Deadline for answers to ICJ questions

I honestly and sincerely think that the court will lean to that the proclamation of independence is against international law. Especially since those 3 questions and Argentines statements that was really discussed at judiciary meetings around the world.

Off course the UDI goes against international law. Those countries that argue otherwise are ignoring the law and bending it to their own liking. The Albanians have proclaimed independence other times in history, and it was not upheld. How is this time different? Because America says so?

"Then you clearly didn't read ICJ President Owada's statement which has been published here only a few weeks ago.
(John, 22 December 2009 14:18) "

Regarding my comment below, suggest you first read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue-in-cheek

And with regard to article on Owada's statement, made 2 comments at the time - 1st one you'll find about 4/5ths of the way down, & the 2nd you'll find at the top: http://www.b92.net/eng/news/comments.php?nav_id=63165

In the 1st, I said the following: "The title of the article appears to say that the ICJ's ruling will be 'neutral' in terms of outcome. Could also be interpreted as saying ruling will be impartial in terms of bias. In any case, former interpretation cannot be inferred from the text of Owada's statement as presented in the article. "

Judging by what you've written above, you appear to have made the former interpretation of Owada's statement - which speaking bluntly, is a load of crap. No judge who wants to be taken seriously would ever prejudice the outcome of a case he's sitting on before deliberations have even started - especially one sitting on the world court.

So, suggest you don't take everything at face-value...
...& stomp on trolls at every opportunity.

B92,
where did u get the idea it's going to be mid 2010?

It's going to be early March!

I honestly and sincerely think that the court will lean to that the proclamation of independence is against international law. Especially since those 3 questions and Argentines statements that was really discussed at judiciary meetings around the world.
(Staff, 21 December 2009 17:43)

Hate to disappoint you, but the ICJ willnever rule against kosova or in favour of serbia.Mark my word.

icj1:
> You don't need a Declaration of Independence (be it, legal or illegal) to become a state under international law. It's totally irrelevant. Other facts decide whether something is a state under international law. Frankly, I'm not sure what Serbia is trying to achieve with this question to the Court.

Thought that it was precisely those 'other facts' that were being put forward as arguments to resolve the question of the legality or otherwise of the UDI. By ruling on one, the ICJ will of necessity be ruling on the applicability of the other.

And that will have a bearing on what progress if any, the 'pseudo-state' makes with regard to acceptance by the international community, which in turn will affect the 'pseudo-state's prospects for long-term survival under the present circumstances.

Perhaps instead you should just ask yourself why the US, UK, etc have lobbied so hard on the 'pseudo-state's behalf in relation to this matter if the ICJ's 'non-binding' judgement is indeed irrelevant.


"Hate to disappoint you, but the ICJ willnever rule against kosova or in favour of serbia.Mark my word.
(Kosova-USA, 21 December 2009 20:56) "

Now I know that ruling will be against 'kosova'.

Can anyone please enlighten me on the attributes of this international law these judges purport to interpret? Where is it written? Is it binding?

Now I know that ruling will be against 'kosova'.
(peter, sydney, 22 December 2009 12:23)

Then you clearly didn't read ICJ President Owada's statement which has been published here only a few weeks ago.

Off course the UDI goes against international law.
(svojgazda, 21 December 2009 20:53)

And then what ? What is the point ? UDI being illegal, means precisely that, i.e. that UDI was illegal. It does not mean than Kosovo is not a state today. It does not mean that Kosovo is part of Serbia, etc., etc.. On the other hand, if UDI was legal, again it does not mean that Kosovo is a state today or that Kosovo is not part of Serbia, etc., etc.

You don't need a Declaration of Independence (be it, legal or illegal) to become a state under international law. It's totally irrelevant. Other facts decide whether something is a state under international law. Frankly, I'm not sure what Serbia is trying to achieve with this question to the Court.

Peter, before I assumed that you either didn't read the article regarding Owada's statement or you didn't understand it. Now, I'm sure that you didn't understand it because it was even Tibor Varadi who only one day after where complaining about Owada's statement:

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2009&mm=11&dd=21&nav_id=63198

Why Tibor Varadi is so complaining when Owada's statement might be misinterpretated as you claim? I think that (again) some (Pro-Serbians) just try to keep their illusion alive. The arguments from the Albanian side where going exactly into that direction. A neutral statement is all what Kosovo needs. The rest comes through bilateral recognitions, exactly how the Americans and others stated. No judge had, have and will ever tell which countries recognizes each other or not. If Serbia doesn't like that it has to cease bilateral diplomatic contacts to those countries who recognized Serbia. If it keeps that bilateral contact then Serbia indirectly confirm Kosovo's sovereignty.

