We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
With the Hoover Moratorium expiration looming, representatives from Great Britain, France, Italy, Belgium, Germany and Japan gathered at Lausanne on the shores of Lake Geneva in Switzerland to address the pressing issues of war debts and reparations.It was amply clear to the delegates that the deepening depression had made it impossible for Germany to resume its reparations payments. They came to an agreement on a two-point plan:
- Not to press Germany for immediate payments
- To reduce German indebtedness by nearly 90 percent and require Germany to prepare for the issuance of bonds valued at three billion Reichsmarks to be administered by the Bank for International Settlements and issued when world economic conditions warranted. This provision was close to cancellation, reducing the German obligation from the original $33 billion to $714 million.
It was informally agreed among the delegates that these provisions would be effective only in the event that the United States agreed to cancellation of war debts owed by other Allied governments.The conference also recommended the convening of a major international economic forum in London in 1933.A number of American business associations and financial institutions spoke out in favor of the Lausanne plan, reasoning that cancellation of the U.S. public war debts would make it easier to collect on the massive private loans made in Europe following the end of World War I. Despite this self-serving action, the plan attracted little other support, and was widely condemned in the press and by many political leaders. Hoover made the obligatory public statement about the lack of any connection between reparations and war debts, and affirmed that the United States was not in accord with the decisions made at Lausanne.When the moratorium expired, the international debt situation was technically returned to the terms of the earlier Young Plan, but in fact the system had collapsed. Germany did not resume reparations payments and once the National Socialists (Nazis) had consolidated power, the debt was repudiated.For a short period in 1933, the United States continued to receive war debt payments from several former Allies. After 1934, however, only two nations continued to honor their obligations — Hungary paid until World War II erupted in 1939 and Finland discharged its entire debt.
See other foreign affairs issues during the Hoover administration.
At the initiative of the German, English, French and Belgian Engineering Associations a European Turbomachinery Committee was founded in July 1993 with the mission to organise at European level a bi-annual international conference on fluid and thermodynamics aspects of turbomachines as a replacement for the hitherto national conferences on this subject. The conference was to be different in scope, size and organization from the annual ASME Gas Turbine Conferences that take place every other year in Europe.
- The conference covers all types of turbomachines, i.e. aero-engines and stationary gas turbines, compressors, steam turbines, hydraulic turbines and pumps, ventilators and wind turbines.
- The conference is limited to only 3 parallel sessions in order to allow a more focused participation of the audience and to improve the active discussion in each sessions
- The planning and the review process and the scientific quality of the conference is the responsibility of the EUROTURBO (EUROPEAN Turbomachinery Society)organizing committee, the actual organisation of the conference is taken over by a local engineering organization.
The conference was also seen as an integrating element between the Western and Eastern European countries and as an additional mean to foster collaboration in turbomachinery research at a European level. Finally this conference is seen as an ideal forum to present and publicise the results of research projects funded by the European Commission and benefits therefore also from the support by the Commission. In the recent years the EUROTURBO is promoting the free dissemination of the papers presented at the conference, and it is now accepted for coverage in the selected Elsevier product to be indexed in SCOPUS. The last two Conference and the incoming received the ISSN number: 2313‐0067 for international recognition.
Contributions originating from non European countries are of course encouraged, as is the participation to the conference. To ensure a high scientific quality of the conference a very thorough paper review process with at least 3 reviewers per paper is employed. The best papers will be proposed for publication in an internationally renowned technical journal. To enhance further the quality of the conference high level experts will be requested to deliver at the conferences invited lectures on leading edge turbomachinery technologies.
Following the successful first twelve conferences on turbomachinery held in Erlangen (DE) 1995, in Antwerp (BE) 1997, in London (GB) 1999, in Florence (IT) 2001, in Prague (CZ) 2003, in Lille (FR) 2005, in Athens (GR) 2007, in Graz (AT) 2009, in Istanbul (TR) 2011, in Lappeenranta (FI) 2013, in Madrid (ES) 2015, and in Stockholm (SE) 2017 the thirteenth will take place in April 2019 in Lausanne (CH)
Lausanne Conference - History
Representatives of Germany, Great Britain, France, Germany and Japan, met to decide the issue of German reparation debt payment. An agreement was reached whereby the debt would be deferred. The agreement was contingent upon the U.S. agreeing to also defer the debt payment of the Western European governments. When the U.S. Congress forbade any cancellation or reduction in debt repayment, the agreement disintegrated.
The problem of Germany continuing to pay reparations for World War I continued to exasperate international relations in Europe and domestic politics in Germany. The Dawes Plan of 1924 had attempted to restructure German debt, however the political instability in Germany made it clear that the German was not be able to maintain their commitments to make payments. As a result a new commission was established led by Owen Young. The commission developed a plan that would decrease German's indebtedness by 20% and extended further the payment period for the reparations.
The report was submitted on June 7th 1929. It was approved at the Second Hague Conference in January 1930. Between the submission of the report and the Conference the Wall Street Crash of 1929 forcing US banks who were financing part of the payment to withdraw money from Europe and making the German economy even worse. It was clear that the Germans would be unable to make payments.
From June 16th to July 9th 1932 representatives of the United Kingdom, France and Germany met in Lausanne Switzerland to discuss German reparations. The sides came to an agreement to suspend German reparation payments. It was also understood at the conference that ending those payments would also be dependent on the United States. Canceling the Allied war debt. In December 1932 the US Congress rejected the agreements reached at Lausanne. Soon with the rise of Hitler it became irrelevant as Germany never paid any additional reparations for World War I.
EXPLORE LAUSANNE, A CITY OF RICH HISTORY, AT THE 2022 LEADERS CONFERENCE
Lausanne is a Swiss city in the hills on the north shore of Lake Geneva, an easy trip by train from Montreux. Across the lake, you can see the beautiful French Alps.
Lausanne is home to the International Olympic Committee. Perhaps the most popular destination in Lausanne is the Olympic Museum. The museum takes you all the way back to the games&rsquo Greek origins and features torches, historic posters, equipment and clothing worn by Olympians. You can even relive your favorite Olympic moments through video clips.
There are plenty of historical sites to take in while visiting Lausanne. Check out the Chateau d&rsquoOuchy, a 12th-century castle where the peace treaty between Turkey, Greece and the Allies was signed in 1923. Nearby is the Cathedral of Notre-Dame, which boasts 13th-century doors and stained glass, and an organ with 6,000 pipes.
Lausanne offers many notable art museums the Fondation de l&rsquoHermitage Collection includes works by Manet, Monet and Van Gogh. Lausanne&rsquos contemporary new art zone, Flon Quarter, features futuristic architecture that&rsquos quite a contrast to the rest of the city&rsquos ancient designs.
You have until Dec. 31, 2021, to qualify to join us at the 2022 Leaders Conference at the Fairmont Le Montreux Palace in Montreux, Switzerland. Don&rsquot miss this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to explore the wonder and beauty of Switzerland.
The history of the Lausanne movement, 1974-2010.
The Lausanne movement, inaugurated with the 1974 Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization, has become a potent symbol of evangelical unity in mission, and its Covenant, a representative statement of the mission theology of evangelicalism, as exemplified by Billy Graham and John Stott. It also became a focal point for conflicts that arose when evangelicals sought to fulfill their understanding of the Gospel mandate at the same time as a changing church met a changing world. This article briefly explores the way in which an evangelical response to the emerging ecumenical movement of the 1960s became the locus for conflicting understandings of evangelism and evangelistic priorities from the 1970s to the present day--a period when evangelicalism realized its own cultural, spiritual, and political diversity in the midst of vast changes in world social and political structures.
The Aftermath of Edinburgh 1910
In 1910 it appeared as if the movement to spread Christianity worldwide was a virtually unstoppable force. The key strategic and theological fissures among Western missionaries seemed to have been largely resolved at the great mission conference at Edinburgh. Yet only half a century later, Christian missionaries believed their movement to be in disarray. The word "crisis" appears repeatedly in missionaries' own characterizations of mission in mid-twentieth century, and in place of regular worldwide mission conferences, there emerged two distinct and often mutually antagonistic mission movements claiming the mandate of 1910.
At the end of the Second World War a convergence of forces challenged existing understandings of Christian mission: the end of formal colonialism and the rise of dozens of new independent nations, the emergence of the Communist world as an existential threat to Western Christendom, the nuclear arms race and the Cold-War efforts by the First and Second Worlds to establish hegemony over the Third World, the creation of the nonaligned movement of newly independent nations, the postwar de-Christianization of Western Europe, and the growth of independent Christian leaders and churches elsewhere. Out of this situation the ecumenical and evangelical movements emerged as distinct Christian responses, each drawing on significant new synergies, and each with significantly different concerns.
The World Council of Churches (WCC) had its political center of gravity in Europe, being dominated by historic Protestant denominations on both sides of the Atlantic. As a formal successor to the great mission conferences earlier in the century, the WCC represented both a drive toward church unity and the unity of the churches in mission. It was able to draw on the substantial financial and personnel resources of member denominations and their large mission agencies, as well as the interest of Western governments in encouraging programs of social, economic, and political development as bulwarks against Communist influence in the Third World. As a council of churches, it had direct contact with the church and mission leaders of its constituent members, interests to either expand or defend in virtually every newly independent nation as well as the Communist world, and historic links with student and youth movements, which continued to provide its leaders. Thus engaged, from the 1950s to the 1970s the WCC moved toward expansive understandings of the missio Dei, the "mission/sending of God," that could include much more than personal evangelism in the Christian mandate. Such understandings addressed the crisis of a mission that was seen as too narrow to address the challenges of the postcolonial world. Yet they could arguably, quite apart from stated theological commitments, devalue the need for personal conversion.
In the same period a trans-Atlantic and increasingly international conservative evangelical movement distanced itself from fundamentalism and separatism in the United States. It gained confidence through association with emerging movements in Britain associated with John Stott, James Packer, and the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship. Treated with hostility by fundamentalists and granted recognition within ecumenical and mainline circles through the charm and effectiveness of Billy Graham, the movement drew on evangelicals within mainstream Protestant churches, as well as those affiliated with Baptist, independent, and nondenominational churches worldwide. The economic boom of the postwar American South and West and the quest for certainty and stability in the fresh reality of the Cold-War era fueled its work and its relevance. In the United States, associations like the Interdenominational Foreign Mission Association, World Evangelical Fellowship, and National Association of Evangelicals shared a growing constituency that was ready to engage postwar society and was confident of its message. Centers of theological learning such as Fuller, Trinity Evangelical, Asbury, Wheaton, and Gordon-Conwell embraced the scholarly study of Christianity. Publishers such as Eerdmans addressed theological and social issues from an evangelical standpoint, and theologians like Edward Carnell and Carl Henry earned the respect, sometimes grudging, of other traditions.
In its mission outreach evangelicalism was increasingly receptive to and informed by the social sciences, which provided insights not only into effective cross-cultural communication but also for advertising, fund-raising, and mission management and analysis. Perhaps most important, evangelicals were increasingly disenchanted with developments in the WCC and the ways in which that organization began to emphasize social and political action over evangelism, not to mention its perceived universalism and even syncretism in theology. When the International Missionary Council was brought under the WCC umbrella in 1961, its emerging understanding of mission was politicized in ways that evangelical constituencies neither understood nor trusted.
Like church and mission leaders associated with the WCC, members of the growing conservative evangelical movement, laity and clergy, were motivated by a powerful sense that Christianity and Christian missions were in crisis. They saw Christian values and Christian society as being under threat from theological liberalism and secularism in the West and from Communist atheism in the rest of the world. In the face of these threats they believed that only conversion to Christ could save both individuals and society, and that evangelism was the only appropriate focus of mission. Leaders of the conservative evangelicals often had no particular status in denominational structures or formal relationships with the WCC, so it appears in retrospect that it was only a matter of time before emerging global evangelicalism would seek to unite in an alternative common movement to convert the world to Christ.
The result would be a new type of world mission leader, drawn from the ranks of evangelists and large-church pastors worldwide, a new kind of nondenominational mission organization, and a new kind of cooperation in mission based on a commitment to effective, entrepreneurial evangelism aimed at individual conversion and church planting in every land and people unreached by the Gospel.
Billy Graham and his organization, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, were paradigmatic examples of emerging evangelical leadership. Unlike an earlier generation of revival preachers, Graham, a brilliant and charismatic preacher, based his evangelistic priority in the context of a vision for the formation of a new Christian establishment both in the West and in newly emerging nations. This motivated him to launch Christianity Today, a periodical intended as a counterpart to the intellectual offerings of mainline Protestantism, in particular, Christian Century.
More important, in the years before the first Lausanne conference, in 1974, Graham's organization pioneered a form of grassroots cooperation in evangelism that cemented ties with evangelical leaders worldwide and could support worldwide undertakings on the scale of the 1910 Edinburgh conference. This form of cooperation largely bypassed established church hierarchies to involve sympathetic local pastors and congregations in publicizing, financing, and following up on Graham's revival meetings. It thus drew on organizational and financial resources from across the Christian community rather than from within a single denomination. It was a structure that was functional and task-oriented rather than fitting itself to a traditional ecclesial model, and it appeared uniquely suited to evangelism in the postcolonial world.
Two events in 1966 may be seen as precursors of the Lausanne movement. The first, and indirect, precursor was the Congress on the Church's Worldwide Mission, held at Wheaton College. It was organized by the Interdenominational Foreign Mission Association of the National Association of Evangelicals and by the Evangelical Foreign Missions Association. The final declaration of the conference addressed in detail the need for evangelical consensus based on a confidence in the inerrancy of Scripture, the urgency of preparation of the world for Christ's return, and the critical need to challenge syncretism, neo-universalism, accusations of proselytism as a hindrance to evangelism, and the dangers of accommodation to neo-Romanism (i.e., post-Vatican II Catholicism). In addition, the declaration affirmed the need for the multiplication of new churches, the enduring validity of "foreign missions," the need for unity (but not union) in evangelical witness, the need for both social-scientific and spiritual evaluations of mission, the need to address social issues scripturally, and preeminently, in the face of a hostility whose source is Satan, the urgency of a commitment to world evangelism. (1)
The second, and direct, precursor to the Lausanne movement was the Congress on World Evangelism, held in Berlin in 1966 and organized by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Christianity Today. Graham's opening speech began with a reference to the Edinburgh mission conference of 1910 and its emphasis on the evangelism of the world "in our generation." He went on to reiterate many of the major concerns of the 1966 Wheaton congress. Yet while the Wheaton conference had only grudgingly allowed observers from the ecumenical movement, Graham placed the congress in Berlin as an heir to Edinburgh and in some ways a companion to and resource for the churches rather than an antagonist of the WCC. Thus he invited participants and observers from all churches, including the Roman Catholic Church. (2)
While Graham rebuked what he called modern theology and humanistic interpretations of the Gospel, his emphasis on confusion about evangelism as the problem of the churches allowed him to assert the importance of a clear evangelistic mandate to save souls while affirming (albeit as secondary) ecumenical intentions and social action. His address to the congress also laid out a framework for understanding different biblical methods of evangelism that could form the framework for a strategy of global evangelism. Subsequent sessions, led by church leaders from across the globe, demonstrated the shift in the center of global Christianity southward and eastward from the West and took up specific methodological and strategic concerns raised by the plenary speakers. In particular, attention was given to the role of social sciences and then-emerging technologies in achieving the goal of converting the entire world to Christ. The conference inspired further regional conferences in Southeast Asia, Latin America, the United States, and Australia. (3)
Despite the diversity of the Berlin congress and the range of its concerns, Graham and his organization in the following years became further cognizant of changes in global Christianity. They believed that Berlin and its successors had uncovered the need for a larger, more representative, and more expansive approach to framing the Christian message and its evangelistic mandate in relation to current problems. If nothing else, the Berlin congress had alerted Graham, and all those in attendance, to challenges outside the West that could not be comprehended through the lens of Western evangelical concerns with theological liberalism, humanism, Communism, poverty, and race relations. As factors demanding the attention of evangelicals worldwide, Graham would eventually note the importance of the growth of "younger churches" as mission-sending churches, the rapid rise of the charismatic movement, the enormous growth of Christianity outside the West, and signs of religious revival in Europe and the United States.
