Written Comments of Serbia

,'
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE
SEPARATION OF THE CHAGOS
ARCHIPELAGO FROM MAURITIUS IN 1965
(Request for Advisory Opinion)
WRITTEN COMMENTS BY THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA
MAY2018
. 1
1.
1. In accordance with the Order of the International Court of Justice of 14 July 2017
and the Order of 17 January 2018, the Republic of Serbia hereby submits its Written Comments.
Written statements by a number of States and of the African Union support position that the
International Court of Justice has an important role in rendering advisory opinion in this particular
case and that this case is of great impm1ance for strengthening the rule of law at the international
leve!.
2. The Republic of Serbia finds appropriate to provide certain written comments
concerning propriety for the Court to exercise its jurisdiction to give advisory opinion, and on the
substantial questions asked by the General Assembly.
II.
3. The Republic of Serbia reiterates its opinion that in this case there are compelling
reasons for the Court to participate in activities of the United Nations by providing legal opinion.
In other words, there is not a single reason for the Court to decline to exercise its advisory
jurisdiction.
4. It is indisputable that there exists a longstanding dispute between the United
Kingdom and Mauritius about sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. However, that dispute is
only one part of the pro cess of decolonisation of Mauritius, and having in mi nd the very nature of
the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, by providing advisory opinion this
longstanding bilateral dispute would not be resolved. Rather, the advisory opinion will only
provide an appropriate legal guidance to the General Assembly. lt was the incomplete process of
decolonisation, namely separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius and depopulation of
the Chagos Archipelago, that raised many legal questions that relate to the decolonisation and
many disputes, including those concerning the right to self-determination of the people of
Mauritius (including the people of the Ch agos Archipelago ), territorial integrity of Mauritius and
responsibilities of the administrating Power (in this case the United Kingdom) in the process of
decolonisation. If the cmTent situation is perceived as a purely bilateral issue between the United
Kingdom and Mauritius that would lead to ignorance of a number of princip les and legal norms
that regulate the process of decolonisation and legal interests of the international community as a
who le, and particularly the General Assembly of the United Nations. From the facts of the case r
~-z
2
that seem to be undisputable, it appears that the requested advisory opinion does not concern
bilateral dispute, but rather a long-lasting situation in which key actors, including the General
Assembly of the United Nations and administering Power (the United Kingdom), hold divergent
legal positions.
5. The General Assembly on a few occasions called upon the United Kingdom as an
administering Power to act in accordance with certain rules, particularly with the Declaration on
the Granting oflndependence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
6. For example, immediately after the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from
Mauritius, the General Assembly adopted resolution 2066 (XX), stating that: "any steps taken by
the administrating Power to detach certain islands from the Terri tory of Mauritius for the purpose
of establishing a military base would be in contravention of' the Declaration on the Granting of
Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and that the General Assembly " invites the
Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island to take effective
measures with the view to the immediate and full implementation of resolution 1514 (XV)" . The
General Assembly invited "the administering Power to take no action which would dismember the
Terri tory of Mauritius and violate its territorial integrity".
7. The situation created by the separation ofthe Chagos Archipelago was and still is
of great concern for the General Assembly. The fact that those questions were rarely discussed
during a certain period oftime does not mean that the General Assembly ignored its own resolution
concerning decolonisation of Mauritius or that the issue concerning legality of decolonisation of
Mauritius simply disappeared. It is stiJl actual and the General Assembly, in arder to take further
steps, needs appropriate advice from the International Cami of Justice.
8. Obligations of an administering Power (colonial Power, in this case the UK and its
allies, particularly the USA) are not only obligations towards the territory and the people under
administration, but towards international community as a whole. The General Assembly in
accordance with the UN Charter and well-established practice, as weil as the positions clarified
through a number of resolutions and declarations, bas a clear and unequivocal role in the process
of decolonisation . Each particular case of decolonisation is of concern of the General Assembly.
9. The situation at band (separation and depopulation of the Chagos Archipelago)
concerns the very authority of the General Assembly of the United Nations. If the General
Assembly invited the administering Power "to take no action which would dismember
the r-· ,.})
( J
3
Territory of Mauritius and violate its territorial integrity" on the basis ofthe applicable law briefly
elaborated in resolution 1514 (XV) (as weil as in subsequent resolutions), and the administering
Power (the United Kingdom) and certain other members of the United Nations hold a different
position clearly expressed in their written submissions and in appearances before the General
Assembly, the General Assembly has a strong interest to ask the principal judicial organ of the
United Nations- the International Court of Justice for appropriate legal guidance.
1 O. In the present request for an advisory opinion, bilateral aspects of the dispute are
just an echo (or si de effect) of the main issues. The International Court of Justice should answer
the questions asked by the General Assembly. It might also cali the parties in dispute to act in
conformity with international law having in mind that the United Nations were created in arder
"to be a centre for harmonising the actions of nations in the attainment of ... common ends", as
defined in Article 1 of the UN Chatier.
11. In this case, legal guidance is asked on two issues. The first concerns the legality
of decolonisation, and the second concerns the legal consequences. Both questions are ofparticular
importance for the General Assembly. The first one focuses, inter alia, on whether the content of
various resolutions concerning decolonisation is a manifestation of international law that existed
at the time of their issuance or at the time of decolonisation of Mauritius. The second one is of
particular importance since the General Assembly is in a position to deal with the situation created
by an unlawful act (incomplete decolonisation of Mauritius by separation of the Chagos
Archipelago from Mauritius and its depopulation).
*
12. The position of the United Kingdom that reveals the substance of this situation is
expressed by various representatives ofthe United Kingdom, and reiterated in its written statement
fi led before the International Court of Justice. In paragraph 5.10 of the UK submission it is stated
as follows:
"The United Kingdom Representative has, wherever appropriate, replied firmly to such
claims, rejecting them and restating its own sovereignty. For instance, on 30 September
1999, the United Kingdom Representative replied to Mauritius' statement in the following
tenns:
{l' __ )
4
The British Government maintains that the British Indian Ocean Territory is British and
has been since 1814. It does not recognize the sovereignty claim of the Mauritian
Government. However, the British Government has recognized Mauritius as the only State
which has the right to assert a claim to sovereignty when the United Kingdom relinquishes
its own sovereignty. Successive British Governments have given undertakings to the
Government of Mauritius that the Territory will be ceded when no longer required for
defence purposes.
The British Government remains open to discussions regarding arrangements governing
the British Indian Ocean Territory or the future of the Territory. The British Government
has stated that when the time cornes for the Territory to be ceded it willliaise closely with
the Government of Mauritius."1
13. Moreover, it is notorious that the UK, for the purpose of the establishment of the
British Indian Territory and a military base depopulated the whole Chagos Archipelago, in another
words forcibly displaced ali residents of the Chagos Archipelago mainly to Mauritius.
14. The administering Power (in this case the United Kingdom) was obliged to respect
the territorial integrity of Mauritius and the interests of its inhabitants. This is clear from the UN
Charter (Chapter XI) and various UN General Assembly resolutions. It seems indisputable that at
the time of separation of the Chagos Archipelago, or in any other later moment, there were no
imperative military reasons or reasons concerning safety of population of Mauritius (including the
Chagos Archipelago) to be separated from Mauritius and for depopulation of the Chagos
Archipelago in arder to establish a military base.
15. One of the core functions of the International Court of Justice is to determine the
law (legal principles and legal norms) applicable in the concrete case. In this concrete case, the
International Court of Justice is asked to answer the questions by application of international law,
"including obligations reflected in the General Assembly resolutions" 1514,2066, 2232 and 2355.
16. It is inevitable that in arder to establish rules and principles applicable in the
concrete case, the International Court of Justice has to determine whether the obligations reflected
in the above mentioned resolutions of the General Assembly are of legal nature. The position of
the Republic of Serbia is that they are of a legal nature. However, in determining the applicable
1 Written Statement ofthe United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,, para. 5.10. quoting General / "' . J ·
Assembly, verbatim record, 54th Session, !9th Plenary Meeting. L rp
5
law, the International Court of Justice should not disregard the basic law of the United Nations,
the UN Charter, and the accordance of the obligations reflected in the General Assembly
resolutions with the provisions of the Chatier of the United Nations.
17. The UN Charter is clear on this matter. The administration of certain terri tory is a
part of "responsibilities" of an administering Power which, in complying with this responsibility,
cannat act on its own. As prescribed by Article 73 of the UN Charter:
"Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the
administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of selfgovernment
recognize the princip le that the interests of the inhabitants of these terri tories
are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within
the system of international peace and security established by the present Chatter, the wellbeing
of the inhabitants of the se terri tories ... "
18. In other words, the UK was obliged to full y respect the interests of the inhabitants
of Mauritius, including the inhabitants of the Chagos Archipelago. By separation of Chagos from
Mauritius, the administering Power (in this case the UK) acted contrary to the weil being of the
inhabitants of Mauritius. Instead of "to ensure", as provided in Atiicle 73 (1) (a) of the Charter
"with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economie, social, and
educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses", the United
Kingdom separated Chagos from Mauritius and conducted forcible transfer of its population. By
those acts the administering Power prevented any possibility for development of self-government
and preservation of the interests of the Chagossians. Furthermore, by those acts the United
Kingdom as an administering Power totally disregarded "political aspirations of the peoples" and
its obligation as an administering Power to "assist them in the progressive development of the ir
free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples
and their varying stages of advancement", which is contrary to Article 73 (1) (b) of the United
Nations Charter.
19. ln this context it should be noted that it was not the colonial Power who granted
independence to the people under colonial rule, but international law, created, inter alia, by the
Charter of the United Nations. The Charter of the United Nations con fers primary responsibility
on administering Powers and they are obliged, in exercise of their responsibilities, to act in
accord ance with international law. ln arder to achieve the goals of the UN ( enumerated in Article _ _
~
6
1 of the UN Charter), great powers (as weil as administering Powers) need to act in accordance
with their legal commitments in the establishment ofwhich their full participation was inevitable.
Their influence at the time of drafting the UN Charter was of so great importance that they could
evade obligations concerning decolonisation. Without their consent, the UN Charter would never
come into being.
20. Subsequent resolutions of the UN General Assembly are no more than clarifications
of the obligations already established by Articles 73 and 74 of the UN Charter and other articles
ofthe UN Charter, particularly Articles 1 and 2.
21. The first question posed by the General Assembly:
(a) Was the process of decolonization of Mauritius lawfully completed when Mauritius
was granted independence in 1968, following the separation of the Chagos Archipelago
from Mauritius and having regard to international law, including obligations reflected in
General Assembly resolutions 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, 2066 (XX) of 16
December 1965, 2232 (XXI) of20 December 1966 and 2357 (XXII) of 19 December 1967?
22. Wording "having regard to international law" includes, by necessity, the Chatier of
the United Nations. Resolutions of the General Assembly should be interpreted in accordance and
with special regard to the relevant provisions of the UN Charter.
23. The question whether the decolonization of Mauritius was complete as of its
independence on 12 March 19682 is not the same as the question put by the General Assembly
"whether the process of decolonization of Mauritius lawfully completed when Mauritius was
granted independence in 1968, following separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius ... "
24. As noted in the USA submission, "the Court wou Id need to determine whether any
international legal obligations existed at the time that would have applied to the United Kingdom
and would have regulated that process."3
25. Decolonization is a long lasting political process. But that process was and stiJl is
regulated by international law. Specifie legal obligations towards administering States are
contained not only in the resolutions of the General Assembly, but primarily in the UN Charter.
While the Republic of Serbia considers that the above mentioned resolutions are part of
international law applicable in this particular case (in other words they reflect international law
2 Written Statement of the United States of America, para. 4.1 O.
3 Ibidem, para. 4.11
7
that was in force then and now), the question and concerns raised, for example by the USA
deserves attention. Namely, in paragraph 4.14 of its Written Submission the USA expressed its
opinion that "so by suggesting that the General Assembly resolutions referenced therein reflected
international legal obligations binding on the United Kingdom that would have constrained its
establishment of the BIOT. Y et as the Court explained in Kosovo, where a matter is capable of
affecting the answer to the question posed, "[i]t would be incompatible with the proper exercise of
the judicial function for the Court to treat that matter as having been determined by the General
Assembly."
26. The first question asked by the General Assembly is, in substance, a request to
confirm its position on cettain legal issues. In substance, the resolution 2066 (XX) qualified the
acts of the United Kingdom as an administering power as the acts in violation of the UN authority.
Asking the International Court of Justice a verification of qualifications and demands, particularly
concerning violation ofterritorial integrity of Mauritius by separation ofthe Chagos Archipelago,
is a proper question on which the International Court of Justice should answer. The first question,
for that reason, is a textbook example of the proper question that should be under the scrutiny of
the judicial function of the Court- to assert legal qualifications of the main political organs of the
United Nations.
27. In the political process, such as the process of decolonization, the activities of
various UN organs, and other international organizations, need to be assessed from the legal
stand point. The resolutions ofthe General Assembly involve more than a legal opinion. They were
adopted not for academie reasons, but in order to guide further political activities. Based on serious
legal considerations, they provided directions that cannat be ignored.
28. There is a specifie situation concerning the British Indian Ocean Territory. This
territory was created in the context of decolonization from the part of Mauritius and by fm·cible
displacement ofthe inhabitants of the Chagos Archipelago.
29. In 1965 when the British Indian Ocean Territory was proclaimed, contrary to the
argument of the USA and UK, 4 the UN Charter regulated the obligations that administering States
owed towards non-self-governing territories. The USA and the United Kingdom in their statement
did not elaborate, or ignored, at least Atticles 1, 2, 73 and 74 ofthe UN Charter.
4 See: Ibidem, paragraph 4.25 etc
8
30. General Assembly resolutions concerning decolonisation, are based on the UN
Charter provisions, practice, opinio iuris of states. Particularly5, resolution 1514 (Declaration on
the Granting oflndependence to Colonial Countries and Peoples New York, 14 December 1960)
reflects th en existing ru les of international law. That was as a pmt of the mandate of the General
Assembly under A1ticle 13 of the UN Charter to promote international cooperation and to
encourage "the progressive development of international law and its codification". Resolution
1514, as weil as sorne other resolutions, represents then existing rules of international law, or
proper interpretation of the relevant articles ofthe UN Chmter.
31. The right of self-determination was largely elaborated in the context of
decolonization . Wh en introduced in the Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations it was not
a meaningless formula, but the rule of international law. The USA argues that the Charter in
Chapters XI, XII and XIII - "do not mention self-determination and . . . do not conta in
requirements related to the independence of non-self-governing terri tories ... "6 However, Chapter
XI contains main elements of the right of self-determination in colonial context, including, but not
limited to, that the interests of inhabitants . . . are paramount, well-being of inhabitants, just
treatment and protection against abuse, the culture of the people, political, economie, social and
educational achievements, development of self-government with due account of the political
aspirations of the peoples, progressive developments of their free political institutions ... . Ali of
these are part of the right of self-determination subsequently codified in the International
Covenants on human rights. Namely, the very substance of Article 1 ofthe International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights and of the International Covenant on Economie, Social and Cultural
Rights and of the Article 73 of the UN Charter is the same.
32. Article 1 of the Covenants and Article 73 of the UN Charter concern the same
issues, political status and economie, social and cultural development. In accordance with
paragraph 3 ofthe Article 1 ofthe Covenants:
"The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having respon-sibility for the
administration ofNon-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization
of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the
provisions of the Charter ofthe United Nations"
5 Contrary to the argument in para. 4.29 etc of the Written Statement of the United States of America.
6 Written Statement of the United States of America, paragraph 4.34.
9
This provision does not create a new legal obligation, but represents a codification ofthen existing
international law already in force and based on the UN Charter.
33. Resolution 1514 (1 960) con tains the princip les of international law based on the
Charter of the United Nations and applied in the context of decolonization. Political and moral
support (as the US claims universal political and moral support for the resolution's underlying
ideals)7 has its legal background in the Chatter of the UN and previous decolonization practice.
While certain aspects of self-determination remain a matter of discussion and problematic for
normative formulation, and they are still of th at nature, resolution 1514 seems to introduce
common legal opinion on the decolonization.
34. However, while it is more than clear that depopulation is prohibited under
international law, it is also clear that the princip le of territorial integrity is of universal character.
The USA in its submission stated:
35. "Paragraph 6 proved problematic. The paragraph states that "[a]ny attempt aimed
at the partial or total disruption of the national unity or territorial integrity of a country is
incompatible with the pUI·poses and principles of the Charter of the United Nations." States
expressed a variety of views on the meaning of this language, and on the rel evan ce of territorial
integrity to the process of decolonization. Sorne States saw paragraph 6 as a reaffirmation of
Article 2, paragraph 4 of the Charter, and others emphasized that newly independent states were
entitled to territorial integrity. 8"
36. The princip le of territorial integrity (even though not infrequently violated) is an
ius cogens of international law since the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations. It does not
mean that the borders could not be a subject of change, but that territorial integrity is a basic value
of contemporary international law.
37. In this particular case, it is clear that by separation of the Chagos Archipelago and
its depopulation, the United Kingdom, as an administering Power, violated territorial integrity and
national unity of Mauritius. The principle of territorial integrity and the principle of prohibition of
disruption of the national unity are not isolated principles of international law. They need to be
considered in the context of other fundamental principles of international law, particularly those
contained in Articles 1 and 2 of the UN Chatier as weil as in Articles 73 and 74 of the UN Charter.
7 Ibidem, paragraph 4.34.
8 Ibidem, paragraph 4.47. 4ilf-
[ 10
38. National unity and territorial integrity of Mauritius was clearly violated by the
administering Power. Namely, it was clear, then and now, that putting people under subjugation,
domination and exploitation is illegal under international law. The people that inhabited the
Chagos Archipelago was not simply denied the right to determine their political status, they were
forci bi y displaced and deprived of ali of the ir rights by the administering Power. Depopulation of
a certain territory is the worst expression of a deniai of rights of the people. This is not only a
violation ofthe rules of international law, it is a crime under international law of a very high gravity
(persecution as a crime against humanity).
39. Territorial integrity is a basic value of the contemporary international law, and also
the law that existed at the time of decolonization of Mauritius. The violation of territorial integrity
is of patticular gravity in cases where it results in the total or partial disruption of national unity.
40. The establishment of the British lndian Ocean Territory was contrary to
international law (violation of territorial integrity of Mauritius and forci ble displacement of the
population ofthe Chagos Archipelago). Contrary to the USA and the United Kingdom assertions9
resolution 2066 that states th at "any step taken by the administering Power to detach certain islands
from the Territory of Mauritius for the purpose of establishing a military base would be in
controversy of (Resolution 1514) and in particular of paragraph 6 thereof" represent clear
application of then binding ru les of international law on a particular situation (separation of the
Ch agos Archipelago ).
41. In ali cases of territorial change, the issue is al ways how and for what purpose the
territorial change occurred. In this concrete case, the purpose is weil established, it was not for the
well-being of inhabitants of the Chagos Archipelago, orto resolve political, economie, cultural or
social issues between population of the Chagos Archipelago and the rest of Mauritius, it was for
the pm·pose of establishment of a military base for the benefit of the United Kingdom and the
United States of America.
42. The position of the United Kingdom that it "have given undertakings to the
Government of Mauritius that the Territory will be ceded when no longer required for defence
pm·poses" describes wrong understanding of international legal framework and position of the
great power entrusted with the responsibilities of the administering Power. ln this and similar
statements, the UK tacitly recognizes the title of Mauritius to a territory of the Chagos Archipelago.
9Jbidem, paragraph 4.55.
11
In the simplified form , those arguments sound like- you have a right over this territory but I need
that territory for a certain time and 1 will give you back your territory when 1 no longer need it. In
the process of decolonisation the administering Power has no unlimited authority, but it must act
in respect ofthe responsibilities laid down by Article 73 ofthe UN Charter.
43. The case of decolonisation of Mauritius is unique. Wh ile there are sorne
explanations in the cases in which severa! territories changed their boundaries before or upon
independence 10, (whether in accordance or not in accordance with international law) in the case of
the Chagos Archipelago the situation is clear- the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from
Mauritius and its depopulation are unlawful acts. 11
III
44. The second question asked by the General Assembly is:
"What are the consequences under international law, including obligations reflected in the
above mentioned resolutions, arising from the continued administration by the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ire land of the Ch agos Archipelago, including with
respect to the inability of Mauritius to implementa programme for the resettlement on the
Chagos Archipelago of its nationals, in particular those of Chagos origin?"
45. Wh ile separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius is a historie fact, the
General Assembly is now confronted with the consequences of that separation and particularly
with the depopulation of the Chagos Archipelago. lt is weil established that "the purpose of the
advisory jurisdiction is to enable the organs of the United Nations and other authorized bodies to
obtain from the Court an opinion which will assist them in the exercise of their functions" 12
(Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of
Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 2010, para. 421)
46. The International Court of Justice should provide legal guidance as to how the
General Assembly (or its Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation
10 Ibidem, paragraph 4.67
11 Situation concerning Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, Alaska (1959), Hawaii (1959), and Puerto Rico
(1952), British Togoland ( 1956) and the Northern Mariana Islands (1976) cannat serve as an explanation or as
precedents applicable in the case of decolonization of Mauritius. _
12 ~c~m·dance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of lndependence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory C:J ·-,, ';
Opm10n, ICJ Reports 2010, para. 421 L/ [/
12
of the Declaration on the Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples) should deal
with the prevailing situation. 13 In order to fulfill its functions in accordance with international law,
the General Assembly, by asking the second questions, asked for guidance. That guidance needed
for the General Assembly, is concerned with the acts of States, and it is of particular importance
to answer what legal consequences might arise for States. 14 That is needed in order to direct the
Members of the United Nations to behave in accordance with international law.
4 7. The United Nations are intended to be, as provided in At1icle 1 of the UN Charter
"a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of ... common ends". The
General Assembly, thus, legitimately asked the International Com1 of Justice to determine ali
"consequences under international law .... arising from continued administration by the United
Kingdom ... ofthe Chagos Archipelago." If the International Court of Justice declines to answer
the second question, instead ofthe role oflaw, the role ofpolitical interests contrary to international
law might prevail.
48. If violation of international law occurred, the United Nations should act in an
appropriate manner and, if necessary, cali individual states to act in appropriate manner. The
consideration of the consequences "for the United Nations generally and for the General
Assembly"15 cannot be separated from consequences for the administering Power, the territory
under considerations, or third states.
49. In reality, the General Assembly, in fulfillment of its functions, may cali the
Member States to act in appropriate manner. In order to do that, the General Assembly, in this
particular case, obviously, needs a clear guidance from the International Court of Justice. In order
to direct the actions of Mauritius and the United Kingdom and the United States in pat1icular, the
General Assembly needs to be advised on their rights and responsibilities. 16
50. The Com1 should answer in particular, what remedies follow from violation of
international law that concerns depopulation ofthe Chagos Archipelago. This is not only a matter
of a bilateral dispute between the UK and Mauritius. That is a question for con cern of international
community as a whole. Whether Mauritius is entitled to "implement a programme for the
resettlement on the Chagos Archipelago of its nationals, in particular th ose of Chagos origin" is a
13 Written Statement of Germany, paragraph 144.
14 Contrary, Ibidem, paragraph 144.
15 Ibidem, para. 143.
16 Contrary, Ibidem, para. 146.
13
question specifically addressed in the General Assembly request for an advisory opinion, and it
seems unquestionable that it is willing to deal with the issue once the International Court of Justice
provides an advisory opinion.
~~Çç6f--.-
L --./ ...
Prof. Dr. Aleksandar V. Gaj ié
Chief Legal Advisor
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
the Republic of Serbia
14