The geophysical and geological indications (pockmarks, gas chimneys, salt domes, etc.) that have been traced on the seabed using multi–beam echo–sounders and side–scan sonars, as well as the corresponding seismic surveys in the region South, South–west and South– east of Cyprus, as well as the corresponding international interest of investors, especially in the marine region of the Levantine Basin, lead to the conclusion that, from a geopolitical perspective, Greece must be urged to accelerate the consolidation of its sovereign rights and understand anew and in practical terms, that “Cyprus is not far away, not at all actually”. With respect to Kastellorizo and the submarine area of its EEZ, it is noted that de-tailed geophysical, bathymetric and sediment surveys have confirmed the fact that the region of the submarine Anaximander mountains presents active mud volcanoes, linked to the presence of gas hydrates. Samples of gas hydrates were collected using indicative samplings in mud volcanoes thoroughly mapped in sub–seabed layers of no more 1.5 m deep. Their form is “ice crystal”. New mud volcanoes were also discovered (“Athens” and “Thessaloniki”). Gas hydrates were found in samplings conducted on–board the M/V “Thessaloniki”. Based on preliminary assessments, the total capacity of the mud volcanoes of the Anaximander mountains complex is estimated between 2.56 6.40 c. km.1.

Methane Hydrates are a new energy resource in the global energy market which has received extreme attention from a technological and geopolitical point of view. The reserve estimates exceed by far the overall estimates of all the other conventional energy reserves. With the existing technological know-how the exploitation of methane hydrates is expected to dominate the international energy market within the next 10-15 years. Methane hydrates have been mapped within the Hellenic Submarine Space and especially in the region of Kastellorizo, with whatever consequences it may have of geo-strategic nature for the political decisions of Greece and its relations with the neighboring countries and the delimitation of its EEZ.

 This text is a brief presentation of the course, in theory and in practice, of Ahmet Davutoğlu’s views, as presented in his work Stratejik Derinlik: Türkiye’nin Uluslararası Konumu, Küre Yayınları, İstanbul 2001/2004 (18th edition) and in the corresponding partial translations of these texts by my colleague, K. Gogos (PhD in Geopolitics), as well as in the Greek published translation (Athens, Pοiotita editions, 2010). We shall present the ideological, Islamic and neo–Ottoman, background of this work, together with its main political proponents, on the level of Turkey’s political power. Moreover, we shall present the main points of the scholar’s geopolitical approach that lie in the sphere of the classic geostrategists and geopoliticians of the German and the Anglo–Saxon school. Davutoğlu is a typical example of a researcher of international affairs, characterised by significant epistemological and methodological deficits. He, too, fails to distinguish between Geopolitical Analysis, on the one hand, and Geostrategic Synthesis and suggestions, on the other. It is a fact, evident in the scholar’s reference to ethical and scientific dilemmas of social scientists. His stance is a serious blow to his overall geopolitical analysis and integrates prima facie his methodology, together with the particular work of the Turk scholar, into the geostrategic epistemological sphere of political propositions (which are undoubtedly systematic and thorough). This paper concludes with a presentation of the points, on the Subsystem level, of Davutoğlu’s geopolitical and geostrategic approach. In the light of the systemic geopolitical analysis, these points are considered geostrategically dangerous for Greece’s national interests. This text aims to trigger a deeper and fuller study and understanding of Davutoğlu’s work in the near future.

 This paper presents a systemic analysis of the Iran-SyriaLebanon geopolitical sub-system within the frame of the Wider Middle East geo-complex and in light of the geopolitical factor of the Shiite Islamist movement. We consider that the Shiite Islamist movement, which is represented by Hezbollah in Lebanon and by proxy Shiite organizations in Iraq (Kataeb Hezbollah and Asa’ib Ahl al Haq), has been transformed, under Tehran’s management and direction, into an important power redistribution factor in the region. Turkey’s foreign policy is evaluated as unsuccessful and dangerous for the security of the state of Israel and the stability of the Middle Eastern geopolitical system, particularly in relation to Ankara’s support of radical Islamist groups operating inside Syria. Ankara’s policy is also considered as a trigger mechanism for the acceleration of secessionist and state-formation ambitions, such as in the case of the gradual autonomy of an ethnically Kurdish zone in the northeastern Syrian territory. In addition, the US-Russian initiative for the destruction of the chemical arsenal of the Assad regime is evaluated as beneficial for the regional stability. Equally, we evaluate the US-Iranian negotiation process as a strategically agile diplomatic maneuver from Washington’s part.

