| |
|
|
 |
ICJ conclusion on Kosovo "will be neutral" |
| |
20 November
2009 |
 |
|
|
ICJ President Hisashi Owada says that the advisory opinion concerning the legality of the Kosovo Albanian UDI would not be "a clear yes or no".
The proceedings at the International Court of Justice in The Hague in this case are ongoing. Last year, Serbia asked for the court to give its opinion on whether the February 2008 unilateral proclamation of independence by Kosovo's ethnic Albanians was legal.
"It will be necessary to read the answer thoroughly, since the judges can have different opinions," Owada told RIA Novosti.
He explained that the court's conclusion would be on 30 pages, and that the document would "simply have to be studied".
The ICJ will hold an open discussion on the issue December 1-11, 2009, and it is expected that the judges will deliver their opinion a few months after, says the Russian agency. |
|
Comments: 53
|
|
| Comments |
|
| |
|
| • |
hmmmmm that tell me something.MR AHTISARI never said that kosovo will become independece but his plan lead to independece.
(KING ZOG, 20 November 2009, 10:19) |
| |
|
| • |
Even if it was a yes or no kind of decision, it really wouldn't change much since both sides are not going to change their position.
The bombing of Serbia wasn't legal in the first place and war crimes were committed by NATO so why would anyone expect the courts decision to change anything when the occupiers obviously have no respect for international law?
It is just like all of those insignificant recognitions. They change absolutely nothing. In the case of New Zealand's apparent recognition, it wasn't even reported in their press and there was no offical government announcement. What's the point of it?
The reality on the ground is that Kosovo is under occupation although legally Serbian territory. Independence is irreversibly blocked while neither ethnic Albanians, Serbians or the occupiers have full control over the territory. The status quo remains and this will be the case for a while to come.
(Zoran, 20 November 2009, 10:19) |
| |
|
| • |
That doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusion will be a fudged "middle ground, keep everyone happy" politicised outcome.
All it means is that, not surprisingly, the conclusion document will be lengthy and need to be read in full rather than being short enough for a tabloid headline.
Let's hope that it's weighty due to factual accuracy and real legal consideration, in which case even 30 pages will have clarity.
(kate, 20 November 2009, 10:24) |
| |
|
| • |
That was predicted at the start of proceedings by our most nuanced and pragmatic posters here like Mike. The ICJ will fudge this issue and Kosovo will remain in limbo until such a time that Pristina is compelled to talk to Belgrade.
Speaking of fudge, i'll be enjoying some at my tea break this morning.
(Niall O'Doherty, 20 November 2009, 10:32) |
| |
|
| • |
Also the ICJ court has the right not to give an opinion at all. Otherwise they will say is not within our authority to give an opinion on this issue.
Serb politicians knew this alll along, but they did it for public consumtion andin the end they willtelltheir people, that we have tried our best.
(Kosova-USA, 20 November 2009, 11:14) |
| |
|
| • |
I am puzzled. I have heared the rumor before here in Holland that the verdict will be something vague in which everyone can hear what he likes. What surprises me now is that a judge is openly saying this before the hearings are finished. And that he is even talking about a 30 page verdict - allthough that may be a matter of figurative language.
(Wim Roffel, 20 November 2009, 11:25) |
| |
|
| • |
This discussion about the law is a smoke screen. If you look through the smoke you can see the real struggle that is forming.
At the moment the Americans and West Europeans control the use of the word 'right'. Whatever they do is 'right' the law dosen't matter. The ICJ dosen't matter. The UN dosen't matter.
As Asia, Russia and South America become more powerful you will find that they will be 'right' in the future. The law still will not matter. The ICJ still will not matter and the UN still will not matter.
Where this leaves the fake state I think we can all work out for ourselves.
(miles, 20 November 2009, 11:49) |
| |
|
| • |
I am puzzled. I have heared the rumor before here in Holland that the verdict will be something vague in which everyone can hear what he likes. What surprises me now is that a judge is openly saying this before the hearings are finished. And that he is even talking about a 30 page verdict - allthough that may be a matter of figurative language.
(Wim Roffel, 20 November 2009 11:25)
Don't be suprised. I am not suprised at all, since we all knew how this will turn out. Despite the fact that some on this site were saying that ICJ will rule in favour of Serbia.
