International Court of Justice - Macedonia and Greece

[Vangelovski]

For those who haven’t recognised Buktop's general argument, its essentially the Neville Chamberlain "peace for our time", but with a slight spin to make it more malleable to the less discerning Macedonian (Neville Chamberlain was complicit in forcing the then Czechoslovakia to renounce territory to Germany in order to APPEASE Hitler).

The naive Chamberlain thought that he could either "buy time" (like Buktop and his "grand strategy") or more likely, appease Hitler's appetite and avoid war altogether.

What in fact would have had a much greater chance of DETERING Hitler from being so aggressive in the first place, and was the only policy that stopped Hitler after Chamberlain so miserably failed, was Winston Churchill's philosophy of iron determination and counter aggression, summed up perfectly in a number of his speeches, including:

...we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving...

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

It is amazing how the Chamberlains and Buktops of our world can repeat the same old tired MISTAKES and arguments over and over again, even though history and proved them WRONG again and again.

[Pelister]

Thats true Tom. Its worth remembering that Hitler wanted peace too, on his terms.

Buktop has latched onto the notion that this is a zero-sum game that is working to our benefit and in our interests. I've heard this kind of thing from other UMD advocates. They are generally infatuated with the West and will refer in the vaguest possible terms to the 'benefits' of joining the club - benefits for mine that are not there. Telling them that the policies of this instituiton are set against Macedonians means absolutely nothing to them. A blind nationalist in every way - not of Macedonia, but of the West.

[fyrOM]

I could be wrong but I always understood the action to mean you blinked first and broke the accord and you have no intention of sticking to it so we are making it nul and void. It’s a round about way but it breaks the accord while saving face and to use this high ground in future negotiations. The breaking of the accord has to be dealt with someway.

Considering also that germany has made public their intent to change the eu laws to not allow bilateral disagreements to affect a countries merits on eu candidacy I thought the two actions were playing hand in hand to achieve the same end ie push greeces veto out of the equation and nullify the accord to leave a smooth path for macedonias entry in the eu only on her merits.

[Risto the Great]

OM, I thought the same thing to begin with and was quite pleased. But then I read the detail and realised I was wrong.

[Vangelovski]

OM,

Read my summary above, or read the Macedonian Government's application. In order to declare the Interim Accord 'null and void', you need to argue that it was illegitimate and has no effect. How can you say it is illegitimate if you are trying to ENFORCE it in a court of law? The fact that they have taken it to the ICJ precludes them from then claiming they always considered it illegitimate, becuase they clearly do consider it a legitimate agreement and that is why they are seeking a Court to enforce their "rights" under the agreement. To declare something 'null and void' means it was never valid, never enforceable and never held any power. Seeking to ENFORCE it in Court and then claiming it is NOT ENFORCEABLE is a complete CONTRADICTION and a LIE spread by the likes of Buktop and our vassals.

There is no clever "cloak and dager" strategy, this is not a "game" and there is no "outsmarting" everyone.

[Jankovska]

OM,

Read my summary above, or read the Macedonian Government's application. In order to declare the Interim Accord 'null and void', you need to argue that it was illegitimate and has no effect. How can you say it is illegitimate if you are trying to ENFORCE it in a court of law? The fact that they have taken it to the ICJ precludes them from then claiming they always considered it illegitimate, becuase they clearly do consider it a legitimate agreement and that is why they are seeking a Court to enforce their "rights" under the agreement. To declare something 'null and void' means it was never valid, never enforceable and never held any power. Seeking to ENFORCE it in Court and then claiming it is NOT ENFORCEABLE is a complete CONTRADICTION and a LIE spread by the likes of Buktop and our vassals.

There is no clever "cloak and dager" strategy, this is not a "game" and there is no "outsmarting" everyone.

I am starting to really like you

[Big Bad Sven]

For those who haven’t recognised Buktop's general argument, its essentially the Neville Chamberlain "peace for our time", but with a slight spin to make it more malleable to the less discerning Macedonian (Neville Chamberlain was complicit in forcing the then Czechoslovakia to renounce territory to Germany in order to APPEASE Hitler).

The naive Chamberlain thought that he could either "buy time" (like Buktop and his "grand strategy") or more likely, appease Hitler's appetite and avoid war altogether.

What in fact would have had a much greater chance of DETERING Hitler from being so aggressive in the first place, and was the only policy that stopped Hitler after Chamberlain so miserably failed, was Winston Churchill's philosophy of iron determination and counter aggression, summed up perfectly in a number of his speeches, including:

...we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving...

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

It is amazing how the Chamberlains and Buktops of our world can repeat the same old tired MISTAKES and arguments over and over again, even though history and proved them WRONG again and again.

Brilliant post and i like your comparison with Hitler and Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain duped the Czeckoslavakians into thinking it was a good idea to give land to Nazi germany and that it would keep Hitler satisfied, as history proves this didnt workd and Hitler took all of Czeckoslovakia. Reminds me how the "International community" tricked macedonians into thinking that the Ohrid agreement was a good idea and that it would keep nationalist shiptars satisfied........ or that if macedonia changes its name it will make Grease happy and we will live happily ever after - the part that they didnt mention was that then grease will later want us to change our peoples ethinic name, language and religious title......

Macedonians need to stop burrying their heads in the sand in silly hopes that when tommorow comes everything will have sort it self out magically. Unless we take strong action and stop playing dinky little games nothing will happen and we will not be respected in the "international community"...

[julie]

Vangelovski, I enjoy your posts and your anologies are brilliant

[George S.]

International Court of Justice - Macedonia and Greece

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE


Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands

Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928 Website: www.icj-cij.org



Press Release Unofficial No. 2011/4 9 February 2011



Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995 (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia v. Greece)



The Court to hold public hearings from Monday 21 to Wednesday 30 March 2011



THE HAGUE, 9 February 2011. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, will hold public hearings in the case concerning Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995 (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia v. Greece) from Monday 21 March to Wednesday 30 March 2011, at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the seat of the Court.

Schedule for the hearings:

First round of oral argument



Monday 21 March 2011 3 p.m.-6 p.m.: the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Tuesday 22 March 2011 10 a.m.-1 p.m.: the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

3 p.m.-4.30 p.m.: the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Thursday 24 March 2011 3 p.m.-6 p.m.: Greece

Friday 25 March 2011 10 a.m.-1 p.m.: Greece

3 p.m.-4.30 p.m.: Greece

Second round of oral argument



Monday 28 March 2011 10 a.m.-1 p.m.: the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Wednesday 30 March 2011 3 p.m.-6 p.m.: Greece

History of the proceedings

On 17 November 2008, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia instituted proceedings against Greece for what it describes as “a flagrant violation of [Greece’s] obligations under Article 11” of the Interim Accord signed by the Parties on 13 September 1995.

In its Application, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia requests the Court “to protect its rights under the Interim Accord and to ensure that it is allowed to exercise its rights as an independent State acting in accordance with international law, including the right to pursue membership of relevant international organizations”.

The Applicant contends that in accordance with Article 11, paragraph 1, of the Interim Accord, Greece “has undertaken a binding obligation under international law” and that this provision lays down that Greece shall “not . . . object to the application by or the membership of [the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia] in international, multilateral and regional organizations and institutions of which [Greece] is a member”; the text provides however that Greece “reserves the right to object to any membership referred to above if and to the extent [the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia] is to be referred to in such organization or institution differently than in paragraph 2 of the United Nations Security Council resolution 817 (1993)”, i.e., as “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”.

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia asserts in its Application that the Respondent violated its rights under the Interim Accord by objecting, in April 2008, to its application to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia contends, in particular, that Greece “veto[ed]” its application to join NATO because Greece desires “to resolve the difference between the Parties concerning the constitutional name of the Applicant as an essential precondition” for such membership.

The Applicant argues that it has “met its obligations under the Interim Accord not to seek to be designated as a member of NATO with any designation other than ‘the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’” and affirms that “[t]he subject of [the] dispute does not concern - either directly or indirectly - the difference [that has arisen between the Parties over its name]”.

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia requests the Court to order Greece to “immediately take all necessary steps to comply with its obligations under Article 11, paragraph 1” and “to cease and desist from objecting in any way, whether directly or indirectly, to the Applicant’s membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and/or of any other ‘international, multilateral and regional organizations and institutions’ of which [Greece] is a member . . .”.

In its Application, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia invokes as a basis for the jurisdiction of the Court Article 21, paragraph 2, of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995, which provides that “[a]ny difference or dispute that arises between the Parties concerning the interpretation or implementation of this Interim Accord may be submitted by either of them to the International Court of Justice, except for the difference referred to in Article 5, paragraph 1”.

