2005 francis - scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu · lemnos well for gokceada (lmbros) and bozcaada...

University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection

2005 & Francis

William S. Richardson School Law

Sea

e;wmillf.!s tile historical bw·kr!rm .. rlll/ r('('ommellc/mioIlS for possible solurions,

Keywords Aegean. ,iiI' defense zones, continental shelf. delimitation, demilit4lrizalion. Greece. overnight. passage rights. straits. territorial trcuty interpretation,

The between and Greece in the Sea have festered for many blolckmg amicable relations between the 1 wo The two countries even

..... " ... p;I ........ about how many separate controversies are '0 Greece has taken the delimitation of the continental shelf is the unresolved issue,

celtain islands. the demilitarized breadth of the ten'itorial around Greece's

and of passage controversy also haunts on each side of the that the other nation has in and abuses in the past and harbors for the future.2 It should at the olltset that the width and delimitation of the territorial sea in the and the of freedom ,md affected such .u"c at the center of these

of William I{i~;h<lrd~;on School

the Greece Execlitive CO,mI11l5;SI(m

Ankum. Turkey. The views

S. Richardson School of Law. HOIllOl ILl I u, Hawai'i 96822-2328, USA. E-mail:

63


J. M. Vall

This article ... "IJ.v ..... " all the ...,v ..... ,~ ..... , examines the extent to which cun be viewed or must be examined and resolved as a olltlines

the of imernational law. and offers for resolution.

The Treaties

turn this

them.

11,e LOlldoll 19133

In this 41greement, the Ouoman ceded Crete to Greece and of to decide the fate of the islands of the Eastern r'lt.:'l!I.:·i.III.

Sumos. and Ikaria

The Decisioll Which Was COllllllllllicated to Greece 011

Is to as the 1914....,." ...... ,'''''1

many. Government above .• md to Article 15 of the ber 1-14. 1913, and then

the

..... v. "., .. Bozcaada and Meis

of the

to Greece. on the condition that Greece would not or lise naval purposes. and also on the condition that Greece would

troops from southern Albania and the small island of Suseno the south-west of The Turkish government was not involved in this pronounce-ment und did not accept the division of islands until the 1923 Lausanne

confirmed this division in Article 12.

at LlljrlSarlllle, 1923


........ .,,, .. '.,, .• ill imemaliollal un"

Then, Article J 6 addresses these issues once that:

renounces all and title whatsoever over or respe<:til1lg the telTitories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the and the islands other than those over which her sm/en:!U!nIV the said the future of these ten'itories and islands

the concerned.

This linal l.lppeurs in part the

settled or to

65

Article 5 of the Lausanne which had the 10 define the detailed land division. but it also drafted in terms bccl.lllse Ottoman in other

covered renunciation in Article 16. The Eritrea- Yemen 1998-1999), discussed below,w the 1923 Lausanne

Peace Article 16, us a literal most

L,

Li~

-' LS:!HOS -'

R

Ns.'tos

o 50 1(0 frIi

I. Sea.


66 J. M. Vall

islands in more (i\lln!1rn,(' fashion that may be for the unnamed islands.

Article 15 of the 1923 Lausanne Islands in the southeastern ........ <.: ....... 11.

covers the over the Dodecanese ceded 14 islands "and the islets (Iel)ellidelill

thereon" to the """H"""''''' )iJtng,ua,ge:

the

Casos Leros,

of Castellorizzo (see

which are now dCI)Cnldellll thereon. and also over the island

from the used in 14 named islands from

Chios, Samos, and (karin (Nikaria) (but does not mention Samothrace or Lemnos) the '"'''''IN'''''

With a view to the maintcnance of peacc, thc Greck Government undertakes to observe the restrictions in thc islands of Chios, Samos and Nikaria:

No naval base and 110 fOltificalion will be established in the said islands.

Greek aircraft will be forbidden to over the IA.·r.I(~nl of the Anatolian coast. the Turkish Government will forbid their aircraft to over the said islands.

(3) The Greek forces in the said islands will be limitcd to the nor-mal COlllllll1g(~nt callcd up for scrvice. which can bc trained on the spot. as well as to a force of and in to the force of and in the whole of the Greek , .... "r·lInl",\!

The COIn'elltioll to the at tile Same Place alld Time

IIIl,pvr.rll Part the 1923 Peace

Article 4 of linked agreement establishes a demilitarized status for Samothrace and Lemnos well for Gokceada (lmbros) and Bozcaada (Tenedos) and Rabbit Is-

The nature of the out in Article 6 and is included in show the

no submarine

CorICCI"IUlllg C:ollstantililO~)le. there shall no fortifications. no permanent

of war other than subnmrine vessels, 110 <'leriul and no naval base.

No armed forces shall be stationed in the demilitarised zones and islands except the and n''''r'''I'' ...... ~'''." .. , forces necessary the maintenance of


The ...... ,.>1""."' .• ill /Ilfematiolla/ Law

order; the armament such forces be of revolvers, rilles and four Lewis guns per hundred men, and will exclude any

the telTilorial waters of the demilitarised zones and there shall exist no submarine

trallsp011 Turkish ish fleet

wi II retain the to the demilitarised zones and islands of their territorial waters, where the Turk-

Moreover, in so far the Turkish Government shall have the to observe means or balloons both the

and the bottom of the scu. Turkish aer'oolam:s will be able to over the waters of the Straits and the demilitarised zones

tory, and will have full freedom to therein. either on land 01' on sea. In the demilitarised zones and islands and in their territorial waters. Tur-

and Greece shall be entitled to effect slich movements of per-sonnel are rendered nccessary for the instruction outside these zones and islands of the men recruited therein.

and Greece shall have the to in the said zones and islands in their territories any system of observation and commu-nication. both and visual. Greece shall be entitled to

her fleet into the territorial waters of the demilil3lised Greek not use these waters as a base of openllUClnS

or naval concentration for this purpose. nor for

67

The found demonstrate that it agreement and the of substantial deliberation and

central component to the Also

relevance is Article 9. which contains the ...... ""'.11' .. I<IUIt-;.I.I<I],;I;;,

of war. or Greece, in pursuance of their bcllli.ll~en:!nt

in any way the of demilitarisation pn:scnlJleeJ .Ibove, be bound to reestablish as soon as peace concluded the

laid down in the present Convention.

1"lIa~".la"" indicates that the understood that Greece and the demililurizalion restrictions in time of war, but also """'''''I-'~'''''''''

,-..u" .. · .. ", demilitarization status, because were to restore the reslric-soon as peace is concluded."

The Iltllillll- Turkish 1932

This agreement between and 4, 1932, and came into force on 1933. It was over the maritime bound-ary between the Mediterranean islet of Castellorizo held and the Turkish Coast, which had been submitted in 1929 the Permanent Court of Interna-tional Justice,':'i The agreement withdrew the from the COlllt and addressed in

the of the islets and the maritime in this area. lime that the Castellorizo was

ex~;:Il(m1!~e(j (on 4, 1932) that the COllnlries I.:ommiuec should be formed 10 delimit the maritime between the Dodeeanesc


J. M. Vall

coast. This led a proces verbal in Ankara on December 28. 1932. which

of reference This proces verbal dlSPUlles. and refen"ed to the "Kardak islets" as

at the median line between the This December 28. 1932 proces verbal was

never ratified the Turkish Grand National the AS!ieI11IOlY

on Jan. 14. 1933). und it was not 1'('(111 <.:fPI·{'{f

the December 1932 the force of that it has the force of law. as a SlIlJpllcment.al

dIS;PUlles,l~ but Greece argues ugreemelll 'nt,,,r""""",,n the main Ankara

The status of this agreement was reviewed in 1946 the Political and Territorial Commission for a formed the At the

October 4. 1946. the Greek to the maritime boundaries the Dodeeanese been established in the Janu-ary and December 1932 agreements. But this to be controversial. the

dellegate oblleCI,ed, and the Commission members decided to omit any reference to these agreements and instead invited the Greek to prepare a draft map and to refer the to the and Commission for later discllssion in the

Turkish scholars out that the failure to refer to the December verbale in the 1947 agreements supports their view thm the December

1932 document is without effect.

11ze l\1(JIllrelLl': COllvelltio"

This ' ..... nA.rt· ..... t treaty was de~;iglled n .. IIn1'~llrlhJ to restructure the that governs pas-suge the Turkish among scholars on the of this treaty on the demilitarized status of the eastern below.

Islands is discussed in detail

Tile Paris Peace with

dISI)utf:S. but

Calinmos the MeditelTaneall islet of Castellorizo-

adliaclent islets. As mentioned above, this different from that utilized in A.ticle 15 of the 1923 Lausanne which referred to "the islets del[)erldent thereon." This word may be but is unclear whether the

intended thm different islands would be included in the category of cel1l from those that are a more term because it refers to and allows the distinction to be made rather than or The term "u(ijuc;enlt. Imia Rucks, sUPPOl1s the Turkish claim, because these rocks are coast nautical than to any of the named Greek islands (it from Kalimnus).


Tile ...... "1" ... <0 •• ill IllIemliliollal Law 69

Article says that these islands "shall be and shaH remain demilitarized" and Annex

For purposes of the present tarizcd" shaH be deemed

all naval.

defines this term as follows:

the terms "demilitarization" and "demili-in the and ten-itorial waters

.... ".Ul .... 1,'"' .... ', fortifications and obs;tacles; the or the

PCI'SOl1l11cl rcstricted in number to tasks clmructer and with wcapons which can be carried

one person. and the necessary of slich per-

arbitration a third mcmber

'·I~" ... " •• Df()tclctecJ interest" on

Tile Vliited Natiolls Law tile Sea {,'()'IlV~mtIOIl. Dec.

but has not been or ratitied eXlplained in the materials that follow,

""'l\vPII'pii~(Jnlrv over Dis;puled Islands

Greek-Turkish ......... )U' .... "' ..

o..: ..... o""""",o,,h, dl!l,putes exist as a result of in the treaties listed above and also because certain small islands were not mentioned any treaty. These documents are clear in their but leave other matters in doubt. IIlC:lll(lmg how to define or islands as those terms are used in the agreements. With to the Kurdak/lmia Rocks which flared after December 25. 1995, when the Turkish carrier Akat ran on Greece argues that these snmll ban'en rocks (one to be 2.5 hectares and the other is said to be 1.5 hectares) islands Kalimnos. because KardaklImia is 5.5 nautical

1.9 miles sOlltheast of the Greek-claimed islet of ~')

any of the treaties that 3.8 nautical miles from

doser than it is to any Greek island named in the treaties. 31 Alticle 15 of the 1923 Lmlsannc Peace

referred islets on the 14 named Dodecanese Islands tmnsfen'ed to but Article 14 of the Paris Peace of 1947, which transferred these islands from to Greece, referred instead to islets "ac:1Jacellt" to the named islands.}


70 J. Vall

Greek administrative district

the waters surislets are within the

..... , " ... ,... .. both KardaklImia rocks arc "for a have been

their gOalS for graze. Another type of exists with to the islets of Gavdos and lia,V(110Dl.lla.

which arc situated about 30 km south of the westcrn for these islets rests on the fact that were once within the ';:O\}f>r/"IOll1lv

and are not mcntioncd in treaty in which the Ottoman Em-its claim to Gavdos and on its exercise of

most of the 20th century, Turkish to

these islcts to Crete as or "ucJ)aCell("

1898. when the Ottoman army Crcte declared itself to be an autono-mous slale, under the control of the GrCal and included its islcts" ill its definition of its autonomous self. As a formal matter, the Ouoman ceded Crete to Grccce in the of London, but that treaty made no mcntion of

Gavdos uuthorizcd the Greal Powers France, and thc United to dctermine

of Islands. bccuuse of their location south of Crete.

13. the Great Powcrs ruled those Islands under Greek of Gokceada (Imbros) and Bozc,mda tncar the entrance to the and the Turkish Mediterranean ncar the town or Kas) would be and were not Greece at the time of this determination, und on

30, 1996. the Turkish General Staff the inclusion Gavdos in u NATO exercise "due to its status of property." Greece exercises

administrative COl1lrol over these two islets.

one

The

The Turkish on over the unnamed islets was summarized follows:

An Turkish over the islands three miles from Analolia has terminated. of Lausanne Peace with the inter~)rellati.oll of treaties in with the rules of il1lernational declaration of consent tl)r the cession of len-itorial Such a conclusion also incolTlpat-ible with the rationale of that within the context of Lausanne Peace

nn''' ..... ·n .. '''. documents reviewed abuve will OI~;PUlCS bet ween

n .... TI~I.·V sources for where such docu-

mcllls fail gllllllaJlce may be n"I1'~/lIt/'£1 from the decisiuns of intema-i;lcllull:lcaletl similar in the pasl.w In all these cases, the


Tilt' .JI'H)'UU;;.) ill /mematiollal Law 71

decision makers have tended to ancient historical claims and have looked instead at evidence of actual and administration the islets recent

011 the last 100 years. The Palma.\' Island. was between the United Slates

the succeeded to the claim and the In(lol1leSlla). The United States based its claim

to the main

Arbitration:" natural Ihal the establishment of may a intensification or Slale control. "lIIISClDVl::!!'V'" did not confer title bccause it W(.lS 110t or attempts to exercise

Huber also thaI international docs nol support such -13

The International Court Justice addressed these issues in 1953 in the MI,/lqlllej~S

and f:ere/ws case. Both France and the United claimed title to a groups of islcts and rocks between the British island of the coast of France:'~ Each party ancient historical titles from the Middle but the Court found these materials be inconclusive"6 and instead foclised on actual of UlithOI'ity the 19th and 20th centuries."7 The Eritrea-Yemen Tribunal later summarized the MI,rUIIJlPIr'(,

Eereilos decision that even "there had also been much argument abollt claims to very ancient titles. it the recent of lise and posses-sion that to be a main basis of the Tribunal decisions. Based on this recent the International Coun of Justice determined that the United ........ """VII ..

had exercised state functions over the 4'.1 and that Fnmce had not established any this The Court thus awarded title over all

The COUl1 also relied for its decision on the view of the Channel Islands und

{llId Maritime Fmlllier SalvadorlHOIulll-decided the International Coun of Jus-

lice in 1992, involved a over sO'o'cr'CH!,n nwnershm several small islands in the Gulf of which is locmed ['III(:an:l!!lm meet. This area had been <h'", .. "r.~""n

eXlsung states of HonGuatcmala were established.~4 The Chamber

ruled thm the Fonseca islands were not terra nullius that time, but instead were inher-ited cntities from The Chamber then foclIsed 011 which of the new countries the islands, what actions indicated the exercise over them. and in the exercise The Chamber that it was not whether occ::uJ)alIOn could establish in U where a DrC'-e)l~ISlm!! Instead. the Chamber made clear thm

evidence the the proper title over each of the a "' ... ,-...... /u.;)u .. ;;

title


72 J. M.

\.J""~~'I.~a"I\.Ju of this island for more than 100 some El Salvador that Honduras was authorized to exercise author-

island.57 The Chamber then turned Island 1586 hectares and and Island fresh

The Chamber found evidence of and con-these islands EI Salvador since 1854 and found no effective protests

Honduras. The Chambcr's conclusion was thus "Honduras was treated as

to

over EI with

The Eritrea- Yemen urbitration relied .... "II ...... ~n. Mi·nauii'rs and Ecrehos ment for the it the ,'C'lnll'V('I\I pmiSe~iSl(J.n 0 f

islets thm is mosl instructive in d"lil',·,rn""'nt> <l:1,,1I'·'· .... 'onl

cul-tille claims offered pUle. Thl.! lest utilized

each side were not the tribunal was described as follows:

The modern international of .:l1"1.IU';')U,,UII

• "'I.UU,'\.'" lhut there be:

The tribunal relied on evidence of Icellsll1lg of Hctivilies in the

to suit

IIC(!IlSlllg of tourist search rescue environ-pl'()le~::U(.m. construction on the islands, and the "''''' ..... 1. ..... 111-'0 of criminal and civil

on the islands.63 The tribunal awarded the waterless, volcanic islets of the group to Yemen based on its greater way of pres-

of "64 The tribunal also awarded to Yemen the lone island of group, because Yemen's activities on these barren is-

lands were greater and are located on the Yemen side of the median line between their uncontested land territories.65

The tribunal gave some attention to or the any islands off one of the coasts may be

appurtenance to that coast unless the State on the coast has been able to demonstrate better title. The Mohabbakuhs and the Islands were thus awarded to Eritrea because were within 12 nautical miles of the Eritrean coast. The tribunal ulso included at the end of its thc but

stalemelll that: "Western ideas of territorial <':(\l"'''''·'''II.JI1I'1 are strange to

the Islamic tradition and t1ullilil.lr with notions of very differcnl from those in cOl1lemporary international law.

