View Single Post
Old 07-19-2010, 05:47 AM   #6
Bratot
Senior Member
 
Bratot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,855
Bratot is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bratot View Post
3. The European Union along with the Organization of United Nations assisting Greek interests in breaking the basic International Laws, the basic Human Rights resolutions and commit unjustice towards Macedonia.


The biggest LIE ever to force Macedonia give over it's name was the manipulation that Macedonia had expansionist ambitions against its neighbours and the causes of this threat must be removed, alluding on the name - Macedonia.

Here is the fragment of European Council Declaration 2 annex on Yugoslavia and the conditions made to Macedonia:



http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lisbon/li2_en.pdf

As we can all see our recognition by EC as souvereign state by in it's existing borders was conditioned with accepting a name which does NOT include the term - Macedonia!

These conditions violates Article 4(1) of the UN Charter.



The last 20 years have shown that this claim was quite unfounded since the existence of the Republic of Macedonia under that name has not destabilised its neighbours.
It has demonstrated absolutely no threat to Greece.


The legal aspects were examined by Dr. Igor Janev:

http://www.macedoniainfo.com/United_Nation.htm

2. Legal Freedom of a State in the Choice of its Own Name

The inherent right of a state to have a name can be derived from the necessity that a juridical personality must have a legal identity. In absence of such an identity, the juridical person, such as a state, could to a large extent (or even completely) loose its capacity to interact with other such juridical persons (e.g. conclude agreements, etc.) and independently enter into and conduct its external relations. The name of a state is, thus, an essential element of its juridical personality and, consequently, of its statehood. The principles of sovereign equality of states 12 and the inviolability of their juridical personality 13, lead to the conclusion that the choice by a state of its own name is a basic, inherent right of the state. This right is not alienable, divisible or transferable, and is a part of the right to 'self-determination' (determination of one's own legal identity), i.e. it belongs to the domain of jus cogens norms. External interference with this basic right is inadmissible.

It is also obvious that if such an external interference with the choice of the name of a state would be allowed, even through a negotiation process, it might easily become a legally endorsed mechanism for interference in the internal and external affairs of that state, i.e. a mechanism for degradation of its political independence. From these reasons, the choice by the state of its own name must be considered as an inherent right of the state that belongs stricto sensu to the domain of its domestic jurisdiction. In exercising this right, the states have, therefore, a complete legal freedom. This freedom may in practice be constrained only by considerations of avoidance the overlap of legal identities of two (or more) international juridical persons. (The province 'Macedonia' in Greece, however, is not an international juridical person.)
Based on the principle of separability of domestic and international jurisdiction, the name of a state, which is subject of that state's domestic jurisdiction, does not create international legal rights for that state, nor does it impose legal obligations on other states. Clearly, the name per se does not have a direct impact on the territorial rights of states. Therefore, the earlier mentioned Greek allegation that the name of the applicant implies "territorial claims" has no legal significance. The Arbitration Commission of European Communities on former Yugoslavia also took this position and did not link the name of the country (Republic of Macedonia) to the Greek territorial rights.14 The same view is shared by prominent scholars of international law.15

Interference with matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of a state, such as the choice of state's name, is also incompatible with the UN Charter.16 Article 2 (7) of the Charter explicitly extends the validity of this legal norm to the United Nations themselves.17 It appears, therefore, that neither the Greek opposition to the admission of Macedonia to UN membership under its constitutional name, nor the intervention of the UN Security Council in the matters related to the name of the country, are consistent with the Charter.

3. Legal Status of a UN Member under Imposed Admission Conditions

According to the interpretation of Article 4(1) of the Charter given in 1948 18 and accepted by the General Assembly, 19 the conditions laid down in that article are exhaustive (and "not merely stated by way of guidance or example" 20), they must be fulfilled before admission is effected, and, once they are recognized as having been fulfilled by the Security Council, the applicant state acquires an unconditional right to UN membership.
This right is enshrined in Article 4 itself and comports with the universal character of the UN Organization. \
At the same time, and for the same reasons, the Organization has a duty to unconditionally admit such a state to UN membership. The Security Council in the preamble of its resolution 21 recognizes that the applicant state fulfils the required criteria for admission and yet, contrary to the accepted interpretation of Article 4(1) of the Charter, recommends that the applicant be admitted to membership with a temporary reference label (to be used for all purposes within the UN), and imposes an obligation on the future UN member to negotiate with a neighboring state about its own name. The fact that Security Council has ignored the strong objection 22 of Macedonian Government to such formulation of its resolution indicates that it considered the added conditions as necessary for giving the recommendation.

A specific feature of the additional conditions imposed on Macedonia for its admission to UN membership is that their effect begins with the act of admission. Their nature is quite different than that of the conditions laid down in Article 4(1) of the Charter: they need to be fulfilled not before the admission, but after it.

These additional conditions transcend their cause; their nature is obviously not legal, but rather political. According to the ICJ advisory opinion of 1948 23, no "political considerations" can be superimposed on, or added to, the conditions set forth in Article 4(1) that could prevent admission to membership. The broad nature of the prescribed admission criteria already provides space for appreciation of all political factors relevant for the judgement on the fulfillment of these criteria.

With its imposed provisional name (for use within the UN), i. e. with its derogated legal personality, and its obligation to negotiate with a neighboring country over its name, Macedonia has a legal status within UN which is obviously different from that of other member-states. Membership to the UN Organization, as a legal status, contains a standard set of rights and duties that are equal for all members of the Organization ("sovereign equality of the Members" 24). The admission of Macedonia to UN membership with additional, non-standard conditions (that impose on the member certain membership obligations) may be interpreted as "conditional admission", and, consequently, the resulting membership status as 'conditional'. The Charter, however, does not provide for conditional membership in the Organization. Suppose that Macedonia decides at one point in time not to comply anymore with its membership obligation to negotiate with Greece over its name.
What could be the possible UN sanctions for such non-compliance? Expulsion from UN membership would only prove that its present membership status is conditional. Other forms of sanctions would also indicate, in less evident way, the conditional character of the membership status.


Obstruction of the "settlement of the difference" over the name during the negotiating process may be another form of non-compliance with the membership obligation. Such obstruction in the negotiating process may be, however, introduced also by the other negotiating party (from political, economic or other reasons). The fulfillment of the imposed admission obligation may, therefore, depend not only on the good will of the party carrying the obligation, but also on a factor outside of its control. In fulfilling its membership obligations, Macedonia is, thus, not independent, which is another difference of its membership status with respect to the other UN member-states. There is still another important feature of the legal status of Macedonia as a UN member. By imposing the additional condition for admission of using a provisional name for the state within the UN, the legal personality of the future member-state has been heavily derogated by the very act of admission.

The derogated legal personality of Macedonia in the United Nations system is most clearly manifested in the area of representation. In all acts of representation within the UN system, and in the field of UN relations with other international subjects, the provisional, and not the constitutional, name of Macedonia is to be used. This is in violation with the right of states to non-discrimination in their representation in the organization of universal character, expressed in an unambiguous way in Article 83 of the Vienna Convention on representation of states.25 The right to equal representation of states in their relations with the organizations of universal character (such as the UN family of organizations) is only a logical derivative of the principles of sovereign equality of states within the UN Organization and inviolability of their juridical personality.

4. Conclusions

The imposed additional conditions on Macedonia for its admission to UN membership, in direct violation of several Charter's provisions, has created an unusual legal status of Macedonia in its UN membership. This status is characterized by a drastically derogated legal personality of the member (through an imposed legal identity), enlarged membership obligations (the fulfillment of which depend on factors outside of its control), and unequal rights in the area of representation compared with other member-states. Even the very nature of membership status is not quite clear, in view of the imposed sine qua non condition by the act of admission. It is uncontestable that the principle of 'sovereign equality of the members' of the Organization is severely violated in the case Macedonia as UN member.

The absence of any progress in the negotiations with Greece over the name after nine years indicates that the problem is fundamental by its nature. In fact, the dispute over the name appears to be not between Macedonia and Greece, but rather, in an implicit form, between Macedonia and the UN.
In this dispute Macedonia is defending its right to self-determination of its own legal identity. Macedonia obviously considers that right as being sovereign and alienable, and well grounded in the principles of law.


