Dispute Settlement and the Law of the Sea with Special Reference to the Aegean Sea

  • Ted L. McDorman
Part of the International Political Economy Series book series (IPES)

Abstract

The details of the legal, political, and military dispute between Greece and Turkey respecting the sharing of ocean space in the Aegean Sea have been well articulated by others.1 This contribution will not reexamine the making, existence, or implications of the Aegean Sea dispute. Rather, it will look at formal conflict resolution mechanisms, specifically the dispute resolution regime of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention), which may be of relevance to the Aegean Sea disputants.

Keywords

Hydrocarbon Turkey Expense Nism Reso 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    See, for example, Andrew Wilson, The Aegean Dispute (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, Adelphi Papers No. 155, 1979);Google Scholar
  2. Tozun Bahcheli, Greek-Turkish Relations Since 1955 (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1990), 129–67;Google Scholar
  3. Jon M. Van Dyke, ‘The Aegean Sea dispute: options and avenues’, Marine Policy, 20 (1996), 397–404;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Faraj Abdullah Ahnish, The International Law of Maritime Boundaries and the Practice of States in the Mediterranean Sea (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 356–83;Google Scholar
  5. George Politakis, ‘The Aegean agenda: Greek national interests and the new law of the sea convention’, International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 10 (1995): 497–527 and,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. more generally, Theodore C. Kariotis, ed., Greece and the Law of the Sea (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1997).Google Scholar
  7. 2.
    Louis B. Sohn, ‘The future of dispute settlement’, in R. St. J. Macdonald and Douglas M. Johnston, eds, The Structure and Process of International Law: Essays in Legal Philosophy, Doctrine and Theory (Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 1983), 1122.Google Scholar
  8. 3.
    An exhaustive listing of the positive and negative aspects of negotiation as a strategy to resolve international disputes is provided by Richard B. Bilder, ‘An overview of international dispute settlement’, Emory Journal of International Dispute Settlement. 1(1) (1986): 22–3, n. 36.Google Scholar
  9. 4.
    Richard B. Bilder, ‘International third party dispute settlement’, Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, 17 (471) (1989), 477–8.Google Scholar
  10. 5.
    M. Lachs, ‘Arbitration and international adjudication’, in A. H. A. Soons, ed., International Arbitration: Past and Prospects (Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 1990), 40.Google Scholar
  11. 6.
    Oscar Schachter, International Law in Theory and Practice (Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 1991), 218.Google Scholar
  12. 9.
    See Christine Chinkin and Romana Sadurska, ‘The anatomy of international dispute resolution’, Ohio State Journal of Dispute Resolution, 7(39) (1991), 65.Google Scholar
  13. 12.
    An ethnically split island, Cyprus was a British colony until independence in 1960. In 1974, in the face of a pro-Greek coup in Cyprus, Turkey invaded parts of Cyprus to protect the Turkish minority. Cyprus has remained a flashpoint for Greek-Turkish animosity. Concerning Cyprus, see Bahcheli, Greek-Turkish Relations, 19–128; Andrew Borowiec, The Mediterranean Feud (New York: Praeger, 1983);Google Scholar
  14. and Zian M. Necatigil, The Cyprus Question and the Turkish Position in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, rev. 2nd ed., 1996).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Douglas M. Johnston, The Theory and History of Ocean Boundary-Making (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press, 1988), 27.Google Scholar
  16. 21.
    See S. Engelberg, ‘U.S. Brokers Peace Accord In the Aegean’, 31 January 1996, New York Times, A6; ‘Charges Fly As the Greeks and Turks Avert a War’, 1 February 1996, New York Times, A3; C. Bohlen, ‘Greek Premier Already in Hot Water’, 9 February 1996, New York Times, A8; and C. Bohlen, ‘Dispute Still Simmering Over Aegean Sea Islets’, 20 July 1996, New York Times, A4. See also Krateros M. Ioannou, ‘The Greek-Turkish territorial sea’, in Kariotis, Greece and the Law of the Sea, 140–7, and Anastasia Strati, ‘The ratification by Greece of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea’, Leiden Journal of International Law 9(99) (1996), 122–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 22.
    See generally, Michael Pugh, ‘Legal aspects of the Rainbow Warrior affair’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 36 (1987), 655–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 23.
    J. G. Merrills, International Dispute Settlement (Cambridge: Grotius Publications, 1991), 27.Google Scholar
  19. 24.
    Hazel Fox, ‘Conciliation’, in H. Waldock, ed., International Disputes: The Legal Aspects (London: Europa, 1972), 95.Google Scholar
  20. 26.
    Conciliation Commission on the Continental Shelf Area between Iceland and Jan Mayen, Report and Recommendations to the Governments of Iceland and Norway, reprinted in International Legal Materials, 20 (1981), 797–842. See generally Elliot Richardson, ‘Jan Mayen in perspective’, American Journal of International Law, 82 (1988), 443–58 and Johnston, Theory and History of Ocean Boundary-Making, 159–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 30.
    See generally A. O. Adede, The System for Settlement of Disputes Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1987).Google Scholar
  22. 33.
    See United Nations, Law of the Sea Bulletin No. 29 (New York: United Nations, 1995), 82–3.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ted L. McDorman

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations