“Legality means precedent”

in other words the West has trapped itself in a Catch 22!

it´s all open, yes, but the probability of the ICJ ruling in favor of the terror-extremists, is very low, IF it is an independently working court...

it´s all open also means that all those comments about the kosovo-issue being " a done deal" were what I always have called them: pure wishful thinking ... or to put it in other words... nonsense.

If the ICJ rules that the UDI is legal, then the west cannot prevent a UDI by Republika Srpska, plain and simple. After 1 year of "independence", the RS and Serbia form a confederation and this is how Serbia is compensated for the theft of Kosovo; by the giving back what was stolen previously. When the people of Crna Gora realize their government's sell-out of Serbia will not get them into the EU (due to the EU's refusal of admitting a mafia-run government), they may clamor to join the reconstituted Serbia as well. Meanwhile, Kosovo sets the new minimum in the world of welfare basket-cases because what goes for Crna Gora goes double for Kosovo. The worst scenerio for Serbia is if the ICJ refuses to give an opinion. That would be an public admission that the UN is completely powerless.

So according to Fleiner, if ICJ ruled in favour of Kosova that would imply that the court did not accept Kosova uniqueness, but if the court ruled in favour of Serbia that would enable Serbia to sue countries that have recognised.
Oh wow this guy has surely earned his money. It sounds like win win for Serbia.
Oh well, at least he is dedicating serious time and thought to the other eventuality that tends to be ignored by the other side. Come to think of it, not very serious thinking time. Are his employers not concerned with his judgment at all here?
According to the specialist “Kosovo case really would set a precedent. Because, I do not see any argument that the court could give, and which any minority in the world could not use for a unilateral secession based on its ruling,”
The only logical link here seems to be that unique and precedent terms exclude each other. The rest is gobbly goop. He seems to be work on premise that should these two terms be put on the same sentence as Kosova, and hey bingo, a contradiction in terms?
If we analyse his sentence here the sole argument he puts forward is the key word ANY. He doesn’t see any argument that the court can use, and he can not imagine any minority not using the precedent. For a start the use of any doesn’t help. A simple answer to Fleiner would be that this is not any old case, and if he hasn’t thought of any arguments doesn’t mean that none exist.
I also love his other comment. Asked whether Serbia should recognize Kosovo if the Court ruled that the independence declaration had been in accordance with international law, Fleiner said that “that is not what this means,” pointing out that the opinion of the court was advisory, and that “Israel has yet to change its stance from the one that the Court deemed to be illegal.”
Let me get this right, Serbia does the impossible to take the case to court on sole bases of legality, but if the ruling goes against her, then she might condemn the court as illegal.

Now there are two things that I consider when it comes to Serbia and the Serbs.

1. The Serbs are very gullible and believe everything their politicians say. ( I doubt this very much)

2. Serbs are great at convincing themselves that everyone that doesn't see things the way they see them, is evil and corrupt.

Case in point, is how Serbians interpret the ICJ conclusions, and the ICJ hasn't even started considering the case yet.
Here's what Serbs say:
If ICJ votes in Serbia's favour then the court is impartial and the ruling is legally binding.
If ICJ votes in favour of Kosova's independence, then the ICJ is corrupt and evil, and the ruling is not legally binding.

Clearly there is a twisted logic here, that is simply being employed to and by the Serbian masses for one reason only. Cut your losses through a state of denial and once again proclaim these loses, in case it happens that way, to be great victories for the Serbian nation.
The victory this time will be formulated in other terms of course. The great nation of Serbia was able and smart enough to show how corrupt the ICJ is and it doesn't have to recognize Kosova because the decisions of a corrupt non-legaly binding institution do not have to be followed, hence Kosova is Serbia.

The twisted logic employed here is to claim that this case showed that kosova is Serbia, no matter if ICJ votes for or against Serbia.

Of course they are fooling themselves and only themselves.

“Legality means precedent”

Fleiner, who was an adviser to Serbia during the Kosovo status talks,told daily Glas Javnosti that Serbia would, in that event, be able to sue countries that had recognized Kosovo,

Why i am not surprised about his statement great advice Mr Fleiner,but your priority is not to join European union that's certainly not the way to make friends with the rest of the developed world i don't believe that you want good for Serbia and Serbian people.Legal or not you tell that to 10 thousand victims in Kosova,and hundreds of thousands of victims in the old Yugoslavia and than see how valuable your opinion is. Thanks

"Fleiner, who was an adviser to Serbia during the Kosovo status talks...."

That tells a lot..! Mr Fleiner must be a "superjudge".

Jovan,

What makes you think that "probability of the ICJ ruling in favor of the terror-extremists, is very low, IF it is an independently working court...
Are you thinking the ICJ is independent or not? You can't have both ways)

"it´s all open, yes, but the probability of the ICJ ruling in favor of the terror-extremists, is very low, IF it is an independently working court... "

This much we can agree on. It will never vote in favor of Serbia. Those 10,000 people weren't massacred in vein

"# If the ICJ rules that the UDI is legal, then the west cannot prevent a UDI by Republika Srpska, plain and simple. After 1 year of "independence", the RS and Serbia form a confederation and this is how Serbia is compensated for the theft of Kosovo; by the giving back what was stolen previously."

You are a funny guy. So Bosnia was Serbia all along as well? Here's your answer for Srpska: "Unlike the Kosovars, the Catalans, Welsh, Basques,
Scots, Corsicans, and other ‘ethno-nations’ have not faced mass murder or expulsion in recent history
at the hands of the capital that wants to maintain control over them." UDI is the last report, not a wish. R Sprska has no legitimate reason to do that

“Legality means precedent”

Fleiner, who was an adviser to Serbia during the Kosovo status talks,told daily Glas Javnosti that Serbia would, in that event, be able to sue countries that had recognized Kosovo,

Why i am not surprised about his statement great advice Mr Fleiner,but your priority is not to join European union that's certainly not the way to make friends with the rest of the developed world i don't believe that you want good for Serbia and Serbian people.Legal or not you tell that to 10 thousand victims in Kosova,and hundreds of thousands of victims in the old Yugoslavia and than see how valuable your opinion is. Thanks

So according to Fleiner, if ICJ ruled in favour of Kosova that would imply that the court did not accept Kosova uniqueness, but if the court ruled in favour of Serbia that would enable Serbia to sue countries that have recognised.
Oh wow this guy has surely earned his money. It sounds like win win for Serbia.
Oh well, at least he is dedicating serious time and thought to the other eventuality that tends to be ignored by the other side. Come to think of it, not very serious thinking time. Are his employers not concerned with his judgment at all here?
According to the specialist “Kosovo case really would set a precedent. Because, I do not see any argument that the court could give, and which any minority in the world could not use for a unilateral secession based on its ruling,”
The only logical link here seems to be that unique and precedent terms exclude each other. The rest is gobbly goop. He seems to be work on premise that should these two terms be put on the same sentence as Kosova, and hey bingo, a contradiction in terms?
If we analyse his sentence here the sole argument he puts forward is the key word ANY. He doesn’t see any argument that the court can use, and he can not imagine any minority not using the precedent. For a start the use of any doesn’t help. A simple answer to Fleiner would be that this is not any old case, and if he hasn’t thought of any arguments doesn’t mean that none exist.
I also love his other comment. Asked whether Serbia should recognize Kosovo if the Court ruled that the independence declaration had been in accordance with international law, Fleiner said that “that is not what this means,” pointing out that the opinion of the court was advisory, and that “Israel has yet to change its stance from the one that the Court deemed to be illegal.”
Let me get this right, Serbia does the impossible to take the case to court on sole bases of legality, but if the ruling goes against her, then she might condemn the court as illegal.

"it´s all open, yes, but the probability of the ICJ ruling in favor of the terror-extremists, is very low, IF it is an independently working court... "

This much we can agree on. It will never vote in favor of Serbia. Those 10,000 people weren't massacred in vein

Now there are two things that I consider when it comes to Serbia and the Serbs.

1. The Serbs are very gullible and believe everything their politicians say. ( I doubt this very much)

2. Serbs are great at convincing themselves that everyone that doesn't see things the way they see them, is evil and corrupt.

Case in point, is how Serbians interpret the ICJ conclusions, and the ICJ hasn't even started considering the case yet.
Here's what Serbs say:
If ICJ votes in Serbia's favour then the court is impartial and the ruling is legally binding.
If ICJ votes in favour of Kosova's independence, then the ICJ is corrupt and evil, and the ruling is not legally binding.

Clearly there is a twisted logic here, that is simply being employed to and by the Serbian masses for one reason only. Cut your losses through a state of denial and once again proclaim these loses, in case it happens that way, to be great victories for the Serbian nation.
The victory this time will be formulated in other terms of course. The great nation of Serbia was able and smart enough to show how corrupt the ICJ is and it doesn't have to recognize Kosova because the decisions of a corrupt non-legaly binding institution do not have to be followed, hence Kosova is Serbia.

The twisted logic employed here is to claim that this case showed that kosova is Serbia, no matter if ICJ votes for or against Serbia.

Of course they are fooling themselves and only themselves.

"Fleiner, who was an adviser to Serbia during the Kosovo status talks...."

That tells a lot..! Mr Fleiner must be a "superjudge".

Jovan,

What makes you think that "probability of the ICJ ruling in favor of the terror-extremists, is very low, IF it is an independently working court...
Are you thinking the ICJ is independent or not? You can't have both ways)

"# If the ICJ rules that the UDI is legal, then the west cannot prevent a UDI by Republika Srpska, plain and simple. After 1 year of "independence", the RS and Serbia form a confederation and this is how Serbia is compensated for the theft of Kosovo; by the giving back what was stolen previously."

You are a funny guy. So Bosnia was Serbia all along as well? Here's your answer for Srpska: "Unlike the Kosovars, the Catalans, Welsh, Basques,
Scots, Corsicans, and other ‘ethno-nations’ have not faced mass murder or expulsion in recent history
at the hands of the capital that wants to maintain control over them." UDI is the last report, not a wish. R Sprska has no legitimate reason to do that

it´s all open, yes, but the probability of the ICJ ruling in favor of the terror-extremists, is very low, IF it is an independently working court...

it´s all open also means that all those comments about the kosovo-issue being " a done deal" were what I always have called them: pure wishful thinking ... or to put it in other words... nonsense.

If the ICJ rules that the UDI is legal, then the west cannot prevent a UDI by Republika Srpska, plain and simple. After 1 year of "independence", the RS and Serbia form a confederation and this is how Serbia is compensated for the theft of Kosovo; by the giving back what was stolen previously. When the people of Crna Gora realize their government's sell-out of Serbia will not get them into the EU (due to the EU's refusal of admitting a mafia-run government), they may clamor to join the reconstituted Serbia as well. Meanwhile, Kosovo sets the new minimum in the world of welfare basket-cases because what goes for Crna Gora goes double for Kosovo. The worst scenerio for Serbia is if the ICJ refuses to give an opinion. That would be an public admission that the UN is completely powerless.

in other words the West has trapped itself in a Catch 22!