This exchange, involving over 1.5 million people, aimed to reduce ethnic tensions but led to significant challenges, particularly concerning the properties and financial assets left behind by those displaced.
[1] To address these issues, the treaty established a Mixed Commission for the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations, tasked with resolving disputes related to property valuation, financial compensation, and logistical arrangements.
Disputes over jurisdiction often reflected broader tensions in Greco-Turkish relations, as both sides sought to assert their national interests through international mechanisms.
The Court concluded: This opinion aimed to resolve the ambiguity regarding the commission's powers and ensure that the arbitration process would function smoothly without interference from the two governments involved.
The PCIJ ruling influenced subsequent cases involving forced population movements and property disputes, solidifying the principle that impartial arbitral bodies could serve as effective mediators in post-conflict situations.
[5] The ruling also contributed to the gradual normalization of Greco-Turkish relations by resolving ambiguities in the population exchange process, although tensions over ethnic and territorial issues persisted.
The Interpretation of the Greco-Turkish Agreement remains an important case in the history of international law, particularly for its role in defining the authority of arbitral commissions and addressing the challenges of post-conflict reconciliation.
Its provisions for the population exchange reflected a controversial approach to ethnic conflict resolution, involving mass relocations to achieve demographic homogeneity.