Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

Are Turkish Settlers in the “TRNC” Illegal?


The IV. Geneva Convention of 1949

Artical. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.

The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.

The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b28 ... 1e004aa3c5


The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998)

Defines "the transfer directly or indirectly by the Occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies" as a War Crime indictable by the International Criminal Court. (Article 7, Crimes Against Humanity.)


The Hague Convention (Article 46)

Prohibits the confiscation of private property in occupied territory. The confiscation of land by the Turkish government for settlement construction is in violation of this article. (Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); July 29, 1899)


The Hague Convention (Article 55)

Stipulates that "the occupying state shall be regarded only as administrator and *usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct." In other words, the occupying power cannot take over or use territories or private properties in the occupied territories to serve the interests of its civilian population. (Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); July 29, 1899)

* A person who has the use and enjoyment of something, especially property


Regards, GR.

[Nikitas]

Perhaps a private legal action in the EU nations that provide such ability, like Belgium, against the indiviudals who promote settlement of the north might be useful. An arrest warrant for crimes against humanity pending againt the officials who carry out these acts would make life interesting.

[observer]

It would be an interesting case, as the wording of the The Rome Statute (the transfer directly or indirectly by the Occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies) seems to imply direct action by the State as opposed to voluntary movement of people. As far as I am aware, no one was forced to come to Cyprus against their wishes.

It could be argued that inducements were given, but so they were to encourage West Indian immigrants to come to Britain in the 1950s, Turkish guestarbeiters to Germany in the 1960s, and assitance to European immigrants to Australia in the post-WW2 period.

[denizaksulu]

It would be an interesting case, as the wording of the The Rome Statute (the transfer directly or indirectly by the Occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies) seems to imply direct action by the State as opposed to voluntary movement of people. As far as I am aware, no one was forced to come to Cyprus against their wishes.

It could be argued that inducements were given, but so they were to encourage West Indian immigrants to come to Britain in the 1950s, Turkish guestarbeiters to Germany in the 1960s, and assitance to European immigrants to Australia in the post-WW2 period.

It is alleged that the homes of the Kurdish settlers were destroyed in the 'war zone' in eastern Turkey. Wouldnt that be 'coercion' of sorts. I cant imagine that they left their homes voluntarily if they had no roofs over their heads. Anyway, I can not see the Kurdish settlers complaining about their new, peaceful lives in Cyprus.

[Tim Drayton]

It would be an interesting case, as the wording of the The Rome Statute (the transfer directly or indirectly by the Occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies) seems to imply direct action by the State as opposed to voluntary movement of people. As far as I am aware, no one was forced to come to Cyprus against their wishes.

It could be argued that inducements were given, but so they were to encourage West Indian immigrants to come to Britain in the 1950s, Turkish guestarbeiters to Germany in the 1960s, and assitance to European immigrants to Australia in the post-WW2 period.

On the other hand, according to information contained in a series of interviews by Sevgül Uludağ with İlkay Adalı (who should know because she and her husband were in senior positions within the Civil Registry at the time) published in Yeni Düzen on 6-16 December 2005, the first wave of settlers after 1974 were brought over en masse in shiploads of people from the same village or group of villages, who were issued with documents on these ships and taken to abandoned villages where they were assigned homes. That sounds pretty organised to me.

I accept that later waves of immigration were more casual and spontaneous, but there is a world of difference between a sovereign country chosing to accept immigrant labour and what has happened in the north of Cyprus.

[Jerry]

It would be an interesting case, as the wording of the The Rome Statute (the transfer directly or indirectly by the Occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies) seems to imply direct action by the State as opposed to voluntary movement of people. As far as I am aware, no one was forced to come to Cyprus against their wishes.

It could be argued that inducements were given, but so they were to encourage West Indian immigrants to come to Britain in the 1950s, Turkish guestarbeiters to Germany in the 1960s, and assitance to European immigrants to Australia in the post-WW2 period.

I don't know why I'm bothering to state the obvious but you appear to need help Observer. The West Indians and others you mention were "induced" by the the legitimate governments of those countries - you know the rest of the argument.

[zan]

We all know why mainland TUrks were brought onto the island so I can't see why this is all silly speculation is going on.....The fact is that they are there NOW...........We have seen how many tricks the GC side has played in order to get into a better position and we played enough games to make sure we did not get left behind.....

No one is going to force anyone into a corner any more.....Legally or not....Your one hope is the EU and TUrkey doesn't care if it gets in or not...It has options...Either a solution that the TCs accept or nothing.....You guys keep trying to push Turkey into making the decision and forget that there is a TRNC there that Turkey has recognised.....

[observer]

It would be an interesting case, as the wording of the The Rome Statute (the transfer directly or indirectly by the Occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies) seems to imply direct action by the State as opposed to voluntary movement of people. As far as I am aware, no one was forced to come to Cyprus against their wishes.

It could be argued that inducements were given, but so they were to encourage West Indian immigrants to come to Britain in the 1950s, Turkish guestarbeiters to Germany in the 1960s, and assitance to European immigrants to Australia in the post-WW2 period.

I don't know why I'm bothering to state the obvious but you appear to need help Observer. The West Indians and others you mention were "induced" by the the legitimate governments of those countries - you know the rest of the argument.

No you miss my point, which was, has Turkey (an internationally recognised government) broken The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998)?

The wording of the definition given by GR, as interpreted by me, seems to indicate that there needs to be direct action by the State (i.e. Turkey) to transfer its own population. If people moved of their own accord then the State (Turkey) has not violated the The Rome Statute.

The Turkish government is generally recognised as being the legitimate government of Turkey, as I'm sure you will agree.

[Jerry]

It would be an interesting case, as the wording of the The Rome Statute (the transfer directly or indirectly by the Occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies) seems to imply direct action by the State as opposed to voluntary movement of people. As far as I am aware, no one was forced to come to Cyprus against their wishes.

It could be argued that inducements were given, but so they were to encourage West Indian immigrants to come to Britain in the 1950s, Turkish guestarbeiters to Germany in the 1960s, and assitance to European immigrants to Australia in the post-WW2 period.

I don't know why I'm bothering to state the obvious but you appear to need help Observer. The West Indians and others you mention were "induced" by the the legitimate governments of those countries - you know the rest of the argument.

No you miss my point, which was, has Turkey (an internationally recognised government) broken The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998)?

The wording of the definition given by GR, as interpreted by me, seems to indicate that there needs to be direct action by the State (i.e. Turkey) to transfer its own population. If people moved of their own accord then the State (Turkey) has not violated the The Rome Statute.

The Turkish government is generally recognised as being the legitimate government of Turkey, as I'm sure you will agree.

But your comparison was with West Indians etc who were not sent but invited. Your post also confirms the view that the "government" in "trnc" is in fact Turkey.

[DT.]

It would be an interesting case, as the wording of the The Rome Statute (the transfer directly or indirectly by the Occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies) seems to imply direct action by the State as opposed to voluntary movement of people. As far as I am aware, no one was forced to come to Cyprus against their wishes.

It could be argued that inducements were given, but so they were to encourage West Indian immigrants to come to Britain in the 1950s, Turkish guestarbeiters to Germany in the 1960s, and assitance to European immigrants to Australia in the post-WW2 period.

I don't know why I'm bothering to state the obvious but you appear to need help Observer. The West Indians and others you mention were "induced" by the the legitimate governments of those countries - you know the rest of the argument.

No you miss my point, which was, has Turkey (an internationally recognised government) broken The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998)?

The wording of the definition given by GR, as interpreted by me, seems to indicate that there needs to be direct action by the State (i.e. Turkey) to transfer its own population. If people moved of their own accord then the State (Turkey) has not violated the The Rome Statute.

The Turkish government is generally recognised as being the legitimate government of Turkey, as I'm sure you will agree.

Observer how are you missing the very important point regarding "occupied lands"

The Brits didn't bring/invite anyone over to any occupied lands as the Rome Statute states but on their legitimate soverign territory.

Whos sovereign territory did Turkey bring the settlers to?