------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date sent:              Wed, 19 May 1999 11:28:05 -0700
To:                     [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From:                   Sid Shniad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:                GREEK JUDGES' BOMBSHELL VERDICT AGAINST NATO 

(located at <www.znet.org>)

GREEK JUDGES' BOMBSHELL VERDICT AGAINST NATO 

Twenty members of the Council of State (Greece's supreme 
administrative court) have issued a statement deploring the 
international crimes against Yugoslavia, which inaugurate a «period 
of lawlessness» and bring us back to the «eras of the Holy Alliance 
and the Axis» NATO was found guilty of an unprecedented and 
barbaric attack against Yugoslavia in a statement signed by 20 high-
ranking judges of the Greek Council of State, headed by its most 
senior vice-president Michalis Dekleris. 

In this important statement, the judges condemn the NATO 
bombardments, denounce the international crimes being committed 
by the NATO countries through this armed attack, and warn that 
any law passed deciding to involve Greece in this war will 
constitute a gross violation of the Constitution. 

For the first time since the bombing began, Greek judges have taken 
a stand and, citing legal arguments, point out that the NATO 
offensive against Yugoslavia has inaugurated a period of 
lawlessness in international relations, bringing us back to the eras of 
the Holy Alliance and the Axis. In fact, they pointed out that «this 
attack is accompanied by the revival of black propaganda that 
attempts to exploit the misfortunes of the refugees to draw public 
attention away from the violation of international law.» Following is 
the full text of the statement: 

1. NATO's offensive against a sovereign European state, 
unprecedented in the post-war years, is an affront not only to the 
ethical principles of Greek and European civilisation, but also to the 
fundamental precepts of international law. This latter is a legal issue 
and should not be overshadowed by the moral revulsion that is 
justly provoked by this cowardly and barbaric attack. On the 
contrary, this issue is of primary importance and must be clarified in 
particular by those who have a competent opinion about the Law, 
since their duty is to serve it. 

2. This inexcusable attack is taking place in flagrant violation of 
articles 1 and 2 of the United Nations Charter, which expressly 
prohibits the use of violence in international relations, and 
designates the Security Council (article 41 ff.) exclusively 
competent in international crises. According to these provisions, 
but also to the generally recognised precepts of international law, 
there is no room for self-appointed crisis managers, nor is it 
permitted, on any pretext whatsoever, for third countries to 
intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. 

3. But this attack even violates the NATO Charter, the exclusive 
purpose of which is collective defence of the area defined therein 
that coincides with the boundaries of its member states, and which 
has expressly committed itself in its international relations to refrain 
from the threat or use of violence in any way whatsoever that is 
incompatible with the principles and purposes of the UN (article 1). 
That is, by its own Charter, NATO has been placed under the rule 
of the UN Charter. And it could not have been otherwise, since no 
international organisation or alliance can be placed above the 
United Nations. 

4. In addition, both the United Nations Charter and all generally 
recognised precepts of international law safeguard the equality and 
sovereignty of all peoples, irrespective of their numbers and power, 
and do not recognise any jurisdiction on the part of powerful 
nations to intervene in the internal affairs of weaker nations or to 
dictate solutions to their own liking. Consequently, however serious 
the crisis in Kosovo may be, it remains an internal Yugoslav affair 
and belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of the sovereign Yugoslav 
state. Any humanitarian or other interest on the part of the UN, 
other international organisations or third countries may be 
manifested only in a peaceful way and by diplomatic means within 
the context of the UN Charter. 

5. And, in this case, the United Nations, respecting these 
restrictions, remained within its jurisdiction, recommending to the 
lawful government of Yugoslavia that they fulfil their obligations 
(Security Council resolutions No 1160/31.3.1998 and 
1199/23.9.1998). But behind the scenes, the NATO military 
alliance appeared in a self-appointed role, and without having - 
nor could it have had - any competence to become involved in 
this matter, having first dictated an insolent ultimatum 
disputing the very sovereignty of Yugoslavia, then launched an 
aggressive war against this state, demanding that it conform to 
NATO demands. This attack is accompanied by the revival of 
dark propaganda that attempts to exploit the misery of the 
refugees to draw public attention away from the violation of 
international law. 

6. The legal significance of these actions should not be concealed 
nor underestimated. By their armed attack, the NATO countries are 
committing the following international crimes, in accordance with 
the charter being drafted for the International Criminal Court, 
which refers to the Geneva Conventions dated 12 August 1949 
(UN Doc. A/CONF/183/9) and in particular: a) the crime of waging 
an offensive war, with the violent destruction of human life, cultural 
monuments and entire settlements, b) the crime of genocide by the 
deliberate destruction of the infrastructure of the Serbian 
community and the creation in it of conditions that lead to its 
physical annihilation, and c) the crime of ecological destruction by 
the use of military technology that causes damage to people's health 
and to the natural environment, a crime also committed against 
third countries to which deadly pollution is carried. 

7. During the recent Washington summit, the leadership of the 
attacking NATO countries tried to amend the provisions of its 
Charter to make it autonomous in continuing the attack on 
Yugoslavia, and also with regard to its plans for the future in 
carrying out so-called peace-making and humanitarian interventions 
under the pretext of «crisis management»! It tried in vain. The only 
valid crisis management, according to international law, remains as 
ever the UN. And no other organisation that is by definition inferior 
to it can remove or usurp this role. NATO cannot abolish 
international law nor can it produce new, generally recognised 
precepts of international legality. Its new Charter affects only the 
governments that signed it. And even if it is ratified by the national 
Parliaments of its member states, it will declare the intentions of 
just 19 out of a total of 158 states on the planet. The remaining 
states will not tolerate the falsification or mockery of international 
law. They reject the theory that might is right, whether overt or 
disguised. And small states like Greece will be in danger if they 
relinquish rights which have been undisputed for centuries. The 
truth is that NATO's attack on Yugoslavia inaugurates a period of 
lawlessness in international relations. We are returning to the era of 
the Holy Alliance and the Axis, against which humanity, and the 
Greeks in particular, fought with such great sacrifices. 

8. Having become involved in this crisis Greece has no option other 
than to do what its culture and Constitution dictate, namely to 
follow the generally recognised precepts of international law, to 
seek the consolidation of peace, and to use its armed forces only for 
defensive purposes (article 2 para 2 and article 4 para 6 of the 
Constitution). In the light of these provisions of the Constitution of 
the Hellenic State and the provisions of the United Nations Charter, 
it is possible to interpret the provisions of articles 27 para 2 and 28 
para 3 of the Constitution, which after a special law is passed, make 
it possible for foreign troops to sojourn in or travel across the 
Hellenic State or for national sovereignty to be restricted. These 
provisions could, however, be implemented only with respect to the 
participation of Greece in a defensive war, and not to facilitate an 
attack against a third state. Consequently, the involvement of 
Greece in this on-going war against Yugoslavia cannot be decided 
upon even by law because such a law would be totally 
unconstitutional. 

In addition to Mr. Dekleris, this statement was signed by the 
following Council of State members: St. Sarivalasis, Ioanna Mari, 
Dim. Kostopoulos, Evdoxia Galanou, Sot. Rizos, Pan. 
Pikrammenos, Nik. Sakellariou, Th. Papaevangellou, Nik. Rozos, 
Dion. Marinakis, St. Haralambos and associate judges Maria 
Karamanov, Ekaterini Christoforidou, I. Kapelousos, Dim. 
Alexandris, Eleni Anagnostopoulou, Euth. Antonopoulos, Varvara 
Kapitsi, Theo. Aravanis. 



Reply via email to