Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

Look Paphitis,

If you want to further your argument and convince me, present your case clearly and get to the point. Please pick out your law for me.

Do it from the ECHR if you can.

Furthermore, the Geneva convention is an applicable international law, which exists but you choose to disregard it now. Why?

The Geneva Convention does not apply to individuals born in Cyprus or to those that have married a Cy Citizen.

You cannot deny the basic Human Rights of these individuals, particularly those born in Cyprus, and there is not a single International Law or Convention (which by the way is not International Law) that will allow the deprivation of these Human Rights!

I'm not sure which Geneva Convention you're referring to (there are hundreds) but if, following comments made earlier in this thread you're talking about (one of the ones) referring to war (mainly 1949 and 1977) then two critical things obtain. The Geneva Conventions are laws of war not laws of peace, so they only apply if there is a recognised status of war. Second insofar as the Geneva Convention is a law of war it applies to all signatories and, indeed has become part of customary law and so applies to even non-signatories. In any case, probably the most important point, the Geneva Convention and Protocols say absolutely nothing about citizenship or nationality. Rather, why they may be interesting for the Cyprus question is in relation to the treatment of civilian populations eg temporary or permanent transfer, movement, re-settlement. But the Geneva Convention and Protocols do not say anything about citizenship/nationality status : they cannot do so, because they are not laws of peace.

The Geneva Convention does apply to Cyprus because technically Cyprus is at war and its territory is under occupation.

As you say, there are hundreds of articles. One article Turkey contravenes to this day is the one whereby it does not allow all GC refugees back to the occupied territories and gain rightful possession of their property. An occupying power is only temporarily allowed to displace the population until such time as it is safe for their return.

The Geneva Convention does not mention anything about citizenship. One of the articles forbids the colonization and altering of the demographics of the occupied territory. Turkey has contravened this as well and many more articles which are too numerous to mention.

On the subject of citizenship, I can not see how individuals that are born in Cyprus and lived there all their life can be denied residency or citizenship after a comprehensive settlement. Can you see a legal basis where this can be done? I believe it would be a violation against those individuals Human Rights.

[Maximus]

Paphitis, why or how is my suggestion going to cost the RoC trillions in compensation.

So what you are saying is the children of illegal settlers, born in occupied territory are entitled to citizenship in the country their country occupies and their parents not?

This is getting delirious.

Maximus, citizenship/nationality law is a matter of domestic law not international law. The only set of occasions when it comes up against international law is (a) must be compliant with the Refugee Convention which outlaws the rendering of citizens stateless and (b) in questions of occupation and settlement resulting from war and (c) when, in the European system, national law violates European or human rights law. In the latter circumstances cases would have to come before the ECJ or ECHR to show the alleged violation and compensation may arise on a case by case basis.

OK, But,

(a) they are not refugees or stateless people
(b) This, in question, is a settlement and a war crime
(c) Then they should go to the ECHR and file their case for RoC citizenship.

Why haven't they done that (c) already?

[CopperLine]

Look Paphitis,

If you want to further your argument and convince me, present your case clearly and get to the point. Please pick out your law for me.

Do it from the ECHR if you can.

Furthermore, the Geneva convention is an applicable international law, which exists but you choose to disregard it now. Why?

The Geneva Convention does not apply to individuals born in Cyprus or to those that have married a Cy Citizen.

You cannot deny the basic Human Rights of these individuals, particularly those born in Cyprus, and there is not a single International Law or Convention (which by the way is not International Law) that will allow the deprivation of these Human Rights!

I'm not sure which Geneva Convention you're referring to (there are hundreds) but if, following comments made earlier in this thread you're talking about (one of the ones) referring to war (mainly 1949 and 1977) then two critical things obtain. The Geneva Conventions are laws of war not laws of peace, so they only apply if there is a recognised status of war.

There is a recognized status of war, there is only a cease fire.

Second insofar as the Geneva Convention is a law of war it applies to all signatories and, indeed has become part of customary law and so applies to even non-signatories. In any case, probably the most important point, the Geneva Convention and Protocols say absolutely nothing about citizenship or nationality. Rather, why they may be interesting for the Cyprus question is in relation to the treatment of civilian populations eg temporary or permanent transfer, movement, re-settlement. But the Geneva Convention and Protocols do not say anything about citizenship/nationality status : they cannot do so, because they are not laws of peace.

Why have the settlers not gone to the ECHR and filed the case for their children's citizenship and their rights to stay?

Probably because, contrary to popular belief in this forum, neither the TRNC nor Turkey has passed a law giving settlers citizenship/nationality rights. In actual fact a claim by these settlers would have to be lodged in the first and last instance with Turkey because in international law, including therefore the ECourtHR, regard Turkey, as occupying power, as being a subject of interational law. TRNC is not a state and therefore cannot be a respondent. And of course Turkey cannot claim that TRNC is an independent state if it passes citizenship/nationality laws for that other 'sovereign' state.

This all points to the fact that illegal Turkish settlers are the least of the problems, they're the weakest party to the whole issue : (i) most are poor, (ii) most are powerless, (iii) most have few prospects, (iv) most are neglected by the Turkish and Turkish CYpriot elite, (v) most are on dodgy immigrant status in northern Cyprus even by TRNC and Turkish standards, and so on.

[Maximus]

Look Paphitis,

If you want to further your argument and convince me, present your case clearly and get to the point. Please pick out your law for me.

Do it from the ECHR if you can.

Furthermore, the Geneva convention is an applicable international law, which exists but you choose to disregard it now. Why?

The Geneva Convention does not apply to individuals born in Cyprus or to those that have married a Cy Citizen.

You cannot deny the basic Human Rights of these individuals, particularly those born in Cyprus, and there is not a single International Law or Convention (which by the way is not International Law) that will allow the deprivation of these Human Rights!

I'm not sure which Geneva Convention you're referring to (there are hundreds) but if, following comments made earlier in this thread you're talking about (one of the ones) referring to war (mainly 1949 and 1977) then two critical things obtain. The Geneva Conventions are laws of war not laws of peace, so they only apply if there is a recognised status of war.

There is a recognized status of war, there is only a cease fire.

Second insofar as the Geneva Convention is a law of war it applies to all signatories and, indeed has become part of customary law and so applies to even non-signatories. In any case, probably the most important point, the Geneva Convention and Protocols say absolutely nothing about citizenship or nationality. Rather, why they may be interesting for the Cyprus question is in relation to the treatment of civilian populations eg temporary or permanent transfer, movement, re-settlement. But the Geneva Convention and Protocols do not say anything about citizenship/nationality status : they cannot do so, because they are not laws of peace.

Why have the settlers not gone to the ECHR and filed the case for their children's citizenship and their rights to stay?

Probably because, contrary to popular belief in this forum, neither the TRNC nor Turkey has passed a law giving settlers citizenship/nationality rights. In actual fact a claim by these settlers would have to be lodged in the first and last instance with Turkey because in international law, including therefore the ECourtHR, regard Turkey, as occupying power, as being a subject of interational law. TRNC is not a state and therefore cannot be a respondent. And of course Turkey cannot claim that TRNC is an independent state if it passes citizenship/nationality laws for that other 'sovereign' state.

This all points to the fact that illegal Turkish settlers are the least of the problems, they're the weakest party to the whole issue : (i) most are poor, (ii) most are powerless, (iii) most have few prospects, (iv) most are neglected by the Turkish and Turkish CYpriot elite, (v) most are on dodgy immigrant status in northern Cyprus even by TRNC and Turkish standards, and so on.

What is the point you are trying to make?

[CopperLine]

Paphitis, why or how is my suggestion going to cost the RoC trillions in compensation.

So what you are saying is the children of illegal settlers, born in occupied territory are entitled to citizenship in the country their country occupies and their parents not?

This is getting delirious.

Maximus, citizenship/nationality law is a matter of domestic law not international law. The only set of occasions when it comes up against international law is (a) must be compliant with the Refugee Convention which outlaws the rendering of citizens stateless and (b) in questions of occupation and settlement resulting from war and (c) when, in the European system, national law violates European or human rights law. In the latter circumstances cases would have to come before the ECJ or ECHR to show the alleged violation and compensation may arise on a case by case basis.

OK, But,

(a) they are not refugees or stateless people
(b) This, in question, is a settlement and a war crime
(c) Then they should go to the ECHR and file their case for RoC citizenship.

Why haven't they done that (c) already?

a. Indeed, they're not stateless nor do they claim to be refugees. All that has happened is that Turkey and its colony TRNC has allowed these people in, whether they're from Turkey or Turkemnistan or UK or wherever. Ultimately, because of TRNC's status in international law, it is Turkey that is accountable.
b. Yes, Turkey is in violation of occupation law for (i) encouraging permanent settler movement and (ii) for allowing permanent changes to the occupied territory.
c. They (the settlers) can't petition the ECHR for reasons I put in another post and they can't petition for RoC citizenship because RoC has never owed an obligation to them for RoC nationality/citizenship. There's no case to answer.

But all of these are legal questions, not policy and politics.

[CopperLine]

Why have the settlers not gone to the ECHR and filed the case for their children's citizenship and their rights to stay?

Probably because, contrary to popular belief in this forum, neither the TRNC nor Turkey has passed a law giving settlers citizenship/nationality rights. In actual fact a claim by these settlers would have to be lodged in the first and last instance with Turkey because in international law, including therefore the ECourtHR, regard Turkey, as occupying power, as being a subject of interational law. TRNC is not a state and therefore cannot be a respondent. And of course Turkey cannot claim that TRNC is an independent state if it passes citizenship/nationality laws for that other 'sovereign' state.

This all points to the fact that illegal Turkish settlers are the least of the problems, they're the weakest party to the whole issue : (i) most are poor, (ii) most are powerless, (iii) most have few prospects, (iv) most are neglected by the Turkish and Turkish CYpriot elite, (v) most are on dodgy immigrant status in northern Cyprus even by TRNC and Turkish standards, and so on.

What is the point you are trying to make?

Most Turkish settlers haven't got two kurus to rub together. They'll not be an impediment to settlement, they'll not be demanding compensation, they'll not be going to the ECHR, etc because they have no power and no case. Most Turkish settlers just are not a problem, whereas various people on this forum have suggested that they'll be a huge problem for Sener Levent's proposals. I don't think that they will; or to be more precise, their significance is massively overstated.

[B25]

Look Paphitis,

If you want to further your argument and convince me, present your case clearly and get to the point. Please pick out your law for me.

Do it from the ECHR if you can.

Furthermore, the Geneva convention is an applicable international law, which exists but you choose to disregard it now. Why?

The Geneva Convention does not apply to individuals born in Cyprus or to those that have married a Cy Citizen.

You cannot deny the basic Human Rights of these individuals, particularly those born in Cyprus, and there is not a single International Law or Convention (which by the way is not International Law) that will allow the deprivation of these Human Rights!

I'm not sure which Geneva Convention you're referring to (there are hundreds) but if, following comments made earlier in this thread you're talking about (one of the ones) referring to war (mainly 1949 and 1977) then two critical things obtain. The Geneva Conventions are laws of war not laws of peace, so they only apply if there is a recognised status of war. Second insofar as the Geneva Convention is a law of war it applies to all signatories and, indeed has become part of customary law and so applies to even non-signatories. In any case, probably the most important point, the Geneva Convention and Protocols say absolutely nothing about citizenship or nationality. Rather, why they may be interesting for the Cyprus question is in relation to the treatment of civilian populations eg temporary or permanent transfer, movement, re-settlement. But the Geneva Convention and Protocols do not say anything about citizenship/nationality status : they cannot do so, because they are not laws of peace.

The 4th Geneva convention article 10. Deals with and PROHIBITS the transfer of population of the invading occupying armies to territiry they hold. So, by default all these gypsies that were teansfered are illegals, being married to TCs does not make them legal, otherwise I might argue that if I raped a woman using a condom it would ge ok???

Even foreign nationals residing, i don't care how many years, have done so WITHOUT the permission of the only recognised legitimate RoC government. They should also be oust.

Now as for You, Paphitis and others arguing for the HR of the illegals, you very easily and conveniently forget or should I say ignore the HRs of the 200,000 legitimate citizens namely GCs.

Citizenship is granted by the legitimate authority of which Turkey and tge trashcan are not. It can't be any easier than that. This has nothing to do with maximalist demands this is simply a case of right or wrong and clearly you are in the wtong, no matter how you want to spin it.

[bill cobbett]

A warning from the ECHR...

We got it in the matter of Demopoulos et al v Turkey in 2010, the ECHR won't come to judgments that sorts the HR Rights of one group of people but which makes new HR problems for others.

This is what it said back in 2010...

"... It cannot be within this Court’s task in interpreting and applying the provisions of the Convention to impose an unconditional obligation on a Government to embark on the forcible eviction and rehousing of potentially large numbers of men, women and children even with the aim of vindicating the rights of victims of violations of the Convention. ..."

[Maximus]

A warning from the ECHR...

We got it in the matter of Demopoulos et al v Turkey in 2010, the ECHR won't come to judgments that sorts the HR Rights of one group of people but which makes new HR problems for others.

This is what it said back in 2010...

"... It cannot be within this Court’s task in interpreting and applying the provisions of the Convention to impose an unconditional obligation on a Government to embark on the forcible eviction and rehousing of potentially large numbers of men, women and children even with the aim of vindicating the rights of victims of violations of the Convention. ..."

That's right Bill,

The TC leadership and Turkey have violated the law. Not the RoC, not the EU and it will not be violated again if they do not receive a Cypriot citizenship and the "right" to stay. However, the ECHR cannot evict them.

What is happening though, is Eroglu wants to stall for time because he wants build new settlements to evict and rehouse some of the settlers in Cyprus instead of in Turkey.

[GreekIslandGirl]

So, if Cyprus evicts/deports/expels the Turkish Stealers/Settlers back to Turkey, they cannot go to the ECHR because it will not get involved in judgments that compromise the Human Rights of others - and in this case, not expelling the Settlers is tantamount to ignoring the HRs of the Greek Cypriots who need repossession of their properties and free movement within their OWN country.

So we are back to square one whereby I asked Bill c. why we cannot remove the Settlers and he seemed to think it would go against the Geneva Convention, for some reason.

So there is absolutely no reason to vote-in a TC to represent the Turkish Settlers in Cyprus and give them Cypriot Citizenship.

The Turkish Stealers/Settlers CAN and WILL be removed by legal, ethical and moral law.