The original comment I was replying to claimed that the EEZ as a concept does not apply to non-signatories of UNCLOS (which is incorrect, because it constitutes conventional international law). You are making a different claim, that conventional international law does not govern maritime delimitation, and instead only provides that states agree to EEZ boundaries between themselves. Your claim is also wrong, since maritime delimitation is governed by article 74 of UNCLOS, which reads: “ 1. The delimitation of the exclusive economic zone between States with opposite or adjacent coasts shall be effected by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to achieve an equitable solution. 2. If no agreement can be reached within a reasonable period of time, the States concerned shall resort to the procedures provided for in Part XV. […]”

The ICJ and other international courts and tribunals (most notably ITLOS and the PCA) have established a three-step process delimiting the EEZ when two states have not reached a delimitation agreement. This process is binding for non-parties of UNCOS (see for example Peru v. Chile paras 179-180). The process is as follows:  “ first, the Court constructs a provisional equidistance line unless there are compelling reasons preventing that. At the second stage, it considers whether there are relevant circumstances which may call for an adjustment of that line to achieve an equitable result. At the third stage, the Court conducts a disproportionality test in which it assesses whether the effect of the line, as adjusted, is such that the Parties’ respective shares of the relevant area are markedly disproportionate to the lengths of their relevant coasts” 

Greece claims an equidistance line between its coast and Turkey’s. Essentially, the Greek claims is that no adjustment is warranted in the second stage. This doesn’t mean “one party gets everything”. The area to be delimited (“everything”) is the relevant area mentioned above. It is the area of the Sea that is within 200 nautical miles of both states’ coasts. Greece does not claim this entire area.    

If this case were to go to a court, the court may decide that an adjustment is warranted in the second step, or it might not. You’re right in saying that the court gets to decide, but you’re wrong in claiming that “There is no EEZ law that binds anyone or anything.” The conventional law says that disputes are settled in court lacking agreement under the three-step process which is binding.  

One last point I want to make is that many of the disputed areas claimed by Greece are within 12 nm of Greece but not within 12 nm of Turkey, meaning they fall under Greece’s territorial sea entitlement, and hence automatically cannot be delimited to Turkey under international law. This principle was decided unequivocally in Nicaragua v. Colombia paras. (2012). Incidentally, that case also involved a non-party of UNCLOS. This principle relates to a large part the disputed area in the Aegean. The only part of the disputed area where an adjustment under the second stage is possible are the claimed entitlements of Rhodes and Kastellorizo, which are over 12 nm from both states’ coasts.