Continuity of Maritime Disputes in Turkish Foreign Policy in Retrospect.

• Author: Ozkan, Arda

Introduction

Because of its geostrategic location, Turkey is among the most important states in the world. Considered in this context, Turkey has the potential to play a key role in any international dispute or crisis involving Europe, Asia, the northwestern and northeastern states, and the Middle East. The geostrategic importance of Turkey, which connects three continents and is located on energy corridors, is a fact that is also accepted in the international arena. However, Turkey has not been able to determine a long-term maritime strategy, which is carried out in parallel with its own political geography and foreign policy parameters. In fact, maritime jurisdiction areas constitute the most important elements of Turkish foreign policy, due to Turkey's strategic location between seaways such as the Aegean, the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, and the continents of Europe, Asia and Africa. Since the establishment of the Republic of Turkey, Turkish foreign policy has been dealing with the Black Sea and the Turkish Straits since the 1930s, the Aegean Sea problems since the 1970s, and maritime issues in the Eastern Mediterranean since the 2000s. Now, it is high time for it to determine an overall maritime strategy.

While disputes related to maritime areas - except for the Black Sea - continue to remain on the agenda, an integrated maritime policy cannot be determined regarding these areas. A legal arrangement that is compatible with the basic principles of international law regarding the delimitation of maritime jurisdiction areas can contribute to the resolution of the problems between Turkey and other littoral states to a certain extent, while strengthening Turkey's legal position. However, since Turkey is not a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), (1) it does not refer to this Convention, but to the rules of customary law, in order to introduce the concepts of the law of the sea. For this reason, it has problems with the delimitation of maritime areas, especially with neighboring countries. If we look at Turkish foreign policy, we see that maritime disputes do constitute a major part of its relations with the neighboring states and great powers of the world. There is a continuity in Turkish foreign policy based on maritime disputes. In the last 100 years' maritime disputes have been always on the agenda of Turkish foreign policy. In the following sections, these maritime disputes which Turkey has faced during the last century will be explored in detail, and this analysis will show that maritime issues have been constantly on the foreign policy agenda. Therefore, one may postulate that maritime disputes show a continuity in Turkish foreign policy. This continuity has existed during the last 100 years of the Republic.

Continuity in foreign policy is the situation where a state does not or cannot change its foreign policy, and limits it to within certain parameters. In other words, a state may find it irrational to change a continuing foreign policy or be deprived of the capabilities to change it. (2) For instance, Switzerland has followed a policy of neutrality for quite a long time, and Japan on the other hand has had a foreign policy based on good relations with the USA in the aftermath of the 2nd World War. In the case of Turkey, lack of economic resources has been one of the main determinants of Turkey's continuing foreign policy of having good relations with the West, following the proclamation of the Republic. (3) Similarly, another unchanging issue of Turkish foreign policy has been maritime disputes in Turkey's surrounding seas. The Ottoman Empire controlled a vast geography, and following its collapse several disputes have erupted in its lands and seas. In particular, maritime disputes in its surrounding seas have been a continuous topic of Turkish foreign policy.

Maritime Disputes in Turkish Foreign Policy

At the outset, it should be noted that maritime issues have a critical place in Turkish foreign policy, and Turkey not being a party to the UNCLOS is an important reason for some of the problems experienced. Within this framework, before we start to analyze the maritime issues that are persistent in Turkish foreign policy, it is useful to give a little more detail about the Convention from the perspective of Turkey. As already known, the Convention is an international agreement in which maritime jurisdiction areas are regulated individually and comprehensively, and Turkey does not object to many of its provisions. Since Turkey has not become a party to the Convention and keeps its 'persistent objector' status, it can neither openly nor implicitly refer to the Convention on international platforms. (4) Although many provisions of the Convention are acceptable to Turkey, Turkey has had to constantly oppose the Convention on several issues such as territorial rights on the seas, due to the lack of opportunity to raise its reservations. (5) As a result, Turkey did not sign the Final Act and the text of the Convention, and clearly stated that it would not ratify the Convention, both at the closing session of the Third Conference of the Law of the Sea and later on various platforms. (6)

