Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

This is what the UN Charter says in CHAPTER XVI, article 103.


Article 103
In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/


It is clear from the above article of the UN Charter that the London and Zurich agreements of 1959-60, are placed under the UN Charter, and the provisions of the UN Charter prevail on those of the 1960 treaty of guarantee!

Therefore, the Turkish invasion (set aside the Turkish occupation) is illegal under the provisions of international law!

[zan]

From a narrow legal point of view, Turkey had no need to secure UN approval. Turkey acted under the authority of The Treaty of Guarantee, signed on 16th August 1960, between RoC, Greece, Turkey and UK, the Treaty being subsequently lodged with the UN Secretariat in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.

Unfortunately for you, Turkey had officially signed away ALL CLAIMS TO CYPRUS, including the right of intervention, in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. (See articles 20 & 21)

http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/treaty_of_lausanne.htm

Unfortunately, Britain dragged Turkey back into Cyprus ILLEGALLY out of spite against the GC's upon realizing that she was no longer welcome. (See October 1930 demonstrations)

Technically there is NOTHING Turkish about Cyprus because even her Turkish Cypriot minority that remained on Cyprus after the Treaty of Lausanne had signed away their Turkish nationality in exchange for British Nationality.

Mixing things up again Gr??? All this applies to the GCs as well and makes no difference to what happened when the VERY first republic was formed. The GCs were also British nationals if you want to look at it that way so..so what. What happened when the republics papers were signed that is what you need to look at.

[observer]

Kifeas

This is what the UN Charter says in CHAPTER XVI, article 103.

Article 103
In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/


It is clear from the above article of the UN Charter that the London and Zurich agreements of 1959-60, are placed under the UN Charter, and the provisions of the UN Charter prevail on those of the 1960 treaty of guarantee!

Therefore, the Turkish invasion (set aside the Turkish occupation) is illegal under the provisions of international law!

... and Turkey's obligations under the UN Charter are summed up in Article 33 which reads:

Article 33
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

Turkey complied.

[observer]

Get Real wrote:

Unfortunately for you, Turkey had officially signed away ALL CLAIMS TO CYPRUS, including the right of intervention, in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. (See articles 20 & 21)

http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/treaty_of_lausanne.htm

Unfortunately, Britain dragged Turkey back into Cyprus ILLEGALLY out of spite against the GC's upon realizing that she was no longer welcome. (See October 1930 demonstrations)

Technically there is NOTHING Turkish about Cyprus because even her Turkish Cypriot minority that remained on Cyprus after the Treaty of Lausanne had signed away their Turkish nationality in exchange for British Nationality.

Later treaties can overturn the provisions of earlier treaties. In the case of Cyprus they clearly did. In this way the Treaty of Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus overwrote the Treaty of Lausanne, otherwise we would all be British nationals!

Too hot to stay and argue, so I'm off to the beach.

[bigOz]

This is what the UN Charter says in CHAPTER XVI, article 103.


Article 103
In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/


It is clear from the above article of the UN Charter that the London and Zurich agreements of 1959-60, are placed under the UN Charter, and the provisions of the UN Charter prevail on those of the 1960 treaty of guarantee!

Therefore, the Turkish invasion (set aside the Turkish occupation) is illegal under the provisions of international law

Kifeas! Your persistent use of oversized letters will not change the facts, so stop pretending we are all blind because it is really painful to read these huge fonts!

As for my main point - you must think we are really ignorant and know nothing about the UN Charter and/or Cyprus Constitutuon! Well let me shock you my friend; your interpretations of small quotes and repeated misrepresentation of facts have reached mammoth proportions. So much so, I though it's time for me to step in and stop you from embarassing yourself any further (as much as I find them amusing, they are not funny anymore).

The Cyprus invasion cannot be considered solely by the contents of the UN charter! IN fact the most important article applicable to Cyprus in this instance would be ARTICLE 52, stating:
QUOTE;
"Nothing in the present Charter precludes (meaning disqualifies, prohibits) the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations."

If you now move on from there to the "regional arrangements" made between four nations as "agencies" in the form of a "Treaty of Guarantee" as included in the Republic of Cyprus Constitution Annex-1 (Article 181), you have:
QUOTE;
"Treaty of Guarantee between the Republic of Cyprus and Greece, the United Kingdom and Turkey

The Republic of Cyprus of the one part, and Greece, the United Kingdom and Turkey of the other part:-
I. Considering that the recognition and maintenance of the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus, as established and regulated by the basic articles of its Constitution, are in their common interest;

II. Desiring to co-operate to ensure that the provisions of the aforesaid Constitution shall be respected:
Have agreed as follows:

ARTICLE 1
The Republic of Cyprus undertakes to ensure the maintenance of its independence, territorial integrity and security, as well as respect for its Constitution. It undertakes not to participate, in whole or in part, in any political or economic union with any State whatsoever. With this intent it prohibits all activity tending to promote directly or indirectly either union or partition of the Island.

ARTICLE 2
Greece the United Kingdom and Turkey, taking note of the undertakings by the Republic of Cyprus embodied in Article 1, recognize and guarantee the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus, and also the provisions of the basic articles of its Constitution. They likewise undertake to prohibit, as far as lies within their power, all activity having the object of promoting directly or indirectly either the union of the Republic of Cyprus with any other State, or the partition of the Island.

ARTICLE 3
In the event of any breach of the provisions of the present Treaty, Greece, the United Kingdom, and Turkey undertake to consult together, with a view to making representations, or taking the necessary steps to ensure observance of those provisions. In so far as common or concerted action may prove impossible, each of the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim Of re-establishing the state of affairs established by the present Treaty.

ARTICLE 4
The present Treaty shall enter into force on signature. The High Contracting Parties undertake to register the present Treaty at the earliest possible date with the Secretariat of the United Nations, in accordance vith the provisions of Article 102 of the Chapter."

So what is this B.S. people keep referring to, when declaring the Turkish Military invasion as "illegal"? The above quotes make it abundantly clear that it was as legal as it could get and there is no legal or moral justification in calling it an "illegal intervention" - AS I SAID YESTERDAY IN ANOTHER POST!

[Kifeas]

Kifeas

This is what the UN Charter says in CHAPTER XVI, article 103.

Article 103
In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/


It is clear from the above article of the UN Charter that the London and Zurich agreements of 1959-60, are placed under the UN Charter, and the provisions of the UN Charter prevail on those of the 1960 treaty of guarantee!

Therefore, the Turkish invasion (set aside the Turkish occupation) is illegal under the provisions of international law!

... and Turkey's obligations under the UN Charter are summed up in Article 33 which reads:

Article 33
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

Turkey complied.

The above joker, besides shamelessly lying by claiming that Turkey complied (how?) with the above article 33 of the UN Charter, he "forgets" to cite article 2 of the Charter which reads as follows.

Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Furthermore, the above joker forgets to mention that only the UN SC has the right to authorise a military intervention into the territory of any one member state, as it is stipulated in Chapter VII, article 42 of the UN Charter.

At least, and to his only credit, the above joker indirectly admits and accepts that the UN Charter and its provisions stand higher and above the 1960 agreements and any other international treaty.

[Kifeas]

Kifeas! Your persistent use of oversized letters will not change the facts, so stop pretending we are all blind because it is really painful to read these huge fonts!

As for my main point - you must think we are really ignorant and know nothing about the UN Charter and/or Cyprus Constitutuon! Well let me shock you my friend; your interpretations of small quotes and repeated misrepresentation of facts have reached mammoth proportions. So much so, I though it's time for me to step in and stop you from embarassing yourself any further (as much as I find them amusing, they are not funny anymore).

The Cyprus invasion cannot be considered solely by the contents of the UN charter! IN fact the most important article applicable to Cyprus in this instance would be ARTICLE 52, stating:
QUOTE;
"Nothing in the present Charter precludes (meaning disqualifies, prohibits) the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations."

He! He! He! He!


Another joker on the block!

Article 52 of the UN Charter indeed says that:

Article 52
1. Nothing in the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.

2. The Members of the United Nations entering into such arrangements or constituting such agencies shall make every effort to achieve pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies before referring them to the Security Council.

3. The Security Council shall encourage the development of pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies either on the initiative of the states concerned or by reference from the Security Council.

4. This Article in no way impairs the application of Articles 34 and 35.

Who are these purposes and principles of the UN that any regional arrangements or activities should be consistent with?

They are listed in Chapter I, artcles 1 and 2 of the UN Charter.

Read them below:

CHAPTER I
PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES
Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2 To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Article 2, paragraph 1 of the UN Charter says that: "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members." Therefore, the notion that any one UN country has "unilateral intervention rights" in the territory of another member country, is in direct violation of the above paragraph, simply because there can be no principle of sovereign equality of all member states, when one member state claims it has the right to unilaterally intervene -for whatever purpose, into the territory of another country. Therefore, the provision of the 1960 treaty of guarantee, which hypothetically gives Turkey such a right, is nullified by the article 2 of the UN Charter. Otherwise, Cyprus and Turkey can not be regarded as sovereignly equal to each other, when the later has the right to intervene or invade into the territory of the former.

Furthermore, and more importantly, paragraph 4 of article 2, clearly says that: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Digest it my friends,
The Turkish Invasion in 1974 was in violation of the UN Charter (the highest treaty of all,) and therefore it was /is illegal!

Why does Turkey refuse to appear in front of the International Court of Hague (ICJ,) when it was invited by the RoC in several occasions after 1974, if it believed that it legally invaded and occupied in Cyprus?

[Kifeas]

Right above, in the preceding posts, I have proved with undisputed and concrete evidence to anyone with an average and above IQ that the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus (set aside the illegal Turkish occupation) was illegal under international law, because it directly violated the UN Charter!

Turkey, to this day, refuses to have the issue decided by the International Court of Justices in Hague (ICJ,) despite repeated RoC invitations, obviously because it knows well it has violated international law by illegally invading and illegally occupying the northerner 37% of the Cyprus’ (RoC) territory!

This is why Turkey will never be allowed to become an EU member state, because the EU is not a place for outlaws, invaders, usurpers and human rights violators!

[DT.]

Right above, in the preceding posts, I have proved with undisputed and concrete evidence to anyone with an average and above IQ that the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus (set aside the illegal Turkish occupation) was illegal under international law, because it directly violated the UN Charter!

Turkey, to this day, refuses to have the issue decided by the International Court of Justices in Hague (ICJ,) despite repeated RoC invitations, obviously because it knows well it has violated international law by illegally invading and illegally occupying the northerner 37% of the Cyprus’ (RoC) territory!

This is why Turkey will never be allowed to become an EU member state, because the EU is not a place for outlaws, invaders, usurpers and human rights violators!

WIth the exception of the UK

[bigOz]

Kifeas! Your persistent use of oversized letters will not change the facts, so stop pretending we are all blind because it is really painful to read these huge fonts!

As for my main point - you must think we are really ignorant and know nothing about the UN Charter and/or Cyprus Constitutuon! Well let me shock you my friend; your interpretations of small quotes and repeated misrepresentation of facts have reached mammoth proportions. So much so, I though it's time for me to step in and stop you from embarassing yourself any further (as much as I find them amusing, they are not funny anymore).

The Cyprus invasion cannot be considered solely by the contents of the UN charter! IN fact the most important article applicable to Cyprus in this instance would be ARTICLE 52, stating:
QUOTE;
"Nothing in the present Charter precludes (meaning disqualifies, prohibits) the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations."

He! He! He! He!
Another joker on the block!

Article 52 of the UN Charter indeed says that:

Article 52
1. Nothing in the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.

2. The Members of the United Nations entering into such arrangements or constituting such agencies shall make every effort to achieve pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies before referring them to the Security Council.

3. The Security Council shall encourage the development of pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies either on the initiative of the states concerned or by reference from the Security Council.

4. This Article in no way impairs the application of Articles 34 and 35.

Who are these purposes and principles of the UN that any regional arrangements or activities should be consistent with?

They are listed in Chapter I, artcles 1 and 2 of the UN Charter.

Read them below:

CHAPTER I
PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES
Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2 To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Article 2, paragraph 1 of the UN Charter says that: "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members." Therefore, the notion that any one UN country has "unilateral intervention rights" in the territory of another member country, is in direct violation of the above paragraph, simply because there can be no principle of sovereign equality of all member states, when one member state claims it has the right to unilaterally intervene -for whatever purpose, into the territory of another country. Therefore, the provision of the 1960 treaty of guarantee, which hypothetically gives Turkey such a right, is nullified by the article 2 of the UN Charter. Otherwise, Cyprus and Turkey can not be regarded as sovereignly equal to each other, when the later has the right to intervene or invade into the territory of the former.

Furthermore, and more importantly, paragraph 4 of article 2, clearly says that: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Digest it my friends,
The Turkish Invasion in 1974 was in violation of the UN Charter (the highest treaty of all,) and therefore it was /is illegal!

Why does Turkey refuse to appear in front of the International Court of Hague (ICJ,) when it was invited by the RoC in several occasions after 1974, if it believed that it legally invaded and occupied in Cyprus?

Your ignorance and traditional Greekness in looking at reality and trying to convince everyone to the opposite to what it blatantly shows is beyond any human comprehension! You are the biggest joke in this forum besides being thick as two planks, also stubborn as mule! But then again, my mule probably has more brains than a comedian like yourself!

What part of it is it you do not understand that the GUARANTEE TREATY TAKEN UP BY THE FOUR NATIONS supersedes any UN charter and has priority over them?

Furthermore stop embarrassing yourself and our intelligence by misinterpreting what is stated: Paragraph 4 of article 2 you mention above refers to the Article - 1 of the UN charter which is its general purpose! It has nothing to do with the treaties made by others independently. It merely states how states should behave according to charter but does not cover Guarantee treaties! GREECE WAS THE VIOLATOR OF THIS ARTICLE AT THE TIME AND NOT TURKEY

If you want to learn the relevant bit that applies to the treaties as such, then you should read what it says in ARTICLE 52 - item 1:
"Nothing in the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations."

The last part also applies to the action taken - it was to combat action by Greece backed EOKA-B that were against "the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations." Turkey was well within her rights afforded by the Guarantee ARTICLE-3 of which states: "In the event of any breach of the provisions of the present Treaty, Greece, the United Kingdom, and Turkey undertake to consult together, with a view to making representations, or taking the necessary steps to ensure observance of those provisions. In so far as common or concerted action may prove impossible, each of the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim Of re-establishing the state of affairs established by the present Treaty.

You are referring to "purposes and principles" of the UN charter and suggesting that it covers or applies to the terms and conditions of the Guarantee Treaty for Republic of Cyprus. by your argument, no one should be able to interfere when Cypriots are fucked by Greece or EOKA-B because they would be acting contrary to general principles of UN - not withstanding any other security agreement they may have between each other!

The Guarantee treaty was made in accordance with the UN charter, as stated in ARTICLA 4 of the Treaty:
"The present Treaty shall enter into force on signature. The High Contracting Parties undertake to register the present Treaty at the earliest possible date with the Secretariat of the United Nations, in accordance with the provisions of Article 102 of the Chapter."
This was duly done, hence TURKEY WAS WELL WITHIN HER RIGHTS TO INVADE - IT WAS LEGAL - AND YOU WILL NEVER IN AMILLION YEARS CONVINCE ANY TC THAT IT WAS AN ILLEGAL ACTION.

As for Turkey not responding to GC demands to go to Hague - they will never accept any invitation from the GC led RoC because they do not recognise them as the legitimate government of Cyprus. If there is any Court hearing to be held in Hague about any international crimes then they are not usually done by invitations, but they sit for a hearing on UN directions. IF AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS YOU'LL FIND IT WILL BE GREECE AND EOKA-B taking the stand long before Turkey does!

Yours is just the response and words of a frustrated murderer who could not and cannot get his own way and could not reach his goal of ENOSIS, because of the Turkish armed forces' intervention.

I tell you what Kifeas, go back to manufacturing rubber stamps to racially deface the RoC currencies, and stop bending facts, because irrespective of what you think of the invasion's legality, the TCs are here, they are on Cyprus to stay and nothing on this earth will change that! ENDAKSI RE?