Greece and the Law of the Sea

Public debate concerning the often dangerously strained relations between Greece and Turkey focuses almost exclusively on the Cyprus problem, which continues to defy solution and serves as a painful reminder of the limits and failures of international diplomacy. Yet for all its inequities and human suffering, the de facto division of Cyprus since 1974 is taking on a degree of stability that is likely to prove lasting. Whatever the fate of the island’s northern portion, now under Ankara’s control, the Republic of Cyprus is a stable and reasonably prosperous state and is now in the process of being admitted into the European Union. Like it or not, Greece and Turkey may have to adjust to the realities of an ever-hardening status quo and, thanks in part to the presence of a United Nations’ force along the dividing line, learn to avoid being drawn into dangerous confrontation over Cyprus.

On the other hand, Greek-Turkish disputes concerning the Aegean, which are often seen as “technical” and which have received much less attention abroad, are in fact much more dangerous. Their intensity is almost certain to increase. Thus, to the uninformed, the mini-crisis in February 1996 over the uninhabited Imia islets may have been perceived as a case of silly jingoism involving worthless rocks; in reality, however, it was more like the thunderclap that heralds the approaching storm.

Aggravated by a long history of conflict and suspicion, the vital interests of the two neighbors compel them to eye each other wearily as they operate in the congested sea and air space between them. Given the close proximity and high stakes, a tiny spark can escalate quickly into large-scale violence, particularly since existing bilateral mechanisms for conflict management are woefully inadequate and third-party intervention (as, for example, America’s in the Imia crisis) can hardly be considered dependable. As a result, conflict over the Aegean and the disruptive consequences of that conflict remain a major concern not merely for the two states immediately involved but also for those of the Atlantic alliance, the eastern Mediterranean, the Black Sea, and the Middle East, among others. The problems are multifaceted, with complex legal, economic, military, and power-politics dimensions. And although some of the relevant issues have been discussed in print, the literature has been scant and scattered.

Accordingly, Greece and the Law of the Sea is a timely and much needed volume, deserving considerably more publicity than its European publisher has given it. Its original and authoritative essays on a broad spectrum of topics are useful not only for scholars and other specialists but also for those of the general public who wish to be informed about the intricacies of Greek-Turkish problems. Indeed, despite its rather bland academic title, the volume’s principal purpose is to address those Aegean issues that affect relations between Greece and Turkey.

Of the topics discussed in this comprehensive compendium two stand out as the most decisive and troublesome. The first is the question of the width of the “territorial sea”—namely, that portion of the sea over which the coastal state enjoys full sovereignty. Under rules of international law developed in recent decades, the coastal state may extend its territorial sea to a maximum of twelve nautical miles provided that this does not infringe upon the similar rights of neighboring states. The second is the question of the width of the “continental shelf”—namely, the area of the seabed that slopes gently from the shores of the coastal state to a point where it drops to much greater ocean depths. The size of this shelf varies enormously from region to region, the average width being thirty miles. Recently adopted rules generally limit the shelf to a depth of two hundred meters. The resources of the shelf’s seabed and subsoil, including oil and other precious substances, are to be regarded as the exclusive property of the coastal state. Needless to say, the presence of thousands of...