Column
Occasion: Eight years since the “Final Agreement to Settle the Differences Described in United Nations Security Council Resolutions 817 (1993) and 845 (1993), Terminating the Validity of the 1995 Interim Agreement and Establishing a Strategic Partnership between the Parties”
About the agreement that violates the highest norms of international law, that challenges a nation and violates the principle of self-determination and self-identification
Author: prof. Dr. Igor Janev
In the annals of international law, the case with the additional illegal conditions for the admission of Macedonia to the membership of the United Nations (UN) will be remembered as a flagrant violation of its charter!
Since repetition is the mother of knowledge, let’s briefly recall the strategy for solving the issue of the name of the Macedonian state, which I offered back in 1993.
In the procedure for admission to UN membership, the Republic of Macedonia was conditioned by two additional conditions beyond those prescribed by Article 4 of the UN Charter. With the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice in The Hague from 1948, the procedure for admission to UN membership with additional conditions beyond the general ones prescribed in Article 4 of the UN Charter is considered inadmissible: the state must be peaceful and accept the UN Charter! This Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice in The Hague from 1948 was also accepted by the UN General Assembly in the same year as an interpretation of Article 4 of the UN Charter!
Namely, the additional conditions for the admission of the State of Macedonia to the UN -denomination and name negotiations, are in contradiction with Article 4 of the UN Charter and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice in The Hague from 1948. These two additional requirements exceed the time frame for admission to UNO! Namely, there is no conditional admission to the UN!
Hence, the state of Macedonia is not equal to other member states of the UN and the General Assembly of the UN is obliged to review the Resolution for the continuation of the membership of the state of Macedonia in the UN under its name!
Choosing your own state name does not create rights for that state, nor does it impose obligations on other states! Therefore, the name of a country, by itself, has no meaning in the qualifications that can be taken into account in the admission of that country to the membership of the UN!
With the first model, the state name Macedonia in the UN is established by a Resolution of the UN General Assembly, based on the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice in The Hague from 1948 and the fact that the Republic of Macedonia completed the procedure for admission to the UN Security Council with the attitude: The general conditions for admission are met! Macedonia just needs to request the extension of the membership in the UN under the state name of Macedonia! With a simple majority of those present at the UN General Assembly, Macedonia can continue its membership status in the UN under the state name of Macedonia!
The second model implies another intermediate step: the UN General Assembly, as in 1947, with a resolution to ask the International Court of Justice in The Hague whether the conditions for Macedonia’s admission to the UN are additional to those prescribed in Article 4 of the UN Charter. The International Court of Justice in The Hague should declare itself competent and establish an advisory opinion that additional illegal conditions have been set during the admission of Macedonia to the UN:
The “denomination” former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the obligation to negotiate for its own name, that is, for its own legal identity! After receiving the Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice in The Hague that the conditions for Macedonia’s admission to the UN are additional and illegal, the UN General Assembly should accept and eliminate the temporary address, i.e. the denomination “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, along with the illegal request for name negotiations. With this same resolution, in fact, the right to the state name in the UN should be enabled – the Republic of Macedonia. With the resolution of the UN General Assembly, the membership would be continued with the state name Macedonia!
Finally, the state name is not created by bilateral agreement, it implies that there was a dispute, and name disputes do not exist, which is why such agreements are invalid! History is irrelevant to the name of the states! Everyone has the right to interpret history as they wish, no one has an exclusive right to it, nor does anyone have a monopoly on limiting it to another according to their own reading.
