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, WRONG IN FACT) but also should not have rushed in 1964 to withdraw its recognition of the RoC (MATTER OF OPINION). 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 (NOT NECESSARY). 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 (WHAT HAS UNSC GOT TO DO WITH ICJ ? ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE SECURITY COUNCIL SHOULD NOBBLE THE ICJ ?). But tell me now, when has Turkey ever chosen to use international law channels to sort out its disputes, (HUNDREDS OF TIMES) if up to this day it refuses to recognize and ratify the jurisdiction (WRONG) of the ICJ?

Kifeas,
A couple of facts to keep in mind. Turkey does 'recognise' ICJ jurisdiction. The ICJ is an organ of the United Nations of which Turkey is a founding member. By definition therefore Turkey 'recognises' the ICJ. The issue is not one of recognition or of jurisidiction.
Second the ICJ typically and most often gives advisory opinions. International law is not like domestic law insofar as it is more ambiguous and more open. As a result there is a greater opportunity for - let's say - conflict of laws. Thus in international law is is often the case that the law (which instrument) its application (applicability), its interpretation (meaning), its enforcement are not clear cut. Given all that ambiguity or honest dispute - compounded by power politics - oart of the role of the ICJ is to try and give advisory opinions.
Third, it is not a question of not recognising the jurisdiction of the ICJ. In many cases states do not see that there is a legal case to answer.
Fourth, following your logic of "when has Turkey ever chosen to use international law channels to sort out its disputes" with reference to the ICJ, one could derive a similar cynical conclusion about a whole raft of 'peace-loving states'. For example, Iceland and Norway have never taken actions to the ICJ but have had several actions taken against them at the ICJ. Just because a state does not use the ICJ does not mean that that state is in the wrong, any more than just because a state is respondent in the ICJ it has been in the wrong. The point of the ICJ is to test contentious and ambiguous cases and law.

For information, Turkey has been respondent in the ICJ : from a quick search I've immediately identified the 1976 Greece v Turkey Aegean Sea Continental Shelf case. So much for Turkey not recognising ICJ !

Copper, why don't you just read the website of the ICJ itself, before chosing to respond to this issue? I have read it and even provited the links above, and what you are saying here does not reflect the facts of the situation.

[CopperLine]

Erolz, lets clear the ICJ debate.

Cyprus (and Greece and many other countries) have recognized the jurisdiction of the ICJ as Compulsory.

Turkey did not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICJ as compulsory.

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.

Turkey has not recognized the jurisdiction of the court as compulsory, and it accepts this jurisdiction only in cases that she believes it has some chance of winning. They would not accept to take the Cyprus case in the ICJ because they know they have no chance of winning this case because they know very well they are the guilty party.

On the other hand, Cyprus who is acting legally and has nothing to fear, accepted the jurisdiction of the court as compulsory.

Therefore you are wrong when you say:

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.

All Turkey has to do is to also accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ as compulsory (like we did) and then it can take Cyprus to the court on any issue she wants (and similarly we can take Turkey to the court for any issue we want).

Turkey doesn't do this because they know very well that they would lose this and every other case with Cyprus.

You can lie and convince some people like the Orams in order to cheat them from their money and have profits from the sale of the properties you stole from us, but when it comes to real courts, your lies and excuses can not win for you any case. This is why you are so afraid of courts and you peed your pants when you realized that justice can get you even when you are hiding behind the Turkish tanks.

http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/ind ... &p2=1&p3=3

Piratis,
A question for you : when did Cyprus take an action against Turkey in the ICJ ? Let's follow your logic for a moment that "Turkey doesn't do this because they know very well that they would lose this and every other case with Cyprus." If what you say is correct - it is certainly plausible - then surely one would expect the Republic of Cyprus to have initiated proceedings through the ICJ, yes ? If it is such an open and shut case in your view, then it should be dead easy to identify when Republic of Cyprus did indeed initiate such a course of action. Maybe it has done but I for one don't know when this happened and would like to know. Can you provide the details ?

