erolz3 wrote:Hi. Sorry I do not have time or enrgey to post my usual full length response, not to well atm
You may weel regard the ECHR and or specific decisions as a sham. That does not change it's legality. I regard the way an all GC RoC government gained recognition as the sole legitimate government of Cyprus from 64 onwards a 'sham' not based on any concept of justice or leglity but was the result of expedient self interest of powerful third party states. That does not change it's legality today however.
The point as to how 'voluantary' TC signing of their south properties to the TRNC was is a valid one. However what I suggested is that if a TC today was to agree to do such and exhange, not in exchange for land in the north that is still disputed, but for land in the north that is no longer dispute, say for example land where dispute has already been settled by the IPC or for land that was never GC pre 74, then this is a different senario.
As to the ECHR not having the right to force the RoC to do anything that is against its own laws, this is just plain wrong. The ECHR has the jurisdiction to make such judgments and the emans of enforcement as well. If the ECHR finds a national law infringes an indivduals human rights, then its ruling will contain a demand that the national law is ammended so that such infringments stop. THat is what the ECHR does, that is its purpose. If a country refuses to accept ECHR rulings then it has the ultimate sanction of expulsion of said member state from the CoE. The ECHR is a higher court than national courts.
There is a recent example in the UK. A case was bought saying it is an infringment of a prisoners human rights to deny them the right to vote in elections. The law in the UK denies all convicted criminals the right to vote whilst in prison serving sentances. THe ECHR has said such a blanket prosciption is in breach of human rights and the UK must ammend its law accordingly. Even though the UK parliament has voted overwhealmingly in support of current laws accross all parties, it just does not matter. For now the UK government is just 'ignoring' the ruling, but it will sooner or later have to make the necessary adjustments. Even if a referendum was help and 100% of the british population voted to keep the laws as it is, the UK would still have to ammend the law eventualy. To not do so would be to say international agreements that it has signedare not binding and can be arbitarily ignored by it as and when it feels like it and would risk the ultimate sanction of expulsion from the COE.
PS Kikapu - I probaly did confuse with someone else - though you were the one writting the long account of their recent visit to cyprus. Also I do not take a middle road for any fear because I live in the "TRNC". I offer my views nothing more and nothing less.
Par'me but this is not what I said. Of course the ECHR has the power to do what you said.
However what i said was that "whatever internal remedy of Turkey has no right to force the RoC to take action which is against her laws even in cases that the IPC settled the case acting solely as a referee and the 2 individuals agreed between them".
This means that if the RoC refuses to abide with the decision of the IPC then the decision itself has to be examined by the ECHR. In other words the allowing of the IPC to function does not automatically make it's decisions correct and acceptable to the ECHR, since they involve a 3rd or 4th party which is required to take action.
Even in cases that it is crystal clear that the RoC should abide and it is 99.99% possible that the ECHR would eventually rule that the RoC should abide, there is this little step that has to be taken. And like I said that little step may need some 50 years to be completed
It seems that Benjamin Franklin never said such thing:
