Interpretation of the Greco-Turkish Agreement refers to an advisory opinion issued by the Permanent Court of International Justice (abbreviation PCIJ) under the League of Nations. The case involved a dispute over the implementation of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, particularly the compulsory population exchange between Greece and Turkey and the resolution of disputes arising from the process.
The Treaty of Lausanne, signed on July 24, 1923, marked the conclusion of hostilities between the Allied Powers and the Ottoman Empire following World War I. It established the modern boundaries of Turkey and included provisions for the forced relocation of Greek Orthodox Christians from Turkey to Greece and Muslims from Greece to Turkey. This exchange, involving over 1.5 million people, aimed to reduce ethnic tensions but led to significant challenges, particularly concerning the properties and financial assets left behind by those displaced.[1]
To address these issues, the treaty established a Mixed Commission for the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations, tasked with resolving disputes related to property valuation, financial compensation, and logistical arrangements. However, disagreements between Greece and Turkey regarding the commission's powers and procedures gave rise to legal disputes requiring international arbitration.[2]
The Greco-Turkish Agreement of December 1, 1926, was created to address the practical issues arising from the population exchange, particularly the valuation of properties abandoned by those who were relocated. The agreement established a Mixed Commission to handle disputes, including the valuation and compensation for the properties that were left behind. However, disagreements arose over how the commission was to interpret and implement these terms, especially concerning the right to refer certain unresolved issues to arbitration.
The Final Protocol of the agreement, especially Article IV, provided the framework for submitting disputes to an arbitrator under the supervision of the Greco-Turkish Mixed Arbitral Tribunal in Constantinople (now Istanbul). However, Greece and Turkey had different interpretations of the commission’s powers, particularly in terms of jurisdictional authority and the procedures for arbitration
One key issue was the interpretation of Article IV of the Final Protocol annexed to the 1926 Greco-Turkish Agreement. This provision outlined conditions under which unresolved disputes could be referred to an arbitrator. The question arose whether the Mixed Commission alone had the authority to determine if such conditions were met and whether it held the exclusive right to initiate arbitration.
In 1928, the League of Nations referred the matter to the PCIJ for clarification. The request sought to determine:
1. Whether the Mixed Commission was solely responsible for deciding if conditions for arbitration existed.
2. Whether the right to refer matters to arbitration belonged exclusively to the commission.[3]
On August 28, 1928, the PCIJ issued its advisory opinion. The Court concluded:
1. The Mixed Commission alone had the authority to assess whether the conditions specified in Article IV of the Final Protocol were met.
2. Only the Mixed Commission held the right to initiate arbitration for unresolved disputes.[4]
This opinion aimed to resolve the ambiguity regarding the commission's powers and ensure that the arbitration process would function smoothly without interference from the two governments involved. The decision was seen as an important clarification of international procedural law, particularly regarding the management of complex disputes arising from territorial and population shifts.
The Court's decision had significant implications for international arbitration and governance under the League of Nations. It reaffirmed the authority of specialized commissions to manage sensitive intergovernmental disputes, providing a framework for similar mechanisms in future treaties.[5]
The ruling also contributed to the gradual normalization of Greco-Turkish relations by resolving ambiguities in the population exchange process, although tensions over ethnic and territorial issues persisted.
The Interpretation of the Greco-Turkish Agreement remains an important case in the history of international law, particularly for its role in defining the authority of arbitral commissions and addressing the challenges of post-conflict reconciliation. It also serves as a precedent for managing disputes involving forced migrations, displaced populations, and property restitution.[6]
Scholars often cite the case when examining the efficacy and ethics of compulsory population exchanges as a tool for resolving ethnic conflicts, as well as the broader role of the PCIJ in promoting international justice under the League of Nations framework.
The Treaty of Lausanne replaced the earlier Treaty of Sèvres (1920), which the Turkish National Movement rejected during the Turkish War of Independence. Lausanne was instrumental in establishing the Republic of Turkey and reshaping the geopolitical landscape in the Eastern Mediterranean after World War I. Its provisions for the population exchange reflected a controversial approach to ethnic conflict resolution, involving mass relocations to achieve demographic homogeneity.[7]