The aim here is not to establish a precise delimitation line. This requires highly technical measurements that are not necessary for the purpose of the present study. It will rather be sufficient to indicate a general course of a delimitation line in order to demonstrate how an “equitable” delimitation line could be established between Greece and Turkey in the Aegean Sea.

A. Main Aspects of the Maritime Delimitation in the Aegean Sea

1. The Framework of a Single Delimitation Line

In the Aegean Sea, delimitation of the continental shelf is the only actual delimitation issue.[2] Delimitation of the territorial sea between Turkey and Greece is a theoretical matter and does not constitute an actual confrontation. Similarly, no actual delimitation dispute exists to concern delimitation of the EEZ as neither of the two States have declared it in the Aegean Sea. It is, however, quite likely that the two States will declare EEZ, delimitation of which will cause a dispute similar to the that of the continental shelf.[3] This is inevitable due to the legal and practical exigencies resulting from the similarities between the two maritime concepts and the characteristics of the Aegean Sea.

On the basis of these facts, our concern here is the delimitation of the continental shelf and the EEZ.[4] However a search for a single delimitation line rather than separate delimitation lines in areas like the Aegean Sea is justified by the maritime delimitation law in general terms.[5] It is helpful to give more detail of the legal and practical facts that justify a single line delimitation with particular reference to the Aegean Sea.

The concepts of the continental shelf and the EEZ are closely related to each other in a legal sense. They attribute the same type of rights to the coastal States and have the same seaward extent in general terms.[6] On the basis of these juridical similarities, it is possible to use a single line delimitation in most cases.[7] On the other hand, a single delimitation line is necessary on the basis of two other principles, even if the parties concerned did not specifically request it. If the area between two countries is less than 400 miles, sea-bed features fail to justify an extension of the continental shelf of one country beyond 200 miles. Secondly, one country cannot have an EEZ without corresponding continental shelf rights underneath it.[8]

When these two principles are combined, one of these two maritime concepts cannot have a wider or narrower delimitation line than the other in certain areas. The delimitation line should thus coincide. It seems that if the two maritime areas are to be delimited in the same delimitation process, the Aegean Sea is an area in which the result should be a single delimitation line, even if Greece and Turkey do not specifically request it.

The Aegean Sea is relatively a narrow sea that is less than double the extent of the 200-mile EEZ even at its widest section. Moreover, hundreds of sizeable islands located in the sea cause the continental shelf and the EEZ area to shrink even further.[9] Therefore, the actual facts of the Aegean Sea clearly indicate that there is no possibility that the continental shelf or the EEZ of one party could be wider than the other.

If, however, Greece and Turkey do not specifically request or seek a single delimitation line,[10] there will be some consequences to be taken into account. In a single-line delimitation requested specifically by the parties, the factors that are exclusively peculiar to only one of the two maritime areas will be disregarded. This is because the delimitation is performed as a single line delimitation from the beginning. However, if it is not requested as a single line delimitation, all the relevant factors will, as it has been clarified in the Jan Mayen Case, be considered although the result might inevitably be a single line.[11].

In the Aegean Sea, a specific request for a single line will result with the exclusion of the Aegean sea-bed features which are exclusively related to the continental shelf concept.[12] It deserves to be noted that the sea-bed features have already lost most of their relevance to the delimitation of the continental shelf within 200 miles.[13] Geomorphology has been replaced by the principle of distance as the basis of title within 200 miles.[14]

It is therefore appropriate to conclude that, if the two States declare an EEZ in the Aegean Sea, the result will inevitably be a single line delimitation regardless of the parties’ request. The parties’ specific request could effect the role of sea-bed features which is in fact limited in the contemporary delimitation law.[15]

2. The Relevant Area and Coastlines

2.1. The relevant delimitation area

The views of Greece and Turkey are at variance on defining the relevant delimitation area which would constitute the basis for the whole delimitation process.[16] Greece restricts the relevant area to the places around the eastern Greek islands and the nearby Turkish coast. These areas are in fact claimed by Turkey as the continental shelf areas. Turkey, on the other hand, argues that not only the area in dispute but the whole of the Aegean Sea is relevant to the delimitation.[17]

The solution to this disagreement is addressed by the principle that the “area in dispute” does not necessarily overlap with the “area” relevant to maritime delimitation. Secondly, the relevant area is determined mostly by the claims of the parties themselves. The only restriction in this context is that the areas claimed by either party should have a geographical relation with the area in dispute.[18]

As already pointed out, the disputed area in the Aegean Sea falls exclusively in the eastern section of a median line between the mainlands where the Greek islands are located close to the Turkish mainland. No claims by Turkey exist east of the imaginary median line between the mainlands.[19] However, the disputed area does not overlap with the relevant area.

Settlement whether the whole Aegean Sea constitutes the relevant area could be addressed on the basis of the parties’ claims. In the Aegean Sea Continental Shelf Case, two related questions in this context were presented to the Court by Greece. The first was whether certain Greek islands in the Aegean Sea, “as part of the territory of Greece”, are entitled to the portion of the continental shelf which appertains to them according to the applicable principles and rules of international law”.[20] The ICJ, on the basis of this question, observed that the “very essence” of the dispute was the “entitlement of those Greek islands to continental shelf.”[21] This was, however, an “essence” only for the purpose of jurisdiction as the initial stage of the case concerned the jurisdiction of the Court only. The Court with this observation was trying to ascertain whether the continental shelf rights were related to the “territorial status of Greece” for jurisdictional purposes.

The second question was “what is ‘the course of the boundary (or boundaries) between the portions of the continental shelf appertaining to Greece and Turkey in the Aegean Sea in accordance with the principles and rules of international law’.”[22] In fact, this question summed up the dispute as a whole and demonstrated that even according to Greece, the delimitation did not only concern the areas between certain Greek islands and Turkey, but also the Aegean Sea as a whole.

In addition to these deliberation, the other claims of both parties as to the relevant circumstances show that the Aegean Sea as a whole is relevant to delimitation. Greece refers to many factors that are related, not only to the disputed portion of the Aegean Sea but also to the Aegean Sea as a whole, such as the consideration of its entire Aegean coastline. Similarly, Turkey insists on an equidistant line between the mainlands that calls the whole of the Aegean Sea into consideration.[23]

Other than the parties’ arguments, the observations as to the principle of proportionality in Part V suggest that the Aegean Sea as a whole is relevant to the delimitation between Greece and Turkey. The principle requires that whole of the Aegean Sea be taken into account to determine the equity of delimitation result.

The UK-France Arbitration constitutes a precedent in this regard due to its similarities. In that case, the location of the islands had similarities with the location of some of the Aegean islands. As far as the Channel Islands region was concerned, the area in dispute could be restricted to the area around the Channel Islands as the arguments of both sides concerned only that area.[24] The Tribunal in that case did not approve the words that it should decide “the course of the boundary (or boundaries) between the portions of the continental shelf appertaining to the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands and to the French Republic respectively”. The Tribunal clearly observed that the delimitation was not between these islands and France, but between the UK and France as a whole.[25] Otherwise, it would lead to the separation of Channel Islands from the British Isles as if they were separate political units.

