Cyprus bicommunal discussion and chat forum : Self Determination , 60's agreements & internationl lega

Album

Home

Self Determination , 60's agreements & internationl lega
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Author

Message

erolz

Site Admin

Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 10:58 pm Post subject: Self Determination , 60's agreements & internationl lega

Kifeas wrote:

Lewis, forget about those agreements. In as much as they are in conflict with the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -and they were /are in conflict in many ways (limitation of self-determination right of a country and its people, non-equality of treatment as a sovereign state and unilateral intervention rights;) they were /are automatically rented invalid, and their cnflicting provisions were /are dead and non applicable as a legal argument. That is why the Turkish invasion in 1974 was illegal in the face of international law, that is why the Turkish occupation is illegal, and that is why Turkey denied having the issue of Cyprus debated in front of an international and independed tribunal such as the ICJ in Hague, when Cyprus called uppon them to proceed to it.

The purpose of the United Nations as laid out in the charter of the united nations is as follows

Quote:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

This idea that self determination of peoples (or in this case one numerically dominant ethnic community) is paramount and unlimitable in any way and any limitation on this people and what they can do (or the numerically dominant group within it) is 'illegal' and not compatible with the UN charter is just not correct. For a start the very act of signing the UN charter itself places limits on what a people can do within it's own territory. Therefore following Kifea's logic no provision within the UN charter or the UN declarations on Human rights are valid, because they all place limits on the self determination of a people - which is patent nonsense.

The purpose of the UN charter is first and foremost that laid out in point 1 of article 1. The simple realities of the world mean that it is often the case that the requirements of point1 conflict with those of point 2. That is that unlimited right of self determination of peoples (or a numerically dominant ethnic part of a people) to do anything they like can and does threaten the maintenance of international peace and security. The pursuit of enosis by Greek Cypriot as a successor to British Colonial rule quite simply did represent a threat to international peace and security.

The right to self determination is NOT a right for a people to do ANYTHING it wants. Nor is it a right without responsibilities. It is first and foremost the right of a people to determine its own political destiny. Enosis was a desire not for the Cypriot people to determine their own political destiny - it was the desire for Greece and the Greek people to determine the political destiny of the Cypriot people, with the Cypriot people a tiny minority within that Greek people.

The 1960's agreements therefore sought to meet ALL the ideals laid out in the UN charter, not just those of an absolute right of the Greek Cypriot community alone to do anything it wanted in Cyprus and with Cyprus without regard for any of the other objectives of the UN charter. Limits were not placed on the Cypriot people to determine their own political destiny - limits were placed on their right to destroy the ability of Cypriots to determine the political destiny of Cypriots, and done so in light off the first objective of the UN charter - to maintain peace and stability.

The 1960's agreements were drawn up by legal experts from Greece, Turkey and the UK. It is imo madness to think that they drew up an agreement that contained articles that were simply null and void and meaningless because they contradicted those in the UN charter.

These agreements were also logged and recorded with the UN itself, as the UN charter requires. Again indicating that the UN itself did not consider them in breach of the UN charter.

However the clearest indication that the UN itself did not consider the 60's agreements or any part of them a violation of it's own charter is given in the 1964 UN resolution. This reality has been pointed out by Glafcos Clerides in his book - My Deposition, v 3, p 79

Glafcos Clerides wrote:

The idea, that through the UN, we could achieve the abrogation of the treaties, or at least set them aside, and unilaterally to proceed to give a solution to the problem, ignoring Turkey, received, without it being noticed, its death blow at the first Security Council resolution, and its burial, at all subsequent resolutions, which though they enunciated broad general principles for its solution, made the actual solution conditional on agreement between the parties concerned, i.e., the two communities and the guarantors.

In short as Clerides points out not only did the UN NOT declare the interest of the guarantor powers laid out in the treaties of guarantee 'invalid' based on the UN charter in the 64 resolution and all subsequent ones, it actually explicitly reinforced and reiterated the rights of those powers under the treaty of guarantee.

In summary then.

For me then this idea of Kifea's that is shared by many other Greek Cypriot that key aspects of the 60's agreements were illegal and can be unilaterally deemed illegal and simply ignored at will, from the minute they were signed and agreed by the Greek Cypriot leadership has in my view nothing to do with international law and respect for it or for justice in general and everything to do with the promoting and cloaking of the idea that Greek Cypriot alone can and should be able to do whatever Greek Cypriot want in Cyprus with no regard for the communal wishes of the Turkish Cypriot community or any regard to the effects on international peace and stability and that no limit on this ability - weather agreed to or not by Greek Cypriot leaderships can ever be legal and thus can be simply agreed and then ignored by Greek Cypriot leaderships at will.

