Sevilla Map | Maritime Europe, EU Enlargement and Turkish Rights

Mavi Boncuk | EU Commission stated that “External reports prepared by the institutions are not official documents of the EU and they do not have legal and political values for the EU”. The EU Commission stated that “The issues related to the delimitation of marine areas and the use of resources in these areas can only be dealt with in good faith, in accordance with international law and through dialogue and negotiation in line with good neighborly relations”.

Although it is referred to as a reference to this map, especially academic studies, the EU does not have any authority on such mapping, including the determination of maritime jurisdictions. In the Eastern Mediterranean in order to protect Turkey’s rights in the EU’s recent steps taken, “Follow the Map for Seville” There is no direct explanation.

Juan Luis Suárez de Vivero[1] and Juan Carlos Rodríguez Mateos[2], professors at the University of Seville in the department of human geography, published an article on October 4, 2004. In this article titled ‘Maritime Europe and EU Enlargement: A geopolitical Perspective’, a map in which Turkey is compressed within Anatolia was published for the first time. As a publication of “Elsevier”, a world-renowned information analytics business owned by British/Dutch, EU agencies and officials had already started to use this map by the time the article was ready to be printed in 2006. Neither faculty member was a maritime lawyer.

In 2007, the same map appeared in “Atlas of Maritime Europe: Jurisdictions, Uses and Management, Barcelona, (Ediciones del Serbal)”, which was published in Barcelona. This atlas was also an EU project supported by the Spanish National Research Council. The data bank used for marine space and borders in this map was developed by the British GEBCO data bank. Allegedly, the situation of the islands in the Mediterranean in this study was not considered with any legal basis in mind, and a bisector was used.

In early 2010, Suárez conducted another study in the Fisheries sub-area for the EU Directorate General for Internal Policy. In this study titled “Jurisdictional waters in the Mediterranean and Black Seas”, the continental shelf or EEZ areas that were not declared were not shown for the relevant countries. In the publication, it was clearly stated that the limit of territorial waters between Turkey and Greece was “theoretical”. This study was the last study conducted by Prof. Suárez over Mediterranean maritime jurisdictions. Briefly, Suárez was somewhat trapped by using the delimitation maps sent by Greece and Greek Cypriots in his study in 2004. He did not repeat this mistake in his study in 2010, but that ship had sailed.

During the Navtex crises of July 21st  and August 10th 2020, many statements were made on behalf of the EU Commission which declared that they had no relationship with the map known as the Map of the University of Seville, that such a map was not ordered by the University, and that the external reports prepared by the institutions were not official documents of the EU. No matter how one looks at the matter, this makes no sense. The EU is not a state and cannot declare a continental shelf or EEZ like sovereign states. However, the UN encouraged Greece and the GCASC to declare large areas to provide for their own interests and helped them in their political lobbying. On the other hand, as Bahçeşehir University BAUDEGS Founding President Admiral Cihat Yaycı stated: “How did the EU criticize Turkey for carrying out activities within the EEZ of the GCASC, and impose sanctions on shipmen in its former progress reports?” Meanwhile, the EZZ declared by the GCASC on April 2nd 2004 exactly overlaps with the Map of the University of Seville. In order to be convincing, the EU needs to explain why they started to use the map prepared at the University of Seville in all official documents and institutions since 2004, and why the map is still being used. 

The Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs should request that the Presidency of the EU Commission remove this map and insist it be given no legal or moral validity from EU official sites and documents. The existence of this map shows that the EU cannot be trusted to serve as a mediator in the crisis with Greece. 

On the other hand, the whole world knows that the islands that are on opposite sides cannot influence the restriction of maritime jurisdiction between the two countries. The International Court of Justice (ICJ)[3] in Hague has 17 similar cases. All confirms the thesis of Turkey. The decisions about Filfla, Serpents, Qitat Jarada, Alcatraz, Djerba, and Saint Pierre & Miquelon islands are obvious. Interestingly, the US claims in the South China Sea refute Greek theses. The Greece-Italy agreement is to literally put a bullet into its own feet. Now, Athens is thinking about how to get out of this business. Nevertheless, everything is not OK. Athens’ new plan is to go to the International Court of Justice for Meis with Egypt; they are planning a fait accompli. In the decision to be taken here, it is calculated that the islands can be affected, albeit in a limited way. They carried out the settlement policy with this account for years; but there is a problem. Greece had repeatedly declared that it did not recognize the Court’s decisions. Even the Greek state bureaucracy eliminated the option to go to the ICJ in 2015 due to the decisions it made. Athens excluded some dispute issues from the dispute resolution process within the framework of the UN Maritime Convention, stating that it will not be subject to the resolution process of disputes involving the UN Security Council.

SOURCE 1

SOURCE 2

See Also: TRT World Report Against All Odds: Turkey’s Position in the Eastern Mediterranean

OPINION by Tevfik Kadan

Even though Turkey has responded to Greece’s wayward behavior with its armada, it should take advantage of the situation by leveling a diplomatic and juridical attack. To achieve this end, the following steps must be taken as quickly as possible:

– Take initiatives with the United Nations Security Council, the European Union and NATO on the violation of the demilitarized status of the islands.

– Take the necessary legal initiatives and follow state practices regarding the ownership of EGAYDAAKs (Islands and islets given to Greece by treaties).

– Make official calls for a return to the 3-mile regime in the Aegean.

– announce the EEZ in the Eastern Mediterranean via an agreement that was made with Lebanon, Egypt and Israel.

– Shift drilling and seismic activities to the west of 28° longitude.

– dissuade the Greek parliament from adopting the agreement by establishing diplomatic relations with Egypt.

Tevfik Kadan was born on April 27, 1990 in Isparta. He studied Turkish Naval High School and Academy. He took computer and electrical electronics engineering courses and worked as a Freelance Consultant Engineer for some time. Kadan has been working in the field of journalism since 2010, and served as the Head of Vatan Party Press Office for 2 years and as Aydınlık Newspaper’s News Manager for 2 years. He works as the Editor in Chief at Aydınlık.com.tr.

[1] Professor of Marine Geography at the Department of Human Geography.

research activity has been centred on the field of geographical consequences of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, maritime policy and coastal and ocean management, including regional management systems for fisheries and aquaculture sector. Author of more than 80 academic publications in international journals and publishers (Marine Policy, Ocean and Coastal Management, Sociologia Ruralis, Coastal Management, Blackwell Sicence, Ashgate, Kluwer Academic Press, Amsterdam University Press, Thomson Reuters, Taylor & Francis/Routledge).

Research in European projects on fisheries governance and coastal-marine management. Consultancy activities for the InterAmerican Development Bank, the European Commission, European Parliament, IUCN, UNEP/PAP/RAC and Government of Spain. Local coordinator of Erasmus Mundus Master on Marine Spatial Planning. Member of the Editorial Board of the journal Marine Policy.

[2] Associate Professor Department of Human Geography (University of Seville)

[3] While, in its 1994 declaration, Athens excluded only “defensive military activities” from the Court’s jurisdiction within the scope of the security of the non-military status of the Eastern Aegean islands, with its new notifications dated 14 and 16 of January 2015, it expanded its reservations, which have been become jurisdiction by the ICJ, including the territorial waters, aerial domain and sovereignty issues. In other words, in domestic law, the ICJ path was closed. They have to deal with this first.