Cyprus-Forum.com

[observer]

It would be an interesting case, as the wording of the The Rome Statute (the transfer directly or indirectly by the Occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies) seems to imply direct action by the State as opposed to voluntary movement of people. As far as I am aware, no one was forced to come to Cyprus against their wishes.

It could be argued that inducements were given, but so they were to encourage West Indian immigrants to come to Britain in the 1950s, Turkish guestarbeiters to Germany in the 1960s, and assitance to European immigrants to Australia in the post-WW2 period.

On the other hand, according to information contained in a series of interviews by Sevgül Uludağ with İlkay Adalı (who should know because she and her husband were in senior positions within the Civil Registry at the time) published in Yeni Düzen on 6-16 December 2005, the first wave of settlers after 1974 were brought over en masse in shiploads of people from the same village or group of villages, who were issued with documents on these ships and taken to abandoned villages where they were assigned homes. That sounds pretty organised to me.

I accept that later waves of immigration were more casual and spontaneous, but there is a world of difference between a sovereign country chosing to accept immigrant labour and what has happened in the north of Cyprus.

It would be an interesting case. Maybe Turkey guilty over the earliest immigrants and them having to go; not guilty on later immigrants and them remaining!

Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives protection to a person's home. If someone is living in a house for 30+ years and has raised a family, I think he might be more entitled to call it a home rather than someone who has inherited it and may never have been inside. On the other hand, Article 17 gives protection against private property being seized. Who has the greater rights, the home owner or the property owner?

Perhaps we all should pay more attention to Article 1,
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. "

[Tim Drayton]

It would be an interesting case, as the wording of the The Rome Statute (the transfer directly or indirectly by the Occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies) seems to imply direct action by the State as opposed to voluntary movement of people. As far as I am aware, no one was forced to come to Cyprus against their wishes.

It could be argued that inducements were given, but so they were to encourage West Indian immigrants to come to Britain in the 1950s, Turkish guestarbeiters to Germany in the 1960s, and assitance to European immigrants to Australia in the post-WW2 period.

On the other hand, according to information contained in a series of interviews by Sevgül Uludağ with İlkay Adalı (who should know because she and her husband were in senior positions within the Civil Registry at the time) published in Yeni Düzen on 6-16 December 2005, the first wave of settlers after 1974 were brought over en masse in shiploads of people from the same village or group of villages, who were issued with documents on these ships and taken to abandoned villages where they were assigned homes. That sounds pretty organised to me.

I accept that later waves of immigration were more casual and spontaneous, but there is a world of difference between a sovereign country chosing to accept immigrant labour and what has happened in the north of Cyprus.

It would be an interesting case. Maybe Turkey guilty over the earliest immigrants and them having to go; not guilty on later immigrants and them remaining!

Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives protection to a person's home. If someone is living in a house for 30+ years and has raised a family, I think he might be more entitled to call it a home rather than someone who has inherited it and may never have been inside. On the other hand, Article 17 gives protection against private property being seized. Who has the greater rights, the home owner or the property owner?

Perhaps we all should pay more attention to Article 1,
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. "

You also have to consider that for many years Turkish nationals could travel to the north of Cyprus on their Republic of Turkey ID cards, that very few obstacles were placed in the way of their taking up employement, and a blind eye was pretty much turned to those who worked illegally. This all adds up to aiding and abetting, if not downright encouragement, on the part of the Turkish state.

I agree that the Turkish state committed the crime, and the settlers themselves are victims.

[observer]

Jerry

But your comparison was with West Indians etc who were not sent but invited. Your post also confirms the view that the "government" in "trnc" is in fact Turkey.

Try to stay with it please.

The "charge" (or at least the portion of it that I have picked up on) is that Turkey broke the Rome Statute by transfering some of its population to a territory it occupies.

Transfering, to my mind, implies a positive action by the State (ie Turkey). Positive action could be force, although I have never heard of anyone being forced to come to Cyprus. It could also (though with a weaker case) be inducements. Since the West Indies were colonies of Britain in the 1950s when immigrants were induced to come to Britain was Britain sending them or inviting them?

Tim has produced a quotation saying that the movement of Turkish immigrants into the North of Cyprus was by villages, and well organised. This might imply that in the years immediatly after 1974 Turkey has a case to answer (They were an occupying power then by any definition - TRNC was not declared until 1983).

Tim also adds that later waves of immigration were more casual and spontaneous (my impression too), leading me to believe they were not "transfered by the occupying power".

[Get Real!]

Thread Addendum:

1. In the thread’s title, instead of “Turkish Settlers in the “TRNC”" read “Turkish Settlers of the “TRNC”.

2. Omitted links:

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/romefra.htm


The Hague Convention (1899)

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b50 ... enDocument


Apologies...

[denizaksulu]

Thread Addendum:

1. In the thread’s title, instead of “Turkish Settlers in the “TRNC”" read [i]“Turkish Settlers of the “TRNC”[/i].

2. Omitted links:

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/romefra.htm


The Hague Convention (1899)

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b50 ... enDocument


Apologies...

GR, says: "]“Turkish Settlers of the “TRNC”[/". I hope I have miss read this and that you are not trying to get TCs out through the back door now.

[Cem]

Thread Addendum:

1. In the thread’s title, instead of “Turkish Settlers in the “TRNC”" read [i]“Turkish Settlers of the “TRNC”[/i].

2. Omitted links:

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/romefra.htm


The Hague Convention (1899)

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b50 ... enDocument


Apologies...

GR, says: "]“Turkish Settlers of the “TRNC”[/". I hope I have miss read this and that you are not trying to get TCs out through the back door now. :twisted:

I am sure he would love to see that happen, however, should this happen, he has to watch his own anatomical back door lest something slips in..

[observer]

Actually, this whole thread is a bit of a waste of time, though interesting in a sort of intellectual way.

Whether Turkish immigrants are illegal or not will never be tested in any court. It will be settled one way or another through political agreements - or lack of political agreements.

One thing is almost certain though; the more time that passes, the greater will be the number of people of recent Turkish extraction who will be allowed to stay on the island.

[Get Real!]

I am sure he would love to see that happen, however, should this happen, he has to watch his own anatomical back door lest something slips in..

GR, says: "]“Turkish Settlers of the “TRNC”[/". I hope I have miss read this and that you are not trying to get TCs out through the back door now.

Deniz, I’d appreciate it if you avoid making humorous posts in CyProb threads so as not to encourage a deterioration in the quality of posts.

NB: It takes many hours of research to put these articles together believe it or not, so please don’t take them for granted.

[Get Real!]

Actually, this whole thread is a bit of a waste of time, though interesting in a sort of intellectual way.

That's the whole idea of a political forum... no?

Whether Turkish immigrants are illegal or not will never be tested in any court. It will be settled one way or another through political agreements - or lack of political agreements.

That's a sweeping speculative statement... what's stopping anyone, TC or GC, from taking advantage of international law, such as the ones presented in this thread, to protect their interests with or without a "settlement"?

Nothing… because settlements can be contested as they cannot OVERRIDE human rights!

One thing is almost certain though; the more time that passes, the greater will be the number of people of recent Turkish extraction who will be allowed to stay on the island.

Again, there's nothing "certain". If a war was to break out would your statement still hold true?

[MrH]

Are GREEK MAINLAND settlers in Cyprus regarded as "Cypriot" or "Settlers" - Exactly!

Turkish so-called Settlers in Cyprus who have been there since 1974, who have children born and raised, married into Turkish Cypriot families, expats, holiday makers choosing to relocate to Nothern Cyprus and seek Dual-nationality and etc are all considered as CITIZENS of the TRNC - PERIOD!

Don't complicate the issue Get Real! Get Real man. You're supposed to be living under the European Union, not 1955!

It's a free world, and all countries, like the TRNC, has the right to invite and welcome any person they feel responsible to live in their state - live with it.