Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz3]

Sorry its been a long night for me so far.

What do you mean "a long night"? It is noon! Aren't you in Cyprus?

Yeah I am in Cyprus and I havent been to bed yet since 'yesterday'. I do keep pretty wierd hours at times.

[erolz3]

You seem to have forgotten what we are discussing. The question is can documents produced by the TRNC be considered legaly valid despite it status, in any circumstance and if so what circumstances.

THe answer may well be in the '‘Namibia exception" and the circumstance may well be "this invalidity cannot be extended to those acts, such as, for instance, the registration of births, deaths and marriages, the effects of which can be ignored only to the detriment of the inhabitants of the Territory "

Here we go again....

LEGALLY??

The definite answer is NOOOOOOOOOOO

I am sorry to keep harping on about this , but I think the truth is important for us to understand and I think we made real progress here.

As a non recognised state, in interantional law there is an obligation on all (real) states to not do anything that may or could imply recongition of the "TRNC". There is however a clearly establish exception to that rule, know as the 'namibia exception'.

Once more quoting from this recent ruling in 2010 in UK high court

http://www.20essexst.com/news/r-kibris- ... nsport-and

The Court of Appeal also clarified the scope of the so-called Namibia exception, which it regarded as an acknowledged exception to the general rule that effect must not be given to the acts of non-recognised States. The Court held that the exception is limited to private rights, acts of everyday occurrence, routine acts of administration, day to day activities having legal consequences, or matters of that kind, and that it does not cover public law functions in the field of international civil aviation

Previous ruling involving issues to do with non recognised states have shown absolutely that whilst under international law no state should do anything that could or might represnt recognition of the non recognised state, they (all real states) do have an obligation to recognise certain documents and acts of the non recognised state and doing so confers no implied recognition of the non recognised state concerned.

The clearest example of 'what kind' of document or act of non recognised that legal states are obliged to recognise under international law would be birth of death certificates.

What this means is that birth and death certificates issued by the non recognised "TRNC" are legaly valid under international law and all states are obliged to accept them as such according to international law. They are 'exceptions' to the general rule under international law that no state should do anything that might imply recognistion of a non recognised state.

It is not just birth and death certificates that are covered under this 'exception' in international law. The 2010 ruling above lists the scope of things are covered under this exception to the rule that states must do nothing that implies or could imply recongition of non recognised states.

"The Court held that the exception is limited to private rights, acts of everyday occurrence, routine acts of administration, day to day activities having legal consequences, or matters of that kind"

States therefore under international law have an obligation to accept as legaly valid acts of the non recognised "TRNC" in the above categoreis and ONLY in the above categories - in every other category they have the opposite obligation to not accept as legal validy acts of the "TRNC" because doing so would or could imply recongition of the "TRNC"

[B25]

Here we go again, a turks interpretation of mine mine, yours mine, again.

You expect and demand legal states to, under international law, recognise some documents, but at the same time you and your motherland just ignore international laws, agreements you signed and the Geneva Convention on HR. Bloody typical!

[Pyrpolizer]

You seem to have forgotten what we are discussing. The question is can documents produced by the TRNC be considered legaly valid despite it status, in any circumstance and if so what circumstances.

THe answer may well be in the '‘Namibia exception" and the circumstance may well be "this invalidity cannot be extended to those acts, such as, for instance, the registration of births, deaths and marriages, the effects of which can be ignored only to the detriment of the inhabitants of the Territory "

Here we go again....

LEGALLY??

The definite answer is NOOOOOOOOOOO

I am sorry to keep harping on about this , but I think the truth is important for us to understand and I think we made real progress here.

As a non recognised state, in interantional law there is an obligation on all (real) states to not do anything that may or could imply recongition of the "TRNC". There is however a clearly establish exception to that rule, know as the 'namibia exception'.

Once more quoting from this recent ruling in 2010 in UK high court

http://www.20essexst.com/news/r-kibris- ... nsport-and

The Court of Appeal also clarified the scope of the so-called Namibia exception, which it regarded as an acknowledged exception to the general rule that effect must not be given to the acts of non-recognised States. The Court held that the exception is limited to private rights, acts of everyday occurrence, routine acts of administration, day to day activities having legal consequences, or matters of that kind, and that it does not cover public law functions in the field of international civil aviation

Previous ruling involving issues to do with non recognised states have shown absolutely that whilst under international law no state should do anything that could or might represnt recognition of the non recognised state, they (all real states) do have an obligation to recognise certain documents and acts of the non recognised state and doing so confers no implied recognition of the non recognised state concerned.

The clearest example of 'what kind' of document or act of non recognised that legal states are obliged to recognise under international law would be birth of death certificates.

What this means is that birth and death certificates issued by the non recognised "TRNC" are legaly valid under international law and all states are obliged to accept them as such according to international law. They are 'exceptions' to the general rule under international law that no state should do anything that might imply recognistion of a non recognised state.

It is not just birth and death certificates that are covered under this 'exception' in international law. The 2010 ruling above lists the scope of things are covered under this exception to the rule that states must do nothing that implies or could imply recongition of non recognised states.

"The Court held that the exception is limited to private rights, acts of everyday occurrence, routine acts of administration, day to day activities having legal consequences, or matters of that kind"

States therefore under international law have an obligation to accept as legaly valid acts of the non recognised "TRNC" in the above categoreis and ONLY in the above categories - in every other category they have the opposite obligation to not accept as legal validy acts of the "TRNC" because doing so would or could imply recongition of the "TRNC"

I already replied before Erolz3 and I even pointed you out the parrts saying "legal consequences"
In reality ANY document issued by "trnc" that might have LEGAL CONSQUENCES to the RoC by just accepting it as LEGAL is ignored.

Let's take one of the examples given by CopperLIne before.
A truck driver appears at the checkpoint showing documents that a) the truck belongs to him, b)showing his RoC ID, and also c) showing an X type driving licence that confirms he knows how to drive big trucks. "a" and c are "trnc" documents.

a and c are completely ignored by RoC. However there is a PRIVATE insurance company there that accepts a and c for the purpose of selling a d) third party insurance to that driver. In the end based on documents B and D the RoC allows the driver to pass.

So you may claim that the Insurance company(not the RoC) has accepted legal documents issued by "trnc". However those documents have no legal consequences * to the Insurance company either. The only Legal consequence comes from the Insurance cover they themselves have issued. In other words the Insurance company will pay in case of an accident. And if there is any disagreement on the amount to be paid,the matter will go to RoC courts.

Happy now?

* of their own. (this means in case the truck was stolen there is absolutely no legal consequence to the Insurance company)

[Pyrpolizer]

...

[erolz3]

Sorry pyrpolizer but you seem to have misunderstood what international law is saying here.

The list of execptions are things that , under international law, states are obliged to consider valid even though they are acts of a non recognised administration.

What the RoC does or does not do in a given case does not change what inernational law says. If the RoC were to restrict an indivdual based on it not recognising things in the category of execptions, then that indivdual could go to the courts in RoC and say you can not do that under international law and if the RoC courts did not find in their favour they could go to the ECHR. The inertnational law on these matters , built up from precedents in numerous cases is remarkably clear on these issues.

I suspect why in your example above the RoC ingnore a and c is because, understandably, they do not want to be seen to accept such things, so they ignore it. No problem, no individual is affected. However if they were to try and effect an indivdual by saying for example, you do not have a legal document showing you as an owner of the vehical, the "TRNC" ones are meaningless as they have been issued by an illegal state, we will fine you or we will require you to register its ownership in the RoC, then I think it would clearly be in breach of international law and I suspect it knows this so it simply ingores the issue.

[erolz3]

Here we go again, a turks interpretation of mine mine, yours mine, again.

You expect and demand legal states to, under international law, recognise some documents, but at the same time you and your motherland just ignore international laws, agreements you signed and the Geneva Convention on HR. Bloody typical!

The established 'namibia exceptions' are not something dreamt up by Turks or Turkish Cypriots, they are established precedent in international law about how states should behave in regards to acts of non recognised states in certain specific 'exceptional' cases. I do not demand these things, it is what international law demands.

Turkey is a member of the CoE. Any infringment of an indivduals right for which Turkey is resopnsible can, once exhausting all local remedies, goto the ECHR and have them rule on their case. Which is something that many have done including GC.

[Pyrpolizer]

..... sorry wrong quote

[Pyrpolizer]

Sorry pyrpolizer but you seem to have misunderstood what international law is saying here.

The list of execptions are things that , under international law, states are obliged to consider valid even though they are acts of a non recognised administration.

What the RoC does or does not do in a given case does not change what inernational law says. If the RoC were to restrict an indivdual based on it not recognising things in the category of execptions, then that indivdual could go to the courts in RoC and say you can not do that under international law and if the RoC courts did not find in their favour they could go to the ECHR. The inertnational law on these matters , built up from precedents in numerous cases is remarkably clear on these issues.