The Erilrea- remell arbitration instructive to the because it and the 19'23 Lausanne Peace

centr .. 1 to the controversies. The arbitral tribunal treated the Lausanne as. present and most of its With respect to

Article I the tribunal said that none of the islands the Ottoman could be after the treaty, because their

concerned. For this reason, cannot be resol \led party "uni-


Imematiol1a/ Law 73

means Nonetheless, rlle'..,I'H/(.'

releval1l for "hE",,,,,;,,'"

concerned" had reached.

Do These Precedellts Islets?

or a declaration or an ancient title may not be suffi-dcnt to establish current title, and the decision makers foclls on evidence of "effective the past century of island features. the

for uninhabited ishmds

nonuse, es[)ecialliv in cases where evidence of (ilsco'vcr'v

The remote. and in

feHlmes in the such Kardakllmia. tend to be small and some cases no one has ever Ii ved on them or suc:cesstu

"""11-""'''''''''' them cc()n()miC;;lllv Efforts have been made Turkish scholars to SUppOlt the rc~~an:linll! the unnamed islets, such as Kal'dakllmia. close CXI)lanaliorls

treaties, but a stronger argument, at least for those islets ncar shore. would bc based on the current notion of the ten"itorial sea, as the Eritrca-Yemen Tribunal. The 1923 Lausanne Peace clear in to those islets within three miles coast, a distance that must have been chosen because three nautical miles Wi.lS the most ac-

width of the telTilOrial at the time. the width of the territorial sea has been extended-to 12 nautical miles in most areas and to

Yemell Arbitral Tribunu) allocated all dis:outed nautical miles in the ru"",<:,II"

islands within the territorial either cOlllllry to that COllI11I'y.H can thus contend that it should

over those unnamed islets within its six-mile territorial 01',

ten"itorial sea is less because of an named Greek island. over those within C(ll.lidist:llnc:e line drawn between uncontested Turkish and Greek '''''"rH/'I!"\I

Kardakllmia would be considered to be within ten'itorial closer to the Greek island of Kalimnos.

The Turkish claim to islets of Gavdos and sOllth of Crete. weaker, because it rests on the absence of any

mention of these islets in any treaty of cession. The Greek based on well as on its exercise of

administrative control over these islets most of the past century, would ,np'\lIt ... "'lh,

be deemed to be stronger.

Demilitarization of the Eastern AP;IJP~lln Islands

As above, the demilitarization of the L('mllos, Lesvos Cllios. Samos, and 1 14 Decision. the Convention. The demilitarized

ishmds Samothrace. established in the

l: mn pillWJ 11 , the 1923 Straits dcmili-


74 .I. M. Vall

tarization was an component of the Turkish agreement to cede these islands 10 Greece. the 1923 Lausanne

over Gokceada (lmbras), and Bozcaada for demilitarization of the eastern islands because of their concern "about

SDI"lnitlb()ar'CI for Greek attacks on its concerns be met were bolstered the fact that it had

Grcek forces. The final agreement gave and Bozcaada. and gavc Samothracc to Greece, but the demilitarization of the E<lSlern

Islands written into thc 1923 Luus<lllne Pence and into the Straits Convcntion.

Turkish and Greek on the of the Montrellx Convention of the demilitarized establishcd in the 1923 Lausanne Straits Conven-Pre<lmble to the Montrcux Convention "have re-

the present convention the convention at Lausanne on the 241h 923," but the foclis of the Montreux Convention was on the Turkish

the and Turkish in "of Italian and German activities. Thc treaty makes no mention of Lemnos and Samothmce, the two Greek islands demilitarized in the Straits Convention. The Protocol Turkish remilitllrization lhe shores of the Turkish Straits.'<) and other refers to "Turkish and ... the in the Black Sea. of the Because in the Convention refers to Lemnos and Smnoti1race. it argue to should be viewed ..... ..,t .... "ti'L/ ... I"

to the Straits themselves, and thus that the Monlreux Convention does not

the agreement to the Eastern dilion to the cession of these islands

the demilitarized was I,,,,,,·ill',,·,,· whut

of Greece is restricted at thc to meet the of

Turkish scholars also enlpl1lasize

decision to the cession

established, in order

Under this Turkish scholars argue, if the demilitarized status of the islands eliminated, then Greek over these becomes questlOlmt.le.

tend to see the Montreux Convention the demilitarized status of the eastern islands. least to some extent

One scholar has said lhal because "the more isslie at Montreux was the passage the it looked as the abolition of the demilitarisation

Lausanne Convention were taken for " and hence that "of all the Dodecanese still remain demilitarised. former

in the concluded, on the other hand. that the Montreux Convention allowed for the remilitarizatiol1 Lemnos and Samolhrace. but not the IQur islands listed in Article 13 of the 1923 Lausanne Convention Samos and Ikaria

The issue of demilitarization was addressed in the 1947 Paris of Peace between the Allied Powers and in which the Dodecanese Islands were lransfelTed from said that these islands "shall be and shall remain demilitarized. Greece has that has no to seek to entQrce this

because was not 1.\ party to the 1947 Peace


the 1923 Lausanne investments were not

The

me III of the local lions under the 1923 Lausanne

increased when were imroduced on Lesvos

ill imemaliollal 75

1'011 i lications into Eastern 1964. 1969, and 1970, refer-

"o~'Il(I!'Irrlnpr'IP" in Article 13 of that its infrastructure

nn'n,'",\\,p the law enforce-and that it was to adhere to its

and the 1947 Paris Peace lIS The Greek troops to in 1974, insta)l,llions

Smnos. and Iknria und a 1-J""'II"n"!lnl'nlh, stationed on that base are two F-16

The islands of Chios, Kos

a missile system eOlntaill1lng eyes, a threat to

Greece

recent years fortified and some 30,000 troops are enllrellcl·ICU have been constructed in some islands

so Ihut the Greek Air Force would hnve to operate from remote bases on the mainland,

that Greece's action is in violation of its treaty commitments. but Greece now takcs the that the demilitarization of the 1923 Lausanne Peace

arc obsolete, because of "the demonstrated Turkish will to lise force and the in the

thus "invoked 'constant threat' an inherent defense to Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations."')"' and "the inalienable the United

The current

and I

is realities

betwcen the

because the chalng(!o since 1923

or do the OlJllg<.tUOllS (lCllllnltUlg boundaries are deemed

the Law Treaties';.... to be permanem and does this status mean that each and evcry detail in slIch are a breach does occur to the terms in

treaty_ what are the consequences of such a breach? Before the COI11-

international that to treaty a survey of mher demilitarized zones in other will be nl'r"/l/'I",rI

111t! Statu, ... ' Demilitarizt!d Zones under Interllatiollal Law

To determine the continued leg;1Um(1ley of the demilitarization established on the Greek islands in the eastern ,",\;;.:,:.\;;0<111.

One international-law whether a demilitarized zone

to survey other demilitarized areas in other that the proper lest for 11,"IIPrIIYlllnlll.o

whether the demilitarization continues


76 M. Van

comriblilc to the nonetheless lIseful because it that the ge()-p'OIIUCai 1'(!lalllOlnstllp

and also that as lechnol()~y evolved.

Thc term "demilitarized zone" was used in the 19th century and at the of the 1900s 10 refer to an area where no forces of the could enter, or could enter with limited weaponry to order. The purpose the demilitarized zone was ensure that the forces of the not in with one another. The of distance between them was to prevent any action that could lead whatever conflict existed. The breudlh of demilitarized zone was to be than one march for troops and than the range of medium

demilitarized zones were often a victorious state on a vUllqlllsflec:J stme to limit the defeated stale's its abilities. These zones were unilateral actions thm often forces the victor from any limitation on eillry or fortification. Othcr demilitarized areas have been estublished outside powcrs to defuse tension between hostile And a third mechunism for cst.ubHslling such zones is

that h'''l.-.I" ... in,n countries. on

range of demilitarized zones The ex-

the last two centuries.

of Peace between Russia and in 1812, the the Danube. This treaty was overrid-

den 14 years later. and Russia Imer part of it. l.l demilitarized zone lhat excluded all Turkish forces for "2 hours' march south" of the delta.

United Sillies-Canada. under the Great Lakes

of the U.S.-Cl.lnadian border was demilitmized 817.

The two limited their naval forces on the Great Lukes to "four vessels on either not ex(:eCUlIllg 100 tons each. and armed with a but

the United States '''\ft~nllll!IIII~1 introduced a more the 102

1"olrU!L'L'" Fill/und is to control of the Baltic Sea. Sweden, and Russia entered into a treaty

March 30, 1856 to demiliturize the Aaland Islands.1I1-I Then. in October 192 , a neutral-was established for these islands. in a treaty broke red the of

awarded the to Finland, but it remained under the of Nations. The demilitarized status of these islands was

conlinned in 1940 treaty between Finland and the Soviet Union lO6 and at the Paris Peace with Finland 10. 1947, which stated that: "The Aaland Islands shall remain demilitarized in accordance with the situation as at present exist-

This demilitarized arca is because it has lasted for almost 150 years, but it is also that the demilitarized status of these small islands has been reeonlirmed in four separate treaties this

Ionian Islallc/s. In the Poxa Nov. 14, 863 Austria. France. Grcat Britain, Prussia. Russin. certain Greece, but the

were us demilitarized with view to .. 1.11-1 ....... "",;;.


...... ' .. 'I""U;.' ill Imemliliolllli Law 77

The Zone. On 8, established a demilitarized zone on the southern shore between and the bank of the Sebou River, and this zone was reiterated in the of Novem-bel' 12, 1912 between France and On December 8, 1923. Great Britain. France,

<.Inti all what became known as the Zone, south of the leU'ln."'"I" been maintained

included n'"{\\I,,:,nl'l<c for French and .::>p'll1l~;n

hostile tribes in the of "real the zone in transit from the p0l1 of

Zone ended in 1956.

Sakhalin Island In the Portsmouth,11O in 1905. after Island and the Gulf of demilita-

rized. This treaty remained in for more than 30 ycurs. nr{',n!llnl\J

nature of thc trcaty. The for dcmilitarizutioll of thc most sensitive area of interest between the two the island of Sakhalin and thc Gulf of

locmed betwecn thc island and thc Russian mainland.

71U! IWmellm'(/

Rhineland In thc Vcrsuilles March 1919 World War I. thc

deemcd (0 bc dcmilitarizcd, but this rCQUlr1cmcnt 1-"".1 ........ recruit-within thc zonc, nor tuxation of inhabitants for the benefit of the German

UClnmlllV was to abolish reducc its army to 100,000, demilitarizc all the on the left bank of the Rhine River and also the

bank, to stop aU i,," .... nr·t<,tinn

limit its navy to 24 mtval 15.000. and abandon all

1919.112 The dcmilitarization was unlilat.cnllly Impm;e(J

The trcaty bctwecn and Estonia of 1920 divided their horder into three sectors. The agrccment demilil<.lrized thc lake arca around the sOllthcrn third. and the centcr third was demilitarized but the northern section The new Bolshevik government in until Estonia withdrew its forces within a of rell~al"(jed as a threat to Sl. Thc demilitarization measures were (le5agIle(1 last for

Fill/aud alUl Russia. The treaty between Finland and Russia demilitarized the shores and islands of the Gulf Finland. This treaty involved little on part. The slatcs later a demilitarization agreement Helsinfors in 1922 demili-

a small area on either side of the border their common border for 700 miles. Most of this border. however. was inaccessible in any event to

Domillican J(e,rJut.JlIC alld Haiti. A demilitarized zone was cstablished betwecn these two in fortifications or works within tcn kilometers. Modern weaponry mukes such a dcmilitarized zone ineffective.


78

9 forever renounce

1. M. Vall

Ji.II·Ji1I1'1;1'I1;; .... U!I;'II.IlUIIIlJII, which

illlernmional restricts not "demilitarized zone" because substantial U.S. forces arc based in

own "Self-Defense Forces." When these have been o",u"un;II;';;l;;lI

of Article 9, the courts have ruled that because ........ II,,;III.~I,,;. it can itself external attack.

Italian

and for the installations on

in Pence Union and other Easlel11 bloc cOllntries,

in for

tion of ch.luses."ll0 The 1947 treaty 41lso "",{,,,,,'('11 and its which were ceded to to remain demiJiHlri/~ed 121 and that re-

uuirelillent UIOD<1Lfelltlv has not been qllicsliioneo.

Delllilifllri~ed ZOlles the United Nations. Modern warfare has eliminated much of the purpose of the earlier "demilitarized zones, because most states now have the ca-

lO strike at each other across much wider area. In the modern era, a demilitarized zone involves a situation where neutral forces seek to the apmt, monitor violations. and promote peace .

..... ..,"1"' ..... Pe,ac(:keeping forces h41ve been inu'oduccd to sepa-for after the Suez Crisis in 1956. After

&'l.III;:;UVIU vetoed a U.S.-backed Council resolution foJ'

conditions. as a butTer force. and n.·("'''.rl .. · ..... cll .... oor\l'''','.",·\1 role.

