In a calculated move cloaked under the banner of environmental stewardship, Turkey has announced the establishment of two so-called Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) through the UNESCO–EU MSP global platform.
While framed as initiatives to preserve biodiversity and ensure sustainable maritime governance, these Turkish declarations are anything but benign. In reality, they represent a provocative, unilateral challenge to Greek sovereign rights and a brazen circumvention of international maritime law.
Legal smoke and mirrors
According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the authority to establish marine parks or exert regulatory jurisdiction over maritime space is reserved for areas under national sovereignty (Territorial Sea) or defined sovereign rights (Exclusive Economic Zone/Continental Shelf). Turkey’s new marine parks, however, fall well outside its territorial waters and directly into zones where Greece holds either existing or potential rights under international law.
By designating marine parks in areas that remain legally unresolved, Turkey is attempting to assert de facto control and create faits accomplis. This represents not environmental diplomacy, but political opportunism—a deliberate attempt to undermine Greek entitlements and destabilise regional maritime norms.
Northern Aegean MPA: A direct violation of Greek maritime rights
The most provocative example is the Northern Aegean Marine Protected Area, which Turkey has demarcated beyond its 6-nautical-mile territorial sea, within a region where Greece holds the unilateral right—enshrined in international law—to extend its territorial sea to 12nm.
This move ignores the fundamental principle that territorial sovereignty overrides all other maritime zones. Worse still, Turkey’s map draws the MPA up to the median line between the Anatolian mainland and Greek islands, denying islands any legal influence, a blatant contradiction of the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice and long-standing UNCLOS provisions.
Turkey’s action is not simply a distortion of environmental governance—it is an attempt to replace Greece’s sovereign rights with Turkey’s administrative claims, thereby normalising illegal jurisdictional assertions under the veil of ecological concern.
Fethiye–Kaş MPA: A calculated probe into disputed waters
The second park, the Fethiye–Kaş Marine Protected Area, also reaches beyond Turkish territorial waters into areas where maritime delimitation with Greece remains unresolved. While Turkey refrains from extending this MPA beyond the median line with Rhodes, in a subtle nod to potential international scrutiny, it boldly enters the 6–12nm maritime zone south of Kastellorizo (Megisti)—a region where Greece maintains an undisputed right to extend its sovereignty.
Furthermore, this marine park also infringes on potential Greek EEZ and continental shelf entitlements, again reinforcing the pattern of Turkish legal adventurism wrapped in environmentalist rhetoric.
Marine parks without a legal anchor
Under UNCLOS, marine jurisdiction for regulatory or environmental purposes can be exercised only:
- Within territorial waters (up to 12nm), where full sovereignty applies;
- Or within a legally established EEZ or continental shelf, agreed bilaterally or declared unilaterally where no overlapping claims exist.
Turkey’s marine parks fall into international waters lacking recognised Turkish jurisdiction. As such, these initiatives are legally null, carrying no binding force, and serving instead as tools of soft annexation.
In contrast, Greece has responsibly established marine parks solely within its 6nm territorial waters, fully respecting international law and maritime boundaries. The Turkish model, by contrast, imposes unilateral “administration” on contested waters, positioning Ankara as a maritime aggressor rather than a responsible coastal state.
Strategic response: From diplomacy to jurisdictional defence
Greece cannot afford to ignore these provocations. The normalisation of Turkish jurisdictional fiction risks eroding Athens’ legal position over time.
As such, Greek policymakers must consider a robust, layered response:
Extension of Territorial Waters in the Eastern Mediterranean: This would reaffirm Greece’s sovereign rights, exploit the legal primacy of territorial waters, and expose the illegality of Turkish jurisdictional claims. Declaration of a 24nm Contiguous Zone: Under Article 33 of UNCLOS, Greece may unilaterally establish a Contiguous Zone beyond its territorial waters for customs, fiscal, sanitary, and immigration purposes—without extending sovereignty per se. Such a move would reinforce Greek presence in areas where Turkey is asserting control through MPAs, without triggering a casus belli. Diplomatic and Legal Communication: Greece must mobilise its diplomatic apparatus and strategic communications to highlight Turkey’s double game—using international environmental platforms to mask geopolitical provocations.
A Pattern of Escalation, Not Ecology
Turkey’s marine park declarations fit a broader pattern: the calculated, incremental undermining of Greek maritime rights through institutional subterfuge, cartographic aggression, and selective international engagement.
Environmental protection is a global imperative—but it cannot become a geopolitical Trojan horse for jurisdictional overreach. Until Turkey respects the basic tenets of international law, its marine parks must be viewed not as conservation efforts but as legalised aggression masquerading as maritime policy.
Conclusion
The international community, particularly the EU and UNESCO, must critically reassess Turkey’s use of platforms like MSPglobal. Greece, meanwhile, must respond decisively—not only to safeguard its sovereign rights, but to prevent a dangerous precedent from taking root in the Eastern Mediterranean.
The map may be dressed in green, but the message is clear: Turkey is not planting reefs—it is planting flags.
