|
|
Post by guest on Mar 20, 2005 11:15:41 GMT 1
I have recently obtained a copy of the constitution of the SFRY which was drafted and ratified in 1974; there is also a slovenian version of said constitution on the Slovenian section of the wikipedia dictionary. Your thoughts on the legality of secession according to the constitution of the SFRY.
I look forward toward your input.
PS: to all people who are hell bent on nationalistic fervor, your opinion is not welcome. I look forward to intelligent replies with sources regarding this inquiry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Guest on Mar 20, 2005 13:08:49 GMT 1
This is very hard question.
By reading SFRY constitution form 1974. indeed you can't find any exact thing which will approve secession in legally direct and nonquestionable way.
By itself that constitution is questionable also because it wasn't product of democracy or it's intention was to bring any new democratic norms in society, without any question. Ideologicaly, it was more about comunists dealing with "primary goal" of their own ideology know as "natural death of state", which on long term produced "seconary results", from what they expected at that time.
I don't have it in front of me, but I will comment from what I remember by reading it years ago ...
1974. Constitution gave rights for autonomy to Kosovo and Vojvodina and defined SFRY as union or federal states with defined and non-changable borders.
And with "bomb" in part where it say's - without legal rights for changing those borders by anybody (not exact quote, but I bet you see what I am talking about), without legal permission of all federation members ...
Reading this in "right context" become huge legal issue. Since constitution connected hard-borders of federal units with integrity of federation ... it turned out that read it as - "if any of federal units change any legal item related to "definition" of federal units (meaning definition and statous of borders) - SFRY has lost it's legal definition as federation.
Such moment was recognized when Serbia legally (by changes in it's own republic constitution) "annected" Vojvodina and Kosovo. And by this legal act Serbian constitution overtake crucial "legal definiton" from constitution of federation, on itself. And activated "self-destrution" mechanism implemented in constitution of federation.
And since "hard defined borders" was measure of "independence" which was protected by constitutional protection for any change to be made without legal support of all federations members, international lawyers has find this as"cornerstone" for recognizing legal rights of republics for independence (or seccesion, as you call it).
In this case, "secondary legal self-determination element" overtaked function of first one (on level of federation) which wasn't exsisting any more - oppinion was that "seccesion" is legal and defined by constitutional borders.
This opens one important question. Was constitution from 1974. indeed legally valuable measure for anything? Because, if we accept such reading, it turns out that it - lost it's own legality and legitimity (hmmm, I was never thinking about this before).
Of course, you can look at this "problem" from many sides, and it is very thin ice for deep analysis ... But this moment and reading influenced international commission's to find legal elements for "agreein on secessions" of republics, inside borders defined by 1974. constitution.
I am not lawyer or expert, so excuse me if all this what I said was nonsense. It was just my oppinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by CroatianSerbAbroad on Mar 20, 2005 13:40:07 GMT 1
Having read sections of the 1974 constitution some time ago i would agree with Old Guest in that it was not developed from a point of democracy but i would argue that it makes it no less valid.
Whether the secession was legal or not under the 1974 constitution is not the key issue, since the right to "self determination" became key during this period. I believe the right to self determination mixed with the 1974 consitution gave Croatia a case to leave Yugoslavia.
People should understand that for all of Yugoslavia's faults (and their were many), the actual constitution was quite advanced for that period. I would ask people to remember that the UK has only recently given its countries (Scotland, Wales) devolved assemblies and a limited right to govern their own countries.
Yugoslavia's constitution would always have had to be ammended and changed, regardless of the war, at best the country would have had to become a confederation.
I believe the secession was in line with the 1974 constitution since it was chosen by the peope through democratic elections, in a far more principled way than the "annexation" of Vojvodina and Kosovo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Guest on Mar 20, 2005 13:43:12 GMT 1
Having read sections of the 1974 constitution some time ago i would agree with Old Guest in that it was not developed from a point of democracy but i would argue that it makes it no less valid. Whether the secession was legal or not under the 1974 constitution is not the key issue, since the right to "self determination" became key during this period. I believe the right to self determination mixed with the 1974 consitution gave Croatia a case to leave Yugoslavia. People should understand that for all of Yugoslavia's faults (and their were many), the actual constitution was quite advanced for that period. I would ask people to remember that the UK has only recently given its countries (Scotland, Wales) devolved assemblies and a limited right to govern their own countries. Yugoslavia's constitution would always have had to be ammended and changed, regardless of the war, at best the country would have had to become a confederation. I believe the secession was in line with the 1974 constitution since it was chosen by the peope through democratic elections, in a far more principled way than the "annexation" of Vojvodina and Kosovo. I agree with you. But I was talking about paradigmas related to 1974. constitution. It is unquestionable that it got "legalized" by oppinion of international community and their reading of "independance rights" from it. But by itself it is very clueless. |
|
|
|
Post by CroatianSerbAbroad on Mar 20, 2005 21:20:33 GMT 1
It is clueless, but that was because the communists probably never felt the situation of the 90's would arise. It was never designed to be challenged.
When you think about everything that happened during that period, the berlin wall coming down, the Slovene delegation walking out of the communist congress and the deterioration of the federation all built towards secession.
In 1974, Tito and the other communists were making sure everything was nice and quiet. Could anyone have expected what was to come?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ugursuz on Mar 21, 2005 17:41:49 GMT 1
But by itself it is very clueless.
Hm, what qualifies you to say that? What is the purpose of this discussion? Why don't you discuss the rights of american colonies to declare independence? Or, why american independence is unquestionable fact whereas croatian independence still deserves 'analysis'?
In 1974, Tito and the other communists were making sure everything was nice and quiet. Could anyone have expected what was to come?
Fools could not expect anything like that, that's for sure. I remember very special edition called 'Red Bulletin' that was accessible only to Communist Party members and some highly positioned journalists; the edition was stopped in early seventies. That bulletin was publishing excerpts from foreign press about Yugoslavia which normally never reached general public. I was a kid then but I remember very well the speculations about stability of Yugoslavia - and that was 1962-1968.
So, not expecting failure of that bastardly political construction was indeed reserved only for fools.
|
|
|
|
Post by CroatianSerbAbroad on Mar 21, 2005 18:12:30 GMT 1
Urgusuz i would have to say that although i do not disagree that it was a political construction, you must remember that their was a genuine desire for a union of Croats, Serbs and Slovenes. At the time of Strossmayer and Starcevic, their was a growing desire for a slavic movement to bring together the Southern Slavs and eliminate the rule of the Habsburgs and Ottomans.
However, the union that developed in the case of the kingdom and communism was not good for Croats, only in the main for Serbs (maybe bosnian muslims since Tito did recognise them as a people).
I agree the country was an abomination, but during its time it did achieve a lot, it was globally known for its non-aligned status, we were the envy of the other communist countries - Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary...... Jugoslavia had the fifth strongest army in Europe. Remember the living standards were far higher in those days than today.
i am not vindicating the country, just stating the facts, imagine what could have been achieved had the country really worked for all ethnic groups and been given the time to truly solidify. The US called it an "experiment", one that went on to be a reknowned disaster.
As a 28 year old, i cannot recall any of the 70's, really just the late 80's in terms of memories and during that period their was a feeling that something was going to happen but we did not expect the horrors that came.
|
|
croam
Full Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by croam on Mar 21, 2005 19:05:24 GMT 1
my dad would never say this around his nationalist leaning friends but he said life in Yugo was better than it is right now. HOWEVER, HR is in a TRANSITIONAL PHASE, so its too early to judge. Its a young government and has many problems but look how long it took the US to become a global player!! a couple of hundred years...
My dad also left YU because he refused to join the COM party because he wanted to go to America. So it was good if you were a serb or a commy, and you had enough to get by if you werent or you were connected. But it wasnt the land of Milk and Honey as some like to reminisce. Well, it was for some.
|
|
|
|
Post by CroatianSerbAbroad on Mar 21, 2005 21:31:38 GMT 1
Land of milk and honey it wasnt, my parents had to move to the UK because of the struggle to live - and they were serbs from Croatia.
They never stopped loving the country though, and that goes for present day Croatia too!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ugursuz on Mar 28, 2005 13:59:47 GMT 1
Guys,
Let's treat Yugoslavia like a normal marriage. The bride and the bridegroom loved each other and decided to marry in a church and also register the marriage in a usual (civil authorities) way.
After a while, it turned out that wife was a pregnant dog getting laid by everyone.
The husband decided to divorce the pregnant dog. But, the church would not let him do it.
So, the guy left the gal. What is the point now asking whether the their marriage was disbanded legally or illegally?
One side decided that the party's over as far as he/she is concerned.
In other words, don't spend energy and time discussing croatian departure from Y. Question a number of things that preceded croatian departure - if you dare or hope it may make your life easier. It's reaaly tiring to listen to this nostalgic nonsense ('why did she leave me? she should not have done it, why I let her go? etc etc)
|
|
croam
Full Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by croam on Mar 28, 2005 21:07:11 GMT 1
during yugo, as long as you didnt speak out against communism, you wouldn't have problems. yugo was the most advanced of the communist unions. you could even get a passport and travel, no need to "escape". There were lots of jobs, everyone had food, shelter, and healthcare. thats communism. Could it have lasted like that forever? probably not. HOWEVER, your boss was most likely Serbian, the top jobs went to Serbians. This is straight from people who were there and lived it from WWII to 1971.
I'm not defending YU. I abhor communism. But this is straight from several different sources who saw it first hand.
It would have collapsed sooner or later. Too bad it was so bloody.
|
|
|
|
Post by cronautic dot com on Mar 28, 2005 21:16:18 GMT 1
actually, yugoslav government began issuing passports in the 60s, before that you were send to jail if captured at the border ... together with your family - even if the family was left at home.
|
|
croam
Full Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by croam on Mar 30, 2005 5:58:06 GMT 1
thats right it was after the sixties. my uncle and his mother and sister paid to get snuck across the border to italy to make it to the US. Im sure it was really bad before. My grandma was paranoid to her last days. I remember saying something as a child against the president(without knowing what i was saying) and she got all scared and told me not to say anything against the president. And this was in the US. So my statement is regarding YU post 1960. ;D
|
|
croam
Full Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by croam on Mar 30, 2005 6:01:05 GMT 1
oh and i wasn't reminiscing about YU... in case that was directed at me. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by GS on Mar 30, 2005 7:17:25 GMT 1
Yeah I think Croatia's secession was illegal .... so sue us !!!  |
|