Korean Penillsula. termed "demilitarized zone." the border between North and South Korea the 1953 ceasclire has been both sides. thousands of land mines in the int,,,, .. ,,,.-.n;;nn

United Because both sides have weaponry that could to the enemy. of distance. the threat of concept of demilitarization to prevent confrontation.

space replacc;!s the

nil' Former NATO and United Nations forces have been in-serted into the former for the purpose of the

...... """, .. ", .. ,,, retalimion. The United Nations Preventive n ... 'nll,vrnC'lnl

force with more lhun ,000 with the actions the 420 kilometer border with Albania. This installation includes 24 permanent and 33 tempo-rary posts for ··"'·""· ... 1' ...... ", und observation."


lJI.'",IIIU;.l ill Jlllemaliolla/ Law 79

7. 1997, Ukraine and Romania an rec:Oj,l,lm~es Selrm~nt:sIL:enllVinlIV Island, which is 19 nallticnl miles east of

on the Black Sea coast, as Ukrai-in eX(:halll~e n,·("n.c,," not to units on the

rU"flt'L'tli'!!, These Precedents to the Easterll

these demonstrate. many demilitarized zones have been temporary, while others for substantial amount of time. Whether a permanent demilitarized zone is with international law a difficult The inherent of stale to self-defense is in Article 5 the United Nations Charter, l:!~ und it can be thm a pernmnent demilitarized area would be inconsistent with the

self-defcnse. I:!5 a demilitarized status for an area may and nelglllboll'llllg stutes for time. permanent demilitarization under a treaty can

a and may wish to reopen present either a "material breuch" or u "fundamental

the to withdraw from or terminate

Greece's Greece has air force. over islands off-limits has violated article

of the Lausanne thus a "material breach" under the treaty. m Greece also thm a "fundamental of circumstances"121! hus occurred, because

!l11\,/!ll1lt!lelP has grown since the time the Lausanne was writ-ten. Greece thus argues that to self-defense and reC1Ulres it to remililurize the islands for defensive purposes. 129

Greece also maintains that the Montrellx Convention eliminated its remililarize Greek in the Sea. The Montreux Convention

at least some immediate remilitarization because of its statement in its pre-amble that the "Have resolved to the present Convention the COllvention Lausanne on the 24th 1923" to the Straits Con-

Greece urgues 1hut this modifies the status of all the eastem argues that the Montreux Convention eliminates the demiliturization re

those Turkish islands mentioned in mticle 14 of the Lausanne Convention becallse the Montreux Convention in notes that it was illlended to address the of and the Black Sea slates. But, in SUpp0l1 of their tion. Greek officials quote a Turkish Minister Aras to the Turkish Parlimnel1l in 1936:

of Lausanne MOl1lrellx and are

M inisler Aras' s sl;.ltemenl

islands of Lemnos and Samothrace which Greece, and which had been demilitarised

1923. are abolished also the of about this.

part of the "context" itself,

must be considof the Vienna Conthe Greeks did not

.nIJ,·,"n,"rot.nn a treaty. to Article 31 (I

vel1lion on the Law of Treaties. On the other hand. the


NO M. Vall

nUl1e~LIH1:tely remililarize Lemnos and Samolilrace after the Montreux Convention came into force undercuts the of the Anls statement and refutes the conclusion that

"a(;qlJie~,ce~d" in slich a remilitarization and that the Greeks understood the Sillta-

Lesvos Chios, and Ikaria presents. in any event. a separate from thm of Samolilmce and Lemnos, because those islands arc demilitarized in AI1ide 3 of the Lausanne Peace rather than the SIn.tits which covers Sumolhmce and Lemnos. iSler Aras said in statement about four argument that their demilitarized has been lifted a ~Ul"'''''-'4UI''''lIl

supporl. Greece has that the Lausanne Peace "''''''''''''''''''', but "the extent and posture of the Greek forces do uppear to many to

which (he United States made to its Greek has been I i fled must rest,

on arguments based on a "material breach" or on a "fundamental of circumstances sic stallWfJUS

Greece has no argument thm the demilitaril..ation of the Dodec,mese Islands has been any othcr treaty, but it argues instcad thal cmmot enforce Ihis not a party to the 1947 Pm'is Peace that included this that led the transfer, raised no

but the matter still received some discussion. The sUJ~gc~stc:(l that the Mediterranean islet of

Caslellorizo be tmnstcn'cd to the 13 Dodecanese but withdrew that Castellorizo should also go to Greece. had their eyes on the Dodecanese also, because of their desire to have u Mediterranean naval base, but in the transfer

these islands to Greece. The demilitarization was included to prevent future naval base the Soviets, Greece, or olher power. The demilitarization of the Strait. Eastern Thrace. and the Dardanelles

was a main feature of the 1923 Lausanne Peace and its the Straits Convel1lion. Thirteen years later, however the Montreux Convention Convention's for dernilitarization. at least in part. Both

oe'ilellDplllelrlt of the demilitarized zone in the eastern Mo.I:::!!Ci:III.

formula utilized for a very different world-both and IV--1T1:1V not be or to world.

does not fear a full-scale invasion from Greece, but is concerned that the "islands could be used Greece for targets on the

installations on the of the Tmkish Fourth

mainland ... m Greece argues, in response, eastern islands are defensive. in response to "the clcnlclVllnclll

(dubbed the of the the presence of craft in Turkish ports close to the pose a serious lhrcUl to Greece and warrant the countermeasures."I.lK Each side accuses the other of

the modern Because demilitarized zones are (IC!ilgllCO to diffuse tension and peace and

systcm can be established. many or evolve into else

of those estilblished in the 1923 Lausanne and in the 1947 Paris Peace


The imel'llafiol1al Law 8/

the Italian ----.-.. -----r IUIIU\I\IIIII1! ." ... 6, ... "',5 ..... "Outside the

at variance sometimes

nl·t,.vl~I.\nc "1:l'J Treaties and treaty are c.1C110llll1C'Cc.1, or modi lied: "International law doctrine has

considerable ............. .. denounced

to pence and the (NATO), so it could

to an end. loll

NATO however. und has been sensitive to the ... ""~,. •• ,,,.~ rCI!~anLlIllIQ demilitarizution of the Eastern Islands. Ulli-

because the NATO treaty is to a umbrella to protect nations, the NATO partners should determine whether the demi liturization

re(luirelllelllS on the Eastern Islands have should come to an end. Greece's argulllents thus include: the 1923 of Lausunne does

local sclf-defence measul'cs:14~ (b) with to Lcmnos and Samothmce. and n(1"~"ilhl,,

to Lesvos, Samos. the Montrcuux Convention I'c[,lac::ed 1923 Lausanne Peace and lifted the demilitarization

sellr-U(:rerlse, l'ec'o~rllzc:c.1 in Article 51 of the UN Charter; sic stalllibus) to militmizution

of the coastal ureas around the Turkish and the establishment of the of the ftCIl!Cl1I1; (e) material breach

to takc ~lnl ... rro,nl·l!lt£> countermeasures in response to Turkish defense of to Selr-(ICllem;e with was not n party to the

and hence is unable to claim any benefit from

nnl11llr!Il1S. Turkish scholars argue that the demilitarization of the Eastern islands was an essential to the agreement to cede these islands to Greece, and thal to alter the to maintain their demili-tarized Professor Sevin Toluner has the more detailed view that, in the context the remililarize the straits is

Lcmnos of Greece to remilitarize the islands of

the 1923 Lausanne and its slIt)SeQLU.!nt tremy, she was to ac-

for the Turkish Straits; and to reason, evidenced

of transit and

the straits. The second reason no La Greeee.

would tilus include the I) the

the preparatory work and in the Turkish

not to remilitarize its to remilitarize to the extent

P,·"I ... ..,..,,' ... Toluller has thal the Straits Convention •• •• ·1" ... ,,1.· .. to be militarized under the


X2 J. M. Vall

statements about islands outside located within the straits (Article variolts zones. These distinctions

(Article 4(2)) from those that are islands are from the

intent the dral'lcrs to limit the eX(!mIJticlll from demilitarization to the immediate straits area, to exclude the Greek islands from this Even if Greece were to remilitarize Lemnos and Samothrace, the I the Greek reslJonsibillity not rcmiliLarizc the islands of Lcsvos Samos, ,md [karia nor. course. does about the Dodecanese Ish.mds. which were demilita-rized in the 1947 Paris Peace These be maintained in a demilitarized fashion Greece.

Greece has to these arguments that it is to assume that demilitarized zones, created to the forces of two states away from each other, could be or in a fashion that would one side a distinct Greece thus argues that the doctrine of

in Greece's view. circumstances small difficult

economy a defensive posture to deter would-be aggressors. Further-more, Greek writers argue that the conduct of air force over Greek islands

1 of the Lausanne a material article of the These conditions since the time of the the Greek argue,

fulfill international OlJlllglltl(HlS "t'lllli'I",'nllnn

The Turkish scholar Sevin Toluner hus emph:lsl~~ed u,,-.tlt, .. C that treaties es-'''U'U.'1I11'lIj;; boundaries have a status under intemational law, am.! that cannot

altered or modified. This view receives strong support from the of Article 62(2) of the Vienna Convention on Treaties, which says that: "A fundamentul

of circumstances may not be invoked as a for or from treaty: if the treaty establishes a ... " This view is also SUIJP()Jte~d from the recent Eritrea-Yemen arbitration. discussed above. which and ap-

the 1923 Lausanne Peace as a document. But the careful IangU::lgc in Article leaves unresolved the of whether all aspects of ,-.. "''''''''''-,, treaty are forever or whether aspects and details can be modified "fundamental of circumstances" even as the divisions themselves re-main in force. As one international scholar has ex IPUl.l11<!a:

It may ... be to some treaty clauses and accept the rest either if the treaty so if the clauses are both rable from the remainder of the treaty with to their aPloll(;atllon and "nol an essemial basis of the consent" of other so

of the remainder of the lreuty would not be "14<)

OlJllg:llU{)OS on countries Ihm are not purrule. If a treaty

<lnd the the ,·"".r'"'1

then the third stale should be able to lake ,,(I'!·"','''''''~ of the benefit and invoke the With 10 the 1947 Paris

the would concern the purpose of the demilitarization pro-


The ........ "" .. ,. .... , ill Imernal;onal 83

vision ensure peace in the Turkish Straits) and thc extent were .. ",net'ln""II\!

appears to have (le~agJled to protcct Turkish

strong argument and hence that it should

.)nl1lll/(iI'\' {Iud Conclllsioll. scction dcmonstratcs, many sepa-rate and of whether the dcmilitarization rc-

Islands. has arguments n(\'lIprIHI1IO u'eaties. Greccc's argumcnts focus on the nature of

thcir vcry naturc, havc a sense of can bc cstablished. Grcece argues thal

demilitarization are inconsistent with the of which is charactcrized "inhcrcnt" in Article 51 of thc United Nations Chartcr, and which may

a percmptory norm of illlel'national law, whieh would over any contrary treaty undcr Articles 53 and 64 of thc Vienna Convcntion on the Law of Treatics. But thm

thc rcsilicncc demilitarized which have bccn utilized repeat-thc past 200 and somc demilitarized zoncs, such in thc Aaland

Ishlllds in the Baltic. havc now lasted almost 150 above, Islands must bc

rcsol vcd in of all the

Breadth of the Territorial Sea

all the because of its on freedoms and rcsource Since 1936, 1~1 Greece

a 6-nautical-mile territorial sea around its islands. but it has also that is entitled to claim a 2-nautical-mile territorial sea under the

and restrict freedom of movement The of the

such an extension would into Greek territorial wnters

of and other nations. constitutes a circumstance" that re-

solution to the telTitorial sea 1:\:\

sea from 6 to 12 nautical miles, would in-crease the percentage of control from about 35% to about 64%. would have 8.3% of the waters, and the percentage would be seas" would be reduced from about 56% to about 26(fl,. Article 3 of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention says that ali states have the

to establish a telTitorial sea to a limit not 12 nautical miles" from their coasts. has not or ratified the Convention, however, and has done

it nn'\:\:1 11"11 \., c,an do to establish itself as a the establishment of this norm. It can thus claim that a "n:~!!iIOmll the

limits all territorial sea claims to six nautical miles. With to the territorial sca boundaries between the Grcek islands the Turkish const und the coast can to the of Alticle

15 or the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, which that title or other from the use of the mcdian line as the

Slates.


84 J. M. Vall

Turkish scholars argue that the of the and the effect the Greek islands that are so close to the Turkish coast,

strong claim for allocated more territorial waters than the median line drawn between the islands and the coast would or to that territorial sea claims in this area be limited done in other areas. 161

With the territorial seas from the Greek islands to Anicles 122 and 123 of the Law of the Sea Convention which

that "semi-enclosed seas:' such as the stich

under the Con-vcntion manner

12-l1autical-l1lile territorial in the Eastern ru .. ,"' ......... such action would appear to constitute un abuse because the territorial

would fill most of the and would till it in the southern Such a move would. in

lished between the two States

freedoms in the years."165 These freedoms include "freedoms of

scientific research.

which was estab-

to exercise . . . for hundreds of

cable and but include. in

between the Turkish Straits and the Mec.lilelTanean. The threats to freedoms exist because the of innocent passage seas. Innocent passage be

in times of war or emergency, and innocent passage docs not passage submarines or

may, thus. be able to argue that the waters in the ten"itorial u condominium t ween Greece unc.l the waters of the Gulf of Fonseca corridor from the Gulf to the seas), which are shared between El Salva-dor, 1-lol1dul"Us, and 16K also similar in some respects the waters in Palk

historic waters shared between India and Sri Lanka. be found where

1"'<1"~" .. ,,,£I locations or arc 011 the in his 1990 book, cites the

or the Venezuelan island or Isla Pmos (between Venezuela Trinidad & To-the Abu Dhabi island of (between Abu Dhabi and

Australian islands in the Ton'es Strait (between Australia and of which been three nautical miles of territorial cites these cases to support the that solutions may be considered with

to" the Greek islands are to coast. In Another .nt' .... "' ... ,.,,""

eXlllllple is found in the 1984 agreement between .0. .. ,,,,,,,,,1.""1 and Chile, where these two countries limitcc.l their tcrritorial c1uim in to each other to nautical miles. but c1aimec.l 12-nautical-mile ten'horial seas with othcr countries. In As ex-

below, their territorial sea claims mJII,K'IC'nl passage.

continental shelf


ill Imemllti<mal Law 85

delimitation agreement with that in the north its island of Fanos would receive a effect and that in the south the Greek islands of Str'opha(les would receive a semi-effect.

is strongest to the islands in the eastern those near its coast. Some of the islands in the western

close to Greece's continental coast and thus are are very

the Greek mainlinks with the land. But those on the eastern half do not have the sume ''''('\n .. ''.lnlh "-,, 1

Greek mainland and present and One po:ssilble be to accept a 12-nautical-mile ten'itorial sea from Greece's coasts,

but not from 178 Another be to at least some Greece's islands to generate 12-nalltical-mile while insist

t.hat the eastern Greek islands limit their territorial to 6 nautical miles, Some ob-servers have even a 6-nautical-mile territorial sea is too wide in some parts of the Eastern because of the the islands and the need free passage, It may be and there-

reach an agreement where some 12-nautical-mile ten'itorial seas would be ac-in the Western in for a reduction of territorial-sea claims in the Eastcrn to 3 nautical miles.

Air Defense Zones around the Creeli Islands

......... h ............. in 1931, five ycars before it telTilorial from 3 to 6 nautical miles, Greece claimed a lO-nalitical-mile air defense zone around each of its islands. This claim appears to be one over this IO-nautical-mile area and a claim

be able to exclude all non-Greek aircraft from this " ... < ... " ..... '"

able, has of Turkish The United this claim in

argucs that it not aware of Greece's when the International Civil Aviation

announced the claim, and the Greek claim. Since then.

10 penctrate Greek airsp~lce between six and ten miles, aircraft in NATO exercises over the have also contested the outer four miles of the Greek argues that the close

of the in such amount of fill'<::n!lf'P

Some commentators have observed that no other country in the world has a differ-em telTitorial water from and that this situation creates the <:In' ....... "'h,

that a on the seas, 7 nautical miles from into claimed Greek as rises the air.

Greek argue that because Greece would be entitled to claim a sea of 2 namical miles, under Article of the Law the Sea Convention, its claim of a 10-

nautical-mile air defense zone must also be under international law. It not unusual for nations to establish air defense identification zones

(ADIZs). but these zones are to be CXI::llISIOlnalry

naval and Arabian Gulf nations and 20D-nautical-mile exclusion


86 J. Vall

zone declared 1"'''1:;''"'''''"1 around the Falklands/Malvinas Islands in 19S2. North Korea zone off its 1977. and South Korea declared a ISO-mile zone into the Sea and a IOO-mile zone into the Yellow Sea in 1 970s. In 1973. claimed the 100 miles of coastal walers in the Gulf of Sidra (or zone or "restricted area," but lalcr this

aircraft in to identification and location in the interest

H'"".''' ...... these zones do nOI restrict that do not identinci.ltion arc escorted to a air base. Other nations thut have established ADIZs include Burma, Canadu. Iceland. India. South Korea, Oman, the Sweden, Taiwan. and Vietnam. the United Stutes utilizes one of its own coasts, "the United States docs not ADIZ le!l:tat)wmCCI

that the zone with-

defense zone is or without but it unusual und presents uwkward covers so many islands in the crowded. semi-enclosed to be

In it presellls greater restrictions on ex-of the territorial sea would present with to passage, because

do not have the same of innocent passage that possess. be-lieves thm it mllst. therefore. continue to protest the existence of this zone, it

eXIJUlllSl(l1l of the territorial sea. And Greece's air defense zone mllst claims in the It

air defense zone back to six nauticul miles arollnd rl.o..;'t:. .... ""u. and to three nautical miles

some of the most COllgC~stC~d locations. in order to protect the and ovef-freedoms of other nations this for passage.

