An interesting (certainly by the standards of an int'l law journal's website - cf. the concept of "law school hot" - and perhaps even really interesting) discussion of last year's war in Georgia and its possible repercussions:
I have read in the blogosphere and received emails myself claiming that the events in Georgia require a rethinking and rewriting of the laws governing the use of force and the acquisition of territory. I am rather sceptical but would welcome articles arguing the opposite. To me, it is a case of ‘plus ça change, plus ça reste la même chose‘.When I first read this earlier in the year, it made think of an article I saw back in December which made me think of the idea of a "TRNC precedent" (the phrase that popped into my mind, as a natural counterpoint to the idea of a "Kosovo precedent" which has been widely touted by secessionists the world over, but especially in the post-Soviet space) which is alluded to by the author above.
But let us first address the depressing politics - this time demoralizing world politics perfectly personified by some celestial Central Casting.
First, the breathtakingly cerebrally challenged Saakashvili, whose every move, including throwing the match into the dry tinder, has militated against his desired entry of Georgia into NATO. The conspiracy minded may well claim that he was a Russian agent. His one redeeming feature were his blustering sophomoric news conferences which supplied relief to a very serious situation - comic relief, that is, provided by the squirming dignitaries forced to stand, ex officio, by his side and suffer each of his ‘I told you so…!’
Then we were treated to a rather new scary spectacle - US officials palpably and transparently aware of their real and perceived weakness, also of their lack of credibility, speaking loudly whilst carrying a broken reed. It is a photo-finish as to which America gives us more of a shiver - blustering, over-confident, but strong, or blustering, under-confident, and weak.
And then there was the redoubtable Sarkozy and Merkel (but hardly Solana…!) making all the right noises of ‘engagement diplomacy’, but unable to paper over the deep internal divisions within the Union, and therefore manifesting again Europe’s long inability to translate its economic might into political and military capital - so what’s new? Only Putin comes out entirely in control - hopefully, in the long run, a Pyrrhic victory.
The Russians will not withdraw from the two rump entities any time soon and no one will push them either. Have the Superpowers not been somewhat more equal than everyone else for some time now? That does not make the invasion any more legal than that of, say, Turkey into Cyprus and the status of the rump ’statelets’ is indeed likely to remain more like that of Northern Cyprus than that of Bangladesh. This may not be the time for talking of ’shifting paradigms’ (a less elegant phrase might be ‘koshering the pig’) but perhaps it is rather even more important to hold fast to the old ones oft consecrated in their breech. But I am sure there are other views out there and EJIL or EJIL:Talk! would welcome hearing them.
And now there's been an interesting follow-up to that article I saw in December: it seems that Greeks forced out of Northern Cyprus can lay claim to their land in the European Court of Justice. I wonder if this will have an impact on real estate prices in Abkhazia (especially since the registration of property claims by people displaced in the conflict there has been going on for years)?
Greek Cypriots 'can reclaim land'The EU's top court has backed the right of a Greek Cypriot to reclaim land in Turkish-controlled northern Cyprus that has since been sold to a UK couple.
BBC News, 28 April 2009
Meletis Apostolides was one of thousands of Greek Cypriots who fled his home when Turkish forces invaded in 1974, following a Greek-inspired coup.
The land was later sold to Linda and David Orams, who built a villa on it.
The European Court of Justice says a ruling in a Cypriot court that the villa must be demolished is applicable.
Even if the ECJ ruling cannot be enacted because the land is under Turkish Cypriot control, it means Mr Apostolides will be able to pursue a claim for compensation in a UK court.
It could also open the way for hundreds more Greek Cypriots to demand restitution for properties they were forced to flee.
Many Britons and other foreigners have invested in property in northern Cyprus, despite the legal ownership still being in some doubt.
Mr Apostolides said he was "very much" pleased with the EU court's ruling, and that it was "what we expected".
He added: "This is a difficult issue that has to be decided by the courts."
Property boom
The European Court of Justice ruling on Tuesday said that the decision of a Cypriot court in Nicosia was applicable in the north, even though Cyprus does not exercise control there.
It also said that one EU country - in this case the UK - must recognise judgments made in the courts of another.
The Republic of Cyprus joined the EU in 2004.
EU law was suspended in northern Cyprus for the purposes of Cyprus's accession, but lawyers argued successfully that the Orams' civil case still falls within the scope of the EU regulation.
Northern Cyprus is self-governing and still occupied by the Turkish army, but is not recognised internationally.
Nevertheless, it has become a thriving tourist destination in recent years, and house-building has boomed.
Some of those houses have been sold by Turkish Cypriots to foreigners, even though the land they were built on was once owned by Greek Cypriots and its legal status remained uncertain.
Property disputes dating back to 1974 have been one of the main obstacles to efforts to reunify Cyprus.
Correspondents say dispossessed Greek Cypriots are now likely to launch more legal battles, which in turn may harden opposition to reunification among Turkish Cypriots.
![their photo of Natalia Morari at the protests wearing an "I [heart] Barack Obama" t-shirt](http://www.kp.ru/upimg/3dbcf1e95a9df2bc3cfa526f880f3a43063654af/188840.jpg){kind=link}