Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

The 4th Geneva Convention which was signed by Turkey states: "States may not deport or transfer parts of their own civilian population into a territory they occupy." What you claim regarding Conventions is just the theory... the reality is very different.

If there were a court that Turkey could be prosecuted at on the basis of this breach, what do you think the basis of Turkey's defence would be ? Is there a court Turkey could be prosecuted at by an asylum seeker who thought Turkey was violating their rights as such ? One where Turkey could put its case and the refugee puts there and where a legal judgement is made ?

The essence of the issue is that the refugees should be protected but they don't have the right to settle wherever they want.

I have never said the refugees have such a right. They do have a right to claim asylum and to not be returned to somewhere where their rights are not respected.

The EU should take as many as it can and then it should force Turkey to keep the rest and treat them right. Turkey deserves to have a cost because it has a share of the responsibility for creating the problem... they can spend less for their army that creates problems and use that money to alleviate the problems of the refugees.

The EU has a more pressing 'need' however, which is to stop the break up of Schengen and the disintegration of the EU. Right now for the EU this is less about, as I see it. where the refugees end up going and more about a need to stop the uncontrolled flow of them before it cause fractures within the EU that cause massive damage to the whole EU project. This is exactly what I think they are trying to do. I think if they really believed they could do this or the only way to do it, would be to MAKE Turkey stop the flow physically under threat of the harshest sticks they could wield, then they would be doing that. I suspect they have taken a rational view that trying to do this would in fact make the position of the EU worse and not better.

[GreekIslandGirl]

How hateful Turkey is destroying both Cyprus and Greece:

"Regarding Turkey`s demand for the opening of chapters unilaterally frozen by the Republic of Cyprus, and citing its role in addressing the humanitarian crisis, which primarily affects Greece, the President of the Republic remained firm in the long-standing position of the Republic of Cyprus that the opening of any chapters requires Turkey to meet its obligations deriving from its Negotiating Framework ", the spokesman said.

At the same time, according to the spokesman, the President of the Republic wishes to publicly express his satisfaction and gratitude, both to the Greek Prime Minister and to the other European leaders, for their understanding and support to Cyprus` positions.

http://famagusta-gazette.com/cyprus-tel ... 882-69.htm

[Maximus]

The 4th Geneva Convention which was signed by Turkey states: "States may not deport or transfer parts of their own civilian population into a territory they occupy." What you claim regarding Conventions is just the theory... the reality is very different.

If there were a court that Turkey could be prosecuted at on the basis of this breach, what do you think the basis of Turkey's defence would be ? Is there a court Turkey could be prosecuted at by an asylum seeker who thought Turkey was violating their rights as such ? One where Turkey could put its case and the refugee puts there and where a legal judgement is made ?

The ECHR, (European Court of Human Rights) Turkey is a signature to it. Syria could also prosecute Turkey through the ECHR. In similar cases, like for example, Cyprus vs Turkey and Loizidou vs Turkey, Turkey lost. The basis of her defense there was lies and references to legally invalid colonial paper.

Why would Syria or a Syrian displaced person or refuge not win their case against Turkey as well? The basis of Turkeys defense this time would probably be lies and references to Assad being a bad man.

Will Turkey pay the cost of those judgments anyway? probably not. Turkey would probably set up some bs IPC (immovable property commission) and offer 10% of the original value of the property to the refugee to buy and keep it and some of their country too. This will probably run out of money after paying only a fraction of the claims. Then populate the area with Turkish Syrians and daesh who will declare independence, or some sht like that.

[Maximus]

I think if they really believed they could do this or the only way to do it, would be to MAKE Turkey stop the flow physically under threat of the harshest sticks they could wield, then they would be doing that. I suspect they have taken a rational view that trying to do this would in fact make the position of the EU worse and not better.

Your basically saying they cant be wrong in their decision and something harsher like sanctions would not yield better results. As in its not wrong to pay Erdogan to take back all irregular migrants, then take one back for every one returned to him. You send them, I give one back then I get one back and pay you. There is no fundamental change in inflow / outflow of irregular migrants to the EU which Turkey can control but there is a sum of money going from the EU to Turkey now.

The irony of it all is, is that Turkey wants to open EU accession chapters and speed up her negotiations. But Turkey signed and ratified the readmission agreement as part of her EU accession negotiations already. So, she is obliged to take back all irregular migrants crossing to the EU from Turkey, at Turkeys cost. So what does Turkey do instead, blackmail the EU in to honoring her own signature at the EU's cost.

I wouldn't rule out the EU using the stick at a later stage. When they realize that they have been had and the inflow still goes.

[erolz66]

The ECHR, (European Court of Human Rights) Turkey is a signature to it. Syria could also prosecute Turkey through the ECHR. In similar cases, like for example, Cyprus vs Turkey and Loizidou vs Turkey, Turkey lost. The basis of her defense there was lies and references to legally invalid colonial paper.

I think your characterisation of these cases is misleadingly simplistic myself. The Cyprus vs Turkey case for example the court considered approx 45 breaches alleged by Cyprus against Turkey. Of this the court found Turkey in violation on 17 of these. Not in breach in 16. 'Not necessary to examine' in 9 and 'other' in 3 (this is from a very quick scan). file:///C:/Users/EZi7new/Downloads/001-59454.pdf

For those breaches it was found to have made the court finally (some 13 years after the ruling above) decided on what the 'just satisfaction' award should be file:///C:/Users/EZi7new/Downloads/003-4754196-5782800.pdf Turkey is obliged to now pay these sums (if they have not already done so) and if they persistently refuse to do there are actions the court can take against Turkey for such failure.

Why would Syria or a Syrian displaced person or refuge not win their case against Turkey as well? The basis of Turkeys defense this time would probably be lies and references to Assad being a bad man.

Depends on what you are suggesting. If you are suggesting that a displaced Syrian could take Turkey (or UK or others for that matter) to the ECHR on the basis that Turkey's actions in Syria resulted in and infringement by Turkey of their human rights, then I doubt such a case could be brought to the ECHR or won there. If you are suggesting a Syrian refugee treated badly once they arrived in Turkey could take Turkey to the ECHR then I think yes the almost certainly could do so and could well win depending on how they had been treated once in Turkey.

Turkey would probably set up some bs IPC (immovable property commission) and offer 10% of the original value of the property to the refugee to buy and keep it and some of their country too.

This to me seems like 'cherry picking' those judgements you do like of the ECHR and ignoring those you do not to be honest.

[erolz66]

Your basically saying they cant be wrong in their decision and something harsher like sanctions would not yield better results....

Absolutely not saying that. They could indeed be wrong. I just think the likelihood that they are wrong compared to the likelihood that say Sotos is right is more in favour of them being right. For a start if only on the basis that they are able to view such decisions more dispassionately and objectively than say Soto's is imo. I am also saying they do not believe they make wrong decisions because they are innately stupid, corrupt, incompetent or lacking in balls. They certainly can make wrong decision but doing so is not down to these factors, imo.

[Maximus]

I think your characterisation of these cases is misleadingly simplistic myself. The Cyprus vs Turkey case for example the court considered approx 45 breaches alleged by Cyprus against Turkey. Of this the court found Turkey in violation on 17 of these. Not in breach in 16. 'Not necessary to examine' in 9 and 'other' in 3 (this is from a very quick scan). file:///C:/Users/EZi7new/Downloads/001-59454.pdf

For those breaches it was found to have made the court finally (some 13 years after the ruling above) decided on what the 'just satisfaction' award should be file:///C:/Users/EZi7new/Downloads/003-4754196-5782800.pdf Turkey is obliged to now pay these sums (if they have not already done so) and if they persistently refuse to do there are actions the court can take against Turkey for such failure.

My Characterization is simplistic instead of yours which is complicated and only tells us that Turkey was in violation of less breaches than what was alleged by Cyprus. And still lost, just as I said.

Why would Syria or a Syrian displaced person or refuge not win their case against Turkey as well? The basis of Turkeys defense this time would probably be lies and references to Assad being a bad man.

Depends on what you are suggesting. If you are suggesting that a displaced Syrian could take Turkey (or UK or others for that matter) to the ECHR on the basis that Turkey's actions in Syria resulted in and infringement by Turkey of their human rights, then I doubt such a case could be brought to the ECHR or won there. If you are suggesting a Syrian refugee treated badly once they arrived in Turkey could take Turkey to the ECHR then I think yes the almost certainly could do so and could well win depending on how they had been treated once in Turkey.

It does not matter if you doubt that a displaced Syrian or Syria can or cant take Turkey to the ECHR. They can apply and if it is a valid application the court will declare it as admissible. How to make a valid application is outlined on their webpage.

Its not only about how they were treated whilst in Turkey but the fact that they have been made refugee's due to Turkey actions in Syria too. They can also throw in loss of relatives, loss of property, loss of use of property etc. I think, such cases vs Turkey are admissible at the ECHR, as they have been from elsewhere.

Turkey would probably set up some bs IPC (immovable property commission) and offer 10% of the original value of the property to the refugee to buy and keep it and some of their country too.

This to me seems like 'cherry picking' those judgements you do like of the ECHR and ignoring those you do not to be honest.

You want but don't want to accept, its as simple as that.

[erolz66]

My Characterization is simplistic instead of yours which is complicated and only tells us that Turkey was in violation of less breaches than what was alleged. And still lost, just as I said.

Well it was more or as much the characterization that Turkey lost because the basis of her defense there was lies and references to legally invalid colonial paper, that that Turkey merely lost but whatever.

Its not only about how they were treated whilst in Turkey but the fact that they have been made refugee's (loss of relatives, loss of property, loss of use of property etc) due to Turkey actions in Syria too. I think, such cases vs Turkey are admissible at the ECHR, ss they have been elsewhere.

Well as I understand it, the basis for Turkey being 'putable' (liable) for the various ongoing violations of individuals rights in the north in the various Cyprus cases, was that Turkey was in effective control of the north with regards to these breaches. I am not sure it could be said Turkey is in effective control of Syria and thus 'putable' for breaches of individuals human rights that occurred there ? If you know of any specific cases where any state has been held liable for the breach of an individuals human rights by say having bombed that place I would be interested to have them pointed out to me.

You want but don't want to accept, its as simple as that.

I do not really get what you are saying here ? What I was saying is you can not say the ECHR was right when it found against Turkey in cases but wrong when it determined that the way for Turkey to stop such violations was a body like the IPC , which it subsequently ruled was a valid means of local redress for violations. Well you can say that but it seems a little inconsistent to me ? If they have the right to make such judgements then all are equally valid if you like them or not, or none are, would be how I see it.

[Maximus]

My Characterization is simplistic instead of yours which is complicated and only tells us that Turkey was in violation of less breaches than what was alleged. And still lost, just as I said.

Well it was more or as much the characterization that Turkey lost because the basis of her defense there was lies and references to legally invalid colonial paper, that that Turkey merely lost but whatever.

Its not only about how they were treated whilst in Turkey but the fact that they have been made refugee's (loss of relatives, loss of property, loss of use of property etc) due to Turkey actions in Syria too. I think, such cases vs Turkey are admissible at the ECHR, ss they have been elsewhere.

Well as I understand it, the basis for Turkey being 'putable' (liable) for the various ongoing violations of individuals rights in the north in the various Cyprus cases, was that Turkey was in effective control of the north with regards to these breaches. I am not sure it could be said Turkey is in effective control of Syria and thus 'putable' for breaches of individuals human rights that occurred there ? If you know of any specific cases where any state has been held liable for the breach of an individuals human rights by say having bombed that place I would be interested to have them pointed out to me.

You want but don't want to accept, its as simple as that.

I do not really get what you are saying here ? What I was saying is you can not say the ECHR was right when it found against Turkey in cases but wrong when it determined that the way for Turkey to stop such violations was a body like the IPC , which it subsequently ruled was a valid means of local redress for violations. Well you can say that but it seems a little inconsistent to me ? If they have the right to make such judgements then all are equally valid if you like them or not, or none are, would be how I see it.

British family win £1m terrorism compensation from Turkey
A British family who were the victims of a terrorist attack while on holiday in 2005 have been awarded more than £1m by the Turkish government.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... urkey.html

The IPC in Cyprus was created to stem the influx of cases to ECHR from Cypriots because they would most probably, most likely win. so they should go and seek compensation for their property locally, first, if they want it. In practice, the IPC (Turkey) was low balling them and run out of money well before it should have. That's all I am saying. Not good! So, can they apply to the ECHR now to make judgment on their case?

You want us, the people of the world to have all these laws, which exist but in practice, rogue nations like Turkey do not recognize, respect or simply try and circumvent them and the judgements when found guilty. Isn't this the point?

[erolz66]

British family win £1m terrorism compensation from Turkey
A British family who were the victims of a terrorist attack while on holiday in 2005 have been awarded more than £1m by the Turkish government.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... urkey.html

Interesting but not really what I meant by way of example. But it's late so ill leave it at that for now. If you want me to explain why it does not seem to me to be the kind of example I was asking for then say so and when I have the energy I will do my best to do so.

The IPC in Cyprus was created to stem the influx of cases to ECHR from Cypriots because they would most probably, most likely win.

My understanding / perspective is the IPC was the result of Turkey being required by the ECHR to not just pay compensation to specific victims as a result of rulings but to also put in place systems that prevented such violations occurring for others on an on going basis as part of those rulings. The IPC was created (and subsequently amended in various ways) in order to meet this requirement set by the ECHR. Its earliest versions did not meet this requirement by the ECHR as judged by the ECHR, so it was amended until it did as judged by the ECHR.