To address these and other concerns the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association organized the International Congress on World Evangelization, held in 1974 in Lausanne, Switzerland, to which over 2,700 delegates from over 150 countries were invited. Graham now saw the Edinburgh conference of 1910 as having issued forth in two streams of mission cooperation worldwide. For Graham the ecumenical stream, institutionalized in the WCC, was deficient in both its theological grounding and its evangelistic commitment. And Graham's theological analysis of the world situation remained unchanged from his outlook in 1966. It was a world that he characterized as being on the brink of Armageddon, full of spiritual emptiness, and yet also possessing in the Christian Gospel the answer to humanity's most fundamental needs and questions. Evangelicals thus needed to unite, spiritually more than institutionally, and remain united under the first principles of scriptural authority, commitment to personal salvation, development of the best tools and practices for evangelism, and a hopeful outlook for the conversion of the entire world. The Lausanne congress was to be a congress on evangelization, not merely evangelism. (4)
While Graham clearly set an agenda for the Lausanne congress, his effort to create a worldwide movement drawing on the enthusiasm of the newer churches brought differing, and sometimes discordant, voices to Lausanne. Peter Wagner, Ralph Winter, and others were pressing for a focus on "unreached peoples" to unite evangelistic efforts. It was a conceptualization of human societies as discreet ethnocultural units that was in accord with Donald McGavran's "homogeneous unit principle." But not all evangelicals agreed with either that emphasis or the strategies it entailed. (5) John Stott and British evangelicals put forward the importance of Christians addressing social problems as integral to evangelism. More controversial voices from Latin America, notably Rene Padilla and Orlando Costas, challenged naive concepts of either evangelism or social action divorced from the realities of cultural imperialism and the demand for social justice. (6) Nor was this merely a matter of differing understandings of evangelism. Padilla and others saw an evangelical focus on strategy rather than theological reflection as a weakness in the movement. (7) These differences over the necessity for and forms of social engagement, and the relative priority of theory and practice, arose out of widely different cultural and sociopolitical settings. They appeared as, and were, critiques of American evangelicals both in their actions and their basic self-understanding. And they revealed divisions in world evangelicalism, even as it united around the Lausanne Covenant. (8)
In an echo of Edinburgh 1910, the Lausanne congress ended with a call by delegates for a continuation committee, and so the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization was organized in 1975 in Mexico City under the leadership of Leighton Ford. It inherited the tensions of Lausanne but did not resolve them when it articulated the aim of the movement as furthering "the total biblical mission of the Church, recognizing that in this mission of sacrificial service, evangelism is primary, and that our particular concern must be the [then 2,700 million] unreached people of the world." (9) Instead, these tensions led to further discussions in the initial four working groups: on intercession, theology, strategy, and communication. Consultations held in 1977 (homogeneous unit principle), 1978 (Gospel and culture), 1980 (simple lifestyle), and 1982 (evangelism and social responsibility) likewise revealed, and sometimes intensified, disagreements. (10) Later, four more working groups were added: one each on leadership development, resource mobilization, and technology, and a joint business, government, education, media, and medical working group. In addition to these issue-based working groups, regional leaders were appointed and committees were formed to continue the movement at more local levels. The international working groups and regional Lausanne committees have organized subsequent Lausanne consultations, out of which a whole range of study papers and documents have emerged that define the Lausanne movement as a whole under the Lausanne Covenant as a unifying expression of its commitments.
Within the breadth of interests it came to embrace, the Lausanne movement was distinguished from the "ecumenical stream" of global Christianity not only by its commitment to personal evangelism but also by the focus of its working groups. The majority of the working groups are oriented toward the emphasis in the Lausanne movement on continually resourcing the task of world evangelism. By placing intercession as a resource on a par with strategic planning and mastery of contemporary communication methods, the committee affirmed the underlying ethos of evangelical piety that focuses reliance on God's power to intervene in human hearts and affairs. The addition of a working group on business, government, education, media, and medical issues is indicative of the ways that the movement grew to recognize the need for practical partnership in "the mission of sacrificial service."
The most significant consultation in revealing the divisions in the Lausanne movement was the 1980 Lausanne Consultation on World Evangelization (LCWE), held in Pattaya, Thailand. It came only months after the WCC assembly in Melbourne, which had focused attention on the poor as agents of God's mission and sharply critiqued the role of power in Western-led missions. (11) Intended to be a working consultation, the meeting at Pattaya became embroiled in controversy over whether the Lausanne movement would maintain a commitment to social responsibility as essential to evangelism and whether the understanding of "unreached peoples" put forward by Peter Wagner was theologically adequate to understand the nature of God's mission. (12) Two hundred delegates expressed their concern to the LCWE in the form of an open letter but received what Orlando Costas regarded as a "cool and disappointing" reaction. (13)
The 1982 consultation "Relationship Between Evangelism and Social Action" went some distance toward resolving the first of these conflicts, recognizing a threefold relationship of evangelism to social action as a consequence, a partner, and a bridge. (14) Only in 1989, however, did the implications of how the "unreached" are defined reveal (at least for some delegates) the inadequacy of this formulation. The theological conclusions reached by the WCC at Melbourne, which animated Costas and Padilla in Pattaya, remained unaddressed.
The Second International Congress on World Evangelization, held in 1989 in Manila, Philippines, and which issued the Manila Manifesto, brought into focus a number of ways in which the movement was evolving. Billy Graham's involvement had lessened over the decade as he concentrated on his particular form of evangelism. While Leighton Ford administered the LCWE, John Stott emerged as an elder statesman of the movement, who was linked neither to the pragmatism (and defensiveness) of the American leadership nor to the apparent social radicalism of the Latin American and African theologians.
The Manila conference also marked the first significant involvement of evangelicals associated with the charismatic movement and global Pentecostalism, albeit with no plenary discussion of their impact on evangelism. Rather, the conference was dominated (as the Pattaya conference had been) by strategic definitions of the unevangelized as "unreached people groups" living in the "10/40 window" and by the goal of evangelizing the entire world by the year 2000. This strategic/pragmatic approach to evangelism, the failure to recognize many sociopolitical forces in understanding unreached peoples, and the lack of recognition for the ways that Pentecostalism and the charismatic movement were shaping evangelism and evangelical churches were symptomatic of a top-down approach to organizing that simultaneously alienated and marginalized evangelical leaders from the emerging Global South. (15) Equally difficult for the movement was the subsequent reduction in financial support from the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, plus what seemed to be Graham's waning interest in the movement. (16)
From the standpoint of many leaders of the Two-Thirds World, represented by Samuel Escobar, Lausanne II revealed significant forces pulling the Lausanne movement away from the holistic understanding of mission found in Lausanne I and toward uncritical attitudes toward imperialism, marketing strategy, and technology. Three different missiological trends emerged, according to Escobar. The first is a postimperial missiology coming from both continental Europe and Britain that interrogates both past and present mission practice in light of the demands of God's reign for liberation and ecumenism. The second is what Escobar calls managerial missiology, associated with a false urgency, an uncritical reliance on technology, and the instrumental use both of the social sciences and of spiritual practices. The third is a critical missiology emerging in a variety of forms from Two-Thirds World theologians and church leaders who are particularly concerned with the poor and marginalized as agents of God's mission rather than as merely recipients of evangelistic outreach. (17)
The fissiparousness of the Lausanne movement as revealed in critiques of Lausanne II was a manifestation not only of long-unresolved conflicts but also of a rapidly changing world situation and emerging ways in which the evangelistic task was being understood quite apart from those identified by Escobar. After the 1989 WCC Conference on World Mission and Evangelism, in San Antonio, Texas, it appeared as if the theological differences, if not the sense of urgency, that had divided the evangelical and ecumenical movements had almost disappeared. The rapid breakup of the Soviet Union had rendered irrelevant the politics of American evangelism in the international realm. The U.S. culture wars of the 1990s and then the real wars following 9/11 increasingly isolated major concerns of American evangelicals from those of the rest of the world. Most important, a combination of theological, sociological, political, and economic analyses of unevangelized humanity would bring to light both new global concerns such as the environment and a wide variety of different ways to parse evangelistic concern. The 2004 Forum for World Evangelization (co-sponsored by the LCWE) identified thirty-one priority issues, many related to the social location and characteristics of the unevangelized. That the world was in need of the Gospel was readily affirmed. That humans could be understood in categories as simple as saved and unsaved, or as unreached peoples with distinctive cultures, seems to have appeared naive. Notably at this forum new leaders were installed for the LCWE, marking a transition that heralded the 2010 Cape Town congress. (18)
The Cape Town congress was substantially different from its predecessors because of the voice given to large numbers of leaders and delegates from the Two-Thirds World, as well as a structure that both invited these leaders into the plenary sessions and made room for them in so-called multiplex sessions covering nineteen different themes and topics. These included emerging challenges such as evangelism in oral cultures, mission populations in diaspora, and the emergent megacities of the world. While the final version of the Cape Town Commitment had yet to be issued at the time this article was written, the draft is notable for its recognition of the complexity of the human situations to which Christians are called to respond in love, and the comprehensiveness with which it speaks of the triune God, the Gospel of Christ, and the church. The reaffirmation of the Lausanne Covenant and Manila Manifesto with which it begins only highlights the extent to which at Cape Town the Lausanne movement had become, if not necessarily divided or even in tension, so varied that its constituent parts found no need to come into conflict. From a practical standpoint evangelical unity appears to have been replaced by the fostering of a wide variety of evangelistic partnerships, with the result that no agenda, strategy, or theological assessment of the world situation either predominates or is necessary in order to mobilize the churches to evangelize. It remains to be seen how and whether this rich tapestry clothes the spiritual unity that Billy Graham sought thirty-six years earlier. (19)
(1.) Study Papers: Congress on the Church's Worldwide Mission, April 9-16, 1966, Wheaton, Illinois (Wheaton: Scripture Press Foundation, 1966).
(2.) Records of the World Congress on Evangelism, Collection 14, www .wheaton.edu/bgc/archives/guides/014.htm#3.
(3.) Billy Graham, cn014tll.mp3 (audio/mpeg Object), 1966, http:// espace.wheaton.edu/bgc/audio/cn014t11.mp3.
(4.) J. D. Douglas, Let the Earth Hear His Voice: International Congress on World Evangelization, Lausanne, Switzerland. Official Reference Volume: Papers and Responses (Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1975), p. 22.
(5.) John R. W. Stott, "Twenty Years After Lausanne: Some Personal Reflections," International Bulletin of Missionary Research 19, no. 2 (1995): 50.
(6.) Valdir R. Steuernagel, "Social Concern and Evangelization: The Journey of the Lausanne Movement," International Bulletin of Missionary Research 15, no. 2 (1975): 53 John Stott, "Significance of Lausanne," International Review of Mission 64, no. 255 (1975): 293.
(7.) Wilbert R. Shenk, "2004 Forum for World Evangelization: A Report," International Bulletin of Missionary Research 29, no. 1 (2005): 31.
(8.) Alister Chapman, "Evangelical Lntemational Relations in the Postcolonial World: The Lausanne Movement and the Challenge of Diversity, 1974-89," Missiology 37, no. 3 (2009): 358.
(9.) Steuernagel, "Social Concern and Evangelization," p. 54.
(10.) Stott, "Twenty Years After Lausanne," p. 51.
(11.) Jacques Matthey, "Milestones in Ecumenical Missionary Thinking from the 1970s to the 1990s," International Review of Mission 88, no. 350 (1999): 292.
(12.) Stott, "Twenty Years After Lausanne," p. 52.
(13.) Steuernagel, "Social Concern and Evangelization," p. 54.
(15.) Stott, "Twenty Years After Lausanne," p. 52 Steuemagel, "Social Concern and Evangelization," p. 55.
(16.) Chapman, "Evangelical International Relations," p. 363.
(17.) Samuel Escobar, "A Movement Divided: Three Approaches to World Evangelization Stand in Tension with One Another," Transformation 8 (October 1991): 12-13.
1 See the Chicago Declaration on Evangelical Social Concern ( 1973 ), IRM lxiii (1974), 274 –5Google Scholar .
2 Graham , Billy , Just as I am: the autobiography of Billy Graham , London 1997 , 568 Google Scholar A. J. Dain to Charles Troutman, 17 Feb. 1972, BGCA 46, box 30/1.
3 Minutes, World Evangelization Strategy Consultation, 27 Nov., 2 Dec. 1971, BGCA 46, box 30/27.
4 Meeting of the consultative conference, International Congress on World Evangelization, Vero Beach, Florida, 23–4 Mar. 1972, ibid.
5 Martin , William , A prophet with honor: the Billy Graham story , New York 1991 , 441 Google Scholar .
6 Graham, Just as I am, 264 Pollock , J. C. , Shadows fall apart: the story of the Zenana Bible and Medical Mission , London 1958 , 186 , 200Google Scholar Crockford's clerical directory, 1973–4, BGCA 46, box 30/27.
7 Minutes, World Evangelization Strategy Consultation, 2 Dec. 1971, BGCA 46, box 30/27.
8 Dain to Troutman, 17 Feb. 1972, ibid. box 30/1. See also Dain to S. H. Iggulden, 23 Feb. 1972 Dain to S. Escobar, 12 Apr. 1972, and similar letters in the same file to David Stewart, Michael Griffiths, David McLagan and Ben Wati.
9 Samuel Escobar, cited in Pete Lowman, The day of his power: a history of the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students, Leicester 1983, 194.
11 Troutman to Dain, 28 Feb. 1972, BGCA 46, box 30/1.
12 CT, 16 Aug. 1974, 35, lists twenty-nine members. The Lausanne movement's website, http://www.lausanne.org/lausanne-1974/historical-background.html [accessed 25 May 2011], describes the committee as being made up of thirty-one members, but does not list them.
13 J. R. W. Stott to B. Graham, 30 May 1972, BGCA 46, box 29/35.
14 Graham to Stott, 28 June 1972, ibid.
15 Dain to Stott, 18 July 1972, ibid. box 30/1.
16 Dain to Stott, 26 July, 11 Sept. 1972, ibid. Landreth attended Lausanne and defended the congress in the CEN against more strident critics, such as David Winter: CEN, 14 June 1974, 9. For Laird see his autobiography, No mere chance, London 1981.
17 Stott to Dain, 24 Aug. 1972, BGCA 46, box 30/1.
18 Dain to Stott, 11 Sept. 1972, ibid. box 30/12 In June 1972 there were only four members from the majority world out of seventeen on the planning committee (box 30/3).
19 G. Landreth to G. Kirby, 7 Sept. 1972, ibid. box 30/12.
20 Dain to Kirby, 7 July 1972, ibid.
21 Minutes of planning committee, 24–5 Aug. 1972, ibid. box 30/28.
22 Report on congress sites and recommendation concerning congress location, ibid. box 30/23.
23 The Evangelical Alliance began publication of Crusade magazine in 1955 following Billy Graham's London Crusade at Haringay arena in 1954.
24 Christian Record, 2 Nov. 1973, cutting in BGCA 46, Box 29/40.
25 Church Times, 16 Nov. 1973, 14.
26 Crusade (Apr. 1973), 11 (July 1973), 13–16 Michael Harper to Kirby, 20 Nov. 1973, and Harper to Dain, 26 Nov. 1973, BGCA 46, Box 29/40.
30 CEN, 5 Apr. 1974, 12 24 May 1974, 9 14 June 1974, 9 Director's monthly reports from Donald E. Hoke, 26 Feb., 23 April 1974, BGCA 46, box 30/1.
31 Martin, Prophet with honor, 442.
32 Ibid minutes of planning committee, 15 July 1974, BGCA 46, box 122/1. Padilla , C. René (ed.), The new face of Evangelicalism: an international symposium on the Lausanne Covenant , London 1976 , 9 Google Scholar .
33 Martin, Prophet with honor, 442–3.
34 C. René Padilla, ‘Evangelism and the world’, in J. D. Douglas (ed.), Let the earth hear his voice: International Congress on World Evangelization Lausanne, Switzerland: official reference volume: papers and responses, Minneapolis 1975, 116–33 at p. 126.
35 Crusade (Sept. 1974), 26 CEN, 26 July 1974, 3.
36 Padilla, ‘Evangelism and the world’, 134–6, quotations at pp. 136, 144.
37 Escobar , Samuel , ‘ Evangelism and man's search for freedom, justice and fulfillment ’, in Douglas, Let the earth hear his voice , 303 –18Google Scholar .
