The Republic of Cyprus, a seemingly steadfast member of the international community, has for decades portrayed itself as the legitimate government of the entire island. However, a thorough examination of its foundation, legal status, and subsequent actions reveals a far more complex and troubling reality. The Republic of Cyprus, as it stands, is an entity whose legitimacy is deeply flawed—a pseudo-state born out of unilateral constitutional amendments and ethnic violence, and one that has perpetuated injustices against the Turkish Cypriots for over half a century.

The 1960 Constitution and the Zurich-London Agreements: A Fragile Bi-communal Framework

The Republic of Cyprus was established in 1960 under the Zurich-London Agreements, which aimed to create a bicommunal state with equal power-sharing between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. The constitution was meticulously crafted to ensure that neither community could dominate the other. It provided for a Greek Cypriot President and a Turkish Cypriot Vice President, each with veto powers, and required proportional representation in the House of Representatives and public service.

However, the ink on these agreements was barely dry before tensions began to surface. Greek Cypriot nationalist aspirations for Enosis (union with Greece) clashed with the Turkish Cypriots’ desire for Taksim (partition), leading to a volatile political environment. The Greek Cypriot leadership, under Archbishop Makarios III, increasingly viewed the constitution as an obstacle to their nationalist goals. By 1963, this simmering tension erupted into a full-blown constitutional crisis.

The 1963 Constitutional Crisis: The Beginning of Illegitimacy

In 1963, President Makarios proposed thirteen amendments to the constitution, known collectively as the Thirteen Points. These amendments aimed to reduce the power of the Turkish Cypriot community by eliminating their veto power, abolishing separate majorities for passing laws, and reducing Turkish Cypriot representation in government. The proposed amendments were a clear violation of the Zurich-London Agreements, which had been guaranteed by the United Kingdom, Greece, and Turkey as co-guarantors.

The Turkish Cypriots, understandably, rejected the amendments, viewing them as an existential threat. Violence soon erupted, leading to the infamous Bloody Christmas of 1963, during which Greek Cypriot forces, backed by the newly formed National Guard, attacked Turkish Cypriot communities. This violence was part of a broader strategy known as the Akritas Plan, which aimed to achieve Enosis by either forcing the Turkish Cypriots into submission or driving them off the island.

“From 1963 onwards, the so-called Republic of Cyprus has been, in legal terms, a Greek Cypriot administration that does not and cannot represent the Turkish Cypriots.”

The legal implications of the 1963 crisis cannot be overstated. The constitution, which was the foundation of the Republic of Cyprus, was effectively nullified by Makarios’ unilateral actions. The Republic ceased to function as a bicommunal state, transforming into a de facto Greek Cypriot administration. Legal scholar Stefan Talmon has argued that “from 1963 onwards, the so-called Republic of Cyprus has been, in legal terms, a Greek Cypriot administration that does not and cannot represent the Turkish Cypriots.” This view is supported by international law, particularly the doctrine of effectiveness, which holds that a state must have a functioning government that exercises effective control over its entire territory. By 1964, the Republic of Cyprus no longer met this criterion.

International Legal Perspectives: The Doctrine of State Continuity and Recognition

The doctrine of state continuity and recognition is central to understanding the illegitimacy of the Republic of Cyprus. State continuity refers to the principle that a state’s legal personality continues despite changes in government or territory. However, for a state to maintain continuity, it must uphold the principles of its founding constitution. The Republic of Cyprus, by excluding Turkish Cypriots from government and violating the Zurich-London Agreements, fundamentally altered its constitutional framework, thereby jeopardizing its continuity as a legitimate state.

In Arantzazu Mendi (1939) AC 256, the UK House of Lords held that “the continuity of a state depends on the continuity of its government in accordance with its constitution.” By this standard, the Republic of Cyprus ceased to be a legitimate state in 1963, when it abandoned its bicommunal constitution. Moreover, in Tinoco Arbitration (Great Britain v Costa Rica), it was held that “the legitimacy of a government rests on its ability to exercise effective control in accordance with constitutional principles.” The Greek Cypriot administration’s failure to adhere to the constitutional principles of 1960 further undermines its claim to legitimacy.

The Republic of Cyprus in the European Union: A Questionable Admission

The Republic of Cyprus’ admission into the European Union in 2004, while the island remained divided and under a ceasefire agreement, raises profound legal and ethical questions. The European Union’s founding principles include respect for the rule of law, democracy, and human rights. However, the admission of Cyprus violated these principles by ignoring the unresolved constitutional and territorial issues stemming from the 1963 crisis.

Legal experts, including Professor Christopher Greenwood, have pointed out that the admission of Cyprus contravened EU law. Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union requires that any state wishing to join the Union must respect and promote its values, including the rule of law. By admitting Cyprus, the EU effectively endorsed the Greek Cypriot administration’s illegal actions in 1963 and its subsequent refusal to reach a settlement with the Turkish Cypriots. Moreover, the EU’s decision to admit Cyprus without resolving the island’s division entrenched the status quo, making it even more difficult to achieve a just and lasting solution.

The EU’s handling of Cyprus also contradicts the principles of international law, particularly the doctrine of estoppel, which prevents a state from benefiting from its own illegal actions. By allowing Cyprus to join the EU, the international community has, in effect, rewarded the Greek Cypriot administration for its unilateral and illegal actions, while continuing to isolate and punish the Turkish Cypriots.

The Consequences of Illegitimacy: Isolation and Embargoes

The illegitimacy of the Republic of Cyprus has had devastating consequences for the Turkish Cypriots, who have faced decades of isolation and embargoes. These measures, imposed by an international community that largely recognizes the Greek Cypriot administration, have severely restricted the economic and political development of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC).

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has been complicit in this injustice. In Loizidou v. Turkey (1996) 23 EHRR 513, the Court ruled that Turkey was responsible for the violation of Greek Cypriot property rights in Northern Cyprus, while failing to acknowledge the historical and legal context of the Turkish Cypriots' exclusion from the Republic of Cyprus. The Court’s decision was based on the assumption that the Republic of Cyprus is the legitimate government of the entire island—a flawed premise that ignores the realities of the 1963 crisis and its aftermath.

The isolation of the Turkish Cypriots has also been reinforced by UN Security Council Resolutions 541 (1983) and 550 (1984), which condemned the declaration of independence by the TRNC and called on states not to recognize it. These resolutions, however, fail to address the root cause of the island’s division: the illegitimacy of the Republic of Cyprus. By focusing solely on the TRNC’s actions, the international community has turned a blind eye to the Greek Cypriot administration’s role in creating the conditions that led to the island’s division.

Financial Scandals: A State as a Laundromat

In recent years, the Republic of Cyprus has become notorious for its role in facilitating money laundering and other financial crimes. The island’s banking sector has been described as a “laundromat for illicit Russian money,” with billions of dollars in suspicious transactions flowing through its banks. The European Commission has repeatedly criticized Cyprus for its lax financial regulations and failure to combat money laundering effectively.

The 2018 “Cyprus Papers” leak revealed that the Republic of Cyprus had sold EU passports to hundreds of wealthy foreign nationals, including individuals linked to organized crime and corruption. This scandal further tarnishes the Republic’s already questionable legitimacy, revealing it as not only an illegitimate political entity but also one that engages in unethical and illegal financial practices.

These scandals raise serious questions about the Republic of Cyprus’ commitment to the rule of law and good governance. They also highlight the hypocrisy of the international community, which continues to recognize and support a state that operates in such a dubious manner. The financial practices of the Republic of Cyprus are not only a threat to the integrity of the EU but also a further indication of its illegitimacy.

TCE Conclusion: The Need for a Re-evaluation of the Republic of Cyprus’ Status

The ongoing recognition of the Republic of Cyprus as the legitimate government of the entire island represents a profound failure of the international community to address the realities on the ground. This recognition is not just a political stance but a legal and moral endorsement of an entity that has violated the principles upon which it was founded.

The Republic of Cyprus, born out of constitutional violation, sustained through ethnic exclusion, and perpetuated by international complicity, remains an illegitimate state. The international community must reconsider its stance on Cyprus, recognizing the TRNC and holding the Republic of Cyprus accountable for its decades-long deception. Only then can a just and lasting solution be found for the divided island of Cyprus.