Content uploaded by Murat Önsoy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Murat Önsoy on May 31, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
ÖNSOY, M. – S. PELİT (2022). “The Securitization and De-Securitization of the Name Issue Between
Greece and North Macedonia: A North Macedonian Perspective”.
Karadeniz Araştırmaları. XIX/74: 329-345.
THE SECURITIZATION AND DE-SECURITIZATION OF THE NAME
ISSUE BETWEEN GREECE AND NORTH MACEDONIA: A NORTH
MACEDONIAN PERSPECTIVE
Murat ÖNSOY*
Simge PELİT**
ABSTRACT
This paper traces the securitization (1991-2016) and de-securitization (2016-2018) of the 27-year-old name issue
between Greece and the Republic of North Macedonia. The securitization period is further divided into sub-
periods based on the varying degrees of securitization in Skopje’s discourse due to internal and external
developments. Accordingly, between 1991 and 1993, fearing that the state’s survival is in jeopardy, North
Macedonian authorities engaged in a lower degree of securitization. After gaining UN membership in 1993, in a
relatively safe position, they preferred a higher degree of securitization until the late 1990s. The degree of
securitization once again lowered in the early 2000s as the country nearly slid into civil war in 2001 and ruled in
its aftermath by weak coalition governments that were unable to deal extensively with foreign relations issues. In
this period, North Macedonia also behaved like a good international citizen to reap some benefits in the form of
progress in the EU and NATO membership. A higher degree of securitization in the discourse started in 2006, with
the election of the right-wing nationalist Nikola Gruevski and lasted until 2016.
Keywords: Macedonian Name Issue, Securitization Theory, Greece, Prespa Agreement.
YUNANİSTAN VE KUZEY MAKEDONYA ARASINDAKİ İSİM
SORUNUNUN GÜVENLİKLEŞTİRİLMESİ VE GÜVENLİK
DIŞILAŞTIRILMASI: BİR KUZEY MAKEDONYA PERSPEKTİFİ
ÖZ
Bu araştırma, Yunanistan ve Kuzey Makedonya arasındaki 27 senelik isim sorununun güvenlikleştirme (1991-
2016) ve güvenlik dışılaştırma (2016-2018) süreçlerini incelemektedir. Araştırma ayrıca, isim sorununun
güvenlikleştirme dönemi, Üsküp'ün iç ve dış gelişmelere bağlı olarak güvenlikleştirme söyleminde meydana
getirdiği farklılaşmalar üzerinden alt dönemlere ayrılmaktadır. Kuzey Makedonyalı otoriteler, isim sorununu
devletin bekasının tehlikede olduğu 1991-1993 yılları arasında düşük seviyede güvenlikleştirmiştir.
Güvenlikleştirme söylem ve pratiklerinin tonu, BM üyeliğinin elde edildiği 1993 yılından 1990’ların sonuna kadar,
nispeten güvenli bir ortamda, yüksek bir seviyede seyretmiştir. 1990'ların sonundan 2006 yılına kadar, önce iç
savaşın eşiğine gelen, sonra da zayıf koalisyon hükümetleri tarafından yönetilen Kuzey Makedonya, bir yandan da
Avrupa ve NATO entegrasyonu süreçlerini hızlandırmak amaçlı uluslararası platformda uzlaşmacı bir tavır
sergilemiştir. Dolayısıyla bu dönemde Kuzey Makedonyalı otoritelerin güvenlikleştirici söylem ve pratiklerinin
seviyesinde düşüş gözlemlenmiştir. 2006'da ise sağcı popülist Nikola Gruevski’nin Cumhurbaşkanı seçilmesiyle
isim sorununda yüksek düzeyli bir güvenlikleştirme dönemine girilmiş ve bu durum 2016 yılına kadar devam
etmiştir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Makedonya İsim Sorunu, Güvenlikleştirme Teorisi, Yunanistan, Prespa Antlaşması.
Araştırma Makalesi
Makale Gönderim Tarihi: 21.04.2022; Yayına Kabul Tarihi: 01.06.2022
* Assoc. Prof. Dr., Hacettepe University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Department of
International Relations, ANKARA; ORCID: 0000-0002-8990-1547, E-mail: onsoymurat@hotmail.com
** Research Assistant, İstinye University, Faculty of Economics, Administrative and Social Sciences, Department
of International Relations, İSTANBUL; ORCID: 0000-0001-9334-6913, E-mail: pelitsimge@gmail.com
Murat Önsoy - Simge Pelit
330
Introduction
The Macedonian name issue is part of a complex diplomatic controversy between
Greece and North Macedonia over historical narratives, identity, culture, and symbols. Felt
threatened by the constitutional and historical claims of the newly established Slavo-
Macedonian state to the name Macedonia and the legacy of the Ancient Macedonians,
Athens adopted a hard-line policy toward Greece’s northern neighbor. On the other hand,
the response of Skopje was no less extreme. The two neighbors hardly compromised on
their initial positions of claiming the name Macedonia and the legacy of the Ancient
Macedonians as their own while both accusing the other of pursuing an irredentist and
confrontational agenda, which further increased tensions.
The uncompromising stance taken by consecutive North Macedonian and Greek
governments after 1991 caused the conflict to evolve into a long-standing protracted crisis
in the heart of the Balkans. Greece began its diplomatic measures to bring Macedonia to its
knees by blocking international recognition of the new state, constitutionally named “the
Republic of Macedonia”. It also imposed an economic embargo on North Macedonia’s
exports from the region, and blocked its admittance to the United Nations (UN) and
integration into NATO and the European Union (EU). Although the international
community frequently tried to mediate, the dispute remained politically and legislatively
unresolved until the signing of the Prespa Agreement in 2018.
As part of their international diplomatic struggle to prove the legitimacy of their
diverging narratives over the name Macedonia, both countries’ authorities conducted
assertive campaigns across multiple media platforms. Both parties also developed
offensive media strategies to deliver their version of historical ‘truths’ regarding the
historical heritage of the name to international and domestic audiences. Consequently,
hundreds of thousands took to the streets in Skopje, Athens, Thessaloniki, and several
other cities, to support their government’s position, which further provoked a securitized
environment.
Drawing on insights from the analytical framework of the Copenhagen School’s (CS)
securitization theory, the main argument of this article is that the 27 years of name issue
between Greece and North Macedonia have witnessed periods of securitization (1991-
2016) and de-securitization (2016-2018). The securitization period is also divided into
sub-periods based on the evolving securitization patterns of the North Macedonian
leaders due to the internal developments and changing international circumstances.
