BLACK SEA STRAITS IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS (XVIII–XIX CENTURIES)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29038/2524-2679-2024-01-39-55Keywords:
Black Sea straits, Ottoman Empire, international actors, international relations, diplomacy, international politics, foreign countries, international treatiesAbstract
The article examines the evolution of the status of the Black Sea straits during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Given that the Black Sea was an “inland lake” of the Ottoman Empire, the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles were closed
to any foreign ships. The conclusion of the Küçük-Kainarjah Peace of 1774 was the first point of bifurcation (change in the established mode of operation of the system) – allowing merchant ships to pass through the Straits. All subsequent international agreements duplicated the provision on unimpeded access of com- mercial ships to/from the Black Sea. The next bifurcation point was the bila- teral Russian-Turkish treaties signed at the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. They secured the passage for the Russian navy and closed the Straits to foreign warships. In fact, a model of control over the Bosphorus and the Dar- danelles, which were on the territory of another state, was implemented by one of the leading international actors – Russia. However, the desire to dominate the region was opposed by other international players. In 1809, the Treaty of Dar- danelles was signed, prohibiting any warships from passing through the Straits, which was officially called the “ancient rule of the Ottoman Empire”. The Lon- don Convention of 1841 established multilateral control over the Straits, which undermined Nicholas I’s plans (the third bifurcation point). The defeat of the Russian Empire in the Eastern War of 1853–1856 resulted in a “loss of interest” in the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. When the Paris Peace Treaty of 1856 was signed, the 1841 Convention was revised and the Black Sea was declared neutral and open to merchant ships of any state, while warships of all countries were prohibited. Geopolitical changes after the Franco-German War of 1870–1871 led to a diplomatic victory for Russia, which was able to reconstruct its status on the Black Sea, but failed to restore/establish control over the Straits. For almost half a century before the outbreak of World War I, navigation was regulated by the “ancient law of the Ottoman Empire”: free passage of the merchant fleet with re- strictions for warships. Turkey’s participation in the First World War was bound to lead to changes in the region, which affected the status of the Straits.
References
Belavenec, P. (1910). Nuzhen li nam flot i znachenie ego v istorii Rossii. Sankt- Peterburg: Tovarishhestvo L. Golike i A. Vil'borg, 318 p. (in Russian).
Volkova, Ye. S. (2012). Formuvannia rosiiskoi polityky stosovno Osmanskoi imperii v ostannii tretyni XVIII − na pochatku XIX st. Visnyk Luhanskoho natsionalnoho univer- sytetu imeni Tarasa Shevchenka. Istorychni nauky, № 6 (2), p. 23–30 (in Ukrainian).
Havrylenko, O. A., Novikova, L. V., Syroid, T. L. (2019). Istoriia mizhnarodnoho pra- va: khrestomatiia-praktykum. Kharkiv: KhNU imeni V. N. Karazina, 676 p. (in Ukrainian).
Honchar, B. M. et. al. (2011). Vsesvitnia istoriia: navchalnyi posibnyk. Kyiv: Znan- nia. 895 s. URL: https://westudents.com.ua/knigi/215-vsesvtnya-storya-gonchar-bm.html (in Ukrainian).
Gorjainov, S. M. (1907). Bosfor i Dardanelly: issledovanie voprosa o prolivah po dip- lomaticheskoj perepiske, hranjashhejsja v Gosudarstvennom i S.-Peterburgskom glavnom arhivah. Sankt-Peterburg: tipografija I. N. Skorohodova, 355 p. (in Russian).
Debidur, A. (1947). Diplomaticheskaja istorija Evropy: Ot Venskogo do Berlinskogo kongressa (1814–1878) / Perevod s francuzskogo, vstupitel'naja stat'ja A. L. Narochnickogo. V 2 t. Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo inostrannoj literatury, t. I. Svjashhennyj sojuz, 482 p. (in Russian).
Kulchytskyi, S. V. (2008). Krymska viina 1853–1856, Skhidna viina 1853–1856. Entsyklopediia istorii Ukrainy: t. 5: Kon-Kiu / Redkol.: V. A. Smolii (holova) ta in. Ukrainy. Kyiv: V-vo «Naukova dumka», p. 351–356 (in Ukrainian).
Kulchytskyi, S. V. (2011). Paryzkyi myrnyi dohovir. Entsyklopediia istorii Ukrainy:
t. 8: Pa-Pryk / redkol.: V. A. Smolii (holova) ta in. Ukrainy. Kyiv: V-vo «Naukova dumka», pp. 66–67 (in Ukrainian).
Madariaga, I. de. (2002). Rossija v jepohu Ekateriny Velikoj / per. s anglijskogo
N. L. Luzheckoj. Moskva: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 976 p. (in Russian).
Martens, F. (1909). Sobranie traktatov i konvencij, zakljuchennyh Rossiej i ino- strannymi derzhavami. t. 15: Traktaty s Franciej, 1822–1906. Sankt-Peterburg: Tip. M-va putej soobshhenija (A. Benke), 836 p. (in Russian).
Mashevskyi, O. P. (2010). Chornomorski protoky u politytsi mizhnarodnykh soiuziv (70-ti rr. XIX st. – 1918 r.): avtoref. dys… d-ra ist. nauk: 07.00.02. Kyiv. 40 p. (in Ukrainian).
Papian, T. (2011). Osnovni rysy statusu ta rezhymu chornomorskykh protok u XVIII–XIX stolittiakh. Aktualni problemy mizhnarodnykh vidnosyn, vyp. 98 (1), p. 127–130 (in Ukrainian).
Petrenko, Ye. D. (2012). Rosiisko-turetska viina 1828–1829. Entsyklopediia istorii Ukrainy: t. 9: Pryl-S / redkol.: V. A. Smolii (holova) ta in. Ukrainy. Kyiv: V-vo «Naukova dumka», p. 307 (in Ukrainian).
Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossijskoj imperii. (1830). Sobranie 1, t. 25 (1798–1799). Sankt-Peterburg, № 18797, p. 500–502 (in Russian).
Rubel, V. (2007). Nova istoriia Azii ta Afryky: Postserednovichnyi Skhid (XVIII – druha polovyna XIX st.). Kyiv: Lybid, 560 p. (in Ukrainian).
Sbornik dogovorov Rossii s drugimi gosudarstvami. 1856–1917. (1952). Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo politicheskoj literatury, 470 p. (in Russian).
Senina, L. V. (2014). Tochky bifurkatsii u Skhidnomu pytanni v interpretatsii su- chasnykh anhlomovnykh istorykiv. The Journal of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National Univer- sity. Series: History, № 46. URL: https://periodicals.karazin.ua/history/article/view/81 (in Ukrainian).
Symonenko, R. H. (2003). Akermanska konventsiia 1826. Entsyklopediia istorii Ukrainy: t. 1: A-V / redkol.: V. A. Smolii (holova) ta in. Ukrainy. Kyiv: V-vo «Naukova dumka», p. 54 (in Ukrainian).
Uljanickij, V. (1883). Dardanelly, Bosfor i Chernoe more v XVІІІ veke. Moskva: Tip. A. Gatculi, 484 p. (in Russian).
Chukhlib, T. V. (2012). Rosiisko-turetska viina 1768–1774. Entsyklopediia istorii Ukrainy: t. 9: Pryl-S / redkol.: V. A. Smolii (holova) ta in. Ukrainy. Kyiv: V-vo «Naukova dumka», p. 304–305 (in Ukrainian).
Juzefovich, T. (1869). Dogovory Rossii s Vostokom. Politicheskie i torgovye. Sankt- Peterburg: Tip. O. I. Baksta, 326 p. (in Russian).
Badem, C. (2010). The origins of the war. The Ottoman Crimean War (1853–1856).
Brill, p. 46–98 (in English).
Darwish, M. A. (2022). The conflicts between the great powers after the withdrawal of the British campaign on Egypt (1806–1812), an analytical study. International Journal of Cultural Inheritance & Social Sciences (IJCISS), vol. 4, issue 8, p. 148–164 (in English).
Davison, R. H. (1976). «Russian Skill and Turkish Imbecility»: the Treaty of Ku- chuk Kainardji Reconsidered. Slavic Review, № 35 (3), p. 463–483 (in English).
Güler, Y. (2005). Osmanli devleti dönemi türk-amerikan ilişkileri (1795–1914).
Gazi üniversitesi Kirşehir eğitim fakültesi dergisi, cilt 6, sayı 1, p. 227–240 (in Turkish).
Hurewitz, J. C. (1962). Russia and the Turkish Straits: A revaluation of the origins of the problem. World Politics, № 14(4), p. 605–632 (in English).
Işıksel, G. (2018). Ottoman Diplomacy. The Encyclopedia of Diplomacy, p. 1–13 (in English).
Rose, G. (1998). Neoclassical realism and theories of foreign policy. World Politics,
№ 51 (1), p. 144–172 (in English).
Sertdemir, M. (2015). 1798–1856 Yillari arasinda Rusya’nin Osmanli politikasi. Konya, 21 p. (in Turkish).
Yilmaz, A. Y. (2022). History of Turkish Straits Problem. Current Debates on So- cial Sciences, 9, p. 15–21 (in English).
