Viele Jahre Streit, auch um einige kleine Insel! Nun soll das See Gericht in Hamburg alle Streitigkeiten regeln.
Der Internationale Seegerichtshof (ISGH; englisch International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS); französisch Tribunal international du droit de la mer (TIDM)) ist ein internationales Gericht, das auf der Grundlage des Seerechtsübereinkommens (SRÜ) der Vereinten Nationen von 10. Dezember 1982 als selbständige Organisation im UN-System tätig ist. Das Übereinkommen trat am 16. November 1994 in Kraft und das ISGH wurde am 1. Oktober 1996 mit Sitz in Hamburg im Stadtteil Nienstedten gegründet.
Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey)
Summary of the Summary of the Judgment of 19 December 1978
AEGEAN SEA CONTINENTAL SHELF CASE
(JURISDICTION OF THE COURT)
Judgment of 19 December 1978
In its judgment on the question of its jurisdiction in the case concerning the Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey), the Court, by 12 votes to 2, found that it is without jurisdiction to entertain the Application filed by the Government of Greece.
The Court was composed as follows: President Jim�nez de Ar�chaga; Vice-President Nagendra Singh; Judges Forster, Gros, Lachs, Dillard, de Castro, Morozov, Sir Humphrey Waldock, Ruda, Mosler, Elias and Tarazi; Judge ad hoc Stassinopoulos.
Of the 12 Members of the Court who voted for the decision, Vice-President Nagendra Singh and Judges Gros, Lachs, Morozov and Tarazi have appended separate opinions or declarations.
Dissenting opinions have been appended to the Judgment by Judge de Castro and Judge ad hoc Stassinopoulos.
Procedure, and Summary of Negotiations (paras. 1-31)
In its Judgment, the Court recalls that on 10 August 1976 Greece instituted proceedings against Turkey in respect of a dispute concerning the delimitation of the continental shelf appertaining to each of the two States in the Aegean Sea and their rights thereover. In a letter of 26 August 1976 Turkey expressed the view that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the Application.
Greece requested the Court to indicate interim measures of protection, but in an Order of 11 September 1976 the Court found that the circumstances were not such as to require them and decided that the written proceedings should first be addressed to the question of its jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. Greece subsequently filed a Memorial and presented oral arguments at public sittings, formally submitting that the Court had such jurisdiction. Turkey did not file any Counter-Memorial and was not represented at the hearings. Its attitude was, however, defined in the above-mentioned letter and in communications addressed to the Court on 24 April and 10 October 1978. (Paras. 1-14.)
While regretting that Turkey did not appear in order to put forward its arguments, the Court points out that it nevertheless had to examine proprio motu the question of its own jurisdiction, a duty reinforced by the terms of Article 53 of its Statute, according to which the Court, whenever a party does not appear, must, before finding upon the merits, satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction. (Para. 15.)
After giving a brief account of the negotiations which have taken place between Greece and Turkey since 1973 on the question of delimiting the continental shelf, the Court finds contrary to suggestions by Turkey, that the active pursuit of negotiations concurrently with the proceedings is not, legally, any obstacle to its exercise of its judicial function, and that a legal dispute exists between Greece and Turkey in respect of the continental shelf in the Aegean Sea. (Paras. 16-31.)
First Basis of Jurisdiction Relied Upon: Article 17 of the General Act of 1928 (paras. 32-93)
In its Application the Greek Government specified two bases on which it claimed to found the jurisdiction of the Court in the dispute. The first was Article 17 of the General Act of 1928 for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, read with Article 36, paragraph 1, and Article 37 of the Statute of the Court.
Article 17 of the General Act reads as follows:
Turkey-EU agreement a challenging one
The move, hailed as a „milestone“ in EU-Turkish relations, comes six weeks after Ankara resumed talks to join the bloc, ending a 40-month freeze.
By Enis Senerdem for Southeast European Times in Istanbul — 19/12/13
Foreign Affairs Minister Ahmet Davutoglu (right) and EU Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom exchange documents during the Turkey-EU readmission agreement signing ceremony in Ankara on Monday (December 16th). [AFP]
Turkey signed a long-awaited deal with the European Union on Monday (December 16th) to readmit people who enter the bloc illegally from its territory in exchange for talks on visa-free travel for its citizens.
However, some experts said implementation of the readmission agreement will be challenging for Turkey.
„Physical conditions are not too bright for readmission. We accepted around 600,000 Syrian immigrants and we all know the results,“ Emre Gonen, international relations professor at Bilgi University, told SETimes.
According to Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD) figures, about 201,000 Syrian refugees are residing in sheltering camps in 10 different cities. The rest of them are living in city centres and receive financial aid from the state.
There are other issues apart from the readmission agreement. Gonen said the real challenge will be implementing closer ties with EU members Greece and Bulgaria over border controls.
„Turkey does not have the financial capability or political will to establish such close co-operation with the EU,“ Gonen said.
Despite the scepticism, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu is confident about Turkey’s ability to handle migrants deported from the EU.
„The financial burden will be shared by Turkey and the EU. In the worst-case scenario, Turkey may have to take back several thousand illegal immigrants but 76 million Turkish citizens will be able to go anywhere in Europe,“ Davutoglu told reporters.
In the past, the readmission agreement had been the most important drawback for initiating visa liberalisation talks. The changed stance of Turkey led both Ankara and Brussels to a more concrete roadmap.
„The latest initiative is a classic example of a tit-for-tat deal. Therefore, it will only bring results if both EU and Turkey take simultaneous actions and concrete steps in the areas they agreed to,“ Lenka Petkova, project officer at Global Political Trends Centre, an Istanbul-based think tank, told SETimes.
There are also experts who say the agreement delays implementation of what they see as Turkish citizens‘ rights.
„Turkish citizens already have the right to visit Europe without visa restrictions. However, the EU is preventing Turkish citizens to use their rights. The Turkish government should pursue legal action to reclaim this right,“ Haluk Gumrukcu, professor of law and founder of Visa Free Europe Working Group at Akdeniz University, told SETimes.
According to Gumrukcu, the visa-free travel right derives from the Ankara Agreement signed in 1963 between Turkey and the EU, and he said implementing visa restrictions after 1970 is a clear violation of the terms of this agreement.
Still, initiating talks for visa liberalisation is seen as a positive step forward for Turkey’s EU membership prospects.
„We see that the confidence in the EU negotiations is dropping year by year. Visa liberalisation can turn this negative sentiment around and bring in public support for further reforms,“ Nilgun Arisan Eralp, EU expert at the Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey (TEPAV), an Ankara-based think tank, ………………………….told SETimes.