Rationality and Rivalry: A Game-Theoretic Analysis of the Turkey-Greece Aegean Dispute
https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2025-6-105-7-22
Abstract
The Aegean dispute between Türkiye and Greece remains one of the most persistent interstate rivalries in the Eastern Mediterranean, structured around overlapping claims and recurrent frictions concerning maritime zones, national airspace, and the (de)militarised status of Aegean islands, islets, and rocks. While episodes of escalation – most notably the Kardak/Imia crisis–have periodically raised the risk of a wider confrontation, the conflict has largely been managed through controlled, low-intensity interaction rather than open warfare. This article explains that pattern through a gametheoretic model that formalises the strategic interdependence of the two actors and clarifies the logic of their observed behaviour.
The study models the dispute as a sequential game in which each side is assumed to act rationally and can choose among three stylised strategies–aggressive, passive-aggressive, and passive–depending on its assessment of the situation and the expected response of the other.
A decision tree specifies the structure of interaction and the associated payoffs, and the equilibrium logic is derived via backward induction.
The model yields a clear implication: under the specified preference ordering, both sides converge on passive-aggressive behaviour as the outcome that maximises attainable payoffs while limiting the risks of uncontrolled escalation. Substantively, the results account for the empirical regularity of reciprocal demonstrations of presence– naval manoeuvres, air and maritime incidents, and other forms of harassment or signalling–that allow each government to project resolve and defend reputational claims without crossing the threshold into direct military confrontation.
By providing a transparent strategic rationale for this “managed tension” equilibrium, the article contributes to a more precise understanding of why the Aegean dispute persists and why crisis dynamics often stabilise at the level of chronic, low-intensity rivalry rather than culminating in full escalation.
About the Authors
Murat Özkaya
Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University
Turkey
Turkey
Murat Özkaya – PhD, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Political Sciences, Department of Business
Terzioğlu Campus, Faculty of Political Sciences, 17100 Çanakkale, Türkiye
Burhaneddin Izgi
Istanbul Technical University
Turkey
Turkey
Burhaneddin Izgi – PhD, Professor, Department of Mathematics
ITU Ayazağa Campus, Rectorate Building, Maslak, Istanbul 34469, Türkiye
References
1. Abapour S., Nazari-Heris M., Mohammadi-Ivatloo B., Tarafdar Hagh M. 2020. Game Theory Approaches for the Solution of Power System Problems: A Comprehensive Review. Archives of computational methods in engineering. 27(1). P. 81–103. DOI: 10.1007/s11831-018-9299-7
2. Abedian M., Amindoust A., Maddahi R., Jouzdani J. 2022. A Game Theory Approach to Selecting Marketing-mix Strategies. Journal of Advances in Management Research. 19(1). P. 139–158. DOI: 10.1108/JAMR-10-2020-0264
3. Amuji H.O., Onwuegbuchunam D.E., Okechukwu B.N., Okeke K.O., Okere K.K. 2024. Application of Game Theory in the Nigerian Electoral System. International Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics & Computer Science. 4. P. 13–26. DOI: 10.37394/232028.2024.4.2
4. Athanasopulos H. 2017. Greece, Turkey and the Aegean Sea: A Case Study in International Law. McFarland.
5. Aydın S. 2009. The Super Power versus a Regional Power: A game theoretical approach to the current nuclear tension between the US and Iran. Bilkent Üniversitesi (Turkey).
6. Bayar M., Kotelis A. 2014. Democratic Peace or Hegemonic Stability? The Imia/Kardak case. Turkish Studies. 15(2). P. 242–257. DOI: 10.1080/14683849.2014.933948
7. Bjørnskau T. 2017. The Zebra Crossing Game–Using game theory to explain a discrepancy between road user behaviour and traffic rules. Safety Science. №92. P. 298–301. DOI: 10.1016/j. ssci.2015.10.007
8. Brams S.J. 2011. Game Theory and Politics. Courier Corporation.
9. Brown M., Saisubramanian S., Varakantham P., Tambe M. 2014. STREETS: Game-Theoretic Traffic Patrolling with Exploration and Exploitation. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 28(2). P. 2966–2971.
10. Brown S. 1986. The Superpowers' Dilemma: Can Game Theory Improve the US-Soviet Negotiating Relationship? Negotiation Journal. 2(4). P. 371–384.
11. Çelikkol A.O., Karabel S. 2017. Türkiye-Yunanistan İlişkileri ve Denizden Kaynaklanan Uluslararası Sorunlar. Bilge Strateji. 9(16). P. 13–31.
12. Choulis I., Mehrl M., Ifantis K. 2022. Arms Racing, Military Build-Ups and Dispute Intensity: Evidence from the Greek-Turkish Rivalry, 1985–2020. Defence and Peace Economics. 33(4). P. 779–804. DOI: 10.1080/10242694.2021.1933312
13. Esmaeili M., Aryanezhad M.B., Zeephongsekul P. 2009. A Game Theory Approach in Seller– Buyer Supply Chain. European Journal of Operational Research. 195(2). P. 442–448. DOI: 10.1016/j. ejor.2008.02.026
14. Esmaeili M., Bahrini A., Shayanrad S. 2015. Using Game Theory Approach to Interpret Stable Policies for Iran’s Oil and Gas Common Resources Conflicts with Iraq and Qatar. Journal of Industrial Engineering International. №11. P. 543–554. DOI: 10.1007/s40092-015-0120-z
15. Fodor A. 2023. The Extension of Greece’s Territorial Waters: A Resilience Dilemma? EuroAtlantic Resilience Journal. 1(1). P. 1–22.
16. Franck R., Melese F. 2003. A Game Theory View of Military Conflict in the Taiwan Strait.
17. Defense & Security Analysis. 19(4). P. 327–348. DOI: 10.1080/1475179032000149412
18. Grigoriadis I.N. 2023. Between Escalation and Détente: Greek-Turkish Relations in the Aftermath of the Eastern Mediterranean Crisis. Theoretical Approaches to Turkish Foreign Policy. Routledge. Р. 158–176.
19. Haywood Jr O.G. 1954. Military Decision and Game Theory. Journal of the Operations Research Society of America. 2(4). P. 365–385. DOI: 10.1287/opre.2.4.365
20. Heraclides A. 2019. The Unresolved Aegean Dispute: Problems and prospects. Greece and Turkey in Conflict and Cooperation. Routledge. Р. 89–108.
21. Heraclides A., Heraclides A. 2010. Imia/Kardak and the Grey Zones. The Greek-Turkish Conflict in the Aegean: Imagined Enemies. P. 209–213.
22. Ho E., Rajagopalan A., Skvortsov A., Arulampalam S., Piraveenan M. 2022. Game Theory in Defence Applications: A review. Sensors. 22(3). P. 1032. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2111.01876
23. Hollander Y., Prashker J.N. 2006. The Applicability of Non-Cooperative Game Theory in Transport Analysis. Transportation. 33. P. 481–496.
24. Jamali M.B., Rasti-Barzoki M., Altmann J. 2023. A Game-Theoretic Approach for Investigating the Competition between Energy Producers under the Energy Resilience Index: A Case Study of Iran. Sustainable Cities and Society. №95.
25. Jiang W., Han H., He M., Gu W. 2024. When Game Theory Meets Satellite Communication Networks: A survey. Computer Communications. 217(9). P. 208–229. DOI: 10.1016/j.comcom.2024.02.005
26. Kalagy T., Cohen C., Halfon E., Lavee D. 2025. Optimizing Waste Separation in Traditional Minority Communities: A Game Theory Approach for Sustainable Municipal Waste Management. Environmental Development. 53. 101–105.
27. Kassimeris C. 2008. NATO and the Aegean Disputes. Defense & Security Analysis. 24(2). P. 165–179. DOI: 10.1080/14751790802124964
28. Kraig M.R. 1999. Nuclear Deterrence in the Developing World: A game-theoretic treatment. Journal of Peace Research. 36(2). P. 141–167.
29. Langlois C.C., Langlois J.P.P. 1996. Rationality in International Relations: A game-theoretic and empirical study of the US-China case. World Politics. 48(3). P. 358–390. DOI: 10.1353/ wp.1996.0012
30. Li X., Ma J., Han Z., Zhang Y., Yang M. 2023. Application of Game Theory in Risk Management of Urban Natural Gas Pipelines. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. №83.
31. Lumsden M. 1973. The Cyprus Conflict as a Prisoner’s Dilemma Game. Journal of Conflict Resolution. 17(1). P. 7–32.
32. Meinardus R., Triantafyllou D. (Eds.). 2021. Bridging the Gaps: An Almanac for Greek-Turkish Cooperation. Nobel.
33. O'Neill B. 1994. Game Theory Models of Peace and War. Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications. №2. P. 995–1053.
34. Özkaya M., Bakkaloğlu A. 2023. Askeri açıdan denk olmayan iki ülke savaşının oyun teorisi ile modellenmesi. Journal of Advanced Research in Natural and Applied Sciences. 9(2). P. 268–275. DOI: 10.28979/jarnas.1204904
35. Özkaya M., İzgi B. 2021. Uluslararası bir krizin oyun teorisi ile matematiksel olarak modellenmesi. Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi. 10(4). P. 1334–1341. DOI: 10.17798/bitlisfen.942655
36. Pakdaman M., Shafiei M., Geravandi S., Hejazi A., Abdi F. 2019. The Interaction between Insurance Organizations and Health System: The Insurance Mechanism Based on Game Theory. Journal of Community Health Research. 8(1). P. 18–28.
37. Papadakis K. 2018. The Greece-Turkey Dispute in the Aegean and the ICJ Sea Border Delimitation Case of Ukraine-Romania: similarities and differences in a comparative perspective. European Quarterly of Political Attitudes and Mentalities. 7(3). P. 36–46.
38. Perjés G. 1981. Game Theory and the Rationality of War: The Battle of Mohacs and the Disintegration of Medieval Hungary. East European Quarterly. 15(2).
39. Pratt M., Schofield C. 1996. The Imia/Kardak Rocks Dispute in the Aegean Sea. IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin. 4(1). 62–69.
40. Rizas S. 2009. Managing a Conflict between Allies: United States policy towards Greece and Turkey in relation to the Aegean dispute, 1974–76: Cold War in the Aegean. Cold War History. 9(3). P. 367–387. DOI: 10.1080/14682740802170883
41. Salapatas D. 2014. The Aegean sea Dispute between Greece and Turkey: the Consequences for NATO and the EU. Akakia Publications.
42. Shaabani S., Gordji M.E. 2023. Game Theory and a New Insight into How the Cuban Missile Crisis Was Resolved. International Journal of Cuban Studies. 15(1). P. 39–49. DOI: 10.13169/ intejcubastud.15.1.0039
43. Shahmohammadian A., Ghafory-Ashtiany M. 2025. Game Theory Applications in Managing Stakeholder Conflicts for Building Safety and Resilience against Natural Disasters. Progress in Disaster Science. №26.
44. Şıhmantepe A. 2013. Kardak Krizi Sürecinin Kriz Yönetim Prensipleri Açısından İncelenmesi. Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi. 9(17). P. 127–155.
45. Tetik G. 2007. Transformation of Greco-Turkish relations after 1999: Military and economic aspects. Master's thesis, Bilkent Universitesi, Turkey.v. Neumann J. 1928. Zur theorie der gesellschaftsspiele. Mathematische annalen. 100(1). P. 295–320. von Neumann J., Morgenstern O. 1944. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press.
46. Wang B., Karpathiotaki P., Sui X. 2019. Interactive Management of the Sino-Indian Border Disputes: A Game Theory Analysis. Journal of South Asian Studies. 7(3). P. 67–81. DOI: 10.33687/ jsas.007.03.2720
47. Wang L.Z., Fang L., Hipel K.W. 2003. Water Resources Allocation: a cooperative game theoretic approach. Journal of Environmental Informatics. 2(2). P. 11–22. DOI: 10.3808/jei.200300019
48. Yücel S. 2010. Ege’de bitmeyen sorunun bir unsuru olarak Türk Ve yunan karasuları ve ulusal hava sahaları. Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi. 6(12). P. 83–101.
49. Yumuşak T. 2024. Doğu Ege Adalarinin Silahlandirilmasi Sorunu. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi. 26(2). P. 1729–1758. DOI: 10.33717/deuhfd.1480095
50. Zagare F.C. 2019. Game Theory, Diplomatic History and Security Studies. Oxford University Press.
51. Zarreh M., Yaghoubi S., Bahrami H. 2024. Pricing of Drinking Water under Dynamic Supply and Demand Based on Government Role: a Game-Theoretic Approach. Water Resources Management. 38(6). P. 2101–2133. DOI: 10.1007/s11269-024-03745-8
Review
For citations:
Özkaya M., Izgi B. Rationality and Rivalry: A Game-Theoretic Analysis of the Turkey-Greece Aegean Dispute. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2025;18(6):7-22. https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2025-6-105-7-22
Views:
35
Email this article 