This 'world view' is not just a historic problem but an ongoing current one to me. When Kifeas expresses such beliefs how can I have any faith in any future agreement we might make in regard to solving the Cyprus problem? Agree the Annan Plan or some future plan and then the next day unilateraly disregard any provision such an agreement might have for any degree of political equality of Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communites - because such is a contravention of the UN charter on the right of self determination - by unilateral decision of Greek Cypriot alone. Ignore any provision for Turkey to guarantee such an agreement because such is a contravention of the UN charter and so on and so on. It is this kind of Greek Cypriot centric world view that says that Greek Cypriot can legally do anything they want in Cyprus without any limit or regard for anything but Greek Cypriot wishes and regardless of anything they might agree and sign that makes me fear Greek Cypriot poltical domination of the Turkish Cypriot community in our shared homeland.

stavrizatz

Mukhtar/is

Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 823
Location: Australia / Lefkosia

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:54 am Post subject:

Ok you've said it a million times that Greek Cypriots seek to dominate Turkish Cypriots, which as far as I am concerned it is not true. Now explain to us how you justify the domination of Turkish Cypriots towards Greek Cypriots. If you argue that Greek Cypriots dominating Turkish Cypriots is not fair but the other way round is, then I assume your perception of fairness is entangled! If that is not what you insist and it is just me misunderstanding what you was trying to say then propose what you think is a fair solution.

erolz

Site Admin

Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:56 am Post subject:

stavrizatz wrote:

Ok you've said it a million times that Greek Cypriots seek to dominate Turkish Cypriots, which as far as I am concerned it is not true.

When you assert that 'legality' means that Greek Cypriot alone must have the right to decide the future of all of Cyprus and all Cypriots with no need or requirement for regard for Turkish Cypriot communal wishes or any other consideration and that any agreement that limits this in any way is legally null and void and an illegal infringement of Greek Cypriot rights to self determination and can be agreed and then ignored - what else am I to think ?

stavrizatz wrote:

Now explain to us how you justify the domination of Turkish Cypriots towards Greek Cypriots.

I do not, have not and can not foresee ever arguing that the Turkish Cypriot community should have or must have the right to dominate the Greek Cypriot community in our shared homeland.

stavrizatz wrote:

If you argue that Greek Cypriots dominating Turkish Cypriots is not fair but the other way round is, then I assume your perception of fairness is entangled!

If I had argued that then indeed my position would be inconsistent in the extreme. However I do not and have not argued this.

stavrizatz wrote:

If that is not what you insist and it is just me misunderstanding what you was trying to say then propose what you think is a fair solution.

What I believe is just, fair, legal and necessary in a untied Cyprus is that the two communities have a degree of political equality as communities in regard to those things that affect each community differently regardless of the numerical sizes of each community. This is no more a desire for the Turkish Cypriot community to have a right to dominate the Greek Cypriot one in Cyprus than the equality the Republic of Cyprus enjoys as a state within the EU or the UN to much larger states is a right for the Republic of Cyprus to dominate these larger states. Such equality does not give any ability to dominate - either way round - it removes that ability and that is what I support for a unitary Cypriot state - at least as an interim measure for as long as it is deemed necessary by any party.

stavrizatz

Mukhtar/is

Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 823
Location: Australia / Lefkosia

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:59 am Post subject:

Erolz wrote:

Quote:

The simple answer is there is no 'highest statute' in international law.

That is somehow true but you manipulate it to suit your argument. Have you ever heard of the term 'jus cogens'?

Quote:

The idea of international jus cogens as a body of 'higher law' of overriding importance for the international community is steadily gaining ground.

I think you fail to understand the difference of international Law to other types of law. The only difference is that international law cannot be enforceable at the degree it should be as there is no international police to enforce the laws. However the laws are there and states breach without great concern for other.

As for the agreements your following example was the perfect demonstration of my point.

Quote:

Look in the UK there is 'statute law' that takes precedent over any agreements that might be made. A classic example would be employment contracts. You can sign, agree and fully understand and accept an employment contract that says you can not work for a competitor within so many months of leaving the company, yet such a restriction is just unenforceable because stautes in the UK say that you right to work and earn a living can not be so limited - even if you agree to such limits. This is a case where the statute law take precedence over any contract.

