Expert: ICJ circumvented question

When all the dust settles and people stop to think this will become clear. The opinion stuck rigidly to the question and chose to side step the real issues. That said, Serbia set this question in the full knowledge that this could happen. The opinion allows all sides to maintain their existing positions.

Some recognitions will follow but Serbia has succeeded in highlighting the real rifts created by the Kosovo question. The "special case" argument has been muffled. Had it not taken this action recognitions would have continued on the "special case" basis.

Well, he failed, he has to find out some kind of justification now. Octopus Paul has shown himself much better

More spin here

They answered the question that was asked.

question is, was it on purpose. In other words, is the Serbian leadership particularly smart or particularly stupid

"I have yet to determine, by closely studying the ICJ's advisory opinion, whether this is a way of circumventing the question and avoiding the answer," Varadi stressed, adding that he does not believe the response would be different if the question had been formulated differently.
===============

Exactly, when you are dealing with the Devil it doesn't matter which way you word it the Devil will always have the upper hand.

Serbia is dealing with the Devil now and there is no way it can win.
The court sounds more like the political right hand of Obama and not an independent body.

No, the court explicitely answered the asked question: "Is the Kosovo UDI against international law?".

And, tadaa, the answer was: "No, it isn't - because international law doesn't say anything about UDIs, and that's why it's not against it." Somehow strage that it needed more than a year to find it out.

Unfortunately, only this question was answered. The court stated that its ruling is NOT about the right for secession, NOT about the right for self determination, and NOT about an emerging statehood following an UDI - these questions would have been the interesting ones.

Well if Belgrade can pull this off in some way, Varadi's interpretation will be praised. If it's nothing more than a slow losing battle, it will be little more than spin.

Serbia should ignore the ICJ, the EU and other hypocrite institutions controlled by the West. Serbia should continue to resist the way it does today in Kosovo. By refusing to have anything to do with the scumbags in Pristina. It should also cut all ties with EULEX. Should America or the terrorists in Pristina try and take over the north by force Serbia has an obligation to defend it, as it would any other part of Serbia.

Exactly, when you are dealing with the Devil it doesn't matter which way you word it the Devil will always have the upper hand.
(Peggy

Funny but you seem to calling Serbs the Devil since they worded their own question to the UN Gen As. and to the ICJ.

Next time, hire a real legal eagle to do your questions for the ICj's opinion.

I knew this was always just a ploy by the Tadic government to delay recognitions while exposing the corruption in pristina. The ICJ refused to hear Yugoslavia's lawsuit against the HATO attack because it said its jurisdiction does not apply to international organizations, only member states, even though HATO is comprised of member states. This ruling just proves that the world is dominated by nuclear powers and vindicates any country that tries to obtain nuclear weapons.

This ruling just proves that the world is dominated by nuclear powers and vindicates any country that tries to obtain nuclear weapons.
(JohnBoy, 23 July 2010 17:20)

Jonny boy, if you believed otherwise yesterday, than you must have been asleep since you were born.

(Amer, 23 July 2010 21:14)

I think what you say is right Amer. The narrow question was carefully chosen. As it stands, the opinion is largely a side step of what everyone knows to be the real issue.

I'd say K-Albanians should be happy but not complacent. My opinion is that It has taken 10 years for Serbia to be ripe for meaningful compromise. It will take K-Albanians another 10 years of limbo to see that it is also in their interests to make a meaningful compromise. Any compromise will, without doubt, result in a new UN member state but to what extent and with what conditions is unclear.

Serbia asked a question to the ICJ, while at the same time winking at the judges, like "you know what I am talking about right?". The judges did not understand the wink though.

Some portions from the talk of Prof. James Crawford speaking for the UK in front of the ICJ in Dec. 2009, which deal exactly with this argument.
For those who have not read it, the whole thing can be found here:

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15734.pdf

"They answered the question that was asked.

question is, was it on purpose. In other words, is the Serbian leadership particularly smart or particularly stupid
(Danilo, 23 July 2010 17:30) "

Probably neither, just at the mercy of their supporters. Around the time of the GA resolution there was talk of Serbia's backers only being willing to support a very narrowly-worded question - if Serbia won and (contrary to previous practice) even a declaration of independence was declared against international law, everybody with resistive populations could relax, it would be a major win. If they lost, no big deal, it was the historical practice, it wouldn't mean any real change.

