Talk:Northern Cyprus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Northern Cyprus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | Discussions on this page have often led to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 15, 2011 and November 15, 2013. |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | Greek and Turkish Wikipedians cooperation board | |||
| ||||
Polity?
Shouldn’t it be called a “state with limited recognition” like Abkhazia, Taiwan, SADR, or Transnistria? PlebeianTribune (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- @PlebeianTribune Abkhazia, Taiwan, SADR and Transistria have a) more recognition, b) they are not occupied territories. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- Transnistria (PMR) is not recognized by any UN member states, only the other members of Cis-2. Northern Cyprus (TRNC) is recognized by one UN member state (being Turkey). We could also say unrecognized state.
- Calling TRNC an occupied territory but not saying the same thing about a place like Taiwan or Abkhazia (who both rely heavily on foreign support to survive) is not really consistent.
- It seems my request has been added. but further discussion is welcome. PlebeianTribune (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- Look the headings below: "UNSC Resolution 1983/541 is Non-Binding" and "Relevant court cases i) International courts ii) National courts".~2026-23923-9 (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
- What? This convo ended like a year ago? Also, in cases of States with limited recognition, we typically don’t go by international law, since international law is opposed to places like Somaliland or Transnistria. PlebeianTribune (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
- Look the headings below: "UNSC Resolution 1983/541 is Non-Binding" and "Relevant court cases i) International courts ii) National courts".~2026-23923-9 (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Turkish occupation
@TheJoebro64: first can you stop citing "X article states that, X section states that". No it doesn't. There is a difference between considering it part of Cyprus because it's a UN country and calling it under Turkish occupation. Most countries do not even give a slightest crap about the issue. "all other states" or "international community" consider it as a Turkish occupation is just misleading. Beshogur (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- From reliable sources:
- An Island in Europe: The EU and the Transformation of Cyprus, p. 15: "Classified as illegal under international law, the occupation of the northern part leads automatically to an illegal occupation of EU territory since Cyprus' accession"
- The Statehood of Palestine, p. 164: "The international community found this declaration invalid, on the ground that Turkey had occupied territory belonging to Cyprus and that the putative state was therefore an infringement on Cypriot sovereignty."
- "Gendering the Law of Occupation", p. 110: "Turkey broke off negotiations on August 14, 1974, and has since held a third of the Island. This occupation continues to provoke condemnation and Turkey remains the only country to recognize the subsequent formation of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus."
- "The Cyprus Problem, the EU and the UN", p. 81: "It is essential to convey the message that there is one legitimate member state of the UN and the EU on the island, the Republic of Cyprus. Then, there is the 'TRNC,' an occupation entity that has been created and recognized only by Turkey."
- Reliable sources describe it as a Turkish occupation, and say the international community concurs with that assessment, in accordance with international law. If you read the article, you'd see this is already mentioned multiple times throughout:
- "The United Nations considers it a territory of the Republic of Cyprus under Turkish occupation."
- "The European Union considers the area not under effective control of the Republic of Cyprus as EU territory under Turkish military occupation and thus indefinitely exempt from EU legislation until a settlement has been found."
- "The presence of the mainland Turkish military in Cyprus is highly controversial, having been denounced as an occupation force by the Republic of Cyprus and the international community."
- JOEBRO64 19:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- JOEBRO's sources are either very old and non-robust or non-neutral:
- "An Island in Europe: The EU and the Transformation of Cyprus": Publication year 2011.
- "The Statehood of Palestine": Publication year 2010.
- "The Cyprus Problem, the EU and the UN": An article of a Greek (Andreas Theophanous): NOT neutral source.
- Below are the decisions of international courts (the European Court of Justice (ECJ); the International Court of Justice (ICJ); The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)) and the court of countries (The USA, The UK, France). Judicial decisions of countries -being binding in the countries where those decisions are made- have upper hand against the policies of politicians. ~2026-23923-9 (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
- JOEBRO's sources are either very old and non-robust or non-neutral:
UNSC Resolution 1983/541 is Non-Binding
Hellenic Republic v. Council of the European Communities
On 04.08.1986, Greece filed a case against the Council of the European Communities (supporting 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(supporting 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, the 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 (supporting intervener: Commission of the European Communities). Since Greece lost the case the ECJ decided that the Greece to pay the court costs (including the costs of the intervener) per the rules of ECJ's procedure. The 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
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 between the TRNC and "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]
National courts
- 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.
- France: On 10 December, 2025, the Court of Aix-En-Provence rejected the Republic of Cyprus' extradition request of a Turkish Cypriot national with the reasoning that the European law does not apply in Northern Cyprus, and the courts of the Republic of Cyprus are not in a position to enforce laws in Northern Cyprus.[19] On 18 December 2025, the French Public Prosecutor's Office rejected the Republic of Cyprus' appeal.[20][21]~2026-23923-9 (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Tufan Erhüman is now the official president
Ersin Tatar should be replaced by his name Cenk Begün (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- Leader not president Stefiwiki2000 (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
- Both president and leader, simultanously. However, the title "president" being official, "president" has precedence over "leader" in usage.~2026-23923-9 (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2026 (UTC)