Cyprus-Forum.com

[DT.]

DT

The concern or fear of the circumstances of 'disbanding' the RoC are appreciated but, I think, not necessarily reflective of what actually happens in these circumstances of succession. At least we can say that from other recent examples. For example, with the end of the Soviet Union and the creation of the new sovereign republics there was not, let's say. and interval in which there was a vacuum of power or the absence of law. In day-to-day life most people would not know the difference to begin with. Assuming - and I agree it is a big assumption - that the parties had agreed to this kind of non-communal federal solution then the early days would I expect be much like the old days, followed gradually by experiences comparable to adopting the Euro - there is some confusion, there are some strange rumours, there are new habits to become accustomed to, but in a few months it becomes second nature and all rather unremarkable.

I wouldn't at all say that there is no risk in the moments leading up to a political-legal succession but I do think that the principal problems are (a) how do you get to that settlement proposal in the first place and (2) how do you harmonise, where necessary, legal liabilities and contracts thereafter. The moment of transition/succession is, in my view, less of a problem.

Incidentally, and very importantly, should there be a non-communal federal solution, the ECHR demands for a property commission to resolve outstanding property claims would still apply. In other words the successor entity would still have to ensure an effective local remedy to indvidual human rights complaints.

here lies the problem Copperline. The GCs have compromised a great deal with acceptance of a bicommunal bi-zonal federation...where they to compromise anymore as in the annan plan then the rewards would not outweigh the risks (no matter how great or small) of disbanding the ROC.

[Viewpoint]

DT

The concern or fear of the circumstances of 'disbanding' the RoC are appreciated but, I think, not necessarily reflective of what actually happens in these circumstances of succession. At least we can say that from other recent examples. For example, with the end of the Soviet Union and the creation of the new sovereign republics there was not, let's say. and interval in which there was a vacuum of power or the absence of law. In day-to-day life most people would not know the difference to begin with. Assuming - and I agree it is a big assumption - that the parties had agreed to this kind of non-communal federal solution then the early days would I expect be much like the old days, followed gradually by experiences comparable to adopting the Euro - there is some confusion, there are some strange rumours, there are new habits to become accustomed to, but in a few months it becomes second nature and all rather unremarkable.

I wouldn't at all say that there is no risk in the moments leading up to a political-legal succession but I do think that the principal problems are (a) how do you get to that settlement proposal in the first place and (2) how do you harmonise, where necessary, legal liabilities and contracts thereafter. The moment of transition/succession is, in my view, less of a problem.

Incidentally, and very importantly, should there be a non-communal federal solution, the ECHR demands for a property commission to resolve outstanding property claims would still apply. In other words the successor entity would still have to ensure an effective local remedy to indvidual human rights complaints.

here lies the problem Copperline. The GCs have compromised a great deal with acceptance of a bicommunal bi-zonal federation...where they to compromise anymore as in the annan plan then the rewards would not outweigh the risks (no matter how great or small) of disbanding the ROC.

Would mean a virgin birth no TRNC or "RoC", in its place we would have a United Cyprus Republic, a new begining. Dont you Gcs always complian you were forced to sign the 1960 agreements and how much you do not want it, you even have an Akritas plan to prove it. This would be your chance to get rid of it.

[DT.]

DT

The concern or fear of the circumstances of 'disbanding' the RoC are appreciated but, I think, not necessarily reflective of what actually happens in these circumstances of succession. At least we can say that from other recent examples. For example, with the end of the Soviet Union and the creation of the new sovereign republics there was not, let's say. and interval in which there was a vacuum of power or the absence of law. In day-to-day life most people would not know the difference to begin with. Assuming - and I agree it is a big assumption - that the parties had agreed to this kind of non-communal federal solution then the early days would I expect be much like the old days, followed gradually by experiences comparable to adopting the Euro - there is some confusion, there are some strange rumours, there are new habits to become accustomed to, but in a few months it becomes second nature and all rather unremarkable.

I wouldn't at all say that there is no risk in the moments leading up to a political-legal succession but I do think that the principal problems are (a) how do you get to that settlement proposal in the first place and (2) how do you harmonise, where necessary, legal liabilities and contracts thereafter. The moment of transition/succession is, in my view, less of a problem.

Incidentally, and very importantly, should there be a non-communal federal solution, the ECHR demands for a property commission to resolve outstanding property claims would still apply. In other words the successor entity would still have to ensure an effective local remedy to indvidual human rights complaints.

here lies the problem Copperline. The GCs have compromised a great deal with acceptance of a bicommunal bi-zonal federation...where they to compromise anymore as in the annan plan then the rewards would not outweigh the risks (no matter how great or small) of disbanding the ROC.

Would mean a virgin birth no TRNC or "RoC", in its place we would have a United Cyprus Republic, a new begining. Dont you Gcs always complian you were forced to sign the 1960 agreements and how much you do not want it, you even have an Akritas plan to prove it. This would be your chance to get rid of it.

nice try VP...as if you're really giving something up by disbanding the trnc....how can you disband something that isn't there

[cymart]

Regardless of what nationalities are involved,no country would agree to dissolve its government unless it was sure that it would be replaced with a functioning alternative.......Rolandis referred to this very important point in a recent article on the crucial issues which have to be resolved in order to find a viable solution.Given that we will have a new federal system based on power sharing with political equality,how will any deadlocks be resolved in the event that that the Greek and Turkish Cypriot parties cannot agree on something?The suggestion used in the Annan Plan to have a neutral board of international judges to resolve issues like this is apparently not favoured by either side so what is the answer??If this cannot be solved then no agreement will have any hope of lasting more than a few weeks,especially here in Cyprus where there are so many areas of contention that will have to be dealt with from the outset.In the event that the whole thing collapses both sides will have no option but to go their own separate ways and we will effectively be left with partition!
And all this is without even considering the question of guarantees,about which there is also serious contention:Ankara,rightly or wrongly, considers Cyprus as an area where Turkey has historical geopolitical interests which they will not agree to surrender completely and they are obviously exploiting this in their dealings with other countries on matters of mutual concern....on the other hand,neither can the E.U. and other International organisations of which they are either already members or prospective members, be expected to agree for them to have unilateral intervention rights over another state which is also a member or maintain a large occupying army there because of alleged 'security concerns etc'.
These are the hardest two issues to resolve and if a way can be found then I think the others are not such a problem as they concern internal issues which are easier to compromise on.

[Viewpoint]

DT

The concern or fear of the circumstances of 'disbanding' the RoC are appreciated but, I think, not necessarily reflective of what actually happens in these circumstances of succession. At least we can say that from other recent examples. For example, with the end of the Soviet Union and the creation of the new sovereign republics there was not, let's say. and interval in which there was a vacuum of power or the absence of law. In day-to-day life most people would not know the difference to begin with. Assuming - and I agree it is a big assumption - that the parties had agreed to this kind of non-communal federal solution then the early days would I expect be much like the old days, followed gradually by experiences comparable to adopting the Euro - there is some confusion, there are some strange rumours, there are new habits to become accustomed to, but in a few months it becomes second nature and all rather unremarkable.

I wouldn't at all say that there is no risk in the moments leading up to a political-legal succession but I do think that the principal problems are (a) how do you get to that settlement proposal in the first place and (2) how do you harmonise, where necessary, legal liabilities and contracts thereafter. The moment of transition/succession is, in my view, less of a problem.

Incidentally, and very importantly, should there be a non-communal federal solution, the ECHR demands for a property commission to resolve outstanding property claims would still apply. In other words the successor entity would still have to ensure an effective local remedy to indvidual human rights complaints.

here lies the problem Copperline. The GCs have compromised a great deal with acceptance of a bicommunal bi-zonal federation...where they to compromise anymore as in the annan plan then the rewards would not outweigh the risks (no matter how great or small) of disbanding the ROC.

Would mean a virgin birth no TRNC or "RoC", in its place we would have a United Cyprus Republic, a new begining. Dont you Gcs always complian you were forced to sign the 1960 agreements and how much you do not want it, you even have an Akritas plan to prove it. This would be your chance to get rid of it.

nice try VP...as if you're really giving something up by disbanding the trnc....how can you disband something that isn't there

Try telling that to the official next time you try and cross the border into the non-existent TRNC.

[CopperLine]

'The king is dead. Long live the king !'

Cymart is mistaken in suggesting that the problem is the dissolution of a government. Governments come and go, states endure. There's an old joke about this : 'Which lasts longer an Italian government or a wine gum ?'

The Cyprus problem is not about governments it is about states. All those people who go on about recognition is not a preoccupation with recognising governments but about recognising states. Two quite different beasts.


You say,

Given that we will have a new federal system based on power sharing with political equality,how will any deadlocks

In some federal systems substantial policy powers are devolved to the constituent states, leaving only a small core of affairs which require a central federal executive. For example, and typically, foreign relations and defence. Since the new Cyprus would be both an EU member and a NATO member it is difficult to see how fundamental differences would arise (but I agree that even remote posibilities have to be scrutinised and the risks assessed).

Any system though based on communal rights will, I firmly belive, simply result in future instability or replication of the old conflicts and insecurities. A federal solution has to be based on equality of citizens irrespective of community or nationality or ethnicity.

A settlement which is contains within it the idea of guarantor powers is doomed to failure. Apart from the fact that it is so colonial, so last century; it provides the grounds yet again for any range of external interventions in Cyprus. The original T of Guarantee was a dreadful treaty for all concerned. In fact the irony is that the T of Guarantee simply guaranteed that the 1960 consitutional arrangement didn't have to work - disgruntled parties could always invoke the support of foreign guarantors.
If TCs can sleep safely in their beds then Turkey can claim no guarantors interests. If GCs can sleep safely in their beds Greece can claim no guarantors interests. What on earth UK claims to be guaranteeing is anybody's guess. Anything looking remotely like a T. of Guarantee is a recipe for meddling, a recipe for disaster.

In any case no amount of guarantees, no range of international organisations - EU, UN, ,,,,- can ever be the final arbiter of the Cyprus settlement. It has to be the people of Cyprus who take the risks and reap the rewards or pay the price.

[DT.]

DT

The concern or fear of the circumstances of 'disbanding' the RoC are appreciated but, I think, not necessarily reflective of what actually happens in these circumstances of succession. At least we can say that from other recent examples. For example, with the end of the Soviet Union and the creation of the new sovereign republics there was not, let's say. and interval in which there was a vacuum of power or the absence of law. In day-to-day life most people would not know the difference to begin with. Assuming - and I agree it is a big assumption - that the parties had agreed to this kind of non-communal federal solution then the early days would I expect be much like the old days, followed gradually by experiences comparable to adopting the Euro - there is some confusion, there are some strange rumours, there are new habits to become accustomed to, but in a few months it becomes second nature and all rather unremarkable.

I wouldn't at all say that there is no risk in the moments leading up to a political-legal succession but I do think that the principal problems are (a) how do you get to that settlement proposal in the first place and (2) how do you harmonise, where necessary, legal liabilities and contracts thereafter. The moment of transition/succession is, in my view, less of a problem.

Incidentally, and very importantly, should there be a non-communal federal solution, the ECHR demands for a property commission to resolve outstanding property claims would still apply. In other words the successor entity would still have to ensure an effective local remedy to indvidual human rights complaints.

here lies the problem Copperline. The GCs have compromised a great deal with acceptance of a bicommunal bi-zonal federation...where they to compromise anymore as in the annan plan then the rewards would not outweigh the risks (no matter how great or small) of disbanding the ROC.

Would mean a virgin birth no TRNC or "RoC", in its place we would have a United Cyprus Republic, a new begining. Dont you Gcs always complian you were forced to sign the 1960 agreements and how much you do not want it, you even have an Akritas plan to prove it. This would be your chance to get rid of it.

nice try VP...as if you're really giving something up by disbanding the trnc....how can you disband something that isn't there

Try telling that to the official next time you try and cross the border into the non-existent TRNC.

there won't be a next time so i won't have the pleasure.

[Viewpoint]

DT

The concern or fear of the circumstances of 'disbanding' the RoC are appreciated but, I think, not necessarily reflective of what actually happens in these circumstances of succession. At least we can say that from other recent examples. For example, with the end of the Soviet Union and the creation of the new sovereign republics there was not, let's say. and interval in which there was a vacuum of power or the absence of law. In day-to-day life most people would not know the difference to begin with. Assuming - and I agree it is a big assumption - that the parties had agreed to this kind of non-communal federal solution then the early days would I expect be much like the old days, followed gradually by experiences comparable to adopting the Euro - there is some confusion, there are some strange rumours, there are new habits to become accustomed to, but in a few months it becomes second nature and all rather unremarkable.

I wouldn't at all say that there is no risk in the moments leading up to a political-legal succession but I do think that the principal problems are (a) how do you get to that settlement proposal in the first place and (2) how do you harmonise, where necessary, legal liabilities and contracts thereafter. The moment of transition/succession is, in my view, less of a problem.

Incidentally, and very importantly, should there be a non-communal federal solution, the ECHR demands for a property commission to resolve outstanding property claims would still apply. In other words the successor entity would still have to ensure an effective local remedy to indvidual human rights complaints.

here lies the problem Copperline. The GCs have compromised a great deal with acceptance of a bicommunal bi-zonal federation...where they to compromise anymore as in the annan plan then the rewards would not outweigh the risks (no matter how great or small) of disbanding the ROC.

Would mean a virgin birth no TRNC or "RoC", in its place we would have a United Cyprus Republic, a new begining. Dont you Gcs always complian you were forced to sign the 1960 agreements and how much you do not want it, you even have an Akritas plan to prove it. This would be your chance to get rid of it.

nice try VP...as if you're really giving something up by disbanding the trnc....how can you disband something that isn't there

Try telling that to the official next time you try and cross the border into the non-existent TRNC.

there won't be a next time so i won't have the pleasure.

No problem, we will still be here if you ever change your mind and want to visit just like any other country.

[DT.]

DT

The concern or fear of the circumstances of 'disbanding' the RoC are appreciated but, I think, not necessarily reflective of what actually happens in these circumstances of succession. At least we can say that from other recent examples. For example, with the end of the Soviet Union and the creation of the new sovereign republics there was not, let's say. and interval in which there was a vacuum of power or the absence of law. In day-to-day life most people would not know the difference to begin with. Assuming - and I agree it is a big assumption - that the parties had agreed to this kind of non-communal federal solution then the early days would I expect be much like the old days, followed gradually by experiences comparable to adopting the Euro - there is some confusion, there are some strange rumours, there are new habits to become accustomed to, but in a few months it becomes second nature and all rather unremarkable.

I wouldn't at all say that there is no risk in the moments leading up to a political-legal succession but I do think that the principal problems are (a) how do you get to that settlement proposal in the first place and (2) how do you harmonise, where necessary, legal liabilities and contracts thereafter. The moment of transition/succession is, in my view, less of a problem.

Incidentally, and very importantly, should there be a non-communal federal solution, the ECHR demands for a property commission to resolve outstanding property claims would still apply. In other words the successor entity would still have to ensure an effective local remedy to indvidual human rights complaints.

here lies the problem Copperline. The GCs have compromised a great deal with acceptance of a bicommunal bi-zonal federation...where they to compromise anymore as in the annan plan then the rewards would not outweigh the risks (no matter how great or small) of disbanding the ROC.

Would mean a virgin birth no TRNC or "RoC", in its place we would have a United Cyprus Republic, a new begining. Dont you Gcs always complian you were forced to sign the 1960 agreements and how much you do not want it, you even have an Akritas plan to prove it. This would be your chance to get rid of it.

nice try VP...as if you're really giving something up by disbanding the trnc....how can you disband something that isn't there

Try telling that to the official next time you try and cross the border into the non-existent TRNC.

there won't be a next time so i won't have the pleasure.

No problem, we will still be here if you ever change your mind and want to visit just like any other country.

if Mohammed won't go to the mountain...

[Viewpoint]

Happy waiting, never seen any mountains on the move but anything to keep you happy.