But while in most cases this will lead at worst to an asset that is neither appreciating nor yielding substantial rewards, there may be instances whereby a political situation makes the purchase unstable and, in some cases, there may be serious legal ramifications for the purchasers.

The trouble is that not all political hotspots are obvious . . . some are closer to home than many people would imagine and some can even seem like attractive propositions for investors.

For example, the embassy of the Republic of Cyprus is warning Irish investors about the implications of buying property in the northern part of the country . . . currently occupied by Turkey . . . which is illegal under EU law.

The northern part of Cyprus was seized by Turkey following an invasion in 1974 but the government of the Republic of Cyprus (the Greek Cypriot part of the island) is the only one recognised by the EU and, as such, the decisions of its courts can have ramifications for people in other member states.

The complications inherent in buying property in northern Cyprus were exemplified by a case which came before the British High Court regarding the building of a villa by a British couple on the property of a displaced Greek Cypriot named Apostolides. In November of 2004, the Nicosia district court found in favour of Apostolides and ordered the couple (the Orams) to return the land and pay him compensation for the loss of use of his property. The difficulty arose in the fact that, under the current situation, the Cypriot court's decision is unenforceable in the Turkish occupied part of Cyprus.

Nevertheless, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), in its judgments of 18 December 1996 and 10 May 2001 (in the case of Loizidou v Turkey and Cyprus v Turkey respectively) upheld the rights of displaced Greek Cypriots to their properties in the occupied part of Cyprus.

Under the terms of European law, a court decision in one EU member state is enforceable in another, and so Apostolides took the matter to the British High Court. And while the High Court decided on a technicality not to become involved in the enforcement of the Cypriot decision, it stated that "persons who purport to buy or occupy land belonging to displaced Greek Cypriot owners are trespassers and must be treated as trespassers".

Importantly, Apostolides has also been granted permission to appeal the High Court's decision, possibly all the way up to the ECHR.

The decision has implications for Irish purchasers.

"While a Cypriot court order might not be executed in the Turkish-occupied part of Cyprus, it could be executed in Ireland, " said Andreas Kakouris, ambassador of the Republic of Cyprus to Ireland.

"Because of this, it is possible that a person's property in Ireland could be seized to execute the terms of the order."

According to Kakouris, the danger for Irish investors lies in the property exhibitions which take place throughout Ireland.

"It is not inconceivable that Irish people, wittingly or unwittingly, could be duped by companies promoting sales in the occupied parts of Cyprus, " he said.

"We want to put out a warning to Irish people that there are companies which could be selling properties in the occupied areas as part of a wider portfolio. It is an unregulated market, so we try to work with the exhibition organisers not to accept companies promoting properties in the Turkishoccupied areas . . . although some companies do come in under the radar. This is why we are warning Irish people of the legal, financial, moral and ethical issues with buying in the Turkish-occupied part of Cyprus."