Ukraine Asks Turkey to Block Black Sea against Russia
 

Turkey does have the legal right to close the straight question is will they

I doubt it very much

Freight and Insurance rates have gone through the roof since this all began.

Little to no chance of this happening imho.

Oh....if only :)

Russia doesn't have the legal right to invade Ukraine. So Turkey can do what they like. Turkey is a member of NATO still.

Who ships goods thought the Black Sea? Nobody

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/rus...iP1nloKcyxokko Cargill Inc. ,headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, :yeah:is the world's largest commodity grain shipper. China, spewing Ukrainian boarder sanctity out of side of its mouth has offerd to buy Russian wheat to circumvent $anction$ against the Russian economy.

Correct Russia doesn't have the legal right to invade Ukraine, but that does not give Turkey carte blanche to do as it chooses indeed it would be very embarrassing if a NATO member should stoop to the level the current Russian government is at, considering that currently we have the moral high ground.

I back up my case with the following statements and references as regards to my initial comment so that you can see where I am coming from and also the reasons why it can be politically, Militarily and also economically difficult to close the straights, plus what it could ultimately mean should Turkey do so.

I point to the following points of order regarding this matter in the current and enforced international treaty named the Montreux Treaty ratified in 1936 under the League of Nations and adopted by the United Nations 1952 and as amended over time, as signed by the Soviet Union and defaulted to the Russian Federation 26th December 1991.

Article 19 paragraph one point one, Noting that Turkey being a neutral party and Russia being a belligerent Nation that is also classified by the treaty as a Black sea power.

In essence this gives Russia the legal right to transit regardless of being a belligerent nation or not, and under Articles 10-18 the warships must adhere to the same rights of passage as non belligerent ships and are thus afforded passage without let or hindrance from Turkey, However: we need to look deeper into Article 19 and what that says.

Article 19 point two paragraph two and three states as follows:

Note: the treaty at this point makes no mention of a Black sea power being the belligerent nation.

Turkey does not have a binding treaty with Ukraine therefore is of no obligation to stop passage if Turkey does not wish to do so.

Point of clarification from Article 19 paragraph two and three, this being the aforementioned article 25, as quoted by the treaty for reference.
Furthermore in points of order I point you to this sentence in the Montreux convention 1936 Article 19 4th paragraph as ratified and signed by N.P Nicolaev of the Soviet Union (defaulted 26 December 1991 to Russian Federation) as original signatories to said treaties

Point of order here is that some of the vessels that are currently operating currently in the Mediterranean and from Tartarus Syria are officially and legally home ported in the Black sea.

Thus this part of the article means Russia does have a legal right to transit the straight even though it is a belligerent in order to repatriate vessels to their home ports, those being officially noted as Novorossiysk and Sevastopol.

However I go further whereas to this point in the same treaty Article 20 1st paragraph (only paragraph)

In time of war where be that Turkey is a belligerent the Turkish government will have the last word on who transits the waterway.
Considering the points of order here right now as it stands yes Turkey can legally close the straight to Russian ships however this does have consequences diplomatically, Legally and Militarily.

Thus If Turkey does close the straights too Russian vessels have you considered that the Russian Navy could indeed try and force the issue?
And that being under international law via this very treaty the Russians have a fairly good case regardless of intentions of use of their ships once in the Black sea, as pointed out in the above statements and points of order.

Do you understand that if the Russians force the issue using their warships to open the straight by force that Turkey being a NATO member could potentially if proven in Turkys favor then they could have technically every right to invoke article 5 ?

By doing so that embroils all member states into a wider and protracted war with all its consequences that will likely follow.

However if the case were to come to the UN for arbitration, and the Russian case is technically solid for transit as per article 19 paragraph 4 quote:
Then you may find article 5 cannot be legally invoked and Turkey will be on its own unable to invoke article 5.

So quite frankly to answer your question the answer is NO Turkey cannot do what she likes regardless of being a NATO member or not, there is simply too much to consider to just simply make a brash knee jerk decision.

This will take time and require very high level discussion with NATO and the UN and I would suggest that in fact this is actually taking place right now.


I'm sorry but quite a lot of people and companies ship goods in and out of the Black Sea, everything from chemical, Gas and Oil products (from Odessa mainly) to container traffic, Bulk cargo's and even cruise ships.

This actually makes the Bosporus and Dardanelles on of the most traversed waterways in the world.
In 2018 there was 85,102 ship movements via the Bosporus and / or Dardanelles with many noted ships heading into the black sea or the Turkish straight for loading and discharge.
In 2019 that number declined slightly to 84,871 movements, declining in 2020 due to corona virus and climbing again in 2021, I will have to re confirm figures.

Their are various container, dry Bulk, Tanker and PTCC / ConRo ships that use various ports around the Black Sea as well, including those of Russia, Georgia, Romania and Bulgaria so therefore there is actually a lot of traffic that runs into and out of as well as around the Black Sea

Thus your comment there is quite shall we say at best extremely misguided

Thanks for that!
 

:Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:And that is what I call...really Talkin' Turkey! :Kaleun_Salute:

That's nothing one of the course books I had to read to do the transport law course which dealt with international treaties, case and statute laws was a complete mind f**k 612 pages of herewith hitherto by page 12 everyone had a head ache.
The dissertation I had to do at the end for it ran to 60 odd pages took 3 weeks and by the end of that I was totally ready to put my head in the oven.

https://atalayar.com/en/content/turk...-all-countries :Kaleun_Salute:

Oops.
So, I guess, "never say never"? :)

Indeed oops!! President Erdogan, a proud man who 'talks Turkey", obviously read my post# 4...:O:, and decided a Suez-like Operation-Musgrove would co$t him too much in revenue... and decided to be a good little NATO contributer and take matters in hand. Nuthin' new really; the wicked Trojans on the Dardanelles side of the Strait tried this routine ca: 1250 BC, and were at it for a decade with Agamemnon and associates...and then there's Gallipoli in WWI; a 1915 naval disaster...which cost Winston Churchill his First Sea Lord job.:arrgh!:

I didn't know you two had connections? They could just hold a Redbull flugtag in the Strait, and have bunch of drunk, Ore-gone boaters clog the strait?