ANALYSIS | Greece's maritime spatial planning map: What does International Law say?
By Dr. Ali Osman Karaoğlu, Lecturer at Yalova University Faculty of Law
In the ongoing dispute between Türkiye and Greece over maritime zones in the Aegean Sea, Greece has taken a controversial step by releasing its Maritime Spatial Planning Map on April 16. This map reflects Greece's unilateral claims, disregarding Türkiye's maritime zones and creating a situation where over 70% of the Aegean Sea could be under Greek control. This move undermines the principle of freedom of navigation in international waters and could lead to an inequitable distribution of maritime resources between the two nations.
Greece's Maritime Spatial Planning Map: Key Concerns
The maritime zone dispute between Türkiye and Greece remains one of the most contentious issues in the region. On April 16, Greece published a map that assigns a 12-mile territorial sea limit to Greek islands, including those located very close to Türkiye’s mainland. If adopted, this plan would effectively put over 70% of the Aegean Sea under Greek control. This is problematic on multiple fronts:
Violation of International Waters Principles: Greece's claim restricts international navigation freedoms and excessively limits the shared maritime space that should be available for all states.
Unequal Resource Distribution: The proposal threatens equitable access to maritime resources, disregarding Türkiye’s historical and geographical rights in the region.
Additionally, Greece has been pushing to extend its territorial waters to 12 nautical miles from the current 6 nautical miles, despite Türkiye's opposition to such a move, which Türkiye views as a violation of international norms.
International Legal Context: The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
Greece's arguments for a 12-mile territorial sea claim are based on its membership in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which allows coastal states to extend their territorial waters to a maximum of 12 nautical miles. However, the extension is not automatic and depends on geographical conditions. Moreover, this extension is subject to agreement between neighboring states to prevent disputes.
Türkiye, which is not a signatory to UNCLOS, argues that such unilateral actions could create a regional customary law (teamül hukuku), which would be contrary to the principle of equity. For Türkiye, the ideal solution to the Aegean dispute lies in an agreement between the two countries that considers the unique geographical and historical context of the region.
In 1995, Türkiye passed a resolution known as "casus belli," stating that any attempt by Greece to extend its territorial waters to 12 nautical miles would be met with military retaliation. This demonstrates Türkiye’s firm stance against Greece’s unilateral actions.
The Principle of "Persistent Objection"
Türkiye’s position aligns with the well-established principle of "persistent objection" in international law. By consistently objecting to Greece’s territorial claims in the Aegean, Türkiye ensures that such claims do not become a binding regional customary law. According to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in disputes between neighboring states, it is essential to consider factors such as the proximity of islands to the mainland, the balance of maritime zones, and the equitable sharing of resources.
For example, the proximity of islands such as Meis (Kastellorizo) to Türkiye’s mainland suggests that a full 12-mile territorial sea around such islands would be inequitable and unfair to Türkiye, as this would severely restrict Türkiye's access to surrounding waters.
Regional and International Implications
Despite Türkiye's objections, Greece continues to push for greater territorial claims in the Aegean, often with support from the European Union (EU). However, it is crucial to note that the EU has no legal authority to intervene in maritime disputes between sovereign states, especially in regions like the Aegean where both countries have competing claims. Greece has also signed maritime agreements with Egypt, Israel, and Italy, some of which conflict with Türkiye’s maritime boundaries.
International law, particularly the rulings of the ICJ, emphasizes that the most appropriate and fair resolution to maritime disputes is through bilateral negotiations. The Greek strategy of negotiating separate agreements with other states and publishing maps claiming extensive maritime zones without Türkiye’s participation only exacerbates tensions in the region.
Conclusion: A Call for Diplomatic Dialogue
Greece’s recent actions in the Aegean Sea, including the publication of its Maritime Spatial Planning Map, continue to inflame tensions rather than foster dialogue. The European Union’s support for Greece, despite its lack of jurisdiction in this matter, further complicates the situation. A resolution to the Aegean dispute must come from a bilateral agreement between Türkiye and Greece, taking into account international law, regional equity, and the shared history of the two nations.
It is clear that for the sake of regional stability and international peace, Greece must prioritize diplomatic negotiations and consider the possibility of reaching a fair solution with Türkiye.
---
Dr. Ali Osman Karaoğlu is a Lecturer at Yalova University Faculty of Law, Department of International Law.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Anadolu Agency.
