Why should the British Bases in Cyprus be closed in an International Order driven by the Rule of the Mighty?

This double standard is deeply troubling and exposes the hypocrisy at the heart of the “rules-based order.” We can see how international law is applied selectively. For instance, the EU’s insistence on a just peace in Ukraine “based on the principles of the UN Charter and international laws concerning territorial integrity and sovereignty” stands in stark contrast to its silence on Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestinian territories and its repeated violations of Palestinian human rights.

This disparity clearly stems from a prioritization of geopolitical interests over human rights. Israel’s strategic importance as a Western ally in the Middle East has shielded it from consequences for its actions, even when they clearly violate international norms. The idea that international law and its institutions are biased in favor of Israel and insufficiently hold it accountable for alleged violations in Gaza is a point raised by numerous scholars, legal experts, and international organizations. This claim centers on the perception that institutions like the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) face political and structural limitations that prevent effective accountability.

The international legal system is heavily influenced by political considerations, particularly those of powerful states, such as the United States, which is a close ally of Israel. This influence undermines the impartiality of international law and selectively shields certain states from accountability. Legal experts argue that the ICJ and ICC are inherently limited by their mandates, jurisdictional constraints, and enforcement mechanisms. While the ICJ can issue advisory opinions, its ability to enforce them is limited, and its jurisdiction relies on state consent. Meanwhile, the ICC lacks jurisdiction over non-signatory states unless referred by the UN Security Council (UNSC), which has frequently faced political gridlock.

2. The British Bases in Cyprus: A Legacy of Colonialism

The British Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs) in Cyprus represent a striking example of how colonial legacies continue to shape the international order. Established in 1960 as part of the agreement that granted Cyprus independence, the SBAs have allowed the UK to maintain a strategic military presence on the island. The SBAs were conceived as a means for the UK to safeguard its military interests in the Eastern Mediterranean, particularly during the height of the Cold War.
The legal status of the SBAs is complex and highlights the exceptional powers granted to the UK over Cypriot territory. The 1960 Treaty of Establishment, which established the legal framework for the SBAs, contains numerous provisions that grant the UK extensive rights over Cypriot territory, including the right to intervene in the administration of crucial facilities and services.
This situation raises questions about the legitimacy of the SBAs and the extent to which they undermine Cypriot sovereignty. The SBAs act as “states of exception” within Cyprus, operating outside the bounds of Cypriot law and prioritizing British military needs. In that sense, the SBAs perpetuate a form of neocolonialism, where the UK continues to exercise significant control over a strategically valuable territory.

3. The use of SBAs for supporting Israeli military operations in Gaza in 2023 and 2024

Although the UK government has sometimes denied or refused to comment on specific operations, various sources reveal that the British Sovereign Base Areas were used to support Israeli military operations in Gaza in 2023 and 2024. Especially RAF Akrotiri have been used as a staging point for military operations in the Middle East region, including in support of Israel. According to a source, since October 7 2023, the UK reportedly sent 60 aircraft to Israel from these bases. US Special Forces flights to Israel from RAF Akrotiri also increased significantly in 2023 and 2024.
The British bases are also used for intelligence facilities that contribute to US and NATO assessment capabilities. These facilities help monitor activities across the Middle East and North Africa.

4. Objecting to British Bases in an Unjust Order
In an international order characterized by the “law of the strongest,” the presence of the British bases in Cyprus becomes even more problematic.

So in an international order characterized by the law of the strongest, where powerful states can assert their dominance over weaker nations with little regard for international law, there are three important reasons to object British bases in Cyprus.

British bases undermine Cypriot Sovereignty: The SBAs represent an infringement on Cypriot sovereignty, limiting the island’s ability to exercise full control over its territory. This undermines the principles of territorial integrity and self-determination enshrined in international law.

British bases are perpetuating colonial legacies: The continued presence of British military bases on Cypriot soil reinforces a colonial power dynamic, serving as a reminder of the island’s history of foreign domination.

Facilitating Regional Instability: The SBAs being used to support Israeli military operations in Gaza raise concerns about their role in perpetuating regional conflict. This means that the UK is complicit in Israel’s violations of international law and is contributing to the ongoing cycle of violence in the Middle East.

The existence of the British bases in Cyprus, in a world increasingly defined by power politics and selective application of international law, underscores the urgent need for a more just and equitable global order. This order must prioritize human rights over strategic interests and hold all states accountable to the same standards of international law, regardless of their power or influence.