France: Secession not against intl. law

A reading of the history of former Yugoslavia 1991 - 1999 will make it very clear who was responsible for committing acts of war. And acts of genocide. Until Serbia faces up to the past, a lack of realism regarding Kosovo - and Bosnia - will prevail.

Radoslave,

It is interesting to hear ONLY democratic countries like USA, UK, France, and Germany debating the independence of Kosovo.

It's definitely getting interesting.

it's how funny how Serbia thought with spinning can win the court?
ahahahahaha..
First Serbia contradicted itself: Is declaration of Kosovo independence in accordance with International l law? and then went to say no rule of international law prohibits declaration.
Lol....

A victory day for Kosovo!!

How is a country recognizing a secession in another country respecting that other country's territorial integrity?
-----All countries had to be recognized and each country make its decisions.
Serbia also said that Croatia, Bosnia and Slovenia had no right to seceded. Serbia asked the wrong question to the court, it is,'t against International law to declare independence, maybe against Serbian law but that's it.

PRN - You are right. It is interesting to hear what the US, etc have to say. So far they have said nothing that would favour Kosovo's independence, the latest statement from France being an example. Using their argument, if i rob a bank and spend all the money then because of this "fact on the ground", the judge shouldn't provide a ruling about whether I committed a crime or not. Mickey mouse arguments at for a mickey mouse pseudo state.

Whether you like it or not you'll be back at the negotiating table trying to preserve as much as possible because the US knows that when it loses this case it'll have no option but to talk with Serbia and as the US is your master you'll have to say "yes sir, no sir" to whatever they demand. You're weak and are in no position to ask or demand anything. Instead, you'll be told what to do like a teacher to a schoolboy. So the longer you have your head in the clouds dreaming of a fantasy greater albania (which would be greater just in land and nothing else), the longer it'll take before your standards of living within Serbia will take to improve.

France also believes that they have a good soccer team and that it's ok to cheat.

It is very interesting to hear somebody saying that 90% of population in Kosovo are bound to constitution of Serbia. After the fact that Serbia institutionally and forcibly deported over a million albanians out in 1999.

I see that france has used the "only countries have to respect each other's territorial integrity" argument. How is a country recognizing a secession in another country respecting that other country's territorial integrity? This is a stupid argument because destabilizing another country ia AN ACT OF WAR. But, if france wants to play that game, fine. The Serbian government should immediately contact the Corsican separatist groups and offer its recognition if they choose to disrespect france's territorial integrity and declare Corsica's independence. Then, at the next General Assembly, Serbia should request a binding lawsuit against all of those countries that recognized the Kosovo UDI for committing ACTS OF WAR against Serbia.

“Secession does not go against international law and the court should refuse to take a stance on the issue,” Belliard said.

Why? Are you afraid of the outcome?

PRN

Those democratic countries you are refering to attacked Serbia, Sudan, Irak and Afganistan without a UN resolution. That is, they didn't ask what the majority of the world thought about their actions, they did it anyway. I can say that I am God, however, it doesn't mean that I am.

I find it funny how the Albanian definition of democracy amoutns to anyone who defends Kosovo at ICJ.

So let's ignore the fact that neo-imperialism advocated by the countries PRN? mention are anti-democratic acts. Or that Saudi Arabia.

I guess in their mind Russia isn't a democracy (yet the countries in question never have set it isn't, just criticized how elections are carried ou -- ironically they never criticize the U.S. supreme court for appointing Bush in 2000, how democratic

The US yesterday and France today are playing word games.

This is me paraphrasing: “Its not against international law for Kosovo to declare it, maybe it is for us to recognize it, but tough, that’s not what Serbia asked about.”

“Claiming Serbia is not FRY is simply a lost cause. (Zoran, 9 December 2009 16:34)”

They appear at times to confuse FRY with SFRY. Serbia is NOT the successor to SFRY but IS the successor state to FRY as far as the UN is concerned. Serbia did not have to apply for a new seat this time around. When SFRY fell apart, they did have to apply for a seat.

The ONLY argument the Albanian side has is that they were abused under Milesovic.

However, ONLY 2,000 died (in a terrorist insurgency) before the US stepped in and decided Kosovo needed independence through bombing. A total of maybe 8,000 or 9,000 Albanians died (10,000 is the total for all sides).

So what will the new rule be? 2000 are killed you get independence? Sounds like you all are more than happy to give up Northern Kosovo.

5000 Kurds in Iraq died in a single incident. 35,000 Kurds have died in Turkey.

They don’t even have their own county (Kosovo Albanians at least have Albania).

The world needs guidance and leadership on these kinds of issues. There does need to be a framework in which to allow these sorts of things if the situation merits it.

2,000 killed fighting UCK? I’m not so sure. Bush killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions of civilians in Iraq fighting a non-existent Al Qaeda. If that’s not a crime, then I don’t know what is.

République CORSE!

Looking good.

It's very sad to see people "screaming" about this because their politicians have told them that Kosovo is the heart of Serbia and Kosovo is Serbia.

Aristotle long time ago said; “man is a political animal.” Obviously there is plenty of reason to believe that he was right.

France, Europe and USA don't support Kosovo because they have much love about Albanians, because they hate Serbs or anything like that. They do it because it's on their interest to secure the Balkans, Europe and the World. A Balkan conflict is a big trouble for all of them and they can't afford to let things go terribly bad again.

Kosovo is among the solutions for a peaceful and stabilized Balkan and Europe.

Yesterday, UN Security Council heavyweights Russia and the United States presented their opposing arguments on this issue.
--
This is what the USA representative said yesterday.

"As important, the resolution refers not to preserving the territorial integrity of Serbia, but the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, an entity that no longer exists. Even though the resolution required Kosovo to remain within the FRY, it never required Kosovo to remain within “Serbia”."

Well, I have to thank the USA for confirming "the resolution refers to preserving the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" and "the resolution required Kosovo to remain within the FRY".

I repeat, the resolution requires Kosovo to remain within the FRY and confirms its territorial integrity. I thought the USA was an author of independence but is now arguing in Serbia's favour.

Claiming Serbia is not FRY is simply a lost cause. Serbia continues to hold the UN seat of FRY and all other international bodies, which has been confirmed over and again. Since negotiations continue with Serbia regarding 1244, that in itself if evidence that Serbia is FRY. It is just a name change after Montenegro's exit.

So here we have the USA confirming our case and it is greatly appreciated!

I may have missed the paragraph, but who defended Serbia at the ICJ today?

So secession is not in violation of international law? Then what in the world is RS waiting for? And why then are we bent out of shape over the secession of Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Do these defenders of Kosovo's UDI even know what they're arguing, because according to me, they are all willing to allow Kosovo to continue to exist while risking legitimizing secessionist movements elsewhere.

"It is interesting to hear ONLY democratic countries like USA, UK, France, and Germany debating the independence of Kosovo." (PRN)

-- Hey genius, Spain, Argentina, Cyprus and Brazil have so far defended Serbia's side. And what do you consider Saudi Arabia and Jordan who spoke for yours? This comment is a stretch in rationality, even for you.

Looks like Jordan really layed it on pretty thick.
Their timeline of events and historical interpretations were very accurate and singled out the resilience of the Kosova Albanian's time and time again throughout history.

So, Corsicans can declare independence from France now.
It's legal!

To kill innocent civilians was a crime. To forget about them is another
The story about those killed is always also the story about someone who killed them.

But was and is against the constitution of The Republic of Serbia. Maybe in practical terms that has little value, but a sovereign country's constitution should be respected"

Hmmmm...did Serbia respect the human rights of Albanians that much so Albanians should respect the Serbian constitution? Serbia voted for the constitution while excluding Albanians

Mike said :"Now, according to the logic of many of Kosovo's defenders, we should just forget about "law" and be "practical". "

Read more carefully Mike. There is no specific law. That is the whole point. Whether you like it or not, that is another matter, however the fact is that there is no specific international law that states that autonomous provinces or territories within a state are not allowed to declare independence or secede. That is the fact, no matter how bitter it might be to some. Due to this well established fact today we have countries such as USA, Finland, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Serbia, Albania, Greece etc etc. All of this countries declared independence without the blessing or the will of the countries they were seceding from. A lot if not most of these countries were autonomous regions. No law prohibited their secession then and there is no such law now. Simple as that.

But was and is against the constitution of The Republic of Serbia. Maybe in practical terms that has little value, but a sovereign country's constitution should be respected. I am sure that it is against the French constitution that Corsica and the Basque region in France can split of from France. I am sure that Paris will send the army immediately and arrest the leaders of the split. Of course France has kept those regions relatively poor so from a financial point of view there is no benefit to leave the French Republic.

(Jovan, 9 December 2009 18:34)

U must not know a damn think about France.

They are joining this project for pure money reasons:

1) Project needs Financing
2) Its business and as such Franc will make money on all the fees it collects as share holder.

3) France will never buy more than 20% of gas from Russia just not to be dependent on it.

Most comes from Algeria, Moro, and Norway.

Germany is main investor of this project and i dont see u claiming Germany will back Serbia :).

B92 forgot to say that Jordan and Norway have same opinion as France, USA ...

Right now UN:

USA/France For Kosovo

Russia/China For Serbia

UK on Deck: ....

I think Kosovo has chosen its Friends so has Serbia lets see how this will turn in 10 years.

But i like your creativity in spinning things

In 3 months Serbia will realize that going to the ICJ was a futile exercise. I think the whole thing was devised for internal consumption. "You see dear contrymen we tried hard, we did everything possible".

my dear albanian friends, don´t fool yourselves!

this doesn´t mean that much, if you take into account, that just a week ago the French have decided to join the "South-Stream" project and to get their little share of the advantages this will bring.

you can deny that, of course, but reading the newspapers thoroughly ( of the last week or so) should help you get the picture, I think.

so, slowly the French are leaving the anglo-saxon axis of "securing" a "corridor" from the black sea to the mediterranean via Macedonia, the stillborn "kosovah" and Albania...

and that doesn´t mean only a blow to the socalled "Nabucco"-project... it could very likely lead to an ugly end for the "newborn"..

But was and is against the constitution of The Republic of Serbia. Maybe in practical terms that has little value, but a sovereign country's constitution should be respected. I am sure that it is against the French constitution that Corsica and the Basque region in France can split of from France. I am sure that Paris will send the army immediately and arrest the leaders of the split. Of course France has kept those regions relatively poor so from a financial point of view there is no benefit to leave the French Republic.
(Milan, 9 December 2009 18:12)

Some things to consider here are the following.

1. Secessions and declarations of independence are almost always against internal law and constitutions. Finland for example yesterday made that clear when it stated that when Finland declared its independence it was an autonomous region of Russia and it was against Russia's law to declare independence. Other examples include the declaration of independence of the US from UK etc. You'll find hundreds of cases. Other cases include the declarations of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia which were against SFRY law.

2. Second point is that you make the presumption that Kosova Albanians voted for the Serbian Constitution. That presumption we all know is false. The Serbian state willingly denied Kosova Albanians the right to vote for the very same constitution you mention by not including them in the voter list. Hence since Albanians were denied representation and voting rights to such a constitution then by that logic that constitution does not represent them and holds no power in relation to them. To use a term endeared to Serbs. The constitution from the Albanian perspective is NULL and VOID because they were not allowed to vote for it. Hence the declaration does not go against a constitution that Albanians didn't vote for.

3. Your point about financials and economy is contradictory. It makes perfect sense to separate from an entity once you have evidenced that that entity is purposely keeping you poor. The alternatives are either you are poor as you already are or you become less poor or rich.
To sum it up, secessions and declarations of independence in the vast majority of cases are against internal (notice not international law) and without the approval of the established state. The very nature of secessions is such; so there is nothing new here.
Second, the constitution being the supreme law of a land does not apply to a group of people if they were willingly denied the right to vote for it. Hence there was no occurrence of illegality in the internal sense as well.
Third as I stated above, your point about financial situations is contradictory.

"Read more carefully Mike. There is no specific law. That is the whole point."

-- Awesome, then tell your "leaders" in Pristina to keep their hands off of parts of Kosovo that don't recognize their authority and we'll call it a deal, ok? :)

In fact, don't even get upset when northern Kosovo secedes back into Serbia Proper. After all, there's nothing stopping them, right?

'More importantly though, the US has admitted that UNSCR 1244 refers to preserving the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and "the resolution required Kosovo to remain within the FRY". The argument confirming FRY to mean Serbia is a trivial one.'

The purpose of referring to the FRY was to allow for the possibility that Kosovo would join the FRY as a republic on the level of Serbia and Montenegro. Once the FRY no longer existed, the possibility no longer existed. Requiring it to return to being a province of Serbia is hardly the same thing, even though Serbia became the legal successor to the FRY.

I'm noticing a pattern by Kosovo's so-called defenders at the ICJ and its posters here:

International law does not trump the realities on the ground, and the realities, so far as we interpret it, reflect Kosovo as a fait accompli independent state.

I wonder therefore if these same people would be willing to recognize other "realities" on the ground in the region:

a) That RS is, for all intents and purposes, an independent entity as well. Even though there are UN Security Council Resolutions that claim it to be a part of Bosnia, it exists within the Bosnian framework more on paper than in reality.

b) That Serbian municipalities of Kosovo, particularly those north of the Ibar are, for all intents and purposes, independent of Pristina and therefore can decide their own destiny.

Now, according to the logic of many of Kosovo's defenders, we should just forget about "law" and be "practical". If such thinking is applied to these other two areas, then I guess no one really cares about boundaries anymore. But, if as I suspect, a number of people will suddenly rush to the defense of Bosnia's and Kosovo's defense, claiming a violation of their territory and authority, it's painfully obvious the "law" is only arbitrarily applied when it suits those who need it.

If these are the best arguments the United States and other states can offer to Kosovo's legality, while still trying to emphasize that even though secession isn't against international law but Kosovo is a "special case", stupidity has indeed triumphed.

From the abuse point of view the Shi'ites in Southern Iraq and the Kurds in Northern Iraq deserve indendence, but for the US it is absolutely necessary that Iraq does not break up and that a civil war is avoided. For Yugoslavia that kind of argument did not apply. It had to break apart and a civil war had to start. I suggest that France will bring Israel to the ICJ and starts arguing about independence for the Palestinians. Also France should give up all it territories around the world (mainly in the Pacific) so these people can live freely. I already mentioned a free Corsica and maybe Vichy France should get a restart (I am sure Croatia will support this).

'and that doesn´t mean only a blow to the socalled "Nabucco"-project... it could very likely lead to an ugly end for the "newborn"..
(Jovan, 9 December 2009 18:34) '

Let's not get all excited here: Europe is probably going to need both South Stream and Nabucco. (The EC just voted a few days ago to put more money into Nabucco.) And Turkey wants to extend Nabucco to Kosovo and Albania. It's a little strange to be crying "the end is nigh!" right now.

Even if the court ruled the UDI illegal, the US,and camp followers will not change their stance.

If Serbia is ever to recover Kosovo, at some stage Serbia will have to declare 1244 a broken agreement and enforce the terms for itself.

That will not be easily possible, because there will be occupying troops there indefinitely.

What a ruling against Serbia will do is destroy many future peace agreements in other conflicts.

A humanitarian intervention was probably justified to stop a repeat of the wickednesses that occurred in Bosnia from happening Kosovo.

However, the UDI removes the justification for future possible humanitarian interventions because it undermines trust.

@milan
"But was and is against the constitution of The Republic of Serbia."
Then it constitutes a violation of domestic, but not international law.
Remember the question that Serbia chose to ask - did the declaration violate international law?
Very narrow and specific. And it should be apparent by now that the answer is no, it didn't.
I'm afraid this whole thing is a ruse to raise Serbia's stakes with the intl community. That and the flirt with Russia. And we see the results (unfreezing of the trade agreement, white Schengen, etc.). This way the Kosovo issue will gradually be marginalized, and it's a good thing too. but it will only be frozen indefinitely. This still leaves the key problem unresolved, which is the reconciliation of the serb and k-albanian people. This is a very hypocritical and cowardly way to deal with a very important problem.

Nice to see that France played up the fact that Kosova's independence is a reality on the ground. That's what many of you just don't get because you have never set foot in Kosova.The fact is only 3-5% of Kosova's population believe that they live in Serbia.

Matthew, I'm not sure whether Serbia is the successor state to FRY like Russia is to the USSR. Serbia created FRY with Montenegro in 1992.

Here is a timeline of events:

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

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

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

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

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

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

More importantly though, the US has admitted that UNSCR 1244 refers to preserving the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and "the resolution required Kosovo to remain within the FRY". The argument confirming FRY to mean Serbia is a trivial one.

How is a country recognizing a secession in another country respecting that other country's territorial integrity?
-----All countries had to be recognized and each country make its decisions.
Serbia also said that Croatia, Bosnia and Slovenia had no right to seceded. Serbia asked the wrong question to the court, it is,'t against International law to declare independence, maybe against Serbian law but that's it.
(aRta, 9 December 2009 16:59)

You know what is against the Law Arta, it seems it is against the Law for Serbia to take Kosovo Autonomy in March 22 1989. Why do Serbs forget to mention that here and at same time blame Albanians for not voting against Slobo. Dont you know we could not.

Serbia has 2 day shared left after they will wait for Ruling and Claim moral victory.

Analogy of US was amazing A abused Kid going home to Abusive parent after living apart for long time.

I need to thank VUK it has helped us much more than it did harm.

Mike,

You keep comparing RS to Kosova/o - the two aren't quite the same; there is a crucial fact that separates RS and Kosova/o. RS came into being through an accord – a contract if you will – between the parties. RS explicitly agreed to the status it has now as a result. However, the same cannot be said of Kosova/o. As a matter of fact, the abolition of the autonomy was counter to the will of the majority of the Kosova/o population. If there is a document that Kosovar leadership agreed to be under FRY or Serbian rule, please do point me to it (Rambouillet notwithstanding, since that wasn't signed by FRY/Serbia at the time, so it isn't an agreement in the legal sense). At any rate, comparing RS and Kosova/o by overlooking this important fact is being a bit selective in our memories of events :-).


On another note, Amer does bring a very good point on FRY vs. Serbia argument in 1244. If Kosova/o was part of Serbia, then why not mention Serbia directly, but resort to FRY? Seems that the point was probably to have the option of lumping Kosova/o into a 3rd republic within FRY - that would've been the closest thing for Kosova/o to remain to some extent with Serbia. But once Montenegro pulled out before things could get to that point, that potential plan went bye-bye. So, the next thing that came was independence, thus, here we are today.

Responnding to Olli here. I will ask you to read Finland's defense carefully once again because of some of the points it makes.

1. The very fact that there are Fact Finding missions or resolutions that are against independence movements and Fact Finding missions and resolutions that are for independence movements (examples are provided by Finland) makes it clear that there is no specific law which deals with the issue of independence movement in an automatic and mechanic manner. Meaning because there are resolutions for and against independence movements one cannot say without reasonable doubt that independence is prohibited or allowed by international law. No specific law states that independence of any region is automatically prohibited or allowed. This is a grey area in international law and as it is shown by these resolutions it is interpreted by those in power and world community on a per case basis. As we can see different cases have yielded different interpretations. If there existed a law that quite clearly stated that independence movements and independence of regions is not allowed in international law then we would have not many results and resolution but only a single one.. Meaning there would be no case were independence and independence movements were allowed. The fact that there are such cases clearly points to the lack of such a law. Based on that, one cannot deem independence movements to automatically be legal or illegal. It is and has always been a case by case issue. The analogy Finland makes with parking tickets is quite clear. Not this sucks if you are a Serb and on the short end of the stick but that is how it has always been. We do not need to be naive here. The great powers have left this as a grey area wither on purpose or for the lack of an agreement between them but this is how it has always been. New states have formed and states have vanished, even from autonomous regions. If what you advocate is true then we would simply have a static map that never changed over time.

2. Finland itself was an autonomous region when it declared independence.

3. If you are more interested you can then read Croatia's and Jordan's defense that talk about Kosovars as a people, the sovereignity Kosova enjoyed in the Federation prior to the abolishment of its status and why as a result of that forceful abolishment and the forceful striping out of that sovereignity Serbia no longer exercised any rights over the people or the territory of Kosova. They are quite clear.

alproud,

They have to support Kosovo because what they did to Serbia was/is illegal,and they have to do what they can do in order to come out smelling like roses while dumping on the rest of the world. There are also some serious American presidental and political legacies at stake here,not to mention major law suits,and crucial America's credibility and "power" which is on world stage.These people at this point in time don't care if the ICJ rules it's self out of irrelevance and out of existence,as long as they get a favorable ruling.
If The ICJ starts "butchering" the laws on the books and rules in Kosovo Albanian favor,the result will slowly start spinning chaos in many parts of the world. Looks like exactly what the doctor ordered for justifying monster armies and military complexes and opening of new frontiers and oppurtunities for fishing in "muddy waters". The West has morphed into a "beast" which cannot exist in peace time and function within the international legal framework and norms any more.That's one of the reasons they have their own courts for the "special", and courts for rest and others which are not "special".I expect the ruling to be in the favor of their skin and their pockets,as usual.The only "good" news in the last couple of days is that Gates gave his word yesterday to never turn his back on Afghanistan.

"Read more carefully Mike. There is no specific law. That is the whole point."

-- Awesome, then tell your "leaders" in Pristina to keep their hands off of parts of Kosovo that don't recognize their authority and we'll call it a deal, ok? :)

In fact, don't even get upset when northern Kosovo secedes back into Serbia Proper. After all, there's nothing stopping them, right?
(Mike, 9 December 2009 23:50)

Sure Mike,

All you are fighting is N.Mitrovica its quiet clear. But there must be a process to this.

They must demilitarize start Start negotiations with Albanians 10 years by staying under Kosovo meaning as we did from 1989 till 1999. Follow same process as Kosovo did.

Besides I dont mind if they go, If this means no more special citizen status and not to have to deal with people who do not want to be part of your country fine.

Are you prepared to give the Bujanovc and the other Albanion region.

But then we still will have a problem are you going to feel comfertable with churches in Kosovo then or are those small patches of land going to be like country on its on.

"Serbia also said that Croatia, Bosnia and Slovenia had no right to seceded. Serbia asked the wrong question to the court, it is,'t against International law to declare independence, maybe against Serbian law but that's it.
(aRta, 9 December 2009 16:59)"

Wrong again. According to the Yugoslav constitution at the time it was not allowed to secede. Just because Belgrade was the capital of the former Yugoslavia does not mean that you can hold Serbia accountable. In that case all other republics that were still part of Yugoslavia were equally responsible. If there is such a thing like the "Kosovo constitution" it will be, according to your logic, OK for the Serbs north of the Ibar to declare independence (but they cannot, because they live in Serbia and so they cannot join Serbia) even though the "Kosovo constitution" does not allow it.

As it may turn out that even so called great democratic nations will not give any weight to ICJ in case its ruling is against views of democratic nations, we can prepare us for ICJ's funerals, and accept the reading of laws the way devil does it, not in any relation to the meant aim and purpose of the law in hand.

It will be possible, and generally acceptable that any law can be made to work against its initial aim and its spirit. This, naturally, offers a great amount of work to legal eagles who no more have to concentrate on the purpose of a single law and its spirit, but to ways of turning the spirit upside down.

