A.B. Rosiorii de Vede (Teleorman), I look for a few information.

The principalities had no distinct juridical personality on the international stage, no foreign policy prerogatives. They were not full-fledged states per se but autonomous regions.
...
Foreign powers started appointing diplomatic representatives to the principalities only after 1774 but those representatives were just consuls, not ambassadors. The ambassadors were in the Ottoman Empire's capital.

So in 1812 the principality of Moldavia was simply not an actor on the international stage. The war and the peace treaty was between the O.E. and the R.E.

Imperialist, I'm aware of what you said. But I'm affraid you miss the point of the difference between the integeral and dependent teritories of the Empire. On the one hand, the Turkish feudalism (including its late phaze) was different from the European/Christian feudalism being more centralized. The Pashale were invested by the sultan and their authority derived from his. On the other hand, many recent authors praise the degree of flexibility of the Ottomans (especially regarding the administration of justice) towards the non-Muslim communities in the Empire, be they in the Sandjaks/Rayas or in dependent/vassal territories.

Nevertheless, in XVIII - ealry XIX century the international relations, even when they did not directly involve warfare, were mainly based on force (see the three partitions of Poland). In talking about legal/illegal, I was referring strictly to the contractual relations between the Principalities and the Ottoman Porte. For I'm sure you are aware that those territories, even after 1711, were governed not directly by the Sultan but rather indirectly through the Hospodars from Fanar. As far as I know, the fact that the Principalities submitted themselves to the Porte (instead of being conquered by pure force) was mentioned more then once by the Turkish delegations at the peace conferences troughout the XVIII and XIX centuries, and (again) as far as I know that involved (or was a common point to be claimed so) the fact that their territory was not Porte's to give it away, be that after a defeat or in other circumstances.

This post has been edited by Agarici on July 26, 2015 02:48 pm

The PDF is about AIRFIELDS during WW2 and nothing else. Changes of land "ownership" within certain periods of WW2 are mentioned ONLY in order to help researchers locate them under various "jurisdictions". These changes of "jurisdiction" are historic facts backed by signed treaties that anyone can research.
I repeat, please do not allow the "fog" of forcefully fabricated faux "controversy" take anything away from the FACT that the PDF is a fantastic resource of immense help to any historian with genuine interest in Romanian aviation.
Radu

Force certainly played a major role in the principalities' submission to the Porte. Because every time they rebelled the Porte responded with force, over and over again until they understood that rebelling is no longer worth it.

As for the second part, whether the Porte was "justified" to give up that territory or not, the bottom line is that this is a moot point. Russia grabbed the territory and the Porte was unable to hold on to it. Why didn't the principality of Moldavia continue the war with the Russian Empire then? First, because it had no legal right to do so since it was legally subordinated to the Porte. Foreign policy was the Porte's prerogative. Secondly, because it had no chance even if it were to somehow do so by itself, so it submitted to the territorial changes.

Again, off-topic:

I invoked perceptions widespreaded in that period, included in contemporary documents of the (foreign) Great Powers, and quoted by historians, and you reply with your own contemporary theories and perceptions - I see no point in continuing that. The "de facto" status of the Danubian Principalities was a result of the fact that they were not conquered by force, and that's that. Moreover, the Porte never failed to aknowledge this thing...

PS: perhaps you are aware with the (quite unprecedented) fact that the Paris Peace Treaty (1856) restored the Moldavian (a vassal, but not an integral part of the Ottoman Empire) authority over three counties/judeţe in Southern Bessarabia (Cahul, Bolgrad and Ismail), after the Crimean War. Thus Russia lost the acces to the Danube which was secured after 1812... The loss of the region by Romania (again) after 1878 (to its former ally, whom the country bailed out in the most difficult moment of the Russian-Turkish war) does nothing but confirm the fact that, by that time, diplomacy was mainly based upon sheer force and not upon principles or rules.

This post has been edited by Agarici on August 29, 2015 04:04 pm

What have airfields and aviation in 1941 got to do with the Porte or anything else that happened at least 100 years before?
Admin, please clean-up.
Radu

Your belief that these are "contemporary theories and perceptions" is sorely mistaken.

Had you read some 19th Century books on international law (IL) or international relations (IR) you would have known that this subject was tackled at that time and the theory is not at all contemporary and certainly not a concoction of mine.

In fact, the Romanian principalities were included by contemporary IL and IR writers in the semi-sovereign or even fully non-sovereign category of statal units.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on October 27, 2015 08:39 pm