Eurasia Press & News
The guests of “Impression of the Week”, legal experts, agreed tonight that Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić’s oral acceptance of the European agreement on Kosovo recently in Brussels was illegal, that the president thereby exceeded his constitutional powers and that he should therefore be dismissed, given that the agreement yet legally binding.
The guests of “Impression of the Week” were retired professor of the Faculty of Law Vesna Rakić Vodinelić, lawyer Zdenko Tomanović and professor of the Faculty of Law in Novi Sad Bojan Pajtić, who discussed whether Vučić, by accepting the European proposal, recognized the independence of Kosovo and thereby violated the Constitution, reports Nova .rs.
They believe that the agreement that Vučić and Kosovo Prime Minister Aljbin Kurti agreed to in Brussels last Monday is not only not legally valid, but is flawed in many ways, but they have different opinions on whether our generation should solve the issue, that is should there be a frozen conflict in the coming decades or should we see what is best for the Serbian community in Kosovo, for the Serbian Orthodox Church and for the state of Serbia.
According to Zdenko Tomanović, from the document published by the EU on the website, which was confirmed by the international representatives who attended the talks, it can be seen that the agreement on Kosovo can no longer be changed and that only the implementation of some provisions can be discussed, so it is then President Vučić accepted the independence of Kosovo in the full meaning of that word, from borders, territory, sovereignty, symbols to diplomas.
“In what form he did it in writing or orally, from the aspect of international law it is completely irrelevant, he accepted the independence of Kosovo with all the attributes of that statehood, but the state of Serbia did not accept that,” he said.
Vesna Rakić Vodinelić believes that the agreement was undoubtedly accepted and that Jozep Borelj himself said that the parties agreed not to discuss it further.
She did not agree with Tomanović that the agreement does not bind the state of Serbia, because, as she says, the agreement was concluded and binds our country towards Kosovo and third parties, towards international organizations, and another internal issue of Serbia is whether Vučić is authorized to sign such an agreement.
He adds that according to the Vienna Convention, agreements are always signed by heads of state and prime ministers, and that he acted that way in Brussels, thereby obliging Serbia.
“From the point of view of internal law, the question of the responsibility of the President of the Republic can be raised, from the point of view of violation of the Constitution, because foreign and internal policy is led by the government, I don’t know if he had the authority to lead a dialogue,” she said.
Vodinelic underlines that the agreement has been concluded, and what is subject to interpretation – whether Kosovo is recognized as an independent state, there are arguments both for and against, but it is not disputed that Vučić violated the Constitution of Serbia.
She reminded that it was clearly stated that a road map will be created for each provision of the agreement, a plan for the implementation of each of those provisions with a deadline for fulfillment, and that this will be created as an annex to the international agreement, which will then have to be ratified by the Serbian Parliament.
Speaking about the procedure for impeachment of the President of the country due to violation of the Constitution, she explained that one-third of the deputies in the Assembly have the right to initiate the impeachment of the President, asking the Constitutional Court to say whether he violated the Constitution by accepting this agreement, if it is nothing, and if so, it is necessary two-thirds of the votes to dismiss Vučić in the Assembly.
“We have institutions that are dysfunctional, and that applies to both the Constitutional Court and the Assembly. This is the procedure provided for by the Constitution, but in reality, unfortunately, it will not happen,” she said.
Vodinelić believes that this is a good political moment to start working on raising the question of Vučić’s responsibility for violating the Constitution.
“Until now, there has been silence about all his violations of the Constitution, this touches the nerves of a large number of people, and this is a good opportunity to raise the issue of his responsibility in accordance with the law,” notes Vodinelić.
And Pajtić believes that this agreement on Kosovo binds Serbia, regardless of whether it was concluded in writing or orally, and in this sense the question of the political and legal responsibility of Aleksandar Vučić can be raised.
“We have a professional obligation to say that he violated the Constitution. This could be initiated by the public prosecutor, but in Serbia like this, that is not possible,” he said.
Pajtić pointed out that the agreement has elements of a legal and not only a political document, because the international legal subjectivity of Kosovo is explicitly recognized.
The president himself confirmed that the agreement was concluded and that now only the implementation will be negotiated, so the Vienna Convention is not an argument that can be invoked that it was not signed because it still has binding legal force.
He adds that it is only possible to talk about the timeframe in which the agreement will be implemented, and the existence of a road map means that it is also a legal and not just a political agreement. Pajtić notes that with this agreement, Vučić recognized the international subjectivity of Kosovo, that is, he agreed with the factual situation that already exists because there is no Serbia in Kosovo.
He also states that he is disappointed by the fact that something more than what was agreed upon in the Brussels Agreement was not requested. He believes that the solution to the Kosovo issue is the issue of relations with the rest of Serbia, because today it is a legally incomplete state, “we don’t know how far the territory reaches, we don’t have power over 15 percent of the territory, 1.5 million Albanians are citizens of Serbia according to the Constitution, but is that I formally so”.
Pajtić believes that we should not leave an unrounded state to future generations. We are not, as he says, “fair to those people in Kosovo, nor to future generations.
On the other hand, Tomanović believes that Kosovo was seized by an illegal act, bombing, and that what was illegally acquired cannot become legal without the consent of the injured party, in this case Serbia.
Whether Serbia accepted the independence of Kosovo, according to Tomanović, depends on what will happen next.
“If the state of Serbia and its organs, the assembly and the government, express their intention that they do not want to accept the independence of Kosovo and do not support the oral acceptance of the agreement, in that situation the assumption that when the president accepts this obligation, it means that he has accepted by the state”, he explained, adding that he “speaks on the ground of law and not on the ground of our reality”.