The above facts indicate that, for the delimitation in the Aegean Sea, it is not only the area in dispute but the Aegean Sea as a whole which is relevant. There is no need to define the Aegean Sea in precise terms for this purpose.[26] There is, however, a problem to be addressed in this context. In the southern Aegean Sea, two States on the North African coasts, namely Libya and Egypt, have a potential title to certain areas as the distance between Greece and Turkey on the one hand and these countries on the other is less than 400 miles. In accordance with the judgments that addressed the similar situations previously,[27] the coastlines of these two States projecting towards the Aegean Sea should be taken as relevant in establishment of the provisional delimitation line between Greece and Turkey on the one hand and Libya and Egypt on the other.[28]

2.2. The relevant coasts

The next problem in the Aegean maritime delimitation is related to the above. It is whether all the coastlines of the two States within the delimitation area, or only some of them, would be relevant to the delimitation. As already noted, they could be taken into account in order to establish the coastal lengths which determine whether the coastal lengths of the two States are significantly different, so as to constitute a relevant factor, and the ratios for the purpose of the proportionality.[29]

Certain principles for the settlement of such issues have already been identified on the basis of the principles flown from the delimitation judgments.[30] Firstly, coastal areas wider than the relevant coasts could be taken into account for the purpose of the proportionality test. Therefore, coastal lengths for the proportionality test could be longer than those that are taken as relevant to the delimitation.

Within the context of the Aegean Sea, the controversial issue is whether the coasts of the Aegean islands will be included into the calculation of Greece’s relevant coastal length.[31] The following question is whether the coasts of these islands should be taken into the calculation for the purpose of the proportionality test.

Coastal lengths for the purpose of the proportionality test in the Aegean Sea, will be considered later.[32] As far as the coastlines to be taken into account as relevant for the delimitation process are concerned, it is not possible to refer to any specific principle other than a general principle which provides that it depends on the circumstances of both the delimitation area and the islands with a view to equitable delimitation. According to the idea of equity, it does not seem to be appropriate to include all the Aegean islands into the calculation. These islands at this stage are yet to be assigned any role within the delimitation process. They should not therefore be included at the outset into the calculation of the coastal lengths.

3. A Sectoral Approach to the Aegean Maritime Delimitation

The complexity of the Aegean geography should be obvious from Part I.[33] It contains both places where the coastal relations of the two States are different and areas where there are many islands situated densely. As pointed out earlier, such cases could be delimited with a sectoral approach for an equitable result.[34]

The geographical circumstances and coastal relations are divergent in three separate Aegean sectors so as to call for the application of different delimitation methods. Firstly, unlike other parts of the Aegean Sea, the mainland coasts are adjacent in the north where the land boundary terminates at the sea. Their coasts are adjacent to a certain point in the northern sector. On the other hand, this part is relatively island-free compared to the southern Aegean Sea.[35]

The remaining part of the Aegean Sea should be considered as two separate sectors. The first is the central Aegean Sea that lies between the 38^th and 39^th latitudes. The coastal relation of the parties in this sector seems to be perfectly opposite one other, which is disturbed slightly by certain coastal features. Similar to the northern Aegean Sea, there are only a few islands in this region.

The final sector is the southern Aegean Sea that lies southward from the 38^th latitude. The coasts of the two States are mostly opposite. However, it also represents a different pattern of coastal relation between the mainlands. The coasts become quasi-adjacent beyond a certain point in this section. This region also has many more islands when it is compared to the other two sectors. Moreover, the biggest Greek island in the Aegean, Crete, is located in this sector in an exceptional position so as to mark the border between the Aegean Sea and the rest of the Mediterranean.[36]

Therefore, for a better assessment of the relevant factors with a view to an equitable delimitation in the Aegean delimitation process, it is necessary to consider the Aegean Sea in these separate sectors. As a reflection of the principle identified previously, the consideration in three separate sectors does not mean to separate them completely. These three sectors will still be taken together at least for the purpose of proportionality calculation.[37]

B. Equitable Delimitation in the Aegean Sea

It is essential to note at the outset that the principles that represent the geography of the Aegean Sea establish the initial delimitation line as in any other delimitation process. Two points are quite significant in this respect. Firstly, by the term “the geography of the Aegean Sea”, it is meant the coastal geography of the mainlands of Greece and Turkey, as approved in the delimitation law.[38] Examination here will initially exclude the islands from consideration in order to establish the main, but provisional, delimitation line. Secondly, the initial line will be evaluated with reference to the other factors including islands in order to arrive at an equitable delimitation.[39]

1. Delimitation Based on the Aegean Coastal Geography

The situation in the Aegean Sea is mostly one of oppositeness thus calling for an establishment of a median line between the mainlands of the two sides. One issue has to be explained at the outset. Within the special context of the Aegean Sea the existence of the different baseline systems of Greece and Turkey has potential to cause a problem. The situation was similar in the Guinea-Guinea Bissau Arbitration. Although the parties presented sufficient information as to their baselines, the Tribunal observed that it was not a “direct concern of the Tribunal”.[40] This is why the ICJ in the Tunisia-Libya Case observed that the continental shelf begins, for the purpose of delimitation, from the outer limit of the territorial sea.[41] Thus, the courts are not in a position to consider the baselines other than the delimitation of the continental shelf.

The fundamental question therefore remains to be whether there is any markedly distinctive geographical feature that renders the median line inequitable even as the initial line. Three separate sectors of the Aegean Sea will be considered to discover whether there are any such geographical factors.

1.1. The northern Aegean Sea

The Greek-Turkish land boundary terminates in the mouth of the River Evros (Meriç) in the northeast Aegean Sea. The coasts of the two countries are adjacent to a certain point from the land boundary terminus. Moreover, whole the northern coasts belong to Greece. The coasts of the two States are not, however, only adjacent but also opposite beyond a certain point if the northern shores of Greece are also considered in this particular sector.[42]

According to these geographical facts, the delimitation line for the continental shelf and the EEZ between Greece and Turkey should start until a point where the land boundary terminates at the shore.[43] The maritime boundary for the territorial sea has already been determined between the two countries when the breadth of the territorial sea was 3 miles.[44] However, the two States disagree on the maritime boundary that would separate the respective territorial waters beyond three miles. For our purpose, it seems appropriate to start the delimitation line where the previously determined line ends at 3-mile distance.

