text: ~IGreatBritain wasnotasignatory totheTreatyofAlliance. ~I562Parliamentary Debate, HouseofCommons (5thser.)1267-68 (1956). He explained thatintheeventofanyexercise ofself-determination inthecolony, "I cannotseehowitisanything otherthanlogical tograntacommunity withsuchcloseinterests withTurkey, andonly40milesaway,thesamerightsasweareprepared torecognise should gototheGreekcommunity." Seeibid"pp.1269-70."Inotherwords," hesaid,uHerMajesty's Government recognise thattheexercise ofself-determination insuchamixedpopulation mustinclude partition amongtheeventual options." Seeibid.,pp.1267-68. Forafurther illustration ofthispointofview,seeBlay,"Self-Determination inCyprus: TheNewDimensions ofanOldConflict", 10Australian Yearbook ofInternational Law67,71-72(1984)(describing thisspeechasillustrative ofan"implied concept ofdoubleself-determination forCyprus"). ~IThetextoftheseproposed amendments ismostconveniently setoutinEhrlich, "Cyprus, the'Warlike Islel :Origins andElements oftheCurrent Crisis",18Stanford LawReview 1021,1043n.95(1966). QIThattheamendments wereinfactintended toeliminate theconstitutionalbalance ofpowerhasreceived confirmation inpublished accounts ofthe"AkritasPlan". TheAkritas PlanwasfirstpUblicized intheGreekCypriot newspaper Patrison21April1966.According toJ.Reddaway, thisplanwasablueprint forsecuringGreekdominance andsuggests thatoneofthegoalsoftheamendments wastoensurethewithdrawal oftheTurkish Cypriots fromtheirroleinthegovernmentestablished bytheConstitution. J.Reddaway, Burdened withCyprus, pp.133-34(1986). Whiletheauthenticity oftheplanhasbeenquestioned, Glafkos Clerides,thenGreekCypriot President oftheHouseofRepresentatives, confirmed itas I••. Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library^/ 44/967 sl2L420 English Page 10 NqleS (cotrtilued) getruitre in an interview r.ith Richard Patrlck ilr 19?L' R' Patrick' Potitical Geograpbv and the CX?rus Conflict (1976). 7/ The government of Turkey ltflmedliatety rejected the ProPosal ' The Times (Lontton), ? Decenber 1963, p. ?. ArchbishoP Makarios refussd to accept any iejection by tha turt<isrr cypriots. rhe rimes (Lotdon), 24 Decemb€r 1963, p' 6' g/ ExactLy how the Turtisb Cltpriot nenbers of the gov€rnflre[t were removed is a natter of historical alispute. Some sources claim tbat they voluntarily rtalked out ia protest. see, e.g., Blay, supra not€ 4, P' ?? ( "wher the Turkisb cypriots withalree frorn th€ go.r.tor.ot in the 1963-1964 crisls ..."); Evivriattes, "!he Legal Dimension of tho clTtrus colflict", 10 Texas lrt€rlational Law Jourlal 227 ' 247 (1975) (,'Th€ Turkish Cypriots, alleging a precoaceLvetl Greek Plan for their extsrminatio!, withdree from th€ governrneat and barricaded themselv€s in their ol,'n neighborhoods, r.fusing to aLlow iatercourse rith th€ Greek Cl/Priots ualess thsir coastitutional rigbts uere strictly observeil."). Ochers clalm that theY were forcibty removed from their officei by the Gr€ek cyPriots' See' e'9" -M' Tankoc'
analysis: The text appears to be a historical and political analysis of the Cyprus conflict, specifically focusing on the events leading up to the crisis and the subsequent attempts to resolve it. The language used is formal and academic, suggesting that the text may be an excerpt from a scholarly work or a court document. The content is dense and technical, with references to constitutional balances of power, self-determination, and international law. Given the focus on politics and international relations, it is likely that the text is related to a specific event or crisis in the history of Cyprus.