Legal and Political Aspects of Partition of Macedonian Territory

[Pelister]

This year and next year marks the 100th year since the start of the war over Macedonian territory, and its partition.

Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece seized Macedonian territory through an illegal us of force in 1912 and 1913. The Macedonian nation gave them no provocation.

At least since the 16th century legal philosophers have generally fallen into two camps. The first group have advocated that a war of aggression does confer 'rights' to the conqueror. The second group have advocated that a war of aggression (in legal terms known as 'Right by Conquest') does confer rights to that territory but with certain conditions. The second group advocate that an invading force has a legal right to territory only if it is a 'just' war and only if they have a 'just cause' for it.

The illegal seizure of Macedonian territory was not a 'just war' and there was no 'just cause' for it. It was robbery.

It is often stated that the Balkan League was formed to 'liberate' Macedonian territory and that the first Balkan War was a 'just war' while the second balkan war was not a 'just war'.

I am going to present information that brings the truth to light about the illegal seizure of Macedonian territory. I will also routinely post what international jurors have been saying about the seizure of territory in interntaional law over the last five centuries, and relate it to the invasion of Macedonia.

Here is something I came across by accident today. It relates to the first Balkan war, the nature of the alliances, the nature of that war and who was involved.

Background and context:

When the French Prime Minister first learned about the Serbo-Bulgarian Treaty (signed March 13, 1912), and the Bulgarian-Greek Treaty (signed May 29, 1912), he was alarmed. Poincare then suggested to both London and St. Petersburg, that the Entente powers sign a ‘pact of disinterestedness’ in the Balkans. This had an effect on the Russian court. Hugh O’Beirne, the Charge d’Affaires in St. Petersburg, wrote to Harold Nicolson, the British ambassador in St. Petersburg, about the effect of the French proposal at the Russian court.

Direct quote from the private letter of Hugh O'Beirne:

Sazonov has been greatly put out during the last few days by Poincare’s proposal…in his irritation he had spoken to me with great openness about Russia’s policy. His main objection to Poincare’s suggested declaration of disinterestedness was, of course, with reference to the impression which it would produce on the Balkan Slavs. He told me, what I had naturally surmised, that the Bulgarian and Serbian delegations which had visited Russia, ostensibly on the occasion of the Moscow celebrations, had in reality come in connection with the Serbo-Bulgarian secret Treaty. He explained that the delegations had come to ‘present’ the signed Treaty to the Emperor. Russia thus appears as a king of high protecting Power in the alliance concluded by the two Slav kingdoms, and the Emperor gives his formal sanction to the secret arrangement which contemplates, in certain eventualities, the partition of Macedonia. That Sazanov attaches real importance to this Treaty, and that in fact he means business by it, is shown by the way in which he took the (French) proposal to sign a ‘pact of disinterestedness’. Sazonov said that, coming immediately after the arrival of the Serbian and Bulgarian delegations, it would be regarded as a renunciation by Russia of her historic role in the Balkans, that it would have a disastrous effect… Sazonov regarded the suggestion as positively dangerous, and described it as playing with fire, by which I take him to mean that it is a dangerous thing to force Russia to show her hand about the Balkans… [Cited in Harold Nicolson, Sir Arthur Nicolson, Bart. First Lord Carnock, A study in the old diplomacy, Constable and Co. Ltd, London, 1930, pp.379-380]

This is cited in Harold Nicolson's book.

Harold Nicolson continues to narrate the story:

In September, M. Sazonov paid a visit to England, and on his return from Balmoral, Nicolson met him a Crewe Hall. It was there, on September 29, 1912 that they both received the news that Bulgaria had mobilised […] A formula was agreed upon by October 7 whereby the united Powers notified the Balkan States that if war broke out no territorial changes would be permitted.”

Summary:

The original Serbian-Bulgarian Treaty, according to the Russian Foreign Minister, Sazonov, proposed the partition of Macedonia.
The Partition of Macedonia has the full blessing and support of the Russian Tsar and government. Indeed, such a thing might not have been possible without it.
According to Harold Nicolson, the Powers new about it advance (debuncing another myth), and that they had notified the Balkan Powers, before the first war broke out, and "no territorial changes would be permitted"

[Daskalot]

Thank you Pelister, we need to go further with this topic and gather more information.

[Voltron]

Partioning what exactly ? In laymen terms, tell me how a country can be partitioned if it never existed as a country before ? How is it any different from what happened in Asia Minor or countless other territories that never had a chance to develop into a country like Kurdistan, Armenia, Mexco, Scotland, Basqueland.

Pelister, stop daydreaming.

[George S.]

Partiotioned means Divided up amongst themselves..Macedonia existed as a whole even whilst under the turks.Look at all the maps you will see a seperate whole macedonia.Can you explain voltron how one country can belong to 4 countries.Yes they can as they decided amongst themselves to divide it up & split it up regardless of the macedonia population of which was a majority.If the country didn't exist why did they appeal to the russian zars in the 1870;s & to the french in the 1890's& to others for a free macedonia& an independant one.
Macedonia was previously under the ottomans for 500 years.
Greece was never a country until 1832 until it was made independant by the powers that be.Prior to that greece was not even called greece it was a number of seperate states fighting amongs't each other,Where as macedonia has allways existed as macedonia for thousands of years,'
As for other countries i don't know but for macedonia it was partioned by 4 countries who decided among'st themselves to divide the landi llegally.

[Voltron]

Yes, same thing applies to Greece. Before we became a country it could of very well been divided and debatable to define what our country would supposed to be like. In fact that debate did happen and we lost big time because of it. I can very well claim that Asia Minor was confiscated, or North Epirus for that matter. Where does it end ? Even Poland disappeared from the map for a brief period of time and prior to that they were a legal country. And tell me this, how would you define your borders ? Would you claim Chalkidike ? or Salonika ? If anything the only loss you have is within the triangle of Edessa, Florina, Kastoria. Those were your strongholds and even today you still have many there and probably better protected from Islamic elements than in ROM today.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Partioning what exactly ? In laymen terms, tell me how a country can be partitioned if it never existed as a country before......same thing applies to Greece. Before we became a country it could of very well been divided and debatable to define what our country would supposed to be like.

Greeks, Bulgars and Serbs already had their own states, they joined forces to evict the Ottomans from Macedonia and occupy the region themselves with the aim of expanding their respective states, but concealed their irredentism with false claims of 'liberation' to the local population. Those foreign armies had no business there and if such an aim was openly declared from the beginning they would have met more resistance from the Macedonians. Don't insult our intelligence and pretend like there wasn't a recognisable geographical unit in which the majority of people were Macedonian-speakers with a history of asserting statehood. Despite the religious propaganda that had divided them, they did not want to see their country divided. The main thing that changed after the Balkan Wars was partition for Macedonia and three occupiers instead of one.

[DraganOfStip]

Yes, same thing applies to Greece. Before we became a country it could of very well been divided and debatable to define what our country would supposed to be like. In fact that debate did happen and we lost big time because of it. I can very well claim that Asia Minor was confiscated, or North Epirus for that matter. Where does it end ? Even Poland disappeared from the map for a brief period of time and prior to that they were a legal country. And tell me this, how would you define your borders ? Would you claim Chalkidike ? or Salonika ? If anything the only loss you have is within the triangle of Edessa, Florina, Kastoria. Those were your strongholds and even today you still have many there and probably better protected from Islamic elements than in ROM today.

Well,good progress is leaving out FY and just referring as RoM
About your claim:Asia Minor was conquered by Alexander the Great and so it's very unlikely to say that it's been "confiscated" from Greece,since it was never a part of Greece,it was a part of the MACEDONIAN Empire.Are you also gonna claim Egypt,Mesopotamia and other territories conquered by Alexander as well?I'm not gonna debate northern Epirus,but in the case of Asia minor I think everyone would disagree with you.Serbs,Greeks and Bulgarians took advantage of the political and social situation in Macedonia and under the mask of 'liberation' occupied Macedonia and Macedonians never saw it coming blinded by the idea of someone helping them get rid of the ottoman yoke until it was too late.

[Pelister]

Partioning what exactly ? In laymen terms, tell me how a country can be partitioned if it never existed as a country before ? How is it any different from what happened in Asia Minor or countless other territories that never had a chance to develop into a country like Kurdistan, Armenia, Mexco, Scotland, Basqueland.

Pelister, stop daydreaming.

I was expecting an ignorant response from you.

There is a difference between a nationality and a State. One thing I can tell you is that there has always been a Macedonian nationality fighting for its own State.

I am not going to respond to your posts again, but what I will do is post some contemporary evidence (because plainly you refuse to accept a Macedonians word).

The Macedonians had their own government, their own local Councils, their own laws, postal service, police and military among other things before 1912.

[Pelister]

Thank you Pelister, we need to go further with this topic and gather more information.

I will do my best.

In theory at least there are three parts to the claim of proprietorship over a new territory:

1. A legal claim
2. A claim of effective occupation
3. A moral claim

I am focusing only on the legal claim.

The legal principle relating to the seizure of foreign territory by military force is known as 'Right by Conquest' or the 'Principle of Effective Occupation'.

In October 1912, King George I of Greece signed a decree of occupation of Macedonian territory. The decree stated that Greece was in the possession of “Macedonian territory seized by the Greek army”. [John Shea, ‘Macedonia and Greece, p.103, and Viktor Gaber, Recognition and Denial, p.80]

By declaring that, the King of New Greece was asserting a claim (in international law) over Macedonian territory.

But do the New Greeks have a legitimate title?

The denial of the existence of a historical Macedonian nation, and nationality is a legal issue related to the circumstances around the conquest. Why had the New Greeks seized it, and did they have a right to it? Where did that right come from?

What I have found is that in international law, the New Greeks will NEVER be able to produce a "just cause" why they seized it, why they devastated the countryside with violence, and why for over a century they have targeted an innocent nation for extermination. The New Greeks have even failed to keep up with the law for a century as it relates to the rights and protection of conquered people. (In international law even a conquered people have rights, BUT NOT THE MACEDONIANS).

The only way the invading regime could establish and then sustain, some kind of legitimate title to its new territory:

1. Deny the existence of a distinctive Macedonian nationality

The New Greeks understood that any recognition of legal rights (specifically the rights normally accorded to the conquered people), is still a form of recognition of historical title. If it denied outright the existence of the native Macedonian movement, and nationality, it believed that it would circumvent the damaging legal and moral questions that would arise from the ongoing actions as a hostile invader (from 1904 to the present), and the rights of the conquered.

[Pelister]

The New Greeks will never be able to produce a legal right to Macedonian territory, other than by appealing to the right gained by sheer, naked and hostile aggression. It will never be able to produce a "just cause" why it seized Macedonian territory in 1912 and 1913, and set out ruthlessly exterminating all traces of the historical Macedonian nationality, because of 3 facts:

1. An indigenous Macedonian nationality and nation existed (fighting to free itself from Ottoman rule);
2. It gave the Kingdom of New Greeks no provocation;
3. The he invading regimes (Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece) were aware that the Macedonians were against any unlawful partition of their country, before they invaded.

Here is proof that the Macedonians were absolutely against any talk of the partition of their nation.

In 1900, the Bulgarian government provided a true sounding of the existence of a Macedonian nationality, and what it wanted.

Direct quote from the document:

We have incontrovertible proof that the greatest part of the Christian population of Macedonia is absolutely against any partition ... Any attempt at division would lead to the greatest dissatisfaction among the Macedonian population and bring about such conflict and discordance ... when the question of ‘spheres of influence’ (Macedonia divided among Serbian rule, and Bulgarian rule) was touched on for the first time a few years ago, we received the strongest protests ever heard at the time from the population of Macedonia. It resisted such a division with all its strength and declared that it did not want to put itself under the aegis of either Bulgaria or Serbia.

Source: Letter from Bulgarian government to its representative in Belgrade, 1900. Cited in Hans-Lothar Steppan, The Macedonian Knot, The identity of the Macedonians as revealed in the development of the Balkan League, 1878-1914, Peter Lang, Berlin, p.101

The only copy of this important document in existence is found in the Austrian archives, which suggests that the confidential report and all known copies of it had been destroyed subsequently, by the Bulgarian and the Serbian governments.

The practice of destroying any and all evidence - evidence linking the neighbouring states to a premeditated and unlawful seizure of territory, evidence of the existence of a Macedonian nationality, and of this nationalities protest against talk of the partition of its country, was systematic; there is no doubt that it was collaborative, practiced in concert by all invading regimes.

[Pelister]

Did the New Greeks have a 'legal right' to seize Macedonian territory by force?

The question here relates to the legal rights of the invader (the New Greeks) and the legal rights of the conquered people (the Macedonians).

Here is what some of the leading legal thinkers, and jurists had been saying over the last 6 centuries about the seizure of a foriegn territory by force.

I've been collecting these over the years. I'll cite a few here.

1.

J.J Burlamaqui in the book The Principles of Natural and Political Law published in 1823 argued that conquest as a legal mode of acquiring territory does not confer title.

"Conquest is not a legal mode of acquiring territory. It requires the consent of the people either tacit or expressed otherwise it is unjust."

Source: .J Burlamaqui, The principles of natural and public law, 6th edition, Translated by Thomas Nugent, Philadelphia, 1823, pp.74-75

2.

According to the Swiss legal philosopher, Emerich de Vattel:

"If a nation takes up arms when it has not received any injury and when it has not been threatened it wages an unjust war [...] Such an action is nothing more than a kind of robbery."

Source: Emerich de Vattel, Law of Nations (1758), p.280, Sec.27


3.

The international jurist, Samuel Pufendorf, took the same position. According to Pufendorf:

“if the territory is taken by an unjust war and held by force alone then the victor does not have a legal, or a legitimate right to the territory.”

Source: Samuel Pufendorf, De Jure Nature ef Grentium, Book III, Chapter 8, Sec.1 (see my notes, p.54)

4.

According to the legal philosopher, Grotius:

"The principle of conquest is not a legal means of acquiring territory, except where that war can be said to have been a just war. A conquest does not confer title, in which case it is to be regarded as mere robbery."

Source: Grotius, ‘De Jure Belli ac Pacis’, II, p.551, cited in McMahon, Conquest in international law, p.38

5.

Again, in our case on the question of the legal rights of the invader (New Greeks) and the rights of the conquered people (the Macedonians), the famouse jurist, Locke, was clear about it:

Locke, concluded that:

"The Aggressor who puts himself into the state of war with another, and unjustly invades another Man’s right, can, by such an unjust war never come to have a right over the conquered.

As to the rights of conquered (in this case the Macedonian people), Locke was clear. He noted that:

"Those who are descended and derive a title to their estates from those who are subdued, and had a government forced upon them against their free consent, retain a right to the possessions of their ancestors ... [T]hey have always a right to free themselves from the usurpation or tyranny the sword hath brought upon them”.

Source: Locke, Book II, Chapter XVI, p.176; Locke, Book II, Chapter XVI, p.192; The Law of Nations, bk.III, ch.13, sect.201

6.

Touching again on the legal rights of the New Greeks to Macedonian territory. The New Greeks might claim that it was a war against the Ottomans, not the Macedonians. This is a way of escaping their legal responsibilities.

The international philosopher, J.J Rousseau, noted:

It is immoral for a people to be acquired by a conqueror, or for those people to be transferred from one master to another, from one occupying force to another “without having their interests, grievances and wishes consulted in the first place.”

Source: J.J Rousseau, Political Writings, Ed. C.E Vaughan, 1915, i, 340-1

Comment:

What this means is that according to the “just war doctrine” in international law the New Greeks seized a foreign territory without a lawful cause. They seized it through an illegal use of force, and imposed a hostile government on the Macedonian nation, against the wishes of the people. The Macedonian people gave no provocation. The invading regimes had surveyed what the Macedonian people thought as to dividing their nation into foreign ‘spheres of influence’. The answer came back the same. The Macedonian people were “fiercely” against any talk of partitioning their nation, of ending up under another foreign ruler. They took anyway, knowing before they took it that the Macedonian people were against it.

The Macedonians have always known it. Western historians, however, have been slow to accept it.

[Voltron]

Greeks, Bulgars and Serbs already had their own states, they joined forces to evict the Ottomans from Macedonia and occupy the region themselves with the aim of expanding their respective states, but concealed their irredentism with false claims of 'liberation' to the local population. Those foreign armies had no business there and if such an aim was openly declared from the beginning they would have met more resistance from the Macedonians. Don't insult our intelligence and pretend like there wasn't a recognisable geographical unit in which the majority of people were Macedonian-speakers with a history of asserting statehood. Despite the religious propaganda that had divided them, they did not want to see their country divided. The main thing that changed after the Balkan Wars was partition for Macedonia and three occupiers instead of one.

Those foreign armies were all going after the same region. Even since the time of resistance fighters like Karev knew this. How did the local population not know what was the ultimate aim ? I am questioning Pelisters "Legal" reasoning not what you posted. Those are unrelated.
Fact is there was no country at the time to partition and Pelister argument is weak at best. This is coming from a "Legal" standpoint so the aspect of "Nation" does not apply since its ambiguous espescially during those times.

[George S.]

Voltron the partition of macedonia was totally illegal.Why because they were saying one country macedonia belonged to 4 countries(greek,serb,bulgarian,albanian).Isn't that absurd that they can change country borders at the whim of the powers.Just as they took it they should give it back to the macedonian people as it did not belong to them in the first place.Voltron have you read the respective propaganda that sprang from each country to assimilate the macedonians to denationalise them.They even had abcedar to teach them their macedonian language.Guess what the greeks tried to avoid teaching the macedonians their own language.When the serbs & bulgarians found out about the abcedar they became upset at not being consulted as they wanted to teach their macedonian populations macedonian.In the end they all avoided their obligations & avoided giving their respective macedonian populations their human rights.

[Soldier of Macedon]

How did the local population not know what was the ultimate aim ?

I am not saying Macedonians weren't aware of the way Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia behaved towards Macedonia, but during the Balkan Wars they were obviously led to believe that the foreign armies were there to liberate Macedonia from the Ottomans, not to partition it. Few Macedonians would have agreed to that. Read post #30: http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...arnegie&page=3

Fact is there was no country at the time to partition..........

The Macedonian region didn't need to be a contemporary sovereign state to be classified a country. To the Macedonians, who are the indigenous population of that region, Macedonia has always been a country since its inception during antiquity and throughout its history, be it sovereign, under occupation or part of a larger entity. This is the last time I will warn you to stop slithering forward this argument of Macedonia as a land of nothing and nobody that was up for grabs by the surrounding wolves. This is building up to be an interesting thread and your perverted ideas about Macedonia have no place here. Move on, or I will move you on.

[Voltron]

I more or less agree with what you said SOM, only part I disagreed with was the legal aspect and the positions put forth by Pelister.