Expert: ICJ has lost its legitimacy

I totally agree with this law expert's opinion. The ICJ, the UN, the Hague, are all puppets of the United States, which are manipulated anyway the US wants. It is a sad state of affairs this world has come to. The court's opinion (ICJ) is indeed contradictory, and only serves to give other minorities with separatist ambitions the green light to do so. Serbia wanted an opinion from the court as to the legality of the Kosovo Albanians' right to secede from Serbia, not on it's right to state that they are. The court wound up playing semantics, and gave a reponse that left the Kosovo issue exactly where it is, a stalemate, but has now encouraged UDI's around the globe. Until "might is right" is contained, if possible, the world will be formed in the way the powers want - whether it is actually legal or not.

It is obvious that the WEST lead by the US and UK have a hand on the ICJ Decision. Definitely it opens a Pandora's Box to other countries who have separatist's problems.. Nevertheless Serbia will not give up its historical right over Kosovo at any price even the EU membership.

If there is to be a world war 3 I am convinced that the American will cause it. They are responsible for so much evil its beyond me. Wars, polution of the environment, world dominance etc.

Get a life, Benny. You just take care of your Albanian future generations, we Serbs, and our future generations, are doing just fine. Serbia will never recognize an independent Albanian Kosovo. You won't live to see it, anyway. Thanks for being concerned about Serbs, though.

Fleiner is stating the obvious, but I am glad he is speaking up. The ICJ never had any legitimacy to begin with. These are basicaly the same people who release Nasir Oric even after he bragged and showed footage of his own war crimes. What kind of 'court' keeps Seselj behind bars since 2003, with absolutely zero evidence against him?? I guess free speech is not a right that Serbs have. It's an anti-Serb political kangaroo court, and nothing else. No Serb should recognize it, and it is an insult to all Serbs to send anyone to this so called 'court of justice'. If that is a court of justice, then I'm Popeye.

Please spare us of such comments and respect the international law. Serbia has asked for an opinion, the court spoke, and now Serbia should respect the court's opinion, otherwise by not respecting it Serbia creates a precedent for the future cases, and thus weakens the courts legitimacy.

Also saying that the ICJ isn't legitimate is a bit like saying the Pope isn't Catholic. It is ridiculous!
(Ian, UK, 24 July 2010 11:14)

Ian, you do pose a serious question there which is not so ridiculous.
The leader of that particular religious denomination is the same leader who has protected criminal activity against children from his employees and public denounced the investigating authorities. Which in my honouable opinion is not very Catholic. More facist if anything.

KiM is Srbija.

Yet again more spin; there are many bitter people attacking the ICJ just because the advisory opinion didn't go in Serbia's favour. It is all rather childish; this is just another desperate attempt to downplay the ICJ's advisory opinion. However if the ICJ's advisory opinion had gone in Serbia's favour, the same people who are currently attacking it would be praising it instead.

At the end of the day Kosovo's independence wasn't illegal and thus legal. The UN's organ on international law has stated so.

Also saying that the ICJ isn't legitimate is a bit like saying the Pope isn't Catholic. It is ridiculous!

LOL , another Jeremic is coming in Serbia background.
Come on Serbia do it for once time and forever, for your future and for the Serbian young generations "Recognize Kosovo" and stop this stupidity . You are giving chance the other countries to smile and joke with actual steps which haveSerbian politicians.
Cheers!!!

"Expert: ICJ has lost its legitimacy"

Of course, the old pattern. When you lose then simply declare that ruling illegitimate. Even a kindergarten has more seriousity.

Like most sane people, I was shocked to hear the opinion of the ICJ but after consideration I think the greatest joke has been played using the narrowest of definitions. The ICJ gave their opinion but added no views of substance to the international system of checks and balances.

Without putting any weight behind sovereignty arguments or secessionists, the ICJ basically said any group has the equivalent of the right to speech, not whether what any one group says is legal binding.

My expectation was the declaration was not legal because the provisional government was neither the sole authority (Serbia) nor the exercising authority (UN) but a temporary institution put in place until a solution could be reached where time was not of the essence, meaning a where peace is in place.

Well, the ICJ basically said to anyone you can go spout off whatever you like, you have the freedom to speech, and you won't be persecuted for it. The ICJ just did not endorse the content.

‘The ICJ never had any legitimacy to begin with. These are basicaly the same people who release Nasir Oric’. (Dragan, 24 July 2010 17:36)

You’ve got the wrong court, Dragan, though the one you mean is cleverly placed in the same town. TP

And the people who are pulling the strings, and controlling the judges, for both of these courts are?? Take a wild guess TP.
Let me know if you need help, but it doesn't take a genius to figure it out.

You notice Mr Fleiner engages in the same propaganda that comes with his associates. He says that The court ruled the Declaration of Independence does not violate international law but then says Kosovo does not have the right to secession.
The court in its ruling did not address the right of secession and gives the reason that they were not asked to give an opinion on the matter.
The courts opinion was not contradictory in itself, it only contradicted the assertions of Serbia.

Expert: ICJ has lost its legitimacy

Why? Because it did not let itself be manipulated by Serbia by answering non-existing question with which Serbia intended to circumvent the approval of UN General Assembly. LOL

Definitely it opens a Pandora's Box to other countries who have separatist's problems..
(PRO-SERBIA, 24 July 2010 11:19)

No... It does not open any box let alone Pandora's one. That's why almost all states are calm except somebody like Serbia and Russia and few others.

The Court knew that some people would say this and made it clear in many paragraphs of the Opinion that they are only deciding on the Kosovo's UDI of 17/2/2008 and no larger precedents are created, unless their international legal framework is excatly like Kosovo.

If somebody reads the decision it's not going to find anything which could be used by, say, North Cyprus or Basques to declare independence from Cyprus or Spain, respectively.

The Court was very deliberate and meticulos in the whole Opinion to make sure that its decision was narrow to the specific Kosovo case.

winston wrote: "Serbia will never recognize an independent Albanian Kosovo". Wise! Kosova will be a part of Albania soon, so you will have nothing recognize.

ICJ lost credibility since they started persecuting almost every Serb and letting off almost everyone else. FREE SESELJ!

Fleiner says:
“The judges believe […] believe that Kosovo does not have the right to a unilateral secession. Everyone can understand that this is a case of contradiction”
He then says:
“the political leaders of territories that want to secede are getting a message that they have the right to do so.”
I think the only one who is in contradiction in Fleiner himself. He says in the first sentence that the judges said Kosovo does not have a right to secession and then that the message is that they have the right to do so.
Let alone then the ridiculous statement that “I am almost sure that there was political pressure, because the arguments that were given in the ICJ’s opinion were identical to the arguments that the U.S. gave the judges in December”.
If some arguments are correct, what should the judges do, not use them because one of the participants in the proceedings mentioned them ?! Then what is the point of asking states to participate in ICJ proceedings if their arguments cannot be used according to Fleiner?
Moreover, he forgets that ICJ took three decisions and in two of those agreed with Serbia & Co. arguments (i.e. that it can give an opinion and should give an opinion) and in one of them with Kosovo & Co. arguments (i.e. UDI was not against international law). Besides the decision part, there are other parts of the opinion that use Serbia arguments as opposed to the US ones. So should we also conclude that there was political pressure from Serbia because also some of Serbia’s arguments were used ?!!!
If Fleiner was a legal advisor to Serbia, I now understand another reason why Serbia lost… Using incompetent legal advisors !

There is not really an international law, and the IJC said that that "there is no law to prohibit secession.
There are some U.N. Articles adopted by the 5 permanent members of its Security Council when the U.N. was formed, by the big powers manipulated them to mean "anything and nothing!" The only international law is the
power of the gun. Everything else is just gravy!

What effect the IJC ruling on Kosovo will have? None. And the 69 countries can only count as "the U.S. group," which includes willing U.S. allies, and other poor U.S. allies that the late U.S. senator Edward Kennedy called once "the coalition of the arm twisted and the unwilling." They include beggar countries like Latvia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Colombia, Somalia -even though the anti-U.S. Al Shahab controls 95% of the country, and even -are you ready for this? -Azerbaijan! Azerbaijan is shooting itself on the foot by recognizing Kosovo, because it sets a precedent for independent its Armenian province of Nagorno Karabakh! And that shows how hard the U.S. has pushed its unwilling allies to reach that 69 pro-Kosovo votes.

The picture of 69 countries, therefore, is actually a dead end - not bright beginning. And another minus is that it includes various small U.S. Territories like Saipan that are just small or tiny Islands, but the U.S. had the clout at the U.N. to registered them as independent states to obtain extra votes at the U.N. General Assembly. But they are not really sovereign states.

Kosovo has no future as an internationally recognized state because the number 69 is close to the upper limit
of the U.S. global influence, and the U.N. General Assembly has 192 states. Plus, in 1986, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the U.S. had illegally mined the Nicaraguan harbors to help its "Contras"
mercenaries overthrow the anti-American Sandinista government, but the U.S. responded that "the IJC had no jurisdiction to meddle in U.S. foreign policy."

The IJC ruling, therefore, is meaningless because "might" is the standard that settle global boundaries - not any rule of law. The U.S. bombed Serbia to liberate Kosovo, and Russia bombed Georgia to liberate South Ossettia and Abkazia. Yes, Kosovo has 69 willing and twisted votes to count on, but ahead is a mount of 123 opposing votes that the U.S. doesn't have the "might" to bulldoze through.

My verdict on the IJC Kosovo independence ruling ? Hold the champagne at the Kosovars celebration party, because the majority of the planet's landlords are not attending! And some of those who attend are not there
by choice. They were drafted or dragged by the scruff there. Nikos Retsos, retired professor

"Of course, the old pattern. When you lose then simply declare that ruling illegitimate. Even a kindergarten has more seriousity.
(Legal_State, 24 July 2010 14:26) "

It was not a "ruling". A rule is something that comes with authority bto e enforced. The ICJ verdict was a non-binding opinion or advice.

...Serbia wanted an opinion from the court as to the legality of the Kosovo Albanians' right to secede from Serbia, not on it's right to state that they are. The court wound up playing semantics, and gave a reponse that left the Kosovo issue exactly where it is, a stalemate, but has now encouraged UDI's around the globe. Until "might is right" is contained, if possible, the world will be formed in the way the powers want - whether it is actually legal or not.
(inNYC, 24 July 2010 10:15)

inNYC,

The ICJ answered the question as it was framed by Serbia. They did as required. Who's fault is it if Serbia can't even correctly pose the question they had in mind. I think it would be better for you not to call attention to the incompetence of Serbia. No one ended up playing semantics, Serbia's advisors simply were not qualified to do their job! It is time for Serbia to stop wasting everyone's precious time and money and to graciously accept this final ruling of the highest court and move on.

"and even -are you ready for this? -Azerbaijan! Azerbaijan is shooting itself on the foot by recognizing Kosovo, because it sets a precedent for independent its Armenian province of Nagorno Karabakh!"

Dear retired professor, please get your facts right. Azerbijan has not recognised Kosovo, and in fact it gave an advisory opinion to the ICJ supporting Serbia.

The mistake here is the assumption of many in the pro-Serb camp that recognition or otherwise is simply due to whether you are allied to the US. That can't explain why numerous states which are very close to the US but which also oppress minority peoples - Israel, Georgia, Azerbijan etc - have solidly stuck by Serbia here. Meanwhile, its true that a number of Arab states that have recognised Kosova may be considered US allies, but if they were actually US puppets they would ahve dropped their support for Palestine and recognised Israel. They haven't. They recognised Kosova of their own free will.

Ladies and Gentlemen
Please make up your mind. If ICJ did not support the independence of Kosovo then how could it opened Pandora's Box?
Also if ICJ is not being supportive of secession (question it was not aked) then how in the world ICJ lost credibility?
I mean I understand Jeremic and Tadic are lost in time and space because this debacle may cost their current positions but at least you guys has nothing monetarily to lose.

"The court has lost all of its legitimacy....
The judges believe that this sentence does not violate international law, but at the same time believe that Kosovo does not have the right to a unilateral secession. Everyone can understand that this is a case of contradiction,” Fleiner said.

Where oh where did they say that Kosovo does not have the right to secession? They did not say anything about that. Maybe in the notes of those who voted against?

I would expect this kind of talk and behavior only from some posters here on B92. You know, "we lost therefore the judge is biased and corrupt". But from the legal adviser of Serbia? What a poor display of professionalism. Even Tadic and Jeremic did not say anything about the court. How do such poor "experts" get to represent Serbia in front of the world?

Or maybe he was "ordered" to say this by his employers to move some of the heat of the loss away from themselves..who knows..

"The court in its ruling did not address the right of secession and gives the reason that they were not asked to give an opinion on the matter.
The courts opinion was not contradictory in itself, it only contradicted the assertions of Serbia."
(pss, 24 July 2010 14:38)

Exactly! The court's ruling was clear and exact! The UDI was legal, since no internatianal law forbids it.

Furthermore, it was explicitely said that the ruling is NOT about secession and right for self determination, and NOT about the statehood of Kosovo.

Why some people draw wrong conclusions from it, like "Since Thursday, Kosovo is an independent state" I really cannot understand.

One must question whether Judge Thomas Buergenthal resigned in June because of the hidden pressures placed on the court to tow the American line?
(Bozidar, 25 July 2010 03:09)
Read his biography and you will probably be able to get the answer. Buergenthal would have voted the way he did even if the US was supporting Serbia.
A better question would have been did the Chinese judge quit because China would not allow him to vote with the majority.
Common sense tells you that if the US judge had problems he would retired before the verdict instead of afterward.
Not only is Buergenthal an Auswitz survivor he has spent his life championing for human rights.

The courts opinion was not contradictory in itself, it only contradicted the assertions of Serbia.
(pss, 24 July 2010 14:38)

and her attempts to get answer on the question that she did not dare to ask and therefore circumvent UN General Assembly.

"Azerbaijan is shooting itself on the foot by recognizing Kosovo, because it sets a precedent for independent its Armenian province of Nagorno Karabakh! "

Professor, Azerbijan has not yet recognized Kosovo, in fact it argued at the ICJ against Kosovo's position. (Its representative said that since there was no law allowing secession, it was therefore illegal. The court did not agree.)

Of course it has!

Either the court rules as I wish, or it has no legitimacy:)

Ian UK said:

“Yet again more spin”

then said:

“At the end of the day Kosovo's independence wasn't illegal and thus legal. The UN's organ on international law has stated so.”

I suppose spin is better than outright lies. Please do come back and substantiate your lies with reference to the advisory opinion.

The Court was very deliberate and meticulos in the whole Opinion to make sure that its decision was narrow to the specific Kosovo case.
(abc123, 24 July 2010 14:48)

Yes in effect they said that any random bunch of people can declare independence and it will not violate international law because international law has nothing to say about that act - very Kosovo specific, not!

Other than that I agree with what you say.

There are three statements in these posts that beg a response. Spelling, grammatical and syntactical errors are not mine.

