ICJ conclusion on Kosovo "will be neutral"

That was predicted at the start of proceedings by our most nuanced and pragmatic posters here like Mike. The ICJ will fudge this issue and Kosovo will remain in limbo until such a time that Pristina is compelled to talk to Belgrade.

Speaking of fudge, i'll be enjoying some at my tea break this morning.

Even if it was a yes or no kind of decision, it really wouldn't change much since both sides are not going to change their position.

The bombing of Serbia wasn't legal in the first place and war crimes were committed by NATO so why would anyone expect the courts decision to change anything when the occupiers obviously have no respect for international law?

It is just like all of those insignificant recognitions. They change absolutely nothing. In the case of New Zealand's apparent recognition, it wasn't even reported in their press and there was no offical government announcement. What's the point of it?

The reality on the ground is that Kosovo is under occupation although legally Serbian territory. Independence is irreversibly blocked while neither ethnic Albanians, Serbians or the occupiers have full control over the territory. The status quo remains and this will be the case for a while to come.

I am puzzled. I have heared the rumor before here in Holland that the verdict will be something vague in which everyone can hear what he likes. What surprises me now is that a judge is openly saying this before the hearings are finished. And that he is even talking about a 30 page verdict - allthough that may be a matter of figurative language.

There can be no neutral opinion here because the mountain of evidence says that the UDI was not in accordance with international law. It looks like the ICJ is already hinting at ambiguity by planning to throw weasel words into the decision thus allowing the Kosovo precedent to flourish. We should prepare ourselves then for the next generation of ‘newborns’ such as Palestine, Republika Srpska and northern Kosovo.

I thought the court's job was to interpret the law and uphold it.
There is no room for middle ground on a matter of legality. Either something is legal or illegal. How can a court say "maybe"?

How can this person even know how many pages it will take to "clarify" or muddy the already murky waters?
How can he even begin to predict how the other judges will decide?

Has all this been decided already?

This discussion about the law is a smoke screen. If you look through the smoke you can see the real struggle that is forming.

At the moment the Americans and West Europeans control the use of the word 'right'. Whatever they do is 'right' the law dosen't matter. The ICJ dosen't matter. The UN dosen't matter.

As Asia, Russia and South America become more powerful you will find that they will be 'right' in the future. The law still will not matter. The ICJ still will not matter and the UN still will not matter.

Where this leaves the fake state I think we can all work out for ourselves.

troika,
the reason only Russian agency reported it is that West in general and western media in particular are very scared to release such information. If the decision will be even neutral, many of western countries will fall apart, including USA (Texas).

How can theft of Serbian land + property be neutral? Not to mention all the crimes alban terrorists committed in Kosmet...

In 1921 Monsignor F. S. Noli Albanian representative to the League of Nation, had a brilliant answer for the Yugoslavian delegate M. Spailacovic. The latter almost in an identical situation as the current, was then challenging the existence of another newly established state, Albania.
Monsignor Noli said: Our honourable colleague from Serbia believes in the advice that the lawyer used to give to his pupils: He used to say:, When the Law is against you, insist on the facts. When the facts are against you, insist on the Law. When both the facts and the law are against you, revile the other party.
Well my Serbian friends I have nothing more to add to that.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusion will be a fudged "middle ground, keep everyone happy" politicised outcome.

All it means is that, not surprisingly, the conclusion document will be lengthy and need to be read in full rather than being short enough for a tabloid headline.

Let's hope that it's weighty due to factual accuracy and real legal consideration, in which case even 30 pages will have clarity.

Just a couple of small notes. The title of the article appears to say that the ICJ's ruling will be 'neutral' in terms of outcome. Could also be interpreted as saying ruling will be impartial in terms of bias. In any case, former interpretation cannot be inferred from the text of Owada's statement as presented in the article.

Stirring controversy B92?

I wonder what other court would be allowed to report the outcome before it has even completed it's deliberations? I dearly hope that the ICJ can remain truely independant and focused on the facts as they exist. If they do, one can logically assume that their declaration comes out in favour of international law rather than in favour of saving face for the illegal actions of NATO and subsequent illegal declaration.Lets be honest, there are always two sides to any conflict and the sooner the world realises and admits this, the better it will be for all. Then and only then will there be a balanced foundation on which a platform for sensible dialogue between all concerned can be built. Please, set aside the arguments of the past, ignore the illegalities of the past and talk sensibly and pragmatically about the future. There is a solution that is beneficial and acceptable to both parties in there somewhere it just requires some level headed and courageous people to taese it out. SIT DOWN AND TALK PEOPLE, PLEASE.

And the BS goes on, hardly surprising...apart from the fact that even before even the hearing they dare to give some sort of pre-opinion and the number of pages! What a farce

B92 preparing its Serbian audience for a negative outcome to the case.
(bsbs, 20 November 2009 14:12)

No, that's ICJ preparing Albanians and Serbs: "guys, sorry, we lost our spine somehow, forgive us".

What an absolute joke. Neutrality? This is an absolute insult to both Serbs and Albanians alike. This mockery of a court cannot sit idly by, declaring neutrality when the stability of not only the entire region, but regions around the world are threatened. If this 'court' was going to do this, they could have declared so long ago....but the way things are, they have inevitably opened the door for Serbians to prosecute all of the nations which recognised Kosovo's unilateral independence; if this was not already going to occur.

Someone bring some sense to these fools.

why even go though this garbage? everyone knows that udi's are illegal.

Also not to mention this

Jurisdiction

The International Court of Justice acts as a world court. The Court has a dual jurisdiction : it decides, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by States (jurisdiction in contentious cases); and it gives advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of the organs of the United Nations or specialized agencies authorized to make such a request (advisory jurisdiction).

Neutrality by those definitions cannot be imposed as "it decides, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by States (jurisdiction in contentious cases); and it gives advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of the organs of the United Nations or specialized agencies authorized to make such a request (advisory jurisdiction). "


What a joke this 'court' is. What kind of justice is neutral?

With the current balance inside the ICJ any neutral solution will be in our favor. Evidently for the time being they are not going to sacrifice the reputation of the Court and the remnants of the International Law. K-people will also gain cause it will be a form of recognition. So the situation will just be frozen while the time plays on the Albanian side … Serbia should had waited for better balance inside the ICJ …

The main problem are not even the Albanians as they were used just as tools and because in some degree they are also victims in their newly obtained outlaw reservation. Our main problem is that under no condition the West will not confess in the in the crimes committed against a sovereign Christian country in the center of the civilization. And this is the main source of the optimism filling the K-people.

The court then is clearly terrified of giving any clear decision.

Deciding on 'independence' opens the door to conflict around the world, much in the same way that President Wilson's 'Right to Self-determination' did, initially a slow burner but then burning very brightly all around the world.

Just imagine Turkey telling the Kurds 'no' but Kosovo is 'ok'.

The court doesn't want blood on its hands.

I guess that voting against independence would be an indictment of the West and its policies and open up to further legal redress, i.e. Serbia could use such a decision legally against those who supported the kla bombed Serbia. It could also pose a further major threat to the credibility of UN system altogether, particularly as developing countries are demanding increased influence.

Now that cannot be allowed.

A neutral result would be just like UK foreign policy, maintaining a balance of power, except for when the great powers decide it is their unilateral right to roll up the UN Charter and smoke it.

Either way, Serbia can out wait the kosovo albanians who have to prove that they are worthy of what the West has bequeathed them. They cannot expect endless handouts from Brussels that disappear via dodgy contracts or a continued blind-eye to rampant crime, unemployment and corruption.

The court is simply not prepared to take responsibility for a decision that could determine the relevance of the nation state and the usual unpredictable consequences.

Ben,

This time, we removed the statement that was unacceptable, and published the rest.

In the future, do not expect to have your comment published in any form if you choose to use similar language.

Regards,

B92

Serbs and Albanians alike they have no need to waste their time regarding this issue.
(Kosova-USA, 20 November 2009 11:58)

I did *** suspect *** that they (ICJ) will do their best to avoid any direct answer. What came as surprise is that the judge did even admit it that early.

"Political correctness" is above everything. Pretty sad because the question Serbian government asked is simple. And either way there should be a straight answer, "yes" or "no".

Next hilarious idea would be for UN to recognize Kosovo as independent entity (notice the wording: "entity", not country) and assign two chairs to three "entities" within UN: Albania, Serbia, Kosovo.

That would of course set a precedent and I would make my own "entity" (not country) which does not pays taxes to anyone and in order to pass through our village near BP you will need to buy a $200 visa at the border. And within village we will make a police force which will ticket anyone who is not from the village, like the infamous New Rome township in Ohio.

Thanks Niall for the vote of confidence!

Seriously, I think most sane people on both sides of the argument here have had no illusions the ICJ would fudge the decision. When was the last time an international organization came down hard for one side over another? And in actuality, this is plenty for Belgrade to continue to move forward and push for greater control over parts of Kosovo it has direct links to (6 Serb municipalities + SPC sites), while continuing to bypass Pristina in order to work with EULEX in terms of cooperative security, judicial matters, and trade across administrative borders. In addition, not firmly saying "Kosovo's secession was legal", prevents every other Tom, Dick, and Harry separatist movement from playing the "Me too" card, beginning most likely with Republika Srpska, and quickly following with Iraqi Kurdistan, Basque Country, and culminating with a needed recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. By keeping the answer ambiguous, those in favor of Kosovo's alleged statehood can hold fast to the fantasy of "unique case" and keep the good people at Rand McNally from an updated world map every 6 months.

But what would happen if the ICJ nullifies Kosovo's "sovereignty"? Then we've got 1.5 million irate Albanians on our hand. It was foolish of the West to promise them everything including the kitchen sink, and we're increasingly seeing efforts to trim back (some would even say castrate) Pristina's authority it claims over areas it's never going to reach. Perhaps even without Belgrade’s doing, the “more than autonomy, less than independence” scenario is playing out by EU officials. Best to preserve some form of self determination within a large structure of an international mandate – which is what I’ve been arguing Kosovo has been for years now.

Finally, village-bey’s rather metaphoric statement of when one reaches for facts of laws in the absence of the other is seemingly true. Yet “facts” and “laws” conveniently end up as normative reflections, rather than empirical measurements, to suit one’s case. Still, he gets a star for that.

Also the ICJ court has the right not to give an opinion at all. Otherwise they will say is not within our authority to give an opinion on this issue.
Serb politicians knew this alll along, but they did it for public consumtion andin the end they willtelltheir people, that we have tried our best.

Of course the answer will be ambiguous, because the ICJ is a joke just like the Hague is a joke. It is run almost by the very same colonialists, who do what they want and don't ask anyone, and break the law all the time if it suits their agenda, and invoke the law if on their agenda. They are complete hypocrites.
If ever there was a cut and dry case, it is this. Kosovo's declaration of independence is completely illegal, it can not be any more clear to any lawyer or anyone. However, that is not how the world works unfortunately - the world is full of injustice.
Speaking injustice, Niall, my condolences man, you guys got TOTALY screwed by the referee and linesman, and by FIFA!! Ireland deserves to be in South Africa, it is a real shame and travesty that they will not be.

I agree with many of the observers here that this would be a weak call by the ICJ, mainly because the law is so clearly in Serbia's favor here. But still, a neutral decision is an economic deathblow to the stillborn UDI. Without a clear and unequivocal declaration from the ICJ and/or a seat on the UN, who's going to invest in "Kosova"? "Kosova" has little chance of gathering international investment, aside from outright charity, at this moment, never mind after a "neutral" ICJ decision.

Can we put an end to the following arguments:

No, the right to self determination does not mean that every ethnic group can unilaterally declare independence from a regime it doesn't like.

No, you can't use the old Yugoslav constitution to argue that Kosovo is entitled to independence. You can't cite the Yugoslav constitution and ignore UN1244 at the same time, or claim that Serbia is not the successor state to Yugoslavia.

And no, no matter how many Albanians the Serbs supposedly killed, maimed or deported, you are not entitled to 15% of Serbia. Even if we accept that your claims are true, there is no precednet in international law for handing territory over to an ethnic minority in exchange for past trangressions. It's silly to imagine that there is such a thing, or that it only applies to Albanians in this special case.

Well to all serbs who comes with new different excuses about the ICJ ruling, it will not help. With or without the ICJ process Kosovo would still be independent. It is somthing that cannot and will not change. We the Kosovars(including serbs wich voted on the election) dosen't need to have this diplomatic war with Serbia because we allready control our territory and allready have settled our ''status''. The proof is that we are recognized by 63 countrys wich is the main devolpment countrys in the world. And we are also members of great financial organisations. In the end we live in Europe and not in Asia and Europe is clearly backing us up and treat us as a state. With time and development of our country even Serbia will will see no chance in ever regaining control over Kosovo.

This is just a procces and will end in Serbia recognizing Kosovo. It has no other way's. Just like the procces between 1999 until 2008 when Kosovo declared independence. Everybody knew that would happend and some serbs even then refused to acknowledge this fact. it is the same history now.


My personal thoughts is that behind the curtain the serb representatives and the albanian ones together with Ahtisaari came up with the Ahtisaari-plan wich is a very big compromise both for Serbia and Kosovo. Ahtisaari plan is the real compromise but some serbs like the radicals dosen't want to compromise but have it all. The flag is neutral, the constitution is built up on an multiethnic sociaty wich secures the right for all it's citizens and by decentralization gives minrotys the right to rule them self. And albanian and serbian are the two official laungage in Kosovo. Kosovo is clearly an state wich is a bridge between Albania and Serbia and albanians and serbs. Kosovó independence dosen't clearly means that Kosovo is an albanian state. Kosovo is the country of it's people and is ruled both by serb citizens and albanian citizens.

Dear Ben,
I believe that you should respect international law and refer from now on to southern part of serbia, as KOSOVO ,as its mentioned in UN 1244 resolution.Moreover i am interesting to find out wherever you work in kosovo or not......bec if you work in any mission you have to be status neutral!!!!

Neutral????
Why???

What about 15,000 inocent civlians, killed , 1 million thrown out....and other attrocities

This will set a dangerous precedent worldwide...that do whatever you like the ICJ will be indifferent/neutral...


WHAT a world?

ICJ should not ONLY ecourage countries worldwide(serbia included) to recognise Kosovo
BUT also should ask serbia to pay reparation and appologise

"If ICJ doesn't rule against independence, for many countries that are waiting for the decision to make their recognition public, will mean that their recognition doesn't go against int. law." (miri)

-- I don't know how you come to this conclusion, if the ICJ rules "neutral". It will affirm neither Serbia's claim to Kosovo, nor Kosovo's claim to statehood. How does international law fit in to your argument then if its sovereignty will be even less legitimate than Bosnia’s? "Neutral" means "ambiguous", which implies all interested parties will simply carve little Kosovo up into their own spheres of influence. Countries will no longer be pressured into recognizing, and we may even see a few countries withdrawing their recognitions. Neither two scenarios however are going to make the daily lives of Kosovo’s people any worse though. The U.S. publicly stated it would support Kosovo regardless of ICJ decision, so Thaci et al can rest assured their failsafe option is still there.

B92 preparing its Serbian audience for a negative outcome to the case.

Serbia tried to fool the court ("We will not recognize even if the court...") but the court fooled them.

P.S. The court is under no obligation to even issue a ruling, let alone give a "yes" or "no"

hmmmmm that tell me something.MR AHTISARI never said that kosovo will become independece but his plan lead to independece.

Peter,

No. Carrying a news agency report, along with its headline.

Regards,

B92

"please wake up and when you dream don't type!"

-- This is coming from aRTA who continues to dream of some Ace in the Hole that’s going to give his side the victory they somehow deserve. Who’s the dreamer here?

Amer and miri,

Sure, states will not be compelled "not" to recognize, but that doesn't mean that they have to be compelled "to" recognize. This means that the United States can no longer pressure states into recognizing. If Kosovo's status is not clearly defined and specified as a state with all right and privileges a sovereign entity deserves, recognitions will be not one of legal obligation, but of self-interest. I am not arguing that a neutral ruling is going to quash Kosovo's alleged statehood altogether, nor do I see that as even remotely possible, or feasible. But rather it can give Belgrade (provided it has the interest) the ability to seek greater privileges in Kosovo where its authority is still recognized and, depending on the wording of the ruling, a legitimate reason to pursue its interest without international sanction or censureship. In other words, I feel that even with the addition of new recognitions (including those that no longer feel repercussions for doing so will result), the fuzzy ruling will equally play into Belgrade's hand resulting in international recognition of an entity that is unified in name only. One can only claim complete victory if the ruling is clearly in one's favor. An ambiguous ruling will perpetuate the status quo, remove the need for recognitions, strengthen the multiple self-interested hands already active in the region, and further necessitate the need for indefinite international oversight to give some semblance of unity. Neutral ruling produces neutral status.

miri,

I only noticed your additional comment after I sent off my last one.

What you envision in your metaphor to me sounds a lot like the status quo. Provided I don't resort to harsh measures to get you to move your fence off of property I say is mine, it effectively recognizes the "boundaries" that are on the ground.

By this very same logic, Serbia has pushed its own "fence" down to the Ibar, and has retained a number of spots throughout the rest of Kosovo. If I interpret your scenario, it says Serbs can't really do much with what Albanians already have, but Albanians can't really do much with which Serbs have. The result is the same as I've been saying from the beginning - multiple hands operating in one region with no pressure to give quarter to the other and enough legal justification to hold on to what one currently has. The only way I could see one side claiming victory over the other would be in denying 100% of the land to them. In the end, you keep Pristina, and they keep KM and Gracanica, EULEX keeps peace and order, and everyone's happy, right? Bosnia's recognized by 192 countries, but we really don't see RS caving at all; nor do we see anyone really seriously concerned with eliminating it.

"would not be a clear yes or no."

Every political acts are legal or not. Is very clear. Probably ICJ is on the USA pressure...

Ben,

In the future, do not expect to have your comment published in any form if you choose to use similar language.

Regards,

B92
(B92, 20 November 2009 17:04)

thank you very much b92, but would you kindly please apply the same policy towards demi, kosova-usa, arta and the rest of the gang? one simple way to do this is to spell check comments.

I am puzzled. I have heared the rumor before here in Holland that the verdict will be something vague in which everyone can hear what he likes. What surprises me now is that a judge is openly saying this before the hearings are finished. And that he is even talking about a 30 page verdict - allthough that may be a matter of figurative language.
(Wim Roffel, 20 November 2009 11:25)

Don't be suprised. I am not suprised at all, since we all knew how this will turn out. Despite the fact that some on this site were saying that ICJ will rule in favour of Serbia.
But, you are absolutaly right why the Judge came out publicly at this time. Now ,this is a suprise to me too.
I assume that from now one , Serbs andAlbanians alike they have no need to waste their time regarding this issue.

The only outcome is: Serbia lost its last chance to actually do anything about it.
If ICJ doesn't rule against independence, for many countries that are waiting for the decision to make their recognition public, will mean that their recognition doesn't go against int. law.
Thanks Demi and village-bey for your great comments.

P.S. The court is under no obligation to even issue a ruling, let alone give a "yes" or "no"
(Free Kosova, 20 November 2009 14:28)

Yes they are. They have taken the case and therefore committed themselves to an opinion.

B92 what is wrong with my comment that you don't pubblish it??

The sovereignty AND the right of self-determination are both firmly grounded in the international law.

If ICJ stops here then yes the opinion will be ambiguous.

But I think ICJ should go beyond and say in which case one prevails the other.

Is the territorial integrity of the state predominant even in cases where the state apparatus SYSTEMATICALY abuses the individual and collective rights of one ethnicity???

Does the territorial integrity prevail over the cases where a state expells an entire nation of different ethnicity out of her historical land???

Now ICJ MUST addresses these questions not just to stop on pure technical judgment- because if it douses so it will end answering the question of who is older the chicken or the egg.

Freedom and dignity are not juridical concept they go far beyond any law that we have today and for opportunism will make tomorrow.

If ICJ stops and doesn’t answer these questions be SURE that the reason is because of political opportunism since it will create huge problems to say China with Tibet; Sudan with Darfur; Russia with Chechnya; Tunisia with Saharian's etc.

Thus the WEST who is NOT interested as well that he ICJ addresses these questions offered to Russia and China the compromise solution:

“Kosova is a SPECIAL CASE”.

Russia refused it thus now for coherence this compromise should not be anymore on the table and ICJ MUST answer the question: in which case the sovereignty prevails over the right of self- determination- or vice-versa.

While Russia and all those countries that supported Serbia in ICJ plea should bear the consequences- because you asked for it.

The ambiguity judgment serves ONLY to cover the cookeries of the countries.

A clear and honest answer of the prevalence of one right towards the other will make the world a more just and better place.

States that were formed and organised earlier than others have invaded other nations.

Then they have invented a juridical mechanism (sovereignty right) to cover-up their common cookeries and baptised this mechanism with- international law (I scratch your back you scratch mine).

After some time some of these states evolved in genuine democracies and allowed the independence of the nations that they invaded earlier while others think that the sovereignty is the magic umbrella that allows them to abuse, expel, kill and discriminate at their will the minorities that they have invaded.

Well someone should say - NO.

ICJ has the great chance to do that.

Will they???

Personally I doubt too many crooks too many cookeries.

Thus, am afraid the president of ICJ is right: the opinion will be ambiguous- remember ONLY because of the political opportunism, otherwise Kosova would win the case 100%, without any, ‘yes but’.

Ron, though possibly off topic, not really. I read through the documentation of resolution 1244 that you provided. I still cannot see where it specifically states that Kosovo was an independent statelet within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Of course Kosovo was in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, as New Your City is within the USA. Remember that the UN is about nations and not provinces. It is not necessary at the UN level to say that the Upper Penninsula is part of Michigan, but rather part of the USA. However, note that Serbia is the official succesor to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, thus Kosovo is still in Serbia.
If I missed where it said specifically what you're claiming, please point me directly to that spot. I very well did miss it.

Thank you “vaguely informed” on your dissertation on how international law works and you are generally correct. But I would remind you and everybody here that the only way Albanians here will have a clear victory, is if the court declares their UDI was legal under UN res 1244, UN Charter and the Helsinki Treaty and formed a fully sovereign nation. The court may muddy the waters with moral wrangling of how the western countries intentions were noble in trying to find a solution thru the Atasari Plan, but ultimately they will revert to res 1244 declare the UDI illegal and call for more negotiations since the Atasari plan was never adopted by the UN Security council, because otherwise they will unravel the very fabric of the UN as a forum for peaceful resolution of conflicts and as such undermine their own relevance (not to mention questioning the need for their well paid cushy retirement gigs) and the Judiciary never undermines its own relevance regardless of the issue or jurisdiction . However, they will avoid the use of the word “illegal” they will squirm and twist with noble grace to use innocuous words such as “non compliant”, “not in the spirit of, “not in accordance with” so as to avoid embarrassment for the countries that have recognized this breakaway UN protectorate, which is what it is until the original Sovereign (like it or not SERBIA) recognizes its Sovereignty. Moreover, the court in its analysis will ultimately have to address what it is that the UDI formed and what these Western countries have recognized in this region called Kosovo/a. These countries recognized something called “supervised Independence” under the Atasari plan, it enshrines in the interim Kosovo governments constitution - a foreign occupying force – NATO with no time limit, a foreign Judicial and police force with ultimate jurisdiction – EULIX under UN auspices(res 1244) with no time limit, no ability to form an official standing Army notwithstanding the token emergency disaster reaction force, an International Viceroy with no time limit and several Serbian municipalities that have special jurisdictional relationships with Serbia as well as recognized Serbian citizenship of some of it citizens. Similarly, it does not control all of its territory (North Mitrovica , enclaves, etc) or all of its borders (ie Northern border effectively in control of the Kosovo Serbians). The court may recognize this as some new neo-colonial entity with pretend Sovereignty, established as an interim solution, but certainly not as FULL SOVEREIGNTY! This will be the courts wiggly wrangle way out of a nasty situation. The decision will go along the lines of THE UDI WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH UN RES 1244, BUT DID NOT RESULT IN A VIOLATION OF UN RES 1244, BECAUSE IT DID NOT FORM A FULLY SOVEREIGN NATION BUT RATHER AN ENTITY WITH SUPERVISED INDEPENDENCE AND AS SUCH WAS AN EXERCISE OF THE INTERMIM RIGHTS AFFORDED UNDER UN RESULTION 1244 AND CANNOT EFFECTIVELY BE IMPLEMENTED AS FINAL STATUS SOLUTION UNTIL ULTIMATELY NEGOTIATED WITH SERBIA, FURTHERMORE RECONITION OF THIS SUPERVISED INDEPENDENCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A VILOATION OF THE UN CHATER OR THE HELSINKY TREATY BECAUSE THE ENTITY FORMED THROUGH UDI DOES NOT POSSES THE REQUISITE LEGAL CHARACTERSITICS OF FULL SOVEREIGNTY AND AS SUCH ANY RECONITION OF SUCH AN ENTITY DOES NOT CONFER ANY LEGAL INTERNATIONAL STATUS NOR INVALIDATE THE ANY LEGAL COMPETANCY OF SUCH AN ENTITY UNDER RES 1244, SINCE FULL SOVERIGNTY IS NOT PRESENT, BUT CAN ONLY BE DEEMED AS SUPPORT FOR THIS PARTICULAR SOLUTION UNDER PRESENT INTERNATIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF SOVEREIGNTY AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE DEEMED AS A VIOLATION OF EXISTING INTERNATIONAL NORMS AS ENSHIRNED IN THE UN CHATER AND THE HELSINKI TREATY. Back to square one, everybody seems to win, the decision will seem neutral, except the Kosovo Albanians will be further boxed in the department store revolving door no closer to full sovereignty than they were under full UNMIK administration. Their options will be limited. Continue down the path of pretend Sovereignty and hope the west will eventually leave, giving them Sovereignty (highly unlikely, leaving would result in renewed conflict, more likely, would be further concessions to Serbia by the west as Serbia approaches the full EU integration ) or rebelling to kick out the neo-colonial overlords which would again nullify any gains already made and certainly result in renewed conflict with Serbia or renewing negotiations with Serbia and compromising to find a just solution for final status that would satisfy all sides and finally bring some peace to this part of the world.

You make a valid point, and i think in 5 to 10 years this will be the outcome.

N-KM and Gracanica go under Serbia or something alike.

and Albanians get the rest of territory and this conflict is over.

but nationalists in both countries wont allow it.

but this is a big blow for Serbia, K- Alb did not want to go to Court they already got what they want.
(Bilbao, 20 November 2009 21:35)

Bilbao, if there is any final compromise agreement which involves a carve up it should be agreeable to all sides and encompass the following:

1.Pec & Decani ceeded to Montenegro.

2. Serbia takes Mitrovica, Gracanica, Strpce and the enclaves Serbs control.

3. Albania takes Pristina, Prizren and the rest.

4. Both Tirana and Belgrade go guarantor on holy sites and both parties promise to uphold the rights of Albanians and Serbs who end up under opposite jurisdictions.

5. Resettlement and compensation to displaced.

Both sides are happy, skin it and we all go home.

Serbia asked the ICJ if "Kosovo is pregnant or not pregnant". A simple yes or no. Was the Kosovo Albanian declaration legal or not? Serbia knew that it was not and it still knows that it's not. And the West knows that it's not. And East knows that is not,and the South and the North know it as well. So the West chooses to make another "evil" and wrong choice---like,what else is new???If I were the Albanians I wouldn't be jumping up and down so high as you are notorious for making wrong choices and decisions. There is a fearless, extremely powerful and gifted young man watching all---his name is *PUTINMAN* and he is an expert in dealing with Western cowards which live in desperation,fear and "borrowed time".

i only object on the grounds that this is a russian report.
obviously while russians read it all, the other side will already be free.
What will the delay be next time around from Serbia? Will they tell other countrys to wait with further recognitions until Serbia changes another 5 governments and 12 constitutions?

One more clarification I wanted to make for Mike.

Let's say I take my neighbor to court and plead that he has put his fence one foot into my property. The verdict comes out as: "neutral" specifying that there isn't enough evidence to support my claim, or something like similar. Who do you think ends up a winner and a loser? I can make appeals, to a higher court and hire a better lawyer, otherwise I am at lost, regardless if I personally accept what my neighbor has done or not. In the meanwhile all my nearby neighbors say that I am wrong. Few distant ones don't care and say nothing, unless a court verdict obliges them to do so. My distant cousin agrees with me and he actually works in the city hall but he can do nothing other than refusing to put the signature where is due to confirm that the fence is in the right place. All other members of surveyor's office in the city hall disagree with my cousin and me and have given a green card to my neighbor to do whatever he likes. What a nightmare is this for me? How can a neutral decision helped me?

What higher than ICJ Serbia can go?

Joe,

I never write about what *PUTINMAN*is going to do for Serbia personally or directly,but I hint on "your" activities and events that could eventually spell "grimm reality" for "you" and your beneficiaries, like after the "smoke cleared" in Georgia where many were singing:
"Oh,what'll you do now, my red-white-blue-eyed son?
Oh,what'll you do now, my darling young one"?
How long do you think your evil ways like looting,destroying,breaching international laws,poisoning the environment, killing and wilting young innocent God's children with your cluster bombs and depleated munitions---could sustain you before you destroy yourselves or others destroy you or Universe destroys you??? You use percentage points,zeros and economics for your predictions, I use common sense,history and the study of Universe for mine.
*PUTINMAN* is a political grand chess master that showed the world community that Russia will not be bullied,bluffed or EVER humiliated.And part of Russia is in Serbia now.

Mike,
please wake up and when you dream don't type! The "West" has recognized Kosova, only Spain is left. Roma-nia and Slovakia are waiting for an excuse to do so, they both need US and EU nity will be a central theme now.

