| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
  |
|
 |
|
  |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Mutual Recognition of Croatia and Serbia (+Montenegro)
Saskia Hille 1
Full text available: PDF format *
I. Introduction
Much has been written on international recognition of the former republics of Yugoslavia,2 but little on the possibility of their eventual mutual recognition. As the war shows, finding a solution, and the prospect of living in peace side by side, depends not so much on the opinion of the international community, but more on the political realities of the relationship between the former republics. Mutual recognition, as part of this political reality, is therefore an important prescription for peace.
This article examines an eventual mutual recognition of Croatia and Serbia (+Montenegro), because it is envisaged by both the international community and the republics themselves, and because steps have already been taken to promote this plan. First, a new UN peace-plan for Croatia contains guidelines as to its recognition by Belgrade.3
This means that - after the Vance-Plan submitted at the end of 1991 - another attempt is now being made to come to a general settlement concerning mutual recognition. Whilst the Vance-Plan succeeded in establishing so-called `United Nations Protected Areas' in the Serbian parts of Croatia,4 it did not manage to find a final and encompassing solution to the problem of recognition. Second, both Belgrade and Zagreb envisage a mutual recognition, and contacts have been made recently to discuss this matter.5
This article compares the international recognition of both republics with the envisaged mutual recognition, in particular outlining new aspects of the latter. It then discusses problems connected with this mutual recognition, e.g. the integrity of Croatian territory, the influence of Belgrade on Serbian entities (the so-called `Republika Srpska Krajina'),6 the status of Serbs in Croatia and the wish of Belgrade to be recognized as a `continuing State' of the former Yugoslavia. The article then concludes with some remarks on the development of recognition in public international law.
* The free viewer (Acrobat Reader) for PDF file is
available at the
Adobe Systems.
1 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich.
2 E.g., Pellet, `The Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee,
A Second Breath for the Self-Determination of Peoples', 3 EJIL (1992)
178; Rich, `Recognition of States: The Collapse of Yugoslavia and the Soviet
Union', 4 EJIL (1993) 36-65; Türk, `Recognition of States: A
Comment', 4 EJIL (1993) 66-71; Weller, `The International Response to
the Dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia', 86
AJIL (1992) 569-607.
3 See Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), 15 October 1994,
22 October 1994.
4 Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to SC Res. 721 (1991), UN
Doc. S/23280, Ann. III (1991); Weller, supra note 1, at 584.
5 E.g., Visit of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the `Republic of
Yugoslavia', Jovanovic, to Zagreb on 4 November 1994.
6 It should be noted that, since its re-integration into the Croatian
State by Croatian troops, the `Republika Srpska Krajina' no longer exists.
Moreover, the problem of Serbs living outside Serbia is not yet resolved,
illustrated by the fact that Serbs still live in parts of Croatia (i.e.
East-Slavonia) and in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
© 1990-2004 European Journal of International Law
All comments and suggestions should be sent to webmaster
This site is part
of the Academy of European Law online, a joint partnership of the Jean Monnet Center at NYU School of Law and the Academy of European
Law at the European University
Institute.
This file was last modified:
Tuesday, October 14, 2003 12:15PM