38 Idem, ‘Evangelization and man's search for freedom, justice and fulfillment’, ibid. 319–26 at pp. 322, 326.
40 Stott , John , ‘ The significance of Lausanne ’, IRM lxiv ( 1975 ), 288 –94 at p. 289Google Scholar .
41 Allen Yeh, ‘Se hace camino al andar: periphery and center in the missiology of Orlando Costas’, unpubl. DPhil. diss. Oxford 2008, 42–4.
42 Orlando Costas, ‘Depth in evangelism – an interpretation of “in-depth evangelism” around the world’, in Douglas, Let the earth hear his voice, 675–94 at p. 682.
44 Church , J. E. , Quest for the highest: an autobiographical account of the East African Revival , Exeter 1981 , 248 Google Scholar Gatu , John G. , Joyfully Christian ┼ Truly African , Nairobi 2006 Google Scholar .
45 Gatu, Joyfully Christian, 169–76 Kendall , Elliott , The end of an era: Africa and the missionary , London 1978 , 86 – 107 Google Scholar .
46 Kendall, End of an era, 92 Christian Century, 25 Sept. 1974, 871.
47 Personal conversation with John Gatu, 22 Apr. 2008.
48 CT, 13 Sept. 1974, 90 Billy Graham, ‘Why Lausanne?’, in Douglas, Let the earth hear his voice, 33 Crusade (Sept. 1974), 24.
50 Crusade, Sept. 1974, 30 Christian Century, 21–8 Aug. 1974, 790.
51 Compare paragraph 8 of ‘the first draft’ of the Covenant in BGCA 46, box 27/4, with paragraph 9 of the final version in Douglas, Let the earth hear his voice, 6.
53 Padilla, New face of Evangelicalism, 165. See also Gatu, Joyfully Christian, 136. Personal communication with John Gatu, 22 Apr. 2008.
54 See, for example, Moody Monthly (Sept. 1974), 25.
55 Padilla, New face of Evangelicalism, 163–76.
56 Accounts of the origins of the Covenant vary in the respective roles given to Douglas and Stott. Compare minutes of administrative committee, 26 Mar. 1974, BGCA 46, box 27/4 (to which is appended what is termed ‘the first draft’ of the Covenant, but is in fact the third draft submitted to all participants mid-way through the Congress) Stott's own preface to the Covenant at http://www.lausanne.org/all–documents/lop–3.html#P [accessed 25 May 2011] Crusade (Sept. 1974), 31 Dudley-Smith , Timothy , John Stott: a global ministry , Leicester 2001 , 212 –13Google Scholar and Padilla, New face of Evangelicalism, 10. The definitive scholarly biography of John Stott by Alister Chapman, Godly ambition: John Stott and the Evangelical movement, New York, 2012, appeared too late to be fully referenced in this article, although I am indebted to Dr Chapman for his comments on an earlier draft.
57 Dudley-Smith, John Stott, 212.
58 Minutes of planning committee, 19 July 1974, BGCA 46, Box 122/1. Douglas's fifteen points were reduced to fourteen by the third draft, but the final version reverted to fifteen through the addition of a section on freedom and persecution.
59 IRM lxiii (1974), 574–6. For the youthful composition of the Theology and Radical Discipleship see CEN, 9 Aug. 1974, 2.
60 Crusade (Sept. 1974), 29 CT, 13 Sept. 1974, 66–7 Dudley-Smith, John Stott, 215. Paragraph 6 of the Covenant urged that ‘a church which preaches the cross must itself be marked by the cross’.
61 Compare the third draft in BGCA 46, Box 27/4, with the Covenant in its final form in Douglas, Let the earth hear his voice, 3–9.
62 Crusade (Sept. 1974), 31, cited in Dudley-Smith, John Stott, 215.
63 Kirby to Dain, 13, 30 July 1974, BGCA 46, box 30/12.
64 Dain to Stott, 20 Aug. 1974, ibid. box 29/35.
65 Dain to Kirby, 1 Oct. 1974, ibid. box 30/12. For one such example see Malcolm MacRae in CT, 25 Oct. 1974, 21.
The Dawes Plan, the Young Plan, German Reparations, and Inter-allied War Debts
In the years following the First World War, issues of debt repayment and reparations troubled relations between the Allies and the now defeated Germany. The U.S.-sponsored Dawes and Young Plans offered a possible solution to these challenges.
At the end of the First World War, the victorious European powers demanded that Germany compensate them for the devastation wrought by the four-year conflict, for which they held Germany and its allies responsible. Unable to agree upon the amount that Germany should pay at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and the other Allies established a Reparation Commission to settle the question. In the spring of 1921, the Commission set the final bill at 132 billion gold marks, approximately $31.5 billion. When Germany defaulted on a payment in January 1923, France and Belgium occupied the Ruhr in an effort to force payment. Instead, they met a government-backed campaign of passive resistance. Inflation in Germany, which had begun to accelerate in 1922, spiraled into hyperinflation. The value of the German currency collapsed the battle over reparations had reached an impasse.
U.S. Loans to Allied Powers
Meanwhile, a second wartime financial issue was causing tension among the former co-belligerents. While the United States had little interest in collecting reparations from Germany, it was determined to secure repayment of the more than $10 billion it had loaned to the Allies over the course of the war. Time and again, Washington rejected calls to cancel these debts in the name of the common wartime cause it also resisted efforts to link reparations to inter-allied war debts. In 1922, London made this link explicit in the Balfour Note, which stated that it would seek reparations and wartime debt repayments from its European allies equal to its debt to the United States. That same year, Congress created the United States War Debt Commission to negotiate repayment plans, on concessionary terms, with the 17 countries that had borrowed money from the United States.
In late 1923, with the European powers stalemated over German reparations, the Reparation Commission formed a committee to review the situation. Headed by Charles G. Dawes (Chicago banker, former Director of the Bureau of the Budget, and future Vice President), the committee presented its proposal in April 1924. Under the Dawes Plan, Germany’s annual reparation payments would be reduced, increasing over time as its economy improved the full amount to be paid, however, was left undetermined. Economic policy making in Berlin would be reorganized under foreign supervision and a new currency, the Reichsmark, adopted. France and Belgium would evacuate the Ruhr and foreign banks would loan the German government $200 million to help encourage economic stabilization. U.S. financier J. P. Morgan floated the loan on the U.S. market, which was quickly oversubscribed. Over the next four years, U.S. banks continued to lend Germany enough money to enable it to meet its reparation payments to countries such as France and the United Kingdom. These countries, in turn, used their reparation payments from Germany to service their war debts to the United States. In 1925, Dawes was a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of his plan’s contribution to the resolution of the crisis over reparations.
In the autumn of 1928, another committee of experts was formed, this one to devise a final settlement of the German reparations problem. In 1929, the committee, under the chairmanship of Owen D. Young, the head of General Electric and a member of the Dawes committee, proposed a plan that reduced the total amount of reparations demanded of Germany to 121 billion gold marks, almost $29 billion, payable over 58 years. Another loan would be floated in foreign markets, this one totaling $300 million. Foreign supervision of German finances would cease and the last of the occupying troops would leave German soil. The Young Plan also called for the establishment of a Bank for International Settlements, designed to facilitate the payment of reparations.
LCJE Agencies/Organizations . /. Bulletins
Click below to see a list of LCJE member agencies and organizations around the world.
Click on the image below to download the latest LCJE Bulletin available online: #135
Recent Synergy Commons Webinar featuring LCJE!
For more information on Synergy Commons and their work in helping build worldwide missions networks, go to: SynergyCommons.net
We are asking members to pay the additional nominal PayPal fee when paying online
Copyright © 20220 by Lausanne Consultation on Jewish Evangelism (LCJE), template designed by Alpha Studio. Updated on 23 March 2020
Treaty of Lausanne
With links to a related Agreement respecting the Reciprocal Restitution of Interned Civilians and the Exchange of Prisoners of War,
signed at Lausanne, January 30, 1923.
(English translation of Accord relatif à la restitution réciproque des internés civils et àl'échange des prisonniers de guerre, signé à Lausanne, le 3o janvier 1923).
TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE
THE CONVENTION RESPECTING THE REGIME OF THE STRAITS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS SIGNED AT LAUSANNE
THE BRITISH EMPIRE, FRANCE, ITALY, JAPAN, GREECE, ROUMANIA and the SERB-CROAT-SLOVENE STATE,
of the other part Being united in the desire to bring to a final close the state of war which has existed in the East since 1914,
Being anxious to re-establish the relations of friendship and commerce which are essential to the mutual well-being of their respective peoples,
And considering that these relations must be based on respect for the independence and sovereignty of States,
Have decided to conclude a Treaty for this purpose, and have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND AND OF THE BRITISH DOMINIONS BEYOND THE SEAS, EMPEROR OF INDIA:
The Right Honourable Sir Horace George Montagu Rumbold, Baronet, G.C.M.G., High Commissioner at Constantinople
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC:
General Maurice Pelle, Ambassador of France, High Com missioner of the Republic in the East, Grand Officer of the National Order of the Legion of Honour
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF ITALY:
The Honourable Marquis Camillo Garroni, Senator of the Kingdom, Ambassador of Italy, High Commissioner at Constantinople, Grand Cross of the Orders of Saints Maurice and Lazarus, and of the Crown of Italy
M. Giulio Cesare Montagna, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Athens, Commander of the Orders of Saints Maurice and Lazarus, Grand Officer of the Crown of Italy
HIS MAJESTY THE EMPEROR OF JAPAN:
Mr. Kentaro Otchiai, Jusammi, First Class of the Order of the Rising Sun, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary at Rome
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE HELLENES:
M. Eleftherios K. Veniselos, formerly President of the Council of Ministers, Grand Cross of the Order of the Saviour
M. Demetrios Caclamanos, Minister Plenipotentiary at London, Commander of the Order of the Saviour
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF ROUMANIA:
M. Constantine I. Diamandy, Minister Plenipotentiary
M. Constantine Contzesco, Minister Plenipotentiary
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE SERBS, THE CROATS AND THE SLOVENES:
Dr. Miloutine Yovanovitch, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Berne
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE GRAND NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF TURKEY:
Ismet Pasha, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy for Adrianople Dr. Riza Nour Bey, Minister for Health and for Public Assistance, Deputy for SinopeHassan Bey, formerly Minister, Deputy for Trebizond
Who, having produced their full powers, found in good and due orm, have agreed as follows:
From the coming into force of the present Treaty, the state of peace will be definitely re-established between the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Roumania and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State of the one part, and Turkey of the other part, as well as between their respective nationals. Official relations will be resumed on both sides and, in the respective territories, diplomatic and consular representatives will receive, without prejudice to such agreements as may be concluded in the future, treatment in accordance with the general principles of international law.
I. TERRITORIAL CLAUSES.
From the Black Sea to the Aegean the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows: (I) With Bulgaria:
From the mouth of the River Rezvaya, to the River Maritza, the point of junction of the three frontiers of Turkey, Bulgaria and Greece:
the southern frontier of Bulgaria as at present demarcated
Thence to the confluence of the Arda and the Marilza:
the course of the Maritza
then upstream along the Arda, up to a point on that river to be determined on the spot in the immediate neighbourhood of the village of Tchorek-Keuy:
thence in a south-easterly direction up to a point on the Maritza, 1 kilom. below Bosna-Keuy:
a roughly straight line leaving in Turkish territory the village of Bosna-Keuy. The village of Tchorek-Keuy shall be assigned to Greece or to Turkey according as the majority of the population shall be found to be Greek or Turkish by the Commission for which provision is made in Article 5, the population which has migrated into this village after the 11th October, 1922, not being taken into account
the course of the Maritza.
From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:
The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921
The frontier between Turkey and Iraq shall be laid down in friendly arrangement to be concluded between Turkey and Great Britain within nine months.
In the event of no agreement being reached between the two Governments within the time mentioned, the dispute shall be referred to the Council of the League of Nations.
The Turkish and British Governments reciprocally undertake that, pending the decision to be reached on the subject of the frontier, no military or other movement shall take place which might modify in any way the present state of the territories of which the final fate will depend upon that decision.
The frontiers described by the present Treaty are traced on the one-in-a-million maps attached to the present Treaty. In case of divergence between the text and the map, the text will prevail. [See Introduction.]
A Boundary Commission will be appointed to trace on the ground the frontier defined in Article 2 (2). This Commission will be composed of representatives of Greece and of Turkey, each Power appointing one representative, and a president chosen by them from the nationals of a third Power.
They shall endeavour in all cases to follow as nearly as possible the descriptions given in the present Treaty, taking into account as far as possible administrative boundaries and local economic interests.
The decision of the Commission will be taken by a majority and shall be binding on the parties concerned.
The expenses of the Commission shall be borne in equal shares by the parties concerned.
In so far as concerns frontiers defined by a waterway as distinct from its banks, the phrases "course" or "channel" used in the descriptions of the present Treaty signify, as regards non-navigable rivers, the median line of the waterway or of its principal branch, and, as regards navigable rivers, the median line of the principal channel of navigation. It will rest with the Boundary Commission to specify whether the frontier line shall follow any changes of the course or channel which may take place, or whether it shall be definitely fixed by the position of the course or channel at the time when the present Treaty comes into force.
In the absence of provisions to the contrary, in the present Treaty, islands and islets Iying within three miles of the coast are included within the frontier of the coastal State.
The various States concerned undertake to furnish to the Boundary Commission all documents necessary for its task, especially authentic copies of agreements fixing existing or old frontiers, all large scale maps in existence, geodetic data, surveys completed but unpublished, and information concerning the changes of frontier watercourses. The maps, geodetic data, and surveys, even if unpublished, which are in the possession of the Turkish authorities, must be delivered at Constantinople with the least possible delay from the coming into force of the present Treaty to the President of the Commission.
The States concerned also undertake to instruct the local authorities to communicate to the Commission all documents, especially plans, cadastral and land books, and to furnish on demand all details regarding property, existing economic conditions and other necessary information.
The various States interested undertake to give every assistance to the Boundary Commission, whether directly or through local authorities, in everything that concerns transport, accommodation, labour, materials (sign posts, boundary pillars) necessary for the accomplishment of its mission.
In particular, the Turkish Government undertakes to furnish, if required, the technical personnel necessary to assist the Boundary Commission in the accomplishment of its duties.
The various States interested undertake to safeguard the trigonometrical points, signals, posts or frontier marks erected by the Commission.
The pillars will be placed so as to be intervisible. They will be numbered, and their position and their number will be noted on a cartographic document.
The protocols defining the boundary and the maps and documents attached thereto will be made out in triplicate, of which two copies will be forwarded to the Governments of the limitrophe States, and the third to the Government of the French Republic, which will deliver authentic copies to the Powers who sign the present Treaty.
The decision taken on the 13th February, 1914, by the Conference of London, in virtue of Articles 5 of the Treaty of London of the 17th-30th May, 1913, and 15 of the Treaty of Athens of the 1st-14th November, 1913, which decision was communicated to the Greek Government on the 13th February, 1914, regarding the sovereignty of Greece over the islands of the Eastern Mediterranean, other than the islands of Imbros, Tenedos and Rabbit Islands, particularly the islands of Lemnos, Samothrace, Mytilene, Chios, Samos and Nikaria, is confirmed, subject to the provisions of the present Treaty respecting the islands placed under the sovereigntyof Italy which form the subject of Article 15.
Except where a provision to the contrary is contained in the present Treaty, the islands situated at less than three miles from the Asiatic coast remain under Turkish sovereignty.
With a view to ensuring the maintenance of peace, the Greek Government undertakes to observe the following restrictions in the islands of Mytilene, Chios, Samos and Nikaria:
(I) No naval base and no fortification will be established in the said islands.
(2) Greek military aircraft will be forbidden to fly over the territory of the Anatolian coast. Reciprocally, the Turkish Government will forbid their military aircraft to fly over the said islands.
(3) The Greek military forces in the said islands will be limited to the normal contingent called up for military service, which can be trained on the spot, as well as to a force of gendarmerie and police in proportion to the force of gendarmerie and police existing in the whole of the Greek territory.
The islands of Imbros and Tenedos, remaining under Turkish sovereignty, shall enjoy a special administrative organisation composed of local elements and furnishing every guarantee for the native non-Moslem population in so far as concerns local administration and the protection of persons and property. The maintenance of order will be assured therein by a police force recruited from amongst the local population by the local administration above provided for and placed under its orders.
The agreements which have been, or may be, concluded between Greece and Turkey relating to the exchange of the Greek and Turkish populations will not be applied to the inhabitants of the islands of Imbros and Tenedos.
Turkey renounces in favour of Italy all rights and title over the following islands: Stampalia (Astrapalia), Rhodes (Rhodos), Calki (Kharki), Scarpanto, Casos (Casso), Piscopis (Tilos), Misiros (Nisyros), Calimnos (Kalymnos), Leros, Patmos, Lipsos (Lipso), Simi (Symi), and Cos (Kos), which are now occupied by Italy, and the islets dependent thereon, and also over the island of Castellorizzo.
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
The renunciation by Turkey of all rights and titles over Egypt and over the Soudan will take effect as from the 5th November, 1914.
Turkey is released from all undertakings and obligations in regard to the Ottoman loans guaranteed on the Egyptian tribute, that is to say, the loans of 1855, 1891 and 1894. The annual payments made by Egypt for the service of these loans now forming part of the service of the Egyptian Public Debt, Egypt is freed from all other obligations relating to the Ottoman Public Debt.
Any questions arising from the recognition of the State of Egypt shall be settled by agreements to be negotiated subsequently in a manner to be determined later between the Powers concerned. The provisions of the present Treaty relating to territories detached from Turkey under the said Treaty will not apply to Egypt.
Turkey hereby recognises the annexation of Cyprus proclaimed by the British Government on the sth November, 1914.
Turkish nationals ordinarily resident in Cyprus on the 5th November, 1914, will acquire British nationality subject to the conditions laid down in the local law, and will thereupon lose their Turkish nationality. They will, however, have the right to opt for Turkish nationality within two years from the coming into force of the present Treaty, provided that they leave Cyprus within twelve months after having so opted.
Turkish nationals ordinarily resident in Cyprus on the coming into force of the present Treaty who, at that date, have acquired or are in process of acquiring British nationality in consequence of a request made in accordance with the local law, will also thereupon lose their Turkish nationality.
It is understood that the Government of Cyprus will be entitled to refuse British nationality to inhabitants of the island who, being Turkish nationals, had formerly acquired another nationality without the consent of the Turkish Government.
Without prejudice to the general stipulations of Article 27, Turkey hereby recognises the definite abolition of all rights and privileges whatsoever which she enjoyed in Libya under the Treaty of Lausanne of the 18th October, 1912, and the instruments connected therewith.
2. SPECIAL PROVISIONS.
The High Contracting Parties are agreed to recognise and declare the principle of freedom of transit and of navigation, by sea and by air, in time of peace as in time of war, in the strait of the Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmora and the Bosphorus, as prescribed in the separate Convention signed this day, regarding the regime of the Straits. This Convention will have the same force and effect in so far as the present High Contracting Parties are concerned as if it formed part of the present Treaty.
The separate Convention signed this day respecting the regime for the frontier described in Article 2 of the present Treaty will have equal force and effect in so far as the present High Contracting Parties are concerned as if it formed part of the present Treaty.
Turkey undertakes to recognise the full force of the Treaties of Peace and additional Conventions concluded by the other Contracting Powers with the Powers who fought on the side of Turkey, and to recognise whatever dispositions have been or may be made concerning the territories of the former German Empire, of Austria, of Hungary and of Bulgaria, and to recognise the new States within their frontiers as there laid down.
Turkey hereby recognises and accepts the frontiers of Germany, Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Roumania, the Serb-Croat-Slovene State and the Czechoslovak State, as these frontiers have been or may be determined by the Treaties referred to in Article 25 or by any supplementary conventions.
No power or jurisdiction in political, legislative or administrative matters shall be exercised outside Turkish territory by the Turkish Government or authorities, for any reason whatsoever, over the nationals of a territory placed under the sovereignty or protectorate of the other Powers signatory of the present Treaty, or over the nationals of a territory detached from Turkey.
It is understood that the spiritual attributions of the Moslem religious authorities are in no way infringed.
Each of the High Contracting Parties hereby accepts, in so far as it is concerned, the complete abolition of the Capitulations in Turkey in every respect.
Moroccans, who are French nationals ("ressortissants") and Tunisians shall enjoy in Turkey the same treatment in all respects as other French nationals ("ressortissants").
Natives ("ressortissants") of Libya shall enjoy in Turkey the same treatment in all respects as other Italian nationals ("ressortissants") .
The stipulations of the present Article in no way prejudge the nationality of persons of Tunisian, Libyan and Moroccan origin established in Turkey.
Reciprocally, in the territories the inhabitants of which benefit by the stipulations of the first and second paragraphs of this Article, Turkish nationals shall benefit by the same treatment as in France and in Italy respectively.
The treatment to which merchandise originating in or destined for the territories, the inhabitants of which benefit from the stipulations of the first paragraph of this Article, shall be subject in Turkey, and, reciprocally, the treatment to which merchandise originating in or destined for Turkey shall be subject in the said territories shall be settled by agreement between the French and Turkish Governments.
SECTION II .
Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
Persons over eighteen years of age, losing their Turkish nationality and obtaining ipso facto a new nationality under Article 30, shall be entitled within a period of two years from the coming into force of the present Treaty to opt for Turkish nationality.
Persons over eighteen years of age, habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey in accordance with the present Treaty, and differing in race from the majority of the population of such territory shall, within two years from the coming into force of the present Treaty, be entitled to opt for the nationality of one of the States in which the majority of the population is of the same race as the person exercising the right to opt, subject to the consent of that State.
Persons who have exercised the right to opt in accordance with the provisions of Articles 31 and 32 must, within the succeeding twelve months, transfer their place of residence to the State for which they have opted.
They will be entitled to retain their immovable property in the territory of the other State where they had their place of residence before exercising their right to opt.
They may carry with them their movable property of every description. No export or import duties may be imposed upon them in connection with the removal of such property.
Subject to any agreements which it may be necessary to conclude between the Governments exercising authority in the countries detached from Turkey and the Governments of the countries where the persons concerned are resident, Turkish nationals of over eighteen years of age who are natives of a territory detached from Turkey under the present Treaty, and who on its coming into force are habitually resident abroad, may opt for the nationality of the territory of which they are natives, if they belong by race to the majority of the population of that territory, and subject to theconsent of the Government exercising authority therein. This right of option must be exercised within two years from the coming into force of the present Treaty.
The Contracting Powers undertake to put no hindrance in the way of the exercise of the right which the persons concerned have under the present Treaty, or under the Treaties of Peace concluded with Germany, Austria, Bulgaria or Hungary, or under any Treaty concluded by the said Powers, other than Turkey, or any of them, with Russia, or between themselves, to choose any other nationality which may be open to them.
For the purposes of the provisions of this Section, the status of a married woman will be governed by that of her husband, and the status of children under eighteen years of age by that of their parents.
PROTECTION OF MINORITIES.
Turkey undertakes that the stipulations contained in Articles 38 to 44 shall be recognised as fundamental laws, and that no law, no regulation, nor official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation, nor official action prevail over them.
The Turkish Government undertakes to assure full and complete protection of life and liberty to ali inhabitants of Turkey without distinction of birth, nationality, language, race or religion.
All inhabitants of Turkey shall be entitled to free exercise, whether in public or private, of any creed, religion or belief, the observance of which shall not be incompatible with public order and good morals.
Non-Moslem minorities will enjoy full freedom of movement and of emigration, subject to the measures applied, on the whole or on part of the territory, to all Turkish nationals, and which may be taken by the Turkish Government for national defence, or for the maintenance of public order.
Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities will enjoy the same civil and political rights as Moslems.
All the inhabitants of Turkey, without distinction of religion, shall be equal before the law.
Differences of religion, creed or confession shall not prejudice any Turkish national in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, as, for instance, admission to public employments, functions and honours, or the exercise of professions and industries.
No restrictions shall be imposed on the free use by any Turkish national of any language in private intercourse, in commerce, religion, in the press, or in publications of any kind or at public meetings.
Notwithstanding the existence of the official language, adequate facilities shall be given to Turkish nationals of non-Turkish speech for the oral use of their own language before the Courts.
Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities shall enjoy the same treatment and security in law and in fact as other Turkish nationals. In particular, they shall have an equal right to establish, manage and control at their own expense, any charitable, religious and social institutions, any schools and other establishments for instruction and education, with the right to use their own language and to exercise their own religion freely therein.
As regards public instruction, the Turkish Government will grant in those towns and districts, where a considerable proportion of non-Moslem nationals are resident, adequate facilities for ensuring that in the primary schools the instruction shall be given to the children of such Turkish nationals through the medium of their own language. This provision will not prevent the Turkish Government from making the teaching of the Turkish language obligatory in the said schools.
In towns and districts where there is a considerable proportion of Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities, these minorities shall be assured an equitable share in the enjoyment and application of the sums which may be provided out of public funds under the State, municipal or other budgets for educational, religious, or charitable purposes.
The sums in question shall be paid to the qualified representatives of the establishments and institutions concerned.
The Turkish Government undertakes to take, as regards non-Moslem minorities, in so far as concerns their family law or personal status, measures permitting the settlement of these questions in accordance with the customs of those minorities.
These measures will be elaborated by special Commissions composed of representatives of the Turkish Government and of representatives of each of the minorities concerned in equal number. In case of divergence, the Turkish Government and the Council of the League of Nations will appoint in agreement an umpire chosen from amongst European lawyers.
The Turkish Government undertakes to grant full protection to the churches, synagogues, cemeteries, and other religious establishments of the above-mentioned minorities. All facilities and authorisation will be granted to the pious foundations, and to the religious and charitable institutions of the said minorities at present existing in Turkey, and the Turkish Government will not refuse, for the formation of new religious and charitable institu- tions, any of the necessary facilities which are guaranteed to other private institutions of that nature.
Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities shall not be compelled to perform any act which constitutes a violation of their faith or religious observances, and shall not be placed under any disability by reason of their refusal to attend Courts of Law or to perform any legal business on their weekly day of rest.
This provision, however, shall not exempt such Turkish nationals from such obligations as shall be imposed upon all other Turkish nationals for the preservation of public order.
Turkey agrees that, in so far as the preceding Articles of this Section affect non-Moslem nationals of Turkey, these provisions constitute obligations of international concern and shall be placed under the guarantee of the League of Nations. They shall not be modified without the assent of the majority of the Council of the League of Nations. The British Empire, France, Italy and Japan hereby agree not to withhold their assent to any modification in these Articles which is in due form assented to by a majority of the Council of the League of Nations.
Turkey agrees that any Member of the Council of the League of Nations shall have the right to bring to the attention of the Council any infraction or danger of infraction of any of these obligations, and that the Council may thereupon take such action and give such directions as it may deem proper and effective in the circumstances.
Turkey further agrees that any difference of opinion as to questions of law or of fact arising out of these Articles between the Turkish Government and any one of the other Signatory Powers or any other Power, a member of the Council of the League of Nations, shall be held to be a dispute of an international character under Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Turkish Government hereby consents that any such dispute shall, if the other party thereto demands, be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The decision of the Permanent Court shall be final and shall have the same force and effect as an award under Article 13 of the Covenant.
The rights conferred by the provisions of the present Section on the non-Moslem minorities of Turkey will be similarly conferred by Greece on the Moslem minority in her territory.
OTTOMAN PUBLIC DEBT.
The Ottoman Public Debt, as defined in the Table annexed to the present Section, shall be distributed under the conditions laid down in the present Section between Turkey, the States in favour of which territory has been detached from the Ottoman Empire after the Balkan wars of 1912-13, the States to which the islands referred to in Articles 12 and 15 of the present Treaty and the territory referred to in the last paragraph of the present Article have been attributed, and the States newly created in territories in Asia which are detached from the Ottoman Empire under the present Treaty. All the above St ates shall also participate, under the conditions laid down in the present Section, in the annual charges for the service of the Ottoman Public Debt from the dates referred to in Article 53.
From the dates laid down in Article 53, Turkey shall not be held in any way whatsoever responsible for the shares of the Debt for which other States are liable.
For the purpose of the distribution of the Ottoman Public Debt, that portion of the territory of Thrace which was under Turkish sovereignty on the 1st August, 1914, and lies outside the boundaries of Turkey as laid down by Article 2 of the present Treaty, shall be deemed to be detached from the Ottoman Empire under the said Treaty.
The Council of the Ottoman Public Debt shall, within three months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, determine, on the basis laid down by Articles 50 and 51, the amounts of the annuities for the loans referred to in Part A of the Table annexed to the present Section which are payable by each of the States concerned, and shall notify to them this amount.
These States shall be granted an opportunity to send to Constantinople delegates to check the calculations made for this purpose by the Council of the Ottoman Public Debt.
The Council of the Debt shall exercise the functions referred to in Article 134 of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria of the 27th November, 1919.
Any disputes which may arise between the parties concerned as to the application of the principles laid down in the present Article shall be referred, not more than one month after the notification referred to in the first paragraph, to an arbitrator whom the Council of the League of Nations will be asked to appoint this arbitrator shall give his decision within a period of not more than three months. The remuneration of the arbitrator shall be determined by the Council of the League of Nations, and shall, together with the other expenses of the arbitration, be borne by the parties concerned. The decisions of the arbitrator shall be final. The payment of the annuities shall not be suspended by the reference of any disputes to the above-mentioned arbitrator.
The States, other than Turkey, among which the Ottoman Public Debt, as defined in Part A of the Table annexed to this Section is attributed, shall, within three months from the date on which they are notified, in accordance with Article 47, of their respective shares in the annual charges referred to in that Article, assign to the Council of the Debt adequate security for the payment of their share. If such security is not assigned within the above-mentioned period, or in the case of any disagreement as to the adequacy of the security assigned, any of the Governments signatory to the present Treaty shall be entitled to appeal to the Council of the League of Nations.
The Council of the League of Nations shall be empowered to entrust the collection of the revenues assigned as security to international financial organisations existing in the countries (other than Turkey) among which the Debt is distributed. The decisions of the Council of the League of Nations shall be final.
Within one month from the date of the final determination under Article 47 of the amount of the annuities for which each of the States concerned is liable, a Commission shall meet in Paris to determine the method of carrying out the distribution of the nominal capital of the Ottoman Public Debt as defined in Part A of the Table annexed to this Section. This distribution shall be made in accordance with the proportions adopted for the division of the annuities, and account shall be taken of the terms of the agreements governing the loans and of the provisions of this Section.
The Commission referred to in the first paragraph shall consist of a representative of the Turkish Government, a representative of the Council of the Ottoman Public Debt, a representative of the debt other than the Unified Debt and the Lots Turcs each of the Governments concerned shall also be entitled to appoint a representative. All questions in regard to which the Commission may be unable to reach agreement shall be referred to the arbitrator referred to in the fourth paragraph of Article 47.
If Turkey shall decide to create new securities in respect of her share, the distribution of the capital of the Ottoman Public Debt shall be made in the first instance as it affects Turkey by a Committee consisting of the representative of the Turkish Government, the representative of the Council of the Ottoman Public Debt and the representative of the debt other than the Unified Debt and the Lots Turcs. The new securities shall be delivered to the Commission, which shall ensure their delivery to the bondholders upon such terms as will provide for the release of Turkey from liability and the rights of the bondholders towards the other States which are liable for a share of the Ottoman Public Debt. The securities issued in respect of the share of each State in the Ottoman Public Debt shall be exempt in the territory of the High Contracting Parties from all stamp duties or other taxes which would be involved by such issue.
The payment of the annuities for which each of the States concerned is liable shall not be postponed as a consequence of the provisions of the present Article in regard to the distribution of the nominal capital.
The distribution of the annual charges referred to in Article 47 and of the nominal capital of the Ottoman Public Debt mentioned in Article 49 shall be effected in the following manner:
(1) The loans prior to the 17th October, 1912, and the annuities of such loans shall be distributed between the Ottoman Empire as it existed after the Balkan wars of 1912-13, the Balkan States in favour of which territory was detached from the Ottoman Empire after those wars, and the States to which the islands referred to in Articles 12 and 15 of the present Treaty have been attributed account shall be taken of the territorial changes which have taken place after the coming into force of the treaties which ended those wars or subsequent treaties.
