Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

Cyprus has challenged Turkey to take the case to the ICJ. Turkey refused because they knew they would loose it.

The case of Kosovo is similar to the one of Kurdistan, and I do hope that the Kurds will declare their independence soon. The Turks are oppressing the Kurdish people for centuries and is time for the Kurds to have their own independent state on their own land.

In the case of Cyprus we are talking about (1) a foreign invasion, (2) ethnic cleansing of the majority of the local population, (3) replacement of the local population with foreign Settlers in violation of the Geneva convention. So how is Cyprus related with Kosovo???

How can those foreigners declare independence over a territory where the vast majority of the population are Greek Cypriots? Only the majority of the population of a territory can declare independence. And no, the answer is not "by ethically cleansing the Greek Cypriots and replacing them with foreign Anatolian Settlers", since this is just a heinous crime, not something that gives to the invaders any rights over our lands.

This is why there is a very clear resolution by the security council the day that the invaders illegally declared some "Turkish State" on the territory which belongs to us and not them.

RESOLUTION 541 (1983)

Adopted by the Security Council
on 18 November 1983



The Security Council,

Having heard the statement of the Foreign Minister of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus,

Concerned at the declaration by the Turkish Cypriot authorities issued on 15 November 1983 which purports to create an independent state in northern Cyprus,

Considering that this declaration is incompatible with the 1960 Treaty concerning the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus and the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee,

Considering therefore that the attempt to create a "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", is invalid, and will contribute to a worsening of the situation in Cyprus,

Reaffirming its resolutions 365(1974) and 367(1975),

Aware of the need for a solution of the Cyprus problem, based on the mission of good offices undertaken by the Secretary-General,

Affirming its continuing support for the United Nations Peace-Keeping Force in Cyprus,

Taking note of the Secretary-General's statement of 17 November 1983,

1. Deplores the declaration of the Turkish Cypriot authorities of the purported secession of part of the Republic of Cyprus;

2. Considers the declaration referred to above as legally invalid and calls for its withdrawal;

3. Calls for the urgent and effective implementation of its resolutions 365(1974) and 367(1975);

4. Requests the Secretary-General to pursue his mission of good offices in order to achieve the earliest possible progress towards a just and lasting settlement in Cyprus;

5. Calls upon the parties to cooperate fully with the Secretary-General in his mission of good offices;

6. Calls upon all States to respect the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus;

7. Calls upon all States not to recognise any Cypriot state other than the Republic of Cyprus;

8. Calls upon all States and the two communities in Cyprus to refrain from any action which might exacerbate the situation;

9. Requests the Secretary-General to keep the Security Council fully informed.

Adopted at the 2500th meeting by 13 votes to 1 against (Pakistan) with 1 abstention (Jordan).

[Nikitas]

Turkey will do anything to avoid submitting to the jurisdiction of the ICJ. It has a series of issues which could be resolved judicially- the Aegean continental shelf, Cyprus, Kurdish issue, the proposed changes it would like in the Bosphorus, but according to the Turks these are not legal but political issues. In other words they are areas where military might is still useful.

But where the "other side" is stronger, like in the Black Sea territorial waters it had no problem resorting to the legal process for its territorial waters, where it accepted the Law of the Sea and applied the 12 mile limit.

[insan]

The cases of Kossovo and Cyprus would have been similar if they shared a vital common link which is missing in Kossovo- invasion and occupation. No other state invaded Kossovo, the Albanian Kossovars revolted and they declared UDI.

The declaratio of the court does not diminish the rights of Serbia over its territory and more importantly it does not diminish any of the individual rights of the Serb inhabitants of Kossovo to their property.

In case of recognition, one could say that Serbs who lost their rights in Kossovo could take their cases to each domestic jurisdiction of each state that recognises Kossovo and demand compensation for their loss. In some jurisdictions they might lose, in some they will win. Recognition, being a vital element of statehood, carries responsibilities.

The Kossovars for obvious reasons have not sought to upset the property structure of Kossovo nor have they made any overt moves towards establishing a monocommunal society. They are clever enough to pay lip service to all the usual European ideals of multiculturalism and racial tolerance. What the Serbs and the Roma have to endure in Kossovo is another story.

Thursday, July 22, 2010
The International Court of Injustice
After much hemming and hawing, the International Court of Justice finally declared today that the "declaration of independence" by the Albanian provisional government in the occupied Serbian province of Kosovo did not violate international law, or UNSCR 1244.

Seriously?

