The Hague, Netherlands – Tension between Greece and Turkey may find a resolution through the International Court of Justice in The Hague, as suggested by Konstantinos Salonidis, Co-Chair of the International Litigation Department at Foley Hoag. Salonidis, an expert in international disputes, proposes a legal approach that could potentially mitigate longstanding regional conflicts by addressing specific legal grievances both nations hold against each other.
According to Salonidis, embracing diplomacy within the judicial arena involves inherent risks but could yield substantial benefits if Greece strategically navigates its legal options. He indicates that Greece’s focus should be on effectively utilizing the International Court of Justice to address and possibly resolve disputes over maritime boundaries and zones of economic exclusivity with Turkey.
Historically, Greece has maintained that its only concern worthy of international adjudication is the demarcation of the Exclusive Economic Zone and the continental shelf. This assertion was recently reemphasized by Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, who ruled out discussions on national sovereignty, particularly concerning the eastern Aegean islands and the rights emanating from their sovereignty.
Turkey, on the other hand, presents a broader set of claims, complicating negotiations. These include challenging Greece’s sovereignty over certain uninhabited islets, seeking restrictions on Greek airspace, and attempting to assert co-rights over maritime areas claimed by Athens.
Salonidis is no newcomer to high-profile legal battles. His experience includes representing the Philippines in its case against China in the South China Sea and advising Qatar during the Gulf blockade. He currently represents Armenia against Azerbaijan at the International Court of Justice.
Amidst these disputes, Salonidis points out that inaction is not a solution. He argues that reaching a compromise with Turkey is crucial for Greece to proceed in bringing the case before the International Court of Justice. Without mutual concessions on the definition of disputes, a judicial resolution remains unreachable.
Furthermore, Salonidis suggests that while International Law tends to bolster Greece’s claims, particularly concerning the gray zones and national sovereignty, maritime delimitation issues are more nuanced and susceptible to broader geopolitical influences. He questions whether Greek public opinion could handle potential compromises required in the adjudication process.
Despite the complexities, Salonidis highlights weaknesses in Greece’s stance, including the proximity of the island of Kastelorizo to the Turkish coast, which impacts maritime rights and perceptions among the Greek populace.
Greece’s historical experience with the court, notably the unfavorable ruling regarding the Bucharest veto with North Macedonia, underscores the necessity for Greece to align its legal strategies with its geopolitical realities, ensuring that public expectations are managed and informed by the realities of international law, rather than populist rhetoric.
The filled ranks of Greece’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Special Legal Department, brimming with well-trained academics, suggest a readiness to engage Turkey on these challenging international legal issues. Salonidis emphasizes that such disputes should be handled with a technocratic approach focused on legal aspects rather than political disagreements.
As Salonidis underscores the importance of judicial resolution to conflicts, the potential recourse to the International Court of Justice signifies a critical step for Greece and Turkey. How these nations manage the delicate balance between legal rights and geopolitical strategy will likely shape the future stability of the Aegean region.
This article was created automatically by OpenAI and may contain inaccuracies. For corrections, retractions, or removal requests, please contact contact@publiclawlibrary.org.