Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

Get Real,

Anyone who wants a "divorce" from a sovereign country can just use their passport to fly somewhere else like you did!

The only recognised Sovereign Cyprus Republic was the one with its original Constitution between 1960-63. I hope you weren't referring to your GC Hijacked ROC?

The country mate has been divorced since 1963, Come on!!!

I use my British and my TRNC passport; Dual nationality - both are fine to use from Northern Cyprus to the UK. In fact, just to prove a point, I now always check in with my TRNC passport when travelling from the UK and to the TRNC, no immigration issues there.

I even have a few British Stamps on my TRNC passport. Why do I choose to use my TRNC passport and not my British Passport when travelling to the TRNC, well, just to vote "OXI" to any bogus Cyprus Plan!

I'm glad you got your divorce and left.

[CopperLine]

GR and others can't quite make up their minds at whom to shoot their arrows. Are Turkish settlers 'illegal' because they're Turkish or because they're settlers ? GR cites international law as examples 'demonstrating' that they're 'illegal' but as any fule nose individual persons are not subjects of the international law which he cites. So, these individual Turks coming to Cyprus voluntarily have broken no international law.

If they've broken any law it is not international law but Republic of Cyprus immigration law and since the RoC admits to having no administrative control over northern Cyprus - in other words its jurisdiction is effectively limited - we all know what problems that raises. In this latter respect Turkish 'settlers' are in exactly the same position as Brits, Germans, Russians, Greeks, Israelis and any other person who has visited or 'settled' in northern Cyprus.

If, as some have speculated on this thread, that it is Turkey (not the 'settlers') which is in breach of international law then it would require a complainant to bring a case against Turkey in either public international law (meaning that it would have to be a state party and not, what lawyers call, a 'natural person') or in international human rights law. If the latter then it would require the Turkish settler themselves to take an action against the Turkish state. And if the latter the problem would not be with what happened to settlers on entering Cyprus but what the Turkish state did to them in making them move to Cyprus. All fairly implausible and unlikely.

[Get Real!]

You just don't get it: THE TURKISH CYPRIOT NATION DO NOT WANT TO LIVE AS PART, UNDER OR AS ONE WITH THE GREEK CYPRIOTS!

And what does this "nation" want to do? Become the world's next superpower?

IT'S OVER!

PARTITION!

Partition already exists… where have you been the last few decades?

As for the literacy rate of the TRNC (Paphitis you dumb Fool!), we'll publish the figures a year AFTER OUR RECOGNITION!

I guess we may never know then...

[zan]

GR and others can't quite make up their minds at whom to shoot their arrows. Are Turkish settlers 'illegal' because they're Turkish or because they're settlers ? GR cites international law as examples 'demonstrating' that they're 'illegal' but as any fule nose individual persons are not subjects of the international law which he cites. So, these individual Turks coming to Cyprus voluntarily have broken no international law.

If they've broken any law it is not international law but Republic of Cyprus immigration law and since the RoC admits to having no administrative control over northern Cyprus - in other words its jurisdiction is effectively limited - we all know what problems that raises. In this latter respect Turkish 'settlers' are in exactly the same position as Brits, Germans, Russians, Greeks, Israelis and any other person who has visited or 'settled' in northern Cyprus.

If, as some have speculated on this thread, that it is Turkey (not the 'settlers') which is in breach of international law then it would require a complainant to bring a case against Turkey in either public international law (meaning that it would have to be a state party and not, what lawyers call, a 'natural person') or in international human rights law. If the latter then it would require the Turkish settler themselves to take an action against the Turkish state. And if the latter the problem would not be with what happened to settlers on entering Cyprus but what the Turkish state did to them in making them move to Cyprus. All fairly implausible and unlikely.

Ergo....No victim, no crime!!!!! Nice one Copperline

[bill cobbett]

Btw, hands up those of you who knew the word “usufructuary” used in the Hague Convention…

No emotikon for 'hands up' available to me.

They could've just said "Landlord" I suppose...

How about this one... >

Ahem ......

I'm impressed!

Came across the word for the first time over 20 years ago when I had to look it up after coming across it in the Geneva Convention that GR cites.

Game 5
There are some simpler words that lovers of the tnct have trouble understanding, completely different meanings to usufructuary but they'll do.....
Theft
Thievery
Burgled
Pillage
Steal
Stolen
Pinched
Bent
Emblezzlement
Illegal
Piracy
Repacity
Rapine
Kleptomania
Fraud
Larceny
Pilfery
Felony

Despoliation is a nice word - means "THEFT ON A MASSIVE SCALE"

[Jerry]

GR and others can't quite make up their minds at whom to shoot their arrows. Are Turkish settlers 'illegal' because they're Turkish or because they're settlers ? GR cites international law as examples 'demonstrating' that they're 'illegal' but as any fule nose individual persons are not subjects of the international law which he cites. So, these individual Turks coming to Cyprus voluntarily have broken no international law.

If they've broken any law it is not international law but Republic of Cyprus immigration law and since the RoC admits to having no administrative control over northern Cyprus - in other words its jurisdiction is effectively limited - we all know what problems that raises. In this latter respect Turkish 'settlers' are in exactly the same position as Brits, Germans, Russians, Greeks, Israelis and any other person who has visited or 'settled' in northern Cyprus.

If, as some have speculated on this thread, that it is Turkey (not the 'settlers') which is in breach of international law then it would require a complainant to bring a case against Turkey in either public international law (meaning that it would have to be a state party and not, what lawyers call, a 'natural person') or in international human rights law. If the latter then it would require the Turkish settler themselves to take an action against the Turkish state. And if the latter the problem would not be with what happened to settlers on entering Cyprus but what the Turkish state did to them in making them move to Cyprus. All fairly implausible and unlikely.

Ergo....No victim, no crime!!!!! Nice one Copperline

For all practical purposes the legality of the settler issue is irrelevant since their fate will be decided and incorporated in a settlement of The Cyprus Problem.

[Oracle]

. So, these individual Turks coming to Cyprus voluntarily have broken no international law.

Illegal migrants may have broken no International Laws ... yet they still get sent back home!

[CopperLine]

GR and others can't quite make up their minds at whom to shoot their arrows. Are Turkish settlers 'illegal' because they're Turkish or because they're settlers ? GR cites international law as examples 'demonstrating' that they're 'illegal' but as any fule nose individual persons are not subjects of the international law which he cites. So, these individual Turks coming to Cyprus voluntarily have broken no international law.

If they've broken any law it is not international law but Republic of Cyprus immigration law and since the RoC admits to having no administrative control over northern Cyprus - in other words its jurisdiction is effectively limited - we all know what problems that raises. In this latter respect Turkish 'settlers' are in exactly the same position as Brits, Germans, Russians, Greeks, Israelis and any other person who has visited or 'settled' in northern Cyprus.

If, as some have speculated on this thread, that it is Turkey (not the 'settlers') which is in breach of international law then it would require a complainant to bring a case against Turkey in either public international law (meaning that it would have to be a state party and not, what lawyers call, a 'natural person') or in international human rights law. If the latter then it would require the Turkish settler themselves to take an action against the Turkish state. And if the latter the problem would not be with what happened to settlers on entering Cyprus but what the Turkish state did to them in making them move to Cyprus. All fairly implausible and unlikely.

Ergo....No victim, no crime!!!!! Nice one Copperline

For all practical purposes the legality of the settler issue is irrelevant since their fate will be decided and incorporated in a settlement of The Cyprus Problem.

Jerry, Not quite. If a negotiated settlement resulted in the expulsion of a person who had, say, settled in Cyprus twenty years ago - had a family, a livelihood, a home, etc - then notwithstanding the political settlement their human rights could be argued to have been breached and they could take a case through national (newly unified Cyprus) courts and ultimately to European or international human rights courts.

[Oracle]

GR and others can't quite make up their minds at whom to shoot their arrows. Are Turkish settlers 'illegal' because they're Turkish or because they're settlers ? GR cites international law as examples 'demonstrating' that they're 'illegal' but as any fule nose individual persons are not subjects of the international law which he cites. So, these individual Turks coming to Cyprus voluntarily have broken no international law.

If they've broken any law it is not international law but Republic of Cyprus immigration law and since the RoC admits to having no administrative control over northern Cyprus - in other words its jurisdiction is effectively limited - we all know what problems that raises. In this latter respect Turkish 'settlers' are in exactly the same position as Brits, Germans, Russians, Greeks, Israelis and any other person who has visited or 'settled' in northern Cyprus.

If, as some have speculated on this thread, that it is Turkey (not the 'settlers') which is in breach of international law then it would require a complainant to bring a case against Turkey in either public international law (meaning that it would have to be a state party and not, what lawyers call, a 'natural person') or in international human rights law. If the latter then it would require the Turkish settler themselves to take an action against the Turkish state. And if the latter the problem would not be with what happened to settlers on entering Cyprus but what the Turkish state did to them in making them move to Cyprus. All fairly implausible and unlikely.

Ergo....No victim, no crime!!!!! Nice one Copperline

For all practical purposes the legality of the settler issue is irrelevant since their fate will be decided and incorporated in a settlement of The Cyprus Problem.

Jerry, Not quite. If a negotiated settlement resulted in the expulsion of a person who had, say, settled in Cyprus twenty years ago - had a family, a livelihood, a home, etc - then notwithstanding the political settlement their human rights could be argued to have been breached and they could take a case through national (newly unified Cyprus) courts and ultimately to European or international human rights courts.

Selective as always CopperLIne.

You forget the little fact that the Settlers were never accountable to the RoC, having entered illegally ... so go they must!

[CopperLine]

Another non sequitur from Oracle. On form tonight aren't you dear.

I'll go and watch some paint dry