Kosovo’s UDI was illegal. No doubt about it! It caused an extreme strain in the entire system the international law. The Kosovo problem had to be solved. It was clear to everybody that it could not remain a part of Serbia against the will of over 90% of its inhabitants. So a negotiated independence was the answer. But all the various Serbian governments said was: NO. Whatever carrots were offered to Serbia: removal of the visa regime, quicker integration in the EU, etc, the answer was still plain NO! So now all we have to live with the consequences of an illegal act. Nobody benefits from the outcome. Least of all Kosovo and Serbia.
"The Kosovo Albanians do not have the right to self-determination and, consequently, they do not have the right to proclaim a state" - This is really fun, it fits perfectly to the concept of equality among human beings...
"Just passing by" - no, I don't believe albanians will go to war to reclaim the territories of northern kosovo controlled by serbs. No, unless serbs won't let the territories of Southern Serbia inhabited by albanians (i.e. Presheve Valley) to get united to Kosovo, obviously!!
Marko no nationalist spin in your last post, agreed.
Your 3 main points are valid, although I'm no legal expert. However, if it is the realist approach that the courts will take, how would sueing courts of nation states that recognise Kosovo have any impact on the decision?
On that moral argument I agree with you that I don't think the court will empahsise this, although as I understand this will be the main argument Kosovo Albanians will use. Of course I fully expect the Serbian side to be ready for this with statistics of its own suggesting ethnic cleansing of Serbs (pre and post war), early 80's Kosovo Albanian nationalist protests and even the March Pogon - if the judges don't rule this 'line' inadmissable (in which case they would have to rule part of the Albanian moral case inadmissable also.
I agree with you that the government's approach to this case hasn't been what it should. As you know we in Serbia and Jugoslavija before that, have a long, long history of abusing Kosovo as an issue and being dishonest about our intentions. Promises to Kosovo Serbs nor Kosovo Albanians are / were not kept time and time again. It was the power of Kosovo as a political issue in Serbia that was the motivating factor for government policy, not the reality.
Truly I wonder whether most of our politicians have given up. You would probably say that this is a desciption of Tadic's position, but I'm not sure if this is not the 'Serbian' position - ie that any Serbian government would go through the motions / indulge with the nationalist rhetoric and then eventually proclaim that the division of Kosovo is a victory for Serbia. Perhaps in the case of a SRS / DSS victory we would have seen some troops on the move and an incident / skirmish or two (just to impress the patriotic lobby) and then withdrawal, perhaps with Serbia losing even the chance of division of Kosovo. In that scenario Serbian action might have resulted in new ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Serb majority areas. We know that Kosovo would be lost after that.
Our politicians can after all say that division is the likely outcome of Kosovo anyway, although defeat at the ICJ would be a blow to this 'compromise' position.
Good post, good arguments but
This is a no spin zone (fair use of Fox News slogan).
I will make my comments more clear
Firstly there are three basic approaches to law; moralist, legalist and realist. These legal definitions may not have a definition that most people are familiar with.
Also their can be any number of combinations of each. If someone disputes my simplified definitions, please add clarification.
1. the moralist does not care what the law may be, he has a moral view of what he views to be just and equitable
2. the Legalist says nothing is legal or ileagal unless their is a law for or against. He draws on Stare Decisis and Statute and nothing else. Much like a Sola Scriptura christian or a biblical scribe, it does not exist unless it is in the law.
3. moral or immoral legal or illegal the Realist says that nothing is illegal that is governed by a law that can not be enforced. in other words he believes no matter how crappy his actions, if you can't do anything about it; he is right to do it.
The courts universally have supported the legalist approach more than others, however there have been quite a few exceptions.
Namely this happens when there is a great (inter)national interest or the fear that justice and the court would fall into disrepute. These are the main categories for taking a moralist or Realist approach, and these almost always create precedent.
Before the ICJ the Serbs have a strictly legalist argument.
The argument that you provide for the Albanians is strictly a moral argument and it is trumped by the following legal facts.
1. An ethnic minority has no natural right to self determination and the Court does not want to set any kind of precedent with respect to this.
Neither the court,Serbia, Nor the Western powers want this to happen. Even Kosovo Separatists would not want the Serbian Minority to have this right.
2. The Repression of an ethnic minority by a dictator can not result in Race guilt; because the lousy Communists persecuted everyone, including minorities, does not impune Serbia's right to exist.
You can not have a moral argument based on a guilty race. To hyperbolize for the sake of rhetoric, race guilt was Hitler's approach to the Jews and this is not something that the courts would stomach.
This leaves one final approach, the realist and I fear that the West may invoke a realist aproach, specifically laches, along with a very peculiar moral argument claiming that Kosovo independence, (but not independence for Kosovo Serbs or anyone else ie Northern Ireland,the Curds, American Indians etc) is the primary interest of Justice. If this fails they will call the court a "debating society" and simply ignore the ruling.
This Is what will happen because the For a European Government of Serbia relies on the defense of Serbias soverignty by a non binding court. The Government is to busy raising campaign contributions and making pals of the west to hold themselves, or anyone else accountable, for the loss of Serbia's Sovereignty.
Sueing Individual Countries was not the only Legal recourse Serbia could have taken, but that would involve fortitude and Imagination.
1. First let me say that most of the ICJ judges are from countries that recognized Kosmet.I hate to say it but they might defend their governments illegal recognition. Second there has been massive pressure on Srbija not to as the ICJ for a ruling coming from the US and EU gangsters.
2. They have made it a point to remind Srbija that this is only somehow symbolic and will change nothing on the ground because “might makes right” and that is that. The bottom line is Albanians let Srbija nothing but time when they were unwilling to negotiate in good faith. It does not matter if every country but Srbija recognizes Kosovo-Metohija as an independent country. Srbija needs to give Kosmet away for it to in fact not be a Serbian province and ever Serb that passes for a leader these days knows they would be ran out of the country or worse should they give our land away.
And those who like to justify the UDI because of Milosevic should note that my very decent and peaceful Kosovan (Serb) friends were ethnically cleansed by Albanians long before Milosevic came on the scene.
These friends feel very hurt neighbours and betrayed by the treatment they received from their Albanian.
There is no moral high-ground to support the UDI. In fact the war was provoked by the mono-ethnic ambitions of the Albanians, and NATO has rewarded that multi-ethnic ambition quite inappropriately.
Milosevic and his nationalist politics was wrong - but so was the separatist racism of the Albanians in Kosovo.
I really do hope that this UDI fizzles soon - it is wrong and based on very dubious justifications.
Marko I can't say whether this argument will be used by the Albanian side or how important the judges will believe it is - that the Serbian government did not / has not sued individual states that have recognised. Does that prove Serbian recognition of 'Kosova'? I very much doubt it.
Besides, there are two other more important arguments the Albanian side will use. First concerning autonomy reduced by Milosevic regime, second alleged ethnic cleasning / brutality again by the Milosevic regime.
So, spin it any way you like but if Kosovo is lost in the eyes of ICJ, it will be the fault of Milosevic / SPS that brought us to this situation - not the current government (excluding SPS).
You continue to amaze me in wanting to pin the blame for anything and everything on Tadic and co, really. I say blame him and this government for their mistakes sure, but lets not get amnesia about who brought Serbia to this current situation in the first place.
First, you aren't resisting. if this is resistance...
Second, Albanians have been living there long before Serbs.
Alban
Serbs are resisting with peaceful means(ICJ etc) but that is something you never even heard off.
Yes! You have convinced yourselves that you where in Kosovo before the Serbs. But how come there is no proof of that? No old mosques or other findings that date back to your imaginary time in history? You come up with a lie and expect everyone to buy it. Plain and simple! You are trying to steal some one elses territory. International law is proof ot that.
Funny thing, the first case of the ICJ was UK vs. Albania, Corfu Channel, in 1947, for the incident of the sea-mines, but there are no documents on the web site. Albania lost that case. Shortly (according to communist historiography), two British destroyers ended up on mines in the Corfu channel, sued Albania (communist country at the period, heavily depending on Yugoslavia and Tito), claiming it had put those mines there. Albania claimed it had no knowledge of mines and didn't have that kind of technology at the time, and later when relations with Tito were interrupted, blamed it on Tito. Albania was fined to pay a lot of money to the UK, which it never paid. The UK, in exchange never gave Albania back the gold that King Zog had taken with him to the UK, after the invasion of Albania by Italy.
You steal someone elses land and then wonder why Serbs are resisting. "
First, you aren't resisting. if this is resistance...
Second, Albanians have been living there long before Serbs.
(Alban, 21 April 2009 23:36)
Alban, we have been over this before at least a million times. Please prove this claim. Please find me a scholar of Illyrian studies who has put his name to the claim the the Albanians are direct descendent of the Illyrians.
PS. Noel Malcolm is not an Illyrian specialist. He's a mug who wrote a couple of poorly researched books knowing he would sell a few hundred thousand copies to the Albanian diaspora. Have you read Wilke's book on the Illyrians?
The professor is absolutely correct in explaining the criteria and standards that support independence in particular and international law in general. Included also are the UN Charter and the Helsinki Act of 1975. Jeremic is absolutely brilliant in pushing for this matter to be heard in the ICJ because the greatest threat to Pristina's actions is the rule of international law. Once the court rules in Serbia's favor, the West will have to respect the ruling, even though the decision is not "technically" binding. Western civilization is based on the rule of law. Europe will certainly have to respect it. Pristina easily forgets that revoking recognition would be easy under the cover of the ICJ decision. Kosovo's "independence" will be effectively stillborn, new negotiations would ensue, and Jeremic and Tadic would deserve the status of national heroes.
""You steal someone elses land and then wonder why Serbs are resisting. "
First, you aren't resisting. if this is resistance...
Second, Albanians have been living there long before Serbs.
(Alban, 21 April 2009 23:36) "
Alban, first of all, resistance has several forms and levels - don´t fool yourself.
and secondly: stating that the Albanians lived in southern Serbia "long before the Serbs" is so stupid - there are no words for that.
only if you believe to be the descendant of the illyrians, you can write such a nonsense.
the sad thing about it is: the K-albanians as well as the Albanians in Albania do not have any connection to them at all, but you desperately need this selfdeclared myth in order to feel good about yourself.
that´s a sad fact, and the illyrians would turn themselves in their graves if they knew WHO claims to be their descendant.
actually there is only one word for your version of "albanian history" - illusion.
not only because there are so many facts proving that you are wrong - the mere fact that all you are arguing with is pure force and illegal conduct says it all.
Are you really surprised you don't have Serbias approval? According to international law you are taking something that doesn't belong to you. I live in Malmoe,Sweden. By 2047 it will have a muslim majority. Does this give them the right to carve out this piece of Sweden and proclaim it as their own state? Even if they are misstreated they don't have thst right? This is still Sweden and will always be. Just like Kosovo is Serbia and will always be. The sooner albos realize this the sooner we'll have peace. You steal someone elses land and then wonder why Serbs are resisting.
(MikeC, 21 April 2009 20:02)"
The BIG difference is that the muslim population in Malmö is not indigenous there but the Albanians are (in Kosovo).
When an expert tell you that Kosovo is a part of Serbia regardless of Res 1244 being signed as Yugoslavia then listen and stop with the nonsense.
I keep reading over and over how it was Yugoslavia who is entitled to Kosovo but since there in no more Yugoslavia it's all for grabs.
If this isn't enough to bring this stupid argument to an end then you are just too stubborn to debate with.
Serbia is a successor to Yugoslavia. Is this getting through?
When the British government tells you that Kosovo independence is legal then listen and stop the nonsense.1244 refers to Yugoslavia not the succesor of Yugoslavia,not Serbia and Montenegro and certainly not Serbia.Is this getting through?
Of course the Serb posters here are going to cling to this guy, but that doesn't make him right.
Nick
No, but it would make it right if he was speaking on the behalf of the albanians, right! By the way what is not right about international law? The entire world rest on these principle and you say it's not right!
Are you really surprised you don't have Serbias approval? According to international law you are taking something that doesn't belong to you. I live in Malmoe,Sweden. By 2047 it will have a muslim majority. Does this give them the right to carve out this piece of Sweden and proclaim it as their own state? Even if they are misstreated they don't have thst right? This is still Sweden and will always be. Just like Kosovo is Serbia and will always be. The sooner albos realize this the sooner we'll have peace. You steal someone elses land and then wonder why Serbs are resisting.
Experts these days come a dime a dozen. And opinions are like something that everybody has one. Apparently there are plenty of other experts of Intl Law that have different opinions from this one. It'll be up to the ICJ to give an opinion then what's what.
Clearly there is no article in Intl Law that regulates when and how a territory secedes from a country's jurisdiction, because a) an act of secession is typically an hostile act, and b) because circumstances/politics leading to it, are so specific from case to case that it would be impossible to regulate it in a law. There have been cases when UN has come up with resolutions supporting acts of secession after the fact, as in the case of anti-colonialism resolutions. There have been cases when territories of a state have agreed peacefully to separate (Czech/Slovak), but more often than not, bitter wars have been fought between a state and a territory wishing to secede (Algeria, Ex-Yugo, East Timor etc etc). Changes in international law rarely come in the shape of a multilateral treaty that is immediately ratified, but instead occur in not-so-tidy ways that may recognize a right before a treaty ever goes into effect. And in every case is hard to tell where Intl Law ends and where Intl Politics begin. Therefore using any present treaties/resolutions, to regulate any future cases of secession, is simply impossible. However it is generally recognized that the right of secession exists when “a people is blocked from the meaningful exercise of self-determination internally.”
As far as recognition of a state by another, every act of recognition is legal, because every state is sovereign in extending or not a recognition to another state. It is only logical then, that it is also entitled to simultaneously withdraw recognition from a state and extend it to the two separated parts. And this raises a very interesting point: If Serbia maintains diplomatic relations with the states that have recognized Kosova, is it not also accepting the fact that is being recognized without Kosova by these states? Because if Serbia did not accept this reality - of being recognized as separate from Kosova - it would have not maintained diplomatic relations with those states that recognize Kosova as an independent state.
"UK expert: Kosovo independence is illegal act!
UK Gonverment; Kosovo is Independent
(Tex Willer, 21 April 2009 12:17) "
Your comment might have some relevance if the venue was the ICTY. It isn't.
'Berkeley' said (#8):
> That are violations against international law, in particular, human rights which outranks every other law.
If that was the case AND protagonists wore 'black & white' hats, issue would be cut & dried. Is not the case however.
Principles of territorial integrity & sovereignty have historically taken precedence over those of human rights. And courts, in particular this court, have good reason to maintain their conservatism - especially in light of the foreseeable consequences should they give a green light to secessionists all over the place.
'Berkeley' also said:
> Wilde doesn't mention this with any word. Why? I think everybody can answer this question by himself/herself.
Wilde actually does have substantial credentials in the field of 'human-rights' law (see his 'bio' below).
Which makes his interpretation that 'territorial integrity' overrides this all the more credible.
"and how are you to say that just his opinon ,uk suppprt kosovo and allways will
thanks happy easter to all.
(steve, 21 April 2009 12:58) "
Adding to 'kate's comment (#19): & the UK gov't would change it's mind on this issue in a heartbeat if it was in it's interest to do so. UK (& the rest of the G7) at one stage recognised 'Taiwan'. No longer the case.
'pss' said (#14):
> Reading is bio, one learns that the word "expert" is given for his Serbian stance on the issue. The UK is thrown in to designate emphasis.
Was predictable that Wilde's credibility would be challenged on this issue as 'sudzuk' put it so colourfully above (#12).
'Serbian stance'? Think you will find that his 'stance' has more to do concepts of international law rather than any particular side as witness his 'stance' on the US invasion of Iraq.
Here's a part of his bio: http://usiraq.procon.org/viewsource.asp?ID=3818
Judge for yourselves.
"ICJ is useless, Serbia has said that they will not recognize even if they lose the ICJ and Kosova /US /NATO /Others have said that they will ignore it too
(Alban, 21 April 2009 14:51) "
Will see how 'useless' an ICJ ruling is if & when it comes down in favour of 'territorial integrity' & the reversals in recognitions start.
'ben' said (#21):
> Professor Richard Caplan form the University of Oxford thinks exactly the contrary. As Prof Caplan you can find many others that think the independence is legitimate.
Pity his field of expertise is 'international relations' & not 'international law'. And may well find others, just as can still 'find experts' who deny global warming. Question is, where do they get their funding - ie: Caplan & NATO.
'ben' also said:
> The bottom line is that the modern thought in international law is that the collective human rights supersede the sovereignty concept.
Was certainly a trend assigning more importance to the former in relation to the latter lately, but the idea of the former superceding the latter (especially 'post bush') is speculative on your part. See the reply to 'Berkeley' above.
But issue is by no means certain, which is where the ICJ comes in. And quite properly so.
As for Jeremic, he's a politician. May be the case that he thinks that ICJ will rule in favour of territorial integrity & wants to set the stage for a 'heroic victory'. Who knows.
"We'll ask Mr. "expert" when the recognitions reaches over half of UN members.
(miri, 21 April 2009 14:53) "
Thought Thaci & his US sponsors said this would happen by November last year? Have been averaging one a month since then. Will be interesting to see what the peak will be as the US 'scrapes the barrel clean'. Will also be interesting to see how many reversals there'll be if ICJ rules against the UDI.
'Attorney' said (#23):
> If Mr. Wilde was hired by Kosovo gov. to present the case at ICJ, he will say the opposite.
Think he speaks from conviction rather than self-interest given his 'bio'. But will see just how right (or wrong) he is when ICJ brings down it's ruling.
"kate, this was by far one of your worst comments. The govt of UK did recognize Kosovo on behalf of UK and the people--hence the word democracy.
It is impossible to have a popular vote on every issue.
You as a UK citizen (?) may not support your countries decision but apparently you are in a minority, otherwise those making the decision would be replaced.
(pss, 21 April 2009 16:13) "
And I suppose the people of the UK supported the war in Iraq too? Reality is that the negative impact from one particular issue is usually not enough to throw a government out of power. But if there are enough issues..
'Nelli_Canada' said (#29):
> Yesterday's big blow from Saudi Arabia has closed the chapter once and for all.
You & a couple of others seem to think that individual recognitions have some particular importance. They don't - as recognitions can be (& have been) reversed.
> Does it matter what Professor Wilde is saying?.
If his arguments are valid, then yes.
Individuals here can freely dismiss an advisory opinion by the ICJ as 'non-binding', but ruling (either for or against) will certainly have an affect on both the number & pace of recognitions.
Mospyt:
Whether or not the 'theory' of the 'remedial right to self-determination' can be applied in this case is a moot point as there is no precedent. Are also the issues of 'indigeneous peoples' & ex-colonies as opposed to contiguous areas of a pre-existing state.
Be that as it may, ICJ also has to take into account the likely repercussions of it's rulings & as mentioned above, courts are by their nature - conservative.
Nobody has provided a legal argument against the professor's opinion.
I am Serbian and my bias is known to all the regular posters. My fear is that there is an argument against the professors argument.
Namely, because the Government of Serbia slept on its rights with respect to the protection of its sovereignty it may have lost some rights to it
What the result of this may be is a legal decision (which I expect the court will be biased against Serbia) where the deceleration of independence is illegal, but the recognitions may be validated because of Tadic et al's failure to demand remedy from the countries that have recognized Kosovo.
As brutally unfair as this may be, this is a likely loophole that the west relies on.
They may argue that Serbia's failure to act was construed by the countries that recognized Kosovo as consenting to the recognitions.
Further to this horror, the fact that this is before a non binding court speaks to the implied consent of the DS EU lackeys.
This entire court process is a farce. Even if we get the result we want, and the court rules completely in our favour we will have a nonbinding judgment in support of 1244 which has not been enforced, in any manner, by the Security counsel or Serbia.
A vote for the DS was a vote for Kosovo's UDI. All of the "lunatic nationalists" (my self included) who warned against this may have guessed at the for a European Serbia betrayal of their nation and heritage.
The UK public could care less what happens in Kosovo. For this reason, the UK government can do as they please without any input from their citizens. So many folks on here overestimate the importance of Serbia, Kosovo, and Albania in the big scheme of things. Most folks in the US don't even know where these countries are located.
The case here is not whether international law has been broken, its very obvious that it has. The question is whether the ICJ see this as a polictical issue or one of legality! If it deems it polictical then the Albanians will mave their independent Kosovo!
Tex W- so what if the goverment has recognised Kosovo, how many times have they broke international law, Labour is a flagging undemocratic party. What Labour has done since coming to power in the UK is blindly followed the USA regardless of international law. I bet Mr G Brown will oppose Scottish independence if they vote in favour of it.
As for international forces leaving Kosovo i pretty much doubt that will happen anytime soon.
The problem with the UK goverment it has double standards, it calls the IRA terrorists but gets into bed with former KLA members.
If the Albanians want there own state move back to Albania.
I guess I have said it many times over, but I will do it again:
I don't care about what is legal, illegal, according to the law, or contrary to the law. What I *do* care about is if something is right, fair and just.
Most of the time, laws are a way for codifying what is right, fair, and just, but on many occasions they are simply what the most powerful people/countries agreed was good for them.
--
Prof. Wilde isn't saying anything most of us didn't know already. But I wonder whether it's enough to change the course of events. There's international law which we SHOULD follow, and there's Realpolitik which we ACTUALLY follow. The US, for good or ill, does what it does "because we can". It's just been officialy disclosed the previous regime tortured people. But no one's facing any international tribunal. In regards to Kosovo, I can't think that my government was unaware they were breaking the law in supporting this act of international emminent domain, and I can't think we were not planning on using Kosovo to our advantage, like any Great Power.
The point of the article is that Kosovo's illegality has nothing to do with a violation of Serbian historical entitlement as it does with failing to live up to the basic definitions of sovereignty:
1. No recognition from the host country
2. No effort at self-sustainability
3. No monopoly on capital or coercion
4. No monopoly on internal security
5. No monopoly on law and jurisprudence
6. No independence of foreign control
By these criteria, Kosovo is, at best, a protectorate. And I suspect that's what an ICJ ruling is going to ultimately recommend. I really can't see Kosovo being reabsorbed into Serbia unless a mass exodus of Albanians ensues. I also can't see Kosovo ever being a legitimate state since the above conditions will not be rectified anytime soon, but many states will refuse to recognize it's sovereignty and allow it access to international institutions.
The US made a mess of this whole situation by failing to bring both sides together immediately after Milosevic's overthrow. Djindjic and Rugova could have made some form of compromise. But instead Washington's Realpolitik got the best of it, and thought it could carve out a state. The trouble here is that we were laying down the tracks without first seeing where the tracks would lead us.
Serbs don't want to be ruled by Albanians and vice verca. The conlusion: Kosovo will be partitioned along ethinc lines. YOU CAN'T HAVE THE CAKE AND EAT IT TOO! The sooner Serbs and Albanians can decide on how to carve up Kosovo the sooner we'll have peace. I can't believe people won't realize that there will be no lasting peace if only one party gets it all.
Nelli_Canada
Will Albanians go to war to reclaim Northern Kosovo and other areas controlled by the Serbs?
The bottom line is that the modern thought in international law is that the collective human rights supersede the sovereignty concept.
(ben, 21 April 2009 14:51)
you might be interested that a french historian did some research and discovered that in the past only the fascist states of germany and italy used "human rights" as a pretext to start a war. and if the nato had cared about human rights abuses why were they giving so much arms to turkey for their war against their kurdish minority? why is it that the biggest recepients of the us military aid are regularly cited by human right organisations as worst offenders?
the bottom line is that you are believing this nonsense just because you hope to profit from it.
You as a UK citizen (?) may not support your countries decision but apparently you are in a minority, otherwise those making the decision would be replaced.
(pss, 21 April 2009 16:13)
as a citizen of a "democratic" country i can asure you that our politicians don't do what we want and the more marginal the issue the better chance they have to get away with it. it is good for kosovo that most citizens of the countries that recognised it don't care about it.
What Professor Walde has done very succinctly is to summarise the Serbian point of view on the issue of Kosova's independence. This is not new. However, the Albanian side at the ICJ will argue that the Albanians had the right of remedial self-determination which is recognised in international law as a legitimate line of action when none of the conditions lucidly argued by Professor Wilde apply. The ICJ will have to decide which of the two lines of argument is the right one. So, let's wait and see and as many people have been pointing out here the ICJ opinion is only advisory!!
@ Attorney
You're right:everything has it's price, provided the merchandise is for sale.
It may not be expensive at all, especially if you are paying with stolen goods (yes, that's right, I am referring to that piece of Serbian soil given away for Bondsteel).
However, certain values cannot be acquired at all, since they are not for sale.
Now I am referring to moral values that some people still possess. It is a gift that some have, and the others know about it only as a bunch of meaningless words.
Amer,
you are 100% correct. It says significant, not majority. It just takes 5 nations to become significant, but also 193 might not be enough. If the right 5 nations are not part of that group of nations it doesn't reallt matter are the UN level.
The state-organized crimes of Serbia and attempts of ethnic cleansing (as said in the Hague verdict against Sainovic and Co) make all what he says irrelevant.
Let us wait the court's decision. All these arguments were well known. Most of international experts believe they will be not enough against Kosovo arguments.
If you think Kosovo has no argument, wait and see (and it goes far beyond only "serb crimes").
kate,
this was by far one of your worst comments. The govt of UK did recognize Kosovo on behalf of UK and the people--hence the word democracy.
It is impossible to have a popular vote on every issue.
You as a UK citizen (?) may not support your countries decision but apparently you are in a minority, otherwise those making the decision would be replaced.
“Recognitions can have a constitutive role, but only if we’re talking about a significant number of states. ..."
Notice that he doesn't even say "a majority of the members of the UN." Just a "significant number." Which Kosova/Kosovo seems to be achieving, one recognition at a time.
I am eager now to see the comments of our usual "Kosovan Patriots"...let me guess: "Ralph Wilde is a frankenstein creature created by the evil serbs during the milosevic period, and his diploma are forged..etc".
(sudzuk, 21 April 2009 13:24)
Sudzuk:
Every person or experts of universities has the right to express their thoughts. ow this news sure it's better for you guys as for K-albanians. But in other news like Saudi Arabia recognized Kosovo as a independent country, you guys were writing comments as; terrorists recognize terrorists, or SA is the biggest US allie or what so ever.
But if you read the reallity, no one cares what a expert says, the most important that the country of that expert has allready recognized Kosovo for long time ago, even if he liked it or not.
I never managed to understand why do you Serbs get overexcited about normal things????
I do understand that there is selective reporting in Serbia about experts opinion but you should be aware that is just selective reporting not the absolute truth.
Professor Richard Caplan form the University of Oxford thinks exactly the contrary. As Prof Caplan you can find many others that think the independence is legitimate.
The bottom line is that the modern thought in international law is that the collective human rights supersede the sovereignty concept. This is the reason why many hegemonic and antidemocratic states see Kosova as dangerous precedent. Deangerous of course for them, for their hegemonic ideas.
After all wasn't your hero Jeremic that said just 2 days ago that ICJ will be the process of the century since the right of self-determination and the concept of sovereignty will be judged.
Doesn’t sound to you as at least 50-50 % of chances??? ;) why don't you get bit more sober as Jeremic is getting???
If Mr. Wilde was hired by Kosovo gov. to present the case at ICJ, he will say the opposite. The bottom line is that you hire any expert and as long as you pay good money he/she will say anything in your favour.
Those who believed the West intervened in Kosovo for humanitarian reasons are just deluded.It had nothing to do with the well-being of the Albanians and everything to do with the encompassing of the Balkans within the Western clubs and controlling the caucasus energy routes.
Hence the building of Bondsteel-the biggest US military base built since Vietnam- and also the building of the new CIA-Embassy building in Skopjie at a cost of $350 million.
As far as Kosovo is concerned
it is still an impoverished US protectorate with nearly 50% unemployment,rampat corruption and living off EU charity.The EU taxpayers are the real losers and they'll carry on the burden for many years to come.
he is right as far as the law is concerned however all the serbian action and war murder rape and plunder prior independance shows a bigger picture as to how and why.... thats the bigger picture and thats how the icj will look at it
Steve: "and how are you to say that just his opinon ,uk suppprt kosovo and allways will"
Could we please be clear about one thing. The UK as a nation does not support Kosovo independence. It is the UK government which has supported this move.
The people and their representatives in parliament were never asked. Just as in 1999 there was no vote and no democracy.
Mind you, the media was so brazen in its one-sided portrayal of events that people are generally very ill-informed on the matter, or the fact that it will have a major knock on effect in Europe and beyond.
Looks to me like a bone thrown to radicals, after yesterday blow from Saudis. Serbia should hire this man, to some it looks like he is really an "expert". Either way let Serbia keep this UK expert while Kosova will keep UK government.
Something that this "expert" is missing is that the statement: "The Kosovo Albanians do not have the right to self-determination and, consequently, they do not have the right to proclaim a state,” to Serbian government machine has been equivalet to "The Kosovo Albanians do not have the right to live and breath".
We'll ask Mr. "expert" when the recognitions reaches over half of UN members.
The only para-military in Croatia were croat para-military. The only legal army in Yugoslavia was JNA. JNA fought in Vukovar.
Question yourself now who they fought? Para-military croats!
Now tell me. Who broke the law?
Atrocities of course happened on both sides but from a legal perspective JNA was the only legal military formation in Yugoslavia and according to the Yugoslav constitution no republic (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia) had the right to secsession unless Yugoslavia agreed to it.
"Does anybody know the TRUE facts about Serbia's options if it won the case at the ICJ, i.e. it simply ruled that Kosovo's secession was illegal, period."
It would be almost as big of a victory as the Six Point plan!
ICJ is useless, Serbia has said that they will not recognize even if they lose the ICJ and Kosova /US /NATO /Others have said that they will ignore it too
Good analysis!! Therefore Serbia is in the better position to win the ICJ ruling.. And victory of Serbia in the ICJ would mean that the countries who recognized Kosovo will have to re-think their position and allow the resumption of status negotiation.
Takenote East Timor gained absolute independence because Indonesia allowed it. And in case of Kosovo it did not gained permission from Serbia to secede.
Reading is bio, one learns that the word "expert" is given for his Serbian stance on the issue. The UK is thrown in to designate emphasis.
Notice nowhere does it say that any of the countries involved sought his input for their presentation.
He said it all...I am eager now to see the comments of our usual "Kosovan Patriots"...let me guess: "Ralph Wilde is a frankenstein creature created by the evil serbs during the milosevic period, and his diploma are forged..etc".
Radoslav: "Does anybody know the TRUE facts about Serbia's options if it won the case at the ICJ, i.e. it simply ruled that Kosovo's secession was illegal, period."
That would surely give them grounds to take action against every nation that has illegally recognised the UDI.
When an expert tell you that Kosovo is a part of Serbia regardless of Res 1244 being signed as Yugoslavia then listen and stop with the nonsense.
I keep reading over and over how it was Yugoslavia who is entitled to Kosovo but since there in no more Yugoslavia it's all for grabs.
If this isn't enough to bring this stupid argument to an end then you are just too stubborn to debate with.
Serbia is a successor to Yugoslavia. Is this getting through?
According to what this man says, anyone violating international law will find themselves obliged to Serbia in some way. Keep it up and Serbia can clean up in the end.
Professor Ralph Wilde did not say anything that we already did not know.
However, it is good to know that there are some people who actually do care
for international law.
“Under international law, a new state can be formed out of a part of the territory of an existing state, and its formation and recognition by third states will be legal provided everything is taking place with the approval of the parent state,” Wilde said.
And he is absolutely right. The thing is that Kosovo never had a status of Republic within former Yugoslavia nor within Serbia. Had Kosovo had that kind of status, secession would be much easier with fewer obstacles and would have had more legal grounds for such act. That is why the Albanians in Kosovo struggled so hardly for so long to gain that kind of status within Yugoslavia. Their aspirations are well known since decades. The so called oppression by Serbian regime was well planned and was used as an excuse.
But what did we get in the end? Of course we got UNSC resolution 1244 which guarantees that Kosovo is a part of Serbia, or in other words Kosovo is Serbian province.
Now, since Serbia does not agree on Kosovo’s secession and with the existence of resolution 1244 there is a huge obstacle for Kosovo to ever become and function as normal state.
The reality is that, as this professor confirms, Kosovo is just a protectorate.
The another reality is that no matter how many states recognise Kosovo as independent country, it will still be part of Serbia as long as Serbia does not change its stand on Kosovo issue. In order to stick to the international law and provide all the legal bases for secession there must be a new resolution which will replace the existing one. Since there is no other resolution but just 1244 there are no legal basis and secession is of course illegal.
Serbia has all possible rights to stick to 1244 resolution and after hundreds of years may
claim its authority in the province of Kosovo and Metohija.
So, Albanians should be well aware that nothing can change their week position as long as Serbia holds a key in its hands. Please, when you succeed to abolish UNSC resolution 1244 and replace by new one then we can congratulate you “newborn” but until that happen just accept that you still live in Serbia and that Thachi is nothing more but provincial political fichfiric (as we like to say in Serbia). Most probably you will stay to live in Serbia forever coz I don’t believe that anyone in Serbia has guts to let Kosovo go and there will always be obstacle in the UN in a form of veto. Luckily, Serbia has most of the UN veto holders on its side.
Absolutely right on all counts. This is the international law at its most obvious, although I am sure that the pro-independence nations will come up with some totally shameless excuses for not having respected Serbia's territorial integrity.
The ICJ is not some sort of committee where you can agree that something is illegal but was justified in some way.
This is a hearing about the law, and the legal position is exactly how this analyst has set it out.
Of course the professor is right. Even an ant knows he's right. However, the Kosovo Albanian supporters will bend over backwards to spin a tale of lies pretending that this is a unique case, as if that faulty logic could actually prevail on the minds of intelligent people, particularly since their unique case argument is based on a bunch of lies too. At any rate, truth is no guarantee that Serbia will be able to prevail in an international tribunal. Odd to say that, isn't it? However, Kosovo is a fake state built on lies and for its leadership, lies are truth. As George on Sienfeld once said, it's not a lie if you believe it's the truth.
If the points made in the article are correct then it looks like this is a race against time. The Albanians will want all foreign forces out, i.e. UNMIK, and will try to gain a UN seat before the ICJ reaches a decision. If it doesn't manage to do this, and if what is stated in the article is correct, then Kosovo will become similar to Northern Cyprus. It'll claim to be independent, but as far as the UN is concerned it'll still remain, technically, a part of Serbia.
If the situation does play out this way what'll happen next? Will Serbia demand control over it's territory, will it legally be able to demand this as UNMIK is in charge (and I assume would require another UNSC resolution and would the US allow this), and even if it did what would happen if the Albanians said no to this? Would the US and EU force them to the negotiating table or would they just sit tight and say it's an advisory opinion only?
Does anybody know the TRUE facts about Serbia's options if it won the case at the ICJ, i.e. it simply ruled that Kosovo's secession was illegal, period.
Does everyone believe that Serbia will take the fight at the ICJ to the finish? With it wanting to gain entry to the EU, the EU might apply so much pressure that Serbia buckles and grants Kosovo independence directly or indirectly.
“Under international law, a new state can be formed out of a part of the territory of an existing state, and its formation and recognition by third states will be legal provided everything is taking place with the approval of the parent state,” Wilde said.
That are the same declaimings when Yugoslavia was denying Slovenia and Croatia due to "technical" questions the right for secession. Moreover, professor Wilde disregards the fact that this rule works only when you regard every other international rule. To declaim (para-)military on the other hand, were doing their best to establish new facts on the ground, in particular, with ethnic cleansing in Croatia and later on in Kosovo. That are violations against international law, in particular, human rights which outranks every other law. Wilde doesn't mention this with any word. Why? I think everybody can answer this question by himself/herself.
But more interesting is the question: What is now new in these "news"? There are people who regard the independence as legal, and some doesn't. That is not new, but "strangely" it is embraced in the Serbian media so enthusiastically. Is it possible that some "news" are needed to divert from recent recognitions, from reality?
as if this is something new to an educated person.
as far as I am concerned, some dremaers may continue to believe in "statehood" - in the meantime Serbia is gathering as much sovereign states as possible in support of serbian sovereignty.
and when the time has come, Serbia will be well prepared.
some are willing bootlickers for NATO, the Serbs however won´t die in the far east for foreign interests.
“States that recognize Kosovo as independent are inevitably violating their obligation to respect Serbia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,”
I have said it all along: not until Serbia recognizes Kosovo independence will it be independent. That explains the amount of pressure put on Serbia to accept this illegal act. Everyone knows that the longer Serbia hangs on to Kosovo the greater the embarassment to albanians and the those countries that recognized the occupation of Serbian territory.
He is correct.
Whether you like it or not, he is correct and the declartion by Kosovo was illegal and invalid.
Kosovo, as of now, is still legally part of Serbia.
I wonder if other countries and the ICJ will also admit this.
He is correct.
Whether you like it or not, he is correct and the declartion by Kosovo was illegal and invalid.
Kosovo, as of now, is still legally part of Serbia.
I wonder if other countries and the ICJ will also admit this.
“States that recognize Kosovo as independent are inevitably violating their obligation to respect Serbia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,”
I have said it all along: not until Serbia recognizes Kosovo independence will it be independent. That explains the amount of pressure put on Serbia to accept this illegal act. Everyone knows that the longer Serbia hangs on to Kosovo the greater the embarassment to albanians and the those countries that recognized the occupation of Serbian territory.
Of course the professor is right. Even an ant knows he's right. However, the Kosovo Albanian supporters will bend over backwards to spin a tale of lies pretending that this is a unique case, as if that faulty logic could actually prevail on the minds of intelligent people, particularly since their unique case argument is based on a bunch of lies too. At any rate, truth is no guarantee that Serbia will be able to prevail in an international tribunal. Odd to say that, isn't it? However, Kosovo is a fake state built on lies and for its leadership, lies are truth. As George on Sienfeld once said, it's not a lie if you believe it's the truth.
Professor Ralph Wilde did not say anything that we already did not know.
However, it is good to know that there are some people who actually do care
for international law.
“Under international law, a new state can be formed out of a part of the territory of an existing state, and its formation and recognition by third states will be legal provided everything is taking place with the approval of the parent state,” Wilde said.
And he is absolutely right. The thing is that Kosovo never had a status of Republic within former Yugoslavia nor within Serbia. Had Kosovo had that kind of status, secession would be much easier with fewer obstacles and would have had more legal grounds for such act. That is why the Albanians in Kosovo struggled so hardly for so long to gain that kind of status within Yugoslavia. Their aspirations are well known since decades. The so called oppression by Serbian regime was well planned and was used as an excuse.
But what did we get in the end? Of course we got UNSC resolution 1244 which guarantees that Kosovo is a part of Serbia, or in other words Kosovo is Serbian province.
Now, since Serbia does not agree on Kosovo’s secession and with the existence of resolution 1244 there is a huge obstacle for Kosovo to ever become and function as normal state.
The reality is that, as this professor confirms, Kosovo is just a protectorate.
The another reality is that no matter how many states recognise Kosovo as independent country, it will still be part of Serbia as long as Serbia does not change its stand on Kosovo issue. In order to stick to the international law and provide all the legal bases for secession there must be a new resolution which will replace the existing one. Since there is no other resolution but just 1244 there are no legal basis and secession is of course illegal.
Serbia has all possible rights to stick to 1244 resolution and after hundreds of years may
claim its authority in the province of Kosovo and Metohija.
So, Albanians should be well aware that nothing can change their week position as long as Serbia holds a key in its hands. Please, when you succeed to abolish UNSC resolution 1244 and replace by new one then we can congratulate you “newborn” but until that happen just accept that you still live in Serbia and that Thachi is nothing more but provincial political fichfiric (as we like to say in Serbia). Most probably you will stay to live in Serbia forever coz I don’t believe that anyone in Serbia has guts to let Kosovo go and there will always be obstacle in the UN in a form of veto. Luckily, Serbia has most of the UN veto holders on its side.
When an expert tell you that Kosovo is a part of Serbia regardless of Res 1244 being signed as Yugoslavia then listen and stop with the nonsense.
I keep reading over and over how it was Yugoslavia who is entitled to Kosovo but since there in no more Yugoslavia it's all for grabs.
If this isn't enough to bring this stupid argument to an end then you are just too stubborn to debate with.
Serbia is a successor to Yugoslavia. Is this getting through?
According to what this man says, anyone violating international law will find themselves obliged to Serbia in some way. Keep it up and Serbia can clean up in the end.
Absolutely right on all counts. This is the international law at its most obvious, although I am sure that the pro-independence nations will come up with some totally shameless excuses for not having respected Serbia's territorial integrity.
The ICJ is not some sort of committee where you can agree that something is illegal but was justified in some way.
This is a hearing about the law, and the legal position is exactly how this analyst has set it out.
as if this is something new to an educated person.
as far as I am concerned, some dremaers may continue to believe in "statehood" - in the meantime Serbia is gathering as much sovereign states as possible in support of serbian sovereignty.
and when the time has come, Serbia will be well prepared.
some are willing bootlickers for NATO, the Serbs however won´t die in the far east for foreign interests.
Those who believed the West intervened in Kosovo for humanitarian reasons are just deluded.It had nothing to do with the well-being of the Albanians and everything to do with the encompassing of the Balkans within the Western clubs and controlling the caucasus energy routes.
Hence the building of Bondsteel-the biggest US military base built since Vietnam- and also the building of the new CIA-Embassy building in Skopjie at a cost of $350 million.
As far as Kosovo is concerned
it is still an impoverished US protectorate with nearly 50% unemployment,rampat corruption and living off EU charity.The EU taxpayers are the real losers and they'll carry on the burden for many years to come.
He said it all...I am eager now to see the comments of our usual "Kosovan Patriots"...let me guess: "Ralph Wilde is a frankenstein creature created by the evil serbs during the milosevic period, and his diploma are forged..etc".
If the points made in the article are correct then it looks like this is a race against time. The Albanians will want all foreign forces out, i.e. UNMIK, and will try to gain a UN seat before the ICJ reaches a decision. If it doesn't manage to do this, and if what is stated in the article is correct, then Kosovo will become similar to Northern Cyprus. It'll claim to be independent, but as far as the UN is concerned it'll still remain, technically, a part of Serbia.
If the situation does play out this way what'll happen next? Will Serbia demand control over it's territory, will it legally be able to demand this as UNMIK is in charge (and I assume would require another UNSC resolution and would the US allow this), and even if it did what would happen if the Albanians said no to this? Would the US and EU force them to the negotiating table or would they just sit tight and say it's an advisory opinion only?
Does anybody know the TRUE facts about Serbia's options if it won the case at the ICJ, i.e. it simply ruled that Kosovo's secession was illegal, period.
Does everyone believe that Serbia will take the fight at the ICJ to the finish? With it wanting to gain entry to the EU, the EU might apply so much pressure that Serbia buckles and grants Kosovo independence directly or indirectly.
Steve: "and how are you to say that just his opinon ,uk suppprt kosovo and allways will"
Could we please be clear about one thing. The UK as a nation does not support Kosovo independence. It is the UK government which has supported this move.
The people and their representatives in parliament were never asked. Just as in 1999 there was no vote and no democracy.
Mind you, the media was so brazen in its one-sided portrayal of events that people are generally very ill-informed on the matter, or the fact that it will have a major knock on effect in Europe and beyond.
The only para-military in Croatia were croat para-military. The only legal army in Yugoslavia was JNA. JNA fought in Vukovar.
Question yourself now who they fought? Para-military croats!
Now tell me. Who broke the law?
Atrocities of course happened on both sides but from a legal perspective JNA was the only legal military formation in Yugoslavia and according to the Yugoslav constitution no republic (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia) had the right to secsession unless Yugoslavia agreed to it.
Radoslav: "Does anybody know the TRUE facts about Serbia's options if it won the case at the ICJ, i.e. it simply ruled that Kosovo's secession was illegal, period."
That would surely give them grounds to take action against every nation that has illegally recognised the UDI.
Good analysis!! Therefore Serbia is in the better position to win the ICJ ruling.. And victory of Serbia in the ICJ would mean that the countries who recognized Kosovo will have to re-think their position and allow the resumption of status negotiation.
Takenote East Timor gained absolute independence because Indonesia allowed it. And in case of Kosovo it did not gained permission from Serbia to secede.
“Under international law, a new state can be formed out of a part of the territory of an existing state, and its formation and recognition by third states will be legal provided everything is taking place with the approval of the parent state,” Wilde said.
That are the same declaimings when Yugoslavia was denying Slovenia and Croatia due to "technical" questions the right for secession. Moreover, professor Wilde disregards the fact that this rule works only when you regard every other international rule. To declaim (para-)military on the other hand, were doing their best to establish new facts on the ground, in particular, with ethnic cleansing in Croatia and later on in Kosovo. That are violations against international law, in particular, human rights which outranks every other law. Wilde doesn't mention this with any word. Why? I think everybody can answer this question by himself/herself.
But more interesting is the question: What is now new in these "news"? There are people who regard the independence as legal, and some doesn't. That is not new, but "strangely" it is embraced in the Serbian media so enthusiastically. Is it possible that some "news" are needed to divert from recent recognitions, from reality?
Prof. Wilde isn't saying anything most of us didn't know already. But I wonder whether it's enough to change the course of events. There's international law which we SHOULD follow, and there's Realpolitik which we ACTUALLY follow. The US, for good or ill, does what it does "because we can". It's just been officialy disclosed the previous regime tortured people. But no one's facing any international tribunal. In regards to Kosovo, I can't think that my government was unaware they were breaking the law in supporting this act of international emminent domain, and I can't think we were not planning on using Kosovo to our advantage, like any Great Power.
The point of the article is that Kosovo's illegality has nothing to do with a violation of Serbian historical entitlement as it does with failing to live up to the basic definitions of sovereignty:
1. No recognition from the host country
2. No effort at self-sustainability
3. No monopoly on capital or coercion
4. No monopoly on internal security
5. No monopoly on law and jurisprudence
6. No independence of foreign control
By these criteria, Kosovo is, at best, a protectorate. And I suspect that's what an ICJ ruling is going to ultimately recommend. I really can't see Kosovo being reabsorbed into Serbia unless a mass exodus of Albanians ensues. I also can't see Kosovo ever being a legitimate state since the above conditions will not be rectified anytime soon, but many states will refuse to recognize it's sovereignty and allow it access to international institutions.
The US made a mess of this whole situation by failing to bring both sides together immediately after Milosevic's overthrow. Djindjic and Rugova could have made some form of compromise. But instead Washington's Realpolitik got the best of it, and thought it could carve out a state. The trouble here is that we were laying down the tracks without first seeing where the tracks would lead us.
@ Attorney
You're right:everything has it's price, provided the merchandise is for sale.
It may not be expensive at all, especially if you are paying with stolen goods (yes, that's right, I am referring to that piece of Serbian soil given away for Bondsteel).
However, certain values cannot be acquired at all, since they are not for sale.
Now I am referring to moral values that some people still possess. It is a gift that some have, and the others know about it only as a bunch of meaningless words.
The bottom line is that the modern thought in international law is that the collective human rights supersede the sovereignty concept.
(ben, 21 April 2009 14:51)
you might be interested that a french historian did some research and discovered that in the past only the fascist states of germany and italy used "human rights" as a pretext to start a war. and if the nato had cared about human rights abuses why were they giving so much arms to turkey for their war against their kurdish minority? why is it that the biggest recepients of the us military aid are regularly cited by human right organisations as worst offenders?
the bottom line is that you are believing this nonsense just because you hope to profit from it.
You as a UK citizen (?) may not support your countries decision but apparently you are in a minority, otherwise those making the decision would be replaced.
(pss, 21 April 2009 16:13)
as a citizen of a "democratic" country i can asure you that our politicians don't do what we want and the more marginal the issue the better chance they have to get away with it. it is good for kosovo that most citizens of the countries that recognised it don't care about it.
Serbs don't want to be ruled by Albanians and vice verca. The conlusion: Kosovo will be partitioned along ethinc lines. YOU CAN'T HAVE THE CAKE AND EAT IT TOO! The sooner Serbs and Albanians can decide on how to carve up Kosovo the sooner we'll have peace. I can't believe people won't realize that there will be no lasting peace if only one party gets it all.
Nelli_Canada
Will Albanians go to war to reclaim Northern Kosovo and other areas controlled by the Serbs?
Tex W- so what if the goverment has recognised Kosovo, how many times have they broke international law, Labour is a flagging undemocratic party. What Labour has done since coming to power in the UK is blindly followed the USA regardless of international law. I bet Mr G Brown will oppose Scottish independence if they vote in favour of it.
As for international forces leaving Kosovo i pretty much doubt that will happen anytime soon.
The problem with the UK goverment it has double standards, it calls the IRA terrorists but gets into bed with former KLA members.
If the Albanians want there own state move back to Albania.
Are you really surprised you don't have Serbias approval? According to international law you are taking something that doesn't belong to you. I live in Malmoe,Sweden. By 2047 it will have a muslim majority. Does this give them the right to carve out this piece of Sweden and proclaim it as their own state? Even if they are misstreated they don't have thst right? This is still Sweden and will always be. Just like Kosovo is Serbia and will always be. The sooner albos realize this the sooner we'll have peace. You steal someone elses land and then wonder why Serbs are resisting.
Of course the Serb posters here are going to cling to this guy, but that doesn't make him right.
Nick
No, but it would make it right if he was speaking on the behalf of the albanians, right! By the way what is not right about international law? The entire world rest on these principle and you say it's not right!
"UK expert: Kosovo independence is illegal act!
UK Gonverment; Kosovo is Independent
(Tex Willer, 21 April 2009 12:17) "
Your comment might have some relevance if the venue was the ICTY. It isn't.
'Berkeley' said (#8):
> That are violations against international law, in particular, human rights which outranks every other law.
If that was the case AND protagonists wore 'black & white' hats, issue would be cut & dried. Is not the case however.
Principles of territorial integrity & sovereignty have historically taken precedence over those of human rights. And courts, in particular this court, have good reason to maintain their conservatism - especially in light of the foreseeable consequences should they give a green light to secessionists all over the place.
'Berkeley' also said:
> Wilde doesn't mention this with any word. Why? I think everybody can answer this question by himself/herself.
Wilde actually does have substantial credentials in the field of 'human-rights' law (see his 'bio' below).
Which makes his interpretation that 'territorial integrity' overrides this all the more credible.
"and how are you to say that just his opinon ,uk suppprt kosovo and allways will
thanks happy easter to all.
(steve, 21 April 2009 12:58) "
Adding to 'kate's comment (#19): & the UK gov't would change it's mind on this issue in a heartbeat if it was in it's interest to do so. UK (& the rest of the G7) at one stage recognised 'Taiwan'. No longer the case.
'pss' said (#14):
> Reading is bio, one learns that the word "expert" is given for his Serbian stance on the issue. The UK is thrown in to designate emphasis.
Was predictable that Wilde's credibility would be challenged on this issue as 'sudzuk' put it so colourfully above (#12).
'Serbian stance'? Think you will find that his 'stance' has more to do concepts of international law rather than any particular side as witness his 'stance' on the US invasion of Iraq.
Here's a part of his bio: http://usiraq.procon.org/viewsource.asp?ID=3818
Judge for yourselves.
"ICJ is useless, Serbia has said that they will not recognize even if they lose the ICJ and Kosova /US /NATO /Others have said that they will ignore it too
(Alban, 21 April 2009 14:51) "
Will see how 'useless' an ICJ ruling is if & when it comes down in favour of 'territorial integrity' & the reversals in recognitions start.
'ben' said (#21):
> Professor Richard Caplan form the University of Oxford thinks exactly the contrary. As Prof Caplan you can find many others that think the independence is legitimate.
Pity his field of expertise is 'international relations' & not 'international law'. And may well find others, just as can still 'find experts' who deny global warming. Question is, where do they get their funding - ie: Caplan & NATO.
'ben' also said:
> The bottom line is that the modern thought in international law is that the collective human rights supersede the sovereignty concept.
Was certainly a trend assigning more importance to the former in relation to the latter lately, but the idea of the former superceding the latter (especially 'post bush') is speculative on your part. See the reply to 'Berkeley' above.
But issue is by no means certain, which is where the ICJ comes in. And quite properly so.
As for Jeremic, he's a politician. May be the case that he thinks that ICJ will rule in favour of territorial integrity & wants to set the stage for a 'heroic victory'. Who knows.
"We'll ask Mr. "expert" when the recognitions reaches over half of UN members.
(miri, 21 April 2009 14:53) "
Thought Thaci & his US sponsors said this would happen by November last year? Have been averaging one a month since then. Will be interesting to see what the peak will be as the US 'scrapes the barrel clean'. Will also be interesting to see how many reversals there'll be if ICJ rules against the UDI.
'Attorney' said (#23):
> If Mr. Wilde was hired by Kosovo gov. to present the case at ICJ, he will say the opposite.
Think he speaks from conviction rather than self-interest given his 'bio'. But will see just how right (or wrong) he is when ICJ brings down it's ruling.
"kate, this was by far one of your worst comments. The govt of UK did recognize Kosovo on behalf of UK and the people--hence the word democracy.
It is impossible to have a popular vote on every issue.
You as a UK citizen (?) may not support your countries decision but apparently you are in a minority, otherwise those making the decision would be replaced.
(pss, 21 April 2009 16:13) "
And I suppose the people of the UK supported the war in Iraq too? Reality is that the negative impact from one particular issue is usually not enough to throw a government out of power. But if there are enough issues..
'Nelli_Canada' said (#29):
> Yesterday's big blow from Saudi Arabia has closed the chapter once and for all.
You & a couple of others seem to think that individual recognitions have some particular importance. They don't - as recognitions can be (& have been) reversed.
> Does it matter what Professor Wilde is saying?.
If his arguments are valid, then yes.
Individuals here can freely dismiss an advisory opinion by the ICJ as 'non-binding', but ruling (either for or against) will certainly have an affect on both the number & pace of recognitions.
Mospyt:
Whether or not the 'theory' of the 'remedial right to self-determination' can be applied in this case is a moot point as there is no precedent. Are also the issues of 'indigeneous peoples' & ex-colonies as opposed to contiguous areas of a pre-existing state.
Be that as it may, ICJ also has to take into account the likely repercussions of it's rulings & as mentioned above, courts are by their nature - conservative.
The UK public could care less what happens in Kosovo. For this reason, the UK government can do as they please without any input from their citizens. So many folks on here overestimate the importance of Serbia, Kosovo, and Albania in the big scheme of things. Most folks in the US don't even know where these countries are located.
I never managed to understand why do you Serbs get overexcited about normal things????
I do understand that there is selective reporting in Serbia about experts opinion but you should be aware that is just selective reporting not the absolute truth.
Professor Richard Caplan form the University of Oxford thinks exactly the contrary. As Prof Caplan you can find many others that think the independence is legitimate.
The bottom line is that the modern thought in international law is that the collective human rights supersede the sovereignty concept. This is the reason why many hegemonic and antidemocratic states see Kosova as dangerous precedent. Deangerous of course for them, for their hegemonic ideas.
After all wasn't your hero Jeremic that said just 2 days ago that ICJ will be the process of the century since the right of self-determination and the concept of sovereignty will be judged.
Doesn’t sound to you as at least 50-50 % of chances??? ;) why don't you get bit more sober as Jeremic is getting???
Nobody has provided a legal argument against the professor's opinion.
I am Serbian and my bias is known to all the regular posters. My fear is that there is an argument against the professors argument.
Namely, because the Government of Serbia slept on its rights with respect to the protection of its sovereignty it may have lost some rights to it
What the result of this may be is a legal decision (which I expect the court will be biased against Serbia) where the deceleration of independence is illegal, but the recognitions may be validated because of Tadic et al's failure to demand remedy from the countries that have recognized Kosovo.
As brutally unfair as this may be, this is a likely loophole that the west relies on.
They may argue that Serbia's failure to act was construed by the countries that recognized Kosovo as consenting to the recognitions.
Further to this horror, the fact that this is before a non binding court speaks to the implied consent of the DS EU lackeys.
This entire court process is a farce. Even if we get the result we want, and the court rules completely in our favour we will have a nonbinding judgment in support of 1244 which has not been enforced, in any manner, by the Security counsel or Serbia.
A vote for the DS was a vote for Kosovo's UDI. All of the "lunatic nationalists" (my self included) who warned against this may have guessed at the for a European Serbia betrayal of their nation and heritage.
he is right as far as the law is concerned however all the serbian action and war murder rape and plunder prior independance shows a bigger picture as to how and why.... thats the bigger picture and thats how the icj will look at it
Reading is bio, one learns that the word "expert" is given for his Serbian stance on the issue. The UK is thrown in to designate emphasis.
Notice nowhere does it say that any of the countries involved sought his input for their presentation.
"Does anybody know the TRUE facts about Serbia's options if it won the case at the ICJ, i.e. it simply ruled that Kosovo's secession was illegal, period."
It would be almost as big of a victory as the Six Point plan!
ICJ is useless, Serbia has said that they will not recognize even if they lose the ICJ and Kosova /US /NATO /Others have said that they will ignore it too
If Mr. Wilde was hired by Kosovo gov. to present the case at ICJ, he will say the opposite. The bottom line is that you hire any expert and as long as you pay good money he/she will say anything in your favour.
kate,
this was by far one of your worst comments. The govt of UK did recognize Kosovo on behalf of UK and the people--hence the word democracy.
It is impossible to have a popular vote on every issue.
You as a UK citizen (?) may not support your countries decision but apparently you are in a minority, otherwise those making the decision would be replaced.
Looks to me like a bone thrown to radicals, after yesterday blow from Saudis. Serbia should hire this man, to some it looks like he is really an "expert". Either way let Serbia keep this UK expert while Kosova will keep UK government.
Something that this "expert" is missing is that the statement: "The Kosovo Albanians do not have the right to self-determination and, consequently, they do not have the right to proclaim a state,” to Serbian government machine has been equivalet to "The Kosovo Albanians do not have the right to live and breath".
We'll ask Mr. "expert" when the recognitions reaches over half of UN members.
“Recognitions can have a constitutive role, but only if we’re talking about a significant number of states. ..."
Notice that he doesn't even say "a majority of the members of the UN." Just a "significant number." Which Kosova/Kosovo seems to be achieving, one recognition at a time.
Experts these days come a dime a dozen. And opinions are like something that everybody has one. Apparently there are plenty of other experts of Intl Law that have different opinions from this one. It'll be up to the ICJ to give an opinion then what's what.
Clearly there is no article in Intl Law that regulates when and how a territory secedes from a country's jurisdiction, because a) an act of secession is typically an hostile act, and b) because circumstances/politics leading to it, are so specific from case to case that it would be impossible to regulate it in a law. There have been cases when UN has come up with resolutions supporting acts of secession after the fact, as in the case of anti-colonialism resolutions. There have been cases when territories of a state have agreed peacefully to separate (Czech/Slovak), but more often than not, bitter wars have been fought between a state and a territory wishing to secede (Algeria, Ex-Yugo, East Timor etc etc). Changes in international law rarely come in the shape of a multilateral treaty that is immediately ratified, but instead occur in not-so-tidy ways that may recognize a right before a treaty ever goes into effect. And in every case is hard to tell where Intl Law ends and where Intl Politics begin. Therefore using any present treaties/resolutions, to regulate any future cases of secession, is simply impossible. However it is generally recognized that the right of secession exists when “a people is blocked from the meaningful exercise of self-determination internally.”
As far as recognition of a state by another, every act of recognition is legal, because every state is sovereign in extending or not a recognition to another state. It is only logical then, that it is also entitled to simultaneously withdraw recognition from a state and extend it to the two separated parts. And this raises a very interesting point: If Serbia maintains diplomatic relations with the states that have recognized Kosova, is it not also accepting the fact that is being recognized without Kosova by these states? Because if Serbia did not accept this reality - of being recognized as separate from Kosova - it would have not maintained diplomatic relations with those states that recognize Kosova as an independent state.
I am eager now to see the comments of our usual "Kosovan Patriots"...let me guess: "Ralph Wilde is a frankenstein creature created by the evil serbs during the milosevic period, and his diploma are forged..etc".
(sudzuk, 21 April 2009 13:24)
Sudzuk:
Every person or experts of universities has the right to express their thoughts. ow this news sure it's better for you guys as for K-albanians. But in other news like Saudi Arabia recognized Kosovo as a independent country, you guys were writing comments as; terrorists recognize terrorists, or SA is the biggest US allie or what so ever.
But if you read the reallity, no one cares what a expert says, the most important that the country of that expert has allready recognized Kosovo for long time ago, even if he liked it or not.
The professor is absolutely correct in explaining the criteria and standards that support independence in particular and international law in general. Included also are the UN Charter and the Helsinki Act of 1975. Jeremic is absolutely brilliant in pushing for this matter to be heard in the ICJ because the greatest threat to Pristina's actions is the rule of international law. Once the court rules in Serbia's favor, the West will have to respect the ruling, even though the decision is not "technically" binding. Western civilization is based on the rule of law. Europe will certainly have to respect it. Pristina easily forgets that revoking recognition would be easy under the cover of the ICJ decision. Kosovo's "independence" will be effectively stillborn, new negotiations would ensue, and Jeremic and Tadic would deserve the status of national heroes.
First, you aren't resisting. if this is resistance...
Second, Albanians have been living there long before Serbs.
Alban
Serbs are resisting with peaceful means(ICJ etc) but that is something you never even heard off.
Yes! You have convinced yourselves that you where in Kosovo before the Serbs. But how come there is no proof of that? No old mosques or other findings that date back to your imaginary time in history? You come up with a lie and expect everyone to buy it. Plain and simple! You are trying to steal some one elses territory. International law is proof ot that.
Marko I can't say whether this argument will be used by the Albanian side or how important the judges will believe it is - that the Serbian government did not / has not sued individual states that have recognised. Does that prove Serbian recognition of 'Kosova'? I very much doubt it.
Besides, there are two other more important arguments the Albanian side will use. First concerning autonomy reduced by Milosevic regime, second alleged ethnic cleasning / brutality again by the Milosevic regime.
So, spin it any way you like but if Kosovo is lost in the eyes of ICJ, it will be the fault of Milosevic / SPS that brought us to this situation - not the current government (excluding SPS).
You continue to amaze me in wanting to pin the blame for anything and everything on Tadic and co, really. I say blame him and this government for their mistakes sure, but lets not get amnesia about who brought Serbia to this current situation in the first place.
Amer,
you are 100% correct. It says significant, not majority. It just takes 5 nations to become significant, but also 193 might not be enough. If the right 5 nations are not part of that group of nations it doesn't reallt matter are the UN level.
What Professor Walde has done very succinctly is to summarise the Serbian point of view on the issue of Kosova's independence. This is not new. However, the Albanian side at the ICJ will argue that the Albanians had the right of remedial self-determination which is recognised in international law as a legitimate line of action when none of the conditions lucidly argued by Professor Wilde apply. The ICJ will have to decide which of the two lines of argument is the right one. So, let's wait and see and as many people have been pointing out here the ICJ opinion is only advisory!!
You steal someone elses land and then wonder why Serbs are resisting. "
First, you aren't resisting. if this is resistance...
Second, Albanians have been living there long before Serbs.
(Alban, 21 April 2009 23:36)
Alban, we have been over this before at least a million times. Please prove this claim. Please find me a scholar of Illyrian studies who has put his name to the claim the the Albanians are direct descendent of the Illyrians.
PS. Noel Malcolm is not an Illyrian specialist. He's a mug who wrote a couple of poorly researched books knowing he would sell a few hundred thousand copies to the Albanian diaspora. Have you read Wilke's book on the Illyrians?
And those who like to justify the UDI because of Milosevic should note that my very decent and peaceful Kosovan (Serb) friends were ethnically cleansed by Albanians long before Milosevic came on the scene.
These friends feel very hurt neighbours and betrayed by the treatment they received from their Albanian.
There is no moral high-ground to support the UDI. In fact the war was provoked by the mono-ethnic ambitions of the Albanians, and NATO has rewarded that multi-ethnic ambition quite inappropriately.
Milosevic and his nationalist politics was wrong - but so was the separatist racism of the Albanians in Kosovo.
I really do hope that this UDI fizzles soon - it is wrong and based on very dubious justifications.
The case here is not whether international law has been broken, its very obvious that it has. The question is whether the ICJ see this as a polictical issue or one of legality! If it deems it polictical then the Albanians will mave their independent Kosovo!
Good post, good arguments but
This is a no spin zone (fair use of Fox News slogan).
I will make my comments more clear
Firstly there are three basic approaches to law; moralist, legalist and realist. These legal definitions may not have a definition that most people are familiar with.
Also their can be any number of combinations of each. If someone disputes my simplified definitions, please add clarification.
1. the moralist does not care what the law may be, he has a moral view of what he views to be just and equitable
2. the Legalist says nothing is legal or ileagal unless their is a law for or against. He draws on Stare Decisis and Statute and nothing else. Much like a Sola Scriptura christian or a biblical scribe, it does not exist unless it is in the law.
3. moral or immoral legal or illegal the Realist says that nothing is illegal that is governed by a law that can not be enforced. in other words he believes no matter how crappy his actions, if you can't do anything about it; he is right to do it.
The courts universally have supported the legalist approach more than others, however there have been quite a few exceptions.
Namely this happens when there is a great (inter)national interest or the fear that justice and the court would fall into disrepute. These are the main categories for taking a moralist or Realist approach, and these almost always create precedent.
Before the ICJ the Serbs have a strictly legalist argument.
The argument that you provide for the Albanians is strictly a moral argument and it is trumped by the following legal facts.
1. An ethnic minority has no natural right to self determination and the Court does not want to set any kind of precedent with respect to this.
Neither the court,Serbia, Nor the Western powers want this to happen. Even Kosovo Separatists would not want the Serbian Minority to have this right.
2. The Repression of an ethnic minority by a dictator can not result in Race guilt; because the lousy Communists persecuted everyone, including minorities, does not impune Serbia's right to exist.
You can not have a moral argument based on a guilty race. To hyperbolize for the sake of rhetoric, race guilt was Hitler's approach to the Jews and this is not something that the courts would stomach.
This leaves one final approach, the realist and I fear that the West may invoke a realist aproach, specifically laches, along with a very peculiar moral argument claiming that Kosovo independence, (but not independence for Kosovo Serbs or anyone else ie Northern Ireland,the Curds, American Indians etc) is the primary interest of Justice. If this fails they will call the court a "debating society" and simply ignore the ruling.
This Is what will happen because the For a European Government of Serbia relies on the defense of Serbias soverignty by a non binding court. The Government is to busy raising campaign contributions and making pals of the west to hold themselves, or anyone else accountable, for the loss of Serbia's Sovereignty.
Sueing Individual Countries was not the only Legal recourse Serbia could have taken, but that would involve fortitude and Imagination.
Marko no nationalist spin in your last post, agreed.
Your 3 main points are valid, although I'm no legal expert. However, if it is the realist approach that the courts will take, how would sueing courts of nation states that recognise Kosovo have any impact on the decision?
On that moral argument I agree with you that I don't think the court will empahsise this, although as I understand this will be the main argument Kosovo Albanians will use. Of course I fully expect the Serbian side to be ready for this with statistics of its own suggesting ethnic cleansing of Serbs (pre and post war), early 80's Kosovo Albanian nationalist protests and even the March Pogon - if the judges don't rule this 'line' inadmissable (in which case they would have to rule part of the Albanian moral case inadmissable also.
I agree with you that the government's approach to this case hasn't been what it should. As you know we in Serbia and Jugoslavija before that, have a long, long history of abusing Kosovo as an issue and being dishonest about our intentions. Promises to Kosovo Serbs nor Kosovo Albanians are / were not kept time and time again. It was the power of Kosovo as a political issue in Serbia that was the motivating factor for government policy, not the reality.
Truly I wonder whether most of our politicians have given up. You would probably say that this is a desciption of Tadic's position, but I'm not sure if this is not the 'Serbian' position - ie that any Serbian government would go through the motions / indulge with the nationalist rhetoric and then eventually proclaim that the division of Kosovo is a victory for Serbia. Perhaps in the case of a SRS / DSS victory we would have seen some troops on the move and an incident / skirmish or two (just to impress the patriotic lobby) and then withdrawal, perhaps with Serbia losing even the chance of division of Kosovo. In that scenario Serbian action might have resulted in new ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Serb majority areas. We know that Kosovo would be lost after that.
Our politicians can after all say that division is the likely outcome of Kosovo anyway, although defeat at the ICJ would be a blow to this 'compromise' position.
The state-organized crimes of Serbia and attempts of ethnic cleansing (as said in the Hague verdict against Sainovic and Co) make all what he says irrelevant.
Let us wait the court's decision. All these arguments were well known. Most of international experts believe they will be not enough against Kosovo arguments.
If you think Kosovo has no argument, wait and see (and it goes far beyond only "serb crimes").
""You steal someone elses land and then wonder why Serbs are resisting. "
First, you aren't resisting. if this is resistance...
Second, Albanians have been living there long before Serbs.
(Alban, 21 April 2009 23:36) "
Alban, first of all, resistance has several forms and levels - don´t fool yourself.
and secondly: stating that the Albanians lived in southern Serbia "long before the Serbs" is so stupid - there are no words for that.
only if you believe to be the descendant of the illyrians, you can write such a nonsense.
the sad thing about it is: the K-albanians as well as the Albanians in Albania do not have any connection to them at all, but you desperately need this selfdeclared myth in order to feel good about yourself.
that´s a sad fact, and the illyrians would turn themselves in their graves if they knew WHO claims to be their descendant.
actually there is only one word for your version of "albanian history" - illusion.
not only because there are so many facts proving that you are wrong - the mere fact that all you are arguing with is pure force and illegal conduct says it all.
I guess I have said it many times over, but I will do it again:
I don't care about what is legal, illegal, according to the law, or contrary to the law. What I *do* care about is if something is right, fair and just.
Most of the time, laws are a way for codifying what is right, fair, and just, but on many occasions they are simply what the most powerful people/countries agreed was good for them.
--
Are you really surprised you don't have Serbias approval? According to international law you are taking something that doesn't belong to you. I live in Malmoe,Sweden. By 2047 it will have a muslim majority. Does this give them the right to carve out this piece of Sweden and proclaim it as their own state? Even if they are misstreated they don't have thst right? This is still Sweden and will always be. Just like Kosovo is Serbia and will always be. The sooner albos realize this the sooner we'll have peace. You steal someone elses land and then wonder why Serbs are resisting.
(MikeC, 21 April 2009 20:02)"
The BIG difference is that the muslim population in Malmö is not indigenous there but the Albanians are (in Kosovo).
1. First let me say that most of the ICJ judges are from countries that recognized Kosmet.I hate to say it but they might defend their governments illegal recognition. Second there has been massive pressure on Srbija not to as the ICJ for a ruling coming from the US and EU gangsters.
2. They have made it a point to remind Srbija that this is only somehow symbolic and will change nothing on the ground because “might makes right” and that is that. The bottom line is Albanians let Srbija nothing but time when they were unwilling to negotiate in good faith. It does not matter if every country but Srbija recognizes Kosovo-Metohija as an independent country. Srbija needs to give Kosmet away for it to in fact not be a Serbian province and ever Serb that passes for a leader these days knows they would be ran out of the country or worse should they give our land away.
When an expert tell you that Kosovo is a part of Serbia regardless of Res 1244 being signed as Yugoslavia then listen and stop with the nonsense.
I keep reading over and over how it was Yugoslavia who is entitled to Kosovo but since there in no more Yugoslavia it's all for grabs.
If this isn't enough to bring this stupid argument to an end then you are just too stubborn to debate with.
Serbia is a successor to Yugoslavia. Is this getting through?
When the British government tells you that Kosovo independence is legal then listen and stop the nonsense.1244 refers to Yugoslavia not the succesor of Yugoslavia,not Serbia and Montenegro and certainly not Serbia.Is this getting through?
Funny thing, the first case of the ICJ was UK vs. Albania, Corfu Channel, in 1947, for the incident of the sea-mines, but there are no documents on the web site. Albania lost that case. Shortly (according to communist historiography), two British destroyers ended up on mines in the Corfu channel, sued Albania (communist country at the period, heavily depending on Yugoslavia and Tito), claiming it had put those mines there. Albania claimed it had no knowledge of mines and didn't have that kind of technology at the time, and later when relations with Tito were interrupted, blamed it on Tito. Albania was fined to pay a lot of money to the UK, which it never paid. The UK, in exchange never gave Albania back the gold that King Zog had taken with him to the UK, after the invasion of Albania by Italy.
"The Kosovo Albanians do not have the right to self-determination and, consequently, they do not have the right to proclaim a state" - This is really fun, it fits perfectly to the concept of equality among human beings...
"Just passing by" - no, I don't believe albanians will go to war to reclaim the territories of northern kosovo controlled by serbs. No, unless serbs won't let the territories of Southern Serbia inhabited by albanians (i.e. Presheve Valley) to get united to Kosovo, obviously!!
Kosovo’s UDI was illegal. No doubt about it! It caused an extreme strain in the entire system the international law. The Kosovo problem had to be solved. It was clear to everybody that it could not remain a part of Serbia against the will of over 90% of its inhabitants. So a negotiated independence was the answer. But all the various Serbian governments said was: NO. Whatever carrots were offered to Serbia: removal of the visa regime, quicker integration in the EU, etc, the answer was still plain NO! So now all we have to live with the consequences of an illegal act. Nobody benefits from the outcome. Least of all Kosovo and Serbia.
“Under international law, a new state can be formed out of a part of the territory of an existing state, and its formation and recognition by third states will be legal provided everything is taking place with the approval of the parent state,” Wilde said.
That are the same declaimings when Yugoslavia was denying Slovenia and Croatia due to "technical" questions the right for secession. Moreover, professor Wilde disregards the fact that this rule works only when you regard every other international rule. To declaim (para-)military on the other hand, were doing their best to establish new facts on the ground, in particular, with ethnic cleansing in Croatia and later on in Kosovo. That are violations against international law, in particular, human rights which outranks every other law. Wilde doesn't mention this with any word. Why? I think everybody can answer this question by himself/herself.
But more interesting is the question: What is now new in these "news"? There are people who regard the independence as legal, and some doesn't. That is not new, but "strangely" it is embraced in the Serbian media so enthusiastically. Is it possible that some "news" are needed to divert from recent recognitions, from reality?
he is right as far as the law is concerned however all the serbian action and war murder rape and plunder prior independance shows a bigger picture as to how and why.... thats the bigger picture and thats how the icj will look at it
"Does anybody know the TRUE facts about Serbia's options if it won the case at the ICJ, i.e. it simply ruled that Kosovo's secession was illegal, period."
It would be almost as big of a victory as the Six Point plan!
ICJ is useless, Serbia has said that they will not recognize even if they lose the ICJ and Kosova /US /NATO /Others have said that they will ignore it too
Looks to me like a bone thrown to radicals, after yesterday blow from Saudis. Serbia should hire this man, to some it looks like he is really an "expert". Either way let Serbia keep this UK expert while Kosova will keep UK government.
Something that this "expert" is missing is that the statement: "The Kosovo Albanians do not have the right to self-determination and, consequently, they do not have the right to proclaim a state,” to Serbian government machine has been equivalet to "The Kosovo Albanians do not have the right to live and breath".
We'll ask Mr. "expert" when the recognitions reaches over half of UN members.
If Mr. Wilde was hired by Kosovo gov. to present the case at ICJ, he will say the opposite. The bottom line is that you hire any expert and as long as you pay good money he/she will say anything in your favour.
The state-organized crimes of Serbia and attempts of ethnic cleansing (as said in the Hague verdict against Sainovic and Co) make all what he says irrelevant.
Let us wait the court's decision. All these arguments were well known. Most of international experts believe they will be not enough against Kosovo arguments.
If you think Kosovo has no argument, wait and see (and it goes far beyond only "serb crimes").
I never managed to understand why do you Serbs get overexcited about normal things????
I do understand that there is selective reporting in Serbia about experts opinion but you should be aware that is just selective reporting not the absolute truth.
Professor Richard Caplan form the University of Oxford thinks exactly the contrary. As Prof Caplan you can find many others that think the independence is legitimate.
The bottom line is that the modern thought in international law is that the collective human rights supersede the sovereignty concept. This is the reason why many hegemonic and antidemocratic states see Kosova as dangerous precedent. Deangerous of course for them, for their hegemonic ideas.
After all wasn't your hero Jeremic that said just 2 days ago that ICJ will be the process of the century since the right of self-determination and the concept of sovereignty will be judged.
Doesn’t sound to you as at least 50-50 % of chances??? ;) why don't you get bit more sober as Jeremic is getting???
kate,
this was by far one of your worst comments. The govt of UK did recognize Kosovo on behalf of UK and the people--hence the word democracy.
It is impossible to have a popular vote on every issue.
You as a UK citizen (?) may not support your countries decision but apparently you are in a minority, otherwise those making the decision would be replaced.
“Recognitions can have a constitutive role, but only if we’re talking about a significant number of states. ..."
Notice that he doesn't even say "a majority of the members of the UN." Just a "significant number." Which Kosova/Kosovo seems to be achieving, one recognition at a time.
Reading is bio, one learns that the word "expert" is given for his Serbian stance on the issue. The UK is thrown in to designate emphasis.
Notice nowhere does it say that any of the countries involved sought his input for their presentation.
He is correct.
Whether you like it or not, he is correct and the declartion by Kosovo was illegal and invalid.
Kosovo, as of now, is still legally part of Serbia.
I wonder if other countries and the ICJ will also admit this.
Professor Ralph Wilde did not say anything that we already did not know.
However, it is good to know that there are some people who actually do care
for international law.
“Under international law, a new state can be formed out of a part of the territory of an existing state, and its formation and recognition by third states will be legal provided everything is taking place with the approval of the parent state,” Wilde said.
And he is absolutely right. The thing is that Kosovo never had a status of Republic within former Yugoslavia nor within Serbia. Had Kosovo had that kind of status, secession would be much easier with fewer obstacles and would have had more legal grounds for such act. That is why the Albanians in Kosovo struggled so hardly for so long to gain that kind of status within Yugoslavia. Their aspirations are well known since decades. The so called oppression by Serbian regime was well planned and was used as an excuse.
But what did we get in the end? Of course we got UNSC resolution 1244 which guarantees that Kosovo is a part of Serbia, or in other words Kosovo is Serbian province.
Now, since Serbia does not agree on Kosovo’s secession and with the existence of resolution 1244 there is a huge obstacle for Kosovo to ever become and function as normal state.
The reality is that, as this professor confirms, Kosovo is just a protectorate.
The another reality is that no matter how many states recognise Kosovo as independent country, it will still be part of Serbia as long as Serbia does not change its stand on Kosovo issue. In order to stick to the international law and provide all the legal bases for secession there must be a new resolution which will replace the existing one. Since there is no other resolution but just 1244 there are no legal basis and secession is of course illegal.
Serbia has all possible rights to stick to 1244 resolution and after hundreds of years may
claim its authority in the province of Kosovo and Metohija.
So, Albanians should be well aware that nothing can change their week position as long as Serbia holds a key in its hands. Please, when you succeed to abolish UNSC resolution 1244 and replace by new one then we can congratulate you “newborn” but until that happen just accept that you still live in Serbia and that Thachi is nothing more but provincial political fichfiric (as we like to say in Serbia). Most probably you will stay to live in Serbia forever coz I don’t believe that anyone in Serbia has guts to let Kosovo go and there will always be obstacle in the UN in a form of veto. Luckily, Serbia has most of the UN veto holders on its side.
I am eager now to see the comments of our usual "Kosovan Patriots"...let me guess: "Ralph Wilde is a frankenstein creature created by the evil serbs during the milosevic period, and his diploma are forged..etc".
(sudzuk, 21 April 2009 13:24)
Sudzuk:
Every person or experts of universities has the right to express their thoughts. ow this news sure it's better for you guys as for K-albanians. But in other news like Saudi Arabia recognized Kosovo as a independent country, you guys were writing comments as; terrorists recognize terrorists, or SA is the biggest US allie or what so ever.
But if you read the reallity, no one cares what a expert says, the most important that the country of that expert has allready recognized Kosovo for long time ago, even if he liked it or not.
“States that recognize Kosovo as independent are inevitably violating their obligation to respect Serbia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,”
I have said it all along: not until Serbia recognizes Kosovo independence will it be independent. That explains the amount of pressure put on Serbia to accept this illegal act. Everyone knows that the longer Serbia hangs on to Kosovo the greater the embarassment to albanians and the those countries that recognized the occupation of Serbian territory.
When an expert tell you that Kosovo is a part of Serbia regardless of Res 1244 being signed as Yugoslavia then listen and stop with the nonsense.
I keep reading over and over how it was Yugoslavia who is entitled to Kosovo but since there in no more Yugoslavia it's all for grabs.
If this isn't enough to bring this stupid argument to an end then you are just too stubborn to debate with.
Serbia is a successor to Yugoslavia. Is this getting through?
According to what this man says, anyone violating international law will find themselves obliged to Serbia in some way. Keep it up and Serbia can clean up in the end.
Of course the professor is right. Even an ant knows he's right. However, the Kosovo Albanian supporters will bend over backwards to spin a tale of lies pretending that this is a unique case, as if that faulty logic could actually prevail on the minds of intelligent people, particularly since their unique case argument is based on a bunch of lies too. At any rate, truth is no guarantee that Serbia will be able to prevail in an international tribunal. Odd to say that, isn't it? However, Kosovo is a fake state built on lies and for its leadership, lies are truth. As George on Sienfeld once said, it's not a lie if you believe it's the truth.
Absolutely right on all counts. This is the international law at its most obvious, although I am sure that the pro-independence nations will come up with some totally shameless excuses for not having respected Serbia's territorial integrity.
The ICJ is not some sort of committee where you can agree that something is illegal but was justified in some way.
This is a hearing about the law, and the legal position is exactly how this analyst has set it out.
If the points made in the article are correct then it looks like this is a race against time. The Albanians will want all foreign forces out, i.e. UNMIK, and will try to gain a UN seat before the ICJ reaches a decision. If it doesn't manage to do this, and if what is stated in the article is correct, then Kosovo will become similar to Northern Cyprus. It'll claim to be independent, but as far as the UN is concerned it'll still remain, technically, a part of Serbia.
If the situation does play out this way what'll happen next? Will Serbia demand control over it's territory, will it legally be able to demand this as UNMIK is in charge (and I assume would require another UNSC resolution and would the US allow this), and even if it did what would happen if the Albanians said no to this? Would the US and EU force them to the negotiating table or would they just sit tight and say it's an advisory opinion only?
Does anybody know the TRUE facts about Serbia's options if it won the case at the ICJ, i.e. it simply ruled that Kosovo's secession was illegal, period.
Does everyone believe that Serbia will take the fight at the ICJ to the finish? With it wanting to gain entry to the EU, the EU might apply so much pressure that Serbia buckles and grants Kosovo independence directly or indirectly.
as if this is something new to an educated person.
as far as I am concerned, some dremaers may continue to believe in "statehood" - in the meantime Serbia is gathering as much sovereign states as possible in support of serbian sovereignty.
and when the time has come, Serbia will be well prepared.
some are willing bootlickers for NATO, the Serbs however won´t die in the far east for foreign interests.
What Professor Walde has done very succinctly is to summarise the Serbian point of view on the issue of Kosova's independence. This is not new. However, the Albanian side at the ICJ will argue that the Albanians had the right of remedial self-determination which is recognised in international law as a legitimate line of action when none of the conditions lucidly argued by Professor Wilde apply. The ICJ will have to decide which of the two lines of argument is the right one. So, let's wait and see and as many people have been pointing out here the ICJ opinion is only advisory!!
Are you really surprised you don't have Serbias approval? According to international law you are taking something that doesn't belong to you. I live in Malmoe,Sweden. By 2047 it will have a muslim majority. Does this give them the right to carve out this piece of Sweden and proclaim it as their own state? Even if they are misstreated they don't have thst right? This is still Sweden and will always be. Just like Kosovo is Serbia and will always be. The sooner albos realize this the sooner we'll have peace. You steal someone elses land and then wonder why Serbs are resisting.
(MikeC, 21 April 2009 20:02)"
The BIG difference is that the muslim population in Malmö is not indigenous there but the Albanians are (in Kosovo).
Radoslav: "Does anybody know the TRUE facts about Serbia's options if it won the case at the ICJ, i.e. it simply ruled that Kosovo's secession was illegal, period."
That would surely give them grounds to take action against every nation that has illegally recognised the UDI.
Those who believed the West intervened in Kosovo for humanitarian reasons are just deluded.It had nothing to do with the well-being of the Albanians and everything to do with the encompassing of the Balkans within the Western clubs and controlling the caucasus energy routes.
Hence the building of Bondsteel-the biggest US military base built since Vietnam- and also the building of the new CIA-Embassy building in Skopjie at a cost of $350 million.
As far as Kosovo is concerned
it is still an impoverished US protectorate with nearly 50% unemployment,rampat corruption and living off EU charity.The EU taxpayers are the real losers and they'll carry on the burden for many years to come.
Good analysis!! Therefore Serbia is in the better position to win the ICJ ruling.. And victory of Serbia in the ICJ would mean that the countries who recognized Kosovo will have to re-think their position and allow the resumption of status negotiation.
Takenote East Timor gained absolute independence because Indonesia allowed it. And in case of Kosovo it did not gained permission from Serbia to secede.
I guess I have said it many times over, but I will do it again:
I don't care about what is legal, illegal, according to the law, or contrary to the law. What I *do* care about is if something is right, fair and just.
Most of the time, laws are a way for codifying what is right, fair, and just, but on many occasions they are simply what the most powerful people/countries agreed was good for them.
--
Steve: "and how are you to say that just his opinon ,uk suppprt kosovo and allways will"
Could we please be clear about one thing. The UK as a nation does not support Kosovo independence. It is the UK government which has supported this move.
The people and their representatives in parliament were never asked. Just as in 1999 there was no vote and no democracy.
Mind you, the media was so brazen in its one-sided portrayal of events that people are generally very ill-informed on the matter, or the fact that it will have a major knock on effect in Europe and beyond.
When an expert tell you that Kosovo is a part of Serbia regardless of Res 1244 being signed as Yugoslavia then listen and stop with the nonsense.
I keep reading over and over how it was Yugoslavia who is entitled to Kosovo but since there in no more Yugoslavia it's all for grabs.
If this isn't enough to bring this stupid argument to an end then you are just too stubborn to debate with.
Serbia is a successor to Yugoslavia. Is this getting through?
When the British government tells you that Kosovo independence is legal then listen and stop the nonsense.1244 refers to Yugoslavia not the succesor of Yugoslavia,not Serbia and Montenegro and certainly not Serbia.Is this getting through?
He said it all...I am eager now to see the comments of our usual "Kosovan Patriots"...let me guess: "Ralph Wilde is a frankenstein creature created by the evil serbs during the milosevic period, and his diploma are forged..etc".
The only para-military in Croatia were croat para-military. The only legal army in Yugoslavia was JNA. JNA fought in Vukovar.
Question yourself now who they fought? Para-military croats!
Now tell me. Who broke the law?
Atrocities of course happened on both sides but from a legal perspective JNA was the only legal military formation in Yugoslavia and according to the Yugoslav constitution no republic (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia) had the right to secsession unless Yugoslavia agreed to it.
Nobody has provided a legal argument against the professor's opinion.
I am Serbian and my bias is known to all the regular posters. My fear is that there is an argument against the professors argument.
Namely, because the Government of Serbia slept on its rights with respect to the protection of its sovereignty it may have lost some rights to it
What the result of this may be is a legal decision (which I expect the court will be biased against Serbia) where the deceleration of independence is illegal, but the recognitions may be validated because of Tadic et al's failure to demand remedy from the countries that have recognized Kosovo.
As brutally unfair as this may be, this is a likely loophole that the west relies on.
They may argue that Serbia's failure to act was construed by the countries that recognized Kosovo as consenting to the recognitions.
Further to this horror, the fact that this is before a non binding court speaks to the implied consent of the DS EU lackeys.
This entire court process is a farce. Even if we get the result we want, and the court rules completely in our favour we will have a nonbinding judgment in support of 1244 which has not been enforced, in any manner, by the Security counsel or Serbia.
A vote for the DS was a vote for Kosovo's UDI. All of the "lunatic nationalists" (my self included) who warned against this may have guessed at the for a European Serbia betrayal of their nation and heritage.
Experts these days come a dime a dozen. And opinions are like something that everybody has one. Apparently there are plenty of other experts of Intl Law that have different opinions from this one. It'll be up to the ICJ to give an opinion then what's what.
Clearly there is no article in Intl Law that regulates when and how a territory secedes from a country's jurisdiction, because a) an act of secession is typically an hostile act, and b) because circumstances/politics leading to it, are so specific from case to case that it would be impossible to regulate it in a law. There have been cases when UN has come up with resolutions supporting acts of secession after the fact, as in the case of anti-colonialism resolutions. There have been cases when territories of a state have agreed peacefully to separate (Czech/Slovak), but more often than not, bitter wars have been fought between a state and a territory wishing to secede (Algeria, Ex-Yugo, East Timor etc etc). Changes in international law rarely come in the shape of a multilateral treaty that is immediately ratified, but instead occur in not-so-tidy ways that may recognize a right before a treaty ever goes into effect. And in every case is hard to tell where Intl Law ends and where Intl Politics begin. Therefore using any present treaties/resolutions, to regulate any future cases of secession, is simply impossible. However it is generally recognized that the right of secession exists when “a people is blocked from the meaningful exercise of self-determination internally.”
As far as recognition of a state by another, every act of recognition is legal, because every state is sovereign in extending or not a recognition to another state. It is only logical then, that it is also entitled to simultaneously withdraw recognition from a state and extend it to the two separated parts. And this raises a very interesting point: If Serbia maintains diplomatic relations with the states that have recognized Kosova, is it not also accepting the fact that is being recognized without Kosova by these states? Because if Serbia did not accept this reality - of being recognized as separate from Kosova - it would have not maintained diplomatic relations with those states that recognize Kosova as an independent state.
Amer,
you are 100% correct. It says significant, not majority. It just takes 5 nations to become significant, but also 193 might not be enough. If the right 5 nations are not part of that group of nations it doesn't reallt matter are the UN level.
Prof. Wilde isn't saying anything most of us didn't know already. But I wonder whether it's enough to change the course of events. There's international law which we SHOULD follow, and there's Realpolitik which we ACTUALLY follow. The US, for good or ill, does what it does "because we can". It's just been officialy disclosed the previous regime tortured people. But no one's facing any international tribunal. In regards to Kosovo, I can't think that my government was unaware they were breaking the law in supporting this act of international emminent domain, and I can't think we were not planning on using Kosovo to our advantage, like any Great Power.
The point of the article is that Kosovo's illegality has nothing to do with a violation of Serbian historical entitlement as it does with failing to live up to the basic definitions of sovereignty:
1. No recognition from the host country
2. No effort at self-sustainability
3. No monopoly on capital or coercion
4. No monopoly on internal security
5. No monopoly on law and jurisprudence
6. No independence of foreign control
By these criteria, Kosovo is, at best, a protectorate. And I suspect that's what an ICJ ruling is going to ultimately recommend. I really can't see Kosovo being reabsorbed into Serbia unless a mass exodus of Albanians ensues. I also can't see Kosovo ever being a legitimate state since the above conditions will not be rectified anytime soon, but many states will refuse to recognize it's sovereignty and allow it access to international institutions.
The US made a mess of this whole situation by failing to bring both sides together immediately after Milosevic's overthrow. Djindjic and Rugova could have made some form of compromise. But instead Washington's Realpolitik got the best of it, and thought it could carve out a state. The trouble here is that we were laying down the tracks without first seeing where the tracks would lead us.
Serbs don't want to be ruled by Albanians and vice verca. The conlusion: Kosovo will be partitioned along ethinc lines. YOU CAN'T HAVE THE CAKE AND EAT IT TOO! The sooner Serbs and Albanians can decide on how to carve up Kosovo the sooner we'll have peace. I can't believe people won't realize that there will be no lasting peace if only one party gets it all.
Nelli_Canada
Will Albanians go to war to reclaim Northern Kosovo and other areas controlled by the Serbs?
The bottom line is that the modern thought in international law is that the collective human rights supersede the sovereignty concept.
(ben, 21 April 2009 14:51)
you might be interested that a french historian did some research and discovered that in the past only the fascist states of germany and italy used "human rights" as a pretext to start a war. and if the nato had cared about human rights abuses why were they giving so much arms to turkey for their war against their kurdish minority? why is it that the biggest recepients of the us military aid are regularly cited by human right organisations as worst offenders?
the bottom line is that you are believing this nonsense just because you hope to profit from it.
You as a UK citizen (?) may not support your countries decision but apparently you are in a minority, otherwise those making the decision would be replaced.
(pss, 21 April 2009 16:13)
as a citizen of a "democratic" country i can asure you that our politicians don't do what we want and the more marginal the issue the better chance they have to get away with it. it is good for kosovo that most citizens of the countries that recognised it don't care about it.
Tex W- so what if the goverment has recognised Kosovo, how many times have they broke international law, Labour is a flagging undemocratic party. What Labour has done since coming to power in the UK is blindly followed the USA regardless of international law. I bet Mr G Brown will oppose Scottish independence if they vote in favour of it.
As for international forces leaving Kosovo i pretty much doubt that will happen anytime soon.
The problem with the UK goverment it has double standards, it calls the IRA terrorists but gets into bed with former KLA members.
If the Albanians want there own state move back to Albania.
Are you really surprised you don't have Serbias approval? According to international law you are taking something that doesn't belong to you. I live in Malmoe,Sweden. By 2047 it will have a muslim majority. Does this give them the right to carve out this piece of Sweden and proclaim it as their own state? Even if they are misstreated they don't have thst right? This is still Sweden and will always be. Just like Kosovo is Serbia and will always be. The sooner albos realize this the sooner we'll have peace. You steal someone elses land and then wonder why Serbs are resisting.
"The Kosovo Albanians do not have the right to self-determination and, consequently, they do not have the right to proclaim a state" - This is really fun, it fits perfectly to the concept of equality among human beings...
"Just passing by" - no, I don't believe albanians will go to war to reclaim the territories of northern kosovo controlled by serbs. No, unless serbs won't let the territories of Southern Serbia inhabited by albanians (i.e. Presheve Valley) to get united to Kosovo, obviously!!
"UK expert: Kosovo independence is illegal act!
UK Gonverment; Kosovo is Independent
(Tex Willer, 21 April 2009 12:17) "
Your comment might have some relevance if the venue was the ICTY. It isn't.
'Berkeley' said (#8):
> That are violations against international law, in particular, human rights which outranks every other law.
If that was the case AND protagonists wore 'black & white' hats, issue would be cut & dried. Is not the case however.
Principles of territorial integrity & sovereignty have historically taken precedence over those of human rights. And courts, in particular this court, have good reason to maintain their conservatism - especially in light of the foreseeable consequences should they give a green light to secessionists all over the place.
'Berkeley' also said:
> Wilde doesn't mention this with any word. Why? I think everybody can answer this question by himself/herself.
Wilde actually does have substantial credentials in the field of 'human-rights' law (see his 'bio' below).
Which makes his interpretation that 'territorial integrity' overrides this all the more credible.
"and how are you to say that just his opinon ,uk suppprt kosovo and allways will
thanks happy easter to all.
(steve, 21 April 2009 12:58) "
Adding to 'kate's comment (#19): & the UK gov't would change it's mind on this issue in a heartbeat if it was in it's interest to do so. UK (& the rest of the G7) at one stage recognised 'Taiwan'. No longer the case.
'pss' said (#14):
> Reading is bio, one learns that the word "expert" is given for his Serbian stance on the issue. The UK is thrown in to designate emphasis.
Was predictable that Wilde's credibility would be challenged on this issue as 'sudzuk' put it so colourfully above (#12).
'Serbian stance'? Think you will find that his 'stance' has more to do concepts of international law rather than any particular side as witness his 'stance' on the US invasion of Iraq.
Here's a part of his bio: http://usiraq.procon.org/viewsource.asp?ID=3818
Judge for yourselves.
"ICJ is useless, Serbia has said that they will not recognize even if they lose the ICJ and Kosova /US /NATO /Others have said that they will ignore it too
(Alban, 21 April 2009 14:51) "
Will see how 'useless' an ICJ ruling is if & when it comes down in favour of 'territorial integrity' & the reversals in recognitions start.
'ben' said (#21):
> Professor Richard Caplan form the University of Oxford thinks exactly the contrary. As Prof Caplan you can find many others that think the independence is legitimate.
Pity his field of expertise is 'international relations' & not 'international law'. And may well find others, just as can still 'find experts' who deny global warming. Question is, where do they get their funding - ie: Caplan & NATO.
'ben' also said:
> The bottom line is that the modern thought in international law is that the collective human rights supersede the sovereignty concept.
Was certainly a trend assigning more importance to the former in relation to the latter lately, but the idea of the former superceding the latter (especially 'post bush') is speculative on your part. See the reply to 'Berkeley' above.
But issue is by no means certain, which is where the ICJ comes in. And quite properly so.
As for Jeremic, he's a politician. May be the case that he thinks that ICJ will rule in favour of territorial integrity & wants to set the stage for a 'heroic victory'. Who knows.
"We'll ask Mr. "expert" when the recognitions reaches over half of UN members.
(miri, 21 April 2009 14:53) "
Thought Thaci & his US sponsors said this would happen by November last year? Have been averaging one a month since then. Will be interesting to see what the peak will be as the US 'scrapes the barrel clean'. Will also be interesting to see how many reversals there'll be if ICJ rules against the UDI.
'Attorney' said (#23):
> If Mr. Wilde was hired by Kosovo gov. to present the case at ICJ, he will say the opposite.
Think he speaks from conviction rather than self-interest given his 'bio'. But will see just how right (or wrong) he is when ICJ brings down it's ruling.
"kate, this was by far one of your worst comments. The govt of UK did recognize Kosovo on behalf of UK and the people--hence the word democracy.
It is impossible to have a popular vote on every issue.
You as a UK citizen (?) may not support your countries decision but apparently you are in a minority, otherwise those making the decision would be replaced.
(pss, 21 April 2009 16:13) "
And I suppose the people of the UK supported the war in Iraq too? Reality is that the negative impact from one particular issue is usually not enough to throw a government out of power. But if there are enough issues..
'Nelli_Canada' said (#29):
> Yesterday's big blow from Saudi Arabia has closed the chapter once and for all.
You & a couple of others seem to think that individual recognitions have some particular importance. They don't - as recognitions can be (& have been) reversed.
> Does it matter what Professor Wilde is saying?.
If his arguments are valid, then yes.
Individuals here can freely dismiss an advisory opinion by the ICJ as 'non-binding', but ruling (either for or against) will certainly have an affect on both the number & pace of recognitions.
Mospyt:
Whether or not the 'theory' of the 'remedial right to self-determination' can be applied in this case is a moot point as there is no precedent. Are also the issues of 'indigeneous peoples' & ex-colonies as opposed to contiguous areas of a pre-existing state.
Be that as it may, ICJ also has to take into account the likely repercussions of it's rulings & as mentioned above, courts are by their nature - conservative.
First, you aren't resisting. if this is resistance...
Second, Albanians have been living there long before Serbs.
Alban
Serbs are resisting with peaceful means(ICJ etc) but that is something you never even heard off.
Yes! You have convinced yourselves that you where in Kosovo before the Serbs. But how come there is no proof of that? No old mosques or other findings that date back to your imaginary time in history? You come up with a lie and expect everyone to buy it. Plain and simple! You are trying to steal some one elses territory. International law is proof ot that.
The case here is not whether international law has been broken, its very obvious that it has. The question is whether the ICJ see this as a polictical issue or one of legality! If it deems it polictical then the Albanians will mave their independent Kosovo!
The UK public could care less what happens in Kosovo. For this reason, the UK government can do as they please without any input from their citizens. So many folks on here overestimate the importance of Serbia, Kosovo, and Albania in the big scheme of things. Most folks in the US don't even know where these countries are located.
And those who like to justify the UDI because of Milosevic should note that my very decent and peaceful Kosovan (Serb) friends were ethnically cleansed by Albanians long before Milosevic came on the scene.
These friends feel very hurt neighbours and betrayed by the treatment they received from their Albanian.
There is no moral high-ground to support the UDI. In fact the war was provoked by the mono-ethnic ambitions of the Albanians, and NATO has rewarded that multi-ethnic ambition quite inappropriately.
Milosevic and his nationalist politics was wrong - but so was the separatist racism of the Albanians in Kosovo.
I really do hope that this UDI fizzles soon - it is wrong and based on very dubious justifications.
You steal someone elses land and then wonder why Serbs are resisting. "
First, you aren't resisting. if this is resistance...
Second, Albanians have been living there long before Serbs.
(Alban, 21 April 2009 23:36)
Alban, we have been over this before at least a million times. Please prove this claim. Please find me a scholar of Illyrian studies who has put his name to the claim the the Albanians are direct descendent of the Illyrians.
PS. Noel Malcolm is not an Illyrian specialist. He's a mug who wrote a couple of poorly researched books knowing he would sell a few hundred thousand copies to the Albanian diaspora. Have you read Wilke's book on the Illyrians?
@ Attorney
You're right:everything has it's price, provided the merchandise is for sale.
It may not be expensive at all, especially if you are paying with stolen goods (yes, that's right, I am referring to that piece of Serbian soil given away for Bondsteel).
However, certain values cannot be acquired at all, since they are not for sale.
Now I am referring to moral values that some people still possess. It is a gift that some have, and the others know about it only as a bunch of meaningless words.
Funny thing, the first case of the ICJ was UK vs. Albania, Corfu Channel, in 1947, for the incident of the sea-mines, but there are no documents on the web site. Albania lost that case. Shortly (according to communist historiography), two British destroyers ended up on mines in the Corfu channel, sued Albania (communist country at the period, heavily depending on Yugoslavia and Tito), claiming it had put those mines there. Albania claimed it had no knowledge of mines and didn't have that kind of technology at the time, and later when relations with Tito were interrupted, blamed it on Tito. Albania was fined to pay a lot of money to the UK, which it never paid. The UK, in exchange never gave Albania back the gold that King Zog had taken with him to the UK, after the invasion of Albania by Italy.
Of course the Serb posters here are going to cling to this guy, but that doesn't make him right.
Nick
No, but it would make it right if he was speaking on the behalf of the albanians, right! By the way what is not right about international law? The entire world rest on these principle and you say it's not right!
""You steal someone elses land and then wonder why Serbs are resisting. "
First, you aren't resisting. if this is resistance...
Second, Albanians have been living there long before Serbs.
(Alban, 21 April 2009 23:36) "
Alban, first of all, resistance has several forms and levels - don´t fool yourself.
and secondly: stating that the Albanians lived in southern Serbia "long before the Serbs" is so stupid - there are no words for that.
only if you believe to be the descendant of the illyrians, you can write such a nonsense.
the sad thing about it is: the K-albanians as well as the Albanians in Albania do not have any connection to them at all, but you desperately need this selfdeclared myth in order to feel good about yourself.
that´s a sad fact, and the illyrians would turn themselves in their graves if they knew WHO claims to be their descendant.
actually there is only one word for your version of "albanian history" - illusion.
not only because there are so many facts proving that you are wrong - the mere fact that all you are arguing with is pure force and illegal conduct says it all.
1. First let me say that most of the ICJ judges are from countries that recognized Kosmet.I hate to say it but they might defend their governments illegal recognition. Second there has been massive pressure on Srbija not to as the ICJ for a ruling coming from the US and EU gangsters.
2. They have made it a point to remind Srbija that this is only somehow symbolic and will change nothing on the ground because “might makes right” and that is that. The bottom line is Albanians let Srbija nothing but time when they were unwilling to negotiate in good faith. It does not matter if every country but Srbija recognizes Kosovo-Metohija as an independent country. Srbija needs to give Kosmet away for it to in fact not be a Serbian province and ever Serb that passes for a leader these days knows they would be ran out of the country or worse should they give our land away.
Good post, good arguments but
This is a no spin zone (fair use of Fox News slogan).
I will make my comments more clear
Firstly there are three basic approaches to law; moralist, legalist and realist. These legal definitions may not have a definition that most people are familiar with.
Also their can be any number of combinations of each. If someone disputes my simplified definitions, please add clarification.
1. the moralist does not care what the law may be, he has a moral view of what he views to be just and equitable
2. the Legalist says nothing is legal or ileagal unless their is a law for or against. He draws on Stare Decisis and Statute and nothing else. Much like a Sola Scriptura christian or a biblical scribe, it does not exist unless it is in the law.
3. moral or immoral legal or illegal the Realist says that nothing is illegal that is governed by a law that can not be enforced. in other words he believes no matter how crappy his actions, if you can't do anything about it; he is right to do it.
The courts universally have supported the legalist approach more than others, however there have been quite a few exceptions.
Namely this happens when there is a great (inter)national interest or the fear that justice and the court would fall into disrepute. These are the main categories for taking a moralist or Realist approach, and these almost always create precedent.
Before the ICJ the Serbs have a strictly legalist argument.
The argument that you provide for the Albanians is strictly a moral argument and it is trumped by the following legal facts.
1. An ethnic minority has no natural right to self determination and the Court does not want to set any kind of precedent with respect to this.
Neither the court,Serbia, Nor the Western powers want this to happen. Even Kosovo Separatists would not want the Serbian Minority to have this right.
2. The Repression of an ethnic minority by a dictator can not result in Race guilt; because the lousy Communists persecuted everyone, including minorities, does not impune Serbia's right to exist.
You can not have a moral argument based on a guilty race. To hyperbolize for the sake of rhetoric, race guilt was Hitler's approach to the Jews and this is not something that the courts would stomach.
This leaves one final approach, the realist and I fear that the West may invoke a realist aproach, specifically laches, along with a very peculiar moral argument claiming that Kosovo independence, (but not independence for Kosovo Serbs or anyone else ie Northern Ireland,the Curds, American Indians etc) is the primary interest of Justice. If this fails they will call the court a "debating society" and simply ignore the ruling.
This Is what will happen because the For a European Government of Serbia relies on the defense of Serbias soverignty by a non binding court. The Government is to busy raising campaign contributions and making pals of the west to hold themselves, or anyone else accountable, for the loss of Serbia's Sovereignty.
Sueing Individual Countries was not the only Legal recourse Serbia could have taken, but that would involve fortitude and Imagination.
The professor is absolutely correct in explaining the criteria and standards that support independence in particular and international law in general. Included also are the UN Charter and the Helsinki Act of 1975. Jeremic is absolutely brilliant in pushing for this matter to be heard in the ICJ because the greatest threat to Pristina's actions is the rule of international law. Once the court rules in Serbia's favor, the West will have to respect the ruling, even though the decision is not "technically" binding. Western civilization is based on the rule of law. Europe will certainly have to respect it. Pristina easily forgets that revoking recognition would be easy under the cover of the ICJ decision. Kosovo's "independence" will be effectively stillborn, new negotiations would ensue, and Jeremic and Tadic would deserve the status of national heroes.
Marko I can't say whether this argument will be used by the Albanian side or how important the judges will believe it is - that the Serbian government did not / has not sued individual states that have recognised. Does that prove Serbian recognition of 'Kosova'? I very much doubt it.
Besides, there are two other more important arguments the Albanian side will use. First concerning autonomy reduced by Milosevic regime, second alleged ethnic cleasning / brutality again by the Milosevic regime.
So, spin it any way you like but if Kosovo is lost in the eyes of ICJ, it will be the fault of Milosevic / SPS that brought us to this situation - not the current government (excluding SPS).
You continue to amaze me in wanting to pin the blame for anything and everything on Tadic and co, really. I say blame him and this government for their mistakes sure, but lets not get amnesia about who brought Serbia to this current situation in the first place.
Marko no nationalist spin in your last post, agreed.
Your 3 main points are valid, although I'm no legal expert. However, if it is the realist approach that the courts will take, how would sueing courts of nation states that recognise Kosovo have any impact on the decision?
On that moral argument I agree with you that I don't think the court will empahsise this, although as I understand this will be the main argument Kosovo Albanians will use. Of course I fully expect the Serbian side to be ready for this with statistics of its own suggesting ethnic cleansing of Serbs (pre and post war), early 80's Kosovo Albanian nationalist protests and even the March Pogon - if the judges don't rule this 'line' inadmissable (in which case they would have to rule part of the Albanian moral case inadmissable also.
I agree with you that the government's approach to this case hasn't been what it should. As you know we in Serbia and Jugoslavija before that, have a long, long history of abusing Kosovo as an issue and being dishonest about our intentions. Promises to Kosovo Serbs nor Kosovo Albanians are / were not kept time and time again. It was the power of Kosovo as a political issue in Serbia that was the motivating factor for government policy, not the reality.
Truly I wonder whether most of our politicians have given up. You would probably say that this is a desciption of Tadic's position, but I'm not sure if this is not the 'Serbian' position - ie that any Serbian government would go through the motions / indulge with the nationalist rhetoric and then eventually proclaim that the division of Kosovo is a victory for Serbia. Perhaps in the case of a SRS / DSS victory we would have seen some troops on the move and an incident / skirmish or two (just to impress the patriotic lobby) and then withdrawal, perhaps with Serbia losing even the chance of division of Kosovo. In that scenario Serbian action might have resulted in new ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Serb majority areas. We know that Kosovo would be lost after that.
Our politicians can after all say that division is the likely outcome of Kosovo anyway, although defeat at the ICJ would be a blow to this 'compromise' position.
Kosovo’s UDI was illegal. No doubt about it! It caused an extreme strain in the entire system the international law. The Kosovo problem had to be solved. It was clear to everybody that it could not remain a part of Serbia against the will of over 90% of its inhabitants. So a negotiated independence was the answer. But all the various Serbian governments said was: NO. Whatever carrots were offered to Serbia: removal of the visa regime, quicker integration in the EU, etc, the answer was still plain NO! So now all we have to live with the consequences of an illegal act. Nobody benefits from the outcome. Least of all Kosovo and Serbia.
IMAGE SOURCE
69 Komentari
Sortiraj po: