Cyprus PIO: Turkish Press and Other Media, 05-05-31

Cyprus Press and Information Office: Turkish Cypriot Press Review Directory - Previous Article - Next Article

From: The Republic of Cyprus Press and Information Office Server at <http://www.pio.gov.cy/>

[A] NEWS ITEMS

[01] Report prepared soon after the Turkish invasion by prominent Turkish Cypriot legal experts warned Turkey that the properties of individuals could not be seized and sold to others.

[02] Customs Union Agreement between Turkey and the occupation regime postponed in 2003 after reactions from the EU is to be singed in the weekend under a different name.

[03] UN Under-Secretary-General arrived in Cyprus for talks.

[04] Turkish Prime Minister will visit United States between 7-11 of June.

[05] Bahraini foreign minister agreed with the decision of OIC, which aimed to improve cooperation with the TRNC.

[06] U.S. congressmen delegation paid an illegal visit to the occupied areas of Cyprus.

[A] NEWS ITEMS

[01] Report prepared soon after the Turkish invasion by prominent Turkish Cypriot legal experts warned Turkey that the properties of individuals could not be seized and sold to others

The paper writes, inter alia, the following in its 20-27 May 2005 edition:

The two high-ranking lawyers - worked for 9 days and after examining the Conventions for States' Law, the 1907 Hague Convention and the related laws of 'The Hague Regulation Respecting the Laws and Customs of War and Land' that was annexed to it , they presented their report to the then Vice President and Leader of the Autonomous Turkish Cypriot Administration Rauf Denktas, as well as to the Legal Adviser of the Commander of the Turkish Army Corps on 13 September 1974.

The Paper that has been prepared in accordance

With decision No.5547 on 3.9.74

In its meeting on 3.9.1974 the Executive Committee of the Autonomous Turkish Cypriot Administration, in accordance with its decision number 5547, drafted a report to be presented and took the decision below:

"The management./administration of foreign moveable and immoveable properties that have remained in the areas under Turkish control.

Decision No: 5547

In a message received from Ankara, the Turkish Azot Industry's requirements for iron pyrites is being provided by the Gemikonagi (occupied Karavostasi) dock in the Lefka region. Turkey is aware that she has not found anyone to address regarding the sale of the required amount of iron pyrites to her, which is currently being piled up at the Azot Industry's Gemikonagi dock; taking into consideration the economic benefits that this substance provides to the region and for the method to be implemented within the framework of the customary commercial procedures, it has been deemed suitable that the value of the iron pyrite articles that the Azot Industry will purchase shall be deposited into a special deposit account of the Autonomous Turkish Cypriot Administration; in commercial proceedings of this kind and being totally distant from situations that will abuse the current position of our government, it has been decided that the procedures to be implemented will be in line with normal commercial methods; on this particular point, in the event that it is deemed appropriate by the Turkish Cypriot Administration for the necessary procedures and loading to be carried out, it is requested that the state of affairs be immediately settled.

Additionally, upon the Committee being informed that an application has been made by the Italian Embassy for permission to be granted for the steel that was purchased some time ago by an Italian company and is currently in the depots of the Port of Famagusta to be loaded onto the ships that are currently docked there because if the steel is kept waiting for any longer it will oxidize and be damaged, the Executive Committee which is following the issue, has decided to draft a report to the Committee which will outline how and under what conditions foreign moveable and immoveable properties in the region come under the control of the Cyprus Turkish Administration as a result of the Peace Operation, bearing in mind the points outlined below about the procedure that was followed by the British during times of war, and other interested members and authorized persons, and on the condition of cooperating with the Attorney-General, the Head of the High Court has deemed to be appropriate that a delegation set up by the Committee shall examine, as soon as possible, and drat report that will outline the kind of procedure that the properties in question will be subjected to.

The Executive Committee is of the opinion that immovable properties belonging to Greek Cypriots in regions under the control of the Turkish Cypriots are under Regulation regarding the "Control of Foreign Immoveable Properties (Temporary Provisions)";

The issue occurred as a result of the Peace Operation and is not a state of war.

Amongst those properties that were acquired there were reciprocal agreements and at the port there are goods that have been purchased but not collected."

3.9.1974. Attorney-General Feridun Oktay and the Head of the Supreme Court Necati Munur Ertegon

In the light of this decision and based on the study and research that we have carried out on Turkish and foreign laws present our findings below:

The Turkish Republic, in accordance with legitimate rights granted to her under Article IV of the 1960 Agreements that she signed together with the United Kingdom and Greece, in order to restore the constitutional order, protect independence, secure the safety of the Turkish Cypriot community's lives and property and bring peace, felt the need to carry out an intervention and on 20 July 1974 landed the Turkish Cypriot Peace Forces on the island.

This action has been termed 'Intervention' and was carried out in accordance with the law of the State that was being guaranteed. In the Law of States, interventions are classified under two headings, either 'legitimate' or 'illegitimate'. This point has been recognized and is confirmed in the book entitled "PEACE" by "OPPENHEIMS INTERNATIONAL LAW. LAUTERPACHT", VOLUME I, 1967 Edition, page 305, and after the book explains about the situations regarding the legitimacy and illegitimacy of 'interventions', it goes on to talk about the 7 conditions under which this can be done. The one that most concerns our issue at hand is reason five. That is:

"(5) A State that has guaranteed by treaty the form of government of another State, or the reign of a certain dynasty over the same, has a right to intervene in case of a change in the form of government or of the dynasty, provided that the treaty of guarantee was concluded between the respective States and not between their monarchs personally".

No matter how much this proves to an adequate degree the legitimacy of the Turkish intervention, we deem it useful to refer to paragraph 3 on page 307 which refers to more or less the same principles:

"(3) If a State which is restricted by an international treaty in its external independence or its territorial or personal supremacy does not comply with the restriction concerned, the other party or parties have 'a right to intervene. Thus the United States of America, in 1906, intervened in Cuba in conformity with Article 3 of the Treaty of Havana of 1903 (now virtually abrogated) for the purpose of re-establishing order, and in 1904 in Panama in conformity with Article 7 of the Treaty of 1903 (reiterated in Article 10 of the Treaty of 1936). Great Britain, France, and Russia, the guarantors of the independence of Greece, intervened in Greece during the First World War in 1916 and 1917 for the purpose of re- establishing constitutional government in conformity with Article 3 of the Treaty of London of 1863. King Constantine had to abdicate, and his second son, Alexander, was installed as King of the Hellenes".

Now let us move on to whether or not this legitimate struggle had brought about a 'state of war'. In Volume II of the same book (DISPUTES, WAR AND NEUTRALITY) it is explained how a state of war arises (see pages 290-300, paragraphs 93-96). Naturally, the decisions of the States Law outline the condition that before venturing on an act of war a state of war must first be declared. In spite of this, before officially declaring war, entering into an act of war can be counted. On this issue we can quote page 435 of Volume II of INTRODUCTION TO STATES LAW by SEHA I. MERAY (1967).)

Continuing its coverage of the issue Dialogue reports the following in its 27 May-3 June, 2005 edition under the title: The legal status of the property cannot be changed. If this is seized and sold to someone else, this sale does not create a right in favour on the seller. Intervention can be made!:

Page 398 paragraph 135 regarding the Immoveable Property of Municipalities, and of Religious, Charitable and the like Institutions is as follows:

135. It must, however, be observed that only the produce of public immoveable belonging to the State itself may be appropriated, and not the produce of those belonging to municipalities, or of those which, although they belong to the hostile State, are permanently set aside for religious purposes, for the maintenance of charitable and educational institutions, or for the benefit of art and science. Article 56 of the Hague Regulations expressly enacts that such property is to be treated as private property."

136. So far as the necessities of war demand, a belligerent may make use of public enemy buildings for all kinds of purposes... Troops must be housed, horses stabled, the sick and wounded looked after; public buildings may in the first instance, therefore, be made use of for such purposes, although they may thereby be considerably damaged, and it matters not whether the buildings belong to the enemy State or to municipalities, whether they are regularly destined for ordinary governmental and municipal purposes, or for religious, educational, scientific, or similar purposes. Thus churches may be converted into hospitals, schools into barracks, buildings used for scientific research into stables. But such utilisation of public buildings as damages them is justified only if it is necessary".

A belligerent occupying hostile territory may take possession of the cash, funds, and realisable securities, depots of arms, means of transport, stores, supplies, and appliances (on land, at sea, or in the air) adapted for the transmission of news or for the transport of persons or goods and of all other moveable property of the hostile State which may be of use for military operations. Thus, a belligerent is entitled to seize not only the money and funds of the hostile State, munitions of war, depots of arms, stores and supplies; but also the rolling stock of public railways and other means of transport, and everything and anything that he can directly or indirectly make use of for military operations. He may, for instance, seize a quantity of cloth for the purpose of clothing his soldiers."

137. Moveable public enemy property may certainly be appropriated by a belligerent, provided that it can directly or indirectly be useful for military operations. Article 53 of the Hague Regulations.

138. But just as the produce of certain public immoveables may not be appropriated, so certain public the Hague Regulations exempt, such as moveables the property of municipalities or religious charitable or educational institutions and of institutions devoted to science or art.

Thus the moveable property of churches, hospitals, schools, universities, museums, and picture galleries, even when belonging to the hostile State, cannot lawfully be appropriated by a belligerent. As regards archives, they are no doubt of scientific value, but a belligerent may nevertheless seize such State papers deposited therein as are of importance to him in connection with the war."

The same issues are also discussed in the works of' Maray.

Regarding enemy properties pages 444, 474 and 475 state the following:

Page 444 "a) Enemy Properties 58:

Before, when there used to be a state of war the belligerents used to confiscate enemy public property in their own country as well as private enemy property. From the end of the 18th Century onwards, it can be seen that private enemy property was not being confiscated.

Instead of confiscating these properties, it was finally accepted that private enemy property be sequestrated. In the meeting of the States law Institute in Oxford in 1880, in the regulations that were accepted regarding the law for war it was clearly explained that enemy public properties could be confiscated (articles 50-53), but in exchange for this it was accepted that individual or private properties could not be confiscated (article 54). In The Hague Regulation Respecting the laws and Customs of War on land and according to Article 46 of The Hague Convention (IV) of 18 October 1907 it was stated that private properties should be respected and that in exchange for this in Article 53 it is stated that public properties could be confiscated.

(58. Guggenheim, volume II, pages 375-380 Stone, pages. 434-441: Oppenheim-Lautherpacht, volume II, pages 3.26-335;-Rousseau, Dr. Int. Pages 551-5541 Hyde, volume 111, pages 1726-"1743; Hackworth, Digest, volume VI pages 199-237; P.de Colere, "Conditions des Beins Ennemis", Deportoire de Droit International, volume IV, 1929, pages 449-551. M. Cresenspen, The Modern Law of Land Warfare, Berkley, Los Angeles, 1959, pages 278-310.)"

Page 474: "Occupation in War (Occupatio bellica).

Instead of the officials of that country State, this is the establishment of officials of the hostile State in the whole country or a part of it in the enemy or a part of it in the enemy country. An invasion by the armed forces of one country's enemy paves the way for this country's occupation. According to Article 42 of The Hague Regulation it is stated that "a country that has effectively come under the authority of the enemy is counted as a country that has been occupied".

Before, a country that occupied the enemy positions could act in any way that it wanted in terms of either the people or property. However, over time, and as a result of severe changes, the regulations regarding occupation in war started to be defined. According to Articles 42-56 in The Hague Regulation, there are many regulations that have been accepted regarding the powers of the military authority in the occupied country. The experiences of World War II have shown that these regulations are not enough. The Hague Regulations were later extended in the Agreement Regarding the Protection of Civilians In Times of War that was accepted on 12 August 1949.

