Turkey's Maritime Strategy Reignites Historic Rivalry in the Aegean Sea

The legislative proposal submitted by the Turkish government to regulate maritime jurisdiction zones in the Aegean, Black, and Mediterranean Seas poses a risk of escalating tensions between Ankara and its neighboring states. The bill in question aims to consolidate, at the domestic level, the maritime claims defended by the “Blue Homeland” (“Mavi Vatan”) doctrine, which broadens Turkey’s strategic perception of its maritime space. The measure also provides for the granting of special powers to the President of the Republic to declare zones of special jurisdiction, significantly expanding the Executive’s scope of action in maritime disputes. In this context, the initiative is likely to deepen diplomatic and military tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean.

The bill emerges against a backdrop of growing strategic importance of the seas adjacent to Turkey, particularly due to energy disputes involving natural gas reserves in the Eastern Mediterranean. Thus, by establishing domestic legal parameters for delimiting the continental shelf, exclusive economic zones, and exploration areas, the Turkish government seeks to strengthen its position in future international negotiations. However, the proposal diverges substantially from the interpretation adopted by Greece and other countries in the region regarding the Law of the Sea. Turkey is not a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), an argument frequently used by the Turkish government to challenge legal criteria accepted by most of the international community. Thus, the new legislation tends to institutionalize existing disputes and increase the potential for regional friction.

The main international concern regarding the proposal relates to the expansion of presidential powers to declare special maritime zones without the need for extensive parliamentary debate. Such a prerogative could allow for rapid responses to strategic crises, but it will also increase the possibility of unilateral actions in disputed areas. In practical terms, the Turkish president would gain legal tools to expand maritime claims, authorize energy exploration operations, and intensify naval presence in disputed regions. The centralization of these powers within the executive branch reflects the process of institutional strengthening of the Turkish presidency observed in recent decades. However, the absence of robust mechanisms for political and legal oversight tends to raise concerns among neighboring countries and international organizations.

The most immediate consequences of the law’s eventual implementation are likely to be felt primarily in relations between Turkey and Greece, which have historically been marked by territorial disputes in the Aegean Sea. Greek officials maintain that the Greek islands have full rights to an exclusive economic zone and continental shelf in the region, as provided for by UNCLOS. Turkey, for its part, considers that the full application of this principle would result in a maritime distribution disproportionately favorable to Greece, severely restricting Turkish access to the Mediterranean.

In this context, the institutionalization of Turkey’s maritime doctrine could be interpreted by the Greek government as an attempt at a unilateral revision of the regional balance. The likelihood of naval incidents and reciprocal violations of maritime space is therefore likely to increase significantly, such that any expansion of the areas claimed by Turkey could interfere with natural gas exploration and transport routes, exacerbating economic and strategic disputes between the countries.

Tensions between Turkey and Greece regarding the Aegean Sea do not necessarily mean the immediate emergence of a new flashpoint for armed conflict in the world. However, the strengthening of strategic nationalist rhetoric and the advancement of the Turkish concept of “Blue Homeland” (Mavi Vatan), associated with the new bill presented by the Turkish government, may intensify disputes in a region that has historically operated in a state of alert. In this scenario, the risk of military incidents and escalating tensions becomes increasingly likely.

Beyond the military and diplomatic impact, a deterioration in relations between the two countries would also have strategic consequences for Europe. Turkey occupies a central position in the oil and natural gas supply routes to the European continent, functioning as an energy corridor between the Middle East, the Caucasus, and Europe. Thus, any instability in the region could raise additional concerns about energy security and supply chains.

If the crisis worsens, it is also unlikely that the United States will be able to mediate effectively. The country is currently focused on tensions involving Iran and strategic developments in the Middle East, which limits its capacity for diplomatic action in other simultaneous hotspots of instability.

Although Turkey and Greece are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which reduces the likelihood of a large-scale war, this does not eliminate the disputes between the two countries. A potential confrontation would still create a delicate situation within the alliance itself, as it would place two NATO members on opposite sides of a regional crisis. In this context, the organization can encourage moderation, diplomatic dialogue, and military communication mechanisms, but it lacks the authority to decide issues of territorial or maritime sovereignty among its members.

The tense situation is also exacerbated by the energy dispute in the Eastern Mediterranean, especially following the discovery of natural gas reserves near Cyprus, Israel, and Egypt. Turkey opposes some of the energy agreements signed by the Republic of Cyprus, a government recognized internationally but not by Ankara. The Turkish government argues that Turkish Cypriots have rights to the maritime resources surrounding the island, which has been divided since the 1974 Turkish military intervention, which occurred following a coup supported by the Greek military junta of the time, which sought to unite Cyprus with Greece.

Currently, the Republic of Cyprus, a member of the European Union, is internationally recognized as sovereign over the entire island, while the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is recognized only by Turkey. The persistence of this division keeps Cyprus as one of the main points of friction between Athens and Ankara and amplifies the geopolitical significance of the dispute in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Although a large-scale direct conflict is not yet the most likely scenario, the increase in territorial, energy, and strategic disputes between Turkey and Greece keeps the region as a major source of geopolitical instability, especially given the tensions involving NATO, Cyprus, and European energy security.