Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

• Masoumeh Parsoon ¹
• Ali Kadkhodaei ²
• Mohsen Hataminia ³

¹ Ph.D Student, Public International Law, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

² Professor, Public International Law University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

³ LLM, Regional Studies, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Introduction

In 2020, the Eastern Mediterranean region faced one of the most challenging periods in its recent history. The discovery of significant hydrocarbon resources intensified disputes among regional countries over the delimitation of maritime boundaries, further complicated by the involvement of both regional and global powers. The existence of oil and gas fields in the Eastern Mediterranean heightened competition among coastal states to expand their claimed maritime zones—so much so that some countries demarcated maritime borders despite not being neighbors. This action even brought NATO members—Turkey, France, and Greece—to the brink of military conflict. Amid this turbulent political situation, Turkey’s announcement of the Blue Homeland doctrine, following the signing of a maritime boundary treaty with Libya, sparked strong reactions from several countries. In response, Greece accelerated its negotiations with Egypt, eventually leading to a maritime boundary agreement between the two states. Although the political motivations behind these agreements are undeniable, the present study aimed to examine the legal dimensions of Turkey’s Blue Homeland doctrine from the perspective of international maritime law and judicial precedent. An analysis of the map associated with the Blue Homeland doctrine reveals Turkey’s views on maritime borders and the legal status of islands in relation to maritime zones—a view that significantly diverges from the claims made by Greece and Cyprus. Therefore, to conduct a thorough legal assessment of the Blue Homeland doctrine, it is necessary to consider the region’s geography, the location of the islands, the unilateral claims made by the countries in the region, and the treaties delimiting their boundaries. The present study tried to answer the following research questions: What are the legal dimensions of Turkey’s Blue Homeland doctrine? And to what extent does it comply with international law?

Literature Review

Most Persian-language research has addressed the political dimensions of the Blue Homeland doctrine primarily through the


perspective of international relations. For instance, in an online article titled “Turkey’s Blue Homeland Doctrine,” Namini-Miyanji (2020) offered an overview of the doctrine while briefly touching on its legal aspects. Golmohammadi’s article “Transformation in Turkey’s Strategic Culture and Its National Security Doctrine” (2021) analyzed the doctrine in the wider context of foreign policy and Turkey’s relations with its Western allies. In “Regional Change Processes and Their Impact on Turkey’s Geopolitical Competition 2016–2022,” Bagheri et al. (2023) examined how Ankara sought new coalitions in the aftermath of the 2016 failed coup. Moreover, the study “Turkey’s Blue Homeland Doctrine and Its Consequences for Iran” (Reisinezhad & Khanmohammadi, 2023) explored the role of Blue Homeland in Turkey’s attempt to become a regional energy hub. Unlike the Persian-language scholarship, a few English-language researches focus on the legal dimensions of Turkey’s Blue Homeland Doctrine. These studies include: “The Legal Aspects of the Eastern Mediterranean Crisis” (Baran, 2023), “Mavi Vatan, the ‘Blue Homeland’: the Origins, Influences and Limits of an Ambitious Doctrine for Turkey” (Denizeau, 2021), “The Formulation of the Blue Homeland Doctrine” (Kadan, 2020), and “Some Observations on the Agreement between Greece and Egypt on the Delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone” (Yiallourides, 2020).

Materials and Methods

The present study used a descriptive–analytical approach, explaining the procedures followed by international tribunals in maritime delimitation and assessing the impact of islands on these decisions. A library research method was employed to collect the data, including the correspondence submitted to the United Nations by Turkey and Greece, as well as the decisions of international tribunals in maritime delimitation cases.

Results and Discussion

Geopolitical conditions and the pursuit of regional dominance have driven Eastern Mediterranean countries to expand and assert their maritime zones. The discovery of substantial hydrocarbon reserves has further intensified these disputes. Amid this chaotic situation, one clear issue is the role of islands in the delimitation of maritime boundaries. Turkey’s expansion of its maritime zones is constrained to the south by Cyprus and to the southwest by the Greek islands. The Turkey–Libya MoU and the Greece–Egypt Agreement reflect differing legal views regarding the effect of islands. While the Greece–Egypt Agreement qualifies an acceptable agreement under the Vienna Convention, the status of the Turkey–Libya MoU is more difficult to assess due to Libya’s ongoing political instability. Nevertheless, the MoU is expected to provide both parties with significant bargaining leverage. A review of international court decisions reveals that claims are supported by both case law and customary international law. However, as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea noted in the Bangladesh/Myanmar case, there is no general rule for determining the effect of islands in maritime boundary delimitation. Instead, the treatment of islands depends on the specific circumstances of each individual case.
The location of Greek islands—some of which are little more than rocks, while others possess an economic life of their own—adds further complexity to the issue. Greece maintains that these islands are entitled to full maritime zones, whereas Turkey, as a persistent objector, emphasizes their geographical position, as many lie on the opposite side of the equidistance line. Turkey, accepting the median line of the mainland as a fair solution, does not recognize these islands as having maritime zones beyond their territorial seas. Judicial precedents supporting this case can be seen in instances such as the British–French Continental Shelf case (1977) and the Black Sea case (2009). If the Greek islands have their own exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and continental shelf, the extent of Turkey’s maritime zones would be drastically reduced. It is unacceptable for Turkey to play only a minor role in the waters of the Eastern Mediterranean, while possessing the longest coastline. In spite of Greece’s insistence on giving its islands full effect, recent agreements with Egypt and Italy have moderated the effect of the islands. Although a maritime delimitation agreement remains the ideal solution, achieving it in the short term is unlikely. For now, temporary arrangements (e.g., joint exploitation management) can prevent the escalation of tensions and allow sufficient time to work toward a solution.

Conclusion

Negotiations and delimitation processes are always political in nature. With sufficient political will, most of these issues can be resolved. Considering the political situation of Turkey, Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, and Libya, joint exploitation management offers a viable alternative. It is natural for all parties to take a maximalist stance: Greece insists on the full effect of its islands; Cyprus advocates for the median line between the coasts; and Turkey pursues the Blue Homeland Doctrine. Alongside existing solutions, a realistic approach grounded in the principles of international law can pave the way to a fair outcome.

Keywords

• Blue Homeland Doctrine
• Exclusive Economic Zone
• Three-stage Delimitation Method
• Turkey
• Greece

Main Subjects

• International Law