Information ................. ' ••

nn)bll~m was created in when the International Civil Aviation Greece air traffic control for the and drew the line between this and

the median line between the Eastern Greek Islands and the Turkish coast. 1'1Il These FIR zones are established "for the purpose of aSSilslllllg

them can be to a

over ci vilian but are operate with due

"I')~ and thus to cooperate with thc ICAO system. The Law of the Sca

transit passage over tional Civil A viution

and their of the Interna-

whenever U1Tangement presents an

because considerations encourage them oplera,Ung the FIR in the even


111t! £-",11)'1111;;,) ill ImenUltional Law 87

l1V,I>UI.VII opposes any rec1oglllltl()o of Greek -~ ... , .... '''J over this

once

intervention. issued a notice rpn.ur.no

aPIDrClaehiru! Turkish to report their nnc.I"nn and median line. Greece n.·..,.''''cl'''rl

when both countries withdrew their declarations reserved the to revise the FIR boundaries. An FIR

imernmional boundaries. but Greece docs cite the FIR h"" .... ,'I·,,'"

has that there existed maritime delimitation in amlOVIIH! n.'{\hl,,,,n, between the two nel.gnIDOI"S.

Delimitation of the Continental Shelf

The delimitation the continental shelf hnlln,-I!l"'" that many authors have written aboul. The close islands to

coastline presents a unlike any other in the world. The Greek island of Samos comes to about one nautical mile from the Turkish coast, and Kos and some others are almost as close. Because these eastern Greek islands the Turkish coast. the issues involve delimitation of both the territorial sea and the continental shelf. If the Law the Sea Convention reneeL'i customary international law in this maUer. the delimitation of the territorial sea would be Allicle 15

the Convention. while that the continenti.ll shelf would be In the recent decision of the Intemutional Court of Justice in

""£In"",,' Delimitatioll aud Territorial the Court relied upon the nnnrl·nlf'<;:

the Law of thc Sca COllvelllion, even had but not rmified because the that most of the

Convention on the Ten'itoriul Sea and the ContijgU()uS a customary churacter. Article 83

I:odifil:alion customary imermuional law. because it delimitation "be elTected agreement on the basis of international law. , . in order to a .... hieve an solution,"

Another issue addressed case the qUlestion tI,""",nn baselines. Some Greek authors have

their islands,201 similar to those that can be drawn around .......... 11" ........ 1'> ..... states.1U2 thus stl'ii!n~~thenllI1g its elaim to maritime space in the The International COlllt of Justice Bahrain's urgument that it should be able to draw baselines eOllm:etl:llg as a de state, and ruled instead that it

Ill1lJWIDer to draw baselines around islands that are part of an overall }!eC)}!l'apltllc:al unless were a of islands a eoastline.1U3 The waters be-

tween Bahrain's islands are thus telTitorial waters, rather than internal waters. and the l)f innoccill pUSSl.lgc exists these waters.~I).I

The between the breadth of the tcn"itorial sea and the delimitation of the continent .. 1 shelf should be obviolls. If the territorial in the from its present 6 nautical miles to 12 nautical it would fill more than three-fourths of the would leave very little to be delimited under the nr.n .... "nl."'c

continental shelf delimitation. From and indeed from the perspec-tive of an result to this it is that the


M. Vall

at the 6-nautical-mile limit in order to leave ten'j-an solution to be reached on the continental shelf. As eXlplame~d

above, a strong argument can be made that the territorial sea claims in some pal1s of Eastern should be rolled back to 3 nautical miles in order to

..... "",,'1 'l.nl~1 freedoms that are so to and to

that thc continental lund masses should be because the continental shelf is the natural

of such continental hmd masses and because the Greek islands do not possess continental shelves of has stressed its coastline.207

coastal maritime tradition, and historical usuge of the for for many centuries. has

and its status a semi-enclosed sea present an undeniable circumstances. solution

will enable Turkish vessels to reach the seas from its ports without

reduced power to gcnerate cxtended maritime zones or arbitral decision maritime boundaries.~11 and this

"l'\lnl'"-,,,,~··h would appear to be to achieve thc "CC:IUlltaIJle Article 83 of the 1982 Law the Sea Convention and customary

international law. also neither nor ratified the 1982 Nations Law the Sea Convention and has nf'>1I'l:il:ff'lrlil

that would allow Greece to extend its to maritime areas it has tml.lltlOl1311'Y na1VISI3t1IDIl.::!1.l Those

who have fOllnd the arguments to be sound have concluded that should be entitled to about one-third of the continental shelves and exclusive

economic zones in the rllL."L"". Authors the Greek cite Article 121 of the 1982 United Nations

the Sea Convention for the that islands arc entitled to generate con-tinent",1 shelves and exclusive economic zones in the same manner as continental land

and hence that the continental shelf should be the median line between the eastern Greek islands and the Turkish coastline>m Greek authors also elllpl113sIze their concems and argue that the continental shelf were a median line in the middle of the between the continental land masses of the

the such a line would threaten the oh\!sical CIDnt.lglllty nation. One Greek scholar who has written several

summarizes his follows:

factor and \"'U.<I:'IIII\';II~UI:'l where Ort)Dl)Sea shares to is for a

fronts which face the delimitation whether

minimum shelf and exclusive zone of course to the

irrelevant in the maritime zones, <'4i1'.VI\..F.",

space affects all the pro-m .. lJustmc:nts and the 1<l11:.bo..;llIlI'~1


ill JllIematimw/ UIII' 89

factor or on the ,,;"Ie.u!II !I.JI.!"'!!. detached from the process, that the territorial islands not their minimum but also their maximum

these n'"""'II1 .. I/~", concludes that clllitled. at most, II and cOl1linenlal shelr.~'7 Greek authors

I:haractcrized the idea that territorial-sea enclaves be drawn around the el]Slern Greek islands "unthinkable. Some have that some of

would be considered an international tribunal, are reluc-much of a share under this ~19 Another Greek scholar has

estimate and hus that the most could n.· •• "·,I ... li~ .. would be "10-1 of the total continental shelf area

thaI the most solution into three sectors because the differ-

as one goes from nOl1h to sOllth. In the nOl1hern whieh has median line could be drawn between the continental land masses

countries. which would be somewhat toward because of the location of the islands and the of the coasts. Six-nautical-mile telTitorial-

enclaves could be drawn around the Greek ishmds on the Turkish side of this line. In the central sector, the number of Greek islands increases. so the maritime bound-

ary would move eastward toward But should be allocated maritime to corridor from Istanbul

needs. In the southern sector, number Greek islands increases hnlI111it~H"V line would move fUl1her cast, but Turkish

n'""'\/IiIl"'i1 to ensure UOllnlpe(lc(1 lines. attention mllst be of

the coastlines of the two countries. If all arc this ratio favors Greece 59 to 41, and the nre included. the rntio in favor of Greece a 4 to I

Decisions of the International Court of Justice have not used slich with but nonetheless have examined them to determine if a solution comports with

a sense or relative faimess. If its earlier decisions are the International COLIrt of Justice would a solution that allocated to somewhere between 20% and 41 % of the exclusive economic zone and conti-nental shelf. while also its and interests that

cOlrlm!Clllng the Turkish Black Se~l Straits to the Mediten"ancan.

OPC!1lI111gs of the sea between the islands:'2::!6

bounc:lar'y delimitation were submined to an international tribunal for the tribunal would have should be made

outcome is linked to access to resources. as well as to the claim.


90 J. Vall

With to small islands. tribunals have not islands full power to generate maritime zones if the outcome of such would be to limit the zones created

or continental land masses. islets are alto-~17 even some substantial islands are less power to generate zones than

their location would warrant.22!1 This was also followed in the Eritrea- Yemen

where the tribunal gave no effect whatsoever to the Yemenese island of and to those in the group, because their "barren and 1IIIIU.:"II,/II(IU,I\,.o

well out to sea ., mean that not be takcn into COlnp!Jllnl.!! the hl"""I,,,'"

thc reccnt case, the International Court of Justice nored the presence small. and barren Bahraini islet of

Jaradah. situated about between the main island of Bahrain and the because it v.'ould be to allow such an maritime

feature to have slich a effect on u maritime delimitation line.~·m The Court also decided to the maritime feature" of Fusht al Jarim well out to sea in Buhrain's territorial which charucterized as

low-tide elev,llion and B'lhrain culled un island. and about which the tribunal most u minute part is above water at tide. Even it cannot be classified un

the COllit noted. a low-tide elevation it could serve a baseline from which the territorial sea. exclusive economic zone, and continental shelf could be measured.:!·l! But the feature such a baseline would "distOlt the and have

":m and. in order to avoid that undesirable the Court decided to

Greek writers try to that are based on ··n,,·n,'u\I"linln, .• I,h, the oppo-

land The circumstances" or "relevant circumstances" has been lIti-

that seem of reliltlcmslhlps, eXIJlallle:(1 else-

circumstances include The Ultcl1!ion tribunals to interests was restated )/em(,11 Arbitration. where the tribunal from Manfred in

Guillea/Guinea-Bissau Arbitration, that concem has been to means or another. one of the Parties faced with the exercise

the immediate which interfere pitt at

needs are and It IS that rec:ogmJl:e and try to accommodate them. The Greek islands trap the

Turkish coastline. and the maritime zones claimed some Greek authors would Turkish freedoms. One aspect of the customary inten13-

tional of nonencroachmelll" is codified in Article of the Law of the Sea COllvention, and this seems to stand for the that the maritime zones of one Slate should not be to cut off the extension of another state's entry into the seas.241 The of nonencroachment has been

the International Court Justice in the North Sea Contillellfal cases, the Jail case, Fonseca case.:!",! In the Fonseca casco 'lhe COUll a shared or "condominium" control over the resources or the Gulf and extended lhat condominium into an exclusive economic zone to lhe seas,24' And in the SI. Pierre and NlI",nplrJln


11ze ill Imemat;ollal Law 91

Arbitration between France and Carmela. the tribunal gave the French islands a narrow 200-nmllical-mile exclusive economic zone cOITidor across Grand Banks to the seas.2•11l

them. with the nOlable case, where the International Court aCI1IUSlleCl its outcome to

both to the This decision summarized u Greek author as foHows:

case where the location of resourccs was eXIDrc:ssliv effect on thc dclimitation line. The Court di-

small within thc elllirc While the

a two-thirds sharc in fa-

access to thosc arcas.247

lribullul would bahlllcc all thesc considcrations in the con-with any level but can be concluded with some

would be made to a mcdian linc in of thc considerations of this Onc Greek author has ac-

present conditions of customary neither Greece nor may cxpcct thc exclusive of their method of delimitation":!4l!

and thai thc locations of thc custcrn Greck islands be considercd as relevant circumstul1(.·cs deviation from the strict median line Greece."Z4'1 Indccd, Greece itself has from a strict median line in its bounlrJru'Y delimitation with where "there was an obviolls diversion from it at its southem-most part. to the detriment of and an obvious from the of the basclines in the case of the Gulf of Taranto,"1SIl

''<;'''''''''"''' corridor of any solution

the so central to its .. ",,· .... '.tu

Even under the present 6-nautical-mile territorial sea in the

limited and narrow routes ,,,h .... " .... " its the Mcditerranean without

can pass from Turkish over Greece's lelTitorial sea.

miles. would be

strait. can understand would view

interests in the "25~ Other maritime powers, would be concemed about 1I11111al1011S on their navul ,,",,~ .... ,

If of the territorial seas around some of the Greek were 1O

occlir. it would be crucial ensurc that route is identilied which Turkish and well us those of third cun travel as a mutter of These

routes include. of course. the routes from the Black Sca and Istanbul into the


.I. Vall

also include the route lant port. Izmir. The of innocent passage would sea. but this does not aircraft; submarines ex,erc~ising must sur-

and the status of this passage in wartime is unclear.

innocem passage territorial sea must be both continuolls stoppling and ... nt·hr,r,r,n

Further. it must indeed bc "innocent. not of thc coastal slale. Addi

passagc. For malter, 110 inconsistent with passage itself is n""c.nl'tI ..... rl absent

'.1 n .... '·""" I of thc coastal state. activities are even more scvere. threat or use

OOVUllllSllV unac:::cc:pt'.llJlc; so too arc slich thc coastal st:.uc

international

the lalililchmg, landmtclllgt~nc:e collection.255

would cxist. but it is international law or is a the Sea Convention.25(, It

to each and every or those n""r·.~ .... I1"'.n such passage. One would think

exist for the routes Mediterranean. but one Greek scholar

would be reasonable to assumc" thut "the narrows bctween the Kos and .. "., ...... ' .... u ..

and Kalimnos. Naxos and Mikonos ~lI1d

" '"faB short of thc detinition of ... " .• v ..... na 1,'IPatllrm. and eOlnS(~qllellll1 would be passage "!57 These "borderline" "narrows" in and most cal routc 10 get from Turkish Strait into the castem Meditcrranean and the many ports in the Middle East.

aCI::loeCIIIY mixed on this have observed that "minor"

and other commentators. neutral to the those in the

connect an exclusive economic zone or may be the of innocent passage:'25K which from

transit passage because does not allow submarines to nor does it guarantee or 159 transit pussuge wiU not exist in these then the fears and other maritime powers about the consequences of Greece's

telTitorial sea from 6 to 12 namical miles are indeed It

between one part of the seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the or an exclu-economic zone. A from Izmir would be from Turkish

territorial sri.! and would or cxclu-in "intcrnational

Turkish pOll on the Medi-

thc would bc


94 J. M. Vall

Belize has delined its territorial sea as .... " ......... ' .... ,,'.s its coast. but has limited the claim to 3 nautical

2 nautical miles from miles between the mouth of the

Sarstoon River and in order to a corridor for unim-tmnsit into the Caribbean Sea. further ne'~otmtllons. Another is

in the France-Monaco Maritime Delimitation Caled a 2-naulical-mile corridor Lo Monaco.

of 1984 which al1odirect access to the Medilerra-

nean.!?·! An solution to this conulldlllln in the must utilize creative innova-

tions to protect the interests of and third Such solution should include the telTitorial sea claims in certain COI:lg(:stc:u locations in the Eastern

miles in order to aDlJl"Oonale corridors for passage.

The ntt~rrlela,U()nSlll1~»S umong the Issues

arc all interrelated. but some na'vig.utlonal and over-

must cooperate maintain and lInorc)ve The width of the territorial sea (and the associated 11.,;}::;~II(UI\"'lI

and the delimitation of the continental shelf are interr·ell;'lte(i. to exercise nU1vlg,atl lon,lll

,Cl','C'r'C'I!'IHV over unnamed and demilitarization of Eastern are different, but Turkish scholars continue link them

remuin as be ·""'r\"I,.n"''''I,~hl fOllnd as part of a deal.

ru' ...... ,,.,<;;, .. none of the issues involved arc unlimlPoltmlt to the concerns are paramount. and for this issue focuses in

of its nuvai vessels and If any of the Greek territorial of transit passage mllst be dear. One Greek scholar has su!~ge~st~:(1 that Greece limit its territorial sea daim around those navi-galliolrUli corridors thal must be lIsed to move from the Turkish Struits into the Mediterraneall. m A ronner Greek dll'II(,\ll1~11

and include: ( moratorium on

2-nautical-mile ten"itorial sea around islands at 6 nautical

somewhat similar to the views or many outside scholars oe1veilDPll1elrll zone for some all of But Ambassador TheolC101"oPioulos

l.lPIPH>ac:h may be more .......... ", ........ in the way of action the present even better if included

territorial sea claims in certain pm1s of the Eastern to three nautical miles to offset the increases to 12 nautical

Undcr Ambassador ThlcQdolror)ollllos claims would be set


Till' ill lmemaliollal Law 93

times of war. An Italian scholar has written that "the status of international straits in time never been clarified."261

OPlpm,eo the concept or "transit passage international straits. when rl"".;",I,r.n~·rI in the that led to the 1982 Law of the Sea

the of the Sea Convention in December 1982.

