"Not much room for ambiguity for ICJ"

Everybody says the verdict is non-biding but that's just rhetoric. Whatever the rulling, it sets an international precedent for other cases of violations of teritorial integrity, so we can be sure the court will rule against the temporary institutions to avoid starting more regional conflicts.

If there are other cases which are identical to Kosovo (unlikely), then I do hope it sets a precedent.

Democracy and right to self-determination should apply to any affected regions around the world, especially if thier state did to them what Serbia did to albanians.

"Not much room for ambiguity for ICJ"

What an expert!??

ICJ will rule either in Kosovo way(very likely) or else slightly ambigues Mr "expert".!

ICJ is not bunch of Serbian idiots but a credible body who looks at the roots of the conflict and subsequent declration of independence.

Maybe we can get Paul the Octopus to predict the outcome.

Well, all I know is that whatever the ICJ decides it still won't make "Kosova" independent. It won't change the opinion of Serbia, Russia, China, Cyprus, Spain, etc...

If it rules in favour of the authors you can kiss this government goodbye. If it rules in favour of Serbia then job well done. However, unless we sit down and negotiate it changes nothing.
(Zoran, 8 July 2010 16:16)

I strongly disagree with you there Zoran. If the verdict goes in favour of Pristina (highly unlikely due to International law) Serbia wins. More countries will recognise Pristina's UDD but without Belgrade's acquiesence, the province is still stuck in limbo. B-Serbs will see the ruling as a legal avenue for Republika Srpska to legally seceed from BiH and ultimatley join Serbia.

If the ICJ rules in favour, Serbia wins. Pristina's UDD will have been declared illegal and independence is stopped dead in its tracks. The pressure on Hash and the kleptocrats to come back to the negotiating table for final status talks will be unbearable.

Third scenario, court gives ambigious ruling, both sides claim victory but Serbia wins. Pristina's UDD might get some more recognitions but its status will still remain unresolved. In the medium term the K-Albanians will eventually have to come back to negotiations for final status talks.

Overall, its a win-win for Belgrade. No matter what happens, Pristina will still be caught in legal limbo. It cannot move due to UN Resolution 1244 and the Helsinki Agreement. The only way out for Pristina is for UN Security Council to scrap UN Resolution 1244 and tear up the Helsinki Agreement.

Not likely to happen. Belgrade again has final say over what happens to Kosovo.

PRN

"ICJ is not bunch of Serbian idiots...."

You forget that the ICJ is a part of the UN....you know the organisation that you cannot become a member of because you are a still-born state!!

Well, all I know is that whatever the ICJ decides it still won't make "Kosova" independent. It won't change the opinion of Serbia, Russia, China, Cyprus, Spain, etc...

If it rules in favour of the authors you can kiss this government goodbye. If it rules in favour of Serbia then job well done. However, unless we sit down and negotiate it changes nothing.

Top - Are you an expert on international politics or law? If you read the presentations before the ICJ, you would have seen that the 'special case' argument hardly featured at all. It was a convenient - though weak - political argument for consumption by the ill-informed, but a truly terrible legal argument to present to the ICJ. After all, Courts cannot work on the basis of 'unique cases'. Either something is in accordance with the law, or it is not. Courts do not decide who gets to break the law and who does not.

On this basis, if the ICJ agrees that Kosovo's ill-treatment by Serbia merits independence, then the gateway will necessarily be opened for many other territories and peoples around the world to go their own way. Therefore, I would be extremely surprised if this does in fact form the basis of any decision in Kosovo's favour, and why it was so studiously avoided by countries favouring independence in their presentations.

JohnC - Your knowledge of international law is as poor as Top's. Recognition maybe a political act, but one cannot ignore that states have legal and political obligations to one another - one of which is to respect the territorial inegrity of other states. To this end, at least one country argued that Serbia had asked the wrong question of the ICJ. It should not have asked for a ruling on the UDI, which many argued was an act devoid of legal meaning, but whether states that have recognised had failed to meet their obligations to Serbia by recognising the act. Law is about precision.

ICJ will rule either in Kosovo way(very likely) or else slightly ambigues Mr "expert".!
(PRN, 8 July 2010 14:36)

Very likely is that the "advisory opinion" will uphold territorial integrity of recognized countries in the first place, but at the same time it will point out the "special case" of Kosovo in EX-YU where a criminal government (elected by the majority of the Serbs) which caused trouble and wars in the whole balkans before harassed the ethnic miniority in Kosovo and violated their rights.

There’s plenty of room for ambiguity in the question.

I can declare my house independent but I don’t think that in itself is a violation of international law. Maybe a violation of national law, but shouldn’t that be Freedom of Speech if I simply declared it, but didn’t take action?

The question should have been something like “is recognizing a UDI against international law?” That makes sense because it’s between two separate countries, hence involves international law.

Their decision will likely state that the act of declaring an UDI internally falls under the domestic laws of a nation not international law, and that they weren’t asked to give an opinion on whether its legal for another country to recognize that UDI in an international setting.

I’m strongly against UDI’s in general, I think they bring instability to the world.

However, if Kosovo gets away with it, I’ll become a very strong supporter of KM, RS & Krajina doing the same.

Nikshala, if you think Kosovo deserves independence after what Serbia did (BEFORE the NATO bombing ie 2,000 killed) why don’t you support the independence of RS & Krajina? We suffered real genocide there during WWII. Don’t you think those that suffered attempts at Genocide (the dictionary definition, not the “legal” definition) should have more right to independence than those that were systematically abused?

Don’t you think the Kurds, of whom 5000 were killed in a single gas attack by Saddam Hussein should have independence? 35,000 have died in the conflict in Turkey over having just autonomy. They don’t even have one country, your people need two. These may not be identical situations, but they certainly have it worse than the Albanians ever had it (Milosevic was no Hitler, Stalin or Mao).

Anyways, agreed upon solutions are always longer lasting and set positive precedents for the region.

Why not Partition?

I honestly don’t think the Albanians of Kosovo treat the Serb minority all that well either. 2004 is a pretty good example of what I’m talking about. Historically it seems to me whichever of our people are in control, they abuse the other.

Regardless, I am deeply sorry for what happen under Milosevic. I know a lot of good innocent people lost their lives, and even one innocent life taken is a tragedy.

Since the Helsinki Agreement is legally binding, Serbia should, as soon as ICJ rules UDI illegal, sue those countries who have recognized.

Conclusion: Much ado for nothing

If Kosovo is asserted as a part of Serbia that will still not lead to direct Serbian rule. The Albanians will preserve their “more than autonomy”. But they will be given the full right of Serbian citizenship. So we will get back to square one – the situation when Kosovo will be able to affect the Serbian affairs while Serbia will have little say in Kosovo’s affairs. So what is the point of the whole exercise?

Everybody says the verdict is non-biding but that's just rhetoric.
[...]
(highduke, 8 July 2010 12:42)

It's a fact that no court in the world will dictate who can be recognized and who not. There are plenty of countries in this world which don't recognise each other and no one came to the silly conclusion to bring that fact to court.

Recognition of other countries is one of the very bases of international law. Kosovo will be regarded as independent by the free world, while most dictatorships will fear that.

I strongly disagree with you there Zoran. If the verdict goes in favour of Pristina (highly unlikely due to International law) Serbia wins.
(Niall O'Doherty, 8 July 2010 17:29)
--
Niall, I didn't say Serbia loses if the authors win, I just said the government will become a dead duck. The people will see it as a loss and lose confidence in them. Now I did say "Kosova" will never become independent regardless.

The only way to turn a positive ICJ decision for the authors into a win for Serbia is with a change of government. Tadic has no interest in an independent RS. He is one of theirs.

If there are other cases which are identical to Kosovo (unlikely), then I do hope it sets a precedent.

Democracy and right to self-determination should apply to any affected regions around the world, especially if thier state did to them what Serbia did to albanians.
nikshala

You are absolutely right. An independent Kurdistan s/b the next.

Asked about the consequences of a positive answer for Serbia, which rejects the declaration, Varadi said that it would implicitly mean that Kosovo belongs to Serbia,

And if the answer is negative for Serbia?

No Top, I repeat, courts cannot decide whether someone has the right to break the law. They must rule on the law as it stands. Of course, if someone is guilty, they can weigh the evidence and make a decision whether there were extenuating circumstances behind the case and determine the punishment accordingly. (That said, punishment is not something that will not happen in the ICJ case. In the case of the ICJ ruling the most likely response will be a general assembly resolution.) But, once again, the court cannot decide on whethervsomeone had the right to break the law on the grounds that they had a 'unique reason' for doing so. As the Cypriot delegation before the ICJ pointed out, the second a court adopts such an approach it ceases to be a judicial body and becomes a body of political arbitration.

Very likely is that the "advisory opinion" will uphold territorial integrity of recognized countries in the first place, but at the same time it will point out the "special case" of Kosovo in EX-YU where a criminal government (elected by the majority of the Serbs) which caused trouble and wars in the whole balkans before harassed the ethnic miniority in Kosovo and violated their rights.
(Top, 8 July 2010 15:58)
Exactly, which will alleviate the fears of countries such as Spain, Cyprus, and even China, because it cannot be used as any type of precedent. No pandora's box, no domino effect.
The big obstacle is Russia, it will be a tough one but we all know that Russia's interests are self serving so it may cost but there is something Russia wants enough to change course.

