SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Düşünce Dünyasında Türkiz / 2026 / Cilt: 17 Sayı: 1

TÜRKIYE AND THE LAW OF THE SEA: A STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVE ON SOVEREIGNTY

Türkiye ve Deniz Hukuku: Egemenlik Üzerine Stratejik Bir Bakış Açısı

Meysune Yaşar(İSTANBUL MEDENİYET ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9073-6350
Pages
55–87
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings show that the concept of flexible sovereignty provides a suitable framework for explaining the complex relationships that middle powers establish with the international normative order and that state sovereignty is not merely a static right but is also reproduced as a strategic and relational capacity.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines Turkey's policy of non-accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as a case where sovereignty is managed beyond the classical Westphalian understanding in strategic, normative, and relational dimensions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this context, a theoretical model defining the three dimensions of sovereignty has been developed: strategic rationality, whereby states instrumentalise their sovereignty in pursuit of national interests; normative flexibility, whereby states participate in international norms conditionally and selectively; and relational sovereignty, whereby sovereignty is reproduced through interactions with other actors.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings show that the concept of flexible sovereignty provides a suitable framework for explaining the complex relationships that middle powers establish with the international normative order and that state sovereignty is not merely a static right but is also reproduced as a strategic and relational capacity.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Esnek egemenlik · Türkiye · UNCLOS

Abstract

This study examines Turkey's policy of non-accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as a case where sovereignty is managed beyond the classical Westphalian understanding in strategic, normative, and relational dimensions. In this context, a theoretical model defining the three dimensions of sovereignty has been developed: strategic rationality, whereby states instrumentalise their sovereignty in pursuit of national interests; normative flexibility, whereby states participate in international norms conditionally and selectively; and relational sovereignty, whereby sovereignty is reproduced through interactions with other actors. The Turkish example, as an empirical validation of this model, reveals the state's strategy of strengthening its capacity to protect and negotiate its own interests in the normative and diplomatic spheres without demonstrating absolute adherence to international law. The findings show that the concept of flexible sovereignty provides a suitable framework for explaining the complex relationships that middle powers establish with the international normative order and that state sovereignty is not merely a static right but is also reproduced as a strategic and relational capacity.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Türkiye'nin Birleşmiş Milletler Deniz Hukuku Sözleşmesi'ne (UNCLOS) katılmama politikasını, egemenliğin klasik Vestfalya anlayışının ötesinde stratejik, normatif ve ilişkisel boyutlarda yönetildiği bir vaka olarak incelemektedir. Bu bağlamda, egemenliğin üç boyutunu tanımlayan teorik bir model geliştirilmiştir: devletlerin ulusal çıkarlarını gerçekleştirmek için egemenliklerini araçsallaştırdıkları stratejik rasyonalite; devletlerin uluslararası normlara şartlı ve seçici bir şekilde katıldıkları normatif esneklik; ve egemenliğin diğer aktörlerle etkileşimler yoluyla yeniden üretildiği ilişkisel egemenlik. Bu modelin ampirik bir doğrulaması olan Türkiye örneği, devletin uluslararası hukuka mutlak bağlılık göstermeden normatif ve diplomatik alanlarda kendi çıkarlarını koruma ve müzakere etme kapasitesini güçlendirme stratejisini ortaya koymaktadır. Bulgular, esnek egemenlik kavramının orta güçlerin uluslararası normatif düzenle kurdukları karmaşık ilişkileri açıklamak için uygun bir çerçeve sağladığını ve devlet egemenliğinin yalnızca statik bir hak değil, aynı zamanda stratejik ve ilişkisel bir kapasite olarak yeniden üretildiğini göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yaşar, M. (2026). TÜRKIYE AND THE LAW OF THE SEA: A STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVE ON SOVEREIGNTY. Düşünce Dünyasında Türkiz, Cilt: 17 Sayı: 1, 55–87. https://doi.org/10.59281/turkiz.1903802

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (68)

