“ICJ ruling only hope”

TS:
Not really. The whole argument of 'uniqueness' is a logical absurdity as the very existence of the excuse of 'unique circumstances' can be used by other factions/powers citing their own set of 'unique circumstances.

An ICJ ruling that illegitimises 'pseudo-state's UDI will also illegitimise other instances.

And while 'Pandora's box has been opened, is still a difference between being 'wide open' & 'partially-open', hence the title of the article.

TS, bravo sunshine!

To all western diplomats living in Beograd...are you ready to witness the result of your gravest miscalculation since Afghanistan and Iraq...Don't lose sleep, due to the dumbest and most arrogant political manipulation.

'Boom, Boom, Boomerang!

TS: "If the verdict is such as to render the Kosovo UDI illegal, the idea of a unique and separate case is lost. Hence, there is, at least according to international law, no reason for why Kosovo should be a special case, and independence movements around the world can ultimately use the precedent at their liking."

You have to sharpen up your spin if you want to try and distort things like that.

It is plain to all that if Serbia wins its resolution then international law will to an extent be re-established. The ruling would illustrate that an ethnic group cannot just annex part of sovereign territory and create a new nation. Where would that end?

As Peter says, "an ICJ ruling that illegitimises 'pseudo-state's UDI will also illegitimise other instances."

It is ridiculous to say that it would have a reverse effect.

So basically, a positive ICJ ruling does two things:

First, it downgrades Kosovo's status from parastate to protectorate - which seems to be the best case scenario for Serbia, and even here this is not a guarantee.

Second, it gives Serbia the diplomatic and negotiating leverage it needs to find a stable solution.

But other than that, we're not talking about reincorporating Kosovo into Serbia, nor are we talking about BG having any direct authority in Kosovo, least of all the Albanian sectors.

It really seems to me the only thing BG can gain at this point is influence over the Serb sectors, and possibly the Gorani if they really play this well. At the end of the day, Albanians and Serbs may have swap deals over this: Serbia gets unfettered access to Serb sectors and monasteries, and in exchange, Pristina gets the ability to enter international bodies like the UN and NATO. When all is said and done, both sides appear to get what they want.

An ICJ ruling will not automatically change anything in Kosovo. What it will change, however, is the outlook for "Pandora's Box".

If the verdict is such as to render the Kosovo UDI illegal, the idea of a unique and separate case is lost. Hence, there is, at least according to international law, no reason for why Kosovo should be a special case, and independence movements around the world can ultimately use the precedent at their liking.

Current Members
President Rosalyn Higgins (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) +1

Vice-President Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh (Jordan) +2

Judges

Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar) +3
Shi Jiuyong (China) -1
Abdul G. Koroma (Sierra Leone) +4
Gonzalo Parra-Aranguren (Venezuela) = -2
Thomas Buergenthal (United States of America) +5
Hisashi Owada (Japan) +6
Bruno Simma (Germany) +7
Peter Tomka (Slovakia) -3
Ronny Abraham (France) +8
Kenneth Keith (New Zealand) +9
Bernardo Sepúlveda-Amor (Mexico) +10
Mohamed Bennouna (Morocco) +11
Leonid Skotnikov (Russian Federation) -4

+11 in favor of Kosova's independence
-4 For Srbia

Peter,

Nice words, unfortunately the US, UK and EU see something far more considerable as a result of this. Hence the reason why the UK has made a remarkable decision...like pulling out of Kosovo and taking her forces off the ORF list at NATO, which they will start soon. Stable and safe is Kosovo, really!

Pandora left her box months ago, the only thing stalling her, is that she is spoilt for choice with regards to which country she can rip apart...

The US, UK and EU was arrogant and believed fully that they could do as the pleased. Well, Peter, it is not so, is it. US and EU cannot afford to buy the peace anymore, their own houses are in disorder, financially, socially, and economically…

How many separatist regions are now looking at this new way to secede?

I do not get this point that by going to IJC makes Kosova not unique. UN has always been about power politics and this decision, like many before it, is a reflection of that power struggle. If we say that within the existing framework of international law a sui generis should not go before IJC because being under consideration excludes that rational, then we live in a dreamland where everyone agrees with each other. Of course Serbia, Russia and their allies won’t agree with this rationale but that doesn’t equate Kosova to Abkhasia. Such admission would mean excluding the possibility of a sui generis ever cropping up in a legal argument. The other drawback of this analysis is the belief that those states that voted pro the matter going to IJC necessarily oppose independence or the principle. The fact that argument is valid for 50 states, includining those who have devolution problems represents a qualitative statement of how far Kosova has gone since February..
The court would look into this specific case while evaluating if Kosova’s declaration of independence is in accordance with international law.
If the other side are suggesting that the ruling is a forgone conclusion, then you must know more than them seven judges sitting in that court. It strikes me as rather odd all this self-confidence about verdict going Serbia’s ways. Aren’t you guys a bit apprehensive of presenting yourselves as overly confident prior to a legal debate and then having the audacity of accusing others of prejudging the verdict?
What if the court failed to reach a verdict would some of you be prepared then to see this failure as validating a sui generis. What if it did go Kosova’s way, or are not even prepared to consider that scenario.
I must correct the number of states to 51, UAE just recognised, and still counting.

no Mike, as far as I am concerned, there are no presents to be made to the K-albanians. all of it is ours.

you are talking a little bit too much of dividing serbian territory. there is no such thing.

time works for Serbia, let those little-macho-kids here talk big... in the end, they have to face a huge percentage of jobless, poor and deprived people.

until the more reasonable Albanians come to power, there will pass some time. and then, we will still have UNSC 1244 in effect.

that´s a fact many of our dear freinds here apparently do not realize that all their illusions lay on foreign support and this support won´t be eternal. if they were smart, they would know that.

but that´s okay for me, since Serbia will be prepared.

but, again, don´t talk about presents for extremists.
you would be arguing in favor of brutal terror against non-Albanians throughout the southern serbian province.
keep that in mind!

So many hopes, so many expectations for an opinion that is after all non binding to anyone.

Serbs, it's important to understand that the only hope for Serbia is integration in the European Union. That's the only way that your lives will become better.

Kosova is independent. The ICJ will rule in favor of Kosova's independence. Today, the United Arab Emirates have formally recognized Kosova's independence, and very soon Saudi Arabia, and more of the Arab world, will follow.

Please look to the future and worry about yourselves. The Kosovars are fine without you.

Western powers categorised K-albanian UDI as a 'unique case' in a bid to forestall other seccessionist movements from using 'Kosovo' as a precedent.

But this concept is fundamentally flawed. The very idea that there exists one set of 'unique circumstances' that validates a seccessionist movement will automatically open the door for other movements (& their sponsors) in that they too will claim that the circumstances for their case for seccession are also a 'unique' case. And this is why the analogy to 'Pandora's box is so apt.

If the ICJ rules that the UDI was illegal under international law, it then repudiates the 'uniqueness' argument that the US/brussels have used in a bid to support their case. And this will in turn strengthen the very principles of territorial integrity that have been so weakened by the west's actions. And which have played such a large part in maintaining relative peace around the globe.

And with the 'uniqueness argument' thrown in the dustbin of history, unilateral seccessionist movements & their supporters will then find it that much harder to legitimise their actions, & will in turn, have that much more incentive to negotiate peacfully.

Those who criticise the UN for failing to prevent conflicts around the globe fail to take into account that it is quite literally, the 'only game in town'. Is the best we have. Any idea that it can be 'replaced' with an organisation that does the job better fails to take into account the basic 'self-interest' that lies at the heart of international politics. Only a cataclysmic event such as WWII can generate the 'international impetus' neccessary. And do we really want another WWII?

Which is why this impending case at the ICJ is important. Those that argue that Serbia's gov't is bringing this case out of self-interest are correct. Does not however invalidate the case itself.

Nation states have come a long way w.r.t the rule of law within themselves, but have not made anywhere near the same progress 'without'. But step-by-step, is happening. Only thing is, 'steps' are small & have many to go.

And the pathway is through organisations such as the UN, ICJ, ICC & their like.

Jarina and all others stuck in that ethnic, nation statist view that everybody who comes from a certain country must support that countries foreign policy...

Judges are professionals who by definition should vote according to the law and not according to which country they come from.

Therefore any amateur speculation about which judge will what for what is hot air. Lets keep this speculation down to a minimum, as it says a lot more about the mindset of those speculating, rather than the end result.

"Serbia gets unfettered access to Serb sectors "

Define unfettered. If you think that Belgrade will rule in 100's of different places where Serbs live or where there's a church in Kosova, or be allowed to have police /army in every Serb village or monastery, it will never happen. The best option: swap North of Ibar with Presheva and give plenty of local rule of Serbs left inside Kosova. EU can do something for Decani and Gracanica monasteries

The rest is recipe for a future war.

Let me tell you something about your beloved blgd law professor, this "expert" of intl law. during the genocide suit against serbia, by bosnia, the serbian "expert" team made sure that the ICJ never saw the "protected" state files of the blgd regime. they did this because they knew full well, as we all do (admit it or not) that yr beloved serbia was 100% responsible for the genocide, but yr beloved milosevic was no fool, and was verey careful not to commit such things to WRITING. get it? think "final solution."

at any rate, everyone and their sister knew and knows about those links, but without the WRITTEN proof, those files, the majority of the court refused to convict, and merely ruled that "serbia was responsible for not stopping the genocide."

in other wrds, baloney and cheese.

oh, i'm sorry, you don't believe me? pls give our frnd natasa kandic a quick call, and she will explain it all. yr "expert" team admitted it to her, heartily, with a nod and a wink. i'm sure a kissinger would have approved.

and now this "expert" is ready to have the ICJ rule that the republic of Kosovo/a is "illegal"?! well, that will never happen in our lifetime. they may have secceeded and declared indpnc from yugoslavia (which, by the way, no longer exists in any form), but -- guess who was the first to declare? oh, right, the republic of serbia. officially they were the first to declare independence, but the rest of former YU was right behind them, incl kosovo/a, because, after all, would you want to live under the boot of slobo's serboslavia? i don't think so.

aside from that obvious leagal truism, no court on this earth (except in "democratic" serbia or a putin-russia) would force kosovo/a, "legally" back under the heel of serbia, after what has transpired in the 90s. never. do i have to prove what happened in the 90s? no, i do not -- some people here will never see it, because their eyes are wide shut. that is their problem, not mine.

there will be no precedent setting sentence, because each case of indpnc is different, and it is not up to us (much less serbia) to determine the pros and cons of each case. it is absolutely insane and ludicrous to compare each and every situation, but serbia pushes such thinking, because they think they can work and succeed based on fear, intimidation and bullying of vulnerable countries. then they pull out these "experts" to reinforce their pov. it is really beneath me, and rather insulting.

thank you :))

roberto
robertoruss@yahoo.com

I am going to out it plainly, so all you dreamers can understand it:

If ICJ rules in favour of Serbia, and against the UDI, it states that:
1. The UDI is illegal despite all the work certain states have done in order to make it "legal".
2. Since many states will nevertheless recognize this illegality, it is established a precedent that on this particular issue international law may be overruled for political considerations.

Hence, the difference between Abhkasia, SO, Tibet, Transnistria, Republika Srpska, and Kosovo is, in terms of international law, non-existent. Hence, it is simply power politics that decides which independence movements are successful, and which are not.

In order words, the rule of (international) law seize to exist on this particular issue, which is in itself very dangerous, since it opens the door for the use of force, by removing peaceful alternatives based on this law.

In a world where the relative power and influence of the US and the UK are declining very rapidly, and the relative influence and power of China, India, Russia, and certain other countries are increasing, this is a development that should make the Holbrooke's and the Not-So-Bright's of this world worried.

TS, bravo sunshine!

To all western diplomats living in Beograd...are you ready to witness the result of your gravest miscalculation since Afghanistan and Iraq...Don't lose sleep, due to the dumbest and most arrogant political manipulation.

'Boom, Boom, Boomerang!

I do not get this point that by going to IJC makes Kosova not unique. UN has always been about power politics and this decision, like many before it, is a reflection of that power struggle. If we say that within the existing framework of international law a sui generis should not go before IJC because being under consideration excludes that rational, then we live in a dreamland where everyone agrees with each other. Of course Serbia, Russia and their allies won’t agree with this rationale but that doesn’t equate Kosova to Abkhasia. Such admission would mean excluding the possibility of a sui generis ever cropping up in a legal argument. The other drawback of this analysis is the belief that those states that voted pro the matter going to IJC necessarily oppose independence or the principle. The fact that argument is valid for 50 states, includining those who have devolution problems represents a qualitative statement of how far Kosova has gone since February..
The court would look into this specific case while evaluating if Kosova’s declaration of independence is in accordance with international law.
If the other side are suggesting that the ruling is a forgone conclusion, then you must know more than them seven judges sitting in that court. It strikes me as rather odd all this self-confidence about verdict going Serbia’s ways. Aren’t you guys a bit apprehensive of presenting yourselves as overly confident prior to a legal debate and then having the audacity of accusing others of prejudging the verdict?
What if the court failed to reach a verdict would some of you be prepared then to see this failure as validating a sui generis. What if it did go Kosova’s way, or are not even prepared to consider that scenario.
I must correct the number of states to 51, UAE just recognised, and still counting.

"Serbia gets unfettered access to Serb sectors "

Define unfettered. If you think that Belgrade will rule in 100's of different places where Serbs live or where there's a church in Kosova, or be allowed to have police /army in every Serb village or monastery, it will never happen. The best option: swap North of Ibar with Presheva and give plenty of local rule of Serbs left inside Kosova. EU can do something for Decani and Gracanica monasteries

The rest is recipe for a future war.

Current Members
President Rosalyn Higgins (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) +1

Vice-President Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh (Jordan) +2

Judges

Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar) +3
Shi Jiuyong (China) -1
Abdul G. Koroma (Sierra Leone) +4
Gonzalo Parra-Aranguren (Venezuela) = -2
Thomas Buergenthal (United States of America) +5
Hisashi Owada (Japan) +6
Bruno Simma (Germany) +7
Peter Tomka (Slovakia) -3
Ronny Abraham (France) +8
Kenneth Keith (New Zealand) +9
Bernardo Sepúlveda-Amor (Mexico) +10
Mohamed Bennouna (Morocco) +11
Leonid Skotnikov (Russian Federation) -4

+11 in favor of Kosova's independence
-4 For Srbia

An ICJ ruling will not automatically change anything in Kosovo. What it will change, however, is the outlook for "Pandora's Box".

If the verdict is such as to render the Kosovo UDI illegal, the idea of a unique and separate case is lost. Hence, there is, at least according to international law, no reason for why Kosovo should be a special case, and independence movements around the world can ultimately use the precedent at their liking.

TS:
Not really. The whole argument of 'uniqueness' is a logical absurdity as the very existence of the excuse of 'unique circumstances' can be used by other factions/powers citing their own set of 'unique circumstances.

An ICJ ruling that illegitimises 'pseudo-state's UDI will also illegitimise other instances.

And while 'Pandora's box has been opened, is still a difference between being 'wide open' & 'partially-open', hence the title of the article.

TS: "If the verdict is such as to render the Kosovo UDI illegal, the idea of a unique and separate case is lost. Hence, there is, at least according to international law, no reason for why Kosovo should be a special case, and independence movements around the world can ultimately use the precedent at their liking."

You have to sharpen up your spin if you want to try and distort things like that.

It is plain to all that if Serbia wins its resolution then international law will to an extent be re-established. The ruling would illustrate that an ethnic group cannot just annex part of sovereign territory and create a new nation. Where would that end?

As Peter says, "an ICJ ruling that illegitimises 'pseudo-state's UDI will also illegitimise other instances."

It is ridiculous to say that it would have a reverse effect.

Peter,

Nice words, unfortunately the US, UK and EU see something far more considerable as a result of this. Hence the reason why the UK has made a remarkable decision...like pulling out of Kosovo and taking her forces off the ORF list at NATO, which they will start soon. Stable and safe is Kosovo, really!

Pandora left her box months ago, the only thing stalling her, is that she is spoilt for choice with regards to which country she can rip apart...

The US, UK and EU was arrogant and believed fully that they could do as the pleased. Well, Peter, it is not so, is it. US and EU cannot afford to buy the peace anymore, their own houses are in disorder, financially, socially, and economically…

How many separatist regions are now looking at this new way to secede?

So basically, a positive ICJ ruling does two things:

First, it downgrades Kosovo's status from parastate to protectorate - which seems to be the best case scenario for Serbia, and even here this is not a guarantee.

Second, it gives Serbia the diplomatic and negotiating leverage it needs to find a stable solution.

But other than that, we're not talking about reincorporating Kosovo into Serbia, nor are we talking about BG having any direct authority in Kosovo, least of all the Albanian sectors.

It really seems to me the only thing BG can gain at this point is influence over the Serb sectors, and possibly the Gorani if they really play this well. At the end of the day, Albanians and Serbs may have swap deals over this: Serbia gets unfettered access to Serb sectors and monasteries, and in exchange, Pristina gets the ability to enter international bodies like the UN and NATO. When all is said and done, both sides appear to get what they want.

no Mike, as far as I am concerned, there are no presents to be made to the K-albanians. all of it is ours.

you are talking a little bit too much of dividing serbian territory. there is no such thing.

time works for Serbia, let those little-macho-kids here talk big... in the end, they have to face a huge percentage of jobless, poor and deprived people.

until the more reasonable Albanians come to power, there will pass some time. and then, we will still have UNSC 1244 in effect.

that´s a fact many of our dear freinds here apparently do not realize that all their illusions lay on foreign support and this support won´t be eternal. if they were smart, they would know that.

but that´s okay for me, since Serbia will be prepared.

but, again, don´t talk about presents for extremists.
you would be arguing in favor of brutal terror against non-Albanians throughout the southern serbian province.
keep that in mind!

So many hopes, so many expectations for an opinion that is after all non binding to anyone.

Serbs, it's important to understand that the only hope for Serbia is integration in the European Union. That's the only way that your lives will become better.

Kosova is independent. The ICJ will rule in favor of Kosova's independence. Today, the United Arab Emirates have formally recognized Kosova's independence, and very soon Saudi Arabia, and more of the Arab world, will follow.

Please look to the future and worry about yourselves. The Kosovars are fine without you.

Let me tell you something about your beloved blgd law professor, this "expert" of intl law. during the genocide suit against serbia, by bosnia, the serbian "expert" team made sure that the ICJ never saw the "protected" state files of the blgd regime. they did this because they knew full well, as we all do (admit it or not) that yr beloved serbia was 100% responsible for the genocide, but yr beloved milosevic was no fool, and was verey careful not to commit such things to WRITING. get it? think "final solution."

at any rate, everyone and their sister knew and knows about those links, but without the WRITTEN proof, those files, the majority of the court refused to convict, and merely ruled that "serbia was responsible for not stopping the genocide."

in other wrds, baloney and cheese.

oh, i'm sorry, you don't believe me? pls give our frnd natasa kandic a quick call, and she will explain it all. yr "expert" team admitted it to her, heartily, with a nod and a wink. i'm sure a kissinger would have approved.

and now this "expert" is ready to have the ICJ rule that the republic of Kosovo/a is "illegal"?! well, that will never happen in our lifetime. they may have secceeded and declared indpnc from yugoslavia (which, by the way, no longer exists in any form), but -- guess who was the first to declare? oh, right, the republic of serbia. officially they were the first to declare independence, but the rest of former YU was right behind them, incl kosovo/a, because, after all, would you want to live under the boot of slobo's serboslavia? i don't think so.

aside from that obvious leagal truism, no court on this earth (except in "democratic" serbia or a putin-russia) would force kosovo/a, "legally" back under the heel of serbia, after what has transpired in the 90s. never. do i have to prove what happened in the 90s? no, i do not -- some people here will never see it, because their eyes are wide shut. that is their problem, not mine.

there will be no precedent setting sentence, because each case of indpnc is different, and it is not up to us (much less serbia) to determine the pros and cons of each case. it is absolutely insane and ludicrous to compare each and every situation, but serbia pushes such thinking, because they think they can work and succeed based on fear, intimidation and bullying of vulnerable countries. then they pull out these "experts" to reinforce their pov. it is really beneath me, and rather insulting.

thank you :))

roberto
robertoruss@yahoo.com

Western powers categorised K-albanian UDI as a 'unique case' in a bid to forestall other seccessionist movements from using 'Kosovo' as a precedent.

But this concept is fundamentally flawed. The very idea that there exists one set of 'unique circumstances' that validates a seccessionist movement will automatically open the door for other movements (& their sponsors) in that they too will claim that the circumstances for their case for seccession are also a 'unique' case. And this is why the analogy to 'Pandora's box is so apt.

If the ICJ rules that the UDI was illegal under international law, it then repudiates the 'uniqueness' argument that the US/brussels have used in a bid to support their case. And this will in turn strengthen the very principles of territorial integrity that have been so weakened by the west's actions. And which have played such a large part in maintaining relative peace around the globe.

And with the 'uniqueness argument' thrown in the dustbin of history, unilateral seccessionist movements & their supporters will then find it that much harder to legitimise their actions, & will in turn, have that much more incentive to negotiate peacfully.

Those who criticise the UN for failing to prevent conflicts around the globe fail to take into account that it is quite literally, the 'only game in town'. Is the best we have. Any idea that it can be 'replaced' with an organisation that does the job better fails to take into account the basic 'self-interest' that lies at the heart of international politics. Only a cataclysmic event such as WWII can generate the 'international impetus' neccessary. And do we really want another WWII?

Which is why this impending case at the ICJ is important. Those that argue that Serbia's gov't is bringing this case out of self-interest are correct. Does not however invalidate the case itself.

Nation states have come a long way w.r.t the rule of law within themselves, but have not made anywhere near the same progress 'without'. But step-by-step, is happening. Only thing is, 'steps' are small & have many to go.

And the pathway is through organisations such as the UN, ICJ, ICC & their like.

Jarina and all others stuck in that ethnic, nation statist view that everybody who comes from a certain country must support that countries foreign policy...

Judges are professionals who by definition should vote according to the law and not according to which country they come from.

Therefore any amateur speculation about which judge will what for what is hot air. Lets keep this speculation down to a minimum, as it says a lot more about the mindset of those speculating, rather than the end result.

I am going to out it plainly, so all you dreamers can understand it:

If ICJ rules in favour of Serbia, and against the UDI, it states that:
1. The UDI is illegal despite all the work certain states have done in order to make it "legal".
2. Since many states will nevertheless recognize this illegality, it is established a precedent that on this particular issue international law may be overruled for political considerations.

Hence, the difference between Abhkasia, SO, Tibet, Transnistria, Republika Srpska, and Kosovo is, in terms of international law, non-existent. Hence, it is simply power politics that decides which independence movements are successful, and which are not.

In order words, the rule of (international) law seize to exist on this particular issue, which is in itself very dangerous, since it opens the door for the use of force, by removing peaceful alternatives based on this law.

In a world where the relative power and influence of the US and the UK are declining very rapidly, and the relative influence and power of China, India, Russia, and certain other countries are increasing, this is a development that should make the Holbrooke's and the Not-So-Bright's of this world worried.