Jump to content

United Nations Security Council Resolution 541

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

UN Security Council
Resolution 541
Northern Cyprus
Date18 November 1983
Meeting no.2,500
CodeS/RES/541 (Document)
SubjectCyprus
Voting summary
  • 13 voted for
  • 1 voted against
  • 1 abstained
ResultAdopted
Security Council composition
Permanent members
Non-permanent members
← 540 Lists of resolutions 542 →

Northern Cyprus declared its independence in 1983 with its official name being the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). It is recognized 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.

UNSC Resolution 1983/541 is Non-Binding

[edit]

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]

Relevant Court Cases

[edit]

International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence,[4] and the recognition of a country is a political issue.[5]

International Courts

[edit]
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

[edit]
  • 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]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "Developing the principle of non-recognition". Adam Saltzman. 2019. Retrieved 17 January 2025.
  2. ^ "Opinion of the Advocate-General (of CoEC and CEC)". Advocate General Mancini. 1988. Retrieved 17 January 2025.
  3. ^ "Judgment of 27.9.1988 - Case 204/86". European Court of Justice (ECJ). 1988. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
  4. ^ BBC Archived 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."
  5. ^ Oshisanya, An Almanac of Contemporary and Comperative Judicial Restatement, 2016 Archived 14 November 2022 at the Wayback Machine p.64: The ICJ maintained that ... the issue of recognition was apolitical.
  6. ^ "Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Paragraph 81" (PDF). International Court of Justice. 22 July 2010. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 August 2010. Retrieved 11 February 2016.
  7. ^ Beaumont, Peter (22 July 2010). "Kosovo's independence is legal, world court rules". The Guardian. Peter Beaumont, The Guardian (UK), 22.07.2010. Retrieved 25 March 2020.
  8. ^ Beaumont, Peter (22 July 2010). "Kosovo's independence is legal, UN court rules". The Guardian. Peter Beaumont, The Guardian (UK), 22.07.2010. Retrieved 25 March 2020.
  9. ^ ""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.
  10. ^ ECtHR The decision of 02.07.2013. paragraph 29
  11. ^ ECtHR The decision of 02.09.2015. paragraph 237.
  12. ^ https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-235139
  13. ^ Courthouse News Center 13.10.2014 Property Spat Over Turk-Controlled Cyprus Fails
  14. ^ USA's Federal Court Michali Toumazou, Nicolas Kantzilaris and Maroulla Tompazou versus Republic of Turkey and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
  15. ^ USA's Federal Court Toumazou et al v. Republic of Turkey and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
  16. ^ https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/judgments/docs/2016/01/14-7170-1593754.pdf
  17. ^ https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/cyprus/area-administered-by-turkish-cypriots/
  18. ^ The Telegraph 03.02.2017 Criminals fleeing British justice can no longer use Cyprus as a safe haven, judges rule, in landmark decision
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_541&oldid=1293731547"