The present declaration concerns the of Pal1 III "on straits lIsed international and more the a))11111(:atllon

36. 38. 41 and 42 of the Convemion on the Law of the Sea. In areas where there arc numerous out islands that form a great number of alternative straits which serve ill fact on and the same route of international it is the of Greece. that the coastal State

(Je:SI}!,nalle the route or rmlles. in the said alternative und aircrafts of third cOllntries could pass under transit P,lss,lge such a as on the one hand the re(IUlrelllents of international are satisfied, and on

other hand the minimum of both the and the aircmfts transit as well those of the coastal State are fulfilled.2M

rather dedaration when Greece ratified the Convention in raises number of issues. which would become acute if Greece should ever extend its territorial seas to 12 nautical miles. Greece asserts the to nate those straits that international cun utilize. but the United Stalcs other maritimc that the transit passage to every strait and that no exist. Some commentatOl"s have Sp~:!cllialted that Greece would like to Turkish aircraft from straits near the Greek The Kea Strait may

Q, not be to transit passage under the the Li.lW of the Sea Convention. in any event. because of the "Messina in Article I which

1hal "transil shall not there of the island a route the exclusive economic zone similar convenience

h Ylurc,g.r;apillcal characteristics. contention 12-nautical mile limit is not

COI:lge~stc~(J shared bodies of water is <:,u"nr,rtp'rI

countries have claimed less than 12-mile terri tOl"i al seas. Denmark. for instance. has claimed 3-nulitical-mile territorial sea and claim 4 nautical miles.261

The closest is found in the Gulf of Finland, where the at the eastern end. Finland hilS claimed 12-

nautical-mile tCll'itorial limited its claim to three nautical miles in the Gulf of Finland to enable Russia to have a corridor for access to the Bullic

Another mile territorial Strait, the the OSlimi territorial-seu

in order to

where which asserts a 12-nautical-,..._"._._a. claims a 3-nautical mile tCIl"itorial sea in the

Strait, the eastern and western channcls of Tsushima and In fact, both thc of Korea and huvc limited their around the land to the Korean Strait to 3 nautical

this area.m


IlIIel'llaiiOllal 95

aside similar to the national claims over Ant-of territorial claims in the would the

de of the waters between Greece and each nation's territo-rial sea. Neither side would have such a moratorium. but the

allow the greater economic and cultural a different toward scnlement when these are

rcexmnincd aftcr a "",nt>'·".'n"

tinuc to utilize the And. for now, both sides could conof and with

:.sullll1l1m"y of' COlncllusi4lns and Recommendations

The status of the December 28, 1932 pmces w!rbal between and ul1l'csolvable. It was never ratificd never recorded of Nations, and not mentioned in the so can

of the two countries who were authorized to address as ilTelevant, not

strongest argument over the Kardakllmia Rocks rests of thcsc rocks, 3.8 nautical miles from thc Turkish

to 5.5 nauticul milcs from thc named Grcck island of Kalimnos. Not arc these to the Turkish coast than to Kalimnos, but also appear to be

\vilhin territorial which reaches the median line bctween and Kalimllos, and thus would fall within if the utilized in the Eritrea-Yemell Arbitration unnamed islets within

territorial sea arc DI'C:SlImlJltivelv of the coastal

that the Eritrea-Yemen Tribunal relied ,'"'nll",.tll,, on Ar-for this conclusion, and that it eXllralDolat(~d

territorial sea. To review the in the Laus,mne is

"islands islets within three milcs of the in Article 16 "renounecs all title whatsoever over or other than those over which her the said Eritrell- Yemell Tribunal concluded that the "3 miles" used in Articles 6 and 12 bccuuse that was the width for the territorial sea in 1923 it extrapolated territorial this pn.;:"IUIIII.JlI\.JII

that islets within a coastal to that country. The Tribunal then ruled that

the tCITitorial sea has (to 12 nautical miles in most areas. and to 6 nautical miles in the the rea-

of the t;ritrea-Yemell those within the current tcrritorial sea, which in the land areas

to be incondu-unnamed islets, look for evi-

to determine which country had the strongest


96 .I. M. Vall

claim over the fealures.1l!-l With to Kardak-Imia. both countries have offered some

evidence of recent usage and administrative control, and, this were used, the that had the strongest evidence would

of over south claim over Kardakllmin because of the greater

;"",rll"\,"UII,l and the Turkish coast. claim based these islets in treaty of \"\";');)1''''11.

islets" in self-delini-lion when it 898 Constitution. after the Ottoman army had withdrawn.

Greek claim over Gavdos and is thus bascd on "acllUCCflCY or 011 or and on the fact that it has cxercised

administrative control over these islets most of the pust century. The basis for the Greek claim must, therefore. bc viewed stronger than the basis for the Turkish claim

these islets.

DemililllriUltiol1 Ells/enl Is/amls

The 1923 Lausanne Peace is a foundational treaty that addresses a wide range of issues and has The respect shown to trenly the Erifrell- Yemen Arbitral TdbuIlaFI!7 leaves no doubt that the treaty continues to be

and to have to current affairs. But can be said that every aspect of the treaty valid? Some paris have been for instance, the 1936 Montrellx Convention. Other parts have been revised, as the Erirrea-

Yemen TribulUll when it the three-mile coastal limit to encompass the current. broader, territorial sea limit. Some parts make little sense in our world of the 21st century. \Vhether the demilitarization arc still (ICIDCI1(1S on whether have been other arrangements, on whether

continue to scrve on whether the concerned countries act on whether the NATO treuly partners view these .... ·".\li<"n.~" arc in force. Greece, us late 975, but in 19H6. its Prime Minister said that Greece had renounced them. how other nations view the matter, whether to Greece's remll1-

still believe that Greece to maintain the demilitarized The views of Greece's NATO partners are

thus far if the demilitarization in force. The 1923 Lausanne bOIJlldlarv treaty,

and such treaties are to be sacrosanct and of the treaLies Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

bc terminated or ablro.ElI.lt(!(1 Nonetheless. the details in knl"",I,,,'" treaties sometimes Imer treaties and from unilateral initiatives combined with aC~Cluiieslcellce

in direct violation of lanigu:age of. such a modification

has takcn some aClion lO militarizc some On)lC;ste,d. so it has not in this

abovc. the actions of other cOllcerned countrics will be decisive to uClcnninc whether the Greek action will be and .. ,.."·",...,1,,,1


71w ill /memllliollal Law 97

Has there been a "fundamental of circumstances" Cer-we live in very different world from the world of 1923. Relations be-Greece and

still does are Jalllnc.hil1lg air strikes or

islands is less sYlnb1oll:sm of demilitarization

aspects seem less .us reflected in Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the

narrow but for treaty.., ...... "",,,,,, ..... '" based on 10 circumstances that were "an essemhll basis of the consent of the

10 be bound" and that transform the incurrcd in the trcaty. argues that an esscl1liul componel1l of agreement 10 ac-

cept Grcek the Eastern Islands, and (herefore that if demilitari-zation ends, ilsclf would be in doubt.

Both Greece have accused the other country of "nmterial brcaches" of the 1923 Lausanne Peace AI1iclc of the Vienna Conven-

the Treaties defines a "ml.llerial breach" us "the violation of ac(;olll1plishmc:nts of the or purpose of the This defini-

somewhat circular the present context, because the is whether some militarization of the eastern Islands, or some n\l,,,.rt"linht<:'

fact, defcat the or purpose of the treaty. ,'f1ol,lll'urol\/ minor allerations of the treaty, then the rest of the

If. 011 the other the demilitarization were essential conditions to the deal found in the 1923 their violation could alter the fundamental treaty and. in the of Article I) of the Vienna Convention on the Law could entitle the party invoke the breach as for in whole or in pal1. If Greece and in some violations of the

the Lausanne then their violmions could be vicwed as cancel-each other, the remainder of the upon the

53 und 64 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties say that (rea-if connict with a peremptory norm of international

of a country to engage in sclf-defense been characterized "inhercnt" Article 51 the Unitcd Nations Charter. the of sclf-defense not of cogells norms, because focus

the fundamclllal hurnan it is that most international law scholars would rank the of self-defense on the scale transcendent

of international law. To the extent. therefore, thm the demilitarization clauses in

Greece the inherent void. in violation of a militarized remain common, and Aaland Islands. have lasted tinucs LO

vnlid.

situation. be viewed as

On the other hand, de-one the Baltic's

a demilitarized zone COIl

it should be

Professor Toluner has offered to support the conclusion that the 1936 Montreux Convention docs not lift the demilitarization on Lemnos, and her not without and force. But the actual in the Preamble.


98 J. M. Vall

the lack of in of the demilitarization for Turkish and territories while it in for Greek islands. combined with

Minister Aras's statement the Turkish Parliamem!<l7 leave the matter in some doubt. The evidence in support of Professor Toluner's conclusion is the fact thm Imme~d"llleIY militarize Lemnos and appears to have viewed the demilita-

rizmion as in force for a number of decades after 1936. The demilitarization

of the 1936 MOl1lrClIX unless it has ':'Ul,}:)!,;I..IUll;ln Greek initia

or unless it has been eroded or tives of othcr undercut passage of time. the of conditions. or the that the

of sclf-defcnse Ulllnli,llClly The demilitarization and

found in Articlc has not been any ;nll.I':>!';"IU'''11I agreemcnt, a few authors read thc 936

Convcntion so thm it altcrs the demilitarization clauses in thc main well as the in Articlc of the Straits Convcn-

('11I'''(,I·ln" Lcmnos and Smnolhmce. If thc ... ·".n~, ..... t has not bcen modi-it has been altered the unilateral Greek

or unless it has been eroded rec'o,gmtlon that the

over tcmpurary The demilitarization the Dodecanese Islnnds found in Article

14 of the 1947 Puris Peace has not been altered any agreement. so remains in force unless it has been altered unilateral Greek initiativcs ac(:on]p:JlIli(~d

countries. or unless it has been eroded or undercut the passage of of conditions. or the that the of self-defense .... "I .... "' ....

over temporary demilitarization The qUll!stllon party to the 1947 can enforce the reCIUllrel111erlt presents a separate Qwestllon

Also, the action of its muned islands the hibition in the 1947 Peace are to altt~ratlon

treaties do not create or duties for and are not enforceable them. But some treaties have a more universal purpose and be-

:'Ire rules Peace treaties and trealies are the most of such treaties. and the

1923 Lausan ne Peace and the 1947 Paris Peace Bet ween the Allied Powers and nrc of slIch peace and I of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that

arises for the trc:aty intend the n'·,'VI",,,,,n

Stales to which it ""'''''''''''''''', shall be is not

to the 1947 affected the treaty. thc Dodccallcsc Islands rcmain demilitarized was cle~;lgllCcl

and ':"{''''.'''' in the eastcrn Meditcrranean, and was


The ...... >1; .. '.".> ill IllIemlltiolllll Law 99

intended to be a ....... 11" .. ..., ... ..., .. ,.. I' ..... V .... E. .. this area is SOIl1f"Wllat

to invoke and enforce the demilitarizmion The issues above

tives. circumstances would still remain as pOl:enllal on:lblj:!ms. What would be the consequences of Greek breach of demilitarization

tion? Article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties allows countries to

breach, inlernatiol1ul

the violation nol occurred. the preselll l'olllext. but the party must present evidence reSlan[Jinl1! harm it hus suffered to document its claim.

the a strong that the demilitarization 1923 Lausanne Peace 1947 arc still in effect. The argument is strongest for the Dodecunese,

lremies have modified the It IS strong for and Ikaria because the 1936 Montreux Convention

not l.lppeur to be affect the demilitarization these somewhat weaker (but not without substantial

because be that the 1936 MontrclIx Convention was OC~;lgI1C(j to rcvise the cstablished in the 1923 Straits Convention.

Breadtll tile Territorial SeaM

Articlc 3 the United Nations Law of the Sen Convention the establish tcrritorial of limit not miles, has established itself a to the assertion of such

daim in the and a number of exist wherc rmrrowcr ten'itorial seas have been claimed in crowdcd semi-enclosed se~L~ to freedoms of

and historical uses of the and its resources. is on firm with on 'his issue but may to be flexible with

a(lllaClenl to Greece's COl'llInelllaJ Greece's continental coast in the western

Greece to declare a territorial sea of 12 nautical miles around its continental the islands in the western half of the for

to and IOc:usllng on its needs for corridors that do not pass

may be able to protect fundamental interests. to resource eXlplolilaliolll, it may be best to promote a moratorium on

eXllJloration and for another or two. or to work toward of ef()I'ts in a zone that would cover pal1 of the .M.t:::!!l.,;illl.

Air ZOlles Arolllld tile Greek /sialld,.,·l/}$

The len-nautical-mile Greek dcfense zone restricts even more onunaLH:allly than an CXI)aIlISJ(J11l of the tcrritorial sea would restrict passage, because have


IO{) J. M. Vall

illl1ocel1l passage. are 110t without pn~cc:dcnt, this Greek zone is unusual because and in crowded semi-enclosed sea. has been to this zone, and has been success-ful in any argument made that it hao;; in the estab-lishment of slich zone. If is necessary or in the

agree this air defense zone around Greece's continental around its western Islands, so as it is eliminated the Eastern Islands.

Delimitatioll

Intcrnational Civil Aeronautic (FIR) to Greecc has Drcscnltcll

the Continental

Bccause thc delimitation of the contincntal to postpone the delimitation

COIllPllcx. the best unless active

eXIJloitation of is or is anl:lClpal.ed. have written on and the solution that international law re(JUlres abo v e .. \IIX the view here is that an internaliOlml COUlt or arbitral tribunal should und would allocatc bctween 20% and 41 of the continental such an outcome cannot be and thus it may be better to submit the matter to a nOllblndllng conciliution commission rather than tribunal. ;l11'~ It also

before any submission would be made, to the facts submission and the It would be best if the issues relatcd to the thc territorial well passage could be resolved shelf delimitation were pre-senlcd to a conciliation commission or tribunal.

and the many other na-nr<)lC,('IIIIU!. and ... "v .. ' ......

in its effons to resolve these territorial sea in the at 6

nautical claims in the reduced to 3 nautical miles, und to reduce the air defense zone to these as well. part of a com[)romise,

consider an I;;hIJUIII:'>IIIJIII of the ten"itorial sea 12 nautical miles coasts also around some or all of its westem

n.W till civilian and on this

I Because vary it is essential to the rules . .t:.slpec:mll:y since has not ratilied the LHW of thc Sca Convention. it becomes i .. nnn,r1",nl


The , .. , ''''''''-.' ill Imemlltiollal Law 101

for the to be to ensure the free passage of

Tile among the Issues

Even Greece acts as if not all of these issues are on the table for disclission, it is all a role in the and ,111 need some attention and

One of the more sensiblc for a prescnt solution is that Greek who has

moratorium on the delimitation and of the continental 12-nautical-mile (errilOrial around Greece's comi-nental the islands at 6 nautical mi les; and (4) "reamlmg,mg Such a solution would interests in an !\nl,\I-r,nl'i,ltt· fashion and would allow the

to~~etllCI' on oth~r isslles before to the for a more the next even bettcr solution would in-

COlllg(~stC:c.I parts of the eastern freedoms of all nations. A

to promote zones of shared

in a

as formal malter. protect the environment and to

Notes

Byron 11fe So-Called Aegeall Di.\1>1tte: Wllat Are Ilze Slakes: in Greec(' tile Law of the 325. 327 <Theodore C. Kariolis ed. 1997):

the Aegean there is one claimant party, while Greece claim-off an number of Turkish claims."

