I think the most obvius answer is that the far better standard of living in Greece (comparing with Turkey…) makes Greeks more against a War than the turkish side, witch is going destroy completely both economies. Especialy the political situation in Turkey, where the armed forces try to maintain their political power and avoid the democratization of the country at any cost, is the main reason of such crisis and such unreasonable attitude. If Turkey stops its unilateral Claims in the Aegean or Cyprus then what would be the nececity of the Army and further more the reason to dominate over democracy? No turkish general is going to allow that…

Please no more (cold…) WAR!

The question of the Imia islands. Turkish allegations on “Grey zones” in the Aegean Sea

1. The Crisis

On the 25th of December, 1995, the Turkish Cargo boat “Figen Akat” ran aground on one of the Imia rocks, situated 1.5 miles from the Greek island of Kalolimnos. Although the accident occurred in Greek territorial waters, the captain of the “Figen Akat” refused assistance from the competent Greek authorities, claiming that he was within Turkish territorial waters and on a Turkish islet.

The claim on Imia was the start of a broader Turkish campaign of challenging Greek sovereignty over a number of unspecified islands, islets and rocks in the Aegean Sea, while at the same time inviting Greece to negotiations with the aim of clarifying the legal status of the islands in question. In this context, Turkish officials kept the Turkish claims on the agenda, though without specifying which or even how many islands are claimed by Turkey. Turkish Prime Minister Mrs. Ciller challenged Greek sovereignty over 1,000, and later 3,000, islands, islets or rocks in the Aegean, while the then Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr Gonensay introduced the concept of “gray zones” in the Aegean Sea, the status of which has not been specified by International Treaties. The Turkish president, Mr. Demirel, claimed that 937 islets and rocks in the Aegean belong to Turkey, as a successor state of the Ottoman Empire.

2. Turkish arguments:

The Turkish claims are based on the following arguments:

a) International texts which regulate questions of sovereignty in the Aegean do not cover all the islands, islets and rocks of the Aegean Sea.

b) The legal status of some of these “geographical formations” remains undetermined. Even more specifically, Turkey claims that Greek sovereignty extends only to those Aegean islands which were explicitly enumerated by their names within the text of the treaties by which these islands were ceded to Greece.

c) Regarding the Imia rocks, Turkey maintains that the Agreement between Italy and Turkey, signed in Ankara on December 28, 1932, by which the question of maritime borders between Italy and Turkey was settled, as well as that of sovereignty over the Imia rocks in favour of Italy, never really entered into force, since the said agreement:

i. was not ratified by the Turkish Parliament and
ii. was not registered with the Secretariat of the League of Nations.

In addition, Turkey advances two additional arguments, especially:

a) the change of circumstances during the long period after 1932 and

b) the geographical argument, according to which the Imia rocks are nearer to the Turkish coast than to the nearest Greek island, Kalymnos.

3. Legal framework concerning the Aegean Islands:

Contrary to the Turkish allegations, Article 12 of the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 provides for the following:

“The decision taken on the 13th February, 1914, by the Conference of London, in virtue of Articles 5 of the Treaty of London of the 17th-30th of May, 1913, and 15 of the Treaty of Athens of the 1st-14th of November, 1913, which decision was communicated to the Greek Government on the 13th of February, 1914, regarding the sovereignty of Greece over the islands of the Eastern Mediterranean, other than the islands of Imbros, Tenedos and Rabbit Islands, particularly the islands of Lemnos, Samothrace, Mytilene, Chios, Samos and Nikaria, is confirmed, subject to the provisions of the present Treaty respecting the islands placed under the sovereignty of Italy which form the subject of Article 15.

Except where a provision to the contrary is contained in the present Treaty, the islands situated at less than three miles from the Asiatic coast remain under Turkish sovereignty”.

The formulation of the Great Powers’ note of 13/2/1914 is also very explicit: (Les Grandes Puissances) “ont decide de remettre a la Grece TOUTES les iles de la Mer Egee actuellement occupees par elle a l’ exception de Tenedos, d’ Imbros et de Castellorizo (later ceded to Italy) qui doivent etre restituees a la Turquie”.

