Negotiator confesss Albania's deal with Greece for the sea: This is the truth.

He answers all claims raised on that agreement, while he says that in January 2011, the Foreign Ministry addressed a foreign legal study (Dewey & expertise) for a legal study. LeBoeuf LLP, which did not state violations of the agreement in question.

Speaking of the deal being negotiated now, Gerveni says the Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Kotzia's statement of 12 nautical miles is legitimate concern. He doubts that the short time parties have available for concluding the new agreement does not promise something positive. “Declarations made by political levels that by April (in just three months) will reach “a deal much better than that of 2009” seems too optimistic to be true. Still no negotiating group to discuss the technical level. I remember our team lasted discussions for almost two years. However, being convinced that in the 2009 Sea Agreement, we have received what is due us on the basis of the Convention on Sea Law, I wish success to the new negotiating team”, says counteradmiral Gerveni. K RISTAQ GERVENIA'S main purpose is to clarify the general public for the truth of the 2009 Sea Agreement. Without going far in history, the issue of separation of the maritime border with Greece was triggered by the demand of oil society MEDOIL, for oil and gas research in the JOHN 5 block in September 2006. Based on international law, states cannot begin exploiting water and underwater resources without previously determining the maritime border. Under these conditions, with orders no. 135, dt. 23.08.2007, the inter-initiative working group for the demitation and definition of the continental Shelf with Greece was established. The agreement reached has been fully based on general principles of international law, primarily in the 1982 Convention on Sea Law (where the two countries are parties), on the best practices and experiences of other countries that have signed similar agreements and also in international judicial decisions taken in this area. Article 15 of the Convention stipulates that when two states are set face - to - face, unless agreed otherwise, the territorial sea cannot extend beyond the middle line, each point of which is equal to the nearest point from the base line. The terms are technical, but respond exactly to the situation between Albania and Greece. In the talks, we decided to apply the principle of equality, that is. Determine of the same distance line from all points of the basic coastline of coastal countries. Given the international experiences described slightly above, this approach is described as the most adaptable and the most used. Under conditions where we have legally not declared a base line, as a reference point we have taken the most remote leglands on the coast. So the middle line contains 150 coordinates that emerge from the combination of circles, tangents with the most emerging points. The same landmarks were used by the Greek side. Given clearly the weight and responsibility of the talks, I highly appreciated the task, as did other members of the working group. I put in my experience, dedication, and qualifications to achieve the best possible outcome. Many materials, marine guides, maps, and maps were studied for full information. Personally, I've looked closely at every tape, breast, rock in the Corfu Canal, down to the Gulf of Ftelia in the South, where the maritime border begins. The goal was that before we started negotiations, besides maps, we could look back at places like Greece's serpa and Baretta rocks, which are small but play important points of measurement. At the negotiating table, we are sitting equal to the Greek side. From the beginning, we insisted on our request that the <x0 system be undertaken during negotiations

The Greek side accepted and continued with it. The same about our closed breast recognition. As it is known, the agreement was signed on April 27, 2009 by the two countries' foreign ministers. Later, he continued the procedure for approval in the Assembly. Once approved on the Law Commission, at the address of the agreement there began to appear in the media sensationalized titles such as “Secret Agreement...”, “... as they gave Greece 225 km2 space”, “... There was the old limit”, “... the map is shown in Greek” and many others. I don't know why, people who fed the media with data opposing the agreement refused to confront the negotiating team and therefore received answers to all claims, but chose the way to organise protests. The negotiating group even extended the official invitation to the principal author of the scriptures with the intent to clarify attitudes. The invitation was rejected. In terms of a sharp, very sensitive problem on such issues on the one hand and an agreement with many technical elements on the other, it was not difficult to manipulate public opinion. In this situation, at my initiative and with full support from the minister of defence at the time ( September-October 2009, we built a “Plan for Public Explain”, and specifically: A meeting was organised with qualified US officers and civilians and other Western countries, who had knowledge of the Sea Law Convention and other laws. A meeting was organised with leading media leaders in the country. In co-operation with the Foreign Ministry, meetings were organised with media, researchers, intellectuals and students at the European University of Tirana. The debate was held at the technical level on the “show O PINION” on T V KLAN. Questions, doubts, numerous concerns expressed in various ways were clarified. After this event, the problem was reflecting much less on the media. And the public seemed calmer. But, as already known, on October 20, 2009, the issue was put on political track when a group of political parties applied to the Constitutional Court for the collapse of the agreement. April 2010's Constitutional Court ruling on the declaration as incompatible with the Constitution of the Agreement is already known. Of course, the Court's decision has its absolute legal value, but that doesn't mean that as a negotiator in this agreement I don't present my claims openly to the general public as well. What were the main claims to the agreement, and do they stand? A complete lack of transparency. It doesn't. The media is familiar with the contents of the agreement and has been given an explanation of how many times it has been requested.

The all-powerful working group. It doesn't. The almighty is given to those who sign, not to those who are tasked with simply preparing the draft agreement. The working group did not sign. There was an old border. It doesn't. There is no agreement between the two countries deposited in the UN. At the 1925 Florence Protocol, “Greek-Albanian planety” (page 10) has written only one sentence for the maritime border: “Over the sealine, in the Gulf of Ftelia, the border is governed by a normal line, in the general direction of the coast to the edge of territorial waters, leaving the small island of Tong<3> in Albania. Saranda Bay has been neglected. It doesn't. The tangins don't go near the two calibrated breast squirrels, Cape Paladez and Cape Denta, but they cross by the sea. ) Shouldn't be taken as a reference point of reference to Rock Barcetta. It doesn't. Article 6 and Article 121 of the Convention force the rocks in question to be taken as reference points, just as our small islands Tongo and Stillo have been considered. Greece had to be treated as the Archipelag site. It doesn't. Greece is not the archipelag country, as it is not just a country made up of islands. Even if treated as such, our country would lose its maritime space. Greece has been forgiven 354.4 km2 sea. It doesn't. There's no square metre pardoned. To deceive the public, certain coordinates were diverted. The 150th point was moved about 20km to our coast. The effort in this case was intended for personal gain, or political nature. No accompanying map. It doesn't. Article 16 of the Convention says: “Coastal states will make the right publication of maps or list of such geographical coordinates and will deposit a copy of each of these maps or lists to the UN Secretary General. We've selected the coordinates list. Recognising the severity and importance of the problem, in January 2011 the Foreign Ministry addressed a foreign legal study (Dewy & Lebeef LLP. The latter found no violation of the agreement in question. Finally, I stress that none of the claims raised stand. Having found no serious reason for the collapse of the deal, interference for political gain with the aim of manipulation of public feelings, including other international actors in decision-making are the only reason for the collapse of the agreement. The heated debate of recent days over the Greek Foreign Minister's statement of expansion in 12 nautical miles is legitimate concern. Statements made by political levels that by April (in just three months) will be reached “a deal much better than that of 2009” seems too optimistic to be true. Still no negotiating group to discuss the technical level. I remember our team lasted discussions for almost two years. However, being convinced that in the 2009 Sea Agreement, we have received what is due us under the Convention on Sea Law, I wish the new negotiating team success. Author's original title: The Truth of the 2009 Sea Agreement