Cyprus-Forum.com

[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

It was effective for Turkey!

Yes ..but the treaty was to Guarantee the independence of the ROC as per the Zurich agreement, not to effect the occupation of a third of an independent state. so therefore it was not effective (the treaty of Guarantee) was it?

[Jerry]

I don't believe that the ToG was ever legal in the first place since it diminished the sovereignty of the ROC by permitting outsides powers to interfere militarily in the island's affairs. It is certainly not in accord with the principles of the UN Charter: -

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CTC/uncharter.pdf

[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)

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

No such thing as a slight u-turn. In any case you are mistaken. I still stand by my initial comment. Let me break it down for you. The first Turkish invasion was legally (Turkey preventing ENOSIS as per Treaty of Guarantee obligations) and politically justifiable (not justified, not condoned, JUSTIFIABLE). Justifiable by Turkey - IF, and only IF they had restored constitutional order and withdrawn (as per Treaty obligations).

[humanist]

No such thing as a slight u-turn. In any case you are mistaken. I still stand by my initial comment. Let me break it down for you. The first Turkish invasion was legally (Turkey preventing ENOSIS as per Treaty of Guarantee obligations) and politically justifiable (not justified, not condoned, JUSTIFIABLE). Justifiable by Turkey - IF, and only IF they had restored constitutional order and withdrawn (as per Treaty obligations).

given that I got the arse end of the converastion .... here's my tow bits worth

Turkey has not fullfiled its obligations as a guarantor, has and continues to use its powers illegally violating the human rights of Greek speaking Cypriots and as recent articles and information form the occupied area the rights of Turkish speaking Cypriots are also violated

[Panicos UK]

No such thing as a slight u-turn. In any case you are mistaken. I still stand by my initial comment. Let me break it down for you. The first Turkish invasion was legally (Turkey preventing ENOSIS as per Treaty of Guarantee obligations) and politically justifiable (not justified, not condoned, JUSTIFIABLE). Justifiable by Turkey - IF, and only IF they had restored constitutional order and withdrawn (as per Treaty obligations).

given that I got the arse end of the converastion .... here's my tow bits worth

Turkey has not fullfiled its obligations as a guarantor, has and continues to use its powers illegally violating the human rights of Greek speaking Cypriots and as recent articles and information form the occupied area the rights of Turkish speaking Cypriots are also violated

Hey humanist. Of course history has shown what Turkey was really up to. My initial point however, was theoretical i.e. if Turkey had pressed the Turkish Cypriots to return to constitutional government at the Geneva talks in July/August 1974 and then withdrawn, their intervention (it wouldn't have been an invasion) would have been legally and politically justified. The ends would justified the means. That's what I was trying to say.

[kurupetos]

No such thing as a slight u-turn. In any case you are mistaken. I still stand by my initial comment. Let me break it down for you. The first Turkish invasion was legally (Turkey preventing ENOSIS as per Treaty of Guarantee obligations) and politically justifiable (not justified, not condoned, JUSTIFIABLE). Justifiable by Turkey - IF, and only IF they had restored constitutional order and withdrawn (as per Treaty obligations).

given that I got the arse end of the converastion .... here's my tow bits worth

Turkey has not fullfiled its obligations as a guarantor, has and continues to use its powers illegally violating the human rights of Greek speaking Cypriots and as recent articles and information form the occupied area the rights of Turkish speaking Cypriots are also violated

Hey humanist. Of course history has shown what Turkey was really up to. My initial point however, was theoretical i.e. if Turkey had pressed the Turkish Cypriots to return to constitutional government at the Geneva talks in July/August 1974 and then withdrawn, their intervention (it wouldn't have been an invasion) would have been legally and politically justified. The ends would justified the means. That's what I was trying to say.

If your grandma had testicles, what would she be?

[humanist]

Yes that is correct.

[repulsewarrior]

...indeed, Turkey had a choice, enter the Modern Age as a good Citizen, or plunder because they are successful at it.

[Bananiot]

But, we resisted, we put up a fight in 1974. We should have welcome the Turkish army as our saviour, with roses. Instead, unable to cope with the army of the Turks we turned against unarmed villagers at Aloa, Sandalaris and elsewhere, killing kids and old folk. I wish life was just as simple as some make it out to be.

[kimon07]

There has been some fierce debate on this issue. I always thought that it was, however some on this forum disagree. I'm interested to see what others think. All the best, Panicos

In simple terms, treaties are valid and binding only for as long as the parties which have signed them respect them and abide by their terms.

Usually, treaties (even private agreements) become null and void if one or more of the parties involved either denounce them or violate them intentionally, the violation is not instantaneous but continuous and the party having violated denies to correct (lift) the results of the violation. Usually, most treaties provide that in the event of such violations by one party, the others will be entitled to denounce them immediately or to set a term for correction and warn that they will denounce the treaty and withdraw from it if correction does not take place. However, it is not necessary for the other parties to set a term and to denounce the treaty in order for it to become null and void, in the event that the overall conditions of the violation and the overall behavior of the violator, makes it clear that the violation is intentional and permanent.

In the event of Cyprus the treaty was violated instantaneously by Greece because Greek Military aided the National Guard to stage the 1974 coup. However, this violation was lifted soon as the junta collapsed both in Greece and in Cyprus and thus the “Greek intervention” was lifted.

Further, the treaty was violated intentionally and permanently by Turkey which invaded (with the consent of Britain and the USA) not in order to restore the “status quo ante” of the RoC but with the intention to stay and to partition and to ethnically cleanse the North of the island. The denial of Turkey to withdraw and to restore the results of the invasion annulled the treaty for good. Here we must add the numerous other intentional violations of the treaty by Turkey such as the ethnic cleansing, the issue of the properties, the issue of the settlers, the killings of civilians and mainly THE NON RECOGNITION of the entity which Turkey supposedly came to “save”, i.e., the RoC. This latter behavior of Turkey is a clear indication that Turkey is not only insisting on the results of the violation but it has also, practically, DENOUNCED the treaty by declaring repeatedly that it does not recognize the RoC, which the treaty was supposed to be protecting. So, under the light of this latter point one can say that Turkey invaded in order NOT TO ENFORCE the treaty (which would mean protection of the RoC) but in order TO VIOLATE it, by demolishing the RoC.

The treaty was also violated and is still being intentionally and permanently violated by Britain which supported the Turkish invasion in 1974 although they knew that the Turks intended to stay and to partition the island. Additionally, Britain, keeps violating the treaty continuously since 1974 by supporting and promoting wholeheartedly the partition and ethnic cleansing practices and aims of the Turks on the island and even by supporting and promoting “solutions” (such as the Annan Plan) which will legitimize the partition, the illegal occupation and the ethnic cleansing results of the invasion (violation).

Conclusion:

Yes, according to my opinion, the treaty was valid till the day of the invasion. But it has been dead and buried ever since because Turkey and Britain, in practice, expressed their intention to permanently violate it and to not abide by its terms which is equal to withdrawal from it.