How Should the Maritime Jurisdictions of Countries in the Eastern Mediterranean Be Defined Within the Framework of a Two-State Solution in Cyprus?

  • Home
  • Analysis
  • How Should the Maritime Jurisdictions of Countries in the Eastern Mediterranean Be Defined Within the Framework of a Two-State Solution in Cyprus?

Munevver Fatima Ozyurt

 The Eastern Mediterranean, which has been one of the most fertile lands since the early years of human history, has always held significant geostrategic importance. In order to understand the roots of the problems in the region, it is first necessary to identify the geographical scope of the Eastern Mediterranean. The region referred to as the “Eastern Mediterranean” is defined as the area east of a line drawn between Cape Lilibeo on the island of Sicily, Italy, and Cape Bon in Tunisia.

Although the number of countries varies according to different definitions, generally speaking, there are between 10 and 15 countries with coastlines along the Eastern Mediterranean. The region is home to numerous issues such as the Middle East conflict, the Syrian civil war, and the Cyprus problem. However, this report specifically aims to address the island of Cyprus.

Historical Origins of the Cyprus Problem

With an area of 9,251 square kilometers, Cyprus is the third largest island in the region and has been governed by various states throughout history. From 1571, the island was under Ottoman rule, and later, in 1878, it came under British control. Undoubtedly, the strategic location of the island, particularly its position relative to the Suez Canal and access to India, played a significant role in this transition. The British only withdrew from the region in 1960 with the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus.

Until that time, disagreements had persisted between the Turks and Greeks living on the island. The Greeks, with explicit support from Greece, engaged in provocative activities aimed at Enosis, the ideological approach advocating for Cyprus’s union with Greece. Although the Republic of Cyprus was established on August 16, 1960, through agreements that both sides had agreed upon, violence and political instability on the island could not be prevented. The initiatives by the United Nations (UN) and the deployment of peacekeeping forces did not bring peace to the island. Instead, under the unilateral actions of the Greeks and the “Akritas Plan” prepared by Greek leaders, the island witnessed bloody scenes in which the Turks were subjected to attempted genocide.

On July 20, 1974, Turkey, one of the guarantors of the Republic of Cyprus, intervened militarily after the island came under the control of EOKA (Etniki Organosis Kiprion Agoniston) member Nikos Sampson through a coup. In the context of international and regional developments, the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus (TFSC) was established in 1975, followed by the declaration of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) on November 15, 1983. Negotiations between the two sides are still ongoing today, but a solution has yet to be reached.

An important issue of close concern to both the Greek and Turkish sides, as well as the regional countries and the international community, is the delimitation of maritime jurisdictions. The discovery of hydrocarbon resources and potential natural resource deposits in the region in the early 2000s has once again underscored the historical importance of the Eastern Mediterranean and added a new dimension to it.

Evaluation of the Parties’ Arguments Within the Framework of International Law

Before examining the arguments of both sides, it is useful to outline the concepts of continental shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which are the most critical terms in their disputes, within the framework of international law.

The continental shelf is the geological extension of a state’s land territory. A state has full sovereignty over its continental shelf, which can be defined as extending at least 200 nautical miles, and at most 350 nautical miles from the baseline. The state’s sovereignty may not cover the water column above the continental shelf. It is also important to note that an EEZ cannot be declared in an area without a continental shelf. The EEZ, on the other hand, encompasses both the water column and the seabed beneath it. It can be declared up to 200 nautical miles from the baseline of a state’s territorial waters (which extend up to 12 nautical miles). Within the entire area covered by the EEZ, the state has sovereign rights, particularly concerning the exploration and exploitation of natural resources.

Theses of the Turkish Side

The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) does not possess international recognition and is only acknowledged as a sovereign state by Turkey. However, this lack of recognition does not hinder its status as a state under international law. As a sovereign entity, the TRNC possesses not only land territory but also maritime and aerial territories. The arguments put forth by the TRNC and Turkey against the maritime jurisdiction claims made by Greece and the Republic of Cyprus (RoC) are based on the principle of equity. The Turkish side criticizes the Greek Cypriot administration for disregarding the Turkish presence on the island and for acting unilaterally. When defining maritime boundaries, the Turkish side emphasizes the necessity of adhering to the principles of equality and proportionality as prescribed by international law. Furthermore, the Turkish side carefully emphasizes that bilateral agreements should not infringe upon the rights of third parties.

Theses of The Greek Side

The island has taken on a two-state structure, yet Greece and the Greek Cypriot side persist in affirming the existence of the Republic of Cyprus and presenting their theses accordingly. The unilateral steps taken by the Greek Cypriot Administration (GCA) without waiting for a permanent solution on the island have escalated tensions in the region. Prominent among these steps are agreements reached with Egypt in 2003, Lebanon in 2007, and Israel in 2010 regarding maritime jurisdiction boundaries. Similar to Greece’s positions in the Aegean and Mediterranean, the Greek Cypriot side argues that when delimiting maritime jurisdiction areas, the median line drawn between the mainland territories should be the basis. The GCA, which does not recognize the existence of the TRNC, claims that its own maritime jurisdiction areas are being violated.

If a two-state solution is achieved, how should the new maritime jurisdiction boundaries in the region be delineated?

If Cyprus were to transition into a two-state structure comprising the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) and the Greek Cypriot Administration (GCA), an agreement and international recognition would be necessary to redefine maritime jurisdiction areas. Initially, it would be expected that the GCA would revise agreements that violate the rights of the TRNC and Turkey. The 2003 Egypt-GCA agreement, in its current form, violates Turkey’s territorial waters and disregards the maritime jurisdiction of the TRNC. Similarly, the 2007 Lebanon and 2010 Israel borders should be renegotiated in a manner that does not harm the interests of the Turkish Cypriots. The maritime boundary between Turkey and the GCA should also be delineated in accordance with international law, especially the relevant articles of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The parties could establish boundaries through bilateral agreements or via the International Court of Justice (ICJ). It is worth noting that countries such as the UK-France, Libya-Malta, and Nicaragua-Colombia have resolved their maritime border disputes through the ICJ. Agreements concerning the redefined maritime boundaries in the Eastern Mediterranean could be structured following the example of the Libya-Turkey Maritime Jurisdiction Areas Delimitation Agreement signed on November 27, 2019. Such an approach could lead to a solution in which all parties benefit.

Conclusion

The Eastern Mediterranean stands out as one of the world’s most significant maritime regions due to its strategic location and energy potential. However, the relatively short coastal lengths of the countries in the region, less than 400 nautical miles, lead to overlapping maritime jurisdiction claims. This situation brings to the forefront the equitable approach advocated by Articles 74 and 83 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which regulates international maritime law.

Many countries in the region face maritime jurisdiction disputes among themselves, with Cyprus holding a prominent position in the region’s geopolitics. Unilateral agreements exacerbate the complexity in the region and often harm the interests of third parties, particularly the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) and other affected parties. Resolving the issue requires a correct interpretation and application of international law. Accordingly, achieving a fair and equitable delineation is possible through an approach that considers mutual interests without encroaching upon the rights of third parties.