Unconstitutionality of laws procedure under Article 146 of the Constitution, Re, President of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus v Assembly of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, D 2-2004/5-2004, ILDC 501 (TCc 2004), 9th April 2004, Cyprus; Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (disputed); Supreme Court; Constitutional Court Date: 09 April 2004 Content type: Domestic court decisions Jurisdiction: Constitutional Court Citation(s): D 2-2004/5-2004 (Official Case No) ILDC 501 (TCc 2004) (OUP reference) Product: Oxford Reports on International Law [ORIL] Module: International Law in Domestic Courts [ILDC] Parties: President of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (disputed)) Assembly of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (disputed)) Judges/Arbitrators: Taner Erginel (President); Metin A Hakki; Nevvar Nolan; Mustafa H Özkök; Seyit A Bensen Procedural Stage: Unconstitutionality of laws procedure under Article 146 of the ConstitutionSubject(s):Self-determination -- Collective rights -- Democracy -- Federal states -- Peace treaties -- State practice -- Unification -- Subjects of international lawCore Issue(s):Whether the establishment of a new state was a manifestation of the exercise of the right to self-determination by the people of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Whether there was any requirement under international law of consistency with the laws of the previous legal system in the case of state extinction and the birth of a new state.Whether a law on referendum for the creation of a new state through UN negotiations had constitutional force and should be exempted from constitutional review when such legislation was not foreseen in the text of the Constitution, 1985 (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus). Oxford Reports on International Law in Domestic Courts is edited by: Professor André Nollkaemper, University of Amsterdam and August Reinisch, University of Vienna. Facts F1 On 16 August 1960, the Republic of Cyprus ("ROC") became an independent state with a bi-communal government (between Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities) through international treaties guaranteeing its territorial integrity, independence, and constitutional order. An armed conflict between the two communities in December 1963 resulted in the disintegration of the bi-communal partnership government. Since then, the international community has accepted the Greek Cypriot government in south Cyprus as the legitimate government of the ROC. F2 Following the collapse of the bi-communal government, former Turkish Cypriot officials of the ROC established successive governing structures between 1964 and 1983. The first administration was established in 1964 ("General Committee") and was directed by the Turkish Cypriot Vice-President. This was transformed into the "Transitional Turkish Cypriot Administration" on 26 December 1967, and a Basic Law, 1967 was adopted which had constitutional force for the Turkish Cypriot administered areas. On 20 July 1974, following a military coup d'état organized by the Greek military regime against the President of the ROC, Turkey conducted a military operation in Cyprus. Turkish intervention caused the creation of two separate areas on the island, one administered by Greek Cypriots and the other by Turkish Cypriots. Turkish Cypriots established a new administration in the area under the control of the Turkish Cypriot and Turkish forces and named it the "Autonomous Turkish Cypriot Administration". F3 On 13 February 1975, the Turkish Cypriots proclaimed the "Turkish Federated State of Cyprus" ("TFSC") in the northern part of the island. This declaration stated that the TFSC would form a basis for the future united federal Cyprus. A new Constitution, (Turkish Federated State of Cyprus) ("TFSC Constitution") prepared by a constitutive assembly, was adopted and submitted to a referendum on 8 June 1975. As a reaction to the declaration of the TFSC, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 367, UN Doc S/Res 367, UN Security Council, 1975 ("Resolution 367"), in which it regretted the unilateral declaration of TFSC and expressed its concern at the continuation of the crisis on the island (Resolution 367, para 2). F4 As a reaction to Resolution 37/253, UN Doc A/RES/37/253, UN General Assembly, 1982, the Turkish Cypriots transformed the TFSC, and proclaimed