Cyprus-Forum.com

[CopperLine]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Turkey does recognise the ICJ. Insofar as it was a founding member of the UN, signatory of the Charter and the ICJ is an organ of the UN then Turkey has always recognised the ICJ.

[Piratis]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Turkey does recognise the ICJ. Insofar as it was a founding member of the UN, signatory of the Charter and the ICJ is an organ of the UN then Turkey has always recognised the ICJ.

Turkey does not recognize the jurisdiction of the court. Read the link I gave you earlier.

[CopperLine]

Yes .... and ?

You did read, amongst others the following (emphasis added)

The Declarations Recognizing as Compulsory the Jurisdiction of the Court take the form of a unilateral act of the State

and

The fact that a declaration is or is not included in this section, is without prejudice to its possible application by the Court in a particular case.

[Piratis]

Here is from the FAQ of the ICJ:

Why are some disputes between States not considered by the Court?

The Court can only hear a dispute when requested to do so by one or more States. It cannot deal with a dispute of its own motion. It is not permitted, under its Statute, to investigate and rule on acts of sovereign States as it chooses.

The States concerned must also have access to the Court and have accepted its jurisdiction, in other words they must consent to the Court’s considering the dispute in question. This is a fundamental principle governing the settlement of international disputes, States being sovereign and free to choose the methods of resolving their disputes.

A State may manifest its consent in three ways:

- A special agreement: two or more States in a dispute on a specific issue may agree to submit it jointly to the Court and conclude an agreement for this purpose;

- A clause in a treaty: over 300 treaties contain clauses (known as compromissory clauses) by which a State party undertakes in advance to accept the jurisdiction of the Court should a dispute arise on the interpretation or application of the treaty with another State party;

- A unilateral declaration: the States parties to the Statute of the Court may opt to make a unilateral declaration recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as binding with respect to any other State also accepting it as binding. This optional clause system, as it is called, has led to the creation of a group of States each having given the Court jurisdiction to settle any dispute that might arise between them in future. In principle, any State in this group is entitled to bring one or more other States in the group before the Court. Declarations may contain reservations limiting their duration or excluding certain categories of dispute. They are deposited by States with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Turkey has not made a unilateral declaration recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as binding (as Greece and Cyprus have done) therefore another country can not bring Turkey to the ICJ unless Turkey agrees that a specific case can be judged by the ICJ.

So Cyprus could not force Turkey to the ICJ and Turkey did not agree the case to be taken to the ICJ.

Here is a statement made by Papadopoulos in 2007: "Our view is well-known, the presence of the Turkish occupational forces and the Turkish invasion cannot be legally based on the Treaty of Guarantee and their presence in Cyprus, is, in any case, illegal. We said that if Turkey believes otherwise, then it can appeal or agree to appeal to the International Court of Justice in The Hague"

[CopperLine]

Indeed Piratis, so Turkey does recognise the ICJ. Recognition, you now agree, is not the issue.

Instead the issue is one of jurisdiction and justiciability. Turkey along with the vast majority of UN members, including the USA, Russia, Ireland, China, South Africa, Chile (in other words no particular bloc of states) has chosen not to make a unilateral 'Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court as Compulsory'. You and I do not know why these states, including Turkey, have taken this position. In other words it is not possible to say a priori that a state has not signed the declaration in order to avoid a particular case. Of course one would expect RoC to say that Turkey's not signed up to this declaration just to avoid the Cyprus question, I'd expect nothing less. But given that this Declaration was open for signature since 1921 it is a bit far-fetched to claim that Turkey has not signed because of fear of facing the Cyprus issue.

The optional Declaration aside, it is axiomatic in international law that state's contest the justiciability of key cases. That is to say that states typically say, so to speak 'that of course international law applies and we respect it but that you are mistaken in the applicability of this law in this case.' There is absolutely nothing particular to Turkey in exercising this right : it is the bread and butter of international law.

Frankly, in any case, what is the ICJ going to add to the legal evaluation of the Cyprus question ?

[Oracle]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Turkey does recognise the ICJ. Insofar as it was a founding member of the UN, signatory of the Charter and the ICJ is an organ of the UN then Turkey has always recognised the ICJ.

It is one of the political conditions that Turkey must recognise the Jurisdiction of the ICJ for resolving the dispute, before approval of Turkey's EU candidature.

[CopperLine]

Oracle you really are in a desperate state. Talk about making things up !!!

It is one of the political conditions that Turkey must recognise the Jurisdiction of the ICJ for resolving the dispute, before approval of Turkey's EU candidature.

Total rubbish.

[Piratis]

CopperLine, so we come to the conclusion that what Sotos said in his post was indeed correct: "The international law is 100% on the side of Cyprus that is why Turkey refused to go to court."

You tried to refute Sotos comments by saying: "RoC has never submitted a case before the ICJ, neither against Turkey nor any other state. Ask yourself why."

And I gave you the answer to the why: "Because Turkey does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICJ."

Now you came to agree with me that indeed Cyprus was unable to bring Turkey to the ICJ because Turkey does not recognize the jurisdiction of the court as compulsory.

The case could only be taken to the ICJ if Turkey agreed to it, and this is something we had asked many times. For example the statement of Papadopoulos in 2007: "Our view is well-known, the presence of the Turkish occupational forces and the Turkish invasion cannot be legally based on the Treaty of Guarantee and their presence in Cyprus, is, in any case, illegal. We said that if Turkey believes otherwise, then it can appeal or agree to appeal to the International Court of Justice in The Hague"

Turkey knowing that they would not win the case because they know they are acting illegally they didn't take the challenge.

Conclusion: "The international law is 100% on the side of Cyprus that is why Turkey refused to go to court"

[CopperLine]

Piratis
No, no, no.

Turkey does recognise the jurisdiction of the ICJ. You were wrong to say that it didn't. Turkey is not a signatory of the optional Declaration .... along with most other UN members.

No, Sotos was incorrect. I explicitly argued against the proposition

....that is why Turkey refused to go to court."

Now you came to agree with me that indeed Cyprus was unable to bring Turkey to the ICJ because Turkey does not recognize the jurisdiction of the court as compulsory.

No I haven't. This argument - that X didn't do Y because of Z - is entirely your speculation.

A much more plausible argument - more plausible because there is a long historical record amongst dozens of states - is that when a state's counsel thinks its case is clear, or its politicians (on advice) thinks that it is legally unnecessary, or its politicians do not want to suggest a loss of sovereignty, then issues are not put to the ICJ. You (and I) might think this is unsatisfactory and a weakness of international law but instances of this kind of action, which is entirely lawful, fill the history of international law.

Finally, the reverse logic could apply to your "international law is 100% on the side of Cyprus that is why Turkey refused to go to court", namely "Turkey believes international law is 100% on it side (that's why it took the particular intervention actions that it did) and that is why there is no need to go to court". Why re-confirm what they thought was consistent with international law anyway ? But these things can't be resolved by logic, they can only be resolved historically, and you do not have the historical information to say one way or the other.

[Oracle]

Oracle you really are in a desperate state. Talk about making things up !!!

It is one of the political conditions that Turkey must recognise the Jurisdiction of the ICJ for resolving the dispute, before approval of Turkey's EU candidature.

Total rubbish.

It is in this book ... (sorry I can only devote fleeting moments).

This book presents an analysis of the development of the European Unions policy towards Turkey from a comparative perspective. Human rights, the Greco-Turkish dispute and the security considerations of both parties are chosen as specific policy issues. Moreover, the book adopts a new approach and covers several of the key topics in the EU enlargement debate. Finally, it explores the question as to whether the EUs containment policy will be sustainable in the long term and examines possible scenarios for both parties.

Subjects
Turkey, European Union countries, Economic policy

More details
Turkey and the Eu: An Awkward Candidate for Eu Membership?
By Harun Arikan
Published by Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2003
ISBN 0754634337, 9780754634331
241 pages