Treaty Law as Political Signaling: Turkey, Whaling, and the Cyprus Question

On December 31st 2025, the U.S. Department of State issued a Depositary Notification announcing that the Republic of Türkiye had adhered to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (1946) and its 1956 Protocol. On its face, the document appears routine—an administrative notice confirming Turkey’s participation in an environmental treaty governing whaling activities.

Yet buried within this technical act is a familiar and controversial political statement. Turkey’s adherence was accompanied by a declaration reiterating its long-standing position on Cyprus, explicitly denying recognition of the Republic of Cyprus and asserting that no single authority represents the island as a whole. This move, while legally limited in effect, is politically significant and raises broader concerns about respect for international law and the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter.

A Treaty About Whales — and Nothing Else

The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling exists to manage whale conservation and regulate whaling practices through the International Whaling Commission (IWC). Cyprus, sovereignty disputes, and questions of recognition are entirely unrelated to the treaty’s subject matter.

For this reason, Turkey’s declaration is legally unnecessary. Nothing in the convention obliges Turkey to recognize, engage with, or politically acknowledge any other state beyond the technical functioning of the treaty. The inclusion of a Cyprus-related declaration therefore serves no functional treaty purpose. Instead, it functions as political signaling.

Restating a Rejected Position

In its declaration, Turkey:

• Claims there is no legitimate authority representing the whole of Cyprus;

• Limits the authority of the internationally recognized Cypriot government to the southern part of the island;

• Asserts that Turkey’s treaty participation must not be construed as recognition of the Republic of Cyprus.

This position runs directly counter to the international consensus. The Republic of Cyprus is recognized by the United Nations, the European Union, and the overwhelming majority of states worldwide. Turkey remains the sole country to deny its recognition, a stance rooted in the aftermath of the 1974 military intervention and the subsequent division of the island.

By repeating this position in unrelated international legal instruments, Turkey is not clarifying law—it is entrenching dispute.

Undermining the Spirit of the UN Charter

More broadly, this practice raises concerns about the erosion of the principles of the UN Charter, particularly those relating to:

• Sovereign equality of states (Article 2(1)),

• Respect for territorial integrity,

• Non-recognition of territorial acquisition by force.

While Turkey’s declaration does not legally alter Cyprus’s status, its cumulative effect contributes to a pattern in which unilateral political claims are inserted into multilateral legal frameworks. This risks normalizing selective recognition and conditional participation in international agreements—an approach fundamentally at odds with the Charter’s purpose of providing a stable, rules-based international order.

If states routinely used technical treaties to challenge the sovereignty of other UN members, the coherence of treaty law and the authority of multilateral institutions would be seriously weakened.

Legal Impact vs. Political Intent

It is important to be clear:

• Turkey’s declaration does not change international law.

• It does not affect Cyprus’s legal personality or UN membership.

• Other states are not bound by Turkey’s interpretation and may formally object or simply disregard it.

However, politically, the declaration is loud. It reinforces Turkey’s increasingly explicit support for a two-state outcome in Cyprus and signals a continued unwillingness to align with UN-backed frameworks for a comprehensive settlement.

Conclusion

Turkey’s accession to the whaling convention should have been a straightforward act of environmental cooperation. Instead, it was used as another platform to restate a contested geopolitical claim—one that the international community has repeatedly rejected.

While legally ineffective, such declarations matter politically. They contribute to the gradual dilution of respect for state sovereignty, undermine the spirit of the UN Charter, and transform neutral multilateral instruments into vehicles for unilateral narratives. In this sense, the document is less about whales—and more about how international law is increasingly used not to resolve disputes, but to rehearse them.