(2) The residue of the loans for which the Ottoman Empire remained liable after this first distribution and the residue of the annuities of such loans, together with the loans contracted by that Empire between the 17th October, 1912, and the 1st November, 1914, and the annuities of such loans shall be distributed between Turkey, the newly created States in Asia in favour of which a territory has been detached from the Ottoman Empire under the present Treaty, and the State to which the territory referred to in the last paragraph of Article 46 of the said Treaty has been attributed.
The distribution of the capital shall in the case of each loan be based on the capital amount outstanding at the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty.
The amount of the share in the annual charges of the Ottoman Public Debt for which each State concerned is liable in conse- quence of the distribution provided for by Article 50 shall be determined as follows:
(I) As regards the distribution provided for by Article 50 (1), in the first place the share of the islands referred to in Articles 12 and 15 and of the territories detached from the Ottoman Empire after the Balkan wars, taken together, shall be fixed. The amount of this share shall bear the same proportion to the total sum of the annuities to be distributed in accordance with Article 50 (1) as the average total revenue of the above mentioned islands and territories, taken as a whole, bore to the average total revenue of the Ottoman Empire in the financial years 1910-1911 and 1911-1912, including the proceeds of the customs surtaxes established in 1907.
The amount thus determined shall then be distributed among the States to which the territories referred to in the preceding paragraph have been attributed, and the share for which each of these States will thus be made liable shall bear the same proportion to the total amount so distributed as the average total revenue of the territory attributed to each State bore in the financial years 1910-11 and 1911-12 to the average total revenue of the territories detached from the Ottoman Empire after the Balkan Wars and the islands referred to in Articles 12 and 15. In calculating the revenues referred to in this paragraph, customs revenues shall be excluded.
(2) As regards the territories detached from the Ottoman Empire under the present Treaty (including the territory referred to in the last paragraph of Article 46), the amount of the share of each State concerned shall bear the same proportion to the total sum of the annuities to be distributed in accordance with Article 50 (2) as the average total revenue of the detached territory (including the proceeds of the Customs surtax established in 1907) for the financial years 1910-11 and 1911-12 bore to the average total revenue of the Ottoman Empire, excluding the territories and islands referred to in paragraph (I) of this Article.
The advances referred to in Part B of the Table annexed to the present Section shall be distributed between Turkey and the other States referred to in Article 46 under the following conditions:
(I) As regards the advances referred to in the Table which existed on the 17th October, 1912, the capital amount, if any, outstanding at the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty, together with the interest from the dates mentioned in the first paragraph of Article 53 and the repayments made since those dates, shall be distributed in accordance with the provisions of Article 50 (I) and Article 51 (1).
(2) As regards the amounts for which the Ottoman Empire remains liable after the first distribution and the advances referred to in the Table which were contracted by the said Empire between the 17th October, 1912, and the 1st November, 1914, the capital amount, if any, outstanding at the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty, together with the interest from the 1st March, 1920, and the repayments made since that date, shall be distributed in accordance with the provisions of Article 50 (2) and Article 51 (2).
The Council of the Ottoman Public Debt shall, within three months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, determine the amount of the share in these advances for which each of the States concerned is liable, and notify them of such amount.
The sums for which States other than Turkey are liable shall be paid by those States to the Council of the Debt and shall be paid by the Council to the creditors, or credited to the Turkish Government up to the amount paid by Turkey, by way of interest or repayment, for the account of those States.
The payments referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be made by five equal annuities from the coming into force of the present Treaty. Such portion of these payments as is payable to the creditors of the Ottoman Empire shall bear interest at the rates laid down in the contracts governing the advances the portion to be credited to the Turkish Government shall be paid without interest.
The annuities for the service of the loans of the Ottoman Public Debt (as defined in Part A of the Table annexed to this Section) due by the States in favour of which a territory has been detached from the Ottoman Empire after the Balkan wars, shall be payable as from the coming into force of the treaties by which the respective territories were transferred to those States. In the case of the islands referred to in Article 12, the annuity shall be payable as from the 1st/14th November, 1913, and, in the case of the islands referred to in Article 15, as from the 17th October, 1912.
The annuities due by the States newly created in territories in Asia detached from the Ottoman Empire under the present Treaty, and by the State to which the territory referred to in the last paragraph of Article 46 has been attributed, shall be payable as from the 1st March, 1920.
The Treasury Bills of 1911, 1912 and 1913 included in Part A of the Table annexed to this Section shall be repaid, with interest at the agreed rate, within ten years from the dates fixed by the contracts.
The States referred to in Article 46, including Turkey, shall pay to the Ottoman Debt Council the amount of the annuities required for the service of their share of the Ottoman Public Debt (as defined in Part A of the Table annexed to this Section) to the extent that such annuities have remained unpaid as from the dates laid down by Article 53. This payment shall be made, without interest, by means of twenty equal annuities from the coming into force of the present Treaty.
The amount of the annuities paid to the Council of the Debt by the States other than Turkey shall, to the extent that they represent payments made by Turkey for the account of those States, be credited to Turkey on account of the arrears with which she is debited.
The Council of the Administration of the Ottoman Public Debt shall no longer include delegates of the German, Austrian and Hungarian bondholders.
Limits of time fixed for the presentation of coupons of or claims for interest upon the loans and advances of the Ottoman Public Debt and the Turkish Loans of 1855, 1891 and 1894 secured on the Egyptian tribute, and the limits of time fixed for the presentation of securities of these loans drawn for repayment, shall, on the territory of the High Contracting Parties, be considered as having been suspended from the 29th October, 1914, until three months after the coming into force of the present Treaty.
ANNEX I TO SECTION I.
Table of the Ottoman Pre-War Public Debt (November 1, 1914).
|Loan||Date of Contract||Interest %||Date of Redemption||Bank of Issue|
|Osmanie||18-30.4.1890||4||1931||Imperial Ottoman Bank|
|Tombac priority||26.4-8.5.1893||4||1954||Imperial Ottoman Bank|
|40,000,000fr (Oriental Railways)||I-13.3.1894||4||1957||Deutsche Bank and its group, Including International Bank and two French banks.|
|5%, 1896||29.2-12.3.1896||5||1946||Imperial Ottoman Bank|
|Customs, 1902||17-29.5.1886-28.9-11.10.1902||4||1958||Imperial Ottoman Bank|
|4%, 1903 (Fisheries)||3.10.1888-21.2-6.3.1903.||4||1958||Deutsche Bank|
|Bagdad, Series 1||20.2-5.3.1903||4||2001||Deutsche Bank|
|4%, 1904||4-17.9.1903||4||1960||Imperial Ottoman Bank|
|4%, 1901-1905||21.11-4.12.1901-6. 11.1903-25. 4-8.5.1905||4||1961||Imperial Ottoman Bank|
|Bagdad, Series II||20.5-2.6.1908||4||2006||Deutsche Bank|
|Bagdad, Series III||20.5-2.6.1908||4||2010||Deutsche Bank|
|4%, 1908||6-19.9.1908||4||1965||Imperial Ottoman Bank|
|4%, 1909||30.9-13.10.1909||4||1950||Imperial Ottoman Bank|
|Soma-Panderma||20.11-3.12.1910||4||1992||Imperial Ottoman Bank|
|Customs 1911||27.10-9.11.1910||4||1952||Deutsche Bank and its group|
|Plain of Koniah irrigation||5-18.1913||--||1932||--|
|Docks, arsenals and naval constructions||19.11-2 12.1913||5 1/2||1943||--|
|5%, 1914||13-26.4.1914||5||(1962)||Imperial Ottoman Bank|
|Avance Régie des Tabacs||4.8.1913||--||--||--|
|Treasury Bills, 5% 1911 (purchase of warships)||13-7.1911||5||1916*||National Bank of Turkey|
|Treasury Bills, Imperial||126.96.36.1992||6||1915*||Imperial Ottoman Bank|
|Treasury Bills, 1913 (induding the bills issued directly)||19.1-1.2.1913||5||1918*||Périer and Co.|
|Advance||Date of Contract||Interest %||Original Nominal Capital £ T|
|Bagdad Railway Company||3/16 June, 1908||7||300,000|
|Lighthouse Administration||5/18 August, 1904||8||55,000|
|Lighthouse Administration||5/18 July, 1907||7||300,000|
|Constanza Cable Company||27/9 October, 1904||4||17,335|
|Orphan's Fund||Various dates||--||153,147|
|Deutsche Bank||13/26 August, 1912||5.5||33,000|
|Lighthouse Administration||3/16 April, 1913||7||500,000|
|Anatolia Railway Company||23/5 March, 1914||6||200,000|
Turkey, on the one hand, and the other Contracting Powers (except Greece) on the other hand, reciprocally renounce all pecuniary claims for the loss and damage suffered respectively by Turkey and the said Powers and by their nationals (including juridical persons) between the 1st August, 1914, and the coming into force of the present Treaty, as the result of acts of war or measures of requisition, sequestration, disposal or confiscation.
Nevertheless, the above provisions are without prejudice to the provisions of Part III (Economic Clauses) of the present Treaty.
Turkey renounces in favour of the other Contracting Parties (except Greece) any right in the sums in gold transferred by Germany and Austria under Article 259 (I) of the Treaty of Peace of the 28th June, I9I9, with Germany, and under Article 210 (I) of the Treaty of Peace of the 10th September, 1919, with Austria.
The Council of the Administration of the Ottoman Public Debt is freed from all liability to make the payments which it was required to make by the Agreement of the 20th June, 1331 (3rd July, 1915) relating to the first issue of Turkish currency notes or by the words inscribed on the back of such notes.
Turkey also agrees not to claim from the British Government or its nationals the repayment of the sums paid for the warships ordered in England by the Ottoman Government which were requisitioned by the British Government in 1914, and renounces all claims in the matter.
Greece recognises her obligation to make reparation for the damage caused in Anatolia by the acts of the Greek army or administration which were contrary to the laws of war.
On the other hand, Turkey, in consideration of the financial situation of Greece resulting from the prolongation of the war and from its consequences, finally renounces all claims for reparation against the Greek Government.
The States in favour of which territory was or is detached from the Ottoman Empire after the Balkan wars or by the present Treaty shall acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated therein.
It is understood that the property and possessions of which the transfer from the Civil List to the State was laid down by the Irades of the 26th August, 1324 (8th September, I908) and the 20th April, 1325 (2nd May, I909), and also those which, on the 30th October, 1918, were administered by the Civil List for the benefit of a public service, are included among the property and possessions referred to in the preceding paragraph, the aforesaid States being subrogated to the Ottoman Empire in regard to the property and possessions in question. The Wakfs created on such property shall be maintained.
The dispute which has arisen between the Greek and Turkish Governments relating to property and possessions which have passed from the Civil List to the State and are situated in territories of the former Ottoman Empire transferred to Greece either after the Balkan wars, or subsequently, shall be referred to an arbitral tribunal at The Hague, in accordance with the special protocol No. 2 annexed to the Treaty of Athens of the 1st-4th November, 1913. The terms of reference shall be settled between the two Governments.
The provisions of this Article will not modify the juridical nature of the property and possessions registered in the name of the Civil List or administered by it, which are not referred to in the second and third paragraphs above.
The recipients of Turkish civil and military pensions who acquire under the present Treaty the nationality of a State other than Turkey, shall have no claim against the Turkish Government in respect of their pensions.
Turkey recognises the transfer of any claims to payment or repayment which Germany, Austria, Bulgaria or Hungary may have against her, in accordance with Article 261 of the Treaty of Peace concluded at Versailles on the 28th June, 1919, with Germany, and the corresponding articles of the Treaties of Peace of the l0th September, 1919, with Austria of the 27th November, 1919, with Bulgaria and of the 4th June, 1920 with Hungary.
The other Contracting Powers agree to release Turkey from the debts for which she is liable on this account.
The claims which Turkey has against Germany, Austria, Bulgaria and Hungary, are also transferred to the aforesaid Contracting Powers.
The Turkish Government, in agreement with the other Contracting Powers, hereby releases the German Government from the obligation incurred by it during the war to accept Turkish Government currency notes at a specified rate of exchange in payment for goods to be exported to Turkey from Germany after the war.
In this part, the expression "Allied Powers" means the Contracting Powers other than Turkey.
The term "Allied nationals" includes physical persons, companies and associations of the Contracting Powers other than Turkey, or of a State or territory under the protection of one of the said Powers.
The provisions of this Part relating to "Allied nationals" shall benefit persons who without having the nationality of one of the Allied Powers, have, in consequence of the protection which they in fact enjoyed at the hands of these Powers, received from the Ottoman authorities the same treatment as Allied nationals and have, on this account, been prejudiced.
PROPERTY, RIGHTS AND INTERESTS.
Property, rights and interests which still exist and can be identified in territories remaining Turkish at the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty, and which belong to persons who on the 29th October, 1914, were Allied nationals, shall be immediately restored to the owners in their existing state.
Reciprocally, property, rights and interests which still exist and can be identified in territories subject to the sovereignty or protectorate of the Allied Powers on the 29th October, 1914, or in territories detached from the Ottoman Empire after the Balkan wars and subject to-day to the sovereignty of any such Power, and which belong to Turkish nationals, shall be immediately restored to the owners in their existing state. The same provision shall apply to property, rights and interests which belong to Turkish nationals in territories detached from the Ottoman Empire under the present Treaty, and which may have been subjected to liquidation or any other exceptional measure whatever on the part of the authorities of the Allied Powers.
All property, rights and interests situated in territory detached from the Ottoman Empire under the present Treaty, which, after having been subjected by the Ottoman Government to an exceptional war measure, are now in the hands of the Contracting Power exercising authority over the said territory, and which can be identified, shall be restored to their legitimate owners, in their existing state. The same provision shall apply to immovable property which may have been liquidated by the Contracting Power exercising authority over the said territory. All other claims between individuals shall be submitted to the competent local courts.
All disputes relating to the identity or the restitution of property to which a claim is made shall be submitted to the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal provided for in Section V of this Part.
In order to give effect to the provisions of the first and second paragraphs of Article 65 the High Contracting Parties will, by the most rapid procedure, restore the owners to the possession of their property, rights and interests free from any burdens or encumbrances with which such property, rights and interests may have been charged without the consent of the said owners. It will be the duty of the Government of the Power effecting the restitution to provide for the compensation of third parties who may have acquired the property directly or indirectly from the said Government and who may be injured by this restitution. Disputes which may arise in connection with such compensation shall be dealt with by the ordinary courts.
In all other cases it will be open to any third parties who may be injured to take action against whoever is responsible, in order to obtain compensation.
In order to give effect to these provisions all acts of transfer or other exceptional war measures, which the High Contracting Parties may have carried out in respect of enemy property, rights and interests, shall be immediately cancelled and stayed when liquidation has not yet been completed. Owners who make claims shall be satisfied by the immediate restitution of their property, rights and interests as soon as these shall have been identified.
When at the date of the signature of the present Treaty the property, rights and interests, the restitution of which is provided for in Article 65. have been liquidated by the authorities of one of the High Contracting Parties, that Party shall be discharged from the obligation to restore the said property, rights and interests by payment of the proceeds of the liquidation to the owner. If, on application being made by the owner, the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal provided for by Section V finds that the liquidation was not effected in such conditions as to ensure the realisation of a fair price, it will have the power, in default of agreement between the parties, to order the addition to the proceeds of the liquidation of such amount as it shall consider equitable. The said property, rights and interests shall be restored if the payment is not made within two months from the agreement with the owner or from the decision of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal mentioned above.
Greece, Roumania and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State on the one hand, and Turkey on the other hand undertake mutually to facilitate, both by appropriate administrative measures and by the delivery of all documents relating thereto, the search on their territory for, and the restitution of, movable property of every kind taken away, seized or sequestrated by their armies or administrations in the territory of Turkey, or in the territory of Greece, Roumania or the Serb-Croat-Slovene State respectively, which are actually within the territories in question.