Page 475: "During the duration of the war when the administration of occupied lands has been taken over, it is possible to talk about the position of the legal status that arises as a result of occupation in war. According to Article 43 of The Hague Regulation, the occupying authorities must take the necessary measures to ensure the creation of order and public life in the occupied country; and while doing this, as long as there are no unrestricted impossibilities, they must comply with the laws in force in that country."

The main point that deals with our issue is the explanation outlined in Volume II, pages 403-406, paragraph 140 of the works by Oppenheim regarding immoveable properties belonging to private individuals or private institutions, and the opinions (number 8/69 which was amended with Rules 20/70 and 4/74) of our Administration regarding "The Control (Temporary Provisions) of Immoveable Properties of Individuals Who Are Not Members of The Turkish Community". This is stated in paragraph 140 as follows:

"Immoveable Private Property. 140. Immoveable private enemy property may under no circumstances or conditions be appropriated by an invading belligerent. Should he confiscate and sell private land or buildings, the buyer would acquire no right whatever to the property. Article 46 of the Hague Regulations expressly enacts that 'private property may not be confiscated. But confiscation differs from the temporary use of private land and buildings for all kinds of purposes demanded by the necessities of war. What has been said above with regard to utilisation of public buildings applies equally to private buildings. If necessary, they may be converted into hospitals, barracks and stables without compensation for the proprietors, and they may also be converted into fortifications.

Referring to the issue of immoveable properties of private individuals and private institutions on pages 404 and 405 and in paragraphs 141, 142 and 143 it is stated that:

Referring to moveable and immoveable properties on page 480 of the works of MERAY and under the heading "The Situation of Private Property" (with reference to Oppenheim as well) the following is said:

"The immoveable property in the country that is under occupation cannot change the legal status of the private property. In the event of this being confiscated to be sold on to others, this sale does not create a right in favour of the seller. Provision 2 of Article 43 of The Hague Convention explicitly states that private property cannot be confiscated. Together with this, it is stated that the occupying State can use these private properties as hospitals or barracks or as stables.

Even if the occupying forces are in the private property of individuals, they can seize all kinds of materials for clothing, the transmission of news and means of transportation. At the conclusion of peace it is necessary that these be returned or compensation paid. (Article 53 of The Hague Regulation). In exchange for this, Article 56 of the Hague Regulation states that it is forbidden to confiscate and destroy works of art and science, and Article 47 forbids looting. During war the capturing of loot is also restricted. Before, the extensive right to looting was only recognized and implemented for arms, horses, military documents, and transportation. Money and valuable possessions could only be taken for protection purposes.

Another work also supporting the above mentioned principles regarding moveable and immovable properties is the "INTERNATIONAL LAW, SCHWARZENBERGER-INTENATIONAL COURTS II. ARMED CONFLICT".

In Chapter 18 that starts on page 243 although the same issue has been explicitly explained we feel the need to quote some excerpts from it.

4. Above we have explained about the "state of war". Of course if there is no "state of war" then the law in force can only intervene regarding private property rights and if necessary draft special laws. We would like to emphasize in particular that even in a state of war "The Hague Regulation" was carefully protected and in some circumstances even envisaged the paying of compensation when confronted with regulations for private property rights, and in situations where "a state of war" does not exist it is evident that more attention should be given to protecting private property rights.

