Land ownership has always been a sensitive issue in the long history of the Greek-Turkish political dispute over Cyprus. In pursuing their clashing political aspirations, both communities have traditionally relied on competing claims as to how much land rightfully ‘belongs’ to either community.

This rivalry essentially began during the British period – a period of flux in property ownership, as transition occurred from the feudal traditions based on the Ottoman land code to modern property relations. And no doubt that had something to do with the inclusion of a regulatory stipulation like the following one in the Zürich-London Agreements that founded the Republic of Cyprus (RoC): ‘In the event of agricultural reform, lands shall be redistributed only to persons who are members of the same community as the expropriated owners.’ (Note that this requirement is also reflected in article 23/6 of the RoC constitution.)

Land ownership continued to be a politically significant issue during the intercommunal crisis of the 1960s when claims and counter claims were difficult to verify as neither community would allow impartial inspection of its land registry records. Of course this controversy not only remained unresolved but became spectacularly more complex after the 1974 de facto division of the island. Division left nearly one third of the Greek Cypriot (GC) community and about half of the Turkish Cypriot (TC) community displaced, thus resulting in a huge problem of rights with respect to lost homes and properties.

Not surprisingly, there are no established figures accepted by both sides as regards GC property in the north and TC property in the south of the line that now divides the island. Official GC estimates are generally disputed by the TC side on grounds of unreliability of the GC-controlled land registry records since the bi-communal government’s collapse in 1963. The TC side also argues about outstanding problems arising from alleged usurpations of Evkaf properties prior to the establishment of the RoC.

According to GC estimates, 1,463,382 donums of land in the north (78.5% of all non-public property there) belong to GCs and 413,177 donums of land in the south (13.9% of all non-public property there) belong to TCs.

TC estimates, on the other hand, put GC-owned land in the north at 1,228,838 donums (63.8% of all non-public property there) and TC-owned land in the south at 679,057 (22.8% of all non-public property there).

The property issue is a core item on the tightly interlinked agenda of the UN-sponsored negotiations to settle Cyprus’ ‘unresolved division’. Technical, economic and social considerations are obvious challenges in negotiating arrangements to settle property claims. However, a major difficulty here stems from disagreements which can be traced to the fundamental political conflict between the two communities.

The ostensibly universally agreed objective of the Cyprus negotiations is ‘reunification on a bizonal basis’. The phrase signifies a search for a compromise formula to reconcile the two communities’ clashing ideas of the ‘correct’ solution in Cyprus – ideas that arise from their contradictory perspectives on the split that emerged after 1974. While reunification is the GC side’s primary concern, bizonality is what really matters to the TC side.

From the TC standpoint, division is the inevitable consequence of the progressive segregation of the two communities since at least 1963 due to the unrelenting GC determination to make Cyprus Greek.

The present de facto situation provides the ground – after some territorial adjustments – for a bizonal solution. This, the TCs believe, is the only way to ensure their freedom from GC domination. As regards the property issue, the solution must be in accordance with the political principle of bizonality. Thus the exercise of property rights by displaced persons should be regulated in order not to upset too much the present settlement patterns of the two communities.

In contrast, the GCs generally think of the problem as having started in 1974 as a result of what they see as Turkey’s unprincipled invasion of a substantial part of their country. The subsequent faits accomplis of this act threaten the survival of Cypriot Hellenism in its ancestral lands and the unity of its historical space.

Thus the creation of an essentially Turkish zone, as in the TC conception of bizonality, is unacceptable to the GCs. For them this is not reunification but perpetuation of division, a situation which must be resisted and reversed. In line with this position, on the property issue the GC side demands a solution based on full respect for basic human rights including displaced persons’ right to repossess and return to their properties.

In support of its view of what bizonality entails, the TC side refers to a clarification of the notion by the UN in the early 1990s: each federated state to be administered by one community which would be guaranteed a clear majority of the population and of land ownership in its area.

The GC counter-argument, however, is that this cannot be done through arrangements that sacrifice the principle of respect for basic human rights. The GC side insists that this position is backed by the recent ECHR findings that, under the present circumstances in the north, there is a widespread problem of violation of GC individuals’ right to respect for their homes and properties.

Unlocking this impasse is undoubtedly one of the main challenges in the present negotiations for a mutually acceptable ‘bizonal reunification’ of Cyprus.

Ayla Gürel
PRIO Cyprus Centre, Nicosia
May 2009

n This article appears in the current edition of Greek language Cypriot socio-political magazine Revma