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. 8 ankarabarrevıew 2010/1 those examples of state practice. Numerous articles and books have been written on aspects of the “Cyprus problem” since the violent events of 1963 and especially, since the Turkish military interventions in 1974. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus – TRNC, which declared its independence in 1983 after a sad and complex sequence of events possesses all the criteria of statehood – a clearly defined territo- ry with a population and a government with full internal autonomy and independence in its external relations – but it has not been accorded recognition, except by one state, Turkey, on the grounds that recogni- tion of a state created as a result of illegal use of force is incompatible with the principles of international law.3 In the context of all these facts, the aim of this article is to shed light on the principle of recognition in conjunction with the problem of the TRNC and the grounds and motives of its non-recognition in the international community. A) Brief Historical Background The island of Cyprus, because of its location and size,4 is still of considerable strategic importance for the Mediterranean powers. Thus, at various times it has drawn the attention of many nations, including the Egyptians, Persians, Romans, and Greeks. Cyprus was under Turk- ish sovereignty between the years 1571-1914, and under the English sovereignty between the years 1914-1960. In this regard, the attempt to annex the island by Greece, despite the opposition of Cypriot Turks and Turkey, created the struggle and disputes called the “Cyprus Con- flict” between Turks and Greeks on the island and between Turkey and Greek outside the island. After a long period of conflicts between these two communities on the island, Cyprus became an independent republic on 1960; however, it did not receive its independence by a unilateral act but rather its independence was the result of a series of negotiations between Greece, Turkey and the UK.5 In this period, three interdependent documents: the Treaty of Guarantee, the Treaty of Alliance and the Basic Structure of the Republic of Cyprus (BSRC), which are also known as the London/ Zurich Accords, were signed by the Republic of Cyprus (ROC), Turkey, Greece and UK.6 The princi- ples set forth in the London/Zurich accords were embodied in the 1960 Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus; each community, Greek and Turkish Cypriots, was co-founder and co-partner of the Republic on 3 Zaim M. NECATİGİL, The Cyprus Question and the Turkish Position in International Law, Oxford University Press, 1989, p. 283. 4 Cyprus is the third largest island in the Mediterranean Sea and lies 40 miles south of Turkey, 650 miles south-east of Greece. 5 Scott PEGG, International Society and the De facto State, Ashgate Publishing, 1998 pp. 100-101. 6 According to these documents, the basic articles of the Cypriot constitution were unamendable and the Constitution itself, as well as the independence, security and territorial integrity of the island were guaranteed by Greece, Turkey and the UK. Britain was allowed to retain sovereignty over two military bases and Greece and Turkey were each al- lowed to station limited numbers of troops on the island. Partition and union with any other state were prohibited. For the documents see http://www.kypros.org/Cyprus_Problem/treaty.html, last visited: 04 December 2009. 9 The Case of TRNC iN The CoNTexT of ReCogNiTioN of sTaTes the grounds that both would hold political and legal equality despite disproportionate population rates.7 The solution generated by these treaties envisaged the establish- ment of an independent federal republic based on the participation of the two communities with the collaboration of Turkey and Greece.8 The BSRC set forth the principal articles of the 1960 Constitution of Cyprus. The Constitution would accept the rights of both communities to set the general will and maintain national composition in accord- ance with the numerical data of existed population. It would provide for a presidential regime, the President being a Greek Cypriot and the Vice- President being Turkish Cypriot, both of whom would have veto power over certain issues concerning foreign affairs, defense and se- curity. It would also provide for the participation of the two communi- ties in the central government. Thus, the legal arrangement of the 1960 treaties would solidify the presence of two separate and equal com- munities in Cyprus. By these treaties, a state which had to be admin- istered by the collaboration of two communities in Cyprus had been founded, and by the Constitution, the national integrity, independency and security of this state were guaranteed in the international arena. Later on, uneasy years followed because the Greek side argued that this Constitution was imposed upon Cyprus from outside and that its provisions were inherently unworkable. They also believed that it was undemocratic since it provided for veto by a minority government. On the contrary, for the Turkish Cypriots, the Constitution was an innova- tive document which could have worked if there had been sufficient cooperation between the two communities.9 In reality, many of the terms of the 1960 Constitution were never implemented and it was not simply a numerical question of 70:30 ratio; Greek and Turkish Cypri- ots had strong differences of opinions over things like the composition of the civil service and the armed forces and the proper structuring of municipal government. The tension became stronger in 1963, when Greek President Makarios declared that since the Constitution con- ferred rights on the Turkish Cypriots in addition to what was intended only to protect them, “he was forced to disregard or seek revision of existing provisions of the Constitution”10 and later on, he proposed 13 amendments for the 1960 constitution which would have repealed the vice president’s veto power, abolished the requirement for separate majorities for the passage of certain laws and called for the removal of separate municipalities and the Turkish public service quotas.11 The 7 According to the census of 1960, population of Cyprus was 573.566, out of which 70 percent were Greek and about 30 percent were Turks. See Zaim M. NECATİGİL, supra, p. 1. 8 Sevin TOLUNER, “Kıbrıs Türk Federe Devleti’nin Milletlerarası Hukukî Statüsü”, Milletlerarası Hukuk Açısından Türkiye’nin Bazı Dış Politika Sorunları, İstanbul 2000, p. 151. 9 Scott PEGG, supra, p. 101. 10 Majid KHADDURI, Major Middle Eastern Problems in International Law, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington DC, p. 123. 11 Zaim M. NECATİGİL, supra, pp. 21-22. 10 ankarabarrevıew 2010/1 Turkish Cypriots refused to go along with these proposed constitu- tional changes and violence between the two communities broke out further on. Consequently, the events turned into an inter-communal fight be- tween the armed radicals of the two communities.12 Twice in 1964, the Turkish military threatened to invade Cyprus on the basis of Article 4 of the Treaty of Guarantee13 unless all attacks against the Turkish Cypriot community stopped. In March 1964, the UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 186 authorizing the deployment of the UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYRP) but this force could not stop the violence. Contrarily, by 1965 the Turkish Cypriots found themselves excluded from the mechanisms of the state.14 In 1965, a special representative of the Secretary-General of the UN was in- formed that the “Cyprus Government” no longer recognized the leader of the Turkish Community as vice president and that the Turkish Cyp- riot members no longer had legal standing in the House of Representa- tives.15 Similarly, Resolution 186 referred to the Cyprus Government in such a way as to recognize the exclusively Greek Cypriot admin- istration as constituting the legitimate government of the Republic.16 Thus, as a result of these ongoing violent acts on the island despite various attempts to stop them, the Turkish Cypriots proclaimed the establishment of the “Temporary Turkish Administration” in 1967.17 In 1974, the Greek Cypriot armed forces, backed by the Greek junta, deposed the government of President Makarios with the aim of Enosis, i.e.