Thought that it was precisely those 'other facts' that were being put forward as arguments to resolve the question of the legality or otherwise of the UDI. By ruling on one, the ICJ will of necessity be ruling on the applicability of the other.
(peter, sydney, 22 December 2009 12:23)
No, ICJ can simply say the "UDI was illegal" because, say, the Assembly of Kosovo did not have the power to declare it. What is the implication of this for one of the statehood criteria under international law, for example that a state should have a permanent population ? No implication at all !

And that will have a bearing on what progress if any, the 'pseudo-state' makes with regard to acceptance by the international community, which in turn will affect the 'pseudo-state's prospects for long-term survival under the present circumstances.
(peter, sydney, 22 December 2009 12:23)
The Court is not called to and certainly is not going to rule whether States can recognize Kosovo or not. That's exclusive competence of States, it's not a competence of UN or its organs, so this case does not have any relevance on that matter.

Perhaps instead you should just ask yourself why the US, UK, etc have lobbied so hard on the 'pseudo-state's behalf in relation to this matter if the ICJ's 'non-binding' judgement is indeed irrelevant.
(peter, sydney, 22 December 2009 12:23)
For the same reasons Russia & Co have lobbied so hard for the opposite, i.e. to convince the other states that (in the Russia's case) Kosovo is not a state under international law. All they need to do is convince the other states whether Kossovo satifies or not the following factual (not legal) criteria:
- It occupies a defined territory
- Has effective control over the extent of such territory
- Is in possession of a permanent population.
- Is able to engage in international relations (for example is able to fulfill treaty obligations)

The existence of a legal declaration of independece (DI) is not in this list, and it's not immediatly clear to me how the legality of illegality of the DI helps to clarify any of the four factual criteria above. Yeah, a DI it's a nice PR exercise, but does not determine statehood under international law. Guys take a simple hypothetical example; you live in a state under which constitution every individual can legally declare independence. You go to your home, put a declaration of independence outside your front door and raise a flag of yours on the balcony. So you have a legal DI. Are you a state though ?!!!
That's why all parties are lobbying hard. If this were a matter of law instead of factual criteria both sides would have spent their energy at the ICJ only with no need to lobby the other states.
I'm not supporting here either Kosovo or Serbia. I just think that the question that Serbia has put in front of the ICJ, is so narrow and irrelevant, that I'm not sure what they want to achieve. And even Serbian authorities recognize that the decision is irrelevant when they say that they are never going to recognize Kosovo regardless of the ICJ decision; i.e. again it's a sovereign decision of states, not a legal issue to be ruled by the ICJ.

I honestly and sincerely think that the court will lean to that the proclamation of independence is against international law. Especially since those 3 questions and Argentines statements that was really discussed at judiciary meetings around the world.

I honestly and sincerely think that the court will lean to that the proclamation of independence is against international law. Especially since those 3 questions and Argentines statements that was really discussed at judiciary meetings around the world.
(Staff, 21 December 2009 17:43)

Hate to disappoint you, but the ICJ willnever rule against kosova or in favour of serbia.Mark my word.

Peter, before I assumed that you either didn't read the article regarding Owada's statement or you didn't understand it. Now, I'm sure that you didn't understand it because it was even Tibor Varadi who only one day after where complaining about Owada's statement:

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2009&mm=11&dd=21&nav_id=63198

Why Tibor Varadi is so complaining when Owada's statement might be misinterpretated as you claim? I think that (again) some (Pro-Serbians) just try to keep their illusion alive. The arguments from the Albanian side where going exactly into that direction. A neutral statement is all what Kosovo needs. The rest comes through bilateral recognitions, exactly how the Americans and others stated. No judge had, have and will ever tell which countries recognizes each other or not. If Serbia doesn't like that it has to cease bilateral diplomatic contacts to those countries who recognized Serbia. If it keeps that bilateral contact then Serbia indirectly confirm Kosovo's sovereignty.

Now I know that ruling will be against 'kosova'.
(peter, sydney, 22 December 2009 12:23)

Then you clearly didn't read ICJ President Owada's statement which has been published here only a few weeks ago.

Off course the UDI goes against international law.
(svojgazda, 21 December 2009 20:53)

And then what ? What is the point ? UDI being illegal, means precisely that, i.e. that UDI was illegal. It does not mean than Kosovo is not a state today. It does not mean that Kosovo is part of Serbia, etc., etc.. On the other hand, if UDI was legal, again it does not mean that Kosovo is a state today or that Kosovo is not part of Serbia, etc., etc.

You don't need a Declaration of Independence (be it, legal or illegal) to become a state under international law. It's totally irrelevant. Other facts decide whether something is a state under international law. Frankly, I'm not sure what Serbia is trying to achieve with this question to the Court.

Can anyone please enlighten me on the attributes of this international law these judges purport to interpret? Where is it written? Is it binding?

Off course the UDI goes against international law. Those countries that argue otherwise are ignoring the law and bending it to their own liking. The Albanians have proclaimed independence other times in history, and it was not upheld. How is this time different? Because America says so?

"Then you clearly didn't read ICJ President Owada's statement which has been published here only a few weeks ago.
(John, 22 December 2009 14:18) "

Regarding my comment below, suggest you first read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue-in-cheek

And with regard to article on Owada's statement, made 2 comments at the time - 1st one you'll find about 4/5ths of the way down, & the 2nd you'll find at the top: http://www.b92.net/eng/news/comments.php?nav_id=63165

In the 1st, I said the following: "The title of the article appears to say that the ICJ's ruling will be 'neutral' in terms of outcome. Could also be interpreted as saying ruling will be impartial in terms of bias. In any case, former interpretation cannot be inferred from the text of Owada's statement as presented in the article. "

Judging by what you've written above, you appear to have made the former interpretation of Owada's statement - which speaking bluntly, is a load of crap. No judge who wants to be taken seriously would ever prejudice the outcome of a case he's sitting on before deliberations have even started - especially one sitting on the world court.

So, suggest you don't take everything at face-value...
...& stomp on trolls at every opportunity.

icj1:
> You don't need a Declaration of Independence (be it, legal or illegal) to become a state under international law. It's totally irrelevant. Other facts decide whether something is a state under international law. Frankly, I'm not sure what Serbia is trying to achieve with this question to the Court.

Thought that it was precisely those 'other facts' that were being put forward as arguments to resolve the question of the legality or otherwise of the UDI. By ruling on one, the ICJ will of necessity be ruling on the applicability of the other.

And that will have a bearing on what progress if any, the 'pseudo-state' makes with regard to acceptance by the international community, which in turn will affect the 'pseudo-state's prospects for long-term survival under the present circumstances.

Perhaps instead you should just ask yourself why the US, UK, etc have lobbied so hard on the 'pseudo-state's behalf in relation to this matter if the ICJ's 'non-binding' judgement is indeed irrelevant.


"Hate to disappoint you, but the ICJ willnever rule against kosova or in favour of serbia.Mark my word.
(Kosova-USA, 21 December 2009 20:56) "

Now I know that ruling will be against 'kosova'.

B92,
where did u get the idea it's going to be mid 2010?

It's going to be early March!

Thought that it was precisely those 'other facts' that were being put forward as arguments to resolve the question of the legality or otherwise of the UDI. By ruling on one, the ICJ will of necessity be ruling on the applicability of the other.
(peter, sydney, 22 December 2009 12:23)
No, ICJ can simply say the "UDI was illegal" because, say, the Assembly of Kosovo did not have the power to declare it. What is the implication of this for one of the statehood criteria under international law, for example that a state should have a permanent population ? No implication at all !

And that will have a bearing on what progress if any, the 'pseudo-state' makes with regard to acceptance by the international community, which in turn will affect the 'pseudo-state's prospects for long-term survival under the present circumstances.
(peter, sydney, 22 December 2009 12:23)
The Court is not called to and certainly is not going to rule whether States can recognize Kosovo or not. That's exclusive competence of States, it's not a competence of UN or its organs, so this case does not have any relevance on that matter.

Perhaps instead you should just ask yourself why the US, UK, etc have lobbied so hard on the 'pseudo-state's behalf in relation to this matter if the ICJ's 'non-binding' judgement is indeed irrelevant.
(peter, sydney, 22 December 2009 12:23)
For the same reasons Russia & Co have lobbied so hard for the opposite, i.e. to convince the other states that (in the Russia's case) Kosovo is not a state under international law. All they need to do is convince the other states whether Kossovo satifies or not the following factual (not legal) criteria:
- It occupies a defined territory
- Has effective control over the extent of such territory
- Is in possession of a permanent population.
- Is able to engage in international relations (for example is able to fulfill treaty obligations)

The existence of a legal declaration of independece (DI) is not in this list, and it's not immediatly clear to me how the legality of illegality of the DI helps to clarify any of the four factual criteria above. Yeah, a DI it's a nice PR exercise, but does not determine statehood under international law. Guys take a simple hypothetical example; you live in a state under which constitution every individual can legally declare independence. You go to your home, put a declaration of independence outside your front door and raise a flag of yours on the balcony. So you have a legal DI. Are you a state though ?!!!
That's why all parties are lobbying hard. If this were a matter of law instead of factual criteria both sides would have spent their energy at the ICJ only with no need to lobby the other states.
I'm not supporting here either Kosovo or Serbia. I just think that the question that Serbia has put in front of the ICJ, is so narrow and irrelevant, that I'm not sure what they want to achieve. And even Serbian authorities recognize that the decision is irrelevant when they say that they are never going to recognize Kosovo regardless of the ICJ decision; i.e. again it's a sovereign decision of states, not a legal issue to be ruled by the ICJ.