The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Annan Plan vs. 1960 Constitution

Propose and discuss specific solutions to aspects of the Cyprus Problem

Postby Alexandros Lordos » Sun Jan 09, 2005 1:29 pm

OK, Turkcyp, I thought to write another post/installment, about the issue of implementation guarantees ...

Concerning this matter, everyone just assumes that "it is the easiest thing to improve", but in reality it is far from simple ...

I've thought of a munber of issues, where implementation guarantees will be needed. Some concern GCs, some TCs, and some both sides ...

Implementation issues for GCs:

    How can we be sure that territorial adjustment will indeed take place?
    How can we be sure that the Turkish Army will indeed withdraw?
    How can we be sure that the agreed level of settler repatriation will indeed take place?
    How can we be sure that TCs will not secede from the Federal Government, leading to the breakdown of the Federal State?

Implementation issues for TCs:

    How can we be sure that those who will have to relocate, will indeed be compensated and supported?
    How can we be sure that the terms of the solution will not later be overturned through the application of European Law?
    How can we be sure that military weapons kept in the homes of GCs, will indeed be relinquished and removed from the island?
    How can we be sure that the GCs will not hijack the Federal State, thus cutting the TCs out of the decision making mechanism?

Implementation issues that concern both sides:

    How can we be sure that property will indeed be returned to the original owners, to the agreed level?
    How can we be sure that all property that is not returned will indeed be compensated?


As you can see, the issue of implementation guarantees is not at all simple ... the Annan Plan prescribed a lot of great and wonderful things, but it did not also provide the mechanisms by which all these things would actually be enforced, nor did it specify the consequences of non-compliance ...

Some might argue that we have to rely on good will for all the above to happen. Personally, I do not share that sentiment. While good will is necessary for the implementation of the solution, it is by no means sufficient (if the legal/institutional framework is not also there ...)
Alexandros Lordos
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:41 pm

Postby insan » Sun Jan 09, 2005 2:25 pm

I completely agree with you, Alexandros. :)
User avatar
insan
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 9043
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Somewhere in ur network. ;]

Postby turkcyp » Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:46 pm

Dear Alex,


Alexandros Lordos wrote:Having said that, I think it is also fair to respect that GCs have not moved on in the same way ... that GCs who now live in the so called "refugee neighborhoods" still cry themselves to sleep every night and dream of the day when they can return to their homes ... most of these people now live in small and cramped government owned houses, and when you visit them they will even now talk to you about their villages and their orchards and their life in the north.


First of all, I want to say that I am not aware of the conditions that many GC refuges currently live. So I am very very sorry, if I am sound ignorant when I have said they should get over it. I was not trying to be rude, or be in a positions that “ shows it to your face”.

I can definitely understand how these refugees living in very poor conditions can feel that it is not fair for them to not get all their property back. But concerning this, part of the blame is RoC. After 1974, many TCs that had to move from south no north had the same feeling as well. They had felt they had lost everything. But the authorities in the north helped them “get over it”. They started employing policies that ease the pain on these people.

First they install them into GC houses. So they do not have to feel like they are a refugee. They have given them GC farmable land so they can be economically productive.

But after some time has passed I think it was early 80’s. the government started giving them title deeds. To my recollection (although I may be wrong) authorities in the north did not simply started distributing deeds to these TCs immediately after 1974.
After certain passage of time, TCs in the north started believing that there is no turning back to their properties in the south, so they started demanding deeds. The biggest reason for this is that nobody was willing to invest in properties that they do not carry the deeds, even the deeds are coming from a regime which is not internationally recognized.

It was necessary on the government side to start giving these deeds so that people would feel more attached to these properties, would feel the feeling of ownership, and ultimately started investing in them. Otherwise people in the north would also be living like the same mentality of the refuges you have mentioned.

It was the policies in the north that helped to change the mindset of the people. So if the RoC government applied the same policies in the south, the current refugee problem would be much much less complicated and troublesome.

But it was politically much more attractive for the politicians to keep on promising these refugees full return to properties in the north. SO similar policies in the south is not put into practice, and poor refuges kept in living in denial that one day they will be able to fully turn back to their properties.

In the meantime, as a second leg of the policy ( that is one reason that today many TCs do not trust the RoC government, because they believe that this was deliberately done by the RoC) they start nationalizing many TC property, and at the same time many TC property is left to crumble into ruins because nobody was living in there. Many TCs believe that this was done deliberately so that if there is a solution one day (as the RoC proposes with full return of all refugees), they will have no place to turn back to but leave the island for good. (Kind of indirect forcing of people to leave the island)


I believe the best way to resolve the property issue is to accept the principle of property exchange, where relocated TCs are concerned, so that the TCs will not have to become refugees for a second (or third) time, but otherwise to return all (or most) property to its original owners. In other words, TCs to be able to exchange their properties in the south for the houses they currently live in, and GCs to be able to get their own properties back in the north except those properties which have been exchanged as above. In this way, TCs and GCs are both satisfied to the extent that is possible.



Sounds terrific to me. Totally acceptable. But realize that this means that not every property will be returned, and at the same time there is no right to return for everybody.

I am willing to make an exception to the above rule when it comes to corporate property and property that has been heavily invested by TC current occupants ... in these cases, I would be willing to consider compensation.


Again sounds good, and totally acceptable.

What I am not willing to tolerate are those provisions in the current Annan Plan that give priority control of property to settlers and also to those british, germans etc. who "bought" GC homes at "bargain prices" ... furthermore, I do not see a reason for the 33% limit to property restitution. If current TC occupants and TC investments are protected, why not 100% restitution?

This portion I agree woth you in principle, but I do not know how you will put this into practice, and not create another wave of refuges in the form of settlers ( if you are accepting that some settlers will stay in the island after the solution. Of course if you are saying that no settler should stay in the island after solution than your proposed solution works.) So you have to tell me also a ferasibel way of doing this, then I would totally agree with you.

One more thins is also this. Majority of the foreigners (Brits, Germans, not talking about settlers) buy land from TCs not from settlers in the north to make houses anyway. That is why in the north deed prices usually goes in three tiers. Properties that belong to TCs and foreigners before 1974 (so no GC claim on them) fetch the highest price. Then comes the properties that are given to TCs in return for their property left in south. This fetches the second highest price. The third and lowest price is for the properties which are given to settlers. And majority of the foreigners buy land only from first and second tier. They are quite aware of the situation in Cyprus, so they want to protect themselves to certain degree.

So I believe that if there will be a exchange for TCs property in the south to GC property in the north, as you have suggested then this roght should also apply to foreigners, even Turks that buy land from TCs, should have the same rights. So in simple, if a land is given to a TC as a compensation fro his/her property in the south as an exchange as you have suggested, and if that property is sold to some foreigner then that transaction should be honored.

I believe in Annan Plan the 33% is put to protect against the claim of GCs for full return. IF you are guaranteeing that all the land given to TCs as a exchange for his land in the south will be honored, then the rest given to settlers, I have no problem GCs having %100 return right. But this %100 return right should be restricted to only certain properties because you can not say that everybody has %100 return right but at the same time offer property exchange. It is contradictory.

Also you have to provide a way for the agreed settlers ( if you agree on at all) to keep the land as well, or provide them means for having other houses. In other words make your argument feasible, then what you are proposing is quite acceptable to many TCs.

Let us not forget also that the current scheme of property compensation, as per the Annan Plan, is fraught with dangers and may lead either to economic collapse or to a substantial part of the island being bought by foreigners. Let me explain: It is estimated that the total cost of compensations will be 10 billion Cyprus Pounds. In order to finance this huge expense, the Property Board will be pressed to sell the properties under its control at a very fast rate ... if it is succesful in doing so, then property prices will plummet (unless ofcourse foreign demand is very high, in which case a large part of Cyprus will have been sold to foreigners). If property prices plummet, then it will be very difficult for the property board to raise the 10 billion pounds it will need ... therefore, the compensation bond system will collapse, leading to an economic crash and making the bonds worthless. So, no compensation (since the bonds will be worthless) and no property (since most of it will have been sold to Europeans)...


I have no problem foreigner buying land and or properties in Cyprus quite honestly. I have properties in USA, and UK. So if I can obtain properties in these countries then they should be obtain properties in Cyprus. No problem with that.

Having said that, the compensation issues (bonds and financing) can be studied in more detail and alternative solutions can be found in terms of finance and economics. After we can settle on principle this financing issue is very easy to solve I believe. Remember I believe that every settler should pay for the land their given. This can be done in terms of mortgage system. Then government can easily bundle these mortagages, and sell them in financial markets. It is called securitization, and have been performed in many countries for years. Every financial institution has been doing this for years, why not the ‘compensation board’

The best insurance against all this happening, is to avoid having to compensate as far as possible, by restituting property to its original owners and by making straight property exchanges between GCs and TCs ...


I agree, but I told you show me a feasible way for accommodating the settlers in this property issue (again if you accept any settlers to remain)


To wrap it all together, I think we should not fear allowing GCs to return to the north, (so long as their is a permanent percent limit to how many of them can become residents), and giving them full voting rights (so long as TC equality in the Federal Senate and TC majority in the Turkish Cypriot State are protected). I also do not see a problem with GCs being given back their property in the north, so long as exceptions are made to protect TC current occupants and heavily invested properties...


This subject have been discussed in my prior posts. As I have said earlier, if you can find a solution which gives full citizenship rights to GCs and at the same time keeps equality at the federal level, and at the same time being legal which will not be turned from courts then I agree.

But I believe it is not feasible. As I have said the only way this can happen is that, Gcs coming to north should have dual state citizenships, one GC and TC state, and should exercise their political rights in the GC state. And this can only be done, if you say that their primary residency is in the south. Then they can utilize their local political rights in TC state and statewide and federal rights in the GC state. And also we make the states as decentralized as we can, so that every decision that affects their lives are decided at the local level, instead of state and federal level. IF we do, I am more than happy to let GCs return to TC state even in 6 figures.

Frankly, I do not see any way around it in terms of legality and human rights. If you do please explain.

Oh, by the way, you can lose the "Mr Lordos" ... just call me Alexandros :wink:


How about Alex? :)
turkcyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:40 am

Postby turkcyp » Mon Jan 10, 2005 8:18 pm

Alexandros Lordos wrote: Implementation issues for GCs:

    1) How can we be sure that territorial adjustment will indeed take place?
    2) How can we be sure that the Turkish Army will indeed withdraw?
    3) How can we be sure that the agreed level of settler repatriation will indeed take place?
    4) How can we be sure that TCs will not secede from the Federal Government, leading to the breakdown of the Federal State?


1) Give all the territorial adjustment land under the control of UN or a third party as soon as possible (preferably immediately)
2) This just depends on trust, nothing else. I mean how can you be sure that even if Turkish army leaves tomorrow, they will not come the next day. You know that in the world of international politics, treaties do not mean that much. Look Iraq. If you have any proposal to clear your doubt on this issue please write down what you think.
3) There may be census made immediately after the solution, and each member of the society can be identified relating to their origin. The same census can be done in 5 years to make sure the issue is solved.
4) You can not. Nobody can. How can we make sure that GCs will not do what they have done in 1963? It is just based on trust, nothing else. If you do not think that we are dealing in good faith, then why deal at all.


Implementation issues for TCs:

    1) How can we be sure that those who will have to relocate, will indeed be compensated and supported?
    2) How can we be sure that the terms of the solution will not later be overturned through the application of European Law?
    3) How can we be sure that military weapons kept in the homes of GCs, will indeed be relinquished and removed from the island?
    4) How can we be sure that the GCs will not hijack the Federal State, thus cutting the TCs out of the decision making mechanism?


1) Again, like you are trusting us, we should trust you.
2) The only way is to make things a primary law. Which is very hard to do, but it can be feasible. What you can not make sure though is that the same solution willnot be challemged in ECHR (because not a part of EU). That is why I keep on insisting on solution of political rights on the basis of residency, and citizenship rather than race.
3) Trust, trust. Nobody can just go into somebody’s house and do search, unless there is a undeniable knowledge. So it is solely based on trust.
4) Same as how can GCs make sure TCs will not secede. Trust.

Implementation issues that concern both sides:

    How can we be sure that property will indeed be returned to the original owners, to the agreed level?
    How can we be sure that all property that is not returned will indeed be compensated?


Most of these things are related to the way compensation issue is solved. Quite honestky, there will be always individual cases where people complain about the fact that they are not compensated fairly.

I do not know any other way this can be sold. Everybody that feels that they are not compensated fairly, then should have right for appeal. Like in every country with the supremacy of law. And at the end whatever the law decides, you just have to accept it.

As you can see, the issue of implementation guarantees is not at all simple ... the Annan Plan prescribed a lot of great and wonderful things, but it did not also provide the mechanisms by which all these things would actually be enforced, nor did it specify the consequences of non-compliance ...

Some might argue that we have to rely on good will for all the above to happen. Personally, I do not share that sentiment. While good will is necessary for the implementation of the solution, it is by no means sufficient (if the legal/institutional framework is not also there ...)


I do not think in this respect Annan Plan was that bad. A lot of the things relies on the good will and frankly that is the only way you can do things. There is no mechanism on the face of the world that will force GCs or TCs to keep their promises.

Think this as a contract between two parties. The only thing that keeps the contract enforceable is the existence of a foreign judge and body. In this case if we try to seced from the union, the best you can do is to go to UN and ask for help. If you decide to restrict our rights, the best we can do is to go UN and ask for help. I do not know any other way.

If you want we can in solution even write down the terms of punishment, if one side does not keep its promises. I do not know if this is a good way for couple of reasons. First of all it gives the impression that we do not trust each other and therefore extends the period that we start trusting each other. The second thing is, if in any agreement if you put down the terms of punishment, this can act as two edge sword. In times the circumstances may change where the punishment may be deemed not important for parties in terms of magnitude and gives more motivation for them not to keep its promises.

IF on the other hand you leave this punishment to third party, as an open interpretation. The level punishment will not be constant but will vary with the circumstances on the world.

And plus it seems quite ridiculous to say that, we will not sign this agreement because we do not think the other side will keep its promise. Because if you say that, it brings problem to the issue of trust. Without trust there is no need for any agreement. So may be we should stop talking about solution, but turn back to another approach suggested by UN secretary Gali, as to improve trust among the societies first, then we can talk about the solution. Which means a time period of reconciliation and truct building before we can even start to negotiate.

Have a good day,
turkcyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:40 am

Postby MicAtCyp » Mon Jan 10, 2005 9:25 pm

Turkcyp wrote: Those who know how to communicate in a civilized manner deserve my time much more than you.


Look, there in no civilised way to describe the "thief" part. Do you know any? Even if we accept the fact that the TC community had not other option but "to borrow for 30 years" without the consent of the GC owners, 3 times as many properties than what they the TCs themselves abandoned, tell me what your own refusal for point 8 makes you.

If you want me to further explain you the thief part I have absolutely no problem doing so. But listen, you are not going to set me rules, on when and how I will use the term, no matter how be - littling that might be on you personally, or your community in general. All I can do, is just use it as little as possible, or even avoid using it, unless I am provoked. And in this particular instance you have provoked !!

Second: There were many other points in my post despite the "thieves" part itself. Why so afraid to answer? Got so touchy, that you are going to set us rules, of how we will talk to your majesty? Forget it, I do not recognise Royalties to any one, nor any obligation for goodie - goodie talk with you.
User avatar
MicAtCyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:10 am

Postby turkcyp » Mon Jan 10, 2005 10:20 pm

Hey I thought we had come to a mutual understanding that we do not deserve each other’s valuable time. :roll:

MicAtCyp wrote:Look, there in no civilised way to describe the "thief" part. Do you know any? Even if we accept the fact that the TC community had not other option but "to borrow for 30 years" without the consent of the GC owners, 3 times as many properties than what they the TCs themselves abandoned, tell me what your own refusal for point 8 makes you.


I am as much thief as much as you are. You have stolen the whole RoC government from me in 1964. The mere fact is this. Cyprus problem has ceased to exist in terms of GC eyes on March 4 1964, and reappeared as a problem in July 20, 1974.

In March 1964, you have became the de-facto government of the whole island by kicking us out of the RoC from us, and on July 1974 we have become de-facto government of the north by separating two communities by use of force.

In both instances many peopled were killed, and many people were forced out of their homes. In reality both are the same in my eyes, so imo I am no more thief than you are.

If you want me to further explain you the thief part I have absolutely no problem doing so. But listen, you are not going to set me rules, on when and how I will use the term, no matter how be - littling that might be on you personally, or your community in general. All I can do, is just use it as little as possible, or even avoid using it, unless I am provoked. And in this particular instance you have provoked !!


Furthermore I am not setting the rules when you can call me a thief. Keep on calling as many times as you can. My reaction in my post was a reaction to the manner you try to communicate. Certainly nobody in this forum will go around an call themselves thieves without being provoked.

Second: There were many other points in my post despite the "thieves" part itself. Why so afraid to answer? Got so touchy, that you are going to set us rules, of how we will talk to your majesty? Forget it, I do not recognise Royalties to any one, nor any obligation for goodie - goodie talk with you.


One more time,

Post your comments in a civilized manner, and get responses in a civilized manner.
Now if you want to join the discussion in civility and get my honest opinion in civility then ask properly. That is all I am asking. Civility. Deserve the heritage of your Greek society.
turkcyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:40 am

Postby Alexandros Lordos » Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:23 am

MicAtCyp wrote:Look, there in no civilised way to describe the "thief" part. Do you know any? Even if we accept the fact that the TC community had not other option but "to borrow for 30 years" without the consent of the GC owners, 3 times as many properties than what they the TCs themselves abandoned, tell me what your own refusal for point 8 makes you.


MicAtCyp,

I think we have already established that this is a misunderstanding ... Turkcyp's refusal of point 8 was related to the fear that refugee TCs would have to relocate for a second time. When we discussed it further, Turkcyp showed himself to be quite willing to consider the return of as much property as possible, so long as the exchange system remains in place to protect those TCs who will wish to remain where they are now. (and not move back to their old homes in Limassol, Paphos etc.)
Alexandros Lordos
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:41 pm

Postby Alexandros Lordos » Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:11 am

Turkcyp,

concerning property issues:

- I understand what you are saying about first tier, second tier and third tier properties as far as foreign buyers is concerned. What the Annan Plan does is to fully protect those buyers who bought second tier properties (ie properties that actually belong to GCs but were given to TCs sometime after 1974). What I am saying - and it may sound harsh - is that there should be absolutely no protection for these people. At best, they should be entitled to the original property of the TC seller in the south, with which their GC property was exchanged after 1974. We are not talking about human pain here, we are not talking about refugees, we are talking about tourists who thought they found a good bargain and had no qualms about making a holiday home of property that belonged to someone else.

- Concerning settlers and property rights: You have to understand that this is an explosive situation as far as GCs are concerned ... One of the most concincing arguments for a "No" last april, was that settlers would be allowed to stay in GC properties. A sine quo non for getting a "Yes" next time, is to ensure that nothing of the sort will happen. Personally, I am not of the opinion that all settlers should leave the island (though I believe a lot more should leave than currently provided for in the Annan plan), so their housing problem could be solved as follows:

- Settlers who are sufficiently well off, may either rent a house or buy a house (just like the rest of us) in the free market.
- Settlers who are below the poverty line should be given accomodation by the TC constituent state, on a long-term low-cost lease. The TC state could use, for this purpose, abandoned TC properties (since so many TCs have emigrated abroad) which it will take over and then compensate its original owners.

Now, concerning, implementation guarantees:

I see your drift here, you believe it should all boil down to trust, but I must admit that, personally speaking, this is not satisfactory to me...

... neither does the idea of turning to the UN in case of trouble satisfy me either ...

The problem is, too many promises have already been broken, too many UN resolutions have already be ignored, for me to allow myself the naivete of trust.

As I said in my post, good will is necessary but not sufficient. It is not sufficient, because the years after the solution will be difficult for all of us, and it will be tempting to fall back on the easy option of breaking the agreement, despite original good intentions ...

Guarantees would differ depending on the issue. On the subject of troop withdrawal taking place as planned, this could be backed up by a security council resolution under article 7 of the UN Charter. This would mean that failure to comply would mean that military action could be taken against the guilty party. On the subject of territorial adjustment and property restitution, it should be made possible to apply to the ECHR in case the agreement is not kept (now, in the Annan Plan, there is an explicit provision to block the possibility of future recourse to the ECHR). On the subject of secession and domination, the explicit consequence could be international isolation for the guilty party, and a barring of that party from seeking separate international recognition.

Have a nice day ...

P.S. "Alex" is fine ... or "Alexandre" in Greek (second person singular), as our GC friends in the forum call me ... :D
Alexandros Lordos
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:41 pm

Postby turkcyp » Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:52 pm

Dear Alex,

Alexandros Lordos wrote:Turkcyp,

concerning property issues:

- I understand what you are saying about first tier, second tier and third tier properties as far as foreign buyers is concerned. What the Annan Plan does is to fully protect those buyers who bought second tier properties (ie properties that actually belong to GCs but were given to TCs sometime after 1974). What I am saying - and it may sound harsh - is that there should be absolutely no protection for these people. At best, they should be entitled to the original property of the TC seller in the south, with which their GC property was exchanged after 1974. We are not talking about human pain here, we are not talking about refugees, we are talking about tourists who thought they found a good bargain and had no qualms about making a holiday home of property that belonged to someone else.


I guess this may sound very frivolous issue to you, but it has legal ramifications. If you say that TCs has legal rights to exchange these properties for their old ones, then legally talking when a TC sold that property all the rights, risks, and claims against (debts) for that property transfers to the buyer, may it be another TC, another GC or another foreigner.

This is a basic legal concept, and I hardly doubt that you can limit that. And quite frankly I do not see the reason fro blocking it either. If a TC decides to sell its property that he exchanged for his/hers southern property then, I think the buyer of that property should have all of his/her rights. Of course the TC when he sells that property looses all of his/her rights against the property in the south as well. If that is what you are afraid of. (kind of double compensation)

- Concerning settlers and property rights: You have to understand that this is an explosive situation as far as GCs are concerned ... One of the most concincing arguments for a "No" last april, was that settlers would be allowed to stay in GC properties. A sine quo non for getting a "Yes" next time, is to ensure that nothing of the sort will happen. Personally, I am not of the opinion that all settlers should leave the island (though I believe a lot more should leave than currently provided for in the Annan plan), so their housing problem could be solved as follows:

- Settlers who are sufficiently well off, may either rent a house or buy a house (just like the rest of us) in the free market.
- Settlers who are below the poverty line should be given accomodation by the TC constituent state, on a long-term low-cost lease. The TC state could use, for this purpose, abandoned TC properties (since so many TCs have emigrated abroad) which it will take over and then compensate its original owners.


I am not against your proposals in principle. But in order to make things less complicated for settlers. Can we say that

“the primary claim on the properties used by settlers is for the GC refugee, but if he/she refuses to relocate to north, or if he/she is outside the limits then the first priority to purchase that land goes to the settler that currently lives in it, with a long term mortgage system”

By this way we can reduce the burden on settlers. (% of whatever agreed on as in Annan Plan. As I have suggested this limit can go much much higher than Annans plan, [even the no limit can be negotiated] as long as political participation issue is sorted out. That is a “sine quo non” for many TCs as well. They do not care if their neighbour is GC, but they di care if there is no equality in the federal senate level.)(long term mortgage system does not mean that GC will wait long year to get his money, financial intermediation :) )

Now, concerning, implementation guarantees:

I see your drift here, you believe it should all boil down to trust, but I must admit that, personally speaking, this is not satisfactory to me...

... neither does the idea of turning to the UN in case of trouble satisfy me either ...

The problem is, too many promises have already been broken, too many UN resolutions have already be ignored, for me to allow myself the naivete of trust.

As I said in my post, good will is necessary but not sufficient. It is not sufficient, because the years after the solution will be difficult for all of us, and it will be tempting to fall back on the easy option of breaking the agreement, despite original good intentions ...

Guarantees would differ depending on the issue. On the subject of troop withdrawal taking place as planned, this could be backed up by a security council resolution under article 7 of the UN Charter. This would mean that failure to comply would mean that military action could be taken against the guilty party. On the subject of territorial adjustment and property restitution, it should be made possible to apply to the ECHR in case the agreement is not kept (now, in the Annan Plan, there is an explicit provision to block the possibility of future recourse to the ECHR). On the subject of secession and domination, the explicit consequence could be international isolation for the guilty party, and a barring of that party from seeking separate international recognition.

Have a nice day ...

P.S. "Alex" is fine ... or "Alexandre" in Greek (second person singular), as our GC friends in the forum call me ... :D


OK. What are your proposals for making GCs be less afraid of implementation?

About two of the proposals you have given. I have no problem with the one about troop withdrawal.

But the one about ECHR would do more harm than good. Knowing that they can go to ECHR, at the end of the day, and get full reinstitution like Louzidou, why would any GC accept the recommendation of local legal authorities. I think the property disputes should be solved at the local level. You can apply to the property commission, and if you do not like the verdict I guess you can go all the way up to Cyprus Supreme Court.

About the secession/domination issues. It is funny. GCs have stolen the RoC from us on 1964 but did not receive any embargos, or international isolation. On the other hand after 1974 TC side was always under international isolation. I guess it is funny that this fear is coming from you not from us. But I accept your proposal. :)

Have a good day,
turkcyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:40 am

Postby MicAtCyp » Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:49 pm

Alexandros wrote: When we discussed it further, Turkcyp showed himself to be quite willing to consider the return of as much property as possible...


Gloop! That's news to me! (I admit I did not follow this thread anyhow). Then why did he not say it to me straight, but rather diverted the discussion with me to muble-juble? Really I was about to quote and answer "what a waste of my time".

Anyhow thanks Alexandre. I am glad your quality of character is undisputable in this forum...

PS. Alexandre your name in this form is not 2nd person singular. It is not a verb! it is "calling case" singular.How to from it? If the nominative case ends to a consonant (usually s) simply drop the s.In rare cases when the vowel that is left is an o you may need to change it to e.
E.g. Pantelis- Re Panteli, Yiannis-Hey Yianni, Mehmet- Re Mehmet, Maria-Hey Maria, Lordos-Re Lordo or Re Lorde.

He, he, he. Just an explanation for of TC friends who might wonder.
User avatar
MicAtCyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:10 am

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem Solution Proposals

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests