The First Victory of Maritime Law in the Young Republic: The Lotus Case and its International Repercussions
Elçin YılmazThe August 2, 1926 collision on the high seas between the Lotus, a French steamer, and the Bozkurt, a Turkish steamer, started first a political and then a legal process between France and Türkiye. The beginning of the Lotus Case, its trial, and then transfer to international court have been the source of much scientific research. This study benefits from the main national sources written on the subject and additionally examines how the USA and Britain, who were not parties to the process, handled the issue. Because no detailed study could be obtained from American and British sources, this article aims to read the case through the official documents and press of America and Britain and thus set a scientific example of the international perception of this important legal struggle in 1926 for the Republic of Türkiye, which had been newly established and realized its modern legal revolutions. The article examines British archival documents and news articles in many national and local newspapers as sources, especially The Times in the British press, and also benefits from the official correspondence on the subject in the American National Archive, reports submitted to the American Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and some prominent news articles in the American press.
Genç Cumhuriyetin İlk Deniz Hukuku Zaferi Bozkurt Lotus Davası ve Uluslararası Yankıları Üzerine Örnekler
Elçin Yılmaz2 Ağustos 1926 tarihinde Türk gemisi Bozkurt ile Fransız bandıralı Lotus’un çarpışması Fransa ve Türkiye arasında önce siyasi daha sonra da hukuki bir süreci başlatmıştır. Bozkurt-Lotus davasının başlangıcı, yargılama süreci ve davanın uluslararası mahkemeye taşınması birçok bilimsel araştırmaya kaynaklık etmiştir. Bu çalışmada konu ile ilgili yazılan temel ulusal kaynaklardan istifade edilmiş bunun yanı sıra sürece taraf olmayan Amerika ve İngiltere’nin konuyu nasıl ele aldığı incelenmiştir. Amerikan ve İngiliz kaynaklarından elde edilen detaylı bir çalışmaya rastlanılmamış olması sebebi ile çalışmada davanın Amerikan ve İngiliz resmî belgeleri ve basını üzerinden okumasını yapmak amaçlanmıştır. Böylece henüz yeni kurulmuş ve çağdaş hukuk devrimlerini henüz gerçekleştirmiş Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devleti’nin 1926’da verdiği bu önemli hukuk mücadelesinin uluslararası algısı üzerinde bilimsel bir örnek oluşturmak amaçlanmıştır. Kaynak olarak çalışmada İngiliz arşiv belgeleri, İngiliz basınında “The Times” başta olmak üzere bir çok ulusal ve yerel gazetedeki haberler incelenmiş, Amerikan Ulusal Arşivi’nde konuyla ilgili resmî yazışmalar, Amerikan Dışişleri Bakanlığı’na sunulan raporlar ve Amerikan basınında öne çıkan bazı haberlerden istifade edilmiştir.
The Lotus Case was a prominent event for the young Republic of Türkiye in the 1920s, because this case gave Türkiye an opportunity after the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne to show the new Turkish State as being contemporary, independent, and equal to other European states in every international area, especially in law. The accident occurred as follows: A collision on the high seas between the French steamer the Lotus and the Turkish steamer the Bozkurt in 1926 resulted in the sinking of the Turkish vessel and the death of eight Turkish nationals. When the French ship reached İstanbul, the Turkish authorities instituted criminal proceedings against the French officer on watch at the time of the collision (i.e., Lieutenant Desmons). The Turkish Court rejected Desmons’ objection that Türkiye had no jurisdiction and, after a trial, sentenced him to 80 days in prison and a fine of 22 pounds. The French Government evaluated Türkiye’s action as a violation of international law and demanded reparations. The arguments put forward by the two parties involved whether or not Türkiye had any jurisdiction to prosecute the case according to the principles of international law. Türkiye and France agreed to refer this dispute over jurisdiction to the Permanent Court of International Justice. In court, then Minister of Justice Mahmut Esat Bozkurt represented the Turkish side. The court ultimately decided that Türkiye had not violated international law by instituting criminal proceedings against Desmons. The case was followed with great interest by Britain and America. These two countries made statements about the case both in their official papers and their press. For instance, the British press frequently reported on the event based on French newspapers. In addition, the press made some comments against Türkiye, using words such as “arrogant” and “capricious” to define Türkiye’s attitude toward British authors. While British newspapers were making comments about the case and Türkiye, British official documents only made brief mention of how the incident was perceived in terms of the French press. Compared to the British official documents, American official documents dealt with the issue in more detail. For instance, the American official documents on the issue conveyed the views of both the French press as well as the Turkish press about the case. These documents discussed whether the Turkish courts had been impartial and stated that the International Court of Justice in Hague would ultimately bring a solution to the problem. The American press also stated that the French government had made strong protests and would take more active measures. In addition, the US press talked about how French Prime Minister M. Poincare had found Türkiye’s attitude to be a clear violation of international law and how the French government could accept no further delays in liberating Desmons. The US Press also stated France to have all along contended that Türkiye, by arresting an officer on its ship, had set Turkish law, which was applicable solely in its own territorial waters, against the well-recognized rule of international maritime code. This code stated that in the case of an accident, the involved parties were solely under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the admiralty courts of their own countries. In addition, the American press asserted that Türkiye had given in and turned over the affair to the international court due to Premier Poincare’s ultimatum to Türkiye regarding Desmon’s release. When the Permanent Court of International Justice ultimately declared that Türkiye’s actions had not constituted a violation of the principles of international law, some American newspapers interpreted this result as a success for Turkish policy. As mentioned before, Türkiye had signed the Treaty of Lausanne in July 1923. One of the successes of this peace treaty was the abolishment of capitulations. As a result, the Lotus Case ruling in favor of Türkiye is understood again to exemplify how the capitulations had come to an end. With the example of the Lotus Case, all European states, especially France, understood once again that the old Ottoman State had come to an end and that the new Turkish Republic had been born with its own independence and contemporary principles.
