North Macedonia and the Prespa Agreement : An analysis of the name dispute between Greece and North Macedonia from a realist, a liberal and a constructivist perspective

Abstract: The Prespa agreement is an international agreement that regulates the resolution of the Macedonian name conflict and which meant that FYROM (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) changed its name to North Macedonia and that Greece recognized the country by this name, among other things by lifting its veto against a North Macedonian membership in NATO. The agreement was concluded despite strong domestic political opposition in the two nations. The criticism was that the agreement created identity problems for many people because, among other things, it had been determined who had the right to call themselves "Macedonians" and who spoke "Macedonian". Despite strong opposition to this compromise, the governments were determined to conclude the agreement and it is remarkable that this happened. The aim of the study is to provide an increased understanding and insight into the background and reasons for the decision. The underlying reasons for deciding on the agreement can be explained with the help of various theories and explanatory models. This study is inspired by Graham Allison and the book “Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis”. In this study the theories realism, liberalism and constructivism are used. The theories are different from each other and provide a broad basis on which to conclude why the Prespa agreement was signed. Allison's model served as an analysis tool and provided an increased understanding and insight into the background and reasons for the decision. The different theories complement each other as they highlighted different aspects and causes. Realism and liberalism contributed explanations for the conclusion of the agreement as there were many rational advantages in resolving the name issue, such as strengthened military power, economy and cooperation through institutions. Constructivism mainly provided explanations for why the conflict arose and why it was concluded at the time.