I said, no UN resolution or permits a state to expand its sovereignty to imprison another state.
Also, the maximalist goals (the limits in question in the Convention are the maximum depths) advocated by the Greek concession in UNCLOS are essentially about the high seas.
In maritime law, a state sharing a common maritime area, including UNCLOS, cannot unilaterally usurp the maritime rights of the other state. This principle of mutual agreement is also clearly stated in UNCLOS.
Also, in maritime law, islands cannot close the continental shelves of the mainland. There is the prinsiple about it, mainland can not closurable by islets or islands.
Everything that the Turkish side defends is the articles that Greece signed and accepted in the Lausanne and Paris agreements.
Greece is trying to impose both an agreement that Turkiye is not a signatory, by withdrawing/eroded from the agreements it is a signatory to. But even in the agreement it imposes, it tries to bring a maximalist dream into a fait accompli, completely ignoring many principles.
Turkish-Greek maritime jurisdictions and territorial sea disputes are not unique in the world. UK, France, USA, Spain, Italy etc. There are similar disagreements in many parts of the world, and the result of most of the events in which mutual agreement was reached refutes the thesis defended by the Greeks.
However, refraining from discussing them and bombarding off-topic spamming under a completely unrelated forum thread leads us to the same conclusion once again.
![[TR]AHMET](/data/avatars/m/27/27358.jpg?1397822937){kind=avatar}
www.savunmasanayist.com
.
