Cyprus-Forum.com

[BC Numismatics]

Kikapu,Kosovo is now allowed to join international organisations,including the International Olympic Committee.It is too late to send a Kosovar Olympic Games team to Beijing,but they will definitely be at the 2012 Olympic Games in London though!

I still think that it is wrong that Kosovo is not allowed a U.N. seat though.The U.N. Security Council has far too much say.It should be a majority of U.N. member states' representatives who decides whether or not a country should be given U.N. membership.It is fundamentally wrong that a country can be denied U.N. membership,just because 1 or 2 member states in the U.N. Security Council votes 'No'.

Aidan.

[observer]

I've just noticed that Switzerland only decided to become a member of the United Nations in 2002. An illegal state, according to kikapu, for over 50 years!

[Kikapu]

I've just noticed that Switzerland only decided to become a member of the United Nations in 2002. An illegal state, according to kikapu, for over 50 years!

Neither was Switzerland a "de facto state" nor did they declared Independence from anyone that did not give them permission to do so.

As long as no one else is putting a "claim" on your "state" that has just broken away from their "motherland", the UN does not see it as a problem. All you have to do, is to convince the 5 permanent members of the UNSC to say "yes" to any self declared state, and the rest of the world can chose not to recognise it if they want, but as a UN member, that states legality is secured.

[observer]

I've just noticed that Switzerland only decided to become a member of the United Nations in 2002. An illegal state, according to kikapu, for over 50 years!

Neither was Switzerland a "de facto state" nor did they declared Independence from anyone that did not give them permission to do so.

As long as no one else is putting a "claim" on your "state" that has just broken away from their "motherland", the UN does not see it as a problem. All you have to do, is to convince the 5 permanent members of the UNSC to say "yes" to any self declared state, and the rest of the world can chose not to recognise it if they want, but as a UN member, that states legality is secured.

So can you give me the legal reference for this international law I believe you are making up.

[Kikapu]

I've just noticed that Switzerland only decided to become a member of the United Nations in 2002. An illegal state, according to kikapu, for over 50 years!

Neither was Switzerland a "de facto state" nor did they declared Independence from anyone that did not give them permission to do so.

As long as no one else is putting a "claim" on your "state" that has just broken away from their "motherland", the UN does not see it as a problem. All you have to do, is to convince the 5 permanent members of the UNSC to say "yes" to any self declared state, and the rest of the world can chose not to recognise it if they want, but as a UN member, that states legality is secured.

So can you give me the legal reference for this international law I believe you are making up.

If you want "legal references for the International Law" you be best to ask CopperLine. I'm giving you what is and how it is to a layman. But feel free to dive into the exact legal interpretations of the International Law books if you like. Just remember, all laws are a one giant fabric which a little bit more is added on based on the last piece of law. It is a large piece of fabric by the way, but then again, I'm sure you already knew that.

[observer]

I'll give you a hint:

Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States

Article 1
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Article 2
The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law.

Article 3
The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts. The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.

Article 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

Articles 1 and 3 seem most relevant.

[observer]

If you want "legal references for the International Law" you be best to ask CopperLine. I'm giving you what is and how it is to a layman. But feel free to dive into the exact legal interpretations of the International Law books if you like. Just remember, all laws are a one giant fabric which a little bit more is added on based on the last piece of law. It is a large piece of fabric by the way, but then again, I'm sure you already knew that.

I'm merely after accuracy. To say that something is unpleasant, unwanted, immoral, or any other word you choose is clearly opinion and can be understood as opinion. But to say, as far too many people do in this forum, that something they don't approve of is illegal means that it must be against some law. Then, it's reasonable to challenge that person to say what the law has been broken.

[Kikapu]

If you want "legal references for the International Law" you be best to ask CopperLine. I'm giving you what is and how it is to a layman. But feel free to dive into the exact legal interpretations of the International Law books if you like. Just remember, all laws are a one giant fabric which a little bit more is added on based on the last piece of law. It is a large piece of fabric by the way, but then again, I'm sure you already knew that.

I'm merely after accuracy. To say that something is unpleasant, unwanted, immoral, or any other word you choose is clearly opinion and can be understood as opinion. But to say, as far too many people do in this forum, that something they don't approve of is illegal means that it must be against some law. Then, it's reasonable to challenge that person to say what the law has been broken.

Lets just keep things simple Observer.

If your garage at the back of your house is taken over by your son who claims to own it, just because he has been living in your house since birth, and has been using the garage as his "hobby room". Does he have a legal claim to the garage without your permission, despite all his friends recognizing him as the "owner" of the garage.?? Will the courts award your son with the garage and make it legal, or will they tell you that you are still the owner of the garage but as long as you do not care, your son can still legally continue using it as a "hobby room". If you say no and your son is over the age of 18, then he is using it illegally, and does not own the garage. He is in fact, trespassing.

The same applies in Cyprus with the "TRNC" and in Serbia with "Kosovo", although the Kosovars can make the claim, that they have been living on that land for a very long time. Guess what, Serbia does not want to let go of their Kosovo (Garage).

[observer]

It would actually depend on what the law says. I believe that there have been some cases in UK where squaters have been awarded possession of property. You (and I by the way) may think this wrong, but it doesn't make it illegal.

Find me an international law that makes Kosovo illegal, and I will agree with you that Kosovo is illegal.

The topic of recognition of states and governments was debated by the International Law Commission from 1949 to 1973. At the 1973 session, during a discussion on the future work programme, the consensus was that: "The question of recognition of states and governments should be set aside for the time being, for although it had legal consequences, it raised many political problems which did not lend themselves to regulation by law."

I think that about sums it up.

[Kikapu]

It would actually depend on what the law says. I believe that there have been some cases in UK where squaters have been awarded possession of property. You (and I by the way) may think this wrong, but it doesn't make it illegal.

Find me an international law that makes Kosovo illegal, and I will agree with you that Kosovo is illegal.

The topic of recognition of states and governments was debated by the International Law Commission from 1949 to 1973. At the 1973 session, during a discussion on the future work programme, the consensus was that: "The question of recognition of states and governments should be set aside for the time being, for although it had legal consequences, it raised many political problems which did not lend themselves to regulation by law."

I think that about sums it up.

The squatters were given property that belonged to others, only because the property was vacant for a long time. Cyprus and Serbia were not vacant at all, at any time. I would also not consider your "son" as a squatter since you are the occupier of your own home. If the squatters were allowed to move in to your home and occupy any part of your home legally, then I want your address, so that next time I'm in the UK, I'm moving in with you, because according to you, that would be legal..

As soon as China and Russia says that Kosovo cannot become a UN member, it will become a "de facto state" with loss of privileges enjoyed by other UN member states, as well as be considered to be an illegal state by Serbia, which claims it to be part of it's own territory.