts of the Notes mentioned in the above paragraphs 2 to 4 and
6 to IOare set forth in Annex II.
12. The Foreign Ministers of Greece and Turkey met with their advisers
on 17-19 May 1975 in Rome. The Greek side submitted a draft text of a
compromis for negotiation. The Turkish side stated that they were not ready
to discuss it, and argued that substantive negotiations should first take place.
The meeting ended with the issuance of a communiquk on 19 May 1975,
in which it was stated that : APPLICATION 5
"Les questions relatives au plateau continentalde la mer Egée ont été
discutées et une première étude d'un texte de compromis concernant la
soumission de l'affaire devant la Cour internationale de Justice a eu
lieu."
13, (1) On 31 May 1975 the Prime Ministers of Greece and Turkey met
in Brussels and issued a joint communiqué stating that they had decided
that the problems dividing the two.countries should be resolved peace-
fully "et, au sujet du plateau continental de la mer Egée,par la Cour
internationale de La Haye". The text of the communiqué is set forth
in Annex 111.
(2) Under the Brussels agreement the meeting of experts on the continental
shelf was to be expedited. Following persistent efforts of the Greek
Government to fix a date and venue for the meeting of experts with a
view to drafting a special agreement, theTurkish side agreed to fix it for
25-27 September 1975 in Paris. This meeting did not take place as the
Turkish Governmentchoseto postpone it at the last moment.
14. On 30 September 1975 the Government of Turkey addressed a Note
to the Government of Greece in which it recalled that at the meeting in
Rome mentioned in paragraph 12 the Turkish Foreign Minister had said
that it would not be in the interests of the two countries to submit thedispute
to the lnternational Court of Justice without first attempting rneaningful
negotiations, while the Greek Foreign Minister had argued that the dispute
be taken directly to the International Court of Justice. The Turkish Foreign
Minister added that "some aspects of the continental shelf concept are yet
to be established. For this reason the principles to be applied can best be
determined between the countries concerned." The Turkish Government
reiterated its point of view that the best method of solving thesedifferences
was bilateral negotiations leading to a just and fair agreement based on
equitable principles.
15. On 2 October 1975 the Government of Greece replied to this Turkish
Note. It recalled that the issue of the continental shelf was clearly one of
delimitation, and that it had previously been agreed that this was to be
settled by the Lnternational Court of Justice; and also that the initiation of
Court proceedings would take precedence over possible talks. The Govern-
ment of Greece called upon the Government of Turkey to agree to an early
drafting of the special agreement which would enable the International
Court of Justice to proceed to the delimitation of the continental shelf
appertainingto the two countries.
16. On 18 November 1975 the Government of Turkey addressed a Note
to the Government of Greece in which it said that the present differences had
arisen because the continental shelf of the Aegean had yet to be delin-iited.
It said that it had consistently pointed out that, due to the extremely complex
problems involved in drawing a boundary line and to the particularities of
the region, the delimitation of the area could only be realized jointly if an
equitable solution, acceptable to bath sides, were found. The Turkish
Government did not sharethe Greek interpretation of the previous corres-
pondence, namely that the parties had already agreed to refer the dispute
to the International Court of Justice, and it invited the Government of
Greece to a meeting with the aim of conducting rneanjngful negotiations.
17. On 19 December 1975 the Government of Greece replied, stating that
the Notes exchanged between the two Governments revealed that they were6 AEGEA;.: SEA
in disagreement concerning the principles of international law applicable to
the delimitation of the continental shelf, and their application in theconcrete
case of the Aegean Sea. The Government of Greece said that, since nego-
tiations were necessary for the purpose of drafting a special agreement to
submit the matter to the International Court of Justice, it was understood
that, if the Government of Turkey in the course of such negotiations should
make proposals relative to the removal of the points of disagrecment between
the two Governments, these would constitute the object of appropriate çtudy.
18. The texts of the Notes mentioned in paragraphs 14to 17are set forth
in Annex IV.
19. A meeting of delegations and experts of both Greece and Turkey met
in Berne from 31 January to 2 February 1976 but no agreement was reached
upon any communiqué. Following the meeting, the Government of Turkey
addressed a Note to the Government of Greece, on 15 March 1976, stating
that it believed that future meetings should take the form of meaningful
negotiations.
20. On 22 May 1976 the Government of Greece addresscd a Note to the
Government of Turkey, in which it recalled the position stated in its Note
of 19 Decernber 1975, and the fact that .the correspondence between the
two Governments had revealed the existence of a dispute which, con-
sistent with the exchangcs of Notes between them, ought to be submitted
to the lnternational Court of Justice. The Note stated that at the Berne
meeting the Greek dclegation had emphasized three fundamental legal
points, namely :
(a) the territorial and political unity of the continental and insular parts of
the Greek State;
(b) the existence of a continental shelf appurtenant to the Greek islands
concerned;
(c) the application of the rule of the median line between opposite coasts as
the line ofdelimitalionin the seabed between the Greek islands and the
Turkish territories.
The Turkish delegation, the Note recalled, had stated that the islands of
Limnos, Chios. Samos, Lesbos, Aghios Eustratios, lkaria and Kos could not
have a continental shelî bccausethey weremere protuberances of the Turkish
continental shelf. The Greek Note concluded by saying that negotiations
could not lake place in derogation from the norms of international law
concerning the division of the continental shelf, and by expressing the hope
that the next meeting would yield a more promising exchange of views,
failing which, the Note said, the only course would be for the two Govern-
ments to proceed to the drafting of a special agreement to refer the rnatter
to the International Court, conformably with engagements taken between
them.
21, The texts of the Notes mentioned in paragraphs 19 and 20 are set
forth in Annex V.
22. A meeting of delegations and experts of the Governments of Greece
and Turkey took place in Berne on 19 and 20 June 1976.At that meeting the
Government of Greecestated its fundamental position as follows:
(i) The rule of international law respecting the delimitaiion of common
continental shelf boundaries in the case of opposite States is the median
Iinerule.
(2) This rule applies whether the delimitation concerns insular or con- APPLICATION 7
tinental seabeds, provided there is continuous seabed between the
opposite States which conforms with the definition of continental
shelf,
(3) Sis under no obligation to negotiate a settlement which would involveece
any surrender of these rights.
(4) in particular, no provisions of the United Nations Charter require
negotiation rather than judicial settlement in the case of any right of a
Member which is contested by another Member.
(5) In particular, no special rule of customary international law exists
which requires Statesthat are on opposite sides of a cornmon continental .
shelf to negotiate a boundary except by reference to the application of
the median line rule.
The text of this statement is set forth in Annex VI.
23. The Turkish delegation did not directly answer the question put to it
in the aforesaid staternent. In particular, it'declined to answer the question
whether it wished Greece to waive rights vested in her by international law,
in order to reach a solution of the dispute.
24. It is to be recalled that from 29 May to 4 June 1974 the Turkish
hydrographic vessel Candarli accompanied by 32 warships,of the Turkish
Navy cruised the north eastern and central part of the Aegean in order to
carry out magnetometric exploration. The vessel sailed along the western -
limits of the area encompassing the exploration permits granted to the
Turkish Petroleum Company on 1 November 1973.
The Greek Government reacted by sending a naval force to the spot with
orders to show the flag and to plot the course of the research vessel and her
covering force.
On 14 June 1974 the Greek Government lodged a vigorous protest with
theTurkish Government against the violation by theTurkish research vessel
of the savereign rights of Greece over the continental shelf of the islands of
Limnos, Aghios Eustratios, Lesbos, Skyros, Psara, Antipsara and Chios and
reaffirrningand reserving al1the rights of Greece overthe continental shelfof
the Greek islands opposite the Turkish coast. On 4 July 1974 the Turkish
Government rejected the Greek protest.
The sortie of the Turkish research vesse1and the manner in which it was
carried out gave rise to extreme tension as attested by news reports and . ,
leading articles published in the press of thetwo countries.
25. A Press release issued after the meeting of the National Security
Councilof Turkey on 13July 1976,which took place under thechairmanship
of the President of the Turkish Republic, mentions that in the course of this
meeting consideration had been given to the information provided to the
Council concerning researches which would be undertaken by the seismic
research vessel MTA-Sisnzik I in the Turkish territorial sea and in the high
sias. The Press release added that it had been decided to recommend to the
Government that it should take al1appropriate measures so that the scientific
researches of the ship would be achieved normally. This communiqué was
followed by a clarification published by the newspaper Milliyet on 14 July
1976. This stated that official Turkish sources, referring to the expression
"appropriate measures" mentioned in the Press release above referred to,
stated that Sismik I would not be accompanied by warships but that none-
theless al1 necessary measures would be taken so as to detect immediately
any attack against the vessel and to respond instantaneously in case of such
attack. In order to guarantee that the vessel would be able to carry out its8 AEGEAN SEA
researches normally, its movements would be followed by special devices. It
was said that this was the sense of the communiquéof the National Security
Council. '
The texts of these documents are set forth in Annex VII.
26. (a) On 21 July 1976and again on 23July 1976 theGreekAmbassador
in Ankara conveyed 10 the Turkish Foreign Minister, in most expficit
terrns, the grave concern of the GreekGovernment over the infringement
of the legal rights of Greece by way of an eventual exploration without
its consent of the continental shelf in the Aegean Sea appertaining to
Greece. He also pointed out the prejudicial effects of such exploratory
activity on the relations berween the two countries and, more generally,
on the situation in the Aegean.
(b) In an effort to prevent these undesirable developments the Greek Govern-
ment consideredcertain oral assurances given to the Greek Ambassador
in Ankara by the Turkish Foreign Minister, with a view to ensuring
thatthe researches made by the vessel Sismik Iwould be purely scientific
and wauld in no case encroach upon the sovereign rights of Greece on
her continental shelf. However, before beingapprised of the final views
of the Greek Governrnent, the Turkish Foreign Minister, who had not
spared the time to receive the Greek Ambassador previously, made a
public statement over the Turkish radio and television system, which by
its very nature effectivelyterminated these deliberations.
(cl On 6 August 1976, as of 19.45 hours, the Turkish research vessel MTA-
Sismik Iwas observed engaging in seismic exploration of an area of the
continental shelf of the Aegean appertaining to Greece and comprised
within the following coordinates:
Lat. 39 26.5 N - Long, 25 50.5 E
,, 39 25 ,,- ,, 25 48 ,,
,, 39 22 3, - ,, 25 45 ,,
,, 39 23 ,y - ,, 25 44 ,,
,, 39 26 - ,, 25 45 ,,
,, 39 28 7, - ,, 25 44 ,,
,, 39 30 ,, - ,, 25 43 ,,
Seisrnic exploration of the Greek continental shelf ceased on 7 August
at 00.30 hour.
(d) On 7 August the Greek Government addressed a Note to the Turkish
Government, in which it protested against the violation of its legalrights,
requested that the latter take al1necessary measures to ensure that this
violation would not recur in the future and reserved al1its rights under
international law. On 8 August 1976 the Turkish Government rejected
the Greek protest which it "deemed devoid of any bases and totally
unacceptable". Lt also stated that the "research activities should be
carried out in accordance with the established programme".
(e) On 7 and 8 August 1976, the Turkish research vessel escorted by a
Turkish minesweeper and, intermittently, by Turkish aircraft,continued
its exploration of the Greek continental shelf in an area comprised within
the following coordinates:
Lat. 39 25 N - Long. 25 54 E
,, 39 22.5 ,,- ,, 25 47.2 ,,
,, 39 20 ,,- ,, 25 40 ,, Lat. 39 20.7 N - Long. 25 37 E
,, 39 25.8 ,,- ,, 25 32.6 ,,
,, 39 34 ,+- ,, 25 25.2 ,,
91 39 40 ,,- ,, 25 23.5 ,,
2, 39 40 ,, - ,, 25 27.2 ,,
,, 39 30.7,, - ,, 25 33.5 ,,
,, 39 22.2 ,,- ,, 25 38.7 ,,
,, 39 22.5 ,,- ,, 25 41.3 ,,
,, 39 43.55 ,,- ,, 25 28.5 ,,
,, 39 29.6 ,,- ,, 25 43.5 ,,
,, 39 24.9 ,,- ,, 25 48 ,,
,, 39 27.4 ,, - ,, 25 48.2 ,,
(SJ On 9 August the Greek-Government sent a Note to the Turkish Govern-
ment indicating that:
(i) it could not accept the grounds for the rejection of its protest;
(ii) the illegal explorations of the Greek continental shelf continued
as set forth above; and
(iii) the military escort provided to the Turkish research vesse1rendered
the circumstances of the violation of its sovereign rights particularly
aggravating.
The Greek Government lodged a solernn and vigorous protest against
these actions, requested the Turkish Government to cease these activities
and refrain from any ulterior provocative action, and reiterated the
reservation of its legal rights on the continental shelf of the Aegean Sea
appertaining to Greece.
The texts of the Turkish Foreign Minister's public staternent mentioned
in subparagraph (b) above, of the Greek Government's protest dated 7
August 1976 and of the Turkish Note dated 8 August mentioned in sub-
paragraph (d) above, of the Greek Note dated 9 August 1976 and the
Memorandum therein referred to, and addressed by the Greek Embassy to
the Turkish Foreign Ministry on 24 March 1976,mentioned in subparagraph
(f) above, appear in Annex VIII..
27. Activities of Turkcy in conducting exploration on the continental
shelf of Greece would constitute a violation of the sovereign rights of Greece
and the exclusivity possessed by Greece under international law to explore
and exploit its continental shelf and to conserve the knowledge of the geo-
physical properties thereof, or to grant licences for exploitation and explo-
ration or permission for the conduct of scientific research. Such activities
would constitute a grave aggravation of the situation and threaten the peace
and security of the area.
28. In the circumstances which are described in the preceding paragraphs
of this Application, and which the Government of Greece will set out more
fully in its Memoriaf and in subsequent written and oral pleadings, it is clear
that a legal dispute, which it has not been possible to resolve through nego-10 AEGEAN SEA
tiations, exists between Greece and Turkey concerning their respective legal
rights to explore and exploit the continental shelf of the Aegean,
29. The Government of Greece contends that al1 the islands undcr the
sovercignty of Greece and in particular the islünds of Samothrace, Limnos,
Aghios Eustratios, Lesbos, Chios, Psara, Antipsara, Sanios, lkaria and al1
the islands of the Dodecanese group (Patn~os, Leros, Kafimnos, Kos,
Astyprilaia, Nisiros, Tilos. Sinii. Chalki, Rhodes, Karpathos, etc.) herein-
aftcr called the lslands, which lie upon the continental shelf that extends
beneath the Aegean Sea between Grecce and Turkey, are an intcgral part of
Greek territory which is entitled to the portion of this contincntal shelf which
appcrtains to thcin; and that by virtue of the operation of the principles of
international law concerning the continental shelf, the following legal rules
apply, naniely :
(1) Thai, taking into account the territorial and political unity of Greece,
Grccce hasexclusive rights to exploration and exploitation of the portions
of the contincnta! shelf appcrtaining to the süid Islands; and that no
rcscrirch niay bc carried out without the consent of Greece.
(2) Thrtt sincc thesaid Islands are opposite the Coast of Turkey, the deliiiii-
tation of the portions of the contincntal shclf which appcrtüin respect~vely
to Grccce and Ttirkey is IO be enècted by rcfercnce to the pointat which
respcctively the natiiral prolongations of the Grcck and Turkish terri-
torics. whethcr insular or contincntül. iiicct and overlap; and that that
point can only be the niedian fine betwccn the said Islands and such
baselines as are lawfully establishcd for the dcliiiiitatioof the Turkish
territorial sea,so that an eqtial division of the prirticular arca is achieved.
30. Activities of Turkey described in paragraphs 25and 26 abovcconstitute
infringeiiients of thc excltisive sovereign rights of Grccce to the exploration
and cxploitation of the continental shelf appertaining to Greece.
31. The dispute is confined to the continental shelf adjacent to the said
Islands and does not concern any other part of the Aegerin Sea or seabed
thereof.
32. The present dispute is subniitted to the Court on the following basis:
(1) Article 17 of the General Act for the Pacific Settleiiient of lntcrnational
Disputes, 1928,read together with Articles 36(1) and 37of the Statute of
the Court. Respcctivcly on 14Septeniber 1931 and 26 June 1934, Greece
and Tiirkey acceded to this instrunient, which is still in force for botof
them. The texts of these accessions were acconipanied by declarations
which are irrelcvant to the present case. These texts are set forrh in
Annexes IX and X.
(2) The joint coniriiuniqué of Brussels of 31 May 1975, which followed
previous exchange of views, States that the Prime Ministers of Greece
and Turkey have decided that the problciiis dividing the two countries
should be resolved peacefully "et, au sujet du plateau continental de
la nier Egce, par la Cour internationale de La Hayc". The two Govern-
ments thcreby jointly and severally accepted the jurisdiction of thecourt
in the present matter, pursuant to Article 36(1) of the Statute of the Court. RESERV~N GTS RIGHTS TO SUPPLEMEN OTR AMENDITS REQUEST ,ND
SUBJECT TO THESUBSEQUEN PRESENTATIO TNTHE COURT OF ANY EVIDENCE
AND ARGUMENT THE GOVERNMEN OF GREECEREQUEST SHE COURT TO
ADJUDGE AND DECLARE:
(i) that the Greek islands referred to in paragraph 29 above, as part of the
territory of Greece, are entitled to the portion of the continental shelf
which appcrtains to thern according to the applicable principles and
rules of international law;
(ii) what is the course of the boundary (or boundaries) between the portions
of thecontinental shelf appertaining to Greece and Turkey in the Aegean
Sea in accordance with the principles and rules of international law
which the Court shall deterrntoebe applicable to the delimitation of
the continental shelf in the aforesaid areas of the Aegean Sea;
(iii) that Greece is entitled to exercise over its continental shelf sovereign
and exclusive rights for the purpose of researching and exploring it and
exploiting ils natural resources;
(iv) that Turkey is not entitled to undertake any activonithe Greek
continental shelf, whether by exploration, exploitatiresearch or
otherwise, without the consent of Greece;
(v) that the activities of Turkcy described in paragraphs 25 and 26 above
constitute infringements of the sovereign and exclusive rights of Greece
to explore and exploit its continental shelf or to authorize scientific
research respecting the continental shelf;
(vi) that Turkey shall not continue any further activities as described above
in subparagraph (iv) within the aofathe continental shelf which the
Court shall adjudge appertain to Greece.
The Hague, 10 August 1976.
(Sig~lcdNicolas KARANDREAS,
Ambassador of Greece at The Hague,
Agent for the Government of Greece. ANNEXES TO THE APPLICATION
DECISION OSF THE TURKISH GOVERNMEN TRANTING PERMIT SOR THE
EXPLORATIO AND EXPLO~TATIO ON THE CONTINENTASL HELF OF THE
AEGEANP,UBLISHE IO THEOFFICIA GAZETT EF THETURKISHGOVERNMENT
(a) OSficialGazeire of the Turkish Government, I November 1973
Publication of the OfficialTurkishGazette in its issueof I November 1973
showing the granting of 27 exploration permits for petroleum in the Aegean
Seato the Turkish Petroleum Comp(Seep. 15.)
(b) Oficiol Gazette of the Turkish Gov, Ji~ne1974
Publication of the Oficial Turkish Gazette in of6 June 1974
showing the granting of new exploration perrnits for petroleum in the Aegean
Sea to the Turkish Petroleum Company. Permits granted in accordance
with decisionNo. 718308of the Turkish Government. (Seep. 17.)
(c)OficiaGazette of the TtrrkishCovernmenr,18Jiify 1974
Publication of the Official Turkish Gazette in its issue of 18 July 1974
showingthe granting of newexploration permits for petroleum in the Aegean
Sea to the Turkish Petroleum Company. (18andp19.) At:GEAN SEA
Publicationof the ORicial Turkish Gazette in its issue 1fNovember 1973
showing 27 oil concessions grünted by the Turkish Government to the
TurkishPetroleumCompany hl- Suih Hukuk HALJmIltinden : lllnU olm W12/!W3 Pergsmb. rUnü #ut 9.40 di btr v&lh
tedl ettlrmcslaksl hilde ppp knn uyluluirie dintlyi TL* UDI
197U1695 clnlik bn Ilairen WblW olunur. 14703
hnsrlar MurWi lirr~ul vi 4iCcr 7 h&sedan vekl1Ieri Avtht Kir- --
ct bplnar Caraiindon divmlilar Sdcyrnui Akrlui vs dler 10 hlaradii.
IInleyhlerinc LCilbtYlialel $dmU Jrv-min Yiprlin mihiitemesindi:
Diivalilirdui Hamm $nhin va hm Suiwn adhrirm illmn teb
:rit ynpiIdiPi hl& dum$mayi gelmediklerindcn hiklarinds verllen si- MerW Irtanbul'di bulunui Alirko Holdiru A. 8. tirilindm ihrw
p kariririin da lLCntn rîpilmasma kirnr nrlldltininoen durri~ma &ll olunm 7 yil vide11 K 15 -1211 5 000 Ilri ~ttbirl dcterds MOO adet. 1O.m
in 6/12/1373 tnrihlnds duru$miy~ rclmedltl vs kendtlerinlde bir vtklllt llrrlllbirl deterde lm adet toplnm. ?OW0.01 Ilrdik hnmilim rwli
m11 cttlrrnclerlakrl hslde dum$nunui myislirinda oluah myap y* rJhvlller~/lOtL973 Wdiinden 1Ubarcn Borw kotwu hmt va Icrll sdlP
r k~im olmak üzcm UAnolunur. l4Tm
lni$ur. 1-
-a-
ISTZIIWS
3wacitsr Murils nirnii M dlper 7 hl-n wklllerl Amkit Ki,. Pctrcl ijleriCene1 MUdllrlWdm :
-
et 0zpm.r Liraruidin davililir Silleymm Akiltn ve dlfer 10 hirradir. 1 .No. lu iûnrnurn vs 1): No. lu Ega pclmt hlcclerinlii batismda.
rialeyhierinc sci:as balrl jliyuu divuinin yrpilin muhalemcrinde :
mvaltlirdan Tevilk Teron idini cikirttlm bblitattn bill tebllfl ECe I*nirind@ TLir:; Karuulin dqinda r.2ktl'a dunlrhruh bulunsn
rc bu Ili11 Ilc biriiiilncgredilm harihda hudutbn kspll o!urun h-
3c dlldtll anlp'ildiPinian re ribitau di ulreslnm bulunamaQihndui lsm +ind olml* hre 1111011973 larihindc TUrkiyi Fcrmllerl Anonlm
tell-m1.n Mm1 Gucte Ili ciksrtilmuui. kinr [email protected].
iiurrr rcrt^in& MIL iccen darililirdrn Tevllk Tmin'in dunimi Oitiklipina 2'1 iZct pctrol iram ruhwhmcil v~:!ldi:i Petml Kuiu-
nunun Yi1 incl mdcksiniii (h) likrnri muclb:ncc :lh olunur. AECEAN SEA
(b)
Publicationof the OfficialTurkish Gazettein ifs issue of 6 June 1974showing
new oil concessions granted by the Turkish Government to the Turkish
Petroleum Company. The concessions weregrantedin accordance with deci-
sion No. 71830 8f the TurkishGovernment. KARARNA - MELER
Kuir Sayi~i :7/bMd ~*n~nun m. mnddtslylcdt~$lk 1 ml 1ikmu~ clirehkurlir Kunilimci
1/1/1911 tuthInde kinrlnptrnlmytir.
1 n LX numiriilPetrol BdleelcrlnlbalcinflnEK~Denhindi TUrk CUMHUHRASKANI
bruuinri &$in& ut T(irklyc'ynlt kiliwhanliklnriU1Erlnde bulumn PAHXIS. RORUI'ORR
o lllsl11200MiOiilcekharltndrhudutlaritc5hit OlUnan sahalardn TUr.
:lys PtrrollAnonlm OrtikliltInrilindan129 Nlsin 1958 tnnhlnde BubAin Dirhikin Yidinicua Ikvlri HiLimi hrh Batni
8. ECKVIT Prof.Dr. R. ERBAKAH O.&YUEUGLU I.II IIKLER
:rnevra.dI-IIPMTY~ 10/0119fi1 tarihirYurilrlUpegirm bulunui
:il%Srharili hakLiridrik1 MlllctlrriSlizlt$nihiikiimIcrlnve 6-1. Ikiki8.Linr Ad.1.iBaknni Llil5.ruivriBArii
IklBu Sbzle$menin 3 UncUrnîddc~lndcderpis cdtldipWm Kir'iSB , S.A. ELIRE S.KAZAN H.ISIK
rnlilrridisular Llc havastattL1ünt vt shzlcrmenh5il.midderindekl .t&k*iBikinr Diiiibn Bikni Mali= B&mi
dikpld ve L M irqtirniilrrhusurundakl ksldslcrehyct clmrk wr. O. ASILTOCK Prul.Dr.T.CUHES Dw. Ur. U. BAYK.4L
bii. Bakini Br.nididiUili.ni ?kirriBLnx
la) ra Pt:rol Kuuiriununnihrrtnimi adcdWn lahdldi itt L1gLIkhilkmti ri.U3~0,rwC 6.CEYlKCE F..40AK
~$rndrh!rn MWrmerl uyguluunik Ilyn. 6326 ayrli Rlrol Kinunu.
un - ln Iiliruini(b) bendl Ils 5/,,11UrWl va Saa. 5- Y. RAni cim.*.TA.1 HaLini Gdi -Tmm=Hii. Bibi1
S.ClzXrLloC~u Y. ~UXEIILIUCLU h.!. L.OZAL
'InnnI~ Pemt Refomu Kinunu IlidenSlk iyni mlddenui (il ben- CH.*-. B & ~ ~ Ciltrii BAii, Siriidi+TA. BiLsi
Ind.muh tuüs urtvnpatrol unell~itravlim*uniizin verilmal:-4. C.CUUY O. SAY A. OOGRU
nl -. mlkurmi, BqkdUinin uym tbr(lf1mrlna &y-n b. rrTib Li. I.Lini Turh r Tan.Bikmi ?matu !&à"ilAtes
C. KAYRA O. BIRCIT A. TOPUZ
krll ri hW K.mddir Bskinlilinrn151111914ürihlive 37494101079
yiiimnhn IlraNiaW milieuKMUnun 45 Bct mi- 1702 ayiL Kw lcrr U-D. Bmkmnr Onnui Bdini Cme-ve Sinr B k
M. OK A.SEhfR M. Y.MLra
.-
N
*-
Z
W
a
w
0
W (cl
Sahifc : 2 (Rad Cixcte) 1sTEXaMOZ l
Publicationof the Officia1Tur-
kishGazetteinitsissueof 18 July
1974showingnewoilconcessions
grantedby the TurkishGovem-
ment to the Turkish Petroleum
Company.Theconcessionswere
grantedin accordancewithdeci-
sion No. 7/8594 of ~heTurkish
Government. (4
18TEMLIUZ 1874 (RcmI Cd) Sahife: 3
b
- 16'01'
4 * U C * i I
1 t
tl.00'
r*ib 10.01'
~ÜairA wr~ourari o 34 u DE~~ TZUR ~4th
WI~LI~~UA VER~LE PWITRX Artau awsAnnl G~TER~ RRM~
Km Sqtn : 7/#594
Em Denlrindin Akdgiird. 1 m IX n-ii Wml MImPrlnlD
n hnnilmmrun &$in6 vanlrl niri Sihuilihnd. bulruvn ri ckü
ùnritsisrdhudut~~nbsptt oiunuitduiudi (wt da& dan n bu su
IlluiIktündekluva AWu 11.ùulikcilivollmI u~$timrl~tbAWW.U&H
~tktlem hukuk kunllin~ riiyctetMk cnT(iyli1TW 1lWi Rtroi
Rclormu Kuiunu UeW4ik a116u7ih RtiolKuiununun vrmi nSrut
luillaU#illm*Ur. mWIk m geklorlthULLlmlifl dt?tndikdlbi hi&
Weri u&uimik U1.n TUrklm mrollerl llnonim Orhklihni blok14
bUimU 4 .d.Iptml uuaa nih*.wm& ntllmnl. 14nIlW3 t.r(hlrr
ïmir firinu- diyuiitink 1 Kuun 1973 ~irihRcurilGu,
P'& ~rrdih hirlt.hudutliniüa buduw yuili
sui Mriai oldum pkIIai dc#l$U~l: h~lirl BiMhCiriyi il O,
ailhuma? &~$kuilihnrnuyw gl)r(Ulerldiyu& hirll vi Tibfiflp
mLlu mMJinm 1/1/1W4 ririhwl137'16511MîwMW1 wrLn Uiarhu.
rn tüiim Kinunun 45.midachin 1Tü1uliliICanwun N. maddrsf UI
dcwk S.iiLMini [On,aiLniu Kwluiri VII1S74 tarvilnds karulit
tuiimuty.
rntItmnrsKrm
flnm S.XURU~ORK
Ollk Brkur
IibAie Bi&iiil f wirinrm .lt Rekini Dlik Brimi
S. ECEYIT fiilOP.IYEIIAKIN O.E) OIOGLU I.n.a~*trn
Dnh Biiii A4d.i hkiri Yi& 5nm- Lku
R A. EMRE S.KAZAN H. 1SIK
hihltriB.Ciir Milirr Bahmr
1cWac Bihint ROI.Dr.T. GUNES k. Dr.U.8AYKlZ
O. ASILTURK
Hili Unin Bihini Bwudirl& B&M~ Tkim Bdiu
M. 0srU~o~C L.CavIKC'E f.ADA&
5i1.rr Sa.Y Bkini Cbn rr TAd BiLini Cdi -tmm w Hat. BAMI
S.CIZRCLIO~LU Y. TORKYENOCLU hl. K.OZAL
kirni Bdiai OliraiLAmi Suid ir T4 RiLmi
f.COLEP' 0.SAV A. DOGIIfl
Gi*et&. Ka*.Bikini Tuikm r Tin. Bikini hai rr lai I ~ m m i
C. KAIRA O.BlRGlT 4. TO~Z
K" !#.w Kas.. Bhai h n Bbkini Gne. n hi BaL;niV.
. U. OK A.SEIYER O. BIRGJT Map:
Aegean Archipelago
[A rrached] APPLICATION
1. Greek Note Verbale, 7 February 1974
The Ministry for Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy
of Turkey and has the honour to bring to its knowledge the following:
The OfFcial Turkish Gazette published in its issue of 1 November 1973
the text of anfficialAnnouncement of the TurkishGovernment granting asof
18 October 1973 twenty-seven exploration permits for petroleum in the
Aegean Sea to the Turkish Petroleum Company westward of Greek islands
over a part of the seabed whosc boundary lines are depicted on a chart
attached to the Announcement and published on page 29 of the said issue
of the Oficial Gazette.
