By Can Öztaş
On Jan. 20, 1921, as the War of Independence was still being fought, the Grand National Assembly adopted a Constitution whose first article began: Sovereignty belongs unconditionally to the nation (Hâkimiyet bilâ kaydü şart milletindir).
On Oct. 29, 1923, the assembly added another sentence to that same article: The form of government of the Turkish state is the Republic (Türkiye Devletinin şekl-i hükûmeti Cumhuriyettir).
The country’s future was to be decided in the name of its people, by their representatives. The Republic was proclaimed in the institution through which that sovereignty was exercised.
More than a century later, two parliaments, one in Libya and the other in Ankara, have brought the meaning of sovereignty back into view.
THE SOVEREIGNTY OF SIGNATURES
In November 2019, Turkey signed a maritime delimitation memorandum with the government in Tripoli. Libya’s eastern-based House of Representatives opposed it and Ankara’s military support for Tripoli against forces loyal to Khalifa Haftar. It even called for political relations with Turkey to be severed.
On Oct. 20 this year, the same parliament voted unanimously to approve the memorandum and repealed its earlier hostile resolutions. In 2020, the memorandum was a reason to break with Ankara. In 2026, it became a reason to embrace it. The reversal tells a story of persistent Turkish diplomacy, cultivated relationships and changing calculations in a divided country. Ankara had opened channels to Benghazi without abandoning Tripoli.
Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and the European Union issued a joint statement at the United Nations on Oct. 26, disputing the agreement’s legality and its treatment of the maritime entitlements of neighboring states, including islands. Turkey maintains that the delimitation rests on international law and equitable principles.
The memorandum entered into force between Turkey and Libya in December 2019 and was registered with the United Nations. The eastern parliament’s vote strengthens its political standing within a divided country. It does not settle the rights of others. Two states can agree on a line at sea; they cannot settle every neighboring claim by drawing it.
THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE
Abroad, an agreement binds only those who consent to it. At home, the question is who consents for a nation. On the same day, a different agreement reached the parliament: the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, signed in August. On Oct. 27, the Foreign Affairs Committee approved the ratification bill by a majority. It now awaits consideration by the General Assembly.
An external armed attack on one party is to be considered an attack on all. The parties will come to one another’s aid immediately, once they have decided, after an objective assessment, how much aid to send. Obligations under existing treaties are preserved; NATO, Ankara insists, is among them, though the text never names it. The agreement is intended to continue indefinitely; withdrawal is possible only after ten years.
Those are substantial undertakings, capable of outliving the governments that signed them.
Article 90 of the constitution requires a law approving ratification. Sending Turkish forces abroad requires a separate authorization from the assembly under Article 92. The assembly should weigh obligations, potentially extending to conflicts far from its borders. The scope of assistance, the definition of threats and the resources that may be committed all deserve scrutiny before representatives put the country’s authority behind the agreement.
Parliament, however, arrives at the question somewhat late. The pact’s Strategic Political and Defense Committee held its first meeting in Istanbul on Aug. 31. It met again in October, in an extraordinary session in Riyadh, to arrange the deployment of forces to Saudi Arabia. A secretary general has already been appointed. Ratification, it seems, is the final formality of a treaty already in good health.
Article 7 of that first constitution placed the conclusion of treaties and peace, and the declaration of national defense, in the hands of the Grand National Assembly. The wartime institutions were different from today’s, but the principle of national sovereignty had practical consequences from the beginning.
“Independent and sovereign foreign policy” has become a permanent fixture of official speeches, repeated so often that its meaning sometimes disappears in the applause. Sovereignty also lives in the rules governing who may bind the country, for how long and under whose scrutiny. The signature may belong to a president; the obligation, once accepted, belongs to the republic.
On Oct. 29, we celebrate 103 years since the assembly gave that republic its name. Above the parliamentary chamber stands a familiar inscription: Egemenlik kayıtsız şartsız milletindir. Sovereignty belongs unconditionally to the nation. It has watched governments come and go, each confident in the permanence of its own moment.
Who consents for a nation? The founders answered with a republic. Its promise remains ours.
