Throughout this period, UNCLOS III (United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea III) was attempting to resolve issues pertaining to the delimiting of continental shelves. Greece and Turkey were actively pressing arguments regarding situations involving their opposite coasts. Greece desired language that sought delimitation by agreements only, knowing that it would receive the continental shelf it was already claiming, unless a different agreement with Turkey occurred; an unlikely event. (6) On the other side, the Turkish government emphasized principles of equity over equidistance, focusing once again on its “special circumstances” argument and determined to rely on negotiations for resolution. (7) Ultimately, in 1982, UNCLOS III did nothing to resolve the arguments of the contending sides and continued to uphold Article I of the 1958 Geneva Convention, heavily emphasized in the Greek government’s view that their control of the continental shelf constituted an international law precedent. Article I states that a continental shelf be defined as
(a) seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside the area of the territorial sea, to a depth of 200 metres or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superadjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas; (b) the seabed and subsoil of similar submarine areas adjacent to the coasts of islands. (8)
In supporting this principle, UNCLOS III, Article 121, provided that the “ ‘continental shelf of an island [is] determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.’” (9)