Northern Kosovo "could declare independence"

Northern Kosovo "could declare independence"
--
LOL!! Independence from where? Serbia? The joke of the year!

I don't see why they should not declare independence. If the ethnic Albanian citiens of the Serbian province of Kosovo, allege they can't live under Serb rule, why then are Serbs required to live under Albanian Rule?

I hope they do declare independence. The west couldn't act militarily against them as it would contradict the West's support of the Albanian UDI. After all, we know that a UDI is not illegal. Thus, if the Serbs declare independence, they too would be fighting for recognition or they could just join with Serbia. I actually think this is the best possible idea. I'm in!

Croatian and Bosnian Serbs also declared independence...

BTW each Serbian enclave in Southern Kosovo could also declare independence...

Good!
We will see how many states will recognise the independent 3 town-state of 30 thousand people in North Kosovo.Hahahahaha!You got to be joking!Serbs in North have lost touch with the rest of the world and they still think like in 1990s.
I hope you do asap, because you will lose even more support from the West, those 5 countries who dont recognise Kosova will rush to recognise,and I dont think China and India will support a 3 town state.Remember even 5 countries who dont recognise Kosova are against partition and border changing of Kosova.
Serbs always find a way to make everyone enemy.Even you friends in EU will abandon you.

As a results, albanians in Preseva Valley will declare the independence from Serbia too.

(Daniel, 18 November 2011 21:30)

The West didn't support the Albanians in their desire for independence until the human rights violations got out of hand. They resolutely ignored Rugova's attempts to gain support for the (first) DoI, and it was not until years of well-meaning UN resolutions telling Milosevic to behave totally failed that they finally went in.

Multiple countries declared their independence years ago and have been ignored in their quest for recognition ever since. So if "The Republic of Northern Kosovo" declares independence - so what? Who's going to recognize them? Russia wants into the WTO, so you can rule out them (+ So. Ossetia + Abkhazia), and Serbia could just about forget ever joining the EU if they recognized them as independent. And if Belgrade is willing to recognize RNK as independent, what would be their rationale for not recognizing Kosovo?

Stefanovic told the local leaders that they don't have a veto on Belgrade's decisions - do you think the government is going to give them the nod to declare independence and then try to join Serbia?

"Good!
We will see how many states will recognise the independent 3 town-state of 30 thousand people in North Kosovo.Hahahahaha!You got to be joking!Serbs in North have lost touch with the rest of the world and they still think like in 1990s.
I hope you do asap, because you will lose even more support from the West, those 5 countries who dont recognise Kosova will rush to recognise,and I dont think China and India will support a 3 town state.Remember even 5 countries who dont recognise Kosova are against partition and border changing of Kosova.
Serbs always find a way to make everyone enemy.Even you friends in EU will abandon you.

As a results, albanians in Preseva Valley will declare the independence from Serbia too.
(Mirel from Albania, 18 November 2011 22:00) "

Mirel, you may be interested to know that UN members like Nauru and Tuvalu only have about populations of around 10,000 people each. So, on the basis of population size, "North Kosovo Republic" wouldn't be that out of place sitting in the UN! :)

LOL why not? All it needs is a few recognitions to stay on the map. The "Republic of Kosova" taught us that :)

Mirel from ALbania,

You're so filled with hate that you come onto Serbian website laughing at media reports and the like.

Noone in their right mind would even consider your opinion as valid because you show how backward you are.

The ones who didn't want partition of Kosovo didn't want to reject Serbia's sovereignty of Kosovo. If Serbs wanted to declare an independence they would accept it.

The only people who support you are the ones in it for financial gain and not for legitimate reasons.

The "West" don't really care about you... you have to understand that you are only a puppet to them. The sooner you & your Albanian countrymen realise this then the sooner there can be peace.

You're such poor people and you've supposedly had so much "help" from the West? hmmmm

50% unemployment? hmmm

You're so deluded to consider a declaration from Albanians in Presevo. You're a clear supporter of land theft aren't you?

If only some foreign invaders came to Albania and started trying to take over your land then you would perhaps understand what that felt like. The problem is that you're wearing the opposite shoes and you only understand the reverse.

Amer, i've heard there is a law that if a region (Kosovo), trying to seccede from a country (Serbia) has got compact enclave, which doesn't want to seccede (N.Kosovo), it has a right to stay within its original country (Serbia).

Northern Kosovo "could declare independence"
--
LOL!! Independence from where? Serbia? The joke of the year!
(Zoran, 18 November 2011 21:18)

It wouldnt actually be to bad an idea, they could invite Russian troops in if they wished, and neither Tadic nor the EU could do anything about it, once a favorable government returns to Serbia, they could re-unify.

And if Belgrade is willing to recognize RNK as independent, what would be their rationale for not recognizing Kosovo?
(Amer, 18 November 2011 22:54)
--
LOL!!!! What is it with you guys? What exactly would Northern KiM declare independence from? Serbia? We don't recognise "Kosova" so we don't need to declare independence from anywhere. We would only need to do so if we recognised "Kosova", which we don't. KiM is already a part of Serbia, so nice try, but the Western puppets are sounding evermore desperate.

Yeah why not?

Those chest pumping Albanians won't like it though.. they'll huff and they'll puff and then run away with there tails in between there legs...

The 300.000 thousand serbs in Kosovo have the right to stay within the borders of Serbia. Living under the rule of terrorists is not an option and never will be.
Stefanovic could no be allowed to represent people he doesn't represent.
Let mother Russia negotiate for serbs in Kosovo.

'I get it they are desperate but their desparation and anxiety comes from the state of limbo they live in'. Miri

Finally something you might be an expert on.

Independence from what?

these people have made no attempt whatsoever at all to live with and alongside albanians.

these are the same people who happily rolled over for milosovic as they quite enjoyed being on top of the artificial apartheid food chain he created through terror and violence

and that is the ONLY thing they have been clinging to ever since.

They are remnants of the perpetrators who have already failed.

So Serbs declare independence from Kosovo? I thought Kosovo is Serbia or are they declaring form Serbia. Even Serbia wont accept them as a country.

This is blowing in Serbias face they thought they will push the world they called there bluff and now they cant control them.

The 300.000 thousand serbs in Kosovo have the right to stay within the borders of Serbia. Living under the rule of terrorists is not an option and never will be.
Stefanovic could no be allowed to represent people he doesn't represent.
Let mother Russia negotiate for serbs in Kosovo.
(MikeC, 19 November 2011 09:46)
Maybe you should reread your comment. 300,000 Serbs in Kosovo should be allowed to stay in the borders of Serbia. Then you say that the person appointed by the Government of Serbia cannot represent these Serbs. Then you say let Russia negotiate for Serbs in Kosovo( instead of the govt of the country you want to be a part of?).

You are overplaying the Russian card. Do you think Russia is going to rush in and do anything that is in conflict with the Serbian govt?
Do you not understand what this shipment of supplies means? There is not a huge humanitarian need. Russia wants to remain looking good to the Serbian people but they cannot do what you want so they are sending trinkets.

The 300.000 thousand serbs in Kosovo have the right to stay within the borders of Serbia. Living under the rule of terrorists is not an option and never will be.
Stefanovic could no be allowed to represent people he doesn't represent.
Let mother Russia negotiate for serbs in Kosovo.
(MikeC, 19 November 2011 09:46)
We want to live in Serbia but we do not want Serbia to REPRESENT us???

"Russia wants to remain looking good to the Serbian people but they cannot do what you want so they are sending trinkets."

pss

It's pretty obvious that some serbian leaders in Belgrade are so eager to join the EU even if their own people in Kosovo are facing horrific living conditions under the rule of criminals and terrorists. As long as this government is in power they will do what they can to sell Kosovo for a quick pass to the EU. What idiot politicians in Belgrade fail to understand is that there will be no EU for Serbia regardless of Kosovo sell out. If serbs cannot turn to Russia for help who will they ask: albanians? Russia is the only country who has the power and will to represent serbs in Kosovo and their interests. Trust me when I say that serbs will never be ruled by barbarians.

The 300.000 thousand serbs in Kosovo have the right to stay within the borders of Serbia. Living under the rule of terrorists is not an option and never will be.
Stefanovic could no be allowed to represent people he doesn't represent.
Let mother Russia negotiate for serbs in Kosovo.
(MikeC, 19 November 2011 09:46)
We want to live in Serbia but we do not want Serbia to REPRESENT us???
(pss, 19 November 2011 14:57)

pss, please leave them alone... some people are loosing their minds and the ability to speak coherently

"All we know if that the UDI of Kosovo, but just that of 17 Feb 2008, is legal. For other UDI's we don't know anything; they may or may not be illegal. We need to analyze the law applicable to those other UDIs. "
(icj1, 19 November 2011 04:12)

No big analyze needed. The ICJ ruling about the Kosovo UDI didn't mention anything specific to Kosovo - except for the fact that Kosovo is under UN administration , and an UDI doesn't violate UN1244. In fact, you could conclude that everyone group of people has the right to declare themselves independent. But it further explained that an UDI doesn't mean anything, especially not that your 'independent state' must be recognized.

This is true North Kosovo could declare independence as many Serbs have said on here time after time anyone can declare independence. The question is what would be the point. No country including Serbia is going to recognize them as an independent state. For Serbia to recognize them then they would have to be saying that they recognize Kosovo as independent from Serbia and therefore the North Kosoo people had a right to secede from Kosovo.

Of course it does make more sense than applying to Russia for citizenship.
I don't understand why they resist being under Pristina authority though, the leadership over North Kosovo is not ranking high on the IQ scale right now.

so what are they going to call it then.....KOSERBO.?.?

