Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

Is the 1959 "Treaty of Guarantee" valid?

There are many reasons that render the "Treaty of Guarantee" invalid including the UN Charter as a result of Cyprus’ 1960 entry into the UN, but in this article we will take a look at what international law has to say regarding the termination of treaties themselves…

The link being used is...

http://www.worldtradelaw.net/misc/viennaconvention.pdf

...and the relevant section begins from the end of page 18 of the PDF.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

Article 60: Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty as a consequence of its breach

1. A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part.

2. A material breach of a multilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles:
(a) the other parties by unanimous agreement to suspend the operation of the treaty in whole or in
part or to terminate it either:
(i) in the relations between themselves and the defaulting State, or

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

(ii) as between all the parties;
(b) a party specially affected by the breach to invoke it as a ground for suspending the operation
of the treaty in whole or in part in the relations between itself and the defaulting State;
(c) any party other than the defaulting State to invoke the breach as a ground for suspending the
operation of the treaty in whole or in part with respect to itself if the treaty is of such a character
that a material breach of its provisions by one party radically changes the position of every party
with respect to the further performance of its obligations under the treaty.

3. A material breach of a treaty, for the purposes of this article, consists in:
(a) a repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the present Convention; or
(b) the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty.

4. The foregoing paragraphs are without prejudice to any provision in the treaty applicable in the event of a breach.

5. Paragraphs 1 to 3 do not apply to provisions relating to the protection of the human person contained in treaties of a humanitarian character, in particular to provisions prohibiting any form of reprisals against
persons protected by such treaties.

In July 1974, all three guarantor powers of the Republic of Cyprus breached the 1959 Treaty of Guarantee in the following manner…

Greece, overthrew the legitimate government of Cyprus via a military coup violating Cyprus’ government and constitution.

Turkey militarily invaded and occupied a portion of Cyprus violating Cyprus’ territorial integrity and legitimate government.

Britain, having prior knowledge of the schemes of Greece and Turkey failed to take any form of measures to protect the Republic Cyprus.

In accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties all three guarantor powers were in breech of the 1959 Treaty of Guarantee rendering it invalid.

Regards, GR.

[BirKibrisli]

Is the 1959 "Treaty of Guarantee" valid?

There are many reasons that render the "Treaty of Guarantee" invalid including the UN Charter as a result of Cyprus’ 1960 entry into the UN, but in this article we will take a look at what international law has to say regarding the termination of treaties themselves…

The link being used is...

http://www.worldtradelaw.net/misc/viennaconvention.pdf

...and the relevant section begins from the end of page 18 of the PDF.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

Article 60: Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty as a consequence of its breach

1. A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part.
2. A material breach of a multilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles:
(a) the other parties by unanimous agreement to suspend the operation of the treaty in whole or in
part or to terminate it either:
(i) in the relations between themselves and the defaulting State, or

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

(ii) as between all the parties;
(b) a party specially affected by the breach to invoke it as a ground for suspending the operation
of the treaty in whole or in part in the relations between itself and the defaulting State;
(c) any party other than the defaulting State to invoke the breach as a ground for suspending the
operation of the treaty in whole or in part with respect to itself if the treaty is of such a character
that a material breach of its provisions by one party radically changes the position of every party
with respect to the further performance of its obligations under the treaty.

3. A material breach of a treaty, for the purposes of this article, consists in:
(a) a repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the present Convention; or
(b) the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty.

4. The foregoing paragraphs are without prejudice to any provision in the treaty applicable in the event of a breach.

5. Paragraphs 1 to 3 do not apply to provisions relating to the protection of the human person contained in treaties of a humanitarian character, in particular to provisions prohibiting any form of reprisals against
persons protected by such treaties.

In July 1974, all three guarantor powers of the Republic of Cyprus breached the 1959 Treaty of Guarantee in the following manner…

Greece, overthrew the legitimate government of Cyprus via a military coup violating Cyprus’ government and constitution.

Turkey militarily invaded and occupied a portion of Cyprus violating Cyprus’ territorial integrity and legitimate government.

Britain, having prior knowledge of the schemes of Greece and Turkey failed to take any form of measures to protect the Republic Cyprus.

In accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties all three guarantor powers were in breech of the 1959 Treaty of Guarantee rendering it invalid.

Regards, GR.

Did the RoC use this as a ground to terminating the treaty??? When and where??? And since the 1960 agreements were breached by Makarios,by excluding the TCs or not inviting them back,back in 1963,the ROC would have been an illegal entity in 74,so they couldn't invoke anything to terminate any international treaties....Don't you think????

GR! Please tell me your take on what happened in 1963/64...Do you consider a partnership agreement without one of the partners involved in exercising power still legitimate??? Why???

[Piratis]

The "Treaty of Guarantee" as well as the 1960 constitution are nothing more than what was imposed on the Cypriot people by force, when Turks and British collaborated and attacked us in order to oppress our revolution for freedom and self-determination. In fact the intercommunal conflict started in 1958 by the TCs as part of their collaboration with the British.

Those treaties served exclusively the interests of those foreigners who made them, as well as their Turkish minority in Cyprus, who they used as the means and as the excuse to deny to Cyprus its freedom, and later rewarded them with unfair privileges on the expense of the vast majority of Cypriots.

In 1963 Makarios simply proposed changes to the constitution which were supported by the vast majority of Cypriots, and which would have made the constitution much more democratic and fair.

Unfortunately the TC minority who were used to have unfair privileges on the expense of the native Cypriot people since the time of the Ottoman rule, rejected the proposals and restarted the conflict with the aim to maintain their unfair privileges that were granted to them by the Turks and the British on the expense of every other Cypriot.

If Turkey thinks that that such disproportional and unfair "partnerships" should be made between the majority and ethnic minorities, then they can practice what they preach in their own country by doing such partnerships with the Kurdish and Greek minorities that live in Turkey. (not only they don't do that, but instead they don't even give to them their minority and human rights!)

What we believe is right for Cyprus, is what is right for every other modern civilized state. Democracy (=majority rule + minority rights), human rights and equality of all citizens without apartheid and racist discriminations. It is time for the Turks to recognize that we are not living in the Middle Ages, and that Cyprus is not part of their empire, and that they can not anymore divide the people of Cyprus into higher class Muslims and lower class Christians and expect such thing to be tolerated by us.

Republic of Cyprus today is ruled democratically by its own people (TCs are free to participate as well) and this is what makes it 100% legitimate, more so than any foreign imposed undemocratic and unfair "partnership" would.

We are only bound by what is right, which is freedom, democracy and human rights and not by anything that some Turks or British want to force on our island to serve their own interests on our expense.

[Paphitis]

26.NOV.08
Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyiannis has described the fact that the Turkish Cypriot side has at last accepted the principles of a single identity and a single nationality as a success for Cyprus President Demetris Christofias and the island as a whole.

In an interview with CNA on the occasion of President Christofias' official visit to the Greek capital, Bakoyiannis repeated the support of the Greek government and political parties to President Christofias’ initiatives in finding an overall and agreed solution to the Cyprus issue.

Regarding the issue of guarantees, Bakoyiannis said that Greece and Cyprus fully support the complete withdrawal of Turkish occupation troops and the abolition of guarantee and alliance pacts, which have proved “to be dangerous for the stability and security of Cyprus and are not suitable for an EU member state."

“We clearly support the demilitarisation of the island and the explicit barring of every right for military intervention,"Bakoyiannis added.

Asked if Turkey’s presence at the UN Security Council, even as a non-permanent member, could affect the ongoing Cyprus talks, the Greek FM pointed out that “the Cyprus issue remains an issue of invasion and occupation of an independent state, member of the UN," underlining that “this choice does not allow room for arrogance." - (KYPE)

Source: FAMAGUSTA GAZETTE

[Get Real!]

Did the RoC use this as a ground to terminating the treaty??? When and where???

Anyone who cares to read through “SECTION 3. TERMINATION AND SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF TREATIES” of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, will find not one but multiple scenarios for automatic termination of the treaty applicable to the calamity that befell on Cyprus and her people as a result of the actions of Greece and Turkey. (ie: Article 63: Severance of diplomatic or consular relations)

But to be quite honest with you, we need not even dwell in technicalities to determine if this gimmick of a treaty is valid because all we had to do was use common sense and ask ourselves…

Is it possible for a “guarantor” to kill around 6,000 of the people she is meant to be protecting, and make a further 180,000 homeless refugees and still be considered a “guarantor” in the modern world that comes under the UN Charter??? Of course not! This is not the middle ages…

And since the 1960 agreements were breached by Makarios,by excluding the TCs or not inviting them back,back in 1963,the ROC would have been an illegal entity in 74,so they couldn't invoke anything to terminate any international treaties....Don't you think????

You'll have to prove such an alegation FIRST before anyone can accept it as fact.

GR! Please tell me your take on what happened in 1963/64...Do you consider a partnership agreement without one of the partners involved in exercising power still legitimate??? Why???

If you want to refer to it as a "partnership agreement" then go ahead but you must also read up on partnership law to find out what happens when one of the partners abandons the partnership…

I like to call it an undemocratic and racist political arrangement whereby a minority of 18% was given 30% of the House of Representatives and a vice - president with veto power… the most absurd arrangement ever made in the modern history of mankind! I don’t know how the UN kept a straight face endorsing it but I guess it happened half a century ago at a time when Negroes were still looked upon as “savages”!

[DT.]

If the Treaty of Gaurantee is valid why aren't any of the parties enforcing article 2 now?

[BirKibrisli]

The "Treaty of Guarantee" as well as the 1960 constitution are nothing more than what was imposed on the Cypriot people by force, when Turks and British collaborated and attacked us in order to oppress our revolution for freedom and self-determination. In fact the intercommunal conflict started in 1958 by the TCs as part of their collaboration with the British.

Those treaties served exclusively the interests of those foreigners who made them, as well as their Turkish minority in Cyprus, who they used as the means and as the excuse to deny to Cyprus its freedom, and later rewarded them with unfair privileges on the expense of the vast majority of Cypriots.

In 1963 Makarios simply proposed changes to the constitution which were supported by the vast majority of Cypriots, and which would have made the constitution much more democratic and fair.

Unfortunately the TC minority who were used to have unfair privileges on the expense of the native Cypriot people since the time of the Ottoman rule, rejected the proposals and restarted the conflict with the aim to maintain their unfair privileges that were granted to them by the Turks and the British on the expense of every other Cypriot.

If Turkey thinks that that such disproportional and unfair "partnerships" should be made between the majority and ethnic minorities, then they can practice what they preach in their own country by doing such partnerships with the Kurdish and Greek minorities that live in Turkey. (not only they don't do that, but instead they don't even give to them their minority and human rights!)

What we believe is right for Cyprus, is what is right for every other modern civilized state. Democracy (=majority rule + minority rights), human rights and equality of all citizens without apartheid and racist discriminations. It is time for the Turks to recognize that we are not living in the Middle Ages, and that Cyprus is not part of their empire, and that they can not anymore divide the people of Cyprus into higher class Muslims and lower class Christians and expect such thing to be tolerated by us.

Republic of Cyprus today is ruled democratically by its own people (TCs are free to participate as well) and this is what makes it 100% legitimate, more so than any foreign imposed undemocratic and unfair "partnership" would.

We are only bound by what is right, which is freedom, democracy and human rights and not by anything that some Turks or British want to force on our island to serve their own interests on our expense.

What a pity,Piratis,that all through the 50s you were not concerned with Independence,but wished to gift our homeland to Greece on a plate...The demand for Enosis is the key to all that followed...When you admit that and apologise to all Cypriots for turning their island into a civil war site,then you will have the moral authority to throw your stones at the TCs...Not before..

[DT.]

What a pity,Piratis,that all through the 50s you were not concerned with Independence,but wished to gift our homeland to Greece on a plate...The demand for Enosis is the key to all that followed...When you admit that and apologise to all Cypriots for turning their island into a civil war site,then you will have the moral authority to throw your stones at the TCs...Not before.

Bir, the Speaker of the House yesturday issued an apology to the TC's about any wrongdoings that were done to them during the 60's. This is the 2nd time this comes from the GC's.

Where's our apology? And I don't want it from Piratis or from you I want it from your politicians just like our President and Speaker of the house did.

An apology for the 1000's killed in the invasion, the 100,000's displaced and the 100's killed in the 60's.

[BirKibrisli]

Is it possible for a “guarantor” to kill around 6,000 of the people she is meant to be protecting, and make a further 180,000 homeless refugees and still be considered a “guarantor” in the modern world that comes under the UN Charter??? Of course not! This is not the middle ages…

I never thought I would resort to tit-for -tat arguments but you give me no choice,GR!...

Is is morally acceptable for the "Legitimate government" to turn a blind eye to the slaughter of hundreds of its citizens,abandon them to their own fates in enclaves to live in fear of their lives??????? Of course not! It wasn't the middle ages...It was the middle of the 20th century...Unless you own up to what happened to the TCs between 1963-74,of which I am a living witness,you cannot get any sympathy from the majority of theTCs for what happened after 1974...I will give you all the empathy adn compassion you want,but it will not move the average TC...Let alone the average Turk...Wise up and admit to your mistakes..BEfore it is too late..

[Get Real!]

1. A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part.

Btw, you highlighted the bilateral (two-party) section which is not the case with Cyprus.