--------------
Another argument about the legal aspect:

The Republic of Macedonia was the FIRST STATE (legal subject) to make use of the name MACEDONIA when proclaiming it's independent republic in 1944 and with international rights, rightly defined by “Qui prior est tempore, potior est jure” - (he who is earlier in time is stronger in law) applies.
This means that the first in time prevails over the others.

This property law is called - Priority of Time

He who has the precedency in time has the advantage in right, is the maxim of the law; not that time, considered barely in itself, can make any such difference, but because the whole power over a thing being secured to one person, this bars all others from obtaining a title to it afterwards.


If we systematically complete the mosaic it's becoming relatively easy to reveal that all moves of the international factor are leading to: redefining, decomposing, apartioning ...or demacedonization of our state.

The future will show which is the exact intention.

According to the facts, the goal is the Macedonian people to lose their state.

It is certainly the easiest way to close the "Macedonian question", which still is open by all our neighbors.
If there is no Macedonian state, there will be no problems.
Quote:
The Macedonian Question
A Diplomatic Initiative in the 1990s
By Robin O'Neill CMG
http://www.wpct.co.uk/lectures/1997.htm
Thus, the national identity of Macedonian people, its language, culture, history ... will only be inevitable collateral damage - a result of a lost state.

The events of 2001 had a significant role in the implementation of these plans.
It still seems to us that they were merely a result of the developments in Kosovo and greater Albanian aspirations and nothing more.
But it is not: 2001 is a very important stage in the process of demacedonizing the state.
Ohrid agreement clearly confirmed that.

Throughout this galimatias, Athens is just initiator of this formal process, while the interests in it are significantly wider than the Greek aspirations.

In fact, his top carriers are other (very important) international factors:

1. First step - recognition of the state.
After the breakup of Yugoslavia, the EC Commission estimated that Macedonia has met the conditions for recognition. Brussels ignored it and did not recognize the state. Why?



2. The EC in June 1992 (Lisbon), on the recognition of the country has put impossible condition - not to use the name (word) Macedonia!
This requirement, in one form or another is the current all the time, but especially today: the state can only be accepted if it is not Macedonian. Why?



3. For about 18 months Athens imposed a complete economic blockade, closing the southern border. The north border no longer worked because of the UN sanctions on Yugoslavia. We were left with no rail links with the world. Nobody reacted although it was contrary to the provisions of GATT (Article 5) that internationally guaranteed free transit of (our) goods (by Greece). It took almost two years, which is enough to destroy even much stronger country than ours. The European court dismissed the case pretending that the blockade never happened. Why?

4.
UN, ignoring its own constitution (Charter) did not recognized the existence of a Macedonian state, and questioned its name.
Promise to solve the "problem" in a few months was a pure deceit to swallow the injustice.
They must have been knowing that their plan was not going to be achieved quickly.

http://www.mpil.de/shared/data/pdf/pdfmpunyb/wood_1.pdf


5. The Interim Agreement, signed in 1995 and deposited at the UN, was in 75 % in favor of Greece, but we got the guarantee clause that will be not block in our Euro-Atlantic integration.
This clause, however, proved to be an obstacle in realization of their plans.
The eventual entry into NATO and the EU, under the provisional reference, would significantly diminish the chances to take off the character of the Macedonian state.
After he(they) realized that that this obligation in the IA will complicate the situation, Nimetz said publicly that the agreement no longer applies!
Why for if not for this clause, which prevents any blockage of our integration into NATO and the EU, and now it is their major triumph card against our country?

We have witnessed many statements where it's clearly underlined to us: "If you want to enter EU/NATO you have to change your name!"

The cards have been slowly opened and the international factor is now without masks: playing with open threats and blackmails.

Their position is accurate: either the state will not be Macedonian, or no membership in NATO and the EU.
__________________
The purpose of the media is not to make you to think that the name must be changed, but to get you into debate - what name would suit us! - Bratot

Last edited by Bratot; 07-19-2010 at 05:55 AM.
Bratot is offline   Reply With Quote