Demilitarized Status in International Law and the Militarization Problem of the Eastern Aegean Islands
Cüneyt Yüksel, Nesrin SingilThe roots of the current Eastern Aegean Islands problem go back to the middle of the 19th century when Greece gained its independence. The islands are geographically located in close proximity to the Turkish coast. Therefore, the Islands have been subject to many international conventions, including the 1913 London Treaty and the 1913 Athens Treaty based on the Joint Decision of the Six Major Powers of 1914, the 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty, the 1923 Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits, the 1936 Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits, and the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty. Greece claims the Eastern Aegean Islands’ demilitarized status that these conventions regulate was abolished. As such, Greece engages in activities and actions aimed at violating the demilitarized status of the Eastern Aegean Islands, with these violations observed to have begun increasing. For this reason, Greece’s claims should be evaluated in the context of current issues, and considering the steps Türkiye will take in response to these violations is also essential. This study is organized into three parts: an examination of the Eastern Aegean Islands and the concept of demilitarized status within the framework of international law, the evaluation of the Greek theses regarding the Eastern Aegean Islands, and the evaluation of the concept of demilitarized status of the Eastern Aegean Islands in light of current issues and Türkiye’s options within the framework of international law. The first section examines the Aegean Islands and the history of their sovereignty and then discusses the concept of demilitarized status and the international regulations regarding it in regard to the Eastern Aegean Islands. The second section addresses the Greek theses on a fundamental change of circumstances having occurred regarding the treaties, how the later treaties replace previous treaties, invoking the right to self-defense, and Türkiye’s inability to rely on the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty. The last section evaluates current issues regarding the demilitarized status of the Eastern Aegean Islands in the context of international law.
Uluslararası Hukukta Gayri Askeri Statü ve Doğu Ege Adaları’nın Askerileştirilmesi Sorunu
Cüneyt Yüksel, Nesrin SingilGünümüzdeki Doğu Ege Adaları sorununun kökleri, Yunanistan’ın bağımsızlığını kazandığı 19. yüzyılın ortalarına kadar uzanmaktadır. Adalar, coğrafi olarak Türkiye kıyılarına çok yakın bir konumda bulunmaktadır. Bu sebeple Adaların, pek çok uluslararası sözleşmeye konu olduğu görülmektedir. Bunlar; 1914 tarihli Altı Büyük Devlet Kararı’nın dayanağını teşkil eden 1913 tarihli Londra Andlaşması ile 1913 tarihli Atina Andlaşması, 1923 tarihli Lozan Barış Andlaşması, 1923 tarihli Lozan Boğazlar Sözleşmesi, 1936 tarihli Montreux Boğazlar Sözleşmesi ve 1947 tarihli Paris Barış Andlaşması’dır. Yunanistan, Doğu Ege Adaları’nın belirtilen sözleşmeler ile düzenlenmiş olan gayri askeri statüsünün kalktığını ileri sürmektedir. Bu doğrultuda, Adaların gayri askeri statüsünün ihlaline yönelik faaliyet ve eylemlerde bulunmaktadır. Günümüzde, ihlallerin artmaya başladığı gözlemlenmektedir. Bu sebeple, Yunanistan’ın iddialarının güncel meseleler bağlamında değerlendirilmesi gerekmektedir. Ayrıca, Türkiye’nin bu ihlallere karşılık olarak atacağı adımların ele alınması önem arz etmektedir. Çalışma, uluslararası hukuk çerçevesinde Doğu Ege Adaları ve gayri askeri statü kavramı, gayri askeri statüdeki Doğu Ege Adaları’na ilişkin Yunan tezlerinin değerlendirilmesi ve güncel meseleler ışığında Doğu Ege Adaları’nın gayri askeri statüsünün değerlendirilmesi ve uluslararası hukuk çerçevesinde Türkiye’nin seçenekleri olmak üzere üç bölümden oluşmaktadır. İlk bölümde; Ege Adaları üzerindeki egemenliğe ilişkin tarihsel süreç ve Ege Adaları incelenmektedir. Ardından, gayri askeri statü kavramı ve Doğu Ege Adaları’nın gayri askeri statüsüne ilişkin uluslararası düzenlemeler ele alınmaktadır. İkinci bölümde ise, Yunanistan’ın andlaşmaların yapıldığı şartlarda esaslı değişiklik meydana geldiği iddiası, sonraki tarihli andlaşmanın önceki tarihli andlaşmanın yerini aldığı iddiası, meşru müdafaa hakkının bulunduğu iddiası ve Türkiye’nin 1947 tarihli Paris Barış Andlaşması’na dayanamayacağı iddiası irdelenmektedir. Son bölümde ise, Doğu Ege Adaları’nın gayri askeri statüsüne ilişkin yaşanan güncel meseleler uluslararası hukuk bağlamında değerlendirilmektedir.
