Can the recent more frequent earthquakes be caused by the melting glaciers?

No - BUT i do see 100% the point that you are trying to make. What you are referring to is "glacial eustacy" and, as you rightly suggest, is quite real.

A good example is lake bonneville. It is a paleo lake used to reconstruct early quaternary enviconments and there are shoreline marks along islands in the centre that are over 60 metres higher than corresponding shorelines on the edges which proves that isostacy and eustacy do have an impact on crustal warping and deformation. Lake Chad is a similarly good example.

However - from a physics point of view, the overrall sea level rise as a result of deglaciation is so small, that, as a percentage, it would have almost no effect of sea levels (if any at all) and therefore unlikely to cause tectonic shift. Additionally, these changes would most like be observed at "transform" or "convergent" boundaries (where there was plate friction" and the isolated earthquakes don't really match this pattern. I would expect considerably more activity around the "pacific ring of fire". Take, for example, Tokyo, which has been expecting a big one for a decade but it hasn't happened yet.

And finally - looking at historical records, we are in the Quaternary - which has seen ice caps approaching and decreasing rapidly and frequently on hundreds of occasions for the last 2.6 million years, however there is not a correlating increase in volcanic or tectonic activity. And any changes experienced in the last century through man made (or otherwise) are trifling compared to these massive changes in climate - and water levels - that have occurred recently.

So, no - its not really plausible.

Melting glaciers may lead to Earthquakes, but I would suspect that most of the earthquakes would happen close to the melting glacier and I would also suspect that the glaciers would have to be very large. Should the ice sheets melt in Greenland and Antarctica, there could be large earthquakes there.

Could melting glaciers be responsible for earthquakes in Peru, Japan, New Zealand and Turkey? All of these nations have mountains and I believe that they have melting glaciers, but I believe that the glaciers in these nations are to small to cause large earthquakes by melting.

glacial eustacy refers to the change in sea levels.

Isostacy is what I believe you are referring to.

As a geologist, we learn early on about isostatic rebound.

Isostatic rebound is when the plates recover from the overburden that recently pushed them down, e.g. the weight of glaciers.

The rebound forces might help to trigger earthquakes that were already going to happen but they add very little energy.

I would say it is very unlikely, particularly the ones off shore for the reason Niall provided. There obviously was not glacial overburder on the subduction zone off Japan. The ones on New Zealand and Turkey are possible but I don't know the glacial history but it seems unlikely that glaciers receded in those places recently (in a geologic timescale).

I'm sure there is no causal relationship. Earthquakes release far more energy than would be caused the weight reduction by melting glaciers.

More than likely it is from volcanic activity moving closer to the surface, or the result of generalized global warming, cyclical or man made.