the status of the negotiations regarding property
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
The Status of the Negotiations regarding Property

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 12

The Status of the Negotiations regarding Property - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

The Status of the Negotiations regarding Property. Proposals, Positions, Prospects. Overview. No chapter/dossier under negotiation has been closed Sides have agreed on the need to categorize and list types of property (and have made progress on this)

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'The Status of the Negotiations regarding Property' - catori

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
  • No chapter/dossier under negotiation has been closed
  • Sides have agreed on the need to categorize and list types of property (and have made progress on this)
  • Following the election of Eroglu the sides agreed to focus on property
  • But there is no joint paper on property
positions on property
Positions on property
  • Maximalist versus Current Positions
  • GC position had been that all properties should be returned to dispossessed owners
  • TC position has been in favor of a ‘global exchange’ (plus compensation to account for the difference)
  • Current negotiation positions are somewhat different
gc positions in current negotiations
GC Positions in Current Negotiations
  • GC position is that original/dispossessed owner must decide on the fate of the property
  • GC side appears to consider that in many cases GCs would not opt to return (to the north) as residents, implying that some would favor compensation
  • Perhaps as a consequence, GCs no longer insisting on 100% restitution
tc positions
TC Positions
  • Against the GC starting position that owners decide, TC position favors objective criteria for determining the fate of (different categories) of properties
  • Decisions would be made by an autonomous property commission
  • TC position envisions (limited) reinstatement of properties to original owners
  • TC position implies that ‘exchange’ title deeds (esdeger) will remain in TC hands, whereas other categories could be subject to return
  • It remains a matter of speculation what percentage of affected properties would be returned and is complicated further by different territorial adjustment scenarios
  • Mix of remedies
    • Compensation
    • Exchange of affected properties
    • Restitution
      • In the constituent state where the displaced person does not reside
      • Via territorial adjustment
    • But financing mechanisms remain undetermined.
    • Donors conference (not much hope there….but we could speculate as to whether hydrocarbons could be of some use!)
      • GC side envisions public debt issued by property commission while implying that current users also contribute.
        • Compensation payments linked to value of property over time.
      • TC side suggests “Guaranteed Financial Entitlement” (GFE)
        • Payable and guaranteed by TC constituent state
        • Collect funds to pay the GFEs from current users who gain title
        • Hybrid form of property and capital gains tax
        • Tax linked to value
Property development corporation (TC proposal)
    • PDC would develop “adversely affected property”
    • “Urban transformation” (grand improvement plans)
    • TCs says this is to ensure fair basis for exchange
    • ‘trapped value’ should be released
    • ‘Structurally depressed’ properties: values (of TC properties in the south) mostly due to zoning and the guardian laws
    • By contrast, GC properties in north developed (infrastructure)
    • So far, GCs have not rejected outright (since it may make exchange more attractive).
divergences etc
Divergences, etc.
  • Authority: who decides the fate of the affected property on what basis?
  • Dispossessed owner or an independent body?
  • Criteria….
  • TC concern is that GC position will undermine bizonality (“a clear majority of property ownership and population”)
  • In any event, we would need to simulate different models of exchange and territorial adjustment to assess probable outcomes
  • GCs reluctant to concede authority to an autonomous body
  • Recent ECHR decisions suggest that interests of current users should be balanced with ownership rights (competing rights)
Assumptions: Mediators think territory and property issues can be linked.
  • GCs might accept less property reinstatement (in TC constituent state) in return for more territory.
  • GCs ask for 100,000 (out of 162,000 displaced persons) be allowed to return as a result of territorial adjusment.
  • These figures imply indirect negotiations regarding Karpas peninsula.
  • Thus far, sides have not discussed numbers or maps (supposedly to be left to the final ‘give and take’)
  • Reconciling the two positions?
  • Some suggest model of ‘hierarchy’ whereby owners are categorized (which is logic of ECHR actually – determining how to resolve competing interests).
  • Living displaced persons could be high in the hierarchy (thus among those to exercise first right of refusal)
  • Similar categories could be made among current users.
  • Ultimately the agreement would require approval in referenda, so the particular model must satisfy the majority and be deemed equitable.