INTERNATIONAL LAW AND DIPLOMACY ON THE CYPRUS QUESTION

PART I: ORIGINS 10 over the non-divisibility of sovereignty, prevalent in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was dying out in the nineteenth century especially with the appearance of colonialism. Among the examples of the divisibility of sovereignty is the case where one state actually exercises sovereignty which in law is vested the elsewhere, as where a piece of territory is administered by a foreign power with the consent of the state to which the territory belongs. In this respect the reference is made to the position of Cyprus from 1878 to 1914 under British administration and that of Bosnia and Herzegovina from1878 to 1908 under the administration of Austria-Hungary 24 where a cession of territory has for all practical purposes taken place although in law the territory belonged to the former owner state. This is borne out by the provisions of the Convention itself under which Turkey assigns the administration of the Island of Cyprus to Great Britain, an expression which denotes transfer of title, whilst at the same time provision is made in the Annex for the eventual return of Cyprus on the fulfilment of certain conditions. 25 That sovereignty was remained in Turkey was never disputed by Great Britain on taking up the administration of the island. 26 The occupation of Cyprus lacked juristic precision but it was analogous to protectorate in the sense that it fell within the designation of a country under protection of Great Britain. 27 24. See Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law, ante , p.455, where it is observed that “such nominal sover- eignty is not totally devoid of practical consequences”. See also the observations of Phillimore, Commentaries upon the International Law vol. I (London, 1879), pp.131-132. In the case concerning the Light House in Crete ands Samos the Permanent Court of International Justice held in October 1937 that notwithstanding the very wide autonomy of conceded by Turkey to the islands of Crete and Samos these territories must be regarded as having been under Turkish sovereignty in 1913 with the result that Turkey could properly grant or renew concessions with regard to these islands. In a dissenting Opinion Judge Hudson, regarding this point said that “a juristic conception must not be stretched to the breaking point, and a ghost of hollow sovereignty cannot be permitted to obscure the realities of the situation” ( P.C.I.J. Series A/B No.71). 25. See Roberts-Wray , Commonwealth and Colonial Law (London, 1966), p. 28. A very wide jurisdiction was granted to Britain to administer Cyprus, during the period it had the administration of the island. 26. The British Government did not wish to ask the sultan to alienate territory from his sovereignty. It has been asserted that until the annexation Great Britain refused to extend the protection of her consuls to Cypriots resident outside the island (see Hill, A History of Cyprus, ante , Vol. IV p. 285); O’Connell , International Law Vol. I, (Cambridge, 1965), 354:“the British government in fact acknowledged that it had no intention of alienating territory from the Sultan’s sovereignty”. The British Foreign Secretary was also of the opinion that the transfer of the island to the Great Britain had all the incidents of cession for so long as the British occupation lasted (O’Connell, Legal Aspects of the peace treaty with Japan , British YB.I.L., 1952 vol. XIX, 423, p.426). 27. See Oppenheim-Lauterpacht , International Law supra , p.455, note 2; O’Connell, International Law, supra ; Roberts-Wray , op.cit . (considers as doubtful whether, in English Law , Cyprus could accurately be regarded as a territory of the under the Sovereign’s protection and points out the difficulty of grouping Cyprus with other territories by referring to pre-1915 Acts of Parliament).