It is absolutely clear that if the ICJ doesn't dare to do else than prostitute itself it will not only contribute in bringing chaos but it also will have blood in its hands. If all this is acceptable behaviour and honouring the spirit of legal system in the views of great democratic nations then for example Republika Srpska can free itself from Dayton Agreement simply by changing its name.

We also must accept fact that once you have offended a law you will be deprived of the benefit and protection of the laws. As much as you will gain right to destroy property of a company or a society that has treated you wrongly, you will get beaten and tortured by law enforcement institution after stealing an apple.

since they responded to my comment, I think I owe them an answer...

@amer:

no, I don´t think the end is near! the end, or I´d say the positive end, will take a longer period of time to come true.

so, don´t misunderstand my last comment in that way!

what I wanted to say is: France is not such a cornerstone of support for your little illusion as you might want to believe.

France is a european country with interests, and they will know very well how to bet on the right horse.

time is on Serbia´s side, so I don´t have any worries about the final outcome, that´s something you should be aware of.

Jovan, I love the way you spelled :"kosovah".
Ha-ha,"kosovah", whatever.
And about France: their forefathers are turning in their grave about France defending a narco state, but hey the world is changing and rapidly so. Nobody is going to give France anymore a credit for being a 'justice' and 'freedom loving' nation after this.
But hey if they have gone so far and don't care about their reputation why should I?

Its a silly talk, I know. It has nothing to do with justice and morals, oops. It has to do with Bernhard Kouchner and how many billions of dollars he earned for France by harvesting human organs in Kosovo and dumping nuclear waste all over Bosnia.

France, will be an Islamic Republic/Islamic majority nation soon anyway. Just look at their immigration, demographics and the next 20 years.

Peggy you intentionally confuse matters here.

You use the word obtained. As if Kosova is an object. Not only that but you wrongly assume that majority of those who live there have nothing to do with Kosova; when you use the word obtained. Kosova hasn't moved. It is geographically at the same exact location where it was. Nobody "obtained" it and ran with it.

2. You use the word illegal very loosely. This is the same time incorrect and done purposely in a malicious fashion.
That is because as has been shown there is no international law that either prohibits or allows independence in an automatic and mechanic fashion. The law is mute on this issue, thus this matter cannot be categorized as legal or illegal.
Another point is that since Serbia willfully denied the right to vote to Kosovar Albanian for Constitution that states that Kosova is Serbia then that constitution does not apply to Kosova Albanians. So even on the internal sense there is no illegality.
There is illegality on Serbia's part however when it comes to the forceful abolition of Kosova's status within the Federation.
I know you know these whenever you throw around comments like this but it doesn't hurt to state the obvious.

"The Confederate States of America (also called the Confederacy, the Confederate States, and the CSA) was the government set up from 1861 to 1865 by eleven southern slave states of the United States of America that had declared their secession from the U.S. The CSA's de facto control over its claimed territory varied during the course of the American Civil War, depending on the success of its military in battle.

Asserting that states had a right to secede, seven states declared their independence from the United States before the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln as President on March 4, 1861; four more did so after the Civil War began at the Battle of Fort Sumter (April 1861). The government of the United States of America (The Union) regarded secession as illegal and refused to recognize the Confederacy. Although British and French commercial interests sold the Confederacy warships and materials, no European or other foreign nation officially recognized the CSA as an independent country.[2][3]

The CSA effectively collapsed when Generals Robert E. Lee and Joseph E. Johnston surrendered their armies in April 1865. The last meeting of its Cabinet took place in Georgia in May. Union troops captured the Confederate President Jefferson Davis near Irwinville, Georgia on May 10, 1865. Nearly all remaining Confederate forces surrendered by the end of June. A decade-long process known as Reconstruction expelled ex-Confederate leaders from office, gave civil rights and the right to vote to the freedmen, and re-admitted the states to representation in Congress."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America

So according to the US constitution you can secede from the US, but if you do it will be considered illegal and not recognized by the US government. Which law gives the US government the right to call it illegal? not the US constitution. Is is international law? Which law gave the US the right to put the native inhabitants into reservations? Is there an international law that protects their rights? It is easy to make comments about an unknown place far away, but right in your backyard there may be things brewing that one day will put a mirror in front of you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States

Deal Mike,

U take Gracanica and N.Mitrovica and we take bujanovc ...

No problem sadly me and u dont make policies of countries but I am maybe one of few who say lets do it.

Serbs dont want to live in Kosovo so Albanians in Bujanovc, and the rest.

what about the churches in Kosovo do u want them in a truck and shipped to Serbia as well. They dont bother me a bit but then there will be no Serbs in kosovo to go there.

Then we have our own Flag change the name to Dardania, do our crazy Mafia things but u wont care Albanin things.

We know as you do as well all u left is with half the city take it please and leave us alone, I forgive your atrocities killing, all just leave go, claim RS what u like but dont complain more. As well right it in all history books so no one confuses it again

well, Amer, the "emotional temperature" as you call it, will go down. that´s for sure.

and also the maturation, on both sides, the albanian and the serbian as well, will progress.

therefore there is only one reasonable solution to the K-issue. a compromise.

that´s something the Albanians today do not want to hear about, but time will teach them something else.

they will come completely by themselves to the conclusion that their little stillborn is no viable option for the future, and that ( real ) autonomy within Serbia, as it is the only legal way, is in everyones interest.

it´s only too early for the K-albanians to realize that.

let´s just see what future brings.

France, Norway, and Jordan stated that Kosovo's independence from Serbia was not against international law. BUT, if an ethnic group of people living inside France, Norway, and Jordan declared their independence and then quickly tried to separate, to create their own nations, the world would see and hear very quickly France, Norway, and Jordan stating that such a succession is against international law while France, Norway, and Jordan would use armed troops to squash the rebellion.

If France says the secession of Kosovo was not against international law, then let's meet eachother in 5 years in the then new proclaimed Republic of Corsica. Cheers...

But was and is against the constitution of The Republic of Serbia. Maybe in practical terms that has little value, but a sovereign country's constitution should be respected. I am sure that it is against the French constitution that Corsica and the Basque region in France can split of from France. I am sure that Paris will send the army immediately and arrest the leaders of the split. Of course France has kept those regions relatively poor so from a financial point of view there is no benefit to leave the French Republic.
(Milan, 9 December 2009 18:12)
This has to be the jokee of the century. Do you remember when this was added to the constitution? I do it was in 2007 after negotiations broke down and the Ahtissari plan was announced. Parliament met and in one day changed the constitution to say that Kosovo was an inalienable part of Serbia and then announced that independence was impossible because it violated the Serbian constitution.
This only showed how unimportant the Serbian constitution is. If it can be changed in one day, it is not worth paper it is printed on. It takes months or years to make a change in the US constitution. It has only been amended 27 times in 222 years. That is pretty solid.

"Read more carefully Mike. There is no specific law. That is the whole point."

-- Awesome, then tell your "leaders" in Pristina to keep their hands off of parts of Kosovo that don't recognize their authority and we'll call it a deal, ok? :)

In fact, don't even get upset when northern Kosovo secedes back into Serbia Proper. After all, there's nothing stopping them, right?
(Mike, 9 December 2009 23:50)


If you want to find a parallel, then you use Presevo-Valley. Replace northern Kosova with Presevo-Valley and Pristina with Belgrade and you'll get the full picture.

Awesome, then tell your "leaders" in Pristina to keep their hands off of parts of Kosovo that don't recognize their authority and we'll call it a deal, ok? :)

In fact, don't even get upset when northern Kosovo secedes back into Serbia Proper. After all, there's nothing stopping them, right?
(Mike, 9 December 2009 23:50)

I personally have no problem with that. If they can secure enough worldwide support to do it they can go ahead. Again the problem is not us Albanians; its the international community. Convince them and the North or the RS can do what the will of people in those parts is. It is the same problem we Albanians have in convincing them that Presheva Vallet should join Kosova. However we have convinced them that Kosova needs to separate. Given Serbia's record that's simply impossible in the current conditions and time. And here also lies the issue that most Serbs are either afraid to face, refuse to face or simply are not aware of. That is at the center of issue is how convincing a territory is in making the case that it needs to secede and separate. That is what makes you independent and not some invisible law that Serbia claims. If we are successful enough in convincing the world community that we need to be independent and they agree then we are independent. Simple as that; no need to refer to inexistent laws or any agreement from Serbia. Its as simple as that. This is not a privellege to only Albanian. This is a privellege reserved to anyone and any people. Convince the world that you need to separate and be independent then upon their agreement for all intents and purposes you are.

If I steal a million dollars and put it in my bank account can I then say that I don't have to give it back because the reality on the ground is that it is now in my account, therefore mine?

As long as I manage to steal it I will be exempt from having to hand it back.

That's a very good law for any would be crook.

I waiting for French support for independent Republika Srpska, Karabakh, Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria or Kurdistan. They are too don't violating international law.

Milan, 10 December 2009 00:36 -

'On 10 March 1989 the Vojvodina Assembly approved the amendments, followed by the Kosovo Assembly on 23 March, and the Serbian Assembly on 28 March. '

>> The Assembly had to be replaced with more compliant members in Kosovo to obtain this result, and even so there were tanks and armored vehicles surrounding the Assembly building and security men circulating inside it during the vote. Usually, an "agreement" obtained under duress is not considered binding.

Milan, 10 December 2009 01:10 -

"So according to the US constitution you can secede from the US, but if you do it will be considered illegal and not recognized by the US government."

>> No, the Constitution does not allow the right of states to secede - if you're talking about Article 10 (the states have all the powers not assigned to the federal government), it doesn't apply to secession. The Supreme Court ruled on that in U.S. Supreme Court STATE OF TEXAS v. WHITE, 74 U.S. 700 (1868). More importantly, during the Civil War, the Southern states weren't able to make their case either on the battlefield or diplomatically.
____________
Peggy, 10 December 2009 02:12 -

"As long as I manage to steal it I will be exempt from having to hand it back.

That's a very good law for any would be crook."


>>You're confusing international and domestic law.

_____________________________
Olli, 10 December 2009 02:41 -

"What do you think, johny, did the International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia invent some non-existent international law?"

>>No, they said there's no automatic right of secession. The arguments for Kosovo's right to statehood are based on the sui generis elements of the situation: FRY/Serbia abuses, a decade of international efforts to find a consensual solution, a constitution allowing for protection of minorities, etc. The right to declare independence is one thing (and the only matter actually before the court). The conditions under which other states can recognize a country's statehood are a different matter.

Jovan, 10 December 2009 16:18 -

"what I wanted to say is: France is not such a cornerstone of support for your little illusion as you might want to believe.

France is a european country with interests, and they will know very well how to bet on the right horse."

>> Every country has its own interests, I've no problem with that. Also, it's own value system, and we're seeing that there's one basic difference here: one value system ranks the rights of sovereign states (to territorial integrity, for example) above all others in international law, and the other treats human and civil rights as paramount. This is why I don't expect a broad ruling on any "right to secede" from this court - a difference of such fundamental importance really has to be decided politically, after a great deal of debate and negotiation, not as part of an advisory ruling. I'd think.

"time is on Serbia´s side, so I don´t have any worries about the final outcome, that´s something you should be aware of."

Actually, if everybody decided to look at things this way, the emotional temperature would go down rapidly.

If I steal a million dollars and put it in my bank account can I then say that I don't have to give it back because the reality on the ground is that it is now in my account, therefore mine?

As long as I manage to steal it I will be exempt from having to hand it back.

That's a very good law for any would be crook.
(Peggy, 10 December 2009 02:12)
A very good post, however, I do not know which article it is suppose to be for. It has nothing to do with Kosovo!
If I have a million dollars in my bank and you say it use to be yours, should I automatically hand it over to you?

