Editing Corfu Declaration (section)

==Impact==
{{see also|Creation of Yugoslavia}}
[[File:SHS 1918 adresa Aleksandru.jpg|thumb|alt=Photograph of the delegates of the National Council of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs |Address of the delegation of the National Council of the [[State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs]] to the [[Alexander I of Yugoslavia|Prince Regent Alexander]]]]
In essence, the Corfu Declaration was a political manifesto disregarded by the Serbian government with respect to the qualified majority needed to adopt a constitution, but upheld when its provisions coincided with Serbian interests.{{sfn|Repe|2017|pp=191–192}} Conversely, Croatian autonomist politicians deemed the provisions on the qualified majority as a binding agreement.{{sfn|Banac|1984|p=397}} The Declaration was a compromise by the Yugoslav Committee and the Pašić government. It was hailed as a South Slavic ''[[Magna Carta]]'' for recognising the "tribal" names, three flags and religions, and two "alphabets". At the same time, the Declaration limited the powers of the future Constituent Assembly by deciding on the monarchy and the specific ruling dynasty. It also decided the name of the future state as the [[Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes]] – following Serbian objections against the name of "Yugoslavia" as a Western invention designed to stamp out the name "Serbia".{{sfn|Banac|1984|pp=123–125}}

Trumbić was largely isolated in his opposition to the centralism championed by Pašić; most of the Yugoslav Committee sided with Pašić on the issue. While Trumbić insisted on leaving the internal affairs, education, judiciary, and economy (other than customs, currency, credit and management of state property) to federal units and asked for veto powers for the "tribes" in the Constitutional Assembly to ensure decision-making by consensus, Pašić rejected his ideas. Pašić favoured granting a degree of autonomy to local governments but advocated the abolition of historical lands in favour of new administrative units. Pašić let it be known that Croatian federalists may only exert some influence in [[Zagreb]] and its immediate surroundings and on the [[List of islands in the Adriatic|Adriatic islands]] largely claimed by Italy. The Declaration avoided most of these issues but referred to "counties and other administrative units". That was later interpreted as a break with the historical rights of the historical provinces. Similarly, the [[Croatian Sabor]] was given no role in the Declaration. The Corfu Declaration contained no institutional safeguards of national rights. According to [[Ivo Banac]], the Yugoslav Committee chose not to insist on those matters as it was preoccupied with the Italian threat.{{sfn|Banac|1984|pp=123–125}} In Italy, the Declaration was portrayed as anti-Italian in spirit, aimed at splitting Italy from its allies and diminishing the Italian contribution to the war effort.{{sfn|Merlicco|2021|p=124}} This view was specifically advocated by [[Fasces of Revolutionary Action]] [[Benito Mussolini]].{{sfn|Bucarelli|2019|pp=286–287}} Nationalists sought to capitalise on identifying with nationalistic positions towards the [[Adriatic Question]] by presenting the Treaty of London (with addition of [[Fiume]] (Rijeka) to Italy) as a fair territorial compromise threatened by the imperialistic thinking of the Yugoslav Committee.{{sfn|Bucarelli|2019|pp=287–291}}

International support only gradually began shifting away from the preservation of Austria-Hungary in 1917. That year, Russia sued for peace following the [[Russian Revolution]] while the United States, whose [[President of the United States|president]], [[Woodrow Wilson]], advocated the principle of [[self-determination]], [[American entry into World War I|entered the war]].{{sfn|Pavlowitch|2003a|p=31}} Nonetheless, in his [[Fourteen Points]] speech, Wilson only promised autonomy for the peoples of Austria-Hungary. Preservation of the dual monarchy was not abandoned before the signing of the [[Treaty of Brest-Litovsk]] in March 1918. By then, the Allies became convinced that they could not resist a [[Communist revolution]].{{sfn|Banac|1984|p=126}} As Austria-Hungary disintegrated, representatives of the Serbian government and opposition, the Yugoslav Committee, and representatives of the National Council of the newly proclaimed [[State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs]] in the former Habsburg lands, met for another round of negotiations in [[Geneva]] on 6–9 November 1918. At the conference, the Yugoslav Committee and the National Council persuaded Pašić to sign the [[Geneva Declaration (1918)|Geneva Declaration]] renouncing the unitarist concept of the future union. However, the Serbian government quickly repudiated the Declaration.{{sfn|Ramet|2006|p=43}} Pressed by the circumstances of Italian armed incursion, the National Council drew up instructions for its delegation to the Serbian prince regent [[Alexander I of Yugoslavia|Alexander]], offering to proclaim the unification of the South Slavs and the creation of a new state. The instructions were drawn up by relying on the Corfu Declaration and the National Council's federalist ideas.{{sfn|Banac|1984|pp=136–138}}

The delegation ignored their instructions and changed the address to Alexander from specifying a federalist system of government based on the Corfu Declaration to a display of loyalty and expression of wishes. On 1&nbsp;December, Prince Regent Alexander accepted the offer to proclaim unification with no constraints imposed.{{sfn|Banac|1984|p=138}}