Even a kindergarten has more seriousity.
(Legal_State, 24 July 2010 14:26)

There’s no such word as ‘seriousity’.

‘The ICJ never had any legitimacy to begin with. These are basicaly the same people who release Nasir Oric’. (Dragan, 24 July 2010 17:36)

You’ve got the wrong court, Dragan, though the one you mean is cleverly placed in the same town.

‘Serbia's advisors simply were not qualified to do their job!’ (Michael R., 24 July 2010 18:37)

That depends, Michael, on what you think their real job is. The Serbian Government, despite its pronouncements, is very pro-Western. That isn’t a criticism, merely a statement of fact.

‘Serbia's advisors simply were not qualified to do their job!’ (Michael R., 24 July 2010 18:37)

What do you mean - Serbia hired some of the most expensive lawyers in the world! Who came up with some of the most creative arguments imaginable for the Serbian side! Unfortunately, they just didn't work. (I believe the lawyers will still want to be paid, though.)

One must question whether Judge Thomas Buergenthal resigned in June because of the hidden pressures placed on the court to tow the American line?

Definitely it opens a Pandora's Box to other countries who have separatist's problems..
(PRO-SERBIA, 24 July 2010 11:19)

So how do you explain the fact that pro Serbian countries with separatist movement are saying now that Kosovo is a sui generis case?
Azerbaijani FM: Kosovo not Nagorno Karabakh
The Kosovo conflict is unique, as are all conflicts, Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry spokesman Elkhan Polukhov told Trend today. There is no one answer or method for settling such conflicts.
http://en.trend.az/news/karabakh/1725298.html

"Constitutional law professor and one-time Serbian legal advisor"

I stopped reading after this.
(Zoti)

What's wrong? Didn't understand the vocabulary?

What's wrong? Didn't understand the vocabulary?
(Mahmud, 26 July 2010)

I can't really opine on his vocabulary. I stopped reading as I didn't wanna take legal advice from a "one-time Serbian advisor".

"Definitely it opens a Pandora's Box to other countries who have separatist's problems.. Nevertheless Serbia will not give up its historical right over Kosovo at any price even the EU membership.
PRO-SERBIA"

- Pro-Serbia, Serbia has tried to exert influence over Kosovo but to no avail. It can continue to do so only to her detriment.

Now, in terms of the ICJ decision opening Pandora's box...

I don't think so but let's entertain this for a minute and let's stick to the Balkans.

If Kosovo sets precedent for other areas to secede than let's see what happens...

- Serbia: N.Mitrovica,RS and Serb populated areas in Montenegro secede. Serbia wins.
- Croats in BiH secede. Croatia wins.
- Bosnia loses.
- Vojvodina secedes. Serbia loses.
- Presevo & Bujanovac secede. Serbia loses. Albanians win.
- Albanians in Macedonia secede along with Bulgarians. - Albanians & Bulgarians win, Macedonia loses.
- Albanians in Macedonia secede. They win, Montenegro loses.
- Chameria, Albanian inhabited part of Greece, secedes. Albanians win, Greeks lose.
Let's not even talk about other countries.

In Summary:
- Serbs gain 3 regions and lose 2 to the Albanians.
- Albanians lose 1 region but gain 4.
- Croatia gains 1.
- Hungary gains 1.
- Bulgaria gains 1.
Greece, Macedonia, Montenegro & BiH all lose.

Albanians gain the most because of the corrupt Western powers and their attempt to gain influence in the region. I'm assuming you can sense my sarcasm here.

If you took your time to read this lengthy post than you may agree that this scenario is absolutely absurd and will never happen and should not be brought up again.

"Constitutional law professor and one-time Serbian legal advisor"

I stopped reading after this.

To begin with I have an immediate aversion to anyone who is described as an expert on any subject whatever it may be. The term 'authority' is infinitely preferable. Worse even are those persons that describe themselves as 'experts', although there is no indication that Professor Fleiner falls into this category.

Perhaps Professor Fleiner is correct in his statements, but I have to say that the fact his past has included a stint as a legal advisor to the Serbian government does cast a slight shadow over his verdict. He cannot truly be expected to have an unbiased view, particularly if there is the possibility that the Serb government may call on his services again in the future.

'Experts' can be wheeled out by either party in the proceedings to support one side or discredit the other. One only needs to look as far as the issue of global warming where scientists whose studies are funded by the petro-chemicals industry tend to debunk the theory as myth, while others (also potentially in the pocket of some or other lobby) keep telling us that the ice caps are melting and the end of the world is nigh.

Always read between the lines...

The Court was very deliberate and meticulos in the whole Opinion to make sure that its decision was narrow to the specific Kosovo case.
(abc123, 24 July 2010 14:48)

Yes in effect they said that any random bunch of people can declare independence and it will not violate international law because international law has nothing to say about that act - very Kosovo specific, not!

Other than that I agree with what you say.
(Mister, 24 July 2010 16:10)

"In effect... etc." are your words. Show us the paragraph of the Opinion where the Court said what you say if you are able to find it.

