The rights of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC) as an independent sovereign state are well defined in Articles 3 and 4 of the Montevideo Convention. Articles 3 and 4 of this convention, dated 1933, are exactly as below:
Article 3: The political existence of a state is independent of rec-ognition by other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to le-gislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the ju-risdiction and competence of its courts. The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to International Law.
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.
When and where was this Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States held and who signed it?
It was signed in Montevideo, Uruguay, on Dec. 26, 1933 and en-tered into force on Dec. 26, 1934. Article 8 was reaffirmed by an addi-tional protocol on Dec. 23, 1936.
Bolivia alone amongst the states represented at the Seventh In-ternational Conference of American States did not sign the convention. The US, Peru and Brazil ratified the convention with reservations di-rectly attached to the document.
After Turkish Cypriots declared the KKTC — an independent state in the northern territories of Cyprus — on Nov. 15, 1983, UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar immediately called the UN Security Council for an urgent and special meeting.
Having heard the statement of the foreign minister of the Greek Cypriot administration, the UN Security Council, at its 2,500th meet-ing, adopted the infamous resolution filed as UN Resolution 541 (1983) on Nov. 18, 1983.
International law is above any organization such as the UN and the EU. Neither of these organizations has the right to determine the legitimacy of an independent sovereign state. International law defines and sets out the factual existence of states and is able to determine the legal and legitimate rights of states and their relations with each other.
The EU and its member state, “The (Greek) Republic of Cyprus” cannot claim jurisdiction over the territories of the independent sove-reign KKTC state. Therefore the South can never be “the legal and legi-timate ruler of the whole of Cyprus” as stated in the Green Line Regu-lation, direct trade regulation and financial aid regulation of the EU.
Is the KKTC a pseudo state?
No, it is a real state and it exists.
The UN resolutions like 541 or 550 and EU regulations mention-ing the “(Greek) Republic of Cyprus” as the legal and legitimate ruler of the whole of Cyprus, will only contribute to the delaying of the solution of the “Cyprus problem.”
International laws of recognition may serve a purpose by providing a framework for a solution to the Cyprus problem. International law says that to overcome the Cyprus problem, a comprehensive formula crafted to meet the unique conditions on the island must be found.
Each party to the dialogue must recognize the legitimacy of the other. Without such reciprocity, productive negotiations will not take place. Immediately prior to a solution each government must extend recognition to its negotiating partner. The advantage of reciprocal rec-ognition followed by a solution is the resolution of the myriad legal problems that would arise if the lawfulness of the statutes or treaties of one of the governments was subsequently called into question.
Prior recognition as a pre-condition before a permanent solution resolves the issue and enhances the chances of success. The doctrine of recognition becomes a means of restoring good relations between the two states of the island of Cyprus