The Varosha Dispute: The Partial Opening Initiative and the United Nations’ Approach and Evaluation of the Issue of Property
Cüneyt Yüksel, Mustafa ErçakıcaVarosha is actually within the sovereignty of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and has been closed to civilian settlement and visits since 1974 This unit of Famagusta is known to have the status of a military zone. The attempt to open part of Varosha to settlement has made this area an important matter again. Turkish Cypriots were the party that demonstrated a desire to resolve the Cyprus problem through the Annan Plan referendums. The parties that attempted to open part Varosha to settlement were the Republic of Türkiye and the Turkish Cypriots. Nevertheless, they are the actors who are most criticized regarding the Cyprus problem. In order to eliminate these criticisms, the steps for opening Varosha to settlement should be taken very carefully. The Immovable Property Commission currently falls within the borders of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and is also an important part of the issue. Applications regarding the ownership of properties in Varosha will come before the Immovable Property Commission, and the Commission should make decisions to prove it is an effective domestic remedial mechanism. The decision of the Supreme Court regarding the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus to take the land registration records from July 20, 1974 as a basis for ownership applications in Varosha poses a problem, especially in terms of the various property rights claims of the Cyprus Foundations Administration (Kibris Vakıflar İdaresi). The records dating from July 20, 1974 regarding Varosha indicate Greek Cypriots as the property owners. The Cyprus Foundations Administration should bring its claims to the fore, both internationally and nationally, with substantial evidence. Under the relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions, one should not forget that opening Varosha to settlement can be considered a confidence-building measure, and Turkish Cypriots can also gain benefits in this case by opening Varosha to settlement.
Kapalı Maraş Sorunu: 2021 Kısmi Açılım Girişimi, Birleşmiş Milletler’in Yaklaşımı ve Mülkiyet Sorunu Üzerine Bir İnceleme
Cüneyt Yüksel, Mustafa Erçakıca1974 yılından beri sivil yerleşime ve ziyarete kapalı olan Kapalı Maraş, aslında Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti’nin egemenlik sınırları içerisindedir ve askeri bölge statüsünde bulunmaktadır. Kapalı Maraş’ın bir kısmının yerleşime açılmasına yönelik girişim, bölgeyi yeniden tartışılan bir konu haline getirmiştir. Adada çözüm istediğini Annan Planı döneminde yapılan referandumla ispatlayan taraf, Kıbrıslı Türklerdir. Kapalı Maraş’ın bir bölümünü açma girişiminde bulunan taraf ise, Türkiye ve Kıbrıslı Türkler olmuştur. Yine de Kıbrıs sorununa ilişkin en fazla eleştirilen ve kınanan aktörler de onlardır. Bu eleştirileri bertaraf etmek için, Kapalı Maraş’ın açılmasına yönelik adımlar çok dikkatli atılmalıdır. Şu anda Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti’nde bulunan Taşınmaz Mal Komisyonu da konunun önemli bir parçasıdır, çünkü Kapalı Maraş’ın açılacak olan kısmına ilişkin mülkiyet konusunda başvurular, Taşınmaz Mal Komisyonu’nun önüne gelecektir. Komisyon, bu konuda dikkatli ve etkin bir iç hukuk yolu olma özelliğini koruyan kararlar üretmelidir. Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti’nde bulunan Yüksek İdare Mahkemesi’nin Kapalı Maraş’a ilişkin başvurularda, 20 Temmuz 1974 tarihli tapu kayıtlarının esas alınmasına ilişkin kararı, özellikle Vakıflar İdaresi’nin çeşitli mülkiyet hakkı iddiaları bakımından bir sorun teşkil etmektedir, zira Kapalı Maraş’a ilişkin 20 Temmuz 1974 tarihindeki kayıtlar, mülk sahibi olarak Kıbrıslı Rumları işaret etmektedir. Vakıflar İdaresi iddialarını gerek uluslararası gerekse ulusal arenada kanıtlarıyla birlikte gündeme getirmelidir. İlgili Birleşmiş Milletler Güvenlik Konseyi kararları doğrultusunda Kapalı Maraş’ın güven arttırıcı önlemler kapsamında ele alınabilmesinin önünün açıldığı, bu durumda Kıbrıslı Türklerin de Kapalı Maraş açılımını doğru adımlarla değerlendirerek, karşılığında bir kazanım elde edebileceği unutulmamalıdır.
The Republic of Cyprus was actually established in 1960 as a state resulting from certain international treaties. The Republic of Cyprus was established based on the equal partnership of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. Another feature of the Republic of Cyprus was that it had limited powers. Additionally, the Republic of Cyprus was organized as a form of functional federalism. The treaties that established the Republic of Cyprus and the 1960 Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus were very important as they gave Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots the right to separate representation and quotas in the state administration. Unfortunately, this state only survived for three years. After 1963, the ethnic conflicts between Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots began and continued until 1974, when Türkiye intervened in the island based on its right to function as a guarantor. After this intervention, the Turkish Cypriots first unilaterally declared the Turkish Cypriot Federated State. The efforts to bring the Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots together on the island and the negotiations between the two communities were ongoing, but no conclusion was reached at the end of these negotiations. On November 15, 1983, the parliament of the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus made the unanimous decision to declare their independence and establish the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. After 1974, the Greek Administration of Southern Cyprus began governing only the southern part of Cyprus. Greek Cypriot authorities took the properties of the Turkish Cypriots that had been left behind under the control of foundations under the Guardianship Law. These properties continued to belong to Turkish Cypriots but were controlled by foundations. The new Greek Cypriot users of the related properties who’d migrated from the north were not given the ownership of these properties. Just because the property policy of the Greek Administration of Southern Cyprus is more appreciated by the international community does not mean their policy is perfect. Violations of the property rights of Turkish Cypriots are seen to have occurred regarding certain fundamental points, the first of these being the non-immediate payment of expropriated properties. Another violation involves the properties leased under the Guardianship Law not requiring the consent of the Turkish Cypriot
owners for lease agreements. The rental income obtained from these properties also does not get paid to the Turkish Cypriot owners. Similar to the expropriation costs, the statement has been made that the rental costs will be paid upon reaching a comprehensive settlement regarding the island. Meanwhile, the fact that the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus authorities has given ownership rights to those who left their properties in south Cyprus as well as to the immigrants who came to the island is one point where the international community has criticized Turkish Cypriots. After Turkish Armed Forces’ second military intervention for maintaining peace and security on the island, Varosha was declared a military zone and left closed to resettlement. Afterward, Varosha started to be known as a ghost city. Varosha is actually within the borders of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, but its legal status is perceived to be unclear just because it has remained closed to settlement. Before the region was opened to visitors in 2020, only those with special permission, UN officials, and members of the Turkish Armed Forces were allowed to enter the region. The population of Varosha was stated to have been 34,700 people before 1974, of which 29,700 were Greek Cypriots and the remaining population was predominantly Armenian, Maronite, British, and other ethnic groups. Currently, the sovereignty in Varosha belongs to the Turkish Republic of Northern
Cyprus authorities, and the Armed Forces of the Republic of Türkiye are located in this region. The inhabitants of Varosha before being closed to settlement in 1974 are known to have been predominantly Greek Cypriots. Part of Varosha was opened to civilian visits 46 years later with consensus from Republic of Türkiye President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus President Ersin Tatar. Following this, President Erdoğan announced during his visit to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus on July 19-20, 2021 that Varosha would be reopened to settlement, after which President Tatar stated that 3.5% of Varosha would be returned to its owners through the Immovable Property Commission and that the 3.5% of this area would lose its status as a military zone. This partial initiative regarding Varosha actually means that the Greek Cypriots who’d been residents of Varosha before 1974 can benefit from exchanges, compensations, or restitutions if they apply to the Immovable Property Commission. The international community expects that the initiatives regarding Varosha must involve the return of former residents, and clearly the Turkish Cypriots have no other goal than this. Having the Turkish Cypriots announce to the international community
more strongly that the aims of this partial reopening do not exceed this goal would be appropriate. Varosha poses some other problems as well, especially in terms of the various property right claims of Cyprus Foundations Administration as the records dating from July 20, 1974 regarding Varosha indicate Greek Cypriots as property owners. The Cyprus Foundations Administration should prioritize its claims with evidence, both internationally and nationally.