But, you are absolutaly right why the Judge came out publicly at this time. Now ,this is a suprise to me too.
I assume that from now one , Serbs andAlbanians alike they have no need to waste their time regarding this issue.
(Kosova-USA, 20 November 2009, 11:58) |
| |
|
| • |
I thought the court's job was to interpret the law and uphold it.
There is no room for middle ground on a matter of legality. Either something is legal or illegal. How can a court say "maybe"?
How can this person even know how many pages it will take to "clarify" or muddy the already murky waters?
How can he even begin to predict how the other judges will decide?
Has all this been decided already?
(Peggy, 20 November 2009, 12:12) |
| |
|
| • |
What an absolute joke. Neutrality? This is an absolute insult to both Serbs and Albanians alike. This mockery of a court cannot sit idly by, declaring neutrality when the stability of not only the entire region, but regions around the world are threatened. If this 'court' was going to do this, they could have declared so long ago....but the way things are, they have inevitably opened the door for Serbians to prosecute all of the nations which recognised Kosovo's unilateral independence; if this was not already going to occur.
Someone bring some sense to these fools.
(Goran., 20 November 2009, 12:26) |
| |
|
| • |
Also not to mention this
Jurisdiction
The International Court of Justice acts as a world court. The Court has a dual jurisdiction : it decides, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by States (jurisdiction in contentious cases); and it gives advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of the organs of the United Nations or specialized agencies authorized to make such a request (advisory jurisdiction).
Neutrality by those definitions cannot be imposed as "it decides, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by States (jurisdiction in contentious cases); and it gives advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of the organs of the United Nations or specialized agencies authorized to make such a request (advisory jurisdiction). "
What a joke this 'court' is. What kind of justice is neutral?
(Goran., 20 November 2009, 12:34) |
| |
|
| • |
There can be no neutral opinion here because the mountain of evidence says that the UDI was not in accordance with international law. It looks like the ICJ is already hinting at ambiguity by planning to throw weasel words into the decision thus allowing the Kosovo precedent to flourish. We should prepare ourselves then for the next generation of ‘newborns’ such as Palestine, Republika Srpska and northern Kosovo.
(Sean, 20 November 2009, 12:38) |
| |
|
| • |
I wonder what other court would be allowed to report the outcome before it has even completed it's deliberations? I dearly hope that the ICJ can remain truely independant and focused on the facts as they exist. If they do, one can logically assume that their declaration comes out in favour of international law rather than in favour of saving face for the illegal actions of NATO and subsequent illegal declaration.Lets be honest, there are always two sides to any conflict and the sooner the world realises and admits this, the better it will be for all. Then and only then will there be a balanced foundation on which a platform for sensible dialogue between all concerned can be built. Please, set aside the arguments of the past, ignore the illegalities of the past and talk sensibly and pragmatically about the future. There is a solution that is beneficial and acceptable to both parties in there somewhere it just requires some level headed and courageous people to taese it out. SIT DOWN AND TALK PEOPLE, PLEASE.
(UK, 20 November 2009, 12:57) |
| |
|
| • |
And the BS goes on, hardly surprising...apart from the fact that even before even the hearing they dare to give some sort of pre-opinion and the number of pages! What a farce
(The Swiss, 20 November 2009, 13:11) |
| |
|
| • |
i only object on the grounds that this is a russian report.
obviously while russians read it all, the other side will already be free.
What will the delay be next time around from Serbia? Will they tell other countrys to wait with further recognitions until Serbia changes another 5 governments and 12 constitutions?
(troika melb, 20 November 2009, 13:28) |
| |
|
| • |
Serbs and Albanians alike they have no need to waste their time regarding this issue.
(Kosova-USA, 20 November 2009 11:58)
I did *** suspect *** that they (ICJ) will do their best to avoid any direct answer. What came as surprise is that the judge did even admit it that early.
"Political correctness" is above everything. Pretty sad because the question Serbian government asked is simple. And either way there should be a straight answer, "yes" or "no".
Next hilarious idea would be for UN to recognize Kosovo as independent entity (notice the wording: "entity", not country) and assign two chairs to three "entities" within UN: Albania, Serbia, Kosovo.
That would of course set a precedent and I would make my own "entity" (not country) which does not pays taxes to anyone and in order to pass through our village near BP you will need to buy a $200 visa at the border. And within village we will make a police force which will ticket anyone who is not from the village, like the infamous New Rome township in Ohio.
(Ataman, 20 November 2009, 13:31) |
| |
|
| • |
In 1921 Monsignor F. S. Noli Albanian representative to the League of Nation, had a brilliant answer for the Yugoslavian delegate M. Spailacovic. The latter almost in an identical situation as the current, was then challenging the existence of another newly established state, Albania.
Monsignor Noli said: Our honourable colleague from Serbia believes in the advice that the lawyer used to give to his pupils: He used to say:, When the Law is against you, insist on the facts. When the facts are against you, insist on the Law. When both the facts and the law are against you, revile the other party.
Well my Serbian friends I have nothing more to add to that.
(village-bey, 20 November 2009, 13:56) |
| |
|
| • |
With the current balance inside the ICJ any neutral solution will be in our favor. Evidently for the time being they are not going to sacrifice the reputation of the Court and the remnants of the International Law. K-people will also gain cause it will be a form of recognition. So the situation will just be frozen while the time plays on the Albanian side … Serbia should had waited for better balance inside the ICJ …
The main problem are not even the Albanians as they were used just as tools and because in some degree they are also victims in their newly obtained outlaw reservation. Our main problem is that under no condition the West will not confess in the in the crimes committed against a sovereign Christian country in the center of the civilization. And this is the main source of the optimism filling the K-people.
(Rote, 20 November 2009, 14:07) |
| |
|
| • |
Well to all serbs who comes with new different excuses about the ICJ ruling, it will not help. With or without the ICJ process Kosovo would still be independent. It is somthing that cannot and will not change. We the Kosovars(including serbs wich voted on the election) dosen't need to have this diplomatic war with Serbia because we allready control our territory and allready have settled our ''status''. The proof is that we are recognized by 63 countrys wich is the main devolpment countrys in the world. And we are also members of great financial organisations. In the end we live in Europe and not in Asia and Europe is clearly backing us up and treat us as a state. With time and development of our country even Serbia will will see no chance in ever regaining control over Kosovo.
This is just a procces and will end in Serbia recognizing Kosovo. It has no other way's. Just like the procces between 1999 until 2008 when Kosovo declared independence. Everybody knew that would happend and some serbs even then refused to acknowledge this fact. it is the same history now.
My personal thoughts is that behind the curtain the serb representatives and the albanian ones together with Ahtisaari came up with the Ahtisaari-plan wich is a very big compromise both for Serbia and Kosovo. Ahtisaari plan is the real compromise but some serbs like the radicals dosen't want to compromise but have it all. The flag is neutral, the constitution is built up on an multiethnic sociaty wich secures the right for all it's citizens and by decentralization gives minrotys the right to rule them self. And albanian and serbian are the two official laungage in Kosovo. Kosovo is clearly an state wich is a bridge between Albania and Serbia and albanians and serbs. Kosovó independence dosen't clearly means that Kosovo is an albanian state. Kosovo is the country of it's people and is ruled both by serb citizens and albanian citizens.
(Demi, 20 November 2009, 14:07) |
| |
|
| • |
B92 preparing its Serbian audience for a negative outcome to the case.
(bsbs, 20 November 2009, 14:12) |
| |
|
| • |
Serbia tried to fool the court ("We will not recognize even if the court...") but the court fooled them.
P.S. The court is under no obligation to even issue a ruling, let alone give a "yes" or "no"
(Free Kosova, 20 November 2009, 14:28) |
| |
|
| • |
B92 preparing its Serbian audience for a negative outcome to the case.
(bsbs, 20 November 2009 14:12)
No, that's ICJ preparing Albanians and Serbs: "guys, sorry, we lost our spine somehow, forgive us".
(Ataman, 20 November 2009, 14:38) |
| |
|
| • |
How can theft of Serbian land + property be neutral? Not to mention all the crimes alban terrorists committed in Kosmet...
(Ratko, 20 November 2009, 15:15) |
| |
|
| • |
The court then is clearly terrified of giving any clear decision.
Deciding on 'independence' opens the door to conflict around the world, much in the same way that President Wilson's 'Right to Self-determination' did, initially a slow burner but then burning very brightly all around the world.
Just imagine Turkey telling the Kurds 'no' but Kosovo is 'ok'.
The court doesn't want blood on its hands.
I guess that voting against independence would be an indictment of the West and its policies and open up to further legal redress, i.e. Serbia could use such a decision legally against those who supported the kla bombed Serbia. It could also pose a further major threat to the credibility of UN system altogether, particularly as developing countries are demanding increased influence.
Now that cannot be allowed.
A neutral result would be just like UK foreign policy, maintaining a balance of power, except for when the great powers decide it is their unilateral right to roll up the UN Charter and smoke it.
Either way, Serbia can out wait the kosovo albanians who have to prove that they are worthy of what the West has bequeathed them. They cannot expect endless handouts from Brussels that disappear via dodgy contracts or a continued blind-eye to rampant crime, unemployment and corruption.
The court is simply not prepared to take responsibility for a decision that could determine the relevance of the nation state and the usual unpredictable consequences.
(Aleks, 20 November 2009, 15:27) |
| |
|
| • |
Just a couple of small notes. The title of the article appears to say that the ICJ's ruling will be 'neutral' in terms of outcome. Could also be interpreted as saying ruling will be impartial in terms of bias. In any case, former interpretation cannot be inferred from the text of Owada's statement as presented in the article.
Stirring controversy B92?
(peter, sydney, 20 November 2009, 15:30) |
| |
|
| • |
troika,
the reason only Russian agency reported it is that West in general and western media in particular are very scared to release such information. If the decision will be even neutral, many of western countries will fall apart, including USA (Texas).
(Russian, 20 November 2009, 15:31) |
| |
|
| • |
Neutral????
Why???
What about 15,000 inocent civlians, killed , 1 million thrown out....and other attrocities
This will set a dangerous precedent worldwide...that do whatever you like the ICJ will be indifferent/neutral...
WHAT a world?
ICJ should not ONLY ecourage countries worldwide(serbia included) to recognise Kosovo
BUT also should ask serbia to pay reparation and appologise
(PRN, 20 November 2009, 15:45) |
| |
|
| • |
Peter,
No. Carrying a news agency report, along with its headline.
Regards,
B92
(B92, 20 November 2009, 15:50) |
| |
|
| • |
The only outcome is: Serbia lost its last chance to actually do anything about it.
If ICJ doesn't rule against independence, for many countries that are waiting for the decision to make their recognition public, will mean that their recognition doesn't go against int. law.
Thanks Demi and village-bey for your great comments.
(miri, 20 November 2009, 16:29) |
| |
|
| • |
why even go though this garbage? everyone knows that udi's are illegal.
(stari, 20 November 2009, 16:48) |
| |
|
| • |
B92 what is wrong with my comment that you don't pubblish it??
The sovereignty AND the right of self-determination are both firmly grounded in the international law.
If ICJ stops here then yes the opinion will be ambiguous.
But I think ICJ should go beyond and say in which case one prevails the other.
Is the territorial integrity of the state predominant even in cases where the state apparatus SYSTEMATICALY abuses the individual and collective rights of one ethnicity???
Does the territorial integrity prevail over the cases where a state expells an entire nation of different ethnicity out of her historical land???
Now ICJ MUST addresses these questions not just to stop on pure technical judgment- because if it douses so it will end answering the question of who is older the chicken or the egg.
Freedom and dignity are not juridical concept they go far beyond any law that we have today and for opportunism will make tomorrow.
If ICJ stops and doesn’t answer these questions be SURE that the reason is because of political opportunism since it will create huge problems to say China with Tibet; Sudan with Darfur; Russia with Chechnya; Tunisia with Saharian's etc.
Thus the WEST who is NOT interested as well that he ICJ addresses these questions offered to Russia and China the compromise solution:
“Kosova is a SPECIAL CASE”.
Russia refused it thus now for coherence this compromise should not be anymore on the table and ICJ MUST answer the question: in which case the sovereignty prevails over the right of self- determination- or vice-versa.
While Russia and all those countries that supported Serbia in ICJ plea should bear the consequences- because you asked for it.
The ambiguity judgment serves ONLY to cover the cookeries of the countries.
A clear and honest answer of the prevalence of one right towards the other will make the world a more just and better place.