  1. Acer, Y. (2021). Turkey’s Legal Approach to Maritime Boundary Delimitation in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. Insight Turkey, 23(1), 99–114. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26989819
  2. Aegean Sea Continental Shelf Case: Greece v. Turkey. (1976). The International Lawyer, 10(4), 757–768. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40705067
  3. Argüello, G. (2022). The International Maritime Organization’s Contribution to Regime Interaction: Past, Present, and Future. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 11-20.
  4. Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2000). Hard and Soft Law in International Governance. International Organization, 54(3), 421–456. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2601340
  5. Abbott, K. W., Keohane, R. O., Moravcsik, A., Slaughter, A.-M., & Snidal, D. (2000). The Concept of Legalization. International Organization, 54(3), 401–419. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2601339
  6. Avar, Y., & Lın, Y. C. (2019). Aegean Disputes Between Turkey and Greece: Turkish and Greek Claims and Motivations in the Framework of Legal and Political Perspectives. International Journal of Politics and Security, 1(1), 57-70. https://izlik.org/JA78DR54HX
  7. Agnew, J. (1994). The Territorial Trap: The Geographical Assumptions of International Relations Theory. Review of International Political Economy, 1(1), 53–80. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177090
  8. Alter, K. J., & Raustiala, K. (2018). The rise of international regime complexity. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 14, 329–349.
  9. Anggadi, F. (2022). What states say and do about legal stabılıty and marıtıme zones, and why ıt matters. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 71(4), 767–798. doi:10.1017/S002058932200032X
  10. Balkan, S., & Yeşiltaş, M. (2023). From Geopolitical Anxiety to Assertive Stance: The Historical Construction and Transformation of Turkish Naval Strategy. Insight Turkey, 25(3), 117–144. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48744764
  11. Başeren, S. H. (2021). Root Causes of the Eastern Mediterranean Dispute: Approaches of the Main Actors. Insight Turkey, 23(1), 11–22. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26989813
  12. Besson, S. (2004). Sovereignty in conflict. European Integration Online Papers (EIoP), 8(15).
  13. Brunnée, J., & Toope, S. J. (2017). The sovereignty of international law? The University of Toronto Law Journal, 67(4), 496–511. https://www.jstor.org/stable/90017184
  14. Browning, C. S., & Joenniemi, P. (2017). Ontological security, self-articulation and the securitization of identity. Cooperation and Conflict, 52(1), 31–47. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48512929
  15. Biresselioğlu, M. E. (2019). Clashing Interests in the Eastern Mediterranean: What About Turkey? Insight Turkey, 21(4), 115–134. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26842781
  16. Caminos, H., & Cogliati-Bantz, V. P. (2014). UNCLOS as general framework. In The Legal Regime of Straits: Contemporary Challenges and Solutions (pp. 405–409). chapter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  17. de Marffy-Mantuano, A. (1995). The Procedural Framework of the Agreement Implementing the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The American Journal of International Law, 89(4), 814–824. https://doi.org/10.2307/2203942
  18. Dean, A. H. (1958). The Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea: What was Accomplished. The American Journal of International Law, 52(4), 607–628. https://doi.org/10.2307/2195588
  19. Dedeoğlu, Ç. (2019). The Ontology of Security and its Implications for Maritime Security. Güvenlik Stratejileri, 15(32), 640-651.
  20. Dyke, J. M. V. (2005). An Analysis of the Aegean Disputes under International Law. Ocean Development & International Law, 36(1), 63–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320590909088
  21. Dyke, J.M.V. (1996). The Aegean sea dispute: options and avenues. Marine Policy, 20(5). 397-404.
  22. Elden, S. (2007). There is a Politics of Space because Space is Political Henri Lefebvre and the Production of Space. Radical Philosophy Review, 10(2), 101-116.
  23. Erdoğan, A. (2021). The Legal and Political Dimensions of the Eastern Mediterranean Crisis: What Is at Stake? Insight Turkey, 23(1), 77–98. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26989818
