[Hoplite]

Reading the information you cite, I get the following:

"With 405 clauses it was the world's longest constitution, and, probably on account of its absurd length, was virtually untranslatable and largely non-sensical."

In light of its complexity and the complexity of the Former Yugoslavia in general, there is little agreement on the issue of under what circumstances that Constitution permits the secession of the republics. Bennett states that, while the first communist constitution, adopted in 1946, explicitly granted a right of self-determination (secession), the 1974 constitution implied that right, while one Serb source says that the right to secession was granted but was contingent upon the agreement of all of the republics. The lack of certainty on the issue is perhaps best demonstrated by the votes of the parliaments of Slovenia and Croatia in 1990 asserting their right to secede one year before they did so

Let me put it this way - you made a positive statement about the Yugoslav constitution and secession, but cannot support your statement with anything substantiative when called upon to do so, and instead cite something which points out that the Yugoslav Constitution was vague at best upon the subject of secession, and certainly offers no explicit denial of a right to secede in the manner taken by any of the republics which did so in the early '90s.

I see no reason to engage you in any further discussion until you either back up your statement or retract it - it is not for you to call upon me to do research which you should have done before composing your posts, Bob.

He did not, could not, meet the requirements as outlined in the Yugoslav constitution for a republic to secede,

Like I said, I'm gonna have fun with this - what requirements are you referring to?

[bob808]

If you'll stop for a moment and have an honest discussion about the principles involved here, you'll come to either one of two conclusions. Either the Serb Republic's secession from Bosnia was unjustified because it was done without the consent of its parent entity - and therefore so was Bosnia's secession from Yugoslavia. Or, both the RS and Bosnia were justified in exercising their basic right to self-determination. You can not hold one position in one case, and a different in position in the other. Well I suppose you can, but not if you're going to retain any intellectual honesty.

Various authors have stated that the Yugoslav Constitution did have a provision to allow for a republic's seccesion based on unanimous agreement amongst all the republic's. Perhaps its "abusrd length" and being "virtually untranslatable" (not to mention the fact that it has already been replaced, what two times?) is why no one has bothered to post the actual text of it online (at least not that I have been able to find). I have taken them at their word. Perhaps they were right, perhaps not, but it is really irrelevant at this point.

Condemn both if you like, or support both. But don't praise one and condemn the other, and still call yourself an honest man.