States that were formed and organised earlier than others have invaded other nations.
Then they have invented a juridical mechanism (sovereignty right) to cover-up their common cookeries and baptised this mechanism with- international law (I scratch your back you scratch mine).
After some time some of these states evolved in genuine democracies and allowed the independence of the nations that they invaded earlier while others think that the sovereignty is the magic umbrella that allows them to abuse, expel, kill and discriminate at their will the minorities that they have invaded.
Well someone should say - NO.
ICJ has the great chance to do that.
Will they???
Personally I doubt too many crooks too many cookeries.
Thus, am afraid the president of ICJ is right: the opinion will be ambiguous- remember ONLY because of the political opportunism, otherwise Kosova would win the case 100%, without any, ‘yes but’.
(ben, 20 November 2009, 16:55) |
| |
|
| • |
Thanks Niall for the vote of confidence!
Seriously, I think most sane people on both sides of the argument here have had no illusions the ICJ would fudge the decision. When was the last time an international organization came down hard for one side over another? And in actuality, this is plenty for Belgrade to continue to move forward and push for greater control over parts of Kosovo it has direct links to (6 Serb municipalities + SPC sites), while continuing to bypass Pristina in order to work with EULEX in terms of cooperative security, judicial matters, and trade across administrative borders. In addition, not firmly saying "Kosovo's secession was legal", prevents every other Tom, Dick, and Harry separatist movement from playing the "Me too" card, beginning most likely with Republika Srpska, and quickly following with Iraqi Kurdistan, Basque Country, and culminating with a needed recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. By keeping the answer ambiguous, those in favor of Kosovo's alleged statehood can hold fast to the fantasy of "unique case" and keep the good people at Rand McNally from an updated world map every 6 months.
But what would happen if the ICJ nullifies Kosovo's "sovereignty"? Then we've got 1.5 million irate Albanians on our hand. It was foolish of the West to promise them everything including the kitchen sink, and we're increasingly seeing efforts to trim back (some would even say castrate) Pristina's authority it claims over areas it's never going to reach. Perhaps even without Belgrade’s doing, the “more than autonomy, less than independence” scenario is playing out by EU officials. Best to preserve some form of self determination within a large structure of an international mandate – which is what I’ve been arguing Kosovo has been for years now.
Finally, village-bey’s rather metaphoric statement of when one reaches for facts of laws in the absence of the other is seemingly true. Yet “facts” and “laws” conveniently end up as normative reflections, rather than empirical measurements, to suit one’s case. Still, he gets a star for that.
(Mike, 20 November 2009, 16:58) |
| |
|
| • |
Ben,
This time, we removed the statement that was unacceptable, and published the rest.
In the future, do not expect to have your comment published in any form if you choose to use similar language.
Regards,
B92
(B92, 20 November 2009, 17:04) |
| |
|
| • |
Village-bey
----------
That was a clever one ;-).
(Ment, 20 November 2009, 17:25) |
| |
|
| • |
"If ICJ doesn't rule against independence, for many countries that are waiting for the decision to make their recognition public, will mean that their recognition doesn't go against int. law." (miri)
-- I don't know how you come to this conclusion, if the ICJ rules "neutral". It will affirm neither Serbia's claim to Kosovo, nor Kosovo's claim to statehood. How does international law fit in to your argument then if its sovereignty will be even less legitimate than Bosnia’s? "Neutral" means "ambiguous", which implies all interested parties will simply carve little Kosovo up into their own spheres of influence. Countries will no longer be pressured into recognizing, and we may even see a few countries withdrawing their recognitions. Neither two scenarios however are going to make the daily lives of Kosovo’s people any worse though. The U.S. publicly stated it would support Kosovo regardless of ICJ decision, so Thaci et al can rest assured their failsafe option is still there.
(Mike, 20 November 2009, 17:25) |
| |
|
| • |
Of course the answer will be ambiguous, because the ICJ is a joke just like the Hague is a joke. It is run almost by the very same colonialists, who do what they want and don't ask anyone, and break the law all the time if it suits their agenda, and invoke the law if on their agenda. They are complete hypocrites.
If ever there was a cut and dry case, it is this. Kosovo's declaration of independence is completely illegal, it can not be any more clear to any lawyer or anyone. However, that is not how the world works unfortunately - the world is full of injustice.
Speaking injustice, Niall, my condolences man, you guys got TOTALY screwed by the referee and linesman, and by FIFA!! Ireland deserves to be in South Africa, it is a real shame and travesty that they will not be.
(Dragan, 20 November 2009, 17:53) |
| |
|
| • |
Mike,
please wake up and when you dream don't type! The "West" has recognized Kosova, only Spain is left. Roma-nia and Slovakia are waiting for an excuse to do so, they both need US and EU nity will be a central theme now.
Albanians agreed to the supervised indy, so it's all good. Serbia has no control over the municipalities, Serb gov even said that they cannot cooperate with those that won in Kosova elections.
We're back to square: EU or Kosovo for Serbia. If they choose Kosova you get none. EULEX wants to get out of there as fast as possible
(ArtA, 20 November 2009, 18:14) |
| |
|
| • |
Dear Ben,
I believe that you should respect international law and refer from now on to southern part of serbia, as KOSOVO ,as its mentioned in UN 1244 resolution.Moreover i am interesting to find out wherever you work in kosovo or not......bec if you work in any mission you have to be status neutral!!!!
(sikat, 20 November 2009, 18:38) |
| |
|
| • |
-- I don't know how you come to this conclusion, if the ICJ rules "neutral". It will affirm neither Serbia's claim to Kosovo, nor Kosovo's claim to statehood. How does international law fit in to your argument then if its sovereignty will be even less legitimate than Bosnia’s? "Neutral" means "ambiguous", which implies all interested parties will simply carve little Kosovo up into their own spheres of influence. Countries will no longer be pressured into recognizing, and we may even see a few countries withdrawing their recognitions. Neither two scenarios however are going to make the daily lives of Kosovo’s people any worse though. The U.S. publicly stated it would support Kosovo regardless of ICJ decision, so Thaci et al can rest assured their failsafe option is still there.
(Mike, 20 November 2009 17:25)
I think we have already been down this path before. The only possible outcome that would have some interest to Serbia is a 100% rejection of K-Independence by ICJ. The only goal of taking the case in there, was to slow down the recognitions. Assuming the best scenario for Serbia, that the pending case truly slowed down some recognitions, after the neutral/ambiguous (whatever the name) verdict there is no inhibitor for those countries that have been waiting for it. Those that want to go ahead with recognition will do so with clear conscience that even ICJ did not found the case un-lawful. The others like Russia and co, might hold on forever but they would have done so regardless anyway. The point is that the failure of Serbia(the plaintif) winning the case simply implies that the defendant is NOT GUILTY. What is so confusing to you in this logic? As per carving of Kosova, no party really cares about ICJ. so I don't get it why you are mixing these things together.
(miri, 20 November 2009, 19:04) |
| |
|
| • |
'Countries will no longer be pressured into recognizing, and we may even see a few countries withdrawing their recognitions. '
Doesn't compute, Mike - you're assuming that a neutral opinion means there are no valid arguments for Kosovo being independent. What it sounds like to me is that the arguments of the two sides - the sanctity of existing borders vs. self-determination - are of similar legal weight, and that third countries are free to select which they favor, taking into consideration the particular circumstances of each case.
That is, the opinion will serve as a fig-leaf for those countries that have been nervous about the possible legal consequences of recognizing Kosovo and allow them to finally proceed with the process, since the world's highest court will be saying - it sounds like - that the reasons for not doing so are not compelling, and in the absence of a compelling reason, states should not obstruct the recognition of new states.
(Amer, 20 November 2009, 19:16) |
| |
|
| • |
One more clarification I wanted to make for Mike.
Let's say I take my neighbor to court and plead that he has put his fence one foot into my property. The verdict comes out as: "neutral" specifying that there isn't enough evidence to support my claim, or something like similar. Who do you think ends up a winner and a loser? I can make appeals, to a higher court and hire a better lawyer, otherwise I am at lost, regardless if I personally accept what my neighbor has done or not. In the meanwhile all my nearby neighbors say that I am wrong. Few distant ones don't care and say nothing, unless a court verdict obliges them to do so. My distant cousin agrees with me and he actually works in the city hall but he can do nothing other than refusing to put the signature where is due to confirm that the fence is in the right place. All other members of surveyor's office in the city hall disagree with my cousin and me and have given a green card to my neighbor to do whatever he likes. What a nightmare is this for me? How can a neutral decision helped me?
What higher than ICJ Serbia can go?
(miri, 20 November 2009, 19:47) |
| |
|
| • |
This might be a little off topic, but for all those people who reffer to the resolution 1244 and kosovo as being a part of Serbia in that resolution, I would invite them to read again the above mentioned resolution where Kosovo is only mentioned as being part of Yugoslav Federation and not Serbia. Since Yugoslav federation does not exist anymore...….. Kosovo like any other member of the old Yugoslav Federation had the right to walk away independent, period.
This is the link:
[link]
(ron, 20 November 2009, 20:12) |
| |
|
| • |
"please wake up and when you dream don't type!"
-- This is coming from aRTA who continues to dream of some Ace in the Hole that’s going to give his side the victory they somehow deserve. Who’s the dreamer here?
Amer and miri,
Sure, states will not be compelled "not" to recognize, but that doesn't mean that they have to be compelled "to" recognize. This means that the United States can no longer pressure states into recognizing. If Kosovo's status is not clearly defined and specified as a state with all right and privileges a sovereign entity deserves, recognitions will be not one of legal obligation, but of self-interest. I am not arguing that a neutral ruling is going to quash Kosovo's alleged statehood altogether, nor do I see that as even remotely possible, or feasible. But rather it can give Belgrade (provided it has the interest) the ability to seek greater privileges in Kosovo where its authority is still recognized and, depending on the wording of the ruling, a legitimate reason to pursue its interest without international sanction or censureship. In other words, I feel that even with the addition of new recognitions (including those that no longer feel repercussions for doing so will result), the fuzzy ruling will equally play into Belgrade's hand resulting in international recognition of an entity that is unified in name only. One can only claim complete victory if the ruling is clearly in one's favor. An ambiguous ruling will perpetuate the status quo, remove the need for recognitions, strengthen the multiple self-interested hands already active in the region, and further necessitate the need for indefinite international oversight to give some semblance of unity. Neutral ruling produces neutral status.
(Mike, 20 November 2009, 20:33) |
| |
|
| • |
miri,
I only noticed your additional comment after I sent off my last one.
What you envision in your metaphor to me sounds a lot like the status quo. Provided I don't resort to harsh measures to get you to move your fence off of property I say is mine, it effectively recognizes the "boundaries" that are on the ground.
By this very same logic, Serbia has pushed its own "fence" down to the Ibar, and has retained a number of spots throughout the rest of Kosovo. If I interpret your scenario, it says Serbs can't really do much with what Albanians already have, but Albanians can't really do much with which Serbs have. The result is the same as I've been saying from the beginning - multiple hands operating in one region with no pressure to give quarter to the other and enough legal justification to hold on to what one currently has. The only way I could see one side claiming victory over the other would be in denying 100% of the land to them. In the end, you keep Pristina, and they keep KM and Gracanica, EULEX keeps peace and order, and everyone's happy, right? Bosnia's recognized by 192 countries, but we really don't see RS caving at all; nor do we see anyone really seriously concerned with eliminating it.
(Mike, 20 November 2009, 20:46) |
| |
|
| • |
I agree with many of the observers here that this would be a weak call by the ICJ, mainly because the law is so clearly in Serbia's favor here. But still, a neutral decision is an economic deathblow to the stillborn UDI. Without a clear and unequivocal declaration from the ICJ and/or a seat on the UN, who's going to invest in "Kosova"? "Kosova" has little chance of gathering international investment, aside from outright charity, at this moment, never mind after a "neutral" ICJ decision.
Can we put an end to the following arguments:
No, the right to self determination does not mean that every ethnic group can unilaterally declare independence from a regime it doesn't like.
No, you can't use the old Yugoslav constitution to argue that Kosovo is entitled to independence. You can't cite the Yugoslav constitution and ignore UN1244 at the same time, or claim that Serbia is not the successor state to Yugoslavia.
And no, no matter how many Albanians the Serbs supposedly killed, maimed or deported, you are not entitled to 15% of Serbia. Even if we accept that your claims are true, there is no precednet in international law for handing territory over to an ethnic minority in exchange for past trangressions. It's silly to imagine that there is such a thing, or that it only applies to Albanians in this special case.
