magikthrill wrote:so what you are trying to say erol is that international laws mean absolutely nothing, since this is the only way a turkish cypriot state can be justified.
No I am saying that international law is a markedly different from national law and that denying this reality does nothing to help solve the Cyprus issue.
Kifeas wrote:The example of the car as you put it down, is a very simple issue and thus it can be dealt in a pretty much simple way. A similar example in international politics would be the invasion of Iraq into Kuwait. The international community, with the U.S. in charge, obtained a pretty much easy resolution from the U.N. SC, due to the fact that the invasion itself was illegal (against the chart of the U.N.) and unprovoked, and then went ahead and executed the decision by attacking Iraq, ending it’s occupation in Kuwait. This is one prime example in which international legality was enforced by the U.N., via a collision of a number of member countries. Obviously the U.N. doesn’t it’s own means and relies for the enforcement of it’s decisions on the willingness of it’s members states to implement them, presumably under it’s guidance.
That answers your argument regarding the similarities and differences of national and international laws. Both of them are laws and both of them can or may be enforced or not.
Look in national law there is a legislative body empowered by the people of that nation to make laws, under agreed rules. In international law their is not such body. Not only is there no such body and no state today would accept such a body or it's rights to override it's sovreignty. In addition to a legisaltive body their is a due process to be performed in applying the national laws, with rule about hwo and when charges must be made, how their must be a prosecution, how their must be a defense, how the same rules must be applied equally to all and how and who gets to sit in judgment, rights of appeal, who will hear the appeal. In international law there are none of these things. Finally in national law their is a body whos job it is to enforce the laws. In international law there is no such body.
the closest thing there is in interantional law is the UN. The fact is that the UN is a political organisation not a legal one. The fact is that it issues resolutions not laws. The fact is that these resolutions can be and are ignored by states and the more powerful a stste is the more it's ability to ignore these resolutions and in fact the more it does so (basic poltical reality not legal reality). The fact is that unlike national laws there is no body the violated can go to to seek enforcement of these laws because they are not laws.
Just as simply saying 'its illegal, its illegal' will do nothing to end the USA/UK's 'illegal' occupation of Iraq, so too simply saying 'its illegal, its illegal' will do nothing to end the current situation in Cyprus. That is a reality and that is what I am saying. I am not saying that within a political settlement we should ignore what 'international law' (or national law for that matter) there is. What I am saying is pretending that a solution can be found ignoring politics and relying only on 'international law' and the fantasy notion that such internatinal law can be enforced outside of politicis is a pointless and damagainf appraoch - yet it is one often espoused by GC here in one form or another imo.
still one bad ass quote.
