observer wrote:I’ll have one final go.
Let us say that I come from Xland, which can be any country you choose other than RoC (or Greece?). Xland is one of the 200-odd UN members, and has signed and ratified every international treaty available.
I sail my boat, which is registered in Xland, from Xland to Famagusta, buy an ice cream at Patek’s (recommended) and then sail back to Xland. When I arrive back in Xland, at the port to meet me is the RoC ambassador, as angry as hell, because I have been to Famagusta port. Beside him is Xland’s Chief of Police, who is turning the pages of the book Xland laws.
For me as an Xland citizen, in an Xland boat, back on Xland territory, I have only committed a crime if I have done something against Xland laws. This includes international treaties, because Xland has ratified every international treaty available.
Despite days of asking, those saying that the use of Famagusta port is illegal have failed to come up with a single Xland, or a single international treaty saying that the use of Famagusta port (or any other port) is illegal.
I suppose we should not be too surprised, since the EU Commissioner for Enlargement (I wonder if he is the one who keeps sending me spam about enlargement) is likely to be both more careful about what he says, and have a bigger and better qualified legal team than GR and friends.
Observer,
You have made my point precisely. As long as the "offending sailor" does not go to Larnaca after Famagusta, he will get away with his "illegal" stop in Famagusta. However, if details of him and his boat are taken by the RoC while he is in Famagusta and next time he decides to come to Larnaca, he will be arrested and boat confiscated for making an illegal entry to a "closed" port and making a departure without first clearing with the RoC. The other way for him to avoid problems with the RoC is to sail into Famagusta port, then take a bus to Nicosia to clear his "illegal" entry into Famagusta with the authorities in Nicosia, with the RoC. Despite Famagusta not being "official" port of entry, the sailor will be given leeway. He also needs to clear out with the RoC before leaving Famagusta.
You are correct, that no one is going to bother the sailor or his boat at his home country, but he may be boarded and brought back to RoC on the high seas for violating immigration rules. Or even at hois next port of entry at another country if the immigration find out that he did not officially clear entry or departure to Famagusta with the RoC authorities, then he may be held and RoC notified. Even if he gets away each time, that boat and sailor will not be ever again be able to make a port call in any of the ports in the RoC, if his details are known to the RoC. I do not think any country is going to assign a boat and crew for only going to Famagusta.
Imagine an aircraft landing at Ercan "illegally". If that same plane ever enters RoC's air space or airport, it will more than likely be confiscated, or at least held until the matters or fines are paid. It may take few months if the RoC wants to drag it's feet legally.
This is no different than what we had to do, when we sailed on my boat to over 20+ countries and many ports. We always had to get entry clearance from the legal authorities. If we were not at an official port of entry, then we had top get on a bus and go and see the right authorities to get clearance. Same before leaving.
I do not believe the "TRNC" can officially clear vessels and planes into the ports in the North and be legal for the vessels and planes as to not to bother clearing with the RoC. Those planes that are now landing in Ercan, will not be able to go the the RoC and not be confiscated for "Illegal" entry and departure to "closed ports". Hence the fact, no major airlines are sending their planes to Ercan, or ship companies to Famagusta. It is more headache for them than it is worth. It is better for the "TRNC" to get a deal cut with the RoC then try what Olli is prescribing. Notice Olli is not saying it is LEGAL. No, he is only saying it is not ILLEGAL. Perhaps there is no difference, and then again, perhaps there is none. Something for the lawyers to figure out I guess.
