Suchergebnisse

International Law — Relation to Municipal Law — Recognition of Foreign Judgments Contrary to a Treaty.International Law — Relation to Municipal Law — Recognition of Foreign Judgments Contary to a TreatyRecognition of Foreign Judgment Contrary to a Treaty — International Limits of Jurisdiction — Divorce — Res Judicata.

Cham Albanians, a predominantly Muslim sub-group of Albanians who originally reside in the coastal region of Southern Epirus in Greece's border region with Albania, had been expelled from Greece twice.As the majority of Cham Albanians were Muslim, they were treated with the same contempt as ethnic Turks living in Greece. According to official data, 3.000 of them were transferred to Turkey as part of the Greek-Turkish population exchange according to the Convention Concerning the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations signed at Lausanne on 30 January 1923. Articles 37 to 44 of the Lausanne Peace Treaty attribute substantive rights for exempted Muslims in Greece and non-Muslims in Turkey from the Greek-Turkish population exchange and 17,008 of them wereexempted from the exchange. In this paper, legal status of Muslim Cham Albanians of Greece that were exchanged with Orthodox minority that lived in Turkey after World War I and exiled from Greece after World War II, will be analyzed. This paper aims to emphasize thatMuslim Cham Albanians of Greeceare already recipients of special rights as a subject of law, according to the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) that guarantees the rights of the Muslim minority in Greece. We find very important to analyze Cham Question in the context of the Treaty of Lausanne while Greek government insists that the minority is not "Turkish" but "Muslim" to justify banning associations that include the word "Turk". Article DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2018.43.474481 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-commercial 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA.

Open access via T&F agreement ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF

In June 1925, General Theodoros Pangalos imposed his dictatorship on Greece. During his 14-month rule, he set as one of his basic foreign policy goals the revision of the territorial settlement imposed on Greece and Turkey by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.Wanting to secure Eastern Thrace and possibly even part of Western Asia Minor for Greece, Pangalos sought the backing of at least one Great Power with interests in the region, in this case Italy, as its dictator, Benito Mussolini, remained equally hostile and aggressive toward Turkey. Pangalos tried to reach an understanding with Mussolini concerning the possibility of joint Greco–Italian action against Turkey. The first signs of closer co-operation came in early July 1925 when the Italian under-secretary of foreign affairs, Dino Grandi, visited Athens for discussions with Pangalos. However, a more important initiative involved the official visit of two Greek ministers—Loukas Kanakaris-Roufos, the foreign minister, and Anastasios Tavoularis, the transport minister—to Rome in early March 1926. They met with Mussolini who, because of British pressure, now seemed reluctant about Pangalos' ambitious plans for joint action against Turkey. The Greek leader's hopes to revise Lausanne ended.

The HISTORY of the Cyprus Question has attracted the attention of international scholarship, both from a local as well as an international point of view. The vast majority of these studies, however, focus on the period after the end of World War H, and mostly after 1950, when the Cyprus Question hit the international headlines. Focus on this context tends to neglect the interwar period, and in particular the years between the conclusion of the Lausanne Peace Treaty (24 July .1923) and the 1931 Revolt of the Greek Cypriots against British rule This essay based primarily on research in the archives of the Creek Foreign Ministry. aims to fill part of this gap focusing on the way Creek diplomacy viewed the issue at a time of transition, both regionally and in terms of Greece's foreign policy aims. The essay seeks lo answer a series of questions. Did Greek diplomacy have a coherent and consistent strategy in relation to the Cyprus Question from 1923 to 1931? If so, what necessitated the adoption of such a strategy? Did the Greek government interfere in the island·s internal developments? Did it get carried away by the repeated Greek Cypriot demands for union with Greece, or did it adopt a more realistic approach? And, most importantly, was Athens in favor of a "radical" or did it prefer a "progressive" solution to the Cyprus problem?