Article 16 is a renunciation clause. “to be settled by the parties concerned” doesnt mean Turkey keeps sovereignty over every unnamed rock. Also Article 12 says “particularly” the listed islands, not “only”. So the list isnt exhaustive. However the treaty is exhaustive for Turkey; it specifically reserves to Turkey only the islands within 3nm from the Anatolian coast unless stated otherwise. End of story. So the whole structure of Lausanne's clear: near coast islands remain Turkish, the rest dont magically stay Turkish just because every tiny rock wasnt listed one by one in 1923. Otherwise Turkey could claim random tiny islets in the middle of greek island groups far away from Anatolia, even south or west of Crete, which makes no sense.

Thats clearly away from the whole logic and scope of Lausanne, which was meant to settle and close issues after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, not create endless ambiguity. Any map based on that logic would look absurd even to a neutral observer and honestly reveals bad faith motives and revisionism behind these interpretations.

Article 16 is a renunciation clause. “to be settled by the parties concerned” doesnt mean Turkey keeps sovereignty over every unnamed rock. Also Article 12 says “particularly” the listed islands, not “only”. So the list isnt exhaustive. However the treaty is exhaustive for Turkey; it specifically reserves to Turkey only the islands within 3nm from the Anatolian coast unless stated otherwise. So the whole structure of Lausanne's clear: near coast islands remain Turkish, the rest dont magically stay Turkish just because every tiny rock wasnt listed one by one in 1923. Otherwise Turkey could claim random tiny islets in the middle of greek island groups far away from Anatolia which makes no sense .