Presentation of the Greek summing Hague
Η Καθημερινή - Wednesday, March 30, 2011
The political and legal arguments of the Greek side, in which contradicted the positions of the FYROM, dynamically highlighted as relevant sources estimate before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the legal team of Greece in the second round of hearing on Greek summing completed Wednesday in the capital of Holland.
Key points of the arguments against the positions of the other side, developed at the meeting of March 28 (second round HEARING / Skopje presentation) were, according to the same sources, the following:
First: Lack of jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of the application of FYROM that closely link the dispute to the name issue, the procedures of NATO and the resulting lack of practical feasibility of the decision.
Second: In terms of substance, no violation by Greece of Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Interim Agreement, since, among other things, was a collective decision, not our country, but the Alliance, based on the criteria for inclusion in it also due to the use of constitutional name in international organizations in terms of Macedonia gave our country the right to object.
Third: Invoking Article 22 of the Interim Agreement, which provides that the provisions of the latter do not conflict with pre-existing rights and obligations of the parties arising from other bilateral agreements and their participation in international organizations
Fourth: In any case, our country had every right, under special circumstances (FYROM unconventional behavior, as irredentist actions, etc.) to oppose the admission to NATO.
The presentation was made by summing Greek teachers - lawyers, Alain Pele, Michael Raisman, James and George Crawford, Abia Saamp. The introduction and the political background of the case put by the representative of Greece, the legal adviser M. Telalian. The representative of Greece, Honorary Ambassador, George Savvaidis completed the Greek presentation summarizing the legal arguments, setting the political situation and providing the Court with the demands of the Greek side on the verdict.
In particular, the Greek argument developed again in the following areas:
-
(A) Mrs Telalian developed that since the signing of the Interim Agreement had become clear that Macedonia would follow a dual approach to circumvent it, namely, phasing in the use of constitutional name in international organizations, and concentration the largest possible number of bilateral recognitions, the sole strategic objective of the de facto establishment of the name choice and undermine the negotiating process for the name, in violation of both the relevant decisions of the Security Council and the Interim Agreement itself.
Mrs. Telalian underlined the weight of the Interim Agreement on the normalization of relations between the two countries and the paramount importance that Greece attaches to a vehicle of friendship and cooperation, rather than another site promotion disputes and problems. This was the main reason why Greece has denounced the Interim Agreement, despite repeated violations by Macedonia and corresponding to that Greek inscriptions / complaints before international bodies.
-
(B) As to the question of jurisdiction of the ICJ, was repeated by Prof. Raisman, that the Court dispute concerns both direct and indirect, to resolve the central issue of the name, which is expressly excluded, under Article 5 paragraph 1 of the Interim Agreement, the Court's jurisdiction. In the event that the court would have done to judge the particular dispute, in fact accept jurisdiction over the aforementioned exception of the issue and, in doing so would undermine the actual content and objectives of the Interim Agreement and even anticipate and the result of ongoing negotiations under UN auspices.
-
(C) As regards Article 22 of the Interim Agreement, made by Professor Crawford, that is not designed to protect the rights of third countries in respect of provisions, but instead is to preserve and not to return to pre-existing rights and commitments of third parties both Contracting Parties to the Interim Agreement (ie, Greece and FYROM). Therefore, the provisions of the Interim Agreement, especially Article 11, are bent when it comes to respecting the criteria, conditions and obligations which must meet a state to join NATO.
Then, o Prof. Crawford has focused on the wording of the Decision 817 of the ADA and in reference to the other party's obligation to use only the temporary name for all purposes within international organizations, obligation grossly and systematically violated by FYROM. He stressed that the obligation to use the temporary name is constant and it binds Macedonia derives from binding decision of the Security Council under Article 25 of the Charter has not been received and legally binding form of integration with the Interim Agreement.
(D) Subsequently, Prof. Pele mentioned again in violation of the Interim Agreement on the part of Macedonia and related protests in our country during the period before the summit in Bucharest. Therefore, even if it were considered that our country has opposed the admission of Macedonia to NATO as opposed to the provisions of Article 11 of the Interim Agreement, that may be justified on the basis of the principle of non ekplirothentos Exchange, which governs the theory of counter to the law of international responsibility, and relating to the suspension of the circumstances provisions of the Vienna Convention of 1969 on the Law of Treaties.
(E) Then, Prof. Abby-Saamp summarized some key pillars of our legal arguments, emphasizing the protests of the Greek side in international organizations to use Macedonia's constitutional name. It also refuted the argument that FYROM the right to use the constitutional name is supported in a statement Mr. Nimetz in 1993, and this statement not to use the constitutional name of FYROM authorities.
-
Finally, the argument of FYROM that the Interim Agreement allows the use of Macedonia's constitutional name in international organizations in relations with Greece and, by extension, at the multilateral level, he replied that this is unfounded as (i) our country is still and bilaterally does not accept name but leaving stamp on the document for non-recognition of Macedonia and (ii) at the multilateral level, decision 817 (1993) Security Council does not provide a basis for such an interpretation. In conclusion, he stressed that a decision of any Court which would justify the FYROM will significantly impair the dispute surrounding the name.
(F) The representative of Greece, Honorary Ambassador Mr. Savvaidis, quoted in summary, the points highlighted and demonstrated the Greek arguments, namely that:
-The case is outside the jurisdiction of the ICJ, given that it "directly or indirectly" in the dispute about the name, which is expressly excluded from that jurisdiction, and also lacks the character and admissibility.
-The decision of the NATO Summit in Bucharest was a result of collective and long process of consultations in accordance with established practice in this case established the Alliance.
-In each case, however, the behavior of the other party and by then by the address of its obligations as deriving from the Interim Agreement (repeated violations), constitute sufficient justification for the lack of support towards the Greek form of FYROM to join NATO.
-Greece, in 1995, took the strategic decision to reach an agreed solution to the name through negotiations under UN auspices. And this decision has always insisted today.
In light of the foregoing, concluded Mr. Savvaidis, Greece seeks (i) to decline jurisdiction to hear the case before it and applied for a non-admissible and (ii) if the Court accepted authority and declare the claims admissible to dismiss on substantive grounds, ie as unfounded.
At the end of the session, Judge Mr Benouna (Morocco) submitted to the Greek side the following question: "What were the positions and views put forward by Greece in the consultation process that preceded it, but at the Bucharest Summit, NATO for Macedonia's request for membership.
The Court gave Greece a deadline of April 7 to submit its reply, and an additional seven days in the other party for its own commentary on the answer.
www.kathimerini.gr information from ANA-MPA
No comments:
Post a Comment