7 AEGEAN SEA (JUDGMENT) (v) that the activities of Turkey descnbed in paragraphs 25 and 26 [of the Application] constitute infringements of the sovereign and exclusive rights of Greece to explore and exploit its continental shelf or to authorize scientific research respecting the continental shelf; (vi) that Turkey shall not continue any further activities as described above in subparagraph (iv) within the areas of the continental shelf which the Court shall adjudge appertain to Greece." in the Memorial: ". . . the Government of Greece requests the Court to adjudge and declare that, whether, on the basis of Article 17 of the General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, 1928, read with Articles 36, paragraph 2, and 37 of the Statute of the Court, or on the basis of the joint communiqué of Brussels dated 31 May 1975, the Court is competent to entertain the dispute between Greece and Turkey on the subject of the delimitation of the continental shelf appertaining to the two countries in the Aegean Sea". 13. At the close of the oral proceedings, the following wntten submission was filed in the Registry of the Court on behalf of the Government of Greece: "The Government of Greece subrnits that the Court be pleased to declare itself competent to entertain the dispute between Greece and Turkey on the delimitation of the respective areas of continental shelf appertaining to either country in the Aegean." 14. No pleadings were filed by the Government of Turkey, and it was not represented at the oral proceedings; no forma1 submissions were therefore made by that Government. The attitude of the Government of Turkey with regard to the question of the Court's jurisdiction has however been defined in its communications to the Court of 25 August 1976, 24 April 1978, and 10 October 1978. The last-mentioned communication was received in the Registry on the morning of the second day of the public hearings, and was transmitted to the Agent of Greece by the Registrar later the same day. In these circumstances account can be taken of its contents only to the extent that the Court finds appropriate in discharging its duty, under Article 53 of the Statute, to satisfy itself as to its jurisdiction to entertain the Application. 15. I t is t o b e regretted that the Turkish Government has failed to appear in order to put forward its arguments o n the issues arising in the present phase of the proceedings and the Court has thus not had the assistance it might have derived from such arguments o r from any evidence adduced in support of them. Nevertheless, the Court, in accordance with its Statute a n d its settled jurisprudence, must examine proprio motu the question of its own jurisdiction t o consider the Application of the Greek