Praefectus
Re: Turkish provocations against Greece, 21 years after the Imia incident
Turkish media is not overreporting. Those days are over. We barely hear anything about Greece on news.
They dont need to divert attention from anything. They own the media. They can censor any news from Al-Bab. Even if they wanted to divert attention there are plenty of other ways to do that involves internal matters. There are no events that can divert the attention of public in Greek front. Thats why media barely says anything about Greece.
Domesticus
Re: Turkish provocations against Greece, 21 years after the Imia incident
As far back as I can remember (and it's pretty far), opening fire inside Greek waters was never "business as usual". What was "business as usual" was generally violations of Greek air space, and in later years, even violations of Greek territorial waters even by corvettes.
The Truth is Hate for those who hate the Truth.
Wyrd bið ful aræd!
Re: Turkish provocations against Greece, 21 years after the Imia incident
Since nobody provided links, can you?Originally Posted by Akrotatos
Bingo? I assumed, in questioning your assumption, based on logic and common sense, yes. This crusade to deflect from the fact that we started this based on a claim you made which was made using an assumption rather than knowledge is getting more and more ridiculous.Bingo, you assumed there were heavy weapons - but you didnt assume so based on "common sense", you assumed so in spite of the lack of evidence for it. I see no heavy weapons, I'm not going to assume there are any. In your special little fantasy world, apparently, there is a heavy weapon in the vicinity because you'd like for Greece to be as stupid as Turkey.
From the information we have, we cannot gather that any heavy weaponry was brought into the vicinity of Imia. And if we want to play on your "common sense", then you can be damning sure that if Turkey made a fuss over one helicopter, they'd have made an even bigger fuss over heavy weapons. They didnt.
Yes it is wishful thinking. When the relevant sources make explicit mention of his method of transportation, it is wishful thinking to assume he also brought heavy weaponry which apparently managed to escape any pictures and any mention anywhere.
I mean this is beyond silly, whom exactly do you think this sort of attitude on your part will convince?
Where did Turkey made a fuss over a helicopter?
If you believe it's wishful thinking to think that a defense minister of any nation would not travel to a hot spot without the slightest protection then we clearly operate at a different level of understanding of logic and common sense. I have no concern to convince anyone. My concern is to be logical.
It's a stupid assumption that has no logic to it, but sue, you can assume that in an attempt to deploy a childish argumentation tactic, also a logical fallacy.
You stated explicitly that I didn't respond to your article. You didn't post one. Even with something so simple you try to alter the narrative.
Real distance? The distance between the islets and the Turkish coast is 3.6 nm with an other islet in between. I take it you never traveled by boat between Greek coast and Turkey. It's not a region you can maneuver freely on either side. Why can't they use a corvette? If it was a landing ship you could have a point, but, it's a corvette.
7 minutes is not a short presence? Why put it in quotation marks? It's really a childish tactic to even question or dispute something like that...
How does Turkish generals spending 7 minutes near a disputed location and taking pictures provoke Greece? What does it provoke them to do?
It's not really irrelevant, so, no. It puts things in context and to be honest magnifies the provocation. You merely tried to use it as the only or even the primary reason I gave which was false.
Sigh... Clearly, language doesn't matter... No, I didn't literally argued that, but yes, Turkey could have a case to put forward using that treaty. Turkey's ability to do that, however, is irrelevant. We're not discussing that.
I'm not really desperately defending the "objective regime" principle. I defended it once and since then you didn't really put forward a counter argument other than calling it invalid.
Sigh... You say its not a different issue then tell me that it's part of the issue. So, it's not the same issue by your own words... Once again, you're refusing to acknowledge the slightest little fact.
Wait, wait, wait... You don't realize that you're actually proving my point here?Provide a source to your claim that "the demilitarization of a region can not be done just in effect of one party.". Now. Right now, I expect a full
If anyone is interested, you can look at both the Wimbeldon case and Aaland islands cases for examples proving my point.
In the Wimbeldon case, which concerned the status of the Kiel canal as an area of free passage, the Court found that the Treaty of Versailles (art 380) constituted an objective regime. To this end it wasnt enough that it concerned the status of territory. The reason it constituted an objective regime in the opinon of the Court was that the Treaty provided, in its article 380, that:
"The Kiel Canal and its approaches shall be maintained free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations at peace with Germany on terms of entire equality."
Similarly the Court found that articles 381-386 stressed the point of article 380 that all nations were to be treated equally in the use of the canal.
Thus the Court stated:
"This clause, they say, could not be more clear as regards the provision to the effect that the canal shall be maintained free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations at peace with Germany; it follows therefore, that the S.S. "Wimbledon", belonging to a nation at that moment at peace with Germany, was entitled to free passage through the Canal."
"The Court considers that the terms of article 380 are categorical and give rise to no doubt. It follows that the canal has ceased to be an internal and national navigable waterway, the use of which by the vessels of states other than the riparian state is left entirely to the discretion of that state, and that it has become an international waterway intended to provide under treaty guarantee easier access to the Baltic for the benefit of all nations of the world."