Throughout history, the Aegean Islands have been under the sovereignty of different empires and dynasties. The roots of the current Eastern Aegean Islands problem go back to the middle of the 19th century when Greece gained its independence. The Eastern Aegean Islands include the Boğazönü Islands (at the entrance to the Dardanelles), the Northeastern Aegean Islands, and the Dodecanese Islands. These islands are geographically located in close proximity to the Turkish coast, which has raised concerns about Türkiye’s security. For this reason, the islands have been subject to international conventions. Among these, the 1913 London Treaty and the 1913 Athens Treaty, in which the authority to decide ownership of the islands was left to the Major Powers, are very crucial. With the Joint Decision of the Six Major Powers of 1914, the islands under the occupation of Greece were subordinated to the sovereignty of Greece. According to this joint decision, the islands were ceded to Greece on the condition that they were to remain under demilitarized status.
The 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty confirmed the Joint Decision of the Six Major Powers of 1914 and includes detailed regulations regarding the demilitarized status of the islands. The 1923 Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (the 1923 Lausanne Straits Convention) regulated the demilitarized status of the Boğazönü Islands, which are subject to Turkish and Greek sovereignty. The 1936 Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits (the 1936 Montreux Convention) abolished this status for the region of the Turkish Straits while maintaining the demilitarized status of the Booğazönü Islands, which are subject to Greek sovereignty. Finally, the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty transferred the sovereignty of the Dodecanese Islands and Kastellorizo Island, which had been under the sovereignty of Italy, to Greece under the provision that these islands remain under demilitarized status. Türkiye should be noted to have not been a party to the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty.
Greece claims the regulations of these conventions to have abolished the demilitarized status of the Eastern Aegean Islands. In this regard, the first claim of Greece is that fundamental changes have occurred to the circumstances of the treaties. According to this claim, the 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty and the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty cover different circumstances. The second is the claim that the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty replaced the 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty. Accordingly, the 1936 Montreux Convention also replaced the 1923 Lausanne Straits Convention. Third, Greece claims that Türkiye cannot uphold the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty as Türkiye had not been a party to this treaty. The last claim sees Greece’s right of self-defense coming to the fore, as according to Greece, Türkiye has made so-called threats against Greece.
However, one should note that no fundamental changes have occurred regarding the circumstances on which both Treaties were made. For this reason, neither of these Treaties can be terminated. In terms of the second claim, the Montreux Convention only regulates the abolition of the demilitarized status for the region of the Turkish Straits (i.e., the Dardanelles, the Bosporus and the Sea of Marmara). Moreover, the provisions in the 1923 Lausanne Straits Convention are not in conflict with provisions in the 1936 Montreux Convention that are in force today. Thirdly, the fact that Türkiye was not a party to the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty does not mean Türkiye cannot abide by this treaty. The 1947 Paris Peace Treaty established an objective status. Finally, the claim of a threat is insufficient for invoking the right to self-defense. In order for a country to invoke the right to self-defense, Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations (1945) clearly states the requirement of the presence of an armed attack for invoking self-defense. Therefore, Greece’s claim goes against international law. In this context, Greece’s claims regarding the abolishment of the demilitarized status of the Eastern Aegean Islands constitute a violation of the relevant international conventions and rules of international law.
Within the framework of these erroneous claims, Greece has engaged in activities and actions aimed at violating the demilitarized status of these islands, and these activities and actions in violation of the islands’ demilitarized stated have currently begun increasing. For this reason, Greece’s arguments regarding the abolishment of the demilitarized status of these islands should be evaluated in the context of current issues. Considering which steps Türkiye will take in response to these violations is also essential.
This study consists of three sections. The first section discusses and examines the Aegean Islands and the history of sovereignty over them. Afterward, the study discusses the concept of demilitarized status and international regulations regarding the demilitarized status of the Eastern Aegean Islands. The second section discusses Greece’s claims regarding fundamental changes to the circumstances of the treaties (rebus sic stantibus), how the later treaty replaces the previous treaty, invoking the right to self-defense, and Türkiye’s in ability to uphold the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty (res inter alios acta). The last part evaluates the demilitarized status of the Eastern Aegean Islands in light of current issues, with the study lastly putting Türkiye’s options forward in the context of international law.
