Why do you agree that they illegally occupy?
They invaded Cyprus in two waves in an act of illegal occupation, which could have been interpreted as an act of war. The international community has not recognised their "TRNC", nor its "government". They have been asked repeatedly to leave, but as nothing more forceful than that has been done, and because Turkey has the largest standing army in Europe, they are in no hurry to do so. The fact that they have not been removed by international force or diplomacy does not make their occupation any more legal.
What happens to a entity that breaks the law?
Theoretically, when an entity breaks the law it is tried by a group of its peers and a sentence is pronounced. It is the duty of the authority that pronounced the sentence to see that it is done. Turkey's case is noteworthy in that it has stubbornly shown nothing but contempt for the international community's authority in refusing to withdraw from Cyprus. Unfortunately, because Cyprus lacks and has lacked a clear independent voice on the international stage nobody has shown too much interest or cared too much to carry out punitive measures against Cyprus. Cyprus is seen as a wayward nation that has yet to display any continuity of purpose. I suggest that while Cyprus has this schizophrenic tendency of wanting to be Greek and then not wanting to be Greek it is unlikely to be taken seriously.
Do the courts negotiate with such entities?
No, not usually. But you have to ask yourself why they are not taking the Cyprus issue all that seriously. Again, I put it to you that the international community will not insist on Turkey being removed until Cyprus puts forward a reasonable and responsible (may I say "adult") attitude towards solving its own problem. In this instance, the "courts" are left with the dilemma that going to all the trouble (and it would mean trouble) of getting Turkey to withdraw, possibly having to use force to do it, might actually make the Cyprus problem worse.
What rights does the entity have once broken the law?
See above – under normal circumstances, the "courts" (in this case the international community) would see that the "sentence" (in this case withdrawal) is commuted. The entity's rights would be forfeited within the boundaries of this sentence.
What right does the victim have?
Honestly? In English law, the victim has little or no rights, and almost always less than the perpetrator of the crime. His bad luck is seen to be just that – bad luck. Or to put it another way: "shit happens". He may receive some counselling to help him come to terms with it and he might be able to obtain a restraining order on the perpetrator of the crime. The only right he has is to be able to see that "justice" has been done. In this case it has not, and nor is it likely to be done. The international community has proven itself to be a toothless tiger and the Cypriot government has been too unfocussed to generate any international sympathy. The international community knows that something ought to be done, but lacks the resolve or the stimulus to carry out any action.
The problem is that criminals are inherently bad people and have no regard for the law. This places them outside of the law, unless the law can wield a big enough stick to make them notice. In this instance, the international community has proven over a thirty year period that when it comes to Cyprus, they really don't care very much. Which, in my opinion, makes them as bad as, if not worse than, the perpetrators.
Any solutions that I have been offering are aimed at removing the Turkish army of occupation with the help of the international community. I feel that if Cyprus was to show some initiative in the process and make suggestions that everybody could see were basically well intentioned to all parties, some movement might be made.
Just saying, ad nauseum, that the Turks should go and go now will achieve nothing but the boredom of the international community and the derision of the Turkish government.
But that is just my opinion.
