First off for those not following and reading the links an 'idiots guide' by someone eminently qualifed to give such, me
Namibia Doctrine of Non-Recognition - this basically says that states should not do anything that implies or could imply recongition of a unrecognised state.
Namibia exception - this is the exception that says in some circumstances there can be an exception to the Nambia doctrine. Basically "this invalidity (refusal to accept a document /law / process from a non recognised state because it implies recognition) 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."
I think that the above is what can be seen if one reads the links posted earlier, without too much confusion.
Now check this out.
http://www.20essexst.com/news/r-kibris- ... nsport-and
The first thing this puts to rest, as far this judgment goes, is does the 'Namibia exception' apply in the case of the TRNC, or is it invalidated by the reasons that the TRNC is deem an unrecongised state by UN 541. The judgment above clearly is of the opinion that the 'Namibia exception' does apply in the case of the TRNC. What is more this judgment made last year, actualy defines the scope of the namibia exception !
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
Really feels like I might have moved forward a bit with my own personal understanding here, if not anyone elses.
The 'namibia exception' applies in regards to the TRNC according to this ruling BUT only so far as 'private rights, acts of everyday occurrence, routine acts of administration, day to day activities having legal consequences, or matters of that kind'
OK not the most comprehensive or plain to a layman description of the scope of the namibia exception as far as it applies to the TRNC, but better than anything else I have found to date and also most current as well. I am still not sure what any of the things lisited in the scope other than private rights actualy mean, though they may cover many of the examples copperline gave, like car details and medical records and things like bith death and marriage certificates.
I take 'private rights' to include my right to property (that I legaly own without dispute) including the right to sell it even though if it is in the north I have to do so under the TRNC adminstration using TRNC deeds. Such a sale and the deeds resulting from it would I think be recognised under international law (and regardless of if the RoC recognises them or not) and I now think this with a much greater degree of certainty than I did 24 hours ago.
As to moving on from that 'simplest' of cases to less clear cut ones, like would the volunatary transfer of a TC legaly owned property in the south to the TRNC itself, conducted under TRNC laws and recorded in TRNC deeds be deemed as legaly valid under international law using the the 'namibia exception'. On this one I am not sure at all again. My gut instinct is probably not. Though I have the right to exercise a private right to sell or transfer my legaly owned property in the south, I do not think that includes the right to transfer it to the TRNC itself. I think that it is possible that until the RoC removes its 'pollocks 6 months rule' that is clearly in breech of basic human rights on rights to property as shown in the UN document Bill posted in the other thread, I might be able to register such a sale in the TRNC, if the TRNC would itself allow it, if it was not to an non recognised entity like the TRNC but to another private indivdual or legal company or such. Once the 'pollocks 6 month rule' is removed in RoC then I just sell it there under RoC laws and recorded in RoC registry, no need to do anything in TRNC or use namibia exception.
Now what if the IPC decides that it wants to settle a GC claim by offering property in the south that was legaly owned by TC pre 74. Well it can not I strongly suspect, at least not directly. However it might be able to trace the original TC owner and convince them to voluntarily transfer it directly as one private citizens exercising their private rights using the namibia exception to another private indivdual, the GC claimant at the IPC. As to what the TRNC / Turkey / IPC could offer that TC as incentive to do this, that was legally binding under international law and acceptable to them, I am not sure. Certainly not pre74 GC land in the north. Maybe pre 74 GC land in the north that has already been subject to a settlement claim via the IPC ?
Anway my final thoughts for now are on slighlty different, though related topic. Why the fook do I seem to be doing all this 'work' here trying to understand all this stuff anyway ? Why is there not some mechanism whereby these things can be determined by bodies like the ECHR without and before the need for indivdual cases being brought to force determinations on them ? Now I am no expert and I might be wrong but I strongly suspect that the reason is tied to how much more money is made by laywers by saying the only way to work out what is and is not allowed is to test it in a case first and maybe in a series of such cases before we (ECHR) finally decide. Surely a better way, for everyone except for laywers as far as they can make money, would be to be able to goto the ECHR and say would senrio X be deemed legal by you before and without having to go through a costly test case to get an answer as to what the fook is legal and what the fook is not according to you ?
