United Nations Security Council resolution 550, adopted on 11 May 1984, after hearing representations from the Republic of Cyprus and reaffirming resolutions 365 (1974), 367 (1975), 541 (1983) and 544 (1983), the council condemned the illegal secessionist activities in the occupied part of the Republic of Cyprus from Turkey, in violation of the previous resolutions.
The council then called on other member states not to recognise the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), condemning the exchange of ambassadors between Turkey and Northern Cyprus and considering all attempts to interfere with the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus contrary to Security Council resolutions. The resolution also states that it "considers attempts to settle any part of Varosha by people other than its inhabitants as inadmissible and calls for the transfer of this area to the administration of the United Nations". Finally, the resolution also called for the Secretary-General to promote the implementation of the current resolution.
The resolution was adopted by 13 votes to one against (Pakistan) and one abstention from the United States.
Relevant Court Cases
International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence,[1] and the recognition of a country is a political issue.[2]
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".[3]
The ICJ's ruling was expected to bolster demands for recognition by Northern Cyprus.[4][5] The decision of the ICJ has also been regarded as opening more potential options for the TRNC to gain international legitimacy.[6]
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".[7]
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".[8]
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.[9]
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.".[10][11][12]
Greek Cypriot Toumazou applied to the USA Court of Appeals. The USA Court of Appeals rejected Toumazou, too on 15.01.2016[13]
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[14]
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".[15] and revealed that the co-operation between the United Kingdom police and law agencies in Northern Cyprus is legal.
Courts of Countries
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".[10][16][17]
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.
↑ BBCArchived 22 May 2018 at the Wayback Machine The President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Hisashi Owada (2010): "International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence."
↑ ""Can Kosovo Be A Sample For Cyprus"". Cuneyt Yenigun, International Conference on Balkan and North Cyprus Relations: Perspectives in Political, Economic and Strategic Studies Center for Strategic Studies, 2011. Retrieved 25 March 2020. After the ICJ’s decision on Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence, the TRNC gained a huge advantage on the negotiation table and also an innovative Neo-Wilsonist path reopened in international arena. Can Kosovo be a sample for Northern Cyprus? According to international law, previous decisions are not become a precedent. But practically especially after the advisory opinion of ICJ in 2010, it surely will be inspirational way and another option for Cyprus and Cypriot Turks.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