(midwest_bo, 20 November 2009, 20:49) |
| |
|
| • |
Ron, though possibly off topic, not really. I read through the documentation of resolution 1244 that you provided. I still cannot see where it specifically states that Kosovo was an independent statelet within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Of course Kosovo was in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, as New Your City is within the USA. Remember that the UN is about nations and not provinces. It is not necessary at the UN level to say that the Upper Penninsula is part of Michigan, but rather part of the USA. However, note that Serbia is the official succesor to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, thus Kosovo is still in Serbia.
If I missed where it said specifically what you're claiming, please point me directly to that spot. I very well did miss it.
(Mr Rae, 20 November 2009, 21:16) |
| |
|
| • |
"would not be a clear yes or no."
Every political acts are legal or not. Is very clear. Probably ICJ is on the USA pressure...
(Milan, 20 November 2009, 21:29) |
| |
|
| • |
Mike,
You make a valid point, and i think in 5 to 10 years this will be the outcome.
N-KM and Gracanica go under Serbia or something alike.
and Albanians get the rest of territory and this conflict is over.
but nationalists in both countries wont allow it.
but this is a big blow for Serbia, K- Alb did not want to go to Court they already got what they want.
(Bilbao, 20 November 2009, 21:35) |
| |
|
| • |
'Sure, states will not be compelled "not" to recognize, but that doesn't mean that they have to be compelled "to" recognize. This means that the United States can no longer pressure states into recognizing.'
Even now, the U.S. can't pressure states that don't want to recognize Kosovo for their own reasons to do so, as has been demonstrated by Spain, Slovakia, etc. On the other hand, it will make it easier to persuade countries worried about the legal repercussions of recognition that it is now safe to move.
Once the world sees that the ICJ has not given a green light to every national movement out there to claim territory, individual countries should be more confident that recognizing Kosovo will not start the general destabilization of existing states - probably Serbia's most potent argument until now.
(Considering the number of comments this short article is receiving now, I wonder how we'll keep up with them once there is a 30-page opinion to argue over.)
(Amer, 20 November 2009, 21:42) |
| |
|
| • |
# The only outcome is: Serbia lost its last chance to actually do anything about it.
If ICJ doesn't rule against independence, for many countries that are waiting for the decision to make their recognition public, will mean that their recognition doesn't go against int. law.
Thanks Demi and village-bey for your great comments.
(miri, 20 November 2009 16:29)
thanks miri, and our other colleagues. ok, here is the deal: way back when, i said: icj will NEVER rule in serbia's favor but will probably give out some mushy-pushy verdict. check the back issues. and that is what apparently is happening, thank you very much.
however, how it is all being reported(?) before the case is over, or started, that seems a bit bizarre. they took the case, yet the end comes in the middle? exactly 30 pages? don't quite get this court president.
Oh, Ben -- welcome to my world.
guys and gals -- whatever the icj does or does not do, we still have to learn to live together and make progress. even if the icj ruled against us (which it never would) doesn't magically destroy the independence -- that's just in some people's minds.
but anyway, this is leading to a slightly more normal situation, where (most) other nations will go forth and recognize. which will help normalize the intl situation visa vis the balkans.
as for progress with the stubborn issues of minorities rights, of the missing, of the war criminals, reparations, etc -- this really isn't going to be solved by the icj, sad to say. we'll just have to sit down (gasp) together, and sludge thru this very rough terrain. the thing is -- as equals. i absolutely believe in talking to one another -- to the other side -- even to yr enemies -- but it has to be on an equal footing, and obviously in good faith.
somewhere, over the rainbow...
ciao!
roberto
frisco
(roberto, 20 November 2009, 21:48) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Friday, 20 November 2009 |
|
|
|
|
| Archive |
|
|
search b92.net
B92 live 
"You don't need to have any sentimental attachment to Europe whatsoever to understand that to tackle these problems we need the scale and clout that only Europe gives. This has nothing at all do
... 
In Iceland, they have a name for it. It is the feeling of seasonal depression when the days start getting short and nights start coming sooner. "Skamm" means short, "degi" is day, "thung" is heavy and "lyndi" means
...
