98. In presenting the communiqué, the Greek Government, as a final agreement between the Prime Ministers to submit this dispute to the Court, places particular emphasis on the word „decision“ and the words „must be resoluded“ in the original French text of the second paragraph. These words are words of „decision“ and „commitment,“ which refer to a reciprocal obligation of the Prime Ministers to refer the matter to the Court of Justice. In particular, the „agreement“ as established in the press release is „more than one trading enterprise“ and gives the Court „jurisdiction“ directly (Memorial, Part 2, Section III, Title A). The Communiqué „also obliges the parties to enter into any enforcement agreement necessary to carry out the undertaking“ (ibid., Title B) and the refusal of one party to enter into such an agreement „allows the other party to unilaterally refer the matter to the Court of Justice“ (ibid., section C). In addition, no enforcement agreement should be required from the Communiqué that allows the parties to „use the Court of Justice by motion, no less than by special agreement“ (ibid., section D). Finally, it is considered that „a complementary agreement is a legal condition for the seizure of the Court,“ she said, „both parties are obliged to negotiate in good faith the conclusion of such an agreement“ (ibid., section E). „… agreed to seek a negotiated solution to the disputes, including taking into account Turkey`s proposal for joint resource exploration and exploitation, and to try, if necessary, to prepare a draft special agreement for the joint reference to the International Court of Justice on aspects of the situation that they might have been the subject of genuine differences of opinion between the two parties“ (ibid.). Ann.

IV, No. 3). 124 It should be recalled that the result must have seemed sufficiently dubious to both parties, given that they entered into a special agreement in which Albania was able to include a complaint against the United Kingdom concerning the „retail“ operation on which the Court of Justice ruled in favour of Albania. [1949] ICJ REP. 4 to 36. „The Greeks have responded positively to our proposal for the talks that took place in The Hague. These [conversations] haven`t started yet. Discussions will focus on the special agreement (compromise) that will determine the basis of the case. (Monument, par. 268.) On 10 February 1975, the Greek Government, in an opinion on the Turkish response, noted with satisfaction that „the Turkish government accepts the principle of its proposal to jointly submit the issue of the delimitation of the Aegean continental shelf to the International Court in The Hague“ (ibid., point 11). He also agreed that „discussions should take place after proper preparation to develop the terms of the special agreement (compromise) necessary for this purpose“ (ibid.).