[JMS]

Slovenia could have seceded under the Yugoslavian Constitution at the time but did not have the legal right to secede unilaterally from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. As regards recognition by any outside country, this contravened the Helsinki convention. From the Slovene perspective I'm sure that they don't see it this way so I agree with you re. POV. Still, because there was a mechanism for leaving the FRY, unilateral secession and then declaring Yugoslav troops occupiers is more a political argument than a legal one.

[markomalley]

Slovenia could have seceded under the Yugoslavian Constitution at the time but did not have the legal right to secede unilaterally from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

I don't know the internal laws of Yugoslavia that were in place in 1991.

As regards recognition by any outside country, this contravened the Helsinki convention.

I did a quick scan of the Helsinki Convention. It said the following:

IV. Territorial integrity of States

The participating States will respect the territorial integrity of each of the participating States.

Accordingly, they will refrain from any action inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations against the territorial integrity, political independence or the unity of any participating State, and in particular from any such action constituting a threat or use of force.

The participating States will likewise refrain from making each other's territory the object of military occupation or other direct or indirect measures of force in contravention of international law, or the object of acquisition by means of such measures or the threat of them. No such occupation or acquisition will be recognized as legal.

and

VI. Non-intervention in internal affairs

The participating States will refrain from any intervention, direct or indirect, individual or collective, in the internal or external affairs falling within the domestic jurisdiction of another participating State, regardless of their mutual relations.

They will accordingly refrain from any form of armed intervention or threat of such intervention against another participating State.

They will likewise in all circumstances refrain from any other act of military, or of political, economic or other coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by another participating State of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

Accordingly, they will, inter alia, refrain from direct or indirect assistance to terrorist activities, or to subversive or other activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another participating State.

The problem is that this convention was looking, not at a civil war, but at invasions from one state to another. Nowhere in the convention does it deal with issues of succession, civil war, or other internal strife (with the exception of the portion of the document dealing with each state's requirement to respect the human rights of its own citizens -- but that is a separate issue altogether.

So, again, if one state recognizes the legitimacy of another state (like Britain did with Slovenia), its assistance to Slovenia is not interfering in the internal affairs of a third state (Yugoslavia), even though that third state does not recognize the legitimacy of the second state.

Sort of like the situation with Turkish Cyprus, if you ask me...

Of course, Slovenia was admitted to the OSCE in 1992, so the point would be moot after a short period of time.

Having said this, though, you are correct in your assessment that it was more of a political issue than a legal one. But it's all politics, though, isn't it?