Now it is not necessary because Russia has generously agreed to donate the land in the cold Sibir, but the northern Serbs are suspicious that the request made that there have ben very cold, and here are near the warm waters of the Adriatic Sea.

To (icj1, 19 November 2011 22:36)

Of course I know that the question asked was specific to Kosovo. But not the answer:

From english Wikipedia:

"The president of the ICJ, Justice Hisashi Owada, said that international law contains no "prohibition on declarations of independence". The court also said while the declaration may not have been illegal, the issue of recognition was a political one."

--> No prohibitions on DECLARATIONS on independence, so valid for anyone.

"The court asserted that the declaration of independence was not issued by the Assembly of Kosovo, Provisional Institutions of Self-Government, or any other official body ....
... thus the authors, who named themselves "representatives of the people of Kosovo" were not bound by the Constitutional Framework created by the UNMIK which reserved the international affairs of Kosovo solely to the competency of the UN representative."

--> Only that's why they don't violate UN1244, because some self-declared 'representatitives of the people of Kosovo' haven't been mentioned in UN1244. If any Kosovo official (i.e. provisional institutions, Kosovo assembly) would have been declared independence, they would have violated UN1244.

"Since the authors, were not bound by the framework or by UNSCR1244 that is addressed only to United Nations Member States and organs of the United Nations and since international law doesn't prohibit declarations of independence IN GENERAL the result of the ruling is that the effect of the 2008 unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo will be judged by the decisions by individual states to recognize or not Kosovo."

--> I especially wrote the words "IN GENERAL" in capitals, so everyone can see that an UDI is not special to Kosovo.
--> Read the last sentence: 'The effect of the UDI will be judged by the individual decisions to recognize Kosovo' which means without recognitions, an UDI has no effect.

I hope this explains a bit. Thank you!

"Thanks lowe for clarifying the ideas to the "Analyst" that it is the ***GENERAL*** international law that contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence, not the international law.

Declarations of independence can be in accordance with general international law, but still be in violation of international law. But of course the "Analyst" can't understand that by going to the Wikipedia.
(icj1, 20 November 2011 14:57)"

So how is "general international law" not "international law" when one can violate "international law" but not "general international law"? Are there clear and separate definitions of "general international law" and "international law"? Do share with us your expertise ...... thanks in advance.

"Well, Serbia & Co. argued before the ICJ that general international law prohibits UDIs, whereas Kosovo & Co. argued before the ICJ the opposite. At the end, the ICJ, after considering the arguments of Serbia and Co. and Kosovo & Co. on the matter decided that Serbia & Co. arguments were wrong and Kosovo & Co. arguments were right.

This matter was hottly disputed in the Kosovo case, but, at the end, Kosovo & Co. arguments won.
(icj1, 20 November 2011 15:38)"

That's not what I understand from the link that I quoted and which I assumed to be accurate unless shown otherwise. The ICJ president stated that "The court considers that general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declaration of independence," and then
"Accordingly it concludes that the declaration of independence of the 17th of February 2008 did not violate general international law." The word "accordingly" is vital and should mean that the reason for Kosovo's UDI not breaching international law was because general international law did not prohibit UDIs. The president did not state that Kosovo's UDI did not breach international law because Pristina's arguments were sound and Belgrade's were not -- unless you can point out to me where he said this.

By the way, lest we forget, the judgement is non-binding.

After all, we know that a UDI is not illegal. Thus, if the Serbs declare independence, they too would be fighting for recognition or they could just join with Serbia. I actually think this is the best possible idea. (Daniel, 18 November 2011 21:30)

All we know if that the UDI of Kosovo, but just that of 17 Feb 2008, is legal. For other UDI's we don't know anything; they may or may not be illegal. We need to analyze the law applicable to those other UDIs.

But I do like the idea, too, even though it may be illegal under international law.

If they declare independence they have to recognize an independent Kosova first which they are part of and which the are declaring independence from. Otherwise the "math" doesn't work. I get it they are desperate but their desparation and anxiety comes from the state of limbo they live in.

"what makes you think that they want to have anything to do with Serbia ?! Don't you see they are erecting barricades in all roads that link them with Serbia - they want nothing to do with Serbia.
(icj1, 19 November 2011 22:42)"

Your claim that ALL roads are barricaded is FALSE -- they did not block the side roads http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=10&dd=23&nav_id=76988.

Your other claim that "they want nothing to do with Serbia" is just as FALSE -- otherwise they would have blocked ALL roads that lead to Serbia.

To Analyst with regards to your reply to icj1

Hi, I learned something new from your post, thanks. I was too lazy to read the entire ICJ "ruling" (how it can be a "ruling" when it is non-binding beats me though) and was under the impression that it applied only to the Kosovo UDI.

I came across the following link today:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/07/22/us-serbia-kosovo-idUSTRE66L01720100722

Assuming that this report accurately quoted the ICJ president when he was reading the the decision -- "The court considers that general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declaration of independence," Judge Hisashi Owada, president of the ICJ, said in the clear majority ruling delivered in a cavernous hall at the Hague-based ICJ.
"Accordingly it concludes that the declaration of independence of the 17th of February 2008 did not violate general international law."

The word he used "ACCORDINGLY" is crucial in my opinion. The way I see it now, the ICJ judged that Kosovo's UDI was not in breach of general international law ONLY BECAUSE general international law did not prohibit UDIs, and not because of the quality of the arguments put forth by Pristina and its supporters.

So arising from this, it would seem that Chinatown in Los Angeles, for example, can declare UDI on the flimsiest of reasons and still not break general international law, as can Eskimos, Zulus, inhabitants of Buckingham Palace, etc, etc. Actually I find all this rather amusing. :)

No country including Serbia is going to recognize them as an independent state.
(a New Day, 19 November 2011 19:41)

what makes you think that they want to have anything to do with Serbia ?! Don't you see they are erecting barricades in all roads that link them with Serbia - they want nothing to do with Serbia.

“I was referring precisely to that link. Thanks for providing the same. Yes, drivers are using some side roads, but to where ? The article does not say that. If are assuming that those side roads are to Serbia, those too are patrolled by KFOR and subjected to customs controls for which we all know that some people are allergic :). In any case, those roads are in a very bad condition and driving is very difficult, according to the link that we are referring to.”

So you were using this link as your so called evidence ...... now show me where does this report state that the K-Serbs barricaded ALL (your word) the roads to Serbia as claimed by you??????????

The conditions of the roads are immaterial. As long as you are unable to show that the Serbs barricaded ALL roads, your claims that they did fall flat, making your statement FALSE.

This link can be taken together with other B92 reports – for examples http://www.eurasiareview.com/01102011-kosovo-nato%E2%80%99s-actions-illegal-illogical-and-immoral-analysis/ and http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=11&dd=09&nav_id=77253 These links stated that it was Nato/KFor, and not the K-Serbs, who closed alternative routes that bypassed Gate 1 and, to quote the 2nd link, “Oliver Ivanović, said earlier today that although NATO troops closed one of the so-called alternative roads between northern Kosovo and central Serbia, this will not prevent the Serbs from building another alternative road".” Far from closing ALL roads as you claimed, they seem to be building new alternative ones BETWEEN NORTHERN KOSOVO AND CENTRAL SERBIA.


“Dude, even if we use your assumptions, at the minimum, the barricades are making traffic with Serbia very difficult. People who want to have things to do with Serbia, don't take actions that make that very difficult.”

You claimed that the K-Serbs “are erecting barricades in all roads that link them with Serbia - they want nothing to do with Serbia”. But the 2 new links showed instead that far from barricading ALL roads, the K-Serbs in fact built new alternative routes to Serbia proper. Thereby making both your statement and so called evidence FALSE.


“In addition, Kosovo Serbs want to get Russian Citizenship and waive the Serbian one.
Further more, we just heard that K. Serbs may declare independence, another evidence that they want nothing to do with Serbia.

The evidence is overwhelming that K. Serbs want nothing to do (physically or legally) with Serbia.
(icj1, 20 November 2011 13:44)”

Also where is your evidence that K-Serbs are giving up their Serbian citizenship? There’s such a thing as dual citizenship on earth in case you hailed from Mars.

And how is “MAY declare independence” tenable evidence of K-Serbs wanting absolutely NOTHING to do with Serbia???? The word “may”, as opposed to “will”, would indicate uncertainty rather than any firm resolve to want “NOTHING to do with Serbia” .

Really, at the end of the day, I think your so called evidence is neither “overwhelming” nor credible!

No big analyze needed. The ICJ ruling about the Kosovo UDI didn't mention anything specific to Kosovo - except for the fact that Kosovo is under UN administration , and an UDI doesn't violate UN1244. In fact, you could conclude that everyone group of people has the right to declare themselves independent. But it further explained that an UDI doesn't mean anything, especially not that your 'independent state' must be recognized.
(Analyst, 19 November 2011 18:26)

Of course there is no need for big analysis – it was crystal clear. You need anything more specific to Kosovo and a specific point in time than the answer that the ICJ gave to the question that Vuk asked ?

“The Court is of the opinion that the declaration of independence of Kosovo adopted on 17 February 2008 did not violate international law”

So, yes, the ICJ’s Opinion applies to every entity called “Kosovo” which adopted a declaration of independence on 17 February 2008. Note that even Kosovo’s UDI of 1991 is excluded.

In addition the ICJ opinion nowhere wrote “that an UDI doesn't mean anything”, that’s, of course, result of your pure fantasy, or, alternatively, this is now the beginning of the Serbian version of the ICJ’s Opinion, similar to the famous Serbian version of Resolution 1244 which said much more things than the English version. And poor Vuk tried to use the Serbian version of 1244 at the ICJ :)

@Mirel from Albania.
Next independence... you will be loved???
What to do if your Orthodox northern Albania resolve for independence to join Montenegro. You will forgot Kosovo for two days also would be packaged and fled to Sicily the place from which you came.