From the above text it is clear that all the islands of the Aegean Sea were ceded to Greece except: a) Imvros, Tenedos and Rabbit islands (Lagousses), b) the islands situated at less than three miles from the Asiatic coast, which remained under Turkish sovereignty and c) the islands (Dodecanese) ceded to Italy according to article 15 of the Treaty of Lausanne.

It is to be stressed that the enumeration of the islands ceded to Greece in Article 12 is purely indicative (“particularly”) while the islands attributed to Italy and Turkey are enumerated or indicated (“islands situated at less than three miles from the Asiatic coast”) in an explicitly restrictive manner.

According to Article 15 of the Treaty of Lausanne:

“Turkey renounces in favour of Italy all rights and title over the following islands: Stampalia (Astrapalia), Rhodes (Rhodes), Caiki (Kharki), Scarpanto, Casos (Casso), Piscopis (Tilos), Misiros (Nisyros), Calimnos (Kalymnos), Leros, Patmos, Lipsos (Lipso), Simi (Symi), and Cos (Kos), which are now occupied by Italy, and the islets dependent thereon, and also over the island of Castellorizzo.”

The Dodecanese were ceded to Greece after the Second World War, according to Article 14 of the Peace Treaty signed in Paris on 10/12/1947. This Article is almost identical to Article 15 of the treaty of Lausanne, reading as follows:

“Italy hereby cedes to Greece in full sovereignty the Dodecanese Islands indicated hereafter, namely Stampalia (Astropalia), Rhodes (Rhodes), Caiki (kharki), Scarpanto, Casos (Casso), Piscopis (Tilos), vlisiros (Nisyros), Calimnos (Kalymnos), Leros, Patmos, Lipsos (Lipso), Simi (Symi), Cos (Kos) and Castellorizo, as well as the adjacent islets.”

It is clear from the above that the international treaties providing for the status of the Aegean islands bear no imprecision, or any legal void and, thus, do not permit any speculation on “gray zones.”

4. The status of the Imia rocks, which is openly disputed by Turkey, is also clear. According to Articles 12 and 15 of the Treaty of Lausanne, Turkey renounced, in favour of Italy, all its rights, titles and interests in the Dodecanese (among which are the Imia rocks, which are dependent on Kalymnos island). Besides, Turkey renounced its sovereign rights on all Aegean islands situated at more than three miles from the Asiatic coast, including the Imia islets, which are situated 3.7 miles from the Turkish coast.

However, following a dispute between Italy and Turkey concerning the isles and rocks around Castellorizo, the two countries signed a Convention on the delimitation of their water frontiers (Ankara 4/1/1932). This convention was properly ratified, entered into force on May 10, 1933, and was registered with the Secretariat of the League of Nations. A Protocol – without a title, apparently because of its technical nature – was signed in Ankara on December 28, 1932, delineating in detail the maritime frontier between the Italian Dodecanese and the Anatolian coast of Turkey. Point 30 of the said protocol placed the Imia rocks clearly on the Italian side, the borderline between Italy and Turkey passing “at equidistance between Kardak (RKs) – that is, Imia – and ‘Kato I’ Anatolia”.

This Protocol was not ratified by the Turkish Parliament and was not registered with the League of Nations.

However, these facts do not affect the validity and the obligatory nature of the aforementioned Protocol for the following reasons:

a) On three occasions the Turkish Government had accepted in writing (letter of the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs on January 3, 1933, verbal note on November 20, 1935, letter of the Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on September 26, 1936) the validity of the Protocol and the annexed maps, while in the text of the verbal note dated 20/11/1935 it was accepted that the protocol and the annexed maps are an “inherent part” of the Convention of January 4, 1932.

b) Being an inherent part of a Convention, ratified by the Turkish Parliament, the Protocol of 28/12/1932 was in reality covered by the ratification of the Convention of 4/1/1932. However, even if the provisions of the internal Turkish law had not been fully respected, it is well known that according to Article 27 of the Convention on the Law of Treaties “une partie ne peut invoquer les dipositions de son droit interne comme justifiant la non-execution d’ un traite”.

c) Regarding the non-registration of the Protocol of 28/12/1932, it is to be noted that the validity of the said Protocol, being of a technical nature, was not affected by its non-registration with the Secretariat of the League of Nations. According to the resolution of the First Commission of the Assembly of the League of Nations on September 5, 1921, “Les actes d’ ordre purement technique ou administratif, n’ interessant pas les relations politiques internationales et ceux qui ne sont que des reglements techniques, precisant sans rien modifier un acte deja enregistre ou qui sont destines a assurer l’ execution d’ un tel acte, pourrout ne pas etre presentes aux fins d’ enregistrement.” It is to be also stressed that in practice most of the states were not registering all their agreements, especially those of minor importance.

d) In any case, the provision (Art. 18 of the Pact of the League of Nations) regarding the obligatory nature of the registration of international acts, was never fully accepted either in theory or by international jurisprudence. The States had customarily accepted that an international treaty not registered was in force and obligatory for the parties. It could not simply be invoked in front of the organs of the League of Nations.

Greece, as a successor State to Italy, since 1947, has received the Dodecanese, including the Imia rocks, without any change, especially regarding the 1932 Italo-Turkish agreements. As is well known, the succession of states does not affect frontiers established by a treaty (Art. 1 lot the Vienna Convention).

Turkey also claims that Greece made demarches during the period 1950-56, asking for a confirmation by the Turkish side on the question of the validity of the 1932 Italo-Turkish agreements. However, according to historical archives in Greece, it seems that it was Turkey that took such an initiative in 1949. Later, Greece with two Verbal Notes (No 1638/3-6-1955 and 2672/19-10-1956) proposed the formation of a joint committee for the purpose of delineating the sea frontiers between the two countries “in the North of the Dodecanese”, that is, in the area between Samos, Chios and Mytilene and the Turkish coast – apparently considering that the frontiers in the Dodecanese area had already been fixed with the 1932 agreements.

5. An additional argument of the Turkish side is that Turkey renounced its rights on islands of the Aegean but did not renounce its rights on islets and rocks.

However, these terms are, according to the treaties of Lausanne and Paris, synonyms and produce the same legal effects, since the term island, in its legal sense – that is, a portion of land in the sea which remains uncovered at high tide – covers the notions of islets and rocks, independent of other characteristics such as their size or whether they are inhabited etc. It is only in the text of the UN Law of the Sea of 1982 that a distinction between islands and rocks was introduced, regarding only matters of the continental shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone. Besides, if one admits that islets and rocks are not included in the term island, then one must also accept that treaties of such special importance, such as the Lausanne and Paris Peace Treaties, left everything unsettled in Aegean region – a region of an archipelagic nature.

It should also be stressed that Turkey in fact accepts that the term “island” covers islets and rocks, since it considers itself to hold sovereignty over all the islets and rocks situated within three miles of its coast, though the Lausanne treaty provides only for “islands”.

6. Concerning the two auxiliary Turkish arguments (change of circumstances and proximity of the Imia rocks to the Turkish coast), one should remark that:

a) According to Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties “a change of circumstances cannot be invoked by a state as a pretext on which to terminate or to retire from a treaty, if this treaty establishes a frontier.”

b) Geographic criteria, such as proximity, cannot be opposed to legal criteria, such as the settlement of the question of the sovereignty over a territory or island by treaty. Besides, even this “proximity criterion” used by Turkey is in fact dubious. The Imia rocks are situated 3.7 n.m. from Turkey and 5.5 n.m. from the Greek island of Kalymnos. However, the distance between Imia and Kalolimnos, another islet within the administrative region of Kalymnos, is only 1.5 n.m. The Turkish geographic “argument” apparently ignores the geographic reality of the Aegean Sea, which presents the characteristics of an Archipelago.

Finally, it is interesting to note that until recently Turkey itself fully accepted the validity of the 1932 agreements and considered the Imia rocks to be Greek islands: Turkey accepted, during the second meeting on Air Navigation for the Middle East, held in Istanbul 1950, that the limits between Athens and Istanbul FIRs coincide with the Western frontiers of Turkey in the area, which are the frontiers as defined by the 1932 agreements.

The official Turkish maps of 1953 and 1971, both edited by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, place Imia in the West of the Turkish frontier within the territorial waters of Greece. Another official Turkish map edited by the Turkish army in 1969 also places the Imia islets in Greek territorial waters, using the Greek name for the islands (Immia Adalari).

The Imia islets were also left outside Turkish territorial waters when Turkey, liberally implementing its system of straight baselines, according to Turkish law No 476 of 1964, delineated its territorial waters.

Many official maps of third countries also place Imia within Greek territorial waters, namely the US Air force’s map of 1964, the US Navy’s map of 1990, British map No 1056, the Russian map of 1974 (reedited on 1994).

source: Hellenic Republic – Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Some info about the situation over Aegean Sea from 05/2002 until 08/2005

DATE Formations num. of Aircrafts FIR viol. National Airspace viol. ENGAGEMENTS SUM 937 4164+ 1593 2036 377 25/08/20057209 23/08/2005823235 16/07/2005622682 13/07/20051029123 12/07/200572488 06/07/200536143 02/07/2005366 22/06/2005144116102 21/06/20055+2596 13/06/20051333195 06/06/200511323211 05/06/200561262 04/06/2005103010112 03/06/200510321181 27/05/200511341181 26/05/20051030109 25/05/20051028132 23/05/200511321162 20/05/2005124417184 18/05/20059+4016145 17/05/200515444411 14/05/200511301116 05/05/20051232138 04/05/2005196031163 28/04/2005184618190 26/04/200592510101 14/04/200563213212 11/04/200528101 09/04/2005722863 06/04/200593011143 01/04/20051186 39/03/200511361243 20/03/20051337361 18/03/2005929143 10/03/200526267 01/03/200592424122 24/02/20051228129 09/02/2005924151 08/02/20052272 07/02/2005113211102 02/02/20051022221 09/01/20057157 09/01/200592014 06/01/2005227 03/01/20055169 27/12/200491810 20/12/200461211 18/12/200443 13/12/20044861 06/12/20044125153 04/12/2004612153 26/11/2004612892 22/11/200461294 20/11/2004614682 19/11/200461255 10/11/2004715191 09/11/200451271 03/11/200492112114 02/11/200413762 27/10/200461257 26/10/20044107 25/10/200491810176 20/10/2004710854 19/10/20046136374 12/10/2004512144 06/10/2004612654 10/09/2004512533 09/09/20046126354 06/09/2004612673 03/09/20042074 06/08/200451228 05/08/20046127 03/08/20041211 30/07/20045513 29/07/200466 Ιούλ./200449+9540 27/06/20041236 03/05/20047187107 14/04/2004412483 01/04/2004717735 29/03/20044124202 27/03/200481982 09/03/2004262471 24/02/200462 27/01/20043832 21/01/2004716134 29/12/2003822855 29/12/200341242 22/12/200351251 16/12/2003261 11/12/20033636305 09/12/200341048 08/12/2003154115144 11/11/2003112121216 11/11/200341212211 04/11/2003202010 31/10/20037188201 23/10/2003101452 21/10/20031010102 17/10/20033232509 15/10/20033333597 09/10/200348+4333 08/10/2003102626589 06/10/2003826 24/09/200362245 24/09/20031818414 23/09/2003112613274 18/09/2003924943 17/09/200330166 16/09/200355 11/09/2003102410341 03/09/200382085 20/08/2003820883 10/07/2003825834 03/07/2003824143 30/06/200361616423 29/06/200312 26/06/200322658 24/06/20037184 19/06/2003720777 18/06/200382022 11/06/200321 08/06/2003123217110 06/06/200325121457 04/06/200338259 03/06/20034417458 02/06/200336257 30/05/20034515 26/05/2003133214710 22/05/20033463 13/05/200312 12/05/2003153535759 07/05/2003121215 17/04/2003181088 16/04/20031328287011 15/04/2003102645 05/04/20031650167 04/04/200322 31/03/2003925956 29/03/20037261426 27/03/200310261458 11/03/200311221 07/03/2003121 06/03/20032871 05/02/200330409 04/02/200321 31/01/200361263 30/01/20033614127 22/01/2003306 15/01/2003282886 10/01/2003123020156 08/01/200311281115 19/12/200220202 18/12/2002545015 13/12/2002362512 10/12/200210102512 09/12/20021211 19/11/200228155 18/11/2002720-25 08/11/200210103 07/11/2002122 20/09/20022860 22/07/200229 07/06/200218404 06/06/2002121 29/05/200225506 22/05/200235-45

