Cyprus-Forum.com

[Tim Drayton]

I do not live in GC property although you would assume that because I am not joining in your obvious delight at someone elses misfortune. Your attitude towards this matter shows quite clearly that separation of the two states is the only peaceful option for Cyprus, so much hatred and bitterness will never be overcome.

Compassion is a two way affair. I feel great compassion for Turkish Cypriots who were made refugees in their own country. I think everybody understands that as an expedient pending a permanent settlement these people required to be housed and that it was logical to use vacated Greek Cypriot property for this purpose. Provided this was done on a usufructuory basis and as a temporary expedient - as was envisaged under the initial Exchange Property law - then there is no problem under international law. The problem started when this property was 'nationalised' under the TRNC constitution and then so-called title to property that actually belongs to somebody else began to be issued.

People in this thread are taking delight, not in the misfortune of Turkish Cypriot refugees, but in the plight of the Orams who are surely nothing than carpetbaggers buying property at a knock-down price from somebody who had no right to sell it. Speaking as a British citizen who has bought legal property from the legal seller in Cyprus at the true market price, I have no sympathy for them.

I know a man who lives on the refugee estate close to me. His brother was killed in 1974 when he and the rest of his family fled for their lives. They left behind their property in Morphou. This man is a physical and mental wreck, undoubtedly as a result of these experiences. Does your thesis of showing compassion for the misfortune of others not apply to this person?

[Lit]

The GCs chose to leave North Cyrpus, they were not made to leave-they could have stayed if they chose to.

Your papa lied to you.

[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.

That is a daft reply. Most of it simply doesn't refer to the question under discussion. The rest of it - that Papadopolous made a public statement in 2007 - doesn't even touch first base in a legal process. When did RoC submit, petition, formally prepare an application to the ICJ against Turkey ? As far I am aware it never has made such a submission, and as far as you have shown so far, that remains the case. If there's evidence to the contrary let's be made aware.

Copperline, you are totally ignorant my friend.

Cyprus could not submit an application to the ICJ against Turkey without the consent of Turkey because the only way to do so would be if Turkey accepted ICJ jurisdiction as compulsory. And it did not

The only other way to go to the ICJ is if Cyprus and Turkey agree to go to the ICJ and sumbit the case jointly. Papadopolous has challenged Turkey to do so, and Turkey refused.

5. Why are some disputes between States not considered by the Court?

The Court can only hear a dispute when requested to do so by one or more States. It cannot deal with a dispute of its own motion. It is not permitted, under its Statute, to investigate and rule on acts of sovereign States as it chooses.

The States concerned must also have access to the Court and have accepted its jurisdiction, in other words they must consent to the Court’s considering the dispute in question. This is a fundamental principle governing the settlement of international disputes, States being sovereign and free to choose the methods of resolving their disputes.

A State may manifest its consent in three ways:

- A special agreement: two or more States in a dispute on a specific issue may agree to submit it jointly to the Court and conclude an agreement for this purpose;

- A clause in a treaty: over 300 treaties contain clauses (known as compromissory clauses) by which a State party undertakes in advance to accept the jurisdiction of the Court should a dispute arise on the interpretation or application of the treaty with another State party;

- A unilateral declaration: the States parties to the Statute of the Court may opt to make a unilateral declaration recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as binding with respect to any other State also accepting it as binding. This optional clause system, as it is called, has led to the creation of a group of States each having given the Court jurisdiction to settle any dispute that might arise between them in future. In principle, any State in this group is entitled to bring one or more other States in the group before the Court. Declarations may contain reservations limiting their duration or excluding certain categories of dispute. They are deposited by States with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

http://www.icj-cij.org/information/inde ... 1=7&p2=2#2

Does this answer your question Copperline?

[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.

That is a daft reply. Most of it simply doesn't refer to the question under discussion. The rest of it - that Papadopolous made a public statement in 2007 - doesn't even touch first base in a legal process. When did RoC submit, petition, formally prepare an application to the ICJ against Turkey ? As far I am aware it never has made such a submission, and as far as you have shown so far, that remains the case. If there's evidence to the contrary let's be made aware.

Copperline, you are totally ignorant my friend.

Cyprus could not submit an application to the ICJ against Turkey without the consent of Turkey because the only way to do so would be if Turkey accepted ICJ jurisdiction as compulsory. And it did not

The only other way to go to the ICJ is if Cyprus and Turkey agree to go to the ICJ and sumbit the case jointly. Papadopolous has challenged Turkey to do so, and Turkey refused.

5. Why are some disputes between States not considered by the Court?

The Court can only hear a dispute when requested to do so by one or more States. It cannot deal with a dispute of its own motion. It is not permitted, under its Statute, to investigate and rule on acts of sovereign States as it chooses.

The States concerned must also have access to the Court and have accepted its jurisdiction, in other words they must consent to the Court’s considering the dispute in question. This is a fundamental principle governing the settlement of international disputes, States being sovereign and free to choose the methods of resolving their disputes.

A State may manifest its consent in three ways:

- A special agreement: two or more States in a dispute on a specific issue may agree to submit it jointly to the Court and conclude an agreement for this purpose;

- A clause in a treaty: over 300 treaties contain clauses (known as compromissory clauses) by which a State party undertakes in advance to accept the jurisdiction of the Court should a dispute arise on the interpretation or application of the treaty with another State party;

- A unilateral declaration: the States parties to the Statute of the Court may opt to make a unilateral declaration recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as binding with respect to any other State also accepting it as binding. This optional clause system, as it is called, has led to the creation of a group of States each having given the Court jurisdiction to settle any dispute that might arise between them in future. In principle, any State in this group is entitled to bring one or more other States in the group before the Court. Declarations may contain reservations limiting their duration or excluding certain categories of dispute. They are deposited by States with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

http://www.icj-cij.org/information/inde ... 1=7&p2=2#2

Does this answer your question Copperline?

[DT.]

The GCs chose to leave North Cyrpus, they were not made to leave-they could have stayed if they chose to.

Your papa lied to you.

His papa also hang around Kings Cross dressed in stockings but who cares?

[Lit]

Speaking as a British citizen who has bought legal property from the legal seller in Cyprus at the true market price, I have no sympathy for them.

Thank you. Thank YOU, Tim, for your above comment.

[Lit]

The GCs chose to leave North Cyrpus, they were not made to leave-they could have stayed if they chose to.

Your papa lied to you.

His papa also hang around Kings Cross dressed in stockings but who cares?

[RAFAELLA]

KKTCde Cherie Blair Şoku İngiltere eski Başbakanı Blair’in avukat eşi Cherie Blair, KKTC’nin çıkarlarını savunmak üzere üstlendiği davada KKTC'yi resmen yaktı. Devamı İçin Tıklayınız...

29/04/2009 - 09:02
Avrupa Birliği’nin en yüksek yargı organı Avrupa Adalet Divanı, tarihi bir karar alarak Kıbrıs Rum yargısının KKTC’de de yetkili olduğunu ve alacağı kararların tüm AB ülkelerinde de uygulanması gerektiğini ilan etti. Karar KKTC’de şok etkisi yarattı.

LÜKSEMBURG merkezli Adalet Divanı dün bir buçuk yıldır görüştüğü ve kamuoyunda ’Orams davası’ diye bilinen mülkiyetle ilgili davada, KKTC’yi yargıladı. Rum mahkemelerin KKTC’de yaşayan bireyleri de yargılayabileceğine hükmeden mahkeme, adada devam eden BM çerçevesindeki müzakere sürecini de baltaladı. Kararın ardından zafer açıklaması yapan Rum avukat Constantis Condounas, "Şimdi Kuzey Kıbrıs’ta mülk alan yabancılar korkmaya başlasın. Karar lehimizedir" dedi. Rum hükümet sözcüsü Stefanu Stefanos da kadardan çok memnun olduklarını açıkladı. Kararı alan Adalet Divanı hakimler heyetinin başkanlığını ise, Yunanlı hakim Vassilios Skouris yaptı. Dava şöyle gelişti:

Rum mahkemesi, 2004 yılında KKTC’nin Girne kentinde villa satın alan İngiliz çift Linda ve David Orams’ı, 1974 öncesinde arsa sahibi Rum Meletis Apostolides’in şikayeti üzerine yargıladı ve evini yıkması, tazminat ödemesi kararı verdi.