I suspect why in your example above the RoC ingnore a and c is because, understandably, they do not want to be seen to accept such things, so they ignore it. No problem, no individual is affected. However if they were to try and effect an indivdual by saying for example, you do not have a legal document showing you as an owner of the vehical, the "TRNC" ones are meaningless as they have been issued by an illegal state, we will fine you or we will require you to register its ownership in the RoC, then I think it would clearly be in breach of international law and I suspect it knows this so it simply ingores the issue.

Hmm... this is the correct quote.


...


First of all I avoided relying on the document you provided because that is not the ruling itself but some very misleading summary. And I am not sure whether the Namibia case (which was actually an imposing of South Africas administration on certain parts of Namibia has much to do with what you are trying to say or what the document you provided is trying to say.)

To make my self clear any legal document produced by South Africa for Namibia was actually ignored EXCEPT (and that was the Nabibia exception) documents that had absolutely no legal consequences to those who might have accepted them, given the precondition that their rejection would ONLY affect negatively the innocent people of Namibia.
Such documents would be birth certificates, marriage certificates etc.

I already presented you cases that this is not so for "trnc" documents, in fact even birth certificates issued by "trnc" do have legal consequences to the RoC, although yes their rejection also has negative effects to innocent people. And I explained you what the RoC does in these cases.

I don't know why you are not happy, and I don't know why you insist that every "legal" document issued by "trnc" which does not imply recognition should be accepted.

THIS IS NOT TRUE, THIS IS NOT THE NAMIBIA EXCEPTION... HOW MANY TIMES SHOULD I REPEAT IT?

[erolz3]

First of all I avoided relying on the document you provided because that is not the ruling itself but some very misleading summary.

The full ruling is here if you prefer
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... 520Yollari)%2520v%2520SS%2520Transport%2520JUDGMENT.%252012%2520Oct%252010.doc&ei=egbJTY_0Bc3Nsgb5md2nAw&usg=AFQjCNEfYrpPA23mRmEpKmrz5LvOKwPfug

(the forum can't handle such long URL's - need to manualy copy the entire url and paste it into a brower)

And I am not sure whether the Namibia case (which was actually an imposing of South Africas administration on certain parts of Namibia has much to do with what you are trying to say or what the document you provided is trying to say.)

What is refferd to as the 'namibia exception' has become establish as international law precedent. It is called such because that was the case in which this precedent was established , but is refferd to in countless subsequent cases dealing with non recognised states. It has become an established part of international law in this regard.

From the full ruling provided above. (section 75)

It concerns the so-called Namibia exception, which is an acknowledged exception to the general rule that effect must not be given to the acts of non-recognised states.

I don't know why you are not happy, and I don't know why you insist that every "legal" document issued by "trnc" which does not imply recognition should be accepted.

I make no such insitance at all. I am trying to understand what international law says about duties of states re recognising 'acts' of non recognised states. What it says is no state should recognise any act of a non recognised state or do anything that might or could imply recognition of the said unrecrognised state. That is the 'rule'. There is however under international law a clearly established and well defined exception to the rule, know as the 'namibia exception'.

The execptions to the general rule, in international law, do NOT say every 'legal' document issued by a non recognised state which does not imply recognition should be accepted. It does not say that and nor do I.

It does say CERTAIN, not all, 'acts' (which could include issuing documents) by non recognised states are considered to have legal validitiy under internation law, despite the general rule. They are the 'exceptions' to the general rule. As far as the scope of what acts are considered to be covered as such exceptions and what are not the above ruling gives a very clear definition.

THIS IS NOT TRUE, THIS IS NOT THE NAMIBIA EXCEPTION... HOW MANY TIMES SHOULD I REPEAT IT?

I don't know how many times you are going to misunderstand what the 'namibia exceptions' are so I can not answer your question. They are NOT some exceptions that applied only to the one case. They are exceptions that have become an aknowledged part of international law. Again in the ruling above it is absoloutely clear that this is the case and that this part of international law applies to cases concerning the TRNC.

And once more, I am having this discussion not because I want anything other than a better understanding for all of us as to what international law actually says about the obligations of states in regard to acts by non recognised states , so we can understand what that means in Cyprus. Many believe that no 'act' by the "TRNC" has any legal validity under international law. Whilst this is indeed the general rule, there IS an exception, which IS well established in international law and IS applicable in the case of 'acts' by the "TRNC".