Vucic: The Brussels Agreement is an international legal agreement; Hrnjaz: The Constitutional Court disagrees

Foto: FPN

„The president announced that the Brussels agreement is an international legal Agreement. The Constitutional Court disagrees with that“, an associate professor of International Law at the Faculty of Political Sciences, Milos Hrnjaz said, commenting on yesterday’s allegations made by Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic.

On Wednesday night, the President of Serbia held what he described as the „sharpest“ press conference – as a result of which he will „go down in history“. He announced that Pristina is preparing a „general attack“ on the north by October 1st at the latest – all with the support of Quint countries.

Speaking about the Brussels Agreement, which he defined as an international legal agreement, Vucic said that the Serbs fulfilled everything that they were supposed to, while the only thing that Pristina should have fulfilled is not fulfilled, noting that “the Western five are remaining silent on this.”

But if the Serbs display a banner – „and what a terrible deadly sin is to hang up a banner“: „When you display it, then you go to jail. Why are you going to jail? Because you are advertising something that is foreseen by an international legal agreement, such as the Brussels Agreement, signed under the auspices of the EU,“ Vucic told the media last night.

Associate professor of International Law at the Faculty of Political Sciences in Belgrade, Milos Hrnjaz, addressed the allegations made by the Serbian president.

„The president announced today that the Brussels Agreement is an international legal agreement. The Constitutional Court disagrees with that,“ Hrnjaz tweeted last night.

After Belgrade had repeatedly highlighted the need to respect international law to the West amid the outbreak of war in Ukraine – primarily the need to respect Resolution 1244, Hrnjaz states that we have now „designated a convenient situation.“

„On the outside, we demand respect for international legal obligations, and on the inside, we do not ask the question whether they are in accordance with the constitution,“ this professor said.

Hrnjaz shared his expert opinions on topics related to Kosovo in three op-eds published by KoSSev. He commented on the issues of CEFTA, genocide lawsuit, ASM, and the signing of the so-called Peace Agreement. He also put forward arguments in support of the thesis that the opinion of the International Court of Justice, despite the damage it caused to Serbia, did not seal Kosovo’s independence.

Read more:

Kurti vs Vucic or the continuation of the fight by (international) legal means

Non-agreement or why it takes (at least) two to reach an agreement

Why the opinion of the International Court of Justice did not put a seal on Kosovo’s independence

In December 2014, Serbia’s Constitutional Court made a decision regarding the First Agreement of Principles Governing the Normalization of Relations between Belgrade and Pristina, concluded in April 2013.

This court rejected the request for the assessment of the constitutionality of the Brussels Agreement because it determined – by a majority of votes – that it was a political issue and not a legal one.

The notation of the Decision of the Constitutional Court rejecting the proposal for the assessment of constitutionality states that „The disputed ‘First Agreement’ does not meet the conditions to be considered an international legal agreement, and in itself does not constitute a general legal act of domestic law.“

“Acts of the Government (Conclusion on acceptance of the „First Agreement“ and Report to the National Assembly) and Decision of the National Assembly on Acceptance of the Report are not general legal acts as per their content. Their adoption could not be used as the basis to “introduce” the disputed „First Agreement“ in their legal order as a general legal act, and the Constitutional Court took the stance that the disputed First Agreement is not an act from Article 167, paragraph 1 of the Constitution, which is subject to constitutional court control,“ the note further reads.

Prior to the decision of the Constitutional Court, the then Minister of Justice, Nikola Selakovic, also said that this was a political act. Selakovic also assessed that the court should declare itself incompetent to determine the constitutionality of the Brussels Agreement.

Comments

comments



Preuzimanje i objavljivanje tekstova sa portala KoSSev nije dozvoljeno bez navođenja izvora. Hvala na poštovanju etike novinarske profesije.