39 AEGEAN SEA (JUDGMENT) "The joint communiquéof Brussels of 31 May 1975,which followed previous exchange of views, States that the Prime Ministers of Greece and Turkey have decided that the problems dividing the two countries should be resolved peacefully 'et, au sujet du plateau continental de la mer Egée, par la Cour internationale de La Haye'. The two Governments thereby jointly and severally accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in the present matter, pursuant to Article 36 (1) of the Statute of the Court." 95. The Brussels Communiqué of 31 May 1975 does not bear any signature or initials, and the Court was informed by counsel for Greece that the Prime Ministers issued it directly to the press during a press conference held at the conclusion of their meeting on that date. The Turkish Government, in the observations which it transmitted to the Court on 25 August 1976, considered it "evident that a joint communiqué does not amount to an agreement under international law", adding that "If it were one, it would need to be ratified at least on the part of Turkey" (para. 15). The Greek Government, on the other hand, maintains that a joint communiqué may constitute such an agreement. To have this effect, it says, "It is necessary, and it is sufficient, for the communiqué to include-in addition to the customary forms, protestations of friendship, recital of major principles and declarations of intent-provisions of a treaty nature" (Memorial, para. 279). Counsel for Greece, moreover, referred to the issue of joint communiqués as "a modern ritual which has acquired full status in international practice". 96. On the question of form, the Court need only observe that it knows of no rule of international law which might preclude a joint communiqué from constituting an international agreement to submit a dispute to arbitration or judicial settlement (cf. Arts. 2, 3 and 11 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties). Accordingly, whether the Brussels Communiqué of 31 May 1975 does or does not constitute such an agreement essentially depends on the nature of the act or transaction to which the Communiqué gives expression; and it does not settle the question simply to refer to the form-a communiqué-in which that act or transaction is embodied. On the contrary, in determining what was indeed the nature of the act or transaction embodied in the Brussels Communiqué, the Court must have regard above al1 to its actual terms and to the particular circumstances in which it was drawn up. 97. The relevant paragraphs of the Brussels Communiqué read as follows: "In the course of their meeting the two Prime Ministers had an opportunity to give consideration to the problems which led to the existing situation as regards relations between their countries. They decided [ont décidé] that those problems should be resolved [doivent être résolus] peacefully by means of negotiations and as