Law of the Sea a powerful tool for Cyprus, says Andreas Jacovides

The existing legal framework within which Cyprus makes its moves, with regard to the exploration and exploitation of possible oil and natural gas deposits in the sea south and west of the country, is a very strong and useful tool for the government of the Republic on which to base its arguments in any likely recourse to international arbitration through legal means, Ambassador Andreas Jacovides believes, an expert in the Law of the Sea Convention who led the Cypriot team that negotiated and signed, on behalf of the Republic, the Convention.
In an interview with CNA, he said that if the matter is taken before an international court, Cyprus has powerful legal points and arguments to put forward, and he went as far as to indicate that should this happen, perhaps it could set a precedent for the settlement of certain aspects of the Cyprus question, through legal means, adding that Cyprus’ legally sound case is founded on the Convention and on its provisions that have acquired the force of customary law.
The Cypriot government has already protested to the UN Turkey’s moves to question its sovereign claims on possible deposits at sea, Ankara’s threats as well as claims by the illegal Turkish Cypriot regime, in Turkish occupied Cyprus. Nicosia’s protest is based on international law and the Law of the Sea Convention.
Jacovides said that Turkey has neither signed nor ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and it is the only UN member state that voted against a relevant resolution at the General Assembly during a debate on the Law of the Sea, as late as December 2006.
Ankara, he pointed out, is not in a position to question the separate agreements Cyprus has signed with Egypt in 2003 and Lebanon in 2007, since it rejects the equal rights of island states on the continental shelf or the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), which have been secured after lengthy discussions and lively debates in article 121 of the Convention. In this context Ankara is laying claims on the sea south and south-west of the Republic, between Turkey’s southern coast and the northern coast of Egypt, saying this sea area must be divided equitably between Turkey and Egypt.
“This is not the first time Turkey has projected such positions and claims to divide the seas between continental states, thus undermining the equal rights of island states. Ankara has claimed that the Aegean sea must be divided by the median line between its western coast and the Greek mainland continental coast, essentially ignoring or dismissing the existence of the Greek islands,” Jacovides said, stressing that “this position is legally invalid and untenable” because it is based on the argument it backed but failed to have adopted at the UN, namely that different rules must apply to enclosed or semi-enclosed seas, such as the Mediterranean, and other rules for the open seas as far as the delimitation of the EEZ is concerned as well as the rights of island states.
Turkey’s failure to convince UN member states of the validity of its views is reflected in articles 122 and 123 of the Convention, as these were adopted in their final wording, which says that the only obligation of states in enclosed or semi-enclosed seas is that they should cooperate with each other in matters of preservation of living resources and the environment and also for scientific research but that in all other respects the generally applicable and agreed rules (including on island states and delimitation) shall apply.
Cyprus, Ambassador Jacovides told CNA, has the possibility to address, and rightly addressed itself, to the Security Council and the European Union to raise the issue of Turkey’s threats or the use of force. As far as the Council is concerned, Turkey as a UN member is bound by the UN Charter which considers illegal any threat or use of force through military means as a tool to enforce national policies. On the EU front, Ankara, as an aspiring member of the European family, is well aware of the commitment to behave as a democratic nation, with respect to EU rules and regulations that neither encourage nor condone such tactics.
Responding to questions, he said it was very important to note the provisions of the agreements Cyprus has signed with Lebanon and Egypt on the delimitation of the EEZ, on the basis of the median line (article 1) and the settlement of any disputes that may arise through diplomatic channels, in a spirit of understanding and cooperation within a reasonable period of time or through arbitration (article 4 of the said agreements).
“This provision is particularly satisfactory for Cyprus”, Ambassador Jacovides, who is also an honorary lecturer at the Academy for the Law of the Seas in Rhodes and has been honoured by the Academy for his contribution to the development of the rules of the Law of the Sea, has said.
In April 2004, the Republic of Cyprus adopted two bills announcing the EEZ and the contiguous zone which stipulate that the delimitation of the said zones shall be governed by agreements and should this not occur, the delimitation shall not extend beyond the median line.
Asked if article 79 of the Convention of the Law of the Sea could spell trouble for Cyprus, Ambassador Jacovides expressed the view that Turkey would not attempt to cause problem using as a pretext this specific article that says “all states are entitled to lay submarine cables and pipelines on the continental shelf, in accordance with the provisions of this article”.
Furthermore, he pointed out that the Convention is very clear about the circumstances under which such action can take place by all states, and consequently Ankara is not expected to create any problems.
Articles 81 and 59 also have a special interest in as far as Turkey’s stance on Cyprus’ declared aim to explore and exploit possible oil and natural gas deposits.

Article 81 notes that “The costal state shall have the exclusive right to authorize and regulate drilling on the continental shelf for all purposes” while article 59 relates to the basis for the resolution of conflicts regarding the attribution of rights and jurisdiction in the exclusive economic zone.
“In cases where this Convention does not attribute rights or jurisdiction to the coastal state or to other states within the exclusive economic zone and a conflict arises between the interests of the coastal state and any other state or states, the conflict should be resolved on the basis of equity and in the light of all the relevant circumstances, taking into account the respective importance of the interests involved to the parties as well as to the international community as a whole,” it says.
Questioned on the status of the two military bases Britain, as a former colonial rule, has maintained on the island since Cyprus gained its independence in 1960, in relation to oil reserves, Ambassador Jacovides stressed that Britain has no jurisdiction over the EEZ simply because the provisions of the Treaty of Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus exclude any such possibility. The Treaty states clearly that the Bases have a three mile territory at sea, but exclusively for military purposes (Her Majesty’s government declares that their intention will be not to develop the SBA for other than military purposes).
Appendix O of the Treaty of Establishment notes that Britain shall not “impair the economic, commercial or industrial unity and life of the island” and in paragraph 3 section 10 of the same appendix it reads “The Republic of Cyprus will be invited to collect and keep revenue derived from any royalties due or taxes payable on minerals obtained in the Sovereign Base Areas and fees in respect of mining and prospecting licences, and for these purposes will be invited to issue licences in relation to these matters, subject to the consent and control of the SBA.”
Jacovides has served as Ambassador of the Republic to the USA for a number of years, Permanent Representative to the UN and at other diplomatic missions abroad.