Pyropolizer,
I'm not sure this exchange is taking us very far, but let's have another go.
Nowhere in the T of Guarantee do the words appear that you place in upper case letters as if an obvious, unambiguous quotation - RESTORE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER. Granted you might think that this is what the T. meant or even should have said, but that is NOT what it actually says. In that light the ambiguity and plausible different interpretations is glaring.
I'd have thought that you'd be on stronger ground - that is to say less ambiguous - if you'd referred directly to Article 4 "In so far as common or concerted action may not prove possible, each of the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of reestablishing the state of affairs created by the present Treaty." But there is no point in starting a legal argument by invoking something in your imagination as opposed to the text on the page. All the same, Art 4. is still fairly imprecise. I don't know if Turkey actually argued this, but one could easily say, consistent with Art 4., something like "we couldn't agree with our fellow guarantors a common response, however since as a guarantor power we believed the crisis to be critical and urgent we felt bound to intervene. It was always our intention to re-establish the state of affairs or the
status quo ante but regrettably hostile forces have continued to frustrate our peaceful ambitions." (Stage left: howls of derision).
If Turkey thought that was not clear enough for her she could easily go to any international court and claim ambiguity....
Again I'm sorry to point out that what you've suggested here just doesn't occur in international law. (It doesn't even work like this in domestic law : as a citizen you don't present yourself to a court at the end of each day or week for the court to check that what you'd been doing was lawful !) What would the doorman have said when the Turkish delegation turned up at court [which court do you have in mind] on a Monday morning saying 'we're here to see if it's all ok with her indoors' ?
Oh the Americans just got annoyed-there was no legal basis for what they did! ....
Embargoes by one state against another are not a matter of international law. In that sense they're neither illegal or legal. A domestic comparison would be if we'd been engaged in commerce and for some reason I didn't want to sell stuff to you any more, there's nothing you could do about it. My refusal to continue to sell is not illegal.
If, say, the UN SC through proper procedure, imposed sanctions (which are to be enforced by all members) then to continue to trade with the target of sanctions would be illegal. But an individual country imposing an embargo is of little legal interest. The UN SC has never imposed sanctions on Turkey over Cyprus, or anything else for that matter.
show me one legal decision Turkey ever managed to win
I think the onus is on you to at least tell me which cases you have in mind and which court/s heard the cases. Please note, the UN Security Council is
not a court (although it may be regarded as one source of law).
