Following intense behind-the-scenes diplomatic efforts, in order to confirm any agreement that had been reached recently with France’s intervention and to resume the studies on the power interconnection without any unforeseen complications, the Abeille Marengo is scheduled to be in the survey area in the coming hours.
While the controversy in Athens began yesterday—not over the content or outcome of France’s notification to Turkey regarding the start of the surveys, but over whether there was a “written notification”—which is the standard form of notification and communication of positions in diplomatic practice—there is reportedly a particularly significant intervention underway to ensure the project continues.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
The U.S., through its diplomatic missions in Ankara, Nicosia, and Athens, are making their position known, which aligns with the “line” set by Marco Rubio during his visit to Athens. It is clearly stated that “in such projects, there is no justification for any party to raise an objection.” Since the briefing is being conducted verbally in Ankara, Ambassador Tom Barak will most likely handle this communication.
The content of the latest French briefing to Ankara, which took place on Friday when there were signs of a stalemate following the issuance of the Turkish anti-NAVTEX, is unknown, other than the statement that France is not involved in “matters of maritime zone claims.” It is not known whether the briefing included further details regarding the investigations, such as the ship’s route coordinates.
Such information, without constituting a permit application submitted by the company, could potentially be used by Ankara as an argument that it, too, has a say in the authorization of the exploration, a point it will likely want to publicize by issuing its own NAVTEX when the surveys begin.
The fact is that the company’s request for exploration permits has been submitted only to Greece and Cyprus, which led to the issuance of the two NAVTEX messages on Friday. Most likely, this is what caused Ankara’s irritation and reaction.
What about the French communication?
Regarding the opposition’s reactions—which demanded explanations for France’s “written notification” to Turkey—a well-informed source commented that “following Greece’s authorization of the surveys, there was written communication with countries in the region, which was of an informative nature and did not constitute a request for permission or consent.”
Furthermore, the same source emphasized that “informing third parties does not imply recognition of the maritime jurisdiction of third states; moreover, this is also evident when comparing, on the one hand, the company’s submission of a request to Greece and the issuance of a NAVTEX by the Greek authorities and, on the other hand, the mere notification to Turkey, which subsequently issued a counter-NAVTEX.”
What does “notification and notification” mean?
Regarding notification and briefing, even legal experts in international law disagree on the potential consequences. One side argues that such surveys require a permit from the coastal state, as they indirectly concern the continental shelf, over which rights are ab initio and ipso facto (from the outset and by operation of law). It also argues that notification to a third party is not only unnecessary but sets a negative precedent, giving the impression of joint management of the continental shelf until its boundaries are delimited.
The other side points out that surveys for cable laying do not require a permit or the consent of coastal states and do not constitute marine scientific research (for which, under the Law of the Sea, the coastal state is assigned a role). They do not concern the continental shelf; moreover, in the Eastern Mediterranean region, there are competing claims to the continental shelf, as no delimitation has taken place and, consequently, all states may be considered coastal states. This side considers that the notification is of a practical nature and does not set any precedent.
Regarding the authority to issue NAVTEX messages, Turkey systematically disputes the Greek area of responsibility—which Athens equates with the Athens FIR—arguing that there is no agreement defining the boundaries. Thus, it claims an area of Turkish jurisdiction that corresponds to the maximum extent of its claims under the “Blue Homeland” doctrine, extending this line to the middle of the Aegean Sea and throughout the Eastern Mediterranean.
Source: Proto Thema
