In this paper, it is argued that the value of the Kardak / Imia Rocks to Greece and Turkey is more symbolic than material.
The Imia / Kardak Crisis in 1995-1996 was a symbolic breaking point of the continuing disputes in the Aegean. This crisis showed us how sudden and fast the escalation between two countries can appear in the Aegean.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Disputes over the Aegean (Inter-related Issues)
2.1. Continental Shelf Rights
2.2. Territorial Waters
2.3. The status of the Kardak / Imia Rocks
2.3.1. Athens’ Position
2.3.2. Ankara’s Position
3. The Theory of Democratic Peace and the Kardak /Imia Crisis
3.1. The Normative Model
3.2. The Instiutional /Structural Model
3.3. The Role of the International Institutions and Democratic Peace
4. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper examines why Greece and Turkey, despite being democratic nations, reached the brink of military conflict during the 1995-1996 Imia/Kardak crisis. It investigates how historical disputes and nationalist media pressures created a perceived "continual threat" that challenged traditional democratic constraints, ultimately necessitating U.S. intervention to maintain the status quo.
- Analysis of Aegean territorial disputes including continental shelf and territorial waters.
- Application of the Democratic Peace Theory to the Imia/Kardak case.
- Evaluation of normative and structural constraints in democratic conflict management.
- The influence of national media and "Rambo journalism" on political decision-making.
- The role of international institutions like NATO and U.S. mediation in regional stability.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1. The Normative Model
The normative model of the DP argues that states externalize their own norms of behaviour, which are characterized in their domestic affairs, into their foreign politics (Risse- Kappen 1995: 499-500). Thus, the deductive expectation of DP Theory is that democratic states externalize their democratic non-violent norms of behaviour.
At this point, the three steps of the causal mechanism can be fulfilled as follows: For the first step, characteristic of the democracy (I.V.) is fulfilled with the idea of democratic culture. The democratic culture argument is summarized by Maoz and Russett as a “live and let live strategy”. According to Maoz and Russett, in democracies, “winning does not require elimination of the opponent, and losing does not prohibit the loser from trying again” (Maoz, Russett 1993: 625). Moreover, for the second and third steps, under the conditions of inter-state crisis, the normative model argues that a non-violent conflict management strategy is a natural reflex in democracies (Schimmelfennig 2008: 48-49). In other words, democracies transfer their domestic model of conflict management (such as negotiation, compromise, etc.)
into the realm of foreign policy (Müller, Wolff 2006: 47). Consequently, these non-violent methods and norms prevent the outbreak of the war between two democracies. Furthermore, in the case of relations between democracies, the usual security dilemma is often mitigated by the in-group perception (Owen 1994: 96). Briefly, the term In-group presents a social constructivist understanding of group construction with same norms and accordingly the mutual trust of all parties in a certain group. In our case, democracies trust and respect each other because of their constant norms of democratic behaviour.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the symbolic nature of the Imia/Kardak crisis and defines the scope of the study regarding Aegean tensions.
2. The Disputes over the Aegean (Inter-related Issues): Details the historical and legal background of continental shelf, territorial waters, and island sovereignty disputes between Greece and Turkey.
3. The Theory of Democratic Peace and the Kardak /Imia Crisis: Evaluates the crisis through the lens of Democratic Peace theory, testing normative and structural models against the events of 1995-1996.
4. Conclusion: Synthesizes findings, confirming that domestic political pressures and threat perceptions overridden institutional constraints, necessitating U.S. mediation to prevent war.
Keywords
Imia/Kardak Crisis, Greece, Turkey, Aegean Sea, Democratic Peace Theory, Continental Shelf, Territorial Waters, International Relations, Conflict Resolution, NATO, U.S. Mediation, National Sovereignty, Political Communication, Security Dilemma, Foreign Policy.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this research paper?
The paper investigates the 1995-1996 Imia/Kardak crisis between Greece and Turkey, specifically focusing on why these two democratic nations nearly went to war despite the theoretical expectations of Democratic Peace.
What are the central thematic fields?
The core themes include Aegean territorial disputes, the application of International Relations theories, the role of media in political crises, and the effectiveness of international institutional mediation.
What is the primary research objective?
The goal is to explain the discrepancy between the theoretical prediction that democracies do not fight each other and the actual near-conflict scenario that occurred during the Imia/Kardak standoff.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The author uses a qualitative analysis approach, applying the Democratic Peace Theory—including its normative, institutional, and international institution models—to the historical case study of the Aegean crisis.
What does the main body of the work cover?
It covers historical legal disputes (continental shelf, waters), an analysis of the normative and structural constraints of democracy, the neutralizing role of nationalist media, and an assessment of NATO's influence.
Which keywords characterize the work?
Key terms include Imia/Kardak, Democratic Peace Theory, Aegean, Security Dilemma, and U.S. Mediation.
How did "Rambo journalism" affect the crisis?
The paper describes how aggressive, nationalist reporting by Turkish and Greek media created a hostile environment, effectively "silencing" liberal voices and forcing political leaders to adopt aggressive postures to satisfy public opinion.
What role did the United States play in the outcome?
U.S. President Bill Clinton provided crucial mediation by placing direct calls to the leaders of both Turkey and Greece, which prevented the escalation into an inter-state war and restored the status quo.
Why did the institutional constraints of democracy fail in this case?
The author argues that high levels of "decisive domination by the executive" and the "manipulability of the society" via media allowed leaders to bypass typical slow-motion bureaucratic checks, leading to a rapid escalation.
- Citar trabajo
- Anonym (Autor), 2009, Why did they not fight? A Study on the Kardak-Imia Crisis 1995-1996 between Greece and Turkey, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/346843
