Yes they are proud of their wine and will, more than once, tell you it is the origins of wine. The wine is good but the chacha is lethal. Tee-total is not an option there :)
'There was also a navy guy who struck me as being a very very smart guy - he said nothing about why he was there other than training. It was hardly a secret was it?'
Hardly, not with Georgia sending troops to Iraq. Unfortunately for Georgia, they were being trained to provide security for truck routes (or river patrols?) - not for homeland defense.
'btw it's well worth a visit and the people are extremely hospitable.
(mister, 10 December 2009 13:27) '
"He was probably talking about his new gameboy game! People who have security clearances high enough to have knowledge of such things do not tell strangers on a plane such information.
(pss, 10 December 2009 02:30)"
He was a contractor. I have no reason not to believe him. There was also a navy guy who struck me as being a very very smart guy - he said nothing about why he was there other than training. It was hardly a secret was it?
btw it's well worth a visit and the people are extremely hospitable.
On my flight there, and this is before the conflict, it was full of US military and defence contractors. I was talking to one and he was telling me about real time battle software that can tell the "good guys" from the "bad guys".
anyway, they put on a boney m concert on in SO to show that life was better with Georgia...a human rights abuse if I ever saw one.
(Mister, 9 December 2009 23:38)
He was probably talking about his new gameboy game! People who have security clearances high enough to have knowledge of such things do not tell strangers on a plane such information.
"I tend to think the Georgians (Government) picked a fight in the mistaken impression that naming a street after Bush would guarantee Western support :p"
I'm pretty sure they thought they could count on more than they actually could. I'll always wonder what John McCain implied to his good friend Saakashvili - "We'll all be Georgians if Russia attacks" ? (I'll also always wonder why in the devil the Georgians didn't make every attempt to close the Roki tunnel the very first thing.)
About the weapons: a lot better if we'd sent investments in the non-military economy - give everybody in the world a job and watch tensions relax. With all the work that needs to be done in the world, why is this so hard?
Koh suggested that the legitimacy of the independence declaration comes from the fact that the Kosovo Albanians were subject to a campaign of “state-supported violence for years", which "culminated in 1999 when 10,000 Albanians were killed and about a million were displaced"
???? How many Kurds was killed by turkish or iraqi army???? Where is US support for independent Kurdistan?? How many Tamils were killed by Sri Lankan army???? Where is US support for independent Ilam???? How many Tibetans were killed by chinese army?? Where is US support for independent Tibet????
Having been to Georgia I am not convinced it is as black and white. It certainly is not the beacon of democracy it is portrayed to be. I tend to think the Georgians (Government) picked a fight in the mistaken impression that naming a street after Bush would guarantee Western support :p On my flight there, and this is before the conflict, it was full of US military and defence contractors. I was talking to one and he was telling me about real time battle software that can tell the "good guys" from the "bad guys".
anyway, they put on a boney m concert on in SO to show that life was better with Georgia...a human rights abuse if I ever saw one.
"I've always felt Moscow had this planned all along."
Ditto!
"I have a feeling that all three [Kosovo, Abkhazia, So. Ossetia] will remain under definitive international control for the foreseeable future."
For Abkhazia, this would be a best-case scenario, but Russia has kicked out even international observers, much less allowed any kind of international control.
'I was surprised that a well-known Youtube-urban-legend "FRY ≠ Serbia" did show up. From any (but American) point of view it is an unprofessional and careless argument.'
I didn't understand the problem until I read the written comment - the idea was that in 1244 they wanted to leave open as many options for a solution as possible. Having Kosovo enter the FRY as a third republic, on the level with Serbia and Montenegro, was one such possibility they didn't want to rule out. The idea was not that Kosovo be made a part of Serbia, but of the FRY. When the FRY was succeeded by Serbia, this option no longer existed.
The disunity of the UN Securtiy Council members allows only one clear conclusion: there exists nothing like international law in specific cases.
What have we heard so far? Different opinions defending national interests only. Thus it's a talkshop without any relevance - which will result in a ICJ decision without any binding.
Serbia looses time and engergy for a process, which cannot be reversed.
"As for Abkhazia and So. Ossetia, maybe the best thing is for them to experience the delights of Russian rule as compared to Georgian rule for a few years." (Amer)
-- You may be right on that. I can't really say the lot of these peoples' lives will dramatically improve now that Moscow runs the program. But do/did they really have a say in the matter? I've always felt Moscow had this planned all along. Can't say I approve of it any more or less than Washington's plans for Kosovo. Or Bosnia for that matter. But if the general sentiment to my comments congeals around indifference to states with hybrid sovereignty (Kosovo, RS, SO, etc), I'm still uneasy about such entities. Those states that *are* recognized and have hybrid sovereignty have proven to be extremely weak and volatile.
Your brief history of the region however bears striking similarities to Kosovo as well - the land going from one medieval power to another. I have a feeling that all three will remain under definitive international control for the foreseeable future.
Ratko is 100% right, most of the dead Albanians were UCK terrorists and also Albanian citizans were killed by the UCK, but people like you can only blaim the guilty to the Serbs and not to your people who were killing their own people.
I don't give a damn what countries like USA and some EU countries are saying, resolution 1244 is clear and a big majority in the world is agree with that.
And get some education, then you will learn that you can not compare a republic (Montenegro) with an province (Kosovo & Metohija).
I did not get something from Spain's argument. Spain said "According to the resolution, a future status of Kosovo must be the result of a political process, and agreement between the two sides". Can anybody point to the part of resolution 1244 which says that "agreement between the two sides" is needed ?
Serbia owes Kosovo more than 30 billion euros. Pay the reparations first, and then we can talk about new negotiations. You simply can’t, kill and burn your own citizens and still wish to rule them through a fonny technical document called 1244 which it applies to former Yugoslavia, and that union no longer exists. What Serbia is trying to do is escape the war reparation responsibility which it owes not only to Kosovo, but Bosnia and Croatia too. What Kosovo, Bosnia and Croatia ought to do is take Serbia to ICJ, and as long as it doesn’t pay for the damages, it should never be allowed to enter EU.
'Even if Kosovo's legality for existence falls within a gray area, it opens the door for other would-be statelets to throw their own destiny to the wind. How many parastates would we then have?'
I'm not convinced that many territories are going to try for statehood based solely on Kosovo's experience. In fact, it may convince some existing states that it would be a good idea to consider how they treat their minorities to prevent them from even thinking about taking such a step.
As for Abkhazia and So. Ossetia, maybe the best thing is for them to experience the delights of Russian rule as compared to Georgian rule for a few years. Especially if Georgia continues to develop the way it was developing prior to the economic downturn. Rich Russians are already buying up everything in sight in Abkhazia, and with a population of less than 250,000 - a mid-size city - how are they going to maintain control of their own country? In the Middle Ages there was a Kingdom of Abkhazia, Georgia, (and some other places). Later, Abkhazia switched back and forth between Ottoman and Russian rule. Nothing's forever with Abkhazia, it seems.
In the future there will be more than 193 countries...you can bet on that. It is a states RIGHT to recognize another entity, not some "international law" which are actually guidelines.
China isn't recognized by 21 UN member STATES and that country is doing just fine. The most important factor for a new state is to be recognized by it's neighbors..especially since trade & defense are the most important to its' affairs....not if some country in the other side of the world recognizes it.
The future states will have hybrid-sovereignty...territorial integrity will change as we know it (EU, AU, SCO, American Union, etc).
Mirub, I see you are very confused.
Russia and China voted for Res 1244 and China explained that what they voted for then is not what they are trying to make Res be now and if they were going to change Res 1244 or interpret it in a way it was not meant to be interpreted then they would've never voted for it.
In other words, the west is trying to find ways to interpret something THEY signed in a totally different spirit in which it was meant.
I hope things are a little more clearer to you now. So when I said they are taking their word back, that is exactly what they are doing.
I must say that the one potential cog in Russia's wheel is defending Serbia's territorial integrity while violating Georgia's.
(Mike, 8 December 2009 20:26)
indeed, but I still think that violating Georgia's territorial integrity was essentially a farce - just to "mimic" the bombing of 1999 and the handling of Kosovo. I had that feeling all the time and I was surprised that some of Georgia's politicians do share that opinion.
---
Very careless arguments made by my country.
(Mike, 8 December 2009 20:26)
Let's see it from an other angle for better understanding. I was surprised that a well-known Youtube-urban-legend "FRY ≠ Serbia" did show up. From any (but American) point of view it is an unprofessional and careless argument. But we should not forget, American law practice (like healthcare system) is one of very sick puppies. Accepted law practice is "throw as much s**t as you can against the wall - hope, some will stick to it". It's not an accepted practice in most of the world and this is a culture difference.
We should regard that ridiculous "FRY ≠ Serbia" argument as part of against-the-wall-dirt-throwing tactics so common. If by any chance the ICJ judges aren't used to that - than Serbia had a big mighty luck today, thanks to US-ignorance.
Not the first time - remember the "reset button" presented by Billary to Putin so amateurish way it became a joke?
I just can re-iterate: why, oh why they can't employ more professional people?
Say Kosovo opens the door for Tibet, RS, Kurtish republic etc.
1) this is not a bad thing
2) Did kosovo say we are against this.
3) If RS declares independence does it become a country or goes becomes part of Serbia.
I do think RS should not be part of Bosnia in long run they will both be better. But it seems u have just small hurdle in 787 (but would it be great RS becomes independent on Kosovo precedent)
Everyone here keeps bringing arguments no country is going to do anything differant that they did before.
Montenegro opens Embassy, other countries Vuk begged to wait after rulling will say sorry Vuk we will go ahead with it. Some will say we got your back.
I agree that Kosovo will continue its jurney alone:
I liked this analogy today:
40. Mr. President, in its presentation yesterday, Cyprus pointedly sought to analogize the 1244 process to the heart-wrenching, but misleading, case where a parent sends a small child off to State supervision, only to lose her forever. But upon reflection, the far better analogy would be to acknowledge the futility of the State forcing an adult child to return to an abusive home against her will, particularly where the parent and child have already long lived apart, and where repeated efforts at reconciliation have reached impasse. There, as here, declaring independence would be the only viable option, and would certainly be in accordance with law.
Mike said: "How many parastates would we then have? "
It doesn't matter how many of them are there or exist. That is of no importance at all. What is of importance is not to have Serbia like state's that systematically and willfully persecute, murder and rape those it considers to be its own citizens. Not only that but at the height of what it considered to be a full blown democracy, it denies the right to vote to the very same popullation that it had persecuted, murdered and raped. Given the options para-states not only are the better option when the other option is a tyrannical state.
Peggy said: "Doesn't the UN need to approve a move before it is taken?"
Short answer. No it doesn't need to approve anything. That is simply because the UN is not the World's Government. Surely those UNSC memebr yield a lot of power but until it is official and written black on white that the UN IS the World's government then the UN doesn't need to approve anything. It can approve if it wants and there is a will but it DOESN"T NEED TO. There is a fundamental difference there.
"BTW, I'm glad somebody finally got around to pointing out that Belgrade has already stated that it does not intend to recognize Kosovo despite an adverse ruling. After all the concern Serbia's side has shown for upholding the authority of the Security Council it's interesting to see how they intend to undercut that of the ICJ.
(Amer, 8 December 2009 23:35)"
In fairness neither side will abide by the opinion. The US oral evidence is testimony to that. Don't you think that Serbia has played a blinder on this? For most people in the West, Kosovo was history and an issue that had unprecedented support. Now, in Europe at least, there is quite a bit of a predisposition in the public to go against US/UK/Western foreign policy. It's a different audience and there is no ethnic cleansing going on. The only people under threat are the Serbs in Kosovo. To that add the fact that the proceedings are likely to reinforce divisions then I can't see how this will do anything other than better Serbia's position. Albeit, recognitions may follow but the barriers are stronger that ever.
The irony of it all is if you take away nationalism, ethnicity, revenge and the need to win I am sure there is a compromise there.
"Sure, they can "declare" it - but they still have to convince other states that they deserve to be recognized." (Amer)
-- Yes, but take a look at other parastates in the world that are "recognized" by a small handfull of countries. Do they really care about needing to achieve full status? TRNC has been theoretically "independent" for 35 years and seems to be doing fine with only Turkey supporting it. The same goes for Ab and SO: does Georgia have any hope of reclaiming them? I presume the same would fare for RS, should it declare. Kosovo could gain 50 more recognitions, or be reduced to 5 countries recognizing it, and it still wouldn't, in my opinion, change its internal dynamics. Even if Kosovo's legality for existence falls within a gray area, it opens the door for other would-be statelets to throw their own destiny to the wind. How many parastates would we then have?
Mirub, if you actually had a coherent point to your comment, I'd respond.
Mike wrote among other:"By this logic, there should be nothing keeping RS within Bosnia, or Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia. Or northern Kosovo within Kosovo."
RS stays within Bosnia for the SC Resolution of 1992 directs so. ABkazia and SO are directed by SC as problems to be solved within Georgia. Both resolution agreed upon by Russia.
Northern Kosovo (if there is such a thing)is a redecule matter to be addressed in this line of argument.
When one addresses only excerpts from a larger statement one can make even the Bill of Rights look like the Nazi proclamation of Crystal Night. Your country's statement was based on practicality of the matter at hand. As Germany argued the International legality of Independence, Croatia argued on Kosovo's right as a regional factor. There was Austria with its detailed argument for Kosovo's legal right and Albania used historical facts. Others uesd the Human Rights argument.
So, as you figured out already it fell upon USA to debate the practical side of the argument and they did a mighty good job.
Finnish representative Koskenranta on Martti Ahtisaari:
"Surely best placed to determine this is the chief negotiator, who, as we all know, also happened to receive the Nobel Peace prize for brokering peace not only in Kosovo but in many places, including Namibia, Bosnia Herzegovina and Aceh."
Best joke I ever heard!
In August 2003, five months after the United States invaded Iraq, Ahtisaari made it known that as far as he was concerned, the war was justified:
“Knowing that about a million people have been killed by the Iraqi government, I don’t really need those weapons of mass destruction.”
Basically he never thought that he will get Nobel peace prize for his previous efforts, but guess what happened, Kosovo declared independence and Martti got it in the same year! How pathetic!
"3. "Declaring independence is fundamentally an act of popular will - a political act, made by a body politic, which other States then decide whether to recognize or not."
-- This in my opinion is the most dangerous statement made because it effectively implies than any Tom Dick and Harry secessionist group can declare independence and then say "vox populi" as a form of defense."
Sure, they can "declare" it - but they still have to convince other states that they deserve to be recognized. Don't you remember how the U.S. came into being? As the Brits pointed out in their oral statement, they were originally against it, but came to accept it. The Finns today observed that their declaration of independence from the Russian Empire was also considered illegal by the Russians at the time, but they were recognized by foreign countries despite this. Yugoslavia claimed at the time that Slovenia and Croatia declared independence illegally (although they later claimed that it was legal under the constitution then in effect)... And so it goes. It's not a matter of theoretical legality, it's a matter of being able to make a claim stick that conveys statehood. But that's not the question, which is simply "is [? shouldn't that be "was"?]the DoI legal"?
BTW, I'm glad somebody finally got around to pointing out that Belgrade has already stated that it does not intend to recognize Kosovo despite an adverse ruling. After all the concern Serbia's side has shown for upholding the authority of the Security Council it's interesting to see how they intend to undercut that of the ICJ.
Ratko, well said! If there was any genocide then it was directed against Serbs and other non-albanians in KosMet. Unfortunately, our politicians dont talk about serbian suffering. We need to hear more of that.
Negotiations have been going on for decades in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and it's up to the Security Council to decide what to do (in Kosovo)
(Zoran, 8 December 2009 17:34)
Well Zoran, we are not Palestinians anymore. What its said, is done now. All this ICJ thingy is "too much noise about nothing".
'He stressed that the unilateral independence declaration “came from a political process which was supervised by the UN Security Council,” and that it is therefore "in accordance with Resolution 1244". '
Supervised YES, approved NO.
Doesn't the UN need to approve a move before it is taken? The US got away with making a move in Iraq which was not approved by the UN so they think they can do the same here.
Not a solid argument at all. Even a person without any law training can see that.
Relax people really getting to emotional this just a court hearing. Dont forget NON binding, Serbia wont accept its ruling either way. this is just some proof to calm the Nationalist at home.
Nothing is changing no Negotiations no recognition from Serbia any time soon 10 years minimum 2 weeks before EU entry of Serbia.
USA is not going any place, China is not becoming going to default on Loans. And Russia will have Putin as leader.
Kosovo will be same it was yesterday some will recognize some wont fine.
Relax guys K-Albaninas you still got what you wnat and so did Vuk.
No Serb has idea how to integrate 2million people in Serbia their solutions are only the territory.
Develop Kosovo with countries that have recognized you the rest fine no worry. Even USA does not do Business with 193 countries.
# "Koh suggested that the legitimacy of the independence declaration comes from the fact that the Kosovo Albanians were subject to a campaign of “state-supported violence for years", which "culminated in 1999 when 10,000 Albanians were killed and about a million were displaced.”
This is the best argument, "state-supported violence for years" against 2 million of their OWN citizens. This is what bothered my all the time. How can a country rightfully and morally do it and after still claim the right to that territory?
(Joe, 8 December 2009 19:24)
thank you Joe -- this is what we've been saying since 1999 -- above and beyond all the other horrors inflicted during the 90s from you know who.
and because of that, the icj will never rule against Kosovo/a, and never rule in favor of serbia.
and hopefully that will help things to progress, altho it is always wise to stay a bit on guard...
Peggy wrote "So they went back on their word. That's all that means."
No. Armed with absolute truth they confirmed their action by recognizing Kosovojust as they did by voting for the 1244 that allows Kosovo to declare Independence.
How ironic, Russia, China and some others actually voted for the resolution. Despite their own objections -they themselves approved it.
Why vote for something you initially object so adamently?
They didn't care enough for the situation, and now, suddenly trying to hang on any language and reference out of context on 1244 by saying -this must be why we voted for the resolution.
"If someone isn't handsome by nature, it's useless for them to wash over and over again." (Corsican proverb)
http://www.newyorker.com/online/multimedia/2009/12/07/091207_audioslideshow_platon
nothing to do with this, but very interesting, B92 should have seen this!!
I read the transcript and what is more discussing to me is that some nation mentioned that kosovo has no right of self dermination .so why serbia does?montenegro etc?
and another issue I would like to raise to this posters why this matter didnt end up in court before so many massacres happened in kosovo. After a war there is a winner and this court has no power to change anything.you all are waisting your time .
"How can a country rightfully and morally do it and after still claim the right to that territory?" (Joe)
-- I agree with you that this can be one of the more sound arguments in this case, but we need to be careful in making this a legal clause. Historical memories of nations are replete with memories of collective suffering at the hands of state-sponsored repression by the "other". If such an argument becomes a legal basis, Serbs of Kosovo have just as much right to claim equal measures of repression from Albanians. If everyone suddenly plays the victimization card as a means of autonomy/secession, borders more than the one in Serbia's southern underbelly could be redrawn.
It's all good. No matter what some countries like Spain say it doesn't matter. It'a a will of a free nation to declare indepedence and it happened now you all live with it.
About Spain, I am from a city of Istog close to Peja and we did have a peacekeeppers from Spain, on the day they left this old Albanian man started crying because they were leaving, commander of Spanish troops was so surprised to see old man ctying and asked him "why are you crying for us, our country didn't recognized Kosovo's independence yet" the old m an responds "you have discovered America and that is enough for us". :)
Having now read through the transcripts provided, I've noticed a few interesting statements made by my country's delegation that bears significant risks for international stability, should Kosovo's case be affirmed by the ICJ:
1. "international law does not regulate declarations of independence, nor is there anything about Kosovo’s particular Declaration that would render it not “in accordance with international law”
-- This effectively means that there is no provision of international law that would, or should, prevent any political body from declaring independence. My country's rationale for Kosovo's UDI is that Kosovo's declaration is not outside the framework of international law because no such framework exists. This to me is a Straw Man argument. It basically implies an action could be taken and defended because there's no law against it. In other words, the cop didn’t see me run the red light, so therefore I didn’t run the red light. Or better yet, there wasn’t a red light to run.
2. "a declaration neither constitutes nor establishes political independence; it announces a political reality or aspiration that must then be achieved by other means."
-- So does that mean Kosovo isn't an independent state since a declaration doesn't really do much other than establish collective intent? What "means" must therefore be done, and isn't it a fair argument to make that if any "means" are currently being undertaken, Serbia and other states are undertaking "countermeans" to effectively leave Kosovo within a stalemate? Isn’t the “political reality” in Kosovo more of an international protectorate than a “functioning state”? If sizeable areas of this so-called country are not on Pristina’s grid (not just Serb areas but most of Metohija which answers to Haradinaj), a “functioning state” is a far cry from the “political reality”.
3. "Declaring independence is fundamentally an act of popular will - a political act, made by a body politic, which other States then decide whether to recognize or not."
-- This in my opinion is the most dangerous statement made because it effectively implies than any Tom Dick and Harry secessionist group can declare independence and then say "vox populi" as a form of defense. By this logic, there should be nothing keeping RS within Bosnia, or Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia. Or northern Kosovo within Kosovo. This statement effectively gives legitimate credence to parastates that don’t even need international recognition; just a few client states to keep it afloat. Yet further down, my country feels the need to qualify such careless statements with "Kosovo is a special case", for reasons that I have still to hear.
I must say that the one potential cog in Russia's wheel is defending Serbia's territorial integrity while violating Georgia's. Yet in spite of that, we see that Russia is keeping it within a legal framework, while my country's grand strategy is to employ normative one-way interpretations of an incredibly controversial historical event as a smoke screen for its own interests.
'As evidence, Koh stated that "9 out of 15 members of the UN Security Council" who voted for the resolution, passed in 1999, "later recognized Kosovo". '
So they went back on their word. That's all that means.
Trying to break a binding contract IS against the law and just because some did it doesn't mean they were right.
Well, Albanians just had their best man have his forty five minutes of uninterrupted speech and he failed them miserably.
"Koh suggested that the legitimacy of the independence declaration comes from the fact that the Kosovo Albanians were subject to a campaign of “state-supported violence for years", which "culminated in 1999 when 10,000 Albanians were killed and about a million were displaced.”
This is the best argument, "state-supported violence for years" against 2 million of their OWN citizens. This is what bothered my all the time. How can a country rightfully and morally do it and after still claim the right to that territory?
I'm talking about the hudreds of churches and monasteries build in Kosovo by Serbs in the 13th and 14th century, not the one built in Pristina during Milosevic. If Albanians were in Kosovo before everyone else where is proof of their existence?
After reading the US defence of Kosovo independence there is no way Serbia can loose this case unless the judges are bribed by the US. The americans are making up international law as they go along. The legality behind their decision to recognize Kosovo is only to serve their own interests and has nothing to do with what is right and wrong. As long as the world is split and as long as Serbia doesn't recognize, Kosovo will always be Serbias southern province occupied by albanians and their american allies.
America's arguments are by far the most logical and well versed so far.
My favorite part: "No fewer than 115 of the world's nations have treated Kosovo as a State, by either formally recognizing it or voting for its admission to international financial institutions."
Just as I thought, the US argument was a complete joke, both legaly and moraly. Now let's pick it apart:
'U.S. legal representative Harold Hongju Koh called on the court to not deal with the larger question of self-determination in international law, but to look at Kosovo as a “unique” case.'
There is absolutely nothing unique about Kosovo. There are dozens of other 'Kosovos' all over the world.
“There is no contradiction between the peacefully proclaimed declaration of Kosovo independence and international law, including Resolution 1244,” he said, according to news agencies.'
Yes, and black is white. UNSC Resolution 1244 guarantees the territorial integrity of Serbia, so yes there is a CLEAR contradiction.
'As evidence, Koh stated that "9 out of 15 members of the UN Security Council" who voted for the resolution, passed in 1999, "later recognized Kosovo". '
So what? They did so under huge pressure from the imperialist powers, and not under their own will. Only three major countries, the US, Germany, and the UK, willingly recognized Kosovo. The rest were pushed and coerced into it, like the little minions that they are.
'He stressed that the unilateral independence declaration “came from a political process which was supervised by the UN Security Council,” and that it is therefore "in accordance with Resolution 1244". '
Ha! This one is quite humourous. How they came to that conclusion that these two are linked...whatever they are smoking I want some.
'Koh reminded that the UN secretary-general’s envoy Martti Ahtisaari stated after failed negotiations that “Kosovo independence is the only sustainable solution.” '
The 'political process' and 'negotiations' were a farce, and this was even admitted by their man Ahtisari, since he confirmed that no matter what the Serbs said he would recommend independence. There were NO negotiations here, and everyone, including Koh, knows it.
'The U.S. representative also stated that Resolution 1244 is "not a guarantee of Serbia’s territorial integrity", but of the "territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which no longer exists", and "only during the period of temporary international administration in Kosovo". '
More complete giberish and blatant lies from the US! Serbia is the successor state of Yugoslavia, everyone knows that! It's truly unbelievable that these dimwits keep repeating this lie. It just shows how desperate they are.
'Koh said that the "independence declaration did not violate the principle of territorial integrity" because, he as he put forward, "according to international law, it must be respected only by the countries, not by internal entities". '
Independence clearly DOES violate the territorial integrity of a country. However I am sure Koh would agree that the independence of Republika Srpska will not violate the territorial integrity of Bosnia :).
'Citing the ruling of the Hague Tribunal in the Milutinović case, Koh suggested that the legitimacy of the independence declaration comes from the fact that the Kosovo Albanians were subject to a campaign of “state-supported violence for years", which "culminated in 1999 when 10,000 Albanians were killed and about a million were displaced.” '
More disgusting lies and propoganda. Only around 2400 were killed, on ALL sides, in this conflict. Any state would do what Serbia did if their civilians, postal workers, policemen, were getting killed almost on a daily basis by KLA terrorists. Serbs in Kosovo are the victims here, from decades of ethnic cleansing and gross mistreatment by albanians. Just look at the complete lack of human rights, freedom of movement, freedom to speak their language, the desecration & destruction of their holy sites (some UNESCO heritage) by the albanians, and then you will know what Serbs have had to endure for centuries and are still enduring today in this illegal NATO 'state'.
This must be a court of saints, not mere human justices, to sit there patiently while the same arguments are presented - in slightly different formulations - over and over and over again.
And their reward, when it's all over, will surely be to be reviled and ignored by the losing side.
I must say that I agree with Mike. The US has made it clear that it is not interested in arguing the legal case before the ICJ. It just repeated the political viewpoint that has already been shown to be extremely dangerous for international peace and stability if accepted by the ICJ. Moreover, the view that Serbia is not the FRY is laughable. It really shows a complete disdain for the proceedings at hand given that this point has already bene addressed by the ICJ itself and is not contested by the other key actors supporting Kosovo's UDI, such as Germany.
The US team have clearly not bothered even to try to put together a legal case. I wonder how this will go down with the judges?
Are you trying to falsificate even reports from international trial? Or, are you trying to give advance to Serbia not posting declarations of the countries who are in a favor of Kosovo independence?!
Whatever you do you can not change facts:
USA: 'Let Kosovo independence alone because it is will of the people and factor of stability in Balkans.'
Hmm, I'm wondering too where are the transcripts for today? Well, no matter I'm sure they'll be up soon. I find it interesting how the usual Albanian suspects like to question the journalistic integrity of a website they visit everyday, and spend inordinate amounts of time "contributing" to. The minute "New Kosova Report" starts winning awards for journalistic integrity, I'll think of changing my tune.
But in relation to the article, I was somewhat hoping my country would have presented a stronger case for Kosovo's statehood beyond the selectively normative claims made. I mean my country is supposedly the Albanians' life line and what did we effectively argue?
1. Don't touch Kosovo's statehood. In fact, just ignore it. Just leave it alone.
2. In fact, if you have to give an opinion, don't give an opinion at all (a vague call for a "neutral" status?), but let's just leave this pile of unwashed socks for someone else to deal with, right?
3. Kosovo is a unique case. Why? Shut up, that's why.
4. Kosovo's independence will be the best solution for everyone. I have no evidence to support this argument, but just take my word for it.
5. Serbia has no claim to Kosovo because they seceded from Yugoslavia, and Yugoslavia's not a country anymore, even though we've heard, as well as signed, enough documentation stipulating that Serbia has inherited all the rights, legalities, and legacies of Yugoslavia.
Why does my country feel the need to act so sloppy when it comes to international relations that don't involve Israel? I mean it's plain enough to see we don't really care about the ICJ ruling since we're not going to honor anything that goes against our interests (for the moment), but unless B92 is being very liberal in interpreting the transcripts, these arguments from my country's representative are all normative interpretations that have no legal basis. If I were an Albanian and I were hoping Uncle Sam would come to court to deliver for me today, I'd be thoroughly disappointed. Any Albanian that honestly thinks the United States blew Russia and Spain out of the legal water today needs to have their head checked.
"Russian representative reminded that the UN Security Council declared Northern Cyprus and Rhodesia's independence to be illegal, since secession is forbidden outside the colonial context."
That's because the secession of "Rhodesia" and Northern Cyprus were illegal, for well-established reasons related to the particular cases, as would be the secession of "RS" from Bosnia, whereas the secessions of Bangladesh (from Pakistan) in 1971 and of Eritrea (from Ethiopia) in 1991 were not. The case of Kosovo is much closer to that of the latter two, both of which were also "outside the colonial context"
Must be a huge let down to those who beLIEeve the US might is right argument. Oh dear seems US has well and truly entangled itself in its own self made illegal trap - not that they care for international law however now it will be blatant and one where Obama either follows that of Bush - more of the same or does he uphold international law and stay to the principles upon which he stood for election?
Stop writing american fabrications. Serbia fought uck terrorists who wanted to steal Kosmet. There was no ethnic cleansing and no discrimination of albanians. albans enjoyed all the rights in the world. Ethnic cleansing was orcherstrated by america and uck. This whole operation was to occupy Serbian Kosmet - this is the present day status. The dead albanians are uck terrorists, end of story! If america can go across the globe to fight "terrorists" then we can do it too in our own country.
2 milion people of Kosova do not enjoy the right to self-determination but 50 thousand SO and Abkhazi do,right?
(Kosova-USA, 8 December 2009 15:46)
--
This is about Serbia and Kosovo, not SO or Ab so your point is irrelvent. It has already been pointed out by Spain that the EU called SO and Ab's seccession illegal, just like the UDD. This has helped improve our case.
Serbia's case is unbelievably strong and I am very impressed with the arguments. Negotiations have been going on for decades in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and it's up to the Security Council to decide what to do (in Kosovo), not some paid-off "negotiator" named Attisari.
Because of people thinking and reasoning like you do, Kosovo is today independent and recognized fro USA and 22 out of 27 members of the EU.Your watch has stoped in the 1987.More you deny the repression that albanians have suffered from the creation of Yougoslavia to its death, the more you reinforce the idea that only the independence is the solution.I don't understand, you were saying the same things about Montenegro a couple of years ago.Where is Montenegro now?
Spain gives great significance to the protection of human and minority rights, she said but rejected claims that repression of Kosovo Albanians during the 1990s justify unilateral secession.
---
12,000 massacred, 800,000 thrown out, 140,000 houses destroyed are not enough said Spain. Call us when 120,000 people are killed.
The arguments presented by China and Cyprus yesterday were extremely strong. I am certainly more confident of Serbia's case than I might have been a few days ago. As I had noted then, it appears as though the arguments put forward by the states favouring independence had come down to a technicality on the question of whether a unilateral declaration of independence can be legal or illegal, or whether it just is. I had thought that this might be the way out that the Court needed. That was until I came across something very interesting that I haven't seen this addressed elsewhere.
It appears that this question of whether a UDI should be regarded as a neutral act was actually answered 26 years ago in Resolution 541, passed in response to the UDI by the Turkish Cypriots. In the resolution, it states that the Security Council:
1. Deplores the declaration of the Turkish Cypriot authorities of the purported secession of part of the Republic of Cyprus;
2. Considers the declaration referred to above as legally invalid and calls for its withdrawal;
Of course, one can argue that the circumstances of the case were different and that they were arguing that the UDI was legally invalid in light of the 1960 Treaties establishing Cyprus. But this is not the point. The point is that the Council clearly stated that the declaration was ‘legally invalid’. In other words, the Council (which included the US, France and Britain) stated that a unilateral declaration of independence was contrary to international law. They have therefore taken the view that a declaration of independence is not simply a fact that is neutral under international law. It can be judged as being contrary to (or in accordance with) international law. It is not a neutral act.
I trust that the judges will take this into account. It seems to have closed the only remaining loophole that the supporters of independence had been relying on!
Michael R.
A few days ago you asked me to comment on why I think that the sui generis argument does not hold water if one breaks it down point by point. (Remembering that in a judicial process you have to examine the component parts of the case individually. This is why judgements are often so long. They have to address a number of specific points.) Here is my answer:
1) As has been stressed many times, Kosovo may have enjoyed a special status in Yugoslavia. However, it did not enjoy a right to secession (even notional). If the case can be presented that an autonomous area in fact enjoys the right of secession under international law it will have an enormous impact elsewhere. I am sure that no one wants to see this point accepted. Apart from anything else, even if the Court rules in favour of Kosovo, it will open the way for an act of counter-secession by RS.
2) The argument about human rights abuses is also a non-starter. No one denies atrocities were committed against the Kosovo Albanians. But this has happened in many other conflicts. However, in all other cases we call for reconciliation and solutions based on autonomy. Kosovo cannot be allowed to make the case for independence on the basis of past wrongs without this then being extended to others. The effects of this would also be enormous. Again, no one wants to see this happen.
3) The argument that the period of international administration needs to be taken into account is also highly risky. As has been pointed out, if this argument were to be accepted it would in effect remove the UN's ability to act anywhere. States would simply reject its presence - a current cornerstone of UN peace operations (as opposed to enforcement actions). I am sure that the judges, as well as supporters of independence do not want this to happen.
Once again, I should stress that it is very noticeable that the sui generis argument has been played down by the states supporting UDI. They obviously realise that it is a very weak argument and that on each of its substantive points a ruling accepting the argument would have very severe ramifications elsewhere. To this extent, Serbia owes Cyprus a lot for its intervention. As has already been pointed out, the Cypriots made an excellent point that in accepting one example as being sui generis it must open the way for others to be regarded in such a light.
Also I don’t think that the KA case has been served very well. Many of the presentations have argued pure politics and have used history to try to muddy the waters. For instance, the argument about Kosovo being snatched by Serbia was ridiculous. If that line of argument is taken the entire map of Europe would change overnight. Likewise, Croatia’s presentation focused on the SFRY. This was pointless. The matter of Kosovo’s position within the FRY was recognised in 1999. Its status in the SFRY is irrelevant. (And please no more about Serbia being different from the FRY. Again, this argument has not been used by a single actor in this case – either for or against UDI.)
Really, I think that the legal case for Serbia is unbelievably strong. To be honest, I had my doubts a couple of days ago. But after reading the recent presentations, and considering the point about resolution 541, I really think that, on legal grounds, Serbia is now in a very good position.
Here we are Russia and Spain said nothing new in their statement.
For Russia which "cares" so much about internationa law. What did Russia mean recognising the "independence" of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and its appeal to other countries to do so? Are they takin the ICJ for stupid?
To Spain what do you really mean a "solution that would be acceptable to both parties"? Are you trying to test the intelligence of the ICJ? An agreement between Serbia and Kosova would have been reached should have not been a war in Kosova. Is Spain "forgeting" what Kosova status was according to 1976 Yugoslavia Constitution? Is Spain "forgeting" what Slobadan Milloshevic the head of state did to Kosova in the name of Serbia? And Spain is talking about Serbia's "generosity" for a broader autonomy...to Kosova. Spain and other countries whom oppose the Kosova's independence. The ICJ will shake your "lost memory" with HARD FACTS about the history of Kosova...
This is the exact reason why Serbs are so blinded on the Kosovo issue. They were/are never exposed to the other side of the argument. B-92 yet again failed to mention a word of the oral statements by USA (the absolute strongest statement)or Finland (who was in similar position before its independence). I read the Russian statement in its entirity and I found many good arguments. Spain did the same. However, to offer solid proof and facts no one did like USA, Germany, and Croatia.
B92, mostly you take info from both sides and publish them which makes me and others regular visitors to the site, but since ICJ started you guys have only published the ones in Serbia's favour. Now I know you guys are not in a easy seat but dont lose your creability as a respected media and becoming a tool for the state.
Russian representative reminded that the UN Security Council declared Northern Cyprus and Rhodesia's independence to be illegal, since secession is forbidden outside the colonial context.
------
Why didn't it do with Kosova then? There it was illegal and UNSC acted, here it's legal and they they didn't. Thank you Russia!!
For example, today U.S.A told the court Kosovo's independence is a result of three processes: Disintegration of Yugoslavia, violent human right abuses and a U.N backed negotiation process.
Most of the Media in Kosovo publish arguments presented by Kosovo as well as Serbia. But not B92. This sheds some light on the standards of journalism in Serbia and Kosovo.Just didn't know B92 was part of this Serbian standard.Now we know :)
(BalkanUpdate, 8 December 2009 15:43)
--
Oh, so you mean the US didn't say anything new? That has been repeated a number of times by "the authors of the UDD".
I'm glad those supporting Serbia's case are coming up with new arguments (and strong ones) every day. Now that is news worthy.
There is no doubt that U.S. and Finland have provided arguments that irreversible. Russia and Spain have rather provided reasons why they are against it for reasons understandable to all no.
This is looking very good and Serbia is about to get what it has gone to IJC for, losing Kosovo forever.
"Also, Russia had to kick some NATO trained and armed in Georgia defend the Russian citizens living there.
(Another Canadian Serb, 8 December 2009 14:11)"
Russia was lucky enough that some European states did not agree with George Bush to let Georgia in Nato. You would have seen Putin "not putting" Russian soldiers on the groung in Georgia.
As far as Russians kicking anything we know the answer.
You for one "a Canadian" should side for the soldiers of your own country. But, here is another"committment" to its own.
Interesting to note that B92 finds it newsworthy to publish all pro Serbian arguments , but not a single one that supports Kosovo. For example, today U.S.A told the court Kosovo's independence is a result of three processes: Disintegration of Yugoslavia, violent human right abuses and a U.N backed negotiation process.
Most of the Media in Kosovo publish arguments presented by Kosovo as well as Serbia. But not B92. This sheds some light on the standards of journalism in Serbia and Kosovo.Just didn't know B92 was part of this Serbian standard.Now we know :)
“Both sides have to agree on a solution and the UN Security Council must support it,” Hernandez underscored.
She said that a unilateral secession is not allowed under international law, unless in case it concerns a colony.
Hernandez backed this statement by quoting from last year's EU report on the conflict between Georgia and Russia.'
Nice!! Thank you Spain, and I love the quoting of the EU report on the Russia/Georgia conflict. It just highlights how hypocritical and immmoral and devoid of any principles these 'greater albania' imperialists are.
I look forward to Russia's statements. I also look forward to the US's statements - which I know will be just drivel, propoganda, lies and more fantasy land - twilight zone kind of logic. Anyway, it sould be entertaining.
Cheers!!
This story is related to this news; During a recent Spanish KFOR command changeover in Istog/Istok in Kosovo, participated by municipal, party officials and citizens, an old man was emotionally hugging a Spanish major who was about to leave Kosovo. At one point the Spanish major asks the old man: “Why do you like us so much, when we have not even recognized Kosovo?” And the old man replies: “Well, you have discovered America, and that is enough to us.”
1. people of Kosovo do not enjoy a right to self-determination.
2. does not mean that the process has been concluded, Gevorgian said, and added that the Security Council decides on that.
3. Russia also pointed out that "severe violations of Albanians' human rights during the 1990s" cannot serve as justification for the unilateral proclamation made in 2008.
All leading to:
1. who decides that people of kosova do not enjoy a right to self-determination??? Moscow and Bldg??
2. “[…]the process is not concluded the Security Council decides on that” meaning I have the veto power I decide on their fate- according to my convenient belief of point 1 and my (Russian) moral standards of point 3:
3. “"severe violations of Albanians' human rights during the 1990s" cannot serve as justification for the unilateral proclamation made in 2008” – read for me (Russia) I can marry a women (regardless if with her good will or not – it doesn’t matter ) and then rape and mistreat her as I wish- she is mine.
Not to underestimate the old pure arrogant Russian politics: they said here in ICJ all and everything contrary to what they did with Abkhazia and S. Ossetia.
Spain:
“Resolution 1244 was passed with “wise balance between the interests of the two sides” and founded on two basic principles – the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the right of ethnic Albanians for self-determination” – this is res. 1244
“[…]through self-administration and autonomy, Hernandez said.” – this is Spanish interpretation of 1244.
Zapo takes the inter-temporal character of the 1244 and out of his head makes it appear as permanent.
So maybe Zapo can answer why 1244 was calling for negotiations on the FINAL status of Kosova???
I mean since according to Zapo 1244 already says self-admin and autonomy. Following Zapo the status was solved with 1244 and res 1244 should have not called on negotiations for the FINAL status. Those in SC must be crazy and ignorant they don’t know how to write resolutions, or perhaps Mr Zapo in Madrid??? My bet for the second.
But it is nice to hear that 1244 as Spain reconfirms was recognising the right of self determination to Kosova.
All this appearance of Spain is just to say: I have nothing against Kosova’s independence as far as that will not affect my internal fragility, but the solution is not in denying to Kosova he freedom the solution is in persuading your people that staying together you all are stronger.
After Burundi for which Serbia was thinking it will be in her favour and turned out in supporting self-determination of Kosova the Spanish appearance in ICJ exclusively for internal use and purpose constitutes the second great pleasant surprise for Kosova.
Mr Malic from antiwar.org has the best analysis yet:
"Either way, a decision favoring Serbia will fail to sway Washington. There was never any legal backing for either the 1999 war, the subsequent occupation, or the 2008 declaration of "independence" – but the Empire went ahead and did it anyway. The 2003 Iraq war was blatant aggression if ever there was such, and the world basically shrugged it off. Washington and its allies have known full well and all along that their adventures in Kosovo and Iraq were illegal. They simply didn’t care."
Gevorgian also noted that general international law is preventing Kosovo from declaring independence, bearing in mind that the people of Kosovo do not enjoy a right to self-determination.
2 milion people of Kosova do not enjoy the right to self-determination but 50 thousand SO and Abkhazi do,right?
Russia is the best when it comes to international law, what a joke they are!?
''Kosovo has always been Serbian land. All our churches and monasteries are proof of that while the Albanians don't have anything to show. That is evidence enough to win the case.''
Building of churches in lands not their own (read it again, not their own!), was a known practice in order to enable 'the claim' that land is Serb.
You don’t have to look far back at all, the Monastery that was built during Milosevic regime in the centre of Prishtina, to tell the Albanians '' this is Serbia''; those policies don’t work any more, and don’t full anyone.
For your info, the monastery which Milosevic built in the centre of town, still stands and has not been guarded by anyone for at least 2 years, with no damage and with the bright golden cross still shining across the city of Prishtina, capital of Kosovo. You should however remember that building monasteries to entice hatred is wrong, and they should be built to serve their purpose, and that is House of God. Macedonians did a similar thing with a large cross overlooking the town of Skopje and unfortunately Bosnian Croats fell in the same bucket, by doing the same in the city of Mostar.
In fact if you really want to be enlightened in history, learn more about Illyrians, their descendant Albanians, and ethnic maps of Balkans peninsula, just spare us your goof for the benefit of doubt.
It is interesting how B92 has decided to show only the arguments of Spain and Russia and not the one made by Finland and USA while media in Kosova show all four.Objective?
If any of the international entries at IC will make any difference to the American bully and its allies (as they have no legal argument to defend Albanian ethnically motivated unilateral secession) will be the Chinese submission to the court.
Why? Everybody knows: because of the China's economic power and the fact that by now China owns so much of the American loans.
Once when the US are out of Kosovo we should give our Chinese friends a little elaborately wrapped present- Camp Bondsteel.
Should be very interesting. Substance and legal arguments from Russia vs political spin and moral arguments from the US. Time for the ICJ to prove that it is still an independent body protecting international law.
(kate, 8 December 2009 12:52)
At least you admit that US case is a "moral" one!
So, america will defend the theft of Kosovo. Americas credibility after Vietnam, South America, Irak, Afganistan and the warcrimes agains Serbia is not very high. The only way America and the illegal declaration of Kosovo independence is through pressure and blackmail by the americans.
Kosovo has always been Serbian land. All our churches and monasteries are proof of that while the albanians don't have anything to show. That is evidence enough to win the case.
Serbs and their communist friends are never going to win this case. I as a rational human being can not see any other solution than independence.
Serbs did not manage to win Kosovo through 100-year long cruel persecution, what makes you think this will happen through pen-for-hire quasi-interpreters of international law?
Should be very interesting. Substance and legal arguments from Russia vs political spin and moral arguments from the US. Time for the ICJ to prove that it is still an independent body protecting international law.
Should be very interesting. Substance and legal arguments from Russia vs political spin and moral arguments from the US. Time for the ICJ to prove that it is still an independent body protecting international law.
The arguments presented by China and Cyprus yesterday were extremely strong. I am certainly more confident of Serbia's case than I might have been a few days ago. As I had noted then, it appears as though the arguments put forward by the states favouring independence had come down to a technicality on the question of whether a unilateral declaration of independence can be legal or illegal, or whether it just is. I had thought that this might be the way out that the Court needed. That was until I came across something very interesting that I haven't seen this addressed elsewhere.
It appears that this question of whether a UDI should be regarded as a neutral act was actually answered 26 years ago in Resolution 541, passed in response to the UDI by the Turkish Cypriots. In the resolution, it states that the Security Council:
1. Deplores the declaration of the Turkish Cypriot authorities of the purported secession of part of the Republic of Cyprus;
2. Considers the declaration referred to above as legally invalid and calls for its withdrawal;
Of course, one can argue that the circumstances of the case were different and that they were arguing that the UDI was legally invalid in light of the 1960 Treaties establishing Cyprus. But this is not the point. The point is that the Council clearly stated that the declaration was ‘legally invalid’. In other words, the Council (which included the US, France and Britain) stated that a unilateral declaration of independence was contrary to international law. They have therefore taken the view that a declaration of independence is not simply a fact that is neutral under international law. It can be judged as being contrary to (or in accordance with) international law. It is not a neutral act.
I trust that the judges will take this into account. It seems to have closed the only remaining loophole that the supporters of independence had been relying on!
Michael R.
A few days ago you asked me to comment on why I think that the sui generis argument does not hold water if one breaks it down point by point. (Remembering that in a judicial process you have to examine the component parts of the case individually. This is why judgements are often so long. They have to address a number of specific points.) Here is my answer:
1) As has been stressed many times, Kosovo may have enjoyed a special status in Yugoslavia. However, it did not enjoy a right to secession (even notional). If the case can be presented that an autonomous area in fact enjoys the right of secession under international law it will have an enormous impact elsewhere. I am sure that no one wants to see this point accepted. Apart from anything else, even if the Court rules in favour of Kosovo, it will open the way for an act of counter-secession by RS.
2) The argument about human rights abuses is also a non-starter. No one denies atrocities were committed against the Kosovo Albanians. But this has happened in many other conflicts. However, in all other cases we call for reconciliation and solutions based on autonomy. Kosovo cannot be allowed to make the case for independence on the basis of past wrongs without this then being extended to others. The effects of this would also be enormous. Again, no one wants to see this happen.
3) The argument that the period of international administration needs to be taken into account is also highly risky. As has been pointed out, if this argument were to be accepted it would in effect remove the UN's ability to act anywhere. States would simply reject its presence - a current cornerstone of UN peace operations (as opposed to enforcement actions). I am sure that the judges, as well as supporters of independence do not want this to happen.
Once again, I should stress that it is very noticeable that the sui generis argument has been played down by the states supporting UDI. They obviously realise that it is a very weak argument and that on each of its substantive points a ruling accepting the argument would have very severe ramifications elsewhere. To this extent, Serbia owes Cyprus a lot for its intervention. As has already been pointed out, the Cypriots made an excellent point that in accepting one example as being sui generis it must open the way for others to be regarded in such a light.
Also I don’t think that the KA case has been served very well. Many of the presentations have argued pure politics and have used history to try to muddy the waters. For instance, the argument about Kosovo being snatched by Serbia was ridiculous. If that line of argument is taken the entire map of Europe would change overnight. Likewise, Croatia’s presentation focused on the SFRY. This was pointless. The matter of Kosovo’s position within the FRY was recognised in 1999. Its status in the SFRY is irrelevant. (And please no more about Serbia being different from the FRY. Again, this argument has not been used by a single actor in this case – either for or against UDI.)
Really, I think that the legal case for Serbia is unbelievably strong. To be honest, I had my doubts a couple of days ago. But after reading the recent presentations, and considering the point about resolution 541, I really think that, on legal grounds, Serbia is now in a very good position.
This story is related to this news; During a recent Spanish KFOR command changeover in Istog/Istok in Kosovo, participated by municipal, party officials and citizens, an old man was emotionally hugging a Spanish major who was about to leave Kosovo. At one point the Spanish major asks the old man: “Why do you like us so much, when we have not even recognized Kosovo?” And the old man replies: “Well, you have discovered America, and that is enough to us.”
It is interesting how B92 has decided to show only the arguments of Spain and Russia and not the one made by Finland and USA while media in Kosova show all four.Objective?
Russian representative reminded that the UN Security Council declared Northern Cyprus and Rhodesia's independence to be illegal, since secession is forbidden outside the colonial context.
------
Why didn't it do with Kosova then? There it was illegal and UNSC acted, here it's legal and they they didn't. Thank you Russia!!
So, america will defend the theft of Kosovo. Americas credibility after Vietnam, South America, Irak, Afganistan and the warcrimes agains Serbia is not very high. The only way America and the illegal declaration of Kosovo independence is through pressure and blackmail by the americans.
Kosovo has always been Serbian land. All our churches and monasteries are proof of that while the albanians don't have anything to show. That is evidence enough to win the case.
Interesting to note that B92 finds it newsworthy to publish all pro Serbian arguments , but not a single one that supports Kosovo. For example, today U.S.A told the court Kosovo's independence is a result of three processes: Disintegration of Yugoslavia, violent human right abuses and a U.N backed negotiation process.
Most of the Media in Kosovo publish arguments presented by Kosovo as well as Serbia. But not B92. This sheds some light on the standards of journalism in Serbia and Kosovo.Just didn't know B92 was part of this Serbian standard.Now we know :)
Spain gives great significance to the protection of human and minority rights, she said but rejected claims that repression of Kosovo Albanians during the 1990s justify unilateral secession.
---
12,000 massacred, 800,000 thrown out, 140,000 houses destroyed are not enough said Spain. Call us when 120,000 people are killed.
Serbs and their communist friends are never going to win this case. I as a rational human being can not see any other solution than independence.
Serbs did not manage to win Kosovo through 100-year long cruel persecution, what makes you think this will happen through pen-for-hire quasi-interpreters of international law?
B92, mostly you take info from both sides and publish them which makes me and others regular visitors to the site, but since ICJ started you guys have only published the ones in Serbia's favour. Now I know you guys are not in a easy seat but dont lose your creability as a respected media and becoming a tool for the state.
Hmm, I'm wondering too where are the transcripts for today? Well, no matter I'm sure they'll be up soon. I find it interesting how the usual Albanian suspects like to question the journalistic integrity of a website they visit everyday, and spend inordinate amounts of time "contributing" to. The minute "New Kosova Report" starts winning awards for journalistic integrity, I'll think of changing my tune.
But in relation to the article, I was somewhat hoping my country would have presented a stronger case for Kosovo's statehood beyond the selectively normative claims made. I mean my country is supposedly the Albanians' life line and what did we effectively argue?
1. Don't touch Kosovo's statehood. In fact, just ignore it. Just leave it alone.
2. In fact, if you have to give an opinion, don't give an opinion at all (a vague call for a "neutral" status?), but let's just leave this pile of unwashed socks for someone else to deal with, right?
3. Kosovo is a unique case. Why? Shut up, that's why.
4. Kosovo's independence will be the best solution for everyone. I have no evidence to support this argument, but just take my word for it.
5. Serbia has no claim to Kosovo because they seceded from Yugoslavia, and Yugoslavia's not a country anymore, even though we've heard, as well as signed, enough documentation stipulating that Serbia has inherited all the rights, legalities, and legacies of Yugoslavia.
Why does my country feel the need to act so sloppy when it comes to international relations that don't involve Israel? I mean it's plain enough to see we don't really care about the ICJ ruling since we're not going to honor anything that goes against our interests (for the moment), but unless B92 is being very liberal in interpreting the transcripts, these arguments from my country's representative are all normative interpretations that have no legal basis. If I were an Albanian and I were hoping Uncle Sam would come to court to deliver for me today, I'd be thoroughly disappointed. Any Albanian that honestly thinks the United States blew Russia and Spain out of the legal water today needs to have their head checked.
Just as I thought, the US argument was a complete joke, both legaly and moraly. Now let's pick it apart:
'U.S. legal representative Harold Hongju Koh called on the court to not deal with the larger question of self-determination in international law, but to look at Kosovo as a “unique” case.'
There is absolutely nothing unique about Kosovo. There are dozens of other 'Kosovos' all over the world.
“There is no contradiction between the peacefully proclaimed declaration of Kosovo independence and international law, including Resolution 1244,” he said, according to news agencies.'
Yes, and black is white. UNSC Resolution 1244 guarantees the territorial integrity of Serbia, so yes there is a CLEAR contradiction.
'As evidence, Koh stated that "9 out of 15 members of the UN Security Council" who voted for the resolution, passed in 1999, "later recognized Kosovo". '
So what? They did so under huge pressure from the imperialist powers, and not under their own will. Only three major countries, the US, Germany, and the UK, willingly recognized Kosovo. The rest were pushed and coerced into it, like the little minions that they are.
'He stressed that the unilateral independence declaration “came from a political process which was supervised by the UN Security Council,” and that it is therefore "in accordance with Resolution 1244". '
Ha! This one is quite humourous. How they came to that conclusion that these two are linked...whatever they are smoking I want some.
'Koh reminded that the UN secretary-general’s envoy Martti Ahtisaari stated after failed negotiations that “Kosovo independence is the only sustainable solution.” '
The 'political process' and 'negotiations' were a farce, and this was even admitted by their man Ahtisari, since he confirmed that no matter what the Serbs said he would recommend independence. There were NO negotiations here, and everyone, including Koh, knows it.
'The U.S. representative also stated that Resolution 1244 is "not a guarantee of Serbia’s territorial integrity", but of the "territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which no longer exists", and "only during the period of temporary international administration in Kosovo". '
More complete giberish and blatant lies from the US! Serbia is the successor state of Yugoslavia, everyone knows that! It's truly unbelievable that these dimwits keep repeating this lie. It just shows how desperate they are.
'Koh said that the "independence declaration did not violate the principle of territorial integrity" because, he as he put forward, "according to international law, it must be respected only by the countries, not by internal entities". '
Independence clearly DOES violate the territorial integrity of a country. However I am sure Koh would agree that the independence of Republika Srpska will not violate the territorial integrity of Bosnia :).
'Citing the ruling of the Hague Tribunal in the Milutinović case, Koh suggested that the legitimacy of the independence declaration comes from the fact that the Kosovo Albanians were subject to a campaign of “state-supported violence for years", which "culminated in 1999 when 10,000 Albanians were killed and about a million were displaced.” '
More disgusting lies and propoganda. Only around 2400 were killed, on ALL sides, in this conflict. Any state would do what Serbia did if their civilians, postal workers, policemen, were getting killed almost on a daily basis by KLA terrorists. Serbs in Kosovo are the victims here, from decades of ethnic cleansing and gross mistreatment by albanians. Just look at the complete lack of human rights, freedom of movement, freedom to speak their language, the desecration & destruction of their holy sites (some UNESCO heritage) by the albanians, and then you will know what Serbs have had to endure for centuries and are still enduring today in this illegal NATO 'state'.
Stop writing american fabrications. Serbia fought uck terrorists who wanted to steal Kosmet. There was no ethnic cleansing and no discrimination of albanians. albans enjoyed all the rights in the world. Ethnic cleansing was orcherstrated by america and uck. This whole operation was to occupy Serbian Kosmet - this is the present day status. The dead albanians are uck terrorists, end of story! If america can go across the globe to fight "terrorists" then we can do it too in our own country.
Must be a huge let down to those who beLIEeve the US might is right argument. Oh dear seems US has well and truly entangled itself in its own self made illegal trap - not that they care for international law however now it will be blatant and one where Obama either follows that of Bush - more of the same or does he uphold international law and stay to the principles upon which he stood for election?
I must say that I agree with Mike. The US has made it clear that it is not interested in arguing the legal case before the ICJ. It just repeated the political viewpoint that has already been shown to be extremely dangerous for international peace and stability if accepted by the ICJ. Moreover, the view that Serbia is not the FRY is laughable. It really shows a complete disdain for the proceedings at hand given that this point has already bene addressed by the ICJ itself and is not contested by the other key actors supporting Kosovo's UDI, such as Germany.
The US team have clearly not bothered even to try to put together a legal case. I wonder how this will go down with the judges?
“Both sides have to agree on a solution and the UN Security Council must support it,” Hernandez underscored.
She said that a unilateral secession is not allowed under international law, unless in case it concerns a colony.
Hernandez backed this statement by quoting from last year's EU report on the conflict between Georgia and Russia.'
Nice!! Thank you Spain, and I love the quoting of the EU report on the Russia/Georgia conflict. It just highlights how hypocritical and immmoral and devoid of any principles these 'greater albania' imperialists are.
I look forward to Russia's statements. I also look forward to the US's statements - which I know will be just drivel, propoganda, lies and more fantasy land - twilight zone kind of logic. Anyway, it sould be entertaining.
Cheers!!
Gevorgian also noted that general international law is preventing Kosovo from declaring independence, bearing in mind that the people of Kosovo do not enjoy a right to self-determination.
2 milion people of Kosova do not enjoy the right to self-determination but 50 thousand SO and Abkhazi do,right?
Russia is the best when it comes to international law, what a joke they are!?
This is the exact reason why Serbs are so blinded on the Kosovo issue. They were/are never exposed to the other side of the argument. B-92 yet again failed to mention a word of the oral statements by USA (the absolute strongest statement)or Finland (who was in similar position before its independence). I read the Russian statement in its entirity and I found many good arguments. Spain did the same. However, to offer solid proof and facts no one did like USA, Germany, and Croatia.
There is no doubt that U.S. and Finland have provided arguments that irreversible. Russia and Spain have rather provided reasons why they are against it for reasons understandable to all no.
This is looking very good and Serbia is about to get what it has gone to IJC for, losing Kosovo forever.
"Also, Russia had to kick some NATO trained and armed in Georgia defend the Russian citizens living there.
(Another Canadian Serb, 8 December 2009 14:11)"
Russia was lucky enough that some European states did not agree with George Bush to let Georgia in Nato. You would have seen Putin "not putting" Russian soldiers on the groung in Georgia.
As far as Russians kicking anything we know the answer.
You for one "a Canadian" should side for the soldiers of your own country. But, here is another"committment" to its own.
2 milion people of Kosova do not enjoy the right to self-determination but 50 thousand SO and Abkhazi do,right?
(Kosova-USA, 8 December 2009 15:46)
--
This is about Serbia and Kosovo, not SO or Ab so your point is irrelvent. It has already been pointed out by Spain that the EU called SO and Ab's seccession illegal, just like the UDD. This has helped improve our case.
Serbia's case is unbelievably strong and I am very impressed with the arguments. Negotiations have been going on for decades in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and it's up to the Security Council to decide what to do (in Kosovo), not some paid-off "negotiator" named Attisari.
'As evidence, Koh stated that "9 out of 15 members of the UN Security Council" who voted for the resolution, passed in 1999, "later recognized Kosovo". '
So they went back on their word. That's all that means.
Trying to break a binding contract IS against the law and just because some did it doesn't mean they were right.
Well, Albanians just had their best man have his forty five minutes of uninterrupted speech and he failed them miserably.
''Kosovo has always been Serbian land. All our churches and monasteries are proof of that while the Albanians don't have anything to show. That is evidence enough to win the case.''
Building of churches in lands not their own (read it again, not their own!), was a known practice in order to enable 'the claim' that land is Serb.
You don’t have to look far back at all, the Monastery that was built during Milosevic regime in the centre of Prishtina, to tell the Albanians '' this is Serbia''; those policies don’t work any more, and don’t full anyone.
For your info, the monastery which Milosevic built in the centre of town, still stands and has not been guarded by anyone for at least 2 years, with no damage and with the bright golden cross still shining across the city of Prishtina, capital of Kosovo. You should however remember that building monasteries to entice hatred is wrong, and they should be built to serve their purpose, and that is House of God. Macedonians did a similar thing with a large cross overlooking the town of Skopje and unfortunately Bosnian Croats fell in the same bucket, by doing the same in the city of Mostar.
In fact if you really want to be enlightened in history, learn more about Illyrians, their descendant Albanians, and ethnic maps of Balkans peninsula, just spare us your goof for the benefit of doubt.
Should be very interesting. Substance and legal arguments from Russia vs political spin and moral arguments from the US. Time for the ICJ to prove that it is still an independent body protecting international law.
(kate, 8 December 2009 12:52)
At least you admit that US case is a "moral" one!
1. people of Kosovo do not enjoy a right to self-determination.
2. does not mean that the process has been concluded, Gevorgian said, and added that the Security Council decides on that.
3. Russia also pointed out that "severe violations of Albanians' human rights during the 1990s" cannot serve as justification for the unilateral proclamation made in 2008.
All leading to:
1. who decides that people of kosova do not enjoy a right to self-determination??? Moscow and Bldg??
2. “[…]the process is not concluded the Security Council decides on that” meaning I have the veto power I decide on their fate- according to my convenient belief of point 1 and my (Russian) moral standards of point 3:
3. “"severe violations of Albanians' human rights during the 1990s" cannot serve as justification for the unilateral proclamation made in 2008” – read for me (Russia) I can marry a women (regardless if with her good will or not – it doesn’t matter ) and then rape and mistreat her as I wish- she is mine.
Not to underestimate the old pure arrogant Russian politics: they said here in ICJ all and everything contrary to what they did with Abkhazia and S. Ossetia.
Spain:
“Resolution 1244 was passed with “wise balance between the interests of the two sides” and founded on two basic principles – the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the right of ethnic Albanians for self-determination” – this is res. 1244
“[…]through self-administration and autonomy, Hernandez said.” – this is Spanish interpretation of 1244.
Zapo takes the inter-temporal character of the 1244 and out of his head makes it appear as permanent.
So maybe Zapo can answer why 1244 was calling for negotiations on the FINAL status of Kosova???
I mean since according to Zapo 1244 already says self-admin and autonomy. Following Zapo the status was solved with 1244 and res 1244 should have not called on negotiations for the FINAL status. Those in SC must be crazy and ignorant they don’t know how to write resolutions, or perhaps Mr Zapo in Madrid??? My bet for the second.
But it is nice to hear that 1244 as Spain reconfirms was recognising the right of self determination to Kosova.
All this appearance of Spain is just to say: I have nothing against Kosova’s independence as far as that will not affect my internal fragility, but the solution is not in denying to Kosova he freedom the solution is in persuading your people that staying together you all are stronger.
After Burundi for which Serbia was thinking it will be in her favour and turned out in supporting self-determination of Kosova the Spanish appearance in ICJ exclusively for internal use and purpose constitutes the second great pleasant surprise for Kosova.
Mr Malic from antiwar.org has the best analysis yet:
"Either way, a decision favoring Serbia will fail to sway Washington. There was never any legal backing for either the 1999 war, the subsequent occupation, or the 2008 declaration of "independence" – but the Empire went ahead and did it anyway. The 2003 Iraq war was blatant aggression if ever there was such, and the world basically shrugged it off. Washington and its allies have known full well and all along that their adventures in Kosovo and Iraq were illegal. They simply didn’t care."
If any of the international entries at IC will make any difference to the American bully and its allies (as they have no legal argument to defend Albanian ethnically motivated unilateral secession) will be the Chinese submission to the court.
Why? Everybody knows: because of the China's economic power and the fact that by now China owns so much of the American loans.
Once when the US are out of Kosovo we should give our Chinese friends a little elaborately wrapped present- Camp Bondsteel.
Here we are Russia and Spain said nothing new in their statement.
For Russia which "cares" so much about internationa law. What did Russia mean recognising the "independence" of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and its appeal to other countries to do so? Are they takin the ICJ for stupid?
To Spain what do you really mean a "solution that would be acceptable to both parties"? Are you trying to test the intelligence of the ICJ? An agreement between Serbia and Kosova would have been reached should have not been a war in Kosova. Is Spain "forgeting" what Kosova status was according to 1976 Yugoslavia Constitution? Is Spain "forgeting" what Slobadan Milloshevic the head of state did to Kosova in the name of Serbia? And Spain is talking about Serbia's "generosity" for a broader autonomy...to Kosova. Spain and other countries whom oppose the Kosova's independence. The ICJ will shake your "lost memory" with HARD FACTS about the history of Kosova...
Because of people thinking and reasoning like you do, Kosovo is today independent and recognized fro USA and 22 out of 27 members of the EU.Your watch has stoped in the 1987.More you deny the repression that albanians have suffered from the creation of Yougoslavia to its death, the more you reinforce the idea that only the independence is the solution.I don't understand, you were saying the same things about Montenegro a couple of years ago.Where is Montenegro now?
'He stressed that the unilateral independence declaration “came from a political process which was supervised by the UN Security Council,” and that it is therefore "in accordance with Resolution 1244". '
Supervised YES, approved NO.
Doesn't the UN need to approve a move before it is taken? The US got away with making a move in Iraq which was not approved by the UN so they think they can do the same here.
Not a solid argument at all. Even a person without any law training can see that.
For example, today U.S.A told the court Kosovo's independence is a result of three processes: Disintegration of Yugoslavia, violent human right abuses and a U.N backed negotiation process.
Most of the Media in Kosovo publish arguments presented by Kosovo as well as Serbia. But not B92. This sheds some light on the standards of journalism in Serbia and Kosovo.Just didn't know B92 was part of this Serbian standard.Now we know :)
(BalkanUpdate, 8 December 2009 15:43)
--
Oh, so you mean the US didn't say anything new? That has been repeated a number of times by "the authors of the UDD".
I'm glad those supporting Serbia's case are coming up with new arguments (and strong ones) every day. Now that is news worthy.
"Koh suggested that the legitimacy of the independence declaration comes from the fact that the Kosovo Albanians were subject to a campaign of “state-supported violence for years", which "culminated in 1999 when 10,000 Albanians were killed and about a million were displaced.”
This is the best argument, "state-supported violence for years" against 2 million of their OWN citizens. This is what bothered my all the time. How can a country rightfully and morally do it and after still claim the right to that territory?
Ratko, well said! If there was any genocide then it was directed against Serbs and other non-albanians in KosMet. Unfortunately, our politicians dont talk about serbian suffering. We need to hear more of that.
"Sure, they can "declare" it - but they still have to convince other states that they deserve to be recognized." (Amer)
-- Yes, but take a look at other parastates in the world that are "recognized" by a small handfull of countries. Do they really care about needing to achieve full status? TRNC has been theoretically "independent" for 35 years and seems to be doing fine with only Turkey supporting it. The same goes for Ab and SO: does Georgia have any hope of reclaiming them? I presume the same would fare for RS, should it declare. Kosovo could gain 50 more recognitions, or be reduced to 5 countries recognizing it, and it still wouldn't, in my opinion, change its internal dynamics. Even if Kosovo's legality for existence falls within a gray area, it opens the door for other would-be statelets to throw their own destiny to the wind. How many parastates would we then have?
Mirub, if you actually had a coherent point to your comment, I'd respond.
Are you trying to falsificate even reports from international trial? Or, are you trying to give advance to Serbia not posting declarations of the countries who are in a favor of Kosovo independence?!
Whatever you do you can not change facts:
USA: 'Let Kosovo independence alone because it is will of the people and factor of stability in Balkans.'
America's arguments are by far the most logical and well versed so far.
My favorite part: "No fewer than 115 of the world's nations have treated Kosovo as a State, by either formally recognizing it or voting for its admission to international financial institutions."
Finnish representative Koskenranta on Martti Ahtisaari:
"Surely best placed to determine this is the chief negotiator, who, as we all know, also happened to receive the Nobel Peace prize for brokering peace not only in Kosovo but in many places, including Namibia, Bosnia Herzegovina and Aceh."
Best joke I ever heard!
In August 2003, five months after the United States invaded Iraq, Ahtisaari made it known that as far as he was concerned, the war was justified:
“Knowing that about a million people have been killed by the Iraqi government, I don’t really need those weapons of mass destruction.”
Basically he never thought that he will get Nobel peace prize for his previous efforts, but guess what happened, Kosovo declared independence and Martti got it in the same year! How pathetic!
"BTW, I'm glad somebody finally got around to pointing out that Belgrade has already stated that it does not intend to recognize Kosovo despite an adverse ruling. After all the concern Serbia's side has shown for upholding the authority of the Security Council it's interesting to see how they intend to undercut that of the ICJ.
(Amer, 8 December 2009 23:35)"
In fairness neither side will abide by the opinion. The US oral evidence is testimony to that. Don't you think that Serbia has played a blinder on this? For most people in the West, Kosovo was history and an issue that had unprecedented support. Now, in Europe at least, there is quite a bit of a predisposition in the public to go against US/UK/Western foreign policy. It's a different audience and there is no ethnic cleansing going on. The only people under threat are the Serbs in Kosovo. To that add the fact that the proceedings are likely to reinforce divisions then I can't see how this will do anything other than better Serbia's position. Albeit, recognitions may follow but the barriers are stronger that ever.
The irony of it all is if you take away nationalism, ethnicity, revenge and the need to win I am sure there is a compromise there.
"Russian representative reminded that the UN Security Council declared Northern Cyprus and Rhodesia's independence to be illegal, since secession is forbidden outside the colonial context."
That's because the secession of "Rhodesia" and Northern Cyprus were illegal, for well-established reasons related to the particular cases, as would be the secession of "RS" from Bosnia, whereas the secessions of Bangladesh (from Pakistan) in 1971 and of Eritrea (from Ethiopia) in 1991 were not. The case of Kosovo is much closer to that of the latter two, both of which were also "outside the colonial context"
Having now read through the transcripts provided, I've noticed a few interesting statements made by my country's delegation that bears significant risks for international stability, should Kosovo's case be affirmed by the ICJ:
1. "international law does not regulate declarations of independence, nor is there anything about Kosovo’s particular Declaration that would render it not “in accordance with international law”
-- This effectively means that there is no provision of international law that would, or should, prevent any political body from declaring independence. My country's rationale for Kosovo's UDI is that Kosovo's declaration is not outside the framework of international law because no such framework exists. This to me is a Straw Man argument. It basically implies an action could be taken and defended because there's no law against it. In other words, the cop didn’t see me run the red light, so therefore I didn’t run the red light. Or better yet, there wasn’t a red light to run.
2. "a declaration neither constitutes nor establishes political independence; it announces a political reality or aspiration that must then be achieved by other means."
-- So does that mean Kosovo isn't an independent state since a declaration doesn't really do much other than establish collective intent? What "means" must therefore be done, and isn't it a fair argument to make that if any "means" are currently being undertaken, Serbia and other states are undertaking "countermeans" to effectively leave Kosovo within a stalemate? Isn’t the “political reality” in Kosovo more of an international protectorate than a “functioning state”? If sizeable areas of this so-called country are not on Pristina’s grid (not just Serb areas but most of Metohija which answers to Haradinaj), a “functioning state” is a far cry from the “political reality”.
3. "Declaring independence is fundamentally an act of popular will - a political act, made by a body politic, which other States then decide whether to recognize or not."
-- This in my opinion is the most dangerous statement made because it effectively implies than any Tom Dick and Harry secessionist group can declare independence and then say "vox populi" as a form of defense. By this logic, there should be nothing keeping RS within Bosnia, or Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia. Or northern Kosovo within Kosovo. This statement effectively gives legitimate credence to parastates that don’t even need international recognition; just a few client states to keep it afloat. Yet further down, my country feels the need to qualify such careless statements with "Kosovo is a special case", for reasons that I have still to hear.
I must say that the one potential cog in Russia's wheel is defending Serbia's territorial integrity while violating Georgia's. Yet in spite of that, we see that Russia is keeping it within a legal framework, while my country's grand strategy is to employ normative one-way interpretations of an incredibly controversial historical event as a smoke screen for its own interests.
I'm talking about the hudreds of churches and monasteries build in Kosovo by Serbs in the 13th and 14th century, not the one built in Pristina during Milosevic. If Albanians were in Kosovo before everyone else where is proof of their existence?
After reading the US defence of Kosovo independence there is no way Serbia can loose this case unless the judges are bribed by the US. The americans are making up international law as they go along. The legality behind their decision to recognize Kosovo is only to serve their own interests and has nothing to do with what is right and wrong. As long as the world is split and as long as Serbia doesn't recognize, Kosovo will always be Serbias southern province occupied by albanians and their american allies.
Ratko is 100% right, most of the dead Albanians were UCK terrorists and also Albanian citizans were killed by the UCK, but people like you can only blaim the guilty to the Serbs and not to your people who were killing their own people.
I don't give a damn what countries like USA and some EU countries are saying, resolution 1244 is clear and a big majority in the world is agree with that.
And get some education, then you will learn that you can not compare a republic (Montenegro) with an province (Kosovo & Metohija).
It's all good. No matter what some countries like Spain say it doesn't matter. It'a a will of a free nation to declare indepedence and it happened now you all live with it.
About Spain, I am from a city of Istog close to Peja and we did have a peacekeeppers from Spain, on the day they left this old Albanian man started crying because they were leaving, commander of Spanish troops was so surprised to see old man ctying and asked him "why are you crying for us, our country didn't recognized Kosovo's independence yet" the old m an responds "you have discovered America and that is enough for us". :)
Relax people really getting to emotional this just a court hearing. Dont forget NON binding, Serbia wont accept its ruling either way. this is just some proof to calm the Nationalist at home.
Nothing is changing no Negotiations no recognition from Serbia any time soon 10 years minimum 2 weeks before EU entry of Serbia.
USA is not going any place, China is not becoming going to default on Loans. And Russia will have Putin as leader.
Kosovo will be same it was yesterday some will recognize some wont fine.
Relax guys K-Albaninas you still got what you wnat and so did Vuk.
No Serb has idea how to integrate 2million people in Serbia their solutions are only the territory.
Develop Kosovo with countries that have recognized you the rest fine no worry. Even USA does not do Business with 193 countries.
Mirub, I see you are very confused.
Russia and China voted for Res 1244 and China explained that what they voted for then is not what they are trying to make Res be now and if they were going to change Res 1244 or interpret it in a way it was not meant to be interpreted then they would've never voted for it.
In other words, the west is trying to find ways to interpret something THEY signed in a totally different spirit in which it was meant.
I hope things are a little more clearer to you now. So when I said they are taking their word back, that is exactly what they are doing.
Peggy wrote "So they went back on their word. That's all that means."
No. Armed with absolute truth they confirmed their action by recognizing Kosovojust as they did by voting for the 1244 that allows Kosovo to declare Independence.
How ironic, Russia, China and some others actually voted for the resolution. Despite their own objections -they themselves approved it.
Why vote for something you initially object so adamently?
They didn't care enough for the situation, and now, suddenly trying to hang on any language and reference out of context on 1244 by saying -this must be why we voted for the resolution.
"If someone isn't handsome by nature, it's useless for them to wash over and over again." (Corsican proverb)
"How can a country rightfully and morally do it and after still claim the right to that territory?" (Joe)
-- I agree with you that this can be one of the more sound arguments in this case, but we need to be careful in making this a legal clause. Historical memories of nations are replete with memories of collective suffering at the hands of state-sponsored repression by the "other". If such an argument becomes a legal basis, Serbs of Kosovo have just as much right to claim equal measures of repression from Albanians. If everyone suddenly plays the victimization card as a means of autonomy/secession, borders more than the one in Serbia's southern underbelly could be redrawn.
# "Koh suggested that the legitimacy of the independence declaration comes from the fact that the Kosovo Albanians were subject to a campaign of “state-supported violence for years", which "culminated in 1999 when 10,000 Albanians were killed and about a million were displaced.”
This is the best argument, "state-supported violence for years" against 2 million of their OWN citizens. This is what bothered my all the time. How can a country rightfully and morally do it and after still claim the right to that territory?
(Joe, 8 December 2009 19:24)
thank you Joe -- this is what we've been saying since 1999 -- above and beyond all the other horrors inflicted during the 90s from you know who.
and because of that, the icj will never rule against Kosovo/a, and never rule in favor of serbia.
and hopefully that will help things to progress, altho it is always wise to stay a bit on guard...
Negotiations have been going on for decades in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and it's up to the Security Council to decide what to do (in Kosovo)
(Zoran, 8 December 2009 17:34)
Well Zoran, we are not Palestinians anymore. What its said, is done now. All this ICJ thingy is "too much noise about nothing".
Mike wrote among other:"By this logic, there should be nothing keeping RS within Bosnia, or Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia. Or northern Kosovo within Kosovo."
RS stays within Bosnia for the SC Resolution of 1992 directs so. ABkazia and SO are directed by SC as problems to be solved within Georgia. Both resolution agreed upon by Russia.
Northern Kosovo (if there is such a thing)is a redecule matter to be addressed in this line of argument.
When one addresses only excerpts from a larger statement one can make even the Bill of Rights look like the Nazi proclamation of Crystal Night. Your country's statement was based on practicality of the matter at hand. As Germany argued the International legality of Independence, Croatia argued on Kosovo's right as a regional factor. There was Austria with its detailed argument for Kosovo's legal right and Albania used historical facts. Others uesd the Human Rights argument.
So, as you figured out already it fell upon USA to debate the practical side of the argument and they did a mighty good job.
I must say that the one potential cog in Russia's wheel is defending Serbia's territorial integrity while violating Georgia's.
(Mike, 8 December 2009 20:26)
indeed, but I still think that violating Georgia's territorial integrity was essentially a farce - just to "mimic" the bombing of 1999 and the handling of Kosovo. I had that feeling all the time and I was surprised that some of Georgia's politicians do share that opinion.
---
Very careless arguments made by my country.
(Mike, 8 December 2009 20:26)
Let's see it from an other angle for better understanding. I was surprised that a well-known Youtube-urban-legend "FRY ≠ Serbia" did show up. From any (but American) point of view it is an unprofessional and careless argument. But we should not forget, American law practice (like healthcare system) is one of very sick puppies. Accepted law practice is "throw as much s**t as you can against the wall - hope, some will stick to it". It's not an accepted practice in most of the world and this is a culture difference.
We should regard that ridiculous "FRY ≠ Serbia" argument as part of against-the-wall-dirt-throwing tactics so common. If by any chance the ICJ judges aren't used to that - than Serbia had a big mighty luck today, thanks to US-ignorance.
Not the first time - remember the "reset button" presented by Billary to Putin so amateurish way it became a joke?
I just can re-iterate: why, oh why they can't employ more professional people?
I read the transcript and what is more discussing to me is that some nation mentioned that kosovo has no right of self dermination .so why serbia does?montenegro etc?
and another issue I would like to raise to this posters why this matter didnt end up in court before so many massacres happened in kosovo. After a war there is a winner and this court has no power to change anything.you all are waisting your time .
"3. "Declaring independence is fundamentally an act of popular will - a political act, made by a body politic, which other States then decide whether to recognize or not."
-- This in my opinion is the most dangerous statement made because it effectively implies than any Tom Dick and Harry secessionist group can declare independence and then say "vox populi" as a form of defense."
Sure, they can "declare" it - but they still have to convince other states that they deserve to be recognized. Don't you remember how the U.S. came into being? As the Brits pointed out in their oral statement, they were originally against it, but came to accept it. The Finns today observed that their declaration of independence from the Russian Empire was also considered illegal by the Russians at the time, but they were recognized by foreign countries despite this. Yugoslavia claimed at the time that Slovenia and Croatia declared independence illegally (although they later claimed that it was legal under the constitution then in effect)... And so it goes. It's not a matter of theoretical legality, it's a matter of being able to make a claim stick that conveys statehood. But that's not the question, which is simply "is [? shouldn't that be "was"?]the DoI legal"?
BTW, I'm glad somebody finally got around to pointing out that Belgrade has already stated that it does not intend to recognize Kosovo despite an adverse ruling. After all the concern Serbia's side has shown for upholding the authority of the Security Council it's interesting to see how they intend to undercut that of the ICJ.
This must be a court of saints, not mere human justices, to sit there patiently while the same arguments are presented - in slightly different formulations - over and over and over again.
And their reward, when it's all over, will surely be to be reviled and ignored by the losing side.
Having been to Georgia I am not convinced it is as black and white. It certainly is not the beacon of democracy it is portrayed to be. I tend to think the Georgians (Government) picked a fight in the mistaken impression that naming a street after Bush would guarantee Western support :p On my flight there, and this is before the conflict, it was full of US military and defence contractors. I was talking to one and he was telling me about real time battle software that can tell the "good guys" from the "bad guys".
anyway, they put on a boney m concert on in SO to show that life was better with Georgia...a human rights abuse if I ever saw one.
Koh suggested that the legitimacy of the independence declaration comes from the fact that the Kosovo Albanians were subject to a campaign of “state-supported violence for years", which "culminated in 1999 when 10,000 Albanians were killed and about a million were displaced"
???? How many Kurds was killed by turkish or iraqi army???? Where is US support for independent Kurdistan?? How many Tamils were killed by Sri Lankan army???? Where is US support for independent Ilam???? How many Tibetans were killed by chinese army?? Where is US support for independent Tibet????
Serbia owes Kosovo more than 30 billion euros. Pay the reparations first, and then we can talk about new negotiations. You simply can’t, kill and burn your own citizens and still wish to rule them through a fonny technical document called 1244 which it applies to former Yugoslavia, and that union no longer exists. What Serbia is trying to do is escape the war reparation responsibility which it owes not only to Kosovo, but Bosnia and Croatia too. What Kosovo, Bosnia and Croatia ought to do is take Serbia to ICJ, and as long as it doesn’t pay for the damages, it should never be allowed to enter EU.
"As for Abkhazia and So. Ossetia, maybe the best thing is for them to experience the delights of Russian rule as compared to Georgian rule for a few years." (Amer)
-- You may be right on that. I can't really say the lot of these peoples' lives will dramatically improve now that Moscow runs the program. But do/did they really have a say in the matter? I've always felt Moscow had this planned all along. Can't say I approve of it any more or less than Washington's plans for Kosovo. Or Bosnia for that matter. But if the general sentiment to my comments congeals around indifference to states with hybrid sovereignty (Kosovo, RS, SO, etc), I'm still uneasy about such entities. Those states that *are* recognized and have hybrid sovereignty have proven to be extremely weak and volatile.
Your brief history of the region however bears striking similarities to Kosovo as well - the land going from one medieval power to another. I have a feeling that all three will remain under definitive international control for the foreseeable future.
"He was probably talking about his new gameboy game! People who have security clearances high enough to have knowledge of such things do not tell strangers on a plane such information.
(pss, 10 December 2009 02:30)"
He was a contractor. I have no reason not to believe him. There was also a navy guy who struck me as being a very very smart guy - he said nothing about why he was there other than training. It was hardly a secret was it?
btw it's well worth a visit and the people are extremely hospitable.
'I was surprised that a well-known Youtube-urban-legend "FRY ≠ Serbia" did show up. From any (but American) point of view it is an unprofessional and careless argument.'
I didn't understand the problem until I read the written comment - the idea was that in 1244 they wanted to leave open as many options for a solution as possible. Having Kosovo enter the FRY as a third republic, on the level with Serbia and Montenegro, was one such possibility they didn't want to rule out. The idea was not that Kosovo be made a part of Serbia, but of the FRY. When the FRY was succeeded by Serbia, this option no longer existed.
"I've always felt Moscow had this planned all along."
Ditto!
"I have a feeling that all three [Kosovo, Abkhazia, So. Ossetia] will remain under definitive international control for the foreseeable future."
For Abkhazia, this would be a best-case scenario, but Russia has kicked out even international observers, much less allowed any kind of international control.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/multimedia/2009/12/07/091207_audioslideshow_platon
nothing to do with this, but very interesting, B92 should have seen this!!
Mike said: "How many parastates would we then have? "
It doesn't matter how many of them are there or exist. That is of no importance at all. What is of importance is not to have Serbia like state's that systematically and willfully persecute, murder and rape those it considers to be its own citizens. Not only that but at the height of what it considered to be a full blown democracy, it denies the right to vote to the very same popullation that it had persecuted, murdered and raped. Given the options para-states not only are the better option when the other option is a tyrannical state.
I did not get something from Spain's argument. Spain said "According to the resolution, a future status of Kosovo must be the result of a political process, and agreement between the two sides". Can anybody point to the part of resolution 1244 which says that "agreement between the two sides" is needed ?
In the future there will be more than 193 countries...you can bet on that. It is a states RIGHT to recognize another entity, not some "international law" which are actually guidelines.
China isn't recognized by 21 UN member STATES and that country is doing just fine. The most important factor for a new state is to be recognized by it's neighbors..especially since trade & defense are the most important to its' affairs....not if some country in the other side of the world recognizes it.
The future states will have hybrid-sovereignty...territorial integrity will change as we know it (EU, AU, SCO, American Union, etc).
"I tend to think the Georgians (Government) picked a fight in the mistaken impression that naming a street after Bush would guarantee Western support :p"
I'm pretty sure they thought they could count on more than they actually could. I'll always wonder what John McCain implied to his good friend Saakashvili - "We'll all be Georgians if Russia attacks" ? (I'll also always wonder why in the devil the Georgians didn't make every attempt to close the Roki tunnel the very first thing.)
About the weapons: a lot better if we'd sent investments in the non-military economy - give everybody in the world a job and watch tensions relax. With all the work that needs to be done in the world, why is this so hard?
Yes they are proud of their wine and will, more than once, tell you it is the origins of wine. The wine is good but the chacha is lethal. Tee-total is not an option there :)
Say Kosovo opens the door for Tibet, RS, Kurtish republic etc.
1) this is not a bad thing
2) Did kosovo say we are against this.
3) If RS declares independence does it become a country or goes becomes part of Serbia.
I do think RS should not be part of Bosnia in long run they will both be better. But it seems u have just small hurdle in 787 (but would it be great RS becomes independent on Kosovo precedent)
Everyone here keeps bringing arguments no country is going to do anything differant that they did before.
Montenegro opens Embassy, other countries Vuk begged to wait after rulling will say sorry Vuk we will go ahead with it. Some will say we got your back.
I agree that Kosovo will continue its jurney alone:
I liked this analogy today:
40. Mr. President, in its presentation yesterday, Cyprus pointedly sought to analogize the 1244 process to the heart-wrenching, but misleading, case where a parent sends a small child off to State supervision, only to lose her forever. But upon reflection, the far better analogy would be to acknowledge the futility of the State forcing an adult child to return to an abusive home against her will, particularly where the parent and child have already long lived apart, and where repeated efforts at reconciliation have reached impasse. There, as here, declaring independence would be the only viable option, and would certainly be in accordance with law.
Peggy said: "Doesn't the UN need to approve a move before it is taken?"
Short answer. No it doesn't need to approve anything. That is simply because the UN is not the World's Government. Surely those UNSC memebr yield a lot of power but until it is official and written black on white that the UN IS the World's government then the UN doesn't need to approve anything. It can approve if it wants and there is a will but it DOESN"T NEED TO. There is a fundamental difference there.
'Even if Kosovo's legality for existence falls within a gray area, it opens the door for other would-be statelets to throw their own destiny to the wind. How many parastates would we then have?'
I'm not convinced that many territories are going to try for statehood based solely on Kosovo's experience. In fact, it may convince some existing states that it would be a good idea to consider how they treat their minorities to prevent them from even thinking about taking such a step.
As for Abkhazia and So. Ossetia, maybe the best thing is for them to experience the delights of Russian rule as compared to Georgian rule for a few years. Especially if Georgia continues to develop the way it was developing prior to the economic downturn. Rich Russians are already buying up everything in sight in Abkhazia, and with a population of less than 250,000 - a mid-size city - how are they going to maintain control of their own country? In the Middle Ages there was a Kingdom of Abkhazia, Georgia, (and some other places). Later, Abkhazia switched back and forth between Ottoman and Russian rule. Nothing's forever with Abkhazia, it seems.
The disunity of the UN Securtiy Council members allows only one clear conclusion: there exists nothing like international law in specific cases.
What have we heard so far? Different opinions defending national interests only. Thus it's a talkshop without any relevance - which will result in a ICJ decision without any binding.
Serbia looses time and engergy for a process, which cannot be reversed.
On my flight there, and this is before the conflict, it was full of US military and defence contractors. I was talking to one and he was telling me about real time battle software that can tell the "good guys" from the "bad guys".
anyway, they put on a boney m concert on in SO to show that life was better with Georgia...a human rights abuse if I ever saw one.
(Mister, 9 December 2009 23:38)
He was probably talking about his new gameboy game! People who have security clearances high enough to have knowledge of such things do not tell strangers on a plane such information.
'There was also a navy guy who struck me as being a very very smart guy - he said nothing about why he was there other than training. It was hardly a secret was it?'
Hardly, not with Georgia sending troops to Iraq. Unfortunately for Georgia, they were being trained to provide security for truck routes (or river patrols?) - not for homeland defense.
'btw it's well worth a visit and the people are extremely hospitable.
(mister, 10 December 2009 13:27) '
Serbs and their communist friends are never going to win this case. I as a rational human being can not see any other solution than independence.
Serbs did not manage to win Kosovo through 100-year long cruel persecution, what makes you think this will happen through pen-for-hire quasi-interpreters of international law?
It is interesting how B92 has decided to show only the arguments of Spain and Russia and not the one made by Finland and USA while media in Kosova show all four.Objective?
So, america will defend the theft of Kosovo. Americas credibility after Vietnam, South America, Irak, Afganistan and the warcrimes agains Serbia is not very high. The only way America and the illegal declaration of Kosovo independence is through pressure and blackmail by the americans.
Kosovo has always been Serbian land. All our churches and monasteries are proof of that while the albanians don't have anything to show. That is evidence enough to win the case.
This is the exact reason why Serbs are so blinded on the Kosovo issue. They were/are never exposed to the other side of the argument. B-92 yet again failed to mention a word of the oral statements by USA (the absolute strongest statement)or Finland (who was in similar position before its independence). I read the Russian statement in its entirity and I found many good arguments. Spain did the same. However, to offer solid proof and facts no one did like USA, Germany, and Croatia.
There is no doubt that U.S. and Finland have provided arguments that irreversible. Russia and Spain have rather provided reasons why they are against it for reasons understandable to all no.
This is looking very good and Serbia is about to get what it has gone to IJC for, losing Kosovo forever.
Interesting to note that B92 finds it newsworthy to publish all pro Serbian arguments , but not a single one that supports Kosovo. For example, today U.S.A told the court Kosovo's independence is a result of three processes: Disintegration of Yugoslavia, violent human right abuses and a U.N backed negotiation process.
Most of the Media in Kosovo publish arguments presented by Kosovo as well as Serbia. But not B92. This sheds some light on the standards of journalism in Serbia and Kosovo.Just didn't know B92 was part of this Serbian standard.Now we know :)
Spain gives great significance to the protection of human and minority rights, she said but rejected claims that repression of Kosovo Albanians during the 1990s justify unilateral secession.
---
12,000 massacred, 800,000 thrown out, 140,000 houses destroyed are not enough said Spain. Call us when 120,000 people are killed.
''Kosovo has always been Serbian land. All our churches and monasteries are proof of that while the Albanians don't have anything to show. That is evidence enough to win the case.''
Building of churches in lands not their own (read it again, not their own!), was a known practice in order to enable 'the claim' that land is Serb.
You don’t have to look far back at all, the Monastery that was built during Milosevic regime in the centre of Prishtina, to tell the Albanians '' this is Serbia''; those policies don’t work any more, and don’t full anyone.
For your info, the monastery which Milosevic built in the centre of town, still stands and has not been guarded by anyone for at least 2 years, with no damage and with the bright golden cross still shining across the city of Prishtina, capital of Kosovo. You should however remember that building monasteries to entice hatred is wrong, and they should be built to serve their purpose, and that is House of God. Macedonians did a similar thing with a large cross overlooking the town of Skopje and unfortunately Bosnian Croats fell in the same bucket, by doing the same in the city of Mostar.
In fact if you really want to be enlightened in history, learn more about Illyrians, their descendant Albanians, and ethnic maps of Balkans peninsula, just spare us your goof for the benefit of doubt.
The arguments presented by China and Cyprus yesterday were extremely strong. I am certainly more confident of Serbia's case than I might have been a few days ago. As I had noted then, it appears as though the arguments put forward by the states favouring independence had come down to a technicality on the question of whether a unilateral declaration of independence can be legal or illegal, or whether it just is. I had thought that this might be the way out that the Court needed. That was until I came across something very interesting that I haven't seen this addressed elsewhere.
It appears that this question of whether a UDI should be regarded as a neutral act was actually answered 26 years ago in Resolution 541, passed in response to the UDI by the Turkish Cypriots. In the resolution, it states that the Security Council:
1. Deplores the declaration of the Turkish Cypriot authorities of the purported secession of part of the Republic of Cyprus;
2. Considers the declaration referred to above as legally invalid and calls for its withdrawal;
Of course, one can argue that the circumstances of the case were different and that they were arguing that the UDI was legally invalid in light of the 1960 Treaties establishing Cyprus. But this is not the point. The point is that the Council clearly stated that the declaration was ‘legally invalid’. In other words, the Council (which included the US, France and Britain) stated that a unilateral declaration of independence was contrary to international law. They have therefore taken the view that a declaration of independence is not simply a fact that is neutral under international law. It can be judged as being contrary to (or in accordance with) international law. It is not a neutral act.
I trust that the judges will take this into account. It seems to have closed the only remaining loophole that the supporters of independence had been relying on!
Michael R.
A few days ago you asked me to comment on why I think that the sui generis argument does not hold water if one breaks it down point by point. (Remembering that in a judicial process you have to examine the component parts of the case individually. This is why judgements are often so long. They have to address a number of specific points.) Here is my answer:
1) As has been stressed many times, Kosovo may have enjoyed a special status in Yugoslavia. However, it did not enjoy a right to secession (even notional). If the case can be presented that an autonomous area in fact enjoys the right of secession under international law it will have an enormous impact elsewhere. I am sure that no one wants to see this point accepted. Apart from anything else, even if the Court rules in favour of Kosovo, it will open the way for an act of counter-secession by RS.
2) The argument about human rights abuses is also a non-starter. No one denies atrocities were committed against the Kosovo Albanians. But this has happened in many other conflicts. However, in all other cases we call for reconciliation and solutions based on autonomy. Kosovo cannot be allowed to make the case for independence on the basis of past wrongs without this then being extended to others. The effects of this would also be enormous. Again, no one wants to see this happen.
3) The argument that the period of international administration needs to be taken into account is also highly risky. As has been pointed out, if this argument were to be accepted it would in effect remove the UN's ability to act anywhere. States would simply reject its presence - a current cornerstone of UN peace operations (as opposed to enforcement actions). I am sure that the judges, as well as supporters of independence do not want this to happen.
Once again, I should stress that it is very noticeable that the sui generis argument has been played down by the states supporting UDI. They obviously realise that it is a very weak argument and that on each of its substantive points a ruling accepting the argument would have very severe ramifications elsewhere. To this extent, Serbia owes Cyprus a lot for its intervention. As has already been pointed out, the Cypriots made an excellent point that in accepting one example as being sui generis it must open the way for others to be regarded in such a light.
Also I don’t think that the KA case has been served very well. Many of the presentations have argued pure politics and have used history to try to muddy the waters. For instance, the argument about Kosovo being snatched by Serbia was ridiculous. If that line of argument is taken the entire map of Europe would change overnight. Likewise, Croatia’s presentation focused on the SFRY. This was pointless. The matter of Kosovo’s position within the FRY was recognised in 1999. Its status in the SFRY is irrelevant. (And please no more about Serbia being different from the FRY. Again, this argument has not been used by a single actor in this case – either for or against UDI.)
Really, I think that the legal case for Serbia is unbelievably strong. To be honest, I had my doubts a couple of days ago. But after reading the recent presentations, and considering the point about resolution 541, I really think that, on legal grounds, Serbia is now in a very good position.
Stop writing american fabrications. Serbia fought uck terrorists who wanted to steal Kosmet. There was no ethnic cleansing and no discrimination of albanians. albans enjoyed all the rights in the world. Ethnic cleansing was orcherstrated by america and uck. This whole operation was to occupy Serbian Kosmet - this is the present day status. The dead albanians are uck terrorists, end of story! If america can go across the globe to fight "terrorists" then we can do it too in our own country.
Mr Malic from antiwar.org has the best analysis yet:
"Either way, a decision favoring Serbia will fail to sway Washington. There was never any legal backing for either the 1999 war, the subsequent occupation, or the 2008 declaration of "independence" – but the Empire went ahead and did it anyway. The 2003 Iraq war was blatant aggression if ever there was such, and the world basically shrugged it off. Washington and its allies have known full well and all along that their adventures in Kosovo and Iraq were illegal. They simply didn’t care."
Should be very interesting. Substance and legal arguments from Russia vs political spin and moral arguments from the US. Time for the ICJ to prove that it is still an independent body protecting international law.
Gevorgian also noted that general international law is preventing Kosovo from declaring independence, bearing in mind that the people of Kosovo do not enjoy a right to self-determination.
2 milion people of Kosova do not enjoy the right to self-determination but 50 thousand SO and Abkhazi do,right?
Russia is the best when it comes to international law, what a joke they are!?
1. people of Kosovo do not enjoy a right to self-determination.
2. does not mean that the process has been concluded, Gevorgian said, and added that the Security Council decides on that.
3. Russia also pointed out that "severe violations of Albanians' human rights during the 1990s" cannot serve as justification for the unilateral proclamation made in 2008.
All leading to:
1. who decides that people of kosova do not enjoy a right to self-determination??? Moscow and Bldg??
2. “[…]the process is not concluded the Security Council decides on that” meaning I have the veto power I decide on their fate- according to my convenient belief of point 1 and my (Russian) moral standards of point 3:
3. “"severe violations of Albanians' human rights during the 1990s" cannot serve as justification for the unilateral proclamation made in 2008” – read for me (Russia) I can marry a women (regardless if with her good will or not – it doesn’t matter ) and then rape and mistreat her as I wish- she is mine.
Not to underestimate the old pure arrogant Russian politics: they said here in ICJ all and everything contrary to what they did with Abkhazia and S. Ossetia.
Spain:
“Resolution 1244 was passed with “wise balance between the interests of the two sides” and founded on two basic principles – the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the right of ethnic Albanians for self-determination” – this is res. 1244
“[…]through self-administration and autonomy, Hernandez said.” – this is Spanish interpretation of 1244.
Zapo takes the inter-temporal character of the 1244 and out of his head makes it appear as permanent.
So maybe Zapo can answer why 1244 was calling for negotiations on the FINAL status of Kosova???
I mean since according to Zapo 1244 already says self-admin and autonomy. Following Zapo the status was solved with 1244 and res 1244 should have not called on negotiations for the FINAL status. Those in SC must be crazy and ignorant they don’t know how to write resolutions, or perhaps Mr Zapo in Madrid??? My bet for the second.
But it is nice to hear that 1244 as Spain reconfirms was recognising the right of self determination to Kosova.
All this appearance of Spain is just to say: I have nothing against Kosova’s independence as far as that will not affect my internal fragility, but the solution is not in denying to Kosova he freedom the solution is in persuading your people that staying together you all are stronger.
After Burundi for which Serbia was thinking it will be in her favour and turned out in supporting self-determination of Kosova the Spanish appearance in ICJ exclusively for internal use and purpose constitutes the second great pleasant surprise for Kosova.
Just as I thought, the US argument was a complete joke, both legaly and moraly. Now let's pick it apart:
'U.S. legal representative Harold Hongju Koh called on the court to not deal with the larger question of self-determination in international law, but to look at Kosovo as a “unique” case.'
There is absolutely nothing unique about Kosovo. There are dozens of other 'Kosovos' all over the world.
“There is no contradiction between the peacefully proclaimed declaration of Kosovo independence and international law, including Resolution 1244,” he said, according to news agencies.'
Yes, and black is white. UNSC Resolution 1244 guarantees the territorial integrity of Serbia, so yes there is a CLEAR contradiction.
'As evidence, Koh stated that "9 out of 15 members of the UN Security Council" who voted for the resolution, passed in 1999, "later recognized Kosovo". '
So what? They did so under huge pressure from the imperialist powers, and not under their own will. Only three major countries, the US, Germany, and the UK, willingly recognized Kosovo. The rest were pushed and coerced into it, like the little minions that they are.
'He stressed that the unilateral independence declaration “came from a political process which was supervised by the UN Security Council,” and that it is therefore "in accordance with Resolution 1244". '
Ha! This one is quite humourous. How they came to that conclusion that these two are linked...whatever they are smoking I want some.
'Koh reminded that the UN secretary-general’s envoy Martti Ahtisaari stated after failed negotiations that “Kosovo independence is the only sustainable solution.” '
The 'political process' and 'negotiations' were a farce, and this was even admitted by their man Ahtisari, since he confirmed that no matter what the Serbs said he would recommend independence. There were NO negotiations here, and everyone, including Koh, knows it.
'The U.S. representative also stated that Resolution 1244 is "not a guarantee of Serbia’s territorial integrity", but of the "territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which no longer exists", and "only during the period of temporary international administration in Kosovo". '
More complete giberish and blatant lies from the US! Serbia is the successor state of Yugoslavia, everyone knows that! It's truly unbelievable that these dimwits keep repeating this lie. It just shows how desperate they are.
'Koh said that the "independence declaration did not violate the principle of territorial integrity" because, he as he put forward, "according to international law, it must be respected only by the countries, not by internal entities". '
Independence clearly DOES violate the territorial integrity of a country. However I am sure Koh would agree that the independence of Republika Srpska will not violate the territorial integrity of Bosnia :).
'Citing the ruling of the Hague Tribunal in the Milutinović case, Koh suggested that the legitimacy of the independence declaration comes from the fact that the Kosovo Albanians were subject to a campaign of “state-supported violence for years", which "culminated in 1999 when 10,000 Albanians were killed and about a million were displaced.” '
More disgusting lies and propoganda. Only around 2400 were killed, on ALL sides, in this conflict. Any state would do what Serbia did if their civilians, postal workers, policemen, were getting killed almost on a daily basis by KLA terrorists. Serbs in Kosovo are the victims here, from decades of ethnic cleansing and gross mistreatment by albanians. Just look at the complete lack of human rights, freedom of movement, freedom to speak their language, the desecration & destruction of their holy sites (some UNESCO heritage) by the albanians, and then you will know what Serbs have had to endure for centuries and are still enduring today in this illegal NATO 'state'.
# "Koh suggested that the legitimacy of the independence declaration comes from the fact that the Kosovo Albanians were subject to a campaign of “state-supported violence for years", which "culminated in 1999 when 10,000 Albanians were killed and about a million were displaced.”
This is the best argument, "state-supported violence for years" against 2 million of their OWN citizens. This is what bothered my all the time. How can a country rightfully and morally do it and after still claim the right to that territory?
(Joe, 8 December 2009 19:24)
thank you Joe -- this is what we've been saying since 1999 -- above and beyond all the other horrors inflicted during the 90s from you know who.
and because of that, the icj will never rule against Kosovo/a, and never rule in favor of serbia.
and hopefully that will help things to progress, altho it is always wise to stay a bit on guard...
Should be very interesting. Substance and legal arguments from Russia vs political spin and moral arguments from the US. Time for the ICJ to prove that it is still an independent body protecting international law.
(kate, 8 December 2009 12:52)
At least you admit that US case is a "moral" one!
Hmm, I'm wondering too where are the transcripts for today? Well, no matter I'm sure they'll be up soon. I find it interesting how the usual Albanian suspects like to question the journalistic integrity of a website they visit everyday, and spend inordinate amounts of time "contributing" to. The minute "New Kosova Report" starts winning awards for journalistic integrity, I'll think of changing my tune.
But in relation to the article, I was somewhat hoping my country would have presented a stronger case for Kosovo's statehood beyond the selectively normative claims made. I mean my country is supposedly the Albanians' life line and what did we effectively argue?
1. Don't touch Kosovo's statehood. In fact, just ignore it. Just leave it alone.
2. In fact, if you have to give an opinion, don't give an opinion at all (a vague call for a "neutral" status?), but let's just leave this pile of unwashed socks for someone else to deal with, right?
3. Kosovo is a unique case. Why? Shut up, that's why.
4. Kosovo's independence will be the best solution for everyone. I have no evidence to support this argument, but just take my word for it.
5. Serbia has no claim to Kosovo because they seceded from Yugoslavia, and Yugoslavia's not a country anymore, even though we've heard, as well as signed, enough documentation stipulating that Serbia has inherited all the rights, legalities, and legacies of Yugoslavia.
Why does my country feel the need to act so sloppy when it comes to international relations that don't involve Israel? I mean it's plain enough to see we don't really care about the ICJ ruling since we're not going to honor anything that goes against our interests (for the moment), but unless B92 is being very liberal in interpreting the transcripts, these arguments from my country's representative are all normative interpretations that have no legal basis. If I were an Albanian and I were hoping Uncle Sam would come to court to deliver for me today, I'd be thoroughly disappointed. Any Albanian that honestly thinks the United States blew Russia and Spain out of the legal water today needs to have their head checked.
Because of people thinking and reasoning like you do, Kosovo is today independent and recognized fro USA and 22 out of 27 members of the EU.Your watch has stoped in the 1987.More you deny the repression that albanians have suffered from the creation of Yougoslavia to its death, the more you reinforce the idea that only the independence is the solution.I don't understand, you were saying the same things about Montenegro a couple of years ago.Where is Montenegro now?
Serbia owes Kosovo more than 30 billion euros. Pay the reparations first, and then we can talk about new negotiations. You simply can’t, kill and burn your own citizens and still wish to rule them through a fonny technical document called 1244 which it applies to former Yugoslavia, and that union no longer exists. What Serbia is trying to do is escape the war reparation responsibility which it owes not only to Kosovo, but Bosnia and Croatia too. What Kosovo, Bosnia and Croatia ought to do is take Serbia to ICJ, and as long as it doesn’t pay for the damages, it should never be allowed to enter EU.
Here we are Russia and Spain said nothing new in their statement.
For Russia which "cares" so much about internationa law. What did Russia mean recognising the "independence" of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and its appeal to other countries to do so? Are they takin the ICJ for stupid?
To Spain what do you really mean a "solution that would be acceptable to both parties"? Are you trying to test the intelligence of the ICJ? An agreement between Serbia and Kosova would have been reached should have not been a war in Kosova. Is Spain "forgeting" what Kosova status was according to 1976 Yugoslavia Constitution? Is Spain "forgeting" what Slobadan Milloshevic the head of state did to Kosova in the name of Serbia? And Spain is talking about Serbia's "generosity" for a broader autonomy...to Kosova. Spain and other countries whom oppose the Kosova's independence. The ICJ will shake your "lost memory" with HARD FACTS about the history of Kosova...
B92, mostly you take info from both sides and publish them which makes me and others regular visitors to the site, but since ICJ started you guys have only published the ones in Serbia's favour. Now I know you guys are not in a easy seat but dont lose your creability as a respected media and becoming a tool for the state.
Must be a huge let down to those who beLIEeve the US might is right argument. Oh dear seems US has well and truly entangled itself in its own self made illegal trap - not that they care for international law however now it will be blatant and one where Obama either follows that of Bush - more of the same or does he uphold international law and stay to the principles upon which he stood for election?
This story is related to this news; During a recent Spanish KFOR command changeover in Istog/Istok in Kosovo, participated by municipal, party officials and citizens, an old man was emotionally hugging a Spanish major who was about to leave Kosovo. At one point the Spanish major asks the old man: “Why do you like us so much, when we have not even recognized Kosovo?” And the old man replies: “Well, you have discovered America, and that is enough to us.”
Russian representative reminded that the UN Security Council declared Northern Cyprus and Rhodesia's independence to be illegal, since secession is forbidden outside the colonial context.
------
Why didn't it do with Kosova then? There it was illegal and UNSC acted, here it's legal and they they didn't. Thank you Russia!!
2 milion people of Kosova do not enjoy the right to self-determination but 50 thousand SO and Abkhazi do,right?
(Kosova-USA, 8 December 2009 15:46)
--
This is about Serbia and Kosovo, not SO or Ab so your point is irrelvent. It has already been pointed out by Spain that the EU called SO and Ab's seccession illegal, just like the UDD. This has helped improve our case.
Serbia's case is unbelievably strong and I am very impressed with the arguments. Negotiations have been going on for decades in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and it's up to the Security Council to decide what to do (in Kosovo), not some paid-off "negotiator" named Attisari.
"Koh suggested that the legitimacy of the independence declaration comes from the fact that the Kosovo Albanians were subject to a campaign of “state-supported violence for years", which "culminated in 1999 when 10,000 Albanians were killed and about a million were displaced.”
This is the best argument, "state-supported violence for years" against 2 million of their OWN citizens. This is what bothered my all the time. How can a country rightfully and morally do it and after still claim the right to that territory?
Negotiations have been going on for decades in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and it's up to the Security Council to decide what to do (in Kosovo)
(Zoran, 8 December 2009 17:34)
Well Zoran, we are not Palestinians anymore. What its said, is done now. All this ICJ thingy is "too much noise about nothing".
“Both sides have to agree on a solution and the UN Security Council must support it,” Hernandez underscored.
She said that a unilateral secession is not allowed under international law, unless in case it concerns a colony.
Hernandez backed this statement by quoting from last year's EU report on the conflict between Georgia and Russia.'
Nice!! Thank you Spain, and I love the quoting of the EU report on the Russia/Georgia conflict. It just highlights how hypocritical and immmoral and devoid of any principles these 'greater albania' imperialists are.
I look forward to Russia's statements. I also look forward to the US's statements - which I know will be just drivel, propoganda, lies and more fantasy land - twilight zone kind of logic. Anyway, it sould be entertaining.
Cheers!!
"Also, Russia had to kick some NATO trained and armed in Georgia defend the Russian citizens living there.
(Another Canadian Serb, 8 December 2009 14:11)"
Russia was lucky enough that some European states did not agree with George Bush to let Georgia in Nato. You would have seen Putin "not putting" Russian soldiers on the groung in Georgia.
As far as Russians kicking anything we know the answer.
You for one "a Canadian" should side for the soldiers of your own country. But, here is another"committment" to its own.
"Russian representative reminded that the UN Security Council declared Northern Cyprus and Rhodesia's independence to be illegal, since secession is forbidden outside the colonial context."
That's because the secession of "Rhodesia" and Northern Cyprus were illegal, for well-established reasons related to the particular cases, as would be the secession of "RS" from Bosnia, whereas the secessions of Bangladesh (from Pakistan) in 1971 and of Eritrea (from Ethiopia) in 1991 were not. The case of Kosovo is much closer to that of the latter two, both of which were also "outside the colonial context"
Are you trying to falsificate even reports from international trial? Or, are you trying to give advance to Serbia not posting declarations of the countries who are in a favor of Kosovo independence?!
Whatever you do you can not change facts:
USA: 'Let Kosovo independence alone because it is will of the people and factor of stability in Balkans.'
If any of the international entries at IC will make any difference to the American bully and its allies (as they have no legal argument to defend Albanian ethnically motivated unilateral secession) will be the Chinese submission to the court.
Why? Everybody knows: because of the China's economic power and the fact that by now China owns so much of the American loans.
Once when the US are out of Kosovo we should give our Chinese friends a little elaborately wrapped present- Camp Bondsteel.
'As evidence, Koh stated that "9 out of 15 members of the UN Security Council" who voted for the resolution, passed in 1999, "later recognized Kosovo". '
So they went back on their word. That's all that means.
Trying to break a binding contract IS against the law and just because some did it doesn't mean they were right.
Well, Albanians just had their best man have his forty five minutes of uninterrupted speech and he failed them miserably.
I read the transcript and what is more discussing to me is that some nation mentioned that kosovo has no right of self dermination .so why serbia does?montenegro etc?
and another issue I would like to raise to this posters why this matter didnt end up in court before so many massacres happened in kosovo. After a war there is a winner and this court has no power to change anything.you all are waisting your time .
Ratko, well said! If there was any genocide then it was directed against Serbs and other non-albanians in KosMet. Unfortunately, our politicians dont talk about serbian suffering. We need to hear more of that.
America's arguments are by far the most logical and well versed so far.
My favorite part: "No fewer than 115 of the world's nations have treated Kosovo as a State, by either formally recognizing it or voting for its admission to international financial institutions."
Peggy wrote "So they went back on their word. That's all that means."
No. Armed with absolute truth they confirmed their action by recognizing Kosovojust as they did by voting for the 1244 that allows Kosovo to declare Independence.
How ironic, Russia, China and some others actually voted for the resolution. Despite their own objections -they themselves approved it.
Why vote for something you initially object so adamently?
They didn't care enough for the situation, and now, suddenly trying to hang on any language and reference out of context on 1244 by saying -this must be why we voted for the resolution.
"If someone isn't handsome by nature, it's useless for them to wash over and over again." (Corsican proverb)
For example, today U.S.A told the court Kosovo's independence is a result of three processes: Disintegration of Yugoslavia, violent human right abuses and a U.N backed negotiation process.
Most of the Media in Kosovo publish arguments presented by Kosovo as well as Serbia. But not B92. This sheds some light on the standards of journalism in Serbia and Kosovo.Just didn't know B92 was part of this Serbian standard.Now we know :)
(BalkanUpdate, 8 December 2009 15:43)
--
Oh, so you mean the US didn't say anything new? That has been repeated a number of times by "the authors of the UDD".
I'm glad those supporting Serbia's case are coming up with new arguments (and strong ones) every day. Now that is news worthy.
Mike wrote among other:"By this logic, there should be nothing keeping RS within Bosnia, or Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia. Or northern Kosovo within Kosovo."
RS stays within Bosnia for the SC Resolution of 1992 directs so. ABkazia and SO are directed by SC as problems to be solved within Georgia. Both resolution agreed upon by Russia.
Northern Kosovo (if there is such a thing)is a redecule matter to be addressed in this line of argument.
When one addresses only excerpts from a larger statement one can make even the Bill of Rights look like the Nazi proclamation of Crystal Night. Your country's statement was based on practicality of the matter at hand. As Germany argued the International legality of Independence, Croatia argued on Kosovo's right as a regional factor. There was Austria with its detailed argument for Kosovo's legal right and Albania used historical facts. Others uesd the Human Rights argument.
So, as you figured out already it fell upon USA to debate the practical side of the argument and they did a mighty good job.
"3. "Declaring independence is fundamentally an act of popular will - a political act, made by a body politic, which other States then decide whether to recognize or not."
-- This in my opinion is the most dangerous statement made because it effectively implies than any Tom Dick and Harry secessionist group can declare independence and then say "vox populi" as a form of defense."
Sure, they can "declare" it - but they still have to convince other states that they deserve to be recognized. Don't you remember how the U.S. came into being? As the Brits pointed out in their oral statement, they were originally against it, but came to accept it. The Finns today observed that their declaration of independence from the Russian Empire was also considered illegal by the Russians at the time, but they were recognized by foreign countries despite this. Yugoslavia claimed at the time that Slovenia and Croatia declared independence illegally (although they later claimed that it was legal under the constitution then in effect)... And so it goes. It's not a matter of theoretical legality, it's a matter of being able to make a claim stick that conveys statehood. But that's not the question, which is simply "is [? shouldn't that be "was"?]the DoI legal"?
BTW, I'm glad somebody finally got around to pointing out that Belgrade has already stated that it does not intend to recognize Kosovo despite an adverse ruling. After all the concern Serbia's side has shown for upholding the authority of the Security Council it's interesting to see how they intend to undercut that of the ICJ.
'He stressed that the unilateral independence declaration “came from a political process which was supervised by the UN Security Council,” and that it is therefore "in accordance with Resolution 1244". '
Supervised YES, approved NO.
Doesn't the UN need to approve a move before it is taken? The US got away with making a move in Iraq which was not approved by the UN so they think they can do the same here.
Not a solid argument at all. Even a person without any law training can see that.
I'm talking about the hudreds of churches and monasteries build in Kosovo by Serbs in the 13th and 14th century, not the one built in Pristina during Milosevic. If Albanians were in Kosovo before everyone else where is proof of their existence?
After reading the US defence of Kosovo independence there is no way Serbia can loose this case unless the judges are bribed by the US. The americans are making up international law as they go along. The legality behind their decision to recognize Kosovo is only to serve their own interests and has nothing to do with what is right and wrong. As long as the world is split and as long as Serbia doesn't recognize, Kosovo will always be Serbias southern province occupied by albanians and their american allies.
It's all good. No matter what some countries like Spain say it doesn't matter. It'a a will of a free nation to declare indepedence and it happened now you all live with it.
About Spain, I am from a city of Istog close to Peja and we did have a peacekeeppers from Spain, on the day they left this old Albanian man started crying because they were leaving, commander of Spanish troops was so surprised to see old man ctying and asked him "why are you crying for us, our country didn't recognized Kosovo's independence yet" the old m an responds "you have discovered America and that is enough for us". :)
Finnish representative Koskenranta on Martti Ahtisaari:
"Surely best placed to determine this is the chief negotiator, who, as we all know, also happened to receive the Nobel Peace prize for brokering peace not only in Kosovo but in many places, including Namibia, Bosnia Herzegovina and Aceh."
Best joke I ever heard!
In August 2003, five months after the United States invaded Iraq, Ahtisaari made it known that as far as he was concerned, the war was justified:
“Knowing that about a million people have been killed by the Iraqi government, I don’t really need those weapons of mass destruction.”
Basically he never thought that he will get Nobel peace prize for his previous efforts, but guess what happened, Kosovo declared independence and Martti got it in the same year! How pathetic!
In the future there will be more than 193 countries...you can bet on that. It is a states RIGHT to recognize another entity, not some "international law" which are actually guidelines.
China isn't recognized by 21 UN member STATES and that country is doing just fine. The most important factor for a new state is to be recognized by it's neighbors..especially since trade & defense are the most important to its' affairs....not if some country in the other side of the world recognizes it.
The future states will have hybrid-sovereignty...territorial integrity will change as we know it (EU, AU, SCO, American Union, etc).
"Sure, they can "declare" it - but they still have to convince other states that they deserve to be recognized." (Amer)
-- Yes, but take a look at other parastates in the world that are "recognized" by a small handfull of countries. Do they really care about needing to achieve full status? TRNC has been theoretically "independent" for 35 years and seems to be doing fine with only Turkey supporting it. The same goes for Ab and SO: does Georgia have any hope of reclaiming them? I presume the same would fare for RS, should it declare. Kosovo could gain 50 more recognitions, or be reduced to 5 countries recognizing it, and it still wouldn't, in my opinion, change its internal dynamics. Even if Kosovo's legality for existence falls within a gray area, it opens the door for other would-be statelets to throw their own destiny to the wind. How many parastates would we then have?
Mirub, if you actually had a coherent point to your comment, I'd respond.
I did not get something from Spain's argument. Spain said "According to the resolution, a future status of Kosovo must be the result of a political process, and agreement between the two sides". Can anybody point to the part of resolution 1244 which says that "agreement between the two sides" is needed ?
Ratko is 100% right, most of the dead Albanians were UCK terrorists and also Albanian citizans were killed by the UCK, but people like you can only blaim the guilty to the Serbs and not to your people who were killing their own people.
I don't give a damn what countries like USA and some EU countries are saying, resolution 1244 is clear and a big majority in the world is agree with that.
And get some education, then you will learn that you can not compare a republic (Montenegro) with an province (Kosovo & Metohija).
Relax people really getting to emotional this just a court hearing. Dont forget NON binding, Serbia wont accept its ruling either way. this is just some proof to calm the Nationalist at home.
Nothing is changing no Negotiations no recognition from Serbia any time soon 10 years minimum 2 weeks before EU entry of Serbia.
USA is not going any place, China is not becoming going to default on Loans. And Russia will have Putin as leader.
Kosovo will be same it was yesterday some will recognize some wont fine.
Relax guys K-Albaninas you still got what you wnat and so did Vuk.
No Serb has idea how to integrate 2million people in Serbia their solutions are only the territory.
Develop Kosovo with countries that have recognized you the rest fine no worry. Even USA does not do Business with 193 countries.
Mike said: "How many parastates would we then have? "
It doesn't matter how many of them are there or exist. That is of no importance at all. What is of importance is not to have Serbia like state's that systematically and willfully persecute, murder and rape those it considers to be its own citizens. Not only that but at the height of what it considered to be a full blown democracy, it denies the right to vote to the very same popullation that it had persecuted, murdered and raped. Given the options para-states not only are the better option when the other option is a tyrannical state.
Say Kosovo opens the door for Tibet, RS, Kurtish republic etc.
1) this is not a bad thing
2) Did kosovo say we are against this.
3) If RS declares independence does it become a country or goes becomes part of Serbia.
I do think RS should not be part of Bosnia in long run they will both be better. But it seems u have just small hurdle in 787 (but would it be great RS becomes independent on Kosovo precedent)
Everyone here keeps bringing arguments no country is going to do anything differant that they did before.
Montenegro opens Embassy, other countries Vuk begged to wait after rulling will say sorry Vuk we will go ahead with it. Some will say we got your back.
I agree that Kosovo will continue its jurney alone:
I liked this analogy today:
40. Mr. President, in its presentation yesterday, Cyprus pointedly sought to analogize the 1244 process to the heart-wrenching, but misleading, case where a parent sends a small child off to State supervision, only to lose her forever. But upon reflection, the far better analogy would be to acknowledge the futility of the State forcing an adult child to return to an abusive home against her will, particularly where the parent and child have already long lived apart, and where repeated efforts at reconciliation have reached impasse. There, as here, declaring independence would be the only viable option, and would certainly be in accordance with law.
"BTW, I'm glad somebody finally got around to pointing out that Belgrade has already stated that it does not intend to recognize Kosovo despite an adverse ruling. After all the concern Serbia's side has shown for upholding the authority of the Security Council it's interesting to see how they intend to undercut that of the ICJ.
(Amer, 8 December 2009 23:35)"
In fairness neither side will abide by the opinion. The US oral evidence is testimony to that. Don't you think that Serbia has played a blinder on this? For most people in the West, Kosovo was history and an issue that had unprecedented support. Now, in Europe at least, there is quite a bit of a predisposition in the public to go against US/UK/Western foreign policy. It's a different audience and there is no ethnic cleansing going on. The only people under threat are the Serbs in Kosovo. To that add the fact that the proceedings are likely to reinforce divisions then I can't see how this will do anything other than better Serbia's position. Albeit, recognitions may follow but the barriers are stronger that ever.
The irony of it all is if you take away nationalism, ethnicity, revenge and the need to win I am sure there is a compromise there.
I must say that I agree with Mike. The US has made it clear that it is not interested in arguing the legal case before the ICJ. It just repeated the political viewpoint that has already been shown to be extremely dangerous for international peace and stability if accepted by the ICJ. Moreover, the view that Serbia is not the FRY is laughable. It really shows a complete disdain for the proceedings at hand given that this point has already bene addressed by the ICJ itself and is not contested by the other key actors supporting Kosovo's UDI, such as Germany.
The US team have clearly not bothered even to try to put together a legal case. I wonder how this will go down with the judges?
"How can a country rightfully and morally do it and after still claim the right to that territory?" (Joe)
-- I agree with you that this can be one of the more sound arguments in this case, but we need to be careful in making this a legal clause. Historical memories of nations are replete with memories of collective suffering at the hands of state-sponsored repression by the "other". If such an argument becomes a legal basis, Serbs of Kosovo have just as much right to claim equal measures of repression from Albanians. If everyone suddenly plays the victimization card as a means of autonomy/secession, borders more than the one in Serbia's southern underbelly could be redrawn.
Peggy said: "Doesn't the UN need to approve a move before it is taken?"
Short answer. No it doesn't need to approve anything. That is simply because the UN is not the World's Government. Surely those UNSC memebr yield a lot of power but until it is official and written black on white that the UN IS the World's government then the UN doesn't need to approve anything. It can approve if it wants and there is a will but it DOESN"T NEED TO. There is a fundamental difference there.
This must be a court of saints, not mere human justices, to sit there patiently while the same arguments are presented - in slightly different formulations - over and over and over again.
And their reward, when it's all over, will surely be to be reviled and ignored by the losing side.
The disunity of the UN Securtiy Council members allows only one clear conclusion: there exists nothing like international law in specific cases.
What have we heard so far? Different opinions defending national interests only. Thus it's a talkshop without any relevance - which will result in a ICJ decision without any binding.
Serbia looses time and engergy for a process, which cannot be reversed.
Having now read through the transcripts provided, I've noticed a few interesting statements made by my country's delegation that bears significant risks for international stability, should Kosovo's case be affirmed by the ICJ:
1. "international law does not regulate declarations of independence, nor is there anything about Kosovo’s particular Declaration that would render it not “in accordance with international law”
-- This effectively means that there is no provision of international law that would, or should, prevent any political body from declaring independence. My country's rationale for Kosovo's UDI is that Kosovo's declaration is not outside the framework of international law because no such framework exists. This to me is a Straw Man argument. It basically implies an action could be taken and defended because there's no law against it. In other words, the cop didn’t see me run the red light, so therefore I didn’t run the red light. Or better yet, there wasn’t a red light to run.
2. "a declaration neither constitutes nor establishes political independence; it announces a political reality or aspiration that must then be achieved by other means."
-- So does that mean Kosovo isn't an independent state since a declaration doesn't really do much other than establish collective intent? What "means" must therefore be done, and isn't it a fair argument to make that if any "means" are currently being undertaken, Serbia and other states are undertaking "countermeans" to effectively leave Kosovo within a stalemate? Isn’t the “political reality” in Kosovo more of an international protectorate than a “functioning state”? If sizeable areas of this so-called country are not on Pristina’s grid (not just Serb areas but most of Metohija which answers to Haradinaj), a “functioning state” is a far cry from the “political reality”.
3. "Declaring independence is fundamentally an act of popular will - a political act, made by a body politic, which other States then decide whether to recognize or not."
-- This in my opinion is the most dangerous statement made because it effectively implies than any Tom Dick and Harry secessionist group can declare independence and then say "vox populi" as a form of defense. By this logic, there should be nothing keeping RS within Bosnia, or Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia. Or northern Kosovo within Kosovo. This statement effectively gives legitimate credence to parastates that don’t even need international recognition; just a few client states to keep it afloat. Yet further down, my country feels the need to qualify such careless statements with "Kosovo is a special case", for reasons that I have still to hear.
I must say that the one potential cog in Russia's wheel is defending Serbia's territorial integrity while violating Georgia's. Yet in spite of that, we see that Russia is keeping it within a legal framework, while my country's grand strategy is to employ normative one-way interpretations of an incredibly controversial historical event as a smoke screen for its own interests.
'Even if Kosovo's legality for existence falls within a gray area, it opens the door for other would-be statelets to throw their own destiny to the wind. How many parastates would we then have?'
I'm not convinced that many territories are going to try for statehood based solely on Kosovo's experience. In fact, it may convince some existing states that it would be a good idea to consider how they treat their minorities to prevent them from even thinking about taking such a step.
As for Abkhazia and So. Ossetia, maybe the best thing is for them to experience the delights of Russian rule as compared to Georgian rule for a few years. Especially if Georgia continues to develop the way it was developing prior to the economic downturn. Rich Russians are already buying up everything in sight in Abkhazia, and with a population of less than 250,000 - a mid-size city - how are they going to maintain control of their own country? In the Middle Ages there was a Kingdom of Abkhazia, Georgia, (and some other places). Later, Abkhazia switched back and forth between Ottoman and Russian rule. Nothing's forever with Abkhazia, it seems.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/multimedia/2009/12/07/091207_audioslideshow_platon
nothing to do with this, but very interesting, B92 should have seen this!!
On my flight there, and this is before the conflict, it was full of US military and defence contractors. I was talking to one and he was telling me about real time battle software that can tell the "good guys" from the "bad guys".
anyway, they put on a boney m concert on in SO to show that life was better with Georgia...a human rights abuse if I ever saw one.
(Mister, 9 December 2009 23:38)
He was probably talking about his new gameboy game! People who have security clearances high enough to have knowledge of such things do not tell strangers on a plane such information.
'I was surprised that a well-known Youtube-urban-legend "FRY ≠ Serbia" did show up. From any (but American) point of view it is an unprofessional and careless argument.'
I didn't understand the problem until I read the written comment - the idea was that in 1244 they wanted to leave open as many options for a solution as possible. Having Kosovo enter the FRY as a third republic, on the level with Serbia and Montenegro, was one such possibility they didn't want to rule out. The idea was not that Kosovo be made a part of Serbia, but of the FRY. When the FRY was succeeded by Serbia, this option no longer existed.
I must say that the one potential cog in Russia's wheel is defending Serbia's territorial integrity while violating Georgia's.
(Mike, 8 December 2009 20:26)
indeed, but I still think that violating Georgia's territorial integrity was essentially a farce - just to "mimic" the bombing of 1999 and the handling of Kosovo. I had that feeling all the time and I was surprised that some of Georgia's politicians do share that opinion.
---
Very careless arguments made by my country.
(Mike, 8 December 2009 20:26)
Let's see it from an other angle for better understanding. I was surprised that a well-known Youtube-urban-legend "FRY ≠ Serbia" did show up. From any (but American) point of view it is an unprofessional and careless argument. But we should not forget, American law practice (like healthcare system) is one of very sick puppies. Accepted law practice is "throw as much s**t as you can against the wall - hope, some will stick to it". It's not an accepted practice in most of the world and this is a culture difference.
We should regard that ridiculous "FRY ≠ Serbia" argument as part of against-the-wall-dirt-throwing tactics so common. If by any chance the ICJ judges aren't used to that - than Serbia had a big mighty luck today, thanks to US-ignorance.
Not the first time - remember the "reset button" presented by Billary to Putin so amateurish way it became a joke?
I just can re-iterate: why, oh why they can't employ more professional people?
Koh suggested that the legitimacy of the independence declaration comes from the fact that the Kosovo Albanians were subject to a campaign of “state-supported violence for years", which "culminated in 1999 when 10,000 Albanians were killed and about a million were displaced"
???? How many Kurds was killed by turkish or iraqi army???? Where is US support for independent Kurdistan?? How many Tamils were killed by Sri Lankan army???? Where is US support for independent Ilam???? How many Tibetans were killed by chinese army?? Where is US support for independent Tibet????
Mirub, I see you are very confused.
Russia and China voted for Res 1244 and China explained that what they voted for then is not what they are trying to make Res be now and if they were going to change Res 1244 or interpret it in a way it was not meant to be interpreted then they would've never voted for it.
In other words, the west is trying to find ways to interpret something THEY signed in a totally different spirit in which it was meant.
I hope things are a little more clearer to you now. So when I said they are taking their word back, that is exactly what they are doing.
"As for Abkhazia and So. Ossetia, maybe the best thing is for them to experience the delights of Russian rule as compared to Georgian rule for a few years." (Amer)
-- You may be right on that. I can't really say the lot of these peoples' lives will dramatically improve now that Moscow runs the program. But do/did they really have a say in the matter? I've always felt Moscow had this planned all along. Can't say I approve of it any more or less than Washington's plans for Kosovo. Or Bosnia for that matter. But if the general sentiment to my comments congeals around indifference to states with hybrid sovereignty (Kosovo, RS, SO, etc), I'm still uneasy about such entities. Those states that *are* recognized and have hybrid sovereignty have proven to be extremely weak and volatile.
Your brief history of the region however bears striking similarities to Kosovo as well - the land going from one medieval power to another. I have a feeling that all three will remain under definitive international control for the foreseeable future.
"I've always felt Moscow had this planned all along."
Ditto!
"I have a feeling that all three [Kosovo, Abkhazia, So. Ossetia] will remain under definitive international control for the foreseeable future."
For Abkhazia, this would be a best-case scenario, but Russia has kicked out even international observers, much less allowed any kind of international control.
Having been to Georgia I am not convinced it is as black and white. It certainly is not the beacon of democracy it is portrayed to be. I tend to think the Georgians (Government) picked a fight in the mistaken impression that naming a street after Bush would guarantee Western support :p On my flight there, and this is before the conflict, it was full of US military and defence contractors. I was talking to one and he was telling me about real time battle software that can tell the "good guys" from the "bad guys".
anyway, they put on a boney m concert on in SO to show that life was better with Georgia...a human rights abuse if I ever saw one.
"I tend to think the Georgians (Government) picked a fight in the mistaken impression that naming a street after Bush would guarantee Western support :p"
I'm pretty sure they thought they could count on more than they actually could. I'll always wonder what John McCain implied to his good friend Saakashvili - "We'll all be Georgians if Russia attacks" ? (I'll also always wonder why in the devil the Georgians didn't make every attempt to close the Roki tunnel the very first thing.)
About the weapons: a lot better if we'd sent investments in the non-military economy - give everybody in the world a job and watch tensions relax. With all the work that needs to be done in the world, why is this so hard?
"He was probably talking about his new gameboy game! People who have security clearances high enough to have knowledge of such things do not tell strangers on a plane such information.
(pss, 10 December 2009 02:30)"
He was a contractor. I have no reason not to believe him. There was also a navy guy who struck me as being a very very smart guy - he said nothing about why he was there other than training. It was hardly a secret was it?
btw it's well worth a visit and the people are extremely hospitable.
'There was also a navy guy who struck me as being a very very smart guy - he said nothing about why he was there other than training. It was hardly a secret was it?'
Hardly, not with Georgia sending troops to Iraq. Unfortunately for Georgia, they were being trained to provide security for truck routes (or river patrols?) - not for homeland defense.
'btw it's well worth a visit and the people are extremely hospitable.
(mister, 10 December 2009 13:27) '
Yes they are proud of their wine and will, more than once, tell you it is the origins of wine. The wine is good but the chacha is lethal. Tee-total is not an option there :)
IMAGE SOURCE
86 Komentari
Sortiraj po: