Car8025's Objection and Nebilla's Reply about The LEGAL ASPECTS of Turkey's 1974 Action 
Answer to  
i) "your arguments are very biased and unethical.". You took sentences that suit you from different documents to make a point without revealing the conclusion/true intentions of the author in your sources.
ANSWER: I directly wrote what is written in the resolutions and books. The title of the heading "The LEGAL ASPECTS of Turkey's 1974 Action " cannot prevent you put the resolutions/sources that indicate the operation as illegal.

ii) Why didn't you write the whole thing?
ANS: In the book, it wrote: "the member states did not maintain this view after the second round of military operations" is not something that is related with PACE. The views of the member states of a particular organization (here: PACE) does not bind the organization itself unless there is a resolution is made in that organization. 

iii) "The Resolution of the U.N Security Council and General Assembly indicate that the Turkish invasion was an illegal act..." in contrast with your other argument that "there is no UN resolution that calls the Turkey's 1974 action as "invasion". 
ANS: Here, in this sentence, "indicate that the Turkish INVASION was an illegal act.." is a naming that is done by the author, not the UN Security Council. What is binding in UN is the UN SC as you may know. And, once again, I am backing my writing: "There is no UN resolution that calls the Turkey's 1974 action as "invasion". If you claim otherwise, just put a resolution no/date so that we are all behind you at this point. Here is the whole UN SC resolutions: UN Resolutions. Which one of them calls the intervention as INVASION? No one! 

iv) Kareklas concludes: "Nevertheless, having regard to the EQUALLY POWERFUL ARGUEMENTS militating against unilateral armed INTERVENTION envisaged by treaty, it may be clearly concluded that Turkey SHOULD NOT HAVE EXERCISED A RIGHT OF INTERVENTION in Cyprus, 1974; however, such a proposition could remain subject to criticism, in view of the peculiarities of the Cyprus issue" 
ANS: Even the Greek Kareklas uses the word "INTERVENTION" as you see. Dear , "SHOULD NOT HAVE EXERCISED A RIGHT OF INTERVENTION" even demonstrates the legality of the intervention (the fact I empasized about the legality of operation in that aspect). "SHOULD NOT HAVE EXERCISED A RIGHT OF INTERVENTION" means that "THERE IS A RIGHT OF INTERVENTION" but "IT WOULD BE NICE IF THAT RIGHT WAS NOT USED AND THE ISSUE WAS SOLVED BY OTHER MEANS". , if you do not understand in this way, you should develop your English.

v) In 1979, JUST AFTER 5 YEARS LATER THE OPERATION, The GREECE's Athens Court of Appeals: "The Turkish military intervention in Cyprus...was LEGAL." Here, GREECE's court did not distinguish between the 1st phase (20-22July1974) and 2nd phase (14-16August1974) of the operation. In 1979, both of the first and second operation already finished 5 years ago. GREECE's court, hence, thought legal situation of both of the operations, in advance of making any decision about the 1974 war. , in the sentence "The Turkish military intervention in Cyprus...was LEGAL.", do you find any separation about both phase of the operations? 

vi) So... dear , as you see, I did not take the specific parts of the sources in part. The title "The Legal Aspects of Turkey's 1974 Action" does not prevent you to find and write illegal aspects of the operation as well. You are welcome to state this. As long as these are not the parts of the interested parties, you can be sure that the sources you will find will be welcome. As you see, I directly write the text of PACE's resolution. PACE is not one of the two parties. I directly write the text of the decision of the GREECE's court. Here, GREECE's court certainly is a party, but indicates opinion/decision just opposite to GREECE's government.  That is, you should show sources i) not a party (neutral source) ii) one of the parties but express opposite view to the party (in which it is located) itself.