the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" ("TRNC") as an independent state. This declaration was made by a resolution adopted by the Legislative Assembly of the TFSC. With Resolution 541, UN Doc S/Res 541, UN Security Council, 1983, the UN Security Council on 18 November 1983 condemned this unilateral declaration of independence, declared it invalid, and called for its withdrawal. The Security Council also called on all states to refrain from recognizing the TRNC. A new Constitution, 1985 (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus) ("TRNC Constitution') was approved through a referendum held by Turkish Cypriots in the northern part of the island. F5 TRNC was recognized only by Turkey and no other state has granted recognition to this entity since 1983. Since 1967, negotiations between the political leaders of the two communities have been conducted under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General to seek a comprehensive settlement of the problem. The UN submitted a settlement plan, "Basis for a Comprehensive Settlement of the Cyprus Problem", UN Secretary General, 11 November 2002 (the "Annan Plan") to the political leaders. On 13 February 2004, all parties to the Cyprus problem agreed in New York on the submission of the Annan Plan to separate simultaneous referenda in Southern and Northern Cyprus following its finalization by the UN Secretary-General. The TRNC Parliament enacted the Special law on referendum, 22 March 2004 (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus) ('special Law on Referendum") for the conduct of a referendum in Northern Cyprus. F6 According to the UN plan, a new federal partnership state ("United Cyprus Republic") was to be established which would have had a single international personality based on two constituent states. Had the Annan Plan been accepted by both sides, administrations in the north and the south would have been transformed into a Turkish Cypriot Constituent State, and a Greek Cypriot Constituent State respectively. Therefore, depending on the results of the referenda, the TRNC could have ceased to exist. F7 The President of the Assembly signed the Special law on referendum and it entered into force following publication in the official gazette. Then the President of the Republic requested the legal opinion of the Constitutional Court on whether the Special law on referendum was contrary to the TRNC Constitution. F8 The Attorney-General, acting on behalf of the President before the Constitutional Court, claimed that there were certain special provisions in the TRNC Constitution for constitutional amendment but that the Special law on referendum foresaw the amendment and even the termination of the TRNC Constitution contrary to these amendment provisions. Therefore, the Attorney-General argued that the Special law was inconsistent with the TRNC Constitution. F9 The Assembly of the TRNC claimed that the TRNC Constitution permitted bi-communal negotiations for the formation of a federation on the island and therefore did not prevent the termination of the TRNC for the establishment of a new state. This is why, there had been for many years ongoing bi-communal negotiations, and different laws had been adopted by the Assembly for this purpose. Held H1 According to Article 162(1) of the TRNC Constitution, the Constitution's provisions may be amended, in whole or in part, only by a proposal made by at least 10 members of the Assembly of the TRNC and approved by a two-thirds majority of the total number of the Assembly members. Following such an approval, the amendments should also be accepted by the people through a referendum (Article 162(3)). However, there were articles which could not be amended and were kept out of this normal amendment procedure. Among these articles were those pertaining to the form and characteristics of the state; the indivisible nature of the territory of the TRNC; and the sovereignty and the manner in which it was exercised by the Turkish Cypriot people (Article 9). The Special law on referendum foresaw the entry into force of a new constitution. Through a referendum, the TRNC Constitution would be terminated and replaced by another constitution. It was obvious that such a transformation was contrary to the provisions on amendments to the TRNC Constitution and the un-amendable articles. (paragraph 4) H2 However, in assessing the constitutionality of the law on referendum, one should take into consideration the past bi-communal negotiations to find a settlement of the Cyprus problem under the UN auspices and the TRNC Constitution in general. (paragraph 5) H3 The Preamble of the TRNC Constitution was considered to be an integral part of the text of the TRNC Constitution. (paragraph 6) It could be seen from this Preamble that the TRNC Constitution was accepted to put into effect the points raised in the 1983 Declaration of Independence of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (the "TRNC Declaration"). Article 22(b) of the TRNC Declaration read as follows: "The proclamation of the TRNC will not hinder the two equal Peoples and their administrations from establishing a new partnership within the framework of a genuine federation. On the contrary, such a proclamation can facilitate efforts in this direction by fulfilling the necessary requisites for the establishment of a federation. The TRNC, determined to make every constructive effort in this direction, will not unite with any other state." (paragraph 7) H4 As could be seen from this provision, the TRNC Constitution did not preclude the possibility of building a new state under a federal framework between two communities. The TRNC Constitution left the door open to a federation while establishing a new state. Otherwise, bi-communal negotiations to establish a new state could not have been reconciled with the form and characteristics of the TRNC. (paragraph 8) H5 Moreover, not only the bi-communal negotiations at the level of two political leaders, but also different decisions taken by the Assembly following the establishment of the TRNC in 1983, had supported the idea that it was legally permissible and acceptable in this legal system to form a new state and to terminate the existing one. (paragraph 15) H6 To explain this seemingly contradictory point one should also consult the doctrine on the extinction of states and birth of new states in international law. Extinction of a state and the establishment of a new state generally occurred on the basis of a legal gap in the aftermath of the use of actual force. New states were created following wars, coups against governments, revolutions, or decolonization. A new state came into existence and replaced the terminated one and generally no one discussed whether the new state had been established in accordance with the laws of the previous one. Infrequently, independent states could come together to form a new federation. The creation of a federal state on the American continent in 1787 was a good example of the establishment of a federation by independent states, but no one contended that it had been established in contravention of the provisions of the laws of the pre-existing states. (paragraph 9) H7 Contrary to state practice in the world, a discussion of whether the new state had been established in compliance with the laws of the previous one had in the past taken place in Northern Cyprus. Such discussion took place in the process of transforming the TFSC into the TRNC in 1983. (paragraph 10) On that occasion, the Supreme Court examined an application for annulment of an act of the Assembly of the TFSC (Social Liberation Party (TKP) v TRNC Assembly of the Republic and the Constitutive Assembly, Annulment Lawsuit under Article 147 of the Constitution, D 3-84 / 34-83, 27 February 1983). Even though it considered it contrary to the TFSC Constitution to amend the "federated state status" through unanimous decision of the Assembly, the court found the TRNC Declaration by the Assembly (an act terminating the federated state status) to be constitutional. (paragraph 12) H8 As was rightly put by the Attorney General before the court at that time, a decision on the declaration of independence was a type of change of the order (system) and it could not be seen as a constitutional amendment. In such cases, the governing authority had the power to establish a new system independent of the positive norms in force. Therefore, a decision to declare an independent state, or to form a constitutive assembly for the establishment of such a state, should have constitutional force and should not be subject to constitutional review. Moreover, the TFSC was also established in a way contrary to the legislation in force before its establishment and, later, an approval of its existence through a referendum supplied the legality. (paragraph 13) H9 The TRNC was established through a referendum and the previous legal personality was terminated. Despite the fact that this transformation was not conducted in accordance with the previous constitutional order, this experience in Northern Cyprus might be seen as a useful example for other nations of creating new states through democratic means instead of forcible (violent) means. (paragraph 11) H10 The accepted principle to submit the conclusions of the negotiations to the approval of the people (the highest will) through referendum would remove any possible legal problem. The Supreme Court was right in its 1984 decision when it declared that preparations for the establishment of a new state were of a constitutional nature and force and therefore could not be the subject of constitutional review. (paragraph 14) The proposal to establish a new state meant the exercise of the right to self-determination by the people of TRNC, and the fact that the conclusions would be submitted to the vote of the people would provide the necessary legal ground for preparations such as the referendum law. (paragraph 18) The Special Law on Referendum was not contrary to the TRNC Constitution. (paragraph 20) Date of Report: 16 April 2008 Reporter(s): Kudret Özersay Analysis A1 The court interpreted the constitutional provisions together with the Preamble of the TRNC Constitution, established practice with regard to the Cyprus negotiations, certain decisions of the TRNC Assembly on Cyprus settlement, and the TRNC Declaration. Even though it was considered as a secessionist act by the UN Security Council, the TRNC Declaration was employed by the court in a way facilitating the transformation of the unrecognized state (TRNC) into a constitutive part of a federation as part of a political settlement in the island. Reading the constitutional provisions independently from the relevant articles of the TRNC Declaration could have brought about a result that prevented a political settlement through UN-sponsored negotiations. In this sense, the court's approach could be seen as creative. In fact, the court did not deviate from the previous Supreme Court judgment that had already held it constitutionally permissible to hold a referendum to terminate the TFSC Constitution and to replace it with another one in the context of the establishment of the TRNC. However, the present judgment differed from the previous one in that it clarified that such acts were also permitted for the unification with another state or for the unification of the island. A2 The court briefly mentioned international law, in particular the state practice on the extinction of states and the birth of new states, in support of its decision. However, it did not significantly rely in its judgment on such state practice. The court argued that questioning the legality of the establishment of a new state on the basis of the previous legal system was not an issue in international law. It found such an attempt to question legality pointless. But then it examined the Special Law on referendum on the basis of constitutional provisions and practices of the TRNC which would be the "previous legal system" in the case of reunification of the island. This was, in a way, a controversial approach. A3 It could have been easier and more appropriate for the court to rely on the concept of self-determination of the Turkish Cypriot people--to which it referred only in one sentence in the judgment. The internal right of self-determination could have helped the court to explain the transformation of the TRNC together with the TRNC Declaration. The court could also have relied on the international undertakings of the TRNC consented to by its President acting as the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community through the Statement Attributable to the Spokesman of the Secretary-General, UN Secretary-General, 13 February 2004 ("New York Accord"). It was the President himself who had undertaken the obligation to submit the Annan Plan to referendum in Northern Cyprus by the said New York Accord. A4 The court, after mentioning the establishment of the TRNC through a referendum and the termination of the previous legal personality (the previous state, namely the TFSC), argued that this experience of the TRNC might be seen as a useful example for other nations in creating new states. As it is well established in international law that an international legal personality could not necessarily be deemed extinct with the changes in its legal order, constitution, government, territory, name, or flag, the court failed to discuss whether such a constitutional transformation of the TFSC into the TRNC could be seen as the establishment of a new state rather than a regime change. The court should have clarified the existence of the international legal personality of the TRNC by addressing the unrecognized character of this entity and the UN Security Council resolutions taken in relation to the TRNC Declaration. A5 Separate simultaneous referenda on the Annan Plan in Northern and Southern Cyprus were conducted on 24 April 2004. In Northern Cyprus the provisions of the Special law on referendum were followed. The UN plan did not enter into force, however, as it was rejected in the referendum held in Southern Cyprus by the Greek Cypriot community, and hence the TRNC and the TRNC Constitution continue to exist. Date of Analysis: 16 April 2008 Analysis by: Kudret Özersay Instruments cited in the full text of this decision: International Statement Attributable to the Spokesman of the Secretary-General, UN Secretary-General, 13 February 2004 Basis for a Comprehensive Settlement of the Cyprus Problem, UN Secretary General, 11 November 2002 Constitutions Constitution, 1975 (Turkish Federated State of Cyprus), Articles 138, 135(1) Declaration of Independence of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, 15 November 1983, Article 22 (b) Constitution, 1985 (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus), Articles 162(1), 162(3), 9, 163, preamble Cases cited in the full text of this decision: Social Liberation Party (TKP) v TRNC Assembly of the Republic and the Constitutive Assembly, Annulment Lawsuit under Article 147 of the Constitution, D 3-84 / 34-83, 27 February 1983 To access full citation information for this document, see the Oxford Law Citator record Decision - full text Paragraph numbers have been added to this decision by OUP Görüs Bildirisi 1 Kuzey Kibris Turk Cumhuriyeti Cumhurbaskani, Kuzey Kibris Turk Cumhuriyeti Cumhuriyet Meclisinde 22.3.2004 tarihinde kabul edilen, Kibris Sorununun Çözümüne Iliskin Halkoylamasi (Özel ve Geçici Kurallar) Yasasinin Anayasaya aykiri olup olmadigi konusunda, Anayasa Mahkemesinden görüs isteminde bulunmustur. 2 Cumhurbaskani adina Anayasa Mahkemesinde hazir bulunan Bassavci Sn. Akin A. Sait"in sordugu sorulari iki baslik altinda toplamak mümkündür. Birinci baslik altinda Sn. Bassavci, Anayasanin nasil degistirilebilecegine iliskin Anayasada hükümler bulundugunu, Kibris Sorununun Çözümüne Iliskin Halkoylamasi (Özel ve Geçici Hükümler) Yasasinin bu hükümlere aykiri olarak Anayasayi degistirmeyi ve hatta ortadan kaldirmayi öngördügünü, bu nedenle Anayasaya aykirilik oldugunu öne sürmektedir. Ikinci baslik altinda ise halkoylamasinda sorulan sorularin ve özellikle halkin anlamayacagi Ingilizce metinler bulunmasinin Anayasaya aykiri oldugunu öne sürmektedir. 3 Bu sorulari ayri ayri ele alarak inceleyelim. 1) Kibris Sorununun Çözümüne Iliskin Halkoylamasi (Özel ve Geçici Kurallar) Yasasinin KKTC Anayasasini ortadan kaldirmayi öngören hükümleri Anayasaya aykiri mi? 4 KKTC Anayasasinin 162. maddesine göre, Anayasanin 9. maddesinde belirtilen kurallar sakli kalma kosuluyla, Anayasanin kismen veya tamamen degistirilmesi için en az on meclis üyesinin önerisi ve üye tamsayisinin üçte iki çogunlugunun oyu gerekir. Bu oylamadan sonra ise halkoyuna basvurmak gerekir. 9. maddeye göz attigimizda degisemeyecek kurallar arasinda Devletin sekli ve ülkenin bölünmez olmasi bulundugunu görürüz. Ayrica egemenligin halkin oldugu ve hiçbir makam veya merciin kaynagini Anayasadan almayan bir yetki kullanamayacagi kurali yer almaktadir. 5 Halkoylamasi Yasasi yeni bir Anayasanin yürürlüge girmesini öngörmektedir. Halkoylamasi ile KKTC Anayasasi ortadan kalkacak ve yerine yeni bir Anayasa geçecektir. Bu degisikligin KKTC Anayasasinin 162 ve 9. maddelerine uygun olmadigi açiktir. Ancak bu gerçege karsi KKTC Anayasasinin bir federasyon kurulmasi amaciyla toplumlararasi görüsme-lere ve dolayisiyla KKTC"yi sona erdirip yeni bir devlet kurulmasina izin verdigi öne sürülmektedir. Bu izin nedeniyle yillardan beri toplumlararasi görüsmeler yapilmis, toplumlararasi görüsmeleri destekleyen yasalar kabul edilmis, New York süreci baslatilmis ve Isviçre görüsmeleri gerçeklesmistir. Halkoylamasi Yasasini degerlendirirken tüm bu çalismalari birlikte göz önünde bulundurmamiz ve KKTC Anayasasinin tümüne izin verip vermedigini arastirmamiz gerekmektedir. 5 The Referendum Act provides for the adoption of a new Constitution. After the Referendum, the Constitution of the TRNC will be superseded by a new Constitution. It is obvious that this amendment does not comply with Articles 162 and 9 of the Constitution of the TRNC. However, despite that fact, it is argued that the Constitution of the TRNC permits negotiations between the communities with the purpose of forming a federation, and thus the abolishment of the TRNC and the foundation of a new state. Because of that permission, negotiations between the communities have been conducted for many years, laws supporting the negotiations between the communities have been adopted, the New York process has been initiated and the Switzerland talks have been conducted. We should consider all these efforts when evaluating the Referendum Act, and investigate whether the Constitution of the TRNC allows all of them. 6 Anayasanin 163. maddesi, Anayasanin Baslangiç Kismini Anayasanin metninden saymaktadir.Anayasamizin Baslangiç Kisminda söyle denmektedir: "Kibris Turk Halki, Egemenligin kayitsiz sartsiz sahibi olarak; 15 Kasim 1983 tarihinde, büyük bir cosku ve oybirligi ile kabul edilen Bagimsizlik Bildirisini yasama geçirmek… amaciyla… KKTC Anayasasini kabul ve ilân eder." 6 […] The Preamble to our Constitution reads as follows: "Turkish Cypriot People, with whom the absolute right to sovereignty rests, -- giving life to the Proclamation of Independence which was accepted unanimously and with great enthusiasm on 15th November 1983 -- approve and proclaim the Constitution of the TRNC." 7 Buna göre KKTC Anayasasi 15 Kasim, 1983 tarihinde kabul edilen Bagimsizlik Bildirisinde belirtilenleri yasama geçirme amaciyla kabul edilmistir.15 Kasim 1983 tarihinde Resmi Gazetede yayimlanan Bagimsizlik Bildirisinin 22(b) maddesi söyledir: “Kuzey Kibris Turk Cumhuriyeti"nin ilâni, iki esit halkin ve onlarin kurduklari yönetimlerin, gerçek bir federasyon çatisi altinda yeniden bir ortaklik kurmalarini engellemez; tam aksine, bir federasyon kurulabilmesi için gerekli ön sartlari tamamlayarak bu yoldaki samimi çabalari kolaylastirabilir. Bu yolda her yapici çabayi göstermege kararli olan Kuzey Kibris Turk Cumhuriyeti baska hiçbir devletle birlesmeyecektir.” 7 Accordingly, the Constitution of the TRNC was adopted to give effect to the Proclamation of Independence which was passed on 15 November 1983. Article 22(b) of the Proclamation of Independence published in the Official Gazette dated 15 November 1983 reads as follows: “The Proclamation of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus does not prevent two equal communities and their administrations from founding a new partnership under a true federation; on the contrary, it may facilitate genuine efforts to that end by satisfying the preconditions for the foundation of a federation. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, determined to make all constructive efforts to that end, will not unite with any state. 8 Bagimsizlik Bildirisinin 22(b) maddesinden anlasilacagi gibi KKTC Anayasasi bir federasyon çatisi altinda Kibris"ta yasayan iki esit halkin yeniden ortaklik kurmalarini engellemez. Buna göre KKTC Anayasasi bir taraftan tamamen bagimsiz ve sürekli bir devlet kurmus, diger taraftan yeni bir devlet olusturulmasina açik kapi birakmistir. Yeni devlet kurma çalismalarini KKTC Anayasasinda yer alan tamamen bagimsiz ve sürekli devlet özelligi ile bagdastirmak kolay degildir. 8 As can be understood from article 22(b) of the Proclamation of Independence, the Constitution of the TRNC does not prevent two equal communities living in Cyprus from founding a partnership under a federation. Accordingly, the Constitution of the TRNC, while founding a fully independent and permanent state, also left the door open for the foundation of a new state. […] 9 Ortaya çikan bu çeliskiyi açiklayabilmek için devletlerin sona ermesi ve yeni bir devlet kurulmasina iliskin teorik bilgilere basvurmamiz yararli olacaktir. Dünyadaki örnekleri arastirdigimiz zaman görürüz ki;bir devletin son bulup yeni bir devletin kurulmasi, genellikle fiili bir güçten sonra yaratilan hukuk boslugu sürecinde olmaktadir. Savas, hükümet darbesi, devrim, sömürge olan bir ülkenin bagimsizligi gibi hallerde yeni devlet dogmaktadir. Yeni devlet kurulurken daha önceki devlet son bulmustur ve yeni devletin daha önceki devletin yasalarina uygun olarak kurulup kurulmadiginin tartisilmasi söz konusu degildir. Bagimsiz devletlerin bir araya gelerek bir federasyon kurmalari da mümkün olmakla birlikte, bu çok ender hallerde gerçeklesmistir. Buna örnek olarak 1787 ABD Federal Devletini gösterebiliriz. Ancak burada da federal devletin daha önceki devlet yasalarina aykiri kuruldugu iddiasi yapilip tartisilmis degildir. Avrupa Birligi gibi uluslararasi birliklere katilmanin konumuzla ilgisi yoktur. Çünkü bu katilimlar uluslararasi anlasmalar ve karsilikli mutabakatla gerçeklesmektedir. 9 In order to be able to explain this contradiction, it would be helpful to refer to theoretical knowledge on the end of states and the foundation of new states. When we examine the examples around the world, we can see that the termination of a state and the foundation of a new one usually occur in a process of legal vacuum created after a de facto situation. A new state is born in conditions such as war, coup d"état, revolution, and the proclamation of independence of a colony. When a new state is founded, the previous state is ended, and there is no point in discussing whether the new state was founded in compliance with the laws of the former state. […] 10 Yeni bir devlet kurulmasinin eski yasa ve Anayasaya uygun olup olmadiginin tartisilmasi dünyada örnegine rastlanmayan bir olay olmasina ragmen, geçmiste Kuzey Kibris"ta gerçeklesmistir. Söz konusu tartisma Kibris Turk Federe Devletine son verip Kuzey Kibris Turk Cumhuriyeti kurulurken yapilmistir. 10 Although discussing the compliance of the foundation of a new state with the former laws and Constitution is not something ever observed in the world before, that happened in the case of Northern Cyprus. […] 11 Bir devletin son bulup yeni bir devletin kurulmasi niye devrim, darbe ve savas gibi hallerde fiili güçle gerçeklesebilsin? KKTC halkinin KTFD"ni terkedip KKTC"yi kurarken izledigi yöntem, acaba uygar bir halkin devletini nasil degistirebilecegi konusunda dünyaya örnek olamaz mi? Bir devlet devam ederken barisçi yollardan yeni bir devlet kurulamaz mi? 12 Anayasa Mahkememiz, Anayasa Mahkemesi: 34/83 (D.3/84) sayili davada, KTFD devam ederken KKTC"nin kurulmasinin KTFD Anayasasina uygun olup olmadigini tartismistir. Bu davada Toplumcu Kurtulus Partisi, Yasama Meclisinin 15.11.1983 tarihinde verdigi KKTC"nin kurulusunu onaylayan karardan sonra, 2.12.1983 tarihinde verdigi KKTC Kurucu Meclisinin olusmasina iliskin kararin Kibris Turk Federe Devleti Anayasasina aykiri oldugunu iddia etmis ve iptalini talep etmistir. Meclisin üçte iki çogunlukla degil, basit çogunlukla aldigi bu karar Kibris Turk Federe Devleti Anayasasinin 138. maddesi ile uyum içinde degildi. Çünkü 138. madde Anayasanin meclis üyelerinden en az yedisinin önerisi ve üye tam sayisinin üçte iki çogunlugunun oyu ile degistirilebilecegini belirtiyordu. Federe Devlet Anayasasinin 135(1) maddesine göre ise Federe Devlet statüsünün degismesi mümkün degildi. Yani oybirligi ile dahi Federe Devlet statüsü degistirilemezdi. Buna ragmen KKTC"nin ilâni ile bu statü degistirilmistir. 13 Bassavciligin bu davada yaptigi savunmalar önemlidir. “Bagimsizlik karari ile yapilan bir Anayasa tadili olmayip yeni bir düzen Degisikligidir. Bu durumda Iktidar pozitif hukuk normlarina bagli olmadan düzenini kurma yetkisine sahiptir. Gerek Kuzey Kibris Turk Cumhuriyetinin olusumuna iliskin 15.11.1983 tarihli karar gerekse Kurucu Meclisin olusumuna iliskin 2.12.1983 tarihli karar anayasal nitelikli ve anayasal seviyede kararlar olup iptal davasi mevzuu yapilamazlar. Bagimsizlik karari anayasal nitelikte olan ve Anayasayi büyük bir ölçüde ortadan kaldiran bir karardir. Bu karar ile Federe Meclisin varligi da ortadan kalkmisti. Kurucu Meclis hakli ve mesru bir kararla olustu. Mesrulugu yapilacak yeni bir Anayasanin halkoyuyla kabul edilmesi ile perçinlesmis olacaktir.” 14 Anayasa Mahkememiz, Anayasa Mahkemesi: 34/83 (D.3/84) sayili davada konuyu degerlendirirken, öncelikle KTFD"nin de benzer bir yöntemle olustugunu, yani daha önceki yasalara uymayan bir kararla kuruldugunu, fakat daha sonra halkoyuna basvurulmasinin yasalligi sagladigini göz önünde bulundurmustur. Anayasa Mahkemesi 2.12.1983 tarihli kararin, 15.11.1983 tarihli karar gibi anayasal nitelikte ve seviyede oldugu ve Anayasaya aykiriliginin öne sürülüp iptal edilemeyecegi kanisina varmistir. 15 KKTC kurulduktan sonra yeni devlet kurma çalismalari sadece Devlet Baskani veya Hükümet düzeyinde yürütülmüs degildir. Meclis kararlari da buna destek olmustur. 15.3.1985 tarihli Resmi Gazetenin IV. ekinde yayimlanan Kurucu Meclisin 12 Mart 1985 tarihli karari söyledir: “Kuzey Kibris Turk Cumhuriyeti Anayasasinin Kabulünün, Iki Esit Halkin Federasyon Çatisi Altinda Yeniden Bir Ortaklik Kurmalarini Engellemeyecegi Hakkindaki Karar: Kibris Turk halkinin mesru ve önüne geçilmesi imkansiz istek ve iradesine tercüman olan, Kuzey Kibris Turk Cumhuriyeti"nin bagimsiz bir devlet olarak kuruldugunu dünya ve tarih önünde ilan eden 15 Kasim 1983 tarihli Bagimsizlik Bildirisi"nin 22. maddesinin (b) fikrasinda, Kuzey Kibris Turk Cumhuriyeti"nin ilaninin, iki esit halkin ve onlarin kurduklari yönetimlerin, gerçek bir federasyon çatisi altinda yeniden bir ortaklik kurmalarini engellemedigi, tam aksine, bir federasyonun kurulabilmesi için gerekli ön sartlari tamamlayarak, bu yoldaki samimi çabalari kolaylastirabileceginin vurgulandigini dikkate alan Kurucu Meclis, Bagimsizlik Bildirisi"nde belirtildigi üzere, kabul ettigi Kuzey Kibris Turk Cumhuriyeti Anayasasi"nin, iki esit halkin, iki toplumlu ve iki kesimli gerçek bir federasyon çatisi altinda ortaklik kurmalarini engellemedigini vurgular.” 16 21.5.1993 tarihli Resmi Gazetenin IV. ekinde yayimlanan Cumhuriyet Meclisinin 18 Mayis 1993"de aldigi kararda ise söyle denmektedir: “Kibris sorununa barisçi bir çözüm bulunmasi amaciyla esit düzeyde sürdürülen toplumlararasi görüsmeleri destekler ve soruna bulunacak nihai çözümde Kibris"taki iki halkin iradelerinin esas oldugu, bulunacak çözüm sklinin Kibris"ta yasayan her iki ulusal halkin ayri ayri yapacaklari referandumlar sonucu yürürlüge girebilecegini belirtir.” 17 Yukarida anlatilanlardan görülecegi gibi bugün karsi karsiya oldugumuz ve yanitlamamiz gereken yasal sorun KKTC kurulurken ortaya çikan sorundan farkli degildir. KKTC Anayasasi bir taraftan tamamen bagimsiz bir devlet kurmus diger taraftan yeni bir devlet kurulmasina açik kapi birakmistir. Anayasaya, bagimsiz ve sürekli devlet yapisina aykiri olsa bile, toplumlararasi görüsmeler sürekli olarak yapilmistir. Varilacak sonucun en yüksek iradeye sahip olan halkoyuna sunulacak olmasinin tüm yasal sorunlari giderecegi kabul edilmistir. 18 Anayasa Mahkememizin Anayasa Mahkemesi: 34/83 (D.3/84) sayili davada belirttigi görüslere katiliyoruz. Yeni devlet kurma çalismalari Anayasal nitelik ve seviyede çalismalar olup bu çalismalarin Anayasaya aykiri oldugunu öne sürmek ve iptalini talep etmek mümkün degildir. Yeni devlet kurma önerisi, KKTC halkinin kendi kaderini tayin etme hakkini kullanmasi anlamina gelmektedir. En yüksek irade olan halkoyuna basvurulacak olmasi çalismalarin yasalligini saglamaktadir. Halkoylamasinin KKTC halkinin iradesini özgürce olusturmasina ve dogru bir sekilde açiklamasina firsat vermesi kosuluyla yasal sorunlari ortadan kaldiracagi görüsündeyiz. 18 […] The efforts to found a new state are efforts of a Constitutional nature and character, and it cannot be argued that such efforts are in violation of the Constitution, nor is it possible to demand their annulment. The proposal to found a new state means the exercise of the right to self-determination by the people of the TRNC. The fact that the matter is to be referred by the means of a referendum to the people, who are the ultimate authority, ensures the legitimacy of the efforts. We are of the opinion that the referendum will eliminate legal problems provided that it allows the people of TRNC to formulate their will freely and to express it accurately. 2) Sn. Bassavcinin sordugu ikinci soru aynen söyledir: Kibris Sorununun Çözümüne Iliskin Halkoylamasi (Özel ve Geçici Kurallar) Yasasinin 2, 3 ve 9. maddeleri uyarinca referandumda halkoyuna sunulacak olan metinlerin, tercüme edilememesi halinde Ingilizce olarak halkoylamasina sunulmasi Anayasanin 2. maddesinin (2). fikrasina uygun mudur? 19 Sn. Bassavci bu baslik altinda halkoyuna sunulacak metinlerin tercüme edilememesi halinde Ingilizce olarak halkoyuna sunulmasinin Anayasanin 2. maddesinin (2). fikrasina uygun olup olmadigini sormaktadir. Sayin Bassavcinin sorusunu inceledigimiz zaman yasalarin tercüme edilememesinden bir olasilik olarak söz edildiiini görürüz. Halkoylamasi Yasasinda ise yasalarin Ingilizce olarak halkoyuna sunulacagi konusunda herhangi bir ayrinti yoktur. Bu nedenle bu soruya yanit vermemize olanak bulunmadigi görüsündeyiz. 20 Sonuç olarak önümüze sunulan bilgiler isiginda Kibris Sorununun Çözümüne Iliskin Halkoylamasi (Özel ve Geçici Kurallar) Yasasinin Anayasaya aykiri olmadigi görüsündeyiz. http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/law:ildc/501tcc04.case.1?rskey=23w7is&result=17