Public hearing continues in Kosovo case

Kosovo...was snatched by Serbs from the Ottomans, and annexed to Serbia.

Those nasty Serbs snatching back their land from those benevolent Ottoman Imperialists. What a shameful statement.

So in Wood's World you are an aggressor when you take back what is rightfully yours from an aggressor. Very British, very Kafkaesque.

After irrational statements like this I can't see how Serbia can lose.

How much does an ICJ Judge cost these days?

"As others who have recognized Kosovo's secession, they are expected to claim that the province's ethnic Albanians have a right to self-determination due to violations of their rights, that UNSCR 1244 did not contain provisions to prevent it."

Stating clearly in UN Res 1244 that Kosovo remained part of Serbian sovereign territory of course precludes the declaration of independence.

In terms of human rights violations, these were addressed before UN Res 1244 was agreed upon. There can be no reversal and rewriting of an existing resolution (especially one drawn up at the end of a war).

There would have to be a new resolution drawn up and agreed upon which would of course entail status talks.

The threat that there would be chaos if the court decides in Serbia's favour is not a basis for legal argument. The province is a protectorate and chaos would have to be avoided through careful and responsible handling of the situation by the internationals and the Pristina govt.

It is not a legal argument to say to a judge that s/he can't decide in favour of a particular side because the other side would then become violent. That's thuggery and threats, not law.

And what of the Kosovo Serbians who have the right to live in their own country, under their own government? Their human rights have been violated terribly since 1999, and they have a greater claim to this argument than any other group.

The British guy is just embarrassing - anyone who knows anything about history knows that Kosovo was part of Serbia before it became part of the Ottoman Empire.

Seems like all the Saachis & international spinmeisters can't change day to night. Facts are facts, and Kosovo remains legally part of Serbia.

If Serbia does lose this case then we all know that the rot has spread to the ICJ and that international law is no longer there to preserve our security.

The ICJ itself is on trial as much as the legality of the UDI.

By reading these transcripts and practicing common law; I cannot visualize any other outcome besides total victory for Serbia. That is if the resolutions/laws be followed as they were written, agreed upon, and initially intended. Now, I don't know how the political structure of this court is set up, and if he who wields the most power dictates outcomes, then any outcome is possible. Which would contsitute a travesty and trampling of the international order.

Yep nex will be Venezuela,Iran and N korea
(sasa, 2 December 2009 10:00)

Always a troll to post first.

-"Fatmir"

What a ridiculous argument Michael Wood has brought up at the ICJ. It is clearly a nonsense to say that Kosovo was not part of Serbia before 1913, but quite apart from that - how is it all relevant now?

This is all ancient history. The court is dealing with the here and now of the situation, which is that Kosovo is legally part of Serbia. That a province has no right to claim independence based on ethnicity without going through the proper legal process (ie. with the agreement of the sovereign nation).

This is just a side without solid argument trying to use ancient history, very badly, to argue their case. Where are the real legally based arguments?

It's not only offensively incorrect, but also ridiculous.

This is all ancient history. The court is dealing with the here and now of the situation, which is that Kosovo is legally part of Serbia. That a province has no right to claim independence based on ethnicity without going through the proper legal process (ie. with the agreement of the sovereign nation).
(kate, 2 December 2009 13:10)
--
Thank you Kate for stating the obvious.

I would like to invite my fellow citizens of Albanian ethnicity to the year 2009. It is also known as the "present". Although the ICJ may be concerned with some history, I cannot see why events that occured centuries ago are relevant to this case.

Kosovo is a province of Serbia and this is confirmed by an overwhelming 130 UN members.

At this early stage of the case, I cannot see any reason why the ICJ should not rule in Serbia's favour.

If anything, lets hope we can soon negotiate a prosperous future together.

Thank you.

Zoran

Mr. Woods is extremely right. Kosovo was never part of Serbia unless occupied by force.

We all know that ONLY AFTER the weakening of the Byzantine Empire and the Bulgarian Empire in the middle and late 13th century, most of the Albanian territory WAS OCCUPIED and became part of the Serbian state. Firstly, as part of Rashka and later as part of Serbian Empire. The rest of Albania could not be invaded. Indeed is clearly known that Stefan Nemanja managed to control a part of Northern Albania.

Along with the Serbian OCCUPIED of Albania, there was also an Albanian state, the Principality of Arbër, and later the Kingdom of Albania.

It was Albanians that fought mostly in 1389 against the Turks. Read a quote from the following book written in 1771.
The history of the Turkish, or Ottoman Empire,: from its foundation in 1300 ‎
by Vincent Mignot, A. Hawkins - History – 1771. p. 130

Whilst he(Sultan) was yet speaking a wounded Albanian who was biting the ground near them, collected all his force, or rather his rage, to strike at the Sultan, whom he knew by mgnificance of his arms, and the profound respect paid him by his followers. Page 130

Or read what other international historians think….

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/comments.php?nav_id=60179


For your informations read also the following

Vickers, M. Between Serb and Albanian: A History of Kosovo , Columbia University Press, 1998, pp.1-9

“Following the Second World War, but especially since the serious riots which broke out in Kosovo in 1981, Serbian archaeologists have been hard at work seeking to refute the theory of the Illyrian ethnic origins of the Albanians.

“Attempts to gain access to the Albanian coast were prominent in the politics of the medieval Serbian state. The urbanisation and consequently the development of the Serbs began as they drew nearer to the coast and established their administrative and religious centres in Shkoder, Prizren and Decan.”

“The conquest by the Serbs of the Albanian-speaking lands within the area formed by Antivar (Bar), Prizren, Ohrid and Vlora was mainly accomplished in 1343 when Dusan launched a great INVASION of the territory.

“There followed a policy of enforced conversion of both Catholic and Orthodox Albanians to the Serbian national church -- conversion to the Serbian church being a priority of Serbian state policy, as can be shown by the Code of Stefan Dusan. This Code -- a form of constitution of the mediaeval Serbian kingdom -- contained so-called 'anti-heresy clauses' demanding that all subjects of the Serbian kingdom and members of foreign communities be baptised into the Serbian church. “p.9

Albanian princes were at that time close allies of the Serbs, the result of their shared desire to oppose the Ottomans.

Or read a part of this book in the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/v/vickers-serb.html

Anyone who is confused about UNSCR 1244 regarding the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, I'd like to clear it up here.

Serbia is not the successor state to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) like Russia is to the USSR. Serbia created the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with Montenegro in 1992.

UNSCR 1244 refers to FRY, which is now Serbia through a name change and the independence of Montenegro. There is no dispute here in legal circles.

Here is a timeline of events:

1. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) was established on 28 April 1992 by Serbia and Montenegro.

2. UNSCR 1244 was adopted by the Security Council at its 4011th meeting, on 10 June 1999. This resolution refers to the FRY created on 28 April 1992.

3. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, after applying for membership, was admitted to the UN on 1 November 2000.

4. On 4 February 2003, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had its official name changed to Serbia and Montenegro.

5. Montenegro declared itself independent from the Serbian and Montenegrin union on 3 June 2006.

6. On the same day, the President of Serbia informed the United Nations Secretary-General that the membership of Serbia and Montenegro in the UN was being continued by Serbia.

There was never any dispute about Serbia continuing what began as FRY. However, there is a dispute about FRY being the successor state to Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia but this is a completely different matter.

So where 1244 refers to FRY, it now means Serbia. Plain and simple.

""The ICJ itself is on trial as much as the legality of the UDI"" - Kate

This is very much true. The perception and respect of the ICJ and whther it stands for international law, or bends its judgements depending on who is involved will be shown in their final statement.

"What a ridiculous argument Michael Wood has brought up at the ICJ. It is clearly a nonsense to say that Kosovo was not part of Serbia before 1913, but quite apart from that - how is it all relevant now?

This is all ancient history. The court is dealing with the here and now of the situation, which is that Kosovo is legally part of Serbia. That a province has no right to claim independence based on ethnicity without going through the proper legal process (ie. with the agreement of the sovereign nation).

This is just a side without solid argument trying to use ancient history, very badly, to argue their case. Where are the real legally based arguments?

It's not only offensively incorrect, but also ridiculous.
(kate, 2 December 2009 13:10)"

I agree with kate.

Furthermore, the borders of today's Kosovo included the north which was not part of 1913's Kosovo but incorporated during Tito's time. So even if we were to look at Michael Wood's argument about 1913's Kosovo for a moment, then it must follow that Pristina has no right to claim the north which should be reintegrated with Serbia proper immediately. After all, isn't this what the majority of the inhabitants in the north want? Or is the so called freedom of choice only available to the Albanians and no one else?

My goodness, what's going on here? Ethnic Albanians threatening chaos and a British Law expert becoming an amature historian? I'd like to understand how Kosovo, which was part of Serbia prior to the Ottoman invasion, can be snatched by Serbians from the Ottomans? Here is a map of Europe in 1358 (prior to the Ottoman invasion). Check http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Italian_Studies/dweb/images/maps/decworld/se_europe_1354-1358.jpg

Well, I'm glad it is not Serbian police on the ground taking "care" of ethnic Albanians. If chaos breaks out, thank God the internationals will be dealing with it.

As reported by the western press, Fat's "invincible" arguments are:
1) the UDI is "irreversible"
and
2) he threatens war if the ruling is against the UDI.

I wonder how these judges reacted in their home countries when the accused stated in court that his crime is irreversible and he will commit violence if the ruling goes against him.

At the next general assembly, Serbia should propose for a vote that the us, britain, and france get kicked out of the Security Council since they openly violate Security Council resolutions (1244). Given how Serbia easily got this case to the ICJ - expelling them should be no problem.

What does argentina know about Balkan history.
I am sure they know very little about Azteks,let alone Balkans.
(Kosova-USA, 2 December 2009 12:13)

Apparently a great deal more then you know about Argentina. Aztecs had a state in central Mexico in 15th and early 16th centuries. Northwest Argentina was part of the Inca state.

Luckily, history is not written by people like some here, who post "historical facts" daily.

If you want to read excellent introduction to prehistory of Balkans I recommend reading:

John Wilkes - The Illyrians (Blackwell)

http://www.amazon.com/Illyrians-Peoples-Europe-John-Wilkes/dp/0631198075/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259757995&sr=8-1

"I'd like to understand how Kosovo, which was part of Serbia prior to the Ottoman invasion, can be snatched by Serbians from the Ottomans?"

Was it part of Serbia before 1200? No. So 500 years later Serbia took it because "we had taken in from the Byzantines 700 years ago and held it for 150 years." History is not the issue, he's trying to say how Serbs mistreated the Albanians and that's why Kosova is independent.

If you go back 500 years a lot of things were different(Krajina, Vojvodina, Slavonia, Srpska,) so you can't pick and choose.

Zoran,

I saw your map...and I'm quite perplexed. How could the "empire of serbia" cover all Balkans since we know that, for instance, King of Bosnia and Albanian Princes took part in the battle of Kosovo...and they didn't take part as vassals...did that empire lose half its territory before the battle begin ?

And even supposing Kosovo was serbian land before turkish invasion, why should it mandatorily be given back to Serbia 5 centuries later ?? In History, as far as I know property of lands used to change every day. Gibraltar was once spanish and full of Spanish but now it's english and full of English...
Should Hungary claim part of Voivodina because it was once its property ?
Alsace-Lorraine was a very sensitive part of German Empire but now it belongs to France and is full of French....

For sure, Kosovo's demographic wasn't in 1913 what it was in 1389...and you cant just simply want it back because it was allegedly yours before...
They should have carefully assessed the situation at that moment. Kosovo was full of Albanians and did also fight against Turkish. And as reward, Albania becomes independent.
But as to albanian inhabited Kosovo...why should it have been handed over to Serbia totally ??
Woods' point is quite relevant.

lowe - "So even if we were to look at Michael Wood's argument about 1913's Kosovo for a moment, then it must follow that Pristina has no right to claim the north which should be reintegrated with Serbia proper immediately. After all, isn't this what the majority of the inhabitants in the north want? Or is the so called freedom of choice only available to the Albanians and no one else?" that's a good point.

kate - "This is all ancient history" I agree but it looks like they are trying to show the historical relations between Serbs and albannians and no doubt paint serbs as the bad guys and the poor albanians constantly suffering from serbian "oppression". it'll be interesting how they explain their desire for independence during Tito's time when yugoslavia was one big mix of ethnic groups, yet also no doubt trying to claim their love of multi ethnicity and lack of nationalism.

Minos - "Apparently a great deal more then you know about Argentina. Aztecs had a state in central Mexico in 15th and early 16th centuries. Northwest Argentina was part of the Inca state." hehehehe, you beat me to the punch.

Arta - "Kosova didn't declare Independence based on "We're Albanians" so we're splitting. Read recent history, at least from 1989 till 2008, don;t make believe certain things didn't happen."

but that is exactly what happened Arta or do you have a selective memory? how did the war in kosovo start? Albanians declaring they wanted independence! Then they took up arms - after being trained and armed by the US and Germany when it suddenly became in their interests i.e. Trepca - and started killing civilians, Serbs and albanians (those thought to be collaborators), police and army personnel. what kind of reposnse were you expecting? my guess is that you (the US and Germany and albanian nationalist, i.e. haradinaj and thaci) got exactly the response you were expecting as Milosevic was easy to predict, and could use that as a pretext first to intervene, then claim independence.

i've gotta admit, it was a well thought out plan. you've got 90% of your aims. the question is will you be able to finish the job or will that be halted by the ICJ - only time will tell.

Well, I'm glad it is not Serbian police on the ground taking "care" of ethnic Albanians. If chaos breaks out, thank God the internationals will be dealing with it.
(Zoran, 2 December 2009 10:52)



Well there are not going to be any chaos because there's not going to be any negotiations. Does somebody thinks we are going to give up our independence recognized by 63 countrys to have autonomy within Serbia and have no recognition at all ? And who can promise me that anot her Milosevic willnot come to power again ?

This British law expert may be just what Serbia needs to win this case outright. There's still time for Kosovo's supporters to make good arguments, but if this is the best they have, I'm shocked. I was expecting more than that.

"The delegation also included British international law expert Michael Wood, who gave an unusual summary of the region's history"

The only thing unusual about Michael Wood's summary of the region's history is how accurate it is.

Michael Wood statement made probably more damage that good because he very simplistically took side even many Albanian scientists can't take.

There are "coastal" people, "mountain" people, Illyrians, Thracians, pre-Illyrians, there are many cases of language being adopted and so on.

What seem to be the most widely supported theory:

- the people living in high places arrived before Illyrians, they were originally (probably) not Indo-European because Indo-Europeans - Illyrians and Thracians including - arrived relatively late.

The autochon European population is not Indo-European and today only few traces remain (Georgian, Bask, extinct Etrusk language).

Roughly the book I have speaks about "Ghegs" for this case.
What is confusing: Ghegs are according this pre-Illyrians, but they do speak a late version of kind-of-Illyrian/Thracian mix, with heavy Roman and some Slavic + Turkic influence (that's their Albanian dialect). In other word, this is a case of pre-Indo-Eurpean population adopting a later language.

- the people living closer to sea have different genetic marks. They are essentially a Slavic/Illyrian/Roman mix and to make things confusing - speak almost the same language as Ghegs. But they look different.

- to make things even more confusing: most Illyrians and Thracians adopted Slavonic language early on. They are all the way from Bulgaria till Slovenia.
Genetically, look at residents of Sofia, Cetinje, Kragujevac, Split - they are mostly Illyrians and Thracians. But they speak Slavic language now.

Somewhat similar:

The State of Rus was 100% Swedish/Danish in origin, even the name of the country is the name of a norse tribe. The names of first known rulers are Hröerik ("Rurik"), Olaf ("Oleg"), Jarislaffe ("Yaroslav"), Waldemar ("Vladimir"), enuf said, no one even disputes that the original name of Novgorod was Holmgård, in Icelandic Holmgarðir.

But no one disputes that the Vikings changed the language, like it happened in Normandy as well.


This is why such simplistic presentation is more harmful than good. It's just ridiculous and there is no need to even work a lot: go to Decani or Gracanica, find some medieval churches, look at the frescoes and try to read the text. If it sounds like medieval Russian, than you know, who built the churches. If it is written in latin or sounds like an odd dialect in remote TOSK(anian) villages somewhere in Italy - than you have the other answer.

All I can confess, I made that experiment, Bogorodica Leviska of Prizren included - and I could read (and kind-of-understand) what is written on the frescoes.

But of course, Michael Wood could say that these were originally in latin and the churches were catholic. And at a secret meeting between Mao Zedong and Elvis Presley they decided to build a time machine and change everything. And now we can observe Mao and Elvis steering all conspiracies from a bunker built on the invisible side of the Moon.

But of course, Michael Wood could say that these were originally in latin and the churches were catholic. And at a secret meeting between Mao Zedong and Elvis Presley they decided to build a time machine and change everything. And now we can observe Mao and Elvis steering all conspiracies from a bunker built on the invisible side of the Moon.
(Ataman, 2 December 2009 17:25

Ataman

Michael Woods has confirmed that he regrets he was unable to produce any
evidence on the Illyrian connection because he was busy trying to unearth the evidence on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.

However he did confirm that Mao and Elvis managed to find the connection but they
couldn't come back to tell their story.

Man you crack me up.Mao & Elvis what a combination.

B92, thank you for the link.

michael wood's statement is such a sad attempt to discredit a proud Serb nation! How is he not embarraseed? I mean really.. But what can you expect from the british who are the biggest global imperialist occupiers in history. They forcibly occupied and enslaved nations all over the world. And now WOOD, you are occupying our HOLY LAND with your american and german governments. Get your troops out of Serbia now!

What does argentina know about Balkan history.
I am sure they know very little about Azteks,let alone Balkans.
(Kosova-USA, 2 December 2009 12:13)

Hey Einstein, the Aztecs were over a thousand miles north of Argentina - in what is modern day Mexico. Do a little research before posting. You claim that Argentinians are not up on history and in doing so, prove yourself to be extremely ill-informed.

What does argentina know about Balkan history.
I am sure they know very little about Azteks,let alone Balkans.

That a province has no right to claim independence based on ethnicity without going through the proper legal process (ie. with the agreement of the sovereign nation).
-----
Kosova didn't declare Independence based on "We're Albanians" so we're splitting. Read recent history, at least from 1989 till 2008, don;t make believe certain things didn't happen.

Stating clearly in UN Res 1244 that Kosovo remained part of Serbian sovereign territory of course precludes the declaration of independence. -

--------
Really? Why didn't UNSC pass a resolution annulling /condemning the Independence?

Why didn't Zanieri annul it if it was illegal (he has annulled previous ones in Kosova)? It wasn't illegal that's why. After Serbs refused to deal seriously there was only one open option...

Here and now situation as is stands is: There is no Serb military or police in Kosovo. Kosovo has declared is independence and is controlled by is own people. I will try to make one point that many people here don't understand. "What is gained by war can't be given way by peace". No court or any other entity in this planet will take Kosova way exept by ....

Yep nex will be Venezuela,Iran and N korea

Thanks for your publishing of "hearing transcriptions".

My goodness, what's going on here? Ethnic Albanians threatening chaos and a British Law expert becoming an amature historian? I'd like to understand how Kosovo, which was part of Serbia prior to the Ottoman invasion, can be snatched by Serbians from the Ottomans? Here is a map of Europe in 1358 (prior to the Ottoman invasion). Check [link]

Well, I'm glad it is not Serbian police on the ground taking "care" of ethnic Albanians. If chaos breaks out, thank God the internationals will be dealing with it.
(Zoran, 2 December 2009 10:52)
That precisely the point: Kosovo was part of Empire of Serbia exactly as Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia, Greece was. Why stop with Kosovo? If Greece don’t want to be part of Serbia, why Kosovo should? If Montenegro don’t want to be part of brotherhood unity, why Kosovo with non-Slavic population like Greece should?
The answer is right there for people who want to hear. I am glad that Serbia insisted to go to ICJ so Serbian people will see plain and simple the bluff of Serbia Academy of Science and Art theory about Kosovo.

it is clear that Serbia's arguements are based on the law and the ethnic albanian's arguements are based on "pretty please agree with us!". Their foundations are subjective. they claim "the will of the people" (which means ethnic albanians) is what matters and not international law. The Germans want the court to look at "conditions on the ground". This too is not a legal matter, but a subjective one. Finally, the ethnic albanians want to argue "i was here first!". Again, whether or not that is true, this is not a legal arguement. God help Cyprus,Spain, Israel, Russia, etc. if the ICJ sides with the ethnic albanians!

I have read the transcripts and came to the conclusion that the best statement has been made by the Albanian defence, in particular by Mr. Murphy (btw. great name).
Murphy clearly stated that the the UN Res 1244 doesn't clearly mention that an UDI is forbidden. He brought this in cross reference with UN Res. 787 where it was clearly written that the Republika Srpska is not allowed to secede from Bosnia. This Resolution clearly confirm that a prohibition for secession must be clearly stated in a Res which UN Res. clearly doesn't. In fact, UN Res. expressively speaks of status talks in reference to the Ramboulliet talks which also doesn' require Serbia's consent.

Moreover, the corss reference to the Milutinovic case where practically the whole Serbian leadership has been sentenced guilty, gives the legal foundation for secession for the Albanians since the UN itself clearly mentions that under certain circumstances like massive human abuses and (attemped) genocide a minority has the right to form a state.

That 2 points are judicially brilliant and undeniable. Serbia didn't present anything what can counter those arguments. I congratulate the Albanian defense team to this brilliant strategy.

Cheers

Maks, if you and other albanians know anything about history...then i will retire. Your stories about history are equally funny as stories about polar bears in KosMet. Albanians came to this land much after Serbs.
(timotimekvej, 2 December 2009 20:52)

I would agree with you if you can bring at least one source that documents the migration of an entire people (albanians) and culture to the Balkans, I mean Slavic migration was well documented yet the Albanian one is not to be found anywhere?!

Plus Serbs are very confused on this issue. Some say Albanians came in the region in the 16 century or even later (after Scanderbeg??), some in the 13 century, some in 10 century, you have make up your mind. In a straight face you completely deny the fact that Albanians participated in the 1389 battle of Kosovo, just like other nations did.

In any case everyone knows that this does not matter. It is unwise from both sides to refer to history as the region has a very complex and unclear one. There are reputable historians that argue both sides. I can bring names, links etc but not sure if B92 would like to post them.

This is about int'l law as you say. How did Serbia comply with int'l law when it abolished Kosovo's atonomy, or when it send its army in in 1999?

Int'l law is not a suicidal pact. You can't just go in kill, murder, rape, ecxpell at will and than claim the protection of int'l law. What kind of precedent is that?

You must be more responsible than that to claim its protection. Your state, Serbia, proved over and over again that it can not govern peacefully the relations with K-Albanians living there.

Albanians can not be doomed to reside inside a country that hates them and with such precedents, they also have the right to life, which often it has been denied by Serbia as even admitted with regret in ICJ proceedings from Serb representative.

So what are Albanians to say to their young in the years to come if Serbia decides to send its army in again? (You have done it once you can do it again.) How do they know this is not just a nice show Serbia is putting up about being peaceful and tolerant. Please tell what people of any race, nation, culture etc, would not want to disconnect from Serbia if they experienced the same?

How many times do you think attrocities like those in 1999 need to be repeated so Albanians decide that there is no way they can trust Serbia again?

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

Radoslav,


The transcripts from Dec. 1 are available at this http://www.b92.net/eng/insight/reports.php?yyyy=2009&mm=12&nav_id=63451

We will also publish other transcripts from the proceedings as they become available.

Regards,


B92

Demi 'Well there are not going to be any chaos because there's not going to be any negotiations.'

My God you think negotiations cause chaos? In the rest of the world negotiations help to prevent chaos.

Clearly the law was vilated by the Albanians because if there was no violation of the law there would be no need for Mr. Woods to become a historian.

"Your honour, my client did break the law but there were extenuating circumstances at the time". Is this the line he is going to use? "Yes, they broke the law but they only took back what was theirs 700 years ago. You see my client was sitting in his home when Serbs marched in and took this land away."

Let's say we go along with his theory that Illyrians were there all along and Serbs invaded. Nevermind there is no proof of Illyrians owning Kosovo but there is plenty of proof of Serbs having it. What now? Now we kick the Serbs out and hand over Kosovo to these descendents of Illyrians simply because they claim that this is the right thing to do.

By this logic of "law" we must then kick Obama out of his office and hand America back to the Indians who are the indigenous people there and there if plenty of evidence to support that. White man is the invader there after all.

Then we move to Australia where we must kick Mr. Rudd out of his office and give the position to several tribe leaders whose land this really is.
Albanians claim that Serbs are the invaders and yet Serbs have been in Kosovo a lot longer than the white man in America or Australia.
How far do we go back? All this must happen if we are to right the wrong done centuries ago, even though there is no proof of Albanians ever having Kosovo.

A court must rule on what is legal and what is not legal not go into a political debate.

but that is exactly what happened Arta or do you have a selective memory? how did the war in kosovo start? Albanians declaring they wanted independence! Then they took up arms - after being trained and armed by the US and Germany when it suddenly became in their interests i.e. Trepca - and started killing civilians, Serbs and albanians (those thought to be collaborators), police and army personnel. what kind of reposnse were you expecting? my guess is that you (the US and Germany and albanian nationalist, i.e. haradinaj and thaci) got exactly the response you were expecting as Milosevic was easy to predict, and could use that as a pretext first to intervene, then claim independence.

i've gotta admit, it was a well thought out plan. you've got 90% of your aims. the question is will you be able to finish the job or will that be halted by the ICJ - only time will tell.
(Radoslav, 2 December 2009 16:19)

This is not correct. Albanians were the last to pick up the arms against the Serbs in the Balkans. They tried for 10 years peacefully to negotiate, forgot Rugova, the Ghandi of the Balkans?
And what did you do, you ignored him, and you kept keeping Milosevic in power while albanians were being led by a moderate.

Your state and gov, was never wise and moderate in solving these problems. They revoked autonomy to make things worse instead of working with Albanians to find a compromise when things were not as bad. K-Alb although they didn't have a state and a gov. they were much mature and wiser in their political behavour. Serbia behaved very irresponsibly and you have only yourself to blame.

It's clear who has the selective memory here.

it would be interesting to hear all the legal arguments. anyone know where to find any transcripts?

The British guy is just embarrassing - anyone who knows anything about history knows that Kosovo was part of Serbia before it became part of the Ottoman Empire.

kate, 2 December 2009 10:38)



But why your neighbors don't think so(including the state of Turkey succesor of the Ottoman Empire?.
And you forgot to mention that before Serbs came to the Balkans all the area was Illyrian Empire(Albanian ANCESTORS).

Apparently Mr Woods is making lots of people angry and upset when he speaks the truth. And one more thing, don't be surprised because Serbia will not get anything out of this unnecessary procedure. You can't kill a family in order to take their home. If you do then there is a law(Judge) that'll punish you.

Enough said!.

Ljepa Brena was a good looking singer.


Well my question to the gentleman that says that he practices law and read the transcript is what do you read sir that is so clear to you tha we do not see that this is all victory to Serbian side. I read the statements of both sides and immediately I can make a clear distinction that the Kosovo side has a much clearer picture of the argument and is base in many aspect to the real facts and happenings such
1. Milutinovic case (ICT Court decision-very important and for pro independence and very damaging to against independence) which everyone should read before going further.
2. Ramullet accords
3. Resolution 63/3 about Repubika Srbska .
4. Resolution 1244 who is just an interim resolution talk about the final status of Kosovo “according to rambullet accords and in the rambullet accord sys that “according to will of the people”
5. Resolution about Kosovo 1998 -1999 quite e few of them
6. there is not a such international law that prohibits independence

I think that Serbian defense is twisting of the words in Resolution 1244
I have to go to work so I will end with this

You like or not “the guy” Matti Athisari summarized the whole thing this way

“Let me give you an example how . . . I look at the Kosovo negotiations . . . [L]et’s take an example, that Serbia is like a thief who has stolen the wallet from Kosovo. And if I am a mediator, I am not advising them that could the Serbian thief actually decide himself how much money he wants to give to the fellow whose wallet he’d stolen . . . he has to give the whole damn wallet to you and then, most probably, go to jail for what he did. . . . Everyone knew that independence was coming.

“Let me give you an example how . . . I look at the Kosovo negotiations . . . [L]et’s take an example, that Serbia is like a thief who has stolen the wallet from Kosovo. And if I am a mediator, I am not advising them that could the Serbian thief actually decide himself how much money he wants to give to the fellow whose wallet he’d stolen . . . he has to give the whole damn wallet to you and then, most probably, go to jail for what he did. . . . Everyone knew that independence was coming.
(Albi, 2 December 2009 19:54)

Albi - do You read 1244?? There are words about back serbian police force and border guard to Kosovo!!

"4. Resolution 1244 who is just an interim resolution talk about the final status of Kosovo “according to rambullet accords and in the rambullet accord sys that “according to will of the people”

(Albi, 2 December 2009 19:54) "

1244 an "interim" resolution? As far as I know it is still valid today after 10 years and after the West (led by Uncle Sam) tried and failed to repeal it at the UN.

You were also not being honest by conveniently leaving out critical words of the Rambouillet Accords in your quote.

For the benefit of everyone let me state that relevant sentence in full: "Three years after entry into force of the Accords, an international meeting will be convened to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo, on the basis of the will of the people, opinions of relevant authorities, each party's efforts regarding the implementation of the Accords, and the Helsinki Final Act."

As it should now be crystal clear to everyone, Albi conveniently omitted to mention "the opinions of relevant authorities" which included Belgrade.

I think that the Albanians should play the Dardandia card next. I think that's the best argument for them if they can find any evidence to support that claim. Good luck to those that choose and speak truth and not lies.

The delegation also included British international law expert Michael Wood, who gave an unusual summary of the region's history, claiming that Kosovo – which was part of the Serbian medieval empire before it was invaded by Ottoman Turks in the late 14th century – was "forcibly occupied" by Serbs and taken from the Ottomans, to be annexed to Serbia in the 20th century. That is, he said, when violations of the rights of the Albanian population started.

So the Albanian extremists have jumped on a completely false historical statements coming from a laywer.

The following are the arguments of the so called Albanian extremist lobby;

(1) Serbia has lost its "moral right 'to govern Kosovo. Albania lost its "moral" right to any lands in Kosmet beginning in 1946 when the Serbian pogrom began. At that time the population of Kosmet was split 50/50 between Albanians and Serbians; today less than 5% Serbs remain.

(2) Albanians lineage to Illyria.

There is no historical fact linking Albanians to the former empire of Illyria. The same way as there is not indisputable facts which link Serbs or Croats to the Persian empire.

(3) International Law

International law is discussed in the context since the creation of the United Nations in 1945. Yugoslavia is the only country since 1945 where its constitution was violated externally and internally. Croatia and B&H civil wars were a direct result of the illegal proclmation of independance led by the Vatican and Germany. The illegal declaration of independance of Kosovo was followed with the Rambouilled ultimatum issued to the small Yugoslav republic of Serbia and Montenegro.

(4) Albania owned Kosovo during Ottoman rule

Albania was under Ottoman rule just like Croatia was under Austro-Hungarian rule, in fact, Croatia had more or less autonomy with its own Sabor (parliament), Albanian did not. Albania did have so called Vilyet with very limited autnonomy under Ottoman rule and many times did rebel only to be quashed heavily by the Turks.

(4) Albania and the Battle of Kosovo -1389

Yes, Albaniand did participate in the war amongst many nobles, but King Lazar led the largest group of warriors and represented the Serbian kingdom. Vuk Brankovic represented the Serbians from Bosnia although never showing up for the battle.

(5) Serbian Sacrifice

Serbia incurred the largest loss of life per capita in WWI and WWII and previous to that in the Balkan wars in defending its freedom. Where was Albania when Kosovo was freed from the Ottoman empire?

In today's Kosovo, the Albanian exremists hide under the skirts of NATO, in 1941 they hid behind the skirts of Hitler and in 1912 they hid under the skirts of the Ottoman empire.

Maks, if you and other albanians know anything about history...then i will retire. Your stories about history are equally funny as stories about polar bears in KosMet. Albanians came to this land much after Serbs.

Michael Wood and PRN are setting the course here. While PRN says "it was Albanians that fought mostly in 1389 against the Turks", Wood accompanies him by telling it was Serbs who later fought the Ottomans and robbed their lands and churches, oh dear, by force.

All Serbian statements in icj is just irrelevant, Mr Ahtisaari worked 15 month to see if Kosovo should declare independence or not. Most countries listen to Mr Ahtisaari because he has solved a lot of disputes around the world. And also in 1244 there is nothing that says Kosovo is not allowed to declare independence.

What does argentina know about Balkan history.
I am sure they know very little about Azteks,let alone Balkans.
(Kosova-USA, 2 December 2009 12:13)

Hey Einstein, the Aztecs were over a thousand miles north of Argentina - in what is modern day Mexico. Do a little research before posting. You claim that Argentinians are not up on history and in doing so, prove yourself to be extremely ill-informed.
(Jason, 2 December 2009 18:00)

Just because b92 decided not to post my second coment responding to another einstein just like you. But,you get the chance to dis me and you are one of the most prevelaged posters on this site. I know where Azteks come from and I know where Inca's come from too.

Just because b92 decided not to post my second coment responding to another einstein just like you. But,you get the chance to dis me and you are one of the most prevelaged posters on this site. I know where Azteks come from and I know where Inca's come from too.
(Kosova-USA, 2 December 2009 21:02)

Funny. The knowledge was absent earlier on. You seem to learn something today.

Just don't start claiming Incas are from Argentina now, because they are actually from Cusco, Perú.

If your Balkan history is as good as latin-american, than discussing any history with you is a futile predicament.

This also goes for all other posters here, claiming superior knowledge of the science of history.

"I have read the transcripts and came to the conclusion that the best statement has been made by the Albanian defence, in particular by Mr. Murphy (btw. great name).
Murphy clearly stated that the the UN Res 1244 doesn't clearly mention that an UDI is forbidden. He brought this in cross reference with UN Res. 787 where it was clearly written that the Republika Srpska is not allowed to secede from Bosnia. This Resolution clearly confirm that a prohibition for secession must be clearly stated in a Res which UN Res. clearly doesn't. In fact, UN Res. expressively speaks of status talks in reference to the Ramboulliet talks which also doesn' require Serbia's consent.

Moreover, the corss reference to the Milutinovic case where practically the whole Serbian leadership has been sentenced guilty, gives the legal foundation for secession for the Albanians since the UN itself clearly mentions that under certain circumstances like massive human abuses and (attemped) genocide a minority has the right to form a state.

That 2 points are judicially brilliant and undeniable. Serbia didn't present anything what can counter those arguments. I congratulate the Albanian defense team to this brilliant strategy.

Cheers
(Berkeley, 2 December 2009 22:07) "

1244 may not have expressedly forbidden a UDI but neither does it expressedly allowed a UDI. So how can you therefore conveniently take this as a blank check for a UDI? Most UN resolutions on territorial disputes do not state whether seccession is or is not permitted so your point is a superfluous one.

In fact a UDI was clearly far from the intention of 1244 which made references to respect for Belgrade's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

As for Ramboulliet, that document actually stated, as I pointed out in an earlier post, that "Three years after the entry into force of this Agreement, an international meeting shall be convened to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo, on the basis of the will of the people, opinions of relevant authorities, each Party's efforts regarding the implementation of this Agreement, and the Helsinki Final Act, and to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the implementation of this Agreement and to consider proposals by any Party for additional measures." The will of the people is only one of the criteria. The opinions of relevant authorities including Belgrade is another criterion.

Ataman, if you read the transcripts, you would have seen that Wood didn't mention the Illyrians. There is no point in mentioning them, and there never was. Illyrians are not important. He started at 1913. His point was "Serbia included Kosovo into its territory, and started colonization programs, that is Kosovo was treated as a colony by Serbia. The Albanian population was treated as the populations of colonized countries.". Which I think is good to mention to the judges.
After reading the transcripts, I think Serbia should have chosen better its question to the ICJ, should have made it even narrower than it already is. "International Law" apparently is made by many UNSC resolutions, and is not uniquely interpretable. The meaning of 1244 is being interpreted in different ways by the two parties, depending on previous UNSC resolutions. I also saw that Serbia cites less previous UNSC resolutions that Kosovo. But the number of citations is not important. The whole question is being reduced to the question "is silence about something consent or denial?". The answer is "it depends". In that "it depends" Kosovo is providing more arguments.

1244 may not have expressedly forbidden a UDI but neither does it expressedly allowed a UDI. So how can you therefore conveniently take this as a blank check for a UDI? Most UN resolutions on territorial disputes do not state whether seccession is or is not permitted so your point is a superfluous one.
(lowe, 3 December 2009 11:32)

This is simply wrong. UN Res. 787 is the best example that if there is an intention of an UDI which doesn't meet the will of the UNSC then an explicit will must be outlined in an UN Res. Otherwise, why UN Res. 787 clearly stated that Republika Srpska is not allowed to secede when it is already implied? The answer is simple. It is necessary to outline this in an UN Res. And in case of lacking of that kind of statement, it is the UNSC which has to condemn that kind of UDI, retrospectively.

In the case of Kosovo, there is neither a prohibition of independence nor a condemnation by the UNSC. Moreover, UN Res. also doesn't explicitely nor implicitely imply that Serbia's consent is needed. Best example that this is required is UN Res. 1251 where Cypruss has the sole and only souvereignty to solve the North Cypruss problem, so with only Cypruss concent. That also implies to UN Res. 1225 where the Abkhazia issue must be solved within the Georgian souvereignty and, therefore, with Georgian consent. That are simple and clear words, deliberately outlined in those UN Res., which UN Res. 1244 doesn't have. UN Res. just reflected the situation of 1999, adding that status talks will solve the final status.

Therefore, anybody who quotes UN Res. 1244 must explain why those clear sentences of responsibility/souvereignty, which can be clearly and undeniably found in UN Res. 787, 1225/1255 and 1251, can not be found in UN Res. 1244. The Western Powers have deliberately left out those sentences and Russia (China abstained during 1244) has eaten that.

That is how law works and apparantly that was also one of the reasons why just recently New Zealand recognized Kosovo. There is enough legal ground to declare independence and nobody could counter those arguments. I would call the Albanian strategy brilliant.

A clarification;

Michael Wood gave an unusual summary of the region's history, claiming that Kosovo – which was part of the Serbian medieval empire before it was invaded by Ottoman Turks in the late 14th century – was "forcibly occupied" by Serbs and taken from the Ottomans"

This part of this paragraph "which was part of the Serbian medieval empire before it was invaded by Ottoman Turks in the late 14th century" is not a statement by Mr. Wood but it is an opinion of B-92 for which they have no concrete proof.

Denis - maybe you should remember history objectively instead of through rose tinted spectacles. Kosovo, as a province, had more autonomy and powers than say Vojvodina, yet that simply wasn't enough for albanian nationalists. as they couldn't get what they wanted, they set up parallel systems to try to undermine the state. it is THESE actions that led to the snowball effect of increasing tensions and ultimately , war.

i applaud rugova for trying to negotiate peacefully, but his agenda was hijacked by nationalists with a completely different agenda.

can any albanian explain EXACTLY what extra powers kosovo was asking serbia & montenegro to provide it with? Or is it just another case where the details don't matter and as such it's easier to say that the Serbs were simply oppressive without knowing any facts!

Negotiations are the right way. Not about boprders or status because that is opver and never will be up for negotiations but over customs, border control and organized crime

You find 1244 unclear?
(lowe, 3 December 2009 16:36)

Wrong, again... In the contrary. UN Res. 1244 simply lacks those decisive sentences such as stated in UN Res. 787, 1225, 1251 and 1255, where souvereignty as well as responsibility for solving those issues are clearly mentioned. The Albanian defence as well as the majority(!) of participants in the ICJ case clearly point to that lack, which Serbia didn't/couldn't oppose a little bit.

The UN Res. 1244 clearly states that there will be talks regarding the status, even when it ackowledges the political situation by that time, in particular that Kosovo was still part of Yugoslavia, which is not a surprise - due to the lacking of a declaration of independence by the people of Kosovo during that time. However, time has progressed and so diplomatic efforts as well processes, such as the election of the envoy of the UNSC, Athisaari. His negotiations will deal as the framework to solve that issue, confirmed by the UNSC when electing him and the UN Res. 1244. He clearly stated that the independence states the best option.

Moreover, according UN Res. 1244, it was up to the special representative from the UN to declare the independence of the Republik of Kosovo null and void, if it violates UN Res. 1244. However, I don't remember that he objected, etc.

B92 team - thanks for providing the transcripts. Whatever the outcome of the proceedings, it will be interesting to hear the arguments, although it won't affect much the situation on the ground.
But it's depressing to hear the same tired old arguments regurgitated about Serbia's 'rightful ownership' of Kosovo, just because it was ruled for little more than 100 years in early Middle Ages. I mean, to put it simply, this argument is insane. Put it in context: during this time Spain spoke Arabic, the 100 year war was raging, the Black Plague decimates the population of Europe, abacus is just introduced, Aztecs found Tenochtitlan (now Mexico City), Belgrade is a Hungarian fort called Nándorfehérvár (and latter 'christened' Dar al-Jihad under the Ottomans)...and on and on to Reformation, Counterreformation, Inquisition, colonization of Africa and the Americas...

Maybe we should just rename the damn place to something happier and brighter, like Trinidad or Fiji, in order to forget the whole history-raping business.

As I've mentioned before, I don't have high expectations for this initiative mainly for the reason that ethnic Albanian seem uncompromising.

The transcripts indicated the UDD was devised because everyone agreed the status quo was not sustainable. However, two years later we are still in the status quo and I assume both Russia and China will confirm that.

So if anything, this is all leading to further negotiations. Kosovo will not be able to achieve independence so the UDD has basically failed.

Whether we remain in the status quo or pressure is applied to negotiate once again is yet to be seen but I suspect negotiations are the only way out.

Albanians were way better than Serbs this time.

Well i have to congratulate Sir M. Wood and his team for their brilliant presentation. It was beatiful. The res. 1244 that the Serbs claimed as something in their favour has turned against them.Thanks to Sir. Wood and his team.I'm just impressed of that. Probably the serbs are not very much familiar with the Int. Law, since they have been always violating it. Or perhaps is the Int. Law that is not familiar with them, I think Int. Law was an antiserb creation; 'cos is not possible that everything the Serbs do seems to be against it. This is so STRANGE...

As Massacre in Racak unfolded it gave way to negotiators to be tougher on Serb team by allowing text such as the "will of the people [of Kosovo]". This in turn incorporated into 1244 {just an interim period agreement} which does not a forbid UDI explicitely. Granted, does not specify that UDI is allowed either. But, from a layman point of view the difference between a NO PARKING rule and no rule at all speaks volumes - and of course commonly means PARKING ALLOWED.

Ataman,

You tend to rummage in the past ..how it was 500, 700 or 1,000 years ago.
The ICJ however will concentrate on the Serbian behaviour in Kosovo at the end of the XX century, how Serbia treated 2 millions of her own citizens.

Kosova's delegation is shining(especially Mr. Woods and Mr. Murphy) because Kosova has the facts and Serbia sticks with 1244 which is baseless in Kosova's case.

Have you read Albania's presentation(transcripts) to find out that around 700.000 Albanians left Kosova(my close cousins among them with same last name who since then live in the city of Fier ALBANIA).
It's important to mention and I'm glad it's already been mentioned in the Hague that ethnic cleansing of Albanians in Kosova did not begin in 1998 but way way back and ask Mr. Woods what year exactly. This will be another loss to Serbia even though it's only an OPINION.

Zoran said:
"As I've mentioned before, I don't have high expectations for this initiative mainly for the reason that ethnic Albanian seem uncompromising.

The transcripts indicated the UDD was devised because everyone agreed the status quo was not sustainable. However, two years later we are still in the status quo and I assume both Russia and China will confirm that. "

You are seeing it from the wrong perspective here. The status quo before was not attainable for at least 95% of the population of Kosova while now it is attainable for at least 95% of Kosova. That is what matters here. What is or is not attainable for Belgrade has no value. That is the reason why in the Ramboillet talks indipendence was seen as one outcome and also why there is nothing specific in that agreement which states that Serbia has to accept this. They states that Serbia will be part of the talks but acceptance from Serbia is not seen as necessary while independence via the will of the people was seen as a viable option with or without Serbia's consent. This is the big difference. Meaning that if 95% of Kosovars see the status quo as attainable then it is attainable whether or not Serbia thinks otherwise. 1244 specifically refers to the Rambouillet agreement specifically for that reason.

Iowe said: "You find 1244 unclear? Seems clear enough to me when I read its call on UN member states to respect Belgrade's sovereignty. I suggest you read again, this time much more carefully.

While is it very convenient for you to harp on the Bosnian resolution, on the other hand do the UN resolutions on the likes of Sudan and post-2008 Georgia explicitly prohibit secession by the southern Sudanese and S. Ossetia? I reiterate once again your error in conveniently equating 1244's non-mention of secession as tantamount to the UN acquiescing to Kosovo's UDI."

Wrong way you put it Iowe. First because if 1244 is as clear as you say then it is also clear as day that Kosovo is not a member state hence it does not apply to it hence the Declaration is lawful because if for a moment we consider what you say as true then it doesn't apply to non-states or non-members which Kosova was at least until the Declaration happened.

Second Declarations per se are not unlawful or against international law. For example Croatia or Slovenia or Bosnia Declared Inependence from Jugoslavia and that was not deemed illegal in terms of international law even though what remained as Jugoslavia was against it.A Declaration per se cannot be deemed legal or illegal.

Third certainly because something is not stated does not mean its allowed but at the same time it does not mean its prohibited. However when the UNSC wanted to prohibit Declarations or secessions it has done specifically and unequivocally so in the past and that has set a legal precedent. A precedent which is absent in 1244 and in the case of Kosova.

Lastly I frankly believe that Serbia's choice or question is weak and wrong as it specifically asks if the declaration of independence is illegal. It would have a stronger case if it had asked whether the secession of Kosova can be deemed to be legal. By narrowing the scope of the question so much this is turning to focusing more on whether the declaration per se is legal than whether the secession is legal which is really the issue. I genuinely believe the Serbian team have made a mistake by narrowing the question this much.

Accordance with International Law of the Proclamation of Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo

Does it mean if ICJ decides on the Serbian side that Kosovo has to change only the proclamation text?

Maks, Albanians for the first time were mentioned in 11th century by Anna Comnena and other byzantine writers. Serbs were metioned and described in 7th
( 4 centuries before Albanains).
The year 1690 was year of Great Serb Migration from KosMet and many Albanians settled themselves to KosMet.
U say that Albanians joined battle 1389, who was their leader Lazar, Vuk, Blasic? They were not led by any Serb leader. Only source that claims multinational coalition in 1389 is Mehmed Nesri in 16th century who was a doctrinare writer.
Here you are one link:
http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/emmert.htm
You also have mentioned Kosovo autonomy. Constitution 1974 was crime against people of Serbia. With that act Serbia was divided into. Vojvodina, KosMet and ,,smaller Serbia,,
Thank God it was abolished! It just encouraged separatists in Yugoslavia.
Albanians under rule of Tito were killing, looting and doing other nasty things on Serb population( as it was in ww2) and they continue that policy of ethnic cleansing to this very day. How about serbs in Kosmet to be independent? What happened to Serbs in south Metohija (north albania)? They also deserve independence after Enver Hoxas rule on them.
You dont speak about Serbian rights to independence. Why is that?

It is clear that the argument being formulated by those supporting independence is centred on the view that in itself a declaration of independence voiced by a people cannot be legal or illegal. It just is. The problem they have is that the declaration was made by the official organs of the PISG as established by the UN. This is why there is no much effort to argue that the UDI was not an official act by these legally constituted institutions, but was a wholly separate act undertaken by representatives of the people of Kosovo. This difference is extremely important in this context. if it was undertaken by officially created institutions, formed under UN Res 1244, which respects the territorial integrity of Serbia - (KA amateur lawyers please don't argue this case, none of the lawyers in The Hague on any side dispute the fact that Serbia is the lawful successor state) - then it is an illegal act by those institutions. The problem is that this this view of the events leading to the UDI has been created after the fact. At the time it was clearly accepted that it was an act of the PISG. It was only with the move to the ICJ that people woke up to the ramifications of this and are now trying to bend the narrative to suit their needs.

By the way, the emphasis placed on this technical point serves to highlight the extremely weak legal arguments to support other points. It appears that the case is now hinging on this particular issue. The problem, as I stated elsewhere, is that if the Court recognises a right of self-determination by democratic processes they will open the way for many other cases elsewhere. The supporters of independence are really playing a very dicey game here to support their case. They may yet win Kosovo, but destabilise many other places.

"This is simply wrong. UN Res. 787 is the best example that if there is an intention of an UDI which doesn't meet the will of the UNSC then an explicit will must be outlined in an UN Res. Otherwise, why UN Res. 787 clearly stated that Republika Srpska is not allowed to secede when it is already implied? The answer is simple. It is necessary to outline this in an UN Res. And in case of lacking of that kind of statement, it is the UNSC which has to condemn that kind of UDI, retrospectively.

In the case of Kosovo, there is neither a prohibition of independence nor a condemnation by the UNSC. Moreover, UN Res. also doesn't explicitely nor implicitely imply that Serbia's consent is needed. Best example that this is required is UN Res. 1251 where Cypruss has the sole and only souvereignty to solve the North Cypruss problem, so with only Cypruss concent. That also implies to UN Res. 1225 where the Abkhazia issue must be solved within the Georgian souvereignty and, therefore, with Georgian consent. That are simple and clear words, deliberately outlined in those UN Res., which UN Res. 1244 doesn't have. UN Res. just reflected the situation of 1999, adding that status talks will solve the final status.

Therefore, anybody who quotes UN Res. 1244 must explain why those clear sentences of responsibility/souvereignty, which can be clearly and undeniably found in UN Res. 787, 1225/1255 and 1251, can not be found in UN Res. 1244. The Western Powers have deliberately left out those sentences and Russia (China abstained during 1244) has eaten that.

That is how law works and apparantly that was also one of the reasons why just recently New Zealand recognized Kosovo. There is enough legal ground to declare independence and nobody could counter those arguments. I would call the Albanian strategy brilliant.
(Berkeley, 3 December 2009 12:59) "

You find 1244 unclear? Seems clear enough to me when I read its call on UN member states to respect Belgrade's sovereignty. I suggest you read again, this time much more carefully.

While is it very convenient for you to harp on the Bosnian resolution, on the other hand do the UN resolutions on the likes of Sudan and post-2008 Georgia explicitly prohibit secession by the southern Sudanese and S. Ossetia? I reiterate once again your error in conveniently equating 1244's non-mention of secession as tantamount to the UN acquiescing to Kosovo's UDI.

on and on, and once again our dear albanian friends are picking the lines and remarks that make them feel better, even if they are not of that much importance at all.

these remarks about "limited scopes" etc. do not equal to those arguments the Argentinians or today the Brasilians and Bolivians have mentioned.

we will see whether there is something like a "limited scope" ... but to give our dear albanian friends a hint, I´d say that if that question was of "limited scope" ...would so many countries worldwide attend to this oh so meaningless meeting to present their point of view?

please, my dear albanian friends, don´t fool yourselves, you see, it´s so clear that you cling to straws and that there cannot be any justification for the plain and simple ellegal actions that were taken by the greater-albanian separatists.

but, let´s just see what future brings...

I think Serbia´s strengthening in terms of arguments and weighing of interests day by day.

of course, some daydreamers will claim the opposite even when their "heroes" will have left for Colombia or Vanuatu ( with international money in their suitcases )

Serbia will prevail!

The supporters of independence are really playing a very dicey game here to support their case. They may yet win Kosovo, but destabilise many other places.
(Jim, 4 December 2009 16:48)

Jim you cannot argue (and neither ICJ) that the DI reflects the political will of the Kosovars expressed from the people that were democratically elected by Kosovars themselves. If that was not the case you would see people protesting in the streets of Prishtina against the DI.

This is out of doubt regardless of the legal capacity of the Kosova’s parliament constituent or temporary.

Was Croatian or Slovenian, or Bosnian parliament that declared Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia independent a state constituent or a provincial govts of the federation??but today they are all part of UN.

After all I have already said this, but the worst case scenario is that ICJ declares that the procedure was incorrect and that, I don’t know say a referendum on independence must be held. What do you think it will change something??? Do you think that this is the doubt in the head of ICJ judges? Do you think they doubt the result of a future referendum on independence or perhaps that the declaration of independence does not reflect the will of kosovars?? We can speculate in this if you like but the truth is that the declaration of independence is the voice of the people of Kosova.

Regarding your second remark “[supporters of independence] may yet win Kosovo, but destabilise many other places”. Wrong address: The supporters of independence as you call them offered a political solution to Russia and China: Kosova is a special case.

It was Russia that refused it so it is Russia that should bear the consequences.

I don’t understand why the ppl see more appropriate to point finger on democracies for the charlatanism of Putin???

Replace attainable with sustainable in my post. Somehow I hit replace all and that was the result.

"Lastly I frankly believe that Serbia's choice or question is weak and wrong as it specifically asks if the declaration of independence is illegal"

Then it can ask a different question next time? Meanwhile, those supporting Kosovo are tying themselves in knots to get the right answer to the wrong question?

Is that what you mean? Don't know if I agree.

"Wrong, again... In the contrary. UN Res. 1244 simply lacks those decisive sentences such as stated in UN Res. 787, 1225, 1251 and 1255, where souvereignty as well as responsibility for solving those issues are clearly mentioned. The Albanian defence as well as the majority(!) of participants in the ICJ case clearly point to that lack, which Serbia didn't/couldn't oppose a little bit.

The UN Res. 1244 clearly states that there will be talks regarding the status, even when it ackowledges the political situation by that time, in particular that Kosovo was still part of Yugoslavia, which is not a surprise - due to the lacking of a declaration of independence by the people of Kosovo during that time. However, time has progressed and so diplomatic efforts as well processes, such as the election of the envoy of the UNSC, Athisaari. His negotiations will deal as the framework to solve that issue, confirmed by the UNSC when electing him and the UN Res. 1244. He clearly stated that the independence states the best option.

Moreover, according UN Res. 1244, it was up to the special representative from the UN to declare the independence of the Republik of Kosovo null and void, if it violates UN Res. 1244. However, I don't remember that he objected, etc.
(Berkeley, 3 December 2009 18:20) "

And I submit once more that it is you who is the one who is so wrong.

Your long thesis could not evade the one critical element of 1244 -- it recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo. And until 1244 is repealed, this fact remains, however unpleasant it may be to you and Pristina!

And in case you forgot, conveniently again, Ahtisaari's proposals were not accepted by the UNSC!

But, from a layman point of view the difference between a NO PARKING rule and no rule at all speaks volumes - and of course commonly means PARKING ALLOWED.
(MJ, 3 December 2009 17:51)

Can't agree more and not only form the layman perspective but from the simple rationale.

There is no civilisation that ever made laws saying things that ARE ALLOWED.

Laws are made to say what is NOT allowed.

This is how Serbian argument fails miserably.

Btw one should not ignore the fact that until 2002/03 Serbs were the greatest oppositors of res. 1244. Their politicians were condemning 1244 in every speech.

But then they turned to support it since that's the best that they have- and this says how little they indeed have.

And then again since they are very good in propaganda they sold to their people the story that the books about int law and law in general are sold only in Belgrade and Moscow and due to the lack of ability of critical thinking of Serbian society they buy everything their leaders sell- all the rubbish.

Wrong way you put it Iowe. First because if 1244 is as clear as you say then it is also clear as day that Kosovo is not a member state hence it does not apply to it hence the Declaration is lawful because if for a moment we consider what you say as true then it doesn't apply to non-states or non-members which Kosova was at least until the Declaration happened.

Second Declarations per se are not unlawful or against international law. For example Croatia or Slovenia or Bosnia Declared Inependence from Jugoslavia and that was not deemed illegal in terms of international law even though what remained as Jugoslavia was against it.A Declaration per se cannot be deemed legal or illegal.

Third certainly because something is not stated does not mean its allowed but at the same time it does not mean its prohibited. However when the UNSC wanted to prohibit Declarations or secessions it has done specifically and unequivocally so in the past and that has set a legal precedent. A precedent which is absent in 1244 and in the case of Kosova.

(johny, 3 December 2009 18:58) "

First, ironically you are so right! 1244 indeed does not see Kosovo as a state. Under 1244, Kosovo is Belgrade's province!

Second, you are so wrong to say that Kosovo has equal status with the likes of Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia in Tito's Yugoslavia. These are republics in the former Yugoslavia while your Kosovo is a province of Serbia.

Third, 1244 recognizes Belgrade's sovereignth over Kosovo. That's enough reason for Kosovo's UDI to be invalide without Serbia's consent. By the way, are you now saying that, by your same logic, that the K-Serbs of north Kosovo has the right to secede from Pristina? If not, why the double standards? I am so eager to read your response. I only hope it is one that is based on fact and logic.

If the decision is made in accordance with the comments in here of course Kosovo should be part of serbia.Good to see a part of Balkans history written accurately by Michael Wood.

Well, Ben, it seems that this is going to be the key question, doesn't it? It all comes down to a technicality. The question, then, is how the Court might qualify that technicality. Will it say that the procedures were incorrect and just leave it at that or say that the procedures were incorrect, but that does not invalidate the principles of state sovereignty and territorial integrity remain in place - in other words even a new procedure would be invalid. My feeling is that they might go for the first option and leave it at that. That would give them the easiest way out of this mess without having to take a wider stand that might have severe ramifications. It would also allow them to say that they answered the question. Not much of a result, but maybe the best compromise. It still won't take Kosovo a single step closer to the UN. As others have pointed out, it is likely only to cement the differences on the world stage - especially as it could open up the option for other separatist groups to declare independence.

As for the way out argument, this was a complete non-starter for several reasons. For a start, if you break down the sui generis argument point by point, as a legal case must, each specific argument is very weak. Again, this is why the unique case argument appears to have faded before the ICJ. Secondly, few people in the West ever bothered to understand the Russian position. The public outcry if Moscow had allowed the US to secure independence for Kosovo without securing a similar right for SO and Abkhazia would have been massive. As it was the unilateral actions of the US, followed by most of the EU, forced Russia to follow suit. It has always amazed me how this was missed by US policy makers - or perhaps they had no choice given the threat to peace and stability if they did not grant the KAs their wishes. Russia's argument that the West was blackmailed into recognising the UDI is pretty accurate. It also explains why the West's legal case is so weak. It was always a political decision.

"Lowe, That is exactly what makes the Kosovo case "sui generis". The presumption when resolution 1244 was approved was that it was the compromise needed make Serbia witjhdraws its army and police units from Kosovo and stop the horrible bombardment over Serbia. The logic went on that when the "dictator" Slobodan Milosevoc was removed and a democratic government is elected in Serbia, it will realise the unworkability of uniting Serbia and Kosovo and a true negotiations would start. In them Serbia will exchange its consensus for independent Kosovo for practical comsessions: minority rights, church property etc. It was presumed that it would take few years for the new Serbian government to prepare its people for the loss of Kosovo. Nobody extected that all the Serbian governments after the fall of Milosevic will only keep repeting NO NO NO.

Why the same rights are not offered to the Serbs in N. Kosovo?
You are right that in former Yougoslavia Kosovo did not have the same rights as say Slovenia, Croatia or Montenegro. BUT IT CAME CLOSE. It was recognized as a subject of the federation. It had its police, its court, its educational system.
(nik, 5 December 2009 08:23)"

All this talk about Kosovo being sui generis is just hogwash to me. The fact is that no two every ethnic dispute in the world are exactly the same -- that effectively makes each case sui generis. But to say that K-Albanians have the right to secede but not K-Serbs, Srpska Serbs, S. Ossetians, Kurds, Tibetans (only because the West feared antangonising the Chinese even though probably more Tibetans died than K-Albanians). To me this sui generis claim is nothing more than a convenient cloak for the double standards blatantly practised by the West and Albanians in their own self-interests.

Kosovo "came close" (your assessment, not mine). Bottom line however is that it is still not a republic in Tito's time. It is Serbia's autonomous province.

To the Serbs and Albanians posting here. Go read the transcripts thoroughly and take your time doing it. Do not skim them and do not see it from a partisan viewpoint. The statements are very smart and the arguments very well thought. I am surprised at the level of intellect and thought that has gone to the process so far. Apart from the Saudi's statement and the Argentian ( it was in French and I don't speak French), I thought that so far the presentation of the arguments from all teams, including the Serb one, has been brilliant.

To the usual jokers here who feel the need to act as more of legal experts than the real experts here before writing in your usual naive style take your time and read thoroughly the arguments presented by the legal teams of the countries. If your mind is already made up do it solely so you can see the mastery of good lawyers in action. It is a great battle of wits and if for nothing else it is worth reading just for that.

Then it can ask a different question next time? Meanwhile, those supporting Kosovo are tying themselves in knots to get the right answer to the wrong question?

Is that what you mean? Don't know if I agree.
(Mister, 3 December 2009 21:43)

I don't think there'll be next times. Do you think everytime Serbia needs to ask something then the world would just grant it? There is a notion of time you know and when that time comes enough is enough.

Well if you had read the arguments on those defending the Kosovar side the very first lines of each argument state just that. They remind the court that Serbia's question is of a very limited scope and deals with only whether the Declaration per se can be found legal. The vast majority of these arguments are based on this not on questions of secession, statehood and nation building. They are mentioned by some but only as small arguments. Even when arguments of self-determination and respect of territorial integrity are made those are made solely for the purpose of focusing on Serbia's narrow and limited scope question. That is " Is the declaration legal or not. So based on that and on principles of self-determination and territorial integrity the argument is made that declarations are not illegal. Notice how Serbia's question does not ask to determine whether Kosova's statehood, nation-building or secession is legal? It specifically asks whether the act of the declaration itself is legal or not. It doesn't ask what came before or after as a result of it. That is a huge difference there. That is what those who are on Kosova's side are arguing. Meaning they are reminding the court that Serbia itself is not asking whether Kosova's statehood, secession or nation building are legal. Serbia is specifically asking whether the Declaration or better say it the act of Declaring was legal. Those are very different questions and with very fundamental and big differences. At least from my understanding that is what I get. My opinion of course is biased but I believe that since declarations only express a possible future intent ( in this case an intent to be a state), then they cannot be deemed to be legal or illegal. That is because while one group may have a possible future intent it does not mean that that intent is always fulfillable. It is only if this intent is fulfilled meaning if there is a measurable change in status that one can categorize whether this change in status is legal or legal. The declaration per se since it only expresses intent does not mean a change in status. This is why I think Serbia's question is really the wrong question and does really shift the focus from issues of self-determination and territorial integrity to technicalities, from principles of statehood to discussing the different meanings of words such as "agreement". I know some will see this as biased but I believe that is a weakness.

Hi Jim,

From your last few posts you appear undecided and confused over how the ICJ rule. It is clear that you oppose Kosova's DI but yet you are coming to the realization that it is inevitable. Although you conclude the K-Albanians have a weak case, you can't seem to come up with a specific set of concrete reasons. If you have any arguments that support your position, please state them rather than just being vague and implying that you know why, but then do not follow through with specifics. Kindly enlighten us.

We await your detailed response.

If Serbia does lose this case then we all know that the rot has spread to the ICJ and that international law is no longer there to preserve our security.

The ICJ itself is on trial as much as the legality of the UDI.
(kate, 2 December 2009 10:38)

I think this is said daily in most courts throughout the world. Every criminal in the world could not get a fair break because the judge was corrupt!
I find it amusing that this is the single breaking point for the ICJ rule as Serbia wants or you are corrupt.

Johny,

I understand the arguments. My point is that there are many contradictions and much of what is being said will frighten the life of of some member states. And if the question was wrong in the first place then there is no advisory opinion on the question that matters - therefore Serbia has lost nothing and galvanised certain opposition.

I don't think Serbia will be able to put another question to the Court. But that is not because there is a legal bar on asking a different question. It is perfectly open for them to argue that they have been denied access to legal opinion from the ICJ.

As I said in another post. The only certain thing is that the Balkans have once again thrown a wobbler to the world. These arguments are very dangerous.

"Wrong address: The supporters of independence as you call them offered a political solution to Russia and China: Kosova is a special case.

It was Russia that refused it so it is Russia that should bear the consequences.

I don’t understand why the ppl see more appropriate to point finger on democracies for the charlatanism of Putin???
(ben, 4 December 2009 19:37) "

For your info, the Russians are not the only one who refused. The Chinese are just as adamantly opposed.

First, ironically you are so right! 1244 indeed does not see Kosovo as a state. Under 1244, Kosovo is Belgrade's province!

Second, you are so wrong to say that Kosovo has equal status with the likes of Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia in Tito's Yugoslavia. These are republics in the former Yugoslavia while your Kosovo is a province of Serbia.

Third, 1244 recognizes Belgrade's sovereignth over Kosovo. That's enough reason for Kosovo's UDI to be invalide without Serbia's consent. By the way, are you now saying that, by your same logic, that the K-Serbs of north Kosovo has the right to secede from Pristina? If not, why the double standards? I am so eager to read your response. I only hope it is one that is based on fact and logic.

Lowe, That is exactly what makes the Kosovo case "sui generis". The presumption when resolution 1244 was approved was that it was the compromise needed make Serbia witjhdraws its army and police units from Kosovo and stop the horrible bombardment over Serbia. The logic went on that when the "dictator" Slobodan Milosevoc was removed and a democratic government is elected in Serbia, it will realise the unworkability of uniting Serbia and Kosovo and a true negotiations would start. In them Serbia will exchange its consensus for independent Kosovo for practical comsessions: minority rights, church property etc. It was presumed that it would take few years for the new Serbian government to prepare its people for the loss of Kosovo. Nobody extected that all the Serbian governments after the fall of Milosevic will only keep repeting NO NO NO.

Why the same rights are not offered to the Serbs in N. Kosovo?
You are right that in former Yougoslavia Kosovo did not have the same rights as say Slovenia, Croatia or Montenegro. BUT IT CAME CLOSE. It was recognized as a subject of the federation. It had its police, its court, its educational system.

i would like to invite everyone of you to the history books, i`m albanian, but not a sick nationalist!!the truth is that kosova since times has been land of dardanians,illyrian tribe and followed up by the albanians as the world recognizes us today.throughout the history these lands were given to the serbian empire, and the last shattering happened after the fall of the ottoman empire, where the great powers decided to reward serbia, montenegro and greece with albanians lands.
i would say that the serbs has to realise that kosova is gone forever and nobody, i mean nobody can return back on time!!the problem is , that if we continue with this nounces(arguments)about great serbia or great albania ,..we are not going anywhere...its just going to happen like other times...albanian and serbs will continue to slaughter them selves.
the result???
somebody tell me!!!
best regards!!

"The delegation also included British international law expert Michael Wood, who gave an unusual summary of the region's history"

The only thing unusual about Michael Wood's summary of the region's history is how accurate it is.

That a province has no right to claim independence based on ethnicity without going through the proper legal process (ie. with the agreement of the sovereign nation).
-----
Kosova didn't declare Independence based on "We're Albanians" so we're splitting. Read recent history, at least from 1989 till 2008, don;t make believe certain things didn't happen.

Yep nex will be Venezuela,Iran and N korea

What does argentina know about Balkan history.
I am sure they know very little about Azteks,let alone Balkans.

"I'd like to understand how Kosovo, which was part of Serbia prior to the Ottoman invasion, can be snatched by Serbians from the Ottomans?"

Was it part of Serbia before 1200? No. So 500 years later Serbia took it because "we had taken in from the Byzantines 700 years ago and held it for 150 years." History is not the issue, he's trying to say how Serbs mistreated the Albanians and that's why Kosova is independent.

If you go back 500 years a lot of things were different(Krajina, Vojvodina, Slavonia, Srpska,) so you can't pick and choose.

Here and now situation as is stands is: There is no Serb military or police in Kosovo. Kosovo has declared is independence and is controlled by is own people. I will try to make one point that many people here don't understand. "What is gained by war can't be given way by peace". No court or any other entity in this planet will take Kosova way exept by ....

"As others who have recognized Kosovo's secession, they are expected to claim that the province's ethnic Albanians have a right to self-determination due to violations of their rights, that UNSCR 1244 did not contain provisions to prevent it."

Stating clearly in UN Res 1244 that Kosovo remained part of Serbian sovereign territory of course precludes the declaration of independence.

In terms of human rights violations, these were addressed before UN Res 1244 was agreed upon. There can be no reversal and rewriting of an existing resolution (especially one drawn up at the end of a war).

There would have to be a new resolution drawn up and agreed upon which would of course entail status talks.

The threat that there would be chaos if the court decides in Serbia's favour is not a basis for legal argument. The province is a protectorate and chaos would have to be avoided through careful and responsible handling of the situation by the internationals and the Pristina govt.

It is not a legal argument to say to a judge that s/he can't decide in favour of a particular side because the other side would then become violent. That's thuggery and threats, not law.

And what of the Kosovo Serbians who have the right to live in their own country, under their own government? Their human rights have been violated terribly since 1999, and they have a greater claim to this argument than any other group.

The British guy is just embarrassing - anyone who knows anything about history knows that Kosovo was part of Serbia before it became part of the Ottoman Empire.

Seems like all the Saachis & international spinmeisters can't change day to night. Facts are facts, and Kosovo remains legally part of Serbia.

If Serbia does lose this case then we all know that the rot has spread to the ICJ and that international law is no longer there to preserve our security.

The ICJ itself is on trial as much as the legality of the UDI.

Well, I'm glad it is not Serbian police on the ground taking "care" of ethnic Albanians. If chaos breaks out, thank God the internationals will be dealing with it.
(Zoran, 2 December 2009 10:52)



Well there are not going to be any chaos because there's not going to be any negotiations. Does somebody thinks we are going to give up our independence recognized by 63 countrys to have autonomy within Serbia and have no recognition at all ? And who can promise me that anot her Milosevic willnot come to power again ?

Zoran,

I saw your map...and I'm quite perplexed. How could the "empire of serbia" cover all Balkans since we know that, for instance, King of Bosnia and Albanian Princes took part in the battle of Kosovo...and they didn't take part as vassals...did that empire lose half its territory before the battle begin ?

And even supposing Kosovo was serbian land before turkish invasion, why should it mandatorily be given back to Serbia 5 centuries later ?? In History, as far as I know property of lands used to change every day. Gibraltar was once spanish and full of Spanish but now it's english and full of English...
Should Hungary claim part of Voivodina because it was once its property ?
Alsace-Lorraine was a very sensitive part of German Empire but now it belongs to France and is full of French....

For sure, Kosovo's demographic wasn't in 1913 what it was in 1389...and you cant just simply want it back because it was allegedly yours before...
They should have carefully assessed the situation at that moment. Kosovo was full of Albanians and did also fight against Turkish. And as reward, Albania becomes independent.
But as to albanian inhabited Kosovo...why should it have been handed over to Serbia totally ??
Woods' point is quite relevant.

Kosovo...was snatched by Serbs from the Ottomans, and annexed to Serbia.

Those nasty Serbs snatching back their land from those benevolent Ottoman Imperialists. What a shameful statement.

So in Wood's World you are an aggressor when you take back what is rightfully yours from an aggressor. Very British, very Kafkaesque.

After irrational statements like this I can't see how Serbia can lose.

How much does an ICJ Judge cost these days?

but that is exactly what happened Arta or do you have a selective memory? how did the war in kosovo start? Albanians declaring they wanted independence! Then they took up arms - after being trained and armed by the US and Germany when it suddenly became in their interests i.e. Trepca - and started killing civilians, Serbs and albanians (those thought to be collaborators), police and army personnel. what kind of reposnse were you expecting? my guess is that you (the US and Germany and albanian nationalist, i.e. haradinaj and thaci) got exactly the response you were expecting as Milosevic was easy to predict, and could use that as a pretext first to intervene, then claim independence.

i've gotta admit, it was a well thought out plan. you've got 90% of your aims. the question is will you be able to finish the job or will that be halted by the ICJ - only time will tell.
(Radoslav, 2 December 2009 16:19)

This is not correct. Albanians were the last to pick up the arms against the Serbs in the Balkans. They tried for 10 years peacefully to negotiate, forgot Rugova, the Ghandi of the Balkans?
And what did you do, you ignored him, and you kept keeping Milosevic in power while albanians were being led by a moderate.

Your state and gov, was never wise and moderate in solving these problems. They revoked autonomy to make things worse instead of working with Albanians to find a compromise when things were not as bad. K-Alb although they didn't have a state and a gov. they were much mature and wiser in their political behavour. Serbia behaved very irresponsibly and you have only yourself to blame.

It's clear who has the selective memory here.

The British guy is just embarrassing - anyone who knows anything about history knows that Kosovo was part of Serbia before it became part of the Ottoman Empire.

kate, 2 December 2009 10:38)



But why your neighbors don't think so(including the state of Turkey succesor of the Ottoman Empire?.
And you forgot to mention that before Serbs came to the Balkans all the area was Illyrian Empire(Albanian ANCESTORS).

Apparently Mr Woods is making lots of people angry and upset when he speaks the truth. And one more thing, don't be surprised because Serbia will not get anything out of this unnecessary procedure. You can't kill a family in order to take their home. If you do then there is a law(Judge) that'll punish you.

Enough said!.

Stating clearly in UN Res 1244 that Kosovo remained part of Serbian sovereign territory of course precludes the declaration of independence. -

--------
Really? Why didn't UNSC pass a resolution annulling /condemning the Independence?

Why didn't Zanieri annul it if it was illegal (he has annulled previous ones in Kosova)? It wasn't illegal that's why. After Serbs refused to deal seriously there was only one open option...

All Serbian statements in icj is just irrelevant, Mr Ahtisaari worked 15 month to see if Kosovo should declare independence or not. Most countries listen to Mr Ahtisaari because he has solved a lot of disputes around the world. And also in 1244 there is nothing that says Kosovo is not allowed to declare independence.

Mr. Woods is extremely right. Kosovo was never part of Serbia unless occupied by force.

We all know that ONLY AFTER the weakening of the Byzantine Empire and the Bulgarian Empire in the middle and late 13th century, most of the Albanian territory WAS OCCUPIED and became part of the Serbian state. Firstly, as part of Rashka and later as part of Serbian Empire. The rest of Albania could not be invaded. Indeed is clearly known that Stefan Nemanja managed to control a part of Northern Albania.

Along with the Serbian OCCUPIED of Albania, there was also an Albanian state, the Principality of Arbër, and later the Kingdom of Albania.

It was Albanians that fought mostly in 1389 against the Turks. Read a quote from the following book written in 1771.
The history of the Turkish, or Ottoman Empire,: from its foundation in 1300 ‎
by Vincent Mignot, A. Hawkins - History – 1771. p. 130

Whilst he(Sultan) was yet speaking a wounded Albanian who was biting the ground near them, collected all his force, or rather his rage, to strike at the Sultan, whom he knew by mgnificance of his arms, and the profound respect paid him by his followers. Page 130

Or read what other international historians think….

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/comments.php?nav_id=60179


For your informations read also the following

Vickers, M. Between Serb and Albanian: A History of Kosovo , Columbia University Press, 1998, pp.1-9

“Following the Second World War, but especially since the serious riots which broke out in Kosovo in 1981, Serbian archaeologists have been hard at work seeking to refute the theory of the Illyrian ethnic origins of the Albanians.

“Attempts to gain access to the Albanian coast were prominent in the politics of the medieval Serbian state. The urbanisation and consequently the development of the Serbs began as they drew nearer to the coast and established their administrative and religious centres in Shkoder, Prizren and Decan.”

“The conquest by the Serbs of the Albanian-speaking lands within the area formed by Antivar (Bar), Prizren, Ohrid and Vlora was mainly accomplished in 1343 when Dusan launched a great INVASION of the territory.

“There followed a policy of enforced conversion of both Catholic and Orthodox Albanians to the Serbian national church -- conversion to the Serbian church being a priority of Serbian state policy, as can be shown by the Code of Stefan Dusan. This Code -- a form of constitution of the mediaeval Serbian kingdom -- contained so-called 'anti-heresy clauses' demanding that all subjects of the Serbian kingdom and members of foreign communities be baptised into the Serbian church. “p.9

Albanian princes were at that time close allies of the Serbs, the result of their shared desire to oppose the Ottomans.

Or read a part of this book in the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/v/vickers-serb.html

My goodness, what's going on here? Ethnic Albanians threatening chaos and a British Law expert becoming an amature historian? I'd like to understand how Kosovo, which was part of Serbia prior to the Ottoman invasion, can be snatched by Serbians from the Ottomans? Here is a map of Europe in 1358 (prior to the Ottoman invasion). Check http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Italian_Studies/dweb/images/maps/decworld/se_europe_1354-1358.jpg

Well, I'm glad it is not Serbian police on the ground taking "care" of ethnic Albanians. If chaos breaks out, thank God the internationals will be dealing with it.

A clarification;

Michael Wood gave an unusual summary of the region's history, claiming that Kosovo – which was part of the Serbian medieval empire before it was invaded by Ottoman Turks in the late 14th century – was "forcibly occupied" by Serbs and taken from the Ottomans"

This part of this paragraph "which was part of the Serbian medieval empire before it was invaded by Ottoman Turks in the late 14th century" is not a statement by Mr. Wood but it is an opinion of B-92 for which they have no concrete proof.

What does argentina know about Balkan history.
I am sure they know very little about Azteks,let alone Balkans.
(Kosova-USA, 2 December 2009 12:13)

Hey Einstein, the Aztecs were over a thousand miles north of Argentina - in what is modern day Mexico. Do a little research before posting. You claim that Argentinians are not up on history and in doing so, prove yourself to be extremely ill-informed.
(Jason, 2 December 2009 18:00)

Just because b92 decided not to post my second coment responding to another einstein just like you. But,you get the chance to dis me and you are one of the most prevelaged posters on this site. I know where Azteks come from and I know where Inca's come from too.

What a ridiculous argument Michael Wood has brought up at the ICJ. It is clearly a nonsense to say that Kosovo was not part of Serbia before 1913, but quite apart from that - how is it all relevant now?

This is all ancient history. The court is dealing with the here and now of the situation, which is that Kosovo is legally part of Serbia. That a province has no right to claim independence based on ethnicity without going through the proper legal process (ie. with the agreement of the sovereign nation).

This is just a side without solid argument trying to use ancient history, very badly, to argue their case. Where are the real legally based arguments?

It's not only offensively incorrect, but also ridiculous.

This is all ancient history. The court is dealing with the here and now of the situation, which is that Kosovo is legally part of Serbia. That a province has no right to claim independence based on ethnicity without going through the proper legal process (ie. with the agreement of the sovereign nation).
(kate, 2 December 2009 13:10)
--
Thank you Kate for stating the obvious.

I would like to invite my fellow citizens of Albanian ethnicity to the year 2009. It is also known as the "present". Although the ICJ may be concerned with some history, I cannot see why events that occured centuries ago are relevant to this case.

Kosovo is a province of Serbia and this is confirmed by an overwhelming 130 UN members.

At this early stage of the case, I cannot see any reason why the ICJ should not rule in Serbia's favour.

If anything, lets hope we can soon negotiate a prosperous future together.

Thank you.

Zoran

My goodness, what's going on here? Ethnic Albanians threatening chaos and a British Law expert becoming an amature historian? I'd like to understand how Kosovo, which was part of Serbia prior to the Ottoman invasion, can be snatched by Serbians from the Ottomans? Here is a map of Europe in 1358 (prior to the Ottoman invasion). Check [link]

Well, I'm glad it is not Serbian police on the ground taking "care" of ethnic Albanians. If chaos breaks out, thank God the internationals will be dealing with it.
(Zoran, 2 December 2009 10:52)
That precisely the point: Kosovo was part of Empire of Serbia exactly as Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia, Greece was. Why stop with Kosovo? If Greece don’t want to be part of Serbia, why Kosovo should? If Montenegro don’t want to be part of brotherhood unity, why Kosovo with non-Slavic population like Greece should?
The answer is right there for people who want to hear. I am glad that Serbia insisted to go to ICJ so Serbian people will see plain and simple the bluff of Serbia Academy of Science and Art theory about Kosovo.

Ljepa Brena was a good looking singer.


Well my question to the gentleman that says that he practices law and read the transcript is what do you read sir that is so clear to you tha we do not see that this is all victory to Serbian side. I read the statements of both sides and immediately I can make a clear distinction that the Kosovo side has a much clearer picture of the argument and is base in many aspect to the real facts and happenings such
1. Milutinovic case (ICT Court decision-very important and for pro independence and very damaging to against independence) which everyone should read before going further.
2. Ramullet accords
3. Resolution 63/3 about Repubika Srbska .
4. Resolution 1244 who is just an interim resolution talk about the final status of Kosovo “according to rambullet accords and in the rambullet accord sys that “according to will of the people”
5. Resolution about Kosovo 1998 -1999 quite e few of them
6. there is not a such international law that prohibits independence

I think that Serbian defense is twisting of the words in Resolution 1244
I have to go to work so I will end with this

You like or not “the guy” Matti Athisari summarized the whole thing this way

“Let me give you an example how . . . I look at the Kosovo negotiations . . . [L]et’s take an example, that Serbia is like a thief who has stolen the wallet from Kosovo. And if I am a mediator, I am not advising them that could the Serbian thief actually decide himself how much money he wants to give to the fellow whose wallet he’d stolen . . . he has to give the whole damn wallet to you and then, most probably, go to jail for what he did. . . . Everyone knew that independence was coming.

Kosova's delegation is shining(especially Mr. Woods and Mr. Murphy) because Kosova has the facts and Serbia sticks with 1244 which is baseless in Kosova's case.

Have you read Albania's presentation(transcripts) to find out that around 700.000 Albanians left Kosova(my close cousins among them with same last name who since then live in the city of Fier ALBANIA).
It's important to mention and I'm glad it's already been mentioned in the Hague that ethnic cleansing of Albanians in Kosova did not begin in 1998 but way way back and ask Mr. Woods what year exactly. This will be another loss to Serbia even though it's only an OPINION.

Anyone who is confused about UNSCR 1244 regarding the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, I'd like to clear it up here.

Serbia is not the successor state to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) like Russia is to the USSR. Serbia created the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with Montenegro in 1992.

UNSCR 1244 refers to FRY, which is now Serbia through a name change and the independence of Montenegro. There is no dispute here in legal circles.

Here is a timeline of events:

1. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) was established on 28 April 1992 by Serbia and Montenegro.

2. UNSCR 1244 was adopted by the Security Council at its 4011th meeting, on 10 June 1999. This resolution refers to the FRY created on 28 April 1992.

3. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, after applying for membership, was admitted to the UN on 1 November 2000.

4. On 4 February 2003, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had its official name changed to Serbia and Montenegro.

5. Montenegro declared itself independent from the Serbian and Montenegrin union on 3 June 2006.

6. On the same day, the President of Serbia informed the United Nations Secretary-General that the membership of Serbia and Montenegro in the UN was being continued by Serbia.

There was never any dispute about Serbia continuing what began as FRY. However, there is a dispute about FRY being the successor state to Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia but this is a completely different matter.

So where 1244 refers to FRY, it now means Serbia. Plain and simple.

Ataman,

You tend to rummage in the past ..how it was 500, 700 or 1,000 years ago.
The ICJ however will concentrate on the Serbian behaviour in Kosovo at the end of the XX century, how Serbia treated 2 millions of her own citizens.

Maks, if you and other albanians know anything about history...then i will retire. Your stories about history are equally funny as stories about polar bears in KosMet. Albanians came to this land much after Serbs.
(timotimekvej, 2 December 2009 20:52)

I would agree with you if you can bring at least one source that documents the migration of an entire people (albanians) and culture to the Balkans, I mean Slavic migration was well documented yet the Albanian one is not to be found anywhere?!

Plus Serbs are very confused on this issue. Some say Albanians came in the region in the 16 century or even later (after Scanderbeg??), some in the 13 century, some in 10 century, you have make up your mind. In a straight face you completely deny the fact that Albanians participated in the 1389 battle of Kosovo, just like other nations did.

In any case everyone knows that this does not matter. It is unwise from both sides to refer to history as the region has a very complex and unclear one. There are reputable historians that argue both sides. I can bring names, links etc but not sure if B92 would like to post them.

This is about int'l law as you say. How did Serbia comply with int'l law when it abolished Kosovo's atonomy, or when it send its army in in 1999?

Int'l law is not a suicidal pact. You can't just go in kill, murder, rape, ecxpell at will and than claim the protection of int'l law. What kind of precedent is that?

You must be more responsible than that to claim its protection. Your state, Serbia, proved over and over again that it can not govern peacefully the relations with K-Albanians living there.

Albanians can not be doomed to reside inside a country that hates them and with such precedents, they also have the right to life, which often it has been denied by Serbia as even admitted with regret in ICJ proceedings from Serb representative.

So what are Albanians to say to their young in the years to come if Serbia decides to send its army in again? (You have done it once you can do it again.) How do they know this is not just a nice show Serbia is putting up about being peaceful and tolerant. Please tell what people of any race, nation, culture etc, would not want to disconnect from Serbia if they experienced the same?

How many times do you think attrocities like those in 1999 need to be repeated so Albanians decide that there is no way they can trust Serbia again?

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

By reading these transcripts and practicing common law; I cannot visualize any other outcome besides total victory for Serbia. That is if the resolutions/laws be followed as they were written, agreed upon, and initially intended. Now, I don't know how the political structure of this court is set up, and if he who wields the most power dictates outcomes, then any outcome is possible. Which would contsitute a travesty and trampling of the international order.

Albanians were way better than Serbs this time.

B92 team - thanks for providing the transcripts. Whatever the outcome of the proceedings, it will be interesting to hear the arguments, although it won't affect much the situation on the ground.
But it's depressing to hear the same tired old arguments regurgitated about Serbia's 'rightful ownership' of Kosovo, just because it was ruled for little more than 100 years in early Middle Ages. I mean, to put it simply, this argument is insane. Put it in context: during this time Spain spoke Arabic, the 100 year war was raging, the Black Plague decimates the population of Europe, abacus is just introduced, Aztecs found Tenochtitlan (now Mexico City), Belgrade is a Hungarian fort called Nándorfehérvár (and latter 'christened' Dar al-Jihad under the Ottomans)...and on and on to Reformation, Counterreformation, Inquisition, colonization of Africa and the Americas...

Maybe we should just rename the damn place to something happier and brighter, like Trinidad or Fiji, in order to forget the whole history-raping business.

The delegation also included British international law expert Michael Wood, who gave an unusual summary of the region's history, claiming that Kosovo – which was part of the Serbian medieval empire before it was invaded by Ottoman Turks in the late 14th century – was "forcibly occupied" by Serbs and taken from the Ottomans, to be annexed to Serbia in the 20th century. That is, he said, when violations of the rights of the Albanian population started.

So the Albanian extremists have jumped on a completely false historical statements coming from a laywer.

The following are the arguments of the so called Albanian extremist lobby;

(1) Serbia has lost its "moral right 'to govern Kosovo. Albania lost its "moral" right to any lands in Kosmet beginning in 1946 when the Serbian pogrom began. At that time the population of Kosmet was split 50/50 between Albanians and Serbians; today less than 5% Serbs remain.

(2) Albanians lineage to Illyria.

There is no historical fact linking Albanians to the former empire of Illyria. The same way as there is not indisputable facts which link Serbs or Croats to the Persian empire.

(3) International Law

International law is discussed in the context since the creation of the United Nations in 1945. Yugoslavia is the only country since 1945 where its constitution was violated externally and internally. Croatia and B&H civil wars were a direct result of the illegal proclmation of independance led by the Vatican and Germany. The illegal declaration of independance of Kosovo was followed with the Rambouilled ultimatum issued to the small Yugoslav republic of Serbia and Montenegro.

(4) Albania owned Kosovo during Ottoman rule

Albania was under Ottoman rule just like Croatia was under Austro-Hungarian rule, in fact, Croatia had more or less autonomy with its own Sabor (parliament), Albanian did not. Albania did have so called Vilyet with very limited autnonomy under Ottoman rule and many times did rebel only to be quashed heavily by the Turks.

(4) Albania and the Battle of Kosovo -1389

Yes, Albaniand did participate in the war amongst many nobles, but King Lazar led the largest group of warriors and represented the Serbian kingdom. Vuk Brankovic represented the Serbians from Bosnia although never showing up for the battle.

(5) Serbian Sacrifice

Serbia incurred the largest loss of life per capita in WWI and WWII and previous to that in the Balkan wars in defending its freedom. Where was Albania when Kosovo was freed from the Ottoman empire?

In today's Kosovo, the Albanian exremists hide under the skirts of NATO, in 1941 they hid behind the skirts of Hitler and in 1912 they hid under the skirts of the Ottoman empire.

Michael Wood statement made probably more damage that good because he very simplistically took side even many Albanian scientists can't take.

There are "coastal" people, "mountain" people, Illyrians, Thracians, pre-Illyrians, there are many cases of language being adopted and so on.

What seem to be the most widely supported theory:

- the people living in high places arrived before Illyrians, they were originally (probably) not Indo-European because Indo-Europeans - Illyrians and Thracians including - arrived relatively late.

The autochon European population is not Indo-European and today only few traces remain (Georgian, Bask, extinct Etrusk language).

Roughly the book I have speaks about "Ghegs" for this case.
What is confusing: Ghegs are according this pre-Illyrians, but they do speak a late version of kind-of-Illyrian/Thracian mix, with heavy Roman and some Slavic + Turkic influence (that's their Albanian dialect). In other word, this is a case of pre-Indo-Eurpean population adopting a later language.

- the people living closer to sea have different genetic marks. They are essentially a Slavic/Illyrian/Roman mix and to make things confusing - speak almost the same language as Ghegs. But they look different.

- to make things even more confusing: most Illyrians and Thracians adopted Slavonic language early on. They are all the way from Bulgaria till Slovenia.
Genetically, look at residents of Sofia, Cetinje, Kragujevac, Split - they are mostly Illyrians and Thracians. But they speak Slavic language now.

Somewhat similar:

The State of Rus was 100% Swedish/Danish in origin, even the name of the country is the name of a norse tribe. The names of first known rulers are Hröerik ("Rurik"), Olaf ("Oleg"), Jarislaffe ("Yaroslav"), Waldemar ("Vladimir"), enuf said, no one even disputes that the original name of Novgorod was Holmgård, in Icelandic Holmgarðir.

But no one disputes that the Vikings changed the language, like it happened in Normandy as well.


This is why such simplistic presentation is more harmful than good. It's just ridiculous and there is no need to even work a lot: go to Decani or Gracanica, find some medieval churches, look at the frescoes and try to read the text. If it sounds like medieval Russian, than you know, who built the churches. If it is written in latin or sounds like an odd dialect in remote TOSK(anian) villages somewhere in Italy - than you have the other answer.

All I can confess, I made that experiment, Bogorodica Leviska of Prizren included - and I could read (and kind-of-understand) what is written on the frescoes.

But of course, Michael Wood could say that these were originally in latin and the churches were catholic. And at a secret meeting between Mao Zedong and Elvis Presley they decided to build a time machine and change everything. And now we can observe Mao and Elvis steering all conspiracies from a bunker built on the invisible side of the Moon.

michael wood's statement is such a sad attempt to discredit a proud Serb nation! How is he not embarraseed? I mean really.. But what can you expect from the british who are the biggest global imperialist occupiers in history. They forcibly occupied and enslaved nations all over the world. And now WOOD, you are occupying our HOLY LAND with your american and german governments. Get your troops out of Serbia now!

I have read the transcripts and came to the conclusion that the best statement has been made by the Albanian defence, in particular by Mr. Murphy (btw. great name).
Murphy clearly stated that the the UN Res 1244 doesn't clearly mention that an UDI is forbidden. He brought this in cross reference with UN Res. 787 where it was clearly written that the Republika Srpska is not allowed to secede from Bosnia. This Resolution clearly confirm that a prohibition for secession must be clearly stated in a Res which UN Res. clearly doesn't. In fact, UN Res. expressively speaks of status talks in reference to the Ramboulliet talks which also doesn' require Serbia's consent.

Moreover, the corss reference to the Milutinovic case where practically the whole Serbian leadership has been sentenced guilty, gives the legal foundation for secession for the Albanians since the UN itself clearly mentions that under certain circumstances like massive human abuses and (attemped) genocide a minority has the right to form a state.

That 2 points are judicially brilliant and undeniable. Serbia didn't present anything what can counter those arguments. I congratulate the Albanian defense team to this brilliant strategy.

Cheers

“Let me give you an example how . . . I look at the Kosovo negotiations . . . [L]et’s take an example, that Serbia is like a thief who has stolen the wallet from Kosovo. And if I am a mediator, I am not advising them that could the Serbian thief actually decide himself how much money he wants to give to the fellow whose wallet he’d stolen . . . he has to give the whole damn wallet to you and then, most probably, go to jail for what he did. . . . Everyone knew that independence was coming.
(Albi, 2 December 2009 19:54)

Albi - do You read 1244?? There are words about back serbian police force and border guard to Kosovo!!

Yep nex will be Venezuela,Iran and N korea
(sasa, 2 December 2009 10:00)

Always a troll to post first.

-"Fatmir"

lowe - "So even if we were to look at Michael Wood's argument about 1913's Kosovo for a moment, then it must follow that Pristina has no right to claim the north which should be reintegrated with Serbia proper immediately. After all, isn't this what the majority of the inhabitants in the north want? Or is the so called freedom of choice only available to the Albanians and no one else?" that's a good point.

kate - "This is all ancient history" I agree but it looks like they are trying to show the historical relations between Serbs and albannians and no doubt paint serbs as the bad guys and the poor albanians constantly suffering from serbian "oppression". it'll be interesting how they explain their desire for independence during Tito's time when yugoslavia was one big mix of ethnic groups, yet also no doubt trying to claim their love of multi ethnicity and lack of nationalism.

Minos - "Apparently a great deal more then you know about Argentina. Aztecs had a state in central Mexico in 15th and early 16th centuries. Northwest Argentina was part of the Inca state." hehehehe, you beat me to the punch.

Arta - "Kosova didn't declare Independence based on "We're Albanians" so we're splitting. Read recent history, at least from 1989 till 2008, don;t make believe certain things didn't happen."

but that is exactly what happened Arta or do you have a selective memory? how did the war in kosovo start? Albanians declaring they wanted independence! Then they took up arms - after being trained and armed by the US and Germany when it suddenly became in their interests i.e. Trepca - and started killing civilians, Serbs and albanians (those thought to be collaborators), police and army personnel. what kind of reposnse were you expecting? my guess is that you (the US and Germany and albanian nationalist, i.e. haradinaj and thaci) got exactly the response you were expecting as Milosevic was easy to predict, and could use that as a pretext first to intervene, then claim independence.

i've gotta admit, it was a well thought out plan. you've got 90% of your aims. the question is will you be able to finish the job or will that be halted by the ICJ - only time will tell.

Negotiations are the right way. Not about boprders or status because that is opver and never will be up for negotiations but over customs, border control and organized crime

This British law expert may be just what Serbia needs to win this case outright. There's still time for Kosovo's supporters to make good arguments, but if this is the best they have, I'm shocked. I was expecting more than that.

""The ICJ itself is on trial as much as the legality of the UDI"" - Kate

This is very much true. The perception and respect of the ICJ and whther it stands for international law, or bends its judgements depending on who is involved will be shown in their final statement.

Maks, if you and other albanians know anything about history...then i will retire. Your stories about history are equally funny as stories about polar bears in KosMet. Albanians came to this land much after Serbs.

it would be interesting to hear all the legal arguments. anyone know where to find any transcripts?

If Serbia does lose this case then we all know that the rot has spread to the ICJ and that international law is no longer there to preserve our security.

The ICJ itself is on trial as much as the legality of the UDI.
(kate, 2 December 2009 10:38)

I think this is said daily in most courts throughout the world. Every criminal in the world could not get a fair break because the judge was corrupt!
I find it amusing that this is the single breaking point for the ICJ rule as Serbia wants or you are corrupt.

"What a ridiculous argument Michael Wood has brought up at the ICJ. It is clearly a nonsense to say that Kosovo was not part of Serbia before 1913, but quite apart from that - how is it all relevant now?

This is all ancient history. The court is dealing with the here and now of the situation, which is that Kosovo is legally part of Serbia. That a province has no right to claim independence based on ethnicity without going through the proper legal process (ie. with the agreement of the sovereign nation).

This is just a side without solid argument trying to use ancient history, very badly, to argue their case. Where are the real legally based arguments?

It's not only offensively incorrect, but also ridiculous.
(kate, 2 December 2009 13:10)"

I agree with kate.

Furthermore, the borders of today's Kosovo included the north which was not part of 1913's Kosovo but incorporated during Tito's time. So even if we were to look at Michael Wood's argument about 1913's Kosovo for a moment, then it must follow that Pristina has no right to claim the north which should be reintegrated with Serbia proper immediately. After all, isn't this what the majority of the inhabitants in the north want? Or is the so called freedom of choice only available to the Albanians and no one else?

As reported by the western press, Fat's "invincible" arguments are:
1) the UDI is "irreversible"
and
2) he threatens war if the ruling is against the UDI.

I wonder how these judges reacted in their home countries when the accused stated in court that his crime is irreversible and he will commit violence if the ruling goes against him.

At the next general assembly, Serbia should propose for a vote that the us, britain, and france get kicked out of the Security Council since they openly violate Security Council resolutions (1244). Given how Serbia easily got this case to the ICJ - expelling them should be no problem.

What does argentina know about Balkan history.
I am sure they know very little about Azteks,let alone Balkans.
(Kosova-USA, 2 December 2009 12:13)

Hey Einstein, the Aztecs were over a thousand miles north of Argentina - in what is modern day Mexico. Do a little research before posting. You claim that Argentinians are not up on history and in doing so, prove yourself to be extremely ill-informed.

But of course, Michael Wood could say that these were originally in latin and the churches were catholic. And at a secret meeting between Mao Zedong and Elvis Presley they decided to build a time machine and change everything. And now we can observe Mao and Elvis steering all conspiracies from a bunker built on the invisible side of the Moon.
(Ataman, 2 December 2009 17:25

Ataman

Michael Woods has confirmed that he regrets he was unable to produce any
evidence on the Illyrian connection because he was busy trying to unearth the evidence on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.

However he did confirm that Mao and Elvis managed to find the connection but they
couldn't come back to tell their story.

Man you crack me up.Mao & Elvis what a combination.

Just because b92 decided not to post my second coment responding to another einstein just like you. But,you get the chance to dis me and you are one of the most prevelaged posters on this site. I know where Azteks come from and I know where Inca's come from too.
(Kosova-USA, 2 December 2009 21:02)

Funny. The knowledge was absent earlier on. You seem to learn something today.

Just don't start claiming Incas are from Argentina now, because they are actually from Cusco, Perú.

If your Balkan history is as good as latin-american, than discussing any history with you is a futile predicament.

This also goes for all other posters here, claiming superior knowledge of the science of history.

Ataman, if you read the transcripts, you would have seen that Wood didn't mention the Illyrians. There is no point in mentioning them, and there never was. Illyrians are not important. He started at 1913. His point was "Serbia included Kosovo into its territory, and started colonization programs, that is Kosovo was treated as a colony by Serbia. The Albanian population was treated as the populations of colonized countries.". Which I think is good to mention to the judges.
After reading the transcripts, I think Serbia should have chosen better its question to the ICJ, should have made it even narrower than it already is. "International Law" apparently is made by many UNSC resolutions, and is not uniquely interpretable. The meaning of 1244 is being interpreted in different ways by the two parties, depending on previous UNSC resolutions. I also saw that Serbia cites less previous UNSC resolutions that Kosovo. But the number of citations is not important. The whole question is being reduced to the question "is silence about something consent or denial?". The answer is "it depends". In that "it depends" Kosovo is providing more arguments.

Well i have to congratulate Sir M. Wood and his team for their brilliant presentation. It was beatiful. The res. 1244 that the Serbs claimed as something in their favour has turned against them.Thanks to Sir. Wood and his team.I'm just impressed of that. Probably the serbs are not very much familiar with the Int. Law, since they have been always violating it. Or perhaps is the Int. Law that is not familiar with them, I think Int. Law was an antiserb creation; 'cos is not possible that everything the Serbs do seems to be against it. This is so STRANGE...

If the decision is made in accordance with the comments in here of course Kosovo should be part of serbia.Good to see a part of Balkans history written accurately by Michael Wood.

What does argentina know about Balkan history.
I am sure they know very little about Azteks,let alone Balkans.
(Kosova-USA, 2 December 2009 12:13)

Apparently a great deal more then you know about Argentina. Aztecs had a state in central Mexico in 15th and early 16th centuries. Northwest Argentina was part of the Inca state.

Luckily, history is not written by people like some here, who post "historical facts" daily.

If you want to read excellent introduction to prehistory of Balkans I recommend reading:

John Wilkes - The Illyrians (Blackwell)

http://www.amazon.com/Illyrians-Peoples-Europe-John-Wilkes/dp/0631198075/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259757995&sr=8-1

Maks, Albanians for the first time were mentioned in 11th century by Anna Comnena and other byzantine writers. Serbs were metioned and described in 7th
( 4 centuries before Albanains).
The year 1690 was year of Great Serb Migration from KosMet and many Albanians settled themselves to KosMet.
U say that Albanians joined battle 1389, who was their leader Lazar, Vuk, Blasic? They were not led by any Serb leader. Only source that claims multinational coalition in 1389 is Mehmed Nesri in 16th century who was a doctrinare writer.
Here you are one link:
http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/emmert.htm
You also have mentioned Kosovo autonomy. Constitution 1974 was crime against people of Serbia. With that act Serbia was divided into. Vojvodina, KosMet and ,,smaller Serbia,,
Thank God it was abolished! It just encouraged separatists in Yugoslavia.
Albanians under rule of Tito were killing, looting and doing other nasty things on Serb population( as it was in ww2) and they continue that policy of ethnic cleansing to this very day. How about serbs in Kosmet to be independent? What happened to Serbs in south Metohija (north albania)? They also deserve independence after Enver Hoxas rule on them.
You dont speak about Serbian rights to independence. Why is that?

Clearly the law was vilated by the Albanians because if there was no violation of the law there would be no need for Mr. Woods to become a historian.

"Your honour, my client did break the law but there were extenuating circumstances at the time". Is this the line he is going to use? "Yes, they broke the law but they only took back what was theirs 700 years ago. You see my client was sitting in his home when Serbs marched in and took this land away."

Let's say we go along with his theory that Illyrians were there all along and Serbs invaded. Nevermind there is no proof of Illyrians owning Kosovo but there is plenty of proof of Serbs having it. What now? Now we kick the Serbs out and hand over Kosovo to these descendents of Illyrians simply because they claim that this is the right thing to do.

By this logic of "law" we must then kick Obama out of his office and hand America back to the Indians who are the indigenous people there and there if plenty of evidence to support that. White man is the invader there after all.

Then we move to Australia where we must kick Mr. Rudd out of his office and give the position to several tribe leaders whose land this really is.
Albanians claim that Serbs are the invaders and yet Serbs have been in Kosovo a lot longer than the white man in America or Australia.
How far do we go back? All this must happen if we are to right the wrong done centuries ago, even though there is no proof of Albanians ever having Kosovo.

A court must rule on what is legal and what is not legal not go into a political debate.

1244 may not have expressedly forbidden a UDI but neither does it expressedly allowed a UDI. So how can you therefore conveniently take this as a blank check for a UDI? Most UN resolutions on territorial disputes do not state whether seccession is or is not permitted so your point is a superfluous one.
(lowe, 3 December 2009 11:32)

This is simply wrong. UN Res. 787 is the best example that if there is an intention of an UDI which doesn't meet the will of the UNSC then an explicit will must be outlined in an UN Res. Otherwise, why UN Res. 787 clearly stated that Republika Srpska is not allowed to secede when it is already implied? The answer is simple. It is necessary to outline this in an UN Res. And in case of lacking of that kind of statement, it is the UNSC which has to condemn that kind of UDI, retrospectively.

In the case of Kosovo, there is neither a prohibition of independence nor a condemnation by the UNSC. Moreover, UN Res. also doesn't explicitely nor implicitely imply that Serbia's consent is needed. Best example that this is required is UN Res. 1251 where Cypruss has the sole and only souvereignty to solve the North Cypruss problem, so with only Cypruss concent. That also implies to UN Res. 1225 where the Abkhazia issue must be solved within the Georgian souvereignty and, therefore, with Georgian consent. That are simple and clear words, deliberately outlined in those UN Res., which UN Res. 1244 doesn't have. UN Res. just reflected the situation of 1999, adding that status talks will solve the final status.

Therefore, anybody who quotes UN Res. 1244 must explain why those clear sentences of responsibility/souvereignty, which can be clearly and undeniably found in UN Res. 787, 1225/1255 and 1251, can not be found in UN Res. 1244. The Western Powers have deliberately left out those sentences and Russia (China abstained during 1244) has eaten that.

That is how law works and apparantly that was also one of the reasons why just recently New Zealand recognized Kosovo. There is enough legal ground to declare independence and nobody could counter those arguments. I would call the Albanian strategy brilliant.

Demi 'Well there are not going to be any chaos because there's not going to be any negotiations.'

My God you think negotiations cause chaos? In the rest of the world negotiations help to prevent chaos.

Michael Wood and PRN are setting the course here. While PRN says "it was Albanians that fought mostly in 1389 against the Turks", Wood accompanies him by telling it was Serbs who later fought the Ottomans and robbed their lands and churches, oh dear, by force.

it is clear that Serbia's arguements are based on the law and the ethnic albanian's arguements are based on "pretty please agree with us!". Their foundations are subjective. they claim "the will of the people" (which means ethnic albanians) is what matters and not international law. The Germans want the court to look at "conditions on the ground". This too is not a legal matter, but a subjective one. Finally, the ethnic albanians want to argue "i was here first!". Again, whether or not that is true, this is not a legal arguement. God help Cyprus,Spain, Israel, Russia, etc. if the ICJ sides with the ethnic albanians!

Zoran said:
"As I've mentioned before, I don't have high expectations for this initiative mainly for the reason that ethnic Albanian seem uncompromising.

The transcripts indicated the UDD was devised because everyone agreed the status quo was not sustainable. However, two years later we are still in the status quo and I assume both Russia and China will confirm that. "

You are seeing it from the wrong perspective here. The status quo before was not attainable for at least 95% of the population of Kosova while now it is attainable for at least 95% of Kosova. That is what matters here. What is or is not attainable for Belgrade has no value. That is the reason why in the Ramboillet talks indipendence was seen as one outcome and also why there is nothing specific in that agreement which states that Serbia has to accept this. They states that Serbia will be part of the talks but acceptance from Serbia is not seen as necessary while independence via the will of the people was seen as a viable option with or without Serbia's consent. This is the big difference. Meaning that if 95% of Kosovars see the status quo as attainable then it is attainable whether or not Serbia thinks otherwise. 1244 specifically refers to the Rambouillet agreement specifically for that reason.

You find 1244 unclear?
(lowe, 3 December 2009 16:36)

Wrong, again... In the contrary. UN Res. 1244 simply lacks those decisive sentences such as stated in UN Res. 787, 1225, 1251 and 1255, where souvereignty as well as responsibility for solving those issues are clearly mentioned. The Albanian defence as well as the majority(!) of participants in the ICJ case clearly point to that lack, which Serbia didn't/couldn't oppose a little bit.

The UN Res. 1244 clearly states that there will be talks regarding the status, even when it ackowledges the political situation by that time, in particular that Kosovo was still part of Yugoslavia, which is not a surprise - due to the lacking of a declaration of independence by the people of Kosovo during that time. However, time has progressed and so diplomatic efforts as well processes, such as the election of the envoy of the UNSC, Athisaari. His negotiations will deal as the framework to solve that issue, confirmed by the UNSC when electing him and the UN Res. 1244. He clearly stated that the independence states the best option.

Moreover, according UN Res. 1244, it was up to the special representative from the UN to declare the independence of the Republik of Kosovo null and void, if it violates UN Res. 1244. However, I don't remember that he objected, etc.

on and on, and once again our dear albanian friends are picking the lines and remarks that make them feel better, even if they are not of that much importance at all.

these remarks about "limited scopes" etc. do not equal to those arguments the Argentinians or today the Brasilians and Bolivians have mentioned.

we will see whether there is something like a "limited scope" ... but to give our dear albanian friends a hint, I´d say that if that question was of "limited scope" ...would so many countries worldwide attend to this oh so meaningless meeting to present their point of view?

please, my dear albanian friends, don´t fool yourselves, you see, it´s so clear that you cling to straws and that there cannot be any justification for the plain and simple ellegal actions that were taken by the greater-albanian separatists.

but, let´s just see what future brings...

I think Serbia´s strengthening in terms of arguments and weighing of interests day by day.

of course, some daydreamers will claim the opposite even when their "heroes" will have left for Colombia or Vanuatu ( with international money in their suitcases )

Serbia will prevail!

But, from a layman point of view the difference between a NO PARKING rule and no rule at all speaks volumes - and of course commonly means PARKING ALLOWED.
(MJ, 3 December 2009 17:51)

Can't agree more and not only form the layman perspective but from the simple rationale.

There is no civilisation that ever made laws saying things that ARE ALLOWED.

Laws are made to say what is NOT allowed.

This is how Serbian argument fails miserably.

Btw one should not ignore the fact that until 2002/03 Serbs were the greatest oppositors of res. 1244. Their politicians were condemning 1244 in every speech.

But then they turned to support it since that's the best that they have- and this says how little they indeed have.

And then again since they are very good in propaganda they sold to their people the story that the books about int law and law in general are sold only in Belgrade and Moscow and due to the lack of ability of critical thinking of Serbian society they buy everything their leaders sell- all the rubbish.

Thanks for your publishing of "hearing transcriptions".

"4. Resolution 1244 who is just an interim resolution talk about the final status of Kosovo “according to rambullet accords and in the rambullet accord sys that “according to will of the people”

(Albi, 2 December 2009 19:54) "

1244 an "interim" resolution? As far as I know it is still valid today after 10 years and after the West (led by Uncle Sam) tried and failed to repeal it at the UN.

You were also not being honest by conveniently leaving out critical words of the Rambouillet Accords in your quote.

For the benefit of everyone let me state that relevant sentence in full: "Three years after entry into force of the Accords, an international meeting will be convened to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo, on the basis of the will of the people, opinions of relevant authorities, each party's efforts regarding the implementation of the Accords, and the Helsinki Final Act."

As it should now be crystal clear to everyone, Albi conveniently omitted to mention "the opinions of relevant authorities" which included Belgrade.

"I have read the transcripts and came to the conclusion that the best statement has been made by the Albanian defence, in particular by Mr. Murphy (btw. great name).
Murphy clearly stated that the the UN Res 1244 doesn't clearly mention that an UDI is forbidden. He brought this in cross reference with UN Res. 787 where it was clearly written that the Republika Srpska is not allowed to secede from Bosnia. This Resolution clearly confirm that a prohibition for secession must be clearly stated in a Res which UN Res. clearly doesn't. In fact, UN Res. expressively speaks of status talks in reference to the Ramboulliet talks which also doesn' require Serbia's consent.

Moreover, the corss reference to the Milutinovic case where practically the whole Serbian leadership has been sentenced guilty, gives the legal foundation for secession for the Albanians since the UN itself clearly mentions that under certain circumstances like massive human abuses and (attemped) genocide a minority has the right to form a state.

That 2 points are judicially brilliant and undeniable. Serbia didn't present anything what can counter those arguments. I congratulate the Albanian defense team to this brilliant strategy.

Cheers
(Berkeley, 2 December 2009 22:07) "

1244 may not have expressedly forbidden a UDI but neither does it expressedly allowed a UDI. So how can you therefore conveniently take this as a blank check for a UDI? Most UN resolutions on territorial disputes do not state whether seccession is or is not permitted so your point is a superfluous one.

In fact a UDI was clearly far from the intention of 1244 which made references to respect for Belgrade's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

As for Ramboulliet, that document actually stated, as I pointed out in an earlier post, that "Three years after the entry into force of this Agreement, an international meeting shall be convened to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo, on the basis of the will of the people, opinions of relevant authorities, each Party's efforts regarding the implementation of this Agreement, and the Helsinki Final Act, and to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the implementation of this Agreement and to consider proposals by any Party for additional measures." The will of the people is only one of the criteria. The opinions of relevant authorities including Belgrade is another criterion.

The supporters of independence are really playing a very dicey game here to support their case. They may yet win Kosovo, but destabilise many other places.
(Jim, 4 December 2009 16:48)

Jim you cannot argue (and neither ICJ) that the DI reflects the political will of the Kosovars expressed from the people that were democratically elected by Kosovars themselves. If that was not the case you would see people protesting in the streets of Prishtina against the DI.

This is out of doubt regardless of the legal capacity of the Kosova’s parliament constituent or temporary.

Was Croatian or Slovenian, or Bosnian parliament that declared Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia independent a state constituent or a provincial govts of the federation??but today they are all part of UN.

After all I have already said this, but the worst case scenario is that ICJ declares that the procedure was incorrect and that, I don’t know say a referendum on independence must be held. What do you think it will change something??? Do you think that this is the doubt in the head of ICJ judges? Do you think they doubt the result of a future referendum on independence or perhaps that the declaration of independence does not reflect the will of kosovars?? We can speculate in this if you like but the truth is that the declaration of independence is the voice of the people of Kosova.

Regarding your second remark “[supporters of independence] may yet win Kosovo, but destabilise many other places”. Wrong address: The supporters of independence as you call them offered a political solution to Russia and China: Kosova is a special case.

It was Russia that refused it so it is Russia that should bear the consequences.

I don’t understand why the ppl see more appropriate to point finger on democracies for the charlatanism of Putin???

As Massacre in Racak unfolded it gave way to negotiators to be tougher on Serb team by allowing text such as the "will of the people [of Kosovo]". This in turn incorporated into 1244 {just an interim period agreement} which does not a forbid UDI explicitely. Granted, does not specify that UDI is allowed either. But, from a layman point of view the difference between a NO PARKING rule and no rule at all speaks volumes - and of course commonly means PARKING ALLOWED.

Iowe said: "You find 1244 unclear? Seems clear enough to me when I read its call on UN member states to respect Belgrade's sovereignty. I suggest you read again, this time much more carefully.

While is it very convenient for you to harp on the Bosnian resolution, on the other hand do the UN resolutions on the likes of Sudan and post-2008 Georgia explicitly prohibit secession by the southern Sudanese and S. Ossetia? I reiterate once again your error in conveniently equating 1244's non-mention of secession as tantamount to the UN acquiescing to Kosovo's UDI."

Wrong way you put it Iowe. First because if 1244 is as clear as you say then it is also clear as day that Kosovo is not a member state hence it does not apply to it hence the Declaration is lawful because if for a moment we consider what you say as true then it doesn't apply to non-states or non-members which Kosova was at least until the Declaration happened.

Second Declarations per se are not unlawful or against international law. For example Croatia or Slovenia or Bosnia Declared Inependence from Jugoslavia and that was not deemed illegal in terms of international law even though what remained as Jugoslavia was against it.A Declaration per se cannot be deemed legal or illegal.

Third certainly because something is not stated does not mean its allowed but at the same time it does not mean its prohibited. However when the UNSC wanted to prohibit Declarations or secessions it has done specifically and unequivocally so in the past and that has set a legal precedent. A precedent which is absent in 1244 and in the case of Kosova.

Lastly I frankly believe that Serbia's choice or question is weak and wrong as it specifically asks if the declaration of independence is illegal. It would have a stronger case if it had asked whether the secession of Kosova can be deemed to be legal. By narrowing the scope of the question so much this is turning to focusing more on whether the declaration per se is legal than whether the secession is legal which is really the issue. I genuinely believe the Serbian team have made a mistake by narrowing the question this much.

Accordance with International Law of the Proclamation of Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo

Does it mean if ICJ decides on the Serbian side that Kosovo has to change only the proclamation text?

B92, thank you for the link.

Denis - maybe you should remember history objectively instead of through rose tinted spectacles. Kosovo, as a province, had more autonomy and powers than say Vojvodina, yet that simply wasn't enough for albanian nationalists. as they couldn't get what they wanted, they set up parallel systems to try to undermine the state. it is THESE actions that led to the snowball effect of increasing tensions and ultimately , war.

i applaud rugova for trying to negotiate peacefully, but his agenda was hijacked by nationalists with a completely different agenda.

can any albanian explain EXACTLY what extra powers kosovo was asking serbia & montenegro to provide it with? Or is it just another case where the details don't matter and as such it's easier to say that the Serbs were simply oppressive without knowing any facts!

"Lowe, That is exactly what makes the Kosovo case "sui generis". The presumption when resolution 1244 was approved was that it was the compromise needed make Serbia witjhdraws its army and police units from Kosovo and stop the horrible bombardment over Serbia. The logic went on that when the "dictator" Slobodan Milosevoc was removed and a democratic government is elected in Serbia, it will realise the unworkability of uniting Serbia and Kosovo and a true negotiations would start. In them Serbia will exchange its consensus for independent Kosovo for practical comsessions: minority rights, church property etc. It was presumed that it would take few years for the new Serbian government to prepare its people for the loss of Kosovo. Nobody extected that all the Serbian governments after the fall of Milosevic will only keep repeting NO NO NO.

Why the same rights are not offered to the Serbs in N. Kosovo?
You are right that in former Yougoslavia Kosovo did not have the same rights as say Slovenia, Croatia or Montenegro. BUT IT CAME CLOSE. It was recognized as a subject of the federation. It had its police, its court, its educational system.
(nik, 5 December 2009 08:23)"

All this talk about Kosovo being sui generis is just hogwash to me. The fact is that no two every ethnic dispute in the world are exactly the same -- that effectively makes each case sui generis. But to say that K-Albanians have the right to secede but not K-Serbs, Srpska Serbs, S. Ossetians, Kurds, Tibetans (only because the West feared antangonising the Chinese even though probably more Tibetans died than K-Albanians). To me this sui generis claim is nothing more than a convenient cloak for the double standards blatantly practised by the West and Albanians in their own self-interests.

Kosovo "came close" (your assessment, not mine). Bottom line however is that it is still not a republic in Tito's time. It is Serbia's autonomous province.

i would like to invite everyone of you to the history books, i`m albanian, but not a sick nationalist!!the truth is that kosova since times has been land of dardanians,illyrian tribe and followed up by the albanians as the world recognizes us today.throughout the history these lands were given to the serbian empire, and the last shattering happened after the fall of the ottoman empire, where the great powers decided to reward serbia, montenegro and greece with albanians lands.
i would say that the serbs has to realise that kosova is gone forever and nobody, i mean nobody can return back on time!!the problem is , that if we continue with this nounces(arguments)about great serbia or great albania ,..we are not going anywhere...its just going to happen like other times...albanian and serbs will continue to slaughter them selves.
the result???
somebody tell me!!!
best regards!!

Radoslav,


The transcripts from Dec. 1 are available at this http://www.b92.net/eng/insight/reports.php?yyyy=2009&mm=12&nav_id=63451

We will also publish other transcripts from the proceedings as they become available.

Regards,


B92

"This is simply wrong. UN Res. 787 is the best example that if there is an intention of an UDI which doesn't meet the will of the UNSC then an explicit will must be outlined in an UN Res. Otherwise, why UN Res. 787 clearly stated that Republika Srpska is not allowed to secede when it is already implied? The answer is simple. It is necessary to outline this in an UN Res. And in case of lacking of that kind of statement, it is the UNSC which has to condemn that kind of UDI, retrospectively.

In the case of Kosovo, there is neither a prohibition of independence nor a condemnation by the UNSC. Moreover, UN Res. also doesn't explicitely nor implicitely imply that Serbia's consent is needed. Best example that this is required is UN Res. 1251 where Cypruss has the sole and only souvereignty to solve the North Cypruss problem, so with only Cypruss concent. That also implies to UN Res. 1225 where the Abkhazia issue must be solved within the Georgian souvereignty and, therefore, with Georgian consent. That are simple and clear words, deliberately outlined in those UN Res., which UN Res. 1244 doesn't have. UN Res. just reflected the situation of 1999, adding that status talks will solve the final status.

Therefore, anybody who quotes UN Res. 1244 must explain why those clear sentences of responsibility/souvereignty, which can be clearly and undeniably found in UN Res. 787, 1225/1255 and 1251, can not be found in UN Res. 1244. The Western Powers have deliberately left out those sentences and Russia (China abstained during 1244) has eaten that.

That is how law works and apparantly that was also one of the reasons why just recently New Zealand recognized Kosovo. There is enough legal ground to declare independence and nobody could counter those arguments. I would call the Albanian strategy brilliant.
(Berkeley, 3 December 2009 12:59) "

You find 1244 unclear? Seems clear enough to me when I read its call on UN member states to respect Belgrade's sovereignty. I suggest you read again, this time much more carefully.

While is it very convenient for you to harp on the Bosnian resolution, on the other hand do the UN resolutions on the likes of Sudan and post-2008 Georgia explicitly prohibit secession by the southern Sudanese and S. Ossetia? I reiterate once again your error in conveniently equating 1244's non-mention of secession as tantamount to the UN acquiescing to Kosovo's UDI.

It is clear that the argument being formulated by those supporting independence is centred on the view that in itself a declaration of independence voiced by a people cannot be legal or illegal. It just is. The problem they have is that the declaration was made by the official organs of the PISG as established by the UN. This is why there is no much effort to argue that the UDI was not an official act by these legally constituted institutions, but was a wholly separate act undertaken by representatives of the people of Kosovo. This difference is extremely important in this context. if it was undertaken by officially created institutions, formed under UN Res 1244, which respects the territorial integrity of Serbia - (KA amateur lawyers please don't argue this case, none of the lawyers in The Hague on any side dispute the fact that Serbia is the lawful successor state) - then it is an illegal act by those institutions. The problem is that this this view of the events leading to the UDI has been created after the fact. At the time it was clearly accepted that it was an act of the PISG. It was only with the move to the ICJ that people woke up to the ramifications of this and are now trying to bend the narrative to suit their needs.

By the way, the emphasis placed on this technical point serves to highlight the extremely weak legal arguments to support other points. It appears that the case is now hinging on this particular issue. The problem, as I stated elsewhere, is that if the Court recognises a right of self-determination by democratic processes they will open the way for many other cases elsewhere. The supporters of independence are really playing a very dicey game here to support their case. They may yet win Kosovo, but destabilise many other places.

First, ironically you are so right! 1244 indeed does not see Kosovo as a state. Under 1244, Kosovo is Belgrade's province!

Second, you are so wrong to say that Kosovo has equal status with the likes of Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia in Tito's Yugoslavia. These are republics in the former Yugoslavia while your Kosovo is a province of Serbia.

Third, 1244 recognizes Belgrade's sovereignth over Kosovo. That's enough reason for Kosovo's UDI to be invalide without Serbia's consent. By the way, are you now saying that, by your same logic, that the K-Serbs of north Kosovo has the right to secede from Pristina? If not, why the double standards? I am so eager to read your response. I only hope it is one that is based on fact and logic.

Lowe, That is exactly what makes the Kosovo case "sui generis". The presumption when resolution 1244 was approved was that it was the compromise needed make Serbia witjhdraws its army and police units from Kosovo and stop the horrible bombardment over Serbia. The logic went on that when the "dictator" Slobodan Milosevoc was removed and a democratic government is elected in Serbia, it will realise the unworkability of uniting Serbia and Kosovo and a true negotiations would start. In them Serbia will exchange its consensus for independent Kosovo for practical comsessions: minority rights, church property etc. It was presumed that it would take few years for the new Serbian government to prepare its people for the loss of Kosovo. Nobody extected that all the Serbian governments after the fall of Milosevic will only keep repeting NO NO NO.

Why the same rights are not offered to the Serbs in N. Kosovo?
You are right that in former Yougoslavia Kosovo did not have the same rights as say Slovenia, Croatia or Montenegro. BUT IT CAME CLOSE. It was recognized as a subject of the federation. It had its police, its court, its educational system.

As I've mentioned before, I don't have high expectations for this initiative mainly for the reason that ethnic Albanian seem uncompromising.

The transcripts indicated the UDD was devised because everyone agreed the status quo was not sustainable. However, two years later we are still in the status quo and I assume both Russia and China will confirm that.

So if anything, this is all leading to further negotiations. Kosovo will not be able to achieve independence so the UDD has basically failed.

Whether we remain in the status quo or pressure is applied to negotiate once again is yet to be seen but I suspect negotiations are the only way out.

To the Serbs and Albanians posting here. Go read the transcripts thoroughly and take your time doing it. Do not skim them and do not see it from a partisan viewpoint. The statements are very smart and the arguments very well thought. I am surprised at the level of intellect and thought that has gone to the process so far. Apart from the Saudi's statement and the Argentian ( it was in French and I don't speak French), I thought that so far the presentation of the arguments from all teams, including the Serb one, has been brilliant.

To the usual jokers here who feel the need to act as more of legal experts than the real experts here before writing in your usual naive style take your time and read thoroughly the arguments presented by the legal teams of the countries. If your mind is already made up do it solely so you can see the mastery of good lawyers in action. It is a great battle of wits and if for nothing else it is worth reading just for that.

Replace attainable with sustainable in my post. Somehow I hit replace all and that was the result.

"Lastly I frankly believe that Serbia's choice or question is weak and wrong as it specifically asks if the declaration of independence is illegal"

Then it can ask a different question next time? Meanwhile, those supporting Kosovo are tying themselves in knots to get the right answer to the wrong question?

Is that what you mean? Don't know if I agree.

Wrong way you put it Iowe. First because if 1244 is as clear as you say then it is also clear as day that Kosovo is not a member state hence it does not apply to it hence the Declaration is lawful because if for a moment we consider what you say as true then it doesn't apply to non-states or non-members which Kosova was at least until the Declaration happened.

Second Declarations per se are not unlawful or against international law. For example Croatia or Slovenia or Bosnia Declared Inependence from Jugoslavia and that was not deemed illegal in terms of international law even though what remained as Jugoslavia was against it.A Declaration per se cannot be deemed legal or illegal.

Third certainly because something is not stated does not mean its allowed but at the same time it does not mean its prohibited. However when the UNSC wanted to prohibit Declarations or secessions it has done specifically and unequivocally so in the past and that has set a legal precedent. A precedent which is absent in 1244 and in the case of Kosova.

(johny, 3 December 2009 18:58) "

First, ironically you are so right! 1244 indeed does not see Kosovo as a state. Under 1244, Kosovo is Belgrade's province!

Second, you are so wrong to say that Kosovo has equal status with the likes of Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia in Tito's Yugoslavia. These are republics in the former Yugoslavia while your Kosovo is a province of Serbia.

Third, 1244 recognizes Belgrade's sovereignth over Kosovo. That's enough reason for Kosovo's UDI to be invalide without Serbia's consent. By the way, are you now saying that, by your same logic, that the K-Serbs of north Kosovo has the right to secede from Pristina? If not, why the double standards? I am so eager to read your response. I only hope it is one that is based on fact and logic.

Well, Ben, it seems that this is going to be the key question, doesn't it? It all comes down to a technicality. The question, then, is how the Court might qualify that technicality. Will it say that the procedures were incorrect and just leave it at that or say that the procedures were incorrect, but that does not invalidate the principles of state sovereignty and territorial integrity remain in place - in other words even a new procedure would be invalid. My feeling is that they might go for the first option and leave it at that. That would give them the easiest way out of this mess without having to take a wider stand that might have severe ramifications. It would also allow them to say that they answered the question. Not much of a result, but maybe the best compromise. It still won't take Kosovo a single step closer to the UN. As others have pointed out, it is likely only to cement the differences on the world stage - especially as it could open up the option for other separatist groups to declare independence.

As for the way out argument, this was a complete non-starter for several reasons. For a start, if you break down the sui generis argument point by point, as a legal case must, each specific argument is very weak. Again, this is why the unique case argument appears to have faded before the ICJ. Secondly, few people in the West ever bothered to understand the Russian position. The public outcry if Moscow had allowed the US to secure independence for Kosovo without securing a similar right for SO and Abkhazia would have been massive. As it was the unilateral actions of the US, followed by most of the EU, forced Russia to follow suit. It has always amazed me how this was missed by US policy makers - or perhaps they had no choice given the threat to peace and stability if they did not grant the KAs their wishes. Russia's argument that the West was blackmailed into recognising the UDI is pretty accurate. It also explains why the West's legal case is so weak. It was always a political decision.

I think that the Albanians should play the Dardandia card next. I think that's the best argument for them if they can find any evidence to support that claim. Good luck to those that choose and speak truth and not lies.

Then it can ask a different question next time? Meanwhile, those supporting Kosovo are tying themselves in knots to get the right answer to the wrong question?

Is that what you mean? Don't know if I agree.
(Mister, 3 December 2009 21:43)

I don't think there'll be next times. Do you think everytime Serbia needs to ask something then the world would just grant it? There is a notion of time you know and when that time comes enough is enough.

Well if you had read the arguments on those defending the Kosovar side the very first lines of each argument state just that. They remind the court that Serbia's question is of a very limited scope and deals with only whether the Declaration per se can be found legal. The vast majority of these arguments are based on this not on questions of secession, statehood and nation building. They are mentioned by some but only as small arguments. Even when arguments of self-determination and respect of territorial integrity are made those are made solely for the purpose of focusing on Serbia's narrow and limited scope question. That is " Is the declaration legal or not. So based on that and on principles of self-determination and territorial integrity the argument is made that declarations are not illegal. Notice how Serbia's question does not ask to determine whether Kosova's statehood, nation-building or secession is legal? It specifically asks whether the act of the declaration itself is legal or not. It doesn't ask what came before or after as a result of it. That is a huge difference there. That is what those who are on Kosova's side are arguing. Meaning they are reminding the court that Serbia itself is not asking whether Kosova's statehood, secession or nation building are legal. Serbia is specifically asking whether the Declaration or better say it the act of Declaring was legal. Those are very different questions and with very fundamental and big differences. At least from my understanding that is what I get. My opinion of course is biased but I believe that since declarations only express a possible future intent ( in this case an intent to be a state), then they cannot be deemed to be legal or illegal. That is because while one group may have a possible future intent it does not mean that that intent is always fulfillable. It is only if this intent is fulfilled meaning if there is a measurable change in status that one can categorize whether this change in status is legal or legal. The declaration per se since it only expresses intent does not mean a change in status. This is why I think Serbia's question is really the wrong question and does really shift the focus from issues of self-determination and territorial integrity to technicalities, from principles of statehood to discussing the different meanings of words such as "agreement". I know some will see this as biased but I believe that is a weakness.

"Wrong, again... In the contrary. UN Res. 1244 simply lacks those decisive sentences such as stated in UN Res. 787, 1225, 1251 and 1255, where souvereignty as well as responsibility for solving those issues are clearly mentioned. The Albanian defence as well as the majority(!) of participants in the ICJ case clearly point to that lack, which Serbia didn't/couldn't oppose a little bit.

The UN Res. 1244 clearly states that there will be talks regarding the status, even when it ackowledges the political situation by that time, in particular that Kosovo was still part of Yugoslavia, which is not a surprise - due to the lacking of a declaration of independence by the people of Kosovo during that time. However, time has progressed and so diplomatic efforts as well processes, such as the election of the envoy of the UNSC, Athisaari. His negotiations will deal as the framework to solve that issue, confirmed by the UNSC when electing him and the UN Res. 1244. He clearly stated that the independence states the best option.

Moreover, according UN Res. 1244, it was up to the special representative from the UN to declare the independence of the Republik of Kosovo null and void, if it violates UN Res. 1244. However, I don't remember that he objected, etc.
(Berkeley, 3 December 2009 18:20) "

And I submit once more that it is you who is the one who is so wrong.

Your long thesis could not evade the one critical element of 1244 -- it recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo. And until 1244 is repealed, this fact remains, however unpleasant it may be to you and Pristina!

And in case you forgot, conveniently again, Ahtisaari's proposals were not accepted by the UNSC!

Johny,

I understand the arguments. My point is that there are many contradictions and much of what is being said will frighten the life of of some member states. And if the question was wrong in the first place then there is no advisory opinion on the question that matters - therefore Serbia has lost nothing and galvanised certain opposition.

I don't think Serbia will be able to put another question to the Court. But that is not because there is a legal bar on asking a different question. It is perfectly open for them to argue that they have been denied access to legal opinion from the ICJ.

As I said in another post. The only certain thing is that the Balkans have once again thrown a wobbler to the world. These arguments are very dangerous.

"Wrong address: The supporters of independence as you call them offered a political solution to Russia and China: Kosova is a special case.

It was Russia that refused it so it is Russia that should bear the consequences.

I don’t understand why the ppl see more appropriate to point finger on democracies for the charlatanism of Putin???
(ben, 4 December 2009 19:37) "

For your info, the Russians are not the only one who refused. The Chinese are just as adamantly opposed.

Hi Jim,

From your last few posts you appear undecided and confused over how the ICJ rule. It is clear that you oppose Kosova's DI but yet you are coming to the realization that it is inevitable. Although you conclude the K-Albanians have a weak case, you can't seem to come up with a specific set of concrete reasons. If you have any arguments that support your position, please state them rather than just being vague and implying that you know why, but then do not follow through with specifics. Kindly enlighten us.

We await your detailed response.