Mr. President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am very pleased that we are hosting – here in the Foreign Ministry’s Kranidiotis Amphitheatre, the event for the presentation of the latest book by Professor Christos Rozakis; a book on the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and maritime zones – very critical issues in the International Law of the Sea.
Precisely because we are hosting the presentation of this book, I considered it my honor and duty to introduce today’s event, welcoming to the Foreign Ministry the author himself, who has served a deputy foreign minister in the past.
Professor Christos Rozakis has honored and honors the Greek legal science– the Greek state, I would say. His presence, as a judge on the European Court of Human Rights, in Strasbourg, and, before that, his membership in the then European Commission on Human Rights were equally catalytic. So his term with the Court was impressive; he made us proud with his contribution to the formulation of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and, I hardly need mention – because all of those present here are aware of the weight, volume and quality of his work – in the field of International Law.
Beyond that, of course, his experience in the practice of, his experience at the hard core of the country’s foreign policy, enables him to combine both deep scientific knowledge and very considerable political experience of the hard core of foreign policy, and thus what he says and writes is always of particular significance.
Maritime zones are part of what is perhaps the central priority of the upcoming Greek EU Presidency. As we had the opportunity to decide at the relevant cabinet meeting, comprehensive maritime policy will be the common denominator of almost all our activities during the six months of the Greek Presidency in the first half of 2014.
During my recent visit to Rome, and afterwards, in our discussions with the Italian government, precisely because Italy will hold the EU Presidency directly after Greece, in the second half of 2014, we decided to put together a Mediterranean Year with the two successive Presidencies; a Mediterranean Year with the unifying priority of comprehensive maritime policies, with a focus on the Mediterranean.
This, as you know, is linked to the initiatives now being carried out by the European Commission, by the competent Commissioner, Maria Damanaki, to point up the sea and the Mediterranean dimension of European policies. And I consider very important the text put together by the competent Directorate General, which places under deliberation the conclusions of a study – very significant economic benefits from the declaration and utilization of the maritime zones provided for by the International Law of the Sea in the Mediterranean.
With regard to the Greek reality and Greek policy, there is no doubt that, with regard to these issues – which are linked to the Mediterranean, with the Aegean, with the island and maritime dimension of our country – perhaps the most important development in the past forty years, from the fall of the dictatorship until now, is the initiation of real exploration in the Greek maritime and land space aimed at the discovery and, subsequently, the exploitation of hydrocarbons.
On the legal level, a very important move – perhaps the most important throughout this time – was the passing of Law 4001/2011, which, in article 156, expressly determines the outer limit of the continental shelf and the EEZ. Outer limits, which of course means the outer limit according to International Law, which will be determined more specifically through consultations and negotiations, with an agreement that must be formulated in accordance with International Law, for the delimitation of the maritime zones. This concerns the two basic maritime zones – both the continental shelf and the EEZ.
Both are mentioned in the Law that has been submitted to the UN. Of course, the Law refers expressly to the continental shelf as well as to the EEZ, which has identical outer limits, once, of course, it is declared.
Throughout this time – not just since I took up the duties of Foreign Minister, but much earlier; it’s just that since my arrival here we are continuing in an intensive and cautious manner – maritime zones and the energy dimension of our foreign policy have been a clear priority.
Because this is linked not just to national sovereign rights, but also to pressing development needs – it is a sector that is linked to the urgent vision for development, employment and prosperity, for all the peoples of the Mediterranean, naturally – it is of particular importance.
These systematic actions that are being taken may not be clearly linked in the public consciousness, perhaps not even in the collective consciousness of the community of experts, because – beyond the ongoing exploratory talks with Turkey, the 55th round of which took place on 9 September, in Istanbul – there is naturally systematic cooperation with Cyprus, the trilateral Greek-Cypriot-Israeli cooperation on issues that concern not just the Aegean, but also the eastern Mediterranean, and not just the continental shelf, but all the maritime zones.
We also have the upgrading and reactivation of our bilateral relations with Egypt, and we are now awaiting political consultations, too, as well as the convening of a technical committee on the delimitation of Greek-Egyptian maritime zones in the eastern Mediterranean – always within the framework of the provisions of the International Law of the Sea. Moreover, we now also have trilateral political consultation between Greece, Egypt and Cyprus, with the first meeting having already taken place, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, a few days ago in New York.
We also had talks with Italy, ahead of our successive Presidencies, and we decided to start consultations on the technical level with the aim of converting the 1977 Greek-Italian bilateral agreement on the delimitation of the continental shelf into a broader agreement on the delimitation of the maritime zones.
We are in intensive talks with Albania, and my visit to Tirana is coming up on 14 October, when we will of course be discussing the completion of the process of ratification of the signed but unratified agreement on the delimitation of maritime zones in general between Greece and Albania.
In New York, we had what in my opinion was a very important first meeting with my colleague from Libya, and one of the things we talked about was the delimitation of maritime zones – an issue that has been pending for many years now.
And this was also the subject of discussion in my meeting with the Prime Minister of Malta, in New York. Regardless of whether the maritime zones of the two countries are adjacent to one another, Malta has a central role on these issues, because, despite its small size, Malta has a pivotal geographical position in the Mediterranean.
Thus, in introducing Professor Christos Rozakis’ book, I hardly need stress that the country’s national sovereign rights, with regard to maritime zones, obviously exist and are fully safeguarded. Needless to say, there is no kind of weakening, and when we are talking about maritime zones and national sovereign rights, this fully and equally concerns our country’s mainland and the Greek islands.
Addressing an audience such as this – an audience so long on diplomats and scientists – I can be epigrammatic. I believe that all the maritime zones have their added value, and thus none works antithetically – they all add something. The fact that, according to international law, the continental shelf is a national sovereign right that is operative ipso facto and ab initio is of very great significance for us. Of course, it requires delimitation, following negotiations.
When the Exclusive Economic Zone is declared and delimited, it has its own added value, because, firstly, it has no geological grounding, and thus it allows us to respond to outdated arguments that attempted to link the geological continental shelf with the legal continental shelf. But these arguments are no longer of any value, and this offers the fullest protection of the water column, the surface, the organic materials, living organisms.
All of this is very closely related to fisheries, to wind energy, photovoltaic energy, beyond the value added by the joining of various zones that existed before the EEZ, before the Montego Bay Convention, but are appearing now. There are, of course, very serious problems of polymorphism with regard to maritime zones, particularly in the Mediterranean, with countries that have their own fishing zone or their own environmental protection zone.
It is very important that, talking about the Mediterranean, we are talking about an identical expanse in the case of delimitation. We are fully aware of the fact that our national sovereign rights are linked with good neighbourly relations and full respect for international law, which is the fundamental given and axis of our foreign policy.
This is how we confront all adjacent and neighbouring states with regard to the delimitation of the maritime zones in the Mediterranean, but this is of course something we see as necessary and useful for everyone.
We are also prepared, naturally, to accept judicial delimitation, if necessary, monitoring very closely, with full knowledge – without being influenced by slipshod amateurish or mythological approaches to this issue – the case law of the ICJ, in The Hague, and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, in Hamburg, and the mediating courts on these issues.
It is vital that we follow a national strategy based on full knowledge on these issues. That is, there is a strong element of professionalism: good planning, systematic and properly sequenced moves, persistence in certain fundamental choices. But of course these do not suffice.
Also necessary is seriousness here at home: the broadest possible consensus. All of this should be self-evident. Unfortunately, it isn’t. The circumstances demand, particularly under crisis conditions, that we rise to the circumstances, confront them as a nation, as a country, as a political system, as a civil society.
All of these matters, with the spirit of consensus, the seriousness, the self-restraint, and the resolve that are required. This is patriotism in modern terms. It is not rhetorical in nature, but is a product of a very persistent and systematic effort, as I said earlier.
From this perspective, I would like to express my warm thanks to Professor Christos Rozakis for his scientific consultations, for the publishing of this book, for the fact that he nurtures and maintains the dialogue at a very high level. This dialogue – the dialogue of the academic community – also helps our diplomatic service, helps the political leadership, which, under the Constitution, is responsible for taking these decisions, making the choices it must with historical conscience; that is, in conscience of long-term historical time as well as the responsibility we have to our country.
Thank you very much.
October 4, 2013