Prospects for Joint Resource Development: The Case of the Aegean Sea
The dispute between Greece and Turkey over territorial and economic rights in the Aegean Sea poses tremendous difficulties from the perspective of international law and diplomacy. The dispute also provides the opportunity for creative approaches to addressing the problems. In part, this may mean avoiding linking the solution of the Aegean dispute to other bilateral issues. Alternatively, the resolution of the Aegean dispute may create a model or basis from which to address other outstanding issues between the two countries.
KeywordsContinental Shelf Resource Development Joint Development Greek Island Maritime Boundary
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 4.D. W. Bowett, The Legal Regime of Islands in International Law (New York: Oceana Publications, 1979), 252.Google Scholar
- 6.G. Blake, ‘Marine policy issues for Turkey’, Marine Policy Reports, 7(4) (1985), 2–3.Google Scholar
- 29.Donald E. Karl, ‘Islands and the delimitation of the continental shelf: a framework for analysis’, American Journal of International Law, 77 (1977), 670–1.Google Scholar
- 32.Hazel Fox et al., Joint Development of Offshore Oil and Gas (London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 1989), 33.Google Scholar
- 36.Ton Ijlstra, ‘Removal and disposal of offshore installations’, Marine Policy Reports, 1 (1989), 273–5.Google Scholar
- 50.S. K. Date-Ban and M. Rahim, ‘Promoting petroleum exploration and development: Issues for government action’, in K. I. F. Khan, Petroleum Resources and Development: Economic, Legal and Policy Issues for Developing Countries (London: Belhaven Press, 1987), 93.Google Scholar
- 52.Ibid., 95. See also K. Hossain, Law and Policy in Petroleum Development: Changing Relations between Transnationals and Governments (New York: Nichols Publishing Company, 1979), 100–1.Google Scholar
- 61.Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Integrated Coastal Zone Management: Review of Progress in Selected OECD Countries (Paris: OECD, 1997).Google Scholar