Observe thus that the Court clearly stresses the erga omnes, or prevailing general interest, character of the canal ("for the benefit of all nations of the world"). It is this reason that results in its character of an objective regime.
The Aaland/Åland islands case provides for another point. As with the Kiel canal it concerns status of territory. Unlike the Kiel canal and more relevant to our discussion, that status is specifically demilitarization. Sweden had argued that the status of demilitarization for the Aaland islands was of objective regime character. The very fact that the matter had to be discussed demonstrates in and of itself that it doesnt follow automatically, but here's what was said by the Commission appointed by the League of nations:
Commission of Jurists appointed by the League of Nations (The Report of the Commission of Jurists in LNOJ, Supplement Special, No. 3 (1920)):
"Thus, admitting that the provisions of 1856 relating to the Aaland Islands bear the character of a settlement regulating European interests, it becomes obvious that such a settlement cannot be
abolished or modified either by the acts of one praticular Power or by conventions between some few of the Powers which signed the provisions of 1856, and are still parties to the Treaty.
...
These provisions were laid down in European interests. They constituted a special international status relating to military considerations, for the Aaland Islands. It follows that until these
provisions are duly replaced by others, every State interested has the right to insist upon compliance with them. [...]"
You'll note that the Commission is careful to stress that the demilitarization was done in European, that is to say common, general, interests. Not in the interests of one or two nations, but in the interests of an entire continent.
I'll thank you to stop making things up.
Sigh... This is a really childish way of arguing. I did point out why that particular principle was irrelevant as we were not talking about what it was pointing at. You can ignore or try to deflect from that all you want.
What I said earlier at the end of my previous post is still applicable.
The Armenian Issuehttp://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930
GTA 6 Thread
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?819300-GTA-6-Reveal-Trailer
"We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."
Chairman Miao
Re: Turkish provocations against Greece, 21 years after the Imia incident
Please remember to constrain the subject of your attacks to the content of posts rather than members of the site.
Last edited by chriscase; February 17, 2017 at 01:44 PM.
Why is it that mysteries are always about something bad? You never hear there's a mystery, and then it's like, "Who made cookies?"
- Demetri Martin
Senator
Re: Turkish provocations against Greece, 21 years after the Imia incident
Before you accuse the below text of simply being my personal opinion, do note that it is entirely in line with the definition provided (and elaborated on) by Oxford Public International Law. It has been referenced and quoted in this post for your benefit as well. If you intend to contend that, I expect a post supported by equal sources.
Neither of these cases “proves your point”, they entirely contradict you. Both establish that for a treaty to have the character of an objective regime, it is not enough that they relate to the status of a particular territory (whether that status is free passage or demilitarization). What both cases show is that it must be established in the individual instance, that is to say case-by-case, whether the particular status of the territory was intended to be in the general interest. The Court/Commission in these respective cases went through the bother of trying to show why the treaty provisions in the particular circumstances, in the treaties in question, were of general interest. Nowhere do they say that the general interest follows automatically from the treaties character as status-treaties (treaties governing status of territories incl. demilitarization or free passage). That's why they say that "these provisions", i.e. the provisions in question, "were laid down in European interests", not that "demilitarization is automatically a European interest". That's why they refer to the wording of article 380.
Nowhere does it say that treaties governing territory automatically concern all nations. Read the cases, the Court and the Commission were willing to acknowledge status of objective regimes for the treaties in these particular instances, for the specific treaties in question, because of the circumstances of those particular cases.
It had been established in the Kiel case that the purpose behind article 380 (as evident from the wording and the use "all nations") was to benefit a general interest, this doesnt mean that all treaties governing this sort of territorial disposition are of general interest, merely that this one was. The prevailing general interest was derived from the fact that article 380 was written so as to be targeted explicitly at "all nations". That’s why they explained it and looked at the wording of the article. Even a cursory look will show this: that's why the Court states that the terms of article 380 are categorical and mention the "all nations" part which is contained in article 380. Because the intent at benefiting a prevailing general interest is clear from the wording of article 380, specifically, since it mentions explicitly that its purpose is to ensure free passage to all nations. The conclusion is that in order for an article in a treaty to be of objective regime character, it has to be established that the particular article was drafted with the intent of safeguarding a general interest. A general interest does not follow simply because the article deals with the status of a territory, which is why the Court bothers to explain that article 380 is of objective regime character because the article explicitly provides that it safeguards all nations. Article 141 of the Paris Peace Treaty 1947 contains no language of the sort. Ergo the exception applied in the Kiel case (i.e. that the treaty is of objective regime character) does not apply to article 141 of the Paris Peace Treaty 1947.
Similarly, it was established in the Åland islands case that the demilitarization of the islands in question, specifically, aimed at European interests. It does not follow that all demilitarizations aim at European interests – how would that even work? Would by your logic this statement by the Commission mean that demilitarization of New Zeeland concerns European interests? Nor does it follow that the demilitarization of the Dodecanese was aiming at European interests, that would have to be established in casu. This is also clear in the statement made by the same Commission:
"Nevertheless, the interests of the world [...] cannot be ensured unless [...] (b) arrangements are concluded for the non-fortification and neutralization of the Archipelago."
They are talking about the particular archipelago which the Åland islands constitute. Not all archipelagos. That’s why they say “the” and that’s why they spell archipelago with a capital A. So it is evident that the Court, when it talks about the interests of the world (which later translates to European interests) means that the interest is derived because of the character of the Åland islands themselves. That is to say, the “European interest” is that the Åland islands, specifically, have to be demilitarized for the interests of the world to be ensured. It is because the islands of Åland, specifically, are of importance to Europe as a whole, that their demilitarization is of objective regime character. Unless you can prove that the Dodecanese are of importance to all of Europe, “objective regime” does not apply. This is the ratio of the case.
This is because the Åland islands are strategically placed smack dab in the middle of the Baltic Sea, control the only entrance point to the Gulf of Bothia, and generally claim a commanding presence over an important part of the world, particularly back then - see Holger Rotkirch, "The Demilitarization and Neutralization of the Åland Islands: A Regime in "European Interests" Withstanding Changing Circumstances".
You’re trying to argue that just because the Åland islands were recognized as having an erga omnes character, somehow that would apply to all islands in the world. But if that were the case, even ignoring what has been said before, the Commission would have felt no need to justify the Åland treaty’s objective regime character by labelling it as erga omnes. If the standard case is that all demilitarizations of territory are per se of general interest, then there would be no need for the Commission to justify their interpretation by referring to its erga omnes character, they would simply have made a blanket statement that all demilitarization treaties are automatically of objective regime character. They didn’t, they bothered to go into why the Åland islands specifically are of general interest, i.e. why they have a special character which warrants special treatment. The Åland island case is the perfect example of how you are supposed to read a case, because they aren’t applying the prevailing rule (which is pacta tertiis), but are applying an exception, which is why they have to go into justifying why the treaty in question was drafted with a European interest in mind. For the conclusion of the Åland case to be applicable on the Dodecanese, you would have to show that the demilitarization of the Dodecanese was done with the interests of the whole European continent in mind, that is to say that there is a prevailing interest for all of Europe that specifically the Dodecanese be demilitarized.
There's literally nothing in those cases suggesting that the Court/Commission were talking about free passage/demilitarization treaties as a whole automatically being of a prevailing general interest.
In fact if you look at international legal scholarship, such as the Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, they have the following to say about objective regimes:
"[...] limit the theory to treaties which establish territorial regimes in the interest of some or all states. Such so-called "status-treaty" may create only a potential objective regime (there are not, according to this theory, any a priori objective regimes) [...]".
So no "a priori" objective regimes? That's because objective regime status does not follow simply because it's a status-treaty (a category to which both demilitarization and free passage belong). You need it to be a status-treaty, and then show that that particular treaty (i.e. the demilitarization of the region in question) was done with a prevailing general interest in mind. This is further elaborated on:
"[...] must relate to a particular territory, the parties to it must have the intention of creating a regime in the general interest which is effective erga omnes; and that parties to the treaty must have the legal capacity to establish such a regime, normally in the sense of having territorial rights over the territory"
You will notice that relating to a particular territory is not enough and is held as a separate condition from having the intention of creating a regime in the general interest. It isn’t enough that the article concerns demilitarization (or any other status for a particular territory such as neutralization, free passage, etc), it must be established in the individual case that the demilitarization (or other status) of the particular territory was intended to safeguard the general interest. Furthermore, if a prevailing general interest followed automatically, that is to say that if all e.g. demilitarizations were of prevailing general interest, this would have been mentioned in the articles because it would be a significant, even decisive, legal fact. It isnt mentioned. Instead status of territory (such as demilitarization) is held as a separate criterion compared to prevailing general interest in the legal scholarship, and both must be met. One does not follow from the other.
Similarly Boleslaw Adam Boczek writes in "International Law: A Dictionary" that, concerning the Åland islands case, "[...] the Commission ruled that, beyond purely Swedish interests, the provisions of 1856 had established a special objective regime of demilitarization in the interests of "European Public Policy"." He adds that "One must add that the existence of an objective treaty regime must not be easily presumed." If an objective treaty regime followed on any demilitarization treaty, it would be more than easily presumed - all it takes is for the treaty to concern demilitarization.
In short the cases delineate that it does not follow automatically or a priori that demilitarization has an objective regime character. Such a character can only be found based on the intention when drafting the treaty, or based on the particular circumstances of a case. In the Kiel and Åland cases, such was found because of (in the Kiel case) how the Treaty in question had been drafted and because (in the Åland case) of the nature of the islands in question and their significance for Europe as a region. Such special circumstances do not exist for the Dodecanese islands or the Paris Peace Treaty 1947 which governs their status. Ergo it does not have an erga omnes character, as such we fall back on the general rule: it only applies between the parties. Basic legal interpretation. You look at the ratio, not the end-result of a particular case. The ratio states that you need special circumstances, such as proven specific intent aiming at the entire world, or a particularly strategically important region (e.g. important for all of Europe) for a treaty governing the status of the territory to be considered an objective regime.
