Piratis wrote:
Anything else?
Yes, I think Bush was right in saying that the UN is useless
In any case I fail to understand what law is the TRNC legally invalid according to, and who is responsible for policing and enforcing these laws? The answer is no one since under Chapter Six Security Council Resolutions are not legally binding:
Under Chapter Six of the Charter, "Pacific Settlement of Disputes", the Security Council "may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute". The Council may "recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment" if it determines that the situation might endanger international peace and security. These recommendations are not binding on UN members.
Under Chapter Seven, the Council has broader power to decide what measures are to be taken in situations involving "threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression". In such situations, the Council is not limited to recommendations but may take action, including the use of armed force "to maintain or restore international peace and security". This was the basis for UN armed action in Korea in 1950 during the Korean War and the use of coalition forces in Iraq and Kuwait in 1991. Decisions taken under Chapter Seven, such as economic sanctions, are binding on UN members.
Only under Chapter Seven resolutions are binding, and then the UN should have taken millitary action against Turkey a long time ago.
As you can see the security council resolutions under Chapeter Six are only recomendations that are not binding on members. If a law is not biding then what kind of law is it? What kind of legality is non-binding? And what kind of oxymoron is it to say a state is illegal when actually it is allowed to be illegal!