K. Serbs voice rejection of EULEX

EULEX has no mandate and carries no legitamacy. Serbia continues to strengthen its legitamate authority across its UN recognised soverign province. Each and every day that passes with illegal acts against international law refelects on those who are underming the UN authority and UN resolutions that they are obligated to uphold. The EU has no unified position and has no way of imposing its default of partition within partition http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2007&mm=08&dd=29&nav_id=43346 - thats why a Dutch official Peter feith is head of illegal EULLEX.

Fact is the EULEX have no ligitamacy and every single serb in the Serbian province is a thorn in the EULEX side.

Oh what a tangled web the EU weave...

Ithink that Serbian manority in Kosova will have to ecxept EULEX,UNMIK will not be there for long.The sooner serbian minority ecxepts it,the better their lives will be.Ta

Just a small remark to the previous comment. I agree with the stated however there is a big confusion when it comes to EULEX and ICO/EUSR..EULEX is not a political but technical mission dealing solely with the Rule of law area and its Head is not Faith but Yves de Kermabon..More information available at(www.eulex-kosovo.eu)

Mandate and legitimacy are the two key terms overused here.
Mandate to EULEX mission was formally given to the mission by the sovereign Kosovar authorities, e.g. invitation of Kosova government and head of state. Mandate is further validated by the purpose of such mission. Proving law and order in northern Kosova was never more needed in that part of the country.
Legitimacy is the other abused term. EULEX mission is part of the long and difficult process of establishing the legitimacy of the new state. Nominal agreement of a minority does not constitute lack of legitimacy. If that was the case Serbia would lack legitimacy in Sanjak, Presheva Vojvodina and elsewhere. The important dimension of legitimacy remains the compliance within the general legal framework of the new state in the bases of equality and nondiscrimination.

Viti i Balit:
> UNMIK will not be there for long.

UNMIK can only leave if SC approves so which will stay - is explicitly stipulated in 1244.


village-bey:
> Mandate and legitimacy are the two key terms overused here.

Only from the point of view of those who wish to ignore those two key items.

> Mandate to EULEX mission was formally given to the mission by the sovereign Kosovar authorities ...

Who are in no position to extend said mandate unilaterally.

> EULEX mission is part of the long and difficult process of establishing the legitimacy of the new state.

You are saying that EULEX's mandate comes from the 'pseudo-state', whose legitimacy is being established, at least in part, by EULEX.

This is a circular argument & so is logically nonsense.

> Nominal agreement of a minority does not constitute lack of legitimacy.
> The important dimension of legitimacy remains the compliance within the general legal framework of the new state in the bases of equality and nondiscrimination.

And these two statements are fundamentally inconsistent with each other.

On the one hand, you say that 'another dimension of legitimacy of the pseudo-state' is based on the respect for the rights of minorities in Kosovo.

And yet right before that, you abrogate that same minorities basic rights when you deny them even the choice of whether or not they want to be part of this 'new pseudo-state'.

Attempting to build a state which advocates 'equality & nondiscrimination' on a foundation of 'unilateralism' is like building a house without a foundation.

Which is one of the legal points behind Serbia's initiative to place this matter before the ICJ.

And let's not forget the other equally important 'dimension of legitimacy that you've neglected to mention - that of a states territory & borders.

And of course there is also UN resolution 1244 itself.

ICJ will consider all three aspects & not just the one you mention with a particular emphasis on 1244 if & when it brings down it's advisory opinion.

"Mandate to EULEX mission was formally given to the mission by the sovereign Kosovar authorities, e.g. invitation of Kosova government and head of state. .......

(village-bey, 2 October 2008 20:21) "

village-bey

the glitch in your analogy is that 'your Kosova authorities' itself has no legitimacy in the eyes of the ultimate family of sovereign nations the UN!

Peter,
I like your argumentative replies, especially as you introduce structure to my erratic comments. I’ll try to address your points one by one.

Only from the point of view of those who wish to ignore those two key items.

That’s an emotive statement; my willingness to discuss it points to the contrary.

Who are in no position to extend said mandate unilaterally.

That goes without saying; any such bilateral, multilateral deployment requires agreement. Agreement by definition involves more that one party. The point here is that EU has made a firm commitment towards Kosova’s stability and the mission’s aim matches perfectly with that of a sovereign Kosova.

You are saying that EULEX's mandate comes from the 'pseudo-state', whose legitimacy is being established, at least in part, by EULEX.

This is a circular argument & so is logically nonsense.

Your counterargument is based on a misinterpretation. Kosova might at moment be one of the few countries in the world that has a convincing popular legitimacy, probably higher than any European democracy. EULEX mission is primarily aimed at small segments of population that are resisting the idea.

On the one hand, you say that 'another dimension of legitimacy of the pseudo-state' is based on the respect for the rights of minorities in Kosovo.

And yet right before that, you abrogate that same minorities basic rights when you deny them even the choice of whether or not they want to be part of this 'new pseudo-state'.

Many will argue with you whether this desire is a basic right. UN charter includes among other as basic rights, the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education. I believe that you are not arguing to self-determination, as that would be a different ball game altogether

Attempting to build a state which advocates 'equality & nondiscrimination' on a foundation of 'unilateralism' is like building a house without a foundation.

Since when did secession prejudge the future and the structure of a state? Any declaration of independence has to come from within the country aspiring to become a sovereign entity. Certainly wouldn’t have come outside.

Territory and border I’ll be more than happy to discuss if you like to be more specific, not so much 1244.


village-bey

the glitch in your analogy is that 'your Kosova authorities' itself has no legitimacy in the eyes of the ultimate family of sovereign nations the UN!

Lowe
Your assumption ignores an important dimension: Time. So your answer cannot be an affirmative one. Only time will tell.

village-bey:
> That’s an emotive statement; my willingness to discuss it points to the contrary.

Actually, emotion had nothing to do with it, & wasn't really thinking about you when I wrote my reply, but the general K-albanian sentiment w.r.t. these issues.

If one's viewpoint is that EULEX's mandate & legitimacy were not in doubt, then the two terms could be termed 'overused'. If on the other hand one disputes the mandate & the legitmacy behind it, one can say that these issues are being 'ignored' by the other side.

Is a question of respective views, statement & counter-statement etc.


> Agreement by definition involves more that one party.
That goes without saying ;)

Is not the same however as saying that 'pseudo-state' is in a position to give EULEX it's mandate, which is by definition, a unilateral action, as it does not take into account the agreement of the other side involved in the dispute - Serbia.

And EULEX's mandate 'matches' the goals of the 'pseudo-state' because it was designed to. Once again, without any input from the other side in the dispute.

Which in turn is why Serbia has issues with EULEX's legitimacy, especially when it does not have the official backing of the SC, notwithstanding 'Ban's statements citing 'realities on the ground' to the contrary.


> Your counterargument is based on a misinterpretation.
No, my counter argument was based on a truism of logic. As such, it is tautologically correct.

You said:
> Mandate to EULEX mission was formally given to the mission by the sovereign Kosovar authorities (ie: EULEX's mandate comes from the 'pseudo-state')

You also said:
> EULEX mission is part of the long and difficult process of establishing the legitimacy of the new state (ie: whose legitimacy is being established, at least in part, by EULEX)

This is circular logic. And circular logic is 'by definition', no logic at all. Or in other words, nonsense. Regardless of the subject matter.

> EULEX mission is primarily aimed at small segments of population that are resisting the idea.

And yet once again, you are ignoring the 'rights' of the 'other side' - Serbia & the serbs in Kosovo.


> Many will argue with you whether this desire is a basic right.
So the 'right to choose' is not a 'basic human right'? Sounds like the definition of a dictatorship. And how about a state's right to preserve it's territorial integrity - that too is in the UN charter.

And do those 'many' include K-albanians who were agitating for their own state back in the 90's?


> Since when did secession prejudge the future and the structure of a state?
Since when did burying a problem eliminate it. On the contrary, if the lessons of history are any indication, this conflict will only re-ignite sometime in the future if this problem is not resolved now.

Lasting resolution can only come through negotiation, & not through dictat.


> Any declaration of independence has to come from within the country aspiring to become a sovereign entity.

Curious that you would make this statement - as it contains a semantic error similar in nature to the logical error above. By pre-empting the 'pseudo-state's status in calling it 'a country' in the context above, & in the context of a 'long post', does this display a basic predisposition on your part to combining the 'chicken' & the 'egg'? Just conjecture on my part :)

And once again in doing so, there is no mention of Serbia ;)


> Territory and border I’ll be more than happy to discuss if you like to be more specific, not so much 1244.

Territory & border? Specifics? Should have thought it was obvious. The territory & border of Serbia with regard to the UN charter & the Helsinki accords respectively. The latter subject to Serbia's borders at the conclusion of WWII when the charter was written.

Whole idea of this was to prevent further conflict by 'freezing' Europes borders at that point. And is equally as important as the right to self-determination.

As for 1244, it is most certainly relevant to any discussion of the legimacy of the 'pseudo-state'. Rest assured that if & when the ICJ deliberates on this issue, it's existence will play a major role in the advisory opinion, if & when it is delivered - a point the US highlighted when it tried to alter Serbia's draft before the GA by attempting to include other 'disputed' regions of the world.

Ithink that Serbian manority in Kosova will have to ecxept EULEX,UNMIK will not be there for long.The sooner serbian minority ecxepts it,the better their lives will be.Ta

Mandate and legitimacy are the two key terms overused here.
Mandate to EULEX mission was formally given to the mission by the sovereign Kosovar authorities, e.g. invitation of Kosova government and head of state. Mandate is further validated by the purpose of such mission. Proving law and order in northern Kosova was never more needed in that part of the country.
Legitimacy is the other abused term. EULEX mission is part of the long and difficult process of establishing the legitimacy of the new state. Nominal agreement of a minority does not constitute lack of legitimacy. If that was the case Serbia would lack legitimacy in Sanjak, Presheva Vojvodina and elsewhere. The important dimension of legitimacy remains the compliance within the general legal framework of the new state in the bases of equality and nondiscrimination.

EULEX has no mandate and carries no legitamacy. Serbia continues to strengthen its legitamate authority across its UN recognised soverign province. Each and every day that passes with illegal acts against international law refelects on those who are underming the UN authority and UN resolutions that they are obligated to uphold. The EU has no unified position and has no way of imposing its default of partition within partition http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2007&mm=08&dd=29&nav_id=43346 - thats why a Dutch official Peter feith is head of illegal EULLEX.

Fact is the EULEX have no ligitamacy and every single serb in the Serbian province is a thorn in the EULEX side.

Oh what a tangled web the EU weave...

Just a small remark to the previous comment. I agree with the stated however there is a big confusion when it comes to EULEX and ICO/EUSR..EULEX is not a political but technical mission dealing solely with the Rule of law area and its Head is not Faith but Yves de Kermabon..More information available at(www.eulex-kosovo.eu)

Viti i Balit:
> UNMIK will not be there for long.

UNMIK can only leave if SC approves so which will stay - is explicitly stipulated in 1244.


village-bey:
> Mandate and legitimacy are the two key terms overused here.

Only from the point of view of those who wish to ignore those two key items.

> Mandate to EULEX mission was formally given to the mission by the sovereign Kosovar authorities ...

Who are in no position to extend said mandate unilaterally.

> EULEX mission is part of the long and difficult process of establishing the legitimacy of the new state.

You are saying that EULEX's mandate comes from the 'pseudo-state', whose legitimacy is being established, at least in part, by EULEX.

This is a circular argument & so is logically nonsense.

> Nominal agreement of a minority does not constitute lack of legitimacy.
> The important dimension of legitimacy remains the compliance within the general legal framework of the new state in the bases of equality and nondiscrimination.

And these two statements are fundamentally inconsistent with each other.

On the one hand, you say that 'another dimension of legitimacy of the pseudo-state' is based on the respect for the rights of minorities in Kosovo.

And yet right before that, you abrogate that same minorities basic rights when you deny them even the choice of whether or not they want to be part of this 'new pseudo-state'.

Attempting to build a state which advocates 'equality & nondiscrimination' on a foundation of 'unilateralism' is like building a house without a foundation.

Which is one of the legal points behind Serbia's initiative to place this matter before the ICJ.

And let's not forget the other equally important 'dimension of legitimacy that you've neglected to mention - that of a states territory & borders.

And of course there is also UN resolution 1244 itself.

ICJ will consider all three aspects & not just the one you mention with a particular emphasis on 1244 if & when it brings down it's advisory opinion.

"Mandate to EULEX mission was formally given to the mission by the sovereign Kosovar authorities, e.g. invitation of Kosova government and head of state. .......

(village-bey, 2 October 2008 20:21) "

village-bey

the glitch in your analogy is that 'your Kosova authorities' itself has no legitimacy in the eyes of the ultimate family of sovereign nations the UN!

Peter,
I like your argumentative replies, especially as you introduce structure to my erratic comments. I’ll try to address your points one by one.

Only from the point of view of those who wish to ignore those two key items.

That’s an emotive statement; my willingness to discuss it points to the contrary.

Who are in no position to extend said mandate unilaterally.

That goes without saying; any such bilateral, multilateral deployment requires agreement. Agreement by definition involves more that one party. The point here is that EU has made a firm commitment towards Kosova’s stability and the mission’s aim matches perfectly with that of a sovereign Kosova.

You are saying that EULEX's mandate comes from the 'pseudo-state', whose legitimacy is being established, at least in part, by EULEX.

This is a circular argument & so is logically nonsense.

Your counterargument is based on a misinterpretation. Kosova might at moment be one of the few countries in the world that has a convincing popular legitimacy, probably higher than any European democracy. EULEX mission is primarily aimed at small segments of population that are resisting the idea.

On the one hand, you say that 'another dimension of legitimacy of the pseudo-state' is based on the respect for the rights of minorities in Kosovo.

And yet right before that, you abrogate that same minorities basic rights when you deny them even the choice of whether or not they want to be part of this 'new pseudo-state'.

Many will argue with you whether this desire is a basic right. UN charter includes among other as basic rights, the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education. I believe that you are not arguing to self-determination, as that would be a different ball game altogether

Attempting to build a state which advocates 'equality & nondiscrimination' on a foundation of 'unilateralism' is like building a house without a foundation.

Since when did secession prejudge the future and the structure of a state? Any declaration of independence has to come from within the country aspiring to become a sovereign entity. Certainly wouldn’t have come outside.

Territory and border I’ll be more than happy to discuss if you like to be more specific, not so much 1244.


village-bey

the glitch in your analogy is that 'your Kosova authorities' itself has no legitimacy in the eyes of the ultimate family of sovereign nations the UN!

Lowe
Your assumption ignores an important dimension: Time. So your answer cannot be an affirmative one. Only time will tell.

village-bey:
> That’s an emotive statement; my willingness to discuss it points to the contrary.

Actually, emotion had nothing to do with it, & wasn't really thinking about you when I wrote my reply, but the general K-albanian sentiment w.r.t. these issues.

If one's viewpoint is that EULEX's mandate & legitimacy were not in doubt, then the two terms could be termed 'overused'. If on the other hand one disputes the mandate & the legitmacy behind it, one can say that these issues are being 'ignored' by the other side.

Is a question of respective views, statement & counter-statement etc.


> Agreement by definition involves more that one party.
That goes without saying ;)

Is not the same however as saying that 'pseudo-state' is in a position to give EULEX it's mandate, which is by definition, a unilateral action, as it does not take into account the agreement of the other side involved in the dispute - Serbia.

And EULEX's mandate 'matches' the goals of the 'pseudo-state' because it was designed to. Once again, without any input from the other side in the dispute.

Which in turn is why Serbia has issues with EULEX's legitimacy, especially when it does not have the official backing of the SC, notwithstanding 'Ban's statements citing 'realities on the ground' to the contrary.


> Your counterargument is based on a misinterpretation.
No, my counter argument was based on a truism of logic. As such, it is tautologically correct.

You said:
> Mandate to EULEX mission was formally given to the mission by the sovereign Kosovar authorities (ie: EULEX's mandate comes from the 'pseudo-state')

You also said:
> EULEX mission is part of the long and difficult process of establishing the legitimacy of the new state (ie: whose legitimacy is being established, at least in part, by EULEX)

This is circular logic. And circular logic is 'by definition', no logic at all. Or in other words, nonsense. Regardless of the subject matter.

> EULEX mission is primarily aimed at small segments of population that are resisting the idea.

And yet once again, you are ignoring the 'rights' of the 'other side' - Serbia & the serbs in Kosovo.


> Many will argue with you whether this desire is a basic right.
So the 'right to choose' is not a 'basic human right'? Sounds like the definition of a dictatorship. And how about a state's right to preserve it's territorial integrity - that too is in the UN charter.

And do those 'many' include K-albanians who were agitating for their own state back in the 90's?


> Since when did secession prejudge the future and the structure of a state?
Since when did burying a problem eliminate it. On the contrary, if the lessons of history are any indication, this conflict will only re-ignite sometime in the future if this problem is not resolved now.

Lasting resolution can only come through negotiation, & not through dictat.


> Any declaration of independence has to come from within the country aspiring to become a sovereign entity.

Curious that you would make this statement - as it contains a semantic error similar in nature to the logical error above. By pre-empting the 'pseudo-state's status in calling it 'a country' in the context above, & in the context of a 'long post', does this display a basic predisposition on your part to combining the 'chicken' & the 'egg'? Just conjecture on my part :)

And once again in doing so, there is no mention of Serbia ;)


> Territory and border I’ll be more than happy to discuss if you like to be more specific, not so much 1244.

Territory & border? Specifics? Should have thought it was obvious. The territory & border of Serbia with regard to the UN charter & the Helsinki accords respectively. The latter subject to Serbia's borders at the conclusion of WWII when the charter was written.

Whole idea of this was to prevent further conflict by 'freezing' Europes borders at that point. And is equally as important as the right to self-determination.

As for 1244, it is most certainly relevant to any discussion of the legimacy of the 'pseudo-state'. Rest assured that if & when the ICJ deliberates on this issue, it's existence will play a major role in the advisory opinion, if & when it is delivered - a point the US highlighted when it tried to alter Serbia's draft before the GA by attempting to include other 'disputed' regions of the world.