The issue is further cleared up since not one of these articles, in their lists of objective regime treaties, where they bother to mention obscure ones and keeping in mind that objective regimes are rare, do not ever mention the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947 - a fact I mentioned and which you have ignored. That's because it's not of objective regime character.
Now I could go on and present additional cases of objective regimes and show you how the Court/Commission/Ruling body bothers to go through the circumstances of each particular case, enumerating why the treaties in question are of general interest, and how they do not contend themselves with simply stating that said treaties concern demilitarization, or free passage, or similar issues concerning status of territory (because such a statement is not enough to warrant objective regime character in the eyes of public international law). This would take quite a bit of time on my part and it's late, so it will have to wait until tomorrow.
It has been definitively shown at this point that no objective regime character has been established for the demilitarization of the Dodecanese islands. It is for the one asserting that they are of objective regime to prove it, and as I have demonstrated for that to be considered the case you'd need to show that the demilitarization of the Dodecanese, specifically, was considered to be in the interest of the general international community. Aside from potentially adding the promised additional cases, I will not discuss this further as it is entirely, and I mean completely, clear that you are wrong on this.
Last edited by Hmmm; February 18, 2017 at 09:47 AM.
I had a monumental idea this morning, but I didn't like it.
Samuel Goldwyn
Senator
Re: Turkish provocations against Greece, 21 years after the Imia incident
Let´s talk about some historical accuracy while someone is deleting my sources here - i can guess that someone don´t likes the reality while i must say in addition to this that even the Headline of this Topic is really "PROVOCATIVE" !!!
Meanwhile on Yorgo´s defence sites:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
@ioannis76 can you please explain this Video ?
This is unique to the Greece Media - in the Turkish you wouldn´t find something provocative like this.
Last edited by Nebaki; February 17, 2017 at 09:59 PM.
Primicerius
Re: Turkish provocations against Greece, 21 years after the Imia incident
"Greek Media", really?
These are videos made by army obsessed bloggers and youtubers.
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
Wyrd bið ful aræd!
Re: Turkish provocations against Greece, 21 years after the Imia incident
Oh wow... What a wall of text that could be said in a few paragraphs...
The Åland islands case has a treaty between a limited number of states. However, the commission points out that the demilitarization clause effects Europe in general. That means that even Malta, who practically has no business in the Baltic sea has a right over the region concerning its demilitarization status. This is clearly a supporting case for the Aegean issue. Earlier, you were trying to use the non-party principles as granted at face value. That was your primary argument. This latest example you posted clearly shows us that we can't use such principles at face value.
You write this wall of text but as far as I see you didn't touch much on the actual issues of why you think specifically. You simply brush it off with the claim that same special circumstances doesn't exist for the islands in Aegean. Why?
The Armenian Issuehttp://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930
GTA 6 Thread
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?819300-GTA-6-Reveal-Trailer
"We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."
Senator
Re: Turkish provocations against Greece, 21 years after the Imia incident
No, incorrect. This is a gross misunderstanding of the Åland case and you are ascribing to it a meaning which neither the Commission nor international legal scholarship shares, which I think I made abundantly clear in the post you quoted. The Commission does not point out that status treaties such as demilitarization are in regard to Europe in general. They point out that the particular status treaty, because of the strategic importance of the Åland islands, has in this particular case an erga omnes character and therefore affects all of Europe. It is the exception, not the rule, and is treated as such by the international legal scholarship I already provided before and indeed by the Commission as well If you want to disprove it, you are welcome to show where the Commission states that demilitarization in general, as opposed to in this specific case, is in the interest of all of Europe. And you are expected to do so with specificity and in a manner which disproves the international legal scholarship I already provided and which state that status-treaties (such as demilitarization) do not have an a priori objective regime character.
According to the Åland case, in order for the 1947 treaty to be applicable for Turkey, you would have to prove that the Dodecanese have an erga omnes character such that the entire continent of Europe has an interest in their demilitarization, either because there is an explicit intent in the treaty or because the Dodecanese are of extremely vital strategic importance. An erga omnes character does not follow a priori. You have to prove it. So far, you have not brought a single shred of evidence that the Dodecanese share the strategic importance of the Åland Archipelago nor that the 1947 treaty had the intent of safeguarding a general European interest. Ergo, it does not follow that Turkey can complain about violations of the 1947 treaty. Objective regime is not simply presumed because you want there to be one. Nor is it presumed because of a mild strategic/political interest on the part of a single actor (i.e. Turkey).
In other words, it works in a very simple way:
1. For status-treaties to have an objective regime character, they must be erga omnes.
2. For a treaty to be erga omnes, you need either an explicit intent to safeguard a general interest or extreme strategic importance in keeping the territory in question demilitarized. It does not follow that demilitarization has an automatic erga omnes character, as proven both by the cases I cited and the international legal scholarship. The status treaty specifically must safeguard a vital strategically important interest that concerns a large portion of the world.
3. Unless you can prove that the Dodecanese share such a vital strategic importance, the 1947-treaty does not have an erga omnes character.
4. It therefore follows that it also lacks an objective regime character.
5. As a result, Turkey can't legally complain about Greeces violations of the 1947 treaty.
You are welcome to go back and read it again. I have more than adequately shown how the Åland case both should and in fact is interpreted by actual legal sources.
There is no discussion to be had regarding point 1 and 2. The only question is whether you can prove nr. 3, i.e. that the Dodecanese do in fact have an extreme strategic importance to the world at large (or at least Europe). From this point on, unless you can show that the entirety of Europe would care if the Dodecanese are demilitarized or not, kindly refer back to the post you quoted and read it carefully.
Last edited by Hmmm; February 18, 2017 at 04:40 AM.
I had a monumental idea this morning, but I didn't like it.
Samuel Goldwyn
Wyrd bið ful aræd!
Re: Turkish provocations against Greece, 21 years after the Imia incident
You make way too many definitive claims about your non-referenced sources that don't hold up to be true. How are the Åland islands are treated as an exception? The quote from the commission you provided doesn't label it as an exception in any way. I don't see it too from your legal opinion quotes.
I also haven't seen any input on your objection to demilitarization status of any region being in the interest of parties that are not limited to the party of the relevant treaty. There is no logic to assume that it can applied limited to only two parties. It's like saying to a crowded room that you're gonna open the lights just for one guy there. I don't suppose such a logic could stay alive for long in court.
There is also one important point that you're subtly making. The world doesn't consist of Europe. Laws do not favor a continent over others. So, your assertion about Europe caring about the island is just nonsense.
The Dodecanese, just like the Åland islands sits at a strategic location that covers a large portion of the Aegean sea and the Anatolian coastline and its access to the Mediterranean. It's an important shipping route for a number of states. If you're discussing this issue from a claim of knowledge on it, it's strange that you require someone to tell you that the Dodecanese is a strategic region...
The Armenian Issuehttp://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930
GTA 6 Thread
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?819300-GTA-6-Reveal-Trailer
"We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."
Senator
Re: Turkish provocations against Greece, 21 years after the Imia incident
Non-referenced?
Oxford Public International Law
Oxford Scholarship
Boleslaw Adam Boczek, "International Law: A Dictionary"
Holger Rotkirch, "The Demilitarization and Neutralization of the Åland Islands: A Regime in "European Interests" Withstanding Changing Circumstances"
Those are referenced sources. Kindly read the actual post before responding.
And I wonder, Setekh, where are the legal sources supporting your opinion? You have been asked to provide sources multiple times at this point, and yet you have yet to produce any.
First of all, it is clear that they are not talking about demilitarization generally being of an erga omnes character. This is a quote I provided before as well:
Åland Islands Case
"Nevertheless, the interests of the world [...] cannot be ensured unless [...] (b) arrangements are concluded for the non-fortification and neutralization of the Archipelago."
It is evident from this that the Commission draws the general interest from the position of the islands i.e. the islands are of major strategic importance and courtesy of their character and the nature of the region their demilitarization is of interest to Europe as a continent. By doing this, the Commission makes it clear that the character of the treaty alone is not enough to warrant an objective regime-character, but that it needs to be erga omnes. You will notice (and as I already pointed out) that the Commission takes special care to mention the Ålands case erga omnes character. If it were not the exception, there would be no reason nor even justification for such an argument, since status treaties would be per se erga omnes and have objective regime character. They dont, thats why you need to argue that they have erga omnes and that is why the Commission does it as well.
Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law:
"[...] limit the theory to treaties which establish territorial regimes in the interest of some or all states. Such so-called "status-treaty" may create only a potential objective regime (there are not, according to this theory, any a priori objective regimes) [...]".
No a priori objective regimes based on status-treaties (such as demilitarization, which falls under that category). It means that a status treaty is not an objective regime simply because it is a status treaty. For it to gain an objective regime-character, something more is required (that something being an erga omnes character - this has been mentioned multiple times throughout this thread).
International Law: A dictionary
"One must add that the existence of an objective treaty regime must not be easily presumed."
Not only is an erga omnes character required, but you need strong arguments in favor of an objective regime for it (the objective regime) to be presumed.
"The Antarctic Treaty as a treaty providing for an 'objective regime'" (Bruno Simma)
"In the doctrine of international law, recognition of the general principle of pacta tertiis has always been accompanied by the search for exceptions in the form of treaties that do create legal effects, rights
or obligations, for third states. Discussion concentrates on so-called "status-creating, .... dispositive" or "constitutive" treaties, and "treaties providing for objective regimes"."
This is also evident from treaties concerning demilitarization where objective regime is either hotly contested among scholarship, or outright denied. You can also see it on the Antarctic Treaty, which concerns the demilitarization of Antarctica, and where it remains a hotly contested topic if it can be considered to have been drafted with a general interest in mind, i.e. if it has an erga omnes character or not: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/c...1&context=cilj (or just Oxford Public International Law which also states much the same thing). Clearly this is impossible if demilitarization meant automatically, as you would have it, that the treaty is an objective regime, as there would be no such controversy. You would expect the top lawyers in international law to know such a simple rule if it were the case, yet none of them apply it regarding Antarctica, choosing instead to argue that it either has an erga omnes-character based on its specific circumstances (with many objecting to it being of an objective regime character). And the simple reason for this is because it is entirely possible to draft an inter-partes demilitarization treaty.
And to make it even clearer:
see the case of Free zones in Upper Savoy and the district of Gex, where the Court stated:
"The question of the existence of rights acquired under an instrument drawn between other states is therefore one to be decided in each particular case [...]"
In the above case, which concerned among other things demilitarization, not only did the Court state unequivocally that the existence of an objective regime has to be decided on a case-by-case basis, but they in fact found that there wasnt an objective regime in this case.
That is simply your opinion. The logic is simple and has been explained multiple times (including above), and is exactly what is being applied both in international courts and in international legal scholarship. Inter-partes demilitarization works just fine and I honestly don't see what is so difficult to grasp about it as a concept. If A and B agree that A should never carry a gun, and A decides to carry one, it does not fall to C to complain about it. A has no agreement with C about carrying no gun. A has an agreement solely with B. It is only when there is a proven general interest as in the Åland Case that C can also complain. This means that as a rule. because the 1947 treaty was not drafted to protect Turkeys interests, they dont get a right to complain about any violation of it. It does not matter if Greece is de facto "violating" the treaty by militarizing, since it was not drafted with the intent of protecting Turkish interests and as such does not generate a right for Turkey to complain. Italy can complain should she wish to, because Italy is a party to the treaty. Only if one can prove an erga omnes character (and keeping in mind that it constitutes an exception) does it generate a right for Turkey.
The only way around that is by arguing that it has an objective regime character. As I have showed you multiple times, this can only be done by arguing that it has an erga omnes character, at which point it is protecting everyones interest. You have yet to bring up a single erga omnes argument however. Not one. Status treaties are not per se erga omnes, so claiming that demilitarization = erga omnes is untrue.
The analogy does not work either. It's more like if there was a clause in the treaty that states that you as a party to the treaty are only obliged to light the room for one guy. The rest may or may not benefit from it, but they have no right to complain since the treaty does not bind the party towards them. The only way to argue otherwise is if lighting the room is important enough to generate a general interest.
It was an example to show that it either has to be the world or a group of states who represent something as large as Europe. For something to be erga omnes, it is not enough that it is important to Turkey.
Nonsense. The Dodecanese unlike the Åland islands do not control the only way into another gulf and do not offer a commanding presence to anyone in possession of them. Furthermore, the 1947 treaty does not appear to have been drafted with a European/general/world interest in mind. It is not enough that it is important to Turkey. And as is evident by the Oxford International Public Law site, evidently the international legal community disagrees with you regarding its character.
Last edited by Hmmm; February 18, 2017 at 09:47 AM.
I had a monumental idea this morning, but I didn't like it.
Samuel Goldwyn
Domesticus
Re: Turkish provocations against Greece, 21 years after the Imia incident
Nebaki, do you even realise how ridiculous this sounds? Asking me to comment on a video someone posted on YT regarding what would happen in a Greece-Turkey war scenario and how the troops would move. It is ridiculous.
You can find plenty of stupid videos that people post on both sides. I can find like a dozen similar videos from the turkish side. I believe (and hope) that they are uploaded by 12 year olds or something like that. I sure hope they are not adults posting such stupid videos. And I sure as hell hope you are not serious asking me to compare what some no name guy posted on youtube with what the turkish government is actually doing.
It's a real interesting thing to have the Turks talk about the "demilitarization of the islands" when on their side of the Aegean, they have the Aegean army, equipped with landing craft, ie, exactly the means to attack and capture the islands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegean_Army
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...00010001-7.pdf
"Greek leaders say they are convinced that Turkey is in a dangerously expansionist mood. However debatable this proposition may be it would be mistaken to assume that Greek concern is artificially contrived or paranoid"
This is from the CIA.
"The Fourth Army (The Aegean Army) has a peacetime force of 35000 combat personnel, and is equipped with landing craft and an amphibious capability which is second largest among NATO members"
https://books.google.gr/books?id=N9y...0craft&f=false
Last time I checked, amphibious capability is not for defense, but for offense. So, the turkish view is "strip all defensive equipment from your islands, so we can invade easier". Well, no.
Last edited by Abdülmecid I; February 18, 2017 at 01:46 PM. Reason: Insulting part removed.
The Truth is Hate for those who hate the Truth.
Wyrd bið ful aræd!
Re: Turkish provocations against Greece, 21 years after the Imia incident
Most of them are not linked. I shouldn't be spending time to dig up your own sources to evaluate them.