So yes, once Cyprus became a member of the United Nations in 1960 all provisions of the London-Zurich Agreements that were in conflict with or inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations becomes null as the subject of those clauses is not legal.

I am not a lawyer so I don’t know the exact details, but that was the argument of some other lawyer who used that point to defend a similar case where the constitution of the country was not in line with that of the UN.

In any case ethically it is not acceptable to me as I will certainly respect the laws or guidelines of an international organisation than any other agreement with hidden agendas.

Erolz wrote:

Quote:

apparently still insist and believe that anything in the 60's agreements that limits the Greek Cypriot communities right and ability to do anything they like in and with Cyprus is 'illegal' and 'null and void' and can simple be ignored.

Neither me or Kifeas said that, again a pure manipulation to suit you argument. We never said that Greek Cypriot community, ever had the right and ability to do anything they like, unless again if you believe that the Cypriot community excludes Turkish Cypriots. The point is that the Cypriot community as a whole has the ability to choose the destiny of their country and not external power as it was imposed to us by foreigners. Turkish Cypriots human rights would be perfectly respected and Turkish Cypriots would of enjoyed more liberties than what they do now, if the right of self-determination was used in the appropriate content. We never argued that Turkish Cypriots deserve to be second class citizens in their own country. Turkish Cypriots are co-founders of the Republic of Cyprus and should never be discriminated or dominated by any kind of injustice performed by a greater majority. As I’ve said before and I believe Kifeas will agree with me, that democracy does not simply mean that the views of the majority must always prevail; a balance must be achieved which ensures the fair and proper treatment of minorities and avoids any abuse of a dominant position.

Erolz wrote:

Quote:

My arguments do not deny the human rights of Greek Cypriot - individual or communal. They seek to challenge you assertion that what human rights and international legality

You do not seek to challenge just my assertion of what human rights are and international legality, but you challenge the right itself as you believe it should be denied to Cyprus because of the past agreements.

stavrizatz

Mukhtar/is

Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 823
Location: Australia / Lefkosia

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:11 am Post subject:

Erolz wrote:

Quote:

Fair enough, but the right of self-determination does not mean domination anyway and I cannot understand why that is the interpretation you have.
I will agree that any model for a solution must guarantee the equality of all communities in regards of certain issues such as education, social and cultural matters. That was always my position but at the same time the chosen model for a solution in any case is what the majority of people want. I never suggested imposing on Turkish Cypriot community anything oppresive and unfair.

erolz

Site Admin

Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:30 am Post subject:

stavrizatz wrote:

Look if a model allows for enosis to be imposed on Turkish Cypriot in Cyprus then it allows for the domination of the Turkish Cypriot community by Greek Cypriot. Enosis was a purely Greek Cypriot desire - it was a desire to destroy Cyprus as a sovereign state and destroy the right of Cypriots to determine the future of Cypriots. It would have affected members of the Turkish Cypriot community in vastly different and adverse ways as it affected those of the Greek Cypriot (or armenian or latin for that matter) communities.

If you can not understand how the imposition of enosis on the Turkish Cypriot community by the Greek Cypriot community against the Turkish Cypriot communities will represented domination, or why simply saying that Turkish Cypriot having 'minority' rights in their own homeland is sufficient protection against such imposition and dominance, then I do not know what else to say.

It does not matter to me that enosis may no longer be a realistic desire of Greek Cypriot today. My point is that it is an clear cut example of how your interpretation of what 'self determination' must mean in a united Cyprus could also be used as a means of the Greek Cypriot community dominating and imposing its will on the Turkish Cypriot community. Show me a unitary Cyprus where the achievement of enosis is impossible without the Turkish Cypriot communities consent and we can talk unitary Cyprus. Just tell me that I should not care or be concerned that enosis could be imposed on my community in their shared homeland against their communal will and we will continue to get no where.

erolz

Site Admin

Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:33 pm Post subject:

stavrizatz wrote:

That is somehow true but you manipulate it to suit your argument. Have you ever heard of the term 'jus cogens'?

Yes I have heard the term 'jus cogens' a good description of which can be found here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_norm

So are you claiming that the right to self determination is an example of an international peremptory norm ? If you do claim this then what it would mean is that no agreement between states that limited a states sovereignty (right to self determination) would be legal under international law. You had probably better explain this quick to the EU and all those countries that have signed agreements that cede degrees of sovereignty to EU institutions - for I do not think they consider these agreements or those parts of them illegal under international law.

stavrizatz wrote:

With all due respect if you think the only difference between international law and national law is lack of enforcement mechanisms in international law, then it is you that could do with a better understanding.
The key essential difference between the two is not lack of enforcement. The key difference is in fact the lack of a legislative body in international law empowered by the people of the world and accountable to it. National law is drawn up by legislative bodies with the primary ethos and intent of 'justice' or 'fairness'. International law is a mishmash of precedent and norms in agreements between states - where the primary ethos and intent of these agreements is not justice but actually mutual self interest of the states concerned. That is a much bigger difference between national and international law than mere lack of enforcement mechanism in international law.
The irony of the above is that if the world was to agree to a supreme international legislative body empowered to create a highest order of international law in the way national laws are created - it would require all states in the world to sign an agreement to that effect - and according to you such an agreement would itself be illegal and null and void - because it would limit the people of those states right to self determination.

stavrizatz wrote:

Which provisions of the 60's agreements to you claim are in conflict with or inconsistent with the Charter of the United nations?

The prohibition on enosis? You think that prohibiting the destruction of the cypriot peoples right to determine their own future is inconsistent with them having a right to determine their own future?

Or do you claim the treaty of guarantee is in conflict with the UN charter? Even though the UN itself reaffirmed the rights of the guarantor powers in the 64 resolution in Cyprus and subsequent one?

Please do let me know exactly which parts of the 60's agreements you think are inconsistent with the UN charter, and then explain to me why you think that a Greek Cypriot leadership should be free to unilaterally make such judgments and ignore its signature without recourse to any external body.

stavrizatz wrote:

In any case ethically it is not acceptable to me as I will certainly respect the laws or guidelines of an international organisation than any other agreement with hidden agendas.

Ethically the point at which you should accept the guidelines of international organisations is when you are negotiating an agreement. There is no ethics in negotiating and signing and accepting an agreement and then as soon as it is signed saying - ah but actually I do not have to be bound by this or that or the other part that I just agreed to because its incompatible with the UN charters. Ethical behavior would require one to refuse to sign the agreement in the first place on the basis it is not compatible and negotiate one that was.

stavrizatz wrote:

Do you claim that the prohibition on enosis in the 60's agreements is illegal and null and void because it is incompatible with self determination ? Yes or no? Is your argument that unless Greek Cypriot alone in Cyprus have a right to destroy cypriot self determination, they do not have self determination ? Is that your argument?

stavrizatz wrote:

No no no. I do not deny that Cypriots should have self determination at all. I deny your position that if Greek Cypriot alone are prevented from imposing things like enosis on all cypriots with no regard for the Turkish Cypriot communities will, then Cypriots do not have self determination at all.
I think agreements (like those in 60 and those that govern the EU as well for that matter) can place limits on the absolute right of a people to determine their own future and yet still be both legally valid and leave the people with self determination as it is laid out in the UN charters.

I think the 60's agreements did and do provide Cypriots with the essentials of self determination. I do not think those limits that do exist stop Cypriots from determining their own future as Cypriots - they just stop Greek Cypriot from imposing their will on Turkish Cypriot. I think arguments from many Greek Cypriot that they deny Cypriots self determination are actually a 'disguise' to find ways to try and justify unilaterally ignoring those parts that stop Greek Cypriot imposing their will on Turkish Cypriot - claiming it is about cypriot self determination. This strategy is clearly laid out in the Akritas plan and seems to persist to this day.

-mikkie2-

Mukhtar/is

Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 603

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:45 pm Post subject:

This thread, just like many others, has become tedious to the extreme. We are pretty much faced with a shitty situation for both sides. The Turkish Cypriot side is sleepwalking itself to eventual anhililation and the Greek Cypriot side is scared to take the initiative with the end result being permanent partition. You guys can sit here and talk about the finer aspects of what it means to have 'self-determination' but the way I see it, most of you guys have NO determination for yourselves other than to hide behind the respective well known 'positions' of our stupid politicians. Are we Cypriots or not? If yes, then we have one country and we should put our trust in eachother to make it work and accept that we both have to make big sacrifices, on the one hand the Greek Cypriot's to share power with the Turkish Cypriot's and on the other the Turkish Cypriot's to stop being bloodyminded and accept that they will have to live amogst Greek Cypriot's and accept the legitimate rights of ALL Cypriots. Anything else is just a load of crap and excuses.

erolz

Site Admin

Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:12 pm Post subject:

-mikkie2- wrote:

Are we Cypriots or not? If yes, then we have one country and we should put our trust in eachother to make it work and accept that we both have to make big sacrifices, on the one hand the Greek Cypriot's to share power with the Turkish Cypriot's and on the other the Turkish Cypriot's to stop being bloodyminded and accept that they will have to live amogst Greek Cypriot's and accept the legitimate rights of ALL Cypriots.

