## Facts

- Macedonia and Greece concluded the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995, addressing relations pending resolution of a dispute over Macedonia’s name.
- Article 11(1) required Greece not to object to Macedonia’s application to, or membership in, international organizations where Greece was a member, with a limited exception if Macedonia would be referred to by a name other than the provisional UN designation (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”).
- Macedonia sought to begin accession talks with NATO.
- At the NATO Bucharest Summit (2–3 April 2008), Macedonia did not receive an invitation to begin accession talks; NATO stated an invitation would be extended once the name issue was resolved.
- Macedonia alleged Greece opposed its NATO accession at Bucharest and thereby breached Article 11(1).
- Macedonia filed an application at the International Court of Justice on 17 November 2008 seeking a declaration of breach and additional relief concerning Greece’s future conduct.
- Greece contested jurisdiction and admissibility and, on the merits, denied that it had “objected” within the meaning of Article 11(1), invoked the Article 11(1) exception, and argued that alleged prior breaches by Macedonia justified its conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether the Court had jurisdiction under the Interim Accord’s compromissory clause and whether the application was admissible.
2. Whether Greece “objected” to Macedonia’s NATO admission within the meaning of Article 11(1).
3. If Greece objected, whether the objection was permitted by Article 11(1)’s exception tied to how Macedonia would be referred to in the organization.
4. Whether alleged prior breaches by Macedonia justified Greece’s conduct (including via countermeasures or suspension).
5. What remedy was appropriate.

## Decision

- The Court rejected Greece’s jurisdictional and admissibility objections and exercised jurisdiction over the dispute.
- The Court found Greece had objected to Macedonia’s admission to NATO at the Bucharest Summit within the meaning of Article 11(1).
- The Court held the Article 11(1) exception did not apply because the conditions for invoking it were not shown to be met.
- The Court concluded Greece breached Article 11(1) by objecting to Macedonia’s NATO admission.
- The Court rejected Greece’s arguments that alleged prior breaches by Macedonia justified Greece’s objection.
- The Court granted declaratory relief as appropriate satisfaction and declined to order broader forward-looking relief directing Greece to refrain from future violations.

## Legal Principles

- Treaty obligations are interpreted in good faith according to the ordinary meaning of the text in context and in light of the treaty’s object and purpose; supplementary means may be used where appropriate.
- A clause stating a party “agrees not to object” creates a binding obligation; an express exception tied to specific conditions is construed as limited by its terms (including “if and to the extent” language).
- Whether a state has “objected” may be established from the totality of relevant conduct, including formal diplomatic communications and public statements by senior officials connected to the decision-making process.
- A party invoking a treaty exception must show the factual predicate for the exception is satisfied.
- In inter-state responsibility, a judicial declaration that a treaty obligation was breached may constitute adequate satisfaction; additional coercive or anticipatory orders are discretionary and may be refused where a declaration is sufficient.

## Conclusion

The Court held it had jurisdiction and that Greece violated Article 11(1) of the Interim Accord by objecting to Macedonia’s NATO accession at the 2008 Bucharest Summit, with the treaty’s narrow naming-related exception inapplicable; it granted a declaration of breach as sufficient satisfaction and declined to issue broader orders governing future conduct.


Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995 (Macedonia v. Greece), Judgment (I.C.J. Dec. 5, 2011)