Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

It doesn't take much thought to appreciate the significance of this opinion for northern Cyprus even if TCs couldn't formally ask the ICJ themselves.

Kosovo is an irrelevant case to the one of Cyprus. There was no invasion of Kosovo by another country neither the demographics of that territory were altered by force by such a foreign invader (ethnically cleansing the majority of the native population and replacing them with foreign Settlers).

Papadopoulos has publicly challenged Turkey to accept to take our case to the ICJ but Turkey did not accept since they know they would lose such a case as they have no right to occupy part of Republic of Cyprus, neither a right to ethnically cleanse Greek Cypriots, replace them with Turkish Settlers and declare some "Turkish State" on land which belongs to Republic of Cyprus and which is the homeland of 5 times more GCs than TCs.

[CopperLine]

It doesn't take much thought to appreciate the significance of this opinion for northern Cyprus even if TCs couldn't formally ask the ICJ themselves.

Kosovo is an irrelevant case to the one of Cyprus. There was no invasion of Kosovo by another country neither the demographics of that territory were altered by force by such a foreign invader (ethnically cleansing the majority of the native population and replacing them with foreign Settlers).

Papadopoulos has publicly challenged Turkey to accept to take our case to the ICJ but Turkey did not accept since they know they would lose such a case as they have no right to occupy part of Republic of Cyprus, neither a right to ethnically cleanse Greek Cypriots, replace them with Turkish Settlers and declare some "Turkish State" on land which belongs to Republic of Cyprus and which is the homeland of 5 times more GCs than TCs.

Piratis,
This is the formal question for which the UNSG has asked for an advisory opinion :

“Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance with international law ?”

The opinion of the ICJ will given after consideration of any number of historical examples of UDI (unilateral declaration of independence), of examples of provisional institutions, of the history of self-government, and the various responses of international law. The claims of the TRNC are amongst each of those considerations.

Take out the term Kosovo and insert any other wannabe state in recent history :
“Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of XYZ in accordance with international law ?”

I understand perfectly well Piratis why you would desperately try to distance the TRNC case from the Kosovo case, but the ICJ is being asked to consider these long-standing, difficult and ambiguous international legal questions within which the new Kosovo finds itself.

You say Kosovo wasn't invaded ! For god's sake man, the whole bloody recent past of Kosovo upon which Kosovan claims to independence and recognition is that it had been subject to an earlier Serbian invasion, was forcibly 'occupied', 'subject of', 'ruled by' Serbia. And Serbia itself was subjected to massive bombing by NATO. The Kosovan claim is that Kosovans were ethnically cleansed or certainly systematically discriminated against by ethnic Serbs and by the Belgrade government, and the claim of Serbia is that since the Kosovo war ethnic Serbs have been ethnically cleansed by the new Kosovo. Now of which other locality does this kind of claim and counter-claim remind you ?

[Piratis]

The ICJ is being asked for an advisory opinion on the specific case of Kosovo.

I can understand why you want to link the irrelevant case of Kosovo with Cyprus, but the fact is that on the specific case of Cyprus Papadopoulos has challenged Turkey to take the issue to the ICJ and Turkey did not accept.

You say Kosovo wasn't invaded ! For god's sake man, the whole bloody recent past of Kosovo upon which Kosovan claims to independence and recognition is that it had been subject to an earlier Serbian invasion, was forcibly 'occupied', 'subject of', 'ruled by' Serbia. And Serbia itself was subjected to massive bombing by NATO. The Kosovan claim is that Kosovans were ethnically cleansed or certainly systematically discriminated against by ethnic Serbs and by the Belgrade government, and the claim of Serbia is that since the Kosovo war ethnic Serbs have been ethnically cleansed by the new Kosovo. Now of which other locality does this kind of claim and counter-claim remind you ?

It reminds me of the Ottoman rule of Cyprus and how we have been forcibly ruled by Turks who have discriminated against us for centuries. But unlike the Albanians of Kosovo, we have been in Cyprus for long long time before any Turk appeared on our island.

The Albanians in Kosovo did not become the majority of Kosovo as a result of a foreign invasion of Serbia by Albania. The Albanians did not become the majority in Kosovo by ethnically cleansing the Serbians. They were the majority in that territory for centuries.

This is how the Kosovo case would be similar to the "trnc" case:

"A small minority of Albanians lives all over Serbia. All parts of Serbia are inhabited by a majority of Serbs, and Albanians are nowhere a majority. Then Albania invades Serbia (something which is condemned by a UN Resolution) ethnically cleanses the Serbians from south Serbia, replaces the native population with Settlers brought from Albania, and then after a few years they declare south Serbia as an independent state under the name of "Kosovo" (a name which never existed before in history). This declaration of "Kosovo" is condemned again with a UN Resolution."

If the above story was true, then you could claim that the case of Kosovo is the same as the case of "trnc". But we both know that the two cases have nothing in common, which is why Turkey did not accept to take the Cyprus issue to the ICJ.

[SKI-preo]

Acikgoz said "Human rights and legal, in the case of Cyprus, are not interchangeable."

Sorry I admit was not clear. What I was saying was that negotiating a settlement to over ride Human Rights like ethnic cleansing through litigation is wrong as opposed to saying Human rights are attacked through litigation.

Another thing is I actually like the rule of law and therefore lawyers. They work hard for causes they believe in and if we lived in a lawless world we would still be living in the stone age. Who do you like more than lawyers? Diplomats, spies, generals, war "heros", imperialists or politicians?WHo are you going to use to go to Court if you don't like lawyers a kindergarten teacher or topless bar maid?

[CopperLine]

The ICJ is being asked for an advisory opinion on the specific case of Kosovo.

I can understand why you want to link the irrelevant case of Kosovo with Cyprus, but the fact is that on the specific case of Cyprus Papadopoulos has challenged Turkey to take the issue to the ICJ and Turkey did not accept.

You say Kosovo wasn't invaded ! For god's sake man, the whole bloody recent past of Kosovo upon which Kosovan claims to independence and recognition is that it had been subject to an earlier Serbian invasion, was forcibly 'occupied', 'subject of', 'ruled by' Serbia. And Serbia itself was subjected to massive bombing by NATO. The Kosovan claim is that Kosovans were ethnically cleansed or certainly systematically discriminated against by ethnic Serbs and by the Belgrade government, and the claim of Serbia is that since the Kosovo war ethnic Serbs have been ethnically cleansed by the new Kosovo. Now of which other locality does this kind of claim and counter-claim remind you ?

It reminds me of the Ottoman rule of Cyprus and how we have been forcibly ruled by Turks who have discriminated against us for centuries. But unlike the Albanians of Kosovo, we have been in Cyprus for long long time before any Turk appeared on our island.

The Albanians in Kosovo did not become the majority of Kosovo as a result of a foreign invasion of Serbia by Albania. The Albanians did not become the majority in Kosovo by ethnically cleansing the Serbians. They were the majority in that territory for centuries.

This is how the Kosovo case would be similar to the "trnc" case:

"A small minority of Albanians lives all over Serbia. All parts of Serbia are inhabited by a majority of Serbs, and Albanians are nowhere a majority. Then Albania invades Serbia (something which is condemned by a UN Resolution) ethnically cleanses the Serbians from south Serbia, replaces the native population with Settlers brought from Albania, and then after a few years they declare south Serbia as an independent state under the name of "Kosovo" (a name which never existed before in history). This declaration of "Kosovo" is condemned again with a UN Resolution."

If the above story was true, then you could claim that the case of Kosovo is the same as the case of "trnc". But we both know that the two cases have nothing in common, which is why Turkey did not accept to take the Cyprus issue to the ICJ.

There is a brief legal dismissal of your last comment : supposition

Piratis, you are so obsessed by Cyprus that you have no ability to make any comparisons. (Note : to compare is not to say that X and Y are the same, it is to enquire into correspondence and non-correspondence). In turn that obsession with the purported unique Cyprus history means that you utterly fail to understand what international law is about.

If international law was as you think it to be there would be a mass of laws and instruments which would be specific and peculiar to each case. Of course the history of Cyprus is different from the history of Taiwan, or Kosovo. No-one is suggesting that they are the same. What the law considers and is structured by is the notion of difference assessed against a common, if changing, criteria. When the ICJ gives its opinion about Kosovo you can bet your last Euro that in future some other actual state or wannabe state will refer to the Kosovo opinion. Meanwhile you Piratis will still be crying 'but its not about Kosovo, the ICJ opinion was specific to Kosovo' - NO you're basically wrong.