Rum avukatlar ardından, Orams ailesinin İngiltere’deki evine haciz götürmek üzere Londra’da dava açtı. İngiltere eski Başbakanı Blair’in avukat eşi Cherie Blair, KKTC’nin çıkarlarını savunmak üzere Orams davasını üstlendi.

Blair, İngiliz Yüksek Mahkemesi’nde, ’KKTC’de AB müktesebatı askıda, bu nedenle Rum mahkemesi karar alamaz, AB ülkelerinde uygulayamaz’ teziyle savundu ve kazandı. Temyiz Mahkemesi, tezi Adalet Divanı’na sorma kararı aldı.

Divan dün ’AB müktesebatı askıda olmasına rağmen, Kıbrıs Rum yargısının, KKTC’de yaşayanlarla ilgili karar alabileceğini ve bu kararın tüm AB ülkelerinde uygulanması gerektiğini’ hükme bağladı. Adalet Divanı, Rum yargısının yetkisini mülkiyetin dışında, sivil ve ticari konularını da ekleyerek genişletti.

Karar KKTC’yi nasıl etkiler

İNGİLİZ Yargıtay’ının Avrupa Adalet Divanı’nın kararına karşı çıkması çok güç. Adalet Divanı’nın kararı, KKTC’de yaşayan yabancılar da dahil herkesi, Rum mahkemelerinin insafına bırakıyor. Etkileri ise şöyle olacak:

Yatırımlar duracak: KKTC’ye yatırım yapmış ya da yapacak yabancılar da dahil herkes Rum mahkemelerinin tehdidi altında olacak.

İnşaat sektörü: KKTC ekonomisinin en önemli sektörlerinden inşaat sektöründe kriz derinleşecek.

Kiracılar da risk altında: Rumlar, 3 yıl önce Magosa’da bir restoranın kiracısını da yargılamıştı.

Tutuklama kararları: Rum Meclisi 2006’da kabul ettiği bir yasa ile eski Rum mülkü kullanmaya 5 yıl hapis cezası getirmişti. Rumlar, KKTC’de yaşayanlarla ilgili daha rahat ’tutuklama kararları’ çıkartabilecek.

En büyük hata AB mahkemesine gitmek

KKTC’de hukukçular Cherie Blair’ın en büyük hatasının İngiltere’de zafer kazanmasına rağmen, temyiz aşamasında Avrupa Adalet Divanı’na gitmeyi kabul etmesinde buluyor. Cherie Blair ve ekibi ise, ’KKTC Cumhurbaşkanlığı’na danıştık. Ayrıca itiraz etseydik bile hakim, yine de AB mahkemesine gidecekti’ savunması yapıyor.

Bilgi notu

KKTC topraklarının yüzde 76’sı, 1974 öncesinde Rumlara ait. Adada 4 binden fazla İngiliz ailenin mülkü bulunuyor. İngilizlerin dışında 2 bine yakın yabancı da mülk almış durumda.
http://haber50.com/145706_KKTCde-Cherie-Blair-Soku.html

TRANSLATION

The European Union's highest judicial organ of the European Court of Justice, a historic decision by the Greek Cypriot authorities in Cyprus and that the judicial decisions will have to apply in all EU countries declared. Decision in TRNC has created shock effect.

