THE IMPACT OF POLITICS ON INTERNATIONAL LAW:

"MACEDONIA V. GREECE" IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF

JUSTICE

Jana ILIEVA1,–BlagojCONEV2⃰
1
Jana Ilieva, Assistant Professor,University of Tourism and Management Skopje,
Blvd. PartizanskiOdredi99, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia
2
Blagoj Conev, Ph.D. CandidateMIT University Skopje, Blvd. Treta Makedonska
Brigada bb, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia
⃰Corresponding author E-mail address: e-mail: j.ilieva@utms.edu.mk

Received: 12.03.2016; accepted _________

ABSTRACT

Although lawis a synonymfor prestige and order among people around the world, still
the human and interstate relations are regulated by the politics. The policy rises out (results)
from the law however it governs the law. Therefore, in any society, including the
international one, politics is that which determines the methods and means by which that
society will move forward. This means that the law is actually a process of equilibration i.e.
balancing the interests of individuals and groups in order to restore an order.
In the process of creating international legislation, the states are guided by their
national interestsand not by the generally accepted and existing international legal
frameworks. This gives the politics wider sphere of influence and it directly affects the
creation of international law. The best example is the case in the International Court of
Justice: Macedonia v. Greece, where, because of protecting its national interests, one country
(Greece) avoids the implementation of the International Court of Justice judgement, citing the
fact that it is a sovereign state and that there is no legal framework or sanction that one
sovereign state would be forced to comply with the rulings of the International Court of
Justice.
Through the method of analysis and synthesis, the authors of this paper, will show
that inthe ICJ case/judgment "Macedonia v. Greece", politics dominated the law, and that a
sovereign state may not observe the ICJ judgement if it conflicts with its "national" interests.
By way of synthesis, the authors will prove that the national interests of states are stronger
than the international regulation in the international society.

Key words: international law, politics, interest, national, society, ICJ

 Introduction

At the very beginning, the International Treaty Law (Law of Treaties) was regulated
by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2166 XXI dated December 5th,
1966.General Assembly requested the United Nations Secretary-General to organise a
conference of the UN member states with a purpose to define the acts arising from the
contracts signed among the states - basic subjects of international law. Therefore, by holding
the two conferences, in 1968 and 19691 in Vienna, for the first time in the history of
international law, regulation of international agreements has begun. During the conferences
held by the United Nations, the Convention on the Law of Treaties has been adopted on 22
May 1969. This Convention is based on the international law principles embodied in the UN
Charter:principle of equality of peopleand their self-determination, principle of sovereign
equality and independence of all states, non-interference in internal affairs, prohibition of
threat or use of force and principle of universal and actual respect for human rights and
fundamental freedoms.2
Тhe International Convention on the Law of Treaties stipulatesthatstates are equal,
and that any agreement which entered into force is mandatory and the parties must
implement, i.e must demonstrate bona fides3. Interestingly, as stated by Juraj Andrassy in
International Law: "As a rule, no ratification is required for treaties entered by an exchange
of notes and letters"4 Namely, as explained by Andrassy, under the Convention, the
international treaty may be composed of a single document, with introduction, disposition
and final provisions. In 1995, Macedonia and Greece signed an Interim Accord 5, a modus
viviendi, aimed precisely at keeping the discontent relating to the name dispute from tainting
the international relations between the signatories, setting a comprehensive set of mutual
commitments, collateral to their pledge “to continue the negotiation under the auspices of the
Secretary General of the United Nations…with a view to reaching agreement on the
difference (about the name)” Article 5 (1) IA.6

1
P. Mangovski: Public International Law, Kultura, Skopje, 1983, рр. 144-170 (Megunarodnojavnopravo)
2
A. Osiander: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Westphalian Myth, International Organization, Vol.
55, 2001, No. 2, pp.267
3
L. Oppenheim, Lauterpacht, H., International Law, 1995, Longman
4
J. Andrassy, International Law, Školskaknjiga, Zagreb, 1971 (Međunarodnopravo)
5
[19.02.2016], http://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/MK_950913_Interim %20Accord % 20
between%20the%20Hellenic%20Republic%20and%20the%20FYROM.pdf
6
E. Polymenopolou: International Court of Justice, Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995
(The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia v. Greece) Judgement of 3 December 2011, International and
 As it can be illustrated by this Interim Accord7 (Greece and The Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia - Interim Accord)registerdunder the number 32193 in the UNarchives
anddated October 13th, 1995, the parties were not in touch with each other, but they
maintained a relationship through a mediator - Cyrus Vance, making this agreement in
practice assame as that of 28 October 1962. The second was concluded by an exchange of
letters between the state heads of the USSR and the United States, or between Nikita
Khrushchev and John Kennedy, where it is written that: "I have received your message of
October 27. I express my satisfaction and thank you for the sense of proportion you have
displayed and for realization of the responsibility which now devolves on you for the
preservation of the peace of the world."89This means that the agreement between Macedonia
and Greece in 1995, which refers to the Macedonia name issue is not subject to ratification as
it is not directly concluded between the two parties,10 In other words, it has direct effect in
the domestic jurisprudence of the both countries. As a result,provided that the partiescomply
with the international law, the State party - Greece, in the section labeled as "C" of the
Interim Agreement “agrees not to object to the application by or the membership of the Party
of the Second Part (Macedonia) in international, multilateral and regional organizations,”11
without ratification.
However, when distinction is made between law and politics, politics is the one that
arises from the law, but rules the law. Law and politics create their own particular pictures of
reality and sometimes those pictures overlap, sometimes they differ. 12As it is explained by
Kenneth Waltz in the Theory of International Politics,political importance of interdependence
varies depending on whether a realm is organized, with relations of authority specified and
established, or remains formally unorganized.13 It means that this condition occurs due to the
fact that all international institutions are abstract.14
International institutions constitute a model or manual work. It happens due to the fact
that the legal structures that are part of international relations and law do not apply

Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 61, 2012, pp.775

7
Hereinafter: Interim Accord
8
  [19.02.2016 ], https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/nikita4.htm
9
P. Mangovski: Public International Law, Kultura, Skopje, 1983, рр. 146 (Megunarodnojavnopravo)
10
[19.02.2016], http://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/MK_950913_Interim%20Accord
%20between%20the%20Hellenic%20Republic%20and%20the%20FYROM.pdf
11
[19.02.2016], http://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/MK_950913_Interim%20Accord%20
between%20the%20Hellenic%20Republic%20and%20the%20FYROM.pdf
12
M. Cerar: The Relationship Between Law and Politics, Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law:
Vol. 15, 2009, No. 1, pp.19
13
K. Waltz:. Theory of International Politics, Long Grove IL: Waveland Pr. Inc, 2010
14
C. Reus-Smith: The Politics of International Law., Cambridge University Press, 2010
ipsepsapsum, but by the virtue of will of the main parties or states, making them relatively
vague. Thus, the application and interpretation of the international law directly depends upon
the policy i.e. It is guided by the national interests of the states.That would mean that,
because of its abstractness, institutions and agreements that are part of international law are
losing their role as a source of law, especially inthe domestic level, i.e. they are not being
used as such.
The Interim Accord between Macedonia and Greece in 1995eo ipso and due to its
abstractness is not osserved by one contracting party, and is not implemented in the
international political arena. This particularly applies in reference with the Macedonia's
membership in international organizations whereunder the Interim Accord,Greece obliges
‘not to object’ to Macedonia joining any international organizations, as long as it applied
under its ‘provisional designation’ provided for in Security Council Resolution 817 (1993).15.
In this way,volatility in international law is being demonstratedthus international
institutions become abstraction, they contribute to the creation of tension and instability in the
inter-states relations. The power of one of the parties prevails in relations with the other and
creates a variation between law and politics. The difference between the law and the politics
may prevail only when one contracting party waives its legal and material supremacy over
the other contracting parties, and obliges itself to comply with the agreement. Thus the
difference between the law and the politics disappears hence the lawoverrule the politics16
and international agreements are more appreciated.With respect to the Interim Accord
between Macedonia and Greece, unfortunately,the politics overruledthe law and the national
interests of one of the contracting parties (Greece) did not allow the differences between the
politics and the law to be melted.

The impact of politics on International Law: ICJ “Macedonia v. Greece case

The political importance of the interdependence is changing according to that if the

area is organized with certain and established relations of domination or if it becomes
disorganized.17 If it becomes disorganized, that means that the politics is out of its bounds, i.e.
15
[20.02.2016], http://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/MK_950913_Interim%20Accord%20
between%20the%20Hellenic%20Republic%20and%20the%20FYROM.pdf
16
C. Reus-Smith: The Politics of International Law., Cambridge University Press, 2010.
17
K. Waltz: Theory of International Politics, Long Grove IL: Waveland Pr. Inc, 2010
the same begins to rule with the law. In that case, aside from the fact that that condition could
be organized with its components, such as the international agreements can be freely
interpreted to follow the national interests of one of the contracting parties. Best example for
that is the case of Macedonia against Greece in the International Court of Justice, where the
political interests of one of the contracting parties are developed through means for keeping
its own identity, i.e. the same are putting on pedestal their national interests on account of the
international-legislative regulations, such as the international agreements – in this case the
Interim Accord. Namely, if is valid the classification of Kenneth Waltz, that the countries
although are similar entities, they are differing regarding their capabilities 18, in that case, it
seems that the national interests of one country are more important than the international law.
This means that the international law by itself depends on the interests of its subjects – the
countries. And if the International Court of Justice on December 5th 2011 stipulates that:
Greece has violated article 11 of the Interim Accord, i.e. the same has misconducted its
membership in the multilateral organizations to block the membership of Macedonia in them,
and recommends both sides to respect the international agreement, i.e. the Interim Accord 19,
that same “verdict” until today 2016 is not respected by the Greek authorities. In other words,
the Judgment has not managed to cause a change in the attitude of the one disputing party
mostly affected by the judgment (Greece), which coercive policy of preventing the entrance
of the other party (RM) in international organizations to which it seeks to accede (NATO and
the EU), that has been steadily practiced by it in order to influence the outcome of ongoing
name-negotiations according to its own rigid ‘read line’ position for a single (ergaomnes)
name, largely remained intact, despite the oppositefindings of the judgment.20
Therefore, as per Alfred Kahn classification “the great changes are a result of the
small decisions”21, i.e. the great changes in the relations between these counties will not
happen if both of them do notset aside their national and identity interests, and therewith
allow the law to overcome the politics.
In fact, it would mean that the small decision of Greece to respect the Interim Accord
of 1995 would bring big changes not only for Macedonia but also for the entire region of
Southeast Europe, since Macedonia's membership in NATO and the European Union would

18
Ibid
19
[23.02.2016], http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/142/16819.pdf
20
S. Georgievski: The Judgment of the International Court of Justice of 5 December 2011 and the Greek-
Macedonian ‘Difference Over the Name’: Does the ICJ’s Judgment Affect the Pending Diplomatic Dispute
Settlement Process? Iustinianus Primus Law Review, No.7, Vol. 4, 2013, pp. 18-19
21
A. Kahn: The Tyranny of Small Decisions in B.M. Rusetted: Economic Theories of International Relations.
Markham, Chicago, 1966
change overall geopolitical status quo in the region and in Europe. Namely, if Greece doesn’t
block Macedonia's aspirations to become a full member of the European Union and NATO,
probably the same would already be part of NATO, and probably would be in the final phase
of pre-accession negotiations with the European Union, and thus as a state member of these
two important regional international organizations would contribute to strengthening of the
regional and international security in Europe and Asia.
If we take the theory of Kenneth Waltz for the anarchy in the international policyi.e.
the importance of the structures in it22, then these structures are sine qua non also for the
international law. Namely, if the structures are subject to change, i.e. they are changing by
redistributing of the capabilities of the entities (in this case - the countries of Macedonia and
Greece), then can be changed the overall situation in which there are relations between the
countries –Republic of Greece and Republic of Macedonia. In this way with the changing of
the structures, the right will produce the politics, but the politics would not rule with it.
Namely, it would mean that although the political interests of the states would be led by
domestic legal and political system and its needs, they will not be in accordance only with the
national interests of states, but would be in accordance with the interests of the international
law. Thus the interests of the nations will balance between themselves and the right will be
able to establish some sort of equilibrium in the international politics. Such a situation would
lead to a situation where the politics will be a result of the law and the right will rule with it.
And if we consider the situation of the relations between Macedonia and Greece
regarding the changing of the structures, it would mean that although is from national interest
for Greece, Macedonia not to become part of any international organization until the
settlement of the dispute with the name, however according to the international law,Greece
will allow Macedonia to be part of all international organizations, since the overall goal of
both countries and the entire international community is to achieve stability in that part of the
world.
That would mean that Greece will not only respect Article 11 of the Interim Accord23,
but it will also mean that there is no need such a dispute is before the International Court of
Justice. Namely, that is the only way for the states to satisfy their needsin accordance with the
needs of the world political "ecosystem" in its global dimensions, or they will be
destroyed24.This way, state will demonstrate their commitment to serve to the international
22
K. Waltz: Theory of International Politics, Long Grove IL: Waveland Pr. Inc, 2010
23
[25.02.2016], http://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/MK_950913_Interim%20 Accord%20
between%20the%20Hellenic%20Republic%20and%20the%20FYROM.pdf
24
R. Sterling: International Relations, & Global Society. Knopf, New York. 1974, pp. 336.
interests and not to the national, and the solutions to the problems will not depend on their
national interests as in the case of the disobedience of the Interim Accord, and the judgment
of the International Court of Justice from the part of theRepublic of Greece 25. That is why, it
is not exaggerated if note that when it comes to the issue of the relationsbetween law and
politics, perhaps it is true that we are now all realists.26

Conclusion

The world of theinternational politics is dominated by the realistic interpretation of

how the relationship between states as basic subjects of the international law, should be
governed. It means that the relationship that a country has with the others should be regulated
depending on what are the interests of that country. As a result, the power of the state is
crucial to what will be its politics with the other countries.
In consequence, the ratio between the power and the national interests with the
international law is determined by several categories. The power can be described as a
possessive means of one country to protect its national interests. In this case the state does not
follow the principles of the international law, but only the strategic interests that are
determined by its elite.
The best example of this is the case when more than twenty years the Greek political
elites are using the EU and NATO as a position of power in order to affect the Macedonian
foreign policy to change the country's name. In this case though the international law
according to the clauses of the Interim Accord of 1995 and the International Court of Justice
in 2011 Greece should not block Macedonia's aspirations for membership in multilateral
international organizations, uses his position of superiority in relation to Macedonia uses veto
for the acceptance of that country into the international organizations.
This precedent in the international law and international politics makes clear that the
power of one country contributes to creating anarchic system of the international relations, in
which the law is ruled by the politics, i.e. the interests of the subjects are placed in front of
the legal framework in which these entities should fit. Regarding this, Robert Jackman
explains that even though the force does not extract anagreement, its use proves that it cannot
be found a legal framework to achieve a goal in accordance with the international law27.

25
[25.02.2016] http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/142/16819.pdf
26
M. Zamboni: Legal Realisms and the Dilemma of the Relationship of Contemporary Law and Politics, A
Journal in Social and Legal TheoryVol. 12, 2006, pp. 295-317
 References:

[1] MangovskiPetar: Public International Law, Kultura, Skopje, 1983, рр. 144-170
(Megunarodnojavnopravo)
[2] Osiander Andreas: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Westphalian Myth,
International Organization, Vol. 55, 2001, No. 2, pp.267
[3] Oppenheim Lassa, Lauterpacht, Hersh., International Law, 1995, Longman
[4] Andrassy Juraj, International Law, Školskaknjiga, Zagreb, 1971 (Međunarodnopravo)
[5] Polymenopolou Eleni: International Court of Justice, Application of the Interim Accord of 13
September 1995 (The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia v. Greece) Judgement of 3
December 2011, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 61, 2012, pp.775
[6] Cerar Miro: The Relationship Between Law and Politics, Annual Survey of International &
Comparative Law: Vol. 15, 2009, No. 1, pp.19
[7] Waltz Kennet: Theory of International Politics, Long Grove IL: Waveland Pr. Inc, 2010
[8] Reus-Smith Christian: The Politics of International Law., Cambridge University Press, 2010
[9] GeorgievskiSaso: The Judgment of the International Court of Justice of 5 December 2011 and
the Greek-Macedonian ‘Difference Over the Name’: Does the ICJ’s Judgment Affect the
Pending Diplomatic Dispute Settlement Process? Iustinianus Primus Law Review, No.7, Vol. 4,
2013, pp. 18-19
[10] Kahn E. Alfred: The Tyranny of Small Decisions in B.M. Rusetted: Economic Theories of
International Relations. Markham, Chicago, 1966
[11] Sterling W. Richard: International Relations, & Global Society. Knopf, New York. 1974
[12] Zamboni Mauro: Legal Realisms and the Dilemma of the Relationship of Contemporary Law
and Politics, A Journal in Social and Legal Theory Vol. 12, 2006, pp. 295-317
[13] Јackman W. Robert: Power Without Force: The Political Capacity of Nation States, University
of Michigan Press, 1993, pp. 30.
[14] https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/nikita4.htm
[15] http://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/MK_950913_Interim%20Accord
%20between%20the%20 Hellenic%20Republic%20and%20the%20FYROM.pdf
[16] http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/142/16819.pdf

27
R.W. Јackman: Power Without Force: The Political Capacity of Nation States, University of Michigan Press,
1993, pp. 30.