To
Secretary General,
United Nations,
New York
Re: Request for inclusion of a Resolution on the UNGA’s next session agenda
Your Excellency,
I have the honor to address you with the questions of the legal and political status of my country and particularly legality of the conditions imposed on "Republic of Macedonia" (now after Prespa Agreement "Republic of North Macedonia") for its admission to UN membership 1993. and the consequent legal status of Macedonia in the United Nations. The aim of the present letter is to request an inclusion of a Resolution on the UNGA’s next session agenda regarding clarification by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of the our membership status under the ban and limitation to freely use (any) constitutional name for Macedonia and the apparent ban on the right of self-determination of our legal identity (particularly as a UN Membership right). Until the "Prespa Agreement" (2018) my country had been recognized by the enormous majority of United Nations members by its Constitutional name "Republic of Macedonia" and after that, as it is apparent now, negotiations with the Greece over the State yielded in international ban for the use of "Macedonia" everywhere, including in the UN system. Also we believe that, clearly, the name of a State could not have any impact on the territorial rights of states or alleged irredentism or any territorial claims or claims of the theft of the State name.
In this context, I take the liberty of reminding you that the admission of Republic of Macedonia to UN membership in April 1993 by the General Assembly (GA Res. 47/225 (1993)), pursuant the Security Council recommendation for such admission (SC Res. 817 (1993)), was associated with the provision that the applicant state be “provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, pending settlement of the difference that has arisen over the name of the State”. The last part of this provision implies imposed negotiation with Greece over the name of my country (Macedonia), and this is more explicitly spelled out in Security Council Res. 817 (1993).
I would also like to remind you that the strong objections of Macedonian Government to the above mentioned denomination the “former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (or shortly the “FYROM”) and to the non-standard admission procedure, contained in UN Doc. S/25541 (1993), were completely ignored.
The aim of the present letter, Sir, is to submit our request to include in the agenda of the next session of the UN General Assembly a resolution requesting the General Assembly decision to extend the membership of my country referred as “Republic of North Macedonia” under any chosen name of the State according to the general rules of the UN.
The basis for this request is our strong view that the (pre-)conditions for admission of Republic of Macedonia to UN membership in 1993, namely
(i) acceptance to be provisionally referred to, within the UN, as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and
(ii) acceptance to negotiate with Greece over its name,
are legally inconsistent with the provisions of the UN Charter, particularly the Articles 2 and 4. of the Charter. This inconsistency is manifested, in our opinion, on three levels: 1) procedural level (right of a state to unconditional admission to UN membership once it has been recognized, by the judgement of Security Council, that the state fulfils the criteria for admission set forth in Article 4(1) of the Charter); 2 substantive level (interference of the UN Organization in matters of a state –such as the choice of its constitutional name – which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of that state, contrary to Article 2(7) of the Charter); and 3) membership legal status (inequality with other UN member-states due to the additional obligation (condition ii) and derogated juridical personality in the field of representation due to the condition (i), contrary to the principle of “sovereign equality of the Members”, Article 2(1) of the Charter).
That the conditions (i) and (ii) served indeed as conditions for admission of Macedonia to UN membership, and are additional with respect to those set forth in Article 4(1) of the Charter, is evident from: a) the neglect of the objection of Macedonian Government to the imposition of the condition (i) (contained in UN Doc. S/25541(1993); b) they are functionally disconnected with the judgement on admission as they transcend in time the act of admission (thus transforming themselves into membership obligations); c) they are introduced despite the explicit recognition in SC Res. 817 (1993) that “the applicant fulfils the criteria” of Article 4(1) of the Charter for admission; d) the fulfilment of the obligation (ii) does not depend solely on Macedonian Government, but essentially on the recognition of Macedonian legal identity by another state, which is contrary to the criteria on the legality of imposing conditions relating to the recognition of a state by another state, member of the UN, enshrined in the Advisory Opinion of May 28, 1948 of the International Court of Justice.
The procedural inconsistency of the conditions (i) and (ii) with the Charter’s provisions follows, in our view, clearly and directly from the interpretation of Article 4(1) of the Charter by the International Court of Justice given in its Advisory Opinion of May 28, 1948 as a legal rule. We remind that this interpretation was adopted by the General Assembly the same year (see, GA Res.197/III (1948)). According to that interpretation, the conditions laid down in Article 4(1) of the Charter are explicit and exhaustive (i.e. they are necessary and sufficient); once they are recognized as being fulfilled, the applicant state acquires an unconditional right to admission to UN membership (and, conversely, the Organization has a duty to admit such applicant due to its “openness” for admission, enshrined in the same Article 4(1), and due to its universal character). In the words of Court’s Advisory Opinion, and the resolution GA Res.197/III (1948), “a Member of the United Nations, when pronouncing its vote in the General Assembly or Security Council, is not juridically entitled to make its consent on the admission of a state to UN membership dependent on conditions not expressly provided in Article 4(1)”.
The inconsistency of conditions (i) and (ii) with Article 2(7) of the Charter follows, in our view, from the fact that the name of a state (as a legal identity of an international legal person) is an essential element of its juridical personality, the choice by a state of its own name is, therefore, an inherent right of that state and belongs stricto sensu in the domain of its domestic jurisdiction. According to the principle of separability of domestic and international jurisdictions, the choice of its own name by a state does not create international legal rights for that state, nor does it impose legal obligations on other states. Therefore, the name of a state has no relevance to the qualifications that may be legally considered in connection with the admission of that state to UN membership.
Furthermore, since every state naturally has an inherent right to a name and because that determination of the state’s names represent the subject of their sovereign domestic jurisdiction, it’s apparently inadmissible that disputes over state’s name exist at all. Also from the fact that state’s names, as a legal identity of international subjects is essential element of their juridical personality (and their statehood) follows the only logical conclusion that inter-states negotiation over their inherent right(s) such as state’s name are subject-less.
Once again, the name of a state, which is a subject of that state’s domestic jurisdiction, since every state naturally has an inherent right to a name, does not create international legal rights for the state that adopts the name, nor does it impose legal obligations on other states. Clearly, the name does not have an impact on the territorial rights or duties of states. As anyone can derive accusing Macedonia in the UN of irredentism, based on name non-recognition is entirely baseless. Same goes with the accusation that Macedonia is stilling other name(s), since states does not have exclusive rights over state’s name(s).
Finally, the additional conditions (i) and (ii) obviously define an unequal UN membership status for Macedonia with respect to other member-states. This status severely violates the principle of “sovereign equality of members” (Article 2(1) of the Charter) and strongly derogates the juridical personality of Macedonia. It is inconsistent with the principles of juridical equality of states (see, GA Res. 2625 (XXV) of 24 Oct.1970) and non-discrimination in representation and membership (see, UN Doc. A / CONF. 67/16 (March 14, 1975)). As a result of that internal order of the United Nations was/is severely violated as well.
In connection with the views expressed above regarding the membership status and the legal basis of the imposed conditions (i) and (ii) for admission of Republic of Macedonia to UN membership and the related to them legal status of (Republic of North) Macedonia as an United Nations member, we kindly request that the attached Resolution be placed as an item on the Agenda of the next Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
I believe, Sir that the clarification by the International Court of Justice and by UN resolution of the above described limitation in the membership status of my country in the UN by the UN General Assembly and the Court will protect the Membership legal status of my country and the current legal order of United Nations itself.
Accept, Sir, the assurances of my highest consideration.
Sincerely yours,
President …..
ANNEX
DRAFT RESOLUTION (UNGA)
The General Assembly
Considering Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations,
Considering Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, Considering Article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations,
Having in mind the General Assembly Resolution 113/II of 1947,
Having in mind the General Assembly Resolution 197/III of 1948,
Considering the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 28 May, 1948,
For the purpose to determine whether additional conditions were imposed in the procedure of admitting “The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” to the membership of the United Nations, outside the scope of the exhaustive conditions of Article 4(1) of the Charter of the United Nations, and to determine the present legal status of the Republic of North Macedonia,
Decides to submit the following legal questions to the International Court of Justice:
1. Are the specific conditions enshrined in resolutions GA Res. 47/225 (1993) of the General Assembly and SC Res. 817 (1993) of the Security Council in their parts relating to the denomination “Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, with the requirement for settlement of the “difference that has arisen over the name of the State”, outside the scope of the exhaustive conditions of Article 4(1) of the Charter of the United Nations and legally in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations?
2. If the answer to the previous question on the existence of exhaustive conditions of Article 4(1) is positive, can Republic of North Macedonia freely change its official State name in the United Nations in accordance with the general rules applicable to every Member State in the United Nations?
Comment: Prespa Agreement on ID must be TERMINATED.
See:
Journal of Political Science and International Relations
go objavi mojot trud za raskinlivost na Prespanskiot dogovor:
Legality of the Prespa Agreement Between Macedonia and Greece
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=304&doi=10.11648/j.jpsir.20190202.13
vidi cel tekst na
Article Tools
PDF (258)
see http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=304&doi=10.11648/j.jpsir.20190202.13