The Macedonian name dispute and the principle of conditionality Židas Daskalovski in HISTORY AND POLITICS IN THE WESTERN BALKANS (original) (raw)
Related papers
Analysis on European Future of Macedonia: The Greek Obstacles on the Name Issue
Macedonia as a candidate for admission to the European Union (EU) has difficulty in meeting the criteria for membership, but also in solving problems that arise with the name of the country. In the framework of this paper will analyze international relations Macedonia - EU, in particular importance will be given to the impact that makes Greece from within as a member of the EU. Also, will analyze the decision of the International Court of Justice relating to compliance with the Interim Agreement between Greece and Macedonia, its potential impacts, and will analyze the opinions of citizens about this issue. At the end, conclusions and recommendations are issued in order to facilitate the path of Macedonia towards the EU.
The Macedonia Name Dispute: A Few Drivers and Spoilers of Success
Insight Turkey, 2019
In June 2018, after 27 years of negotiations, the governments of Macedonia and Greece signed an agreement to resolve the so-called 'name dispute' over the use of the term 'Macedonia. ' The agreement put an end to one of the longest regional disputes and is expected to unblock Macedonia's integration into NATO and the EU, where Greece had vetoed its membership since 2008. However, the full success of the agreement is still uncertain, with persistent domestic resistance in both countries and a challenging regional and geopolitical context.
Euro-Atlantic Integration of Macedonia and the Name Issue: Viewed from the Prism of Albanians
Relying on the fact that Macedonia since its independence has been faced with various challenges in the path of Euro-Atlantic integration of the country, and as one of the main challenges still remains the name dispute resolution with Greece. In this regard, we notice that the political parties but especially the citizens do not have a common standpoint on this issue. In fact, the opposite extreme positions that have built communities on how to resolve the aforementioned dispute increase the gap between them. Precisely, in this paper dilemmas will be shown about the Euro-Atlantic future of Macedonia concerning the resolution of the dispute with the state name, seen from the standpoint of citizens. In particular, it will analyze the empirical data arising from the survey conducted with the citizens of the Albanian community in Macedonia, about their beliefs on the state name dispute resolution - as an obstacle to Euro-Atlantic integration of the country. I believe that the results of...
THE JUDGMENT OF INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTIC (REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA V. GREECE) AND THE NAME ISSUE
In November 2008, Republic of Macedonia instituted proceedings against Greece before the International Court of Justice because of a dispute regarding the interpretation and implementation of the Interim Accord, which was signed by the two countries in 1995. Greece objected to the Court's jurisdiction for several reasons, including the parties' express agreement not to adjudicate the name dispute before the International Court of Justice. The Court, siding with Macedonia, concluded that the application did not request a settlement of the name dispute but rather concerned Greece's violation of the Interim Accord, thus falling within its jurisdiction. In its Judgement from December 5, 2011, the Court has found fifteen votes to one that Greece breached its obligation under Article 11, paragraph 1, of the 1995 Interim Accord by objecting to the admission of the Republic of Macedonia to NATO. The Court sided with Macedonia’s arguments that Resolution 817 required the international organization in question (NATO) use the provisional designation provided for in the resolution and concluded that the Interim Accord does not allow Greece "to object to the Applicant's admission to an organization based on the prospect that the Applicant is to refer to itself in such organization with its constitutional name". Besides analyzing the Judgment, this paper elaborates and comments on its practical implementation. The relation between the Interim Accord and the name issue will also be commented and analyzed in the paper.
IES Spring 2019 Newsletter, 2019
The “Macedonia” name issue has been a constant point of contention between Greece and the newly re-named Republic of North Macedonia, since the breakup of Yugoslavia. With the origins of the dispute stretching back to the Second World War, the “Prespa Agreement,” signed between the two Balkan neighbors in June 2018 (coming into force in February 2019) is hoped to be a new beginning in interstate relations in the Balkans. Through Prime Ministers Tspiras and Zeav have adopted warm facades in front of the cameras, significant opposition to the agreement domestically and abroad highlights the transnational / international legacy and implications of this dispute. In this lecture, Dr, Spero Paravantes examined the history of the dispute over the name “Macedonia.” He explained the Prespa Agreement, some of the controversies surrounding it, and discussed the role played in the dispute (and in the agreement) by foreign diplomats. He concluded with an assessment of the domestic and international implications of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), becoming the Republic of North Macedonia. Link: https://iseees.berkeley.edu/building-bridges-or-bridge-too-far-macedonia-name-agreement-and-past-present-and-future-greek Summary: https://ies.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/shared/docs/newsletters/IES%20Spring%202019%20News%20final.pdf
The Name Game: The Prespa Agreement and the Macedonia naming dispute on the board
2019
The process of dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s was characterized by the independence of the republics of Croatia and Slovenia, followed afterwards by Macedonia. However, the independence of the Macedonian republic started a dispute with Greece because of the use of the name Macedonia, which is also the name of the Greek northern province. Thereby, due to a Greek pressure together with the international community, the Republic of Macedonia had to be officially called as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), and the negotiations towards its accession into the EU and the NATO had been hindered by Greece until the Macedonian name dispute be resolved. In June 2018 the two countries signed an agreement near to the Prespa Lake in order to put a stop in almost thirty years of controversy. Nevertheless, each country has to negotiate with their respective domestic groups the agreement's ratification, otherwise the dispute will remain without resolution. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to focus on the negotiations between FYROM and Greece in favor of resolving the Macedonian name dispute, and to analyze the importance of domestic groups to reach this objective. A qualitative methodology is employed for this research, making use of bibliographic research based on books, articles, theses, online newspapers, critical analysis and interviews. The use of the Two-level Game Theory as a theoretical framework is fundamental for a better understanding of the negotiations regarding the name dispute. Lastly, the research concludes that the Prespa Agreement ensures the Hellenic and Macedonian identity, culture and history, besides highlighting the challenges that the two parties still have to face.