Red: Maximum number of incidents per day

Is it me or the temperature rises and rises and I don’t mean (just) the weather…

When my airwing made a port call to Souda Bay in March of 2003 I took an MWR bus from the pier to NSA Souda Bay, now being my first time in Greece and Europe for that matter I did not now that Souda is an active HAF air base. I saw some T-33s parked out in the grass but what else is based out of Souda AB these days?? I have read that the Block 52+ F-16C are out of there? Also does the HAF still fly the A-7H? I live not 15 miles from where all the A-7s were built and curious to know. When I was on liberty in Chania I found a shop that had some HAF patches I bought them and had the number 115 and there rest was in Greek but it did have a silouette of an A-7. Soon I hope to make a 1/48 HAF F-4E, the paint schemes the HAF uses are quite attention getting (Agean Blue?)

Here there is a “completed where is what” reference of HAF
http://www.scramble.nl/gr.htm

Here are some HAF sites that include photos, paintings etc…
http://www.haf.gr (formal)
http://koti.welho.com/msolanak/index.html
http://hafcphotos.cs.net/
http://www.335sq.gr/

It is clear that the Turkish planes should not have been there, whether or not you agree that it is Greek territory (military aircraft should never fly in civilian air traffic routes when it is not necessary, since it is incredibly dangerous), not because it is necessarily illegal, but because it is needlessly provocative. As long as the Turkish authorities insist on provocative exercises, simply because they are not technically illegal, then incidents like this will, tragically, continue to happen.

You are right! every day insidents like the recent are avoided only by luck! Here an examble, said to be taken from a turkish pilot…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kbg7uHyit3Q

almost another tragedy…

Well, it seems fromTurkish friends here the main reason for many problems between Turkey and Greece or Eu or Bulgaria etc. etc. . Their attitude of mind! The 2 words “International Law” just don’t exist in their vocabulary!

…Fellow forumers are missing a crucial point. Turkish side in the official release says that the flight plans were submitted to NATO HQ before the flight. Thus Greek authorities can check the radar signatures and the flights paths of Turkish formation and complain about any departing from the official flightplan. Is there such request or communication with NATO?

My friend inside Athens FIR the only responsible is ATHENS not NATO or any one else. I won’t bother to argue more with you… Read again Hyperion ‘s clear post to learn and understand (if you are willing too…)

I am a professional lurker,but this time i thought to post.Things are quite clear IMHO.The UN Convention of the International Law of the Sea states clearly:

Article3

Breadth of the territorial sea

Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention.
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convent…os/closindx.htm

Greek territorial waters AND airspace should be at 12 nm.The fact that Turkey is the only state in the world that didn’t sign the Treaty,can’t prohibit Greece,that signed it ,to apply it.Turkey is simply refusing the existance of International Law.

The above link ,from article 17 also explains the right to innocent passage and what is it meaning.

