Talk:Puppet state

International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence,^[1] and the recognition of a country is a political issue.^[2]

• 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]

• 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]

• 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]

• 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".^[9][10][11]

• 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".^[12] and revealed that the co-operation between the United Kingdom police and law agencies in Northern Cyprus is legal.

Therefore, Northern Cyprus must be removed from the Wiki-article. Nepal2000 (talk) 05:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's why Northern Cyprus is listed under #Disputed Examples, because its status is disputed. And that citation from (what I presume is) the Supreme Court of the United States adds the word "purportedly", which is very far from a declaration. Belarus is also listed under Disputed Examples, and she retains her own seat at the U.N. while exchanging ambassadorw with any number of sovereign states. Few (if any) countries besides Turkey recognise the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus. I and the article are not declaring that North Cyprus is a puppet state, but (as with other examples in this section} simply stating that some countries consider it to be such. Cf. #Yemen
@Elinruby: @Mathglot: —— Shakescene (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about Cyprus to intelligently opine on its status. However possibly these thoughts are useful:

1. "USA's Federal Court" is meaningless unless followed by "system" and then it would only be a designation not a name.
2. the venue for the decision I looked at was the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
3. most US District Courts are subject to appeal at a Circuit Court and then the US Supreme Court. The structure of the DC Court system may differ somewhat since it is not a state. But someone should do some checking before we accept those court documents as the last word. There is a publication cald "Shephard's" that is used to see if a decision has been overturned but that is all I know about that.

1. this particular venue has been described as a fast-track to the Supreme Count, since DC is the location of the federal government, so despite the above its judges would not be unfamiliar with international law and what its decisions say should definitely be accorded *some* weight
2. It is true that any statement that follows "purportedly" is not being endorsed. Quite the contrary; the word distances the speaker from a statement that is being reported and implies that the speaker may not agree with it.
3. I do not know enough about Cyprus to know whether this statement applies, but there are numerous situations where a government might interact with the de facto government of another jurisdiction in a way that should not be considered diplomatic recognition. Humanitarian aid, incidents that fall under maritime law, and immigration or commercial code proceedings concerning the citizens or legal persons of the jurisdiction come to mind.

HtH Elinruby (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most appeals from he United States District Court for the District of Columbia are heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, except for some specialized technical cases that are heard instead by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Many decisions by one of the 94 United States District Courts do not survive at the Appeals Court level or are negated by the United States Supreme Court, (most recently several controversial decisions by the only judge of the El Paso District of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas). So a decision by the D.C. Federal District Court is far from definitive or declaratory. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

by Enrico Milano (that is used as a reference for Northern Cyprus being a puppet state) must be removed from the Wiki-article "Puppet state"

Page 146 of Enrico Milano: "However, following its previous reasoning in Loizidou, the Court concluded that the Republic of Cyprus remains the sole legitimate government in Cyprus by looking at international recognition, and that the TRNC should be considered as a puppet-state under Turkish effective control.
36: Cyprus v. Turkey, supra n.34, 28-29

34: Case of Cyprus v. Turkey (Merits), Judgement of 10 May 2001, ECHR Series A (2001-IV), 5"

Let's look whether Enrico Milano properly takes the reference he gave in his book or not:

Case of Cyprus v. Turkey (Merits), Judgement of 10 May 2001, ECHR Series A (2001-IV), 5 (Body text of 10.05.2001-decision)

"2. Alleged violations of the rights of the displaced persons to respect for their home and property

28. The Commission established the facts under this heading against the background of the applicant Government's principal submission that over 211,000 displaced Greek Cypriots and their children continued to be prevented as a matter of policy from returning to their homes in northern Cyprus and from having access to their property there for any purpose. The applicant Government submitted that the presence of the Turkish army together with “TRNC”-imposed border restrictions ensured that the return of displaced persons was rendered physically impossible and, as a corollary, that their cross-border family visits were gravely impeded. What started as a gradual and continuing process of illegality over the years had now resulted in the transfer of the property left behind by the displaced persons to the “TRNC” authorities without payment of compensation and its re-assignment, together with “title deeds”, to State bodies, Turkish Cypriots and settlers from Turkey.

29. The respondent Government maintained before the Commission that the question of the Varosha district of Famagusta along with the issues of freedom of movement, freedom of settlement and the right of property could only be resolved within the framework of the inter-communal talks (see paragraph 16 above) and on the basis of the principles agreed on by both sides for the conduct of the talks. Until an overall solution to the Cyprus question, acceptable to both sides, was found, and having regard to security considerations, there could be no question of a right of the displaced persons to return. The respondent Government further submitted that the regulation of property abandoned by displaced persons, as with restrictions on cross-border movement, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the “TRNC” authorities."

There is NO word "puppet" in the body-text of the "Cyprus v. Turkey" case decision of 10.05.2001 BY THE COURT ECtHR ITSELF!

When we CTRL+F for the word "puppet", we see the word "puppet" appears only in one place; namely, in the "PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE FUAD" not in the body-text of the decision of the "Cyprus v. Turkey" case (I gave above the body-text's 28th and 29th paragraph):

"PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE FUAD
28. I do not think that this aspect of the case can be approached without a consideration of the events which led to the division of Cyprus. These events were unique. The finely balanced constitutional arrangements, supported by solemn treaty obligations, under which the Republic of Cyprus was established, broke down all too soon. Then there was the 1974 coup, the object of which is common knowledge. What was virtually a war then ensued, followed by a cease-fire and the movement of many members of the community to the north or to the south of a buffer-zone. Starting as long ago as 1963, the Turkish Cypriots began the process of establishing an administration of their own. They did not sit back and rely on institutions of the Turkish Republic, or apply their laws. There was ample evidence to suggest that the “TRNC” might well, after investigation, be found to display all the attributes of a State (although only recognised by Turkey) which exercises independent and effective control over northern Cyprus. IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED, WITHOUT PROPER INQUIRY, THAT THE “TRNC” IS A PUPPET REGIME OR SUBORDINATE JURISDICTION OF TURKEY."

Judge Mr. K. Fuad does not say "Northern Cyprus is a puppet state"! He says just the opposite!

So, Enrico Milano's book distorts ECtHR's 10.05.2001-decision!
Abused references and citations is contrary to Wikipedia!

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) did not conclude "TRNC is a puppet state of Turkey" in its 10.05.2021-decision! Forget that, ECtHR's 10.05.2001-decision does not include any word "puppet"!

Hence, the reference "Milano, Enrico (2006). Unlawful Territorial Situations in International Law: Reconciling Effectiveness, Legality And Legitimacy. p. 146" (that is used as a reference for Northern Cyprus being a puppet state) must be removed from the Wiki-article "Puppet state". Nepal2000 (talk) 07:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlawful Territorial Situations in International Law: Reconciling Effectiveness, Legality And Legitimacy." by Terry D. Gill (2016) p. 146. ISBN 9004149392. p. 58. (that is used as a reference for Northern Cyprus being a puppet state) must be removed from the Wiki-article "Puppet state"

The Wiki-article "Puppet state" includes:

"According to the European Court of Human Rights, the Republic of Cyprus remains the sole legitimate government in Cyprus, and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus should be considered as a puppet state under Turkish effective control".

and gives 2 references for this: Enrico Milano's 2006-book and Terry.D.Gill's 2016-book. Above, Enrico Milano's 2006-book was shown to distort ECtHR's 10.05.2001-decision. Now, it is Terry.D.Gill's 2016-book's turn:

Terry.D., Gill (2016). Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 2015. p. 58. ISBN 9789462651418.

"All through a long line of case law on the issue of human rights responsibility in puppet states, the ECtHR consistently upheld the principle according to which primary responsibility and liability for human rights violations in a puppet state rests with the sponsor state. The first case in which the ECtHR dealt with the issue of a puppet state is the Loizidou v. Turkey Case. In its judgement on the preliminary objections, the Court refuted Turkey’s claim that the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) is not a puppet state but a democratic state established on the basis of its right of self-determination, and thus fully responsible for the breaches of law occurring on its territory.50 The Court came to the conclusion that:

[b]earing in mind the object and purpose of the Convention, the responsibility of a Contracting Party may also arise when as a consequence of military action - whether lawful or unlawful - it exercises effective control of an area outside its national territory. The obligation to secure, in such an area, the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention derives from the fact of such control whether it be exercised directly, through its armed forces, or through a subordinate local administration.

In this connection, the respondent government have acknowledged that the applicant’s loss of control of her property stems from the occupation of the northern part of Cyprus by Turkish troops and the establishment there of the “TRNC”. Furthermore, it has not been disputed that the applicant was prevented by Turkish troops from gaining access to her property.51

Therefore, apart from clearly establishing responsibility of the sponsor state for the human rights violations of the puppet state, the Court also stresses that the exercise of effective control does not need to be done through military means, as it is needed for the application of humanitarian law, but can also be achieved through the subordination of the puppet state’s administration.

50 ECtHR, Case of Loizidou v Turkey, Preliminary Objections, 23 March 1995, Appl. No. 15318/89, para 54.
51 Ibid., para 62.

ECtHR's 23.03.1995 Preliminary Objections document:
"AS TO THE LAW
IV. SCOPE OF THE CASE
54. In the application referring the present case to the Court under Article 48 (b) (art. 48-b) of the Convention the applicant Government have confined themselves to seeking a ruling on the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) and Article 8 (art. 8), in so far as they have been declared admissible by the Commission (see paragraph 35 above), concerning access to the applicant’s property. Accordingly, as is undisputed, it is only these complaints which are before the Court. The remaining part of the case concerning the applicant’s arrest and detention thus falls within the competence of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in accordance with Article 32 para. 1 (art. 32-1) of the Convention.

The Court notes that the issue whether the Convention and the Rules of Court permit a partial referral under Article 48 (art. 48), as in the present case, has not been called into question by those appearing before the Court. Indeed, Turkey ("the respondent Government") has accepted that the scope of the case be confined in this way. In these circumstances the Court does not find it necessary to give a general ruling on the question whether it is permissible to limit a referral to the Court to some of the issues on which the Commission has stated its opinion.

V. OBJECTIONS RATIONE LOCI
A. Whether the facts alleged by the applicant are capable of falling within the jurisdiction of Turkey under Article 1 (art. 1) of the Convention
2. The Court’s examination of the issue
62. In this respect the Court recalls that, although Article 1 (art. 1) sets limits on the reach of the Convention, the concept of "jurisdiction" under this provision is not restricted to the national territory of the High Contracting Parties. According to its established case-law, for example, the Court has held that the extradition or expulsion of a person by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3 (art. 3), and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention (see the Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 35-36, para. 91; the Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 28, paras. 69 and 70, and the Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 34, para. 103). In addition, the responsibility of Contracting Parties can be involved because of acts of their authorities, whether performed within or outside national boundaries, which produce effects outside their own territory (see the Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain judgment of 26 June 1992, Series A no. 240, p. 29, para. 91).

Bearing in mind the object and purpose of the Convention, the responsibility of a Contracting Party may also arise when as a consequence of military action - whether lawful or unlawful - it exercises effective control of an area outside its national territory. The obligation to secure, in such an area, the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention derives from the fact of such control whether it be exercised directly, through its armed forces, or through a subordinate local administration."

The word "puppet" appears only in 2 places in ECtHR's 23.03.1995 "Preliminary Objections" document:

"V. OBJECTIONS RATIONE LOCI
A. Whether the facts alleged by the applicant are capable of falling within the jurisdiction of Turkey under Article 1 (art. 1) of the Convention

56. The respondent Government first pointed out that the question of access to property was obviously outside the realm of Turkey’s "jurisdiction". This could be seen from the fact that it formed one of the core items in the inter-communal talks between the Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot communities.

Furthermore the mere presence of Turkish armed forces in northern Cyprus was not synonymous with "jurisdiction" any more than it is with the armed forces of other countries stationed abroad. In fact Turkish armed forces had never exercised "jurisdiction" over life and property in northern Cyprus. Undoubtedly it was for this reason that the findings of the Commission in the inter-State cases of Cyprus v. Turkey (applications nos. 6780/74, 6950/75 and 8007/77, supra cit.) had not been endorsed by the Committee of Ministers whose stand was in line with the realities of the situation prevailing in Cyprus following the intervention of Turkey as one of the three guarantor powers of the Republic of Cyprus.

