1 This article is based on a talk given on 8 November 1996 at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg. The views expressed are personal, not those of the United Kingdom Government. International lawyers have written extensively on former Yugoslavia, and will doubtless continue to do so. On the use of force, Security Council, NATO etc., see D.Petrovic/L.Condorelli, "L'ONU et la crise you- goslave", AFDI 38 (1992), 32 et seq.; M.Weller, "Peace-Keeping and Peace-Enforcement in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina", ZaoRV 56 ( 1996), 70 et seq.; N. Figa-Talamanca, "The Role of NATO in the Peace Agreements for Bosnia and Herzegovina", EJIL 7 (1996), 164 et seq. On the Bosnia Peace Agreement, see PC. Szasz, "Protecting Human and Minority Rights in Bosnia: A Documentary Survey of International Proposals", Cal. W. Int'l. L. J. 25 (1995), 237 et seq.; P.C. Szasz, "The Quest for a Bosnian Constitution: Legal Aspects of Constitutional Pro- posals Relating to Bosnia", Fordbam Law Journal 19 (1995), 363 et seq.; P.C. Szasz, "The Protection of Human Rights through the Dayton/Paris Peace Agreement on Bosnia", AJIL 90 (1996), 301 et seq.; J.M. Sorel, "L'accord de paix sur la Bosnie-Herzegovine du 14 decembre 1995: un traite sous benefice d'inventaire", AFDI 41 (1995), 65 et seq.; P. Gaeta, "The Dayton Agreements and International Law", EJIL 7 (1996), 147 et seq.; S. Yee, "The New Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina", EJIL 7 (1996), 176 et seq.; E. Anderson, "The Role of Asylum States in Promoting Safe and Peaceful Repatriation under the Dayton Agree- ments", EJIL 7 (1996), 193 et seq.; J. Sloan, "The Dayton Peace Agree- ment : Human Rights Guarantees and their Implementation", EJIL 7
(1996), 245 et seq. On territorial issues, see M. Weller, "The international response to the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugosla- via", AJIL 86 (1992), 569 et seq.; H. Hannum, "Self-determination, Yugoslavia, and Europe: Old Wine in New Bottles?", Transnat'l L. fr Contemp. Probs. 3 (1993), 57 et seq.; S.R. Ratner, "Drawing a better line: uti possidetis and the borders of new states", AJIL 90 (1996), 590 et seq. On the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, see J. O'Brien, "The International Tribunal for Violations of International Humanitarian Law in the Former Yugoslavia", AJIL 87 (1993), 639 et seq.; D. Shraga/R. Zacklin, "The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia", EJIL 5 (1994), 360 et seq.; T. Meron, "War crimes in Yugoslavia and the development of international law", AJIL 88 (1994), 78 et seq.; V. Morris/M. Schaf, An Insider's Guide to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, 1995; Y. Sandoz, "Réf1ex- ions sur la mise en oeuvre du droit international humanitaire et sur le role du Comite international de la Croix-Rouge en ex-Yougoslavie", SZIERIRSDIE 3 (1993), 461 et seq.; A Pellet, "Le Tribunal criminel international pour 1'ex-Yougoslavie. Poudre aux yeux ou avancee deci- sive ?", RGDIP 98 (1994), 7 et seq. On succession of states, see W. Hummer, "Probleme der Staatennachfolge am Beispiel Jugoslawien", SZIERIRSDIE 3 (1993), 425 et seq.; S. Oeter, "State succession and the struggle over equity", GYIL 38 (1995), 73 et seq.; see also B. Stern, Le statut des Etats issus de l'ex-Yougoslavie à l'ONU,1996.
2 Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations, ICJ Reports 1948, 57 et seq. In addition to the standard commentaries on the Charter, see H.-J. Schutz, "Membership", in: R. Wolfrum (ed.), United Nations Law, Policies and Practice, 1995, Vol.2, 877 et seq., and the works cited therein; H.G. Schermers/N.M. Blokker, International Institutional Law, 3rd edition, 1995, 45-107; S.D. Bailey, The Procedure of the United Nations Security Council, 2nd edition, 1988, 295-307; D. Lloyd, "Sucession, Secession and State Membership in the United Na- tions", International Law and Politics 26 (1994), 761 et seq. and various articles in Development and International Cooperation, Center for In- ternational Relations, University of Ljubljana, 12/2, 1996. 3 There were, of course, important exceptions: the participation of China, and the membership of Kuwait, Bangladesh, the Vietnams, the two Koreas and the two German states. 4 Namibia had become a member of various international organizations even before it gained independence: see E. Osieke, "Admission to mem- bership in international organizations: the case of Namibia", BYIL 51 (1980), 189 et seq. 5 For Yemen, see note 32 in Section 1.2 of Multilateral Treaties deposited with the Secretary-General. Status as at 31 December 1995 (ST/LEG/ SER.E/14 (hereafter Multilateral Treaties)). For Germany, see note 13 in Section 1.2 of Multilateral Treaties. 6 Like the two German states, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea were admitted simultaneously by a single General Assembly resolution: A/RES/46/1 of 17 September 1991 (see also S/RES/702 (1991) of 8 August 1991). 7 A/RES/46/4, 46/5 and 46/6, all of 17 September 1991; R. Kharad, "La reconnaissance internationale des Etats baltes", RGDIP 96 (1992), 843 et seq.
8 See Doc. 1991/RUSSIA, cited in Y.Z. Blum, "Russia takes over the Soviet Union's seat at the United Nations", EJIL 3 (1992), 354 et seq. See also note 9 in Section 1.1 of Multilateral Treaties; ILM 31 (1992), 138 et seq., 151: in the Alma Ata Decision by the Council of Heads of State of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Heads of State support "Rus- sia's continuance of the membership of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the United Nations, including permanent membership of the Security Council, and other international organizations." The Rus- sian Federation was careful to refer to itself as the continuation of the USSR, not its successor. See also A. Dastis Quecedo, "La Desintegracion de la Union Sovietica y la Cuestion de su 'Sucession' en las Naciones Unidos", REDI 44 (1992), 249 et seq.; R. Mullerson, "The continuity and succession of States by reference to the former USSR and Yugoslavia", ICLQ 42 (1993), 473 et seq. 9 Schermers/Blokker, see note 2, 77-8; J. Malenovsky, "Problemes ju- ridiques lies a la partition de la Tch6coslovaquie", AFDI 39 (1993), 305 et seq.; V Mikulka, "The Dissolution of Czechoslovakia and the Succession in Respect of Treaties", in: Development and International Cooperation, see note 2, 45 et seq. 10 Schermers/Blokker, see note 2, 48-50 (with further references), who recall the League of Nations refusal to admit Liechtenstein in 1920. � � L. Wentworth, "The international status and personality of Micronesian political entities", ILSAJ. Int'l. L. 16 (1993), 1 et seq.; R. Goy, "L'evolu- tion vers l'independance des iles Palaes", AFDI 40 (1994), 356 et seq. lz For the last few years the General Committee has declined to recommend the inclusion of a proposed item on Taiwan in the agenda of the General Assembly.
13 Schermers/Blokker, see note 2, 79; K.P. Misha, "Succession of States: Pakistan's membership in the United Nations", CYIL 33 (1965), 281 et seq. ta Doc.A/CN.4/149 and Add.l (The succession of States in relation to membership in the United Nations: memorandum prepared by the Secre- tariat), reproduced in ILCYB 1962, Vol.II, 101 et seq. 15 S. Jayakumar, "Singapore and State Succession: International Relations and International Law", ICLQ 19 (1970), 398 et seq.
