The Crisis Over the Imia Rocks and the Aegean Sea Regime: International Law as a Language of Common Interest
Clive Parry, in his famous lectures at Cambridge University in 1978, criticizing the traditional concept of sovereignty in international law, concluded that ‘the whole law of title must be rewritten’. As he pointed out, ‘the state is not at liberty to deal with matters of sovereignty’, and ‘sovereignty over territory describes an essential element of state and not a property in the sense of Private Law’.
KeywordsEurope Turkey Lution Defend Stake
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.M. Koskenniemi, From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument (Helsinki: Lakimiesliiton Kustannus, 1989), 262.Google Scholar
- 3.See J. Spiropoulos, International Law (Athens: A. A. Papaspyrou, 1933), 150 et seq. Google Scholar
- 5.Andrew Wilson, The Aegean Dispute (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, Adelphi Papers No. 155, 1979), 3.Google Scholar
- 6.For the difference between ‘duty’ and ‘obligation’, see for example A. R. White, Rights (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), 51 et seq. Google Scholar
- 19.J. I. Charney, ‘Central East Asian maritime boundaries and the law of the sea’, American Journal of International Law, 89 (1995), 733–4.Google Scholar
- 21.D. W. Bowett, ‘Islands, rocks, reefs and low-tide elevations’, in J. I. Charney and L. M. Alexander, eds., International Maritime Boundaries (1992), 146–51; Charney, ‘Central East Asian maritime boundaries’, 734–5.Google Scholar
- 23.LOS Convention, 1982, article 123. For the negotiating history of this article, see B. Vukas, ‘The Mediterranean: an enclosed or semi-enclosed sea?’, in B. Vukas, ed., The Legal Regime of Enclosed or Semi-Enclosed Seas: The Particular Case of The Mediterranean (Zagreb: Institute of International and Comparative Law, University of Zagreb, 1988), at 58–64. As he characteristically observes, ‘The provisions on the co-operation of States envisaged in Article 123 of the LOS Convention and the ever-increasing co-operation of States bordering enclosed or semi-enclosed seas impose the necessity of determining the real scope of the provisions of Part IX within the general framework of the Convention,’ 62.Google Scholar
- 24.Vukas takes the view that the Mediterranean Sea and its constituent seas should be considered as enclosed or semi-enclosed seas, Vukas, Ibid., 55–6. A similar view is expressed, with respect to the Aegean Sea, by Politakis, see G. P. Politakis, ‘The Aegean agenda: Greek national interests and the new law of the sea convention’, International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 10 (1995), 508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- On the contrary, Alexander considers ‘semi-enclosed seas’ to be only ‘primary’ seas and not their constituent parts; see L. M. Alexander, ‘Regional arrangements in the oceans’, American Journal of International Law, 71 (1977), 90–1.Google Scholar
- 26.See for example, Hanbury and Maudsley, Modern Equity, 12th edition (London: Stevens & Sons, 1985), 27.Google Scholar
- 27.P. Vinogradoff, ‘Common sense in law’, The Home University Library of Modern Knowledge, 10th edition (London: Thorton Butterworth Ltd., 1933), 221–2.Google Scholar
- 32.M. Bedjaoui, ‘L’«énigme» des «principes équitables» dans le droit de la délimitation maritime’, Revista Espanola De Derecho Internacional, 42 (1990), 378, 384.Google Scholar