Cyprus-Forum.com

[CopperLine]

Oracle, if you used Google books, then your claim that

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.

does not appear. What its actually says, on the viewable content, is that Greece had raised this condition but then removed it in 1991. It further says that in relation to Aegean disputes Greece was still pushing the ICJ matter. It does not say that ICJ recognition [sic] is a condition of EU accession.

If you have the hard copy of the book where this claim might otherwise have been made give me the page number.

[Oracle]

Negotiating Framework. The proposed Negotiating Framework document sets out a tough framework for EU membership negotiations with Turkey:

Good relations. It reiterates that it must work for a settlement on Cyprus, but also that it must make an "unequivocal commitment to good neighbourly relations and ... [resolve] outstanding border disputes" a thinly veiled reference to the disputes with Greece over territorial and seabed rights in the Aegean. Moreover, the document states that, "if necessary", disputes should be resolved through the "compulsory jurisdiction" of the International Court of Justice -- something Greece long has demanded and Turkey long resisted, arguing that they should be settled through a negotiated package. The Greek side says there is nothing to negotiate and that the only issue to be resolved is court-adjudicated delineation of the seabed.

......

[CopperLine]

By your own preferred citation it is NOT

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.

Moreover the section that you now cite is not from the text that you said the evidence was from in the earlier post. Furthermore, the negotiating document referred to in your second posted source is just that a proposed negotiating document. It does not contain the conditions that you said it does, it is in fact the words of an assessment by political consultants Oxford Analytica.

[Oracle]

CopperLine denying what he does not like ..... just like his idol Hitler

[CopperLine]

Oracle : mad as a box of frogs

[Piratis]

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.

Ok, CopperLine, while what I am saying is obvious to all, since you like to say "no" and "yes" lets hear your answers to this very specific questions:


1) Does Turkey recognize the jurisdictional of the ICJ as compulsory? Yes or No

2) Could Republic of Cyprus bring Turkey to the ICJ for any matter without Turkey agreeing that the specific matter could be judged by the ICJ? Yes or No?

3) Has Turkey being challenged to agree to take our case to the ICJ? Yes or No.

(To help you answer, here is the quote from Papadopoulos again: "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")

4) Has Turkey accepted to take the challenge and agreed to take our case to the ICJ? Yes or No?

The answers are: (1) No, (2) No, (3) Yes, (4) No.

And now we come as to the why turkey refused to take this case to the court. The answer is again obvious: Because they knew that International law is on the side of Cyprus and that Turkey would lose the case with 100% certainty.

Then Copperline says:

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 ?

So finally Copperline agrees that Turkey indeed refused to go to court. And his explanation as to why: Because Turks know better, even from the International Court of Justice, about what is consistent with international law and what is not.

I wonder Copperline, who do you think you can convince with such lame arguments? Just denying what you don't like is not enough. You are just like Turkey. They deny the obvious, that Cyprus has international law 100% on its side, but when the Turks are challenged to take the case to the International Court of Justice so it can be proved again beyond any doubt about who is right and who is wrong, the Turks refuse.

[Sotos]

Sotos,
RoC has never submitted a case before the ICJ, neither against Turkey nor any other state. Ask yourself why.


That you wrote ....

If you doubt this then lets go to court ....

... clearly indicates that you do not know how the ICJ works nor what is its function.

You got your answer CopperLine! Cyprus could not submit a case before the ICJ because Turkey does not recognize the jurisdictional of the ICJ as compulsory. So as I said Cyprus has international law 100% on its side and that is why Turkey refused to go to court. If they think they can win the case then lets take it to ICJ. Why not Copper? You know that you will lose right? If you are so sure you will win then what are you afraid of? You are criminal thieves who are trying to escape from justice that is what you are!