Cyprus-Forum.com

[CopperLine]

OK Kifeas,
Let's summarise your argument on this thread so far :

1. There is nothing to be learnt from other states.
2. There is nothing to be learnt from other examples of ethnic cleansing.
3. Referring to other examples is just a cheap trick to ignore Cyprus.
4. Referring to other examples of tragedy is just a trick to minimise (Greek) Cypriot suffering.
5. The accepted distinction between de jure and de facto is just a way of smuggling in a 'Turkish thesis'.
6. The RoC constitution though clearly broken is the only source for the naming of parties.
7. Only if you know the RoC constitution (1960) will you understand the Cyprus problem (2007)
8. Only if you agree with Kifeas' characterisation of the Cyprus problem will you solve the Cyprus problem.

Let's summarise my answers to each of these points :
1. No.
2. No.
3. No.
4. No.
5. No.
6. No.
7. No ..... and ....
8. errrr..... No.

[utu]

Ligitimate or not, acknowledged or not, the fact is that the state in the North of Cyprus exists, and the state seems to fit the criteria as defined by the Montevideo Convention. You just might as well ignore a person just because their parents are unmarried. I'm sorry if this opinion upsets most of you on this forum, but pretending that something does not exist when it does - just because you don't like it - is frankly self-delusional. Mehmet Ali Talat is the elected leader in the north, and that does give him ligitimacy as thier representative, like it or not.

[DT.]

Ligitimate or not, acknowledged or not, the fact is that the state in the North of Cyprus exists, and the state seems to fit the criteria as defined by the Montevideo Convention. You just might as well ignore a person just because their parents are unmarried. I'm sorry if this opinion upsets most of you on this forum, but pretending that something does not exist when it does - just because you don't like it - is frankly self-delusional. Mehmet Ali Talat is the elected leader in the north, and that does give him ligitimacy as thier representative, like it or not.

no one said he doesn't represent a commuinity. The only country he could represent though is if he gets a job as Chief Greeter at Disneyland.

[zan]

Does anyone know if Moldova was ever recognised cause they were in the EU song competition...

[utu]

no one said he doesn't represent a commuinity. The only country he could represent though is if he gets a job as Chief Greeter at Disneyland.

Let me guess: you don't like him.

[Pyrpolizer]

Pyropolizer,
Fine, you say that TRNC doesn't fulfil the criteria of a state but that it just about makes it to the level of administration, and on that score you say it isn't a state. You're entitled to that view and assessment. Unfortunately that criteria is not the criteria by which international law defines a de jure sate, and international law does not (cannot) seek to define a de facto state. The test of a de facto state is not a legal one but a practical one. Thus, for example, there is an infrastructure of tax gathering, there is an apparatus of law and order, there is an administration of borders, there is the organisation of education and health service provision and so on. All of these things are practical state-like activities. You might wish to call them 'administration', as if this is a lower grade activity than full and proper state-like activity, so be it. We needn't be too fussy about names, but we know that students' unions, trade unions, and terrorist organisations and so on, do not have or claim to organise the panoply of activities that states do (hence the Montevideo criteria).

but I don't even accept your term of "de-facto" state.

To repeat, this is not my term. This is a standard term used in law and social sciences and philosophy. If you are saying that 'de facto' is not a description of the TRNC/X then that's another matter, which, in my assessment I'd disagree with you.

The occupied areas is not even a state by the standards of most of definitions. It is an administration it has an administrative structure and is almost fully subordinate to Turkey.

I partly agree with you - the part that says "is almost fully subordinate to Turkey." Economic policy, monetary policy, security policy, even education policy ... are all wholly or increasingly determined from Ankara. Agreed. The problem, though, still remains that there are a large number of examples in which sovereign and independent states are also wholly or heavily dependent on another state for their very continuance.

The part I disagree with you - the part that says "The occupied areas is not even a state by the standards of most of definitions" - is mistaken in international law. If you are interested, look at the Manchukuo case in the 1930s, look at Taiwan from the 1950s onwards, look at Cambodia in the 1980s, look at the PLO and the PA from the late 1980s onwards, and many more.

Just one complaint to you : You wrote in reply to me, "Then you go ahead saying " this proves a de facto state"." You put that last phrase in quotation marks as if you were quoting my words. But those aren't my words at all. I didn't use the phrase "this proves", in fact I never use the phrase 'this proves ...' Why ? Because there is always doubt, there is always debate; scientific endeavour is not about closing down questions, it is about opening up new questions.

Starting from the last point I just quoted what I understood was your position.This is the impression YOU gave from your overall writtings. You never said you had doubts, in fact you only said that just now. By saying your position carries the element of a doubt, without defining how much your doubt is (1%, 5%, 90% ???) still allows everyone to assume you hold that position almost entirely.

My friend you know there is absolutely no given treaty or law or anything that sets the standards for what is a de-facto state. That's why I said if we take lets say 20 of those sets the "trnc" will not be able to pass the vast majority of them. Let aside the fact that if one would examine those criteria would not just look at the headlines but check them in depth. As an example I can mention examining in depth the criterion of the existence of an apparatus of law and order. I urge you do that, by yourself, and you ill soon discover the occupied just drops to the level of a puppet and subordinate administration. (A hint:Erdogan asks for article so and so of the "constitution" to change).

Indeed if you like we can examine together some sets of criteria for what make a de facto state, and i assure you I will soon prove you the occupied is just a subordinate administration.

