DOCSLIB.ORG

Ankarabarrevıew (Listed Alphabetically by Surname) HOW JUSTICE MAY BE REACHED THROUGH ADVOCACY Foreword Published by the Ankara Bar Association V

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ankarabarrevıew (Listed Alphabetically by Surname) HOW JUSTICE MAY BE REACHED THROUGH ADVOCACY Foreword Published by the Ankara Bar Association V CONTENTS ankarabarrevıew (Listed Alphabetically by Surname) HOW JUSTICE MAY BE REACHED THROUGH ADVOCACY Foreword Published by the Ankara Bar Association V. Ahsen Coşar 2 Volume 3 • Issue 1 • January 2010 ISSN: 1308-0636 From the Editor Ece Yılmaz 4 The Owner on behalf of Ankara Bar Association & Editor in Chief The Case of TRNC in the context of Recognition of States V. Ahsen Coşar under International Law 7 Executive Editor Cansu Akgün Cemâl Dursun Human Rights Violations faced by Turkish Cypriots Committee Chair 19 Habibe İyimaya Kayaaslan Aslı Aksu Committee Vice-Chair The Failed Test of Legality Murat Sümer Rauf R. Denktaş 25 Managing Editor Ece Yılmaz Can the Cyprus Problem be Resolved? Christis Enotiades 33 Technical Editor Larry D. White, JD New Set of Negotiations in the Cyprus Problem: Board of Editors Federation for a Stable Democracy 35 Cansu Akgün, LL.M (The Netherlands) Tufan Erhürman Nursel Atar, LL.M (USA) Levent Aydaş Property Wars in Cyprus: Cemâl Dursun, LL.M (The Netherlands) The Turkish Position according to International Law Özge Evci, LL.M (Turkey) 43 Habibe İyimaya Kayaaslan, LL.M (UK) Murat Metin Hakkı Cihangir Karabıyık Altan Liman, LL.M (The Netherlands) Analyzing Cyprus Accurately: Ayşegül Özdemir, LL.M (UK) Legal Aspects of a Political Matter 57 Ş. Saadet Özfırat van Delft Mehmet Hasgüler & F. Murat Özkaleli Murat Sümer, LL.M (UK) Ece Yılmaz, MA (Malta) Kadir Yılmaz, LL.M (UK) If I were Christofias Zeynel Lüle 67 Board of Advisors Sami Akl If I were Talat Mustafa Bozcaadalı Zeynel Lüle 69 Aidan Robertson, QC Prof. Wendy Davis Prof. Yüksel Ersoy Turkey and the Cyprus Dispute: Pitfalls and Opportunities Prof. Arzu Oğuz Tarık Oğuzlu 73 Dr. Gamze Öz The Place of Management Misgovernance as an Impediment to Peace: Ankara Barosu Başkanlığı, Adliye Sarayı, The Political Misuse of Property in Cyprus Kat: 5, Sıhhiye, Ankara, Turkey 83 Raşit Pertev Graphic Design Mustafa Horuş [Ankara Bar Association] The Turkish Cypriot Legal System from a Historical Perspective 93 Printed by Turgut Turhan Şen Matbaası Özveren Sk. 25/B Demirtepe / ANKARA Tel: +90 312 229 64 54 Turkish Foundations in Cyprus M. Serhat Yener 121 Type of Publication Semiannually in English A Partitioned State that is in the European Union: Place of Publication The Case of Cyprus 125 Ankara Kadir Yılmaz • Articles and letters that appear in the Anka- ra Bar Review do not necessarily reflect the News official view of Ankara Bar Association and 143 their publication does not constitute an en- dorsement of views that may be expressed. • Readers are invited to address their own comments and opinions to Ankara Barosu Başkanlığı, Adliye Sarayı, Kat: 5, Sıhhiye, Ankara Turkey or [email protected] (alternatively: [email protected]) • ABR is available through HeinOnline 2 ankarabarrevıew 2010/1 proposing constitutional changes Foreword which would abrogate the prior power-sharing arrangements. So, ■ by V. Ahsen Coşar the Turkish Cypriots felt betrayed President and pushed away by the Makarios Government. The activities of cer- tain Greek Cypriot groups led to Dear Readers, the eruption of inter-communal vio- The main subject of this issue is lence in 1963 during which many the “Cyprus Problem”. Cypriots were killed. As a result, the Turkish side withdrew from A brief look at its history is in the government and a United Na- order. After being ruled by the Ot- tions (UN) peacekeeping force was tomans for more than 300 years, the formed. island was occupied by Britain in 1878 but nominally remained un- In 1974, the supporters of Maka- der Ottoman sovereignty. Britain rios and EOKA started to fight with annexed the island in 1914 and de- each other. Makarios defended the clared it as its colony in 1925. independence of Cyprus whereas the other side, backed by the mili- Starting from the 1950s, Greek tary junta in Greece, aimed for uni- Cypriots organized themselves fication with Greece. Because of the under the National Organization contention between the two groups, of Cypriot Combatants (EOKA) the Turkish Cypriots were in a great which started a guerrilla movement danger, and Turkey used its right to against the British Crown in 1955. intervene granted by the London The main target of this movement Treaty. Turkish Republic and Turk- was the idea of unification with ish Cypriots did not consider this as Greece (Enosis). In 1960, the Greek an occupation. It was a humanitar- and Turkish communities agreed ian intervention and a self-defence on a constitution. This Constitution against the violence of EOKA sup- envisioned a sharing of the govern- porters. mental power between Turkish and Greek Cypriots. This agreement In 1975, after many unsuccessful and the London Treaty signed by peace talks, Turkish Cypriots estab- Turkey, Greece, and Britain was the lished an independent administra- starting point for the independence tion with Rauf Denktas as the presi- of Cyprus. London Treaty gave dent. Eventually, Turkish Cypriots each party a right to intervene under proclaimed the Turkish Republic of certain conditions. Shortly after the Northern Cyprus in 1983 which has declaration of the Republic of Cy- been recognized only by Turkey. prus, problems arose. The Turkish Ever since, the Turkish Republic Cypriots thought that Archbishop of Northern Cyprus has been ex- Makarios, the first President of the cluded from the European system. island, did not treat the two com- As an example, European Court munities equally and justly. In fact, of Justice ruling in 1996 listed a he was blamed for using his pow- range of goods, including fruit and ers in favor of Greek Cypriots and vegetables, which were not eligible 3 for preferential treatment when ex- fect of isolating the Turkish Cypriots ported by the Turkish Cypriot com- and impeding their development.” munity directly to the EU. In addition, following the out- In December 2002, the EU Co- come of the referenda, the Europe- penhagen Summit offered an in- an Council stated that “The Turkish vitation for Cyprus to join the Un- Cypriot community has expressed ion in 2004 provided that the two their clear desire for a future within communities agree to a UN plan the European Union. The Council by early spring of 2003. Without is determined to put an end to the reunification, only the internation- isolation of the Turkish Cypriot ally recognized Greek Cypriot part community and to facilitate the re- would gain membership. The result, unification of Cyprus by encourag- as we all know, was that the Greek ing the economic development of Cypriots turned down the UN Re- the Turkish Cypriot community. The unification Accord drafted under the Council invited the Commission to supervision of Secretary-General bring forward comprehensive pro- Annan and gained EU membership posals to this end, with particular alone without the Turkish Cypriots emphasis on the economic integra- on their side. tion of the island and on improving contact between the two communi- The decision of the European ties and with the EU.” Union is a good example of what could be perceived as a double Turkish Cypriots are still waiting standard. This problem has two for these promises to be fulfilled… sides and both parties are responsi- Shortly, both Turkey and the ble for what happened. Turkish Cypriots are sincere fol- The Annan Unification Plan cre- lowers of Atatürk’s maxim: “Peace at home, peace in the world”, and ated hopes for a peaceful existence we also believe that, “the future is of both communities on the Island. long.” Turkish Cypriots endorsed the plan; but unfortunately Greek Cypriots See you in our next issue. overwhelmingly rejected it. Best regards. Even after the endorsement of the Plan by Turkish Cypriots, the European Union still did not end V. Ahsen Coşar the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community. President of Ankara Bar Association Thus, after the end of the twin referendum, the United Nations Secretary-General Annan expressed his hope that the members of the UN Security Council “can give a strong lead to all States to cooperate both bilaterally and in international bod- ies to eliminate unnecessary restric- tions and barriers that have the ef- 4 ankarabarrevıew 2010/1 From the Editor ■ by Ece Yılmaz This latest issue of the ABR what is the role and the respon- includes fourteen articles by aca- sibility of Turkey in Northern demic, international, and local Cyprus? This question strictly authors debating the legal system linked to the fact that TRNC is in- and status of Cyprus and its reper- dependent from the Turkish State cussions on Turkey and beyond. I and can deem itself internation- believe this special issue will be ally responsible from its actions. of interest not only to lawyers but However vigorously we may ar- also to many other professionals gue that TRNC is an autonomous, and concerned individuals seeking distinct and legitimate subject of to grasp the subject thoroughly. the international law, on the con- trary, as examined by Ms. Akgün Rauf Raif Denktaş has been the in her article “The Case of TRNC key figure in the Turkish Cypriots in the context of Recognition of as a veteran politician for more States under International Law”, than 50 years. He was the founder some argue its dependence on and the first president of the Turk- the Turkish state. Mr. Turhan ish Republic of Northern Cyprus analyzes the period of formation, (TRNC). As Rauf Denktaş is an development and the change of indispensable actor of the history the Turkish Cypriot legal system of TRNC, the ABR’s Special Cy- from a historical perspective in prus Issue would be unthinkable his article entitled “The Turkish without his contribution. I would Cypriot Legal System from a His- like to extend my utmost grati- torical Perspective”.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Legal Recognition of Human Rights Violations in Cyprus: Loizidou V Turkey and Cyprus V Turkey
    kirk.qxd 15/1/2001 2:40 ìì Page 79 Kirk, Linda J. 2003. Legal Recognition of Human Rights Violations in Cyprus: Loizidou v Turkey and Cyprus v Turkey. In E. Close, M. Tsianikas and G. Frazis (Eds.) “Greek Research in Australia: Proceedings of the Fourth Biennial Conference of Greek Studies, Flinders University, September 2001”. Flinders University Department of Languages – Modern Greek: Adelaide, 79-92. Legal Recognition of Human Rights Violations in Cyprus Loizidou v Turkey and Cyprus v Turkey Linda J. Kirk Introduction The recent decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in Loizidou v Turkey and Cyprus v Turkey are a vindication of the legal rights of the Greek and Turkish Cypriot citizens who continue to have their human rights violated by the illegal Turkish regime that has controlled northern Cyprus since 1974. In July 1989, Mrs Titina Loizidou, a Greek-Cypriot refugee, commenced an action against Turkey in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The basis of her claim was that the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 had denied her access to her property in her home town of Kyrenia and that this amounted to a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. On 28 July 1998, some nine years later, her legal battle came to an end with the European Court of Human Rights ordering that Turkey pay Mrs Loizidou compensation of the equivalent of AUS $1,500,000 for the loss of enjoyment of her property rights.1 Turkey has refused to comply with the Courts orders despite its being a party to the European Convention on Human Rights and its desire to become a member of the European Union.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights, Civil Society and Conflict in Cyprus: Exploring the Relationships
    SHUR Working Paper Series CASE STUDY REPORT – WP3 Human Rights, Civil Society and Conflict in Cyprus: Exploring the Relationships Olga Demetriou and Ayla Gürel International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO) Cyprus Centre SHUR wp 03/08 June 2008 SHUR: Human Rights in Conflicts: The Role of Civil Society is a STREP project funded by the 6 th Framework Programme of the European Commission (Contract number: CIT5-CT-2006-028815). www.luiss.it/shur 1 Acknowledgement .......................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 4 2. Background ................................................................................................................ 6 Historical Outline.................................................................................................................. 6 Civil society development overview in relation to the conflict.......................................... 9 Civil Society typology ......................................................................................................... 14 3. The European dimension ......................................................................................... 20 The EU Accession process.................................................................................................. 20 The Role of the European Court of Human Rights........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Case of TRNC in the Context of Recognition of States Under International Law ■ by Cansu Akgün*
    The Case of TRNC in the context of Recognition of States under International Law ■ by Cansu Akgün* introduction nternational society is basically, although not solely, made up of Istates. Besides the objective elements required for the formation of a new entity – i.e. territory, population and sovereign authority – the question of under which procedures this legal and political entity has gained the qualification of being a “state” in international society, is referred as the “recognition of states” in international law.1 The main reason behind the complicacy of the issue of recognition is that in international law, there are not any organized legal provisions which oblige existing states to recognize a new entity when certain conditions are met. There have been attempts by commentators to try to institutionalize the process of recognition of states but the process of collective recognition as such in international law does not exist; however there is an important body of theory regarding state practice on the recognition of states, although they are far from coherent.2 The recent history of the island of Cyprus within the framework of the principles of international law relating to statehood and recogni- tion as well as their application to the issue at hand constitutes one of * Member of Ankara Bar, LL.M (University of Amsterdam). The author can be reached at [email protected] 1 Hüseyin PAZARCI, Uluslararası Hukuk Dersleri, II. Volume, 5. Edition, Ankara 1998, p. 19. 2 Colin WARBRICK, States and Recognition in International Law in M Evans (ed), International Law (2nd edition), 2006, p. 206.
    [Show full text]
  • Protracted Occupation That Leads to De Facto State Creation: the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, an International Legal Evaluation
    Global Journal of Politics and Law Research Vol.8, No.2, pp.30-64, March 2020 Published by ECRTD-UK ISSN: ISSN 2053-6321(Print), ISSN: ISSN 2053-6593(Online) PROTRACTED OCCUPATION THAT LEADS TO DE FACTO STATE CREATION: THE TURKISH REPUBLIC OF NORTHERN CYPRUS, AN INTERNATIONAL LEGAL EVALUATION Sanford R. Silverburg, Ph.D Professor Emeritus Department of History and Politics Catawba College Salisbury, NC [email protected] ABSTRACT: The history of Cyprus is replete with foreign invasions and occupation. Modern history has Great Britain in control over the island, betwixt a long-term period of antagonism and hostility over the island’s control between Greece and Turkey. Greek Cypriots have for many years sought enosis, or union with Greece, while the minority Turkish community’s ethnic community goal has been taksim (partition) between the two ethnic groups. A crucial temporal dividing point came in 1974 when following a coup d’etat against the Greek Cypriot leadership leading to some instability which was then followed by a Turkish military invasion in order to protect the island’s Turkish population. Once order was restored and with Ankara’s backing, the Turkish Cypriots created the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Because of the manner in which the political action occurred, only Turkey provided diplomatic recognition, thus bringing up the legal issue of non-recognition and a discussion of the use of force to achieve a political objective. KEY WORDS: Cyprus, Turkish republic, northern Cyprus, Turkish foreign policy, Greek foreign policy, occupation, international law, de facto state INTRODUCTION Occupation in its varied forms1 has taken on increased interest in the post-World War II era, at multiple legal2 and political levels.
    [Show full text]
  • 8,) 4634)68= -779) -2 8,) '=4697 59)78-32 % 8
    '%)+ " )0* #'%6 ))) #$%&'# & * 0%%/%*# /+# 7)+$ ) V) \ !) - 0%/) *! 0 /%!% ) +'%)+ *& )//%*+% +)+#% )) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, % #/%*# ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ))) ,,I8 )C #$$'-#&+.% #/* &0 1' 2 '+ %$# &,% &'. 2$0 2., 30 C ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,))) ,,) V,, K ,) ,,,,,,,))) ,,,)C ,,,C ,,,,8 ,,,,,,,,G ,,,,,,,,,,,G ,,,,,89 ,,,,,,8D ,,,,,,8F C) ,,,,I ,,,,,,,,,,, ,, ,,F ,9 ,,,,,9 ,,,,98 99 ,,D8 ,,D8 ,,D ,D9 DI ,,DG ,D ,,,,,,I ,,,,,II ,,,,,,,,I: C)) ,,IF ,,: ,,:8 ,,,,,: ,,:9 ,,,,,,G ,,,,G8 ,GD ,,,,,,G: ,,,,,GF ,,,,,,8
    [Show full text]
  • Cyprus V. Turkey
    Case of Cyprus v. Turkey (Application no. 25781/94) Judgment Strasbourg, 10 May 2001 CASE OF CYPRUS v. TURKEY (Application no. 25781/94) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 May 2001 CYPRUS v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Cyprus v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of the following judges: Mr L. WILDHABER, President, Mrs E. PALM, Mr J.-P. COSTA, Mr L. FERRARI BRAVO, Mr L. CAFLISCH, Mr W. FUHRMANN, Mr K. JUNGWIERT, Mr M. FISCHBACH Mr B. ZUPANČIČ, Mrs N. VAJIĆ, Mr J. HEDIGAN, Mrs M. TSATSA-NIKOLOVSKA, Mr T. PANŢÎRU, Mr E. LEVITS, Mr A. KOVLER, Mr K. FUAD, ad hoc judge in respect of Turkey, Mr S. MARCUS-HELMONS, ad hoc judge in respect of Cyprus, and also of Mr M. DE SALVIA, Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 20-22 September 2000 and on 21 March 2001, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case was referred to the Court, in accordance with the provisions applicable prior to the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)1, by the Government of the Republic of Cyprus (“the applicant Government”) on 30 August 1999 and by the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) on 11 September 1999 (Article 5 § 4 of Protocol No. 11 and former Articles 47 and 48 of the Convention). 2. The case originated in an application (no. 25781/94) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Commission under former Article 24 of the Convention by the applicant Government on 22 November 1994.
    [Show full text]
  • Case of Cyprus V. Turkey
    CONSEIL COUNCIL DE L’EUROPE OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS Case of Cyprus v. Turkey (Application no. 25781/94) Judgment Strasbourg, 10 May 2001 CONSEIL COUNCIL DE L’EUROPE OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CASE OF CYPRUS v. TURKEY (Application no. 25781/94) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 May 2001 CYPRUS v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Cyprus v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of the following judges: Mr L. WILDHABER, President, Mrs E. PALM, Mr J.-P. COSTA, Mr L. FERRARI BRAVO, Mr L. CAFLISCH, Mr W. FUHRMANN, Mr K. JUNGWIERT, Mr M. FISCHBACH Mr B. ZUPANČIČ, Mrs N. VAJIĆ, Mr J. HEDIGAN, Mrs M. TSATSA-NIKOLOVSKA, Mr T. PANŢÎRU, Mr E. LEVITS, Mr A. KOVLER, Mr K. FUAD, ad hoc judge in respect of Turkey, Mr S. MARCUS-HELMONS, ad hoc judge in respect of Cyprus, and also of Mr M. DE SALVIA, Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 20-22 September 2000 and on 21 March 2001, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case was referred to the Court, in accordance with the provisions applicable prior to the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)1, by the Government of the Republic of Cyprus (“the applicant Government”) on 30 August 1999 and by the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) on 11 September 1999 (Article 5 § 4 of Protocol No.
    [Show full text]
  • Erdem, M., & Greer, S. (2018). Human Rights, the Cyprus Problem, and the Immovable Property Commission. International and Co
    Erdem, M. , & Greer, S. (2018). Human Rights, the Cyprus Problem, and the Immovable Property Commission. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 67(3), 721-732. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002058931800009X Peer reviewed version License (if available): Other Link to published version (if available): 10.1017/S002058931800009X Link to publication record in Explore Bristol Research PDF-document This is the accepted author manuscript (AAM). The final published version (version of record) is available online via Cambridge University Press at https://doi.org/10.1017/S002058931800009X . Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher. University of Bristol - Explore Bristol Research General rights This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/red/research-policy/pure/user-guides/ebr-terms/ HUMAN RIGHTS, THE CYPRUS PROBLEM AND THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY COMMISSION MELIZ ERDEM* AND STEVEN GREER** Abstract This article critically examines the role of the Immovable Property Commission, established in 2005 by the ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’ under pressure from the European Court of Human Rights, to redress losses sustained by Greek Cypriots who fled south when the island was partitioned in the mid-1970s. While the Commission has been a modest success, proceedings have been lengthy, its decisions lack transparency, there have been difficulties with restitution and exchange, and the payment of compensation has often been delayed. Corporate ownership and encumbrances, such as mortgages, have also proved problematic. But, whether it contributes negatively or positively to full resolution of the Cyprus problem, or makes no contribution at all, remains to be seen.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1 Arend Lijphart’S Schematic Presentation of Principal Propositions of Consociational Theory
    Appendix 1 Arend Lijphart’s Schematic Presentation of Principal Propositions of Consociational Theory Source: Arend Lijphart, Power-Sharing in South Africa, policy papers in International Affairs, no. 24, Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California, 1985 p. 85. 177 Appendix 2 Cypriot Population Distribution: 1960 Source: Richard A. Patrick, Political Geography and the Cyprus Conflict: 1963–1971, Ontario, University of Waterloo, 1976 p. 10. 178 Appendix 3 Greek Cypriot Political Parties Major Greek Cypriot political parties Recent parliamentary Party Ideology Alliances vote % Foundation of party AKEL Communist DIKO, EDEK 2006: 31.1% 1926 as KKK, banned 2001: 34.7% in 1931 by the British government; Re-formed 1941 as AKEL. DISY Centre-right EDI, Liberal 2006: 31.4% 1976 as a result of split 2001: 34.0% with President Makarios. Traditionally houses EOKA and EOKA B supporters. DIKO Centre-right AKEL, EDEK 2006: 19.9% 1976 Founded by second 2001: 14.8% president, Spyros Kyprianou. EDEK Social-Democrat DIKO, AKEL 2006: 8.9% 1970 by Vassos Lyssarides, (Centre-left) 2001: 6.5% personal physician of Archbishop Makarios. Traditionally houses supporters of Makarios and Lyssarides’ 1964 group of fighters against Turkish Cypriots. EDI Liberal DISY 2006: 1.6% 1993 as Movement 2001: 2.6% of Free Democrats by third president Georgos Vassiliou; Later merged with ex-AKEL members ADISOK to form EDI. Sources: Republic of Cyprus Press and Information Office; personal interviews of author. 179 180 Appendices Previous presidents of the Republic of Cyprus President Term of office Party Archbishop Makarios 1960–77 None Spiros Kyprianou 1977–88 DIKO George Vassiliou 1988–93 EDI Glafkos Clerides 1993–2003 DISY Tassos Papadopoulos 2003–8 DIKO Demetris Christofias 2008 AKEL Source: Republic of Cyprus Press and Information Office.
    [Show full text]
  • Coversheet for Thesis in Sussex Research Online
    A University of Sussex DPhil thesis Available online via Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/ This thesis is protected by copyright which belongs to the author. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Please visit Sussex Research Online for more information and further details University of Sussex Thesis for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy on the subject of the European Human Rights Law with emphasis on the Cyprus Question: Land Claims and Human Rights Arguments before the European Court of Human Rights Bugem Galip (January 2014) Statement I hereby declare that this thesis has not been and will not be, submitted in whole or in part to another University for the award of any other degree. Signature ........................ Bugem Galip Table of Contents Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….i Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…ii Abbreviations …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..iv General Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 Chapter 1: The Cyprus Property Dispute in a Historical Perspective Introductory Remarks ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The European Court of Human Rights and the Cyprus Problem
    THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE CYPRUS PROBLEM Dr. Yusuf AKSAR* Abstract The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in its recent decisions regarding the Cyprus problem such as the Loizidou v. Turkey and Case of Cyprus v. Turkey finds Turkey responsible for the current situation in the Island. According to the Court, Turkey violates the rights of the Greek Cypriots were living in the northern part of Cyprus before the military intervention of Turkey took place in 1974. Such violations include inhuman treatment of the families of missing Greek Cypriots, denying some 180.000 Greek Cypriots the right to return to their homes, failure to compensate for loss of property and interference with freedom of religion. Finding Turkey responsible instead of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) is based upon the fact that the TRNC was not an independent State and not even recognised by the international community. This way of application of the rules of international law by the ECHR can be strongly criticised on the ground that it does not give any weight to the causes and effects of the events which took place in Cyprus in 1963 to 1974, and also to the factors which lead the Turkish Cypriots to establish their own independent States. When the recent history of Cyprus is examined it can clearly be seen that the legal status of the TRNC is not any less legal than its Greek Cypriot counterpart with regard to its statehood and recognition in international law. This paper examines the judgements of the ECHR in the light of the historical background of the Cyprus problem, and of the legal status of the TRNC in relation to its statehood and its non-recognition in international law.
    [Show full text]
  • Case of Cyprus V. Turkey
    CONSEIL COUNCIL DE L’EUROPE OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS Case of Cyprus v. Turkey (Application no. 25781/94) Judgment Strasbourg, 10 May 2001 CONSEIL COUNCIL DE L’EUROPE OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS CASE OF CYPRUS v. TURKEY (Application no. 25781/94) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 May 2001 CYPRUS v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Cyprus v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of the following judges: Mr L. WILDHABER, President, Mrs E. PALM, Mr J.-P. COSTA, Mr L. FERRARI BRAVO, Mr L. CAFLISCH, Mr W. FUHRMANN, Mr K. JUNGWIERT, Mr M. FISCHBACH Mr B. ZUPANČIČ, Mrs N. VAJIĆ, Mr J. HEDIGAN, Mrs M. TSATSA-NIKOLOVSKA, Mr T. PANŢÎRU, Mr E. LEVITS, Mr A. KOVLER, Mr K. FUAD, ad hoc judge in respect of Turkey, Mr S. MARCUS-HELMONS, ad hoc judge in respect of Cyprus, and also of Mr M. DE SALVIA, Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 20-22 September 2000 and on 21 March 2001, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case was referred to the Court, in accordance with the provisions applicable prior to the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)1, by the Government of the Republic of Cyprus (“the applicant Government”) on 30 August 1999 and by the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) on 11 September 1999 (Article 5 § 4 of Protocol No.
    [Show full text]