RETHINKING TURKEY'S HISTORICAL CLAIMS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE NEW INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST PROJECT

Abstract

This study aims to analyze how Turkey's historical claims, shaped within the framework of the National Pact (Misak-ı Milli), can be repositioned along the axes of international law, geopolitical dynamics, and historical continuity in the contemporary conjuncture where the international system is evolving from a unipolar structure toward a multipolar configuration. The fundamental point of departure for this research is that the relationship between the structural fragility exhibited by the post-Ottoman regional order and Turkey's historical claims has been largely neglected in the academic literature. The main hypothesis posits that in an environment where the international order is evolving toward a multipolar structure and regional states are dissolving, the capacity of Turkey's historical claims to gain legitimacy in international law is increasing.
The research employs a qualitative methodology combining document analysis, comparative case study, discourse analysis, and multi-level interpretation techniques. Historical documents including the Armistice of Mudros, Treaty of Sèvres, National Pact Declaration, and Treaty of Lausanne have been examined alongside contemporary international law norms and regional fragmentation dynamics. Russia's historical claims over Crimea and Donbas, and China's sovereignty assertions in the South China Sea have been evaluated from a comparative perspective.
The findings demonstrate that with the relative decline of American hegemony and the crystallization of the multipolar structure, historical claims have become a re-acceptable discursive instrument in the international system. The regional fragmentation triggered by the Greater Middle East Project, state collapses in Iraq and Syria, and the authority vacuums emerging on Turkey's southern borders have necessitated a security-based reinterpretation of the National Pact perspective. The study identifies that the Mosul question carries a suspended status from Lausanne and that normative flexibility in international law enables Turkey to articulate its historical theses more assertively.