CopperLine wrote:Look chaps, let's clear up this legal-illegal distinction. International law is not like domestic or municipal law : the sources (basis) of law is different, the subject of law are different, and the process of bringing an issue to law (legal adjudication) is different to municipal law.
Unlike municipal law, it is not always clear and self-evident who or what international law applies to, nor how it applies. In municipal law, whether criminal or civil, it is clear who is covered by the law, those people within a given jurisdiction. (Whether they are citizens or nor is generally irrelevant). If you kill someone, under municipal law it is clear what the offence is and why/how the act was illegal. A range of laws prohibit killing, albeit there are different kinds of unlawful killing. Municipal law basically sets up a framework applicable to all within the jurisdiction stipulating what can and cannot be done.
International law is not like that. International law is based, increasingly (but not exclusively) on treaties. Treaties are agreements amongst parties as to how to conduct relations between parties. Again increasingly in treaty law there is often a stipulation of where disputes between parties are to be addressed or adjudicated. That is to say often a particular international court will be named as the proper place for adjudication; or sometimes the treaty will create a court for that specific treaty purpose. An example of the latter would be the European Convention [Treaty] on Human Rights which established the European Court of Human Rights. Thus in contrast to municipal law international law depends and evolves on the basis of parties first agreeing to a procedure and mechanism. (In municipal law, we as ordinary citizens do not pick and choose which laws apply to us, and we do not first come to an agreement with the state or society whether to have this law or that law. We get what were given whether we like it or not).
Now ports. Ports are regulated by municipal law. They are not regulated by international law. For ports to be regulated by international law there would have to be an agreement or treaty which said, for example, 'this is what a port is, this is how they are to be used, this is who can/cannot use them, and if there is a dispute (i.e, some alleged breach of that agreement) then here is the court mechanism which is set up to dealing with the issue. Again, I ask those who say in effect 'using north Cyprus ports is a breach of international law' to point to the instrument of international law which has been broken ? The reason Olli Rehn can't say that it is internationally legal, can't say that it is internationally illegal is simple : there isn't a treaty/convention etc which exists to regulate port use.
To repeat the ONLY manners in which north Cyprus port use can be said to be illegal is (i) in relation to municipal (NOT international) Cyprus law i.e, it is illegal to cooperate/collaborate/use services in the so-called occupied areas. Like any other part of municipal law it is up to the authorities of that state to prosecute cases as it sees fit. Of course it can only take action within its jurisdiction (it can't for example take an action on the basis of Cyprus law in the UK). If it chooses not to prosecute then this does not make the activity legal, it just means that the policy is not to prosecute. And second (ii) is to treat the port issues as derivative - as I have said several times before - of the general proposition that the TRNC is an unrecognised entity. Notwithstanding the issue of non-recognition, there is still NO INTERNATIONAL LAW PROHIBITING THE USE OF CERTAIN PORTS.
Copperline hello,
Thanks for the explanation, I do enjoy reading your stuff its always quite interesting, but.
I am somewhat confused here.
By international law the use of the port is not illegal because there is no mechanism to say so (as I understood you), but when the ECHR , according to your comments :
That is to say often a particular international court will be named as the proper place for adjudication; or sometimes the treaty will create a court for that specific treaty purpose. An example of the latter would be the European Convention [Treaty] on Human Rights which established the European Court of Human Rights.
Find Turkey guilty then i guess that too is OK?
Because the way I see it is, it doesn't matter what international law is invoked, what mechanism is used or what court is specified, Turkey doesn't give a rats ass about any of it. She will still do as she wishes.
So to my friends VP,ZAN, SHAH, ERIC and or course COPPERLINE, you still want to pick and choose. It you agree with ollie about the ports not being illegal then why not also agree with the ECHR rulings and do something about it?
Because my friends you want it your way only and it seems that the old saying in greek (loosly translated) whats yours is yours and whats mine is also yours. Holds true.
Seems we can never win eitherway, so it doesn't really matter who says what we are still F*****. Sorry about the last word. it was the only way to describe our situation.
The reason the ports is the occupied areas are illegal (regardless of your explanation) is for the same reason Ercan is illegal as specified by the UK attorney general when Turkey asked for direct flights and blair said that they were illegal. Oh, actually he said they were not legal. Would that mean the same thing? I guess so.
Anyway, have a nice day.
You know we are not allowed to swear.... 
