Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kikapu]

Gobbit you should thank me for raising interest on this topic . It's only when I started to chat everyone is getting involved . You need to give your topics a bit of a kick . Look at all the topics I raise all ways gets interest . Why because I hit a raw nerve . All you do is splatter boring politics about a complaint that no one gives a shit about apart from GC s . It probably makes you feel great because you filed another complaint and another brownie point against the Turks . You feel you won some thing . I know exactly how you feel because I feel that all the time when I see that big turkish flag on the mountains of kyrenia .

Except you do not answer some of the questions put to you!

cyprus42479.html

[Mustiejodu]

And at what point was my question answered . As I very clearly and being a very honest person I am not interested in your issues or the problems or complaints you have . You just don't get the point or choose to be oblivious to anything but your isolated issues . You really do have blinkers on . I can't have a one way conversation and that is how it all ways is with you people . The day you stop your ignorance then we will talk . Until then don't answer a question with a question

[CopperLine]

In my opinion the complaint has no hope of progress.
(i) The ICC is not empowered to address historical allegations, only those defined crimes that were alleged to have taken place post-entry into force of the 1997 Rome Statute (article 11) i.e, after 1st July 2002. The defined crimes or potential jurisdiction of the court is over (a) The crime of genocide; (b) Crimes against humanity; (c) War crimes; (d) The crime of aggression. Had the Rome Statute been in force before July 1974 then there'd probably be a different story. See http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/ADD16852-AEE9-4757-ABE7-9CDC7CF02886/283503/RomeStatutEng1.pdf
(ii) The fact of occupation in the north is not itself an ICC crime. There is no way in which a complainant could demonstrate an ICC crime having occurred since 2002.
(iii) The RoC, the EU, the USA and Turkey have tacitly agreed that allegations of crimes, historic or recent, will be pursued through national courts and then the ECHR. The strategy of the international community since at least 2004 (EU accession) has not been to go in hard but to build trust and cooperation and use of other legal mechanisms where necessary such as those just mentioned, not a war crime tribunal.
(iv) Turkey is not a party to the ICC. (Whilst that doesn't make it invulnerable, given the above reasons a complaint would have no chance anyway). The ICC to pursue a case to prosecution has to get hold of the indicted individuals. What are the chances of T, giving up those individuals ?

This reported effort is a rather trivial publicity stunt, but is baseless in law. (Of course I hope I'm wrong : I'd love the military and govt to be brought to account for their actions. But the ICC route is just implausible).

[bill cobbett]

Yes, the plaintiffs do recognise the limitations as per CL's opinion above and so are confining the action to the single matter of the Illegal Settlers, those allowed or encouraged in, post the Republic's ratification of the treaty.

A pretty focused action which presumably Musty and Bello would support.

[CopperLine]

Yes, the plaintiffs do recognise the limitations as per CL's opinion above and so are confining the action to the single matter of the Illegal Settlers, those allowed or encouraged in, post the Republic's ratification of the treaty.

A pretty focused action which presumably Musty and Bello would support.

The trouble with that, Bill, is that they'd have to show that there was indeed a policy of bringing in illegal settlers (post-2002) rather than, say, illegal immigrants coming in and settling AND to show that identifiable others (as defined under the Rome Statute), eg GCs, Maronites, other ethnic or religious groups, etc, were being harmed to the degrees classified in the Rome Statute. further they'd actually have to name and identify those people who implemented the policy. There's no doubt that there are many illegal immigrants in northern Cyprus - that is illegal by RoC law - but this has been the result in the 2000s of a permissive rather than an active policy. Anyway, none of that amounts to war crimes etc under ICC.

For example, let's say a Kurd from Turkey came to northern Cyprus in 2005 and took over a house that had once been inhabited and still remained the property of a GC. Suppose, further, that the GC owner had lived in the south/RoC since being expelled from their northern property in 1974. No ICC war crime has been committed. Let's multiply that scenario a thousand times, still no war crime has been committed. Why ? Because (a) no policy has been shown, and more importantly in this example (b) the harm suffered by the GCs did not arise from the 2005 immigration, it arose from the 1974 invasion.

And frankly in the scale of crimes that the ICC is dealing with and with cases stacking up, the illegal settler issue in Cyprus doesn't even register a blip. Over one million people killed in DRC as we speak. Even the ICC prosecution of Kenyan war criminals - bodies literally piling up - have been suspended due to little likelihood of successful conviction.

There are other more effective ways (or should I say, less ineffective ways) of dealing with this issue.

[Lordo]

wheres that stupid charlui. you are an idiot and so is the rest of your stupid race. in 72 if you signed the agreement which gave you the whole of cyprus with just 600 terkish troops on the island, there would be no settlers in cyprus today. you deserve everything you get for no other reason then just being plain old stupid.

ssssssssssssssstttttttttttttttttttttttttpppppppppppppppppppppiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiddddddddddddddddddddaaaaaaaaaa

[bill cobbett]

Yes, the plaintiffs do recognise the limitations as per CL's opinion above and so are confining the action to the single matter of the Illegal Settlers, those allowed or encouraged in, post the Republic's ratification of the treaty.

A pretty focused action which presumably Musty and Bello would support.

The trouble with that, Bill, is that they'd have to show that there was indeed a policy of bringing in illegal settlers (post-2002) rather than, say, illegal immigrants coming in and settling AND to show that identifiable others (as defined under the Rome Statute), eg GCs, Maronites, other ethnic or religious groups, etc, were being harmed to the degrees classified in the Rome Statute. further they'd actually have to name and identify those people who implemented the policy. There's no doubt that there are many illegal immigrants in northern Cyprus - that is illegal by RoC law - but this has been the result in the 2000s of a permissive rather than an active policy. Anyway, none of that amounts to war crimes etc under ICC.

For example, let's say a Kurd from Turkey came to northern Cyprus in 2005 and took over a house that had once been inhabited and still remained the property of a GC. Suppose, further, that the GC owner had lived in the south/RoC since being expelled from their northern property in 1974. No ICC war crime has been committed. Let's multiply that scenario a thousand times, still no war crime has been committed. Why ? Because (a) no policy has been shown, and more importantly in this example (b) the harm suffered by the GCs did not arise from the 2005 immigration, it arose from the 1974 invasion.

And frankly in the scale of crimes that the ICC is dealing with and with cases stacking up, the illegal settler issue in Cyprus doesn't even register a blip. Over one million people killed in DRC as we speak. Even the ICC prosecution of Kenyan war criminals - bodies literally piling up - have been suspended due to little likelihood of successful conviction.

There are other more effective ways (or should I say, less ineffective ways) of dealing with this issue.

Turkey is the Power of Occupation CL, it's deemed to be responsible for anything that happens up there, whether as a matter of active policy or as an act of omission or negligence (not taking action to stop colonisation).

This is the part of the Rome Statute that's being called upon... Article 8 b viii

(the underlined part)

"... The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory; ... "

... but must agree with you that there is a serious omission in the action, in the the lack of named defendants, which presumably would be the commanders of the TA and the heads of the Turkish "diplomatic mission" and maybe even the "pms" and "presidents" of "trnc", and of course there are far more grievous goings-on in the World.

[Lordo]

you are about 5 decades behind the times you thick ugly charlui. too late. its all over. concentrate on not losing the rest of cyprus and you will be fine.

[bill cobbett]

you are about 5 decades behind the times you thick ugly charlui. too late. its all over. concentrate on not losing the rest of cyprus and you will be fine.

Is that you Slobbo...???

Didn't recognise you...

... in that suicide suit.

Are you just back from a night's Jihading...???

[Kikapu]

And at what point was my question answered . As I very clearly and being a very honest person I am not interested in your issues or the problems or complaints you have . You just don't get the point or choose to be oblivious to anything but your isolated issues . You really do have blinkers on . I can't have a one way conversation and that is how it all ways is with you people . The day you stop your ignorance then we will talk . Until then don't answer a question with a question

First of all, your post in the other thread that I was referring to ( cyprus42479.html ), you never asked a question, but was making a statement instead, so learn the difference before you go on spouting about your question not being answered and instead me answering your question with a question, as you are claiming.

Aside from that, your above post seems to indicate that you have a personality disorder, for you to reach outrages conclusions just because you were asked to answer a question put to you. Furthermore, you come across as a "fake TC". More like a carpetbagger!

I do not wish to waste any more time on you if the above is your example of engaging in a mature conversation or debate.