") Sce, c.g., Gunduz, A Tentlllive 1",',""1,,,,,, 139-5 (Bayram OZlurk cd. 20(0). nu.' 2000

Tile Treaty London, 1913, 12. 2001

5, In ducument, the Great Britain. Russia) said had rcmcltrc Grcce toutes les iles de In mer Egce

acluellemcl1l occupees par die. i.I ex(::epllon de Tcnedos, d'fmbros el de Caslellorizo, doivent restituc" Turkey. Sec Kralcros Ioannou. 11'e Greek Territorial Sea, in Kariotis, supra

note I. at 115. 151 49. 6. Sec. c.g .. Sevin Tolullcr. Some Ref/ection.\" 011 tile Imerreimioll the Sea Oi.\"-ill O/lurk. supm nole 2. al 111-26. The 1914 Decision staled Ihat the Greek government

thesc ni fortifiees ni lIlilisccs pour ("will be or miliwry

Greek Turkish Relations Medi-Prmpccts 295. 297

1999)tciling Simsir. Aeg<'wl Questioll. vol. II 1913-1914). An-

kam. 19X2. at 392-93). 7. 28 L.N.1:S. II (1924). published in 2 nit' Treaties of Peace 1919-1923 al 959

(C:lrIlcl!ie Endowment of Peace 1924). treaty between "the British Empire. France.


102 J. M.

the Serb-Cmill-Slovene Stale, on the part, Turkey, p.lrl. The treaty registered with the Sept. 5. 1924.

The hllld boundary between Greece and '-... ", ... .", .... Treaty, tht:n Article 5

in

terms in Article R" .. ",d,,,·,, Commission to define the

[irst paragraph of Article 6. the Turkish isl:mds of Imbros and Tcnedos:

orl~mllis,lltill~n c~[)(npm;etl of local clements and furnishing every It)r the native non-Moslem in so far as concerns loe<ll administration Hnd the protection person property. The maintenance of

will be therein by force recruited from amongst the local population by the local udministmtion above provided for under its orders.

The have been or may be concluded between Greece and the exchange of the Greek and Turkish will not be 'Ipplied to the inhabitunl'i of the islmuJs of Imbros and Tenedos.

The Erilrea-Yemen ( 1998-1999), text note 69.

II. See infra text notes 24-27. 12. 28 L.N.LI). 21-23 (1924). also in 2 11,e Treaties uf Peace /9/9-/923, supra 7, 1013. I The relevant ill Article 4

The zones and islands indicated below shall be demilimrised:

In the Aegean Sea. the islands of Samothmce. Lemnos. Imbros, Tenedos and Rabbit Islands.

COllvention for the Delimitation of Territorial Waters Between the Coasts of Analoiia and the Island Kastellorizo. 138 L.N.1:S. 243 with Ihe League of Nalions

24. 1933. Agreement concluded on 30. 1929. submilled the ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,>!

of International ac(:ordirlg 10 the of Peuce of Lausanne the lollnwlI1i!

_ ..... _, ... " Maradi,

The so\lcn~il.!lnlv over the in the Bay or in the listing See Ioannou,

Delimitation the Tenitorial Waters Between the of Amuolhl Series C. No. 61,

16. Ioannou, supra note 5, 142. 17. Ill.

See. c.g .. Ali Kurumahmul. A Greek-7itrkisll Dispute: Who OIl'IIS the Rocks? in Ozturk. supr •• nOle 2. ,II 109, 113-14.

19. See Greek Transmiuul Turkey. Feb. 16, 1996. in Ali KurunmhmuI, Ege'de Temel EK-21 (tentative English translation).

20. United Stutes Delegation Journal. Forty-Second Political and Territorial Commission fur Italy, October 3:30 P.M .• 3 Fureign Relatiolls (~l the United Slales-1946 at 665-66 (U.S. GPO 1970) and Report of the Political and Territorial Commission for

OCL 5, 1946, 4 Re/aliolls of the United SlaTes-J946 299, 31 1970). See Tile Troubled Wafers. 4:2 55, 65 ( 1947

Treaty. when Grel.:cc demanded a


111e ill Imel'llllfiolllll Law 103

accord. Russia' s and doubts about the of this led to the refusal of the Greek IJI\J'IJ\':~<U'

21. 173 L.N.7:S. 215 (1936).

22. See Jon M. Van L£>gal and Praclical Problems uc,Ivermi/H! Imemaliollai Siraits, at 109. 110-12

infra text and notes notes 76-83.

24. Trei.lIy Peace Between the Allied Powers and Italy. Feb. 10. 1947. 49 U.N.J:S. HAS 1648. 61 SICII. 1245 (1950). Dept. of StUle Publication 2743. and dis-

World /I C. 1954).

25. One commentator has noted that Dodecanesc Islands transfcn-cd Italy "lie just the Turkish coast" and been Turkish until the lIalian-

War lillie Turkey during [World War II J, prcvclIl the transfer." Lt.Col. Michael Schmitt. Aegean Allg.'iI-'/1U! Greek Turkish Dispute. 49:3 Nal/lIl College Nel'iel1' 42. 47 (1996).

over the inrra notes 29-34

and 72.

27. KUllImahmut, note 19. al un 'nl,,,,,-,,.,;,,,,.1I wilh Professor Sevin Toluner).

2K United Convention on Dcc. 1982, UN Doc. 62/122. 21 1265 (1982).

5. at 140. 30. Inan and Baseren, supr'l note 20. at 65. 3 I. See supra notes I 26 .

.32. Anna Lucia Valvo. 71,e Aegean Sea betweell Greece al/d Turkey: Kardak Rocks

Never GiI'ell, in Ozturk. 2. at 17, 1 17. 33. Ioannou, supra 5. at 143. 34. Ibid .. at 140.

35. Sec D'lvid S. Saltzman. Aegean Issues of Dispute and Prospecis Ozturk, supra note 2. at 179. 182. Turkey denies

has in recent years protested any NATO 011 the islets be-

cause of their status. Ibid. at 182 n. 58.

36. See Ioannou, supra note 5, ul 151 n. 53 Article of the 1899 Cretun Conslitu-lhat "L'ile de Crete les ilot COI1SlilUC un EIat. ... "

37. Kurumahmul. supm note 18. at 112.

For some of the muterial follows. see Mark J. Valenciu. Jon Sharillg the Re.'wlII"(·(!,\' the Chilla 17-20

I 9lJ7 I.

3lJ. Among the dClcisimls th.1I govern the ability claim "",n<'·r";,;.,\ 01' isolated uninhabited islund .Ire: the His

Agreement Cot/ell/ded 011 Jallum:v 23, 1925, Iletweell N,"III1>l'h'lllli..: Rela/illg 10 Ille Arbitration vf /JUj'erelices Respecting

SOl'ereigllly U\'er tile Is/alltl vf PlIlma.\· (Micmgm). 2 R.I.A.A. 829 4, 1928), in 22 J. 1111" L. 867. 909 1928) [hereafter ciled as Palmas arbitration]: the delcisionls

of (lei) Ecrelw.\' Cas,> (France/United Kingdom),

1953] I.C .. I. Rt'pOriS Maritime (£1 Salvador! flolldl/ms; Nimmguo imen'ellillg), 1992] I.e..!. Repotls 351 [hereafter cited GIl~l

<lrbilral decision in Eritrea-Yemell Arbitration, supra note 10. 40. Judge Huber was <II the time the President of the Pcnn<lnent Court International Justice. 41. £rill'l'(/-}'emen Arbitration, supra nOle 10. para.

41. 43. Ibid.

Arbitralioll, supra note 39, 2 R.I.A.A. 829 al 867. 893-94.

44. Mil/quier.\' and Ecrelws ense, supra note 39.


10-1 J. M.

45. Each group cOnlains or three habitable many smaller islets and great num-ber of rocks." Ibid.. 53.

The Court noted that "even the Kings of France did havc all feudal titlc" to the adjm:clll Ch.mnd Islands, a title must h.'lVc a of the events of the

1204 .. Ibid., at 56. "To ils legal force to-day by aUribUling legal effects to il .Iner an interval more than seven centuries to far any reason-

able considerations. Ibid. 57. decisive imjJor/{lIIce, in the of the Court, is not indirect presump-

tions deduced from events the Middle Ages, but the evidence which relates to the the Eerehos and groups." Ibid., at 57 added).

48. Eritrea-Yemell Arbitration, note 1998 Award, para. 450. 49. The United submined evidence that the courts had exercised criminal

jurisdiction over the Ecrehos and islets that few habituble houses on the islets had been

in Jersey, thm

65-66.

51. Ibid .. at 71. case, supra nole 39.

29. 558, 333. at 3::m-SI, para. 29.

55. The Chamber as described

the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. to pay properly taxes. that deeds

custom-houses had been established by Ihe on

Huber in the Is/ami of Pa/mas cuse: '''Practice. as well as doctrine. re(;ojlmi:le~;-,th()uJ!h

formulae and with ccrtain differences as to the conditions '·'"'(I"'rf'(I_.ln~:1I

of 1.-,·"·i,,,,.',,1 sovcrel!!nltv (r)ca1cctul

title' (United

563. para. 342. The Chamber thell on to say regard to the before

When: Ihe rcleymll administrative boundury was ilI-delined or its the view of Chamber the behuviour of the two newly Illdept:n<.leni

tollm.vll'll! 1I'ldc:pcI10ICI1I:e may W'IS. in view, or the the other .... This ,lspect of the matter status of the islands. reason their

Ibid. <It 565, para. 345. 56. Ibid .. UI 566. para. 347. 57. Ibid .. at 566-70. paras. 348-55. SI-l. Ibid., 570, para. 356.

.IS a acted on by one and uc(:tllies(~ed

"Ulitieul':lr irnplm't;'U1(;e in relation

570-79, 356-68. Honduras mude one protest 1991, but the Chamber 575-77. paras. 362-64. The Chamber that

Gulf of Fonseca Ihal had the effect of Id. at 577-78, pm·us. 365-66.

60. Ihid .. al 579. pura. 368. t:ritrea- Yemell Arbitration. ~lIPni nole 1998 Award. para. 450. citing ami

47. See generally Barbara Kwiatkowska, nUl FUlUre of Is/tillds ill the Liglll (~r fhe Erifrea/)'ell/('II Awards (pap!.!r the SEAPOL Interregional Conference,

Bangkok. 21-23. 2()()J). 62. Erilr£,tl-)'(!mell Arbitrmion, supra note 1998 para. 239. 63. 451-52. 64. Ibid .. paras. 507-08. 65. Ibid., parus. 509-24.


The ill Ill1ematiollal Law 105

458.

472. 476-80 citing. among of the 1923 Lausanlle 7. the presumption telTitorial waters arc

the nearby mainland. another point (paragraph 446). "there the pmb-

10 such a tribal. mountain ilnd Muslim medicval socicty the modern Western concept of title. with to uninhabited and bmTcn lIsed only by loc~lI. traditional fishermcn.

69. Ihid., par~l. 165. In paragraph 445, the tribunal characterized the islands as in "an

COUl'l in Ihe way of for uninhabited or areas the Opinioll on

1975 J I.e..!. llep0l1s 12. 43 1975). 71. See Daniel J. Dzurek. Southeasl Asiall Offslwre Oil Di.\lmtes. in 1 OCt'WI }'eariJook at

157, I 1994).

7'2. Sec. c.g .• Toluner, supm note 121-26 and Senne Hami Baseren. Sit/IUS of

rhe Islmllis. Islets alld Rocks ill Aegean CIS Determined by Imemariolltll Trearies, in Kummahmul,

73. The Erilrea-Yemell Arbilration, concluded thai islets within 12 naulical miles of the Eritrean coast the breudth of the territorial for that belonged 10

Eritrea. Eritrea-remell Arbilrmion. supra nole to. 1998 Award, panl. 472 D. Bowell, Tile Islwllls in Imemmiollal UlW 48 1978) and Tile Acquisitioll and Go\'-

ill ImemaliOllal (1926). for that it pre-sumed islands within territorial waters arc under the mainland state).

74. Sec und notes. at 6-13. 75, Balll:hcli. Gn.'ek--Turkish Ndar;oll.\' Sillce /955 at 146 1990).

TS. 215 (1936). "Theories "Ibound whether Montrclix Convention Greece of the Oblllj!'llIO'1l

to demilitarize." S~lltzmall. supra note 35 .• 11 182. note 25. 63. the Ihm "Turkey remililarise

the Will: or lht.! Straits as defined in lhe Preamble to the said Convcntion. been Turkey rcmilil~lrizcd tlnce ncar thc mouth thaI wae aWilrded 10 Turkey in the 1913-23 treaties .. md agreements. See Henri Ad'lm, Military

Ihe in Ozturk, supr.a note 2, 205. Sec Sevin Toluner. nil' Pretended Remilitllri:,e of Does

(Lillllli Ada'sillin HlIk"ki t'e MOlllreaux Kom'cmsi),ollu) 1987). The of the Montreux Convention also cOlmllllic'al~:d

Turkish Grand National Saim(llthl·aC~;!. which belong 10 our friend and

neighbor. Greece. and which had been demilitarized by Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, arc <lbolishcd also by the Treaty of Momrellx," discussed infra lext accompanying notes 124-126.

R I. Tollincr. supra note at 124. Sec Gunduz. 2, at 144: "The demilitarisation of the transfel' to Greece now

changed or revised by Greece." 11w Aegean Sea tile in Historical Per~p(!ctil'e.

Ozturk. supra nole 2. at 86. 87. 83. note 79. <It 206. see Ronzilli. supra note 6, at 298-99, who supports

Profe~sor Toluncr's that the Monlrcux Convemion did nOI alter the demilitarized Lcmnos.

Andrew Tile DispUle 16 (London, Inslilule for Strategic Studies.

Paper 155. 1(79). 85. Schmill. note


J. Vall

Bahchcli, supra nOie 75, at 147. 87. Schmit!. supra no Ie 25. ~lt 62.

Bahchcli, note 75. at 147 citing Turkish Turkish 011 the Demilitarized Staws L(!IImos and EaSlem

Schmitt. supra 25. til 62 Rinn S. Shinn 316 GPO 1986).

because this island was ~Irca against

91. RUllzilli. supn.1 no Ie 6. George P. POIiI<lkis. 11u: Ae,l:('tlll Displtle II,e

CO/m'lIlioll. in Kariotis. supn.l nole I. al 291. 307 ami

Greek and Marine L. 497 Schmitl. supra nule 25. at 62. Greece has apparently the demili-

tarization of the 1923 Laus~lIIne Treaty. Prime-Minister P.lpandreau on 7. 1985: "Did we violate the Lausanne by militarizing the islands? Yes did.

Sultzman. supra note 35. 8 n. 54. 94. Sallzmml, supra note 35, at 180. See also Athanassios G. Plali<ls. Greek Deterrellce

Ille Cold War 61. 83 Gerolymatos and Imrides eds. 2000). 75. 149. Sec

where Ihe lullmvll1.l!

leg.lll1natc defense. olle of the fundmncntal of the international possesses the character jus cagel/s. Article 103 the U.N Ch .. rter slales Ihm the

in Article 5 any to the contrary." Turkey responds this argument by that Article 51 the U.N. Charter

authorizes countries to take only temporary steps for self-defense. and if arc subjected an threatened cOllntries to report their threat to the United Nations

assistance. Greece has not gone to the Council for as!;ist,ancc.

Convention on the Law of Trc<ltics. 23, 1969. U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39127. Article 6~C!)(f.\) fum.lamcntal change of circumstances may not invoked

for from treaty: (a) if the treaty eSHIblishes a boundary .... " H. M:.lI'sh<lJl-COfllW'IIi, A Re-

lJemilitari:.alioll 170 1935). Ibid.

YY. Ibid .. at 54-55. 60. 54-55.

Ibid .. al 58. Anders

1(95). Aland Is/ands: A Strategic Survey (Finland National

Convention Orl Demilit<lrizatioll 30. 1856. in Gardhl!rg. note 103. 87. See note 79,

105. Convention to the Non-FortificHtion and of the OCI. 20. 1921 1922 L.N.T.S. :213. reprinted in Gardberg. supra note 103, at and

97. at 150. The 1921 treaty was ratified by Gcnmmy, Denmark, Finland. Sweden, Italy. Poland. and Latvia. It all activity.

but Article 6 allowed Finland to lay mines and take "measures of a arc strictly in times or war in the BulLic.

Trc<lty Between Finland and the Soviet Union COllccming Aland Oct. I. I Y40. in Gardbcrg. supra note 103, at 95.

07. Treaty Peace Between the Allied Powers and Finland. Article 5. Dept. Slate Pu/Jlimlioll 2743. Leiss. 24; and Adam. supra note 79. at

108. Admn. supra nole 79. at :211 Marcel Sibert, Tmitt! de Public. (Paris. 1951


71,e ill Imernatiollal UII1' 107

109. Ronzitti. supra nole al 295 ciling, respcclively. 51 British (lml Foreign Slate Papers 1053 and Dc !V1<lrIens, Num'(!lIu Remeil gelleral de III serie, vol. 7. pp. 323-41. Art.1.

10. of Peace between al Porlsmoulh. 5 1905. reprinted ed., The Consolidated Series, Vol. 199, at 144.

II . (Versailles Treaty), 28 June 1919, in

Sec "Versailles. of. Microsoft EIlCUl'lli l:.w,'vciofJ'edlra 99 (1999). 113, Sec Marshall-Cornwall. nole 97.

Peace between Russia and Estonia. at Tartll, 2 Ft:bruary 1920, re-L.N.T.S. 30 (1922).

115, Peace Treaty between Finhmd and Russian Socialist Fedcral Soviet at Dorpal. 14 October 1920. in 3 L.N.T.S. 65 (1921).

I Convcntion between Finland and Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Me.lsures taken in Order to Secure Peace at the Frontier. at Helsinfors. June 1922.

16 337 (1913).

117. Treaty of the Dclimitmion of the Frontier belween the Dominican and Haiti. signt!d <II SUnIl) Domingo. 21 1929. in 105 L.N.T.S, 207 1930).

II 1947 Paris Peace supra note 24. 49-50. 1 19, ROIlZilli, ~lIpra note 6. at 295-96 citing Natalino Ronziui. /)emiliwrizarioll lIlId Nell

fmli:::JlliOIl ill IIIl' l\4ediu!rrall(,llll. Iialiall Y.B. 1111'1 L. 35-38 120. 121. supra note 24. Ankle I 122. 296. 123. Ymmg-Koo Kim, Norlhe"sl Asiall Marllime Boundaries lIlId Islal/ds IJi.\putes, in Marilime

BOllndary 1 .... 'Wl!s lIlld DisplIIes ill East Asiall 71-72 19(7). 124. United Clmrter, Article 51. the prescnt Charter shall

inherent right of individual or collective self-defense a Member m(;~aSlllrc~s necessary to maintain the United Nations. until the Council

note 95. 126. The between notes I 12. 117. The Vienml Convcntion on the Law of Treaties. supra note 96, Alticle 60(1), "entitles

palty [in a treaty] to [.1 material] breach for op(:ratlon in whole or in part. Greece has ratilied the

Vienna Convention as of tremies. ,1I1d thus as all whether

Convention was dmned after the treaties at issue were concepts "fundament.11 change of circumstances"

nrl"vums:lv.·exl<,;IIIIU-' Ilonns of customary imematiol1al law that were codified in the Vienna

of circumstances" call be treaty termination if cirCUlllsllmlces constituled the consent of the to

effect of the "'lln..:inl"lm the extent of the obligations :-.Iill 10 be pcrfonned under Vienml Convention on the Law Trealies.

96, Article 62( I Greek COIml11cniis supra note 95.

Lausannc Convention or also rejoice similarly. Turkish oftici:lls

an of goodwill Ihe

148 quoting from The Union of Athens Daily Scc also Toluner. supra note at 81 trmlslating

concerning Lcmnos and friend Greece had been demilitarized by the lined by the MOlllreux Convention. about we

saying Ihat "has be read. international climate prevailing at that

time which cannot change. in any way, the nrc.vi~;iOl'I!O: international treaties. Bahcheli.


lOX .I. M. Vall

75. from of Foreign Turkish \'iews Ihe Demililllri::.eti Sr(l[lts LemllOs and the Eastern Aegeall 9.

I. RO. explains Aras stalement not made to .. Greek did nol constitutt! a unilatcml thus does not bind

umh:r the cases of Legal Greenland. 1933) P.C/ . .! .. Series AlB.

53. p. 71. or Nuclear (Alis/ralia t'. France). lucigmelll (~r Dec. 20. 1974, [19741 I.Cl. Nep0ris 253. 267-69. paras. 43-51.

132. note notes 87-91. 133. Schmiu. supra nole 25. <It 64. 134. Leiss. supra nOle 24, at 61 135. Ibid. from a stmcment made SClUlior Tom U.S. 79th

2d S. Doc. 243, at 5. Ibid. from Senalor Bahcheli. supra note 75. at 148.

138. Ibid. 139. Mark W. Janis, All Imroc/uclioll 140. Ibid. at 37 A.E.David. The

o,.;hl~I<lIIII". at 38,

statement.

Imel'llat;ollal Law 34 (3rd cd. 1999). (?r Termillation al ix 1975). Janis

denunciation tested by an international stale's denunciation of a treaty and

stale's of (Jalll!lllll}! and unresolved. slates may. of

course. retaliate (lellOlllllclmg other treaty commitments.

14J.

ROl1ziui. supra note 6. Ibid.

298.

1.11

80, llt 57. 146. Ibid .• at 61-85.

Lli

149. J;'lIlis. supra nole 139. at 34-35 96. Article 44( ) and (3).

17w Lair Tre({(ie.'i 255 (1961).

the Vienna Convention on the Li.1W Treaties.

15U. Vicnna Convention 011 Ihe Law Treaties. supra note 96. 34. 51. (lbove, supra notes 77-81, it is clcar lhal some of the demilitarization

rC4uiremcnls the 1923 Peace Treaty huve been modified. the limitations on Turkish islands and tcrritories. so the found in that trcaty no exists. Also of importanct" remilitarizing its islands. the language in the 1947 Paris Peace 18-122.

152. Law vol. A. No. 450/1936. When Grec(:e increased se~l chlim in miles, the United Kingdom did not. Greece and Turkey were on friendly tenns at that time .• 1I1d were and some ideas the

of the formation of a confederation. When Turkey eXlcnded Aegean territorial miles in 1964. Greece that this extension interfered with Greek

fishing at Aegean Issues Conference. Istanbul. Jan. 20. 1995.

eXIJlallnll'lg the Greek enactments and quoting from of the the Sea Cunven-

of the Convention up to

GUllduz. 2, 150 supm nme 5, <It I 8.


111£'

155. Some of the materiul Ihat follows in adapted from Jon M. Van 397. 401-02 1996).

109

294 and Ioannou. supra note 5. £11

on how the is defined. See, Exclusive Ecollomic ZOlle, Marine 3,

sovereignly owr 43.5% of the no Ie 20. at 63

157. 11,(, IlIlc!r/UlIiolllll ill lhl' 268 ( (93).

Sec Toiliner. supm nole 6. at 127-31 The ,· ..... " .. ";.·1.' .. 1 objector" position

l:olltroversial. bcc .. u~c customary Inw emerge about or rejection of a cOllmries. Sec. e.g., Jordan J. Joan and Jon Van

imcmllliollal Law (llId LitigCllioll ill the U.S. 93, 96-97 Whether a pell'si~itel1t

norm appears require a global approach are regional or

objeclor has a stake in the norm and the clout to prevent it from emerging .111 Because of the of the world's oceans and coasl-

lines Hild

the l!e(,II.!I'i.lIJhical siluati()J1s, the breadth of

1"1',', In .. ". 1 SCH be objected to

pCI'sl~;telll objector.

159. Articlc 15 of the Law of the Sea Convention. supra note 28. reads as follows:

Where the Co;,lStS of two States are or adjacent 10 each other. neither of the

Slatcs is elllitied. .Igreemelll between them to the extend its

Ihe median line every of which is from the which the breadth of the territorial of each

l.lpply, however. where circumstances to delimit the

States in a therewith. and Buseren. supra note authors also argue thaI the

<.IClurlll'ltllln of the territorial will the continelllal boundary. Ih'll "Turkey ha~ initio ami ipso facto cxclusive rights over the cOlllincntal shelf areas those limits. whil'h the n:ltunll prolongalion the Anatolian 1<1. at 67-68 n. 3.

I. Sec lext ,lI1d 267-273. 62. Sce 111<111 ami Baseren. supra note 20, at 62: in the

the purpose of restricting or aCI:.juirilll),! thc shelf arcas of Turkey is un

ubviou!'l example of an abuse of the determination of the extent of territoriul law.

[19511 I. c.J. Reports 1 16. the not something that u could do unilaler-

cllnsidermion of effect on other nations. 164. Ahnish, supra 157, at 268.

165. Gunduz. supm note 2. at 145.

28. Articles. 17-19. of Fonseca case, supm 39.

W. The Regimf! of Islands ill 11lIt!l"Iwliolla/ Law 425

Ihid.. 437.

171. 17:2.

Ibid .. at 441. 455 .• md 485.

druwn between reached (0

and see 485. mlother p.lrt the book, Ambussatior Jaycwardcne equity" would UI1 line should IWI be

Greek islands and Turkey's CO<lSl und that some should be both countries to have some maritime space. Id. at 446-47.


110 J. M. Vall

173. ""","II,I.·t! in Jonathan

and Chile, November 29. 1984, Imem'aliolll:tf Marilime Boundaries 19 1994).

Papal Proposal in the Beagle Chmmcl of the (December 12. Article 24/.L./'vl, I, 13 (1985).

174. SI.!":: infra note 267-273.

175. Agreement between Greece and on the Cominenlal Shelf. May 24, 1977. u.s. Dept. Slate, Limits ill the Sea 96 1982).

176. See G. Francahmci and Tullio Sc()vazzi. Sea 222 1994 J. 177. Turkey's dedanllion and acceptance of 12-nuutic'll-mile territol'i'll seas in the Black

Sen thc Mediterranean indicate that Turkey accepts this limit valid in rec:lplroc'al) circumstances. But on the eastern Turkey's navigational and arc most directly impactcd, strong case thn' Greece

3-) nautical-mile territorial

leaving in its pres..::nt status und rearranging th..:: width :'Iir-spnc..:: acc:or<JmJgly

179. IllIcrvicw with Profcssor Bernard Oxman. Istanbul. 12. 2001. I 5, at 129 the sellllle:ncc of Greek

10 nautical miles mound Greek lund and a

59 expl<llining lhat "Grccce bnses its usserLion of S()\icn~i f!1l1 v on of aircraft necessitates a wider territorial reach the thun on lhe wUler."

182. ··Naturally. neither Turkey nor another country respects unusual inconsis-lent with the norms internutional luw, which has no similar over the world. KUlllmahmut.

19. 35.

Ioannou. supra 5. 133. Politakis. The Aegeall Di.\jJWlf, supra 92, 298. Paolo Freedom ill the in OZllIrk, note 2, at

2 Grl!ek scholar has churacicrized the situation as "unorthodox and unprec-··.,.·hil.· ... ·" .. and and unreHsomlble. Politakis, The Aegean

60 has observed that of the present Greek claim could lend Greece simply to extend its territorial sea-which would be even more de!stal:>ilizinlg in the Aegean than the current sitll<ltion.

187. The malerial in this and the one that from Jon M. Van Military 147, 153-54 1991): Louis B. Sohn.

Il1lf'rllflll01Uli Navigation: Rocks

cds. Choon-ho Park, 1978): and E. Cuudra.Air

Mt'wUicariol/ ZOlles: Creepillg .Jurisdictioll ill fhe Airspace. Va. Int" L..J. 485-92 1978). I SI.!C generally John Taylor fv1un.:hison. 111(> Co.nti!~lIlms Air Space Zone ill Imemalionul

956) Cmmda and the United States. ADlZs to claims for shelve!> and contiguous zones. and on the doctrine of necessity

these I H9.

19 I.

supra 60.

25, 62.

192. Article of the Convention International Civil A vialion (Chicago Convention), December 7. 1944, th<lt (he Convention 10 aircmft.

193. Sc.:e Article 3(d) the Convention eSlablishing Ihe ICAO. See Schmitt, note 25, Ul 61.

of the Sell COl1vcllliun, note 28, Article 39(3).


IllIemaliollal Law 1/1

Kurumahmul. supra lime problems for v,'hell United States planes exercise their

pm.sage through il1lcrnHtional straits or straits p<1ssage through archi-pelagic waters. Coastal .. md archipelagic countries seek 10 the report their flight adhere to instructions from the local U.S. mili-

free to fly thest! corridors without restrictions of any S0I1. Interview Honolulu, 5, 2001 supra

follow ICAO rules and usc not

sensitive missions, or with of civil aviation."

Tmnsminal to Turkey. Feb. 16, 1996. in Kurumuhmut. suprn note 19. at

Turkish that Ihe delimitation of the shelf governed 1!01i/crnil1l1! the delimitation of the ICITilorial sea, and that. in par-

prC)IOI11}!:Jltion 1-""'''''1-'",-, supports claim to continental shelf in the Acgcan. Sec Inan nnd Bascl'cn, supra note 20. at 67-68 n. 3.

199. QlIIar-Ballrain 6/ 16.htnl. Decision

200. Ibid., paras. 175-76. 20 Aegeall supm 92. at 300 arguing that Ha reason-

draw straight baselines around the norlhern and which. "under thc current 6-milc [tcrritorial . would climinatc

high existing today bet\\lccll the islands. LIW of the Sca COIlvt:ntioll, supra nOIe 28, Article 47.

203. decision 2 212. the COUl1

204.

can be only if that either the coastline is

in its immediate

205. Sec supra notes 177-179. 206. \'erbale from Turkey Greece. by Clive R. :symlllOns,

The lvlllrilime Zones (~r Is/al/ds ill Imerna/jollal Uill' 137 ( In 1976, Turkish President Fahri Koruturk that the Aegean is "an extension of Minor, and we will never allow it to bc !limed into an internal sea of another country. Time. August 23. al 33.

Some mnhors conlcnd the help either claimant. of geography. because the Aegean seabed "continuous island shelf

Iwo troughs Ihat conslitule "incidental breaklsj" in Ihe continuous shelf, and therefore Ihat "neither the nor the of the Aegean could proper criterion for delimitation. See. e.g .. Ahnish, supra note 157, at 357 n. 2.

coastline stretches 2,820 km lhe Aegean Sea. 77U! Problem of Delimilillg rhe Territorial Ulmer .... Between Greece OZlUrk. supra note 2, 170. 172.

20K Turkey's current population is ubuul 67 million, compared to Greece's of about II or 12 million. Ahnish said in his 1993 Ihat about 10 million Turks lived its Aegean

363. data from the Swtisrica/ Y,'arbook Greece 1986).

reported. ill. lived 15.721 lived on Limnos. 88,601 livcd on Lcs\,m .. 4R.700 liv\!d on Chios. 31.629 lived un Samos. 7.559 lived Ik'lria. 14,295 lived

.......... "'11" ..... :W.J50 lived 011 Kos. 4.645 lived on Karpathos. 87,83 lived on Rhodes, and 222 lived 199.2 report t he Un ion the lotal the 130

which of Greece. COM


12 J. Vall

209. "ITlhe Turkish navy today a considerable upon

(56% total :Irea) in the northern. central where it (the Greek and the yenr over a dozen air-naval exer-

295.

Probh'lIIs. Turkish-Greek Relations Aegeall

April 9. 20(0). ~II. SI.:l1mill. UUI.:UIIII;;,ms A/CONF.62/C.2/L.8-1.9

Renate Plalzodcr (cd.), IlJ84).

the Law oj" the Sea. Vol.

213. One Greek author has characterized Turkey's efforts 10 protest the nl"ilivi~:inrl" that the 1981 Law of the Sea Convention "nellr obsession with the notions

circumstances in their forms. lummou. supm note 5. at 127. Donald E. Ki.lrl, Islands alUi tile Delimitatioll the Contil/ental A

71 J. 11It'1 L. 642, 671-72 (1977) Jon M. Van Dyke. Role (~r Is/muls ill Delimitillg Maritime ZOlles: Tile Case oj" 44. 67 (1989).

Aegeall Sea. in 8 Ocean Yearbook at

2 5. Sec. e.g.. L. nit! Greek Conlil/el1fu/ SIzt!({ K.triotis. supm nOle 1 at 100-1 () I and Phaedoll John Equity, E'quidi.wGllce. at Sea: 171t! SWillS oj" CO{lswl Frollls and a Coda tile Aegean. in Kariotis. note. at 21, 29 Ihat the decisions in the St. Pierre & and Jail Mayen "suggest ... that Article 121.2 of the UN LOS COIwel1lioli codifies cUslOlmtry intern<lliomli law. See also Hellenic of

Unilateral Turkish Claims Ihe 9, 20(0) <lnd Greek of Press and Mass Mcdia-Secretariat

Information. n,e ImemClfioliai Legal oj" the supra note 215. at 47-48 (citations eliminated). Sec <llso Phaedon John

PrIOlJ/')rllfOfI'alil\' A rolilld

it!. at 65 n.171. cites "[t]he lot<ll Turkish share may range he

be. If the median line

cites Derek Bowen. 711t: Legal Regime Pf(lpolsition thal: ''The idea of a mid-sea medhm

line which .. line

cOlruclluling that because of

Greece's security needs. no international line which would ... cut off Greek insular territories from the mainl4lnd territories."

note 215. 101' "II <llso be assum!.!d that b!'!c~Ulse of the difficul-ties in the central-eastern Aegean).

of mathematical calculations in attributing the continental shelf. those might prove unavoidable.

220. Theodore C. Kuriotis. Greek Role oj" lire 1;'):cllIS;l'e 1:."('ol1omi(' LOlle.

Kariotis. supra note I. at 210. 155. at 402-03 Jon M. VUJI Dyke, Maritime

note 2. at 165. 166.


ill InternaTional Law 113

c.:OllllillCIlIInI shelf .md the economic zone, and such <In approach nmy someday be for the Aegean as well. Sec. e.g .. Kariotis, supra note 211 recent and

muritimc a very reasonable solution 223. Van supru note 155, "t 398, 403. Sce also the Eritrea-}'emen Arbitration. supra

notc 39, 1999 Award, paras. 20, 39-43, 117, 165-68, where the Tribunal relied upon the test reasonable degrec of to determine the the boundary line: the

tribunal satisfied that this Eritrea-Yemen Icngth ratio

note :2 the

terms of their ratio of their watcr are'lS

Karl. slljJra nOle 50. who argucs that

reeci ve 66-70Ck of the Aegean that of Professor

225. Sec. c.g .. Wilson. supra 11011: ::md Miyoshi. supra note 82, at 92. 226. Rozakis. 215. at 101. See supra note 220. 210, ami Kariotis.

L.H.""""": I"'""JI"JI""rLOIIC, supra 156. 13 the Ihm the "fingers" approach solution. but arguing thm it Turkey should receive less maritime splice

Ihat in map, nole 84, al 14 in Kariotis, supra note 220) bccause the Greek blmlds are entitled territorial seas of 12 nautical miles around their shores.

227. approach was first utilized in the North ColI/il/Clllal She~r ClIse (German), \'. 1 1 969J I. c.J. 3, the Court

dispnlP()rlion:ality distorting in continental shelf de-

Concerning ,hc Delimitatioll Belll'ee/! ,he Ulliled Britaill alld Northern Ire/ami and the 18 U.N.R.I.A.A. 74

... 1· ..... ·".I.,d in 18 ILM. 397 (1979), the tribunal did nol allow the Channel Islands, which were on the "wrong side" the medhm line drawn between the French mainlmld and to

the delimitation at all them 12-mmtical-mile tcrritorial sea enclaves), and guve only to Britain's ScilJy Isles. located off the British Coast near Land's End. Half-effect

Mud Islands in lhe Delimitation (~r "le Maritime Bmmdary ill 'Ize Gull U.S.A.) [1984] I. CJ. Reports 336. 222. Island 2112 miles

long is inhabited yenr round. And in COlltill<'lItal (Libya \'. Malta). [1985 J I.CJ. Re-64. the Court ruled that the uninhabited

the muin should be considered at h","""I".·" between the two countries.

228. In COlllim!Ulal (7imisia/UiJya) 1I982] I.CJ. Reports 89 para. 129. the Court gave half-eITec.:t to Tunisia's Kerkcnnah Islands. even the main island 180 square kilo-

meters of 15,000, completely the ishmd of Jerba, an inhabiLl.!d island of considerable assessing the general direction of Even

the Libya-Malra COIuillelllClI SlIe({ cf.lse. sllpm note 227, the Court refused give full drcet to the size of Washington, D.C. and contains

of individuals, .md adjusted the median line northw:lrd because the

paras. 147-48. The tribunal also gave the Ycmcilesc in thl.! group less power to affect the placemenl of the delimitation line than they would have had if they had been continental landmasses. These

the middle the Bab el Stmit al the entrance to Red Sea, are that otherwise be drawn between the COllltillcrltul

only to Yemen the full territorial sea not, therefore, view these islets as constituting a separate and

distinct area of from which mcdiun equidistant be measured. illustrating Ihm smull ishinds do not have the same power to generate maritime zones

l:olltincnlal land Id. 160-61


11-1 M. Van

13. note 199. paras. 219 cillng the para. 57, and Libya-Malia Cominelllal She({

cusc. supra nOle 227. m 48. PUI'a. 64, for the proposition thai "the has been led eliminate effect small The Court reached lhis conclusion even

it asserted, Ihut Article 121(2) of the Law of Sea Convention thal reg<lrdless their this respect

therefore gcnerate the same maritime rights, other land territory." Ibid.. at paras. 245-48.

232. Ibid.. pan!. 245. 233. Ibid., at para. 247 quoting Allglo-Fre//ch Comillel1lal Arbitration, supra

note 227. pura. 244. 234. 21 at 235. As in the case of the Channel Islands in the Arbitration, supra note 227.

Kozyris, supra note 215, 64 n. 168, Barbara Kwi:nkowska, Maritime Delimita-H('Meell Opposite and AcHacelll ill 'he New Law oj the Sea-Some Jar

tile Aegean, in Tile Aegean Issues: Problems note 6. at 202-03, for the "the

are not detached from their m'linland and 236. Greek scholars occasionally mischaraclerize decisions. as, for instance. when

argues Ilml the result ill lhe St. Picrl'(' allli Mi:(IIIe/fllll Arbitration case, DcUmita-Pierre 3 I.L.M.

rest" doubts ubout the equal Il'c<llmel1l of islands." Kozyris. supra note the arbitral tribunal SI11<III. but French islands

of lhun the larger Cm<ldian

But t ion than hmd masses note 215,

atten-31.

.n" ... " ..... quite generous to the island in result. a Ir:msverse displaceml!nt of the median line. Professor

gCllenJUS to the islund in result" Senl Island

237.

this rl!suit ",>,,, .. _,rn"IOl£l pOIi>ulatuJn, and

238. Eritrea-Yemell arbitration. supra note para. 157 from the GllilieaIGuinea-lJis.'IlIlI Arbitratioll. 25 I.L.M. added).

239. Sec Toluner, supra note at supra note 215. 65 n. 168. to the argument lhat the of nonencroachment should some to the open

asserting thai "the Turkish coast is ... also on the Greek islands. Similarly, 215. 101, Greek security would be if Greek

territories were cut fmlll its mainland territories. 240. Arlidl! 7(6) of the Law of the Sea Convention. supr:'l note

lise straight baselines in slich a manner to cut off the territorial says that no st'lte CHn

of another Stmc from the

''''''''''<',·"i"" Mllril'ime Delimitatioll ill the iJetween Greenland and 38. 69 p.lnl. 70. and 79-8 para. 92

sea on Turkey's to Iluvigate of ten'ilorial wulCrs beyond six miles will ellt the territorial the ... Such

... of make the whole Aegean Greek lake'. which 1,;.\i'lIIliIJl\;~ of Greek in the Aegean."

2-l~. Nurth Sea Comincntal C<I!.CS. ~27.


Till' ill IllIerlUllwlwl Law

243. ./(111 I'vtllYt'1i CiISC, supra note 241. al para. 59. 244. GII~r Fonseca case, note 39, 35 245. 606-09 pants. 415-20.

Pierre and Mique/oll Arbitration. supra note 236. supra nole 215. al 25. supnl note 215. al

249. Ibid. 250. Ibid .. I. These

J

for the full effect givcn 10 the Grcek islands whose position (at least some of them) in the delimitation area

the Greek m'linland thm a differcnl treaunent." 25 Slipi'll nOle 92, at 295. 252. Ibid., at 296. 253. Ibid. 254. "[IJnnocl.!l1t passage may

sons, Ihough suspensions must specifkd areas for security reaSchmiu, supra nole 25, at 49.

19 of the Law of ilie Sea 255. Schmitt. note 25,

Convention, supra note 28. 256. See Polilakis, 11le Aegeall Sea supra note 92. at 303 sUlnrrlarizin.g <:('hnhlrllv

discllssion indicates all uspecls of the tnmsil passage have not yet cl)'SI<lII1i,~ed

into clIstomary intcrmuional law. Anastasia Stmti. Greece (Iud the UIW of the Sell: A Greek in 94. at 89, 94 slates: "it whether

LOS Convemion on transit passage in all their detail reflect customary entitling to bcnelit from them.

257. H. Imemmiollal Navigalioll: A 011

COllventioll the UIW of Ihe Sell, 60 Brit. Y.B. 1111'/ L. 179 that the counter-argument can be made. Le .. "that all

should ruther be interconnected,

the Mediterranean with the northern Aegean. and 30.:!.

Iht' UIl!' A \'~{II'inl,i{m

.JurisdicTion RelCiting to POllllliOIl tllltl lis ImJrJli~[.'(l/IOIIS

nole 2, 221, 234 Tullio Trevcs, Navigalioll. in A Handbook on the Ihe Sea 835, 970-76 (Vol. 2,

La\\' of the Sea Convention. supra note 28, Article 39( I )(c). pellnitting sub-transit in "their of expeditious transit" during transit

Article 20, submarines when excr-innocem passage.

260. L.IW the Sea Convcntion, note 28. Article 37. See, c.g., rullI:IKI .... 111e Aegean

Sea DiJl'lIIe. supra note 92. at 302:

It intcrpretation of Arts. 37-38 and

some Aegean straits within the ambit tnmsil it al all cleur whether to 01' from Turkish ports on the

Aegean coast. that of Izmir. could be considered engage tmnsit pHssagc ..... IT]l1c traditional innocent passage regime still apply to

or clearing certain Turkish p0l1S on the Aegean coast. 261. One Greck scholar Ihat if Greece its territorial

n'lUlicHI miks, "it would be no longer possible for Turkish stationing Izmir to without through Greek territorial wmers, and to the regime

of innocent Aegeall Sell supra note 92, at 295. Of course, it might be argued. on the other hand. that the definition in Article 37 of the Law or Sea Convention identifies those straits governed by the transit passage without regard where .1 coming from. or


1/6 J. M. Van

262. N.llalino ROllzini. Law 14 (1993). 263. Anastasia Strati, Greek .11l11iJ1I,1I11? Imerests Ille UN Convention 011 the Law the

I, See Strati, supra note 256, at "where Greece's ocean inlerests C'onllicted with interests, the rormer took precedence.

264. tl!xt statement after made, and also it

nCII.·(n(.lI.). Part B, Doc. A/Conf.6YWS/34, p. 226 and 30

265. Saltzman. supra note 35, 187 65. Schmitt. 25. at 51 langU<lgc in Article 38(

Sea Convention "no',"';i""I"

267.

011 ll,e 1'errilOr;aJ Sea. Uigllt of Innocent Passage lIud lile

(U.N. E.95.V.7, 1995). See also U.S. Dept. Limits /Jaseline and Tt'rriluria/ Sea Claim ... : japan

271. Sec. e.g .. Choon-Ho Park. The Korea Strait. in supra note 187. at 173. One informed commentator has wrillen

limited three-n.mlical-mile territorial seas utilized by Japan

LaU' of the Sea

the Law

Roach.

the

the those

LegislllZOlle 177-82 120. Straight

and Denmark. Denmark. Sweden and Finland." Bcrnard H. Oxman, Ille Ltlll' of the Sea ill Ille Aegeall Sea, in Problems R('giollal

200 I 266. 279 (Baymm Ozturk ed. 200 I ). 27:2. The Belize al 21 Vlli/t'd UIW (?f the Sea Bulletin 3. 273. France-Monaco Maritime Delimitation Agreement of 1984. 9 Vniled Nations UllI' (?l

Sea 58. c.g .. Gunduz, supra note 2, at 147.

Politakis, Aegecill Sea Dispute, supra nOle 92, at 30:2. 276. supra nOle 331. Ambass:'ldor ThemJon[)O()UIIJS added that "the

control arrangements in the Aegean .... are largely m(:anin~~le!;s in the the .. Ibid.

supm note 82, at 92: Mm1in Prall <tlld Clive Schofield. CO'OJ'eflllic,m MCII"IIWII!l' Boundary Agreemellls: '/1U:' Pu'1JUsC' \'aille ./oilll Del'elopmelll,

supra note 2, al 152: Valencia. Dyke. "nd Ludwig, note 38, 183-87: 4lnd Dyke. sup .... nole 214. at 68-69.

283. 284. 285.

Dyke, note 31\. 172-80.

notes 7-11. notcs 29-34 and 72.

38-69.

286. Scc supm text and footnotes at nolcs 7-13. 287. Sec text and footnotes at notes 61-69. 288. Sec text i.lIld at 19-21 and 76-83. 2R9. Sec supm text and footnotes at 87-91.

Sec supra 93.


The International Lall'

2Y I. Sec text footnotes at notes 118-122. 292. Sec supra text at note 92. 293. supr ... text and 128 and 137-142. 2Y4. See supra no Ie 127. 295. Sec statcment of Hellenic Ministry of Affairs, supra note 95. 296. Sec supra text and footnotes at notes 76-80. 297. See footnotes at nOle 30.

Sec footnotes note 1 299. Sec supra text just 10 note 12.

See sllpm text and footnotes at note 26. 30 I. Sec supm text footnotes at notes 118-122. 302. This of damages in international law is linked to the

[1928] P.C/.J .. where the Pcrn1i.lncnt Court of International Justice law thai every violation an engagemcnt involves an

that under international law "the of wrong may consist in an to the damage which the nationals of the state have suf-

which is contrary internationul See supra text and at 152-179.

supra text and footnotes 169-76 and 267-73. footnotes 180-189.

190-197. 198-250.

Sec supra text and footnotes at notes 251-2.73. Sec supra and flKltnolcs 256-266.

312. Theodoropoulos, supra nOle I, at 331.

10 their mantunc followed the recol11-

2005 francis - scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu · lemnos well for gokceada (lmbros) and bozcaada...

Documents