On the other hand, if Serbia swung for the fences and tried to rule out secession itself, and lost, all those countries with uneasy consciences about peoples seeking independence would have lost just about everything. They would either have to accommodate these peoples, or lose them - there wouldn't be any "international law" of territorial integrity appeal to. There was no way China, Russia, etc. were going to risk that. So Serbia accepted the wording of the question they required, went to court, and started arguing against independence.

Why the judges did not rule on these arguments is of course a different question. From the separate opinions it's clear that some of the justices think it's time to start discussing the problem of when secession is justified, but with 4 against even allowing the DoI, and some probably tending that way, the best the court could hope for would be a close decision, and on huge questions, it's better to be as close to unanimous as possible.

Varadi: ICJ circumvented the question.
How can ICJ circumvent the question they were not asked at the first place?
Serbia was really carefull to formulate the question that is comprised by the least common denominator. Otherwise, the question would not be approved by UN GA. Even this least common denominator (which as result had the narrow question) was barely approved by UN GA.
However Serbia thought that she can go to the court with I meant to say attitude by trying to get an answer on the question she meant to put (but did not dare) circumventing UN General Assembly.

The 'uniqueness' of Kosovo is tempered on the other side by South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

There will be no more of either as both sides have drawn a line under such unilateral acts.

The war in 1999 was undertaken at the hight of the west's powers, or more accurately the nadir of Russia's and the lack of cohesion amongst non-aligned countries (LatAm), India etc.

Nobody has either yet explained what 'pressure' those recognizing 'Kosova' can actually bring on Serbia? Cutting of development funds? Canceling the SAA? Bombing Belgrade again? Or just isolating Serbia? They need Belgrade to trade openly with Pristina and to cooperate in all other fields as otherwise Pristina will remain a significant drain on EU money for a long time into the future and the longer the average albanian remains poor, with limited access to decent education, work, pensions etc. the longer the territory will remain unstable and thus the longer it will be before there is any serious investments by foreign companies.

You only have to look at the failed competitions for a new power station, not to mention the road contracts and others to see why investing there is looked upon with a weary eye.

Serbia has all the time in the world. Pristina and its fans don't. Further threats to Belgrade will be totally counter productive. Inat... and there are no significant bribes Brussels can offer without Serbia handing over Mladic and the non-100% serb Hadzic... What a bind.

Funny but you seem to calling Serbs the Devil since they worded their own question to the UN Gen As. and to the ICJ.

Next time, hire a real legal eagle to do your questions for the ICj's opinion.
(luvAlbanians, 23 July 2010 17:15)
-------------------
Why do you have to be annoying on top of everything else?
Perhaps you can't read but I clearly stated that Serbia is dealing with the Devil.
How do you get that I am calling Serbia the Devil?

"However Serbia thought that she can go to the court with I meant to say attitude by trying to get an answer on the question she meant to put (but did not dare) circumventing UN General Assembly.
(Simpatiku, 24 July 2010 06:01) "

Just so. The Serb analysts now crying that the court didn't answer the right question should stop and consider, though - what if the court had answered the question of whether Kosovo is legally a state, and ruled that under the doctrine of remedial secession, it is? That it had every right to secede, considering Serbia's treatment of its inhabitants? That territorial integrity ranks second to human rights?

You can read the arguments for such a finding in the separate opinion of the Brazilian judge, Cançado Trindade

At least a couple of the other separate opinions suggested it was time to consider revisiting the concept of sovereignty as a defense against claims of a right to independence based on abuse of human rights, but the framing of the question gave the court a way of avoiding making a potentially system-shattering ruling.

And can you imagine relations between China and Serbia if Taiwan entered the UN on the basis of such a ruling? or even between Russia and Serbia?

"I have yet to determine, by closely studying the ICJ's advisory opinion, whether this is a way of circumventing the question and avoiding the answer," Varadi stressed, adding that he does not believe the response would be different if the question had been formulated differently.
===============

Exactly, when you are dealing with the Devil it doesn't matter which way you word it the Devil will always have the upper hand.

Serbia is dealing with the Devil now and there is no way it can win.
The court sounds more like the political right hand of Obama and not an independent body.

I knew this was always just a ploy by the Tadic government to delay recognitions while exposing the corruption in pristina. The ICJ refused to hear Yugoslavia's lawsuit against the HATO attack because it said its jurisdiction does not apply to international organizations, only member states, even though HATO is comprised of member states. This ruling just proves that the world is dominated by nuclear powers and vindicates any country that tries to obtain nuclear weapons.

Exactly, when you are dealing with the Devil it doesn't matter which way you word it the Devil will always have the upper hand.
(Peggy

Funny but you seem to calling Serbs the Devil since they worded their own question to the UN Gen As. and to the ICJ.

Next time, hire a real legal eagle to do your questions for the ICj's opinion.

Serbia should ignore the ICJ, the EU and other hypocrite institutions controlled by the West. Serbia should continue to resist the way it does today in Kosovo. By refusing to have anything to do with the scumbags in Pristina. It should also cut all ties with EULEX. Should America or the terrorists in Pristina try and take over the north by force Serbia has an obligation to defend it, as it would any other part of Serbia.

More spin here

Well, he failed, he has to find out some kind of justification now. Octopus Paul has shown himself much better

This ruling just proves that the world is dominated by nuclear powers and vindicates any country that tries to obtain nuclear weapons.
(JohnBoy, 23 July 2010 17:20)

Jonny boy, if you believed otherwise yesterday, than you must have been asleep since you were born.

When all the dust settles and people stop to think this will become clear. The opinion stuck rigidly to the question and chose to side step the real issues. That said, Serbia set this question in the full knowledge that this could happen. The opinion allows all sides to maintain their existing positions.

Some recognitions will follow but Serbia has succeeded in highlighting the real rifts created by the Kosovo question. The "special case" argument has been muffled. Had it not taken this action recognitions would have continued on the "special case" basis.

Well if Belgrade can pull this off in some way, Varadi's interpretation will be praised. If it's nothing more than a slow losing battle, it will be little more than spin.

No, the court explicitely answered the asked question: "Is the Kosovo UDI against international law?".

And, tadaa, the answer was: "No, it isn't - because international law doesn't say anything about UDIs, and that's why it's not against it." Somehow strage that it needed more than a year to find it out.

Unfortunately, only this question was answered. The court stated that its ruling is NOT about the right for secession, NOT about the right for self determination, and NOT about an emerging statehood following an UDI - these questions would have been the interesting ones.

Funny but you seem to calling Serbs the Devil since they worded their own question to the UN Gen As. and to the ICJ.

Next time, hire a real legal eagle to do your questions for the ICj's opinion.
(luvAlbanians, 23 July 2010 17:15)
-------------------
Why do you have to be annoying on top of everything else?
Perhaps you can't read but I clearly stated that Serbia is dealing with the Devil.
How do you get that I am calling Serbia the Devil?

The 'uniqueness' of Kosovo is tempered on the other side by South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

There will be no more of either as both sides have drawn a line under such unilateral acts.

The war in 1999 was undertaken at the hight of the west's powers, or more accurately the nadir of Russia's and the lack of cohesion amongst non-aligned countries (LatAm), India etc.

Nobody has either yet explained what 'pressure' those recognizing 'Kosova' can actually bring on Serbia? Cutting of development funds? Canceling the SAA? Bombing Belgrade again? Or just isolating Serbia? They need Belgrade to trade openly with Pristina and to cooperate in all other fields as otherwise Pristina will remain a significant drain on EU money for a long time into the future and the longer the average albanian remains poor, with limited access to decent education, work, pensions etc. the longer the territory will remain unstable and thus the longer it will be before there is any serious investments by foreign companies.

You only have to look at the failed competitions for a new power station, not to mention the road contracts and others to see why investing there is looked upon with a weary eye.

Serbia has all the time in the world. Pristina and its fans don't. Further threats to Belgrade will be totally counter productive. Inat... and there are no significant bribes Brussels can offer without Serbia handing over Mladic and the non-100% serb Hadzic... What a bind.

They answered the question that was asked.

question is, was it on purpose. In other words, is the Serbian leadership particularly smart or particularly stupid

"They answered the question that was asked.

question is, was it on purpose. In other words, is the Serbian leadership particularly smart or particularly stupid
(Danilo, 23 July 2010 17:30) "

Probably neither, just at the mercy of their supporters. Around the time of the GA resolution there was talk of Serbia's backers only being willing to support a very narrowly-worded question - if Serbia won and (contrary to previous practice) even a declaration of independence was declared against international law, everybody with resistive populations could relax, it would be a major win. If they lost, no big deal, it was the historical practice, it wouldn't mean any real change.

On the other hand, if Serbia swung for the fences and tried to rule out secession itself, and lost, all those countries with uneasy consciences about peoples seeking independence would have lost just about everything. They would either have to accommodate these peoples, or lose them - there wouldn't be any "international law" of territorial integrity appeal to. There was no way China, Russia, etc. were going to risk that. So Serbia accepted the wording of the question they required, went to court, and started arguing against independence.

Why the judges did not rule on these arguments is of course a different question. From the separate opinions it's clear that some of the justices think it's time to start discussing the problem of when secession is justified, but with 4 against even allowing the DoI, and some probably tending that way, the best the court could hope for would be a close decision, and on huge questions, it's better to be as close to unanimous as possible.

Serbia asked a question to the ICJ, while at the same time winking at the judges, like "you know what I am talking about right?". The judges did not understand the wink though.

Some portions from the talk of Prof. James Crawford speaking for the UK in front of the ICJ in Dec. 2009, which deal exactly with this argument.
For those who have not read it, the whole thing can be found here:

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15734.pdf

(Amer, 23 July 2010 21:14)

I think what you say is right Amer. The narrow question was carefully chosen. As it stands, the opinion is largely a side step of what everyone knows to be the real issue.

I'd say K-Albanians should be happy but not complacent. My opinion is that It has taken 10 years for Serbia to be ripe for meaningful compromise. It will take K-Albanians another 10 years of limbo to see that it is also in their interests to make a meaningful compromise. Any compromise will, without doubt, result in a new UN member state but to what extent and with what conditions is unclear.

Varadi: ICJ circumvented the question.
How can ICJ circumvent the question they were not asked at the first place?
Serbia was really carefull to formulate the question that is comprised by the least common denominator. Otherwise, the question would not be approved by UN GA. Even this least common denominator (which as result had the narrow question) was barely approved by UN GA.
However Serbia thought that she can go to the court with I meant to say attitude by trying to get an answer on the question she meant to put (but did not dare) circumventing UN General Assembly.

"However Serbia thought that she can go to the court with I meant to say attitude by trying to get an answer on the question she meant to put (but did not dare) circumventing UN General Assembly.
(Simpatiku, 24 July 2010 06:01) "

Just so. The Serb analysts now crying that the court didn't answer the right question should stop and consider, though - what if the court had answered the question of whether Kosovo is legally a state, and ruled that under the doctrine of remedial secession, it is? That it had every right to secede, considering Serbia's treatment of its inhabitants? That territorial integrity ranks second to human rights?

You can read the arguments for such a finding in the separate opinion of the Brazilian judge, Cançado Trindade

At least a couple of the other separate opinions suggested it was time to consider revisiting the concept of sovereignty as a defense against claims of a right to independence based on abuse of human rights, but the framing of the question gave the court a way of avoiding making a potentially system-shattering ruling.

And can you imagine relations between China and Serbia if Taiwan entered the UN on the basis of such a ruling? or even between Russia and Serbia?