Cyprus-Forum.com

[Lordo]

The Treaty of Guarantee is null and void. Turkey violates the treaty since 1974. The Treaty is about protecting the sovereignty of RoC and prohibits partition. Turkey does exactly the opposite. Turkey doesn't even recognize RoC so how could Turkey have a treaty with a country it does not recognize? Impossible.

Of course it is. There is 67% which needs protection.

[supporttheunderdog]

[quote="Sotos"]The Treaty of Guarantee is null and void. Turkey violates the treaty since 1974. The Treaty is about protecting the sovereignty of RoC and prohibits partition. Turkey does exactly the opposite. Turkey doesn't even recognize RoC so how could Turkey have a treaty with a country it does not recognize? Impossible.[/quote

Arguably Greece violated it first in July74 with the Greek lead Coup which Big Mak described as an invasion at the UN before the Turks invaded.

[Panicos UK]

The Treaty of Guarantee is null and void. Turkey violates the treaty since 1974. The Treaty is about protecting the sovereignty of RoC and prohibits partition. Turkey does exactly the opposite. Turkey doesn't even recognize RoC so how could Turkey have a treaty with a country it does not recognize? Impossible.[/quote

Arguably Greece violated it first in July74 with the Greek lead Coup which Big Mak described as an invasion at the UN before the Turks invaded.

Definitely!

[Sotos]

The Treaty of Guarantee is null and void. Turkey violates the treaty since 1974. The Treaty is about protecting the sovereignty of RoC and prohibits partition. Turkey does exactly the opposite. Turkey doesn't even recognize RoC so how could Turkey have a treaty with a country it does not recognize? Impossible.[/quote

Arguably Greece violated it first in July74 with the Greek lead Coup which Big Mak described as an invasion at the UN before the Turks invaded.

The coup was done by the Cyprus national guard and it wasn't in violation of the treaty. But fuck that treaty anyway... it was forced on Cyprus and we never wanted it.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Shutting the stable door once the horse has bolted are we?

Is the Treaty of Guarantee "still in effect" today, would you say "Panicos"?

What's with the speech marks? My respect for you is getting lower every time you post. In answer to your question, I don't know. I'm not an expert on international law. What would you say?

But you have an MA in Politics (?); surely your opinion would be more valid than mine.

- From your topic title, one could presume that you think that it no longer is "in effect".

[GreekIslandGirl]

The Treaty of Guarantee is null and void. Turkey violates the treaty since 1974. The Treaty is about protecting the sovereignty of RoC and prohibits partition. Turkey does exactly the opposite. Turkey doesn't even recognize RoC so how could Turkey have a treaty with a country it does not recognize? Impossible.

Arguably Greece violated it first in July74 with the Greek lead Coup which Big Mak described as an invasion at the UN before the Turks invaded.

Stud, Turkey first invaded in 1964, by bombing GC villages. It was warned off by the Soviet Union and through active involvement of the UN using Security Council Resolution 186 which reaffirmed the sovereignty and continuity of the Republic of Cyprus and its government.

[Panicos UK]

Shutting the stable door once the horse has bolted are we?

Is the Treaty of Guarantee "still in effect" today, would you say "Panicos"?

What's with the speech marks? My respect for you is getting lower every time you post. In answer to your question, I don't know. I'm not an expert on international law. What would you say?

But you have an MA in Politics (?); surely your opinion would be more valid than mine.

- From your topic title, one could presume that you think that it no longer is "in effect".

International Relations actually. I don't know GIG. I would have said that whatever the documents original aim (preventing ENOSIS and TAKSIM), history has shown us that the Treaty of Guarantee is open to manipulation (that's putting it mildly). It is also in violation of the EU aquis communitaire, so I would say on balance that today in 2012, the Treaty is NULL and VOID. However, if the Annan Plan had been approved the ToG would have been resurrected with extended intervention rights for Turkey. Thank God it wasn't approved. Whenever I hear a Greek Cypriot say 'the Greek Cypriots are stupid, they should have voted for the Annan Plan', I get annoyed and lose it for this reason. That plan belongs in the joke section. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

You could argue that regardless of whether or not the ToG had existed, Turkey would still have invaded. In this respect, the only party the Treaty benefits is Turkey. Also someone on here mentioned the Treaty of Lausanne (1923). In light of this Treaty, up until 1959, Turkey had no priviledges or interests as regards Cyprus whatsoever. The Treaty of Guarantee put Turkey back in the frame, so again in this respect, it only benefits Turkey. At present, the RoC is the last line of defence for the Greek Cypriots. We now are part of the EU, so we have added protection, and currently with an Israeli alliance and US firms on board for this gas extraction venture, I would say we are in the best position we have ever been. The only let down is our President who is incompetent, but hopefully he will be gone soon.

