Inheritance Issues

"Under the constitution, the government has certain powers it has to adhere to and we are adhering to them. The preface to the federal constitution says the FRY is continuing the international and legal subjectivity of the former Yugoslavia and that means we will take on all the debts of the former Yugoslavia." (Tomica Raicevic, federal minister).

"It's mainly depends on us whether we'll get funds from abroad or not. That is perhaps the biggest disagreement between the government and myself. I hope we will solve all these problems before the parliament session. If they're not solved, especially if they decide to freeze our relations with the world, which I think is the consequence of the government's stand, we'll go to parliament." (Dragoslav Avramovic, Yugoslav National Bank (NBJ) governor).

Why is recognition of the FRY's continuity so important that membership in the IMF would be rejected and the money that comes with it?

Continuity, which the FRY authorities raised to biblical levels since the FRY was formed in April 1992, includes keeping the status and place of the previous state in the international community and its effect boils down to securing historic and legal links between the new states and the precursor state.

The Yugoslav authorities believe the international community is obliged to recognize that continuity since four republics broke away which is an illegal act in terms of both the constitution and international law. They repeat that at every occasion in a way that no state whose continuity was threatened ever did. So what are the unimaginable advantages, what vital national interests does continuity secure?

For example, it brings a certain political prestige, especially retaining the status of UN founder and indirectly confirming that the other republics are evil secessionists and the only ones to blame for the breakup of former Yugoslavia. They're counting on possibly avoiding special conditions in regard to solving the crisis for the FRY's acceptance in the UN. There's also a belief by some international law experts that if continuity is recognized, the armed conflicts could be considered a civil war not FRY aggression. There are also expectations that the position of the inheritor state would be much more favorable in the succession process. Lawyers who defend the stand of the authorities said preserving continuity is a condition for the self-determination of the Serbs outside the FRY (Milan Bulajic), and there's talk of danger for Kosovo, the Sandzak and Vojvodina if continuity isn't recognized (Vojislav Seselj). Budimir Kosutic feels that securing the borders through continuity is important "because there are states that claim some territories were given to the former Yugoslavia, which no longer exists, and not Serbia and raise the question of getting them back".

In explaining the FRY's right to continuity various arguments are used. One is that the FRY included that continuity in its constitution, i.e. the "uninterrupted subjectivity of Yugoslavia", and that Yugoslavia's membership in the UN was never in doubt legally. Some have also invoked continuity with the Kingdom of Serbia.

But thing's aren't as they might seem.

For a start, no one has to recognize the FRY's continuity. There are no international legal norms which would guarantee continuity for any state. So there's no legal basis for the FRY to demand recognition. Achieving continuity depends primarily on the situation which resulted from changes in the state. The key question is whether the FRY is the same as the former Yugoslavia? The difference is in size, geographic position, national make-up, constitutional and socio-economic order even insignia. And perhaps more importantly, the FRY, its statesmen and public, are renouncing the identity of the former Yugoslavia. The entire legal system is changing, tradition is being rejected - therefore continuity is being rejected - expecting in ultimatum demands for others to recognize it.

Others will decide whether to recognize continuity based on their own free political will. The authorities here are hiding the fact that the understanding of continuity is created outside the state which aspires to it, often devoid of its wishes.

Invoking our constitution puts an obligation on us, not the international community least of all the IMF. It's even less credible that the IMF will be impressed by the patriotic pride of Mihailo MIlojevic, president of the Yugoslav Economic Chamber, who swore he will resign if the talks with the IMF do not provide the result the authorities want.

UN Security Council resolution 777 of September 1992, should be borne in mind when considering theories by lawyers close to the authorities who said Yugoslavia's UN membership was never in legal doubt. That resolution says the state formerly known as the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia has ceased to exist and added that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) cannot automatically continue the membership of the former Yugoslavia and that the Security Council recommends that the General Assembly should take a decision for the FRY to submit a request for UN membership and will not take part in the General Assembly.

The invoking of the Kingdom of Serbia and Montenegro is especially interesting because it leads to the conclusion that Serbia and Montenegro are the state nucleus of Yugoslavia. The political agreement between the two republics, sanctioned in the 1992 constitution, is explained as the expression of the will of the two peoples to continue living in one state, Yugoslavia, which has been reduced in size. That argument seems to lose track of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (of which only Serbia remains in Yugoslavia) and makes no mention of the fact that just two of the federal units that made up the former Yugoslavia are in the FRY.

It's also worth mentioning that soon after Yugoslavia was created in 1918, a debate was started on whether the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes is a new or old state, or a state that continues the continuity of the Kingdom of Serbia.

Confusion came when the problem of succession was placed in the context of recognizing continuity. Although those two things are being solved parallel in practice, they are essentially different. Continuity is political and succession is a legal category which includes, above all, the transfer of rights and obligations, active and passive, property and debts, i.e. the change of owner.

The criteria for succession are different: size of territory, number of inhabitants, contributions to the state budget and joint property, investments in parts of the country, a division of expenses and the foreign debt in the common state; in simple terms, who brought what into the common state and not who is to blame for its break-up. The FRY would not have any right to take the entire property of the former Yugoslavia even if continuity is recognized and the other republics are declared secessionists, nor would it allow any privileges. Contrary to what the authorities believe, secession is not banned under any international law. Normal countries solve inheritance issues by agreement. When the Soviet Union fell apart, Russia's continuity was recognized but the debts were divided among the former Soviet republics just as was done in the case of the Czech and Slovak republics, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

When you take everything into account, the conclusion is that recognition of continuity would have no practical effect on this country or its citizens. That recognition is needed only by Slobodan Milosevic as a way to get legitimacy, primarily for use at home, to show he is completely innocent of wrongdoing, that he did not break-up Yugoslavia but stayed faithful to it in every way, that he's not an aggressor, that he didn't wage war, that the blame is entirely on the other side.

As Borisav Jovic said, he won't beg for recognition, he wants the world to admit he was right. On behalf of the fixation, he won't take money from the IMF to revive the economy and improve living standards. Life on this earth obviously isn't one of the political priorities of these authorities.

ANTREFILE

Considering that Milan Panic, as federal prime minister, reached agreement with the IMF in 1992 to leave continuity aside and accept the quota of 36.5% of former Yugoslavia's capital, VREME asked Panic to comment on the insistence of the current government on recognizing continuity before an agreement is reached.

"I believe the continuity issue should be separated from membership in the IMF and other international financial institutions. It's not that the issue isn't important, but we have to start cooperation and join those institutions. If we don't, I believe we will have huge financial and economic problems," he said.

We could add that the current FRY authorities assurances of taking over all the obligations of the former Yugoslavia do not sound very convincing since it isn't capable of respecting agreements reached by the previous FRY government.