Continuation of dialogue uncertain, daily claims

ardi, where in the world did you come up with that theory? Resolution 1244 is still very much in force, as only the UNSC can void it's own resolution, and not an ICJ opinion, understand, OPINION? Besides, the ICJ stated that the "act" of declaring a UDI was not illegal, but that in fact did not make Kosovo an independent state. It was worded that way on purpose, so that both sides could claim victory - kind of what the EU would like to see now from Belgrade and Pristina concerning regional representation. Remember, everyone's gotta be happy, or the game can't continue.

Correct. But that's exactly the case in reality - Kosovo's status is not solved, that's why UN1244 is in force - until a solution has been reached.
(Comm. Parrisson, 19 February 2012 13:18)

Res 1244 do not state that Kosova is serbian territory and it exist only because of Russian veto.

As for the status of Kosova we the people of Kosova have settled that status forever. You can either recognize it or not. But Serbia will never put it's foot in Kosova ´that's for sure.

"ICJ decision supersedes 1244R. Therefore, Serbia is shooting itself on the foot once again.
(ardi asllani, 19 February 2012 12:43)"

ardi asllani must hail from the Twilight Zone where ICJ and 1244 are concerned! Talk about empty vessels making the most noise!

The Legal approach to this matter is the only way forward, and it shows that Serbia is being reasonable.

There are those who are looking for an Illegal option, citing their traditional approach to matters, and displaying their lack of reasonableness.

It should not surprise us if we hear certain versions of past events as justifications for current attitudes, but they need to learn that two wrongs can never make a right.

International Court of Justice’s opinion that the act of declaring the independence was not contrary to the international law should be written besides Kosovo’s name.

ICJ decision supersedes 1244R. Therefore, Serbia is shooting itself on the foot once again.

The same source claims that Priština is not satisfied with the solution “because the Resolution speaks of a temporary, transitional solution, which means that Kosovo’s status de jure has not been solved”.

Correct. But that's exactly the case in reality - Kosovo's status is not solved, that's why UN1244 is in force - until a solution has been reached.

"As for the status of Kosova we the people of Kosova have settled that status forever. You can either recognize it or not. But Serbia will never put it's foot in Kosova ´that's for sure."
(Demi, 19 February 2012 15:34)

And Serbs believe, too, that they settled Kosovo's status with including 'Kosovo is Serbia' in their constitution. Funny, isn't it? Obviously, both sides prefer to live in illusions, dreams and wishful thinking instead of facing reality, which is: On a global level, Kosovo is a disputed territory (disputed means: status not settled), and is neither Serbia nor an independent and recognized country.

"Dear, ICJ's opinion said nowhere "the "act" of declaring a UDI was not illegal, but that in fact did not make Kosovo an independent state".
(icj1, 19 February 2012 20:25)

From the ICJ ruling:

"51. In the present case, the question posed by the General Assembly is clearly formulated. The question is narrow and specific; it asks for the Court’s opinion on whether or not the declaration of independence is in accordance with international law. It does not ask about the legal consequences of that declaration. In particular, it does not ask whether or not Kosovo has achieved
statehood. Nor does it ask about the validity or legal effects of the recognition of Kosovo by those States which have recognized it as an independent State."

So yes, the ICJ didn't say that the UDI did not make Kosovo an independent state. The ICJ answered the question about the legality of an UDI. But as we can read above, the ICJ explicitely mentioned the narrow question: The ICJ said nothing about the statehood, neither positive or negative. And it doesn't say anything about the legal consequences of that declaration.

So if someone claims: The ICJ confirmed that Kosovo is a state, it's simply wrong. The ICJ only ruled an UDI is in accordance with international law - nothing more, nothing less, not about statehood of Kosovo, not about legality of consequences of an UDI.

"Finding of a solution for Kosovo’s regional representation is one of the main conditions for Serbia to get the EU candidate status"

Oh, I see... so the incentive for the Kosovo Albanians is to drag this out as long as possible

And Serbs believe, too, that they settled Kosovo's status with including 'Kosovo is Serbia' in their constitution.
(Comm. Parrisson, 19 February 2012 16:35)

That's good, then... question solved. For each party the status is solved. Kosovo Albanians couldn't care less about what happens in Serbia. Serbia, too, is free to not care about what happens in Kosovo.

The same source claims that Priština is not satisfied with the solution “because the Resolution speaks of a temporary, transitional solution, which means that Kosovo’s status de jure has not been solved”.

That's correct. It isn't resolved.

ICJ decision supersedes 1244R. Therefore, Serbia is shooting itself on the foot once again.
(ardi asllani, 19 February 2012 12:43)

A non-binding recommendation supercedes an internationally recognized resolution? No wonder international officals constantly need to speak on behalf of you people.

I rarely comment, but I'm fed up with the general level of ignorance on this ICJ opinion, from citizens to international bodies and countries.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice_advisory_opinion_on_Kosovo%27s_declaration_of_independence): "Whether the declaration was in fact an official act of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government was unclear, in the end, the Court determined it was issued by "representatives of the people of Kosovo" acting outside the normal Provisional Institutions of Self-Government."

I read the whole of the majority opinion, and much of the dissenting opinions (some of the dissenters were clearly digusted and ashamed by the majority opinion). The majority opinion was that the declaration of independence was not an 'official' one, by the then-government of KiM, and that any non-official groups around the world in the past had always been free to make such declarations under international law. So, because the KiM declaration was deliberately not made at a normally-convened session of the parliament/assembly, and was then deliberately not entered into the official parliamentary record, the court was able to wriggle out of saying that the declaration came under the restrictions of International Law (which include Resolution 1244 and all other similar resolutions). It was an obviously corrupt lie, and some of the dissenting opinions said as much.

The ICJ decision was then immediately spun around the world as "Kosovo made an official UDI and the ICJ ruled that it was legal, so Kosovo is the newest country", every single bit of which is false.

Given that the ICJ participates in this kind of deception, what hope for any other international body to provide fair treatment for all? None at all.

But there you go, the world still turns, and as an old Chinese man once said to me, "If the sky falls in, we can use it as a blanket." :)

Besides, the ICJ stated that the "act" of declaring a UDI was not illegal, but that in fact did not make Kosovo an independent state. It was worded that way on purpose,
(PapaJohn, 19 February 2012 14:04)

here we have another one that claims ICJ wrote this and that, without reading the ICJ opinion.

Dear, ICJ's opinion said nowhere "the "act" of declaring a UDI was not illegal, but that in fact did not make Kosovo an independent state".

This is starting to sound like the famous words that according to 1244 Kosovo UDI is illegal. It was enough for somebody to say those words, and Serbs starting to repeat those ad nauseam and convincing themselves that 1244 really said that without taking a minute to actually read what 1244 said. Poor Vuk went even further; he convinced himself so much about those words that he even went to the ICJ LOL

Let's assume they agree on how Kosovo's name will be represented...are they also agreeing on font size? Name can be font 16 and ICJ/1244 footnote would have to be font 8 or smaller --- it's like a paragraph long.

Food for thought.


Sincerely,

"Bottom line is that the "the declaration of independence of Kosovo adopted on 17 February 2008 did not violate international law""



No, icj1, according to the ICJ, you are wrong when you say that KiM made a declaration of independence; the ICJ opined that there was no UDI at all because the declaration was not made by the government of KiM.

In the real world, there was a declaration of independence which was official enough to be illegal under so-called International Law, and particularly Resolution 1244. But the ICJ refused to answer that question. It was corrupt and cowardly of the majority judges, but par for the course.

Anyone who relies on that ICJ opinion to justify KiM being an independent country is attempting to fly on a magic carpet supported only by propaganda - the carpet does not actually fly, but you can still believe that it does if you close your eyes and wish hard enough! ;) :P

A non-binding recommendation supercedes an internationally recognized resolution? No wonder international officals constantly need to speak on behalf of you people.
(Balkan Anthropologist, 19 February 2012 19:49)


UN 1244 (1999) = non-binding
ICJ's Ruling (2010) = non-binding


Keep in mind:

All United Nations General Assembly resolutions that are not about matters internal to the UN (such as the structure of the UN or the creation of UN agencies) are inherently and explicitly (in the UN Charter) non-binding.



The ICJ's Ruling is more recent and weighs more political value hence why it supersedes....



Sincerely,

Let's assume they agree on how Kosovo's name will be represented...are they also agreeing on font size? Name can be font 16 and ICJ/1244 footnote would have to be font 8 or smaller --- it's like a paragraph long.
Food for thought.
(KOSO, 19 February 2012 20:46)

I think they will agree that Serbia representatives will always seat close to Kosovo's so they can read the note without the use of binoculars and make sure they are not being cheated LOL

I rarely comment, but I'm fed up with the general level of ignorance on this ICJ opinion, from citizens to international bodies and countries.

From Wikipedia ([link]): "Whether the declaration was in fact an official act of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government was unclear, in the end, the Court determined it was issued by "representatives of the people of Kosovo" acting outside the normal Provisional Institutions of Self-Government."

I read the whole of the majority opinion, and much of the dissenting opinions (some of the dissenters were clearly digusted and ashamed by the majority opinion). The majority opinion was that the declaration of independence was not an 'official' one, by the then-government of KiM, and that any non-official groups around the world in the past had always been free to make such declarations under international law. So, because the KiM declaration was deliberately not made at a normally-convened session of the parliament/assembly, and was then deliberately not entered into the official parliamentary record, the court was able to wriggle out of saying that the declaration came under the restrictions of International Law (which include Resolution 1244 and all other similar resolutions). It was an obviously corrupt lie, and some of the dissenting opinions said as much.

The ICJ decision was then immediately spun around the world as "Kosovo made an official UDI and the ICJ ruled that it was legal, so Kosovo is the newest country", every single bit of which is false.

Given that the ICJ participates in this kind of deception, what hope for any other international body to provide fair treatment for all? None at all.

But there you go, the world still turns, and as an old Chinese man once said to me, "If the sky falls in, we can use it as a blanket." :)
(ICJ actual ruling, 20 February 2012 06:31)

Dear, I didn't understand much what your point was and how much it will help with the "general level of ignorance on this ICJ opinion".

Bottom line is that the "the declaration of independence of Kosovo adopted on 17 February 2008 did not violate international law"

The rest can be discussed as much as we like for academic purposes :)

International Court of Justice’s opinion that the act of declaring the independence was not contrary to the international law should be written besides Kosovo’s name.

ICJ decision supersedes 1244R. Therefore, Serbia is shooting itself on the foot once again.

Correct. But that's exactly the case in reality - Kosovo's status is not solved, that's why UN1244 is in force - until a solution has been reached.
(Comm. Parrisson, 19 February 2012 13:18)

Res 1244 do not state that Kosova is serbian territory and it exist only because of Russian veto.

As for the status of Kosova we the people of Kosova have settled that status forever. You can either recognize it or not. But Serbia will never put it's foot in Kosova ´that's for sure.

ardi, where in the world did you come up with that theory? Resolution 1244 is still very much in force, as only the UNSC can void it's own resolution, and not an ICJ opinion, understand, OPINION? Besides, the ICJ stated that the "act" of declaring a UDI was not illegal, but that in fact did not make Kosovo an independent state. It was worded that way on purpose, so that both sides could claim victory - kind of what the EU would like to see now from Belgrade and Pristina concerning regional representation. Remember, everyone's gotta be happy, or the game can't continue.

The same source claims that Priština is not satisfied with the solution “because the Resolution speaks of a temporary, transitional solution, which means that Kosovo’s status de jure has not been solved”.

Correct. But that's exactly the case in reality - Kosovo's status is not solved, that's why UN1244 is in force - until a solution has been reached.

The Legal approach to this matter is the only way forward, and it shows that Serbia is being reasonable.

There are those who are looking for an Illegal option, citing their traditional approach to matters, and displaying their lack of reasonableness.

It should not surprise us if we hear certain versions of past events as justifications for current attitudes, but they need to learn that two wrongs can never make a right.

"Finding of a solution for Kosovo’s regional representation is one of the main conditions for Serbia to get the EU candidate status"

Oh, I see... so the incentive for the Kosovo Albanians is to drag this out as long as possible

"ICJ decision supersedes 1244R. Therefore, Serbia is shooting itself on the foot once again.
(ardi asllani, 19 February 2012 12:43)"

ardi asllani must hail from the Twilight Zone where ICJ and 1244 are concerned! Talk about empty vessels making the most noise!