By an Order of 20 January 2009, the Court fixed 20 July 2009 as the time-limit for the filing of a Memorial by the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and 20 January 2010 as the time-limit for the filing of a Counter-Memorial by Greece. Those pleadings were filed within the time-limits thus prescribed.

On 9 March 2010, the Government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia expressed a desire to be able to respond to the Counter-Memorial of Greece and the objections to jurisdiction and admissibility contained therein by means of a Reply, and to have available for that purpose a time-limit of approximately four and a half months as from the filing of the Counter-Memorial. The Government of Greece had no objection to the granting of this request, provided that it could in turn submit a Rejoinder and would have an identical time-limit available for doing so.

Taking account of the agreement of the Parties, by an Order of 12 March 2010, the Court authorized the submission of a Reply by the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and a Rejoinder by Greece. It fixed 9 June 2010 and 27 October 2010 as the respective time-limits for the filing of those pleadings. The Reply and the Rejoinder were filed within the time-limits thus prescribed and the case became ready for hearing.

___________

The written pleadings filed by the Parties (Memorial, Counter-Memorial, Reply and Rejoinder) are not yet publicly available. In accordance with Article 53, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, the Court “may, after ascertaining the views of the parties, decide that copies of the pleadings and documents annexed shall be made accessible to the public on or after the opening of the oral proceedings”.

The full text of the Application instituting proceedings filed by the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and both Orders made by the Court in this case are available on the Court’s website (www.icj-cij.org).

___________

NOTE TO THE PRESS AND PUBLIC

1. The public hearings will be held in the Great Hall of Justice of the Peace Palace. Mobile telephones and beepers are permitted in the courtroom provided they are switched off. Any offending device will be temporarily retained.

2. Media representatives are subject to an online accreditation procedure, details of which can be found in the Media Advisory accompanying this Press Release. The accreditation procedure will close at midnight on Thursday 17 March 2011.

3. Individual visitors (with the exception of members of the Diplomatic Corps) and groups are subject to an online admission procedure. They are required to submit an application on the Court’s website (click on “Attending a Hearing”) by midnight on Thursday 17 March 2011.

4. Verbatim records of the hearings will be published daily on the Court’s website, with translations to follow as soon as practicable thereafter. On the final day of the hearings, a Press Release presenting the final submissions of the Parties will be handed out and posted online.

___________

Information Department:



Mr. Andrey Poskakukhin, First Secretary of the Court, Head of Department (+31 (0)70 302 2336)

Mr. Boris Heim, Information Officer (+31 (0)70 302 2337)

Ms Joanne Moore, Associate Information Officer (+31 (0)70 302 2394)

Ms Genoveva Madurga, Administrative Assistant (+31 (0)70 302 2396)

Reference this was taken from a private email from Risto Stefov.

[George S.]

It's going to be interesting to see how this evolves.

[Daskalot]

Interesting, when will we have the ICJ verdict?
I cannot find it in the text above.

[Ottoman]

Imza, brother.

[Soldier of Macedon]

The Applicant contends that in accordance with Article 11, paragraph 1, of the Interim Accord, Greece “has undertaken a binding obligation under international law” and that this provision lays down that Greece shall “not . . . object to the application by or the membership of [the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia] in international, multilateral and regional organizations and institutions of which [Greece] is a member”; the text provides however that Greece “reserves the right to object to any membership referred to above if and to the extent [the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia] is to be referred to in such organization or institution differently than in paragraph 2 of the United Nations Security Council resolution 817 (1993)”, i.e., as “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”.

Embarrassing, disgraceful and pathetic.

Hold your head in shame Nikola Gruevski, after Bucharest you duped the Macedonian people into thinking that you are going to pull out of the negotiations, and now you are taking Greece to the ICJ because they will not call us by that false name in international organisations!

[George S.]

Daskalot i'll find out for you.

[Volk]

Embarrassing, disgraceful and pathetic.

Hold your head in shame Nikola Gruevski, after Bucharest you duped the Macedonian people into thinking that you are going to pull out of the negotiations, and now you are taking Greece to the ICJ because they will not call us by that false name in international organisations!

Thats a very 1 dimensional view SOM. What would be the purpose to take greece to the ICJ when the its ruling is only symbolic as cannot be enforced?

Since the court has no power, surley the case was not put forward for Macedonia to join NATO or EU under FYROM... was it?