The angle of the delimitation line that starts at the adjacent territorial sea limit should not be equidistant between the mainlands in this sector, which would deny one of the most significant geographical factors, namely the northern coasts of Greece. Greece has a longer coastline than Turkey in this sector. Speaking in legal terms, this difference in the coastal lengths should be taken to constitute a special circumstance.[45] Accordingly, the delimitation line should be fixed closer to Turkey to allow more maritime areas to Greece in this particular sector.[46]

It is possible to see similar cases in practice. A situation similar to this was handled in the Gulf of Maine Case. The coasts of the parties were adjacent in the inner section of the Gulf of Maine,[47] however the American coastline was longer than Canada’s within this part, which, like the northern coast of Greece, faced almost all of the delimitation area. The Chamber accepted that the delimitation line would be a line perpendicular to the coast at the land boundary, but would not be perpendicular to the general direction of the coast.[48] The Chamber observed that the difference in the coastal length was a “special circumstance of some weight” which, in the Chamber’s view, justified the correction of the provisional delimitation line in order to allow more maritime area to the USA.[49]

For the Aegean Sea, in addition to the principle respecting coastal lengths, the principle of non-encroachment necessitates that the delimitation line be located closer to the Turkish coast. This principle, which again respects the coastal geography,[50] requires that the Greek coastline surrounding most of the northern Aegean Sea has to be respected. An equidistant line in this part would cut off the projection of the Greek coastline. Therefore, the continental shelf or EEZ of Turkey should be located closer to the Turkish mainland.[51]

The course of the delimitation boundary in the northern Aegean Sea should not always be located closer to Turkish mainland coast however. The effect of the Greek coastline in the north should cease at a point where the northern coasts of Greece have been sufficiently respected. This point should be approximately a mid-way in the sector from north to south.

It seems that the coastal configurations of both countries beyond this point indicates that the delimitation line should gradually become a median line between the two mainlands. Without the effect of the islands in the region, as we assume for the moment, the Greek coasts in the western part of this region have, in general, a concave shape having only one area stretching into the sea. This is the Khalkidhiki Peninsula that separates the Gulf of Strimonikos and the Gulf of Thermaikos. Although a straight median line could be drawn between the mainlands, the effect of this stretch could push the straight median line closer to the Turkish coast in that particular section of the delimitation line. The opposing Turkish coast, the Biga Peninsula, is a similar configuration. Thus, the effect of these features seems to be as an “off-set”.[52] The delimitation line will still be a straight median line that would leave equal maritime areas in this particular area.

The Greek mainland coast has one more geographical feature to be considered in this region. The already mentioned stretch on the Greek coast possesses three finger-shaped features that lie even further towards the sea, up to a total distance of 50 miles from the coast.[53] If these features are given full-effect, the delimitation line will be located much closer to the Turkish mainland. The geographical features classified as the “slightest irregularities” by the ICJ in the North Sea Cases seem to be such minor features which produce a disproportionate effect on the delimitation when compared to their presence within the whole geographical context.[54] They are quite narrow, finger-shaped features with no significant presence in the geographical context. Giving full or any limited effect to them would seem to cause a “magnified” and thus “inequitable” effect on the delimitation line. They should therefore be ignored.

Greece does not, as seen, apply straight baselines that could have closed their foremost points. Even if it were so, they should still be ignored for the sake of an equitable delimitation. Consequently, the delimitation line will, in the northern sector, favor Greece due to its longer coastlines.[55]

1.2. The central Aegean Sea

Continuing to assume that the islands, including Evvia which is the second largest Greek island in the Aegean, do not exist, the central section of the Aegean Sea represents a simple geographical scene due to the fact that the mainland coasts of Greece and Turkey are simply opposite each other in this sector. In any delimitation case, such a situation clearly calls for the application of the most equidistant method as the equitable delimitation method.[56]

The coastlines of both States demonstrate a special pattern in this sector. Generally speaking, the Greek coastline deviates from its general direction in the northern section of this sector. The coast becomes convex so as to lie closer to the Turkish mainland. On the other hand, the coast of the Turkish mainland similarly changes direction inwards towards the Turkish mainland.

As the coastlines of both States change course in the same direction, the distance between them stays the same. Accordingly, the delimitation line will still be equidistant from the mainlands allowing equal maritime areas to both countries.

Some other coastal features of the sector suggest a similar deviation on the equidistant delimitation line. If the general direction of the Turkish coast is taken, a protuberance on the Turkish coast, i.e. the İzmir Peninsula, deviates and stretches into the Aegean Sea as far as 40-50 miles from the general direction. Giving a full-effect to this protuberance would certainly replace the equidistant line with a line much closer to the Greek mainland in that particular section.

However, almost opposite the İzmir Peninsula, the Greek coast bends inwards, if the island of Evvia is totally disregarded. These features are positioned so as to create a “broadly offset effect”.[57] Taking these factors into account is necessary and does not create a delimitation line different from the equidistant line. It only changes the line’s direction.[58]

Therefore, in the middle sector of the Aegean Sea, the delimitation line will simply be an equidistant line in accordance with the geographical framework in which the coastlines are opposite and comparable in length.[59] There is no geographical feature that would suggest a significant deviation. The geographical features on both sides of the coastlines can only cause the equidistant line to veer to one side or another without making it other than a roughly equidistant line between the mainlands.

1.3. The southern Aegean Sea

The coastlines of Greece and Turkey are still opposite each other in most of the southern Aegean Sea. The most striking coastal feature in this region is that the mainland coasts of Greece and Turkey change their course in opposite directions. While the Greek coast turns westward in its general direction along the Peloponisos peninsula, the Turkish coast turns eastward so as to create the widest part in the Aegean Sea. This is not however something which necessitates a departure from the application of the equidistant method in this particular section.

Among other coastal features which deserve to be considered here is Greece’s Lavrion Peninsula. However, even if it were given full-effect, the result would not be other than an equidistant line between the mainlands simply because the Turkish mainland coast runs eastwards so as to compensate for the effect of the Lavrion Peninsula.[60]

The other significant feature is the coastal relationship between the mainlands. The mainland coastlines of both countries cease to be opposite in the south of the 37^th latitude and face the Mediterranean rather than each other. This means that their coasts become adjacent or quasi-adjacent, thus relevant to the determination of the delimitation line in this part of the Mediterranean.[61]

In the absence of islands in this section, the situation is quite similar to one that was dealt with by the Arbitration Court in the UK-France Arbitration. In the Atlantic region, the coasts of the parties were in a similar relationship. The Court eventually ruled that the equitable delimitation line was the one equidistant from the mainlands.

The problem in this sector of the Aegean Sea is how far the delimitation line should go southward. It has already been noted when dealing with the relevant delimitation area that Libya and Egypt on the North African coasts have a potential title to some parts in the southern Aegean Sea. Thus, the coastlines of these countries become relevant to the delimitation in the Aegean Sea. If the island of Crete is taken into account, such a delimitation would be between these countries and Greece for the delimitation in the Mediterranean Sea. Therefore, it does not directly concern the delimitation in the Aegean Sea.[62]

As far as determining a point where the delimitation line will end, it seems appropriate that the delimitation line could be determined at around a point that is equidistant from all these countries concerned.[63] Such a point does not seem to encroach upon any possible claims of the countries on the North African coast, as required by the principles determined in the case-law.

2. The Effect of the Aegean Islands

If the Aegean Sea were a sea with no islands as assumed above, the delimitation of the continental shelf and the EEZ would be, as seen above, relatively simple. The above review has shown that the delimitation line would roughly be an equidistant line in the two sectors of the whole delimitation area. Only in the northern Aegean Sea, would Greece have a wider maritime area than Turkey on the basis of the geographical facts that characterize the area.

Such a simple delimitation process does not, however, reflect the real geographical circumstances of the Aegean Sea. In reality, there are more than 3,000 islands, islets and rocks scattered all around the sea, This makes the Aegean Sea an extremely difficult case for maritime delimitation.[64] The situation becomes even more complicated as most of these islands and islets belong to only one party, Greece. Although considered secondary to the coastal geography of the mainlands, the islands should be taken into account to ensure that the delimitation indicated by the coastal geography is truly an equitable one.[65]

2.1. Basis observations on the role of the Aegean islands

In the light of principles which have already been identified as to the role of islands within delimitation process,[66] they constitute, for delimitation purposes, certain groups according to both their location and other relevant characteristics. Some of these could only have a limited role to play or no role at all.

It is a rule of law that if “low-tide elevations” are situated close to the mainland, they could only be considered as elements relevant to the establishment of baselines. Others which are not close to mainland neither generate maritime areas nor affect the establishment of baselines.[67] They should not accordingly play any significant role in the delimitation of the continental shelf and/or EEZ, other than constituting base points for the measurement.[68]

Such low-tide elevations in the Aegean Sea, whose number could well be in thousands, are therefore ineffective on the delimitation line. Only those that are situated nearer to mainlands could be taken into account as basepoints from which the continental shelf and EEZ could be measured.

On the other hand, even some “high-tide elevations” that are entitled to their own territorial waters are not entitled to their own continental shelf and EEZ areas. It is a rule of both conventional and customary law that rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no continental shelf or EEZ.[69] However, such islands could still be considered as basepoints for the purpose of the delimitation of the continental shelf and EEZ, if there are situated inside the territorial sea of one country.[70]

There are thousands of rocks in the Aegean Sea which fall within this definition. They are simply rocks “that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own”. Accordingly, such elevations in the Aegean Sea should be totally disregarded from the delimitation process. Only those that are close to the mainland should constitute relevant basepoints.

Many such rocks that are situated in the vicinity of the Turkish mainland coasts are subject of a sovereignty dispute between Greece and Turkey.[71] However, since these features do not play any role even as base points, the issue of sovereignty is irrelevant to the delimitation in hand.

As a result, a considerable number of low tide elevations and some of high-tide elevations, i.e. islands, of Greece and Turkey should be excluded from the considerations within the delimitation process. Only those that could be regarded as “major” islands ought to be considered as significant in shaping the delimitation line in accordance with their location and other relevant characteristics.[72]

2.2. The coastal islands in the Aegean

In all the three sectors of the delimitation area Greece has coastal islands which are situated close to its mainland coasts. The northern Aegean Sea has only two such islands.[73] One of those, the island of Thassos, is situated very close to the Greek northern mainland coast, some part of which is situated inside the Greek territorial sea. In the south of this particular region, only one among a group of eight islands, Repi, could be regarded as a coastal island which is situated within the mainland’s territorial sea. In the central Aegean Sea, Evvia is the only major coastal island that lies alongside the Greek mainland. It lies so close that it could in fact be regarded as an integral part of the mainland. In the southern Aegean Sea, the number of the Greek islands is much higher. It is not easy to give an accurate number. At least nine such islands can be enumerated as they are situated either within the bays of the mainland coast or the territorial sea.[74]

As in the previous delimitation cases, the situation in the Aegean Sea poses the same question whether the effect of the coastal islands will have an inequitable effect on the delimitation line between the mainlands if they are accorded any effect. Based on the fact that they are situated very close to mainland, coastal islands have only been regarded as constituting basepoints in establishing the general direction or the coastal length of mainland coasts.[75] In some cases, they were only allowed to carry a partial effect, rather than full-effect.[76]

In the Aegean Sea, if the Greek islands are allowed to transfer the coastal line as far as their location, it will considerably restrict the maritime areas to be attributed to Turkey.[77] The inequity of such an effect is clear. As a result of even the median line delimitation that has been suggested above,[78] Turkey would not have maritime areas equal to those of Greece. Turkey would have a much smaller continental shelf and EEZ areas due to the already existing territorial waters of the Greek islands. This suggests that the coastal islands should be ignored for an equitable delimitation unless they are situated so close to the Greek mainland that they would not have a considerable effect as basepoints for the measurements.

Analogies supporting this contention could be made between the Aegean Sea and some previous cases. A clear analogy is between the Tunisian coastal islands of Kerkennah and Jerba in the Tunisia-Libya Case[79] and the Greek coastal islands of Thassos and Repi in the Northern Aegean Sea. The locations of these islands are similar in the sense that they bear on a delimitation line between coasts which are both adjacent to and opposite each other.[80] Moreover, these islands would similarly change the course of the delimitation line so as to attribute significantly more maritime areas to the mainland.

The way in which these Tunisian islands were considered and given an effect was by using them as basepoints. However, their effect was partial.[81] According to the Court, giving full-effect to these coastal islands would increase much further the effect of the Tunisian projection onto that of Libya and would thus be “excessive”.[82] Rather than shifting that line as far as their presence, they only shifted the line in a partial manner. Thus, the baseline did not pass over them but between the mainland and these islands.[83] On the other hand, the Court hardly attributed any role to the Tunisian island of Jerba which was almost touching its own coast. According to the Court “in the part of the area to be delimited in which the island of Jerba would be relevant, there are other considerations which prevail over the effect of its presence”.[84]

There was a similar situation in the Guinea-Guinea Bissau Arbitration where islands were situated just off the mainlands.[85] The difference in the Arbitration was the fact that Guinea and Guinea-Bissau were situated as adjacent States. The Tribunal considered the coastal islands only in the calculation of the coastal length for the purpose of proportionality.[86] Rather than affecting the calculation of the coastal length in a full manner, they played a limited role even for this purpose.[87] The Tribunal observed that other considerations, mainly those related to the mainlands were prevalent over their presence.

An analogy between the Greek coastal islands in the southern Aegean Sea and situations in some other previous cases is also possible. The first is the Gulf of Maine Case in which the Canadian coastal island of Seal (with its neighbor Mud island) is a small one (2.5 miles long) inhabited all the year and is situated nine miles inside the closing line of the Gulf of Maine.[88]

As in other cases, the Chamber of the ICJ did not give the island of Seal a continental shelf and fisheries zone of its own. However, it considered that Seal island could not be disregarded for the present purpose on the basis of its “dimensions and, more particularly, of its geographical position”.[89] The Chamber considered the island only in the calculation of the proportionality ratios. In this context, they were not attributed full-effect but only “half-effect” in the determination of these ratios.[90] Another similar case was the Libya-Malta Case where a Maltese coastal island was situated just off the mainland coast. The ICJ considered the island as a “minor feature” within the whole setting of the Mediterranean. Accordingly the Court disregarded it altogether in the delimitation process.[91]

The similarity between the coastal islands in the Aegean Sea and those in the Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration is quite considerable in terms of their location and number. Even the arguments of the parties are significantly similar.[92] The Tribunal did not take into account the coastal islands to the south of the delimitation area so as to confirm a similar way of handling the coastal islands in the Aegean Sea.[93] However, the Tribunal included the coastal islands of Eritrea and Yemen to the north of the delimitation area into the establishment of the baselines of both countries from which the delimitation line was to be measured. The Tribunal acted accordingly because both parties accepted that at least the coastal islands of Eritrea constituted part of the mainland coasts.[94]

Among the coastal islands of Greece, Thassos and Evvia are distinct as they are larger and more populated than the others. These are the elements that could play a positive role in considering the effect of islands.[95] As far as Thassos is concerned, allowing it either a full or limited-effect has an “excessive” result on the delimitation line due to its location. As already noted, the indicated delimitation line between the mainlands is already closer to Turkey due to the longer coastlines of Greece in this sector. Moreover, Turkey has even more restricted continental shelf or EEZ areas in this sector due to the already existing territorial waters of the Greek islands under the current 6-mile limit. It seems that there could not be any justification to restrict even further the maritime areas of Turkey in this sector, as it would result in no maritime areas for Turkey at all.

There is another reason to ignore the island of Thassos altogether. The Turkish coastal island of Bozcaada is located almost on the opposite side of Thassos so by ignoring them both the delimitation line can be left unchanged in this particular section. Although there was a similar situation in the UK-France Arbitration and the Tribunal gave certain effect to such islands,[96] the situation in the Aegean is different in the sense that the islands in the UK-France Arbitration were also projecting towards the Atlantic and did not create such dramatic effects.

As far as the island of Evvia is concerned, no such result will appear if it is given a certain effect in the central Aegean Sea. There will be no such significant decrease in the maritime areas of Turkey under the delimitation line suggested by the mainlands. This is due to the fact that unlike the northern sector, the delimitation line in this sector is a median line. This means that the reduction in the Turkish maritime areas would not be considerable. Moreover, Evvia could consequently be given full-effect as the second biggest island in the Aegean Sea and an integral part of the Greek mainland coast.

The location of the island of Kithira in the south-west Aegean Sea is similar. The island constitutes an integral part of the mainland coast. It does not however cause any diversion in the course of the delimitation line in the case of its full-effect. It only establishes a useful point for the establishment of the equidistant line between the mainlands.[97]

2.3. Other Greek islands nearer to its mainland

Some of the Greek islands are located not so close to its mainland but still closer to the Greek mainland than to the Turkish mainland. Such islands are found in all three sectors. Seven major islands are so situated in the northern Aegean Sea.[98] The island of Samothrace is very close to the indicated delimitation line. Six other islands seem to constitute a group as they are close to each other and within distance of 50 miles from the Greek mainland. In the central Aegean Sea, there is only one island that could be regarded as being similarly situated. This is the island of Skiros that is located about 50 miles off mainland Greece.

The southern Aegean Sea accommodates an enormous number of such islands that cover the whole area from the mainland to the delimitation line identified above. These islands constitute almost the entire group of the Cyclades. The largest island in the Aegean Sea, namely Crete, should also be considered as being similarly located. Turkey has only one such island, the island of Gökçeada which is situated at a distance of about 10 miles off the Turkish mainland in the northern Aegean Sea.

All above mentioned Greek islands have one thing in common. If they are considered on the same basis as the Turkish mainland, the delimitation line would be decided between these Greek islands and the Turkish mainland in all three sectors. The southern Aegean Sea in particular presents an even more striking situation as the number of such islands is much higher. This means that, eventually, the delimitation line that we have established on the basis of mainland coasts would be transferred to the limit of the Turkish territorial waters.

In this situation, Turkey would not have any significant continental shelf and EEZ areas in the entire Aegean Sea. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, these Greek islands are located very close to the median line between the mainlands, they will reduce significantly the Turkish continental shelf and EEZ attributed by the delimitation line suggested by the mainlands only. Secondly, all these islands and the other Greek islands[99] have their own territorial sea, which restricts the continental shelf/EEZ areas to be left to Turkey.[100]

Therefore, in order to reach an equitable result, there seems to be no other solution than to ignore all these Greek islands. It could, however, be suggested that half or restricted effects could be the equitable solution. It should be noted that even if they were given restricted effect, the result for Turkey would not be less dramatic than that of full-effect. Any reduction in the already restricted Turkish continental shelf/EEZ areas by the effect of islands, would be quite significantly adverse for Turkey. It seems that the equitable principle would be more respected when these islands are not given any maritime areas beyond their own territorial waters.

Some of these Greek islands may still be justified by the delimitation principles to have at least limited areas of continental shelf and EEZ of their own on the basis of their relatively large size and socio-economic significance. Such islands include Skiros, Andros, Tinos, Naxos, Paros, Karpathos and Crete, as they are relatively larger and more populated. As far as islands other than Crete are concerned, considerations relevant to the mainlands should prevail over their size and socio-economic significance. They should not be allowed to restrict dramatically the continental shelf and EEZ of a mainland country such as Turkey, just because they are relatively larger and more populated than others.[101]

The award of the Tribunal in the Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration confirms this fact.[102] Although giving them a limited effect would not have a considerable effect to the extent as would be the case in the Aegean Sea, the Tribunal simply disregarded all the islands situated in the mid-sea, namely the island of Jabal al-Tayr and the Zubayr group. The Yemeni islands are no less sizeable than the islands of Greece which are situated in the mid-section of the Aegean Sea.[103]

Another example is the Guinea-Guinea Bissau Arbitration in which the islands of Alcatraz was situated very close to the delimitation line that had previously been indicated by the Tribunal. The Tribunal would not allow the Alcatraz group to distort the line indicated by the coasts of the two countries. An enclave solution seemed to be regarded as better suited, the size of which depended on the characteristics of the islands. The Tribunal gave only a 12 miles territorial sea to the Alcatraz group, but no continental shelf to its north.[104]

The island of Crete needs to be given further consideration as it is the largest and most populated island of the Aegean Sea. It is also significant in terms of location.[105] It is not located between the mainland of both parties. It is located in an area where the mainland coasts of both States are rather adjacent to each other. It projects not only towards the Aegean Sea but also towards the rest of the Mediterranean. Its projection towards the north and northeast meets with that of the Turkish mainland.

If considered equally with the Turkish mainland, its effect on the delimitation line is no different from the effect of all the other islands considered above. However, granting Crete a limited effect on the delimitation line does not have a disproportionate effect on the basis of its size and significance. The delimitation line between the mainlands of Greece and Turkey should deviate from the equidistant line to allow some continental shelf and EEZ areas to Crete. How far the line should deviate from the equidistant line could ultimately be decided by the two States or by a third party.[106]

2.4. The islands on the “wrong side”

The islands on the “wrong side”[107] in the Aegean Sea are the Greek islands that are closer to Turkey than to Greece. They are to the east of the median line between the mainlands.[108]

Generally speaking, the islands situated on the “wrong side” can be divided into two separate groups in terms of their location.[109] Some of them are situated closer to or on the median line rather than the Turkish mainland. There are such islands in all three sectors but the northern and southern Aegean have more islands in this category than the others.[110] Secondly, most of these islands are situated very close to the Turkish mainland so that they could have been considered as Turkish coastal islands, had they belonged to Turkey. Many of them like Lesvos in the northern Aegean Sea, Chios in the mid-Aegean Sea, and Samos, Kos, and Rhodes in the southern Aegean Sea are major islands.[111]

It does not matter if they are situated closer to the median line or to the mainland of Turkey, the results of their full or limited effect on the delimitation line between the mainlands are quite similar to the islands considered in the previous sections. Similarly, the islands on the wrong side have a potential to reduce the delimitation line of the continental shelf and EEZ of Turkey to the limit of its territorial sea. It is not surprising that the reasons are exactly the same. They have territorial waters restricting the areas to be delimited as the continental shelf and EEZ. In the south-east Aegean Sea, where the group of Greek islands, the Dodecanese, is situated there is hardly any maritime areas left to be delimited as continental shelf or EEZ even under the current 6-mile territorial sea limit.[112]

If these Greek islands are given full or limited effect, Turkey will be able to have some continental shelf/EEZ areas beyond its territorial sea only in the northern Aegean Sea. In this region, the continental shelf and EEZ areas of Turkey will stretch in the form of short fingers between the Greek islands of Limnos and Lesvos.[113]

In accordance with these facts, the delimitation process in the Aegean Sea cannot allow any continental shelf/EEZ areas to be given to islands on the wrong side, if Turkey is to be given any continental shelf and EEZ areas in the entire Aegean Sea.[114] It should be emphasized again that islands cannot prevail over the considerations that are related to the mainlands.[115]

Moreover, the principle of non-encroachment or coastal projection necessitates that the projection of mainlands should be respected as much as possible.[116] Allowing the Greek islands on the wrong side to have any continental shelf/EEZ beyond the limit of their territorial waters would significantly cut off the projection of the Turkish mainland in all sectors. This cannot be justified by any delimitation principle.[117]

The previous judicial cases in which there were similarities to the situation in the Aegean Sea confirm furthermore, that these islands in the Aegean Sea should be considered with restraint. The situation in the UK-France Arbitration was quite similar. Secondly and more importantly, the location of these islands in these cases was not exactly the same. The islands in both cases are situated on the wrong side and are quite close to the mainland of another State. Moreover, the coasts of the two countries in the UK-France Arbitration were opposite each other as are the coasts of Greece and Turkey in most parts of the Aegean Sea. Even the related arguments of the parties in the UK-France Arbitration as to the Channel Islands were quite similar to those of Greece and Turkey.[118]

The situation was well addressed by the Arbitration Court with reference to the customary law of delimitation. The Tribunal had the mainlands of the two countries in mind when conducting delimitation. As to islands so situated, the Court indicated that their geographical location runs against the continental shelf area that they would be attributed.[119] It pointed to a balance between the mainlands and did not allow these islands to disturb that balance significantly.[120] Even if the full-effect of the Channel Islands did not affect the delimitation between the mainlands as much as the Greek islands do in the Aegean Sea, the Tribunal gave them only a limited effect. It gave a 12-mile continental shelf to the Islands.

However, the size and socio-economic significance may necessitate granting certain effect to the islands situated on the wrong side in the Aegean Sea.[121] It seems in accordance with judicial precedents that characteristics such as location and socio-economic features of islands forced the courts in previous cases to allow them at least a limited maritime area. This may suggest that some major islands in the eastern Aegean Sea, such as Limnos, Chios, Samos, Kos and Rhodes which have a considerable population and economic life, should be given at least limited effect.

With the position that the Tribunal gave 12 miles continental shelf to the Channel Islands, First of all, French continental shelf should not encroach upon the already declared 12-mile fishery zone of these islands.[122] Secondly, they had many characteristics which differentiated them from the “rocks or small islands”. They were “possessing a considerable population and a substantial agricultural and commercial economy”. Moreover, they were clearly territorial and political units having their own rights separate from the United Kingdom and enjoying “a very large measure of political, legislative, administrative and economic autonomy”.[123] The Tribunal also observed that the exact weight that islands should be given depended on the individual characteristics of a case. The peculiar characteristics of the Channel Islands within the context of the delimitation necessitated the attribution of some maritime areas. Accordingly, the Court indicated a “secondary boundary” separating the continental shelf of the Channel Islands in the southern section of the mid-Channel line.

In the Canada-France Arbitration where overseas French islands in the vicinity of the Canadian coast were considered, the Tribunal did not leave these islands without any effect. These French islands could be regarded as situated on the wrong side as they were situated very near to the Canadian coast.[124] The Tribunal observed that the specific Canadian proposal of an enclave was not equitable because it denied the islands any maritime area beyond their territorial sea.[125]

The circumstances of the Aegean Sea are, however, quite different. First of all, the consequences of allowing any effect to the Greek islands are much more catastrophic for the other party than in any such previous cases. Secondly, some of the Greek islands in the Aegean Sea are not so isolated, in terms of size and population, to depend on their own continental/EEZ areas.[126] Moreover, they have considerable and sufficient maritime areas as their territorial waters.[127] Finally, in the case where all such Greece islands are ignored altogether, Greece would still have more continental shelf/EEZ areas than those of Turkey. This does not include its territorial waters which already cover almost half of the whole Aegean Sea under the current 6-mile limit.

C. Other Relevant Considerations

It has been made quite clear so far in the present study that in order to arrive at an equitable delimitation, it is essential that all the relevant factors be considered.[128] The relevant factors are not restricted to geographical considerations. Many other factors such as sea-bed features and resource-related factors need to be taken into account. The remaining sections of Part VI will accordingly consider whether the delimitation line suggested above needs to be adjusted on the basis of these factors.

1. The Effect of Sea-Bed Features in the Aegean Sea

There were suggestions in the early delimitation judgments that as long as they were identifiable, the continental shelf area of one State in the geomorphological sense should not be cut off by the continental shelf of another.[129] Having considered the sea-bed structure of the Aegean Sea,[130] Turkey once argued that since the Greek islands in the eastern Aegean Sea are situated on the natural prolongation of the Turkish mainland, they could not possibly have a continental shelf of their own.[131]

However, as already seen, within a delimitation process, sea-bed features have become less important in determining the delimitation line that is shaped by the coastal geography.[132] It has also been noted that in areas where the distance is less than 400 miles between two opposite coasts, the role of sea-bed features is further restricted by the principle of distance.[133]

The outer limit of the continental shelf of one party in the Aegean Sea could not possibly be beyond or even close to 200 miles. In such restricted areas, the relevance of sea-bed features will be very limited. Moreover, if a single delimitation for both the continental shelf and the EEZ is specifically requested, the sea-bed features which are exclusively related to the continental shelf alone cease to be relevant to the delimitation.[134] The delimitation process in the Aegean Sea may concern not only the delimitation of the continental shelf but also the delimitation of both the continental shelf and the EEZ at the same time. If such a delimitation were specifically requested by the parties, factors such as sea-bed features should be disregarded.[135]

However, if a single delimitation line is not specifically requested, the sea-bed features could still be of certain significance. Assuming that the Greek islands are situated on the natural prolongation of the Turkish mainland, the sea-bed features of the Aegean Sea could be significant in the sense that they could be taken as further support for a delimitation line which is mostly equidistant from the mainlands.[136]

It is not, however, clear whether the eastern Aegean islands of Greece are situated on the natural prolongation of the Turkish mainland. We have noted that there are conflicting views on this. The only relevant sea-bed feature is the Aegean deep trough which runs in an “S” shape through the mid-Aegean Sea from north to south. Alongside the line, there is a limited extent of oceanisation. Moreover, the eastern Aegean islands demonstrate similarities with the Turkish mainland in terms of soil and rock structures,[137]. suggesting separate natural prolongations of the two sides.[138]

Since the controversy over the issue is still a fact,[139] the sea-bed features are too vague to be relied on for the delimitation purpose.[140] It is appropriate to conclude that the sea-bed features have little relevance to the delimitation in the Aegean Sea for all the above reasons. Therefore, the sea-bed features in the Aegean Sea could not be relied on to make any deviation from the delimitation line that is suggested in the present study.

2. The Effect of Resource-Related Factors in the Aegean Sea

The level of the economic development of countries is not relevant to the delimitation of the continental shelf and the EEZ[141] on the basis that it is unpredictable and changeable over time.[142] Natural resources of the area to be delimited and the socio-economic characteristics of both mainlands and islands are, however, factors relevant to the delimitation.[143]

From the Greek perspective, the Aegean Sea has a socio-economic values in two different respects. Firstly, the Sea presents certain interests to Greece as a whole in terms of navigation, transport, and sea-related resources such as fisheries, and mineral resources including petroleum. On the other hand, the Aegean Sea serves the Greek population living on the Aegean islands in terms of their socio-economic livelihood which includes fisheries.[144]

From Turkey’s perspective, the Aegean Sea is similarly significant for both the country as a whole and the population living on the mainland coast which surrounds the Aegean Sea.[145] It is significant for the country in terms of its natural resources as well as for commercial purposes such as navigation. Similarly, the population living on Turkey’s Aegean coastline is dependent on the natural resources, especially the fisheries.[146]

It is therefore appropriate to note that the interests of both countries in the Aegean Sea are quite similar. They both use the Aegean Sea for economic reasons such as fishing, extracting other natural resources and exploiting commercial interests such as navigation.

However, the fact that Greece possesses many islands does not make this country more dependent on the Aegean Sea The number of Greek islands is much higher but the Turkish population which is dependent on the Aegean Sea is not less than that of Greece.[147]

In the Jan Mayen Case, the issue of natural resources actually affected the delimitation line. In the delimitation area, there was only one area which was particularly rich and significant in terms of fish resources.[148] The Court contemplated whether it should shift or adjust “the line, as a fishery zone boundary…to ensure equitable access to the capelin fishery resources for the vulnerable fishing communities concerned.”[149] The Court, by depending on the relatively stable nature of capelin stocks, ruled that the initial line was too far to the west for Denmark to be assured of equitable access to the capelin stocks, as it attributed to Norway the whole area of overlapping claims. Accordingly, the line was shifted eastwards.[150]

However, the Jan Mayen Case cannot be used as a precedent for the Aegean Sea in this context. It is different from the Aegean Sea since there is an area rich in fish resources and should be accessed equally by the two countries. It seems that the equidistant delimitation line that has been suggested above does not have catastrophic result for the interests of either of the two countries or for their populations living in and around the Aegean Sea. According to the information available, the Aegean Sea does not have any areas which are particularly rich in terms of natural resources.[151] It suggests that a median delimitation line cannot possibly be catastrophic for the economic livelihood of the population, either Greek or Turkish, in the Aegean Sea. According to the information available, the Aegean Sea does not have any areas which are particularly rich in terms of natural resources.[152] It suggests that a median delimitation line cannot possibly be catastrophic for the economic livelihood of the population, either Greek or Turkish, in the Aegean Sea.

The islands of Greece in the Aegean Sea in particular do not significantly depend on fisheries. The populations of these islands are dependent on both agriculture and tourism.[153] Even if the Greek islands were dependent on fisheries, there is no way that the median line would be catastrophic for them. They already have enough sea areas in the form of territorial waters.[154] On the other hand, the median delimitation line would actually increase the maritime areas of the Greek islands to include the whole of the western Aegean Sea, in addition to its territorial waters. Therefore, there could be no justification for an argument that the equidistant delimitation line would be inequitable in the sense of the economic well-being of the population of the Greek islands.

The judgment of the ICJ in the Gulf of Maine Case could be taken as relevant in this context. The Chamber did not change the delimitation line on the basis of fisheries, since factors such as fishing, navigation, defense or petroleum exploration and exploitation would not affect the line catastrophically the “livelihood and economic well-being” of the population of the countries concerned.[155]

It is therefore beyond any doubt that Greek interests in terms of navigation, and transport would not be damaged by a median delimitation line. It should be emphasized again that EEZ and the continental shelf areas, unlike territorial sea, do not interfere with international navigation or many other freedoms offered by the high seas.[156] It has already been concluded that the current 6-mile territorial sea limit in the Aegean Sea is sufficient for Greece as far as navigation in the Aegean is concerned.[157] Therefore, it is difficult to argue that median line delimitation between the mainlands radically changes the existing situation in the Aegean Sea and produces inequity for Greece on the basis of the above facts.

3. The Role of Security Considerations in the Aegean Sea

Considerations other than those related to natural resources and the economic livelihood of the people can be evaluated to see whether there are any gross inequities with the established delimitation line. There are, on the other hand, other factors that must be considered to support the established delimitation line.[158] Among them the security interests of the two countries seem to be a significant factor within the circumstances of the Aegean Sea.

What maritime security means for both Greece and Turkey in the Aegean Sea has already been explained in some details in relation to the territorial sea dispute.[159] For the Turkish side, a narrower maritime area means restricted security on the basis of the fact that Greece has a huge number of militarized islands dispersed all over the Sea.[160] Moreover, the maritime areas for Turkey to maneuver in the Aegean Sea has already been restricted even before the continental shelf and the EEZ are delimited. In this sense, a delimitation that attributes the continental shelf/EEZ of a significant size to Turkey is certainly in the security interests of Turkey. A delimitation line that does not attribute the continental shelf/EEZ to the Greek islands could be regarded by the Greek side as inequitable on the basis of the security considerations. The specific problem for Greece is that the median line that would attribute Turkey areas of continental shelf/EEZ between some Greek islands and the Greek mainland[161] might be an element weakening the security of these Greek islands.

The answer should take into account any security concerns Greece may have in the event of a median delimitation line. Greece and the Greek islands in the Aegean Sea already have sufficient maritime areas for these purposes. First of all, Greece will not be in a situation to have restricted maritime areas for its military activities. Secondly, the continental shelf and the EEZ concepts are, unlike the territorial sea, quite unrelated to security matters. These maritime areas do not affect the security considerations in any significant sense.[162]

Finally, the existence of the Turkish continental shelf/EEZ areas behind the Greek islands could not create a security problem for the Greek islands. Only a few Greek islands in the northern Aegean Sea would have considerable Turkish maritime areas behind them.[163] In any account, the existence of the Turkish continental shelf or the EEZ in such areas does not cut the maritime connection of these islands to the mainland Greece.[164] Therefore, it is not justified to argue that the security of the Greek islands would be threatened by an equidistant delimitation line between the mainlands.

4. Proportionality in the Aegean Sea

The review in Part V has demonstrated that the principle of proportionality is one of the general principles which determine the relative weight to be attributed to various factors within a delimitation process. The principle performs this function by reference to the ratios between the respective coastal lengths of the parties and the maritime areas to be attributed. Accordingly, there should be a proportion between the maritime areas attributed to the parties and their coastlines.[165]

The mainland coasts of Greece and Turkey have already been respected as much as possible during the delimitation process, as required by the delimitation principles. Some coastal configurations are however ignored or given limited effect. Moreover, islands and non-geographical factors have been considered. In the final account, some features have been ignored or attributed limited effect.

Whether all these appreciation have resulted in a gross inequity in the Aegean Sea delimitation might be indicated by the test of proportionality. It does not, however, necessitate establishing an exact match between the maritime areas and coastlines. As already stated, there will otherwise be no room to give any effect to the other relevant factors. It only gives a general idea whether the result is grossly inequitable.[166]

The coastlines in the Aegean Sea as factors relevant to the delimitation have been identified above. It has been noted in the light of applicable principles that the identification of coastal lengths for the purpose of delimitation is a separate task from identifying the relevant coastlines for the purpose of the proportionality.[167]

On the basis of the relevant principles,[168] the mainland coasts of both Greece and Turkey should be relevant to the proportionality test. Secondly, they should be calculated according to their general direction. This means that all the configurations of the coastlines would not be counted. However, there is nothing to suggest in the Aegean Sea that all the coastlines that are relevant to the delimitation should not be included in the calculation for proportionality test.

According to the general direction of the mainland coasts, the length of the two countries’ mainland coasts are almost the same.[169] If every configurations of the mainland coast of both parties is considered, the length of the Turkish coastline is slightly longer.[170]

The problem concerning the establishment of the ratios between the coastlines and the maritime areas for the proportionality test in the Aegean Sea is whether the coasts of the Aegean islands are to be counted. There are in fact two possibilities in the Aegean Sea concerning the proportionality test. The first is to include the coastline of the islands that have affected the delimitation like Evvia and Crete in this calculation. Since the island of Crete affected the delimitation in a limited sense, its coastline should be given a partial role to play.[171] Moreover, as most of its coasts do not face the delimitation area in the Aegean Sea, at least half of its coasts should be excluded from the calculation.[172] In this case, there seems to be no significant difference between the coastal lengths of Greece and Turkey.

The second possibility is to include the coasts of all the Aegean islands into the calculation.[173] The coastal length of the Greek islands is around 8,500 km in total.[174] If the Greek islands are fully taken into account, the ratios would considerably favor Greece. The coastal length of Turkey will, however, stay almost the same.[175]

On the other hand, the calculation of the maritime areas that have been attributed to Greece and Turkey by the suggested delimitation line is a simple one. The calculation of the maritime area that is relevant for the delimitation, i.e. relevant area, is a different process, as has been reviewed.[176] The relevant area in the Aegean Sea has been identified above.[177] All the area that is beyond the territorial and internal waters are relevant waters. It is, however, noted that, in the southern Aegean Sea, the relevant water area ends a point which is equidistant from the coasts of the third parties having possible title.[178]

The high sea areas in the Aegean Sea currently constitute around 48.85% of the whole Sea, 214,000 km² in total. However, according to the relevant principles,[179] the relevant areas is not only the areas beyond the territorial waters and internal waters.[180] Within the circumstances of the Aegean Sea, it is necessary to include all the water space in consideration in order to conduct a fair test of proportionality and thus produce an equitable settlement.

When the ratio between the continental shelf and/or EEZ of the two countries with that of the coastal lengths is compared, the suggested delimitation line should be approved equitable. In this comparison, the coastline of Evvia is taken as a part of Greek mainland coast and Crete’s coastline is included partially.

When the coasts of all the Greek islands in the Aegean Sea and all the maritime areas including the territorial and internal waters are included in the calculation, the result should still be equitable. Currently, Greece has 43.68% of the whole Aegean Sea as its territorial waters, which makes 93,475 km² territorial waters.[181] Around 68% of the whole Aegean Sea, which is 214,000 km², becomes Greece’s maritime areas as a result of the suggested delimitation line. This means that the total Greek maritime areas will be around 145,475 km².

A comparison does not consequently indicate that a gross inequity is created by the delimitation line proposed here. While the mainland coastal lengths of the two States are generally equal excluding most of the Aegean islands, they share the high sea areas of the Aegean Sea almost equally as their respective continental shelf/ EEZ areas. If all the maritime areas are considered, Greece has almost two-thirds of the Aegean Sea as it has a much longer coastline including its islands.[182] They sufficiently indicate that the delimitation line proposed in the present study does not need to be corrected in the final account.