In several articles written by experts or not, the terms: islands, islets and rocky islets occur. Their approach is not of course, exclusively geographical, which would be necessary at least the the first level, in order for their statements to be taken seriously. Moreover, in the Greek press, especially after 1996, we are trying desperately to equate these terms as if it were for the actual notion. The reasoning is almost always of the same type.
We are based initially on the idea that the term island does not specify the size. An island may be small or large. And this point is correct, because the size is not an endogenous parameter in regards to the term.
Afterwards, we reverce that ,and we assume that the word island regards all islands regardless of size.Then we are focused on the small islands so as to approach the islets and it’s here, that when we realize that there is a problem, we fall in the trap of the legal context of the international treaties.
At this stage, we find reports of the sort,that at the L Treaty there is no distinction between the terms of islands, islets and rocky islets. The mistake is simple.
The fact that there is no distinction in a specific treaty, does not mean of course, that this applies to all treaties. It’s enough for one to be found which makes that distinction and a definite problem arises.
For example, when we read Article 15 of the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923, were the words islands, islets and island were successively recorded and we read that, the word refers to the expression: the islets of those (islands) they dependent on, it makes it reasonable for us to demand that non-existence of any discrimination. Consequently, the generalization that follows the term islets is meaningless. It is therefore necessary to understand that, discrimination exists because the words are different and the same applies to their use.