“ICJ Kosovo ruling to be ambiguous”

I don't get how the Serbs in Kosovo have been negative. They are citizens of Serbia and nothing can change that. That is just a reality that needs to be dealt with. Serbs in Kosovo are citizens of Serbia not a fake KLA run "country."

Sounds Like to me that Mr. Stefan Lehne is very nervous! And would like some folks to think otherwise with his mindless ramblings.

"In his opinion, the unilateral independence declaration was not the best solution, “but there was no alternative.” "

OK we'll take part of australia and give it to someone else and then we'll tell you, "sorry you cannot do anything about it, because there is no other way."

These western governments make me sick.

Yes the distance between the two delegations were too far apart (so they forgot about trying to put forward a compromise, instead favouring one side over the other).

In the history of negotiations has anybody heard of a succesful solution to a problem without direct negotiations.

Its no wonder no compromise was found when no compromise was sought in the first place.

I hold all sides responsible but mostly the west, as they could have forced Serbs and Albanians to sit down. Now they have next to no leverage over Serbs (having alienated them) and little leverage over Albanians (having promised them everything).

Textbook diplomacy! Another nobel peace prize please!!!

If the ruling is in fact ambiguous, then it will just prove that the ICJ is another fake political court, just like that kangaroo court in the Hague, which has nothing to do with justice.
This is cut and dry, and any lawyer worth his weight will tell you that the Kosovo's independence is illegal. Any other ruling will just prove taht the ICJ is a joke.

This is very true the ruling will not be cut and dry but rather very complex. Both sides will declare victory and nothing will be resolved.

Dear Pss
I hope your acronym doesn't stand for Partia Socialiste Shqiptare.
don’t agree with your assumption that a possible ambiguous JCI ruling would be received and interpreted as a victory by both parties. If a ruling of that nature is pronounced, Serbia could only interpret that as a heavy defeat.
As it stands Serbia’s only argument is the legal bases of independence. If that falls, the whole thing tumbles down like a house of cards.
The curious question in this case would be about strategy. Was the legalist prospective led by a common sense pragmatism/ (the only viable option) ,or was it a premeditated route taken by Tadic, Jeremic & co to disqualify themselves of any culpability? Not that makes any difference on the actual facts in Kosova.
Regardless of any outcome, one positive thing out of all this saga is that current Serbian government has managed to a certain degree to distanced themselves from the so called Kosovo ideology.
Some people in here should follow suit.

Don't forget that 'the burden of proof' is on the Albanian side.

They want someting that is not allowed. Well, for them to show that it is allowed.

The Albanians need a very clear 'yes'. Everything 'below' such a yes is a victory for Serbia.

And no alternative? Don't make me laugh. High autonomy within Serbia? Why not! Like South Tirol has in Italy.

What is this supposed to say: is it that international law and agreements are ambiguous or is it that the ICJ is unable to interpret them and will give an ambiguous (i.e. complex) ruling.

I think the message here is that the ICJ ruling will be clear to most of the world except those that have recognised an illegal, immoral and criminal entity and have difficulties coming to terms with reality.

The complexity will be with those unwilling to revoke recognition after is it clearly the right thing to do. You simply cannot reward criminals and terrorists.

Lehne forgets one key matter: ICJ doesn't consist of politicians but judges. Judges whose pride is independence from politics and institutions of power. Their duty is upholding and sheperding legality. They are not supposed to regard laws as goods for trading, as politicians often do.

And the other matter that may appear as a surprise to Mr. Lehne: passing of time will not turn Spain etc. to support Kosovo independence but, on the contrary, there will be countries that start regretting their recognition of Kosovo independence.

Ah there's that word - "ambiguous" - that Kosovo just can't shake off. Of course the ICJ ruling is only going to compound an already large ambiguity.

If the ICJ rules in total favor of Serbia, the US and the EU have egg all over their face, recognitions halt, and what little investments were were in Kosovo dry up. Of course the US and most of the big EU countries will continue to treat Kosovo as a "functioning state", even though this may even result in some states to withdraw recognition.

If the ICJ rules in favor of Kosovo, Bosnia has less than 15 minutes left to live, and every other Tom, Dick, and Harry breakaway region jumps on the "me too" bandwagon.

So of course the ICJ is going to say something like "well, while it would have been nice for Kosovo's alleged status to be more universally negotiated, the damage has already been done. But Serbia deserves some form of compentation." Leading to either partition, formal Daytonization, or Kosovo being officially classified as a protectorate. If the ruling is going to be "ambiguous", which I've suspected all along, neither side is going to get what it wants, but each side will be left with some leverage to interpret said ruling to their liking.

Princip's tangled web is going to get more tangled.

Teh rule of ICj will be ambiguous since the Intenrational Law is ambiguous:

it recognizes the territorial integrity of the states BUT also recognizes:

"The right of self-determination of peoples is a fundamental principle in international law. It is embodied in the Charter of the United Nations and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Common Article 1, paragraph 1 of these Covenants provides that:

"All peoples have the rights of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."

The right of self-determination has also been recognized in other international and regional human rights instruments such as Part VII of the Helsinki Final Act 1975 and Article 20 of the African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights as well as the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Territories and Peoples. It has been endorsed by the International Court of Justice. Furthermore, the scope and content of the right of self- determination has been elaborated upon by the United Nations Human Rights Committee and Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination as well as international jurists and human rights experts."

So if you give me eggs I will serve you omelet, I can't serve you rump stake.

What do you think how it came up that the UN had 50 memebrs when it was established and now has almost 200???

To Mike:
Mike's favorite "ambiguity" it's simply the Russian vote. There is nothing ambiguous about K-Independence. Right now it’s just a matter of those countries who haven't decided yet to see if the recognition makes sense in the current political atmosphere and in the context of each individual national interest. K-Independence it's a clear cut case of a fight that started against segregation and culminated in the independence as the only possible alternative. Once again, Serbia has Russia's vote and nothing else. If for a moment we were to think that Russia would give in, the rest of arguments will be finish overnight and your "ambiguity" will disappear in thin air. In contrast K-Albanians already make up 92% of the country and this is the best argument they have. It’s this reality that made the West to come up with Ahtisaari and not the other way around. You still believe that if US withdraws its support, Serbia could rule K-Albanians. I repeat to you, the support of West, made the independence official but if you go back in time you will see that the independence was there all along.. The only way Serbia could rule Kosova was via military force and this is still the only way. I doubt that this will be allowed to happen again. You still keep flying around the world and try to figure out who could make K-Albanians submit to Serbian rule (=autonomy within Serbia).

So far you have been saying that all recognitions are a consequence of American pressure. Now you say that if ICJ rules in favor of Serbia, recognitions will be revoked, implying that recognitions were made based on each country free will to begin with. Well, which one is it then?

ICJ "ambiguous" decision actually means the end of Serbia's legal battle. The only hope for Serbia to stop further recognitions is a ICJ ruling in its favor. I don't know how to say this more clearly. The ICJ "ambiguous" ruling is a victory for Kosova. It is Serbia that initiated it with only one outcome in mind and when that will fail, there is nothing else Jeremic can do other than the usual protest in "Radio Srbja". Among three possible rulings of ICJ, two are in favor of Kosova.

You seem to jump into too many branches in your analysis. How on earth will ICJ decide if Serbia deserves a compensation. I was under the impression that your Mr. Jeremic asked a simply question to ICJ. As far as Bosnia goes, you will be faced with 4 vetoes in UNSC, go figure.
Last but not least, you want the north, prepare to give something in return.

Especially South Ossetia and Abkhazia will be very curious.

Kosovo was 'almost a YU republic'. But South Ossetia and Abkhazia had even more (!) rights under the USSR constitution.

A pro-Kosovo ruling will be music in the ears of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

One of the biggest losers of 'Kosovo' is Georgia!

Yes miri, "ambiguous" is the word of the day for Kosovo. If you don't like it, don't shoot me the messenger. I'm just saying what lots of other people think, including Lehne. I’m sure Thaci likes it no less than Jeremic does.

I could have just as easily agreed with pss here who wrote "the ruling will not be cut and dry but rather very complex. Both sides will declare victory and nothing will be resolved."

I don't know about you, but that's a perpetuation of "ambiguity". I mean if you're expecting a miracle to happen and some sort of knock-out punch to be delievered to the alleged Serb-Russian tag team that's keeping everything from being hunky-dory, perhaps you need to redirect all further comments to more open nationalists on this site because you consistently offer no empirical evidence that supports your claims.

To pss: yes, I have the same feeling.
To Felix: the later, i.e. as you write, "ICJ is unable to interpret them and will give an ambiguous (i.e. complex) ruling."

Just probably not "unable", but "unwilling".

Sorry ben but Kosovo and its people do not fall under the Colonial Territories and Peoples category, which India has already pointed out and I'm sure the ICJ will agree. That is where the granting of independence was permitted and not through unilateral declarations.

Others managed to negotiate and compromise but that is obviously beyond the ability of Albanians. You are not independent, your declaration is illegal and you are isolated in your own little "Kosova".

Lehne said he would be surprised if the ICJ assumed a clear position. He said he believed the ICJ ruling would be very complex, according to the Austria Press Agency.

I say, prepare to be surprised.
What alternative does the court have but to interpret and uphold the law.

It is up to each side to try to get around the law but in the end the rule of law must apply.
What's the alternative? Every little group will have the same right as Kosovo if this precedent is set.

If the ICJ rules "yes", it's a victory for Serbia.

If it rules "no", it's a victory for Kosova.

If the ruling is so-so in between, which is the most likely scenario, then both sides declare victory. Nothing changes. More independence recognitions continue.

Serbia absolutely needs a "yes", which it will 99.999% will not get.

Kosova only needs a "yes" or a "so so in between", which it will 99.999% get.

Good time to be an Albanian.

One of the biggest losers of 'Kosovo' is Georgia!
(Ron, 10 February 2009 19:06)

You are in the wrong blog then!

@ Olli,
"ICJ doesn't consist of politicians but judges. Judges whose pride is independence from politics and institutions of power. Their duty is upholding and sheperding legality. They are not supposed to regard laws as goods for trading, as politicians often do."

I'm afraid that the law will be bent again for political reasons, just as it was the case when Yugoslavia sued NATO. Remember this story?
Court decided not to be competent since they alleged that Yougoslavia at the time beeing was not a member of UN. But in the cases of Bosnia vs. Yugoslavia and Croatia vs, Serbia the same international court accepted the case.
I'm not very optimistic about the unpolitical nature of the court.
Serbia should have expelled US ambassador when Bush promised albanian secessionists independence during his speech in Albania and should have sued individually and immediately each and every nation which recognized UDI. This way there wouldn't be 54 recognitions today and in this case the rulings of the court would be binding, which is not the case with the actual procedure!

It looks like the ICJ is under heavy diplomatic pressure. We have to wait and see whether they will have courage or that they will chicken out like in the Yugoslavia-NATO case over the Kosovo War. In the past the ICJ has shown that they do not always follow the US lead (the Nicaragua-contra case that was lost by the US), but they have never before faced the prospect of condemning most of the Western world.

One argument for chickening out might be that it is so long ago. Against that could be brought that the situation is not stable (many refugees; delicate minority position).

Indirectly this is also a redo of the Yugoslavia-NATO case. All the arguments about the NATO invasion being necessary for humanitarian reasons will come back.

Finally it will also be a verdict on Ahtisaari's art of mediation. The court will have to decide whether he really did all that could be done or that he just tried to reply his act in Namibia in a completely different situation.

To ben:are you joking? the quote you have comes from a "indigenous peoples' right to self-determination" site, which has nothing to do with the subject of alboos in kosovo; who have all immigrated to KiM because of the economic opportunity there relative to Albania. There is no loophole in the law, but nice try!

Miri wrote,
I am well aware of the problems in the North, but so be it, Kosova it's not the first country to have internal problems. With time we'll find a "compromise" with the north as long as the territorial integrity of the new republic is not questioned.

How Miri? The same way a "compromise" was found when Albanians delared UDI?

Serbia could not stop you from declaring a UDI so "Kosova" will not be able to stop a UDI of North Kosovo.

You don't know how to compromise, so why do you even mention it?

Yes miri, "ambiguous" is the word of the day for Kosovo. If you don't like it, don't shoot me the messenger. I'm just saying what lots of other people think, including Lehne. I’m sure Thaci likes it no less than Jeremic does. You want me to believe there's nothing "ambiguous" about Kosovo's independence, yet you constantly ignore the facts that argue the contrary. You still want to think it’s all Russia’s fault, as if Russia is forcing all other countries away from supporting what you think is not only morally right, but historically justified – clear symptoms of a nationalist. How is Russia forcing Spain or Greece? Or India? Or New Zealand? According to your logic, everything would be happy hunky-dory as soon as Russia is knocked out and the rest of the world will join in recognizing Kosovo. I think it’s clear by now that Russia is one of many powers that do not automatically agree with unconditional Albanian self-determination. If you fail to see that, I strongly suggest consulting more objective media outlets. I don’t know what you read, but from your comments, the Albanians have their own Serbianna.coms that love to gloss over lots of unimportant stuff that contradicts national pride. And even though I’m one of the few people on the Serb side who think an ICJ ruling will not bring a knock-out punch to either side, you still feel the need challenge my ideas.

You clearly get irked by my comments far more than those of open Serb nationalists here, and you seem to really want to paint me as one too. I have an understanding of, but little patience for, Serbian nationalism, and even less of a threshold for the Albanian variant. You’ll find I have far more tolerance for a compromise solution for Kosovo than the usual “all for us, none for you” approach both sides seem to resort to when there’s nothing else to say. Yet for all the supposed international support you claim to have, not to mention an overwhelming majority in demographics, and a constitution formulated by Nobel Peace Prize recipient, one would have to think that Kosovo’s status would be less ambiguous than it is.

But like I said yesterday, here we are. If you want to argue some more, or you still think it’s all Russia’s fault, I recommend you argue with a Serb nationalist and engage in mutual flights of fancy, because you consistently offer no empirical evidence that supports your claims.

"What victory can Serbia claim in the case of an ambiguous ICJ ruling. I think this is the topic of this article."

Simple: an ambiguous ruling leads to a continuation of ambiguous status. Albanians retain control over what they have, and Serbs retain control over what they have. In fact, an ambiguous ruling will only divide Kosovo further. You seem to think that all you need is something that doesn't say "Kosovo is and remains a part of Serbia" as a victory. It's a very hollow victory indeed as I see no likelihood of Pristina's authority crossing the Ibar or reaching any deeper into the enclaves. You can get more recognitions, but none of these recognitions are going to bring you any closer to controlling the Serb sectors. In fact, an "ambiguous" ruling places no pressure on states to recognize. Bosnia is internationally recognized and it's more divided than ever. What makes you think Kosovo is going to fare any better with 54/192 recognitions, no UN membership and no EU membership? But again, if this is all you need to make the case for Kosovo's sovereignty, I question your evaluations. I mean you say “a non-denial of its independence is enough for K-Government to claim the independence totally legal in the eyes of ICJ”. This has about the same logic as someone saying “well, he didn’t say ‘no’, so I’m going to assume he means ‘yes’.” This a strategy your brilliant leaders in Pristina are operating under, and then you wonder why I question Kosovo’s sovereignty (or the sanity of its leaders). You conveniently overlook the possibility of a “non-denial” coming with unforeseen strings attached that may inadvertently affect Kosovo politics that officially bar Pristina from Serb sectors. But if all you want is to not be part of Serbia, regardless of what you are, then there’s little point in dragging this argument out further.

So what can Serbia specifically get from an "ambiguous" ruling? Continued influence to virtual control in the north, continued influence in the enclaves, continued efforts to halt additional recognitions (though not the power to stop all), continued support from the Fabulous 5 who have not recognized as well as those states who refuse to recognize on the basis of no agreement with Serbia, no UN membership, and an indefinite presence of EULEX/UNMIK. We might even see the official recognition of the Serb Assembly in Mitrovica as the legitimate Serbian government. Effectively the status quo, which may very well be a victory for Serbia too. You however seem to think that somehow everything is going to fall into your corner if Serbia doesn't reclaim complete control over Kosovo. They don't need to. In fact, they probably don't even want to. Kosovo’s status can remain ambiguous because no one has the energy, the desire, nor the leverage to definitively upset deeply entrenched sides. This is what I’ve been saying from the beginning: no side is going to walk away with a decisive victory, but each side is going to interpret/spin it in a way that gives “victory” to them: Albanians claim victory because they’re not part of Serbia; Serbs claim victory because Pristina’s authority is checked at various levels. You seem to be arguing with ghosts when you direct your comments to me. It's not me who's been saying Serbia will reclaim Kosovo. I've been saying Kosovo is destined to look like Bosnia from Day One, and the dynamics of its sovereignty have yet to be finalized with internal partition looking more likely than ever. And you can't blame the Big Bad Russian veto on that.

I've been sticking to the point and saying the same thing repeatedly now. You're the one who apparently is having a hard time understanding me as well as trying to paint me as a nationalist. If you'd like to argue with a Serb nationalist, there's plenty on this site.

I'm with Peggy on this one: "I say, prepare to be surprised. What alternative does the court have but to interpret and uphold the law."

It should be remembered that the case against Nato by Serbia was thrown out because of Serbia's UN membership status. That is no longer the case, and I fully expect the ICJ to uphold international law. To do anything else would be a terrible precedent.

We're not talking about some sort of committee here, who may come out with a report such as 'yes, it was illegal, but there was no alternative'.

These are the primary upholders of international law. They have to stick to the text absolutely.

Mike, calm down man, I am not accusing you. To make you feel better, you are a Serb nationalist as I am an Albanian nationalist, whatever that means.

I'll be short.

Russia is not pressuring any country, I buy that. Russia is simply stopping Kosova to enter UN, which in turns creates internal uncertainties for countries that are faced with similar problems. If it were for Russia to withdraw its veto, everyone will recognize Kosova within a day. If you really think that Spain or Greece will stick to their guns in recognizing Kosova in this scenario, then this discussion is over. So yes, Russia's veto it's the only stumbling block today.

As far as ICJ goes, let's try to simplify it. Serbia has accused Kosova. There is a plaintiff and a defendant.
The plaintiff (Serbia) accuses the defendant (Kosova) for stealing something from it. The court doesn't find the defendant guilty, which translates for defendant to be innocent. Tell me what else can Serbia do to get back whatever thinks that Kosova stole from it. The ICJ was designed, to delay recognitions while the case is on hold and ultimately to have a pro-Serbia stance. Once that is over, assuming an "ambiguous" decision, Kosova's case will be in much better position because this will release some of uncertainties mentioned above. An ambiguous ICJ decision will legitimize Independence more than it was before it. That's all it is to it.

I am well aware of the problems in the North, but so be it, Kosova it's not the first country to have internal problems. With time we'll find a "compromise" with the north as long as the territorial integrity of the new republic is not questioned.

Have a good one.

PS: I respond to you because I think there is something to discuss. If you don't want me to I am fine with that.

@miri
Your interpretation of the case is absolutely wrong! There's no plaintive and no defendant since Serbia only asked for an advisory opinion. ICJ only judges differents between nations recognized by the UN.

@Olli
I agree with you that it could be a good idea first to ask for an advisory opinion of the court and afterward, if ICJ ruling is in Serbia's favor to sue nations individually with more chances of success.
But two arguments against that:

1) Time is passing by and more recognitions of this fake state could happen, favoring the argument that now it would be too late to inverse things.

2) Tadic & Cie haven't had the guts to sue nations individually for not to jeopardize Serbia's road to EU. Do you really think they would have changed their minds three or four years later? I don't! Asking for this advisory opinion is a trick for to get the subject of territorial integrity out of the political arena, pretending that they do all they can to protect Serbia's sovereignty and hiding the fact that they would sell their mothers for EU integration.

I think all the commentators here have jumped the gun, Serb and Albanians alike.

IF the ICJ ruling is ambiguous nobody can claim, YET, that it's a victory for their side as the devil will be in the detail and nobody knows what that detail will be. The worst case scenario being that they give equal weight to both sides of the argument (which i doubt they will though) and each side claiming victory. In such a situation or anything similar to this, Kosovo will be left in limbo.

Assuming that Kosovo wins the argument and the ICJ rules that self determination comes before all else, i believe it still loses out territorially and economically. I don't know the population figures for bujanovac, presevo, etc, but an earlier commentator stated that only presevo has an albanian majority (feel free to correct me if i'm wrong) and they could then rightly claim to secession and join Kosovo. On the other hand northern Kosovo would delare secession and join Serbia.

This would be a heavy blow for Kosovo and the West as i believe it is their strategic aim to keep the north because of the Trepca mines - With 50% of US power stations powered by coal. hence their continued insistence of no division of Kosovo (and also from the Abanians as they know it's their only source of income). this could potentially lead to a clash again between both sides and i don't think anyone here would want that to happen again.

Also, unless the ICJ gives an UNAMBIGUOUS ruling in favour of self determination, Kosovo will still be in the position it is in today. The Albanian like to focus on big bad Russia but conveniently forget about China which has also stated that it won't recognise Kosovo, no doubt due to the unrest in Tibet. So that's two permanent members that will permanently block Kosovo.

Somebody argued the case that Russia and China would have to capitulate as they depend on the US. That's true, but the flip side is that the US has been reliant on Chinese, Arab and Russian capital to fund it's spending spree. If the Chinese economy was threatened with all out collapse (which i doubt the US would allow to happen), they could pull the plug, or as the Financial Times called it, use the nuclear option and sell it's US bond holdings. This would crush the US economy and with it end the world's financial system.

I don't think either will happen but the US isn't in such a position of strength as George Bush liked to portray was the case.

i.e. an ambiguous position means that Kosovo and Serbia go nowhere. That's not good for anyone.

Your wrong, ARusila, only a nation could sue another nation. Since Kosovo and Metohija is not recognized as a nation by the UN it couldn't sue Serbia.

To Mike:
"I'm just saying what lots of other people think, including Lehne."

Are you sure Lehne is saying that Kosova's status is "ambiguous"? I don't know about you but I don't think that's what he is saying. I think he is saying that ICJ ruling will be ambiguous and "ambiguous" is a victory for Kosova. Your Jeremic didn't start all this expecting an ambiguous ICJ decision but rather he expects a pro-Serbia decision. Don't take my word for it, since I am not empirical enough for you. Just scan his latest speeches and you will see that the only hope he is counting on is a pro-Serbia ruling. According to Lehne that is not going to happen. Tell me how can Serbia call this a victory. Kosova's government did not ask ICJ to rule in its favor, in other words a non-denial of its independence is enough for K-Government to claim the independence totally legal in the eyes of ICJ. But what can claim Serbia in the case of an ambiguous ruling, hmm? The best Serbia can hope is to return into the political situation before ICJ. Please tell me what else is there, if you think otherwise.( And please stick to the point, I don't need philosophical arguments).
As per Serbia-Russia gang, I don't have any illusion that Russia will withdraw the veto soon. I am sorry that you don't understand but I have to say it once more loud and clear, there is no ambiguity to the independence itself, it's just Russia's veto. The problem is clear (How to deal with Russia's veto), and Kosova has come too far, even for you, to think that there could be a turning back. I don't want to paraphrase you but I am sure you also have expressed yourself as having no hope for Serbia to ever rule at least Albanian populated areas of Kosova. So tell me what is ambiguous here then? As per North, the best Serbia can do is trade it. If you think that Serbia already has the North, there is not need to protest against KSF in the streets of Mitrovica then.

If you want to answer don't mind my entire comment, just answer the question below.
What victory can Serbia claim in the case of an ambiguous ICJ ruling. I think this is the topic of this article.

@ Olli
Article 59 of The Statute of the International Court of Justice doesn't apply in this case since Serbia only asked for legal advice so that there are no parties involved. This is exactly the problem I pointed out in my post and this is why it would have been better to sue individually and immediately each and every nation which recognized UDI.

"You don't even know how to compromise, so why do you even mention it"
Peggy

Compromise is more than "Whatever you want, boss"

How can Stefan Lehne possible know how the court is going to rule?

Has the outcome of this came already been predetermined?
Perhaps he has the judges in his pocket.
This is the only way he can be sure of their ruling before even they know it.

Kosovo Albanians together with countries that have recognized Kosovo independancy keep on repeating that decisions of the ICJ have no binding force. Let's have a look on this matter. Let's see what the Statute of the International Court of Justice says.

Article 59 of The Statute of the International Court of Justice: "The decision of the ICJ has
no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case.”

Everyone can concentrate on that sentence. Any conclusions or implications?

To Joachim
(who wrote: I'm afraid that the law will be bent again for political reasons, just as it was the case when Yugoslavia sued NATO. Remember this story?)

Yes, Joachim. I remember it, painfully. And you may well be right on this. But let's hope the ICJ has learned something about its mistake. You can read more about it (and the critique of it) here: www.asil.org/insight041223.cfm

No-one should miss reading that document!

BH_NYC: "To Kate: No one considered the possibility that the decision might be 'yes it was illegal but’..whatever. This is just you, speculating."

No, I was referring to the fact that this is being seen as political when it is in fact legal. A fact reflected by many of the comments, although there are some very interesting insights from people who obviously understand the system.

Joachim,

I understand your concern. But if you look back on the ICJ decisions on cases Yugoslavia vs. NATO, Bosnia vs. Yugoslavia and Croatia vs. Serbia I think it is wiser first to go after the Advisory Opinion. This provides us the door to the thinking of ICJ.

And then afterwards - in case the ICJ thinking is at all supportive for Serbia's claim - Serbia can individually sue countries that recognized Kosovo's UDI.

This is why I wanted to remind people of Article 59 of The Statute of the International Court of Justice. So that in the end, in case Serbia takes legal action against UDI and the countries that supported it, the decision of the UCJ does have binding force in this matter.

"You don't even know how to compromise, so why do you even mention it"
Peggy

Compromise is more than "Whatever you want, boss"
(compromise, 12 February 2009 08:47)

So when you take something by force that's compromise but when Serbia tries to negotiate you say "Compromise is more than "Whatever you want, boss".

That's why you don't know the meaning of compromise.

"Ambiguous ruling" means more countries having less doubts on the decision on Kosovo recognition.

A lot depends on the trial of former Serbian police commander Vlastimir Djordjevic, who is charged with the murder, deportation and persecution of the Kosovo Albanian population. If he is found guilty then Serbia is found guilty. That's why Serbia is having it's own trial (not because it cares about the murdered Albanians). The Serbian version of the trial is pulled towards that the killings were done by individs and paramilitary and not the police.
If Djordjevic is found guilty, Kosovo could sue Serbia for genocide and be the first to win that trial.

To: (kate, 11 February 2009 10:52) - 'yes, it was illegal, but there was no alternative'.

No one considered the possibility that the decision might be 'yes it was illegal but’..whatever. This is just you, speculating.

To (village-bey, 10 February 2009 16:40). I think pss is right. Both sides will claim victory. Now, weather they have truly won or not, that’s another question.

To (village-bey, 10 February 2009 16:40). I think pss is right. Both sides will claim victory. Now, weather they have truly won or not, that’s another question.

I don't get how the Serbs in Kosovo have been negative. They are citizens of Serbia and nothing can change that. That is just a reality that needs to be dealt with. Serbs in Kosovo are citizens of Serbia not a fake KLA run "country."

"In his opinion, the unilateral independence declaration was not the best solution, “but there was no alternative.” "

OK we'll take part of australia and give it to someone else and then we'll tell you, "sorry you cannot do anything about it, because there is no other way."

These western governments make me sick.

I think the message here is that the ICJ ruling will be clear to most of the world except those that have recognised an illegal, immoral and criminal entity and have difficulties coming to terms with reality.

The complexity will be with those unwilling to revoke recognition after is it clearly the right thing to do. You simply cannot reward criminals and terrorists.

If the ruling is in fact ambiguous, then it will just prove that the ICJ is another fake political court, just like that kangaroo court in the Hague, which has nothing to do with justice.
This is cut and dry, and any lawyer worth his weight will tell you that the Kosovo's independence is illegal. Any other ruling will just prove taht the ICJ is a joke.

Sounds Like to me that Mr. Stefan Lehne is very nervous! And would like some folks to think otherwise with his mindless ramblings.

To Mike:
Mike's favorite "ambiguity" it's simply the Russian vote. There is nothing ambiguous about K-Independence. Right now it’s just a matter of those countries who haven't decided yet to see if the recognition makes sense in the current political atmosphere and in the context of each individual national interest. K-Independence it's a clear cut case of a fight that started against segregation and culminated in the independence as the only possible alternative. Once again, Serbia has Russia's vote and nothing else. If for a moment we were to think that Russia would give in, the rest of arguments will be finish overnight and your "ambiguity" will disappear in thin air. In contrast K-Albanians already make up 92% of the country and this is the best argument they have. It’s this reality that made the West to come up with Ahtisaari and not the other way around. You still believe that if US withdraws its support, Serbia could rule K-Albanians. I repeat to you, the support of West, made the independence official but if you go back in time you will see that the independence was there all along.. The only way Serbia could rule Kosova was via military force and this is still the only way. I doubt that this will be allowed to happen again. You still keep flying around the world and try to figure out who could make K-Albanians submit to Serbian rule (=autonomy within Serbia).

So far you have been saying that all recognitions are a consequence of American pressure. Now you say that if ICJ rules in favor of Serbia, recognitions will be revoked, implying that recognitions were made based on each country free will to begin with. Well, which one is it then?

ICJ "ambiguous" decision actually means the end of Serbia's legal battle. The only hope for Serbia to stop further recognitions is a ICJ ruling in its favor. I don't know how to say this more clearly. The ICJ "ambiguous" ruling is a victory for Kosova. It is Serbia that initiated it with only one outcome in mind and when that will fail, there is nothing else Jeremic can do other than the usual protest in "Radio Srbja". Among three possible rulings of ICJ, two are in favor of Kosova.

You seem to jump into too many branches in your analysis. How on earth will ICJ decide if Serbia deserves a compensation. I was under the impression that your Mr. Jeremic asked a simply question to ICJ. As far as Bosnia goes, you will be faced with 4 vetoes in UNSC, go figure.
Last but not least, you want the north, prepare to give something in return.

Dear Pss
I hope your acronym doesn't stand for Partia Socialiste Shqiptare.
don’t agree with your assumption that a possible ambiguous JCI ruling would be received and interpreted as a victory by both parties. If a ruling of that nature is pronounced, Serbia could only interpret that as a heavy defeat.
As it stands Serbia’s only argument is the legal bases of independence. If that falls, the whole thing tumbles down like a house of cards.
The curious question in this case would be about strategy. Was the legalist prospective led by a common sense pragmatism/ (the only viable option) ,or was it a premeditated route taken by Tadic, Jeremic & co to disqualify themselves of any culpability? Not that makes any difference on the actual facts in Kosova.
Regardless of any outcome, one positive thing out of all this saga is that current Serbian government has managed to a certain degree to distanced themselves from the so called Kosovo ideology.
Some people in here should follow suit.

Lehne forgets one key matter: ICJ doesn't consist of politicians but judges. Judges whose pride is independence from politics and institutions of power. Their duty is upholding and sheperding legality. They are not supposed to regard laws as goods for trading, as politicians often do.

And the other matter that may appear as a surprise to Mr. Lehne: passing of time will not turn Spain etc. to support Kosovo independence but, on the contrary, there will be countries that start regretting their recognition of Kosovo independence.

Don't forget that 'the burden of proof' is on the Albanian side.

They want someting that is not allowed. Well, for them to show that it is allowed.

The Albanians need a very clear 'yes'. Everything 'below' such a yes is a victory for Serbia.

And no alternative? Don't make me laugh. High autonomy within Serbia? Why not! Like South Tirol has in Italy.

To pss: yes, I have the same feeling.
To Felix: the later, i.e. as you write, "ICJ is unable to interpret them and will give an ambiguous (i.e. complex) ruling."

Just probably not "unable", but "unwilling".

Yes the distance between the two delegations were too far apart (so they forgot about trying to put forward a compromise, instead favouring one side over the other).

In the history of negotiations has anybody heard of a succesful solution to a problem without direct negotiations.

Its no wonder no compromise was found when no compromise was sought in the first place.

I hold all sides responsible but mostly the west, as they could have forced Serbs and Albanians to sit down. Now they have next to no leverage over Serbs (having alienated them) and little leverage over Albanians (having promised them everything).

Textbook diplomacy! Another nobel peace prize please!!!

Teh rule of ICj will be ambiguous since the Intenrational Law is ambiguous:

it recognizes the territorial integrity of the states BUT also recognizes:

"The right of self-determination of peoples is a fundamental principle in international law. It is embodied in the Charter of the United Nations and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Common Article 1, paragraph 1 of these Covenants provides that:

"All peoples have the rights of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."

The right of self-determination has also been recognized in other international and regional human rights instruments such as Part VII of the Helsinki Final Act 1975 and Article 20 of the African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights as well as the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Territories and Peoples. It has been endorsed by the International Court of Justice. Furthermore, the scope and content of the right of self- determination has been elaborated upon by the United Nations Human Rights Committee and Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination as well as international jurists and human rights experts."

So if you give me eggs I will serve you omelet, I can't serve you rump stake.

What do you think how it came up that the UN had 50 memebrs when it was established and now has almost 200???

If the ICJ rules "yes", it's a victory for Serbia.

If it rules "no", it's a victory for Kosova.

If the ruling is so-so in between, which is the most likely scenario, then both sides declare victory. Nothing changes. More independence recognitions continue.

Serbia absolutely needs a "yes", which it will 99.999% will not get.

Kosova only needs a "yes" or a "so so in between", which it will 99.999% get.

Good time to be an Albanian.

Ah there's that word - "ambiguous" - that Kosovo just can't shake off. Of course the ICJ ruling is only going to compound an already large ambiguity.

If the ICJ rules in total favor of Serbia, the US and the EU have egg all over their face, recognitions halt, and what little investments were were in Kosovo dry up. Of course the US and most of the big EU countries will continue to treat Kosovo as a "functioning state", even though this may even result in some states to withdraw recognition.

If the ICJ rules in favor of Kosovo, Bosnia has less than 15 minutes left to live, and every other Tom, Dick, and Harry breakaway region jumps on the "me too" bandwagon.

So of course the ICJ is going to say something like "well, while it would have been nice for Kosovo's alleged status to be more universally negotiated, the damage has already been done. But Serbia deserves some form of compentation." Leading to either partition, formal Daytonization, or Kosovo being officially classified as a protectorate. If the ruling is going to be "ambiguous", which I've suspected all along, neither side is going to get what it wants, but each side will be left with some leverage to interpret said ruling to their liking.

Princip's tangled web is going to get more tangled.

This is very true the ruling will not be cut and dry but rather very complex. Both sides will declare victory and nothing will be resolved.

Especially South Ossetia and Abkhazia will be very curious.

Kosovo was 'almost a YU republic'. But South Ossetia and Abkhazia had even more (!) rights under the USSR constitution.

A pro-Kosovo ruling will be music in the ears of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

One of the biggest losers of 'Kosovo' is Georgia!

Lehne said he would be surprised if the ICJ assumed a clear position. He said he believed the ICJ ruling would be very complex, according to the Austria Press Agency.

I say, prepare to be surprised.
What alternative does the court have but to interpret and uphold the law.

It is up to each side to try to get around the law but in the end the rule of law must apply.
What's the alternative? Every little group will have the same right as Kosovo if this precedent is set.

Sorry ben but Kosovo and its people do not fall under the Colonial Territories and Peoples category, which India has already pointed out and I'm sure the ICJ will agree. That is where the granting of independence was permitted and not through unilateral declarations.

Others managed to negotiate and compromise but that is obviously beyond the ability of Albanians. You are not independent, your declaration is illegal and you are isolated in your own little "Kosova".

One of the biggest losers of 'Kosovo' is Georgia!
(Ron, 10 February 2009 19:06)

You are in the wrong blog then!

What is this supposed to say: is it that international law and agreements are ambiguous or is it that the ICJ is unable to interpret them and will give an ambiguous (i.e. complex) ruling.

Yes miri, "ambiguous" is the word of the day for Kosovo. If you don't like it, don't shoot me the messenger. I'm just saying what lots of other people think, including Lehne. I’m sure Thaci likes it no less than Jeremic does.

I could have just as easily agreed with pss here who wrote "the ruling will not be cut and dry but rather very complex. Both sides will declare victory and nothing will be resolved."

I don't know about you, but that's a perpetuation of "ambiguity". I mean if you're expecting a miracle to happen and some sort of knock-out punch to be delievered to the alleged Serb-Russian tag team that's keeping everything from being hunky-dory, perhaps you need to redirect all further comments to more open nationalists on this site because you consistently offer no empirical evidence that supports your claims.

To ben:are you joking? the quote you have comes from a "indigenous peoples' right to self-determination" site, which has nothing to do with the subject of alboos in kosovo; who have all immigrated to KiM because of the economic opportunity there relative to Albania. There is no loophole in the law, but nice try!

Mike, calm down man, I am not accusing you. To make you feel better, you are a Serb nationalist as I am an Albanian nationalist, whatever that means.

I'll be short.

Russia is not pressuring any country, I buy that. Russia is simply stopping Kosova to enter UN, which in turns creates internal uncertainties for countries that are faced with similar problems. If it were for Russia to withdraw its veto, everyone will recognize Kosova within a day. If you really think that Spain or Greece will stick to their guns in recognizing Kosova in this scenario, then this discussion is over. So yes, Russia's veto it's the only stumbling block today.

As far as ICJ goes, let's try to simplify it. Serbia has accused Kosova. There is a plaintiff and a defendant.
The plaintiff (Serbia) accuses the defendant (Kosova) for stealing something from it. The court doesn't find the defendant guilty, which translates for defendant to be innocent. Tell me what else can Serbia do to get back whatever thinks that Kosova stole from it. The ICJ was designed, to delay recognitions while the case is on hold and ultimately to have a pro-Serbia stance. Once that is over, assuming an "ambiguous" decision, Kosova's case will be in much better position because this will release some of uncertainties mentioned above. An ambiguous ICJ decision will legitimize Independence more than it was before it. That's all it is to it.

I am well aware of the problems in the North, but so be it, Kosova it's not the first country to have internal problems. With time we'll find a "compromise" with the north as long as the territorial integrity of the new republic is not questioned.

Have a good one.

PS: I respond to you because I think there is something to discuss. If you don't want me to I am fine with that.

To Mike:
"I'm just saying what lots of other people think, including Lehne."

Are you sure Lehne is saying that Kosova's status is "ambiguous"? I don't know about you but I don't think that's what he is saying. I think he is saying that ICJ ruling will be ambiguous and "ambiguous" is a victory for Kosova. Your Jeremic didn't start all this expecting an ambiguous ICJ decision but rather he expects a pro-Serbia decision. Don't take my word for it, since I am not empirical enough for you. Just scan his latest speeches and you will see that the only hope he is counting on is a pro-Serbia ruling. According to Lehne that is not going to happen. Tell me how can Serbia call this a victory. Kosova's government did not ask ICJ to rule in its favor, in other words a non-denial of its independence is enough for K-Government to claim the independence totally legal in the eyes of ICJ. But what can claim Serbia in the case of an ambiguous ruling, hmm? The best Serbia can hope is to return into the political situation before ICJ. Please tell me what else is there, if you think otherwise.( And please stick to the point, I don't need philosophical arguments).
As per Serbia-Russia gang, I don't have any illusion that Russia will withdraw the veto soon. I am sorry that you don't understand but I have to say it once more loud and clear, there is no ambiguity to the independence itself, it's just Russia's veto. The problem is clear (How to deal with Russia's veto), and Kosova has come too far, even for you, to think that there could be a turning back. I don't want to paraphrase you but I am sure you also have expressed yourself as having no hope for Serbia to ever rule at least Albanian populated areas of Kosova. So tell me what is ambiguous here then? As per North, the best Serbia can do is trade it. If you think that Serbia already has the North, there is not need to protest against KSF in the streets of Mitrovica then.

If you want to answer don't mind my entire comment, just answer the question below.
What victory can Serbia claim in the case of an ambiguous ICJ ruling. I think this is the topic of this article.

@ Olli,
"ICJ doesn't consist of politicians but judges. Judges whose pride is independence from politics and institutions of power. Their duty is upholding and sheperding legality. They are not supposed to regard laws as goods for trading, as politicians often do."

I'm afraid that the law will be bent again for political reasons, just as it was the case when Yugoslavia sued NATO. Remember this story?
Court decided not to be competent since they alleged that Yougoslavia at the time beeing was not a member of UN. But in the cases of Bosnia vs. Yugoslavia and Croatia vs, Serbia the same international court accepted the case.
I'm not very optimistic about the unpolitical nature of the court.
Serbia should have expelled US ambassador when Bush promised albanian secessionists independence during his speech in Albania and should have sued individually and immediately each and every nation which recognized UDI. This way there wouldn't be 54 recognitions today and in this case the rulings of the court would be binding, which is not the case with the actual procedure!

Miri wrote,
I am well aware of the problems in the North, but so be it, Kosova it's not the first country to have internal problems. With time we'll find a "compromise" with the north as long as the territorial integrity of the new republic is not questioned.

How Miri? The same way a "compromise" was found when Albanians delared UDI?

Serbia could not stop you from declaring a UDI so "Kosova" will not be able to stop a UDI of North Kosovo.

You don't know how to compromise, so why do you even mention it?

Kosovo Albanians together with countries that have recognized Kosovo independancy keep on repeating that decisions of the ICJ have no binding force. Let's have a look on this matter. Let's see what the Statute of the International Court of Justice says.

Article 59 of The Statute of the International Court of Justice: "The decision of the ICJ has
no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case.”

Everyone can concentrate on that sentence. Any conclusions or implications?

To Joachim
(who wrote: I'm afraid that the law will be bent again for political reasons, just as it was the case when Yugoslavia sued NATO. Remember this story?)

Yes, Joachim. I remember it, painfully. And you may well be right on this. But let's hope the ICJ has learned something about its mistake. You can read more about it (and the critique of it) here: www.asil.org/insight041223.cfm

No-one should miss reading that document!

A lot depends on the trial of former Serbian police commander Vlastimir Djordjevic, who is charged with the murder, deportation and persecution of the Kosovo Albanian population. If he is found guilty then Serbia is found guilty. That's why Serbia is having it's own trial (not because it cares about the murdered Albanians). The Serbian version of the trial is pulled towards that the killings were done by individs and paramilitary and not the police.
If Djordjevic is found guilty, Kosovo could sue Serbia for genocide and be the first to win that trial.

It looks like the ICJ is under heavy diplomatic pressure. We have to wait and see whether they will have courage or that they will chicken out like in the Yugoslavia-NATO case over the Kosovo War. In the past the ICJ has shown that they do not always follow the US lead (the Nicaragua-contra case that was lost by the US), but they have never before faced the prospect of condemning most of the Western world.

One argument for chickening out might be that it is so long ago. Against that could be brought that the situation is not stable (many refugees; delicate minority position).

Indirectly this is also a redo of the Yugoslavia-NATO case. All the arguments about the NATO invasion being necessary for humanitarian reasons will come back.

Finally it will also be a verdict on Ahtisaari's art of mediation. The court will have to decide whether he really did all that could be done or that he just tried to reply his act in Namibia in a completely different situation.

To: (kate, 11 February 2009 10:52) - 'yes, it was illegal, but there was no alternative'.

No one considered the possibility that the decision might be 'yes it was illegal but’..whatever. This is just you, speculating.

To (village-bey, 10 February 2009 16:40). I think pss is right. Both sides will claim victory. Now, weather they have truly won or not, that’s another question.

To (village-bey, 10 February 2009 16:40). I think pss is right. Both sides will claim victory. Now, weather they have truly won or not, that’s another question.

"Ambiguous ruling" means more countries having less doubts on the decision on Kosovo recognition.

"You don't even know how to compromise, so why do you even mention it"
Peggy

Compromise is more than "Whatever you want, boss"

I'm with Peggy on this one: "I say, prepare to be surprised. What alternative does the court have but to interpret and uphold the law."

It should be remembered that the case against Nato by Serbia was thrown out because of Serbia's UN membership status. That is no longer the case, and I fully expect the ICJ to uphold international law. To do anything else would be a terrible precedent.

We're not talking about some sort of committee here, who may come out with a report such as 'yes, it was illegal, but there was no alternative'.

These are the primary upholders of international law. They have to stick to the text absolutely.

"You don't even know how to compromise, so why do you even mention it"
Peggy

Compromise is more than "Whatever you want, boss"
(compromise, 12 February 2009 08:47)

So when you take something by force that's compromise but when Serbia tries to negotiate you say "Compromise is more than "Whatever you want, boss".

That's why you don't know the meaning of compromise.

How can Stefan Lehne possible know how the court is going to rule?

Has the outcome of this came already been predetermined?
Perhaps he has the judges in his pocket.
This is the only way he can be sure of their ruling before even they know it.

Yes miri, "ambiguous" is the word of the day for Kosovo. If you don't like it, don't shoot me the messenger. I'm just saying what lots of other people think, including Lehne. I’m sure Thaci likes it no less than Jeremic does. You want me to believe there's nothing "ambiguous" about Kosovo's independence, yet you constantly ignore the facts that argue the contrary. You still want to think it’s all Russia’s fault, as if Russia is forcing all other countries away from supporting what you think is not only morally right, but historically justified – clear symptoms of a nationalist. How is Russia forcing Spain or Greece? Or India? Or New Zealand? According to your logic, everything would be happy hunky-dory as soon as Russia is knocked out and the rest of the world will join in recognizing Kosovo. I think it’s clear by now that Russia is one of many powers that do not automatically agree with unconditional Albanian self-determination. If you fail to see that, I strongly suggest consulting more objective media outlets. I don’t know what you read, but from your comments, the Albanians have their own Serbianna.coms that love to gloss over lots of unimportant stuff that contradicts national pride. And even though I’m one of the few people on the Serb side who think an ICJ ruling will not bring a knock-out punch to either side, you still feel the need challenge my ideas.

You clearly get irked by my comments far more than those of open Serb nationalists here, and you seem to really want to paint me as one too. I have an understanding of, but little patience for, Serbian nationalism, and even less of a threshold for the Albanian variant. You’ll find I have far more tolerance for a compromise solution for Kosovo than the usual “all for us, none for you” approach both sides seem to resort to when there’s nothing else to say. Yet for all the supposed international support you claim to have, not to mention an overwhelming majority in demographics, and a constitution formulated by Nobel Peace Prize recipient, one would have to think that Kosovo’s status would be less ambiguous than it is.

But like I said yesterday, here we are. If you want to argue some more, or you still think it’s all Russia’s fault, I recommend you argue with a Serb nationalist and engage in mutual flights of fancy, because you consistently offer no empirical evidence that supports your claims.

"What victory can Serbia claim in the case of an ambiguous ICJ ruling. I think this is the topic of this article."

Simple: an ambiguous ruling leads to a continuation of ambiguous status. Albanians retain control over what they have, and Serbs retain control over what they have. In fact, an ambiguous ruling will only divide Kosovo further. You seem to think that all you need is something that doesn't say "Kosovo is and remains a part of Serbia" as a victory. It's a very hollow victory indeed as I see no likelihood of Pristina's authority crossing the Ibar or reaching any deeper into the enclaves. You can get more recognitions, but none of these recognitions are going to bring you any closer to controlling the Serb sectors. In fact, an "ambiguous" ruling places no pressure on states to recognize. Bosnia is internationally recognized and it's more divided than ever. What makes you think Kosovo is going to fare any better with 54/192 recognitions, no UN membership and no EU membership? But again, if this is all you need to make the case for Kosovo's sovereignty, I question your evaluations. I mean you say “a non-denial of its independence is enough for K-Government to claim the independence totally legal in the eyes of ICJ”. This has about the same logic as someone saying “well, he didn’t say ‘no’, so I’m going to assume he means ‘yes’.” This a strategy your brilliant leaders in Pristina are operating under, and then you wonder why I question Kosovo’s sovereignty (or the sanity of its leaders). You conveniently overlook the possibility of a “non-denial” coming with unforeseen strings attached that may inadvertently affect Kosovo politics that officially bar Pristina from Serb sectors. But if all you want is to not be part of Serbia, regardless of what you are, then there’s little point in dragging this argument out further.

So what can Serbia specifically get from an "ambiguous" ruling? Continued influence to virtual control in the north, continued influence in the enclaves, continued efforts to halt additional recognitions (though not the power to stop all), continued support from the Fabulous 5 who have not recognized as well as those states who refuse to recognize on the basis of no agreement with Serbia, no UN membership, and an indefinite presence of EULEX/UNMIK. We might even see the official recognition of the Serb Assembly in Mitrovica as the legitimate Serbian government. Effectively the status quo, which may very well be a victory for Serbia too. You however seem to think that somehow everything is going to fall into your corner if Serbia doesn't reclaim complete control over Kosovo. They don't need to. In fact, they probably don't even want to. Kosovo’s status can remain ambiguous because no one has the energy, the desire, nor the leverage to definitively upset deeply entrenched sides. This is what I’ve been saying from the beginning: no side is going to walk away with a decisive victory, but each side is going to interpret/spin it in a way that gives “victory” to them: Albanians claim victory because they’re not part of Serbia; Serbs claim victory because Pristina’s authority is checked at various levels. You seem to be arguing with ghosts when you direct your comments to me. It's not me who's been saying Serbia will reclaim Kosovo. I've been saying Kosovo is destined to look like Bosnia from Day One, and the dynamics of its sovereignty have yet to be finalized with internal partition looking more likely than ever. And you can't blame the Big Bad Russian veto on that.

I've been sticking to the point and saying the same thing repeatedly now. You're the one who apparently is having a hard time understanding me as well as trying to paint me as a nationalist. If you'd like to argue with a Serb nationalist, there's plenty on this site.

@ Olli
Article 59 of The Statute of the International Court of Justice doesn't apply in this case since Serbia only asked for legal advice so that there are no parties involved. This is exactly the problem I pointed out in my post and this is why it would have been better to sue individually and immediately each and every nation which recognized UDI.

I think all the commentators here have jumped the gun, Serb and Albanians alike.

IF the ICJ ruling is ambiguous nobody can claim, YET, that it's a victory for their side as the devil will be in the detail and nobody knows what that detail will be. The worst case scenario being that they give equal weight to both sides of the argument (which i doubt they will though) and each side claiming victory. In such a situation or anything similar to this, Kosovo will be left in limbo.

Assuming that Kosovo wins the argument and the ICJ rules that self determination comes before all else, i believe it still loses out territorially and economically. I don't know the population figures for bujanovac, presevo, etc, but an earlier commentator stated that only presevo has an albanian majority (feel free to correct me if i'm wrong) and they could then rightly claim to secession and join Kosovo. On the other hand northern Kosovo would delare secession and join Serbia.

This would be a heavy blow for Kosovo and the West as i believe it is their strategic aim to keep the north because of the Trepca mines - With 50% of US power stations powered by coal. hence their continued insistence of no division of Kosovo (and also from the Abanians as they know it's their only source of income). this could potentially lead to a clash again between both sides and i don't think anyone here would want that to happen again.

Also, unless the ICJ gives an UNAMBIGUOUS ruling in favour of self determination, Kosovo will still be in the position it is in today. The Albanian like to focus on big bad Russia but conveniently forget about China which has also stated that it won't recognise Kosovo, no doubt due to the unrest in Tibet. So that's two permanent members that will permanently block Kosovo.

Somebody argued the case that Russia and China would have to capitulate as they depend on the US. That's true, but the flip side is that the US has been reliant on Chinese, Arab and Russian capital to fund it's spending spree. If the Chinese economy was threatened with all out collapse (which i doubt the US would allow to happen), they could pull the plug, or as the Financial Times called it, use the nuclear option and sell it's US bond holdings. This would crush the US economy and with it end the world's financial system.

I don't think either will happen but the US isn't in such a position of strength as George Bush liked to portray was the case.

i.e. an ambiguous position means that Kosovo and Serbia go nowhere. That's not good for anyone.

BH_NYC: "To Kate: No one considered the possibility that the decision might be 'yes it was illegal but’..whatever. This is just you, speculating."

No, I was referring to the fact that this is being seen as political when it is in fact legal. A fact reflected by many of the comments, although there are some very interesting insights from people who obviously understand the system.

Joachim,

I understand your concern. But if you look back on the ICJ decisions on cases Yugoslavia vs. NATO, Bosnia vs. Yugoslavia and Croatia vs. Serbia I think it is wiser first to go after the Advisory Opinion. This provides us the door to the thinking of ICJ.

And then afterwards - in case the ICJ thinking is at all supportive for Serbia's claim - Serbia can individually sue countries that recognized Kosovo's UDI.

This is why I wanted to remind people of Article 59 of The Statute of the International Court of Justice. So that in the end, in case Serbia takes legal action against UDI and the countries that supported it, the decision of the UCJ does have binding force in this matter.

@miri
Your interpretation of the case is absolutely wrong! There's no plaintive and no defendant since Serbia only asked for an advisory opinion. ICJ only judges differents between nations recognized by the UN.

@Olli
I agree with you that it could be a good idea first to ask for an advisory opinion of the court and afterward, if ICJ ruling is in Serbia's favor to sue nations individually with more chances of success.
But two arguments against that:

1) Time is passing by and more recognitions of this fake state could happen, favoring the argument that now it would be too late to inverse things.

2) Tadic & Cie haven't had the guts to sue nations individually for not to jeopardize Serbia's road to EU. Do you really think they would have changed their minds three or four years later? I don't! Asking for this advisory opinion is a trick for to get the subject of territorial integrity out of the political arena, pretending that they do all they can to protect Serbia's sovereignty and hiding the fact that they would sell their mothers for EU integration.

Your wrong, ARusila, only a nation could sue another nation. Since Kosovo and Metohija is not recognized as a nation by the UN it couldn't sue Serbia.