Fact Check: Are the Eastern Aegean Islands Allowed to Be Militarized? What Lausanne 1923, Paris 1947 and the Law Say

Why It Matters

Are Aegean islands demilitarized? Partly, and the question is legally contested rather than settled. Article 13 of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne restricts military presence on Lesbos, Chios, Samos and Ikaria, and Article 14 of the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty with Italy requires the Dodecanese to be demilitarized. Greece contests that they still bind it; no court has ruled.

On 27 October 2026 the Turkish Foreign Ministry said, as reported by Anadolu Agency and relayed by News.az, that Türkiye's policy in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean remains unchanged. The ministry's statement said: “Türkiye’s positions, which it consistently and resolutely defends on all platforms in accordance with international law, remain unchanged.” Ankara would keep protecting its legitimate rights and interests in both regions “without concessions.” The excerpt we reviewed does not itself discuss island demilitarization, so we use it only as a dated hook.

The Aegean is a sea border drawn by treaty, and part of what Ankara calls the Blue Homeland (Mavi Vatan), its doctrine on maritime jurisdiction in the Black Sea, Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. The status of its islands is among the most compressed and misreported parts of that border. For the wider treaty map, see our guide on Türkiye borders treaties Lausanne Kars Montreux.

Claim vs. Fact Analysis

The claim has three parts: that Greece may fortify its Aegean islands freely, that Türkiye's objections lack a legal basis, and that the dispute is simply Turkish threats. Treaty texts show restrictions were written into Lausanne 1923 and Paris 1947; whether they still bind Greece is disputed. Our verdict: incomplete and contested.

The claim and where it circulates

The claim appears as shorthand in international coverage of Aegean tensions and in political statements. It recurs in many forms rather than as one text, so we attribute it to no single outlet and quote no speaker. We test the substance instead.

Verdict: Incomplete and contested

• Accurate: Greece holds sovereignty over these islands, and it does invoke a self-defense right under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
• Incomplete: The claim omits that the Lausanne and Paris texts contain explicit military limits, and that the live question is whether those limits still bind.
• Contested: Whether a treaty can limit a state's defensive measures, how it affects third states, and whether later instruments displaced it. No court has decided these points.

Part 1: “Greece may fortify freely” — Incomplete

Greek sovereignty is not in doubt. Lausanne confirmed it over most Aegean islands, while Imbros, Tenedos and the Rabbit Islands stayed with Türkiye. But the same treaty attached conditions to some of those islands, and the 1947 cession of the Dodecanese came with a demilitarization clause. Presenting “free fortification” as plain fact skips the question of whether those clauses remain in force. Greece answers yes to the sovereignty point and no to the continuing force of the limits; that is a legal argument, not an uncontested fact.

Part 2: “Türkiye's objections have no legal basis” — Not supported as stated

Türkiye's objections rest on treaty text, and Türkiye is a party to Lausanne. Greece has serious counter-arguments, summarized below, and scholars divide on them. Saying the objections have “no legal basis” states a conclusion that has never been reached by any tribunal.

Part 3: “The dispute is simply Ankara threatening its neighbour” — Incomplete

The 8 June 1995 resolution of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM) is real, and Greece reads it as a threat of force. Ankara describes it as protecting vital interests if Greece extends its Aegean territorial sea beyond six nautical miles. Yet the “threat” frame leaves out the treaty argument entirely, and it leaves out the Greek reservation of a right to extend to 12 nautical miles. Both sides present their posture as a response to the other's.

What we could not verify

• The exact dates and document numbers of Turkish and Greek letters circulated at the UN. We cite none rather than risk a wrong date.
• The full text of the 27 October 2026 Turkish statement beyond the lines quoted in the News.az report.
• Current, independently confirmed force levels on individual islands, which we omit.
• Direct page links to Greek MFA texts. We describe Greek positions as the Greek MFA has publicly stated them but quote no wording.

Background

Four treaty instruments shape the status of the eastern Aegean islands: the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, the 1923 Lausanne Straits Convention, the 1936 Montreux Convention and the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty with Italy. Each addresses a different group of islands, which is why one-line summaries mislead.

