Sixty-two years after its establishment in the jurisprudence of the Republic of Cyprus, the Doctrine of Necessity continues to serve as a cornerstone of state governance, allowing state institutions to function without the participation of Turkish Cypriots as originally envisaged under the 1960 Constitution.

Legal academics speaking to CNA examined the evolution of a doctrine born out of the constitutional crisis of 1963 and established through the landmark Attorney General of the Republic v. Mustafa Ibrahim ruling in 1964. While they highlighted its decisive role in safeguarding the continuity of the Republic, they also pointed to concerns arising from its lengthy application.

Dr Christos Papastylianos, Associate Professor of Public Law and Head of the Department of Law at the University of Nicosia, said the Doctrine of Necessity was linked from the outset to the inability of the Cypriot state to function according to the bicommunal structure established by the 1960 Constitution.

As he explained, following the events of 1963, the withdrawal of Turkish Cypriots from the Government, the House of Representatives and the Public Service, as well as the resignations of the Presidents of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court, left key state institutions unable to function as required by the Constitution.

It was in this context that the Supreme Court introduced the Doctrine of Necessity through the Ibrahim decision.

According to Dr Papastylianos, "under the Doctrine of Necessity, the composition of state organs cannot affect their operation to such an extent that strict adherence to constitutional rules would render them incapable of exercising their powers."

This reasoning allowed for the suspension of certain constitutional provisions relating to the composition of state institutions, enabling them to continue operating despite the absence of the Turkish Cypriot community.

He noted that, according to the Ibrahim ruling, the doctrine contains an inherent temporal element, as it was "a principle developed because of specific events and will remain in force until the cause of its application, namely the division between the two communities, is resolved".

At the same time, he explained that its application effectively created transitional constitutional rules that acted as a bridge between the constitutional order of 1960 and the reality that emerged after 1963.

These rules, he said, "do not amount to a transitional constitution, as they exist alongside a complete and already established constitutional text".

This made it possible to establish new institutions, including a new Public Service Commission and a new Supreme Court, which merged the two supreme courts envisaged under the 1960 Constitution.

Dr Papastylianos added that from the 1990s onwards, Supreme Court jurisprudence expanded the application of the Doctrine of Necessity beyond the functioning of state organs.

According to him, it was applied in cases where the Constitution required the participation of both communities through separate majorities, including decisions concerning the number of MPs and amendments to non-fundamental constitutional provisions.

He said this development is significant because constitutional amendment procedures are linked to democratic consent and the mechanisms through which the governed express their will.

"The Doctrine of Necessity is gradually moving beyond its original purpose of ensuring the smooth functioning of state institutions and is leading to a redefinition of the State, the system of government and ultimately the Constitution itself," he concluded.

From survival tool to long-term constitutional reality

Dr Costas Paraskeva, Associate Professor of Public Law and Human Rights at the University of Cyprus, focused on the implications of the doctrine's prolonged use.

"Since 1964, the Doctrine of Necessity has shaped our constitutional life," he said, noting that it enabled the Republic of Cyprus to survive and function despite the inability to apply the original constitutional framework following the withdrawal of Turkish Cypriots from state institutions.

However, he argued that its long-term application has altered the state's constitutional architecture and weakened institutional checks and balances linked to the bicommunal nature of the system.

"Since 1964, in the absence of the Turkish Cypriot community, this mechanism has been shattered, leaving a significant gap in the system of checks on those who govern and on institutions," he said.

He added that Cypriot citizens themselves make a continuous sacrifice by accepting the operation of the state outside its original constitutional framework in the name of necessity, a necessity initially viewed as temporary but which today "tends to become permanent".

The international dimension

For his part, Dr Antonis Stylianou, Lecturer in Law at the University of Nicosia and an international relations specialist, highlighted the doctrine's significance beyond Cyprus.

"The invocation of the Doctrine of Necessity was essential for the continuation of the Republic of Cyprus as established in 1960 through the Zurich-London Agreements and the 1960 Constitution," he said.

According to Dr Stylianou, the Ibrahim case remains an international point of reference on the doctrine and is based on the principle that "the safety of the state is the supreme law".

He explained that when exceptional circumstances threaten the continued functioning of a state and no alternative solution exists, certain constitutional provisions may be temporarily suspended to ensure continuity of governance.

Dr Stylianou noted that Cyprus' case has also received international recognition. He pointed to UN Security Council Resolution 186, which recognised the Republic of Cyprus established in 1960 as the only state on the island.

He added that the European Court of Human Rights has likewise recognised the unique circumstances arising from the doctrine's application.

However, he stressed that the doctrine is not a "blank cheque" and requires specific conditions, including the existence of exceptional circumstances, the absence of alternative solutions, proportionality and a temporary character.

Referring to its current relevance, he said that "the Doctrine of Necessity exists and continues to be applied", as it remains the legal foundation for the functioning of the Republic of Cyprus while the conditions that led to its adoption persist.

He added that the Republic maintained its bicommunal constitutional framework because altering or abolishing provisions concerning Turkish Cypriot rights could affect its international standing.

"It was not the Republic of Cyprus that excluded them from participation. The Turkish Cypriots withdrew themselves," he said.

Sixty-two years after the Ibrahim ruling, the Doctrine of Necessity remains one of the most distinctive chapters in the constitutional history of the Republic of Cyprus. Born out of a crisis that threatened the functioning of the state, it ensured institutional continuity while at the same time creating a constitutional reality that continues to be debated today.

Source: CNA.

Doctrine Of Necessity #