¹ Text of the London agreements in Cmd. 679, 1959; text of the Treaty of Guarantee in Cmd. 1253, 1961; background documents in (1963) 4 The Turkish Yearbook of International Relations 172; background information in Nedjatigil, Zaim M., The Cyprus Conflict: A Lawyer’s View (Nicosia: A-Z Publications, 1982)Google Scholar (hereafter referred to as Nedjatigil); Dis Politika: Foreign Policy, vol. 4, 1974; Polyviou, P. G., Cyprus: The Tragedy and the Challenge (London, 1975)Google Scholar; Worsley, Peter and Kitromilides, P., Small States in the Modern World: The Conditions of Survival (Nicosia, revised ed. 1979)Google Scholar; Ehrlich, Thomas , Cyprus 1958–1967 37–38 (London: Oxford University Press, 1974)Google Scholar (hereafter referred to as Ehrlich) ; Coussirat-Coustère, V., “La crise chypriote de l’été 1974 et les Nations Unies,” (1974) 20 Annuaire Français de droit international 437 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sciso, Elena, L’Intervento Turco a Cipro,“ (1977) 60 Rivista di Diritto Internazionale 75.Google Scholar

² Ehrlich, 38.

³ Evriviades, Marios L., “The Legal Dimension of the Cyprus Conflict,” (1975) 10 Texas Int’l L.J. 227, 250 Google Scholar(hereafter referred to as Evriviades).

⁴ Ehrlich, 69.

⁵ Nedjatigil, 74.

⁶ Jacovides, Andreas J., Treaties Conflicting with Peremptory Norms of International Law and the Zurich-London Agreements 22 (1966)Google Scholar (hereafter referred to as Jacovides).

⁷ Ehrlich, 69.

⁸ Jacovides, 20.

⁹ Evriviades, 251.

¹⁰ Ibid., 252.

¹¹ Nedjatigil, 75.

¹² Ehrlich, 69–70.

¹³ Van Wynen Thomas, A. and Thomas, A. J. Jr., “The Cyprus Crisis 1974–75: Political-Juridical Aspects,” (1975) 29 Southwestern L.J. 513, 541.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Jacovides, 17.

¹⁵ Ibid., 19.

¹⁶ Haraszti, Gyorgy, “Reflections on the Invalidity of Treaties,” in Haraszti, , ed., Questions of International Law (Alphen aan Rijn: Sitjthoff and Noordhoff, 1977)Google Scholar, argues that unequal treaties are void as contrary to jus cogens. This point is discussed below.

¹⁷ Ehrlich, 48.

¹⁸ Verdross, A., ed. by Simma, , Volkerrecht 380 (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 1974)Google Scholar; Dahm, G., Volkerrecht, vol. 3, 1961, at 40.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Jacovides, 34.

²⁰ Oppenheim’s, I. International Law 843–44 (7tn ed. Lauterpacht)Google Scholar ; Schwarzenberger, Georg, International Law, vol. 1, at 543–45 (3rd ed.)Google Scholar; Przetacznik, , “The Clausala Rebus Sic Stantibus,” Rev. de droit international de sciences diplomatiques 115, at 124–25.Google Scholar The rebus sic stantibus doctrine does not seem applicable. It only applies in respect of circumstances that are not part of the contract itself (in regard to those circumstances there may be frustration) and it must be invoked within a reasonable period of time after the change of circumstances was first perceived: see Article 62 of the Vienna Convention.

²¹ Jacovides, 24.

²² Schwarzenberger, vol. 1, op. cit. supra note 20, at 537.

²³ Schwarzenberger, Georg, International Law, vol. 3, at 216 (Colorado: Westview Press Inc., 1976).Google Scholar

²⁴ Brownlie, Ian, International Law and the Use of Force by States 432 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁵ Thomas and Thomas, supra note 13, at 540.

²⁶ Brownlie, op. cit. supra note 24, at 267.

²⁷ By Thomas and Thomas, supra note 13, at 540.

²⁸ Ehrlich, Thomas, “Cyprus, the ’Warlike Isle’: Origins and Elements of the Current Crisis,” (1966) 18 Stanford L. Rev. 1021, 1073–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁹ Goodrich, L. M. and Hambro, Edward, The Charter of the United Nations 184 (Boston: World Peace Foundation, 1946).Google Scholar

³⁰ [1962] I.G.J. Rep. 151, 170–71; Thomas and Thomas, supra note 13, at 538; Schwarzenberger, vol. III, op. cit. supra note 23, at 198.

³¹ Guggenheim, P., Traité de droit international, vol. 1, at 147 Google Scholar; McNair, A. D., The Law of Treaties 218 (1961)Google Scholar; Oppenheim, op. cit. supra note 20, at 806–7; Schwarzenberger, vol. 3, supra note 23, at 208; Charles Cadoux, “La supériorité du droit des Nations Unies sur le droit des états membres,” (1959) 63 Revue Générale de Droit International Public 649; Fitzmaurice in Yearbook of the I.L.C, 1958, vol. 2, at 43, and ibid., 1959, vol. 2, at 62; Waldock in Yearbook of the I.L.C., 1964, vol. 2, at 36, para. 8, and ibid., 1963, vol. 2, at 55. And see statement of the committee that drafted Article 103: “[It] would be inadvisable to provide for the automatic abrogation by the Charter of obligations inconsistent with the terms thereof. It has been deemed preferable to have the rule depend upon and be linked with the case of conflict between the two categories of obligation. In such a case the obligations of the Charter would be pre-eminent and would exclude any other”: Report of the Rapporteur of Committee IV/2, UN Doc. 933, IV/2/42, UN Conf. Int’l Org. Docs. 707(1945).

³² Ehrlich, 72–73.

³³ Nedjatigil, 72–74.

³⁴ The authorities are reviewed by Zotiades, George B., “Intervention by Treaty Right: Its Legality in Present Day International Law,” (1965) 6 Jus Gentium 6–42.Google Scholar However, neither the Security Council nor the General Assembly has ever declared a treaty void for contravention of the Charter. During the debates in 1964 and 1974, the Council did not pass judgment directly on the Treaty of Guarantee. Though much discussed, the effects of Article 103 remain unclear.

³⁵ Jacovides, 16.

³⁶ Ibid.

³⁷ Ehrlich, note 28, at 1070–71.

³⁸ Ibid., 1075.

³⁹ See the careful study of Magallons, M. M., “The Concept of Jus Cogens in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,” (1976) 51 Philippine L.J. 521–43Google Scholar. See also Coussirat-Coustère, supra note 1, at 443.

⁴⁰ Evriviades, 257.

⁴¹ Ibid., 263.

⁴² This resolution will be discussed below in regard to the continued legality of the Turkish presence in Cyprus.

⁴³ Quoted by Thomas and Thomas, supra note 13, at 534.

⁴⁴ Bowett, D. W., Self Defence in International Law 91, 92, and 95 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1958).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Brownlie, op. cit. supra note 24, at 279.

⁴⁶ Criton, G. Tornaritus, Cyprus and Its Constitutional and Other Legal Problems 69 (Nicosia, 2d ed., 1980).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Brownlie, op. cit. supra note 24, at 275.

⁴⁸ Ibid., 330–31.

⁴⁹ Bowett, op. cit. supra note 44, at 206–7.

⁵⁰ Thomas and Thomas, supra note 13, at 536.

⁵¹ Bowett, op. cit supra note 44, at 207–15.

⁵² The authorities are reviewed by Thomas Behuniak, E., “The Law of Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention by Armed Force: A Legal Survey,” (1978) 79 Military Law Review 157–91Google Scholar. But note that many scholars argue that “the international community, neither by the terms of the U.N. Charter, the diplomatic history surrounding the Genocide Convention controversy, nor by its practice throughout the twentieth century, has ever condoned a right to humanitarian intervention…. International law has consistently presumed an invasion for humanitarian motives to be unlawful” : see Gerson, infra note 69, at 554-55.

⁵³ Nedjatigil, 30, 31, 41, 77.

⁵⁴ Stone, Julius, Conflict through Consensus 66 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Thomas and Thomas, supra note 13, at 542–43.

⁵⁶ Gerson, Allan, “Trustee-Occupant: The Legal Status of Israel’s Presence in the West Bank,” (1973) 14 Harv. Int’l L.J. 1, 39.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Ibid., 40.

⁵⁸ Government Printing Office, Cyprus Turkish Invasion and Continued Aggression before U.N.O.: General Assembly and Security Council Debates and Resolutions 108–9 (Nicosia, 1975).

⁵⁹ Nedjatigil, 76.

