Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

You people really need to learn how to use the English language properly.

As for the real status of the north it is a de facto state. It is not a de jure state. I may take to calling the RoC the de jure RoC from now on, as it has legal status but it has no real status as the sole representative government of all Cypriots in actual fact, as far as I am concerned. By just calling it the RoC I imply that it has in my view both de jure and de facto status as a legitimate representative government of all Cypriots, which I personally do not think it has. So from now on its de jure RoC. Please do go on describing the north as de facto occupied zone, rather than just occupied zone, it can only lead sane people to conclude you think it is only an occupied zone in practice but not in law.

[GreekIslandGirl]

It is not a state by ANY definition.

The occupied north is an illegally occupied zone by law (de jure) as well as by fact (de facto)!

International law! - 541 - ".... and called on all UN member-states not to recognize this illegal entity."

Since it is ILLEGAL as an occupation, it is by definition - de jure - ILLEGAL.

However, we do not even have to keep stating it is illegal, similalry to when the Nazis occupied France. People did not constantly refer to it as "Illegally Occupied France". It was just occupied France and it was accepted that it was de jure and de facto illegally occupied.

[erolz66]

It is not a state by ANY definition.

You really need to learn how use English properly. Of course the North is not a de jure state. But just as obviously it IS a de facto one. Despite not being legally recognised internationally as a state it in fact functions as a state in every practical sense. That is what de facto means. That you do not like this does not change the facts one iota.

However, we do not even have to keep stating it is illegal, similalry to when the Nazis occupied France. People did not constantly refer to it as "Illegally Occupied France". It was just occupied France and it was accepted that it was de jure and de facto illegally occupied.

Exactly my point. If something is both de jure and de facto then there is no need for either term. You ONLY use one term or the other if it is a case of it being one or the other, which is exactly why your use of 'de facto' when in fact you meant de facto and de jure was so stupidly incorrect. Still admitting your mistakes is not one of your strong suits is it GiG ?

[GreekIslandGirl]

It is not a state by ANY definition.

You really need to learn how use English properly. Of course the North is not a de jure state. But just as obviously it IS a de facto one. Despite not being legally recognised internationally as a state it in fact functions as a state in every practical sense. That is what de facto means. That you do not like this does not change the facts one iota.

However, we do not even have to keep stating it is illegal, similalry to when the Nazis occupied France. People did not constantly refer to it as "Illegally Occupied France". It was just occupied France and it was accepted that it was de jure and de facto illegally occupied.

Exactly my point. If something is both de jure and de facto then there is no need for either term. You ONLY use one term or the other if it is a case of it being one or the other, which is exactly why your use of 'de facto' when in fact you meant de facto and de jure was so stupidly incorrect. Still admitting your mistakes is not one of your strong suits is it GiG ?

Fundamentally, and back to where I corrected Tim, it is NOT a state and that is the point you avoid or deny. The argument is not by how many criteria we can describe the occupation as illegal - since IT IS - no - the fundamental point is that it is NOT a state! Argue all you like with convoluted nonsense but you cannot defy the logic/legality that because it is an illegally occupied area of the RoC, the occupied north is NOT A STATE!

[erolz66]

Fundamentally, and back to where I corrected Tim, it is NOT a state and that is the point you avoid or deny. The argument is not by how many criteria we can describe the occupation as illegal - since IT IS - no - the fundamental point is that it is NOT a state! Argue all you like with convoluted nonsense but you cannot defy the logic/legality that because it is an illegally occupied area of the RoC, the occupied north is NOT A STATE!

Blah blah blah.

You can argue that a dog is not a dog all you like. You can argue that there is no illegal trapping on the SBA areas or the de jure RoC all you like. Reality is still reality. The North is a de facto state, of course it is. Scream all you like and as shrill as you like that it is not a de facto state, but it will still be one regardless of your idiocies and wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Oh dear ... you have been upset by logic!

I do believe you have a de facto, de mental adherence to ignoring International law and making up your own ...

[supporttheunderdog]

Occupation need not be illegal. However the continuing de facto military occupation of the 37 per cent of the de jure territory of the ROC is illegal, as is the the entity forming the puppet psuedo state created by the illegal occupiers.