Life After Death

Instead of concerning itself with the issues of a swift revival of the Yugoslav economic space, the peace conference in Brussels is currently preoccupied with the issue of inheritance of the Yugoslav property.

The Balkan nation beaters have embarked on a new chase: inflaming the passions surrounding the meaningless issue of who the legal heir to Yugoslavia is.

"Borba" informs that "the obviously good-humoured" Slovenian president Milan Kucan has, stated upon his return from the peace conference in Brussels on March 9, that the attitude of the four republics was that Yugoslavia had fallen apart and that all federal units were its heirs. Kucan was given a great credit since presidents Gligorov (Macedonia), Izetbegovic (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and Tudjman (Croatia) "closely adhered" to the attitude of the Slovenian president in their conflict with Serbia and Montenegro. It seems that the always depressed Slovenian president has been encouraged by the favourable prospects for a new round of the match with the odious "southerners", who, having been accused of appropriating the common inheritance, can once again serve for diverting the attention from the economic problems at home.

On the other hand, chief of the Serbian diplomacy Vladislav Jovanovic has complained in Brussels that "the interest of Serbia and Montenegro to stay in the common state of Yugoslavia... is not being considered as seriously as the interest of other states wishing to leave it".

Lord Carrington, however, purported that "any kind of association between the members of the former Yugoslavia - is an entirely new creation". At the end of the last conference session the Lord decided to nominate his special "commissioner for succession", who will examine the problem in detail from the viewpoint of the international law.

The authors of the inheritance issue analysis, made at the Foreign Office, have concluded that "there are no imperative norms in the international law which would create a firm obligation on the part of the states, on the basis of which, in the event of succession, to arrange their relations in an appropriate manner". The two international conventions signed in 1978 and 1983 in Vienna have no effect: they have not been enforced because a sufficient number of states willing to sign them could not be found.

The first convention, concerning the succession of states with regard to international contracts, has been ratified by the SFRY; the other one, referring to the succession of states with regards to state property, archives and debts has been signed by it. The Foreign Office experts point to the fact that, in the last instance, the international community will decide on how

to resolve the dispute concerning the number of heirs on the basis of the balance between power and interests.

Professor of international law from Novi Sad Dejan Janca has told VREME that the international legal status of Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro cannot be automatically inherited; this will depend on the consent of others: in this case, on the consent of other Yugoslav states and third parties. "The holder of international sovereignty of Yugoslavia was a federal state which no longer exists, since the wholesome Yugoslav territory, the population and the authorities no longer exist either", reminded Janca. The Russian analogy cannot be applied to the case of Yugoslavia, since the former Soviet republics have not denied the right to Moscow to be the sole heir. According to him, Serbia will have to ask for an international recognition, since in case it is not placed in an equal position in relation to other Yugoslav republics, new conflicts will be likely to occur.

Mr. Obrad Racic, professor of international law from Belgrade, has stressed in his interview to VREME that, on the basis of legal facts, "one could argue that we are not dealing with a disintegration of Yugoslavia, but only with a secession of certain republics". He added that there are enough arguments for the continuity of Yugoslavia, even if it were to consist of Serbia and Montenegro alone.

Racic reminded that India, after breaking away from Pakistan, has kept its position in the United Nations: India was one of its founders, same as Yugoslavia. At the same time, there were no obstacles for Pakistan to enter this world organization.

Professor Vojin Dimitrijevic, also an expert on international law, expressed his view that "the secession of one or several federal units, or any other part of the territory, does not automatically mean the disappearance of the state". "The recognition of Slovenia and Croatia as independent states has not been taken as the end of Yugoslavia, neither has it been understood to be that by the states which have recognized them: they can keep their diplomatic missions in Belgrade, which have not been accredited to the Serbian but to the Yugoslav authorities".

The arbiters in the Yugoslav crisis have clearly shown the extent of their understanding of the desires of the Serbian and Montenegrin authorities: the American ambassador Warren Zimmermann said last week in Belgrade that the USA "sympathize" with the intentions of Serbia and Montenegro to form a common state. He gave no mention of continuity.

There is no reason to doubt that Slovenia and Croatia will be accepted in the United Nations and other international organizations after their recognition by Washington. But likewise, there is no reason to expect that Yugoslavia could be excluded from the world organization, even if it were made up of only the two remaining republics.

The Croatian-Slovenian request for "withdrawing the legitimacy" from the Yugoslav federation so that it would not stand in the way of the independence of the new states, is basically just as shallow as the Serbo-Montenegrin attempt to keep Yugoslavia alive after her death. At any rate, the troubles concerning the preservation of the Yugoslav position within the international organizations, could easily be solved by recognizing the independence of the run-away republics.