Speech at the event “AHEPA Corfu Section” under the auspices of “AHEPA Greece” on the topic “Status of maritime zones
of Greece on the International Law of the Sea”, Former President of the Republic, Academic and Honorary Professor of the Faculty of Law of the EKPA, Mr. Prokopios Pavlopoulos noted, among other things, the following:

“I AM. The term “marine zones” in no way differentiates Greece’s firm position after 2004 that there is only one dispute to be resolved with Turkey: the delimitation of the island’s continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone in the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean. . The unsuccessful wording of the Madrid Joint Communiqué of 8 June 1997 during the NATO summit and some of the conclusions of the European Council meeting in Helsinki on 10 and 11 December 1999, which led to Turkish “fantasies” of “gray zones” in the Aegean Islands for Greece, are finally gone in the past, and no discussion fits into them. After all, the European Union’s NATURA 2000 Network leaves no doubt about the borders and territory of Greece and the European Union.

II. In addition, the Turkish side should be aware that Greece has an inalienable right to a defensive screening of all its islands in the Aegean without exception, mainly in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the UN Charter, due to the ongoing and ever-increasing threat, as well as the threat of the use of force by Turkey until the arbitrariness “casus belly“and action”Army of the Aegean“. However, he may at any time also request the defense assistance of the European Union in this matter, in accordance with the provisions of Article 42 para. 7 of the Treaty on European Union. In addition, for Greece and the European Union, the so-called “Turkish-Libyan memorandum“does not legally exist and does not lead to legal results, as already adopted by the European Council after Summit 12^her December 2019 Finally, Greece may request direct cooperation in its favor from the European Union regarding the delimitation of the ice shelf and its exclusive economic zone in the Aegean Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean.

III. In view of the Declarations of 1994 and 2015, on the basis of which Greece clearly and precisely delineated the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice at The Hague, a possible joint appeal by Greece and Turkey after the necessary joint pledge under international law can only be understood if, inter alia, the following conditions are met:hard core» of our national sovereignty – to decide, for example. issues related to land, airspace and the Eyalitis area. Greece fully reserves the right to expand unilaterally, and whenever it deems it appropriate, its Aegiality Zone from 18:00 to 20:00. at 12 noon And, based on Turkey’s tactics, it is expedient for Greece to focus more on the prospect of fully exercising its aforementioned right to comprehensively expand the Aegialitis zone until 12 noon. – primarily in N.A. Mediterranean especially after the legally non-existent”Turkish-Libyan memorandum”- instead of fighting only for the elimination of the completely arbitrary”casus belli» National Assembly of Turkey from 8^her June 1995, immediately following the entry into force of the International Law of the Sea under the 1982 Montego Bay Convention. Thus, a joint application by Greece and Turkey to the International Court of Justice in The Hague is conceivable and constitutionally permissible only in terms of sovereign rights – that is, not in terms of national sovereignty, as stated above – over the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone, with “full effect» of our islands.

IV. As for the strategy that Greece should follow in order to secure its “full effect“of our islands, especially during the delimitation of the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone, in accordance with the provisions of international maritime law under the Montego Bay Convention of 1982, it must be emphasized that”portents‘ international jurisprudence today seem especially favorable in favor of our national positions. The recent decision of the 12th convocation is very revealing and revealing.^her July 2016 – International Court of Arbitration. Of great legal importance are those considerations of the decision dated 12^her July 2016 of the International Court of Arbitration contained in obiter dicta No. 473-553, and which, in general terms, among other things, emphasize the following:

1. First of all, the above considerations lead to the fact that “whitening” important aspects of the letter and spirit of the provisions of Article 121 of the International Law of the Sea under the 1982 Montego Bay Convention, given that they are not entirely clear. A more important aspect is what demonstrates, within the regulation of the provisions of the aforementioned Article 121, what is the rule and what is the exception in terms of “full effect“islands for”production» Shelf and exclusive economic zone. And this means, of course, that the exception must be interpreted narrowly and, therefore, in doubtabout specifically interpretation, application of the provisions of the rule must be chosen. In particular, this rule is constituted by the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 121 of the Montego Bay Convention of 1982, which defines an island as a piece of land surrounded by water and located above the surface of the water. during maximum flood, in conjunction with the provisions of paragraph 2 of the same Article, which provide that, except for the provisions of paragraph 3, the islands have a Coastal Zone, a Contiguous Zone, an Ice Shelf and an Exclusive Economic Zone.
2. Then, the above considerations of the decision of 12^her In July 2016, the International Court of Arbitration distinguished, indirectly but clearly, in relation to the islands the exercise of “full dominion“from exercise”sovereign rights“. And thus, always in the context of the aforementioned interpretation of the exception rules, they come to the conclusion that, on the one hand, all the islands without exception “produce» Urticaria area and adjacent area. On the contrary – and on the basis of the provisions of paragraph 3 of the aforementioned Article 121 introducing the aforementioned exception – the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone”produce» all, without exception and regardless of the size of the island, having the necessary conditions for the independent maintenance of either human life or simple economic activity. Of course, and according to the above interpretation of the exception rule, independent content in this case”human life“”economic activity“must be investigated in such a way as not to lead to any form of definitive”the equation» islands with rocks or islets. That is, in the formossification” from “influence“islands for”production» Coastal shelf and Aegialitis zone.

V. Under the above circumstances, the importance of the aforementioned Decision 12 is clear.^her July 2016 of the International Court of Arbitration between the Philippines and China in relation to the judicial precedent that creates in favor of Greece, on the one hand, that the Aegialitis zone and the contiguous zone, without exception, belong to the Greek islands. And, on the other hand, for that ice shelf and the exclusive economic zone.”produce“, according to the Montego Bay Convention of 1982, without exception and regardless of size, the Greek islands – therefore, both in the Aegean Sea and in the Eastern Mediterranean – which can, according to the above explanations, independently support either human life or simply economic activity.”