Retour au menu
Retour au menu
O.M.I. :
87ème session du comité de la sécurité (M.S.C.)

 

STATEMENTS BY THE DELEGATION OF GREECE

Statements made on 13 May 2010


Greece considers the withdrawal by Turkey of the extended "territorial sea" polygon which was submitted to the LRIT Data Distribution Plan in violation of the provisions of SOLAS Regulation V/19-1 and the related decisions of the Committee, as a positive step. As we pointed out in document MSC 87/6/5, the Turkish "territorial sea" polygon extended up to 100 nm from the coast of Turkey, covering half of the Aegean Sea and a considerable part of Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea, well beyond the legal notion of the territorial sea and its maximum permissible breadth under international law.

For this reason, we invited the Committee to request Turkey to fulfil its obligations under SOLAS Regulation V/19-1 and the related decisions of MSC 84 and MSC 86 and bring its polygons into line with international law.

Instead, the distinguished delegate of Turkey asked us not to depict our territorial sea and internal waters polygons in the DDP so as to enable Turkey to monitor traffic of Greek-flagged vessels in the Aegean Sea. As specifically stated, this was the reason for the submission by Turkey in the first place of the extended "territorial sea" polygon, which "coincided with its Search and Rescue (SAR) Region", although the breadth of the Turkish territorial sea in the Aegean Sea is 6 nm.

It is obvious that Greece cannot accept the Turkish proposal.

First, as it was made clear by the Turkish intervention, this is a classical case of an abuse of right. Furthermore, the maritime area depicted by Turkey as its "territorial sea" is the unilaterally declared Turkish SRR not recognized by Greece.

Second, Turkey claims that there is a distinct legal regime for semi-enclosed seas and that special measures are required for the Aegean Sea, given its special circumstances. Greece would like to emphasize that the notion of "enclosed or semi-enclosed seas" which was introduced by Part IX of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) and, therefore, constitutes progressive development of the law, is not related at all to the operation of the LRIT system. Article 123 simply provides that States bordering semi-enclosed seas should cooperate in the following areas: marine scientific research, protection of the marine environment and fisheries. There is absolutely no relevance between article 123 of UNCLOS and the operation of the LRIT System. The LRIT system applies to all seas and oceans indiscriminately, there being no distinction between open seas and semi-enclosed seas in SOLAS regulation V/19-1.

Third, there are more countries worldwide with an extended insular territory, but the issue of not depicting their internal waters and territorial sea polygons so as to enable neighbouring countries to receive LRIT information from ships entitled to fly their flag when located within their territorial waters, was never raised.

Fourth, the reason that we did not wish to discuss this issue on a bilateral basis with Turkey, is that, as we have repeatedly stated in MSC 86 and at the 8th Meeting of the Ad Hoc LRIT Group, this is an issue that concerns the implementation of the LRIT system as a whole. In our view, the submission by a Contracting Government of a polygon which is not consistent with the requirements established by the Organization for the LRIT system, is by no means a bilateral issue between that State and a neighbouring country. Potential use of the Turkish extended territorial sea polygon would deprive Contracting Governments of LRIT information that they would otherwise be entitled to receive, thus resulting in access rights violation and unlawful lack of data dissemination.

In concluding, the LRIT system applies to all maritime areas indiscriminately, there being no legal basis or any substantive reason for Turkey to ask for the adoption of special measures for the Aegean Sea. Greece has submitted its territorial sea polygons in accordance with the SOLAS regulation V/19-1 and the related decisions of MSC 84 and MSC 86 and would expect Turkey to do the same.

***


Retour au menu
Retour au menu