Talk:Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contradiction[edit]

No more than nine non-Turkish warships, with a total aggregate tonnage of no more than 30,000 tons, may pass at any one time, and they are permitted to stay in the Straits for no longer than three weeks. The number of foreign warships permitted in the Straits at any one time is restricted to one.

Is it one or nine? Or am I missing something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.235.132 (talk) 02:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no contradiction. You have misread the Convention. Foreign warships (those not belonging to Black Sea states) are not permitted to remain within the Black Sea (not the Straits) for more than three weeks (21 days).Федоров (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, so how did the Soviet Union always having one warship in the Straits stop anyone else from having one? Did it not just reduce the amount from nine to eight?

And can they still do this, but have chosen not to? Some clarification needed. 2601:647:5800:7D80:D945:EDEC:9CC0:A965 (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aegean[edit]

The map has a label, "Aegean Sea", but the text refers only to the Mediterranean. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which factor decides whether Turkey can restrict passage of a ship? Its state, navy, or home base?[edit]

In the second paragraph of the article, it says that the Montreux Convention "permits Turkey to restrict the passage of navies not belonging to Black Sea states." I am not sure about the exact wording of the actual convention, however reading this sentence, I would assume that Russia, since it borders the Black Sea, is a Black Sea state, thus the convention would not permit Turkey to restrict the passage of the Russian navy. However, this is clearly not the case, since it says later in the article that "Turkey refused permission for 3 of 4 Russian warships to enter the Black Sea, as 3 did not have a home base in the Black Sea." In this sentence, it appears that not the state or the navy but the home base to which the ships belong is relevant. Could someone with more knowledge about this topic clarify this? Thank you! —Shinryuu (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Shinryuu, this is in fact quite clear in the Convention: Black Sea Powers can have as many ships as they want in the Black Sea, but warships from powers which are at war cannot use the Straits in any direction, except returning to their base. Every ship has a legally defined base (in civil ships called port of registry or home port) and the Convention says it can use the Straits in order to return there. As you observed, the text in the article was misleading. I have corrected it. Thanks for observing! Ilyacadiz (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kanal Istanbul[edit]

Hello, I have deleted a couple of lines at the end of the introductory paragraph. I paste them here, so they are not lost, but I think that they should not be at the introduction:

However, there have been some controversies in its implementation,[1] most notably the proposed Kanal Istanbul, which would provide another waterway from the Black Sea to the Sea of Marmara, thereby possibly circumventing the Convention.[2][3][4]

This is actually not more than a media hype. It is true that the subject has been discussed heavily in Turkey itself (although the first quoted source, Today's Zaman, just underlines that the Montreux Convention will in fact NOT be affected by the Kanal and the Qantara source doesn't even mention Montreux), but everything written about the possibility that warships could pass freely through Kanal Istanbul, should it ever be built, misses the fact that the Montreux Convention does not refer to the Bosphorus, but to The Straits, i.e. the Bosphorus AND the Dardanelles. Unless there is a second waterway built to circumvent the Dardanelles, there is absolutely no way that a Kanal Istanbul could change any aspect of the Montreux Convention - whoever misses this fact just hasn't read the Convention. The debate has taken place in Turkey, and as such must be mentioned in the article, but not suggesting it has any real base, because it hasn't. I'm in favour of keeping the section of Kanal Istanbul down in the text, rewording it with the appropriate sources, but there is no sense to keep in in the introduction, not least because the Kanal project might have been quite present in the news from time to time, but is far from being a reality. Ilyacadiz (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference :1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ “Erdogan's Dream, Istanbul's Nightmare“, en.qantara.de/content/the-istanbul-canal-project-erdogans-dream-istanbuls-nightmare Retrieved December 27, 2020.
  3. ^ "İstanbul Canal project to open debate on Montreux Convention". Today's Zaman. 2010-10-08. Archived from the original on 2011-04-30.
  4. ^ "How Istanbul's man-made canal project could trigger an arms race". South China Morning Post. 2018-06-03. Archived from the original on 2021-01-19. Retrieved December 27, 2020.