For the rest thank you for agreeing with me :)

LOL , another Jeremic is coming in Serbia background.
Come on Serbia do it for once time and forever, for your future and for the Serbian young generations "Recognize Kosovo" and stop this stupidity . You are giving chance the other countries to smile and joke with actual steps which haveSerbian politicians.
Cheers!!!

Yet again more spin; there are many bitter people attacking the ICJ just because the advisory opinion didn't go in Serbia's favour. It is all rather childish; this is just another desperate attempt to downplay the ICJ's advisory opinion. However if the ICJ's advisory opinion had gone in Serbia's favour, the same people who are currently attacking it would be praising it instead.

At the end of the day Kosovo's independence wasn't illegal and thus legal. The UN's organ on international law has stated so.

Also saying that the ICJ isn't legitimate is a bit like saying the Pope isn't Catholic. It is ridiculous!

It is obvious that the WEST lead by the US and UK have a hand on the ICJ Decision. Definitely it opens a Pandora's Box to other countries who have separatist's problems.. Nevertheless Serbia will not give up its historical right over Kosovo at any price even the EU membership.

Please spare us of such comments and respect the international law. Serbia has asked for an opinion, the court spoke, and now Serbia should respect the court's opinion, otherwise by not respecting it Serbia creates a precedent for the future cases, and thus weakens the courts legitimacy.

I totally agree with this law expert's opinion. The ICJ, the UN, the Hague, are all puppets of the United States, which are manipulated anyway the US wants. It is a sad state of affairs this world has come to. The court's opinion (ICJ) is indeed contradictory, and only serves to give other minorities with separatist ambitions the green light to do so. Serbia wanted an opinion from the court as to the legality of the Kosovo Albanians' right to secede from Serbia, not on it's right to state that they are. The court wound up playing semantics, and gave a reponse that left the Kosovo issue exactly where it is, a stalemate, but has now encouraged UDI's around the globe. Until "might is right" is contained, if possible, the world will be formed in the way the powers want - whether it is actually legal or not.

winston wrote: "Serbia will never recognize an independent Albanian Kosovo". Wise! Kosova will be a part of Albania soon, so you will have nothing recognize.

Also saying that the ICJ isn't legitimate is a bit like saying the Pope isn't Catholic. It is ridiculous!
(Ian, UK, 24 July 2010 11:14)

Ian, you do pose a serious question there which is not so ridiculous.
The leader of that particular religious denomination is the same leader who has protected criminal activity against children from his employees and public denounced the investigating authorities. Which in my honouable opinion is not very Catholic. More facist if anything.

KiM is Srbija.

If there is to be a world war 3 I am convinced that the American will cause it. They are responsible for so much evil its beyond me. Wars, polution of the environment, world dominance etc.

...Serbia wanted an opinion from the court as to the legality of the Kosovo Albanians' right to secede from Serbia, not on it's right to state that they are. The court wound up playing semantics, and gave a reponse that left the Kosovo issue exactly where it is, a stalemate, but has now encouraged UDI's around the globe. Until "might is right" is contained, if possible, the world will be formed in the way the powers want - whether it is actually legal or not.
(inNYC, 24 July 2010 10:15)

inNYC,

The ICJ answered the question as it was framed by Serbia. They did as required. Who's fault is it if Serbia can't even correctly pose the question they had in mind. I think it would be better for you not to call attention to the incompetence of Serbia. No one ended up playing semantics, Serbia's advisors simply were not qualified to do their job! It is time for Serbia to stop wasting everyone's precious time and money and to graciously accept this final ruling of the highest court and move on.

Get a life, Benny. You just take care of your Albanian future generations, we Serbs, and our future generations, are doing just fine. Serbia will never recognize an independent Albanian Kosovo. You won't live to see it, anyway. Thanks for being concerned about Serbs, though.

ICJ lost credibility since they started persecuting almost every Serb and letting off almost everyone else. FREE SESELJ!

Definitely it opens a Pandora's Box to other countries who have separatist's problems..
(PRO-SERBIA, 24 July 2010 11:19)

No... It does not open any box let alone Pandora's one. That's why almost all states are calm except somebody like Serbia and Russia and few others.

The Court knew that some people would say this and made it clear in many paragraphs of the Opinion that they are only deciding on the Kosovo's UDI of 17/2/2008 and no larger precedents are created, unless their international legal framework is excatly like Kosovo.

If somebody reads the decision it's not going to find anything which could be used by, say, North Cyprus or Basques to declare independence from Cyprus or Spain, respectively.

The Court was very deliberate and meticulos in the whole Opinion to make sure that its decision was narrow to the specific Kosovo case.

Ian UK said:

“Yet again more spin”

then said:

“At the end of the day Kosovo's independence wasn't illegal and thus legal. The UN's organ on international law has stated so.”

I suppose spin is better than outright lies. Please do come back and substantiate your lies with reference to the advisory opinion.

You notice Mr Fleiner engages in the same propaganda that comes with his associates. He says that The court ruled the Declaration of Independence does not violate international law but then says Kosovo does not have the right to secession.
The court in its ruling did not address the right of secession and gives the reason that they were not asked to give an opinion on the matter.
The courts opinion was not contradictory in itself, it only contradicted the assertions of Serbia.

Fleiner is stating the obvious, but I am glad he is speaking up. The ICJ never had any legitimacy to begin with. These are basicaly the same people who release Nasir Oric even after he bragged and showed footage of his own war crimes. What kind of 'court' keeps Seselj behind bars since 2003, with absolutely zero evidence against him?? I guess free speech is not a right that Serbs have. It's an anti-Serb political kangaroo court, and nothing else. No Serb should recognize it, and it is an insult to all Serbs to send anyone to this so called 'court of justice'. If that is a court of justice, then I'm Popeye.

Fleiner says:
“The judges believe […] believe that Kosovo does not have the right to a unilateral secession. Everyone can understand that this is a case of contradiction”
He then says:
“the political leaders of territories that want to secede are getting a message that they have the right to do so.”
I think the only one who is in contradiction in Fleiner himself. He says in the first sentence that the judges said Kosovo does not have a right to secession and then that the message is that they have the right to do so.
Let alone then the ridiculous statement that “I am almost sure that there was political pressure, because the arguments that were given in the ICJ’s opinion were identical to the arguments that the U.S. gave the judges in December”.
If some arguments are correct, what should the judges do, not use them because one of the participants in the proceedings mentioned them ?! Then what is the point of asking states to participate in ICJ proceedings if their arguments cannot be used according to Fleiner?
Moreover, he forgets that ICJ took three decisions and in two of those agreed with Serbia & Co. arguments (i.e. that it can give an opinion and should give an opinion) and in one of them with Kosovo & Co. arguments (i.e. UDI was not against international law). Besides the decision part, there are other parts of the opinion that use Serbia arguments as opposed to the US ones. So should we also conclude that there was political pressure from Serbia because also some of Serbia’s arguments were used ?!!!
If Fleiner was a legal advisor to Serbia, I now understand another reason why Serbia lost… Using incompetent legal advisors !

"Expert: ICJ has lost its legitimacy"

Of course, the old pattern. When you lose then simply declare that ruling illegitimate. Even a kindergarten has more seriousity.

Expert: ICJ has lost its legitimacy

Why? Because it did not let itself be manipulated by Serbia by answering non-existing question with which Serbia intended to circumvent the approval of UN General Assembly. LOL

"The court has lost all of its legitimacy....
The judges believe that this sentence does not violate international law, but at the same time believe that Kosovo does not have the right to a unilateral secession. Everyone can understand that this is a case of contradiction,” Fleiner said.

Where oh where did they say that Kosovo does not have the right to secession? They did not say anything about that. Maybe in the notes of those who voted against?

I would expect this kind of talk and behavior only from some posters here on B92. You know, "we lost therefore the judge is biased and corrupt". But from the legal adviser of Serbia? What a poor display of professionalism. Even Tadic and Jeremic did not say anything about the court. How do such poor "experts" get to represent Serbia in front of the world?

Or maybe he was "ordered" to say this by his employers to move some of the heat of the loss away from themselves..who knows..

There is not really an international law, and the IJC said that that "there is no law to prohibit secession.
There are some U.N. Articles adopted by the 5 permanent members of its Security Council when the U.N. was formed, by the big powers manipulated them to mean "anything and nothing!" The only international law is the
power of the gun. Everything else is just gravy!

What effect the IJC ruling on Kosovo will have? None. And the 69 countries can only count as "the U.S. group," which includes willing U.S. allies, and other poor U.S. allies that the late U.S. senator Edward Kennedy called once "the coalition of the arm twisted and the unwilling." They include beggar countries like Latvia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Colombia, Somalia -even though the anti-U.S. Al Shahab controls 95% of the country, and even -are you ready for this? -Azerbaijan! Azerbaijan is shooting itself on the foot by recognizing Kosovo, because it sets a precedent for independent its Armenian province of Nagorno Karabakh! And that shows how hard the U.S. has pushed its unwilling allies to reach that 69 pro-Kosovo votes.

The picture of 69 countries, therefore, is actually a dead end - not bright beginning. And another minus is that it includes various small U.S. Territories like Saipan that are just small or tiny Islands, but the U.S. had the clout at the U.N. to registered them as independent states to obtain extra votes at the U.N. General Assembly. But they are not really sovereign states.

Kosovo has no future as an internationally recognized state because the number 69 is close to the upper limit
of the U.S. global influence, and the U.N. General Assembly has 192 states. Plus, in 1986, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the U.S. had illegally mined the Nicaraguan harbors to help its "Contras"
mercenaries overthrow the anti-American Sandinista government, but the U.S. responded that "the IJC had no jurisdiction to meddle in U.S. foreign policy."

The IJC ruling, therefore, is meaningless because "might" is the standard that settle global boundaries - not any rule of law. The U.S. bombed Serbia to liberate Kosovo, and Russia bombed Georgia to liberate South Ossettia and Abkazia. Yes, Kosovo has 69 willing and twisted votes to count on, but ahead is a mount of 123 opposing votes that the U.S. doesn't have the "might" to bulldoze through.

My verdict on the IJC Kosovo independence ruling ? Hold the champagne at the Kosovars celebration party, because the majority of the planet's landlords are not attending! And some of those who attend are not there
by choice. They were drafted or dragged by the scruff there. Nikos Retsos, retired professor

Of course it has!

Either the court rules as I wish, or it has no legitimacy:)

The Court was very deliberate and meticulos in the whole Opinion to make sure that its decision was narrow to the specific Kosovo case.
(abc123, 24 July 2010 14:48)

Yes in effect they said that any random bunch of people can declare independence and it will not violate international law because international law has nothing to say about that act - very Kosovo specific, not!

Other than that I agree with what you say.

"Of course, the old pattern. When you lose then simply declare that ruling illegitimate. Even a kindergarten has more seriousity.
(Legal_State, 24 July 2010 14:26) "

It was not a "ruling". A rule is something that comes with authority bto e enforced. The ICJ verdict was a non-binding opinion or advice.

"Definitely it opens a Pandora's Box to other countries who have separatist's problems.. Nevertheless Serbia will not give up its historical right over Kosovo at any price even the EU membership.
PRO-SERBIA"

- Pro-Serbia, Serbia has tried to exert influence over Kosovo but to no avail. It can continue to do so only to her detriment.

Now, in terms of the ICJ decision opening Pandora's box...

I don't think so but let's entertain this for a minute and let's stick to the Balkans.

If Kosovo sets precedent for other areas to secede than let's see what happens...

- Serbia: N.Mitrovica,RS and Serb populated areas in Montenegro secede. Serbia wins.
- Croats in BiH secede. Croatia wins.
- Bosnia loses.
- Vojvodina secedes. Serbia loses.
- Presevo & Bujanovac secede. Serbia loses. Albanians win.
- Albanians in Macedonia secede along with Bulgarians. - Albanians & Bulgarians win, Macedonia loses.
- Albanians in Macedonia secede. They win, Montenegro loses.
- Chameria, Albanian inhabited part of Greece, secedes. Albanians win, Greeks lose.
Let's not even talk about other countries.

In Summary:
- Serbs gain 3 regions and lose 2 to the Albanians.
- Albanians lose 1 region but gain 4.
- Croatia gains 1.
- Hungary gains 1.
- Bulgaria gains 1.
Greece, Macedonia, Montenegro & BiH all lose.

Albanians gain the most because of the corrupt Western powers and their attempt to gain influence in the region. I'm assuming you can sense my sarcasm here.

If you took your time to read this lengthy post than you may agree that this scenario is absolutely absurd and will never happen and should not be brought up again.

Like most sane people, I was shocked to hear the opinion of the ICJ but after consideration I think the greatest joke has been played using the narrowest of definitions. The ICJ gave their opinion but added no views of substance to the international system of checks and balances.

Without putting any weight behind sovereignty arguments or secessionists, the ICJ basically said any group has the equivalent of the right to speech, not whether what any one group says is legal binding.

My expectation was the declaration was not legal because the provisional government was neither the sole authority (Serbia) nor the exercising authority (UN) but a temporary institution put in place until a solution could be reached where time was not of the essence, meaning a where peace is in place.

Well, the ICJ basically said to anyone you can go spout off whatever you like, you have the freedom to speech, and you won't be persecuted for it. The ICJ just did not endorse the content.

Definitely it opens a Pandora's Box to other countries who have separatist's problems..
(PRO-SERBIA, 24 July 2010 11:19)

So how do you explain the fact that pro Serbian countries with separatist movement are saying now that Kosovo is a sui generis case?
Azerbaijani FM: Kosovo not Nagorno Karabakh
The Kosovo conflict is unique, as are all conflicts, Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry spokesman Elkhan Polukhov told Trend today. There is no one answer or method for settling such conflicts.
http://en.trend.az/news/karabakh/1725298.html

One must question whether Judge Thomas Buergenthal resigned in June because of the hidden pressures placed on the court to tow the American line?

What's wrong? Didn't understand the vocabulary?
(Mahmud, 26 July 2010)

I can't really opine on his vocabulary. I stopped reading as I didn't wanna take legal advice from a "one-time Serbian advisor".

"The court in its ruling did not address the right of secession and gives the reason that they were not asked to give an opinion on the matter.
The courts opinion was not contradictory in itself, it only contradicted the assertions of Serbia."
(pss, 24 July 2010 14:38)

Exactly! The court's ruling was clear and exact! The UDI was legal, since no internatianal law forbids it.

Furthermore, it was explicitely said that the ruling is NOT about secession and right for self determination, and NOT about the statehood of Kosovo.

Why some people draw wrong conclusions from it, like "Since Thursday, Kosovo is an independent state" I really cannot understand.

The courts opinion was not contradictory in itself, it only contradicted the assertions of Serbia.
(pss, 24 July 2010 14:38)

and her attempts to get answer on the question that she did not dare to ask and therefore circumvent UN General Assembly.

"and even -are you ready for this? -Azerbaijan! Azerbaijan is shooting itself on the foot by recognizing Kosovo, because it sets a precedent for independent its Armenian province of Nagorno Karabakh!"

Dear retired professor, please get your facts right. Azerbijan has not recognised Kosovo, and in fact it gave an advisory opinion to the ICJ supporting Serbia.

The mistake here is the assumption of many in the pro-Serb camp that recognition or otherwise is simply due to whether you are allied to the US. That can't explain why numerous states which are very close to the US but which also oppress minority peoples - Israel, Georgia, Azerbijan etc - have solidly stuck by Serbia here. Meanwhile, its true that a number of Arab states that have recognised Kosova may be considered US allies, but if they were actually US puppets they would ahve dropped their support for Palestine and recognised Israel. They haven't. They recognised Kosova of their own free will.

One must question whether Judge Thomas Buergenthal resigned in June because of the hidden pressures placed on the court to tow the American line?
(Bozidar, 25 July 2010 03:09)
Read his biography and you will probably be able to get the answer. Buergenthal would have voted the way he did even if the US was supporting Serbia.
A better question would have been did the Chinese judge quit because China would not allow him to vote with the majority.
Common sense tells you that if the US judge had problems he would retired before the verdict instead of afterward.
Not only is Buergenthal an Auswitz survivor he has spent his life championing for human rights.

Ladies and Gentlemen
Please make up your mind. If ICJ did not support the independence of Kosovo then how could it opened Pandora's Box?
Also if ICJ is not being supportive of secession (question it was not aked) then how in the world ICJ lost credibility?
I mean I understand Jeremic and Tadic are lost in time and space because this debacle may cost their current positions but at least you guys has nothing monetarily to lose.

‘Serbia's advisors simply were not qualified to do their job!’ (Michael R., 24 July 2010 18:37)

What do you mean - Serbia hired some of the most expensive lawyers in the world! Who came up with some of the most creative arguments imaginable for the Serbian side! Unfortunately, they just didn't work. (I believe the lawyers will still want to be paid, though.)

‘The ICJ never had any legitimacy to begin with. These are basicaly the same people who release Nasir Oric’. (Dragan, 24 July 2010 17:36)

You’ve got the wrong court, Dragan, though the one you mean is cleverly placed in the same town. TP

And the people who are pulling the strings, and controlling the judges, for both of these courts are?? Take a wild guess TP.
Let me know if you need help, but it doesn't take a genius to figure it out.

"Constitutional law professor and one-time Serbian legal advisor"

I stopped reading after this.

There are three statements in these posts that beg a response. Spelling, grammatical and syntactical errors are not mine.

Even a kindergarten has more seriousity.
(Legal_State, 24 July 2010 14:26)

There’s no such word as ‘seriousity’.

‘The ICJ never had any legitimacy to begin with. These are basicaly the same people who release Nasir Oric’. (Dragan, 24 July 2010 17:36)

You’ve got the wrong court, Dragan, though the one you mean is cleverly placed in the same town.

‘Serbia's advisors simply were not qualified to do their job!’ (Michael R., 24 July 2010 18:37)

That depends, Michael, on what you think their real job is. The Serbian Government, despite its pronouncements, is very pro-Western. That isn’t a criticism, merely a statement of fact.

"Constitutional law professor and one-time Serbian legal advisor"

I stopped reading after this.
(Zoti)

What's wrong? Didn't understand the vocabulary?

"Azerbaijan is shooting itself on the foot by recognizing Kosovo, because it sets a precedent for independent its Armenian province of Nagorno Karabakh! "

Professor, Azerbijan has not yet recognized Kosovo, in fact it argued at the ICJ against Kosovo's position. (Its representative said that since there was no law allowing secession, it was therefore illegal. The court did not agree.)

To begin with I have an immediate aversion to anyone who is described as an expert on any subject whatever it may be. The term 'authority' is infinitely preferable. Worse even are those persons that describe themselves as 'experts', although there is no indication that Professor Fleiner falls into this category.

Perhaps Professor Fleiner is correct in his statements, but I have to say that the fact his past has included a stint as a legal advisor to the Serbian government does cast a slight shadow over his verdict. He cannot truly be expected to have an unbiased view, particularly if there is the possibility that the Serb government may call on his services again in the future.

'Experts' can be wheeled out by either party in the proceedings to support one side or discredit the other. One only needs to look as far as the issue of global warming where scientists whose studies are funded by the petro-chemicals industry tend to debunk the theory as myth, while others (also potentially in the pocket of some or other lobby) keep telling us that the ice caps are melting and the end of the world is nigh.

Always read between the lines...

The Court was very deliberate and meticulos in the whole Opinion to make sure that its decision was narrow to the specific Kosovo case.
(abc123, 24 July 2010 14:48)

Yes in effect they said that any random bunch of people can declare independence and it will not violate international law because international law has nothing to say about that act - very Kosovo specific, not!

Other than that I agree with what you say.
(Mister, 24 July 2010 16:10)

"In effect... etc." are your words. Show us the paragraph of the Opinion where the Court said what you say if you are able to find it.

For the rest thank you for agreeing with me :)