⁶⁰ Jacovides, Andrew J. , The Cyprus Question: Its Dimensions, Implications and Prospects for a Solution 7 Google Scholar, Center for Mediterranean Studies, The American University, Washington; Occasional Paper No. 1, Lecture at The American University, November 26, 1979, stressing that Cyprus has accepted the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Covenants, and the Race Convention of 1965.

⁶¹ On this question see the extensive and helpful review by Bayulken, Haluk, “The Cyprus Question and the United Nations,” in Dis Politika: Foreign Policy, vol. 4, 1974, at 71–143.Google Scholar

⁶² Thomas and Thomas, supra note 13, at 544.

⁶³ Goodrich and Hambro, op. cit supra note 29, at 159.

⁶⁴ Thomas and Thomas, supra note 13, at 545.

⁶⁵ See Jacovides, op. cit. supra note 60, at 6, 12, arguing that the resolutions are binding under Article 25. On this problem, see the Advisory Opinion in the Namibia case, [1971] I.C.J. Rep. 16, 52 and 53, and the careful study by Kewenig, W. A. in Festschrift für Ulrich Scheuner 259–84 (1973).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Buyulken, supra note 61, especially at 134.

⁶⁷ Quoted at p. 109, op. cit. supra note 58.

⁶⁸ Nedjatigil, 79 et seq.

⁶⁹ Gerson, Allan, “War, Conquered Territority, and Military Occupation in the Contemporary International Legal System,” (1977) 18 Harv. Int’l L.J. 525, 543–44 Google Scholar. See too the extensive references in Clagett, B. M. and Johnson, O. T., “May Israel as a Belligerent Occupant Lawfully Exploit Previously Unexplored Oil Resources of the Gulf of Suez?” (1978) 72 Am. J. Int’l L. 558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁰ Baxter, R. R., “The Legal Consequences of the Unlawful Use of Force under the Charter,” (1968–69) Proceedings of Am. Soc. Int’l L. 68–78, at 69.Google Scholar

⁷¹ See Stone, op. cit supra note 54., at 59.

⁷² Ibid., 61–65.

⁷³ Lauterpacht, H., Recognition in International Law 421 (Cambridge: University Press, 1947).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Ibid., 428–29.

⁷⁵ Ibid., 429.

⁷⁶ See, for example, Gerson, supra note 56, at 6.

⁷⁷ Chen, T. C., The International Law of Recognition 429 (ed. Green, L. C. ; London: Stevens and Sons Ltd., 1951).Google Scholar

⁷⁸ European Commission on Human Rights, Applications Nos. 6780/74 and 6950/75. Cyprus vs. Turkey. Report of the Commission July 10, 1976.

⁷⁹ Oppenheim, op. cit. supra note 20, at 530.

⁸⁰ Nedjatigil, (96–97, indicates that the T.F.S. “has gained the essential characteristics of statehood in international law, i.e., people, territory, government” and that, depending on the progress of negotiations, it may only be a matter of time before it seeks international recognition. See Vendross, Volkerrecht 295 (5th ed., 1964).

⁸¹ For the conventional law, see Article 1 of the Geneva Convention and Pictet, Jean S., Commentary IV Geneva Convention 16–17 (Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross, 1958)Google Scholar; for the customary law, see McNair, Lord and Watts, A. D., The Legal Effects of War 371–73 (Cambridge: University Press, 1966).Google Scholar

⁸² For relevant texts, see Schindler, and Toman, , The Laws of Armed Conflicts 3–57, 427, 551, 619, 637 (The Netherlands: Sijthoff and Noordhoff, 1982).Google Scholar

⁸³ For discussion, see the Report of the Conference on Contemporary Problems of the Law of Armed Conflicts, Geneva, September 15–20, 1969, at 55 (report by Denise Bindschedler-Robert) ; Cassese, Antonio, The New Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict (1979)Google Scholar; and the International Symposium of The Netherlands Red Cross on the Protocols of 1977, The New Humanitarian Law in War and Conflict, The Hague, September 25, 26, 1978.

⁸⁴ McDougal, Myres S. and Feliciano, Florentino P., Law and Minimum World Public Order 747–48 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1961).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Pictet, supra note 81, at 274.

⁸⁶ McDougal and Feliciano, op. cit. supra note 84, at 746–47.

⁸⁷ Pictet, supra note 81.

⁸⁸ Ibid., 62–63 ; Schwarzenberger, G., International Law, Vol. 2 at 349 et seq. (London: Stevens and Sons Ltd., 1968).Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Nedjatigil, 75.