An early Blue assessment of the Draft Maritime Jurisdiction Areas prepared for enactment into law.
The draft Law on Maritime Jurisdiction Areas, which includes references to the Treaty of Lausanne, has been discussed in the press for some time, and yesterday a press conference attempted to address some of the questions and concerns of those present. The draft has not yet been submitted to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM), at which point we will refer to it as a Bill. First, why is such a law needed? Because we are surrounded by seas on three sides, and apart from two repetitive territorial waters laws, there is no domestic legislation to guide those implementing this law; I understand that this gap is being filled. On the other hand, in our areas of maritime sovereignty (such as territorial waters and internal waters) and maritime jurisdiction areas (such as the continental shelf and exclusive economic zone), which are referred to as the Blue Homeland, customs, maritime police, coast guard, and naval forces personnel play a role; a law, a framework law, to guide them with the will of the TBMM was necessary for administrative reasons. Secondly, in the Black Sea, first the Continental Shelf and then the Exclusive Economic Zone were declared, and their implementation is already in place. In the Mediterranean, this hasn't happened yet because the agreements haven't been finalized, and if they do, law enforcement will need to operate in a 1,000 x 150 nautical mile (150,000 square mile) area, a stage we haven't reached yet. However, other states are encroaching on our fish stocks, wanting to lay cables and underwater pipelines across our continental shelf, and there are various politically based disagreements, requiring an overarching framework law to manage these issues (even Syria has a comprehensive law!). Maritime delimitation agreements have been signed with the TRNC and Libya, and a continuation with Syria will require a maritime lateral boundary agreement, which must be completed as soon as possible. Once these are finished, it will be Egypt's turn: Since the two states with the longest coastlines in the Eastern Mediterranean haven't yet concluded this agreement, the field is left open to the Greek Cypriot administration, which is pursuing maximization of its interests through manipulation. An acceleration is needed for this as well. Let's hope the law provides this. As for the Aegean Sea, its territorial waters were defined as 3 miles by the Treaty of Lausanne. I personally would like to see it stated in the Treaty of Lausanne that this was the starting point. Thirteen years later, Greece, with its decree 236/1936, increased its territorial waters to 6 nautical miles with a rather complex explanation. But 22 years later, in 1958, the Greek delegation head, Kripkis, presented at the 1st Conference on the Law of the Sea that a 3 (three) mile territorial waters approach would be more appropriate; the documents are there (A/CONF. 13C. /L.1/136). We don't know Türkiye's reactions to these, but by 1964, with a Territorial Waters Law, it also increased its own territorial waters to 6 miles, and in 1982, it extended this again to 12 miles in the Mediterranean and Black Seas. The balance of power in the Aegean Sea, of course, concerns the other coastal states of the seas. Seeing the reasons for this in the law is important for our long-term security position. Because subsequently, we have grounds for non-compliance with the latest Convention on the Law of the Sea in the Aegean, based on the Casus Belli (1995 Turkish Grand National Assembly) decision and the Persistent Objector position. The existence of Lausanne references helps to strengthen this. If Lausanne is absent, then the cession of 23 large islands to Greek sovereignty is also absent, and the lack of compensation received despite the acceptance of Greek plunder and destruction in Lausanne can also be addressed, with the exception of Karaağaç... Turkey did not accede to the Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) along with about 30 other countries. However, this should not mean that we do not support the aspects of this Convention that we do not object to. This law is an attempt to fill these gaps. It would also be beneficial to understand that the mention of the Contiguous Zone will result in unfavorable outcomes for us in the Aegean. Of course, this draft will change shape when it is considered in the Turkish Grand National Assembly with contributions from citizens, criticisms from political parties, and amendment proposals, but it is still evident that a considerable amount of effort has been put into it. Best wishes and thanks for your efforts...