Such search and restitution will take place also as regards property of the nature referred to above seized or sequestrated by German, Austro-Hungarian or Bulgarian armies or administrations in the territory of Greece, Roumania or the Serb-Croat-Slovene State, which has been assigned to Turkey or to her nationals, as well as to property seized or sequestrated by the Greek, Roumanian or Serbian armies in Turkish territory, which has been assigned to Greece, Roumania or the Serb-Croat-Slovene State or to their nationals.
Applications relating to such search and restitution must be made within six months from the coming into force of the present Treaty.
Debts arising out of contracts concluded, in districts in Turkey occupied by the Greek army, between the Greek authorities and administrations on the one hand and Turkish nationals on the other, shall be paid by the Greek Government in accordance with the provisions of the said contracts.
No charge, tax or surtax to which, by virtue of the privileges which they enjoyed on the 1st August, 1914, Allied nationals and their property were not subject, shall be collected from Allied subjects or their property in respect of the financial years earlier than the financial year 1922-23.
If any sums have been collected after the 15th May, 1923, in respect of financial years earlier than the financial year 1922-l923, the amount shall be refunded to the persons concerned, as soon as the present Treaty comes into force.
No claim for repayment shall be made as regards sums encashed before the 15th May, 1923.
Claims based on Articles 65, 66 and 69 must be lodged with the competent authorities within six months, and, in default of agreement, with the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal within twelve months, from the coming into force of the present Treaty.
The British Empire, France, [taly, Roumania and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State or their nationals having begun claims or suits with regard to their property, rights and interests against the Ottoman Government before the 29th October, 1914, the provisions of this Section will not prejudice such claims or suits.
Claims or suits begun against the British, French, Italian, Roumanian or Serb-Croat-Slovene Governments by the Ottoman Government or its nationals will similarly not be prejudiced. These claims or suits will be continued against the Turkish Government and against the other Governments mentioned in this Article under the conditions existing before the 29th October, I9I4, due regard being had to the abolition of the Capitulations.
In the territories which remain Turkish by virtue of the present Treaty, property, rights and interests belonging to Germany, Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria or to their nationals, which before the coming into force of the present Treaty have been seized or occupied by the Allied Governments, shall remain in the possession of tlxese Governments until the conclusion of arrangements between them and the German, Austrian, Hungarian and Bulgarian Governments or their nationals who are concerned. If the above-mentioned property, rights and interests have been liquidated, such liquidation is confirmed.
In the territories detached from Turkey under the present Treaty, the Governments exercising authority there shall have power, within one year from the coming into force of the present Treaty, to liquidate the property, rights and interests belonging to Germany, Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria or to their nationals.
The proceeds of liquidations, whether they have already been carried out or not, shall be paid to the Reparation Commission established by the Treaty of Peace concluded with the States concerned, if the property liquidated belongs to the German, Austrian, Hungarian or Bulgarian State. In the case of liquidation of private property, the proceeds of liquidation shall be paid to the owners direct.
The provisions of this Article do not apply to Ottoman limited Companies.
The Turkish Government shall be in no way responsible for the measures referred to in the present Article.
SECTION II .
CONTRACTS, PRESCRIPTIONS AND JUDGMENTS.
The following classes of contracts concluded, before the date mentioned in Article 82, between persons who thereafter became enemies as defined in that Article, remain in force subject to the provisions of the contracts and to the stipulations of the present Treaty:
(a) Contracts for the sale of real property, even if all formalities may not have been concluded, provided that delivery did in fact take place before the date on which the parties became enemies as defined in Article 82.
(b) Leases and agreements for leases of land and houses entered into between individuals.
(c) Contracts between individuals regarding the exploitation of mines, forests or agricultural estates.
(d) Contracts of mortgage, pledge or lien.
(e) Contracts constituting companies, excepting "societes en 'nom collectif' " which do not constitute, under the law to which they are subject, an entity separate from that of the persons of which they are composed (partnerships).
(f) Contracts, whatever may be their purpose, concluded between individuals or companies and the State, provinces, municipalities or other similar juridical persons charged with administrative functions.
(g) Contracts relating to family status.
(h) Contracts relating to gifts or bounties of any kind whatever.
This Article cannot be invoked in order to give to contracts a validity different from that which they had in themselves when they were concluded.
It does not apply to concessionary contracts.
Insurance contracts are governed by the provisions of the Annex to this Section.
Contracts other than those specified in Articles 73 and 74 and other than concessionary contracts, which were entered into between persons who subsequently became enemies, shall be considered as having been annulled as from the date on which the parties became enemies.
Nevertheless, either of the parties to the contract shall have power, within three months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, to require the execution of the contract, on condition of paying, where the circumstances demand it, to the other party compensation calculated according to the difference between the conditions prevailing at the time when the contract was concluded and those prevailing at the time when its maintenance is required. In default of agreement between the parties, this compensation shall be fixed by the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal.
The validity of all compromises entered into before the coming into force of the present Treatybetween nationals of the Contracting Powers, parties to contracts specified in Articles 73 to 75, particularly those providing for the cancellation, the maintenance, the methods of execution, or the modification of such contracts, including agreements relating to the currency of payment or the rate of exchange, is confirmed.
Contracts between Allied and Turkish nationals concluded after the 30th October, I918, remain in force and will be governed by the ordinary law.
Contracts duly concluded with the Constantinople Government between the 30th October, I9I8, and the I6th March, I920, also remain in force and will be governed by the ordinary law.
All contracts and arrangements duly concluded after the 16th March, I920, with the Constantinople Government concerning territories which remained under the effective control of the said Government, shall be submitted to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey for approval, if the parties concerned make application within three months from the coming into force of the present Treaty. Payments made under such contracts shall be duly credited to the party who has made them.
If approval is not granted, the party concerned shall, if the circumstances demand it, be entitled to compensation corresponding to the direct loss which has been actually suffered such compensation, in default of an amicable agreement, shall be fixed by the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal.
The provisions of this Article are not applicable either to concessionary contracts or to transfers of concessions.
All disputes which already exist, or may arise within the period of six months mentioned below, relating to contracts, other than concessionary contracts, between parties who subsequently became enemies, shall be determined by the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, with the exception of disputes which, in accordance with the laws of neutral Powers are within the competence of the national courts of those Powers. In the latter case, such disputes shall be determined by the said national courts, to the exclusion of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal. Applications relating to disputes which, under this Article, are within the competence of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, must be presented to the said Tribunal within a period of six months from the date of its establishment.
After the expiration of this period, disputes which have not been submitted to the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal shall be determined by the competent courts in accordance with the ordinary law.
The provisions of this Article do not apply to cases in which all the parties to the contract resided in the same country during the war and there freely disposed of their persons and their property, nor to disputes in respect of which judgment was given by a competent court before the date on which the parties became enemies.
All periods whatever of prescription or limitation of right of action, whether they began to run before or after the outbreak of war, shall be treated, in the territory of the High Contracting Parties so far as regards relations between enemies, as having been suspended from the 29th October, I9I4, until the expiration of three months after the coming into force of the present Treaty.
This provision applies, in particular, to periods of time allowed for the presentation of interest or dividend coupons, or for the presentation for payment of securities drawn for redemption or repayable on any other ground.
As regards Roumania, the above-mentioned periods shall be considered as having been suspended as from the 27th August 19I6.
As between enemies no negotiable instrument made before the war shall be deemed to have become invalid by reason only of failure within the required time to present the instrument for acceptance or payrnent, or to give notice of non-acceptance or non-payment to drawers or endorsers, or to protest the instrument, nor by reason of failure to complete any formality during the war.
When the period within which a negotiable instrument should have been presented for acceptance or payment, or within which notice of non-acceptance or non-payment should have been given to the drawers or endorsers, or within which the instrument should have been protested, has expired during the war, and when the party who should have presented or protested the instrument or given notice of non-acceptance or non-payment, has failed to do so during the war, a period of three months from the coming into force of the present Treaty shall be allowed within which the presentation, notice of non-acceptance or non-payment, or protest may be made.
Sales effected during the war in order to realise pledges or mortgages created before the war as security for debts which have become payable, shall be deemed valid, although it may not have been possible to perform all the formalities required for notifying the debtor, subject to the express right of the said debtor to summon the creditor before the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal to render accounts, failing which the creditor will be liable to be cast in damages.
It shall be the duty of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal to settle the accounts between the parties, to investigate the conditions under which the property pledged or mortgaged was sold, and to order the creditor to make good any loss suffered by the debtor as a result of the sale if the creditor acted in bad faith or if he did not take all steps in his power to avoid having recourse to a sale or to cause the sale to be conducted in such conditions as to ensure the realisation of a fair price.
The present provision is applicable only between enemies and does not extend to transactions referred to above which may have been carried out after the Ist May, 1923.
For the purposes of the present Section, the parties to a contract shall be regarded as enemies from the date on which trading between them became impossible in fact or was prohibited or became unlawful under laws, orders or regulations to which one of the parties was subject.
By way of exception to Articles 73-75, 79 and 80, contracts shall be governed by the ordinary law if they were concluded within the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties between enemies (including companies) or their agents, if this territory was an enemy country for one of the contracting parties who remained there during the war and was there able to dispose freely of his person and property.
The provisions of this Section do not apply between Japan and Turkey matters dealt with in this Section shall, in both of these countries, be determined in accordance with the local law.
I. LIFE ASSURANCE.
Life assurance contracts entered into between an insurer and a person who subsequently became an enemy shall not be deemed to have been dissolved by the outbreak of war or by the fact of the person becoming an enemy.
Every sum which, during the war, became due upon a contract deemed not to have been dissolved in accordance with the preceding paragraph, shall be recoverable after the war. This sum shall be increased by interest at 5 per cent. per annum from the date of its becoming due up to the day of payment.
If the contract has lapsed during the war, owing to non-payment of premiums or has become void from breach of the conditions of the contract, the assured, or his representatives, or the persons entitled, shall have the right at any moment within twelve months from the coming into force of the present Treaty to claim from the insurer the surrender value of the policy at the date of its lapse or annulation, together with interest at 5 per cent. per annum.
Turkish nationals whose life insurance contracts entered into before the 29th October, 1914, have been cancelled or reduced before the Treaty for non-payment of premiums in accordance with the provisions of the said contracts, shall have the right, within three months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, if they are still alive, to restore their policies for the whole of the amount assured. For this purpose they must, after having undergone a medical examination by the doctor of the company, the result of which the company considers satisfactory, pay the premiums in arrear with compound interest at 5 per cent.
It is understood that life assurance contracts in money other than the Turkish pound, entered into before the 29th October, 19I4, between companies possessing the nationality of an Allied Power and Turkish nationals, in respect of which the premiums have been paid before and after the 18th November, 1915, or even only before that date, shall be regulated, first, by determining the rights of the assured in accordance with the general conditions of the policy for the period before the 18th November, 1915, in the currency stipulated in the contract at the current rate in its country of origin (for example, every amount stipulated in francs, in gold francs, or in "francs effectifs" will be paid in French francs), secondly, for the period after the 18th November, 19I5, in Turkish pounds paper-the Turkish pound being taken at the pre-war par value.
If Turkish nationals whose contracts were entered into in currency other than Turkish currency show that they have continued to pay their premiums since the 18th November, 1915, in the currency stipulated in the contracts, the said contracts shall be settled in the same currency at the current rate in its country of origin, even for the periocl after the 18th November, 19I5.
Turkish nationals whose contracts, entered into before the 29th October, 1914, in currency other than Turkish currency with companies possessing the nationality of an Allied Power are, owing to payment of premiums, still in force, shall have the right within three months after the coming into force of the present Treaty to restore their policies for the full amount, in the currency stipulated in their contract, at the current rate in its country of origin. For this purpose they must pay in this currency the premiums which have become due since the 18th November, 1915. On the other hand, the premiums actually paid by them in Turkish pounds paper since that date will be repaid to them in the same currency.
As regards insurances in Turkish pounds, settlement shall be made in Turkish pounds paper.
The provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 do not apply to policy holders who, by an express agreement, have already settled with the insurance companies the fixation of the value of their policies and the method of payment of their premiums, nor to those whose policies shall have been finally settled at the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty.
For the purposes of the preceding paragraphs, insurance contracts shall be considered as contracts of life insurance when they depend on the probabilities of human life, combined with the rate of interest, for the calculation of the reciprocal engagement between the two parties.
Subject to the provisions therein contained, contracts of marine insurance will not be deemed to have been dissolved where the risk had attached before the parties became enemies, but the policy shall not be deemed to cover losses due to belligerent action by the Power of which the insurer was a national or by the allies of that Power.
III. FIRE AND OTHER INSURANCES.
Subject to the reserve contained in the preceding paragraph, fire insurance contracts and all other forms of insurance contracts are not deemed to be dissolved.
The High Contracting Parties are in agreement in recognising that debts which were payable before the war or which became payable during the war under contracts entered into before the war, and which remained unpaid owing to the war, must be settled and paid, in accordance with the provisions of the contracts, in the currency agreed upon, at the rate current in its country of origin.
Without prejudice to the provisions of the Annex to Section II of this part, it is agreed that where payments to be made under a pre-war contract are represented by sums collected during the war in whole or in part in a currency other than that mentioned in the said contract, such payments can be made by handing over the sums actually collected, in the currency in which they were collected. This provision shall not affect settlements inconsistent with the foregoing provisions arrived at by voluntary agreement between the parties before the coming into force of the present Treaty.
The Ottoman Public Debt is by general agreement left outside the scope of.this Section and of the other Sections of this Part (Economic Clauses).
INDUSTRIAL, LITERARY AND ARTISTIC PROPERTY.
Subject to the stipulations of the present Treaty, rights of industrial, literary and artistic property as they existed on the 1st August, I9I4, in accordance with the law of each of the contracting countries, shall be re-established or restored as from the coming into force of the present Treaty in the territories of the High Contracting Parties in favour of the persons entitled to the benefit of them at the moment when the state of war commenced, or of their legal representatives. Equally, rights which, but for the war, could have been acquired during the war, by means of an application legally made for the protection of industrial property or of the publication of a literary or artistic work, shall be recognised and established in favour of those persons who would have been entitled thereto, from the coming into force of the present Treaty.
Without prejudice to the rights which are required to be restored in accordance with the above provision, all acts (including the grant of licences) done by virtue of the special measures taken during the war by a legislative, executive or administrative authority of an Allied Power in regard to the rights of Turkish nationals in respect of industrial, literary or artistic property, shall remain in force and continue to have their full effect. This provision applies mutatis mutandis to corresponding measures taken by Turkish authorities in regard to the rights of the nationals of any Allied Power.
A minimum of one year from the coming into force of the present Treaty shall be granted, without surtax or penalty of any kind, to Turkish nationals in the territory of each of the other Contracting Powers, and to the nationals of these Powers in Turkey, within which they may accomplish any act, fulfil any formality, pay any fees, and generally satisfy any obligation prescribed by the laws and regulations of the respective States for preserving or obtaining or opposing the grant of rights to industriai property which had already been acquired on the 1st August, I9I4, or which, but for the war, might have been acquired since that date by means of an application made before or during the war.
Rights to industrial property which have lapsed by reason of any failure to accomplish any act, fulfil any formality, or pay any fees shall be revived, but subject, in the case of patents and designs, to the adoption of such measures as each Power may deem reasonably necessary for the protection of the rights of third parties who have exploited or made use of patents or designs since they had lapsed.
The period from the Ist August, I9I4, until the coming into force of the present Treaty shall be excluded in calculating the time within which a patent has to be exploited or a trade-mark or design used, and it is further agreed that no patent, trade-mark or design in force on the Ist August, I9I4, shall be subject to revocation or cancellation by reason only of the failure to exploit such patent or use such trade-mark or design, for two years after the coming into force of the present Treaty.
No action shall be brought and no claim made on the one hand by Turkish nationals or persons residing or carrying on business in Turkey, and on the other hand by nationals of the Allied Powers or persons residing or carrying on their business in the territory of these Powers, nor by third parties having derived title during the war from such persons, by reason of any occurrence which has taken place within the territory of the other party, between the date of the beginning of a state of war and that of the coming into force of the present Treaty, which might tve held to constitute an infringement of rights of industrial property or rights of literary or artistic property either existing at any time during the war, or revived under the provisions of Article 86.