Mathew said: "Nikshala, if you think Kosovo deserves independence after what Serbia did (BEFORE the NATO bombing ie 2,000 killed) why don’t you support the independence of RS & Krajina? We suffered real genocide there during WWII. Don’t you think those that suffered attempts at Genocide (the dictionary definition, not the “legal” definition) should have more right to independence than those that were systematically abused?

Don’t you think the Kurds, of whom 5000 were killed in a single gas attack by Saddam Hussein should have independence? 35,000 have died in the conflict in Turkey over having just autonomy. They don’t even have one country, your people need two. These may not be identical situations, but they certainly have it worse than the Albanians ever had it (Milosevic was no Hitler, Stalin or Mao). "


--We Albanians generally are not against independence of any of those places you mentioned. Like you said it, each has had problems although the nature of such problems has been different for these different places. So what we generally think is that each is to be treated on its own. There is no one size fits all solution for all these places. There is no one automatic ruling that applies to all of them. So on the same token because one of them can't get independence doesn't mean all of them should not get it. Or because one of them can then it doesn't mean they should get it. These are no parking tickets. So if we the court says Independence is OK it doesn't mean that we don't want RS to be independent or any of of those places you mention. Our attitude is if they can achieve it then good for them; however their fate is in no way tied to our fate. We are different people, with different histories, that live on different territories. What they can or cannot achieve should not be tied to us like what we can or cannot achieve cannot be tied to them. If they can become independent then good. If not then good. Them being or not being independent doesn't do anything for us. When we were dying they weren't helping us. When they weren't dying we weren't helping them. They were abused and killed by different powers and by different regimes. They are different in terms of culture, language and just about everything else. So to sum up the attitude is that if they can get anything they want that is fine with us just as long their fate is not tied to our fate. Having been under so much none of these places should become hostage of each other. Meaning the inability to garner international support in some of these places shouldn't be used to hamper the others. If they can use the impacts of others that achieve such support then good for them. Like I said these are separate issues of different peoples that have been abuse by different regimes, hence each of them should be tackled separately.

(Niall O'Doherty, 8 July 2010 17:29)
Your posts prove that your hope is the same as many here. Not what is good for Serbia or its people or for Kosovo. As long as you can hold the Albanian population hostage you will be happy.
There will be talks, that is inevitable. I am sure that the recent events in the North are the spark that will bring that about. The issue is Serbia will claim they are status talks to appease the populus, Kosovo will call them technical talks, but in the end it will result in Serbia agreeing to "free" Kosovo in exchange for some face saving compromise on the north.
I do not know if in the end that will be complete autonomy for the north allowing ties to Belgrade but still officially a part of Kosovo or some type of total separation from Kosovo.
But note, no one other than posters here are talking of reintegration of Kosovo to Serbia any more. Even the Serbian politicians are saying they will never recognize the "unilateral" decision. Whereas they use to say "more than autonomy, less than independence".
However, your points are wrong, while Serbia will claim victory irregardless of actual ruling, it in itself will not change the situation.

@nikshala: "Democracy and right to self-determination should apply to any affected regions around the world, especially if thier state did to them what Serbia did to albanians." ... or I would add, what the Kosovo-Albanians have done to the non-Albanians living in their midst for the last eleven years.

If 10 years of Milosevic (1989-1999) justifies the secession of Kosovo from Serbia, then 11 years (1999-2010) of the KLA basically ruling Kosovo certainly justifies Serbs, Roma, and anyone else who wants to secede from Kosovo.

If the ICJ rules that the secession of Kosovo was legal because the Albanians suffered persecution for ten years under Milosevic, then the secession of other peoples from Kosovo is also legal because of the persecution they've been subjected to for the last eleven years.

If the ICJ rules that the secession of Kosovo is illegal, then new recognitions of Kosovo will certainly stop and others may be rescinded.

@ PSS
Don't take your dreams for reality :)
Helsinki Accords precise in 1/IV: "The participating States will respect the territorial integrity of each of the
participating States."
You can find the same thing in the UN charter. Both of them are binding international treaties and have been signed by the same who broke them by recognizing UDI. That's why Serbia should sue them and a positive outcome of ICJ's advisory opinion would be a major trump for doing so.

