Cyprus-Forum.com

[Pyrpolizer]

Dear Kifeas,
Point taken, and I disagree with you. I've been reading and digesting the UN Charter for the best part of thirty years and there is nothing inconsistent between 1959 guarantor obligations and Art. 103 of the UN Charter. The very fact that the 1959 agreement, together with the 1960 constitution were deposited with the UN, as required by law, suggests that the UN itself didn't find anything inconsistent here either. That one state should come to the aid of another state when triggered by specifically named circumstances is pretty standard stuff in international agreements.

In principle one state alone can't be judge, jury, prosecutor and enforcer (unless assigned to do so by the UN, but I can't think of a single example where this has happened). The Charter provides for a careful - if not always effective - division of responsibilities amongst different institutions. In practice one state in particular does take all these roles in certain cases i.e, the USA. The implication of what you wrote is that you think in the Cyprus case, Turkey acted in all these roles - yes ? Each and every country doesn't claim a right and duty to invade another country - I've got to throw the Charter back at you and say read it. The Charter says exactly the opposite and all the states we're interested in are Charter signatories.

Who will invade Turkey in order to save the truly mistreated majority of its citizens?

I'd be the first to say that there are all sorts of problems and weaknesses in international law, BUT the whole point of the Charter and modern international order was precisely to prevent the logic unfolding of what you've just suggested. In many cases the Charter has been successful, in some cases it hasn't. How would you answer your own question ? And if the criteria you chose - say killing of X thousand Kurds - were to be the justification for intervention in Turkey, and therefore for other interventions wouldn't this just lead to generalised war around the world ?


Pyropolizer,
Why do you have this immediate reaction of fantasy and conspiracy ? If someone said their interested in cars and just looked at the outside of a car, and said "engines, transmission, brakes, that's just too deep; don't know what you're talking about" you'd be entitled to say 'well they might like the look of a car but they've no idea how it works'. I'm interested in how they work.

In my opinion yours is a really depressing response. Your basically saying to me on these questions, don't dig down, don't investigate, don't try to understand, don' try to explain, don't dare suggest anything outside conventional and inherited prejudices, just be satisfied with the superficial and complacent.

If you want to know why stuff has happened to/in Cyprus then it is not enough to look just at Cyprus. Looking at the UN Charter, for example, goes a long way to explaining what would otherwise appear to be peculiar or bizarre twists and turns.

In fact a couple of people have already said the equivalent of 'shut up we don't like it, we don't want to have to think too hard'. That you'll be 'watching me' isn't of the slightest interest, though I understand the Orwellian intent behind your surveillance. If you read my posts seriously, as I read your posts seriously - the purpose of a Forum after all - then I'd be happy.

Finally, Pyropolizer, not everything in this world is reducible to the Cyprus problem and not everything has a sly subtext of getting the TRNC recognised. The Cyprus problem, on a world scale, is a spit in the ocean. There are more killings, beatings, expropriations, property battles, blood feuds, and all manners of social harms in your typical medium sized European or American city than in the whole of Cyprus. Please do get a proper sense of perspective and proportion.

COpperline - the issue of UN charters and the Guarantor powers given to Turkiye, Britain and Greece had been explained in some detail to everyone in another thread more than a month ago! Although proven clearly that the Turkish invasion was not an "illegal act" or against any UN charter, the same subject keeps coming up time and again. That is because they know of nothing better.

The simple truth is, if the Turkish invasion and current presence of the Turkish army in the North was illegal, UN would call for sanctions against Turkiye. Not only that, but UN is actively taking part in a negotiation process that is calling for the progressive withdrawal of the "Turkish military" from Cyprus as a part and parcel of an agreed settlement between the two sides. So anything else called for during some UN meeting is nothing but political "belly dancing" to keep sides happy...

I don't know to whom you have explained everything BigOz and who agreed with you but your assumption is wrong. The only right Turkey possibly had was to take action to restore the constitutional order. And even that is not clear there are lawyers of international law who say the term to take action does not mean military action being the 1st and only choice.

What Turkey did eventually was an invasion, ethnic cleansing, killing, and occupation. There have been numerous UN resolutions against Turkey, the UN clearly considers Turkeys action illegal, calls for the withdrawal of her troops and so on and so forth. So far Turkey has no abided to any UN resolution. May I remind you that there were sanctions against Turkey for 2 years after 1974. Later on the US themselves needed those sanctions lifted and so they were lifted. Nothing strange with that.

Telling us that Turkey has invaded and still stays on the island legally is totally wrong.

[Pyrpolizer]

Correction:If I remember correctly there is one UN resolution against Turkey that even Turkey agreed:The withdrawal of her troops. (if my memory is correct)

[Jerry]

I think it's quite refreshing to hear from someone who appears to have an in depth knowledge of international law even if it something we don't like to hear. Personally I believe Copperline's posts are quite well balanced but I have a few questions for him/her:-

Quote
That one state should come to the aid of another state when triggered by specifically named circumstances is pretty standard stuff in international agreements.

1. It's not clear to me how the Tukish invasion of 1974 invasion could be described as coming to the aid of Cyprus since it was clearly resisted by the internationally recognised State, the ROC.

2. Could it be argued that since outside powers were legally empowered to interfere in Cyprus Cypriots were denied the right to self determiation and therefore the 1959 agreements were illegal or, at least, mistakenly accepted by the UN.

3. I understand that the 1959 agreements were never ratified by the ROC, what, if any, are the legal consequences of this?

[CopperLine]

No CopperLine, you are totally wrong! The fact that the 1959-1960 set of agreements were deposited with the UN, doesn't validate or legalise their content, if and when they are found to be in conflict with the UN Charter!

Kifeas, you obviously believe this with a passion. You are equally mistaken.

See Article 102 of the Charter. Since it is axiomatic to UN membership and Charter signatories that they act in 'good faith', that they make public agreements which are consistent with and not at odds with the fundamental principles of law, and since the function of a depositary organisation is to confirm the legal integrity of an agreement, it is inconceivable that an agreement would be accepted for deposition that it was in obvious breach of international law. This is just a daft proposition.

You are right to say that deposition doesn't 'validate' an agreement: that is not the purpose of deposition. You are half wrong/half right when you say it doesn't 'legalise' - part of the legal recognition of a treaty or other agreement is precisely the process of depositing with the UN (or other body) Depositing in that sense is part of the means by which a treaty is 'legalised'.

See the codification of peremptory norms in international law at Article 53 of the Vienna Convention, 1969, see Article 62 on 'Fundamental change of cicrcumstances'. See in full Section 5. The 1959 agreement was not declared invalid or contrary to Charter provisions. See also Article 75 on 'Aggressor states.'

The depositing of those (any international) agreements with the UN, is simply made in order to mark and register their existence!

Sorry, wrong again. Would the UN or any deposition body accept an agreement that said 'KifeasStan agrees with CopperLineistan to attack Pyropolizeristan' ? No. Why not ? Because that is a treaty which is calling for war and war as the Preamble and early Articles of the Charter say clearly is illegal. If on the other hand we deposited a treaty which said ' Kifeastan and Copperlineistan agree to mutual defence is attacked by any other state' then that would be accepted because it is consistent with Charter provisions.

I think that you've confused and conflated two different arguments. It is one thing to say that Turkey's actions were in fact not permitted by or could not be justified by the terms of the 1959 agreement. Fair enough, that's a legal-political judgement. It is quite something else to say that the 1959 agreement itself was either illegal, contrary to the Charter, or other fundamentals of international law, as you were arguing. On the latter I think that you are fundamentally mistaken. On the former there's clearly a case.

[Pyrpolizer]

Would the UN or any deposition body accept an agreement that said 'KifeasStan agrees with CopperLineistan to attack Pyropolizeristan' ?

God forbit. I would pyrpolize all of you.

[Pyrpolizer]

CopperLine,

I would like to hear your views on the Annan Plan I mean whether it was in conformity with the EU aquis, whether it was not but would set a new Aquis, which might have been unacceptable to the rest of the EU members, and whether Cyprus's EU accession could be declined by the Parliaments of EU members on grounds that what Cyprus was initially accepted would not be the case anymore.

In case you have studied this matter in depth feel free to copy this message and start a new topic.

[CopperLine]

Jerry,

Blimey, I'm on holiday but relish the mental effort to try to work out these questions, so busman's holiday it is !

The way I'd go about trying to respond to any of these questions is not to take sides but to see how different arguments have been made (or could be made). Even though there are serious problems with international law and serious weaknesses, the curious thing is that virtually all states take it seriously. That is to say they are rarely cavalier in their attitude to international law. They very, very rarely say that they're above the law or are otherwise reckless about it. So even the US went to great efforts to argue that its invasion of Iraq was consistent with international law, it didn't just invade though it had the capacity and will, it tried to claim legitimacy. (For the record, the US/UK invasion of Iraq was in my view unquestionably illegal and has undermined international law massively).
In that light, I take Turkey's 1974 intervention as being legally serious and not treated as a legal triviality or as a legal afterthought by officials. (Again I'm not saying that I or you should agree with it)

1. It's not clear to me how the Tukish invasion of 1974 invasion could be described as coming to the aid of Cyprus since it was clearly resisted by the internationally recognised State, the ROC.

As I argued in an earlier posting, had the intervention taken place in the 1990s Turkey''s case would have been much stronger in so far as intervention for reasons of the protection of minorities has become much more accepted. Thus the fact that RoC, the recognised state, clearly rejected the intervention could have been discounted. (By way of comparison, today the sovereign state of Sudan clearly doesn't want intervention in and over Darfur).

In legal terms (as well as moral and political) the crux of the matter is whether or not different groups of people, eg national groups, religious groups, tribal groups, even individuals, have legal standing so that the duty to protect that legal personality takes precedence over, say, state sovereignty and the principle of a right of non-intervention. What I mean by this is, supposing children who have certain rights are being actively or passively abused by the state eg State X allows children to starve & refuse to provide education, thereby breaching the right to life and right to education, should we outside State X say those children have rights which we can fulfil, and we have duties to protect those children from the neglect of State X. Substitute children in this example for ethnic groups, trade unions, journalists, religious groups and so on. Or Turkish Cypriots. State X is clearly against our proposed intervention in its' internal and sovereign affairs. Basically Turkey's legal argument was that it had a duty to intervene even against the wishes of RoC, that TC's had a right to protection, and that there were treaty obligations to boot.

Again I am not saying that Turkey, or rather Turkish politicians, didn't also have any number of other agenda. They clearly did.

(You've also got to see this in the context of the time : the Biafran war 67-70 where external intervention for protection didn't happen and hundreds of thousands were killed; Vietnam war 65-73 where external intervention did happen and hundreds of thousands were killed; Israel, '67 and '73 wars ....)

2. Could it be argued that since outside powers were legally empowered to interfere in Cyprus Cypriots were denied the right to self determiation and therefore the 1959 agreements were illegal or, at least, mistakenly accepted by the UN.

I don't think so, at least not in legal terms. For good or bad, those who negotiated the 1959 agreement and the 1960 Constitution were regarded as having property authority to negotiate on behalf of the people of Cyprus. (Who can and who can't represent, negotiate and sign international agreements is also codified in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties). So these people were seen to be the legitimate and recognised expression of Cypriot self-determination.

Incidentally you can find all treaty texts here : http://untreaty.un.org/English/treaty.asp
but it is subscription or special request only (that's the UN for you !) Nevertheless you can freely access UN Secuirty Council resolutions at :
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/

You can find a copy of the Cyprus Treaty of Guarantee, 1959 here : http://teaching.law.cornell.edu/faculty ... uments.htm

See Article 2 and Article 3 in particular.

3. I understand that the 1959 agreements were never ratified by the ROC, what, if any, are the legal consequences of this?

I'm not sure. Ratification is a very specific legal term, and I'm not sure what was required in terms of RoC. Makarios and Kucuk did sign the agreement though, and that might have been sufficient for ratification. (Sometimes signature is synonymous with ratification). Either way, Turkey's argument was that it had come into force and that this was confirmed by both Greece and the UK.

As an aside, if you just compare treaty texts of even the late 1950s and 1960s with those of today the most obvious thing to strike you is the vagueness and ambiguity of the former. Basically the T of Guarantee is on a couple of sides of A4/foolscap, fairly typical for the day. If you look at any similar treaty today it typically goes into scores if not hundreds of pages and every last bit is nailed down.


There's a lot more, but that's it for now ...

[CopperLine]

I would like to hear your views on the Annan Plan I mean whether it was in conformity with the EU aquis, whether it was not but would set a new Aquis, which might have been unacceptable to the rest of the EU members, and whether Cyprus's EU accession could be declined by the Parliaments of EU members on grounds that what Cyprus was initially accepted would not be the case anymore.

Dunno. I know the Annan Plan in outline but I've not really looked at it in detail. Also, unfortunately and regrettably, EU law in general and aquis criteria bores me rigid. I'd be interested to learn from the Forum, though. As someone said all of this will have been discussed many times before on the Forum, yes ?

[zan]

No CopperLine, you are totally wrong! The fact that the 1959-1960 set of agreements were deposited with the UN, doesn't validate or legalise their content, if and when they are found to be in conflict with the UN Charter!

Kifeas, you obviously believe this with a passion. You are equally mistaken.

See Article 102 of the Charter. Since it is axiomatic to UN membership and Charter signatories that they act in 'good faith', that they make public agreements which are consistent with and not at odds with the fundamental principles of law, and since the function of a depositary organisation is to confirm the legal integrity of an agreement, it is inconceivable that an agreement would be accepted for deposition that it was in obvious breach of international law. This is just a daft proposition.

You are right to say that deposition doesn't 'validate' an agreement: that is not the purpose of deposition. You are half wrong/half right when you say it doesn't 'legalise' - part of the legal recognition of a treaty or other agreement is precisely the process of depositing with the UN (or other body) Depositing in that sense is part of the means by which a treaty is 'legalised'.

See the codification of peremptory norms in international law at Article 53 of the Vienna Convention, 1969, see Article 62 on 'Fundamental change of cicrcumstances'. See in full Section 5. The 1959 agreement was not declared invalid or contrary to Charter provisions. See also Article 75 on 'Aggressor states.'

The depositing of those (any international) agreements with the UN, is simply made in order to mark and register their existence!

Sorry, wrong again. Would the UN or any deposition body accept an agreement that said 'KifeasStan agrees with CopperLineistan to attack Pyropolizeristan' ? No. Why not ? Because that is a treaty which is calling for war and war as the Preamble and early Articles of the Charter say clearly is illegal. If on the other hand we deposited a treaty which said ' Kifeastan and Copperlineistan agree to mutual defence is attacked by any other state' then that would be accepted because it is consistent with Charter provisions.

I think that you've confused and conflated two different arguments. It is one thing to say that Turkey's actions were in fact not permitted by or could not be justified by the terms of the 1959 agreement. Fair enough, that's a legal-political judgement. It is quite something else to say that the 1959 agreement itself was either illegal, contrary to the Charter, or other fundamentals of international law, as you were arguing. On the latter I think that you are fundamentally mistaken. On the former there's clearly a case.

Brilliant!!!
And for people like me and Pyro who has confessed to not being of a proffessorial standard:


THE UN IS NOT JUST A SAFETY DEPOSITE BOX!!!!!!!

[BelloTurco 2007]

Ankara and Turkey does n t have to answer to anything pal. There was a war, a genoicde and Turkey responded by sending a peace keeping mission to protect the weaker party which was being slaughtered. No way should Turkey have to pay for anything. Turkey should be compensated for the money it s had to spend to keep peace on the İsland! İf you want to help you should look at ways of an ammicable reunifaction not cry about something which is now ancient history!