Search

The Eastern Mediterranean is becoming a new region of interstate confrontation and clash of national interests. This is largely due to the discovery of oil and gas reserves, the development of which is becoming possible with the existing technology. The Republic of Turkey has a special position regarding this maritime region. The paper analyzes those bases - historical, political and legal - that determine Turkeys current policy with regard to maritime delimitation and the settlement of maritime disputes in the Eastern Mediterranean. Particularly, it is shown that Turkeys policy in the region continues to be based on the approaches that were announced by Turkey during the I-III UN Conferences on the Law of the Sea (1958, 1960, 1973-1982 respectively), which have remained unchanged up to now. This position, as regards both the outer limits of the territorial sea, the legal regime of islands and the delimitation of the continental shelf, continues to define the essence of the controversy between Turkey and other countries of the region, including Greece and the Republic of Cyprus. At the same time, it is shown that there is a set of circumstances that significantly limit the prospects of solving these interstate contradictions within the framework of international judicial instances, including the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The conclusion is made that, for both Turkey and Greece, the most acceptable option would be to work out a model of settlement, which would not imply the obligation of its immediate implementation. Particular attention is paid to the ideological and practical framing of Turkish claims within the framework of the Blue Homeland doctrine, developed by a number of retired Turkish officers. It shows how Ankara uses the ideas of pan-Turkism and neo-Ottomanism to justify its claims to vast maritime spaces. The distinctive feature of this doctrine most likely is its anti-American, anti-NATO and anti-European orientation. There is a paradoxical situation when certain ideas enshrined in this concept directly correlate with the interests of the Russian Federation.

The Black Sea region has a special geopolitical significance for at least two states - Russia and Turkey. In order to identify the key factors that complicate regional cooperation between the two countries, the article considers the main problems of Russian-Turkish cooperation in the Black Sea area under the conditions of post-crisis resumption of bilateral relations after the 2015 incident. Regional contradictions between Moscow and Ankara are largely caused by different positions on such issues as Crimeas joining to Russia, the regime of the Black Sea Straits as well as the policy of pan-Turkism pursued by Turkey towards the Turkic-speaking peoples of the region in the strive to form a Turkic world. In conclusion the authors explain the need to further strengthen versatile bilateral cooperation with Turkey and to pay special attention to security and humanitarian fields.

Despite the growing tension in Russia-West relations, the Arctic region continues to remain a zone of peace and cooperation. The level of interstate collaboration here is extremely high, unlike other maritime regions. The interaction is developing in scientific research, protection of the marine environment and biodiversity, regulation of fisheries, improvement of search and rescue efforts, control of oil spills, and regulation of navigation. However, interstate competition has not disappeared in the Arctic. The countries participating in the maritime activities in the region often have completely different priorities and are firmly defending their national interests. Under sanctions’ pressure, the Russian Federation is forced to seek new partners and allies in the Arctic. This choice is extremely difficult since the coincidence of positions on one issue or another is often minimal. In order to defend its interests, Russia needs to achieve such a format of interaction with the Arctic and non-Arctic countries which would be extremely mutually beneficial and work for the good of our country, but not to its detriment.