Cyprus-Forum.com

[MR-from-NG]

Oli Renn is just a person. Cyprus is a country with a veto power in EU. Do the maths and see whose opinion counts.

We decide which are the valid ports of entry to our own country and nobody else.

OK Piratis, What would you have said if Olli had said the ports are illegal.

[shahmaran]

Oli Renn is just a person. Cyprus is a country with a veto power in EU. Do the maths and see whose opinion counts.

We decide which are the valid ports of entry to our own country and nobody else.

hmm , Mighty war lord piratis has spoken, the discusion is over.

Ahh he is just bitter because he feels inferior next to our power of doing whatever we want to do to win our freedom, don't worry Piratis, you will too grow some balls one day and then maybe someone will take you seriously

[zan]

Humanist, there is no doubt about the poor conditions during those years, i also get told about them plenty by my family, my parents were in their mid 20s at the time so it is more then just childhood memories, some of them took part in the actual battles, fell prisoners, lived in the mountains hiding, became desperate for the most basic medication, people were dying from simple infections etc etc. you know the story, everyone went through it.

However everyone also worked hard on both sides not just the South, but the differences is that only one sides "hard work" has paid off since, why else would there be only 30-40 thousand of us left here today, don't you wonder?

Do you think this is justifiable by what had happened in the past?

Beat me to it my friend........Humanist has hit on one of my hates in the propaganda stakes of the "RoC". Not many people are being so stupid as to mention it any more but when I first discovered this site it was rife. "The TCs are lazy and are laying about living off hand outs from Turkey", was what they were saying but we soon put that right. They have never had to live without a country to their name or under economic sanctions and the void of not knowing your future. They are the ones that worked hard without realising that they got the benefits while our hard work just about put food on the table.

[CopperLine]

Piratis has inadvertently hit the nail on the head when he wrote

We decide which are the valid ports of entry to our own country and nobody else.

Exactly ! Who permits shipping in and out of ports, in and out of territorial waters, is a matter of national law, not international law. When Get Real et. al. bang on about the International Maritime Organisation (clue : organisation, not law or treaty) or the UNCLOS they are leagues off target. Maritime law is basically about safety at sea, about environmental protection, about communication at sea, about incidents at sea, about obligations to other vessels, etc, or about demarcation of waters, about exploitation rights of the seabed etc. It is not about the use of ports. To confuse them in this way is like confusing a divorce court with a tax court.

Piratis' harrumphing and tub-thumping happens to be in tune with laws about ports. Port use is subject to national law. One state's laws about what kind of vessel can enter and leave its ports may well be different from that of another state. For example, single-hulled liquid tanker vessels are prohibited from entering UK and Dutch ports, but they are allowed into Estonia and Gibralatar. There is no international law on this (though there are efforts at standardisation and harmonisation); it is a matter of national discretion.

Thus for RoC use of, say, Famagusta by any vessel is illegal. Why ? Because for the RoC everything - and I mean everything - is derivative of the basic claim of the illegality of the TRNC. But the use of Famagusta by any foreign vessel is not a breach of international law, just a breach of the law of Cyprus. Those who insist that it is a breach of international law are going to have to point to which international law the vessel owners/operators are actually breaking. If it was so clear you'd think that we'd have been firmly reminded of which law international law is being broken, yes ? But we haven't. No one as far as I have seen has actually been able to say 'Look, it is Article X, in Treaty Y which has been broken by Respondent Z'

So what is actually being broken is not international law but RoC law. Fair enough, a national (municipal law) is being broken and those accused could be brought to law in Cyprus, that is within the jurisdiction of Cyprus. That being the case, I ask a simple question about the RoC enforcing its own laws : how many international shipping owner/operators have actually been prosecuted through the Cyprus courts for using Famagusta (or any other north Cyprus port, including airports) ? I don't know the answer to this but I'd be intrigued to know. If, let's say, the answer is less than 10 or so in 34 years - and I suspect it would be around that figure, if not less - what have international shipping operators got to fear in opening up services to Famagusta ?

(I think Kikapu has the answer to that. The reason that shipping operators don't all rush to Famagusta is NOT because of the alleged 'illegality' or fear of prosecution, it is because the economy of north Cyprus is tiny and it is simply not economically worth while starting services there)

[Get Real!]

Piratis has inadvertently hit the nail on the head when he wrote

We decide which are the valid ports of entry to our own country and nobody else.

