State responsibility which continued after the Protocol had come into force; it accordingly upheld its jurisdiction over the claim.245 (10) In the Loizidou case,246 similar reasoning was applied by the Court to the consequences of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974, as a result of which the applicant was denied access to her property in northern Cyprus. Turkey argued that under article 159 of the Constitution of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus of 1985, the property in question had been expropriated, and this had occurred prior to Turkey’s acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction in 1990. The Court held that, in accordance with international law and having regard to the relevant Security Council resolutions, it could not attribute legal effect to the 1985 Constitution so that the expropriation was not completed at that time and the property continued to belong to the applicant. The conduct of the Turkish Republic and of Turkish troops in denying the applicant access to her property continued after Turkey’s acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction, and constituted a breach of article 1 of the Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights after that time.247 (11) The Human Rights Committee has likewise endorsed the idea of continuing wrongful acts. For example, in Lovelace, it held it had jurisdiction to examine the continuing effects for the applicant of the loss of her status as a registered member of an Indian group, although the loss had occurred at the time of her marriage in 1970 and Canada only accepted the Committee’s jurisdiction in 1976. The Committee noted that it was: not competent, as a rule, to examine allegations relating to events having taken place before the entry into force of the Covenant and the Optional Protocol … In the case of Sandra Lovelace it follows that the Committee is not competent to express any view on the original cause of her loss of Indian status … at the time of her marriage in 1970 … The Committee recognizes, however, that the situation may be different if the alleged violations, although relating to events occurring before 19 August 1976, continue, or have effects which themselves constitute violations, after that date.248 It found that the continuing impact of Canadian legislation, in preventing Lovelace from exercising her rights as a member of a minority, was sufficient to constitute a breach of article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights after that date. Here the notion of a continuing breach was relevant not only to the Committee’s jurisdiction but also to the application of article 27 as the most directly relevant provision of the Covenant to the facts in hand. (12) Thus, conduct which has commenced some time in the past, and which constituted (or, if the relevant primary rule had been in force for the State at the time, would have 245 See footnote 236 above. Loizidou, Merits (see footnote 160 above), p. 2216. 247 Ibid., pp. 2230–2232 and 2237–2238, paras. 41–47 and 63–64. See, however, the dissenting opinion of Judge Bernhardt, p. 2242, para. 2 (with whom Judges Lopes Rocha, Jambrek, Pettiti, Baka and Gölcüklü in substance agreed). See also Loizidou, Preliminary Objections (footnote 160 above), pp. 33–34, paras. 102–105; and Cyprus v. Turkey, application No. 25781/94, judgement of 10 May 2001, Eur. Court H.R., Reports, 2001–IV. 248 Lovelace v. Canada, Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/36/40), annex XVIII, communication No. R.6/24, p. 172, paras. 10–11 (1981). 246 61 constituted) a breach at that time, can continue and give rise to a continuing wrongful act in the present. Moreover, this continuing character can have legal significance for various purposes, including State responsibility. For example, the obligation of cessation contained in article 30 applies to continuing wrongful acts. (13) A question common to wrongful acts whether completed or continuing is when a breach of international law occurs, as distinct from being merely apprehended or imminent. As noted in the context of article 12, that question can only be answered by reference to the particular primary rule. Some rules specifically prohibit threats of conduct,249 incitement or attempt,250 in which case the threat, incitement or attempt is itself a wrongful act. On the other hand, where the internationally wrongful act is the occurrence of some event—e.g. the diversion of an international river—mere preparatory conduct is not necessarily wrongful.251 In the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project case, the question was when the diversion scheme (“Variant C”) was put into effect. ICJ held that the breach did not occur until the actual diversion of the Danube. It noted: that between November 1991 and October 1992, Czechoslovakia confined itself to the execution, on its own territory, of the works which were necessary for the implementation of Variant C, but which could have been abandoned if an agreement had been reached between the parties and did not therefore predetermine the final decision to be taken. For as long as the Danube had not been unilaterally dammed, Variant C had not in fact been applied. Such a situation is not unusual in international law or, for that matter, in domestic law. A wrongful act or offence is frequently preceded by preparatory actions which are not to be confused with the act or offence itself. It is as well to distinguish between the actual commission of a wrongful act (whether instantaneous or continuous) and the conduct prior to that act which is of a preparatory character and which “does not qualify as a wrongful act”. 252 Thus, the Court distinguished between the actual commission of a wrongful act and conduct of a preparatory character. Preparatory conduct does not itself amount to a 249 Notably, Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations prohibits “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”. For the question of what constitutes a threat of force, see Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (footnote 54 above), pp. 246–247, paras. 47–48; see also R. Sadurska, “Threats of force”, AJIL, vol. 82, No. 2 (April 1988), p. 239. 250 A particularly comprehensive formulation is that of article III of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which prohibits conspiracy, direct and public incitement, attempt and complicity in relation to genocide. See also article 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and article 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. 251 In some legal systems, the notion of “anticipatory breach” is used to deal with the definitive refusal by a party to perform a contractual obligation, in advance of the time laid down for its performance. Confronted with an anticipatory breach, the party concerned is entitled to terminate the contract and sue for damages. See K. Zweigert and H. Kötz, Introduction to Comparative Law, 3rd rev. ed., trans. T. Weir (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1998), p. 508. Other systems achieve similar results without using this concept, e.g. by construing a refusal to perform in advance of the time for performance as a “positive breach of contract”, ibid., p. 494 (German law). There appears to be no equivalent in international law, but article 60, paragraph 3 (a), of the 1969 Vienna Convention defines a material breach as including “a repudiation … not sanctioned by the present Convention”. Such a repudiation could occur in advance of the time for performance. 252 Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (see footnote 27 above), p. 54, para. 79, citing the draft commentary to what is now article 30.