"Maybe yes, maybe no-- no excitement, no disappointment. The one thing I have learned since starting to read this forum is people here can be anyone they want.
There are financial wizards charting the empires, reading B92 and posting daily.
There are persons of "staff" who sit in top secret meetings in half the countries of the world and come here to reveal what no one else knows and that which has never been in print.
There are Serbs pretending to be Albanians, Americans, Russians, Kfor ex Kfor, Eulex, and UNMIK. There are Albanians doing pretty much the same but usually not to the huge extent.
So whether you are Serb, a descendent, live in Serbia, or in Atlantis, it matters not, your ideologies are as Serbian as Serb can get.
(an observation, 21 November 2011 22:36)"

I told you I am not Serb or Serbian because I thought you didn't know. If you don't believe me, its hardly my problem. Its not as if I put your opinions about me on a pedestal.

"dear lowe, I submitted to you the answers, and you know them. Up to you if you want the rest of the forum to read them :)
(icj1, 21 November 2011 17:40)"

where did you submit whatever answers to whichever questions that I ought to know??????

"Well, in order to say “accordingly” the Court first had to establish that “general international law” does not prohibit DIs, as you correctly stated. General international law is not written in a code, it’s a matter of interpretation of the practice of the states. So the Court had to decide what the general international law is. Serbia & Co. interpreted it as general international law prohibits DIs and provided the arguments why; Kosovo & Co. interpreted it as general international law does not prohibit DIs and provided the arguments why. The Court decided that Kosovo’s arguments where more persuasive and agreed with the interpretation that general international law does not prohibit DIs. Only ****AFTER*** that was settled, accordingly it concluded that the declaration of independence of the 17th of February 2008 did not violate ***GENERAL*** international law.

"Accordingly" would have been there either way. If the Court had decided that Serbia & Co. was correct and general international law prohibits DIs, accordingly would have decided that the Kosovo's UDI of 17 Feb 2008 did violate general international law.

So the crucial thing was the intepretation of general international law whether it prohibited DIs or not. The connclusion for Kosovo then follows accordingly.
----------

(icj1, 21 November 2011 17:38)"

At the end of the day, I'm still no clearer as to the difference between general international law and international law ..... and seems strange to me that general international law has no code and is moreover open to interpretation on one hand (ie. vague?), and yet reverently used to by ICJ in its formal advisory as a fact.

Declarations of independence can be in accordance with general international law, but still be in violation of international law. But of course the "Analyst" can't understand that by going to the Wikipedia.
(icj1, 20 November 2011 14:57)"

Killing people can violate Kosovo laws, but killing Serbs can by in accordance with Kosovo laws? :)

"I love this everytime I see a Serb write it. Prior to the ruling (when their balkan pride would not allow them to conceive they were wrong) you could not get a Serb to admit this fact and actually would contradict it.
The west and the Albanians all dismisssed the "opinion" (not judgment) as nonbinding and the Serbs were saying it would be the basis to return Kosovo to the negotiation table, countries to withdraw their recognitions and for Serbia to "sue" the US and others.

I think it would be better to just never mention it than to constantly remind everyone of the egg that was on your face at the time.
(an observation, 20 November 2011 20:24) "

Well then, there's nothing I love more right now than to disappoint you utterly -- I'm not a Serb or from Serbia -- I'm not even in the Balkans. You don't need to be any particular ethnic group to know that the ICJ advisory was non-binding and unenforceable. This is a fact which no amount of eggs on whoever's face can overturn. For your info, I never did thought it a good idea for Belgrade to submit something to ICJ that would be non-obligatory in the first place.

(lowe, 20 November 2011 15:30)

dear lowe, I submitted to you the answers, and you know them. Up to you if you want the rest of the forum to read them :)

icj1

Thanks for your detailed explanation. I still find the apparent arbitrariness of general international law unsettling, especially the possibility of its different interpretation by different judges -- because what they decide can then affect peoples and countries.

I knew that one day this gona come up, I also know that soon Novi sad, Kragujevac, Niš and so on is going to say we want independence and dont want to be called Serbia. Are you guys so shame of serbia or what?... This is how you telling the world that Albanians were right to do it. If serbs want to declare independence and also dont want nothing to do with Kosovo or Serbia then no wonder why Albanians from Kosovo wanted to walk away from serbia. When i want to look for some jokes of the day, i read serbian politicians headlines and I look no further as they make my day.

hope you do asap, because you will lose even more support from the West, those 5 countries who dont recognise Kosova will rush to recognise,and I dont think China and India will support a 3 town state.Remember even 5 countries who dont recognise Kosova are against partition and border changing of Kosova.
Serbs always find a way to make everyone enemy.Even you friends in EU will abandon you.

As a results, albanians in Preseva Valley will declare the independence from Serbia too.
(Mirel from Albania, 18 November 2011 22:00)

Those 5 countries that dont recognise Kosovo???
5 EU countries plus the other 100 or more from the UN member states. Hardly a solid and convincing majority is it?

Your claim that ALL roads are barricaded is FALSE -- they did not block the side roads [link].
(lowe, 20 November 2011 05:55)

I was referring precisely to that link. Thanks for providing the same. Yes, drivers are using some side roads, but to where ? The article does not say that. If are assuming that those side roads are to Serbia, those too are patrolled by KFOR and subjected to customs controls for which we all know that some people are allergic :). In any case, those roads are in a very bad condition and driving is very difficult, according to the link that we are referring to.
----------

Your other claim that "they want nothing to do with Serbia" is just as FALSE -- otherwise they would have blocked ALL roads that lead to Serbia.
(lowe, 20 November 2011 05:55)

Dude, even if we use your assumptions, at the minimum, the barricades are making traffic with Serbia very difficult. People who want to have things to do with Serbia, don't take actions that make that very difficult.

In addition, Kosovo Serbs want to get Russian Citizenship and waive the Serbian one.

Further more, we just heard that K. Serbs may declare independence, another evidence that they want nothing to do with Serbia.

The evidence is overwhelming that K. Serbs want nothing to do (physically or legally) with Serbia.

Of course I know that the question asked was specific to Kosovo. But not the answer:

From english Wikipedia:

"The president of the ICJ, Justice Hisashi Owada, said that international law contains no "prohibition on declarations of independence". The court also said while the declaration may not have been illegal, the issue of recognition was a political one."
(Analyst, 20 November 2011 09:36)

The Court’s Opinion did not say any of the two statements above. That’s what happens if you go to Wikipedia instead of the Court Opinion itself :) which said, I quote:

“V. GENERAL CONCLUSION
122. The Court has concluded above that the adoption of the declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 did not violate general international law, Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) or the Constitutional Framework. Consequently the adoption of that declaration did not violate any applicable rule of international law.
123. For these reasons,
THE COURT,
Is of the opinion that the declaration of independence of Kosovo adopted on 17 February 2008 did not violate international law.”
----------

--> I especially wrote the words "IN GENERAL" in capitals, so everyone can see that an UDI is not special to Kosovo.
(Analyst, 20 November 2011 09:36)

Yes, that’s why I showed to you above what the “General Conclusion” of the Court was, i.e. specific to Kosovo and specific to a date. You can write whatever you want; it is the Court’s Opinion that matters.
----------

--> Read the last sentence: 'The effect of the UDI will be judged by the individual decisions to recognize Kosovo' which means without recognitions, an UDI has no effect.
(Analyst, 20 November 2011 09:36)

Again, that sentence must be in the famous Serbian version of the ICJ decision, because the English version nowhere says “The effect of the UDI will be judged by the individual decisions to recognize Kosovo”.
----------

I hope this explains a bit. Thank you!
(Analyst, 20 November 2011 09:36)

Absolutely, not just a bit but it fully explained that you are totally wrong in your “General” conclusions :)

Those 5 countries that dont recognise Kosovo???
5 EU countries plus the other 100 or more from the UN member states. Hardly a solid and convincing majority is it?
(UK, 20 November 2011 11:32)

which are these 100 countries which have said they still recognize Kosovo as part of Serbia ? After very hard research, I could unfortunately only find about 20 which have stated that.

Assuming that this report accurately quoted the ICJ president when he was reading the the decision -- "The court considers that general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declaration of independence," Judge Hisashi Owada, president of the ICJ, said in the clear majority ruling delivered in a cavernous hall at the Hague-based ICJ.
(lowe, 20 November 2011 14:24)

Thanks lowe for clarifying the ideas to the "Analyst" that it is the ***GENERAL*** international law that contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence, not the international law.

Declarations of independence can be in accordance with general international law, but still be in violation of international law. But of course the "Analyst" can't understand that by going to the Wikipedia.

The way I see it now, the ICJ judged that Kosovo's UDI was not in breach of general international law ONLY BECAUSE general international law did not prohibit UDIs, and not because of the quality of the arguments put forth by Pristina and its supporters.
(lowe, 20 November 2011 14:24)

Well, Serbia & Co. argued before the ICJ that general international law prohibits UDIs, whereas Kosovo & Co. argued before the ICJ the opposite. At the end, the ICJ, after considering the arguments of Serbia and Co. and Kosovo & Co. on the matter decided that Serbia & Co. arguments were wrong and Kosovo & Co. arguments were right.

This matter was hottly disputed in the Kosovo case, but, at the end, Kosovo & Co. arguments won.

By the way, lest we forget, the judgement is non-binding.
(lowe, 20 November 2011 15:58
I love this everytime I see a Serb write it. Prior to the ruling (when their balkan pride would not allow them to conceive they were wrong) you could not get a Serb to admit this fact and actually would contradict it.
The west and the Albanians all dismisssed the "opinion" (not judgment) as nonbinding and the Serbs were saying it would be the basis to return Kosovo to the negotiation table, countries to withdraw their recognitions and for Serbia to "sue" the US and others.

I think it would be better to just never mention it than to constantly remind everyone of the egg that was on your face at the time.

"Well, Serbia & Co. argued before the ICJ that general international law prohibits UDIs, whereas Kosovo & Co. argued before the ICJ the opposite. At the end, the ICJ, after considering the arguments of Serbia and Co. and Kosovo & Co. on the matter decided that Serbia & Co. arguments were wrong and Kosovo & Co. arguments were right. "
(icj1, 20 November 2011 15:38)

Great! Now you finally got it: The ICJ ruled that general international laws don't prohibit UDIs - it was asked by Serbia about Kosovo, which served as an example. But the ruling was clearly a general one and in no way specific to Kosovo (except for UN1244 which wasn't violated, neither, because no Kosovo official but some 'representatives of the people of Kosovo' declared the UDI - very tricky, btw., members of the Kosovo temporary administration would have violated UN1244 by declaring an UDI)

The word he used "ACCORDINGLY" is crucial in my opinion. The way I see it now, the ICJ judged that Kosovo's UDI was not in breach of general international law ONLY BECAUSE general international law did not prohibit UDIs, and not because of the quality of the arguments put forth by Pristina and its supporters.
(lowe, 20 November 2011 14:24)

Exactly. To say it in one simple sentence: An UDI is legal, because there's no internationl law that forbids it.

"So arising from this, it would seem that Chinatown in Los Angeles, for example, can declare UDI on the flimsiest of reasons and still not break general international law, as can Eskimos, Zulus, inhabitants of Buckingham Palace, etc, etc. Actually I find all this rather amusing. :)"

Yes, but it doesn't change anything since an UDI doesn't mean anything, because the effect only comes when states recognize that UDI 'country'.

Declarations of independence can be in accordance with general international law, but still be in violation of international law. But of course the "Analyst" can't understand that by going to the Wikipedia.
(icj1, 20 November 2011 14:57)"

Killing people can violate Kosovo laws, but killing Serbs can by in accordance with Kosovo laws? :)
(J.Oker, 20 November 2011 22:23)

Nope my friend, because you are comparing “Kosovo laws” with “Kosovo laws”, which is the same thing. I was comparing “general international law” with “international law” which is not the same thing. But, I understand you since even the very analytical mind of the "Analyst" repeatedly failed to grasp the concept. This is not the forum to have law classes, so if you want to educate yourself further on the matter, you can go and take some Law 101 class.
----------

The word he used "ACCORDINGLY" is crucial in my opinion. The way I see it now, the ICJ judged that Kosovo's UDI was not in breach of general international law ONLY BECAUSE general international law did not prohibit UDIs, and not because of the quality of the arguments put forth by Pristina and its supporters.
(lowe, 20 November 2011 14:24)

Well, in order to say “accordingly” the Court first had to establish that “general international law” does not prohibit DIs, as you correctly stated. General international law is not written in a code, it’s a matter of interpretation of the practice of the states. So the Court had to decide what the general international law is. Serbia & Co. interpreted it as general international law prohibits DIs and provided the arguments why; Kosovo & Co. interpreted it as general international law does not prohibit DIs and provided the arguments why. The Court decided that Kosovo’s arguments where more persuasive and agreed with the interpretation that general international law does not prohibit DIs. Only ****AFTER*** that was settled, accordingly it concluded that the declaration of independence of the 17th of February 2008 did not violate ***GENERAL*** international law.

"Accordingly" would have been there either way. If the Court had decided that Serbia & Co. was correct and general international law prohibits DIs, accordingly would have decided that the Kosovo's UDI of 17 Feb 2008 did violate general international law.

So the crucial thing was the intepretation of general international law whether it prohibited DIs or not. The connclusion for Kosovo then follows accordingly.
----------

Great! Now you finally got it: The ICJ ruled that general international laws don't prohibit UDIs - it was asked by Serbia about Kosovo, which served as an example. But the ruling was clearly a general one and in no way specific to Kosovo (except for UN1244 which wasn't violated, neither, because no Kosovo official but some 'representatives of the people of Kosovo' declared the UDI - very tricky, btw., members of the Kosovo temporary administration would have violated UN1244 by declaring an UDI)
(Analyst, 20 November 2011 22:01)

I knew it for a long time my friend that ***GENERAL*** international law does not prohibit DIs. You just learned it, because in the prior post you said that “international law” does not prohibit DIs, which is false.

So, yes, the courts opinion in regards to "general international law" was general, but in regards to "international law" was specific to Kosovo and specific to a date. I showed it to you, but obviously you prefer Wikipedia for your "analysis" rather than the Court opinion itself which said:

"The Court, is of the opinion that the declaration of independence of Kosovo adopted on 17 February 2008 did not violate international law.”

There is nothing there that would cover, say, Basques in Spain, unless they change the name to Kosovo and date the DI retroactively to 17 Feb 2008 :).

But if you are so convinced that you are correct, just show us where the Court decided that “international law does not prohibit DIs”.
----------

Exactly. To say it in one simple sentence: An UDI is legal, because there's no internationl law that forbids it.
(Analyst, 20 November 2011 22:13)

Dear “Analyst”, your analytical analysis is again false. Nobody has said that “there's no internationl law that forbids a UDI".
----------

"So arising from this, it would seem that Chinatown in Los Angeles, for example, can declare UDI on the flimsiest of reasons and still not break general international law, as can Eskimos, Zulus, inhabitants of Buckingham Palace, etc, etc. Actually I find all this rather amusing. :)"
(Analyst, 20 November 2011 22:13)

Now you finally got it; yes an eventual DI of Chinatown in LA, will not break general international law. But that does not mean it does not violate international law.
----------

Yes, but it doesn't change anything since an UDI doesn't mean anything, because the effect only comes when states recognize that UDI 'country'.
(Analyst, 20 November 2011 22:13)

“UDI doesn't mean anything” is your opinion, but, of course it does not count. But, at least, we are making some progress because in your post of 19 November 2011 18:26 you said that it was the Court that “explained that an UDI doesn't mean anything”, which was obviously false. Those were and are your words, not Court’s words.

Well then, there's nothing I love more right now than to disappoint you utterly -- I'm not a Serb or from Serbia -- I'm not even in the Balkans.
(lowe, 21 November 2011 03:25)
Maybe yes, maybe no-- no excitement, no disappointment. The one thing I have learned since starting to read this forum is people here can be anyone they want.
There are financial wizards charting the empires, reading B92 and posting daily.
There are persons of "staff" who sit in top secret meetings in half the countries of the world and come here to reveal what no one else knows and that which has never been in print.
There are Serbs pretending to be Albanians, Americans, Russians, Kfor ex Kfor, Eulex, and UNMIK. There are Albanians doing pretty much the same but usually not to the huge extent.
So whether you are Serb, a descendent, live in Serbia, or in Atlantis, it matters not, your ideologies are as Serbian as Serb can get.

At the end of the day, I'm still no clearer as to the difference between general international law and international law .....
(lowe, 22 November 2011 06:36)

Well, without getting too technical as this is not the forum for law classes, the “international law” governing a specific factual situation is composed of “general international law” and “special international law”. The first applies to all situations; the latter only applies to the specific factual situation. For example, in the specific case of Kosovo, the applicable “general international law” provisions are things like the principle of territorial integrity, principle of self-determination, principle of remedial secession, etc. The “special international law provisions” are Resolution 1244 and the Constitutional Framework which only govern Kosovo, and not, say, Zimbabwe. In order to be in accordance with “international law”, Kosovo’s UDI had to be in accordance with both “general international law” AND “special international law”.
----------

and seems strange to me that general international law has no code and is moreover open to interpretation on one hand (ie. vague?),
(lowe, 22 November 2011 06:36)

Well, my friend, all laws are open to interpretation, even the written ones, otherwise judges worldwide would join the ranks of the jobless :). That's why people go to Court (like Vuk did) to get the one authoritative interpretation. And yes, general international law is not written in a code, because the world does not have a legislative body which makes international laws. The sources of general international law are things like international customary law, UN law, multilateral treaties, past ICJ judgments and opinions, etc.
----------

and yet reverently used to by ICJ in its formal advisory as a fact.
(lowe, 22 November 2011 06:36)

Well, it’s required by the UN Charter to use it (both the general and the particular international law). The law is not a fact and nobody used the law as a fact. The law was used to analyze the facts. The laws don’t have to be written to be laws. UK does not even have a written constitution.

Thanks for your detailed explanation. I still find the apparent arbitrariness of general international law unsettling, especially the possibility of its different interpretation by different judges -- because what they decide can then affect peoples and countries.
(lowe, 23 November 2011 11:57)

Well, that's why the ICJ exists, to provide one single interpretation of the international law and the ICJ itself is bound by its prior decisions; it can't change its prior interpretations at its whim.

Nothing is arbitrary. It's not that the ICJ judges wake up one morning and say, this is what the general international law is. In every case, it takes months or years to analyze the written or customary practice of states for hundreds of years to come to the conclusion what the general international law is.

Just take for example the 600+ pages Serbia sent to the ICJ for the Kosovo case. Serbia did not just say, this is what I think the general international law is - it also submitted hundreds of pages with analysis of the practice of states in support of Serbia's interpretation of what the general international law is.

Part of the general international law is codified/written these days, but not being codified does not mean it's not the law. For example, the diplomatic immunity was part of the general international law for hundreds, if not thousands, of years before it was codified (written) in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations some 50 years ago.

Good!
We will see how many states will recognise the independent 3 town-state of 30 thousand people in North Kosovo.Hahahahaha!You got to be joking!Serbs in North have lost touch with the rest of the world and they still think like in 1990s.
I hope you do asap, because you will lose even more support from the West, those 5 countries who dont recognise Kosova will rush to recognise,and I dont think China and India will support a 3 town state.Remember even 5 countries who dont recognise Kosova are against partition and border changing of Kosova.
Serbs always find a way to make everyone enemy.Even you friends in EU will abandon you.

As a results, albanians in Preseva Valley will declare the independence from Serbia too.

I don't see why they should not declare independence. If the ethnic Albanian citiens of the Serbian province of Kosovo, allege they can't live under Serb rule, why then are Serbs required to live under Albanian Rule?

(Daniel, 18 November 2011 21:30)

The West didn't support the Albanians in their desire for independence until the human rights violations got out of hand. They resolutely ignored Rugova's attempts to gain support for the (first) DoI, and it was not until years of well-meaning UN resolutions telling Milosevic to behave totally failed that they finally went in.

Multiple countries declared their independence years ago and have been ignored in their quest for recognition ever since. So if "The Republic of Northern Kosovo" declares independence - so what? Who's going to recognize them? Russia wants into the WTO, so you can rule out them (+ So. Ossetia + Abkhazia), and Serbia could just about forget ever joining the EU if they recognized them as independent. And if Belgrade is willing to recognize RNK as independent, what would be their rationale for not recognizing Kosovo?

Stefanovic told the local leaders that they don't have a veto on Belgrade's decisions - do you think the government is going to give them the nod to declare independence and then try to join Serbia?

If they declare independence they have to recognize an independent Kosova first which they are part of and which the are declaring independence from. Otherwise the "math" doesn't work. I get it they are desperate but their desparation and anxiety comes from the state of limbo they live in.

I hope they do declare independence. The west couldn't act militarily against them as it would contradict the West's support of the Albanian UDI. After all, we know that a UDI is not illegal. Thus, if the Serbs declare independence, they too would be fighting for recognition or they could just join with Serbia. I actually think this is the best possible idea. I'm in!

Northern Kosovo "could declare independence"
--
LOL!! Independence from where? Serbia? The joke of the year!

Independence from what?

these people have made no attempt whatsoever at all to live with and alongside albanians.

these are the same people who happily rolled over for milosovic as they quite enjoyed being on top of the artificial apartheid food chain he created through terror and violence

and that is the ONLY thing they have been clinging to ever since.

They are remnants of the perpetrators who have already failed.

After all, we know that a UDI is not illegal. Thus, if the Serbs declare independence, they too would be fighting for recognition or they could just join with Serbia. I actually think this is the best possible idea. (Daniel, 18 November 2011 21:30)

All we know if that the UDI of Kosovo, but just that of 17 Feb 2008, is legal. For other UDI's we don't know anything; they may or may not be illegal. We need to analyze the law applicable to those other UDIs.

But I do like the idea, too, even though it may be illegal under international law.

Croatian and Bosnian Serbs also declared independence...

BTW each Serbian enclave in Southern Kosovo could also declare independence...

So Serbs declare independence from Kosovo? I thought Kosovo is Serbia or are they declaring form Serbia. Even Serbia wont accept them as a country.

This is blowing in Serbias face they thought they will push the world they called there bluff and now they cant control them.

Now it is not necessary because Russia has generously agreed to donate the land in the cold Sibir, but the northern Serbs are suspicious that the request made that there have ben very cold, and here are near the warm waters of the Adriatic Sea.

The 300.000 thousand serbs in Kosovo have the right to stay within the borders of Serbia. Living under the rule of terrorists is not an option and never will be.
Stefanovic could no be allowed to represent people he doesn't represent.
Let mother Russia negotiate for serbs in Kosovo.
(MikeC, 19 November 2011 09:46)
Maybe you should reread your comment. 300,000 Serbs in Kosovo should be allowed to stay in the borders of Serbia. Then you say that the person appointed by the Government of Serbia cannot represent these Serbs. Then you say let Russia negotiate for Serbs in Kosovo( instead of the govt of the country you want to be a part of?).

You are overplaying the Russian card. Do you think Russia is going to rush in and do anything that is in conflict with the Serbian govt?
Do you not understand what this shipment of supplies means? There is not a huge humanitarian need. Russia wants to remain looking good to the Serbian people but they cannot do what you want so they are sending trinkets.

Yeah why not?

Those chest pumping Albanians won't like it though.. they'll huff and they'll puff and then run away with there tails in between there legs...

The 300.000 thousand serbs in Kosovo have the right to stay within the borders of Serbia. Living under the rule of terrorists is not an option and never will be.
Stefanovic could no be allowed to represent people he doesn't represent.
Let mother Russia negotiate for serbs in Kosovo.
(MikeC, 19 November 2011 09:46)
We want to live in Serbia but we do not want Serbia to REPRESENT us???
(pss, 19 November 2011 14:57)

pss, please leave them alone... some people are loosing their minds and the ability to speak coherently

so what are they going to call it then.....KOSERBO.?.?

Mirel from ALbania,

You're so filled with hate that you come onto Serbian website laughing at media reports and the like.

Noone in their right mind would even consider your opinion as valid because you show how backward you are.

The ones who didn't want partition of Kosovo didn't want to reject Serbia's sovereignty of Kosovo. If Serbs wanted to declare an independence they would accept it.

The only people who support you are the ones in it for financial gain and not for legitimate reasons.

The "West" don't really care about you... you have to understand that you are only a puppet to them. The sooner you & your Albanian countrymen realise this then the sooner there can be peace.

You're such poor people and you've supposedly had so much "help" from the West? hmmmm

50% unemployment? hmmm

You're so deluded to consider a declaration from Albanians in Presevo. You're a clear supporter of land theft aren't you?

If only some foreign invaders came to Albania and started trying to take over your land then you would perhaps understand what that felt like. The problem is that you're wearing the opposite shoes and you only understand the reverse.

No country including Serbia is going to recognize them as an independent state.
(a New Day, 19 November 2011 19:41)

what makes you think that they want to have anything to do with Serbia ?! Don't you see they are erecting barricades in all roads that link them with Serbia - they want nothing to do with Serbia.

And if Belgrade is willing to recognize RNK as independent, what would be their rationale for not recognizing Kosovo?
(Amer, 18 November 2011 22:54)
--
LOL!!!! What is it with you guys? What exactly would Northern KiM declare independence from? Serbia? We don't recognise "Kosova" so we don't need to declare independence from anywhere. We would only need to do so if we recognised "Kosova", which we don't. KiM is already a part of Serbia, so nice try, but the Western puppets are sounding evermore desperate.

The 300.000 thousand serbs in Kosovo have the right to stay within the borders of Serbia. Living under the rule of terrorists is not an option and never will be.
Stefanovic could no be allowed to represent people he doesn't represent.
Let mother Russia negotiate for serbs in Kosovo.

The 300.000 thousand serbs in Kosovo have the right to stay within the borders of Serbia. Living under the rule of terrorists is not an option and never will be.
Stefanovic could no be allowed to represent people he doesn't represent.
Let mother Russia negotiate for serbs in Kosovo.
(MikeC, 19 November 2011 09:46)
We want to live in Serbia but we do not want Serbia to REPRESENT us???

Northern Kosovo "could declare independence"
--
LOL!! Independence from where? Serbia? The joke of the year!
(Zoran, 18 November 2011 21:18)

It wouldnt actually be to bad an idea, they could invite Russian troops in if they wished, and neither Tadic nor the EU could do anything about it, once a favorable government returns to Serbia, they could re-unify.

"Good!
We will see how many states will recognise the independent 3 town-state of 30 thousand people in North Kosovo.Hahahahaha!You got to be joking!Serbs in North have lost touch with the rest of the world and they still think like in 1990s.
I hope you do asap, because you will lose even more support from the West, those 5 countries who dont recognise Kosova will rush to recognise,and I dont think China and India will support a 3 town state.Remember even 5 countries who dont recognise Kosova are against partition and border changing of Kosova.
Serbs always find a way to make everyone enemy.Even you friends in EU will abandon you.

As a results, albanians in Preseva Valley will declare the independence from Serbia too.
(Mirel from Albania, 18 November 2011 22:00) "

Mirel, you may be interested to know that UN members like Nauru and Tuvalu only have about populations of around 10,000 people each. So, on the basis of population size, "North Kosovo Republic" wouldn't be that out of place sitting in the UN! :)

This is true North Kosovo could declare independence as many Serbs have said on here time after time anyone can declare independence. The question is what would be the point. No country including Serbia is going to recognize them as an independent state. For Serbia to recognize them then they would have to be saying that they recognize Kosovo as independent from Serbia and therefore the North Kosoo people had a right to secede from Kosovo.

Of course it does make more sense than applying to Russia for citizenship.
I don't understand why they resist being under Pristina authority though, the leadership over North Kosovo is not ranking high on the IQ scale right now.

No big analyze needed. The ICJ ruling about the Kosovo UDI didn't mention anything specific to Kosovo - except for the fact that Kosovo is under UN administration , and an UDI doesn't violate UN1244. In fact, you could conclude that everyone group of people has the right to declare themselves independent. But it further explained that an UDI doesn't mean anything, especially not that your 'independent state' must be recognized.
(Analyst, 19 November 2011 18:26)

Of course there is no need for big analysis – it was crystal clear. You need anything more specific to Kosovo and a specific point in time than the answer that the ICJ gave to the question that Vuk asked ?