Exactly ! Who permits shipping in and out of ports, in and out of territorial waters, is a matter of national law, not international law. When Get Real et. al. bang on about the International Maritime Organisation (clue : organisation, not law or treaty) or the UNCLOS they are leagues off target. Maritime law is basically about safety at sea, about environmental protection, about communication at sea, about incidents at sea, about obligations to other vessels, etc, or about demarcation of waters, about exploitation rights of the seabed etc. It is not about the use of ports. To confuse them in this way is like confusing a divorce court with a tax court.

Piratis' harrumphing and tub-thumping happens to be in tune with laws about ports. Port use is subject to national law. One state's laws about what kind of vessel can enter and leave its ports may well be different from that of another state. For example, single-hulled liquid tanker vessels are prohibited from entering UK and Dutch ports, but they are allowed into Estonia and Gibralatar. There is no international law on this (though there are efforts at standardisation and harmonisation); it is a matter of national discretion.

Thus for RoC use of, say, Famagusta by any vessel is illegal. Why ? Because for the RoC everything - and I mean everything - is derivative of the basic claim of the illegality of the TRNC. But the use of Famagusta by any foreign vessel is not a breach of international law, just a breach of the law of Cyprus. Those who insist that it is a breach of international law are going to have to point to which international law the vessel owners/operators are actually breaking. If it was so clear you'd think that we'd have been firmly reminded of which law international law is being broken, yes ? But we haven't. No one as far as I have seen has actually been able to say 'Look, it is Article X, in Treaty Y which has been broken by Respondent Z'

So what is actually being broken is not international law but RoC law. Fair enough, a national (municipal law) is being broken and those accused could be brought to law in Cyprus, that is within the jurisdiction of Cyprus. That being the case, I ask a simple question about the RoC enforcing its own laws : how many international shipping owner/operators have actually been prosecuted through the Cyprus courts for using Famagusta (or any other north Cyprus port, including airports) ? I don't know the answer to this but I'd be intrigued to know. If, let's say, the answer is less than 10 or so in 34 years - and I suspect it would be around that figure, if not less - what have international shipping operators got to fear in opening up services to Famagusta ?

(I think Kikapu has the answer to that. The reason that shipping operators don't all rush to Famagusta is NOT because of the alleged 'illegality' or fear of prosecution, it is because the economy of north Cyprus is tiny and it is simply not economically worth while starting services there)

Pretty much everything on this planet is interwoven; there are international laws that determine what constitutes a “port” in accordance with international maritime laws which include safety and environmental issues among many other things.

The UN is the highest authority followed by the recognized relevant international body and then followed by the national body such as the CPA in Cyprus.

We have covered this issue before… I even posted relevant portions of the relevant international law at the time so I don’t plan to go over that again. Those of you who think that this planet is a loosely joined anarchistic entity had better think again because its not; a little research will go a long way.

It’s by no accident that Georgia recently pulled the plug on that ferry boat that commenced the Famagusta to Latakia trips, and by no accident that the UN has issued and subsequently renewed its resolutions against Turkey and the “TRNC”.

[Piratis]

So what is actually being broken is not international law but RoC law. Fair enough, a national (municipal law) is being broken and those accused could be brought to law in Cyprus, that is within the jurisdiction of Cyprus. That being the case, I ask a simple question about the RoC enforcing its own laws : how many international shipping owner/operators have actually been prosecuted through the Cyprus courts for using Famagusta (or any other north Cyprus port, including airports) ? I don't know the answer to this but I'd be intrigued to know. If, let's say, the answer is less than 10 or so in 34 years - and I suspect it would be around that figure, if not less - what have international shipping operators got to fear in opening up services to Famagusta ?

Not just Cyprus courts. Cyprus is in EU and has agreements with most other countries as well. An illegality committed in Cyprus by a company or citizen of EU or most other countries can be very easily prosecuted and convicted even if he never sets his foot in the free areas of Cyprus.

Cyprus doesn't have such agreement with Turkey, and with Turkey being the enemy and hostile to Cyprus it is obviously impossible to prosecute Turkish citizens and companies (likewise we would not surrender to Turkey a PKK fighter if he came to Cyprus).

So far those who have been using the ports/airports in the occupied areas where mostly Turkish companies. If however others try to brake the laws of our country then be sure we can very easily prosecute them.

[CopperLine]

Get Real
Yes you did post the IMO and UNCLOS links before. They were mistaken then and they are mistaken now. They are irrelevant to the issue of the legality or otherwise of the use of Cyprus ports.

When you write

there are international laws that determine what constitutes a “port” in accordance with international maritime laws

it is pure, unadulterated nonsense. You simply made that up.

Piratis

An illegality committed in Cyprus by a company or citizen of EU or most other countries can be very easily prosecuted and convicted even if he never sets his foot in the free areas of Cyprus.

Oh, if only it was so simple !!! I haven't got time to go through it here, but again you simply showing that you do not understand the hierarchy of laws and jurisdiction nor the relationship between municpal and international law. And to boot, you don't understand the politics of how and when legal cases are, or are not, pursued.

[RAFAELLA]

Olli Rehn is just an employee of the EU who's holding the position of the Enlargement Commissioner. He claimed there's no illegality behind the use of Cy ports under turkish occupation. Well, there is.

Cyprus Republic like every other state has exclusive sovereignty over its territorial waters and the airspace above its territory.
International law provides Cyprus Republic the right to determine which of her ports or airports are legal or not.

“Undoubtedly, every member state of the international community has the right, according to international law, to determine its lawful ports and airports; and on the basis of this logic and the situation created by the 1974 invasion and occupation, the Cyprus Republic – namely the legal state of Cyprus – determined its lawful ports and airports”. The Government Spokesman Mr Palmas made the aforementioned statement commenting on a letter by the EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn claiming that the ports in occupied Cyprus were in fact legal.

If everything was legal and recognised regarding the puppet state "trnc" we wouldn't waste time posting here. You cannot have an illegal state with legal ports and airports.
...and if there's no illegality regarding the use our occupied ports-airports then why are not being used by any country all these years?

I remember last year when Blair visited Tr and was asked by Erdogan for direct flights to "trnc" from UK, Blair answered that this could be achieved as long as it was legal.

[zan]

Olli Rehn is just an employee of the EU who's holding the position of the Enlargement Commissioner. He claimed there's no illegality behind the use of Cy ports under turkish occupation. Well, there is.

Cyprus Republic like every other state has exclusive sovereignty over its territorial waters and the airspace above its territory.
International law provides Cyprus Republic the right to determine which of her ports or airports are legal or not.

“Undoubtedly, every member state of the international community has the right, according to international law, to determine its lawful ports and airports; and on the basis of this logic and the situation created by the 1974 invasion and occupation, the Cyprus Republic – namely the legal state of Cyprus – determined its lawful ports and airports”. The Government Spokesman Mr Palmas made the aforementioned statement commenting on a letter by the EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn claiming that the ports in occupied Cyprus were in fact legal.

If everything was legal and recognised regarding the puppet state "trnc" we wouldn't waste time posting here. You cannot have an illegal state with legal ports and airports.
...and if there's no illegality regarding the use our occupied ports-airports then why are not being used by any country all these years?

I remember last year when Blair visited Tr and was asked by Erdogan for direct flights to "trnc" from UK, Blair answered that this could be achieved as long as it was legal.

What does it take to get through to you people........He did not make the law...He is saying that by international laws it is not illegal......What a bunch of gabba kafalis

[Kikapu]

Undoubtedly, every member state of the international community has the right, according to international law, to determine its lawful ports and airports; and on the basis of this logic and the situation created by the 1974 invasion and occupation, the Cyprus Republic – namely the legal state of Cyprus – determined its lawful ports and airports”. The Government Spokesman Mr Palmas made the aforementioned statement commenting on a letter by the EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn claiming that the ports in occupied Cyprus were in fact legal.

What does it take to get through to you people........He did not make the law...He is saying that by international laws it is not illegal......What a bunch of gabba kafalis

People like to play with words all the time Zan. Why didn't Olli Rehn just come out and say, that the ports in the "TRNC" are LEGAL, rather than saying that they are not illegal. You may say, what is the difference. Perhaps nothing but why not go the extra step and declare them to be legal and see what happens. Once again he was just speaking his "mind" and not the mind of the International community just like when he said back in 2003-4 that if the RoC said OXI to the AP, then the North would be Partitioned and gained recognition. Well, it has been 4+ years and counting, so my question to Olli is, where the hell are your predictions man.!!