Talk:Macedonia naming dispute

Edit request on 7 April 2013

Macedonian naming problem in the UN

Macedonian scientist prof. Igor Janev in his article published in the American Journal of International Law showed that Macedonia's admission to the United Nations (UN), was subjected to additional conditions beyond the exhaustive legal ones set forth in the UN Charter, contrary to the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice delivered in 1948., and contrary to the UN General Assembly Resolution 197/3 (1948), which accepts Advisory Opinion of the International Court of 1948. Dr. Igor Janev demonstrated the illegality of additional conditions for membership of Macedonia (namely conditions: 1) to have a reference or denomination Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the UN, and 2) after admission of Macedonia to the United Nations to have an obligation to negotiate with another country (Greece) over its constitutional name). Janey used the method of transcending in time requirements for admission to the United Nations arguing that such conditions after admission cannot be legal. Janev, in fact, proposes a solution to the name issue by proposing initiating the procedure in the UN General Assembly for issuing advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (request for the advisory opinion) on the legality of supplementary additional conditions for membership of Macedonia. Ones delivered Advisory opinion of the Court on that subject, should be accepted by the UN General Assembly (UNGA). Further, Janev stated that in the accepting UNGA resolution, General Assembly may, as well, establish Macedonian constitutional name (Republic of Macedonia) in the United Nations " see Igor Janev, AJIL, Vol. 93 no. 1. 1999 ".

109.93.45.247 (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Do you want this added verbatim? If so, precisely where? Rivertorch (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The best way to be added is after subchapter on Self-determination.

Text should be added verbatim (relating to solutions of the naming problem) at the and of the section "Naming policies of foreign countries and organisations"

The position of Bulgaria, Albania and Serbia on the issue

I would like to point to the fact that the article lacks the very important role played on this issue by the other three countries occupying territory of the geographic region of Macedonia, namely by Bulgaria, Albania and Serbia. The article seems to have been reduced to a mere Greek-Fyrom dispute, although it certainly involves (I mean the pure naming diplomatic question) the above countries too.

What are their position and reaction with regard to the matter? For certainly there is one, at least in the case of Bulgaria, as far as I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.45.85 (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

New source about naming dispute (phd thesis 2011)

Check also this new source about the naming dispute. It is a Phd thesis (2011) from Umeå University / Sweden:

Erik Sjöberg (2011). Battlefields of Memory The Macedonian Conflict and Greek Historical Culture (PDF). Sweden: Umeå University - Phd Thesis. ISBN 978-91-7459-329-7.

Ggia (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 July 2013

[[image: Janev000.JPG | thumb | right | diplomat Igor Janev (left in the photo) with the President Gjorge Ivanov (in discussion for the solution of the legality of provisional name for Macedonia in the UN)]] Republic.Macedonia (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Best place to put this picture is below the one with text: UN Mediator Matthew Nimetz with negotiators Zoran Jolevski and Adamantios Vassilakis at a Press Conference after the round of negotiations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Republic.Macedonia (talk • contribs) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Macedonia Salutaris: Change translation to "advantagous Macedon"

In the section of the article Background: Controversy the Roman name for a part of the province is given as "Macedonia Salutaris" ("coinciding with most of the modern Greek region of Macedonia, and Macedonia Salutaris ("second Macedonia") in the north").

"Salutaris" is then translated as "second", which meaning for salutaris is not in A Latin Dictionary (Lewis & Short). The Wiki article Macedonia (Roman province) translates salutaris as "advantageous", which is a possible translation of salutaris according to A Latin Dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.18.110.176 (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Formatting issue in the section "Naming policies of foreign countries and organisations"

At least on my browser the section "Naming policies of foreign countries and organisations" renders badly since the image is pushing the list of countries off to the side. I don't know enough about MediaWiki to fix it, but I thought I'd bring it to someone's attention to see if someone more capable could fix it.

superman (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I changed it back to the way it was until a few months ago. Don't know how and why it got messed up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 August 2013

Text should be added verbatim(relating to solutions of the naming problem)after section "Naming policies of foreign countries and organisations": Macedonian scientist prof. Igor Janev in his article published in the American Journal of International Law showed that Macedonia's admission to the United Nations (UN), was subjected to additional conditions beyond the exhaustive legal ones set forth in the UN Charter, contrary to the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice delivered in 1948., and contrary to the UN General Assembly Resolution 197/3 (1948), which accepts Advisory Opinion of the International Court of 1948. Dr. Igor Janev demonstrated the illegality of additional conditions for membership of Macedonia (namely conditions: 1. to have a reference or denomination Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the UN, and 2. after admission of Macedonia to the United Nations to have an obligation to negotiate with another country (Greece) over its constitutional name). Janev used the method of transcending in time requirements for admission to the United Nations arguing that such conditions after admission cannot be legal. Janev, in fact, proposes a solution to the name issue by proposing initiating the procedure in the UN General Assembly for issuing advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (request for the advisory opinion) on the legality of supplementary additional conditions for membership of Macedonia. Ones delivered Advisory opinion of the Court on that subject, should be accepted by the UN General Assembly (UNGA). Further, Janev stated that in the accepting UNGA resolution, General Assembly may, as well, establish Macedonian constitutional name (Republic of Macedonia) in the United Nations 93.86.156.217 (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Good reasons to include statements of prof. Igor Janev

The Republic of Macedonia can challenge the legality of the United Nations registering its name by a “label” which, according to Dr. Igor Janev, is not only unprecedented and wrong but illegal. From what I understand the UN defied its own laws when it accepted Macedonia’s entry by use of a “label” instead of its constitutional name.

If that were so, then Macedonia had better talk to the UN and have this matter sorted out or failing that, hire a team of good lawyers familiar with international law that can point at the UN’s mistake.

Based on the number of countries that have already recognized the Republic of Macedonia, the UN or any other international institution has no reason not to accept Macedonia by its constitutional name. You can’t have 2/3 of the membership recognizing Macedonia by its constitutional name while the organization itself does not recognize it. It defies logic.

However, nothing is going to happen unless the Republic of Macedonia makes its move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.187.253 (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The article on the naming dispute can be expanded by non- formal Plan B of the Macedonian government relating to request of the Advisory opinion of ICJ

The admission of Macedonia to membership in the United Nations in April 1993 required the new member to 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 term “difference” here refers to the dispute between Greece and Macedonia over the use of the applicant state’s name. In its Resolution 817 of April 7, 1993 (by which the applicant state was recommended for admission to the United Nations), the Security Council “urge[d] the parties to continue to cooperate with the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia in order to arrive at a speedy settlement of their difference.” Thus, the admission of Macedonia to the United Nations was subject to its acceptance of being provisionally referred to as the “Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (FYROM) and of negotiating with Greece over its name. The conditions for the admission of states were the subject of exhaustive political and legal deliberations at the United Nations during the 1940s when many states were applying for membership. During the first several years of the Organizations’ existence, admission to, and even representation in, the United Nations were subject to various conditions (outside the scope of those contained in Article 4 of the Charter), which in some cases required recognition of the applicant (as an international subject) prior to its admission to membership. In an effort to resolve the dilemmas regarding the legal aspects of the conditions required for admission to membership and to eliminate the various stalemates that were occurring in the admission process, the UN General Assembly, by Resolution 113 (II) of November 17, 1947, requested that the International Court of Justice give an advisory opinion on the following question: Is a Member of the United Nations which is called upon, in virtue of Article 4 of the Charter, to pronounce itself by its vote, either in the Security Council or in the General Assembly, on the admission of a State to membership in the United Nations, juridically entitled to make its consent to the admission dependent on conditions not expressly provided by paragraph 1 of the said Article? The following conditions are expressly set forth in Article 4, paragraph 1 of the UN Charter, which provides: “Membership in the United Nations is open to all other [i.e., other than the original UN members] peaceloving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.” The next paragraph of the article states the procedural rule that “[t]he admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.” In its Advisory Opinion, Admission of a State to the United Nations, the Court first concluded that the question put to it in an abstract form had a legal nature. Consequently, the Court was required to provide an interpretation of Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Charter and, by virtue of Article 96 of the Charter and Article 65 of its Statute and as “the principal judicial organ of the United Nations,” it had the competence to give such an interpretation. The Court then observed that paragraph 1 of Article 4 in effect contains five conditions; to be admitted to membership in the United Nations, an applicant must (1) be a state; (2) be peace-loving; (3) accept the obligations of the UN Charter; (4) be able to carry out these obligations; and (5) be willing to do so. Further, the Court found that the question put to it by the General Assembly could be reduced to the following: are the conditions stated in paragraph 1 of Article 4 exhaustive in character in the sense that an affirmative reply would lead to the conclusion that a Member is not legally entitled to make admission dependent on conditions not expressly provided for in that Article, while a negative reply would, on the contrary, authorize a Member to make admission dependent also on other conditions.

After thorough consideration, the International Court of Justice formulated its advisory opinion stating that a member of the United Nations that is called upon, by virtue of Article 4 of the Charter, to pronounce itself by its vote, either in the Security Council or in the General Assembly, on the admission of a state to membership in the Organization, is not juridically entitled to make its consent dependent on conditions not expressly provided in paragraph 1 of that article. Among the most important arguments used by the Court in arriving at the above opinion were that (1) the UN Charter is a multilateral treaty whose provisions impose obligations on its members; (2) the text of paragraph 1 of Article 4, “by the enumeration which it contains and the choice of its terms, clearly demonstrates the intention of its authors to establish a legal rule which, while it fixes the conditions of admission, determines also the reasons for which admission may be refused”; and (3) the enumeration of the conditions in paragraph 1 of Article 4 is exhaustive (and “not merely stated by way of guidance or example”), which follows from the fact that if the opposite were the case, “[i]t would lead to conferring upon Members an indefinite and practically unlimited power of discretion in the imposition of new conditions.” In its deliberations, the Court specifically analyzed whether the political character of the organs responsible for admission (the Security Council and the General Assembly, by virtue of paragraph 2 of Article 4), or for the maintenance of world peace (the Security Council, pursuant to Article 24 of the Charter), engendered arguments leading to the contrary conclusion regarding the exhaustive character of the conditions enumerated in paragraph 1 of Article 4. The Court rejected this interpretation and held that “[t]he political character of an organ cannot release it from the observance of the treaty provisions established by the Charter when they constitute limitations on its powers or criteria for its judgment.”11 Thus, the Charter limits the freedom of political organs and no “political considerations” can be superimposed on, or added to, the conditions set forth in Article 4 that could prevent admission to membership. (The advisory opinion of the Court makes it apparent that, besides their exhaustive and explicit character, the conditions laid down in Article 4 of the Charter have two additional characteristics: (1) they must be fulfilled before admission is effected; and (2) once they are recognized as having been fulfilled, the applicant state acquires an unconditional right to UN membership. This last feature also follows from the “openness” to membership enshrined in Article 4, which comports with the universal character of the Organization.) The advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice was presented to the General Assembly at its third session, in December 1948. At that session the General Assembly adopted Resolution 197 (III), by which it “[r]ecommend[ed] that each member of the Security Council and of the General Assembly, in exercising its vote on the admission of new Members, should act in accordance with the foregoing opinion of the International Court of Justice.”

(This resolution and the Court’s advisory opinion have direct legal relevance to the issue of the admission of Macedonia to membership in the United Nations, since these documents interpret the Charter in a manner that limits the power of the UN organs to impose conditions on admission. The preamble to Security Council Resolution 817, by which Macedonia was recommended for admission, recognized that “the applicant fulfils the criteria for membership laid down in Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.” According to Admission of a State to the United Nations and General Assembly Resolution 197, this statement means that the applicant has fulfilled all the required conditions for admission to membership in the United Nations and that no other conditions may be imposed. Contrary to the usual wording of Security Council resolutions recommending admission of a state, Resolution 817, after recognizing the fulfillment of the conditions in Article 4, contains an additional consideration, “that a difference has arisen over the name of the State, which needs to be resolved in the interest of the maintenance of peaceful and good-neighbourly relations in the region.” This condition, which is found in the introductory part of the resolution, is reflected in its paragraph 2, which recommends the admission of the applicant state to membership in the United Nations. It describes “this State” as “being 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 Macedonian Government strongly objected to the use of this provisional name, stating that “under no circumstances” was it prepared to accept that designation as the name for the country. Nevertheless, the text of the resolution remained unchanged. As a consequence, the imposed obligation to accept this provisional denomination and the closely related obligation to negotiate over the name of the country served as additional conditions that it was required to satisfy so as to gain admission to the United Nations. These unusual conditions in Resolution 817 are extraneous to the limited list laid down in Article 4. Furthermore, these conditions transcend the act of admission in time. Since the Charter makes no provision for other conditions for admission, it appears that the conditions imposed on Macedonia have no legal basis. Certainly, the ICJ’s advisory opinion makes clear that all the conditions for admission to membership must be fulfilled before admission is effected. Since the conditions that were imposed represent purely political considerations, they are incompatible with the letter and spirit of the UN Charter.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.187.253 (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)