"As for the status of Kosova we the people of Kosova have settled that status forever. You can either recognize it or not. But Serbia will never put it's foot in Kosova ´that's for sure."
(Demi, 19 February 2012 15:34)

And Serbs believe, too, that they settled Kosovo's status with including 'Kosovo is Serbia' in their constitution. Funny, isn't it? Obviously, both sides prefer to live in illusions, dreams and wishful thinking instead of facing reality, which is: On a global level, Kosovo is a disputed territory (disputed means: status not settled), and is neither Serbia nor an independent and recognized country.

The same source claims that Priština is not satisfied with the solution “because the Resolution speaks of a temporary, transitional solution, which means that Kosovo’s status de jure has not been solved”.

That's correct. It isn't resolved.

ICJ decision supersedes 1244R. Therefore, Serbia is shooting itself on the foot once again.
(ardi asllani, 19 February 2012 12:43)

A non-binding recommendation supercedes an internationally recognized resolution? No wonder international officals constantly need to speak on behalf of you people.

Besides, the ICJ stated that the "act" of declaring a UDI was not illegal, but that in fact did not make Kosovo an independent state. It was worded that way on purpose,
(PapaJohn, 19 February 2012 14:04)

here we have another one that claims ICJ wrote this and that, without reading the ICJ opinion.

Dear, ICJ's opinion said nowhere "the "act" of declaring a UDI was not illegal, but that in fact did not make Kosovo an independent state".

This is starting to sound like the famous words that according to 1244 Kosovo UDI is illegal. It was enough for somebody to say those words, and Serbs starting to repeat those ad nauseam and convincing themselves that 1244 really said that without taking a minute to actually read what 1244 said. Poor Vuk went even further; he convinced himself so much about those words that he even went to the ICJ LOL

And Serbs believe, too, that they settled Kosovo's status with including 'Kosovo is Serbia' in their constitution.
(Comm. Parrisson, 19 February 2012 16:35)

That's good, then... question solved. For each party the status is solved. Kosovo Albanians couldn't care less about what happens in Serbia. Serbia, too, is free to not care about what happens in Kosovo.

Let's assume they agree on how Kosovo's name will be represented...are they also agreeing on font size? Name can be font 16 and ICJ/1244 footnote would have to be font 8 or smaller --- it's like a paragraph long.

Food for thought.


Sincerely,

A non-binding recommendation supercedes an internationally recognized resolution? No wonder international officals constantly need to speak on behalf of you people.
(Balkan Anthropologist, 19 February 2012 19:49)


UN 1244 (1999) = non-binding
ICJ's Ruling (2010) = non-binding


Keep in mind:

All United Nations General Assembly resolutions that are not about matters internal to the UN (such as the structure of the UN or the creation of UN agencies) are inherently and explicitly (in the UN Charter) non-binding.



The ICJ's Ruling is more recent and weighs more political value hence why it supersedes....



Sincerely,

Let's assume they agree on how Kosovo's name will be represented...are they also agreeing on font size? Name can be font 16 and ICJ/1244 footnote would have to be font 8 or smaller --- it's like a paragraph long.
Food for thought.
(KOSO, 19 February 2012 20:46)

I think they will agree that Serbia representatives will always seat close to Kosovo's so they can read the note without the use of binoculars and make sure they are not being cheated LOL

I rarely comment, but I'm fed up with the general level of ignorance on this ICJ opinion, from citizens to international bodies and countries.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice_advisory_opinion_on_Kosovo%27s_declaration_of_independence): "Whether the declaration was in fact an official act of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government was unclear, in the end, the Court determined it was issued by "representatives of the people of Kosovo" acting outside the normal Provisional Institutions of Self-Government."

I read the whole of the majority opinion, and much of the dissenting opinions (some of the dissenters were clearly digusted and ashamed by the majority opinion). The majority opinion was that the declaration of independence was not an 'official' one, by the then-government of KiM, and that any non-official groups around the world in the past had always been free to make such declarations under international law. So, because the KiM declaration was deliberately not made at a normally-convened session of the parliament/assembly, and was then deliberately not entered into the official parliamentary record, the court was able to wriggle out of saying that the declaration came under the restrictions of International Law (which include Resolution 1244 and all other similar resolutions). It was an obviously corrupt lie, and some of the dissenting opinions said as much.

The ICJ decision was then immediately spun around the world as "Kosovo made an official UDI and the ICJ ruled that it was legal, so Kosovo is the newest country", every single bit of which is false.

Given that the ICJ participates in this kind of deception, what hope for any other international body to provide fair treatment for all? None at all.

But there you go, the world still turns, and as an old Chinese man once said to me, "If the sky falls in, we can use it as a blanket." :)

"Dear, ICJ's opinion said nowhere "the "act" of declaring a UDI was not illegal, but that in fact did not make Kosovo an independent state".
(icj1, 19 February 2012 20:25)

From the ICJ ruling:

"51. In the present case, the question posed by the General Assembly is clearly formulated. The question is narrow and specific; it asks for the Court’s opinion on whether or not the declaration of independence is in accordance with international law. It does not ask about the legal consequences of that declaration. In particular, it does not ask whether or not Kosovo has achieved
statehood. Nor does it ask about the validity or legal effects of the recognition of Kosovo by those States which have recognized it as an independent State."

So yes, the ICJ didn't say that the UDI did not make Kosovo an independent state. The ICJ answered the question about the legality of an UDI. But as we can read above, the ICJ explicitely mentioned the narrow question: The ICJ said nothing about the statehood, neither positive or negative. And it doesn't say anything about the legal consequences of that declaration.

So if someone claims: The ICJ confirmed that Kosovo is a state, it's simply wrong. The ICJ only ruled an UDI is in accordance with international law - nothing more, nothing less, not about statehood of Kosovo, not about legality of consequences of an UDI.

I rarely comment, but I'm fed up with the general level of ignorance on this ICJ opinion, from citizens to international bodies and countries.

From Wikipedia ([link]): "Whether the declaration was in fact an official act of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government was unclear, in the end, the Court determined it was issued by "representatives of the people of Kosovo" acting outside the normal Provisional Institutions of Self-Government."

I read the whole of the majority opinion, and much of the dissenting opinions (some of the dissenters were clearly digusted and ashamed by the majority opinion). The majority opinion was that the declaration of independence was not an 'official' one, by the then-government of KiM, and that any non-official groups around the world in the past had always been free to make such declarations under international law. So, because the KiM declaration was deliberately not made at a normally-convened session of the parliament/assembly, and was then deliberately not entered into the official parliamentary record, the court was able to wriggle out of saying that the declaration came under the restrictions of International Law (which include Resolution 1244 and all other similar resolutions). It was an obviously corrupt lie, and some of the dissenting opinions said as much.

The ICJ decision was then immediately spun around the world as "Kosovo made an official UDI and the ICJ ruled that it was legal, so Kosovo is the newest country", every single bit of which is false.

Given that the ICJ participates in this kind of deception, what hope for any other international body to provide fair treatment for all? None at all.

But there you go, the world still turns, and as an old Chinese man once said to me, "If the sky falls in, we can use it as a blanket." :)
(ICJ actual ruling, 20 February 2012 06:31)

Dear, I didn't understand much what your point was and how much it will help with the "general level of ignorance on this ICJ opinion".

Bottom line is that the "the declaration of independence of Kosovo adopted on 17 February 2008 did not violate international law"

The rest can be discussed as much as we like for academic purposes :)

"Bottom line is that the "the declaration of independence of Kosovo adopted on 17 February 2008 did not violate international law""



No, icj1, according to the ICJ, you are wrong when you say that KiM made a declaration of independence; the ICJ opined that there was no UDI at all because the declaration was not made by the government of KiM.

In the real world, there was a declaration of independence which was official enough to be illegal under so-called International Law, and particularly Resolution 1244. But the ICJ refused to answer that question. It was corrupt and cowardly of the majority judges, but par for the course.

Anyone who relies on that ICJ opinion to justify KiM being an independent country is attempting to fly on a magic carpet supported only by propaganda - the carpet does not actually fly, but you can still believe that it does if you close your eyes and wish hard enough! ;) :P