Nor did Turkey exercise overall control of the border areas as found by the Commission in its admissibility decision in the present case. She shares control with the authorities of the "TRNC" and when her armed forces act alone they do so on behalf of the "TRNC" which does not dispose of sufficient forces of its own. The fact that the Turkish armed forces operate within the command structure of the Turkish army does not alter this position.

According to the respondent Government, FAR FROM BEING A "PUPPET" STATE AS ALLEGED BY THE APPLICANT, the "TRNC" is a democratic constitutional State with impeccable democratic features and credentials. Basic rights are effectively guaranteed and there are free elections. It followed that the exercise of public authority in the "TRNC" was not imputable to Turkey. The fact that this State has not been recognised by the international community was not of any relevance in this context.

57. The applicant, whose submissions were endorsed by the Government of Cyprus, contended that the question of responsibility in this case for violations of the Convention must be examined with reference to the relevant principles of international law. In this respect the Commission’s approach which focused on the direct involvement of Turkish officials in violations of the Convention was not, under international law, the correct one. A State is, in principle, internationally accountable for violations of rights occurring in territories over which it has physical control.

ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, international law recognises that a State which is thus accountable with respect to a certain territory remains so even if the territory is administered by a local administration. This is so whether the local administration is illegal, in that it is the consequence of an illegal use of force, or whether it is lawful, as in the case of a protected State or other political dependency. A State cannot avoid legal responsibility for its illegal acts of invasion and military occupation, and for subsequent developments, by setting up or permitting the creation of forms of local administration, however designated. Thus the controlling powers in the "puppet" States that were set up in Manchukuo, Croatia and Slovakia during the period 1939-45 were not regarded as absolved from responsibilities for breaches of international law in these administrations (Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 8, pp. 835-37 (1967)). In the same vein, the international accountability of the protecting or ultimate sovereign remains in place even when a legitimate political dependency is created. This responsibility of the State in respect of protectorates and autonomous regions is affirmed by the writings of authoritative legal publicists (Rousseau, Droit international public, vol. V, 1983, p. 31, para. 28; Reuter, Droit international public, 6th ed., 1983, p. 262; Répertoire suisse de droit international public, vol. III, 1975, pp. 1722-23; Verzijl, International Law in Historical Perspective, vol. IV, 1973, pp. 710-11).

The applicant further submitted that in the present case to apply a criterion of responsibility which required the direct intervention of Turkish military personnel in respect of each prima facie violation of the Convention in northern Cyprus would be wholly at variance with the normal mode of applying the principles of State responsibility set out above. To require applicants to fulfil such a standard at the merits stage would be wholly unrealistic and would also involve a de facto amnesty and a denial of justice.

Finally, if Turkey was not to be held responsible for conditions in northern Cyprus, no other legal person can be held responsible. However the principle of the effective protection of Convention rights recognised in the case-law of the Court requires that there be no lacuna in the system of responsibility. The principles of the Convention system and the international law of State responsibility thus converge to produce a regime under which Turkey is responsible for controlling events in northern Cyprus."

The Applicant (Ms. Loizidou) does claim "TRNC is a puppet state of Turkey". European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) does not state "the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus should be considered as a puppet state under Turkish effective control" in its 23.03.1995 document. However, the Wiki-article "Puppet state" includes:

"According to the European Court of Human Rights, ... the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus should be considered as a puppet state under Turkish effective control".

This is a clear distortion. Hence, "Terry.D., Gill (2016)" must be removed from the references of "According to the European Court of Human Rights, ... the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus should be considered as a puppet state under Turkish effective control".Nepal2000 (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yesilada, Birol Ada. 1989. "Social Progress and Political Development in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", The Cyprus. p. 109:
  

"If the TRNC was indeed a puppet state of Turkey, then these extensive individual civil and political rights would have been far more restricted in Northern Cyprus -- especially the activities of the leftist political parties and trade unions."