Among the occurrences referred to above are included the use by the Governments of the High Contracting Parties, or by any person acting on their behalf, or with their consent, of rights of industrial, literary or artistic property, as well as the sale, the offering for sale or the use of products, apparatus, or any articles whatsoever to which these rights apply.
Licences for the use of industrial property, or for the reproduction of literary or artistic works, granted before the war by or to nationals of the Allied Powers or persons residing in their territories or carrying on business therein, on the one hand, to or by Turkish nationals on the other hand, shall be considered as cancelled as from the date of the beginning of a state of war between Turkey and the Allied Power concerned. But in any case, the former beneficiary of a licence of this kind shall have the right within a period of six months from the coming into force of the present Treaty to require from the proprietor of the rights the grant of a new licence, the conditions of which, in default of agreement between the parties, shall be fixed by the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal referred to in Section V of this Part. The Tribunal shall have the power, where the circumstances demand it, to fix at the same time the amount which it considers fair payment for the use of the property during the war.
The inhabitants of territories detached from Turkey under the present Treaty shall, notwithstanding this transfer and the change of nationality consequent thereon, continue in complete enjoyment in Turkey of all the rights in industrial, literary and artistic property to which they were entitled under Ottoman law at the time of transfer.
Rights of industrial, literary and artistic property which are in existence in territories detached from Turkey under the present Treaty at the time of separation, or which are re-established or restored by the provisions of Article 86, shall be recognised by the State to which the said territory is transferred, and shall remain in existence in that territory for the same period of time as that which they would have enjoyed under Ottoman law.
All grants of patents and registrations of trade-marks, as well as all registrations of transfers or assignments of patents or trade marks which have been duly made since the 30th October, 1918, by the Imperial Ottoman Government at Constantinople or elsewhere, shall be submitted to the Turkish Government and registered, if the parties concerned make an application within three months from the coming into force of the present Treaty. Such registration shall have effect as from the date of the original registration.
MIXED ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL.
Within three months from the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty, a Mixed Arbitral Tribunal shall be established between each of the Allied Powers, on the one hand, and Turkey, on the other hand.
Each of these Tribunals shall be composed of three members, two being appointed respectively by each of the Governments concerned, who shall be entitled to designate several persons from whom, according to the case in question, they will choose one to sit as a member of the Tribunal. The president shall be chosen by agreement between the two Governments concerned.
In case of failure to reach agreement within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, the president shall be appointed, upon the request of one of the Governments concerned, from among nationals of Powers which remained neutral during the war, by the President of the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague.
If within the said period of two months one of the Governments concerned does not appoint a member to represent it on the Tribunal, the Council of the League of Nations will have power to proceed to the appointment of such member upon the request of the other Government concerned.
If a member of the Tribunal should die or resign or for any reason become unable to perform his duties, he shall be replaced by the method laid down for his appointment, the above period of two months running from the date of death, resignation or inability as duly verified.
The seat of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunals shall be at Constantinople. If the number and character of the cases justify it, the Governments concerned shall be entitled to create in each Tribunal onc or more additional Sections, the seat of which shall be in whatever place may be convenient. Each of these Sections shall be composed of a vice-president and two members appointed as laid down in the second, third, fourth and fifth paragraphs of Article 92.
Each Government shall appoint one or more agents to represent it before the Tribunal.
If, after three years from the establishment of a Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, or of one of its Sections, such Tribunal or Section has not finished its work, and if the Power on whose territory such Tribunal or Section has its seat so requests, the seat shall be removed from such territory.
The Mixed Arbitral Tribunals established pursuant to Articles 92 and 93 shall decide all questions within their competence under the present Treaty.
Decisions shall be taken by a majority.
The High Contracting Parties agree to regard the decisions of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunals as final and conclusive, and to render them binding upon their nationals, and to ensure their enforcement in their respective territories as soon as the decisions of the Tribunals are notified to them, without it being necessary to have them declared executory.
The High Contracting Parties further undertake that their Tribunals and authorities shall directly assist the fixed Arbitral Tribunals in every way that is in their power, particularly as re- gards the transmission of notices and the collection of evidence.
The Mixed Arbitral Tribunals shall be guided by justice, equity and good faith.
Each Tribunal will determine the language to be used before it, and shall order such translations to be made as are necessary to ensure that the proceedings are completely understood it will lay down rules and time limits for the procedure to be observed. These rules must be based on the following principles:
(I) The procedure shall include the presentation of a memorial and a counter-memorial respectively, with the option of presenting a reply and a rejoinder. If either of the parties asks for leave to present an oral argument he will be permitted to do so in such case the other party will have the same right.
(2) The Tribunal shall have full power to order enquiries, the production of documents, and expert examinations, to make a view, to demand any information, to hear any witnesses and to ask the parties or their representatives for any verbal or written explanations.
(3) Subject to any contrary provision in the present Treaty, no claim shall be admitted after the expiry of a period of six months from the establishment of the Tribunal, except upon express authority contained in a decision of the said Tribunal and justified as an exceptional measure by considerations relating to distance or force majeure.
(4) It shall be the duty of the Tribunal to hold as many sittings each week as may be needed for the prompt despatch of its business, except during vacations, which shall not exceed a total of eight weeks a year.
(5) Judgment must always be given within at most two months from the end of the hearing, after which the Tribunal will at once proceed to consider its judgment.
(6) Oral arguments, if any, shall be heard in public, and in all cases judgment shall be delivered in public.
(7) Each Mixed Arbitral Tribunal shall be entitled to hold sittings elsewhere than in the place where its seat is established, if it considers it advantageous for the despatch of business.
The Governments concerned shall appoint by agreement a Secretary-General for each Tribunal, and shall each attach to him one or more Secretaries. The Secretary-General and the Secretaries shall be under the orders of the Tribunal, which with the consent of the Governments concerned shall be entitled to engage any persons whose assistance it may need.
The Secretariat of each Tribunal shall have its offices at Constantinople. The Governments concerned shall have power to establish additional offices in such other places as may be convenient.
Each Tribunal shall keep in its Secretariat the records, papers and documents relating to the cases submitted to it, and upon the completion of its duties it shall deposit them in the archives of the Government of the country where its seat is established. These archives shall always be accessible to the Governments concerned.
Each Government shall pay the emoluments of the member of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal whom it appoints, as well as those of any agent or secretary appointed by it.
The emoluments of the President and those of the Secretary-General shall be fixed by agreement between the Governments concerned, and these emoluments and the general expenses of the Tribunal shall be paid in equal shares by the two Governments.
The present section shall not apply to cases between Japan and Turkey, which, according to the terms of the present Treaty, would fall within the competence of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal. Such cases shall be settled by agreement between the two Govern- ments.
From the coming into force of the present Treaty and subject to the provisions thereof, the multilateral treaties, conventions and agreements of an economic or technical character enumerated below shall enter again into force between Turkey and those of the other Contracting Powers party thereto:
(I) Conventions of March 14, 1884, of December 1, 1886, and of March 23, 1887, and Final Protocol of July 7, 1887, regarding the protection of submarine cables
(2) Convention of July 5, 1890, regarding the publication of customs tariffs and the organisation of an International Union for the publication of customs tariffs
(3) Arrangement of December 9, 1907, regarding the creation of the International Office of Public Hygiene at Paris
(4) Convention of June 7, 1905, regarding the creation of an International Agricultural Institute at Rome
(5) Convention of July 16, 1863, for the redemption of the toll dues on the Scheldt
(6) Convention of October 29, 1888, regarding the establishment of a definite arrangement guaranteeing the free use of the Suez Canal, subject to the special stipulations provided for by Article 19 of the present Treaty
(7) Conventions and Agreements of the Universal Postal Union, including the Conventions and Agreements signed at Madrid on November 30, 1920
(8) International Telegraphic Conventions signed at St. Petersburgh on July 10-22, 1875 Regulations and Tariffs drawn up by the International Telegraph Conference, Lisbon, June 11, 1908.
Turkey undertakes to adhere to the Conventions or Agreements enumerated below, or to ratify them:
(I) Convention of October 11, 1909, regarding the inter- national circulation of motor cars
(2) Agreement of May 15, 1886, regarding the sealing of railway trucks subject to customs inspection and Protocol of May 18, 1907
(3) Convention of September 23, 1910, respecting the unification of certain regulations regarding collisions and salvage at sea
(4) Convention of December 21, 1904, regarding exemption of hospital ships from dues and charges in ports
(5) Conventions of May 18, 1904, of May 4, 1910, and of September 30, 1921, regarding the suppression of the White Slave Traffic
(6) Conventions of May 4, 1910, regarding the suppression of obscene publications
(7) Sanitary Convention of January 17, 1912, Articles 54, 88 and 90 being reserved
(8) Conventions of November 3, 1881, and April 15, 1889, regarding precautionary measures against phylloxera
(9) Opium Convention, signed at The Hague, January 23, 1912, and additional Protocol of 1914
(10) International Radio-Telegraphic Convention of July 5, 1912
(11) Convention regarding liquor traffic in Africa, signed at St. Germain-en-Laye, September 10, 1919
(12) Convention revising the General Act of Berlin of February 26, 1885, and the General Act and Declaration of Brussels of July 2, I890, signed at St. Germain-en-Laye, September 10, 1919
(13) Convention of October 13, 1919, regulating aerial navigation, provided that Turkey obtains, under the Protocol of May 1, 1920, such derogations as her geographical situation may render necessary
(14) Convention of September 26, 1906, signed at Berne, prohibiting the use of white phosphorus in the manufacture of matches.
Turkey further undertakes to take part in the elaboration of new international conventions relating to telegraphy and radio-telegraphy.
COMMUNICATIONS AND SANITARY QUESTIONS.
Turkey undertakes to adhere to the Convention and to the Statute respecting the Freedom of Transit adopted by the Conference of Barcelona on the 14th April, 192I, as well as to the Convention and the Statute respecting the regime for waterways of international interest adopted by the said Conference on the 19th April, 1921, and to the supplementary Protocol.
Turkey accordingly undertakes to bring into force the provisions of these Conventions, Statutes and Protocol as from the entry into force of the present Treaty.
Turkey undertakes to adhere to the Declaration of Barcelona. dated the 20th April, 1921, "recognising the rights of the flag of States not possessing a sea-board."
Turkey undertakes to adhere to the recommendations of the Conference of Barcelona, dated the 20th April, 1921, respecting ports placed under an international regime. Turkey will subsequently make known those ports which will be placed under that regime.
Turkey undertakes to adhere to the recommendations of the Conference of Barcelona, dated the 20th April, 1921, respecting international railways. These recommendations will be brought into force by the Turkish Government on the coming into force of the present Treaty and subject to reciprocity.
On the coming into force of the present Treaty, Turkey agrees to subscribe to the Conventions and arrangements signed at Berne on October 14, 1890, September 20, 1893, July I6, 1895, June 16, 1898, and September 19, 1906, regarding the transportation of goods by rail.
When, as a result of the fixing of new frontiers, a railway connection between two parts of the same country crosses another country, or a branch line from one country has its terminus in another, the conditions of working, in so far as concerns the traffic between the two countries, shall, subject to any special arrangements, be laid down in an agreement to be concluded between the railway administrations concerned. If these administrations cannot come to an agreement as to the terms of such agreement, those conditions shall be decided by arbitration.
The establishment of all new frontier stations between Turkey and the neighbouring States, as well as the working of the lines between those stations, shall be settled by agreements similarly concluded .
Travellers and goods coming from or destined for Turkey or Greece, and making use in transit of the three sections of the Oriental Railways included between the Grseco-Bulgarian frontier and the Grceco-Turkish frontier near Kuleli-Burgas, shall not be subject, on account of such transit, to any duty or toll nor to any formality of examination in connection with passports or customs.
A Commissioner, who shall be selected by the Council of the League of Nations, shall ensure that the stipulations of this Article are carried out.
The Greek and Turkish Governments shall each have the right to appoint a representative to be attached to this Commissioner this representative shall have the duty of drawing the attention of the Commissioner to any question relating to the execution of the above-mentioned stipulations, and shall enjoy all the necessary facilities to enable him to accomplish his task. These representatives shall reach an agreement with the Commissioner as to the number and nature of the subordinate staff which they will require.
It shall be the duty of the said Commissioner to submit, for the decision of the Council of the League of Nations, any question relating to the execution of the said stipulations which he may not have been able to settle. The Greek and Turkish Governments undertake to carry out any decision given by the majority vote of the said Council.
The salary of the said Commissioner, as well as the expenses of his work, shall be borne in equal parts by the Greek and Turkish Governments.
In the event of Turkey constructing later a railway line joining Adrianople to the line between Kuleli-Burgas and Constantinople, the stipulations of this Article shall lapse in so far as concerns transit between the points on the Graoco-Turkish frontier lying near Kuleli-Burgas and Bosna-Keuy respectively.
Each of the two interested Powers shall have the right, after five years from the coming into force of the present Treaty, to apply to the Council of the League of Nations with a view to deciding whether it is necessary that the control mentioned in paragraphs 2 to 5 of the present Article should be maintained. Nevertheless, it remains understood that the stipulations of paragraph I shall remain in force for transit over the two sections of the Oriental Railways between the Graeco-Bulgarian frontier and Bosna-Keuy.
Subject to any special provisions concerning the transfer of ports and railways, whether owned by the Turkish Government or private companies, situated in the territories detached from Turkey under the present Treaty, and similarly subject to any agreements which have been, or may be, concluded between the Contracting Powers relating to the concessionnaries and the pensioning of the personnel, the transfer of railways will take place under the following conditions:
(I) The works and installations of all the railroads shall be left complete and in as good condition as possible
(2) When a railway system possessing its own rolling-stock is situated in its entirety in transferred territory, such stock shall be left complete with the railway, in accordance with the last inventory before the 30th October, 1918
(3) As regards lines, the administration of which will in virtue of the present Treaty be divided, the distribution of the rolling-stock shall be made by friendly agreement between the administrations taking over the several sections thereof. This agreement shall have regard to the amount of the material registered on those lines in the last inventory before the 30th October, 1918, the length of the track (sidings included) and the nature and amount of the traffic. Failing agreement, the points in dispute shall be settled by arbitration. The arbitral decision shall also, if necessary, specify the locomotives, carriages and wagons to be left on each section, the conditions of their acceptance and such provisional arrangements as may be judged necessary to ensure for a limited period the current maintenance in existing workshops of the transferred stock
(4) Stocks of stores, fittings and plant shall be left under the same conditions as the rolling-stock.
In default of any provisions to the contrary, when as the result of the fixing of a new frontier the hydraulic system (canalisation, inundation, irrigation, drainage or similar matters) in a State is dependent on works executed within the territory of another State, or when use is made on the territory of a State, in virtue of pre-war usage, of water or hydraulic power, the source of which is on the territory of another State, an agreement shall be made between the States concerned to safeguard the interests and rights acquired by each of them.
Failing an agreement, the matter shall be regulated by arbitration.
Roumania and Turkey will come to an agreement as to an equitable arrangement for the working conditions of the Constanza-Constantinople cable. Failing agreement, the matter shall be settled by arbitration.
Turkey renounces on her own behalf and on behalf of her nationals all rights, titles or privileges of whatsoever nature over the whole or part of such cables as no longer land on her territory.
If the cables or portions thereof transferred under the preceding paragraph are privately owned, the Governments to which this property is transferred will have to indemnify the owners. Failing agreement respecting the amount of indemnity, this amount will be fixed by arbitration.
Turkey will retain the rights of property which she may already possess over those cables of which at least one end remains in Turkish territory.
The exercise of the landing rights of the said cables in non-Turkish territory and their working conditions shall be settled in a friendly manner by the States concerned. Failing agreement, the dispute will be settled by arbitration.
Each of the High Contracting Parties hereby accepts, in so far as it is concerned, the abolition of foreign post offfices in Turkey.
The Superior Council of Health of Constantinople is abolished. The Turkish Administration is entrusted with the sanitary organisation of the coasts and frontiers of Turkey.
A single sanitary tariff, the dues and conditions of which shall be fair, shall be applied to all ships without distinction between the Turkish flag and foreign flags, and to nationals of foreign Powers under the same conditions as to nationals of Turkey.
