THE CYPRUS CASE IN PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

THE CYPRUS CASE IN PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

   The issue we have been asked to analyze is this of Cyprus case in public international law. Due to its complexity, sensitivity and duration in time, the Cypriot matter cannot be defined as a one-dimensional issue, but as a multi-perspective one. The key points that we are going to focus on are the following:

• The legality of the invasion in Cyprus
• International Responsibility of Turkey
• The puppet state of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
• Violations of human rights Resolutions of the United Nations, concerning the existing situation
• Annan plan // Cyprus reunification and its failure
• Violations of Air, Maritime Law

   Cyprus is located at the junction of Eurasia and Africa, as well as at the strip of the great waterway that connects the Mediterranean Sea with two sea portals, this of Suez and the Babel el Mandebe with the Indian ocean. From there, it is connected with other two sea portals, the Strait of Hormuz which leads to the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Malacca which are connected with the Pacific Ocean. Due to its geostrategic position, throughout its whole history, the external forces tried to project their influence on the island. Amongst the conquerors of the island, were also the Ottomans, who first besieged Cyprus in 1571, with their prevalence over Venetians in Famagusta. In 1878 the Island was granted to the Great Britain, as a term of the secret Treaty of Constantinople, signed between the Ottoman Empire and the Great Britain, according to which the administration of the island of Cyprus was assigned to the Great Britain. In 1914 Cyprus was annexed by Britain and in 1925 it became a British colony.

   After the end of the World War II, the Cypriots, began to command the union with Greece by organizing protests and by profoundly rejecting the arbitrary methods of the British colonial policy and with the support of the Greek government they started a guerilla war .In 1956 the Archibishop Makarios was exiled to Seychelles by order of the general of Her Majesty’s Government, Harding. The diplomatic negotiations which took place at the time led to the Treaty of Zurich which was later guaranteed by the Treaty of London in 1959.In 1960 Cyprus became a constitutionally independent state, an equally powerful subject of International Law .It was also agreed, that both Greece and Turkey had the right to preserve there small army units. The first president to be elected was the Archbishop Makarios .On 20 July 1974, Turkey, a UN member state, invaded Cyprus and defying the UN Security Council quickly occupied 37% of the island, and forced the separation of Greek and Turkish Cypriots into two communities.

   All in all, we will try to clarify one of the most debated and still pending issues, from a lawful perspective, highlighting why this issue is so significant and needs to be tackled immediately.

THE INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

  As put by ITLOS in M/V Saiga, Article 2:It is a well-established rule of international law that a state which suffers damage as a result of an internationally wrongful act by another state is entitled to obtain reparation for the damage suffered from the state which committed the wrongful act and that ‘reparation, must , as far as possible, wipe out all consequences of the illegal act and reestablish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed.’

THE LEGALITY OF THE INVASION IN CYPRUS

   In the Turkish invasion of 1974, they had been applied, above others, and the

Ordinances of the 4th Geneva Convention. Contracting parties of the above Convention are both Turkey, and Cyprus. Article 2 of the Geneva Convention defines its application framework and takes into consideration the following:

 “Additionally to the ordinances which will be applied during peace, this Convention    will be applicable and too all cases of declared war and other armed confrontations between two or more contracting parties, even if it’s not accepted by one of those that there is a war going on .The Convention will be also applied to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of one contracting state, even if such an occupation isn’t faced as an armed resistance”.

    The Regulations of Hague of 1907, had been also applied, despite the fact that neither Cyprus nor Turkey signed the 4th Hague Convention of 1907, in which these regulations are attached.  These regulations are typically considered as declaratives of customary law and as a result they are binding for all states. They are also applicable in any armed conflict. Even if there is not any official declaration of war from any of the two countries and despite the fact that the Turkish justified their military invasion recalling the ordinances of the Treaty of Guarantee of 1960, the existence of an armed conflict seems to be a real fact. Nowadays, it is generally perceived that no member-state of the UN can neither commit violent actions against other member-state or not, nor to proceed to the threatening of using violence. Such a behavior is considered completely illegal, if only it is justified by self-defense reasons or collective self-defense, as it is prescribed in the Article 51 of the UN Charter.

   Once Turkey supports exclusively its claiming for the legality of its military intervention in Cyprus, in the Treaty of Guarantee, before the analysis of the Article 4, it must be said that there are also some other ordinances of another Article of this Treaty that shall be preceded for further discussion.  

   According to Article 2 of the Treaty of Guarantee, the Guaranteed Forces “guarantee the independence, the territorial integrity and the security of the Cypriot Republic, and also the created situation from the fundamental rights of the Cypriot Constitution” and to prevent its union with another state or its partition.

   One of the fundamental, and non-modifiable Articles of the Cypriot Constitution, is also Article 185 which predicts that the territory of the Cypriot Republic is uniform and undivided, and that the whole or partial union of Cyprus with whichever other state or the dividing independence are excluded.” It is ascertained unobtrusively from the above facts that Turkey has been violated in 3 points the Article 2 of the Convention: (i) Failed to restore or to seek for restoring the established situation in Cyprus, taking into consideration the constitutional rights of Cypriot’s Republic Constitution of 1960, (ii) A fortiori restored, allowed and continues to allow the partition of the Republic’s territory since 1974 and then recognizing officially the declaration of special “independence” in a selected territory of the Republic that set under its control with its military intervention, destroying so, even temporarily, the fundamental Article 185 of the Cypriot Constitution, and also, (iii) Failed to prevent the territorial partition, or activity which tends to promote such a partition.

...