As for jumping from the de-facto to the de-jure status (a status that can actually be granted by other countries) then there is where it would really flank. No other country will ever accept a new state based by more than 80% on other peoples land who were ethnically cleansed by a neighbouring country for the benefit of her own minority on the expense of the local majority. Simply because we are not in the middle ages anymore, and simply because no other country would love to commit suicide...

[Pyrpolizer]

Ligitimate or not, acknowledged or not, the fact is that the state in the North of Cyprus exists, and the state seems to fit the criteria as defined by the Montevideo Convention. You just might as well ignore a person just because their parents are unmarried. I'm sorry if this opinion upsets most of you on this forum, but pretending that something does not exist when it does - just because you don't like it - is frankly self-delusional. Mehmet Ali Talat is the elected leader in the north, and that does give him ligitimacy as thier representative, like it or not.

Nobody says the occupied do not exist, sure they exist, sure people live in there. And of course they have an administrative structure as a puppet regime.

As for the Mondevideo convention which you keep on repeating like a parrot go do some reading to see what that was. Even article 8 says No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another. And you come here telling me the occupied fullfills the Mondevideo criteria??? Which criteria??

Now examining that existence you will discover a lot of thieves, settlers, ethic cleansings lootings etc,etc. This is what EXISTS.

To tell me hey look at the "Princess of the Turkish Mediteranian Republic", it exists, you can't ignore it, is like telling me I can't ignore a fart even if the one who farted it telling me it's the same as Pacco Rabbanne.

[Pyrpolizer]

OK Kifeas,
Let's summarise your argument on this thread so far :

1. There is nothing to be learnt from other states.
2. There is nothing to be learnt from other examples of ethnic cleansing.
3. Referring to other examples is just a cheap trick to ignore Cyprus.
4. Referring to other examples of tragedy is just a trick to minimise (Greek) Cypriot suffering.
5. The accepted distinction between de jure and de facto is just a way of smuggling in a 'Turkish thesis'.
6. The RoC constitution though clearly broken is the only source for the naming of parties.
7. Only if you know the RoC constitution (1960) will you understand the Cyprus problem (2007)
8. Only if you agree with Kifeas' characterisation of the Cyprus problem will you solve the Cyprus problem.

Let's summarise my answers to each of these points :
1. No.
2. No.
3. No.
4. No.
5. No.
6. No.
7. No ..... and ....
8. errrr..... No.

With all due respect but aren't you the one who said you don't know what exactly we should learn?

I personally agree with Kifeas, so to prove us wrong you have to be specific, take a few of those cases and tell us what we should learn from each one.

[utu]

The Montevideo Convention sets out the definition, rights and duties of statehood. Most well-known is article 1, which sets out the four criteria for statehood that have sometimes been recognized as an accurate statement of customary international law:

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) a capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
Furthermore, the first sentence of article 3 explicitly states that "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states." (the declarative theory of statehood). As Nothern Cyprus (under the name Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus) has a permanent population, defined territory (north of the Atilla Line) an elected government, and a capacity to enter into relations with other countries as shown by an Embasy in Turkey, OIC membership, and rep. offices in other nations, the criteria has been met.

Now, the stance of the (recognized) Government of Cyrpus has questioned whether the Montevideo Convention is relevent, as the convention criteria allows less-recognized entities like the Republic of China (Taiwan) or even entirely non-recognized entities like the Sealand to claim full status as states. According to the alternative constitutive theory of statehood, a state exists only insofar as it is recognized by other states.

[utu]

For those who are curious, the sixteen articles of the Montevideo Convention are here for your perusal:

ARTICLE 1
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

ARTICLE 2
The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law.

ARTICLE 3
The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.

The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.

ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

ARTICLE 5
The fundamental rights of states are not susceptible of being affected in any manner whatsoever.

ARTICLE 6
The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.

ARTICLE 7
The recognition of a state may be express or tacit. The latter results from any act which implies the intention of recognizing the new state.

ARTICLE 8
No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.

ARTICLE 9
The jurisdiction of states within the limits of national territory applies to all the inhabitants.

Nationals and foreigners are under the same protection of the law and the national authorities and the foreigners may not claim rights other or more extensive than those of the nationals.

ARTICLE 10
The primary interest of states is the conservation of peace. Differences of any nature which arise between them should be settled by recognized pacific methods.

ARTICLE 11
The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure. The territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object of military occupation nor of other measures of force imposed by another state directly or indirectly or for any motive whatever even temporarily.

ARTICLE 12
The present Convention shall not affect obligations previously entered into by the High Contracting Parties by virtue of international agreements.

ARTICLE 13
The present Convention shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties in conformity with their respective constitutional procedures. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Uruguay shall transmit authentic certified copies to the governments for the aforementioned purpose of ratification. The instrument of ratification shall be deposited in the archives of the Pan American Union in Washington, which shall notify the signatory governments of said deposit. Such notification shall be considered as an exchange of ratifications.

ARTICLE 14
The present Convention will enter into force between the High Contracting Parties in the order in which they deposit their respective ratifications.

ARTICLE 15
The present Convention shall remain in force indefinitely but may be denounced by means of one year's notice given to the Pan American Union, which shall transmit it to the other signatory governments. After the expiration of this period the Convention shall cease in its effects as regards the party which denounces but shall remain in effect for the remaining High Contracting Parties.

ARTICLE 16
The present Convention shall be open for the adherence and accession of the States which are not signatories. The corresponding instruments shall be deposited in the archives of the Pan American Union which shall communicate them to the other High Contracting Parties.

In witness whereof, the following Plenipotentiaries have signed this Convention in Spanish, English, Portuguese and French and hereunto affix their respective seals in the city of Montevideo, Republic of Uruguay, this 26th day of December, 1933.