“The Court is of the opinion that the declaration of independence of Kosovo adopted on 17 February 2008 did not violate international law”

So, yes, the ICJ’s Opinion applies to every entity called “Kosovo” which adopted a declaration of independence on 17 February 2008. Note that even Kosovo’s UDI of 1991 is excluded.

In addition the ICJ opinion nowhere wrote “that an UDI doesn't mean anything”, that’s, of course, result of your pure fantasy, or, alternatively, this is now the beginning of the Serbian version of the ICJ’s Opinion, similar to the famous Serbian version of Resolution 1244 which said much more things than the English version. And poor Vuk tried to use the Serbian version of 1244 at the ICJ :)

Assuming that this report accurately quoted the ICJ president when he was reading the the decision -- "The court considers that general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declaration of independence," Judge Hisashi Owada, president of the ICJ, said in the clear majority ruling delivered in a cavernous hall at the Hague-based ICJ.
(lowe, 20 November 2011 14:24)

Thanks lowe for clarifying the ideas to the "Analyst" that it is the ***GENERAL*** international law that contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence, not the international law.

Declarations of independence can be in accordance with general international law, but still be in violation of international law. But of course the "Analyst" can't understand that by going to the Wikipedia.

Of course I know that the question asked was specific to Kosovo. But not the answer:

From english Wikipedia:

"The president of the ICJ, Justice Hisashi Owada, said that international law contains no "prohibition on declarations of independence". The court also said while the declaration may not have been illegal, the issue of recognition was a political one."
(Analyst, 20 November 2011 09:36)

The Court’s Opinion did not say any of the two statements above. That’s what happens if you go to Wikipedia instead of the Court Opinion itself :) which said, I quote:

“V. GENERAL CONCLUSION
122. The Court has concluded above that the adoption of the declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 did not violate general international law, Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) or the Constitutional Framework. Consequently the adoption of that declaration did not violate any applicable rule of international law.
123. For these reasons,
THE COURT,
Is of the opinion that the declaration of independence of Kosovo adopted on 17 February 2008 did not violate international law.”
----------

--> I especially wrote the words "IN GENERAL" in capitals, so everyone can see that an UDI is not special to Kosovo.
(Analyst, 20 November 2011 09:36)

Yes, that’s why I showed to you above what the “General Conclusion” of the Court was, i.e. specific to Kosovo and specific to a date. You can write whatever you want; it is the Court’s Opinion that matters.
----------

--> Read the last sentence: 'The effect of the UDI will be judged by the individual decisions to recognize Kosovo' which means without recognitions, an UDI has no effect.
(Analyst, 20 November 2011 09:36)

Again, that sentence must be in the famous Serbian version of the ICJ decision, because the English version nowhere says “The effect of the UDI will be judged by the individual decisions to recognize Kosovo”.
----------

I hope this explains a bit. Thank you!
(Analyst, 20 November 2011 09:36)

Absolutely, not just a bit but it fully explained that you are totally wrong in your “General” conclusions :)

Amer, i've heard there is a law that if a region (Kosovo), trying to seccede from a country (Serbia) has got compact enclave, which doesn't want to seccede (N.Kosovo), it has a right to stay within its original country (Serbia).

LOL why not? All it needs is a few recognitions to stay on the map. The "Republic of Kosova" taught us that :)

"Russia wants to remain looking good to the Serbian people but they cannot do what you want so they are sending trinkets."

pss

It's pretty obvious that some serbian leaders in Belgrade are so eager to join the EU even if their own people in Kosovo are facing horrific living conditions under the rule of criminals and terrorists. As long as this government is in power they will do what they can to sell Kosovo for a quick pass to the EU. What idiot politicians in Belgrade fail to understand is that there will be no EU for Serbia regardless of Kosovo sell out. If serbs cannot turn to Russia for help who will they ask: albanians? Russia is the only country who has the power and will to represent serbs in Kosovo and their interests. Trust me when I say that serbs will never be ruled by barbarians.

'I get it they are desperate but their desparation and anxiety comes from the state of limbo they live in'. Miri

Finally something you might be an expert on.

I knew that one day this gona come up, I also know that soon Novi sad, Kragujevac, Niš and so on is going to say we want independence and dont want to be called Serbia. Are you guys so shame of serbia or what?... This is how you telling the world that Albanians were right to do it. If serbs want to declare independence and also dont want nothing to do with Kosovo or Serbia then no wonder why Albanians from Kosovo wanted to walk away from serbia. When i want to look for some jokes of the day, i read serbian politicians headlines and I look no further as they make my day.

Those 5 countries that dont recognise Kosovo???
5 EU countries plus the other 100 or more from the UN member states. Hardly a solid and convincing majority is it?
(UK, 20 November 2011 11:32)

which are these 100 countries which have said they still recognize Kosovo as part of Serbia ? After very hard research, I could unfortunately only find about 20 which have stated that.

@Mirel from Albania.
Next independence... you will be loved???
What to do if your Orthodox northern Albania resolve for independence to join Montenegro. You will forgot Kosovo for two days also would be packaged and fled to Sicily the place from which you came.

"All we know if that the UDI of Kosovo, but just that of 17 Feb 2008, is legal. For other UDI's we don't know anything; they may or may not be illegal. We need to analyze the law applicable to those other UDIs. "
(icj1, 19 November 2011 04:12)

No big analyze needed. The ICJ ruling about the Kosovo UDI didn't mention anything specific to Kosovo - except for the fact that Kosovo is under UN administration , and an UDI doesn't violate UN1244. In fact, you could conclude that everyone group of people has the right to declare themselves independent. But it further explained that an UDI doesn't mean anything, especially not that your 'independent state' must be recognized.

hope you do asap, because you will lose even more support from the West, those 5 countries who dont recognise Kosova will rush to recognise,and I dont think China and India will support a 3 town state.Remember even 5 countries who dont recognise Kosova are against partition and border changing of Kosova.
Serbs always find a way to make everyone enemy.Even you friends in EU will abandon you.

As a results, albanians in Preseva Valley will declare the independence from Serbia too.
(Mirel from Albania, 18 November 2011 22:00)

Those 5 countries that dont recognise Kosovo???
5 EU countries plus the other 100 or more from the UN member states. Hardly a solid and convincing majority is it?

Your claim that ALL roads are barricaded is FALSE -- they did not block the side roads [link].
(lowe, 20 November 2011 05:55)

I was referring precisely to that link. Thanks for providing the same. Yes, drivers are using some side roads, but to where ? The article does not say that. If are assuming that those side roads are to Serbia, those too are patrolled by KFOR and subjected to customs controls for which we all know that some people are allergic :). In any case, those roads are in a very bad condition and driving is very difficult, according to the link that we are referring to.
----------

Your other claim that "they want nothing to do with Serbia" is just as FALSE -- otherwise they would have blocked ALL roads that lead to Serbia.
(lowe, 20 November 2011 05:55)

Dude, even if we use your assumptions, at the minimum, the barricades are making traffic with Serbia very difficult. People who want to have things to do with Serbia, don't take actions that make that very difficult.

In addition, Kosovo Serbs want to get Russian Citizenship and waive the Serbian one.

Further more, we just heard that K. Serbs may declare independence, another evidence that they want nothing to do with Serbia.

The evidence is overwhelming that K. Serbs want nothing to do (physically or legally) with Serbia.

To Analyst with regards to your reply to icj1

Hi, I learned something new from your post, thanks. I was too lazy to read the entire ICJ "ruling" (how it can be a "ruling" when it is non-binding beats me though) and was under the impression that it applied only to the Kosovo UDI.

I came across the following link today:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/07/22/us-serbia-kosovo-idUSTRE66L01720100722

Assuming that this report accurately quoted the ICJ president when he was reading the the decision -- "The court considers that general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declaration of independence," Judge Hisashi Owada, president of the ICJ, said in the clear majority ruling delivered in a cavernous hall at the Hague-based ICJ.
"Accordingly it concludes that the declaration of independence of the 17th of February 2008 did not violate general international law."

The word he used "ACCORDINGLY" is crucial in my opinion. The way I see it now, the ICJ judged that Kosovo's UDI was not in breach of general international law ONLY BECAUSE general international law did not prohibit UDIs, and not because of the quality of the arguments put forth by Pristina and its supporters.

So arising from this, it would seem that Chinatown in Los Angeles, for example, can declare UDI on the flimsiest of reasons and still not break general international law, as can Eskimos, Zulus, inhabitants of Buckingham Palace, etc, etc. Actually I find all this rather amusing. :)

The way I see it now, the ICJ judged that Kosovo's UDI was not in breach of general international law ONLY BECAUSE general international law did not prohibit UDIs, and not because of the quality of the arguments put forth by Pristina and its supporters.
(lowe, 20 November 2011 14:24)

Well, Serbia & Co. argued before the ICJ that general international law prohibits UDIs, whereas Kosovo & Co. argued before the ICJ the opposite. At the end, the ICJ, after considering the arguments of Serbia and Co. and Kosovo & Co. on the matter decided that Serbia & Co. arguments were wrong and Kosovo & Co. arguments were right.

This matter was hottly disputed in the Kosovo case, but, at the end, Kosovo & Co. arguments won.

By the way, lest we forget, the judgement is non-binding.
(lowe, 20 November 2011 15:58
I love this everytime I see a Serb write it. Prior to the ruling (when their balkan pride would not allow them to conceive they were wrong) you could not get a Serb to admit this fact and actually would contradict it.
The west and the Albanians all dismisssed the "opinion" (not judgment) as nonbinding and the Serbs were saying it would be the basis to return Kosovo to the negotiation table, countries to withdraw their recognitions and for Serbia to "sue" the US and others.

I think it would be better to just never mention it than to constantly remind everyone of the egg that was on your face at the time.

"what makes you think that they want to have anything to do with Serbia ?! Don't you see they are erecting barricades in all roads that link them with Serbia - they want nothing to do with Serbia.
(icj1, 19 November 2011 22:42)"

Your claim that ALL roads are barricaded is FALSE -- they did not block the side roads http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=10&dd=23&nav_id=76988.

Your other claim that "they want nothing to do with Serbia" is just as FALSE -- otherwise they would have blocked ALL roads that lead to Serbia.

To (icj1, 19 November 2011 22:36)

Of course I know that the question asked was specific to Kosovo. But not the answer:

From english Wikipedia:

"The president of the ICJ, Justice Hisashi Owada, said that international law contains no "prohibition on declarations of independence". The court also said while the declaration may not have been illegal, the issue of recognition was a political one."

--> No prohibitions on DECLARATIONS on independence, so valid for anyone.

"The court asserted that the declaration of independence was not issued by the Assembly of Kosovo, Provisional Institutions of Self-Government, or any other official body ....
... thus the authors, who named themselves "representatives of the people of Kosovo" were not bound by the Constitutional Framework created by the UNMIK which reserved the international affairs of Kosovo solely to the competency of the UN representative."

--> Only that's why they don't violate UN1244, because some self-declared 'representatitives of the people of Kosovo' haven't been mentioned in UN1244. If any Kosovo official (i.e. provisional institutions, Kosovo assembly) would have been declared independence, they would have violated UN1244.

"Since the authors, were not bound by the framework or by UNSCR1244 that is addressed only to United Nations Member States and organs of the United Nations and since international law doesn't prohibit declarations of independence IN GENERAL the result of the ruling is that the effect of the 2008 unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo will be judged by the decisions by individual states to recognize or not Kosovo."

--> I especially wrote the words "IN GENERAL" in capitals, so everyone can see that an UDI is not special to Kosovo.
--> Read the last sentence: 'The effect of the UDI will be judged by the individual decisions to recognize Kosovo' which means without recognitions, an UDI has no effect.

I hope this explains a bit. Thank you!

“I was referring precisely to that link. Thanks for providing the same. Yes, drivers are using some side roads, but to where ? The article does not say that. If are assuming that those side roads are to Serbia, those too are patrolled by KFOR and subjected to customs controls for which we all know that some people are allergic :). In any case, those roads are in a very bad condition and driving is very difficult, according to the link that we are referring to.”

So you were using this link as your so called evidence ...... now show me where does this report state that the K-Serbs barricaded ALL (your word) the roads to Serbia as claimed by you??????????

The conditions of the roads are immaterial. As long as you are unable to show that the Serbs barricaded ALL roads, your claims that they did fall flat, making your statement FALSE.

This link can be taken together with other B92 reports – for examples http://www.eurasiareview.com/01102011-kosovo-nato%E2%80%99s-actions-illegal-illogical-and-immoral-analysis/ and http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=11&dd=09&nav_id=77253 These links stated that it was Nato/KFor, and not the K-Serbs, who closed alternative routes that bypassed Gate 1 and, to quote the 2nd link, “Oliver Ivanović, said earlier today that although NATO troops closed one of the so-called alternative roads between northern Kosovo and central Serbia, this will not prevent the Serbs from building another alternative road".” Far from closing ALL roads as you claimed, they seem to be building new alternative ones BETWEEN NORTHERN KOSOVO AND CENTRAL SERBIA.


“Dude, even if we use your assumptions, at the minimum, the barricades are making traffic with Serbia very difficult. People who want to have things to do with Serbia, don't take actions that make that very difficult.”

You claimed that the K-Serbs “are erecting barricades in all roads that link them with Serbia - they want nothing to do with Serbia”. But the 2 new links showed instead that far from barricading ALL roads, the K-Serbs in fact built new alternative routes to Serbia proper. Thereby making both your statement and so called evidence FALSE.


“In addition, Kosovo Serbs want to get Russian Citizenship and waive the Serbian one.
Further more, we just heard that K. Serbs may declare independence, another evidence that they want nothing to do with Serbia.

The evidence is overwhelming that K. Serbs want nothing to do (physically or legally) with Serbia.
(icj1, 20 November 2011 13:44)”

Also where is your evidence that K-Serbs are giving up their Serbian citizenship? There’s such a thing as dual citizenship on earth in case you hailed from Mars.

And how is “MAY declare independence” tenable evidence of K-Serbs wanting absolutely NOTHING to do with Serbia???? The word “may”, as opposed to “will”, would indicate uncertainty rather than any firm resolve to want “NOTHING to do with Serbia” .

Really, at the end of the day, I think your so called evidence is neither “overwhelming” nor credible!

"Thanks lowe for clarifying the ideas to the "Analyst" that it is the ***GENERAL*** international law that contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence, not the international law.

Declarations of independence can be in accordance with general international law, but still be in violation of international law. But of course the "Analyst" can't understand that by going to the Wikipedia.
(icj1, 20 November 2011 14:57)"

So how is "general international law" not "international law" when one can violate "international law" but not "general international law"? Are there clear and separate definitions of "general international law" and "international law"? Do share with us your expertise ...... thanks in advance.

"Well, Serbia & Co. argued before the ICJ that general international law prohibits UDIs, whereas Kosovo & Co. argued before the ICJ the opposite. At the end, the ICJ, after considering the arguments of Serbia and Co. and Kosovo & Co. on the matter decided that Serbia & Co. arguments were wrong and Kosovo & Co. arguments were right.

This matter was hottly disputed in the Kosovo case, but, at the end, Kosovo & Co. arguments won.
(icj1, 20 November 2011 15:38)"

That's not what I understand from the link that I quoted and which I assumed to be accurate unless shown otherwise. The ICJ president stated that "The court considers that general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declaration of independence," and then
"Accordingly it concludes that the declaration of independence of the 17th of February 2008 did not violate general international law." The word "accordingly" is vital and should mean that the reason for Kosovo's UDI not breaching international law was because general international law did not prohibit UDIs. The president did not state that Kosovo's UDI did not breach international law because Pristina's arguments were sound and Belgrade's were not -- unless you can point out to me where he said this.

By the way, lest we forget, the judgement is non-binding.

"Well, Serbia & Co. argued before the ICJ that general international law prohibits UDIs, whereas Kosovo & Co. argued before the ICJ the opposite. At the end, the ICJ, after considering the arguments of Serbia and Co. and Kosovo & Co. on the matter decided that Serbia & Co. arguments were wrong and Kosovo & Co. arguments were right. "
(icj1, 20 November 2011 15:38)

Great! Now you finally got it: The ICJ ruled that general international laws don't prohibit UDIs - it was asked by Serbia about Kosovo, which served as an example. But the ruling was clearly a general one and in no way specific to Kosovo (except for UN1244 which wasn't violated, neither, because no Kosovo official but some 'representatives of the people of Kosovo' declared the UDI - very tricky, btw., members of the Kosovo temporary administration would have violated UN1244 by declaring an UDI)

The word he used "ACCORDINGLY" is crucial in my opinion. The way I see it now, the ICJ judged that Kosovo's UDI was not in breach of general international law ONLY BECAUSE general international law did not prohibit UDIs, and not because of the quality of the arguments put forth by Pristina and its supporters.
(lowe, 20 November 2011 14:24)

Exactly. To say it in one simple sentence: An UDI is legal, because there's no internationl law that forbids it.

"So arising from this, it would seem that Chinatown in Los Angeles, for example, can declare UDI on the flimsiest of reasons and still not break general international law, as can Eskimos, Zulus, inhabitants of Buckingham Palace, etc, etc. Actually I find all this rather amusing. :)"

Yes, but it doesn't change anything since an UDI doesn't mean anything, because the effect only comes when states recognize that UDI 'country'.

Declarations of independence can be in accordance with general international law, but still be in violation of international law. But of course the "Analyst" can't understand that by going to the Wikipedia.
(icj1, 20 November 2011 14:57)"

Killing people can violate Kosovo laws, but killing Serbs can by in accordance with Kosovo laws? :)

"I love this everytime I see a Serb write it. Prior to the ruling (when their balkan pride would not allow them to conceive they were wrong) you could not get a Serb to admit this fact and actually would contradict it.
The west and the Albanians all dismisssed the "opinion" (not judgment) as nonbinding and the Serbs were saying it would be the basis to return Kosovo to the negotiation table, countries to withdraw their recognitions and for Serbia to "sue" the US and others.

I think it would be better to just never mention it than to constantly remind everyone of the egg that was on your face at the time.
(an observation, 20 November 2011 20:24) "

Well then, there's nothing I love more right now than to disappoint you utterly -- I'm not a Serb or from Serbia -- I'm not even in the Balkans. You don't need to be any particular ethnic group to know that the ICJ advisory was non-binding and unenforceable. This is a fact which no amount of eggs on whoever's face can overturn. For your info, I never did thought it a good idea for Belgrade to submit something to ICJ that would be non-obligatory in the first place.

Declarations of independence can be in accordance with general international law, but still be in violation of international law. But of course the "Analyst" can't understand that by going to the Wikipedia.
(icj1, 20 November 2011 14:57)"

Killing people can violate Kosovo laws, but killing Serbs can by in accordance with Kosovo laws? :)
(J.Oker, 20 November 2011 22:23)

Nope my friend, because you are comparing “Kosovo laws” with “Kosovo laws”, which is the same thing. I was comparing “general international law” with “international law” which is not the same thing. But, I understand you since even the very analytical mind of the "Analyst" repeatedly failed to grasp the concept. This is not the forum to have law classes, so if you want to educate yourself further on the matter, you can go and take some Law 101 class.
----------

The word he used "ACCORDINGLY" is crucial in my opinion. The way I see it now, the ICJ judged that Kosovo's UDI was not in breach of general international law ONLY BECAUSE general international law did not prohibit UDIs, and not because of the quality of the arguments put forth by Pristina and its supporters.
(lowe, 20 November 2011 14:24)

Well, in order to say “accordingly” the Court first had to establish that “general international law” does not prohibit DIs, as you correctly stated. General international law is not written in a code, it’s a matter of interpretation of the practice of the states. So the Court had to decide what the general international law is. Serbia & Co. interpreted it as general international law prohibits DIs and provided the arguments why; Kosovo & Co. interpreted it as general international law does not prohibit DIs and provided the arguments why. The Court decided that Kosovo’s arguments where more persuasive and agreed with the interpretation that general international law does not prohibit DIs. Only ****AFTER*** that was settled, accordingly it concluded that the declaration of independence of the 17th of February 2008 did not violate ***GENERAL*** international law.

"Accordingly" would have been there either way. If the Court had decided that Serbia & Co. was correct and general international law prohibits DIs, accordingly would have decided that the Kosovo's UDI of 17 Feb 2008 did violate general international law.

So the crucial thing was the intepretation of general international law whether it prohibited DIs or not. The connclusion for Kosovo then follows accordingly.
----------

Great! Now you finally got it: The ICJ ruled that general international laws don't prohibit UDIs - it was asked by Serbia about Kosovo, which served as an example. But the ruling was clearly a general one and in no way specific to Kosovo (except for UN1244 which wasn't violated, neither, because no Kosovo official but some 'representatives of the people of Kosovo' declared the UDI - very tricky, btw., members of the Kosovo temporary administration would have violated UN1244 by declaring an UDI)
(Analyst, 20 November 2011 22:01)

I knew it for a long time my friend that ***GENERAL*** international law does not prohibit DIs. You just learned it, because in the prior post you said that “international law” does not prohibit DIs, which is false.

So, yes, the courts opinion in regards to "general international law" was general, but in regards to "international law" was specific to Kosovo and specific to a date. I showed it to you, but obviously you prefer Wikipedia for your "analysis" rather than the Court opinion itself which said:

"The Court, is of the opinion that the declaration of independence of Kosovo adopted on 17 February 2008 did not violate international law.”

There is nothing there that would cover, say, Basques in Spain, unless they change the name to Kosovo and date the DI retroactively to 17 Feb 2008 :).

But if you are so convinced that you are correct, just show us where the Court decided that “international law does not prohibit DIs”.
----------

Exactly. To say it in one simple sentence: An UDI is legal, because there's no internationl law that forbids it.
(Analyst, 20 November 2011 22:13)

Dear “Analyst”, your analytical analysis is again false. Nobody has said that “there's no internationl law that forbids a UDI".
----------

"So arising from this, it would seem that Chinatown in Los Angeles, for example, can declare UDI on the flimsiest of reasons and still not break general international law, as can Eskimos, Zulus, inhabitants of Buckingham Palace, etc, etc. Actually I find all this rather amusing. :)"
(Analyst, 20 November 2011 22:13)

Now you finally got it; yes an eventual DI of Chinatown in LA, will not break general international law. But that does not mean it does not violate international law.
----------

Yes, but it doesn't change anything since an UDI doesn't mean anything, because the effect only comes when states recognize that UDI 'country'.
(Analyst, 20 November 2011 22:13)

“UDI doesn't mean anything” is your opinion, but, of course it does not count. But, at least, we are making some progress because in your post of 19 November 2011 18:26 you said that it was the Court that “explained that an UDI doesn't mean anything”, which was obviously false. Those were and are your words, not Court’s words.

(lowe, 20 November 2011 15:30)

dear lowe, I submitted to you the answers, and you know them. Up to you if you want the rest of the forum to read them :)

Well then, there's nothing I love more right now than to disappoint you utterly -- I'm not a Serb or from Serbia -- I'm not even in the Balkans.
(lowe, 21 November 2011 03:25)
Maybe yes, maybe no-- no excitement, no disappointment. The one thing I have learned since starting to read this forum is people here can be anyone they want.
There are financial wizards charting the empires, reading B92 and posting daily.
There are persons of "staff" who sit in top secret meetings in half the countries of the world and come here to reveal what no one else knows and that which has never been in print.
There are Serbs pretending to be Albanians, Americans, Russians, Kfor ex Kfor, Eulex, and UNMIK. There are Albanians doing pretty much the same but usually not to the huge extent.
So whether you are Serb, a descendent, live in Serbia, or in Atlantis, it matters not, your ideologies are as Serbian as Serb can get.

"Maybe yes, maybe no-- no excitement, no disappointment. The one thing I have learned since starting to read this forum is people here can be anyone they want.
There are financial wizards charting the empires, reading B92 and posting daily.
There are persons of "staff" who sit in top secret meetings in half the countries of the world and come here to reveal what no one else knows and that which has never been in print.
There are Serbs pretending to be Albanians, Americans, Russians, Kfor ex Kfor, Eulex, and UNMIK. There are Albanians doing pretty much the same but usually not to the huge extent.
So whether you are Serb, a descendent, live in Serbia, or in Atlantis, it matters not, your ideologies are as Serbian as Serb can get.
(an observation, 21 November 2011 22:36)"

I told you I am not Serb or Serbian because I thought you didn't know. If you don't believe me, its hardly my problem. Its not as if I put your opinions about me on a pedestal.

"dear lowe, I submitted to you the answers, and you know them. Up to you if you want the rest of the forum to read them :)
(icj1, 21 November 2011 17:40)"

where did you submit whatever answers to whichever questions that I ought to know??????

"Well, in order to say “accordingly” the Court first had to establish that “general international law” does not prohibit DIs, as you correctly stated. General international law is not written in a code, it’s a matter of interpretation of the practice of the states. So the Court had to decide what the general international law is. Serbia & Co. interpreted it as general international law prohibits DIs and provided the arguments why; Kosovo & Co. interpreted it as general international law does not prohibit DIs and provided the arguments why. The Court decided that Kosovo’s arguments where more persuasive and agreed with the interpretation that general international law does not prohibit DIs. Only ****AFTER*** that was settled, accordingly it concluded that the declaration of independence of the 17th of February 2008 did not violate ***GENERAL*** international law.

"Accordingly" would have been there either way. If the Court had decided that Serbia & Co. was correct and general international law prohibits DIs, accordingly would have decided that the Kosovo's UDI of 17 Feb 2008 did violate general international law.

So the crucial thing was the intepretation of general international law whether it prohibited DIs or not. The connclusion for Kosovo then follows accordingly.
----------

(icj1, 21 November 2011 17:38)"

At the end of the day, I'm still no clearer as to the difference between general international law and international law ..... and seems strange to me that general international law has no code and is moreover open to interpretation on one hand (ie. vague?), and yet reverently used to by ICJ in its formal advisory as a fact.

At the end of the day, I'm still no clearer as to the difference between general international law and international law .....
(lowe, 22 November 2011 06:36)

Well, without getting too technical as this is not the forum for law classes, the “international law” governing a specific factual situation is composed of “general international law” and “special international law”. The first applies to all situations; the latter only applies to the specific factual situation. For example, in the specific case of Kosovo, the applicable “general international law” provisions are things like the principle of territorial integrity, principle of self-determination, principle of remedial secession, etc. The “special international law provisions” are Resolution 1244 and the Constitutional Framework which only govern Kosovo, and not, say, Zimbabwe. In order to be in accordance with “international law”, Kosovo’s UDI had to be in accordance with both “general international law” AND “special international law”.
----------

and seems strange to me that general international law has no code and is moreover open to interpretation on one hand (ie. vague?),
(lowe, 22 November 2011 06:36)

Well, my friend, all laws are open to interpretation, even the written ones, otherwise judges worldwide would join the ranks of the jobless :). That's why people go to Court (like Vuk did) to get the one authoritative interpretation. And yes, general international law is not written in a code, because the world does not have a legislative body which makes international laws. The sources of general international law are things like international customary law, UN law, multilateral treaties, past ICJ judgments and opinions, etc.
----------

and yet reverently used to by ICJ in its formal advisory as a fact.
(lowe, 22 November 2011 06:36)

Well, it’s required by the UN Charter to use it (both the general and the particular international law). The law is not a fact and nobody used the law as a fact. The law was used to analyze the facts. The laws don’t have to be written to be laws. UK does not even have a written constitution.

icj1

Thanks for your detailed explanation. I still find the apparent arbitrariness of general international law unsettling, especially the possibility of its different interpretation by different judges -- because what they decide can then affect peoples and countries.

Thanks for your detailed explanation. I still find the apparent arbitrariness of general international law unsettling, especially the possibility of its different interpretation by different judges -- because what they decide can then affect peoples and countries.
(lowe, 23 November 2011 11:57)

Well, that's why the ICJ exists, to provide one single interpretation of the international law and the ICJ itself is bound by its prior decisions; it can't change its prior interpretations at its whim.

Nothing is arbitrary. It's not that the ICJ judges wake up one morning and say, this is what the general international law is. In every case, it takes months or years to analyze the written or customary practice of states for hundreds of years to come to the conclusion what the general international law is.

Just take for example the 600+ pages Serbia sent to the ICJ for the Kosovo case. Serbia did not just say, this is what I think the general international law is - it also submitted hundreds of pages with analysis of the practice of states in support of Serbia's interpretation of what the general international law is.

Part of the general international law is codified/written these days, but not being codified does not mean it's not the law. For example, the diplomatic immunity was part of the general international law for hundreds, if not thousands, of years before it was codified (written) in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations some 50 years ago.