The Autonomous Turkish Cypriot Administration, in its above mentioned decision number 5547 dated 3.9.1974, has taken up the issue of the "iron pyrite" and other "steel peroxide" mines in the light of these principles, and having found out that the Cyprus Mine Corporation (C.M.C) is the owner of these mines and since it operates in the Turkish area, it must comply with the laws of the Turkish Administration and on the condition of complying with its legal responsibilities towards the Turkish Administration, it has been deemed legally necessary that the mine can operate normally in our region and thus in situations where, as has been the case here, it will not be against the interests of the Autonomous Turkish Cypriot Administration permission has been granted for selling the mine. Meanwhile, regarding the other current mineral at the port of Famagusta, where it is requested to load the substances, the same principles should apply. On the condition that by taking into consideration that there will be no harm to the interests of the Autonomous Turkish Cypriot Administration it should be identified if this mineral has in fact been sold and the property transferred to the buyer. This fact can only be found out for certain from the Buyer and the Seller. You will appreciate that we cannot draft a paper regarding this issue without first seeing the document regarding the sale, in other words the Customs, etc documents and contracts. Because there are a thousand and one ways in which such commercial procedures can be carried out, and the transfer of possession will be subject to many conditions.

5. Our draft by its very nature is a wide draft of all the issues that have been given to us with total respect for the regulations of the States Law. In Cyprus there is a special and different situation. The Autonomous Turkish Cypriot Administration, in the event of being affected by the Principle Rules and having an effect on the Principle Rules, as a legitimate Administration according to the Constitution of the Cyprus Republic and other laws in force, is showing administrative activity in regions where the Turkish forces are present. The Turkish Administration has believed in the necessity of the Turkish Peace Force's legitimate intervention and has cooperated with them.

As a result of this, the Autonomous Turkish Cypriot Administration has declared a state of 'exceptional circumstances' on account of this and possesses the opportunity to take the necessary legal measures regarding either moveable or immoveable properties and for this purpose, as well as putting into practice the current law, it also possesses the opportunity to pass new laws. For this reason, we believe that the Autonomous Turkish Cypriot Administration, just like any other government, is vested with the power and has the opportunity to intervene as necessary in the law regarding any kind of moveable or immoveable properties.

[02] Customs Union Agreement between Turkey and the occupation regime postponed in 2003 after reactions from the EU is to be singed in the weekend under a different name

The full text of the report is as follows:

A Protocol for Economic and Social Cooperation between the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and Turkey will be signed which supports the private initiative, puts the state into a controlling position by reducing its economic activity and provides for the creation of an economic structure where the market economy rules work.

Turkeys State Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Abdullatif Sener will be coming to the island in the end of the week in order to sign with Prime Minister Ferdi Sabit Soyer the protocol, the preparation work of which is continuing.

A Technical Delegation headed by Turkeys State Planning Organizations (SPO) Deputy Permanent Under-Secretary, Halil Ibrahim Akca and consisting of officials from the Prime Ministry, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Works, the SPO, the Treasury Under-secretariat, the Foreign Trade Under-secretariat, the Central Bank and the Development Bank came the day before to the island in order to participate in the preparatory work for the protocol.

The Technical Delegation visited yesterday the Economy and Tourism Minister, Dervis Kemal Deniz.

Subtitle: Radical changes will take place in the economy of the TRNC

Speaking during the visit Minister Deniz noted that the basic aim of the protocol on which they are working, is supporting the private initiative, putting the state into a controlling position by reducing its economic activity and creating an economic structure where the market economy rules work. Noting that while this is done, measures in accordance with the EU norms and the international standards will be taken, Deniz said that radical changes will be made on the economy of the TRNC because they will be acting within quick and specific periods of time.

Noting that they will discuss the protocol which provides for economic and social cooperation between Turkey and the TRNC and bring it to the signing point, Deniz stressed the aid granted by Turkey to the TRNC especially on the issue of the economic structure and infrastructure.

Subtitle: The work will continue until the end of the week

Meanwhile, according to information acquired by TAKs correspondent from the Press Office of Turkeys embassy, the preparatory work for the protocol will continue until the end of the week.

It is expected that the text of the protocol that will be the product of this work, will be signed by Prime Minister Ferdi Sabit Soyer and Turkeys State Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Abdullatif Sener who is expected to come to the island in the end of the week.

[03] UN Under-Secretary-General arrived in Cyprus for talks

Mr Prendergast stated that he visited the island to listen to both sides and determine whether there is a common base to resume Cyprus talks. He also added that he will hold meetings in the island until June 2nd and then he will proceed to Athens and Ankara to hold consultations. He also said that he will return to New York on June 7th and present a report to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Noting that a progress can be recorded through efforts of sides in the island, Mr Prendergast said that he was aware of the difficulties in recording progress. He also added that the UN respects to results of referendum in the island. I am here to take the pulse, he said, noting that the Greek Cypriots have uneasiness about the Annan plan and several developments and they also know that Turkish Cypriots have uneasiness about developments.

Mr Prendergast will meet Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulos on Tuesday and Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat on Wednesday and Thursday.

[04] Turkish Prime Minister will visit United States between 7-11 of June

Mr Erdogan is scheduled to meet U.S. President George W. Bush on June 8th. Also Turkish Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Gul is expected to attend the meeting.

Mr Erdogan will meet UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in New York on June 9th. He will deliver a speech at the Turkish-American Council and hold talks with several members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.

Besides the bilateral relations between Turkey and the United States, recent regional and international developments will be high on the agenda during Prime Minister Erdogan's scheduled meetings.

[05] Bahraini foreign minister agreed with the decision of OIC, which aimed to improve cooperation with the TRNC

Mr Gul hold a joint press conference with Al Khalifa and noting that they discussed political and economic relations (between the two countries) and regional issues with the Bahraini foreign minister, said that the agreement signed with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) was the sign that all sorts of legal works regarding economic relations with Bahrain were about to finish. Stressing that the two countries took steps to ease reciprocal visits of their citizens, Mr Gul said that citizens of all Gulf countries would get visas from Turkey at the border gates under the unilateral decision taken by Turkey.

When asked about Bahrain's policy about Cyprus, the Bahraini foreign minister said that Bahrain, which was a member of Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), agreed with the decision of OIC which aimed to improve cooperation with the TRNC. He added that they also planned to invite the so-called Foreign Minister Serdar Denktas to Bahrain.

Meanwhile, Turkey and Bahrain, the term president of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), have signed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement which will constitute the first step of signing of a Free Trade Agreement (within the scope of EU customs union) and a memorandum of understanding on simplification of visa proceedings and bringing reciprocal visa exemption for diplomatic and special passports.

Diplomatic sources said that Turkey attributed importance to relations with GCC as whole rather than individual countries.

[06] U.S. congressmen delegation paid an illegal visit to the occupied areas of Cyprus

Egemen Bagis, the chairman of Turkish-U.S. Interparliamentary Friendship Group, who is accompanying U.S. congressmen during their visit to the occupied areas of Cyprus, at the occupied airport of Tymbou told reporters: I am experiencing one of the happiest moments in my life.

Moreover, Ankara Anatolia news agency (30.05.05) reports from occupied Lefkosia that Ed Whitfield, the co-chairman of the Turkish Friendship Group at the U.S. House of Representatives, held a joint press conference with the Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat on Monday. Mr Whitfield said that they directly arrived in northern Cyprus because they approve free movement of people and property in the whole Cyprus. He also called Papadopoulos to stop objecting the financial assistance which the EU plans to provide for northern Cyprus.

Alleging that their visit to TRNC is not illegal, Mr Whitfield said that they discussed the issue in detail with the lawyers of US State Department. The lawyers assured them that their visit directly from the north was not illegal at all.

Mr Whitfield said: After Talat was elected as President of TRNC, he extended his hand to Papadopoulos for peace and he will not pull back his hand until Papadopoulos will hold it. Talat believes his hand will be shaken one day. We arrived in Cyprus to convince Papadopoulos to take steps to re-unite the island as a bi-zonal and bi-communal federation.

Mr Whitfield also said: U.S. government has an economic development program worth of 30,5 million USD for Turkish Cypriots. We also held diplomatic meetings in the EU and recommended EU officials to provide technical support in economic issues. He concluded that their visit could be seen as a symbolic good will gesture, but such acts could be very important sometimes.

/SK

Cyprus Press and Information Office: Turkish Cypriot Press Review Directory - Previous Article - Next Article