Observations of the Government of Turkey on the Request by the Government of Greece for Provisional Measures of Protection

OBSERVATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF
TURKEY ON THE REQUEST BY THE GOVERN -
MENT OF GREECE FOR PROVISIONALMEA-

SURES OF PROTECTION '

OBSERVATIONS DU GOUVERNEMENT DE LA
TURQUIESUR LA DEiMANDE ENINDICATION
DE MESURES CONSERVATOIRES PRESEN-
TEEPAR LEGOUVERNEMENT DE LAGRECE

Voir ci-aprk p.576. (1) The Government of Greece on 10 August 1976 ihrough its agent Mr.
Nicolas Karrindrcas, Ambassador of Greece atThe Hague,submilted to the

Court anAppliation instituringproceedin ags insTurkey and a Requcstfor
the indicatioof provisional measurcs of protccticin.
(2) On 10 August 1975,the Applicalion and theRequestin question were
transmitted totheTurkis Ahmbassador inThe Hague with the communica-
tion of the Registrarof tCourt numbered 59.142.
The Turkish Ambassadorby letter dated 12 August 1976 informed the
Court of the receipt by him of the above-mentioned documents with the
understandingthat this wouId commit neither hirnseIfnor his Governrnent.
The Application togetherwiih itAnnexesand the RequesT were ~ransmitted
by hirn to Ankara and were roceived by theTurkish Ministryof Foreign
Affairson 12 hugust 1976.
(3) The contents of rhe Applicarion and theRequat and Annexa have
ken duly nokd.
(4) The decisionof the Counto hoidan oral hearinogn25 August 1975for
the consideration of the Gmk Requesiforprovisional rneasureof protection
was cornmunicated by the Registrar through lelephone to the Turkish
Ambassador in The Hagueon 18 Augud 1976.This was transmitted by the
Turkish Arnbassador at the samedate tothe Turkish Ministry of Foreign
Afïairs.
(51The Government ofTurkeyhas toslate with respectandregretthat this
notificatiowas givensuch short notic that Ihas not been possible within
the periodallowed tocarry out thcrcquiredconsuItationstake thenecessary
governmental decisions and give instrucrions ta its representativs and
Counsel. Neverihelesssothat the Court may beinlorrnedthat.in the viewof
the 'I'urkisGovernment, the Greek Request is withouimerit, Turkey is
submitring the presenwritten observatirins without commitrncnts.
(6) As clearly and explicistatedbythe Foreign MinisterofTurkey &fore
the United Nations SecurityCouncilon 19 August (SIPV.I950, I3 August
1976)itshould be madecertai attheoutset that therisno thrat whatsoever
of any use offorceon the pan of Turkey and no urgency in the situatias
contended by Greece in paragraph 5of the Request.
(7) The Request by Greece isin any event unjustifieaswill beexplained
below. Moreover,a cornplaint bGreece againsr Turkeymade by letter dated
10 Augus[ 1976 (S/ 12167) concerning the continental shclf areas of the
Aegean Sea was placed onthe agenda ofthe SecurityCounciIatthe reqiiesof
Greece on IO rZugusl 1976.
The Security Council aftcrhearingthe statementsofthe ForeignMinisters

ofGreeceandTurkeyon 12and 13 hugrist 1Y76adjourned the debateon the
item and has not since resurneits consideration.
(8) Not only is ihcapplication premature having regard to the Security
ÇounciI proceedin bustalsohaving regardto the fact that, while Turkey has
throughoüt ken wiIling and anxious to engage in meaningful negotiations
with Greece,Greece has persistentlyfaiiedand refused.while going through
the motions of forma1 discussions,toengage inany negotjations on the
subsbnrx of the matter. Greece haalsorefusedroconsiderat presentTurkish
propowlsforjoint exploration and exploitatior for some arrangemenl for
expIoration and expIoitatiounder theauspices of some regional organiza-
tion.In fact, it appearthatthe main objectiveof Greece isto deIay and if OBSERVATIONS OF THE MVERNME~T OF TURKEY 11

