A Question of International Law - Treaty Violations

BillBarnacle


Joined: 20/04/2009
Posts: 167

Message Posted:
22/05/2009 21:36

The Treaty of Guarantee which was the founding Treaty of the RoC Prohibits membership of political or economic organisations



My questions for some of the more learned members of this board are



1.Is this treaty still in force

2.If not have ALL parties to it agreed to its demise

3.If it is still in force or then how have the RoC joined the EU

and finally

4.If the treaty is being violated by the RoC membership of the EU would the Orams not be able to claim in a UK court that EU law is being used against them in violation of International Law to which the UK are a signatory and in this case which law has primacy EU or International

ilovekibris


Joined: 18/05/2009
Posts: 394

Message Posted:
22/05/2009 23:05

whoa looks like you posed a tricky one there arbee ;)

BillBarnacle


Joined: 20/04/2009
Posts: 167

Message Posted:
22/05/2009 23:50

arbee



Thanks for the link



with regards to partition and (taksim) clearly others also have obligations to comply with



My original post remains to be answered



The Treaty of Guarantee - Article 1



It ( ie the RoC ) undertakes not to participate in whole or in part in any political or economic union with any state whatsoever





This is a clear statement and my question is if this treaty is still valid then the RoC membership of the EU constitutes a treaty violation unless all parties to it have agreed to its demise

Lilli



Joined: 21/07/2008
Posts: 13081

Message Posted:
22/05/2009 23:54

Hi we all know that but what can we do here. We are guests xxxx They can break every law treaty or convention and get away with it.

Troodo


Joined: 12/06/2008
Posts: 1002

Message Posted:
23/05/2009 00:24

Hi Arbee,

I await with baited breath your reply, or will you sidetrack and prevaricate again. Better ask someone higher up on the Cyrus forum before you before you get yourself in a lather again.



Troodo

BillBarnacle


Joined: 20/04/2009
Posts: 167

Message Posted:
23/05/2009 00:33

Hi again arbee



You are right to see where i am going



The law (all law) requires water tight wording to prevent misunderstanding



If the treaty meant to prevent union with Greece or Turkey it should have stated so



It does not



The wording is 'any state whatsoever'



The EU is a union of 27 states



Therefore is the RoC membership a treaty violation

newscoop


Joined: 23/12/2007
Posts: 2197

Message Posted:
23/05/2009 00:35

Interesting;



It has always been my understanding that the 1960 constitution forbade the ROC from joining any political entity that did not include all three guarantor states.



Therefore daft as it seems the ROC could join NATO but not the EU.



If that is the case then somebody did some serious goalpost shifting.

Troodo


Joined: 12/06/2008
Posts: 1002

Message Posted:
23/05/2009 00:40

Now you are getting there newscoop, and certainly not the only time.



Troodo.

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
23/05/2009 00:43

This link shows the argument used by the ROC in joining the EU - I am NOT saying their argument is correct, simply that it may shed light on the question you raised!



http://www.hri.org/forum/intpol/cyprus-eu.html



In December 2004 - Turkey agreed to extend its EU customs union agreement to 10 new member states, including Cyprus. The Turkish prime minister said this does not amount to a formal recognition of Cyprus.



There was an argument in the EU that ROC should NOT have been accepted in to the EU until the Cyprus problem is resolved. However, the belief was that the Annan plan would be accepted by both sides. Fact is this was in April 2004 and they still went ahead with the accession!



There is an academic paper describing he whole process - may be of some interest!



http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/pier/resources/lessons/case_study.htm



Enjoy!

BillBarnacle


Joined: 20/04/2009
Posts: 167

Message Posted:
23/05/2009 00:49

arbee



I agree the whole set up was a cluster



I am not being pedantic it is an anomoly which lawyers could argue in court



I merely enquire whether it was an avenue that the Orams could pursue



Many cases have been won or lost on obscure points of law

BillBarnacle


Joined: 20/04/2009
Posts: 167

Message Posted:
23/05/2009 01:04

Moover



Thanks for the links



It would appear that this has not been challenged in court



Perhaps it is time it was

Troodo


Joined: 12/06/2008
Posts: 1002

Message Posted:
23/05/2009 01:11

# It shall be recognised that the total or partial union of Cyprus with any other State, or a separatist independence for Cyprus (i.e., the partition of Cyprus into two independent States) , shall be excluded.



Just type in Treaty of Guarantee Cyprus. I wonder which bit Arbee will discard as irrelevant. I have read through it before, but on a quick retake it is one hell of legal can of worms.



Troodo

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
23/05/2009 01:33

Cyprus wasnot allowed to join with any other "State" in economic union. Surely the term "State"covered "States" as well. It was for this reason that they stipulated the "Commonwealth" as an exception. The trouble is that a lot happened behind closed doors and at the time when Chiller was the PM of Turkey and Murat Karayalchin the FM, they agreed not to object in return for Customs Union with Turkey. Probably they were told that they would take Cyprus in anyway, so they might as well accept the Customs Union in return. Poor nations usually have poor visions. Is it not the same with people? They sacrifice their future for short term gains.

ismet

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
23/05/2009 10:23

Yes, Ismet! You are probably correct! Turkey may have sold the TRNC cheaply! Especially given the many objections that some members of the EU have to a Muslim country being part of the Union!



I would say that the aim eventually is to reach some kind of political solution. They were not far in terms of the paper work and negotiations under the Annan plan! But that is history now!



My guess is that they will settle for some sort of federation with TRNC given a choice of being a part of the EU. As far as the property issues are concerned - they will have to be resolved step by step. I would imagine there would be a lead time for joining the EU for the TRNC - say may be 3 years + to get the systems of the TRNC integrated with the EU. I would aslo imagine there will be a carrot for the TRNC in terms of infrastructure investment and support in the transition. Not sure how they will deal with the property issue given the Orams case, but I would say they will tread carfully!



Cont'd

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
23/05/2009 10:32

Cont'd



May be something akin to the Annan plan may still be an option but the longer they leave it the more complicated the issue will be!



As for Turkey, there may be a 'special status' agreement. Not exactly in but not exactly out! The main hurdle for Turkey is the objection by the French and Germans (may be Poland / Netherlands). The others can usually be 'bought off' with some kind of incentive not to object. Sarkozy has made it clear that they would object to Turkey. There is always the skirt of the Armenian issue to hide behind, but the French like many other xenaphobes in the EU are afraid to admit a Muslim country with a population of 70 million plus. Remember that much of what happens in the EU is on the basis of population weighted basis!



If agreement is reached by year end with TRNC / Turkey, ROC / Greece - it will take another 3 years plus before the TRNC would be part of the EU - assuming that the TRNC actually want to join given the Greek Cypriot response in 2004!

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
23/05/2009 11:02

If there is to be an agreement in Cyprus (and its a very big if), the terms of the agreement will be recorded as "derogations" i.e. even if the terms of the agreement is in conflict with the general terms of EU, the agreement will be binding. Another big stumbling block for an agreement.



EU is using Cyprus problem against Turkey but I am sure Turkey will want to use Cyprus against EU as well i.e. Cyprus is a real pawn in the fight between Turkey and EU. So Turkey will not be happy to see north Cyprus in EU and herself out. Another factor are the "Sovereign" British Bases. If there is a good durable agreement in Cyprus, the status of the Bases will come under scrutiny. So it is vital for British interests either not to have a solution at all or have an Annan like solution which may not last more than a few years. So it is againsts the interests of many countries to have a good and lasting solution in Cyprus.

ismet

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
23/05/2009 11:08

That makes sense! Each side using Cyprus as a pawn!



Do you believe that the most likely outcome is a Federation of the two parts within the EU with Turkey as a member too or a two state Federation with Turkey having a 'special status'?



I think in either case the British bases are likely to stay - the Middle East is too volatile for them or Eu or NATO to accept anything less? What do you think Ismet?

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
23/05/2009 11:17

I think the Germans and the French are not too happy with the British Bases, they would like them to be EU or Nato Bases. The British are happy to share the facilities with the Americans but not with the 'Continentals'. So that is another complication.

ismet

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
23/05/2009 11:30

France now being a part of NATO may make this a bit easier?

ilovekibris


Joined: 18/05/2009
Posts: 394

Message Posted:
23/05/2009 11:30

elko wrote: " Poor nations usually have poor visions. Is it not the same with people? They sacrifice their future for short term gains."

Buying exchange title property for one i would have thought.