I haven't really made any statement so far that required a legal source support. Sure, if I did what I say would be stronger. That's true for any argument. However, what I've been saying so far is quite basic that it doesn't really require a legal opinion on it. Yet, you did manage to provide sources that supported my position. So, thank you for that.
Sigh... This game of yours in trying to guess the intent of the commission is rather boring. Especially this idea that they wouldn't talk about a particular issue if it wasn't an exception is extra boring. It's grasping at straws to follow that line of thinking. Legal opinion texts go deeper than your average essays.
You're still running away from a simple issue. There is no such thing as being demilitarized against one nation. You merely danced around this simple issue. You haven't provided any logic against it. Accuse me all you want. Write me longer and longer texts. None of that will change that simple logic.
The treaty from 1947 doesn't have a clause where it says Greece should demilitarize those islands only against Italy. The treaty simply puts the islands under a demilitarization status. You also don't know if part of the intent of the treaty was to secure Turkish interests. The only logical conclusion from establishment of that demilitarization status is to secure Turkish interests off the Anatolian coast. Don't defy logic just to be against what I say.
Why not? Why can't it be not just one state? Though, primarily, any demilitarization in this particular region benefits Turkey first, secondarily, it benefits Black Sea nations. So on and on.
Seriously? Put a few missile barriers on those islands and you can cripple a large portion, if not all, of the Aegean sea. Also, there is no such requirement that for a location to have high strategic value an island has to control the entirety of a channel. Sigh...
The Armenian Issuehttp://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930
GTA 6 Thread
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?819300-GTA-6-Reveal-Trailer
"We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."
Senator
Re: Turkish provocations against Greece, 21 years after the Imia incident
Some of them are books. The rest are clearly given databases. The relevant site and name have been provided. It is available to anyone with a subcription to JSTOR, OXford Public International Law, Oxford Scholarship, and Oxford Reference - all of which are well known sites. It is not my fault or problem if you dont have the relevant subscriptions. The quotes were provided for your convenience.
Yes you have. You have made definitive, blanket statements regarding the content of the law, including the meaning of the term "objective regime", which require backing. I will take this attempt by you to squirm away as you admitting that you are in fact wrong.
It's not guessing. It's what international legal scholarship tells us, coupled with the clear and unequivocal text of the Commissions ruling itself. You can live in denial all you want, you are flat out wrong. Nobody is buying your charades.
Yes there is. I have already provided the relevant legal source for this, including two cases where examples of demilitarization treaties were not, in one case, at all considered to be of objective regime character and in the other, where it is still hotly contested if it is in fact an objective regime or not. There is nothing in the nature of a demilitarization agreement which precludes it from being inter-partes, no matter how many times you try to tell yourself that. If it were the case as you say, that demilitarization means automatic objective regime character, then there would be no controversy among highly regarded international legal scholars about whether the Antarctica Treaty, which includes demilitarization, is of an objective regime character. Yet there is.
But I'm sure Setekh knows better than the worlds leading scholars and lawyers in international public law, and they're all unaware of this clear rule which states that demilitarization = automatic objective regime character. What idiots, to bother trying to justify its objective regime character by reference to the special circumstances of Antarctica, when they could just refer to the demilitarization status since it confers automatic objective regime character. And what bufoons, the ones who deny its character as objective regime treaty in the first place! Preposterous!
The treaty is between Greece and Italy. In any case concerning objective regimes, the Courts, Commissions, and other decision-makers have looked for explicit reasons for the Treaty being intended to safeguard a general interest, not vice versa. So again, you're admitting to being wrong.
In fact is has been stated multiple times by multiple legal sources that objective regime status is not easily presumed and is the exception, not the rule. The general rule is that treaties only apply between the parties. It is for the one claiming the exception, i.e. that it applies also to third states, to prove it. Thus the treaty does not have to state anywhere that the agreement is only between Greece and Italy, as that follows from the basic principle of pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt, enshrined also in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Why cant it be just one state? Because "erga omnes" means "a concern for all", not "a concern for one". Ask international legal scholarship why this is the case, where the mountain of evidence I have provided show that they speak of a general interest, not the interest of one state.
It doesnt benefit Black Sea nations. They couldnt care less about it.
You can do this with essentially any piece of land. That does not make it erga omnes. Here's an example concerning the Åland islands:
"The Aaland archipelago extends from near the coast of Finland something more than half way across the mouth of the Gulf of Bothnia as it opens to the Baltic Sea. It affords and important naval base from which, therefore, control of that great gulf, nearly four hundred miles in length, could well be achieved. Moreover, it is convenient, for such purposes, to the Swedish coast and particularly menacing to Stockholm, the Swedish capital. As it also adjoins the mouth of the Gulf of Finland, in hostile possession it would menace Helsingsfors, the Finnish, and Petrograd, the Russian capital city as well. It has been pointed out that a fast torpedo boat stationed at Bomarsund in the islands could reach Stockholm in three or four hours, and a "grosse Bertha" could shell that beautiful city from the shores of the archipelago."
"The Neutralization of the Aaland Island", by Charles Noble Gregory.
The Dodecanese are not within a short distance of Ankara or any other capital city except possibly Athens and even then there are islands in the way. A militarized Dodecanese does not represent the same kind of threat as a militarized Åland does. Control of the Dodecanese does not translate into control of the Aegean. Control of Åland translates into control of the Baltic, including extremely close vicinity to three capitals (st Petersburg having been the Russian capital at the time of the Commissions decision). The Dodecanese are unremarkable islands in a corner of the Aegean, and dont even command that sea, let alone a region like the Eastern Mediterranean. Åland controls the Baltic.
My work is done here. All relevant sources have been adequately provided for any posters to see for themselves. There is literally no point in continuing this conversation at this point. Setekh, your future posts are simply referred back to what I've already written.
Last edited by Hmmm; February 18, 2017 at 10:59 AM.
I had a monumental idea this morning, but I didn't like it.
Samuel Goldwyn
Primicerius
Re: Turkish provocations against Greece, 21 years after the Imia incident
Missile shield in the islands stationed next to Turkey, right.
Where you can land special forces in a matter of minutes and take it out before any other operation takes place, wow!
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
Senator
Re: Turkish provocations against Greece, 21 years after the Imia incident
Ähm no Omega TV & Co. stop talking bs pls.
BTW:
So close on Turkish Border and doing this ? you don´t call this "PROVOCATIVE" ???
Primicerius
Re: Turkish provocations against Greece, 21 years after the Imia incident
Probably because it's close to Turkish border and not inside Turkish border.
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
Civis
Re: Turkish provocations against Greece, 21 years after the Imia incident
antonius II,you seem like a man of logic,do you truly believe that the turkik military is at its current state capable of serious military action against a modern european army?fighting PKK rebels or syrian militias is not the same when you face a force similar at least to your own.Since the day after the failed coop in Turkey i wrote that Erdogan will try despertly find an enemy suitable to unite the devided Turkish society under his leadership, making them to forget/ignore the transition of the Turkish Democracy to new Sultanate of Turks. The last week provocations became realy dangerus. A paper reporter that left Turkey gave an interview to a German newspaper describing that Erdogan's plans were to have one of Turkey's airplanes to be shoted down (by an other turkish plane if necesary) to have an excuse for violence. When this plan licked by that interview seams that Turkey changed its plans. Only yesterday a Turkish-Tuzla class- gun ship TCG Kuşadası P-1215 that participate in Turkish naval exersises with Turkish Navy entered the Hellenic National waters and came close to the small Greek island of Pharmaconisi -that has a national guard guarrison- and OPENED FIRE WITH REAL AMMINITION to the coast provoking the guarisson to return fire! Luckily the HN Patrol Ship Nikiphoros was near by forcing the turkish light ship to leave Greek waters! Also the last 72 hours more than 48 air intrusions in the Hellenic FIR made by Turkish Air force containing planes of electronic warfare.
It seams that Erdogan realised that he can not have any gains in Syria or Iraq (turkish soldiers abandon their tanks and flee in Al Bab) and wants an other chance with Greece, depending in help from the Nationalistic Goverment of Albania in that matter as the Turkish Navy movements in Adriatic sea show.
Domesticus
Re: Turkish provocations against Greece, 21 years after the Imia incident
I'm afraid you are the one talking bs. It is quite ridiculous to "equalize" threats coming from the highest position in Turkey (the Turkish President) and other high positions (various MPs), with someone's military analysis of what would happen in a Greek-Turkish conflict. It is even ridiculous to refer to such an analysis, of whatever credibility and scientific merit, as "provocative".
Insulting is to refer to my hometown as the "borders of your heart". Insulting is to threaten my country with war, or with sending "refugees" here. Insulting is to behave as if Turkey is calling the shots in Greece, and to tell Greeks to return the 8 Turks who requested asylum here "or else": http://greece.greekreporter.com/2016...the-8-or-else/
So don't play the "insulted" about a military analysis from some channel when turkish officials behave as they do with Greeks. I would advise them to choose their words very carefully when they speak to Greeks.
Regarding the exercise, as you see the shots are fired FROM Greek territory, and end IN Greek territory. THAT is what you do when you DON'T want to provoke.
The Truth is Hate for those who hate the Truth.
Senator
Re: Turkish provocations against Greece, 21 years after the Imia incident
@ioannis76
You are the funny one - look at your sources and claims - now you came with that funny coup-
Greek Territory ? But when Turks doing some exercise in their territory then it´s provocative and War preperations against Greece - i mean look at your Army, no one else in Europe has such a Army even not in the Crisis time, you Guys are not Germany or France but yeah let´s get some AH-64 and F-35s with the money from ? Do you guys have money ? Are we listening some Greeks here which cheated themselve into the European Union ?
We can look at the Records from 1990 until today how much who violated without permission who on his border - the NATO headquarters are really good on this.
Posting Permissions
