Naples, Italy
Introduction
On 15 August 2026, Türkiye fixed the boundaries of two national marine parks in domestic law. The northern park surrounds Gökçeada and follows the coasts of Çanakkale and Tekirdağ. The other lies between Fethiye and Kaş in the eastern Mediterranean. Publication in the Official Gazette moved both projects from political announcement into domestic administration. Turkish agencies can now prepare their management plans. Enforcement against a party outside Turkish jurisdiction would be a later and more consequential step. [1] [2] [3] At the same time, Greek defence records showed a renewed level of Turkish activity in contested Aegean airspace. By 18 August, Hellenic authorities had logged 442 violations since the start of the year, compared with 146 over the same period in 2025. Entries attributed to UAVs had risen from 85 to 206. [4] [5] [6]
The two developments unfolded inside a rapprochement born from an earlier crisis. The confrontation over energy exploration in the eastern Mediterranean in 2020 brought Greek and Turkish forces into closer proximity and made an accident a plausible route to escalation. European pressure for de-escalation was followed by a NATO mechanism intended to keep a local incident from spreading. [24] [38] Greek assistance after the February 2023 earthquakes in Türkiye then reopened political space that had been largely absent three years earlier. [40] The Athens Declaration of December 2023 converted the improved atmosphere into a continuing diplomatic process. [39] When the governments met again on 11 February 2026, they renewed their commitment to good-neighbourly relations and to avoiding unjustified tension. [7] By then, dialogue functioned as a political ceiling rather than a settlement. It allowed both governments to continue contesting the Aegean without treating every episode as a reason to abandon the rapprochement.
There is no evidence that the park decrees and the UAV activity belonged to a single operational plan. Their connection lies instead in the choices they imposed on Athens. A decree can remain a diplomatic problem until an authority tries to enforce it. An air track may require a decision within hours. Examining the cases together shows when Greece considers a written objection sufficient and when it makes state presence visible. It also explains how frequent friction can persist without automatically ending the diplomatic opening.
The Aegean’s Unresolved Strategic Geography
The geography of the Aegean prevents either country from separating law from security. Greek islands lie close to the Anatolian coast, so Türkiye’s western seaboard faces an archipelago largely under Greek sovereignty. The Greek position gives full legal effect to that sovereignty. Türkiye argues that this interpretation would sharply restrict access from its own coastline. Periods of détente have changed the tone of the relationship without removing the disagreement, because it concerns strategic room for manoeuvre as much as legal title. [8] [25] [26] [32]
Hydrocarbon exploration made the continental shelf an operational issue in the 1970s. Greece brought the dispute before the International Court of Justice, but the Court ruled in 1978 that it lacked jurisdiction and did not reach the merits. [11] The absence of an agreed or adjudicated boundary gave greater political weight to unilateral acts. A licence or an official map could not settle title, yet it could state how a government intended to exercise authority. During periods of tension, naval deployments gave such documents an immediate strategic meaning.
Territorial waters added an explicit element of deterrence. Greece retains a six-nautical-mile limit in the Aegean while asserting its right under the law of the sea to extend it to twelve. In June 1995, the Turkish parliament authorised the government to use all necessary measures, including military force, if Athens moved beyond six miles. [12] Greece describes the resolution as a casus belli. Türkiye presents it as protection against a drastic restriction of access to the Aegean. [8] [13] Seven months later, the Imia/Kardak crisis showed how little room for error remained. A quarrel over a barely known feature brought armed forces into direct opposition before political leaders recovered control. [27]
A different political opening followed the earthquakes of 1999. Humanitarian cooperation softened the atmosphere of permanent confrontation at the moment when the Helsinki European Council recognised Türkiye as a candidate for EU membership. Helsinki also linked outstanding border disputes to peaceful settlement and, if necessary, recourse to the International Court of Justice. [36] [40] [41] Athens could support engagement with Ankara without abandoning adjudication as a long-term objective. The European framework therefore changed the incentives surrounding the dispute, although it left the claims themselves intact.
The air dispute developed within the same unresolved geography but follows its own legal logic. Greece claims ten nautical miles of national airspace even though its territorial sea in the Aegean remains at six. Türkiye recognises only the six-mile band. The Athens Flight Information Region gives Greece responsibility for the safe management of flights, not sovereignty over the entire FIR. [9] [10] A track recorded in Athens as a violation may consequently be treated in Ankara as lawful activity or as a response to Greek conduct. The figures do not describe an agreed boundary. Used with that limitation, they still show how often the Greek system has had to classify contested Turkish activity and how the intensity of the rivalry has changed over time. [33]
The European bargain of 1999 no longer carries the same political weight. Greece can still move a bilateral dispute into EU politics, whereas Türkiye’s accession negotiations have been at a standstill since 2018. [42] Ankara therefore has less reason to accept the Union as the principal arena for managing the Aegean and places greater emphasis on bilateral bargaining. Its refusal to join UNCLOS reinforces that preference. [8] [17] Mavi Vatan gives the Turkish position a broader strategic language in which maritime reach is tied to national autonomy. [28] Domestic politics hardens the divide. In Athens, any concession affecting island rights can be presented as a loss of sovereignty. Turkish debate starts from the fear that the Greek interpretation would confine a continental state along the Anatolian coast. Neither government can easily revise those positions, even when both prefer restraint to open confrontation. [25] [32]
Marine Parks and the Threshold of Enforcement
Environmental policy had entered the dispute before the Turkish decrees. Greece approved a National Spatial Strategy for the Marine Space in April 2025 and later announced parks in the Ionian and southern Aegean seas. [14] [15] Its formal planning process under the European maritime framework remains incomplete. More importantly, that framework does not determine national jurisdiction. [29] [30] Ankara nevertheless objected because it believed the Greek areas prejudiced Turkish claims. Athens then protested a Turkish maritime zoning map issued in the same year. The measures arose from different legal processes, but each government understood the other’s map as a statement about disputed space.
The decrees of August 2026 took Türkiye’s park policy beyond mapping and into governance. The northern park covers 1,742.14 square kilometres around Gökçeada and the nearby Turkish coast. Fethiye-Kaş covers 21,706.03 square kilometres in the eastern Mediterranean. Only the northern area lies in the Aegean proper. The southern park still matters to this analysis because Ankara established both under the same regulatory decision and Athens objected to both. Türkiye’s Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry described the projects as conservation measures while placing them explicitly within Mavi Vatan. [1] [2] [3] [28] Greece replied that the perimeters extended beyond Turkish territorial waters into areas that it regards as high seas above its continental shelf. [16]
The published coordinates clarify the scale of the disagreement without resolving it. Measured against a six-nautical-mile coastal proxy, about 479 square kilometres of the northern polygon and 19,601 square kilometres of Fethiye-Kaş lie beyond that line. [1] [2] [19] The figures help explain the Greek reaction. They cannot determine where a lawful maritime boundary lies or which rights either state possesses beyond it.
The practical significance of the parks will depend on their administration. Continental-shelf rights attach to the seabed and subsoil. A marine park governs conduct in the waters above, so its international effect turns on which rule is applied and to whom. Part VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea protects high-seas navigation and overflight. Türkiye is not party to the Convention and disputes its relevance to several Aegean questions, but those freedoms remain central to the Greek objection. [8] [17] Cooperation would not require either side to abandon its legal position. The SPA/BD Protocol to the Barcelona Convention allows neighbouring states to protect an undelimited area while reserving their claims. [18]
Athens has so far kept the dispute at that level. On 16 August, the Foreign Ministry denied that the decrees could create legal effects or a fait accompli. By placing the Greek position on record without deploying a state vessel, the government limited its response to diplomacy while ensuring that Türkiye’s administrative act did not pass uncontested. [16]
The strategic threshold would change if a Turkish authority tried to apply park rules to a foreign operator. Research on unilateral conduct in disputed maritime areas shows why enforcement matters: it turns a legal position into an encounter between state authority and an outside actor. [34] Rules governing conduct already subject to Turkish jurisdiction remain principally domestic. Stopping a foreign research vessel in an undelimited area would be different. Athens would then have to decide whether another note could protect its position or whether Greek presence at sea had become necessary. Nothing in the available record shows that this point has been reached.
