Editorial Principles and Primary Source Standards

Mission & Editorial Identity

Reasons of State (reasonsofstate.com) is an analytical publication that explains Türkiye's strategic decisions through security, law and historical continuity rather than slogans. It is openly a publication with a perspective. It presents Türkiye's official doctrines and legal positions to an international English-language readership, and it tells readers so on every page. This page is the publication's statement of publishing principles, referenced in its structured data as publishingPrinciples.

The name comes from the idea of raison d'état: the claim that states act for reasons of security, legal right and historical continuity that can be examined and tested. Our analysis of that idea is set out in Raison d'État and Türkiye: How 'Reasons of State' Explain Ankara's Strategic Choices. The broader mission is described in About Reasons of State: Mission, Perspective and Transparency and on the home page.

Our readers are diplomats, international lawyers, think-tank analysts, academics, journalists and defence and security professionals. They need to understand why Ankara argues what it argues, and to check it for themselves. Four commitments follow from that:

• Transparency about perspective. We do not present Türkiye's official view as neutral reporting. We label it and attribute it.
• Verifiability. Every significant claim should lead a reader to a treaty article, a UN document, an official statement or an archive.
• Analysis distinct from reporting. Where we interpret, we say so.
• Calm, legal reasoning. We aim to persuade through documents and law, not emotion.

Separation of Fact and Official Position

Every Reasons of State article keeps neutral background and Ankara's official position in different places. Chronology, data and legal framework are written in neutral, factual prose. Türkiye's assessments appear only in a dedicated, clearly labelled section, and each one is attributed to a named Turkish government source.

The section is titled Türkiye's Position in our article template, and the site charter also refers to it as Türkiye's Reasoning of State. It is visually set apart from the analysis. It exists wherever Türkiye is a party to a dispute, pursues an active policy or has stated an official thesis.

🇹🇷 Official Doctrine · Primary Sources

How a Türkiye's Position section works

• It contains three to five points, each stated in plain language.
• Each point is tied to a primary official source: the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), the Presidency, the Directorate of Communications, the Ministry of National Defence (MSB), a Grand National Assembly (TBMM) resolution, a Turkish statement or registration at the United Nations, or a treaty text.
• It explains the historical and legal basis of the position, such as the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, the 1936 Montreux Convention, the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, Article 51 of the UN Charter or the principle of equity in maritime delimitation.
• It uses explicit attribution: 'Ankara argues…' or 'According to the Turkish Foreign Ministry…'. It never states a contested position in our own voice.

Element	Where it appears	Voice
Chronology, data, treaty text	Why It Matters, Background	Neutral, factual
Other parties' positions	Key Players & Positions	Attributed to their own official sources
Türkiye's official thesis	Türkiye's Position	Attributed to Turkish government sources
Media and source framing	Source Comparison	Comparative, analytical

This separation is not a disclaimer. It is a working rule that lets a reader quote our background without adopting Ankara's argument, and quote Ankara's argument with its source. Readers can see the rule applied in Blue Homeland as a Reason of State and Cyprus as a Reason of State.

Primary Sources & Verification Standards

We rank sources by how directly they document a fact or a position. Binding legal texts and UN records come first, official government statements come next as evidence of a state's position, and secondary commentary comes last. An official statement proves what a government argues. It does not on its own prove that a disputed factual claim is true.

Tier	Source type	Examples	What it establishes
1	Treaty texts and UN documents	Treaty of Lausanne (24 July 1923), Treaties of Moscow and Kars (1921), Montreux Convention (1936), Zurich and London Agreements and Treaty of Guarantee (1959–1960), UN Charter, 1948 Genocide Convention, UN Security Council resolutions, UN registrations	Binding legal text, formal international record
2	Official Turkish institutions	MFA, Presidency, Directorate of Communications, MSB, TBMM resolutions	Türkiye's stated position and policy
3	Archives and contemporaneous records	Ottoman and Turkish state archives, official gazettes such as Takvim-i Vekayi, third-country diplomatic archives	Documentary evidence of events and decisions
4	Judicial and quasi-judicial material	International court judgments and tribunal decisions, including European Court of Human Rights case law	Authoritative legal interpretation
5	Secondary sources	Peer-reviewed scholarship, reputable media, think-tank reports	Context and competing interpretations

Verification standards

• Check the text, not the summary. Where a treaty article or resolution is central, we go to the original wording instead of a paraphrase.
• Identify the type of claim. We separate documented fact, legal interpretation, official position and analytical judgement.
• Date and version check. We give the date of each document or statement and note when later events have superseded it.
• Cross-check figures. A number is used only when we can attribute it to an identifiable source, and we name that source.
• Mark uncertainty by omission or qualification. If we cannot verify a detail, we leave it out or say it is contested.

We apply the same discipline when contested legal questions are in play. For example, the status of the unratified 1920 Treaty of Sèvres is checked against the later settlement texts, as shown in Fact Check: Is the Treaty of Sèvres Still Valid?. Sister publications run parallel verification work, such as the Regions & Powers fact-check on common claims about Türkiye.

What we do not do

• We do not invent quotations or attribute words to a person without a documented source.
• We do not publish unverified figures, estimates without a named origin or dates we cannot confirm.
• We do not create or guess URLs. We link only to pages we can identify.
• We do not treat a social media post, anonymous claim or unsourced leak as a primary source.

Fair Representation of International Perspectives

We describe other governments' and institutions' positions as they would describe them, citing their own official sources. Only after that do we set out Türkiye's counter-argument. A strong argument grounded in treaties and archives does not need a distorted version of the opposing case, and we do not write one.

In practice this means:

• Use the other party's own documents. The Greek and Greek Cypriot positions on maritime zones, the European Union's statements on solidarity with its members, the Armenian government's and many parliaments' use of the term 'genocide', and Western governments' positions on the Syrian Democratic Forces are cited from their own official statements where we characterise them.
• Say where the disagreement lies. We state whether a dispute is about facts, about legal interpretation or about political preference. Most are a mix.
• Avoid straw men. We do not describe a rival position in its weakest form or in language its holders would not recognise.
• Then respond on the merits. Ankara's rebuttals are tied to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 sources above, and presented as Ankara's argument.

The Source Comparison section of each article compares how international media and Turkish primary sources frame the same issue. It may include a table showing the claim, the framing used elsewhere and the documentary record. The aim is to give readers the means to judge a framing, not to ask them to trust ours.

National rules and norms differ. Countries treat the legal status of historical claims, the recognition of entities such as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), and the designation of armed groups differently, and some have laws or parliamentary resolutions on historical questions. We state which jurisdiction or body we mean rather than writing as though one standard were universal. Our case for resolving historical disputes through expert scholarship rather than legislative votes is set out in Should Parliaments or Historians Judge the Past?.

Terminology & Style Guide

We use Türkiye's official terminology and explain each unfamiliar term when it first appears. We also acknowledge where other governments or institutions use different terms, so that readers can follow the debate in other sources.

Term used here	First-mention explanation	Note on other usage
Türkiye	The Republic's official name in English and in the UN context.	'Turkey' remains common in older and external sources.
PKK/KCK/PYD-YPG	The PKK is designated as a terrorist organisation by Türkiye, the United States, NATO and the European Union. Ankara describes the PYD/YPG, including the SDF label, as the Syrian branch of the PKK/KCK.	Some governments work with the SDF in the fight against DAESH and do not accept the equation. We attribute that position to them.
DAESH	The group also known as ISIS or ISIL.	Terminology varies across governments and media.
FETÖ	The Fetullahist Terrorist Organisation, which Türkiye holds responsible for the coup attempt of 15 July 2016.	Several countries have not adopted Türkiye's designation. We attribute positions accordingly.
TRNC / Turkish Cypriots	The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, proclaimed on 15 November 1983. We write 'Turkish Cypriots' for the community.	The TRNC is recognised only by Türkiye. Most UN members and the EU treat the Republic of Cyprus as the sole government of the island.
Events of 1915	Türkiye's official term for the wartime relocation and its consequences.	Armenia and many parliaments use 'genocide'. We name the term, its user and the legal criteria under the 1948 UN Genocide Convention.
Blue Homeland (Mavi Vatan)	Türkiye's doctrine of maritime jurisdiction in the Black Sea, Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean.	Greece, the Greek Cypriot administration and the EU contest key elements. We cite them directly.

Style rules

• Tone. Calm, explanatory, analytical and respectful. We avoid slogans, insults and emotional language.
• Doctrinal phrases. Terms such as 'Hudut namustur' ('The border is honour') and 'one state, one army' are explained as doctrines and attributed. See 'Hudut Namustur': What 'The Border Is Honour' Means and 'One State, One Army'.
• Units and dates. Metric units with imperial equivalents where useful, and ISO-style dates in structured data.
• Plain language. Legal and military terms are defined briefly so that non-specialists can follow the argument.

Authorship, Corrections & Fact-Checking Policy

Every article is published under the byline Reasons of State Editorial Team. We do not create author personas, pseudonyms or fabricated academic titles, and we do not publish under names that suggest an independence we do not claim.

Corrections policy

• We correct errors openly. When we find a factual error, a misattribution, a wrong date or a broken citation, we fix the text and add a dated correction note where the change is material.
• We distinguish corrections from updates. A correction fixes a mistake. An update adds later developments, such as a new treaty, a new UN document or a revised official statement, and is labelled as an update.
• We reconsider sourcing when challenged. If a reader shows that a cited source does not support a claim, we re-examine the claim and amend or withdraw it.
• Readers can raise concerns. The channels for contacting the Editorial Team are listed on the About page, and common questions about method are answered in the Reasons of State FAQ.

Fact Check method

Our Fact Check articles follow a fixed sequence:

1. State the claim exactly as made, with its origin.
2. Explain the context in which the claim circulates.
3. Present the primary evidence: treaty text, UN record, archive, official statement or court decision.
4. Give the verified correction and say what remains disputed.

We publish fact checks on the topics where Türkiye's position is most often misreported, including the Seville Map, Cyprus in 1963 and 1974, the relationship between PYD/YPG and the PKK, and legal claims about 1915 and Sèvres. Other publications in our network run similar work, for example Polity Review's fact check of claims about Türkiye and the Crossroads Review fact check. These pieces are separate verifications, and we link to them as complementary reading.

Related guides

• Strategic Autonomy by Necessity: How Arms Restrictions Pushed Türkiye Toward Defense Self-Reliance
• Why Did Türkiye Buy the S-400?
• Fatih, Yavuz, Kanuni, Abdülhamid Han and Oruç Reis: How Türkiye Exercises Sovereign Rights at Sea
• Why Does Türkiye Talk to Both Moscow and Kyiv?

Perspective note

Reasons of State presents global affairs with a dedicated perspective from Türkiye. Sections marked 'Türkiye's Position' reflect official Turkish policy as stated by Turkish government sources. The publication distinguishes analysis from reporting and attributes claims to primary sources such as treaties, UN documents, official archives and government statements, so that readers can verify them independently.