(by unknown, quoted by Brian)
The ICJ did speak about the airport and statues as it was high on Greece's attorneys agenda at the Hague. In both cases the ICJ ruled naming airports, or statues, or museums in no way breached the Interim Agreement, adding Macedonia has authority over its land and can do or name things in any way it desires. It was an internal matter, the ICJ ruled.
Nope, this isn't what the Court said. It said that since Athens didn't specifically object on the renaming of the airport (based on the provisions of the Interim Accord) they can't just use the argument in a generic way now. It also mentions that Athens DID make ONE official protest in one occasion in 2004 (it's about the use of a symbol, probably the Vergina Star, but I can't remember the exact case) and Skopje DID respond accordingly and discontinued the use of the symbol.
The court reminds what the IA says:
“If either Party believes one or more symbols constituting part of its historic or cultural patrimony is being used by the other Party, it shall bring such alleged use to the attention of the other Party, and the other Party shall take appropriate corrective action or indicate why it does not consider it necessary to do so.”
and (I guess) suggests both Parties should clearly state it when they have a problem. That may explain a lot about the Warrior on Horse.
The ICJ did speak about the airport and statues as it was high on Greece's attorneys agenda at the Hague. In both cases the ICJ ruled naming airports, or statues, or museums in no way breached the Interim Agreement, adding Macedonia has authority over its land and can do or name things in any way it desires. It was an internal matter, the ICJ ruled.
Nope, this isn't what the Court said. It said that since Athens didn't specifically object on the renaming of the airport (based on the provisions of the Interim Accord) they can't just use the argument in a generic way now. It also mentions that Athens DID make ONE official protest in one occasion in 2004 (it's about the use of a symbol, probably the Vergina Star, but I can't remember the exact case) and Skopje DID respond accordingly and discontinued the use of the symbol.
The court reminds what the IA says:
“If either Party believes one or more symbols constituting part of its historic or cultural patrimony is being used by the other Party, it shall bring such alleged use to the attention of the other Party, and the other Party shall take appropriate corrective action or indicate why it does not consider it necessary to do so.”
and (I guess) suggests both Parties should clearly state it when they have a problem. That may explain a lot about the Warrior on Horse.
Comment