Cyprus-Forum.com

[DT.]

... 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...

Thats it? Thats your whole excuse? Turkey that didn't allow US soldiers to cross into Iraq? Turkey who insulted and threatened to blow the entire region up by its actions with israel...Turkey who was going to go to war with a fellow Nato member over Imia?

This is the turkey who's sole reason for not going to the ICJ is not to upset the US?

Nothing to do with the fact that the invasion and reliance on the treaty of guarantee for the ongoing occupation (!!) might be ruled illegal?

[CopperLine]

Piratis wrote :

Cyprus has challenged Turkey to take the case to the ICJ.

The ICJ is not a "challenge" it is a court.

When was this so-called "challenge" issued by Cyprus ? When was this so-called "challenge" declined by Turkey ? In the words of another Forumer, give us some credible evidence with credible links.

(And your conclusion that Turkey didn't take up the challenge because it would "loose" [sic] has the same logical status as concluding that it forsook the challenge because it would win. In exactly the same way, and without a jot of evidence that logic allows us to say that the reason Cyprus has not forced the issue at the ICJ is because it knows that it would win/lose). If it is so effing obvious Piratis why on earth do parties ask for court opinions at all ? Why don't they just come to you for the answer to everything ?

[CopperLine]

Would the wet-dreaming Partitionists get their feet back on the ground please.

Leaving aside such small matters as UN Resolutions, Public Policy of every single UN member state bar one, Invasion, Occupation, Other Peoples' Lands, etc...

...and ask why Turkey didn't submit an opinion?

Piratis answers that... and Tr has never ratified ICJ Judgments as binding, if it did, as P reminds us on a number of occasions over the years, it'll come up against the long overdue Cyprus v Turkey matter at the ICJ.

Bill, Bill, Bill ....
(i) there is no obligation to submit a statement to the ICJ, so Turkey's non-submission is neither here nor there. It means nothing definite though it might be interesting to speculate.
(ii) ICJ opinions (we're talking here of an ICJ opinion on Kosovo) are non-binding anyway. State parties do not chooses to accept or refuse opinions so your comment is literally meaningless.


A more constructive, if still speculative, question to ask is why, if RoC is so sure of its position has not the GA or SC not requested an opinion of the ICJ on the question ‘Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of the TRNC in accordance with international law?’”

My view as I've expressed before is following the reasoning in the Kosovo case the opinion would be that such a declaration did not breach international law (though it was clearly a breach of RoC law over which the ICJ has no competence). I might be wrong; who knows ?

[DT.]

Would the wet-dreaming Partitionists get their feet back on the ground please.

Leaving aside such small matters as UN Resolutions, Public Policy of every single UN member state bar one, Invasion, Occupation, Other Peoples' Lands, etc...

...and ask why Turkey didn't submit an opinion?

Piratis answers that... and Tr has never ratified ICJ Judgments as binding, if it did, as P reminds us on a number of occasions over the years, it'll come up against the long overdue Cyprus v Turkey matter at the ICJ.

Bill, Bill, Bill ....
(i) there is no obligation to submit a statement to the ICJ, so Turkey's non-submission is neither here nor there. It means nothing definite though it might be interesting to speculate.
(ii) ICJ opinions (we're talking here of an ICJ opinion on Kosovo) are non-binding anyway. State parties do not chooses to accept or refuse opinions so your comment is literally meaningless.


A more constructive, if still speculative, question to ask is why, if RoC is so sure of its position has not the GA or SC not requested an opinion of the ICJ on the question ‘Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of the TRNC in accordance with international law?’”

My view as I've expressed before is following the reasoning in the Kosovo case the opinion would be that such a declaration did not breach international law (though it was clearly a breach of RoC law over which the ICJ has no competence). I might be wrong; who knows ?

the GA and the SC didn't ask for an opinion from the ICJ regarding the "trnc" cause they didn't need one. Theyd eclared it illegal in their own resolutions. Whats there to check up and why are you guessing? Its there in black and white.

[runaway]

Imia

Kardak you mean.

[runaway]

SC didn't ask for an opinion from the ICJ .

Who cares what south cyprus thinks.

[Get Real!]

A more constructive, if still speculative, question to ask is why, if RoC is so sure of its position has not the GA or SC not requested an opinion of the ICJ on the question ‘Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of the TRNC in accordance with international law?’”

My view as I've expressed before is following the reasoning in the Kosovo case the opinion would be that such a declaration did not breach international law (though it was clearly a breach of RoC law over which the ICJ has no competence). I might be wrong; who knows ?

Copperline, either the heat is affecting your mind or your account has been illegally invaded and occupied by another member of the family!

There's no need for the ICJ because...

UN RESOLUTION 541 (1983)
http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr541.htm

And in case you’re still wondering… resolution 541 does NOT have an expiry date.


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

[CopperLine]

Would the wet-dreaming Partitionists get their feet back on the ground please.

Leaving aside such small matters as UN Resolutions, Public Policy of every single UN member state bar one, Invasion, Occupation, Other Peoples' Lands, etc...

...and ask why Turkey didn't submit an opinion?

Piratis answers that... and Tr has never ratified ICJ Judgments as binding, if it did, as P reminds us on a number of occasions over the years, it'll come up against the long overdue Cyprus v Turkey matter at the ICJ.

Bill, Bill, Bill ....
(i) there is no obligation to submit a statement to the ICJ, so Turkey's non-submission is neither here nor there. It means nothing definite though it might be interesting to speculate.
(ii) ICJ opinions (we're talking here of an ICJ opinion on Kosovo) are non-binding anyway. State parties do not chooses to accept or refuse opinions so your comment is literally meaningless.


A more constructive, if still speculative, question to ask is why, if RoC is so sure of its position has not the GA or SC not requested an opinion of the ICJ on the question ‘Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of the TRNC in accordance with international law?’”

My view as I've expressed before is following the reasoning in the Kosovo case the opinion would be that such a declaration did not breach international law (though it was clearly a breach of RoC law over which the ICJ has no competence). I might be wrong; who knows ?

the GA and the SC didn't ask for an opinion from the ICJ regarding the "trnc" cause they didn't need one. Theyd eclared it illegal in their own resolutions. Whats there to check up and why are you guessing? Its there in black and white.

What's there to check up on ? First the GA and the SC are not judicial bodies whereas the ICJ is a judicial body. That's the arrangement in the UN system, or 'constitution' if you like. The function of the ICJ is to give authoritative judicial opinion to the UN and to member states. The GA and SC are quasi-legislative bodies, to be sure quite ambiguous, but one thing is for certain they are not and do not pretend to be judicial bodies.

In any case, my objection was to the logic that "x doesn't go to court because x is already sure" : and my response is that that logic works upside down for both Turkey and Cyprus i.e, we both don't seek a court opinion 'cos we know we're right/wrong so what's the point.

Just to be clear : this Kosovo case has got nothing to do with recognition and says nothing about whether to recognise Kosovo. This opinion has no bearing on recognition of TRNC - that is a completely different legal issue to that of the international legality of a declaration of independence (which was the ICJ's sole concern).

[Get Real!]

Copperline, you’ve tried to dismiss UN resolutions pertaining to Cyprus as “expired” and “failed” when all the time it’s your moral values that had failed you a long time ago…

…because instead of focusing on what is right & wrong (justice), you are making the same mistake that corrupt countries like the US, UK, and Israel are making:

You are focusing on who you like on this forum! (emotional decision instead of rational)

[paliometoxo]

SC didn't ask for an opinion from the ICJ .

Who cares what south cyprus thinks.

and who cares what turks thinks? no on cares about either south or north cyprus.. if you think some one does your fooling yourself..