  24. Evriviades, E. (2025, January 15). The Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus and the geopolitics of Turkish irredentism. Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/eastern-mediterranean-cyprus-and-geopolitics-turkish-irredentism (Erişim Tarihi: 13.05.2026).
  25. Gönülal, O., Sezgın, M., & Öztürk, B. (2014). New records of decapod crustaceans from the deep aegean sea of Turkey. Crustaceana, 87(11/12), 1461–1468. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43673184
  26. Güç, K. (2025). Spatial Context of Ontological Security in Foreign Policy Analysis: The Case of Türkiye’s Blue Homeland Policy. Uluslararası İlişkiler / International Relations, 22(88), 45–64.
  27. Güney, N. A., & Korkmaz, V. (2021). A New Alliance Axis in the Eastern Mediterranean Cold War: What the Abraham Accords Mean for Mediterranean Geopolitics and Turkey. Insight Turkey, 23(1), 61–76. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26989817
  28. Gündüzler, U. (2013). United Nations Convention on Law of Sea as a mixed treaty of EU: A headache for Turkey? Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi, 12(2), 61–80.
  29. International Court of Justice: Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania V. Ukraine). (2009). International Legal Materials, 48(3), 693–741. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20695915
  30. Ilenda, R. K. (2009, September 18). An evaluation of challenges to the traditional notions of sovereignty in the post-Cold War era. E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2009/09/18/an-evaluation-of-challenges-to-the-traditional-notions-of-sovereignty-in-the-post-cold-war-era/ (Erişim Tarihi: 13.05.2026).
  31. Köchler, H. (2020). Kastellorizo: The geopolitics of maritime boundaries and the dysfunctionality of the law of the sea (Studies in International Relations, Vol. 35). International Progress Organization.
  32. Köni, H. (1999). The security of the Eastern Mediterranean and Turkey. Insight Turkey, 1(3), 23–27. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26300137
  33. Klein, M., & Schütte, L. (2023). The Black Sea as mare clausum? Russia’s war against Ukraine and its implications for maritime security (SWP Comment No. 33/2023). Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP).
  34. Krasner, S. D. (2001). Abiding Sovereignty. International Political Science Review / Revue Internationale de Science Politique, 22(3), 229–251. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1601484
  35. Kalkan, E. (2020). The Longstanding Dispute Between Turkey and Greece: The Aegean Issue. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, 28, 167-174. https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.713136
  36. Krasner, S. D. (2001). Sovereignty. Foreign Policy, (122), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.2307/3183223
  37. Kinnvall, C., & Mitzen, J. (2017). An introduction to the special issue: Ontological securities in world politics. Cooperation and Conflict, 52(1), 3–11. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48512927
  38. Lake, D. A. (2003). The New Sovereignty in International Relations. International Studies Review, 5(3), 303–323. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3186572
  39. Lindenstrauss, G., Feuer, S. J., & Winter, O. (2019). The Perils of the Turkey-Libya Maritime Delimitation Deal. Institute for National Security Studies. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep23503
  40. Lupone, A. (2021). Sanctions by and against international organizations. In L. M. Prosperi & N. Ronzitti (Eds.), Coercive diplomacy, sanctions and international law (pp. 205–224). Brill Nijhoff.
  41. Lythgoe, G. (2024). A New Legal Geography for International Law. In The Rebirth of Territory (pp. 249–258). chapter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  42. Matz-Lück, N. (2015). The Law of the Sea as a Research Focus in Kiel: Looking Back and Moving Ahead. In N. Matz-Lück, A. von Arnauld, & K. Odendahl (Eds.), German Yearbook of International Law - Jahrbuch für Internationales
  43. Recht.: Vol. 57 (2014). (Vol. 57, pp. 37–42). Duncker & Humblot GmbH. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1q69zrz.6
  44. Molotch, H. (1993). The Space of Lefebvre [Review of The Production of Space, by H. Lefebvre & D. Nicholson-Smith]. Theory and Society, 22(6), 887–895. http://www.jstor.org/stable/658004
  45. Osiander, A. (2001). Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth. International Organization, 55(2), 251–287. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3078632
  46. Oral, N and Öztürk, B. 2006. The Turkish Straits, maritime safety, legal and environmental aspects. Turkish Marine Research Foundation, İstanbul. Publication Number 25.
  47. Öniş, Z., & Yilmaz, Ş. (2008). Greek-Turkish Rapprochement: Rhetoric or Reality? Political Science Quarterly, 123(1), 123–149. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20202974
  48. Özkan, A., & Kırval, L. (2023). Continuity of Maritime Disputes in Turkish Foreign Policy in Retrospect. Uluslararası İlişkiler / International Relations, 20(78), 119–137. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27248347
  49. Parlar Dal, E., & Matsumoto, N. M. (2026). Navigating rough seas: reconstructed Turkish maritime identity in the Eastern Mediterranean. Turkish Studies, 27(1), 45–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2025.2545289
  50. Patten, C. (2002, February 21). Sovereignty and the national interest: Old concepts, new meanings (SPEECH/02/76). European Commission.
  51. Peters, A. (2017). The refinement of international law: From fragmentation to regime interaction and politicization. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 15(3), 671–704.
  52. Putnam, T. L. (2020). Mingling and Strategic Augmentation of International Legal Obligations. International Organization, 74(1), 31–64. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26892859
  53. Raustiala, K. (2002). The architecture of international cooperation: Transgovernmental networks and the future of international law. Virginia Journal of International Law, 43(1), 1–92.
  54. Rumelili, B., & Sofuoglu, N. (2025). Ontological Insecurity and the Return of the Greek-Turkish Conflicts: Reconfiguring Hagia Sophia as an Ontic Space. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 27(1), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/19448953.2024.2318679
  55. Sassen, S. (1996). Losing control: sovereignty in an age of globalization. University seminars/Leonard Hastings Schnoff memorial lectures. Columbia University Press, New York, US. ISBN 9780231106085
  56. Schmitt, M. N. (1996). Aegean Angst: The Greek-Turkish Dispute. Naval War College Review, 49(3), 42–72. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44642903
  57. Simmonds, K. R. (1985). The Status of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 34(2), 359–368. http://www.jstor.org/stable/759664
  58. Snidal, D., Hale, T., Jones, E., Mertens, C., & Milewicz, K. (2024). The power of the “weak” and international organizations. Review of International Organizations, 19(3), 385–409.
  59. Tanchum, M. (2020). The Geopolitics of the Eastern Mediterranean Crisis: A Regional System Perspective on the Mediterranean’s new Great Game. In M. Tanchum (Ed.), Eastern Mediterranean in Uncharted Waters: Perspectives on Emerging Geopolitical Realities (pp. 7–17). Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep28862.5
  60. Thomson, J. E. (1995). State Sovereignty in International Relations: Bridging the Gap between Theory and Empirical Research. International Studies Quarterly, 39(2), 213–233. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600847
  61. UN, UN Convention of the law of the Sea, https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 15.02.2026).
  62. United Nations. (n.d.). 1958 Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea. United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law.
  63. United Nations Treaty Collection. (n.d.). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. United Nations.
  64. United Nations Dag Hammarskjöld Library. (n.d.). International Maritime Organization (IMO). United Nations Research Guides.
  65. Wivel, A., & Paul, T. V. (Eds.). (2019). International Institutions and Power Politics: Bridging the Divide. Georgetown University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvrnfqgk
  66. Yanai, S. (2015). Can the UNCLOS Address Challenges of the 21st Century? In A. von Arnauld, N. Matz-Lück, & K. Odendahl (Eds.), German Yearbook of International Law - Jahrbuch für Internationales Recht.: Vol. 57 (2014). (Vol. 57, pp. 43–62). Duncker & Humblot GmbH. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1q69zrz.7
  67. Young, M. A. (2012). Regime Interaction in Creating, Implementing and Enforcing International Law. In M. A. Young (Ed.), Regime Interaction in International Law: Facing Fragmentation (pp. 85–110). chapter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  68. Sassen, S. (1996). Losing control: sovereignty in an age of globalization. University seminars/Leonard Hastings Schnoff memorial lectures. Columbia University Press, New York, US. ISBN 9780231106085