Aegean Sea Continental Shelf
ICJ 1978
Facts:
- Towards the end of 1973, the Turkish Govnt (Turkey) granted
licenses to carry out exploration for petroleum in submarine areas of
the Aegean Sea, including areas which, according to Greece,
encroached upon the continental shelf appertaining to certain Greek
islands.
o Turkey: the islands near the coast of Turkey do not possess a
continental shelf of their own, and opposed the principle of
equidistance. However, it expressed its readiness to enter
into negotiations for the delimitation of the continental shelf
between the two countries.
- In 1975, the Greek Govnt (Greece) proposed that the differences
over the applicable law (re: delimitation) as well as over the
substance of the matter be referred to the ICJ.
o Greece: without prejudice of its right to initiate Court
proceedings unilaterally, it saw considerable advantages in
reaching jointly with the Turkish govnt a special agreement
for reference to the Court.
o Turkey: hoped for negotiations first, but in principle
considered favorably the proposal to refer the dispute jointly
to the ICJ.
o Greece agreed to have talks with Turkey in order to draft the
terms of a special agreement.
o No agreement was reached between the two countries.
- 1976: Turkey issued a press release concerning researches to be
undertaken in the Aegean Sea.
o When the research vessel of Turkey reached areas which,
according to Greece pertained to its continental shelf, Greece
made a diplomatic protest.
- Consequently, on August 1976, Greece instituted proceedings
against Turkey in the ICJ. It asked the Court in particular to declare
that the Greek islands in the area were entitled to their lawful portion
of continental shelf and to delimit the respective parts of that shelf
appertaining to Greece and Turkey.
o At the same time, it requested provisional measures
indicating that, pending the Courts judgment, neither State
should, without the others consent, engage in exploration or
research with respect to the shelf in question.
o The Court, however, rejected the need for such measures.
- Turkey did not file any counter memorial nor did it send any
representative at the hearings. However, it sent letters and
communications addressed to the Court, alleging that the latter
lacked jurisdiction to rule on the case.
- The Court then ordered that the proceedings should first concern the
question of jurisdiction.
Held:
- Contrary to the suggestion of Turkey, the active pursuit of
negotiations concurrent with the ICJ proceedings is not an obstacle
to the latters judicial function.
- That aside, the Court ruled that it had no jurisdiction over the
case.
o In its application, Greece relied upon two bases for its
jurisdiction: Art. 17 of the General Act of 1928 for the
Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, read with Art.
37 of the Statute of the Court, as well as the 1975 Joint
Communique between the two countries.
First Basis
- The General Act of 1928 provides for the reference of disputes to the
Permanent Court of International Justice, which is the predecessor of
the ICJ. By virtue of Art. 37 of the ICJ Statutes, the ICJ is not
substituted for any treaty or convention in force which provides for
reference of a matter to the defunct PCIJ. Hence, if the General Act
is to be considered alone, the jurisdiction of the Court would have
been answered.
 o However, as was pointed out by Turkey, Greeces o Also, the Court pointed out that the General Act expressly
instruments of accession to the General Act of 1928 came limited the allowed reservations in its Art. 39, to wit:
with reservations, particularly: "(a) Disputes arising out of facts prior to the
The following disputes are excluded from the procedures accession either of the Party making the reservation or
described in the General Act of any other Party with whom the said Party may have
a dispute;
(b) les diffrends portant sur des questions que le droit (b) Disputes concerning questions which by
international laisse la comptence exclusive des Etats et, international law are solely within the domestic
notamment, les diffrends ayant trait au statut territorial de
jurisdiction of States;
la Grce, y compris ceux relatifs ses droits de
souverainet sur ses ports et ses voies (c) Disputes concerning particular cases or clearly
de communication. specified subject matters, such as territorial status, or
disputes falling within clearly
[translation] (b) disputes concerning questions which by defined categories."
international law are solely within the domestic jurisdiction
When a multilateral treaty provides in advance for the
of States, and in particular disputes relating to the
territorial status of Greece, including disputes relating to making only of particular, designated categories of
its rights of sovereignty over its ports and lines of reservations, there is clearly a high probability, if not an
communication.
actual presumption, that reservations made in terms used in
- Greece argued that reservation (b) cannot be controlling as the
the treaty are intended to relate to the corresponding
territorial disputes relayed in the reservation are those which relate to
categories in the treaty.
