CopperLine wrote:Piratis wrote:CopperLine wrote:Piratis,
I'd hoped against hope that you weren't going to take around this sterile circle yet again.
All you've given us again is a statement by a politician with a well-known view about Turkey, when actually I asked for evidence and a credible link to RoC submitting a case to the ICJ. And for evidence and a credible link that Turkey rejected the ICJ's hearing of a Cyprus-Turkey case.
If RoC had actually submiited a case to the ICJ you'd think the ICJ would have a record of it, yes ? And if a state party had refused to participate in an ICJ hearing, you'd think the ICJ would have a record of it, yes ?
And once more, for the record, most state parties as a matter of public policy do not recognise as a matter of principle the compulsory character of ICJ judgments, for example, France, Russia, USA, and China. This is not peculiar to Turkey. Even the UK only acceded to this in 2004 not much after Cyprus in 2002. In fact less than one third of state parties recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ.
The one who made the statement challenging Turkey to take the case to the ICJ was not just some politician, but the president of Cyprus.
The RoC could not have forced Turkey to the ICJ because Turkey does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICJ as compulsory.
Each State which has recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court has in principle the right to bring any one or more other State which has accepted the same obligation before the Court by filing an application instituting proceedings with the Court, and, conversely, it has undertaken to appear before the Court should proceedings be instituted against it by one or more such other States.
http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/ind ... &p2=1&p3=3Since Turkey does not recognize the jurisdiction of the court as compulsory the only way that the case could be examined by the ICJ is if Turkey agreed for this.
This is why the president of Cyprus publicly and in the most direct way challenged Turkey to agree to take the case to ICJ. Turkey didn't take up the challenge for obvious to all reasons.
Your response
Piratis is mind-bogglingly evasive and perverse. Rather than RoC use the GA to request an opinion of the ICJ, rather than use the UNSC to request an opinion of the ICJ, rather than even declare and publicise RoC intention to register a case with the ICJ (attracting an equally public possible rejection from RoT) your argument is that Papadopolous dared Turkey to take a case to the ICJ and Turkey refused the dare. Now that is politically and legally idiotic. (To use your own daft logic Piratis, why didn't Papadopolous take one or all of the first three options ? Was he afraid that he'd "loose" ?)
The UN Security Council has
already declared the "trnc" as
legally invalid and re-affirmed that the sovereignty of Republic of Cyprus over the whole island should be respected. We don't need to prove again what is already proved.
The
only country which recognizes the so called "trnc" and which does not respect the sovereignty rights of Republic of Cyprus over the whole island is Turkey.
If Turkey believes that the UNSC and the whole world are wrong and only Turks are right, then they could take the case to the ICJ, and Papadopoulos has openly challenged them to agree to do so.
So why don't the Turks do it? Don't they want to prove that the "trnc" is a legal entity and that it should be recognized by all other countries? Of course they want. If they thought that they would win this case wouldn't they want themselves to take it to the ICJ, even without being challenged by Papadopoulos? Of course they would. So why don't they? Because they know that they would lose the case.
Now you may continue making a fool of yourself by denying the obvious.
