Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

That is because there is no treaty.

Of course there are treaties! For the other 26 EU countries this goes without saying, but Cyprus has treaties with most other countries as well.

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

The use of the Famagusta port is illegal because it is within RoC and RoC defines what is legal and what is not legal on this island.

So if you want you can say: "We will find partners in crime to trade from Famagusta illegally and you will not be able to enforce legality", and that is somehting we will see if and in what degree you will manage to do it, but you can not say that "The use of the Famagusta port is not illegal" because it is, without a doubt.

[CopperLine]

Thanks observer

Get Real let's take the words and phrases you've just used and reconstruct what you've just said.

what is that “mechanism” in any given country that declares a port “open” or “closed” for business?

Agreed i.e, the national authority, in this case the municipal law of Cyprus. What was your answer ?

The recognized port authority of course!

Which is ? ......wait for it ..... the national authority, in this case the mucipal law of Cyprus ... and NOT AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION or TREATY.

But that's not all, since you keep referring to some mysterious 'internationally recognised port authority for Cyprus' - so tell us what this international body is ? Has it got a name ? Has it got a charter ? Has it got an address ? Please give us a clue .... no, don't give us a clue, just tell us straight what it is.

Whilst you're desperately searching the web you might also want to point us to the law or judgement which concludes that - your words - the 'very existence of the 'TRNC' is a violation of the UN charter itself'. So to be clear : (i) which law, (ii) which court, (iii) which judgment ?I'm not being obtuse, I genuinely want to know where this is to be found since I'vce never come across this before. I'm familiar with judgements or decisions against Turkish intervention/invasion; I'm familiar with judgements or decisions against continued Turkish occupation and matters that flow from this, but I have never come across a judgement that the very existence of the TRNC is a violation of the UN charter itself. Go on, tell us where to find it ?

[Get Real!]

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.

The “treaty” you’re looking for my short-sighted friend is the INTERNATIONAL MARITIME RULES & REGULATIONS that port authorities around the globe SIGN in order to become members of the relevant international body that binds them altogether with the blessings of the UN!

If you’re right and I’m wrong please explain why the Famagusta port is as vibrant as a graveyard!

[zan]

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.

The “treaty” you’re looking for my short-sighted friend is the INTERNATIONAL MARITIME RULES & REGULATIONS that port authorities around the globe SIGN in order to become members of the relevant international body that binds them altogether with the blessings of the UN!

If you’re right and I’m wrong please explain why the Famagusta port is as vibrant as a graveyard!

I refer my honourable friend to the answer Copperline gave a while ago...ECONOMICS...Isolation...EMBARGOES..........

[Piratis]

CopperLine, the UN Charter deals with the relationship between countries. The pseudo state is not a country.

What is against the UN Charter is the only thing that really exists in north Cyprus: An illegal Turkish occupation. The turkish occupation of Cyprus clearly violates the UN charter. Example:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

[Get Real!]

But that's not all, since you keep referring to some mysterious 'internationally recognised port authority for Cyprus' - so tell us what this international body is ? Has it got a name ? Has it got a charter ? Has it got an address ? Please give us a clue .... no, don't give us a clue, just tell us straight what it is.

I’ve already mentioned the International Maritime Organization:
http://www.imo.org/HOME.html

And not forgetting to pay attention under the “Legal” section.

…and here’s a couple more:

European Sea Ports Organization
http://www.espo.be/Home.aspx

International Association of Ports and Harbors
http://www.iaphworldports.org/

Whilst you're desperately searching the web you might also want to point us to the law or judgement which concludes that - your words - the 'very existence of the 'TRNC' is a violation of the UN charter itself'. So to be clear : (i) which law, (ii) which court, (iii) which judgment ?I'm not being obtuse, I genuinely want to know where this is to be found since I'vce never come across this before. I'm familiar with judgements or decisions against Turkish intervention/invasion; I'm familiar with judgements or decisions against continued Turkish occupation and matters that flow from this, but I have never come across a judgement that the very existence of the TRNC is a violation of the UN charter itself. Go on, tell us where to find it ?

http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr541.htm

[CopperLine]

Get Real

As I've said before, repeated references to IMO does not make it any more an international organisation or convention which 'recognises' or authorises the use of ports. Your simply mistaken in pointing to IMO : it does not do what you want it to do.

ESPO is a industrial/sectoral lobbying organisation, not a treaty, not a convention, not a court or any other instrument of law. So forget that one immediately.

Same for IAPH .Did you actually bother to read any of the site ? This is what the History says, 'It is a non-profit-making and non-governmental organization (NGO) headquartered in Tokyo, Japan', and the Mission says, 'Its principle objective is to develop and foster good relations and cooperation among all ports and harbors in the world by proving a forum to exchange opinions and share experiences on the latest trends of port management and operations.' Does that really sound to you like a piece of public international law ? Does that really sound to you like a state authority ?

Your quoted UNSC resolution says that the declaration of the TRNC is invalid not, as you alleged that its very existence violates the UN charter.

[Kifeas]

:D

it just gets better and better!!!!!

Paaulino, where is your twin brother?

[CopperLine]

Piratis takes a tumble.

CopperLine, the UN Charter deals with the relationship between countries. The pseudo state is not a country.

Ergo, the UN charter does not apply to TRNC. Ergo the TRNC can't be in violation of the charter. Ergo, the TRNC which doesn't exist cannot be in violation of a treaty which doesn't apply.

That's a really interesting argument you've just made there Piratis.

[CopperLine]

The “treaty” you’re looking for my short-sighted friend is the INTERNATIONAL MARITIME RULES & REGULATIONS that port authorities around the globe SIGN in order to become members of the relevant international body that binds them altogether with the blessings of the UN!

No, Get Real, these IMO rules and regulations are about whether you can empty your bilge tanks in a port, or how many hoots on a horn you should make when entering a port in fog : THEY ARE NOT ABOUT allowing or denying access to ports. Of course states sign these agreements, primarily for reasons of harmonisation of safety standards, and yes the IMO is a UN specialised agency BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT it has anything to say about authorising or prohibiting access to national ports.

I'm seriously bored by this now.