Cyprus-Forum.com

[CopperLine]

Get Real

It worries me that you've misunderstood the municipal/international law/UNCLOS/maritime law/ports question so much.

Think about this. I think that you will agree with me that Paphos, Larnaka and Limassol are all places within Cyprus. Yes ? You'll also agree with me that these places all have ports or harbours of some kind or other. Yes ? You'll also agree with me that these ports and harbours are, by definition, within the jurisdiction of Cyprus. Yes ? And you'll also agree with me that the laws of Cyprus apply within these ports and harbours. Yes ?

If yes to the above, then we are agreed that Paphos, Larnaka and Limassol are all within Cyprus territorial waters, i.e, within RoC jurisdiction. Yes ? So we agree that the municipal law of Cyprus covers these ports and harbours. Yes ?

Further, by definition, these ports and harbours are not outside Cyprus territorial waters and they are not in the 'high seas'. Agreed ? Agreed. Therefore the regulation of ports is a domestic, municipal, matter. It is not a matter of international law.

Where does various maritime law and UNCLOS etc come in then ? As I said in an earlier post, these are treaty instruments whose primary concern have been international shipping safety (hence concern for meaning of innocent passage, SOLAS (saving of lives at sea), environmental protection, exploitation rights, zoning and demarcation, and so on. They are necessarily international matters because one is dealing with movement across and between different jurisdictions.

[Get Real!]

Tom, Dick and Harry

You can say that again!

The “THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA” is a HUGE text file and I’ll bet you’ll find a…

"...in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations"

…attached to every issue it covers including ports.

All you had to do was ask yourself… “Is the “TRNC” in ANY violation of the Charter of the UN?” …and you’d have your answer to everything else including ports, so tell us you have or had a background in international law and I’ll head for a law degree tomorrow; I should be done in about a year if you got through it!

Catch you later…

[CopperLine]

Get Real

And as Article 1.7 of the Charter says, "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state .." for example, ports.

So, as I was saying, ....UNCLOS does not deal with the use of ports

So, as I was saying ... the use of ports is a matter of municipal law

So, as I was saying ... there isn't international law on the use of ports

So, as I was saying ... the claimed illegality of the use of ports is derivative of the general objection to recognition of TRNC


So, Get Real, in the end what did you do ? You didn't rely on maritime law, you didn't rely on UNCLOS, you didn't rely on Cyprus law even, .... in the end you relied on the question of recognition. In any case the TRNC is not a violation of the Charter (the right to self-determination is a charter principle. TCs have exercised their Charter rights in the declaration of the TRNC. Whilst your thumbing through the Charter take a look at Chapter 11); what is a claimed breach of the Charter is the Turkish intervention and the continued Turkish occupation.

[CopperLine]

Get Real

And as Article 1.7 of the Charter says, "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state .." for example, ports.

So, as I was saying, ....UNCLOS does not deal with the use of ports

So, as I was saying ... the use of ports is a matter of municipal law

So, as I was saying ... there isn't international law on the use of ports

So, as I was saying ... the claimed illegality of the use of ports is derivative of the general objection to recognition of TRNC


So, Get Real, in the end what did you do ? You didn't rely on maritime law, you didn't rely on UNCLOS, you didn't rely on Cyprus law even, .... in the end you relied on the question of recognition. In any case the TRNC is not a violation of the Charter (the right to self-determination is a charter principle. TCs have exercised their Charter rights in the declaration of the TRNC. Whilst your thumbing through the Charter take a look at Chapter 11); what is a claimed breach of the Charter is the Turkish intervention and the continued Turkish occupation.

[Kifeas]

.... In any case the TRNC is not a violation of the Charter (the right to self-determination is a charter principle. TCs have exercised their Charter rights in the declaration of the TRNC. Whilst your thumbing through the Charter take a look at Chapter 11); what is a claimed breach of the Charter is the Turkish intervention and the continued Turkish occupation.

Is this man for real????

[boomerang]

All I see is a repeat of the last time some idiots in the EU were shooting their mouths off and then body slammed by the EU lawyers...

Then Turkey and the tcs will be crying out the EU has let them down...Forgettng that it was individuals that let them down by shooting their mouths off...

[observer]

...and all I see is GCs behaving like spoilt children, stamping their feet and shouting louder and louder that they are right in the face of all logical explanation.

As I said, long before Copperline gave a far more detailed explanation than I would have been able to do, there is no mechanism for declaring a port illegal under international law.

[CopperLine]

Get Real

I read this again

“Is the “TRNC” in ANY violation of the Charter of the UN? …and you’d have your answer to everything else including ports

and, loathe though I am to say it, that is purely idiotioc statement to make.

So you are saying that any violation of the Charter is (that is to say, entails) a violation of any law, including those relating to ports !!!! Let's follow that logic through shall we : The USA has violated the Charter on many occasions; so has Russia, so has China, so has UK, so has France, etc, etc. On your 'reasoning' because it has violated the Charter - let's say Article 2.4 or a Chapter VII violation - therefore to quote you 'ANY violation' leads to an 'answer to everything else including ports.'

Plain silly.

[Get Real!]

Get Real

I read this again

“Is the “TRNC” in ANY violation of the Charter of the UN? …and you’d have your answer to everything else including ports

and, loathe though I am to say it, that is purely idiotioc statement to make.

So you are saying that any violation of the Charter is (that is to say, entails) a violation of any law, including those relating to ports !!!! Let's follow that logic through shall we : The USA has violated the Charter on many occasions; so has Russia, so has China, so has UK, so has France, etc, etc. On your 'reasoning' because it has violated the Charter - let's say Article 2.4 or a Chapter VII violation - therefore to quote you 'ANY violation' leads to an 'answer to everything else including ports.'

Plain silly.

The very EXISTENCE of the “TRNC” is a violation of the UN Charter itself let alone anything the “TRNC” does so your argument was dead before you even started.

When the CPA, being the only internationally recognized port authority for Cyprus and a member of the relevant international body, says that one of its ports such as Famagusta is “closed” then have a guess what the rest of the countries who are also members of that relevant international body do? The absence of ships at the Famagusta port is a dead giveaway…

So, what is that “mechanism” in any given country that declares a port “open” or “closed” for business? The recognized port authority of course!

Well duh!

Now if you’ll excuse me I need an IQ checkup after that…

[observer]

GR
Now you are just making it up as you go along.

No one disputes that RoC have made use of the Port of Famagusta illegal.

No one has come up with an international treaty that makes RoC law on the use or closure of ports binding on any other country. That is because there is no treaty.

It follows that the use of Famagusta is not illegal except for people and ships coming under RoC juristiction.