Daily: Resolution agreement with West

"What a load of nonsense!
Who does Mr. Westerwelle think he is? "
MB,Ireland

Well, maybe it hard for you to accept the reality but he is the FM of the strongest EU country. His country is the paymaster of the EU. As I stated many times I am not crazy about the EU because of the dominance of mainly 2 countries - Germany and France - who seem to determine the overall direction and politics of the EU. Smaller EU members have little to say. It is not like in the US, where all 50 states are egual.
And as long as the EU exists in its current form you can't do anything about it.
As for your country please count your blessings. You entered the EU at a time when Brussels was in position to shower you with countless bilions and transform Ireland from a poor country of constant emigrants to a country of high living standard.

Germany will block Serbia's Eu plans-? They really are bullying and desparate!! Tell them to go to hell the EU is falling apart and although they want Serbia under their control does Serbia want to be under the German boot?

This means that the world is ready to leave Kosovo in limbo status for all intents and purposes. So, nothing will change for anyone.

""What a load of nonsense!
Who does Mr. Westerwelle think he is? "
MB,Ireland "

Joe said this more considerately, but it boils down to - Mr. Westerwelle is the representative of the country you are asking to support your economy.

What a great news to our €Uropean viceroys! Threats works as usual and we are back in the fold. Who would have expect anything less! Thank to Saakasw...sorry, Tadic and his regime that is...

"“A compromise could be found in removing a part of the introductory sentence that states that 'a unilateral secession is an unacceptable way to solve the dispute,'” according to the source. "

Cuts both ways in my view. Because K-Serbs of Strpce and north Kosovo can now unilaterally secede from Kosovo as an acceptable way to solve their dispute with Pristina!

Cuts both ways in my view. Because K-Serbs of Strpce and north Kosovo can now unilaterally secede from Kosovo as an acceptable way to solve their dispute with Pristina!
(lowe, 28 August 2010 10:44)
True, but I wonder how it will set with all the recognition of Kosovo as a sovergn state by the Serbs in Kosovo. Otherwise if they continue to claim that Kosovo is still part of Serbia they would be declaring independence from Serbia.
Daniel, they are saying that as long as Serbia continues to attempt to hold Kosovo in limbo they will remain there also.
Michael Breathnach, don't confuse the 5's support for Serbia as a death wish. They may hold fast but they are not going to declare political war on the 22 that support Kosovo.

'The daily writes that German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle’s stance that Kosovo’s independence is irrevocable confirms that if Belgrade does not accept this, Germany would block Serbia’s further EU integration.'

What a load of nonsense!
Who does Mr. Westerwelle think he is?
If he thinks that Germany can block Serbia's further EU integration, then others might think that 5 EU states might block certain German initiatives in the future and also block further 'developments' in the Southern Serbian Province of Kosovo i Meohija.

Seemingly, this German arrogance knows no bounds.

MB,Ireland

Mr. Tadic and Co. Please stop this nonsense and don't allow yourself be cowed by the WEST. Kosovo should be defended at all cost even the risk of losing EU membership.

As long as this the West is too scared of being voted against at the UN to submit its own resolution and since this new resolution wont bring new recognitions, it is a victory for Serbs because Albanians will be entering re-negotions without added legitimacy, which is what they've been trying to avoid. And if the DSS coalition's credibility didnt depend on EU ascension, we wouldn't have to play these games while waiting for the S. Stream to bring Russian bases in the wake of KFOR's withdrawl.

Mike,

With respect but REALISTICALLY Serbia is not in a position to set up red lines or conditions. I strongly feel that is the truth.

Way forward 1-Serbia recognises Kosovo independence like it did with Montenegro for example. It is not that hard. 2- Enter in mutual agreement with Kosovo authorities on a)free movement of goods b/people c)fight against crime, corruption, terrorism etc etc. There are so many things to talk for of mutual interest. 3- Both join EU. When it comes to minority as a guidance same rights for Serbs living in norther Kosovo to those living in Presevo, Bujanovc and Medvegja. Every desplaced person can return to their home without any problem. How does that sound?

Michael Breathnach, don't confuse the 5's support for "Serbia as a death wish. They may hold fast but they are not going to declare political war on the 22 that support Kosovo."
(pss, 28 August 2010 14:11)

PSS,

You nailed it! The problem is that Serbia doesn't want to listen. If a child can understand that the will of 5 can NOT prevail towards 22. That is another Serbian nonsense. Greece is in the brink of collapse, Cyprus is a town-country, Romania corrupted to the top and exporting problems with nationals (gypsies)in the name of free movement in EU, Slovakia and Spain with its own ethnic problems...and we see nonsense comment here comparing let's say Cyprus with Germany.

There's not much that can be really be gained via compromise if Belgrade and Pristina both continue to refuse to cross "red lines". So Belgrade may be pressured to remove the part of the draft resolution that says unilateral secessions are not the way to go (thereby confirming any group or region can secede), but they won't give up on claims to all of Kosovo. And Pristina will continue to mouth rhetoric of multiethnic democracy but refuse to give any special status to the Serb minority and continue to force "integration" in the most un-democratic ways.

Personally, I think Belgrade's new red lines should be the three conditions mentioned in another article:

1. Retention of all Orthodox monasteries and cultural landmarks.

2. Special status of all Serb municipalities south of the Ibar particularly Gracanica and Strpce.

3. Full retention of northern Kosovo within Belgrade's administration

all in return for writing the rest of Kosovo off.

That's as good as Belgrade can get, and far better than what was offered to them two years ago.

Rumors are apparently flying around what could happen for Kosovo, which Belgrade and Pristina are quick to deny. Let's see what actually happens.
(Mike, 28 August 2010 16:21)


-Until a referendum for a new Serb constitution is organized all of what you say above are pipe dreams. The current Serb constitution prevents all of what you've stated. Every suggestion you've made is illegal under the current constitution and defies Serbia's constitutional order. The Serbs are not ready for what you state above. Seeing that you're not a Serb either you're just projecting you thoughts onto what you wish Serbia did. As I explained on the other topic; our attitude will remain the same, at the very least as long as that mockery known as the Serb constitution remains in place. There is yet no fool in Prishtina that will agree to a deal with Serbia which under the current Serb constitution amounts only to an administrative change. It is ludicrous on your part or on the part of the Serbs to expect a deal from our side which would incorporate us back into Serbia just so their bruised egoes are cured. That is non-nonsensical and indecent at the same time.

This is a sell-out.

The daily writes that German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle’s stance that Kosovo’s independence is irrevocable confirms that if Belgrade does not accept this, Germany would block Serbia’s further EU integration.

What a threat. Serbia should consider this as serious. Germany has its own problem with it's Turkish population, and it is not tolerated too well with the ethnic Germans, let me tell you for a fact. What to do with this problem of non Germans, and also non French and any other non Christian persons, who do not have true citizanship, let's send them to a recognized muslim country in southern Serbia, all problems solved. Remind you of something written in the 90's.

Cuts both ways in my view. Because K-Serbs of Strpce and north Kosovo can now unilaterally secede from Kosovo as an acceptable way to solve their dispute with Pristina!
(lowe, 28 August 2010 10:44)

Yes, provided that it does not violate any general or special international law provision.

"True, but I wonder how it will set with all the recognition of Kosovo as a sovergn state by the Serbs in Kosovo. Otherwise if they continue to claim that Kosovo is still part of Serbia they would be declaring independence from Serbia.
(pss, 28 August 2010 14:11) "

How you ask? Simple. The K-Serbs can simultaneously declare themselves as an integral part of Serbia -- which is how they view themselves right now anyway.

EA No deal. A compromise is just that, but you are offering nothing and expect everything in return. You believe that this is because it is the reality. Its not nice to say this but you obviously don't believe that Kosovo Albanians are suffering enough. I think they (and Kosovo Serbs) are suffering more than enough.

What Mike has outlined below and has been mentioned elsewhere would be a generous offer. If you had sense you would push for it.

Johny you sound absolutely petrified now that the prospect of a deal is not a distant dream. The Serbian constitution will not save you if you are told to engage in negotiations. The same is true if certain interests in Pristina decide that enough is enough.

This campaign by Tadic and Jeremic has injected new life into the idea of negotiations and has shown that Serbia is flexible. Whether the Croatian report was leaked to test the waters or was not true - no matter what happens now this is a victory for reasonable Serbian diplomacy. Now all we need is a bit of understanding from certain western countries and a courageous kosovo albanian partner.

There's not much that can be really be gained via compromise if Belgrade and Pristina both continue to refuse to cross "red lines". So Belgrade may be pressured to remove the part of the draft resolution that says unilateral secessions are not the way to go (thereby confirming any group or region can secede), but they won't give up on claims to all of Kosovo. And Pristina will continue to mouth rhetoric of multiethnic democracy but refuse to give any special status to the Serb minority and continue to force "integration" in the most un-democratic ways.

Personally, I think Belgrade's new red lines should be the three conditions mentioned in another article:

1. Retention of all Orthodox monasteries and cultural landmarks.

2. Special status of all Serb municipalities south of the Ibar particularly Gracanica and Strpce.

3. Full retention of northern Kosovo within Belgrade's administration

all in return for writing the rest of Kosovo off.

That's as good as Belgrade can get, and far better than what was offered to them two years ago.

Rumors are apparently flying around what could happen for Kosovo, which Belgrade and Pristina are quick to deny. Let's see what actually happens.

EA, and the rest who think like you that its "OK" and "not too difficult" for Serbia to let go of Kosovo. Please do not use idiotic comparisons like "you let montenegro go, so why not Kosovo". Montengro was its own republic... The country Serbia & Montenegro split up. What you are asking is that SERBIA splits ITSELF up. Serbia and Kosovo never formed some sort of UNION. They are are ONE and the SAME country. So if all those who say give 15% of YOUR COUNTRY away.. I saw which one of YOU are willing to write-off 15% of YOUR territory?..... So??? I'm waiting to see
(Peter_The_Great)
-
EA just admitted to the fact that Serbia "needs" to "let-go" of Kosovo in order for the Serbo-albs to have their "wishfull-independance"... ;)

"Until a referendum for a new Serb constitution is organized all of what you say above are pipe dreams." (johny)

-- Constitutions can be changed and amended. You're sounding as if this constitution alone is an insurmountable fait accompli.

But let me ask you this: constitutional impasse notwithstanding, would the three things I outlined below be suitable to you as a payoff for Belgrade writing off the rest of Kosovo? And by "writing off", I don't mean recognizing but no longer obstructing Kosovo's road to full international integration - which includes sending messages to all non-recognizing countries that a solution has been found (thereby at least clearing a road to the EU). Would you sign the treaty, shake hands and move on?

EA, if Serbia were not in a position suitable to make demands, the Quint wouldn't be working overtime to sabotage the draft resolution and find an agreement. Nor would they be calling for cooperation and flexibility.

I daresay that your first stipulation will happen, but the second and third could certainly come about. In fact, I see no reason why it shouldn't, but only after certain concessions have been made by Pristina, which I must say are the ones least likely to make demands since they're the ones trying to prove their independence movement is sui generis.

What will Pristina offer in return? More than autonomy/less than independence for the 5 major Serb municipalities? Complete control over SPC sites by Belgrade and the SPC? Territorial change? Bi-zonal confederation a la Bosnia? You can't expect to negotiate if you're not putting something on the table as well.

5 bankrupt and poor EU states "threatening Germany"? North Kosovo declaring independence even though claiming being part of Serbia and not recognizing Kosovo?! OMG, you made my day... :-)

I'm not a lawyer. But I don't see any general or "special" (whatever that is) international law that forbid these UDIs.
(lowe, 29 August 2010 05:11)

Special international law means a provision of international law which apply to a specific situation. For example, the inviolability of diplomats is a general international law provision (it applies in general). Resolution 1244 is a special international law provision (it applies to the specific case of Kosovo).

Something should not violate both general and special international law in order to not violate international law. That's why the ICJ, in the Kosovo's case, had to analyze both general international law and special international law (Res. 1244) and find that neither was violated by the UDI, in order to declare that the declaration of independence did not violate the international law.

That's why a declaration of independence by the K-Serbs in North Kosovo would need to be analyzed against general or special international law, and if the parties involved do not agree, they may need to ask the ICJ for another opinion on the legality of the declaration of independence of North Kosovo by K-Serbs.

EA, and the rest who think like you that its "OK" and "not too difficult" for Serbia to let go of Kosovo. Please do not use idiotic comparisons like "you let montenegro go, so why not Kosovo". Montengro was its own republic... The country Serbia & Montenegro split up. What you are asking is that SERBIA splits ITSELF up. Serbia and Kosovo never formed some sort of UNION. They are are ONE and the SAME country. So if all those who say give 15% of YOUR COUNTRY away.. I saw which one of YOU are willing to write-off 15% of YOUR territory?..... So??? I'm waiting to see

"Yes, provided that it does not violate any general or special international law provision.
(icj1, 28 August 2010 17:02)"

I'm not a lawyer. But I don't see any general or "special" (whatever that is) international law that forbid these UDIs. Especially since the status of the entitiy in question itself ("Kosova") is unclear.

Mike,

I wish Belgrade came out with something like those three points, at least there would be something to talk about. But you're ahead of Belgrade. Beograd has not gone into detail about what it means when it says negotiations. Maybe it has actually, but we mere mortals have not heard about it yet. We have to imagine what Belgrade means when it says negotiations. You are talking partition, they said no partition a few days ago. you say "writing off", they say "never recognize".

"5 bankrupt and poor EU states "threatening Germany"? North Kosovo declaring independence even though claiming being part of Serbia and not recognizing Kosovo?! OMG, you made my day... :-)
(Jesse, 29 August 2010 05:55) "

You missed the point entirely. Its not recognizing " the so called state of Kosova". I hope you are still enjoying yourself. If not, too bad.

"Constitutions can be changed and amended. You're sounding as if this constitution alone is an insurmountable fait accompli."

-- Mike I keep hearing this same mantra from the Serb camp but the fact that the constitution hasn't changed shows that it can't be changed as easily as you say. There is no will to do it. Here is a very important detail. We do not buy this reasoning until it has changed. As long as it remains in power it is indeed and insurmountable fait accompli. That is the reality we have to deal with as long as it is in power.

"But let me ask you this: constitutional impasse notwithstanding, would the three things I outlined below be suitable to you as a payoff for Belgrade writing off the rest of Kosovo?"


-- Personally, I have no problem with deals being made as a condition of recognition. I know I may not be popular with my opinion but that is just me. However I strongly believe that in order to arrive there the following have to happen before.

1. Abolishment of the current Serb constitution. Kosova should not be mentioned in the new Serb constitution as being part of Serbia. Something to the effect of recognition of a Kosovar state after the ending of negotiations about conditions on recognition might be acceptable.
2. Agreement that these talks are about conditions on recognition and not status. In short; agreement prior to sitting that there will be two states and that Serbia will respect the sovereignty of the state of Kosova and vice versa.
3. A very well specified time period. If things are dragged and nothing is achieved during this time period the parties agree to things returning back prior state.
4. Belgrade is the only investor of political will and capital with the west. They have to convince the west about possible territory exchanges or modification of Ahtisari package such as broader autonomy or cantonization for the Serbs in Kosova. We do not want to risk their support by going against their well-established policies.
5. Within a week or maybe a month after the deal Kosova is made a UN member. Serbia has to make sure this happens after all they kept calling for negotiations.

After those have been agreed upon I don't have anything against what these deals consist off. You leave us alone we leave you alone.

Having said that I believe that it would take decades for Serbia to agree on talks on conditions on recognition. I think it is already too late now; let alone then. Serbia closed this window of opportunity during the negotiating process after unilaterally adopting its constitution.


" And by "writing off", I don't mean recognizing but no longer obstructing Kosovo's road to full international integration - which includes sending messages to all non-recognizing countries that a solution has been found (thereby at least clearing a road to the EU). Would you sign the treaty, shake hands and move on? "

-- That I can't agree with. Simply because after that happens Serbia passes another constitution which claims that a deal on administrative issues with Kosova has been made and Kosova remains an autonomous province but with changes in its administrative issues. You want compromise but what you propose isn't one. What you propose amounts only to a simple administrative change in the eyes of the Serbs and Serbia since you don't have to recognize. That is not a deal. That is a trap. Frankly Serbia's obstruction isn't that much of a problem either as long as the likes of the US, UK, Germany, France, Japan etc are on our side. You can keep obstructing while we continue with the current situation and that is still a better deal than what you propose. What you propose sums up to Serbia claiming Kosova but now with Albanians agreeing that N. Mitro and some other places are part of Serbia. We gain nothing from such a deal. That is a well thought trap though, Mike.

I saw which one of YOU are willing to write-off 15% of YOUR territory?..... So??? I'm waiting to see
(Peter_The_Great, 28 August 2010 22:17)
You ask any man if he is willing to amputate his arm and he will say no, never. But if you ask a man whose arm is only attached by a slither of skin and can never be reattached will never be a functioning part of his body and will only be a source of problems for his future, he would probably say yes.
Kosovo has been severed, Serbia's only claim for more than 10 years has been in name only. On the Serbian side this is the best they can hope for is to retain it in name only, never in function. It will always be governed by someone else.

"Nope, there is not anything saying that in any of them"

So it didn't say anything on that. And did it say anything about north Kosovo being disallowed to secede???


"According to international law (i.e. UNMIK constitutional framework), Kosovo is an undivided territory (article 1.2).
(icj1, 7 September 2010 06:41)"

well, Serbia was undivided territory too .... until the West decided to carve her up. Does this UNMIK framework specify that Kosovo (being undivided territory then) can never be carved up and that therefore any UDI within it would be flouting international law? Seems like a lot of subjective interpretation and double standards to me!

"It seems pretty clear to me that a UDI from K. Serbs is not in line with the Constitutional Framework (with the undivided territory), the same way that Kosovo’s UDI was not in line with Serbia’s Constitution.
(icj1, 8 September 2010 04:39) "

while I am not a lawyer, I don't think a K-Serb UDI would violate this Framework.

1.2 reads 'Kosovo is an undivided territory throughout which the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government established by this Constitutional Framework for Provisional Self-Government (Constitutional Framework) shall exercise their responsibilities.'

I would interpret this to mean that Kosovo as a whole ("undivided") territory back in 1999 would be governed
throughout by provisional authorities. The focus was on the provisional authorities.

As opposed to say, if 1.2 had began instead with
"Kosovo as an INDIVISIBLE territory ...."

So in my view that statement does not forbade K-Serbs from doing their UDI.

icj1,

One more thing just occurred to me. The ICJ considered Kosovo's constituional framework as part of its deliberation but not the constitution of the parent country Serbia.

So if the K-Serbs in north Kosovo were to do their UDI, would Kosovo's constitution be considered at all?

And since presumably the K-Serbs would not have their constitutional equivalent at the time of their UDI, they should not be breaching any law with their declaration.

"The Constitution of Serbia is part of the domestic law, not international law and therefore was irrelevant.
(icj1, 11 September 2010 05:14)"

So "Kosova"'s present constitution will therefore not be considered in any ICJ deliberation should north Kosovo do a UDI.

Also, since "Kosova" now has its own domestic constitution, one wonders whether it is deemed of no relevance or importance compared to its pre-UDI constitutional framework.

Or perhaps the ICJ might see this pre-UDI framework to be no longer relevant now that "Kosova" has its own domestic constitution.

Of course in any case my view remains that the pre-UDI framework does not forbade any subsequent north Kosovo UDI

“Of course I would interpret the above phrase to also be meant for the provisional authorities being given the right to govern the whole of Kosovo and that’s an additional proof that my interpretation is correct, because if you divide it, those authorities can’t govern the whole of Kosovo.

And your second argument that there is however no provision in 1244 or the framework that specified that this territory cannot be divided up at some point, also proves my point that as long as 1244 is in force, the “undivided” is in force since no time limit was set, and if the legal “undivided” becomes “divided”, the “legal” becomes “illegal. Simple as that.

But again, Serbia is free to try again at the ICJ if it really thinks like you – hopefully for her it will not be as disastrous as the first time.
(icj1, 1 October 2010 04:48)”

The provisional government (administered by UNMIK) had the right to govern undivided Kosovo. It does not follow however that this right extends to the current Pristina authorities as they are not “provisional” anymore. It does not mean that something that was undivided in 1999 cannot be divided in 2010 or thereafter unless there is a clause that specifically bars that. On the other hand, had the words “Kosovo is indivisible” been used instead, it could have been interpreted that it is meant to apply indefinitely,

1244 does not prohibit division of Kosovo as far as I know. Hence it canbe argues that 1244 can still be operative and yet Kosovo can be divided up since the provisional authorities no longer exist to govern it anymore.

I didn’t think it was wise of Serbia to phrase its question to the ICJ the way it did and allowed the ICJ not to have to decide whether Kosovo’s secession was legal. End of the day, ICJ’s advise is non-binding. The same way the recent UN resolution was non=binding.

“Yes, “indivisible” would have been required if resolution 1244 had a time limit, because in that case “undivided” would have been limited by that time limit. However, since no time limit is set,”undivided” continues as long as 1244 is in force.”

I don’t buy the take that “undivided” can continue but not the “provisional authorities.” I don’t think 1244 was intended to be caught in a time warp by the UNSC. Just as the nature of the authorities can change, so can the borders of Kosovo. Especially since that particular clause in my view focused on the rights of the provisional authorities to govern the whole of Kosovo, and not to pronounce that Kosovo is indivisible.


“As long as the text is in force the words written in that text, including “undivided” are in force. Not sure where is the doubt about that. Certainly the text does not say “undivided” ***only*** if governed by X. At least I did not see those words. “

My points above holds for this too. X here refers to the provisional authorities -- they have the right to govern undivided Kosovo. This does not mean however that the current authorities also have the right to govern undivided Kosovo.


“It was not a matter of being wise or not wise; it was forced to. The countries “friends” of Serbia would not have approved that question. By voting a narrow question about Kosovo’s UDI, for example, Spain did not risk anything regardless of the Court’s decision since in case it was against Serbia it could immediately dump Serbia to its own fate and declare that Basques’ case is not similar to Kosovo, as in fact, did. Whereas, if the question had been about Kosovo’s secession rights the Court would have had to address broader principles and if Serbia had lost, Spain would have lost with it. So why Spain in its sane mind would have voted to send a risky question ? Just to please Serbia ?!

Fully agreed. It’s not illegal for Serbia to still say that Kosovo’s declaration of independence is illegal. But the credibility of that argument is now nil.
(icj1, 16 October 2010 04:59)”

I wouldn’t be too upset as a supporter of Serbia. As you have agreed, the ICJ advisory is totally non-binding. While Serbia can’t say that Prisitna’s declaration violated international law (just as we probably can’t say that Eskimos or Maoris who do a UDI violate international law), she can still maintain that Kosovo is not a state because the ICJ made clear that it was not discussing whether Kosovo is or is not a state.

"That's why a declaration of independence by the K-Serbs in North Kosovo would need to be analyzed against general or special international law, and if the parties involved do not agree, they may need to ask the ICJ for another opinion on the legality of the declaration of independence of North Kosovo by K-Serbs.
(icj1, 29 August 2010 17:42) "

I'm not aware of any special international law that applies specifically to the entity of "Kosova". Are you?

Don`t be dumb Serbia,do not make any compromises on our Southern province.
It is clear that our Western enemies are embarassed,after their bought ICJ decision they really thought everybody would rush to recognize Kosovo but they have been utterly disappointed.
Their "project" of making Kosovo a state has miserably failed.
The fact that Westerwelle is going around begging those 5 EU member states to recognize by stating "They MUST recognize Kosovo" and threatening Serbia by blocking its EU bid says it all.
Serbia must clearly dump any EU prospects and stop making compromises on its national interests for an imaginary EU membership that will NEVER happen and in the case it would miraculously happen would harm its economic interests(look at Slovakia and how they as a new EU member have now to bailout Greece with its money).
No compromise,no swapping of Serbian land (Presevo) for Serbian land (Pristina,Prizren,Mitrovica)!
Keep the UN1244 and Serbian constitution intact,block together with Russia,Spain,Greece UN,NATO, and EU Membership and prepare economically,demopgraphically and militarily for the day x that will come sooner or later.
The Kosovo problem will sooner or later be solved in favour of Serbia in a few days when this opportunity comes.
Until then,keep the conflict frozen and stay patient.
If you yield to an agressor,that same agressor will only become more agressive.

"Well, the UNMIK Constitutional Framework, for a start. Then, Resolution 1244.
(icj1, 4 September 2010 15:40)"

I thought both of them applied only to Kosovo as a Serbian province, not to the post-UDI entity of "Kosova".?????

In any case, can you point out to me anything in the wordings of both of them that specifically forbid a UDI by north Kosovo from “Kosova”?

"OK, so obviously we don't agree on the interpretation of this.

That will probably be the case with Kosovo, Serbia and international actors, if K. Serbs declare independence. So we would need another ICJ opinion to clarify the disputed intepretation of the Kosovo's Constitutional Framework.
(icj1, 10 September 2010 04:50) "

Ok, lets agree to disagree then.

“I cited Kosovo’s Constitutional Framework “

My point was that “Kosova”'s present constitution will therefore be irrelevant in the event of a north Kosovo UDI. I see you have not refuted my point in your reply.


“It would be irrelevant for ICJ since it’s not part of international law”

My above point would apply here too.


“Well, I disagree here since the words “Kosovo is an undivided territory” are pretty clear, so K-Serbs can declare anything they want, excepts something that divides the Kosovo’s territory.

However, parties sometime don’t agree on interpretations; even though the language is pretty clear (see the ICJ’s case about Kosovo). So they may have to go again to the ICJ to ask for an opinion if the K-Serbs declare independence.
(icj1, 18 September 2010 04:04)”
And I disagree with you that “undivided” means “indivisible”. Moreover that particular sentence referred to the pre-UDI authorities governing Kosovo.

“The “undivided” referred to “Kosovo’s territory”, not any authorities. “Kosovo is an undivided territory” is part of international law as long as 1244 is in force. If you think that 1244 is not in force anymore, that’s another discussion.

Also, I did not mention the word “indivisible”. I just said “undivided” and that any act that would cause the territory to be “divided” (i.e. the opposite of “undivided”) would be “illegal” (the opposite of “legal”).
(icj1, 25 September 2010 20:04)”

That 1.2 provision reads 'Kosovo is an undivided territory throughout which the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government established by this Constitutional Framework for Provisional Self-Government (Constitutional Framework) shall exercise their responsibilities.'

I would interpret the above phrase to be meant for the provisional authorities being given the right to govern the whole of Kosovo. Kosovo was whole (undivided) back in 1999 and was governed then as such. There is however no provision in 1244 or the framework that specified that this territory cannot be divided up at some point in the future as otherwise the term “indivisible” or its equivalent would surely have been used instead.

Mr. Tadic and Co. Please stop this nonsense and don't allow yourself be cowed by the WEST. Kosovo should be defended at all cost even the risk of losing EU membership.
(PRO-SERBIA, 28 August 2010 11:25) ...All cost to defend Kosovo? what kind of cost are included here PRO-SERBIA except serbian taxpayer money and ....???

I don't think what Mike suggested is the best what Serbia can come out with. RS has to come to play, too. After all, republics of former Yugoslavia are NOT indivisable, we can see that now.

I'm not aware of any special international law that applies specifically to the entity of "Kosova". Are you?
(lowe, 30 August 2010 01:42)

Well, the UNMIK Constitutional Framework, for a start. Then, Resolution 1244.

I thought both of them applied only to Kosovo as a Serbian province, not to the post-UDI entity of "Kosova".?????
(lowe, 5 September 2010 14:17)

Nope, there is not anything saying that in any of them


In any case, can you point out to me anything in the wordings of both of them that specifically forbid a UDI by north Kosovo from “Kosova”?
(lowe, 5 September 2010 14:17)

According to international law (i.e. UNMIK constitutional framework), Kosovo is an undivided territory (article 1.2).

well, Serbia was undivided territory too .... until the West decided to carve her up. Does this UNMIK framework specify that Kosovo (being undivided territory then) can never be carved up and that therefore any UDI within it would be flouting international law? Seems like a lot of subjective interpretation and double standards to me!
(lowe, 7 September 2010 15:48)

It seems pretty clear to me that a UDI from K. Serbs is not in line with the Constitutional Framework (with the undivided territory), the same way that Kosovo’s UDI was not in line with Serbia’s Constitution.

So in my view that statement does not forbade K-Serbs from doing their UDI.
(lowe, 8 September 2010 13:41)

OK, so obviously we don't agree on the interpretation of this.

That will probably be the case with Kosovo, Serbia and international actors, if K. Serbs declare independence. So we would need another ICJ opinion to clarify the disputed intepretation of the Kosovo's Constitutional Framework.

One more thing just occurred to me. The ICJ considered Kosovo's constituional framework as part of its deliberation but not the constitution of the parent country Serbia.

(lowe, 10 September 2010 13:36)

The Constitution of Serbia is part of the domestic law, not international law and therefore was irrelevant.

So "Kosova"'s present constitution will therefore not be considered in any ICJ deliberation should north Kosovo do a UDI.
(lowe, 11 September 2010 10:01)

I cited Kosovo’s Constitutional Framework


Also, since "Kosova" now has its own domestic constitution, one wonders whether it is deemed of no relevance or importance compared to its pre-UDI constitutional framework.
(lowe, 11 September 2010 10:01)

It would be irrelevant for ICJ since it’s not part of international law


Or perhaps the ICJ might see this pre-UDI framework to be no longer relevant now that "Kosova" has its own domestic constitution.
(lowe, 11 September 2010 10:01)

Well, as long as 1244 is in force, that would be hard for the ICJ to see.


Of course in any case my view remains that the pre-UDI framework does not forbade any subsequent north Kosovo UDI
(lowe, 11 September 2010 10:01)

Well, I disagree here since the words “Kosovo is an undivided territory” are pretty clear, so K-Serbs can declare anything they want, excepts something that divides the Kosovo’s territory.

However, parties sometime don’t agree on interpretations; even though the language is pretty clear (see the ICJ’s case about Kosovo). So they may have to go again to the ICJ to ask for an opinion if the K-Serbs declare independence.

My point was that “Kosova”'s present constitution will therefore be irrelevant in the event of a north Kosovo UDI. I see you have not refuted my point in your reply.
(lowe, 19 September 2010 10:01)

I actually confirmed your point and also said why. I said “It would be irrelevant for ICJ since it’s not part of international law”


And I disagree with you that “undivided” means “indivisible”. Moreover that particular sentence referred to the pre-UDI authorities governing Kosovo.
(lowe, 19 September 2010 10:01)

The “undivided” referred to “Kosovo’s territory”, not any authorities. “Kosovo is an undivided territory” is part of international law as long as 1244 is in force. If you think that 1244 is not in force anymore, that’s another discussion.

Also, I did not mention the word “indivisible”. I just said “undivided” and that any act that would cause the territory to be “divided” (i.e. the opposite of “undivided”) would be “illegal” (the opposite of “legal”).

That 1.2 provision reads 'Kosovo is an undivided territory throughout which the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government established by this Constitutional Framework for Provisional Self-Government (Constitutional Framework) shall exercise their responsibilities.'

I would interpret the above phrase to be meant for the provisional authorities being given the right to govern the whole of Kosovo. Kosovo was whole (undivided) back in 1999 and was governed then as such. There is however no provision in 1244 or the framework that specified that this territory cannot be divided up at some point in the future as otherwise the term “indivisible” or its equivalent would surely have been used instead.
(lowe, 26 September 2010 08:32)

Of course I would interpret the above phrase to also be meant for the provisional authorities being given the right to govern the whole of Kosovo and that’s an additional proof that my interpretation is correct, because if you divide it, those authorities can’t govern the whole of Kosovo.

And your second argument that there is however no provision in 1244 or the framework that specified that this territory cannot be divided up at some point, also proves my point that as long as 1244 is in force, the “undivided” is in force since no time limit was set, and if the legal “undivided” becomes “divided”, the “legal” becomes “illegal. Simple as that.

But again, Serbia is free to try again at the ICJ if it really thinks like you – hopefully for her it will not be as disastrous as the first time.

The provisional government (administered by UNMIK) had the right to govern undivided Kosovo. It does not follow however that this right extends to the current Pristina authorities as they are not “provisional” anymore. It does not mean that something that was undivided in 1999 cannot be divided in 2010 or thereafter unless there is a clause that specifically bars that. On the other hand, had the words “Kosovo is indivisible” been used instead, it could have been interpreted that it is meant to apply indefinitely.
(lowe, 1 October 2010 14:22)

Yes, “indivisible” would have been required if resolution 1244 had a time limit, because in that case “undivided” would have been limited by that time limit. However, since no time limit is set,”undivided” continues as long as 1244 is in force.


1244 does not prohibit division of Kosovo as far as I know. Hence it canbe argues that 1244 can still be operative and yet Kosovo can be divided up since the provisional authorities no longer exist to govern it anymore.
(lowe, 1 October 2010 14:22)

As long as the text is in force the words written in that text, including “undivided” are in force. Not sure where is the doubt about that. Certainly the text does not say “undivided” ***only*** if governed by X. At least I did not see those words.


I didn’t think it was wise of Serbia to phrase its question to the ICJ the way it did and allowed the ICJ not to have to decide whether Kosovo’s secession was legal.
(lowe, 1 October 2010 14:22)

It was not a matter of being wise or not wise; it was forced to. The countries “friends” of Serbia would not have approved that question. By voting a narrow question about Kosovo’s UDI, for example, Spain did not risk anything regardless of the Court’s decision since in case it was against Serbia it could immediately dump Serbia to its own fate and declare that Basques’ case is not similar to Kosovo, as in fact, did. Whereas, if the question had been about Kosovo’s secession rights the Court would have had to address broader principles and if Serbia had lost, Spain would have lost with it. So why Spain in its sane mind would have voted to send a risky question ? Just to please Serbia ?!


End of the day, ICJ’s advise is non-binding. The same way the recent UN resolution was non=binding.
(lowe, 1 October 2010 14:22)

Fully agreed. It’s not illegal for Serbia to still say that Kosovo’s declaration of independence is illegal. But the credibility of that argument is now nil.

"What a load of nonsense!
Who does Mr. Westerwelle think he is? "
MB,Ireland

Well, maybe it hard for you to accept the reality but he is the FM of the strongest EU country. His country is the paymaster of the EU. As I stated many times I am not crazy about the EU because of the dominance of mainly 2 countries - Germany and France - who seem to determine the overall direction and politics of the EU. Smaller EU members have little to say. It is not like in the US, where all 50 states are egual.
And as long as the EU exists in its current form you can't do anything about it.
As for your country please count your blessings. You entered the EU at a time when Brussels was in position to shower you with countless bilions and transform Ireland from a poor country of constant emigrants to a country of high living standard.

'The daily writes that German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle’s stance that Kosovo’s independence is irrevocable confirms that if Belgrade does not accept this, Germany would block Serbia’s further EU integration.'

What a load of nonsense!
Who does Mr. Westerwelle think he is?
If he thinks that Germany can block Serbia's further EU integration, then others might think that 5 EU states might block certain German initiatives in the future and also block further 'developments' in the Southern Serbian Province of Kosovo i Meohija.

Seemingly, this German arrogance knows no bounds.

MB,Ireland

Michael Breathnach, don't confuse the 5's support for "Serbia as a death wish. They may hold fast but they are not going to declare political war on the 22 that support Kosovo."
(pss, 28 August 2010 14:11)

PSS,

You nailed it! The problem is that Serbia doesn't want to listen. If a child can understand that the will of 5 can NOT prevail towards 22. That is another Serbian nonsense. Greece is in the brink of collapse, Cyprus is a town-country, Romania corrupted to the top and exporting problems with nationals (gypsies)in the name of free movement in EU, Slovakia and Spain with its own ethnic problems...and we see nonsense comment here comparing let's say Cyprus with Germany.

As long as this the West is too scared of being voted against at the UN to submit its own resolution and since this new resolution wont bring new recognitions, it is a victory for Serbs because Albanians will be entering re-negotions without added legitimacy, which is what they've been trying to avoid. And if the DSS coalition's credibility didnt depend on EU ascension, we wouldn't have to play these games while waiting for the S. Stream to bring Russian bases in the wake of KFOR's withdrawl.

Mr. Tadic and Co. Please stop this nonsense and don't allow yourself be cowed by the WEST. Kosovo should be defended at all cost even the risk of losing EU membership.

This is a sell-out.

There's not much that can be really be gained via compromise if Belgrade and Pristina both continue to refuse to cross "red lines". So Belgrade may be pressured to remove the part of the draft resolution that says unilateral secessions are not the way to go (thereby confirming any group or region can secede), but they won't give up on claims to all of Kosovo. And Pristina will continue to mouth rhetoric of multiethnic democracy but refuse to give any special status to the Serb minority and continue to force "integration" in the most un-democratic ways.

Personally, I think Belgrade's new red lines should be the three conditions mentioned in another article:

1. Retention of all Orthodox monasteries and cultural landmarks.

2. Special status of all Serb municipalities south of the Ibar particularly Gracanica and Strpce.

3. Full retention of northern Kosovo within Belgrade's administration

all in return for writing the rest of Kosovo off.

That's as good as Belgrade can get, and far better than what was offered to them two years ago.

Rumors are apparently flying around what could happen for Kosovo, which Belgrade and Pristina are quick to deny. Let's see what actually happens.

Germany will block Serbia's Eu plans-? They really are bullying and desparate!! Tell them to go to hell the EU is falling apart and although they want Serbia under their control does Serbia want to be under the German boot?

This means that the world is ready to leave Kosovo in limbo status for all intents and purposes. So, nothing will change for anyone.

Cuts both ways in my view. Because K-Serbs of Strpce and north Kosovo can now unilaterally secede from Kosovo as an acceptable way to solve their dispute with Pristina!
(lowe, 28 August 2010 10:44)
True, but I wonder how it will set with all the recognition of Kosovo as a sovergn state by the Serbs in Kosovo. Otherwise if they continue to claim that Kosovo is still part of Serbia they would be declaring independence from Serbia.
Daniel, they are saying that as long as Serbia continues to attempt to hold Kosovo in limbo they will remain there also.
Michael Breathnach, don't confuse the 5's support for Serbia as a death wish. They may hold fast but they are not going to declare political war on the 22 that support Kosovo.

What a great news to our €Uropean viceroys! Threats works as usual and we are back in the fold. Who would have expect anything less! Thank to Saakasw...sorry, Tadic and his regime that is...

"“A compromise could be found in removing a part of the introductory sentence that states that 'a unilateral secession is an unacceptable way to solve the dispute,'” according to the source. "

Cuts both ways in my view. Because K-Serbs of Strpce and north Kosovo can now unilaterally secede from Kosovo as an acceptable way to solve their dispute with Pristina!

"True, but I wonder how it will set with all the recognition of Kosovo as a sovergn state by the Serbs in Kosovo. Otherwise if they continue to claim that Kosovo is still part of Serbia they would be declaring independence from Serbia.
(pss, 28 August 2010 14:11) "

How you ask? Simple. The K-Serbs can simultaneously declare themselves as an integral part of Serbia -- which is how they view themselves right now anyway.

The daily writes that German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle’s stance that Kosovo’s independence is irrevocable confirms that if Belgrade does not accept this, Germany would block Serbia’s further EU integration.

What a threat. Serbia should consider this as serious. Germany has its own problem with it's Turkish population, and it is not tolerated too well with the ethnic Germans, let me tell you for a fact. What to do with this problem of non Germans, and also non French and any other non Christian persons, who do not have true citizanship, let's send them to a recognized muslim country in southern Serbia, all problems solved. Remind you of something written in the 90's.

Mike,

With respect but REALISTICALLY Serbia is not in a position to set up red lines or conditions. I strongly feel that is the truth.

Way forward 1-Serbia recognises Kosovo independence like it did with Montenegro for example. It is not that hard. 2- Enter in mutual agreement with Kosovo authorities on a)free movement of goods b/people c)fight against crime, corruption, terrorism etc etc. There are so many things to talk for of mutual interest. 3- Both join EU. When it comes to minority as a guidance same rights for Serbs living in norther Kosovo to those living in Presevo, Bujanovc and Medvegja. Every desplaced person can return to their home without any problem. How does that sound?

Cuts both ways in my view. Because K-Serbs of Strpce and north Kosovo can now unilaterally secede from Kosovo as an acceptable way to solve their dispute with Pristina!
(lowe, 28 August 2010 10:44)

Yes, provided that it does not violate any general or special international law provision.

EA, and the rest who think like you that its "OK" and "not too difficult" for Serbia to let go of Kosovo. Please do not use idiotic comparisons like "you let montenegro go, so why not Kosovo". Montengro was its own republic... The country Serbia & Montenegro split up. What you are asking is that SERBIA splits ITSELF up. Serbia and Kosovo never formed some sort of UNION. They are are ONE and the SAME country. So if all those who say give 15% of YOUR COUNTRY away.. I saw which one of YOU are willing to write-off 15% of YOUR territory?..... So??? I'm waiting to see

EA No deal. A compromise is just that, but you are offering nothing and expect everything in return. You believe that this is because it is the reality. Its not nice to say this but you obviously don't believe that Kosovo Albanians are suffering enough. I think they (and Kosovo Serbs) are suffering more than enough.

What Mike has outlined below and has been mentioned elsewhere would be a generous offer. If you had sense you would push for it.

Johny you sound absolutely petrified now that the prospect of a deal is not a distant dream. The Serbian constitution will not save you if you are told to engage in negotiations. The same is true if certain interests in Pristina decide that enough is enough.

This campaign by Tadic and Jeremic has injected new life into the idea of negotiations and has shown that Serbia is flexible. Whether the Croatian report was leaked to test the waters or was not true - no matter what happens now this is a victory for reasonable Serbian diplomacy. Now all we need is a bit of understanding from certain western countries and a courageous kosovo albanian partner.

EA, and the rest who think like you that its "OK" and "not too difficult" for Serbia to let go of Kosovo. Please do not use idiotic comparisons like "you let montenegro go, so why not Kosovo". Montengro was its own republic... The country Serbia & Montenegro split up. What you are asking is that SERBIA splits ITSELF up. Serbia and Kosovo never formed some sort of UNION. They are are ONE and the SAME country. So if all those who say give 15% of YOUR COUNTRY away.. I saw which one of YOU are willing to write-off 15% of YOUR territory?..... So??? I'm waiting to see
(Peter_The_Great)
-
EA just admitted to the fact that Serbia "needs" to "let-go" of Kosovo in order for the Serbo-albs to have their "wishfull-independance"... ;)

There's not much that can be really be gained via compromise if Belgrade and Pristina both continue to refuse to cross "red lines". So Belgrade may be pressured to remove the part of the draft resolution that says unilateral secessions are not the way to go (thereby confirming any group or region can secede), but they won't give up on claims to all of Kosovo. And Pristina will continue to mouth rhetoric of multiethnic democracy but refuse to give any special status to the Serb minority and continue to force "integration" in the most un-democratic ways.

Personally, I think Belgrade's new red lines should be the three conditions mentioned in another article:

1. Retention of all Orthodox monasteries and cultural landmarks.

2. Special status of all Serb municipalities south of the Ibar particularly Gracanica and Strpce.

3. Full retention of northern Kosovo within Belgrade's administration

all in return for writing the rest of Kosovo off.

That's as good as Belgrade can get, and far better than what was offered to them two years ago.

Rumors are apparently flying around what could happen for Kosovo, which Belgrade and Pristina are quick to deny. Let's see what actually happens.
(Mike, 28 August 2010 16:21)


-Until a referendum for a new Serb constitution is organized all of what you say above are pipe dreams. The current Serb constitution prevents all of what you've stated. Every suggestion you've made is illegal under the current constitution and defies Serbia's constitutional order. The Serbs are not ready for what you state above. Seeing that you're not a Serb either you're just projecting you thoughts onto what you wish Serbia did. As I explained on the other topic; our attitude will remain the same, at the very least as long as that mockery known as the Serb constitution remains in place. There is yet no fool in Prishtina that will agree to a deal with Serbia which under the current Serb constitution amounts only to an administrative change. It is ludicrous on your part or on the part of the Serbs to expect a deal from our side which would incorporate us back into Serbia just so their bruised egoes are cured. That is non-nonsensical and indecent at the same time.

5 bankrupt and poor EU states "threatening Germany"? North Kosovo declaring independence even though claiming being part of Serbia and not recognizing Kosovo?! OMG, you made my day... :-)

""What a load of nonsense!
Who does Mr. Westerwelle think he is? "
MB,Ireland "

Joe said this more considerately, but it boils down to - Mr. Westerwelle is the representative of the country you are asking to support your economy.

Don`t be dumb Serbia,do not make any compromises on our Southern province.
It is clear that our Western enemies are embarassed,after their bought ICJ decision they really thought everybody would rush to recognize Kosovo but they have been utterly disappointed.
Their "project" of making Kosovo a state has miserably failed.
The fact that Westerwelle is going around begging those 5 EU member states to recognize by stating "They MUST recognize Kosovo" and threatening Serbia by blocking its EU bid says it all.
Serbia must clearly dump any EU prospects and stop making compromises on its national interests for an imaginary EU membership that will NEVER happen and in the case it would miraculously happen would harm its economic interests(look at Slovakia and how they as a new EU member have now to bailout Greece with its money).
No compromise,no swapping of Serbian land (Presevo) for Serbian land (Pristina,Prizren,Mitrovica)!
Keep the UN1244 and Serbian constitution intact,block together with Russia,Spain,Greece UN,NATO, and EU Membership and prepare economically,demopgraphically and militarily for the day x that will come sooner or later.
The Kosovo problem will sooner or later be solved in favour of Serbia in a few days when this opportunity comes.
Until then,keep the conflict frozen and stay patient.
If you yield to an agressor,that same agressor will only become more agressive.

"5 bankrupt and poor EU states "threatening Germany"? North Kosovo declaring independence even though claiming being part of Serbia and not recognizing Kosovo?! OMG, you made my day... :-)
(Jesse, 29 August 2010 05:55) "

You missed the point entirely. Its not recognizing " the so called state of Kosova". I hope you are still enjoying yourself. If not, too bad.

My point was that “Kosova”'s present constitution will therefore be irrelevant in the event of a north Kosovo UDI. I see you have not refuted my point in your reply.
(lowe, 19 September 2010 10:01)

I actually confirmed your point and also said why. I said “It would be irrelevant for ICJ since it’s not part of international law”


And I disagree with you that “undivided” means “indivisible”. Moreover that particular sentence referred to the pre-UDI authorities governing Kosovo.
(lowe, 19 September 2010 10:01)

The “undivided” referred to “Kosovo’s territory”, not any authorities. “Kosovo is an undivided territory” is part of international law as long as 1244 is in force. If you think that 1244 is not in force anymore, that’s another discussion.

Also, I did not mention the word “indivisible”. I just said “undivided” and that any act that would cause the territory to be “divided” (i.e. the opposite of “undivided”) would be “illegal” (the opposite of “legal”).

I saw which one of YOU are willing to write-off 15% of YOUR territory?..... So??? I'm waiting to see
(Peter_The_Great, 28 August 2010 22:17)
You ask any man if he is willing to amputate his arm and he will say no, never. But if you ask a man whose arm is only attached by a slither of skin and can never be reattached will never be a functioning part of his body and will only be a source of problems for his future, he would probably say yes.
Kosovo has been severed, Serbia's only claim for more than 10 years has been in name only. On the Serbian side this is the best they can hope for is to retain it in name only, never in function. It will always be governed by someone else.

So in my view that statement does not forbade K-Serbs from doing their UDI.
(lowe, 8 September 2010 13:41)

OK, so obviously we don't agree on the interpretation of this.

That will probably be the case with Kosovo, Serbia and international actors, if K. Serbs declare independence. So we would need another ICJ opinion to clarify the disputed intepretation of the Kosovo's Constitutional Framework.

"Constitutions can be changed and amended. You're sounding as if this constitution alone is an insurmountable fait accompli."

-- Mike I keep hearing this same mantra from the Serb camp but the fact that the constitution hasn't changed shows that it can't be changed as easily as you say. There is no will to do it. Here is a very important detail. We do not buy this reasoning until it has changed. As long as it remains in power it is indeed and insurmountable fait accompli. That is the reality we have to deal with as long as it is in power.

"But let me ask you this: constitutional impasse notwithstanding, would the three things I outlined below be suitable to you as a payoff for Belgrade writing off the rest of Kosovo?"


-- Personally, I have no problem with deals being made as a condition of recognition. I know I may not be popular with my opinion but that is just me. However I strongly believe that in order to arrive there the following have to happen before.

1. Abolishment of the current Serb constitution. Kosova should not be mentioned in the new Serb constitution as being part of Serbia. Something to the effect of recognition of a Kosovar state after the ending of negotiations about conditions on recognition might be acceptable.
2. Agreement that these talks are about conditions on recognition and not status. In short; agreement prior to sitting that there will be two states and that Serbia will respect the sovereignty of the state of Kosova and vice versa.
3. A very well specified time period. If things are dragged and nothing is achieved during this time period the parties agree to things returning back prior state.
4. Belgrade is the only investor of political will and capital with the west. They have to convince the west about possible territory exchanges or modification of Ahtisari package such as broader autonomy or cantonization for the Serbs in Kosova. We do not want to risk their support by going against their well-established policies.
5. Within a week or maybe a month after the deal Kosova is made a UN member. Serbia has to make sure this happens after all they kept calling for negotiations.

After those have been agreed upon I don't have anything against what these deals consist off. You leave us alone we leave you alone.

Having said that I believe that it would take decades for Serbia to agree on talks on conditions on recognition. I think it is already too late now; let alone then. Serbia closed this window of opportunity during the negotiating process after unilaterally adopting its constitution.


" And by "writing off", I don't mean recognizing but no longer obstructing Kosovo's road to full international integration - which includes sending messages to all non-recognizing countries that a solution has been found (thereby at least clearing a road to the EU). Would you sign the treaty, shake hands and move on? "

-- That I can't agree with. Simply because after that happens Serbia passes another constitution which claims that a deal on administrative issues with Kosova has been made and Kosova remains an autonomous province but with changes in its administrative issues. You want compromise but what you propose isn't one. What you propose amounts only to a simple administrative change in the eyes of the Serbs and Serbia since you don't have to recognize. That is not a deal. That is a trap. Frankly Serbia's obstruction isn't that much of a problem either as long as the likes of the US, UK, Germany, France, Japan etc are on our side. You can keep obstructing while we continue with the current situation and that is still a better deal than what you propose. What you propose sums up to Serbia claiming Kosova but now with Albanians agreeing that N. Mitro and some other places are part of Serbia. We gain nothing from such a deal. That is a well thought trap though, Mike.

I'm not aware of any special international law that applies specifically to the entity of "Kosova". Are you?
(lowe, 30 August 2010 01:42)

Well, the UNMIK Constitutional Framework, for a start. Then, Resolution 1244.

That 1.2 provision reads 'Kosovo is an undivided territory throughout which the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government established by this Constitutional Framework for Provisional Self-Government (Constitutional Framework) shall exercise their responsibilities.'

I would interpret the above phrase to be meant for the provisional authorities being given the right to govern the whole of Kosovo. Kosovo was whole (undivided) back in 1999 and was governed then as such. There is however no provision in 1244 or the framework that specified that this territory cannot be divided up at some point in the future as otherwise the term “indivisible” or its equivalent would surely have been used instead.
(lowe, 26 September 2010 08:32)

Of course I would interpret the above phrase to also be meant for the provisional authorities being given the right to govern the whole of Kosovo and that’s an additional proof that my interpretation is correct, because if you divide it, those authorities can’t govern the whole of Kosovo.

And your second argument that there is however no provision in 1244 or the framework that specified that this territory cannot be divided up at some point, also proves my point that as long as 1244 is in force, the “undivided” is in force since no time limit was set, and if the legal “undivided” becomes “divided”, the “legal” becomes “illegal. Simple as that.

But again, Serbia is free to try again at the ICJ if it really thinks like you – hopefully for her it will not be as disastrous as the first time.

"Until a referendum for a new Serb constitution is organized all of what you say above are pipe dreams." (johny)

-- Constitutions can be changed and amended. You're sounding as if this constitution alone is an insurmountable fait accompli.

But let me ask you this: constitutional impasse notwithstanding, would the three things I outlined below be suitable to you as a payoff for Belgrade writing off the rest of Kosovo? And by "writing off", I don't mean recognizing but no longer obstructing Kosovo's road to full international integration - which includes sending messages to all non-recognizing countries that a solution has been found (thereby at least clearing a road to the EU). Would you sign the treaty, shake hands and move on?

EA, if Serbia were not in a position suitable to make demands, the Quint wouldn't be working overtime to sabotage the draft resolution and find an agreement. Nor would they be calling for cooperation and flexibility.

I daresay that your first stipulation will happen, but the second and third could certainly come about. In fact, I see no reason why it shouldn't, but only after certain concessions have been made by Pristina, which I must say are the ones least likely to make demands since they're the ones trying to prove their independence movement is sui generis.

What will Pristina offer in return? More than autonomy/less than independence for the 5 major Serb municipalities? Complete control over SPC sites by Belgrade and the SPC? Territorial change? Bi-zonal confederation a la Bosnia? You can't expect to negotiate if you're not putting something on the table as well.

"Yes, provided that it does not violate any general or special international law provision.
(icj1, 28 August 2010 17:02)"

I'm not a lawyer. But I don't see any general or "special" (whatever that is) international law that forbid these UDIs. Especially since the status of the entitiy in question itself ("Kosova") is unclear.

Mike,

I wish Belgrade came out with something like those three points, at least there would be something to talk about. But you're ahead of Belgrade. Beograd has not gone into detail about what it means when it says negotiations. Maybe it has actually, but we mere mortals have not heard about it yet. We have to imagine what Belgrade means when it says negotiations. You are talking partition, they said no partition a few days ago. you say "writing off", they say "never recognize".

I'm not a lawyer. But I don't see any general or "special" (whatever that is) international law that forbid these UDIs.
(lowe, 29 August 2010 05:11)

Special international law means a provision of international law which apply to a specific situation. For example, the inviolability of diplomats is a general international law provision (it applies in general). Resolution 1244 is a special international law provision (it applies to the specific case of Kosovo).

Something should not violate both general and special international law in order to not violate international law. That's why the ICJ, in the Kosovo's case, had to analyze both general international law and special international law (Res. 1244) and find that neither was violated by the UDI, in order to declare that the declaration of independence did not violate the international law.

That's why a declaration of independence by the K-Serbs in North Kosovo would need to be analyzed against general or special international law, and if the parties involved do not agree, they may need to ask the ICJ for another opinion on the legality of the declaration of independence of North Kosovo by K-Serbs.

"That's why a declaration of independence by the K-Serbs in North Kosovo would need to be analyzed against general or special international law, and if the parties involved do not agree, they may need to ask the ICJ for another opinion on the legality of the declaration of independence of North Kosovo by K-Serbs.
(icj1, 29 August 2010 17:42) "

I'm not aware of any special international law that applies specifically to the entity of "Kosova". Are you?

Mr. Tadic and Co. Please stop this nonsense and don't allow yourself be cowed by the WEST. Kosovo should be defended at all cost even the risk of losing EU membership.
(PRO-SERBIA, 28 August 2010 11:25) ...All cost to defend Kosovo? what kind of cost are included here PRO-SERBIA except serbian taxpayer money and ....???

I don't think what Mike suggested is the best what Serbia can come out with. RS has to come to play, too. After all, republics of former Yugoslavia are NOT indivisable, we can see that now.

"Well, the UNMIK Constitutional Framework, for a start. Then, Resolution 1244.
(icj1, 4 September 2010 15:40)"

I thought both of them applied only to Kosovo as a Serbian province, not to the post-UDI entity of "Kosova".?????

In any case, can you point out to me anything in the wordings of both of them that specifically forbid a UDI by north Kosovo from “Kosova”?

I thought both of them applied only to Kosovo as a Serbian province, not to the post-UDI entity of "Kosova".?????
(lowe, 5 September 2010 14:17)

Nope, there is not anything saying that in any of them


In any case, can you point out to me anything in the wordings of both of them that specifically forbid a UDI by north Kosovo from “Kosova”?
(lowe, 5 September 2010 14:17)

According to international law (i.e. UNMIK constitutional framework), Kosovo is an undivided territory (article 1.2).

"Nope, there is not anything saying that in any of them"

So it didn't say anything on that. And did it say anything about north Kosovo being disallowed to secede???


"According to international law (i.e. UNMIK constitutional framework), Kosovo is an undivided territory (article 1.2).
(icj1, 7 September 2010 06:41)"

well, Serbia was undivided territory too .... until the West decided to carve her up. Does this UNMIK framework specify that Kosovo (being undivided territory then) can never be carved up and that therefore any UDI within it would be flouting international law? Seems like a lot of subjective interpretation and double standards to me!

well, Serbia was undivided territory too .... until the West decided to carve her up. Does this UNMIK framework specify that Kosovo (being undivided territory then) can never be carved up and that therefore any UDI within it would be flouting international law? Seems like a lot of subjective interpretation and double standards to me!
(lowe, 7 September 2010 15:48)

It seems pretty clear to me that a UDI from K. Serbs is not in line with the Constitutional Framework (with the undivided territory), the same way that Kosovo’s UDI was not in line with Serbia’s Constitution.

"It seems pretty clear to me that a UDI from K. Serbs is not in line with the Constitutional Framework (with the undivided territory), the same way that Kosovo’s UDI was not in line with Serbia’s Constitution.
(icj1, 8 September 2010 04:39) "

while I am not a lawyer, I don't think a K-Serb UDI would violate this Framework.

1.2 reads 'Kosovo is an undivided territory throughout which the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government established by this Constitutional Framework for Provisional Self-Government (Constitutional Framework) shall exercise their responsibilities.'

I would interpret this to mean that Kosovo as a whole ("undivided") territory back in 1999 would be governed
throughout by provisional authorities. The focus was on the provisional authorities.

As opposed to say, if 1.2 had began instead with
"Kosovo as an INDIVISIBLE territory ...."

So in my view that statement does not forbade K-Serbs from doing their UDI.

"OK, so obviously we don't agree on the interpretation of this.

That will probably be the case with Kosovo, Serbia and international actors, if K. Serbs declare independence. So we would need another ICJ opinion to clarify the disputed intepretation of the Kosovo's Constitutional Framework.
(icj1, 10 September 2010 04:50) "

Ok, lets agree to disagree then.

icj1,

One more thing just occurred to me. The ICJ considered Kosovo's constituional framework as part of its deliberation but not the constitution of the parent country Serbia.

So if the K-Serbs in north Kosovo were to do their UDI, would Kosovo's constitution be considered at all?

And since presumably the K-Serbs would not have their constitutional equivalent at the time of their UDI, they should not be breaching any law with their declaration.

One more thing just occurred to me. The ICJ considered Kosovo's constituional framework as part of its deliberation but not the constitution of the parent country Serbia.

(lowe, 10 September 2010 13:36)

The Constitution of Serbia is part of the domestic law, not international law and therefore was irrelevant.

"The Constitution of Serbia is part of the domestic law, not international law and therefore was irrelevant.
(icj1, 11 September 2010 05:14)"

So "Kosova"'s present constitution will therefore not be considered in any ICJ deliberation should north Kosovo do a UDI.

Also, since "Kosova" now has its own domestic constitution, one wonders whether it is deemed of no relevance or importance compared to its pre-UDI constitutional framework.

Or perhaps the ICJ might see this pre-UDI framework to be no longer relevant now that "Kosova" has its own domestic constitution.

Of course in any case my view remains that the pre-UDI framework does not forbade any subsequent north Kosovo UDI

So "Kosova"'s present constitution will therefore not be considered in any ICJ deliberation should north Kosovo do a UDI.
(lowe, 11 September 2010 10:01)

I cited Kosovo’s Constitutional Framework


Also, since "Kosova" now has its own domestic constitution, one wonders whether it is deemed of no relevance or importance compared to its pre-UDI constitutional framework.
(lowe, 11 September 2010 10:01)

It would be irrelevant for ICJ since it’s not part of international law


Or perhaps the ICJ might see this pre-UDI framework to be no longer relevant now that "Kosova" has its own domestic constitution.
(lowe, 11 September 2010 10:01)

Well, as long as 1244 is in force, that would be hard for the ICJ to see.


Of course in any case my view remains that the pre-UDI framework does not forbade any subsequent north Kosovo UDI
(lowe, 11 September 2010 10:01)

Well, I disagree here since the words “Kosovo is an undivided territory” are pretty clear, so K-Serbs can declare anything they want, excepts something that divides the Kosovo’s territory.

However, parties sometime don’t agree on interpretations; even though the language is pretty clear (see the ICJ’s case about Kosovo). So they may have to go again to the ICJ to ask for an opinion if the K-Serbs declare independence.

“I cited Kosovo’s Constitutional Framework “

My point was that “Kosova”'s present constitution will therefore be irrelevant in the event of a north Kosovo UDI. I see you have not refuted my point in your reply.


“It would be irrelevant for ICJ since it’s not part of international law”

My above point would apply here too.


“Well, I disagree here since the words “Kosovo is an undivided territory” are pretty clear, so K-Serbs can declare anything they want, excepts something that divides the Kosovo’s territory.

However, parties sometime don’t agree on interpretations; even though the language is pretty clear (see the ICJ’s case about Kosovo). So they may have to go again to the ICJ to ask for an opinion if the K-Serbs declare independence.
(icj1, 18 September 2010 04:04)”
And I disagree with you that “undivided” means “indivisible”. Moreover that particular sentence referred to the pre-UDI authorities governing Kosovo.

“The “undivided” referred to “Kosovo’s territory”, not any authorities. “Kosovo is an undivided territory” is part of international law as long as 1244 is in force. If you think that 1244 is not in force anymore, that’s another discussion.

Also, I did not mention the word “indivisible”. I just said “undivided” and that any act that would cause the territory to be “divided” (i.e. the opposite of “undivided”) would be “illegal” (the opposite of “legal”).
(icj1, 25 September 2010 20:04)”

That 1.2 provision reads 'Kosovo is an undivided territory throughout which the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government established by this Constitutional Framework for Provisional Self-Government (Constitutional Framework) shall exercise their responsibilities.'

I would interpret the above phrase to be meant for the provisional authorities being given the right to govern the whole of Kosovo. Kosovo was whole (undivided) back in 1999 and was governed then as such. There is however no provision in 1244 or the framework that specified that this territory cannot be divided up at some point in the future as otherwise the term “indivisible” or its equivalent would surely have been used instead.

“Of course I would interpret the above phrase to also be meant for the provisional authorities being given the right to govern the whole of Kosovo and that’s an additional proof that my interpretation is correct, because if you divide it, those authorities can’t govern the whole of Kosovo.

And your second argument that there is however no provision in 1244 or the framework that specified that this territory cannot be divided up at some point, also proves my point that as long as 1244 is in force, the “undivided” is in force since no time limit was set, and if the legal “undivided” becomes “divided”, the “legal” becomes “illegal. Simple as that.

But again, Serbia is free to try again at the ICJ if it really thinks like you – hopefully for her it will not be as disastrous as the first time.
(icj1, 1 October 2010 04:48)”

The provisional government (administered by UNMIK) had the right to govern undivided Kosovo. It does not follow however that this right extends to the current Pristina authorities as they are not “provisional” anymore. It does not mean that something that was undivided in 1999 cannot be divided in 2010 or thereafter unless there is a clause that specifically bars that. On the other hand, had the words “Kosovo is indivisible” been used instead, it could have been interpreted that it is meant to apply indefinitely,

1244 does not prohibit division of Kosovo as far as I know. Hence it canbe argues that 1244 can still be operative and yet Kosovo can be divided up since the provisional authorities no longer exist to govern it anymore.

I didn’t think it was wise of Serbia to phrase its question to the ICJ the way it did and allowed the ICJ not to have to decide whether Kosovo’s secession was legal. End of the day, ICJ’s advise is non-binding. The same way the recent UN resolution was non=binding.

The provisional government (administered by UNMIK) had the right to govern undivided Kosovo. It does not follow however that this right extends to the current Pristina authorities as they are not “provisional” anymore. It does not mean that something that was undivided in 1999 cannot be divided in 2010 or thereafter unless there is a clause that specifically bars that. On the other hand, had the words “Kosovo is indivisible” been used instead, it could have been interpreted that it is meant to apply indefinitely.
(lowe, 1 October 2010 14:22)

Yes, “indivisible” would have been required if resolution 1244 had a time limit, because in that case “undivided” would have been limited by that time limit. However, since no time limit is set,”undivided” continues as long as 1244 is in force.


1244 does not prohibit division of Kosovo as far as I know. Hence it canbe argues that 1244 can still be operative and yet Kosovo can be divided up since the provisional authorities no longer exist to govern it anymore.
(lowe, 1 October 2010 14:22)

As long as the text is in force the words written in that text, including “undivided” are in force. Not sure where is the doubt about that. Certainly the text does not say “undivided” ***only*** if governed by X. At least I did not see those words.


I didn’t think it was wise of Serbia to phrase its question to the ICJ the way it did and allowed the ICJ not to have to decide whether Kosovo’s secession was legal.
(lowe, 1 October 2010 14:22)

It was not a matter of being wise or not wise; it was forced to. The countries “friends” of Serbia would not have approved that question. By voting a narrow question about Kosovo’s UDI, for example, Spain did not risk anything regardless of the Court’s decision since in case it was against Serbia it could immediately dump Serbia to its own fate and declare that Basques’ case is not similar to Kosovo, as in fact, did. Whereas, if the question had been about Kosovo’s secession rights the Court would have had to address broader principles and if Serbia had lost, Spain would have lost with it. So why Spain in its sane mind would have voted to send a risky question ? Just to please Serbia ?!


End of the day, ICJ’s advise is non-binding. The same way the recent UN resolution was non=binding.
(lowe, 1 October 2010 14:22)

Fully agreed. It’s not illegal for Serbia to still say that Kosovo’s declaration of independence is illegal. But the credibility of that argument is now nil.

“Yes, “indivisible” would have been required if resolution 1244 had a time limit, because in that case “undivided” would have been limited by that time limit. However, since no time limit is set,”undivided” continues as long as 1244 is in force.”

I don’t buy the take that “undivided” can continue but not the “provisional authorities.” I don’t think 1244 was intended to be caught in a time warp by the UNSC. Just as the nature of the authorities can change, so can the borders of Kosovo. Especially since that particular clause in my view focused on the rights of the provisional authorities to govern the whole of Kosovo, and not to pronounce that Kosovo is indivisible.


“As long as the text is in force the words written in that text, including “undivided” are in force. Not sure where is the doubt about that. Certainly the text does not say “undivided” ***only*** if governed by X. At least I did not see those words. “

My points above holds for this too. X here refers to the provisional authorities -- they have the right to govern undivided Kosovo. This does not mean however that the current authorities also have the right to govern undivided Kosovo.


“It was not a matter of being wise or not wise; it was forced to. The countries “friends” of Serbia would not have approved that question. By voting a narrow question about Kosovo’s UDI, for example, Spain did not risk anything regardless of the Court’s decision since in case it was against Serbia it could immediately dump Serbia to its own fate and declare that Basques’ case is not similar to Kosovo, as in fact, did. Whereas, if the question had been about Kosovo’s secession rights the Court would have had to address broader principles and if Serbia had lost, Spain would have lost with it. So why Spain in its sane mind would have voted to send a risky question ? Just to please Serbia ?!

Fully agreed. It’s not illegal for Serbia to still say that Kosovo’s declaration of independence is illegal. But the credibility of that argument is now nil.
(icj1, 16 October 2010 04:59)”

I wouldn’t be too upset as a supporter of Serbia. As you have agreed, the ICJ advisory is totally non-binding. While Serbia can’t say that Prisitna’s declaration violated international law (just as we probably can’t say that Eskimos or Maoris who do a UDI violate international law), she can still maintain that Kosovo is not a state because the ICJ made clear that it was not discussing whether Kosovo is or is not a state.