insan wrote:
Here are those 13 points... Let's discuss them to find out how the issue could be solved democratically and peacefuly.
We could do that but is there any point? I mean it's a bit late for that is it not?
Self determination
20 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
by erolz » Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:04 pm
We could do that but is there any point? I mean it's a bit late for that is it not?
- erolz
- Regular Contributor
- Posts: 2414
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: Girne / Kyrenia
by insan » Wed Aug 25, 2004 8:01 pm
We could do that but is there any point? I mean it's a bit late for that is it not?
Yes.. it's too late... Anyhow TC leadership had offered their counter proposals to ammend the RoCs constitution to make it more functional and fair but Greek Junta's and EOKA-Bs neverending Enosis aspirations killed the hopes of finding a lasting solution. In 1967-74 period TMT didn't act illegally and even most of the TCs who had been forced to abandon their villages and homes had turned back where they were living...
But if someday vast majority of Cypriots wish to form a mixed unitary state, the intercommunal talks must be resumed from the point they reached in 1971.
-
insan - Main Contributor
- Posts: 9044
- Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:33 pm
- Location: Somewhere in ur network. ;]
by MicAtCyp » Wed Aug 25, 2004 8:38 pm
Erol wrote: Who knows what would have happened if GC had been willing to accept a TC right to self determination without total and strict geographical seperations of the peoples. Maybe the desire for increasing seperation on the part of TC would not have been as strong or considered as necessary if they had?
As I already mentioned in other posts the only obstacle in enabling the TCs to be called "a people" with self determination rights was in my opinion the fact that they were not concentrated neither had ownership of a specific geographical area. Makarios seeing this problem plus the other problems that the 1960 constitution had, proposed the formation of a "multi-regional Federation"!! In case you did not know it, I think it would be useful to let you know. Perhaps Insan who is so good at investigating the events prior to 74 can provide you some links.
-
MicAtCyp - Regular Contributor
- Posts: 1579
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:10 am
by MicAtCyp » Wed Aug 25, 2004 8:39 pm
Thanks Erol for the link concerning Robert McCorquodale analysis.Although I got dizzy reading all those 26 pages : -) I would say it worths it and sugest the rest of the members of this forum to read it.
Erol could you please provide me the link for the John Reddaway territorial approach as I would like to read all of it?
Also you spoke of another approach the "peoples approach, is that the McCorquodale analysis or is it something else?
A few comments on McCorquodale analysis.(I had to copy paste this name as it always comes "crocodile" to me ha,ha,ha.Anyway just a joke I fully respected this professor and his writings)
All his analysis is based on a human rights approach.(Very interesting for all of us in this forum and I would say quite easy to understand). From this approach it is clear that if the interests of a group of people are hurt by another group then their human rights give them the right of self determination. There is this IF though which is one way not a two way.That is to say this right is conditional. This self determination right can be internal within a state (e.g. autonomy) or external as he explains. However he does portray the limitations of this right -again based on a human right approach i.e whether the procedure will hurt the human rights of other groups.
This analysis is of course academic, but if we are to abide to it, then neither the GCs nor the TCs ever had a separate external self determination right -because that would hurt the interests of the other community. They both though had a joined external self determination right as one people. Human rights gave the right to any of the 2 communities to claim intenal self determination rights (within the state) IN CASE there was violations of their human rights and their interests that could not be protrected by the State in any other way.That was obviously the situation in the 60s.
Again I insist this analysis of McCorquodale does not give self determination rights automatically. The precondition is that there is subjugation, domination and exploitation of the human rights of the group that in no other way could be stoped by the State (in this case the self determination becomes internal) or by a foreign state e.g Colonial power (in this case external)
I am not saying this Academic is right or wrong, I am saying his views are worth reading and considering, and everybody draw his own conclussions.
***************************************************************
Here are some extracts for those who might not be interested to read all of it.Please notice these are extracts i.e one paragraph does not necessarily relate to the next
**********************************************************************
The purpose of the protection of this right is to enable these communities as communities to prosper and transmit their culture as well as to participate fully in the political, economic and social process, this allowing the distinct character of a community ``to have this character reflected in the institutions of government under which it lives''
Thus there is sufficient evidence to conclude that today the right of self-determination applies to all peoples subject to oppression by subjugation, domination and exploitation by others.
The ``internal'' aspect of the right concerns the right of peoples within a State to choose their political status, the extent of their political participation and the form of their government, i.e. a State's ``internal'' relations are affected. The potential for the wide application of internal self-determination was stated in the Declaration on Principles of International Law, as it is provided that only ``a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour'' can be considered to be complying with the right of self-determination. The exercise of this right can take a variety of forms, from autonomy over most policies and laws in a region or part of a State, such as the canton system in Switzerland and, perhaps, Greenland's relationship with Denmark ; to a people having exclusive control over only certain aspects of policy ; such as education, social and/or cultural matters
By this approach, methods of redrawing the boundaries of a State are considered and the right to self-determination applied only where a territory can be divided.
Neither the ``peoples'' nor the ``territorial'' approach provides clear legal rules about the content of, and obligations contained in, the present right of self-determination. What is required is a legal framework which has the necessary sensibility to developments in international law and which can provide the ``very delicate balancing of interests''
In the light of the competing interests and developing applications of the right of self-determination, the framework of international human rights law seems to be an appropriate structure in which to consider the right. The human rights approach to the right of self-determination uses this framework.
Despite these factors, both the purpose of the right of self-determination and its integration with the protection of individual rights allow the right to be considered within this human rights framework. The purpose of the right is to protect communities or groups from oppression and so to empower them. Similarly, the international human rights law framework seeks to protect individuals from oppression and, in so doing, it also protects the communities or groups of which the individual forms a part
The right is considered an essential condition in the protection of individual rights because if peoples are being subjected to oppression they are not in a position to have any of their individual rights fully protected.
t is in the general interest of all societies to create a social and legal system which is relatively stable, so that those within the society are able to conduct their affairs with some degree of assuranceThe State is the body given the obligation under international law to represent the interests of the society of all inhabitants within its boundaries
However, the right of self-determination is not an absolute right without any limitations. Its purpose is not directly to protect the personal or physical integrity of individuals or groups as it is the purpose of the absolute rights and, unlike the absolute rights, the exercise of this right can involve major structural and institutional changes to a State and must affect, often significantly, most groups and individuals in that State and beyond that State
Thus, instead of secession being the only option, peoples would be able to exercise their right of self-determination by such methods as the creation of a federation ; guarantees of political power to defend or promote group interests ;103 the giving of special assurances (as with minority rights) ; providing for a specific recognised status to a group ; or by ``consociational democracy''
The Declaration of Principles of International Law provides that the right of self-determination shall not ``be construed as authorising or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States''
it could now be the case that any government which is oppressive to peoples within its territory may no longer be able to rely on the general interest of territorial integrity as a limitation on the right of self-determination,
The right of self-determination applies to all situations where peoples are subject to oppression by subjugation, domination and exploitation by others. It is applicable to all territories, colonial or not, and to all peoples. The legal approaches to the right of self-determination which have been used so far have focused on the ``peoples'' and on the ``territory'' involved. These have been shown to be too rigid to be able to be used in the present variety of applications and exercises of the right, especially to international self-determination.
The human rights approach to the right of self-determination recognises that the right is a human right but is not an absolute human right. This approach relies on the general legal rules developed within the international human rights law framework to enable the limitations on the right to be discerned and elaborated
While the human rights approach does not make it possible to say in the abstract which peoples have the right of self-determination and the extent of any exercise of this right, it does provide a framework to enable energy situation to be considered and all the relevant rights and interests to be take into account, balanced and analysed
This support should enable peaceful resolution of most disputes involving the right of self-determination
Erol could you please provide me the link for the John Reddaway territorial approach as I would like to read all of it?
Also you spoke of another approach the "peoples approach, is that the McCorquodale analysis or is it something else?
A few comments on McCorquodale analysis.(I had to copy paste this name as it always comes "crocodile" to me ha,ha,ha.Anyway just a joke I fully respected this professor and his writings)
All his analysis is based on a human rights approach.(Very interesting for all of us in this forum and I would say quite easy to understand). From this approach it is clear that if the interests of a group of people are hurt by another group then their human rights give them the right of self determination. There is this IF though which is one way not a two way.That is to say this right is conditional. This self determination right can be internal within a state (e.g. autonomy) or external as he explains. However he does portray the limitations of this right -again based on a human right approach i.e whether the procedure will hurt the human rights of other groups.
This analysis is of course academic, but if we are to abide to it, then neither the GCs nor the TCs ever had a separate external self determination right -because that would hurt the interests of the other community. They both though had a joined external self determination right as one people. Human rights gave the right to any of the 2 communities to claim intenal self determination rights (within the state) IN CASE there was violations of their human rights and their interests that could not be protrected by the State in any other way.That was obviously the situation in the 60s.
Again I insist this analysis of McCorquodale does not give self determination rights automatically. The precondition is that there is subjugation, domination and exploitation of the human rights of the group that in no other way could be stoped by the State (in this case the self determination becomes internal) or by a foreign state e.g Colonial power (in this case external)
I am not saying this Academic is right or wrong, I am saying his views are worth reading and considering, and everybody draw his own conclussions.
***************************************************************
Here are some extracts for those who might not be interested to read all of it.Please notice these are extracts i.e one paragraph does not necessarily relate to the next
**********************************************************************
The purpose of the protection of this right is to enable these communities as communities to prosper and transmit their culture as well as to participate fully in the political, economic and social process, this allowing the distinct character of a community ``to have this character reflected in the institutions of government under which it lives''
Thus there is sufficient evidence to conclude that today the right of self-determination applies to all peoples subject to oppression by subjugation, domination and exploitation by others.
The ``internal'' aspect of the right concerns the right of peoples within a State to choose their political status, the extent of their political participation and the form of their government, i.e. a State's ``internal'' relations are affected. The potential for the wide application of internal self-determination was stated in the Declaration on Principles of International Law, as it is provided that only ``a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour'' can be considered to be complying with the right of self-determination. The exercise of this right can take a variety of forms, from autonomy over most policies and laws in a region or part of a State, such as the canton system in Switzerland and, perhaps, Greenland's relationship with Denmark ; to a people having exclusive control over only certain aspects of policy ; such as education, social and/or cultural matters
By this approach, methods of redrawing the boundaries of a State are considered and the right to self-determination applied only where a territory can be divided.
Neither the ``peoples'' nor the ``territorial'' approach provides clear legal rules about the content of, and obligations contained in, the present right of self-determination. What is required is a legal framework which has the necessary sensibility to developments in international law and which can provide the ``very delicate balancing of interests''
In the light of the competing interests and developing applications of the right of self-determination, the framework of international human rights law seems to be an appropriate structure in which to consider the right. The human rights approach to the right of self-determination uses this framework.
Despite these factors, both the purpose of the right of self-determination and its integration with the protection of individual rights allow the right to be considered within this human rights framework. The purpose of the right is to protect communities or groups from oppression and so to empower them. Similarly, the international human rights law framework seeks to protect individuals from oppression and, in so doing, it also protects the communities or groups of which the individual forms a part
The right is considered an essential condition in the protection of individual rights because if peoples are being subjected to oppression they are not in a position to have any of their individual rights fully protected.
t is in the general interest of all societies to create a social and legal system which is relatively stable, so that those within the society are able to conduct their affairs with some degree of assuranceThe State is the body given the obligation under international law to represent the interests of the society of all inhabitants within its boundaries
However, the right of self-determination is not an absolute right without any limitations. Its purpose is not directly to protect the personal or physical integrity of individuals or groups as it is the purpose of the absolute rights and, unlike the absolute rights, the exercise of this right can involve major structural and institutional changes to a State and must affect, often significantly, most groups and individuals in that State and beyond that State
Thus, instead of secession being the only option, peoples would be able to exercise their right of self-determination by such methods as the creation of a federation ; guarantees of political power to defend or promote group interests ;103 the giving of special assurances (as with minority rights) ; providing for a specific recognised status to a group ; or by ``consociational democracy''
The Declaration of Principles of International Law provides that the right of self-determination shall not ``be construed as authorising or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States''
it could now be the case that any government which is oppressive to peoples within its territory may no longer be able to rely on the general interest of territorial integrity as a limitation on the right of self-determination,
The right of self-determination applies to all situations where peoples are subject to oppression by subjugation, domination and exploitation by others. It is applicable to all territories, colonial or not, and to all peoples. The legal approaches to the right of self-determination which have been used so far have focused on the ``peoples'' and on the ``territory'' involved. These have been shown to be too rigid to be able to be used in the present variety of applications and exercises of the right, especially to international self-determination.
The human rights approach to the right of self-determination recognises that the right is a human right but is not an absolute human right. This approach relies on the general legal rules developed within the international human rights law framework to enable the limitations on the right to be discerned and elaborated
While the human rights approach does not make it possible to say in the abstract which peoples have the right of self-determination and the extent of any exercise of this right, it does provide a framework to enable energy situation to be considered and all the relevant rights and interests to be take into account, balanced and analysed
This support should enable peaceful resolution of most disputes involving the right of self-determination
-
MicAtCyp - Regular Contributor
- Posts: 1579
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:10 am
by erolz » Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:28 pm
MicAtCyp wrote: Thanks Erol for the link concerning Robert McCorquodale analysis.Although I got dizzy reading all those 26 pages : -) I would say it worths it and sugest the rest of the members of this forum to read it.
Np. To be honest I have not read all of it but will do my best to find the time to do so.
MicAtCyp wrote:Erol could you please provide me the link for the John Reddaway territorial approach as I would like to read all of it?
It was an extract from his book 'Burdened with Cyprus - the British connection' which looks at the Cyprus question from a British perspective. I do not think it is available online. I would be more than happy to lend you my copy if you would like, though it might require us to meet
MicAtCyp wrote:Also you spoke of another approach the "peoples approach, is that the McCorquodale analysis or is it something else?
Yes it was in the McC analysis - at least as far as I read and understood it. From the section 2.1
andwith the ``peoples'' approach being to set out some objective conditions or characteristics which have to be satisfied before a group is defined as being a ``people''
Another ``peoples'' approach has been to limit the peoples entitled to the right to only ``the peoples of a State in their entirety'',53 which avoids the consideration of any other possible factors.
- erolz
- Regular Contributor
- Posts: 2414
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: Girne / Kyrenia
by Piratis » Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:39 pm
I didn't read what McDougall wrote because either we agree with him or not it doesn't really matter. There are many academics on the subject and each one of them can have a different opinion. I believe is useless to say "this academic said this" and then get reply "but this academic said that" and so on. With so many academics, and with the internet, you can almost always find an academic to support your opinion, no matter what your opinion is.
This is why we have the "standard" called "UN resolutions". Not because they are always perfect, but because we need a clear set of rules that can not be easily manipulated in any way each one of us desires. [/quote]
This is why we have the "standard" called "UN resolutions". Not because they are always perfect, but because we need a clear set of rules that can not be easily manipulated in any way each one of us desires. [/quote]
-
Piratis - Moderator
- Posts: 12261
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm
by erolz » Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:46 pm
Piratis wrote: I didn't read what McDougall wrote because either we agree with him or not it doesn't really matter. There are many academics on the subject and each one of them can have a different opinion. I believe is useless to say "this academic said this" and then get reply "but this academic said that" and so on. With so many academics, and with the internet, you can almost always find an academic to support your opinion, no matter what your opinion is.
I am interested in such 'learned' opinons not as a means of findin one that supports what I want toi to support but as a means of better understanding complex issue myself. I guess thats a difference between us?
Piratis wrote:
This is why we have the "standard" called "UN resolutions". Not because they are always perfect, but because we need a clear set of rules that can not be easily manipulated in any way each one of us desires.
The manipulation comes in the interpretation of these rules. You simply insit that your interpretation is right - so this does not seem like an issue to you. Others however except that the rules are one thing and the interpretation and implementation of them another. That these issues are neither simple or clear and that coninued study is always useful and welcome.
- erolz
- Regular Contributor
- Posts: 2414
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: Girne / Kyrenia
by Piratis » Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:12 pm
I am interested in such 'learned' opinons not as a means of findin one that supports what I want toi to support but as a means of better understanding complex issue myself. I guess thats a difference between us?
Good for you. But you did use both this one and that Reddaway while trying to support your opinion, isn't it?
Also, if your only aim was to learn then you would just read the whole thing. Instead of that you found a quote that you believed it supported your opinion and you pasted it here.
The manipulation comes in the interpretation of these rules. You simply insit that your interpretation is right - so this does not seem like an issue to you. Others however except that the rules are one thing and the interpretation and implementation of them another. That these issues are neither simple or clear and that coninued study is always useful and welcome.
There are some rules that are crystal clear, and you still don't obey, like for example the resolutions that call for the immidiate withdrowal of all troops from Cyprus. Did I manipulate those also?
-
Piratis - Moderator
- Posts: 12261
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm
by erolz » Thu Aug 26, 2004 12:34 am
Piratis wrote: Good for you. But you did use both this one and that Reddaway while trying to support your opinion, isn't it?
Yes I did use these quotes to 'support' my views and to refute yours but not as any 'ultimate' proof but as an indication that these issues can be complex, are not always black and white in the hope that it might have some impact on your 'absoloutism'. I am 'built' around a desire to try (however vainly) to 'understand' - everyhting and anything. Thats is how I am. In the context of an 'argument' I try and explain where my views differ and why I hold those differing views and present 'supporting evidence. What I do not do in the context of 'understading' (rather than 'arguing' though the tow are not toaly seperate processes) when I come accross a view (especially from a 'learned' person) that I disagree with is simply dismiss it on the basis that there must be another learned view that opposes it. What I do is try and understand why I disagree with it an if necessary modify my views in light of this process.
Piratis wrote:Also, if your only aim was to learn then you would just read the whole thing. Instead of that you found a quote that you believed it supported your opinion and you pasted it here.
My objective to learn - to understand remains an overidding part of my life. I do however also have time pressures and have already spent much time on these forums. At the time my specific objective was to find some 'learned views' on the issue of how a people is defined - partly to try and make you realise that your blank and total insistance that it was simple and clear issue and that your view was simply the right one and also to find support for my ideas. In that context I did not read the whole document but instead went to the section appropriate section. However A difference between me and you as I see it is that I WILL go and read the whole thing when I have time and if necessary modify my views in light of it - where as you apparently consider such an exercise 'pointless'
There are some rules that are crystal clear, and you still don't obey, like for example the resolutions that call for the immidiate withdrowal of all troops from Cyprus. Did I manipulate those also?
No you do not mainpulate rules (or interpretations of rules) that suit your objectives / agendas - only those that do not.
- erolz
- Regular Contributor
- Posts: 2414
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: Girne / Kyrenia
by Piratis » Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:31 am
I believe we agree: You found an academic to show that there are some people that disagree with me and therefore it is not black and white.
Since you can find somebody to support anything, it means that everything is "gray". And if everything is "gray" then you can decide whatever you feel like without respecting any law. And this is your objective: to continue not obeying any international law because it is not "clear" supposedly what it means. This is what you did the last 30 years and I don't see it changing.
Since you can find somebody to support anything, it means that everything is "gray". And if everything is "gray" then you can decide whatever you feel like without respecting any law. And this is your objective: to continue not obeying any international law because it is not "clear" supposedly what it means. This is what you did the last 30 years and I don't see it changing.
-
Piratis - Moderator
- Posts: 12261
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm
20 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
© 2002 - 2015 Cyprus-Forum.com