Why would you expect me to "want to link the irrelevant case of Kosovo with Cyprus" ? Perhaps it is because you assume that I want the TRNC to be recognised. Perhaps you assume I support the TRNC. Yet again Piratis your assumption would be wrong. Once again you let your assumptions rule without letting anything so inconvenient as evidence get in the way.

Kosovo and TRNC are linked not because of anything you or I might wish for, but because both Kosovo and TRNC have made arguments - good or bad - for self-determination, for statehood and recognition. If the Kosovo question was so damned obvious as you imply there would hardly be a referral to the ICJ.

It amazes me why anyone bothers with the ICJ when they can just call on Piratis who knows for sure everything about state recognition.

[vaughanwilliams]

The ICJ is being asked for an advisory opinion on the specific case of Kosovo.

I can understand why you want to link the irrelevant case of Kosovo with Cyprus, but the fact is that on the specific case of Cyprus Papadopoulos has challenged Turkey to take the issue to the ICJ and Turkey did not accept.

You say Kosovo wasn't invaded ! For god's sake man, the whole bloody recent past of Kosovo upon which Kosovan claims to independence and recognition is that it had been subject to an earlier Serbian invasion, was forcibly 'occupied', 'subject of', 'ruled by' Serbia. And Serbia itself was subjected to massive bombing by NATO. The Kosovan claim is that Kosovans were ethnically cleansed or certainly systematically discriminated against by ethnic Serbs and by the Belgrade government, and the claim of Serbia is that since the Kosovo war ethnic Serbs have been ethnically cleansed by the new Kosovo. Now of which other locality does this kind of claim and counter-claim remind you ?

It reminds me of the Ottoman rule of Cyprus and how we have been forcibly ruled by Turks who have discriminated against us for centuries. But unlike the Albanians of Kosovo, we have been in Cyprus for long long time before any Turk appeared on our island.

The Albanians in Kosovo did not become the majority of Kosovo as a result of a foreign invasion of Serbia by Albania. The Albanians did not become the majority in Kosovo by ethnically cleansing the Serbians. They were the majority in that territory for centuries.

This is how the Kosovo case would be similar to the "trnc" case:

"A small minority of Albanians lives all over Serbia. All parts of Serbia are inhabited by a majority of Serbs, and Albanians are nowhere a majority. Then Albania invades Serbia (something which is condemned by a UN Resolution) ethnically cleanses the Serbians from south Serbia, replaces the native population with Settlers brought from Albania, and then after a few years they declare south Serbia as an independent state under the name of "Kosovo" (a name which never existed before in history). This declaration of "Kosovo" is condemned again with a UN Resolution."

If the above story was true, then you could claim that the case of Kosovo is the same as the case of "trnc". But we both know that the two cases have nothing in common, which is why Turkey did not accept to take the Cyprus issue to the ICJ.

There is a brief legal dismissal of your last comment : supposition

Piratis, you are so obsessed by Cyprus that you have no ability to make any comparisons. (Note : to compare is not to say that X and Y are the same, it is to enquire into correspondence and non-correspondence). In turn that obsession with the purported unique Cyprus history means that you utterly fail to understand what international law is about.

If international law was as you think it to be there would be a mass of laws and instruments which would be specific and peculiar to each case. Of course the history of Cyprus is different from the history of Taiwan, or Kosovo. No-one is suggesting that they are the same. What the law considers and is structured by is the notion of difference assessed against a common, if changing, criteria. When the ICJ gives its opinion about Kosovo you can bet your last Euro that in future some other actual state or wannabe state will refer to the Kosovo opinion. Meanwhile you Piratis will still be crying 'but its not about Kosovo, the ICJ opinion was specific to Kosovo' - NO you're basically wrong.


Why would you expect me to "want to link the irrelevant case of Kosovo with Cyprus" ? Perhaps it is because you assume that I want the TRNC to be recognised. Perhaps you assume I support the TRNC. Yet again Piratis your assumption would be wrong. Once again you let your assumptions rule without letting anything so inconvenient as evidence get in the way.

Kosovo and TRNC are linked not because of anything you or I might wish for, but because both Kosovo and TRNC have made arguments - good or bad - for self-determination, for statehood and recognition. If the Kosovo question was so damned obvious as you imply there would hardly be a referral to the ICJ.

It amazes me why anyone bothers with the ICJ when they can just call on Piratis who knows for sure everything about state recognition.

Hear, hear.

[Get Real!]

Hear, hear.

That's a typical c44 junk response we don't use here.

You're expected to add/expand/analyze/criticize, etc, or say nothing.

[Piratis]

There is a brief legal dismissal of your last comment : supposition

I made no supposition, you did, by claiming that the cases of "trnc" and Kosovo are similar.

Piratis, you are so obsessed by Cyprus that you have no ability to make any comparisons. (Note : to compare is not to say that X and Y are the same, it is to enquire into correspondence and non-correspondence). In turn that obsession with the purported unique Cyprus history means that you utterly fail to understand what international law is about.

Where did I say that the case of Cyprus is so unique? I just said that it is irrelevant to the one of Kosovo, and provided facts supporting this.

A more similar case to the "trnc" are the puppet regimes that Hitler was installing in the countries he occupied. The case of Czechoslovakia is the most similar one, since Hitler invaded and occupied this country with the pretext of protecting the German minority there.

If international law was as you think it to be there would be a mass of laws and instruments which would be specific and peculiar to each case. Of course the history of Cyprus is different from the history of Taiwan, or Kosovo. No-one is suggesting that they are the same. What the law considers and is structured by is the notion of difference assessed against a common, if changing, criteria. When the ICJ gives its opinion about Kosovo you can bet your last Euro that in future some other actual state or wannabe state will refer to the Kosovo opinion. Meanwhile you Piratis will still be crying 'but its not about Kosovo, the ICJ opinion was specific to Kosovo' - NO you're basically wrong.

Of course I can bet my last Euro that you Turks will try to use the Kosovo case and claim that "trnc" it is similar. Isn't this what you are doing here now? Unfortunately for you, while Kosovo was recognized by many countries just days after it was declared, and in the future it might even be recognized by the UN, you will get no such recognition and you will be the ones crying "but our case is similar to Kosovo" - NO you are wrong.

Why would you expect me to "want to link the irrelevant case of Kosovo with Cyprus" ? Perhaps it is because you assume that I want the TRNC to be recognised. Perhaps you assume I support the TRNC. Yet again Piratis your assumption would be wrong. Once again you let your assumptions rule without letting anything so inconvenient as evidence get in the way.

Oh, please. Don't pretend to be an objective observer. You tried to hide your identity when you first came here trying to even deny that you are a Turk, but you were soon uncovered.

Kosovo and TRNC are linked not because of anything you or I might wish for, but because both Kosovo and TRNC have made arguments - good or bad - for self-determination, for statehood and recognition. If the Kosovo question was so damned obvious as you imply there would hardly be a referral to the ICJ.

Anybody can make arguments. Hitler also had some arguments for supporting the rightfulness in installing puppet regimes in the territories he occupied.

The question is how good or how bad your arguments are. Albanians in Kosovo do have some basis for asking for self-determination since they are the majority of Kossovo for several centuries. Still, their case is not obvious, which is why some countries recognize Kosovo and some don't, and the case is now in the ICJ to resolve that question, since both sides believe that they have chances in winning the case in the ICJ.

On the other hand the case of the "trnc" is obvious, since the Turks acquired this territory by means of invasion and ethnic cleansing (the Turks have never been the majority of this territory until the invasion and ethnic cleansing occurred), which is why there is already a UN resolution declaring this entity as "legally invalid" and why only the invader (Turkey) recognizes its own puppet occupation regime.

It amazes me why anyone bothers with the ICJ when they can just call on Piratis who knows for sure everything about state recognition.

It is you who pretends to know everything. Papadopoulos has already publicly challenged Turkey to take the case of Cyprus to the ICJ. Why don't you accept the challenge?

[vaughanwilliams]

Hear, hear.

That's a typical c44 junk response we don't use here.

You're expected to add/expand/analyze/criticize, etc, or say nothing.

CopperLine has a clear unemotional grip on the presentation of his case. I could not possibly presume to add to what he has to say, but can only agree with its sentiments.

[Get Real!]

Hear, hear.

That's a typical c44 junk response we don't use here.

You're expected to add/expand/analyze/criticize, etc, or say nothing.

CopperLine has a clear unemotional grip on the presentation of his case. I could not possibly presume to add to what he has to say, but can only agree with its sentiments.

I’m not going to get involved in (time wasting) theories of assumption and will just say this…

Those who feel that Kosovo is relevant to the “TRNC” and that there are points worth noting from it should just come forward and present their case to enlighten us.

If not, then nobody should even mention the word “Kosovo” in the CyProb!