Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

You tell me a court that has jurisdiction to make such a determination and I will take the case there. Maybe the constitutional court of the RoC as defined in the consitution and the 60's agreements ? Oh no sorry forgot, Makarios already destroyed that one. So what else ? ECHR - sorry not gonna work , it rules on denial of indivduals human rights not on communites consitutional rights. The Inernational court in the Hague ? Nah not gonna work unless the RoC agrees to submit itself to its jurisdiction and rulings beforehand.

Yes Erol, there was a such a court, but first Turkey should have recognized its jurisdiction (it has not done so to this day,) but also should not have rushed in 1964 to withdraw its recognition of the RoC. I am referring to the ICJ of The Hague, in which Turkey (on behalf of the TC community’s interests) could have called upon the RoC to appear in front of it, on the claim that it (RoC) violated the terms of the 1960 international treaties relating to its establishment, on the basis of which its constitution was drafted. And even if the RoC would have refused to follow the invitation, Turkey had all the power (and support of its Anglo-American allies) to pressurize the RoC through the UN SC, to comply with its call. But tell me now, when has Turkey ever chosen to use international law channels to sort out its disputes, if up to this day it refuses to recognize and ratify the jurisdiction of the ICJ?

[erolz3]

I am referring to the ICJ of The Hague

You point out the flaws yourself in this argument.

First off Piratis' question to me was

If you think that RoC did is illegal then why don't you sue RoC?

My answer then remains the same, where is there a court where I (as an indivdual) could do such ? The hague is not such a court.

You also point out the other big flaw that even if a state was to bring a case on 'my' behalf to the Hague the court can only produce a binding ruling if the (all GC run) RoC were to agree to submit itself to such a judgement, and there is no way it would have then or would do now, despite any external pressure. It has nothing to gain that it already does not have and everything to loose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... of_Justice

In contentious cases (adversarial proceedings seeking to settle a dispute), the ICJ produces a binding ruling between states that agree to submit to the ruling of the court. Only states may be parties in contentious cases. Individuals, corporations, parts of a federal state, NGOs, UN organs and self-determination groups are excluded from direct participation in cases, although the Court may receive information from public international organisations.

The key principle is that the ICJ has jurisdiction only on the basis of consent.

As to ratification by Turkey of the ICJ I think you are confused. Again from wikipedia

As stated in Article 93 of the UN Charter, all 192 UN members are automatically parties to the Court's statute

I think you are confused between the ICJ and the ICC (International Criminal Court). Turkey automaticaly accepted the jurisdiction of the ICJ when it became a UN memner, and that jurisdiction is only when the parties consent. THe ICC is different and came into force in 2002. Turkey has not signed up to this statute to date and neither has the USA to give another example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statu ... inal_Court

[Hatter]

I am referring to the ICJ of The Hague

You point out the flaws yourself in this argument.

First off Piratis' question to me was

If you think that RoC did is illegal then why don't you sue RoC?

My answer then remains the same, where is there a court where I (as an indivdual) could do such ? The hague is not such a court.

You also point out the other big flaw that even if a state was to bring a case on 'my' behalf to the Hague the court can only produce a binding ruling if the (all GC run) RoC were to agree to submit itself to such a judgement, and there is no way it would have then or would do now, despite any external pressure. It has nothing to gain that it already does not have and everything to loose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... of_Justice

In contentious cases (adversarial proceedings seeking to settle a dispute), the ICJ produces a binding ruling between states that agree to submit to the ruling of the court. Only states may be parties in contentious cases. Individuals, corporations, parts of a federal state, NGOs, UN organs and self-determination groups are excluded from direct participation in cases, although the Court may receive information from public international organisations.

The key principle is that the ICJ has jurisdiction only on the basis of consent.

As to ratification by Turkey of the ICJ I think you are confused. Again from wikipedia

As stated in Article 93 of the UN Charter, all 192 UN members are automatically parties to the Court's statute

I think you are confused between the ICJ and the ICC (International Criminal Court). Turkey automaticaly accepted the jurisdiction of the ICJ when it became a UN memner, and that jurisdiction is only when the parties consent. THe ICC is different and came into force in 2002. Turkey has not signed up to this statute to date and neither has the USA to give another example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statu ... inal_Court

Your conveniently avoiding to answer Kifeas's questions:

... referring to the ICJ of The Hague, in which Turkey (on behalf of the TC community’s interests) could have called upon the RoC to appear in front of it, on the claim that it (RoC) violated the terms of the 1960 international treaties relating to its establishment, on the basis of which its constitution was drafted. And even if the RoC would have refused to follow the invitation, Turkey had all the power (and support of its Anglo-American allies) to pressurize the RoC through the UN SC, to comply with its call. But tell me now, when has Turkey ever chosen to use international law channels to sort out its disputes ... ?

[Kifeas]

No Erol, I am not confused at all. I am talking about the ICJ, and if you do not know how it functions, you may go here and learn it from its website.

http://www.icj-cij.org/

Read: Jurisdiction /Contentious Jurisdiction, etc.

[erolz3]

Your conveniently avoiding to answer Kifeas's questions:

Do you mean

But tell me now, when has Turkey ever chosen to use international law channels to sort out its disputes ... ?

I have not avoided it I just fail to see the relvance of the question in terms of Piratis question to me "why have I not taken the RoC to court over its illegal usuprtion of the TC communites valid constitutional rights in 1965."

However if you really want an example of when Turkey has chosen to submit itself to ICJ jurisdiction on an given issue see the post below.

[erolz3]

No Erol, I am not confused at all. I am talking about the ICJ, and if you do not know how it functions, you may go here and learn it from its website.

http://www.icj-cij.org/

Read: Jurisdiction /Contentious Jurisdiction, etc.

Yep been there and it matches what it says on wikipedia

Turkey is a party to the ICJ as all UN members are.

The court has no jusrisdiction unless all parties to the dispute agree to it having such jurisdiction.

So you claim that I can use this court to sue the RoC then ?

I can still find no evidence to your claim that Turkey has not recognised the jurisdiction of the ICJ - namely that it has jurisdiction when both parties agree to that. I have no idea what you mean when you say that Turkey refuses to recognise and ratify the jurisdiction of the ICJ. It is a party to the ICJ. It is free as any other party to the ICJ is to choose weather to submit itself to ICJ jurisdiction or not on a particular issue. It has in the past chosen to accept the Jurisdiction of this court in certain disputes.

see here for one example

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php ... de=gt&p3=5

see specficaly the pdf in the 'application' section pdf page 23 the section under the heading Jurisdiction and the section quoted below from that document

The joint coniriiuniqué o f Brussels o f 31 May 1975, which followed
previous exchange o f views, States that the Prime Ministers o f Greece
and Turkey have decided that the problciiis dividing the two countries
should be resolved peacefully "et, au sujet du plateau continental de
la nier Egce, par la Cour internationale de La Hayc". The two Governments
thcreby jointly and severally accepted the jurisdiction o f thecourt
i n the present matter, pursuant to Article 36(1) o f the Statute of the Court

So to reiterate

1. The ICJ is not a court I could use to sue the RoC and I am still waiting for piratis to tell me a court wherte I could do such.

2. As far as Turkey taking the RoC to the ICJ on this issue the court only has jurisdiction if the RoC were to agree to this, and we both know , as well as Turkey knew and knows, that the RoC would and will never submit itself to such jurisdiction of this court on this issue.

[Paphitis]

LOL. All this arguing between Greek and Greek Cypriot. Ha ha! You lot should be so thankful to the Turkish Cypriots and the Turkish army. We are saving you lot from yourselves. Just think without the Turkish army there to protect you Greek Cypriots, you'd have the pro ENOSIS GCs and the Greeks wanting once again to slaughter the anti ENOSIS lot and vice versa. Turkey is inadvertently protecting your little selves!

What these days are? the days when Neo Cypriots and "Cyprus Ethnicity start to be created" There is not a signature of surrentr- even after 400years there is always a Kolokotronis!!!1

The Cypriot ethnicity existed thousands of years before anything Greek appeared on the horizon because I AS A CYPRIOT SAY SO just as YOU AS A GREEK SAY SO about your Greek inheritance.

Now, if you want us to have a screaming competition to see who can yell it out the loudest, name a time and place and I’ll bring my loudspeaker…

Can you read? GR is not Greek! In fact he feels he belongs to the same race as you. Why are you dissappointing him?

Greeks,Turks, …same cockroach different sewer!

Interesting slogan.

But this one is better and I think you would agree deep down:

[Get Real!]

But this one is better and I think you would agree deep down:

And if I don't is your thought process buggy?

[Paphitis]

But this one is better and I think you would agree deep down:

And if I don't is your thought process buggy?

That's better...

Don't edit my quotes cave man...

Denial is unbecoming and I am here to break your resolve and make you see the light by building your self esteem up again from scratch... Just think of it as your national service boot camp all over again.

[Get Real!]

But this one is better and I think you would agree deep down:

And if I don't is your thought process buggy?

That's better...

Don't edit my quotes cave man...

Denial is unbecoming and I am here to break your resolve and make you see the light by building your self esteem up again from scratch... Just think of it as your national service boot camp all over again.

I think it's in everyone’s interest not to build my self-esteem any further...