both its territorial status and at the same time concern questions
By the mere placing of the two (disputes pertaining
which by international law are solely within the domestic jurisdiction
to the domestic jurisdiction of the state and territorial
of states.
disputes) into separate categories in Art. 39, it means
o It hinged upon the interpretation of the words et,
that there was an intention to separate and
notamment, (and in particular), and that based on
differentiate the two. This is contrary to Greeces
Roberts Dictionnaire alphabetique et analogique de la
contention that the latter is engulfed by the former.
langue francaise, notamment is most often used to draw to
- As with the definition of territorial status, Greece held that
attention one or more particular objects forming part of a
historically, such reservation was made only because of post-world
previously designated or understood whole.
war one Greeces preoccupation with Bulgaria seeking to secure its
- Court: Greece is wrong.
way back towards the Aegean Sea. Various pieces of evidence were
o Greeces interpretation forgot the placing of the comma
presented for this. (Letter of a Rapporteur to the Greek Foreign
before and after notamment; there is then one possible
Minister at the time of the drafting of the General Act,
interpretation that the commas are placed so as to
recommending to Greece the reservations it may make in light of the
differentiate and make autonomous the two categories.
Bulgaria situation.)
o Also, the court took note of a declaration made by Greece
o Court: the historical evidence relied upon by Greece seems
accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the PCIJ, which
to rather confirm that the territorial status in the
was made only two years before its accession to the General
reservation was used in its ordinary and generic sense.
Act. In the said declaration, Greece also made the same
Historical evidence provided the motive for the
reservation on disputes relating to the territorial status of
Greece.
 reservation, but cannot be said to have limited the definition In that connection they decided to bring forward the date of the
given to the words. meeting of experts concerning the question of the continental
shelf of the Aegean Sea and that of the experts on the question
- Greece also argued that at the time the General Act was concluded
of airspace."
and at the time Greece acceded to the Act, the continental shelf
- Greece argues that this alone is a manifestation that Turkey has
concept was wholly unknownhence, issues pertaining to such
accepted the jurisdiction of the ICJ over the issue. Turkey, on the
cannot be applied in the reservation.
other hand, maintains that no such submission can be garnered from
o Court: Since it has been established that territorial status
the provision, and that the two countries needed first to agree on
was used in its generic term, the presumption follows that
what matters to submit to the Court before it can be said that the two
any subsequent changes/additions through the evolution of
jointly accepted the jurisdiction of the Court.
law should also be included, and that disputes relating to
- Because of the divergence in interpretation, the Court looked into the
the territorial status of Greece must be interpreted in
events and diplomatic exchanges that transpired before the actual
accordance with the rules of International Law as they exist
joint communiqu in May 1975.
today and not as they existed in 1931.
o By perusing through the records, it was made clear that the
o Also, Greeces argument that disputes concerning
goal of the talks was to have a special agreement by which to
delimitation of the continental shelf are not matters of
define the issues of the case to be submitted to the Court.
territorial status is untenable. Disputes regarding the
o Consequently, it is in this contextan expressed willingness
continental shelf, by its very nature, tend to relate to
on the part of Turkey to jointly submit the dispute to the
territorial status, inasmuch as the rights over the continental
Court, after negotiations and by a special agreement
shelf are derived from its sovereignty over the land it
defining the matters to be decidedthat the meaning of the
pertains to.
Brussels joint communiqu is to be apprised.
- In short, the first basis cannot hold because of the reservation made
o The Brussels joint communiqu was not intended to, and did
by Greece in its accession to the General Act.
not, constitute an immediate commitment by the Greek and
Turkish prime ministers to accept unconditionally the
Second Basis:
unilateral submission of the present dispute to the Court.
- The second basis for the Courts jurisdiction, according to Greece, is
What it intends instead was a joint submission by the two
the Brussels joint communiqu made by the prime ministers of two
countries after the conclusion of a special agreement
countries in 1975. The pertinent provisions are:
defining the issues to be resolved by the Court.
In the course of their meeting the two Prime Ministers had an
opportunity to give consideration to the problems which led to - In short, the second basis is also without support because the joint
the existing situation as regards relations between their communiqu isnt what Greece interpreted it to be.
countries. They decided [ont dcid] that those problems
should be resolved [doivent tre rsolus] peacefully by means The Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the case.
of negotiations and as regards the continental shelf of the
Aegean Sea by the International Court at The Hague. They
defined the general lines on the basis of which the forthcoming
meetings of the representatives of the two Governments would
take place.