The above part of the seabed and subsoil thereof as depicted by straight
lines of the said chart appertains to a very large extent both under the pro-
visions of the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf of 29 April 1958
and the relative Greek Laws 142/1969 and 1182/1972 to the Greek islands
Samothrace, Limnos, Aghios Eustratios, Lesvos, Chios, Psara and Antipsara.
On the seabed and subsoil of these islands Greece exercises sovereign rights
with respect to the exploration of the seabed and the exploitation of its
natural resources. On the basis of its sovereign rights as prescribed under
Articles 1 (b) and 2 of the 1958 Geneva Convention, which codified inter-
national law on the subject, Greece has granted since 1961 exploration
permits for petroleum in the Aegean Sea westward of the above mentioned
Greek islands in the same parts of the seabed as depicted in the Turkish
Gazette chart.
In view of the fact that in the above chart the continental shelf between
Greece and Turkey is delimited by taking as base lines the continental parts
' of the State territory, irrespective of the existence of islands, the Greek
Government would Iike to reiterate in this connection that in Article 1,
paragraph (b),ofthe 1958Geneva Convention the continental shelf of islands
is defined in the same way as for other territories. This means that international
law concerning the delimitation of the continental shelf is as a general rule
the same for islands as for the Stateas a whole.
The Geneva Convention in this respect as well as international juris-
prudence is harmonized with conventional and customary international law
which provides that the delimitation of the continental shelf follows the22 AEGEAN SEA
same principfes irrespective of the continental or insular character of the
territory. International law as developed by international practice and
particularly by the agreements on the delimitation of continental shelf leaves
no ambiguity to the effect that islands, asany other part of the Coast, are
entitled to have full seabed area.
Furthermore, the delimitation of the continental shelf isbased both in
theory and practice of international Iaw on the principle of equidistance as
provided in Article 6, paragraph i,of the Geneva Convention. In narrow
waters where two or more States are opposite each other or adjacent to each
other the question of delimitation of the continental shelin the absence of
agreement-and unless another solution is justified by special circum-
stances-the boundary is always determined by the median line. [n the Norrh
Seo Conti~teti!aSllclfcase the International Court of Justiceheld in para-
graph 57 of ils Judginent that a niedian line delilnitaiion betweenopposite
States will be always an equitable shelf division.
The Greek Government, noting that the Greek islands of Samothrace,
Lirnnos, Aghios Eustratios, Lesvos, Chios, Psara and Antipsara form an
integral part of the Greek State and that the territorial sovereignty over these
islands extends according to international law to their seabed and subsoil as
well as to their continental shelf for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting
its natural resources, wishes to advise the Turkish Government that Greece
reserves her full sovereign rights over the continental shelf and subsoil
adjacent to thecoasts of the above islands for the purpose of exploring it and
exploiting its natural resources andconsequentlycan not recognize the validity
of the Turkish Government's action to grant exploration permits westward
of the said Greek islands.
Finally, the GreekGovernment wishes ta make it known that the sovereign
rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting the natural resources of
the said islands are exclusive, under Article2, patagraphs 2 and 3, of the
1958 Geneva Convention
"... inthe sense that if the coastal State does not explore thecontinental
shelf or exploit its natural resources, no one may undertake these
activities, or make a daim to the continental shelf, without the express
consent of the coastal State [and that] The rigofsthe coastal Stateover
the continental shelf do not dependon occupation, effectiveor national,
orany express proclamation".
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew
to the Ernbassy of Turkey the assurance of its highest consideration.
Athens, 7 February 1974.
To THE EMBASS OYFTURKEY
EN VILLE 2. Note verbale tlrrqlre27 février 1974
L'ambassade de Turquie présente sescompliments au ministère des affaires
etrangères et, en réponse àsa note verbale no F. 6243-29JAS 103 du 7 février
1974 et conformément aux instructions reçues, a l'honneur de porter d sa
connaissance ce qui suit:
Les permis d'exploration de pétrole dans la mer Egée,faisant l'objet de la
note susmentionnée, ont été accordéspar le Gouvernement turc après une
considération soigneuse des conditions juridiques et en tenant dûment compte
des règles de droit international régissant la matière, notamment des dis-
positions de la Convention deGenèvede 1958 sur le plateau continental et de
l'arrêtrendu le 20 février 1969par la Cour internationale de Justice dans les
affaires du Pioreart coniinetitade lu mer drrNord entre la République fédérale
d'Allemagne et les Royaumes du Danemark et des Pays-Bas.
Une étude géomorphologique du fond de ta mer Egée, à la lumière des
règles précitées,prouve, en effet, l'existence de vastes espaces sous-marins peu
profonds tout au long et au large de la côte turque, qui constituent le pro-
longement naturel de la presqu'ile anatolienne et, partant. son plateau con-
tinental, tandis que les iles grecques situées tout près de la cbte turque ne
possèdent pas de plateau propre. Or, le droit relatif au plateau continental
ne découle pas uniquement et nécessairement de la souveraineté exercke sur
un territoire. La configuration du fond de la mer qui baigne ou entoure le
territoire en question est un des éléments essentiels pour l'établissement
d'un tel droit. La Cour internationale de Justice souligne clairement I'impor-
tance de cet élémentquand elle déclare, dans son arrêt,que:
«c) pour les raisons exposées aux paragraphes 43 et 44, le plateau
continental de tout Etat doit être le prolongement naturel de son terri-
toire et ne doit pas empiéter sur ce qui est le prolongement naturel du
territoire d'un autre Etat» (paragraphe 85 in fine).
Le Gouvernement turc ne pourrait adhérer, d'autre part, à l'opinion
suivant laquelle la délimitation du plateau continental serait basée,en théorie
comme en droit, sur le principe de I'équidistance. Bien au contraire, la
méthode essentielle de délimitation du plateau continental entre deux Etats
dont les côtes se font face n'est pas I'équidistance, mais l'accord entre ces
Etats. Le texte de la Convention de Genève aussi bien que la jurisprudence
ttablie par I'arrêtprécitéde fa Cour internationale ne considèrent, en effet,
le principe de I'équidistance qu'en troisième place, à défaut d'accord, et à
moins que des circonstances spéciales nejustifient une autre délimitation. Or,
aucune initiative en vue de la conclusion d'un accord pour la délimitation du
plateau continental entre les deux pays n'a étéprise jusqu'à présent, tandis
que le Gouvernement grec aurait commencé, d'après la note ministérielle, A
accorder des permis d'exploration de pétrole dans la mer Egéedepuisbientôt
quinze ans.
Pour seconvaincre de la justesse du point de vuequi vient d'êtrebrièvement
exposé, ilsufit de se référeraux nombreux paragraphes de l'arrêtde la Cour24 AEGEAN SEA
consacrés àl'examen du principe de l'équidistance, dont les passages suivants
sont extraits à titre d'exemples:
«La notion d'kquidistance ne peut manifestement pas êtreidentifiée h
celle d'extension ou de prolongement naturel; car, comme on l'a dkjà vu
au paragraphe 8, l'emploi de la méthode de l'équidistance aurait soivent
oour résulta1d'attribuer à unEtar des zones prolongeant naturellement
je territoire d'un autre Etat lorsque la configurationcôtière du premier
fait dévier latéralement la ligne d'équidistance et ampute le second de
zones situéesjuste devant sa façade maritime. 11(Paragraphe 44 infine.)
((laraison essentielle pour laquelle la méthode de l'équidistance ne
peut êtretenue pour une règle de droit est que, si elle devait êtreappli-
quée obligatoirement en toutes situations,cette méthode ne correspon-
drait pas à certaines notions juridiques de base qui, comme on l'a cons-
taté aux paragraphes 48 et 55, reflètent depuis l'origine I'opinio juris
en matière de délimitation; ces principes sont que la délimitation doit
êtrel'objet d'un accord entre les Etat.s intéressés etque cet accord doit
se réaliser selon des principes équitables)) (extrait du paragraphe 85).
Il y a lieu de faire remarquer ici qu'au paragraphe 57 de l'arrêt,mentionné
dans Janote du ministère, iaCour n'émet pas un avis quisoit en contradiction
avec ce qui vient d'étre relaté; elle s'y attache simplement à expliquer les
raisons des difficultés, moindres ou plus importantes, éprouvées par la
Commission du droit international des Nations Unies lors de l'élaboration
des règles relatives à la délimitation du plateau continental dans les deux cas
d'Etats limitrophes et d3Etats dont les côtes se font face, par la ligne latérale
et par la ligne médiane respectivement.
Quant au rôle qui reviendrait aux iles mentionnées dans la note ministk-
rielle en vue d'une délimitation, leur cas doit, de l'avis du Gouvernement turc,
êtreconsidérk avant tout en conformité avec la notion mêmede plateau
continental telle qu'elle a étédéfinie par la Convention de Genève etl'arrêt
de la Cour interrlationale de Justice.
La situation particulière des iles en question est un deuxième élément
majeur du problème. Malgré le libellé nécessairement général et par cons&-
quent vague des dispositions de faConvention de Genève, les règles établies
par la pratique internationale,ainsi qu'en témoignent plusieurs accords déj8
intervenus, interdisent, en effet, l'octroi d'une égale valeura toutes les îles
sans tenir compte de leurs caractéristiques et de leur situation particulière
quand il s'agit de la délimitation du plateau continental. Or, aussi bien les
îles en question que l'ensemble de la mer Egée - lieu de rencontre géogra-
phique de tant d'intérêtsimportants et historiquement établisde la Turquie et
par son caractère de mer semi-fermée - constituent un exemple typique
de {(circonstances spéciales)) et doivent, à ce titre, êtretraitées d'une façon
appropriée en vue de l'application des règles du droit international maritime.
En conclusion de ce qui précède,et tout en réservant ses droits légitimes,
le Gouvernement turc estime qu'il serait opportun de rechercher par voie
d'accord une solution conforme aux règles du droit international pour les
problèmes qui se posent relativement aux eaux communes de la mer Egée,
ceci afin de prévenir le développement d'une situation qui pourrait entraîner
des conséquences préjudiciables aux intérêts mutuelset relations d'amitik et
de bon voisinage entre les deux pays. L'ambassade de Turquie saisit l'occasion de cette communication pour
réitérerau ministère des affaires étrangèresles assurances de sa plus haute
consideration.
Athènes, le 27 fkvrier 1974.
MINISTÈRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGERES
EN VILLE
3, Greek Nore Verbale, 24 May 1974
The Ministry for Foreign Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy
of Turkey and, with reference to the Embassy's Note No. 183139,dated
27 February 1974,have the honour to inform them that, while reserving al1
their rights under international law and their position as stated in their
Note No. F. 6243-29/AS 103 of 7 February 1974,the Hellenic Government
are not opposed to a delimitation of the continental shelf between the two
countries based on the provisionsof present day positive international law,
as codifiedby the 1958Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf.
The Ministry for Foreign Affairs avail themsefves of this opportunity of
reiterating to the Embassy of Turkey the assurances of their highest con-
sideration.
Athens, 24 May 1974.
4. Réponse turque, 5juin1974
L'ambassade de Turquie présente ses compliments au ministére des
affaires étrangèreset, se référantà sa note no F. 6243.11/44/AS812 du 24 mai
1974, a l'honneur de lui faire savoir que le Gouvernement turc a pris bonne
note de la communication suivant laquelle le Gouvernement helléniquen'est
pas opposéà sa proposition de rechercher par voie d'accord une solution au
probléme du plateau continental.
Le Gouvernement turc tient h réaffirmer,B cette occasion, qu'il est fer-
mement convaincu que l'intérêtbien compris des deux nations amies fait
un devoir pour leurs gouvernements de déployer tous les efforts afin d'ap-
porter des solutions concertées aux différentesquestions qui se posent en
raison de leur voisinage dans la mer Egée.26 AEGEAN SEA
Vu ce qui prkcède, et tout en réservant ses droits légitimeset sa position
telle qu'elle a étédéfiniepar la note no 183/39du 27 février1974, le Gouver-
nement turc déclareêtreprêtà entamer les négociationspour la délimitation
du plateau continental entre les deux pays, dans le cadre des règlesdu droit
international, à la date qui sera indiquée par le Gouvernement helléniqueen
tenant compte de l'importance et de l'urgence du problème.
Cette ambassade saisit I'occasion de réitérerau ministère des affaires
étrangeresles assurances de sa plus haute considération.
Athènes, le 5 juin 1974.
MINISTER DES AFSAIRES ~TRANGÈRES
EN VILLE
5. Greek Nore Verbak, 14 Ji~ne1974
The Ministry for Foreign Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy
of Turkey and have the honour to advise them as follows:
1. By Note Verbale No. F. 6243-29/AS 103 dated 7 February 1974 the
Ministry informed the Embassy that the Greek Government, for the reasons
stated therein, reserved their
"full sovereignrights over the continental shelf and subsoil adjacent to
the coasts of the above islands [Samothrace,Limnos, Aghios Eustratios,
Lesvos, Chios, Psara and Antipsara] for the purpose of exploring it and
exploiting its natural resources and consequently can not recognize the
validity of the Turkish Government's action to grant exploration perrnits
[of the continental shelf] westward of the saidGreek islands".
2. On 29 May 1974, the Turkish naval research vessel Candarli (NO. 593)
escorted by several Turkish warships, sailed, without seeking or obtaining
the consent of the Greek Government under Articles 2, paragraph 2, or 5,
paragraph 8, of the Geneva Convention of 29April 1958on the Continental
Shelf, into waters superjacent in wholeor in part to the continental shelf of
the islands: Limnos, Aghios Eustratios, Lesvos, Skyros, Psara, Antipsara
and Chios, with the aim, clearly and unequivocally stated by Turkish
Cabinet members, of exploring the natural resources of said continental shelf
(statements by Turkish Energy Minister, Mr. Kayra, of 29 and 30 May 1974).
3. On 4 June 1974,an officialrelease of the Turkish Goverriment followed
by 3 mtement of the spokesman of the Turkish Foreign Ministry, Mr. Semih
Akbil, announced that the Turkish research vessel Corrdarli had returned
to base after carrying out al1its tasks, which, according to Energy Minister,
Mr. Kayra, were magnetometrical in nature (statement of 29 May 1974).
4. The aforementioned statements of Turkish Cabinet Ministers and offi-cials concerning the mission assigned and carried out by the naval research
vesse1 Candorli constituting an admission of violation of the exclusive
sovereign rights of Greece under Article1 (bj, 2 (1) and 2 (2) of the Con-
vention on the Continental Shelf signed atGeneva on 29 April 1958, the
Hellenic Government hereby lodge a vigorous protest with the Turkish
Governrnent and reiterate that they reaffirm and reserve al1their rights over
the continental shelf of the Greek islands opposite the Turkish Coast under
the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention of 1958.
The Ministry for Foreign ARairs avail themselves of the opportunity of
reiierating tothe Embassy of Turkey the assurances of their highest con-
sideration.
Athens, 14 June 1974.