Instrument	Date	Islands concerned	What it provides
Treaty of Lausanne, Arts. 12–13	24 July 1923	Lesbos (Mytilene), Chios, Samos, Ikaria (Nikaria)	No naval base or fortification; military overflight of the other side's territory barred reciprocally; Greek forces limited to the normal conscript contingent plus gendarmerie and police in proportion to the rest of Greece
Lausanne Straits Convention	24 July 1923	Lemnos, Samothrace (plus Imbros, Tenedos, Rabbit Islands)	Demilitarized zones and islands tied to the Straits regime
Montreux Convention	20 July 1936	The Straits (not the islands by name)	Replaced the 1923 Straits Convention and allowed Türkiye to remilitarize the Straits zone
Lausanne, Art. 15	24 July 1923	Dodecanese	Türkiye renounced its rights over the islands in favour of Italy
Paris Peace Treaty with Italy, Art. 14	Signed 10 February 1947; in force 15 September 1947	Dodecanese (Rhodes, Kos, Leros, Patmos, Kastellorizo and others)	Ceded by Italy to Greece; the islands “shall be and remain demilitarised”

Montreux matters because it replaced the 1923 Straits Convention under which Lemnos and Samothrace were demilitarized. Its wartime closure rules are a separate subject, covered in Montreux Article 19 in Practice.

How this connects to the other Aegean files

Demilitarization is one strand of several. Briefly:

• Territorial waters: Both countries apply six nautical miles (about 11 km) in the Aegean in practice. Greece reserves a right to 12 nautical miles; the 1995 TBMM resolution responds to that. We do not duplicate the 12-nautical-mile analysis published by our sister publications.
• Airspace and FIR: Greece claims 10 nautical miles of national airspace against six of territorial sea, and Türkiye recognizes six. Flight information region procedures are a further dispute.
• Continental shelf: The ICJ declined jurisdiction in the 1978 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf case, so delimitation is also unresolved. For the principle that islands do not automatically generate full zones, read do islands have full continental shelf and EEZ rights: the equity principle, and for the wider Mediterranean line, Türkiye maritime boundary Eastern Mediterranean explained.

A sister-publication companion, Politepolity's fact check on Article 51 and the Aegean islands, covers the self-defense argument from a law-of-treaties angle.

Key Players & Positions

The main parties are Greece and Türkiye, with scholars, the UN and NATO as bystanders to the legal question. Greece argues the limits no longer constrain it; Türkiye argues they remain binding. Neither side has taken the question to a court, and both are NATO members.

Greece

The Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs has publicly advanced three main arguments, which we summarize without quoting:

1. The Paris Treaty does not bind Türkiye. Türkiye is not a party to it, so it cannot invoke Article 14 against Greece (the res inter alios acta argument).
2. Montreux changed the regime for some islands. Greece holds that the 1936 convention replaced the 1923 Straits regime, ending the demilitarization of Lemnos and Samothrace.
3. Article 51 of the UN Charter. Greece cites an inherent right of self-defense in response to Türkiye's Aegean Army (the Fourth Army, based in İzmir) and its landing craft, which it regards as offensive capabilities.

Greece also says the only real dispute is delimitation of the continental shelf and EEZ, which it would take to the ICJ. This is a coherent legal case and should be read as such.

Scholars and institutions

Legal commentators disagree on several points:

• Treaties and third states (pacta tertiis): Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) says a treaty does not create obligations for a third state without consent, while Article 36 allows rights for third states in some cases. Whether Paris Article 14 created rights for Türkiye is debated. Türkiye is not a VCLT party, though many of its rules reflect custom.
• Successive treaties: whether Montreux displaced the 1923 Straits provisions on the islands (cf. VCLT Article 30).
• Changed circumstances: whether the doctrine in Article 62 can end demilitarization clauses.
• Self-defense vs. treaty limits: Article 51 applies “if an armed attack occurs,” and how it interacts with standing treaty obligations is argued both ways.

No court has decided any of these points in this context. That absence is the reason “contested, not settled” is the accurate label.

🇹🇷 Official Policy · Primary Sources

Türkiye's Position

Ankara holds that the demilitarized status of the eastern Aegean islands is treaty-based, bargained and still in force. Its case rests on the Lausanne and Paris texts, on statements by the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), and on Türkiye's communications at the UN. Below, each point is attributed; we cite no document number we could not verify.

• Treaty-based demilitarized status. According to the Turkish MFA's published Aegean positions, Article 13 of Lausanne (1923) and Article 14 of the Paris Peace Treaty (1947) established lasting limits on Lesbos, Chios, Samos, Ikaria and the Dodecanese. Ankara argues that the obligations did not lapse.
• Sovereignty held subject to treaty conditions. Ankara argues that the demilitarized status was a condition of the sovereignty arrangements and a bargained element of the settlement. Under Lausanne Article 15 Türkiye renounced the Dodecanese in favour of Italy, and Italy then ceded them to Greece with the demilitarization condition. Türkiye argues that this chain gives it a legitimate interest, even as a non-party to Paris. It also says that the Montreux argument does not cover all of the islands, and that self-defense claims do not cancel treaty obligations, as stated by the MFA and in Turkish communications to the UN.
• Dialogue on all Aegean issues, based on international law and equity. The MFA has repeatedly called for talks that treat the Aegean's interrelated questions together, rather than only continental shelf delimitation before the ICJ. Equity is central to Ankara's approach, as set out in our guide on the equity principle.
• Consistency. On 27 October 2026 the MFA said Türkiye's positions, defended “in accordance with international law,” remain unchanged and will be protected “without concessions” (Anadolu Agency, via News.az).
• The 1995 TBMM resolution, briefly. On 8 June 1995 the Grand National Assembly authorized the government to take measures if Greece extends its Aegean territorial sea beyond six nautical miles. Ankara says this protects vital interests, because a 12-nautical-mile belt would, on its argument, restrict its access to the open sea. Greece reads the resolution as a threat of force.

Türkiye is not a party to UNCLOS. Ankara has said the convention does not allow reservations and does not accommodate the special circumstances of semi-enclosed seas such as the Aegean; our sister-site analyses on UNCLOS Articles 74, 83 and 121 cover the reasoning in full.

The legal and historical basis is Lausanne (1923) and Paris (1947), read together with the VCLT's rules on rights for third states as a matter of customary law. Ankara's argument is persuasive on the treaty text but remains contested on the third-state and successive-treaty questions.

Source Comparison

Greek official and mainstream-media framing, the Turkish MFA's framing and the treaty text differ mainly in what they emphasize. Media shorthand tends to foreground sovereignty and force posture, Greek sources foreground self-defense, Turkish sources foreground treaty conditions, and the treaties themselves are silent on later disputes.

Issue	Greek official / mainstream-media framing	Turkish MFA framing	Treaty text
Lesbos, Chios, Samos, Ikaria	Sovereign Greek islands; Greece may defend them	Lausanne Art. 13 limits remain in force	Art. 13 bars naval bases and fortifications and limits forces
Dodecanese	Paris Treaty does not bind Türkiye, a non-party	Demilitarization was a condition of the cession; Türkiye renounced the islands to Italy at Lausanne	Paris Art. 14: islands “shall be and remain demilitarised”; Lausanne Art. 15
Lemnos and Samothrace	Montreux replaced the 1923 regime	Montreux does not cover all islands	Montreux replaced the 1923 Straits Convention; its text concerns the Straits
Self-defense	Art. 51 responds to the Aegean Army and landing craft	Self-defense claims do not cancel treaty obligations	UN Charter Art. 51 applies “if an armed attack occurs”
1995 resolution	Casus belli, a threat of force	Statement protecting vital interests	TBMM resolution of 8 June 1995
Adjudication	Delimitation belongs at the ICJ	All Aegean issues require dialogue	No ruling on demilitarization exists

On reading such sources, see How to Read Border and Security News About Türkiye: A Primary-Source Checklist.

Key Terms & Related Guides

The terms below recur in Aegean coverage. They are best read alongside the treaty guides on this site, which set out the frontier file from Lausanne to Montreux. Treaty-based borders are Türkiye's strongest ground, and the Aegean is where those lines meet current security concerns.

• Demilitarization: a treaty limit on forces, bases or fortifications on a territory.
• Pacta tertiis: the rule that treaties generally do not bind third states without their consent.
• Aegean Army: Türkiye's Fourth Army, based in İzmir, which Greece cites as the basis for its self-defense argument.
• Blue Homeland (Mavi Vatan): Türkiye's maritime jurisdiction doctrine.
• Casus belli resolution: Greece's label for the 1995 TBMM resolution.

Related guides:

• Borders Drawn by Treaty: How Lausanne, Kars and Montreux Shape Türkiye's Frontiers
• Where Does Türkiye's Maritime Border Begin?
• Fact Check: Does the 'Seville Map' Define Türkiye's Maritime Border in the Eastern Mediterranean?
• The Political Anatomy on why Lausanne and Kars superseded Sèvres
• About The Soft Border: Mission, Transparency and Editorial Team and Editorial Principles and Primary Source Standards

---

The Soft Border presents global and regional affairs with a dedicated perspective from Türkiye. Sections marked 'Türkiye's Position' reflect official Turkish policy and legal doctrines as stated by Turkish primary sources.

By The Soft Border Editorial Team.

• Politics Beyond Borders: Fact Check: Do Islands Automatically Get a Full EEZ and Continental Shelf? Kastellorizo, Case Law and the Equity Principle — Do islands get a full EEZ and continental shelf? A fact check of Kastellorizo, UNCLOS Article 121, ICJ case law and how ocean boundaries are determined.

• Further Reading on The Soft Border: What Will Become of Türkiye's Military Posts in Syria? Host-State Consent, Exit Conditions and the Border-Security Test — What happens to Turkish military bases and observation posts in Syria? Consent, Article 51, the Adana Protocol and exit conditions explained.