ICJ: Opinion on Kosovo not given yet

The Russians set up the ICJ President, Hisashi Owada, and he played right into it, quite brilliantly done really, this now insures there cannot be neutrality in this case.

Serbs are saying if they win then ICJ is objective if they don't then it is not binding or worse yet a kangaroo court.Choices, choices!

Hardly that we Serbians can trust a bit to a Court which has to, and is coming out with this kind of denials and statements even before preliminary hearings have started.

What can you expect from so called "independent court called ICJ" which found itself not relevant to judge in the case of Serbia filing against the Nato aggression?
All is more then clear just with above example.
With "ICJ" here is no chance for independent justice.

Serbian ruling Democratic Party rushed in that "icj" kamikaze action with no logic in and for success.

How about we get a transcript of that he said and we can judge this for ourselves?

Did he or didn't he mention a 30 page report? If he did then there can be no ambiguity about it. He is predicting what will happen.

Did he or didn't mention the word vague?

I really don't go for backtracking on this. Either he said exactly what he did and he needs to tell us which other way it can be taken or he didn't.

Why don't we simply ask him?

I am afraid that this court and whomever represents it at this moment will not dare challenge the moral of the most powerful countries, USA and Nato.I mean really, that is why they are together in a most deadly fusion of agression and terror to defend their interest. They will not allow some 'independent' court to full around with their interest.
Unless they find its opinion totally harmless- therefore irrelevant.

Owada knows Russian, but he responded to the questions in English, with his responses being translated back into Russian. The journalists in Moscow represented Serbian papers for the most part - there were only a couple of questions relating to Georgia's case against Russia from the Russians (including the moderator).

Judge Owada refused to be drawn on most of the questions of greatest interest to the Serbian journalists - whether there were any instances of countries changing their "decisions" following an advisory opinion by the ICJ (the first time it was asked he didn't understand she was asking about recognition; when she later makes the question more specific, he gives his standard answer: it's an advisory opinion only, there's no obligation to implement it. In response to a question on the weight of an advisory opinion on judicial precedent, he said that some had been followed in the past, some ignored. The reporter from Vecernje Novosti tried to at least determine the reasons the court had given for declining to rule in the past, but here to there was no clear listing of factors that might indicate whether the court might be considering this outcome.

The ICJ known as the world court is located in Europe...not in Russia.

The resolution 1244pm was handed to Europe since Kosova is in Europe. Considering the fact that 22 of 25 EU countries recognize the Republic of Kosova...umm I think we know what the outcome is going to be.

'The Russians set up the ICJ President, Hisashi Owada, and he played right into it, quite brilliantly done really, this now insures there cannot be neutrality in this case.
(Canadian, 28 November 2009 18:42) '

I suggest you watch the ria-novosti video: that's clearly what they hoped to do. But they didn't lay a glove on him.

'I am afraid that this court and whomever represents it at this moment will not dare challenge the moral of the most powerful countries, USA and Nato.'

Judge Osashi was asked directly whether any Security Council members had ever been taken to the ICJ. He said yes, and specifically that the US had been, many times - sometimes it had won, sometimes it had lost.

"...there was no clear listing of factors that might indicate whether the court might be considering this outcome.
(Amer, 28 November 2009 22:30) ..."


>>> Interesting and detailed comment of yours, Amer. Thanks.

May I ask how come sucha detailed and about your sources here?

just a few days ago, many Albanians were oh so happy because of the "twisted" report of the ICJ-officials words...

then they wrote that this is good for them.

and now, that the ICJ-official said something completely different, they change their tune and start declaring his new remarks as something good for them.

I mean, are they really THAT naive?

don´t they really see that they are only turning each and every ( even not so important thing ) into something very good and important for their illegal cause?

kids, wake up! you´re being duped. and ...finally you should come to reason, and realize it.

Serbian ruling Democratic Party rushed in that "icj" kamikaze action with no logic in and for success.
(dean van der serbia, 28 November 2009 18:21)

I agree with you on this one. However, this was the only way for Serbia to accept the independence of Kosovo. It is almost certain that ICJ will approve the independence of Kosovo. This will create stability in the region and open the door to the EU.

The ICJ known as the world court is located in Europe...not in Russia.

The resolution 1244pm was handed to Europe since Kosova is in Europe. Considering the fact that 22 of 25 EU countries recognize the Republic of Kosova...umm I think we know what the outcome is going to be.

Serbs are saying if they win then ICJ is objective if they don't then it is not binding or worse yet a kangaroo court.Choices, choices!

Hardly that we Serbians can trust a bit to a Court which has to, and is coming out with this kind of denials and statements even before preliminary hearings have started.

What can you expect from so called "independent court called ICJ" which found itself not relevant to judge in the case of Serbia filing against the Nato aggression?
All is more then clear just with above example.
With "ICJ" here is no chance for independent justice.

Serbian ruling Democratic Party rushed in that "icj" kamikaze action with no logic in and for success.

The Russians set up the ICJ President, Hisashi Owada, and he played right into it, quite brilliantly done really, this now insures there cannot be neutrality in this case.

Owada knows Russian, but he responded to the questions in English, with his responses being translated back into Russian. The journalists in Moscow represented Serbian papers for the most part - there were only a couple of questions relating to Georgia's case against Russia from the Russians (including the moderator).

Judge Owada refused to be drawn on most of the questions of greatest interest to the Serbian journalists - whether there were any instances of countries changing their "decisions" following an advisory opinion by the ICJ (the first time it was asked he didn't understand she was asking about recognition; when she later makes the question more specific, he gives his standard answer: it's an advisory opinion only, there's no obligation to implement it. In response to a question on the weight of an advisory opinion on judicial precedent, he said that some had been followed in the past, some ignored. The reporter from Vecernje Novosti tried to at least determine the reasons the court had given for declining to rule in the past, but here to there was no clear listing of factors that might indicate whether the court might be considering this outcome.

I am afraid that this court and whomever represents it at this moment will not dare challenge the moral of the most powerful countries, USA and Nato.I mean really, that is why they are together in a most deadly fusion of agression and terror to defend their interest. They will not allow some 'independent' court to full around with their interest.
Unless they find its opinion totally harmless- therefore irrelevant.

How about we get a transcript of that he said and we can judge this for ourselves?

Did he or didn't he mention a 30 page report? If he did then there can be no ambiguity about it. He is predicting what will happen.

Did he or didn't mention the word vague?

I really don't go for backtracking on this. Either he said exactly what he did and he needs to tell us which other way it can be taken or he didn't.

Why don't we simply ask him?

'The Russians set up the ICJ President, Hisashi Owada, and he played right into it, quite brilliantly done really, this now insures there cannot be neutrality in this case.
(Canadian, 28 November 2009 18:42) '

I suggest you watch the ria-novosti video: that's clearly what they hoped to do. But they didn't lay a glove on him.

"...there was no clear listing of factors that might indicate whether the court might be considering this outcome.
(Amer, 28 November 2009 22:30) ..."


>>> Interesting and detailed comment of yours, Amer. Thanks.

May I ask how come sucha detailed and about your sources here?

Serbian ruling Democratic Party rushed in that "icj" kamikaze action with no logic in and for success.
(dean van der serbia, 28 November 2009 18:21)

I agree with you on this one. However, this was the only way for Serbia to accept the independence of Kosovo. It is almost certain that ICJ will approve the independence of Kosovo. This will create stability in the region and open the door to the EU.

just a few days ago, many Albanians were oh so happy because of the "twisted" report of the ICJ-officials words...

then they wrote that this is good for them.

and now, that the ICJ-official said something completely different, they change their tune and start declaring his new remarks as something good for them.

I mean, are they really THAT naive?

don´t they really see that they are only turning each and every ( even not so important thing ) into something very good and important for their illegal cause?

kids, wake up! you´re being duped. and ...finally you should come to reason, and realize it.

'I am afraid that this court and whomever represents it at this moment will not dare challenge the moral of the most powerful countries, USA and Nato.'

Judge Osashi was asked directly whether any Security Council members had ever been taken to the ICJ. He said yes, and specifically that the US had been, many times - sometimes it had won, sometimes it had lost.