UAVs and the Threshold of Interception
Air activity leaves Athens much less time to choose its response. Over the first 230 days of 2026, the total number of violations in the Greek archive more than tripled. UAV entries rose from 85 to 206. They also appeared more consistently: the number of days with at least one entry increased from 84 to 122. During the first eighteen days of August, the archive recorded 51 UAV entries, compared with nine on the same dates in 2025. [4] [5] [6] These are Greek classifications of activity in contested airspace rather than a record accepted by both sides. Türkiye does not publish a comparable daily series.
The return of frequent activity was politically striking because it followed a period of exceptional calm. In January 2025, Greek Foreign Minister George Gerapetritis had said that violations were down from thousands to almost none during the rapprochement. [20] When they increased again, unmanned aircraft accounted for a much larger share of the record. A UAV can remain airborne without placing a crew in the aircraft, although a sustained mission still relies on ground infrastructure and human operators. [22] Research on Turkish drone operations elsewhere suggests that this reduces exposure compared with many crewed missions. [35] Baykar advertises more than eighteen hours of endurance for the TB2, but the Greek archive does not identify the models operating in the Aegean. [23]
The contrast between 17 and 18 August shows why the aggregate total cannot explain the operational problem by itself. On the first day, Greece recorded three UAVs operating with a CN-235 aircraft. The twelve attributed violations produced no engagement. The following day, four UAVs appeared within a larger formation that included seven combat aircraft, two of them armed. Greek authorities reported twenty-five violations and said that every aircraft was identified and intercepted. The simulated dogfight involved a crewed fighter. [6] [21] This short comparison cannot establish a general rule, but it shows that the response depended on the character of the formation rather than on the presence of a UAV alone.
For the Greek chain of command, the legal objection is therefore only the beginning of the decision. The meaning of a track depends on where it flies and on the aircraft accompanying it. An armed fighter approaching a sensitive area may justify a response that an isolated unmanned track does not. Public data reveal neither which incidents were monitored from the ground nor how many Greek sorties followed. This evidentiary gap does not erase the difference in tempo: while a park decree can remain a dispute over documents until enforcement begins, an air incident reaches an operational authority almost immediately.
Calibrating Greece’s Response
The initiative remains with Ankara. It chooses when to issue a decree and when to conduct a flight that Greece later records as a violation. Greek officials must then judge whether silence would weaken their position and whether physical action would create a larger danger. Nothing in the public record demonstrates a coordinated campaign or a Turkish advantage in resources. The observable imbalance is temporal, because Greece has to interpret an event it did not schedule. Documentation helps Athens manage that disadvantage. The note of 16 August prevented the park decrees from passing uncontested while the government waited to see whether enforcement followed. Greek air records preserve Athens’s account of contested activity even when the military command does not consider a visible response necessary. [4] [5] [6] [16] A decision not to deploy can therefore defend the Greek position without raising the operational stakes.
A maritime objection leaves enough distance for the dispute to remain inside the foreign-policy system. Greek planning documents can reinforce the claim without creating an encounter on the water. That distance would disappear if a Turkish authority stopped a foreign vessel, because the disputed perimeter would then become a basis for action against a third party. Athens would have to consider whether a presence at sea was necessary. No comparable pause exists in the air. A track reaches the air-defence chain almost at once, and the evidence from 17 and 18 August suggests that the involvement of armed or crewed aircraft changes the response. NATO’s hotline can clarify intent at a dangerous moment, but it cannot decide which legal account of the Aegean is correct. [8] [17] [24] [29] [30]
Greek responses therefore do more than absorb the cost of Turkish initiative. A formal objection creates evidence that Athens did not accept a decree. An interception communicates that a particular track crossed an operational threshold. Ankara can learn from those reactions, but Greece can also use them to prevent repetition from appearing to establish consent. Initiative alone does not consolidate a position.
