P. Pavlopoulos: NATO has no legitimacy to take a ‘neutral third’ stance towards Turkish threats

Speaking in Samothrace, in the context of the “Economic Forum of Thrace 2022” – focusing on the slogan “Cancel Hate” – on “The defensive shield of the Greek Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Islands under International and European Law”, The former President of the Republic and Honorary Professor of the Law School of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Mr. Prokopios Pavlopoulos pointed out, among others, the following:

“From the whole of International Law and European Law – and therefore of the corresponding European Acquis – it follows, inter alia, the following regarding the absolute and inalienable right of Greece to defend all, without exception, its Aegean Islands and in the Eastern Mediterranean:

A. First of all, our non-negotiable National Position is that between Greece and Turkey there is one, and only, difference, that of the delimitation of the Island Continental Shelf and the respective Sea Zones. There is no issue regarding the defensive shielding of the Greek Aegean Islands and the Eastern Mediterranean.

1. Greece has the right – but also the obligation, since this concerns the protection of the Greek Territory – both for its own account and vis-απέ-vis the European Union as a full Member State, to defend all, without exception, its Islands in the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean, regardless of the extent of their territory and whether they are inhabited or not. This right, in addition to the solid institutional arguments directly derived from the legal status of the 1936 Montreux Treaty, is based on the provisions of Article 51 of the UN Charter, which enshrines the right of a UN Member State to “legal defense”. not only in the event of an armed attack against it, but also in the event of a “threat of use of force” or even an “imminent threat”, as is clear from the practice of this UN. And it is a given that Turkey, especially after the invasion of Cyprus in 1974, the completely arbitrary “casus belli” in terms of the expansion of the Aegean Zone and the formation of the “Aegean Army”, threatens Greece over time and directly, and with use of force – as further demonstrated by its recent stance following the “conclusion” of the so-called “Turkish-Libyan memorandum” – in direct violation of International Law and, above all, the Law of the Sea under the 1982 Montego Bay Treaty. , which also binds Turkey, through generally accepted rules of international law.

2. Furthermore, Turkey can in no way and in any way invoke the Paris Peace Convention of 1947, by which the Dodecanese were ceded to Greece. This is because Turkey was not a party to the treaty, which was concluded between the Allied victors of World War II and Italy. A fortiori, Turkey must fully respect the Peace Treaty, which is a “res inter alios acta” for it.

B. The same right – and therefore the same obligation – is derived by Greece under European Law and the corresponding European Acquis, in accordance with the following clarifications and in the light of the ever-increasing provocative and aggressive behavior of Turkey towards which, According to the conclusions of the Euro-Mediterranean Conference of 10 September 2020 in Ajaccio, Corsica, it directly violates the sovereignty and sovereign rights of Greece.

1. The provisions of article 42 par. 7 ed. of the TEU, which secure the institutional guarantees for the activation of the “Mutual Defense” clause, when a Member State of the European Union is threatened, refer directly, as regards the conditions for the activation of this clause, to the provisions of Article 51 of UN. Therefore, the above provisions are part of the European Acquis, so Greece has the right to defend the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Islands against the Turkish threat and based on the institutional framework of European Law and the corresponding European Acquis.

2. In addition, and in view of the blatant Turkish provocation and direct threat against it, Greece has the right, at any time, to request, as a Member State of the European Union, the activation of the “Mutual Defense” clause, in accordance with the provisions of Article 42 par. 7 of the TEU. In this regard, Greece can refer to the practice, which has been followed so far in the framework of the European Union, for the activation of the above clause.

C. Finally, in case e.g. that Turkey – as it openly and provocatively threatens, especially lately – to attack Greece with arms and thus infringe on its National Sovereignty and the resulting All Sovereign Rights, the European Union and NATO not only are not legitimized to observe or and a disguised attitude of “neutrality” but, on the contrary, according to the in concreto provisions set out, they must support, immediately and in practice, Greece against Turkey.

1. As regards the European Union, in which Turkey is not a party, this follows, as stated above, unmistakably from the European Legal Order and, consequently, from the European Acquis, in particular from the letter and spirit of the provisions of Article 42 par. 7 of the TEU.

2. But the same is true for NATO, although Turkey – like Greece – is a member. Indeed, no provision or general principle of the NATO Treaty can justify the opposite position, namely the position that NATO is entitled to take a “neutral” stance in the event of an armed attack by Turkey against Greece and henceforth violation of National Sovereignty and any other Sovereign Rights of the latter. In this sense, by no means e.g. The provisions of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty may, lege artis, be interpreted in such a way as some parties have implied, without even substantial documentation, at times.

a) This is because the provisions of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty prima faciae refer, in order to activate the assistance mechanism, in the event of a third State attack against one or more NATO Members. However, it must be interpreted, for the purpose of NATO itself, that in this case they provide for the obvious, but not that they tolerate, in any way, the exceptional and extreme case of an attack by a NATO Member State against another or other Member States. , in violation of any notion of International Law.

b) In any case, the above position fully documents, in addition to their teleological interpretation, the systematic interpretation of the provisions of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, ie their combined interpretation according to the letter and the spirit of the other provisions according to of the above Treaty. Primarily their interpretation according to the letter and the spirit of the provisions of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of this Treaty. This is because a simple reading of the above provisions is sufficient to show that NATO, in fulfilling its mission, relies primarily on its Members’ full respect for international law, and in particular – of course, among other things – a culture of the peaceful settlement of international disputes, the development of friendly and peaceful international relations, the strengthening of co-operation between them and their subsequent co-operation under the conditions of peaceful meetings and consultations.

c) Consequently, accepting the position that a NATO Member State will remain “untouched” by the Alliance if it attacks, in violation of international law, another Member State means undoing the very purpose of NATO creation and, in all likelihood, , cause of its dissolution or, at least, its completely subversive inactivation. ”