SUL RICONOSCIMENTO DIPLOMATICO DELLA RF DI JUGOSLAVIA
IVAN CUKALOVIC, DEPUTY LEGAL ADVISOR AT YUGOSLAV FOREIGN MINISTRY:
GROUNDLESS REFUTATIONS
BELGRADE, July 18 (Tanjug) Diplomatic and political circles
question the right of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to act as the
successor of the exYugoslavia, in order to exert additional political
pressure and destabilize its position.
The Constitutional Declaration of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
of
April 27, 1992, clearly defines the country's standpoint concerning this
issue: "While preserving the continuity of the exYugoslavia related to
the
international law, its political position, and its integrity as a state,
Yugoslavia will ensure strict fulfilment of all international
obligations
binding the exYugoslavia in the past.
The analysis of Yugoslavia's legal status that follows will
provide an answer to the question of its legal position. Most countries
that are members of the international community see Yugoslavia as a
state
that has established continuity to the former Yugoslavia, whereas the
United States, and some Western countries, tend to deny this standpoint
thus refuting a range of other standpoints related to continuity, such
as
the position of Yugoslavia in the U.N., negotiations on the division of
the
property of the former Yugoslavia, and so on.
First we must make a theoretical distinction between the issue
of
succession and the issue of continuity. Succession is an institution
related to changes in territorial sovereignty through which a state that
has gained a certain territory takes over the rights and obligations of
the
former state, i.e. the state to which the previously territory belonged.
Therefore, succession is a legal institution the purpose of
which
is to alleviate the consequences resulting from the break up of a
country,
or the decrease of its territory, and to provide a solution to the
problems
of inheriting debts, contracts, public property, legal obligations
concerning individuals, and so on.
The principle of succession appears in cases of fusion of two
countries into one (e.g. fusion of Syria and Egypt in 1958, and Serbia
and
Montenegro in 1918), or in cases of separation (e.g. of the
AustroHungarian
Empire in 1918, of Norway and Sweden 1905, Pakistan and Bangladesh, USSR
and the Commonwealth of Independent States.)
As opposed to the principle of succession, regulating the
validity
of privileges and obligations of a state that has ceased to exist, the
principle of continuity is legitimate only when a state that is
acknowledged by international law, adheres to all valid regulations and
maintains its membership in all international organizations after
certain
territorial changes.
It is of no relevance whatsoever, to what extent the
territorial
loss reduces the size of the previous state. The emphasis is on the fact
that territorial losses do not affect the identity of a state, and on
the
fact that the core territory is maintained. In the history of
international
relations there were many examples showing that certain states preserved
their integrity and continuity, despite substantial territorial losses.
For
example, Great Britain, Turkey, or France, continued to exist as states,
even after considerable territorial losses. This happened with Russia,
which established the continuity of the USSR. Serbia and Montenegro,
countries that had sacrificed their sovereignty, thus contributing to
the
creation of Yugoslavia in 1918, are a continuation of the exYugoslavia,
the
Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and the State of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes.
Members of the international community have given both de iure
and
de facto recognition of Yugoslavia's continuity. Explicit de iure
recognition came from the exYugoslav republics, the very ones which most
frequently refute the continuity of Yugoslavia.
Thus, Article 5 of the contract normalizing relations between
Yugoslavia and Croatia, signed on August 23, 1996 in Belgrade, says: "It
is
a historical fact that Serbia and Montenegro existed as independent
states
before the creation of Yugoslavia, therefore, bearing in mind that
Yugoslavia maintains the position of these states, related to
international
law, the Republic of Croatia recognizes the continuity of Yugoslavia."
An identical formulation was used in Article 4 of the contract
regulating YugoslavMacedonian relations, signed in Belgrade on April 8,
1996 (...the Republic of Macedonia recognizes the continuity of FR
Yugoslavia...)
Paragraph 1 of the joint declaration, signed by Presidents
Slobodan Milosevic and Alija Izetbegovic in Paris on October 3, 1996
says:"BosniaHerzegovina accepts the continuity of Yugoslavia."
Officials of some Western countries have also made statements
confirming the continuity of Yugoslavia.
At a debate between European foreign ministers in Brussels on
January 29, 1996 aimed at solving the problem of the formal recognition
of
Yugoslavia, French Foreign Minister Herve de Charette said that France
had
never severed diplomatic relations with Belgrade, and consequently, does
not need to recognize Belgrade. "That is the standpoint of some E.U.
countries, but not the official standpoint of the French government."
In a comment on the decision of the French government to raise
diplomatic relations with Yugoslavia to the highest level, the spokesman
of
the French Foreign Ministry said on February 22, 1996 that "France never
cut off diplomatic relations with Belgrade. France recognizes states,
not
governments."
Upon the normalization of YugoslavBritish relations, Malcolm
Rifkind sent a message to Yugoslav President Zoran Lilic saying: "We
have
decided to raise diplomatic relations with Belgrade to the highest
level...
we will adhere to all valid contracts and treaties signed by Great
Britain
and the exYugoslavia."
Spanish Foreign Minister Carlos Westendorp, after his visit to
Yugoslavia, said on March 16, 1996: "The problem of recognizing
Yugoslavia
is not an issue for Spain, because diplomatic relations between the two
countries were never severed."
The above statements, made by representatives of E.U.
countries,
reflect their views on the recognition of Yugoslavia in an indirect way.
Although there was no explicit mention of continuity, the very fact that
they maintained diplomatic relations, and were willing to adhere to the
contracts signed with the exYugoslavia, is proof of de facto
recognition.
The United States, the biggest opponent of the recognition of
Yugoslavia, recognized Yugoslavia in a similar way.
Namely, the American embassy in Belgrade, in note S42 issued on
May 5, 1998 requested from Yugoslavia the extradition of ethnicAlbanian
Rifat Etej for felonies committed in the USA. This request was based on
the
Extradition Agreement of 1901, signed by the Kingdom of Serbia and the
USA.
Thus, the USA recognized the continuity of Yugoslavia, not only
regarding
the exYugoslavia, but also the Kingdom of Serbia, as the nucleus of all
other subsequent Yugoslav states. This confirms the theory, as well as
the
practice, of international law, according to which territorial loss does
not affect a country's continuity if its nucleus is preserved.
The continuity of Yugoslavia, as we can see, is legally
undeniable. Nevertheless, the following example shows how this matter
can
serve as a means of exerting political pressure on Yugoslavia. In
paragraph
297 of his report, (Summary of Practice of Secretary General as
Depositary
of Multilateral Treaties) the U.N. Secretary General explains the legal
position of the Russian Federation and Yugoslavia in the following way:
"After the secession of some parts of the USSR, which became
independent states, the USSR (as the Russian Federation) continued to
exist
as the presuccessor and all the rights and obligations resulting from
contracts remain valid. The same applies to Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro), which remains the presuccessor, although a part of the
territory of the exYugoslavia has broken away."
The U.N. Secretary General quite appropriately drew a parallel
between the legal position of the Russian Federation and the position of
Yugoslavia. Regretfully, after the intervention of several countries,
which
submitted a letter, the U.N. Legal Advisor submitted a corrigendum (LA
41
TR/220), in which the section referring to Yugoslavia was deleted, while
the one referring to the Russian Federation remained. This shows that
neither the Secretary General, nor his legal advisor are immune to
political pressure.
The majority of countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America and
Eastern Europe, as well as Russia, China and India, have passed acts of
either de iure or de facto recognition of Yugoslavia. As far as Latin
America is concerned, Yugoslavia has been recognized by Cuba, Argentina
and
Brazil. The other countries of the region have recognized Yugoslavia
tacitly, by maintaining the level of diplomatic relations, by raising
them
to a higher level, or by issuing statements that were a confirmation of
their willingness to maintain the practice of friendly relations and
cooperation with Yugoslavia.
The legal consequences of continuity are reflected by the fact
that Yugoslavia is a continuation of the exYugoslavia, and that it
maintains its membership in all organizations, while all international
contracts signed by the exYugoslavia remain valid. Therefore, claims
according to which Yugoslavia must appeal for membership in the U.N. are
quite absurd. Such requests are merely a form of political pressure,
with
no foundation in legal theory, or practice.
The U.N. General Assembly, in Resolution 52/215 of December 22,
1997 has determined the budget quotas for all countries in the period of
19982000, including Yugoslavia, which is clear proof of Yugoslavia's
membership in the U.N., and any denial of its status is just an aspect
of
political manipulation.
The problem of succession, i.e. the division of gold and frozen
hard currency reserves abroad, the inheriting of the embassy buildings
will
be solved through negotiations between its successors Yugoslavia, the
state which is the continuation of the exYugoslavia, and the exYugoslav
republics, with cooperation from the Peace Implementation Council, and
Arthur Watts as the mediator.
The Yugoslav Mission in New York sent a message to the
President
of the Security Council on December 13, 1999 informing him of
Yugoslavia's
willingness to continue the negotiations on succession, according to
international laws regulating the problem of succession, and the joint
declaration signed by Presidents Slobodan Milosevic and Alija
Izetbegovic,
signed in Paris on October 3, 1996, as well as the contracts normalizing
relations between Yugoslavia and Croatia, signed in Belgrade on August
23,
1996 and between Yugoslavia and Macedonia, signed on April 8, 1996.
In the message, the Mission described the draft of the
agreement
proposed by Watts, as acceptable, saying that, if the negotiations
continue, an agreement could be reached soon. Unfortunately, despite
this
intervention, there has been no continuation of the negotiations, as
Watts
has failed to schedule them. This is a confirmation of the claims that
those who have committed the act of aggression on Yugoslavia have no
interest whatsoever in solving any of the problems related to this
region,
as they strive to continue the practice of pressure and groundless
accusations against Yugoslavia.
This review of the theory of international law and practice,
focusing on the legal position of Yugoslavia, is an undeniable proof of
the
fact that Yugoslavia is a continuation of the exYugoslavia, because,
regardless of territorial losses, the nucleus of the territory (Serbia
and
Montenegro) remained, which is the decisive factor for the
acknowledgement
of continuity. In any case, similar analyses carried out by other
members
of the international community, show that most countries have recognized
the continuity of Yugoslavia, either by acts of explicit de iure
recognition, or by taking certain actions (such as the ones taken by the
United States of America) that are an example of de facto recognition.
---
Sullo stesso argomento si veda anche:
http://www.egroups.com/message/crj-mailinglist/318
- SULLA AUTOPROCLAMATA MISSIONE DIPLOMATICA MONTENEGRINA ALL'ONU
(COMPOSTA DAL SOLO SIGNOR PEROVIC ZELJKO)
- LA RF DI JUGOSLAVIA E' ISOLATA A LIVELLO INTERNAZIONALE - OPPURE NO?
- ALLE NAZIONI UNITE GLI U.S.A IMPONGONO L'ESCLUSIONE DEL RAPPRESENTANTE
DELLA REPUBBLICA FEDERALE DI JUGOSLAVIA (IL MAGGIORE PAESE BALCANICO PER
NUMERO DI ABITANTI) DA UN DIBATTITO SULLA SITUAZIONE NEI BALCANI.
I RAPPRESENTANTI RUSSO E CINESE ESCONO DALL'AULA PER PROTESTA.
---
Due recenti interviste al Ministro degli Esteri della
RF di Jugoslavia Zivadin Jovanovic
* http://www.egroups.com/message/crj-mailinglist/384
YUGOSLAV DAILY SURVEY BELGRADE,18 July 2000 No.3112
INTERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL FOREIGN MINISTER ZIVADIN JOVANOVIC
TO THE QATAR TELEVISION AL-DZAZIRA
* http://www.egroups.com/message/crj-mailinglist/368
Yugoslav Daily Survey 20 July 2000 No.3114
INTERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
OF THE FR OF YUGOSLAVIA, MR. ZIVADIN JOVANOVIC,
TO "AL ARAB AL YAWM" DAILY
---
IL SITO INTERNET DEL MINISTERO DEGLI ESTERI DELLA RF DI JUGOSLAVIA
http://www1.mfa.gov.yu/
http://www.smip.sv.gov.yu/
http://www.mfa.gov.yu/
---
Institute of International Politics and Economics Belgrade
http://www.diplomacy.bg.ac.yu/
Balkan Journal of International Law
International Law and Kosovo
http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/benin/260/
Association for the Study of Foreign Policy Kotor Montenegro
http://www.diplomacy.cg.yu/
---
http://www.diplomacy.cg.yu/doc13.htm
Udruzenje za istrazivanje spoljne politike Kotor
Association for the Study of Foreign Policy Kotor
Konferencija:
SAVREMENA DIPLOMATIJA I CRNA GORA
Kotor, 27. juna 1998.
Prof. Dr Predrag Simic*, Institute of International Politics and
Economics, Belgrade
REGIONAL COOPERATION IN SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE:
THE ROLE OF FR YUGOSLAVIA
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
IVAN CUKALOVIC, DEPUTY LEGAL ADVISOR AT YUGOSLAV FOREIGN MINISTRY:
GROUNDLESS REFUTATIONS
BELGRADE, July 18 (Tanjug) Diplomatic and political circles
question the right of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to act as the
successor of the exYugoslavia, in order to exert additional political
pressure and destabilize its position.
The Constitutional Declaration of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
of
April 27, 1992, clearly defines the country's standpoint concerning this
issue: "While preserving the continuity of the exYugoslavia related to
the
international law, its political position, and its integrity as a state,
Yugoslavia will ensure strict fulfilment of all international
obligations
binding the exYugoslavia in the past.
The analysis of Yugoslavia's legal status that follows will
provide an answer to the question of its legal position. Most countries
that are members of the international community see Yugoslavia as a
state
that has established continuity to the former Yugoslavia, whereas the
United States, and some Western countries, tend to deny this standpoint
thus refuting a range of other standpoints related to continuity, such
as
the position of Yugoslavia in the U.N., negotiations on the division of
the
property of the former Yugoslavia, and so on.
First we must make a theoretical distinction between the issue
of
succession and the issue of continuity. Succession is an institution
related to changes in territorial sovereignty through which a state that
has gained a certain territory takes over the rights and obligations of
the
former state, i.e. the state to which the previously territory belonged.
Therefore, succession is a legal institution the purpose of
which
is to alleviate the consequences resulting from the break up of a
country,
or the decrease of its territory, and to provide a solution to the
problems
of inheriting debts, contracts, public property, legal obligations
concerning individuals, and so on.
The principle of succession appears in cases of fusion of two
countries into one (e.g. fusion of Syria and Egypt in 1958, and Serbia
and
Montenegro in 1918), or in cases of separation (e.g. of the
AustroHungarian
Empire in 1918, of Norway and Sweden 1905, Pakistan and Bangladesh, USSR
and the Commonwealth of Independent States.)
As opposed to the principle of succession, regulating the
validity
of privileges and obligations of a state that has ceased to exist, the
principle of continuity is legitimate only when a state that is
acknowledged by international law, adheres to all valid regulations and
maintains its membership in all international organizations after
certain
territorial changes.
It is of no relevance whatsoever, to what extent the
territorial
loss reduces the size of the previous state. The emphasis is on the fact
that territorial losses do not affect the identity of a state, and on
the
fact that the core territory is maintained. In the history of
international
relations there were many examples showing that certain states preserved
their integrity and continuity, despite substantial territorial losses.
For
example, Great Britain, Turkey, or France, continued to exist as states,
even after considerable territorial losses. This happened with Russia,
which established the continuity of the USSR. Serbia and Montenegro,
countries that had sacrificed their sovereignty, thus contributing to
the
creation of Yugoslavia in 1918, are a continuation of the exYugoslavia,
the
Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and the State of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes.
Members of the international community have given both de iure
and
de facto recognition of Yugoslavia's continuity. Explicit de iure
recognition came from the exYugoslav republics, the very ones which most
frequently refute the continuity of Yugoslavia.
Thus, Article 5 of the contract normalizing relations between
Yugoslavia and Croatia, signed on August 23, 1996 in Belgrade, says: "It
is
a historical fact that Serbia and Montenegro existed as independent
states
before the creation of Yugoslavia, therefore, bearing in mind that
Yugoslavia maintains the position of these states, related to
international
law, the Republic of Croatia recognizes the continuity of Yugoslavia."
An identical formulation was used in Article 4 of the contract
regulating YugoslavMacedonian relations, signed in Belgrade on April 8,
1996 (...the Republic of Macedonia recognizes the continuity of FR
Yugoslavia...)
Paragraph 1 of the joint declaration, signed by Presidents
Slobodan Milosevic and Alija Izetbegovic in Paris on October 3, 1996
says:"BosniaHerzegovina accepts the continuity of Yugoslavia."
Officials of some Western countries have also made statements
confirming the continuity of Yugoslavia.
At a debate between European foreign ministers in Brussels on
January 29, 1996 aimed at solving the problem of the formal recognition
of
Yugoslavia, French Foreign Minister Herve de Charette said that France
had
never severed diplomatic relations with Belgrade, and consequently, does
not need to recognize Belgrade. "That is the standpoint of some E.U.
countries, but not the official standpoint of the French government."
In a comment on the decision of the French government to raise
diplomatic relations with Yugoslavia to the highest level, the spokesman
of
the French Foreign Ministry said on February 22, 1996 that "France never
cut off diplomatic relations with Belgrade. France recognizes states,
not
governments."
Upon the normalization of YugoslavBritish relations, Malcolm
Rifkind sent a message to Yugoslav President Zoran Lilic saying: "We
have
decided to raise diplomatic relations with Belgrade to the highest
level...
we will adhere to all valid contracts and treaties signed by Great
Britain
and the exYugoslavia."
Spanish Foreign Minister Carlos Westendorp, after his visit to
Yugoslavia, said on March 16, 1996: "The problem of recognizing
Yugoslavia
is not an issue for Spain, because diplomatic relations between the two
countries were never severed."
The above statements, made by representatives of E.U.
countries,
reflect their views on the recognition of Yugoslavia in an indirect way.
Although there was no explicit mention of continuity, the very fact that
they maintained diplomatic relations, and were willing to adhere to the
contracts signed with the exYugoslavia, is proof of de facto
recognition.
The United States, the biggest opponent of the recognition of
Yugoslavia, recognized Yugoslavia in a similar way.
Namely, the American embassy in Belgrade, in note S42 issued on
May 5, 1998 requested from Yugoslavia the extradition of ethnicAlbanian
Rifat Etej for felonies committed in the USA. This request was based on
the
Extradition Agreement of 1901, signed by the Kingdom of Serbia and the
USA.
Thus, the USA recognized the continuity of Yugoslavia, not only
regarding
the exYugoslavia, but also the Kingdom of Serbia, as the nucleus of all
other subsequent Yugoslav states. This confirms the theory, as well as
the
practice, of international law, according to which territorial loss does
not affect a country's continuity if its nucleus is preserved.
The continuity of Yugoslavia, as we can see, is legally
undeniable. Nevertheless, the following example shows how this matter
can
serve as a means of exerting political pressure on Yugoslavia. In
paragraph
297 of his report, (Summary of Practice of Secretary General as
Depositary
of Multilateral Treaties) the U.N. Secretary General explains the legal
position of the Russian Federation and Yugoslavia in the following way:
"After the secession of some parts of the USSR, which became
independent states, the USSR (as the Russian Federation) continued to
exist
as the presuccessor and all the rights and obligations resulting from
contracts remain valid. The same applies to Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro), which remains the presuccessor, although a part of the
territory of the exYugoslavia has broken away."
The U.N. Secretary General quite appropriately drew a parallel
between the legal position of the Russian Federation and the position of
Yugoslavia. Regretfully, after the intervention of several countries,
which
submitted a letter, the U.N. Legal Advisor submitted a corrigendum (LA
41
TR/220), in which the section referring to Yugoslavia was deleted, while
the one referring to the Russian Federation remained. This shows that
neither the Secretary General, nor his legal advisor are immune to
political pressure.
The majority of countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America and
Eastern Europe, as well as Russia, China and India, have passed acts of
either de iure or de facto recognition of Yugoslavia. As far as Latin
America is concerned, Yugoslavia has been recognized by Cuba, Argentina
and
Brazil. The other countries of the region have recognized Yugoslavia
tacitly, by maintaining the level of diplomatic relations, by raising
them
to a higher level, or by issuing statements that were a confirmation of
their willingness to maintain the practice of friendly relations and
cooperation with Yugoslavia.
The legal consequences of continuity are reflected by the fact
that Yugoslavia is a continuation of the exYugoslavia, and that it
maintains its membership in all organizations, while all international
contracts signed by the exYugoslavia remain valid. Therefore, claims
according to which Yugoslavia must appeal for membership in the U.N. are
quite absurd. Such requests are merely a form of political pressure,
with
no foundation in legal theory, or practice.
The U.N. General Assembly, in Resolution 52/215 of December 22,
1997 has determined the budget quotas for all countries in the period of
19982000, including Yugoslavia, which is clear proof of Yugoslavia's
membership in the U.N., and any denial of its status is just an aspect
of
political manipulation.
The problem of succession, i.e. the division of gold and frozen
hard currency reserves abroad, the inheriting of the embassy buildings
will
be solved through negotiations between its successors Yugoslavia, the
state which is the continuation of the exYugoslavia, and the exYugoslav
republics, with cooperation from the Peace Implementation Council, and
Arthur Watts as the mediator.
The Yugoslav Mission in New York sent a message to the
President
of the Security Council on December 13, 1999 informing him of
Yugoslavia's
willingness to continue the negotiations on succession, according to
international laws regulating the problem of succession, and the joint
declaration signed by Presidents Slobodan Milosevic and Alija
Izetbegovic,
signed in Paris on October 3, 1996, as well as the contracts normalizing
relations between Yugoslavia and Croatia, signed in Belgrade on August
23,
1996 and between Yugoslavia and Macedonia, signed on April 8, 1996.
In the message, the Mission described the draft of the
agreement
proposed by Watts, as acceptable, saying that, if the negotiations
continue, an agreement could be reached soon. Unfortunately, despite
this
intervention, there has been no continuation of the negotiations, as
Watts
has failed to schedule them. This is a confirmation of the claims that
those who have committed the act of aggression on Yugoslavia have no
interest whatsoever in solving any of the problems related to this
region,
as they strive to continue the practice of pressure and groundless
accusations against Yugoslavia.
This review of the theory of international law and practice,
focusing on the legal position of Yugoslavia, is an undeniable proof of
the
fact that Yugoslavia is a continuation of the exYugoslavia, because,
regardless of territorial losses, the nucleus of the territory (Serbia
and
Montenegro) remained, which is the decisive factor for the
acknowledgement
of continuity. In any case, similar analyses carried out by other
members
of the international community, show that most countries have recognized
the continuity of Yugoslavia, either by acts of explicit de iure
recognition, or by taking certain actions (such as the ones taken by the
United States of America) that are an example of de facto recognition.
---
Sullo stesso argomento si veda anche:
http://www.egroups.com/message/crj-mailinglist/318
- SULLA AUTOPROCLAMATA MISSIONE DIPLOMATICA MONTENEGRINA ALL'ONU
(COMPOSTA DAL SOLO SIGNOR PEROVIC ZELJKO)
- LA RF DI JUGOSLAVIA E' ISOLATA A LIVELLO INTERNAZIONALE - OPPURE NO?
- ALLE NAZIONI UNITE GLI U.S.A IMPONGONO L'ESCLUSIONE DEL RAPPRESENTANTE
DELLA REPUBBLICA FEDERALE DI JUGOSLAVIA (IL MAGGIORE PAESE BALCANICO PER
NUMERO DI ABITANTI) DA UN DIBATTITO SULLA SITUAZIONE NEI BALCANI.
I RAPPRESENTANTI RUSSO E CINESE ESCONO DALL'AULA PER PROTESTA.
---
Due recenti interviste al Ministro degli Esteri della
RF di Jugoslavia Zivadin Jovanovic
* http://www.egroups.com/message/crj-mailinglist/384
YUGOSLAV DAILY SURVEY BELGRADE,18 July 2000 No.3112
INTERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL FOREIGN MINISTER ZIVADIN JOVANOVIC
TO THE QATAR TELEVISION AL-DZAZIRA
* http://www.egroups.com/message/crj-mailinglist/368
Yugoslav Daily Survey 20 July 2000 No.3114
INTERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
OF THE FR OF YUGOSLAVIA, MR. ZIVADIN JOVANOVIC,
TO "AL ARAB AL YAWM" DAILY
---
IL SITO INTERNET DEL MINISTERO DEGLI ESTERI DELLA RF DI JUGOSLAVIA
http://www1.mfa.gov.yu/
http://www.smip.sv.gov.yu/
http://www.mfa.gov.yu/
---
Institute of International Politics and Economics Belgrade
http://www.diplomacy.bg.ac.yu/
Balkan Journal of International Law
International Law and Kosovo
http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/benin/260/
Association for the Study of Foreign Policy Kotor Montenegro
http://www.diplomacy.cg.yu/
---
http://www.diplomacy.cg.yu/doc13.htm
Udruzenje za istrazivanje spoljne politike Kotor
Association for the Study of Foreign Policy Kotor
Konferencija:
SAVREMENA DIPLOMATIJA I CRNA GORA
Kotor, 27. juna 1998.
Prof. Dr Predrag Simic*, Institute of International Politics and
Economics, Belgrade
REGIONAL COOPERATION IN SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE:
THE ROLE OF FR YUGOSLAVIA
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------