Cyprus-Forum.com

[kimon07]

Yes, agree they would be territorial waters of GB out to 12 miles but don't agree with your start-point for EEZs. See now that the EEZ starts at the coast and therefore includes the territorial waters (see the graphic below).

Right you are, my mistake. Its the continental shelf that starts from where the territorial waters end (the sea basin outside the territorial waters to a max. depth of 200 meters).

Anyway, GB was caught out trying to pull a fast one in the small print on this with Anan, will it try it again???

Why not?

Well, GB raised no objection to the CY Blocks off the "S"BA coasts, and raised no objection to the CY/Israel and the CY/Egypt demarkation agreements.

Indeed Block 12 (that we've all heard about) is directly south of the Akrotiri "S"BA and it borders the Egyptian as well as the Israelli EEZ..., and GB has said nothing by way of a counter claim !!!! ... (Block 2 is off-shore from the Dhekalia "S"BA.)

How could they? Today's status of the bases does not give Britain that right (no territorial waters).

[GreekIslandGirl]

This was one of the conditions the British regretted making in the 1960 Constitution:

10) Mining
The Republic 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 authorities of the Sovereign Base Areas. These arrangements will not apply to stone, shingle, sand, gravel or other building and construction materials obtained by, or to mining and prospecting for such materials by, the United Kingdom authorities, or their contractors and others acting on their behalf.

Just as well two very little words ... "oil" and "gas" weren't added to the list of materials in the small print.

Oil and Gas come under mineral rights and were granted to the RoC.

[Pyrpolizer]

Erm... one of us needs to go away and do some research. There may be an issue of definitions here.

Believe that Territorial Waters are not the same as EEZ. Territorial Waters extend to max 12 miles, thereafter up to 200 miles from shore (up to any relevant mid-points) is EEZ.

There are legal defs within the law of the Sea for these terms. Who's gonna do the research...????

Bill, the EEZ starts at the point were the territorial waters of a country end. Therefore since the waters adjasent to the bases would not be territorial waters of the RoC., they would be territorial waters of Britain. Therefore, the 200 mile area further out from the territorial waters of the bases would be the EEZ of Britain (bases).

No, no no, that's a false interpretation. Read the wording carefully. "...Cyprus shall not claim as part of its territorial sea..."
First of all the terms territorial sea, EEZ etc refer to boundaries between states, the British bases are not a state.The wording here is such that actually recognizes that Cyprus's territorial sea starts from the shores of the bases, however with this statement Cyprus shall simply not claim those waters as part of her territorial sea. The question is claim them from who and for what purpose? The answer is "from the British Bases for the purpose of being used by the bases". By not claiming them from the British bases however, does not mean they automatically belong to them as territorial waters, and certainly does not mean they belong to Britain (LOL) as territorial waters!!! They still remain territorial waters of Cyprus, and with those exceptions the British can use them the same way the use the SBAs, i.e for military purposes only.

The fact is we did claim those waters already in setting the boundaries of our EEZ with neighbouring countries and there has been absolutely no objection from the British.

[Pyrpolizer]

Btw what normally happens when one state offers military bases to another that are next to the sea, is that they also offer them exclusive use of a sea corridor. In our case, the British got their bases with the 1960 agreements, they sort of got some extra rights calling them "sovereign" hence all those provocative legal terms regarding their use.

Nothing to worry anyway, the SBAs are illegal by all means and their status cannot stand not even a days trial at any international court. They could never go that illegal though by claiming that their Bases have territorial waters of their own though.

[wyoming cowboy]

Btw what normally happens when one state offers military bases to another that are next to the sea, is that they also offer them exclusive use of a sea corridor. In our case, the British got their bases with the 1960 agreements, they sort of got some extra rights calling them "sovereign" hence all those provocative legal terms regarding their use.

Nothing to worry anyway, the SBAs are illegal by all means and their status cannot stand not even a days trial at any international court. They could never go that illegal though by claiming that their Bases have territorial waters of their own though.

Pyrpo...I think the British consider the SBA's to be more then a base...If as mentioned before(seeKimon's post) they were trying to upgrade(throughAnnan) the "waterways" to and from the sba's, to "territorial waters", which would define the sba's as a state, consequently having a eez extending 200miles out to sea right smack in the middle of block 12. How could the sba's have territorial waters and not an eez. Are you saying that after Annan was ratified, then Cyprus would have the eez without the territorial waters, that doesnt make sense.

..."With respect to the infamous Annex B, note that it provides for the right to
exercise certain administrative functions and use of Cypriot territory, beyond the
“publicly agreed” sovereignty of the 99 square miles retained by Britain. To that
extent, the so-called “British Retained Sites and Installations” constitute a peculiar
legal regime. They are formally under Republic of Cyprus sovereignty, but the
exercise of that sovereignty has been permanently suspended.9 In practice, these
retained sites are treated like embassy premises within which the authorities of the
Republic could not enter without the explicit consent of the base authorities, with the
crucial difference that in the case of embassies the suspension of sovereignty is
based on the idea of reciprocation which makes the presence of embassies
conditional on the receiving state’s continuing consent. Ironically, though not
surprisingly, these sites and installations are roughly the areas the British
government originally asked to be included as part of the Sovereign Base Areas..."

Going out on a limb on this one, if the Annan plan was ratified, and the Brits could build"retained sites" or extensions of the sba's with the same legitimacy as the sba's (through the Zurich agreement and Annan plan), then in theory, a "retained site", on the coast of Paphos or any other coastal part of Cyprus, lets say, could also have its own, territorial waters and EEZ, consequently giving the Brits rights to all the hydrocarbon plots of Cyprus....

[kimon07]

No, no no, that's a false interpretation. Read the wording carefully. "...Cyprus shall not claim as part of its territorial sea..."

WRONG. When, in a legal arrangement, one party agrees not to claim a right from the other, it means that this party is relinquishing this right in favor of the other or abandons this right to the sole discretion of the other party.

The fact is we did claim those waters already in setting the boundaries of our EEZ with neighbouring countries and there has been absolutely no objection from the British.

That is because the Annan Plan was not signed and therefore the provisions depriving the RoC from the territorial waters adjacent to the coast line of the bases were never put to effect. Thus the British had not right to object or to agree.
When Papadopoulos set the boundaries of the EEZ with other countries, the RoC did not "claim" and did not have to "claim" territorial waters from anyone, because, under the status existing then (and today) all sea areas around the island, including those adjacent to the bases, are recognized internationally as territorial sea of the RoC. In fact, all waters around Cyprus, without exception, were delineated and recognized internationally as territorial sea of the RoC, firstly with the 1960 agreements and then again in the early 80s when the RoC extended its territorial waters all around the island to 12 miles. By setting and announcing the boundaries of the EEZ the RoC simply practiced an international right related to sea areas OUTSIDE its territorial waters but adjacent to them.

[Pyrpolizer]

But here's the whole point wcb and kimon: Exactly the same wording existed in the 1960 agreements regarding the SBAs. So the turning down of the Anan Plan did not change anything.

I agree however that the status of the British Bases and this term "sovereign" attached to them is very peculiar and deprives the RoC of some rights. Through all these years from 1960 we observed that the British exercised those rights (that they deprived from the Republic) always within their scope of military bases, however the irritating thing comes from their so called "sovereignty" . For example they installed those antennas without accounting to anybody, although there is suspicion that they cause cancer to people living nearby, and the Republic can do nothing about it.The same goes with their planes that fly dangerously at the coasts, shaking buildings and making people lose their sleep....

Imo we should set our priorities right.The SBAs are not a serious problem, we can deal with it, even question it's legality anytime we wish.We could even turn the SBAs to non functional by refusing cooperation and blocking all access to them.The real problem in Cyprus is the Turkish occupation, not the SBAs.

[kimon07]

But here's the whole point wcb and kimon: Exactly the same wording existed in the 1960 agreements regarding the SBAs. So the turning down of the Anan Plan did not change anything.

The whole point is that this particular wording DID NOT exist in the 1960 agreements and it was added by the amendment introduced with the Annan Plan. The RoC was not relinquishing territorial rights on the waters adjacent to the coasts of the bases under the 1960 agreements. It was only permitting "unimpeded access" to them.

[Pyrpolizer]

But here's the whole point wcb and kimon: Exactly the same wording existed in the 1960 agreements regarding the SBAs. So the turning down of the Anan Plan did not change anything.

The whole point is that this particular wording DID NOT exist in the 1960 agreements and it was added by the amendment introduced with the Annan Plan. The RoC was not relinquishing territorial rights on the waters adjacent to the coasts of the bases under the 1960 agreements. It was only permitting "unimpeded access" to them.

LOL you are wrong!!
Please download the 1960 Treaty of Establishment from here:
http://www.mfa.gov.cy/mfa/mfa2006.nsf/0 ... penElement

Tell me then what you read on page 7 section 3.
To save you the time here it is:

Code: Select all

SECTION 3
1. The Republic of Cyprus shall not claim, as part of its territorial sea, waters lying
between Line I and Line II as described in paragraph 2 of this Section, or between
Line III and Line IV as described therein

[GreekIslandGirl]

Says a lot when over half the treaties of Guarantee and Establishment are taken up with the 'continuing rights' of Britain.