Cyprus-Forum.com

[paliometoxo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10730573

not in a million years ....

[runaway]

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..

North Cyprus is Türkiye.

[CopperLine]

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).

Get Real,
SC resolutions are not being questioned here. The issues are (i) the functions and purpose of the ICJ in general and (ii) its opinion in the Kosovo case and (iii) whether this has any bearing on the TRNC case.

Again the SC is not a judicial body it is a political body. There is enormous debate amongst international lawyers and jurists as to whether, if at all, SC resolutions constitute law. That is to say, whilst the SC can make declaratory resolutions ("we, the Security Council, are resolved to do x") it is doubtful whether those declarations constitute law. Policy yes, law no.
This is especially the case since SC 541 is not a Chapter VI resolution meaning that "there is no power as such to make binding decisions with regard to member states" let alone international law.

If you are not persuaded by that Get Real, you might ask yourself why the UK/USA invasion of Iraq was illegal. After all the UK/USA said they were complying with and supported by UN SC resolutions and still you think it illegal (so do I incidentally). The short answer is that the UNSC doesn't make law, it makes policy.

[Get Real!]

Copperline,

In the case of Resolution 541 no ambiguity existed as there was almost a unanimous decision as I highlighted, but what happened in the case of Kosovo to have warranted the advice of the ICJ?

You tell us!

[CopperLine]

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)

I've never said that UNSC resolutions have expired : you just made that up.

I do think that UNSC resolutions have failed, yep. Just like I think that UNSC Resolution 242 has failed re Palestine and Israel. But that isn't the issue at hand. The issue is whether a UNSC resolution is a piece of international law or a policy statement. I think it is the latter.

How do you know what my moral values are ? And how is that relevant to deciding whether a SC resolution is a piece of law or not ?

You obviously think that UNSC 541 is morally right or just. Is that because it comes from the UNSC or simply because it accords with what you think is morally right ?

Politics is what happens (amongst other things) when morally conflicting or morally inconsistent views meet.

[CopperLine]

Copperline,

In the case of Resolution 541 no ambiguity existed as there was almost a unanimous decision as I highlighted, but what happened in the case of Kosovo to have warranted the advice of the ICJ?

You tell us!

I've already answered that in my first post : the GA asked the ICJ for an opinion. The GA even gave the ICJ exact terms of reference which were :

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

I think the reason that the GA asked this question of the ICJ is that they wanted an authoritative legal opinion on a matter that puzzled them and was politically important from the highest judicial organ of the UN and the international system. What more can I say short of interviewing the entire GA and asking them why they asked ?

[CopperLine]

Copperline,

In the case of Resolution 541 no ambiguity existed as there was almost a unanimous decision as I highlighted, but what happened in the case of Kosovo to have warranted the advice of the ICJ?

You tell us!

I've just noticed that 541, item 2 reads as follows (the particular words are important) :

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

First, the SC is not a judicial body, nor a law making body, considers i.e, it is the untested opinion of this non-judicial body that the declaration is legally invalid

Second, the ambiguous phrase "legally invalid" is used. Why not use the phrase "illegal" or even "unlawful" ? This begs the question invalid in reference to what law ? RoC domestic law - testable in a RoC court, and we can safely say that declarations of independence are generally regarded as constitutionally illegal by states and their courts. But if this meant international law then where is the test and where is the interpretation ? The studies ambiguity and conflation or confusion of domestic and international law is crucial. Either way this SC resolution is not international law

[Malapapa]

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..

North Cyprus is Türkiye.

But Türk is rum since 1 November 1928. And what's more rums never even stole it. Your Father gave your language away.

[Kikapu]

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..

North Cyprus is Türkiye.

But Türk is rum since 1 November 1928. And what's more rums never even stole it. Your Father gave your language away.

Runaway does not know who his "father" is, because he thinks Kemal was the first name of his "father".!

[runaway]

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..

North Cyprus is Türkiye.

But Türk is rum since 1 November 1928. And what's more rums never even stole it. Your Father gave your language away.

At least my father is known. Who s yours malakapa? Priest makarios??? Are rum priests allowed to marry?