Legality of the Prespa Agreement Between Macedonia and Greece

Igor Janev

doi:10.11648/j.jpsir.20190202.13

Abstract

In the present article we examine the legality of the Prespa Agreement, concluded on June 17, 2018, between Macedonia and Greece aiming at resolving their difference over the name of Macedonia. The analysis of the legal validity of Prespa Agreement is carried out by examining the legal basis of United Nations Security Council Resolution 817 (1993) recommending the admission of Macedonia to UN membership but imposing on the applicant a provisional name (pending the settlement of difference over the applicant’s name), its legal consistence with the provisions of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) and legality with the general jus cogens norms of International Law enshrined in the UN Charter. It is demonstrated that the UN SC Res.817 (1993) is by itself an ultra vires act and cannot serve as a legal basis for the Prespa Agreement (ex injuria jus not oritur), that the Prespa Agreement violates the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) and the peremptory norms of International Law, particularly the principle of self-determination and enters into legal matters that belong stricto sensu to the domain of domestic jurisdiction of Macedonia. For these reasons the Prespa Agreement cannot be considered a legally valid treaty and, consequently, it is null and void.

Highlights

The Prespa Agreement between Macedonia and Greece, reached on June 12, 2018 near the Prespa Lake, under the auspices of United Nations relates to the resolution of long-standing “dispute” between the two countries over the name of Macedonia [1]
In the Preamble of the Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties [14] it is stipulated that the State Parties of the Convention are “having in mind the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of United Nations, such as the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the sovereign equality and independence of States, of non-interference in the domestic affairs, [....], and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all”
Prespa Agreement the Parties of the Agreement are treated as un-equal: the First Party is identified by its constitutional name (Hellenic Republic), while the Second Party is identified as the state “which was admitted to the United Nations in accordance with the United Nations General Assembly resolution 47/225 of 8 April/1993”. 14 This unequal representation of the Parties of the treaty already in its Preamble is a violation of the principle of “sovereign equality”15 of states and inobservance of the dignity of the Second Party

Summary

Introduction

The Prespa Agreement (or Prespa Accord, or Treaty of Prespa) between Macedonia and Greece, reached on June 12, 2018 near the Prespa Lake, under the auspices of United Nations relates to the resolution of long-standing “dispute” between the two countries over the name of Macedonia [1]. Igor Janev: Legality of the Prespa Agreement Between Macedonia and Greece member to negotiate over its name with a neighboring state (Greece) Both imposed conditions on Macedonia at the moment of its admission (namely: (i) to accept a provisional name for all purposes within UN and (ii) to negotiate with Greece over its name), defining its UN Membership status, are in sharp violation of Article 2 (1) (“sovereign equality of Members”) of UN Charter. We note that the UN General Assembly admitted Macedonia to UN membership (GA Res. 47/225 (1993)) [4] on the basis of SC Res.817 (1993) (with the addition conditions therein)

Legality of a Treaty and the Grounds of the Prespa Agreement

Findings

Discussion

Conclusions