EMBASSY OF TURKEY
EN VILLE
6. Réponseturque, 4 jlriller 1974
L'ambassade de Turquie présente ses compliments au ministère des
affaires étrangèreset, se référantà sa nonoF. 6243/109/AS 1061du 14juin
1974, a l'honneur de lui faire savoir que le Gouvernement dc la République
de Turquie ne peut accepter la protestation du Gouvernement helléniqueau
sujet de prétendues violations du plateau continental hellénique par le
bâtiment de recherche turc Candarli étant donné que cette protestation est
dénuéede tout fondement.
En effet, Candarli a effectuérécemment des recherches dans le plateau
continental turc conformément aux règles du droit international et des
recherches semblables continueront selon le programme de recherche
pétrolièredes concessionnaires.
D'autre part, la différencede point de vue expriméepar le Gouvernement
hellénique dans la note susmentionnée est, de l'avdu Gouvernement turc,
une indication de plus de!a nécessitéet de l'urgence de la solution dpra-
blèmede la délimitationdu plateau continental entre les deux pays, par voie
d'accord mutuel et conformément aux règlesdu droit international, comme
if a été souligdans la note no5431131du 5 juin 1974de cette ambassade.
L'ambassade de Turqvie saisit cette occasion pour renouveler au ministère
des affaires etrangères les assurances de sa plus haute considération.
Athènes, le 4 juille1974.
MINISTÈR EES AFFAIRESBTRANGÈRES
EN VILLE AtiGEAN SEA
7. Greek Note Verbale, 22 Arigiist 1974
No. F. 6243/11S/AS 1917
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy
of Turkey and have thehonour to üdvise them as follows:
1. By Note Verbalc No. F. 6243-29/AS 103 dated 7 Fcbruary 1974, the
Ministry informed the Embassy that the Greek Government, for the reasons
stated thcrein, reserved their sovcreign rights over the continental shelf and
the subsoil ofthe islands Samothrace, Linlnos, Aghios Eustrütios, Lesvos.
Chios, Psara and Antipsara for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting
its natural resources.
2. By Note Verbale No. 6243/109/AS 1061 dated 14 June 1974, the
Ministry informed the Embassy that the Greek Governn-ient reiterated that
they reaffirmed and reserved al1 their sovereign rights over the continental
shelf of the Greek islünds opposite the Turkish Coast under the provisions
of the relevant Geneva Convention of 29 April 1958, i.e., Articles 1 (h),
2 (2) or 5(8).
3. Fallowing the above-mentioned Notes the Greek Govcrnment have
been inforrned with regret that a new decision of the Turkish Government
No. 7/8594, dated 2 July 1974, has bcen published in the Oflicial Turkish
Gazette in its issue No. 14949of 18July I974(pp. 1-3),by which exploration
permits for petroleum "en bloc" are granted to the Turkish Petroleum
Company in the Aegean Sea, westward of Greck islands over a part of their
seabed. whose boundary lines are depicted on a new Chart attached to the
decision and published on pages 2 and 3 of the said issue of the Oficial
Gazette, dated 18July 1974.
4. The Greek Governrnent wish to rnake it known once again that the
sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting the natural
resources of the said islands'continental shelf ore exclusive, under Art2.le
paragraphs 2 and 3, of the 1958 Geneva Convention and the general prin-
ciples or international law on this illatter, in the sense that even if the coastül
State does not explore the continental shelf or exploit its natural resources,
no one may undertake these aciivities without the express consent of the
coastal State.
5. Consequentfy the Greek Government hereby lodge a vigorous protest
with the Turkish Government and reiterate that they reject such unilateral
acts and declare that Greece does not recognize ony validity of the above
Turkish Government's actions, which are obviously in contradiction to the
rules of international law and against the sovereign rights of Greece on the
continental shelf.
The Ministry of Foreign Anairs avail themselves of this opportunity to
renew to the Embassy of Turkey the assurances of their highest consideration.
Athens, 22 August 1974.
To THE TURKIS EHMBASSY
EN VILLE 8. TurkishReply, 16September 1974
The Embassy of Turkey presents its cornplimcnts to the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and, with reference to their NoNo. F. 624311IS/AS 1917of
22 August 1974, has thehonour 10inform them that the Government of the
Republic of Turkey find the protest of the Greek Government on the subject
of the exploration permits granted to the Turkish PetroIeum Company in the
Aegean Sea unacceptable, since the said areas are part of the Turkish con-
tinental shelf. For the same reason they consider that the Greek claims on the
above-meniioned areas are wiihout any legal foundation.
The Turkish Government would oncemore like to reiterate their statement,
according to which a mutually acceptable solution to the problems of
delimiting the sea areas of the Aegean, whose opposite coasts both countries
share, should be reached through negotiations. They note with regret the
attempts of the Government of Greece to impose one-sided solutions to the
problems that can only be solved bilaterally, especially in an area such as the
Aegean, whose unique geographical configuration and geologic structure
are accepted facts.
The Embassy of Turkey avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs the assurances of its highest consideration.
Athens, 16 September 1974.
9. Greek Note Verbale, 27Janlrary 1975
No. 6242.4/53/AS 293
The Greek Embassy present their compliments to the Ministry for Foreign
Affairs and with reference to the exchange of Notes regarding the continental
shelf in the Aegean. they have the honour to advise the Ministry as follows:
They wish to'remind the Ministry that by Note No. 6243.1 1/44/AS 812of
24 May 1974the Greek Government had declared that, while reserving their
position, they were not opposed to a delimitation of the continental shelf
between the two countries, based on the provisions of present day positive
international law as codified by the Convention on the Continental Shelf,
signed at Geneva in 1958.
The Turkish Government stated in response that they were willing to
discuss the matter in the framework of.the rules of international law.
However, the Turkish Government's position according to which "the
Greek isfands sited near the Turkish coast have no continental sheIf of their
own"-a position reiterated on 16 Septernber 1974-raises considerable30 AEGEAN SEA
doubts as to the inclusion of al1 the provisions of said Convention on the
Continental Shelf in their concept of the "rules of international law".
lnview of the aforegoing and taking into additional consideration most
recent authoritative clarifications given to the Greek Ambassadot in Ankara
to the effect that the Turkish Government is animated by a spirit of con-
ciliation, the Greek Government propose that the differences over the
applicable law as well as over the substance of the matter be referred to the
International Court of Justice. Indeed, the Greek Government, without
prejudice to their right to initiate Court proceedings unilaterally, would see
considerable advantage in reaching jointly with the Turkish Government a
special agreement under which reference to the Court might be made, as
befitstwo neighbouring countries and fellow-Members of the United Nations
Organization.
The Greek Ernbassy would be most obliged to the Ministry for Foreign
Afiairs if they could advise thern in due tirne of the Turkish Government's
views on this proposal.
The Embassy avail themselves of the opportunity of reiterating to the
Ministry the assurances of their highest consideration.
Ankara, 27 January 1975.
10. TurkishReply, 6 Februar1 y975
The Ministry of Foreign Afïairs presents its compliments to the Embassy
of Greece and, with reference to their Note of 27 January 1975, No.
6242.4/53/AS 293, regarding the delimitation of the continental shelf in the
Aegean Sea, hasthehonour to set forth the view of the Turkish Governrnent
for transmission to the attention of the Greek Government herebelow.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs welcomes the spirit of conciliation of
Greece regarding its proposa1 to settle the dispute on the delimitation of the
Aegean continental shelf through peaceful means.
lt is the considered view of the Turkish Government that various vital
questions concerning the Aegean Sea are still outstanding between Greece
and Turkey. which should be resolved through peaceful means. As Turkey
and Greece are compelled to be friendly and CO-operativeby virtue of geo-
graphy and mutual interests, there seems to be no other alternative but to
settle their disputes through negotiation.
Animated with this spirit and in view of the special geographic structure
of the Aegean Sea, wherein both countries are confronted with issues to be
settled yetinter dia the breadth of the territorial seas in the Aegean and the
use of its airspace, the Turkish Government hopes that the Government of
Greece shall agree, with priority, to enter into negotiations with the Covern- APPLICATION 3 1
ment of the Republic of Turkey on the question of the Aegean continental
shelf with a view to arriving at a mutually acceptable and satisfactory
solution.
Indeed, Turkey had proposed on various occasions the initiation of
negotiations between the two countries,with the airnof solving the differences
on the Aegean continental shelf pcacefully, in a just and equitable manner.
It should be noted regretfully that these Turkish proposals were not met by
Greece and negotiations were thus prevented. There is no doubt that mean-
ingful negotiations constitute a basic method for the settlement of inter-
national disputes. In view of the fact that such negotiations have not yet
taken place, the issues relating to the disputes have ceither been fully iden-
tified nor elucidated.
However, in principle, the Turkish Government favourabIy considers the
Greek Government's proposa1 to refer the dispute over the delirnitation of
the Aegean continental shelf jointly to the International Court of Justice.
To this effect and to elaborate the terms under which the matter shall be
referred to the said Court, Turkey proposes high-level talks to be initiated
between the two Governments. The Turkish Government is of the opinion
that the political nature and vital importance of the rnatter necessitates that
these talks be held at ministerial level.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of the opportunofreiterat-
ing to the Embassy of Greece its highest consideration.
Ankara, 6 February 1975.
11. Greek Note Verbole 1,0Februory 1975
No. 6242.44120JAS489
Referring to Note Verbale No. 754.537-SlGM/SIMD/3-31 dated
6 February 1975,addressed by the Ministry of Foreign Afïairs of Turkey to
the Greek Embassy in Ankara, the Greek Government note with satisfaction
that the Turkish Government accept in principle their proposa1 that the
question of the delimitation of the continental shelf of the Aegean Sea be
submitted jointly to the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
The Greek Government agree that, following suitable preparation, talks
should be held in order to draft the terms of the special agreement (com-
promisrimr) equired to that effect.
Should the Turkish Government desire that the delegations of the two32 AEGEAN SEA
countriesat thefirsstage ofthe ta1ksbeledby Ministers, the GreekGovern-
mentwouldhave no objection.
..................................................................
Ankara, 10 February1975. APPLICATION
Annex III
1. Communiquéconjoint, Rome,19mai 1975
Les ministres des affaires étrangèresde Turquie et de Grèce se sont ren-
contrésà Rome du 17au 19 mai 1975accompagnés de leurs experts.
Les questions relatives au plateau continental de la mer Egée ont étb
discutées et une première étude d'un texte de compromis concernant la
soumission de l'affaire devant la Cour internationafe de Justice a eu lieu.
A cette occasion les deux ministres ont passé enrevue toutes les questions
qui intéressent directementles relations entre les deux pays.
La continuation des rencontres des experts dans un proche avenir a été
convenue.
Les entretiens des deux ministres se sont déroulésdans une atmosphére
de bonne volonté et un commun désir d'aplanir leursdifférends.
Les deux ministres ont convenu de se recontrer de nouveau 21Bruxelles
la fin de ce mois.
Rome, le 19mai 1975.
2. Communiquéconjoint,Bruxelles,3 1 mai 1975
Au cours de leur rencontre les deux premiers ministres ont eu l'occasion
de procéder l'examen des problémesqui conduisirent à la situation actuelle
les relations de leurs pays.
Ils ont dkcidéque ces problèmes doivent êtrerésolus pacifiquementpar la
voie des négociations etconcernant le plateau continental de la mer Egéepar
la Cour internationale de La Haye. Ils ont définiles lignes généralessur la
base desquelles auront lieu les rencontres prochaines des représentants des
deux gouvernements.
A cet égardils ont dkcidéd'accélhrerla rencontre d'experts concernant la
question du plateau continental de la mer Egée, ainsique celle des experts sur
la question de l'espaceaérien.
Les deux premiers ministres se sont trouvésd'accord que de part et d'autre
des efforts soient faits aux fins de la créationet du maintien d'un bon climat
dans les relations entre la Grèce et la Turquie de sorte que les problèmes
existants puissent êtrerésoluset que les deux pays soient amenésau rétablis-
sement de leur coopération à leur avantage mutuel.
Enfin, les deux premiers ministres se sont trouvésd'accord pour apporter
leur appui aux négociationsintercommunautaires de Vienne.
Bruxelles, Ie1mai 1975. AEGEAN SEA
3. TurkishProposal for a JoinSttarement to the Press,
Seprember1975
In accordance with the agreement reached between the Foreign Ministers
of Turkey and Greece in Rome in May 1975, which was later reaffirrned by
Prime Minister Demirel and Prime Minister Caramanlis, the Turkish and
Greek delegations of experts shall rneet for the first tbetween 25 and 27
September 1975in Paris to discuss the question of mutual interest concerning
the Aegean continental shelf areas and related problems between the two
countries. The eight-member Turkish delegation will b;eheadby theTurkish
Ambassador to Berne, Prof, Dr, Suat Bilge, and the Greek delegation
by Ambassador J,Tzounis. APPLICATION
Annex IV
1. Turkis Nole Verbale,30 Seprember1975
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy
of Greece and in view of the recent dificulties encountered in realizing the
long expected meeting ofTurkish and Greek experts to examine the question
of the Aegean continental shelf, has the honour to bring the following to
their attention:
The Turkish Government hasproposed on rnany occasions that thedispute
over the Aegean continental shelf be resolved through negotiations between
the two countries, as this has always been the policy of the Turkish Govern-
ment. The Turkish Government considers that unilateral actions in this field
will only create new problems rather than solving existing ones.
In accordance with this general policy, this Ministry, in its Note number
754.537-SIGM/SlMD/3-31 of 6 February 1975, while proposing that the
questions between Turkey and Greece relating to the Aegean continental
shelf be solved through bilateral negotiations, at the same time indicated that
Turkey did not object to the Greek proposal to submit the dispute to the
International Court of Justice, provided that this could be done with the
explicit consent of both parties.
In conforn-iity with the proposal contained in the said Note a meeting was
arranged on 17-19 May 1975 in Rome between the Turkish and Greek
Foreign Ministers to prepare the ground for negotiations at experts level.
Turkey put forth in Rome that it will not be in the interest of the two coun-
tries to submit the dispute to the International Court of Justice without first
attempting meaningful negotiations, while Greece argued thatthe disputebe
taken directly to the Court.
The Turkish Foreign Minister emphasized that the peculiarities of the
Aegean Sea created complex problems. Some aspects of the continental shelf
concept are yet to be established. For this reason theprinciples to be applied
canbest bedetermined between the countriesconcerned. The Turkish Foreign
Minister finally suggested in Rome that the responsibility of joint exploration
and exploitation of the resources of the Aegean continental sheIf could afso
be envisaged between Turkey and Greece.
The Turkish Foreign Minister also suggested that negotiations for the
delimitation of the continental shelf of the Aegean Sea should take place
parallel with the preparation of a draft special agreement acceptableto both
parties. This formula was finalIy accepted by Greece and further confirrned
at the meeting which took place in Brussels on 30 May 1975 between the
Prime Ministers of thetwo countries, In Brussels it was afso decided that the
two partieswould initiate bilateral negotiationsconcerning al1their problems.36 AEGEAN SEA
Furthermore, it was also agreed upon that those issues relating to the Aegean
continental shelf areas which could not be resolved by negotiations would
be jointly submitted to the Court.
The above-mentioned understanding between the two parties emanated
then from their common desire to resolve their dispute by way of mutual
agreement, which would reconciletheir respective viewsand positions.
However, the Greek Government, contrary to this understanding, recently
atternpted to reassert its previous point of view by insisting that expert level
discussions envisaged to be held in Paris between 25 and 27September 1975
should directly and exclusively be limited to the drafting of a special agree-
ment. This position of the Government of Greece prevented the realization
of the said meeting. In the opinion of the Turkish Government the Paris
meeting which did not take place is a lost opportunity. At this meeting a
detailed examination of al1 issues related to the continental shelf of the
Aegean could have been embarked upon, while at the same time the joint
drafting of the special agreement çould have been initiated.
The Turkish Government also considers that the recent position taken by
theGreek Government in this respect is not in linewith thespirit of Article 33
of the Charter of the United Nations. Furthermore, concerning the delimi-
tation of marine areas, a negotiated settlement is a specificobligation for the
parties involved.
The Turkish Government reiterates once more its point of view that the
best method of solving these differences is bilateral negotiatioAsjust and
fair agreement based on equitable principles. Therefore, in accordance with
this principle and iaspirit of goodwill and conciliation theTurkish Govern-
ment calls upon the Greek Government to enter into meaningful negotiations
as soon as possible.
The Ministry of Foreign Afïairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew
to the Embassy of Greece the assurances of its highest consideration.
Ankara, 30September 1975.
2. Greek Nole Verbale,2 October 1975
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy
of Turkey and, with reference to Note No. 754.537-SIGM/SIMD/3-248
addressed on 30 September 1975to the Greek Ambassador in Ankara by the
Turkish Foreign Ministry, have thehonour to state the following:
The issue of the delimitation of the continental shelf appertaining to the
two countries in the Aegean was raised by the Turkish Government, when,
on 1November 1973w ,ithout priar notice toor consultation with the Greek Government, they granted a number of oil concessions in the Aegean to the
Turkish Petroleum Company (TPAO) some of which encroached upon the
continental shelf of the Greek islands.
The Greek Government contested the validity in international law of
these concessions, and an exchange of Notes took place in which the two
Governments stated their respective positions. These being irreconcilable,
the Greek Government were led to propose on 27 January 1975 that the
"differences over the applicable law as well as over the substance" of the
delimitation of the continental shelf be referred jointly by Greece and Turkey
to the Lnternational Court of Justice.
By Note of 6 February 1975, the Turkish Government, after reiterating
their preference for a negotiated settlement, for which, however, no cornmon
ground had been found, specifically agreed to the Greek proposal. The
relevant passage of the Turkish Note reads as follows:
"However, in principle, theTurkish Government favourably considers
the Greek Government's proposal to refer the dispute over the deii-
mitation of the Aegean continental shelf jointly to the International
Court of Justice. To this efict and to elaborate the terms under which
the matter shall be referred to the said Court, Turkey proposes high-
level talks to be initiated between the two Governrnents. The Turkish
Government is of the opinion that the political nature and vital im-
portance of the matter necessitates that these talks be held at ministerial
level."
Greece acquiesced, and the matter thus seernedsettled :therewasagreement
over referral to the International Court of Justice, there was agreement over
what was to be referred to the Court, namely the delimitation of the conti-
nental shelf, there was agreement over the level of the talks and there was
agreement on, the object of these talks, Le.: "to elaborate the terrns under
which the matter shall be referred to the Court".
That this was also the understanding of the Turkish Government of the
time was confirmed by Prime Minister Irmak, in a statement to the Turkish
Grand National Assembly on 3 March 1975. He said:
"The Greeks have answered positively to Our proposal concerning
talks prior to our going to The Hague. These [talks] did not start yet.
The object of the talks will be the special agreement (compromis w)hich
will define the basis of the case."
A meeting of the Foreign Ministers of Greece and Turkey was subse-
quently arranged in Rome on 17-19 May, which, according to the relevant
joint cornmuniquk published on 14 May in the Greek and Turkish Press,
had the stated purpose of:
"... examining the modalitjes of submitting the question of the con-
tinental shelf of the Aegean Sea to the International Court of The Hague.
The Ministers would also exchange views on other matters concerning
Greco-Turkish relations."
Since the two Governrnents were already agreed on jointly referring the
delimitation of the continental shelf to the Court, the only "modality" to be
examined was the drafting of the text of the special agreement defining the
Court's terms of reference,
When the two delegations met in Rome the Greek side submitted a draft
text of a compromis for negotiation. The Turkish side stated that they were38 AECEAN SEA
not yet ready to discuss it and needed more time to prepare thernselves.Asked
whether atleast they could state their legal position they avoided to do so.
They suggested however the possibility of joint exploitation of certain
unspecified areas of the continental shelf. It was finally agreed between the
two Foreign Ministers that a committee of experts woufd meet at the earliest
possible date to negotiate the special agreement.
At this meeting the Turkish ideas of joint ventures could also be further
explored. The Press communiqué issued after the Rome meeting read in part
as follows:
"Les questions relatives au plateau continental de la mer Egéeont
étédiscutéeset une première étuded'un texte de compromis concernant
la soumission de l'affaire devant la Cour internationale de Justice a eu
lieu.
A cette occasion les deux ministres ont passe en revue toutes les
questions qui intéressent directement les relations entre les deux pays.
La continuation des rencontres des experts dans un proche avenir a
étéconvenue."
When the Prime Ministers of the two countries met in Brussels on 31 May
1975, it was agreed that the issue would first be formally submitted to the
International Court and that talks in view of an eventual agreed solution
were not excfuded to follow. That International Court proceedings were the
agreed choice of the two Prime Ministers forthe settlement of the delimitation
of the continental shelf isstated unequivocally in the joint communiquéissued
by them which reads as followsin French:
"Au cours de leur rencontre lesdeuxpremiers ministresont eu l'occasion
de procéder à l'examen des problérnesqui conduisirent à la situation
actuellt les relations entre leurs pays.
Ilsont décidé que ces problémes doiventétrerésolus pacifiquementpar
la voie des négociationset, au sujet du plateau continental de la mer Egke.
par la Cour internationale de La Haye. Ils ont défini leslignes générales
sur la base desquelles auront lieu des rencontres prochaines des représen-
tants des deux gouvernements.
A cet tgard, ils ont décidé d'accélérerrelancontre d'experts concernant
la question du plateau continental de la mer Egée,ainsique celledesexperts
sur la question de l'espace aérien."
Under the Brussels agreement the meeting of experts on the continental
shelf was to be accelerated. Accordingfy on 26June, the Greek Government
through their Ambassador in Ankara proposed that it should take place in
July with a view to drafting the special agreement necessary for submitting
the issue to the Court. The Turkish Government objected that time was too
short for the preparation of their experts.
On 30 June the Ambassador again raised the issue personally with the
Turkish Foreign Minister.
On 9 July the Greek Foreign Minister sent a message to his Turkish
colleague in which, after confirming the understanding of the two Prime
Ministers, he expressed the hope that an early date would be set for expert-
Ievel discussions.
On 20 August, the Greek Ambassador enquired again with the Turkish
Foreign Ministry whether rhey could indicate "a date and venue for the APPLICATION 39
meeting of the mixed Commission, whichwould draft the special agreement".
Inorder to avoid any misunderstanding on the purpose of the proposed talks,
the Ambassador left an informal note with the Turkish Foreign Ministry.
It follows from the aforegoing that the Turkish Government were left in
no doubt whatever as to the purpose of the meeting of experts, which was
finally set for 25-27 September in Paris. However when, three days before
the meeting, the question arose of issuing a joint statement to the press
indicating the scope of the expert-levef talks, the Turkish Government
submitted a text in which no mention whatever was made of the special
agreement. When the Greek Ambassador objected, the Turkish side con-
tended that the continental shelf did not exist by itself, that it was part of a
wider complex of problems, that thete were several ways of settling it, of
which referral to the International Court was only one, and that, conse-
quently, the terms of reference of the experts should be broad enough in
order not to preclude the discussion of the wider, yet unspecified issues. It
was further intimated that it might not even be necessary to go to the Inter-
national Court and that in any event the Turkish Government were not in a
position to state publicly at this juncture that the issue of thecontinental shelf
would be referred to the Court.
The Greek Ambassador pointed out that the issue of the continental shelf
was clearIy one of delimitation, that under previous agreements this was to
be settled by the International Court, that under the Brussels agreement
initiation of Court proceedings would take precedence over possible talks
andthat in order to submit the issue to the Court it was necessary to draft a
special agreement. He added that in the judgment of the Greek Government
the Paris meeting ought to take place with a view to drafting a compromis,
which, if agreed upon, would have a beneficial effect on the relations between
the two countries. The Ambassador further said that. in order to avoid
possible misunderstandings which might confuse the issues, and could have
prejudicial effects. the objectof the meeting should be clearly indicated in
advance. However, if for reasons that the Greek Governrnent could not
understand but that were decisive in the judgment of the Turkish Govern-
ment, the latter felt that the meeting shoufd be briefly postponed, the Greek
Government would accept a short postponement thereof, it being however
clearly understood that they still maintained, under the Brussels agreement,
that recourse to the International Court of Justice was a matter of priority
and that it was necessary and urgent.
Regretfully the Turkish Government chose to postpone the meeting. The
Greek Government agree that an opportunity was thus lost, but can assume
no responsibility for the cancellation of the meeting. Neither can it agree
that in insisting for an early referral of the issue to the highest international
tribunal, they were not acting in the spirit of Article 33 of the Charter of the
United Nations.
The Greek Government have repeatedly stated that they look forward to
settling al1their international differences by peaceful means as befits a peace-
lovjng country and a Member of the United Nations. They could not agree
more with the Turkish Government that "unilateral actions in any field
only create new problems instead of solvingexisting ones".It is in accordance
with these principles and in a spirit of friendliness and of conciliation that
they cal1 upon the Turkish Government to agree toan early drafting of the
special agreement which would enable the InternationaI Court of Justice to
proceed to the delimitation of the continental shelf appertaining to the two
countries.40 AEGEAW SEA
The Greek Government believe that recourse to the Court would greatly
improve relations between Greece and Turkey, and would facilitate further
talks of the two Governments.
In concluding, the Creek Ciovernmeit would like to record their surprise
at the fact that the text of the Turkish Note was released to the Press almost
prior to its receipt by the Greek Government, which is intaccordance with
normal diplornatic practice.
The Ministry for Foreign Affairs avail themselves ofthi spportunity of
reiterating to the Embassy of Turkey the assurances of their highest con-
sideration.
Athens, 2 October 1975.
EMBASS YF TURKEY
EN VILLE
3. TürkishNote Verbale, 18 November 1975
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Ernbassy
of Greece and with reference to the Note No. 6243.15/190/AS 3780, dated
2 October 1975 which was delivered in Athens to the Turkish Chargé
d'maires has the honour to bring the following to the attention of the
Greek Government :
The Aegean Sea, the coasts of which are shared by Turkey and Greece,
is an area that has equal importance for each of them. Both countries have
vital, strategic, economic and political interests in the area. Throughout
history, the Aegean and its resources have been freely and equally shared
and used by the peoples of the Anatolian andthe Greek peninsulas.
The present differences have arisen because the continental shelfof the
Aegean has yet to be delimited. Since the emergence of the situation, the
Turkish Government in its official communications, contacts and on al1
informa1 occasions has consistently pointed out that due to the extremely
complex problems involved in drawing a boundary Iine and to the parti-
cuIarities of the region and its immense importance for the two countries,
the delimitation of the area can only bereaiized jointly if an equitable solution,
acceptableio both sides. is found.
The Government of Turkey, which has always aspired to the settlement of
its disputes by making use of al1 peaceful means, was pleased to see that
during the Rome meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the two countries in APPLICATION 41
May 1975, the Greek side agreed to seek a negotiated settlement of the
differences, bearing also in mind the Turkish proposal for joint exploration
and exploitation of resources, and to try to prepare, if necessary, a draft
special agreement for thejoint reference to the International Court of Justice
of those aspects of the situation which, they might agree, were the points of
genuine disagreement between thetwo sides.
The Brussels meeting of 31 May 1975gave the Prime Ministers of Turkey
and Greece a chance to reiterate the decision of their Foreign Ministers and
to express their desire to solve al1the problems that exist between their two
countries peacefully through negotiations.
In view of the foregoing, the Government of Turkey does not share the
Greek side's interpretation that the parties have already agreed to refer the
dispute to the lnternational Court of Justice without prior negotiations. For
this very reason, numerous partial quotations from previous Turkish com-
munications contained in the Greek Note of 2 October 1975, No. 6243,151
190/AS 3780, do not reflect their full context as well as that of the statement
made by the former Turkish Prime Minister and the understanding reached
between the two countries at the Romeand Brussels meetings.
The Turkish Government finds it essential to reiterate once more its view
that the questions between Turkey and Greece relating to the Aegean con-
tinental shelf be solved through bilateral negotiations and that such nego-
tiations are regarded as specific obligations of States by international law
and practice as well as by the rulings of the lnternational Court of Justice.
With regard to this specific obligation the Court in its decision on the North
Sea ConrinenialShevcase clearly States: "the Parties are under an obligation
to enter into negotiations with a view to arriving at an agreement, and not
merely to go through a formal process of negotiation" and "they are under
an obligation so to conduct themselves that the negotiations are meaningful
which witl not be the case when either of them insists upon its own position
without contemplating any modification of its case".
As the Government of Greece must be aware, nearly al1States throughout
the world presently involved in the delimitation of continental shelf areas are
trying to solve their problems by bilateral or multilateral negotiations. In
this context, the Government of Turkey would like to remind theGovernment
of Greece that on various occasions as welt as during the meetings held in
Rome the Turkish side has emphasized that the mere exchange of notes
cannot be construed as bilateral negotiations with a view to arriving at an
agreement. In fact, only bilateral negotiations could render it possible for the
parties to accomrnodate their differences in order to reach an equitable and
acceptable solution. The negotiations already undertaken by Turkey and
Greece on the question of the Aegean airspace, in accordance with the
agreement reached between the two Foreign Ministers in Rome, constitutes
a good example in this respect.
In spite of the willingness ofTurkey to negotiate, the two countries have
so far not been able to enter into negotiations as required by international
law.
The Government of Turkey therefore invites the Government of Greece
to a meeting to be held as soon as possible with the aim of conducting
meaningful negotiations for exploring thoroughly and earnestly al1possibili-
ties of an agreed equitable settlement taking into account the interests of
both countries, as well as for considering joint submission of unresolved
but well-defined legal issues, if necessary; to the lnternational Court of
Justice.42 AEGEAN SEA
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew
to the Embassy of Greece the assurances of itshighest consideration.
Ankara, 18 November 1975.
4. Note verbale grecque, 19décembre 1975
L'ambassade de Grèce présenteses compliments au ministère des affaires
étrangèreset, se référant a sa note no 754.537-SlGM/SIMD/3-284 en date
du 18novembre 1975,a l'honneur de lui faire savoir ce qui suit:
Le différend entre la Grèce et la Turquie concerne la délimitation du
plateau continental dans la mer Egée.II est néde l'absence de délimitation
de ce plateau. La note turque du 18novembre 1975le reconnaît expressément
et le Gouvernement grec est d'accord sur ce point fondamental.
Son objet est donc limitéet préciset ne concerne en rien les intérbts vitaux
stratégiquesou politiques des deux pays, qui ne sont pas en cause.
Les notes échangéesentre les deux gouvernements ont révélé que ceux-ci
sont en désaccord sur les principes du droit international applicable à la
delimitation du plateau continental et sur la mise en Œuvre de ces principes
dans le cas concret de la mer Egée.En constquence, le Gouvernement grec a
proposéle 27janvier 1975 de soumettre le différendà laCour internationale
de Justice et le Gouvernement turc en aacceptéle principe.
Cet accord qui a &téréaffirmélors des rencontres de Rome et de Bruxelles
constitue en lui-mêmeune admission que les positions des deux gouverne-
ments tant sur Ies principes du droit international conventionnel et cou-
tumier que sur leur application se sont révéléeisnconciliables. Aucun fait
nouveau n'est intervenu depuis ces rencontres. Au contraire la note turque
du 30 septembre 1975 reconnaît qu'un desaccord fondamental subsiste
puisqu'elle confirme que, lors de la réunion de Rome, leministre des affaires
étrangèresde Turquie a contesté l'existence mêmede principes établispour
la définition du concept du plateau continental et sa délimitation.
La Grèce remplit pleinement ses obligations internationales en proposant
de déférerun différendconstaté et irrkductible à la Cour internationale de
Justice. A cet kgard, la référencede la note turqueiil'arrêtde la Cour inter-
nationale dans l'affaire du Pfateau continental de !a mer du Nord n'est pas
pertinente dans le cas présent. En effet, la Cour n'a pas invitéles parties ià
négocieraux fins de déroger aux principes de droit international relatifs?îla
délimitation du plateau continental.
Toutefois, le Gouvernement hellénique considére,puisqu'une négociation
est de toute façon nécessairepour procéder 21la rédaction de l'instrument
destiné21saisir la Cour internationale de Justice, qu'il est sous-entendu que,
si dans le courant de cette négociation des propositions étaient faites pour
éliminer les points de désaccord entre les deux gouvernements relatifs la APPLICATION 43
délimitation du plateau continental de la mer Egcespropositions feraient
l'objet d'un examen approprié.
Si le Gouvernement turc est d'accorsurce qui précède,Ie Gouvernement
helléniqueproposerait qu'une rkunion dans ce but soit tenue dans le courant
du mois de janvier 1976.
L'ambassade de Gréceprofite de la circonstance pour réitérerau rninistére
des affaires étrangèresles assurances de sa trèshaute considération.
Ankara, le 19 décembre 1975.
MINISTÈR EES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES
EN VILLE AECEAN SEA
I. TurkishNore Verbde, 15March 1976
MINISTR OYFFOREIG NFFAIRS
ANKARA
SIGM/SIMD/3-754.537-49
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy
of Greece and, with reference to its Note No. 6242.4411361AS3978 of 19
Decernber 1975, has the honour to bring the following to the attention of the
Greek Government :
The Turkish views on the negotiations between Turkey and Greece on the
Aegean continental shelf areas, which were explicitly stated recently in the
Turkish Notes of 30 September and 18 November 1975, and explainedin
the opening statement made by the head of the Turkish delegation during
the Berne meeting, remain the same.
The Government of Turkey would like to point out that the delimitation of
the Aegean continental shelf areas directly affects the vital interests of both
countries.Forthis reason the Government of Turkey believes that a mutually
acceptable settlement of the delimitation shelf areas in the Aegean sea is
important to maintain the delicate balance established by the Lausanne
Peace Treaty of 1923.
The Government of Turkey is of the opinion that the Berne meeting
provided both sides with the opportunity of stating and clarifying their
initial positions. Furtherrnore, the Turkish Governmenbelieves that the
future meetings berweenthe representativeofthe two countries which will
be open to meaningful negotiations, in conformity with the oral assurance
given to the Government of Turkey on 19 December 1975 in Ankara as
agreed in Berne, will leadatsolution acceptable to both sides.
The Government of Turkey avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the
Embassy of Greecethe assurances of its highest considerat.on.
Ankara. 15 March 1976.
2. Nore verbalegrecque,22 mai 1976
L'ambassadeur de Gréce présente ses compliments au ministére des
affaires étrangéreseten réponseiila note de celui-ci no SIGM/SIMD/3-
754.537-49 en date du 15mars 1976,a l'honneur de portersa connaissance
ce qui suit: APPLICATION
A la suite des notes échangéesentre les deux gouvernements depuis février
1974 et des rencontres des ministres des affaires étrangèresB Rome en mai
1975, des deux premiers ministres à Bruxelles en mai 1975 et de la corres-
pondance qui a suivi ces rencontres, une nouvelle rencontre d'experts a
encore eu lieu à Berne du 31 janvier au 2 février1976. L'objet de cette ren-
contre était,pour reprendre le libellédes notes, turque en date du 18novembre
1975et grecque en date du 19décembre1975, le suivant:
((The Government of Turkey therefore invites the Government of
Greece to a meeting to be held as soon as possible with the aim of
conducting meaningful negotiations for exploring thoroughly and
earnestly al1 possibilities of an agreed equitable settlement takinn into
accounf the interests ofbath cointries, as well as for considering joint
submission of unresolved but wefl-defrned legal issues, if necessary,
to the International Court of Justice >>
((Toutefois, le Gouvernement hellénique considère, puisqu'une
négociation est de toute façon nécessairepour procéder à la rédaction
de l'instrument destinéàsaisir la Cour internationale de Justice, qu'il est
sous-entendu que, sidans lecourant decette négociation des propositions
étaient faites pour éliminerles points de désaccordentre les deux gou-
vernements relatifs à la délimitation du plateau continental de la mer
Egée, cespropositions feraient l'objet d'un examen approprié. ))
Ainsi le Gouvernement hellénique,tout en estimant que les négociations
antérieures avaient montré l'existenceentre les deux Etats d'un désaccordde
principe qui, conformément à l'échangede notes entre eux, devait êtresoumis
?ila Cour internationale de Justice, a cependant accepté de reprendre les
négociationsen vue d'éliminer lespoints de désaccord.
Néanmoins, si ce résultat ne pouvait êtreatteint, il était stipuléque con-
formémentau libelléde la note turque du 18 novembre 1975 les deux gouver-
nements soumettraient, d'un commun accord, les questions juridiques non
résoluesà la Cour internationale de Justice.
Dès la première séancede la réunion de Berne, la délégation grecquea
rappeléles points suivants qui sont fondamentaux en droit:
a) l'unitéterritoriale et politique entre les parties continentales et insulaires
de I'Etat hellénique,
b) l'existence d'un plateau continental propre aux îles,
c) l'application de la réglede fa ligne médianeau tracéde la ligne de démar-
cation entre les îles grecques et ies territoires turcs.
Or la délegation turque a affirméque les îles de Limnos, Chios, Samos,
Lesvos, Aghios Efstratios, lkaria et Cos ne pouvaient avoir un plateau
continental et cecisoit parceque ces îles constitueraient de simplesélévations
(protubérances) sur ce que la Turquie considere comme son propre plateau
continental, soit parce que dans une époque très lointaine elles auraient
appartenu géologiquementau continent asiatique.
La délégationturque a insistB plusieurs reprises sur l'exigence en droit
international de négociationsmeaningfu! sans pour autant accepter la consé-
quence de cette obligation, àsavoir que les négociations doiventavoir comme
base la Convention de Genévede 1958,dans la mesure où elle fait droit entre
les deux Etats, ainsi que les autres normes de droit international applicables
en la matière. Par contre la delegation helléniquea soutenu que ces négo-46 AEGEAN SEA
ciations ne pourraient porter que sur le tracéde la ligne médianequi, dans
le cas d'Etats se faisant face, comme la Grèce et la Turquie, constitue la
règle àappliquer pour délimiterles parties du plateau continental relevant de
chacun d'entre eux, La délégationturque perdait ainsi de vue que le problème
A réglerest essentiellement juridique.
En présencede cette prise de position, la délégation grecquea invité la
délégationturque à constater l'existence d'un dé-accord de principeAet
faire toute proposition de natArle réduireou à l'éliminer.La délégation
turque n'aprésentéaucune propositioA cet effet.
Les négociations de Berne ont ainsi non seulement confirmé l'existence
du différenddéjà constate par les échangesde notes entre les deux Gouver-
nements et les réunions susmentionnées mais encore firent clairement
apparaître que les négociations dans leur ensemble n'avaient pas marqué
de progrès.
Tout en partageant l'avis du Gouvernement turc que la delimitation du
plateau continental en mer Egéeest importante, le Gouvernement hellénique
ne croit pas que celle-ciest affectéepar lesdispositions du Traitéde Lausanne
ou vice versa.
Le Gouvernement helléniquevoudrait répéterque la négociationne saurait
avoir lieu en dérogation des normes du droit international concernant la
délimitation du plateau continental et que, partant, Ia Gréce renonce aux
droits qui lui reviennent en vertu de cesnormes. IIveut espérerque lenouveau
tour de négociationsqui a étéconvenu pour le mois dejuin prochain aboutira
à un échangede vues plus prometteur; à défaut de quoi il ne resterait plus
aux deux gouvernements qu'à procéder à la rédaction du compromis pour
saisir la Coude leur différend,conformémentaux engagements pris entre
eux.
L'ambassadeur de Grécesaisit cette occasion pour renouveler au ministPre
des affaires étrangèresles assurances de sa trèshaute considération.
Oslo, le 22 mai 1976.
AU MINISTÈRE DESAFFAIRESETRANGERES
DE LA R~PUBLIQU EETURQUIE APPLICATION
AnnexVI
1. At'our last meeting Mr. Tzounis said that the abject of the meeting was
not to discuss joint ventures but to set out the context of the dispute so that
we would negotiate a compromis to go to the Court. Common ventures might
be a matter for discussion once the boundary question was resolved.
2. Your delegation, Mr. Ambassador, neither agreed nor disagreed that
there was a dispute. You put forward certain general ideas, which Mr. Tzounis
summarized as follows:
«a) Selon la thèseturque lesîles sont privéesde plateau continental. IIy
a la un point de désaccord fondamental.
b) La ligne de délimitation tracée par le côté turc passe à l'ouest des
îles grecques et elle est connue par les actes que le Gouvernement
turc a déjà publiésdans le journal officiel. Ily a donc un differend
juridique sur les principes de la délimitation et sur les lignes de
démarcation. ))
3. You asked our delegation also ta state its case, and1 may conveniently
summarize the five points which we then made, as follows:
(1) The rule of international Iaw respecting the delimitation of common
continental shelf boundaries in the case of opposite States is the mediao
line rule.
(2) This rufe applies whether the delimitation concerns insular or continental
seabeds, provided there is continuous seabed between the opposite States
which conforms with the definition of continental shelf.
(3) Since this rule confers legal rights upon Greece, it follows that Greece is
under no obligation to negotiate a settlement which would involve any
surrender of these rights.
(4) In particular, no provision of the United Nations Charter requires
negotiation rather than judicial settlement in the case of any right of a
Member which is contested by another Member.
(5) In particular, no special rule of customary international law exists which
requires States which lie on opposite sides of a common continental shelf
to negotiate a boundary except by reference to the application of the
median line rule.
4. The Greek delegation knows of no rufe of international law which is
applicable to the division of a common continental shelf between opposite
States, other than the rule of the median line. Your delegation, Mr. Ambas-
sador, made a contribution on the subject of the geology of the Aegean, from
which L concluded that you were seeking to make the point that the ordi-48 AEGEAN SEA
nary rule does not apply in the Aegean because of a discontinuity in the sea-
bed.
5. 1 confess not to have understood this argument. If it is to deny that
there is a common continental shelf extending between Greece and Turkey
the whole way across the Aegean, the argument would, apparently, be the
basis for saying that the islands are rnere protuberances on the Turkish
continental shelf. But, again, this is a point which I failed to understand,
because one of the rules in the Continental Shelf Convention is the rule that
islands have continental shelves as well as continents. The International
Court in the North Sea case said that this Article was customary Iaw (p. 37,
para. 57).
6. This being so, we return to the point of opposite States. An equidistance
line, discounting, of course, special circumstances such as rocks and islets
which would have a capricious effect on the boundary, could be traced by
any cartographer, automatically so as to give Turkey and the islands a
common boundary according to the only rule of international law known
to the Greek delegation.
7. You, Mr. Ambassador, said that your delegation wanted time to think
about al1of this because it appeared to strikeyou as novel. Subsequently, the
Greek Government wrote aNote to your Government in which it said:
((Toutefois, le Gouvernement hellénique considère, puisqu'une négo-
ciation est de toute façon necessaire pour procéder à la rkdaction de
l'instrument destiné à saisir la Cour internationale de Justice, qu'il est
sous-entendu que, si dans le courant de cette négociation des proposi-
tions étaient faites pour éliminer les points de desaccord entre les deux
gouvernements relatifs à la délimitation du plateau continental de la
mer Egée,ces propositions feraient l'objet d'un examen approprié. H
8. Accordingly, Mr. Ambassador, we wait to hear that you have some
proposals which the Greek delegation would wish to consider, failing which 1
take it that we are here to draw up a compromis, and we should like to get
on to that. To clarify the matter, since your delegation has had the oppor-
tunity to consider thepoints made by the Greek delegation at the last meeting,
there are a number of questions that have been asked, and to which you no
doubt are now in a position to give answers:
(1) Do you agree that this is a situation of opposite States?
(2)Do you agree that in the case of opposite States the rule is that of the
median line?
(3) Do you agree that islands have continental shelves?
(4)At the last meeting you quoted Article 33 of the United Nations Charter.
Do you agree that this has nothing to do with the negotiation to apply
standard rules of international law?
(5) Do you agree that there is no other text to be cited which could have such
an effect?
(6) In short, does your delegation wish Greece to waive rights vested in her
by international law, in order to reach a solution of the dispute?
9.If the answers to these questions, Mr. Ambassador, do not coincide
with the doctrine advanced by Greece, it is clear that we have a deadlock.
If these answers are not refutationsof that doctrine, but sidestep the points
made by the Greek delegation, it is equally cIear that we have a deadlock. APPLICATION 49
Ifwe have a deadlock thereseems to me to beno alternativethan to have the
matter resolvedjudicially.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Ambassador, if, as the Greek Note to your
Governrnentput it,you have proposais to make,myunderstandingisthat the
Greek delegation will give thernproperattention. AEGEAN SEA
AnnexVI1
1. Press Release Isslted afrer the Meeringof the National
SeclrriryCouncilof Tirrkeyon 13 Jlrly1976
WhichTook Place lrnderthe Chairmonshipof ihe Presidenr
of the TurkishRepublic, Mr. Koruiark
"...ln the course of this meeting consideration has been given to the infor-
mation provided to the Council concerning researches which would be
undertaken by the seismic research vesse1MTA-Sisrfiik 1,in the Turkish
territorial sea and in the high seas. It has been decided to recommend to the
Government that it should take al1appropriate measures so that the scien-
tific researches of the ship woufd be achieved normally."