More specifically, between 1991 and 1993, fearing for the state’s survival, North
Macedonia engaged in a lower degree of securitization. In this period, the name issue, was
securitized in the discourse of the North Macedonian leaders as an existential threat to the
collective identity of the Macedonian people. After gaining admission to the UN in 1993,
the securitization discourse has continued to dominate the relations and it became less
compromising. However, compared to the previous period, the discourse of existential
threat to the collective identity was lowered if not totally eliminated. Then, after the 1998
general elections, North Macedonian leaders once more softened their discourse of
securitization and became more compromising, however, the name issue hardly came to
the agenda as the country nearly slid into civil war in the early 2000s and ruled in its
aftermath by weak coalition governments that were unable to deal extensively with
foreign relations issues.. After the settlement of the internal dispute, the North
Macedonian leaders decided to behave like a good international citizen to gain from moves
towards European and NATO integration and adopted a more conciliatory approach
through their readiness for dialogue. In 2006, the discourse of securitization has come to
dominate the major policy domain after the election of right-wing nationalist Nikola
The Securitization and De-Securitization of the Name Issue Between Greece...
331
Gruevski. This period coincided with turmoil in North Macedonia due to the impacts of the
Eurozone crisis and Greece’s veto on Macedonia’s NATO and EU membership in 2008 and
2009, respectively. This situation continued for a decade until Gruevski stepped down in
2016 and was replaced in 2017 by a social democratic government under the Social
Democratic Union of Macedonia (SDSM) led by Zoran Zaev who worked to de-securitize
the conflict and normalize relations with Greece.
There is an extensive literature on the name issue and Macedonian identity which
have tried to establish a connection between the two (e.g. Danforth, 1993; Cowan, 2000;
Balalovska, 2004; Vankovska, 2010; Manzinger, 2020; Kalampalikis, 2020). The relevant
literature has also traced the roots of the name issue in Macedonian history of nationalism
(e.g. Kofos, 1986; Zahariadis, 1994; Parkas, 1997; Pettifer, 2001; Floudas, 2002; Rossos,
2008; Stawowy et al. 2008; Loizides, 2020). For instance, according to Kofos (1986, p. 170-
172), the choice of the name Macedonia was intentional and served as a catalyst in the
identity building process of North Macedonia. Disputes over ethnic origins led
Macedonia’s Slavs to trace their roots back to ancient rulers like Philip and Alexander the
Great. Other studies have focused on the dispute’s security dimension (e.g. Jano, 2009;
Lamovska, 2012; Xheladini, 2016). Yet, despite examining the dispute in these terms, these
studies have not analyzed the securitization of the name issue from North Macedonian
point of view and through discussing North Macedonians as securitizing actors.
Accordingly, the present study aims to investigate the securitization of the name of
‘Macedonia’ to unravel how and why this name has been securitized by the North
Macedonian authorities.
To lay the foundation for this argument, the first section gives a theoretical
framework (Copenhagen School’s securitization theory) to describe and analyze the name
issue. The second part explains how the specific dispute emerged between North
Macedonia and Greece and discuss the former’s phases of securitization narrative until
2016. The third part describes the subsequent de-securitization and other improvements
in relations that enabled the signing of the Prespa Agreement. Finally, the conclusion
summarizes the findings.
The Copenhagen School and the Securitization Approach
The changing nature of the global context, interstate relations, and particularly the
structure of conflicts towards the end of the Cold War required new approaches for the
study of International Relations that embraced new visions and tools. In this regard
securitization theory, which is associated with the Copenhagen School of Security Studies
found its way into the security studies as a new framework. In this context the CS have
taken away the security studies from its traditional focus and methods, and broadened the
concept through introducing a body of new ways to rethink security and understand how
issues become securitized (Emmers, 2013, p. 132).
Accordingly, prominent members of the CS, such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and
Jaap de Wilde, developed a new view of security in which they emphasized the role of
language in threat depictions which became known as “securitization theory” (Emmers,
2013, p. 131). Inspired by social constructivism, the CS members believe that (in) security,
including the sense of threat and vulnerability, is socially constructed and intersubjective
(Buzan et al., 1998, p. 57). Anything can become a security threat, whether or not it is
“real” or “exists”, if it is named as such by a security actor and matched with a speech act
(a security act that solicitize approval from the audience) (Higoshiro, 2004, p. 349).
Securitizing actors in international relations are usually state representatives,
governments or lobbyists who represent an issue as an existential threat to the referent
objects who prioritize and project a designated threat as a security challenge. Their
Murat Önsoy - Simge Pelit
332
presentation of the issue as a threat allow them in the domestic politics to go beyond the
established rules in dealing with them (Higoshiro, 2004, p. 349). In foreign policy, the
process results with an escalation that reduces the chances of resolving the problem
between the conflicting parties (Buzan et al. 2003, p. 491)
Guzzini (2011, p. 335) argues that securitization is not intermittent but rather a
continuous process of constructing social reality, which allows for higher or lower levels of
securitization. He further claims that the level of securitization can change due to a
“whirlpool effect”. This explains the accumulation of various developments, such as the
inclusion of actors with different social identities, or domestic or international
developments that fundamentally change the socio-political and economic structure of the
society where the referent objects live. Ultimately, such developments can either increase
or decrease the level of securitization. This paper apprehends securitization as a
continuous process with higher and lower degrees of securitization.
De-securitization, on the other hand, means redefining the issue from being an
emergency to being part of the ordinary public space. As described by the CS (1998, p. 4) it
is “the shifting of the issue out of the emergency model and into the normal bargaining
process of the political sphere” (Buzan et al. 1998, p. 4).
The Name Issue and the Period of Moderate Securitization (1991-1993)
During the early 1990s, the Socialist Republic of Macedonia, one of the six
constituent republics of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, took steps towards
independence. On 25 January 1991, the parliament of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia
unanimously adopted a motion declaring the republic sovereign territory and on 16 April
1991, amended the constitution to change the country’s name to the Republic of
Macedonia. On 8 September 1991 a referendum was held regarding independence. On the
eve of the referendum, the first elected President of Macedonia, Kiro Gligorov, then a
member of the Macedonian Forum for Preparation of a Macedonian National Program,
made a statement which was one of the early signs of the name issue:
In these territories, different Balkan states have made their own
arrangements for Macedonia. To all, we need to say today what
Macedonia truly is, why it needs to be an independent and sovereign
state, so that everyone understands that these people in these spaces
will never renounce their state, and be without name, or language, or be
the object of assimilation and of the conquering aspirations of other
states (as quoted in Balalovska, 2004, p. 197-198).
As clearly seen in the statement by Gligorov, the existential threat rhetoric in the
name issue related matters has been extricated from the realm of normal politics as early
as the pre-independence period. The aspect that was most consistent in Gligorov’s
discourse, and also consistently used by other North Macedonian leaders was the notion
that the name issue was a threat to collective identity of the Macedonian nation. Although
Gligorov spoke generally without reference to Greece, Athens was obviously the
addressee.
According to the results of the referendum, North Macedonia’s independence was
approved with 96.4 % of the votes on a 75.7 % turnout. On 25 September 1991, the
country declared independence under the constitutional name of the Republic of
Macedonia. Finally, on 17 November 1991, the controversial constitution of North
Macedonian was adopted by the parliament.
During the early years of the Yugoslav crisis, Greece, then Socialist Yugoslavia’s
southern neighbor, was concerned with maintaining the regional status quo and
The Securitization and De-Securitization of the Name Issue Between Greece...
333
preventing the recrudescence of Macedonian nationalism. As Yugoslavia began
disintegrating, Athens initially supported maintaining its territorial integrity before
joining other European Community members in mid-1992 in recognizing the three of the
former Socialist Yugoslav republics, namely Croatia, Slovenia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina
(Zahariadis, 1994, p. 661).
However, it refused to recognize the Republic of Macedonia. On 4 December 1991,
the Greek government presented a series of objections to the constitution of the new
republic, among which was the constitutionally adopted name of the republic. According
to them, the name “Republic of Macedonia” was implicitly suggesting territorial ambitions
to northern Greece, therefore had to be changed (as cited in Tziampiris, 2012, p. 154).
Greece’s other most widely stated objections concerned article 3 (territory and borders),
and article 49 (status and rights of those persons belonging to the Macedonian nation in
neighboring countries) of the 1991 Constitution of North Macedonia both of which
according to Greece had irredentist aspirations.
Confronted with these demands, the new state pursued a modest discourse towards
Athens and only moderately securitizing the conflict due to an ever-growing concern
about state’s survival. It was important for the young state to obtain international
recognition, so President Gligorov contacted Brussels seeking Macedonia’s formal
recognition of by the European Community (EC). However, Greece persuaded the EC to
refuse Skopje’s demands (Rossos, 2008, p. 268). On 15 December 1991, during a meeting
of the Foreign Ministers of the EC introduced a set of criteria for the new republic’s
recognition including that: “…it will conduct no hostile propaganda activities versus a
neighboring Community State, including the use of a denomination which implies
territorial claims” (Council of the European Communities, 1991). As clearly seen in the
statement by the EC, North Macedonia’s securitizing acts with regard to the name issue
with Greece had its limits, and a tougher stance would lead to the non-recognition and
endanger the new republics survival.
To appease Greece, the new republic introduced constitutional amendments
(articles 3 and 49) which reinforced the renunciation of territorial claims, however, it
refused to compromise on its choice of constitutional name. On 2 May 1992, following
these amendments, EC foreign ministers this time declared that they were ready to
recognize the new state under a name acceptable to all interested parties. Despite North
Macedonian concessions EC was surrendering for a second time to the Greek maximalist
demands (Kofos, 2001, p. 239). In response, President Gligorov said: “to comply with the
Greek demand that Macedonia change its name would mean that the people of that
republic would also lose their name, from which it would further stem that these people
have no right to a state at all” (as cited in Rossos, 2008, p. 269).
Gligorov’s statement was an explicit continuation of North Macedonia’s
securitization discourse on the name issue. He consistently used dramatic language in
describing the name issue in order to highlight the societal threat that it posed. However,
the North Macedonian leader was also tasked with preventing the bloodshed in Bosnia
from spilling to his country therefore couldn’t take a more confrontational line. However,
he was also aware of the fact that the survival of the new republic amid the ongoing civil
war in the close neighborhood was not only concerning him but also the international
society including the US and the EC. This is why Gligorov’s hands were not totally tied and
he a space to maneuver even after the Greek veto in the EC.
Finally, he came forward with a dual name formula according to which a provisional
name such as “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” would be used in bilateral
relations with Greece and the constitutional name is retained for all other purposes, which
Murat Önsoy - Simge Pelit
334
was rejected right away by the opposition parties. The nationalist opposition party
Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization – Democratic Party for Macedonian
National Unity (VMRO-DPMNE) which won the most parliamentary seats in 1990 was
against the dual name formula.
Gligorov’s compromising attitude was also not supported by the members of the
governing coalition. The members of the government from the Social Democratic Union of
Macedonia (SDSM) shared the same uncompromising attitude with the opposition
towards the name issue. The then North Macedonia’s Prime Minister from the SDSM,
Branko Crvenkovski’s discourse, in an interview in 1993 was more dramatic and alarming
then President Gligorov: “The very moment we give up our name … the question will arise:
if you are not Macedonians, then what are you?” Crvenkovski added, “It is the name of the
people, which means if you give up your name, you give up your national identity” (as
quoted in Craven, 1995, p.200). His discourse focused to highlight the threat of the name
issue using alarming examples such as the loss of collective identity. As clearly seen in
Crvenovski’s statement, other North Macedonian authorities were keen on securitizing the
discourse on the name issue through linking it to North Macedonia’s identity crisis.
The Period of Increasing Securitization in the Discourse (1993-1998)
The conflict turned into a confrontation in 1993, after the beginning of negotiations
in the United Nations (UN) on the admission of North Macedonia to the organization.
Greece issued a memorandum to the UN stating its opposition (Stawowy et al. 2008, p.
234). In spite of Athens’ objections, the Security Council recommended the admission of
Macedonia to the UN under the provisional name of the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia and two days later on 9 April 1993, the Republic of Macedonia was admitted to
the international organization. The UN Security Council (UNSC) members agreed the
settlement of the name issue through a dialogue between the two states under UN
mediation. The UN negotiators, Cyrus Vance and Lord Owen, introduced a plan covering all
aspects of the dispute and proposing alternative names for the state, including Nova
Makedonija. However, Athens refused to negotiate an agreement on the basis of their
recommendations and the negotiations under the UN mediation failed (Tziampiris, 2012,
p. 155). In 1993 the survival of the Macedonian state was ensured through its admission to
the UN and the stationing of US and UN troops in countries northern borders prevented
the spilling over of the civil war in Yugoslavia. Meanwhile, there was a visible increase in
the support of the international community to North Macedonia. The US and Australia
recognized the country and the International Money Fund extended loans to stabilize its
economy. All these developments meant weakening of the diplomatic position of Greece,
who will feel increasing pressure to find a compromise on the name issue. Adopting a new
diplomatic approach, North Macedonian authorities repeatedly tried to refuse negotiating
over the name issue with Greece. In this new discourse, the references to name issue as a
threat to collective identity were minimal if not totally absent. North Macedonia’s
insistence on the use of Alexander the Great associated 16 rays Vergina Sun on its state
flag, turned into an excuse for Greece to impose a trade embargo to its northern neighbor
(Rossos, 2008, p. 271). The 1993 declared embargo had hard-hitting consequences for
Skopje, which told Athens in 1994 that it wished to negotiate a settlement of the name
issue. However, the name issue remained as a red line area even under harsh economic
conditions. Meanwhile, the developments were strengthening the hands of Gligorov who
now had the opportunity to continue his securitization discourse with an increasingly
confrontational tone.
This also caused an abrupt break with the old discourse which emphasized the
threat that the name issue posed to the Macedonian identity. The new discourse of the
North Macedonian leaders included no reference to the societal threat. In February 1995,
The Securitization and De-Securitization of the Name Issue Between Greece...
335
Foreign Minister Chervenkovski declared that the name Republic of Macedonia was not
negotiable because ‘it is the quintessence of the Macedonian nation’. He added that his
government would only withdraw the flag displaying the Vergina Star if Greece accepted
the constitutional name (Macedonian Heritage). Likewise, on 21 March 1995, commenting
on the prospective resumption of talks at the UN, a government spokesman in Skopje
stated that direct dialogue with Greece under the shadow of the embargo was
unacceptable and ruled out any discussion about the name issue. These statements were
thus a continuation of the previous discourse on the name issue with the same
uncompromising language.
The long-awaited rapprochement between Greece and Macedonia came after four
years of the conflict with the signing of the Interim Agreement on 13 September 1995.
This ended the trade embargo and enabled both sides to reinforce bilateral relations
(Tziampiris, 2012, p. 155). Greece lifted the embargo in return for concessions from North
Macedonia, including a constitutional amendment and a redesigned national flag of a
yellow, eight-branched sun on a red background. However, the normalized relations have
not contributed to the resolution of the name issue. It was only agreed that the provisional
name, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), would remain the official
name until the dispute was resolved under UN mediation (Phillips, 2004, p. 59). The
interim agreement was a great achievement for North Macedonia as one of its provisions
obliged Greece not to object to Macedonia’s admission into international organizations
under the name of "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (Article 11, paragraph 1). In
particular, North Macedonia was now closer to joining the Organization for Security and
Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the Council of Europe, and NATO’s Partnership for Peace
Program (Rossos, 2008, p. 272). Ultimately, the agreement pleased everyone, at least for a
while. Ljubčo Georgievski, leader of the opposition party VMRO-DPMNE described the new
situation as a “small miracle” (as quoted in Tziampiris, 2006, p. 365).
Having signed the interim agreement with Greece in September 1995, North
Macedonia’s leaders continued their diplomatic struggle through a more uncompromising
discourse, increasingly devoid of any middle ground. From the Interim Agreement onward
the proposals to solve the name issue by compromise, including the most reasonable ones,
were met with the refusal of the North Macedonian governments. Between 1995 and
1998, the name issue was frequently raised in speeches and interviews of the Macedonian
leaders, in which they have taken a more offensive stance. Defending the rights of the
North Macedonian Minority in Greece became a consistent feature of the leaders of North
Macedonia, which they had remained silent about before 1995. Skopje abandon efforts for
an arrangement within the UN-sponsored negotiation process which led to an impasse in
the bilateral relations. On 23 July 1996 North Macedonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
drafted a paper in which the Greek authorities were criticized for violating the terms of
the Interim Agreement. The then Foreign Minister of North Macedonia, Frckovski from
the SDSM party declared that his country was preparing to pursue the official recognition
of its constitutional name under the UN (Tziampiris, 2005, p. 231).
On 6 August 1996, North Macedonia accused Greece at the UN of ‘inappropriate
behavior’ regarding the implementation of the Interim Agreement. The criticism largely
focused on Greece’s opposition to North Macedonia’s admission to international
organizations as the ‘Republic of Macedonia’ (Macedonian Heritage). By the time Greek
leaders were making statements in which they were saying that unless an accord was
reached, Greece might hinder Macedonia’s accession into NATO and the EU.
In December 1996, addressing the North Macedonian parliament, President Gligorov
mentioned that “the struggle to put an end to the irrational demands and pressures upon
the citizens of ‘Macedonia’ not to call their country by its only true and eternal name, i.e.
Murat Önsoy - Simge Pelit
336
‘Republic of Macedonia’, goes on” (Macedonian Heritage). In May 1997, during an
interview to Greek journalists, Prime Minister Chervenkovski, in an attempt to
outmaneuver international pressure to negotiate the name issue with Greece further,
stated that “the only one who can decide on a state’s name is the people themselves”
(Macedonian Heritage) while Foreign Minister Frtskovski, also speaking to Greek
journalists, declared ‘the last concession which we can make on the name issue is to let
Greece to call us however it wishes’ (Macedonian Heritage). On 16 July 1997, Foreign
Minister Hadjinski stated that North Macedonia could only repeat its proposal, recently
submitted to the UN mediator, to call the country ‘Republic of Macedonia’ internationally
while allowing Greece to choose another name for its own use (Macedonian Heritage). He
added, “I think the knowledge that our name, which we had for centuries, is connected
with our identity, is ripening and nobody has the right to demand changes to the
constitutional name of the country” (Sedada, 45). These statements thus maintained North
Macedonia’s official position on the name issue, but with a tougher if still moderate
securitization language.
Interviewed on state television on 23 July 1997, President Gligorov argued that “a
solution to the naming dispute must respect the dignity of the Republic of Macedonia and
the Macedonian people’s right to choose its name”. On 4 March 1998, in an interview with
Puls newspaper, he confirmed that his country would make no concessions to Greece on
matters of “national dignity and preservation of national identity” (Macedonian Heritage).
On 18 May 1998 during a visit to Canada, Tito Petkovski, Speaker of the North Macedonian
Parliament, declared that attempts to deny his country the right to use its constitutional
name would immediately increase the appetites and territorial views of certain of its
neighbors (Macedonian Heritage). On 26 June 1998, while addressing the congress of
resistance fighters, Gligorov said that the name issue had not been resolved and that
Macedonians, wherever they lived, “would fight for their freedom or at least for the
realization of their minority rights in accordance with international rules” (Macedonian
Heritage). On 31 October 1998, leader of VMRO-DPMNE party, Ljubco Georgievski
announced that, if his party won the second round of the general elections on 1 November
1998, one of its main priorities would be to seek UN ratification of the constitutional name
Republic of Macedonia and abolition of FYROM (Macedonian Heritage).
Lowering the Tone of the Securitization Discourse (2001-2006)
In the late 1990’s, a period of internal disturbances damaged North Macedonia’s
state capacity which caused the dissociation of the name issue from matters of state
security. In view of the difficult situation that derived from the inter-ethnic conflicts and
the ongoing war in the neighboring Kosovo, Skopje displayed a certain degree of
preparedness to the compromise proposals put forward by the international society until
2001. As a result, North Macedonia’s authorities softened their securitization tone on the
name issue by making calmer statements on the name issue. Meanwhile, Skopje and
Athens continued to meet in informal discussions to settle the name issue. In February
2001, prime minister Georgievski announced that:
All attempts and all ideas to come as close as possible to our
constitutional name and to right the shame inflicted upon us by the
previous government, namely of being called by the entire international
community by the name of FYROM, are welcome. Every pragmatic
solution in this direction will be accepted and discussed (Tziampiris,
2005, p. 239).
However, the North Macedonian government amid the inter-ethnic problem, had no
power to resolve the deadlock over the name issue. The nationalist President Boris
Trajkovski from the VMRO-DPMNU, the successor of Gligorov as president of Macedonia
The Securitization and De-Securitization of the Name Issue Between Greece...
337
was signaling this weakness through his words: “Constitution does not provide for a
change in the country’s name. This would require an amendment to the Constitution. Put
to the vote in Parliament, it would require a 2/3 majority” (as cited in Tziampiris, 2005, p.