Now,Turkey doesn’t like the Law,because of the geography that would cut down the international waters.Well,maybe we should give half of the Aegean to Turkey so to correct this unfortunate geographic reality.

Turkey doesn’t agree?The UN Treaty predicts this too:

Procedure where no settlement has been reached by the parties

1. If the States Parties which are parties to a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention have agreed to seek settlement of the dispute by a peaceful means of their own choice, the procedures provided for in this Part apply only where no settlement has been reached by recourse to such means and the agreement between the parties does not exclude any further procedure…

Article 287

Choice of procedure

1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State shall be free to choose, by means of a written declaration, one or more of the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention:

(a) the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI;

(b) the International Court of Justice;

(c) an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII;

(d) a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII for one or more of the categories of disputes specified the…

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convent…os/closindx.htm

Why Turkey doesn’t apply to such Tribunals since we can’t agree with each other?Because it is MUCH better to have a casus belli and keep your neighbour at 6nm under threat of war,rather than go to a Court of Law and tell “Please,don’t let them expand over 6 nm ,because they have many islands and they ‘ll cut down the international waters for us”.

For the same reason,Turkey has not recognised the juristiction of the International Court of Justice in Hague,while Greece has,since 1993.But of course,Greece can’t have a trial there on her own against another state that doesn’t recognise the Court’s decisions.

http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasi…eclarations.htm

So Turkey,prefered NOT to sign this treaty,so to avoid all these “annoying” obbligations of going to Courts in case of dispute,extended her own waters and airspace to 12nm nontheless,and at the same time prevents under threat of war to apply the International Law to Greece,that HAS signed the UN Convention.

As for submitting or not identification and flight plans in the FIR zones,Turkey invokes the 1944 ICAO Convention that says that state aircrafts will be excluded from the Treaty,saying though that must show concern to the civillian flights.Later ICAO annexes have asked for military flights to follow ICAO procedures to the maximum extend practicable and in the meantime has become common international practice (=International customary Law) to submit flight plans.This is from EuroControl(in which both Greece and Turkey are members and so are bound to follow its procedures):

Use of the ICAO FPL by State aircraft operators
Flight plans will be filed for State Aircraft (Military, Customs and Police) flying as GAT, mixed OAT/GAT and OAT in both IFR and VFR conditions, using the ICAO FPL format.

Filing conditions (including form to be used, rules for the input of data, required filing times, addressing scheme) will be published solely and uniformly in the National (Military) AIP to guarantee easy accessibility.
http://www.eurocontrol.int/mil/publ…_0511art01.html

I think it is clear enough.Following the turkish line of thinking,the above link shouldn’t even exist,since Eurocontrol,shouldn’t have anything to say about military flights.For the same reason ICAO flight plans have provisions for military aircrafts:

Insert one of the following letters to denote the type of flight:

* S if scheduled services
* N if non-scheduled Air Transport Operations
* G if general aviation
* M if military
* X if other than any of the defined categories above
http://www.iom-airport.com/virtual/atc/completing.xml

Since 1944,civillian flights have become a different reality,because of the quantity of flights.Countries cannot let squadron formations roam into another country’s FIR while the air controllers tear their hair apart trying to guess where the “boogey” planes will go so to divert civillian flights to secure altitude and routes.When the turkish airforce enters the Athens FIR with formations of even 60 aircrafts in more points,what are the air controllers supposed to do?

The reality has to do with Turkish desire to acquire operational control over the eastern half of the Aegean Sea.This was clear in August 1974,right after the Cyprus invasion,when Turkey unilaterally declared the eastern half of Athens FIR as to be under Istanbul’s FIR (NOTAM 714) and later when again Turkey declared the eastern half of the Aegean as Turkish SAR zone.Turkey had to withdraw NOTAM 714,since Greece with her own NOTAM declared the area dangerous for flying and this hurt the tourism of Turkey too.So,Turkey continued with the SAR claim and the refusal to give identification when entering Athens FIR.

Best regards