The Macedonia Greece Dispute/Difference over the Name Issue: Mitigating the Inherently Unsolvable
New Balkan Politics, 2013
Having entered its third decade, the Macedonia-Greece naming dispute i seems as if it is set to join an infamous category of international relations-that of the world's chronic unsolvable issues. By focusing on the post-2006 decline in Macedonian-Greek (political) relations and the stalemate in negotiations on the name issue, this paper lays out and reassesses most of the fundamental components and recent variables in the dispute but also seeks to demystify important aspects of the dispute and to identify the space for a rational, common sense solution. Beginning with a substantiated claim that obstructive politics have been practised by certain NATO/EU circles towards Macedonia, and going on to deconstruct the myth that the dispute is purely bilateral and limited only to the name issue, this article warns that the intermittent optimism exhibited among the stakeholders in the negotiations means little given the historical depth of this otherwise simple dispute. The main message of this paper, however, is contained in a subsequent definition of the dispute as (part of) a perverse, inherently unsolvable, centuries-old problem that can only be mitigated rather than conclusively addressed, since it is based on vital, incompatible national interests and, consequently, a rigid, inter-state/inter-society disagreement. The pressing need to mitigate the dispute via local pragmatism, balanced diplomatic pressure, and the adoption of an inventive approach, especially after the Kosovo problem has been satisfactorily closed (at least temporarily), guarantees almost nothing, since both Macedonia and Greece have strong strategic rationales for not approaching a compromise. As the imperative of preserving the Macedonian national identity in every form seems somewhat stronger than the Greek national security concerns underlying the dispute, any so-called rational compromise seems to be possible only within the broad-dual formula‖ spectrum. Therefore, both parties are encouraged to leave reactive-antiquisation‖ aside, to focus (only) on the name issue, and to search for a mutually acceptable name variant within a flexible-dual formula‖ framework. Final success, however, remains elusive, as Macedonia and Greece continue to struggle with deep intra-social divisions and/or aversive intellectual trends in the context of the name dispute. In conclusion, policy-makers should bear in mind that the only intelligent way to settle the dispute and the inexorable Macedonian question in the 21 st century is by fully integrating the Macedonian national identity in the European cultural and political mosaic.
From the name dispute to the Prespa agreement: the relations between Greece and North Macedonia
Journal of Law and Administration, 2020
The name dispute dominated the relations between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia approximately three decades. It was coined as one of the world's chronical unresolved issues. During the long lifespan of the conflict, there were some moments of hope for a solution, as well as disappointments stemming from the rising tension between the parties. Some of these developments bringing a new mentality to the dispute can be labelled as the turning points. In the current state of affairs, the dispute has been going through a new phase since the signature of the Prespa Agreement between Greece and North Macedonia in 2018. Materials and Methods: The article is providing a historical analysis of the name dispute. The development of the name dispute, from its beginning till its current state of affairs, is analysed under the guidance of the previous studies conducted on the subject and with references to the discourses of the leading political actors. Results: The name dispute is elaborated by focusing on the key turning points. After the emergence of the conflict, the interim accord of 1995 and 2008 NATO Bucharest meeting and the Prespa Agreement are determined as the turning points of the dispute. Discussions and Conclusions: The article concludes that it is too early to declare the final end of the name dispute by concentrating on the Prespa Agreement, symbolizing the final consensus between the parties of the dispute. Despite the rising hopes after the Prespa Agreement, the historical lifespan of the name dispute leads us to consider the fact that the willingness of the disputing parties to stay committed to the agreement will be definitive in terms of the future of the relations between Greece and Macedonia.
This paper provides an overview of the complex, 26-year-long name dispute between Macedonia/FYROM and Greece. It argues that the name talks have always been asymmetrical, with Greece dictating the terms due to its leverage over the Euro-Atlantic integration of Macedonia/FYROM. It also argues that this asymmetrical nature of the talks can be and has been mitigated by international pressure on Athens to compromise. The paper presents a strong correlation between constructive behaviour by Macedonia/FYROM and international sympathy towards its position throughout the years. This correlation indicates that the unmitigated optimism of the new Macedonian government about reaching a favourable compromise in 2018 through ‘behaving’ may not be entirely unwarranted.