Back in 2010, during my presentation at the Conference of the Institute of Energy of South East Europe (ΙΕΝΕ) on 8 February 2010, I had stressed the importance for Greece to proclaim an EEZ, and clarified the pertinent diplomatic arguments, together with its geopolitical and geostrategic advantages. Later, this communication was published in the Press («Estia», 8 January 2011) and on the Internet (skai.gr). Also, the weekly Epikaira published a complete study, co–authored by me and Dr. G.–A. Sgouros, in the form of a special insert entitled The Greek EEZ and Kastellorizo: Principles of a Geopolitical Analysis (issue 82, 12–18.5.2011). There are comparative demarcations, using Turkey’s baseline, in two ways: one using the Voronoi method and one using the median line principle, as applied also by competent international organizations). The arguments expressed in these documents are still valid, considering there has been no change, on the part of Greece, on the practicalities of the EEZ. There have been, of course, many promises and declarations from politicians, as there have been “extremely good intentions”. In the meantime, many views were also circulated, which were extremely dangerous, on “how far is Kastellorizo located”, as well as relevant, equally unfortunate views. We tend to forget, as my colleague Th. Karyotis also points out, that “there are 137 states having a 200 nm EEZ”.

Europe’s “energy hunger” in the years to come will be such, as to oblige it to seek alternative fuel sources, far beyond the ones currently in use. A solution that presents itself as ideal is the supply of the continent with natural gas from the new reserves of Eastern Mediterranean. Turkey, a country outside this political game, reacts to such a perspective. However, the era does not seem to be favoring it.

Proposition initiale: Avant toute tentative de définition métathéorique lakatienne de l’analyse géopolitique systémique et de définition ontologique de ses notions structurelles, nous admettrons que l’approche théorique de l’analyse géopolitique systémique contemporaine, laquelle est de nature interdisciplinaire et se fonde sur la géographie politico-économique1 participe sur un pied d’égalité à l’ensemble des approches théoriques qui constituent le programme de recherche géopolitique néo-positiviste.

This paper presents a systemic analysis of the Greater Middle East Geo-complex, in the light of the geopolitical factor of the Islamist movement –both Shiite and Sunnite. We consider that the geostrategy practiced by the Anglo-Saxon actors of the Super-system of this specific geocomplex aims at the containment strategy of the Russian and Chinese actors from the Mediterranean Sub-system, along with their ally states of Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and some of the UAE (e.g. Abu Dhabi). Furthermore, with the rise to power of the Sunnite Islamist governments in the region, a “remote” threat is tried to be exerted against both of the aforementioned actors in order to increase the negotiating benefits of the dipole of the London-Washington Special Relationship, in view of the provoked redrawing of the borders of the former nation-state regime. Moreover, the US appear willing to create strong and permanent territorial strategic bases in the Middle East, in order to guarantee, both for Israel and the US, the strategic depth that is desirable for their security. We are making reference to the gradually developing strategic plan for the creation of an Independent Kurdistan, that would be able to serve Western security interests, as well as the energy-related interests of the Anglo-Saxon, and European oil consortia, but also Washington’s power projection to the Russian Near Abroad and the Chinese Northwest region of Xinjiang, increasing the power gap once again, in favor of the US, at the centre of the Rimland.

The latest developments in the geopolitical complex of the Eastern Mediterranean and more in particular in the dipole of Greece and Turkey, correspond to the implementation stage for Turkey’s geostrategic goals. This is witnessed, inter alia, by the declarations of the Turkish Foreign Minister, A. Davutoğlu, during his latest visit in Greece, in March 2011. The sincerity of these declarations should be taken for granted, and should have been expected by the Greek diplomacy. This paper analyses the principles of a Geopolitical Analysis concerning the Greek EEZ.

Cet article, basé sur les sources des textes sacrés du Coran ainsi que sur des textes de kanunistes importants de l’Islam, soutient le point de vue que le seul qui a le pouvoir absolu de déclarer le Djihad (en arabe égyptien: Gehad) c’est le Calife de l’Oumma qui a été choisi selon la Loi Sacrée (Shari’a). Cependant, puisque dans les circonstances actuelles l’Oumma des croyants (des musulmans) n’a pas la structure califale et donc n’a pas du calife, personne ne peut déclarer le Gehad selon les dispositions de la Loi Sacrée (Shari’a). Ainsi, «la Réouverture des Portes de l’Idjtihad (en arabe égyptien: Edgehad)» que les islamistes tentent et leur indifférence pour l’idjma’a (en arabe égyptien: egma’a) des kanunistes ne permet pas le support, du point de vue juridique, de la «déclaration du Gehad» par les dirigeants des divers secteurs des mouvements islamistes.

Το παρόν κείμενο αποτελεί άρθρο του Καθηγητή Ιωάννη Μάζη, σε συνεργασία με τον Αναστάσιο Μαρίνο και τον Κυριάκο Νικολάου-Πατραγα και αναφέρεται στον ἀπαλλακτικὸ ὅρκο, ὡς ἀποδεικτικὸν μέσον, στην ἰσλαμικῇ δίκῃ.

Στὸ παρὸν κείμενο θὰ προβοῦμε σὲ μία σύντομη παρουσίαση τῆς διαδρομῆς σὲ θεωρία καὶ ἐφαρμογὴ τῶν ἐπόψεων τοῦ Ἀχμὲτ Νταβούτογλου, ὅπως αὐτὲς ἐμφανίζονται στὸ ἔργον του «Stratejik Derinlik. Türkiye’ nin Uluslararasi Konumu», Küre Yayinlari, Istanbul, 182004 (1η ἔκδοσις 2001) καὶ στὶς ἀντίστοιχες μεταφράσεις μέρους τῶν κείμενων αὐτῶν ἀπὸ τὸν συνάδελφο ∆ρα Κωνστ. Γῶγο, ὅπως καὶ στὴν ἀντίστοιχο μετάφραση τοῦ συγκεκριμένου ἔργου ἀπὸ τὸν ἐκδοτικὸν οἶκο Ποιότητα τοῦ ἔτους 2010. Θὰ παρουσιάσομε τὸ πρὶν ἀπὸ αὐτὸ ὑπάρχον ἰδεολογικὸ ἰσλαμικὸ καὶ νεοοθωμανικὸ ὑπόβαθρο, ὅπως καὶ τοὺς κυρίους πολιτικοὺς ὑποστηρικτάς του σὲ ἐπίπεδο τουρκικῆς πολιτικῆς ἐξουσίας. Κατόπιν θὰ παρουσιάσομε τὰ κύρια σημεῖα τῆς γεωπολιτικῆς του προσεγγίσεως, τὰ ὁποῖα κινοῦνται στὴν σφαῖρα τῶν κλασικῶν γεωστρατηγιστῶν/γεωπολιτικῶν τῆς γερμανικῆς καὶ ἀγγλοσαξωνικῆς σχολῆς. Ὁ Νταβούτογλου ἀποτελεῖ κλασικὸ παράδειγμα ἐρευνητοῦ τοῦ διεθνοῦς γίγνεσθαι μὲ σημαντικὰ ἐπιστημολογικὰ καὶ μεθοδολογικὰ ἐλλείμματα: δὲν ἔχει διακρίνει οὔτε αὐτὸς τὴν διαφορὰ μεταξὺ τῆς Γεωπολιτικῆς Ἀναλύσεως καὶ τῆς Γεωστρατηγικῆς Συνθετικῆς προτασεολογίας. Πρόκειται γιὰ πραγματικότητα, ἡ ὁποία ἀνακύπτει, ὅταν ὁ ἴδιος ἀναφέρεται στὰ ἠθικὰ καὶ ἐπιστημονικὰ διλήμματα τῶν κοινωνικῶν ἐπιστημόνων. Ἡ στάσις αὐτὴ ἐπιφέρει σοβαρὸ πλῆγμα στὴν ὅλη γεωπολιτική του ἀνάλυση καὶ ἐντάσσει τὴν μεθοδολογία του, ὅπως καὶ τὸ συγκεκριμένο ἔργο του, ἐξ ἀρχῆς στὴν γεωστρατηγικὴ ἐπιστημολογικὴ σφαῖρα τῶν —ὁπωσδήποτε, συστηματικῶν καὶ ἐμβριθῶν— προτάσεων πολιτικῆς. Τέλος θὰ καταλήξομε μὲ τὴν —γενικῆς μορφῆς— ἀνάδειξη ἐκείνων τῶν σημείων μεγέθους ‘Υποσυστήματος τῆς νταβουτογλιανῆς γεωπολιτικῆς καὶ γεωστρατηγικῆς προσεγγίσεως, τὰ ὁποῖα ὑπὸ τὸ φῶς τῆς συστημικῆς γεωπολιτικῆς ἀναλύσεως κρίνονται ὡς γεωστρατηγικῶς ἐπικίνδυνα γιὰ τὰ ἑλληνικὰ ἐθνικὰ συμφέροντα. Τὸ παρὸν κείμενο, θὰ ἀποτελέσει ἔναυσμα γιὰ βαθυτέραν καὶ πληρεστέραν μελέτη τοῦ νταβουτογλιανοῦ ἔργου εἰς τὸ ἐγγὺς μέλλον.