Maris Basha
Balkan MUN ICJ 2014
Position paper

Topic A: Aegean Sea continental shelf, Greece Vs Turkey, 10th August 1976.
The Aegean Sea continental shelf dispute continues for almost 40 years, and Greece and Turkey never came to a solution, neither did the UN or ICJ. Both parts pretend different things about the continental shelf. For Greece the International laws give to the islands (which belong to Greece) the right to extend their jurisdiction, and that every island has his own jurisdiction and continental shelf, thus the definition must be made with a median line. For Turkey the islands do not have the right to extend their jurisdiction on the continental shelf because they are in the Turkish continental shelf, so for Turkey must not be applied the median line definition. So, considering that the UN’s main goal is to maintain peace and stability between all the countries of the world and the ICJ’s main goal is to respect the International Laws and to find a peaceful solution to solve disputes, I judge that the solutions may be to restrict Greek territorial waters of some naval miles (n miles) in the continental shelf, near the islands, and to let all the other territories as they are. This is one of the most comprehensive solutions because Greece has the largest part of the Aegean Sea and any restriction other than this would be in big disfavor for Turkey. This solution does not favor Turkey either Greece, but is a middle solution, which makes both part content. With this solution the conflict will come to an end and the relations of the two countries will remain good as they are from 1999.

Topic B: Application of the Interim Accord FYROM Vs Greece, 13 September 1995.
Since his birth as a country FYROM, or the Republic of Macedonia as they want to be called, had problems with Greece. These problems are only related to the name of the country, Macedonia. Greece pretends that Macedonia has territorial aims to Greece because the Northern territory of Greece it’s called Macedonia, and because Macedonia was the name used by Alexander the Great. Greece pretends Macedonia to change its name and to not use Republic of Macedonia. Greece wants Macedonia to use the part “Republic of New Macedonia” or “Republic of Northern Macedonia” or “Repubika of Macedonija”. Macedonia wants to use the name that they gave to themselves, “Republic of Macedonia”. Greece presents that the ICJ has no jurisdiction to decide for the cases brought by FYROM. The arguments of Greece are that even if the Court had jurisdiction, which is not true for them, they hadn’t branched the obligation based on Article no.11 of the Interim Accord. Greece said also that even if they have branch the obligations of the Interim Accord, which is not true for them, they would do this because of the numerous branches that FYROM did. FYROM’s arguments are that the jurisdiction of ICJ is written on Article no.22 and that the jurisdiction is based to article no.36/1 and article no.21/2 of the Interim Accord. The ICJ has the jurisdiction to take decisions because in the article no.21 of the Interim Accord between the two parts, and the ICJ can judge disputes between them. Articles no.11 and no.22 give right to Greece to object the membership of FYROM, but then is the organization that has to judge. Greece has not to be directly interfering with the membership, but has the right to object with it. In articles no.5 and no.21/2 the parts may send to the ICJ disputes concerning the Interim Accord except the ones regarding the negotiations which have to be made with the Secretary-General of the UN. I judge that the only possible resolve of the conflict may be for the Macedonian part to change its name with the bilateral relationship with Greece and be called differently, and to have another name for the international communications. Macedonia can use “Republic of Macedonia” with other countries and organizations as mentioned in article no.22 of the Interim Accord that Greece cannot interfere with the agreement that FYROM makes with other countries and organizations, and to use a different name, that has to be specified, with the bilateral relationships with Greece. In the international organizations in which Greece is a member, Greece can only object for the membership of the country, but it cannot directly interfere with the membership in organization because it would be a violation of the article no.22 Interim Accord. So, the final decision is of the organization, and not of Greece. Greece can only object the membership. So Greece could not object or interfere if FYROM changes the name for the other countries, and keeps another name for the bilateral relationship with Greece because it would be a violation of the article no.22 of Interim Accord. The ICJ can judge things related to the Interim Accord but not directly give verdicts about the name dispute. The ICJ can judge as a violation of the article no.22 if Greece complains for the name change of FYROM for other countries, but it cannot give verdicts to change the name definitively.