Cyprus-Forum.com

[Pyrpolizer]

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.

Yeah right,

You forgot to say that convention was for already established states, who just wanted to finalise their existence.
Cyprus IS and remains a state with one of it' parts OCCUPIED by an invading force who turned it into one of it's districts with some fancy ambassadors to confuse everybody.

You may think whatever you like, you can even take your case to the UN and tell them look I am a Mondevideo state recognise me.

[utu]

Yeah right,

You forgot to say that convention was for already established states, who just wanted to finalise their existence.
Cyprus IS and remains a state with one of it' parts OCCUPIED by an invading force who turned it into one of it's districts with some fancy ambassadors to confuse everybody.

You may think whatever you like, you can even take your case to the UN and tell them look I am a Mondevideo state recognise me.

As a restatement of customary international law, the Montevideo Convention merely codifies existing legal norms and its principles therefore do not apply merely to the signatories, but to all subjects of international law as a whole.

The European Union, in the principal statement of its Badinter Committee, follows the Montevideo Convention in its definition of a state: by having a territory, a population, and a political authority. The committee also found that the existence of states was a question of fact, while the recognition by other states was purely declaratory and not a determinative factor of statehood.

Switzerland, although not a member of the European Union, adheres to the same principle, stating that "neither a political unit needs to be recognized to become a state, nor does a state have the obligation to recognize another one. At the same time, neither recognition is enough to create a state, nor does its absence abolish it."

[Get Real!]

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:

We've covered this issue too...

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.p ... convention

[utu]

Thanks for letting me know, but I would like to know what your take on the convention is...

[Get Real!]

Thanks for letting me know, but I would like to know what your take on the convention is...

That was actually my thread so the answer to your question is there.

[CopperLine]

Pyropolizer,
In reply to UTU you wrote, 'You forgot to say that convention was for already established states, who just wanted to finalise their existence.' This is not correct. The Convention aims, as UTU said, to codify customary law and to that extent is intended to confirm criteria of legal statehood. As Brownlie argued, cited by GR in that other thread, many other commentators argue that Montevideo C criteria are, at best, necessary criteria but not sufficient for de jure recognition.

Even so, this still does not erase the distinction between de facto and de jure.

Much of the argument revolves around this distinction : On the one hand there are those who see (A) the de facto state of TRNC or X (or whatever you want to call it) as the expression of self-determination of Turkish Cypriots, albeit supported in that aim by a foreign power. On the other hand there are those who see (B) the de facto state of TRNC or X as simply and only the creation of Turkey out of a land under occupation.

If you acknowledge the right of self-determination - entirely consistent with modern international law, and one of those 'extra' criteria of de jure statehood - then the Turkish Cypriots have been denied their national rights to the extent that TRNC remains unrecognised. That claim is consistent with (A) and is consistent with a claim under international law to state recognition.

If on the other hand you believe that there is not and has not been any genuine movement for Turkish Cypriot self-determination and that Turkey has simply invaded and occupied and created a colonial entity then, the fact that TRNC is a de facto state will does nothing to advance its
de jure recognition. The origins of the state are, on that reading, internationally illegal and continued occupation is internationally illegal.

In my view it all hinges on whether one acknowledges (A) or whether one insists on (B).

It is worth adding that the argument of self-determination does not rest on whether RoC or GCs think that TCs are right or wrong, nor whether RoC or GCs think that TCs have broken the constitution or carried out an illegal separation. Self-determination is a right of a people. We might not like the result, but we can't take away that right.

[Pyrpolizer]

Yeah right,

You forgot to say that convention was for already established states, who just wanted to finalise their existence.
Cyprus IS and remains a state with one of it' parts OCCUPIED by an invading force who turned it into one of it's districts with some fancy ambassadors to confuse everybody.

You may think whatever you like, you can even take your case to the UN and tell them look I am a Mondevideo state recognise me.

As a restatement of customary international law, the Montevideo Convention merely codifies existing legal norms and its principles therefore do not apply merely to the signatories, but to all subjects of international law as a whole.

The European Union, in the principal statement of its Badinter Committee, follows the Montevideo Convention in its definition of a state: by having a territory, a population, and a political authority. The committee also found that the existence of states was a question of fact, while the recognition by other states was purely declaratory and not a determinative factor of statehood.

Switzerland, although not a member of the European Union, adheres to the same principle, stating that "neither a political unit needs to be recognized to become a state, nor does a state have the obligation to recognize another one. At the same time, neither recognition is enough to create a state, nor does its absence abolish it."

Will you stop copy-pasting opinions you found somewhere?

a)It is JUST THE OPINION of the writer that what the signatories of the already formed countries in the American continent signed at Mondevideo, is binding to the whole world.
b)As for the Badinter Arbitration Committee which was established to decide about ex-Yugoslavian states you forgot to mention that it clearly states
i)According to a well-established principle of international law the alteration of
existing frontiers or boundaries by force is not capable of producing any legal effect. This
principle is to be found, for instance, in the Declaration on Principles of International Law
concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the
Charter of the United Nations (General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV)) and in the
Helsinki Final Act; it was cited by the Hague Conference on 7 September 1991 and is
enshrined in the draft Convention of 4 November 1991 drawn up by the Conference on
Yugoslavia.

ii)All external frontiers must be respected in line with the principles stated in the
United Nations Charter, in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning
Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the
United Nations (General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV)) and in the Helsinki Final Act,
a principle which also underlies Article 11 of the Vienna Convention of 23 August 1978 on
the Succession of States in Respect of Treaties.