Albanians agreed to the supervised indy, so it's all good. Serbia has no control over the municipalities, Serb gov even said that they cannot cooperate with those that won in Kosova elections.

We're back to square: EU or Kosovo for Serbia. If they choose Kosova you get none. EULEX wants to get out of there as fast as possible

Their economy relying on export of raw materials is in real bad shape. Apparently you didn't follow Medvedev's 90 minute state address few days ago and Putin's similar statement today. Please wake up. The times of bombastic statements about what "Putin can do for you" are gone.
(Joe, 21 November 2009 14:50)

Joe,

I am very-very much opposing Putin and I never fail to mention my antipathy towards him. Probably as often as I mention "Hashish" in connection with "Thaci".

But somewhat you should know:

Russia's economy is NOT and NEVER EVER WAS consumer-driven. If you are a consumer that of course does not make you feel warm and fuzzy. And this fact discourages people to take credits. And even worse: they are ready to bear a lot.

Regarding Putin the opinion is split. Some say, he made the country great again, even by ruling it with means far being "democratic". Some even go as far as saying, "democracy" was a sell-out of the country and iron fist is the best thing.

I say, that he is riding on the wave of economy. And that the biggest "democrats" and "West's friends" were / are in the fact the worst communists, but used the word "democracy" pretty smart way.

One question:

Why aren't you critic towards two big SOB communists?

#1: former head of Turkmenistan's Communist Party, Saparmurat Niyazov. Later he became the "Turkmenbashi". His human rights record makes Kim Jong Il pale. Opponents were murdered, opera was prohibited, people were demanded to wear clothing he did approve, people had to study his poems in the school and so on. But he was rarely criticized in the West... his country is supporting that little thing called "Nabucco". Which is a pet idea of...

#2: Hashim ("Hashish") Thaci, the "snake", the "serpent part" of the Quetzalcoatl (you know, the Aztec bird-serpent deity feeding on human parts). The "bird" part being the "pigeon" Agim Ceku). If you look at their biography, the only "positive" is the birdy being related to Serbian (not-less-Communist) high brass. I mean, you probably know, who Ceku's wife is. While "serpent" did found a militant commie party.

I fail to see any of them being better than KGBishna Putin. In the fact, the KGB man did prove, he is a REALLY DANGEROUS man and I really don't like him. But these - unlike Putin - are pathetic clowns.

VaguelyInformed,

Thanks for the writing, I am maybe one of the few who even did read the entire essay. You certainly know more about international law than I do and I can't argue about what I don't know.

Few comments to the last part of your writing.

1)

For now, deadlock favours those backing Kosovar independence...
(VaguelyInformed, 21 November 2009 01:30

Question: is it some kind of race? Or maybe a war game?
Because what you write kind of suggesting it indirectly. If that's the case, than it's not about Kosovo - and we all know that precisely.

-----

2)

... as Serbian control will become harder to reimpose.
(VaguelyInformed, 21 November 2009 01:30)

I don't think, Serbian government does want to reimpose any "control" on Albanians living in Kosovo. Under current circumstances they have no representation in Belgrade and it would be unacceptable. Serbs living in Kosovo do not want to be under control of Pristina either and there is no clear way to partition Kosovo that anyone will be satisfied.

To make things worse, the part of international community which is currently directly involved in Kosovo does not work towards a solution which would feel both parties to be a winner. Rather, both parties are essentially losers.

-----

3)

If Serbia joins the EU with the Kosovo issue skirted over, then Belgrade will hold an extra bargaining chip (no independent Kosovar accession to the EU without Serbian consent)
(VaguelyInformed, 21 November 2009 01:30)

- Not sure, what form EU will take in few years. Much can change either way.
- Usually the former "enemies" are the ones who push each other to EU for a very good reason. If Kosovo independence would gain any moment, (rest-of)Serbia's interest would to push that territory into EU as fast as possible - that would be the only way to re-integrate it to some extent. For instance, Transylvania is still part of Romania - but now as both Romania and Hungary are in EU, Transylvania is certainly more Hungarian than it was during Ceausescu.

-----

4)

I would be astonished if Serbia can join the EU without conceding strong guarantees for it not to boycott regional meetings where Kosovo representatives are present
(VaguelyInformed, 21 November 2009 01:30)

These are legit expectations. The main obstacle (for me, at least) regarding Kosovo representatives is not that they are, but WHO THEY ARE. If their name is "Veton Surroi" or even "Albin Kurti" - that's one thing. Other names with alleged war crimes / drugs / racket / etc. are a different story. If people can't operate business in Pristina without paying to "Hashish" Thaci, than Serbia is 100% right refusing to deal with such "representatives" - and if these are the ones "favored" by international "pro-independance" lobby, just because they have a deal, than this "pro-independance" lobby has nothing to do with Kosovo independence.

-----

5)

...and to grant free movement of Kosovo passport-holders and Kosovo-registered goods and vehicles (even if the documents and their issuing authorities are not recognised).
(VaguelyInformed, 21 November 2009 01:30)

That is a no-brainer and very easy to organize. And it should be done ASAP. You can buy Taiwanese goods in Mainland China, goods from M'land China in Taiwan. And they can visit each other without visas. They need passport tough - but it's OK.

Village-bey
----------

That was a clever one ;-).

I will try to give a short answer on what Goran has raised. I agree with Goran that that neutrality can not be imposed and International Court of Justice is world court. However, Serbia has asked the ICJ to give a nonbinding opinion and not ruling. Therefore the possibility of neutral outcome from non-binding opinion has logic.
(Bujar, 21 November 2009 15:36)

Thank you for your consideration. Though I do understand where you are coming from, I have to disagree. Serbia had asked the ICJ whether Kosovo's unilateral proclomation of independence was in accordance to internation law /YES or NO/. The answer was to be YES or NO. And they cannot sit there claiming moral grounds and what not, the question was whether it was illegal or not.

-- I don't know how you come to this conclusion, if the ICJ rules "neutral". It will affirm neither Serbia's claim to Kosovo, nor Kosovo's claim to statehood. How does international law fit in to your argument then if its sovereignty will be even less legitimate than Bosnia’s? "Neutral" means "ambiguous", which implies all interested parties will simply carve little Kosovo up into their own spheres of influence. Countries will no longer be pressured into recognizing, and we may even see a few countries withdrawing their recognitions. Neither two scenarios however are going to make the daily lives of Kosovo’s people any worse though. The U.S. publicly stated it would support Kosovo regardless of ICJ decision, so Thaci et al can rest assured their failsafe option is still there.
(Mike, 20 November 2009 17:25)

I think we have already been down this path before. The only possible outcome that would have some interest to Serbia is a 100% rejection of K-Independence by ICJ. The only goal of taking the case in there, was to slow down the recognitions. Assuming the best scenario for Serbia, that the pending case truly slowed down some recognitions, after the neutral/ambiguous (whatever the name) verdict there is no inhibitor for those countries that have been waiting for it. Those that want to go ahead with recognition will do so with clear conscience that even ICJ did not found the case un-lawful. The others like Russia and co, might hold on forever but they would have done so regardless anyway. The point is that the failure of Serbia(the plaintif) winning the case simply implies that the defendant is NOT GUILTY. What is so confusing to you in this logic? As per carving of Kosova, no party really cares about ICJ. so I don't get it why you are mixing these things together.

'Countries will no longer be pressured into recognizing, and we may even see a few countries withdrawing their recognitions. '

Doesn't compute, Mike - you're assuming that a neutral opinion means there are no valid arguments for Kosovo being independent. What it sounds like to me is that the arguments of the two sides - the sanctity of existing borders vs. self-determination - are of similar legal weight, and that third countries are free to select which they favor, taking into consideration the particular circumstances of each case.

That is, the opinion will serve as a fig-leaf for those countries that have been nervous about the possible legal consequences of recognizing Kosovo and allow them to finally proceed with the process, since the world's highest court will be saying - it sounds like - that the reasons for not doing so are not compelling, and in the absence of a compelling reason, states should not obstruct the recognition of new states.

This might be a little off topic, but for all those people who reffer to the resolution 1244 and kosovo as being a part of Serbia in that resolution, I would invite them to read again the above mentioned resolution where Kosovo is only mentioned as being part of Yugoslav Federation and not Serbia. Since Yugoslav federation does not exist anymore...........Kosovo like any other member of the old Yugoslav Federation had the right to walk away independent, period.
This is the link:
www.nato.int/Kosovo/docu/u990610a.htm

Mike,

You make a valid point, and i think in 5 to 10 years this will be the outcome.

N-KM and Gracanica go under Serbia or something alike.

and Albanians get the rest of territory and this conflict is over.

but nationalists in both countries wont allow it.

but this is a big blow for Serbia, K- Alb did not want to go to Court they already got what they want.

Ataman,

I am surprised by your question. The two others you mention (one of them is dead and I know about him) belong to two small countries. They don't have the same international significance. Putin is mentioned here times and again as the ultimate savior of "Serbian Kosovo", as the leader of a country, who is able to do everything. It has nothing to do with communist backgrounds. You are always hung up with the commi background of those guys. If Putin would not be the PM of a big country like Russia I would never even mention his name on this site.
And as for Russia not a consummer society, I know that. Based on their current situation they will not be one for the next 60 or 80 years.
One third of them try to survive on a daily basis. Luckily them have their chip vodka and that helps to forget their miseries. Nazdarovne!!

Blue eyed son,

Aren't you overrating brother Putin a bit. After all, the current price of oil is too low for a high cost producer such as Russia to make a profit. Can you possibly guess which country orchestrated this fiasco to weaken Russia. I think you can! Another planned event to cripple Russia was the global financial "crisis". As you may know, the USA has weathered this storm rather nicely. Hardly anyone here remembers it. However, Putin and his gang are still gasping for air while fully one third of his countrymen are living in poverty. Added to this, Serbia had to sell off its most valuable asset in Nish and become an indentured servant to Russia. But, you did get one thing straight, Serbia is now part of Russia, with little hope of ever becoming financially viable.

If I may continue the metaphor for Mike, eventually the City where I live will give the piece of land that I claim is mine to my neighbor and then that becomes the LAW! This is no joke, this is actually true and you know it if you live in US.

Getting back to your comment about K-North, are you saying that at the end of the game what Serbia gained from ICJ is only the North? Very lame if you ask me. It is no secret that Serbia controls the North. However I gladly can see that the conflict eventually will shift only on who will legally control the North of Kosova and we'll cross that bridge (I mean legally) when we come to it. Perhaps then we'll reach a compromise together, either split the autonomous province of Mitrovica (if I may call it that way) or swap it for Presevo Valley. If not, then Kosova will take Serbia to ICJ about its northern part. K-Albanians will have learned from the mistakes of our Serb friends. Then we'll have the law in our side. Sounds like a fairy tale to many of you and that's good. It's because the gullibility of Serbian governments that Kosova today is free and independent.

I will try to give a short answer on what Goran has raised. I agree with Goran that that neutrality can not be imposed and International Court of Justice is world court. However, Serbia has asked the ICJ to give a nonbinding opinion and not ruling. Therefore the possibility of neutral outcome from non-binding opinion has logic.

One third of them try to survive on a daily basis. Luckily them have their chip vodka and that helps to forget their miseries. Nazdarovne!!
(Joe, 21 November 2009 19:04)

Right you are, we could compare it per ex. to the 37 mio americans living on coupons..., also sad and nothing to be ironic about!!

At your place I wouldn't make fun of the misery of people but rather use a bit of your brain to try to help them but I guess you are simply too blind to see further than the top of your nose, what a pitty!

As a Rotarian I have been many times taken care of people with needs and it never makes me laugh, nor it gives me the envy to be ironic about it.

blue-eyed-son,

Don't you overrate your Putin by some 1000%(see the 4)zeros)??
Yes he is extremely powerful in Russia but in the world it is a different story. Fortunately gone are the days when Russia was a superpower, a #2. Their economy relying on export of raw materials is in real bad shape. Apparently you didn't follow Medvedev's 90 minute state address few days ago and Putin's similar statement today. Please wake up. The times of bombastic statements about what "Putin can do for you" are gone.

(Amer, 22 November 2009 19:11)

The US has not escaped unscathed. Some braver US academics are openly saying that the US is in a Depression and there seems to be no end in sight at this stage so the printing of money continues.

However, the cost of printing this extra money has increased substantially because no one will invest in US bonds without getting guarantees on their investment and this is where the general public has not been told what those guarantees are, nor the real cost. No amount of “they buy bonds because the US is a great place to invest” will attract investors unless there are guarantees. Look at it from your perspective would you put money into a venture where your capital has the potential to reduce in value – I wouldn’t.

At the moment the US is living on borrowings and there is plenty of cash around to spend, but once “the orchestra has stops playing and puts its hand out for payment”, that’s when you will really feel the side effects.

The only country honest about its unemployment statistics is Spain – 19%. The US is much higher that the 10.7% otherwise it would be shouting this fact from the roof tops. The support network for the unemployed is at best minimalist and at worst criminal to the point that 49 million do not have enough to eat – this is 2008 stats, I understand that 2009 are much worse.

You have to remember that your the banks are not viable if not supported by Government and the announcements about banks making a ‘profit’ is just a morale boosting exercise. When you include the toxic debt carried by each bank then …. I think you follow what I am saying.

The people in the US elected a messiah, not a President. They were hoping for a miracle, but Obama is not Franklin D Roosevelt, because he does not have the same powers as that great man. During his presidency, Roosevelt initiated ground breaking policies, but through the decades Presidential power has eroded and it’s a shadow of its former self. Huge profits are made during the building of a country or its demise and the feeding frenzy has not yet finished in the US and when it does it will be the public wearing the debt not the corporations.

It is both sad and true that the vast majority of people in general are not concerned as long as it does not affect them – “I’m alright Joe” until it hits them. It’s all to do with apathy and control through the media, just look at the percentages that bother to vote, so any changes will be stage managed by the powers and not by the concerned population.

'Sure, states will not be compelled "not" to recognize, but that doesn't mean that they have to be compelled "to" recognize. This means that the United States can no longer pressure states into recognizing.'


Even now, the U.S. can't pressure states that don't want to recognize Kosovo for their own reasons to do so, as has been demonstrated by Spain, Slovakia, etc. On the other hand, it will make it easier to persuade countries worried about the legal repercussions of recognition that it is now safe to move.

Once the world sees that the ICJ has not given a green light to every national movement out there to claim territory, individual countries should be more confident that recognizing Kosovo will not start the general destabilization of existing states - probably Serbia's most potent argument until now.

(Considering the number of comments this short article is receiving now, I wonder how we'll keep up with them once there is a 30-page opinion to argue over.)

# The only outcome is: Serbia lost its last chance to actually do anything about it.
If ICJ doesn't rule against independence, for many countries that are waiting for the decision to make their recognition public, will mean that their recognition doesn't go against int. law.
Thanks Demi and village-bey for your great comments.
(miri, 20 November 2009 16:29)

thanks miri, and our other colleagues. ok, here is the deal: way back when, i said: icj will NEVER rule in serbia's favor but will probably give out some mushy-pushy verdict. check the back issues. and that is what apparently is happening, thank you very much.

however, how it is all being reported(?) before the case is over, or started, that seems a bit bizarre. they took the case, yet the end comes in the middle? exactly 30 pages? don't quite get this court president.