As I have said in the past to me personally bizonality is not necessary for me to support a solution - though I do understand why for many Turkish Cypriot an element of bizonality is necessary. For me what is necessary if some kind of agreed bi-communality. The problem comes when I am told I should not want need or expect any bicommunality and just be happy with 'minority' protections for the Turkish Cypriot community in a united Cyprus - and the extension of that which is that any rights the Turkish Cypriot community have beyond those of a political 'minority' would be a breach of the Cypriot right to self determination and be illegal and could be agreed and then ignored. That kind of positions just concerns me greatly.

Offer me a united Cyprus where it would be impossible for the Greek Cypriot community alone to impose something like enosis on the Turkish Cypriot community without their agreement as a community and in all probability I will support such a solution. Tell me that any such solution could only ever be illegal under international law and I will continue to argue that this is not the case.

Get Real!
Warnings : 3
Senior Villager

Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 322
Location: Nicosia

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:49 pm Post subject:

Erolz... There is nothing that can offer you the type of guarantees you’re looking for without stepping all over the other side’s democratic rights so get over it Erolz because I for one will never accept ANY special conditions for ANY community and the ONLY acceptable model in the 21st century is democracy and we (Cyprus) also get the EXTRA guarantees that EU membership has to offer and that’s a lot more than most countries of the World could ever hope for. Let's just give Erolz a ministerial seat and maybe he'll shut up!

erolz

Site Admin

Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:08 am Post subject:

Get Real! wrote:

Erolz...

There is nothing that can offer you the type of guarantees you’re looking for without stepping all over the other side’s democratic rights so get over it Erolz because I for one will never accept ANY special conditions for ANY community and the ONLY acceptable model in the 21st century is democracy and we (Cyprus) also get the EXTRA guarantees that EU membership has to offer and that’s a lot more than most countries of the World could ever hope for.

Let's just give Erolz a ministerial seat and maybe he'll shut up! Smile

Without stepping on the Greek Cypriot communities 'democratic' right to impose a purely Greek Cypriot desire and will on the Turkish Cypriot community in their own (shared) homeland , depriving the Turkish Cypriot community any effective say in decisions that affect their lives in the most fundamental ways - and this to you is 'democracy'. To me it is not a demand for 'democracy' but a demand for the right of the Greek Cypriot ethnic community to be able to impose purely ethnic desires on others against their will - not democracy but tyranny.

If this is your position then let's stop messing around and talk about an agreed partition. Oh but that also is not acceptable to you is it? The only thing acceptable to you is all of Cyprus under effective political control of Greek Cypriot alone, where Turkish Cypriot can exists in their own homeland if they accept that if ever and when ever the Greek Cypriot community they shared it want something they do not they have to just accept this without complain or resistance - even if what the Greek Cypriot community wants is the destruction of the Cypriot state and the destruction of Cypriot self determination. This is the kind of mindset that has done so much to get Cyprus in the mess it is in today and one you continue to support without even an apparent inch of possible compromise. Has all the pain all the blood and all the suffering of innocents not yet been enough for you to think that maybe a different view and approach is necessary? Apparently not Sad

-mikkie2-

Mukhtar/is

Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 603

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:50 am Post subject:

Without stepping on the Greek Cypriot communities 'democratic' right to impose a purely Greek Cypriot desire and will on the Turkish

Quote:

Cypriot community in their own (shared) homeland , depriving the Turkish Cypriot community any effective say in decisions that affect their lives in the most fundamental ways - and this to you is 'democracy'. To me it is not a demand for 'democracy' but a demand for the right of the Greek Cypriot ethnic community to be able to impose purely ethnic desires on others against their will - not democracy but tyranny.

This is the kind of bollocks I'm talking about Erol. You keep talking like this and there will NEVER be a solution to the Cyprus problem. And this is one reason why I despair when I read the many posts in this and other forums and its why I mainly now stay out of any discussions. Its pointless.

erolz

Site Admin

Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:11 am Post subject:

-mikkie2- wrote:

And with due respect mikkie , you talking of a need for "Greek Cypriot's to share power with the Turkish Cypriot's" as part off a solution, then failing to have anything to say to those Greek Cypriot like GR that claim it is impossible to have any such political equality in a solution without "stepping all over the other side’s democratic rights", does not seem to offer much chance of a solution either.

If you as a Greek Cypriot that believes that some form of 'sharing' of power is necessary for a solution can not be bothered to argue this case with those Greek Cypriot that claim such is impossible without destroying democracy for the Greek Cypriot community , then how will we find a solution? By me not challenging them also ?

My comment may well sound like rhetoric to you and in some ways it is but it is a reactive rhetoric to that of GR's and people like him. Blasting me for my rhetoric whilst making no comment on GR's feels to me both one sided and lazy on your part to be frank.

You want a deal where I leave the persuading / arguing with Greek Cypriot that 'sharing' the island does not have to involve no democracy for Greek Cypriot in a unitary Cyprus to you and I will concentrate on persuading Turkish Cypriot that living amongst Greek Cypriot with equal indivdual rights for all in a unitary Cyprus is not something to fear or oppose - then such a deal would be fine with me.

However _someone_ needs to challenge those that say these things are impossible or unacceptable (or even undemocratic). So will you challenge GR or not? If not then please do not complain if others do - even if their challenge is as rhetoric laden as GR posts.

stavrizatz

Mukhtar/is

Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 823
Location: Australia / Lefkosia

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:24 am Post subject:

Erolz wrote:

Quote:

So are you claiming that the right to self determination is an example of an international peremptory norm?

Yes, it should be … I will say it is one of the most important human rights. If there was a body of higher power to enforce the international laws and specifically the right of self-determination then there will be no conflict. But countries like Britain and Turkey deny it so as to oppress others for there own interest. Really Erolz I cannot understand you, I never met anyone with such double standards in there arguments. So it is ok for countries to have rules to overrule agreements between people, but it is not ok for international law to overrule unfair agreements between countries.

Erolz wrote:

Quote:

The key difference is in fact the lack of a legislative body in international law empowered by the people of the world and accountable to it. National law is drawn up by legislative bodies with the primary ethos and intent of 'justice' or 'fairness'.

Yes, your right… but I was referring to the impact of international law on states as oppose to national law no citizens. My mistake to use the word ‘only’ and I apologise.

Nevertheless my point remains the same and it is not an irony because you view self-determination as an absolute right ignoring the legal framework around it and when it applies etc.

Erolz wrote:

Quote:

Which provisions of the 60's agreements to you claim are in conflict with or inconsistent with the Charter of the United nations?

As I mentioned before any state cannot destroy its own future sovereignty by binding future governments, not to exercise the right of self-determination. It didn’t recognise that fact that people change with time along with their desires.

Erolz wrote:

Quote:

Do you claim that the prohibition on enosis in the 60's agreements is illegal and null and void because it is incompatible with self determination? Yes or No?

YES of course. The agreement limited the exact thing that the general Cypriot public wanted at the time. Erolz Cypriot self-determination is for all Cypriot people and it is democratic in nature where the members of the whole territory are able to express what they want. Clearly at the time Cypriots wanted enosis and by prohibiting Enosis, is prohibiting the right of self-determination. You can argue it was against the will of Turkish Cypriots but independence was similarly against the will of Greek Cypriots. The agreements were clearly imposing a constitution against the will of the general public and it was against the general interest of the community. Provided that Turkish Cypriots were not discriminated in any way by Greek law and the agreement provided guarantee to protect the human rights of Turkish Cypriots, then enosis was by far the fairest solution for all Cypriots.

You mention again and again that Greek Cypriot democratic right is equivalent to imposing something on Turkish Cypriots - this is a misrepresentation of the truth. Turkish Cypriots instead were imposing their communal will against Greek Cypriots because they had the backs by a larger power that enabled them to do so.

Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Deputy

Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:25 am Post subject:

Quote:

The agreements were clearly imposing a constitution against the will of the general public and it was against the general interest of the community. Provided that Turkish Cypriots were not discriminated in any way by Greek law and the agreement provided guarantee to protect the human rights of Turkish Cypriots, then enosis was by far the fairest solution for all Cypriots.

My friend, this mentality is exactly why Turkish Cypriots call themselves Turkish Cypriots and not Cypriots, that's why they want their own federal state, that's why they insist on bizonality. You must be blind to claim that Enosis was the fairest solution for all Cypriots and you must be even blinder to expect that we'll take you seriously after such a claim.

Display posts from previous:

All times are GMT + 3 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 1 of 6

get the latest forum posts directly to your desktop

get the latest album posts directly to your desktop

Link Partners

2360 Attacks blocked