More- should Turkey join the EU???

As far as I know one of the claims is that the Agean Sea isn't an open sea and it should be seen as a half-closed sea and, unlike the Meditteranean and Black Sea it is very narrow.

Another claim is that the islands cannot have continental shelfs unlike the mainlands and it is claimed that according to the international law, an island that is closer to a foreign mainland country should be content with only territorial sea, not the continental shelf. It is said that some international treaties approve this, like the Treaty between Papua New Guinea and Australia on 18/12/1978.  Also Turkey claims that the Greek islands close to Anatolia are the continental continuation of Anatolia, so claims that they should not have their own continental shelves depending on the 85th paragraph of the International Court of Justice's decision of 1969 on the North Sea Continental Shelf cases.

Also Turkey claims that the importance of the Aegean Sea on the issues ofsecurity, natural resources and transportation routes and the half-closed character of the Aeegean Sea should be taken into consideration and referes to 1969 North Sea, 1982 Tunus-Libya, 1974 USA-Canada, 1977 Britain-France cases. 

I've read these today and although I admit that "casus belli" is a harsh response, I think the issue is more complicated than "Turkey wants what belongs to Greece"

For the purposes of this Convention, "enclosed or semi-enclosed sea" means a gulf, basin or sea surrounded by two or more States and connected to another sea or the ocean by a narrow outlet or consisting entirely or primarily of the territorial seas and exclusive economic zones of two or more coastal States.
-------------

While the Aegean is surrounded by 2 states and is connected to another sea, by no means can we consider the connection a 'narrow outlet' nor does it comprise the exclusive economic zone of Turkey..

On continental shelfs and islands

Again the LOS is quite clear :

Article 46

For the purposes of this Convention:

So we find that 'archipelagos' (a group of islands) are considered a state, but what does the state have according to LOS ?

I'm sure you won't argue that the approx. 2000 islands of the Aegean are totally independent and not closely interrelated...

Article76

1. The continental shelf of a coastal State comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that distance.

If we were to read 1 more article we see :

Article121

1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.

2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.

3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
-----------------

So in conclusion, the islands do have their own continental shelf and the 'rocks' see Imia are of no threat for they neither have a continental shelf nor is the 12 mile law aplicable to them..

Mortaza wrote:

"when last  time these non friendly turks opened a war to greece? "

Are you telling me the Cassus Bellum is freindly?

i didnt say turkey is goin to attack greece. It is the use of threats of war that drives up the tension and defense budgets. Remember this actaully is verbalised from the turkish side, not on the greek side.

Naturally Greece will buy up weapons up if turkey uses this approach to a disagreement. Its like having a gun to your head mortaza, would you say ok lets discuss this now? This is no way to handle a situation, if you decide to buy your own gun,  is that a sign of aggresion or are you protecting yourself?

"If I remember correctly Erdogan offered to go court for all problems together."

You cant put all the issues together they are seperate, this is a tactic and nothing more. Otherwise you can start to bargain between the issues and that can make things less clear. Rather than seeing the merits of each case on each seperate issue.

Are you telling me the Cassus Bellum is freindly?

You can call it agressive, and  I can call it defensive.  Sure there are some conflict, but this does not mean It is turkey nonfriendly.

Acording to Turkey, we are trying to stop greece expansion.We are trying to protect status qua.You cannot say, protecting status qua is aggresive. In fact  country which want to change status qua was always aggresive side. So why do you think Greece is exception?

Noone is forcing  you to give something, but Infact It was greece who force us.So literally, you are saying,Its like having a gun to your head mortaza, but Infact It was greece who is trying to  expand her borders with this gun.  It was greece who want to change status qua at aegean.

You cant put all the issues together they are seperate, this is a tactic and nothing more. Otherwise you can start to bargain between the issues and that can make things less clear. Rather than seeing the merits of each case on each seperate issue.

So why dont your country go to court for arming islands? It looks like greece is complately selective for which problem should go court.  why dont all problems go court?  we cannot bargain at court. It is court who will decide.  Court is not a political thing,  but legal thing.(Even sometimes international courts becomes political too)

Well lets remember wars between greece and turkey.

Cyprus conflict(maybe not war) It was created by greece.(finished by turkey)

Independent war, It was created by greece.

So how can you accuse us  with expansionism? It was greece who tried to expand last 100 year two time.

Dont you know, after independence, Greece never lost any land, but expand her borders.

sorry but It looks like, accusation of greece, and reality of greece conflicts each other.

If it gets expanded to 12 miles, Aegean sea becomes like a Greek national sea and the international waters' area gets limited, so it is so natural that it is against the Turkish benefits there.

It is so pointless that Greece says Turkey isn't right to accept that.Any nation wouldn't accept such a proposal that would give Aegean See such a partition

 threat is unfreindly and aggressive, to most people. These threats have not been returned either. If some one threatens me my first reaction is to prepare for the worse since i wouldnt give an inch either.. you know something called honour.

Sure, but what can Turkey do? Sorry but greece didnt  said let discuss  this, She said I am expanding my borders. what should Turkey  do?

Actually the rights greece has, are not something greece fought for. She just has them, they was just more reconised by international treaties as times move on. So it isnt expansion they way your saying.
Its all about perception Mortaza.

Complately agree, but aegean is not a standart sea. I am sure Turkey will not interested with greeece expanding their borders to mediterrian  or to italy.

The staus quo denies greece her legal right. Turkey is trying to protect its political will over the aegean , while avoiding international protocol

Did we accept this protocol? I mean, because you make some agreement with  others, why should we give some of our rights?

With lawyers and treaties not guns; greece doesnt need guns/threats to argue its case

Realy? So  why are you  wasting more money to gun ? You should waste your  money to lawyer. And pls dont tell me, It was because of Turkey.  Turkey will not attack you.

They were armed after the establishment of the 4th aegean army which has the largest non-ocean going landing force in the world and 100, 000 troops

so? We are using only our right(like you are using). It is not against any international agreement but arming island is against.So maybe this using right thing is a little tricky?

Well lets forget them for the sake of the thread,  there are no good guys mortaza, and im not goin to compare injustices that go back centuries.
You cannot bring the past up if you want to move into the future, nor would they help you in a court of law

You understood me wrong, I  dont say we  should interest with past, I am just trying to show, we did not made any war after building Turkey.  You cannot say, a country who did nothing but interested hersef last 80  year, is an aggresive and expansionist country. Our borders didnt changed, and we didnt try  to change it.

I dont think accusing Turkey is fair.

did we signed LOS  or not? If we didnt It dont bind us. I dont care how many million of country signed it. Lets say 130 country say, lets give half of Turkey to greece, do you think we will accept this, or do you think, our refusal become illegal?? So why should we give half of aegean to you?

And for court thing, As I said, Erdogan said, lets solve all of our problem at court. did greece accept this?

By the way, Casus Belli was not problem for us, It is problem for you. If you try to take 80% of aegean, than you should think about it again because of Casus belli.

If you dont want to take 80% of agean well, np. Dont interest casus belli much. So It is you decision to expand or not.

So unless you can prove naval base, fortifications and an ammount of soldiers that surpass the normal contigent your claims are baseless..

If you read greek embassy, they dont say we have not naval base or something like this. So even your own country accept they armed their island. No need to playing world. I made my army duty at Gok�e Ada, and acording to militaristic plans, greece have power to destroy that island at 5 minute. I am sure this cannot do with only small soldiers.

why are you refusing, what your goverment accept?

You are from Samos and you served to military in Samos? Lucky guy!