Cyprus-Forum.com

[CopperLine]

The UN SC does not make international law it makes political claims and declarations including Resolutions. That is why, for example, in 541 and elsewhere it says "calls upon", "requests that" "considers that" and so on.

It also says that the attempt to create a "trnc" is legally invalid. It doesn't say "politically invalid". It says legally invalid.

The UNSC can use whatever adverb it wants - legally, politically, culturally, economically, whatever - it is still a political body and not a judicial one, by virtue of its UN Charter functions. Just by saying "legal" or "legally" does not make what we say a matter of law ! The UNSC is expressing in that phrase, its view that the declaration attempting to create the TRNC was legally invalid. That is a political opinion, not a legal opinion. In either case it is nothing to do with recognition.

[Sotos]

It also says that the attempt to create a "trnc" is legally invalid. It doesn't say "politically invalid". It says legally invalid.

I still dont see how that means without any possible doubt that because the state itself is legaly invalid, that any documents it produces are also so. I can see how you might want to believe it.

There is no doubt that others states that are legaly invalid as states in the eyes of the international community do produce documents that are not considered such in certain circumstances.

As too if there are similar with similar or same wording as 541, that will take time to research.

I doubt that there is another attempt to create a state that was declared legally invalid by the UN. If there is I want to know about it!

[Sotos]

The UN SC does not make international law it makes political claims and declarations including Resolutions. That is why, for example, in 541 and elsewhere it says "calls upon", "requests that" "considers that" and so on.

It also says that the attempt to create a "trnc" is legally invalid. It doesn't say "politically invalid". It says legally invalid.

The UNSC can use whatever adverb it wants - legally, politically, culturally, economically, whatever - it is still a political body and not a judicial one, by virtue of its UN Charter functions. Just by saying "legal" or "legally" does not make what we say a matter of law ! The UNSC is expressing in that phrase, its view that the declaration attempting to create the TRNC was legally invalid. That is a political opinion, not a legal opinion. In either case it is nothing to do with recognition.

They could use all the adverbs and it would still be right. legally, politically, culturally etc, the attempt to create a "trnc" is invalid because those who declared this "state" are not the people of the territory but foreign invaders who have no right to declare that our land is anything we don't want it to be.

[erolz3]

The whole world is convinced since no country recognizes the "trnc". To me it is also clear. If you can not be convinced, don't. But then don't complain that you can not convince us in some other less obvious things when you don't allow yourself to be convinced for something which is so obvious.

Try this link

http://www.esil-sedi.eu/fichiers/en/Ago ... no_060.pdf

Ill quote a small section but try reading the whole thing

The Court also introduced an element of flexibility in the doctrine of
non-recognition, by stating that ‘the non-recognition of South Africa’s administration of the Territory should not result in the 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 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.’5 We shall call this qualification made by the Court as the ‘Namibia exception'

Please also note the document explicitly talks about the TRNC and makes no mention of it being different from other non recognised states cited because of the wording of the UN document 541 TRNC is specifically mentioned.

Anyway believe what you like, or what makes you feel best. I will continue to try and understand the reality and not just what I want to beleive. Night night

[CopperLine]

So how can something which is legally invalid itself issue anything which is legally valid? It can not.

Do you really believe 'it can not' based on an honest review of what has been posted, or simply because it is what you want to believe ?

Because that is how it is. Try presenting any kind of paper issued by the "trnc" in a Republic of Cyprus court and lets see if it will be admissible.

Try presenting a any kind of paper [sic] issued by Russia in a Republic of France court and let's see if it will be admissible [sic]. Answer : No. Why Sotos ?

Are you saying in France they will not accept Rubles in their banks?

Are you saying that banks in the RoC don't accept Turkish Lira ? Funny that, 'cos tens, if not hundreds, of millions of Turkish Lira pass through RoC banks every day.

Turkish liras are issued by Turkey which is a real state and not by the pseudo state.

Exactly. TRNC doesn't issue its own currency ? (Neither does RoC now, along with 16 other European states) So what ? What's your point ?

My point is that nothing issued by some "trnc" would be accepted by RoC as an official document. A paper from a "trnc" counts as much as a paper that I print myself. It doesn't have the value of an official state document.

Putting the paper money aside (because it is just too complicated to work through at this time of night) there are numerous examples of "state papers" or public papers that are "issued" in TRNC which are accepted in RoC. If someone goes with a medical report from a public hospital in the north to a public or private hospital in the RoC then they're not chucked in the bin as "unrecognised". When someone drives a car from north to south with a TRNC numberplate and vehicle ownership certificate the RoC border agency and traffic police accept those as legitimate documents of ownership/identification. When stuff goes south under EU Green Line Regulations, despite lots of continuing problems, it is clear that the RoC is dealing with legal documents issued in the TRNC.

In 2004 there was very little of this acceptance of TRNC 'state documents', today there's quite a lot. The sky has not fallen in, the earth has not stopped spinning on its axis, and the four horsemen of the apocalypse have not galloped out on business. Let this continue, let there be dialogue, let there be exchanges, let there be restitution, let there be remembrance, let there be peace.

You are wrong. The RoC doesn't accept those documents as official state documents. It just allows certain things as a gesture of goodwill. But it seems that you want to exploit these gestures of goodwill to legitimize the pseudo state. I don't think you are helping dialog and peace in this way. You only make it harder for RoC to allow more such things and maybe you will even force RoC to end certain things if you continue trying to exploit this goodwill.

I genuinely don't understand what you mean when you say "the RoC doesn't accept those documents as official state documents." When I'm stopped by traffic police in the south in my northern registered car they do not say "sorry guv, these are not genuine official state documents and we're only letting you drive today 'cos we're feeling generous. if you come here tomorrow with these unerocgnised state documents were gonna nick you and crush your unrecognised car". The doctor at the hospital doesn't say "sorry mate but your angiogram with that fake TRNC stamp indicates you've had a heart attack but as we all know TRNc angiograms are unrecognised so bugger off a die somewhere else." Who cares whether they're read as "official state documents" !!! The driver, the traffic cop, the doctor and the patient just want to know whether the data is valid or reliable. As ordinary human beings and not as some obsessed fundamentalist we just want to get on with our lives, whether we live in the north or the south.

[denizaksulu]

There is no such thing as "trnc", that is why when this term is used it is used in quotes. The UN resolution 541 is very clear when it says that the attempt to create a "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", is invalid. Please note how the UN resolution uses the quotes to describe what they Turks attempted to create but which was never really created since this attempt was legally invalid. So how can something which is legally invalid itself issue anything which is legally valid? It can not.

Very perilous to under-estimate the power and universality of UN Res 541, which tells member states to do nothing to recognise tnucland, which puts the regime in a diff ball-park from the other examples raised.

Do you know any other attempts to create states that were declared legally invalid by the UN? CopperLine doesn't know. I mean "unrecognized state" is none thing. "Legally invalid attempt to create a state" is a whole another thing!

Res 541 is soooooooo important mate.

Bill Cobbett, we also know that the UN Security Council is not a judicial body it is a political body. The UN SC does not make international law it makes political claims and declarations including Resolutions. That is why, for example, in 541 and elsewhere it says "calls upon", "requests that" "considers that" and so on.

The UNSC is consistently clear that it doesn't want states to recognise the TRNC; of that there is no doubt. But that does not make recognition of TRNC by a state illegal. In fact 541 gives the reason why the UNSC does not want states to recognise the TRNC because it "will contribute to a worsening of the situation in Cyprus". THE UNSC does not say that recognising TRNC is illegal because that is something that the UNSC is not authorised to determine since it is a not a judicial body. (People often confuse the point about invalidity of the TRNC with illegality of recognition, thinking that they're the same thing; they're not. The "invalidity" refers to the effort to create the TRNC, not to recognition (again about which the UNSC is able only to go as far as "call[ing] upon States not to recognise ...."). This is what is important about the Kosovo case before the ICJ : it was not about recognition of Kosovo but about the right and procedure by which Kosovo declared its independence. In short, a judicial body, the ICJ found that Kosovan independence had been declared in valid manner whereas the UNSC, a political body, insists that TRNC was declared in an invalid manner; but in neither case does either body prohibit recognition nor specify what form recognition must take.

Wow. Nothing is ever in 'black and white'.

[erolz3]

They could use all the adverbs and it would still be right. legally, politically, culturally etc, the attempt to create a "trnc" is invalid because those who declared this "state" are not the people of the territory but foreign invaders who have no right to declare that our land is anything we don't want it to be.

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 "

[bill cobbett]

There is no such thing as "trnc", that is why when this term is used it is used in quotes. The UN resolution 541 is very clear when it says that the attempt to create a "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", is invalid. Please note how the UN resolution uses the quotes to describe what they Turks attempted to create but which was never really created since this attempt was legally invalid. So how can something which is legally invalid itself issue anything which is legally valid? It can not.

Very perilous to under-estimate the power and universality of UN Res 541, which tells member states to do nothing to recognise tnucland, which puts the regime in a diff ball-park from the other examples raised.

Do you know any other attempts to create states that were declared legally invalid by the UN? CopperLine doesn't know. I mean "unrecognized state" is none thing. "Legally invalid attempt to create a state" is a whole another thing!

Res 541 is soooooooo important mate.

Bill Cobbett, we also know that the UN Security Council is not a judicial body it is a political body. The UN SC does not make international law it makes political claims and declarations including Resolutions. That is why, for example, in 541 and elsewhere it says "calls upon", "requests that" "considers that" and so on.

The UNSC is consistently clear that it doesn't want states to recognise the TRNC; of that there is no doubt. But that does not make recognition of TRNC by a state illegal. In fact 541 gives the reason why the UNSC does not want states to recognise the TRNC because it "will contribute to a worsening of the situation in Cyprus". THE UNSC does not say that recognising TRNC is illegal because that is something that the UNSC is not authorised to determine since it is a not a judicial body. (People often confuse the point about invalidity of the TRNC with illegality of recognition, thinking that they're the same thing; they're not. The "invalidity" refers to the effort to create the TRNC, not to recognition (again about which the UNSC is able only to go as far as "call[ing] upon States not to recognise ...."). This is what is important about the Kosovo case before the ICJ : it was not about recognition of Kosovo but about the right and procedure by which Kosovo declared its independence. In short, a judicial body, the ICJ found that Kosovan independence had been declared in valid manner whereas the UNSC, a political body, insists that TRNC was declared in an invalid manner; but in neither case does either body prohibit recognition nor specify what form recognition must take.

REH CL... to make life easier preference is to think of two things...

Firstly that the UNSC represents an international will on some matters, Res 541 being an example, which yes of course isn't law, it isn't drafted as a law, but ...

...secondly is taken in to consideration, alongside national laws, when it is seen as a National Public Policy, in the courts of individual member states (or in places such as the ECJ)

Kappish????

[erolz3]

Wow. Nothing is ever in 'black and white'.

Indeed even more so in terms of 'international law', even esteemed judges at the highest levels of international law can and do frequently disagree about what is legal and what is not and why in situations like these. Just read the link I posted above that referances the 'Namibia exception' to see the reality of this.

Yet when I present possibilites of what might be the case, hedged around by disclaimers about it may be the case or not, I am 'castigated' for not talking in absoulte certainties, whilst those around me talk in such absolute terms, admitting no possible oter interpretations, when clearly even the most distingusihed judges at the highest level of their profession who have studied and mused these issue for long hours and days can not do such in a way they unaminoulsy agree. Kind of amusing in its own way.

[erolz3]

Bill if you really want to investigate this issue of can documents issued by an unrecognised state, including those created in similar ways to the TRNC, ever be deemed as legaly valid under international law, then look a the link above, or just do your own searching for the 'Namibia exception'.

Like I say is this solid undisputable black and white proof that they can be recognised as legal under international law whilst the state is not ? No it is not, but it is grounds to suspect that it may be possible, I suggest.