"Acrxirdingiy.theCourt mnnot, in relationto a requestforindicaion
of interim meawres, disregarddtogeiher the questionof ilcornpetence
on the merits. The correct principle which emerges from these
apparently conflicting considerations and which ha3 ben uniformIy
adopted in international arbitral and judiciaI prais as follows:The
Court may properlyact underthe terrnsof ArticI41provided that there
isinexistencean instrumentsuch as a klaration of Ampiance of the
OptiomI Clause,emanatingfrom the Partiestothe dispute, whichprima
fatirconfers jurisdictionupon theCourt and which incorporates no
reservationsobvioudy cxcluding ils jurisdiction," (interhundd case.
{.Cf.Reporfs i957. pp. 118-119.1

(13) The Court applied such standard insthe two most recent caxs in
whichinterim rneasureç were requestsd.Inthe FiskerirsJurisdictiocase the
Court regarded theexchango efNotes between the Government~ invoIved as
~ufficienrbasison the question ofjurisdictionforihe purpose of indicating
inkrirn rneasures.United Kingdom v.Icehnd, I.CJ. Rcporis 1972, p. 12In
the Nuciear Tesfsca~e the Couri thought that iherwcre suffjcient prospects
for iwcompetence(Auaralia v.France,I.C.J.Reports 1973.p. 99). Iappears
that inboth cases the Couri acted on the assumption ihat thcrewas a clcar
prinrofnciebasisforthe jurisdictioofthe Court becauseno negativeelment
was present inthe agreements which muld have affectecitheir attribution of
jurisdiction. Therhas beensome criucismof the practiceofthe Courtin the
sense that ithasbeen roo ready to indicate interimmemures without first
king adcquakly satisfied on the question of juridiction, forexampIe the
dissenthg opinionsofJudges Winiarski,Badawi Pashain the Anglo-lrnnian
Oi Co.case V.CJ. Reporrs 1951, pp, 96,971, by Judge PadiIIaNervoin the

FisheriesJurisdicrinncase(i.CJ. Reporis 1972, pp. 21 and foI1.1byJ udga
Forster,Gros, and Petrénin the Nuclwr Tesrscase0. C.J.Reports 1973.pp. 1,
Il andfol].,1,20and foll. an1,24 and fo1I.hWhile in basic agreementwith
rhe jurisprudenceof theCourt, JudgeJiménezde Aréchaga r-ornmented :
"This situation places uponeachhlemberof the Coun the duty LO
make, at this stage, an appreciatioof whether - in the Iighof the
groundsinvokedandof the other materiaIbeforehim - the Coun wilI
possessjurisdictiotoentemùi the rnerits othedispute."(I.C.J.Reporis
iY73, p.107,)

Likewise,Judge Nagendra Singh said:
"It itme thatneitherof the aforesaidprovisionsspell out the test of
campetence of the Coun orof Iheadmissibiiityofthe Application and

the Request,which neverfhclesshave to begone into byeach Member of
the Court in order to see lhara possibk vaIid base for theCourt's
cornpetenceexisisand that the Application iprininfociee,ntertainable.
I am, therefore,in enrireagreement with the Court inlaying downa
positivetest regarding its.own cornpetence, prima &cie estabjished,
which wascnunciatcd in thc FishericsJurisdictif)ncasand havingken
reiterateinthk case mny besaid to laydown not onIy the latestbutab
the settled jurisprudenocfethe Court on the subject." o,C,J.Reports
1973,pp. 108-109.)

TheTurkish Government sharestheseviews. Itis of the opinion, tinihc
presentinstance, theCourt lacksprimuJaciejurisdictionfor two reasons.72 AEGEAN SEA

First,Greeceisnot entitleto reiy uponanyvaiid agreement betweenthe
iwo Statesinvolvedconferringcampetenceonthe Cour in theprcsentmatter.
TheGeneraI Act of 1928,invoked by Creece,is nolonger inforce.Xoris it
applicabieas between Greece and Turkcy I,is significanthatat no lime
during the exchanges of documents and discussions concerning the
continentalshelfara% ofthe AegeanSeahas any Greek representativmade
any mention ofthe GeneraI Actof 1928.
(14) GrceceaIso atIeges that the iwoGovernments, by the joint corn-
rnuniqué of Brusselsof 31 May 1975.joinily and ';everally accepted rhe
jurisdictionof the Court inpresentmatter,pursuant IoArticle36(1lofthe
Statuteofthe Court. Asthe scopeof the"matter"concerning the continental
sheIf of the Aegean Shasnever ken agreed betweenGrcccc andTurkey, it
isimpossibleto sechour "the prcsentmatter" which isexpresslyIimitedby
paragntp3 h1 of the AppIicat io nthesaid isIandscould have been the
subject-matteror an agreementfor subrnirsion to the Court by unilaifla1
application.Inany event.the joint communique couIdnot havethe effecof
such an agreement: examination of the textshows that the intentiowas
quitedifferent.Thewhole sentence s;ay:'They decided thattheseproblerns
should be settIepacificalybynegotiations and concerning theconlinenml
shetfofthe AcgeanSca by the InternationCourt ofJustice.''This is farfrom
amounting to agreementby one Sîatetosubmitto thejurisdictionof tCourt
upon the unilatcralapplicatioof the otherState. Moreover,the subject-
matter"the continentalshelfofthe Aegean Sea" ismanifestiydifferenfrom
thc continental sheof the "saidIsIands",o which the prcscnt Applimtion
relates.Funher itisclear that thcre wasno commitment to submit 10the
Court without a special agreemenibecausethe following paragraphsaid in
thisconnection thtithe twtl Prime Minisers had decidedto acceleratcthe
meetino gf expens conceming the question ofthe continentai shelf of lhe
Aegean Sea. Thus priririty was givcn 10 negotiations concernin he
continentalsheIlofthe tlegeanSea and nothing was saidin rhiconnection
evcn about the negotiationofa speciaIagreement for submis5ion to the
InternationaCoun of Justice.
(15)It isevident that a joint communiqué dm not amount IO an
agreementunderinternational Iaw. Litwereone itwould need toberatifted
ai Ieas tn the part of Turkcy .uch ratiiicationwould require,as a
fundamental condition welt knowr: to the Greek Government. forma1
approvaI by the Turkish Parliameni.
(6) That theGreek Government isfulIyawareof theneedfora special
agreement for thepurpose of seizingtheCourt of questionsconcerning the
continentalshelfof theAcgean Sea isamply demonsirated by the persetent
effortsofGreece tomure thenegotiationof suchanagreement. Thisappears
bothfrom the GreekNotes andfrom thepositiontaken duringthe discussinns
between representativof the fwo Governments. This effort onthepart of
Grecce has continued even aftethe joint communiquéof 31 May 1975 on
which retianceisplaced for the purpose sf the presentApplication.Sce
for example the Greek Note-verhaleof 2Octriber1975, Annex IV ro the
Greek Applicatio; Greek Note-verbale19 Decernber 1975.Annex IV :"iz
gouvernement helléniquconsidércp.uisqu'unenégociat iotde toutefaçon
nkesçairepour prwkder ala rédactiode l'instrumentdestinéa saislaCour
internationaee Justice;Grcek Note-verbale22 May I976,page 2,Annex
V totheGreekApplication ;Statentenof thçGreekdelegation atthemeeting
ofexpertsin Bernof 19and 20June1976, page 3. Annex VI tu theGrmk
AppIication. OBSERVATIONO SF ME GOVERKMEhTOF IURKEY 73

Second te awareness of the Gretk Government that Turkeyhas not
accepteclthe jurisdiction of the Court in the present caseis furiher
dcrnonstratedby theGrek reIjance on the General Act. Even assumingthat
the GeneralAcrwere stilin force,and applicabIeas between Greece and
Turkey, it would k subject Io a cIause that wouId exclude theCourt's
cornpetence. In her accession of 14 Seplember 1931, Greece made a
reservationexcluding from theproceduresdexribed in theGeneraI Act :

"(5 1 isput cosncerningquestionswhkh by internationallaare so1eIy
within the domcsticjuridiction of Siatesand inparticular disputes
relatingtotheIerritorialstatof Greece,lncluding disputesrelating
toits rights of wvereigntyoverits portsand linesof communica-
tion."
This reservation,thaconforms with ArticIe39ofthe GcncraI Act. rnanifestiy
covers the sovereignrightsrecognized by internationa1Iaw to each coastal
Siateoverthe continenta1 shelf arethatappertain toit,As the Courtsaidin
the NorthSea ContinenralSheVcases :

"therightsof the coastaStak inrespectof ihc areaof continentalsheIf
thatconstitutea naturaiprolong;atioofits land territoryinandunder
thesea exist ip.w{acfoand abinirio.by virtueoitsovereigntyover the
land,andas an extensionof itinan exerciseofsovereign rights fothe
purpose of exploring the seabedand exploirinpits naturresources.In
short t,ereis hcrean inherentright.In order toexerciseil,no speciaI
Iegaprwess hasto be gone through, nor haveanyspecial Iegaactstobe
perforrned.Itsexistence can be declared(amany Stateshavedone this)
but does not need to be constituted. Furthcrrnore.the righdoes not
depend on itçbeingexercised."(f.C.% Rrporis 1969,p. 22para. 19.)
These sovereign rightsover the continentalshelf areas clearIyaffea the
territoriasratusof both StatesinvoIve wdirhinthe meaaing of the Greek
rwrvation (b),Under Article 39,paragaph 3, of the CJenera Ict iis stated
that: "Ifone of the parties ta dispute has madea reservation, the other
parues may enforce the sami: rmrvation in regard tu Lht party." In
conformitywjth this provision,Turkeyoppose eservation to theGreek

Application.
Ib)The rneosttre.5requested urc not required

The measures requestedby the Greek Governrnent are not requiredand
diereforeought not to beindicatedbythe Court forthe fullowingreasons :
(181 Firstin theNuc!ear Tesn case.the Court says:
"by theterms ofArticle41of theStatutethe Couri may indicateinterim
measurs of proioction only when it considersthat circumstancs so
requirein order Lo preserve the rightsof either party."(Ausualia
v.France,1.C.f.Rcporrs1973,p. I03,para.24.)
Explorationby Turkeyof thekind ofwhich cornplaintis madebyGreece
cannot beregardd asinvolvingany prcjudicetnthe existenceofanypossible
rightsofGreece over continental shelfarein the AegerinSea.The sovereign
righk over thecontinenia1shcIf(jncluding the exclusive rkto exploration)
thatmay existarenot takenaway or diminishedby exploration.

(19) Second,even ifone were toassume thatthere wererightsofGreecero
be protected,an order ofthe Couri indicatingprovisiona1masures should
only presery bese rightsandshould notinany way grant the righîs clairneci
inthe application. AJudgeGros recalIsin thNttclear Testsca~e : "In thecase concerning theFucto~v at Chorzow,the Permanent Court
ofInternationalJusticerefuçod to indicate provisionmeasureb secause
therequestcouIdberegardedasdesigned 10obtain an interimjudgment
infavour ofa pafl oftheclaim formubred inthe Applicationand rhai.
conseqüently, 'the request [was] not covered by the terms of the
provisionsof the Statute and Rules'(P.C.I.J.Series A, No.12, p. 10).
Hcre we have a condition of general =ope for the interpretationof
Article I ofthe Statuteofthe Permanent Cou fiof InternationalJustice,
which was identicalto the prcsentArticIe41,and the recognitionof a
procedura1 requirernen tperathg in regardto interlocutoryjurisdiction.
For it would indeed.by dekition, be contrary 10 the natureof inter-
Iocutory proceedingsifthey enabledthe disputeof which they were only
an accessor elemenf to bedisposed of." (Australia i:Francc. Nitcfear
Ttsrscase.I.C.J. Rcporrs IP73,p. I23.1

