Germany’s Position on the Greek-Turkish Dispute: Intergovernmental Theory vs. Neofunctionalism

Cover Page

Abstract


The article identifies Germany’s position on the Greek-Turkish dispute in the Aegean Sea from the point of the intergovernmentalist and neofunctionalist theories. The relevance of the research topic is due to the constantly emerging contradictions between Turkey and Greece in the Eastern Mediterranean, as well as the need for the third parties to intervene in this dispute. The subject of the study is the German position, which is explained by the desire of the country to become a mediator. In addition, in European historiography on the integration there is an ongoing debate as to whether countries are guided in their foreign policy decisions by a common European set of norms, principles and values, or still by their own national interests. The aim of the study is to identify the principles that Germany follows in determining the political vector of its foreign policy, using the example of the dispute between Turkey and Greece in the Aegean Sea, and correlate them with the theories of intergovernmentalism and neofunctionalism. The research methods are comparative analysis for defining the correlation of the postulates and selected theories with the practical steps taken by Germany to resolve the Greek-Turkish dispute, as well as the institutional method, which allows determining the role and place of the state in the system of pan-European decision-making. The results of the study are presented in the form of a correlation of the main criteria of the theories of intergovernmentalism and neofunctionalism with the identified practical steps of Germany to resolve the dispute between Turkey and Greece in the Eastern Mediterranean. The conclusion identifies Germany’s commitment to one of the two theories for each of the selected criteria.


Full Text

Table 1. Comparative analysis of the positions of Turkey and Greece on the key points of the dispute in the Aegean Sea

Issue

Position of Turkey

Position of Greece

The continental shelf

 

1. Objection to the islands being an extension of Anatolia.

2. Rejection of the principle of equidistance.

3. The delimitation agreement.

4. The achievement of an equal result in the use of the continental shelf by both States

1. In the absence of an agreement between the neighboring countries, the dispute should be settled along the middle line between the Greek islands of the East Aegean and the Turkish coast.

2. The Greek islands are a direct extension of Anatolia

Territorial waters

 

Maintaining a limit of 6 miles of territorial waters (having 6 miles, Greece controls almost half of the Aegean Sea, 43.68 % according to the Turkey information, while Turkey receives only 7.5 %, leaving the open sea-about 49 %)

1. Claims a limit of 12 miles of territorial waters (does not want to consult with Turkey on this issue, referring to the Convention on the Law of the Sea).

2. The right to an extension cannot be qualified by special circumstances limiting this right

National airspace

 

Preventing Greek expansion in the airspace, in order to prevent the strengthening of Greek influence in the Aegean Sea as a whole

Claims for 10 miles of airspace, which is not only due to the need for air navigation and air police control over Greek territorial waters, but also because Turkey did not object to this provision (estoppel)

Demilitarized status of the eastern Aegean islands

1. Against the militarization of the Greek islands of Lemnos and Samothrace, since both Turkey and Greece are members of NATO, therefore, this region does not require excessive weapons in order to strengthen national security.

2. The demilitarization of the 14 Greek Dodecanese islands is mandatory, as they are too close to Turkey, which threatens its national security

 1. Support for the militarization of the islands of Lemnos and Samothrace, since the Montreux Convention of 1936 replaced the Lausanne Convention of 1923.

2. The militarization of the islands of Lesbos, Chios, Samos and Ikaria (Ikaria) is necessary for several reasons:

¾   Turkey’s “incursions” and the ongoing “occupation” of Cyprus;

¾   casus belli (i.e. “Turkish military threat”) looming over the Aegean Sea;

¾   formation 4th Turkish Army based in Izmir;

¾   presence in this region has a large flotilla of Turkish landing crafts

Source: compiled by the author based on the materials of the articles (Heraclides, 2010; Gonenc & Durmaz, 2020; Yildiz, 2020).

 

Table 2. Comparative analysis of the key postulates of intergovernmentalism and neofunctionalism

Criteria

Neofunctionalism

Intergovernmental theory

Basic principles

Democratic pluralism, functionalism

Liberal institutionalism and other integration theories

Main actor

Supranational institutions

National States participating in integration

The state

Conceptualization of the state as an arena in which public actors act to realize common interests

States voluntarily enter into alliances, forming interdependence, but retain national interest and sovereignty

International system

Voluntary interaction of subjects to achieve mutually beneficial integration conditions

International cooperation as a product of national preferences of Liberal democracies, taking into account their interests

Integration process

Through progressive integration (from the economic to the political spheres), to achieve serious success at all levels, including consolidating efforts in security issues

Consolidation of efforts only in basic issues, for example, economic, political and security, it is impossible to achieve success, because it affects national interests

Source: compiled by the author based on the materials of the articles (Hooghe & Marks, 2009; Hooghe et al., 2019; Haas 2004).

About the authors

Natalia Viktorovna Ivkina

RUDN University

Author for correspondence.
Email: ivkina-nv@rudn.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8654-7629
Moscow, Russian Federation

PhD in History, Associate Professor, Department of Theory and History of International Relations

References

  1. Atrashkevich, A. N. (2019). Turkey and Greece: Political and economic relations within the conflict circumstances (1999-2017). Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, 19(4), 675-689. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-0660-2019-19-4-675-689
  2. Pimenova, O. (2019). Legal integration in the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union: Comparative analysis. International Organisations Research Journal, 14(1), 76-93. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2019-01-05
  3. Avar, Y., & Lin, 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
  4. Bac, M. (2005). Turkey’s political reforms and the impact of the European Union. South European Society and Politics, 10(1), 17-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608740500037916
  5. Beach, D., & Pedersen, R. B. (2019). Process-tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press
  6. Bergman, J. (2018). Neofunctionalism and EU external policy integration: The case of capacity building in support of security and development (CBSD). Journal of European Public Policy, 26(9), 1253-1272. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2018.1526204
  7. Couloumbis, T. (1994). Introduction: The impact of EC membership on Greece’s foreign policy profile. In P. Kazakos & P. Ioakimidis (Eds.), Greece and EC membership evaluated (pp.189-198). London: Pinter Publishers
  8. Cremona, M., & Micklit, H.-W. (2016). Private law in the external relations of the EU. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  9. Gonenc, D., & Durmaz, G. (2020). The politics of neoliberal transformation on the periphery: A critical comparison of Greece and Turkey. Southeast European and Black See Studies, 20(4), 617-640. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2020.1843284
  10. Haas, E. (1961). International integration: The European and the universal process. International Organization, 15(3), 366-392.
  11. Haas, E. B. (1968). The Uniting of Europe. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  12. Haas, E. B. (2004). The Uniting of Europe: Political, social and economic forces, 1950-1957. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  13. Heraclides, A. (2010). The Greek-Turkish conflict in the Aegean: Imagined enemies. Palgrave Macmillan.
  14. Hooghe, L. & Marks, G. (2009). A postfunctionalist theory of european integration: From permissive consensus to constraining dissensus. British Journal of Political Science, 39(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123408000409
  15. Hooghe, L., Lenz, T., & Marks, G. (2019). A theory of international organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  16. Kaplan, L. S. (1994). NATO and the United States. Updated edition. The enduring alliance. New York: Twayne Publishers.
  17. Lindberg, L. (1963). The Political dynamics of European integration. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  18. Middelaar, L. (2019). Alarums and excursions: Improvising politics on the European stage. Newcastle: Agenda Publishing.
  19. Moravcsik, A. (1998). The choice for Europe. Ithaca: Cornell.
  20. Moravcsik, A. (2018). Preferences, power and institutions in 21st-century Europe. Journal of Common Market Studies, 56(7), 1648-1674. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12804
  21. Riddervold, M., & Rosén, G. (2016). Trick and treat: How the commission and the European Parliament exert influence in EU foreign and security policies. Journal of European Integration, 38(6), 687-702. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2016.1178737
  22. Rumelili, B. (2004). The European Union’s impact on the Greek-Turkish conflict. Working Papers Series in EU Border Conflicts Studies. Bogazici University, University of Birmingham
  23. Schmidt, V. (2019). Politicization in the EU: Between national politics and EU political dynamics. Journal of European Public Policy, 26(7), 1018-1036. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2019.1619189
  24. Stephanou, C., & Tsardanides, C. (1991). The EC factor in the Greece - Turkey - Cyprus Triangle. In D. Constas (Ed.), The Greek-Turkish conflict in the 1990s: Domestic and external influences (pp. 207-230). New York: St. Martin’s Press
  25. Tranholm-Mikkelsen, J. (1991). Neo-functionalism: Obstinate or obsolete? Millenium, 20(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298910200010201
  26. Yildiz, E. (2020). The Conflict between Greece and Turkey Mediterranean sea (international maritime law study). Jurnal Hukum, 36(2), 126-137. https://doi.org/10.26532/jh.v36i2.11393

Statistics

Views

Abstract - 173

PDF (Russian) - 48

Cited-By


PlumX

Dimensions


Copyright (c) 2021 Ivkina N.V.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies