Turkey knows the tactic of escalating provocations very well. It has faithfully followed it since 1973, when it gradually aimed to create a massive agenda of claims in the Aegean (airspace, demilitarization, Athens FIR), in order to force Greece into “give-and-take” negotiations on established sovereign rights. With the same tactic, it now attempts to transform the Blue Homeland doctrine into an official geopolitical strategy through legislation. However, a careful analysis of international law sources reveals that Turkish claims in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean lack legal foundation, based on arbitrary interpretations attempting to replace existing rules.
International law puts brakes on “Blue Homeland”: The legal “void” of Turkish claims
As law of the sea scholars who spoke to parapolitika.gr argue, the “Blue Homeland” clearly conflicts with international law. Article 3 of UNCLOS (Convention on the Law of the Sea) provides every state with the unilateral right to extend its territorial waters up to 12 nautical miles. Turkey, despite frequently invoking international law, maintains the casus belli (cause for war) against Greece for exercising this legitimate right, thus violating international community principles.
Furthermore, Turkey flagrantly violates the island regime. This constitutes a central “illegality” of Turkish aspirations, focusing on refusing to recognize sovereign rights to islands. Turkey claims that island territories, including large islands like Crete and the Dodecanese, have no right to continental shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
This position directly conflicts with Article 121 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which explicitly states that islands have the right to territorial waters, EEZ and continental shelf, exactly like mainland areas – something Turkey does not accept. Article 121, paragraph 2, is crystal clear, stating that all islands have their own territorial sea, contiguous zone, continental shelf and EEZ, subject to paragraph 3, which says that only rocks unsuitable for human habitation or lacking economic life are denied two of the four zones. Even rocks have territorial sea and contiguous zone, but not continental shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone. Therefore, the Turkish attempt to present the Aegean as an area where islands “disappear” legally is completely unfounded.
According to law of the sea scholars, another fundamental aspect of Turkish irrationality concerns territorial sea extension. Ankara invokes Articles 122 and 123 on “enclosed or semi-enclosed seas” to limit Greek rights, but makes no mention of maritime zones of national jurisdiction. These articles only encourage neighboring states to cooperate exclusively for marine environmental protection and conservation of marine biological resources, without affecting or limiting zones of national jurisdiction. As distinguished scholars argue, “on one hand they don’t allow us to extend territorial waters and on the other they don’t recognize our right under international law that islands are entitled to all zones of national jurisdiction.”
Turkey systematically attempts to present domestic legislation, such as the “Blue Homeland” bill or other invalid international texts like the Turkish-Libyan memorandum, as sources of law. However, domestic law cannot under any circumstances replace international law or produce effects against third states, prominent law of the sea scholars emphasize.
Nevertheless, Ankara follows a long-term foreign policy with consistent tactics since 1973. One need only consider that Turkey, in 1973 and within 15 months (from November 1973 – the first major challenge to continental shelf in the Aegean – until February 1974), had unfolded all its claims against Greece. Beyond prohibiting 12-mile extension, it included in its agenda non-recognition of all island rights, non-recognition of the 10-nautical-mile national airspace, non-recognition of Athens FIR covering the entire Aegean, and demilitarization of Eastern Aegean islands. Simultaneously, they raised the Thrace issue (also in September 1974) and, of course, occupation in Cyprus. Within 15 months it created a massive agenda, so that someday, when the time comes to sit at the negotiating table, it could claim things it’s not entitled to.
Against this revisionism, Greece maintains steadfast adherence to international legality and dialogue, without any concession on sovereignty issues. As diplomatic sources note, Turkey’s “legally flawed positions” undermine Mediterranean stability and Greece must move decisively because, as they claim, the country should capitalize on opportunities lost in the past.
