Badinter Commission

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Badinter Commission called itself the Arbitration Commission and dealt with the clarification of legal questions that brought about the break-up of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. It was used by the European Community on August 27, 1991. The chairman was the then President of the French Constitutional Court , the legal scholar Robert Badinter ; other members were the then presidents of the German , Italian , Spanish and Belgian constitutional courts.

During its work, the Badinter Commission submitted a total of 15 reports and a decision in which it rejected objections to the submission of three reports. In detail:

  • Opinion No. 1 of November 29, 1991 on the status of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) under international law
  • Opinion No. 2 of January 11, 1992 on the right of self-determination of the Croatian and Bosnian-Herzegovinian Serbs
  • Opinion No. 3 of January 11, 1992 on the demarcation of the border between Croatia and Serbia and between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia
  • Opinion No. 4 of 11 January 1992 on the recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina by the EC and its member states
  • Opinion No. 5 of 11 January 1992 on the recognition of Croatia by the EC and its member states
  • Opinion No. 6 of January 11, 1992 on the recognition of Macedonia by the EC and its member states
  • Opinion No. 7 of 11 January 1992 on the recognition of Slovenia by the EC and its member states
  • Interlocutory Decision of July 4, 1992 on the rejection of appeals against the repayment of expert opinions 8-10
  • Opinion No. 8 of July 4, 1992 on the status of the SFRY under international law
  • Opinion No. 9 of July 4, 1992 on the settlement of questions arising from the succession of states
  • Opinion No. 10 of July 4, 1992 on the status of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under international law
  • Expert opinion no. 11 from July 16, 1993 on the respective dates of the successor
  • Opinion No. 12 of July 16, 1993 on the distribution of state property, archives and debts of the SFRY
  • Opinion No. 13 of July 16, 1993 on the regulation of responsibilities for war damage
  • Opinion No. 14 dated August 13, 1993 on the distribution of state property, archives and debts of the SFRY
  • Opinion No. 15 of August 13, 1993 on issues relating to central banks

She presented the first seven reports as the Conference on Yugoslavia Arbitration Commission , the Interlocutory Decision and reports No. 8-10 as the Conference for Peace in Yugoslavia Arbitration Commission and the last five reports as the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia Arbitration Commission . It is therefore also a reflection of the progress of international efforts at that time to come to terms with the historical events in the Balkans.

In its first report, the commission came to the conclusion that the SFRY was in the process of dissolving itself after its federal organs had become inoperable. It is the task of the federated republics to regulate the succession of states.

On December 16, 1991, an extraordinary EC Council of Ministers meeting passed guidelines for the recognition of new states in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union . The Commission was then referred to applications for recognition from Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. In Opinion No. 4–7, it stated that Croatia, Slovenia and Macedonia met the requirements for recognition, but that Bosnia and Herzegovina had not yet become a state.

In its Opinion Nos. 8 and 10, the Commission established the fall of the SFRY under international law and consequently saw no remaining rump state in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia that would be identical to the SFRY under international law , but also a new state . According to Opinion No. 9, all newly founded states jointly became the legal successor to the SFRY; Reports nos. 11–15 dealt with individual questions in this regard.

The reports had a significant influence on the Yugoslavia policy of the EC and its member states as well as the international community as a whole. Although they did not deal with all the questions raised by the end of the state and the succession of states in the Balkans, they nonetheless contributed to the consolidation and further development of the relevant international law . However, they were not legally binding.

literature

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Marcel Kau, in: Graf Vitzthum / Proelß (ed.), Völkerrecht , 6th edition, marginal no. 182 ; Stefan Talmon , collective non-recognition of illegal states , Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2006, p. 354 f.