2. A ClarificarionPublishedby the Newspnper Milliyet on 14 July 1976
". .Omcial Turkish sources, referring to the expression 'appropriate
measures' mentioned in the Press release issued after the meeting of the
National Security Council of Turkey on 13 July 1976 concerning the scien-
tific researches of the vessel Sismik 1, stated that the vessel would not be
accompanied by warships, but that nonetheless al1necessary measures would
be taken so as to detect immediately any attack against the vesse1and to
respond instantaneously in case of such attack. ln order to guarantee that
the vessel would be able to carry out its researches normally, its movements
would be followed by special devices. Ltwas said that thiswas the sense of the
communiqué of the National Security Council." APPLICATION
Annex VI11
1. Aide-mémoiregrec, 24 mars 1976
L'ambassade de Grèce se réfère 31l'interview du ministre de l'énergie,
M. S. Kilic, publiéepar l'hebdomadaire Yanki des 8-14 mars 1976.
Le Gouvernement helléniquea note que, répondant à des questions sur la
prospection d'hydrocarbures en mer, M. le ministre de l'énergie s'estréféré A
trois reprisesA la prospection en mer Egée.11a dit notamment:
(A) ((Nous avons accordé des concessions couvrant des surfaces de
deux millions d'hectares en mer. En y ajoutant les concessions précé-
dentes, la surfacese monte à six millions d'hectares. Ceci couvre le total
de nos revendications sur le plateau continentat. Toutes les concessions
ont étéaccordees à la TPAO. ii
(B) ((Nous avons pris en collaboration avec les ministères des affaires
étrangèreset de la défensetoutes les mesures imaginables. Nous proté-
gerons nos droits en Egéeexactement comme nous le faisons pour nos
droits à I'inttrieur du territoire du pay))
(C) « Le premier pas est de poser les fondements de droits souverains
en Egée de façon incontestable. Les questions d'ordre économique
viennent ensuite.))
Le Gouvernement hellénique estime qu'au moment ou une procédure se
trouve en cours pour réglerde manière pacifique le différendentre les deux
pays sur la question de la délimitation du plateau continental en mer Egée
et dans la mesure où ellestoucheraient àce différendlesdéclarationsprkcitées
prêtent à équivoque. Il veut espérer qu'elles ne présagent pas une action
quelconque de la part du Gouvernement turc en mer Egéequi serait de
nature à miner les discussions amorcéespar les experts des deux pays, selon
l'engagement pris par leurs gouvernements, afin de limiter, si possible, les
points de désaccordsur la question de [a délimitation du plateau continental
avant de la soumettre à laCour internationale de La Haye.
Ankara, le 24 mars 1976.52 AECEAN SEA
2. Translation oJSiatement by the Turkish Foreign Minister, Mr. Caglriyangif,
to Radio Ankara ot24 J11ly1976 inAnswer io Declararions Made by Mr. Ecevit
on 22 Jrrly1976
Mr. Ecevit continues to persist in his tactics of bringing the issues of
seismic research which we intend to conduct, and those of the Aegean, into
interna1 politics, Waving started by claiming that the mission had been
degraded and then by referring to certain technical aspects of the question,
he appears 10consider that it is to his advantage to air in public thecontents
of the file oan issue actually under discussion beiween the IWO countries.
Making the questions of the research to be conducted by Sismik I and the
problem of the continental shelf in the Aegean an issue in the polemics
between the Government and the Opposition is liable Ioprejudice supreme
State interests. Thus any reference to specific assertions made with regard to
the Hora should be avoided at al1costs.
There are irrefutable answers to al1the legal and technical questions which
Mr. Ecevit has raised, but there is an appropriate time and place for these
answers.
1shall confine rnyself to refuting only those assertions which cause con-
fusion and which may be considered contrary to our national interests.
According to Mr. Ecevit, the most important thing is to detern~ine the
resources of the sea in the areas of the Aegean claimed by Turkey. Sismik I
will carry out precisely this important mission. It will even be able to carry
out its mission not only in the areas of the Aegean where rights are claimed
as Mr. Ecevit says, but also in al1the areas of the Acgean outside the terri-
torial waters of Grecce. Seismicresearch has no other goal and purpose than
to determine resources below the sea. And this is what will be done.
Because there is a continental shelf issue between our neighbour and
ourselves, the Grcck Press has chosen to characterize this research as a
provocation and an act of aggression.
Turkey, as well as Greece. clainiing that certain areas betow the sea
constitute a continental shelf belonging to them, have undertaken certain
actions in thecourse of tirne. Both sides have claimed rightful ownership of
someareas and these areas constitute the question that must be settled.
Wehave declarcd to the whote world that the research weiritendtoconduct
is not aimed at violating the rights of otheis and that, as it was not possible to
arrive ata inutual acceptance of the claims of the two countries. the two
parties should reserve their views and that the questions of the scientific
research to becarried out and the delimitation of the continental shelf should
not be confused with each other. There was no reaction to this view of ours.
Our attitude cannot be construed as meaning that we have given up our
claims or accepted the claims of Greece. The question is certainly connected
with the continental shelf. But the carryinn out of seismic and scientific
research regarding the continental shelf $no; the sarne as actually initiating
exploitation of natural resources: because by conducting scientific research
one cannot establish rights in the areas whe;e this reseirch is carried out.
Neither Greece nor third countries which have carried out research in the
Aegean have asserted that "1 carried out research here and therefore these
areas are mine".
Article 52 of the third chapter of the draft agreement of the Conference
on the Law of the Sca stipulates that "scientific research activities cannot
form a basis for any legal claim regarding the environnient of marine
resources". That is the view which we support. If de fàcro situations are APPLICATION 53
created in certain areas of the continental shelf before the issue is settled,
there is no need for negotiations between the two countries and any hope
of attaining a peaceful solution by peaceful means should be abandoned,
We have not chosen that way.
We pursue, in accordance with the programme of Our Government, the
actions that wehave initiated forthe peaceful settlement of the question of the
continental shelfbetween Greece and ourselves.
In Our opinion, the continental shelf of the Aegean presents particularities
because of its physical structure and geographical situation. We shall pursue
in the same spirit our efforts to settle this issue to the satisfaction of our views
and rights and by striking a balance in Ourrnutual interests.
Greece, however, has completed seismic surveys of certain areas and
acquired knowledge of resources below thesea even before this issueemerged.
Turkey has alsoundertaken such research in the past but for various reasons
was not able to complete it. Therefore Our right to acquire knowiedge which
Greece has also acquired cannot be disputed.
The research which Greece previously conducted and completed did not
prejudice sovereign and other rights ofTurkey. It isnot possible to accept the
Greek contention that research which Turkey will conduct can be considered
as a violation of Greece's rights. During a conversation that we had with
Mr. Ecevit on the question of defence CO-operationbetween Turkey and the
USA the question of the law on authorization was raised and he has now
made his own comments regarding that conversation and formulated certain
opinions on the matter. According to Mr. Ecevit, the non-issuance of decrees
on questions related to the Aegean, by virtue of a law which authorizes the
Government to do this, has led to the loss of rights. This view is incorrect.
We have applied ourselves to converting the principles, on which Our rights
in the Aegean are founded, into national legislation and have drafted legis-
lative proposals. We have conferred on this matter with al1 the experts,
including the internationalIy-known consultants who collaborate with us. We
have reached the conclusion that it would be more favourable to national
interests not to commit ourselves to any binding regulations on the matter,
in view of the fact that the law of the sea is devefoping, the relevant scientific
and legal views have not yet been fully clarified, and in view of the need to
have principles for the protection of Turkey's rights on the continental shelf
of the Mediterranean, as well as the Aegean and the Black Sea, without
creating contradictions.
It must also be stressed that it is not possible for rights to be created in the
field of international law by the issuance of national Iegislation.
Besides,Governments entitled to issue legislativedecrees are atso competent
to issue laws. As it is certain that al1 political parties, irrespective of the
Government in power, will back any law on this matter serving the interest
of thecountry, there can be no talk about a loss. 1 wish to say the following:
not even the minutest part of Our rights has been lost. Exceptional diligence
is being shown for the protection of our sovereign rights and national in-
terests. In viewof this situation, the concern of those who make irresponsible
efforts to create the impression that al1 Turkey's rights in the Aegean are
being jeopardized is vain. With the exception of a short-lived Government
which the Republican Popular Party formed, Turkey is not a State which has
lost its courage or reached the point of being unable to protect its national
interests. AEGEAN SEA
3. Note verbalegrecque, 7 aolit1976
L'ambassade de Grèce présente sescompliments au ministère des affaires
étrangères et, d'ordre de son Gouvernement, a l'honneur de porter A sa
connaissance qu'a 19.45 heures du 6 août 1976 le navire turc MTA-Sismik 1
a étéobservédans les eaux internationales mais surjacentes le plateau con-
tinental grec. Vers 22.00 heures le Gouvernement helléniqueétait informé
qu'à partir de 20.54 heures il avait étéconstaté que le navire opérateur turc
prockdait à une exploration sismique du plateau continental grec sans le
consentement du Gouvernement hellénique. Cette exploration continuait
au moins jusqu'a 22.40 heures.
A 00.30 heure du 7 août le navire MTA-Sismik 1quittait les eaux couvrant
le plateau continental grec.
La régionoù furent effectuéesles explorations est comprise entre les sept
points de coordonnéessuivants:
Latitude 39 26,5 Nord - Longitude 25 50,s Est
ii 3925 ii - )) 2548 >)
II 39 22 >) - )) 25 45 i)
i) 3923 » - i) 25 44 ii
i> 39 26 i> - ii 25 45 >)
i> 39 28 i> - ii 25 44 ))
» 39 30 » - ii 25 43 n
Selon les normes du droit international cette partie du plateau continental
de la mer Egée relèvede la Grèce.
Le Gouvernement hellénique proteste contre cette violation flagrante de
ses droits souverainsdécoulant du droit international et demande au Gouver-
nement turc de prendre d'urgence toutes mesures utiles afin que cette violation
ne se rkpètepas à l'avenir. II déclare également réservetrous ses droits sur le
plateau continental relevant de Ia Grèce.
L'ambassade de Grèce saisit cette occasion pour renouveler au ministère
des affaires étrangèresles assurances de sa trèshaute considération.
Ankara, le 7 août 1976.
4. TurkishRep/y, 8 August 1976
SIGM/SIMD/3-754.526 4432
The Ministry of Foreign Afîairs presents its compliments to the Embassy
of Greece and with reference to its Note No. 6242.42/285/AS2183of 7 August APPLICATION 5 5
1976has the honour, under the instructions of its Government, to communic-
ate the following to the Greek Government:
Bincethe delimitation of the Aegean continental shelf between Turkey and
Greece has not been effected, the recent Greek attempt to qualify certain
areas beyond the territorial waters in the Aegean as "the Greek continental
shelf" is in contravention with the rules and principles of international law,
Consequently, the Greek claim of violation of the Greek sovereign rights is
completefy unfounded.
The Government of Turkey would also like to draw the attention of the
Greek Government to the fact that MTA-Sismik 1iscarrying out its researches
outside the territorial waters in the Aegean where the continental shelf is yet
to be delimited.
The Government of Turkey, while reserving its position regarding the
delimitation of the Aegean continental shelf, would like to reiterate that
unilateral declarations or claims of Greece do not constitute a legal basis for
establishing sovereign rights on the continental shelf, on which Turkey and
Greece have undertaken bilateral negotiations with a view to finding an
acceptable solution to both parties.
In view of the foregoing considerations, as it has been orally expressed to
the Greek Ambassador, His Excellency Mr. Cosmadopoulos, on 7 August,
the Governrnent of Turkey deems the protest of the Greek Government,
which is devoid of any basis, totally unacceptable.
The Government of Turkey States that the research activities shall be
carried out in accordance with the established programme and urges the
Greek Government to refrain from al1provocative acts which rnay hinder the
research activitiof MTA-Sismik I in the Aegean.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avaiIs itself of this opportunity to renew
to the Embassy of Greecethe assurances of its highest consideration.
Ankara, 8 August 1976.
5. Note verbalegrecque, 9 août1976
L'ambassade de Grèce présente ses compliments au ministère desaffaires
étrangères et, d'ordre de son Gouvernement, a l'honneur de porter A sa
connaissance ce qui suit:
Le Gouvernement grec avait tout lieu d'espérer que, pendant que les
négociations avecle Gouvernement turc au sujet de la délimitationdu plateau
continental de la mer Egéese poursuivaient, le Gouvernement turc ne pren-
drait aucune mesure et n'entreprendrait aucune action de nature a faire
obstacle au succésde ces négociations.56 AECEAN SEA
Or, le 14 mars 1976, le ministre de l'énergieturc, M. Kilic, déclarait
publiquement qu'un navire spécialementéquipéen vue de l'exploration du
plateau continental allait opérer, sur les instructions ou, en tout cas, avec
l'autorisation du Gouvernement turc, dans des zones qui,comme le Gouver-
nement turc ne pouvait l'ignorer, sont considéréespar le Gouvernement
helléniquecomme appartenant au plateau continental grecenvertu des normes
du droit international.
Le Gouvernement helléniquen'a pas manqué de faire part de ses inquié-
tudes àce sujet au Gouvernement turc par demande d'éclaircissementssur les
intentions de ce dernier, présentée oralement par I'ambassadeurde Grèce
M. Dimitri Cosmadopoulos à S. E. le ministre des affaires étrangères de
Turquie, en date du 17mars 1976.Cette demandefut suivied'un mémorandum,
aux mêmes fins, remisle 24 mars 1976 par l'ambassade de Grèce h Ankara
au ministère des affaires étrangéres.Ni l'une ni l'autre de ces demarches n'a
obtenu de réponsesatisfaisante.
Dans ces conditions, et lors de la rencontre d'experts sur le plateau con-
tinental qui a eu lieu Berne les19 et 20juin a.c., le négociateurgrea attiré
l'attention de la dklégationturque en séance plénièreet de son chef en con-
versation privéesur l'importance que la Grèceattachait à ce quechacun des
deux Etats s'abstienne de toute mesure ou action susceptible d'aggraver la
situation dans la mer Egéeou de préjugerdes droits définitifsdes parties.
La conduite de recherches sismiques par le navire opérateur turc MTA-
Sismik I, sans le consentement du Gouvernement hellénique, dans les zones
que celui-ci considérait comme appartenant au plateau continental grec a
étéspécifiquement mentionnée, en conversation privee avec le chef de la
délégationturque, commeconstituant aux yeux du Gouvernement hellénique
une circonstance portant atteinte à ses droits et un élément particulièrement
aggravant de la situation en mer Egée.
Plus récemment encore dans deux entretiens avec S.E. le ministre des
affaires étrangères de Turquie, en date d21 et du 23juillet1976, I'ambassa-
deur de Gréce B Ankara a réitéré de la manièrela plus explicite les appréhen-
sions que soulevait au sein du Gouvernement hellénique l'atteinte que por-
terait à ses droits une éventuelle exploration, sans son consentement, du
plateau continental relevant de la Grèce. Il a également souligneles consé-
quences prkjudiciables aux relations entre les deux pays et, plus généralement,
à la situation en mer Egéequ'une pareille action pourrait entraîner.
A la suite de ces entretiens, le Gouvernement hellénique, soucieux de
prévenir ces conséquences indksirables, a examiné certaines assurances
verbales donnéesà I'ambassadeur de Grèce par S. E. le ministre des affaires
étrangéres de Turquie. Il s'agissait de s'assurer que les recherches du navire
MTA-Sisniik 1seraient purement scientifiques et que de toute façon elles ne
léseraient pas les droits souverains de la Grèce sur son plateau continental.
Le Gouvernement grec avait suggkr6que l'itinérairedu MTA-Sismik I lui fût
communiquéà l'avance pour éviterpar la suite des malentendus indèsirables
et que les résultats de ces recherches purement scientifiques fussent publiés.
Mais, avant mêmede prendre connaissance des vues du Gouvernement
hellénique, le ministre des affaires etrangères de Turquie, qui n'avait pas
trouvé le temps de recevoir auparavant I'ambassadeur de Grèce, faisait une
déclaration a la radio-télévisionturque qui, de pason contenu, mettait finii
ces délibérations.
