"Serb List accomplishes goal, can block Pristina"

So representative when can we expect you to reverse the independence of Kosovo?
Bring back the institutions of Belgrade?
Return Trepça complex?
(L*O*G*I*C, 15 June 2017 14:17)

1. No need to reverse independence since Kosovo is officially disputed territory in the international community. The ICJ ruling in 2010 verified it as such.

2. Srpska List is Belgrade's official-backed party. The international community supports it. ZSO will legalize it.

3. You don't control Trepca now. I don't know what you mean by "returning" since Albanians make constant attempts to seize it.

Serb-List is using the same tactics as Serbia did on the Report of Atthisari. Blocking is only going to lead to loosing Int. support. When this happens, their blocking of constitutional changes is only going to lead to legislation changes.

Actually, they cant stop or block anything, maybe postpone but not block. They mesure their success by what thei have blocked and failed to provide any progress for the kosovo serb community. 9/10 votes is not a sucess it is a first indicator that they are loosing power.

No one should even bother to talk to them until they are ready to talk. Dont forget they, might represent the majority of serb voters but they dont represent the majority of Kosovo-Serbs in general.

Kosovo is officially disputed territory in the international community. The ICJ ruling in 2010 verified it as such.
(R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, 15 June 2017 15:20)

Can you provide a link to this ICJ ruling in 2010 which verified that "Kosovo is officially disputed territory in the international community". Just curious because the ICJ website does not appear to contain any such ruling so it appears you just made it up, unless you can provide the link.

First this shows how fair Kosovo constitution is gives a right to block changes to minoraties even if they are 5% of population.

You can only block changes in Constituion but nothing much more. On the other hand he makes a point to not get your comunity as shows what is your state of mind.

You have a choice be with harjdinaj or Kurti - If you chose Harjdinaj please do not complain about war crimes any longer. You voted Thaqi president what a joke.

Can you provide a link to this ICJ ruling in 2010 which verified that "Kosovo is officially disputed territory in the international community".
(icj1, 15 June 2017 15:32)

"The question is narrow and specific; it asks for the Court’s opinion on whether or not the declaration of independence is in accordance with international law. It notes that the question does not ask about the legal consequences of that declaration. In particular, it does not ask whether or not Kosovo has achieved statehood. Nor does it ask about the validity or legal effects of the recognition of Kosovo by those States which have recognized it as an independent State. The Court accordingly sees no reason to reformulate the scope of the question." (page 5)

"The Court then notes, in paragraph 56 of the Opinion, that the General Assembly has asked it whether the declaration of independence was “in accordance with” international law and that the answer to that question turns on whether or not the applicable international law prohibited the declaration of independence ... The Court observes that
it is not required by the question it has been asked to take a position on whether international law conferred a positive entitlement on Kosovo unilaterally to declare its independence or, a fortiori, on whether international law generally confers an entitlement on entities situated within a State unilaterally to break away from it." (page 6)

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/16010.pdf

R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, you seem to be quoting the question they were considering, NOT their conclusion. See p. 14 for conclusion:
"The Court recalls its conclusions reached earlier, namely, “that the adoption of the declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 DID NOT VIOLATE GENERAL INTERNATIONAL LAW, Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) or the Constitutional Framework”. Finally, it concludes that “[c]onsequently the adoption of that declaration did not violate any applicable rule of international law.”" (emphasis mine)

Another Serbian joke. Imagine what would happen if minorities in Serbia said the same.

Mr the sign behind you shows where you live. And your people have chosen you to work for them NOT block them. - here you are talking not what you think and your people think but you are talking what Serbian government want to hear. You Serbs minority are in positive discrimination- this is mistake and not really nice towards other minority.

So sh••t up put your head down and work 4the state you live in to improve your people's live.
Serbian people in Republic of Kosovo have massive votes 4their state like never before - this is very good news - so don't try to fool us you're there to block but say what the Serbian people needs to have a better social economical day to day live.

Who disputes Serbia's sovereignty? Who disputes Germany's sovereignty? Who disputes France's sovereignty? Do those disputes prevent these states from being full participants in the international community? Does that keep them out of the United Nations?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q) Who disputes Serbia's sovereignty?
A) Everyone who recognizes Kosovo. Think all the neighbors and nearly all the other countries on the continent.

Q) Do those disputes prevent these states from being full participants in the international community? Does that keep them out of the United Nations?
A) No it doesn't prevent them from participating in this organization. Didn't prove anything here ^^

What you lack in understanding is that the criteria of statehood is NOT derived from the UN.

The question to ask is can Belgrade enact laws on Kosovo? Can it collect taxes? Police the streets? Control the border? Hold elections?

The answer is NO! These are criteria are more up to date than your "UN member or not" ideology.


Sincerely,

"Serb List accomplished its goal" - said a proud Simic in front of a GOK placard.

So representative when can we expect you to reverse the independence of Kosovo?
Bring back the institutions of Belgrade?
Return Trepça complex?


Sincerely,

There is nothing in the ICJ's advisory ruling that legitimizes Kosovo's statehood. It simply states there is nothing illegal, or more specifically, there is no law that has been violated. It did not rule, and many like to think it did, that Kosovo's declaration of independence was legal. "Not illegal" does not mean "legal".
(R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, 15 June 2017 22:30)

But but Serbia claims that it did violate Int. Law. and the only reason to not recognise Kosovo is because Serbia and Russia are upholding Int. Law. How do you "protect" Int. Law if there is no Law to protect?

For your Info. Int. Court does not legitimize statehood. Only the people and the institutions of a country legitimize statehood. As per definition a country needs 3 elements to be considered a country. 1. institutions representing all citizens (Constitution, 3 Powers of Gov.) 2. citizens 3. territory.

What you think is irrelevant because Kosovo has more recognitions and bilateral cooperations than many members of UN :-)

Kosovo is officially disputed territory in the international community. The ICJ ruling in 2010 verified it as such.
(R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, 15 June 2017 15:20)

Can you provide a link to this ICJ ruling in 2010 which verified that "Kosovo is officially disputed territory in the international community". Just curious because the ICJ website does not appear to contain any such ruling so it appears you just made it up, unless you can provide the link.
(icj1, 15 June 2017 15:32)

[link]
(R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, 15 June 2017 16:32)

Thx for confirming what I suspected, i.e. that you just made it up when you wrote that an "ICJ ruling in 2010 verified" that "Kosovo is officially disputed territory in the international community" since that is not written anywhere at the link you provided.

It's perfectly OK for you to write that it is your opinion that "Kosovo is officially disputed territory in the international community". But when you allege that it is ICJ that verified that statement of yours, you are obviously lying.

"Not illegal" does not mean "legal"
(R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, 15 June 2017 22:30)

So, what is the definition of "legal" in your English?

Finally, it concludes that “[c]onsequently the adoption of that declaration did not violate any applicable rule of international law.”" (emphasis mine)
(NDITF, 15 June 2017 18:05)

That's right, because there is no existing international law prohibiting a territory from declaring independence. Whether other states have the right to recognize that declaration, in this case Kosovo, was not addressed. Therefore, there is no legal grounds legitimizing Kosovo's declared sovereignty. States are free to do as they please, which is why those states that recognized Kosovo held to their positions, and those that did not have held on to theirs. This also explains why South Sudan quickly became an internationally recognized state while Kosovo is no better or worse than Northern Cyprus.

There is nothing in the ICJ's advisory ruling that legitimizes Kosovo's statehood. It simply states there is nothing illegal, or more specifically, there is no law that has been violated. It did not rule, and many like to think it did, that Kosovo's declaration of independence was legal. "Not illegal" does not mean "legal".

But, by that criteria you stated above, Serbia's sovereignty is disputed, too.
(icj1, 16 June 2017 15:26)

Who disputes Serbia's sovereignty? Who disputes Germany's sovereignty? Who disputes France's sovereignty? Do those disputes prevent these states from being full participants in the international community? Does that keep them out of the United Nations?

I answered your question. That you need to split hairs over this indicates you won't be satisfied with it despite my direct quote. That you responded to your first quote of mine with "nobody asked ICJ to rule about that since it is up to every country to decide which other entity is a sovereign state" already indicates Kosovo is a different case than the states I mentioned above. The ICJ's ruling did not change Kosovo's disputed status. It only verified what you just said, which is exactly what I originally quoted. That many states choose to not recognize Kosovo under the text of the ICJ goes right back to my original point that the ICJ verified it as disputed territory by all interpretations.

Take all the time you feel you need to reply to this post too. I'm done.

"Not illegal" does not mean "legal".
(R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, 15 June 2017 22:30)


Now you are grasping at straws!

It's perfectly OK for you to write that it is your opinion that "Kosovo is officially disputed territory in the international community". But when you allege that it is ICJ that verified that statement of yours, you are obviously lying.
(icj1, 16 June 2017 00:57)

I never said that. I simply paraphrased what the ICJ ruling decided. If you're looking for word for word verification of what I said being in the ICJ text, you're the one grasping at straws. The link and the documentation I provided verify that Kosovo is contested territory. The ICJ did not rule that Kosovo is a sovereign state. And yes, it is officially disputed territory in that it is not recognized in the UN as a sovereign state. The fact that some states do recognize it sovereignty while others do not is the essence of "disputed". There's not much else to say. Your question was answered. If you choose not to accept it, I can't help you.

The only thing the Serbs can block is their outdoor toilets.

There is nothing in the ICJ's advisory ruling that legitimizes Kosovo's statehood. It simply states there is nothing illegal, or more specifically, there is no law that has been violated. It did not rule, and many like to think it did, that Kosovo's declaration of independence was legal. "Not illegal" does not mean "legal".
(R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, 15 June 2017 22:30)


The 111 UN members that have recognized the Republic of Kosova out of a total of 196 members means those voting for Kosova do not recognize the borders that Serbia claims to be theirs. Therefore, Serbia is a disputed territory for a 57% majority of UN members. You do the math! Now that's a reality check for you.

That you responded to your first quote of mine with "nobody asked ICJ to rule about that since it is up to every country to decide which other entity is a sovereign state" already indicates Kosovo is a different case than the states I mentioned above.
(R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, 16 June 2017 16:02)

How is it different?! Nobody has asked ICJ to rule about that for the states you mentioned, too - same as Kosovo.
---------

The ICJ's ruling did not change Kosovo's disputed status.
(R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, 16 June 2017 16:02)

Sure, like it did not change Serbia's disputed status. So, it's not clear what your point is!
----------

That many states choose to not recognize Kosovo under the text of the ICJ goes right back to my original point that the ICJ verified it as disputed territory by all interpretations.
(R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, 16 June 2017 16:02)

Ok, so according to your logic above, the fact that many states choose to not recognize Serbia under the text of the ICJ means that the ICJ verified Serbia as disputed territory by all interpretations.

It's perfectly OK for you to write that it is your opinion that "Kosovo is officially disputed territory in the international community". But when you allege that it is ICJ that verified that statement of yours, you are obviously lying.
(icj1, 16 June 2017 00:57)

I never said that.
(R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, 16 June 2017 15:09)

Oh, OK, it looks like a certain "R*E*A*L*I*T*Y" who wrote that ICJ verified that "Kosovo is officially disputed territory in the international community" was another person using the same nickname as you!

There is nothing in the ICJ's advisory ruling that legitimizes Kosovo's statehood. It simply states there is nothing illegal, or more specifically, there is no law that has been violated. It did not rule, and many like to think it did, that Kosovo's declaration of independence was legal. "Not illegal" does not mean "legal".
(R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, 15 June 2017 22:30)


The 111 UN members that have recognized the Republic of Kosova out of a total of 196 members means those voting for Kosova do not recognize the borders that Serbia claims to be theirs. Therefore, Serbia is a disputed territory for a 57% majority of UN members. You do the math! Now that's a reality check for you.

Funny how you guys keep saying RK is a terrorist country and yet in this terrorist country serbs can vote free and have their own reppresentative.
Even more funnier is the fact that serbs habe their own representatives that instead of putting programs on how to improve their own life first thing they think a day after elections is how to stop the government reforms.
Way to go guys.

The ICJ did not rule that Kosovo is a sovereign state.
(R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, 16 June 2017 15:09)

Of course, because nobody asked ICJ to rule about that since it is up to every country to decide which other entity is a sovereign state.
----------

And yes, it is officially disputed territory in that it is not recognized in the UN as a sovereign state.
(R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, 16 June 2017 15:09)

By that criteria, there are no sovereign states in the world since the UN has never recognized any state or government. So, it's not clear what your point is!
----------

The fact that some states do recognize it sovereignty while others do not is the essence of "disputed".
(R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, 16 June 2017 15:09)

Sure, you finally reached the conclusion that has nothing to do with any ICJ opinion or UN recognition. But, by that criteria you stated above, Serbia's sovereignty is disputed, too.

Serb-List is using the same tactics as Serbia did on the Report of Atthisari. Blocking is only going to lead to loosing Int. support. When this happens, their blocking of constitutional changes is only going to lead to legislation changes.

Actually, they cant stop or block anything, maybe postpone but not block. They mesure their success by what thei have blocked and failed to provide any progress for the kosovo serb community. 9/10 votes is not a sucess it is a first indicator that they are loosing power.

No one should even bother to talk to them until they are ready to talk. Dont forget they, might represent the majority of serb voters but they dont represent the majority of Kosovo-Serbs in general.

Kosovo is officially disputed territory in the international community. The ICJ ruling in 2010 verified it as such.
(R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, 15 June 2017 15:20)

Can you provide a link to this ICJ ruling in 2010 which verified that "Kosovo is officially disputed territory in the international community". Just curious because the ICJ website does not appear to contain any such ruling so it appears you just made it up, unless you can provide the link.

So representative when can we expect you to reverse the independence of Kosovo?
Bring back the institutions of Belgrade?
Return Trepça complex?
(L*O*G*I*C, 15 June 2017 14:17)

1. No need to reverse independence since Kosovo is officially disputed territory in the international community. The ICJ ruling in 2010 verified it as such.

2. Srpska List is Belgrade's official-backed party. The international community supports it. ZSO will legalize it.

3. You don't control Trepca now. I don't know what you mean by "returning" since Albanians make constant attempts to seize it.

Can you provide a link to this ICJ ruling in 2010 which verified that "Kosovo is officially disputed territory in the international community".
(icj1, 15 June 2017 15:32)

"The question is narrow and specific; it asks for the Court’s opinion on whether or not the declaration of independence is in accordance with international law. It notes that the question does not ask about the legal consequences of that declaration. In particular, it does not ask whether or not Kosovo has achieved statehood. Nor does it ask about the validity or legal effects of the recognition of Kosovo by those States which have recognized it as an independent State. The Court accordingly sees no reason to reformulate the scope of the question." (page 5)

"The Court then notes, in paragraph 56 of the Opinion, that the General Assembly has asked it whether the declaration of independence was “in accordance with” international law and that the answer to that question turns on whether or not the applicable international law prohibited the declaration of independence ... The Court observes that
it is not required by the question it has been asked to take a position on whether international law conferred a positive entitlement on Kosovo unilaterally to declare its independence or, a fortiori, on whether international law generally confers an entitlement on entities situated within a State unilaterally to break away from it." (page 6)

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/16010.pdf

First this shows how fair Kosovo constitution is gives a right to block changes to minoraties even if they are 5% of population.

You can only block changes in Constituion but nothing much more. On the other hand he makes a point to not get your comunity as shows what is your state of mind.

You have a choice be with harjdinaj or Kurti - If you chose Harjdinaj please do not complain about war crimes any longer. You voted Thaqi president what a joke.

Finally, it concludes that “[c]onsequently the adoption of that declaration did not violate any applicable rule of international law.”" (emphasis mine)
(NDITF, 15 June 2017 18:05)

That's right, because there is no existing international law prohibiting a territory from declaring independence. Whether other states have the right to recognize that declaration, in this case Kosovo, was not addressed. Therefore, there is no legal grounds legitimizing Kosovo's declared sovereignty. States are free to do as they please, which is why those states that recognized Kosovo held to their positions, and those that did not have held on to theirs. This also explains why South Sudan quickly became an internationally recognized state while Kosovo is no better or worse than Northern Cyprus.

There is nothing in the ICJ's advisory ruling that legitimizes Kosovo's statehood. It simply states there is nothing illegal, or more specifically, there is no law that has been violated. It did not rule, and many like to think it did, that Kosovo's declaration of independence was legal. "Not illegal" does not mean "legal".

"Serb List accomplished its goal" - said a proud Simic in front of a GOK placard.

So representative when can we expect you to reverse the independence of Kosovo?
Bring back the institutions of Belgrade?
Return Trepça complex?


Sincerely,

Another Serbian joke. Imagine what would happen if minorities in Serbia said the same.

Kosovo is officially disputed territory in the international community. The ICJ ruling in 2010 verified it as such.
(R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, 15 June 2017 15:20)

Can you provide a link to this ICJ ruling in 2010 which verified that "Kosovo is officially disputed territory in the international community". Just curious because the ICJ website does not appear to contain any such ruling so it appears you just made it up, unless you can provide the link.
(icj1, 15 June 2017 15:32)

[link]
(R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, 15 June 2017 16:32)

Thx for confirming what I suspected, i.e. that you just made it up when you wrote that an "ICJ ruling in 2010 verified" that "Kosovo is officially disputed territory in the international community" since that is not written anywhere at the link you provided.

It's perfectly OK for you to write that it is your opinion that "Kosovo is officially disputed territory in the international community". But when you allege that it is ICJ that verified that statement of yours, you are obviously lying.

But, by that criteria you stated above, Serbia's sovereignty is disputed, too.
(icj1, 16 June 2017 15:26)

Who disputes Serbia's sovereignty? Who disputes Germany's sovereignty? Who disputes France's sovereignty? Do those disputes prevent these states from being full participants in the international community? Does that keep them out of the United Nations?

I answered your question. That you need to split hairs over this indicates you won't be satisfied with it despite my direct quote. That you responded to your first quote of mine with "nobody asked ICJ to rule about that since it is up to every country to decide which other entity is a sovereign state" already indicates Kosovo is a different case than the states I mentioned above. The ICJ's ruling did not change Kosovo's disputed status. It only verified what you just said, which is exactly what I originally quoted. That many states choose to not recognize Kosovo under the text of the ICJ goes right back to my original point that the ICJ verified it as disputed territory by all interpretations.

Take all the time you feel you need to reply to this post too. I'm done.

There is nothing in the ICJ's advisory ruling that legitimizes Kosovo's statehood. It simply states there is nothing illegal, or more specifically, there is no law that has been violated. It did not rule, and many like to think it did, that Kosovo's declaration of independence was legal. "Not illegal" does not mean "legal".
(R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, 15 June 2017 22:30)

But but Serbia claims that it did violate Int. Law. and the only reason to not recognise Kosovo is because Serbia and Russia are upholding Int. Law. How do you "protect" Int. Law if there is no Law to protect?

For your Info. Int. Court does not legitimize statehood. Only the people and the institutions of a country legitimize statehood. As per definition a country needs 3 elements to be considered a country. 1. institutions representing all citizens (Constitution, 3 Powers of Gov.) 2. citizens 3. territory.

What you think is irrelevant because Kosovo has more recognitions and bilateral cooperations than many members of UN :-)

It's perfectly OK for you to write that it is your opinion that "Kosovo is officially disputed territory in the international community". But when you allege that it is ICJ that verified that statement of yours, you are obviously lying.
(icj1, 16 June 2017 00:57)

I never said that.
(R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, 16 June 2017 15:09)

Oh, OK, it looks like a certain "R*E*A*L*I*T*Y" who wrote that ICJ verified that "Kosovo is officially disputed territory in the international community" was another person using the same nickname as you!

The ICJ did not rule that Kosovo is a sovereign state.
(R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, 16 June 2017 15:09)

Of course, because nobody asked ICJ to rule about that since it is up to every country to decide which other entity is a sovereign state.
----------

And yes, it is officially disputed territory in that it is not recognized in the UN as a sovereign state.
(R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, 16 June 2017 15:09)

By that criteria, there are no sovereign states in the world since the UN has never recognized any state or government. So, it's not clear what your point is!
----------

The fact that some states do recognize it sovereignty while others do not is the essence of "disputed".
(R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, 16 June 2017 15:09)

Sure, you finally reached the conclusion that has nothing to do with any ICJ opinion or UN recognition. But, by that criteria you stated above, Serbia's sovereignty is disputed, too.

"Not illegal" does not mean "legal".
(R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, 15 June 2017 22:30)


Now you are grasping at straws!

The only thing the Serbs can block is their outdoor toilets.

R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, you seem to be quoting the question they were considering, NOT their conclusion. See p. 14 for conclusion:
"The Court recalls its conclusions reached earlier, namely, “that the adoption of the declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 DID NOT VIOLATE GENERAL INTERNATIONAL LAW, Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) or the Constitutional Framework”. Finally, it concludes that “[c]onsequently the adoption of that declaration did not violate any applicable rule of international law.”" (emphasis mine)

"Not illegal" does not mean "legal"
(R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, 15 June 2017 22:30)

So, what is the definition of "legal" in your English?

Who disputes Serbia's sovereignty? Who disputes Germany's sovereignty? Who disputes France's sovereignty? Do those disputes prevent these states from being full participants in the international community? Does that keep them out of the United Nations?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q) Who disputes Serbia's sovereignty?
A) Everyone who recognizes Kosovo. Think all the neighbors and nearly all the other countries on the continent.

Q) Do those disputes prevent these states from being full participants in the international community? Does that keep them out of the United Nations?
A) No it doesn't prevent them from participating in this organization. Didn't prove anything here ^^

What you lack in understanding is that the criteria of statehood is NOT derived from the UN.

The question to ask is can Belgrade enact laws on Kosovo? Can it collect taxes? Police the streets? Control the border? Hold elections?

The answer is NO! These are criteria are more up to date than your "UN member or not" ideology.


Sincerely,

It's perfectly OK for you to write that it is your opinion that "Kosovo is officially disputed territory in the international community". But when you allege that it is ICJ that verified that statement of yours, you are obviously lying.
(icj1, 16 June 2017 00:57)

I never said that. I simply paraphrased what the ICJ ruling decided. If you're looking for word for word verification of what I said being in the ICJ text, you're the one grasping at straws. The link and the documentation I provided verify that Kosovo is contested territory. The ICJ did not rule that Kosovo is a sovereign state. And yes, it is officially disputed territory in that it is not recognized in the UN as a sovereign state. The fact that some states do recognize it sovereignty while others do not is the essence of "disputed". There's not much else to say. Your question was answered. If you choose not to accept it, I can't help you.

There is nothing in the ICJ's advisory ruling that legitimizes Kosovo's statehood. It simply states there is nothing illegal, or more specifically, there is no law that has been violated. It did not rule, and many like to think it did, that Kosovo's declaration of independence was legal. "Not illegal" does not mean "legal".
(R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, 15 June 2017 22:30)


The 111 UN members that have recognized the Republic of Kosova out of a total of 196 members means those voting for Kosova do not recognize the borders that Serbia claims to be theirs. Therefore, Serbia is a disputed territory for a 57% majority of UN members. You do the math! Now that's a reality check for you.

Mr the sign behind you shows where you live. And your people have chosen you to work for them NOT block them. - here you are talking not what you think and your people think but you are talking what Serbian government want to hear. You Serbs minority are in positive discrimination- this is mistake and not really nice towards other minority.

So sh••t up put your head down and work 4the state you live in to improve your people's live.
Serbian people in Republic of Kosovo have massive votes 4their state like never before - this is very good news - so don't try to fool us you're there to block but say what the Serbian people needs to have a better social economical day to day live.

There is nothing in the ICJ's advisory ruling that legitimizes Kosovo's statehood. It simply states there is nothing illegal, or more specifically, there is no law that has been violated. It did not rule, and many like to think it did, that Kosovo's declaration of independence was legal. "Not illegal" does not mean "legal".
(R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, 15 June 2017 22:30)


The 111 UN members that have recognized the Republic of Kosova out of a total of 196 members means those voting for Kosova do not recognize the borders that Serbia claims to be theirs. Therefore, Serbia is a disputed territory for a 57% majority of UN members. You do the math! Now that's a reality check for you.

That you responded to your first quote of mine with "nobody asked ICJ to rule about that since it is up to every country to decide which other entity is a sovereign state" already indicates Kosovo is a different case than the states I mentioned above.
(R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, 16 June 2017 16:02)

How is it different?! Nobody has asked ICJ to rule about that for the states you mentioned, too - same as Kosovo.
---------

The ICJ's ruling did not change Kosovo's disputed status.
(R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, 16 June 2017 16:02)

Sure, like it did not change Serbia's disputed status. So, it's not clear what your point is!
----------

That many states choose to not recognize Kosovo under the text of the ICJ goes right back to my original point that the ICJ verified it as disputed territory by all interpretations.
(R*E*A*L*I*T*Y, 16 June 2017 16:02)

Ok, so according to your logic above, the fact that many states choose to not recognize Serbia under the text of the ICJ means that the ICJ verified Serbia as disputed territory by all interpretations.

Funny how you guys keep saying RK is a terrorist country and yet in this terrorist country serbs can vote free and have their own reppresentative.
Even more funnier is the fact that serbs habe their own representatives that instead of putting programs on how to improve their own life first thing they think a day after elections is how to stop the government reforms.
Way to go guys.