Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kikapu]

Bir, I do not have time to argue endlessly on this issue, but I will give it another try and hopefully you will understand what I am talking about.

You said:
“It was legal under the Treaty of the Guarantee,Kifeas.”

The 1960 treaty of guarantee was an international agreement which indeed gave the so-called guarantor powers, including Turkey, the right to unilateral intervention, for the purpose of establishing the constitutional order. However, international legality does not depend on any one agreement, (just like national legality on just one law,) but instead it is a system of laws, treaties and agreements. The highest international law treaty is the UN Charter. The UN Charter, by virtue of article 103, nullifies the provision of the 1960 treaty of guarantee -not the entire treaty but only the particular provision- that allows for unilateral intervention. It nullifies it because it is in conflict with other articles of the UN Charter that prohibit unilateral military action of one UN member country into the territory of another country, for any reason, prior and /or without UN SC explicit approval or authorization. Therefore, under international law, 1974 Turkish invasion was not legal.

If it was legal, resolution 354 of the UN SC, on the 20th of July 74, would not have demanded the immediate end of military action and the withdrawal of Turkish and any other (all) troops from the soil of Cyprus, outside those explicitly provided by international agreements. If it was legal, Turkey would not have consistently refused the calls of the RoC to have the issue examined by the ICJ of The Hague.

I am willing to discuss the issue of it being objectively justified or not, (and I have arguments in this direction to prove it was not objectively justified,) however, on the issue of it been legal or not, as far as I am concerned (but also according to many international law experts I happened to have come across their opinions,) it is as clear as a Mediterranean sunny day. It was not legal! It was not legal under international law, the only legal system or basis on which it is possible to examine its legality. The 1960 treaty of guarantee is an international agreement, and not an intra-national one, and as such it falls under international law system.

Kifeas,

I have read your argument few times before, and again now as to why Turkey's garentour powers did not make intervention/invasion legal in 1974, because of the provisions in the UNSC that you have provided. So here is my question. If it wasn't legal for Turkey in 1974 to intervene/invade, why is Turkey today, along with "trnc", are insisting that Turkey maintains it's guarantorship if and when the next settlement agreements are approved and signed. Why is Turkey insisting on this point if the UNSC provisions will override it, or do you think, that if Turkey becomes a guarantor power once more, that they will once again ignore the UN and just take matters into their hands regardless of whether it is legal or not. If it's illegal for Turkey to have intervention/invasion rights, why doesn't Christofias agree to have Turkey as a guarantor power, then go to the UN after the fact and have Turkey's guarantor powers annulled, although I think you did say, that it is not the guarantorship of Turkey that's illegal, but military action taken unilaterally without the UNSC approval. Personally speaking, Greece, Turkey and Britain have all failed in their guarantorship responsibilities to restore the full RoC government and constitution from 1963 until today, some 45 years, and does not deserve anymore chances to act as one once again. Let Cypriots be their own guarantors to their own country.

[denizaksulu]

"MrH," the only comment I wish to make is that the scull you picked up as your avatar, very accurately reflects the kind of dead-end ideas you posses, as they appear in the above post and in this forum! They indeed made a really good job on you, and I can only feel sorry for you, for the halusinating utopian stage of world you seem to go through! You have no touch with reality, whatsoever, and a very childish way of thinking!

Kifeas give MrH a chance the majority of what he has put forward is very relevent as do you think we will ever find a solution to force both sides to live united? obviously neither community trusts or wants to live with the other unless it is on their own terms and those terms are unaceeptable to both sides, so the only real alternative is agree partition with added incentives to both sides to encourage them to work side by side as 2 states.

Viewpoint- are you saying that the vast majority of Turkish Cypriots are in favour of Partition.

YES because the alternative is clear and would force TCs to live in a GC state run by GCs leaving us exposed with no community rights just classed as another minority, foreigners in our own country.

Armenians and Maronites are not foreigners in their own country. Are they?

[Kifeas]

Bir, I do not have time to argue endlessly on this issue, but I will give it another try and hopefully you will understand what I am talking about.

You said:
“It was legal under the Treaty of the Guarantee,Kifeas.”

The 1960 treaty of guarantee was an international agreement which indeed gave the so-called guarantor powers, including Turkey, the right to unilateral intervention, for the purpose of establishing the constitutional order. However, international legality does not depend on any one agreement, (just like national legality on just one law,) but instead it is a system of laws, treaties and agreements. The highest international law treaty is the UN Charter. The UN Charter, by virtue of article 103, nullifies the provision of the 1960 treaty of guarantee -not the entire treaty but only the particular provision- that allows for unilateral intervention. It nullifies it because it is in conflict with other articles of the UN Charter that prohibit unilateral military action of one UN member country into the territory of another country, for any reason, prior and /or without UN SC explicit approval or authorization. Therefore, under international law, 1974 Turkish invasion was not legal.

If it was legal, resolution 354 of the UN SC, on the 20th of July 74, would not have demanded the immediate end of military action and the withdrawal of Turkish and any other (all) troops from the soil of Cyprus, outside those explicitly provided by international agreements. If it was legal, Turkey would not have consistently refused the calls of the RoC to have the issue examined by the ICJ of The Hague.

I am willing to discuss the issue of it being objectively justified or not, (and I have arguments in this direction to prove it was not objectively justified,) however, on the issue of it been legal or not, as far as I am concerned (but also according to many international law experts I happened to have come across their opinions,) it is as clear as a Mediterranean sunny day. It was not legal! It was not legal under international law, the only legal system or basis on which it is possible to examine its legality. The 1960 treaty of guarantee is an international agreement, and not an intra-national one, and as such it falls under international law system.

Kifeas,

I have read your argument few times before, and again now as to why Turkey's garentour powers did not make intervention/invasion legal in 1974, because of the provisions in the UNSC that you have provided. So here is my question. If it wasn't legal for Turkey in 1974 to intervene/invade, why is Turkey today, along with "trnc", are insisting that Turkey maintains it's guarantorship if and when the next settlement agreements are approved and signed. Why is Turkey insisting on this point if the UNSC provisions will override it, or do you think, that if Turkey becomes a guarantor power once more, that they will once again ignore the UN and just take matters into their hands regardless of whether it is legal or not. If it's illegal for Turkey to have intervention/invasion rights, why doesn't Christofias agree to have Turkey as a guarantor power, then go to the UN after the fact and have Turkey's guarantor powers annulled, although I think you did say, that it is not the guarantorship of Turkey that's illegal, but military action taken unilaterally without the UNSC approval. Personally speaking, Greece, Turkey and Britain have all failed in their guarantorship responsibilities to restore the full RoC government and constitution from 1963 until today, some 45 years, and does not deserve anymore chances to act as one once again. Let Cypriots be their own guarantors to their own country.

Kikapu, you are indeed making some very interesting observations, but first, let me say again that it is not the UN SC (Security Council) that renters invalid or nullifies the unilateral intervention provision of the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, but the UN Charter (i.e. the constitution of the UN and international law in general.) However, a final and more binding word on the legality or illegality of the 1974 Turkish invasion, under international law, rests with the ICJ (International Court of Justice) of The Hague, a place in which Turkey refuses to proceed, despite RoC invitations in the past, citing the claim that it does not recognize the RoC to be in existence -set aside a contestant in the Court of Justice.

I believe the GC side is making a mistake on this issue. First of all, in many occasions in the past, and in view of Turkey's refusal to have the issue contested in The Hague, the RoC considered the possibility of formally denouncing the entire 1960 treaty system (Treaty of guarantee.) This was met with objections from Britain, but also with afterthoughts that such a move would have put in jeopardy also the 1960 treaty of establishment itself, since Turkey would have used it as presumably valid pre-text to denounce it too (treaty of establishment of the RoC) and declare the occupied north annexed to Turkey. The mistake the GC leadership does, imo, is to reject the further continuation of the entire Treaty of Guarantee, in the future, citing (valid) reasons of principle and deontology. In my opinion, the GC side should have said that it will accept the continuation of the Treaty of Guarantee, provided Turkey agrees to have a binding arbitration by the ICJ on the way Turkey interprets the treaty's unilateral intervention provisions, in light of the provisions of the UN Charter and international law and practice in general, and in light of its (Turkey's) actions in 1974. Turkey of course will refuse to accept such a move, once more, but in such a case the international community will have one more reason to administer blame on Turkey for the inevitable impasse.