The diplomatic framework gives both governments room to make these distinctions. The February 2026 declaration provides political authority for restraint, and the NATO channel reduces the danger that a tactical misunderstanding will overwhelm it. [7] [24] Earlier rapprochements changed the conduct of the rivalry even when the legal positions survived. [36] Research on competition below the threshold of war explains why this matters: a limited action acquires strategic meaning through the response it produces and the escalation that does not follow. [31] Work on the territorial-waters dispute has likewise shown that a durable status quo can survive when an advance is followed by restraint rather than an automatic countermove. [37] During the period examined, Greece and Türkiye relied on that selectivity to contain incidents without softening their claims.
Conclusion
The marine-park decrees and the UAV record have not altered the legal balance in the Aegean. They show instead how the dispute is handled before a crisis begins. Because Türkiye had not tried to enforce park rules against a foreign operator, Athens could protect its position through a formal objection. The aerial record allowed far less time for deliberation and sometimes led to interception. The difference makes Greek restraint calibrated rather than passive.
The cases matter together without having to belong to a coordinated Turkish campaign. Their strategic relevance lies in the decisions they elicit from Athens and in the thresholds those decisions make visible. Greek reactions also produce a record of opposition that Ankara cannot ignore, so control of the initiative does not automatically consolidate a claim. Dialogue has kept these exchanges below the level of a wider crisis without ending the competition. The stability observed so far has rested on repeated political judgement over when a dispute can remain in documents and when state presence has to become visible.
About the Author
Matteo Forlani holds Master’s degrees in International Relations from the University of Naples L’Orientale and in Historical Sciences from the University of Naples Federico II. His work examines the long-term forces and historical roots that shape contemporary political realities. A geopolitical analyst and contributor to newspapers and cultural outlets, he writes on international affairs, geopolitics, history and cultural heritage.
Sources
Accessed 25 August 2026 unless otherwise indicated. Official titles are retained where useful; English descriptions are supplied for readability.
[23] Baykar Technology. ‘Bayraktar TB2.’ Technical Specifications. Accessed 25 August 2026. Online source.
[33] Choulis, Ioannis, Marius Mehrl and Kostas Ifantis. ‘Arms Racing, Military Build-Ups and Dispute Intensity: Evidence from the Greek-Turkish Rivalry, 1985–2020.’ Defence and Peace Economics 33, no. 7 (2022): 779–804. Online source.
[42] Council of the European Union. ‘Türkiye: EU Relations and Accession Status.’ Accessed 30 August 2026. Online source.
[40] D’Angelo, Massimo. ‘Helping My Friends: Rethinking Disaster Diplomacy in the Wake of 1999 and 2023 Seismic Events in Turkey, Syria and Greece.’ Poliarchie/Polyarchies 7, no. 1 (2024): 32–56. Online source.
[21] eKathimerini. ‘New Aegean Airspace Breaches by Turkish Warplanes, One Simulated Dogfight.’ 18 August 2026. Online source.
[38] European Council. ‘Conclusions on External Relations: Eastern Mediterranean.’ 1 October 2020. Online source.
[41] European Council. ‘Presidency Conclusions, Helsinki European Council, 10–11 December 1999.’ Accessed 30 August 2026. Online source.
[29] European Maritime Spatial Planning Platform. ‘Greece: Maritime Spatial Plan(s) — Work in Progress.’ Accessed 26 August 2026. Online source.
[30] European Union. Directive 2014/89/EU Establishing a Framework for Maritime Spatial Planning. 23 July 2014. Online source.
[19] Flanders Marine Institute. Marine Regions FAQ and World Countries (ESRI, 2014) Coastline Metadata. Online source.
[37] Güner, Serdar Ş. ‘Aegean Territorial Waters Conflict: An Evolutionary Narrative.’ Conflict Management and Peace Science 21, no. 4 (2004): 297–312. Online source.
[28] Güç, Kürşad. ‘Spatial Context of Ontological Security in Foreign Policy Analysis: The Case of Türkiye’s Blue Homeland Policy.’ Uluslararası İlişkiler 22, no. 88 (2025): 45–64. Online source.
[20] Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Minister George Gerapetritis Interview with Efimerida ton Syntakton. 25 January 2025. Online source.
[16] Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs. ‘Announcement regarding the Turkish Presidential Decrees of 15 August on the Establishment of Two National Marine Parks.’ 16 August 2026. Online source.
[13] Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs. ‘Territorial Sea – Casus Belli.’ Online source.
[4] Hellenic National Defence General Staff. Airspace Violations Archive, 2025. Online source.
[5] Hellenic National Defence General Staff. Airspace Violations Archive, 2026. Online source.
[6] Hellenic National Defence General Staff. August 2026 Daily Airspace Records. Online source.
[9] Hellenic National Defence General Staff. ‘Explanations of Terms.’ Online source.
[32] Heraclides, Alexis. The Greek-Turkish Conflict in the Aegean: Imagined Enemies. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Online source.
[27] Hickok, Michael Robert. ‘The Imia/Kardak Affair, 1995–96: A Case of Inadvertent Conflict.’ European Security 7, no. 4 (1998): 118–136. Online source.
[35] Hwang, Won-June and Seung-Hoon Song. ‘The Extension of Turkish Influence and the Use of Drones.’ Comparative Strategy 41, no. 5 (2022): 439–458. Online source.
[11] International Court of Justice. Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey), Judgment. 19 December 1978. Online source.
[31] Jordán, Javier. ‘International Competition Below the Threshold of War: Toward a Theory of Gray Zone Conflict.’ Journal of Strategic Security 14, no. 1 (2021): 1–24. Online source.
[24] NATO. ‘Military De-confliction Mechanism between Greece and Turkey Established at NATO.’ 1 October 2020. Online source.
[39] Prime Minister of the Hellenic Republic. ‘Athens Declaration on Friendly Relations and Good-Neighbourliness.’ 7 December 2023. Online source.
[7] Prime Minister of the Hellenic Republic. ‘Joint Declaration of the Governments of Greece and Türkiye.’ 11 February 2026. Online source.
[18] Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean. Article 9. Online source.
[3] Republic of Türkiye, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. ‘Ülkemizin İlk Deniz Milli Parkları Fethiye-Kaş ve Kuzey Ege Oldu.’ August 2026. Online source.
[10] Republic of Türkiye, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. ‘Air Space Related Problems.’ Online source.
[8] Republic of Türkiye, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. ‘Maritime Issues – Aegean Sea – The Outstanding Aegean Issues.’ Online source.
[1] Resmî Gazete. Presidential Decision No. 11626. 16 August 2026. Online source.
[2] Resmî Gazete. Presidential Decision No. 11627. 16 August 2026. Online source.
[14] Reuters. ‘Greece Protests Turkey’s Maritime Zoning Plan, Says It Lacks Legal Basis.’ 17 June 2025. Online source.
[15] Reuters. ‘Greece Reveals Boundaries of Two Marine Parks in Ionian and Aegean Seas.’ 21 July 2025. Online source.
[36] Rumelili, Bahar. ‘Transforming Conflicts on EU Borders: The Case of Greek-Turkish Relations.’ JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 45, no. 1 (2007): 105–126. Online source.
[12] Turkish Grand National Assembly. General Assembly Proceedings, 19th Period, Vol. 88, 121st Sitting. 8 June 1995, pp. 136–137. Online source.
[25] Tziarras, Zenonas. ‘Drivers of Crisis in the Greek-Turkish Protracted Conflict: A Neoclassical Realist Reading.’ Southeast European and Black Sea Studies 25, no. 2 (2025): 165–185. Online source.
[17] United Nations. Convention on the Law of the Sea, Part VII: High Seas. Online source.
[26] Van Dyke, Jon M. ‘An Analysis of the Aegean Disputes under International Law.’ Ocean Development & International Law 36, no. 1 (2005): 63–117. Online source.
[34] van Logchem, Youri. ‘Acts of Unilateralism in Disputed Maritime Areas: A Survey of State Practice.’ In The Rights and Obligations of States in Disputed Maritime Areas, 249–289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021. Online source.
[22] Williams, Alison J. ‘Enabling Persistent Presence? Performing the Embodied Geopolitics of the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Assemblage.’ Political Geography 30, no. 7 (2011): 381–390. Online source.