Everyone knows that this will come to an exchange of territories. The professor is saying that a ICJ decision in favor of Serbia will open talks... maybe but an Independent State of Kosovo will always be present in the talks, the only issue will be how big.

K-Albanians will never live under a Serbian state in peace, as history has proved so over and over again. As every human being they look for some security of life and existence, and the only way to get that is by building their own defense system, an army, which means building a state independent of Serbia.

This is simply a pragmatic matter of being alive. K-Alb see Serbia as a threat to their very existence and lives, I mean the state and gov. that's suppose to protect and care for them, has turned out to be their nightmare.

Serbia has behaved in the most irresponsible and dispicable manner towards its own citizens.

I dont like to say i told you so, but I told you so. There will be an exchange/partition. Only way forward where we can all save face and look to the future with hope.

Since the Helsinki Agreement is legally binding, Serbia should, as soon as ICJ rules UDI illegal, sue those countries who have recognized.
(Joachim, 8 July 2010 18:37)
Apparently you just posted off the title and did not read the article.
There is no financial recourse for recognizing another country. Helsinki covers the claim of one countries territory by another country. It makes no mention of any country breaking apart in to smaller countries.

The ICJ isn't going to rule on the question...it will rule on the arguments. The user "Top" nailed it.

Once this drama-fiasco with non-binding bs is behind us you will see that there will be more recognitions since Serbia can't stall the inevitable forever.

"It should not have asked for a ruling on the UDI, which many argued was an act devoid of legal meaning, but whether states that have recognised had failed to meet their obligations to Serbia by recognising the act. Law is about precision."
(Jim, 8 July 2010 17:52)

Jim, if Serbia had asked that question, how do you think the voting at the UN general assembly would have gone? Remember many countries who had already recognized voted in favor of sending the current question to the ICJ. The question you are suggesting would not have been voted so favorably, it would not have arrived at the ICJ. It shows how politically weak Serbia is with respect to this case. Serbia may be stronger politically in other areas, but with respect to the issue of Kosovo, her maneuvering spaces are very narrow.

KU - if you had read my comment properly you would have seen that this was not in fact *my* argument. It was an argument put forward by some of the countries that supported the UDI. Read the transcripts and see for yourself. But you are right, had Serbia asked that question then there might have been a different reaction from those very same countries.

"After all, Courts cannot work on the basis of 'unique cases'. Either something is in accordance with the law, or it is not. Courts do not decide who gets to break the law and who does not."

@J´Jim: No, I'm not an expert, I just express my personal opinion here.

And no, in fact, all court rulings are individual! This ruling is only about the legality of the UDI by the Kosovo Albanians. Some say it was not that smart of Serbia to narrow the scope so much, but should have better asked about the legality of UDIs in general.

For example: If you shoot someone, this can be seen as a murder, an accident, or even self defence. It depends. And the court has to find out what it was.

In the Kosovo case, the territorial integrity on the one hand and the human rights of minorities on the other hand have to be weighted up.

Since the Helsinki Agreement is legally binding, Serbia should, as soon as ICJ rules UDI illegal, sue those countries who have recognized.
(Joachim, 8 July 2010 18:37)

Yeah, sue them in a court in Serbia since UDIs are a matter of domestic law. I'm sure Serbia it's going to win :) and will be very happy.

Don't take your dreams for reality :)
Helsinki Accords precise in 1/IV: "The participating States will respect the territorial integrity of each of the
participating States."
(Joachim, 9 July 2010 11:53)

Yes... but it does not say that an entity WITHIN A STATE has to do the same. Man, you are missing the basics here. International law and international agreements deal with states. When declaring independence Kosovo was not a state and certainly not a part of the Helsinki Agreement so it could not violate it.

But still I agree that Kosovo violated the Serbian constitution when declaring independence. That's why I said before that the Serbian government should sue it in a Serbian court and it's very likely it going to win because it was a clear violation of the Serbian constitution.

It's an ambiguous question because "law", in this context, is an ambiguous concept.

If I break a law in a country, say I murder someone in Serbia. That's a law because lawmakers in Serbia have, at some point, decided that it's against the law to kill someone and punishments for breaking this law are set.

In an international concept it's an inherently slippery concept. When people use it they generally refer to one of a number of things

1) Rulings in the UN Security Council. Resolutions under chapter 7 of the UN charter are enforceable through the use of force.

2) Rulings in the UNSC under chapter 6 of the UN charter. These resolutions are unenforcable.

3) Rulings in the UN General assembly. Completely unenforceable. The most they can do is recommend to the security council to table a motion.

4) agreements between nations

5) international conventions to which individual countries are signatories.


This seemingly unambiguous question is actually entirely meaningless.

"Not much room for ambiguity for ICJ"

What an expert!??

ICJ will rule either in Kosovo way(very likely) or else slightly ambigues Mr "expert".!

ICJ is not bunch of Serbian idiots but a credible body who looks at the roots of the conflict and subsequent declration of independence.

If there are other cases which are identical to Kosovo (unlikely), then I do hope it sets a precedent.

Democracy and right to self-determination should apply to any affected regions around the world, especially if thier state did to them what Serbia did to albanians.

Everybody says the verdict is non-biding but that's just rhetoric.
[...]
(highduke, 8 July 2010 12:42)

It's a fact that no court in the world will dictate who can be recognized and who not. There are plenty of countries in this world which don't recognise each other and no one came to the silly conclusion to bring that fact to court.

Recognition of other countries is one of the very bases of international law. Kosovo will be regarded as independent by the free world, while most dictatorships will fear that.

ICJ will rule either in Kosovo way(very likely) or else slightly ambigues Mr "expert".!
(PRN, 8 July 2010 14:36)

Very likely is that the "advisory opinion" will uphold territorial integrity of recognized countries in the first place, but at the same time it will point out the "special case" of Kosovo in EX-YU where a criminal government (elected by the majority of the Serbs) which caused trouble and wars in the whole balkans before harassed the ethnic miniority in Kosovo and violated their rights.

Everybody says the verdict is non-biding but that's just rhetoric. Whatever the rulling, it sets an international precedent for other cases of violations of teritorial integrity, so we can be sure the court will rule against the temporary institutions to avoid starting more regional conflicts.

Well, all I know is that whatever the ICJ decides it still won't make "Kosova" independent. It won't change the opinion of Serbia, Russia, China, Cyprus, Spain, etc...

If it rules in favour of the authors you can kiss this government goodbye. If it rules in favour of Serbia then job well done. However, unless we sit down and negotiate it changes nothing.

Very likely is that the "advisory opinion" will uphold territorial integrity of recognized countries in the first place, but at the same time it will point out the "special case" of Kosovo in EX-YU where a criminal government (elected by the majority of the Serbs) which caused trouble and wars in the whole balkans before harassed the ethnic miniority in Kosovo and violated their rights.
(Top, 8 July 2010 15:58)
Exactly, which will alleviate the fears of countries such as Spain, Cyprus, and even China, because it cannot be used as any type of precedent. No pandora's box, no domino effect.
The big obstacle is Russia, it will be a tough one but we all know that Russia's interests are self serving so it may cost but there is something Russia wants enough to change course.

Well, all I know is that whatever the ICJ decides it still won't make "Kosova" independent. It won't change the opinion of Serbia, Russia, China, Cyprus, Spain, etc...

If it rules in favour of the authors you can kiss this government goodbye. If it rules in favour of Serbia then job well done. However, unless we sit down and negotiate it changes nothing.
(Zoran, 8 July 2010 16:16)

I strongly disagree with you there Zoran. If the verdict goes in favour of Pristina (highly unlikely due to International law) Serbia wins. More countries will recognise Pristina's UDD but without Belgrade's acquiesence, the province is still stuck in limbo. B-Serbs will see the ruling as a legal avenue for Republika Srpska to legally seceed from BiH and ultimatley join Serbia.

If the ICJ rules in favour, Serbia wins. Pristina's UDD will have been declared illegal and independence is stopped dead in its tracks. The pressure on Hash and the kleptocrats to come back to the negotiating table for final status talks will be unbearable.

Third scenario, court gives ambigious ruling, both sides claim victory but Serbia wins. Pristina's UDD might get some more recognitions but its status will still remain unresolved. In the medium term the K-Albanians will eventually have to come back to negotiations for final status talks.

Overall, its a win-win for Belgrade. No matter what happens, Pristina will still be caught in legal limbo. It cannot move due to UN Resolution 1244 and the Helsinki Agreement. The only way out for Pristina is for UN Security Council to scrap UN Resolution 1244 and tear up the Helsinki Agreement.

Not likely to happen. Belgrade again has final say over what happens to Kosovo.

PRN

"ICJ is not bunch of Serbian idiots...."

You forget that the ICJ is a part of the UN....you know the organisation that you cannot become a member of because you are a still-born state!!

Asked about the consequences of a positive answer for Serbia, which rejects the declaration, Varadi said that it would implicitly mean that Kosovo belongs to Serbia,

And if the answer is negative for Serbia?

Mathew said: "Nikshala, if you think Kosovo deserves independence after what Serbia did (BEFORE the NATO bombing ie 2,000 killed) why don’t you support the independence of RS & Krajina? We suffered real genocide there during WWII. Don’t you think those that suffered attempts at Genocide (the dictionary definition, not the “legal” definition) should have more right to independence than those that were systematically abused?

Don’t you think the Kurds, of whom 5000 were killed in a single gas attack by Saddam Hussein should have independence? 35,000 have died in the conflict in Turkey over having just autonomy. They don’t even have one country, your people need two. These may not be identical situations, but they certainly have it worse than the Albanians ever had it (Milosevic was no Hitler, Stalin or Mao). "


--We Albanians generally are not against independence of any of those places you mentioned. Like you said it, each has had problems although the nature of such problems has been different for these different places. So what we generally think is that each is to be treated on its own. There is no one size fits all solution for all these places. There is no one automatic ruling that applies to all of them. So on the same token because one of them can't get independence doesn't mean all of them should not get it. Or because one of them can then it doesn't mean they should get it. These are no parking tickets. So if we the court says Independence is OK it doesn't mean that we don't want RS to be independent or any of of those places you mention. Our attitude is if they can achieve it then good for them; however their fate is in no way tied to our fate. We are different people, with different histories, that live on different territories. What they can or cannot achieve should not be tied to us like what we can or cannot achieve cannot be tied to them. If they can become independent then good. If not then good. Them being or not being independent doesn't do anything for us. When we were dying they weren't helping us. When they weren't dying we weren't helping them. They were abused and killed by different powers and by different regimes. They are different in terms of culture, language and just about everything else. So to sum up the attitude is that if they can get anything they want that is fine with us just as long their fate is not tied to our fate. Having been under so much none of these places should become hostage of each other. Meaning the inability to garner international support in some of these places shouldn't be used to hamper the others. If they can use the impacts of others that achieve such support then good for them. Like I said these are separate issues of different peoples that have been abuse by different regimes, hence each of them should be tackled separately.

Maybe we can get Paul the Octopus to predict the outcome.

Conclusion: Much ado for nothing

There’s plenty of room for ambiguity in the question.

I can declare my house independent but I don’t think that in itself is a violation of international law. Maybe a violation of national law, but shouldn’t that be Freedom of Speech if I simply declared it, but didn’t take action?

The question should have been something like “is recognizing a UDI against international law?” That makes sense because it’s between two separate countries, hence involves international law.

Their decision will likely state that the act of declaring an UDI internally falls under the domestic laws of a nation not international law, and that they weren’t asked to give an opinion on whether its legal for another country to recognize that UDI in an international setting.

I’m strongly against UDI’s in general, I think they bring instability to the world.

However, if Kosovo gets away with it, I’ll become a very strong supporter of KM, RS & Krajina doing the same.

Nikshala, if you think Kosovo deserves independence after what Serbia did (BEFORE the NATO bombing ie 2,000 killed) why don’t you support the independence of RS & Krajina? We suffered real genocide there during WWII. Don’t you think those that suffered attempts at Genocide (the dictionary definition, not the “legal” definition) should have more right to independence than those that were systematically abused?

Don’t you think the Kurds, of whom 5000 were killed in a single gas attack by Saddam Hussein should have independence? 35,000 have died in the conflict in Turkey over having just autonomy. They don’t even have one country, your people need two. These may not be identical situations, but they certainly have it worse than the Albanians ever had it (Milosevic was no Hitler, Stalin or Mao).

Anyways, agreed upon solutions are always longer lasting and set positive precedents for the region.

Why not Partition?

I honestly don’t think the Albanians of Kosovo treat the Serb minority all that well either. 2004 is a pretty good example of what I’m talking about. Historically it seems to me whichever of our people are in control, they abuse the other.

Regardless, I am deeply sorry for what happen under Milosevic. I know a lot of good innocent people lost their lives, and even one innocent life taken is a tragedy.

Top - Are you an expert on international politics or law? If you read the presentations before the ICJ, you would have seen that the 'special case' argument hardly featured at all. It was a convenient - though weak - political argument for consumption by the ill-informed, but a truly terrible legal argument to present to the ICJ. After all, Courts cannot work on the basis of 'unique cases'. Either something is in accordance with the law, or it is not. Courts do not decide who gets to break the law and who does not.

On this basis, if the ICJ agrees that Kosovo's ill-treatment by Serbia merits independence, then the gateway will necessarily be opened for many other territories and peoples around the world to go their own way. Therefore, I would be extremely surprised if this does in fact form the basis of any decision in Kosovo's favour, and why it was so studiously avoided by countries favouring independence in their presentations.

JohnC - Your knowledge of international law is as poor as Top's. Recognition maybe a political act, but one cannot ignore that states have legal and political obligations to one another - one of which is to respect the territorial inegrity of other states. To this end, at least one country argued that Serbia had asked the wrong question of the ICJ. It should not have asked for a ruling on the UDI, which many argued was an act devoid of legal meaning, but whether states that have recognised had failed to meet their obligations to Serbia by recognising the act. Law is about precision.

I strongly disagree with you there Zoran. If the verdict goes in favour of Pristina (highly unlikely due to International law) Serbia wins.
(Niall O'Doherty, 8 July 2010 17:29)
--
Niall, I didn't say Serbia loses if the authors win, I just said the government will become a dead duck. The people will see it as a loss and lose confidence in them. Now I did say "Kosova" will never become independent regardless.

The only way to turn a positive ICJ decision for the authors into a win for Serbia is with a change of government. Tadic has no interest in an independent RS. He is one of theirs.

Since the Helsinki Agreement is legally binding, Serbia should, as soon as ICJ rules UDI illegal, sue those countries who have recognized.

(Niall O'Doherty, 8 July 2010 17:29)
Your posts prove that your hope is the same as many here. Not what is good for Serbia or its people or for Kosovo. As long as you can hold the Albanian population hostage you will be happy.
There will be talks, that is inevitable. I am sure that the recent events in the North are the spark that will bring that about. The issue is Serbia will claim they are status talks to appease the populus, Kosovo will call them technical talks, but in the end it will result in Serbia agreeing to "free" Kosovo in exchange for some face saving compromise on the north.
I do not know if in the end that will be complete autonomy for the north allowing ties to Belgrade but still officially a part of Kosovo or some type of total separation from Kosovo.
But note, no one other than posters here are talking of reintegration of Kosovo to Serbia any more. Even the Serbian politicians are saying they will never recognize the "unilateral" decision. Whereas they use to say "more than autonomy, less than independence".
However, your points are wrong, while Serbia will claim victory irregardless of actual ruling, it in itself will not change the situation.

If there are other cases which are identical to Kosovo (unlikely), then I do hope it sets a precedent.

Democracy and right to self-determination should apply to any affected regions around the world, especially if thier state did to them what Serbia did to albanians.
nikshala

You are absolutely right. An independent Kurdistan s/b the next.

Since the Helsinki Agreement is legally binding, Serbia should, as soon as ICJ rules UDI illegal, sue those countries who have recognized.
(Joachim, 8 July 2010 18:37)
Apparently you just posted off the title and did not read the article.
There is no financial recourse for recognizing another country. Helsinki covers the claim of one countries territory by another country. It makes no mention of any country breaking apart in to smaller countries.

Everyone knows that this will come to an exchange of territories. The professor is saying that a ICJ decision in favor of Serbia will open talks... maybe but an Independent State of Kosovo will always be present in the talks, the only issue will be how big.

K-Albanians will never live under a Serbian state in peace, as history has proved so over and over again. As every human being they look for some security of life and existence, and the only way to get that is by building their own defense system, an army, which means building a state independent of Serbia.

This is simply a pragmatic matter of being alive. K-Alb see Serbia as a threat to their very existence and lives, I mean the state and gov. that's suppose to protect and care for them, has turned out to be their nightmare.

Serbia has behaved in the most irresponsible and dispicable manner towards its own citizens.

The ICJ isn't going to rule on the question...it will rule on the arguments. The user "Top" nailed it.

Once this drama-fiasco with non-binding bs is behind us you will see that there will be more recognitions since Serbia can't stall the inevitable forever.

If Kosovo is asserted as a part of Serbia that will still not lead to direct Serbian rule. The Albanians will preserve their “more than autonomy”. But they will be given the full right of Serbian citizenship. So we will get back to square one – the situation when Kosovo will be able to affect the Serbian affairs while Serbia will have little say in Kosovo’s affairs. So what is the point of the whole exercise?

"After all, Courts cannot work on the basis of 'unique cases'. Either something is in accordance with the law, or it is not. Courts do not decide who gets to break the law and who does not."

@J´Jim: No, I'm not an expert, I just express my personal opinion here.

And no, in fact, all court rulings are individual! This ruling is only about the legality of the UDI by the Kosovo Albanians. Some say it was not that smart of Serbia to narrow the scope so much, but should have better asked about the legality of UDIs in general.

For example: If you shoot someone, this can be seen as a murder, an accident, or even self defence. It depends. And the court has to find out what it was.

In the Kosovo case, the territorial integrity on the one hand and the human rights of minorities on the other hand have to be weighted up.

"It should not have asked for a ruling on the UDI, which many argued was an act devoid of legal meaning, but whether states that have recognised had failed to meet their obligations to Serbia by recognising the act. Law is about precision."
(Jim, 8 July 2010 17:52)

Jim, if Serbia had asked that question, how do you think the voting at the UN general assembly would have gone? Remember many countries who had already recognized voted in favor of sending the current question to the ICJ. The question you are suggesting would not have been voted so favorably, it would not have arrived at the ICJ. It shows how politically weak Serbia is with respect to this case. Serbia may be stronger politically in other areas, but with respect to the issue of Kosovo, her maneuvering spaces are very narrow.

@nikshala: "Democracy and right to self-determination should apply to any affected regions around the world, especially if thier state did to them what Serbia did to albanians." ... or I would add, what the Kosovo-Albanians have done to the non-Albanians living in their midst for the last eleven years.

If 10 years of Milosevic (1989-1999) justifies the secession of Kosovo from Serbia, then 11 years (1999-2010) of the KLA basically ruling Kosovo certainly justifies Serbs, Roma, and anyone else who wants to secede from Kosovo.

If the ICJ rules that the secession of Kosovo was legal because the Albanians suffered persecution for ten years under Milosevic, then the secession of other peoples from Kosovo is also legal because of the persecution they've been subjected to for the last eleven years.

If the ICJ rules that the secession of Kosovo is illegal, then new recognitions of Kosovo will certainly stop and others may be rescinded.

I dont like to say i told you so, but I told you so. There will be an exchange/partition. Only way forward where we can all save face and look to the future with hope.

@ PSS
Don't take your dreams for reality :)
Helsinki Accords precise in 1/IV: "The participating States will respect the territorial integrity of each of the
participating States."
You can find the same thing in the UN charter. Both of them are binding international treaties and have been signed by the same who broke them by recognizing UDI. That's why Serbia should sue them and a positive outcome of ICJ's advisory opinion would be a major trump for doing so.

Since the Helsinki Agreement is legally binding, Serbia should, as soon as ICJ rules UDI illegal, sue those countries who have recognized.
(Joachim, 8 July 2010 18:37)

Yeah, sue them in a court in Serbia since UDIs are a matter of domestic law. I'm sure Serbia it's going to win :) and will be very happy.

No Top, I repeat, courts cannot decide whether someone has the right to break the law. They must rule on the law as it stands. Of course, if someone is guilty, they can weigh the evidence and make a decision whether there were extenuating circumstances behind the case and determine the punishment accordingly. (That said, punishment is not something that will not happen in the ICJ case. In the case of the ICJ ruling the most likely response will be a general assembly resolution.) But, once again, the court cannot decide on whethervsomeone had the right to break the law on the grounds that they had a 'unique reason' for doing so. As the Cypriot delegation before the ICJ pointed out, the second a court adopts such an approach it ceases to be a judicial body and becomes a body of political arbitration.

KU - if you had read my comment properly you would have seen that this was not in fact *my* argument. It was an argument put forward by some of the countries that supported the UDI. Read the transcripts and see for yourself. But you are right, had Serbia asked that question then there might have been a different reaction from those very same countries.

Don't take your dreams for reality :)
Helsinki Accords precise in 1/IV: "The participating States will respect the territorial integrity of each of the
participating States."
(Joachim, 9 July 2010 11:53)

Yes... but it does not say that an entity WITHIN A STATE has to do the same. Man, you are missing the basics here. International law and international agreements deal with states. When declaring independence Kosovo was not a state and certainly not a part of the Helsinki Agreement so it could not violate it.

But still I agree that Kosovo violated the Serbian constitution when declaring independence. That's why I said before that the Serbian government should sue it in a Serbian court and it's very likely it going to win because it was a clear violation of the Serbian constitution.

It's an ambiguous question because "law", in this context, is an ambiguous concept.

If I break a law in a country, say I murder someone in Serbia. That's a law because lawmakers in Serbia have, at some point, decided that it's against the law to kill someone and punishments for breaking this law are set.

In an international concept it's an inherently slippery concept. When people use it they generally refer to one of a number of things

1) Rulings in the UN Security Council. Resolutions under chapter 7 of the UN charter are enforceable through the use of force.

2) Rulings in the UNSC under chapter 6 of the UN charter. These resolutions are unenforcable.

3) Rulings in the UN General assembly. Completely unenforceable. The most they can do is recommend to the security council to table a motion.

4) agreements between nations

5) international conventions to which individual countries are signatories.


This seemingly unambiguous question is actually entirely meaningless.