![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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 entry----Clive Sweeting.
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 force----Clive Sweeting.
I await these,-and six months later continue to do so----Clive Sweeting
Article says:
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
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.
Roadrunner ( talk) 05:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Федоров ( talk) 12:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
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:
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)
Also, full translation of the Convention is available on Wikisource as well as here. - Noha307 ( talk) 22:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
* - * - * - * - *
Федоров ( talk) 04:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Type 209-1400 Bosporus.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 00:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC) |
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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 entry----Clive Sweeting.
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 force----Clive Sweeting.
I await these,-and six months later continue to do so----Clive Sweeting
Article says:
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
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.
Roadrunner ( talk) 05:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Федоров ( talk) 12:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
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:
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)
Also, full translation of the Convention is available on Wikisource as well as here. - Noha307 ( talk) 22:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
* - * - * - * - *
Федоров ( talk) 04:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Type 209-1400 Bosporus.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 00:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC) |
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)