Prespa Agreement Signed

On 25 January, the Greek Parliament ratified the Prespa agreement, ending three decades of conflict over the name between Athens and Skopje. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is now called the „Republic of Northern Macedonia“ and its citizens are called „Macedonians/citizens of the Republic of Northern Macedonia.“ The citizens of northern Macedonia speak the „Macedonian“ language that belongs (as the agreement explains) to the family of southern Slavic languages. The withdrawal of the Greek veto led the European Union to authorise, on 27 June, the opening of accession negotiations with the Republic of Macedonia in order to start next year, subject to the implementation of the Prespa agreement and the modification of the country`s constitutional name in the Republic of Northern Macedonia. [62] On 5 July, the Prespa agreement was again ratified by the Macedonian Parliament and 69 MEPs voted in favour. [63] On 11 July, NATO invited Macedonia to begin accession negotiations to become the 30th member of the Euro-Atlantic Alliance. [64] This is a decisive step towards the entry into force of this historic agreement, which aims to end a bilateral dispute that has lasted for more than a quarter of a century. Having renounced the idea of the Prespa agreement as an objective regime, the debate on the just meaning of the reference to erga omnes remains valid. In the following lines, three different ideas are presented to erga omnes: first, the document will examine whether the solution of the name is contradicted erga omnes, thus creating obligations for third countries to respect them[48] not on the basis of the agreement of Prespa itself, but through general international law. Second, it examines whether the reference to erga omnes means that third countries have legal status to be responsible for violations of the provisions of the Prespa agreement on the counting of names. At this stage, the analysis will move from primary rules with the nature of erga omnes obligations to secondary rules on state liability for violations of primary rules such as erga omnes obligations were designed by the ICJ in the Barcelona traction case. [49] Third, one examines whether the reference to erga omnes means something completely different from the two legal constructs mentioned above, which shows how the term erga omnes has been used several times in different contexts that have nothing to do with counter-capacity or legal status, which leads to some conceptual confusion that is also present in the debate on erga omnes in the Prespa patent agreement.