FYROM’s claim is beyond the Court’s jurisdiction as established by Article 21, paragraph 2, of the Interim Accord, whether it is interpreted, as the FYROM originally proposed, as precluding any case which concerns - “directly or indirectly” the name issue, or whether, as the FYROM alternatively proposes, it is read as precluding any case which would resolve the difference over the name. Greece has demonstrated that the FYROM’s claim, in requiring judgment of the lawfulness of actions by NATO and by its individual members collectively, is inadmissible. Greece has also demonstrated that the FYROM’s claim, in seeking a remedy which a judgment cannot provide, is beyond the inherent competence of the Court.
Greece has demonstrated that, properly read, the actions attributed to Greece by the FYROM did not constitute an objection. This is not because Greece was supposed to support the FYROM’s membership in NATO in 2008; for reasons stated at the time and in applying the well known NATO criteria and requirements for membership it was not. It is also because the admission process to NATO is a consensus one based on consultation, with neither vote nor veto. Greece notes....
Greece has demonstrated that, properly read, the actions attributed to Greece by the FYROM did not constitute an objection. This is not because Greece was supposed to support the FYROM’s membership in NATO in 2008; for reasons stated at the time and in applying the well known NATO criteria and requirements for membership it was not. It is also because the admission process to NATO is a consensus one based on consultation, with neither vote nor veto. Greece notes....