Or, de 19.45 heures le6 août 1976 h 00.30 heure le 7 août 1976, le navire
turc MTA-Sisniik 1fut observé effectuant uneexploration sismique du plateau APPLICATION 57
continental relevant de la Grèceet notamment dans la région compriseentre
les points déterminéspar les coordonnées suivantes:
Latitude 39 26,s Nord - Longitude 25 50,5 Est
)i 3925 >> - i 2548 ii
i) 39 22 » - ii 25 45 ))
>> 39 23 ii - ii 25 44 ii
>r 39 26 » - il 2545 ii
i) 39 28 » - i) 25 44 i)
>> 39 30 1) - » 25 43 ii
Le 7 août 1976 le Gouvernement helléniqueprotestait auprès du Gouver-
nement turc contre cette activité illégaleen droit international du navire
opérateur turc et demandait que toutes mesures utiles fussent prises afin
d'éviter sarepetition à l'avenir.
Par note verbale sub no SIGM/SIMD/3-754.526 4432 en date du 8 aofit,
le Gouvernement turc a rejeté cette protestation avec des arguments que
le Gouvernement helléniquene peut pas accepter. En particulier, l'argument
selon lequel le plateau continental n'a pas encore étédélimiténe justifie
certainement pas des actions qui créent des tensions et rendent plus difficile
la solution du différend. D'ailleurs, puisque le Gouvernement turc a choisi
de contester la position hellénique, il eQt da, au lieu d'entreprendre une
action de fait quelconque, avoir recours h un organe international ktabli,
pour que soit jugépar celui-ci lebien-fondéde ses prétentions.
Car ilest fondamental en droit que le contestataire a la charge de la preuve
desa contestation. Tandis que, s'il se livreà des actions de fait, il glisse dans
l'arbitraire.
Nonobstant ce qui précède,le navire turc a continué son exploration
illégaledu plateau continental grec de 11.20 heures du 7 août a.c. A 13.30
heures du 8 sont a.c. sans interruption. L'exploration a été repriseà 15.00
heures le 8 sont et se poursuivait jusqu'à 18.00 heures. La région exploréeest
indiquéepar lescoordonnéessuivantes:
Latitude 39 25 Nord - Longitude 25 54 Est
ii 39 22,s >> - » 25 47,2 n
>> 3920 » - ii 2540 ii
)> 3920,7 » - ii 2537 i)
» 39 25,8 ii - ri 25 32,6 ii
» 39 34 i) - i) 25 25,2 ri
>) 39 40 >i - >> 25 23,5 i)
ii 39 40 ii - ri 25 27,2 1)
i> 39 30,7 i> - ii 25 33,5 ))
1) 39 22,2 >> - » 2538,711
» 39 22,5 i> - 1) 2541,3 >i
ii 39 34,s » - » 25 36 ))
ii 39 433 )i - r> 25 28,s ii
ii 3942 ii - ii 25 32,2 »
ii 39 29,6 » - i> 25 43,5 >)
ii 39 24,9 )i - » 2548 ))
ii 39 27,4 >> - i) 25 48+2 ii
Par périodes le navire opérateur était escortépar des hélicoptèresou des
avions de coopération maritime ou un dragueur de mines des forces armées
turques, ce qui rend les circonstances de la violation des droits souverains
de la Grèceparticulièrement aggravantes.58 AEGEAN SEA
A la lumièredes circonstances précitées teGouvernement helléniqueéléve
solennellement une protestation énergiquecontre ces actions entreprises sans
son consentement et en violation des règlesdu droit international et demande
au Gouvernement turc de mettre fin h ces activitésillégaleset de s'abstenir
ultérieurement de toute action provocatrice.LIva sans dire que cesactivités
ne peuvent avoir pour effet de modifier les droits de la Grèce sur le plateau
continental de lamer Egéerelevant d'elle, que le Gouvernement hellénique
déclarerkserver intégralement. II se réserveégalementde tirer de l'action du
Gouvernement turc toutes les conséquencesde fait ou de droit qu'if appar-
tiendra.
L'ambassade de Grèce saisit cette occasion pour renouveler au ministère
des affaires étrangèresles assurances de sa trèshaute considération.
Ankara, le 9 aoiit 1976. APPLICATION
R~GLEMEN TACIFIQUE DES DIFF~RENDS INTERNATIONAUX
ACTE G~NFRAL, GENÈVE ,E 26SEPTEMBRE 1928
Adhésion
A l'ensemble de l'Acte...le 14 septembre 1931
Sousles rkservessuivanres:
Sont exclus des procédures décritespar l'Acte gbnéral,sans en excepter
celle de conciliation vihéson chapitre 1:
(a) les différendsnésde faits anterieurs, soit à l'adhésionde la Grèce, soit
avoir
2il'adhésiond'une autrePartie avec laquelle la Gréceviendrait
un différend;
(b) les différendsportant sur des questions que le droit international haisse
la compétence exclusive des Etats et, notamment, les diffërends ayant
traitau statut territorial de la Grèce, ycompris ceux relaAses droits
de souveraineté sur ses ports et ses vodescommunication.
SociétédesNations, Recueil desirnivolume CXI, 1931,page414. AEGEAN SEA
Annex X
REGLEME A CIFIQUEDESDIFFEREN NTERNATIONAUX
ACTE GEN~RAL, GENEVE LE, 26SEPTEMBRE1928
Adhésion
A I'ensembledel'Acte..le 26juin 1934
Sousles réservssrivantes:
Seront exclus des procédures décrdsans leditacte:
(a) les différendsnés au sujet de faits ou de situations antérieulaii
présenteadhésion;
(b)' les différends portant sulres questions que le droit international laisse
à tacompétenceexclusive des Etats;
Cc} les différendstouchant aux relations entre Ia Turquie et une tierce
Puissance.
Sociétdes Nations, Recueildes truités,volumeCLII, 1934,page 297. REQUEST FOR THE INDICATION
OF INTERIM MEASURESOF PROTECTION
SUBMITTED BY THE GOVERNMENT
OF GREECE
DEMANDE EN INDICATION
DEMESURES CONSERVATOIRES
PRESENTEE PAR LE GOUVERNEMENT
DELA GRÈCE Casesto Whicll TliisReqrrestRelafes
1. I have the honour to refer to the Application dated today, 10 August
1976, by which Greece has instituted proceedings against Turkey relative to
the continental shelf appertaining to certain Greek islands in the Aegean Sea ;
and hereby to submit, in conformitywith Article 33 of the General Act for the
Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, 1928, Article 41 of the Statute
of the Court and Article 66 of the Rules of Court, a request for the laying
down or indication by the Court of provisionalmeasures of protectionfor the
preservation of the rights of Greece pending the final decision in (or
alternatively "outcorne of') these proceedings.
2. The foHowing are the nghts which Greece submits are entitied to
protection :
(il The sovereign rights of Greece for the purpose of researching, exploring
and exploiting the continental shelf appertaining to Greece and adjacent
to the islands of Samothrace, Limnos, Aghios Eustratios, Lesbos, Chios
Psara, Antipsara, Samos, Ikaria and al1 the islands of the Dodecanese
group (Patrnos, Leros, Kalimnos, Kos, Astypalaia, Nisiros, Tilos. Simi,
Chalki. Rhodes, Karpathos, etc.), hereinafter called the islands, which
rights are exclusive in the sense that if Greece does not undertake
research on the continental shelf or explore it or exploit its natural
resources, no-one may undertake these activities, or make a claim to the
said continental shelf, without the express consent of Greece.
(ü) The right of Greece to the performance by Turkey of its undertakings
contained in Article 2, paragraph 4,and Article 33 of the Charter of the
United Nationsand in Article 33 of the General Act for PacificSettlement
of International Disputes to abstain from al1 measures likely to react
prejudicially upon the execution of any judicial decision given in these
proceedings and to abstain from any sort of action whatsoever which
rnay aggravate or extend the present dispute between Greece and Turkey.
(üi) Al1 rights appertaining to Greece under or in consequence of the fmal
decision of the Court in the present proceedings.
3. The following are amongst the principal considerations that justify the
present Request :
(il The Greek Application, referred to in paragraph 1above, discloses :
fa) facts relating to the grant by Turkey of exploration licences in respect
of the areas of the continental shelf which Greece claims to appertain
to Greece ;
(b) exploration activity undertaken by Turkey or under licence from
Turkey in respect of the said areas, and
(c) the fact that the Turkish Government has taken measures of a
military character with a view to ensuring the protection of the
Sismik I while it is operating iilegally upon the continental shelf of
Greece.64 AEGEAN SEA
(ii) Such grants of exploration licences and such exploration activity must
tend to anticipate the judgment of the Court ;and, ifsuch judgment were
given in favour of Greece, would deprive Greece of the f I benefit
thereof, inasmuch as licensing and exploration is intended to vide
information which properly concerns only the State exercisingksoverei
rights over the continental shelf in question, in order to enable it to
formulate its policy respecting this area and the exercise of such rights,
which it alone is entitled to do.
A State's rights to exploration of its continental shelf are exclusive and, if
exploration is undertaken by another State, not only is this exclusivity
deslroyed but the damage caused isirreparable. The loss of exclusive control
by the State over the dissemination of information regarding the resources of
areas of its continental shelf will cause irremediable harm to its interest in
controlling and developing future exploration in the interests of the State.
(iii) Such licensing and exploration activities, if continued during the course
of the proceedings, would aggravate the dispute, prejudice the main-
tenance of friendly relations between Greece and Turkey, in par-
ticular by a further dangerous exacerbation of public feelings and lead to
military measures or actions which may endanger international peace
and security.
4. (a) On 21 July 1976 and again on 23 July 1976 the Greek Ambassador
in Ankara conveyed to the Turkish Foreign Minister, in most explicit terms.
the grave concern of theGreek Governrnent over the infringernent of the legai
rights of Greece by way of an eventual exploration without its consent of the
continental shelf in the Aegean Sea appertaining to Greece. He abo pointed
out the prejudicial effectsof such exploratory activity on the relations between
the two countries and, more generally, on the situation in the Aegean.
fb) In an effort to prevent these undesirable developments the Greek
Government considered certain oral assurances given to the Greek Am-
suring that the researches made by the vessel Sistnik 1 would be purely
scientific,and would in no case encroach upon the sovereign rights of Greece
on her continental shelf. However, before being apprized of the final views of
the Greek Government,the Turkish Foreign Minister. who had not spared the
time to receive the Greek Ambassador previously, made a public staternent
over the Turkish radio and television system. which by its very nature
effectively terminated these deliberations.
(c)On 6 August 1976, as of 19.45 hours, the Turkish research vessel Mta-
Sisrnik 1,was observed engaging in seismic exploration of an area of the
continental shelf of the Aegean appertaining to Greece and comprised within
the following CO-ordinates :
Latitude 39 26.5 North - Longitude 25 50.51 East
,, 39 25 ,, - ,, 25 48 ,,
,, 39 22 7, - ,, 2545 ,,
,, 3923 ,, - ,, 25 44 ,,
,, 39 26 ,, ,, 2545 ,,
,, 39 28 ,, - ,, 2544 ,,
,, 3930 ,, ,, 2543 ,,
Seismic exploration of the Greek continental shelf ceased on 7 August at
00.30 hours. {d) On 7 August the Greek Government addressed a Note to the Turkish
Government in which it protested against the violation of its legal rights,
requested that the latter take ail necessary rneasures to ensure that this
violation would not recur in the future and reserved ail its rights under
international law. On 8 August 1976 the Turkish Government rejected the
Greek protest which it "deemed devoid of any bases and totally unaccep-
table". It alsostated that the "research activities should be carried out in
accordance with the established programme".
(e) On 7 and 8 August 1976 the Turkish research vessel escorted by a
Turkish minesweeper and, intermittently, by Turkish aircraft, continued its
exploration of the Greek continental shelf in an area comprised within the
following CO-ordinates :
Latitude 39 25 North - Longitude 25 54 East
,, 39 22.5 ,, - ,, 2547.2 ,,
,, 3920 ,, - ,, 2540 ,,
,, 39 20.7 ,, - ,, 25 37 ,,
,, 39 25.8 ,, - ,, 25 32.6 ,, .
,, 39 34 ,, - ,, 2525.2 ,,
,, 39 40 ,, - ,, 2523.5 ,,
,, 39 40 ,, - ,, 25 27.2 ,,
,, 39 30.7 ,, - ,, 25 33.5 ,,
,, 39 22.2 ,, - , 25 38.7 ,,
,, 39 22.5 ,, - , 2541.3 ,,
,, 39 34.5 ,, - ,, 25 36 ,,
,, 39 43.5 ,, - ,, 25 28.5 ,,
3 3942 ,, - ,, 2532.2 ,,
,, 39 29.6 ,, - ,, 25 43.5 ,,
,, 39 24.9 ,, - ,, 25 48 .,
,, 39 27.4 .. - ,, 2548.2 ,,
fl On 9 August the Greek Government sent a Note to the Turkish
Government indicating that :
1. it could not accept the grounds for the rejection of its protest ;
II. the illegalexploration of the Greek continental shelf continued as set forth
above ;and
III. the military escort provided to the Turkish research vessel rendered the
circumstance of the violation of its sovereign rights particularly ag-
gravating.
The Greek Government lodged a solemn and vigorous protest against these
actions, requested the Turkish Government to cease these activities and
refrain from any ulterior provocative action, and reiterated the resewation of
its legal rights on the continental shelf of the Aegean Sea appertaining to
Greece. The texts of the Turkish Foreign Minister's public statement
mentioned in subparagraph (6) above, of the Greek Government's protest
dated 7 August 1976 and of the Turkish Note dated 8 August, mentioned in
subparagraph (d) above, of the Greek Note dated 9 August 1976 and the
Memorandurn therein referred to, and addressed by the Greek Embassy to the
Turkish Foreign Ministry on 24 March 1976, mentioned in subparagraph O)
above, appear in Annex VIIT,of the Application Instituting Proceedings.
TheExtreme Urgency ofthe Request
5'.In addition to the fact that their very purpose constitutes a violation of
the sovereign rights of Greece, the exploration activities of Turkey with66 AEGEAN SEA
respect to the continental shelf of Greece are accompanied by measures of a
military character which also per se constitute a threat to the peace of the
region. For itspart, Greece isobliged in response to these measures to place its
own forces in a state of readiness and to send naval units to the area of
operations of the Sismik I to maintain surveillance not only of this ship but
also of the Turkish naval and au units which are in contact with the ship for
the purpose of protecting it in its illegal activities. In consequence, sizeable
armed forces of both countries are facing eachother throughout this period of
Turkish exploration with al1the dangers that such a situation entails. The
above-mentioned circumstances irnpress the present request with special
urgency.
JnrerirnMeasures Proposed
In the light of the foregoing considerations, Greece submits that this isa
proper and necessary case for the Court to exercise its power to lay down or
indicate provisional measures of protection in order to preserve the respective
rights of the Parties pending the final outcome of the proceedings.
Greece accordingly requests the Court to direct that the Governments of
both Greece and Turkey shall :
(1) unless with the consent of each other and pending the final judgment of
theCourt in this case, refrain from ail exploration activity or any scientific
research, with respect to the continental shelf areas within which Turkey
has granted such licences or permits or adjacent to the Islands, or
otherwise in dispute in the present case;
(2) refrain from taking further military measures or actions which may
endanger their peaceful relations.
(Signed) Nicolas KARANDREAS.
The Hague, 10 August 1976.
Requête introductive d'instance