Judgc Forsteradded :
"Theinterim mcasuresrequestedby AustraIiaareso close tothe actual
subject-malterof the caçe ihey are practicallyindistinguishablethere-
frcim. llltirnately ihe oniy alternativeare the continuance or the
cessationof theFrench nucleartestsinthe Pacific.Thisisthe substance
of thecase, upon which, in my opinion, it wasnot proper to pass by
means ofa provisionalOrder,but only by a finaljudgment." (Australiav.
France, iYuclmr Teslscase,I.CJ. Reports 1973, p.Il 3.)

This staterneni appiies in the present mse, sincethe Greek Request for
intereim measures arnounts toan applicationfor the enforcernentof thevcry
rights Greeceispurportingto place in issuein its Application.
(201 Third. inthe Esherics Jitrisdicrioncas(United Kingdom v.Iceland).
the Court stated:
"the righof theCoun to indicateprovisionalmeasures asprovided for in
Article 41.of the Sfatutehaasitsobjectto preservethe respectiverights
of the Partiespending the docisionof the Court, and presupposes that
irreparableprejudiceshoutdnot becausedIo rightswhich arethe subject
of disputein judiciaIproceedings and thai the Court'judgment should
nor be anticipatedbyreason of any initiative regardingthemeasures
which arein issue"(I.C.JReports 1972, p. Ifjb

The Court repeatedthis statement aImostword for word in the ~VucIeaTresrs
case (hustraliav.France.I.C.J.Reports 1973.p. 103,para. 20).Thisstatement
means rhat provisinna1 measure rnay be indicated onIy when one of these
two situations arises: either the damapc lhat iscaused to one Party is
irreparable in the sense that it cannot in the future be rernedied by the
payrnent oftisum of rnoney ;or theexecution oftheeventualjudgment ofthe
Court wiIIbemadeimpossible by theactions undertaken by theStaceagainsi
u-hich the interim measures are requested.1iis evident that neitheofthese
two situations ispresentin thiscw. Evcn ifonewere to admit thatthe
explorationconducted by Turke y idcauseanyharm tothe rightsof Greece,
therc would be no reason why such prejudice couIdno1becornpensatedand
one FdiIstosoehow ilcouId possibIyaffecttheexecution ofanyjudgrnent that
theCourt might give in the presentcase. This is ampIydemonstratedby the
Suurh-Eàstern TerritoryofGreeniotidcase where the Court said :

"lZ'hereas,having regard Io.the character of the alleged righb in
question, considered in relation to the natural characieristicof the ORSfiKVA'TtOOF THE CUVERNMEltT OF TLIRKI.:Y 75

territory iissue.even 'rneasuresalculaiedto change the legastatusof
the territory'coiinor according tothe informationnow at the Court's
disposal, affect the vaIue of such alIegedrightonce the Court in its
judgment on themeritshadrecognizedhem as apperiainingto one or
other of the Parties, and as. inanycase, the consequencesof such
rncasures would not, in point offact,be irreparabl:" (P.I.C.J.,Series

AIR, No. 48, 1932.p. 288).