The UN SC already gave its view on Turkey's "right" to intervene unilaterally, through its various resolutions, starting from 1964 when Turkey again threatened to invade, and again in 1974. However, it seems that this is not enough, and an ICJ ruling is needed, since in order for the UN SC to be able to impose its views on its members on the way it interprets international legality through its resolutions, these resolutions have to be obtained and enacted under the provisions of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, and not under its general provisions. Of course, attempting to obtain a resolution under Chapter 7, in which case it will also oblige the UN to authorize or order military action against Turkey, if there is no peaceful compliance to its resolutions for withdrawal of its troops, meets the fervent objections of the US and the UK due to their NATO alliance with Turkey.

[denizaksulu]

Sorry!


The split is 70/30 as opposed to the 37% we hold now. The recognition of the TRNC would be the 30%. Compensation to all that have lost land at current market prices. Thats it really...The rest is up to the two separate countries........Don't really understand what you mean by no preconditions though.......Can it happen without them?

A 7% reduction in land to be given back to the GC's and compensation to be paid to those that lost their homes on both sides with recognition of the TRNC as a seperate state. Have I understood correctly ?

I think so!

So if this was accepted by the GC's we would have a done deal. Am I right ? If so what do other GC's think of this proposal ?

That about sums it up Byron.

Instead of discussion we get abuse.

I read the proposal made by Kifeas: he advocates a 97% / 3% split between the two communities. Zan is offering 70% / 30% ; I do not think we are making any progress at all here. The Turks want to keep what they have, the Greeks, Greek Cypriots or Cypriots want to restore the status quo but the Turks disagree while the world at large looks on bemused.

This is a problem that nobody wishes to solve !

What do you understand the status quo is Byron....

Pre 1974 !

Well! In 1960 we had our rights in government...By 1963, we didn't......The Greeks used every trick in the book to see to that. Can you be more specific on your date or did you not know about 1960 or 63???

I am not too sure where you are leading too. I said that the Greeks, Greek Cypriots or Cypriots wish to restore the Cyprus Republic to the position it was before the 1974 Turkish Invasion when the Cyprus Republic represented 100% of Cypriot territory. This may not necessarily be my view but how I perceive the wishes of most Greeks, Greek Cypriots or Cypriots but I may be wrong.

The 1960 constitution has never been changed and I am not too sure what 1963 has got to do with it. You are advocating for a 70/30 split with recognition of the TRNC so what the Greek side believes is irrelevant to you.

Since there is such a wide difference of opinion, no solution will be possible that is my message. There is no need to heat up the fire further.

Byron, I sincerely suggest you read up on The events in Cyprus since 1960. There seems to be a wide gap in your knowledgfe as to the events and situation pre-1974.

[zan]

Bir, I do not have time to argue endlessly on this issue, but I will give it another try and hopefully you will understand what I am talking about.

You said:
“It was legal under the Treaty of the Guarantee,Kifeas.”

The 1960 treaty of guarantee was an international agreement which indeed gave the so-called guarantor powers, including Turkey, the right to unilateral intervention, for the purpose of establishing the constitutional order. However, international legality does not depend on any one agreement, (just like national legality on just one law,) but instead it is a system of laws, treaties and agreements. The highest international law treaty is the UN Charter. The UN Charter, by virtue of article 103, nullifies the provision of the 1960 treaty of guarantee -not the entire treaty but only the particular provision- that allows for unilateral intervention. It nullifies it because it is in conflict with other articles of the UN Charter that prohibit unilateral military action of one UN member country into the territory of another country, for any reason, prior and /or without UN SC explicit approval or authorization. Therefore, under international law, 1974 Turkish invasion was not legal.

If it was legal, resolution 354 of the UN SC, on the 20th of July 74, would not have demanded the immediate end of military action and the withdrawal of Turkish and any other (all) troops from the soil of Cyprus, outside those explicitly provided by international agreements. If it was legal, Turkey would not have consistently refused the calls of the RoC to have the issue examined by the ICJ of The Hague.

I am willing to discuss the issue of it being objectively justified or not, (and I have arguments in this direction to prove it was not objectively justified,) however, on the issue of it been legal or not, as far as I am concerned (but also according to many international law experts I happened to have come across their opinions,) it is as clear as a Mediterranean sunny day. It was not legal! It was not legal under international law, the only legal system or basis on which it is possible to examine its legality. The 1960 treaty of guarantee is an international agreement, and not an intra-national one, and as such it falls under international law system.

Kifeas,

I have read your argument few times before, and again now as to why Turkey's garentour powers did not make intervention/invasion legal in 1974, because of the provisions in the UNSC that you have provided. So here is my question. If it wasn't legal for Turkey in 1974 to intervene/invade, why is Turkey today, along with "trnc", are insisting that Turkey maintains it's guarantorship if and when the next settlement agreements are approved and signed. Why is Turkey insisting on this point if the UNSC provisions will override it, or do you think, that if Turkey becomes a guarantor power once more, that they will once again ignore the UN and just take matters into their hands regardless of whether it is legal or not. If it's illegal for Turkey to have intervention/invasion rights, why doesn't Christofias agree to have Turkey as a guarantor power, then go to the UN after the fact and have Turkey's guarantor powers annulled, although I think you did say, that it is not the guarantorship of Turkey that's illegal, but military action taken unilaterally without the UNSC approval. Personally speaking, Greece, Turkey and Britain have all failed in their guarantorship responsibilities to restore the full RoC government and constitution from 1963 until today, some 45 years, and does not deserve anymore chances to act as one once again. Let Cypriots be their own guarantors to their own country.

Was the attacks on Tcs in 1963/74 legal...How do we know that the GCs will not ignore laws of humanity again?????

Kifeas was made to look a complete amateur on this subject by erolz at least two years ago...Still he is trying to find someone to impress......

[Kifeas]

Was the attacks on Tcs in 1963/74 legal...How do we know that the GCs will not ignore laws of humanity again?????

Kifeas was made to look a complete amateur on this subject by erolz at least two years ago...Still he is trying to find someone to impress......

I am sure, had Erol been here (by the way does anyone have any news about him?) would not have agreed with you. However, since you now have Erol's lights which make me look like an "amateur," why don't you also use them yourself, in order to "once more" make me look like an "amateur?"

[Get Real!]

I am sure, had Erol been here (by the way does anyone have any news about him?)

He lives like 5-6 houses away from Iceman.

[zan]

Was the attacks on Tcs in 1963/74 legal...How do we know that the GCs will not ignore laws of humanity again?????

Kifeas was made to look a complete amateur on this subject by erolz at least two years ago...Still he is trying to find someone to impress......

I am sure, had Erol been here (by the way does anyone have any news about him?) would not have agreed with you. However, since you now have Erol's lights which make me look like an "amateur," why don't you also use them yourself, in order to "once more" make me look like an "amateur?"

I would rather you were fully into it before I release my secret weapon Kifeas......I wouldn't want your followers to be disappointed at how far you can fall....... AGAIN!!!!!!!!

[Get Real!]

Was the attacks on Tcs in 1963/74 legal...How do we know that the GCs will not ignore laws of humanity again?????

Kifeas was made to look a complete amateur on this subject by erolz at least two years ago...Still he is trying to find someone to impress......

I am sure, had Erol been here (by the way does anyone have any news about him?) would not have agreed with you. However, since you now have Erol's lights which make me look like an "amateur," why don't you also use them yourself, in order to "once more" make me look like an "amateur?"

I would rather you were fully into it before I release my secret weapon Kifeas......I wouldn't want your followers to be disappointed at how far you can fall....... AGAIN!!!!!!!!

Everyone duck for cover! Zan is about to expose his bum…

[zan]

Was the attacks on Tcs in 1963/74 legal...How do we know that the GCs will not ignore laws of humanity again?????

Kifeas was made to look a complete amateur on this subject by erolz at least two years ago...Still he is trying to find someone to impress......

I am sure, had Erol been here (by the way does anyone have any news about him?) would not have agreed with you. However, since you now have Erol's lights which make me look like an "amateur," why don't you also use them yourself, in order to "once more" make me look like an "amateur?"

I would rather you were fully into it before I release my secret weapon Kifeas......I wouldn't want your followers to be disappointed at how far you can fall....... AGAIN!!!!!!!!

Everyone duck for cover! Zan is about to expose his bum…

You exposed a long long time ago.......I feel a draft