Europe and United States Must Deny Turkey’s Spurious Claims Over the Aegean – Middle East Forum

Report on Aegean Maritime Tensions and Sustainable Development Implications

Executive Summary

On October 2, 2025, Turkey issued a NAVTEX (Navigational Telex) for the Piri Reis research vessel, authorizing seismic exploration in areas of the central Aegean Sea claimed by Greece as its continental shelf. This unilateral action represents a significant challenge to regional stability and undermines progress toward several key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The incident highlights a disregard for international maritime law, escalating tensions that directly conflict with the objectives of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). Furthermore, the dispute over marine resources and the methods employed threaten SDG 14 (Life Below Water) and impede the cooperative spirit required for SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

Analysis of the Dispute in the Context of SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Challenges to the Rule of Law and International Institutions

Turkey’s issuance of a third NAVTEX in under a month for exploration within the Greek continental shelf demonstrates a departure from the principles of international law, a cornerstone of SDG 16. This action prompted a counter-NAVTEX from Greece, asserting that the Turkish directive illegally encroached upon its sovereign territory. This pattern of unilateral action, described as creating “facts on the water,” circumvents legal and diplomatic processes, weakening the international rules-based order that SDG 16 aims to strengthen. The international legal community largely rejects Turkey’s legal framework for defining territorial rights in the Aegean, further isolating its position from established global norms.

Threats to Regional Peace and Security

The continued provocations have severely heightened regional tensions, undermining the SDG 16 target of reducing all forms of violence. The response to these actions has included significant military mobilization, which contravenes the goal of promoting peaceful and inclusive societies.

• Greece reportedly deployed over sixty fighter jets, its entire naval fleet, and special forces units in response to an earlier NAVTEX.
• Turkey has previously stated that any extension of Greek territorial waters to twelve nautical miles, as permitted under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), would be a casus belli (cause for war).
• This threat of force is a direct violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits such actions against the territorial integrity of a member state.

Legal Frameworks and the Obstruction of SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

Divergence on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

The core of the legal dispute stems from differing interpretations of maritime law, hindering the effective global partnerships envisioned in SDG 17. Greece is a signatory to the 1982 UNCLOS, which establishes maritime rights based on island geography. Turkey, which has not signed the treaty, argues that its application in the semi-enclosed Aegean Sea would unfairly limit its access to international waters. This refusal to engage with a near-universally accepted legal framework prevents the formation of a cooperative governance structure for the region, which is essential for achieving sustainable development.

Contested Interpretations and Lack of Good Faith

Ankara’s legal strategy undermines its credibility and obstructs partnership-building efforts. While non-signatories to UNCLOS are still bound by customary international law, Turkey’s arguments are considered flawed.

1. Turkey cites past international court cases, such as Libya v. Malta (1985) and Nicaragua v. Colombia (2012), to argue for equitable principles that limit the maritime rights of islands.
2. Legal analysis suggests these precedents are not directly applicable to the unique geography of the Aegean, weakening Turkey’s claim.
3. By selectively interpreting legal principles and employing hard-power tactics, Ankara diminishes its standing as a credible partner committed to peaceful dispute resolution, a prerequisite for SDG 17.

Environmental and Economic Dimensions

Implications for SDG 14: Life Below Water

The seismic exploration activities at the heart of the dispute pose a direct threat to the marine environment, conflicting with the objectives of SDG 14. Seismic surveys can negatively impact marine ecosystems and biodiversity. Moreover, the increased military presence and the persistent risk of armed conflict present a catastrophic threat to the health of the Aegean Sea, undermining all efforts to conserve and sustainably use marine resources.

Resource Management and SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

The conflict is fundamentally a dispute over the right to explore and exploit potential undersea resources. However, the pursuit of these resources through unilateral and aggressive means creates regional instability that is detrimental to sustainable economic growth (SDG 8). A stable, predictable, and rules-based environment is necessary for long-term investment and economic development. The current approach fosters uncertainty and diverts resources toward military posturing rather than productive economic activity.

Conclusion: A Path Forward Through Sustainable Development Principles

Turkey’s actions in the Aegean Sea are inconsistent with the foundational principles of the Sustainable Development Goals. To foster regional peace and stability, a renewed commitment to international law and multilateralism is required. Progress can only be achieved when dialogue prevails over intimidation and law prevails over force. A recommended path forward should be aligned with the SDG framework:

1. Uphold International Law: All parties must recognize and respect established legal frameworks, particularly UNCLOS, to strengthen the institutions that support SDG 16.
2. Promote Peaceful Dialogue: Engage in good-faith negotiations to resolve maritime delimitation disputes, fulfilling the aims of SDG 16 and SDG 17.
3. Ensure Environmental Protection: Any exploration of marine resources must be preceded by cooperative environmental impact assessments and management plans to protect the Aegean ecosystem, in line with SDG 14.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• The article directly addresses SDG 16 by focusing on a geopolitical conflict that undermines regional peace and stability. The core issues discussed—such as heightened tensions between Turkey and Greece, threats of war, disregard for international law, and military posturing—are central to the goal of promoting peaceful and inclusive societies. The narrative revolves around the breakdown of peaceful relations and the need for strong international institutions and adherence to the rule of law to resolve disputes. The article’s conclusion, which calls for “law [to] prevail over force, and dialogue over intimidation,” explicitly champions the principles of SDG 16.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere

   This target is relevant due to the explicit threat of armed conflict. The article states that Turkey’s 1995 threat that Greece extending its territorial waters would “constitute a casus belli or ’cause for war'” is a direct challenge to peace. Furthermore, the military response from Greece, which “deployed more than sixty fighter jets, the entire Hellenic Navy fleet, special forces on thirty islands, and army units,” demonstrates that the situation is escalating towards potential violence, which this target aims to reduce.

2. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all

   This is the most prominent target in the article. The entire dispute is framed around the interpretation and application of international law. The article highlights Turkey’s “disregard of international maritime law,” its refusal to sign the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and its violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. The text contrasts this with Greece’s “reliance on international law” and criticizes Turkey for undermining its position “in a rules-based international order.” The call for Turkey to recognize “the legal framework that governs maritime affairs” and for disputes to be resolved through “judicial oversight or engagement” directly supports the promotion of the rule of law.

3. Target 16.a: Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, to build capacity at all levels… to prevent violence

   This target is addressed through the article’s emphasis on the failure of international cooperation and dialogue. Turkey’s “unilateral action” of issuing a NAVTEX is presented as a substitute for “legal negotiation.” The conflict demonstrates a breakdown in diplomatic mechanisms designed to prevent violence. The article’s concluding statement that “regional peace and stability can be achieved only when… dialogue [prevails] over intimidation” is a clear call for strengthening international cooperation to manage and prevent conflict, which is the essence of this target.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Existence of and adherence to international legal frameworks (Implied indicator for Target 16.3)

   The article explicitly mentions Turkey’s refusal to sign the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). A country’s ratification status of such fundamental international treaties is a direct indicator of its commitment to the international rule of law. Progress would be measured by Turkey signing and ratifying the convention.

2. Unilateral actions that challenge international law and sovereignty (Implied indicator for Targets 16.1 and 16.3)

   The issuance of the NAVTEX by Turkey for seismic exploration in areas claimed by Greece is a specific, measurable action. The article notes this was “the third in less than a month,” demonstrating a pattern of behavior. The frequency and location of such unilateral actions serve as an indicator of escalating tensions and disregard for legal processes, thereby increasing the risk of violence.

3. Threats of force and military escalation (Implied indicator for Target 16.1)

   The article points to two clear indicators of a move away from peace. First is Turkey’s explicit threat of a “casus belli” (cause for war), a violation of the UN Charter. Second is Greece’s significant military deployment in response to the NAVTEX. The number and scale of military deployments and official threats of force are tangible indicators of the risk of violence.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

Source: meforum.org