erolz wrote:Piratis wrote: They are not meaningless. The law is our only "weapon" against the might of the 100 times bigger and 1000 times more powerful Turkey. So sorry, we will not drop our only weapon so you will have it your way without any problem.
Your weapon is an imaginary weapon - just as the idea that there is some kind of internation law that will solve your problems is imaginary. You have been waving this weapon aroound for 31 years and Cyprus is still devided. How many more years will you wave it aroiund before you realise it is not a weapon? If you really think we can build a united Cyprus, and heal the wounds of the past, using this 'weapon' that has no bullets then that is your perogative. The rerality is that only a polticial solution can solve a polticial problem and the longer you refuse to accept this the longer the problem will remian unsolved.
I hate to get involved into yet another hair-splitting discussion but when it comes down to profoundly nihilistic and sophistic arguments, I believe it worths giving my little bit and live it there.
Erol,
The mere fact that the TC community’s “leadership” has been sitting and continues to seat around the negotiating table, together with the GC community’s leadership, proves that the international legality is a real “weapon” that cannot be ignored. Otherwise, if everything was pure politics, more specifically the politics of the powerful, then I can assure you they wouldn’t bother. The fact that there was no recognition for so many years, ECHR rulings against Turkey for which she was made to abide by, “embargos” and “isolation,” prove that international law does exist and can be enforced to a certain extent.
It is true that the world has not yet reached a stage at which we can confidently say that international law can be applied outside political interests and power. In fact, the biggest violator of international law is the U.S. government, and this by itself is a very frightening observation, due to the fact that the U.S. is one of the very few (the biggest) superpowers. However, to assume that international law doesn’t exist or it is just a fake notion, I feel we are entering into very dangerous waters. Can we assume that the world still lives in the middle ages, during which the more powerful nations and empires could arbitrarily invade and conquer other weaker nations, pretty much like in a law of the jungle fashion? My understanding is that we have passed that stage and we can confidently say that peace and stability around the world have become the rule than the exception. Am I living an illusion? I certainly do not thing so. The single most determining factor of this entirely different reality, compared to that of the Middle Ages, is the understanding and acceptance by the various most powerful nations, of the need for a system of international legality that will regulate the various international and intra-national relationships. This is the role that the U.N. is playing (or at least is trying to play) today. Certainly we are still facing cases of regional violence and conflicts. It is also true that the implementation and enforcement of international laws still suffers, mainly due to the decision-making mechanism currently in place at the U.N. Security Council. Veto powers of the 5 permanent members, lack of adequate funds, etc. However, to argue that the whole issue of international legality is just an abstract notion, it is a very nihilistic approach, to say the least.
You argue that the international law is nothing else than the outcome of various agreements and decisions, which are based on politics and interests. Well, what is the basis of all laws enacted within the boundaries of states (national legislation?) Aren’t they the outcome of decisions based on politics and interests? Where do the elected representatives (parliamentarians) base their decisions when enacting new laws or modifying existing ones? Aren’t they basing their decisions on politics and interests of those electing them and the various lobbies that fund them? The same analogy does exist with international law. In the case of international law we have the politics and interests of the various nations, certainly the most powerful ones first, like in the case of the most powerful political parties within the national boundaries.
You argue that the Cyprus problem is not a legal problem but a political one and can only be solved on the basis of a political agreement, irrespective and outside of what international law says. This is an only partly correct argument. It is a political problem to the extent that we need to agree on the parameters of a BBF, which will regulate the governing aspect of the country. We are obliged (both sides) to negotiate on this issue until we reach a mutually acceptable solution, because we have already agreed in the past (the two sides,) that this will be the format of the new governing regime in Cyprus. Unfortunately, so far we have managed to agree on the headline (title) of the new regime but not on the substance. However, the fact that we agreed on the notion (type) of regime and that we will negotiate until we agree on the substance, has almost become by itself international law. It has been passed within all the U.N. SC resolutions as a directive. This is the reason we continue to negotiate on this basis and not on any other.
The Security Council resolutions however, include some other provisions. They provide for the withdrawal and demilitarisation of Cyprus and condemn the presence of foreign occupational forces. They call for the non-recognition of any other government in Cyprus apart from the RoC. They call for the respect and restoration of human rights of refugees, etc. These later ones are not the subjects of political decisions but they are decisions by themselves, nor are they necessarily conditional to the pending political agreement regarding the substance of the agreed-to-be-sought governing regime (BBF.) They constitute a violation of international legality, alone and by themselves.
To say that all of the above issues relating to international legality should be put aside and ignored and everything is the subject of a political decision and agreement, is a totally misleading argument. The only issue that is the subject of a political agreement is the type of governing regime that will regulate the political relationship of the two communities. Nothing else. The presence of foreign occupational troops, the declaration of a separate state, the prohibition of people enjoying their free movement, settlement and property rights, and the estrangement and re-distribution of these properties, are all violations of international law and were not, are not, and will not be the subject of any political agreement,
unless the RoC (GC side)
decides (and I am not sure whether it has such a right at all,) to
trade them to a certain extend, in order to facilitate the reaching of a more favourable agreement on the only pending issue, which is the substance (the details) of the governing regime (i.e. BBF or whatever else might be agreeable.)
However, the latest (absence of a political agreement yet) does not nullify, justify or excuse the former (violations of human rights and international law.) The two issues are independed and separate.
Did you guys know that Holy See is the only European country that recognises Taiwan??