The problem with the French is that they live in the 19 Century when they actually mattered for something. They are trying to revive their days of glory, but it’s all too late; no one listens and no one care what they say.

This result is even today taught in the schools and universities of Serbia as justified loss of Finland. Therefore I consider myself being completely competent to understand all sentiments of Serbian people in Kosovo case. There are good, honest and intelligent Kosovars, but as a whole it is a land of no hope.
(Olli, 11 December 2009 02:30)

Olli I appreciate that someone from Finland is interested in this situation.

But the comment when you state is land of no Hope I do not think you judge the right way. Hope as not being economically viable at this moment I agree as a matter of fact maybe in next 20 years it will have its difficulties. But this has nothing to do with Hope, Irland had difficulties and today they are different. Iceland Had 3rd highest GDP per capita today they are bankrupt.

As for Hope your Finland is veru good economically but still has highest suecide rate in Europe and up there with Japan in the world. So it seems Fins are the ones with very low Hope.

K-Albanians as people have suffered a lot in past 20 years on one hand by Serbia but today still under KLA leadership I think these people have shown resilience and they again will continue to make progress. I think we should not put them down but reconise how much they have a will for Future even if all is stacked against them.

The Council of Ministers of the EU commissioned International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia to study the cases of UDIs of South Ossetians and Abkhaz. Here are portions from the Fact-Finding Missions report that has not been objected to or challenged by any EU member country:


"The issue of self-determination of South Ossetians and Abkhaz as well as their right to unilateral secession from Georgia are two legal issues related to the conflict.

Both South Ossetians and Abkhaz consider their right to self-determination as the legal basis for their quest for sovereignty and independence of the respective territories.

However, international law does not recognise a right to unilaterally create a new state based on the principle of self-determination outside the colonial context and apartheid.

This applies also to a process of dismemberment of a state, as might be discussed with regard to Georgia after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. According to the overwhelmingly accepted uti possidetis principle, only former constituent republics such as Georgia but not territorial sub-units such as South Ossetia or Abkhazia are granted independence in case of dismemberment of a larger entity such as the former Soviet Union. Hence, South Ossetia did not have a right to secede from Georgia, and the same holds true for Abkhazia for much of the same reasons. Recognition of breakaway entities such as Abkhazia and South Ossetia by a third country is consequently contrary to international law in terms of an unlawful interference in the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the affected country, which is Georgia. It runs against Principle I of the Helsinki Final Act which states "the participating States will respect each other's sovereign equality and individuality as well as all the rights inherent in and encompassed by its sovereignty, including in particular the right of every State to juridical equality, to territorial integrity and to freedom and political independence."



So, dear Kosovo UDI supporters, can we slowly bring this discussion to a level that isn't just one jumble or confusion?

To start: Johny, you wrote: "...the fact is that there is no specific international law that states that autonomous provinces or territories within a state are not allowed to declare independence or secede. That is the fact, no matter how bitter it might be to some."

What do you think, johny, did the International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia invent some non-existent international law?

johny,

The representative of Finland, Ms Päivi Kaukoranta, fails to give an honest statement of the process to independence of Finland. She says:

"The independence of my country, Finland, for example, was declared by a Parliament that was an organ of an autonomous part of the Russian empire in December 1917. From the perspective of Russian law, this was blatantly ultra vires. But, as confirmed by the recognitions in due course, that was no obstacle to Finnish independence."

Her statement is a deliberate falsification of the truth: Not a single foreign government accepted to recognize Finland's independency before Finland received recognition from Russia. Finnish government tried hard to persuade Germany to recognize, but Germany also replied that it can happen only after recognition by Russia.

The foreign governments considered the independence declaration by the Parliament of Finland being ultra vires, an act outside of its powers.

Then, on the 31st of December 1917, the Bolshevik government of Russia, headed by Lenin, announced that his government will recognize Finland. That opened gates for other recognitions, first by France, Germany And Sweden, on the 4th of January, 1918.

In case the recognitions have any role in the de facto or de jure independence of a state, one must honestly say that there existed a serious obstacle to Finnish independence until Bolshevik government removed it.

Ms Kaukoranta's statement is not correct, which matter I hope will be introduced to the members of the ICJ. Being a Finn myself, I am very upset of Kaukoranta's false statement.

In my view Serbia is blessed with the separation of Kosovo from it, for reasons that all intelligent people in this forum understand. We Finns lost our lands of Kalevala to Soviet Union in the war that started by Soviet Union's illegal military attack against us. This result is even today taught in the schools and universities of Serbia as justified loss of Finland. Therefore I consider myself being completely competent to understand all sentiments of Serbian people in Kosovo case. There are good, honest and intelligent Kosovars, but as a whole it is a land of no hope.

they will come completely by themselves to the conclusion that their little stillborn is no viable option for the future, and that ( real ) autonomy within Serbia, as it is the only legal way, is in everyones interest.

it´s only too early for the K-albanians to realize that.

let´s just see what future brings.
(Jovan, 10 December 2009 21:17)

I am sorry but your comment sound so naive. Do you really believe that the interst of K-Alb is to live under Serbia??

What a non-sense. How can a people prosper when their priority is peace and life-preservation and not life-improvement and economic development. FEAR will rain upon K-Alb the moment they are incorporated into Serbia again. Fear of death and attrocities like the ones in 1999. And Serbia affirmed this only a few weeks ago when it built a military base not far from Albanian populated areas. Good reminder whst to expect from Serbia.

K-Alb will never rest in peace under Serbia, the very mention of Serbia aggrivates them to the point of insanity even today. I have meet K-Alb that have had their families annihilated, 3-4 even 9 members killed or disapeared. Their stories have become legends, heard all over kosovo.

Everything in Kosovo revolves around the struggle against Serbia, their heroes, monuments in the streets of the cities, their history books, their tales and legends, everything. Go there and check it yourself.

So if Serbia hopes that will gets its way when things cool off, it will wait for a very long time. In my opinion it's not contributing to this at all, every move that Serbia has made so far has contributed to an escalation of hard-feelings.

One thing I don't understand is "Does Serbia truly believes that K-Alb will agree to atonomy, if Serbia makes them suffer?" How unwise is that.

"One thing I don't understand is "Does Serbia truly believes that K-Alb will agree to atonomy, if Serbia makes them suffer?" How unwise is that.
(Denis, 11 December 2009 16:43)"

Denis,

Do you think if those fears were addressed and satisfied that there could be a solution? Because when you do things unilaterally that only provides a temporary resolution. Should it really matter if there is joint sovereignty that is effectively under Albanian control but Serbia has a role in Serbian things? A solution that safeguards, more than independence, against violence?

Of course, that is naive. It is better to push someone into a corner where eventually they will come out fighting. Why don't you learn from Serbia's mistakes.

I am not filled with the hatred and fear that many are so I know I'm not the best judge. I'm just asking the questions

Here is a history reminder for you Kosovo Albanians and their supporters.

"Starting in 1982 and 1983, in response to nationalist Albanian riots in Kosovo, the Central Committee of the SFRY League of Communists adopted a set of conclusions aimed at centralizing Serbia’s control over law enforcement and the judiciary in its Kosovo and Vojvodina provinces.

In 1986 Serbian president Ivan Stambolic established a commission to amend the Serbian Constitution in keeping with conclusions adopted by the federal Communist Party.

The constitutional commission worked for three years to harmonize its positions and in 1989 an amended Serbian constitution was submitted to the governments of Kosovo, Vojvodina and Serbia for approval.

On 10 March 1989 the Vojvodina Assembly approved the amendments, followed by the Kosovo Assembly on 23 March, and the Serbian Assembly on 28 March.

In the Kosovo Assembly 187 of the 190 assembly members were present when the vote was taken: 10 voted against the amendments, two abstained, and the remaining 175 voted in favor of the amendments.

Although the ethnic composition of the Kosovo Assembly was over 70 percent Albanian, Kosovo-Albanian nationalists reacted violently to the constitutional amendments. The UPI wire service reported that "unrest began [in Kosovo] when amendments were approved returning to Serbia control over the province's police, courts, national defence and foreign affairs ... mass demonstrations turned into violent street rioting when demonstrators began using firearms against police." According to the report the rioting killed 29 people and injured 30 policemen and 97 civilians.

In the wake of the unrest following the 1989 constitutional amendments, ethnic Albanians in Kosovo largely boycotted the provincial government and refused to vote in the elections. Azem Vllasi, leader of the League of Communists of Kosovo, was arrested for inciting rioting amid a strike by Kosovo-Albanian miners. In the wake of the Albanian boycott, supporters of Slobodan Milošević were elected to positions of authority by the remaining Serbian voters in Kosovo."

To me it seems that the Yugoslav communist (from all republics) took away Kosovo's autonomy and not Serbia and the Serbs. If Serbia had proposed this and the other republics had said no nothing would have changed. This was all done within the framework of the Yugoslavian constitution. The fact that the Kosovo Albanians decided to boycot the Yugoslav and Serbian societies was their own choice and they themselves took away their rights to vote. And the rest of Yugoslavia kept sending lots of money that was wasted. Anyway, if we could go back in time and undo mistakes and injustice we could and should. However, I just wonder what would have happened if Serbia, Krajina, and the Serbs in Bosnia and Montenegro had decided to become independent from Yugoslavia and form a union of Serbs (ironically called Greater Serbia by many others). How would the West and the other republics have reacted? I also wonder whether or not the new EU constitution allows countries or regions within EU to step out of the EU and what will be the consequences if they actually did. Did the western countries, when the had colonies in Africa, the Americas and Asia, break international law? If yes, can these countries still sue them for suffering and economic losses? Based on the reality on the ground the Serbs in Kosovo have all right to declare independence on the day, may God make sure that it will never happen, that Kosovo will be a true independent country. Then we will see what the Kosovo Albanians and their masters will say and do.

" the end, or I´d say the positive end, will take a longer period of time to come true... time is on Serbia´s side..."

Jovan,

I agree, time is on the side of the mother country to get back what was once hers.

Although Hungarians have been waiting for more than 80 years to get back what was theirs for a thousand years, so Serbians must prepare for a long period to wait.

"A very good post, however, I do not know which article it is suppose to be for. It has nothing to do with Kosovo!
If I have a million dollars in my bank and you say it use to be yours, should I automatically hand it over to you?"
(pss, 10 December 2009 15:32)

Yes, if you obtained it illegally from me.

It has everything to do with Kosovo. Your Thaci & co obtained Kosovo illegally with outside help.

Mister wrote: "Do you think if those fears were addressed and satisfied that there could be a solution? Because when you do things unilaterally that only provides a temporary resolution. Should it really matter if there is joint sovereignty that is effectively under Albanian control but Serbia has a role in Serbian things? A solution that safeguards, more than independence, against violence?"

Pipedreams. That is for several reasons.

1. The constitution of Serbia prevents all the things you mentioned from happening.

2. There were such warranties and guarantees before in the constitution which was unilaterally abolished by Serbia. That didn't stop it from happening and it certainly didn't stop the violence.

3. What you call mistakes are not actually mistakes but willful coordination of Serbian state organs that lead to crimes against humanity.

I have more reasons, and not enough time. Holla and I'll post them later.

Finally. Move on and stop living on false the false hope that things will change just so Serbia could save face.

Johny, I don't try to confuse anything.
Perhaps the word obtained can be put aside. How about we use the word "settled"?

Even that word can inply that Serbs came to Kosovo, slaughtered the indigenous people there and set up their own government. Much like what the white man did in America or Australia except that Serbs did not slaughter anyone in Kosovo.

Now if Serbs colonised Kosovo we certainly join the ranks of the English and should call Kosovo our colony rather than our province.

Please tell us how do you think it all happened.

France also believes that they have a good soccer team and that it's ok to cheat.

Radoslave,

It is interesting to hear ONLY democratic countries like USA, UK, France, and Germany debating the independence of Kosovo.

A reading of the history of former Yugoslavia 1991 - 1999 will make it very clear who was responsible for committing acts of war. And acts of genocide. Until Serbia faces up to the past, a lack of realism regarding Kosovo - and Bosnia - will prevail.

I see that france has used the "only countries have to respect each other's territorial integrity" argument. How is a country recognizing a secession in another country respecting that other country's territorial integrity? This is a stupid argument because destabilizing another country ia AN ACT OF WAR. But, if france wants to play that game, fine. The Serbian government should immediately contact the Corsican separatist groups and offer its recognition if they choose to disrespect france's territorial integrity and declare Corsica's independence. Then, at the next General Assembly, Serbia should request a binding lawsuit against all of those countries that recognized the Kosovo UDI for committing ACTS OF WAR against Serbia.

Yesterday, UN Security Council heavyweights Russia and the United States presented their opposing arguments on this issue.
--
This is what the USA representative said yesterday.

"As important, the resolution refers not to preserving the territorial integrity of Serbia, but the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, an entity that no longer exists. Even though the resolution required Kosovo to remain within the FRY, it never required Kosovo to remain within “Serbia”."

Well, I have to thank the USA for confirming "the resolution refers to preserving the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" and "the resolution required Kosovo to remain within the FRY".

I repeat, the resolution requires Kosovo to remain within the FRY and confirms its territorial integrity. I thought the USA was an author of independence but is now arguing in Serbia's favour.

Claiming Serbia is not FRY is simply a lost cause. Serbia continues to hold the UN seat of FRY and all other international bodies, which has been confirmed over and again. Since negotiations continue with Serbia regarding 1244, that in itself if evidence that Serbia is FRY. It is just a name change after Montenegro's exit.

So here we have the USA confirming our case and it is greatly appreciated!

it's how funny how Serbia thought with spinning can win the court?
ahahahahaha..
First Serbia contradicted itself: Is declaration of Kosovo independence in accordance with International l law? and then went to say no rule of international law prohibits declaration.
Lol....

A victory day for Kosovo!!

I find it funny how the Albanian definition of democracy amoutns to anyone who defends Kosovo at ICJ.

So let's ignore the fact that neo-imperialism advocated by the countries PRN? mention are anti-democratic acts. Or that Saudi Arabia.

I guess in their mind Russia isn't a democracy (yet the countries in question never have set it isn't, just criticized how elections are carried ou -- ironically they never criticize the U.S. supreme court for appointing Bush in 2000, how democratic

“Secession does not go against international law and the court should refuse to take a stance on the issue,” Belliard said.

Why? Are you afraid of the outcome?

PRN

Those democratic countries you are refering to attacked Serbia, Sudan, Irak and Afganistan without a UN resolution. That is, they didn't ask what the majority of the world thought about their actions, they did it anyway. I can say that I am God, however, it doesn't mean that I am.

PRN - You are right. It is interesting to hear what the US, etc have to say. So far they have said nothing that would favour Kosovo's independence, the latest statement from France being an example. Using their argument, if i rob a bank and spend all the money then because of this "fact on the ground", the judge shouldn't provide a ruling about whether I committed a crime or not. Mickey mouse arguments at for a mickey mouse pseudo state.

Whether you like it or not you'll be back at the negotiating table trying to preserve as much as possible because the US knows that when it loses this case it'll have no option but to talk with Serbia and as the US is your master you'll have to say "yes sir, no sir" to whatever they demand. You're weak and are in no position to ask or demand anything. Instead, you'll be told what to do like a teacher to a schoolboy. So the longer you have your head in the clouds dreaming of a fantasy greater albania (which would be greater just in land and nothing else), the longer it'll take before your standards of living within Serbia will take to improve.

How is a country recognizing a secession in another country respecting that other country's territorial integrity?
-----All countries had to be recognized and each country make its decisions.
Serbia also said that Croatia, Bosnia and Slovenia had no right to seceded. Serbia asked the wrong question to the court, it is,'t against International law to declare independence, maybe against Serbian law but that's it.

So secession is not in violation of international law? Then what in the world is RS waiting for? And why then are we bent out of shape over the secession of Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Do these defenders of Kosovo's UDI even know what they're arguing, because according to me, they are all willing to allow Kosovo to continue to exist while risking legitimizing secessionist movements elsewhere.

"It is interesting to hear ONLY democratic countries like USA, UK, France, and Germany debating the independence of Kosovo." (PRN)

-- Hey genius, Spain, Argentina, Cyprus and Brazil have so far defended Serbia's side. And what do you consider Saudi Arabia and Jordan who spoke for yours? This comment is a stretch in rationality, even for you.

The US yesterday and France today are playing word games.

This is me paraphrasing: “Its not against international law for Kosovo to declare it, maybe it is for us to recognize it, but tough, that’s not what Serbia asked about.”

“Claiming Serbia is not FRY is simply a lost cause. (Zoran, 9 December 2009 16:34)”

They appear at times to confuse FRY with SFRY. Serbia is NOT the successor to SFRY but IS the successor state to FRY as far as the UN is concerned. Serbia did not have to apply for a new seat this time around. When SFRY fell apart, they did have to apply for a seat.

The ONLY argument the Albanian side has is that they were abused under Milesovic.

However, ONLY 2,000 died (in a terrorist insurgency) before the US stepped in and decided Kosovo needed independence through bombing. A total of maybe 8,000 or 9,000 Albanians died (10,000 is the total for all sides).

So what will the new rule be? 2000 are killed you get independence? Sounds like you all are more than happy to give up Northern Kosovo.

5000 Kurds in Iraq died in a single incident. 35,000 Kurds have died in Turkey.

They don’t even have their own county (Kosovo Albanians at least have Albania).

The world needs guidance and leadership on these kinds of issues. There does need to be a framework in which to allow these sorts of things if the situation merits it.

2,000 killed fighting UCK? I’m not so sure. Bush killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions of civilians in Iraq fighting a non-existent Al Qaeda. If that’s not a crime, then I don’t know what is.

my dear albanian friends, don´t fool yourselves!

this doesn´t mean that much, if you take into account, that just a week ago the French have decided to join the "South-Stream" project and to get their little share of the advantages this will bring.

you can deny that, of course, but reading the newspapers thoroughly ( of the last week or so) should help you get the picture, I think.

so, slowly the French are leaving the anglo-saxon axis of "securing" a "corridor" from the black sea to the mediterranean via Macedonia, the stillborn "kosovah" and Albania...

and that doesn´t mean only a blow to the socalled "Nabucco"-project... it could very likely lead to an ugly end for the "newborn"..

(Jovan, 9 December 2009 18:34)

U must not know a damn think about France.

They are joining this project for pure money reasons:

1) Project needs Financing
2) Its business and as such Franc will make money on all the fees it collects as share holder.

3) France will never buy more than 20% of gas from Russia just not to be dependent on it.

Most comes from Algeria, Moro, and Norway.

Germany is main investor of this project and i dont see u claiming Germany will back Serbia :).

B92 forgot to say that Jordan and Norway have same opinion as France, USA ...

Right now UN:

USA/France For Kosovo

Russia/China For Serbia

UK on Deck: ....

I think Kosovo has chosen its Friends so has Serbia lets see how this will turn in 10 years.

But i like your creativity in spinning things

To kill innocent civilians was a crime. To forget about them is another
The story about those killed is always also the story about someone who killed them.

But was and is against the constitution of The Republic of Serbia. Maybe in practical terms that has little value, but a sovereign country's constitution should be respected"

Hmmmm...did Serbia respect the human rights of Albanians that much so Albanians should respect the Serbian constitution? Serbia voted for the constitution while excluding Albanians

"Serbia also said that Croatia, Bosnia and Slovenia had no right to seceded. Serbia asked the wrong question to the court, it is,'t against International law to declare independence, maybe against Serbian law but that's it.
(aRta, 9 December 2009 16:59)"

Wrong again. According to the Yugoslav constitution at the time it was not allowed to secede. Just because Belgrade was the capital of the former Yugoslavia does not mean that you can hold Serbia accountable. In that case all other republics that were still part of Yugoslavia were equally responsible. If there is such a thing like the "Kosovo constitution" it will be, according to your logic, OK for the Serbs north of the Ibar to declare independence (but they cannot, because they live in Serbia and so they cannot join Serbia) even though the "Kosovo constitution" does not allow it.

So, Corsicans can declare independence from France now.
It's legal!

But was and is against the constitution of The Republic of Serbia. Maybe in practical terms that has little value, but a sovereign country's constitution should be respected. I am sure that it is against the French constitution that Corsica and the Basque region in France can split of from France. I am sure that Paris will send the army immediately and arrest the leaders of the split. Of course France has kept those regions relatively poor so from a financial point of view there is no benefit to leave the French Republic.

Looking good.

It's very sad to see people "screaming" about this because their politicians have told them that Kosovo is the heart of Serbia and Kosovo is Serbia.

Aristotle long time ago said; “man is a political animal.” Obviously there is plenty of reason to believe that he was right.

France, Europe and USA don't support Kosovo because they have much love about Albanians, because they hate Serbs or anything like that. They do it because it's on their interest to secure the Balkans, Europe and the World. A Balkan conflict is a big trouble for all of them and they can't afford to let things go terribly bad again.

Kosovo is among the solutions for a peaceful and stabilized Balkan and Europe.

"Read more carefully Mike. There is no specific law. That is the whole point."

-- Awesome, then tell your "leaders" in Pristina to keep their hands off of parts of Kosovo that don't recognize their authority and we'll call it a deal, ok? :)

In fact, don't even get upset when northern Kosovo secedes back into Serbia Proper. After all, there's nothing stopping them, right?

It's definitely getting interesting.

It is very interesting to hear somebody saying that 90% of population in Kosovo are bound to constitution of Serbia. After the fact that Serbia institutionally and forcibly deported over a million albanians out in 1999.

République CORSE!

From the abuse point of view the Shi'ites in Southern Iraq and the Kurds in Northern Iraq deserve indendence, but for the US it is absolutely necessary that Iraq does not break up and that a civil war is avoided. For Yugoslavia that kind of argument did not apply. It had to break apart and a civil war had to start. I suggest that France will bring Israel to the ICJ and starts arguing about independence for the Palestinians. Also France should give up all it territories around the world (mainly in the Pacific) so these people can live freely. I already mentioned a free Corsica and maybe Vichy France should get a restart (I am sure Croatia will support this).

Matthew, I'm not sure whether Serbia is the successor state to FRY like Russia is to the USSR. Serbia created FRY with Montenegro in 1992.

Here is a timeline of events:

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

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

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

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

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

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

More importantly though, the US has admitted that UNSCR 1244 refers to preserving the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and "the resolution required Kosovo to remain within the FRY". The argument confirming FRY to mean Serbia is a trivial one.

Nice to see that France played up the fact that Kosova's independence is a reality on the ground. That's what many of you just don't get because you have never set foot in Kosova.The fact is only 3-5% of Kosova's population believe that they live in Serbia.

Looks like Jordan really layed it on pretty thick.
Their timeline of events and historical interpretations were very accurate and singled out the resilience of the Kosova Albanian's time and time again throughout history.

I'm noticing a pattern by Kosovo's so-called defenders at the ICJ and its posters here:

International law does not trump the realities on the ground, and the realities, so far as we interpret it, reflect Kosovo as a fait accompli independent state.

