---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dragan RAKIC <[Е-ПОШТА ЗАШТИЋЕНА]> Date: 2 mars 2008 13:06 Subject: FW: Recognition of new states To: [Е-ПОШТА ЗАШТИЋЕНА]
*From:* Dragan RAKIC [mailto:[Е-ПОШТА ЗАШТИЋЕНА] *Sent:* Sunday, March 02, 2008 11:37 AM *To:* [Е-ПОШТА ЗАШТИЋЕНА]; [Е-ПОШТА ЗАШТИЋЕНА] *Cc:* [Е-ПОШТА ЗАШТИЋЕНА]; European Democrat Group ([Е-ПОШТА ЗАШТИЋЕНА]); Jatras, James G.; Joe Bisset ([Е-ПОШТА ЗАШТИЋЕНА]); John Bosnitch; [Е-ПОШТА ЗАШТИЋЕНА]; [Е-ПОШТА ЗАШТИЋЕНА] *Subject:* Recognition of new states http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol4/No1/art4.pdf D. The European Community sets New Rules The political need to take action in both the Yugoslav and the Soviet Union situations was mounting. It was becoming clear that the application of the traditional criteria for statehood would not provide the European Community, the principal mediator in the Balkan crisis, with a sufficient choice of diplomatic tools with which to work. Recognition as a simple declaration of an ascertainable fact did not provide sufficient means to allow the EC to influence the situation. *On 16 December 1991, the EC Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels issued a `Declaration on the Guidelines on the Recognition of the New States in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union*'30<http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol4/No1/art4.html#P77_17848>(Annex 1). Accompanying this Declaration was a `Declaration on Yugoslavia' 31 <http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol4/No1/art4.html#P78_17953> (Annex 2). These two documents were significantly to influence international reactions on the issue of recognition of the newly emerging states of Eastern Europe and, arguably, transform recognition law. At the time the Declarations were issued, the EC countries had welcomed the return of the three Baltic states into the community of nations but had not extended recognition to any `new States' in Eastern Europe. Yet the use of this term in the title of the Guidelines document clearly foreshadowed that they would. The Declaration begins by referring to the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris, `*in particular the principle of self-determination'.* It then affirms the readiness of the EC countries to recognize new states `subject to the normal standards of international practice and the political realities in each case.' The rider concerning political realities is a stark reminder of Lauterpacht's comment that recognition of states is a matter of policy but rarely has it been expressed in such a direct way. The Guidelines describe the candidates for recognition as those new states which `have constituted themselves on a democratic basis, have accepted the appropriate international obligations and have committed themselves in good faith to a *peaceful process and to negotiations'.* The Guidelines then list the following requirements: - respect for the provisions of the *Charter of the United Nations* and the commitments subscribed to in the Final *Act of Helsinki and in the Charter of Paris, especially with regard to the rule of law, democracy and human rights* - guarantees for the rights of ethnic and national groups and minorities in accordance with the commitments subscribed to in the framework of the CSCE - *respect for the inviolability of all frontiers which can only be changed by peaceful means and by common agreement* - acceptance of all relevant commitments with regard to disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation as well as to security and regional stability - *commitment to settle by agreement,* including where appropriate by recourse to arbitration, all questions concerning state succession and regional disputes. The Guidelines conclude with the warning that the EC countries `will not recognize entities which are the result of aggression' and, cryptically, that `they would take account of the effects of recognition on neighbouring states.' 1- The principal of self-determination. : Not respected in many cases in Eastern and the Western Europe. KLA = Liberation army illegally armed and lead by terrorist groups, ETA, IRA, = terrorists for the same reasons. 2- Rule of law, democracy and human rights. Kosovo was not recognized on any of those bases. The recognition is only the political act and the act of force, regarding that the Serbian province was under the UN and NATO administration. *3- **respect of the inviolability of all frontiers which can only be changed by peaceful means and by common agreement*. This major point was completely ignored by those who recognized the Kosovo independence. The frontiers were *not changed in peaceful way, regarding that the UN resolution 1244, stipulated that Serbian police and forces in number of 1500 could secure the borders. The so called "administrative border" is under the NATO control * * * * * [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