Certainly there is no law against declaring independence. But that doesn't mean "Kosovo" had the right to do so. Under UNSCR 1244, it had to remain a part of Serbia - even if under temporary UN control - pending the outcome of status talks. But there were never any talks - there was just NATO messenger Martti Ahtisaari, declaring that Kosovo ought to become an independent, Albanian state. And Serbia was told to take it or leave it.

Technical details, you'll say. After all, the Albanians are such an overwhelming majority. But you never wonder how they got to be such a majority over the past century. Could it be because they sided with the Austrians, the Nazis, the Communists, and NATO - every time at the expense of the Serbs? Between the murder and expulsion of non-Albanians, and the highest birthrates in Europe (much higher than in the neighboring Albania, and unrelated to the level of education), no wonder the Albanians are a majority today. Yet they claim they have historically been the victims of oppression....

But weren't there Serb atrocities? Genocide, mass ethnic cleansing, tens of thousands killed? In short, no. Lies your friendly NATO spokesman fed you to go along with the program. The KLA was romanticized by the media as this idealistic, young, progressive freedom-fighting movement. KLA hats are New York chic. Surely these people have nothing to do with jihadism, and all the church-burning and throat-slitting and bus-bombing - if you've ever heard of them, to begin with - are just righteous revenge for whatever evils the Serbs must have committed to merit such treatment. But then, what of the Albanian behavior in the 1980s, before any of the alleged Serb atrocities had taken place?

This isn't about democracy. It isn't about liberty. There is no such thing as a "Kosovar" ; it is just a matter of time and convenience before the "independent" Kosovo merges into Greater Albania (or "ethnic Albania," as its advocates claim). Meanwhile, Kosovo still buys most of its power, even most of its bread, from the rest of Serbia. Its "government" is a collection of murderous mobsters; between them, they've killed more Albanians than the Serbs were ever accused of.

Oh sure, the U.S. government, much of the EU and many of their client states elsewhere recognize the "Republic of Kosovo." And I suppose more will jump on the bandwagon now, as the propaganda mill spins the ICJ verdict as "justice". But saying something exists doesn't make it so.

No, dear reader, it really isn't as simple as the mainstream media, the State Department, NATO, and now even the ICJ would have you believe.

I know many of you out there can't be bothered to care about this. What's it to you that some country out there got robbed of a piece of land, along with its dignity? But if fabricating and exaggerating atrocities to attack and occupy a country on behalf of a separatist, terrorist movement, isn't illegal... then what, pray tell, is?

You may not care about it now, because the people being bullied are the Serbs, a people you've been told was OK - nay, necessary even - to hate and despise. But tomorrow, it may happen to you. And then it will be too late.

http://grayfalcon.blogspot.com/2010/07/ ... stice.html


... and Turkey didn't go to ICj ust for the sake of Uncle Sam who exerts much to keep NATO stable especially when it comes to solve the problems between Greece and Turkey...

[Oracle]

As we said, insan, the Turks couldn't wait to do it by allowing their minority to continue its slow erosion of the GC culture in Cyprus, as the Kosovars did (hence Cyprus' lack of support to them) --Nope, the Turks made the grave and greedy mistake of a modern massive in-front-of-the-world Invasion and ethnic cleansing of well-known (much publicised by the Colonialist Brits) native Greeks and establishment of a definite Apartheid to maintain this racist segregation.

Again, the differences are highlighted by you, pointing to exactly why "trnc" will never gain such "recognition" as Kosovo has received.

[Get Real!]

The corrupt and immoral Copperline is salivating at the destruction of Serbia and theft of her territory that now forms this “Kosovo” ambiguity.

I’ll remind the fool that in 1999 the US attack of Serbia (which ultimately led to everything else) was a war crime in its own right of which I doubt the ICJ bothered to take into consideration!

That’s the problem when international law & order breaks down because we allow the main corrupt protagonists like the US, UK, and Israel, to conduct crimes against humanity around the world thus making it impossible for justice to prevail!

A law abiding court would’ve never approved of an illegal invasion such as that of the US against Serbia, contrary to the UN Charter! If anything, this decision by the ICJ proves that corruption, chaos and anarchy reign supreme and that the Cyprus Problem can only be solved militarily.

[Nikitas]

"it is just a matter of time and convenience before the "independent" Kosovo merges into Greater Albania (or "ethnic Albania," as its advocates claim). "

A development which will unite all the rest of the Balkans against them. And then it will get funny because we will see the ad hoc reunification of former Yugoslavia against such a move.

[Kikapu]

The corrupt and immoral Copperline is salivating at the destruction of Serbia and theft of her territory that now forms this “Kosovo” ambiguity.

I’ll remind the fool that in 1999 the US attack of Serbia (which ultimately led to everything else) was a war crime in its own right of which I doubt the ICJ bothered to take into consideration!

That’s the problem when international law & order breaks down because we allow the main corrupt protagonists like the US, UK, and Israel, to conduct crimes against humanity around the world thus making it impossible for justice to prevail!

A law abiding court would’ve never approved of an illegal invasion such as that of the US against Serbia, contrary to the UN Charter! If anything, this decision by the ICJ proves that corruption, chaos and anarchy reign supreme and that the Cyprus Problem can only be solved militarily.

Many valid points stated above by GR.

[Kifeas]

There are a few people in this forum -one in particular- who pretend to be experts on law -international law in particular- but when you scrap a bit down the surface they are nothing more than disguised pro-"TRNC" -nevertheless substandard propagandists.

They didn't bother to even read the text of the ICJ ruling on Kosovo, yet they already found out that it favors the possibility that the UDI of the "TRNC" might also be termed as a legal one.

Those of you interested in the full text of the Kosovo UDI ruling, here is the full text of the ICJ ruling:


http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15987.pdf

Not only it does not leave room for a similar treatment in the case of the "TRNC," but it buries even deeper such a possibility, neither for a future recognition nor for the legality of such a "UDI" by Turkey /Turkish Cypriots on the soil of northern Cyprus.

Paragraphs 81 and 114 of the ruling are of particular relevance, and they read as follows:

Par. 81
"Several participants have invoked resolutions of the Security Council condemning particular declarations of independence: see, inter alia, Security Council resolutions 216 (1965) and 217 (1965), concerning Southern Rhodesia; Security Council resolution 541 (1983), concerning northern Cyprus; and Security Council resolution 787 (1992), concerning the Republika Srpska.
The Court notes, however, that in all of those instances the Security Council was making a determination as regards the concrete situation existing at the time that those declarations of independence were made; the illegality attached to the declarations of independence thus stemmed not from the unilateral character of these declarations as such, but from the fact that they were, or would have been, connected with the unlawful use of force or other egregious violations of norms of general international law, in particular those of a peremptory character (jus cogens). In the context of Kosovo, the Security Council has never taken this position. The exceptional character of the resolutions enumerated above appears to the Court to confirm that no general prohibition against unilateral declarations of independence may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council."

Par. 114
"First, the Court observes that Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) was essentially designed to create an interim régime for Kosovo, with a view to channelling the long-term political process to establish its final status. The resolution did not contain any provision dealing with the final status of Kosovo or with the conditions for its achievement.
In this regard the Court notes that contemporaneous practice of the Security Council shows that in situations where the Security Council has decided to establish restrictive conditions for the permanent status of a territory, those conditions are specified in the relevant resolution. For example, although the factual circumstances differed from the situation in Kosovo, only 19 days after the adoption of resolution 1244 (1999), the Security Council, in its resolution 1251 of 29 June 1999, reaffirmed its position that a “Cyprus settlement must be based on a State of Cyprus with a single sovereignty and international personality and a single citizenship, with its independence and territorial integrity safeguarded” (para. 11). The Security Council thus set out the specific conditions relating to the permanent status of Cyprus.
By contrast, under the terms of resolution 1244 (1999) the Security Council did not reserve for itself the final determination of the situation in Kosovo and remained silent on the conditions for the final status of Kosovo.
Resolution 1244 (1999) thus does not preclude the issuance of the declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 because the two instruments operate on a different level: unlike resolution 1244 (1999), the declaration of independence is an attempt to determine finally the status of Kosovo."

[Bananiot]

Could you please inform us GR, when in 1995 the Serbs attacked Srebrenica and committed the infamous Srebrenica genocide, which law did they break?

[Oracle]

Not only it does not leave room for a similar treatment in the case of the "TRNC," but it buries even deeper such a possibility, neither for a future recognition nor for the legality of such a "UDI" by Turkey /Turkish Cypriots on the soil of northern Cyprus.


"... the illegality attached to the declarations of independence thus stemmed not from the unilateral character of these declarations as such, but from the fact that they were, or would have been, connected with the unlawful use of force or other egregious violations of norms of general international law, in particular those of a peremptory character (jus cogens)."


"... For example, although the factual circumstances differed from the situation in Kosovo, only 19 days after the adoption of resolution 1244 (1999), the Security Council, in its resolution 1251 of 29 June 1999, reaffirmed its position that a “Cyprus settlement must be based on a State of Cyprus with a single sovereignty and international personality and a single citizenship, with its independence and territorial integrity safeguarded” (para. 11). The Security Council thus set out the specific conditions relating to the permanent status of Cyprus."