Δίκη πρότυπο, προπομπός για την απόφαση της Χάγης;

Μόνο στο taxalia
Στις 29 Οκτωβρίου διεξήχθη στην Οξφόρδη της Μ.Βρετανίας, μια δίκη-πρότυπο, από το  OxIMUN ("Oxford Model United Nations International Court of Justice"), το οποίο λειτουργεί ως "προσομοιωτής" των Ηνωμένων Εθνών. Στα πλαίσια των δραστηριοτήτων του, έγινε και η δίκη-πρότυπο, με δικαστές, συνηγόρους και γενικά, με πλήρη αντιγραφή των διαδικασιών που ακολουθεί το Διεθνές Δικαστήριο της Χάγης. Και ιδού, τι έγινε στην εικονική δίκη και ποιό ήταν το αποτέλεσμα:

CASE CONCERNING

THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 11, PARAGRAPH 1,

OF THE INTERIM ACCORD OF 13 SEPTEMBER 1995

FYROM vs. Greece

Argued and adjudicated: 29th October 2011

Judges

 Presiding judge: Deputy President of the ICJ, Eylon Aslan-Levy

 Associate judges: President of the ICJ, Justice Herning; Justice Al-Kanawati; Justice

Grillaki; Justice Chang; Justice Isaac-Dognin; Justice Bucaj; Justice Vladaia; Justice

Stoican; Justice Ma.

Representation

 Advocate for Applicant (FYROM): Andrei Palade

 Advocates for Respondent (Greece): Theresa Huber, Katharina-Patricia Hauss

Summary of the proceedings

The Counsel for the Applicant began by explaining the historical background behind the naming dispute, noting that the Respondent imposed an economic embargo on the Applicant after its independence and objected to its membership of international organisations under Respondent’s constitutional name (‘The Republic of Macedonia’). Noting that the Applicant was admitted to the United Nations under the provisional denomination ‘FYROM’ as part of an Interim Accord signed with Greece, the Applicant argued that according to Article 11(1) of that Accord, the Respondent may not object to the membership bid of the Applicant for any reasons other than if the Applicant attempts to accede under any other name than that stipulated in UNSC 817. He argued that the Court has jurisdiction to hear the case on the grounds that it is provided for in Article 21, and this does not fall under the exception stipulated in 5(1), which only prohibits the Court from ruling on the dispute itself, not disputes arising thence. He argued that declarations by the Greek PM and FM to the effect that the Respondent had vetoed the application of the Applicant are effective admissions of guilt, and that declarations by such figures are to holdhighest probative value, especially when to their detriment. He cited the cases of Nicaragua and Congo/Uganda as precedent. Furthermore, he revealed that the NATO Secretary General confirmed that the Greek delegation had made it clear that without a resolution on the name, it would ensure (by frustrating unanimity) that no invitation would be extended. This most certainly counted as an objection, it was argued. 

The Respondent argued that the Court has no jurisdiction, because this case falls under the exception stipulated in 5(1), such that the Court cannot rule over differences related to the naming dispute, not just not rule on the naming dispute itself. It argued that the Respondent never objected, because there was never an active objection: according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, objections must be registered in writing. The Respondent conceded that its delegation to NATO had made it clear that it would refuse to vote for Macedonian accession,but argued that since no vote was held a formal objection was never made.

The Applicant rebutted that the Respondent had made no legal arguments. He argued that former disputes between nations (e.g. Slovenia and Croatia, Greece and Turkey) have not prevented accession (even simultaneously) to NATO so the Respondent’s pretension that it would have been inappropriate for the Applicant to have joined when there were tensions with the Respondent do not stand.

The Respondent made no rebuttal. 

Majority opinion

 Justice Aslan-Levy. Parties must interpret the Accord in good faith according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The Respondent’s claim that it did not object to the accession of the Applicant to NATO is at attempt to excuse itself on a technicality. It is a violation of good faith to insist that an objection be in writing, because even a formal vote against accession would thus not count as an objection! The Accord is to be interpreted that the Applicant cannot object to the Respondent’s accession at all, other than where it fears a name other than ‘FYROM’ will be used. Since there was no indication that this would happen, the Applicant was forbidden from opposing the accession. Indeed, statements by Greek and NATO officials make clear that the reason for the objection was simply that the naming dispute is unresolved – a clear breach of the Accord. 

 Justice Isaac-Dognin. Separate but concurring. Agrees with reasoning and interpretation of Justice Herning but decides that Greece did breach its obligations, since FYROM proved that Greece had no other reason.

Minority opinion

 Justice Herning. The Vienna Convention states treaties must be interpreted in good faith, that is – what did the parties believe when they signed it? Clearly Greece did not willingly abdicate its right to object to Macedonian accession on otherwise reasonable grounds, so the meaning is not that an objection is everywhere and anywhere forbidden except where FYROM might try to use a different name, but that Greece is only forbidden from objecting where the naming dispute is the reason for that objection. The burden of proof was hence on the Applicant to prove that the Respondent had no valid reasons to object to accession. This it failed to do. 

Division of the Court over whether to grant FYROM’s petition.

Yes No

Justice Isaac-Dognin Justice Al-KanawatiJustice Bucaj Justice Grillaki

Justice Aslan-Levy Justice Chang

Justice Vladaia Justice Herning

Justice Stoican

Justice Ma

6 Ayes, 4 Noes: the Ayes have it.

The Court finds that, having jurisdiction to hear this case, the Respondent has violated its obligations under Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Interim Accord (1995) and orders the Respondent to immediately take all necessary steps to comply with said obligations and cease from objecting to the Applicant’s membership of any international organisation of which the Respondent is a part, unless the Applicant attempts to accede under any name other than the provisional denomination stipulated in paragraph 2 of United Nations Security Council resolution 817 (1993). 


Το Δικαστήριο διαπιστώνει ότι, ως αρμόδιο για την εκδίκαση αυτής της υπόθεσης, ο εναγόμενος (Ελλάδα) έχει παραβιάσει τους υποχρεώσεις που απορρέουν από το άρθρο 11, παράγραφος 1 της Ενδιάμεσης Συμφωνίας (1995) και διατάσσει την εναγόμενη να λάβει αμέσως όλα τα αναγκαία μέτρα για να συμμορφωθεί με τις εν λόγω υποχρεώσεις και να σταματήσει να αντιτάσσεται στην ένταξη του αιτούντος (ΠΓΔΜ) σε οποιοδήποτε διεθνή οργανισμό, του οποίου ο κατηγορούμενος είναι μέλος, εκτός αν ο αιτών (ΠΓΔΜ) προσπαθεί να προσχωρήσει με οποιοδήποτε άλλο όνομα εκτός από την προσωρινή ονομασία που ορίζεται στην παράγραφο 2 των Ηνωμένων Εθνών ψήφισμα του Συμβουλίου Ασφαλείας 817 (1993).

  22.11.2011/ http:taxalia.blogspot.com