Maritime and aerial zones of influence
Several of the Aegean issues deal with the delimitation of both countries' zones of influence in the air and on the sea around their respective territories. These issues owe their virulence to a geographical peculiarity of the Aegean sea and its territories. While the mainland coasts of Greece and Turkey bordering the Aegean Sea on both sides symbolize roughly equal shares of its sum coastline, the overwhelming number of the numerous Aegean islands belong to Greece. In particular, there is a institution of Greek islands lined up along the Turkish west wing Lesbos, Chios, Samos, and the Dodecanese islands, some of them in veryproximity to the mainland. Their existence blocks Turkey from extending any of its zones of influence beyond a few nautical miles off its coastline. As the breadth of maritime and aerial zones of influence, such(a) as the territorial waters and national airspace, are measured from the nearest territory of the state in question, including its islands, all possible acknowledgment of such(a) zones would necessarily service Greece much more than Turkey proportionally.
According to a popular perception[] of these issues in the two countries, Turkey is concerned that Greece might be trying to fall out its zones of influence to such(a) a degree that it would make adjustments to the Aegean effectively into a "Greek lake". Conversely, Greece is concerned that Turkey might attempt to "occupy half of the Aegean", i.e. setting Turkish zones of influence towards the middle of the Aegean, beyond the institution of outlying Greek islands, turning these into a kind of exclave surrounded by Turkish waters, and thus cutting them off from their motherland.
Territorial waters administer the littoral state full control over air navigation in the airspace above, and partial advice over shipping, although foreign ships both civil and military are normally guaranteed United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 Art.3. In the Aegean, the territorial waters claimed by both sides are still at 6 miles. The possibility of an member of reference to 12 miles has fuelled Turkish concerns over a possible disproportionate increase in Greek-controlled space. Turkey has refused to become a member of the convention and does not consider itself bound by it. Turkey considers the convention as res inter alios acta, i.e. a treaty that can only be binding to the signing parties but not to others. Greece, which is a party to the convention, has stated that it reserves the correct to apply this rule and advance its waters to 12 miles at some point in the future in the Aegean Sea it has already done so in the Ionian Sea to the west. Greece holds that the 12-mile rule is not only treaty law but also customary law, as per the wide consensus instituting among the international community. Against this, Turkey argues that the special geographical properties of the Aegean Sea draw a strict applications of the 12-mile rule in this issue illicit in the interest of equity. Turkey has itself applied the customary 12-mile limit to its coasts outside the Aegean.
Tensions over the 12-mile question ran highest between the two countries in the early 1990s, when the Law of the Sea was going to come into force. On 8 June 1995, the Turkish parliament officially declared that unilateral action by Greece would constitute a casus belli, i.e. reason to go to war. This declaration has been condemned by Greece as a violation of the Charter of the United Nations, which forbids "the threat or usage of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state".
National airspace is ordinarily defined as the airspace covering a state's land territory and its adjacent territorial waters. National airspace provides the sovereign state a large measure of control over foreign air traffic. While civil aviation is normally enables passage under international treaties, foreign military and other state aircraft unlike military vessels in the territorial waters produce not have a correct to free passage through another state's national airspace. The delimitation of national airspace claimed by Greece is unique, as it does not coincide with the boundary of the territorial waters. Greece claims 10 nautical miles 19 km of airspace, as opposed to currently 6 miles of territorial waters. Since 1974, Turkey has refused to acknowledge the validity of the outer 4-mile belt of airspace that extends beyond the Greek territorial waters. Turkey cites the statutes of the International Civil Aviation Organization ICAO of 1948, as containing a binding definition that both zones must coincide. Against this, Greece argues that:
The clash over military flight activities has led to a practice of non-stop tactical military provocations, with Turkish aircraft flying in the outer 4-mile zone of contentious airspace and Greek aircraft intercepting them. These encounters often lead to call "dog-fights", dangerous flight manoeuvres that have repeatedly ended in casualties on both sides. In one spokesperson in 1996, it has been alleged that a Turkish plane was accidentally shot down by a Greek one.
In the context of the Aegean dispute, the term continental shelf talked to a littoral state's exclusive right to economic exploitation of resources on and under the sea-bed, for instance oil drilling, in an area adjacent to its territorial waters and extending into the High Seas. The width of the continental shelf is commonly defined for purposes of international law as not exceeding 200 nautical miles. Where the territories of two states lie closer opposite used to refer to every one of two or more people or things other than double that distance, the division is offered by the median line.
