Cyprus-Forum.com

[observer]

...

[Nikitas]

Annexation is illegal and that is a development in international law since the end of World War II. In our international law lectures the lesson driven home time and against was that territorial aggrandisement through force is illegal.

China unilaterally has annexed Tibet, as has Israel the Golan heights. No matter what the occupying power does, it cannot legalise its annexation and cannot extinguish the claims of the citizens or the state which has sovereignty over the annexed territory.

Turkey, as the dominant military power, can unilaterally do what it wants. That does not change the claims of the owners of land or of the RoC.

Unlike the cases of Tibet, Goland and Goa, Cyprus has some serious antidotes in its arsenal. In addition to the legal countermeasures- ie permanent exclusion of Turkey from the EU, mass legal actions in the ECHR, there are practical measure like declaring union with Greece, defense agreements with other powers.

Cyprus can also take the action of declaring war on Turkey formally, creating a legal problem with some intersting and surprising results.

Those TCs who apparently support Turkey ove rannexation have not thought this through. They are always quick to condemn the goal of Enosis. What is different between annexation and Enosis? Other than the scale there is no difference. This attitude justifies Enosis and proves that the fanatic GCs who supported it might have been right all along since they foresaw the cynical actions of Turkey and the rest of us did not.

One interesting point in a hypothetical annexation will be that the TCs will have to make a formal choice between nationality of the RoC or Turkey. Dual citizenship will no longer be available. I wonder how their choices would go.

[Get Real!]

In short, Turkey could annex Northern Cyprus tomorrow.

It’s clear that without a mutual agreement and subsequent recognition by the international community, any declaration of annexation would be invalidated.

The fact that it hasn’t happened probably means that Turkey has no interest in doing it.

Turkey’s early attempt failed miserably…

http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr541.htm

[Cypriot Nick]

Annexation is illegal and that is a development in international law since the end of World War II. In our international law lectures the lesson driven home time and against was that territorial aggrandisement through force is illegal.

China unilaterally has annexed Tibet, as has Israel the Golan heights. No matter what the occupying power does, it cannot legalise its annexation and cannot extinguish the claims of the citizens or the state which has sovereignty over the annexed territory.

Turkey, as the dominant military power, can unilaterally do what it wants. That does not change the claims of the owners of land or of the RoC.

Unlike the cases of Tibet, Goland and Goa, Cyprus has some serious antidotes in its arsenal. In addition to the legal countermeasures- ie permanent exclusion of Turkey from the EU, mass legal actions in the ECHR, there are practical measure like declaring union with Greece, defense agreements with other powers.

Cyprus can also take the action of declaring war on Turkey formally, creating a legal problem with some intersting and surprising results.

Those TCs who apparently support Turkey ove rannexation have not thought this through. They are always quick to condemn the goal of Enosis. What is different between annexation and Enosis? Other than the scale there is no difference. This attitude justifies Enosis and proves that the fanatic GCs who supported it might have been right all along since they foresaw the cynical actions of Turkey and the rest of us did not.

One interesting point in a hypothetical annexation will be that the TCs will have to make a formal choice between nationality of the RoC or Turkey. Dual citizenship will no longer be available. I wonder how their choices would go.

Judging by the number of TC's that already have RoC passports I think the answer is quite clear. Their choice is with the EU rather than with Turkey.

[YFred]

Annexation is illegal and that is a development in international law since the end of World War II. In our international law lectures the lesson driven home time and against was that territorial aggrandisement through force is illegal.

China unilaterally has annexed Tibet, as has Israel the Golan heights. No matter what the occupying power does, it cannot legalise its annexation and cannot extinguish the claims of the citizens or the state which has sovereignty over the annexed territory.

Turkey, as the dominant military power, can unilaterally do what it wants. That does not change the claims of the owners of land or of the RoC.

Unlike the cases of Tibet, Goland and Goa, Cyprus has some serious antidotes in its arsenal. In addition to the legal countermeasures- ie permanent exclusion of Turkey from the EU, mass legal actions in the ECHR, there are practical measure like declaring union with Greece, defense agreements with other powers.

Cyprus can also take the action of declaring war on Turkey formally, creating a legal problem with some intersting and surprising results.

Those TCs who apparently support Turkey ove rannexation have not thought this through. They are always quick to condemn the goal of Enosis. What is different between annexation and Enosis? Other than the scale there is no difference. This attitude justifies Enosis and proves that the fanatic GCs who supported it might have been right all along since they foresaw the cynical actions of Turkey and the rest of us did not.

One interesting point in a hypothetical annexation will be that the TCs will have to make a formal choice between nationality of the RoC or Turkey. Dual citizenship will no longer be available. I wonder how their choices would go.

Judging by the number of TC's that already have RoC passports I think the answer is quite clear. Their choice is with the EU rather than with Turkey.

When I give you permission to remove my choice then you can remove it, till then I am perfectly able to decide for my self. I currently have 3 nationalities ( BritishEU, RoCEU and TRNC(EU)). I like all three.

[observer]

All this talk of legality, and sections and sub-sections of international law is fascinating, but it rather ignores a real world where Turkey has a seat on the UN Security Council, and China, which annexed Tibet (illegally?), has a permanent seat on the Security Council. India’s annexation of Goa is probably illegal too by these definitions.

In short, Turkey could annex Northern Cyprus tomorrow. The fact that it hasn’t happened probably means that Turkey has no interest in doing it.

Well Observer, I took you for one of the mre sane people, but this posts has me wondering. Did China and India invade those places, ethnically cleanse them and illegally import tens of thousands of illegal settlers???

I think the circumstances are somewhat different and you cannot compare like for like.

Tibet and Goa are not part of the EU and would have had no clout in that respect.

What people fail to realise is that the Cyprus issue is different, it has been manufactured, and is not just a natural course of events. Systematically doing what Turkeys has done to Cyprus in no way leaves her any doors open to annexation or any other concept that she may dream up.

Cheers

Thank you for considering me sane. I do too - is that a bad sign?

Of course the situation in Cyprus is different from other places. Every country or region has a special set of factors that makes it unique. However ………….

Many Tibetans and their sympathisers will tell you that China did invade Tibet, has ethnically cleansed them, and has illegally imported hundreds of thousands of Han Chinese. The Indian government web site says “… on 19 December 1961, Goa was liberated and made a composite union territory with Daman and Diu.” Other sites call it an invasion followed by annexation. As it was done with tanks and soldiers the other sites might have a point.

I realise that neither Tibet nor Goa are part of the EU, nor did I appreciate that you had to be part of the EU for international law to work. In any case, Cyprus has only been part of the EU for the last 5+ years. If Turkey had wanted to annex Cyprus it could have done so long ago.

As for the EU rushing to Cyprus’ aid, do you remember the rush of other EU countries wanting to help UK after the Argentinean invasion of the Falkland Islands? No, nor do I.

Finally, if Cyprus’ situation has been manufactured, it is reasonable to ask who manufactured it.

My main points, however, are that international law rarely counts for much unless there is the force to impose it (which no-one looks like doing around here, even if it was agreed which parts applied) and that Turkey could have annexed Northern Cyprus any time it wanted to but has never shown much sign of collectively wanting to. It's just another GC shadow in the dark.

[observer]

In short, Turkey could annex Northern Cyprus tomorrow.

It’s clear that without a mutual agreement and subsequent recognition by the international community, any declaration of annexation would be invalidated.

The fact that it hasn’t happened probably means that Turkey has no interest in doing it.

Turkey’s early attempt failed miserably…

http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr541.htm

Invalidated by who? Kosova's independence is invalid according to RoC. The Kosovans must lie awake at night worrying.

The link you give rather adds to my belief that Turkey could have annexed Northern Cyprus if it wanted to. It didn't and TRNC came about, which is still in existence last time I looked (5 minutes ago).

[YFred]

In short, Turkey could annex Northern Cyprus tomorrow.

It’s clear that without a mutual agreement and subsequent recognition by the international community, any declaration of annexation would be invalidated.

The fact that it hasn’t happened probably means that Turkey has no interest in doing it.

Turkey’s early attempt failed miserably…

http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr541.htm

Invalidated by who? Kosova's independence is invalid according to RoC. The Kosovans must lie awake at night worrying.

The link you give rather adds to my belief that Turkey could have annexed Northern Cyprus if it wanted to. It didn't and TRNC came about, which is still in existence last time I looked (5 minutes ago).

Just check again, it may have changed through shere will power, with so many wishing it so.

[Get Real!]

In short, Turkey could annex Northern Cyprus tomorrow.

It’s clear that without a mutual agreement and subsequent recognition by the international community, any declaration of annexation would be invalidated.

The fact that it hasn’t happened probably means that Turkey has no interest in doing it.

Turkey’s early attempt failed miserably…

http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr541.htm

Invalidated by who? Kosova's independence is invalid according to RoC. The Kosovans must lie awake at night worrying.

Kosovo belongs in the Kosovo thread. If you think there are similarities with the “TRNC” worth mentioning then start a dedicated thread to argue the case.

The link you give rather adds to my belief that Turkey could have annexed Northern Cyprus if it wanted to.

And you can't explain why because I doubt you realise that to "Annex" is actually a LEGAL PROCESS beyond the reach of Turkey.

[Nikitas]

"When I give you permission to remove my choice then you can remove it, till then I am perfectly able to decide for my self. I currently have 3 nationalities ( BritishEU, RoCEU and TRNC(EU)). I like all three."

Now you are being deliberately dumb.

The statement was that in case of annexation the RoC will have every right to withdraw nationality from those of its nationals who choose to register themselves as nationals of Turkey. The act of accepting or seeking the nationality of a foreign power, especially a hostile one, can be cited as grounds for cancelling nationality. The USA has such a rule in its nationality regulations. Any US citizen actively seeking another nationality loses his US nationality. Actively in this case includes a simple act like placing a signature on an application form.