Article IV of the Final Protocol refers to a key provision of the Greco-Turkish Agreement of December 1, 1926, which outlined procedures for resolving disputes arising from the compulsory population exchange between Greece and Turkey. The article established the framework for referring unresolved disagreements to arbitration, a mechanism critical for addressing the complex legal and logistical challenges resulting from the exchange.
The Greco-Turkish Agreement was signed to manage issues arising from the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, which mandated the forced relocation of approximately 1.5 million Greek Orthodox Christians and Muslims between Greece and Turkey. While the Mixed Commission for the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations was tasked with implementing the exchange, disputes over properties, financial claims, and other matters frequently required arbitration to ensure resolution. [1]
The agreement's "Article IV of the Final Protocol" provided a legal basis for escalating unresolved disputes to an arbitrator, under the supervision of the Greco-Turkish Mixed Arbitral Tribunal. This provision sought to clarify the processes and authorities involved in dispute resolution, ensuring that such conflicts could be managed effectively.
The main elements of the article included:
In 1928, a disagreement arose between Greece and Turkey regarding the interpretation of Article IV, particularly over who had the authority to refer cases to arbitration. The League of Nations referred the matter to the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) for an advisory opinion.
The PCIJ ruled that the Mixed Commission:
This ruling clarified the scope of Article IV and resolved ambiguities in its implementation, reinforcing the independence of international arbitration mechanisms.
The interpretation and application of Article IV of the Final Protocol had significant implications for international law and arbitration. Its key contributions include:
While the legal framework established under Article IV was specific to the Greco-Turkish population exchange, it has been studied as a model for addressing disputes arising from other post-conflict situations, particularly in the context of forced migrations. [5]
The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is a non-UN intergovernmental organization headquartered at the Peace Palace, in The Hague, Netherlands. Unlike a judicial court in the traditional sense, the PCA provides administrative support in international arbitrations involving various combinations of States, State entities, international organizations and private parties. The cases span a range of legal issues involving territorial and maritime boundaries, sovereignty, human rights, international investment, and international and regional trade. The PCA is constituted through two separate multilateral conventions with a combined membership of 124 Contracting Parties. The PCA is not a United Nations agency, but has been a United Nations observer since 1993.
The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) is an international arbitration institution established in 1966 for legal dispute resolution and conciliation between international investors and States. ICSID is part of and funded by the World Bank Group, headquartered in Washington, D.C., in the United States. It is an autonomous, multilateral specialized institution to encourage international flow of investment and mitigate non-commercial risks by a treaty drafted by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development's executive directors and signed by member countries. As of May 2016, 153 contracting member states agreed to enforce and uphold arbitral awards in accordance with the ICSID Convention.
The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, commonly known as the New York Convention, was adopted by a United Nations diplomatic conference on 10 June 1958 and entered into force on 7 June 1959. The Convention requires courts of contracting states to give effect to private agreements to arbitrate and to recognize and enforce arbitration awards made in other contracting states. Widely considered the foundational instrument for international arbitration, it applies to arbitrations that are not considered as domestic awards in the state where recognition and enforcement is sought.
International arbitration is arbitration between companies or individuals in different states, usually by including a provision for future disputes in a contract.
The Iran–United States Claims Tribunal (IUSCT) is an international arbitral tribunal established under the Algiers Accords, an agreement between the United States and Iran mediated by Algeria and formalized through two declarations issued on January 19, 1981. The tribunal was created to address disputes between the two countries stemming from the 1979–1981 Iran hostage crisis and related incidents involving U.S. embassy staff in Tehran.
An arbitration award is a final determination on the jurisdiction, merits, costs or other aspect of a dispute by an arbitration tribunal in an arbitration, and is analogous to a judgment in a court of law. It is referred to as an 'award' even where all of the claimant's claims fail, or the award is of a non-monetary nature.
Ex aequo et bono is a Latin phrase that is used as a legal term of art. In the context of arbitration, it refers to the power of arbitrators to dispense with application of the law, if appropriate, and decide solely on what they consider to be fair and equitable in the case at hand. However, a decision ex aequo et bono is distinguished from a decision on the basis of equity and even tribunals with ex aequo et bono powers generally consider the law too. "Whereas an authorisation to decide a question ex aequo et bono is an authorisation to decide without deference to the rules of law, an authorisation to decide on a basis of equity does not dispense the judge from giving a decision based upon law, even though the law be modified".
Arbitration is a formal method of dispute resolution involving a third party neutral who makes a binding decision. The third party neutral renders the decision in the form of an 'arbitration award'. An arbitration award is legally binding on both sides and enforceable in local courts, unless all parties stipulate that the arbitration process and decision are non-binding.
An arbitral tribunal or arbitration tribunal, also arbitration commission, arbitration committee or arbitration council is a panel of unbiased adjudicators which is convened and sits to resolve a dispute by way of arbitration. The tribunal may consist of a sole arbitrator, or there may be two or more arbitrators, which might include a chairperson or an umpire. The tribunal usually consists of an odd number of arbitrators. Members selected to serve on an arbitration panel are typically professionals with expertise in both law and in friendly dispute resolution (mediation). Some scholars have suggested that the ideal composition of an arbitration commission should include at least also one professional in the field of the disputed situation, in cases that involve questions of asset or damages valuation for instance an economist.
On 22 July 1971 Salvador Allende and Alejandro Lanusse, the Presidents of Chile and Argentina, signed an arbitration agreement. This agreement related to their dispute over the territorial and maritime boundaries between them, and in particular the title to the Picton, Nueva and Lennox islands near the extreme end of the American continent, which was submitted to binding arbitration under the auspices of the United Kingdom government.
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR), or external dispute resolution (EDR), typically denotes a wide range of dispute resolution processes and techniques that parties can use to settle disputes with the help of a third party. They are used for disagreeing parties who cannot come to an agreement short of litigation. However, ADR is also increasingly being adopted as a tool to help settle disputes within the court system.
Nordsee Deutsche Hochseefischerei GmbH v Reederei Mond Hochseefischerei Nordstern AG & Co KG is a case referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) by a German arbitrator by virtue of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This article gives the "Courts or Tribunals" of Member States the power to refer matters involving the interpretation or application of European Union law to the ECJ. It was held in this case that the ECJ could not rule on questions referred to it by an arbitrator because an arbitral body is not a court or tribunal of a Member State as defined in Article 234.
In international law and diplomacy, a compromis is an agreement between two parties to submit a dispute to international arbitration for a binding resolution. A compromis is made after a dispute has already arisen, rather than before.. The compromis identifies a neutral third party - the arbitrator or arbitral tribunal - or specifies the manner of appointment. The compromis often sets forth the precise question or questions to be decided; the arbitral rules of procedure; the seat of the tribunal; the languages to be used in the proceeding; the applicable law; and the payment of costs.
Investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS), or an investment court system (ICS), is a set of rules through which states can be sued by foreign investors for certain state actions affecting the foreign direct investments (FDI) of that investor. This most often takes the form of international arbitration between the foreign investor and the state. As of June 2024, over US$113 billion has been paid by states to investors under ISDS, the vast majority of the money going to fossil fuel interests.
The borders of Suriname consist of land borders with three countries: Guyana, Brazil, and France. The borders with Guyana and France are in dispute, but the border with Brazil has been uncontroversial since 1906.
The Agreement to Resolve the Controversy between Venezuela and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland over the Frontier between Venezuela and British Guiana, better known as the Geneva Agreement, is a treaty between Venezuela and the United Kingdom, along with its colony of British Guiana, that was signed in Geneva, Switzerland, on 17 February 1966. The treaty outlines the steps taken to resolve the controversy between Venezuela and the United Kingdom, arising from Venezuela's contention to the UN in 1962 that the 1899 declaration by the Paris Tribunal of Arbitration awarding the territory to British Guiana was null and void, following the publication of Severo Mallet-Prevost's memorandums and other documents from the tribunal that called the decision into question.
The Paris Arbitral Award is an arbitral award issued on 3 October 1899 by an arbitral tribunal convened in Paris, created two years earlier as established in the Arbitral Treaty of Washington D. C. on 2 February 1897, in which the United States on the one hand and the United Kingdom on the other, had agreed to submit to international arbitration the dispute over the border to the west of the British colony and the east of independent Venezuela, as a mechanism for an amicable solution to the territorial differendum.
Interpretation of the Greco-Turkish Agreement refers to an advisory opinion issued by the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) under the League of Nations. The case involved a dispute over the implementation of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, particularly the compulsory population exchange between Greece and Turkey and the resolution of disputes arising from the process.
The Mixed Commission for the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations was an international body established under the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne to oversee the compulsory population exchange between Greece and Turkey following World War I. The commission was responsible for managing the logistics, resolving disputes, and ensuring the implementation of the exchange's terms, which involved the relocation of over 1.5 million people based on their religious identity.
The Greco-Turkish Mixed Arbitral Tribunal was an international judicial body established under the Greco-Turkish Agreement of December 1, 1926, to resolve legal disputes arising from the compulsory population exchange between Greece and Turkey. It operated under the supervision of the League of Nations and played a crucial role in addressing conflicts related to property restitution, compensation claims, and jurisdictional disagreements stemming from the exchange.