[zan]

Yeah right,

You forgot to say that convention was for already established states, who just wanted to finalise their existence.
Cyprus IS and remains a state with one of it' parts OCCUPIED by an invading force who turned it into one of it's districts with some fancy ambassadors to confuse everybody.

You may think whatever you like, you can even take your case to the UN and tell them look I am a Mondevideo state recognise me.

As a restatement of customary international law, the Montevideo Convention merely codifies existing legal norms and its principles therefore do not apply merely to the signatories, but to all subjects of international law as a whole.

The European Union, in the principal statement of its Badinter Committee, follows the Montevideo Convention in its definition of a state: by having a territory, a population, and a political authority. The committee also found that the existence of states was a question of fact, while the recognition by other states was purely declaratory and not a determinative factor of statehood.

Switzerland, although not a member of the European Union, adheres to the same principle, stating that "neither a political unit needs to be recognized to become a state, nor does a state have the obligation to recognize another one. At the same time, neither recognition is enough to create a state, nor does its absence abolish it."

Will you stop copy-pasting opinions you found somewhere?

a)It is JUST THE OPINION of the writer that what the signatories of the already formed countries in the American continent signed at Mondevideo, is binding to the whole world.
b)As for the Badinter Arbitration Committee which was established to decide about ex-Yugoslavian states you forgot to mention that it clearly states
i)According to a well-established principle of international law the alteration of
existing frontiers or boundaries by force is not capable of producing any legal effect. This
principle is to be found, for instance, in the Declaration on Principles of International Law
concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the
Charter of the United Nations (General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV)) and in the
Helsinki Final Act; it was cited by the Hague Conference on 7 September 1991 and is
enshrined in the draft Convention of 4 November 1991 drawn up by the Conference on
Yugoslavia.

ii)All external frontiers must be respected in line with the principles stated in the
United Nations Charter, in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning
Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the
United Nations (General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV)) and in the Helsinki Final Act,
a principle which also underlies Article 11 of the Vienna Convention of 23 August 1978 on
the Succession of States in Respect of Treaties.

Pyro.....Did you write all that yourself???

[Pyrpolizer]

Pyropolizer,
In reply to UTU you wrote, 'You forgot to say that convention was for already established states, who just wanted to finalise their existence.' This is not correct. The Convention aims, as UTU said, to codify customary law and to that extent is intended to confirm criteria of legal statehood. As Brownlie argued, cited by GR in that other thread, many other commentators argue that Montevideo C criteria are, at best, necessary criteria but not sufficient for de jure recognition.

Even so, this still does not erase the distinction between de facto and de jure.

Much of the argument revolves around this distinction : On the one hand there are those who see (A) the de facto state of TRNC or X (or whatever you want to call it) as the expression of self-determination of Turkish Cypriots, albeit supported in that aim by a foreign power. On the other hand there are those who see (B) the de facto state of TRNC or X as simply and only the creation of Turkey out of a land under occupation.

If you acknowledge the right of self-determination - entirely consistent with modern international law, and one of those 'extra' criteria of de jure statehood - then the Turkish Cypriots have been denied their national rights to the extent that TRNC remains unrecognised. That claim is consistent with (A) and is consistent with a claim under international law to state recognition.

If on the other hand you believe that there is not and has not been any genuine movement for Turkish Cypriot self-determination and that Turkey has simply invaded and occupied and created a colonial entity then, the fact that TRNC is a de facto state will does nothing to advance its
de jure recognition. The origins of the state are, on that reading, internationally illegal and continued occupation is internationally illegal.

In my view it all hinges on whether one acknowledges (A) or whether one insists on (B).

It is worth adding that the argument of self-determination does not rest on whether RoC or GCs think that TCs are right or wrong, nor whether RoC or GCs think that TCs have broken the constitution or carried out an illegal separation. Self-determination is a right of a people. We might not like the result, but we can't take away that right.

CopperLine are you going to tell me now that the right of self determination includes grabing by force the lands of other people and create a state based by 80%+ on theft??
Are we going to mix legal issues with illegal now? And then claim this de-facto is fine as per international law?

This is all nonsense as far as I am concerned.

The right of self determination is just a right. HOW IT APPLIES IN PRACTICE IS THE QUESTION. The Tcs do not have the RIGHT to take my lands and properties and the lands and properties of the 80% original inhabitants of the currently occupied areas, declare that a state just to excercise their self determination RIGHTS by violating MY RIGHTS.

How they will excercise them in an acceptable way is their problem, not mine. One way is to return o their own villages and properties and excercise their self determination rights as a community inside the already agreed Republic of Cyprus structure. YOU GO AHEAD AND ASK THEM IF THEY ACCEPT TO EXCERCISE THEIR SELF DETERMINATION RIGHTS THE WAY THEY SHOULD.

So don't ask from me to solve the problems the TCs caused to themselves. I have enough problems with what they did already.

[CopperLine]

Pyropolizer,

are you going to tell me now that the right of self determination includes grabing by force the lands of other people

For goodness sake !!! Read what I wrote. If you can't be bothered to even do that there is absolutely no point in any of us posting anything.