Cyprus-Forum.com

[gabaston]

fi
the agreement was not between the un and anyone, the agreement was between Turkey Greece Britain and the two cypriot communities.

it was called the treaty of guarantee, a condition of independence, and although you may wish to think it does not exist, unlike the constitution (which your leaders illegally and barbarically dishonoured and failed to uphold anyway), it most certainly does and was honoured only by Turkey.

Even the Greek courts declared that Turkish intervention was legal; a link to that finding has already been posted in this forum.

[gabaston]

fi

we never asked for that war

turkey turned a blind eye in 63 and 67, the more Turkey resisted the braver you got untill you started killing yourselves for control and then the coup, then Sampson.

was turkey supposed to wait until Sampson realised his desires to rid cyprus of turks. is that your idea of a civilsed people -no these are acts of a barbaric people only prevented by Turkey at the last moment.

we could have lived in peace but gc chose war and akritas. it really is that simple.

[fi]

Oooppssss doohhhhh gabaston honestly I didn't see the quote!!!!!!

Sorry I'm writting while surfing on the net as well. What I meant was the promises of goodwill moves by Turkey in Cyprus and Greece which are always postponed.

One example is the search for the one and a half thousand "missing" GC during the Turkish invasions, it has promised many times that it will move forward but hasn't.

Another example is the continouing violations of Greek airspace till today while Turkey has promised so many times, and despite of Greeces goodwill moves, that it will try to build friendly relationships with Athens.

also you may have noticed that mainy posters take snipes at ROC and the president all the time....

And that's why I'm on a forum for my remarks to be challenged. I love democracy!

[Turkey (( *]

Goodwill moves by Greece??Give me an example of that pls.
I see that you don't mention the violations of Turkish airspace by Greek Airforce, now that is biased!!

[gabaston]

fi

yes we do take snipes at gc

but we also do say good things about your people too, out of honesty and with the intention of showing the goodwill that one day may reunite us.

my best friend is a gc - my daughters boyfriend is gc - she is currently on holiday in cyprus with her best friend who is gc - they stayed one week together at nenes house in the turkish bit- and are now staying one week at ayas (if thats the correct word) house in the south.

we do do our bit at promoting harmony - do you?

[fi]

We all work in an international sphere of legality. Also even more if you put your signature down and join an organization called U.N.. Whether Turkey had a right to invade I forward you to this:

"Turkey nevertheless violated United States laws and the bilateral agreements under those laws. Similarly, the United Nations Charter does not permit an exception under the Treaty of Guarantee. "

"When Cyprus became a member of the United Nations in 1960, all provisions of the London-Zurich Agreements in conflict with or inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations became null and void pursuant to article 103 of the United Nations Charter. Article 103 states: " In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail". If an interpretation of article IV of the Treaty of Guarantee could be made to justify the use of force then all or part of article IV used to justify force is in conflict and inconsistent with article 103 of the United Nations Charter, consequently, is void ab initio.

Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, states that member states "shall refrain...from the threat or use of force". Article 51 of the Charter authorizes the use of force for purposes of self-defense only. Turkey cannot avail herself of article 51 since she was not attacked nor was she threatened with attack.

Additionally, the use of force is permitted under the Charter in article 53 in the chapter on Regional Arrangements. Article 53 is also not available to Turkey since the Treaty of Guarantee is not a regional arrangement under article 53. Even if the Treaty of Guarantee is considered a regional arrangement, article 53 states that "no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements...without the authorization of the Security Council."
"

"the obligations imposed by Article 2(4) have not been discharged on the basis of frustration, that by virtue of Article 103, Charter obligations prevail over treaty rights as well as treaty obligations, and that for one obligation to prevail over inconsistent obligation is for it to render the latter invalid or void. therefore, subject to what is said below on Article 51, Article 4 of the Treaty of Guarantee, to the extent that it purports to authorize the use of armed force, is inconsistent with Article 2(4) of the Charter and does not fall within the Article 53 exception. Even if the 1974 invasion was in compliance with Article 4, such compliance was not sufficient to render it legal."

http://www.hr-action.org/chr/Rossid01.html


As for the letter for clarification after the signing of 1960 Treaty and reply by the UN that the charter is above the Treaty I will dig and try to find a copy.


And gabaston, I've said it several times. I never accuse the people of doing anything, on any side. I do think that the majority T and TC are very similar to G and GC. They are honest, hard working and peaceful people. Devoted to their families going past life in the best way. All the events are the unfortunate doings of a certain group of people. Also I do blame international interests but I won't repeat myself...

Also very ufortunate as destiny and history has brought the two civilizations to continously clash.

Please have a look from the memberlist and read all my posts.

[gabaston]

post whatever you like the over riding agreement is

"The Treaty of Guarantee".

We do not live in illegallity nor do we live in legallity, we have no constitution to define who makes the laws.

We shall have legal and illegal only when we have agreed a constitution that states what is or isnt legal to replace the one gc failed to honour and tore up. Without a constitution most things hence therefore can not have been defined constitutionally legal or illegal.

[erolz]

http://www.hr-action.org/chr/Rossid01.html

Just to put this in it's proper context.

This is the opinion of Eugene T. Rossides who holds the post of General Counsel of AHI - American Hellenic Institute.

All the events are the unfortunate doings of a certain group of people.

In your view who are / were this 'group of people'?

[Turkey (( *]

Fi,

Goodwill moves by Greece??Give me an example of that pls.
I see that you don't mention the violations of Turkish airspace by Greek Airforce, now that is biased!!

[gabaston]

In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail". If an interpretation of article IV of the Treaty of Guarantee could be made to justify the use of force then all or part of article IV used to justify force is in conflict and inconsistent with article 103 of the United Nations Charter, consequently, is void ab initio

ARTICLE IV
In the event of a breach of the provisions of the present Treaty, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom undertake to consult together with respect to the representations or measure necessary to ensure observance of those provisions.

In so far as common or concerted action may not prove possible, each of the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of reestablishing the state of affairs created by
the present Treaty.

can we now get back to the mines topic?