• United States Department of State, 1997:
  

In terms of its actual human rights record, the US State Department finds that "there is a generally strong regard for democratic principles" in the Turkish Cypriot community. There were no reports of political prisoners and no public allegations of police brutality in the TRNC. Representatives from international human rights groups have access to the TRNC, international broadcasts are available without interference, academic freedom is respected, opinions circulate freely, and independent trade unions regularly take stands on public policy issues.
United States Department of State, ‘Cyprus Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1996’ (Washington, D. C., February 1997).

• Criteria of whether puppet or not (Pegg, Scott. 1998. International Society and the De Facto State; Ashgate Publishing Ltd.)
  

"the factors identified by James Crawford and Alan James in distinguishing puppet states from other entities include such things as: 1) whether the entity was established illegally, by military occupation or the threat or use of external armed force; 2) evidence that the entity does not have the support of the vast majority of the population it claims to govern; 3) evidence that the entity is subject to foreign control or direction in important matters of policy; and 4) the staffing of important government positions by foreign nationals"35
35: See the discussion of criterion number six in chapter two. The references are to Crawford, 1976–77, pp. 130–133; and James, 1986b, pp. 139–140.
Crawford, J. (1976–77), ‘The Criteria for Statehood in International Law’, British Year Book of International Law, Vol. 48, 130–133; and
James, A. (1986), Sovereign Statehood: The Basis of International Society, London: Allen & Unwin. pp. 139–140.

• Pegg, Scott. 1998. International Society and the De Facto State; Ashgate Publishing Ltd.:
  

"Unlike Manchukuo and the Nazi regimes in Slovakia and Croatia during World War II, the TRNC actually does have the support of the vast majority of the population it claims to govern. It is not an alien entity imposed from abroad on an unwilling civilian population. A second component of this argument points to the fact that the TRNC does not always march in step with Turkey. The TRNC’s constitution, for example, has many more liberal democratic principles in it than the Turkish constitution has. The TRNC has also shown a far more tolerant attitude toward the activities of left-wing trade unions and political parties than the mainland Turks have. Birol Ali Yesilada (1989) argues that 'If the TRNC was indeed a puppet state of Turkey, then these extensive individual civil and political rights would have been far more restricted in Northern Cyprus -- especially the activities of the leftist political parties and trade unions.' "

• Elin Monstad, "I want to break free: an analysis of de facto-states1 and their paths towards success and failure between 1945 and 2012"; Master Thesis; University of Bergen (UiB), Norway, spring 2013; Institute of Comparative Politics; Comparative Politics 350.
  

(1: Disclaimer: Though discussing de facto-states, this thesis holds no opinions on the legitimacy of their existence nor on their present, future or past status. Names of entities may vary elsewhere. For example, Transnistria is also known as Trans-Dniester, and Northern Cyprus as TRNC. Here, the most common names from English and Norwegian literature are used.)
Page40: "Another interesting point is whether Northern Cyprus should be considered a Turkish puppet state and therefore excluded from the data here. Again, applying Pegg’s (1998, 112-113) definitions, it is claimed that Northern Cyprus does not fall into the puppet-category for two reasons. Firstly, it was not imposed from the outside on an unwilling population. Secondly, the national administrative staff is Cypriote and the state apparatus independent of the Turkish, even though they closely cooperate."
Nepal2000 (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shakescene and Elinruby:, the originator of this section is indef-blocked. I vote for collapsing these WP:WALLSOFTEXT dominated by Nepal2000, for WP:NOTHERE reasons (same reason they got blocked for), but I won't if there's an objection. Mathglot (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot and Elinruby: I'd cetainly not be at all opposed to either archiving or collapsing this horribly arranged Wall of Text. It was too long for me to plough through, but what I did see was selective cherry-picking, as in citing "purportedly" or a dissenting opinion. You should also look at User:Nepal2000's alterations to the text of Puppet state#Turkish Republic of North Cyprus and the reversions by other editors. No doubt the text could bear some improvement or clarification, but iI doubt that Nepal2000's rewrite advanced anything.—— Shakescene (talk) 05:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm? I hadn't been following much since my last post. Yeah all that cut and paste above is painful. Especially -- did he ever say where it was from? I agree that it overwhelms the page, close it if you want, as far as I am concerned. Elinruby (talk) 05:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If he did, it's hard to find among the debris. Collapsed per WP:NOTHERE, and with consensus. 06:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Mathglot (talk)