Talk:Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits/Archive 1

Isolationism

 * ''the isolationist United States refused even to send an observer.

Is this the opinion of the source? Should it be here? This is an unusual characterization of the Roosevelt administration; aurely we are entitled to recall a time when the United States simply had no interest in the Straits? (It may be more relevant to point out that the US had not been at war with the Ottomans, and was therefore not concerned with Lausanne.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Title
The wording of the Convention refers to 'the Straits' and not to the 'Turkish Straits' and should be reflected accurately in the title of this entryClive Sweeting.


 * Do you have a source for that? -- ChrisO (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The French wikipaedia article 'Convention de Montreux' gives a direct link to the text of the convention itself: 'Convention concernant le régime des détroits signée à Montreux, le vingt juillet 1936'. It appears (p. 17) that the French version has binding forceClive Sweeting.


 * OK, thanks very much. I'll make the necessary changes. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I await these,-and six months later continue to do soClive Sweeting

Need Full Text

 * Could someone put a link in the article to the full English text of this "Montreux Convention" ? --78.190.27.108 (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Question
Article says:
 * with Turkey the sole authority with the legal power to interpret the Convention

That is almost certaintly incorrect. Among other things, wouldn't UNCLOS provide for binding arbitration or adjudication by either the ICJ or ITLOS in these matters? -- SJK


 * It probably would, if Turkey were a signatory if UNCLOS. They're not. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 06:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * UNCLOS likely has no impact on Turkey's role as executive agent for the administration of the Montreux Convention on Straits Passage. UNCLOS does not directly address the straits and has no mechanism to supercede existing legally binding international agreements.  Further, all Black Sea littoral states - for whose benefit the Convention was written - have  no interest in changing the existing regime.Федоров (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The Turkish Straits would be considered internal waters under the UNCLOS, and if UNCLOS was the only law in operation, Turkey would have more powers than it does under Montreux. I'm looking for a citation for this.  Also the reason that Turkey hasn't signed UNCLOS is because of the Aegean sea dispute with Greece. Roadrunner (talk) 05:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Article 14 / Annex II - Montreux convention
The tonnage limits on Article 14 apply to all states.

Article 14 states "The maximum aggregate tonnage of all foreign naval forces which may be in course of transit through the Straits shall not exceed 15,000 tons, except in the cases provided for in Article 11 and in Annex III to the present Convention."

Article 11 states Black Sea Powers may send through the Straits capital ships of a ***tonnage greater than that laid down in the first paragraph of Article 14***, on condition that these vessels pass through the Straits singly, escorted by not more than two destroyers.

Annex II (b). (1) Capital Ships are surface vessels of war belonging to one of the two following sub-categories:

(a) Surface vessels of war, other than aircraft-carriers, auxiliary vessels, or capital ships of sub-category (b), the standard displacement of which exceeds 10,000 tons (10,160 metric tons) or which carry a gun with a calibre exceeding 8 in. (203 mm.);

(b) Surface vessels of war, other than aircraft-carriers, the standard displacement of which does not esceed 8,000 tons (8,128 metric tons) and which carry a gun with a calibre exceeding 8 in. (203 mm.).

There is no exception for Black Sea powers as far as the aircraft carrier restrictions, and Black Sea powers are not exempt from Article 14.

Also the official position of Turkey is that the limitations in aircraft carriers apply to both Black Sea and non-Black Sea powers.

http://www.mfa.gov.tr/implementation-of-the-montreux-convention.en.mfa

Roadrunner (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If you disagree with the edit, you'll need to present your own sources, and we can take this to arbitration. Also even if it is incorrect that the Convention prevents aircraft carriers from entering the Black Sea, the fact that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkey says that it does is significant enough to be worth mentioning.

Roadrunner (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

'''Article 11. Black Sea Powers may send through the Straits capital ships of a tonnage greater than that laid down in the first paragraph of Article 14, on condition that these vessels pass through the Straits singly, escorted by not more than two destroyers.''' There is no mention of the exclusion of aircraft carriers in Article 11 as implied in your post above.
 * The entire text of Article 11 of the Montreux Convention reads:


 * Correct, the exclusion is in Annex II, B(1) where capital ship is defined as excluding aircraft carriers.

Roadrunner (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Further, there is no mention in the entire text of the Montreux Convention that aircraft carriers belonging to Black Sea states are excluded from passage through the straits. The ONLY size/type governing restriction on non-Black Sea states is the aggregate tonnage limit.

Федоров (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Again correct, but there are is no mention of aircraft carriers belonging to anyone being excluded.

Roadrunner (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think a clarification might help (i.e. no legalese). Let me see if I can summarize the interpretation:


 * Article 14: No ships over 15,000 tons are allowed to transit, unless they fall under Article 11 as defined by Annex II. (Roadrunner correctly quotes Article 14 as stating Annex III in the Convention, however I believe it should refer to Annex II)
 * Article 11: Capital ships of Black Sea countries are allowed to transit - provided they classify as capital ships.
 * Annex II, B, (1), (a) & (b): Defines capital ships as warships that are not aircraft carriers.
 * Therefore, I understand the correct interpretation to be that the Admiral Kuznetsov is not allowed to transit, because she is:
 * A. Over 15,000 tons.
 * B. Despite being a part of a Black Sea Power's navy, is not a capital ship as defined by Annex II.

Please notify me if my interpretation is incorrect. (I did cut out some parts for simplicity's sake - I don't believe the removed information is pertinent to, or affects the current argument in any way.)

As to my involvement, I was drawn to this discussion by a section on the Admiral Kuznetsov talk page. I wanted to ask Федоров for a source for his statements regarding his position. I had read the argument that the ship(s) were named aircraft carrying cruisers to circumvent the treaty multiple times, and I had wondered why it had been removed. I mean no disrespect to Федоров, I was just wondering if he could provide some sources or references regarding the interpretation of the treaty.

* - * - * - * - *

Федоров (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * KUZNETSOV is over 15,000 tons but belongs to a Black Sea power - therefore, not restricted by tonnage and can transit
 * KUZNETSOV was correctly classified by the USSR as an aircraft carrying cruiser (has SS-N-12 anti-ship missiles as main armament and carries aircraft for self-defense) - therefore, does not fit definition of aircraft carrier and can transit as did all four KIEV class aircraft carrying cruisers previous to the KUZNETSOV.

Also, full translation of the Convention is available on Wikisource as well as here. -Noha307 (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I think I should separate some things here. Part of the problem on my part was that I was attempting to address two issues at once. One was interpreting the debate above, the other was my question noted in the paragraph regarding my involvement. Somewhere along the line they became mixed up. Let me try explaining again, this time separating the two and explaining myself as completely as possible.


 * First, the debate above:
 * If you agree with the notion that the Kuznetsov is an "aircraft carrying cruiser" (and I'm not saying that I do or don't), then yes, the ship should be able to transit. If you agree with the notion that it is an "aircraft carrier", then it shouldn't be able to transit. I think when I was writing the above logical argument I was doing it from Roadrunner's point of view and therefore thinking of the ship in terms of an "aircraft carrier". The one way an "aircraft carrier" could transit (at least according the Convention) is if it weighs less than 15,000 tons, but this certainly won't affect the Kuznetsov.


 * I do however disagree with the idea that there is nothing in the Convention preventing the transit of aircraft carriers. It would be correct to say that there is nothing that directly prevents their transit. However, carrier over 15,000 tons are indirectly prevented from transit because warships over 15,000 tons must classify as capital ships to transit and according to the definition of a capital ship laid out in they are not. However, if, as above, the Kuznetsov is taken to be an aircraft carrying cruiser and not an aircraft carrier, then it should be allowed to transit.


 * Second, my question:
 * What is your explanation regarding why the Kuznetsov is called an aircraft carrying cruiser? Is it:
 * A. Because the design, i.e. having a strong offensive missile armaments, is a different kind of ship than an aircraft carrier?
 * B. Because of a need to circumvent the Montreux Convention?
 * C. Because of both of the above reasons?


 * Actually, I'm quite certain you'll agree with the first statement (design). In other words, I just wanted to know whether you think it is also fair to say that the ship was so classified to avoid the convention as well. Because you seemed to be suggesting here that that wasn't the case. Or to put it another way, would you agree with the inclusion in the Admiral Kuznetsov article that the the carrier was designated an aircraft carrying cruiser because of its design and as away to circumvent the treaty? If not I think it would be useful to address the notion of the circumvention of the treaty as incorrect.


 * (Sorry if the above seems like a redundant question, I just wanted a definitive answer)


 * By the way, did you mean SS-N-19 missiles instead of SS-N-12? Or were you just referring to the SS-N-12 "family" of missiles? -Noha307 (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

* - * - * - * - *


 * It was my intent and belief that the Kuznetsov, as the four Kiev Class units which preceded it, is correctly classified by its owning state as an aircraft carrying cruiser and that this classification was not formulated in order to attempt a circumvention of the Montreux Convention. However, there a sufficient others who believe that this is the case.  From my understanding of the design and military motivation of the Soviet Union and its Navy all of these ships were to function as forward pickets confronting a potential adversarial force intending to execute an missile and air attack against the USSR.

Федоров (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My missile reference was in the "family" vein and intended to address the entire SS-N-3/12/19 family of long-range anti-ship cruise missiles.

Validity of this article
This article, virtually in its entirety and word for word, is a copy of what is contained in an article on the Montreux Convention at www.filepie.us/?title=Montreux_Convention_on_the_Regime_of_the_Turkish_Straits. Is it not forbidden to copy entire articles into Wikipedia without appropriate attribution?Федоров (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Website doesn't exist - not even a cache. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120601151447/http://www.osaarchivum.org/files/holdings/300/8/3/text/143-4-146.shtml to http://www.osaarchivum.org/files/holdings/300/8/3/text/143-4-146.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430073318/http://www.todayszaman.com/news-223806-istanbul-canal-project-to-open-debate-on-montreux-convention.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/news-223806-istanbul-canal-project-to-open-debate-on-montreux-convention.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

'Kanal Istanbul' project
In the introduction there is a lengthy paragraph about the possible impact of the 'Kanal Istanbul' project on the Montreux Convention. I suggest to take it out and add a short section at the end. First, because there is no Kanal Istanbul still, and in all likelihood there will never be, and second because all the interpretations about its impact on the Montreux Convention are a hype - it can have no impact, because there the "Straits" is also the Dardanelles, so a second (still not planned) channel would be needed, and even then, the rule about the presence of foreign warships in the Black Sea would be still valid. Of course there has been a public debate about it, so it should be mentioned, but not in the introduction. In a few days I might make these changes, if nobody objects. Ilyacadiz (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Military access to the Mediterranean Sea.
The opening para says "a source of controversy over the years, most notably about the Soviet Union's military access to the Mediterranean Sea." I don't understand that - the Soviet Union (and now Russia) was a Black Sea state, aren't they exempt from the restrictions? Also doesn't the treaty only restict traffic entering the Black Sea, not exiting? So I have added a 'citation needed' tag. Ideally an explanation should also be added if anyone has one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.50.146 (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll look for a source, but it's true that the Soviet Union's access to the Mediterranean Sea was one of the points, because the Conventions does restrict passage in both ways. It does give more rights to Black Sea powers (Soviet Union), but still applies certain limitations. I'll elaborate soon on that, with a source. Ilyacadiz (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)