Turkey undertakes to respect entirely the right of the sanitary employees whose services have been terminated to compensation to be appropriated out of the funds of the former Superior Council of Health of Constantinople, and all other rights acquired by employees or former employees of the Council, or their representatives. All questions relating to such rights, to the employment of the reserve funds of the former Superior Council of Health of Constantinople, or to the final liquidation of the former sanitary administration, as well as all other similar or cognate questions, shall be regulated by a Commission ad hoc which shall be composed of a representative of each of the Powers represented on the Superior Council of Health of Constantinople except Germany, Austria and Hungary. In the event of disagreement between the members of the said Commission on a question relating to the above-mentioned liquidation, or the employment of the funds remaining after the liquidation, every Power represented on the Commission shall have the right to bring the matter to the notice of the Council of the League of Nations, whose decision shall be final.
Turkey and those Powers which are interested in the supervision of the pilgrimages to Jerusalem and to the Hedjaz and the Hedjaz railway shall take such measures as are appropriate in accordance with the provisions of international sanitary conventions. With a view to ensuring complete uniformity in the execution of these measures, these Powers and Turkey shall constitute a Sanitary Coordination Commission for pilgrimages, on which the sanitary service of Turkey and the Maritime Sanitary and Quarantine Council of Egypt shall be represented.
This Commission must obtain the previous consent of the State on whose territory it holds its meeting.
Reports on the work of the Pilgrimage Coordination Commission shall be addressed to the Health Committee of the League of Nations and to the International Office of Public Health, and also to the Government of each country which is interested in pilgrimages and makes a request therefor. The Commission will give its opinion on every question put to it by the League of Nations, by the International Office of Public Health, or by the interested Governments.
PRISONERS 0F WAR.
The High Contracting Parties agree to repatriate at once the prisoners of war and interned civilians who are still in their hands.
The exchange of prisoners of war and interned civilians detained by Greece and Turkey respectively forms the subject of a separate agreement between those Powers signed at Lausanne on the 30th January,1923.
Prisoners of war and interned civilians awaiting disposal or undergoing sentence for offences against discipline shall be repatriated irrespective of the completion of their sentence or of the proceedings pending against them.
Prisoners of war and interned civilians who are awaiting trial or undergoing sentence for offences other than those against discipline may be detained.
The High Contracting Parties agree to give every facility in their respective territories for the search for the missing and the identification of prisoners of war and interned civilians who have expressed their desire not to be repatriated.
The High Contracting Parties undertake to restore on the coming into force of the present Treaty all articles, money, securities, documents and personal effects of every description which have belonged to prisoners of war or interned civilians and which have been retained.
The High Contracting Parties waive reciprocally all repayments of sums due for the maintenance of prisoners of war captured by their armies.
Without prejudice to the special provisions of Article 126 of the present Treaty, the High Contracting Parties will cause to be respected and maintained within the territories under their authority the cemeteries, graves, ossuaries and memorials of soldiers and sailors who fell in action or died from wounds accident or disease since the 29th October, 1914, as well as of prisoners of war and interned civilians who died in captivity after that date.
The High Contracting Parties will agree to accord in their respective territories all necessary facilities to such Commissions as each Contracting Power may appoint for the purpose of the identification, registration and maintenance of the said cemeteries, ossuaries and graves, and the erection of memorials on their sites. Such Commissions shall not have any military character.
The High Contracting Parties reciprocally undertake, subject to the provisions of their national laws and the requirements of public health, to furnish each other every facility for giving effect to requests that the bodies of such soldiers and sailors may be transferred to their own country.
The High Contracting Parties further undertake to furnish each other:
(I) A complete list of prisoners of war and interned civilians who have died in captivity, together with all information tending towards their identification.
(2) All information as to the number and position of the graves of all those who have been buried without identification.
The maintenace of the graves, cemeteries, ossuaries and memorials of Turkish soldiers, sailors and prisoners of war who may have died on Roumanian territory since the 27th August 1916, as well as all other obligations under Articles 124 and 125 regarding interned civilians, shall form the object of a special arrangement between the Roumanian and the Turkish Governments.
In order to complete the general provisions included in Articles 124 and 125, the Governments of the British Empire, France and Italy on the one hand and the Turkish and Greek Governments on the other agree to the special provisions contained in Articles 128 to 136.
The Turkish Government undertakes to grant to the Governments of the British Empire, France and Italy respectively and in perpetuity the land within the Turkish territory in which are situated the graves, cemeteries, ossuaries or memorials of their soldiers and sailors who fell in action or died of wounds, accident or disease, as well as those of prisoners of war and interned civil- ians who died in captivity.
The Turkish Government will also grant to those Governments the land which the Commissions provided for in Article 130 shall consider necessary for the establishment of cemeteries for the regrouping of graves, for ossuaries or memorials.
The Turkish Government undertakes further to give free access to these graves, cemeteries, ossuaries and memorials, and if need be to authorise the construction of the necessary roads and pathways.
The Greek Government undertakes to fulfil the same obligations in so far as concerns its territory.
The above provisions shall not affect Turkish or Greek sovereignty over the land thus granted.
The land to be granted by the Turkish Government will include in particular, as regards the British Empire, the area in the region known as Anzac (Ari Burnu), which is shown on Map No. 3. [See Introduction.] The occupation of the above-mentioned area shall be subject to the following conditions:
(1) This area shall not be applied to any purpose other than that laid down in the present Treaty consequently it shall not be utilised for any military or commercial object nor for any other object foreign to the purpose mentioned above
(2) The Turkish Government shall, at all times, have the right to cause this area, including the cemeteries, to be inspected
(3) The number of civil custodians appointed to look after the cemeteries shall not exceed one custodian to each cemetery. There shall not be any special custodians for the parts of the area Iying outside the cemeteries
(4) No dwelling houses may be erected in the area, either inslde or outside the cemeteries, except such as are strictly necessary for the custodians
(5) On the sea shore of the area no quay, jetty or wharfs may be built to facilitate the landing or embarkation of persons or goods
(6) Such formalities as may be required may only be fulfilled on the coast inside the Straits and access to the area by the coast on the AEgean Sea shall only be permitted after these formalities have been fulfilled. The Turkish Government agrees that these formalities, which shall be as simple as possible, shall not be, without prejudice to the other stipulations of this Article, more onerous than those imposed on other foreigners entering Turkey, and that they should be fulfilled under conditions tending to avoid all unnecessary delay
(7) Persons who desire to visit the area must not be armed, and the Turkish Government have the right to see to the enforcement of this strict prohibition
(8) The Turkish Government must be informed at least a week in advance of the arrival of any party of visitors exceeding 150 persons.
Each of the British, French and Italian Governments shall appoint a commission, on which the Turkish and Greek Governments will appoint a representative, to which will be entrusted the duty of regulating on the spot questions affecting the graves, cemeteries, ossuaries and memorials. The duties of these commissions shall extend particularly to:
(1) the offficial recognition of the zones where burials have or may have already taken place and the registration of cemeteries, ossuaries, or memorials already existing
(2) fixing the conditions in which, if necessary, graves may in future be concentrated, and deciding, in conjunction with the Turkish representative in Turkish territory and the Greek representative in Greek territory, the sites of the cemeteries, ossuaries and memorials still to be established, and defining the boundaries of these sites in such a way as shall restrict the land to be occupied within the limits indispensable for the purpose
(3) communicating to the Turkish and Greek Governments in the name of the respective Governments a final plan of their graves, cemeteries, ossuaries and memorials, whether already established or to be established.
The Government in whose favour the grant is made undertakes not to employ the land nor to allow it to be employed for any purpose other than that to which it is dedicated. If this land is situated on the coast, the shore may not be employed by the concessionary Government for any military, marine or commercial purpose of whatever nature. The sites of graves and cemeteries which may no longer be used for that purpose and which are not used for the erection of memorials shall be returned to the Turkish or Greek Government.
Any necessary legislative or administrative measures for the grant to the British, French and Italian Governments respectively of full, exclusive and perpetual use of the land referred to in Articles 128 to 130 shall be taken by the Turkish Government and Greek Government respectively within six months of the date of the notification to be made in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 130. If any compulsory acquisition of the land is necessary, it will be effected by and at the cost of the Turkish Government or the Greek Government, as the case may be.
The British, French and Italian Governments may respectively entrust to such organisations as each of them may deem fit the establishment, arrangement and maintenance of the graves, cemeteries, ossuaries and memorials of their nationals. These organisations shall have no military character. They alone shall have the right to undertake the exhumation or removal of bodies necessary for the concentration of graves and establishment of cemeteries and ossuaries, as well as the exhumation and removal of such bodies as the Governments to whom the grant of land is made shall deem it necessary to transfer to their own country.
The British, French and Italian Governments shall have the right to entrust the maintenance of their graves, cemeteries, ossuaries and memorials in Turkey to custodians appointed from among their own nationals. These custodians shall be recognised by the Turkish authorities and shall receive from them every assistance necessary for the safeguard and protection of these graves, cemeteries, ossuaries and memorials. The custodians shall have no military character, but may be armed for their personal defence with a revolver or automatic pistol.
The land referred to in Articles 128 to 131 shall not be subjected by Turkey or the Turkish authorities, or by Greece or the Greek authorities, as the case may be, to any form of rent or taxation. Representatives of the British, French or Italian Governments as well as persons desirous of visiting the graves, cemeteries, ossuaries and memorials, shall at all times have free access thereto. The Turkish Government and the Greek Government respectively undertake to maintain in perpetuity the roads leading to the said land.
The Turkish Government and the Greek Government respectively undertake to afford to the British, French and Italian Governments all necessary facilities for obtaining a sufficient water supply for the requirements of the staff engaged in the maintenance or protection of the said graves, cemeteries, ossuaries and memorials, and for the irrigation of the land.
The British, French and Italian Governments undertake to accord to the Turkish Government the benefits of the provisions contained in Articles 128 and 130 to 135 of the present Treaty for the establishment of graves, cemeteries, ossuaries and memorials of Turkish soldiers and sailors existing on the territories under their authority, including the territories detached from Turkey.
Subject to any agreements concluded between the High Contracting Parties, the decisions talcen and orders issued since the 30th October, 1918, until the coming into force of the present Treaty, by or in agreement with the authorities of the Powers who have occupied Constantinople, and concerning the property, rights and interests of their nationals, of foreigners or of Turkish nationals, and the relations of such persons with the authorities of Turkey, shall be regarded as definitive and shall give rise to no claims against the Powers or their authority.
All other claims arising from injury suffered in consequence of any such decisions or orders shall be submitted to the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal.
In judicial matters, the decisions given and orders issued in Turkey from the 30th October, 1918, until the coming into force of the present Treaty by all judges, courts or authorities of the Powers who have occupied Constantinople, or by the Provisional Mixed Judicial Commission established on the 8th December, 1921, as well as the measures taken in execution of such decisions or orders, shall be regarded as definitive, without prejudice, however, to the terms of paragraphs IV and VI of the Amnesty Declaration dated this day.
Nevertheless, in the event of a claim being presented by a private person in respect of damage suffered by him in consequence of a judicial decision in favour of another private person given in a civil matter by a military or police court, this claim shall be brought before the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, which may in a proper case, order the payment of compensation or even restitution of the property in question.
Archives, registers, plans, title-deeds and other documents of every kind relating to the civil, judicial or financial administration, or the administration of Wakfs, which are at present in Turkey and are only of interest to the Government of a territory detached from the Ottoman Empire, and reciprocally those in a territory detached from the Ottoman Empire which are only of interest to the Turkish Government, shall reciprocally be restored.
Archives, registers, plans, title-deeds and other documents mentioned above which are considered by the Government in whose possession they are as being also of interest to itself, may be retained by that Government, subject to its furnishing on request photographs or certified copies to the Government concerned.
Archives, registers, plans, title-deeds and other documents which have been taken away either from Turkey or from detached territories shall reciprocally be restored in original, in so far as they concern exclusively the territories from which they have been taken.
The expense entailed by these operations shall be paid by the Government applying therefor.
The above stipulations apply in the same manner to the registers relating to real estates or Wakfs in the districts of the former Ottoman Empire transferred to Greece after 1912.
Prizes made during the war between Turkey and the other Contracting Powers prior to the 30th October, 1918, shall give rise to no claim on either side. The same shall apply to seizures effected after that date, for violation of the armistice, by the Powers who have occupied Constantinople.
It is understood that no claim shall be made, either by the Governments of the Powers who have occupied Constantinople or their nationals, or by the Turkish Government or its nationals, respecting small craft of all kinds, vessels of light tonnage, yachts and lighters which any of the said Governments may, between the 29th October, 1914, until the 1st January, 1923, have disposed of in their own harbours or in harbours occupied by them. Nevertheless, this stipulation does not prejudice the terms of paragraph VI of the Amnesty Declaration dated this day, nor the claims which private persons may be able to establish against other private persons in virtue of rights held before the 29th October, 1914.
Vessels under the Turkish flag seized by the Greek forces after the 30th October, 1918, shall be restored to Turkey.
In accordance with Article 25 of the present Treaty, Articles 155, 250 and 440 and Annex III, Part VIII (Reparation) of the Treaty of Peace of Versailles, dated the 28th June, 1919, the Turkish Government and its nationals are released from any liability to the German Government or to its nationals in respect of German vessels which were the object during the war of a transfer by the German Government or its nationals to the Ottoman Government or its nationals without the consent of the Allied Governments, and at present in the possession of the latter.
The same shall apply, if necessary, in the relations between Turkey and the other Powers which fought on her side.
The separate Convention concluded on the 30th January, 1923, between Greece and Turkey, relating to the exchange of the Greek and Turkish populations, will have as between these two High Contracting Parties the same force and effect as if it formed part of the present Treaty.
The present Treaty shall be ratified as soon as possible.
The ratifications shall be deposited at Paris.
The Japanese Government will be entitled merely to inform the Government of the French Republic through their diplomatic representative at Paris when their ratification has been given in that case, they must transmit the instrument of ratification as soon as possible.
Each of the Signatory Powers will ratify by one single instrument the present Treaty and the other instruments signed by it and mentioned in the Final Act of the Conference of Lausanne, in so far as these require ratification.
A first proces-verbal of the deposit of ratifications shall be drawn up as soon as Turkey, on the one hand, and the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan, or any three of them, on the other hand, have deposited the instruments of their ratifications.
From the date of this first proces-verbal the Treaty will come into force between the High Contracting Parties who have thus ratified it, Thereafter it will come into force for the other Powers at the date of the deposit of their ratifications.
As between Greece and Turkey, however, the provisions of Articles 1, 2 (2) and 5-11 inclusive will come into force as soon as the Greek and Turkish Governments have deposited the instruments of their ratifications, even if at that time the proces-verbal referred to above has not yet been drawn up.
The French Government will transmit to all the Signatory Powers a certified copy of the proces-verbaux of the deposit of ratifications.
In faith whereof the above-named Plenipotentiaries have slgned the present Treaty.
Done at Lausanne, the 24th July, 1923, in a single copy, which will be deposited in the archives of the Government of the French Republlc, which will transmit a certified copy to each of the Contracting Powers.
Guide to the World Conference on Faith and Order Collection 1913-1927
This collection consists of publications and other materials related to the first World Conference on Faith and Order, proposed by the Episcopal Church in 1911 in the name of ecumenical consensus and Christian unity, and finally held in 1927 in Lausanne, Switzerland. The collection documents the lengthy process of planning and promoting the first conference, which launched the ecumenical Faith and Order Movement
Information on Use
Open for research. No restrictions.
When quoting material from this collection, the preferred citation is: World Conference on Faith and Order. Collection, [Box #, Folder #], Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library
A World Conference on Faith and Order was first proposed by the Episcopal Church in 1910 to build ecumenical consensus and Christian unity. The conference took years to plan, delayed by World War I as well as the inherent organizational challenges of such an event. Finally, in 1927, 394 delegates representing 108 churches attended the first World Conference on Faith and Order in Lausanne, Switzerland. The event launched the ecumenical Faith and Order Movement, advocated by the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches. Conferences have since been held in Europe and Canada.
This collection consists largely of Episcopal Church pamphlets and other publications related to planning and promotion of the conference. Also included are periodicals, ephemera, news releases and correspondence from a variety of sources in response to the conference.
The following related resources are located in the Department of Special Collections: