car 's objection and nebilla's reply about the legal aspects of turkey's 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 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 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 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 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 just after 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 st phase july and nd phase august of the operation in both of the first and second operation already finished years ago greece's court hence thought legal situation of both of the operations in advance of making any decision about the 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 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