Court of Justice and a half years yesterday LUXEMBOURG-centric views and public opinion 'in the case Orams' property-related case known as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus was the judge. Individuals living in the TRNC and the Greek court governing court judge may, on the island in the ongoing negotiation process under the United Nations has also arrived. A description of the decision made after the Greek victory Constantis Condounas lawyer, "Now in the North Cyprus property field are beginning to fear foreigners. Favorable decision," he said. Much more than the government spokesman Stefanos Greek Stefanu they were satisfied. Decision of the Court of Justice judges field is chairman of the delegation, the Greek judge Vassilios Skouris made. The case was developed as follows:

Greek court in 2004 in the town of Kyrenia in North Cyprus villa buy British couple, Linda and David Orams'ı, 1974 before the judge on the land owner and the Greek Cypriot Meletis Apostolides'in complaint destruction of the house, decided to pay compensation.

Greek lawyers after the Orams to her family home in the UK has opened proceedings in London to take distraint. UK Prime Minister Blair's former attorney and his wife Cherie Blair, the interests of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus has undertaken to defend the Orams case.

Blair, the British High Court, pending the EU acquis in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, the Greek court decision can not, therefore, can not be applied in EU countries' thesis and the defense won. Appellate Court, the thesis of the Court of Justice decided to ask.

Court yesterday 'in the balance, although the EU acquis, the Greek Cypriot judiciary, those who live in the TRNC and this decision may take appropriate decisions should be applied in all EU countries' provision bandaged. Court of Justice, the property outside the authority of the Greek judiciary, civil and commercial matters include expanded.

How decisions will affect the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

European Court of Justice against decisions of the BRITISH Yargıtay'ının very difficult to quit. Decision of the Court of Justice, everyone, including foreigners living in Cyprus, the Greek courts are left to mercy. Impact will be the following:

Investments will stop: Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, or to make investments in everyone, including foreigners in the Greek courts would be under threat.

Construction sector: most important sector of the economy of the TRNC in the construction sector will be deep crisis.

Tenants also at risk: the Greeks, 3 years ago, the tenants also judge a restaurant was in Famagusta.

Arrest decisions: the Greek Parliament adopted a law in 2006 to use the old Greek property was introduced 5 years imprisonment. Greeks, who lived more comfortably in TRNC 'detention orders' could remove.

The biggest mistake is to go to EU court

Cherie lawyers in the greatest error TRNC Blair'ın victory, but in England, the European Court of Justice to the appeal stage to agree to go to find. Cherie Blair and his team, the 'Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus have Cumhurbaşkanlığı'na advice. I would also appeal against the judge, they would still go to the EU courts' defense is doing.

Information note

76% of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus land, belonging to Greek Cypriot prior to 1974. More than 4 thousand on the island is a British family's property. Close to 2 thousand out of the British foreigners have received in the property.

[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 ?

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.

That is a daft reply. Most of it simply doesn't refer to the question under discussion. The rest of it - that Papadopolous made a public statement in 2007 - doesn't even touch first base in a legal process. When did RoC submit, petition, formally prepare an application to the ICJ against Turkey ? As far I am aware it never has made such a submission, and as far as you have shown so far, that remains the case. If there's evidence to the contrary let's be made aware.

Copperline, you are totally ignorant my friend.

Cyprus could not submit an application to the ICJ against Turkey without the consent of Turkey because the only way to do so would be if Turkey accepted ICJ jurisdiction as compulsory. And it did not

The only other way to go to the ICJ is if Cyprus and Turkey agree to go to the ICJ and sumbit the case jointly. Papadopolous has challenged Turkey to do so, and Turkey refused.

5. Why are some disputes between States not considered by the Court?

The Court can only hear a dispute when requested to do so by one or more States. It cannot deal with a dispute of its own motion. It is not permitted, under its Statute, to investigate and rule on acts of sovereign States as it chooses.

The States concerned must also have access to the Court and have accepted its jurisdiction, in other words they must consent to the Court’s considering the dispute in question. This is a fundamental principle governing the settlement of international disputes, States being sovereign and free to choose the methods of resolving their disputes.