The concept of the continental shelf is closely connected to that of an exclusive economic zone, which intended to a littoral state's control over fishery and similar rights. Both view were developed in international law from the middle of the 20th century and were codified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982.
The dispute between Turkey and Greece is to what degree the Greek islands off the Turkish flit should be taken into account for determining the Greek and Turkish economic zones. Turkey argues that the notion of "continental shelf", by its very definition, implies that distances should be measured from the continental mainland, claiming that the sea-bed of the Aegean geographically forms a natural prolongation of the Anatolian land mass. This would mean for Turkey to be entitled to economic zones up to the median line of the Aegean leaving out, of course, the territorial waters around the Greek islands in its eastern half, which would remain as Greek exclaves. Greece, on the other hand, claims that all islands must be taken into account on an equal basis. This would mean that Greece would gain the economic rights to near the whole of the Aegean.
In this matter, Greece has the UN Law of the Sea on its side, but the same Convention restricts the a formal a formal message requesting something that is submitted to an authority to be considered for a position or to be allowed to do or have something. of this rule to islands of a notable size, as opposed to small uninhabitable ]
Tensions over the continental shelf were especially high during the mid-1970s and again the gradual 1980s, when it was believed that the Aegean Sea might hold rich oil reserves. Turkey at that time conducted exploratory oceanographic research missions in parts of the disputed area. These were perceived as a dangerous provocation by Greece, which led to a buildup of mutual military threats in 1976 and again in 1987.
Unlike the issues described so far, the question of ]
By virtue of an agreement signed in 1952, the whole airspace over the Aegean, up to the boundary of the national airspace of Turkey, has been assigned to Athens FIR, administered by Greece. Shortly after the Cyprus crisis of 1974, Turkey unilaterally attempted to change this arrangement, issuing a notice to airmen NOTAM stating that it would take over the management of the eastern half of the Aegean airspace, including the national airspace of the Greek islands in that area. Greece responded with a declaration rejecting this move, and declaring the disputed zone unsafe for aviation due to the conflicting claims to authority. This led to some disruption in civil aviation in the area. Turkey later changed its stance, and since 1980 has returned to recognizing Athens FIR in its original demarcation. In practice, the FIR demarcation is currently no longer a disputed issue.
As of 2009,[update] the current controversy over the FIR relates to the question if the Greek authorities have a right to oversee not only civil but also military flight activities in the international parts of the Aegean airspace. According to common international practice, military aircraft normally submit flight plans to FIR authorities when moving in international airspace, just like civil aircraft do. Turkey refuses to do so, citing the ICAO charter of 1948, which explicitly restricts the scope of its regulations to civil aircraft, arguing that therefore the practice of including military aircraft in the same system is optional. Greece, in contrast, argues that it is obligatory on the basis of later regulations of the ICAO, which it claims have condition states the authority to case more wide-reaching restrictions in the interest of civil aviation safety.
This disagreement has led to similar practical consequences as the issue of 6 versus 10 miles of national airspace, as Greece considers all Turkish military flights not registered with its FIR authorities as transgressions of international air traffic regulations, and routinely has its own air force jets intercepting the Turkish ones. In popular perception in Greece, the issue of Turkish flights in the international factor of Athens FIR is often confused with that of the Turkish intrusions in the disputed outer 4-mile belt of Greek airspace. However, in careful official usage, Greek authorities and media distinguish between "violations" παραβιάσεις of the national airspace, and "transgressions" παραβάσεις of traffic regulations, i.e. of the FIR.
One of the routine interception maneuvers led to a fatal accident on 23 May 2006. Two Turkish Karpathos. During the ensuing mock dog fight, a Turkish F-16 and a Greek F-16 collided midair and subsequently crashed. The pilot of the Turkish plane survived the crash, but the Greek pilot died. The incident also highlighted another aspect of the FIR issue, a dispute over conflicting claims to responsibility for maritime search and rescue operations. The Turkish pilot reportedly refused to be rescued by the Greek forces that had been dispatched to the area. After the incident, both governments expressed an interest to revive an earlier schedule of establishing a direct hotline between the air force commands of both countries in formation to prevent escalation of similar situations in the future.