We demand that legal stability be established whereby Macedonia’s Euro-Atlantic integration would be achieved. With such an appeal to the International Court of Justice in the Hague, Nikola Dimitrov closed Monday the presentation of the Macedonian arguments in the second round of the public hearing in Macedonia’s lawsuit against Greece for breaching the Interim Accord. Before 15 judges from across the world, Dimitrov, the Macedonian co-agent in the dispute, stressed that Macedonia was going to honor the decision of the Court, whatever it is, and added that neither the lawsuit nor its outcome would have an effect on the name issue talks, Vecer reports.  

“We want a verdict that will restore legal stability and confirm that what has already been agreed upon should not be used as something for gaining advantage in the name issue talks. If the verdict is in our favor, both parties have the same burden and same impetus to continue talking concerning the name of my country. The effect of your verdict will be solely to help restore the regime that both parties honored for 13 years,” Dimitrov said and pointed out that Macedonia is not tying to monopolize the name of Macedonia and is not opposing its use for referring to one of the Greek provinces.

The other Macedonian agents, distinguished professors from eminent universities, also said the Greek arguments were untenable and the Court should rule in favor of Macedonia. The international law professor from Brussels, Pierre Klein, demanded that the Greece’s claim that the filed lawsuit was not under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice should be rejected and stressed that the name issue was isolated from the lawsuit although the Greek agents contended the opposite.

“We are here to prove that the demands are concrete and true, both in relation to NATO and the other organizations, such as the European Union, which the plaintiff wishes to join,” Mr. Klein said.

Professor Sean Murphy said that the Macedonian agents fully contradicted all arguments of the defendant and requested of the Court to accept Macedonia’s application.

“Greece wishes to forget its conduct and who really put a veto. However, we appeal that the Court should not forget, that it should establish the indisputable fact and not forget that the facts demonstrate unambiguous breach of the Interim Accord,” Mr. Murphy said.

He elaborated the ten points which the Greek defense drew upon and concluded that the facts about the Greek opposition to Macedonia’s membership of NATO were evident and that the Alliance itself pointed at Greece as a party that countered Macedonia’s membership.

Professor Philippe Sands, international law professor from London, referred to Greece’s  presentation before the International Court of Justice as storytelling based on myths and unfounded arguments. He emphasized that the first hearing had made it clear that this was a simple process considering that the defendant opposed Macedonia’s membership of NATO under the provisional reference, breaching Article 11 of the Interim Accord. He also disputed the alleged evidence of Macedonian irredentism that the Greek agents talked about last week and the claims that Macedonia was a threat to Greece for having territorial claims.

The Greek team is going to lay out its counter-arguments Wednesday and the Court is expected to reach its verdict by the autumn at the latest.