A State may manifest its consent in three ways:

- A special agreement: two or more States in a dispute on a specific issue may agree to submit it jointly to the Court and conclude an agreement for this purpose;

- A clause in a treaty: over 300 treaties contain clauses (known as compromissory clauses) by which a State party undertakes in advance to accept the jurisdiction of the Court should a dispute arise on the interpretation or application of the treaty with another State party;

- A unilateral declaration: the States parties to the Statute of the Court may opt to make a unilateral declaration recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as binding with respect to any other State also accepting it as binding. This optional clause system, as it is called, has led to the creation of a group of States each having given the Court jurisdiction to settle any dispute that might arise between them in future. In principle, any State in this group is entitled to bring one or more other States in the group before the Court. Declarations may contain reservations limiting their duration or excluding certain categories of dispute. They are deposited by States with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

http://www.icj-cij.org/information/inde ... 1=7&p2=2#2

Does this answer your question Copperline?

Look Piratis I can't be bothered with this any more. If you think that simply going to a FAQ page is going to resolve specific problems of international law then there's nothing I nor any other international lawyer can say to you. (FFS if it is so bloody simple Piratis as you pretend international law to be then why not dump the courts and the lawyers and the whole works and just have a FAQ page for any dumb schmuck to look up The Answer)

[erolz3]

And so the futility goes on. Do not worry Piratis I will soon fade away agian and leave you to your inane ranting here once more.

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.

Not just in a RoC court, but also in the ECHR and the ECJ. Also there are UN Resolutions that declare your pseudo state as legally invalid and demand the respect of the sovergnity of Republic of Cyprus, the one and only State on the island.

As far as courts of law that have founde users of disputed property in the North to be guilty , the RoC courts remain the only courts to have found this.

This is also documented in UN documents:

That is in the report by the UN apointed agent. However it in no way provides a legal basis for the unilateral removing and ammendment of the TC communites consitutional rights by GC. Nor for that matter does it leglaise Makarios' decision to simply ignore the rulings of the RoC consitutional court.

I am talking about UN Resolutions, and rulings by the highest courts, and you are trying to counter this with some report? As you can see from the above quote we can find anything in UN reports. Why aren't there any UN Resolutions supporting your position? Because to make a UN resolution they would add the information from all reports, and not just the ones you selectively choose to reproduce for your propaganda.

This is weak even by your standards Piratis. You claim was that the TC withdrew from government and the implaction being this legitimised the unilateral removal and ammendment of their communal rights by the GC leadership.

The UN document I have provided clearly shows that this assertion by you is not ture. Even if the TC had never requested to take up their legal and valid places in the RoC government, which clearly they did and were met by illegal preconditions and threats from the GC leadership when they did, it STILL would not provide a legal basis for the GC leadership to unilaterlay permanently remove and ammend the TC communities rights.

You are saying lies, and TCs did withdrew from government in order to peruse partition.

Once more Piratis.

Withdrawing from governement , for whatever reason, is a non violent and legal means of protest.

Such a withdrawal provides no legal basis for the unilateral and permanent removal and ammendment of the TC communites consitutional rights, yet this is what the GC leadership did anyway.

After the TC partialy withdrew from their government positions in 64, following first the illegal refusal of Makarios to abide by consitutional court rulings leading to the destruction of the consitutional court and then the outbreak of violence in dec 63, they subsequently in 65 officaly request via the UN to return. The results of this requerst and the illegal response to it by the GC leadership is clearly documented in the UN document I have provided.

The inter-communal conflict was in fact started by the TCs long before that, when in the late 50s they collaborated with the colonialists and attacked the Greek Cypriots.

And so we descend into the endless and pointless 'you did this' , 'no you did this' arguments. Well sorry Piratis I do not wish to play this stupid game with yourslef. The futility of it has been shown over and over.

The idea that any one side is entirely to blame and the other entirely innocent is the argument of a foolish child. Find someone else to play with.

With the 1960 agreements there was no "political equality" of any kind.

Sure Piratis if you say so it must be true.

With Annan plan you got a ton more than the 1960 agreements and gave up nothing.

Sure Piratis if you say so it must be true.

The fact is that partition had been your aim since the 50s and continues to be the same today.

Sure Piratis if you say so it must be true.

and so on and so on.

How was it fine for Cyprus to be part of the Ottoman or British empires against the will of the Cypriot people and Cypriots being subjects of these foreign powers, ...?

It was not alright for Cyrus to be ruled by Britain, which is exactly why British rule and colonialism in general ended.

Yet more nonsense. Rhodes also has a Turkish minority and united with Greece in 1947 exercising their right for self-determination. Minorities don't have a separate right for self-determination - nowhere.

Exactly the point minorites do not have seperate rights to self determination. That right vests with 'peoples'. When GC said there is no such thing as a unitary Cypriot people or nation, just Greeks who live in Cyprus that should be part of the Greek nation, they defined those in CYprus who were not Greek not as a minority within a single unitary Cypriot people, but as a SEPERATE people with a SEPERATE and EQUALL right to self determination.

That is what makes the pursuit of ENOSIS by GC so different from the pursuit of Cypriot independance. ENOSIS by definition defined TC as not part of the same people as GC where as independance of Cyprus does not do this.

You wish to beleive that the GC people failed to achieve ENOSIS because Britain and Turkey ganged up on them to deny them their legal rights. The reality is a lot simpler. GC failed to achieve enosis because they tried to do it whilst ignoring that there were a significant number of non Greeks in Cyprus who ALSO had rights and in the belief that their rights were more important than this other groups.

And who ever told you that the Greeks of Asia Minor wanted to be in some Turkish Nation which the Turks created? The same way you didn't want to live in a Greek Nation, the Greeks of Smyrna, Constantinouple and Asia Minor in general didn't want to be in a Turkish Nation. Where do you see the difference? Did the Turks asked the Greeks if they wanted to be part of a "Turkish Nation"?

Your missing the point entirely. The point is that Turkey could claim to express the view of a single Turkish nation and people, including its ethnic minorites, because it was establishing exactly that unitary Turkish nation. What it could not do is say in the name of a single unitary Turkish nation and people we declare there is no such things as a Turkish antion and Turkish people.

That is the difference. GC tried to claim, in the name of a single unitary cypriot people, that there was no cypriot nation or Cypriot people, just the Greek nation and a Greek people and some 'others'. The very notion is absurd but they chose to try and do it anyway because it was the a way the beleived (mistakenly as it turned out) that they could impose and force their will on the TC community that they shared their homeland with.

We can define ourselves as we wish.

You certainly can Piratis. The problems arise however when you try impose your will on a people you first define as not the same people as you in order to deny them of thier rights as a people and then try to do so in the name of a single unitary people you previous deny exists.

If you didn't like us for what we are then you shouldn't have come to our island in the first place.

And so we get to the nub. We were here first. Either submit yourself to our will whatever we wish to impose on you, accept you have no rights and say in the future of your homeland or fook off. Cyprus is ours.

Kinda of sums up the problem really.

Minorities do not get a separate self-determination, especially minorities created as a result of Colonial rule.

Minorites do not. If GC had persued indpendance they could have reasonably done so in the name of a single unitary people, of which the TC were a minority. By deciding instead to pursue enosis they defined TC not as a minority within a single unitary Cypriot people, but as not Greeks that alos happened to live in Cyprus along with Greeks.

It is the pursuit of Enosis that made it clear beyond any doubt that TC were, in the terms of enosis, a different people from GC, for enosis defined GC as part of the Greek people and clearly TC were not part of that.

Do you get it yet?

What are the "consequences" of seeking justice, tell us.

I have already outlined what my fears are, why I have them clearly and plainly.

Feel free to rant on and on as you like. I will only continue to play this silly game for so much longer.