Cyprus-Forum.com

[Nikitas]

Copperline,

You paint a picture which Zan summed up accurately: "no victim no crime" and you of all people should know that this cannot be. Refer to the Nuremberg trials and the defences of superior orders which did not hold up. There is pesonal responsibility undr International Law otherwise it would not be law.

Any crime, including those that are committed by legal persons like states has human instruments. The criminal nature of the original act taints all those that benefit from it and affects their status if not their ultimate culpability.

Illegal immigrants also arrive in Cyprus voluntarily, often with the connivance of the TRNC operatives. They are sent back where they came from. The same holds true for settlers.

The other aspect you have totally ignored is the usurpation of property belonging to citizens of Cyprus by the incomers. This process is a joint act, carried out by the Turkey, the agents of the TRNC and the final recipient and occupier of the property, and there we have a whole range of decisions as to the relative rights and obligations from the ECHR. Obviously the judges do not share the view "no victim no crime".

In the final analysis, when faced with the kind of cynical approach you incorporate in your posts ie: "the settlers are here, you cannot do a thing about them, so you might as well accept them and shut your mouth and swallow your loss", leads to a resolve to return that cynicism twice over . This kind of mindset hardly leads to a resolution of the problem.

When this kind of attitude is flashed at people who have lost everything, you cannot then blame them for accepting the message that the only good Turk is a dead Turk.

[Bananiot]

I know Greek Cypriots who have lost loved ones in this ongoing conflict, not mere property, yet these people are staunch supporters of peace, solution and reconciliation. There is no excuse for the ridiculous slogan you tried to justify Nikitas.

[Nikitas]

You have not read the post carefully Bananiot.

I do not justify anything. What I am saying is that taunting GCs who have lost everything inescapably leads to a resolve for payback. It is a fact, regardless of whether you or I agree with it.

My position on settlers is clear and has been stated in many posts. No settlement can legalise settlers while it ignores Cypriots who have been forced to leave Cyprus and make a living elsewhere. Settlers did not come from outer space, they have a patrial home to which they can return. Expatriate Cypriots have no other place to call home than Cyprus.

And by the way Bananiot, did you read the posted message stating "no victim no crime" ? How does the attitude contained in that message strike you?

[Oracle]

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

I'll go and watch some paint dry

... Paint fell off the back of a lorry, did it? ..... You low-down purveyor of crimes and misdemeanors!

[Oracle]

I know Greek Cypriots who have lost loved ones in this ongoing conflict, not mere property, yet these people are staunch supporters of peace, solution and reconciliation. There is no excuse for the ridiculous slogan you tried to justify Nikitas.

Which is exactly why pacifists are such staunch supporters of the Legal courts and Laws (which must be obeyed by all, equally)!

Do you really think someone is being polemic, if they pursue justice through written Laws?

Don't try and humiliate people into absolving their fights Bananiot .... just to appease your Turkish bedfellows.

[Kifeas]

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.

The obligation to repatriate its own people will fall on Turkey, with which an agreement will have to be signed as part of the solution. How Turkey will arrange their repatriation will be her own business, but let me tell you a secret, it doesn’t have to be a violent expulsion. Turkey will simply offer them a reasonable compensation package, upon their arrival back in Turkey, and most of them will chose to opt for it. It will be very stupid for the GC side to accept that the responsibility to repatriate Turkey’s settlers will fall on the shoulders of the federal government or on those of the TC constituent state, because what will happen is exactly what you said above. In fact, the beginning of the implementation of the comprehensive settlement will be subject to the repatriation of the settlers and the withdrawal of the Turkish army, and without their prior materialization, any agreement will be null and void.

[denizaksulu]

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... >

Wouldnt be truthful.

That says 'I dont know'.

Are you taking the mickey?

[denizaksulu]

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 ......

Nice one BillC

[zan]

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 ......

Nice one BillC

I thought it was the advise given by a Japanese lawyer in one of these accident claim firms...

[CopperLine]

Copperline,

You paint a picture which Zan summed up accurately: "no victim no crime" and you of all people should know that this cannot be. Refer to the Nuremberg trials and the defences of superior orders which did not hold up. There is pesonal responsibility undr International Law otherwise it would not be law.

Any crime, including those that are committed by legal persons like states has human instruments. The criminal nature of the original act taints all those that benefit from it and affects their status if not their ultimate culpability.

Illegal immigrants also arrive in Cyprus voluntarily, often with the connivance of the TRNC operatives. They are sent back where they came from. The same holds true for settlers.

The other aspect you have totally ignored is the usurpation of property belonging to citizens of Cyprus by the incomers. This process is a joint act, carried out by the Turkey, the agents of the TRNC and the final recipient and occupier of the property, and there we have a whole range of decisions as to the relative rights and obligations from the ECHR. Obviously the judges do not share the view "no victim no crime".

In the final analysis, when faced with the kind of cynical approach you incorporate in your posts ie: "the settlers are here, you cannot do a thing about them, so you might as well accept them and shut your mouth and swallow your loss", leads to a resolve to return that cynicism twice over . This kind of mindset hardly leads to a resolution of the problem.

When this kind of attitude is flashed at people who have lost everything, you cannot then blame them for accepting the message that the only good Turk is a dead Turk.

Nikitas,
I don't think that Zan's 'no victim no crime' sums up my position at all. On the contrary there are lots of victims, but the legal questions are who broke the law, which law did they break, and how did they break the law.

I really don't see how the Nuremburg trial has any bearing on the issue of whether settlers should be expelled or not, or whether they have acted illegally or not. Perhaps you can explain further ?

I can only repeat what I said in another post : natural persons are not subjects of international law. Whilst I might agree with you about moral responsibility of individuals it does not change the fact that international law deals with a different kind of legal personality.

Do I think that a child born to settler parents should pay the price for his/her parents' alleged illegality ? No. Do I think that individuals of the Nth generation should be held to account for the crimes of their forefathers ? No. Liitle Mehmet no more chose to be born to Turkish settler parents than little Iannis chose to be born to an EOKA father. Since I believe that children are born innocent of crimes and are born with natural rights I do not think it permissible morally, and I don't think that it is pemissible legally to punish them by expulsion for the crimes of others.

Regarding property : I've said several times on this forum that property rights - along with other abused rights - should be addressed equitably and fairly. I hold no brief for the Republic of Turkey, for occupiers, for the TRNC, for the Republic of Cyprus or any other state or political power. The current Property Commission whilst a step in the right direction remains woefully inadequate.

Should Turkey have encouraged the movements of people to northern Cyprus ? No of course not. It is unquestionably a breach of occupation law. But the fact remains that this is historically what happened and, with the passage of time new lives have been lived in circumstances not of their choosing. I agree with you regarding the juxtaposition of the "kind of attitude is flashed at people who have lost everything" and the presence of 'settlers'. But I reject the words that you put into my mouth regarding a cynical approach and of the false suggestion that I either said or implied that one should "shut your mouth and swallow your loss". Nothing could be further from my position. My position is that because of the losses and the manner of the loss we cannot either engineer a simple reversal nor can we ignore the realities of how a just settlement will be paid for and by whom.

And no, there is no defence and no apologetics which can justify the sentiment of "the only good Turk is a dead Turk." Frankly I wouldn't give the time of day to somebody who dared express such a bigoted and irrational view. And I would blame the for holding such a view - an bigoted and irrational view however deeply held remains bigoted and irrational. No sympathy.