Türkiye-Yunanistan İlişkilerinde Deniz Yetki Alanı Uyuşmazlıkları
Fuat Aksu1923’ten günümüze Türkiye’nin dış politika krizlerinden 14’ü doğrudan-dolaylı olarak Yunanistan’la yaşanmıştır. Krizler taraflar arasında topyekûn bir savaşa dönüşmeden engellenmiş olsa da uyuşmazlıkları kalıcı bir çözüme ulaştırmak mümkün olmamıştır. Türkiye’yle Yunanistan arasındaki uyuşmazlıklar birbiriyle ilintili ama aynı zamanda farklı özelliklere sahiptir. Bu uyuşmazlıkların barışçıl çözüm yöntemleriyle çözülebilmesini güçleştiren pek çok etkenden söz edilebilir. Coğrafyanın kendine özgülüğü, devletlerin egemenlik haklarını yeniden tanımlamayı gerektiren teknolojik yeniliklerin ortaya çıkması, statü kuran antlaşmaların kurduğu hassas dengenin fiili ihlallerle bozulması bunlardan bazılarıdır. Bunların yanı sıra tarihsel mirasın yaratmış olduğu olumsuzluklar, kimlik ve niyete ilişkin olumsuz algılar, iç ve dış politikada uyuşmazlıkların araçsallaştırılması ve üçüncü aktörlerin etkisini de yadsımamak gerekir. Buna ek olarak iki ülkedeki liderlerin ve kamuoyunu etkileme potansiyeline sahip aktörlerin olumlu-olumsuz yönlendirici etkilerinden de söz edilebilir. Bu çalışmada taraflar arasındaki deniz yetki alanlarına ilişkin uyuşmazlıkların ahdi hukuk boyutu, egemenlik ve egemen haklar kavramlarını nasıl yorumladıkları, statükoyu oldubittilerle değiştirme girişimleri üzerinde durulacaktır. Anadolu’yu çevreleyen adaların egemenlikleri, yetki alanlarının belirlenmesinde karşılaşılan sorunlar ve bu sorunların çözümünü güçleştiren görüş ayrılıklarının neler olduğu tartışılacaktır.
Maritime Jurisdiction Disputes in Turkey-Greece Relations
Fuat AksuSince 1923, 14 of Turkey's foreign policy crises have occurred directly or indirectly with Greece. Although the crises were prevented before turning into an allout war between the parties, reaching a permanent solution to the disputes was impossible. The disputes between Turkey and Greece are related but also have different characteristics. Many factors make it difficult to resolve these disputes through peaceful resolution methods. The uniqueness of geography, the emergence of technological innovations that require redefining the sovereign rights of states, and the disruption of the delicate balance established by statusestablishing agreements with actual violations are some of these. In addition to these, the negativities created by the historical legacy, negative perceptions regarding identity and intention, the instrumentalization of disputes in domestic and foreign policy and the influence of third actors should not be ignored. In addition, the positive and negative guiding effects of the leaders in the two countries and the actors who have the potential to influence public opinion can also be mentioned. This study will focus on the contractual law dimension of the disputes regarding maritime jurisdictions between the parties, how they interpret the concepts of sovereignty and sovereign rights, and their attempts to change the status quo with fait accompli. The sovereignty of the islands surrounding Anatolia, the problems encountered in determining their jurisdictions, and the differences of opinion that make the solution to these problems difficult will be discussed.
In the process of disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, the emergence of independent nation-states brought along minorities and border problems. A significant part of the disputes between Turkey and Greece today are also related to the contractual arrangements signed by these states during their independence processes. In this study, in addition to the main debates concerning territorial sovereignty between Turkey and Greece, disputes regarding sovereign rights, especially arising from the Law of the Sea, are examined.
In the international community, the borders of sovereign states are necessarily determined by a treaty arrangement. In addition to limitations, special arrangements and obligations such as the demilitarisation of some regions can also be agreed upon between neighboring states. Such arrangements are also in question in determining the territorial borders between Turkey and Greece. For example, it is seen that the islands transferred to Greece by treaties were transferred with the obligation to be demilitarized. On the other hand, the determination of maritime borders as well as land borders may cause disputes between neighbouring states. As a result of technical studies on the determination of the land borders between Turkey and Greece, the land borders between the two countries could be made indisputable. However, since the entry into force of the Lausanne Peace Treaty, there has been no joint work on determining maritime borders between the two countries. Due to the developments in the Law of the Sea, the tendency of states to benefit more from the seas has brought Turkey and Greece, which are coastal countries in the Aegean Sea, against each other in terms of both sovereignty borders and limitation of sovereign rights. The fact that no study has been carried out to determine the boundaries of sovereignty of the maritime country makes it unclear what the limits of the sovereign rights of these countries are. Therefore, it is not possible to determine the limits of sovereign rights regarding maritime jurisdiction areas without determining the common and indisputable border of the maritime country.