It is not possible to explain how either Turkey's maritime issues will be determined or its legal basis will be established without considering the provisions of the UNCLOS on maritime jurisdiction areas, given that the Convention is considered to be a "maritime constitution" and it has wide acceptance on a global scale. The Convention is of vital importance to Turkey as a littoral state surrounded by sea on three sides, by a narrow sea such as the Aegean Sea, and by the Eastern Mediterranean that has some exceptional features, by the strategically important Black Sea, and the Turkish Straits that are an important waterway in terms of transportation. (7) The contents of the concepts of internal waters, territorial sea, contiguous zone, continental shelf and exclusive economic zone (EEZ), as defined in the Convention, are also acceptable in terms of Turkish law, to a large extent. These concepts were born within the jurisdiction of customary law, and were put into writing with the Convention. However, the main reasons why Turkey is not a party to the Convention are the extent of its territorial seas, unresolved disputes over the continental shelf maritime jurisdiction area, and the provisions regarding the resolution of disputes by compulsory methods with Greece in the Aegean. (8)

Although Turkey is a 'persistent objector' to the Convention, there is no obstacle to the inclusion of some provisions of the Convention in domestic law, so long as it does not contradict Turkish national law. Turkey, as a littoral state, has a continental shelf as ipso facto (9) and ab initio, (10) and also has the right to declare an EEZ. As a matter of fact, the rights of the coastal state over the continental shelf area are within the nature of customary rules and, unlike the declaration requirement for an EEZ, there is no need for a declaration to benefit from these rights. Therefore, every littoral state has a continental shelf. The coastal state has exclusive jurisdiction rights over the exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf's natural resources. In other words, it is not possible for other states to explore or exploit the natural resources in the relevant region without the permission of the coastal state. (11) While the term EEZ was widely accepted even before the end of the Third Conference of the Law of the Sea, and prior to the UNCLOS coming into force, including Latin American countries such as Argentina, Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Panama and other developing countries have declared EEZs. (12)

In Turkey, Law No. 476 of May 15, 1964, on the Territorial Seas (13) and Act No. 2674 of May 20, 1982, on the Territorial Seas, (14) openly declared its status regarding internal waters in all the seas it has coasts on (the Black Sea, the Aegean and the Mediterranean). In addition, it has been decreed that the delimitation of territorial seas with the states whose coasts are opposite or adjacent to Turkey, will be made on the basis of "reciprocity", both by agreement and by taking into account the characteristics of the region. In Turkish law, there is no separate law regarding the determination of maritime jurisdiction areas, except for Act No. 2674 on the Territorial Seas. Therefore, Turkey determines maritime jurisdiction areas based on customary law. In the period when Law No. 476 on the Territorial Seas was in force, (15) 6 nautical miles (nm) of territorial sea and 12 nm of contiguous zone were declared. Later, based on the aforementioned law, the Council of Ministers declared the breadth of the territorial seas to be 12 nm in the Black Sea with Decree No. 8/4742, dated 1982, which was valid before Law No. 476 on the Territorial Seas came into force. It has been stated that Turkish jurisdiction over territorial seas will be determined on the basis of reciprocity against states that hold their territorial seas to be wider than this. Within this framework, Turkish territorial seas extend 12 nm in the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, and 6 nm in the Aegean Sea. This results in a lack of integrity in the application of Turkish maritime jurisdiction areas.

Since the geography of Turkey occupies a very important location that connects the continents of Asia and Europe, the seaways in this geography have a number of maritime disputes starting from the internal waters (the baseline), the territorial seas, continental shelf and EEZ maritime jurisdiction areas in the Aegean and the Mediterranean. Turkey, as a littoral state, has the right to declare territorial seas, contiguous zones or EEZs, in accordance with the general principles of the law of the sea. However, since there is no clear regulation in domestic law, it determines the specified maritime jurisdiction areas based on the...