240). Eventually it was realized that the new government that was formed in 2002 by the
Social Democrat prime minister Branko Crvenkovski had no power to resolve the deadlock
over the name issue either.
Despite the deadlock, Skopje took clear steps towards the EU. On 9 April 2001,
Macedonia became the first Western Balkan country to sign a Stabilization and Association
Agreement (SAA) with the EU (Sorovic, 2019, p. 93-94). On 22 March 2004, when North
Macedonia submitted its application for EU membership, the EU Commission
recommended granting candidate status to the country (Mavromatidis, 2010, p. 52).
Meanwhile, on 3 November 2004, one day after George W. Bush’s re-election as president,
the USA announced its recognition of North Macedonia for all bilateral relations under its
constitutional name. The former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Frčkoski, right away called for
ending the negotiations with Greece:
Having recognized the constitutional name of Macedonia, the Americans
… sent a message to Greece, that they are not the EU who tolerates
spoiled, egoistic and lofty nations, which do not know any other politics
towards their smaller neighbors who are badly trying to create a decent
democracy in difficult and multicultural conditions except the use of
pressure, profit and blackmail […] (as quoted in Vankovska, 2010, p.
454).
After US recognition of North Macedonia with its constitutional name, Greece once
again used its position in the EU to state that North Macedonia’s future in Europe
depended on resolving the name issue. The two sides then started negotiations in 2004,
which were headed by UN representative Matthew Nimetz who came forward with
various proposals for North Macedonia, such as Upper Republic of Macedonia, Northern
Republic of Macedonia, Democratic Republic of Macedonia, and Independent Republic of
Macedonia (Fidanovski, 2018, p. 27-28). In March 2005, Nimetz’s proposals were rejected
by North Macedonia (Tziampiris, 2012, p. 157). However, in 2005, the Commission
recommended the European Council to grant Macedonia the candidate status.
Shooting Itself in the Foot: The Period of Excessive Securitization (2006-2016)
After taking power in 2006, prime minister Nikola Gruevski and his party VMRO-
DPMNE, stop the UN sponsored negotiations over the name issue. Gruevski launched a
project of Macedonian identity (re)construction (Stefoska et al. 2017, p. 357), which also
provoked re-securitization of the name issue. Relations between Greece and the FYROM
began to deteriorate after 29 December 2006, when the new government renamed the
airports of Skopje and Ohrid as Alexander the Great and Saint Paul, respectively
(Tziampiris, 2012, p. 160). Between 2006 and 2017, the government also implemented
identitarian ‘antiquization’ policies based on the supposed link between ethnic
Macedonians and ancient Macedonians (Vangeli, 2011, p. 13). Fidanovski (2018, p. 37)
described these developments as “Macedonia shooting itself in the foot” because it
eliminated sympathy towards Macedonia as a small Balkan country being bullied by its
bigger neighbour (2018, p. 31). For Fidanovski (2018, p. 38), the project dramatically
weakened Macedonia’s position in the name issue.
Macedonia’s new approach under the VMRNO-DPMNE government caused Greece to
introduce new measures, including blocking Macedonia’s EU and NATO integration. The
EU also criticized Macedonia’s new approach in the Commission’s 2007 Progress Report
Murat Önsoy - Simge Pelit
338
(Commission of the European Communities, 2007, p. 18). In September 2007,
Crvenkovski, the then president of North Macedonia declared:
The name of my country is the Republic of Macedonia and will be the
Republic of Macedonia.” (UN, p. 29) In November 2007, the then prime
minister Gruevski made a press statement in which he said: “…there is
one point, which definitely we cannot accept –the one that says that the
Republic of Macedonia should accept a name different from its
constitutional one for international use… (Macedonian Information
Agency, 2007).
All these statements show that the position of North Macedonia on the name issue
has undergone major modification. Although achieving the goals of getting approval for
NATO membership and obtaining a date to start accession talks with the EU depended on
resolving the name issue, negotiations failed to produce an agreement. Greece’s Prime
Minister insisted that “No solution means no invitation” (as cited in Tziampiris, 2012, p.
161). Due to growing fears that Greece would use its veto in NATO, Prime Minister Nikola
Gruevski and his government agreed to use the name ‘Republic of Macedonia (Skopje)’,
which they had previously rejected and Greece had approved in 2005. On 3 April, 2008,
during the NATO Summit in Bucharest, the FYROM’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr.
Milošoski, declared in a press conference: “… we are Macedonians and our country is the
Republic of Macedonia which will be our name for good ….” (International Court of Justice,
2010, p. 34). Ultimately, the NATO Bucharest summit declaration stated that “an invitation
to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will be extended as soon as a mutually
acceptable solution to the name issue has been reached” (NATO, 2008). From this point,
Macedonia adopted more rigid policies. On 14 July 2008, Prime Minister Gruevski sent a
letter to his Greek counterpart complaining about discrimination against Greece’s
Macedonian minority. In 2010, Macedonia responded to NATO’s Bucharest Summit
decision by appointing Martin Trenevski, an anti-NATO representative, to NATO
headquarters in Brussels. Trenevski claimed that by asking Macedonia to resolve its name
issue before joining NATO, the alliance was taking “a bureaucratic approach to the
problem”, which then became “a political position of the alliance” (EU Observer, 2010).
Macedonia then took the NATO Summit decision to the International Court of Justice
(ICJ), arguing that Greece had violated the Interim Agreement by preventing Macedonia
from joining NATO (Tziampiris, 2012, p. 162). Greece defended its veto by accusing
Macedonia of having violated the agreement’s provision on maintaining good neighbourly
relations (Fidanovski, 2018, p. 37). In its judgment on 5 December 2011, the ICJ ordered
Greece to stop objecting to North Macedonia’s admission to international organizations
(ICJ, 2011).
During the first half of 2009, North Macedonia concentrated its efforts on EU
accession. However, Greece hindered the launching of EU accession negotiations with
Macedonia due to the name issue. In an interview with Forum magazine, Macedonia’s
President, Corge Ivanov, stated that “the international community should tell Greece that
the idea for United Europe is much larger that the interests of one EU member country”.
He also complained, “It has been usual thus far for Greece to abuse its status as NATO, EU
member country in favour of its internal political goals” (as quoted in FES, 2009, p. 5).
Macedonia’s failure to join various international organizations also raised
uncertainty concerning the country’s economy and security (Vangeli, 2011, p. 22). In 2011,
Prime Minister Gruevski discussed the name issue at the UN annual assembly: “Imagine
the virtual state that my citizens find themselves in – blackmailed, with a blocked
development and perspective – because of the blockages from our southern neighbour to
enter the Euro-Atlantic institutions, just because for what we are” (UN News, 2011).
The Securitization and De-Securitization of the Name Issue Between Greece...
339
Frustrated by Greece’s efforts to block paths towards Euro-Atlantic integration, the
government opted for a more nationalistic narrative that demonstrated its willingness to
resist Athens’ demands. It presented a new project in 2010, called Skopje 2014, which
continued the antiquization policy that started in 2007 as part of attempts to reinvigorate
Macedonian identity. The project led to new buildings and monuments in baroque and
neoclassical style in downtown Skopje, including an eight-story monument to Alexander
the Great (Graan et al. 2017, p. 68). Gruevski claimed that these policies were an attempt
to boost national pride (Vangeli, 2011, p. 14).
In short, the tough securitization period between 2006 and 2016 significantly
damaged North Macedonia’s case. The antiquization policy, which was intended to
challenge threats to Macedonian identity, harmed Macedonia’s relations with Greece.
Consequently, the name issue was mired in a stalemate for half a decade while
international support for the country against Greece was weakened. In addition to the
external damage, Macedonia was shaken internally in 2015 after wiretapped recordings of
phone conversations between government officials indicating abuse of power were leaked
(Fidanovski, 2018, p. 38). Subsequent civil unrest changed the government’s priority as
everyone focused on the political deadlock while attempts to secure Macedonian identity
remained stalled until the crisis was resolved.
Light at the End of Tunnel: De-securitization of the Name Issue (2016-2018)
Like other countries in the region, Macedonia has been dealing with a long legacy of
corruption and politicization of the state administration and the judiciary (Koneska, 2019,
p. 55). However, the political atmosphere changed after the wiretapping revelations in
2015, when Social Democratic Party (SDSM) opposition leader, Zoran Zaev, accused
Gruevski of eavesdropping (BIRN, 2015) and civil unrest erupted. The political crisis was
finally resolved through EU efforts with the Przino Agreement. The pro-Western SDSM, led
by Zoran Zaev, took power in May 2017 following elections in December 2016 (OSF, 2019,
p. 1). The government’s primary goals were improving the economic, social, political, and
cultural life of North Macedonia’s citizens.
Since 2017, the new government changed its approach by abandoning an explicit
security discourse while opening a window of opportunity to resolve the country’s foreign
policy problems. This primarily resulted from the favorable geopolitical circumstances of
increased US and EU interest in the Western Balkans in response to Russia’s growing
regional presence. Macedonia’s authorities realized that they now could increase their
chances of joining NATO by showing good will. Accordingly, they adopted a more positive
and cautious tone. This was one of the major reasons why Macedonia’s authorities de-
securitized the name issue and repaired relations with Greece.
Zaev wanted to follow a different approach whereby he relaxed Gruevski’s
provocative stance (Joseph et. al. 2018, p. 42). The discourse became cooperative,
emphasizing Greco-Macedonian “friendship” rather than focusing on any existential threat
posed by Greece to North Macedonia. To show goodwill, Zaev distanced himself from his
predecessor’s antiquarianism, and renamed the main north-south highway from
‘Alexander of Macedon’ to ‘Friendship’ (Joseph et al. 2018, p. 42). He made it clear that the
new government would not follow the previous nationalistic and provocative policies that
almost completely isolated Skopje (Voynov, 2019, p. 25). He began by renouncing his
country’s claim to be the sole heir of Alexander the Great’s legacy, which eased relations
with Greece (RFE/RL, 2017).
In an interview on 22 December 2017, he said “I give up the claim of Macedonia
being the sole heir to Alexander” (RFE/RL, 2017). The statement de-escalated the issue,
which enabled North Macedonia to normalize relations, such as ministerial-level visits to
Murat Önsoy - Simge Pelit
340
Athens and Skopje to start a rapprochement. After Greek and Noth Macedonian foreign
ministers met in September 2017, Zaev told the reporters that “It is not a solution but a big
step was made over the name dispute” (EURACTIV, 2017). Through this statement, and
the carefully chosen words the de-securitization discourse becomes evident. Later on, in
an interview, Zaev also said, “I’m optimistic. It is very difficult; we are aware of that. But it
would be smart for both sides to find a solution as early as possible” (as quoted in the
Financial Times, 2018). In January 2018, Zaev made an unofficial visit to Yiannis Boutaris,
Mayor of Thessaloniki in the province of Macedonia in northern Greece.
Macedonia’s good manners were reciprocated. The Greek government headed by
Alexis Tsipras and his foreign minister Nikos Kotzias agreed to restart negotiations, which
gave fresh impetus towards bilateral negotiations. On 17 June 2018, a breakthrough was
made at the Greek-Macedonian border on Lake Prespa when Foreign Ministers Dimitrov
and Kotzias, and Prime Ministers Zaev and Tsipras signed the Prespa Agreement to end
over two decades of the name issue (Daskalovski, 2019, p. 66-67).
The agreement had two purposes: first, resolving the name issue; second,
intensifying and enriching cooperation between the parties (Tzevelekos, 2020, p. 4).
Article 1 paragraph 3 stated that the official name would be the Republic of North
Macedonia, or North Macedonia for short, and that it would be used erga omnes. That is,
the new name would be used domestically, in all bilateral relations, and all regional and
international organizations. Article 3 paragraphs 1 and 2 stipulated the inviolability of
borders and respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of
both parties. Article 6 paragraph 1 stressed that the parties wanted to avoid any hostile,
irredentist, or revisionist activities while aiming at bolstering friendly relations. The deal
also included recognition of the Macedonian language while making clear that the citizens
were unrelated to the ancient Macedonians. Article 7 paragraph 4 defined the Macedonian
language as part of the Slavic language group and emphasized that neither the language
nor other attributes of Macedonia were related to the ancient Greek civilization. Finally,
the agreement explicitly acknowledged the claims of Greece on the ancient tradition at the
expense of other identities (Vankovska, 2019, p. 274). Athens informed the EU and NATO
that Greece had no objection to North Macedonia’s applications (Daskalovski, 2019, p. 67).
On 11 January 2019, Macedonia legally implemented the agreement while Greece’s
parliament approved it on 25 January 2019. Shortly after, on 6 February 2019, 29 NATO
members signed an accession protocol with Macedonia (Daskalovski, 2019, p. 68) while on
25 March 2020, the European Council endorsed the decision to open accession talks with
the Republic of North Macedonia (European Council, 2020, p. 3).
Conclusion
Based on the Copenhagen School’s securitization approach, this paper discussed the
securitization and de-securitization of the name issue between Greece and the Republic of
North Macedonia, by focusing on the latter’s decision makers as the securitizing actors. It
considered the 27-year-old conflict in two periods: securitization (1991-2016) and de-
securitization (2016-2018). It argued that following the declaration of independence in
1991, North Macedonia, facing a challenge from Greece regarding the constitutional name
of the country “the Republic of Macedonia” adopted a securitization strategy that lasted
more than quarter a century. After 2016, the government in Skopje de-securitized the
name issue under the leadership of Zoran Zaev. Accordingly, the securitization period is
divided into sub-periods based on changes in the degree of securitization of the leaders of
North Macedonia due to internal and external developments. Between 1991 and 1994,
fearing for the state’s survival, Macedonia engaged in securitization that was moderate in
tone and content. After gaining UN admission in 1993, the authorities gradually hardened
The Securitization and De-Securitization of the Name Issue Between Greece...
341
the tone of their securitization moves until the aftermath of the 1998 general elections.
From the late 1990s until 2006, Macedonia softened its tone again as the country nearly
slid into civil war in 2001, and continued to behave like a good international citizen to
benefit from its moves towards European and NATO integration. This moderate
securitization period ended in 2006 with the election of right-wing nationalist Nikola
Gruevski, who adopted a tough rhetoric towards Greece. His tough securitization
coincided with turmoil in North Macedonia caused by both the Eurozone crisis and
Greece’s veto of countries NATO and EU membership in 2008 and 2009, respectively.
During the prolonged securitization of the name issue, none of the attempts to resolve the
conflict was effective and the conflict remained as a protracted one until the second half of
the 2010’s. Finally, de-securitization of the dispute started in 2016 following Zoran Zaev’s
election victory. Under Zaev’s leadership, North Macedonia stopped treating the issue as
an emergency and shifted to using normal bargaining tools.
REFERENCES
BALALOVSKA, K. (2004). “Between ‘the Balkans’ and ‘Europe’: A Study of the
Contemporary Transformation of Macedonian Identity”. Journal of Contemporary
European Studies. XII/2: 193-214.
BUZAN, B. - O. WÆVER (2003). Regions and Powers. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
BUZAN, B. et al. (1998). Security A New Framework for Analysis. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
CRAVEN, M. C. (1995). “What's in Name-The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and
Issues of Statehood”. Australian Year Book of International Law. XV: 199-240.
EMMERS, R. (2013). “Securitization”. Contemporary Security Studies. (ed. Alan Collins).
Oxford University Press: 131-160.
FIDANOVSKI, K. (2018). “What’s in a Name? Possible Ways Forward in the Macedonian
Name Dispute”. Slovo. XXXI/1: 18-44.
FLOUDAS, D. A. (2002). “Pardon ? A Conflict for a Name ? FYROM’s Dispute with Greece
Revisited”. The New Balkans: Disintegration and Reconstruction. (ed. G.A. Kourvetaris
et al.). New York: Columbia University Press: 85-114.
GRAAN, A. - A. TAKOVSKI (2017). “Learning from Skopje 2014: Architectural Spectacle in
the 21st Century”. LA+ Interdisciplinary Journal of Landscape Architecture. V: 66-73.
GUZZINI, S. (2011). “Securitization as a Causal Mechanism”. Security Dialogue. XLII/4-5:
329-341.
JANO, D. (2009). “Aspects of Security “Dilemma” – What We Have Learned from the
Macedonian Case”. Perceptions. XIV (Spring-Summer 2009): 73-90.
JOSEPH, E. P. - O. VANGELOV (2018). “Breakthrough in the Balkans: Macedonia's New
Name”. Survival. LX/4: 37-44.
KOFOS, E. (2001). “Greek Policy Considerations over FYROM Independence and
Recognition”. The New Macedonian Question. (ed. J. Pettifer). Palgrave Macmillan:
226-262.
LAMOVSKA, S. (2012). Security Is What the State Makes of It: The Greece - Macedonia Name
Dispute. Budapest Hungary Central European University. (Unpublished Graduate
Thesis).
Murat Önsoy - Simge Pelit
342
MAVROMATIDIS, F. (2010). “The Role of the European Union in the Name Dispute
between Greece and FYR Macedonia”. Journal of Contemporary European Studies.
XVIII/1: 47-62.
PETTIFER, J. (2001). The New Macedonian Question. Palgrave Macmillan.
PHILLIPS, J. (2004). “Macedonian Independence and Affirmation, 1990-1999”. Macedonia
Warlords and Rebels in the Balkans. (ed. John Phillips). I. B. Tauris: 1-223.
ROSSOS, A. (2008). Macedonia and the Macedonians. Hoover Institution Press.
STAWOWY KAWKA, I. (2008). “The Greco-Macedonian Dispute Over the Name of The
Republic of Macedonia”. Politeja. X/1: 223-240.
STEFOSKA, I. – D. STOJANOV (2017). “A Tale in Stone and Bronze: Old/New Strategies for
Political Mobilization in the Republic of Macedonia”. Nationalities Papers. XLV/3:
356-369.
TZIAMPIRIS, A. (2005). "The Name Dispute in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
after the Signing of the Interim Accord.". Athens-Skopje: An Uneasy Symbiosis (1995-
2002). (ed. Evangelos Kofos-Vlasis Vlasidis). Athens: ELIAMEP: 225-252.
TZIAMPIRIS, A. (2012). “The Macedonian Name Dispute and European Union Accession”.
Southeast European and Black Sea Studies. XII/1: 153-171.
UN, Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty Second Session, 4th Plenary Meeting,
doc. A/62/PV.4.
VANGELI, A. (2011). “Nation-Building Ancient Macedonian Style: The Origins and the
Effects of the So-Called Antiquization in Macedonia”. Nationalities Papers: The
Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity. XXXIX/1: 13–32.
VANKOVSKA, B. (2010). “David vs. Goliath: Macedonia’s Position(s) in the ‘Name Dispute’
with Greece”. Südosteuropa. LVIII/3: 436-467.
VANKOVSKA, B. (2019). “The Prespa Agreement, Ethnicity and Nationality”. Годишен
зборник на Филозофскиот факултет/The Annual of the Faculty of Philosophy in
Skopje.
VOYNOV, A. (2019). The Resolution of the Macedonian Name Dispute: A Study of the Factors
That Led to the Signing of the Prespa Agreement. Leiden: University of Leiden.
(Unpublished Graduate Thesis).
XHELADINI, F. (2016). “Securitization as Policy Choice: Macedonian Case”. European
Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies. II/2: 97-102.
Internet Resources
BIRN (2015). “Macedonia PM Accused of Large-Scale Wire-Tapping”. Accessed on:
04.03.2022.
https://balkaninsight.com/2015/02/09/eavesdropping-bombshell-explodes-in-
macedonia/
Commission of The European Communities (2005). “Commission Opinion on the
Application from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for Membership of the
European Union. COM (2005) 562 Final”. Accessed on: 09.01.2005.
http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2005:0562:FIN:EN:PD
F.
The Securitization and De-Securitization of the Name Issue Between Greece...
343
Commission of The European Communities (2007). “The Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia 2007 progress report. 06.11.2007 COM (2007) 663 final”. Accessed on:
04.03.2022.
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2007/nov/fyrom_progress_
reports_en.pdf
COWAN, J. K. (2000). Macedonia: The Politics of Identity and Differenc. Pluto Press.
Accessed on: 09.01.2005.
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt18fsbkm
DANFORTH, L. M. (1993). “Claims to Macedonian Identity: The Macedonian Question and
the Breakup of Yugoslavia”. Anthropology Today. IX/4: 3-10. Accessed on:
09.01.2005.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2783448
DASKALOVSKI, Z. (2019). “Republic of Macedonia or North Macedonia?”. Insight Turkey.
XXI/2: 63-74. Accessed on: 04.03.2022.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26776074
EU OBSERVER. (2010). “Macedonia sends anti-Nato ambassador to Nato”.: Accessed on:
07.03.2022.
https://euobserver.com/news/30603
Euractiv (2017). “Macedonia says ‘big step’ made in name row with Greece”. Accessed on:
10.03.2022.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/enlargement/news/macedonia-says-big-step-
made-in-name-row-with-greece/
European Council (2020). “Council Conclusions on Enlargement and Stabilisation and
Associatio Accessed on: 04.03.2022.
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-7002-2020-INIT/en/pdf
Financial Times (2018). “Macedonia Close to Solving Name Dispute with Greece, PM Says”.
Accessed on: 12.03.2022.
https://www.ft.com/content/aac1f298-1bd5-11e8-aaca-4574d7dabfb6
Interim Accord, Greece-Fyrom, Oct. 13, 1995.
https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/MK_950913_Interim%2
0Accord%20between%20the%20Hellenic%20Republic%20and%20the%20FYROM
.pdf
International Court of Justice (2010). “Counter Memorial of Greece, 19 January 2010”.
Accessed on: 04.03.2022.
https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/142/16356.pdf
International Court of Justice (2011). “Judgement. Application of the Interim Accord of 13
September 1995 (The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia v. Greece)”. Accessed
on: 04.03.2022.
https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/142/142-20111205-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf
International Crisis Group (ICG) (2001). “Macedonia’s Name: Why the Dispute Matters and
How to Resolve It, 10 December 2001, No. 122”. Accessed on: 04.03.2022.
Murat Önsoy - Simge Pelit
344
https://www.crisisgroup.org/europe-central-
asia/balkans/macedonia/macedonias-ame-why-dispute-matters-and-how-resolve-
it
International Crisis Group (ICG) (2009). “Macedonia's Name: Breaking the Deadlock, 12
January 2009, Europe Briefing No. 52”. Accessed on: 04.03.2022.
https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/95305/b52_macedonias_name.pdf
KALAMPALIKIS, N. (2020). “A Lasting Symbolic National Threat: The Dispute Over the
Name Macedonia”. Societies Under Threat. Frontiers in Sociology and Social Research.
(eds. D. Jodelet-J.Vala-Drozda Senkowska). Springer. Accessed on: 04.03.2022.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39315-1_9
KOFOS, E. (1986). “The Macedonian Question: The Politics of Mutation”. Institute for
Balkan Studies. XXVII: 157-172. Accessed on: 04.03.2022.
https://ojs.lib.uom.gr/index.php/BalkanStudies/article/download/2143/2167
KONESKA, C. (2019). “The Macedonia Name Dispute”. Insight Turkey. XXI/2: 51-62.
Accessed on: 04.03.2022.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26776073
LOIZIDES, N. (2020). “Symbolic Right-Sizing and Balkan Nationalisms: The Macedonia
Name Dispute and the Prespa Agreement”. Irish Political Studies. XXXV/3: 492-508.
Accessed on: 04.03.2022.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2020.1816392
MACEDONIAN HERITAGE: A TIMELINE OF RECENT EVENTS CONCERNING THE
MACEDONIAN ISSUE, Accessed on: 17.03.2022.
http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/timeline.html
MACEDONIAN INFORMATION AGENCY (2007). “Prime Minister Gruevski’s Statement on
Nimetz’s Draft-Framework of Understanding”. Accessed on: 12.03.2022.
http://www.mia.com.mk/default.aspx?vId+29113595&lId=2 .
MANZINGER, K. (2020). “How Do You Want Me to Address You? - The Macedonian Name
Dispute Resolved”. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, European and Regional Studies.
XVII/1: 7-28. Accessed on: 04.03.2022.
https://doi.org/10.2478/auseur-2020-0001
NATO (2008). “Bucharest Summit Declaration - Issued by the Heads of State and
Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Bucharest
on 3 April 2008”. Accessed on: 04.03.2022.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm
Open Society Foundation (OSF) (2019). “North Macedonia: What’s Next?”. Accessed on:
21.03.2022.
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/north-macedonia-what-s-
next
PARKAS, C. C. (1997). “The United States, Greece, and the Macedonian Issue: The Tito
Legacy That Haunts the Southern Balkans”. World Affairs. CLIX/3: 103-108.
Accessed on: 04.03.2022.
The Securitization and De-Securitization of the Name Issue Between Greece...
345
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20672490
Prespa Agreement (2018). “Final Agreement for the Settlement of the Differences as
Described in the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 817 (1993) and 845
(1993), the Termination of the Interim Accord of 1995, and the Establishment of a
Strategic Partnership Between the Parties”. Accessed on: 04.03.2022.
https://www.ekathimerini.com/resources/article-files/aggliko-1.pdf
Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) (2017). “Macedonia Says It’s Ready to Give Up
Claim as Sole Heir to Alexander the Great’s Legacy”. Accessed on: 22.03.2022.
https://www.rferl.org/a/macedonia-yugolsavia-greece-alexander-great-name-
dispute-eu/28935265.html
ŠOROVIĆ, M. (2019). “The Republic of North Macedonia - A 'New' Country in the Western
Balkans”. Rsc. XI/3: 87-107. Accessed on: 04.03.2022.
https://www.fuds.si/sites/default/files/priloge-aktualnosti/mira_sorovic_87-
107.pdf
TZEVELEKOS, V. (2020). “The Meaning and Effects of Erga Omnes within the Prespa
Agreement of 17 June 2018 between Greece and North Macedonia. An introductory
Note”. Questions of International Law, QIL, Zoom-in 65. Accessed on: 04.03.2022.
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3580195
TZIAMPIRIS, A. (2006). “The European Union and the Macedonian Question”. History of
Macedonia. (ed. I. Koliopoulos). Thessaloniki: Museum of the Macedonian Struggle:
357-374. Accessed on: 04.03.2022.
http://www.macedonianheritage.gr/HistoryOfMacedonia/Downloads/History%20
Of%20Macedonia_EN-19.pdf
UN NEWS (2011). “Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Presses at UN for Solution to
Name Dispute”. Accessed on: 22.03.2022.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2011/09/388812-former-yugoslav-republic-
macedonia-presses-un-solution-name-dispute
UNSC (2001). “Statement of the President of the Republic of Macedonia, A/56/640-
S/2001/1094”. Accessed on: 04.03.2022.
https://reliefweb.int/report/former-yugoslav-republic-macedonia/statement-
president-republic-macedonia-a56640-s20011094
Unspecified (1991). “Council of the European Communities. Press Releases. Presidency:
The Netherlands. July-December 1991. Meetings and press releases October 1991”.
[EU Council of the EU Document] Accessed on: 04.03.2022.
http://aei.pitt.edu/3240/
ZAHARIADIS, N. (1994). “Nationalism and Small-State Foreign Policy: The Greek Response
to the Macedonian Issue”. Political Science Quarterly. CIX/4: 647–667. Accessed on:
04.03.2022.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2151842