Top Qs
Timeline
Chat
Perspective
United Nations Security Council Resolution 541
United Nations resolution adopted in 1983 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Remove ads
Northern Cyprus declared its independence in 1983 with its official name being the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). It is recognized only by Turkey.
With United Nations Security Council resolution 541, adopted on 18 November 1983, after reaffirming Resolution 365 (1974) and Resolution 367 (1975), the Council considered Northern Cyprus' decision to declare independence legally invalid.
It called upon both parties to cooperate with the Secretary-General, and urged other Member States not to recognize Northern Cyprus, while only recognizing the Republic of Cyprus as the sole authority on the island.
The resolution was adopted by 13 votes to one against (Pakistan) and one abstention from Jordan.
Remove ads
UNSC Resolution 1983/541 is Non-Binding
Summarize
Perspective
On 04.08.1986, Greece filed a case against the Council of the European Communities(supporter intervener:Commission of the European Communities). In the case, Greece first argued that the UN Security Council Resolution 1983/541 called "upon all States not to recognize any Cypriot State other than the Republic of Cyprus". Greece then reasoned that since the Turkish Government recognized the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, the European Community "cannot grant it the special aid without ignoring that breach and thereby itself violating an obligation imposed on it under a measure which is binding on it by virtue of the principle of substitution."[1]
On 25.05.1988, Council of the European Communities(supporter intervener:Commission of the European Communities) specified that the UN Security Council Resolution 1983/541 which is not passed under Article VII of the UN Charter is non-binding in nature, and Council of EC and the Commission of the EC stated that "It is manifest from the wording of the operative part and from the debates and the declarations of vote prior to the adoption of Resolution No 541 that the Resolution does not constitute a "decision" and is therefore not a binding measure, but a measure in the nature of a mere recommendation. Consequently, the States to which the declaration is addressed are NOT bound to comply with paragraph 7 of the resolution or to infer from the fact that paragraph 7 was not complied with the consequences which Greece claims they should infer."[2]
On 27.09.1988, European Court of Justice (ECJ) rejected all of the Greece's arguments in the Case 204/86 (Greek Republic v. Council of the European Communities(supporter intervener:Commission of the European Communities)), and punished Greece to pay all the costs, including the costs of the intervener. ECJ stated (in prg28) that the Resolution 1983/541 of the United Nations Security Council is completely extraneous to relations between the Community and Turkey.[3]
Remove ads
Relevant Court Cases
Summarize
Perspective
International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence,[4] and the recognition of a country is a political issue.[5]
International Courts
- No prohibition of declarations of independence in international law: On 22 July 2010, The International Court of Justice (ICJ) stated in its advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence in 2010 that "the Security Council in an exceptional character attached illegality to the DOI of TRNC because it was, or would have been connected with the unlawful use of force" and "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence".[6]
- The ICJ's ruling was expected to bolster demands for recognition by Northern Cyprus.[7][8] The decision of the ICJ has also been regarded as opening more potential options for the TRNC to gain international legitimacy.[9]
- Legality of the acts of the TRNC's authorities: On 2 July 2013, The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decided that "...notwithstanding the lack of international recognition of the regime in the northern area, a de facto recognition of its acts may be rendered necessary for practical purposes. Thus the adoption by the authorities of the "TRNC" of civil, administrative or criminal law measures, and their application or enforcement within that territory, may be regarded as having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention".[10]
- The legality, independence, and impartiality of the TRNC's courts: On 2 September 2015, The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decided that "...the court system set up in the "TRNC" was to be considered to have been "established by law" with reference to the "constitutional and legal basis" on which it operated, and it has not accepted the allegation that the "TRNC" courts as a whole lacked independence and/or impartiality".[11]
- The difference of TRNC than Transnistria, Abkhazia, and Crimea: On 25 June 2024, The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) [Ukraine v. Russia Case (Crimea); Applications 20958/14 and 38334/18] explained the reasons for the legality of the actions of TRNC laws in the north of Cyprus under the ECtHR framework (Why the situation of the TRNC differs from that of Crimea, Transnistria, and Abkhazia):
930. Whereas the Court held that "TRNC Domestic Law" was based on the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition and was therefore accepted as "law" for the purposes of the Convention, in cases concerning Transdniestria (the "MRT"), the Court found "no basis for assuming that [in the 'MRT'] there is a system reflecting a judicial tradition compatible with the Convention similar to the one in the remainder of the Republic of Moldova". The Court has reached similar conclusions regarding the "law" of Abkhazia and the "lawfulness" of Abkhaz courts.
932....Moreover, while the "MRT" and Abkhaz-related cases concerned the "law" of unrecognised entities that did not reflect "a judicial tradition ... similar to the one in the remainder of the Republic of Moldova" or "to the rest of Georgia" respectively, in Cyprus v. Turkey (merits) the Court held that "The civil courts operating in the 'TRNC' were in substance based on the Anglo-Saxon tradition and were not essentially different from the courts operating before the events of 1974 and from those which existed in the southern part of Cyprus". This particular aspect makes the latter case similar, yet different from the present case. The Cyprus v. Turkey case concerned the continued application of pre-existing Cypriot law valid in the territory of the "TRNC" before Turkey had obtained actual control of that territory, whereas the present case concerns the application in Crimea of the law of the Russian Federation (or the "law" of the local authorities, as its derivative) replacing the previously applicable and valid Ukrainian law.[12]
Courts of Countries
- The USA: On 9 October 2014, the Federal Court of the United States (USA) stated that "the TRNC purportedly operates as a democratic republic with a president, prime minister, legislature and judiciary...The TRNC is NOT vulnerable to a lawsuit in Washington.".[13][14][15]
Greek Cypriot Toumazou applied to the USA Court of Appeals. The USA Court of Appeals rejected Toumazou, too on 15.01.2016[16]
After the US Federal Court called and qualified TRNC as "Democratic Republic" and the USA Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, The United States Sectetary of State has started to describe the TRNC as the Area Administered by Turkish Cypriots[17]
- The UK: On 3 February 2017, The United Kingdom's High Court stated "There was no duty in the United Kingdom law upon the Government to refrain from recognizing Northern Cyprus. The United Nations itself works with Northern Cyprus law enforcement agencies and facilitates co-operation between the two parts of the island".[18] and revealed that the co-operation between the United Kingdom police and law agencies in Northern Cyprus is legal.
Remove ads
See also
References
External links
Wikiwand - on
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Remove ads