I wonder therefore if these same people would be willing to recognize other "realities" on the ground in the region:

a) That RS is, for all intents and purposes, an independent entity as well. Even though there are UN Security Council Resolutions that claim it to be a part of Bosnia, it exists within the Bosnian framework more on paper than in reality.

b) That Serbian municipalities of Kosovo, particularly those north of the Ibar are, for all intents and purposes, independent of Pristina and therefore can decide their own destiny.

Now, according to the logic of many of Kosovo's defenders, we should just forget about "law" and be "practical". If such thinking is applied to these other two areas, then I guess no one really cares about boundaries anymore. But, if as I suspect, a number of people will suddenly rush to the defense of Bosnia's and Kosovo's defense, claiming a violation of their territory and authority, it's painfully obvious the "law" is only arbitrarily applied when it suits those who need it.

If these are the best arguments the United States and other states can offer to Kosovo's legality, while still trying to emphasize that even though secession isn't against international law but Kosovo is a "special case", stupidity has indeed triumphed.

'and that doesn´t mean only a blow to the socalled "Nabucco"-project... it could very likely lead to an ugly end for the "newborn"..
(Jovan, 9 December 2009 18:34) '

Let's not get all excited here: Europe is probably going to need both South Stream and Nabucco. (The EC just voted a few days ago to put more money into Nabucco.) And Turkey wants to extend Nabucco to Kosovo and Albania. It's a little strange to be crying "the end is nigh!" right now.

In 3 months Serbia will realize that going to the ICJ was a futile exercise. I think the whole thing was devised for internal consumption. "You see dear contrymen we tried hard, we did everything possible".

I may have missed the paragraph, but who defended Serbia at the ICJ today?

Even if the court ruled the UDI illegal, the US,and camp followers will not change their stance.

If Serbia is ever to recover Kosovo, at some stage Serbia will have to declare 1244 a broken agreement and enforce the terms for itself.

That will not be easily possible, because there will be occupying troops there indefinitely.

What a ruling against Serbia will do is destroy many future peace agreements in other conflicts.

A humanitarian intervention was probably justified to stop a repeat of the wickednesses that occurred in Bosnia from happening Kosovo.

However, the UDI removes the justification for future possible humanitarian interventions because it undermines trust.

As it may turn out that even so called great democratic nations will not give any weight to ICJ in case its ruling is against views of democratic nations, we can prepare us for ICJ's funerals, and accept the reading of laws the way devil does it, not in any relation to the meant aim and purpose of the law in hand.

It will be possible, and generally acceptable that any law can be made to work against its initial aim and its spirit. This, naturally, offers a great amount of work to legal eagles who no more have to concentrate on the purpose of a single law and its spirit, but to ways of turning the spirit upside down.

It is absolutely clear that if the ICJ doesn't dare to do else than prostitute itself it will not only contribute in bringing chaos but it also will have blood in its hands. If all this is acceptable behaviour and honouring the spirit of legal system in the views of great democratic nations then for example Republika Srpska can free itself from Dayton Agreement simply by changing its name.

We also must accept fact that once you have offended a law you will be deprived of the benefit and protection of the laws. As much as you will gain right to destroy property of a company or a society that has treated you wrongly, you will get beaten and tortured by law enforcement institution after stealing an apple.

But was and is against the constitution of The Republic of Serbia. Maybe in practical terms that has little value, but a sovereign country's constitution should be respected. I am sure that it is against the French constitution that Corsica and the Basque region in France can split of from France. I am sure that Paris will send the army immediately and arrest the leaders of the split. Of course France has kept those regions relatively poor so from a financial point of view there is no benefit to leave the French Republic.
(Milan, 9 December 2009 18:12)

Some things to consider here are the following.

1. Secessions and declarations of independence are almost always against internal law and constitutions. Finland for example yesterday made that clear when it stated that when Finland declared its independence it was an autonomous region of Russia and it was against Russia's law to declare independence. Other examples include the declaration of independence of the US from UK etc. You'll find hundreds of cases. Other cases include the declarations of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia which were against SFRY law.

2. Second point is that you make the presumption that Kosova Albanians voted for the Serbian Constitution. That presumption we all know is false. The Serbian state willingly denied Kosova Albanians the right to vote for the very same constitution you mention by not including them in the voter list. Hence since Albanians were denied representation and voting rights to such a constitution then by that logic that constitution does not represent them and holds no power in relation to them. To use a term endeared to Serbs. The constitution from the Albanian perspective is NULL and VOID because they were not allowed to vote for it. Hence the declaration does not go against a constitution that Albanians didn't vote for.

3. Your point about financials and economy is contradictory. It makes perfect sense to separate from an entity once you have evidenced that that entity is purposely keeping you poor. The alternatives are either you are poor as you already are or you become less poor or rich.
To sum it up, secessions and declarations of independence in the vast majority of cases are against internal (notice not international law) and without the approval of the established state. The very nature of secessions is such; so there is nothing new here.
Second, the constitution being the supreme law of a land does not apply to a group of people if they were willingly denied the right to vote for it. Hence there was no occurrence of illegality in the internal sense as well.
Third as I stated above, your point about financial situations is contradictory.

How is a country recognizing a secession in another country respecting that other country's territorial integrity?
-----All countries had to be recognized and each country make its decisions.
Serbia also said that Croatia, Bosnia and Slovenia had no right to seceded. Serbia asked the wrong question to the court, it is,'t against International law to declare independence, maybe against Serbian law but that's it.
(aRta, 9 December 2009 16:59)

You know what is against the Law Arta, it seems it is against the Law for Serbia to take Kosovo Autonomy in March 22 1989. Why do Serbs forget to mention that here and at same time blame Albanians for not voting against Slobo. Dont you know we could not.

Serbia has 2 day shared left after they will wait for Ruling and Claim moral victory.

Analogy of US was amazing A abused Kid going home to Abusive parent after living apart for long time.

I need to thank VUK it has helped us much more than it did harm.

'More importantly though, the US has admitted that UNSCR 1244 refers to preserving the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and "the resolution required Kosovo to remain within the FRY". The argument confirming FRY to mean Serbia is a trivial one.'

The purpose of referring to the FRY was to allow for the possibility that Kosovo would join the FRY as a republic on the level of Serbia and Montenegro. Once the FRY no longer existed, the possibility no longer existed. Requiring it to return to being a province of Serbia is hardly the same thing, even though Serbia became the legal successor to the FRY.

alproud,

They have to support Kosovo because what they did to Serbia was/is illegal,and they have to do what they can do in order to come out smelling like roses while dumping on the rest of the world. There are also some serious American presidental and political legacies at stake here,not to mention major law suits,and crucial America's credibility and "power" which is on world stage.These people at this point in time don't care if the ICJ rules it's self out of irrelevance and out of existence,as long as they get a favorable ruling.
If The ICJ starts "butchering" the laws on the books and rules in Kosovo Albanian favor,the result will slowly start spinning chaos in many parts of the world. Looks like exactly what the doctor ordered for justifying monster armies and military complexes and opening of new frontiers and oppurtunities for fishing in "muddy waters". The West has morphed into a "beast" which cannot exist in peace time and function within the international legal framework and norms any more.That's one of the reasons they have their own courts for the "special", and courts for rest and others which are not "special".I expect the ruling to be in the favor of their skin and their pockets,as usual.The only "good" news in the last couple of days is that Gates gave his word yesterday to never turn his back on Afghanistan.

@milan
"But was and is against the constitution of The Republic of Serbia."
Then it constitutes a violation of domestic, but not international law.
Remember the question that Serbia chose to ask - did the declaration violate international law?
Very narrow and specific. And it should be apparent by now that the answer is no, it didn't.
I'm afraid this whole thing is a ruse to raise Serbia's stakes with the intl community. That and the flirt with Russia. And we see the results (unfreezing of the trade agreement, white Schengen, etc.). This way the Kosovo issue will gradually be marginalized, and it's a good thing too. but it will only be frozen indefinitely. This still leaves the key problem unresolved, which is the reconciliation of the serb and k-albanian people. This is a very hypocritical and cowardly way to deal with a very important problem.

Mike said :"Now, according to the logic of many of Kosovo's defenders, we should just forget about "law" and be "practical". "

Read more carefully Mike. There is no specific law. That is the whole point. Whether you like it or not, that is another matter, however the fact is that there is no specific international law that states that autonomous provinces or territories within a state are not allowed to declare independence or secede. That is the fact, no matter how bitter it might be to some. Due to this well established fact today we have countries such as USA, Finland, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Serbia, Albania, Greece etc etc. All of this countries declared independence without the blessing or the will of the countries they were seceding from. A lot if not most of these countries were autonomous regions. No law prohibited their secession then and there is no such law now. Simple as that.

I waiting for French support for independent Republika Srpska, Karabakh, Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria or Kurdistan. They are too don't violating international law.

The problem with the French is that they live in the 19 Century when they actually mattered for something. They are trying to revive their days of glory, but it’s all too late; no one listens and no one care what they say.

Responnding to Olli here. I will ask you to read Finland's defense carefully once again because of some of the points it makes.

1. The very fact that there are Fact Finding missions or resolutions that are against independence movements and Fact Finding missions and resolutions that are for independence movements (examples are provided by Finland) makes it clear that there is no specific law which deals with the issue of independence movement in an automatic and mechanic manner. Meaning because there are resolutions for and against independence movements one cannot say without reasonable doubt that independence is prohibited or allowed by international law. No specific law states that independence of any region is automatically prohibited or allowed. This is a grey area in international law and as it is shown by these resolutions it is interpreted by those in power and world community on a per case basis. As we can see different cases have yielded different interpretations. If there existed a law that quite clearly stated that independence movements and independence of regions is not allowed in international law then we would have not many results and resolution but only a single one.. Meaning there would be no case were independence and independence movements were allowed. The fact that there are such cases clearly points to the lack of such a law. Based on that, one cannot deem independence movements to automatically be legal or illegal. It is and has always been a case by case issue. The analogy Finland makes with parking tickets is quite clear. Not this sucks if you are a Serb and on the short end of the stick but that is how it has always been. We do not need to be naive here. The great powers have left this as a grey area wither on purpose or for the lack of an agreement between them but this is how it has always been. New states have formed and states have vanished, even from autonomous regions. If what you advocate is true then we would simply have a static map that never changed over time.

2. Finland itself was an autonomous region when it declared independence.

3. If you are more interested you can then read Croatia's and Jordan's defense that talk about Kosovars as a people, the sovereignity Kosova enjoyed in the Federation prior to the abolishment of its status and why as a result of that forceful abolishment and the forceful striping out of that sovereignity Serbia no longer exercised any rights over the people or the territory of Kosova. They are quite clear.

Here is a history reminder for you Kosovo Albanians and their supporters.

"Starting in 1982 and 1983, in response to nationalist Albanian riots in Kosovo, the Central Committee of the SFRY League of Communists adopted a set of conclusions aimed at centralizing Serbia’s control over law enforcement and the judiciary in its Kosovo and Vojvodina provinces.

In 1986 Serbian president Ivan Stambolic established a commission to amend the Serbian Constitution in keeping with conclusions adopted by the federal Communist Party.

The constitutional commission worked for three years to harmonize its positions and in 1989 an amended Serbian constitution was submitted to the governments of Kosovo, Vojvodina and Serbia for approval.

On 10 March 1989 the Vojvodina Assembly approved the amendments, followed by the Kosovo Assembly on 23 March, and the Serbian Assembly on 28 March.

In the Kosovo Assembly 187 of the 190 assembly members were present when the vote was taken: 10 voted against the amendments, two abstained, and the remaining 175 voted in favor of the amendments.

Although the ethnic composition of the Kosovo Assembly was over 70 percent Albanian, Kosovo-Albanian nationalists reacted violently to the constitutional amendments. The UPI wire service reported that "unrest began [in Kosovo] when amendments were approved returning to Serbia control over the province's police, courts, national defence and foreign affairs ... mass demonstrations turned into violent street rioting when demonstrators began using firearms against police." According to the report the rioting killed 29 people and injured 30 policemen and 97 civilians.

In the wake of the unrest following the 1989 constitutional amendments, ethnic Albanians in Kosovo largely boycotted the provincial government and refused to vote in the elections. Azem Vllasi, leader of the League of Communists of Kosovo, was arrested for inciting rioting amid a strike by Kosovo-Albanian miners. In the wake of the Albanian boycott, supporters of Slobodan Milošević were elected to positions of authority by the remaining Serbian voters in Kosovo."

To me it seems that the Yugoslav communist (from all republics) took away Kosovo's autonomy and not Serbia and the Serbs. If Serbia had proposed this and the other republics had said no nothing would have changed. This was all done within the framework of the Yugoslavian constitution. The fact that the Kosovo Albanians decided to boycot the Yugoslav and Serbian societies was their own choice and they themselves took away their rights to vote. And the rest of Yugoslavia kept sending lots of money that was wasted. Anyway, if we could go back in time and undo mistakes and injustice we could and should. However, I just wonder what would have happened if Serbia, Krajina, and the Serbs in Bosnia and Montenegro had decided to become independent from Yugoslavia and form a union of Serbs (ironically called Greater Serbia by many others). How would the West and the other republics have reacted? I also wonder whether or not the new EU constitution allows countries or regions within EU to step out of the EU and what will be the consequences if they actually did. Did the western countries, when the had colonies in Africa, the Americas and Asia, break international law? If yes, can these countries still sue them for suffering and economic losses? Based on the reality on the ground the Serbs in Kosovo have all right to declare independence on the day, may God make sure that it will never happen, that Kosovo will be a true independent country. Then we will see what the Kosovo Albanians and their masters will say and do.

Jovan, I love the way you spelled :"kosovah".
Ha-ha,"kosovah", whatever.
And about France: their forefathers are turning in their grave about France defending a narco state, but hey the world is changing and rapidly so. Nobody is going to give France anymore a credit for being a 'justice' and 'freedom loving' nation after this.
But hey if they have gone so far and don't care about their reputation why should I?

Its a silly talk, I know. It has nothing to do with justice and morals, oops. It has to do with Bernhard Kouchner and how many billions of dollars he earned for France by harvesting human organs in Kosovo and dumping nuclear waste all over Bosnia.

If I steal a million dollars and put it in my bank account can I then say that I don't have to give it back because the reality on the ground is that it is now in my account, therefore mine?

As long as I manage to steal it I will be exempt from having to hand it back.

That's a very good law for any would be crook.

Mike,

You keep comparing RS to Kosova/o - the two aren't quite the same; there is a crucial fact that separates RS and Kosova/o. RS came into being through an accord – a contract if you will – between the parties. RS explicitly agreed to the status it has now as a result. However, the same cannot be said of Kosova/o. As a matter of fact, the abolition of the autonomy was counter to the will of the majority of the Kosova/o population. If there is a document that Kosovar leadership agreed to be under FRY or Serbian rule, please do point me to it (Rambouillet notwithstanding, since that wasn't signed by FRY/Serbia at the time, so it isn't an agreement in the legal sense). At any rate, comparing RS and Kosova/o by overlooking this important fact is being a bit selective in our memories of events :-).


On another note, Amer does bring a very good point on FRY vs. Serbia argument in 1244. If Kosova/o was part of Serbia, then why not mention Serbia directly, but resort to FRY? Seems that the point was probably to have the option of lumping Kosova/o into a 3rd republic within FRY - that would've been the closest thing for Kosova/o to remain to some extent with Serbia. But once Montenegro pulled out before things could get to that point, that potential plan went bye-bye. So, the next thing that came was independence, thus, here we are today.

since they responded to my comment, I think I owe them an answer...

@amer:

no, I don´t think the end is near! the end, or I´d say the positive end, will take a longer period of time to come true.

so, don´t misunderstand my last comment in that way!

what I wanted to say is: France is not such a cornerstone of support for your little illusion as you might want to believe.

France is a european country with interests, and they will know very well how to bet on the right horse.

time is on Serbia´s side, so I don´t have any worries about the final outcome, that´s something you should be aware of.

France, Norway, and Jordan stated that Kosovo's independence from Serbia was not against international law. BUT, if an ethnic group of people living inside France, Norway, and Jordan declared their independence and then quickly tried to separate, to create their own nations, the world would see and hear very quickly France, Norway, and Jordan stating that such a succession is against international law while France, Norway, and Jordan would use armed troops to squash the rebellion.

This result is even today taught in the schools and universities of Serbia as justified loss of Finland. Therefore I consider myself being completely competent to understand all sentiments of Serbian people in Kosovo case. There are good, honest and intelligent Kosovars, but as a whole it is a land of no hope.
(Olli, 11 December 2009 02:30)

Olli I appreciate that someone from Finland is interested in this situation.

But the comment when you state is land of no Hope I do not think you judge the right way. Hope as not being economically viable at this moment I agree as a matter of fact maybe in next 20 years it will have its difficulties. But this has nothing to do with Hope, Irland had difficulties and today they are different. Iceland Had 3rd highest GDP per capita today they are bankrupt.

As for Hope your Finland is veru good economically but still has highest suecide rate in Europe and up there with Japan in the world. So it seems Fins are the ones with very low Hope.

K-Albanians as people have suffered a lot in past 20 years on one hand by Serbia but today still under KLA leadership I think these people have shown resilience and they again will continue to make progress. I think we should not put them down but reconise how much they have a will for Future even if all is stacked against them.

The Council of Ministers of the EU commissioned International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia to study the cases of UDIs of South Ossetians and Abkhaz. Here are portions from the Fact-Finding Missions report that has not been objected to or challenged by any EU member country:


"The issue of self-determination of South Ossetians and Abkhaz as well as their right to unilateral secession from Georgia are two legal issues related to the conflict.

Both South Ossetians and Abkhaz consider their right to self-determination as the legal basis for their quest for sovereignty and independence of the respective territories.

However, international law does not recognise a right to unilaterally create a new state based on the principle of self-determination outside the colonial context and apartheid.

This applies also to a process of dismemberment of a state, as might be discussed with regard to Georgia after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. According to the overwhelmingly accepted uti possidetis principle, only former constituent republics such as Georgia but not territorial sub-units such as South Ossetia or Abkhazia are granted independence in case of dismemberment of a larger entity such as the former Soviet Union. Hence, South Ossetia did not have a right to secede from Georgia, and the same holds true for Abkhazia for much of the same reasons. Recognition of breakaway entities such as Abkhazia and South Ossetia by a third country is consequently contrary to international law in terms of an unlawful interference in the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the affected country, which is Georgia. It runs against Principle I of the Helsinki Final Act which states "the participating States will respect each other's sovereign equality and individuality as well as all the rights inherent in and encompassed by its sovereignty, including in particular the right of every State to juridical equality, to territorial integrity and to freedom and political independence."



So, dear Kosovo UDI supporters, can we slowly bring this discussion to a level that isn't just one jumble or confusion?

To start: Johny, you wrote: "...the fact is that there is no specific international law that states that autonomous provinces or territories within a state are not allowed to declare independence or secede. That is the fact, no matter how bitter it might be to some."

What do you think, johny, did the International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia invent some non-existent international law?

" the end, or I´d say the positive end, will take a longer period of time to come true... time is on Serbia´s side..."

Jovan,

I agree, time is on the side of the mother country to get back what was once hers.

Although Hungarians have been waiting for more than 80 years to get back what was theirs for a thousand years, so Serbians must prepare for a long period to wait.

"The Confederate States of America (also called the Confederacy, the Confederate States, and the CSA) was the government set up from 1861 to 1865 by eleven southern slave states of the United States of America that had declared their secession from the U.S. The CSA's de facto control over its claimed territory varied during the course of the American Civil War, depending on the success of its military in battle.

Asserting that states had a right to secede, seven states declared their independence from the United States before the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln as President on March 4, 1861; four more did so after the Civil War began at the Battle of Fort Sumter (April 1861). The government of the United States of America (The Union) regarded secession as illegal and refused to recognize the Confederacy. Although British and French commercial interests sold the Confederacy warships and materials, no European or other foreign nation officially recognized the CSA as an independent country.[2][3]

The CSA effectively collapsed when Generals Robert E. Lee and Joseph E. Johnston surrendered their armies in April 1865. The last meeting of its Cabinet took place in Georgia in May. Union troops captured the Confederate President Jefferson Davis near Irwinville, Georgia on May 10, 1865. Nearly all remaining Confederate forces surrendered by the end of June. A decade-long process known as Reconstruction expelled ex-Confederate leaders from office, gave civil rights and the right to vote to the freedmen, and re-admitted the states to representation in Congress."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America

So according to the US constitution you can secede from the US, but if you do it will be considered illegal and not recognized by the US government. Which law gives the US government the right to call it illegal? not the US constitution. Is is international law? Which law gave the US the right to put the native inhabitants into reservations? Is there an international law that protects their rights? It is easy to make comments about an unknown place far away, but right in your backyard there may be things brewing that one day will put a mirror in front of you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States

"Read more carefully Mike. There is no specific law. That is the whole point."

-- Awesome, then tell your "leaders" in Pristina to keep their hands off of parts of Kosovo that don't recognize their authority and we'll call it a deal, ok? :)

In fact, don't even get upset when northern Kosovo secedes back into Serbia Proper. After all, there's nothing stopping them, right?
(Mike, 9 December 2009 23:50)


If you want to find a parallel, then you use Presevo-Valley. Replace northern Kosova with Presevo-Valley and Pristina with Belgrade and you'll get the full picture.

"Read more carefully Mike. There is no specific law. That is the whole point."

-- Awesome, then tell your "leaders" in Pristina to keep their hands off of parts of Kosovo that don't recognize their authority and we'll call it a deal, ok? :)

In fact, don't even get upset when northern Kosovo secedes back into Serbia Proper. After all, there's nothing stopping them, right?
(Mike, 9 December 2009 23:50)

Sure Mike,

All you are fighting is N.Mitrovica its quiet clear. But there must be a process to this.

They must demilitarize start Start negotiations with Albanians 10 years by staying under Kosovo meaning as we did from 1989 till 1999. Follow same process as Kosovo did.

Besides I dont mind if they go, If this means no more special citizen status and not to have to deal with people who do not want to be part of your country fine.

Are you prepared to give the Bujanovc and the other Albanion region.

But then we still will have a problem are you going to feel comfertable with churches in Kosovo then or are those small patches of land going to be like country on its on.

well, Amer, the "emotional temperature" as you call it, will go down. that´s for sure.

and also the maturation, on both sides, the albanian and the serbian as well, will progress.

therefore there is only one reasonable solution to the K-issue. a compromise.

that´s something the Albanians today do not want to hear about, but time will teach them something else.

they will come completely by themselves to the conclusion that their little stillborn is no viable option for the future, and that ( real ) autonomy within Serbia, as it is the only legal way, is in everyones interest.

it´s only too early for the K-albanians to realize that.

let´s just see what future brings.

"A very good post, however, I do not know which article it is suppose to be for. It has nothing to do with Kosovo!
If I have a million dollars in my bank and you say it use to be yours, should I automatically hand it over to you?"
(pss, 10 December 2009 15:32)

Yes, if you obtained it illegally from me.

It has everything to do with Kosovo. Your Thaci & co obtained Kosovo illegally with outside help.

Peggy you intentionally confuse matters here.

You use the word obtained. As if Kosova is an object. Not only that but you wrongly assume that majority of those who live there have nothing to do with Kosova; when you use the word obtained. Kosova hasn't moved. It is geographically at the same exact location where it was. Nobody "obtained" it and ran with it.

2. You use the word illegal very loosely. This is the same time incorrect and done purposely in a malicious fashion.
That is because as has been shown there is no international law that either prohibits or allows independence in an automatic and mechanic fashion. The law is mute on this issue, thus this matter cannot be categorized as legal or illegal.
Another point is that since Serbia willfully denied the right to vote to Kosovar Albanian for Constitution that states that Kosova is Serbia then that constitution does not apply to Kosova Albanians. So even on the internal sense there is no illegality.
There is illegality on Serbia's part however when it comes to the forceful abolition of Kosova's status within the Federation.
I know you know these whenever you throw around comments like this but it doesn't hurt to state the obvious.

Milan, 10 December 2009 00:36 -

'On 10 March 1989 the Vojvodina Assembly approved the amendments, followed by the Kosovo Assembly on 23 March, and the Serbian Assembly on 28 March. '

>> The Assembly had to be replaced with more compliant members in Kosovo to obtain this result, and even so there were tanks and armored vehicles surrounding the Assembly building and security men circulating inside it during the vote. Usually, an "agreement" obtained under duress is not considered binding.

Milan, 10 December 2009 01:10 -

"So according to the US constitution you can secede from the US, but if you do it will be considered illegal and not recognized by the US government."

>> No, the Constitution does not allow the right of states to secede - if you're talking about Article 10 (the states have all the powers not assigned to the federal government), it doesn't apply to secession. The Supreme Court ruled on that in U.S. Supreme Court STATE OF TEXAS v. WHITE, 74 U.S. 700 (1868). More importantly, during the Civil War, the Southern states weren't able to make their case either on the battlefield or diplomatically.
____________
Peggy, 10 December 2009 02:12 -

"As long as I manage to steal it I will be exempt from having to hand it back.

That's a very good law for any would be crook."


>>You're confusing international and domestic law.

_____________________________
Olli, 10 December 2009 02:41 -

"What do you think, johny, did the International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia invent some non-existent international law?"

>>No, they said there's no automatic right of secession. The arguments for Kosovo's right to statehood are based on the sui generis elements of the situation: FRY/Serbia abuses, a decade of international efforts to find a consensual solution, a constitution allowing for protection of minorities, etc. The right to declare independence is one thing (and the only matter actually before the court). The conditions under which other states can recognize a country's statehood are a different matter.

Jovan, 10 December 2009 16:18 -

"what I wanted to say is: France is not such a cornerstone of support for your little illusion as you might want to believe.

France is a european country with interests, and they will know very well how to bet on the right horse."

>> Every country has its own interests, I've no problem with that. Also, it's own value system, and we're seeing that there's one basic difference here: one value system ranks the rights of sovereign states (to territorial integrity, for example) above all others in international law, and the other treats human and civil rights as paramount. This is why I don't expect a broad ruling on any "right to secede" from this court - a difference of such fundamental importance really has to be decided politically, after a great deal of debate and negotiation, not as part of an advisory ruling. I'd think.

"time is on Serbia´s side, so I don´t have any worries about the final outcome, that´s something you should be aware of."

Actually, if everybody decided to look at things this way, the emotional temperature would go down rapidly.

Deal Mike,

U take Gracanica and N.Mitrovica and we take bujanovc ...

No problem sadly me and u dont make policies of countries but I am maybe one of few who say lets do it.

Serbs dont want to live in Kosovo so Albanians in Bujanovc, and the rest.

what about the churches in Kosovo do u want them in a truck and shipped to Serbia as well. They dont bother me a bit but then there will be no Serbs in kosovo to go there.

Then we have our own Flag change the name to Dardania, do our crazy Mafia things but u wont care Albanin things.

We know as you do as well all u left is with half the city take it please and leave us alone, I forgive your atrocities killing, all just leave go, claim RS what u like but dont complain more. As well right it in all history books so no one confuses it again

But was and is against the constitution of The Republic of Serbia. Maybe in practical terms that has little value, but a sovereign country's constitution should be respected. I am sure that it is against the French constitution that Corsica and the Basque region in France can split of from France. I am sure that Paris will send the army immediately and arrest the leaders of the split. Of course France has kept those regions relatively poor so from a financial point of view there is no benefit to leave the French Republic.
(Milan, 9 December 2009 18:12)
This has to be the jokee of the century. Do you remember when this was added to the constitution? I do it was in 2007 after negotiations broke down and the Ahtissari plan was announced. Parliament met and in one day changed the constitution to say that Kosovo was an inalienable part of Serbia and then announced that independence was impossible because it violated the Serbian constitution.
This only showed how unimportant the Serbian constitution is. If it can be changed in one day, it is not worth paper it is printed on. It takes months or years to make a change in the US constitution. It has only been amended 27 times in 222 years. That is pretty solid.

France, will be an Islamic Republic/Islamic majority nation soon anyway. Just look at their immigration, demographics and the next 20 years.

If France says the secession of Kosovo was not against international law, then let's meet eachother in 5 years in the then new proclaimed Republic of Corsica. Cheers...

they will come completely by themselves to the conclusion that their little stillborn is no viable option for the future, and that ( real ) autonomy within Serbia, as it is the only legal way, is in everyones interest.

it´s only too early for the K-albanians to realize that.

let´s just see what future brings.
(Jovan, 10 December 2009 21:17)

I am sorry but your comment sound so naive. Do you really believe that the interst of K-Alb is to live under Serbia??

What a non-sense. How can a people prosper when their priority is peace and life-preservation and not life-improvement and economic development. FEAR will rain upon K-Alb the moment they are incorporated into Serbia again. Fear of death and attrocities like the ones in 1999. And Serbia affirmed this only a few weeks ago when it built a military base not far from Albanian populated areas. Good reminder whst to expect from Serbia.

K-Alb will never rest in peace under Serbia, the very mention of Serbia aggrivates them to the point of insanity even today. I have meet K-Alb that have had their families annihilated, 3-4 even 9 members killed or disapeared. Their stories have become legends, heard all over kosovo.

Everything in Kosovo revolves around the struggle against Serbia, their heroes, monuments in the streets of the cities, their history books, their tales and legends, everything. Go there and check it yourself.

So if Serbia hopes that will gets its way when things cool off, it will wait for a very long time. In my opinion it's not contributing to this at all, every move that Serbia has made so far has contributed to an escalation of hard-feelings.

One thing I don't understand is "Does Serbia truly believes that K-Alb will agree to atonomy, if Serbia makes them suffer?" How unwise is that.

Awesome, then tell your "leaders" in Pristina to keep their hands off of parts of Kosovo that don't recognize their authority and we'll call it a deal, ok? :)

In fact, don't even get upset when northern Kosovo secedes back into Serbia Proper. After all, there's nothing stopping them, right?
(Mike, 9 December 2009 23:50)

I personally have no problem with that. If they can secure enough worldwide support to do it they can go ahead. Again the problem is not us Albanians; its the international community. Convince them and the North or the RS can do what the will of people in those parts is. It is the same problem we Albanians have in convincing them that Presheva Vallet should join Kosova. However we have convinced them that Kosova needs to separate. Given Serbia's record that's simply impossible in the current conditions and time. And here also lies the issue that most Serbs are either afraid to face, refuse to face or simply are not aware of. That is at the center of issue is how convincing a territory is in making the case that it needs to secede and separate. That is what makes you independent and not some invisible law that Serbia claims. If we are successful enough in convincing the world community that we need to be independent and they agree then we are independent. Simple as that; no need to refer to inexistent laws or any agreement from Serbia. Its as simple as that. This is not a privellege to only Albanian. This is a privellege reserved to anyone and any people. Convince the world that you need to separate and be independent then upon their agreement for all intents and purposes you are.

If I steal a million dollars and put it in my bank account can I then say that I don't have to give it back because the reality on the ground is that it is now in my account, therefore mine?

As long as I manage to steal it I will be exempt from having to hand it back.

That's a very good law for any would be crook.
(Peggy, 10 December 2009 02:12)
A very good post, however, I do not know which article it is suppose to be for. It has nothing to do with Kosovo!
If I have a million dollars in my bank and you say it use to be yours, should I automatically hand it over to you?

"One thing I don't understand is "Does Serbia truly believes that K-Alb will agree to atonomy, if Serbia makes them suffer?" How unwise is that.
(Denis, 11 December 2009 16:43)"

Denis,

Do you think if those fears were addressed and satisfied that there could be a solution? Because when you do things unilaterally that only provides a temporary resolution. Should it really matter if there is joint sovereignty that is effectively under Albanian control but Serbia has a role in Serbian things? A solution that safeguards, more than independence, against violence?

Of course, that is naive. It is better to push someone into a corner where eventually they will come out fighting. Why don't you learn from Serbia's mistakes.

I am not filled with the hatred and fear that many are so I know I'm not the best judge. I'm just asking the questions

Mister wrote: "Do you think if those fears were addressed and satisfied that there could be a solution? Because when you do things unilaterally that only provides a temporary resolution. Should it really matter if there is joint sovereignty that is effectively under Albanian control but Serbia has a role in Serbian things? A solution that safeguards, more than independence, against violence?"

Pipedreams. That is for several reasons.

1. The constitution of Serbia prevents all the things you mentioned from happening.

2. There were such warranties and guarantees before in the constitution which was unilaterally abolished by Serbia. That didn't stop it from happening and it certainly didn't stop the violence.

3. What you call mistakes are not actually mistakes but willful coordination of Serbian state organs that lead to crimes against humanity.

I have more reasons, and not enough time. Holla and I'll post them later.

Finally. Move on and stop living on false the false hope that things will change just so Serbia could save face.

johny,

The representative of Finland, Ms Päivi Kaukoranta, fails to give an honest statement of the process to independence of Finland. She says:

"The independence of my country, Finland, for example, was declared by a Parliament that was an organ of an autonomous part of the Russian empire in December 1917. From the perspective of Russian law, this was blatantly ultra vires. But, as confirmed by the recognitions in due course, that was no obstacle to Finnish independence."

Her statement is a deliberate falsification of the truth: Not a single foreign government accepted to recognize Finland's independency before Finland received recognition from Russia. Finnish government tried hard to persuade Germany to recognize, but Germany also replied that it can happen only after recognition by Russia.

The foreign governments considered the independence declaration by the Parliament of Finland being ultra vires, an act outside of its powers.

Then, on the 31st of December 1917, the Bolshevik government of Russia, headed by Lenin, announced that his government will recognize Finland. That opened gates for other recognitions, first by France, Germany And Sweden, on the 4th of January, 1918.

In case the recognitions have any role in the de facto or de jure independence of a state, one must honestly say that there existed a serious obstacle to Finnish independence until Bolshevik government removed it.

Ms Kaukoranta's statement is not correct, which matter I hope will be introduced to the members of the ICJ. Being a Finn myself, I am very upset of Kaukoranta's false statement.

In my view Serbia is blessed with the separation of Kosovo from it, for reasons that all intelligent people in this forum understand. We Finns lost our lands of Kalevala to Soviet Union in the war that started by Soviet Union's illegal military attack against us. This result is even today taught in the schools and universities of Serbia as justified loss of Finland. Therefore I consider myself being completely competent to understand all sentiments of Serbian people in Kosovo case. There are good, honest and intelligent Kosovars, but as a whole it is a land of no hope.

Johny, I don't try to confuse anything.
Perhaps the word obtained can be put aside. How about we use the word "settled"?

Even that word can inply that Serbs came to Kosovo, slaughtered the indigenous people there and set up their own government. Much like what the white man did in America or Australia except that Serbs did not slaughter anyone in Kosovo.

Now if Serbs colonised Kosovo we certainly join the ranks of the English and should call Kosovo our colony rather than our province.

Please tell us how do you think it all happened.