burning

The fatigue is reaching levels never thought possible…

Selective ICJ citations do not overturn modern maritime law. Under UNCLOS Article 121, islands generate continental shelf and EEZ rights. This is not a "Greek interpretation.” It is the globally accepted legal framework recognized by more than 160 states. The cases Turkey frequently cites were highly specific exceptions, not universal rules. UK-France did not deny islands maritime rights. Libya-Malta did not abolish island entitlements. Romania-Ukraine concerned Snake Island, a tiny isolated rock, not large inhabited islands like Crete or Rhodes. Eritrea-Yemen involved unique Red Sea circumstances after conflict. None of these rulings established the principle that major inhabited islands lose maritime rights simply because they lie close to another state’s mainland. International courts consistently recognize that islands generate maritime zones. The real issue is how overlapping claims are adjusted equitably, not whether islands possess rights in the first place. Turkey’s argument attempts to turn “equity” into a tool for overriding treaty law itself. But equity does not mean geography alone decides everything, nor does it mean larger continental states automatically prevail over islands. If that logic were accepted globally, countless island and archipelagic states would see their maritime rights severely weakened, destabilizing the entire UNCLOS system. This dispute is ultimately about whether international law remains treaty-based and universal, or becomes selectively reinterpreted according to geopolitical interests. -Greek Report