Ok my mentally challenged friend
let's see how you shoot your mouth off to these...
you asked me about the core of the issue... here it is...
One needs to tackle three items when considering the Greek-turkish dispute in the Aegean.
First of all, what exactly is the dispute?
When did the dispute arise?
What does the international law dictate?
Greece’s steady position is that the only dispute with turkey is about the continental shelf in the Aegean.
The issue is mainly a legal one , as it is clearly defined by international law, however, it requires political initiative since both parties (Greece, turkey) need to address the international tribunal in Hague. This is something however that Turkey categorically refuses to do, instead proposing a bi-lateral political (i.e. not based on international law) agreement.
Furthermore however, the Turkish side demands that IF there is such a bi-lateral discussion, more items should be added in the agenda.
These are:
*The extend of the Greek Airspace
*The dispute of the right (of Greece) to extend sea borders to 12 miles.
*Demilitarisation of the Greek islands of the Eastern Aegean.
*The NATO (both countries are members of) operational control of the Aegean to pass to Turkish Headquarters.
Let’s present things in a bit more detail.
Definition of the Continental shelf.
“The definition of the continental shelf and the criteria by which a coastal State may establish the outer limits of its continental shelf are set out in article 76 of the Convention. In addition, the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (the "Conference") adopted on 29 August 1980 a "Statement of Understanding" which is contained in Annex II to the Final Act of the Conference.
The term "continental shelf" is used by geologists generally to mean that part of the continental margin which is between the shoreline and the shelf break or, where there is no noticeable slope, between the shoreline and the point where the depth of the superjacent water is approximately between 100 and 200 metres. However, this term is used in article 76 as a juridical term. According to the Convention, the continental shelf of a coastal State comprises the submerged prolongation of the land territory of the coastal State - the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that distance. The continental margin consists of the seabed and subsoil of the shelf, the slope and the rise. It does not include the deep ocean floor with its oceanic ridges or the subsoil thereof .
According to article 76, the coastal State may establish the outer limits of its juridical continental shelf wherever the continental margin extends beyond 200 nautical miles by establishing the foot of the continental slope, by meeting the requirements of article 76, paragraphs 4 - 7, of the Convention ”
Source :
CONTINENTAL SHELF - GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Beginning of the dispute.
Greek goverments, exercising articles of the Geneva Convention (1958), award licences for seabed exploration for oil during the 60’s. By November 1973, 15 agreements with various companies (foreign) have been made and made public.
The Turkish government for the FIRST time disputes the continental shelf on the same month, November 1973.
What does the Greek side argue:
*Islands have a continental shelf just as continental shores do.
*The definition of the continental shelf, when there is no agreement between the involved parties, is done based on the principle of median line and equal distance.
*Greece is exercising its territorial right in said areas since the aforementioned areas are part of the Greek continental shelf, as dictated by Articles 1 and 2 of the Geneva Convention.
What does the Turkish side argue:
*Islands have NO continental shelf, because they are outbursts (!!??) of the seabed.
*The principle of median line and equal distance is applied when there is no agreement and there are special circumstances not allowing different boundary definition. There are NO (!?) such special circumstances.
*The easternmost Greek islands are so close to Turkey that if the median line principle is applied and used then turkey will be with practically non existent continental shelf.
*The Aegean is a semi –closed sea, dictating special adjustments (!!??)
*Turkey is a non participating member of the Geneva Convention.
****** However, and this is the most interesting bit, Turkey DOES accept the Geneva Convention and the International Hague court decree regarding the continental shelf dispute between Germany, Denmark and Holland.
Isn’t that a bit hypocritical. ??????
ANOTHER ISSUE.
The extend of the territorial waters in the Aegean.
What does the international law dictate?
According to the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) the extend was set to 3 miles, with the Montreux Convention and subsequent treaty (1936) Greece extended its territorial waters to 6 miles. Turkey followed suit and extended to 6 in 1964. With the Convention of Montego Bay (1982),United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which “In total, the Convention has been signed by 159 States (including the former German Democratic Republic and the former Yugoslavia) and has been ratified or acceded to by more than 140 States and the European Community.” Greece ratified the convention treaty (1995) and reserved the right to extend its territorial waters to 12 miles.
***Turkey is a non participant although it was a participant on the two former treaties.
CURIUS BIT .. Turkey is threatening Greece with a “Casus belli” if the territorial waters are extended to 12 miles since 1974. A full 8 years before the Montego bay treaty…. Strange isn’t?
Arguments of the two sides.
*Turkish side argues that a) it is a non participant of the treaty and b) the Aegean is a special case that the treaty doesn’t apply to.
*Greek side argues that the Treaty is a coding of the International law of the seas and leaves no room for interpretation or differentiation. The right is reserved to be exercised whenever is deemed necessary and is absolute.
AIRSPACE
According to the treaty of Lausanne (1923) airspace was defined to 3 miles. Greece with a presidential decree of 1931 extended the airspace to 10 miles even before it extended its territorial waters based on the Montreux in 1936. This decree was not contested by Turkey before 1975-6.
Arguments of the two sides.
*Turkish side.
Turkey simply argues that the 10 miles do not correspond to the territorial waters boundaries of 6 miles.
*Greek side
Greece argues that the 10 miles have not been contested (no official record prior to 1975 anywhere) by Turkey for half a century and hence were “de facto” accepted. Furthermore, now that Greece reserves the right to extend to 12 miles, the 10 miles of airspace are less than that and are covered by the treaty and international law.
“By international law, the notion of a country's sovereign airspace corresponds with the maritime definition of territorial waters as being 12 nautical miles (22.2 km) out from a nation's coastline. Airspace not within any country's territorial limit is considered international, analogous to the "high seas" in maritime law. However, a country may, by international agreement, assume responsibility for controlling parts of international airspace, such as those over the oceans. For instance, the United States provides air traffic control services over a large part of the Pacific Ocean, even though the airspace is international.”
For now I leave you these, and I expect your comments, lets hope they will not be childish.
in the East !!!
That's an example. 