(211Fourth, it iscustomary for the Court tomention atthe outsetof its
Orders on interirnrneasurs notonly AAtjcle41of itStatute,butalso Article
48, under which theCourt shaIimake au arrangemen& connected with rhe
taking of evideace.Se for example the Fisheries Juri~dicfiocase (United
Kingdom Y. Iccland, I.C.J.Reyorrs 1972. p. 12 and pp. 17-1 8) and the
Elec~ricitCompnnuo vfSm and Billgoriacase(P.C.I.J.Series A/3,hio7.9,
1939,pp. 194 and 199).That rncansthatinterirmeasuresshou tdbe designed
to promote the satisfactoryconductof the proceedingsWore theCourt and
particuIarly toensure that ihe parties are enabIed to prcsental1reIevant
evidence. In the prcsent instance,the explorationriaivities undertakenby
Turkeywill serve In gather eoidence thar might bereIevant to thecasein
connection with the deIimitationof the continentai shareas thatappertain
to Grsece andTurkey .Seefor example, paras.95-97 of thejudgment in the
North Sea case,I.C.J.R~porfs 1969,pp. 51-52.)
(22) Firth,ithe fi~reri~andcase,theCour rejectedthe firstand the third
requests subrnitkd by the SwissGovernment on the ground that thuse two
reqüesis were tno vague and couId not properly be granted by an Order
indicatinginterirnmeasures(I.C.JRrporrs 195 7,p.105).This decisionentails
thatthe partyrequestinginterimrncasur csustshow in concretand precise
terms not only thenecessityofthesemeasures but alsodescribetheircontent
in an exactway.
(23) The Rcqucst byGreecefaiIs tosatisfythistest.
The firstpanof the Rcquest wouId requireGreece and Turkey to "refrain
from a11exploration activilorany scientiftresearch".The breadih oflhis
claim isobvious and itclearIygoesbeyond any possibIerightof eirherpany
over thecontinentalshelf areasand fdIsshortfrom bcing sufficientlspecific
for thepurpases of thcprcsent case.The firstpartof the Requestis alsotoo
vague as to thareas towhichitapplieç.It referto two differentcategoriesof
areas :on one part. continental sheareas "adjaccnlto the islands: on the
other part,areas "otherwisein dispute inthe presenl case".Itis impossibIe
from eithcr the Applicationor the Request to identify thox arcas with
precision.
(24) 'Ihe second partof the Request calIson the partieto "refrainfrom
taking funher military measures nr actions which may endanger their
peaceful relations"In present circurnstanas, this generademand goes far
beyondanything reIated to thecase. Frornthe Turkishpoint of view thereis
no threat whatever of the use offorcc.Naturally, however. Turke y orild
consideritselobliged to protectitve~wlo sn thehigh seas inthe eventofan

armedattackby another Stare.'I'hisparof the reqiiest isobjectionable no1
onIyan the ground thatit istoobroad and vague but al.= becauseitisuntrue
and offensive insuggesting by theuse of theword "further"that Turkey is
guilty of taking military masures or actionswhich may endanger the
peaaful relationsbetween GreewandTurkev in theconlinenmlshelf areasof
the Aegean Sea.
(25)Sixth, in the Soufil-Eastern TerritoryoJ Greeirfundcase, the Court75 AEGEAN SEA

disrnisw tdeNorwegian Government'srcquest for interim measures on the
groundthat thededarations of bothparties"takentogether, areindicativeof
the existenceinresponsic bilcle in both countrieofa sraieofmind and of
inlentions which are eminentIy reassuring", (P.C.I.J.,S~rirs A/ B. {Vo.48.
1932,p. 286.)
As w-assaid before.Turkey bas no intention oftakingthe initiativinthe
use of force.Evidently,Grcece could not invoke herown possibleresortto
forceto requestprovisionalrneasurs prohibitingit.Inthesecircurnstanm. it
is patentthatGrcecc is not enritle10the indicationof interimmeasuresfor
which she hasasked.
(26) Inthe Iight of the lack of jurisdictionothe Coun as explained in
paragraphs 12to 17 above and for thereasons statedinparagraphs 18 to 25
above, considered both individuaI1y and collcctivei, theGreek requestis
withou trnerit.Therefore,theTurkish Government rcspectfullsuggeststhat
the GreekRequesrbe dismisscdand at thesame tirnin view of the Iackof
jurisdictioasks theCourt to removethecasefrom iis Iist.