Isuf B. Bajrami: Treaty of Lausanne - Prospects for Transitional Justice

Treaty of Lausanne: Prospects for Transitional Justice

By Isuf B. Bajrami

On January 30, 1923, in Lausanne, the Treaty of Lausanne was signed, an instrument that institutionalized the compulsory population exchange between Turkey and Greece. While presented as a diplomatic tool for regional stability, for the Muslim Albanians of Çamëria, it became a profound demographic and property catastrophe.

This study aims to provide a detailed historical-legal analysis, document the effects on the Albanian population, and propose a legal, moral, and transitional justice perspective for redress and historical repair. The issue of the Cham Albanians is not merely a historical relic; it is a matter of contemporary legal and moral urgency in light of international law and human rights standards.

I. Historical and Legal Framework of the Treaty of Lausanne (1923)

1. Political and Diplomatic Context

After World War I and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Southeastern Europe faced deep ethnic and territorial tensions. The Treaty of Sèvres (1920) failed to be implemented, creating the need for a new instrument to legitimize interstate relations after territorial changes.

The Treaty of Lausanne (July 24, 1923):

• Consolidated international recognition of Republic of Turkey;

• Institutionalized the compulsory population exchange between Greece and Turkey based on religion.[1][2]

It was a binding international treaty, overseen by a Joint Commission under the League of Nations.[3]

2. The Religious Criterion and the Status of Albanian Muslims of Çamëria

The convention stipulated that any Muslim residing in Greece would be considered a "Turk," regardless of ethnic origin. For the Albanian population of Çamëria, this entailed:

• Inclusion in the legally defined category of compulsory migration;

• Expropriation of property and loss of centuries-old livelihoods.[4]

This legal definition, based solely on religion, disregarded ethnic identity under contemporary international law and set a precedent for subsequent Albanian migrations.

3. Property Rights and Compensation Mechanisms

The convention provided:

• Transfer of immovable property;

• Assessment and compensation by intergovernmental commissions.

In practice:

• Compensation was often partial or delayed;

• Collective expropriation, by modern standards, constitutes a violation of property rights and proportionality principles.[5][6]

II. The 1938 Yugoslav–Turkish Convention and Albanian Exodus

In 1938, a convention was signed between Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Turkey, providing for the relocation of 40,000 Albanian families from Kosovo and Macedonia to Turkey.

Key characteristics:

• Payment of 500 Turkish lira per family (totaling 20 million lira);

• Gradual relocation with annual quotas of 4,000–8,000 families;

• Immovable property remained state-owned in Yugoslavia.[7][8]

This instrument showed that the term "Turkish population" was used as a diplomatic cover to remove Albanian communities, turning religious identity into a tool of demographic engineering.

III. The 1944–1945 Displacements: The Çamëria Exodus

Following World War II, the Albanian population of Çamëria was forcibly displaced to Albania:

• Approximately 25,000–28,000 people, mostly women and children.[9]

• Human losses: over 2,700 deaths during the journey;

• Material losses: over 6,000 homes and other properties, valued today in the billions of euros.

This period marked the most violent and unlawful displacement, violating modern humanitarian law standards.

IV. Contemporary Legal Perspective

1. Property Rights and Return

According to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the ECHR:

• Expropriated property must be compensated;

• Physical restitution (restitutio in integrum) is ideal but complicated after a century;

• Symbolic restitution and financial compensation offer feasible solutions.

2. International Responsibility

• Forced displacements and mass expropriations may constitute continuous violations;

• States involved have both moral and legal responsibility for reparations.

3. Transitional Justice

Includes:

• Historical and archival documentation;

• Moral and political recognition;

• Compensation mechanisms and symbolic rehabilitation;

• Protection of cultural and memorial rights.

This approach reconciles historical legitimacy with contemporary legal authority.

V. Strategy for Justice

A roadmap for justice for the Cham Albanians could include:

1. Bilateral agreement Albania–Greece recognizing historical injustices;

2. International verification commission with experts in international law and history;

3. Financial compensation mechanism as an alternative to physical return;

4. Symbolic repair: monuments, museums, archival preservation;

5. Individual return via legal procedures for citizenship and migration, consistent with current legal frameworks.

This model integrates legal justice, moral accountability, and political stability, transforming history into an opportunity for reconciliation and resolution.

VI. Conclusion

The Treaty of Lausanne and subsequent instruments illustrate the tension between state sovereignty and individual rights in the 20th century. For the Cham Albanians and other displaced communities, the consequences were profound: expropriation, loss of identity, and demographic disruption.

Today, justice for these communities is not merely historical—it is an imperative of our time, grounded in international law, European jurisprudence, and the moral duties of states. Recognition, financial compensation, and transitional justice mechanisms offer the most viable path toward dignified historical and legal redress.

Footnotes

[1] Treaty of Peace with Turkey, Lausanne, 24 July 1923, League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 28.

[2] Convention Concerning the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations, 30 January 1923.

[3] Bruce Clark, Twice a Stranger: The Mass Expulsions that Forged Modern Greece and Turkey, 2006.

[4] Miranda Vickers, The Cham Issue: Albanian National & Property Claims in Greece, 2002.

[5] Lassa Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, Vol. I.

[6] Renée Hirschon (ed.), Crossing the Aegean: The Greek-Turkish Population Exchange, 2003.

[7] Yugoslav diplomatic archives, Yugoslavia–Turkey Convention, 1938.

[8] Noel Malcolm, Kosovo: A Short History, 1998.

[9] Albanian State Archives, Documents on the Çamëria Exodus, 1944–1945.

The Land of Leka; 02.03.2026