Oh, Ben -- welcome to my world.

guys and gals -- whatever the icj does or does not do, we still have to learn to live together and make progress. even if the icj ruled against us (which it never would) doesn't magically destroy the independence -- that's just in some people's minds.

but anyway, this is leading to a slightly more normal situation, where (most) other nations will go forth and recognize. which will help normalize the intl situation visa vis the balkans.

as for progress with the stubborn issues of minorities rights, of the missing, of the war criminals, reparations, etc -- this really isn't going to be solved by the icj, sad to say. we'll just have to sit down (gasp) together, and sludge thru this very rough terrain. the thing is -- as equals. i absolutely believe in talking to one another -- to the other side -- even to yr enemies -- but it has to be on an equal footing, and obviously in good faith.

somewhere, over the rainbow...

ciao!

roberto
frisco

I wish to make a vaguely informed (I have a law degree from a top-ranked lawschool which included coverage of international law) comment on some things that other posters - and reporters - have missed because they lack background legal knowledge.

First off, the judge in this report is not prejudging the case, nor is there any evidence this is all a pre-arranged stitch-up. What he said was basically a "Dummy's 101 Guide to What ICJ Decisions Look Like". When asked to rule on legality of a particular practice or event, the answer is never a "yep, it's legal, The End." or "nope, it's illegal, The End". You end up with a fairly long but by no means unreadable decision, which tends to be very nuanced and full of a mixture of findings of fact, legal principles that are applied, notes of caution sounded when a particular topic seems to fall outside the court's remit, and very often rather than simply concluding "X is legal/illegal", listing of factors and circumstances which might affect the legality of X. Sometimes the verdict of the court is very decisive, other times it is pretty open, and in some cases they have categorically refused to give a legal opinion at all! The other thing is that lots of the judges will see fit to write their own individual opinions on the case - sometimes radically dissenting, other times reaching similar conclusions but by different legal reasoning. This isn't like counting the votes in a jury to see whether someone is innocent or guilty, and that was the point the good judge was trying to get across. There is really no need to jump to conspiracy theory conclusions.

Second point to note: one reason the final answer may be fairly vague, is that public international law is inherently fuzzy. That's partly because (in stark contrast to criminal international law) the court has very limited power to impose sanctions. The analogies to a boundary dispute with your next-door neighbour's fence don't hold much water: the reason you would take that dispute to a municipal court is precisely because that court is empowered to resolve the dispute by issuing enforceable remedies. The ICJ has no such power here: Serbia would not be compelled to recognise Kosovo, nor the USA and its allies to withdraw recognition, whatever the decision of the court. (Also note that this is an advisory opinion requested by the GA, not a legal case of Serbia v Kosovo where both sides have agreed to accept the court's decision as binding.) A court passing a death penalty needs pretty solid and coherent legal reasoning; but a court that isn't making that kind of clear-cut decision is able to tolerate greater width of opinion and reasoning. There is no Great Big Book of All International Law for everyone to read from. Why?

Public international law lacks not only a police force but a parliament! Not all of it has been codified into treaties, and the jurisprudence of the ICJ, other tribunals, and international legal commissions, is to some extent "made up as they go along". If you live in a common law or mixed jurisdiction, that may not be too scary, but it's certainly harder to get your head round if you are used to civil law. One end result is that the law is naturally woolier and less definitive. That's no great evil! During the Cold War, pro-Soviet judges had an entirely different conception of international law based on Marxist jurisprudence. But even though international courts had members who disagreed fundamentally about what international law was or how it worked, the institutions didn't collapse under the weight of ideological contradiction. Hoping all the countries in the world can come up with a single, definitive version of public international law, despite their competing interests, is an unreasonable expectation.

There are also contradictions between the legal theories of international law held by the judges. The judges tend to be intelligent and independently-minded individuals, and don't always vote in their national interests. Nonetheless, as a general tendency, African judges often historically placed a higher value on "self-determination" and Chinese judges on "mutual non-interference". American judges have consistently called for the scope of "self defence" to be widened. So the country that a judge is from does make a difference, but it's often for reasons of different historical outlooks creating divergent opinions on basic principles. Jurists do like to push their pet legal theories (or more fun, to get digs in at the ones they dislike) so reading the decisions, you can sense more principle than politics. Unfortunately different people hold different principles more important! Headcounting which judges come from countries have accepted Kosovo independence is simplistic. If you want to see really politicised and non-principled pronouncement on international law, read a typical UN General Assembly resolution!

Finally, something that every single person on here (and almost every journalist, unfortunately) seems to have completely missed is that THIS IS BEING ARGUED AS A HIGHLY TECHNICAL AND VERY SPECIFIC CASE (by all sides). There has been a massive amount of political bluster. Pro-independence politicians have made a lot of noise about "right to self-determination", and that there is a kind of restorative justice following Milosevic's removal of Kosovar autonomy, anti-Albanian discrimination which led to the NATO "humanitarian intervention". Pro-Serb politicians have raved about "territorial integrity", and to some extent the "illegal occupation" of Kosovo that followed "necessary and proportionate" actions taken there in response to Albanian nationalist terrorism and decades of previous ethnic discrimination against Serbs; the spectre is raised of Abkhazia, Transdniester, Kurdistan, or Tibet. This hot air then makes it into the newsprint, because it's readily obtainable and there's a lot of it about (just mention Kosovo/Serbia to a Serb/Kosovar politician and lend them a microphone). Expert legal opinion tends to be less vociferous and harder (or more expensive) to obtain.

I am simply trying to reflect what both sides' political and polemical classes are largely arguing; I hope nobody reading what I wrote about their bluster feels great anger at any mischaracterisation. I fear that many readers can only see it from one side, and think the other side are lying through their teeth. It's important to remember that outsiders looking in may see a middle ground - don't expect them to "see through/fall for the lies" of your opponent, because odds are that they're not lying, and neither are you. Two onlookers can perceive the same situation in completely different ways, especially if they only receive partial and biased information which is then filtered through the lens of their own prejudices (we all have them, after all). The judges at the ICJ will certainly not all buy the picture that the Albanians are terrorist narcoislamicist land-stealers, nor that the Serbs are all hate-mongering, anti-democratic war-criminals. The ICJ has adopted some very nuanced and complex viewpoints in the past, in which the judges clearly have had the intellectual strength to see all sides in a contentious and difficult dispute. If you do have a hardline opinion on the argument, you will probably conclude the ICJ has done a cop-out. But funnily enough, so will your hardline opponents.

The tension between "self determination" and "territorial integrity" is actually well-trodden legal ground, cropping up in ICJ cases on Namibia and Western Sahara, but also the Badinter and Belanger-Campeau Commissions. Apocalyptic visions of thousands of UDIs rending the world order asunder will not scare the judges; they have stared down that barrel many a time before. Neither will they feel that the global democracy has been struck a mortal blow if the desires of the vast majority of Kosovo's population are thwarted. But this case is in fact NOT being primarily fought around the correct balance between the two. The legality of "humanitarian intervention" and the allocation of ethnic blame for the Kosovo crisis, while great polemical ammunition, are unlikely to get much of a look-in either.

To the lay reader, the text of the decision may not be very exciting or stimulating at all. It is going to be densely legal and technical, because the fulcrum of the argument that the lawyers of all countries are presenting to the court, will be the exact legal powers granted to the provisional institutions in Kosovo, and where the power to declare independence actually lay (if at all). The media have overhyped the "moral rights of Kosovo/Serbia" aspect.

The Badinter Commission has clearly had a big influence on the way that Kosovar advisors have proceded throughout the UDI. They took steps to demonstrate a democratic mandate (see Badinter on BiH, where recognition was slowed), haven't proposed meddling with the border, and have made sure that their constitution contains strong minority guarantees for administration and language (see Badinter on Croatia). How those things work in practice is another matter, but it's clear that the Kosovar technocrats took prudent measures to at least apparently comply with much of the established international law on secession. It's not these aspects of the UDI that are likely to come under scrutiny at the ICJ, though, so many of the loudest and clearest Kosovar arguments for legality won't even be tested.

I also see Serb commentators argue that because Kosovo is not a UN member, it is not independent - but again, that is something that absolutely won't wash with the court. Many established independent countries did not join the UN until surprisingly late (e.g. Ireland, Italy and Jordan til 1955, Vietnam 1977, North and South Korea 1991, San Marino 1992, Switzerland 2002!) and Indonesia actually withdrew for a while in the 1960s.

Also, unfortunately for Serbia, it is by no means clear that an illegal declaration of independence prevents the formation of a sovereign state. Recognitions may be more important, which explains why Pacolli and Jeremic are busy racking up frequent-flyer miles. The upper atmosphere will still not be safe from their massive carbon emissions, regardless of the outcome of the case.

The bottom line is that hardliners on neither side should get their hopes up of a definitive victory. At the same time, don't (especially so prematurely) condemn a middle-ground decision as an obvious "fudge" or "political stich-up". Just because something fails to vindicate your partisan views (or the views of your opponents), doesn't mean it was all rigged or compromised - there may well be some valuable and insightful nuggests of international legal thinking at the heart of the decision.

The ultimate solution to the Kosovo impasse will be political, not from legal wrangling or military action. For now, deadlock favours those backing Kosovar independence, as Serbian control will become harder to reimpose. If Serbia joins the EU with the Kosovo issue skirted over, then Belgrade will hold an extra bargaining chip (no independent Kosovar accession to the EU without Serbian consent) but that may be balanced by Kosovar gains during Serbia's accession process. That involves long negotiations, and Kosovo has allies with veto powers; while they may not compel Serbia to recognise Kosovo, they may enforce the "good neighbourly relations" condition in a way that benefits Pristina. I would be astonished if Serbia can join the EU without conceding strong guarantees for it not to boycott regional meetings where Kosovo representatives are present, and to grant free movement of Kosovo passport-holders and Kosovo-registered goods and vehicles (even if the documents and their issuing authorities are not recognised). That situation could literally drag on for decades. A political generation shift is going to be required in both countries before serious good faith negotiations on final status can even begin. Yet in the long run, even that remains more likely than a purely legal solution.

(Niall O'Doherty, 20 November 2009 23:16)

YOu are trying to make an argument that does not Exist.

your Pec and decan to Montenegro seems just a way to antagonize Albanian Reders.

The only open border issue here is N.Mitrovica and Gracanica.

But i see what you would like to see but i cant see it happening. Montenegro has 0% chance to get in those kind of arguments :)

Niall O'Doherty

I can see from your name that your not from the Balkans and you don't realy know the situation here.

Regards

If ICJ's decision is "neutral" this means a win for Kosova just as I and many Albos expected.

Remember that Mr. Ahtisaari was appointed by UN Secretary and he opened the door towards the Independence so isn't UN the one who made all this reality?. If this doesn't ring the bell among Serbs then I must say "may God help them".

Mr Jeremic did spend a lot of money travelling all over the world to try and stop Kosova's recognitions and at the end here is his successful mission!.


I don't think that USA or EU is pressuring ICJ because it was UN who supported the Independence from the very beggining.

Again! If the decision is NEUTRAL the recognitions will keep flowing and it'll be up to Serbia whether it wants to recognize Kosova which is not an important recognition among Albos. Speaking of important recognitions they already happened from USA, Canada, Great Britain and EU.

Thank you very much.

This is a big blow for Serbia. I think going to the ICJ was conceived only to try to slow down the recognitions and to show the Serbian public that the government is doing something.

"Can you possibly guess which country orchestrated this fiasco to weaken Russia. "

Kosovo?!! (It certainly wasn't the U.S.) Actually, I think you have to let Putin take a large share of the credit for Russia's flailing economy: a confiscatory government policy toward foreign investment started the flight of foreign capital even before the invasion of Georgia.

"Another planned event to cripple Russia was the global financial "crisis". As you may know, the USA has weathered this storm rather nicely. Hardly anyone here remembers it."

America may have escaped generally unscathed, but the public is still furious about it - what else to you think accounts for Obama's declining popularity? 10% unemployment may not be that high by European standards, but it's totally unacceptable here, where the support network is so weak. And people are also furious about discovering how much the country owes foreign governments - even if they only hold 30% of our foreign debt, it's still a big number of dollars. (I'd be really nervous if people were as unconcerned about the situation as you imply - that would mean there would be no chance for the changes that are necessary.)

Michael R.:
> After all, the current price of oil is too low for a high cost producer such as Russia to make a profit.

No. Current oil price is just under US$80/barrel. Russian 2010 budget break-even point is just above US$50/barrel.

> As you may know, the USA has weathered this storm rather nicely. Hardly anyone here remembers it.

Unfortunately, all the US has 'weathered' is a wave of events called the GFC. By not only not addressing the core problem of public debt, but by substantially adding to it, all the US has done is to shift the problem down the track a few years.

There will be another wave, & it will be much larger - just as the last wave was much larger than the previous one.

Process is called 'positive feedback' & usually ends with catastrophic failure.


Amer:
> I'd be really nervous if people were as unconcerned about the situation as you imply - that would mean there would be no chance for the changes that are necessary.

'Amer', the 'voting public' is one of the dumbest & most short-sighted of creatures - with the US version being espectially so. And even if their random walk just happens to take them in the right direction, there's still the small matter of passing anything even remotely effective through both houses of government - with once again, the US version being the least effective given the power of special interest groups & the whole lobbying process.

So be very, very nervous.


VaguelyInformed:

A couple of points.

I actually agree with most of what you've said, but in all that text, you seem to have largely forgotten to mention 1244.

And as all the parties were signatories to this UN resolution, & the resolution deals specifically with the political solution of the Kosovo question, one would expect 1244 to play a fairly important role in the ICJ's deliberations

Also, your conclusion that 'deadlock favours Kosovar independence' is merely subjective opinion & outside your field of expertise. My personal opinion is that a nuanced ruling in favour of the serbs is the most likely - resulting in stasis - which would most certainly not favour the K-albanians.

In the unlikely event that a truly 'neutral' result be handed down, even that would be insufficient to substantially alter the situation on the ground, save in perhaps a few more recognitions.

Without agreement from Serbia, pseudo-state will still be locked out of the EU & the UN. And that will not change regardless of the 'pressure' that the west exerts in the form of EU accession etc - not when it comes to Kosovo.

As for a nuanced result favouring the K-albanians, find this unlikely in the extreme.

Time will tell.


ron:
> I would invite them to read again the above mentioned resolution where Kosovo is only mentioned as being part of Yugoslav Federation and not Serbia.

Nope - "International documents relating to the FRY, especially UN Security Council Resolution 1244, would relate in their entirety to Serbia as successor." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1874523.stm


B92:
> No. Carrying a news agency report, along with its headline.

Apologies - assumed that you guys wrote all the headlines if not the text.

In 1921 Monsignor F. S. Noli Albanian representative to the League of Nation, had a brilliant answer for the Yugoslavian delegate M. Spailacovic. The latter almost in an identical situation as the current, was then challenging the existence of another newly established state, Albania.
Monsignor Noli said: Our honourable colleague from Serbia believes in the advice that the lawyer used to give to his pupils: He used to say:, When the Law is against you, insist on the facts. When the facts are against you, insist on the Law. When both the facts and the law are against you, revile the other party.
Well my Serbian friends I have nothing more to add to that.

Neutral????
Why???

What about 15,000 inocent civlians, killed , 1 million thrown out....and other attrocities

This will set a dangerous precedent worldwide...that do whatever you like the ICJ will be indifferent/neutral...


WHAT a world?

ICJ should not ONLY ecourage countries worldwide(serbia included) to recognise Kosovo
BUT also should ask serbia to pay reparation and appologise

Also the ICJ court has the right not to give an opinion at all. Otherwise they will say is not within our authority to give an opinion on this issue.
Serb politicians knew this alll along, but they did it for public consumtion andin the end they willtelltheir people, that we have tried our best.

B92 preparing its Serbian audience for a negative outcome to the case.

Well to all serbs who comes with new different excuses about the ICJ ruling, it will not help. With or without the ICJ process Kosovo would still be independent. It is somthing that cannot and will not change. We the Kosovars(including serbs wich voted on the election) dosen't need to have this diplomatic war with Serbia because we allready control our territory and allready have settled our ''status''. The proof is that we are recognized by 63 countrys wich is the main devolpment countrys in the world. And we are also members of great financial organisations. In the end we live in Europe and not in Asia and Europe is clearly backing us up and treat us as a state. With time and development of our country even Serbia will will see no chance in ever regaining control over Kosovo.

This is just a procces and will end in Serbia recognizing Kosovo. It has no other way's. Just like the procces between 1999 until 2008 when Kosovo declared independence. Everybody knew that would happend and some serbs even then refused to acknowledge this fact. it is the same history now.


My personal thoughts is that behind the curtain the serb representatives and the albanian ones together with Ahtisaari came up with the Ahtisaari-plan wich is a very big compromise both for Serbia and Kosovo. Ahtisaari plan is the real compromise but some serbs like the radicals dosen't want to compromise but have it all. The flag is neutral, the constitution is built up on an multiethnic sociaty wich secures the right for all it's citizens and by decentralization gives minrotys the right to rule them self. And albanian and serbian are the two official laungage in Kosovo. Kosovo is clearly an state wich is a bridge between Albania and Serbia and albanians and serbs. Kosovó independence dosen't clearly means that Kosovo is an albanian state. Kosovo is the country of it's people and is ruled both by serb citizens and albanian citizens.

i only object on the grounds that this is a russian report.
obviously while russians read it all, the other side will already be free.
What will the delay be next time around from Serbia? Will they tell other countrys to wait with further recognitions until Serbia changes another 5 governments and 12 constitutions?

Serbia tried to fool the court ("We will not recognize even if the court...") but the court fooled them.

P.S. The court is under no obligation to even issue a ruling, let alone give a "yes" or "no"

B92 what is wrong with my comment that you don't pubblish it??

The sovereignty AND the right of self-determination are both firmly grounded in the international law.

If ICJ stops here then yes the opinion will be ambiguous.

But I think ICJ should go beyond and say in which case one prevails the other.

Is the territorial integrity of the state predominant even in cases where the state apparatus SYSTEMATICALY abuses the individual and collective rights of one ethnicity???

Does the territorial integrity prevail over the cases where a state expells an entire nation of different ethnicity out of her historical land???

Now ICJ MUST addresses these questions not just to stop on pure technical judgment- because if it douses so it will end answering the question of who is older the chicken or the egg.

Freedom and dignity are not juridical concept they go far beyond any law that we have today and for opportunism will make tomorrow.

If ICJ stops and doesn’t answer these questions be SURE that the reason is because of political opportunism since it will create huge problems to say China with Tibet; Sudan with Darfur; Russia with Chechnya; Tunisia with Saharian's etc.

Thus the WEST who is NOT interested as well that he ICJ addresses these questions offered to Russia and China the compromise solution:

“Kosova is a SPECIAL CASE”.

Russia refused it thus now for coherence this compromise should not be anymore on the table and ICJ MUST answer the question: in which case the sovereignty prevails over the right of self- determination- or vice-versa.

While Russia and all those countries that supported Serbia in ICJ plea should bear the consequences- because you asked for it.

The ambiguity judgment serves ONLY to cover the cookeries of the countries.

A clear and honest answer of the prevalence of one right towards the other will make the world a more just and better place.

States that were formed and organised earlier than others have invaded other nations.

Then they have invented a juridical mechanism (sovereignty right) to cover-up their common cookeries and baptised this mechanism with- international law (I scratch your back you scratch mine).

After some time some of these states evolved in genuine democracies and allowed the independence of the nations that they invaded earlier while others think that the sovereignty is the magic umbrella that allows them to abuse, expel, kill and discriminate at their will the minorities that they have invaded.

Well someone should say - NO.

ICJ has the great chance to do that.

Will they???

Personally I doubt too many crooks too many cookeries.

Thus, am afraid the president of ICJ is right: the opinion will be ambiguous- remember ONLY because of the political opportunism, otherwise Kosova would win the case 100%, without any, ‘yes but’.

I am puzzled. I have heared the rumor before here in Holland that the verdict will be something vague in which everyone can hear what he likes. What surprises me now is that a judge is openly saying this before the hearings are finished. And that he is even talking about a 30 page verdict - allthough that may be a matter of figurative language.
(Wim Roffel, 20 November 2009 11:25)

Don't be suprised. I am not suprised at all, since we all knew how this will turn out. Despite the fact that some on this site were saying that ICJ will rule in favour of Serbia.
But, you are absolutaly right why the Judge came out publicly at this time. Now ,this is a suprise to me too.
I assume that from now one , Serbs andAlbanians alike they have no need to waste their time regarding this issue.

The only outcome is: Serbia lost its last chance to actually do anything about it.
If ICJ doesn't rule against independence, for many countries that are waiting for the decision to make their recognition public, will mean that their recognition doesn't go against int. law.
Thanks Demi and village-bey for your great comments.

Mike,
please wake up and when you dream don't type! The "West" has recognized Kosova, only Spain is left. Roma-nia and Slovakia are waiting for an excuse to do so, they both need US and EU nity will be a central theme now.

Albanians agreed to the supervised indy, so it's all good. Serbia has no control over the municipalities, Serb gov even said that they cannot cooperate with those that won in Kosova elections.

We're back to square: EU or Kosovo for Serbia. If they choose Kosova you get none. EULEX wants to get out of there as fast as possible

This might be a little off topic, but for all those people who reffer to the resolution 1244 and kosovo as being a part of Serbia in that resolution, I would invite them to read again the above mentioned resolution where Kosovo is only mentioned as being part of Yugoslav Federation and not Serbia. Since Yugoslav federation does not exist anymore...........Kosovo like any other member of the old Yugoslav Federation had the right to walk away independent, period.
This is the link:
www.nato.int/Kosovo/docu/u990610a.htm

hmmmmm that tell me something.MR AHTISARI never said that kosovo will become independece but his plan lead to independece.

# The only outcome is: Serbia lost its last chance to actually do anything about it.
If ICJ doesn't rule against independence, for many countries that are waiting for the decision to make their recognition public, will mean that their recognition doesn't go against int. law.
Thanks Demi and village-bey for your great comments.
(miri, 20 November 2009 16:29)

thanks miri, and our other colleagues. ok, here is the deal: way back when, i said: icj will NEVER rule in serbia's favor but will probably give out some mushy-pushy verdict. check the back issues. and that is what apparently is happening, thank you very much.

however, how it is all being reported(?) before the case is over, or started, that seems a bit bizarre. they took the case, yet the end comes in the middle? exactly 30 pages? don't quite get this court president.

Oh, Ben -- welcome to my world.

guys and gals -- whatever the icj does or does not do, we still have to learn to live together and make progress. even if the icj ruled against us (which it never would) doesn't magically destroy the independence -- that's just in some people's minds.

but anyway, this is leading to a slightly more normal situation, where (most) other nations will go forth and recognize. which will help normalize the intl situation visa vis the balkans.

as for progress with the stubborn issues of minorities rights, of the missing, of the war criminals, reparations, etc -- this really isn't going to be solved by the icj, sad to say. we'll just have to sit down (gasp) together, and sludge thru this very rough terrain. the thing is -- as equals. i absolutely believe in talking to one another -- to the other side -- even to yr enemies -- but it has to be on an equal footing, and obviously in good faith.

somewhere, over the rainbow...

ciao!

roberto
frisco

How can theft of Serbian land + property be neutral? Not to mention all the crimes alban terrorists committed in Kosmet...

Even if it was a yes or no kind of decision, it really wouldn't change much since both sides are not going to change their position.

The bombing of Serbia wasn't legal in the first place and war crimes were committed by NATO so why would anyone expect the courts decision to change anything when the occupiers obviously have no respect for international law?

It is just like all of those insignificant recognitions. They change absolutely nothing. In the case of New Zealand's apparent recognition, it wasn't even reported in their press and there was no offical government announcement. What's the point of it?

The reality on the ground is that Kosovo is under occupation although legally Serbian territory. Independence is irreversibly blocked while neither ethnic Albanians, Serbians or the occupiers have full control over the territory. The status quo remains and this will be the case for a while to come.

That was predicted at the start of proceedings by our most nuanced and pragmatic posters here like Mike. The ICJ will fudge this issue and Kosovo will remain in limbo until such a time that Pristina is compelled to talk to Belgrade.

Speaking of fudge, i'll be enjoying some at my tea break this morning.

-- I don't know how you come to this conclusion, if the ICJ rules "neutral". It will affirm neither Serbia's claim to Kosovo, nor Kosovo's claim to statehood. How does international law fit in to your argument then if its sovereignty will be even less legitimate than Bosnia’s? "Neutral" means "ambiguous", which implies all interested parties will simply carve little Kosovo up into their own spheres of influence. Countries will no longer be pressured into recognizing, and we may even see a few countries withdrawing their recognitions. Neither two scenarios however are going to make the daily lives of Kosovo’s people any worse though. The U.S. publicly stated it would support Kosovo regardless of ICJ decision, so Thaci et al can rest assured their failsafe option is still there.
(Mike, 20 November 2009 17:25)

I think we have already been down this path before. The only possible outcome that would have some interest to Serbia is a 100% rejection of K-Independence by ICJ. The only goal of taking the case in there, was to slow down the recognitions. Assuming the best scenario for Serbia, that the pending case truly slowed down some recognitions, after the neutral/ambiguous (whatever the name) verdict there is no inhibitor for those countries that have been waiting for it. Those that want to go ahead with recognition will do so with clear conscience that even ICJ did not found the case un-lawful. The others like Russia and co, might hold on forever but they would have done so regardless anyway. The point is that the failure of Serbia(the plaintif) winning the case simply implies that the defendant is NOT GUILTY. What is so confusing to you in this logic? As per carving of Kosova, no party really cares about ICJ. so I don't get it why you are mixing these things together.

One more clarification I wanted to make for Mike.

Let's say I take my neighbor to court and plead that he has put his fence one foot into my property. The verdict comes out as: "neutral" specifying that there isn't enough evidence to support my claim, or something like similar. Who do you think ends up a winner and a loser? I can make appeals, to a higher court and hire a better lawyer, otherwise I am at lost, regardless if I personally accept what my neighbor has done or not. In the meanwhile all my nearby neighbors say that I am wrong. Few distant ones don't care and say nothing, unless a court verdict obliges them to do so. My distant cousin agrees with me and he actually works in the city hall but he can do nothing other than refusing to put the signature where is due to confirm that the fence is in the right place. All other members of surveyor's office in the city hall disagree with my cousin and me and have given a green card to my neighbor to do whatever he likes. What a nightmare is this for me? How can a neutral decision helped me?

What higher than ICJ Serbia can go?

Mike,

You make a valid point, and i think in 5 to 10 years this will be the outcome.

N-KM and Gracanica go under Serbia or something alike.

and Albanians get the rest of territory and this conflict is over.

but nationalists in both countries wont allow it.

but this is a big blow for Serbia, K- Alb did not want to go to Court they already got what they want.

Niall O'Doherty

I can see from your name that your not from the Balkans and you don't realy know the situation here.

Regards

'Sure, states will not be compelled "not" to recognize, but that doesn't mean that they have to be compelled "to" recognize. This means that the United States can no longer pressure states into recognizing.'


Even now, the U.S. can't pressure states that don't want to recognize Kosovo for their own reasons to do so, as has been demonstrated by Spain, Slovakia, etc. On the other hand, it will make it easier to persuade countries worried about the legal repercussions of recognition that it is now safe to move.

Once the world sees that the ICJ has not given a green light to every national movement out there to claim territory, individual countries should be more confident that recognizing Kosovo will not start the general destabilization of existing states - probably Serbia's most potent argument until now.

(Considering the number of comments this short article is receiving now, I wonder how we'll keep up with them once there is a 30-page opinion to argue over.)

That doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusion will be a fudged "middle ground, keep everyone happy" politicised outcome.

All it means is that, not surprisingly, the conclusion document will be lengthy and need to be read in full rather than being short enough for a tabloid headline.

Let's hope that it's weighty due to factual accuracy and real legal consideration, in which case even 30 pages will have clarity.

This discussion about the law is a smoke screen. If you look through the smoke you can see the real struggle that is forming.

At the moment the Americans and West Europeans control the use of the word 'right'. Whatever they do is 'right' the law dosen't matter. The ICJ dosen't matter. The UN dosen't matter.

As Asia, Russia and South America become more powerful you will find that they will be 'right' in the future. The law still will not matter. The ICJ still will not matter and the UN still will not matter.

Where this leaves the fake state I think we can all work out for ourselves.

'Countries will no longer be pressured into recognizing, and we may even see a few countries withdrawing their recognitions. '

Doesn't compute, Mike - you're assuming that a neutral opinion means there are no valid arguments for Kosovo being independent. What it sounds like to me is that the arguments of the two sides - the sanctity of existing borders vs. self-determination - are of similar legal weight, and that third countries are free to select which they favor, taking into consideration the particular circumstances of each case.

That is, the opinion will serve as a fig-leaf for those countries that have been nervous about the possible legal consequences of recognizing Kosovo and allow them to finally proceed with the process, since the world's highest court will be saying - it sounds like - that the reasons for not doing so are not compelling, and in the absence of a compelling reason, states should not obstruct the recognition of new states.

If I may continue the metaphor for Mike, eventually the City where I live will give the piece of land that I claim is mine to my neighbor and then that becomes the LAW! This is no joke, this is actually true and you know it if you live in US.

Getting back to your comment about K-North, are you saying that at the end of the game what Serbia gained from ICJ is only the North? Very lame if you ask me. It is no secret that Serbia controls the North. However I gladly can see that the conflict eventually will shift only on who will legally control the North of Kosova and we'll cross that bridge (I mean legally) when we come to it. Perhaps then we'll reach a compromise together, either split the autonomous province of Mitrovica (if I may call it that way) or swap it for Presevo Valley. If not, then Kosova will take Serbia to ICJ about its northern part. K-Albanians will have learned from the mistakes of our Serb friends. Then we'll have the law in our side. Sounds like a fairy tale to many of you and that's good. It's because the gullibility of Serbian governments that Kosova today is free and independent.

I thought the court's job was to interpret the law and uphold it.
There is no room for middle ground on a matter of legality. Either something is legal or illegal. How can a court say "maybe"?

How can this person even know how many pages it will take to "clarify" or muddy the already murky waters?
How can he even begin to predict how the other judges will decide?

Has all this been decided already?

Village-bey
----------

That was a clever one ;-).

If ICJ's decision is "neutral" this means a win for Kosova just as I and many Albos expected.

Remember that Mr. Ahtisaari was appointed by UN Secretary and he opened the door towards the Independence so isn't UN the one who made all this reality?. If this doesn't ring the bell among Serbs then I must say "may God help them".

Mr Jeremic did spend a lot of money travelling all over the world to try and stop Kosova's recognitions and at the end here is his successful mission!.


I don't think that USA or EU is pressuring ICJ because it was UN who supported the Independence from the very beggining.

Again! If the decision is NEUTRAL the recognitions will keep flowing and it'll be up to Serbia whether it wants to recognize Kosova which is not an important recognition among Albos. Speaking of important recognitions they already happened from USA, Canada, Great Britain and EU.

Thank you very much.

blue-eyed-son,

Don't you overrate your Putin by some 1000%(see the 4)zeros)??
Yes he is extremely powerful in Russia but in the world it is a different story. Fortunately gone are the days when Russia was a superpower, a #2. Their economy relying on export of raw materials is in real bad shape. Apparently you didn't follow Medvedev's 90 minute state address few days ago and Putin's similar statement today. Please wake up. The times of bombastic statements about what "Putin can do for you" are gone.

B92 preparing its Serbian audience for a negative outcome to the case.
(bsbs, 20 November 2009 14:12)

No, that's ICJ preparing Albanians and Serbs: "guys, sorry, we lost our spine somehow, forgive us".

(Niall O'Doherty, 20 November 2009 23:16)

YOu are trying to make an argument that does not Exist.

your Pec and decan to Montenegro seems just a way to antagonize Albanian Reders.

The only open border issue here is N.Mitrovica and Gracanica.

But i see what you would like to see but i cant see it happening. Montenegro has 0% chance to get in those kind of arguments :)

There can be no neutral opinion here because the mountain of evidence says that the UDI was not in accordance with international law. It looks like the ICJ is already hinting at ambiguity by planning to throw weasel words into the decision thus allowing the Kosovo precedent to flourish. We should prepare ourselves then for the next generation of ‘newborns’ such as Palestine, Republika Srpska and northern Kosovo.

With the current balance inside the ICJ any neutral solution will be in our favor. Evidently for the time being they are not going to sacrifice the reputation of the Court and the remnants of the International Law. K-people will also gain cause it will be a form of recognition. So the situation will just be frozen while the time plays on the Albanian side … Serbia should had waited for better balance inside the ICJ …

The main problem are not even the Albanians as they were used just as tools and because in some degree they are also victims in their newly obtained outlaw reservation. Our main problem is that under no condition the West will not confess in the in the crimes committed against a sovereign Christian country in the center of the civilization. And this is the main source of the optimism filling the K-people.

troika,
the reason only Russian agency reported it is that West in general and western media in particular are very scared to release such information. If the decision will be even neutral, many of western countries will fall apart, including USA (Texas).

What an absolute joke. Neutrality? This is an absolute insult to both Serbs and Albanians alike. This mockery of a court cannot sit idly by, declaring neutrality when the stability of not only the entire region, but regions around the world are threatened. If this 'court' was going to do this, they could have declared so long ago....but the way things are, they have inevitably opened the door for Serbians to prosecute all of the nations which recognised Kosovo's unilateral independence; if this was not already going to occur.

Someone bring some sense to these fools.

This is a big blow for Serbia. I think going to the ICJ was conceived only to try to slow down the recognitions and to show the Serbian public that the government is doing something.

Also not to mention this

Jurisdiction

The International Court of Justice acts as a world court. The Court has a dual jurisdiction : it decides, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by States (jurisdiction in contentious cases); and it gives advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of the organs of the United Nations or specialized agencies authorized to make such a request (advisory jurisdiction).

Neutrality by those definitions cannot be imposed as "it decides, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by States (jurisdiction in contentious cases); and it gives advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of the organs of the United Nations or specialized agencies authorized to make such a request (advisory jurisdiction). "


What a joke this 'court' is. What kind of justice is neutral?

I wonder what other court would be allowed to report the outcome before it has even completed it's deliberations? I dearly hope that the ICJ can remain truely independant and focused on the facts as they exist. If they do, one can logically assume that their declaration comes out in favour of international law rather than in favour of saving face for the illegal actions of NATO and subsequent illegal declaration.Lets be honest, there are always two sides to any conflict and the sooner the world realises and admits this, the better it will be for all. Then and only then will there be a balanced foundation on which a platform for sensible dialogue between all concerned can be built. Please, set aside the arguments of the past, ignore the illegalities of the past and talk sensibly and pragmatically about the future. There is a solution that is beneficial and acceptable to both parties in there somewhere it just requires some level headed and courageous people to taese it out. SIT DOWN AND TALK PEOPLE, PLEASE.

why even go though this garbage? everyone knows that udi's are illegal.

You make a valid point, and i think in 5 to 10 years this will be the outcome.

N-KM and Gracanica go under Serbia or something alike.

and Albanians get the rest of territory and this conflict is over.

but nationalists in both countries wont allow it.

but this is a big blow for Serbia, K- Alb did not want to go to Court they already got what they want.
(Bilbao, 20 November 2009 21:35)

Bilbao, if there is any final compromise agreement which involves a carve up it should be agreeable to all sides and encompass the following:

1.Pec & Decani ceeded to Montenegro.

2. Serbia takes Mitrovica, Gracanica, Strpce and the enclaves Serbs control.

3. Albania takes Pristina, Prizren and the rest.

4. Both Tirana and Belgrade go guarantor on holy sites and both parties promise to uphold the rights of Albanians and Serbs who end up under opposite jurisdictions.

5. Resettlement and compensation to displaced.

Both sides are happy, skin it and we all go home.

And the BS goes on, hardly surprising...apart from the fact that even before even the hearing they dare to give some sort of pre-opinion and the number of pages! What a farce

I agree with many of the observers here that this would be a weak call by the ICJ, mainly because the law is so clearly in Serbia's favor here. But still, a neutral decision is an economic deathblow to the stillborn UDI. Without a clear and unequivocal declaration from the ICJ and/or a seat on the UN, who's going to invest in "Kosova"? "Kosova" has little chance of gathering international investment, aside from outright charity, at this moment, never mind after a "neutral" ICJ decision.

Can we put an end to the following arguments:

No, the right to self determination does not mean that every ethnic group can unilaterally declare independence from a regime it doesn't like.

No, you can't use the old Yugoslav constitution to argue that Kosovo is entitled to independence. You can't cite the Yugoslav constitution and ignore UN1244 at the same time, or claim that Serbia is not the successor state to Yugoslavia.

And no, no matter how many Albanians the Serbs supposedly killed, maimed or deported, you are not entitled to 15% of Serbia. Even if we accept that your claims are true, there is no precednet in international law for handing territory over to an ethnic minority in exchange for past trangressions. It's silly to imagine that there is such a thing, or that it only applies to Albanians in this special case.

I am puzzled. I have heared the rumor before here in Holland that the verdict will be something vague in which everyone can hear what he likes. What surprises me now is that a judge is openly saying this before the hearings are finished. And that he is even talking about a 30 page verdict - allthough that may be a matter of figurative language.

Ben,

This time, we removed the statement that was unacceptable, and published the rest.

In the future, do not expect to have your comment published in any form if you choose to use similar language.

Regards,

B92

Of course the answer will be ambiguous, because the ICJ is a joke just like the Hague is a joke. It is run almost by the very same colonialists, who do what they want and don't ask anyone, and break the law all the time if it suits their agenda, and invoke the law if on their agenda. They are complete hypocrites.
If ever there was a cut and dry case, it is this. Kosovo's declaration of independence is completely illegal, it can not be any more clear to any lawyer or anyone. However, that is not how the world works unfortunately - the world is full of injustice.
Speaking injustice, Niall, my condolences man, you guys got TOTALY screwed by the referee and linesman, and by FIFA!! Ireland deserves to be in South Africa, it is a real shame and travesty that they will not be.

Dear Ben,
I believe that you should respect international law and refer from now on to southern part of serbia, as KOSOVO ,as its mentioned in UN 1244 resolution.Moreover i am interesting to find out wherever you work in kosovo or not......bec if you work in any mission you have to be status neutral!!!!

Ron, though possibly off topic, not really. I read through the documentation of resolution 1244 that you provided. I still cannot see where it specifically states that Kosovo was an independent statelet within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Of course Kosovo was in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, as New Your City is within the USA. Remember that the UN is about nations and not provinces. It is not necessary at the UN level to say that the Upper Penninsula is part of Michigan, but rather part of the USA. However, note that Serbia is the official succesor to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, thus Kosovo is still in Serbia.
If I missed where it said specifically what you're claiming, please point me directly to that spot. I very well did miss it.

Ataman,

I am surprised by your question. The two others you mention (one of them is dead and I know about him) belong to two small countries. They don't have the same international significance. Putin is mentioned here times and again as the ultimate savior of "Serbian Kosovo", as the leader of a country, who is able to do everything. It has nothing to do with communist backgrounds. You are always hung up with the commi background of those guys. If Putin would not be the PM of a big country like Russia I would never even mention his name on this site.
And as for Russia not a consummer society, I know that. Based on their current situation they will not be one for the next 60 or 80 years.
One third of them try to survive on a daily basis. Luckily them have their chip vodka and that helps to forget their miseries. Nazdarovne!!

The court then is clearly terrified of giving any clear decision.

Deciding on 'independence' opens the door to conflict around the world, much in the same way that President Wilson's 'Right to Self-determination' did, initially a slow burner but then burning very brightly all around the world.

Just imagine Turkey telling the Kurds 'no' but Kosovo is 'ok'.

The court doesn't want blood on its hands.

I guess that voting against independence would be an indictment of the West and its policies and open up to further legal redress, i.e. Serbia could use such a decision legally against those who supported the kla bombed Serbia. It could also pose a further major threat to the credibility of UN system altogether, particularly as developing countries are demanding increased influence.

Now that cannot be allowed.

A neutral result would be just like UK foreign policy, maintaining a balance of power, except for when the great powers decide it is their unilateral right to roll up the UN Charter and smoke it.

Either way, Serbia can out wait the kosovo albanians who have to prove that they are worthy of what the West has bequeathed them. They cannot expect endless handouts from Brussels that disappear via dodgy contracts or a continued blind-eye to rampant crime, unemployment and corruption.

The court is simply not prepared to take responsibility for a decision that could determine the relevance of the nation state and the usual unpredictable consequences.

"would not be a clear yes or no."

Every political acts are legal or not. Is very clear. Probably ICJ is on the USA pressure...

Thanks Niall for the vote of confidence!

Seriously, I think most sane people on both sides of the argument here have had no illusions the ICJ would fudge the decision. When was the last time an international organization came down hard for one side over another? And in actuality, this is plenty for Belgrade to continue to move forward and push for greater control over parts of Kosovo it has direct links to (6 Serb municipalities + SPC sites), while continuing to bypass Pristina in order to work with EULEX in terms of cooperative security, judicial matters, and trade across administrative borders. In addition, not firmly saying "Kosovo's secession was legal", prevents every other Tom, Dick, and Harry separatist movement from playing the "Me too" card, beginning most likely with Republika Srpska, and quickly following with Iraqi Kurdistan, Basque Country, and culminating with a needed recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. By keeping the answer ambiguous, those in favor of Kosovo's alleged statehood can hold fast to the fantasy of "unique case" and keep the good people at Rand McNally from an updated world map every 6 months.

But what would happen if the ICJ nullifies Kosovo's "sovereignty"? Then we've got 1.5 million irate Albanians on our hand. It was foolish of the West to promise them everything including the kitchen sink, and we're increasingly seeing efforts to trim back (some would even say castrate) Pristina's authority it claims over areas it's never going to reach. Perhaps even without Belgrade’s doing, the “more than autonomy, less than independence” scenario is playing out by EU officials. Best to preserve some form of self determination within a large structure of an international mandate – which is what I’ve been arguing Kosovo has been for years now.

Finally, village-bey’s rather metaphoric statement of when one reaches for facts of laws in the absence of the other is seemingly true. Yet “facts” and “laws” conveniently end up as normative reflections, rather than empirical measurements, to suit one’s case. Still, he gets a star for that.

miri,

I only noticed your additional comment after I sent off my last one.

What you envision in your metaphor to me sounds a lot like the status quo. Provided I don't resort to harsh measures to get you to move your fence off of property I say is mine, it effectively recognizes the "boundaries" that are on the ground.

By this very same logic, Serbia has pushed its own "fence" down to the Ibar, and has retained a number of spots throughout the rest of Kosovo. If I interpret your scenario, it says Serbs can't really do much with what Albanians already have, but Albanians can't really do much with which Serbs have. The result is the same as I've been saying from the beginning - multiple hands operating in one region with no pressure to give quarter to the other and enough legal justification to hold on to what one currently has. The only way I could see one side claiming victory over the other would be in denying 100% of the land to them. In the end, you keep Pristina, and they keep KM and Gracanica, EULEX keeps peace and order, and everyone's happy, right? Bosnia's recognized by 192 countries, but we really don't see RS caving at all; nor do we see anyone really seriously concerned with eliminating it.

I wish to make a vaguely informed (I have a law degree from a top-ranked lawschool which included coverage of international law) comment on some things that other posters - and reporters - have missed because they lack background legal knowledge.

First off, the judge in this report is not prejudging the case, nor is there any evidence this is all a pre-arranged stitch-up. What he said was basically a "Dummy's 101 Guide to What ICJ Decisions Look Like". When asked to rule on legality of a particular practice or event, the answer is never a "yep, it's legal, The End." or "nope, it's illegal, The End". You end up with a fairly long but by no means unreadable decision, which tends to be very nuanced and full of a mixture of findings of fact, legal principles that are applied, notes of caution sounded when a particular topic seems to fall outside the court's remit, and very often rather than simply concluding "X is legal/illegal", listing of factors and circumstances which might affect the legality of X. Sometimes the verdict of the court is very decisive, other times it is pretty open, and in some cases they have categorically refused to give a legal opinion at all! The other thing is that lots of the judges will see fit to write their own individual opinions on the case - sometimes radically dissenting, other times reaching similar conclusions but by different legal reasoning. This isn't like counting the votes in a jury to see whether someone is innocent or guilty, and that was the point the good judge was trying to get across. There is really no need to jump to conspiracy theory conclusions.

Second point to note: one reason the final answer may be fairly vague, is that public international law is inherently fuzzy. That's partly because (in stark contrast to criminal international law) the court has very limited power to impose sanctions. The analogies to a boundary dispute with your next-door neighbour's fence don't hold much water: the reason you would take that dispute to a municipal court is precisely because that court is empowered to resolve the dispute by issuing enforceable remedies. The ICJ has no such power here: Serbia would not be compelled to recognise Kosovo, nor the USA and its allies to withdraw recognition, whatever the decision of the court. (Also note that this is an advisory opinion requested by the GA, not a legal case of Serbia v Kosovo where both sides have agreed to accept the court's decision as binding.) A court passing a death penalty needs pretty solid and coherent legal reasoning; but a court that isn't making that kind of clear-cut decision is able to tolerate greater width of opinion and reasoning. There is no Great Big Book of All International Law for everyone to read from. Why?

Public international law lacks not only a police force but a parliament! Not all of it has been codified into treaties, and the jurisprudence of the ICJ, other tribunals, and international legal commissions, is to some extent "made up as they go along". If you live in a common law or mixed jurisdiction, that may not be too scary, but it's certainly harder to get your head round if you are used to civil law. One end result is that the law is naturally woolier and less definitive. That's no great evil! During the Cold War, pro-Soviet judges had an entirely different conception of international law based on Marxist jurisprudence. But even though international courts had members who disagreed fundamentally about what international law was or how it worked, the institutions didn't collapse under the weight of ideological contradiction. Hoping all the countries in the world can come up with a single, definitive version of public international law, despite their competing interests, is an unreasonable expectation.

There are also contradictions between the legal theories of international law held by the judges. The judges tend to be intelligent and independently-minded individuals, and don't always vote in their national interests. Nonetheless, as a general tendency, African judges often historically placed a higher value on "self-determination" and Chinese judges on "mutual non-interference". American judges have consistently called for the scope of "self defence" to be widened. So the country that a judge is from does make a difference, but it's often for reasons of different historical outlooks creating divergent opinions on basic principles. Jurists do like to push their pet legal theories (or more fun, to get digs in at the ones they dislike) so reading the decisions, you can sense more principle than politics. Unfortunately different people hold different principles more important! Headcounting which judges come from countries have accepted Kosovo independence is simplistic. If you want to see really politicised and non-principled pronouncement on international law, read a typical UN General Assembly resolution!

Finally, something that every single person on here (and almost every journalist, unfortunately) seems to have completely missed is that THIS IS BEING ARGUED AS A HIGHLY TECHNICAL AND VERY SPECIFIC CASE (by all sides). There has been a massive amount of political bluster. Pro-independence politicians have made a lot of noise about "right to self-determination", and that there is a kind of restorative justice following Milosevic's removal of Kosovar autonomy, anti-Albanian discrimination which led to the NATO "humanitarian intervention". Pro-Serb politicians have raved about "territorial integrity", and to some extent the "illegal occupation" of Kosovo that followed "necessary and proportionate" actions taken there in response to Albanian nationalist terrorism and decades of previous ethnic discrimination against Serbs; the spectre is raised of Abkhazia, Transdniester, Kurdistan, or Tibet. This hot air then makes it into the newsprint, because it's readily obtainable and there's a lot of it about (just mention Kosovo/Serbia to a Serb/Kosovar politician and lend them a microphone). Expert legal opinion tends to be less vociferous and harder (or more expensive) to obtain.

I am simply trying to reflect what both sides' political and polemical classes are largely arguing; I hope nobody reading what I wrote about their bluster feels great anger at any mischaracterisation. I fear that many readers can only see it from one side, and think the other side are lying through their teeth. It's important to remember that outsiders looking in may see a middle ground - don't expect them to "see through/fall for the lies" of your opponent, because odds are that they're not lying, and neither are you. Two onlookers can perceive the same situation in completely different ways, especially if they only receive partial and biased information which is then filtered through the lens of their own prejudices (we all have them, after all). The judges at the ICJ will certainly not all buy the picture that the Albanians are terrorist narcoislamicist land-stealers, nor that the Serbs are all hate-mongering, anti-democratic war-criminals. The ICJ has adopted some very nuanced and complex viewpoints in the past, in which the judges clearly have had the intellectual strength to see all sides in a contentious and difficult dispute. If you do have a hardline opinion on the argument, you will probably conclude the ICJ has done a cop-out. But funnily enough, so will your hardline opponents.

The tension between "self determination" and "territorial integrity" is actually well-trodden legal ground, cropping up in ICJ cases on Namibia and Western Sahara, but also the Badinter and Belanger-Campeau Commissions. Apocalyptic visions of thousands of UDIs rending the world order asunder will not scare the judges; they have stared down that barrel many a time before. Neither will they feel that the global democracy has been struck a mortal blow if the desires of the vast majority of Kosovo's population are thwarted. But this case is in fact NOT being primarily fought around the correct balance between the two. The legality of "humanitarian intervention" and the allocation of ethnic blame for the Kosovo crisis, while great polemical ammunition, are unlikely to get much of a look-in either.

To the lay reader, the text of the decision may not be very exciting or stimulating at all. It is going to be densely legal and technical, because the fulcrum of the argument that the lawyers of all countries are presenting to the court, will be the exact legal powers granted to the provisional institutions in Kosovo, and where the power to declare independence actually lay (if at all). The media have overhyped the "moral rights of Kosovo/Serbia" aspect.

The Badinter Commission has clearly had a big influence on the way that Kosovar advisors have proceded throughout the UDI. They took steps to demonstrate a democratic mandate (see Badinter on BiH, where recognition was slowed), haven't proposed meddling with the border, and have made sure that their constitution contains strong minority guarantees for administration and language (see Badinter on Croatia). How those things work in practice is another matter, but it's clear that the Kosovar technocrats took prudent measures to at least apparently comply with much of the established international law on secession. It's not these aspects of the UDI that are likely to come under scrutiny at the ICJ, though, so many of the loudest and clearest Kosovar arguments for legality won't even be tested.

I also see Serb commentators argue that because Kosovo is not a UN member, it is not independent - but again, that is something that absolutely won't wash with the court. Many established independent countries did not join the UN until surprisingly late (e.g. Ireland, Italy and Jordan til 1955, Vietnam 1977, North and South Korea 1991, San Marino 1992, Switzerland 2002!) and Indonesia actually withdrew for a while in the 1960s.

Also, unfortunately for Serbia, it is by no means clear that an illegal declaration of independence prevents the formation of a sovereign state. Recognitions may be more important, which explains why Pacolli and Jeremic are busy racking up frequent-flyer miles. The upper atmosphere will still not be safe from their massive carbon emissions, regardless of the outcome of the case.

The bottom line is that hardliners on neither side should get their hopes up of a definitive victory. At the same time, don't (especially so prematurely) condemn a middle-ground decision as an obvious "fudge" or "political stich-up". Just because something fails to vindicate your partisan views (or the views of your opponents), doesn't mean it was all rigged or compromised - there may well be some valuable and insightful nuggests of international legal thinking at the heart of the decision.

The ultimate solution to the Kosovo impasse will be political, not from legal wrangling or military action. For now, deadlock favours those backing Kosovar independence, as Serbian control will become harder to reimpose. If Serbia joins the EU with the Kosovo issue skirted over, then Belgrade will hold an extra bargaining chip (no independent Kosovar accession to the EU without Serbian consent) but that may be balanced by Kosovar gains during Serbia's accession process. That involves long negotiations, and Kosovo has allies with veto powers; while they may not compel Serbia to recognise Kosovo, they may enforce the "good neighbourly relations" condition in a way that benefits Pristina. I would be astonished if Serbia can join the EU without conceding strong guarantees for it not to boycott regional meetings where Kosovo representatives are present, and to grant free movement of Kosovo passport-holders and Kosovo-registered goods and vehicles (even if the documents and their issuing authorities are not recognised). That situation could literally drag on for decades. A political generation shift is going to be required in both countries before serious good faith negotiations on final status can even begin. Yet in the long run, even that remains more likely than a purely legal solution.

"Can you possibly guess which country orchestrated this fiasco to weaken Russia. "

Kosovo?!! (It certainly wasn't the U.S.) Actually, I think you have to let Putin take a large share of the credit for Russia's flailing economy: a confiscatory government policy toward foreign investment started the flight of foreign capital even before the invasion of Georgia.

"Another planned event to cripple Russia was the global financial "crisis". As you may know, the USA has weathered this storm rather nicely. Hardly anyone here remembers it."

America may have escaped generally unscathed, but the public is still furious about it - what else to you think accounts for Obama's declining popularity? 10% unemployment may not be that high by European standards, but it's totally unacceptable here, where the support network is so weak. And people are also furious about discovering how much the country owes foreign governments - even if they only hold 30% of our foreign debt, it's still a big number of dollars. (I'd be really nervous if people were as unconcerned about the situation as you imply - that would mean there would be no chance for the changes that are necessary.)

P.S. The court is under no obligation to even issue a ruling, let alone give a "yes" or "no"
(Free Kosova, 20 November 2009 14:28)

Yes they are. They have taken the case and therefore committed themselves to an opinion.

I will try to give a short answer on what Goran has raised. I agree with Goran that that neutrality can not be imposed and International Court of Justice is world court. However, Serbia has asked the ICJ to give a nonbinding opinion and not ruling. Therefore the possibility of neutral outcome from non-binding opinion has logic.

"If ICJ doesn't rule against independence, for many countries that are waiting for the decision to make their recognition public, will mean that their recognition doesn't go against int. law." (miri)

-- I don't know how you come to this conclusion, if the ICJ rules "neutral". It will affirm neither Serbia's claim to Kosovo, nor Kosovo's claim to statehood. How does international law fit in to your argument then if its sovereignty will be even less legitimate than Bosnia’s? "Neutral" means "ambiguous", which implies all interested parties will simply carve little Kosovo up into their own spheres of influence. Countries will no longer be pressured into recognizing, and we may even see a few countries withdrawing their recognitions. Neither two scenarios however are going to make the daily lives of Kosovo’s people any worse though. The U.S. publicly stated it would support Kosovo regardless of ICJ decision, so Thaci et al can rest assured their failsafe option is still there.

"please wake up and when you dream don't type!"

-- This is coming from aRTA who continues to dream of some Ace in the Hole that’s going to give his side the victory they somehow deserve. Who’s the dreamer here?

Amer and miri,

Sure, states will not be compelled "not" to recognize, but that doesn't mean that they have to be compelled "to" recognize. This means that the United States can no longer pressure states into recognizing. If Kosovo's status is not clearly defined and specified as a state with all right and privileges a sovereign entity deserves, recognitions will be not one of legal obligation, but of self-interest. I am not arguing that a neutral ruling is going to quash Kosovo's alleged statehood altogether, nor do I see that as even remotely possible, or feasible. But rather it can give Belgrade (provided it has the interest) the ability to seek greater privileges in Kosovo where its authority is still recognized and, depending on the wording of the ruling, a legitimate reason to pursue its interest without international sanction or censureship. In other words, I feel that even with the addition of new recognitions (including those that no longer feel repercussions for doing so will result), the fuzzy ruling will equally play into Belgrade's hand resulting in international recognition of an entity that is unified in name only. One can only claim complete victory if the ruling is clearly in one's favor. An ambiguous ruling will perpetuate the status quo, remove the need for recognitions, strengthen the multiple self-interested hands already active in the region, and further necessitate the need for indefinite international oversight to give some semblance of unity. Neutral ruling produces neutral status.

Serbs and Albanians alike they have no need to waste their time regarding this issue.
(Kosova-USA, 20 November 2009 11:58)

I did *** suspect *** that they (ICJ) will do their best to avoid any direct answer. What came as surprise is that the judge did even admit it that early.

"Political correctness" is above everything. Pretty sad because the question Serbian government asked is simple. And either way there should be a straight answer, "yes" or "no".

Next hilarious idea would be for UN to recognize Kosovo as independent entity (notice the wording: "entity", not country) and assign two chairs to three "entities" within UN: Albania, Serbia, Kosovo.

That would of course set a precedent and I would make my own "entity" (not country) which does not pays taxes to anyone and in order to pass through our village near BP you will need to buy a $200 visa at the border. And within village we will make a police force which will ticket anyone who is not from the village, like the infamous New Rome township in Ohio.

Ben,

In the future, do not expect to have your comment published in any form if you choose to use similar language.

Regards,

B92
(B92, 20 November 2009 17:04)

thank you very much b92, but would you kindly please apply the same policy towards demi, kosova-usa, arta and the rest of the gang? one simple way to do this is to spell check comments.

Blue eyed son,

Aren't you overrating brother Putin a bit. After all, the current price of oil is too low for a high cost producer such as Russia to make a profit. Can you possibly guess which country orchestrated this fiasco to weaken Russia. I think you can! Another planned event to cripple Russia was the global financial "crisis". As you may know, the USA has weathered this storm rather nicely. Hardly anyone here remembers it. However, Putin and his gang are still gasping for air while fully one third of his countrymen are living in poverty. Added to this, Serbia had to sell off its most valuable asset in Nish and become an indentured servant to Russia. But, you did get one thing straight, Serbia is now part of Russia, with little hope of ever becoming financially viable.

Thank you “vaguely informed” on your dissertation on how international law works and you are generally correct. But I would remind you and everybody here that the only way Albanians here will have a clear victory, is if the court declares their UDI was legal under UN res 1244, UN Charter and the Helsinki Treaty and formed a fully sovereign nation. The court may muddy the waters with moral wrangling of how the western countries intentions were noble in trying to find a solution thru the Atasari Plan, but ultimately they will revert to res 1244 declare the UDI illegal and call for more negotiations since the Atasari plan was never adopted by the UN Security council, because otherwise they will unravel the very fabric of the UN as a forum for peaceful resolution of conflicts and as such undermine their own relevance (not to mention questioning the need for their well paid cushy retirement gigs) and the Judiciary never undermines its own relevance regardless of the issue or jurisdiction . However, they will avoid the use of the word “illegal” they will squirm and twist with noble grace to use innocuous words such as “non compliant”, “not in the spirit of, “not in accordance with” so as to avoid embarrassment for the countries that have recognized this breakaway UN protectorate, which is what it is until the original Sovereign (like it or not SERBIA) recognizes its Sovereignty. Moreover, the court in its analysis will ultimately have to address what it is that the UDI formed and what these Western countries have recognized in this region called Kosovo/a. These countries recognized something called “supervised Independence” under the Atasari plan, it enshrines in the interim Kosovo governments constitution - a foreign occupying force – NATO with no time limit, a foreign Judicial and police force with ultimate jurisdiction – EULIX under UN auspices(res 1244) with no time limit, no ability to form an official standing Army notwithstanding the token emergency disaster reaction force, an International Viceroy with no time limit and several Serbian municipalities that have special jurisdictional relationships with Serbia as well as recognized Serbian citizenship of some of it citizens. Similarly, it does not control all of its territory (North Mitrovica , enclaves, etc) or all of its borders (ie Northern border effectively in control of the Kosovo Serbians). The court may recognize this as some new neo-colonial entity with pretend Sovereignty, established as an interim solution, but certainly not as FULL SOVEREIGNTY! This will be the courts wiggly wrangle way out of a nasty situation. The decision will go along the lines of THE UDI WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH UN RES 1244, BUT DID NOT RESULT IN A VIOLATION OF UN RES 1244, BECAUSE IT DID NOT FORM A FULLY SOVEREIGN NATION BUT RATHER AN ENTITY WITH SUPERVISED INDEPENDENCE AND AS SUCH WAS AN EXERCISE OF THE INTERMIM RIGHTS AFFORDED UNDER UN RESULTION 1244 AND CANNOT EFFECTIVELY BE IMPLEMENTED AS FINAL STATUS SOLUTION UNTIL ULTIMATELY NEGOTIATED WITH SERBIA, FURTHERMORE RECONITION OF THIS SUPERVISED INDEPENDENCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A VILOATION OF THE UN CHATER OR THE HELSINKY TREATY BECAUSE THE ENTITY FORMED THROUGH UDI DOES NOT POSSES THE REQUISITE LEGAL CHARACTERSITICS OF FULL SOVEREIGNTY AND AS SUCH ANY RECONITION OF SUCH AN ENTITY DOES NOT CONFER ANY LEGAL INTERNATIONAL STATUS NOR INVALIDATE THE ANY LEGAL COMPETANCY OF SUCH AN ENTITY UNDER RES 1244, SINCE FULL SOVERIGNTY IS NOT PRESENT, BUT CAN ONLY BE DEEMED AS SUPPORT FOR THIS PARTICULAR SOLUTION UNDER PRESENT INTERNATIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF SOVEREIGNTY AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE DEEMED AS A VIOLATION OF EXISTING INTERNATIONAL NORMS AS ENSHIRNED IN THE UN CHATER AND THE HELSINKI TREATY. Back to square one, everybody seems to win, the decision will seem neutral, except the Kosovo Albanians will be further boxed in the department store revolving door no closer to full sovereignty than they were under full UNMIK administration. Their options will be limited. Continue down the path of pretend Sovereignty and hope the west will eventually leave, giving them Sovereignty (highly unlikely, leaving would result in renewed conflict, more likely, would be further concessions to Serbia by the west as Serbia approaches the full EU integration ) or rebelling to kick out the neo-colonial overlords which would again nullify any gains already made and certainly result in renewed conflict with Serbia or renewing negotiations with Serbia and compromising to find a just solution for final status that would satisfy all sides and finally bring some peace to this part of the world.

Joe,

I never write about what *PUTINMAN*is going to do for Serbia personally or directly,but I hint on "your" activities and events that could eventually spell "grimm reality" for "you" and your beneficiaries, like after the "smoke cleared" in Georgia where many were singing:
"Oh,what'll you do now, my red-white-blue-eyed son?
Oh,what'll you do now, my darling young one"?
How long do you think your evil ways like looting,destroying,breaching international laws,poisoning the environment, killing and wilting young innocent God's children with your cluster bombs and depleated munitions---could sustain you before you destroy yourselves or others destroy you or Universe destroys you??? You use percentage points,zeros and economics for your predictions, I use common sense,history and the study of Universe for mine.
*PUTINMAN* is a political grand chess master that showed the world community that Russia will not be bullied,bluffed or EVER humiliated.And part of Russia is in Serbia now.

One third of them try to survive on a daily basis. Luckily them have their chip vodka and that helps to forget their miseries. Nazdarovne!!
(Joe, 21 November 2009 19:04)

Right you are, we could compare it per ex. to the 37 mio americans living on coupons..., also sad and nothing to be ironic about!!

At your place I wouldn't make fun of the misery of people but rather use a bit of your brain to try to help them but I guess you are simply too blind to see further than the top of your nose, what a pitty!

As a Rotarian I have been many times taken care of people with needs and it never makes me laugh, nor it gives me the envy to be ironic about it.

Peter,

No. Carrying a news agency report, along with its headline.

Regards,

B92

Serbia asked the ICJ if "Kosovo is pregnant or not pregnant". A simple yes or no. Was the Kosovo Albanian declaration legal or not? Serbia knew that it was not and it still knows that it's not. And the West knows that it's not. And East knows that is not,and the South and the North know it as well. So the West chooses to make another "evil" and wrong choice---like,what else is new???If I were the Albanians I wouldn't be jumping up and down so high as you are notorious for making wrong choices and decisions. There is a fearless, extremely powerful and gifted young man watching all---his name is *PUTINMAN* and he is an expert in dealing with Western cowards which live in desperation,fear and "borrowed time".

VaguelyInformed,

Thanks for the writing, I am maybe one of the few who even did read the entire essay. You certainly know more about international law than I do and I can't argue about what I don't know.

Few comments to the last part of your writing.

1)

For now, deadlock favours those backing Kosovar independence...
(VaguelyInformed, 21 November 2009 01:30

Question: is it some kind of race? Or maybe a war game?
Because what you write kind of suggesting it indirectly. If that's the case, than it's not about Kosovo - and we all know that precisely.

-----

2)

... as Serbian control will become harder to reimpose.
(VaguelyInformed, 21 November 2009 01:30)

I don't think, Serbian government does want to reimpose any "control" on Albanians living in Kosovo. Under current circumstances they have no representation in Belgrade and it would be unacceptable. Serbs living in Kosovo do not want to be under control of Pristina either and there is no clear way to partition Kosovo that anyone will be satisfied.

To make things worse, the part of international community which is currently directly involved in Kosovo does not work towards a solution which would feel both parties to be a winner. Rather, both parties are essentially losers.

-----

3)

If Serbia joins the EU with the Kosovo issue skirted over, then Belgrade will hold an extra bargaining chip (no independent Kosovar accession to the EU without Serbian consent)
(VaguelyInformed, 21 November 2009 01:30)

- Not sure, what form EU will take in few years. Much can change either way.
- Usually the former "enemies" are the ones who push each other to EU for a very good reason. If Kosovo independence would gain any moment, (rest-of)Serbia's interest would to push that territory into EU as fast as possible - that would be the only way to re-integrate it to some extent. For instance, Transylvania is still part of Romania - but now as both Romania and Hungary are in EU, Transylvania is certainly more Hungarian than it was during Ceausescu.

-----

4)

I would be astonished if Serbia can join the EU without conceding strong guarantees for it not to boycott regional meetings where Kosovo representatives are present
(VaguelyInformed, 21 November 2009 01:30)

These are legit expectations. The main obstacle (for me, at least) regarding Kosovo representatives is not that they are, but WHO THEY ARE. If their name is "Veton Surroi" or even "Albin Kurti" - that's one thing. Other names with alleged war crimes / drugs / racket / etc. are a different story. If people can't operate business in Pristina without paying to "Hashish" Thaci, than Serbia is 100% right refusing to deal with such "representatives" - and if these are the ones "favored" by international "pro-independance" lobby, just because they have a deal, than this "pro-independance" lobby has nothing to do with Kosovo independence.

-----

5)

...and to grant free movement of Kosovo passport-holders and Kosovo-registered goods and vehicles (even if the documents and their issuing authorities are not recognised).
(VaguelyInformed, 21 November 2009 01:30)

That is a no-brainer and very easy to organize. And it should be done ASAP. You can buy Taiwanese goods in Mainland China, goods from M'land China in Taiwan. And they can visit each other without visas. They need passport tough - but it's OK.

Their economy relying on export of raw materials is in real bad shape. Apparently you didn't follow Medvedev's 90 minute state address few days ago and Putin's similar statement today. Please wake up. The times of bombastic statements about what "Putin can do for you" are gone.
(Joe, 21 November 2009 14:50)

Joe,

I am very-very much opposing Putin and I never fail to mention my antipathy towards him. Probably as often as I mention "Hashish" in connection with "Thaci".

But somewhat you should know:

Russia's economy is NOT and NEVER EVER WAS consumer-driven. If you are a consumer that of course does not make you feel warm and fuzzy. And this fact discourages people to take credits. And even worse: they are ready to bear a lot.

Regarding Putin the opinion is split. Some say, he made the country great again, even by ruling it with means far being "democratic". Some even go as far as saying, "democracy" was a sell-out of the country and iron fist is the best thing.

I say, that he is riding on the wave of economy. And that the biggest "democrats" and "West's friends" were / are in the fact the worst communists, but used the word "democracy" pretty smart way.

One question:

Why aren't you critic towards two big SOB communists?

#1: former head of Turkmenistan's Communist Party, Saparmurat Niyazov. Later he became the "Turkmenbashi". His human rights record makes Kim Jong Il pale. Opponents were murdered, opera was prohibited, people were demanded to wear clothing he did approve, people had to study his poems in the school and so on. But he was rarely criticized in the West... his country is supporting that little thing called "Nabucco". Which is a pet idea of...

#2: Hashim ("Hashish") Thaci, the "snake", the "serpent part" of the Quetzalcoatl (you know, the Aztec bird-serpent deity feeding on human parts). The "bird" part being the "pigeon" Agim Ceku). If you look at their biography, the only "positive" is the birdy being related to Serbian (not-less-Communist) high brass. I mean, you probably know, who Ceku's wife is. While "serpent" did found a militant commie party.

I fail to see any of them being better than KGBishna Putin. In the fact, the KGB man did prove, he is a REALLY DANGEROUS man and I really don't like him. But these - unlike Putin - are pathetic clowns.

I will try to give a short answer on what Goran has raised. I agree with Goran that that neutrality can not be imposed and International Court of Justice is world court. However, Serbia has asked the ICJ to give a nonbinding opinion and not ruling. Therefore the possibility of neutral outcome from non-binding opinion has logic.
(Bujar, 21 November 2009 15:36)

Thank you for your consideration. Though I do understand where you are coming from, I have to disagree. Serbia had asked the ICJ whether Kosovo's unilateral proclomation of independence was in accordance to internation law /YES or NO/. The answer was to be YES or NO. And they cannot sit there claiming moral grounds and what not, the question was whether it was illegal or not.

Just a couple of small notes. The title of the article appears to say that the ICJ's ruling will be 'neutral' in terms of outcome. Could also be interpreted as saying ruling will be impartial in terms of bias. In any case, former interpretation cannot be inferred from the text of Owada's statement as presented in the article.

Stirring controversy B92?

(Amer, 22 November 2009 19:11)

The US has not escaped unscathed. Some braver US academics are openly saying that the US is in a Depression and there seems to be no end in sight at this stage so the printing of money continues.

However, the cost of printing this extra money has increased substantially because no one will invest in US bonds without getting guarantees on their investment and this is where the general public has not been told what those guarantees are, nor the real cost. No amount of “they buy bonds because the US is a great place to invest” will attract investors unless there are guarantees. Look at it from your perspective would you put money into a venture where your capital has the potential to reduce in value – I wouldn’t.

At the moment the US is living on borrowings and there is plenty of cash around to spend, but once “the orchestra has stops playing and puts its hand out for payment”, that’s when you will really feel the side effects.

The only country honest about its unemployment statistics is Spain – 19%. The US is much higher that the 10.7% otherwise it would be shouting this fact from the roof tops. The support network for the unemployed is at best minimalist and at worst criminal to the point that 49 million do not have enough to eat – this is 2008 stats, I understand that 2009 are much worse.

You have to remember that your the banks are not viable if not supported by Government and the announcements about banks making a ‘profit’ is just a morale boosting exercise. When you include the toxic debt carried by each bank then …. I think you follow what I am saying.

The people in the US elected a messiah, not a President. They were hoping for a miracle, but Obama is not Franklin D Roosevelt, because he does not have the same powers as that great man. During his presidency, Roosevelt initiated ground breaking policies, but through the decades Presidential power has eroded and it’s a shadow of its former self. Huge profits are made during the building of a country or its demise and the feeding frenzy has not yet finished in the US and when it does it will be the public wearing the debt not the corporations.

It is both sad and true that the vast majority of people in general are not concerned as long as it does not affect them – “I’m alright Joe” until it hits them. It’s all to do with apathy and control through the media, just look at the percentages that bother to vote, so any changes will be stage managed by the powers and not by the concerned population.

Michael R.:
> After all, the current price of oil is too low for a high cost producer such as Russia to make a profit.

No. Current oil price is just under US$80/barrel. Russian 2010 budget break-even point is just above US$50/barrel.

> As you may know, the USA has weathered this storm rather nicely. Hardly anyone here remembers it.

Unfortunately, all the US has 'weathered' is a wave of events called the GFC. By not only not addressing the core problem of public debt, but by substantially adding to it, all the US has done is to shift the problem down the track a few years.

There will be another wave, & it will be much larger - just as the last wave was much larger than the previous one.

Process is called 'positive feedback' & usually ends with catastrophic failure.


Amer:
> I'd be really nervous if people were as unconcerned about the situation as you imply - that would mean there would be no chance for the changes that are necessary.

'Amer', the 'voting public' is one of the dumbest & most short-sighted of creatures - with the US version being espectially so. And even if their random walk just happens to take them in the right direction, there's still the small matter of passing anything even remotely effective through both houses of government - with once again, the US version being the least effective given the power of special interest groups & the whole lobbying process.

So be very, very nervous.


VaguelyInformed:

A couple of points.

I actually agree with most of what you've said, but in all that text, you seem to have largely forgotten to mention 1244.

And as all the parties were signatories to this UN resolution, & the resolution deals specifically with the political solution of the Kosovo question, one would expect 1244 to play a fairly important role in the ICJ's deliberations

Also, your conclusion that 'deadlock favours Kosovar independence' is merely subjective opinion & outside your field of expertise. My personal opinion is that a nuanced ruling in favour of the serbs is the most likely - resulting in stasis - which would most certainly not favour the K-albanians.

In the unlikely event that a truly 'neutral' result be handed down, even that would be insufficient to substantially alter the situation on the ground, save in perhaps a few more recognitions.

Without agreement from Serbia, pseudo-state will still be locked out of the EU & the UN. And that will not change regardless of the 'pressure' that the west exerts in the form of EU accession etc - not when it comes to Kosovo.

As for a nuanced result favouring the K-albanians, find this unlikely in the extreme.

Time will tell.


ron:
> I would invite them to read again the above mentioned resolution where Kosovo is only mentioned as being part of Yugoslav Federation and not Serbia.

Nope - "International documents relating to the FRY, especially UN Security Council Resolution 1244, would relate in their entirety to Serbia as successor." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1874523.stm


B92:
> No. Carrying a news agency report, along with its headline.

Apologies - assumed that you guys wrote all the headlines if not the text.