3. Some of the Greek Islands identified in the application

4. * 10 August 1976 Greece instituted proceedings against Turkey with respect to the dispute concerning the delimitation of the continental shelf appertaining to each of the two States in the Aegean Sea and their rights thereover. * Greece requested the Court to indicate interim measures of protection, but in an Order the Court found that the circumstances were not such as to require them and decided that priority is to address the question of jurisdiction to entertain the dispute

5.  1973, Turkey granted licenses to carry out exploration for petroleum in submarine areas of the Aegean Sea including areas which encroached upon the continental shelf which, according to Greece appertains to them.  Greece protested and several exchanges were made between both governments  May 1974 Turkish vessel Candarli began its exploration in waters wholly or partly superjacent to the continental shelf which according to Greece appertains to them.

6.  July 13, 1976 Turkey issued a press release stating that it would undertake seismic research in the Turkish Territorial Seas and could extend outside the territorial waters of Greece  Greece once again made a diplomatic dispute and simultaneously filed an application with the ICJ and Security Council  Security Council made a resolution encouraging both states to proceed with the negotiation  A Joint Communique was published in Brussels

7. Turkey submitted its “Observations of the Government of Turkey on the request by Greece for provisional measures”. In said document, Turkey contended that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application; Turkey did not submit a counter memorial neither was she represented in the proceedings.

8. GREECE on its request a. the Greek islands in par 29 of the application as part of its territory are entitled to the portion of the continental shelf which appertains to them ( Samothrace, Limnos, Aghios Eustratios, Lesbos,Chios, Psara and Antipsara) b. that the boundaries between Greece and Turkey in the Aegean Sea be delimited c. Greece is entitled to exercise sovereignty over its continental shelf d. Turkey is not entitled to undertake explorations and experiments within Greece’s continental shelf

9. TURKEY a. The islands in question are mere protuberances of the Turkish continental shelf and have no continental shelf of their own. b. The issue of whether these islands have their own continental shelf concerns matters of entitlement, delimitation and territorial status

10. Greece 1. Article 1.7 of the General Act of 1928 for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, ( read with Article 36, paragraph 1, and Article 37 of the Statute of the Court) 2. The reservations in the accession instruments are immaterial 3. The Joint Communique

11. Turkey 1.Article 1.7 of the General Act of 1928 for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes is no longer in force 2. Reservation (b) in the accession document excludes Court’s competence over the dispute 3.The Jointt Communique only stresses desire for negotiations

12. "(b) disputes concerning questions by international law are solely within the domestic jurisdiction of States, and in particular disputes relating,to the territorial status of Greece, including disputes relating to its rights of sovereignty over its ports and lines of communication

13. The court found that it had no jurisdiction. It is for the two Governments themselves to consider those implications and what effect, if any, is to be given to the Joint Communiqué in their further efforts to arrive at an amicable settlement of their dispute. Nothing that the Court has said may be understood as precluding the dispute from being brought before the Court if and when the conditions for establishing its jurisdiction are satisfied.

14. The Court is of the opinion that the dispute is ale which relates to the territorial status of Greece within the meaning of reservation (b) and that Turkey's invocation of.the reservation had the effect of excluding the dispute from the application of Article 17 of the General Act. The General Act is therefore not a valid basis for the Court's jurisdiction. Nothing to justify the conclusion that Turkey was prepared to envisage any other reference to the Court than a joint submission o f the dispute

16. PRINCIPLES Effective Occupation Eritrea v Yemen Indonesia v Malaysia Half-Effect Method Tunisia v Libya

17. Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration * According to the ICJ, Effective occupation, such as petroleum concessions, is prima facie evidence of title. * Portico doctrine. This is a method by which off-shore islands can be attributed to a State’s sovereignty. Islands near coastal states must pertain to such states. The Mohabbakahs islands, located within the territorial sea of Eritrea, properly belongs to it. Indonesia v Malaysia Sipadan Case ICJ ruled in favor of Malaysia because effective occupation was proved by its “effective acts of administration,” specifically: [1] its regulation on gathering of turtle eggs; [2] its building of lighthouses; and [3] its declaration of a bird sanctuary.

18. Tunisia v Libya The area is delimited by two lines. In defining the angulation of the initial line, the Court took note of the existence of the line employed de facto by each Party dividing their petroleum concessions. As for the second line, the change in direction of the coast is a fact which must be taken into account. In this case the land territory of the two States is adjacent but because of the change in direction of the coast of Tunisia it seems opposite at some point. The initial delimitation line indicated by the ICJ will therefore extend from the outer limit of the territorial sea until its intersection with the parallel of latitude of the point on the coast of the Gulf of Gabes. In determining the angulation of the second line, the existence of the Kerkennah Islands (Tunisia) should be considered.However, if the ICJ lets the line run parallel to the island coastline that would be giving the islands too much weight. Hence, half- effect must be used. The technique involves drawing two delimitation lines, one giving to the island the full effect attributed to it by the delimitation method in use, and the other disregarding the island totally, as though it did not exist. The delimitation line actually adopted is then drawn between the first two lines, either in such a way as to divide equally the area between them, or as bisector of the angle which they make with each other, or possibly by treating the island as displaced toward the mainland by half its actual distance therefrom.