Priština chooses UK expert to head ICJ case

I guess that it will be the British taxpayer picking up the tab for this then! Appointing such an eminent barrister will not come cheap and London will no doubt want to make sure that they win this at all costs. (Although the KAs keep saying the finding will be non-binding, this is a pretty delusional position. No one - apart from the US -will want to be seen to ignore the findings of the ICJ.) I look forward to hearing about the team Belgrade appoints.

In the meantime, just to prove that not all British analysts buy into the argument that Kosovo's UDI was legal, you might want to read the following debate:

http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/11547_il220408.pdf

As you can see, the FCO position is that the UDI is legal because they think it is legal, but can only offer political - not legal- justifications for recognition. In contrast, Dr Wilde (who is a senior academic at a leading British university and has also advised the FCO) quite clearly states that under the terms of international law it was illegal and:

States recognizing Kosovo as an independent state are necessarily breaching
their obligations to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia.

Moreover, further to my point above about the ICJ, this came up during the debate that followed (which included many leading international lawyers in the UK):

Although no participant could confirm that the
United Kingdom would withdraw recognition if the ICJ found in Serbia’s
favour, it was noted that the United Kingdom could be expected to follow any
judgment of the ICJ on this point.

Why the fuss over the ICJ? I though Serbia's move to bring the case to the ICJ was irrelevant to independence. Why do you care about what is said by the ICJ? Perhaps there is some doubt afterall among those in the international community. If there wasn't any doubt about the legality of the UDI, why hire such a high profile individual?

A good choice, although it shouldn't be very difficult to get a pro independence decision, since Serbia's point are quite superficial. Of course Serbia is not keen on protecting international law than national interest, so one has to consider UN resolutions before 1998. It's not only 1244, its also e.g. 1199 and other where even Russia clrearly condems brutal assaults on Albanian civilian by Serb forces. Outstanding diplomatic skills Serbia has shown, will have less impact at the ICJ, not to mention traditionall good relations Serbia has to some countries that prevent them from recognizing Kosovo. Serbia was successful raising emotions. These should not count to much before ICJ.

Thanks,
M.K.

Best of the British!
Go Kosovo!
ICJ won't have much of an impact on Kosovo anyway.
But Britain is with Kosovo, YEAH!

Well done Kosova Government - Really well done. So far you are playing your cards right. You couldn't have chosen a better and more experienced person. Well done & Good luck at ICJ.

Just in case anyone for a second is inclined to believe Ian (post 4), the British people are manifestly not with Kosovo.

«But Britain is with Kosovo, YEAH!» Soon we will be with Scotland... The precedent is on!

A couple of thoughts on the ICJ issue. As also the article states last case in front of court for Sir Michael Wood (+ others) was Romania vs. Ukraine regarding, not the border as the article says, but the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone in the Black Sea.
As intl experts for Romania were profesor James Crawford (Cambridge), Proffesor Alain Pellet (Paris Ouest Nanterre-La Défense), proffesor V. Lowe (Oxford). ICJ ruling in the case is due in max. 5 months.
It is irrelevant at the level of ICJ the nationality of the experts involved, the only thing that matters there is the argumentation. Small hint might be to have experts from both civil and common law systems. They are all highest caliber experts who have dedicated their whole career to intl law. Sir Wood's ex-Yu experience and now involvement on the K-UDI authorities side might be beneficial for Thaci&Co, but as well some judges might find him too partisan, but nevertheless will hear and balance every argument of his.
Anyway, for sure it is going to be one of the most, if not the most, interesting rulings of the ICJ ever and everything will be said and put in front of the Court.

Well done, Kosova!

Yes, the Western politicians are pro-UID, are bright and not corrupt.

Serbs will have some tough time, but eventually the situation is not that difficult because the old joke from the "Cabaret" movie is still mostly valid with a little re-wording:

1) Who is bright and not corrupt:is not pro-UID
2) Who supports UID and is bright: is corrupt
3) Who supports UID and is not corrupt: is not bright.

as I have said it only a few days before: "Ian" is not british.

I mean, who should believe that???

"Ian", my dear albanian friend...

you should ask yourself for the reason of this masquerade...

as for the ICJ-article:

don´t you all wonder why they are hiring a british "expert", when the ICJ has absolutely no meaning...? :)

Serbia will prevail, and it will be good.

What? They didn't choose Holbrook?

It is in Serbia's interest that the ICJ take as long as possible to issue their opinion.

The whole point of sending this to the ICJ is to ware-out the Albanians and their supporters. Remember that their will be no joining any significant international organization for Kosovo until the ICJ issues its opinion and international investments will be limited or nothing until such time, further recognition by countries will be probably limited to less than 3 or 4 more.

All of this will have great strain on the Albanian people, and that is the point,... Strain the average Albanian in Kosovo and the Kosovo government will feel it thus will their supporting partners, (honestly I don't believe that the Toy Government of Kosovo or its supporters are going to care) in the end the average Albanian Kosovar will be the only party in pain and they will eventually ask themselves "are we any better off today than we were say in 2007" the answer of course will be painfully NO! Thus a cry for change which will lead to tension among themselves. This will give Serbia the political edge they want, and at the expense of the common Albanian but not really the Albanian Government.

And should Serbia not enter the EU shortly after the ICJ verdict then I believe it should side with Russia and Kosovo should be partitioned and more than 15% should go to Serbia, Russia will assure that. I think about 25% of Kosovo will be lost to Serbia and what should have been a strategic partnership with Serbia with the EU will be lost to Russia. And don't fool your selves, NATO and especially the US under Obama's leadership will not go to war against Serbia and Russia to save 25% of Kosovo, its simply not in their interests especially after Serbia guarantees to NATO with Russia's blessing that the Russians will not setup a military base in Northern Kosovo.

Adrian,

The Ramboullet was a disaster from ethic point of view. Look at the secret protocol. Who was involved into that has some questions to answer.

This will be a great exercise in futility. Neither side would accept a losing verdict, so what's the point? Likewise, the ICJ finding would be non-binding. It's a useless waste of time and money.

Just in case anyone for a second is inclined to believe Ian (post 4), the British people are manifestly not with Kosovo.
(Dave, 16 October 2008 14:00)
I thought British government was elected by British people and repersents British interests.
I did not know that you represent the opinion of British people Dave.

Just in case anyone for a second is inclined to believe Ian (post 4), the British people are manifestly not with Kosovo.
(Dave, 16 October 2008 14:00)
I thought British government was elected by British people and repersents British interests.
I did not know that you represent the opinion of British people Dave.
(Hermon, 16 October 2008 19:56)

Really Hermon! When you have both major parties with the same foreign policy you don't get a choice as a voter. It's one or the other and neither represents the will of the people.

Also when you have BOTH parties trying desperately to secure a Muslims vote this is the end result.

No, many governments don't represent the will of the people because the people don't have options any more.
Both major parties are the same in this respect.

When Serbia wins at the ICJ I hope that they will sue the countries that have recognize Kosovo, if not then I see no point to take it to the ICJ who is non binding. Especially I hope that they sue Montenegro where 1/3 of the population is Serbs.

I am curious which lawyers Serbia will send. Serbai has a tradition to be stingy with spending money on representation: first in the US on lobbying, then defending the indicted in The Hague.

Peter,

I agree, Serbia does not like to spend money on world class lawyers, but that is not the only reason it has lost so many important decisions. I'll give you a few other reasons:

1) They simply don't have the money to fund their enormous legal needs.

2) Their legal arguments are inherently weak. Too much wishful thinking has never won legal battles or military ones for that matter.

3) By depending on Russia, Serbia has always been disappointed in the final analysis. Just recently, Russia's income from oil has been cut more than in half. Note that a few short weeks ago the price per barrel of oil fell from a peak of $147 to under $70 per barrel. And, to make matters worse, the Russian Stock Market plunged by 20% in just a single day recently. This caused Russia to close its stock market for over a week. As a result of this chaos in the Russian financial markets, Russia will be forced to drastically cut back in their spending. Thus any hope that Serbia had in Russia has evaporated. But, the real problem is the effect that the world banking crisis has had on Serbia since the lack of confidence this has created among many ordinary Serbs is too deep to fathom.

Best of the British!
Go Kosovo!
ICJ won't have much of an impact on Kosovo anyway.
But Britain is with Kosovo, YEAH!

Well done Kosova Government - Really well done. So far you are playing your cards right. You couldn't have chosen a better and more experienced person. Well done & Good luck at ICJ.

A good choice, although it shouldn't be very difficult to get a pro independence decision, since Serbia's point are quite superficial. Of course Serbia is not keen on protecting international law than national interest, so one has to consider UN resolutions before 1998. It's not only 1244, its also e.g. 1199 and other where even Russia clrearly condems brutal assaults on Albanian civilian by Serb forces. Outstanding diplomatic skills Serbia has shown, will have less impact at the ICJ, not to mention traditionall good relations Serbia has to some countries that prevent them from recognizing Kosovo. Serbia was successful raising emotions. These should not count to much before ICJ.

Thanks,
M.K.

Just in case anyone for a second is inclined to believe Ian (post 4), the British people are manifestly not with Kosovo.
(Dave, 16 October 2008 14:00)
I thought British government was elected by British people and repersents British interests.
I did not know that you represent the opinion of British people Dave.

Why the fuss over the ICJ? I though Serbia's move to bring the case to the ICJ was irrelevant to independence. Why do you care about what is said by the ICJ? Perhaps there is some doubt afterall among those in the international community. If there wasn't any doubt about the legality of the UDI, why hire such a high profile individual?

Just in case anyone for a second is inclined to believe Ian (post 4), the British people are manifestly not with Kosovo.

I guess that it will be the British taxpayer picking up the tab for this then! Appointing such an eminent barrister will not come cheap and London will no doubt want to make sure that they win this at all costs. (Although the KAs keep saying the finding will be non-binding, this is a pretty delusional position. No one - apart from the US -will want to be seen to ignore the findings of the ICJ.) I look forward to hearing about the team Belgrade appoints.

In the meantime, just to prove that not all British analysts buy into the argument that Kosovo's UDI was legal, you might want to read the following debate:

http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/11547_il220408.pdf

As you can see, the FCO position is that the UDI is legal because they think it is legal, but can only offer political - not legal- justifications for recognition. In contrast, Dr Wilde (who is a senior academic at a leading British university and has also advised the FCO) quite clearly states that under the terms of international law it was illegal and:

States recognizing Kosovo as an independent state are necessarily breaching
their obligations to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia.

Moreover, further to my point above about the ICJ, this came up during the debate that followed (which included many leading international lawyers in the UK):

Although no participant could confirm that the
United Kingdom would withdraw recognition if the ICJ found in Serbia’s
favour, it was noted that the United Kingdom could be expected to follow any
judgment of the ICJ on this point.

This will be a great exercise in futility. Neither side would accept a losing verdict, so what's the point? Likewise, the ICJ finding would be non-binding. It's a useless waste of time and money.

A couple of thoughts on the ICJ issue. As also the article states last case in front of court for Sir Michael Wood (+ others) was Romania vs. Ukraine regarding, not the border as the article says, but the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone in the Black Sea.
As intl experts for Romania were profesor James Crawford (Cambridge), Proffesor Alain Pellet (Paris Ouest Nanterre-La Défense), proffesor V. Lowe (Oxford). ICJ ruling in the case is due in max. 5 months.
It is irrelevant at the level of ICJ the nationality of the experts involved, the only thing that matters there is the argumentation. Small hint might be to have experts from both civil and common law systems. They are all highest caliber experts who have dedicated their whole career to intl law. Sir Wood's ex-Yu experience and now involvement on the K-UDI authorities side might be beneficial for Thaci&Co, but as well some judges might find him too partisan, but nevertheless will hear and balance every argument of his.
Anyway, for sure it is going to be one of the most, if not the most, interesting rulings of the ICJ ever and everything will be said and put in front of the Court.

Well done, Kosova!

Yes, the Western politicians are pro-UID, are bright and not corrupt.

Serbs will have some tough time, but eventually the situation is not that difficult because the old joke from the "Cabaret" movie is still mostly valid with a little re-wording:

1) Who is bright and not corrupt:is not pro-UID
2) Who supports UID and is bright: is corrupt
3) Who supports UID and is not corrupt: is not bright.

«But Britain is with Kosovo, YEAH!» Soon we will be with Scotland... The precedent is on!

It is in Serbia's interest that the ICJ take as long as possible to issue their opinion.

The whole point of sending this to the ICJ is to ware-out the Albanians and their supporters. Remember that their will be no joining any significant international organization for Kosovo until the ICJ issues its opinion and international investments will be limited or nothing until such time, further recognition by countries will be probably limited to less than 3 or 4 more.

All of this will have great strain on the Albanian people, and that is the point,... Strain the average Albanian in Kosovo and the Kosovo government will feel it thus will their supporting partners, (honestly I don't believe that the Toy Government of Kosovo or its supporters are going to care) in the end the average Albanian Kosovar will be the only party in pain and they will eventually ask themselves "are we any better off today than we were say in 2007" the answer of course will be painfully NO! Thus a cry for change which will lead to tension among themselves. This will give Serbia the political edge they want, and at the expense of the common Albanian but not really the Albanian Government.

And should Serbia not enter the EU shortly after the ICJ verdict then I believe it should side with Russia and Kosovo should be partitioned and more than 15% should go to Serbia, Russia will assure that. I think about 25% of Kosovo will be lost to Serbia and what should have been a strategic partnership with Serbia with the EU will be lost to Russia. And don't fool your selves, NATO and especially the US under Obama's leadership will not go to war against Serbia and Russia to save 25% of Kosovo, its simply not in their interests especially after Serbia guarantees to NATO with Russia's blessing that the Russians will not setup a military base in Northern Kosovo.

as I have said it only a few days before: "Ian" is not british.

I mean, who should believe that???

"Ian", my dear albanian friend...

you should ask yourself for the reason of this masquerade...

as for the ICJ-article:

don´t you all wonder why they are hiring a british "expert", when the ICJ has absolutely no meaning...? :)

Serbia will prevail, and it will be good.

Adrian,

The Ramboullet was a disaster from ethic point of view. Look at the secret protocol. Who was involved into that has some questions to answer.

What? They didn't choose Holbrook?

When Serbia wins at the ICJ I hope that they will sue the countries that have recognize Kosovo, if not then I see no point to take it to the ICJ who is non binding. Especially I hope that they sue Montenegro where 1/3 of the population is Serbs.

Just in case anyone for a second is inclined to believe Ian (post 4), the British people are manifestly not with Kosovo.
(Dave, 16 October 2008 14:00)
I thought British government was elected by British people and repersents British interests.
I did not know that you represent the opinion of British people Dave.
(Hermon, 16 October 2008 19:56)

Really Hermon! When you have both major parties with the same foreign policy you don't get a choice as a voter. It's one or the other and neither represents the will of the people.

Also when you have BOTH parties trying desperately to secure a Muslims vote this is the end result.

No, many governments don't represent the will of the people because the people don't have options any more.
Both major parties are the same in this respect.

I am curious which lawyers Serbia will send. Serbai has a tradition to be stingy with spending money on representation: first in the US on lobbying, then defending the indicted in The Hague.

Peter,

I agree, Serbia does not like to spend money on world class lawyers, but that is not the only reason it has lost so many important decisions. I'll give you a few other reasons:

1) They simply don't have the money to fund their enormous legal needs.

2) Their legal arguments are inherently weak. Too much wishful thinking has never won legal battles or military ones for that matter.

3) By depending on Russia, Serbia has always been disappointed in the final analysis. Just recently, Russia's income from oil has been cut more than in half. Note that a few short weeks ago the price per barrel of oil fell from a peak of $147 to under $70 per barrel. And, to make matters worse, the Russian Stock Market plunged by 20% in just a single day recently. This caused Russia to close its stock market for over a week. As a result of this chaos in the Russian financial markets, Russia will be forced to drastically cut back in their spending. Thus any hope that Serbia had in Russia has evaporated. But, the real problem is the effect that the world banking crisis has had on Serbia since the lack of confidence this has created among many ordinary Serbs is too deep to fathom.