P. Pavlopoulos: How can Greece ‘respond’ to a denial of Northern Macedonia to implement the Prespa Agreement

The means at Greece’s disposal to deal with a possible refusal of Northern Macedonia to fully implement the Prespa Agreement are discussed in an article by the former President of the Republic and Honorary Professor of the Law School of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Mr. Prokopoulos Prokop.

In particular, in his article entitled “Recent political developments in Northern Macedonia and their possible negative effects on the full implementation of the Prespa Agreement”, which is published on the legal website constitutionalism.gr, the former President of the Republic and its Honorary Professor Law School of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Mr. Prokopios Pavlopoulos points out, among others, the following:

“The very recent political developments in neighboring Northern Macedonia, which emerged as a result of the results of the local elections there, raise, from now on, important issues for the future of full respect and equal implementation, in the letter and spirit of its provisions. , of the Prespa Agreement, between Greece and the then Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, of 17 June 2018. This is because these results show a significant electoral strengthening of the highly reactionary “Democratic Party for the Macedonian National Unity” (“VMRO-DPMNE “).

A. Empowerment, which makes it very likely, especially in the parliamentary elections in Northern Macedonia, which will probably not take long to take into account the “serious” government instability there today. The above party was not only “against” the conclusion and ratification of the Prespa Agreement. But it has also consistently supported positions that “testify” to a direct challenge to the entire regulatory content of this Agreement, or at least some of the “essentialia negotii” it contains. Such is in particular the radical revision – and for reasons of name change – of the then Constitution of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia but also the “Verbal” Communication “on the precise definition of the term” nationality “, meaning not” ethnicity “but exclusively “citizenship”.

B. Given the fact that if the “Democratic Party for the Macedonian National Unity” (“VMRO-DPMNE”) assumes governmental responsibilities now and, much more, if it wins the next parliamentary elections, it will probably challenge, directly and openly, implementation of the Prespa Agreement, it is useful for Greece to make clear from now on its position in the face of this possibility. In particular, its position that in such a case it will exercise, in its judgment, the rights conferred primarily on it by the provisions of Articles 56 and 60 of the Vienna Convention, or on the denunciation of the Prespa Agreement, or to leave it. Either for the expiration of the above Agreement or for the suspension of its application.

C. In addition, it is rather imperative for Greece to go to both Northern Macedonia and the competent bodies of the European Union that if this State adopts such “dangerous paths” it can not, in any way, expect any kind of progress. in terms of its European perspective. Also, any progress regarding the ratification by the Greek Parliament of the additional cooperation protocols in the framework of the Prespa Agreement must be ruled out. Finally, both the European Union and NATO must realize that Greece is not going to back down, even in the slightest, in defending its National Issues and National Rights against Northern Macedonia, based on the Agreement of Prespa, especially under the “pretext” of the supposed importance of this State for the European Union and NATO.

Especially when the exact opposite is true: A State that blatantly violates its international treaty obligations and defiantly deceives those who trust it not only does not “add” to the prestige and power of the European Union and NATO. On the contrary, his stay in their midst, in any form and version, is an international “shame”. “So Greece, with the above attitude, is defending, as a result, both the European Union and NATO, according to their statutory goals”.