CREEPING JURISDICTION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: THE BANKOVIC CASE VS THE LOIZIDOU CASE

ASLAN GÜNDÜZ
Aslan Gündüz is a Professor of International Law at Istanbul Kültür University School of Law.

INTRODUCTION
May the European Court of Human Rights (‘the Court') review the legality of acts or omissions of military forces of a state party to the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention'), which have been committed outside its territory, in light of the Convention's terms? The answer to this question is in the first instance dependent upon whether the Convention has given such competence to the Court. Prior to its decision in the recent Bankovic Case,1 the European Commission of Human Rights (‘the Commission') and the Court had exercised competence in a series of cases that originated from acts the state parties concerned had committed either outside their territories or committed on their territories but that had produced effects outside their territories.2 For example, in the Cyprus Cases3 and the Loizidou Case4  the Commission and the Court found themselves competent to examine individual and inter-state applications against Turkey, in which  it was alleged  that the members of the Turkish armed forces in Cyprus  had violated  certain provisions of the Convention. After deciding that the Turkish forces were actually in control of Northern Cyprus, both  Commission and  the Court jumped, in their opinion and judgement respectively,  to the conclusion that, through such control of the area in question, Turkey had in fact brought within its jurisdiction persons and property found or situated in the area in question.5 The Court also found itself competent to hear a case brought by several Iraqi citizens against Turkey alleging that during a 1995 military operation in Northern Iraq Turkish forces violated various provisions of the Convention.6

THE CYPRUS ISSUE: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

HÜNER TUNCER
Dr Hüner Tuncer is an Associate Professor in the Department of International Relations, Atilim University, Ankara.

BACKGROUND
Outside powers have determined Cyprus's fate throughout its history. Because of its location, it has attracted the attention of the powerful ancient states that set up civilisations in this region.
The first group of settlers reached the island in the fourth millennium BC. By 1200 BC the Greeks had founded colonies and some 200 years later the Phoenicians followed. Other conquerors included the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Persians and Alexander the Great. In the first century BC, the Romans conquered Cyprus.
When the Roman Empire was divided finally into two parts in 395 AD, Cyprus became part of the Eastern Empire, and so a province of Byzantium. From the seventh century onwards the island was a battleground between Byzantine and Arab forces.
Richard I of England conquered the island during the Third Crusade of 1189-1192, and later sold it to Guy de Lusignan. Guy assumed the title of king in 1196 and his successors ruled as independent sovereigns until the fifteenth century. Good relations were maintained with Venice and Genoa, and both established colonies in the island, which was of great strategic importance for the commercial empires of the two cities. After 1473, the predominant influence of Genoa gave way to that of Venice.

THE EUROPEAN UNION'S ENLARGEMENT PREDICAMENTS IN THE LIGHT OF BRITISH MEDIA REPORTS

SALAHI R. SONYEL
Salahi R. Sonyel is visiting Professor of International Relations at Near East University, The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

ENLARGEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
Brussels is optimistic that preparations for enlarging the European Union (EU) by the year 2004 are proceeding smoothly and that the overriding political imperative of enlargement will remove all barriers. All existing members agree that enlargement is a dominant issue and that the addition of several central and eastern European states would bring the Continent's Cold War division to a symbolic end. Yet, the realities of what Charlotte Lindberg Warakaulle calls “bread and butter politics,” threaten to overshadow the “lofty rhetoric” of a united Europe.1 According to Rory Watson of The Times newspaper, behind the veneer of confidence is a growing awareness that a series of obstacles lie ahead, any of which could delay, or even derail, “a centuries-old dream of a peaceful, united continent.”2

EU ENLARGEMENT AS A FACTOR IN IRELAND'S NICE TREATY REFERENDUM 

JOHN O'BRENNAN
Dr John O'Brennan is a lecturer in European politics in the Department of Government and Society of the University of Limerick, Ireland.

INTRODUCTION
In the aftermath of the shock result of the Nice Treaty referendum in Ireland in June 20011 it was commonly stated that the result did not represent the electorate's rejection of European Union (EU) enlargement. In fact both supporters and opponents of the Nice Treaty agreed wholeheartedly on this point. The Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister) and his Foreign Minister assured their counterparts in the EU and the candidate states of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) that purely domestic factors explained the result –enlargement had not been an issue. Opponents of the Treaty, similarly, couched every public statement with an insistence that they were in favour of enlargement. These claims were treated with some scepticism in the CEE candidate states. Not only would the result complicate the ongoing enlargement negotiations; it might postpone accession indefinitely.

THE NILE BASIN DISEQUILIBRIUM

KINFE ABRAHAM
Dr Kinfe Abraham is President of both the Ethiopian International Institute for Peace and Development [EIIPD] and the Horn of Africa Democracy and Development International Lobby (HADAD).  He is also Chief Political Advisor to the Inter-Governmental Authority for Development (IGAD).

Water is finite. Just 2.5 per cent of the world's water is fresh, rather than seawater. And most of the fresh water that does exist is locked in ice caps and glaciers. Of the remaining amount, some two-thirds is “lost” to evaporation. From what is left, some 20 per cent is in areas too remote for human access.1

THE WAR ON TERROR: MARGINALISED CONFLICT AS A CHALLENGE TO THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM

DAN TSCHIRGI
Dan Tschirgi is Professor of Political Science and Chairman of the Department of Political Science at the American University, Cairo.

September 11, 2001 was a day that changed everything. In the wake of the attacks on New York and Washington optimistic vestiges of a decade-old hope for a New World Order vanished, rapidly replaced by a generalised sense of foreboding. Rather than order, the future suddenly seemed to promise a protracted, and extremely dangerous, time of disorder –an indefinite period during which an enemy who had already proved to be effective, elusive and possibly endemic in large parts of the world would threaten all that was familiar, comfortable and hopeful. A swirl of ominous events, ranging from the savage slaying of journalist Daniel Pearl and murderous attacks against French citizens in Pakistan to a spate of arrests of potential terrorists in Western Europe, Asia and the United States soon enhanced the unease. ‘Insecurity' became the global watchword of the hour.

WMD TERRORISM IN SOUTH ASIA: TRENDS AND IMPLICATIONS

RASHED UZ ZAMAN
Rashed Uz Zaman is Lecturer in the Department of International Relations, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh.

INTRODUCTION
Ever since that fateful September day when terrorists struck New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington DC terrorism, particularly terrorism brought about by weapons of mass destruction (WMD), has become the buzzword in international relations jargon. As the United States embarked on a long-term, comprehensive campaign to fight global terrorism, South Asia, too, began to experience the fall out of the scourge called terrorism. Since September 2001, this region has had its fair share of terrorist acts, worsening an already delicate political situation. Experts and analysts have added their words to the hype surrounding the concept of WMD terrorism and many a grim picture is being painted about the likelihood of WMD terrorism striking new targets.

SEPTEMBER 11: A NEW TYPE OF TERRORISM

MURAT KARAGÖZ
Murat Karagöz is the First Secretary at the Turkish Permanent Mission at the United Nations in New York, USA.

INTRODUCTION
Public opinion is in no doubt that the heinous assault against the United States on 11 September 2001 was ‘terrorist' in nature. It was unexpected and therefore created a great shock, not only in the United States but also around the entire world. The targets, namely the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon near Washington DC, were selected consciously. The fatalities and causalities of the attacks were enormous. It was the first time since Pearl Harbor that the US territory was directly hit by an attack initiated from abroad. The weaponry used in these attacks was neither conventional, like guns or bombs, nor weapons of mass destruction; it was means of public transport.

DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT