Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

Serbia wins right to challenge Kosovo at ICJ

Serbia can challenge the legality of Kosovo’s independence in the highest court of international law, the United Nations General Assembly decided on Tuesday.
The Serbian resolution requesting an opinion from the International Court of Justice won approval by a wide margin thanks to numerous abstentions, including by European Union member states that have recognised Kosovo.
Serbia’s Foreign Minister hailed the UN General Assembly’s move to question the legality of Kosovo’s independence at the World Court saying it was a victory for international law.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/040b1848-9567 ... ck_check=1


This is also a victory for Cyprus, for we now have the option to force Turkey to appear in front of the ICJ, as soon as things come to a head, thought the EU and the UN General Assembly. "Mama Turka, you want to become an EU member country? Fine! Before discussing further on the issue, let’s see first how legal was your 1974 invation, and the subeseqent up to this date occupation of more than 1/3 of the RoC. If you do not accept the ICJ verdict, then it means you do not accept international law, which means that you do not also have a place among the civilised nations of this planet –more so among the EU the UN and the Council of Europe!" Let’s see if our (GC) politicians have guts!

[CBBB]

What have our GC politicians said to the Russians about their recent behaviour? Not much.

[repulsewarrior]

....and Turkey once again seeks a chair at the security council of the UN.

as for the Russians, as of today, their armed forces have completely removed themselves from the buffer zone.

this is truly good news for international justice, and by abstaining, the EU has shown from it that they are credible, not self serving.

[skipper]

Serbia wins right to challenge Kosovo at ICJ

Serbia can challenge the legality of Kosovo’s independence in the highest court of international law, the United Nations General Assembly decided on Tuesday.
The Serbian resolution requesting an opinion from the International Court of Justice won approval by a wide margin thanks to numerous abstentions, including by European Union member states that have recognised Kosovo.
Serbia’s Foreign Minister hailed the UN General Assembly’s move to question the legality of Kosovo’s independence at the World Court saying it was a victory for international law.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/040b1848-9567 ... ck_check=1


This is also a victory for Cyprus, for we now have the option to force Turkey to appear in front of the ICJ, as soon as things come to a head, thought the EU and the UN General Assembly. "Mama Turka, you want to become an EU member country? Fine! Before discussing further on the issue, let’s see first how legal was your 1974 invation, and the subeseqent up to this date occupation of more than 1/3 of the RoC. If you do not accept the ICJ verdict, then it means you do not accept international law, which means that you do not also have a place among the civilised nations of this planet –more so among the EU the UN and the Council of Europe!" Let’s see if our (GC) politicians have guts!

The ICJ will issue a non binding opinion which will not alter anything. You are confusing International Law, the UN and the ICJ although they are all related to each other. A country can be recognised and not be a member of member of the UN within International Law as was the case of Switzerland for a long time. The whole issue is just hot air.

The Cyprus issue will never be taken up by the ICJ since Turkey would have to agree to it. If you think that that the EU has the leverage to force Turkey to do so than I suggest you go ask Greece if they ended up at the ICJ in 2004 or not and if the EU applied sancations on Turkey for not doing so.

[Get Real!]

The ICJ will issue a non binding opinion which will not alter anything. You are confusing International Law, the UN and the ICJ although they are all related to each other.

It's more like your confusion...

"The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). It was established in June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and began work in April 1946"

http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php?lang=en

[skipper]

The ICJ will issue a non binding opinion which will not alter anything. You are confusing International Law, the UN and the ICJ although they are all related to each other.

It's more like your confusion...

"The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). It was established in June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and began work in April 1946"

http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php?lang=en

There is no confusion what so over, the ICJ will only look at cases between states that agreed to abide by its descision or in this case issue a non-binding <b>opinion</b> and not even a judgement. Being a UN member does not put you at the automatic mercy of the ICJ.

I hope that has made that clear for you, nice try though.

[Oracle]

The ICJ will issue a non binding opinion which will not alter anything. You are confusing International Law, the UN and the ICJ although they are all related to each other.

It's more like your confusion...

"The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). It was established in June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and began work in April 1946"

http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php?lang=en

There is no confusion what so over, the ICJ will only look at cases between states that agreed to abide by its descision or in this case issue a non-binding <b>opinion</b> and not even a judgement. Being a UN member does not put you at the automatic mercy of the ICJ.

I hope that has made that clear for you, nice try though.

Are you perhaps not missing the point of why Turkey is refusing to be judged by the ICJ?

[Get Real!]

The ICJ will issue a non binding opinion which will not alter anything. You are confusing International Law, the UN and the ICJ although they are all related to each other.

It's more like your confusion...

"The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). It was established in June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and began work in April 1946"

http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php?lang=en

There is no confusion what so over, the ICJ will only look at cases between states that agreed to abide by its descision or in this case issue a non-binding <b>opinion</b> and not even a judgement. Being a UN member does not put you at the automatic mercy of the ICJ.

I hope that has made that clear for you, nice try though.

Hey pea-brain, my response was OBVIOUSLY to your bollocks sweeping statement...

"You are confusing International Law, the UN and the ICJ although they are all related to each other."

[Get Real!]

There is no confusion what so over, the ICJ will only look at cases between states that agreed to abide by its descision or in this case issue a non-binding <b>opinion</b> and not even a judgement. Being a UN member does not put you at the automatic mercy of the ICJ.

I hope that has made that clear for you, nice try though.

As for your stupidity above... ALL UN members are expected to respect the UN's principal judicial body (ICJ).

“The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). It was established in June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and began work in April 1946.

The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands). Of the six principal organs of the United Nations, it is the only one not located in New York (United States of America).

The Court’s role is to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies.

The Court is composed of 15 judges, who are elected for terms of office of nine years by the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council. It is assisted by a Registry, its administrative organ. Its official languages are English and French.”

http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1

[Piratis]

The Cyprus issue will never be taken up by the ICJ since Turkey would have to agree to it.

There are two questions here:

1) Why Turkey has to agree to it?

2) Why Turkey doesn't agree to it?

Lets take the first question first. Those Kossovars that declared Kossovo as an independent state are ethnic Albanians yet the agreement of Albania was not needed.

Some countries recognize kosovo as an independent state, most don't. So the independence of Kossovo is in question.

In the case of the pseudo state called "trnc" there is no such question. No county except Turkey recognizes the pseudo state. So there is no case that the so called "trnc" is something independent. It is obvious to everybody, including you, that north Cyprus is ruled by turkey, not by any "trnc', and this is why the case in the ICJ would be Cyprus VS Turkey, and this is why Turkey would have to agree to it.

So why turkey doesn't agree to it? The answer here is even simpler: They know they are acting against international law and therefore they know that there is absolutely no possibility they can win this case. So they refuse legality, and instead they are trying to use their army to force and blackmail us to get what they want on our loss.