In the study, it is discussed how the country transfers were carried out between the two states and how and with what constraints the borders of sovereignty were determined within the framework of the contractual arrangements that created the status. In essence, it can be said that the disputes between Turkey and Greece have three dimensions that are directly related to the contractual status. Accordingly, although there is a contractual arrangement that creates a status, one of the parties may violate this regulation with a fait accompli. Secondly, although it is a general contractual arrangement, either party may interpret the provisions of this regulation differently or the contractual arrangement does not contain a provision regarding the relevant dispute. Thirdly, no contractual arrangement specific to the dispute between the parties has ever been made, and one of the parties is trying to create a de facto situation by making a fait accompli. It is possible to observe these three features in the relations between Turkey and Greece. As a matter of fact, according to the study conducted by the Turkish Foreign Policy Crisis Studies Group, there were 14 foreign policy crises between Turkey and Greece between 1923 and 2016. The vast majority of these crises are directly related to the sovereignty and/ or sovereign rights of the parties.
Therefore, the handling of the existing disputes between the parties by using peaceful resolution methods and reaching a permanent and satisfactory solution is directly related to the parties' compliance with the contractual status, the realization of contractual arrangements that have not yet been realized, and the avoidance of fait accomplis that will escalate the tension between the parties. If the parties try to change the status quo for their benefit, it will not only trigger a new crisis but also increase the risk of a hot military conflict. The starting point for the negotiation is the Lausanne Peace Treaty (and other contractual arrangements) signed between the parties. It is not possible to establish an undisputed sovereignty order without completing the unfinished work of determining the borders of territorial sovereignty. The demarcation of an undisputed territorial border would also make it easier for the parties to agree on more flexible options for sovereign rights and technical responsibilities. In this context, the point that will challenge the parties in the negotiations is due to the originality of the political geography in the Aegean Sea. In particular, both the numerical multiplicity of the islands surrounding the Anatolian coasts and the fact that they belong to Greece, which is a country with a distant coast, restrict the policies of the parties in an equitable, just and optimum solution.
The emergence of independent nation-states during the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire brought with it minority and border problems. A significant part of the disputes between Türkiye and Greece today are related to the contractual arrangements signed by these states during their independence processes. In this study, in addition to the basic debates regarding territorial sovereignty between Turkey and Greece, the disputes regarding sovereign rights arising from the Law of the Sea are examined.
In the international society, the borders of sovereign states are determined by a contractual regulation. In these contractual arrangements, in addition to limitations, special arrangements and obligations can also be agreed upon between neighbouring states, such as the demilitarisation of some regions. Such regulations also apply to determining the territorial borders between Turkey and Greece. For example, it seems that the islands transferred to Greece through treaties were transferred with the obligation of being demilitarized. On the other hand, determining maritime borders as well as territorial borders may cause disputes between neighbouring states. As a result of technical studies on determining the land borders between Türkiye and Greece, the land borders between the two countries have become indisputable. However, since the Lausanne Peace Treaty came into force, no joint work has been carried out between the two countries regarding determining maritime borders. Due to the developments in the Law of the Sea, states' tendency to benefit more from the seas has brought Turkey and Greece, which are coastal countries in the Aegean Sea, face to face in terms of both sovereignty boundaries and limitation of sovereign rights. The fact that no study has been carried out to determine the borders of sovereignty regarding the maritime country makes it unclear what the limits of the sovereign rights of these countries are. Therefore, it is not possible to determine the boundaries of sovereign rights regarding maritime jurisdiction areas without determining the common and undisputed border of the maritime country.
In the study, how territorial transfers took place between two states is discussed and it is discussed how and with what restrictions the borders of sovereignty are determined within the framework of the contractual regulations that create the status. In essence, it can be said that the disputes between Türkiye and Greece have three dimensions that directly concern the contractual status. Accordingly, although there is a contractual regulation that creates a status, one of the parties may violate this regulation. Secondly, although it is a general contractual regulation, any party may interpret the provisions of this regulation differently or the contractual regulation does not contain a provision regarding the relevant dispute. Thirdly, no contractual regulation has been made specifically for the dispute that has arisen between the parties, and one of the parties is trying to create a de facto situation by making it a fait accompli. It is possible to observe these three features in the relations between Turkey and Greece. As a matter of fact, according to the study conducted by the Turkish Foreign Policy Crisis Investigation Group, there were 14 foreign policy crises between Turkey and Greece between 1923 and 2016. The majority of these crises are directly related to the sovereignty and/or sovereign rights of the parties.
Therefore, addressing the existing disputes between the parties using peaceful resolution methods and reaching a permanent, satisfactory solution is directly related to the parties' compliance with the contractual status, realization of contractual arrangements that have not yet been realized, and avoiding fait accomplis that will escalate the tension between the parties. If the parties attempt to change the status quo to their advantage, it will not only trigger a new crisis but also increase the risk of a hot military conflict. The starting point for negotiations is the Lausanne Peace Treaty (and other contractual arrangements) signed between the parties. It is not possible to achieve an undisputed sovereignty order without completing the unfinished work of determining the borders of territorial sovereignty. Determining an undisputed territorial border will also make it easier for the parties to agree on more flexible options regarding sovereign rights and technical responsibilities. In this context, the point that will challenge the parties in the negotiations stems from the uniqueness of the political geography, especially in the Aegean Sea. In particular, both the numerical abundance of the islands surrounding the Anatolian coast and the fact that they belong to Greece, a distant coastal country, restrict the policies of the parties in an equitable, fair and optimum solution.
