Kay and Higgins, who until their appointment on September 3 had been taking part in the trial as amici curiae, or friends of the court, said in their motion that Milosevic had the right to have an appeal submitted on his behalf against the decision on court-appointed defence counsel.
The former Yugoslav president protested against the decision, requesting that he be given back the right to defend himself on his own and refusing instructions to cooperate with his defence counsel.
Milosevic did not file a formal complaint, demonstrating that he does not recognise the tribunal.
The accused believes that by imposing defence counsel on him the tribunal is denying him the fundamental right to defend himself on his own, a right guaranteed by the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the defence counsel said in their appeal.
The ICTY Statute stipulates that defendants have the right to be tried in their presence and to defend themselves or be defended by their legal representatives of their own choice.
The Statute also provides for the possibility of the tribunal appointing defence counsel when that is in the interests of justice.
Kay and Higgins stated that denying the accused the right to defend himself could affect the fairness of the trial and represents grounds for an appeal against the verdict, possibly resulting in a retrial.
They also conveyed Milosevic's view, expressed during testimonies by the first two defence witnesses this week, that questions put by defence counsel were not in accordance with his line of defence.
The trial chamber can be led to wrong conclusions because it will hear testimonies given without instructions by the defendant, which therefore do not represent his defence, Kay and Higgins said.
The trial chamber will decide at a later date on whether it will allow defence counsel to submit the appeal to the Appeals Chamber.