16 A/RES/46/236, 46/237 and 46/238, all of 22 May 1992. 17 The term "Macedonia" is used for convenience, and is not intended to imply any position on the difference over the name. Outside Greece and Macedonia, little has been written about recent developments in Mace- donia : see S. Pribichevich, Macedonia, its People and History, 1982; H. Poulton, Who are the Macedonians? 1995. On legal aspects see M.C.R. Craven, "What's in a name? The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Issues of Statehood", Austr.Yb.lnt'l L. 16 (1995), 199 et seq.; P. Pazartzis, "La reconnaissance d' "une Republique Yougoslave": La ques- tion de I'ancienne Republique Yougoslave de Macedoine (ARYM)", AFDI 41 (1995), 281 et seq. 18 ILR 92 (1993), 182; ILM 31 (1992), 1507; RGDIP 97 (1993), 571. See M.C.R. Craven, "The European Community Arbitration Commission on Yugoslavia", BYIL 66 (1995), 333 et seq.; A. Pellet, "Note sur la Commission d'arbitrage de la Conference europeenne pour la paix en Yougoslavie", AFDI 37 (1991), 329 et seq.; id., "L'activite de la Commis- sion d'arbitrage de la Conference europeenne pour la paix en You- goslavie", AFDI 38 (1992), 220 et seq.; id., "L'activite de la Commission d'arbitrage de la Conference internationale pour l'ancienne Yougosla- vie", AFDI 39 (1993), 286 et seq. For Ratner's trenchant critique of the
Commission's "brief, broad opinion" on uti possidetis (Opinion No. 3, ILR 92 (1993),170;ILM 31 (1992),1499; RGDIP 96 (1992), 267) see note 1, 613-614. 19 The EC member states' approach to recognition in the case of the states of the former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia was unusual. The EC Guidelines and Declaration of 16 December 1991 (BYIL 62 (1991), 559) are not in line with previous state practice, including that of the United Kingdom. Indeed, the Declaration contained a special clause aimed at Macedonia. See R. Rich, "Recognition of States: The Collapse of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union", EJIL 4 (1993), 36 et seq.; D. Turk, "Recognition of States: A Comment", EJIL 4 (1993), 66 et seq., R. Mullerson, International Law, Rights and Politics 1994, 117 et seq. (chapters on recognition and issues of continuity and succession); M. Skrk, "Recognition of States and its (Non)-Implication on State Succes- sion : A Case of Successor States to the Former Yugoslavia", in: Develop- ment and International Cooperation, see note 2, 85 et seq.
20 Doc.A/47/876-S/25147. For a description of the protracted negotiations see the relevant chapters in M. Papakonstantinou, To Hmerologio Enos Politikoy (Then Diary of a Politician), 1994. 21 See S/RES/845 (1993) of 18 June 1993 and Pazartzis, see note 17,293-297.
22 Doc. S/25541. 23 Doc. S/25545.
24 Doc. S/25543: "the hoisting and flying at the United Nations of the flag bearing the Sun of Vergina would result in great damage to the efforts undertaken [by the ICFY Co-Chairmen] and render more difficult, if not defeat, a solution". Pazartzis refers also to a letter to the Secretary-Gen- eral from the President of the Security Council: see note 17, 291. z5 For example, the problem over the EC/Macedonia Cooperation Agree- ment and other problems catalogued in Doc. A/50/1014-S/l 996/605. The Interim Accord is in Doc. S/1995/794.
26 The expression "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montene- gro)" was first used by the Security Council in its S/RES/757 (1992) of 30 May 1992, presumably to avoid appearing to "recognize" the state under its new name. The expression was taken up by other organs and organizations. At the latest at the time of the initialling of the Peace Agreement at Dayton, however, the earlier reticence to using the consti- tutional name of the state - "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" - had disappeared, and - starting with its S/RES/ 1022 (1995) of 22 November 1995 the Security Council has dropped the explanatory "Serbia and Montenegro". It is unclear why certain other organs have not done likewise, e.g. A/RES/50/193 of 22 December 1995 and A/RES/51/111 of 12 December 1996 continued to use the old formula. 27 Doc. S/PV.3116; Doc. S/PV.3204.
28 Doc.A/47/PV 7, 141-196; Doc.A/47/PV.101. 29 Doc.A/47/485, Annex, cited below. 3° K. Marek, Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law, 1954; J. Kunz, "Identity of States under International Law", AJIL 49 (1955), 68 et seq.; G, Cansacchi, "Identite et continuite des sujets inter- nationaux", RdC 130 (1970), 7 et seq. 31 For the modern terminology of state succession (if not necessarily the applicable rules), see the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties of 23 August 1978 (ILM 17 (1978), 1488 et seq.) and the Convention on State Succession in Respect of State Property, Ar- chives and Debts of 8 April 1983 ( ILM 22 (1983), 306 et seq.). 3z For example, in an affidavit dated 10 December 1990 an official of the United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office said of the emerg- ing Estonia that, if HMG were to deal with it on a government-to-gov- ernment basis, "Her Majesty's Government would have to consider at this point whether Estonia is regarded as a continuation of the old State, or its successor or something in between", BYIL 60 (1990), 502.
33 Schermers/Blokker, see note 2, 76, suggest the FRY was not recognized as "the successor" (sic) of the SFRY "perhaps because it was not consid- ered the principal part of the former Republic of Yugoslavia, but more probably because it was considered the main party responsible for the outbreak of war in the territory of the former Yugoslavia". The latter is legally irrelevant. See also the United States position at note 42. Craven, see note 18, 375-380, poses some pertinent questions. 34 S/RES/1074 (1996) of 10 October 1996. 35 S/RES/1022 (1995) of 22 November 1995. 36 Doc. S/1996/250; Doc.S/1996/291; see Skrk, see note 19,103-105.
37 Doc. A/51/318-S/1996/706; see Skrk, see note 19, 105-107. 38 Doc. A/51/461-S/1996/830. 39 Doc. A/51/564-S/1996/885.
40 ILR 92 (1993), 162; ILM 31 (1992), 1494. ai ILR 92 (1993),199; ILM 31 (1992),1521. For a critique of Opinions Nos. 1 and 8, see Craven, see note 18, 357-375.
42 Doc. S/PV 3116, 12-13. 43 See Schermers/Blokker, see note 2, 76, 106. For other views see Y.Z. Blum, "UN Membership of the "New" Yugoslavia: Continuity or Break?", AJIL 86 (1992), 830-3; D. Lloyd, "Succession, Secession, and State Mem- bership in the United Nations", N. Y. U.J Int'l L. & Pol. 26 (1994), 761 et seq.; "Corresponents' Agora: UN Membership of the Former Yugosla- via", AJIL 87 (1993), 240-51.
44 Doc. A/47/485, Annex: Schermers/Blokker, see note 2, 76 refer also to a memorandum by the Legal Counsel. a� ICJ Reports 1993, 14. 46 A point made by Schermers/Blokker, see note 2, 77. 47 Schermers/Blokker, see note 2, 183-4.
4g Doc.A/47/PV 7, 161.
a9 Doc.A/47/PV 7, 149. 50 "Most specialized agencies have followed the UN, adopting resolutions in which Yugoslavia was not expelled, but only prevented from partici- pating in the plenary organ": Schermers/Blokker, see note 2, 77. 51 P.R. Williams, "State succession and the international financial institu- tions : political criteria v. protection of outstanding financial obligations", ICLQ 43 (1994), 776 et seq.; I.F.I. Shihata, "Matters of State Succession in the Practice of the World Bank", in: Development and International Cooperation, see note 2, 7 et seq. 52 The FRY was prevented from participating in the first session of the Assembly of the International Sea-Bed Authority by a decision of the Assembly in August 1995. For the FRY's protest, see Doc.A/50/385.
S3 D.F. Vagts, "State Succession: The Codifiers' View", Va. J.Int 1 L. 33 (1993), 275 et seq. 5a E.D. Williamson/J.E. Osborn, "A U.S. Perspective on Treaty Succession and Related Issues in the Wake of the Break-up of the USSR and Yugoslavia", Va.J.lnt'I L. 33 (1993), 261 et seq. ( 270); R. Williams, "The Treaty Obligations of the Successor States of the former Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia: do they continue in force ? ", Den. J. Int'1 L. fr Pol'y 23 (1994), 1 et seq.; M. Shaw, "State Succession Revisited", Finnish Yearbook of International Law 6 (1995), 34 et seq.
55 Summary of the Practice of the Secretary-General as Depositary of Mul- tilateral Treaties (Doc.ST/LEG/8).
56 Letter from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the President of the FRY, to be published in United Kingdom Materials in International Law 1996 (BYIL 67, 1996).