However, the thread title relates to the situation in 1974. Regardless of what we say or what was said at the time, Turkey still used the Treaty as a pretext to intervene (even though we know now that they weren't planning to restore constitutional order). Unfortunately in International politics, 'might is right'. The USA stopped an invasion in 1964 which means they could have stopped it in 1974.

Bottom Line: I would say the Treaty currently is NULL and VOID taking into account EU membership and other factors. In 1974 with the instability in the region, I would say the Treaty still had teeth. Also after the invasion, the UN Security Council passed a resolution condemning Turkey for failing to abide by the ToG. So in their view (after the invasion), the Treaty was still 'in effect' (notice how I've used quotation marks as opposed to " " speech marks)

[RichardB]

Was the Treaty of Guarantee in effect in 1974 ? .....Probably yes

I think a more pertinent question would be Was the Treaty of Guarantee effective ever? NO NO NO

[Panicos UK]

Was the Treaty of Guarantee in effect in 1974 ? .....Probably yes

I think a more pertinent question would be Was the Treaty of Guarantee effective ever? NO NO NO

It was effective for Turkey!

[GreekIslandGirl]

Shutting the stable door once the horse has bolted are we?

Is the Treaty of Guarantee "still in effect" today, would you say "Panicos"?

What's with the speech marks? My respect for you is getting lower every time you post. In answer to your question, I don't know. I'm not an expert on international law. What would you say?

But you have an MA in Politics (?); surely your opinion would be more valid than mine.

- From your topic title, one could presume that you think that it no longer is "in effect".

International Relations actually. I don't know GIG. I would have said that whatever the documents original aim (preventing ENOSIS and TAKSIM), history has shown us that the Treaty of Guarantee is open to manipulation (that's putting it mildly). It is also in violation of the EU aquis communitaire, so I would say on balance that today in 2012, the Treaty is NULL and VOID. However, if the Annan Plan had been approved the ToG would have been resurrected with extended intervention rights for Turkey. Thank God it wasn't approved. Whenever I hear a Greek Cypriot say 'the Greek Cypriots are stupid, they should have voted for the Annan Plan', I get annoyed and lose it for this reason. That plan belongs in the joke section. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

You could argue that regardless of whether or not the ToG had existed, Turkey would still have invaded. In this respect, the only party the Treaty benefits is Turkey. Also someone on here mentioned the Treaty of Lausanne (1923). In light of this Treaty, up until 1959, Turkey had no priviledges or interests as regards Cyprus whatsoever. The Treaty of Guarantee put Turkey back in the frame, so again in this respect, it only benefits Turkey. At present, the RoC is the last line of defence for the Greek Cypriots. We now are part of the EU, so we have added protection, and currently with an Israeli alliance and US firms on board for this gas extraction venture, I would say we are in the best position we have ever been. The only let down is our President who is incompetent, but hopefully he will be gone soon.

However, the thread title relates to the situation in 1974. Regardless of what we say or what was said at the time, Turkey still used the Treaty as a pretext to intervene (even though we know now that they weren't planning to restore constitutional order). Unfortunately in International politics, 'might is right'. The USA stopped an invasion in 1964 which means they could have stopped it in 1974.

Bottom Line: I would say the Treaty currently is NULL and VOID taking into account EU membership and other factors. In 1974 with the instability in the region, I would say the Treaty still had teeth. Also after the invasion, the UN Security Council passed a resolution condemning Turkey for failing to abide by the ToG. So in their view (after the invasion), the Treaty was still 'in effect' (notice how I've used quotation marks as opposed to " " speech marks)

A slight U-turn from Wednesday's comment:

..... during the ceasfire negotiations just before the second Turkish invasion (the first was legally and politically justifiable in my view) ....

BTW Quotation marks or inverted commas are the same as speech marks. They are used to indicate a quote, direct speech, a name, an alternative meaning for a word or to represent irony or add an emphasis.

Quotation marks are written as a pair of opening and closing marks in either of two styles: single (‘…’) or double (“…”).

Wiki