Talk:Aegean dispute/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Edit to be reverted

I'm going to revert this [1] edit, for two reasons.

First, the argument of "legitimate self-defense" and Art.51 still belongs in the specific section about Lesbos etc, because while the argument might theoretically apply to other islands too, Greece doesn't in fact invoke it with respect to other islands – because it's only a very weak argument of last resort, and Greece has stronger arguments to invoke for the other groups. The Greek MfA source cited [2] mentions this argument specifically and exclusively with respect to this one group of islands.

Second, the newly expanded explanation of what Art.51 of the UN Charter means is plain wrong. Nothing in Art.51 talks about "armament", in the sense of a preventive measure to secure a territory against a possible future attack. Art.51 is exclusively about the right of self-defense in the event of an actual attack that has already happened. Also, the newly added press source [3] doesn't mention the UN Charter at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, FuturePerfect, your argument that "Art.51 is exclusively about the right of self-defense in the event of an actual attack that has already happened." is what I used to believe too, until this and other sources came to my attention today: ([4]) which states that: "The right of self- defense arises only when there is an armed attack or a serious imminent threat of attack." (emphasis in bold). However the 2020 Kastellorizo incident which brought the countries to the brick of war and the Turkey's July 2021 letter to the UN where it officially challenged Greek sovereignty over the Greek islands, is what prompted the coordinated Greek response both through the UN: [5] and the Greek PM's statement: [6] that “Every bit of Greek territory, mainland or island, and every Greek citizen has the same right to security and defence”. (Both from 28 July 2021). This is why it is likely that what you argue is "serious factual distortion", may in fact not be? Hence the edits. Pleace can you check the sources and share your thoughts on the matter? I do not plan to restore my changes unless you can confirm that they are factually correct. Your input will be appreciated.

Note: the PM doesn't specifically mention Article 51 by name, it is my understanding that the PM is talking about self-defending the islands against a clearly established threat, in light of the actions and statements by the other side. I can't imagine what else may grant a country the right to defend it self against a threat, if not Article 51 as the source above has stated. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

So, Art.51 doesn't mention armament against a possible future attack. The PM doesn't mention Art.51. The Turkish academic in [7] does mention Art.51 but does not claim it contains anything about armament against a possible future attack either. That scholar also suggests there might be a customary right of self-defense against a "serious imminent threat of attack", but explicitly denies that the Greek-Turkish situation constitutes such a situation. Seriously, an imminent threat of attack" is what Ukraine experienced in the lead-up to February; that would be in an entirely different ballpark than whatever Greece and Turkey saw throughout these years. So, in all, a completely bogus chain of free-spun speculative WP:OR associations on the part of a certain incompetent editor, once again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm really sorry if my edit gave you this impression, but don't you think that repeatedly insulting others without reason, is crossing the WP:CIVIL lines and goes against your role as Administrator? I tried to ingore your past insults but that's too much. Just I can't anymore. Goodbye. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)