Proactivity in a package with the principles of international law prove that every agreement that violates the law is a changing category!

Some aspects of the challenges of the initiatives to return the name Macedonia

• Professor Janev directs the focus on the mass signing of the petition for the return of the constitutional name Republic of Macedonia, which would be a tool in the hands of Macedonian diplomacy and the highest representatives of the government at every visit abroad to remind their interlocutors of the clearly expressed will of the Macedonian people who can live in the country.
• The professor believes that diplomacy should provide as many coospors as possible before our problem with the self -determination of the people as a problem of all disadvantaged peoples

The new tectonic geostrategic shifts on the world political scene show that the old alliances, patches, agreements and the like no longer apply, that is, every country guided by their own interests tends to or to improve them, and even terminate.
If the United States has been considered a trusted strategic partner of Europe for decades, that is no longer the case, but the new US policy is pursued exclusively by US interests and there is no sentiment to what ever meant solid European-American alliances and agreements.
Many countries have left the previously concluded agreements, giving up on the membership of some international organizations, so that the old maxim is once again confirmed that no agreement is eternal and that the new conditions dictate proper adjustment.
In such a context, the agreements that Macedonia has concluded with both Bulgaria and Greece can be observed, which observed through today’s geopolitical prism, represent a more generator of new problems than contributing to overcoming differences.

Petition, Copisons, Accompanying Membership in Non -Aligned…

For these reasons, the professor of international law at the Institute for Political Studies in Belgrade, Igor Janev, continues his initiative to urgently terminate the Prespa Agreement, so that the Republic of Macedonia can be re -established through a legitimate legal procedure.
Now Janev is directing the focus on the mass signing of the petition for the return of the constitutional name of the Republic of Macedonia, which would be a tool in the hands of Macedonian diplomacy and the highest representatives of the government at every visit abroad to remind their interlocutors of the clearly expressed will of the Macedonian people as they can live in a state.
The professor believes that diplomacy should provide as many coospors as possible before which our problem with the self -determination of the people as a problem for all disadvantaged peoples will be presented. As a good idea for providing broad support, Professor Janev proposes to lobby first in the non -aligned, more precisely Group 77, and then to consider applying for accompanying membership in the Non -Aligned Movement, which would be presented under the name of the Republic of Macedonia. In this way, with such diplomatic proactivity, Macedonia will know exactly how many countries are on its side and at what point to activate the issue before the UN.
-Then, a draft resolution on the return of the name of the UN agenda should be put and voted with a simple majority of those present in the UN General Assembly. Only then do we acquire the right to use the name Republic of Macedonia in the UN – proposes Janev.
In an identical context about the sovereign right of each state to give names in certain areas, he cited the example of the new US administration, which renamed the Gulf of Mexico, and intends to draw a similar move on the La Manch Channel.
– The United States, for its part, is already renamed the Mexican into a US bay. They will do the same with the La Manche Bay, which, according to US intentions, should be renamed the bay of J. Washington, all that starts from sovereign right to give names as they want. When it comes to tariff trade agreements within the World Trade Organization, the United States has already breached a bunch of contracts for the whole world and has shown that every deal is a changing category. That is why Macedonia must initiate action through a draft resolution of the UN General Assembly on continuing the membership of the UN state « Republic of Northern Macedonia » under the name-« Republic of Macedonia ».
In addition, Professor Janev is working on more scenarios on how to respond to a possible Greek counter -offensive that Athens would take diplomatically if Macedonia launched an operation to restore the old constitutional name.
– Of course, Greece will not sit with its arms crossed and will urge the United States, France and the UK to convene a UN Security Council session because « Republic of Northern Macedonia » unilaterally terminated the Prespa Agreement, which would try to impose the perception that the act « endangered ».
In this regard, Greece will require the WB to make a recommendation and a decision to order Macedonia to have to re -oblige the same act (Prespa Agreement) or sit down and begin new identity negotiations based on (previously terminated) Prespa Agreement – explains Janev.

Clear guidance on how to respond to a possible Greek diplomatic counter -offensive

According to him, if Macedonia holds the position firmly that it does not intend to re -conclude the terminated act (which is a sovereign decision of each state or to negotiate the new name), the UN Security Cannes space is very small and objectively extremely limited.
Namely, compared to 1993, the UN Security Council will not be able to bring:

1. A resolution imposed (again) a temporary reference of any kind or restoring the previous reference FYROM (ie will not be able to establish the « previous situation » with the imposed reference, because we now do not have the same circumstances – character), and there will be no consensus among the great powers with different doctrines about the sovereignty of states, especially Russia and China will not be indifferent and allow « interfering to internal affairs » (of course driven by their interests);

2. A resolution requiring « this state » (RSM) to re -conclude the same agreement, as the WB has no jurisdiction over these sovereign domestic (constitutional) issues and there will be no minimum consensus between the great powers, both of which (Russia and China) based on their external doctrine based on an absolute state. Namely, the sovereign right of each state is to conclude and terminate agreements and sovereignly determine or change its state name, and the UN authorities do not have the jurisdiction to interfere in these decisions, which are in the strict internal jurisdiction of each state (especially the decision on the constitutional name);

3. Resolution to impose new negotiations on the state name (this is virtually impossible), unless the state itself implicitly or explicitly gives any kind of agreement on negotiation or (re) negotiating it (absorbed) material, for which Greece itself will not agree, as well as Macedonia. Macedonia must insist on the name of which it applied to the UN in 1993, as the only legitimate name of the nation and the state (for which the people agreed and which was not the result of external interferation or external act/agreement). Starting from the fact that RSM today is no longer a temporary reference, and NOVA cannot be imposed (nor will the Macedonian become accepted), and at the same time the state disagrees with the existing state name RSM (as illegitimate), nor by the Prespa Agreement, and taking into account the fact that the SB of UN is not being divided into the question of the SUB. Any binding decision that could again install a temporary or permanent reference (denomination) or force a sovereign state of name talks (ie identity, which is not even legal to request) or re -conclude the same or similar agreement to define the state name.
Diplomacy to be intelligently proactive on the name issue

Professor Janev has no doubt that the name return process is complex and requires serious commitment, so he points out that he must be led by experienced and expert diplomats.
– Macedonian diplomacy must emphasize the fact that every « identity agreement » is always an illegal act because it is a non -covenant determination of matter that is in strict internal jurisdiction! Therefore, every external act of changing identity is an act by which, regardless of legitimacy – the national identity is imposed. Furthermore, the alleged « security reasons » (compared to 1993) will not affect any kind of binding resolution, and without such an act Macedonia can move forward and ask the question at the UN General Assembly (guided by the fact that the problem is not « locked » in the WB, and the Prespa Agreement was not a  » UN registry). In other words, if there is no binding UN Security Council resolution (for example there is only a « presidential statement » or recommendation), then the last word on the state name of this state is the UN General Assembly (in which states have no veto). To continue the membership of this state in the UN under the Republic of Macedonia, as a non -essential issue, a simple majority of the attendees who vote. Simply put, a simple majority of those present in the General Assembly Hall (which includes 193 UN member states). If, for example, 120 states are present in the UN General Assembly Hall, 61 votes will need a positive outcome. This is very easy to achieve with experts. If, for example, this action fails this year, at this General Assembly of the UN, the next action can be initiated (and then if necessary the next one), until the decision this country is to be a member of the UN as « Republic of Macedonia » – Professor Janev states.
It also expresses a certain reserve on the capacity of Macedonian diplomacy for such a complex operation, and unselfishly offers its own expertise on this issue.
According to him, the return of the name « Republic of Macedonia » in the UN will end the Greek and Bulgarian assimilation of the Macedonian people.