Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz3]

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

From 1960 to 2002 the RoC accepted the Jursidiction of the ICJ on a case by case basis, as Turkey does.

In 2002 they chose to accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ on any case PROVIDED the other party State ALSO does so. I believe they made this change as a requirment for EU accession.

They could also choose, but have not doen so to accept the ICJ jurisdiction on any case REGARDLESS of the way the other party state treats such cases. They have not chosen to do this.

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

Turkey chooses to accept ICJ jurisdiction on a case by case bais, as it is is sovreign right to do so and in the same way the RoC used to until 2002 when it changed it position as an EU accession requirment.

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.

Just as the RoC would never had accpted its jurisdiction pre 74 on the issue of the illegal removal of the TC communal rights.

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

To be precise it has accepted its jusridiction on any matter only if the other party state has also done this.

Ignoring the Consitutional courts rulings was not legal.
Removing or ammending unilaterly the TC communities rights under the 60's agreements was not legal.

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).

From 2002 this has been possible. From 1965 when the RoC formaly and illegaly stole the TC communites rights to 2002 this was not possible.

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.

And you can continue to call me a lier and anything else you wish as I will continue to try and present my views an opinions in a clear and reason way as when I see fit.

My fear is not from court actions. My fear is what the consequences of the possibility that GC decide to abandon the pursuit of an negotiated comphrehensive settlement of comproimise from both sides that both people can vote yes to in favour of sustained and persistent indivdual legal actions, following this latest ECJ ruling. A fear shared by more than just myself. In short I fear not for myself but for Cyprus as a whole.

[DT.]

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.

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?

Why was the Turkish PM at the time instructing Kutchuk to return to the govt prompting Kutchuk's response that he's rather emigrate back to Turkey?

[erolz3]

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?

Well the last time I tried to do this I was banned from the forum because the place where I had upload the text of the relevant UN document was on a website I am not allowed to mention.

So this time I have taken the trouble to upload it to a different site.

Let me say that this is the text of a UN document but I did not get this from a primary source. I believe it to be a true and genuine copy of the text of this UN document. As far as my previous research goes this document was not at that time available through the UN own online document library (many older UN docs are like this though they are adding them over time) and thus obtaing the orginal document directly from a UN source has not been something I have been able to do. However as I say it does come from a source I personal trust and I have no reason to doubt its accuracy.

Anyway you can read it here

http://www.visionmatters.co.uk/cyprus/undoc.txt

[erolz3]

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?

Why was the Turkish PM at the time instructing Kutchuk to return to the govt prompting Kutchuk's response that he's rather emigrate back to Turkey?

I refer the honourable genetleman to Polis' question to me. Can you substantiate this claim or is it just BS ?

[Piratis]

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 ?

Papadopoulos gave the answer, publicly challenging Turkey, on September 14 2007:

"Our view is well-known, the presence of the Turkish occupational forces and the Turkish invasion cannot be legally based on the Treaty of Guarantee and their presence in Cyprus, is, in any case, illegal. We said that if Turkey believes otherwise, then it can appeal or agree to appeal to the International Court of Justice in The Hague."

Cyprus, accepted ICJ jurisdiction as compulsory so if anybody things we are doing something illegal, then they can also accept the ICJ jurisdiction as compulsory and sue us (instead of just producing propaganda with lies, like Turks do).

There are UN resolutions that declare the pseudo state as legally invalid, and clearly state that Republic of Cyprus is the one and only state on the island and every other state (including Turkey) should respect the sovereignty of Republic of Cyprus. Rulings by the ECHR and the ECJ confirm this fact.

The fact is that we have legality 100% on our side, while what you have is 40.000 Troops illegally occupying territory of our country.

[DT.]

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?

Why was the Turkish PM at the time instructing Kutchuk to return to the govt prompting Kutchuk's response that he's rather emigrate back to Turkey?

I refer the honourable genetleman to Polis' question to me. Can you substantiate this claim or is it just BS ?

Here you are mate...will the letter do?

Tim Drayton wrote:
I have just been reading Arif Hasan Tahsin's latest book about the recent history of Cyprus (actually a collection of a long series of newspaper articles). In it he stresses several times that, in his opinion, this letter from İnönü to Kutchuk, and Kutchuk's reply to this letter, constitute the two most important documents in Turkish Cypriot history since the republic was founded.

The complete texts of these documents are reproduced in this book. I think the following quote from İnönü's letter is very important [my translation]:


"Pursuant to a resolution passed by the Security Council, an international peace-keeping force will shortly be sent to Cyprus. We hope and desire that by this means it will be possible to establish security on the Island in the shortest possible space of time. After security has been established by this means, if the Turks persist in declining to assume their duties and positions within the Cyprus state, objections and complaints made by our side concerning the Greek Cypriots’ single-handed pursuit of state affairs to the detriment of the Turks’ rights and interests will not be countenanced by world public opinion. In addition to this, the single-handed domination of state affairs by the Greek Cypriots until such time as a final solution is found to the Cyprus problem will undoubtedly give rise to various restrictions as far as the rights and interests of the Turks are concerned.

Therefore, the taking of the necessary measures to establish security on the Island and, once these have been taken, the swiftest possible gradual return, beginning with the Vice-President and the Turkish Ministers, of all Turks to their positions within the state mechanism and their firm and tenacious opposition to the Greek Cypriots’ adverse activities from within the state mechanism will assist greatly towards the success of our national cause."

[willows]

What a vile, malicious , mistaken bunch of tossers you are on this board, we shall see what happens when Stavros tries to take back any land on the north. You bastards ran away once and will do so again.

[boomerang]

What a vile, malicious , mistaken bunch of tossers you are on this board, we shall see what happens when Stavros tries to take back any land on the north. You bastards ran away once and will do so again.

runaway?

[RRichie]

What a vile, malicious , mistaken bunch of tossers you are on this board, we shall see what happens when Stavros tries to take back any land on the north. You bastards ran away once and will do so again.

What a lovely post, could you be a Cyprus44 member?

[DT.]

What a vile, malicious , mistaken bunch of tossers you are on this board, we shall see what happens when Stavros tries to take back any land on the north. You bastards ran away once and will do so again.

Toys out of the pram?

http://www.cypyp.com/partnerwillow.htm