Cyprus-Forum.com

[Pyrpolizer]

Erolz,
Furthermore I am not sure whether the wording of the summary you provided is correct. Imo it misses a "no" between the words "having" and "legal". See the relevant extract below. But then again it uses so many negatives that I really can't figure which one negates what LOL

"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"

[erolz3]

Erolz,
Furthermore I am not sure whether the wording of the summary you provided is correct. Imo it misses a "no" between the words "having" and "legal". See the relevant extract below. But then again it uses so many negatives that I really can't figure which one negates what LOL

"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"

Form the full publish jusdgment, link provided above

79. I cannot accept that submission. In my judgment, the issue in the present case falls well outside the ambit of the Namibia exception, however precisely the principle may be formulated for the purposes of its application in domestic law. This case is not concerned with private rights, acts of everyday occurrence, routine acts of administration, day to day activities having legal consequences, or matters of that kind. The case involves public functions in the field of international civil aviation and the lawfulness of a public law decision.

Cases which WERE concerned with

private rights
acts of everyday occurance
routine acts of adminstration
day to day activites having leagal consequences
matters of that kind

Would be covered under the 'namibia exception' precendent in cases relating to the "TRNC", in the opinion of the judges that handed this ruling.

That is how I read things from the ruling in full. Seems pretty clear to me.

[Pyrpolizer]

the EXCEPTION is very clear Erolz3:


These are the 2 conditions of the Namibia Exception.
a)The acceptance of those documents MUST NOT HAVE ANY LEGAL CONSEQUENCES TO THE ONE THAT ACCEPTS THEM
b)The act of rejection of those documents should affect negatively ONLY the individual concerned.(NOT ANY OTHERS)

Do we agree on the above 2 conditions or do we not?
If yes then we learned something. If not then we might need to start posting quotes or links that directly explain the Namibia exception.And then see who is right

[Pyrpolizer]

Erolz,
Furthermore I am not sure whether the wording of the summary you provided is correct. Imo it misses a "no" between the words "having" and "legal". See the relevant extract below. But then again it uses so many negatives that I really can't figure which one negates what LOL

"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"

Form the full publish jusdgment, link provided above

79. I cannot accept that submission. In my judgment, the issue in the present case falls well outside the ambit of the Namibia exception, however precisely the principle may be formulated for the purposes of its application in domestic law. This case is not concerned with private rights, acts of everyday occurrence, routine acts of administration, day to day activities having legal consequences, or matters of that kind. The case involves public functions in the field of international civil aviation and the lawfulness of a public law decision.

Cases which WERE concerned with

private rights
acts of everyday occurance
routine acts of adminstration
day to day activites having leagal consequences
matters of that kind

Would be covered under the 'namibia exception' precendent in cases relating to the "TRNC", in the opinion of the judges that handed this ruling.

That is how I read things from the ruling in full. Seems pretty clear to me.

Yes pretty clear in rejecting that the application for direct flights does not within what is called the Namibia Exception.
And throwing some light on what the Namibia exception deals with.

It doesn't explain how the Namibia exception should apply in acts of every day aministration etc etc.
I already gave you the 2 conditions the should prevail for the Namibia exception to have effect. Do we agree or do we not?

[erolz3]

the EXCEPTION is very clear Erolz3:


These are the 2 conditions of the Namibia Exception.
a)The acceptance of those documents MUST NOT HAVE ANY LEGAL CONSEQUENCES TO THE ONE THAT ACCEPTS THEM
b)The act of rejection of those documents should affect negatively ONLY the individual concerned.(NOT ANY OTHERS)

Do we agree on the above 2 conditions or do we not?
If yes then we learned something. If not then we might need to start posting quotes or links that directly explain the Namibia exception.And then see who is right

Er actualy could you point me to a refferance document where these things are ? Not being funny but I havent seen it written 'must not have legal consequences to the one that accepts them' anywhere. Clearly you have , so if you point me at the source I'll read it.

[erolz3]

It doesn't explain how the Namibia exception should apply in acts of every day aministration etc etc.

I have no idea what would or would not be considered an 'act of everyday adminstration' but it is clear that whatever they are they would be covered under the namibia exception, in these judges opinion.

The one thing from the list I think is interesting is 'private rights' actually. I take this to be the rights of indivduals as laid our in ECHR, but am not sure that is what it means ?

Anyway are we agreed that the namibia exception is not something that applies to the one case alone where it was established, but is a general aknoweldge part of international law that governs how states handel 'acts' of non recongines states including the "TRNC" ?

I already gave you the 2 conditions the should prevail for the Namibia exception to have effect. Do we agree or do we not?

see above

[Pyrpolizer]

the EXCEPTION is very clear Erolz3:


These are the 2 conditions of the Namibia Exception.
a)The acceptance of those documents MUST NOT HAVE ANY LEGAL CONSEQUENCES TO THE ONE THAT ACCEPTS THEM
b)The act of rejection of those documents should affect negatively ONLY the individual concerned.(NOT ANY OTHERS)

Do we agree on the above 2 conditions or do we not?
If yes then we learned something. If not then we might need to start posting quotes or links that directly explain the Namibia exception.And then see who is right

Er actualy could you point me to a refferance document where these things are ? Not being funny but I havent seen it written 'must not have legal consequences to the one that accepts them' anywhere. Clearly you have , so if you point me at the source I'll read it.

They are both derived from your summary as well as from the complete ruling link that you posted. Common sense actually, I haven't seen them written anywhere.

Here is the extract from the complete ruling

76. The Namibia case was an Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, dated 21 June 1971, on the Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970). The court held that the restraints implicit in the non-recognition of South Africa’s presence in Namibia and the explicit provisions of the relevant Security Council resolution imposed on states the obligation to abstain from entering into economic and other forms of relationship or dealings with South Africa on behalf of or concerning Namibia which might entrench its authority over the territory. But it then expressed an exception in these terms (at para 125):
“In general, the non-recognition of South Africa’s administration of the Territory should not result in depriving the people of Namibia of any advantages derived from international co-operation. In particular, while official acts performed by the Government of South Africa on behalf of or concerning Namibia after the termination of the Mandate are illegal and invalid, 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.”

[Pyrpolizer]

Erolz3, here's a full legal explanation of the Namibia Exception published in RoC's web site.

You may need to copy paste the full link to your browser again.

http://www.law.gov.cy/Law/lawoffice.nsf ... medies.doc

[erolz3]

Here is the extract from the complete ruling

Thanks

I am still struggling to see how you go from that to your 'condtition 1' ?

As for your condition 2 I can see where you derive that from. However I read the bit "the effects (of not recognising an act) of which can be ignored only to the detriment of the inhabitants of the Territory" as meaning if the effects (of not recognising an act) were ignored in a specific instance it could only lead to the detriment of the inhabitants of the terrirotry.

You seem to read as saying, if the effect of not recognising an act is to the detriment of the inhabitants of the terrirtory, but it also AFFECTS (has an impact on) any other person, positively or negatviely, then the exception does not apply.

I am not trying to be difficult here for the sake of it, or because I think one reading is better for TC than the other, I genuinely do not think it is saying what I think you think it is saying. Sorry.

[erolz3]

Erolz3, here's a full legal explanation of the Namibia Exception published in RoC's web site.

You may need to copy paste the full link to your browser again.

http://www.law.gov.cy/Law/lawoffice.nsf ... medies.doc

Good document find, thanks for that. Struggled to get the link to work but found it via google and got there in the end.

What do you think reading it? I think it supports pretty much what I think I have been suggesting all along ?

Not every 'act' (including issuing certain documents) by the "TRNC" is automaticaly invalid in the eyes of iternational law, simply because the "TRNC" is non recongnised. Some 'acts' (documents) do have validity under international law DESPITE having been issued by "TRNC". The principal that determins what 'acts' do or do not fall under this exeption is, would ignoring the act of an unrecognised state unduly punish or penalise an indivdual just because they happen to live in such a territory. The reason why this is the case is that the intent of non recognition is not to punish indivduals who happen to live in such a territory, but to isolate and punish the non recongised state by not allowing its acts to have legal force under international law or to allow states to confer any legitmacy on it by recognising any such acts or do anything that might confer legitimacy.

Anyway I welcome and look forward to your thoughts.