The name change agreement and the ‘response’ of the Macedonian Constitutional Court: analysis of the Resolution U. no. 8/2019, 16/2019, 26/2019, 40/2019 and 47/2019 (Prespa Agreement Decision)
The name change agreement and the ‘response’ of the Macedonian Constitutional Court: analysis of the Resolution U. no. 8/2019, 16/2019, 26/2019, 40/2019 and 47/2019 (Prespa Agreement Decision)

Summary/Abstract: The name dispute between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia was the biggest obstacle to the latter’s establishment of its statehood, especially when speaking about the new independent country’s strategic interest in joining NATO and the European Union, after its separation from Yugoslavia in 1991. This dispute ended in 2019, when Macedonia officially changed its constitutional name to ‘Republic of North Macedonia’, according to the so-called Prespa Agreement signed between the two states. The agreement itself, and the procedure for its implementation, were not carried out without criticism and suspicion when it comes to its constitutionality, and consequently, this issue was raised before the Macedonian Constitutional Court, which decided on it several years after the implementation of the Prespa Agreement was already done. This article analyses in detail the Constitutional Court's decision on the constitutionality of the Prespa Agreement. Using the case study as its initial method, the article touches on several other questions related to the Prespa Agreement and the name dispute, such as its background and implications, as well as the Constitutional Court's constitutional position and its activity in protecting constitutionality. The main research question of this article is ‘Was the Court’s argumentation justified, and should the Court have decided differently?’ The article’s results show that the Court’s decision had many deficiencies, and that the Court missed some significantly important aspects when it decided on the constitutionality of the Prespa Agreement.

• Details
• Contents