[CopperLine]

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, WRONG IN FACT) but also should not have rushed in 1964 to withdraw its recognition of the RoC (MATTER OF OPINION). 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 (NOT NECESSARY). 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 (WHAT HAS UNSC GOT TO DO WITH ICJ ? ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE SECURITY COUNCIL SHOULD NOBBLE THE ICJ ?). But tell me now, when has Turkey ever chosen to use international law channels to sort out its disputes, (HUNDREDS OF TIMES) if up to this day it refuses to recognize and ratify the jurisdiction (WRONG) of the ICJ?

Kifeas,
A couple of facts to keep in mind. Turkey does 'recognise' ICJ jurisdiction. The ICJ is an organ of the United Nations of which Turkey is a founding member. By definition therefore Turkey 'recognises' the ICJ. The issue is not one of recognition or of jurisidiction.
Second the ICJ typically and most often gives advisory opinions. International law is not like domestic law insofar as it is more ambiguous and more open. As a result there is a greater opportunity for - let's say - conflict of laws. Thus in international law is is often the case that the law (which instrument) its application (applicability), its interpretation (meaning), its enforcement are not clear cut. Given all that ambiguity or honest dispute - compounded by power politics - oart of the role of the ICJ is to try and give advisory opinions.
Third, it is not a question of not recognising the jurisdiction of the ICJ. In many cases states do not see that there is a legal case to answer.
Fourth, following your logic of "when has Turkey ever chosen to use international law channels to sort out its disputes" with reference to the ICJ, one could derive a similar cynical conclusion about a whole raft of 'peace-loving states'. For example, Iceland and Norway have never taken actions to the ICJ but have had several actions taken against them at the ICJ. Just because a state does not use the ICJ does not mean that that state is in the wrong, any more than just because a state is respondent in the ICJ it has been in the wrong. The point of the ICJ is to test contentious and ambiguous cases and law.

For information, Turkey has been respondent in the ICJ : from a quick search I've immediately identified the 1976 Greece v Turkey Aegean Sea Continental Shelf case. So much for Turkey not recognising ICJ !

Copper, why don't you just read the website of the ICJ itself, before chosing to respond to this issue? I have read it and even provited the links above, and what you are saying here does not reflect the facts of the situation.

Kifeas
Why don't you teach your granny to suck eggs ?

Tell me where in the ICJ pages there is evidence supporting the descriptions that you made. Give us a clue. How many cases was Turkey respondent ? How many cases was it complainant ? Which issues of law were at stake ? How many cases was Cyprus respondent ? How many cases was it complainant ? Which issues of law were at stake ? Where on the ICJ pages does it refer to Turkey's non-recognition of the jurisidiction of the the ICJ - I'd genuinely like to know ? After all such a challenge by a founding member of the Court would be pretty big news so shouldn't pose a problem to find in the ICJ pages. Any help appreciated, Kifeas. Thanks.

[CopperLine]

As of 2002 only 61 states (of the UN's 192 members) had signed and ratified the 'optional clause' on ICJ 'compulsory' jurisdiction. Almost all of those 61 had submitted reservations and serious qualifications when agreeing to the optional clause on jurisdiction. So Kifeas and Piratis as simply wrong to suggest that Turkey is somehow exceptional in its relationship with the ICJ. Further most of the reservations of the 61 states are significant reservations. For example, the UK - the only P5 Security Council member to sign the optional clause - includes the following reservation "The Government of the United Kingdom also reserve the right at any time, by means of a notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and with effect as from themoment of such notification, either to add to, amend or withdraw any of the foregoing reservations or any that may hereafter be added." (Why HMG didn't just keep it brief and say "We'll do what the hell we like", I don't know !)

To repeat Kifeas and Piratis are simply mistaken, as erolz3 has already explained, about the ICJ and the meaning of 'compulsory jurisdiction'. They want this to mean someting much more and other than what it means - and I understand their reasons for wishing it to be so : But it isn't so.

[erolz3]

Yet again you want to pass your own one sided opinion as the law. With the Orams case we knew we were right and we proved it.

You proved in a RoC court that the orams had comitted an offence.

The TCs withdrew from the Goverment themselves in order to pursue partition, instead of staying in the Government and working with Makarios to make Cyprus a more democratic place.

And you accuse me of spreading lies.

In 1965 the TC leadership request via UN to return to its rightful positions in government. They were told by Clerides that they could do so only if they accepted the unilateral removal of aspects of their communal consitutional rights. There was and is no legal basis for the removal of these rtights what so ever. Futher they were told that if they tried to return without accepting this unilateral removal of their rights 'their saftey could not be guranteed'. This is all documents in UN documents.

Withdrawing from government is a peacful legal means of protest used around the world. No where where such happens do those that withdraw become deemed to have permanently lost their legal and consitutional rights as a result of such a withdrawal - except in the RoC.

As Kifeas said you could apply to the ICJ.

And as I keep explaing to you I can not go to the ICJ. Only states can go to the ICJ.

So your tactic is to say lies in order to convince people like the Orams and profit from them, but when we ask you to put your lies to the test of an international court, you deny, because you know you will lose again.

Nothing I have said is a lie. Certainly no where near a blatant lie, like your assertion that the TC withdrew from government in order to persue partition.

The TC before withdrawing from government and before the outbreak of violence went to the CYPRIOT constitutional court about non implementation of aspects of the 1960 agreement. The court found in their favour. Makarios' response was to delacre he did not accept the jusridiction of this court, against any legality and this lead to its destruction. In short the TC community did go to court with its issues in Cyprus. It is exactly because Makarios ignored the leglaity of the RoC own courts that things continued to detirorate in Cyprus.

My friend, I repeat to you: it is your side who demands "political equality of component States" as opposed to "political equality of communities", and now you are trying to turn your demand into supposedly being a compromise? The fact is that with Annan plan you got more land, more power and more separation than what you had with the 1960 agreements. You got more of everything.

This is more rubbish from you Piratis. The reason why the Annan Plan ties equality to component state based on geographical residence and not ethnicity / communal group is nothing to do with TC demands and everything to do with trying to fit a solution in CYprus in with EU norms.

The FACT is under the 60's consitution the TC political equality is based on ethnicity and thus is secured indefinately. In the Annan Plan it is not and thus it is not secure indefiantely. Accepting this is a major concession on the part of the TC community vs the rights it has under the 60's agreements.

Otherwise, if 1960 agreements are worst (or not better) for you, then why don't you agree to return to them? Who are you trying to fool here?

We DID try and return to them in 1965 and were told by the GC leadership in front of the UN that we could not do so unless we accepted as fait acompli the illegal removal of our communal rights under them. It is extacly because the GC leadership refused to implement the 60's agreements that it signed up to , ignored its own consitutional court rulings and destroyed it and sought the illegal removal of the TC communal rights granted in it that we as a community that the Cyprus problem continued to deteriorate.

Who are YOU trying to fool Piratis.

Are you telling me that because the invading Ottomans created some Muslim (later to be called Turkish) minority on our island, that the Cypriot people should be indefinitely denied the right to democratically decide the destiny of their own territory?

I am saying to you Piratis that GC can not claim that enosis is the will of a single unitary cypriot people when enosis itself says there is no such thing as a Cypriot people, just Greeks who happen to live in Cyprus and non Greeks who happend to live in Cyprus. When you define yourselves as part of the Greek people, you then by definition define those others living in Cyprus as part of some other people and as such they ALSO have a seperate and equal right to self determination.

Of course such a logical approach would have required your community to have accepted that others also have rights and as such they could not just impose thier communal will on them willy nilly, so instead you create this illogical and nonsensical argument that enosis , the desire for Cyprus to not exist as a state and Cypriot to be a part of the Greek people, is the will of a unitary Cypriot people.

No one elese ever accepted this nonsense which is why enosis was never achieved in Cyprus.

In fact we have a Greek minority in Egypt from the time of Alexander the Great. Should we now go and demand from the Egyptians that they can not take democratic decisions for their own country without the approval of our Greek Community there?

The level of your nonses knows no bounds Piratis and there would seem to be no convoluted hoop that you would not try and jump through to justify the unjustifiable.

If when Egypt had gained indpendance, the Egytptians said , there is no such thing as an Egyptian nation or an Egyptian people, there are just Turks that live in the area and some that are not Turks, but in the name of a single unitary Egyptian people that we claim does not exist we will force all those who are not turks and live here to become part of the Turkish nation and people with them having no say in the matter, then things may have developed in similar ways to Cyprus.

Yes you have a right to demand union with another state as a vaild means to ending colonisation - but you can not sensibly do that then in the name of a unitary people, if only part of the people consider themselves to be part of the state you wish to join. When you say we are not Cypriot we are Greek and thus wish to join the Greek state, you by defination say TC are NOT part of that people and thus must be some OTHER people and thus they have a SEPERATE and EQUAL right to self determination.

In Asia Minor our minority existed for 1000s of years before the Turks invaded. The same with the Kurds. Are the Greek or Kurdish communities asked for approval for anything that Turkey decides?

Once more for you Piratis.

If when Turkey had emerged as a nation state it has said 'There is no such thing as a Turkish nation and no such thing as a Turkish people' and then defined some Turks as part of some other Nation, then by definition those living there who were no part of this 'other' nation and people who have had a valid right to say 'well if you are not Turks but part of (whatever) nation and people, then we are not part of that toher nation or people and thus we demand our rights as a different and seperate people.

Yes indeed this is the crux of the problem. Turks using their minority on our island as an excuse to deny to the Cypriot people their freedom and self-determination.

No Piratis the problem was CYPRIOTS who also were NOT GREEK, saying that if Cypriots who were Greek defined themselves as part of the Greek people, then as not greeks they were a different people with a seperate and equal right to self determination.

You shouldn't consider these as "threats". These are just the consequences of crimes. If these were "threats" then every law that listed penalties for its violation would be considered a "threat".

You seem to have lost a grip on basic meaning of words in your exitment to prove you ridiculoyus claim that htese are not threats.

You can threaten some with legal action. It may be perfectly justifiable to do so as well as to take that action but it remains a THREAT.

You can threaten someone with military action. Such action may be justified or not but it remains a THREAT.

Weather something is a threat or not has nothing to do with if the action is justified or not.

YOU were the one accusing me of making threats. The reality is much plainer and clearer.

So be prepared to face the consequences of your crimes, and instead of blaming us for seeking justice via 100% legal means, blame yourselves for acting criminally and illegally.

I am not blaming you for 'seeking justice'. I am hoping that there are GC sensible enough to realise that there are also consequences to doing such and that these may not actually result in a better situation for Cyprus and Cypriots. You of course can ignore these warnings as you see fit and have every right to continue to purse whatever actions you see fit. If however the ultimate result of doing so leads to something you do not like do not come crying to me. Just because you can do something ti does not necessarily mean that it is in your or others best interest to do it.

[polis]

In 1965 the TC leadership request via UN to return to its rightful positions in government. They were told by Clerides that they could do so only if they accepted the unilateral removal of aspects of their communal consitutional rights.

Can you substantiate this claim?

[erolz3]

Violation of something which is not your human right but a privilege that the British gave to you? And are you sure there is no court to protect the unfair privileges given by colonialists? Unbelievable!

Sotos the rights granted to the TC community under the 1960 agreements were not 'priviledges' given to us by the British. They were RIGHTS enshrined in a LEGAL AGREEMENT. An agreement signed by Makarios. Yes he may have been pressure into signing it (and no one placed more pressure on him than Greece), but he DID sign it and in the name of the GC people and having signed it those rights are, on paper at least, as legaly validy as any others. Of course the reality is that he ignored all this and all legality anyway in the pursuit of GC domination of all of Cyprus, also ignoring the ruling of the RoC consitutional court in the process.

The theft of these legaly valid rights by the GC leadership is at the core of the Cyprus problem and that you can even today deny that they were ever even legal rights in the first place is symptomatic of it.

[polis]

Violation of something which is not your human right but a privilege that the British gave to you? And are you sure there is no court to protect the unfair privileges given by colonialists? :shock: :shock: :shock: Unbelievable!

Sotos the rights granted to the TC community under the 1960 agreements were not 'priviledges' given to us by the British. They were RIGHTS enshrined in a LEGAL AGREEMENT. An agreement signed by Makarios. Yes he may have been pressure into signing it (and no one placed more pressure on him than Greece), but he DID sign it and in the name of the GC people and having signed it those rights are, on paper at least, as legaly validy as any others. Of course the reality is that he ignored all this and all legality anyway in the pursuit of GC domination of all of Cyprus, also ignoring the ruling of the RoC consitutional court in the process.

The theft of these legaly valid rights by the GC leadership is at the core of the Cyprus problem and that you can even today deny that they were ever even legal rights in the first place is symptomatic of it.

Erolz, you claimed that in 1965 the TC leadership request via UN to return to its rightful positions in government. Can you substantiate this claim is it just bs?

[erolz3]

All UN member states are automatically parties to statue of the ICJ. However, this by itself does not make them liable to the court’s jurisdiction, unless they first declare that they recognize its jurisdiction as compulsory. Turkey has yet to make such a declaration. Cyprus did so in 1992.

The ICJ has no automatic jurisdiction for such would be a violation of the sovreignty of states.

Parties to the ICJ can choose to

1) Agree to accepte Jurisdiction on a case by case basis (this is what Turkey does)

2) Agree to accept Jurisdiction with any other Party state on any issue that has a recipricol agreement - ie any other state that also says this. This is what the RoC did in 2002.

3) Agree to accept the Jurisdiction re any other oparty state on any issue regardless of that other parties states aproach to the three options.

All three options are perefectly valid and every state can and does choose which to take. The RoC from 1964 chose the SAME option that Turkey currently has and changed to option 2 in 2002.

To claim states that take option 1 'do not recognise the ICJ is just wrong.

Turkey could have declared its acceptance of the court’s jurisdiction and could have also (easily) compelled the RoC (through the UN SC) to also accept the same. At least Turkey could have tried, and I am 100% sure Cyprus (RoC) would have been compelled to abide, especially if there was even a moderate pressure from the UN SC, to which Cyprus was depended at the time (and still is) for its survival as a recognized state.

No one can compel a state to submit itself to the Jurisdiction of the ICJ for doing so would be a violation of the compelled states sovreignty. State CHOOSE weather to accept this or not and do so in one of the tree ways listed above.

Turkey neither recognizes the court’s jurisdiction on any matter or issue, ...

For heavens sake Kifeas how can you continue to say this when I have given you a link to the ICJ website and quoted the exact passage where it says explicitly that on this (example) dispute Turkey and Greece both agreed to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the ICJ ?

On this matter TURKEY DID submit itself to the jurisdiction of the ICJ.

[Oracle]

... They were RIGHTS enshrined in a LEGAL AGREEMENT. An agreement signed by Makarios..

This RIGHT given to the TCs can be shown to infringe upon the basic inviolable HUMAN RIGHTS of the GC citizens. Therefore it is not LEGAL.

So how would/could you substantiate continuing to demand that RIGHT when it is a wrong? By what criteria is one TC worth more than 1/2/3/4 GCs?